Boston Harbor
Wastewater
Conveyance System
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
1988
-------
Boston Harbor
Wastewater
Conveyance System
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachustts 02203
1988
Technical Assistance By:
10 Hv vd Mill Squve
Wskcfr d. MA 01 $80
3,, ,
M CHAELR.DELAND ate
Reg ona] Mminimawr,
U.S. EPA. Reg I
This Final Supplemental Impact Statement has been prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with Assistance from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. This Final SEIS responds to comments and
reexamines recommendations on the Draft SEIS released in April, 1988
which identified and evaluated the environmental impacts of the wastewa-
icr conveyance system for Greater Boston’s wastewater ea ent facility.
-------
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENrAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ACTION: SITING AND EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION
METHODS FOR WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT, BOSTON
HARBOR
LOCATION: BOSTON HARBOR
DATE: JULY, 1988
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Final SEIS considers the environmental
acceptability of alternative locations
for the vastewater conveyance and
outfall systems of the new wastewater
treatment facilities for Boston Harbor.
The Draft SEIS reco mends deep rock
tunnels for the inter-island and
outfall conduits and a drilled riser
diffuser located at least seven miles
east of Deer Island.
LEAD AGENCY: u.s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
REGION I, JFK Federal Building, Boston,
Massachusetts 02203
COOPERATING AGENCY: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT: METCALF & EDDY, INC.
Wakefield, Massachusetts
FOR FURTHER Mr. David To ey
INFORMATION: Water Managen ent Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617—565—4420
FINAL DATE BY WHICH September 11, 1988
COMMENTS MUST BE
RECEIVED:
-------
Boston Harbor
Wastewater Conveyance Systea
Final Suppleaental Environaental lapact $tateaent
w riv 5WO RY
Introduction
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
responds to comments received on the Draft Boston Harbor
Wastewater Conveyance Systems SEIS, issued in April, 1988, and
reexamines the issues and recommendations discussed in that
document in light of those comments and new information generated
since the release of the draft document. This Final SEIS does
not replace the Draft SEIS, but does present modifications and
additions where appropriate.
The Draft and Final SEIS supplement an earlier Environmental
Impact Statement on Siting of Wastewater Treatment Facilities for
Boston flarbor, issued by EPA in 1985. The Siting EIS established
Deer Island as the preferred location for the construction of a
secondary treatment plant for wastewater flows from the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) service area,
which includes most of the Metropolitan Boston area. This SEIS
addresses questions related to vastewater conveyance and
discharge that were left unresolved in the Siting EIS, including:
• the conveyance method and route for transporting vastewater
from the proposed headworks at Nut Island to the new
treatment plant at Deer Island,
• the conveyance method for transporting treated effluent from
the Deer Island plant to an ocean discharge location,
‘the method for discharging treated effluent into the ocean
environment (i.e. the type of diffuser mechanism), and
‘the location of the ocean discharge.
comments and New Information
After the release of the Draft SEIS EPA held several public
meetings and a public hearing and distributed the Draft document
to an extensive mailing list in order to allow for public and
agency review. Comments were received from Federal, State and
Local regulatory agencies, elected officials, academic
institutions, a pre—established Citizens A 3 isoij Commit ,..c° and
the general public. These comments related to all aspects of the
Draft document including i ! technical and legal scr ; and
adequacy, the alternatives considb::d• ti3e analyses conducted,
the decision-making methodology used and the recommendations
made. The vast majority of comments received related to EPA’S
recommended ocean discharge location, including comments on EPA’s
-------
analysis of a proposed discharge site known as NSite 6”, and
potential water quality and shoreline impacts from the new
discharge (especially during an interim construction period when
effluent from primary treatment facilities will be discharged).
During the public comment period new data and information was
generated by MWRA, EPA and others (including some commentors)
which pertained to the issues considered in the Draft SEIS, and
modifications to the proposed construction project were proposed
by MWRA. This new information and the proposed modifications
related to the following issues:
• acceleration of the proposed construction schedule for
primary and secondary treatment facilities on Deer Island,
• design and construction of the effluent diffuser,
• levels of pollutants in the ambient Massachusetts Bay water
and their impact on potential exceedances of EPA Water
Quality criteria as a result of the new discharge,
•levels of coljforms and viruses in the effluent and their
potential impacts on beaches and shellfish areas,
•the potential for proposed discharge sites being within a
current regime known as Maine Intermediate Water, and
.potential toxicity impacts from chlorination of the
effluent, and the need for dechlorination to mitigate any
impacts.
EPA has reviewed these comments, new information and proposed
modifications in order to determine whether the recommendations
contained in the Draft SEIS remain valid. EPA’S response to
comments and review of new information and proposed modifications
constitute the bulk of the Final SEIS.
Recommendations
EPA’s recommended method for conveying raw vastevater to Deer
Island and treated effluent from Deer Island to the ocean
discharge location; on which no new information and very few
public comments were received, remains the same as stated in the
Draft SEIS. EPA recommends the construction of two deep rock
tunnels, an 11 foot finished inside diameter tunnel running under
the Harbor floor from Nut Island to Deer Island, and a 25 foot
finished inside diameter tunnel running under the ocean floor
:rom Ue Island to the recommended discharge :r . -
The majority of public comments and concerns, . ll as much of
the n information and proposed modifications, relat. U to the
selection of the ocean discharge location. Although EPA reviewed
all comments in detail, and in some instances conducted
.supplemental analyses, EPA has not significantly changed the
-------
impact analysis contained in the Draft EElS. EPA believes that
many of the comments received were based on an incomplete
understanding of the Draft EElS analyses and conclusions. EPA
has endeavored in the Final EElS to better clarify the basis for
those analyses and conclusions, but has determined that no
changes in the technical analyses presented in the Draft EElS,
on which the discharge location recommendation is based, are
required.
Therefore EPA’s recommended location for the ocean discharge
remains the same as that recommended in the Draft EElS. EPA is
recommending that the MWRA discharge (including all diffuser
ports) be located totally within the area delineated by the
rectangle shown on Fiqure 1. This area is bounded on the vest by
Site 4 and extends to the east of Site 5. The north and south
boundaries are one diffuser length (approximately 2000 meters)
from the centerline that connects Sites 4 and 5. The north and
south boundaries were established to accommodate uncertainties
related to the specific geotechnical characteristics. The exact
location and alignment of the effluent diffuser within this
recommended area will be determined by NWRA after completion of
further geotechnical investigations and hydraulic modeling.
EPA received few comments on the recommended diffuser mechanism,
but did receive significant new information from MWRA regarding
cost and construction feasibility of the diffuser alternatives
evaluated i ’i the Draft SEIS. Based on this new information, EPA
has slightly modified its recommended plan for diffuser design.
The Draft SEjS had indicated that either of the two candidate
diffuser designs (a pipe diffuser or a drilled riser diffuser)
would be acceptable, even though construction of the pipe
diffuser would require more dredging and would have greater (but
still acceptable) environmental impacts. EPA now believes that
the greater environmental impacts of constructing a pipe
diffuser, in combination with the uncertainties related to the
construction technology to be used (and the resultant potential
for construction cost increases), make the drilled riser diffuser
the preferred alternative.
The Final EElS also discusses mitigation measures which ) WRA must
take to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. These
measures include:
• further monitoring of the marine .nvironment to •stablish
and baseline for future impacts analysis,
.operation of a secondary treatment pilot plant and diffuser
hydr’iuti’, to c f Arm the SEIS analyses and to maximi’ c
ef fluent dilution at the diffuser,
.prepa t±: . of a *.&City Reduction Evaluation, which will
identify potential pollutants of concern and propose
appropriate action (such as source reduction or
-------
‘4
Re mmencied area
5
0
La titude
Lo rtude
A
B
C
D
420 25 31
42° 22 24
420 23 1 7
70°50 57•
70° 46 50•
70° 50 0 0
70° 45 53•
NOTE:
Distances
parethases
are given in
statute rT les
ITA1 ,! hiliES
FIGURE 1. RECOMMENDED 0 (11 PALL DiFFUSER LOCATION
-------
pretreatment) to reduce the levels of those pollutants
entering the XWRA sewage system.
• construction of dechlorination facilities at Deer Island to
reduce chlorine toxicity in the treatment plant effluent,
• coordination with other ongoing local construction projects
to maximize beneficial reuse of excavated material from
tunnel construction,
• development of an integrated construction management
approach to distribution of construction resources, and
participation in the Governor’s Office of Economic
Development Task. Force to ensure the availability of
adequate construction resources, and
• design of the effluent diffuser in such a way as to
minimize conflicts with fisherman dragging activities.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
f ber
List of Tables iv
List of Figures vi
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION 1_i
1.1 Relationship to Other Boston Harbor Documents 1-1
1.2 Summary of Draft Documents 1-1
1.3 Organization and Contents of this Final SEIS 1—3
CHAPTER 2 — COMMENTS 2-1
2.1 Comments Received 2-1
2.2 Approach to Addressing Comments 2-1
CHAPTER 3 - RESPONSE 70 CO Q ENTS 3-1
3.1 Issue Nun .ber 1: Site 6 3-1
3.2 Issue Nunber 2: Shoreline Impacts 3-U
3.3 Issue Nui ber 3: Massachusetts Bay Water Quality 3—11
3.L4 Issue Nunber 1: Discharge of Primary Effluent 3—13
3.5 Issue Nwnoer 5: Biological Impact/Resource Considerations 3—16
3.6 Issue Nwnber 6: Toxics 3—19
3.7 Issue Number 7: Cost 3-25
3.8 Issue Number 8: Engineering Considerations 3-27
3.9 Issue Number 9: Dissolved Oxygen 3-30
3.10 Issue Number 10: Editorial Comments 3-32
3.11 Issue Number 11: lionitoring/Mitigation 3-33
3.12 Issue Number 12: Accuracy of Models 333
3.13 Issue Number 13: “Insurance Policy” 3-37
3.1Z4 Issue Number 111: Schedule 3 . ..14 0
3.15 Issue Number 15: Sedimentation 3_143
3.16 Issue Number 16: Site Comparison and Recommendations 3 - 15
3.17 Issue Number 17: NEPA Compliance 3- 8
3.18 Issue Number 18: Phytoplankton and Primary Production 3-49
3.19 Issue Number 19: Level of Treatment 3-52
3.20 Issue Number 20: Shoreline Transport 3-53
3.21 Issue Number 21: Chlorine toxicity 3-55
3.22 Issue Number 22: Geotechnical Concerns 3-55
3.23 Issue Number 23: Miscellaneous Topics 3-57
3.2k Issue Number 2 1: Historical Archaeological Considerations 3-57
3.25 Issue Number 25: Material Disposal 3-58
CHAPTER - MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
.1 Accelerated Secondary Treatmer.t lj _ ,
11.1.1 Description of Accelerated Secondary Treatment
1.1.2 Impacts of Acceerated Secondary Treatment
I
-------
TABLE OF COSITENTS (Continued)
Page Number
11.1.2.1 Exceedance of Water Quality Criteria 11-2
11.1.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen
IL1.2.3 Other Criteria 11-7
14.1.3 Recos endation
11.2 Diffuser Conceptual Design 14-7
14.2.1 Description of Diffuser Alternative 14 7
14.2.2 Impacts of Alternatives 14-8
11.2.3 RecommendatiOn 11-8
14.3 Water Quality Criteria Exceedances
CHAPTER 5 - ERRATA 5 _i
5.1 Volume 3 Corrections 5-i
5.1.1 Text Changes 5-1
5.1.2 Table Changes 53
5.1.3 Figure Changes 5-37
5.2 Volume 11 Corrections
5.2.1 Text Changes 5-25
5.2.2 Table Changes / 5-26
CHAPTER 6 — REVIEW OF DRAFT SEIS RECOP21ENDATIONS 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Review of New Issues 6-1
6.2.1 Beach Impact Assessment 6-i
6.2.2 Site 6 - Maine Intermediate Water 6-1
6.2.3 Diffuser Design 6-1
6.2.Z4 Accelerated Construction of Secondary Treatment 6-2
6.2.5 Mitigation and Monitoring 6-2
6.2.6 Chlorine Toxicity 6-2
6.3 Susmiary of ModificationS 6-2
CHAPTER 7 — RECO$ NENDED PLAN AND MITIGATION 7-1
7.1 Recommended Plan 7-i
7.1.1 Recommended Discharge Location 7-i
7.1.2 Recommended Plan for Outfall Conduit Construction 7-1
7.1.3 Recommended Plan for Diffuser Construction 7-3
7.1.11 Inter-island Conveyance Structure 7-3
ii
-------
TABLE Of CONTENTS (Continued)
g ber
7.2 Unresolved Issues 7-3
7.2.1 Actual Outfall Locations 7-3
7.2.2 Accelerated Secondary Treatment 7—
7.3 Mitigation 7. .L
7.3.1 Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor Monitoring 7_i4
7.3.2 Identification and Control of Pollutants 7 _Li
7.3.3 Dechlorination 7-5
7 .3.A Material Disposal 7-5
7.3.5 Construction Resources 7-5
7.3.6 Diffuser Design 7—6
REFERENCES
APPEN)IX A Cor.nent Letters
ill
-------
LIST CF TABLES
Table
Table 1.1 Issues Needing Further NEPA Review 1—2
Table 2.1 Guide to General Issues 2-6
Table 2.2 Guide to Co nentor’s Responses 2-9
Table 3.1 Comparison of Diffuser Characteristics 3-29
Table 3.2 Treatment Plant Operating Conditions 3-31
Table ZI.1 MWRA Final STFP: Base vs. Alternate Schedule
Table Li.2 MWRA Final STFP: Base vs. Alternate Costs
Table 14.3 M RA Final STFP: Base vs. Alternate Construction
Table 14 14 Ambient Constituent Conparison
Table 14.5 Mercury Concentration ng/l 14-9
Table 5.1.1.c Nearfleld Dilutions 5_LI
Table 5.1.1.1 Summary of Predicted Water Quality Criteria 5-5
Exceedances
Table 5.1.2.a Comparison of Simulated Maximum Sediment 5-6
Pollutant Concentrations, Primary Effluent,
5 Years Duration, Nonstratified Conditions
Table 6.14.LI.b Effluent Concentrations After Primary Treatment 5-7
Year 1999, Maximum Loading Conditions on Storm Day
Table 6.ii.14.c Effluent Concentrations After Secondary Treatment, 5-8
Year 2020, Average Flow
Table 6.1i.AI.d Effluent Concentrations After Secondary Treatment, 5-9
Year 2020, Maximum Flow
Table 6.14.14f Mixed Primary—Secondary Effluent, Year 2020, on 5-10
Storm Day
Table A.2.5 Saltwater Aquatic Life and Human Health Water 5-27
Quality Criteria
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table A.3.1Z4
Table A.3.15
Constituents Loading
Maximum Dissolved Oxygen Deficits (mg/i)
Aquatic Life Toxicity Criteria Compliance for
Site 2
Aquatic Life
Site 14
Aquatic Life
Site 5
Human Health Com llance for Site 2
Human Health Compliance for Site 14
Human Health Compliance for Site 5
Summary of Predicted Water Quality Criteria
Exceedances
Site Comparison for Determinative Criteria
Page Number
5-29
5-30
5-31
5-32
5-33
5 3”
- .4
5-35
5-36
5-37
5-12
A.3.1
A.3.7
A.3.13
Toxicity Criteria Compliance for
Toxicity Criteria Compliance for
Table
Table
Table
Table
A.3.16
A.3. 17
A.3. 18
A.3.19
Table 7.1.1.b
V
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
fl
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Summary of Commentors and Issue Categories
Upper Elevation Sampling Meter Data —
Stations 2 & 3 (Spring 1987)
Lower Elevation Sampling Meter Data —
Stations 2 & 3 (Spring 1987)
Lower Elevation SamplIng Meter Data —
Stations 2, 3, & 14 (Summer 1987)
Base vs Alternate Plan Schedule
Base vs Alternate Plan Cost
Base vs Alternate Plan Construction
Locations of KWRA Ventical Profiling Transect
Stations
Location of Pf IRA Sai pling Locations
Commercial Navigational Resources
Typical Commercial and Passenger Ship Routes
Commercial Fishing Resources
Beaches, Shoreline, Parks and Island Parks
Major Boating Public Access Points
Sensitive Harbor Resources
ELA Predicted Sedimentation Rates, Site 5,
Priu ry Treatment, Stratified Conditions
(g/m’/day)
Project Time Frame
Location of MWRA Current Meter Stations in
Relation to Alternative Diffuser Sites
Predicted Sedin ’entation Rates, Site 5 Primary
Treatment, Stratified Conditions (g/m /day)
Page Nu. ber
2-2
3-5
3-7
14-5
14-6
5-114
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-21
5-22
5-23
5-214
5-38
5-39
3-6
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
14.1
14.2
14.3
11.2.1 .c
14 .2 .14 .a
14 .2.5 .a
Z l.2.5.b
11 .2 .5 . C
11.2.5.d
14 .2 .5 .e
11.2.5.f
5.1.1 .h
6.1.a
A.2.2
Figure A.3.8
vi
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The issuance of this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
represents a major step in the clean up of Boston Harbor and in the overall
wastewater management plan for the Boston metropolitan area. This document
finalizes the EPA analysis of the proposed wastewater conveyance system for
the Boston metropolitan area, as set forth in the Draft Boston Harbor
Wastewater Conveyance System Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(U.S. EPA, 1988a).
1.1 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER BOSTON HARBOR DOCUHENTS
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) addressed several
decisions left unresolved at the conclusion of the earlier Siting EIS
(U.S. EPA 1985). The Siting EIS and associated Record of Dec sion established
Deer Island as the preferred location for the construction of a secondary
treatment plant for all Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MW )
wastewater flows. The siting EIS left several decisions to be addressed in
future documents, including four issues addressed in the SEIS dealing with the
conveyance of HWRA flows: method and route for transporting wastewater from
the south systen at Nut Island to Deer Island; method for conveying the
treated wastewater (effluent) off—shore; method to accomplish the thscharge of
effluent; and location for the discharge.
These four decisions have been addressed in several documents issued over the
last year. The first ‘was the Draft Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (MWRA, Draft STFP, 1987), which was prepared by
MWRA to comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and issued in
November 1987. The contents of this draft KWRA document were the major input
for the April, 1988 EPA Draft SEIS (U.S. EPA, 1988a) prepared in accordance
with the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After public and
agency review and co ent, the Draft STFP was finalized and released in April
1988 as the Final STEP (MWRA, Final STEP, 1988). A similar process was
followed to finalize EPA’s Draft SEIS to produce this Final SEIS.
The release of this Final SEIS will be followed by a public co ent period. A
Record Of Decision will be issued within the next few months which states
EPA’s final and official position on the decisions addressed in this Final
SEI S.
The Siting EIS identified other issues, besides the conveyance of wastewater,
which will be addressed in separate NEPA documents. A list of these documents,
their contents and status are presented in Table 1.1.
1.2 SUPO(ARY OF DRAFT DO UMEIJTS
The Draft STFP and SEIS contained similar conclusions concerning the four
wastewater conveyance systems decisions. Each of the studies used existing
informatior and independent evaluations to assess conveying South System flohs’
1—i
-------
TABLE 1.1. ISSUES NEEDING FURThER NEPA REVIEW
DEER ISLAND S NG ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROJECT FEATURES REQUIRING FURThER EPA NEPA REVIEW
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
• Construction of Inter-Island Conduit This SEIS (1988)
• Water Quality and Construction Impacts of Outfall This SEIS (1988)
• Disposal of Earthen or Dredged Material This SEIS (1988)
Piers EA (1988)
• Construction of Piers and Staging Areas Piers EA (1988)
• Transport, Handling, Storage and Use of Chlorine Piers EA (1988)
Treatment Plant EA (1988)
• Long-Term Residuals Management Residuals
Management SEtS (1989)
• Combined Sewer Overflow Projects CSO SEIS or EA (1990)
-------
to Deer Island. Both documents concluded that from an engineering,
environi ental and cost standpoint, a deep rock tunnel directly from Nut Island
to Deer Island was the preferred method of wastewater conveyance. Similarly,
the Draft SEIS and STFP found a deep rock tunnel to be the preferred method
for conveying effluent from Deer Island to the discharge location.
The two documents differed somewhat in their reco nendations for the type of
diffuser, or method of discharging and diffusing the effluent. The Draft STFP
concluded that approximately 80 risers or shafts drilled through the sea floor
into the deep rock tunnel was the preferred diffuser design. The Draft SEIS
found that this method was acceptable but that, depending on the geotechnical
conditions at the diffuser site, a system with many fewer risers and a pipe
diffuser buried on the sea floor may have some advantages over the 80 riser
diffuser. Consequently, the Draft SEIS deferred the final decision on the type
of diffuser to be used until more geotechnical information and engineering
analyses were available. The diffuser design is addressed further in
Chapters M and 6 of this document.
The location of the effluent discharge was the most involved and complicated
decision addressed by the two draft documents. Numerous candidate locations
were identified and detailed data collection and analysis efforts were
conducted at each location. There was also much input from •the public,
regulatory agencies, the academic community and a technical advisory group.
The Draft STFP and SEIS contained independent evaluations of the alternative
location using some of the sane and some complementary prediction tools.
Each document reached the sane conclusion that the outfall location should be
In an area appr,ximately eight miles east of Deer Island (between alternative
Sites 4 and 5). The majority of comments received on the draft documents
related to the outfall location decision.
1.3 ORGANIZATION AND CONTENTS OF THIS FINAL SEIS
The Final SEIS presents a reexamination of the analyses, conclusion and
recommendations contained in the Draft SEIS. The reevaluation takes into
account public and agency comments received on the Draft, any technical
information brought to light since the publication of the Draft and changes in
the HWRA recommended wastewater management plan. The original contents of the
Draft SEIS are not reproduced here. The Draft stands as a document of record
and this Final SEIS contains modifications of or additions to the contents of
the Draft where necessary. This Final SEIS also contains a complete set of
recoendatiofls as to the wastewater conveyance systems, including proposed
mitigat ion measures.
Most of the Final SEIS is devoted to presenting the cc ents received on the
Draft and EPA’s response to the comments in Chapters 2 and 3 respectively.
Chapter M describes changes to P1WRA’s proposed action or other relevant
components of the MWRA wastewater management system, and the potential
implications of these changes to the Draft SEIS recommendations. Chapter 5
contains errata, or changes and corrections to specific sections of the Draft
SEIS. In Chapter 6, the conclusions and recommendations of the Draft are
reviewed in light of comments or new information received. The conclusions
are then modified or not as the information warrants. Chapter 7 presents the
1_3
-------
Final SEIS recoended plan and mitigation measures. Chapter 7 also defines
the details of the reco wiended plan that are still unresolved and the
information needed to resolve these issues.
1 -
-------
CHAPTER 2
C0 OCENTS
2.1 O ENTS RECEIVED
As part of the LIS process, cooments on the Draft SEIS were received by EPA
during the 60 day co ent period following the issuance of the draft
document. In order to facilitate public coent, EPA held two informational
public meetings (in Revere, on April 19, 1988 and in Quincy on April 20,
1988); presented the recovm*ndations of the document to the previously
established Citizen’s Advisory Co nittee; distributed copies of the document
to 16 libraries in the metropolitan Boston area and over 200 other parties
including state and federal agencies, scientists and interested individuals;
and notified over 2,500 other parties on EPA’s mailing list of the
availability of the document.
Written and oral coimnents were received from elected officials, government
agencies and private individuals and organizations through letters and at a
public hearing held in Cambridge on Hay 18, 1988. Every coimnent has been
reviewed by EPA and the following is a discussion of EPA’s approach to
addressing the coim ients.
2.2 APPROACH TO ADDRESSING COtO(ENTS
In order to be responsive to coimnentors and ad4ress comoents in an efficient
sanner, EPA has conducted a review of all co ients received and developed a
complete list of issues raised by coamentors. From this list, a matrix of
issue categories and individual co entors was developed (Figure 2.1).
Synthesizing issues and responses in this manner allows all aspects of an
issue to be discussed comprehensively in one section and also allows for a
clear presentation of what the issues of concern are. A a ary of each of
these issues is presented in Chapter 3 of this Final SEIS followed by EPA ’s
detailed response. A discussion of how the co ents have affected the SEIS
recomoendations is presented in Chapter 6.
Some coimsents received by EPA were either very general, stated an opinion
rather than a question or were specific to the NWRA’s Draft LIR. These
co ents were considered by EPA but did not require a direct response. Copies
of all original coim ent letters can be round in Appendix A of this Final
SEIS. Transcripts of the public hearing are available at U.S. EPA Region I.
Figure 2.1 and Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide a guide to how and where individual
co entors may find responses to their coimsents. The comoenters were given
designation codes based on iihether they were elected officials (El to El),
government agencies (Gi to G7), private citizens (P1 to P35) or public hearing
cc nentors (Hi to H25). The order of the presentation in Chapter 3 is based
on the number of cossnentors raising the issue, with the most cosonly raised
issue presented first.
I
-------
. ... • b.
H I !
I- ‘9. — = & -
I, —
b.. ‘ !
U IA! 0 x i, o I .— I U a 0 IA I IA LI S
— x — — • — III Z 111 — I —
• •Z • . WIA IA
U ENTOI . . • • • • •
UENVMIT AFFILIATICU OC .1;
Fr Is I. Doils Nssssdsa.tts 1. t. £1 0 0
Atfr.d 1. Ssg sss 1 Jr. Ussud.a.tts Umas of lop. 12 0 0
I Itif J. U SfIflI jssad.mstts $oi.ts . 13 a a
ulthsrdJ.L srd Ud ut$.tsc , .
J m F. Ui ki o1t kI t i 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
Giors V. Cololta ls ,a Ib r 16 • 0 0 0
Jo vi Ito tn lSsrbI ss klscti 17
DsvIdkItoy C.rpsof l,islnssr, 11 a 00 000 0 00 0 00
I , UI&.rdl.tisy co.stsllcn.N.. - .1 12 0 0 0 0
“ V. t.f SrId s Dlv. of Nsrl. Flshsnlss 0 0
Pa F.LSvV ss. tsolseswcs.*uthorIty 14 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
£iqu C’IOV UdS* Cw.&v . c1sstoii 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
P I lisvls • S ti 1Ud1v11w4 ltho.lty 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1. t. U U.rbldsssd Psr*s I lecreotlin 17 a 0
NIdissIk II P.(IdDOoi P1 0000 0 00 000 0 0
l. n hun U uut lssl ut P2 0 0 0 0
D. Iur . c P3 0 • 0 0 0 0
JossØi & I.c$ sI I ih .i . L iuu hisl uts P4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chsrtotts & LouiSa moor. U .* tisidunts P S a a 0
(ö d U. Null, III ! -—---:ott tu,ldunt P6 0 0 0 0 0
Dul.l C. Cotton Cchss..t tesldent P7 • • 0
FIGURE 2.1. SUMMARY OF COMMF.NTORS AND ISSUE CATEGORY RESPONSES
-------
. .- .
Di! !! ! I I !
.a - ;:
U, -. S. — U ’ S- — -‘ U, 5 - S.
U UI ; 1,0 “ —
.- ‘I
u ,MflU *PflLIATI OU CODt Pi 2: ! !! ; I
1s S. loss li ... . Id ioM C Itt.s PS 0 0 0
0 , u o ....Id t iii Nsl nt P9 0 a 0
p I.IdIth CWou Sotsr Act lou Pee lice P10
Nr Srs Doubt (IvI.eustei Idiout l.sl nt P11 0 • 0 0 0
Dsbr U.r .Ic us . .i. ... ’ P12 • • 0 • •
dIth *l ,visr Coulle. Alt. lou. Inst. ( M P13 0 0 • a
s &àh...s P14 0 0 0 0
P,lIvST Iey I.f.rSot ln .øV!P) P15 000.0000000 •000000 00
‘ .
Lu A. k isfi tou lssl * 0 0 0 •
MibIlpD. l.nld SoI l&ài t P10 • • 0 0 0 0
l. l Idi P19 0 0 0 0 0
PMIbpps Lousbi SbrbldusM U!sI t P20 0 • 0
b l ue Soutford Ilént P21 0 0
trT—Act.Vst.forth .t,w.UAV • 0 0 0 0
Nu. . Uarö.lcS .V 1t1 U@rtSoSStIVII l dosnsbt, P23 0 0 0 0
ocould S. P. Psnlui Pt? P24 0 0
SovId ?er4ls UbsiSostu P25 0 0
Jdwe N. Sltvs South Ibsen Ce.IItlou P26 0 • •
u i i. ei p Idsuet VIII.,, thirds P21
Luruece A. Scfisfer Newton Iseldent P20 0
FIGURE 2.1. SUMMARY OF OMMENTORS AND ISSUE CATEGORY RESPONSES (CONT.)
-------
,.
I- a . a V. VI S.. N
VI — VI. . U N —
N N — U — Si VI
— 5- U N.. S —
— 0 VI 55 N
— VI I S L1. . & — 5- 5 0 0
S a 5- VI V. S.- U
WV. 5- • .C —a a —
— . z . VI = LI..
. . .
S • — 5- VIS VINS. — 555 .1 U
IT . . . . . . .
WIEUTWT *FFILIATI CWE
LaaaILe A. Sdiaf ar Pavtc issIdunt P29 0 0
David Uov Sa lbs Usibar 1 Dave lb. Day P30 0 0
DwuthVAILSI d lS ttusidul* P31 000000 00000 00000 0
I.DsvIdCr .r W il bs apC amultMt P32 00 000 000 0
Poilyiradisy lV iNPartII P33 00 00000000000000000 00
PusrcnDMn P34 0 • • 0 p 0 p p p p 0 0
;;y ; c in.us .
*duts Tore Fr Iin Nit I rav. As.oe. P36 0 0 0 0
PbiI NsvIzi Psidun issidunt UI 0 p p p
• ...
JIsNul N P p
Nid.I Dill Ssstss l.,gt..r Assssiatss IS • p p p
Id Ilsrlun NIT P 4 p p p
L a s A. tdi.fsr lenten ISSI US p p p •
David $t l.y leincy Ceeniltent 16 p
Uldiard 1. Lint a.d P ss* klsc v U? P p
Larry Alsend.r U I p p p
UudFrlic b UP p
S Nsloof 110 p p
CaroIV.ueii III 0 0 p
David Carter • WIN Part Ii 012 p p
Polly Pradley WIN Part Ii 1113 p p p p p
FIGURE 2.1. SUMMARY OF COMMFNTORS AND ISSUE CATEGORY RESPONSES (CONT.)
-------
U I • UI
I- a . a • UI
u a — . - u as z —
IQ 2 ö 13 e_ 5— ... a u a —9
I i
. UI S 0 LI. 6. — a ••• 0 P0 —
a _a a a I 5 1 I.? UI _I 0
2 . W 2 _ -
a U U U 1 — — a LI 2 0 — 2 __ — C
• I I U i UI 2 0 1.1 SI —I I a —
2 .- a III 5 ‘
2 I 2 ! 2
U, U I UI LI UlSI 0 UI .- I 2 I SI i l 2-2 2
• . •. •
wtMflhI *F tLtMt C E ?1 ,; .!
1. D.vld Cr s VIi tlwop Co. utt t P14
D.v dE.IIi I I , • •
Dorothy Al Ion U uon1 tssi nt 116 0 0 0 •
Dailel Pc*uUff• lIT • o
IrIai Idiont Uett.sd II I • • •
1 ln Eoobel I I , a
Iuth- Doid on DoltrIr P20 a a a a
‘ .. .
Ji m lowun P 2-
Jisiv S. .. . .. t P22
sin 0 2 w . P 23 a a
a’ Ira 1 24 a
CURE 2-1. SUMMARY OF COMMENTORS AND ISSUE CATEGORY RESPONSES (CONT.)
-------
TABLE 2.1. GUIDE TO GENERAL TOPICS
CO)0 ENTOR CODES
E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,G2 ,G4,G5,P1,
P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P7 ,P8,P9P10,P11
P12 , P13, P14 , P15, P18, P19, P20, P2 1
P22,P23,P26,P27,P30,P31,P33 ,P36,
E1,H2,N7,N8,H9,H11,H12,M13,H14,H15,
X16,H17,M18,H20,X2—,E23 ,E24
E1,E2,E4,E5,E6,G1,G5,G6,G7,P1,P3,
P4,P6,P7,P8,P11,P12,P13,P14,P15,
P19,P20,P22,P27,P31,P33,M7,M13,H16,
1 117, 1 120
E5,E6,E7,G5,P3,P4,P6,P9,P10P11,
P12,P13,P14,P15,P19, P20,P21,P22,
P23 , P26, P31, P32, P33, P34 , P36 , 1111
P1, P15, P2 5, P3 1, P33 , P34 , X l i, 1116
G1,G4,G6,P15,P31,P32,P33,P34, 1 1 13
G1,G2,G3,G4,P1,P15,P17,P18,P28,P29,
P31,P32,P33,P34,H1,X5,H 14
G4,G6,P15P24,P26,P32,P33,114 ,N10,
1 131, 1 1 15,H16, 1 118
G4 , G6, P1, P15, P17 , P25 , P3 1, P33 , 115 , 1119
G1,G4,G6,P1,P15,P16,P17,P24 ,P31,
P33, 1 13, 1 14,115
E4,G1,G2,G4,G6,P15,P16,P31,P32,
P33,113,1113,1114
G1,G3,P34, 1 16
E4,G4,Pi,P15,P17,P3 1,P32,P33,H12,
1118,1120
P15, P33 ,X8 ,X13 , 1115 , 1120, 112—
E4,E5,E6E7,G4,G5,G6,P2,P3,P4,P6,
P9 , P11, P13, P14 , P15, P19, P20, P2 1, P22
P23,P26,P33,P36, 149, 1 113
CO)* tNT
1. SITE 6
2. SHORILINE IMPACTS
3. MASS. BAY WATER
QUALITY
4. PRIMARY TREATMINT
5. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
6. TOXICS
7. COST
8. ENGINEERING CON--
SIDER.ATIONS
9. DISSOLVED OXYGEN
10. EDITORIAL C0!’D NT
11. MONITORING/MITIGA-
TION
12. ACCURACY OF MODEL
13. INSURANCE POLICY
14. PROJECT SCHEDULE
2—6
-------
TABLE 2.1. GUIDE TO GENERAL TOPICS (CONT.)
15. SEDEMENTATION
16. SITE COXPARISON/
R.ECO D4ENDATIONS
17. NEPA COMPLIANCE
18. PHYTOPLANICTON
19. LEVEL OP TREATMENT
20. SHORELINE TRANSPORT
21. CHLORINE TOXICITY
22. GEO-TECH CONCERNS
23. MISCELLANEOUS
TOPICS
24. HISTORICAL!
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
25 • MATERIAL DISPOSAL
G1,P1,P15,P17P24,P2B,P31P33,P34,
fl4 ,H5
G2G4 ,G6,P15,P17,P25,P31,P33,R5,
B12 ,H3.5
P15 P16 • P17 P3 1, P33
G1,G4,G5,P15,P31.P33,P34
P16P24,P31,P32,P33,H3,R4 ,H10,
G1,G4,P19,P32
G1,pls;p1B,P31,P32 ,P33,H1 1 N16
G6,P35,H23
G4,G6,P17,P32.H3,H5
Gi
co CO)O NTOR CODES
Gi
2-
-------
TABLE 2.2. GUIDE TO cOMMENTOR’S RESPONSES
,I(NTOI
NJTU AFFILIAT! CODE StNT IIJUEfl
Fr. i. 0. DorIs NasucMm tts kast. 11 1 2
Alfred C. k .s .. Jr. NsiucMaettS lows of lap. (2 1.2
Valt.r J. Sorerint NasucMmettS Sboot• (3 1
lichard J. L rd U wit S.l.cti (4 1 2 ,1O ,12 ,14
John F. lists S— -eott S.l.ctow ES 1 2 3 14
G.orgs : lever. syor (6 1.2.3.14
Jo o nven tte-Itli Nsrbtaiissd S.lect, (7 1.3.14
O.vid EIloy Corp. of £ng iwsrs C I 2 .S.6 ,9 ,IO .11.IS.17 .1l .2021 .V.
lidi.rd Osluwy Coastal Zons N.. I... _ ... ( 62 1,6.10,13
II. L .I i Sridps Div. of Narilis FIdi.ries 63 6.11
PMII P. Levy Nass. Vatir lessacas Authority 04 1 .4 ,S,6 .7 ,l .9.10.12.14 .16 .il20
E,jew Conty lohont Conssrv. Cwsisslon 65 1.2,3.14.18
Psil lisvIs Doston lsdsveI.y...4 Authority 66 2 .S .7,t .9 .10. 14,16 .22 ,23
I. T. baird Nsrbleh..d Parts A lacrestion 67 2
Nichosl Es ll 1.1. . Door Pt 1 2 4 ,6 8 12, 15
sls l Sonut ldiuit l.sI nt P2 1.14
0. U.roh.Ick 11o a r.s P3 1,2 ,3 14
Josa1 , I lechol Ga.aiar Lees NasI nts P4 1.2 ,3 ,14
a.rlotts I Leslie Noire Idsont l.sld.nts PS I
( i.rd U. Poll, I I I t ic.tt lesidunt P6 I 2 3 ,14
Dutisi C. Cotton Cohaist lesidunt P7 1,2
J I. Coo. livers School Caitttss PC 1.2
DutNc Osisld Lyivilesldunt P9 1,3,14
Auy Col ith CIssi Vats, Action Project P10 1,3
NrMrs Dm 1.1 Livingston Udsant lesidunt Pit t,2 3 ,14
Debra larduick o s kir.ss P12 I,2 3
-------
• TABLE 2-2. GUIDE TO COMMENTORS RFSPONSES (CONT.)
_______ c FI,c*
AFFILIATION ipj p
Ii ids Sti,,i.r CosUt. 1 Alt. Sew. Treat. ( S P13 1 ,2 3 ,I4
‘ Ndscif.r l Io P14 1.2.3.14
Potty Sr.d%.y Safer Voter in N.ss. ( ItP) P15 I ,2,3.4 ,5,6,7.$ ,9 ,10.12 ,13,14.I5.I6. 17 .10,21 ,fl
Daniel U. tult• III Sosten N.rbor A sociste, P16 9,1O ,17 19
Lsuro, i A. tds•fsq Neistan IeaI nt P17 6,8,9,12,15,16,17
Ptsilip 0. Pent, Nsl n Ieaid!nt P18 1.6.21
Pidtipps L.n.in PtSidPflt P20 1 2 ,3 14
! I 4
Act. Vet. for the tnv.(SAY P22 1,2,3,14
i — P. d.Ids-Vft IMivensity P23 1,3,14
DonSid P24 7,9,15,19
D.vidtsr*l• ‘ .. ‘: ‘ .... . •.
Jdm N. Sit ,. tenth there Ceslielen P26 1,3,7,14
j U. t. U suit 5 11bps thirds P27 2,1
Laweiee A. $chs.fer Newton lesiàM - .. P28 6,15
Lo.. s A. tchusf in Newton I.si nt P29 6
David Uav tees this N&ib... , Sews this lay P30 1
D iuthy AtbUi N sant lssI it P31 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,3 .6,S ,9,10,12 ,1% ,16 ,17 ,1S,19 ,21
S. D a vid Sr s n Vhthr Ceo. attant P32 3 ,S ,6 ,T ,10 ,12,19,20 ,21,23
Potty SrsdI.y shIN Port II P33 1.2.3 ,4 ,5,6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 , 12,13, 14 ,14, IT ,1S , 19,21
Slaren Deon Pew Fnpbrd A mrii P34 3,4,5,6,11,15,18
A ts Tore Fns.*tin Part t rew. Assar. P36 1,3,14
Phil N. ,iti NstdesiNe.id int UI 1,6,21
J s Nw P2 1
Daniel CirtI Doston Umber lasocistis P3 9,10,19,23
-------
TABLE 2.2. CUIDE TO COMMENTOR’S RESPONSES (CONT.)
O ’ P 1Q L
aV MJTC *FFILIATI CaPE WIUENT INJUENI
DnId rIe Nit N I 7,9 , 15, 19
t ecs A. Offiefer learn lnitnt PS 6,5,9,15,16,23
Duvid Stedisy Oulicy Cciaultrnt P6 17
Nidird J. I4a.4 Pthrnt Selscti P7 1,2
L.rryAIstiaSsr P5 1,13
Nud trticli P9 1,14
Se Wtrnf P10 7,19
cmi pq P11 1,3,4,7
David carte WIN Part Ii P12 1,12,16
Potly Sradiey WIN Part II P13 1,2,5,10,13,14
S. David S itar VInthr i Coiwuitant P14 1,6,10
David Cotta P15 1 ,7,13,16
Dorothy * ita I PSiat Nusidunt P16 1,2,4,7,21
8 0 • • •
SuimNIdaat Dott P15 1:7:12
Pain CoaSt P19 $
Nuth•km DCnSPIS Siuttair P20 1,2,12,13
Ji• len P2- 1,13
$111 0.a% P23 1,22
tarn Irsips P24 I
-------
OIAP’rER 3
RESPONSE TO CCP* NTS
The following is a presentation of the co ents received on the Draft SEIS and
EPA’s response. As discussed in Chapter 2, the co ents are grouped into
categories, or issues. General co ents on each issue are discussed first,
with specific co nents or questions and responses following the general
discussion. As will become evident, many of the issues overlap, and where
this occurred, the reader is referred to other appropriate discussions in the
text. Also, all section numbers referred to in the response correspond to
sections of the Draft SEIS.
3.1 ISSUE NU) ER I
Site 6
Many co mTentors have proposed that the outfall be sited at an offshore
location known as “Site 6”. This site is approximately 9 miles from Nahant
and is about 2 miles southeast of the EPA’s reco ended outfall area. These
coentors believe that the reco snended outfall area was selected only because
it was the best of the areas studied, and that it is not acceptable on an
absolute scale. Co iientors also noted that EPA’s elimination of Site 6 during
screening may not have considered the presence of a different oceanographic
regime, specifically Maine Intermediate Water, in the vicinity of Site 6.
EPA Response
EPA evaluated Site 6 in the Draft SEIS screening process, which was used to
establish potentially acceptable outfall areas for further evaluation
(Section F.5.1). The screening process eliminated areas of Massachusetts Bay
that were clearly environmentally unsuitable for location of the outfall, and
preliminarily excluded areas where substantial construction difficulty, time
and costs did not appear to be outweighed by additional environmental
benefits. Site 6 fell within this latter area because even though it was
shown to provide some additional dilution over more inshore sites, when the
dilution was applied to effluent pollutant concentrations and these were
compared to EPA water quality criteria and Massachusetts water quality
standards, there was no practical additional benefit predicted. This is true
even though Site 6 offers more rapid effluent dispersion as demonstrated by a
coementor. The water quality criteria exceedances exhibited at Sites II and 5
would still occur at Site 6 even given the Increased dispersional
characteristics of the site.
The screening process in the Draft SEIS did not specifically consider Maine
Intermediate Water (P11W). However, an evaluation of Maine Intermediate Water
has been performed for this Final SEIS (see below). The evaluation revealed
that during the winter and early spring, P11W is present at all proposed
outfall sites. During suner, P11W is generally at least 18 miles and perhaps
as far as 1 5 miles off-shore. P11W develops onshore during fall and moves
offshore during spring at a rate averaging I to 2 miles a day. This indicates
3-1
-------
that the potential benefits of entraining the effluent in MIW and thereby
minimizing shoreward transport are substantially the same at Site 6 as at the
other more shoreward sites.
Following screening of potential outfall sites, a detailed evaluation of sites
within the potentially suitable area was performed (Draft SEIS Chapter 5).
The site evaluation included comparison of the characteristics of each site to
established decision criteria. These decision criteria were developed through
a public process that involved input from citizens, the academic community
regulatory agencies and advocacy groups. The decision criteria included both
absolute and comparison criteria, that is, comparison to some external
criterion (such as consistence with established water quality standards), and
comparison to the other sites being considered. An essential part of the
entire site selection process was the comparison of each site to such absolute
decision criteria.
Based on the above discussion, EPA believes that it has thoroughly evaluated
the potential benefits of Site 6, and that any such benefits do not alter the
site evaluation conducted in the Draft SEtS, or the recommended outfall
location contained therein.
characteristics of Site 6
Comentors brought forth many other purported benefits of Site 6 including
better dilution, reduced beach impacts, reduced lobster fishery impacts and
better bedrock conditions at and en route to Site 6 which could decrease the
duration and cost of outfall construction. The dilution and beach impact
comments were directly tied to the belief that Site 6 was more likely to be
within the MIW regime, and that therefore the effluent would be carried away
from shore in a different manner than would effluent from the other sites
considered. This is not true, as discussed above. Also, EPA believes that
the beach impacts related to discharge at the recommended outfall location
will be negligible (see Issue 02). Regarding lobster fisheries, the Draft
SEtS concluded that a discharge at the recommended outfall area will not have
any significant short or long term effects on fish and lobsters in the area.
Although it is possible that the abundance of fish and lobsters at Site 6 may
generally be less than at other sites, there is no reason to conclude that
impacts at Site 6 would be significantly less than at Site 5. The issue of
bedrock conditions at Site 6 is addressed in Issue 022.
Effluent Pipthg
EPA was requested to clarity the need for effluent pumping to reach Site 6 or
the other candidate outfall sites. As discussed in Section P.2.1.2.2 of the
Draft SEIS, at the currently planned plant elevation effluent pumping would be
required for an outfall at Site 6. As has been pointed out by several
commentors, it would be possible to raise the elevation of the plant and avoid
the need for effluent pumping. However raising the plant elevation provides
no cost or engineering benefit. At about Site l .5 or 5 the cost of gravity
flow and pumped effluent are similar and beyond Site 5 a pumped system is less
expensive. This is because a tunnel for a pumped system is smaller (because
it is not as critical to reduce friction) and for longer tunnels the increased
3-2
-------
cost of a pump station is offset by the reduced per foot cost of tunnel
construction. Also there are influent pumping implications that could
increase the total project cost if the plant elevation were raised. In
su ary, effluent pumping would be the least costly system for a Site 6
outfall, but this does not produce an abrupt increase in cost compared to an
outfall at other candidate sites. Consequently, the pumpng of effluent was
not a factor in the Site 6 analysis.
Mine Interuediate Water
Several co entors have raised the possibility that Site 6 is more likely to
be within the Maine Intermediate Water (P1 1W) regime than any of the other
candidate sites. Coimnentors also point out that discharge within MW could
result in a trapped effluent plume which would not reach the surface and would
be less likely to be transported shoreward. These co entors have asked EPA
to investigate the possibility of P11W at Site 6 and to determine if the
elimination of Site 6 during screening should be reevaluated. Presented below
is an evaluation of P11W in the potential outfall area.
The evidence for P11W is presented in Hopkins and Garfield (1979). They
describe P11W as a mass of relatively uniform density water In the Gulf of
Maine which generally occupies at least the water layer between 160 and
1 00 feet. P11W is identified by its salinity — temperature signal which is
approximately 10 to 60 C and 32 to 33 parts per thousand salinity, however
these ranges vary depending on the season, year and location. The major
identifier for P11W is a temperature minimum, thus the P11W is colder than the
water above and below the layer.
Form t1on of P11W appears to be from at least three sources (Hopkins and
Garfield, 1979). One source Is cooling of nearshore waters during winter.
These denser waters sink and move off-shore to contribute to the P11W layer.
The second source of the MIW Is from the Scotian Shelf, which is an area east
of a line connecting Nova Scotia and Georges Bank. This water apparently
enters the Gulf of Maine at the surface during discrete winter events and then
sinks to the P1 1W layer. The final source of P11W is continental slope water
which can enter the Gulf only during the stratified (ai er) season.
Because of the complex fQrmation of 111W and direct susceptibility to weather
events, the water mass is seasonally dynamic and highly variable from year to
year. 111W is at maximum volume in the winter and early spring due to the
accumulation of winter nearshore cooling and periodic Inputs from Scotian
Shelf waters. During this period P11W extends to within II miles of shore in
Massachusetts Bay (Hopkins and Garfield, 1979).
During mer, vertical stratification establishes a different relationship
between 1 1 1W and Massachusetts Bay waters. The bottom waters in the Bay are
partially trapped by Steliwagen Bank. This bottom water, which initially was
111W, undergoes some mixing with upper waters due to internal waves at the
interface (Chereskin 1983, Flalpern 1971a, Halpern, 1971b). The waves are due
to tides and instabilities as flew passes over Steliwagen Bank. The results
are that the bottom layer temperature increases, bottom layer salinity
decreases and the entire volume of P1 1W diminishes rapidly. The decrease in
3-3
-------
volume is due to surface cooling, mixing with other water masses and the lack
of input from nearshore and the Scotian Shelf. By September, the landward
extent of X I V has decreased drastically (generally 35 to £ O miles offshore in
Massachusetts Bay) compared to winter (Hopkins and Garfield, 1979).
The pattern described above fits well with data collected in 1987 as part of
the NWRA facilities plan (MWRA, Draft STFP V, A and X, 1987). Early spring
data collected at stations as close to shore as Sites 2 and 3 show salinity
and temperature signals well within the range which defines XIV (Figures 3.1
and 3.2). This is true for both surface and bottom water, indicating winter
formation of XIV in the nearshore area. By sumner, presumably through a
combination or warming, isolation and lack of new formation (as described
above), the water with the XIV temperature and salinity signal is not obvious
in the study area at Sites 2 and 3 (Figure 3.3). As far offshore as the Foul
Area disposal site, which is about 17 statute miles tram Deer Island and about
5 miles east of Site 6, 111W was not present in the sumner of 1987, even in the
bottom waters (Figure 3.3, data from MWRA, Draft STFP V,X, 1987). This is to
be expected based on the sumner time 35 to A O mile offshore limit of XIV
described by Hopkins and Garfield (1979).
In conclusion, it does not appear that 111W is a factor in differentiating
among outfall sites. All candidate sites are within the area of winter-time
111W formation. During this time the water column is well mixed and water
comparable to 111W density is formed. As the sumner progresses the water
column at all sites, and at least as rar offshore as the Foul Area s arms,
freshens and stratifies. Even in the bottom waters as far as 17 miles
offshore, the density decreases below that of 111W by a combination of warming
and offshore movement. By late sumner the 111W is well offshore far beyond any
potential outfall site.
3.2 ISSUE NU)GER 2
Shoreline Impacts
Comnentors feared that the use of public beaches would be impaired because
effluent transported onshore would result in high levels of disease-causing
organisms (such as bacteria and viruses), undesirable algae blooms and debris
on the beaches. Coentor.s were also concerned that shellfish beds near the
shoreline would be impacted by pathogens or taxies from the effluent.
EPA Response
Shoreline impacts from the presence of coliform bacteria, viruses, and algae
were analyzed by comparing the predicted effluent concentrations of these
organisms to concentrations at which adverse environmental or public health
effects could be expected. The concentrations of these organisms that could
negatively impact the shoreline were determined using the Massachusetts
Surface Water Quality Standards, U.S. EPA Water Quality Criteria or values
from scientific literature when standards or criteria were not available. As
discussed below, no adverse impacts along any shorelines are expected as a
result of these organisms.
3—4
-------
7
8-
5-
w 4-
1-
0-
UPPER ELEVATION SAMPLINC METER DATA
STATIONS 2 & 3 (SPRING 1987)
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
31.4 31.8 31.8 32 32.2 32.4 32.8 32.8
I I I I
33 33.2 33.4
SAUNflY (ppt)
+ STATION 3
- - - MIW
- - -
fl 1ATIflN 2
FICIJRF 3.1
-------
LOWER ELEVATION SAM PLINC METER DATA
STATiONS 2 & 3 (sPI NG 1987)
I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I U I
31.4 31.6 31.8 32 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33 33.2
0 TAT1ON 2
SAUNflY (ppt)
—- =MIW
“CURE 3.2
+ STA11ON 3
7
/
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1—
0-
.
33.4
-------
LOWER ELEVATION SAMPLING METER DATA
STATIONS 2,3, &4 (SuMMER 1987)
7,)
V. /7’
/
.
) 1
.
.eSS••
/
C
31.4 31.8 31.8
SAUNflY (ppt)
+ STAflt j .
—— MIW
FTCURF. 3.3
o STATiON 4
— — — — — — — _ _
x FOUL AREA
7
8
5
4
3
2
I
0 TATION2
32 32.2 32.4 32.8 32.8 33
33.2 33.4
-------
For the purpose of comparison, the Draft SEIS evaluated the differences in
shoreline impacts expected from a discharge in President Roads and a discharge
at the reco ended area (Section F.2.1.21.2). While this analysis was
conducted at the screening level only, the results clearly indicated that the
maximum possible percentage of effluent that would reach the shoreline from
the recoended area during extr e conditions (0.30 to 0.Zl1 percent) is far
less than the percentage of effluent that would reach the shoreline from
President Roads (1.52 to 2.70 percent). Thus, a discharge at the recoended
area, rather than at President Roads, would provide for the better protection
of the shorelines, allowing them to improve in quality.
Coliforms
In general, the “safeness” of any body of water for swim iing is determined by
measuring coliform bacteria in a water sample. Concentrations of coliform
bacteria can be expressed in two ways: total coliform and fecal coliform
which refer to bacteria associated with the feces of warm-blooded animals
(such as humans and dogs).
While adequate detention time for disinfection has been included in the Deer
Island treatment plant’s design, it is possible that the interim primary
effluent could receive less than adequate disinfection during periods of high
flow (Draft SEIS Section H.3.3.1). A total breakdown of disinfection would
probably not occur because of the redundancy for disinfection and power
systems built into the treatment plant design (Draft SEIS Section H.2.1.1).
It is impossible to predict the actual coliform levels in the effluent should
disinfection be incomplete. It is possible, hoilever, to calculate the levels
of coliform in the effluer t that would need to exist to exceed the
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards and/or U.S. EPA Water Quality
Criteria and result in beach o osures. The federal permit which regulates the
discharge of secondary effluent from the proposed Deer Island treatment
facilities establishes discharge limitations for fecal coliform bacteria of
i 0O MPN (Most Probable tJumber)/100 ml and 200 MPN/100 ml for daily maximum and
monthly average values, respectively. The permit limitations for total
coliform bacteria require a monthly maximum level of 1000 MPN/100 ml and a
monthly average of 700 MPN/100 ml. The Metropolitan District Coission will
post warning notices to swim iers at 200 MPN/100 ml in the surface waters at
the beach.
A 90% reduction in bacterial numbers has been found to occur between 2 and
6 hours after being discharged to seawater (Hyperion Engineers, 1957).
Conservatively combining this reduction rate with the highest percentage of
effluent predicted to reach the shoreline and the shortest predicted excursion
time for the effluent to reach the shoreline, the effluent fecal coliform
level would have to be at least 1,271,000/100 ml (3,178 or more times greater
than the maximum monthly permit limitation of 00 MPN/100 ml) before the U.S.
EPA average monthly water quality criterion of 200 MPN/100 ml would be
exceeded at the shoreline. This level of effluent fecal coliform would be
extremely unlikely because it is above the range of expected influent fecal
coliform levels (100,000 to 11000,000 MPN/100 ml). Even with incomplete
disinfection, the influent concentration of coliform bacteria would be
3-8
-------
somewhat reduced during the treatment process by solids removal processes,
natural bacteria die-oft and some disinfection. Therefore, even if an
incomplete disinfection event coincides with worst-case shoreline transport
conditions, fecal coliform levels in the wastewater treatment plant effluent
will not be a threat to swismers or result in any beach closures or warning.
Since incomplete disinfection is not expected to be continuous, it is
appropriate to compare a single extreme event to maximum allowable coliform
levels. U.S. EPA has established a maximum monthly criteria (allowed to occur
in only 10% of the samples collected over a 30 day period) for fecal coliform
in shellfish harvesting waters of 1 3 MPN/100 ml. Combining the highest
percentage of effluent predicted to reach the shoreline and the shortest
predicted excursion time for the effluent to reach the shoreline from, the
monthly maximum fecal coliform level would have to be 273,570 MPN/100 ml (68k
or more times greater than the daily federal permit limitation of
1 00 MPN/100 ml) before the U.S. EPA maximum monthly Water Quality Criteria of
1L3 MPN/100 ml would be exceeded at the shoreline. No Massachusetts standard
exists for fecal coliform in Class SA waters.
For total coliform bacteria, the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standard
for monthly maximum total coliform standard is 230 MPN/100 ml (allowed to
occur in 10% of the samples collected over a 30 day period). This standard is
“designated for the uses of protection and propagation of fish, other aquatic
life and wildlife, for primary and secondary contact recreation; and for
shellfish harvesting without depuration in approved areas.” Based on the
highest percentage of effluent predicted to reach the shoreline and the
shortest predicted excursion time for the effluent to reach the shoreline,
monthly maximum total coliform levels could be as high as 1,1 62,000 MPN/100 ml
(1,1462 or more times higher than the monthly maximum permit limitation of
1000 MPN/100 ml) before a violation of the state total coliform standard would
occur at the shoreline.
It is highly improbable that coliform levels 6814 to 3,178 times greater than
allowed by the federal permit would occur in the Deer Island effluent. In
addition, it has been shown that even with absolutely no removal of coliform
from the wastewater, beaches would not be closed to swiemers due to fecal
coliform levels. No shellfishing restrictions are expected as a result of
coliform bacteria. Other activities, such as boating, fishing and shoreline
development are also predicted to be unaffected by the coliform bacteria.
One coementor questioned the appropriateness of using colitorm bacteria as an
indicator of human health risk. Water quality indicators are generally
microorganisms or chemicals whose densities in the water column can be
quantitatively related to potential health hazards. Important characteristics
of indicators are that they have consistently high densities, are present
exclusively in fecal wastes and have survival rates comparable to pathogens
during sewage treatment and transport from source to target (Mitchell, 1978).
Total and fecal coliform measurements were used in the shoreline impact
analysis to predict potential public health impacts. EPA’s methodology for
predicting shoreline coliform concentrations took into account coliforms
resulting only from the human waste stream and therefore are indicative of
fecal wastes.
3-9
-------
The use of enterococcus as a public health impact indicator was suggested by a
commentor. Several recent studies have found a high correlation between
enterococci and gastro-Intestinal disorders and as a result some states have
adopted this standard for use at bathing beaches. However, some difficulty
has been experienced in counting enterococcus colonies due to the growth of
atypical colonies on the growth media. EPA feels that total and fecal
coliform concentrations are appropriate in this case for predicting potential
health risks and can be compared to established standards
Viruses
Another issue raised by coimnentors was the potential impact for viruses from
the effluent to impact the shoreline. There are no state or federal water
quality criteria for viruses, and viral concentrations are not regulated in
the federal permit. However, based on a typical wastewater viral
concentration of 1000 PFU (plaque forming units as an estimate of viruses)
/liter, HWRA estimated the effluent viral concentrations to be 94 and 6
PFU/liter for primary and secondary effluents, respectively (MWRA, Final STFP
V,C 1988). These concentrations correspond to a maximum of 0.39 PFU/liter and
0.025 PFU/liter at the shoreline respectively for discharges of primary and
secondary effluents, from the recommended area. MWRA converted these
predicted viral concentrations to incremental risk values. One illness
(gastrointestinal) among 2,564 swimmers was predicted during the discharge of
primary effluent while one illness in 40,000 was predicted during the
discharge of secondary effluent. EPA conducted a survey in 1975 of actual
illness rates occurring due to swimming and found the illness rate to be 6 per
1000 swimmers (or one per 167 swimmers) at Nahant (HWRA, Final STFP V, C,
1988). EPA’s current recreational standard is 19 illnesses per 1000 swimmers
(one per 53 swimmers). Thus, the predicted illness rate resulting from
construction of the new outfall is well within EPA guidelines and is much
lower than existing conditions.
Algae & Aesthetics
Some commentors were concerned that the effluent would cause algal blooms at
the shoreline, which would impact beach aesthetics. Algae growth is directly
related to the level of available nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorous)
in the water. Nutrients from the effluent will result in some increased plant
growth, with eventual impacts on higher food chain organisms. However, there
will be no change in the nunber or extent of algal blooms at the shoreline as
a result of the new outfall (see Issue •18). With regard to beach aesthetics,
it should be stressed that with the implementation of P(WRA’s interim residuals
plan in 1991, no sludge or floatable solids will be discharged to Boston
Harbor. The solids portion of the Deer Island treatment facilities waste will
be processed and disposed of on land. Since no solids will be discharged to
the harbor, no solids such as toilet paper or tampon applicators will be
washed ashore.
Tozics
Some commentors were concerned that toxic chemicals from the effluent could
reach beaches and shellfish areas. Exceedances of water quality criteria
3-10
-------
discussed in EPA’s Draft SEIS (and Issue 03) will occur only in the vicinity
of the outfall; turther dilution and dispersion will occur as effluent is
brought to shore such that it will not be identifiable from the ambient ocean
water. Ambient exceedances of water quality criteria (or PCBs and arsenic
exist now in the open ocean and at the beaches. The impacts of these
exceedances are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft SEIS and in Issue 03 of
this chapter.
3.3 ISSUE IU) ER 3
Massachusetts Bay Water Quality
Many co entors were concerned that the water quality in Massachusetts Bay
would be degraded as a result of the new outfall discharge. They cited the
results of EPA’s own analyses, which show that certain water quality criteria
and standards will be exceeded at the new outfall site either during the
interim primary discharge period or after the cc encement of secondary
treatment. Because of this, co nents were made that Boston Harbor is being
cleaned up at the expense of Massachusetts Bay.
EPA Response
In conducting its Draft SEIS water quality analysis, EPA considered Boston
Harbor to be an integral and inseparable part of the Massachusetts Bay marine
ecosystem. As such, EPA established decision criteria for siting the new
outfall which would protect the water quality of the entire ecosystem. These
decision criteria included consistency with EPA Water Quality Criteria
(U.S. EPA, 1986) -and compliance with Massachusetts Surface Water Quality
Standards. In order to assess each proposed outfall site against the
established water quality decision criteria, EPA compared predicted levels of
pollutants and other constituents (such as nutrients) at each site to the
established water quality criteria or standards.
EPA Water Quality Criteria are based on available scientific data on the
effects of pollutants on public health and welfare, aquatic life, and
recreation. They establish numeric levels for pollutants in water which will
provide adequate protection to public health and aquatic life. Two types of
EPA Water Quality Criteria exist. Aquatic life criteria establish levels of
pollutants which will not adversely affect the health of aquatic organisms.
Public health criteria establish levels of pollutants which, if taken up by
fish which are subsequently eaten by humans, would protect hz ans against the
risk of cancer. These criteria are not rules or standards and are not legally
enforceable.
On the ether hand, the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (which
were mandated by the Clean Water Act) are legally enforceable. These
standards establish regulatory thresholds ror certain pollutants and other
constituents that will protect the health and resources, and maintain the uses
of, a given water body. For exanpie, Massachusetts has established numerical
water quality standards for Dissolved Oxygen (DO), coliforms and pH.
3-11
-------
EPA’s water quality analysis with regard to the interim discharge of primary
effluent is discussed in Issue 014. This discussion will focus on the water
quality impacts expected at the new outfall site during discharge or secondary
effluent.
For the secondary effluent discharge, EPA predicts that there will be one
exceedance of the EPA aquatic life water quality criteria at the recoemended
outfall area: Mercury is predicted to exceed the criteria by 68% at site i
arid by less at site 5 (Chapter 14 of this Final SEIS). As discussed in
Section 5.1.3 of the Draft SEIS, no significant marine ecosystem effects are
expected from this exceedance due to the small areal extent of the exceedance,
the low probability that fish would continuously remain in the vicinity of the
discharge (as assumed in the development of the criterion), and the small
magnitude of the exceedance.
Water quality public health criteria are based on risks assessed from lifetime
consumption of fish exposed to pollutants. EPA predicts that the
carcinogenicity criteria for PCBs and arsenic at the one in 100,000 public
health risk level (i.e. a one in 100,000 chance of developing cancer) will be
exceeded at the reco ended outfall area. However, existing levels of the two
compounds in Massachusetts Bay water already exceed these criteria by
significant amounts; PCB currently exceeds criteria by approximately 10 times,
arsenic currently exceeds criteria by approximately 3 times.
Without such high “background” levels, the MWRA discharge by itself would not
exceed the criterion for arsenic. PCBs in the MWRA discharge could, however,
still result in an exceedance the criterion by up to 20 percent even if the
currently existing levels were lower. One reason for this may be that, even
though PCBs were not detected in the MWRA sewage during testing, EPA
conservatively assumed that they existed at the analytical detection limit of
0.5 ug/l (parts per billion). The actual influent PCB levels could be much
lower. However, based on EPA’s conservative assumption, the predicted PCB
concentrations in the water could result in sri increased risk to public
health. This risk would not decrease were the outfall sited further offshore.
EPA has reco ended that regular sampling and analysis of PCB’s and other
constituents of concern in water, sediment arid animal tissue in the vicinity
of the proposed and existing discharges be conducted. Also, EPA recosmends
that MWRA implement a pollutant source identification and control program to
help identity and reduce concentrations of pollutants in the sewage (see
Chapter 7 of this Final SEIS).
Discharge of secondary effluent at the reccemended outfall area will comply
with Massachusetts water quality standards for coliforms, pH and dissolved
oxygen.
In conclusion, EPA considered the protection of water quality in the
Massachusetts Bay/Boston Harbor marine ecosystem in determining its
recoemended outfall location. Compliance with all legally enforceable water
quality standards was a prerequisite for siting, as was protection of the
marine environment and public health. The siting of the new outfall will both
improve the water quality of Boston Harbor and protect the water quality of
Massachusetts Bay.
3- 2
-------
Degradation of Standards
Many ca entors were concerned that the siting of the new outfall would result
in a degradation of Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. This is
not true. As discussed above, a new outfall in the reco msended area will meet.
all Massachusetts Water Quality Standards as currently written, including the
Dissolved Oxygen standard of 6.0 mg/i.
Izitidegradation
Some co nentors also suggested that siting of the new outfall at the
reco ended area would violate the antidegradation provisions of the Clean
Water Act. This is also not true. The Clean Water Act prohibits new
discharges that could change the existing uses of a water body. A new outfall
in the recosm ended area will not change existing uses or significantly degrade
water quality outside the effluent mixing zone.
3. ISSUE NU)GER
Discharge of Primary Effluent
Many commentors were concerned that the discharge of primary effluent during
the construction of the new secondary treatment plant would have adverse
impacts on the Massachusetts Bay marine environment and public health. Some
questioned the wisdom of discharging the primary effluent at the new outfall
site (a pristine environment) insteid of continuing to use the existing
discharge at President Roads (a degraded environment) until the secondary
treatment plant has been completed. The acceptability and reversibility of
the impacts from the nter1m primary discharge were also questioned.
EPA Response
A discussion of the potential impacts of an interim primary discharge on the
marine environment must be prefaced by a general discussion of primary
treatment within the context of the MWRA proposed action. The proposed action
is the construction of a secondary treatment plant at Deer Island. Secondary
treatment of municipal wastewater is required by the Clean Water Act (see
Issue 019 for a further discussion of the need for secondary treatment). In
order to construct the new secondary plant without shutting down the existing
plant, the construction effort will be phased, with the new primary portion of
the treatment plant coming online approximately 5 years before the startup of
the new secondary portion (according to the current federal court schedule).
It is the potential marine ecosystem and public health impacts during this
interim primary discharge period (approximately 5 years) at the reco ended
outfall area that will be discussed in this section.
The predicted impacts from discharge of primary effluent at the new outfall
site would not be acceptable on a long-term basis and would violate the Clean
Water Act. However, as pointed out above, during the interim period, they are
not expected to produce any permanent or geographically extensive impairment
of the marine ecosystem in Massachusetts Bay, and the cessation of the
existing discharge will improve the Boston Harbor ecosystem during the interri
3-13
-------
period. Therefore EPA accepts the short—term impacts of an interim primary
discharge as a mean of achieving the long-term goal of providing full
secondary treatment for all HWRA flows. Just as other temporary impacts, such
as construction noise, are a necessary cost of achieving a long term solution,
the impacts of the interim discharge of primary effluent are a cost of the
proposed action.
Water Quality
EPA conducted a detailed evaluation- of the potential impacts expected from
interim discharge of primary effluent at the reco ended outfall area in
Chapter 5 of the Draft SEIS. The analysis revealed that, compared to a
secondary discharge, a discharge of primary effluent would result in decreased
compliance with EPA Water Quality Criteria and Massachusetts Surface Water
Quality Standards (particularly the dissolved oxygen standard), and increased
accumulation of toxics in sediments. However, the impacts in these areas will
be of relatively short duration or limited extent, or will be reversed after
the onset of secondary treatment, and thus will have no lasting effect.
There are two types of EPA Water Quality Criteria: aquatic life criteria,
which establish levels of pollutants which will not adversely affect the
health of sensitive aquatic organisms, and public health criteria, which
establish levels of pollutants which, if taken up by fish that are
subsequently eaten by humans, would protect humans against the risk of
cancer. During interim primary treatment, levels of copper, heptachior, DDT,
mercury and PCB could exceed aquatic life water quality criteria by 0.20 to
3 times within the recomended area. These exceedances, however, may not be
significant because they are only marginally above the criteria, which are
inherently conservative. Therefore, impacts would only be expected on the
most sensitive forms of the most sensitive aquatic species and would, at
worst, affect only populatipn propagation of very few species over a
relatively small area. Such an impact over the interim construction period
would not permanently alter the number or types of species found within the
study area.
There will also be exceedances of public health water quality criteria during
the interim primary discharge period. However, these criteria are based on a
human’s lifetime consumption or fish exposed to a constant level of
pollutants. Exposure to the pollutant levels expected during primary
discharge would only be for an interim period. Therefore the risk associated
with the public health criteria exceedances are not actually applicable to
this relatively short-term event.
Dissolved Oxygen
Discharge of interim primary effluent would also result in violations of the
Massachusetts water quality standard for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) of 6 mg/l.
Such violations of the DO standard are predicted to occur no more than once a
year during a fall sediment resuspension event, and will only last for a
matter of hours. However, EPA has determined that the DO violations which
might occur are within the normal range of natural variability, and that
marine organisms exposed to those violations would not suffer any long-term
effects (Section 5.1.3.1.5).
3—1 Z
-------
Sediments
Lastly, discharge of primary effluent would result in greater levels of
sediment toxicity and organic enrichment (with resultant benthic and demersal
organism impacts) than would discharge of secondary effluent. These impacts
are of concern for the interim primary period, but will reverse after the
onset of secondary treatment.
The direct impacts of sediment organic enrichment will be reduced upon
termination of the primary discharge since the amount of organics in the
effluent, which produce the impact, will decrease greatly. Benthic organisms
continuously digest organics at the same rate as the organic input (up to a
point where the system is overloaded or there is not enough oxygen for them to
do so; Draft SEIS, Section 5.3.1.1). Once the input rate is reduced the
benthic co unity assimilation rate will decrease correspondingly and the
affected area should return to baseline conditions within a year or two
(Swartz et al., 1986; Oviatt et al., 1987).
The amount of toxic compounds built up in the sediments during the interim
primary discharge will take longer to reverse because it requires physical
dilution of the toxics through resuspension and redistribution of the
sediments and natural deposition. With the initiation of secondary treatment,
the amount of both solids and toxic compounds in the effluent will be
drastically reduced. As a result, the mass of toxic compounds deposited in the
sediments will be generally less than a tenth of that occurring during primary
treatment and will be well below levels known from the literature to cause
toxic adverse effects (Section 5.1.3.1.2). Thus the direct impact ceases.
The concentrations of toxics in the sediment that built up during the interim
primary discharge will begin to dimini:;h die to dilution by natural
resuspension and redistribution of the sediments. Also, the natural deposition
of background sediments will dilute concentrations eventually to levels close
to existing background conditions. The reversal rate will depend on the
frequency of resuspension events and the resulting amounts of resuspension and
redistribution. It will also depend on the amount of toxic material that was
deposited during the period of primary discharge: the longer the period of
primary discharge, the longer it will take to lower the sediment concentration
and reverse the impact.
zration of Primary Treatment
Although these interim impacts were discussed in the Draft SEIS for only a
5 year period (reflecting the current federal Court schedule), EPA has since
revisited its analysis and finds that the above discussion would still hold
true for an interim primary period longer than 5 years, should construction of
the secondary treatment plant be delayed for any reason. In fact, I WRA has
recently proposed to accelerate the schedule for construction of parts of the
secondary portion of the new treatment plant (see Chapter 5 of this document).
Literuatives
In light of the above predicted impacts, several comaentors suggested that it
would make better environmental sense to discharge the interim primary
3-15
-------
effluent through the existing outfall in President Roads rather then degrade
the area around the new outfall site. The Draft SEtS compared the impacts
from primary discharge at the existing President Roads location to the new
outfall location (Section F.2.1. ). The comparison revealed that interim
primary discharge at the new outfall location was far superior to use of the
existing President Roads location. In particular, it provided for better
shoreline protection (Hull and North Shore, Tables F.2.f and F.2.g of the
Draft SEtS) and minimized cumulative adverse impacts on Boston Harbor. Also,
the relocation of the existing discharge to the new outfall site will have a
beneficial impact on the existing conditions in the harbor.
Level of Analysis
One coentor asserted that EPA had not adequately assessed differences
between candidate outfall sites during interim primary treatment. Chapter 5 of
EPA’s Draft SEtS contains a full evaluation of the potential impacts from a
new outfall at each of the candidate sites. However, as described in
Chapter 7 of the Draft SEtS, EPA’S decision on siting of a secondary discharge
was based mainly on the potential impacts predicted at each site during
secondary treatment.
3.5 ISSUE NUMBER 5
Biological Impact/Resource Considerations
Several coc!centors were concerned that the outfall would have negative impacts
on the health of aquatic organisms including benthic organisms, endangered
species and co ercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish.
EPA Response
EPA assessed potential marine ecosystem impacts during both primary and
secondary treatment under worst case and normal conditions in the Draft SEtS.
The assessment included an evaluation of changes in sediment and water quality
as a result of the discharge, and the resultant impacts on biota
(Section 5.1.3). Sediment quality parameters examined included organic
enrichment and toxics accumulation (see Issue 415), while water column
parameters included nutrient enrichment, tozics, and dissolved oxygen (see
Issue 46, 9 and 18).
The long term impacts of secondary effluent are discussed below. Impacts to
marine organisms during the interim primary discharge period are discussed in
Issue •1$ -
Potential impacts to benthic (bottom dwelling) and higher trophic level
organisms due to organic enrichment or toxic contamination of the sediments
were assessed by comparing predicted organic and pollutant concentrations at
each proposed outfall site to threshold values. These threshold values (found
in the scientific literature) indicate levels of pollutants which will or will
not cause adverse effects. The areal extent (if any) of the impacted area was
then determined (Sections 5.1.3.1.1 and 5.1.3.1.2). Literature values used
were based on values known to cause adverse effects such as reproductive
3-’ 6
-------
impairments and disease in sensitive aquatic species. No degraded conditions
due to organic enrichment are expe ted to occur in the reco ended area while
all areas (less than 3.2 i ) of increased benthic production are
expected. Also, no adverse effects due to sediment toxic accumulation are
predicted. Therefore, no increased incidence of shellfish diseases or finrot
are predicted for marine species including recreational and comnercial
fisheries.
EPA assessed marine ecosystem impacts due to water quality changes by
predicting nutrient enrichment (Section 5.1.3.1.3), water column acute and
chronic toxicity (Section 5.1.3.1. i), and dissolved oxygen depletion
(Section 1.3.1.5) at each proposed outfall site. The methodology and results
of the nutrient enrichment predictions are discussed in Issue 018. Potential
acute and chronic toxic affects were determined by comparing predicted
concentrations of pollutants to EPA Water Quality Criteria for Protection of
Aquatic Life (U.S. EPA, 1986). These criteria are established to provide
protection to sensitive stages (such as larvae or juveniles) of sensitive
species. During secondary treatment, only mercury is expected to exceed
criteria for chronic (long-term) exposure within the recomnended area; however
this largely is due to the already high anbient levels as discussed in
Section 5.1.3.1. of the Draft SEIS. No pollutants are expected to exceed
acute (short-term) criteria. Therefore significant aquatic life community
impacts or disease would occur only in the immediate vicinity of the discharge
(see Issue 06 for further discussion on toxics).
Potential impacts due to depletion of dissolved oxygen were assessed in the
Draft SEIS by comparing predicted DO concentrations at each proposed outfall
site to the Massachusetts water quality standard for DO (6 mg/i). During
secondary treatment, DO is not predicted to violate this standard
(Section 5.1.3.1.5) and therefore no adverse effects are expected (see Issue
09 for further discussiOn on DO).
&aspended Solids and Increased Turbidity
One commentor requested that EPA discuss the impacts of suspended solids or
turbidity on light penetration and photosynthesis in the outfall area. The
expected increase in suspended solids from the discharge is expected to be
minimal and within the range of natural variability. The average background
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration ranges from approximately 1.5
to 3 mg/i (MWRA, Final STFP V, N, 1988) in Massachusetts Bay, averaging
approximately 2.2 mg/i (Section B.3.3.2). Even during worst case dilution
conditions, the maximum increase in TSS expected to occur during interim
primary and secondary treatment respectively is 0.5 to 1.1 mg/i and 0.2 to
0.6 mg/i in the reco ended outfall area. These increases in TSS will not
result in a reduction of photosynthesis or in physical burial of organisms
since they are within the range of natural variability.
Pi ing
Another commentor wanted to know why EPA showed all the proposed outfall areas
to be equally productive fishing areas, when MWRA showed Site 2 to be more
productive. Despite the fact that National Marine Fisheries Service fish
3_17
-------
landing data indicated differences between the sites, the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries (which generates the data) feels that the
movement of fishermen within the area of Sites 2, i and 5 makes differences in
fish landings indistinguishab le. Therefore EPA feels that the MWRA data was
not quantitative enough to distinguish between sites and found no evidence to
indicate that sites were significantly different from each other in terms of
fish productivity.
Didangered Species
Concern was expressed that EPA did not fully evaluate potential impacts to
endangered species, including the potential effects of the new discharge on
prey species. During preparation of the Draft SEtS, EPA consulted with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, who indicated that the proposed discharge
would not have significant adverse effects on any Federally listed threatened
or endangered species. The impact analysis for aquatic enrichaent and
toxicity (su narized above) supports a conclusion that no significant impacts
on any prey species (such as zooplankton or fish) will occur. The National
Marine Fisheries Service has not indicated a concern in this area. EPA feels
that by coordinating with the appropriate state and federal agencies on this
matter it has complied with requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the
Marine Mas al Protection Act and the National Environmental Protection Act.
Fish Histopathology, Bioaccumulation and Body &arden Studies
One coentor suggested that EPA should have used the results of the MWRA fish
histopathology, body burden and bioaccumulation studies in the Draft SEIS.
Although EPA feels that the fish histopathology and body burden studies are an
important start in developing a biological database for Massachusetts Bay, the
natural movements of winter flounder in and out of Boston Harbor limit their
usefulness for outfall siting purposes. The bioaccumulation studies also
represent a valuable monitoring tool, as shown in the success of the
international “mussel watch” program, however the studies done by MWRA were
not conclusive and could not be used to distinguish between the proposed
outfall locations.
Lobster Distributions
One coementor suggested that EPA could not fully evaluate potential impacts on
lobsters without winter distribution data. EPA acknowledges that little is
known about lobster distributions during winter. The Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries also concedes a lack of information in this regard, but
indicates that legal or near legal size lobster probably move offshore during
the fall in response to cooling coastal waters. Tagging studies in Maine and
Cape Cod indicate fall offshore and spring inshore movements. Lacking any
better information, EPA conservatively assumed that lobsters were present at
all times during the year at all proposed outfall sites.
Spawning
One cc entor suggested that the reco ended outfall location is too close to
the State regulated Winter Flounder spawning area. Winter Flounder spawning
3- 8
-------
activities occurring within the spawning closure line exhibited en
Figure 1.2.2.d of the Draft SEIS would not be subject to adverse effects from
a discharge at the recoemended outfall location. The predicted impact areas
for sediment nutrient enrichment and toxicity, or water quality toxicity and
dissolved oxygen depletion are significantly seaward of the regulated spawning
area.
Sensitive Habitats
Coements were made that the Draft SEIS did not address impacts to sensitive
habitats such as salt marshes, ud flats, submerged vegetation, Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and ocean sanctuaries. Salt marshes
and mudtlats as well as ACEC3 (including Back River and Weir River on the
South Shore and Belle Isle Marsh in Revere) are located along the shoreline
(see Figure il.2.5.F in Chapter 5 of this document). These areas will not be
affected by the discharge of primary or secondary effluent into Massachusetts
Bay since as discussed in Section 5.1.3 of the Draft SEIS, impacts due to
organic enrichment and toxic accumulation in the sediments as well as nutrient
enrichment, toxics accumulation and DO depression in the water column will be
limited to a very small area in the ismediate vicinity of the discharge and
will not significantly affect the shoreline. Another area of critical concern
in Massachusetts Bay/Boston Harbor is the South Essex Ocean Sanctuary. This
Sanctuary is located approximately 1 mile north of the reco nended outfall
location (Figure I.2.5.F in Chapter 5 of this document) and as discussed in
Section 5.1.3 of the Draft SE1S, will not be affected by the discharge since
the impacts will be limited to an area in the ismediate vicinity of the
outfall.
Benthic Impacts
Concern was raised regard inj the analysis of impacts on infaunal and
epibenthic organisms with respect to turbidity, sedimentation and depressed
DO. EPA addressed impacts due to turbidity earlier in this section. Impacts
of sedimentation and depressed DO levels are discussed in Section 5.1.3 of the
Draft SEIS. The discussion includes an analysis of both infaunal and
epifaunal benthic organisms (Sections 5.1.3.1.1 and 5.1.3.1.5).
3.6 ISSUE HUP ER 6
Tax ice
Many ocements were received relating to toxic chemical in the effluent and
their potential impacts on public health and the marine environment. These
coements have been grouped into subcategories, which are discussed below.
EPA Response
Criteria
These cosments relate to how EPA predicted exceedances of water quality
criteria for toxic chemicals, what impacts those exceedances might have and
how EPA evaluated toxic compounds for which there are no established criteria.
3-• 9
-------
In particular, one cce entor asked for clarification on the approach used to
calculate background constituent concentrations under different net drift (or
net current) scenarios. Background concentrations were considered along with
concentrations expected from the discharge and concentrations expected from
other discharges in the area (see below) to determine criteria exceedances.
Average and worst case background buildup of constituents were simulated in
the Draft SEIS. As described in Section A.2.1. ê, there are three long-term
water movement patterns in Massachusetts Bay: one when the net drift, or
actual movement of water after tidal oscillation has been filtered out, is
from the north to the south; one when the net drift is south to north; and one
when there is virtually no net movement of water and the effluent remains in
the vicinity of the discharge. Measurements indicate that each of the
conditions occur about one third of the time. As described in
Section A.3.6.3, the north to south and south to north net drift condition
produce the same background concentrations in the vicinity of the discharge.
Since these net drift conditions occur approximately two thirds of the time,
the background concentrations under these net drift conditions was termed
“average”. The no net drift condition produces the highest background
concentrations and was thus termed the “worst case”. The actual predictions
of water quality exceedances was based on a joint probability analyses which
considered the probability of occurrence of each net drift condition over
time; the use of the terms “average” and “worst case” was for presentation
purposes.
There were questions raised as to how other discharges were incorporated into
the predictions of toxic concentrations and how changes in these sources might
affect the Draft SEIS predictions. As described in Section A.3.8.3, input of
toxic compounds from other sources were addressed in two ways. The major
sources (e.g. South Essex Sewer District (SESD), Inner Harbor Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs), Lynn and Swampscott) were input directly into the model as
point sources. The projected flows and loads from each of these sources was
input to the model in a manner similar to that done for the alternative MWRA
outfall locations. Predicted concentrations in the vicinity of candidate
outfall locations were then combined with the predicted concentrations from
the MWRA discharge and background concentrations to give overall pollutant
concentrations at the edge of the outfall mixing zone. Other minor discharges
were accounted for indirectly by measuring the existing or ambient
concentration of the toxic compounds, which included input from other existing
sources. For each of the candidate outfall locations, the contributions from
the projected MWRA discharge, the other sources and the measured existing
concentrations were combined.
This approach was conservative because there was some “double counting” of
toxic concentrations. The measurement of existing concentrations contained
some contribution from existing sources including the SESD, Lynn and
Swampscott discharges and CSOs. Inputting these sources directly to the model
created some redundancy. However, the impact of these discharges is small
compared to the. MWRA discharge (mainly because the quantity of the discharges
is small compared to the MWRA discharge). Therefore, reductions in the level
of contaninants released from these other sources would not change the number
of predicted water quality exceedances, although it might slightly reduce the
severity of the exceedances. Also, when the new outfall begins to operate
3-20
-------
there will be no discharges of sludge or effluent from Nut or Deer Island so
the ambient water column concentration of some pollutants should decrease.
Because of this conservative approach it is likely that the actual
concentration at the edge of the sizing zone will be lower than’was predicted
in the Draft SEIS.
Co entors were also concerned with potential effects of effluent constituents
for which there are no established standards or criteria. It is true that
there are a number of contaminants found in the HVRA influent ror which EPA
has not established Water Quality Criteria. EPA recognizes this and has
developed a whole effluent toxicity testing procedure as part of a nationwide
toxics control program to assess the combined effects of individual effluent
constituents on marine organisms. Such test were performed on the primary and
mocked up secondary effluents as part of the tIWRA Final STFP (V X, 1988) and
are discussed below and in Chapters 6 and 7.
There was concern expressed over the potential for synergistic or cumulative
effects of the numerous constituents of the effluent. The whole effluent
toxicity tests mentioned above fully address the potential for synergistic
toxicity. The Draft SEIS addressed each constituent individually for each
alternative outfall location (Section A.3.8.3). This analysis showed that at
least for primary effluent there was some potential for aquatic life toxicity
from the single compound concentrations of copper, heptachlor, DDT, mercury
and PCB. However, the whole effluent toxicity testing (MWRA, Final STFP V,
BB, 1988) demonstrated that, even given these predicted exceedances, the
effluent as a whole will not have toxic effects at the predicted dilution in
the recc ended area.
S
There were several concerns raised over the predicted exceedances of water
quality criteria. Comsentors asked how EPA could allow a discharge that could
result in any water quality exceedances. EPA feels that the proposed action
is fully consistent with the nationwide Water Quality Criteria Goals
established by EPA (U.S. EPA, 1986). The predicted exceedances during the
interim primary discharge are discussed in Issue • . During secondary
effluent discharge, the only predicted aquatic life exceedance is for mercury,
which is only marginally above the criteria. EPA does not feel that this one
limited exceedance prevents the proposed action from attaining the goals set
forth in the water quality criteria. As indicated above, whole effluent
toxicity testing for both primary and secondary effluents indicate no toxic
affects to marine life, even during the most restrictive dilution scenarios
(such as er stratified conditions). Except for arsenic and PCBs, where
the ambient concentrations produce exceedances, there are no public health
criteria •xceedances at the 1 in 100,000 risk level. Since these are due, to
ambient conditions, outfall siting cannot eliminate the predicted
violations. Compliance with water quality goals La an important objective for
the management of MWRA wastewater. As described above, EPA feels that the
recomoended plan meets these goals. However, as discussed in Chapter 7,
continued monitoring, analysis and reevaluation of potential ezceedances are
necessary to maintain consistency with the Water Quality Criteria.
One co entor indicated that, in cases where background levels of contaninants
exceed EPA Water Quality Criteria (such as PCBs and Arsenic), the HWRA
3-21
-------
discharge should not be required merely to meet existing ambient levels. EPA
shares the comentors concern about the level of these constituents in the
ambient water and has no intention of adopting ambient levels as “revised”
criteria. Although a study of the causes of the high ambient levels is beyond
the scope of this SEIS, EPA is requiring MWRA to conduct a Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation in art effort to minimize MWRA’s contribution to the problem
(Chapter 7). EPA does not believe, though, that such an evaluation would
affect the outfall siting decision.
Co ents were made that EPA over-estimated the concentrations of PCBs and
pesticides at the edge of the mixing zone since the analytical detection limit
or measurements made 10 years ago was used to represent the actual
concentration of these constituents in the effluent (in lieu of better
data). EPA has consistently used a conservative approach throughout its
analyses in order to insure a margin of safety in all of its predictions (see
Issue #13). The actual concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in the effluent
are less than the detection limit and therefore the actual concentrations at
the edge of the mixing zone will likely be less than that predicted, however,
EPA maintains a policy of conservativeness in its assumptions and predictions
whenever possible and therefore feels the use of detection limit
concentrations is appropriate.
One cc tentor suggested that EPA used inaccurate PCB effluent concentrations
in its prediction of water quality. EPA maintains that the PCB effluent
concentrations used in its predictions were appropriate. HWRA collected PCB
data in the fall of 1986 and spring of 1987 using a detection limit of
0.0005 mg/i for Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 12 2, and 1248 and a detection
limit of 0.001 mg/i for Aroclors 1254 and 1260. PCBs were not detected using
these detection limits. In 1984 PWC surveys, Aroclors 1254 and 1260 were not
detected in the whole effluent using a detection limit of 0.00004 mg/i. These
isomers were detected in the concentrated solids of the effluent at levels two
to three orders of magnitude l’ower than the 1242 Aroclor. It is unlikely that
either of these isomers would be detected in the 1986-87 whole effluent
surveys using a detection limit 25 times higher. Since the PCB detected in
the 1984 whole effluent was exclusively Aroclor 1242, EPA believes it is
appropriate to use the lower detection limit of 0.0005 mg/i for the SEIS
analysis.
One cc entor requested clarification on the impact of mercury on the mysid
shrimp life cycle. The EPA criterion for protection of aquatic life from
mercury is 1.9 ug/l for acute exposure and 0.10 ug/l ror chronic exposure.
According to U.S. EPA (1985c), mean acute values range rrem 3.5 ug/l for a
mysid shrimp to 1680 ugh for winter flounder. In general, shrimp and other
related organisms appear to be more sensitive than fish to acute toxic effects
of mercury. In a life cycle experiment with mysid shrimp where the mysid
shrimp were exposed to mercury for several generations, inorganic mercury at a
concentration of 1.6 ug/l significantly influenced the period of first brood,
time of first spawn and productivity (U.S. EPA, 1985c); however, no acute
effects were observed. This concentration (1.6 ug/l) is an order of magnitude
higher than that predicted at the edge of the mixing zone.
3-22
-------
Concern has been raised over potential organoleptic (taste and smell) criteria
exceedances as a result of the outfall discharge. K JRA (STFP V.A 1988)
predicted that the NWRA discharge may approach or exceed organoleptic criteria
for 2,iI—dichlorophenel at all sites based on comparison of the analytical
detection limit with a 50:1 dilution to the criteria of 0.3 ugh. This is a
very conservative estimate since it is based on the detection limit
concentration of the compound and the actual concentration in the water column
will likely be less. Therefore it is unlikely that 2, —dichlorophenOl will
have a significant effect on the taste and smell of seafood.
Public Health
There was concern expressed by one commentor that the arsenic criteria used
was not appropriate because arsenic is not carcinogenic in fish flesh, whereas
another commentor felt EPA had too readily negated the potential carcinogenic
effects of arsenic. There was also a question on the areal extent of the
potential carcinogenicity risk. The carcinogenicity criteria used to compare
candidate outfall locations and predict public heath effects (Section A.3.8.3)
were specifically developed for evaluating surface water discharges. The
criteria were based on a life-time consumption of fish which have reached
equilibrium with the predicted water column pollutants (Section A.3.8). EPA
acknowledges that there is conflicting evidence in the literature on the
potential for human health effects from arsenic in the marine environment and
this is discussed in the Draft SEIS (Section 5.1. .2). Discharge of secondary
effluent from the recommended location will not significantly increase the
area of risk beyond the mixing zone. As discussed above the only compounds
predicted to exceed public health criteria are compounds that already
s 4 gniflcantly exceed criteria in the ambient waters. The ambient waters will
cintinue to exceed the criteria well beyond the mixing zone and the area of
exceedance will not be altered by a discharge in the recommended area.
In light of the recently reported potential for public health risk from
consuming fish and shellfish from Quincy Bay, a commentor asked why EPA was
predicting no public health risk from PCB contaminated sediments at the new
outfall site. EPA does not feel that the predicted PCB concentrations in the
sediments at the recommended outfall location are comparable to those in
Quincy Bay. The predicted long-term maximum concentrations from a secondary
discharge were conservatively predicted to be less than 0.3 ug/g in the
iediate vicinity of the outfall and much less (less than 0.1 ug/g) outside
of the mixing zone (Section B.3.5). These predicted values are 3 to 13 times
lower than the measured concentrations in Quincy Bay (maximum of 1.7 ug/g)
where high concentrations of PCBs in the hepatopancreas (tamalley) of lobsters
have been reported (U.S. EPA, 1988b).
Concern has also been raised regarding the potential health risk from PCBs in
the water column. EPA based its analysis of water coli public health
impacts consistency with EPA Human Health Water Quality Criteria
(Section A.3.8 for a description of these criteria). EPA has acknowledged
that, even though existing levels of PCBs already exceed the criterion, PCBs
in the HWRA effluent may contribute to potential impacts and therefore
recommends continued PCB monitoring and better source control (see Chapter 7).
3-23
-------
One coentor suggested that the Federal Food and Drug administration (FDA)
limit of 2 ppm PCB in fish tissue (as sited in Draft SEIS) is too high a level
to protect human health and a value of 0.5 ppm may be more appropriate. EPA
did not based its analysis of public health impacts on the FDA limit but
rather on U.S. EPA Water Quality Criteria for Protection of Human Health. The
criteria for PCB in the water column is 0.79 ng/g for a I in 100,000 risk of
cancer. This criteria is based on an average bioaccumulation factor for PCBs
in fish and shellfish of 31,200 (U.S. EPA, 1980). If this concentration
factor is applied to the predicted water column concentration of 9.2 vigIl (at
Site 4 under secondary treatment), the resultant fish tissue concentration
would be 0.3 ppm. This concentration is lower than the FDA’s Level as well as
the co entor’s suggested level for fish tissue concentration.
A coentor relt that because the Draft SEtS did not report a chronic toxicity
value for copper that this potential impact was not addressed in the
document. EPA did address chronic or long term toxicity of copper in the
Draft SEtS. The Water Quality Criteria, include only a criterion for short
term or acute toxicity of copper. This is because in the marine environment,
protection of aquatic life from short term effects due to exposure to copper
is also adequate to protect from chronic effects.
Bioacc ulation
Several comneritors felt that the SEtS should specifically address
bloaccumulation of toxic compounds in light of the bioaccumu]ation studies
done by HWRA. EPA feels that the potential effects of bioaccumulation were
thoroughly and analytically addressed in the Draft SEtS. Bioaccumulation can
produce impacts in two distinct areas: ecosystem effects and public health.
Each of these are discussed below.
When a compound is present is the water column or sediments, the organisms
will accumulate the compound to some degree. When the environmental
concentration becomes high enough the organisms will accumulate levels that
impair some essential life process (e.g. respiration or reproduction). At
these levels ecosystem Impacts result. The water quality criteria (for water
column exposure) and literature values presented in the Draft SEtS (for
sediment exposure) are established to define levels where bioaccumulation
could have some ecosystem effect. Since the aquatic life criteria will not be
exceeded (except for mercury as discussed in Chapter 4) from a discharge at
the recoemended area, no significant ecosystem impacts are anticipated.
The public health criteria are also established to prevent bioaccumulation to
a level that results in fish tissue concentrations which would be potentially
hazardous to public health if the fish were consumed by humans. The projected -
concentrations of all effluent constituents were compared to the public health
criteria (Sections 5.1.4.2 and A.3.8.3). As described in the Draft SEtS the
potential for public health impacts, including those resulting from
bioaccumulation, were minimal and acceptable at the recoemended location.
One coementor questioned why toxicity and bioaccumulation within the mixing
zone was not assessed. It is not necessary to evaluate toxicity and
bioaccumulation within the mixing zone. EPA acknowledges that adverse
3-2U
-------
environmental effects will be occur within the ini ediate area where effluent
mixing takes place. This mixing is confined to an area within approximately
500 feet of the diffuser and therefore is considered relatively small, hence
the extent of such impacts would be relatively inconsequential. Acute
toxicity and bloaccumulation beyond the mixing zone were evaluated in detail
in the Draft SEIS.
Sediments
There was a camaent that the sediment analysis, including accumulation and
reversibility, should be performed for aidrin, heptachlor, DDT and bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. As discussed in Section of the Draft SEIS,
the sediment accumulation analysis was performed for all constituents of
concern, including those cited by the co entora. The results are presented
for primary effluent in Tables B.3.c and d. The only results presented for
secondary effluent are for the compounds demonstrating a potential problem
from primary effluent (Tables B.3.a and b), which includes any which might be
problematic during a secondary discharge. The sediment concentration
reversibility was built into the analysis by allowing the deposition from a
primary discharge to build up for five years and then be diluted with
background sedimentation and resuspension (Section B.3.1 ). The reversibility
of sediment impacts are evidenced in the predicted concentrations after five
years of a secondary discharge.
3.7 ISSUE NU) ER 7
Cost
Some commentors chargec that EPA’s outfall siting decision was based on cost,
not on environmental considerations and thus, the outfall was not being sited
further from shore because it,yould be too expensive. It was suggested that a
cost/benefit analysis be performed to weigh the benefits of a longer outfall
with its cost.
Other ca entors remarked that too much burden is being placed on the
ratepayers and that the combination of secondary treatment and a short outfall
(such as the current outfall location or a site closer to shore than the
reco ended area) would have acceptable environmental impacts.
EPA kespanse
Cost was a secondary consideration in the evaluation of the proposed outfall
sites and was not used to rule out any sites. The Draft SEIS determined that
costs increased approximately linearly with increasing distance rrom shore
from sites 2 to 6, with no abrupt changes in cost tram site to site (Draft
SEIS, Appendix F). As a result, there was no cut-oft point where cost could
appropriately be used to rule out sites from consideration.
EPA’s primary consideration in siting the outfall was finding a site that me
the environmental decision criteria established in the Draft SEIS. The
outfall siting process was conducted in two steps: preliminary screening
followed by detailed evaluation. During the screening step EPA identified
3-25
-------
3 sites which appeared to have suitable environmental characteristics. Had
none of these sites met the pre-established environmental criteria after
detailed evaluation, the initial screening process would have been
re-evaluated and other potentially suitable outfall locations (including
Site 6) would have been investigated. However, Sites 14 and 5 (the recoended
area) did meet the decision criteria and therefore no additional iteration of
the siting process was conducted.
Cost — Benefit Analysis
The premise behind the suggestion to conduct a cost/benefit analysis is that
the loss of resources within Massachusetts Bay and along its shoreline due to
impacts from the outfall would outweigh the increased construction cost of a
longer outfall. EPA’s draft SEIS concludes that no long-term adverse impacts
to the Massachusetts Bay ecosystem and shoreline will octur as a result of the
new outfall sited within the reconmended area. In addition, extending the
outfall beyond the reconmended area offers no perceivable additional
environmental benefit (Draft SEIS Section 7.1 and Appendix F, also see
Issue #1). Thus a cost-benefit analysis was not necessary.
On the other hand, EPA has determined that siting the outfall any nearer to
shore (at a lower cost) than the reconmended area would not be environmentally
acceptable (Draft SEIS, Section 7.1.1). In particular, a more shoreward
outfall location would not adequately protect shorelines, would result in
violations of the Massachusetts Dissolved Oxygen water quality standard, and
would negatively impact the Boston Harbor ecosystem. By siting the outfall in
the reconmiended area, EPA feels it is receiving the optimal environmental
benefit per dollar spent.
Diffuser Cost
It was noted that a wide variation in costs exists for diffuser construction,
specifically for diffusers constructed at Sites 14, 14.5, 5 and 6. Diffuser
construction cost increases with the diameter, the depth of water at the
discharge site and the average riser length (through bedrock and overburden
soil) of the diffuser. As susmarized below, at Site 14.5, the average riser
length is significantly less (185 feet) than the riser lengths at Sites 14 and
5, (220 and 235 feet, respectively) while the tunnel diameters and the depths
of water at all three sites are similar (Table 3.1). The difference in cost
between a diffuser at Site 14.5 versus one at either Site 14 or 5, is therefore
related to the average riser lengths of the diffusers.
A diffuser at Site 6 would require a slightly larger inside diameter and would
be in significantly deeper waters than would a diffuser at Site 5. While this
suggests that the cost of a diffuser at Site 6 would be higher than at Site 5,
there is sparse seismic data available to characterize the geologic conditions
at Site 6. Therefore, the construction cost of a diffuser at Site 6 was
estimated to be approximately equal to the cost of a diffuser at Site 5.
3-26
-------
TABLE 3.1 KPARIS0N OF DIFFUSER CHARACTERISTICS
Location
Inside Diffuser
Diameter
(feet)
Depth
(feet)
Average
Riser Length
(feet)
Diffuser
Cost
(million dollars)
Site 2
22
75
210
125
Site 2.5
23
90
170
117
Site 3
23
65
170
123
Site 3.5
2
85
215
l I5
Site
2
90
220
1 1
Site 1 .5
2
95
185
129
Site 5
25
100
235
1 5
Site 6
26
150
NA
1l 5
NA — Seismic
data not available.
3.8 ISSUE NUMBER 8
Engineering Considerations
EPA received a number of co xnents and questions related to various engineering
considerations of the project, such as treatment plant design and operating
parameters, and tunnel and diffuser design and construction.
EPA Response
The analyses and reco=endations made in th? Draft SEIS are based on sound
engineering and technical judgement, consistent with the level of information
available, and reflect current engineering practices. Individual
questions/co ents are addressed below.
Treatment Plant Flows and Loads
There were several coes ents that the wastewater flows and pollutant loads
projected for the treatment plant design did not account for input from
Combined Sewer Overflows. (CSOs), expansion of the NWRA service area or
incomplete secondary treatment during high flows. lithough the treatment plant
design was not the subject of the Draft SEIS, design parameters and
assumptions translate directly to effluent quality predictions and therefore
EPA reviewed the treatment plant design to ensure that all effluent quality
scenarios were accounted Nr.
The effluent quality values used in the Draft SEIS were calculated by
combining the influent sampling results (NWRA Draft STFP, III, B and L, 1987)
with predicted pollutant removal rates. The removal rates used in the Draft
SEIS were generally consistent with removal rates found at other similar
plants, except as noted below for high flows.
3-27
-------
The treatment plant is designed to handle all the flows that can get through
the sewer system to Deer Island, including an allowance for CSO’s and
population growth through the year 2020. Any substantial future increase in
the MWRA service area, either as the result of further population growth or
the addition of new towns or cities to the MWRA system, might be accoiodated
up to the carrying capacity of the sewers themselves, or through decreases in
the amount of infiltration and inflow (leakage into the sewers) currently
planned HWRA. However, expansion would be inconsistent with HWRA’s enabling
legislation and with the MWRA Board of Director’s stated intentions regarding
future flows and load increases to the facilities. Future increases in
wastewater flows in the greater Boston area beyond the carrying capacity of
the sewers will have to be addressed independently from the treatment plant,
and would be subject to separate environmental review at that time.
The new secondary facilities will be designed for a flow of 1080 mgd (million
gallons per day). During peak non-storm days, flows are projected to be less
than 1080 mgd, and therefore all flows will receive secondary treatment.
During storm days, when flows are over 1080 mgd, the balance of the flows (up
to the 1270 mgd maximum capacity) will receiveonly primary treatment. The
water quality analysis in the Draft SEIS accounted for this possibility and
included the mixed primary — secondary scenario in the water quality analysis.
One co m entor took exception to EPA’s statement on page H-27 of the Draft SEIS
that the treatment plant would be highly stressed under peak flow and load
conditions (based on review of the data presented in Table 11-13-12 of
Volume 111 of the MWRA Draft STEP). Table 3.2 shows some treatment plant
operating conditions under average and high flow conditions:
TABLE 3.2 TREAT) NT PLANT OPERATING COWDITIONS
Average Day
Maximum Day
Storm Day
Flow, mgd
390
950
1,080
BOD to Secondary,
(lb/d)
£ 08,O00
886,000
960,000
F/H LVSS
0.7
1.1$
1.5
HRT, hr
18
1.0
0.9
Clarifier overflow
(gpd/ft 2 )
1 37
-
1,986
1,211
As can be seen, peak loading conditions are significantly higher (100 to
150 percent) above average loadings and are at the upper limits of loadings
used for pure oxygen systems reference. The pilot plant scheduled to operate
during the secondary design phase will provide the best test of performance
capability under the full range of treatment plant operating conditions.
3-28
-------
One co entor questioned the value of 7 mgd for CSO flow given on page 6-2 of
the Draft SEIS. This value was obtained rrcm I1VRA Draft STFP V, A (1987),
page -89. However on page 1-85 of the same volume, the value for Boston
CSO’s and atormuater is given as approximately 28 mad, which is a more
realistic value. The value for CSO flows on page 6—2 should have read 28 mad;
this value was used by both Pf JRA and EPA for water quality modeling.
Trea ent Plant Operation
One co entor pointed out that it is unlikely that zinc will cause a process
upset at the concentrations expected based on the MWRA sampling program. Based
on a review of publications, EPA agrees (VPCF, 1977 and Public Health Service,
1965).
Some ccementors requested that EPA conduct a comparative analysis of
disinfection alternatives. A detailed analysis of disinfection is outside the
scope of this SEIS. However, HWRA performed such an analysis in Volume III of
the Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan and concluded that purchased sod1un
hypochlorite (chlorine) disinfection was the preferred alternative for primary
and secondary treatment because it provided the best combination of cost and
long-term reliability. Ozonation was judged the least reliable in that there
is a risk that the coliform standards (and hence satisfactory disinfection)
would not be met during periods of high storm flows. Ultraviolet light
disinfection was considered acceptable but less desirable because of historic
operational problems and lack of process control. EPA reviewed this analysis
and concurs.
Tunnel and Diffuser Design
Cc entors were concerned that a deep rock tunnel of the leng h proposed
represents new technology and that unforseen problems could arise during
tunnel construction or operation. EPA acknowledges that construction of a
tunnel of this length carries inherent risks. However, shorter bored bedrock
tunnels (of the type recommended) have been successfully constructed
elsewhere. It will be difficult to construct an outfall to reach the
recommended discharge area no matter what technology is employed, and the
analysis performed by HWRA (Final STFP V, 1988) and reviewed by EPA indicates
that a deep rock tunnel is the best alternative. EPA’s recommended mitigation
(Final SEIS Chapter 7) includes measures such as hydrodynamic modeling of the
tunnel system and extensive geotechnical investigations before finalizing the
outfall design. These additional investigations should reduce the uncertainty
related to tunnel design.
Questions were raised regarding the outfall diffuser design, including its
orientation to the current and its potential impact on fishing activities.
The Draft SEIS raises the possibility of modifying the proposed orientation of
the diffuser to maximize dispersion by placing the diffuser perpendicular to
the prevailing ambient current (Section A.3.3.2). Although this could be
beneficial, it is not a requirement and would be secondary to such other
orientation considerations as geotechnical conditions and bathymetry. However
if continued monitoring of currents reveals a persistent and dominant east —
west component to the current (as discussed in the Draft SEIS), a north —
3-29
-------
south alignment for the diffuser should be considered it it can be
accomplished within other constraints.
As discussed in the Draft SEIS there is the potential for bottom fishing
activities to conflict with the individual diffuser risers
(Section 5.1.5.2). To minimize the potential for conflict, consideration to
fishing will be given during final design of the diffuser structures (Final
SEIS Chapter 7).
Suggestions were made that alternative tunnel configurations (such as multiple
headings) and diffuser configurations should be considered. EPA sees no
advantage to constructing the outfall tunnel from multiple headings
simultaneously. Such a process would necessitate constructing a new island or
enlarging an existing one, which would have cost implications and
environmental impacts. The only potential advantage would be to reduce the
construction time of the tunnel but as discussed in Issue •i , the current
schedule calls for completion of a single heading tunnel to coincide with the
completion of the treatment plant and diffuser.
EPA did consider alternative diffuser configurations. As discussed in
Section A.3.3.2 of the Draft SEIS, the current meter data seems to indicate
that a diffuser oriented approximately 900 to the tunnel axis could provide
additional initial dilution. The Draft SEIS suggested (Section A.3.3.2) that
such an orientation for the diffuser should be given consideration during
design. Other configurations such as a branched or radial diffuser design are
not efficient because the plumes from the individual ports overlap and
entrainment of dilution water is reduced.
3.9 ISSUE NUMBER 9
Dissolved Oxygen
There were several question on specific values and assumptions used in the
prediction of dissolved oxygen (DO) deficits, including questions on sediment
resuspension, DO concentrations used in the analyses and the vertical
distribution of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Some comentors felt that
the DO conditions predicted by EPA did not represent a problem at any
candidate outfall site, others felt that DO was a major problem at every site.
EPA Response
EPA evaluated the amount of dissolved oxygen expected in the receiving waters
as a result of the discharge of effluent at each of the candidate outfall
sites for the full range of oceanographic conditions using the mathematical
models TEA and EL.A (Draft SEIS Sections 5.1.1.5 and *.3.8). The evaluation
included consideration of both unstratified conditions, which generally occurs
from October to June when the effluent is mixed over the entire water column,
and aumer stratified conditions when the effluent is confined to the lower
layer and the effluent Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is exerted only in the
bottom portion of the water column. The DO concentrations resulting from the
combined effects of effluent discharge and resuspension of deposited effluent
particles were also evaluated in the Draft SEtS.
3-30
-------
The minimum DO concentrations predicted in the vicinity of the discharge were
compared to the Massachusetts Water Quality Standard of 6 mg/i. No DO
violations are predicted to occur at the recommended outfall location dung
secondary treatment. Where predicted DO values were below the standard during
interim primary treatment the ecosystem effects of the low DO concentrations
were evaluated in light of the expected magnitude and duration of the
violations.
Sediment Oxygen Demand
One commentor suggested that EPA evaluate the contribution of a s er
phytoplankton bloom to any sediment oxygen demand. The analysis of
resuspended solids oxygen demand was conducted by calculating the quantity of
effluent solids (and the BOD associated with those particles) deposited during
a theoretical quiescent 90 day summer period (Draft SEIS Section 5.1.3.1.5).
The BOD from resuspension of the deposited particles was then combined with
the BOD from the discharge to produce a total DO deficit and resulting DO
concentration in the receiving waters. This analysis was confined to effluent
solids. It is likely that at least in the immediate vicinity of the outfall
the effluent would stimulate phytoplankton production (Draft SEIS
Section 5.1.3.1.3) and that the phytoplankton cells could contribute to the
accumulated solids. This was considered in the Draft SEIS, but was not
included in the DO evaluation for the reasons described below.
Fall or late summer is the most likely period when a resuspension event could
produce water column DO impacts. Consequently, for phytoplankton cells to
contribute to sediment DO demand, those cells would have to accumulate during
the summer. Summer is the most active period for benthic animal and bacterial
growth, and they have been shown to assimilate all the freshly deposited
phytoplankt.on plus any unused phytoplankton material deposited during the
spring and winter (Doering and Oviatt, 1986; Doering et. al., 1986; Rudnick,
1986). Therefore any increased summer phytoplankton production from the
discharge would be respired by the benthos and not available to contribute to
BOD tram a resuspension event.
DO Violations During Primary Treatment
Commentors were also concerned that, as predicted in EPA’s 301(h) waiver
analysis, sediment resuspension events during the interim primary period could
cause violations of the Massachusetts DO standard of 6 mg/i. This is true,
and is echoed in the Draft SEtS (Section 5.1.3.1.5). However, as discussed
further in Issue •3, the extent of such violations within the recommended
outfall location will not cause adverse impacts to the marine ecosystem.
1 ter Col DO Concentrations
Same commentors felt the ambient late ii. en/fall DO concentration of 6.5 mg/i
used in the Draft SEtS analysis (Section A.3.6. 4. and 5.1.1.7) was too low.
Others felt that ambient waters were already below the 6 mall standard and
thus any discharge would worsen the violation. The choice of the ambient
value used, described in Section 5.1.1.7.1 of the Draft SEtS, was based on a
full review of all DO data available. Values were selected for various
3_31
-------
scenarios which EPA determined best represented the general conditions being
simulated. Two sets of data (September, 1986 and Fall, 1987) indicated
ambient DO levels slightly below 6.0 mg/i. The Fall 1987 data was later
discounted due to questions about instrument calibration and quality assurance
(MWRA Final STFP V , A, 1988). However the value of 6.5 mg/i used in the EPA
analysis was based on a compilation of data and it is consistent with the
ambient DO value used in the 301h waiver evaluation.
Some eocnentors misunderstood the use of vertical averaging of DO
concentrations in the Draft SEIS. The Draft SEIS (Section 5.1.1.5) evaluated
both stratified and non-stratified conditions. Under non-stratified
conditions it is appropriate to vertically average the DO deficit because the
water column is totally mixed, which accomplishes vertical averaging. Under
stratified conditions, EPA’s computer model isolated the bottom water layer
and did not mix the DO deficit between the top and bottom layers. The deficit
was applied only within the bottom layer, to account for mixing within the
lower layer.
A comment was made that DO data was misstated in the Draft SEIS. The Draft
SEIS states that water quality data collected in September, 1986 indicated DO
concentrations in the lower layer ranging from 5.9 mg/i to 6.8 mg/i.
Reexamination of the September 1 , 1986 transect data indicates that bottom
DOs can be as low as 5.5 mg/i in the Site 2 areas. Except for this
measurement, the lowest DO measurement for this period (5.9 mg/i) was
approximately 1 000 feet inshore of Site 11. The recognition of the lower DO
values at Site 2 only strengthens the Draft SEtS recommendation to eliminate
Site 2 and they do not affect the outfall siting recommendation.
DO Concentration in Effluent
There was a comment that EPAs assumption that there would be no DO in the
effluent was too conservative. While EPA acknowledges that it is likely there
will be DO in the effluent at most times, during periods of low effluent flow
(and thus longer travel time in the outfall tunnel) there could be an oxygen
demand exerted in the outfall tunnel which could substantially lower the
effluent DO. Because no other data was available, EPA used the conservative
value of 0 mg/i for effluent DO.
3.10 ISSUE NUMBER 10
Editorial C ent.
Several comments were recetved that resulted in editorial changes to the Draft
SEIS. These changes include corrections or additions to the Draft, or further
explanation of Tables or Figures contained in the Draft. These comments are
addressed in Chapter 5 of this Final SEtS, where revisions to the Draft are
enumerated.
3-32
-------
3.11 ISSUE NU) ER 11
Monitorthg/Mitigatton
EPA received varied coements on the types of monitoring and mitigation
activities that should be conducted by WVRA to offset potential impacts from
the new discharge. In general, co entors were in agreement that a monitoring
program ehould be developed, particularly for toxics and PCBs, and that it
should include sampling of water, sediments and aquatic organisms. Also,
coomentors agreed that stringent pretreatment or source reduction requirements
be imposed to limit the amount of toxics entering the sewer System. Some
co entors suggested that a pretreatment or source reduction program should be
based on the results of the monitoring program. That is, that the level of
constituents found to be of concern after monitoring be reduced through
pretreatment or source reduction. On a different matter, one coomentor
suggested that EPA establish time frames for diffuser dredging which could
minimize impact to marine organisms.
EPA Response
EPA agrees that a monitoring program is necessary to better establish baseline
conditions at the recor xnended outfall location and to determine marine impacts
after startup of the discharge. EPA also agrees t.hat source
reduction/pretreatment could result not only in a lessening of potential
outfall impacts, but also a lessening of the amount of toxics in sludge and
therefore impacts from sludge treatment or disposal. These issues are
discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.
S
In relation to dredging, EPA believes that the coement was geared toward the
construction of a pipe diffuser (which would require significant dredging) and
that EPA’s new recocsnended plan to construct a drilled riser diffuser will in
itself minimize dredging impacts. This issue is further discussed in
Chapters 1 , 6 and 7.
3.12 ISSUE NUMBER 12
Use and Accuracy of Models
Water quality and sediment models were used extensively in the Draft SEIS,
both to compare alternative outfall locations and to predict impacts resulting
from the effluent discharge. Co entors expressed concern about the accuracy
of the model predictions and the extent to which the models were used to make
decisions.
!PA Reapomse
EPA endeavored in its Draft SEIS to predict and evaluate the potential impacts
of the new discharge as accurately as possible. This required a multi—faceted
approach to impact analysis, including (1) a review of the results of recent
laboratory and mesocosm (miniature ecosystem) experiments on the fate and
effects of wastewater in the marine environment, (2) an analysis of the
operations of other wastewater treatment plants and the impacts of their
3-33
-------
discharges, (3) identification of the habitats of various types of marine life
in Massachusetts Bay, (JI) a literature review of the direct impacts of
pollutants on marine life, and the indirect impacts on marine habitats, and
(5) computer modelling to predict future water quality and sediment conditions
resulting from the new discharge. The models used represent state of the art
tools for simulating oceanographic conditions.
Three separate water quality models (one near-field model and 2 far-field
models) and a sediment quality model were utilized. The near-field model
(called ULINE) predicts initial dilution of the effluent near the outfall.
The far—field models (called TEA/ELA and Transient Plume Model) predict the
larger scale transport and physio-bio—chemical processes that the effluent
undergoes (see below for more information). Lastly, the sediment quality
model predicts levels of pollutants in the sediments due to deposition of
effluent solids and mixing with background sediments.
EPA utilized computer models because they are the best prediction tools
available. Even though the use of these models contributed greatly to EPA’s
analysis of water quality impacts, they did not dictate the outfall siting
decision. EPA drew on its national experience with the operation of municipal
wastewater treatment plants and their outfalls to predict impacts from the new
outfall, and considered other factors such as cost, construction duration and
materials disposal in making the outfall decision.
Model Accuracy and Calibration
Generally, models are fitted to specific applications by a calibration
process. For the far-field model TEA/ELA, this was accomplished in the Draft
SEIS by adjusting model, parameters to simulate measured data which represented
a wide variety of hydrodynamic and water quality conditions in the
Massachusetts Bay system. The nearfield model ULINE was calibrated with
laboratory data. There was not appropriate information available to fully
calibrate the other models, so the structure of the models and the assumptions
that were used to develop the model inputs were very conservative to provide a
margin of safety (see Issue •13).
Model Coverage
In order to ensure that the models would predict the full range of potential
impacts, EPA developed scenarios which incorporated various combinations of
oceanographic (i.e. current speed or stratification) and treatment plant
operational (i.e. flows or pollutant loads) conditions. Over a hundred such
scenarios were modeled for each proposed outfall location, including “worst
case” scenarios. For example, in the extreme event analysis, the worst wind
conditions found over a 15 year period of record were used to model shoreline
transport.
Also, the TEA and ELA models used by EPA represent the most highly resolved
grids ever developed for study of Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay
hydrodynamics and water quality. This spacial coverage and resolution was
more than enough to predict steady state conditions (Draft SEIS,
Section A.f). All reasonable oceanographic conditions (i.e., north to south
3-3U
-------
net drift, eouth to north net drift and no net drift stratified and none
stratified) were modeled. If greater net drifts occur than were modeled, the
fart ield dilution would increase and conditions would be better than
predicted. Therefore, the temporal coverage was conservative and provided a
margin or environmental safety.
There is general agreement that the existing data set used as input for the
models accounts for the range of tidal variations expected throughout the
year. More variable, however, are the seasonal differences in net drift (or
currents). Sampling during the spring and si er of 1987 revealed three
general boundary tilt scenarios, as discussed above. These occur roughly over
equivalent lengths of time. Although more recent sampling in the fall/winter
period at the recomoended outfall location indicated differences In the
frequency of currents of various directions, the direction of movement and
more importantly, the magnitude of the movement are within the range of
conditions found in the Spring/Susxner sampling. Thus, the model operating
assumptions are generally cover the range of year round conditions at the
candidate outfall sites.
Surface Gravity Waves
A co xnentor felt that the effects of surface gravity waves should have been
included in EPA’s analysis. The velocities associated with surface gravity
waves are orbital, with a period much lower than the time scale of any of the
phenomena considered in the models. These velocities do not lead to any net
transport of any constituent, except very close to the shore. One effect that
surface gravity waves could have on the distribution of pollutants from the
effluent is to intrease their dispersion, which, in general, would tend to
recuce c,ncentrations from those predicted in the Draft SEIS. The effect of
gravity waves in resuspending sediments was considered in the analyses.
Open Boundary Measurements
Some coentors questioned the adequacy of the open boundary measurements used
in the model. The open boundary used was the line between Gloucester and
Provincetown. Tidal gauges were monitored at each end of this line for
approximately 6 months. Since the model only simulates the daily tide
(semi-diurnal occurance) only one lunar month of tidal data to define the
range of ocean boundary conditions but almost three aonths of data were used
to determine boundary conditions. Tide gauge measurements at intermediate
stations along the model open ocean boundary between Cape Ann and Cape Cod
would have better resolved the angle and velocity of the tidal currents
entering Massachusetts Bay, however the influence of these variations along
the boundary, which is far removed fron the candidate discharge sites, would
likely not be significant with regard to currents and background build up of
pollutants at these sites.
Friction Coefficient
One co entor felt that the bottom friction coefficient used to calibrate the
model was unrealistically high. The lower friction factor used by MWRA
resulted in predicted tidal ellipses at Site 5 which did not accurately match
3-35
-------
actual tidal ellipses. Although the friction value of 0.1 used by EPA is very
high, the model predicted ellipses which closely matched those measured (see
Draft SEIS Section A.3.6.2 and Attachment A.6). The stated goal of the
hydrodynamic modeling was to produce currents for use in the water quality
transport modeling that were similar to actual currents and adjustment of the
friction coefficient achieved this objective.
Freshwater Inputa
Some co entors felt that freshwater flows from the Merrimack River should be
directly input to the model. The foremost effect of large freshwater inflows
is to produce vertical salinity stratification, and this was included in the
model. Also, the natural background contaminant concentrations included those
pollutants contributed by the Merrimack River and other freshwater flows.
Residual currents from freshwater inflows are very small. They were, however,
included in the current meter measurements and, as such, were used for model
calibration and evaluation.
Joint Probability
A conentor questioned the independence of the factors used in the joint
probability analysis. The parameters used were current speed, stratification,
discharge flow rate, and discharge loading. All possible combinations of
these parameters, except flow rate and loading, are independent. At high flow
rates, the loading can increase and the Draft SEIS (Section H.3) accounts for
this for flows greater than 1000 MCD by assuming decreased treatment plant
efficiency (see Issue 18). At flow rates between about 600 MCD and 1000 MCD,
there could be some dependence of flow and loads that was not accounted for in
the modeling. However, these effects would be very small and should not
effect the overall analysis.
Modeling of Lower Layer
A coaDent was made that the limitations of modeling the lower water layer
should be discussed in particular the assumption that the pyonocline is
horizontal. Some of the vertical density profiles gathered during the field
surveys indicate a pynocline (or interface between upper and lower layers) of
variable depth as a function of offshore distance. This is attributed to tidal
effects. A review of all the field data indicates that on the average the
pycnocline is approximately horizontal. It is agreed that the effluent plume
will probably not be completely trapped in the lower layer at Site 2,
particularly at the end of the susmer, when the pycnocl ine is deep. This was
recognized in the dissolved oxygen analysis, but not in the toxic constituent
analysis. This results in over-predicted background concentrations of toxic
constituents at Site 2, but would not change the overall evaluation of a
discharge at Site 2.
One co entor questioned the basis for the statement in the Draft SEIS that
the thickness of the lower layer would be about 3 meters at Site 2. The basis
for this Statement is provided on pages A-32 and A-3L of the Draft SEIS.
3-3€
-------
3.13 ISSUE MJI EP 13
lnsuranoe Policyu
Since the outfall could last 100 years and the treatment plant potentially
much less, concern has been expressed that EPA has only one chance to make
decisions that will last 100 years and cannot afford to make any mistakes.
This was also seen as a justification for considering an outfall site farther
offshore, such as Site 6.
EPA Response
All of the decisions made in EPA’s Draft SEIS were based on sound scientific
arid engineering analyses. Conservative asswnptions were used throughout the
analyses to ensure that every decision would have a built-in margin of
safety. These conservative assumptions related to all facets of the outfall
decision, including treatment plant flows and loads, sediment and water
quality modeling, and biological analyses. The conservative assumptions and
analyses in fact provide “insurance” that conditions at and around the new
outfall site will be as predicted in the Draft SEIS or better. The following
is a s ary of the conservative assumptions and approaches used in the Draft
SEIS.
Treatment Plant
• KWRA removal efficiencies (% of pollutant removed during secondary
treatment) of non-conventional pollutants were based on the most
conservative literature values found. EPA conducted an independent
review of thes ratts and concurred. The removal rates were used to
estimate effluent concentrations. For PCBs and pesticides, no data
was available to est .lmate primary treatment removal efficiencies, so
a 0 efficiency was’assumed. These conservative assumptions assure
that levels of toxics will be equal to or less than those predicted
in the Draft SEIS.
• During maximum flow conditions (1270 MCD), even more conservative
removal rates were to account for potential plant inefficiencies at
high flow rates.
• Maximum pollutant influent loads were combined with maximum flow
periods to insure that worst case scenarios had been considered.
• Pollutant levels were estimated during both expected groundwater
conditions (high *nd low) rather than one yearly average groundwater
condition.
• Pollutants not detected in the influent sampling program were
sssumed to have a concentration equal to the detection limit even
though their actual concentration was lower (or perhaps zero),
insuring that the level of toxics predicted in the Draft SEIS were
conservatively accounted for.
3-37
-------
A full and complete technical review of the treatment plant with
respect to effluent quality was conducted (Draft SEIS, Appendix H)
and the review concluded that there was more than adequate
redundancy and reliability in the conceptual design. Even so,
several worst case scenarios were developed and effluent produced
under these scenarios was included in the water quality modelling.
• Maximum plant influent rates included high groundwater conditions,
storm flows and projected CSO returns (sewage currently being
discharged through CSOs which could be returned to the plant after
CSO remediation).
Water Quality
• The EPA Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) for
protection of aquatic life is based on a maximum concentration over
4 consecutive days in 3 years. However, in the Draft SEIS
(Section A.3.8), CCCs were compared to the predicted concentration
on the highest individual 4 days in 3 years. It is unlikely that
these 4 days would actually be consecutive as required for
exceedance. The highest 4 day average concentrations in 3 years are
likely to be much lower than the non-consecutive 4 day
concentration, and therefore actual CCC violations would be less
frequent than predicted in the Draft SEIS.
• The MWRA nearfield background concentration used in the calculation
of carcinogenicity risk corresponded to maximum stratified
conditions (thus much less dilution)’ which occur about 10% of the
time, and was therefore higher than the long term average (which
would be mostly unstratified) expected at the edge of the mixing
zone (Draft SEIS, Section A.3.8). Therefore the actual cancer risk
would be lower than that predicted in the Draft SEIS.
• The nearfield model (ULINE) used to calculate initial dilutions is
iown to under-predict dilution (Draft SEIS, Section A.3.5) by up to
60%. Actual dilutions will be better than predicted, resulting in
pollutant concentrations at the edge of the mixing zone lower than
predicted.
• Existing ambient concentrations of all pollutants were used in the
analysis, and no reduction was applied to account for removing
sludge and existing Nut and Deer Island discharges. Existing water
quality conditions in Massachusetts Bay incorporated cumulative non-
point source pollutant inputs which may currently be occurring (i.e.
atmospheric, coastal runoff and ocean dumping inputs). In addition,
projected inputs from the Lynn, Swampscott and SESD treatment plants
and Boston CSO discharges were input into the model.
Sediment Quality
• A 5 percent fraction of the primary effluent aolids was assumed to
have a settling velocity of 0.1 cm/sec. Laboratory and other sources
3-38
-------
indicate that the fastest fall velocity will likely be 0.01 cm/sec
(or ten times Blower than the fastest fall velocity assumed),
resulting in considerably less sedimentation in the diffuser area
than predicted because sediment would have more time to be carried
farther away while settling (Draft SEIS, Section B.2. 4). In turn,
this would result in smaller resuspension oxygen demand and smaller
areas of impact for sediment toxicity and organic enrichment than
predicted in the Draft SEIS.
• Pesuspension of sediments was assumed to occur at a frequency of
sediment concentration of toxic compounds once in five years for the
analysis of sediment concentrations of toxic compounds (Draft SEIS,
Sections B.3.3.3 and B.3.1 ). Should more frequent resuspension
occur, which is likely, it will tend to redistribute Sediments over
larger areas, reducing sediment toxicity from that predicted in the
Draft SEIS.
• In the sediment toxicity analysis, no decay rate of pollutants was
applied (Draft SEIS, Section B.3.I1). In other words, pollutants
were assumed to undergo no chemical or biological degradations, but
were assumed to remain completely intact. This resulted in greater
predicted sediment toxicity and enrichment impacts than would
actually occur.
• It was assumed in the toxicity analysis that mixing of the sediments
by benthic organisms (bioturbation) would occur to a sediment depth
of only 3 cm (Draft SEIS, Section B.2.5.5). Some MWRA survey data
show that bloturbatlon is actually ta4cing place over a much deeper
level, mixing as much as 8 cm of aidiments. Mixing to this deeper
level would result in greater dilution of the contaminants and
therefore less area of benthic impact than predicted in the Draft
SEI S.
• In modeling the sediments, when the measured Massachusetts Bay
existing concentration or treatment plant influent concentration of
a constituent was undetected, the analytical detection limit for
that constituent was used as the concentration input into the
model. For ex mple, in the case of PCB’s, although no PCBs were
detected in the influent, the detection limit used by MWRA in the
sampling was 0.5 ug/l (parts per billion). Although EPA believes
that some assumed value of PCBs is justified because of the presence
of PCBs in sludge, actual levels lower than 0.5 ug/l could result in
decreases in the extent or area of impact from these predicted in
the Draft SEIS.
• In the water column toxicity analyses, the toxic components were
assumed to be entirely dissolved in the water (Draft SEIS,
Section .3.6), whereas in the sediment toxicity analyses, the toxic
components were assumed to be entirely attached to suspended solids
(Draft SEIS, Section B.3. ). This amounts to the most extreme and
conservative evaluation in each case, in effect, a double counting”
of toxics in the Draft SEIS.
3-”
-------
Marine Ecosyst s
• Concentrations used to compare sediment toxic effects were the
lowest values found in the scientific literature which showed any
adverse effect (Draft SEIS, Section 5.1.3.1.2) to insure that all
potential sediment toxic impacts on which information was available
would be evaluated in the Draft SEIS.
• Concentrations used for assessment of organic enrichment impacts on
the benthos were the most conservative values found in the
scientific literature (Draft SEIS, Section 5.1.3.1.1) to insure that
all potential sediment enrichment impacts would be evaluated in the
Draft SEIS.
• Sediment organic enrichment impacts were considered for both
stratified and non-stratified conditions rather than a yearly
average (Draft SEIS, Section 5.1.3.1.1).
• Concentrations used for assessment of water column nutrient
enrichment impacts were the most conservative values found in the
scientific literature (Draft SEIS, Section 5.1.3.1.3) to insure that
all potential water column impacts would be evaluated in the Draft
SEIS.
• Water column nutrient enrichment impacts were determined for both
average conditions and worst case (no net current direction)
conditions which occur approximately 10 percent of the time (Draft
SEIS, Section 5.1.3.1.3).
• In the assessment of Dissolved Oxygen, worst case conditions during
resuspension events (occurring rarely for very short periods of
time) were considered as well as average conditions (Draft SEISI
Section 5.1.3.1.5).
• In the assessment of water column impacts, comparisons to U.S. EPA
Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Life are conservative since they
are based on lowest known concentration of pollutant to cause
effects on very :sensitive organisms.
In s ary, EPA feels that decisions made from the analyses conducted in the
Draft SEtS are sound decisions and that because these analyses are based on
very conservative approaches to modeling and impact assessment, there is a
margin of environmental safety built in.
3.1k ISSUE IIU) ER 1
Schedule
Several comnentors raised concerns regarding scheduling aspects of the new
treatment plant construction (including construction of the new primary and
secondary facilities, outfall tunnel and diffuser and inter-island tunnel) and
the impacts of the federal court mandated construction schedule on
3 . .I O
-------
decision-making. In particular, comoentors charged that EPA’s decision on
outfall siting was dictated by the constraints of the court schedule. Also,
some co m ientors urged that the construction schedule for the new treatment
plant be accelerated, although ethers questioned what impacts an accelerated
schedule would have on the duration of interim primary treatment and the
removal of the existing discharges from Quincy Bay and President Roads.
Following a general discussion of scheduling, each of these concerns, as well
as other specific issues raised, are discussed.
EPA Response
KWRA’s proposed construction schedule was established in 1985 and was based on
the conceptual understanding of the proposed construction project at the time
and on standard engineering practice. This schedule was adopted by the
federal court, and provides a framework for determining HWRA’s progress
towards compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (MWRA Final
STFP VII, 1988). The court schedule incorporates major milestone dates for
critical events such as the initiation of secondary treatment and the
elimination of sludge discharges to Boston Harbor. It also incorporates
interim dates for accomplishing certain steps such as planning and permitting
which must precede major milestones.
EPA and the court recognize the inexact and dynamic nature of the original
schedule. To date, it has been revised several times to reflect current
thinking on construction sequencing and design, and to acccodate unavoidable
delays. It is anticipated that the dynamic scheduling process will continue
and that there will be many modifications to reflect the actual construction
process. However, EPA will continue to review any proposed modifications to
the schedule to ensure that its intent, which is to achieve )1WRA iompl ance
with the Federal Clean Water Act in an expeditious manner, is met.
Reo ended Location
The evaluation and ultimate recomoendation of the outfall location was
independent of the court schedule. The proposed outfall locations were
evaluated against decision criteria that were established to assure protection
of the marine environment and public health. Some decision criteria also
addressed engineering feasibility and cost issues, including a criterion which
evaluated the length of time it would take to construct a tunnel to each of
the proposed sites. This criterion reflects EPA’s concern that all aspects of
the Harbor cleanup project proceed expeditiously; adherence to the court
schedule was not considered. In fact, it is projected that construction of
the outfall tunnel to EPA’s reco ended outfall area will take longer than
contemplated in the court schedule, and as described above, anticipates that
the schedule be modified to reflect this recoemendation.
ratian of Interim Pr1 ry
During the construction of the new secondary treatment facilities, HWRA will
discharge primary treated effluent from the new outfall for an interim period
(see Issue On). This interim period will conence when the construction of
the primary facilities, inter-island tunnel, outfall tunnel and diffuser are
3.111
-------
completed, and will terminate when the secondary facilities are completed.
Co entors were concerned that delays in construction could affect the
duration of this interim period.
EPA has reviewed the construction elements and believes that it is more likely
that the construction of the tunnels or the primary facilities would be
delayed than the construction of the secondary facilities. The tunnel
construction involves a relatively new technology, and the tunnel boring rate
is highly dependent en the type of rock encountered, which could be highly
variable. The construction of primary facilities occurs sequentially before
the construction of secondary facilities, so any delays except for labor
shortages (such as land use conflicts or existing plant tie-ins) would more
likely occur during the primary construction period. Such delays would result
in a shortening of the interim primary discharge period. However, even should
unforseen circumstances result in an interim primary period extension, EPA has
determined that construction and operation of interim primary facilities is a
necessary step in reaching the long-term goal of secondary treatment for all
MWRA flows (see Issue •11).
Existing Harbor Discharges
There is no alternative to leaving the existing Nut and Deer Island discharges
in place before certain critical facilities are completed (i.e. interisland
tunnel for Nut Island and the new outfall tunnel for Deer Island). Once these
facilities are completed there may be some alternatives for modifying the
existing discharges before the new primary facilities and outfall are
completed. As discussed further in Chapter 14 of this Final SEIS, MWRA must
perform a full evaluation of these alternatives and their impacts and submit
the evaluation for public and agency review before any action is taken.
Potential Construction Delays
Co entors suggested that the outfall and diffuser construction could be
delayed due to uncontrollable factors such as adverse weather, which could
make construction difficult or unsafe for workers. EPA acknowledges that such
delays are possible, and has selected methods, such as tunnel construction,
which minimize the risk of such delays. As discussed above, EPA also
acknowledges that the court schedule will remain dynamic during construction
to account for such unforseen circumstances.
Another coentor noted that if EPA’S conservative tunneling advance rate of
50 ft/day is assumed, the outfall would not be completed prior to the planned
start-up of the new primary treatment plant in 1995. EPA acknowledges the
current lack of geotechnical information and thus specified a conservative
(50 to 70 ft/day) of tunneling rates in the Draft SEIS. Assuming that
Cambridge Argillite is the dominant rock, the outfall tunneling rates would
probably be closer to 70 ft/day or more (MWRA, STFP 1988). However, if harder
rock dikes, shears or fracture zones are encountered, then a slower tunneling
rate through that rock area may be more realistic. This cannot be assessed
until the geotechnical information becomes available (see Issue #22).
3- 42
-------
Accelerated Secondary Treatment
Coementors urged that the construction of new secondary facilities be
accelerated or proceed simultaneously with the construction of new primary
facilities. In fact, MWRA has proposed an amendment to the schedule which
would allow for a partial acceleration of secondary treatment facilities
construction. As described in Chapter 1 of this Final SEIS, EPA supports the
accelerated construction of secondary facilities. However, as discussed in
detail in that Chapter, there are several currently unresolved issues
concerning the accelerated schedule which must be addressed by MWRA before
accelerated secondary construction can be implemented. These issues include
impacts on interim primary discharge duration, transportation, construction
activities and sludge processing.
3.15 ISSUE NUMBER 15
Sedimentation
The approach and methods used in the Draft SEIS to address the impacts of
sedimentation of effluent solids was questioned by several comxnentors.
Specifically there were questions about EPA’s analysis of predicted sediment
transport, fate and impacts, with some co!!nentors feeling that the Draft SEIS
over—predicted sedimentation and its associated impacts, while others felt
that these were under-predicted. This issue, plus specific questions raised
concerning sedimentation, are discussed below.
EPA Response
EPA recogrized that the deposition of’ effluent solids (or sedimentation) could
potentially be significant in the outfall siting decision, and so presented an
evaluation of these impacts jn its Draft SEIS. The potential impacts were
addressed by first estimating ‘the transport of the discharged solid particles
from the diffuser both horizontally and vertically (Section A.3). The fate of
these particles once they reached the sea floor was also considered
(Sections A.3.6.5 and B.3) and finally the impact of the particles on the
marine ecosystem was assessed for each alternative discharge site
(Sections 5.1.3.1.2). Horizontal transport of solids was predicted using the
mathematical model TEA, which simulates the currents and circulation in
Massachusetts Bay (Sections 5.1.1.5 and A.3.6 and Issue #20) under various
current and water column conditions. Vertical transport was predicted by
applying a settling rate for different sizes of solid particles. The rates
were determined based on laboratory experiments and theoretical settling rates
(Section B.2. ). Combining the horizontal transport of the solids over time
(from the model) and the vertical transport over time (from the settling
rates) yielded a prediction of where and at what accumulation rate the
particles would settle.
Determining the fate of the effluent particles once they reached the sea floor
was the next step in the process. The particles could remain in place, decay
due to chemical and biological processes, or be transported to other areas.
The fate of’ the solid particles is therefore dependent on physical, chemical,
biological and geological factors which are not well known. As elsewhere in
3 —U3
-------
the Draft SEIS when there was only limited information available, the analysis
of sediment fate was performed based on reasonable worst case scenarios.
For determining organic carbon enrichment and sediment oxygen demand impacts
the reasonable worst case scenario assumed that the particles were totally
decayed due to biological and chemical processes (maximizing biotic
metabolisis) and were not resuspended (note that this assumption was reversed
when considering water column DO impacts to account for the effects of
sediment resuspension on water column DO, Draft SEIS Section A.3.6.l$). For
determining potential toxic impacts, the worst case scenario assumed that no
chemical or biological decay occurred (maximizing build up of toxics in the
sediment) and that no resuspension of the particles occurred (minimizing
dilution of the toxics).
The final step in the evaluation of sediments was to determine what potential
ecosystem impacts might be expected based on the predicted sedimentation rates
and concentrations. This was done by comparing levels of predicted DO,
organic carbon and toxics to established water quality standards or literature
values that indicate the potential for benthic organism impacts.
Biodegradation
Some coar entors stated that EPA had overstated sediment impacts because it had
failed to account for biodegradation of the effluent solids. As discussed
above, a conservative approach was taken for assessing sediment impacts.
Consequently, when biodegradation could create impacts (as in the areas of
nutrient enrichment or oxygen demand) it was considered in the analysis.
However, for areas where biodegradation would reduce sediment impacts (as in
the toxic analysis) it was not considered.
Sediment Resuspension
Another comnent concerned sediment resuspension and whether or not
reconcentration of the sediments in an area away from the discharge could
result in significant impacts or be site determinative. It is possible that
sediment particles and their associated toxics could be resuspended and
transported to depositional areas on the sea floor. Due to the slow rate of
settlement of secondary particles compared with the storm frequency, the
geographic distribution of settling solids will probably not be outfall site
determinative. Several potential long—term depositional areas include
Steliwagen Basin, Boston Harbor or isolated depressions scattered throughout
Plassachusetts Bay. There is currently no means of assessing the transport and
ultimate fate of resuspended particles from the effluent, or determining into
which depositional area, if any, they might fall. However, if resuspended
effluent particles reached a depositional area they would be mixed with and
diluted by particles from other areas of the sea floor. Because the original
deposition of the particles in the area of the outfall did not result in
sufficiently high toxic concentrations to cause significant impacts (as
determined in the Draft SEIS), their redeposition in any other area would also
not cause impacts.
3 _UZI
-------
Deposition Rate
One coementor stated that the sediment deposition rate was understated in the
Draft SEIS because it was lower than the rate used in EPA’s 301(h) (primary
treatment) waiver analysis. The same basic method was used to predict initial
deposition in both the 301(h) waiver analysis and the Draft SEIS. The same
particle size categories and the same settling rates for each category were
used. There were some differences in the predicted accumulation due to
different effluent mass loading rates resulting from better data on expected
influent loads and treatment characteristics.
Another co nent was that EPA’s use of the 0.1 centimeters/second (cm/see)
settling rate for 5% of the effluent solids was too conservative and that
sediments large enough to settle this fast would be removed during primary
treatment. EPA used three theoretical settling rates for primary effluent
solids (0.001, 0.01 and 0.1 cm/see) and two settling rates for secondary
effluent (0.001 and 0.01 cm/see). The faster settling rate for primary
effluent (0.01 cm/see) was used to account for potential aggregation of the
effluent particles in the marine waters, which would cause the aggregate
particles to fall faster. The aggregation process is poorly understood, but
the use 0.1 cm/sec as a settling rate for a percentage of the particles is a
conservative approach, and was used in the 301(h) waiver analysis (MDC, 198Z ).
3.16 ISSUE NUMBER 16
Site Comparison and Reco endation
EPA received several coesnents concerning individual sites and the way sites
were compared, the way the outfall location decision was made and whether or
not the decision was correct.
EPA Response
The outfall selection criteria and methodology is discussed in Chapter 7 of
the Draft SEIS. Specific coements are addressed below.
C ents on Sites and Site Comparisons
One co nentor was concerned that the sea floor at Site 5 had been
characterized as rocky in the Draft SEIS, when in fact there is a substantial
amount of sediment on the bottom. The Draft SEIS acknowledges that the sea
floor in Massachusetts Bay is extremely heterogeneous on a small scale and
that it is difficult to characterize large areas (Section £ .2.3) as rocky or
soft bottom. In the Draft SEIS depositional areas (areas where sediments
accumulate) were considered to represent the worst case for potential sediment
impacts, and all sites were conservatively assumed to be depositional for the
sediment impact analysis. Therefore even though Site 5 was described as rocky
compared to nearshore sites in the Draft SEIS discussion, it was
conservatively considered to be depositional in the analysis.
Several co nentors did not agree with the conclusion in the Draft SEIS that
the impacts produced from an outfall at Sites and 5 would be similar.
3_Z 5
-------
Specifically, commentors believed that site 5 was “better” than site 14 in the
areas of sediment accumulation, discharge of primary effluent and dilution
characteristics. As described in Issue 115, the sediment impact analyses in
the Draft SEIS were based on several worst case assumptions, including the
assumption that all proposed outfall sites were in depositional areas (see
above). Under this assumption the predicted sediment impacts on a secondary
outfall at Sites 14 and 5 were similar and acceptable (Draft SEIS
Section 5.1.2). If in actuality Site 14 is more depositional than Site 5, as
indicated by some of the marine sediment chemistry (MWRA Draft STFP V, P4 1987)
and pointed out by some of the coientors, this assumption is more accurate
for Site 14 than Site 5. If this is the case, the predicted impacts at Site 44
would not change, and the impacts at Site 5 would be less than predicted in
the Draft SEIS. However, as elsewhere in the SEIS, when there was not
substantial evidence to show less than worst case conditions, such conditions
were assumed at all sites, and for sediment analyses both Sites 4 and 5 were
assumed to be depositional.
During interim primary discharge an outfall at Site 18 would result in worse DO
violations and water quality criteria exceedances than an outfall at Site 5.
However, as described in Issue 014, EPA has determined that the impacts of a
primary discharge at either Site 4 or 5 are reversible and acceptable for an
interim period.
EPA’s analysis of water quality impacts for the discharge of secondary
effluent demonstrated that the predicted exceedances of water quality criteria
were the same for an outfall at either Site 4 or Site 5. Site 5 does have
better dilution characteristics than Site 4, however when the dilutions are
combined with the predicted pollutant loadings and compared to water quality
criteria, the additional dilution at site 5 does not reduce the number of
water quality exceedances.
A commentor pointed out that progressive vector plots of an effluent particle
using the model TEA indicated that dispersion is greater at Site 5 than at
Site 4 and thus Site 5 is preferable to Site 14• Although this is true, as
discussed above this greater dilution does not provide any additional
practical environmental benefit in that the predicted number of water quality
criteria exceedances are nearly the same. As discussed below, EPA developed
decision criteria which were used to site the recommended outfall area. These
decision criteria incorporated the effluent dispersion and dilution, and
pollutant loadings and fate characteristics of each proposed site (as
reflected in water quality criteria and standards compliance and sediment and
nutrient impacts), as well as institutional factors such as cost and
constructability. Taken together, EPA determined that both Sites 44 and 5
provided similar, acceptable levels of environmental protection.
Coe.ents on Decision Methodology
One commentor suggested that a “Physiographic Determinatism” method (or using
overlays to “shade out” undesirable areas) be used to select the outfall
location. This approach was used in the Draft SEIS screening process to
eliminate clearly unsuitable areas (Section 3). Also, although EPA did not
prepare overlays of the general outfall area to graphically show areas Of
3_li6
-------
predicted impacts, EPA’S decision criteria generally reflected such areas, and
use of the criteria allowed EPA to select an outfall area that minimized
impacts while ensuring compliance with all legally required standards. Within
this reconended outfall area a form of “Physiographic Determinatism” will
again be employed to consider geotechnical, engineering and construction
concerns for the precise diffuser location.
Some co mentors felt that the outfall site selection process was arbitrary and
should have been based on absolute standards. As described above and in
Issue 01, EPA compared each proposed outfall site to established decision
criteria. These criteria included the ability to meet Massachusetts Water
Quality Standards, which are absolute. Other decision criteria included the
level of consistency with published water quality criteria and reported
literature values of the levels of pollutants which will not effect biota.
Although these criteria allow latitude in their interpretation, they are not
arbitrary — they are based on absolute numbers which reflect the current
knowledge on marine systems impacts.
Co ents on the itfall Siting Decision
Some con nentors pointed out that Broad Sound is in a recirculation cell and
thus is not suitable for an outfall location. Others were concerned that the
new outfall would exacerbate conditions in the already stressed Broad Sound
ecosystem. MWRA’s current data and modeling results do indicate that there
are areas in Broad Sound with reduced flushing or “recirculation”. Boston
Harbor and Site 2 have some of these properties (Draft SEIS Section LL2.1)
However, the Draft SEIS analyses show that there is considerable flushing at
Sites i a d 5 and that the background build up of pollutants does not result
in signif 4 cant water quality impacts. EPA did not try to quantify the level
of stress in Broad Sound, but rather used existing ambient data for the water
quality (Section .2.2) and sediment (Section .2.3) analyses to reflect
existing conditions in the Sound. In addition, contributions from existing
pollution sources (including Lynn, SESD, Swampscott and Inner Harbor CSO’s)
were directly input to the water quality model.
Some coentors questioned the acceptability or adequacy of the recoumended
outfall area given projected water quality criteria exceedances. As discussed
in Issue #3 and 6, these criteria are established to provide adequate
protection to public health and aquatic life. These criteria are used as
guidelines — every individual criterion does not have to be satisfied at all
times to meet the overall objective of the water quality. Although there are
some projected exceedances, the overall objectives of the Water Quality
Criteria are met at the reco ended area (see Issue 03 and 6 for a broader
discussion). Selection of a different outfall location (including Site 6, see
Issue 01) would not change this prediction.
Another co entor stated that violations of the Massachusetts Dissolved Oxygen
standard, the impacts of phytoplankton blooms and “background buildup” at
Site 2 do not warrant selection of a more seaward site. As discussed above,
the outfall siting decision was based on a number of criteria including the
ones mentioned by the co,wi entor. EPA feels that application of these criteria
at Site 2 (in combination with the others listed in Chapter 7 of the Draft
3. .1’7
-------
SEIS), and the impacts predicted during the interim discharge period show that
the potential impacts of a new discharge at Site 2 are unacceptable.
3.17 ISSUE NUMBER 17
MEPA Compliance
Some co entors questioned whether the Draft SETS was prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Compliance with NEPA is
required in order for the project to be eligible for federal funding, and was
co itted to by EPA in the Record of Decision on siting of the new Treatment
Plant.
EPA Response
EPA’s Draft SEIS complies with both the procedural requirements and the intent
of NEPA. A reasonable range of alternatives were considered, and the
potential impacts of those alternatives were evaluated and compared, resulting
in the recommended plan. A full public participation program was conducted
(Draft SETS Chapter 9) during preparation of the SETS.
ulative Impacts
Some commentors asked that EPA address cumulative (or combined) impacts from
all aspects of the proposed MWRA Boston Harbor clean up project.
Section 6.2.1 .6.3 of the Draft SETS deals specifically with cumulative
impacts. EPA considered potential impacts from those parts of the project for
which environmental reviews had already been completed (such as the piers and
staging areas) as well as impacts from other sources (such as water quality
impacts from surrounding treatment facilities). As each additional piece of
the HWRA project undergoes environmental review, EPA will consider its impacts
as well as the cumulative impacts of all the other pieces which have been
reviewed. For example, the cumulative impact analysis in the residuals
management SEIS will include impacts from the HWRA piers and staging areas,
treatment plant and outfall.
Duration of Impacts
Other co entors felt that the Draft SETS should have addressed impacts over
100 years, which they believed to be the life of the outfall. The effluent
discharge impact analyses in the Draft SETS were generally based on either
“steady state” or short term worst case predictions. Steady state predictions
were done for water quality, marine biota and public health impacts. Worst
case analyses were done for sediment and shoreline Impacts. The steady state
and worst case predictions are independent of the duration of the discharge as
long as the effluent characteristics do not significantly change. Therefore
the impact predictions made in the Draft SETS are appropriate for any
duration.
3 Z 8
-------
Mo Action
Some coentors felt that EPA had not complied with the PIEPA requirement to
consider a “no action” alternative. Because this is a supplemental EIS
(supplementing the 1985 Siting EIS; U.S. EPA, 1985a), and a “no action”
alternative was considered in the Siting £15 consideration of such an
alternative is not required for the SEIS. EPA did, however, briefly discuss a
“no action” alternative in Section 3.1 of the Draft SEIS.
Asses. ent of Benefits
Several commentors requested that EPA should have presented a realistic
assessment of impacts to water-related recreation, especially with respect to
the purported improvements to harbor water quality. The Draft SEIS assessed
the impacts to water-related recreation in Section 5.1.5.3 and
Appendix D.1L . The anticipated benefits of the project, described in
Section 2 of the Draft SEIS, are a result of the entire Boston Harbor clean up
effort, of which the new secondary treatment plant and outfall is an important
part. Poorly treated effluent from the existing treatment plants, sludge
discharges and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) all contribute to the
continuing degradation of Boston Harbor. Clearly, the actions defined in the
EPA 1985 Siting EIS and this SEIS are considered a priority action for
improving water quality conditions. However, the precise benefit of this
step, independent of other planned remediation of sludge and CSO discharges,
cannot be practicably assessed.
Size of Reo ended Area
One coaimentor contended thit EP. ’s recommended outfall area in the Draft SEIS
was too large to actually constitute a decision on outfall siting and thus
violated WEPA. NEPA requires EPA to conduct a thorough evaluation of the
anticipated impacts of a reasonable range of alternatives for a project, and
to make that information available to decision-makers and the public. NEPA
does not dictate the details of decisions to be made (or the specificity of
those decisions) other than that they should, “restore and enhance the quality
of the human environment and avoid or minimize adverse impacts of (the
project) upon the quality of the human environment. (1 0 CFR Part 1500).” EPA
believes that these goals have been achieved in the Draft SEIS.
3.18 ISSUE NUP ER 18
Ptzytcplankton and Primary Productivity
Several questions were raised regarding the methodology and assumptions made
in EPA’s analysis productivity and its potential impacts, contained in
Section 5.1.3.1.3 of the Draft SEIS. Some ca entors were also concerned
about algae blooms and their impacts on beaches.
EPA Response
Phytoplankton are marine plants living suspended in the water column which
derive their energy for growth and reproduction from sunlight through the
3- 19
-------
process of photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, dissolved nutrients in the
water such as nitrogen and phosphorous are used by the plankton. Nitrogen is
generally considered a “limiting factor” for phytoplankton metabolism, i.e.
when all other factors such as the phosphorous, silica and trace metals are
available (as is true in Massachusetts Bay; Parker, 1975; MWRA Final STFP Y
and Z, 1988) the growth of a phytoplankton population is limited by the amount
of nitrogen in the water. Thus EPA predicted nitrogen loadings from the new
discharge to determine the potential for over-stimulation of phytoplankton
growth, which might shift phytoplankton species composition and oxygen
depletion thus degrading water quality and adversely effecting higher trophic
levels such as zooplankton and fish.
In the Draft SEIS, EPA defined nitrogen threshold values from laboratory
studies from which the potential for phytoplankton stimulation and oxygen
depletion could be predicted. From these, the areal extent of nitrogen levels
above thresholds were predicted using computer modeling to compare the extent
of potential impact at each candidate outfall site (Draft SEIS
Section 5.3.1.3). As indicated in Table 5.1.3.e, discharge within the
recommended outfall area will result in small increases in phytoplankton
productivity, but will not result in oxygen depletion or changes in species
composition changes outside the effluent mixing zone. Therefore the new
discharge will have negligible effects on the phytoplankton cosmunity and
water quality of Massachusetts Bay.
Nutrient Spike Experiments
One co entor noted that the results of MWRA’s nutrient spike experiments had
not been used by EPA in the phytoplankton analysis. Another coinmentor stated
that the spiking experiments were not useful because they were too short
term. EPA considered the MWRA nutrient spike experiments in Section 5.1.3.1.3
of the Draft SEIS; however, he data was not used in this analysis since it
only took into account short-term (48 hour) effects of a one time dose of
nutrients as opposed to long term continuous exposure to nutrient enrichment
(as would potentially occur from the outfall discharge).
Relative Impacts Comparison
A concern was raised that according to MWRA spike experiment data, primary
production and nutrient enrichment appear to be more tightly coupled at site 5
than at site 2 and therefore the impact due to nutrient enrichment may be
greater at Site 5 than Site 2. EPA agrees that nutrients and primary
production may initially be more tightly coupled offshore where the nutri,ent
level is low; however EPA’S conclusion that nutrient enrichment impacts would
be greatest at site 2 were derived from an analysis of the dispersion of the
nutrients at each site. Since a phytoplankton assemblage will develop in
response to a nutrient concentration, that assemblage will occur no matter
where that particular nutrient concentration occurs; therefore, the important
site differences are related to the area over which the nutrient concentration
occurs. Since less area will have elevated nutrient levels at site 5, there
will be less impact
3-50
-------
Threshold Values
One coementor wanted clarification of the origin of the nitrogen threshold
values. These threshold values were derived from long term marine system
nutrient addition studies using multiple nutrient dose levels (Oviatt et al.,
1986; Frithsen et al., 1985). These experiments ponsisted of adding daily
doses of nutrients into 6 separate mesocosms (11 m’) in a logarithmic series
with each mesocosm recei ing a different dqse level. The nitrogen dosing
ranged from 2.88 mM N/md/day to 92 mM N/m’/day. The threshold value of
0.5 mg/i was determined from the experimental dos which resulted in oxygen
depletion in the mesocosm system (the 92 mM N/m’/day). The steady state
nitrogen concentration in the system was derived from this dose level and
mesocosm turnover rates. There was relative agreement between the derived
steady state concentratin and weekly measured concentrations (Frithsen et al.,
1985).
Nitrogen Loadings
One commentor criticized EPA’s assumption that effluent nitrogen loads will be
equal during both primary and secondary treatment. This commentor felt that
nitrogen loads during secondary treatment could be twice those produced during
primary. In the Draft SEIS, the effects of nutrient enrichment were assumed
to be the sane during both primary and secondary treatment since the total
nitrogen loading under both treatment levels is the same. The relative
proportion of anm onia, nitrate and nitrite will differ between primary and
secondary effluent. These different forms are taken up at different rates by
the ecosystem, but all the nitrogen will be in the system long enough to be
reach equilibrium. Therefore EPA took a conservative approach by assuming
that all nitrogen was immediately available for .ase.
algal Blooms
One ooum entor asked why EPA is predicting algae blooms at Site 2 when the
present, more nutrient rich, discharge in Boston Harbor does not cause algae
blooms. Extremely high nutrient levels do occur in Boston Harbor as reported
in HWRA (Final STFP V,Z, 1988). Th pse high nutrient levels result in
increased productivity of up to 5.2 gCi’m’/day. These high rates produce algal
bloom conditions.
P.i1.pella .LittoralIs
Several coomentors had concerns about algae blooms, including blooms of
Pilayella littoralls, andits potential impacts on beaches. Blooms of the
nuisance algae Pile yell. Zittoralis have been b’own to occur on Nahant Bay
since the early 1900’s. During warm weather, the northern portions of
Nahant-Lynn (Long) Beach and Little Nahant (Short) Beach experience a severe
stench problem. The stench is the result of anaerobic wet decomposition of
algal biomass buried chiefly during the annual late winter/early spring
natural beach build up process (Quinlan, 198J4, Quthlan, 1982; Wilce et al.,
1982).
3-5
-------
According to Quinlan (198U), practically all of the Pilayella littoraLls in
Nahant Bay exists in an abnormal free-living population that floats just above
the sand/water interface virtually everywhere inshore of the 6 m mean low
water depth contour. Quinlan’s research showed that the growth of PilayelZa
alga appeared to be nitrogen limited, and that nitrogen was supplied by
diffusion from overlying waters, by recycling of nutrients within the algal
clouds, and by transport of regenerated nutrients out of the intertidal sands
through tidal and wave action, bioturbation, and beach erosion Wilce et al.,
(1982).
The unique hydrographic features of Nahant Bay ecosystem appear to retain the
algae within the Bay (Wilce and Quinlan, 1981k; Quinlan et al. 1983). The
waters off Lynn Harbor and Broad Sound are not considered to be nutrient
sources by Quinlan and Wilce (198Z ).
As discussed in Section 5.1.3.1.3 of the Draft SEIS, increased nitrogen
concentration at levels causing increased algal production are only expected
to occur within a small area near the outfall in the recommended area. No
impacts due to nutrient enrichment are expected to occur in Nahant Bay or at
any shoreline. Also, as discussed above, some of the major processes
influencing Pilayella blooms are physical and the outfall discharge will not
affect these processes.
3.19 ISSUE NUMBER 19
Level of Treatment
Some cocsnentors questioned the need for secondary treatment, particularly for
a discharge as far off-shore and as deep as the outfall location recommended
in the draft SEIS. The suggestion was made that EPA was over-conservative in
its analysis, and that the money required to construct and operate the new
secondary treatment facilities could be better used to address other pollution
problems such as discharges of raw sewage from Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSO ‘a).
EPA Response
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended in 1977 requires secondary
treatment of all municipal wastewater unless granted a waiver of this
requirement by EPA. Although MWRA’s predecessor agency, the MDC applied for
such a waiver on two separate occasions, EPA has denied these requests. In
addition, the MWRA has now coitted (both in federal court and through
publication of Its Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan) to construct a
secondary treatment plant on Deer Island. Consequently, the need for
secondary treatment of MWRA wastewater was not a question addressed by this
SEIS, and a comparison of the impacts of primary effluent versus secondary
effluent is not required.
The inadequacy of primary treatment, as determined by an extensive technical
evaluation of the projected impacts, is reflected both in EPA’S denial of
MWRA’s application for a waiver of secondary treatment requirements and in the
draft SEtS. The evaluation of an interim primary discharge presented in
3-52
-------
Chapter 5 and auarized in Chapter 7 of the Draft SEIS (also see Issue • )
reinforces the technical evaluation done during the review of HWRA’a waiver
application. Specifically, the discharge of primary effluent is predicted to
have adverse impacts on water quality (particularly dissolved oxygen) and
sediment quality (particularly toxics accumulation). As discussed in
Issue 0 i, although these impacts may be acceptable for 5 years, they are not
acceptable on a permanent basis.
EPA’s analyses were conservative, especially where inadequate data existed to
accurately evaluate impacts (see Issues 013) in order to preserve a margin of
safety. However, EPA believes that the worst case anticipated conditions fall
within the potential range of real conditions, although they are not likely to
occur frequently.
CSO control, although considered a part of the overall Harbor cleanup effort,
will be the subject of a separate environmental review. Decisions made on
CS0’s will be independent of the level of treatment decisions already made.
Required CS0 discharge control measures will be based on protection of public
health and the marine ecosystem, and will not be determined by the resources
required to construct and operate the secondary treatment facilities.
3.20 ISSUE PlUMBER 20
Shoreline Transport
Several commentors were generally confused about how EPA evaluated effluent
transport toward the shoreline and its potential impacts on the shoreline in
the Draft SEIS. - Other comrnentors had specific questions on the factors
considered (such as wind and storm effects, types of pollutants and lcati,ns
of beaches analyzed) •and how they were input to the shoreline impacts
evaluation.
EPA Response
EPA addressed effluent transport and shoreline impacts in the Draft SEIS in
three ways: in the screening analysis, in the analysis of general circulation
patterns in Massachusetts Bay, and in an analysis of extreme events, such as
onshore winds and currents. One of EPA’s screening criteria was the
elimination of outfall areas which could directly impact the shoreline
(Appendix F). This was done using the mathematical model TEA (see Issue 020)
to delineate areas in the ocean eastward of which effluent could not be
carried from the outfall to shore in one tidal cycle. Any outfall site
shoreward of this area was eliminated from further consideration.
Using the TEA/ELA mathematical model, the farfield transport of effluent was
determined to predict approximate steady state conditions at the shoreline
(Draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.5 and A.3.6). Steady state conditions were
determined at each of the candidate sites evaluated in detail (2, 11 and 5) for
the three persistent conditions of a northerly drift, a southerly drift and no
drift. From this information the concentration of effluent and thus any of
its constituents could be estimated at any shoreline location.
3-53
-------
As susm arized below, two separate and independent approaches were used to
evaluate the potential effects of extreme events on shoreline areas. The two
analyses, which were based on different methods and data, yielded the similar
result that no shoreline effects from a dischirge at the recoi ended area were
predicted (Draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.6) As discussed in Issue #2, even under
extreme wind events and less than full disinfection at the treatment plant
even the most sensitive uses at the shoreline such as sheilfishing and bathing
are not expected to be affected.
MWRA (Final STFP V, A 1988) employed one method based on wind measurements
(results cited in the Draft SEIS Section F.2.1. e.2). MWRA analyzed
approximately 15 years of wind data measured at Logan Airport to determine the
maximum velocity and duration of an onshore wind event. These wind data were
then converted to surface water currents. For each candidate discharge site
these estimated currents were used to predict travel time and dilution of
effluent at the shoreline during the once in fifteen year wind event.
The other method of extreme event analysis involved inputing measured current
data to the Transient Plume Model (Draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.6 and A.3.7). The
Transient Plume Model converts the current data into transport patterns for
the effluent plume. Each current meter record (taken approximately every half
hour) transported the plume in the measured direction at the measured
velocity. This process continued for the entire period of record and the
maximum predicted concentration of effluent at the shoreline headland was
recorded. The nearest shoreline headland is predicted to receive this maximum
concentration which, as in most cases, will occur in a small area of beach.
Beaches further away received lower concentrations.
bind Effects
The HWRA analysis of extreme events was based on a longer wind database which
included infrequent events such as northeasters and other large storms. The
measured currents directly reflected wind effects and since the currents were
used as the forcing factor in the Transient Plume Model, it also incorporated
wind effects. Both methods actually conservatively over-predicted the
influence of wind because they assumed the effluent would reach shoreline even
under stratified conditions when the plume would remain trapped in the bottom
waters which do not extend to shore.
Constituents Evaluated
The shoreline transport of dissolved effluent constituents (including toxic
compounds), particulate matter and potential pathogens were all considered in
EPA’s analysis. The steady state concentrations of the dissolved compounds
were evaluated using a mathematical model. This was appropriate because the
impacts of these compounds is not based on rare or extreme events. Similarly,
the evaluation of potential effects of sediments at the shoreline was based on
the results of steady state model predictions (see Issue 020). The prediction
of potential shoreline impacts from pathogens was performed using extreme
events (Issue 02) because even short term exposure to pathogens can have
adverse affects.
3 — 4
-------
Beaches Considered
Beaches along the Massachusetts coast in the study area were inventoried for
the Draft SEIS and the list has been greatly expanded based on comments
received (see Chapter 5). However, EPA’s evaluation of shoreline impacts in
the Draft SEIS did not consider only identified beaches. The evaluation
identified points of land first encountered by an effluent particle
transported by an extreme wind event, usually the closest point of land to the
alternative outfall site. This point was then considered to be a potential
beach and the predicted conditions were compared to the EPA and state bathing
water and shelifishing standards (Issue •2). Depending on the alternative
site and the wind event under evaluation, the point first reached was
generally Hull, Nahant or Winthrop. All other land falls would require
greater effluent travel time and additional dilution would be achieved: thus
any other beaches (including Devereaux Beach, a concern of several commentors)
would be impacted less than the beaches identified in the Draft SEIS. In the
case of long beaches, the reported impact represents the highest impact at any
point along the beach and does not imply that the entire beach would be
exposed to this level of effluent.
3.21 ISSUE NUMBER 21
Chlorine Toxicity
Some commentors had questions or comments relating to HWRA’s proposed effluent
chlorination facilities and what impacts chlorination could have on water
quality and marine life. Comments were also received on the potential need for
dechlorination to mitigate any impacts. Chlorine toxicity and the need for
dechlorination are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 of this Final SEIS.
3.22 ISSUE NUMBER 22
Geotechnical Infor tion
Concerns have been raised regarding the difficulty and cost of constructing
the outfall tunnel and diffuser at the recommended location. Specifically,
some commentors have postulated that the amount and depth of bedrock en route
to the recammended location, as opposed to a more southerly and easterly
location (Site 6), will increase the cost, duration and difficulty of outfall
tunnel construction.
EPA Response
Wheit evaluating potential outfall aites, EPA considered not only a site’s
environmental acceptability, but also its geotechnical suitability. The
outfall area recommended in the Draft SEIS was judged to contain suitable
geotechnical conditions, but the specific conditions within that area were not
well enough documented to exactly define the site and alignment of the
diffuser. The Draft SEIS defined a large recommended area (approximately
6 square miles) that is environmentally acceptable, within which further
geotechnical studies are recommended (Section 7.2). These geotechnical
investigations will better define the detailed bathymetry (underwater
‘C
-------
topography), depth to bedrock and condition of the bedrock and overburden in
the recoimnended area in order to select a diffuser location that optimizes
constructability, within an area that is environmentally acceptable.
The maximum depth to bedrock along the tunnel alignment is important because
it can determine the depth of the access shaft at Deer Island and it can
influence the depth of the diffuser risers. The depth of the access shaft
increases as the maximum depth to bedrock (and thus the maximum depth of the
tunnel) increases, so that an appropriate slope can be maintained along the
tunnel from the shaft to the diffuser. However, increasing the shaft depth
has very minimal effect on the overall outfall construction cost, duration or
difficulty. The total shaft cost is estimated at only $10 million out of a
total outfall construction cost of over $ 50 million and the shaft cost
changes very little with depth (Draft SEIS Section 5.2.3). Also, the time it
takes to construct the access shaft is much shorter than the time required to
bore the tunnel or to drill the diffuser risers, therefore any extra time
required to build a deeper access shaft would not impact the total time
required for outfall construction.
The depth to bedrock, which will determine the depth of tunnel, could have a
more significant impact on the constructability of the diffuser. The diffuser
will consist of approximately 80 riser shafts drilled from the sea floor into
the outfall tunnel. The shorter these risers can be, the less time and money
it will take to construct the diffuser. However, even if the detailed
geotechnical studies show the bedrock to be deeper than assumed in the Draft
SEIS, it may be possible to modify the slope of the outfall tunnel to minimize
the depth of each riser.
Based on review of all available geotechnical information and the above
considerations, there does not appear to be any geotechnical advantage to a
more southerly or easterly location for the outfall diffuser. Note that, as
co entors acknowledge, thereis little detailed geotechnical data available
in the area of Massachusetts Bay under consideration (including Site 6). There
is no reason to believe that a different tunnel alignment or diffuser location
would significantly decrease the cost, duration or difficulty of
construction. The geotechnical concerns raised during the public coimz ent
period do add emphasis to the Draft SEIS recomendation for extensive
geotechnical investigations as part of the mitigation plan (Draft SEIS
Section 7.2).
Size and Shape of Recoerended Area
One co entor suggested that the geotechnical conditions at Site 6 could be
investigated by simply changing the shape of EPA’s recommended outfall area -
that is by redrawing the rectangle shown on Figure ??? in the Draft SEIS to be
longer and thinner. As discussed above, geotechnical investigations at Site 6
are not recommended by EPA. The size of the rectangle shown on Figure 7.1 is
based on EPA’s determined area of environmental acceptability. The width of
the rectangle represents approximately a diffuser length on either side of the
line between Sites LI and 5 in order to accommodate the optimum diffuser
alignment determined after detailed investigation (see Issue #8).
3-56
-------
Earthquake Impacts
Co ents were received concerning the potential for damage to the
outfall/diffuser system during an earthquake. Rock tunnels are rarely damaged
by an earthquake because in order for this to happen, the bedrock must be
sheared. Such damage would only be associated with a catastrophic seismic
event. Since rock tunnels are inherently stable in earthquakes, the outfall
tunnel is expected to withstand significant seismic events. It is highly
unlikely that such a catastrophic earthquake would occur in Boston
Harbor/Massachusetts Bay. Seismic investigations currently being conducted in
the vicinity of the proposed outfall will confirm the geologic nature of the
underlying rock structure.
3.23 ISSUE NUMBER 23
ktscellaneou .s Topics
The following are EPA’s response to various miscellaneous cosments which do
not ta]]. into any other categories.
EPA Response
Noise and Ventilation Impacts
One cosmentor questioned the potential for air quality and noise impacts from
ventilation of the outfall tunnel. No air quality impacts are expected since
the treatment plant and tunnel will be designed to meet all applicable air
quality standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which are consistent
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Also, EPA concurs with the
MWRA (Final STFP III, 1988) analysis that no noticeable noise increase above
ambient conditions are expected to occur during plant .operation at Deer
Island.
Navigation Impacts of Diffuser
The diffuser will be located at a depth of 60 to 120 feet, which is too deep
to effect any marine traffic. There could be some potential navigation
impacts during construction (as discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft SEIS).
During the Corps of Engineers permit review process, it is anticipated that
the Coast Guard, Nassport, the Harbor Police and other marine traffic agencies
would provide input on specific mitigation measures it needed. an. regulations
and permitting requirements will be followed to minimize impacts.
3.2k IS&JE NUMBER 2
RistoricallArchaeological Considerations
One commentor raised concerns regarding the Historical and Archaeological
review process for the outfall siting, particularly that prehistoric
archaeology and indirect impacts to historic properties due to construction
needed to be addressed.
3—57
-------
EPA Response
As required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, a
reconnaissance survey (literature review) of the potential for historical
shipwrecks at the proposed outfall locations was conducted by MWRA and
reviewed by EPA. The conclusions of the survey were that a potential for
historic wrecks in the area existed, and that this potential increased closer
to shore. The second step in determining the significance of potential
historical/archaeologic resources will be a field survey of the recoended
outfall site to identity any potential prehistoric resources or shipwrecks
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
As discussed in Issue 122, although this final SEtS identifies a reco ended
outfall area, the precise location and alignment of the outfall diffuser is
dependent on further geotechnical investigations. This data will be reviewed
along with the location of any historical/archaeologic resources, to exactly
site the diffuser. If the diffuser cannot be sited to avoid adverse impacts
to such resources, appropriate mitigation measures and recording protocol will
be developed. Indirect effects due to construction activities will also be
addressed in the diffuser siting process by considering the location and
structural integrity of any historical/archaeologic resources in relation to
construction techniques.
3.25 ISSUE NUMBER 25
Material Disposal
One commentor was concerned that the outfall site and diffuser design were not
well enough defined to adequately assess dredging and disposal impacts. The
coentor also indicated that testing of the dredged material might be
required prior to disposal and that potential disposal options should be
discussed.
EPA Response
As discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft SEtS, EPA considered two types of
diffusers: a pipe diffuser and a drilled riser diffuser. The major difference
in impacts between the two diffusers is that construction of the pipe diffuser
would generate approximately 1. million cubic yards (Cu yds) of dredged
material, whereas construction of the drilled riser would generate only
approximately 12,000 Cu yd of dredged material. As discussed in Chapters , 6
and 7 of this Final SEIS the drilled riser diffuser has been chosen as the
preferred diffuser design based on minimal dredging and disposal impacts, and
engineering and economic feasibility. The exact location of the diffuser
cannot be determined until detailed geotechnical investigations are complete
(see Issue I 22). The dredged material generated during construction is
expected to be clean. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the
sediment data taken from the recommended outfall area and has made a
preliminary determination that it is exempt from further testing (including
bioassay/bioaccumulation testing), and is environmentally acceptable for ocean
disposal.
3-58
-------
As indicated in Section 5.2.11 and 5.11.11 of the Draft SEIS, up to 2 pillion cu
yds of excavate will be generated during construction of the outfall and
inter-island tunnels. It is hoped that all of this aaterial will be used on
Deer Island or sold as construction aggregate for the Third Harbor
Tunnel/Central Artery or other construction projects. However, up to
1.5 million Cu yds may have to be disposed of by other means. Potential
disposal/reuse options could include using the excavate to “cap” Spectacle
Island, other landfills or the Foul Area Ocean Disposal Site. Disposal will
have to comply with all Federal, State and Local laws and regulations.
3-59
-------
CHAPTER IL
NODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED ACTION MD ALTERNATIVES
This Chapter describes changes and potential changes to the project as
presented in the Draft SEIS based on new information developed since release
of the Draft document. As described in Chapter 1, the Draft SEIS considered
the construction of a new secondary wastewater treatment plant and associated
outfall as presented in MWRA’s Draft Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan.
Since releasing its draft document, HWRA has made two major changes to its
recoemended plans with regard to scheduling of secondary treatment facilities
construction and diffuser design. A description of these changes, an
evaluation of their potential impacts and implications to the Final SEIS
recoendations are discussed below.
IL. I ACCELERATED SECONDARY
11.1.1 Description of Accelerated Secondary
In Volumes III, V and VII of the Final Secondary Treatment Facility Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (IIWRA, Final STFP, 1988), If iRA considered
alternatives to the sequential primary/secondary construction schedule
presented in the Draft STFP. These alternatives were considered in response
to a federal court mandate that required MWRA to consider the feasibility of
an accelerated construction schedule. Two alternatives were considered with
each involving completion of a portion of the secondary facilities before the
court scheduled date of 1999 for full secondary treatment. One alternative
proposed achieving secondary trt:atment of approximately 25% of the average
flows by 1996, whereas the other a..ternative proposed achieving secondary
treatment of approximately 50% of the flows by the same date. Both of these
accelerated partial secondary’ treatment scenarios could only be achieved at
the cost of delayed new primary treatment for south system flows. The delay
would be for approximately one year past the court mandated 1995 date for
completion of the new Deer Island primary treatment plant.
Both alternatives were evaluated initially by HWRA. Secondary treatment of
50% of the flows by 1996 was determined to be infeasible because of space and
construction constraints, hence secondary treatment of 25% of the flow by 1996
was, designated the Alternate Plan. After review of the two alternative
accelerated secondary scenarios, EPA concurs that the early completion of 50%
of the secondary facilities is not achievable and HWRA’a Alternative Plan is
potentially achievable.
The scheduling of critical components of the construction project are
different for the Base (original plan contained in the NWRA Draft, STFP, 1987)
and Alternate Plans (see Table IL.1 and Figure IL 1). The removal of the Prison
from Deer Island is a critical issue that must be addressed before the
construction scheduling of the Alternate Plan can be achieved. As discussed
below, there are other critical issues related to the discharge of existing
effluent after 1995 which must be fully addressed before the Alternative Plan
can be finalized.
I
-------
TABLE LI. MWRA FINAL STY?: BASE VS ALTERNATE SCHEDULE
Activity
,
Abbreviation
Completion
Year
Base
Alternate
Inter—Island Conduit
II COND
1995
1995
Outfall
OUTFALL
1995
1995
Primary for North System
PRIM NS
1995.5
1995
Primary for Both Systems
ALL. PRIM
1995.5
1996
South System Pump Station
SS PUMP
1993.5
1993
Connection of South System
SS CONECT
1995.5
1996.5
Secondary 25% of FLow
SEC-i
1999
1996.5
Secondary All Flows
SEC FULL
1999
1999
* Abbreviations refer to abbreviations used
in Fig
ure ZL1.
Ihl.2 Impacts of Accelerated Secondary
EPA identified three potentially significant differences between the Base and
Alternate plans in the areas of cost, peak construction requirements and
effluent discharge (thus water quality implications). The cost comparison
(Table il.2 and Figure 1.2) shows little difference between the two plans while
the construction resources d ands (Table L$.3 and Figure 1L3) are slightly
more severe for the Alternate Plan. The Base and Alternate plans will result
in different water quality conditions at the recoended outfall location
during the approximatley 1996 to 1999 period. These water quality conditions
are discussed below.
Under the Base Plan, primary effluent from the entire MWRA service area would
be discharged through the new outfall to Massachusetts Bay for an interim
period (approximately 1995 to 1999) while the secondary facilities are being
constructed. The water quality implications and environmental impacts of this
discharge are fully described in the Draft SEtS. The Alternate Plan calls for
a discharge which is a mixed primary (average of 75% of the flow) and
secondary (average of 25% of the flow) effluent for an interim period from
approximately 1996 to 1999, when full secondary treatment of all flows will be
achieved. The MWRA performed a comparison of environmental impacts of the two
plans ror the interim period in their Final STFP CV, A and B, 1988). The
conclusions are sumnarized below.
L1.2.1 Exceedances of Water Quality Criteria. The number of predicted water
quality exceedances are the same for the Base and Alternate Plans. However
since the mass loading of many constituents is somewhat reduced by partial
secondary treatment, the degree by which criteria are exceeded will be reduced
(i.e. the exceedances will not be as severe).
-------
$CHEDULE — IMRA flNAL LIR
9-
0 0
a-
0 0
7-
6-
5.
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
I
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 d 0 o
0- • 1 - • I • • . I • -
U COI D OUTMU. PRIM NS All PRIM IS PUMP IS COllECT SEC—I SEC FUU
IIISE PLAN ALTERNATE P1*14
FIGURE 4.1 BASE II ALTERNATE PLAN SCHEDULE
Zi_3
-------
Cost Basis
Capital
TABLE 4.2. NIIRA FINAL STFP: BASE VS
Abbreviation”
ALTERNATE COSTS
Cost in Billion $
Base Alternate
Bonds
Required Revenue
1997
Cost per Residence’
TABLE 13.3. NWRA FINAL STFP: BASE VS ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION
% of Base Plan
R ” 4 — nt ______
Base Alternate
“t—.’
Current
Inflated
2000
CUR
INFLA
BOND
REV 97
REV 20
805 97
BOS 20
2.94
‘4.65
‘4.63
0.63
0.811
0.55
0.71
2.96
13.63
“.59
0.66
0.83
0.57
0.71
Boston
1997
2000
Needham
1997 NED 97 0.69 0.72
2000 NED 20 0.90 0.89
a
* Costs in thousand $ per year.
** Abbreviations refer to abbreviations used in Figure 11.2.
Construction Requirement
Abbreviation*
Concrete by 1996
CONCRETE
100
130
Peak Daily Work Force
WORKERS
100
108
Materials Handled by 1996
MATERIAL
100
127
Off Site Lay Down Area
AREA
100
115
• Abbreviations refer to
abbreviations used in
Figure J4 .3.
-------
W A 1ML LIR
5.
4.
3 ,
12
CUR PliIA SOlID ftVS7 1EV20 SOS 17 lOS 20 lED 97 E0 20
• liSt R.AN CO 9 S
FIGURE 4.2 BASE is ALTERNATE PLAN COST
.5
-------
S11UCTION -
2-
I.,-
I .’-
I.,.
1.6-
1.5 -
:1.
06-i
0.5.7 / /
04
0.3
0.2 /
oil / J
I :4_ II_ I
CONCRETE WORKERS AREA
COWS? lUC . OUI!
list RAN ALTERNATE PLAN
FIGURE 4.3 BASE n ALTERNATE PLAN CONSTRUCTION
-------
.1.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen. With both the Base and Alternate Plans there are
some predicted violations of the Massachusetts Dissolved Oxygen standard of
6 mg/i at the reco ended location during the interim period. The extent of
the violations will be reduced under the Alternate plan, but the violations
predicted under either plan will not adversely effect aquatic life
(Section 5.1.3.1.5).
.1.2.3 Other Criteria. The HWRA Final STFP (1988) concludes that the
sedimentation rates for the Alternate Plan would be approximately the sane as
those predicted for the Base Plan. Therefore, the sediment impacts (both
organic enrichment and toxicity) would be similar for both plans. Based on
the anticipated minor reduction in mass emission of solids, EPA concurs with
this conclusion. The Alternative Plan is not expected to be substantially
different from the Base Plan in any other areas.
.1.3 Reco endation
EPA fully supports the concept of accelerated construction and operation of
even a portion of the secondary facilities. There are some environmental
benefits associated with such a plan and the early commitment of resources to
implement secondary treatment is a demonstration by MWRA of their commitment
to comply with the Clean Water Act and the federal Court order. However, as
presented below, there are some outstanding issues that 1 1RA must address and
submit for environmental review before the accelerated secondary construction
plan can be finalized.
MWRA must perform a complete technical evaluation and environmental comparison
of the alternatives available for the discharge of primary effluent during the
construction period, especially the approximately one year period (circa
1995-1996) during which MWRA is under Court order to cease discharges to
Quincy Bay and President Roads. This evaluation must address water and
sediment quality efTects, fate and effects of toxic compounds, ecosystem and
recreation effects, and additional construction impacts required to implement
each of the discharge alternatives. The potential for and implication of
delays during the construction of the outfall or secondary treatment
facilities must also be assessed.
The implications of simultaneous construction of primary and a portion of the
secondary facilities must also be addressed. The MWRA must demonstrate that
the existing construction mitigation plan is adequate for the potentially
increased Impacts of construction noise and transportation of materials and
laborers resulting from an accelerated secondary construction schedule. The
adequacy of the proposed staging areas and pier facilities must also be
evaluated.
.2 DIFFUSER WCEPTUAL DESIGN
.2.1 Description of Diffuser Alternatives
The Draft SEIS presented two conceptual design alternatives for the outfall
diffuser (Section 3.1 .1 and Appendix F.1 ). One alternative design consisted
of approximately 80 risers drilled into the outfall tunnel, each with a
J 4 -7
-------
multiport cap. The other consisted of a limited number of risers (one to
ten), each terminating in a large pipe multiport-diffuser buried in a trench
below the sea floor. Information developed since publication of the Draft
SETS has not lead to a change in either of these alternatives, but as
described below, additional information has affected the comparison of the
alternatives.
.2.2 I.pacts of Alternatives
The Draft SETS presented the potential impacts associated with the
construction and operation of each of the diffuser alternatives
(Section 5.3). EPA concluded that the 80 drilled riser diffuser had the least
environmental impact because compared to the pipe diffuser, its construction
would require significantly less dredging and dredged material disposal
(12,000 cubic yards compared to 1. million cubic yards) for that
alternative. Also, construction of the pipe diffuser disrupted much more
benthic habitat.
In addition, the drilled riser diffuser is more easily constructed than the
pipe diffuser. There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with
construction of the pipe diffuser, including safety of working conditions,
risk of construction delays, availability of construction equipment, potential
for cost overruns, and lack of contingencies should the construction technique
fail. The construction of a multiriser pipe diffuser in San Francisco was
delayed 17 months, costing millions of dollars, when severe winds and waves
knocked a custom-built barge from its moorings (Camp, Dresser & McKee/Stone &
Webster, personal coimnunication).
Drilled riser diffusers, however, have been constructed under similar
conditions, and information concerning construction techniques and manpower
and equipment requirements is available. The amount of work performed on
barges in the open ocean iswinimized and thus the risks associated with
construction are minimized.
In general, the cost of a pipe diffuser might be slightly less than that of a
drilled riser diffuser, but cost estimates for a pipe diffuser vary
considerably because of the uncertainty and risk surrounding its construction.
.2.3 Recoendation
The Draft SETS concluded that either the pipe diffuser or the drilled riser
diffuser were acceptable and wore information was needed to make a decision.
With the additional information referenced above and the impact evaluation
performed in the Draft SETS it is now clear that the drilled riser is the
superior diffuser alternative. It has the least on and off site impact from
dredging and there are less risks and potential difficulties associated with
its construction. Therefore EPA’s preferred diffuser design is a drilled riser
diffuser. However, should follow-up studies leading to the final design of
the diffuser (including hydraulic modeling and geotechnical investigations)
show that the cost of construction of a drilled riser outweighs the negative
aspects of a pipe diffuser (as outlined above), EPA could accept a pipe
diffuser. Dredging (and ocean disposal of dredged material) conducted for
-------
construction of either diffuser will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, which will consider cost, constuction difficulties and
environmental impacts based on the final diffuser design.
.3 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES
The predicted Water Quality Criteria exceedances ror each candidate outfall
site are presented in the Draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.7 for primary and secondary
effluent respectively. These exceedances are based on predicted
concentrations at the edge of the effluent mixing zone, which in turn are
based on the combined input from MWRA effluent, other sources and ambient
waters. Since publication of the Draft SEIS, additional data on ambient
concentrations has become available. The new information is presented in
Table
TABLE I .11. AMBIENT CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS COMPARISON
Constituent
DSEIS
Ambient
Concentration
New’
Ambient
Concentration
Copper
71 ng/l
301 ng/].
Fluorene
1 ng/l
5 ng/l
Mercury
L I ng/].
‘
9.3 ng/l
•MWRA, Final STFP V,
A, 1988.
When this new ambient data is used, the predicted concentrations at the edge
of the effluent mixing zone change correspondingly. With the exception of
mercury, no changes in exceedances occur as a result of the new data. For
mercury, the new concentrations at the edge of the mixing zone within the
recoended area are shown in Table LI.5.
TABLE v.5. I RCURY CONCENTRATIONS (ng/l)
Primary
Treatment
Secondary
Treatment
CCC
Criteria
DSEIS
FSEIS
DSEIS
FSEIS
Site
LI
5
6LI
31
1 12
25
Site
5
30
113.5
23
30
25
11-9
-------
Thus, mercury would exceed the CCC criterion not only at Site 1$ but also at
Site 5 under both primary and secondary treatment. Thus, the implication of
mercury concentration identified for Site I in the Draft SEIS
(Section 5.1.3.1.3) would also apply to Site 5. This does not change the
overall comparison to water quality criteria goals or the recoendation.
‘4- 0
-------
cHAP’rER 5
ERRATA
The errata contained herein correspond to the Draft SEIS, 1988 prepared by the
U.S. EPA, Region I. After technical and editorial review of coents
received, the following changes were made.
Corrections are presented first by volume and are grouped within each volume
according to text, table, and figure changes.
5.1 VOLUME I CORRECTIONS
5.1.1 Text Q anges
Page 1-5. Date for complete construction of interisland conveyance system
changed from “ /914” to “12/9L .”
Page 1 39. Third paragraph, second sentence from the end changed from
“...with incursions of colder water occurred twice.” to read “...with
incursions of colder water which occurred four times.”
Page 5-23. Third paragraph, first sentence changed from “...resuspension
events for both stratified and non-stratified conditions.” to read
“...resuspension events and under stratified conditions only.”
Page 5-32. Fifth paragraph, second sentence from the end changed from
“...wlth a PCB concettration greater than the comparison level of
0.01 uglg....” to read “...with a PCB concentration greater than the
comparison level of 0.1 ug/g....”
Page 5-35. Third paragraph, last sentence changed from “This is consistent
with literature values discussed above.” to read “Therefore, when adjusted for
organic carbon content, this value is consistent with the literature values
discussed above.”
Page 5-35. Fourth paragraph, third sentence changed from “...5.1.3.c to
5.1.3.d).” to “...5.1.3.a and 5.1.3.b.)”
Page 5-35. Fifth paragraph, fourth sentence changed from “...5.1.3.a and
5.1.3.b).” to “...5.1.3.c and 5.1.3.d.) ”
Page 5_i 7. Fifth paragraph, third sentence changed from “...96 percent
smaller at Site 2 than Site Z during no net drift conditions.” to read
“...96 percent smaller at Site 11 than Site 2 during no net drift conditions.”
Page 5-50. Second paragraph, fourth sentence changed from “...productivity at
a concentration of 1.6 mg/l....” to read “...preductivity at a concentration
of 1.6 ug/l....”
5-.
-------
Page 5—62. Fifth paragraph, last sentence changed from “Therefore, the tunnel
construction, not the diffuser construction, will be the critical factor in
meeting the court’s deadline.” to read “At Site 5, the tunnel construction,
not the diffuser construction, will be the critical factor in meeting the
court’s deadline while diffuser construction is the critical
item at other sites.”
Page 6-9. First paragraph, first sentence changed from “...only until
mid-1000....” to read “...only until mid 1999.” Add new paragraph at end to
read: “Tables 6. I. 1 l.a to 6.k. 1 .e present estimates of loading rates and
effluent concentrations for conventional and non-conventionl constituents of
concern for the above mentioned scenarios. Table 6.i$. e.a presents estimates
assuming primary treatment at a flow of 377 mgd and average influent
loading. Table 6.6. i.b presents estimates assuming less than adequate
disinfection during storm conditions with flow of 1,270 mgd and maximum
influent loading under primary treatment. Table 6. 1 .4.c presents estimates of
loadings and effluents concentrations for secondary treatment assuming average
flows of 390 mgd and average influent loads. Table presents these
estimates assuming 1,080 mgd of secondary effluent mixed with 190 mgd of
primary treated effluent with average loadings. Table 6. 1 1. .e presents
estimates of up to 1,270 mgd of primary treated effluent through secondary
treatment facilities (as would occur during power outage) with maximum
loadings.”
Page 7-5. Fourth paragraph, first sentence changed from “. . .the MWRA
discharge alone would exceed the criteria for arsenic....” to read “...the
MWRA discharge alone would not exceed the criteria for arsenic....”
5-2
-------
5.1.2 Table changes
Page 5-7. Table 5.1.1.c. Nearfield Dilutions
(Numbers in bold were corrected)
Page 5-26. Table 5.1.1.i. Stary of Predicted Water Quality Criteria
Exceedances
(Numbers in bold corrected)
Page 5-28. Table 5.1.2.a. Comparison of Simulated Maximum Sediment Pollutant
Concentrations, Primary Effluent, 5 Years Duration, Non-stratified Conditions
(Column headings in bold realigned)
Page 6-11. Table 6.1L Lb. Non Conventional Pollutant Effluent
Concentrations After Primary Treatment Year 1999, Maximum Loading Conditions
on Storm Day
(Title of table changed)
Page 6-12. Table 6.11. i.c. Effluent Concentrations After Secondary Treatment,
Year 2020
(Title of table and numbers in bold changed)
Page 6-13. Table Effluent Concentrations After Secondary Treatment,
Year 2020
(Title of table changed)
Pages 6-15 and 6-16. Table 6. .1Lf. Mixed Primary-Secondary Effluent,
Year 2020
(Heading in bold realigned and columns with numbers in bold realigned)
Page 7-3. Table 7.1.1.b. Site Comparison for Determinative Criteria
(Numbers and letters in bold corrected)
5-3
-------
TABLE 5.1.1.c. NEARFIELD DILUTIONS
Diffuser
Configuration
Percentile 2
SITE
2
SITE
£
SITE
5
Length( )
Orlentation
2000
1 5°
10
50
90
57
98
163
75
128
259
92
150
272
2000
90°
10
50
90
61
11 1
222
79
150
369
105
190
388
3000
5°
10
50
90
72
120
232
91
159
385
122
196
L 0 1
(1) Angle between diffuser and ambient current.
(2) Percent of the time that the dilution is less
than the value indicated.
5—4
-------
TABLE 5.1.1. i SU)O1ARY Cf PREDICTED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA UCEEDANCES
Criterion
Constituent Ambient
CONCENTRATION/CRITERION RATIOS 1)
PriD ary Secondary
Site 4 Site 5 Site 2 SIte 4
Site 2
Site 5
CNC
copper
2.1
1.71
CCC
heptachior
3.49
2.11
1.51
1.01
4,4’-DDT
3.55
1.99
1.34
mercury
4.04
4.Oil
2.56
2.69
1.68
1.2
PCBs
2.37
1.46
1.09
Carcinogenicity
(1O risk factor)
aidrin
13.30
6.02
3.26
1.41
4,4’-DDT
11.40
5.0 11
2.65
1.21
heptachior
3.66
1.73
dieldrin
1.57
arsenic 2.85
3.51
3.17
3.04
3.32
3.09
2.99
PCBs 9.24
72.75
138.00
24.80
14.69
11.70
10.57
(106 risk factor)
•
a]drin
133.1
60.23
32.11
14.08
6.35
3.113
1l, 4’—DDT
1111.1
50.38
26.46
12.08
5.33
2.79
heptachior
36.64
17.30
9.81
4.30
2.03
1.15
dieldrin
15.68
6.02
3.26
1.66
fluorene
7.50
3.56
2.04
arsenic 28.45
35.07
31.75
30.37
33.25
30.95
30.84
PCBs 92.40
727.50
379.78
247.96
146.86
117.00
105.70
(1) Concentration • Criterion (e.g. at Site 2, for primary, the
concentration is 2.1 times the CMC criterion for oopper).
5-5
-------
TABLE 5 l.2.a. COMPARISON OF SIMULATED MAXIMUM SEDIMENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS,
PRIMARY EFFLUENT, 5 YEARS DURATION, NONSTRATIFIED CONDITIONS
Background
Chemical Site 2
Concentration (ug/g)
Max lu Sinilated Concentration (ug/g)
Site
I Site 5
Site 2
Site
l
Site 5
PCBs 0.01 0.02 0.01 1.38 1.03 0.77
Metals
Arsenic 2.87 5.53 4.62 3.79 5.78 1 1.97
Copper 12.56 17.88 • 6.71 130.63 1011.02 72.30
Mercury 0.15 0.17 0.11 1.82 1.111 1.011
Nickel 11.66 9.211 11.88 29.67 28.72 21.00
Selenium 2.00 2.00 2.00 11.12 8.65 6.92
Silver 2.1111 0.10 0.10 7.88 11.110 3.28
Zinc 26.12 1 17.54 25.03 283.20 233.63 166.69
Pesticides
Aldrin 0.01$ 0.011 0.04 0.30 0.23 0.18
l l,4-DDT 2 0.01$ 0.01$ 0.01$ 0.111 0.11 0.09
Dieldrin 2 0.01$ 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.011 0.011
Heptachior 0.04 0.011 0.011 0.13 0.10 0.09
Acid Base Neutrals
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NA ’ NA NA 20.21 111.89 11.02
Butylbenzyl phthalate NA NA NA 14.19 10.46 7.74
Di-n-octylphthalate NA NA NA 22.71 16.711 12.39
1. NA = No data available - zero background concentration assumed.
2. Analyzed for public health impacts only.
-------
TABLE 6. J .11. b EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
AFTER PRIMARY TREATMENT TEAR 1999,
MAXIMUM WADING CONDITIONS ON STORM DAY 1
Maximum
Influent
Removal
Effluent
Etfluent
Load p s,
Pollutant ibId”
Rate,
Percent
Loadings,
ib/d
Conc.,
mg/i
BOD 1,305,000 21 1,026,000 971
TSS 1,1 180,000 882,000 83
TALS
Arsenic 12.3 25 9.23 0.00087
Cadmium 111.8 15 12.58 0.00119
Chromium 157.11 110 911.1111 0.00892
Copper 639.3 35 1115.511 0.03923
Lead 130.2 116 70.31 0.006611
Mercury 17.5 22 13.65 0.00129
Nickel 1119.8 15 127.33 0.01202
Selenium 153.9 10 138.51 0.01308
Silver 26.8 30 18.76 0.00177
Zinc 28 i0.1 110 17014.06 0.16088
ACID BASE NEUTRALS
Butylbenzyl Phthaiete 120.5 , 0 120.50 0.01138
Bis (2—Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 1211.11 0 12 1 4.110 0.011711
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 115.2 0 115.20 0.01088
Florene 16.5 0 16.50 0.00156
VOLATILE ORGANICS (3)
Bromomethane 106.8 NA 106.80 0.01008
Methylene Chloride 293.3 0 293.30 0.02769
Chloroform 142.8 NA 142.80 0.001 1011
Trithloroethylene 90.0 20 72.00 0.00680
Benzene 22.6 0 22.60 0.002 13
Tetrachiorethylene 1311.0 0 1311.00 0.01265
Ethylbenzene 63.7 0 63.70 0.00601
Styrene 55.7 0 55.70 0.00526
PESTICIDES AND PCB
PCB 4.0 0 14.00 0.00038
Aidrin 0.8 0 0.80 0.00008
DDT 0.2 0 0.20 0.00002
Heptachior 0.8 10 0.72 0.00007
Dieldrin 0.1 0 0.10 0.00001
1. Wastewater flow of 1270 mgd was uaed to calculate effluent concentrations.
2. Maximum influent loadings were estimated during the Facilities Plan (P4WRA,
STFP VA, 1987).
3. “NA” represents no information available. No removal of pollutant was assumed.
5-7
-------
TABLE 6.4.1 1. c EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS AF EA 5ECOI1DARY TREATMENT,
YEAR 2020, AVERAGE FLON’”
Average
Influent
Removal
Effluent
Effluent
Load qgs,
Pollutant ib/d “
Rate,
Percent
Loadings,
ib/d
Cone.,
mg/i
BOD 570,000 91 48,800 15
TSS 515,000 91 118,800 15
METALS
Arsenic 7.6 50 3.8 0.00117
Cadmium 8.4 50 4.2 0.00129
Chromium 88.5 76 21.2 0.00653
Copper 399.8 82 72.0 0.02213
Lead 69.5 57 29.9 0.00919
Mercury 5.0 75 1.3 0.00038
Nickel 79.1 32 53.8 0.01654
Selenium 53.3 50 26.7 0.00819
Silver 18.0 90 1.8 0.00055
Zinc 866.2 76 207.9 0.06391
ACID BASE NEUTRALS
Butyibenzyl Phthaiate 63.7 95 3.2 0.00098
Bis (2-Ethyihexyl) Phtha]ate 78.3 90 7.8 0.00241
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 65.8 90 6.6 0.00202
Florene 16.5 90 1.7 0.00051
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Bromomethane 62.3 95 3.1 0.00096
Methylene Chloride 120.3 95 6.0 0.00185
Chloroform 22.3 90 2.2 0.00069
Trichioroethylene 43.6 95 2.2 0.00067
Benzene 16.5 95 0.8 0.00025
Tetrachlorethylene 61.7 90 6.2 0.00190
Ethylbenzene 33. 1$ 95 1.7 0.00051
Styrene 37.5 90 3.8 0.00115
PESTICIDES AND PCB
PCB 3.2 92 0.3 0.00008
Aldrin 0.7 90 0.1 0.00002
DDT 0.2 90 0.0 0.00001
Heptachior 0.8 90 0.1 0.00002
Dieldrth 0.1 90 0.0 0.00000
1. Wastewater flow of 390 mgd was used to calculate effluent concentrations.
2. Average influent loadings were estimated during the Facilities Plan (MWRA,
STFP III, 1987).
5-8
-------
TABLE 6.L l.d EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS AF E R ?EC0NDARY TREATP NT,
YEAR 2020, MAXIMUM FLOW 1
Average
Influent
Removal
Effluent
Effluent
Rate,
Loadings,
Conc.,
Load s,
Pollutant lb/d’ ‘
Percent
ibid
mg/i
BOD 1,227,000 71 360,300 110
TSS 1,391,000 711 360,300 l eO
)CTALS
Arsenic 7.6 50 3.8 0.0001 12
Cadmium 8.11 50 11.2 0.000117
Chromium 88.5 76 21.2 0.00236
Copper 399.8 82 72.0 0.00799
Lead 69.5 57 29.9 0.00332
Mercury 5.0 75 1.3 0.000111
Nickel 79.1 32 53.8 0.00597
Selenium 53.3 50 26.7 0.00296
Silver 18.0 90 1.8 0.00020
Zinc 866.2 76 207.0 0.02308
ACID BASE NEUTRALS
Butylbenzyl Phthalate 63.7 95 3.2 0.00035
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 78.3 90 7.8 0.00087
Di-N-Oetyl Phthalate 65.8 90 6.6 0.00073
Florene 16.5 90 1.7 0.00018
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Bromomethane 62.3 95 3.1 0.00035
Methylene Chloride 120.3 95 6.0 0.00067
Chloroform 22.3 90 2.2 0.00025
Trichioroethylefle 113.6 95 2.2 0.000211
Benzene 16.5 95 0.8 0.00009
Tetrachlorethylefle 61.7 90 6.2 0.00069
Ethylbenzene 33.11 95 1.7 0.00019
Styrene 37.5 90 3.8 0.000112
PESTICIDES AND PCB
PCB 3.2 92 0.3 0.00003
Aidrin 0.7 90 0.1 0.00001
DDT 0.2 90 0.0 0.00000
Heptachior 0.8 90 0.1 0.00001
Dieldrin 0.1 90 0.0 0.00000
1. Wastewater flow of 1080 mgd was used to calculate effluent concentrations .
2. Average influent loadings were estimated during the Facilities Plan (Pf JRA,
STFP III, 1987).
5-9
-------
TABLE 6.l.8.t MIXED PRIMARY-SECONDARY EFYLUDIT, YEAR 2020, (I I $10111 8 8 7 (I)
ROD
TSS
1,305,000 25 186,500 98
1,800,000 50 111,100 70
68 360.300 80
TI 360,300 80
506,800 88
871,800 88
63.7
78.3
65.8
16.5
0 9.5
0 11.7
0 9.8
0 2.5
0.00601
0.00739
0.00621
0.00 156
70 16.3 0.00180
50 33.3 0.00370
70 16.8 0.00186
70 8.2 0.00087
25.8 0.00283
85.0 0.00825
26.6 0.00251
6.7 0.00063
Average
Influent
Prary 2
Secondary 3
Plant
Reenvel
Effluent
Effluent
Reaovai
Effluent
Effluent
Iffluent
Effluent
Loading.,
Rate,
Loadinga,
Cone.,
Rate,
Loadings,
Cone.,
Loading,
Cone.,
Pollutant ib/d
Percent
ibid
mg/I
Percent
Ibid
mg/I
ibid
mg/i
I€1ALS
Ar.enlc
7.6
25
0.9
0.00058
80
3.9
0.00083
8.7
0.00085
Cad.j.
8.8
15
1.1
‘
0.00067
80
8.3
0.00088
5.8
0.00051
Chren li
88.5
80
7.9
0.00501
60
30.1
0.00338
38.0
0.00359
Copper
399.8
35
38.9
0.02858
70
102.0
0.01132
110.9
0.01330
Lead
69.5
86
5.6
0.00358
70
17.7
0.00197
23.3
0.00220
Mercury
5.0
22
0,6
0.00037
70
1.3
0.0001 1
1.9
0.00018
NIckel
79.1
15
10.1
0.00635
30
17.1
0.00523
57.1
0.00510
Selenh
53.3
10
7.2
0.00853
80
27.2
0.00302
38.8
0.00325
SIlver
18.0
30
1.9
0.00119
80
3.1
0.0003 1
8.9
0.00087
ACID BASE NEUTRAU
Butylbenayl Phihalate
Bis (2-Ethylheayl) Phthalate
o Di-N-Octyi I’hthalate
Piorene
VOLATILE ORCAJIICS
( 8)
B,w thane
62.3
NI
62.3
0.03932
75
13.2
0.00187
75.5
0.00713
Methylene ChlorIde
ChlorofOrn
120.3
22.3
0
NA
18.0
22.3
0.01 136
0.01807
80
50
61. 1
9.5
0.00681
0.00105
79.8
31.8
0.00789
0.00300
1r ich loroethylsns
Ben2ene
83.6
16.5
20
0
5.2
2.5
0.00329
0.00156
70
70
11.1
8.2
0.00 123
0.00087
16.3
6.7
0.00158
0.00063
-------
?ABL! (Continued) NilE!) PR!N RY-SEC00DARY EFFLIIE!I?, YEAR 2020, 00 S1O I DAY ’
Average
Influent
Prhm ary 2 ’
Seeondary 3 ’
Plant
Removal
Errluent
Err luent
Removal
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Loadings,
Rate,
Loadings,
Cone.,
Rate,
Loadings,
Cone.,
Loading,
Cone.,
Pollutant
Ib/d
Percent
Ib/d
mg/ I
Percent
ibid
mg /i
uigiL
VOUTILE ORCANICS (Cent.)
0.00236
Tetrac l iiorethy lene
61.7
0
9.2
0.00583
70
15.7
0.00175
25.0
0.00128
Ethylbenzene
33.R
0
5.0
0.00315
70
8.5
0.00095
13.5
0.00 1N3
Styrene
37.5
0
5.6
0.0035
70
9.6
15.2
PESTICIDES AND PCR
PCR
3.2
0
0.5
0.00030
70
0.6
0.00009
1.3
0.00012
0.00003
AIdria
0.7
0
0.1
0.00007
70
0.2
0.00002
0.3
0.1
0.00001
DOT
0.2
0
0.0
0.00002
70
0.1
0.00001
0.00003
Heptacillor
0.8
10
0.1
0.00007
70
0.2
0.00002
0.3
0.0
0.00000
D le ldrLn
0.1
0
0.0
0.00001
70
0.0
0.00000
1. Flow conditions are up to 190 mgd prlmory treated effluent .txed with 1080 mgd secondary treated effluent ror a totat or i iu mgd .
Ui 2. Estlmotee based c i i 190 .gd.
‘ 3. Eatlumitee based c m 1080 mgd.
—. A. NAN represents no Informoticil avaIlable. No removal of pollutant was assumed.
-------
TABLE 7.I.l.b SITE COIPARISOW FOR XTERMINATIVE CRITETIIA
Coercial and Recreational
Species
Cost
Construction Duration
Disposal of Excavated Moteriel
Urar itia
her erence
Table 5.1.l.h;
Ch. 5.1.1.7.1; App. A.3.8.1
Table 5.1.1.1;
Ch. 5.1.1.7.3; App. A.3.3
Co. 5.1.4
HURl, S1VP V,A, 1987
Tabis s.1.i.r;
Ch. 5.1.1.6; App. 1.3.7.1
Table 5.I.3.6.a
Ch. 5.1.3.1.1
Measure
S. conda ySites
2 4 5
Primary Sites -
2 4 5
Miii DO (iig!))
5.9
6.3
6.4
2.2
5.0
5.7
Nt er of Liceedances 2
Ui r of Exceedances 4
Criteria
ss Surface Water Qwility
Standards
U.S. EPA Aquatic Lire
Water Quality Criteria
U.S. EPA Public Health
Water Quality Criteria
Pollutants at Shoreline!
Offshore Recreation
and Aesthetics
Sediment Enrichoent
Water Colii Enrickment
Sediment Toxicity
I 0 5 5 4
2 2 6 5 4
6.6 9.4 15.5
1.3 0.6 0.6
U’
6.6 9.4 15.5
1.3 0.6 0.6
Hours to Shore
S Effluent at Shore
kit 2 Degraded
ki t 2 Changed
Degraded
km 2 Changed
kit 2 of Effect
PCB ku 2 )O.1 p
Relative
$ Millions
Months
Million yds 3
J 0 0 2 I I
5 3 3 33 19 12
1 0 0 1 0 0
159 7 4 158 5 4
0 0 0 3 2 2
6 5 4
Moderate Minor Minor
18
Minor
13 tO
Minor Minor
276 389
47 51
0.8 1.3
Table 5.1.3.e;
Ch. 5.1.3.1.3
Table S.1.3.d;
Ch. 5.1.3.1.2
C l i. 5.1.5
Cli. 5.2.3
Cli. 5.2; Cli. 5.2.5
Cli. 5.2.4
468
56
1.9
276 389 468
47 51 56
0.8 1.3 1.9
-------
5.1.3 Figure changes (Also see the following pages)
Page Title of Figure 1 .2.1.c changed from “Locations of MWRA Survey
Transects” to read “Locations of MWRA Survey Vertical Profiling Transect
Stations,” and legend was revised from “T Northern Transects and S Southern
Transects” to read “T Northern Stations and S Southern Stations”
Page 1 33. Figure 1I.2.lLa. Location of MWRA Sampling Locations was revised.
Page l _ 7. Figure i .2.5.a. Coercial Navigational Resources was revised.
Page 1 - 8. Figure i .2.5.b. Typical Cc ercial and Passenger Ship Routes was
revised.
Page 1 -5O. Figure 1 .2.5.c. Co ercial Fishing Resources was revised:
“Approximate Numbers of Lobster Buoys and Lines” — removed, “Surf Clams” in
Nahant Bay moved closer to the causeway, “Suxer Lobster Fishery” — removed,
“Fall Lobster Fishery” - removed, and “Trawl Closure Line” — added.
Page 14-51. Figure 1L2.5.d. Beaches, Shoreline Parks, and Island Parks —
a.) Beaches were revised, b.) The following sources were added: EOEA, 1986;
EOEA, CZM, 1983; and EOEA, CZM, 1975.
Page 14-53. Figure l4.2.5.e. Major Boating Public Access Points was revised.
Page 14_511. Figure 11.2.5.f. Sensitive Harbor Resources was revised.
Page 5-20. Fiiure5.1.1.h. ELA Predicted Sedime’ntation Rates, Site 5, Primary
Treatment, Stratified Conditions was revised.
Page 6-3. Figure 6.1.a. Project Time Frame — South Flow Pump Sation
construction time extended to be completed by 12/911 rather than 14/93.
5-13
-------
SITE 2
T13 T14
T7
I
$4
FIGURE 4.2.1.c. LOCATIONS OF MWRA VERTICAL PROFILING TRANSECT STATIONS
I
SITE 4
SITE 5
yls
“ a p i —
‘7
1 .
$ 5
0
•13
U
LEGEND
T NORTHERN $TATlOtd$
$ IOIJTHERPI$TATION$
2 0
-J
STATUTE MILES
2
5-1 )4
-------
O PRIMARY PROOUCTIV1TY
O SH ANO IP IBINThIC
---RFMOTS STATION -FIRgT *JRV V
—R(MOTS STATIONS—SFCOND JRVEY
•NUTRI NTS SAMPLING
• ov$
SECOND ROV
SOFT—BOTTOM TRANSECTS
0 HARD—BOTTOM TRANSECTS
‘in
SITE 3
MASSACHUSETU
RAY
I .
STATUTE MiLES
! I
0 1 2 3
7100
70.ss,
ADAPTED FROM: MWRA
STFF, V. B, I Si
70 ’I.S
FTGURF. 4.2.4.i. LOCATION OF MWRA SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
LEGEIC
TP*d Hatbor Tunrisi Drdging 1901 - 1992
Sourc.s: NOM NaL*1 I CPwts. USACOC. 1987
USACO€ Pr c* Maps. 1996
F.dsrsl Hi h sy Adn* .. 1985
MWPA STFP VI, 1987
U.S. Anny Corps o Erçinws
Improv.m., Id9tnQ 1988—1995
FIGURE 4.2.5.a. COMMERCIAL NAVIGATIONAL RESOURCES
1’
SITE
4
SITE 5
2
SITE
S
S
S
Po IsntIsJ
Diffus sr
S *ss
The G
J 1 _____
‘ I4flC4 LLI f-’
p4, s n chlnn.
______ Idlorags 2
5-16
-------
LEGEND
— ccmm.r at Vsss&s
/ , S
: S ton Karbor S ais Park 1966
Mazlv Pan, Mass Dp o EsvvVonmsr aI Msna maf
uspovt. 1967 1. Sos*on 8hjp ng Msoclatcn. 1966
Soslon Harbor Is’and *t. Park Firriss (PTOISCISd and E lrc)
—— Comm tw S..vics and Logan Shuni.
FIGURE 4.2.5.b. TYPICAL COMMERCIAL AND PASSENGER SHIP ROUTES
‘
)
;r
••_% #
- ___
1A -
&1,. 5•’
11 bJ . L -.
‘ -
A
.c \. *
*• /
/: JI
1\
- I
: ---•#
SITE
SITE 5
4
2
SITE
.
I
S
PoNr tlsI
D fts.r
$4”
T)wGn i .
•
: ,
i
a -
5-17
-------
sIIfish B. Oossd to All D gsri
(Oo. ri Vri.s w/Conditioi i)
—— — *llfd I.ds RsstTict d to h r,r Dig srs
fj fj and Lo esv R.aour as —
Os. ri in tsxt (Saction 4.2.5.3.)
FIGURE 4.2.5.c. COMMERCIAL FISHING RESOURCES
5- ‘8
LEGEND Sot css 8 .ica” I Eddy. 1954
MWRAVotVA L 98 7
MWRA Vol V Ap B. 1987
4DUr. 1988
-------
“ °‘
— Bos*o’ Hsrb snd sat. Park
• Othir Park s
Harb Islands Fsrrs (Propos.d)
IJith.rs& PièlI Ing Co. •
FIGURE 4.2.5.d. BEACHES, SHOREUNE PARKS, AND ISLAND PARKS
5 -19
LEGEND $ourss: Soston PIsrbor Wnds Stat, P.rk
1 € Pln—M. Darn
MDC. 1514
‘VRA. VOL App. L. 1557
SOFA 1
SOFA. CZM. 1553
SOFA CZM. 1175
-------
BEACHES INCLUDED ON FIGURE 4.2.5.d. (Page 4-51)
1ARBLEHEAD SOUTH BOSTON
1. Riverhead Beach 26. City Point Beach
2. Devereau Beach 27. M St. Beach
28. L St. Beach
SWAnPSC Orr 29. Carson Beach
3. Phillips Beach DORCHESTER
£4• Whales Beach
5. Blaney Beach 30. Malibu Beach
6. King’s Beach 31. Tenean Beach
NAHANT QUINCY
7. Long Beach 32. Harbourslde Beach
8. Short Beach 33. Nickerson Beach
9. Stony Beach 34. Orchard Beach
10. Fortysteps Beach 35. Wallaston Beach
11. Canoe Beach 36. Willows Beach
12. Joseph’s Beach 37. Perry Beach
13. Tudor Beach 38. Edgewater Beach
14. Pond Beach 39. Baker Beach
15. Bass Point Beaches 40. Mound St. Beach
16. Black Rock Beach 41. Avalon Beach
REVERE WEYMOUTH
17. Revere Beach 112. Wessagussett Beach
18. Crescent Beach
HULL
WI NTHROP
113. Stony Beach
19. Short Beach 114. Nantasket Beach
20. Haltord Beach 115. Crescent Beach
21. Winthrop Beach
22. Yirrel Beach COHASSET
23. Pico Beach
24. Donovan Beach 46. Black Rock Beach
117. Pleasant Beach
EAST BOSTON 48. Bassings Beach
25. Constitution Beach SCITUATE
119. No. Scituate Beach
NOTE: Numbers correspond to beach
location of Figure 1 4.2.5.d.
5-20
-------
• Marinas Wmors than 50 Slçs or Mooilngs
* Soil Ran s
o Faeilii..* rrnor. than 50 Slips or Uoormnps
and B.3l RlrrtOs
FIGURE 4.2.5.e. MAJOR BOATING PUBLIC ACCESS POINTS
‘ma On is
LEGEND
rç Mmanac 1056
5-21
-------
J Sa v
, Sçn1f sns I v*1fisd Ws$$ CO
V.g.tabon
I
£n*orims, I C csm
___________ $o..*t sr Sin usry
(9Wflf .é . D.3.r )
(.1h Bisch s Sho a r 0.34.)
• Mvlns R....rcf Fscwltiss
FIGURE 4.2.5.f. SENSITIVE HARBOR RESOURCES
-22
• d, • • ,
1 _
MWRA Vo). V, APP.L iaei
SARR, 1967
-------
FIGURE 5.1.1.h. ELA PREDICTED SEDIMENTATION RATES 1 SITE 5,
PRIMARY TREATMENT, STRATIFIED CONDITIONS ( /m 2 /day)
p
5-23
-------
_______ UP N _______ _______ N SI _______ N V UP tONI
• uiON j -S U NO:
5T 5 PSIPa a l 5NI gEl WFIR REPORTS
_____ _____ • — DESIGN PERIOD
I CONSTRUCTION
susiss,gsggng BID & AUPARD PERIOC
.I?IONIITU PI I.. •••PROJ. MANAGEMENT
p 1l SAT.NINSPI V t. _____ — -- CONSTRAINT
UI ILICSIICM P U1ON ______
SATl N ( I
_ ml
I $ ____ ____
__ __ -
OIOND CAL S CSS —
Ca IUPEflc ll UII (IP — I
_______ ________ I I I I
‘p—I I I I
COONUPICtION I —
I
S n IUIACO ______ _______ — — — — — — _14 ______ _______ I ____
PR fUS*1 IIT P UtICO — — — —
ZUPUPASNANI
Zo.AP ,IANI o. I5
LCNU ANIANI — 1 — IIINIIS . uuiuju ” •_1
in_N e I — ‘ _____ _____ _____ ____
__________ ___________ I
S n _U n. P%N STAtION -t° — — — • STNNSI - —
NISOIJA&S NIAN I _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
STI C S —
Ro.SAmv TRIATSUPI? PANI. - — — - — _____
Zn_N A ______
S I ‘I —
ST. NIUPARATION S
L ___ ___ ___
— — — U pj
L — —. _____ _____ _____ ______
.• .. • . . ,. — .i .. — .- . — • — .
- TU_= fl [ L g o.u I
I_ _T •
I I__ I_. i I— ,
— URo. ’ Sn, & —
*i . nv — W aIU ,
SOURCE: RA STFP VII. 1057
FIGURE 6.b. PROJECT TIME FRAME
-------
5.2 VOLU) II 0RRECTIONS
5.2.1 Tezt Q anges
Page A— ê. Second paragraph, “K = io 6 mfsec” changed to “K = 5 z io 6
Page A 71. The following was added at the end of the first paragraph “Recent
evaluation by MWRA’s consultant, CDM, indicates that the low DOs measured in
September 1988 may be tainted by instrument malfunction. This would render
the assumed ambient DO during fall resuspension events (6.5 mg/i) that much
more conservatively low.”
Page A—81. First paragraph, second sentence changed from “...were estimated
from measurements far from known sources (A.2.2.3). ” to read “...were
estimated from measurements far from known sources (Section A.2.2.5).”
Page A-82. First paragraph, third sentence changed from “Because
the highest nearfield dilutions....” to read “Because the lowest nearfield
dilutions...
Page A-86. The following was added at the end of the first paragraph “For
these calculations, the background constituent concentrations corresponding to
stratified ambient conditions were used, leading to conservatively high
estimates of long-term average conditions.”
Page B-17. First paragraph, last sentence changed from “...an influent PCB
concentration of 0.005 mg/l was used....” to read “...an influent PCB
concentration of 0.0005 mg/l was used....”
Page C-22. Third paragraph, third sentence changed from “...which coincided
with incursions of colder water occurred twice.” to read “...which coincided
with incursions of colder water occurred four times.”
Page G—23. New section added —
G. .11. MASSACHUSETTS UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY ACT
The Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources is the only
agency/persons allowed under this Act to authorize and supervise
removal and salvaging of underwater resources considered to be or to
potentially be of an historical or educational value.
Escavation is allowed after a permit is granted by the Board, which
consists of representatives of the Massachusetts Historic
Commission, and is restricted to the confines of Massachusetts’
territorial waters.
5-25
-------
5.2.2 Table changes
Page A-30. Table A.2.5. Saltwater Aquatic Life and Human Health Water Quality
Cr1 ter Ia
(Numbers in bold were added or corrected)
Page A- eO. Table A.3.1. Constituents Loadings
(Column headings in bold were corrected)
Page A—6 e. Table A.3.7. Maximum Dissolved Oxygen Deficits
(Footnote - units in bold were corrected)
Page A-83. Table A.3.13. Aquatic Life Toxicity Criteria Compliance for
Site 2
(Numbers in bold were added or corrected)
Page A-8 1 4. Table A.3.1IL Aquatic Life Toxicity Criteria Compliance for Site L
(Column heading in bold was corrected)
Page A—85. Table A.3.15. Aquatic Life Toxicity Criteria Compliance for Site 5
(Numbers in bold were added or corrected)
Page A—87. Table A.3.16. Human Health Criteria Compliance for Site 2
(Numbers in bold were added or changed)
Page A—88. Table A.3.17. Human Health Criteria Compliance for Site 14
(Numbers in bold were added or changed)
Page A-89. Table A.3.18. Human Health Criteria Compliance for Site 5
(Numbers in bold were added or changed)
Page A—90. Table A.3.19. Siitim ry of Predicted Water Quality Criteria
Exceedances
(Numbers in bold were corrected)
5-26
-------
TABLE A.2.5 SALTWATER AQUATIC LIFE AND HUMAN HEALTH
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Carcinogenieity
Che iical CMC CCC Toxicity 1O 10
Taste
and Odor
VOL ATI LES
benzene 5,100 700 —- 1400. 140.
bro omethane 12,000 6,1400 —— 157. 15.7
chloroform —— -- —- 157. 15.7
ethylbenzene 1430 —— 3,280 —— ——
ethy1 chloride 12,000 6,1 100 —- 157 15.7
styrene 1430 -- 3,280 —- —-
tetrachloroethy]ene 10,200 1450 —- 88.5 8.85
ACID, BASE NEUTRALS
anthracene 300 -- —- 3.11 0.311 ——
benz(a)anthracene 300 -- — - 0.311 0.0311 ——
benz(b)fluoranthene 300 —- —- 0.311 0.0311 ——
benz(k)tluoranthene 300 —- —- 0.311 0.0311 —-
benz(g,h,i)fluoranthene 300 -- —- 0.311 0.0311 ——
benz(a)pyrene 300 -— —- 0.311 0.0311 ——
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2,91111 3.14 —- 500,000. 50,000. —-
butylbenzyl phthalate 2,91411 3.11 —- —- —- ——
chrysene 300 -- —- 0.311 0.0311 ——
dibenz(ah,h)anthracene 300 —— —- 0.311 0.0311 —-
3,3-dichlorobenzidine . —- -— —- 0.2 0.02 —-
2,4 4-dichiorophenol —- -- 3.090 —- —- 0.3
di-n-octyl phthalate 2,91411 3.14 —- 1,5140,000 1511,000 --
fluorene 300 -- —- 0.311 0.0311 —-
hexachlorobenzene 160 129 —- 0.00711 0.000711 —-
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 300 —- —- 0.311 0.0311 ——
naphthalene 2,350 —- —- —— —— ——
phenanthrene 300 —— —- 0.311 0.0311 ——
pyrene 300 —- —— 0.311 0.0311 ——
TALS
arsenic 60 36 —— 0.175 0.0175 ——
beryllium —— —— —— 1.17 0.117 ——
cadn iuni 143 9.3 —- —- —- —-
chrcciu 1,100 50 —- —- —- —-
copper 2.9 -- —- —- —- 1,000
5-27
-------
TABLE A.2.5 SALTWATER AQUATIC LIFE AND HUMAN HEALTh
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (Continued)
Source: From the EPA Gold Book
again in May, 1987; all
as published in May, 1986, and
units are ugh.
F
Chemical
CMC
CCC
Toxicity
Carcinogenicity
10’5 10
Taste
and Odor
ICTALS (continued)
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
zinc
1Z 0
2.1
75
10
2.3
95
5.6
0.025
8.3
54
——
86
...
0.1Z 6
——
——
——
——
1,000
——
——
——
100
——
——
-—
——
——
——
5,000
PESTICIDES
aidrin
chlordane
dieldrin
heptachior
toxaphene
1.3
0.18
0.71
0.053
0.21
--
O.O01
0.0019
0.0036
0.0002
——
--
—-
——
--
0.00079
0.OO1 8
0.00076
0.0029
--
0.000079
O.0OL 8
0.000076
0.00029
--
--
——
--
--
OTHER CHEMICALS
—-
0.03
——
0.00079
0.000079
--
PCBs
-
updated in 1986 and
5-28
-------
TABLE A.3.1 COWST11 JENTS LOADINGS
Constituents
Conventional
Primary Effluent
Secondary Effluent
Low High
Ground- Ground-
Low
Ground-
High
Ground-
Pollutants (g/sec)
water
water
water water
Carbonaceous BOD
2,915
3.1115
3711 858
Nitrogenous BOD
1,785
1,785
1,785 1,785
DO Deficit
139
278
139 278
Total Su Rçnded Solids
)1itrogen’ ’
1,150
390
390
363
390 390
Flows (;gd)
(m’/s)
377
16.5
657
28.8
390 670
17.1 29.3
Toxic Chemicals (mg/sec)
Primary
Effluent
Secondary Effluent
Mean Standard High 2
Deviation
Mean
Standard
Deviation
benzene
86.8
16.0
11.3 0.8 26.0
bromomethane
327.6
116.8
16.11 5.8 81.9
chloroform
117.1
511.0
11.7 5.14 58.5
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
175.8
632.3
79.11
11514.6
8.8 11.0 52.7
31.6 22.7 279.11
etyrene
tetrachlorc.ethylene
trichloroethylene
197.2
32L .2
183.3
1 17 .,7
189.9
97.14
19.7 14.8 59.2
32.11 19.0 97.3
11.5 6.1 68.7
bis(2—ethylhexyl)phthalate
butylbenzyl phthalate
di—n-octyl phthalate
fluorene
1111.3
3314.7
3115.7.
86.11
121.1
1149.3
129.7
27.2
111.1 12.1 205.6
16.7 7.5 100.11
314.6 13.0 103.7
8.6 2.7 25.9
arsenic
30.0
9.3
20.0 6.2 214.0
cadmium
37.6
111.11
22.2 8.5 26.6
chromium
279.1
108.7
111.6 113.5 186.0
copper
1365.11
1109.1
378.1 113.3 630.2
lead
197.2
86.2
157.0 68.6 109.6
mercury
nickel
20.11
353.1
25.7
157.9
6.5 8.2 7.8
282.5 126.3 290.8
•elenium
251.9
237.9
139.9 132.1 167.9
ailver
66.0
16.11
9.14 2.3 18.9
zinc
2731.0
3111.5
1092.11 121111.6 1365.5
aidrin
3.5
1.5
0.3 0.1 1.0
1 1.1 4’ DDT
0.85
0.29
0.09 0.03 0.252
dieldrin
0.37
0.15
0.014 0.02 0.11
beptachior
14.0
0.03
0.1111 0.003 1.32
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
16.7
14.3
1.3 0.3 11.7
- - -
for eecond
ary.
(1) Average day, year 1999 for primary, 2020
(2) Reduced removal efficiency during storms.
(3) Other nutrients are not limiting.
Source: IIWRA STFP III and V, A 1987.
5-29
-------
TABLE A.3.T MAXIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEW DEFICITS (.ig/1)
Treat ent—----—Stratification-- - - -Net Drift - Site - Site 11 Site.5 -—
Primary Unstratified Average 0.91 0.63 0.21
Worst 0.92 0.80 0.58
Stratified Average 14.15 1.56 0.39
Worst 4.22 1.91 1.03
Secondary Unstratif Led Average 0.53 0.38 0.114
Worst 0.54 0. 8 0.35
Stratified Average 1.76 0.69 0.19
Worst 1.81 0.87 0.116
(1) Averaged over area of approxi ate1y 1.5 km 2 , representative of the mixing zone.
5-30
-------
TAILE 4.3.13 MUAT2C LIFE TW3CITT ITE*IA LiM FUS SITE 2
ST ITI NT
00N ItIATI (i /t)
bsne.n.
br thane
c lUorofor.
•thytbsnw
thylu d LorIds
styrr
t.tr.c)itoioethylsne
trich lorosthyline
bi sC2•sthylhexyl )phthslats
kitylbsnzyl th.lut.
di •n-octvt th.lsts
fluorine
•rs.nic
citromli.,.
sad
osrcury
nickel
ssl inIi
silver
zinc
aIdrin
d i. Idrin
Is.pt.d lor
polychisrirstid blphwvyls 0.0073
A ts Toxicity Dusnic Toxicity
prIry $sccldsry USC PrIry $sw ary CCC
0.35 0.10 3100.00 0.34 0.10 700.00
1.26 0.24 12000.00 1.20 0.23 6400.00
0.53 0.21 0.30 0.20
0.77 0.18 0.72 0.17
3.05 1.33 12000.00 2.85 1.23 6600.00
0.80 0.21 430.00 0.77 0.20
1.55 0.38 10200.00 1.44 0.36 450.00
0.84 0.23 2000.00 0.79 0.23
1.53 0.60 2944.00 1.46 0.57 3.40
1.35 0.31 2946.00 1.27 0.29 3.40
1.34 0.31 2944.00 1.27 0.29 3.40
0.33 0.08 300.00 0.31 0.07
0.65 0.60 69.00 0.64 0.60 36.00
0.22 0.15 43.00 0.21 0.15 9.30
1.63 1.04 1100.00 1.57 1.01 50.00
6.08 2.43 2.90 5.87 2.34
1.45 1.27 140.00 1.41 1.23 5.60
0.136 0.051 ‘ 2.100 0.124 0.047 0.025
2.41 2.09 75.00 2.56 2.03 8.30
1.66 1.04 41DOD 1.55 0.95 54.00
0.28 0.07 2.30 0.27 0.07
17.84 8.19 .CO 16.38 7.67
0.02 0.00 1.30 0.01 0.00
0.006 0.001 0.150 0.006 0.001 0.001
0.0017 0.0006 C.?ICO 0.0016 0.0004 0.0019
0.0127 0.0036 0.0530 0.0126 0.0036 0.0036
0.074 0.022 jD . flt 0.071 0.022 0.030
C l) tefsr to toxt for s lw ti.n
isnt Other (1)
C . Scurcss
0.016
0.001
0.015
0.003
0.022
0.053
0.015
0.002
0.007
0.002
0.0013
0.495 0.019
0.006 0.069
0.316 0.074
0.074 0.154
-0.091 0.466
0.006 0.007
0.604 0.203
0.273
0.005
0.810 0.969
5-31
-------
TAILE *.3.14 A MTIC LIFE t ICITY ITUIA L!MC1 ._ SITE 4
STITL8NT NCINT1ATI00$ ( JL)
f lt Other (1) Acute Toalcity Acute Toalcity
c . $ wcoa _______
Prfw $.cc, sr a Prlwy Isc ry C
0.011 0.21 0.05 5100.00 0.20 0.05 700.00
b r th. 0.000 0.00 0.13 12000.00 0.72 0.11 6400.00
dilarofor. 0.010 0.33 0.11 0.29 0.10
•thyIbunzr 0.002 0.4? 0.09 0.42 0.0$
thyi. chlorIde 0.002 1.97 0.69 12000.00 1.69 0.59 6400.00
styrr 0.014 0.48 0.11 430.00 0.44 0.10
t.trsc h loroathylril 0.035 0.95 0.21 10200.00 0.86 0.18 450.00
trIc htorosthylsi 0.010 0.53 0.13 2000.00 0.46 0.11
b IsC2 ..thylhsxyI)P hthIlSt 0.001 5.97 0.31 2944.00 0.88 0.26 3.40
bay(bsnzyt phthelst. 0.004 0.87 0.16 2944.00 0.7? 0.14 3.40
dI n octyI phthaiats 0.001 0.16 0.16 2944.00 0.77 0.14 3.40
fiuoroas 0.21 0.04 300.00 0.19 0.06
.runlc 0.50 0.015 0.39 0.56 69.00 0.58 0.56 36.00
0.01 0.035 0.14 0.10 43.00 0.13 0.09 9.30
dtroaka 0.32 0.054 1.11 0.69 1100.00 1.04 0.67 50.00
c. sr 0.07 0.136 3.66 1.27 2.90 3.36 1.19
(sad 0.09 0.336 0.97 0.86 140.00 0.91 0.81 5.60
rcury 0.004 0.005 0.092 0.035 2.100 0.078 0.031 0.025
nIckel 0.60 0.144 1.72 1.52 75.00 1.61 1.44 8.30
s.Lrth. 0.199 1.09 0.70 4 .CO 0.96 0.62
sIlver 0.004 0.17 0.04 2.30 0.15 0.03
zInc 0.81 0.697 12.06 5.73 jS. 10.44 5.08
sidrIn 0.000 0.01 0.00 1.30 0.01 0.00
4.4 1. 00 ? 0.0022 0.0004 0.1300 0.0020 0.0004 0.0010
d I.Ldr ln 0.0010 0.0002 •.7 0.0009 0.0002 0.0019
h.ptschior 0.0081 0.0019 0.0530 0.0076 0.0017 0.0036
polydilorinctid bfphoapis 0.0073 0.0472 0.0147 1b.C000 0.0439 0.0141 0.0300
(1) Isf.r to tszt for .zp1 tIoa
5-32
-------
TASLE A.3.l5 AQUATIC LIFE TCIICITT CIITUIA PLIAJSCE PCI SITE S
ST1TUEWT 00N NTIATI0NS (I /L)
Isnt Oth.r ( I) *cuts Toilcity Dir iIc T. Ic$ty
Ccr . Swrc.. _______________ ________________
PrIwy S w sry DIC Pr ry $.c ry C
0.007 0.15 0.03 5100.00 0.14 0.03 700.00
0.000 0.60 0.06 12000.00 0.51 0.07 6100.00
d Ioreforu 0.006 0.24 0.07 0.20 0.06
,thytbsnasne 0.001 0.35 0.06 0.29 0.05
thyI ddoiid. 0.001 1.48 0.43 12000.00 1.16 0.35 6600.00
sey r 0.009 0.35 0.07 430.00 0.31 0.06
tstrach lerosthytsne 0.022 0.73 0.13 10200.00 0.58 0.11 450.00
trlchloro.thyLsn. 0.006 0.39 0.03 2000.00 0.32 0.07
bIsC2 sthyIhexy1)phtksLst 0.001 0.73 0.20 2944.00 0.63 0.17 3.40
bjtyLbsnzyl pI thsIst. 0.002 0.66 0.10 2944.00 0.54 0.09 3.40
d ri octyI pI thsI.t. 0.000 0.65 0.10 2944.00 0.54 0.09 3.10
ftuorris 0.001 0.16 0.03 300.00 0.13 0.02
srsritc 0.498 0.011 0.56 0.55 69.00 0.36 0.34 36.00
cathkr 0.006 0.025 0.10 0.07 43.00 0.09 0.07 9.30
d ro iir 0.316 0.040 0.89 0.57 1100.00 0.80 0.55 50.00
0.074 0.098 2.64 0.87 2.90 2.29 0.70
t•sd 0.091 0.238 0.72 0.64 140.00 0.65 0.59 5.60
rcury 0.004 0.004 0.072 0.025 2.100 0.054 0.023 0.025
,ilck.t 0.604 0.101 1.61 1.27 75.00 1.29 1.17 8.30
0.141 0.52 0.52 410.00 0.65 0.43 14.00
•Ilvsr 0.003 0.12 0.02 2.30 0.10 0.02
zt, 0.810 0.498 9.31 4.52 S0 7.25 3.70 %.0D
sidrIn 0.01 0.00 1.50 0.01 0.00
4 4’ .00T 0.0016 0.0003 0.1300 0.0013 0.0002 0.0010
d .tdrIn 0.0007 0.0001 0M00 0.0006 0.0001 0.0019
tscMor 0.0060 0.0012 0.0530 0.0034 0.0010 0.0036
potycI Iorlnstsd blplisnyls 0.0073 0.036 0.012 10.000 0.033 0.011 0.030
(1) Iefsr to tut for szplwistlcn
5-33
-------
TAKE 6.3.16 PUSAN NLA .TI lTflIA t1AaC! FC $ 172 2
N$T1TI*NT NcENTUT! $ ( JL)
fsnt OtMr (1) T fcIty C.rclrmsnlclty
C . Sc acss 105 10•6
PrIry $a j ry Crltsrt. Crft o rla Cr1 tins
0.016 0.55 0.03 400.00 40.00
0.001 0.58 0.05 151.00 15.70
dilonofor. 0.015 0.37 0.05 157.00 15.10
•thyLbsnzr s 0.003 0.53 0.03
thyI dilorlds 0.004 1.90 0.13 157.00 15.70
. tyr 0.022 0.61 0.05
tetr.chtorosthylans 0.053 1.03 0.16 58.50 8.55
tric1 t.ro.thyIsns 0.015 0.57 0.05 507.00 50.70
b1.C2•sthyLhsxyI)pI the1st 0.002 1.11 0.12 500000.0 50000.0
bjtylbenzyl thst.t• 0.007 0.91 0.06 0.00 0.00
dln octyt pI th.tst. 0.002 0.93 0.10 4OOOO 13i(t
fluor.r* 0.001 0.233 0.026 0.311 0.0311
arsenIc 0.495 0.019 0.614 0.582 0.173 0.0115
c.ds lia 0.006 0.049 0.18 0.13
0.516 0.074 1.29 0.76
co .r 0.074 0.156 4.66 1.50
Isad 0.091 0.466 1.19 1.06
r ry 0.004 0.007 0.077 0.032 0.166
nIckol 0.606 0,203 1.94 1.72
ssl e n li. 0.273 1.05 0.75
11 Iv . , COOS 0.22 0.04
z lrc 0.810 0.949 10.56 5.30
sidr In 0.01052 0.00111 0.00079 0.000079
4 4’- OCT 0.00274 0.00029 0.00026 0.000024
d l.Idr ln 0.00119 0.00013 0.00076 0.000076
Iwpt.c litor 0.01063 0.00125 0.00290 0.000290
poIyddorh tsd bfØ enyIs 0.00730 0.05747 0.01160 0.00079 0.000079
(1) muir to tut for sApIwl.t len
5-311
-------
TASLE A.3.l7 1 11 1AM NEAtTlI CSITEI IA LIANCL FOR SITE 4
RETIT LNT 00NCSITIATIONS (i/I)
Isnt Oth.r (1) ToxicIty C.rcIr snicity
Cci . $ourcss 10.5 10•6
PrIoxry $ .... .ry Crit.ris Critorli Crit.ri.
bsnzsns 0.011 0.13 0.02 400.00 40.00
r thsne 0.000 0.42 0.02 157.00 15.70
diIorofor 0.010 0.17 0.03 157.00 15.70
ethytbsnzsne 0.002 0.24 0.02 5280.00
thyIsr cIitorId. 0.002 0.06 0.06 157.00 15.70
styr.ns 0.014 0.28 0.04 5200.00 0.00
t.tr.chleroetPiyl .ne 0.035 0.45 0.08 58.50 0.05
trIchtorosthyLr e 0.010 0.26 0.03 007.00 00.70
bis(2 .stIiy1h.xy1) ithItat 0.001 0.52 0.06 500000.0 00000.0
b tyIbsnzyI phtk.I.t. 0.004 0.43 0.03 0.00
dI•n octyL 9I thsL.t. 0.001 0.44 0.05 00 - O0
fLuorine 0.001 0.000 0.111 0.013 0.311 0.0311
arsenIc 0.495 0.015 0.556 0362 0.175 0.0175
c. kr 0.006 0.035 0.09 0.07
chrox luo 0.316 0.054 0.77 0.53
ccçper 0.074 0.136 2.15 0.76
sad 0.091 0.336 0.71 0.65
oxrcury 0.004 0.005 0.038 0.018 0.146
nIckel 0.604 0.144 1.28 1.15
selsn luo 0.000 0.199 0.56 0.40
silver 0.000 0.004 0.10 0.02
0.810 0.697 5.39 3.07
s ldrin 0.00476 0.00050 0.00079 0.000079
0.00121 0.00013 0.00024 0.000024
di.ldriri 0.00053 0.00006 0.00076 0.000076
hspt.c lUor 0.00502 0.00059 0.00290 0.000290
polycldorfrstsd bIØ snyls 0.00730 0.03000 0.00924 0.00079 0.000079
(1) lifer t. text for sxp1w tIsn
5-35
-------
TAII.E A.3.18 ILI A NEAITN cZITEIIA LIAE2 FOP PITt S
00NST 11’UENT CCNT*ATIOPS (is/I)
A IiM Othsr (1) ToXIcity C .rcIi gsnIcIty
C ic. Parses 10’•5 10-6
Prfry S .wi ry CrIt.rf. CrItsrIi CrIt.rls
brizsr 0.007 0.07 0.01 400.00 40.00
br th.’ s 0.000 0.24 0.01 157.00 15.70
diloeofor. 0.006 0.09 0.02 157.00 15.70
ethyI r’zr 0.001 0.13 0.01 3280.00
esthyI. d Lorlds 0.001 0.47 0.02 157.00 15.70
styraw 0.009 0.15 0.02 3280.00
tetrschloreethylsr .s 0.022 0.26 0.05 00.50 8.85
trfcMor s ethyL.ri 0.006 0.14 0.02 807.00 80.70
bIs(2sthyU sxyI)pI thsIat 0.001 0.30 0.02 500000.00 50000.00
JtyIbsnZy( ith.I.ts 0.002 0.26 0.02
dlri•octyl pI tha(sts 0.000 0.25 0.03 154 O 4O00
1 Iuor.m. 0.063 0.008 0.311 0.0311
•rs fc 0.698 0.011 0.531 0.526 0.175 0.0175
0.006 0.025 0.06 0.05
0.316 0.040 0.56 0.44
c sr 0.074 0.098 1.19 0.46
(s .d 0.091 0.238 0.66 0.45
0.006 0.004 0.02 0.01 0.146
n Icksi 0.604 0.101 0.97 0.92 100
silatha 0.000 0,.141 0.33 0.25
slIver 0.000 0.003 0.05 0.01
0.810 0.695 3.35 2.13
sIdr In 0.00236 0.00027 0.00079 0.000079
4 4’•D0T 0.00CM 0.00007 0.00026 0.000026
dl s ldrin 0.00028 0.00003 0.00076 0.000076
hspt.d Ioe 0.00284 0.00033 0.00290 0.000290
poIyc iIortnstsd blisnyls 0.00730 0.01959 0.00835 0.00079 0.000019
(1) tiler to tut for s pIwi.tlan
5-36
-------
TABLE A.3. 19 SUMMARY CF PREDICTED WATER JALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES
Criterion
Constituent Ambient
CONCENTRATION/CRITERION
Primary
RATIOS 1
Secondary
11 Site 5
Site 2 Site
11
Site
5
Site
2
Site
CMC
copper 2.1 1.26
CCC
heptachior 3.119 2.11 1.51 1.01
11, 1I’ —DDT 3.55 1.99 1.311
mercury 11.96 3.111 2.18 1.90 1.26
PCBs 2.37 1.116 1.09
Carcinogenicity
(10 risk factor)
aidrin - 13.30 6.02 3.26 1.111
11, i1’—DDT 11.110 5.014 2.65 1.21
heptachior 3.66 1.73
dieldrin 1.57
arsenic 285 3.51 3.17 3.0 1 3.32 3.09 2.99
PCBs 9 211 72.75 38.00 2ZI 80 111.69 11.70 10.57
(10—6 risk factor)
aidrin 133.1 60.23 32.11 111.08 6.35 3.113
1111.1 50.38 26.116 12.08 5.33 2.79
heptachior 36.611 17.30 9.81 11.30 2.03 1.15
dteldrin 15.68 6.92 3.63 1.66
flourene 7.50 3.56 2.011
arsenic 28.115 35.07 31.75 30.37 33.25 30.95 30.811
PCBs 92.110 727.50 379.78 2117.96 1116.86 117.00 105.70
(1) Concentration
Criterion
5-37
-------
5.2.3 Figure Qianges
Page A-9. Figure A.2.2. Location if MWRA Current Meter Stations in Relation
to Alternative Diffuser Sites was revised.
Page A-69. Figure A.3.8. ELA Predicted Sedimentation Rates, Site 5, Primary
Treatment, Stratified Conditions was revised. -
5-37
-------
‘4 ’
a
U
.
$
B.
1•
a se
‘S.
I
I’.
LIGIP D
$1MIJLATIPDI FIJSI!
• $UMME AWDWIWTI
• w,,(rE ONLY 1TAT JTLh4iUS
$UMMI DNLY
FIGURE A.2.2. LOCATION OF MWRA CURRENT METER STATIONS IN RELATION TO
ALTERNATIVE DIFFUSER SITES
5-38
-------
FIGURE A.3.8. ELA PREDICTED SEDIMENTATION RATES,SITE 5,
PRIMARY TREATMENT, STRATIFIED CONDITIONS (gJm 2 lday)
p
5—39
-------
CHAPTER 6
REVIEW OF DRAFT SEIS RECO O NDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a review of the major issues on which EPA received new
information or conducted additional analyses. Comments which were considered
are discussed in Chapter 3. The Draft SEIS Recommendations are reexamined in
light of the new analyses.
6.2 REVIEW CF NEW ISSUES
6.2.1 Beach Impact Asses ent
In response to comments, an assessment of public health impacts on beaches (in
terms of coliforni and virus concentrations) was conducted for this Final
SEIS. This analysis showed that even with less than full treatment, predicted
coliform concentrations at the shoreline resulting from a discharge in the
recommended outfall area will be well within state standards (Chapter 3, Issue
02 of this Final SEIS). The analysis of’ viral concentration showed that the
predicted illness rate due to discharge of viruses from an outfall in the
recommended location is well within EPA guidelines and is much lower than
existing illness rates. Thus, no significant shoreline impacts are expected
to occur as a result of the discharge from the recommended area and EPA’s
recommended outfall area is demonstrated to be an acceptable location in terms
of shoreline impacts.
6.2.2 Site 6 — Kaine Intermediate Water (P11W)
A major issue raised during ‘the comment period was the potential impact of
Maine Intermediate Water (P11W) on the siting of the outfall. It was suggested
that siting the outfall further offshore (at Site 6) would result in the
diffuser being located within P11W, which would restrict shore—ward transport
of effluent. EPA conducted an analysis of P11W as discussed in Chapter 3
(Issue 01) of this Final SEIS, which shows that the recommended area, as all
candidate outfall sites, is well within the area of winter P11W formation. As
the summer progresses, the water column at all candidate sites warms and
stratifies, and by late summer, the P11W is at least 10 miles and perhaps 30
miles beyond any potential outfall site (including Site 6). Thus, since all
sites are within the P11W, it does not present a justification for siting the
outfall further offshore.
6.2.3 Diffuser Design
Although the Draft SEIS indicated that the pipe diffuser had greater
environmental impacts than the drilled riser diffuser due to the extensive
dredging required for its construction, it did not contain a recommendation
for diffuser design since not enough information was available on constructiofl
feasibility and costs of the alternative designs (drilled riser or pipe
diffuser) to adequately compare the alternatives. A subsequent review of
6—1
-------
construction technologies has revealed that the pipeline diffuser alternative
appears less feasible because of uncertainties related to construction
techniques and equipment in offshore situations. Thus, based on the greater
environmental impacts of the pipe diffuser and the potential problems with
construction feasibility, EPA prefers the drilled riser diffuser.
6.2.4 Accelerated Construction of Secondary Treat.ent Plant
Since release of the Draft SEIS, the issue of accelerating the schedule for
construction of a portion of the secondary treatment plant has been raised.
MWRA’s accelerated construction plan now calls for completion of 25% of the
secondary facilities around 1996, approximately 3 years earlier than the
original plan for completion of all secondary facilities. The accelerated
plan would, however, result in a delay in the completion of the primary
treatment plant by approximately one year. EPA supports the concept of
accelerated secondary treatment, and has determined that such a schedule does
not alter the outfall siting decision. There are several issues related to
the accelerated construction schedule which have not been adequately
addressed, however; these are discussed in Chapter 14 of this Final SEIS.
6.2.5 Mitigation and Monitoring
Several commentors have requested a more detailed mitigation and monitoring
program be presented by EPA. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
6.2.6 Chlorine Toxicity
Since the issuance of the Draft SEIS, the MWRA. released the results of their
chlorine toxicity testing as part of the Final STFP CV, BB, 1988). The study
indicated that tor both primary and laboratory generated secondary effluents,
chlorination (disinfection) could result in toxic impacts to marine
organisms. EPA feels that these tests were not totally conclusive and
therefore, as described in Chapter 7, recommends additional testing to
determine the chlorination/dechlorination requirements. However, EPA believes
that these whole effluent tests validate the conclusion in the Draft SEIS that
no toxic impacts would occur at the recommended location.
6.3 SWO(ARY CF NODIFICATICHS
EPA has reviewed all comments and any new information that has arisen since
the issuance of the Draft SEIS. The new information and comments have
resulted in no changes to the recoendations presented in the Draft SEIS for
outfall diffuser location (Sites 14/5), outfall conduit design (deep rock
tunnel) and inter-island conduit design (deep rock tunnel). Based on new
information, EPA does now prefer the drilled riser diffuser design over the
pipe diffuser, although should further investigations show that the drilled
riser alternative is cost-prohibitive, EPA can accept a pipe diffuser (see
Chapter 14 for more discussion). EPA will continue to Peview any new
information that becomes available that could impact the recommendations
contained in the Draft SEIS and this document.
6-2
-------
- CHAPTER 7
RECOI 4ENDED PLAN MD MITIGATION
7.1 IECOIO1EPIDED PLAN
In this SEIS, four main decisions or reco endations were made with regard to
the transport of wastewater. These decisions involved: 1) the reco ended
discharge location, 2) the recomended plan for outfall conduit construction,
3) the recoended plan for diffuser construction and 1 ) the reco ended plan
for inter-island conduit construction. The following is EPA’s recoended
plan.
7.1.1 Reca ended Discharge Location
EPA studied three sites in considerable detail (Sites 2, M and 5; Figure 7.1)
after an initial screening process to determine their potential acceptability
as discharge locations. Based on predicted water quality, ecological, public
health and harbor resources impacts as well as engineering considerations, EPA
is recommending that the MWRA discharge (including all diffuser ports) be
located in the area which lies totally within the rectangle shown on Figure
7.1. This area is bounded on the west by Site and extends to the east of
Site 5. The north and south boundaries are one diffuser length (6660 feet or
2000 meters) from the centerline that connects Sites LI and 5. The north and
south boundaries are to accommodate geotechnical considerations in this
area. Figure 7.1 shows the latitude and longitude of the recommended area’s
coordinates as well as the distance in miles from this area to Nati 1 .nt, Hull
and Deer Island.
7.1.2 Recc ended Plan for Outfall Conduit Construction
Two alternatives were examined for construction of the outfall conduit to
convey effluent from Deer Island to the recommended discharge location: a
deep rock tunnel and a pipeline. The pipeline conveyance was dropped from
consideration during the initial screening due to significant environmental
impacts resulting from dredging activities. The deep rock tunnel was then
evaluated in detail by EPA. The tunnel includes a 30-foot by 15-foot
rectangular vertical access shaft on Deer Island and a 25-toot finished inside
diameter concrete lined tunnel connected to the access shaft. The length of
the tunnel would be between 28,000 and 514000 feet, depending upon the
diffuser design and the -discharge location. The vertical shaft would be
excavated deep enough to allow for a 0.25 percent (or less) positive sloping
tunnel and to assure a minimum of 60 feet of bedrock overlying the outfall
tunnel. Impacts due to tunnel construction are expected to be minimal since
most of the construction will take place underground, therefore, the
recommended plan for construction for the effluent outfall conduit is the deep
rock tunnel.
-------
FIGURE 7-1. RECOMMENDED OUTFALL DIFFUSER LOCATION
Recommended area
B
0
Lo itude
A
B
C
0
Latlitude
42° 24’ 35”
42° 25’ 31”
42° 22’ 240
42° 23’ 1 r
70°50’ 57”
70° 46’ 50”
70° 50’ 00”
70° 45 53”
NOTE:
Distances
k parethases
are given in
statute miles
2 0 2
—4
$1ATIJ ’T MILES
-2
-------
7.1.3 Recommended Plan for Diffuser Construction
Two diffuser construction alternatives to disperse effluent at the recommended
discharge location were examined in EPA’s detailed analysis. The first
diffuser type is a pipeline situated within an excavated trench connected to
the deep rock tunnel outfall by one to ten risers. Ports or nozzles would
either be cast into or attached to the pipe. Each individual riser would
connect the tunnel to a diffuser pipe. The second alternative is a drilled
riser diffuser with approximately 80 risers each fitted with a multiport cap
drilled through bedrock and connected to the outfall tunnel.
The drilled riser diffuser would result in the least marine ecosystem and
harbor resources impacts. The major differences between the two diffuser
alternatives are that the pipeline diffuser could present significant
construction difficulties and would generate approximately 1.J4 million cubic
yards of material while the drilled riser would generate only 12,000 cubic
yards of material and would be easier to construct. Dredged material from
either diffuser alternative would be disposed of at the Foul Area Disposal
Site. Based on the significant dredging impacts associated with the pipeline
diffuser, and potential construction difficulties, the recommended plan is a
drilled riser diffuser.
7.1. Inter-island Conveyance Structure
Wastewater entering the South System of the NWRA collection and treatment
system will receive some initial treatment for removal of grit and bulk solids
at the proposed headworks on Nut Island. .The wastewater will then be
transferred via an inter—island conveyance system to Deer Island for further
treatment. Three inter-island conveyance structures were screened using a set
of criteria identical to those used to screen potential outfall construction
options. These three potential conveyance systems are a pipeline, a sunken
tube and a deep rock tunnel. The pipeline and sunken tube alternatives were
dropped from consideration during initial screening due to environmental
impacts of dredging and costs; therefore, the deep rock tunnel was the only
alternative to undergo detailed evaluation. The deep rock tunnel would
consist of an 11 foot finished inside diameter deep rock tunnel from Nut
Island to Deer Island. Vertical access shafts would be excavated on both
islands. Excavation of the 21 ,800-ft-long tunnel would begin at the Deer
Island shaft and eventually connect to Nut Island and slope positively towards
Nut Island. Excavated materials would be removed through the Deer Island
shaft. The tunnel would be lined with concrete sections. The impacts
associated with the deep-rock tunnel are expected to be minimal and therefore,
the recommended plan is the deep rock tunnel.
7.2 UNRESOLVED ISSUES
7.2.1 Exact Location of Outfall
The exact location of the effluent diffuser within the recommended area as
well as the diffuser orientation within the recommended area must still be
determined. This decision can be made when results of detailed geological
investigations being conducted by I4WRA become available. MWRA must demonstrate
.,. 3
-------
that the water quality, marine ecosystem and shoreline impacts associated with
the chosen location will be equal to or less than those predicted for Site 4.
7.2.2 Accelerated Secondary Treatment
EPA finds the concept of the proposed accelerated secondary treatment schedule
to be acceptable if it is logistically achievable. MWRA must evaluate the
potential impacts of the accelerated construction plan. However, since this
accelerated secondary schedule may result in approximately a one year delay in
the completion of full primary treatment and since the fate of effluent during
that period is not known, MWRA will have to conduct a full evaluation of
discharge alternatives for that period. When these determinations are made,
EPA will review the evaluation and make a decision as to its acceptability.
7.3 MITIGATION
7.3.1 Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor Monitoring
The precise set of parameters to be monitored at the new outfall location have
yet to be determined. An agency working group, in cooperation with the newly
formed Massachusetts/Cape Cod Bay Citizens Advisory Group will review the
existing data and make recommendations on the type and extent of monitoring
program to be undertaken. When the precise location of the diffuser is
decided after review of the geotechnical data, permanent sampling stations
will be designated for the periodic collections of chemical and biological
data. Several years of preoperational ecological sampling will be required to
establish an adequate statistical baseline. Once the outfall is operational,
results of periodic testing will be compared to the preoperationa]. baseline to
determine outfall impacts.
EPA is not here establishing the specific requirements for such a monitoring
program in this SEIS, although it will be involved in developing the program
in conjunction with other agencies and the citizen’s group discussed above.
However, EPA feels that an adequate monitoring program would include regular
testing of the water column, sediment and tissues of ecologically sensitive
and economically important marine organisms for those parameters identified in
the Draft and Final S IS as exceeding water quality criteria at the
recommended outfall location. This is especially important for PCBs, as an
accurate loading rate from the discharge into the marine environment is still
unknown. It is also anticipated that the new federal discharge permit will
• require regular bioassay and bioaocumulation monitoring of the discharge to
assess compliance with the •permit and to monitor for long-term effects.
7.3.2 Identification and Control of Pollutants
Despite the fact that the removal efficiencies for the proposed Deer Island
primary and secondary facilities were based on the best available information,
there is uncertainty about the actual pollutant levels in the effluents. To
insure that the analysis presented in the SEIS and the MWRA STFP is accurate,
EPA requires that a pilot plant be built to simulate treatment expected in the
new treatment plant. EPA also requires that a hydraulic model of the thffuser
be used to better define and maximize the dilution characteristics at the
-------
outfall location. The diffuser hydraulic model can also be used to develop
final diffuser design specifications for maximum hydraulic efficiency and to
ensure adequate purging of seawater from the diffuser.
Although EPA believes that the water quality criteria exceedances due to the
proposed outfall will not result in significant adverse impacts to the marine
ecosystem or public health, it believes that best efforts should be made to
achieve total consistency with the criteria. Hence, results from the pilot
plant operation and diffuser hydraulic modeling should be used to identify
problem pollutants that could be reduced through source reduction or
pretreatment. As a result of toxicity violations of MWRA’s existing discharge
permit EPA is now requiring HWRA to develop a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
(TRE) for the existing system. This TRE will address sources of pollutants
which are currently causing the toxicity violations, which may be the same as
those constituents for which EPA predicts potential criteria exceedanees
(especially because those criteria exceedances were based on existing influent
data). Once problem pollutants are fully identified, appropriate action under
the TRE would involve source control or pretreatment measures to minimize
entry of those pollutants into the IIWRA sewer system. If urban run-off or
other non-point discharges are identified as sources.of problem pollutants,
best management practices would be implemented to minimize pollutants as
required under the 1987 amendments to the Water Quality Act. EPA will continue
to aid MWRA in developing a TRE program in the hope that appropriate action
now will minimize future impacts.
7.3.3 Dechlorination
As discussed in Chapter 6 of this Final SEIS, bioassay testing has indicated
that the proposed chlorine disinfection of primary and secondary effluents
could result in toxicity to marine organisms. It is anticipated that some
residual chlorine will decay during the long residence time of the outfall
tunnel so that initial mixing may be adequate to negate these toxic effects.
Further analysis by HWRA should be performed to test the toxicity of effluent
after an appropriate simulated tunnel residence time. It is reconended that
such testing be performed using effluents generated from the pilot plant (see
above). However, EPA reco ends that, unless PIWRA can show through this
additional testing that decay in the outfall tunnel and initial mixing will
adequately reduce effluent toxicity, dechlorination facilities should be
constructed on Deer Island.
7.3. Ibterial Disposal
Disposal of material from outfall and inter-island tunnel construction should
be closely coordinated with ongoing local construction projects to maximize
beneficial use of this material and to minimize the volume of material which
would have to be landfllled or otherwise disposed.
7.3.5 Construction Resources
Demand for scarce or unique construction resources by several major
construction projects planned for the Boston region could potentially slow the
pace of construction of the outfall and inter-island conduits. MWRA must
7-5
-------
continue to develop an integrated construction management approach and should
participate in the Governor’s Office of Economic Development Task Force.
7.3.6 Diffuser Design
The diffuser should be designed to incorporate features which would minimize
conflicts with fisherman dragging activities.
7-6
-------
REFERENCES
Chereskin, T.K. 1983. Generation of Internal Waves in Massachusetts Bay.
Journal of Geophysical Research . 88:26119_2661.
Doering, P.H. and C.A. Oviatt, 1986. Application of Filtration Rate Models
to Field Populations of bivalves: An Assessment using Experimental
Mesocosms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser . 31: 265-275.
Doering, P.H., C.A. Oviatt and J.R. Kelly, 1986. The Effects of the
Filter-Feeding Cla n Mercenaria or carbon cycling in experiemental marine
mesocosms. liar. Res . : 839—861.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), Technical Advisory Group,
1986. Study Plan for Basinwide Management of the Boston Harbor/
Massachusetts Bay Ecosystem.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Office, 1983. Boston Harbor Access Guide.
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Office, 1975. Ecosystems and Resources of the Massachusetts Coast.
Frithsen, J.B., A.A. Keller and M.E. Pilson, 1985. Effects of Inorganic
Nutrient Additions in Coastal Areas: A Mesocosm Experiment Data Report,
Vol. 1, Maine Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Graduate School of
Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. MERL Series Report No. 3.
Halpern, David. 1971a. Observations on short—period internal waves in
Massachusetts Bay. Journal of Marine Research . 29:116—132.
Halpern, David. 1971b. Semidiurrial internal tides in Massachusetts Bay.
Journal of Geophysical Research . 76:6573-658k.
Hopkins, T.S. and N. Garfield, 1979. Gulf of Maine Intermediate Water.
Journal of Marine Research . 37:103-139.
Hyperion Engineers, 1957. Ocean Outfall Design. Final Report to the City of
Los Angeles.
MWRAI Final STFP, 1988. Final Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan.
Volume 1—VIlI.
MWRA, Final STFP III, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume III,
Treatment Plant.
MWRA, Final STFP III,B, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Volume III, Appendix B, Sampling Program and QA/QC.
KWRA, Final STFP III,L, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Volume III, Appendix L, Flows and Loads.
-------
MWRA, Final STFP V 1 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Effluent Outfall.
MWRA, Final STFP V,A, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix A, Physical Oceanographic Investigations.
MWRA, Final STFP V,B, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix B, Chemical and Biological Oceanography.
MWRA, Final STFP V,M, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix H, Water Quality/Sediment Chemistry.
MWRA, Final STFP V,X, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix X, Bioaccumulation.
MWRA, Final STFP V,V, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix V, Fish Histopatholog.
MWRA, Final STFP V,Y, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix Y, Nutrient Analysis.
MWRA, Final STFP V,Z, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix Z, Primary Productivity Program.
MWRA, Final STFP V,BB, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Appendix BB, Effluent Toxicity Report.
I4WRA, Final STFP VII, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Institutional Considerations.
HWRA, Draft STFP III, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume III,
Treatment Plant.
MWRA, Draft STFP III,B, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Volume III, Appendix B, Sampling Program and QA/QC.
MWRA, Draft STFP UI,L, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan,
Volume III, Appendix L, Flows and Loads.
IIWRA, Draft STFP V, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Effluent Outfall.
MWRA, Draft STFP V,A, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix A, Physical Oceanographic Investigations.
MWRA, Draft STFP V,B, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix B, Chemical and Biological Oceanography.
MWRA, Draft STFP V,M, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix H, Water Quality/Sediment Chemistry.
Volume V,
Volume V,
Volume V,
Volume V,
Volume V,
Volume V,
Vo .ume V,
Volume VII,
2
-------
MWRA, Draft STFP V,V, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix V, Fish Histopathology.
MWRA, Draft STFP V,Y, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix Y, Nutrient Analysis.
MWRA, Draft STFP V,Z, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume V,
Appendix 2, Primary Productivity Program.
MWRA, Draft STFP VII, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Volume VII,
Institutional Considerations.
MDC, 198i1. Metropolitan District Co nission. Application for a Waiver of
Secondary Sewage Treatment for the Nut Island and Deer Island Treatment
Plants, Volume I—IV and Summer Supplement, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mitchell, R., 1978. Water Pollution Microbiology . John Wiley and Sons, New
York. Pp. 2.
Oviatt, C.A., A.A. Keller, P.A. Saxnpou, and L.L. Beatty, 1986. Patterns of
Productivity during Eutrophication a Mesocosm Experiment. Mar. Ecol .
f 2B ! 28:69-80.
Parker, .3., 1975. Phytoplankton Primary Productivity in Massachusetts Bay,
Ph.D. Thesis. University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
Public Health Services, 1965. Interaction of Heavy Metals and Biological
Sewage Treatment Processes. Public Health ,Service Publication
No. 99-WP-22.
Quinlan, A.V. 198 i. An ecodynaniic analysis of algal blooms fouling Nahant Bay
beaches. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Sea-Grant College
Program. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Report No. 8215.
Quinlan, A.V., T. Lewis and J.K. Hoyt, 1983. Fouling of the Sandy Beaches of
Nahant Bay (Massachusetts, USA) by an abnormal Free-Living Form of the
Macroalga Pilayella littoralis (Phaeophyta). I Habitat Characteristics,
1i pp. in: A.N. McLachlan and T Erasmus (eds.), Sandy Beaches as
Ecosystems, W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Rudnick, D.T. 198 i. Seasonality of Coi miunity Structure and Carbon Flow in
Narragansett Bay Sediments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island.
Swartz, R.C., F.A. Cole, D.W. Schultz and W.A. DeBer , 1986. Ecological
Changes in the Southern California Bight near a Large Sewage Outfall:
Benthic Conditions: 1980 and 1983. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Serv . 31:1—13.
U.S. EPA, 1988a. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for
Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System, Volume I and II. U.S. EPA,
Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.
3
-------
U.S. EPA, 1988b. Review of Historical Data for Characterization of Quincy Bay
Contamination. Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Criteria for Water 1986, EPA I 4O/5 86 OO1, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1985a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Siting of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor Volumes I-TV. U.S. EPA, Region I,
Boston, MA.
U.S. EPA, 1985b. Technical Support Document for Water Quality - Based Toxics
Control. Office of Enforcement and Permits, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1985c. Chemical, Physical and Biological Properties of Compounds
Present at Hazardous Waste Sites. Prepared by Clement Associates.
U.S. EPA, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls. EPA 4110/5 80 068.
Universal Publishing Company, Boston, MA, 1979. Universal Atlas of
Metropolitan Boston.
WPCF, 1977. Water Pollution Control Federation, Manual of Practice 8,
Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, Lancaster, PA.
Wilce, R.T. and A.V. Quinlan, 198g. Fouling of the Sandy Beaches of Nahant
Bay (Massachusetts, USA) by an abnormal Free-Living Form of the Macroalga
Pilayella littoralis (L.) Kjellm (Phaeophyta). II Population
Characteristics, in: A.N. McLachlari and T. Erasmus (eds.), Sandy Beaches
as Ecosystems, W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Wilce, R.T., C.W. Schneider, A.V. Quinlan, and K. VandenBosch, 1982. The Life
History and Morphology of Free-living Pilaye]la l.Horalis Cc.) kjellm.
(Ectocarpaceae, Ectocarpales) in Nahant Bay, Massachusetts. Phycologia
21 :336—35g.
14
-------
APPENDIX A
COt 1ENT LETTERS
-------
__ V M1 i .ii El
1 t_ _MT •St&(11fl5
M*SI*CHu$C?? 5 S(N*T( cc.: L I
S.... uSs .S. SI. II j I
, ,, ,a...c.. 0 OaSIS —
________ S. —
— I.. —
,.. ,.S . —
— —
— — —- —
na. .. . Ca lf. —
,s. .s..,a
April 30, 1911
Hr. Mich..t I. Island
legionsi Ad.inistreIor
U.SjpA - legion I
.i.r.i. Fsdere i Suilding
Soston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. 0.iend,
i s taking this opportunity to strongly support
the propoesd selection of Site _ 4 rather th.n Site S for
the plac...nt of the tunnelling pip. at the Outfall
Location of the secondary irast.ent facility for
baton Harbor.
As I understand, the residents of all are., surrounding
tide location (Winthrop Nahani, and levers) have espressed
their preference strongly. Their position I support.
Selecting Sits 6 •akea sense in aLL cases, since it is
relatively clear that selecting either sites 4 or sites S
presents the possiblity of sLudge and debris returning to
the beaches end cowounit lee .entionsd abov..
I would greseLy appreciate receiving soy of the
inlorsation used to deter.tne the appropriate seisctioa of
this outleli pip. end would appreciate being kept up-so-dat.
reistive to decisions being debated.
Many thanks.
Franci. 0.Dorl,
D
0% Suffolk, Eas.., MiddLes,.
I\’ ____________________
- I!
ncT ej ç 5 51
___ tNVIsoNuentat nrvIrw
-------
ee1 1
.9L
._s — 5 ..5,IUW’OIIUUS
0l0’ S. 50.1.0 0 11 1$
wo. Cr s?a t aoN.S, .A1100
lbp SO, l
ôoul Sbl . Slsi IMai.l ,.S.I
fa,t.... ....tsl P, .tsctiou £su.y
3. F. i.oip PSIS?51 luildt.S
tou. MA 02203
Ni. Osl u
E2
l.a I, ,,.
, , ?ul 0.,
J’\L__ JEEJ
P1 L
_ tNws wl*L
I suits on t W a .i I. Is __ s ii susie f all loestidu
si lit. S l 10 st . 0 ilss (ion u . fls a_s piassutly
I thin 1i. s outfall i..#— ,--- I .
OS! shar.ll. it ld lu _sb _ss so_s to _s Sit. S ubidli
is a oat.. I lull..., in I. thu t lasical _st s .f . f.r s . f
if • boos tt_s us u .nu .ue up - s . .r
stout ., psoittas., p1.00. lost I v.. S. sail ou. O.t , 2 sash h.p.
that p..? off its slit i&..—J lit. S lot lb. outfall iacatiss for
this •‘s outfall.
Was ,.. 0 .I,..J —
s.asnu as_s.
0.
— - f.k..-. -
__ bkJ4 .
- a.d 1 lhs.tt. . LI
SIN*Tt MAJOsiTY LLADC
Sf 5 11 NOu s i. Stun
Sby 11. lOSS
Ni. NirfisSi oslalud
P.qioasl *nlstrot0t
lnviro._sutnt Protoctios a,.... ,
3. P. f..niusdy 5uildiuu
tooi. IS 07203
r . Dslaaiu
1 writIng this l.tt . , Inst . .,,. . rt of lb.
Isisot S rd of S.ioct._sus proposal th.t S t. I -- Cli. outfoll
Jocation sin. oil.. Iron Nilisat. in NIL —— b. faitho , stuidiod
by Cl ,. dussactiusotto ast.t Mo_sty.. Authority. nau ’y of us a4u
ha’. boon do.. to lb. I.s.o ussr thu last I.. ssts or.
c tncsd that faiths, study _shd cloarLy .li.s thst...*Lt&L is
a b.ttor location, one only for Soutnu larIat, bit CM osCAr.
North Slur..
I c.rtsi. that sup i........as is thu distaus. that
ttu Sits tfalL I. toc.t.d would rasult in iuicr.s..d coot.
Not in th. tntur.st of suit i .C .r. q.n.ratlon .. wo fool that
additional fuuduuuq _sld ha an tn,u.tnt In thoir hoslth aisi
wo lf ar.
Nor. again. 1 u sgs p.s to do ll in r p_sr to
maui. that Sit. I I. .aloctsd for Cli. I
Sanat. Na , 7 lty t
E3
ou s
— ou
— —
lau
‘tIJ
M O sOOsiOS.
_s , ., s._s,
on naon ’ s. u ,
. 0
n. 0155.11
t WuutslI i.i*’us.a.
•_s I.0NTII .IWW I
-------
I SSISi )NI
_____ — .
. atdssi iad. au Lim nimz. I (
Swix a ’MP,vtoctisoy ,,ter 8
J. P. lasody .4IA4.. , SJL.
SA O2 )
r . _
Thu zd ci Balsot so . to
Us Uss astta *hcrity (NSA) italy Sit,
a — Us aitfail losotia, sIts wius. irs. itosot aid lull.
toILOW . Ust a sudy ci Bito S iid idso cl,.rly ttot it Lu
a buttur ‘ ‘— . as thlUi soald poct t sot soly soats.
bit a la . soit ad thu Itoth Sms..
I soLuad Iiq with — si il IS at
s.,s.gs. ciuis.. alaq with UI IU ff.y ad
atdiso i lsoidnq. t, pogtI i1 r. I uclata willin
to pit awyit s.. at sit, a. I Usoait it as a
iw tlv. astthp. dsotn cls.rly Us so * ci 4 ”tc
r ci aito a.
list I a I iso Lu a as i — atidy ci Bits a
Isobdthq use .üy a rSit aru bit also atlsr
C 1JC *a. swim so L ....tt — lthLty
wotUso so soil so ‘ ‘ ‘ u’ ” — ad q .UsUsl l
has sop to ss,so Ust Uas Lu isoidrlclait Us..
Thai. —. ial’ . Ito basi butinq thlas i
thu amitIall is. nut put buso , LU 3 . ad it will to at
1t tso ra tofu. Us addis Lu Usoci. Il s In
tiso to SAsSy sits a. so aitiall at sit, a soiLS be a wise
isoas. policy. dddi sodd Isip 1n UsC l 5s. s..tta
Bay is ist pol1i In to. ci clthp u Bauts.
It In also us it Use ais.1sr . ... ...k.iy tisoUsit
to qias to NSA s .. hs rith lsSstnrlnq. idsil 1 Ithlnp,
ad iLtolap qras on aiits dm, ad in Iwsoit sotara
as to actud only if Us ci m ad Us otJ
42 cft.l ad tons In thu NSA dL.trict Is qts.i
( .1Ba..L bets. buing disdsrupol luto Baudnuetto Bay.
hs Basis, isbar Basil
luçlital luwiza*sl I sct Baatit IC S) is
ad ia st. In ny soy.. piusos usLS.r
s.tef oily Us a. . ci Us 1, ad soil qal11I
ibMr.t uctaitiut. asttmp so Sills S g 0
&Cu%t. . .l Wi i ad . Uavsth P. OUsis .
acisotlatu at Ibrtimaitmu , (iiivars ity. itolls Scinsa
Lu Iwsit. iso. aritton to Sua .tary 3,... a. supt. I lorlJq
to .twi sit, a. its.. a Us uct& juta Us so .
tI soya.. .l idst Lu a* at SIt 4 4. 5 , S. aid 4. lIsp
Us... Pl sot “ — Usir
lL itly. I— ’ a ci Usir lattar.
I soild also lUs to tIon Ust so..it’.
tlastlctsn. Ba. Bavid gtnr . Is. fond
with thu — w ls. Ba bus (amid Ust Us Y sodsi
dias tiat w r s.rtain aSditias .Uls.it asid sI ly
c$scl. arond alto 4 suthut tiso *i(tlnp cii ad buthg
dilutud. Nith a ds.po ci wintu, this ondd s.s . a
tr _ J. _ atop ci pilImitla , to kit soisot. Pl sal bin
g rt with grs.t j.. In itIc. . casi ii.. lIait.tl
ci tt.r Lu, soolcyint, l.a. (amid UsC usoy U
Usy aits a sodsi tiso taut in Us fLuId. Us
sodsl as so ip. sand sLup .it, bit with a
liastwi uyu ttoy sastias si dify to C l.. piiat ci
bs*cy asi. A .. ci Ba. rtuts ttl In attidid.
Thu sets. pothiso I l.a. to toll ys. Us* &us ait
anpd.r. a 110 in tlastlts biolaqy to wd.l.tad. Us
. of rcMl (iidiInq gsoan oai ad of porta ad
(4.2.5 C arid d l at. totally L irata. Itsisot iso asp soil
ba..ct... , sot so ths , ad so is ., ports. B p Bath I
Us Itsity lodtjs Slid Baatbs.y) La usC so U. . *
isa. lUstgts. in fact a of Us tait i ,thP ilMitris. In
Us aitisot Us Usilfid, buds a. .11 urand soas 42.5
aid Usy ar. sit clc.sd — — ci r” — Ba
Use pollutIon elsd i . Tas Isoamaso
dsso sot as, iacli (lafidi aseis. rith th Sic..
usoan’s.. Pra*iy, it Lu difflo t to bat at Us.. s.
wiusot a r. lIsp to Icilait, U. toad ci
Use Us SiA iso for ad Us iansos ci Us Barth
sod isith Rictus.
I Us thtis. ad thu .
c i yaw its so, be of .upal sUty. t.aIniy I ds
soy tw.as. fut tii .tlnp so a. tiso Us sels.
slibrtsip all ito .-—- ad all Us so cru, tIsos is
only as soiution to idsqasgd NS ad — ‘-——tta .
SnIP 115 WSAU. silt 4.
E4
1UWN OF NAIIAIIT. MAs5Acl4US. ui*ai
soi s.
C oa Cr —
Barns.
ass as flu
BoaTd of Selectmen
IOs.iSM1W - soso
-------
Pr
t* m of biaiiip tott
. I.
I .S,
swA 5r. tt iSS*O.J5E S O s _2I
S. . ietta Parlil
N. 16 19 11 * lAIft,.il,, aiilstiiit
• Sqs-i rs
Ph. Nlcha.l island. R..ion.l ft inistratov
EnvIrosa.n%.l Protset ion A .ncy
J I K.nn.d , F.d,ral Bu iIdin
Boston. NA 02203
Dsar Hr. Deland
Pt.... Pusip protset BOfli Boston harbor AiD
Bos.achu..tt. Boy Pros pollution.
Ths Sill 1 105 r.COsa.nd.d for Iii. laroust e a.. gftjj
ln _ th world I. dan,.rou.Iv ci . .. to Shor. Tidal curr.nt.
could brinq it Onto OUt b ..chs.. •h.tlfi.h lisa . could
r.r.In clo..d fo,.v.r. and fish •nd lObo(.r di .. . . .. could
incise.., It do.. not saks ..iw. tO than up on.
lisa—-Boston Harbor——b, pot hut In, •nothor—Ma. sachu %t.
B.,.
Vs urge you to rsqu ir,
1. An outfall location at iita 4—nin. oil.. fir.
Harbl.h..d. ivan,.cott. Bohant. Hull. Cohasoot, and
Scituat.
2. Prisary and l.condary plants built •ir.ltsnsou.ly,
.0 .tni.allv tr.at.d sses . i . not di.charpod into
Na ...chu..tt. Ray
3. No dssr.1.ti.n of Hi. Hussachu ..tt. V.t.r Ousl ity
Btand.rd..
V i look forward to your coopsration rs srdln this
tr.ort.nt tt.r.
l lncrsly.
RECEIVED uoani op awnw,
7
WA?. OI!A1IT SUWR
sip
S C.
J P S —i •
v_lu l_l
t• i 0..e..s
E5
attJ ..3 Is a of a u 1 Ion ..und sa11y
l Phstln9 on I1 . IS$. ma t Bo.rd
of Bo1.c i luUy 5ii t 5 this ,,oWtlon d tha s1. of
IWonit HID!. lID. (S .f . ? rs i i i boosadasattli.
y b ly ‘.
• ,(
ID. Q..., .. widsisa wawsaZon
Seii.tor Silt., Sovsi1m 1
Uepvesai .tat I .e Th. ScOis
cc 8.nat.r Halts Bovarini
R.pr...nt.tlv, L.wr.ncs Ah..sndu
-------
,NI CI V o
Niviat. MASSACNU SCI?$
O? ICC 0. NI NAVON
CSTV NAiL
E6
May 10. i SS
a
Nicha.i Osiand. R.qion.1 i.i.trstor
wiroon.ntai Prot.ction kqsncy
John r. hnnsody ftd.rai Mat iding
Boston. Ilsasachusetis 03303
Boar Mr. Ds&a.ds
Attachnd pi.a.. (md coçy o ( a stat.s.nt. by so
dsii,ar.d at an £nfornationai ..ting hn(or. th. U.N.
tnvtronsontai Protsctton *q.ncy — Bogion I. r.l.tiv. to
Iii . Suppi..satsi Mavirososntai i.pact Btat...nt (or th.
Boston Marbor Wastsvatsr Conv.yancs Systa.
no stst ut viii ssrws as ttia position ot ths City
of Ba..r• during this cu at psrlod, and so not.d (or
t1 iscord.
Tour sttsntlon to this sott.r viii bs gr.atiy
apprsclatad.
Vpy truly your..
g ?.1 1 .L)( 4 1 L IL . ..
G.orqs V. Cl•ila
Mayor
C/sq
C.rtiit.d Mail Macsipt I P D I iTS Ill
STAiut.rn
lit IIIUORAIII OR V. C11E114
kvo. or ut Cnv or lEfluE
FE TI
U.S. Eaviucip mii. PROTICTION AICICT — REGION 1
MIlL 19. 1988
wm mt
15 EWRARD J L1.
WL M U
RELATIVE To:
SorrulEm-Al. FavIao.EITM. lorac STATDENT
For Tor
BOSTON Njp—i VASTENATTI CONVEYANCE ST$WIS
1
soon.. V COISILA
—a.
-------
—1—
2-
TilAji YOU FOR ALLOWING HE TIlt OPPORTuNITY OF CONIENTING
mE NOSTu N*isou VArnWATE. Couvtv*i ct S sivs NO*rt
SuPPLEIWIrAL ENVIROIUIENTAL ISPACT STATEMENT.
It IS INDEED FITTING THAT WE MEET TONIGHT lIEN! IN
REVERt ON tilt tim HUNDRED *110 TIIIRTUNTII ANNIVERSARY OF
TIlE GREAT EVENTS THAT SPARRED Tilt BEGINNING OF THE imRICAN
REVILUTIou FOR IMOEPENDEUCE.
Two miivuto AND TWIIVEEN TEARS AGO LAST EVENING TNt
PERSON FOR NIOM TIllS CONWNITY IS NAIlED PAIL REVERE EMBARKED
GROW AN HISTORIC MISSION TO SPREAD TIlE ALARM OF THE IMPENDING
BRITISH MOVENENT INTO LtXINGT0N AND CONCoRD.
kso ON THAT llISTON C EVENINS, THE SEXTON OF THE ILD
Nomm CNURCII, Roit t BElGIAN, NUNS * LARTERN IN THE STEEPU
OF Tilt .D NORTH CHuRCh to ,uo,c*,t THEROUTE OF THE BRITISH
PLAN OF ATTACK.
Ip PAUL NEVER! *110 loitit BElGIAN WERE ALIVE Tilt!
tvturns, BElGIAN WOuLD NAVE TO NAIlS THREE UJITERNS IN ThE
CHURCh STEEPLE To vui OF Tilt NWRA’S SLUDGE DiSPOSAL PLAN
OF ATTACE IPON THUS CONRAIITY BY BOTH LAND AS WELL AS SEA
AND PAIL NEVER! WOILD NAVE TO WARM OUR INHABITANTS THAT
THE EPA Ailo Tilt MWRA ARE CONING.
WHILE Tilt NISTORICAL ILLUSIONS MAY BE GIIINSIC*L
THE THREAT OF Tilt EPA’ s *J,o THE MWRAS SEWERAGE AND SLUDGE
DISPOSAL PLANS ARE OF GRAVE COIICERN TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY OF Revtit.
Tim RESIDENTS OF Tilt City OF REVERE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE MVRA ’S PLANS TO LOCATE A SLUDGE RESIDUALS DISPOSAL
SITE AT Rowt ‘S BIJARNY ON Tilt NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF CIM
CORNUNITY AND WE NAVE BEER WON!IRG DILIGENTLY TO CONVINCE
ALL APPROPRIATE GOVERIPIENTAL AGENCIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THAT SITE.
Tim RESIDENTS OF TIlt CITY OF REVERE APE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE MWRA’s PLANS TO LOCATE PAREINS FACILITIES II
OUR CONIUN ITT FOR THE 600 TO AUTOMOBILES OF THE
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO WILL BE CONSTRUCTING THE DEER
ISLAND SEWERAGE TREATMENT FACILITY. •TwE TRAFFIC IMPACT
ON REVERE CAUSED BY TillS PARKING FACILITY COuLD COMPOUND
OUR ALREADY 0 1FF ICW.T TRAFFIC CONGESTION PROBLEMS.
I AM MERE TONIGHT TO RESISTER Tilt OPPOSITION OF tilt
PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF Rtvtn TQ Tilt U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY’S PECONIEIIDATION OF A SIT! 2.6 MILES
OFF NAHANT’S EAST POINT IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY AT THE
CONFLUENCE OF BROADSOUIID AND REVERE BEACH AS THE SITE FOR
THE MWRA ’o SEWERAGE OUTFALL FACILITY.
-------
-3-
+
TIC PIOPU w , C CF REVERE ARE SHOCkED
*1W DISMAYED •y u EPA’s RICOIUCNMT IONS TO LOCATE THE
wom.os LARGEST SEWERAGE DISCHARGE FACILITY SO CLOSE To
TIC SHORELINE CF THE NATION’S FIRST PUBLIC BEACH AND THE
TROPCLIT*N BOSTON AREA’S HOST ACTIVELY USED RECREATION
AREAS, REVERE REACH.
I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT TIC (PA COILD SELECT
A LOCATION SO CLOSE TO TiC SHORELINES CF REVERE, Vi,,mutop,
NAMANT, SIWuPSCOTT AID HORILEIC*D TO DISCHARGE THE SEWAGE
CF 3 GREATER BOSTON CITIES o Toims.
AT TIC SITE RECCINCUBED BY THE EPA, FIVE HUNDRED Pbu.iou
GALLONS OF WASTE WIU. NE DW ED EVERY DAY, DURING STORMS,
ONE BILLION, 1150 IUISRED *150 TWENTY TICEE MILLION CALLOUS
CF WASTE WILL HE DISCHARGED AT THIS SITE,
To ADO INSINT TO INRIRY, DURINS TIC INITIA l. PERIOD
CF OPERATIONS GETICEN 199Q MD 1995. FIVE HUNDRED MILLION
GALLONS OP UNTREATED WASTE WILL U OIMPED OFF OP REVERE
REACH EACH DAY SIPUIINTED OILY BY A CCIBION ORDINARY
ChORINE ADDITIVE.
Loc*i. ENVIIOI.CITaI. 11C11 HAVE CONDUCTED TESTS AT
TIC EPA’s DESIGNATED SEWERAGE DISCHARGE SITE MD THE EVIDENCE
THUS FM INDICATES THAT DISCHARGED SEWERAGE MATERIALS WOILD
REACH TIC SHORELINE BY WEANS OF THE TIDAL CURRENTS.
EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM THIS EVENING IS COIOIITTED
TO THE NOBLE OB.CCTIVE CF CLEARING DR BOSTON HARBOR Mo
WE RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICILT TAn THAT BOTH TIC (PA Mo
THE IMA NAVE IN ATTEMPTI N C TO ACHIEVE THAT OB.CCTIVE.
HOWEVER, I HONESTLY FEEL THAT 111 RECCSSCNDATION CF
TIC EPA TO SELECT A DISCHARGE SITE IN N*SMCHUSETT, BAT
AT A LOCATION SO NEAR TO TIC SHORELINE OF TN! NORTH Siioutt,
CLEANS II BOSTON HARBOR AT THE EXPENSE CF IIASSACIRISETy$
B*v.
Nv GREATEST FEAR IS THAT BOSTON HARBOR WILL BE CLEAIWD
UP BUT REVERE BEACH, Wiunitap REaai AND TIC kacits w
NANANT, LYNN, SIIAMPICOTT *110 RIRBLEICAD WILL U POLLUTED
*110 DEGRADED *150 WILL BECOHE WIUSAILE AS PUBLIC RECREATIONAL
AREAS.
I NAVE REVIEWED A DOCIRCIT ENTITLED THE SAPPHIRE
RLCKLACEJREPARED BY NABEJIT SWIM INCORPORATED, 50 11CM, AS
I AR SURE YOU ARE AWARE, IS A PROPOSAL FOR TIC DISCHARGE
CF TIC IB RA DISTRICT’S SEWERAGE AT A SITE FURTHER OUT TO
SEA THAI BOTH TIC EPA’s * 1 10 TIC M RA’S PREFERRED DISCHARGE
SITES. I NAVE ALSO REVIEWED SWIM’S POSITION PAPER ON
ACCELERATING THE IBIRA SCHEDIRI& PREPARED BY kEVIN JAHGAARD
AND ROBERT YANEIRSSICE Mo I ENDORSE THEIR PROPOSAL wins
RESPECT TO THE LOCATION OP TIlE SEWERAGE OUTFALL AID TIC
SCNEHA.E CF CONSTRUCTION OP PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TREATICNT
-------
-5-
FACILITIES TO TREAT TN! SEWERAGE MUCH WILL SE DISClIARG D
AT TN! NIRA OUTFALL.
E7
UD.
__L . C t
, I
U WU
a -
Board of Selectmen
MUO?NNL
E7
I mos i.v 1MG! mt EPA *fl TN! MWRA To DESIGNATE
sIn 6, TN! FURT NEST OF? SNORE SITE AS TN! BEST POSSIGLE
LOCATION FOP TIM WORLD’S UGGEST SINGLE DIAIIETER SEWERAGE
OUTVALL DISCHARGE.
I URGE TN! RWRA TO COUSTHuCy ROTH TN! PUINARY AND
SECONDARY TRE*THET PlANTS AT TN! BAlM TIN! OR AS CLOSE
TO TN! S W TIN! AS POSSIBLE TO PREVENT TN! DIRCNARGC OF
UNTREATED WASTE OFF OUM SNOPELIIMB,
km FINALLY, I 1MG! BOTh TN! EPA rno m MWRA NOT
TO ATTEWT TO LOWER TN! NASSACNUSET,S. STATE WATER duAt .flY
STANDARDS.
I APPRECIATE TIM NMUUT OP TIN! THAT YOU NAVE GIVEN
N! TO PLACE TN! POSITION OF TIq Cite op REVERE ON TN! RECORD.
to. Ilcisel toI.i d. t o le.sI *öl,uIstrutsr
tll,,rel llt.1 Pr teCtlO *qIUCy
.1. f. leanedy f, rsI tolIdIo
toot,.. 01203
too, to. toliod:
At a stl., of tto tosrdof klecUN. told
y 25 133G. It i votad to fo, ,d to
Ito EnvIro .taI Pp,t.ctIc. Aq , .cy copy of til, to.
oI.tIoi, . ,q.rdIus Ito o.tf.l1 for toolo. l ubo.
. pt,d eu y II, I O U, by Ito Baird of S.Iect ..
Very trvly yes , ,.
IalsIraIIvo Aools t
Jvi ic
( ‘ut
toy 31. IOU
THAN! Toll.
-------
TEL(P,CS* 131 1 S
Board of Selectmen
.. 0T SSIL
I U
i iUJN11$S’
_______________ II , liii
- - W IS trauIS) PSSISSIIOS 1507 554
t . i_I%S’ t SI.a SSS S.tb Sip (0 ? IS .115.1
.StS&k La 515 54 LI a assIp sIa Ia IS T .
VLhI T14d — —$a iI kI 115 S.5 dn,aSI d II 5451.. 554 1
La SiSSIS ? 15.5551. U0?bL IM I
511S ( 0k. SIifl . .54 154 .1 r— . .s . ..Id I. C$ •
‘S P . 1 5 1 5 ? 1.... — k.sI .54 III .515?
1 iar .54 541V1 rI. . 5 I IbI I1SIS54 siv i..I. 4 I. II .
_ ,5s 5 — S I . tiUI ’ v155U . 5 l4. ap; .54
t ...‘1 . i ai U S’ — Ps.1 lul.r —
U Li.tL11 SIur — i-—Il . 1111
______ 115 T d I15 IIIS54 1s 4%sIauI I. p I$ 1% . mar.. .54 11.
a—I—u 54 ma . .Ita P. ,.
— — 1? ?IU0 I .II 11.1 515 T 54 1551.54 vLS I sarI tar, .54
viii s51 Its stats .54 f.i.,s1 .1.5154 .54 .psIat54 . (Ti54.i. Is
,k farm
I) I. . .tfML 1...U.S SI 5351. P - siI fr
Il u54, . .it. I, 1515, C. st , sa l Isilarta
ii (0trT ISS ’W piSata Ii ii11a 1P. I’
5454..Iip t. ..Is l s $S IS art 4555155354 1515
__ tIS Isp
3) Ps 1 . 5SIIU 54 15u—1tSa 15IN 1It7 pt.a i4..
A 4 II- ii. 4)
*r.D1d AlSI5fl . 01 51 1 5a
bard of S.I.cI*
of , .tu.15.d
-------
Gi
Nay II, I S IS ucif Ic co ntu em thi D0?lI ira attached
crniD-OO. i—0I—I?—fl3 Should you hay. any question. r.gardlnq our ccsnts. pls..s
Contact Saran Mans at 147-1452.
Navid Te..y
Water Quality Uranch _____ ly.
£nviron.sntal Prot.ctioui *qa..cy
haqion 1
Jr. lunn.dy SuildInq . • ,. lit.. c.s.c.
Soston, N h 02203—2211 S.ctlon Chief ..
P.qulatory lrs ch
Op.rstIon. Division
Dssr Pr. ?o.sys
Na have r.,iipuisJ the Draft S.pplsssntal Pn.lr......aatal lupact
Itate.ant (DOltS) I or the Nassachusstts Vat., Pssourc•s
Authority s IncRA) propo.sd w.st.wat.r trestuent plant tunnels
and outfall • Our revlon as a cooperating agency ha. I ocu..d on
ensuring that the SIRS can he adopted for our r.qulatory
purposes.
me data and analysis presented in the 05 11 1 a ar to ha
sufficient to support a decialan for placs .snt of thu dif luau,
anyvhur. betusen Site. 4 and S. L.Js. r , for our regulatory
revlon. it will ha neesasary for a spucific diffuser location to
be s.lscted and for it to b. Issignated wher, that atructur.
will begin aid end.
Currunt indecisiyunssa over type of diffus.r is a oujor
question that neuds to ha addr.sssd as •uffici.nt data and
analysi, of dredging and disposal ingects for thu pipsllnu
diffuser alternative is not uvidunt in th. DSIIS.
Disposal location(s) for uscavatud emt.rial Ira. the
proposed outfall tunnel sot bslng idantif led at this ti n is of
concern, as the alt .rnati,, outfall locatlona rind., betwue.
770,000 and i.iio ,ooo c.y. of .at.rial. Prefurrid disposal
sft.a should be id.ntifi.d as part of thu outfall aiting
process.
In sfininq .onitoriag and mitigation canitsents. lIon
diagraus could ha used to Illustrate the decision, and actions
to be taken should unaccaptabla sovlr ..so..tal conditions
rusult. Clsatcut thresholds and specific actions should be
iduntif lid.
tt is ingortant to note that if aseovat.d natarial, which we
consider solid west,, is to ha disposed of at Spectaclu Island
or any other Section 404 ara.., the senorandu. of agr.eount with
SPA rugardlng aolid vest. states that on cannot accept an
application until local aid state approval. are iasu.d.
-------
I. Fran 5 tsciwiital oOifit-o$-vise.. s. bsl lsvs in. applicant ha. mao. a
Son ‘s 51 cr I to odOr... In. purl I flSni I .Suua. Tii.rs or. hCw vur or...
Of iinCsrta$ney shich should Pu Oddr.susd. ilio ss ISSU.. Which an b lisys
can P. addr..s.d with efl •vailabl. data pa.. ars aot.d and should P.
inCOrDOrat•d in tn. final SIB. Thoso issu.s Which Cannot P. an.w.r.d in a
r•ssonaplu time should a. i.icorp.r.t.d into a aonitoring orDer..
with cl..rly d.f,nod •itiuation .Ifort. condltlunal on in. rssulta of en.
ash Coring progrs..
2. P.t.ntial Impacts on physical sill clinical choractsrt.iics Of in.
acifat ic acosvsiua.
Ofln t,. Th. uutfall is lilal, to l..d to lncr....d concantration.
Of pollutant. associaesd wiell p.rticl.s Iii th ai•a ii. ., th• outfall.
Ikidur .lr.tifi.d Conditions (p .rc.ivsd to as in. worst Case).
s.dissntation rat., within en. aiuing Sons ranq from 2.6 to 12.6 010#day
Mien primary and 0.3 to 2.3 glaVday with macondory, d.pundlng on en.
distanc. Iran en. outfall.
Tn. a.ol iconS ha. proyldsd .seiaat of in. Concuntratlan. of clinical
constituants in en. .ii pusue silO flu.. rat... ‘his plovldas snough
infora.t ion to aol.. r..sonabl. .stl.aes. of in. flu. of satarial into Ma..
Say ( A. ITFP Ill and V. Dsuhdi. a ). rn. us. Of partitioning
co.fflclsnes ang sorption aod.iu to •.eiaat. en. affinity of cnsancal
consti tuunts is poriicls. ..u to b• a rs.son.bl. approach.
Ha accopt in. orgu.snts sads by SPA that ins initial distribution of
sumpandsO solid, and en. to.ics assaciat.d with the.. psiticl. can P.
sodall.0 using TEA-IS, and CLA in a saiwior similar to dissoly.d
constituant. (Oases 3-25 through 5-341. Oivun this &nfor.ation sod
bactoround sediasiltat ion rats. of 0.03 cs/v,’ an ogres that •sti.at.. of
the cnaaicai loadings to ins ssdiauni can a. sad.. Haw.vsr , in.
oqpsibility that s.dlasnt transoort y ‘aconcantrat. n.wly s.tilsd
.. gv i .1 slioul d bo adOrs...d. Ths fact thai Sotiwuor (I 07I I asid an or..
in l.o.tcn Harbor that has an asoor.nt ..dis.niation r at. of 2.0 calv.ar
sugoosts that I atoral trsnuport of I ocal I s.d mpo.l Ci op is Occurring
(pagan 4-27 and 4-25).
Buselodsd eI&dsl lincOllily. Thor. ors no sstiaat.s of ins Siaaoundsd
solid . Concantrations .veuctad in in. ‘—stur colast with sithsr pr lwy or
s.condory tr.ataant. ml. oust as aOran . Tn. asosiut of solids bslng
dischorQsd I ran In. f Iluant •acIl day has basil sstiaatud by th. I SsiA to be
.3e0 kg/day for sri y trsataane and 31.363 kg/day for sscondorv
tratasne (Tabl. 3. 1.1..). £stiaat.s or. givsn thai 403 to 503 of ths
suspundsO solids will ru.ain in suspension sidar priaa,i, and sucondary
raspoctlvsly (1.0. ha ,. s.ttllnq v.lsc$tl., Ian. than I c./l000 usc ,.
Ulvan Il ls sattling valocity and ill. hydrsqra.hlc data. th... .sti.at..
could bs Od using in. TEA and 11* medals. If in. analysis was don, by
ins issia it uhould bs clt.d in tnis ‘sport.
Tilts infor.atin is ussuntial to as.... tisi impacts that suuOandsd
solids or. liksly to hays on light pun.t’ation and en. rat, of
pIuots.with.. i 5.
Psis Quality. Ha hays Sods a d .Cision to dsfsr to CPA’s recognized
.NOurLis• In Ill. sodsiling of watsr slalit,. Ha do not bullevs thars will
be an, significant dhang.s in wat.r Clarity, Color. Odor or east..
flaanvur an ha.. notsd so.. pruOl..s wier, en, intsrpr,Iat ion o, watsr
Quality rssults. EPA suposst. that sIt. 5 has lowur awo,ent nutr,.nt
concsntrat.ons and ihsr.fors a er.ator capacity to assia,lats nutriant
inouts to ens maCar coluan is.. 55 5-471. N. ackn.wl.dg. that in.
conc.ntrat,ans of nitroqsn will probaply as lsss at sit. 5 (P2) than at
Sit. 2 (P1). l w vsr an dl.agr.. mat this alone sal.. sit. 5 a bsttsr
sit, to r,ci,vs off luent. Tn. data ssans to indicats that primary
production and nutriants or. s tightly colsil.d at station 5. Tn.
impacts say tnsr.lor. as ysator at station S than at station 2.
01 van tna aaauflt of ta, and ran wc s In. applicant has don, a fairl V
good job. Hawsvse. It oust a. acknowl sdq.d that in. •f facts of an
sill u.nt cannot P. asssss.d total I y by short tsr. (40-flour P incu att ons.
.,. in. nutriant • .psr$.snt. did list ass..s en. continuous dslsvury
of slavatsd nutrlsnts sboulaiing •ffluant discharg., Which is en.
siDsCtsd • p situation. Ratn.r. en. s .psri.ants .yalu.at.d acut.
siposur. dting Which nutriant. rapidly •.cr.as.d, rathor than chronic
•ioosws during Which Ins pllvtoplaniiton wore Subjsctud to continuously
high nutrisnt isvsls. (ISsiA. Voluss V. pandi. 2).
As thor. is a gr.at d..l of aicurtainty in en. prsdict$Sns Of no
significant impact on primary production and uocius composition, an
P 5 1 1 5 ,5 that so .. anasur. of primary production (q. . standing stock of
Chlorophyll a) should . aonitor.d to a..... en. anorational impacts of
Ins outfall. Second. an bsllsv. that Conditions should as sot in
aitigation to dacr.a . . nutri.ni loadings should in... initial srictions
orov. fals..
Q yggn. Tha proc.s..s of roasratlon. curbanacuous and
nitrogunous POD ducav and ssdiit onygen daSa.td a ussd as parastora
to calculata dissolved o .ygsn d.fiClt.. Ha bslisya that a major c onant
has bean sIt out of ens .od.i and that is the organic carbon associated
with sinking phytoplankto . A ..condsry outf.ll in lass Say will unn.nc.
primary prodUction. Th. flu. of organic carbon to thu s.diaunt. will P.
£ncr.ased. ThIs build up of organic corbun will incrus.. ill. bloloqical
osygan du.and of tn. sudisont, and could potentially iiiltiat anosic
•vunis s.puclallv in dspositlanal ursa. of Massachuwati, Pop such as
Stullwagan lasin and Wilkinson 5a.m.
a
-------
3. antial i aets on bioloSicof ehaP .ctsri stics of thu
asiatic Scosystsu
ic&o, Thu I I t stiru duseri ing s.d. aentat I an
• •ff•ct. an bSnthos 55i 15?ahi, siorussmd in trss of Cslvr. EPO
ssti.atsd that thu .aturial co.iI lq out of ths outfall s.ould S. .l
urqenic ..tsrial (density 1.06 o.Ic.3) and 20t iilorq.nic .atsr,aI
• idonsity 2.eS •. c.3P. This uSiats. to a aeon density for •ifiunt
• solids of .4 oslca3 toSs 5- 16 1. This rssults in d.oositioilai rat•5
• on thu ord.r of 0.07 to 0.33 (mI s ’ , for prisury and (b.(il tO 0.06 taIV?
for s•condary. danondin on thu distant. I.e. ths outfall. TN.
• .aturial will b. ..tr. .slv fin. ..tsria l. Thu substrats in ti. ars.
•ruund sit.. a as. and S is sutfsasiy hutsro 5snaus Fi urs
4.2.4.5). Substratu tv,ss includu .ruas with ho.o 5.nuous øsSbIs and
csheiu bottoms that mis covsrsd with sand. hOooqsnous osbbl. end
cabbis bottoms that ur co,or.d with silty sadisunt. and
• hatsro04nous mi... of sand intsruu.rs.d with mrs.. of cobbles and
Dsbbl.5. Yhsrs is • di.’uiss banthic mimi. with susosnsion 4s.din
•nd .oosit fssdinq po lyct . .utus. Thur. will bu habitat lo s. and a...
ortal.ty .f b.nthjc p pul•tion5 ill th boosdiata a ,.. of t )
di i fussr. Susp.ns(wi isadinq mrqanisas mrs particularly sansitivu to
siltation sifscts. This will rs.ult in a shift in co jnitv
structwu from ths 5r.sent ..5s.bl s to on. doainStsd by
apomi -tunistic dsoosit •s.din polvcn..tss. Thus. buri•l rats
pr.dictsd within thu ions of iapact ar within thu tol.rancss of many
esposit 4 ssdinq or 5anis.s. Th. ispacts d l this physical burial an
ths bislOficsl C miity i ii thu aiming •on (a ba2 arss) mis
ad.smit.lv ad usssd by thu aool icant (Ssction LI • 3. piqs 5-52 1.
ms that fish shich f by sipht will Qsnurally avoid thu
or.. of thu plu m .. as ,‘ot.d by thu aoolicant. thur. will 55
dsqrad.tlon in thu or.. naar thu outfall. Hi 55 sadisent.tion and
turbiditi will ask. thu or.. smisuitabl for fjltur isdsrs.
Th . .4 facts of orq.nic anricfi.snt . ssdiaant tosicitv. nutel.nt
smrich.snt. wstsr coluom toxicity and dissolvud o.yqsn doficits an
aurmnu organisms or. d.alt with in suidicisnt dstaii individually.
I ami- . ths cu lativs sifucts of ti... ispacts mrs difficult to
asssss. Sivsn this micurta.ntv. an would rsco nd aanitorin
shorts to ass.ss thu apurational assets on Psus .ssourc.s. and
rsc..._asnd that mitigation an.surus bs ustablishsd 15.5. ncr .. .. in
smi c. esductian rsmiuirs..ntsp should siOnificant sfiscts asco..
.oomi.nt.
Tbce•ts W 1W IWsssscW IsscI.. TI.. suction on t’w.atonud and
ndanqursd spscsss ss..s to 55 .dsauat.. W Only (mAcurn would 55
thu potsntiai sii.ct Of thu outfall an shal. populations should
stsi l .agsn •a.in b.cbo. thu ultimats Ispository fur suUVsiIdsd solids
and cmiitaainat.d sadi.snts from Sostan Harbor. Ha r.con furthsr
consultation and coordination with S as th Drucuss contlnu.s.
VLW tf,. Wildlifu issuss I L. ,. thu ailsets of thu oespajion on
wins aaanais. 55.01, 15. tirtlus) or. dsalt with in aufficisnt
detail in this L I I.
4. Potential iwoacts an soacial asuatie Sites
e’ stv.’&ss n IQr h ,f pog. 55 would lisu to ass au uvaiuatian .1 thu
Dotsntt.i •fhuct of thu outfall an thu South Isse . Ocsan Sanctuary and
ths ..s oh Critical Environmental Concmin in tis Sacs hivsr and N..,
Ri vsr.
!SLLIIID. Thu effsct oh thu outfall on salt Smishes in th. sr.a
i,.g. Nahant. WInthrop. Wsv ithP should 55 ass.sssd in this rsoort.
iid tilts. Th. slfscts oh thu projsct on thu su fj t. in thu misa
should bu adrssssd. ls possibla aech.nisa to acilsivs this would Su to
u.s thu issults oh ths transisnt plums aod.l to prsdlc% concentrations at
ths shorulinus with si ni4icant audflat r.smi c.s.
Ysut.tW 3Pi• ggg. Ths spplicant h.s id.ntifi.d an ursa oi
significant subssrqsd v.gutation in thu ursa armimid thu Oravss nsa ,
station 4. Ths ..uqst.t,an in this urea should bu dsscrib.d and ths
sffscts of ths outfall an this habit.t should 55 assssssd in th. ( I I .
Thu apolic.nt should cansidor thu sf facts of sub.srgsd vsgstati an
UI. local circulation pattsrns. Vsgstation in thu arus say trap aaturial
in suaosnsion. Th. sffects of tha vsgutation an tha distribution of
Pollutants should thsrufurs bu .ddr.sssd.
5. Potential .4 acts an human us. ehuracturisties
secasttusii aol Csesecc&i1 !t.eiu . Thu lobst., fisisary is an
iasortant comamrcsal ru.miircs in thu ursa th.t will ba iasactsd by thu
projuct. The imoscts of thu eroj.ct on thu lobstur iishsry caanot bu
fully assusssd without information on thuir distribution in thu wintsr
Iths. Ths potsntial ias.cts to thu lobstur 4 ishury should Ss .sportsd
in thu LI I.
Using ths availabls date coil.ctsd by th. IsmiA and thu litorat... on
thu sffscts of pollutants on fish sOscius. thu aoolicant has dolls a
r.asonabls jab on prudicting II. sffscts of ti. outlsll an thu 4 isllsry.
Osvun thu uncurtaint, in omti.atu. of fish populations and prufmirsd
habitats in boston Harbor mull th smicurtainty in Idsrstandin thu shfsct.
Of sultiplu pollutants an pauaautsrs aff.cting fish 000ulations (q.g.
rscruitasnt, lurvsl dsvslo...nt. rsproductianl. an rsc n that
poeulatian. 5. aanltorsd clossly. Sscondiy. an 1.51 it is in ti. public
int.r.st to cantinus sffmits to •sssss thu luvul of conta.inatian in
.dibl. fish tissus.
etp -!.i•tW .cc,.tIuo. Ths uf facts of thu projact en antur-islatud
racruation should bs as..sssd. Thsuu is a guuia..l purcsOtion that ths
projuct will cluan-us Sostan Harbor. that ‘i. sisillish boos will Ss
re-oounsd and thu buach.s will a. sals for swi aeinq. saii I. an rucognis
that thu luwisr Harbor will bu el.anur. an fool that it is imsortant th•t a
rs.listle analysis of th• futimia conditions of thu Harbor undue sscondary
tr.atasnt ba includ.d in thu II I. Prudictians of viral centa.ination and
fucal coliforas from ti. far-fluId oodullinq could potentially bu usud in
this analysis.
p
-------
e.ii .tis.. The ...tIietiC pacts Of the oper.tson s ould a. assessed
in the (IS.
ê. (valuation and T.sting
Osoccil Ivs&vatlOO of CSS0S cc &1I aticlil. . oe .IW .dqlAg
•erait is aoOrOv.d for .sterlal to a. disposed of at PADS in. Corp. is
likoly to ..ou lrs chesical testing in the or.. to a. dr.dged. In addition
the Corps o• (ng lne .r. is lsk Iv to resale. aioaccuaulatio” and aiD....,
testing. flu. applicant ha. don, an ad.sa.t. jab describing the biotic
c anhty in the a... to b. dredged. Additional inforsation on in.
..diaant grain size coposition of II I. or.. eav a. ,e 5Jir.d.
Material d.stln.d for ,u.land liii .dll have to a. id.ntlfied and
deecri’ed in . d.tail. as will the prpos. locatlon i.l for disposal.
7. tIon. to .ini.iS. sdvers. effects.
Th dr.dgirg activity associated with the pip•-dilfUeer •lternativo
..ouid qenerats appro..isatslv .4 dillon Cubic yards of dredged .aterial.
Ns would r.sair. that dr.dglng windans a. enacted around dr.dqing activity
or the p.p.-difluser to protuct th. flounder and bAsis. fishery.
He ald not re 5air o sIgiflg windows orsld ho dr.dqina activity
..escsat.d with the drill.d .1..? diffu.Ur alternativ. b.ceuse of the
sash sits of dredging operations end th. protraçt.d schedule i O cubic
vords every I to 2 w..ks for four to liv. veers).
Given the .d .c o rt.tiIty in predicting pacts us f..l it I. n.cee.orv to
esn j..._ piivtopl .is ton abshdancea iDilorophvl I 51 • di ..ol wad osyge , .
cancentr.tio”s. and toNic lsvele in flea caught in the ores. Si. would
hope that there be e op.rationai fie .ibil itV built into the process
should the best pf .dictions turn out to a. wang. Sic way to do this
.ld be to ,osalro the I A to .tr.ngthen its s Nc• reduction proera.
should eanitoring indiCat. significant d.torioration of the reuourcs.
No ilavo con.i.tentlv c ntOd on it., n.ed to wudorstand eedia.nt
transport proc..... in Seston Horbor in siting the outfall. No still
ash..., that such infarwatson is ait. deoandant and critical to predicting
th pacts of th outfall. No still feel that thor. ore significant
uncertainties regordinq transport proce...s. No would live to se. ease
.onitoring of the i grtant .hor.l$n. ore.. ig.g. bathing bea sI. and
would ilk, to a.. so.. aitigation actions conditioned in a final (IS
should there b an ipact to thesa orsas.
Iwo isal ItshTES C0I EY5€I 504 IS
NIST00IC N OLOSICM. 04I *tES
Pull. 22, lOSS
I. Appendi. S. 5.3.0
Section 104 of tho National Historic Preservation Set ueA of
1044. as opnded r.plr.s that th hoad of any Federal agency having
dir.ct or indirect jurisdiction Os.. a pr=— Federal or federally
assisted ertaklng, prier t. tie ppr.val .f ..p.nditw.Of P.daI
funds or iSsuance of a per.it, taI,..&Ms_. 9%mj the .4 f.ct .f t
undertaking on any district, building, structure or object that is
listed on or .ligibi. for inclusion in iii. Nationsl Nogietor of
Historic Places. Section 104 ales regeiroa that the President.
Advisory Council on Historic Pre..rvatio. be given a reasonable
opportunity to co nt with regord to the undertaking.
The Advisory Ce,ucil . ragulations, Pretection of Historic
Properties 534 R S0O), outline proc es for Federal Agencies to
follow to coaply with Section iOb. This include, coordination with
the Gist. Historic Preservation Officer S 0l. In Messoctsusatts,
the S10 is at the iless.cIi.e .tts Historic Cop$ssien.
2. 5.4 State Lawsi Seould includes
Msse.ctu.s.tts lbiderwetor chaeol0gy Set (Dieptue 050 Sets of
1 73 1.
This t established iii. Seord of lMder..ator drciiaeologlcal
Se.swces to overs .e the rval and salvage of underwater rs.sorcea
that have historical and educational value. No recovery of
underwater orchaeoiogiCal r.e.ace. shall be ad. o.cept in
coapi iance with provisions of the Poord. A perait fro. the Poord is
needed before any oucavatisi can take place in Massachusetts
territorial waters. Nopre.ontslivesof the P achu..tts Historic
Coiesien sit on the Pperd.
3. V .Is is 4.2.5.4 ine Prchaeolsgy
A. * .tato.ent about pridsisteric potential, or lack tk .el, or
the tunnel and outfall or.. should be included in the teut.
P. flu. orchaeological res ces roport copleted in Sec.aber SI
1057 li5A, STPP V. F ?) discussed resources in relation to
Massachusetts Stats isis shich considers that shipurecks $00 peers
old or swoth e then 00000 te be under tile jurisdiction of Iii.
Ilesseachueetts Soord of lMdereater chaeobogiCai M.eswce.. These
resources ales fall wider the National Historic Preservation Adt of
$044. The Federal Set re airs that ehipurecks idlich seet at le .•
on. of the Criteria for eligibility for inclusion in the National
Megistor and ore generally .I (lion 50 poor. be taken list. accis 5t
bef ore a Federal undertaking CW be authorized. Th. r.u..ir.sentsof
both State and Federal statutes will need to As satisfied before a
Corps of Ingineors porsit can be issued.
S
-------
( I I- .
C. tsist Is U i . oclisdul• for e I.t$n, Ui. .issdsd wid.raitsr
. vsys ol tii. diffus.r l.cstionS Ttio lttor.tw-. s..rcli co. i.t.d
I. .t. osu s.abI. to dst.raino coneluolvoly ot i.thor or not htst rlc
.r.,ortIs. or. l.csiud in Iii . sutf all sit...
4. S. I .5.5 al ti. l — eN. ..I s1 cal Øosourc.s
Indiract i acts to historic proo.rti.s should ho co,isldor.d and
•iacuss.d. Por .u lO, h.. for iris tlio dii fuss. nould a shlpis-sci
flood to ho Iii odor for thorO to ho iio sff.ct’ uld any of tli•
fraol I. arct e solssscal sit.. at lb. shoot in. of tIe. harbor islands b
•ff.ctod’ liouId nitori.ig of shiparuck sit.o a. prop .s.d If any
or. f O w ed adjacunt to a diffus.r locatlis?
s. a. . 3 •i .,as.i of tucavatod and sdsd Matsr i SI
If ilond di.io.al is anlactad tho sit. s.l.ctian osuld “s.d to
ho .0,1 5usd by tIe. Nsssachus.t to Stat. Hi stan c Prossrvst I on 04 11 can.
NC 1N less . 4oos .3 Mi. Bush SEtS I ., duo S . d . , IL.it.. Wsat j1.. .
C. .ev.ysncsSyuts. seed .ouid lb. sa .sbs di. loitswIn9 . ..........ts.
Th. snsly,ls of slt.r,estlvas hr Mi. dilluaur w ,stsuctkn sued for lIes
inla,tst.. ,d sued .ffluunl a,,.... - ts bs sdsqusls. MCZN sqr
vile tIe. r...,.. ..s..etstioi. disC 5 u 5 c.nt.tn.d hi di. 0 ,51 1 SEIS. for th..a
portIons of Cli. two .ct.
Tb. ?ovis. sI jta,osttsss far di. scilsU LItsn • duos nut
a,,an . lob. .utlieiuuldy . .a.pials . sued NCZN less s nosb.r .1 . . . . ..s .
Th. Droll ff15 , .. .4s ties aros b.tvsan SIC. S and Sits 1. so di.
locallen f di. outfall i.,iuws. but Ii Is not cI r olisdi., lb. , ...._._ . iklIun
I. thut tie. mule dl i lu.., syst should ho vithin liii. buond.ry or has
lust Cli. .idpolnt .1 lb. dlffu.sr should Isil hi this cans. ills si,, not
ci . . , I . MCZM list di. dlff v s bsl .ssn Sitss S sued S Sc. 1n.iqiflcsnl.
as dshisd In Cli. sn&yds. Thu. cunchj,loii contrssts .illi C i. rsvlsw
Infosaslien dial 0 5 5 includsd In Mi. FEIR • stitch .ss prsp.r.d by lies
MORA. Thsr.fer.. i ii. r . ..,,. for di. diffe . .- In tie. . ._seed.Cio
should ho fully sapi.In.d. MCZM not.. thai di. dat. list oss prsaontsd
in I i . Orals 5515 indic.ts that Sit. S has tie. hIglisot bsck round conc,nlrsifan
of conbooluesnis he lIes sadnuntu sued lie. higlisal ,Inulal.d concmnlc.tioues
los di.ch.rg.. .1111.1 lotsIlon. TI.. dat. .is. ,qqssts is,. .iguiIfic.ntty
boopor ursa of di. asrhe. •cesyatis sould ho both d.,.ekd sued chsngsd.
si SIC. S. he 511. 1. 5. saauv.d In di. sffscls on ties bsndilc
unhty and I Cli. .rg.nlc sued nuirisnI . .,riduo...t of tie. sils srsa.
Ti. nups Idsnlifying lIes shads of prheary-traslad on1p dIscha,is.
. ,plia.I,sa lie. diffaronc.. b.boo.n di. I so ts.. Tie. 0,511 HiS silo
•tatso list tleo siarp sS cross. In dilutIon . ir, bslss.e Sit.. S s.d
S. s .d I I .1.. anØiasls.a Ii. dl i f.rmcos b.toosn di. Is. sit...
__ ‘
P) 4
#00 1 bi 1 i
cO*UYAL CONt • lIi&II • . .I’ -
N*N*OEWINT
MEMORANDUM
TO: RONALD C. MANFIF qI. CHIEF. MAYER OUAUTY BRANCH.
US EPA
FROM: RICHARD P DE RECTOR MC1M
DATE: NAYS. IME
RE: MCZM COINIENTS Oil DRAFT Sill FOR THE BOSTON HARBOR
MASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
9
-------
mul. not n.cas rIiy disagrosing .ith it ,. dudsion to .xclud. Sit.
I Ira. . .ors d.sali.d an.Iyais. MCZM fads th.t th. Draft SEIS doss not
. r.sa very i.gitIn.t. canc.rna 111.1 w. rais.d by lb. dtii.i.
group.. .$i.n Sit. loss propos.d far inckasion in lb. ansiy.la. ills not
at all cloar. that an outlaW at S.t. S .ould rmiulroa ponp station. Ths
enginauring p...,......i . to si.vais Door island f , th• Pu,,... of gaining
additional hood. on lb. disch.rg.. to aider to diminal. lb. r.quiransnt
Iota pamp station i.auds to b. can.ld.rad. Tb. dsv.tlon of D lsi.nd
.1.. ma th .dvanlag. of prsvtolnga location for lb. disposal of ocavaI.
and far addlikami protoclian. from pa..lbl. star. d—g . end lb. .ff.cls
of on loyal na.. The coordination and quantitatlu. analysis of th. disposal
nasda for . caystad and d..dw.J material hay . not boon sddrassod for
all . 1 Ihè ..Ior ps Ik .outs prolocts In lb. .st,cpoiit.n Boston anon and
audi snalpaas dnly feuds to b. don..
Tb. vsaaan for .sdudlng Sit. S lion a dstallsd con.idai.tlan. appeared
to b. based en cost onn.i stbns. i i ona suggs.tad that it mould b..
boiler us. of fIs.ncid rs.ourc.s. to Invest further, in sourca conird .nd
prsironi.anl progns.s. NCZM strongly auotoraas (ha dsvolop..nt of sourc.
contid and pr.tr . .t..nt programs, but —. ask ham this .ouid bs s plishod
and what ..d I.nisms ire to plac. I. anasre that this .111 occur. Tb. SEIS
should roaognhao, that a plan of sctton or possibl. .otlmds. nsud to b.
foreulatad. to .tsurs that tosics snd malrlent leadings to lb. mont.. environ-
moot ars r pl Tb. structural siltation. of building a mars distant
outfall has lb. adventags that greater dihatlon will 6. ad ,I.vud. said ml iii.
that is not nacossarily, lb. boat lung tars s atkn• It idli schiova lb. d.slrad
rootilt. II. balancing of sit.., sodianlssa, to adilava lb. sam. rosuli,
iF Wa .ur oost Is used, than they naad to ba idantiflud end carafuiiy da.albad
In lb. ‘ -r i,nt , In assist to sapport ti ,s daim that Sit. S doss not da..rv.
I.wthar c.n.M atIon.
It one d, naiad, that it ,. D , 5f5 ILlS moitolnad nomorous dslldooclas
in Its sHorts to Id.ntlfy r.samc. ars. di as bathing baad.os and uliolifidu
buds to ths vicinity of lb. p’ : ‘ outfall locations. Figur.s S.t.5 c and
d, In partla&lsr era inawirat. In th or daalg.mtlon of flsharl.a and
re nd am. ea.
rownnw,zwea//h z4dacAu4e
t$ i 4v . .&iI.9 a t’ c. i h
#oO €a . .4 r4. ‘of
..&gáliO(llIJii OSSO?
i v U. illS
. bamid lb.JI., a Oiled
Ibtojr Qaslity Sssd.
U.S. DwLrs ,tai Pt t1an y
fuqi.. I
J.r.H. w1 BaIIdIJtg
n. 03203—2211
toar *. lS . -
Its DIvisIon tonI t im tuuft Dp’ a1 whs .l i t
Itat .° . tco limbar timta Oja ft aid l.a w
Phot. In .Imo of lSS’a y ._...ilos . ,,.. ha rl - .
on a ea rof.4 tim iiooy may Rish ? — on lid, aed
ittaiffish, It Is IIlo Iosl to oas no potmitlal ,a—- duL. plblic
m . aIth risha ealat aft osio tou of tim dladampa. This I. partloilarly
l taat sins. Ient saber mUty orI la tar a ate sisosdy
— —i-I in , ... mittaU aron.
ma dmt poosibis oftigatlot , s I omild 6.
,..t .ul In tim * tMt plilic lisaitti — —‘--- — a ir at lbs ass sitIsU
its.. Its diadarga omaid oat 6. rol M bit tim I IituInp Iskiatty
otsi . .,Ia1 onid .if for oou .an vttin.t
.. l.a irud in atd itar d —y a, La Oducy Say.
Thia Is cvItts.1 sI lube. sat — quality criteria otsi sta,da,da viii
ba m.o .tri it. kty tbia miUgati.. e dona ld 6. tuUy
a alMn.i.
Pbosily. on balMs. dat It I. I— - an ha swgsla. da IS ha
, ,.ilh ,. . ril Iv . gte a.tSaU r.l.o &on a Ms ha fully pro-
tact Us using rias i ecos.
“ I
conies
0
,JPSIufu
l I .1
U. iai’.i malagon
iat Dirachar
Il #dIq
a IhulIp t.a
-------
MASSAcNUSrTTI WMER RESOURCES AUThORITY
Ckail..L.. . Navy Vsr
I O OFI ,etAvrwe
Sesien. Maisachusales SillS
•in , .a iso
hey 27, l S$
uldasi Holand
Req ona1 inistrator
ac USEPA
Jrn redsral esailding
Soston. MA 02203
‘ve U, Draft Suppiseental Suvlr ,........tal tupact Stat nt -
Boston Harbor Va.tswat.r Conveyance Syston
Dear N,. De1aMs
The sosA has reviewed the ab &..,nt and it detailed
c nts are attach.d for your consideretlon. V. appreciat.
th. opportunity to have worked with your staff and
consultant, during the developoent of ths 05115.
As you know cur Secondary facilities Plan was prepared on a
schedule essentially concurrent with your DS 1!S. Ve wers
fortunate to be faced with this •ltuation, because it
all d your docon.nt to c lnt. rather than duplicate.
our data and analysts. In addition, your project team’s
availability in this tifr for critical r.vi.w of our
draft seterial lad to a superior product f eon our
perspective.
It S release of the 05115 aM the I RA Hoard acceptance of
our final Facilities Plan Mey 21, laiS) are two significant
•ilsstonss in the Boston Harbor Cleanup Propton. W look
forward to a continuing positive relationship on tie program
a. it ee into the design pha... V. elsa look forward to
progressive discussions of our respective roles on any Mae.
ay water quality initiative..
.— , loevre
Jasee Mbyte, 05SA
Daniel Cresnbatai. 0
Steve Davis. UPA
P tj.t, is-IS;
Sincere
Irscutivs Dtrectdr
*‘a C.........J.s on Hasten Harbor Vsst ter
Systs. - Draft Supploasntai Iirvi. .. . .—. ..tai lopact Stat nt
fags 1-3, Court Datss
An April. 1514 e letise date for the int.r-Lslas ,d
conveyance system is indicated. Th. court caupletios date
is December. iItl.
Th, dates in thi. table at. Tarqet botes ’ at this time, not
Court Milestone..
Page 3—1. Section 3.2.1.1
‘...pi inq would be required at Site S versus gravity flow
operation at Sit.. 2, 4, and 3.’
As we have endeavored to ke clear, there is no .harp line
of demarcation between an outfall length where gravity
discharge is po.eibl. end lengths where poaping is required.
Question, of riser height, frequency/availability of
adequate purge water, allowable .lni speed. in the
tunnel. WI? hydraulic elevation, and the requirement that
the design sezi flow be dischargeabl. through the outfall
even under very brief •straordinary tide condition. all
enter the vs. gravity decision. The.. ogst he
addressed in the n.it phase of design, upon receipt of
geophysicallgeotechnieal data. lie fl!RII?lD include a
discussion of this point.
Page 4-5
Figure 1.2.1.0 mi.r.pr.no’ e the relative iccetions of the
transact survey locations to the outfill eite.. for
exeagi., Station TlS is at Sit. S.
fags 4-20, Dissolved 0..,,.. . Uie rts
Since the draft SIYP. quality control oc..4ures for the
noasuremant and processing of DO data have been
investigated, and it was determined that th, quality of s
of the sets of DO data was questionable. l of these data
set. are cited in the draft 5113. Il ) soasurement. made at
Station I iron March through June 7. 15S7, and 121
esesurassats made at all mater. f rem about September 23
through October 20, lu,. These data sets should not be
used as the basis of analysis.
1
-------
In October the continuous DO nst.rs began to give
questionable re.ulta. llmae t.r. had nev.r buss ua.d,
before this .tudy, In the marine envirooment. Larq. swings
in the calibr.ticn (2 mg/lI were seen between deployments,
so ths data were thrown cut. 11 r. ar. no butter 00 data
for October, aithuV trans.ats were dons in S.pt sr aid
in P... er .
Also DO ansr.d .trations cited in 1031 for Isptaabsr
1 B a ar to be mis-stated. & transact survey on
S.ptbobsr 14 lidicatus a mederate pycooclin. at 14 m depth.
DO meassr nts bslns this depth in rosd Sound range from
5.45 to 4.33 mg/i.
P 4-23, t io ice3a
hassle and PChs.nced the 10 and l0’ carcinogsnicity
criteria in lb. i.nt. Ibeos criteria, and the aobient
levels, ar. shown in T.bl. 5.1.1.1, p. 5-24. They should be
included 1. Table 4.2.2.1.
Pegs 4—33 Figure 4.2.1. .
Thu figure. abIch s the SPill s ling locations, needS
revision. Pisase refer to thu PIll/FlIP, Voii V. Appendia
I, for socurats a iiag locations.
bugs 4-31, Pectin 4.2.4.1.3, tv of Itrana
Differences in species -. iitisn ugy be due primarily to
difference. in substrats between of f.hore and nearshore
areas, rather than levels of PASs and metals since, with the
ezc.ption of Site 2.3, levels of continaats in the
sediments appear to appear to be fsLrly unit ore.
Pegs 4—35, lactics 4.3.4.2, Imps C—fl
The $acursions of colder, mere nutrient-rich water were
observed at Station 11 (Sit. 35 on (cur cruises conducted
for the Secondary Trsat t Facilities Planing Project, not
twins.
Imps 4—45, ectism 4.1.4.4
Change petral to pstr.l’.
Page 1-54, Fi 4.2.5. 1, SensItive Parber m—.. _ a
Dassd me a racoensiasasee visit to the Orient Heights Peach
area of Winthrop which was side to evaluate impact.
associated with of f-island utility supply, no eat.nsive
saltrsh area. were observed. This revises the indication
abow me the referenced figure.
2
rags 5-3, DO in lftlme.t
The sss tion that the po in frI .f’% ..—et is sero is highly
conserv.tiv • especially considering that t’K fflee1IIWlff
be conveyed via an energy diesipation structure to the
outfall tunnel.
P.gs 3-21
Thb table caption should say ths..pridigtad
concentration of copper is 3.1 linus ...‘
Pages 5-21 and S-29 , Table S.1.2.a
Colinu headings need to be realigned to refer to lackground
Concentration end Siniated Concentration.
Pagan 3-43 thrnspb 3-51, Section 5.1.3.1.3
For the DOlls, treatnt plant influent nitrogen loadings
were used to evaluate impacts on receiving water quality.
While this may qppear to be a conservative approach, it
a.s .s no di! ftr.nce in the forwe of nitrogen between
primary and secondary effluents. The fact that the
secondary effluent may contain twice as nuch a nia may
influence phytoplankton functioning in a different manner at
the candidate sites, as described in the FVl/PIlD. This
possibility suede to be daalt with in the 5115.
lags 534 Arusmie Carcmnsr t ’ty $ d
The arsenic c.rcin.gsaicity sta’A rd is not appropriately
used for salt weter. Arsenic is a carcinogen in its
trivalent form when it occurs in drinking water. In fish
flesh, there is no evidence that ars.nic is a carcinogen.
Clean oceanic seawater far exceeds the carcinogenicity
criteria. In addition, the natural concentrations of
arsenic in fish far e*cesd the carcinopenicity standard.
Thna contains arsenic at an average concentration of 0.5$
pge (FDA, 19121 -— mere than 1000 tIns greater 4 han the
0.77 ppb allowed in fish at a cancer risk of 10 (0.0173
ppb x 44 (SPA Sc?) • 0.77 ppb l. Other coestal fish contain
1-13 of arsenia SPA. 1950).
SPA, 1950. intent Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic.
U. S. Food and Drug jnistration, 1952. Coepliance Progran
Peport of Findings, Fy79 Vast icides and Petals in Fish
Progrin. FDA 7309.007, Washington, DC.
3
-------
Pegs S-SI Sin .--’ 1ation P iPaU cua.. .trati
In predicting coopliance with earcinogsnicity-based criteria.
the uceis should ron.id.r the bioecconulation experipsat,
described In Appendix K of Volues V of the P11 1/FO lD. The
water quality criteria extrapolate iron a large set of
national data while Appendix K considers worst case
bioacc lation in local organi positioned at the edge of
the mining acne. Ihose experimants .h d that sus.als
•spohsd in the cluing ions of Rut Island prl.ary effluent
wore not significantly elevated for PAH5, PCDs and
chlorinated pe.ticidas c ar.d to control animal..
In addition. the predicted PC I o...,aetrat Ions o,erst.ts the
water col i levels of PCP5 sinc. our s linq progras was
unable to detect s at 0.5-1. pob. SiMlarly, the
c c. ..trationa of chlorinated pesticides ware also belew
detection liit..
Page 3-37, Parapragb 2
Please provide the sethodelop for the derivation of 0.5
.qll nitrogen as an indicator of degraded plankton syut.
it is not clear iron Oviatt et al 1906, or 1907, where this
n er c . im.
Page 5— 53
Csnst,uet.bility — Althsui t uisl construction itself
general should sot be affected by woather, the tunnel work
crew., supplies, and spoils disposal acti.iti,e may be. You
say want to lif p the statnt.
Pegs ’S— I l, sctiss 5.3.1.1
mel construction, sot the diffuser construction, ii.
indicated to be on th. critical path. This 1. not true for
all sitee, kaver . Rater to the P11 1 1 1110, Appendix 1,
Figure 5-2 6. Thu schedule for site as indic.tes that the
diffuser is on tits critical paths for Oft. S the tunnel is
on the critical path. Ta. differences bstjieen the
ingionantation schedsi.. for tunnel and dIffuser sa,.....ts at
these sites are li, such that both se nts are of
essentially equal ippcrtanoe relativ, to construction
achsduling.
Page 3—41. Sastlon 1)3.1
Paean . tructic. of the pipeline could result in sore than
just veathsr delay due to t ore,y work atn Je in
Inc int weather. This type of construction has the
potential to entail significant risks to personnel safety
and equigeent. Safer to the projects response to SPAs
February l , Ills . . ata on Appendix I to Volone v of the
draft via/ire, which de.cribse a 17 nonth work stoppage to
fLsncisco ’s outfall construction resulting true a
weather di.a.ter.
I
Page 6-3
Please check the source for the Saston turner Rarbor C O,
Storawater figure of 7.0 .qd - it sssna low. Also it is not
clear what the boundary conditions are for this figure. Do
they simply match the 1902 IWC Inner Harbot CSO Reportp
Does the Long Island Sospital/Conference center still hay a
separate discharle in the middle of the Inner Harbor - any
impact?
Page 1—1, Figure 6.l.a
The figure indicates c l.tion of the South Plow P
Station in mid-1993. Refer to the FEll/rEID, Volues III,
Figure 11.2-i, which indicates c letion of the station
in bsc r , l99 .
Page 1-5, Motion 1.2.4
Text indicates the nsed for reconciliation of trust traffic
eatiatee f or the tunnel and outfall conatruction as
presented in Vola III and V of the Pill/rEID and Vol,s
5 and of the On-Shore water Transportation Fill/rEID.
Reconciliation of truck traffic estimate, has been provided
in the appropriate sections of Voimnna III and V in the
PIll/rEID, and in the reepotse to I PC c nt on Volone
VII of the esislonto, which c rea the truck traffic
eatisetas prepared for these two, projects.
Page 1-3
Typo - s.,. .J line the year 1000 should he Im.
Page 6-12
The r..ovei rates shown for .ec..4ary trea .t 20% ion,
56% 11 5 1 a ar to be in error. Please clarify.
Pegs 6-13 and I—IS
The typseatting on these table is all set of ali .t
making review difficult. Please correct.
Pegs 1—2, Table lila
miSer o reiai fishing criteria, Site 3 is woiglied
equally. RA studies have st n Sits I to be considerably
more productive thab Site I and S. Also, Site 2 is on the
edge of the winter flounder spawning area.
S
-------
bus 7-I
Costa are p .satel thrcughnut the r.pert in various forme
or c inations of .bat I, diffussr and tunnel .e nts.
This approach could be coot using to lbs reader. it may be
helpful to outline .11 c - _ t cools in Chapter 3 to avoid
the need to review Ap5es ix I. Cros.-checking of lbs costs
ld then be greatly unglued.
Page 7-13
- actual coordinates of the “ r - - location”
would be useful for clarity.
vô; tt. t part lb. .atloe em mitigation ae
r -.osebl.j hou ...r , o. ts Sr. l.a order.
me isma baa supported and costless to support progr to
aid in out understanding of Nas.achusetla Bay. A large
p.rcentege of our Pacilitis. planning b $gst was dedicated
to maria. field studie, and related activities io.g.
deling). Although s of this work usa reinkurssble
under the I PC grant proqtma. p aiaable portion was not - a.
the nus.tasnt dolely that of lbs ISIRA.
Au currently worded the proqr is quit• cangr.hsn.i,. eel
as such also quite Ipsnuiv.. Ser conCurrence with such a
racndst ion ha. o be linked to a cesitmsnt fros both
State and bedsral agencies for technical and financial
resource, to assist is this effort.
I s obllgat 4 oma of the rederal(etat. agencies under the
Clean Water hat is the area of water quality planning oust
be separated roo the abligatioea of the under lbs
PflIS or Nub programs.
Therefqre, although he agree with the . ....c. ,t , the mechanics
I or inglsmealation seed further discussion.
The balance of bs mitigation measures se reasonable with
the pxcepeioo of lb. r.quirnt for a pby.i,a1 model.
Concurreece with the reqvir .t for a phynicel del of the
di ” — - alternative warrant, further discuselon. There is
concern whether lbs objectives of such an exercise may
actually be helter end more eo icslly met by further
c uter modeling supported by ses additional field data.
Physical modeling activiti.. in the past have sestime,
ouehgoc.sd to unreascsable levels especially given the
current state of the alternative of c iter-b.se4 modeling.
leplicatton of an ocean environesat in a physical model is
not a minor . avor.
Page P- i l, Section P.4.10
Thut indicates that “All outfall alternatives can be
constructed prior to start-up of the new primary treatment
plant.” Pate that this oust be qualified on the basis of
the tunnel advanc. rats which is assneed. The rni.ireio
determined an advance rats of 70 feet/day, the prec.ding
statesnt is correct within this context. Nesver, the
ecais ha. used a tunneling advance range of SO to 70
feet/day. if an advance rate of SO foot/day is a.sused, the
conatruction schedule for outfall Sit. S would be increased
by approximately 11 months, and the congletion date would be
n 1995, after the new primary treatment plant is Coagloted
using the current arl Idbsduie and base Plan.
Pegs A-i?
“!nstantaneous direction., which als. affect initial
dilution, are best gauged through the magnitude-directlc
scatter plot., which are reproduced.., for Station. 2, 4 and
S for the month august, 1507... The August results are
sI n here because thiS period of the year leads to the
lesst n.arfield dilution.. The plots clearly s a
bimodality of current direction, due to the tidal at facts
fl rimarily east- vest). This factor is ingortant for the
orientation of the diffuser, as increased nearfield
dilutions can be nktained lien the diffuser is oriental
perpendicular to the dmainsnt currant direction.”
Co Page A-4 5, there is a rsp.ated referees to binedalily,
approximately eaSt-west, plus the ces.nt ... that snottier
consideration in the seleotics of a diffuser orientation is
to have the ports at the es elevation, to insure a uni loi
flu distribution esng all the ports. This would suggest
that a preferred orientation is along the depth contours,
which tend to be north-south in the diffuser site areas. An
average orientation close to 9ØS Ito the current direction?)
therefore s ars achievable sill desirable.” esa ’ .
discussion of diffuser orientation appears on Page D-S of
Appendix B to Volties V of the hIiI/flID. fliers is broad
agreement between the lISA discussion and IAn’s, encept for
one point.
Ilmodality can be soon i S the scatter plots, even at Site S.
Nousvar , the currents are predoninantly tidal and therefore
rotate with time, the locus of the current vector tracing
out the tidal ellipse. The instantansous current is
therefor. no wore in see direction that anotbsr
although it is stronger in the esst-west direction.
Th$re(ore, ii is misleading to say that a. “average
orientation” close to SO” to the direction of the st..,.4s5t
currents is schievablo.
S
7
-------
Other td.ratiu patltiig . hiss to stunt a
diffussr perpendicular to predoulnent in.tantan.ou. currant
direction. This is not a strict requir nt. h ver, silos
added diffuser length can entirely o nsate for
lngerfect orientation (sod may cost far less to construct
than en outfall tunnel with a sharp bend to attain a
particular diffuser orientetion). Ths R*’s position is
and r ina, that seeking a diffuser aliqt nt perpendicular
to the blaodal current direction is d..irabl., but no the
point of dasinating consideration, of bottas topography and
subeoil/conatructthillty considerations.
Pegs A—SI
The linitat loss of the method I nolsiling the 1w layer
should be discussed in_Lime 5110. The extent of the l r
layer Is determined by decreasing nodal depths to include
only those bpnsath a 13 mater deep ,.,........line (p. 1-34 of
the SITS). In fact, the density data indicate that the
, .. ... ....1ine is not parellel to the w.tsr surface, bet shoals
near thq co..t. Oc average, the py....o.clins depth varies
spetia11 f roe 10 maters or less at Site 2 to 14 outers or
more at Site-I. In the two-leprr dsl, the laser layer at
Sits 2 is only shout .is mater. thLck consequently,
dilutions wi 1 be underpredicted. This results in predict
background build-up. of ccntjna Lp (p. A- 2) and maxi
dissolved oxygen deficits (p. A-Cl) which re too high. In
addition, as the shore is appro.chnd, the etr tiftcation
bacoess weaker and the pious wild be lesp likely to be
trapped. Tha results of the stratified modsl. while useful,
oust be Interpreted cautiously, especially nsar the Inshore
boundely of the grid.
Page 1-37
me bottos friction factor of 0.1 used to calibrate 111 to
ei-diurnal tidal siosiation e ars unrealistically high.
In time P Il l, a hettas friction feotor of 0.003 was used,
which is what would be o pected phy.icaLlfl In time SIlO,
tim. friction factor was varied so that the model would
accurately reproduce the observed tidal currents. Page 1—17
of Appendix J sI s that the model I. ours gensitive o the
tilt than to tim. exact r.pre .edtation of the tides. ‘the
lack of sensitivity to friction is due to the fact that seis
transport models are doninated by dispersion.
Pegs A-SI, Page A- Il Pegs A-Il
It is umeleer hoe .t.ge ........tr.eiaoa wars couputed.
Vimy does applying a 10 as boundary tilt and rumming the
model to steady-state result in average concentrations? Why
doss tilt in either direction gives the s result? Also,
it is confusing that the figures (A.).) and 1.3.4) do not
cor.a,...l to the backgvasnd buildup concentrations listed
in Table A.).6 it ild be helpful to have ex ls figures
shoeing tlme.e residual cOii.s.trations.
S
Pass 171
ye. ient fail 00 o .... trstlcn of IS ugh se to be
based on the data f ron October, 10S7 , desoribed on pages
1-2 and 1-32, Section 1.2.2.2. As noted above, these data
are questionable and should not be used es a basis for
analysis.
Pegs 1-73 aM 1—74
It is confusing to have a figure sI inq a particular
Transient Pius. Nodel run (figure 1.3.10) made using a
particular set of current observations, and a table (Table
1.3.5) which shoes the .axim.me concentration. for all sets
of current data. limere should be a more detailed
explanation in the test of the source of the data In Table
1.3.5. It is not clear what conditions result in the
neatmem. shoreline c..a..antretions given in the table.
Perhaps a graphical representation of time various scenarIos
resulting in the .sxi at each shoreline poInt would be
helpful.
Also, the text should explain that those oaxl
concentrations may occur over a very 11 part of time
shorelins. Using Pigure 1.3.10, for ei le, the cesrege
concentration at the Nahant shoreline would be about 50
percent lover then the .axi a value, which occurs at last
Point.
Pags 1-71
It Is not our belief that 00 talons ii the lower layer 1d
not be reduced by 000 exertion f roe ths effluent. Under time
scenario of a weak ,,,.... ,..line, the oce.n waters will be
sovswlmat .L*sd and 000 in the effluent would be available to
be exerted in the i r layer • albeit perhaps to a lesser
degree that in time upper ieyer.
Pegs 1-74
What is t i. basis of the statoasnt that thiebsess of
the loser layer would be about 3 u at Site 3.”? We know of
no data that support this stat ut.
Pegs A-Si
The reference to Section 1.2.3.3 shasld be Section 1.2.3.3.
Page 1-52
In line 4, the word Thigheet ” should be changed to “l .et ”.
-------
Page k-Si
Tabis *3.1 5 sb so -_ ..s ’ ’e of the CCC for hsptscblor
at lit. 4 for secondary .fflvant. This doss not a ar to
bs supported by data given is ?.blS £3.14.
P n gsk- Si
ma h..diaq over lbs last set of coli . in Table £3.14
s dd be chroslc toaicttr. not acute toaicity.
sge D li. rigor, 0.3.1. 11t*vs Isobar Deaosrv.s
rigors fluids rovision for subshrub at Orient Isighta in
Winthrop, as solid above.
Pags P-SO
fast indicatss that lbs ts L lining will be of precast
concret. sections. lbs OT?? has indiest.d lbs likelihood of
thisi has...r the use of cast-is-place lining has not be
ruled cut.
The IT?? eon is enare of say sapsrlancs with conatrvcting
• singI. 3S f.et di tr rust In a stellar of (shore
•nviroos.nt. Thersi ore, for th. sinqi. riser altsrnative it
is r.c nded that satins cootraclor. , •xpsri.nc.d with
siaiiar proj.ct., be invoiv.d with d.v.lcping ths dasigs,
coat, aid u ’ ls.
Pugn U-iS
SPA iidicst.s also I. inhibitory to biological proc.,. in
concentrations of 0.01 to 10 sq/i and that lb. Influent
conc.ntr.tioe of am a to lbs aa....4ary trealsent I acilitiss
of 0.13 sq/I is at lbs lisr unit of inhibitory
c .trations.
Zinc Is out soiseily eupsotad to be inhibteety at the
...c...trations jodicatsd by SPA. bocording to Int.ractios
oflisavy 5.1.1 5 and Diolpg$cal Or-mis Tleatsent Process..,
Public asaIth S.rvic. Publication Mo. IS-wP-22 Nay, 1965 ,
also I. fed continuously to activat.d sludge in
c...ce .trations ranging fron 2.5 to 30 .g/L rsducsd 500
r ,al efficiency by about 2 psrcsnt. lisa l.v.ls of 110
sq/i lasting for faux hours caused ..rious r.duction in
.1 fici..ci.. for on. day with plant rscovery to nor.al
r al l.,.la within 40 bass,., ma publication cancludsd
that lbs a.rstion puss, of biological trssli.nt can tol.rate
nicksi, copp.r, chroutue, aid sinc up to a total heavy .atal
concentration of 10 sq/I, sithar singly or in c inat.ion,
with about a S psrcsnt rnhiation in overall truatsent
efficisacy.
Pegs 5-27
SPA 5151.5 that the ertr ly high peak flows and loads that
thu r. nd.d trealsent plant will be rsqutrsd to treat
rssults in a highly strassad systos u r peak flow and load
condition.. SPA also .tat.s that due to space constraints.
the per. oaypsn act ivatid sludge systos will be flow and
load str..aed at pack day loadings.
me lenA disagrees with both of lbs.. staknts.
Sustained flow, and loadings our. dir.ctly taken into
account in the suing of the r.e ndad priaary and
secondary Ireatsent facilities, lb. prinary and secondary
clariliers our. sired based on projected peak hydraulic
conditions. Average day overflow rates a. r•ported in lbs
facilitias plan our, calculated dtr.ctly Iron clarif 1st
area. pro ldad for peak conditions, The a,er values our.
only prsaent d to allow ragulatory revise with . -— — design
psr ters.
ma secoidary olarifiers ours sited to allow settlon.nt of
the design 10.38 at peak flow with a factor of safety of 1.4
with SVIs of 110. lbs onygea aeration eyst wae shad
based on peak organic load.. A detailed analysis of lbs
r.c n4sd syut, factoring in rocycla capacity
.aintsnsace of misnia sludge blankets 41-fl) in lbs final
clarifiers during sons-store conditions, aid solid, loadings
on lb. clarifier, based on MISS with good aid poor settling
characteristics, indicated that lbs r.c sndsd syston would
be capable of .aistaininq the PIN within 0.71-1.1 depending
upon lbs sattlsability of the MIII, under all fLow and
loading conditions.
Thus, the r-.4.d facilities are t likely oapabl. of
producing sacc 1ary affluent. of less than 30 sq/i 155 and
DOD under all flow and loading conditions. asasvur, lbs
assessing lbs Ingaots of up to 110 agO of star, flows
receiving only pri.ary trsstasnt, the suo ” ry effluent sea
asaonsd to be 40 sq/I f or conservation. Under these
conditions, the daily lieits of SO agIl DOD aid TSS will be
t and the Deer Island facilities could accept peak
hydraulic and organic loads for up to four days per seek
whila still seating lbs average weekly 100 aid 153
provisions of the discharge perwit of 4S sq/i. Statistic-
ally, live subsequent days of the peak design flow of 1270
.qd, including allowance. for CSO pi -back, is axpectid
once every 10-11 years. Under lbs sore likely scenario of
the s—n--’—ry portion of lbs plant producing a 30 sq/I (or
hatter) effluent, the plant could accept 1270 .gd flow and
peak load. (or a full seek and still produce an overall
affluent in lull c Uasce with the Sf015 periait.
10
11
-------
. - clarillers for the .ctivetsd sludge alternative. were
sued using project initial settling velocities aid
allowable solids lo.ding halts established Iron •ohjda flux
curves derived Iron these settling velocities. The settling
velocIties were b.ssd on a statistical anaivais by others of
data Iron batch settling tests on IS separat. activated
sludge s lea with SVI.s ranging Iron 3 5 to 102 aUg
ibaigger and heger 1 Joernal Water follution Control
federation . Vol 37, ISo. I, pp. S t-SS . August 1353) . 2 ,
assessing the adequacy of the clarifiers for solids
loading., variations in sledge ssttl.ablhlty (SVI’s Iron 100
to 200) aM return sledge ....a..trations 15,000 to 12,000
us/i widerf low c...c....trations) were considered. For all
lion conditions, envelope liwitations of achievable m.ss
levels were det.ruin.d for the above variations in
settleability aid oMen ions. The lindtatione were based on
allowable olid. loading., recycle flow capacity, and/or
asswesd blanket depths depending upon the flow. The
analysis and resultant envelopes indicated that the propuaaa
aeration and clarifier sties are capable of providing high
quality aa i1ary levels of trea nt wider all expected
flow and loading ranges.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
AIIANT. MAssAcI Iusrm Oils
G5
he. 5 .l 0. 1 5 1 1
0.51_ui Idsidutretar
iseire_uMs i Pieleetie. Issy
.1. P. lsiuu.dp Pile,.) P0idlIs
lasts., lasus ustla 0fl03
hearS-. osieiii
Ia e.%f l 1 IssUes c i ‘ails P Ia sas.r , Ia peton lasts. sr, las
th Swe, the 0..lh lairs, the lasts. Srber isissIs s.d lbs
lebsterlup, iteliflitlup, s . d ristius re s If Vssebusstta lap. Of eqoni
luperteese Is ss.elsretsd • r tausboet, itist s_id p.’s.l psii.t.d
onler rrse bsI di.d.s...d Subs Se are. _u eiss.. 00155.1 s .sla,y
Irusboal , the ..UIs . , dsUes erisises If beth sa ssl1s ssl fe ai s e
usuld is .1.jsI.d.
lbs labset C.........ties 11Mea is pe s.la,Ip . .essrl it the
tse 1 I . 1.rlee 5? al itires s.d 0. I lare. Ieisrdieq Is the
Ibalt . Ibrise Pisbaiss ‘Is.see.t at ISU-Cessds.’ suns 5? las
ped.U ,e sb.iI Ilsb u.as bsisse. Ibssbssts, as tie larti lass. a.d NI on
tie 3s.tb laws are upu. s us) Uisi bsds ire reet.Iulsd, W i j5_j
a— ’ Use, i.aiudtus t , us sb.Urlsb is Is are upss.
Is VeSsel, this let 01.3 al p.taatlsilp p.Ju..Ues die lIflsb
beds se_ut is Issi I, ear silt,.... Vs onull like Is sue 15.55 dielif 1.5 beds
epse epein, s.d vs buys started Is de ear . 5 5 , . ip bualselus .e.atrvetl., .1
the joist labal-heepus-Ije. — - -‘r su$e tiesbeust p1 5 .1. 5s. vs are
fass .115 lbs ap.otrs 5? a ts..sl lbs 51.5 5? las C.3 isis. l l hetuslus us
s _ reds f 300,000,000 11s.s per Isp el 51515.tl Ire.I . d e as doss as
2. .1is. ft Usbest. This is r _uI
lbs _____ te epgl, Is P l turI I tn. lbs sites
se 1151 11555.54 l tov ast ristisb. a fuse, of lie sisUsUss s.sI
fur &et.e 5r ’ is the lasel 13)15555 s.d Ibssar,stles is. FdsU05
repert CsstiueUsa If 5 i.51s 1.5 lel IFI . 5. asls.i3, f_u
Iris Vs,bor, slush is sdj.u.et Is lahest he tie sestb. Ibis is the repurt
.5.1.5 su Ited heels. larIse ‘lbs 5551 pltuJM . u e s.s.t,y. ’ Vs seat
ear 5.1w. .1.55.1 up, .51 isIs dirtier.
l I- Sfl
12
-------
G6
‘it ’s
Duar Sir or Nadaisi
Thu PuatOli *uduvul.., ..t hutiiovltl iou r.vl.vud ths Draft
Suppiasuntal rnviron..ntal l.pact Statsusiit Lot thu Duston
Harbor Wa.t.Vatar Convsyancu SyataS and of f.rs ma follovinq
cousuntu.
Thu p .o k.oad pro uot vliidi is Ui. .ub uct of th Supp)susntal £1 5
conuista of tat.. •lsountat
I. coui.trvction and oç.ration of an .ff leant diffus.r its
tsa...chu.utts Ray to pro’ids dispursion of tr.at.d uf I leant
Iron an upqradsd D..r Island va.triot.r tr.atount plant,
3. strectious and opuratious of a isnduit to tt....,.It thu
tr.atad •ff lusnt hoe D..r Island to thu diffua.r sits: and
3. con.tructiosi and ep.vstian of a isis conduit tO d.)lv.r
e..t.uat.r free Put Island to thu Dust Island •.condaiy
tr.at.unt plant.
ml. projuat I. a .ast of e isa isis s.condary vsutsvatuv
truatnt facilitlss prv ,ossfl to ba couistroct.d at Ds.r Island.
Thu n.y facilitisi at Dust Island at. duslqnad to silsiusats thu
disch.rqa of lnad.quatalv tu.atud va.tuwat.r and aqs •iudqs
into Rostan Parbor and thus leprous th. harbors vatur quality
and .nviron.sntal conditloiss.
asud cuss rsvlse of f.a.ibl. .lt.rsstl’ss and tisuir
•nvirouousntal couisaquunc.a. Sits SPA haa ra.... andsd a daup rock
tunnul as thu .nuironu.nt.lly prufurablu eouivuyancu systs. for
both thu (nt.r-lsiand conduit and thu outfall conduit.
IndirIduall ? drillud riu.ro for thu diffusur d.siqn. and in
•tf leant outfall turalnu. loo.t.d in thu raglan of NassadiusuttS
Bay butvuan .pproii.atsly IS and 0.0 allis uast-uiorthuait of
Vu sri l o u ___ J al.ut thu ou aim. Pv ’ l ii— littcual1s 1 ntIs
au aa .dat ou plseeat t tat 5a s%,st i.. of b. ..s ha U.hant L3ia
sal ....tt sri .oural ty eebl.. VItO lb. a.ou.. .utrl.ata or a soul,.
outfall ouar ou t tOts 1ou sill ha sia.srhul.d. lb. statu Piuial
Ba,irsaalai iWsat SpuI •al lbs tsl.rtl .f I BapIisss%.ry ir__: .l
I. st Stal t da out al a Ma ,-ul i s u.sat I. lb. ..aussl 5? l.r
is rout it auee Ilee thu zta that lbs i n a i.iI do sot rsall
dsrsta lbs al u pblis.
it is ant fait ha ukis pp Vuutsa W psI l .Upp its ll hut hacutifti
VI ru2p ps.u.
s.u do ,. i s
huat doa.uroull.o C saios
flO ON
RCDFVELCPMENT
AUT hORITY
bs L H,..
“ —C—
— .Mc_
U.S. !nvi......antsl Protsetlois Aq.sicy
Ruqion I
J.r.H. radur.l Vuildiag
Souton . Ha...cisu.utts 02303
Psi Duston harbor Vautsuatur C......y..... . Spats.
Draft Suppisuantal £nviruusauntal !epsct !t.ts.u,it
-------
Deer Island. Thi. r ,--—-.r.4ad location for the diffusers
.nc assee the eros bounded by candidate outfall .it. 4 on the
landward side aid the vicinity of sit. I on the seaward side.
Upon review of the sn,ironssntal iepaot evaluation contained in
the eupplu.ental 1 1$ we concur with the recoasendations of th.
IPA for a deep rock tunnel construction for the inter-island and
outfall conduits, the design of individually drilled riser, for
th. diffuser syste., and the location of the outfall ter.inus.
It is evid.nt f ro, the 115 that the deep rock tunnels, since they
would be bored entiraly from Deer Island and would not invoiv.
any dredging or excavation on the sea bottos, would result in
the lesat environmental i.p.cte and therefore are the preferable
alternativ, for the conduits. with regard to the siting of the
affluent outfall, the Eli indicstes that the environmental
ban.fite at site S ers slightly better than at site 4, although
gsnsrally they ar. .iailer and without any great differ.ncee.
Therefore, if the sane en,irensental benefits can be attained St
a location doe, to sIte 4 a. at site 5. the EPA should consider
the cios.r—in site as the tersinua of the outfall in order to
sinisiie the financial burden on the rate-payer..
Concerning the information presented in the Supplemental 1 15. we
do have a ,. er of questions and concerns which should be
ressed in the final 115 do——nt.
o On peg. s-is, a brief sent ion ie sad. regarding a potential
• nab of ds—q to a pipelins—typs diffuser by earthquakes
sincs it could ci . geological faults In the bedrock.
Povever, nowhere else in the 113 is there any mention of
earthquake risks to either the outfall conduit or the int.r-
island conveyance Conduit. The final iTS should evaluate
the potential for .erthquake damsgd to both of these
conduits and the environasntal consequences that would
result. Should such damage occur, vh.t would be the
elternativas for repair, if any, and what would be the
impact should repair not be possible?
o lb. III indicate, that the diffusers could interfere with
c ercial fishing aid restrict the typos of gear which
could be used (page 3- 5 5). Obviously. trewling would be
affected in the ares where the diffusers are located, lb.
final III should provide sore detailed information on the
extent and type of restrictions which the diffusers would
i.pos. on ccercial fishing. The final 113 also should
indicate whether the diffuser. themselves could be daseqad
or otherwise affected by risking operations and ehould
describe the impact. which would result.
o figure 4.3Sf (else figure f.Z.d of Appendix f) iidioat..
the presence of a .ignificant identified eras of aubeergad
veqetation in the vicinity of candidate outfall site. j. 5
and 4. since ths eastern portion of this area is lccet.d
within the r ,’ 1 ed a for the treatment plant
discharge, th. final III should evaluate the impact on the
v etation of placing the outfall terminus within this area.
The 11$ also should indicate whether the specific location
of the diffusers would he restricted by the presence of this
erea of sensitive harbor resources.
o In addition, figure 4.2Sf and the discussion of sensitive
resources on page 4-32 should indicate that the Co.aonvealth
hss accepted the nosination of Belie Isle Marsh/Revere
Isach/Sauque Marshes as en Arsa of Critical Environaental
Concern (Broad Sound ACZC) and currently i. in the process
of considering its designation. The impact an outfall
location near candidat. site 4 would have on this ACEC
should be exasined in the final I II.
o The discussion of noise impact during the constriction
par mid seane to consider only noise that would be generated
by the operation of the construction saddnery. During the
construction, the access shafts aid the tunnels the.s.lvea
will need to be ventilated to remove gases, dust, and carbon
dioxide, The exhaust vents would be located above ground.
Poise generated by these ventilation systees and the impact
on adjacent residential areas also should be analysed.
o Figure 4.1.a (Project lisa frae) does not reflect the meet
current PURl project schedule as contained in the Secondary
?rsat.ant facilities Plan nor is there any recognition In
the docusent of the 1 5 (11 proposed accelerated construction
schedule which would provide for 335 secondary treatment be
1956. According to the facilities Plan, this alternative
construction plan would provide the benefit of isproved
effluent quality during the years l9 4 to 1999 in cosparison
to the beee plan, since the plant wOuld discharge a mixture
of primary aid secondary effluent rather then just primary
effluent. lb. final 113. therefore, should inclede a
discussion of the impacts of the accelerated schedule as
compared to the bas, construction echsdul..
o The text on page S-a) indicates that for prl.ary discharge
the dissolved oxygen standard (4.0 ssJl) would be violated
at sit. a during r..uapenaion events for both stratified and
unstratified conditions. Mowever Table 5.l.l.h does not
indicate a violation for unstratified condition, the
.ini.ua SO concentration shown as being S.5 sq/i. This
discrepancy should be resolved in the final E li. Also, in
table S.l.1.i the PCS value of 1.70 for Site 4 in the
Carcinogenicity ..otion a ere to be in error.
me suppleeent.l 11 5 points out that the current vsstswater
discharges fro, the Dser and Put Island treatment plant. sre the
major source of pollution causing environ.sntal etreas in Boston
(arbor. With isproved treatment and relocat ion of the discharge
to the racoesended location, wet.r end sedisent quality, the
ecology of the Harbor. aid it. recreational snd fishing values
-------
viii iopr.v. aiqulilcantly. Par tub to happan tha cocatruction
of the couabdts .. v . 11 a th. tr..toant plant it..lf sost
proc..d a. ovp.ditiousiy a. poosibis. I Sa urqs tha IPA to
couplets th. n.cas.ary .nviroso.ntal revieva and paraittbnq
proc...a. without uns’—o——sry dalay in ardor that new tacilities
sof prOceed on adiedula.
I trust that nor t. viii be b.ipfui in the continuinq
rowley of tAb. vital projuct to deals up baton Harbor and that
thay viii haip quid, the IP& La its futuro d.cision . a. tAo
projact further davelopa.
Os .osey jMS . c
aflsS• u.,I . ....c
Os.... a C...
p ..p o. .c .. Ja
a,.... P s. .
TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD
us, s oo
Iecnitlmi uinb Juk omuiIs Ion
SCHOOL STOUT
N*SUS$Nu*o N*sa*clSnuTIU 05500
SLInIONO 50l.SS
Pay 31. 195$
Director for
Inqln..rinp and Ds.iqn S.rvio..
cos Daniel I. O’Irion, P. S.
Act lisp Director. bspin.ariiIq Division
Nas tta Wat.r Ia.our005 Authority
Hr. Nichasi Dalaud tapinoal Adaisistretor
En.iron..nta l Protectios Aqascy
3. P. I.nn.dy P.d.rai buslidinp
So.toa. Na ..achu..tt. 02203
D.ar Hr. Dalandi
At tAo last r.qu l.r .sitlup of the P.cr.atioa and Park
Conoi..io.. 1k. board r.quaat.d yaw be i.foan.d .1 oar Concern (or the
propo..d location of 1k. Soot.. Sovaqe Outfall vitA r..p.ct to
De..r.u. beach which is saistainod by this d.part..nt in Narbiohoad.
D.v.r.u. bosch is very heavily used by r..idest. and
non—realdanta durimp the year for easy for.. of recreation. ma
d.partsant uansliy .011. about four thousand r..idoat par.its for car.
which allow unIl.ttad usa for r..idant. and ch.rg.a • daily rate for
non-r.aidsnta allowing (or a. additional twelve to (i tt. . . thousand
car. per sl r.
P1.... hoop no infor.sd of soot isp. and reports which say be
reason for us to attend or review to coonant on regarding year study
and piano (or lbs proposed outfall as it soy affect the beach.
Por the Coio.ion.
T 1
UULR25 _ 1 L ’
PIGIONS
vcc O
MHIp .IL . OVIAlS1OA1CN
Sincerely.
S. ?. Ua.ond
Superintendent
G7
-------
s
5
—I — —
PA
_ .e. ...ei
__ f l•— 5n . — a.
__..._ a. a.
an ,n
cal . —
afl ...e n.
a s —
,,_. s_.,
In—
ou n... — n —
— fl fls a•
____ .el_
.— fl_a.
in. as —
_s__-___ —
Much toosey
Unit.d Statse Invhroisatsl
Protect los Agency —
legion 1 I—l9O0 C
JFI lideral Soilding
Boston. MassachusettS 03203
Psi Draft taviroosental Impact Statement on the Mouton
larbor Sucaqe Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Tu...e, ,
On behalf of the t S •I Mull. Caliasset. Seituate. RtnqI ,
aid MarsMield and Saws Our Ieach.a. Inc.. we auheitted the
following documents to th. C......,n....lth of Naasechus.tte as
c ents on the Massachusetts Wat.r Useources Authority. Draft
£nvl,onmsntal impact Report on its proposed aecaqe treatment
plant. I b.lLav. that these co nts an, equally relevant to ths
hear ing Ou , the Cn.ino,emntal lapact Statement being conducted by
your office.
ja0
•incer.l 11 /
disc landaU
Ni. James byte
Secretary of the Ciecuti, Off ice
of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Str..t
Boston. Massachusetts 02202
Me, 1 1 . 15w of the Invlroosantal Impact leport of the Ma.-
aachus.tts Water Resources Authoritys Draft
Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. NIPS. No. 11300
Osar Secretary lo Tte,
On behalf of the ? ns of lull, Coliasset , Scituate.
Narshflsld and Ulnghaa aid Ma’s Our Beaches, Inc. Icoilecti .ely,
th. South Shore), we are submitting this letter and the enciosud
report of Dr. David C. Aubrey as coents on the NWhAs Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Dt1 1) for its Secondary Treatment
Facilities Plan. While we have focused our cameents On voLume 5,
which e.auines the i.pact of the effluent qutfall pipe, many of
the issues we raise relate to other volumes of the DCI I,
particularly volume 3. which esamines the environmental impact of
the trsst.ent plant.
As documented is Dr. Aubrey’s report, the DIII has .evsral
major deficiencies and c.isaions in its scope. .ethodoLoqy and
analysis. Because of these flaws, the D CI I cannot substantiate
It. conclusions on the environmental impact of the propoasd
outfall pipe. It has not adequately de.onatratsd that the
proposed outfall sites would oust Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards or Federal Water Quality Criteria. Given that the
mmAs treatment plant Is the aisqle oust significant
environmental project in the history of the C onweaLth, we
believe that the deficiencies In the DCII are unacceptable and it
is incusbent upon the Secretary of the Ciecutive Off ics of
Environmental Affairs rSecretary) to ensure that the MIlk
issol.ss these problems before it attempts to submit a Final I II
for review under N.G.L. c. 30. 501. the Masaachuse ts
P 1 (1”
HALC AND DOP
coussittoal a, lam
5
me an.
505105. 55aCNV 55Yl5 05.05
* 5 seems
April 20, iS IS
14A1.C AND bORR
cou.atlioaS a, L
—I— fl __ —
50 STATS sTUSIT
s.. _ .. _ . saasemuusr,,s ones
me men.
January 20, lIPS
Sa.e Our Peaches, Inc. is a South Shore citisens’ group
concerned with the health of Massachusetts Bay.
-------
Mr. 3. Mayte
January 20. PSI
Page a
Ni. James byte
January 20, IfS
Page 3
In.iro.mental Policy Act (NflA). we urge the Secretary to find
pursuant to 301 CMN 11.0 5(4) that th. Dub does not .d.quat.iy
and properly coepilyl with the provisions of usDA and 301 CMR
11.00 The MSA should •uheit a Revised Draft L I I that
remedies these deficiencies.
we ars particularly coecereed about these (lava because the
review process for the DLI I baa been flamed. and this has
interfered with ths ability of the public and the Secretary to
co nt on the DCII.
1. 7hg R ii. Process for the DLI I las Rot Comelied with
IZPA Receipt lens .
As pert of the A review of the DCII, the 15 1 1k made voices
S available for c nt Is late N.. ehr . 1557. which was the
start of the period for the public review and cc nts on the
DCII. lowevor. the 55 1 1k did not aak• available at that tine the
33 technical appendices to volume S. lbs 15 1 1* .ad. these ap-
pendices available dorisg mid and late December, liii.
Is order to provide is depth co nte on vol 5, a party
mast have adequate time to review the appendices. The report
itself manly contains conclusions that cannot be tested without
rsfsresce to the data in the appendices. The scope and complicity
of the project sri so grist that the MWRA should have .aai.issd
the amount of tine available to the public and the Technical
Advisory Group (TAG) to review the appendices. mew, because of
this late release of the appendices, neither the public nor the
TAG have had 30 days to raview the appendices, as envisioned under
DCPA. I understand that the InvironeentaL Protection Agency has
delayed its (IS review is order to ensure that the appendices are
available hefors its review starts.
I also understand that the Secretary has ectended the
deadline by which the TAG has to suheit its co nts on the DLII
from January 20. 1555 to January 27. IRIS and that the Secretary
will issue his decision on the DIII on January 27, lISS. The fact
that the secretary granted this estension indicates his belief
that the TAG, and the public, have not had adequate ti.e to review
the appendIces.
Re do not see how the Secretary can render a fully informed
decision on the DLII, if interested parties and the TAG will be
...b.itting co nts up to the day of the decision on January 27.
Tfl 5 unavailability of the TAGs cosnts has hindered th. public’s
critiques as well. The DflI is so comple c technically that no
party can asele the . er of diverse elperts required to
thoroughly review the DLII.
Is the past. i.terested parties have relied on the TAG for
technical advice. my delaying the release of the technical ap-
pendices until D.. g , 1557. the 1 5 1 1k has effectively prevented
many ,roups. including the South Shore, from integrating the T?4’s
work into their awn cosnts.
rinally, we also went to alert you to the a arance of s
conflict in the review process. Tho Secretary is the final deci-
sion maker is reviewing the Draft and Pisal Lila. the Secretary,
evsr . also serves as Chairmen of the 5511k.
II. Deficiencies in the DLII
Dr. Aubrey’s attached report critiques volume S. It
de.onstratee that volume S has such serious deficiencies that it
cannot substantiate the DIlls conclusions about initial dilu-
tions, long tsr. fats and tocicity of the effluent, or the
effluents impact on the biology of Massachusetts lay. among
these deficiencies, the DCII ;
a fails to model and observe the ippect of surface gravity
waves,
a does not properly calculate sedimentation and it fails to
study particulate resuspension.
a lacks critically z: data on the behavior of the lay
during the winter.
a ignores any sits mare than S miles from the shoreline, and
a studies the outfall’s impact for a 2 5 year period.
even though it will be in operatio, for at least a century.
Dr. Aubrey details the corrective actions that the Secretary
should require the MIlk to undertake before it suheits a Revised
Draft SIR. e will not repeat Dr. Aubnays racuceendations Is
this letters we simply ask that your office give them full
consideration and require the J O llA to carry all of them out.
Poring the past year the 1511* has often publicly rationalised
certain of its decisions by citing the time pressure imposed by
the federal courts compliance schedule. That the federal court
is ancious to remedy the pollution in the larbor cannot, and
should hot, be read to suggest that the Secretary should reisi
DCPA safeguards for protecting the environment. The 5511* is
building an outfall pipe that the Caonveaith will use for more
than a century and its impact on Massachusetts Say will ho felt
for a longer tine. Thus, even if the 15 1 1* aust ask the court to
reschedule certain deadlines in order to give the 5511* tIe to
reedy the Dulls failings, this delay is a minimal on when
viewed in light of the length of time that the 15.1* will operate
the outfall pipe and the outfall. envireceental impact.
-------
s loyti
‘1 •. •.
, ,4 I
Mr. ion ss o7tl
January 20. lOIS
Psg. 3
touig bsfoti tt.s PluMS ,. 1.a.id tha DttM. Int .riitud part L.a
had infor .sd it about s of till dsfici.ncill c ltpd by
Dr. *ubrlyS r.po,t. Duriag DI ?. ..bsrs of till TAC. .unic lpat
officials 00 ths South Shots. and counity groupe such as Save
Our •.achls. and Mahant SWIM. Inc. c.lIsd thaI probhssi to Clii
n*s att.uition. miss intiristid patti.. dinous.sd tils used f.r
data gathsrid duriag til. vistir ountils and Clii l.portallcs of
studying a sits f.rthsr ost 1st. assacbu.sttS lay beyond Sit. S.
gui l iSA at first only Ist.uidid to study Its, uu .ar lion
.itos and one si lghtly d..psr .it .. Aft.r it had startsd its
in,s.tigationl. till MISS includsd Sits S. Throughout tills p.nIod,
till liSA knuw that ths n,ironiuital ProtictiOl l Agency ItPAP had
alesady ,sjsctsd Sits S for disposal of prinary .Cf lusflt on March
20, DIP. when CM stncpolitaui District Coi55 0Il r C). till
uliAs pnsd .vsssOt. appliid for a 301(h) waiv.r.
I sits that was snacc.ptabls two ysars ago is non till bsst
sits that till 1 5 1 5* has propousd. This ,.. .lts I no. till 0 515 only
studying lgcations betv.sn till ,i .ctsd 301 (hJ sits and the
•pwrslini. Is 119ht of tils EPA’s r.jsetion of till Mocs rsquest
for a 301 (h) wsiver. tha MISS was Oh hoticS of L I I I nssd to study I
sits furtilst out than sits S.
Ohs 1US$ att s to rattonilIIs till narrow rangs of siton by
stating that the .uwitoi.s tsl bs.sf Its of nosing tius outfall
occasionally, this 6 5.1 11 Is ..plaI as nistiting Iris tils
s failurs tO blat its burdsll of proof, and not as an
affirsati’. finding that pri.sry tnsa nt would pellets tile Pay
at unaccuptabll l.v .ls. Sow.ver, till 10*5 Parch 30. lOIS
dicision at pp. 4—3 stat.. that the discharge of prinany ttsat i .Ilt
at sits S ild .iolati till Ilassa chuslttl sacs, quality .tandard
for dissolved o..,,ia and advsrssly i scts the lcosystlo and
beneficial use . of tile rsc.iving ostlrs and will not co.ply with
the rsquir nts of ssction bill) and 10 Cr5 Part 123, Subpart
C.. -
Ohs Dais d.eIsIon on till PUCa applicatio, for a 301(h) waiver
is nsii.ant to till P 55*5 propoiid trsat.sult plant. e,.n though
till MDC proposid to disposi of If flusnt r.csi.ing only pni.ary
t,lat.ent and till 1515* plsns to build a s.condary ttsat.snt plant.
Thi P 5 5k intsnds to disposs of priory sff luint through the pipe
tot at least fl’s ysans. and poasibly long.r if till s.condary
trlat.snt plant is d.layid, or if till outfall pip. blesalu
.p.rational bsfonl till new priori plant is opirstional and till
u.s aispooss of effluint ?rou tile oLdlr plants through till pipe.
Also, stilnevlr rainwatsr run-off creatss a sewage flow that
•iciidss till capacity of tile ascondary plant, till facility will
tslsasl a .iit.rs of s.eondatp and pri.ary if fluent. finally. It
Is quits possiblI that the plant ay have operational probliss
that if fsct till quality of till off luint.
t.,.ln.ls biyond sits S do not justify th . additional cost. The
PUPA cannot judql whlthlt .nvirona.ntal benlf its are Colt justi-
fied until it knows whIt till b .nstitl au . And thl costs osy not
be that grist. Till PUMA concidls that it can build an outisil
pipe of up to 60.000 flit —— 1.000 fist longer than reqvirsd for
site S —— without nu .ding an additional puaping station. (Is.
Appindis 5. p. 6 ). Till PUMA basIs id cost analysis on a 23 yost
basis, even though It rs.dily concudis that it will us. till
outfall pip. for at lisle a contury.
thus, the R. ,issd Draft 115 oust snislne till fsasiblltty of
locating till terninus of till outfall pipe at a location furthlr
fri. shots than sits S. possibly sit. 6 which is discussld at
l.ngtil in till subulssloll of Rahant SWIM. Inc.
Ohs 0115 iqnorsd too other s .bjscts. both of whiCh it i.lt
address before satisfying the M IP S rsquirsesntl. Ia rsqvirsd
undsr ill CPU 11.07(4), till 05 15 oust discuss sltirnati’ll to tile
ppuAs proposid project. Originally tb MISS proposed construct-
ing till ditfusit as a plrpsndicuiar tunnul located at thu .nd of
till outfall pipe. During ths months of discussion leading up to
MS reliasi of till D II I In U.,.,,.whir . IOU ?, ths P 5 5* had 156 thl
public to bllil,s that it would construct such a diftuall. how,
apparently to reduce costs. the PUMA proposls sli.inat ing till
perpendicular pipe, and constructing the diffuser along tile Isle
6,600 tset of the outfall pipe. for sacli site, this would rssult
in a rellasI of sfflusnt significantly closir to shore than would
oceur undsr till P55*5 original plan. Ths DIII should consider
thi bensf its of till altsrnative, perpsndicular dlffusir dssign.
Also, till DIII falls to discuss noasures that could nit igati
the nsqativs effects of thi outfall pipe, as required undsr 301
DI I 11.07(7). Till Ps,lssd DEEP should study till benef Its of
limiting tils quantity of efflusnt flowing through till pipe.
.ll.insting ehlonini f too thu iffluint, pnsttsstosflt scrssnlng.
prohibiting till P1 15* fri. providing ssw.g. sst.icis to c uuiitilJ
that prisliutly do not rscel.s such s.r.icss. and other osasures
that would 1.55511 the outfall. ilaruful lapsct on ths lay.
TI li PUMA has tailed to adequately study till iapact that the
outfall pipe will have on till sn ,ltoolflt of Massachusetts lay.
P.C.L. e. 30. 561 and 301 015 511.10 r.qulne that the PUMA prose
that it has undurtaken all Isasibll noasursa to avoid or sinisill
i.psct to ths unviroluslnt. If thi final LII fails to study any
alt. beyond till site i. ictid for the 301(h) waivit. and tsiia to
sdsquatsif study the i.pact of tile effluullt On thi Say. thi PUMA
will not be abli to demonstrate co.plianci with M.S.L. C. 35. 561.
TM P 1 1 5 k eoncldll. LAd vi ag’s ’. that. glosraIly .psal lnq,
thu funtilsr out into the Pay that the outfall pipe dlschsrgls if—
fluent, ths ill hatsful its inpiet will be Oil the sn.Iro flt.
lacauas till p 5 1k has tailed to adequstlly dusonstrats the
outfall’s in.I,o lntal ispact, we bsliosi thins should be a
-------
hr. .3 . byte
.i.nsar 1 as. is is
P.4 I
pr.uuaptlon that ths MIRA maSt locate the .ttail pipe at a site
b.yond the location for which the 30 1 (h) wai..r was d.ni.d. The
MWBA should only be •iio..d to rebut this presuaption by ccsplylnq
with NtPA and donon.tr.tinq that th. •oniron.ontal i.pact of a
site nearer to shore .lnisise (sJ damage to ths .nvlron..utt.
liscer ly
J4 i / L.<
Paul 0. lach
/jao
ANALYSIS OF VOUJME S (PLUS APPIS4D!( S)
DRAFID1VWOhMO ’TALIIi ACTILiORT
SEWER OUTFALL S IIN0
MASSAOIUSETTS WATER RES JR AUUIOSflWS
DAVmO. AUUEY. PhD.
Y COP5ULTh VICOB IA1
SUITE 2-3
SSOOWR)RD 57R T
PALM0ImL MA 02340
(617)457-0110
II JANUARY l
I be ss . .4&.ad i E..ii . —l on bcpma(DUR)fmd. Soon
1II son. , ,....4 by Won Rcimass A.d.iI.. . I have saonosaaid
, Iu ie V of ibe DEIR. ‘—y T.--- F...k... . Pt a. Etfluont OadaIL Ia addmi*. I
have . . i.. ..A a .pi&ms b of DEW. u — ‘ . d Ia my Appendia I.
F this onion. I--—----- ..Jo. , h,.....I . .d -J-- - - ‘ . .,.ti .. . .ipscmdthc pc .
while wesmag mm leon &gon iii.J..prsI sad- ‘ — ‘ upsets of the DEW. Give. thu
maps of my . ..J....i aiipea by uha South Shoe Toon and Son on L.ih . . .. mad
the iesvicwd one ion available fw my uevion• 50 m ene4 calcvl.nons se Sold
maumemams on . . 1 ... .4am pus of ably . R . moady on.= . -— - mamevaw
of S - -’ -’.g,. .....a . ,.- — --of the duo 5 . ..vl&Jle du DEll. as well
- - - ---‘-d avahok on(--’---— . -,- --. ) .
_______ — ______
IIVThVIRW AND BAIV1lflI m
l. ’—— Jouthaonalaldulonsd- ‘-‘ - ad duDUR pIon l e
the r hon f thiwbig .y of thS _ I _ 5 d . — —“-n--- . of abs
DEll itg ding -—.-- .- ‘ hiiset lbs I-’—- of on of theme sagiccud
on.RI (iselodlag effects of sfsec waves. . “ ‘ vutsbiluy. sad .ndimeniaooul
ussuspenslon) conm be oistmpbmth . ‘ .. —. . ft fails mo , don fume, the DEll baa
biroupisu melenalle bass 1w - ‘ of minslablunoun. tang-on tam. umuy of du
emusat Before sddrble melseon of eMems disthoris me on be male. slgnthons
addidanal .bwvsd o nal sad “ ‘I met Is sequlied. on tha i — - ‘ melyW Is
. ...,J 1thsEllthuddbs s s mekoniswmudu- , ,, - of
du
lbs sld.g . Ihoss ull is saidmi Ion. dIh.ai ioddu s
— climes mU bs th ,J dusedy tam du Bay N am du umoramy or m For,
— — of Ai peou. aid likely lonpu Pen dur ’ - megvlwy. s .d r -—-
pony-seamed cddueot will flow dusedy lam the Bay — 1hz. son. FoIlow.g thai . ini.... .
— of don pi y Nduth.$ed. dOme bang .. . — - --, -
will be dz.chatpd mao dir on. tori palod ala ecnony or s Dumng this m m, a . vusely of
. -b ,.. i . ,aj be dixlj ipsd mm du sudlaw ameaial con. ba up —.I.. .is
z. hz ’. qfrirIV 4 WIalu hoe Lk.,ilflj . hog INd b having
• du wa.,.th banS pomaor s. with ___
of1 hwhass wedume____4 bud1 ho . lbs — ‘ aU will
-------
vi dv m lal vism dv s.m. usposdbk big.v,. . dvmuu elkig vs
.m — Iy cthesIus esudvly u this . Tbui vs mu be pmeculvIy cuteuss - so s o’.uty
- I dv DFIR.
____ , -‘ I .sfbeIdss.imls
. __ s . .l. .uI de& lbs p .eiithy .tjmmd.bk — - ci
vi.dy sum UC 5 be. shuNs. mmm i ci Bsssus Hmb mvii be . io ip..4 us .m us
Pl.-.uui . the , cidie mss 1mm sush dies vs dmuld i m Ps -i .4 m.& miitám be
the us., sIie vs mutt be t t1uI sos us uspusu mu puss vittles. WPslk s
diuchuspe ii. is .susu’dsl. vs muss ks dv — belmu mdvtskmp this esosasi’s. aisily
ie,udut us beN cmusbe us pcsii* (with N km. kusi ci doubt us vs cvi pet) us mu dv us.
flus.t cmliii be. , ,.,Id bev.g ‘ .‘ ‘ uei us the .mu.e sod vntunisi
( )u i .m)._APsimmiPs WdoI.m vgts be a fte muss - -- -- Jy uessible usdull
be. - ‘a — bzd these visa mu be .mmvd ot dv d .i . . . . . ci dv pec cs (.dvb v be
some d.u 5te7 . im — 2S,s* v g dv .4sD wilimu be
uhuply us dosip be . is di. .g m& 1k s my cifloumus us.spe muvg.mm pu .. .
suesm mdv . — -- - kmso be s sy
be dv VBIB . be a .s5 - th -- i em *i
pselabk slime usemu us lute Item e,..Jul be dv doflidoos ci the mmpe ci the pojece. s e
I& us be d i. l , ls - - ..kra...A la dv ws.t. th
me be dv D - .m be b....J belie soy dvdvww usbec.m ciN .N ii
mu be
- ci
DEIR is - .. -,—- 1k, I..,. .. ci dvi.
us p1mm Is .me .mebeslvi . ispudvp uebecdos ci u s vidsU doug .4 the e ., . i.4
___ .4 — “---..d .. . sums ci dv sMuts, .mmtuh. dv mmulo.s me km
. .— -4IossM It.---
LiflI .4Iiv IRAT Vt t IP AflflRL rm.3tJM1iAIy
A.. , ..L... dv . sJ km.dv km. _ Ø .u J . 4dv .m be
________ vi . . l.-— — ‘ —-—-—- ci usd111 ddop mu be me mu bebw. ibeut
will be dl.. .. .4 be pemius dv iii be a hum seed .. ci dv uspie. All km v i dv puope,
dose dv ..is&d..ci. vidvO dv. Lay _ L - — _
sow wos be VtS dv puvudsi kop .. . c i the omvikmi. Aui.tiimnti ci
mumup. uu vido.. mum, viI.m baidik uus.mlmss. . 4u. . . m ci
s oI . 4 mid puvcwl.v ih (kvisdop aid bay mc. dv
cumos be dde d . cbadllc.lIy at this polls. guts dv I r isp ’ ealmog I.mu
cili , I,d ..J . ...L—--
I) P mmdvi . 4 Ltso susftss pus.I ,p seem Ihuel.g dv d.Jsil.. ..
— iI _ .. . 4 .dubtg uludcm Smiuss masts S Bus lusum be
shuNs. visual c.m pumusoss. .bo discus km. bees .eglecvd bat.m be Iclusied be
_ n.1 k-
3) pI.4 , _ Ld.. _ - 1L ..pmmp- -A
ceidval dust . m’pcidv — -d spucles wuddud. km . .y mush us
. ..4 ’— pmekiss s.d be umidud with dv . ..di......s. 3km U .. _ J . . . .4 pstuculs*
151 , 1 , _ L _ us us$iscwdlmplp mdv cid.mcid .4
hub mlfrkm u iesoflc b.i
3) 1- -se smuçmsd cem, dv eviem mmvi aid Igbs ub....’l _ .
N. wiuvidsis me tepamI us isdv DEIR 1adv pcuo.m scm (43 sod 3). LaCIci. .L ... ... ..
puecludis puopa mudvlui ci moms isa. mid ciculviun pususuus.
4) L— -- —’se i*......d... . .4 . ,.Ul...d ci dv cpus % _ , ..... .iIjL& km di.
. ..us,k4 Wt h.p. 1k b-- i., dcm cmvi. the Musmehusevi B.ylAil .s* eut
____ dove much cidvchu . w M—i--, . . ,y.
b. _ .. 1 ry a edisio. mu , . .4.. . puss sins Is ckmlsmvi puudktmss. .4 be..
esdosie. ci dh . iL. .
3) Usscisius —‘ ... .. . .LJd .-- -. .gisvidv ’ sudvI.. -.ci
immmjeuastul dv. £...... . ..vd wiubtu Maiseebuirus B.,. Wbaern, dv svo. emlo.s1
mmdvi .my piedice sue uss flow mu poiss. kites dust .is be flow N dv s .f.. be cvi
d .seoas..M Nsw dv bc.m beemcdy dv . ,,...be dvv.. .
6) 1k-’--’- -- .gummdvi,. _ dv....- cidv Li...... LiL..a
uIciicuItsos. Duiig — dieb . . . dv oatf i ii .411 sdi.ib o.e vi
dv uvituse heth.muthudutge ciube M..... ...ek Rite, .4 iustuy.m . dv bwmsthictuugs
ci liv Child Rims. Dwvsg asiupe duchmge cvith . dv oudsil will rule 10% the
- fut,bwmu fl .ck —, . . ci dv M.... ...k Rims s.d swivi dv iseibmuvi duicbagt ci dv
1e, Rita. Such. Ia e mllc.ci muvi .mu us I will .me chugs, beancoladvi dim
muss be mu kd us puedict la ci-- Thu usuidog mmdii. less mm this
7 ) N. dvpithsodv3 . m uJIsdvb . IMa
WL _ k us iual a km dv Ia- — b-
dv i vy be cpskml cido dvs—--- -J .dv D emes dv - i - pmvbWvi.
ladlichage vsog
I) ususbad& . 4p we hudvDML PIpi
. .th..J.Iou , wutM dictum thus. itilossi .47 ) is , .jl .,.. 4 us dvI’me dv gimid
. ,— *lc c1.. . ..v. . . ci dv use. by which. is. .m muM be Idvn A
e utsow ’s .j s.I edvue musM plum dv . . dodwgs vms
Idvulmi bum lie m m ii vvcso l . liv - . is -- t dv hkld.4 diii
the must sppu iuN w me .4 L......s.. . dv ‘ ‘ .‘— dv
mlii itly mu bestily vi ,. ..... ‘ sd socai.ci me edibility. Ask sow v . dvi 43 . 45
be’s few . .b. ..4i*i .u,.cd with cdvi vvi. pdy b- — dvy cm, I ?ssd km is dv
DEIR psovis.. quutidy. mdv . .. — 1 I dv... , __ usdiuw
dIbt . .
P) 1iv ...sD ’—-—dv . l.,—’cidvdi Iap humfl ’ s
ysuuci,il. , _ .m ( iNsly — . . .i...... _ , bmudvi LL....Ll b.m)pba iuwiuyysusci
d1dv,ge cieMmm . kigu. . .p — -—s-, as — SImm dv f . 4Iiy will be I. . .,......d. I.
muuy — — i’. . pos s sumusy. Isp. vi . thedd be . diks .
u1. .i i,Y1 \liI I. J.i
A dvcidv .dvy __ be
I) 1iv Li. .gkmdv_ -t ‘sskmmummbe. dv lbs
- ci. — .l _lI dies mu mm glues be .m ssodv . -11---.t., -
1 . .ll k k — dvkm . 4v _____
-------
2) S ãa.u Fw Aaue eO.
pi 7 .i..a o.-.---.ILdgc Add . y pl u .dudas 1k dp c hip(y sib.
uvek wu palauiad ( c owy a 4eiaipdeua I. the aeü. or lb. plea ciu
M.l.eaesly . Tt iea
3) ---- - ha i..h . 11...,. A ”- 1 . ub.a
, h i — -‘‘-—d— -—-”- ealyeaad
4) lbs - ad 1w —-- U I B - “---- ‘ bu 1wL,
sifts” —t
3) Tb.-’ 1 - l fr g 1wO1wkt -. fl
— Ob.ia 1w l’- . - 4... . (CaiC) Ii up vpnaa bed. for nng ws
-
4 lbs LkJ yp.
bed&adth tieahis ouw plborsp . Aib. —-—- --a,alaoapths
. .4.d thatihi L..,..-J a afahie aie lbs Thu p L. . 1 — ths
DO - M1wDE1L
flW beAmS MPk1
5ft — J.Ll _ LdJ _ Lg IBSUS eaU — -i hiaad. lbs
____ ____ — _____
I) e.Sv
- —
e lb. $y d.edly ha u 6a a ea for . . thus eau othei w
_ -.I- _ • Thea uvei eaor ada caedag ea withle uhi wUSf
beaea sa Au — ---- L .
hi ifi 7 - — d.y d . . ..J..uI 1—• rw lb. pea. DEll
( eaII”orly orphi. uhi pe ad Iuçweaa d tore geasy wuves. Tb. abaunueouai
pew — - . .a a l- . .. . -. . pa.aes. ad eawu , sued hi
ea lpvpb. thuea of hip wuves Q epathdap lb. sada of
eaa. __ . 4 . Tb. bq dfaa ala a.Jscad shi au of uhi eat.. wvsu
udag S e mud L.,...iil. . Eve. the d.epuus alas..
- --— . - — — aaua. mu a w hi _ jJ .t
3fea vuvea us eamudal for d. .. ....J.J.j hidal muzha of cflb mu 1w ShilL lbs
of uS hia la.uu lb. udulag of a.1ak. pad_cnJudy dluelv.d
Was. .5 — thu lagbs a wild. the dfla. all due ha .u
_y da_Ib alr_. .Lfl _ _ ____
3_tea wus.auea .s — mu - - — -
. . . — —, .5 __AL___ will maim
_ 1L _ a,albei. be a SL. . k __ thifaus
Wt eat.. wus.. i V ii .
Uid .r ippcpdaa a.lbdmu. of leap vase — ad uppuepdau . iel lea . sive,
thea.lveu ca c iv . a etsupan of — ‘— the ab e. Wives of ,.y . pelod med
highs have hors dacumauivl a Bay ad Cape Cod Bay. a thu .11w, mau hi
adyad .nd qumalied a. . . .. • - --. vu..upua by wives - _ aL- — ‘
imadacasual---
Ass lbs felleruag cap” 4 . ..... . ad lysu. theuld hi
s) A. . .,of a usa 1 w
b) Tealag . .. . ... .. . . . ..ad 5 —--- .J wive upscaI1w1w- - (4 . %bs
dMqJ iliST. well.pDiiv h . .J. . . ad . Ja . us
c) A sb.i-..ve . l ma J u be L ...144 adeauft . ad wive tha1wg.
. k.rd . _ L lblfradmu h...... _ ‘ — ada) ad 1w
t h a i.
d lbs lag-was .LJ - (IPAJILJ b . .. . .. l .., . .. mu
au. v.ve haquau a. b aea ad . ha was i - eiv .
s) lb. -‘eJ - — .A) I ___ ,. __ ue —-.jLAl wi
• - —I
3) ,. _ t.iIa ad
- - ____
J, ceawy . quebadve AI adl..LL.L eI1wdfuea have bea pe ued ha 1w
mamsof cub. camu eluvoe —‘ e the — - - pobbas a
ha owa nghi. 1 will ad a adbai a puades withaa uhi wa.
cola. ad - - ha lamsu - -.- - 1. - ‘ - a-— - ad- ---- will ..rn 1w
__ a m a 1w wuea WI... .. . fred. ad lila.. ods. Bowdamuooru be
day uda.b. Thu ...c .ueaea of day ila .4th s-,--’- 1 aM duauolved I r J
- - us a u(of- fr i - - &a lMy.
wdvliy elba weacola. vS - aippuag of’s--— - ‘ B.. 1w uv.cda..
Sorb -‘ r .. . 1 will b.. . 1w bkdbbood of b.eavug — --— —.. _ ...of
Ii the boa. — ------ wlthp— Mva. ef.ca as 1w leesl b Ne
of .x e a a 1 wDELLs—-—th aa.bc.-
______ the boa. pa u .uuspeedud pen . .&ally dunag ea. ui .b.u abs..
by -- avewgu.o. added hat. DElI. U’s —— 1 . have kSuMmt.cbypa.hi.
ha llimly. the ueueapeuuma may hve 4ghymally wcha.ally - __ . a. agmu ad
Mesa thea for sinupat a cube psa oft. ivvlga.a.. i . - _ —
our belbahag lbs sib.. ft. of tfthiea-- - .
Tb. DElI emma thus tori of lags k. -‘.‘ of — ilL - with il
—-—.d . . . .cIba s ad uvdawahi 3’—I- ____
has a.ideiMa. of wius - — hi sealable for . ha thu ass. the wigs . oft.
wave macad (Ilidy ghi:Ial) ad a A. d..— I.....a .e..dapoaishauil . —..-—-----‘ - ems.
. n4Lf .J - - Smu Syb. ma. um Ida. a tori of — . . —
his lii. as aw,w*ly . .--‘---‘ C vsd.. .u dad ha thu D saggeus a puuuitie — -al
km - -’hat.uadyuepmu . V*Juusaor.— maybe’ —‘emiw isad
bsedt.i t.vig CIlaw-’ - ad. . .. . ‘ 1 wvg ass.. lb. aueupeMed a.ial may
hive 1w rocks. but i asp sell dep I. 1w . a b . ... . . . 1 w ro t h cagiag thuuiyv
aiL... . .. . sfthuacociued fas .qaady.da. euof 1w us a c a.s
ha ; a M , I . . — . aib. h a da p uUSm -
— ‘ ‘ uas-&pcsneal. OV ’- —--- ’ ___
Ala——-—- - sM DEll a.
a) Dealad
b) t I.—-’dMegm —eaa, hawwa1w of
aMwiawaa -
-------
- - . •ci _ . -
_____ - - . -1 .
d ( L.J..L _ .d.
L .
——. , . - ,_i_.l - -
ci - . 1 beEciM
.cIIiy &N uS . — (nout a l IN 1Ici I . LIR u plug e
due ut lois ci o’m 73% tIthe cnoeue meNfl ploy dlq ths wet paio& no w
shea 4.3 3) s .odelia ci (hnoe cenjuetwul.
Wks uwino play a mujue ucla In shvd u sumpees . nw oii ci soip 1J uci
i.J,i4 nonotuk WkbcN au . wIi with no si ps l . ,uem thuja
disebup lam due be,.... . e be . .. J pcpes(p. EzIid.g observunom In set ,
nom (mom d In D€1R) — be,.. .. . ci . s,pes domom
-
_____ ____ - .
u) C mN omici. N b* u—---’- ---. ozypen. N y.
. .4shS41 wl n - Ij--i m She r— ! oidlfl slse(u)ue a beth (ut
L.s no ______ ______ ______
b) lathIn be ue N si lyciuiP . ..... ueci is- —‘—
— ci I’—-— U. Buy. ho mo Os sbo. Inc1u a emleay ci
elOs ono- - In CUR.
1) uom _ ..1L _
_______ - is • —, — . ______
- ,• p abe (ci flow N amom Osi be s ,sedLid (so flow du...k
so — k’-—- be j,—”- ’ (c i flow. c en bound .y s Li fmcw 4
flow .i Bay. F.c L.ua. [ s. Buy dulal cbal o u Li , ... . ..mJ by upccifylnu bow
.J ...& .. uwom ifs p .hei thu
- .— .—.. Iul& yMthIn the Bay.
_____ _____ - —
the om beighi ulo. be.ud .y enoed las Ilano fsilaoi. & . . .,iL . . em
. ..,,,.J bythom ft l.md uosh Ina ubla seuclic bum do mo&Hn$ . do
, .—ihL_ be . ,. .JflJ In adefombla ci. Slaci so iL. ,.... m .a. .omo
dolat the CUR do — ------. .p oat be 5, rneucl
— jt, — m ( cls ( c i . do beth
hr ill , - tIth1 . d . . .. . . . -.4 ... - , — _ ___
ithci cuku1 be ...,. osly q.cll vd 7 . Qodflcato ci setuel cboiucul
ombee — stduy um Hed . c nodo _____
To u y u kfld.. ., . s spsdBu BuN P 0 w . -
• I c f c sathus ci Buy (sueb 5, (ci due As7 01 Fu y
__________
u) PL..... ... _ . . ci om so ibt .loes do cpu. t)----I . .,. a
__jteius itbep -umk . so. ____
b) U . .— . __ 01 . .—. — ( u i do , N t _
-.__- o-fum Li the d ftu a.
C) l N oat be de u iwiy ci — . .01i.. .. o.iIIL. . _
- —01se 1L.J& r _ _ . S’UlN 01t i ’1-—
d) S.cid k , olyw. oat buuno uls do odel us J. _ ..L . hew In
L...In..do I- ‘- ‘- ‘- — elIberdocvos i dlMdee , ..
I) fno.dl --L.aal lhe .
A - mode ci efreul byps*mdd . by po la iuuns
In-cit. . flow, that noy wIth deØL Flow oa do satfbee omy be In cut. deci . , w J . &sepci
flows omy be In do easet cppouio *euu.. . A no4imooieI model eatmat . . , .4. . the.
thcul s .ato . In (set. (ci dooa u , ns at - t wI (In ..dl ._ 000 flow B
do di.,.... Is us be de0 d umuscily. due ,adcal . .4. . c i flow at be — - ‘-‘-1
p ,c,e,ty. Such mo&0n Li enomal If outs lie sely no she DE ll us ..isL .... . pus . . .. ci
p.*dsm .cd thiscivud mINe
The fruIlouvu (c do
a) A deee-Jimoa.I ( ....,L4 ci no-aicyled ) model should beino N L _ ..J. . do
4) Ii __ .fl 01 ( cJ.. .L d.,1i _ Ba ,
the C l i i ha dmI sulib.... cido eiprICr UP uIk*. .. . Wha ( pit....ulp
bmodo M _ . __ J . River) cecbculth. laM— L _ Bay. S Infl bees
*i —-- I by. vvbey ciui...,..h...m do p Placatly sd ,-’-- ,uloa ci b wom Is
bth duichat ul beDtime Hatbcicm bed. Bey. . uachci emuno diichpu.
flitose. ci ( ze.di-.. . dlid e d. , ... . .J dOoms cedefl o e from ubeci
— Na bi b viM @11270 mgd, with — esoqeci cp,eoiloaly 330 mgt The low ,,J.c
a dueMpu th.c do be Riaci tiumbesom at the eoa 1.
vujue 23%ci do umei e dslly dhcbs ,pu cido P.ben . . k RJ’ci (uhe hepo
Masia h ..eu .) be Ila..L. . . Bsyl The d I thehoit (ci the e (Ooa Li
ep uozomoly 10% c i the doly P.. 1 ci she Mcivi . awI (be then the
dasehm e tIthe ho Rbci. jON do. elites o the c cnIatIoi In do Buy. do elliot
en be . ,a1 mM. — e. ce . . . .Ld. . Sash o met em- - ---‘p In
&---‘•• ,mIIe.
T here noNor , I .. 01 thIn LL 4 V1 ci L .p . . R.do
ObebLi pales mbel . . .., .... tO0 2O0 wIIwqth ,-- - - -— supply
01.hwu ,eru,feul des dihaos A Iy a tIdes diM.. wom w41 bum booa
i . .. . .J . the diifoa ppu. This bourn. flow will dinope the u. I chalet... the oa
, . .iL.,. . b..essu koal eml ue ci musIc. ciefflseuss Thu I. that this h e .
cifrcuhwom omy oat u e __ , __ tA4 .. .. _ .4 mdc. bu - .e.isJ. . .j .& wNea
do Bay . the . ......cel mdol . did em Iniesuput do , ,. . _ J.J em ci L. ....J ty
,u c eiomM. kd.ak atbe do Bay.
1b essdnoe Lioms. (ut IalIowe - t - - -
a) Mcdehlo 01dm J,......LI bupuce ci ----—-. .4 Isopo OiL...... L.L.....be
do Ra .mc . m .cz pates.. L 1.. .J by nob kop, al usJ .s. . . . . . . how
dil pe. ....s be led with h w .
b) MWi11 ci dm bopu-seth 4,1.. cido oaenodo Bay L i L _ N C
ic NIn,tNgaN hew do lci m.omM chiulatic. mI bu beiMgcd by do Mod oat teem
01dm dVhodlsclmie. ___
c) McduIb,u ci do - 01 J - r .i n _ -
7) .-aNt -
S.us .a_ do IsURL—4,T ..J_
— do I —LJ, . . doa ci do oaldlsualer...
-------
da. 3 , . - _ Lb.,d daleg E pva.i. Ii — s fln i *N
celculadoes .I.- blINdS sbo s uedNdoe es cpur .a.
lw. ... bC4. The I k c i — ass jusdiled by oe .eck 5t(asI c sbcus . .4
blflm I.m L Imurs shoebi be dibs..J Iaskpe dy
oem uev et Usaa. da pca. be asa
be-’———— sboe be Nd d . sciec ibouM . n,.- ’ a thcevu cNd
— ._ .oe . burN
aiU beda. abur s dy
T. a. ao a. A ul.g , - --b
s) A dospur ma. be
b) F..vUc aI do L., .. . du shoeIdblU MrflauN Mrs
c) A.—- - --b .Mp.dycS .&. - ‘ iua.Mre bs l .N
I)
A rd d -‘ - be .do dour s be
do.. ma a.Ibl Mr eØoes a. dofiset Ibe a.Ibl spaul a.k ee
N do Nd NW fuN do alc Iea.up!a..
Fur If a. S ..u do - . oe . oed ssI isylew.
shouM be . —“ N aa. spa fur do . .I..4 pa odd c. Surb a r-- - --
ass a. follomed uN . pNd uIy — mesa . —-—- ‘-u ’
ouba.y be ,.— s. s tdIomI.g
a) Fu.U- ,——--—.(....._U su.
—. _.,-. es.) bs N - esuril..
ci uses cb.glei L.L _ . cido D m b. a. bur. p dorsib dds
INdNd it,uw. ill Iuurs us & ss Nd lass ebe p cn aI fur cba.pag the a.vNWetsI
ci sIc puvjmc*. Fcllooeq ce.iIedmu dma. a.dcliui$ awl Ot.. Nk j . *5 N EIR
should be m*pa • uu b sunaw esi s *5 d i i ’- *5 — -‘-i bees bees
a A y.PbD
Ibe C _ .L *5 — ci 3gbggbe ass puss d.M__ s — w *
____Nd tausy pa.cidIIumN stusd us socoedoy keeL Is I a .. do dliths,ge
ci , jI _ . , uew usya do kerth doe puss. glee. do bisusy duN seasge iliad
(paadulidp N NWHNkI ) 1 .b —---’ 6 =d s a poloegedthsudor should
be do esaur spur . likely meD be. a.sa. ix keipsudas INWy pea.. Nd
su ge meD I. ‘- g do .at., N a . esp . TIc DEIR sluM - ----‘ --
. -r . ueIL _____
Sr. 411 r — - —dodoDU N do -
— a) 5 *5 — I..ãLiib!I . ,J......, - ‘ lu*i--- - Mu(s)
palusdS. lb. IS.Nd20es ____
b) Q ,dod’— —’$’1 ,
do3DNd )ODpL
$VMMAIT
TIc shdb . ..l. - espoel (D!11) ad i y Issue. padsa. N
— i —— — ci — ‘ effla.i sfl IL........s lea ci at l
. 5—’-— U. ..i1 4 k supuiuI do - ‘-,dda p. Nd...... *5
________ — t — Dcea l—J- . ’ -— ds.dflua.
Mu — ‘ lu. ,rNd be do
-------
Pi-
- / ,,a
P2
ft iJAL J uPw1
).t !Ac. ..J
P. c Iat1 O 1Q N!CALS1U I AND IT IA
Oh 1CALO AJ APIW I
R I A2 AJ.PAIP D 2
£. O AM3U Y!YI DATA siT
L R JR M*
II. WA1 MUTTAIW VIT
N. WVSU1 1YI
0. V3I V!YI
P. P IOII SURV!TI
Q. D1I IURV!YI
N. S AT AUI l uut
a a mii t* ua.w
T. nI OVSA& .D
V. NUl ITO TRt
a (A*TP TIVTIT
LA jJ fTTu Ju S i c?t
Cft
A Ul
A.
JT h pa..F
(I-
I - ,%F
-------
p3H
Macheal Osland. SeglOsel inistrat0r
tnvir ...tel Pr.t.ction Agency
John F. Isnnsdy F.der.l •ldg.
No. 10 0. i 02203
boar Ma. D.landz Nay 6. l9 1 1
Pisas. help protect both Sosten Narbor and Nssuschusstts nay ii. ieee
Say Ira. pollution.
Nichaul island. Ruql al Adelnistr.tar
Invironsental Protection Agency
JFI. F.dral t .ildinq
boston. l u2203
Dear . D.land;
us ers concerned about the plans far thu prn.ossd so.eqs out 1.1 I
for the seats, boston Sewerage District. Thu arsas no.. under
propo..l are dangerously cia.. to the shor.s of thu North Slier.
and —e •ei it would r.sult in ouch pollution. It would in
addition to polluting the fin. beaches and being a health haserd,
also bring dissess to the flab and lobster that no. census..
It uat dons not Saks 5UflUS to try to cisan i ens area that is
now being polluted boston Harbor), end transfer that pollution
to our fin, areas naeeiy the ewrth Share.
Decause of thu ebov. po.eibl. danger, w gs you to argue.
prn.os.. and insist:
I. hn outfall at Sit. 6 — Ni , ,. ails. Ira. Nahant.
Narblel,.ad . S..en..cott. and also South Shore to s be
us udi
2. Prleery and secondary sewaçz and treat.eni plants be
built sloultan.ously, eo ainiaally treated s.eaqs is
not discharged into Massachusetts BayS
3. Na degradation of thu Nassacluusst ts Water Maal ity
Standards.
Sincerely vaors.
___ d 4e
Joseph E. Oardnar — ,...
Rachel l,ardne,
The ares now for the larwest . . .soe out fat I In
t world is dangerously close to shore. Tidal currants
could bring it onto North Shore beaches, shellfish areas
could r..sin closed forever, and fish and lobster disease.
could increase. ft does&t ask. any sens. to clean up one
e isa, boston Marbor, by polluting another. Massachusetts Bay.
ISa urge you to requirel
ii ho fa1& location at Site 6 isbidi is 9 .tles fro.
SSa,bldiesd. Sv1 5..oIt, Wabsitt, Mali. Cohasset. and Scituate
2) Priasry and s.condsry trsatnt plants be built
sioultansoualy, so .Lnia.ily treated á.vags is not discharged
into Mass. My.
3) No dsgradation of the ISasaadaiastts Mater Quality
Ilandardo.
Inc.rely.
-‘
Lcr
Uth_ i. jLi.
L - -
2 LaSs Slier. Road
Lynn. IS 019 (14
.tI _LÀ
I
I Olict o fi M a I
-------
P c
P5
t e ii UPU. U
ii issli shin
ne,s n.u* oi 7
26
“Is
Niehaul 5 .Iusd, s ,•a•l ld.i.tstrstsr
Ia.i,sussutsi Pr.t.ctlsi I sucp
J.r.Isuusdp ?.d.r.L I.tidt.
Costs.
N.. OflOl
P.., Pr. Bsl.udu
‘ 4 ’f1,Ii b
Michael (ieiend Reqionel Administrator
invironmentol Protection AoeflC9
.j; Lennedij Federal Building
Boston hA O22(’
Usisrilas lb. •t.s •svsr •.t (sll sill. .. vs .r 5e su to
r. utrs bat it C. C .1 1.u Cr.. thu N....ehusstta •h.r.Itus.
Vu laws ilttls f.lth list a •.cs.dary Irsatasat plait tll Cs
5. has c..tiauauslp .aes It. built. That sad. us to
..tlclp.ts S0O suits. sail... s( .l.iu.hlp tr..t.d asva s
viii I. . .. Cr.. tis .ut(alI at tIu.s Is, p.sr. to to.. .
V. sri .ot sasslip a (ussr .1 a.dllF. our cbildra . with
papuaatu vhs. th.p’r. •dulta I.e rovsitausta that vs sluita
•.I.r ut. i.d.p. C t is is Cu.. of a i.s .r outfuhl. it
S.... pse lactlp Justil lsd t. i.crsaa. lad.Ctsdassa. Vhate.sr
ti. costs prss..t or d.fsrrsl. but •uef.ll ...d. t. C. C
oils. off .h.r. i.e csati.u.d prstactisa .1 Naaa.cb.astts
lay.
a is ease . 5 e..,t—ovdsrsd sekeluIss. it sssus rsa.s..bis
t. .attctp.ts that • i i thu sutiall pip. prec..da to a sits
usa,., laud .a athedula. Ju l 5 . Na..... esull •r..t a ti.u
autsasisa is rs.ch alt. S bassI su thu ,.rk alrasdy
.cto.pilahad. Va thus tabs thu vi . , that alt. 6 I. (sasthis
without (lass or paaaltlsa.
Sl.csruly,
A..... Z... .. . .. j—.. .
Cb.rlotts a.l salts Peers
25 Phillips load
Puia.t. Na. 01901
i’ i ‘3 bI
I . 1 Grli
I cu.c .
iMmISTP
hear Mr Deland
Pless, help protect BOTH Boston Harbor *110 Mesiechusetts Beq from
pollution
The ares now reconunendpd for the largest seweps out felt in the world is
denoerousltj close to shore TPdel Currents could bring it onto our beaches.
shellfish areas could remain closed forever end fish end lobster diseases
could Increase it doesn I male sense to clean up one ores - Boston Harbor -
bij polluting snottier- Massechuselts Betj
I urge gou to reguire
I) An out fell locat tenet Site - nine miles from Pterb)efised.
Swempscott Nahant *111 Cohessel and Scltuete
2) Primarg and s.conoar,l sewege plants built slimultaneouslg. so minimell
treated seweos is not discharged into Messechusetis Bag
3) No degredlt ion of the Ptassechosetts Wotsr Ouatlty Steniivrd
Pleese help to effectuate the above in order to further protect our Uior,ltne
The eddltlonel Costs born now wilt be a good investment for the future
Sincorsig Yours.
-------
— • 1 A104
P8
Micha.l D.l.M
R. 5 1 ansi Ad.jni strator
Enviroenental Protscticn Agency
Joiwi F. kennedy Federal Boildi,tg
Cbridg. St. Oov.rne.nt Csnt.r
Boston, Ma. 62203
Dear Mr Delends
I — writing to you in sy cwacity as school oittseni and
oltisen of Revere Ms., end I strongly u . s. you to silent itto I 6
the location of ths Sswsg. Outfall Pip..
Sit. 9 6 would allow for edsquato shoreline prot.ction for thi
sdjscsnt cc sgti.s, wildllf., .arln. fisheries 1 n4 .11 of ths i so —
rsatlonol us.s of ths coastal arias of Suffolk and Ease* Countils.
It oust hi oonsid.r.d that the SWenditurss ow .ay bars to disburse
in thi future ooul d hi sore than those vs could i snd st tilts tiss to
pr srly boat, the outfall pip. at the ssavard .ost position.
Th yen for your oonaidsr.tboo.
Colonial Roed
River. Na.
02151
Nay 9, l
P7
___ P7
Da .iu&C
eva —e l —’
-—--- •1S 1 ’t .f J
9 _ J
k 1 LJ
DI+flI. Ma. o3
jJ ct4f 1
a
Cn t ’ g *S 7 l0 (i U
..j €L J. .. L dI. t’? ‘
_ 4 . __
r c. iL * 1z: 1 .
J* IIA L %3$4W
• _____
____
Lá t
C ys Congrss Naituy
SWIM
ccsa
Fib.
o 7014
School C Lttse.an
City of Rsv.rs, Ms.
I L __ g
I i i 0 ,
L ° —
-------
p l o
Nay 10, lOSS
‘P9
u—0
lip..,.
(413p Ma..
no. s ,
. .“ MA.,,,,
ISI?I 1fl.lNt
Clean
Water
Action
Project
Nan NcO .uisld
41 thath etrst
Lynn, NA 01003
NIuta.1 Nalsid, ,sqionsl Iduinistrator
Invi . ..no ....tsl Prot.ct ion Aq.ncy
J.r. N.nn.dy build lnq
Na.ton, NA 02301
Oaar . 0.lsnIp
I uT . you not to p.llut. I I .. body uf v.t.r for thu saku of
cI..nlnq in alroudy pollut.d body f vat.r. V I .. .. h.lp protsct
both Boston N.rbor oso Nas.achu..tt• Say fran pollutioni
I lious fun bloctu fran IInq’. S.sdi in Lynn. I haana qr..t
dual .f gs..p.ct for til. su., It. toauty. It. s l. r.ssilrc.., It.
rucr..tion sod it. poanr. I wish to tr.at It with thu r..p.ct It
d..ar,su. ?h.rfors it is j .rstj,. that U.. fo l lowinq .t.p. b.
t.k.ni
I. mat S priory and aa.. ..4ary • tratont plant ha
built .Isiult.n.cualy, so ulninally tr.st.d ssanqs I. not
diucbarqud Into Na..adlu..tt. 5a71
3. that th. outfall pip.. In Na.sadms.tt. Osy go into
op.ratlon only aftor thu socondary tr.atnont plant I.
c l.t.d , a.uurinq that prop.rly trs.t.d ..v.q. I. b.In
d lschargodt
1. mat thu outfall lo..tmno bs at ‘sits S th. .o.t far
.iØt.d location, and
a. mat U.. dagisdatlsi of - tts antor quality
•tndardu not ho tol.rstsd.
‘I_lu 3
IL -J
I s
L _ o . .! ______
Sinc.raly,
Th
Nan Nebonald
Ucha.I Dol.a
B.ui.aal ldut.I.t,.ts,
JrI Sutldj
Boat... NI 02201
0. 5, Idalufatrat., D.I..d .
Ci... Vat,, Icti.. is . i itia 5 is p.. Is •app.,t .1
paaItIoala h Na uach...te. Vat., S.a.urc luebsitip.
(NVII)..v. ,. o.tI.1I pip• at Sit. 5.. 6.
Ci. .. V.t., Acti.. Is .orp c.aes,a.d 1st asp l.cati..
cia..r to 1. uh.r.iI.. no . 14 J.ap..Ii.. a. tutu,. tualli ,
.1 Naaaathua.tt. Sep sad ta. adjac.at valor.. II thia, vat.,.
a.. p .iiut.d us viii I I. ce .r.atip pr dactI.. .bat., sad
fi. hi. 5 5r,uad. b.c.., us..!. to har..at.d..tr., 1a 5 a il..ith..4
sad .iaie.,.t h, iIl t. sat fF 5.1 flab.
Clasa Vito, icti.. auppares Sb. susie. .f SUN oa ii.
North Sb. ,. sad Si.. .up Busch.. .u thu S.ath S I. .. t.
Locat. II. outfall pip, at Sit. 5.. 6. V. ,ou to •a .I.aaIp
o..i.at. tI. docua..t. aubaltt ,d a ,oa bp bus or 5satualloaa
sad sal. a dOt• , ,I .atI. 5 that Sit. No 6 is t I. b..t uviloil
•ltsr.stI,. I ,r C l. Ns.aaeba..tt. Say sad Nail.,.
if Cisas Vat., Icti.. a.. I. of a I II.
l.a... p1.... do a.t h..tt.t. to c.atact /u st .u, Bout.. Offic.
V. vaald approciat, S rOap.au, a sap Ps%aa.t to; Sit. P.. 6.
/ /
Cc i SUN
SI,. Oar Sisal,.
N
x’lO
j
Nip 10. i SI
-------
It.... — ,
Me, 15 1. I t.
testis. s•.
g i i
b ylreiuaptel P t.etlsi ,cy
ar .•ausl tni
. . n,
ii y l S
Pies.. h.lp protect both Boston harbor and Nos..cbusstte
Bay fre. pollution.
Nidisal bsland. R.qional iniatrator
Onviroenental Protection Agency
John Y. hseui.dy federal Bldg.
Boston, I V. 02203
beer . beland: Noyll. flu
Vl is.p WOtiSI B Js..t __ lid liS. tta
*y tr s utlen.
— S .. .______ .SI fsr b l.r ..t .se, autfell
I.. •__ a,r. 1. ie svviusl elsis to e. flail
eli?Sct . e.ll Wie. It set. be. ..... . lltlai sesse
sash reisi. closeS twi.,,. II . . S. lssat di.e. .se
e. . ivsS.. it aiIS t is to elsie ., testis
ly llitIu lii iSt
Ii li1 73J II fl JSI
( I, atIsll ,,,ei . . .t ..ti. a- —
fS. ,artl.s.eS. I -..-. seIt. MIens. all.
(1) Prieny — — .---y slab t. iesetlt
elahasassly. is eSeSU, t,ait.l ssengs
Ii t .ise .su’ d let. .b.....t%a Isy.
(3) m isselse tis bo onstts ter
llt,
;r %. 1 L4L
al .i. I1 .i ,i tl
I. I Jo.
an..
,l • 11 as utlos fpe, sPS. labs. ,f t. , ... .. _ J 3 ellie
I is aitsile U i __ . L . Met Wt eSTIS.S to
V.toI sesiJe S S.; Isirsel _ Met S.ha esqeises tssesr
— eutfell toeni
The ores now r .. ......., Jsd for the lar,..e e __ n ..* ret I I
the enrid Is dengerouply clo to shore. Tidal currents
could bring it onto North Shore beaches shellfish area.
could resain closed forever. and fish and lobster diseases
could increase. it doesat ante any sense to clean t on.
erea Boston hlerbor, by polluting another Nossechusetts Bay.
We urge you to r.quirei
1) An outfell location at lite P obiob is B nilee fee.
Werbleh.ad, S’......,.acott . Nehant, Null, Cotsassst. end Scitoste
2) Pri.ery and secondery tr.et.snt plants be built
si.ult.neously. so mini.eiiy trested sewage is not discharged
into toss. Bay.
31 No deqrsdation of the Ibesed.usetts Water Quality
Standards.
RECEPIED - EP
‘mu — imul
$ncersly.
) trwc 1/ tc t.c I
P11
tlt as,c( .h i’
-------
P13
Cc iiti
F’
‘Jn
A WAffi ouwiy swuai
?iltematlvs 1?, 1988
Sewage
Treatment
Utchont Dsl.nd , Isgional Adainistrator
!nv lroi.nta l Protutlon *gsncy
J. P. k.tvi.dy Boulding
Boston. NA 02202
Boar Bo. Bound.
?hs locatIon.? hi largest ssw.g. dtseh.rgs in Uti world
should only hi d.cid.d aft.r Ut. nost thorou studi.s of poton—
tist upsets on r.cr.stton and f lsh.rI.s r.sourcss.
it is our und.rstajidtng that Uti IdRA d l.ehsrgs his bs.n ip-
provsd by !PA for a cits stitch y possibly hi as doss is
this. .11.s trot Nahant md that *1.s SIR in .upporttng tot. Os..
ciston ha. osltt.d t.portsnt Infornation r.girdtng ftsh.rt.s and
also to. iui.bsr and location of North Shars bsachss , including
Bo.srssuz Bosch in Borbl.h.sd.
Bov.r.aua Bosch. stitch is NorblshsadV only large public bitch
Is dirw.tly downoind of Ut. propossd alt. in to. su rtt.. vh.n
south.rly wind. pr.vsIl. This bitch, as will as to. Swaspicolt
and LJTVI b.ach.s lii in a shallow shor.l ln. d.pr.ssion which
t.nds to trip dsbrIs and hold it thin. Th. Dtr.ctor of N.rbl.-
h.sds R.cr..tion and Park. Dspsrtnt. which .aintsbou 0.ver.auz
Bosch tolls wo that uashsd up dsbris I. a big probis.. I. irs
conc.rnod that oss objsota fro. tos trsatnt plant will bs
• disgusting probis. on tos bitch If wind, and eurrint. act to—
gsthsr, not to .sntton Ut. inv tsibis .fflusnt fro. priosry
tr.stnvnt.
di irs also soncsrnod that this priry if? lu.nt —y .o Sn-
rich our u.t.rs that condijiona for th. mci . ... in sigul bloo
such a. occur at Lyivi (and to a 1 5. 5cr satsnt at Swaap.eott)
—y r.nd.r both bitch and shor.liou uow.abls dus to odors of
d.cay.
d. support S INs position that Siti 6 v uld hi a far ssf.r
location for Ut. discharge I that ths additional sipsoss would
hi worth ths ssf.ty of d.spsr 5 5t 5r and .ors favoi.bl. curr.nt.
Sino.r.ly yours -
cc. Paul Lsvy. Ri — . ‘
t ni.l S. Ur..nbs a. Coos., l E i •
;J1 AY ,
—-_ as s
j g r; I ..’
LIIcCk ’ a L ‘ -
P1
P14
,,•F S
/ 4 .a. a./ s ,,./,./ 3•)’1 )‘., ., ,...j.1 ...
.1 s./b 1 C 4 .
s. ,.g . s is..I ad ,C 4’• h?S
...ICf/ v& .,.,‘fI ,T •“ “6.
.4 ,,, ,, ...h
•s.# be..i1, 61/Z • , hi ,e , ....
i /.jgf,. d 7 ...’s “ ‘
l4er.sg , 5k $ j’ , (I ,
— — ....,4 .. —
.T.sja .e,.M
— - ‘r r’ ‘
0 ...p 4’ /.r ,j,pq •‘ ‘ hS
( .ss 5awd.p .d V.t Af.J f.i.u./
. _.,
a) ..d:su..á ,Y vlI r /,t’ ’ 5 ’
• P r.hI:(r ,j ./
• s •4 e.j., . .i 6 “ ‘ ‘
-------
Nahant S% 1’ 1 5
Safes Waten.,
SW 1- N W auzea. C ...JLi ks
Slier Water ki MasaclassIta
Is, ,
w. i.rtM .sts Sas NI W IWUS, % , it*
s. i
‘ )s __ —SW SWlitINI P1
n.. NIil I $ISW
,treS.I.l P,.S. .tINI
J. ,. I_S ., IesNI
.INI. as onsi
_ - rn.
USNIW Is ,t I s k SM I pIasast.,y
Ib.fr...t.1 11 It. 5s.t f Sb. U..SNI .r M et
Vp.1. Us s ssb.IIU _ NIN I. as rs S .t. .. v. 11 NI
S.S., t.,4s.L. 13 . u. ItIW S. &. ___ ul NI Sb. astIS I.. .s
ft UspØtr. U. i... aS.. isp, ripurt as ....l.r.tsI : r ,
ista . ,t (Sb. I.IS NI S I. Ss ’.tisp Js.S. t. r. s IasI•
Usv.4SUUUI P. ISU.. Pt. ..)
I — S. M 1s SM) )sp , SWI Is psu SM) M I put
-...t v.5e uS ISIs III. I — Sb. ast slit Is Lu pisis.
rnu.srslp s,
P.11w IsS.tsp, Usast ust
IsMut NIDI. Lu..
dU.d# r j ‘7 J4 iu4s a
&.&iias.’.. 1i
. ._____ h* . S. Us,).,
Usvh . ._.iS%aS UfdiS
c _ .Itb 1 Us-as utIs
ISO Ib .t
UsuS . NI OflSZ
W. t .t
lbs is.1 I — — asstWas - NI 515 saspu st S15S sis’
SI. Us.as tII Ust•r L __ _ s . Iutburttp Us 1 . Usasgst .S.UUNI
p 5aWUs.L,.s.S .l Isp..t Uspurt, II. lUll W I S. .S. NI
sit. I .v.S.—s sW F. .I1 t . 0p51 Isi .tSfI .sU i s.• SI. i... _____ L.I S
taluS. PaWIIU a s taiSW Is lbs ‘L ry ?rusb.NIS FSS. IIUNI P)is.
SM. pu f s SW fP....% s SM p.ud ISp
IdIsu puiu.sp SW u.as ,v S,v.Mast pisutu dastS . .ususlv. 11 I I. .a
u.s. at .sp. S. ..l,s .v.. .e IS w.S1 .t restias IS — si ut .
a pu. ,as S. ,.qdrs SM) Sb. lUll lastS.. 5 •tu 555. pr .l Is I).
.asps St 1, Is u.4sr S• pstsst sorn SNI Isr SOD Stu My
yr.. 5SL ISUSS.
M.’stsr , Myt, lu _ MS. S l. __ M1 MySW UsplUt S UllI IWIS d
I, p.. I 1. d lb. a__..US.USS St SM SIuvvlI s s 5 , .. Sbus)
r laSs SMas s. .urst• pIs a s S. SI. 15 ) 1St 5551 lbS. pusisis visil reWIl
I. SI. 11 N It t.pIu. 5.U.U. W spas r.itas St 15th 51. MutlisI.
S rp YPisNIS. ) Pluu., lU Ml iv... SM) I .SW IuW piui,
Sill ....)UsSW _ St UNI S. L V S,is t f.WlISl i s NI Mur lutad
.S. rv.liisIu SrseSbsu I SWISSINI NI uSt . s1S IMSS., viii pW
.Jpuitl i s.1 sivuitass.. -
lb... M _ t.ps• ‘
•
• 15 u SUSWII Usut 1 it 1.1 WHIM Ibsu
• I S.Ias2a pias WIUS UI )) buss ast.r lI. as—el— .
• £ Dsi 1 .15.1 ftdIIIIv. ,) shut vu) s liv. Writes I US
NI WlS.b.up uS. .55.5 v.asSM -
• 15 I...... . J pies WIsh La ut Is 515 . ...t sulUt . ..,1... J
p 1...
am 1 114011. Nt ,) 111.14$
-------
M dm’ I. rö S. 550 I
. ps .r sm.4s1 Is S 5 II I.-m’U tS 11 p.IUS1IP i,..i.
dV1m.aI Sat. 5 j . III Sap (I. aISISUSU I r .Ss
..UsII *SU — .1 m.I m..ss t. UU.
.uuj,,m.tsl .ta.lmrduP . ta. ___ — I
_____ D$t 11 I vc S. I
1• sI S SUr at .u .rSUSS 1
fur lbs Sq =U ulbs -SISU itSMs lbs $ ll.lrSsI.
, IS i s, puss.
Auy 4’ y __ __
uio ii r ii no N S A
I.fl isiq, lF..I I
t a . a— , —t.4
• i iv, .51
Nl sis Dslu. lI V.iunlks
IS .r4 5.15..!.
I. Sam_il 5p$vs
S a t Saurd Ssl .sSa
IS. E lb Islam., tlSuIt
I. iuiao no
flare ars Mt stems sf tI 1ar . . 1 Sills. Sis Is SM l stMt
st lbs sitfall. TIe slbsv Is lbs She pair pans Is Mt lbs NSA
pvqm..s Is us. lbs sutfall fir dIsss.1 .5 if Ihe.I Mt las MIp pilasty
t,.s t.
lb. NSA 1 1 . 5 Stall Si lbs IlI (Mt lbs ..tfsfl tasusi Is .555
ustli SM er p truslau.t spat.. IS c t.ts Ii wrl Iqsl
pi l IuslSI.p rMaII. sliM i —,,lts Slits Mr5 Nit.,
slIlp S 5&4ar . vIslathe if lbs _iIIsgrsIatIsu ,euI,at$ if lbs C i . . .
iatsr ut .sat f Its usii . 5i p.lsi_i:.,cbs,,s 5fl$ s S,st
Niult by MI s Iup 0 p.. . _ i if bl.lsIcaI y50 4 1 .5 SiSal
I IJM I 515455. .IsIathe .1 lbs Us 54 . .si (suI, la% fillip kI by
ss tithe sf lbs e,Iur pastes. .I.sS .,.i.slIu, c htI,. lqitt
l.lMs • _ .55.
-------
m pr .s.t t (u,-ywt tisttruttl i s ii tks p?$is ,’y isd $ .cis .,y
tris .t spits is hew 1 . 1 .4 .4 the resI iIs sw s,ss.t spits sm
3.ct.cle 1usd. The se st.tt . ef the Secisdiry Treetsut ecI1ItIit Pis
.4 the Ses1 a1s Phe . st FacilIties Fl. kes r,selt.d lea acre pert lii
Sc Seer h1.4 551mg rew ”.d fir resI als mgit fc,lftIe i. IIe the
Sesl a1i apeut FacilitIes P1. cistaius highly r.4.d .ptIss with is
mfdeels t tetasmt is Seer 1usd. The .et si .if1c .t ad tmge If s,vh g
resi .ls tr .. st fris Seer 1usd is tbst It allts sefficlist spec, fir
sittau.sus .estr,ct is ef the pfilry ad eerad.ry tree t facilities.
Th. .et IIpIfIC . 4 aspect if lecMI.g the e.s1 sIs tr.. t is Specteci.
1usd Is thet It has the listS Ispict is c..,tal c ftIu i ile a11 ia,
the .e if the trisisut t . sle .et preferred by the A.
ii. Th tSL F ttItIt
Is the I .smg Yaw kks II.g Order the sJsr reesiss gins fir set
551141mg the prisry . 4 s.csmdary tr,a t fstilities it the stiis
aw thee there will I. lasufficiat space is Seer 1usd 5511 the Priuis Is
rel.cat.d ad the .ulstIq tr.. st p1st sst r.eia speretim, 5511 the ssw
facility Is hullS.
The pr s.d facilities fir Seer Islad eccspy three sijer .r.ai. They
are the 1O- acre Priee,. 7 ? rsatas.t Ares (leA. I). *- acre Seesdary
Y sst.ee Ares (i.e 2) sd 14. acre SeuideAls Preresslag Ares (lime 3).”
Theue ca be isis is the acce .myImg pus. If the reulduels precelsimg Is
lerat.d c 1ete1p eff Seer Iilisd the 24 Si * acres I . i.e 3 suld be
areiI I . fir ether uses.
-------
Ou 1k acc ,iq plea, 1k area .1 Ousr Islead Is 1k left of us
dasiud I I .. is ucc iud by lbs price. ad 1k .ii.tlup pri.sry troatesut
pleat. silci asS c..tias qsrst$ .s .111 1k 1re. .t faeilitI a ,,
is place. II auk sees lAst 1k ociosge reserved fur resilsals is squd to
area if 9. saiusiug ts’ss t pleat ad prisea. II a ale. be i.e. that the
In IS lbs It if 9. daubed u.s is sufficisut Is ceataiu lbs priasry ad
ssc ’y t r es1k.t facilities. 1kias ly, if lbs ,ssIdaals a ., treated
chaSers tAsri sill As t iff iciest spi.s fur asutructi . if h pdeary ad
senl.p syst Isfere 9. pica ad esisliag pleat ire slut darn.
II. VICTADI 1S1 F ILItI1S
The Ti 1 31 acre midaals irises Deer hlad is as of .1.. p.1.11.1 sites
eadar c..sldaveti . by 9. i* era rustda.ls I facility. Ussoty
lpuc lacl. 151.1 bus 1$ acm iub are ski belug casidsvud by lbs 1 15* as a
sits fur .ssi.g ad .ssies facility fur risida.hs.
ti prugss.s lIst 9. seaside, esslpiug 1k peugos.d rusideals
i sa S.., 151.1 IS — p....5f sits fir lbs i..d prisory ad ssc .dary
facility heatiup 1k resideals area a SpecIal. Islad.
Spectacle Islad is as if lbs bIsst raded sitis for rusideals
process lug by eas of c sstiug alJ.r stia i i the Draft sputa
Cadid.te lieas Ideslificatia. This rupert recs.d. c ostiu of the
pri.sry sludgs . CaSusti.. of lbs sacadavy sludge ad laud fill dispss.l of
grit. scruesiugs ad asb. Is the 1341 ad IS -il eptias calalad is Ibis
isport, is sasgs cald be traspurted by pipsilus I. Special. Islad fur
deusteriug ad peucessiug. lbs ra pricary sleds. esuId I. sstad ad lbs
n i secadary sledge cald b. cs1kst.d. C ust ad sib usd1 be Iraspsrted
by trucha f.rry I. the coastal sites. lAirs asld ho so , ,sld,sls
facilities S.sf I!.! 3 cbae .
s suggort of 1k Spectacle Islad splia id.r 1k follealug criteria
foralated by Slat $ Vestcbe
• C sstiug if a plea,, sledge ad ss1i.g if is t—’ ry
sludgs ire lbs preferred ta9.slsgical altanstiuss.
• The total sstisstad a .ss rsqui ,1 iocleduag digustia. csspestisg
ad sisc.llasuus areas tsr dast.rlug tMctaiug. eatsnlali badlisg
ad star for prisery ad s—’—y sIea Suer Islad us 35
ares, iSich sacesds lbs ausilubI. ares. the c sstiug if a
pnl.sry sludge ad cateatiag of is w..Ia,y sludge a Deer Islad
is sot rot des IS area lieledias ad -estsr lrea s porlatia
Systa ispacts.
• Cadustis. facilities .111 Is give. to preferusce to a.sa.aa.o lure
csudlliuss (so sqplstal fuel) usiig is sledge. Sea sledge Is, I
hibsr aergy vales lIe. digested sl ad will rudace ses.quiit
dastsrisg nequimests prier Is . 5ti e ..
-------
• Mv.t tvat t. .,.vt fv.i ls fv. Sar Islal ii — Salad sit.
Seat,— l .
• L_..,..itsI vs. s1 ft. S castat sit. tsa Salad sit.
, icIs Is asS . — -if .
• if vs. s1 is t.... .1 5.eJIJ sf1 if key Vital it Ii tMt
Is aas tisisd b pip.tias. if pIp.iias tv.sp.rt is is is
utiliisl 51 alit is I. _ .,. ial is a atMCt..S I lIq.Id.
fla.,,f.. . as tiuetu.I.p fasilitiss v. 11 is N 5UiNd a Pier i l iad.
• * ci i v.8 51 IL . . , . is ,s I,sl I. ca. sf
slits.
scSaii Isiad fyi ts stsgIcal at csity Wast psft af ala
is s srl e y is .8. , elSie i• tide
• it is alp 1.1 caSket ullas fy Pier Islad silas fern
sisal y 51 ptpsii.s , wtftclisl fir cu ssi., priasay.
s1. ifftciat i.’ _ i u S a .1 sassalavy sluIps ad
sufficket v. fur s 1 stirsp.
• tv.sa.st .1 sled ,, a fu.ctad. slat call raselt is tis I.ast
it furry. isis ad trasi tflffic d tis eastat trait., sit.
ti .vsd I. 155 seWr altisastiess. issiedia , 9 psvtisl vssi als
trsatisat altsa.atie.s a Pier Vital. ii. slier iiØIy rated
aIt vaati,ss use — clad sits fur rssl sis irsaSast. Truci ad
lest teatS it 1. trasisat Ilicleal s 1 ti a islad sit. fur
eea,.stiap ad c stia call is ssistatisllp ,rsatur 8 aIlS 8.
S ctuci. Islat sits sltsrusti,s.
VI I. fI tM 8 II1MTVid
kulliap tie seeWliry. p lsuy at ssI ls tss.9.ut fucititiss at tie
scatSa call sacs si,v.isutst, 120 5 ulilia a i.flatSa at IUO .lllia
I iat .rsst arIa , tie ceastructia purled. This a itiuasI $100 sillia ces,
it 9. v.a pta call is f laacul 5 , v.* leads. sr 5, slier as. ad tiii 5
fiscal., casts call is a allithasi $500 still.. Tis,,fs . tie $505
prupssal call uses pv.Satstp $5.5 bull..
These cast situates uses . aerstst iii. , ,uidslia,s fer cast
seul.eti . ceastiuctia cat sstketss ad etiedsiss cuatai.ed is tie
S.ce.lsvy Trest..at Fasilitlee ha, sitS tie eucs t1ua Sf 9. cast fur tie
I.s eal Trnt.sat fuculitles. liv. tile csst as ..,.uitii. t,. ti. is.*
• cast as used based a recesS sidssts trgts.ai plat casts. fats. I ad
I presids ellItiasi detsul.
-------
IV. ‘U
m str pI rwt tMt S C IMd t is Is s,slsitid Icb
licluS,. ISs I s$IdI.u Sf sscs.Ss,p t,S$ st larfiltis, uftI
prI vy t,ss t f IIittss p1 mst if rusIà.Is tmtaust Iscilitis,
.
i “ ‘ i!
‘is
I
i i
II •••••••••••.I.
• 1 R
LI ‘••••••....Ii
N 1
!Ii
liii
LI ‘ •••••.—..Ii
.11
!I
i q
‘ •••••....I!
a I
I
11
I i
! I
i ••••••••I’
‘I i
Ii
iai
ea.•.s 11
‘I’
i’
‘II I
U$ S•aI : 1
•i
i i
•as.a. 1 a
NI’
‘I
jI
liii
‘I ii
•1•
Ii
I I
•• • —• ‘ .i’
I
!I
.111
NS•• $_. 1
1
!I’
•I.I
••••a Nm•
I
LI
LI
LI
Li’
LI
LI
LI
LI
LI
LI
Ti
:! I
hi
li I
L! I
I
Iii
gj
II
LU((ULIU
LU U LU! U
1asi aas.N.
• — •• • • • • —
LUIPII,(1I
!LUUUU(
• — I I — • — I —
I
I
S’ S
I
I
iN
I
f!i
I
IUIINISIINS 5 • 5 I •
I
I
Ib : 1h1 111 t
-------
iI
I ••••••••• .. I
! I ••••••••••. I.
V I •••••• ••.. I
V I ••••••••• .. .
I I •••••••••.. .
V I •••••••• • .
II’ I• ••••• ••Il
vi
vi I-e....a.. 1 1
v i
vi .• .••.a..jI
II a...t.. .s’II
VI ...st..*u. 1
1.I I
C! I
b I
III
II
ii
III
iii
Ii
1
‘I’
•i.
I
Si.
I
SI.
I
SI.
SI.
‘P
‘II
‘ia
‘Ii
‘ii
9’
9’
Si’
I
•l•
.iI
II.
.11
•I.
.il
I.
,.
I.
!I1
i$
II
II
,•
II’
!I’
‘I I
.1.
I
•I.
I
.1.
I
. 1.1
•ri
I I
‘1,1
! t
*111
‘Ill
‘Iii
‘IUU
•t’i
S
I
I
‘I’
!UIIUUU
I!!!P!IPUI
•.s maasp ..
• s .. . 5555 U5
/f kMA . ci JL # E
- - A 4S 1 ,L AD
‘. . ic iL. .
• Nf I• 4’. — - —
. .. l, EP4 . .&. 1 d 1 , 4 dL. - ---lJ
5 Ja& — ,sL ,
_‘4 ,‘ 4L qasi .p’
1#1.J.. 4 L SAm.. 4& f’
-ie.. Uii) Su f$.
— — —
4, •“ -AiL gJ-/ ,I&
- . ,.. ..e . . . J
I*S ! i — 1 - , 7? ‘S f. ..fi4lIClbl
.., -
a. .IAm— 5 ’• 4 ,
, ? . 2’ .S 5. ‘iL
t’r ‘ LJ’. 6 y.#. dI7
04, I ’,p S ,is# r-’
? ---1 .
S5*1* 4m m..LQm.smi 4s .5 a
- , . e s. 4. £ .
A Ie jL . + j
. ,s..4. e. — ( .i EP4 I 1 4 q g . & gL4
S
II1I!UIIII I
S 5 1a••• — II
p
I
I,
I!
h
•
i1 !flh 1 i 11111
-------
I
I
(j .t i. 44 f
#.-,
.. I v. ‘1.
rfl
MASSACHUSETIR
WATER R(SOURCE$
AUTHORITY
I
I
I
FiGURE 1.3.1
ECOMUENDED OUTFALL LOCATiON
(I.,tr. s.t.1 Pr.t U.s Is..sy
1r11 I , 10$ Pi.su. L1ai. h’.r.)
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF THE DEER
ISLAND WWTP DISCHARGE
I I $
j _ I _ I __ &
N*UflCM -
?h.j.m 4 4• D , 1 *I.r4. . 1
A.•.,4. 4J,4t7
-------
.L .
1 c ’ 7
: Nf’4 ‘3’
- __ 01A4 2
- 4?
J A
—
d& pA& 4,o4’ 4 .id4 e6-..a . ,A
‘ c441&m.4, / . 7Z .acA
d(/,4 4..
A+ /
‘ OiIYl4L ,m& c..4a * (aii chd).
‘ & 2 /72 (r- 9 ‘ ‘ ‘
d J-”. i”.
- - _( ?,ra L A L J.
..L 4 . .4€ , oa 4 v
464. - 4
° 1 ”r - .
A’ A.. 1 ’m..,
___ ,
44 - a —
- — -
/
44,#’
** u.id.
sp.4s m.. ,...
.04 ... .#.i4ss.ma
-------
•I (
FI$I%$ •Ø , .q ( ,
S I.
I. ft
LfurS 31. C t.4 .—L*ySf CLrci1stt Pstt.r . t
pkast My 1h taq V t $tr.& Lass Cos’slI
La tat • Gyr. — Io.tbwsst WLad ii 21 I Ot 5.
.. ‘S
C
‘Is .G_
J_v S -o.a
°.—
.
tj J
‘
vu 3 .u.
‘
“ ‘
LOW
4Is
“ ° \
o••
cut
3
tiqu. 21. C IstS Os.—LaySr Circ aL1o 1 Pstt•rv. I
akiii Isy — $o St! s; • tr.d at i Inoti.
-------
‘ s , I
.‘v (,iic
A d c
J en - &Lf. h....,- dA. LC1 .&m . +L
Aa t a A Lti ir b (.L .f s c&s —
4 L . — -4L #.
-( .-... -4k. d
-r 4 t. ‘B. 1 .A
o ssj•, .i.. k . d.a..._ jn’La i..,
4- ‘-(.. 13 4 *cA — -tL ...L. - - .
wi i1& oCo s. f T Lai 1
L—I 4 4/.
O’ 4 ti /L 4 i2 2-. &.
4. ._ iif ,4(/1L As.., i a.A.4..
1I 4I . . O ’E t1, y m - - - I ,‘. £‘.A.ii..#
(q _ . -
.,
‘ “ r--.- 4. ____
IPJAa’. -... ø.’
+ 4 Sa 4t.eii. . ..L. 4 i4. t
J. -# L, - L 4 .. 4 . MEP 4
C.——- - 1 ’L.. /L. .. — .‘6I
-iL j . j Jr.*. 4 b
. 14) .Pfl LC’ i. .t .q
EI 3 f P,.._ , AJ. ...4 MA oI o1.
.. h..t.SØ MPZ11 4 . 4 4 t
• €4. 41a4 L..* i .’.
7d Am
Ca.L. J , 1
Pt. .. - 1 A.t 4 . .m.. .a.. ...AI.
Vtq 32. C %S4 Partlet• Path f.i a I.l.ae• it
tha iv.apSe tt frIi flt Pliat Outfall —
iouthw.at W1,id at 20 Ifiots. .stdsncs
• ws .
-------
fl.Sj’
m9
‘I,
è 1 ab 1 ‘‘ 9 -
4I ...
.,._la •I ”1
‘T ’ t - .
, V. .. — ) t N i .—-- —
_. — ‘I . —
.4 %
41 1 — —
‘if,
‘., $1.._
‘.
, ..I.
t’-
4
4 4
I
•4 . —
..“
‘. :.“
S .’,
N.... ., flCVII &3.14. NAC . 1UOUL I PAUl. Afl AJ. PAU l
\ /71t- e4f .# #3eiJ
, s..
a __ i. ... . . .,_.._4 ,i. . •i. . , I F
-‘ 3.. I-.... öCi ..S.P b.1 1 1. F SyS
. - --— 1•
S j4_i.i . •1
p dI .;
._J. .*..
•1
‘ ..— .t
f,.. FM J,S’
..C. .i# s. o
J .....s- &.*.. C. •f ...i .. ‘ 3 y3 ...
-
— V.
—
•
-------
.. N4 . .s.iM
M...
R.s, I. ø if s .. • ________
4 f...b. — — • 4h si.a. . .
Za J i...r
s! I. if rsCii ’. .!..S a! s u— i=’i’
pr-l..
The Sapphire Necklace
i.s:s. s..n.. s.r .s
I,?ICJ
l..t t._____ t
sr., v.t.r I. ..bu.st1s
We tMu.t.. 0si,srsItp
.(.s 3eI .st
.t P . 1.1, s1, ui siges
Pulp fr . 1l.p, Ppu dsut (SW) øi-W3
u1Iha 3. ccCr.p, cc lb. lb. . 1 (SW) 311.1 121
S
S
—Sc.’
3
S
3
S
ri
Sc .S
I
S
S
fl . 3
‘a-
L:s
-4
f’s..
‘3...
:ss.s
a..,
IlLS
3. 5.3
Nil
IS.?
5 • 5
‘S.,
S.)
Sc..
.1. 5
N.,
“flu..
U.’
I,.. ,
a:..
‘I ..’
I . ...
u .s ’ s.,
S
‘
Sc..,
..1.S
S
I
I
I
I
S
S
S
I
S
3
S
3
S
I
S
I
ISI.b
S....
3
I
S
r. s
I? .5
U.,
I u1.3
SI..
SI,
‘S..
I
s1s..
• 1”•
I,
‘ N; . .
Sn..
‘3,..
.1.3
I. 1
112. 5
“3.3
‘SNiSIL Sc suaainSc w ant S
INi ScLSI flul ill’s? Ni U.
5 ___ — __ IS, I!,
.t S c m, !&.._._—1.I
&n, . ‘ st i. _ — ——ts .
‘L.Vs ‘s’.s%. lb. 11 lrs —. ‘sfS UttI .
- - I t SIr V I I I I. lb. Sc
-------
SWIM. Natiant Cilizens Committee or
Saler Water i Massachusetts
s ’s tausa1a.. _sdtp NIrt Id .tur, lust 1.1. 1, 0115.1, NI 01101
h _ l _ I I , e
*. P..1 L. , NIs..Ilvs NIrsot.,
NIuas*sa,11. Uslur luasses Ls$M ,$
01.ris.I Isup Tul
100 PInt Lv .. ..
10*0., II 02135
fusr 10.. loop,
Lot’• ta lbs 0100*00 U..Eisss —. ssto :11. NIp. Ml
NI.to. NIrlsr via to II . SIsr NIjØlro.
015 *al pssav lb. NIssil hulk.., NI.ks’ S Paul 7S1, 00 1
N, ,PsISr$ La. Ol . .t.l, .1.00 5 k.j pusru sIsal St his I I . ..
0I . .l.d 1.. lusI . 1 Lp.. 01_s 104,., 10s*ik.. prb spsl. UorId ’. hod is
0100... sal .I psi*o l Ist Isip 1.1.0,00 ., 10.1.. S I. .U11I 5l plus. to
U’..
is _s 5k. — a to .00. a NIpOl,.
h u h_i. .. sIrui* . I , .. Oisuss.Iur, NIv.rip , NIrb l.b..1 , 11 .. s .d 0115.1 —
pull lbs Soot.. U.,1 . 1.1usd. .— aol sat. NI_i I , Cobuus.t . Soltust.,
01r $.1l sul 01 . L.t’. N. .. lb. v$M 0k.t.d bud. L.1 ’. usku
01 I I. 01P1Ie 0 .1 1 1s . ,, v i i i 01.1.. U.rtor lb. St ., 3.p ir..
La 1015.1’. Vrups .s1 tsr t ,.ia.U .a St Ill. I, ..pi.isa UN, a
*01, St 31 1. 1 — ulus 001.. Ira. hiast s.d 0111 — is ..s . .ti . 1. Still to
is 5 rssr l — lbs 11.5 thai IN. SurlMsstsr. U00 . .r.i1, Ibrius lotusus
C . I. *l Ia ll• s_s St 111.1.
01105 flIsl 11. 10 1 ( 1) lust tsr 41.0 15 . 1. St irp .11 1 0 .00 ubus its
applls.Iio. tsr a 30 1( 1) usi .sr t = rp tr.s10ust uss t...d dust .. hid
35, I 103 • N, lbs NI ’lru..l ii 10etastiua £55557. Pus, Np uss.tdsrt . 1 001? lbs
sit. l Ist 0111.1 ssl sit.. 5151 ur.rss, Sal N v.41.1.. lb. ow? ., 3li• S
$510 I sal lit. 1 Sal 3 st us 57.’ IN. osip .5.0u 3*1. 3 ts .us.ld.r.d
SSI*SaI I. 151 ii is lbs 1001 St Sb. . .t,.,o aliss OdssIdsrsd. 1. N Sa
Is .. 15 151.1 sot to lbs NIh a. .._ .susll.us , S b.tIu . sit. sIus_id N.
00.01.1 1. ow,.. is.. .
S —, 00 5 St EM’s ti.01 s
1. 0110$ uss N. rus*0I W 00tp, vitbusi 5111.1 a.
Slatia., Sr No Ruse IslaM lussi. bust.a.i Psoility is 10111
about 11.1 11., lb.. I I psssotlp pl. . .ud.
S. t 011.1, 11 S. p0 5 . 1 .1. to buIld lbs usltafl 1._si
* *0*1_sr — at 3 50 1.51 151.. 3 . ,sl 15.15.1 St 110 lust ir
Is., . . 1 0 .us 01. , IslaM aM lbs sit. .us pr.ps..4 lairs is a da.p
Lb. _ h toss . 1 *1 . 1 015 Is a ’utNId 15 lbs dlr.o1$us St $1101.
MDI 1oP . 5 1L .,p ,NIu.t t4,IgI
3. PpoI tol It.$ , Sbsl*ftbusrvi l l s..l.. 1 dfl.t.t..
s ,sr s dupib . 1 ISO lust, us ocupsrul to.. . ..r . dsptb c i 50 1.
ISO ts.l s I lbs so . ._s Isi.s . _sIdu,sd b SM 005*.
N. 1,551.110 111.0, lbS s .1I.i1. Isusli vilbia *1.0.11.1
011.. Ist.raMMt. 01t — lb. 00p 001. i.p.e — ust Just is s
5005 W$15 5ii SI ill .
5. Sota Ill. 0.5 M l 1*1.5 vs d.pMlhI_sii ussr Sit. S 510.1$0
perusal St lb. 1011.. ii s.01 0 0s 1 tolusus .54 S. lop .1 0*1 1...
0. I I. rs....u sos still ._iil 1 . , lbs 3 51(b) 4.0051 c i p . 0 00 0 000 So
dia*0rgO pelrp Stlius.1 at 011. 3 1 . a 1S.s .p..r ps , 1.I.
5 • bk.01 lbs ustIsli sIll 10 us Ip I psr...t St I I. 00001,5511..
So.ts sal tI* ash ussI p unuou 1. Ii. . 4151,1.1 510.1 $1.33 a pusr
s our a. tI .ys.r purtOd, s 1.1 .1 .1 ,I35 5 susI.
lbs s.tt.1$ sill Isal s suits., sr u. *1 s ustlast flu. s_s.
tr.sN...t p1 5.1., I I usub 5us . 1 s IrustousI p1.00 is r— to Isv. 5 useful
III. .1 20 psans, Ii. ls.1. ps , 1ul .1 lb. p.os.d Du.r I.I.M pl..t. If 557
0.5 St lb... p 1 0 01. 10. 00.1_s_s 55.b1, sr 1. sot . l.tM Os subsIst.,
ur us_si trust .us. . 1 IN. k.1.so . .1 . 1 out .1 lbs .p.t.., lb 00i1Iou.1
0111.11 i. eI 0011 rS Sbus p., rur hash is IvsusSai pulustius.
Purtb.aslsrs ls pla.51. its 11.. 14 1_sI .1111 . INs_st 1.. des.
0.. Our ..i.oI&fl. .ad 1ucbuios 00tl.. usst V I II p.. sal I I. Ss.rd St
Dlrsotsrs socs uftsr Sb. 11.5 15 ha_s. our 11511.55 •ud uhus _ 115
pbot . . talus us lb. d lv.?
Th0* p.. our, .501 tsr 1 ,1 . 1 I1 p. ONIurlMltp to ussst I I I.
p0spo..i tsr . ,sIa.lI.. .1 $11.1 I. p... Vs bsps pus viii 1.5004. , II
car.tUilp, sal i1 pOst_s true o Is.w5 554 .000011.1. uNo IrS 0 0I1
opsus.ts ..r : _ls.1 lb. pussul p1... Vs 511.1 IMI 11 do, S
lufusuetlos viii stood I , 11..lf.
Lot’s i_s. a ksp ills lISt St PpsI .rtsk La. 0100.1 — a NIpØIr.
P.*I.us to 00.1 51 . rs3l 01*1.0.. mt’s S_s 553* tus Sbrbur MD
ho NIp.
NI.us,slp .,
_#y L* .thp
Po1l 0,sd luy, lr . .Idu.t
.t 0115, Ia.oipa.1
-------
I
in u.nm
in lVlLIlTin e Ni?II — Pin NU.Ni PUUI PM? in NiLL
1L .
Su1 t.tt.p t. 1 Lap f,
b, Sun,
I ...... .—. .1 I tISiaU Nil ij
b, l.,t. 1M.L1
butt.1i 4-.ji t S 0..... .it
ir Dr. NiStai P.
Su .ut u.d , 3• Nr ......... . 15
b, Dr. V1 1U I. .s
1 ..t. st — .t Nitu 5. . . ... .. . . ., . 1
tlt1. Ni.. S —
ata 1. lbs ?.StSt..l i.ap Drap, Sussuti,. OPtiss
st lroit ft Iffuip. . by Pr. IssuSti P. Pri.SS
Sua.-,is frsu rop . rt, - tlM1 lsue , I,
1sb, . D. ViSusi, SuD5 Ibolotut , •ui Sut Dr . ..
Suit Sul.s iut.l1.i. Sui.r. ..
Nil.. 1.ts. sll.t, Vita (_ ...i . ipt ..rp1 )
by Dr. Jo. P. Visu..
501 (b) V i i ’ s . . •
by Sun, Dr .ll.y
Pi .N — Ni V i, I —
IPI DsStuilu Su,...t bu t Vistas 50 1 ( 1) ,sr
II 1 . s•s , , . ....
W NiStss1 4. m _ _ . , .
— __ .
i 15.1. J•.. _ p — ViL. _ ilss
P1t1 PrSJ i, Nits
by Sutat Vi . rStl..
N Vi. ,st . ........... . ,•• ...,. .00
t ta trJ____:...... • I I
Vi ’sutI .si Sue..... .,,
Nip of Nit.S (Pip. I) ..,.
Osuississi Sup Visto. s, —ut.tts (Pig. 51 .1$
k*4.b Su 11.. (Pig. 5)
Vistis. 1 — 5 (PIg. 0) .1.
Visits. 1.4 (PIg.
Vi.t p .r Nil. a. Vitfafl sVitb . lutZ. I) . i
Via.to.stl.. t. usi ui,js. (iSti. 05.51
Sust Sur bts.Il its ?..1 is Itt.0 (?.bi. C) . g
Pi..t.l e sti
I. p.pt it I . _ ViiStr & .
Ii. roeuii.o ,j... it L _ U1StPS1..%
U I. Z.o.ss su 0..... , .
IP• butt Virol..
V. butsu —— —__ua . .
-------
S
NCPOIM. - D .UTI W ii ta
(situ
miss e. s p u,...i w ibs u .n ss taM .sa SI. i
ts i• E Sis Miss IM us.sisurui. U e_S, S 1311 155 , bufli sue_Ms
l US. 3 I. ssSMusii, ssuspS.b1i. U5s3 . *m Ii SI. lirt Issi s$i
IP.. mu. s. d ., su.MIusUus. p’sit SM dsMsd a El ’s ., .. ’ usa ,., tsr
— us us usttufl tw pt SrssSM flust. Ils lUll pta.. I. lii. 5.3
sr I fur SM pupsai fur s fl .sr SM urss u y Srus e _Si pe_i
is SM .usisI. e_ usa Situ Is d.us SM Sis usSu Uiy sta ,da s’s
11$SSI S. susi tuMu m —R Is sSMsisl Si SI... i.SMtuus? I .
s113i11 Mi., fu.4 1m SM II SI. M ba psit.usip r.J..tM is SI. u.S
Is usSMdsisl Ia r SI pSM s s tIsS I.e_us Iaai Miss SM s
e_ 515 pe_issi fur ussSI all 4iuIa.
Is MS., e_SsUsulp I UVIM as UiS, Is a us.. suss Mus Mis.
Isil M SM 5111. Ui• a Eu . 1 a SMVIMSM SIss .. . . & $1t• 5.3
SMI S Isis usI.isaiIsiif tfusS SMSSIss. Utas 5.5 s.d 3 are 5i1
MMise. MP 1 3rIlsui . i.usU u 5551 at — .__ d.pSb Isis... 30 .M
30 f. M Isis. — lush 51 us 5.51 utSMa 515 — IdlaM W SI,
— ‘SI us usM . . .k.U ,s l.s.SI fur l.S.t.r4ap SIq us 1u
SM_S s.sIl - - Its SI rs.usSl..al suuI. Shun SM fl*_._.sp Slup boil
MU Is SMJuM 5. f .ut 515 flS pius aM Slq us psSsblp still
uUIIu 515 , Ud.1 dfsma SM l.usl * v.Ms (515 PSi . ’. I).
13155, MIM 15 1 MIss Var5 lur Ii . . I..’ (sluM ill. Ilis I, 555 qsti.
13tfw ,sMsrtuUss. Ii tat. us —— .151 SM.’ lupibs rs iss us ISO
is VS fusi I sis. isusi. ThIs 5 1 ,51 . 111 pull. uisS..Usl lp use
iti.u.. s.d Md1, ii . MIlusi s.d 515 (sus 5 ? IMU I 0 11 . 11 .. ussid b.
U pursusi “ Is 11i . ’ 51 Si ills 5.3 Sal 3. lbs *ss..s l• d ’ sII
via Is,. S 5.1.5.51155 i .st Is Iausss1 13i.Uus 11515,5, MIsI viii Is
,up I rtaat Is ussSI Is . ., utal SM -_ utisris.
iS S usual us buss SI. budur SIs e _ 515 Isy 15r30 .ssals
5IIss ISUSU pii , usld 115.5.5 SM3. lbs butts. ii hisS uvid I.
vIIII• 515 ssl51r 51Iu iitsr13sis SItu, 15.155 ala Ispil I.hu33 IS ISO
rust, MIsI usi S busp —. 55 515 plus is 515 .s uslu SM S. - s.,..-S ii
full.’ frus slurs. _- 5I 51. plus MIsI .111 ssfaus .151 p55.Ily
us. ussIlsssisrtp 1551., tIss Is 1551.15usd W 11511 Misses. 1315 5 1d
r Mrs a i l .ppsMSMslp a Miss ls .p SI.. 135.3, SM II
r Mr.s hu.sl spprsshut.Ipl Ml . . .riu. I hui is iii . S I. I Miss
I. II. se_i d1r .sus., sst rsIp - - II Is i , 5.5 - - Ii Is
SMsIaaUsIip IsiS . ’.
Thus Is,. bus. s.,u,sl ?lausMal s.....—Ss full t . .t uuaiitsp
mis a. ss.. thus us pet 1. is.t II. susan psj .ut l si us II .
rsptuu, SI. sass Is 5 asp I . 511 I i. lbs .5.5 55 III .lUUsSM bus Miss
I.e_us mi. s.d S Is se_s a p.usai lbs , ... .i _ ..J y I Ssue_si
PsM lIIIus Pius.
lbs sass. 111 is iii . a . .st. I. —— It else se aslays
- I 5$ sMSsIls is.tts. Is —i . 51.5 usut I. 51Msl.
Isl u s V (1315.5.5 SIStsll) status us • 3.13 5151 515 lUll is
usustrsstisp .5 s.StsU S. ust 5.55. a _ Sp fur a us e _p.•
I.—.— . • ii. pl . .M prIM SI. Puur (slaM Wssis..i PS.IUty Is
usip e_ai pus. lbs usSVS I I alIt l$ 1 5.1 1 r 515$ 515 s s SrusisSM
p 5 5 .1. SM Slus Is psIl vii i 5.155.1.11, si r.’luslsp SI. pls.l. SM
svitali Si Ut. S ussil M V . ’ lbs furtI aM 51.51 51 . ’ .. a tie fuses. bur
1.15.5. psiusilss fur SI. sut ssst . ’p.
-------
I
flu —.M.Uis uI.1s fur thus C I isuutiistat rut.
F... — W S fist , fur CM 14 IN’tth. lisru Lu lilt ). .,S lluiL.
s .t .itats.1 i u . . us ..e .s thu w,s ie 1 sUit v i i i is
f l sl. thu rusts if CM sutfihl. if C. .l .y th lsuurui. C. Isis I rsthur
this r1 bØlU i s, this rue. issid is i sis. thisu 1.3 3 s... ii.
susil iituru.s% thu uis.ts. lii ,. viii is bitt is ursus
item itii r.viru it i s i s .._._..U.sui his sutsut if li i ..
s.uuu I. aut is.us. ft issid is pruthul I. s,slsis a thffurs.I busdi suit
ii li i aii.s lbs i.silitssi uisths.
thsu thi.$ Lu ____ g1 is lb. sthsp uitsu, thi . iisur1 s.sis.iisu
itave. ratissi at luist th. i.,sl if iis. ty is thu isis is thu
tethis is fur. 1 _ l•, is .ppsviu.. t. s .siisei this 5 ii - is..
0.15 that S .isUss d th r vi Is. Is lbs iu sr is ti. Ibis
IS kuu is thu StmCM isul is pi at fur ths sthur vituu.
flu lUll iti 1I isulsut. sUl vista is ,uviruI Is prs,iIs V. 5th flis fur
this S. flu L.....tl PI . I ul fsuiiIhiiS lays S PrOlS.. ..5 sluI
sis,stisu S t Ill lU C• u iIu thu Jur Us if Isis 1.15.1 Lu at
slaysUis he. U r. U thu fsviu iiI.u _ i.st.5 at u biur .is,uttsu
lbs isri vih• pi pslLsu susts std is iLl , itils prs,idilU
p’u,itp flis Is thuS.
hisS mush is sl i su . 1 fur thu fluatwitif if sU ihlpii i
4ft., i t iit issil russ. sistrustlis Us. sal ..st. Is thu p.........l issdl
tsu this $3 u . 13, Its,. a luiru. SUit ussil is usul fur a ussud
NUll, is IsI..p.Iilsu I lsIsist ast i s ltsth,d IsIs.. ulfu ill fsst is
thu uses.) •lssetlua.
a..... itd’t. It is Iu iusud isisirvutisa is udt lpl. iuati
ubus p.5. 1 11., 1. ,.ulu.u . .isl Usu Us.. his, thu sillaip I• isis ship).
thu buuu?it if ailislis sullipis .sudr.utt.u tu. Ishuspi.
s.udr .uU .u trsstu ass p.uIls a isles bulls, sil i sis ud us..
asisissuti.. Is. ud iStiuU.s r.ushtis, Is u sll.r saisirusils. isut. flu
buudls, I. the.. fris isur Isisul pssu if thu thas.s. Ibiu isilustlis St
isa a C i.iuufu la,s lbs putsutlal fur ius.Ii s , S uus. . 1 uuuuuu itif I.
lbs.. ars a fas hI itlit sq priss fs..ibis. I is —
iuM.shl, isbus, is that 311.5 r.us I,s thu Isisi St Nud r.ti.s is thu
othur sit.u is twatsiq thu i l...tls. fur thu usItsil.
-------
Is
W*U. ETiSaU IT LI1UI 6
s, . .i P.
lbs ps...Uy rss .4 p1.. tsr . . z sU .u s d lbs 5.tf.1 1 f % 5
UI S.. . IaIs.d f..ilily 511• tsrs lOO-f..t .p u.s.. .tl . • lr_ssrl
1.. 1 up Is .3 Miss sub lbs f1 ..1 1.33 Ml.. s .stsi.iup S. t1lM
ri.... sub Mi UpsrlM 3*If sr sup.. II p _sl lbs Miy .rg L. . 1t
sssMdsrlmg stlss f.rtbsr - ws rMsIM 1 ssM aM i sriag 11.11 .11s
lbs as*l t1 lbs sdfi_sl.
lbs ...sl sss( sr ts i t 3*ls 6. tsr 1s s_s tr a
1Ijss lb..s sr _ssIs. l ia lbs _sl lbs suU&l1 is sttss
•Isl I. Is .mip ss.t1y Mss U sMidaM S.l iMp 035 MiLl.. tsr lbs
l . ..M srt..auss but sias r Mrs a staUss _sU. S. MIlti_si $135
Mill... lb... sr ssls - u .s lb . s1Uup . L a . • .1 . .slp
.ruUalaM. lbs fIr.l q..sl1 Is M sss Is s1bsr a MiIp fl seldall
1.3*1.6 IMsM is Mi bI...b1s. Tb. Mi. p —.t tsr lbs s’ttp tl Is
lbs s1s,st.ts M lbs m . . ry sdTl_st diamsrs p51.1 .1 131 S. S. Ibis
seer..p..ia t 16 tsst .ba.s _s 1 . .si. This ...i)Mis haM Is SIaMNIM W
fri.ll.s.i 1.s . .. lbs sdtlst 1_s lIs . lbs istS11. I. a.aiysus
lbs _ sps sts lbs buM 1_s _s tMt _s pss st 51 lbs 1_s s Is
lbs _sas tI, M psr . .M .. s 1. lbs 3*tfa.sr . aM 35 p.r . .st _s_s Is
lbs t.rm.p.rt l l • 3*_s lbs 1_s.s 1• lbs t,a i... I 1._si .r d1r t17
s,srlI..a1 1. lb. l 1 1. tb, lbs 1a. as 1• lbs bssd r 51r . tsr.
rsvllp fl Is *11.6 valIse t Ills, Is U%dIr 11p MaIM 1. lbs all.
41a1ss s tv.. S... Iaiaad. Ibis Mdsd haM Ibus ss. • ..M . Is a lit jase.S.s
Ia 51 lbs srtjIMi s1s,.lI . . d1ftsr — 1.. test.
— -_
‘4. S I
51 Ills $ (?t. 1)
-------
I i
Ii
Us lull .iss’ s1t tlass hi Us as..t.uli 5. fl.s .t
— status m is ,ssti.sll stat is hi is i.li... — tissot St
aslasisi ttsiI. s11.ti,s 1 1 hi hi it 1 ‘5155 115 i i sr , s.d
: _ r pisut .1susU S 1.1 fast. lbs i.. ss.sd s1., .tlss is astirslp
pusithis as1 ils f lbs t1 ,usllw sIll t hi dlsp.i.d & 15
- s ,wt. lbs ssi itr ts wail Is to all 5 . .dll 11.5.1
II fist .d Isal wp.aitp to lbs 1.1st 51.11.55. lluss li ii Is
• llfiistu is. aipu tar a . 1. 1 1 w sireslt p1.isal. is
...d status assi hi astraitsi.
Us lp ast Ia.. ____ s psistal to lbs sttsI i st ss to litst wail hi
lbs . dllU.wI wit d sl1ll — $0 alias far s tuasi his ails. le is to
isis 1. lbs Iss uls to hi Isriral f this t a - las 1° lbs
isuasasI laitual hIatus few is ls.p.r hilUsse 1. . ,sih Iis lbs basil
1• Us 1 _ _ * s ,s hits I is Is. is lbs L.k&.h wail. hi. VUZUs I.
lass.
lutist. iuuuu. us
W hi. P1 1 1 1w U. ba
01511 lbs , _ ..ta ai’ lbs pisasal lull is.p.s1 sputa, alp thi
tuuasi(.) s.d hitfl.., sill hi assUstus far repsir, ,sa,.t ls . , is
,.pl:: sass pisal 1. asivIas. it ii stIll, tbis aa, lIst tbsp hi
popsely l.sipu.l s.d isat,astsl is lb. first p15w.
lbs lItbsl . ,y sal st,u.tws d Us Lk.I hsasis tail.. bs4sr s.d
Uss. .stts hi ,, issluhill lbs . j _ I _ I tasi U.. s.d lInus , sit.., see
S.auUslIr _ sa..... k.. . _ • it .__.._..bI hi _ _ ...i lIst lb. . dIl.t..s
cast.ihg. bullies) s.d .uii sutlaursis ll _ l _ . ta Iasst5) I II
1 15w lbs histss bat. astal s .,d fir as hislaus 1.1 .1 Iisst hi
lbs V.11 • tahiM 11.5. l sw1 ..i llss1 sas lL.. ..ttp s.d
5 . lIa.liS, 1.55 st 51, VI) pus as 1. 1151155 wjw 1ltbs2 s ilsu.
fir sI 1as.t ba silas u ___ I f, bar I.1..l.
01 s I rtasss Is 1 5l asasastuas isis rail tpus, L __ _ . . Us
wise al .pssi it fls.t is Us rail, .1.5. lbsp i.ts .5.5 it
ssl il.aa al psalhls asts’ litultratus. lss1 s appi it Us
bi il is s . d se lbs hi.t.. s (llhI1 ., as ills), sal. ,.
lbassluatta (hiPeil St St. IV ?) . s ba (lisa, lilt). al etbas Is
. 5. 5 w. IbausasIssutia Ia his lhIp twlt.l t.rrass. Pass stIlls a pus
pusial. alt, s.c. ri ispulilt., Us rail sill asrtsisl , al hi
— hit 11*1.1 vhs lissastisitUis is Us at hihhh puss,
hitss, JSi•ta. trsstis . Irssts’a 55.55. hi. 1..,s sal.. it I . b 1 1 ,
libsip Ust tuasU sill __ . __ 11tfari liissl is s.ll, It at
Isre., twit.. aswtre s.tlaipsUs it Ibiss fls5wss is asastisi.
-------
I I
It
Ito i. U it to. SPI$ U . s it tssIi Ss . ssi4 his Dsw isissi to
PSI to Is ssis.tsl tfssur d l i Vi ii rs d,. i.I..si,. imes *iiU
si to’s to is , ..U...I si is rsisus Is ssissl dirfls sit ii luN,i — —I .PitSP. I.4.• • I •• 1W?. P 51IVi . sI
islios it ii.
, . s ., . ,. mi., fl Isi.s . . 0.1 .1. Isk _ I 0ss1 it to. I toss it tIs Inst.. 1 sst.
s.trtis 5 t I Uas . 0.15 diS Ni S 5tVi 55 Sislisi
-
ti s i it f1 s S it 0.3. 0.d .si Inp W-1503 (0i i. ssi 1 . 1*. it - toyS. Pr.p4st.
toy, P S ), s U s i it itivi is stt.viSi, vim. 1 _ toul t.psWsp
itiI* ss i - ssspisi..I Isi ss, up.s*Ilsiuly its trsivi - , IL • 1511. IIb....I 0ssi it I I. to .. his hiss. r-tes .
(sUNivi) .1.553 Issiy SI. ZIP.. isuilsi, lIst 11.55 053 . 151555 INwu1• 0.3. tos1.sr I lst ad...
fists... rushy fN, is1 udUish —. usyissi T. • I I.
r.1 .tivsip , SI . , .__ L SI. p.dUus it U.trt. fshl. it .511
tous is itfto.s sshusS• — is too i4. I I.i è 1..s his to w •
to .311w sit. S wI _______ •
sISait53). Ths .si . .I it isul SN’, viii to 51.53 tIs U.s £4 .53 W— 1 5 13 .
to. isssi s1 hiss 1—S. a t i tussi . 1—3.4, 53ns.tags .1 to.
r.stsh I s O . 115 totsI hi.Sssss it 14 w ip lIst it 14.
53•• tSsi . 5 515 Sisi it sslii i s O i.i __ s _ rp fur iussl
isI itp, 5 I1 — his 14 viii . 5 ssssss uSf s s s ii i slilp 110
rsse viii. lIst fur has 14 si.14 to sp l.up 350 fsst 1.1.. . s..
N, 1suS1 5 ffSr — it visit 00 fist.
togsif3 t rsSiIusl PSUE 5515.5 is isI ssU5I . .ty , 1.1 . sr l, 1.51153 15
— a-.— 3 it is1sh53 _ Is i s. 553 sSshS — ... _ .d . is lOs Ip
St s it t hi Ld to , ..f J . by I..i3 it r.I
1 1wss at a sI S. to isI 553 15 1111.153 1. litturs. ... 1 Is
.wrtsI sit. Is sislistiss it s i tsOs rilE visiul to otoMusi frsi 5 o stsst
. 5w -.
-------
, k.t Rsr r SM asIuaitIa Isj ( tg. 1)
-------
SECTION A Ftg.*)
II
a
bs4r k prot it
Mo,,;onfa/ co4 /:/Z5O00
Ve e,ca/ ocbAe 1’ — in
11 r ’
‘,jf
a1I ;
Li iji
zL !aE
U ’
0
I
IL
? .
•a
i
;‘: I
! Ij
S
.1
I
—
:•
I
,I (i
.
JIi ;
!
i I
h,
!
1
ii
;
z
I
1
*
g
.
I;
1.
j
Ii
;
f
:
‘
gI
‘
!
*
1
I
,rt j
5ECTtON A-6c1ts.3)
-I
-------
te sus Th1 3 (sutfuil uttia)
Tut ?s us1 IIiUur Irs.p _________
Th__ tt. busuti’. ftus it L ___ islul 1 1 1 1 1 ’s
OPus, E stI P. Thlsus (? s )
1usus .ut
thuS.t.u Isjrirsit . t U I SIlOS
Mt.s 1.3 3 .__ -- -1im it ss ast feud ss.sptabl. us
ssitfl t usttsU d i. W II. UIII’s su.it .utS. £11 sTh diul —.
uuuduMI ts sbus tu st.. sOS __ . __ ptdts , iss1 UI W. I, . 51st
•puu S 1. tu S pudtisSsi . Tut, di. 5.3 tu .sl ION rust t thur
its. a. . a at. S as aria., susti d1 s st Situ ’s Sits
5.3 t. tI. ____ ui . Nest a. Thu ut Itutsut dis utuN.I. a..
th ii - - sirusly t.su .‘.Justd sss dt ia S p1V .uttIiI us
IS Thu eniI.tisu fee S This., it $ p I PsuThust ( liii ).
I i... .J ast us t. .. us Pius, f Thu p __ ud stu , it Thu
p.tUui su.itit. it a.ta as a. .uusi i asau , sut jut. Thittu
Thy. Thu t ud 1d tIus Thu ts ti laNustus test 011.3 1. Just
us Thu t. Isiass its I a. Ubily I ausul . 5situs r , ud its
ititia.s r t.uu lullussusi wia.1lP ip it. — . .Ms it Its. flta .
Nest sbus _,. .___ W Just Saul, duss ts Iu’s u ary NffIr. i
tstia ust en.. st IS .ul IS ts N lust thist St this SudS. vest
l Is tbs Isudtt it sustith its .uU sli anus., .psd ulitis s $040
lust uuur Istt 1 it till eutitl a ituda tud 1. udrsis Its .tfi.SSt
$ I. S rust imtust ud Is 1st It ass Jf .11515 iS. Iu u , iuyu ’.
uu _ i its tudias. _II.dtS t tartØtusths
ass. ia NtfI.1 flus r as, I 11.1 It Is..,ti,. ttst 115
I .
an __ studs. p_,1 011.3 1. St Isust d l. it.thw ust, t.s
.11.. u . , 51 5 tb it 110 lust a .sl.r. 151. uid Is usIsIaltully
1Ii?u.s.1 tis. as d l. sirudy ut.itSI sul add i mpI*S as pu bi.
Isudit. .1 lbs uldud dilutIsu, st,uIiilalIus. sd Istt.r psultIus p.1 .11.. 15
..a.ls. U ad a utuly stas dusl dud Issuti I, ud ustutudlul aIrs
.ust, 151. usulI , .USuts Nts a. Its sp puUt5 . 5d.u. L _ . _ . • It usutu
.. usly 1__ a__tab ly 51.5.. but Niutis. sul I. . t buimlIta u’s s.t,
Its laths. ults studS Is stuuss .
ases.s , it. result, I sbus strs 1p . .. _ .at asi. p _ . _ Jui usdt .riUI
pa.. — Is pull. plus. Ia.N.tat,, lusluliN Thu — _ . _ i _ I Steau sOS di . . *
1. usa..1 dius tu suit uuspa. ares,,... II,.. as Iitu.at a.Istt lIty
is lisIsSisal 5.5 s1.s1 , It 15 L-a—1y enNtimt 15 bus. S
buuslIs. ips. . 51.5 t. ___ ...a I i i . .-,. . study .1 butts. dim Is
ad ad 11. pad suttall as. usuld Is sailed ad Ida’. 15. suttall
ssU s. 151. iu Just bursl, 1s uu fu’ duats imullus Suts. I
a.. Is. pear utul , j.st Idu’s as eulf Sn us I.e. us,,ius luesI
OSut.. I bugs ast, bu us pat it us SI1 r- — sits —.
ISIS Isusilus study u .s enis 1s IllS. Sad, it us sIturusts ss sfl dl. I v.
it 011.3 susId, 1. fast. sbus uuu s us put it 1 515 bussitus If
3 vu’s Is Is ultimtsty s.d.
ii.ttL.ia . 5ia — Th1J I IH MtIII
e. a fathur St.., it it. an ud 011.3, ad S ILit.. - dPi I dim
. . ... .a.1 , itusId Is a __ I _ ltd lNutdy Is fatia . 5anta4ss Its a.. Is
tu it butt., typss, t.Pu up . imtSiS spudu. Sd pusultis aslus
a’tItu.tu lusluliug itipursubu (p. 54). 15. dutailud study add Is 5
sail Iris Nt. 0.3 Iss sits I d l .. . .N s i Nt . ,.
II
-------
a
31 _ 5—13. lbs r $ .1.1.. $311 lb. $3311 8slS . 1 . 1-3 31 .1
StI 1sS. ml s $1 W4 m l Stfl .1 pl Cr31 311.5 1.3—5 ..sr 311.
Ii S 31 U 1 . I. I lisI VI31 CSItMr L31 31lI
ss,urVI $31.1 syslls.
3. 31 5.1,. lbs i I .s% tbst . ...I 5 ry .115 1.ptb c.rd1 to
* s5 st ss. 311511 ussl Ii — Stfl.t di1.Uls II I s. ,lr%
. ....—Up lasS lbs 11 Ii I . .. .. . ._ .ts susS 1q . .i s t31 s 41a ius1
I. mlls 10UU31$ fl r iass , i11 (p. 1—10) .115 usI, . 11 .5 IS. 3,
.11 3.3 Ii lbs ssusst (ls t11.fly-1 1t .I) flsu. U. _ . . . • 3115 5 Is 1.
lbs .5.5.5 r su St U3111 1tsl f1 . I I . . 1tp St $11. I 3. 5
$ I Iius1ss ml fills 5.3 3 s rssllp 31rVI7 lit. II . pusrsI
dr . .l.tlsu s al ml . ...sSass L- ...,... I suall .sVIIp 311 lbs
St11t pi ls s S (at. m uI.up.d t.l flsu , . ..
. lbs 31 . .ssl1 .s lupib at 3111 I (p. Sal) —. t 1.11 13 S al . V.
siaauusla t st. . — t01lI fis.sutltp — — us 30 ., sS1sS I
supsst ssI. . 11. ullb lbs ppsusslml. Th.StuiS, lbs 101t lupir St 31113
__ Is s .1i S 15. us$15. 31.p 1315 Is Is Ulils . .t ,s1 .% ulIssi 5. lb.
pl . I lsups, .111 . 111 buss S L IbI bstl Isiur St ..14 (Isa.
Iat.sllals 31I (...S1l7 sIsu 30-IS . 1.1310.1? St 311..), siIsS s1 1
lbs p1 3111. (p. 5—13) 1.1 I I StIsS 1 55. V1 1IsS 311.5
___ . _ S (p. S-fl) *Iua . lbs up tir lupur IS _ iI . us .511,1.5. 1 is.
13115 StflbI5. (a 15lIrsS Is.
I. Psi r.siIus1 t ,s.. i (p. S-Il) usa lsi. .1.sI 1.ssu. 1.u,4 lbs losI
siarsIlus (Ip à’o us 31$a). lb1L slts s sf .rv.I 19 1 ts spplp 1.
.11 .11.. — .sSas a . 1hursU St S lirIbur ills wrp tupsrt..t. II . .,
sI Psl 1. 131.UI1sl 55 a ‘ru4 1sl1. 5.115 .1up 1111 I I lb.
Stflusat .s L. al ft 311.. 5.5 loS, II sill stup 1. 1311 rsglcs Is. a
..1d .b1s psrl.l.
I • —,— i11 . psttIsl fislaIsius vhs dupIb, psI M fh. ..t . -
still sosurs at 30 S ( f it.s 5. 5, 5, p. S-la). sps.VIaa ste lsr1.rlias
.111 u Ssr. lb. p1 315 Is 151, L.a _ id 1• UbsIp 11 r.listrtIsts
c.t1.l i—ts Is I s .s.l 31 rs Soup s .11.S1 lilup .VI 11.551
srsus. all is lirthir StIlbs,s .111 Is ’. lbs 15.51 11p50a 511 V55 t
1155111.5 .1 df s ‘—I L _ — . 1.
S. 31ygu. l.p1sU is dIssstd (p. 5—11). psI s— 1 1l1 . . sspsuS
. ..ssotisl1.s slrs.lp .rs Is I s u l IP . 1 11P, 31111 IS rU 1 5 S5.U
St Ibis siu . 15 . 1. Isuliup .s lbs Is Itsuuill ssrtsislp lsaa J
.sy a 1h.a .11 1 . , p5,111. St 131 317315 sssssatrslI s u 51 51155 55.?
l Os 31*1.11.
I. lb ustrisut .s. tsU .lrsp as. Ia 31 - (p. 1—al) ssi
u.sI1p Is SIJS31St 311.1 V.p. 31flusst dl&* .. . Cr.. hOur susS
s. lb. Lp — t --It trssOusVI Issis sill ll . lbs StIssi it
. 51r1 5t. fP lbs . .tt.11 . 5 lbs .5155555 5I ‘‘ 35
311.1 31p Os. 1 lss as 1 5rul 1. tsl.V, I ___ _ . .
IS. •PtsSsrs sills IsIs s 311. 31355119 15 ‘ 1S US$113115 .11555*
. .sr... . I’.S•i• (p. S-iS). ‘1 5. (31*5.. itfubIrl II. . .$f . 1l 1., lbs s
-------
ii
I
a. _ g __ ,iii is t_s. .,tsi t .ss.t.i ._ __ .
(p. S-N). 1is Wfi. e. _ u.s . tsss i s is i s.t is outfall dt•
.sl_Ik (p. t4) lads isis fes. as ,u t isppsrt is. II . . tist 811 ..
I, !. Jist iss_ip 1St a. uIt NS , ist is ii, s .s fris
s. Nts U.S is isip NN fist f_s Nts S — ats I. ii,oee rust f_s
thtsS. IS. MSssr vat is eo fist isi, I hiss . ‘. isst .f is. 5.5
l.,tsSis U.S —, — _s 1s11. ISsrs assil U. .oulp.ts si a sits
tad 15 si_sip ad si as U4.ilp.isiuoisSsI — st _ a us...
II. ,USi• . 5 — i ftl_Irst s . ast at.. u. s s sot si_sip is a att t
PP.5 its sisas dtsS. Up ‘s_I s. sf iJsa. _ a ssdi...tatis’ Nt. 53
iS r 5t 5 1 _ 3. 5 srS, psi lotS 3.5 silS .t aI. sill_st sr_s v.11
S. rust. lads lots ad 5555 s_Ip.d (p4a5, 5, I,s) tsr adds. PIN,
s ais Mu..
Up svo1 sS i urlsst lstltst• MusS S d 3.5 we isttw
its. S.,, I.e Up iitv is p’stad issal — _ fris — i , —. —S siri us 5 di S
hid —I, ‘issi’. 81_si? S furiss sits stuuld is stud ass .s. rtss..
1881? ? ThIL 188181?
(bssrpe. f_s N.ft lspsrt 1. sal s., Ostd.r I, $ 51i
Nri .s Ieol.p ad Vstsr I1tp P1 1 14 SislI i u t isttaIl S1tl
Ds.r 1usd z, .4arp WsStissl PsolhlUss Plo .)
b t tSP. isisis ad SouP. lit_s. NrtS_stwe NI ,srstty
Sal Nosy NiioIsS Sal isisy Nouu, 18115115 O 5 Sdsis
S.. Uiss ou
Orsj ssisrtstiou
is _ __ j, , its stall_sr ( tIou ___ t 0, Nis 3.5) its los trssts
stusi ss.grl_s a u.p it spsMou foul i’, as i o u i.t ti4ai Is
spsrouloutdp 80 u i• s_stat tmta, ad 5 ssssd ‘_s it p.5 155 t I .
lsspsr soils, isbitats uS . its Suit it Ni ... ISis wes . jp.s is los
oud.rat.lp _Itstls Usbitat ts r 155 1.515 ,5 ps.i is silt ?S555$
it alas . .,, a a or St isr iouwt ts pulslirs oil is PM _ s I d Up
.5,5.1 sp.alsat isttus-**lI1 sr istt fadi fist.
a. ads lu _ sail U (Nia 5)is INst $ 5 Naps is. Ti __ autO tNis
3.53 sal soadses St. isp. n.e p1st. it palbis Iatwsp.rssl vii i patINs it
. .tt .u_st (ad, sad) vith . is ii _stisil tasll.rs....ls rUsS
is its stall_sr a,.., ella s _ s ad to_s adils .psatoi, ad ti_s
_ ..s _ .. l is iss 15.siuIss....
5 5 5
...lls sdlitisssi S s lopti (lot ,... lit. 3. 5 Sd his 5) ast its
5.ttou f I is s it us t_s.r.is. is as w, slit 5 Il.ti.st
Its_si 4l . sti_Itp ..welap s1.ad 30 u Ispib. Ills sbstltllles is.
-------
I
a
SUD simi a irn iivn
s.id.st os all ,ss t 1rU S. SI, uu lbs bolts v.1 s . I srstw
v. 5411. bulls l N 5155 111 1.4. 5 v.s.,Sisssllp N sIsililiS y. up
S. 55 • tsis..tall.g. lb.., v. v.15. 5.5 11 S 51SI1.r sSrsUt1_Ilv. at lb.
? s.lS £551. 1.1) SIsU . ,. sluibuilty at lbs 5.11_v.i v..alIy is..
SI.. us. U tldv.tIy SSrSIUPAI, ls v.1s. v.1 it II. 5..ps. Tp....1
• os I bald lbs dflv..t p1 baRs. lbs a sss sill s.bs . 5at . .. _ t
al . lbs butts. lbs 55 si1s lbs pI v.sld t s ld dso 51.
p,s.alLI 1 pIt. St ........
SIts 55.11.5 5. Salt it bui. 5 lbSv...55at. SIts. ul Is atlSUflv.ti sa
51.1 d.’.i.p. St .5s.1 S I. IS ts 1.111 v.sr 11 lbs 0.11 11 SIRs.,
i.s1_i. SIav. .stIs buy, lb. t1. usa SI. v.tv. I.
Sbusaslip stralifisi. 5. v.11.11 Ia lbs it Sits S v.515 pat I I. itfl..St
v.11 1.1. Ibis dsspar v.1w, usu v.. 1 d Is v.pssl sI I. v.1_is lbs pl ,
bo ius — 11511 1111_al is daspar v.1_.
II 111.5, Slurs 1. rs v.al v.g .a l,. wt 15 lbs wsur aspi a
5 5 ,7 SIts lv... Myir. SI. 11fl t uU I —flally blast SW lbs 1_ar
lays. s.d Is. Is lbs q My., at 111.. 5.3 s. 5, ul... .as at 111. 5 1 it
IS. pl viii Is s .Srsj ISIs. lbs pyu .s.lIv. 5.5 v ii i Is 1 l1t . lp S.
I S I. lbs SidSIlp .l111_ss .5 uw. r .s. SI. Udal ... .Iv. Is lbs
. ‘ a — Sits. 5.3 5 is al.vi S Is) SiiIws, u vs.ld I. sstaI S.
butig Sb. fl v . .I rPq.aSl, is l s Sits I, Sm — -js is Mv.Us II ,
1i t 11subsa ..
lb. a,sr s dapil it ks v . _ tt . bay Ii lbs sos. v. 5 lit. 5.3 salS is
atst 55 Just .,ar ISO fist, als....s lbs m. . dISIS s I 111.5 is sbv.t Ill
15.1. lIla .. 51.1 a difiboul 51 111.0 gould 1. vail 151. lbs bats.
lat.rs.diat. SItar, rslbur SM. is a .uIaal isv.tks at SI. sigs, ul tidal
r..t. vosId still boss a 1u. silist - v..I it lbs itflv..t ugold
riss 5. lbs . t..s is i s, aI v .e lbs suIt .t baR.. 1at..vadi.t. bular ispe.
so pall it Ibis tiv. Is i .. I.ts...l1.t. SIt ,’ as s.v.rpt
Ir s a v.wipt 1. p. .tis, by S.. ab. 551_a .1 tIv.at.
SIi,srsi ly burl.. dais... lw.
-------
Ii
Niusi vieD
by . sD. Ui s
( tisirpi ?s_ s tk __ 1$ Ii Pr.psrstt.s)
lbs 0.3? Sr 0 ._I.. Is s . ....l..sI blip Sr ..t.r slssp tis thsust
stissst.1 .i ? istosus ti. IL 0. . lt.i.sp tosius Di ll a), i..s
ustu. — t lisps ustsP %I....4k It. It_st .I. 5.1 1
if tt 1 stosUflusUus __ i_II,. . -$ - .11 .estrlbstS to lbs
Is_stiss Sr t s II.U.st ustir usss wisp Its a_Sr bait Sr lb. S?
llp.iss. I , thiki . . •sstt.1i IWU% to1 tota.. 0.ta (ta) pestles
at.,. St. - ._..._ai-sps.lt.. Is at.,sdariusl by s_al.
I i.- , bssss i_s Iss tus at_tat $a11y use..i. tr St. s_f_s to
10_a • 5.1 55 issp p. a_ ths _stral lasts. this. tats_s StS 0.1.1
(ND), atlat r .Ias :; _tu. lili, Is viutN
tt. Ists .ss ssslisp — — -— • Isslst.i frss Its Sw ? . .. sp.. S t.
fatlss Sr us 0.1w, thius !at.a at. Ilts. sst Is sa
is., us 1 to I II s _sr mu last.. 1.1 r.lii atoes thius thItus 0.1w
(ND) • thiss 0.ttus 0.t to a uw but —. usli.. I . ... is.ssr l isa
(Sties otuesatats 0.1w is (s_si by Its 1.31.. Sr sI.ps tur IsIs Its
kit Sr as tl.. Its tl_st — . lies. s astir .ass buses.
li. __ ... .I .1_s to s1w ( (II to) s_s S... , _ s Stat atur. sirtisal liuisp by
al u . 1 . 1ip tiles . &k _ aa _sUesltp aL1. . 1 .sl astir sal_s.
mu wtI strIlut1.as Sr 1Ialsti attus isp.., Is be .i.s.lp
.5.5.3.1.3 sItS b k . .. is SSSS1wS, St_s _s tSr .. 41,1 15.1
11.utw s _ I . , .,. at all s.slsp.l by sa_r. lbs first
psrt lsuts ls st is ,sor.usutli by lbs wfssa atlursatyli _s (ND)
i.,w ( T ii Il 1WI T ... ___ li sli S5, Ipiui 5$_sd, 1 It). stist
1. ths 0 . 3? Sr 0.1w iS Øy1asi5 taS lis_ _si. lbs psrUSliSIs
l. s, is sf1 55 si_sly as..’.lli alIt Its tOss_sues at SOS iusil
tousdai7 Sr SOs thius 3.f thtir Its ipsur sip. if lb. ss
Ist.rssd ISIS 0.t. iithospS tlars Is a_ _sL. UUy I . Its ii1wSlw•
rsalisp ths rel. Sr Ii . . . Ispsrs is IS. trIU s s Sr St. uussi t 1 .. thur.
spp. . to tos .1. . . .5.5.3.1*55 tuss It. uulawtusS m1w. byli s_I_s
layir 1.1 SOs surliest 41strItotisS Sr . .pspud $hI is 55555 asI_s
( t _ - - t 3_, Ipit). T ..- .twS pSrIiss 5.1w.1 ,wt.us U5 wisp Its
at that lbs up ur if Its luta_lisli 0.5w (Iiu.tit$li
by S• 1 5. 1 1 w .) uirrsi st 30 -IS • at Its i.I st usual., 3.ttr s 141 5 5•
0.atss Ia 5....
--.IIl
thislus, IL 13W • Ibyslual sss a7 Sr I ts Sal? Sr this.. 0. 8.
psp ._sS1 Sr C..... . Piat . 14 1 . i3.tia lO s 311.10W.
thpiiss. ?.I. I. Isrftsii. W I. 0 . 3? Sr us tst_ssiisto ‘•
Js.ai s i muiss I. .1.at Wi 101-133.
5$wli, 5.1. 13N. 5$1w1 atUSS%SIIU Sr Its astir ausss if Its
0.1? at 0.1w Mural Sr I..IWutal
-------
a
— LU. t.I. sd, ?. limi . 1 5SP. lsufsus 1.r.Ø 1i
s iusriisu spim ia . is t s silt .1 l. .. UDl . 3OI( ) 5USD
P1 iu. k..a.i* Si 7 51-PU. tulip il1q
t - . IL • LU. s. l S. £ l.u shais.s 4 — 1. tb. *tt. vi is . p.rt it a’. ns t Ii II . rp it rn l bs
. .. ils. Ma , ... _ s. Drib 25, 1551 . Drmn .u . .u.i f_t.stls. 1.aiy Daubs :1 l..yI
tuitsi’. 501( l) suer. has lb a rues Is lsluu,s I bsI I I . n.st piss
ta. dusilsil . .1 511.3 uskss . sks is tDas tj.ll .pi pMarp itfirul
51 b bs 309( b) sLier ills Is ilili . ss1il Is .1515%. tb.
- 11b if - st%s ’ sta us1iIp sta.Dal fur t1.sslusl s.p i
- - s i esu..• .111 *.t w. 511k p.ts.tusi su
ecsUis its 15155.51 ‘ 1 r psp i lsU s . it 1.. lit. iii up sit
ills. fur r.er.stu.sL s.l&.iUs.,S .51 u st stb petit sL
sours.. Is bbs 1b 5.1 ussI.
lbs 30 1( 1) s1 .r upplusiUsu sis fuss fuss-pea puitui lbs 101( l)
sleur i lsl us. Mast ii ta U1p .iolstlea fur fDs peers 51 tb .
SOUl) sass, vi i., u sLss i rs. Dlii i. .4ee4 II is ibsuus IMI
isskersipp pleap ti..t.I SI Ii . sits . 1 fur fi.. pesri
eall sot M s. vitisil MI . 5ha slI sL .ioisU lbs Cliii
Dtar 5 .1. Psi Ibis ssiy ill. — 5 — iii I I. fatbest 5 .1 it sits.
st sl, ii Mvii fá . srtsss silk S eas sLtai. 1.ustks.
-------
SUfl W PIwp 3 — 31 . 0)
i rs. i. _. _t.i 1..tisa .s, M.i.t.. O t
Ds 1 ts. 301 (b) i.1,.r
•I flMI
S.d spas n, isw tPm ste. ..f.r.wos.. and piricai
owi u.c. toraisksd 1. eli. ipplicatlos. ths ?ppiics.t’S nape.., to
uaa rsquast (or .dditiowol in(os.atiOli. and l ii. t.chsiCal n. i.h
n.port. lbs 30 1 0u 1 Task PorOs uak .i UI, ioflowin rindi .qe with
r.a1 to e lisnOS with lii. •t.tut . oy and nqul.to.y entisnia,
• 1Pm aip.s.d dt. ar 1. ..p.etsd to violat• lii . C n-
vsaith .1 N.SS.uhw5 ttS’ vat.n quality standard for di..olv.d
ouy,.. durluip . r r..s.p.ss io . .,set s, but is not .up.ct.d
to violate Cli. Cass.ssIth 5 standard for sospsalsd solids.
(Motion IO IUIHI). 40 CU 111.101.
• Tlis dtsclisupa is aspoetnd Pm (Martins with ths
protsution and pnopsqatiaui al a bs i.nCsd. iuidiqsnsus pop-
ulatlOa of .snin. lii i and ! sot allow for r.cisattonaL
•ctivltl.a. Ths pnopassd di.di.rqs viii 501 nd ..r..Iy
lop.se pi lle vats. auppliss. usd 10. 3010103). 10 C l i
113. 1 1 1.
• lbs applisont Pm. sstm iisI.sd a apses. for a.sttonSn eli.
l.pac% of its dtsdiarqs. )S.ctiso 30 1(hu(3). 40 CU 131.43).
This propr •ontains iie1.nciss as diacuassd in cli.
t. iC,l rushy r.pont (TIP, il1—P—i,II.
• fls pr,: disetaup. —, (apset otbar point and no.—
p01st .owre.a to thi north and v. 5% • (lactic. II I (hi Ill.
40 CU 113.131.
• lbs applicant bus soptapsI a pr rua to seisre. all spplt-
c.bla pr.trsatnt rsqulr nts. Issetion 3010103). 45
C II 133.411. mis proprua has base subsittad to Clii CPA
liopio ..l 0( 1 los and .pprovsd w.d.r Cli. pr.tr.atwont r.qul.—
lions. 40 CII Part 40). li nucant Ilk audit sMos that eli.
proqrs. lios set boss sdaqvat.ly ad.inlst.n.d and •nlorcsd.
• lb. fippitesat lisa p.ip.asd a aebsdvis of aeti.tti.s is—
t.ad.d to ibuit tk. •uitrsnes of toils pollutants 1 irs.
.onin .tniai sowvcop into tlis %rsats.nt works. tisetioli
3010104). II CU 10.84 1. This seh.dvls of aetivitiss
conesis. floi.nd.a. a. dlseu.s.d in tim. t.dmnic.1 . 1.15w
rsponl (Tarn. Ill—I—I ).
• Ibuns —, Pm no. or a %aethai1p iner.assd dlaeharqss si
pollutants Ia lbs if liusat irs. th prepos.d disdi.rqs
abs.. the sissiflif 1. this por.l%. usd 1 .. iOflhh (7). 40
CII 111.811.
1 ’Touics or touic p.ilutsi,ts’ 55 ussd thrs.qhsu% this docuasult
r.t.rs to both tori, pollutants as d. Iinsd in 40 CII 13 5.3 5 (u)
and p.stieidss a. d.fIm.d I. 40 CU 113.301.).
. mmc.a
I, mmaai J. r-i-— , b .
mc. ...tis. ta. ,. _ i _ fur i i otsi ia . hat usala
result it 311.. 1.5 or) s .tssu ftp Us pis .t if lbs la.- tt.
i.tor R u ..... u . £utbor ltp .s.or 5.11511. ThIs ti.s Si.. .s.lya . ii.
darast.ri.ti.s.f alt. S , esbe it U. .alp all. Uses
se dsrel tbat s..*l sest lba i 1 otal la as. lbs so.elu . tos if this
asotlos is UsC - ‘ _ s alt. S is lbs 5.1, sit. UsC y ua.t Us.. lipsi
ebalissi... II eb.ld ratua rWut sal s ists esSIU .s.
I • t l ss.. t.i stt. .
lbs rsssaUp r.1. d .oesult..t’s ru t i s.t tbut usitbur lit. 1.1
— lit.) ii.s .ttb hi. tbe----—ttta Cla.a labor Sit os Us Is r.l
C1 labor Sit • iffl t il . tt.U vUl Pm . lbs pulialrp
5.11.... a,.Il.bl. sa5.- . t s i lies 5 islis.tss Ust s.uy , it t .11 if
tbs.s if 11.5.3 4t.ria ussid Pm s . C 1 u if lb. wstar 1.1.11.. UsC ussid
ur at lits S. Is dt...l is allis, ..sU, lb. estor diiuUs. usuid I.
• fuastis. if beth lb. eb Vii.ls, ptb if tie s.tor s.l s.d lb. esra
.1s,r lirsebtis. Use usuil tots piss. at litel.
lb. aslesti.. ii 311.5 sand 1.. Pm , ..J 1 IL......u lbs ..t. , l,ti.
and I I. astor llats.os fr ak.tor sad i ..dd flsl balitat. . . d irs.
batilop s . d p.ur.aUsi — vu . 1I pesiSi se sIlitl.s.1 ,Ø. if t. .
Ia l , ssbutsss w Is.st.p.I s.d .o __ sitsta..os fueslts be
isat., It .a sss Pm alias tsr 5 adfl.jsat vgi. if sa?sty Pm ails. to,
bath tbsas o.om.,auas.
S
I
-------
U
I
U — ..s Is Us ptaUsl t s.t . . publis 15.1 1 1 , IIs
v . s pv I sultan sit. 14 515. suss suI’%..Ii.I I. G e ..y.
UlrssIi — tsl1 at USIS isitially is alys frsutlos Ge lbs i .1 lIst
1d rsssII It Us suttsll sun t,.st51 aS SIlls 53 sr I s.d sus istur
r dr . d S. 15 .d 15 SIts I - — Ge suns ptn$ .si GeIlusst
U s iS.tll 5 ..
I. T _ i _ ItAI T ta
II. a uvsUla it SI. tssiliti.s su Dssr Zsl.d tsr Skits.
s.d ill ___SI dIlsu - tiusu su at• it IMvdatd
SI’ Us. lIst t. Us. - sAGe SIsss , SI.
1. -____ t.1 ‘ u.S it saul 1 ulsull 15,. Isis I• _ . . • at
su p . 1.1 515 p .s . . . . itU Us Mui 5 I s.t it .11 55. : . Is
II’ —— su it SI ’ IMisS l uta Ge I I. v.Urs , . — .5 — 15
nsdrit usUr IS I S SI. r I.Ucsu IU IUN 55. 15.saita
i. 51 tuI1 - - ur Us r lsI1 I l.i1 lustis. 505 it
S I. SIiss SIUs 1st. II Skis pSIst, II I. sSIsr SI’S SI. UsUs. Ge s.d
isIi,. I—s — . d p I Is si tss..t .l5 . 1. 55. . . .. —-.i
t U . . It II Iss .Issr UsI S pusSI.i s.d s5.1*... ulSIos
—. Is SI 115 usIssiuus it tsll sits, Us ..uI.-....—--.i I ssts,
I1 . dI 1aUvs Usssta 11 15 1 - - , Usriturs. SI. .5.1 II
sust I —s v.511 I’ l usl I. U......... . • it a sits u.n. cbossu
5151 151 q” l. siutrsustsl tup . , Us ass. I. . ss .lati ,s
lasast. 1 1 I’ IuI tsasI.
1. U* — fra .
I. . dSIUs. S SM sSs y susius II’S 5. .II I. stts.tsl W sit.
ssl.s1I0. , Slurs Sr. 15011.1$... v.1., Lv. U v.11. U. t.rn IS.nIsl
suturu dansilass it II. ysuas Ge 5515.5 s . d .Slur luntI . Skull Skurs
Uss asu Il I’ ps Ilulsi by . 1T1 1 1 ft.... s.Stal l sit. l. .IsI
ti .105. to dunS. lbs mussy nsI.p.l by II’ Skid’s su S .aI blisat..
11511 1. p.l1.tv.ts di. rpuI fry lit. 5. s.d .111 nssaS II SIurs
tsr,4 1.1M sulun. sal dsrslt..s. R11• p5115 515. .5.11 psusibly still
rs.ulI it lit. I sues susv. SI’ v.ltsIl sit., Us pd1sUs17 v.11.55.
syllalls lalisatsu SI’S ss1. poUsils. usuld Is lI Ils.
tsr S I. - .11.1 .15 ,.. ii 1. r SMI lit. I Is slush ss a
pot.stIaI sutta$1 sit..
-------
a
I
_ wu ti UflClS
by lists set t ad.rsiiss
lbs isles if emtti tie sethill is Sit.. I. iseel em p.emi4i s ester
i.emu fir tie dispiresi if tis dTlt. Ibis 1. t ertemt C. ti. se.leuy
if Si__.__tt. I• ti. s_semis re.est*eeml seils if tie r iem.
em ie tie emeriti sili is setesstsl set mid fir is tis s_I Lem dss. .,
it miii p.sisMp essUs_ is essu. tie s_I ltetrts% s_s Mis ssstemy Irem
ta y. i.ts st it. i.emtiem is wstsbi lie_st l emt ..I Issislem I
tie till m lii ssts lemt lii. lee frs_.
ie emUsll Is Sits I emsid Is Si i-’_----I s 1’saus p.Iisy slt
s_irs_em14 s is tie - - s Is,ssie.sI Ii .sd Still Sisisstussttsl .
Ibis tssemIs.st lemi. ti. m..ifs _ t p.sp.rtp isles. em the %i s .d sth
th e mes 1 s_ mirth Whil.
_ - . _ lsl — rssesetis_.l IMiI is s Jer a __ semi . teeter I . lb. My.
Ilesst p. __ ....I if tie stulieu esl Rester 1mis l is _ = tt . 5
le t i$b... _ l• Miti 1. is_ tMi US fist if emeer (let.
frem Pimistem if Miles Pl .lem). Ibs My t em ltiut..I — s st
svp.srt thu emes S i em Miristlsemi Miti .
I ssesss ,s by ti s_a fir eel esti tis sittill fill,. . is Mit
it viii u.s tee st. the, tie sIet esl,vstiem soil. lbs
ftei. ems .,slt.d 11 eme is sees Mit mlii is C l i ii. is_el em lbs
rst .y.yer. • teif I tip.rt if Mi — _ Lr , ?Pest.ssl fisilitiss Pie. us,.
usmiessi smsitsi Is ets lbs s_I lsttem biem sf lbs emttsil
est is mid I. UU l l S ta5sIlem eust fir t esS. Ibi, ems sot
em Miss s_me, is is t.emestete.ilss. Vs sri iel l ii . toilets
p.1st. is ii. stt.stlem if ti. till em they shier is emp lsi em
s_rested I. tie Piesi S.psrt s
S The es_trusties eust .s t v.is_,, s T—1, vies es_sped I.
temsel Is_ti., .seme as mil ps_s if s_I. p., ills. Retail if Se
empsstil elet lest 1su . em the I. ti if tie .utf.lI i _ . _ .....$ , tie
tol1ei s_i. par ill, sos_i
?SitJ I
Si .? s_ URIS IS SIVML is_ivees
Ls
L i
I.I mi
S.? il
S.3 il
S., il
0.? il
1.6 il
If tie lsemti.. if teal I. st1 5’ ’t. lati. ll°23’ IS Sal.
(1s_t 1 pulled by tie till) ii..,
Siist.3is3.o 3.1st St SitU
tISI is 1.3
Sit. 1.3 is 3.5
Siti 1.1 Ii 1.0
sit. a.o is 3.3
Stts3 is 1.3
Sits 1.3 is ,• 5
I Is
SI’.
In.
I I I .
“U
“U
SitU
till
SIPS
“em
SSIU
It
S W .
“em
-------
II
a
Ths CoSta asI Is p’StIsId StIb 0.SwoSp . 0111
s 1SUss C t SM g.st. SSisI sLjSSs . 115 lips Ct rOSS sSt 1 Uss Ct
usit. 1.1 stMr Co II 0111 ISUS 5 CoJ.r 1 sSt CS SM11 iSIS sSt
U SM t. susliSSis 1. t lat.rp .St subjssl I . .sjsu
,.0Ials., Coly SM _ .i __ 1 ‘1.11 psit’ srs . 1s to IllSrsI. lbs
oust 1aus155 Ct lbs sttsll SM SS1s fsiuiur SM. Oust. 115 1
also, lbs ft0.SMs1 s..lysts ii va m a. sar.. ssl s .051 SSISS
Is 530 . 1*11 . 0s lbs. lb. Ut. I USSMI. .t.ISU I Is 1.1.V. .10111.5 Ct
NO .1111.. tO lbs N.Sl 5 111110. SC15t slus t SSssld Is f1d .sI 10
IllosIrsIs SM tl... .1 I S1 Ct
us .rr..t or toriattos, s . 0fl.Nulr Ct ia.rsl is s.i n.I
SUsts 55 p .1St SM IUU 1s Is is ussI to I1O SM usut Ct
SM SUIS1U Is Outol.
11. SMSS . 0 Ct SM StsIl 0111 U...1M lbs prsjist CUSS I i 1.55 SSM S
pirOssi.
SM pr sr . 1 S fl .da1 pej.stiss Ct us SM..t or aat.0 . 0 us
r.. s sI 1s Ct us a. bs. is as 11115 i or Sal. sJ,sll
(1.0.1.1 at SM .50 it l i la SssU) , SM rsu. _ l t I . s 11 b1s. 1 1s
• us 55USSrs5UCU 55510 usip Is ffuril purU. or us
0 0 ._I. 4Ur SM t.11SrINl
Psi. P Outo 5.1
Ut.1
1.1. P1! li. S. O.S —I
Psi. PU is?J—I
s.... ....alOu 00010000
l t 1 _
SIN .1111 . 5
INS 51111.0
SIN I (s. trsstIis)
NI I ( sN .00
— ...strssU i s t.
SIN 51111..
OuM
wio-Ivs si us
pN.O?5S %slM
N.sSM
1110-PIN .01.13
sus IM
..t u asie. Isii ...sSrssUs., 5.1 USstI ss . 1o,. us
fs11.0I Is lbs 0.UtSt p _ a _ S S 1 1 fur ta1 SM t sl Ii
311.Si
?IOIS C
003? NI 001IN100 I I I 1. POint S
fu1 tIos PsstS. 3 511.0 sIlO SS1UsWSSis SN .1111.0
ssarI .50 . 0truSU . 0 —t (II . ...1 )
SMioSsi SN
.1I ssy (10 psr...1)
SN 51111.5
UT 00 51111.5
‘us 5.0st1 . 0 iCoti _ Is 1 11.N. •—‘ . 1.ssr1 sal
USIis,tICS Zt.
-------
S1 1 W S I pSs4 _ t 1 . SaS M $ 11 5 51 Mt sII taps, Is.. t I patu...t I,
PT 1955 •sts.lIy i.e..... .?te 911001 I.. to I.t.r..t .s Its OsbI
r,i.. ls __ ss i to.
It. I t St. I. SM muI Stat,t.t sIll .1.. 5. sI .t . .l. lbs
.5.1 psi Isil,lIu.1 sa .... . ..s fr . . . p.50 Is PT 1551 5$ .5..I 35
5.55. S 95 UI PT 10 11 — S 5.5.1 51 II3.? .5Sr It PSsi’.
155.5 1I sIs1 psj.5U ‘ sI so . tI.. 55.0 t Oe.. sill 5.
. . P.Isrl e. 01sts si00 . ft. PUlsu’sl tOts, 1Itp Mt 51 ItS pr..lI.s
Psi. t U.s 0. st.tVl.ssl r1Ios 5.55... I S IS 1550 . slIts $1.0
551 U.S s.U ti. I ps. _ b espitalta. 55.5. I*.I,lap l s PI.. It
Is NglIy 5115551. SMI SM $I5. 5 pup pupsss . .u1I Os ..bst . .II.lly . i.a.i .
Is I. .1 SMt 00. .S1 51111. . Ia t . 51 . 5s .s.t. .55
supi,.t.1 5111 fir ssMt4 Its t.
l II. 100
I. ‘
U. 00uSD I00 u
In. mu. umu muni
I I . 01? 01 11
5. mu .5
‘I
-------
5. a.• — U .
5 ,. 5 a u. s
• aia•
N N II a N N A N N N N ft A N N N
I . PU PU PU PU — PU PU — — PU PU — — — —
a., — — PUm aa.a a.. . — . PU .$N .i we. , . — — — ua .as a.s
5, 5 • — NSPU M. ‘LNI a. a— a.. .a a.. am a..... .i . a.. a m a.. a. a
• m U. .a .a sm sa s .a a.. a a. ala ma ma a. a
— — — — — — — a — — a
S . LU La S.s’ 5.1 LW 5.1 LI L$ &a &s LI am am s. 5.1
a .. a... a as ap a U.N 5.1 5.1 Na U.N SI UI U. N *m . u
a
II S I5,il laêlN Na. UNIUI!1
I.., • Ill.
. —- — a a..
l fl SI N ft ft I I ft ft ft I I II ft ft N
5a 5 ’ . I’. I’. sa sus I’. up, u ’ . 5* a. a. — a,
1.115• ft.l
PU . aa asp? ‘. •.am a.a , . u..a a. . . .a m a a..a a. .a aua — — a. s
m’. PU. .a a.. a.a a.. am iaa is v . is’. i.. . am a am a.Ni ma a..
s_s a., sa isa. sam ma a.’. am ‘Las sum ma .a mm au. ma s.m, S N am a.,
a. , sam i a. a..• p sam sam siam u.. aim .n.m a.. u. SINUS PUS
— — — — — — — a a — — a — — — —
5,,... ‘.p,.
PU b..si (a. a.’?? PU PU .N .• a.m PUSS NS.m PU.v. PU.’. a..* u.. SL* ms s .p, sa.. a.
u.a a.sa as sam sam ..m am ‘am a.. •.* am a.., m aim am am
s_ . a., a. U’. ,, .s’a a,... am ‘ am..a. ..a. am ma ..wu am’ sum am ia. a.?
. •us.sli N .S.a sam s’n. sa.u,u sass, sv. . ,v a.up .a.a pa.. ‘. .a• . ,i . m a..,,. sam sam a.:
— — — — — — — — __ — — — — — — —
PU aa. a., • sm am am am am sm am am ..a am am am am am am a.
S •S S S S S S S I I I I I I I I a .
. • a.. 5 I sill .i. i ui q i •s,i ‘La. usa us a. sm usa N .’. O.PU 0. s sa ..a. —
‘ a.l N NJ.: .1 N. m NJSI si. piN • ‘LN. st u . 5 a. a a.. aim a.,,. pa. $
— a .. — ._ — — — — —
-------
iii. a.I I
U I I UI.
. a.m
P S PS N N A PS PS N N PS N N N A A ft
I Ia Ia Ia lad lad ‘ad I a lad I a — — — — —
.I.
.& .s •.a sa a. a. a .a aus .a .i* a a.i. a us, ... a .a Ia. a $
S . ’ La L La l.a Lad Lad La Lad L La ..a l.a .a Lad a.
— _ LW Lad La La La L l. l. La La •. Lad La .a La La at
a .a La La La it.a La La La La La . La La La La La as
a... la. us. ..a — — — — a. a.. a Ii. aad a.a am ..a us . a as
I S I I I I S S S S I I I 5 I 5a
a l.a a.. a.a sa ..a • ‘Lad ad a. a a.. au, au, a. , as
— a — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
INS L.. .
— a..d ss. ua.a — — — u..us .a .lPS ad.ad .a a... a.a a... t.a a.. .a a,
• a La a.a L I I La ..m a.aa a.. LW am am a.. um La l.a Lad at
LII LII La La a.. L l.a Lad La Lad L l.a a. l.a Lad l.a a I
‘. . La La La Pa L La Lad La Lad Lad L La La La La at
. Pa III ut.. a.. a.. aa aa ll.d 5 a.a .aI usia am •.a &.ia aa a.. aus a,
• 5 • • S S I S S S S S S S Sat
. a.. aim it, itv isa ei..a l.a a.. u, a i ii a, a a a, a ai. a, l&.W a I
a — — a. — — e S
i i
1 2 S I
I I f
I
Is a I
U I I
-------
U
U
,. u .
— .ii IU IlIN
O U U3Z1IUTZ$
S. — ti S VW S S W Si M S, hdSSdI.SS
idsI iSss. Idul l 5$, ISP. tSM p’*SI SW
IS. ld Nl a
• id.Si SI,I,s.i
• — — Id uid du,
• PUIliS PESUW ldS. Si ,
• l ldu ‘di s..,.,. I ,
I. W peJuIi — SSWd t gtS ds d UI,UNSSS d l
Si IIU Si atid SW 1d 5 Si Sits 5 — SW — $Smld
d SW — I*51e I I.
I. SW Si i ,s si Si v Is S. SW
NNtIsd SW — i ua Iduud ..*• Mdc Mwis
ul,.
• SW — Id, id• Md l i Si 5s
1 1’s Ii SW
• IN S.I d M l Milsi W.V. MdItS 1W1 • IN
— Musils W .Vi s Idi SW Si us.
• S. Id. s, SW sdr • Ml MV. t1
w . V idI UVeks dd Is Silt SW.
LitMiUb kidal U1, lsi,.....t , Ms rs.i Uuil.rly.. wssil
sulisil l.su. Md.su INMih’s sil.sr l. lsU.s J .lU U.S Sal.
—eW.—lI My, su rsu a. SMl 1.ui ill psrl. liii l pejsu l
— — pl..suI 5.1 w.sst . 1 Sa su ll.susutally a usur, SM flu.st
s .s fPsu SM suttsll SIRS U.S W. Sisus. .fW4 Sr. 5155 diP Iy
.ssu.r.sI uliSi s lsQU.l. yslrssMuSI, SIlsrI , reSIMius, s .sI
ssurrl, r. u.. IPsUW l l.S su Sit. is iS sulsu, sul seUW suti?
qsul*tp I i . ... as su.Ll ssd’sI sts 5.1 .S 5l1 lid
rsuIrls ii’ SM P ps ,SII.
a r 5 5u555 IMI sstrusISas lii - -y lrssMsSI plaM M
pS S spas IMI SM psjsst sill sut a Sa . a ills. ss.
— r usls tidI pI jy SIflsu•t u.S Si rSIsu.SI f SM tsll.
Ibis uld ,IoIats ISis s.U1... Us. $SIsu lbs CUss Mt.V lit.
11 r $i lidS SM lUll a ,... I t$ Si Ist ssi Si lbs Mst.s
Mrbsr su.t isis.
SSii SSi b s - It. M — s,uiy
tMsst.aul by polSatIs• if SM sl..p I. suly llaiiy . .. _ sussfil , sal
isussas .11 rsSId..ts Msst Mstas bs It f SM ssitsi l sIb.
SM ly MSSSS, lbS ty Cr14, sal .lb
still. SM I I. M _ W.IS . Mtsa L..,..... _ s MtMi$ly,
MM.I RN slrs Ly ppauli lid 1’s sssrUW lie stat. 5.5 t ral fUssSIsl
i siul*.
-------
p
im s
us port 1*00’s tssti.su, rss V.. • ISU Is.ri.p
us besI p i 0.Uss — thu f 1lus *.tt.u. suP - u..i. ,
• us a ’. t t. imps xis. r—us tu a,...t.i P.u. lot
t) Su1 ft s i I Sa — s _ tts Sutor k... _ 1 _ s l .tbu’ltp Poump
IW.busst PisUlti.. Plus. It potus. : ii thu .ujsr su..suttall i..s
t % uPS __ . . _ g bsf e p0.edp st SeflussI —. be sust ust .1
IS. . ustt •
I . isttus be SaU. flst , t ’ s thu itt.. us Pastultis.
u’sti si IS. r—-— its Sutip Suus _ . s lstburftp, fru• 00U 1 1.
Sutiw. Sused Bipusts,, 1*00, a _ . __ j usiustill. stul,
at.,.
3. istt.p be ausu Sad., lipesese. — P— _ tt .
Pulls, Sat lull, .._ Pulip ul1q, ‘sui iut 00, u4 t 1*00
S. lulls. be t r 1*00 (lusurt).
3. ssu rsl 00’s t lss t lutusosus I. 15.
Sautsu tor ul usas.
S. 1*4w SiM uP’
V • ltst % I V.. SaulS V.a.’. I a n 1*1 U1l .
I. imUuiUths ti l l 111*11*1 I IssaiptIss ui ISs Subest k ms.i Sa
Sat 1itV fr _ 1fl _ ..J W IS a Uartb...t’., Vd..,.at,
ius .s Sasta. V.. I ’— ns. - . Saulut,. 0011.... V P ..
Su’s,s, Ip, 5, p Lit rt1.1p.ts 1. thIs .•
S e S sUul uaulta s ustus uuulltp Pp.. SIo.us.t .,
S Suslus Sailor be thu Sad. V.a . ..
Ii
__ SWIM•
Wo Portha.st.,, Dnl.orotep Sapius Sat..o Csi ,tsr, Fast Point. i.Imnt• Ill 0l 0 5
- ,. l,p
I I ,. Oseid II,.p.rdaou
Sasaseliussets ru .Iro ’ ...t. l Pullep lee Pull
Fascutlos OPtics of £n ’Ir.ius.t.I Affairs
500 Cbrld&. Str..t
Su.loi, I ,sscIiu .s11s 02*0*
P., NIPs stI o, all V.1 U, P..Hht I.u Pisu
tsar IS. IIispsr4 i
Is,. is 1* 1 1 5’s ___ i us V.tuss it si lbs I ., . . tush v.is..
I scull hIS. t p. 1st sot IIiet lb. O.. po.? sit beur stss will ba .
St h..st low ti.ss a p.u 1so.ordi, Is 5001) suP prImps I doss. ii... a v..r
(so.ordIu I. .oaeor.sl Culucy clii.. ’ .). I iui .. .r. 5.d S , sIIa. sajors as ,..
11,51 this is v.Ird. lpp.rs.tly IS. PoutS Uputus is ‘.1 beaus dos lgi ,sl is
liendhs ours ties I S is .Isaowd ‘Os. S•P at. l .a sisrS. 5
I us.,.t.s 15.1 15. pleat Is Setup dost,.si is t..st lbs t ii
‘ .s%ast. lbs i.fh...t pip.. Sip sus l Is boll (I U i .000,000 sal low),
r.tlsr Us. to trIal all Us 00.tow tor IS. I) silts. sal ton.. prul . . (V
billion patio., or our. is s1 ., . ) Saul viii kappss upsir. ’ .?
ft. plant .001 aiim lS.tpel is (i,u . -i r , tr.sbusu,t us.. Is Ill .4
U. l,223 ,000 .o0S p. 110.. or lurhuest. It .111 pi.s •seo.dsry Ir..is..l Is
uboul a bit I Iou p11... suP p.Iusrp Ip I atusat 1 . lbs 5.01 us.tsr .4 a ill lou
p.1 10.., I I I. 5.51 115 . 1 qrlws ole shun saileus v iii .,.rll.. IS Otiney,
t.srstt, lost.., us. P S souls, Pouts Pp.1 ’ . oitissu., is p.rtleular, sri
uorrtal about on l srd..1 5. Se lbs syulus.
ISa$ ,Ils, Isbent Is vs.rt.l abuse 15.1 sills. si ,.l ’ .rp - - 1- s i ,
uhiab .111 5.1 owl SPO1I psrutt rsqstows.ts. Los. I I lb. : - --p pleat is
built on I I ’ ., s’s. ir ii o.,ss, Sasonobosoll. Sup sill S. plum sI.Ir..t.l
.515 frus lbs £.sipul l,00tusul p1. 51.
MlllI.sU -_ - _ 1 sri sttauhul for pow Isills, s.sil piusows. Peel
luab — end toeput all SI. 1 sou S lo Sas. a Nsrry C?wislsal
OOi Jows S. Ispts. 101*
richest tui..i. tn
Psul L..p. I S I S
Plclusrd D.lansp. CIII
St. ,. U n, 5001
PsIor 3b.hI.y. Ci .?
Dr. Isansu , 3.5.. .. tbsesta. Vaivs ,.itp
105,1 of Ssisetuss, Patient
31.55.1 , .,
Pull, Saudi. ,, to..idoat
Subset 1*00
-------
U
Ii
,. II, Pss.a i
the lUll I$U 1 M U, IadUU.. PM. ths1...
- — — WIN
lbs — its l . e ft ss l t. list p..ustlp tis
ps.isu.s I ua . ., ___.uea Is l. dlllus p . .pl.. laM..?
Uad IIsI re f this rl . stil iIa 1.usI7 ill stiUss
p.pi. t Is ad, th st %lsual r.sM.st. lull. Ills bIss.ip i.e
is a I.reI W II . lull 1 laM.s ?, - - puastlil. d U . .
_______ - _ 11. . as . .t ..va st ststnt . v. isstadus Is
I Sa lUll eatI usI• (thI U, I-I).
- aal .ri - __ ltles INst __ Ij 5—t Is 11. ...wies
lUl F— Ilp aureleal iki Is t a ,. Ip a dIsid
tb thIN llsls , Ua..1. lust.., tMcrs, thlilat.a luj%uu ,
. , s, t _ ad v.il. rd_l . 1 Is lbs I uI 105
f.s. I S.s. __tIes bs Is 11I,IN rediusts. .t lasidl lbs
1I 05s$st Slaus iuus __ stlus ISa lull’s usUtea
l i v lu. ausets. a,.. pu Istis. i.,.. _ ... . ad t..uaa..a Sbs llp ft... St lb.
usttsli stis W I dl i i.. pull.us.
II INsid Is td tt.I us.. lbs v ,rb . are I. pi s .d
‘‘.tlai ti are L.......1 , Sb. * .111 Saves very real lu U,s to
a... _ is. s. . t... . .i — us. v .a ..
lUt.pI—tu___t_ 11 , I
s .. lUll NINI, 051 IsM.. 12, P.dlltasu PM. bej
PLlUI an I II UPI lu 05 lUIVI&L
it. ana . 05i I I t. Nt Ig.S a. . .usia a. ...,t is. ..st. da
s lty f. a .sst • (thi. I, 055 T-15), pet asip S $-pear IM. purled Is
es..ldu ,ed Is SlI . 1 dl i fl ad M.d.. lust sIsal tSs ?5 pears art. pear
2NO ISa dauI . rt .d d lbs lad? v.U*is ad Fui*U ii lubast
r..jiust, ulil stall Is U.a . 1 I .,, ad see. el us I. reIN . 1 sl
.t vu Is. pasat is rasia..n Pall ur a pulj piast is
la lbs lad. uspura.... (Sb. CM.a lut. M I l l veestr.d U p
trusbst ip lu), us Isus aurisea Iseti.. —.— , Sit. lbs dilst 5 st
.51 1.10 ths---- :ts ad vat. Issue iur •l aud .p. at I. d.btftl
isas is.,. dli is piatausi - ...p I. Isutus Is adSild lbs pI..1.
NITlUTIN C l N C1P05 Olin IlUTUI
a - - - a ta.ad Sitadla. I.e
I. 1 llt ,.ts ad 1 1 . . (UI) r taus.
2. thIei .Sl — ‘ I r Oie,fl (lUO’a).
3. ur adurI Sit . eI . 1 (luI’s ).
I. IIlU.Uil III1UUl? N.ll
-------
R t.N.t
ini ini V.ins ii, Psstiill.. Piss .ni
UI Ufl hUm? ,i h1
p... S 5
inn t,—t pine. as nup1 J..k _ tz usi I. a
j t .1 in 1 pisa. lisp sil __ ins s t t is isip si ,.
all in puPti i n U Is us ,srI Istia . — in. fl 11.5 tSP S Sin
in l•. innt. inst W 11. Sssi I.ls.I pint, Iinrsi nIuuàPtps,
s 5s. tSs plast. —s p l daisp, — psintp lisa
115 Pus, TaInt pint. 11ntasutjn E in Ijn- - t :
pint, b.stl 15 ts5I silU.s 11 PS, p . in ust psi , Sat
UI is su I.t.I Ip ISPS — PUS IUU lift... SI, Pu ... TaInt pint Is
in s lsUssI)
Pl inl — ,t Uma t.stlq in .usl..sd shin Ostsisr5,
U, I. tnt taup tn. U. Ta .uti5ss . SIs sIint. . I. is
PSIsul It ntduie. pint..
Put i.S,PI. :zO. $5 ‘ U. S ES
1.1 is siiste. SPa e.i . I I, Pssulss.. Psi p.s
SW .I • Nl .i Cillisivi Com..kj. a
w. ‘QkI ” Masszliussns
tnt .. lsisss s SIrS Us. UsE.. es.,
U.S a%, NI OI S
Put.S7, I
is. Paul Im,p, insulTas UPisius
I hta t u ____ —
O.wlntauu Is, T
see PirU Sauin
intas. NI 02515
Pu_.is. 1.5 , 1
Ups - t ats I satid is in SIs tnt. _ — Tin Usu . Is
st ta. inst_u, . - lust — — ii. , s&s, i inlatsip su....itp) pst
5 5.1 sash Is Sr Ews 5 trps Ils aI’s nt — .. 5_1 .• sSP .s It SPl , (5 hIs Paula,
atin Ii din ..t bsis . V t Us P. siakasi. a 1 1,51..
ho Pin in Pu Taint s pi Wit is is in
t . .a ri II. inrI p s, -__ i , — intl. in,. Is — s5j .4 sinputsu,
ftnt , .5. si4 sits, p lntm in —Li p hip petals in nit
I s Is . . . Pt S I. a.t _ , (Past.. inin), inine, p. ins pta. nil. fur E
It. trsE sass, sul Sat. - its at I i utfl Ea t _ wI SI. ntn.i nil
St. sin. ss . .psin,
i•. in U ssu 1. t pint las.S IPt is -_ : Mi in
u . Eapa ussEtlin at.. hIs Pin I. saw swat a 51_Usa pall—n S ,
Iin7 — __ l _ ry flt 5111 Is sInt ust in SEU 5 55 iStiSni P.1P.5sSS
DtsEps biatnu . . Speips (wi mutt ulu I Is ssi, __ , hIs i .. pipe.
5.I uts 551 pint .111 SaIl nip IWI 51111.. WI... • , n (Ins is (5. in Pt
hsiE sat,. stupe suwa U.Smns I. in uin.
I si __ i hIst in IatU neaiut p insist pint. ftdnt is a 11
.st linps UnPis, (in) iss sans ‘ ‘ — palm. . in. nell in.
s ’ 5i SsIini Mnitsi
I. Ppne ts, 51 1 Is _ ___ 1 is as. __ * ,
.sIinnhIs__- ‘.p.tus.
I. hIs —__ . ... , l is flntul net, INs nt ., it
. — in I i., .pss ,.t . . ii russia s Pta suls aul treat suin
taiis in set_wisp pints — Is .
5. in s s bs.isnt pint sld t in “— ustn frseS
ak ste. — IS neil use is - - , is 555 1 MrUuhlp isestul
lain iat SIin tt . ni in a Is in USNI pi*t .
S. his r- its sash ne rsssi,. ‘ssl 5 pa i i —
salty new 1.5. I i . salh.t., sunputse, sal psss, nell ni
n. suus ..tfali, .tnu tIs 55si , SI. mitt in
flint.., sat SIs Pi.t.. . — ins,
I , iquust tnt pus ne __ stul? pies s.,t suuPt rstI is ins __.._—_Usa.
a_
P.11, Pashiq, it
st ini
-------
m to sit a rio • ivvP
.1—
. totisup fl.t ur. lase
Ml.slttss a Pssaiitlss SM l,.rsusa
tosashastis totsr to .s Miiurttp
100 PirsI tossa
Postal tosa .SitI Slfl
Ps.r 5. fl.tasrs
sil a,, — app_d.ia to ,S . ; lb. sppalSMty to abs S p’as.tsta..
iaot IsdMsy, sub is,. _ icier. lb. M l bard of DIrssta.. M i-
s lioe a Psoll$ijss SM rsl$a .. Vs fssi (tot lbs ci
. 1 s.ti ..t up as ssip to l..sfidsl to I i. satire classy poaso SM
se lisps list gali as to to$1 to pee a. list p00.5.. tasr —
ilrfsr..a. a. dsIali sep to vs disre (tot I. = __ _ gesi. • getu, rid if
psilutla tsr sa is.t.. rtsr SD ill. by.
Vs sr. alhl tM I. toes Si. .geertal I, to — yes Ilissalia s.d alto
Is fs,s,.V S study of 511.1, 01a sit.. free b Oll l.bsst s.d toll. am’.
t.disla.l s.d soi..l$f Is poep Is ash.; Ill. . ; v.01 to 30th . 1c.thsr
as as ia pip.... ps.liia psper, s.d vs sill get (tot 10 5S s.d It. las,
a. ge*oaip ps..abl•. Vs 11101 vs ae SM. sessireusip .Irs . ; as. for Sit.
I, so all so pl.lsi . ; ul, seip ci I I. resas. ts r assIst ci I I . 301(b)
alas t s r SitoS 5.. .1111 valId.
a a. 51.. p.111.; t Sber it. p.. ....J for sepal Ii . ; .ss.trssilsu ci
lbs 5 5* 1r, tasbast f..il ilp, sod a isp. to 01s list popss.l to pa
a.a silo. a sssi pa lbs IS ’aIia . ,s ...101r Sat. I .
Is lbs usesUe. . I so seat.; p.. if siWs r..sst *. .
silt to lbs asUal . ; .l..sat01 toup a Lye. tutor I tsar’. pl.us
tsr l . Lpa-isus .o- .t as... i.e.tsat fsoltlu s o. ( I.. rs..ll (list
51 ps . asu . ; lbs qe..lla s .o.s so to utoll . Sit as gad.; stat .rgp
1. arM.; f . 5 bell• , pta. iseger s.ltsli f. Lye.. ipos.It , sad
isle..) its. aslessi is russet as as sous.rsl . ; South louse Sa.gs
Pl.trl.t SM - It , P. bess .trs.;ly ap...’t.i : — -p S,esSis .t SM
is.; outfoila tsr sit . s t...is..t plsot.
as fIrst Ilvasi is I 5 10 art I. tsvsr ci : rp lasbssst SM
o I. . ;., atisli tsr SI. Lpe..issgvs-loIsst pojat. Lye. as sits.; f . a
30 1(b) eel , . . sill ylsa tsr p511 1.; 11.1. sutfsll 5.3 sits. u1 to a. 5
r. I I. alp seal, ISM u .s .s.tlp rosa SM SM flat., lulls ed tsr
rar,.tiss. list Irsus isIM sot 1. 1.1 MI .. strsI t astb of laisul. is
pa a. & s. , Pobal vs. rW ’i.e.. tot ira I i. vary bs lie.i . ; a to,.
.1eM sM.sUri. s ,Us.s . SM tedialat sep .’11.. r.tbsr hiss .ols . s.d
sip. ,. Aria. sal.; as 55.1 seas tsr a desist s i Lpa’. 305(b) ale..
.pptlatIe. , a 5105 artud so assist ci 30 1(b) ales.. tsr US, ise,.att,
o isle..
I i . .. this a bsv. (sea s.ti ,s tbsougbo.t I I . peas.. La yes has., Ibas
sr. serial. tie.. ubse pubils p.rUolp.ilos Is e.st p. 5.1110, eM IbID
a upset u lr. s .t ci ties s.d sara lry*. to get 5 CI I I . ...
M.i.srp Cutt.. tor.sd s.d .. la,lroasetsl Zipest l.psrtl tuetroassisi
Japsot 3t.t.st WI ito... I I. Lye. tots. $ r s.so.alrp tresh.si
iss*IIllss pies. las i i ll. aja. rsos. a aetsi Ibis also I. 1 151 110
.uttsil, esip sto—tsstbs of 5 sits irs. latest I. a.si.sais sess fur
dlSMsrO ci - _ _ s , liulast. l i i, . sr. .; sIb.’ so suit, so pa
ssa as irsu ll. . srr-—1 5 . .
sit gerarsi sepp . ’t i.e. I so. Mists., tbssstas P.tisvsity, Ito
Ssisivo Loll.. Tolatars fa. I I. ljrest (U n), toWs.s lawoelsu (a
bM 5 spsslst .U.s silt bi. I. July 5. IbIs togas), s.d ci aires tobost
insIsts s.d sills..., but I. opts of s . tosh lists a are easalul,
s.d lb. pojsot 1. gel.; favud chisel a SaC sr 11W lit. SIN as ..ry
spat, is poe viii as tie. Potty 5silsy’s l.tt.r of l l fl Is Sases
Poet., DIr.sisr ci I I. SPI Ist, sud list 11010, issIstost Pusissel ‘ — ‘
tsr lbs EU.
To. .111 as i.e. Its asloai lli .e.Us. list (Is Irtat C.L ...- Ua
Caslssiss blrM lb. faa of NMr , Si.., SM blIss, t abs S C liss a
late. Os ( I. Lpea tuba. I tsar pojal. Per lb. tie. tot.;, basest,
strslsgp is sot to bobs Lilt to aa.t but to get toto i repsss.tOtlvss 55 5
dC i.E.; isrusi to deal cIt. Las bIS . d Mass 0,erf lees, s.d to try to get
lbs saps ci list dC ..la . ;si to assidse esttsli SM otis, Iauesas veil. £
.cpp of as sit. asI05U . ; s 515 r fir (It. sitla Is I..Isalil
pee si t at. lb. ripast ia 5Mar11, lbs saps if sort for I II SaC.
SIN b.lpui to ssi up lbs U.be.t laW toesi toad Usia Isuity Nuottal.;
Prs .s, .01st Is u _ ..ai by tb las —(lu Mists. Ssoistp s.d
hh...%as OsiesslIp’s larl.e Solsess Csta tori Is Isbost. lbs l.ssi
sesitari . ; prsea is 5 p5 ,1 ci I I. isis., sIttaso seellarl . ; p iJSo IPSO
0 1sus.sisr to bosta torts,. Tegelb.r Ibis. . -. 1ll 1011 lbs sitassa
sad solsutists if tbsrs Is pollutass free tSr, ssolt, Lies, s. PosIes. Vs
foil, sgpsst list Lpes’o c.ttsli r lsbsot SILL sot saplp sIll lbs
las..sbssohls fs.. tots, Qs.iitp Isedsrd. see, sitar his ussssisry
1.55115. 1 pl.st 1. a.pl.tM I. (300, s.d a viii tubs Ursr altos ID
e.as.sry to petal 01...o s.d SI. at.’. s.d essiap St Ija tori., SM
— -—Il . lap.
igel., lb.Ma is ’ pea. ts.aluu SM Ua last 51k 5, . It
as as ztrasip vsiabls 4la—’ .
SWIM - Nahant Citizens Committee for
Safer Water ki Massachusetts
We s u rtis.stas VM ,e.s1 ip
tor1. Sslssos Cssior
last P01st, Istost, NI 01301
L. ....Lr T • (IS
5._rot, poers,
tv gg 4 ;j• / P i
Stile. J. Ccifop
Isloas ci SI. Mad
-------
SWIM. NatCHneCo. ,.JI1. ,efor
Safer Water In Massachusetts
s’• tbos.t.. ist ,srsilp
torts. bios .. 5.1 lorltbss tosissi lost.
lo.t bi.t, Pd.st, Mi 0 1901
Sogosi 1. 191
*. to. ,. bits, isr.stsr
to_sot_sti. bi irs.ustol Nll bi bit
100 C ld 5. Strusi
louts., Mi 02902
boor tos ,.t
toy tom bs.sss or to. ,ss.i or too ussti i osi 13 bobs... All,
li .. tot. $ Is. ,, All, s .d to... bss? US ussi 5 so of I. .sy ’ p
l. stout vIsit • 1,luI Is.ti.s (.1 ii. fri. l.bo.t) tbs ,’d .bos.s
•M bus us p.li.tt.s .,s , ssts t. otopu fri. tO... I . 1 St I 0,1 tMut is
lbs otoot of tO. ust to I — outsit. , or ttoi 1.or , 1IbIs slut_sot.
loto.to,. jt lo.’i t• us ttot sorusr of s. psois..)..
— — ,u di, .eo. toot us lo i __ . __ tsi 102.51 bs srt viii 0.
PuSir .I for (pus’. SAlSUtSI Z _rp tr.st..st .jusl vit O poissilli
I.tI.. ttossts, • .for a s.stpou.rsisl prejost eto.. to,irsstol
UstIflustis. P .. sistosI us I.psst us .us.t.i ustissivI udsi..I., or
rIuo o rt.w .014 1 If•.. . s tort., lieu. .1.11.1, tot ruil .0 tout., t ii.
.1 1 stu. i .trp turIs•, t Os .luslris ii i .51 ustor fusion... ..for S
otsilus usitsil, p..itlp 1.. 02...s p.jsst .s.diu . petite disolos.•...
Vi otos us ust vitO pus I 1.5 1151 1. just vu. tbsu or
to. psotis. lull bO• S _ .,. __ . _ I vi i i it. usia p 1... • .ttU. 102 ttot it too toi l
is .itl y vit O lOs.. tOi , ststIp t, is, to.. 5 s.ugt, lOS
Usus.*.ult. bif... tot. but, $%s.1. ars .1 5. toi lu 51sd (f ,., C
I sloluos tol I .1.0_s. osusndI is II .. to..) .iilvi sioutifie
j u stifiustI s . , petilo usoosot, or UPI .Ale ’Sl.. . . s. , : : rp
t, . .t...t VI I I sot to .1,.. to 511 .sus. d t (en often) stons... S .d I
ususr .t 5.1.. us_sn us t. ststMr tOs OPAl pereit voull to . liSI VitO.
* lost toss 51.11., pus posIts. tOst to. usia s.t.vi. t. ..ot . . . .oot or
its IP ito porsit ruth. its. plp ott o to. ,02.ir i .sst. or it. Cl... Ustor
tot tur is rs..si or it.151.si oUyi. 51 Tutsi loprnd _ i Solid..
It us tout It to. I ,.. puj....t *1.’% ,uVipu us V I I , s..ip 0.512 ,
•uptOt loss. I Al AltO is SOS , . _ i to sO o.i..i, sos.to..
iou. us bus tsI s to. s.c toils. (toll) M D I . __ —t , . . l I
.0 1 1 vol. s. usy I0. lois tslI’s .511.5. pep.r fros toll (.. to? isoold
to rs o1rul f . ustU bslf i i. lots. funsst). So.usOtI. I . 151 pus so. poor
•t.ff loot us51 .it O lOst $1. or pop. ,.. so. b sot to i•t ib l sigs
sIll. Op b. . • S pr.j..t, . .34 pr.j.st, Is bolt. Ito. ..tOt .1 . 11.
ii. s.iatp or sit., to. oooieo or it. fIstorlos, to. sius of to. s.vid.
p ,up _ i , to. .or.ep or ,s . sstl.s, so. tousip or boot, toll, 0.1 ott.,
t os is. lb. Sortb South impo. isps.l Os to. 4.01.1.05
lost pus . 00. oo ,i,u..tal offistol. ks is lb. s.t too oo.tbo.
to.s i , posos,
/L’ 4 . vv1A #
901.019 Pulp SoolIsy, p,..i4 ..t, tom
. Nto3 lutist S 3 .U.I*S1S AVIS lfttIs 5 Alu iuuas S
SWIM. Nahant CHutes Co ,..JU .e lot
Safer Water In Massachusetts
. iurtbo..t., U.i .r51tp bits. 551_s. lost., bit P. 1st, lobe, Ml 01901
PSI 59.tast Alto ,, 0c IS, 5*
lo.t..t, Pull, bssl3 y (Afl) 911.019 or
Niotasi to t.r (Sfl) 2 1 -SI lO; (S I? P 311.919
lilto? toll Alto 90 . . . . u
is Ito us Natooi a.Al,p Ca l,
bust All fib. s usta., tslop sue, I. DistrI.t loust (lout..) to l.tor,uss
I. to. to.t.. tort., sAssoop 05.. oslo, Su 1. bill ______
Ito —-vo.te . Soti. lo . & .. . totiftp (U) Is oslo, t s, . to
ilusu os bit ., tort.. II. usort..loto. .51 . 1 . 1. uslI. for a uss usIlsil t.
. ii Op hisS, but ._ UJi __ J _ P , t ,.s0.ooI ust t. 1. l.tSI osid $999. lb.
uslI p3_s to biui to. buspuse boosto, . . sut?sfl I. lb. ll to osul to.
psrti.llp tr..t .l or e - __ u . , sue i.e. r-—--.,u . .
to boils,., t t t S soort .51.0.1. loss use silos U.. to bill sss u
ustrsi l Io ss. p,t.,t to. store out lb tO s* _ t _ i . utli t po li uts I
oslo, to to dt.51. .i lit. I—. ustt . top. tom ..,_ is Opssb 02
of bit’s A,, tr.ot.s.t $s.t.
So 5 lostis bitop — - _ -tt ussi Is F.tsstW fri. p.liutlo ..’
0.11 oon lo,l1.r, P. i.e or too.,e tom to, 1. — i._tto.. ‘III.
is uses uso. of usI—i 01o . .stps_1. lost.,,. usttsfl to built I. S s.t usus,
rs it viii use pilot. to. Uorto touri, to. bitt toore, or too bios bi Os,
*sls.Is. It ls..s’t boos to p.*lut. . us,5
.1. t __ stu sy, Ills., lor $ bis., set... ,. fur Alt,
uspisissi, •Isto, ,s.fts. o.s toll Viii bus. 5 us to u. ..a...e to.
of r-—- ,o . .op bi list.., boos sirsuip Iuton ,s..4 Is toll
uses. is us., v.p tO . p boos boss pssbo fur bit.s bit 1 Alt s.t stust fur
tos..ot__.tt . lo ,.
N
-------
II
‘I
U 10t — S U 10 m? 1 e1 USSIOS a.1up Cl3U—w
10. l . l• ruI zs IsSsUsS ssls.II. s IsUss rsi SIslas’s
5 ttsll IS • t.r S Ms lb st. .r ps ._slbI. set... USD5
. .,, il lbs T. ..l Meissey IS l I s asU l ie s1 l...1 a p..r’s
sd llr1. se lbs wrssIs , ss1Msy, SMI sMISUM
dIsUiIsUss , Is.i I sssl ky. Ths Ts .sl Ililissy
— Is. b_s qpsl.1M 1 s,Me aslailfis 50 ,1.. 1. lbs lull sal lbs
b.aU USfi si UsstM 011 11 ,5.
I. sIslhla, a ...t. SI. lull 1 sls SMisU 1_sila Sbss SM
Sbss Is _s sIs111, p..t lbs _ Iseed fur 4frs pMery
Is- --t ss .utsl liNe
t uSM S adlUss the i lb. ,. t — bshl, t . .t., —
l , 1.1d , — — pla Is tile a slMlsP sahla Is
laI.,sss Is SI. PluMe Plilse esurt ass. ‘Us est esat PluMe’s to
p.1l.to MPh? lbs Pub s ur lbs II lbs,• aid Meld Isila,
P ’s Me — Is P11.
‘USD5 Is - U- I Is eslIss Me ussid Purina. SI. estss q . .lIhy
I. seP’ S. .la.a Pl.ts Pulse,’ — — — aid. _
Is iNs Phi Put.. Pubs,. psel luS Set et 1y tr Wy.I Is
_ ————-tt . ..
. 0 0 0 I
USl lulitil or
PlI.I1 USES (lutes lbS., Is S ttI . ) I.. Isilad e s sal
p.11.1 1.. 1..s .1...1y se_s iRS. Us adsl 1— duh1p lie dasU ut
30 1 ( 1) .pplheu_s lie SM,., ut 1 Lry S_sad$ by Pula., Nth ,
Pull Issa I s SIateist (Plies) Sal SI. JMst Lp.’- Us s
“sea.
Me ssIestIsIs uJ._se SM ta Mes1 urSIss Is •t,.
tOhlesIq el slhla.p tpa lbs Prib lbs. SIhet ESa SI. Pull USsee Sad
P ’s Me es SI. Pull Purs a % MU.u. ut shet 00 - - Il ls.
1. sIdluss, PlUISIbsI ksuI , Psas. .sm, sal h, .lbI..t P. 11 se. usul by
Mill_s u. .r . f_s all seur asia. __ll..
Pusal USD5 p3_s to seq Iad ,s au SI. l sal bs usl. Us
vi ii 1 .1 lbs - Ito Ustur lb _ s I.tI.rity Issu etusus IU .. sill
II . ., aM us .131 phs ha aSI.dUs 5 .rI S Psiz puss sal sJsals
.11* pohesI P011 SIstis lbslu l I _ tSs . Is lbs i _s, 1.51
SI. asl ... aM lbs S . FS1S3SUa.S viii IMp sliMs as sst.sl .1.1 —
Pta P1w Ia iutt..
‘*11’s — --usstIs Pl lbs Pp1,, Susbiass..
sad k.t.. Pulse SI. *5 ? P01,..’
-------
USc.abur 11. 1 S7
BAVE OUfl BE*CM B. I NC.
P.O. ION Ill, hILL, NMSAOI ITTS 11101
Pael Iivv. t..eutivu Stractuf
NasuSetlvSsttI 5.1st lesouresa Luthutit,
Chariestoon Navy Yard
100 first h.i.v.
,oston. NA 0212,
past . luvyl
Sloshes is a loath hun ettlissi stoop basil 1.1
n. ,Isssaebvsatts. . .. . . aniisd lu toy of 1057 is
r.s sS to eh. NUU proposal to sit. it. sassy. outfall pipa
a.ar thu coast of 5 .11. It was oar position tb. . as it
,.saisi . that th. clsaa -sV of bates N.rbot sued sot
r.salt is thu d.q radattoa of N..saehusitte •ay or any of Its
coastal a,....
‘a boon verbal a upsrat1oa vith IVIP of Ushait to
priests a. .uvironssatallt appropristi sitial of thu outfall.
V. our. ,.lisvad shill Caap. rasssf and MeSas r.cee .snded that
tha outfall bu sited is of f—ulurs satIre. VI sf5 not
eatiaf 1.4. hosuvut. with thu ..laction of thu area batossn
sites 4.0 and S for tha oatfall tarsinva. hia .Ita will sot
pro.ids adaqvate Issursuce a sinst d.qradatiofl of
Massachusutts Say
flu I Nt l ebalIssIsi TM t• svbat.at iats its dai, that
situ S was a JustilieblY battur altstnativs. flu •ttaehsd
..tarials . .srwIuel .iu ’ylf •.idsnca tha .tr. ,qh of their
position. Ia .. Oar •sacbss aholaheaftidlp bndorsss thu lv i i i
proposal. Is vrqu thu NINA to p1 ,. ii dvi eon.ideratioa.
1*
lvi 11Nti ? U ONI
11 beau I t....iea 5.50. ralsa.ti...10 iset.
sissy J.shsts...thu alhiasa ,oltsari at thu ah thV ii.sad thasi thiar
l1ty Ms50tosi P , es sea set thus. Is .11 iee0. at VeahhW 1estI tie
one... far the est aonde we’ll sat thuru fs1% sl1p .iti the I.h.t tide,
esi a h1 at 1. 11 stases on 1Wes is — tre 5.550 .. far —
lbs f.hast USW de I . ,.gr _ lila I. She p She th1
theasly thett.ri. rr g ho 1W barth u .S 1W lastS. 1W N.50tart
Pr to lbs esuth. ft Is lbs seuset at the 50U,aa on50tar$
thu first .a50tarI setea Is S.pt w , I 1. lie ._— is . .- _ auuI
I, the Nasa. tta luistas beslety the larthaseturs 50vuruIt7 ton
lalsasu Caatar Ia t F.ist, h,
he lastaa . Loon. — he, - lal 15011 (us de eat tI) thetP
I - — 7 a a truaheat pLaats, us’ LI Won ‘s pellat l I N — Ias’t,
stars the ontars use iasasi.y aI star. Shq use ieaonIon 11rtius.
— on t•sU ? lissalead e a t...... _ ..tse . ealialtt. _
as . on sea tall a 1.1 sWat thu ba.ltb at the t.ra. 1W.al,uI
tells on ststbsr ssaes aelaris ass 5.sathe alf. T tara ass
s.iistt, ls,al. — usItleal to rlon lit., sl iest the lusel at hissIsel
sappus, - ales as alaa e asI sasar onertl .5 paU.tI the ash..
baseWall.? as —, - etbus tsati, saal as tus5.dhy aelifuly 1.
US bees a — thee alttop, felt vasthar * fuel. It’s a ala11i s,
thu arur ± I asses ashes aaal y basatiful. 5.0 t at all, as ieee
asuatsation if WasI thut sari op a .itd to ri t pellatles .50
S. help usuats a hethar d ast far __ .._I*ilfrea.
U yss’l 11W ts uSa 1W laW lassi ti 5. p IssUty mdSirt
Ir. ... . vrUu on a laitass 0,5 a eall.
Very truly .ura.
‘4-
Ds.id A. Sill..
Prasideilt.
Is.. Our leachis
11 _
at esd Isis , U5. thelturlal fi ..pon
_ .d it lbs - tta ._ .. __ Isalaty
tbaael . a Sai..raity barton sosass ass IbrItIas StoiCal Ca.Sir
U ssai We Sustheestusa Salvareltp barton Lab
that blat, baheat, NI ot S
Pisasi U 5. .sW, 5It -4 l p hetlar, 111
Natiant Bayl8road Sound
Water Quality Monitoring
-------
II
VimuIuci& ULOb
mills. I. Sis. t U . s oUsS .0 SI. I.p.riss.% .1 S..l it
Siis. lUl . IS r.tir.d Cis_1 . .s it I I. Dsp.r i s..I .1 O..i.sp St I i.
U.I,oudII it Lt.utp. ft. Ds.s so. s..ai.t . Prot.or .f O..l. sO lb
Vi..sutuss110 loutitutS it T.oIaM sod Dirootce it ii. C.b.S 3psotr .sp0ls
L .lorslo,7 .1 LOT. Uls _Isol• sod .d..ts.ort . Ii .. .1 LOT. U.
is. uriliso SI ritorsul josusol .rttclsS Sod blo ppubiIostio.. 1.01.1. lbs
I. 3. O..ISII ., Op.. PUS isk.oE Osol U.po it 10. ipsolob,
U.rblub.ad Pupil. Okuos.ios, sod isobpurt Qsodrs 1s ., U...sobsssti.. rn.
D.s.us £5 115 sut it P ,l t.l N1 .1M (Pso Tort, fl. Pusold P, s,
5.1 ousutlor it D..1, - 1— 4 isbu soi 011 11.. C. ft....
ISLO) sod Pu — — — IL m s1sov , S.d Id. (isu i Willis. C. ft , ISIS).
15,1. - I. —d , 1.2.1.. Ia Sb. Silt Pisjsst Pu 5.? fur lbs ts. 0 11*05
.1 SIT Sssip, . Si. ...a..._ . Vol.. 1 L..obt, i . .sr. sad Pl. r.. U. IS IS
srSbUooI .oui.tupud is Sbr.. stat.. s.d 1. 5 odts it Pp.11 lustliuts. is
—. S .b.r it Sb. t Lut iIy it 5, Tort sod P.. Ji ,.., C ti..oo US
rstur• TrsaSiortauos Tout Pup... i s Us suor sd S l sISI P.30515
.111 .sI, . .11. 5 .slusa up U SILO .11*10. s.d fs.s lbiliIp studios fur
Sr. . . Satios p.J . .t.. . .1 . 1L Usli p’.j . .I. , . 151 UI . 1
u..u . . t. it S. Sm $300 .I IUGI.
ft. ut.sa p. a. utait . .u Ia . . itra it T t
.sl U• spsl . 1 55 sS i.d.ps.d..l lIas1 viU Psisut ass.i , I
Podsot. it lot,. 0... isI.sr .ltp , OS r. . .l.sd 0*. ._ a. ChIosl suri
Pr.. lbs r — i..UIuI. •t T.U.sl011. U. Is a ,sui.isrud
- .Is.—absi ,usa it Sb. k.rd it 1s1rs1Ios it
ftit.sSlO . .l srS. Pu. sue,.... lb. l ,.t .1 Prot..UoS
¼.ouPs 0r1 Ss,1 Pusol is lbs s it Ir0 . ...tal osurISS s .d
p .U.U.5 00.Srsl . . - - U . U. is Si.. i .s.5 it Sb. MuI..rp sod Plusoos
It.s it lbs T of IsUsi.
Diobs.1 4. - =- loi. . I. s$S p sps . d.iisi a. .s ,L-.. tal
1 .151 U. tos, II sa l 51 1.. fti. it Ui.obls,, Ill.., dS ,
a c . .. is ia s .od s oSs it U.s 1.s S . 1wsttp’. C.*lo sS it Libseul Lit.
it. sutoul it 1. ........... i..l. . llUatIsu of bs.upds.s t5
(30 f ) sod uuIIsMu ososs, us usli 55 lIouu01 it 1ur .tS—r
t..lIItI.. sod pisot. o trosloust p1. 50.. rn. r-i - - repossols m a.
it. loU.. U 1Mor , 1. lbs is.tus isris, 1iii ta.. a. u.s.
Dlslfl.1 isurI.
ft. I U isb.05. Dirost.. it ti.sot ,.rsitp lIrios isi..s. sod
lu .s tolls. isseor a. t, S. s .p.utsU.t is r Iso ssol . U.so
podoutd f lbs U50 ,ursllp of C.tI. . 1 rs Ssi.ud ii . PSi Is isol
fts. Sb. isJ ,ur.$Ip of PsutI S iboo. U. oS Ull. p55551 posl 1105 ot
l1ss.1 . s Puns. Lob irs. r ,. . 1 V.iusrsiIp, ub is u.s so asosoist.
ftitssos , Is U. is Usst of ft o1 . sul tvol.t10so11 SloloSI. is sirsos
so lbs CIIisas I5rIs C 1ts. it isutO Pussi Ossugs Distrait sud lbs
T s oL MuI.urp 0r . .p it lb. Pu.s.—itti Pusoullef. CtIios of
b ’Irusisj Ursa...
PsUst Vsodsr.IIos• CPa. as sosltsst v lSi luluesotissol p.0 11.
5055sotlud .od so..ulIIud rho. S podouto it lbs l.IusrstIp it Dol s Os
rsos I.sd Ii . Psoloru is 1s.a. LisS.I.i,stIo. irs. 1a11 Ssl ,srsttp. U. Us
.01.5.1.5 ou Is.s. is p.op.risp sod e ,sl . .i 1ud ilousolsi p035 .1 1... ft.
VsodsrSi 1 .s Is s .e it lbs Ii . . . . . ssd Id .t.orp CoI Itis it Us T it
Usbout.
Dr. Jis S. VU... Ia Lsdst. 51 Prt.s.up it llol sI PosIbsuot.,
Ts i . .rsiip. s II I ii. dw-y.Jsot. sort sl ftsuthI. 5 .4 PurutsIl Is Psssqi.
. 501. 1 isl .oeIlp of Opsi. Is P.. 1.01.5 1, sal ssavs.,st, it Pou utIr.,
star, is so. $rsdt.d. Ui r...l,.d Us POD Pr.. lbs 0sl spsl I St I
luspobsrs sod dad pistl051ossI res.sp.t si lortb.s.t.. S.I..rsltp Puns.
Del.... sod lirlU.. Studios C.tor Lu 1. 15 .1. ft. VI Silo sp.dislhass 1.
ia ,ort s1. uooI.p s.d Ib oso1o it Ii. Volt it isis. isstbss.
5 S 5
blip Pusllsp, WssiSi.t it ..1 0105 D..... ..uU . 1 (Isfur Putor is
l’i lit.) , I. 5 i sr ,sM-IodslIflb rodte. Pup IS psaro uts w.i. 5
oustip s.’lroso tsi s.i •issipsri Yr . .U.r,° stub • 1 U popsrs
15 Iso lsd Op lbs It. Lul s Dustily sod slbup Us.
su’lro .ntsl vs .. Si. so. Ls.oaist. 1.11., . P Sb.
O.L b I s .d Os. s.r.sd so Cbs1 o 10 UsUal
Ceos.r,s l lou C l..Lo. ..d so 1.3051 rsp.sosIai I,. to II. U.t,opoilla. Uss
Plssuic Coussll. Ii .. Puod$sp Ia 5 for... L o ussists Shop it
ss s01s. sad bust puilidisis - S r u et.r tar lbs &1Z 0.1 sod
£U& J3 sou.piPsro.
viiaa 4. Putfsp, SisIruso it Sb. karl it 510, ii a isusoltast for SM
stat. sp.oislIu1 I. isualud sod ds ,.i.pos.t. UI. bscbps..d
1.olud.. sopsris.us a. Isls1rsiop sod Ds ,.R.pos.t Pu.s.r if C..srolsl
Is ,IlilIssUo s, C .p lls l o ,t., sod lbs U.IIor0 00I CrclsI
Ds.slopi. .t lout Pros_es. rue lb. Clip it k.ts.. U. usa Silt it lbs — -
sad Iasssd SiusI pr..pur . 110 U. lost.. Isds .s lopousl luib u elIp. Us 055
scssulisi .111 lbs r— is soossois ds,.1epi..t . ,soltIsoII, sill lbs
Dsp.rissst of slty LI lsirs (DCI). Us Pu. tIs isp Trsssport.Iios
Luthorh ip (LOTI), lbs Sissull,. Sf 11.. it ‘ip Ds ..101. ..t (1010),
ss,srol C 1lp Ds ..*op . .st CurposslIs... lb. Citrsp is. sorTed so s.,.rsi
Clip if is.to. tt.so , Ilo1 . lb. Pudsi C III.. — II is so Pisosso .
lbs City lslos.tio. C..it$ss U. V.1 , U.ustud CitIas.
-------
P1
_ plo
t S e. —
y ii, illS
Dr. Nidiasi Psisiul
U I tnviro,sntal Protacties kqa.ucy
Jahnp. kennedy P.d.rai Paiidinq
boston, NA 03 10 3— 1 2 11
Osf I lost.. Rather
Paat.vat.r Convsyai
Syst.. - Draft S!ZS
Dear Dr. Delandi
Tha lest.. Paths, Associates (tIll) Is a
naN—profit .adisr .hip prgenisatio.u caspou.d of
individuals, corporstion. and other
organiration.. It ..sks belanc.d uas of Paste,,
Rsrbor by sakinq it cl.an, all .. .nd accss.ibla.
TIll has participated on Ui. NIIhA Paciliti.s Plan
Advisory Coenittas, .. ..t.d on th. Pacilitis.
Plan docnssnta, and ha. long bsen an advocat. for
a clean., harts,.
As table ar fIols1 t
Ths Draft SeppI..snti Wiruase.itl !.pact
Pttas.nt (CD I I I) on Uu. Paste., harbor Wast.wat.r
Coewsyanes Ryst.e prepared by UP IPA P.qlon £
conside,s th. en,ironasntal acc.ptabil ity of
alt.rnative locations for vastewat.r conveyance
and outfall syatsas for tha new vastswat.r
treatuant facl litlss for boston Harbor
(tescutivs Iuary, Pag. 0) • in doing so It
answers tile wrong quast ion.
CDI I Ia a.- - — a a oulti-bhllion
dollar Sf fort to r.duca tha ispact of s.waqs on
this harbor .evIronusnt. The coats VIII place
.sys,. burd.na on sewage rats pay.rs, duo will
— thsIr bills daubis aid tripi. in the nast fsw
year.. The quest ion is not one of
‘acceptability’ but of bsn.flts.
This DIttO aluasl ha dii. to £. ...- nt for
this public ths .isibls, ssallabl., f..labls
i.pr,vssanta that this pro act will daiiv.r. If
Ilo audi l.p.. -..ta Can be forscast with
ruasouuabi. certainty, the report should say so.
This would allow Congress, th. Psder.l Courts.
ths US IPA. NWRA and ths public to begin the
—2—
Mr. flsIa,,d lUll Co .ts
ssarch for techinologis. that will d. the Clean-up
Job.
Threshold Criteria .
Th. data and analysis presented In the draft
evaluates th• relocation of an affluent outfall
against a long list of criteria. Pat thus.
crItsria were developed prienrily to sat a
threshold on how intrusive a h. n activity Cal.
be on the natural •nvir .....t. Per seasple, they
provide a frasawork for discussing thus i.p.ct of
a new nanulacturlng plant on a region. •
Tha CDItS onaclodas that by spsnding ny
billions of dollars the IMIRA viii do no serious
hare. ft west. thrashold criteria. That
conclusion sse well supportsd by th. data
presented and generally, is consistent with the
conclusions reached by the 1 111* in its Pacillti.s
Plan.
low bed Ia ‘no artlen’ ?
Ssvsgs Is not a nattu of choice.
fl. choice is In how vs collect, process and
disposs of it. lad TRi ll ballevee that the
purpos. of this projsct is to i iovs our
dispoeel wethod..
Despite tha lack of &........tatie. in either
U .s Devil or huNks rscilitiss Plan, ny
obearvers have faith that a sodern prisary
treatwent plant, a conn.ctlon with Put Island,
and a longer outfall pipe will leprove the
harbors snvlru. ......t. The DORIS provide. all
opportunity to conf ire at least the bensf its of
releasing the effluent in Massachusetts nay
rather than in PresIdent beds as is dons nov.
Ocussienally, as in tIDeS P.).., the DORIS
o erse lii. pr,:: action to a ‘no action’
alternative. This allow. the public to evaluate
whether sore critaria are sat by asking the
ioprovs.snts being proposed. Unfortunately, such
coeparisons are sporadic. lye,, In the sawe
app.ndIw, the table for secondary tresteant
constituents (?A5LI P lc) secludes data for ths
curasnt outfall sits.
without sodu dots, U.s prdil with this
disposal systes are uidocu.sntsd. This
seriously weskeuis the case for spending large
su.. on this projact.
• ( e
aw. .
•— -. •-
us.—
I_ • —
-. - asn.
_. _.
— — d —
C—
d V
—
- S
Is, —
.—, —
— — —
— ,—
——C—
— . —
— , —
—
— __
_• —
— .—- -
— —
__. a —
I - —
_. —
— —
I a —
— 5
— — Is
,——
— —
— .—
._ —
— S
._ ._.._
us.
.— I—
— — —
-S.
_I
_. —. —
— — —
us_a . ..
-------
—3—
—4—
Nr. D.land ¶ IA C nta
Of f. t to nab. what is basically a
tuchnical r.port acc...ibls to Vii inforusd
public ha .. not succ..dsd. lbs following
.xa is. ds.on.txats lbs problsas
1. ? AMI 544. thin f lbs b.adinqa on than.
labia. and lb. da.criptton of than on pag. 4-9
ara confusing. ?abl.s a and b by thatr h.adinq.
us.. to dif far In lbs flow i.v.1. (av•raqa vs.
naxia). lb. toil says that ens (vhich? I ha.
iaaa than adaquats disinfscticn. (Should
r..dsrs asai that at flows of 1370 ngd that
diainfsctien viii hi insd.quat.?
labia. C through f gin. lilt). hint in thsir
h.adlnga or footnotsa that, as th. tait says,
includs .ixtur. with pri.ary .fflu.nt and
on. as.ona. a p r out.qal
I. a cvaa..t 3.0 incha thick V i. ens paragraph
that dlscu..ss Visas significant labia. as...
i rts.
3. tAILS I cutiya I rv This tabis
. arlss. how various outfall altarnativas
noasurs up against cartain cr it.rla. A.
discuasad a ., its uasfulna.d is rsducsd by lb.
svclu.ion of lbs currant outfall sit..
Intsrpr.t.ticn of Via figur.. Is difficult. Uhat
is a good nuabsr7 NIgh for dis.olv.d oxygan and
hour. to choral ion for coat and parc.nt affiu.nt
at shora? Sons uu .rs concarn axca.ding a
thrashold of accaptability (aquatic hf.
crit.rta) othars nay h.va no thr..hohd (valor
ooiu .nrich.ant dsgradod).
3. tAILS 7.I Ib Thi. labia .xpands upon TAIlS
1 in In. .x.cvtiv. susoary. It includss a coluan
of r.far.nc.. to othar ..ction. of tha docua.nt.
Tha.. raf.rancas shOUld b. ch.ck.d for accuracy.
Tb. r.fsaancas load r..dsrs to coca id .rab l.
notarial that Is duplicatad In both Volu.. I and
Voluas II. for axaspla. lb. Oasaachus.tts
lurfac. Nat., iaiity Standard. ara discussed in
aiapt.r 5.1.1.5.1 and App.ndlx &.i.a.i. Excapt
for alight dlffarsnc.s In paragraph brsaks , thu
wording in the.. t vo p laçgs I. idantIcsll lbs
. 5 )0 vp1q .nØ sjgjandill , c ions on US EPA
Alpiatic Lila Wat.r quality Crlt.rta are also
substantially idantical.
IbI S labia and TAILS 1. whIch is a ccndsn.atlcn ,
taply probisso which lbs t.st dIscounts. for
axa.p ls dla .oIv.d oiygsn for prl.ary 5ff lu.nt at
sits S Is shown to ho 3.7 ag/i. ml. is baby
th. .in lona standard aol by tho •tats. IIov.var.
th. di.cusslon on pug. 3-3) stats. that. ovor lb.
(ma y.ar. that pri.ary of Sluant would ho
discharged, 1t is lik.iy ths such an s,.nt viii
n.var ho .xpsrisncad.
for tili nail critsrla . aquatio Ut.. lbs tabi.
60.5 not show that acuts toxicity ( C) lsv.ls
will ho nat by both prl.ary or secondary sf fiusnI
at sits S isa. fAStS *3.19). Tb. nuch.r of
.xca.daec.. is giv.n only for chronic (CCCI
toxicity. Pro. lbs infornotlon provided. pri.ary
•fflusnt apps.rs to hi a nor., pollutant.
Howsv.r , in discussing lb. calculation of chronic
toxicity (CCC). lbs appandix (A—a )) says. lb.
procadur. usad ... Is cons.r,ativ. I... viii
rs.ult In a ovsrpr.dlclton of non-co.plianca
alec. thsa day. of axcoadanc. soy not ho
eons.cvtivs • a. r.qutrad by lbs crit.rion.
C 1 asins .
us ua had an epportunity with this do snt
to infora Vis public of lii. homlaf it. of ths vast
project that It has r.quIrsd this ragics to
launch. saving r.j.ct.d applications In InS) and
l9SS for a vaivar of lbs secondary waat.watsr
lrsat.snt, It owas lb. Boston arsa a nor.
rasdabi. and conp Ist. dominant supporting its
in.i.tanos lbs Boston .p.nd .onsy on secondary
tr.alnant.
Or. DelanO TIHA Co.nts
Ton,. truiy
Z/iIAd4z
Danisi S. Cyril, III
CeCipo
cci C.orgs Ileceshsr
-------
£ 17
P17
hr. lovid ?v
liSA EPA — P . 5 1 .. 1
- los. l900c
Jfl( Fsd.cal loildiul
Sosto,,,Mass 02203
J.ct: C .ts so . r=z:f outfall
0... Sir.
Th EPA Puct ..t • sod Iso 11 iso. osrious iI . that
ifiould bo ru..di.d b.f.r. so. outfall I . built.
I. lbs ss uc(ies sotios u.s sot i . u .s(ilat.d for ( i i.
outfall, but for I i.. trsst.sst pl..t (rob. to El9. Vol
lt.F—3). sod u.s .urilv dis.i.ssd without so. bacbu.. is
u .It• of UI. fuct that (hi. sr os.d s.co.dar. off lusit •isht
u.l I isorow. this harbor by flusiii . 5. P. basic data
obtaissd. bacs..s so las.q harbor (.51. sor. ds at sit.s
u.oro I ,.. Ors.ost .fi)u.st sisot b. •i.sctsd to pr,v.il
(ibid.C-4I).
2. lb. . lIc lu..lt,, erit.fIa tasua l b s.ásts.ti.(.d. lbs
C .risn. t l. I. tv.. Su.rv hs.ds.t stiows 2 or 4
co..titu.sts ..c l. 5 li.Its. lb. 2 c oiost5 a’ sot
sit. d.t.rslsa(ivs. If th oths, 2 or. P ( s a.d 01i UI.
,s.ort stats. • sw, . .,. could sot d.tsct as. ftP. • . - a.d POT.
b. iss a bassod issac(icid.. is or lv dscr,asisI ia.idlv.
P.r. s.d bottor data is badly b•f or. a dscislos is
sad..
3. Yh• dlss.lvsd o ss for sit• 2. s.cu.d.rv trs.ts.st. is
coiisid.r.d ..rIisol at S.f, but .t ( i i. .uls(ii,O sit.. sa.oro
(hi. loadiul is far u.rs.. (hi. l.ast v.lu. u.s 4.2 (..A2 ).
lb,v 5 all ( h io w.v out to sit. 2 or .sr, (or 00?
4. lbs ..dist.(io. cos..risO . cassidorud .sithsr ( I i.
dsusitv or tho bIods 5r.d ilitv of (his s.co.darv studS..
u.ich is thi, solo solid cossti(usst Is ( ii. oiilusst. by
d.fi.itlos. Thu dossit. .rub l . u s4 so diff.r.sc. is the
•i.su I. ausstlos. but (ho blololical d li ierasc. b.tu . ss this
Is. is thi. dii for.u.cs b.tws sasd mid isilch.
I I. C.r(aI.l . (ha u.t.r coluis. m.d .pth .lv ths s.dssousts
will bs chaslsd. lvs, is. a fiuis.rsoi, chU.nS fur I $5h Tho
su.st los is sot sli.thor satorial will bo .dd.d to (Ito ocoas.
but saisth.r this oc.s. will ha l. to haiidlo at.
s..oss sys, triad to build or s.o .ato such . avstst’ Irsol.
(Vol .U. ha. .01 casts sorious doubts olsut (his o.ar i Ii t .
liii. so oso has ta.. (ho dii fus.r d.silhi .105 5 4.. 550uaSh
to - ii it will do its ith and ..ssst both Ps.sf 5. flow
s .d dr.500rs trout.. For tub of so. co.ce.ts
,ubstsotl.tios. I 51.0 (ho .r.s.s( dosils. if ovor built. a.
s...ati.5 hf. of (so .ssrs. tows.
7. li i, doss this EPA Is.. a deu*lo stasdard Is rolard to
outfall 5? For Posts., a. outfall d.siss. a.cludiss diifus.r.
.sst Ii. at toast 4 .il.s irs. is.t. siil. (ho L,ss-Nm.ant
outfall, with (Ii . s sfflu.st. sssds so dilfusor and is
0.1. out I silo Ira. Nsast. I so. (ho s .4 1 lost
b.cous.. (or both off lussts. tests i,ies .d so Ft P . . but a
vs luo u.s a.su..d for Posto. (..*-4 1) s.d 0 for sast
(p.*-7 ). sialo for rs..ic UI. cosc.’stratloss o
.ss.sIlall, (ho a, is .sfI. tbt sot. thiat. but co55&dar
(ho hbsr4 b. s.o.s .rousoatolv lOt of (ho riv.rs flow
is d stic mats. tIisrs aro so dlffu.rs. but this.. mis (so
oun.ci.al drinkisS w.tsr ist 5.
IS, tivss is all this srs to toll Ifs. ( ,uth is tto.s
smisro I hiavO s o..ortiso s.d to sot (ho harbor cl.s..d
so. Tho •rorssad outfall is too ousossa.. mud (Ii.
lustificatios for it too Wioly to dacids .5 it sow.
Thuc.didss said it u.tl. 3000 yourS .50!
Tlu.sr Iudusu.nt uss ba..d so . . on uiWiiul thiubius
(ha. Os sound calculation of .r ihiti.sl for (ho
usual (hisS s.o.s so. is that toisfl (ho. uust ss.. (h isS
this, will, without a.. rofloction. l.muo (hat (0 (iWO.
saul. (ho. will .lov this full foic. of roaso. is rs—
I.cting mist (Iso, I isd uo..lat lo.
lb. 15.1955
Nuwtos Corssr
Yours yor. trot
—‘7
Laa..co * Ichuaf .11
6. The d.si.. of Iii . •r outfall. cossidurod as a
tussol asd a sorb. of risors .i Sht ha i..sabl.. but has
-------
_ P18
10: l.r,i.—.r—l Pr.t.sttan *.ony T1: Nay ii. U I
P : litlip S. Nart.i
31 nylon Lou.
Nail... Na 02110
I ?: — ——t . — i * - ry 1Ts. .e Facilities Plan
Toli I II T si.c.ut Pl
v.lny V • Ulius.t fSli
Ill • UlLIl T N M?
lb. ci.. SI ny di.i .f.ct la. •f cbs effluone on .li .in.t.l b...d on II
list ,4 e dt.ind.al I.r .acoudary alliasne. ditch ..ca.d 30
.sjl Ill .M 500. auth a. lb... .lflnyt. lt..e occur .rIoS ansl.on (lo u
conditIny SI Door l.iand (S. .. I 0). ThIs sl.Ian. .t La ant prop.rly
. ort.d by any (.ceu.l inl.r..tl.n. I a act. II i.alat.d later to Vo1i
III that lb.,. I. .v.IIabl. Iid.iontI.. an lb. •I .a for
dtaiofactlr prtonsy . 11 lut.t (las. 5.0).
lb. ass .1 cbI.rIon an ttar. I. I. b. probinyti. l.apIt. it.
d l . .scoptny.. Cartal. eqppic S & rye vitb chiortn. I. (orv
c .J. . ditch ha,. lou bastaric ld. l petoet$.1 but di$cb oct11 app..r aa
.c i,i.d av.IIdii. rs.tl..i. lb. f.wantt.. .1 ch lorlona Ira. nysnta and
Iii. dI.ertbutlan of hypochiersu. aoil onrny hypochiorti. Io a ,. vary
- an onatnyt., —. l .ct.,ic Il.1 actIon .1 c Iosd .v.Ilabl.
sb l.rI.. I. •Ip.i(Icaocly t. than that .1 1 ,.. chIsel.. r..tl..l To ...urs
.d.qu.e. dtet.f.stto.. chlactanet.. anti b.yond lb. br.akp.tat I. d.alr.d in
sr I. , is obtains Iris avatiobi. shied. rs.I*aal. lb.. uould asks
I.cbl.rlantt s . ans.a.as .
1 .r ant. - roast ulib ahi.rlan I. V Io - - that can
hono LouiSe.,. .d.sr.e of beta .artan I II. 1. eb. asia,. I. dilch th.y an
dl.ch.rgad lb... sblagIn. lad arga.ts i viii one b. ,ay.d by (ho
l.cbl.rln .ti .. press.. lb. C.. lasts. can Ih .r.S.r. h. and, that (ho
ro t - - ass .1 t bypocht.cle. vIth l.chlsrIonlI.o sill ha irou.bis.y
I. , prianry .bIiasse I. c.ran .1 .lboctiv. dialalasci.. l.,v.tlo. .1 bite
W c arl . .. s .o.s I. pas iiy saIl.r.l I. li i a vsu7 .flastiv.
dtotsb.cta.t tkst I. one affsst.d by incarf.ri. 5 arlants. aid n1. and I.
one d.p.nds.e on 50. Na . .. lam. on hacuful r.alI..l • and provid.. .11.1
asratI.. Ii lb. an.t . .t.r t.di.taly prisi I. diachargo lbs topical coSt
.1 .ss..etan aqulp..n I. ouèesbl7 bt r than I., soIl.. hypechiorte.. hue
Ike l.ltnlt. a.ui,o,t.l .s.ta 5.. i ho syidorad. This io,u. yt
r.csiv. bugiho, otuidy. lb. at.t...lo rabsttn 5 as... dIslnt.cei.n In th.
hcliiti.. plan anac ho (urth.r ouppareod bob. ,. thoy should ho .cc.ptad
00111 15 • IPP’JIUI 0011111.
Th. rocing proc... anal I. cbs (aallltto. plan ho. l.taoniand chat lb. only
accspeabl. alt.neaeiv. I. an fall tu.t.. ,1 tho oec.cu.ot lIe. 3. ml.
I. b.aod on eli. da.cripet.n .1 eb ate. a. rocky aid ora.I.nal vtlh
circulation patsiou that ar. prianilly Inbiusocod by th. noreh.oauiih curronto
of Nasoachuo.il. lay in that rsgt.n, aid eho avaidanc. of oro.a .1 t sr (.nt
h.btt.t lbs ...lu .ttao ohs that all .tho, .iioo canaid.r.d voold hi .
osriova c rani.. it I. cl.ar that tb. aullall dillon., ai.t bsgta ot lit.
S s.d island Sea srd (ran that p .l .c.
I I I. alsi antad that lb. la ilt.tbo c .lou if lb. Pobant loiN srga.I..iIs.
.. ospr....d Is th.l, taped Tho lapØtr. P.cklac. hay. one ha.. pr.p.riy
. ra.o.d by eli. 1511* or Cl .. CPA I. d.c. lb. lOIN r.p.rt raiooa anny tanya
thai d.oarvo full s.n.Id.raeia. baboro lb. sugI.ll i.o .u. can ho .oeel.d. lb.
coating par(sr..d by eM N A Is one oulbiciont to avaluato lbs lie. I nytion
SI thi. i i .. A. a oI.i.. o 11.11 iovaoeil.ttas pn.ran taclIudIn. physical.
cho.Ico l and bI.hogtc.L .1 db. ..c hi p. ,(.i (or lit. 0.
P I if I
Dog. 1 .1 1
-------
“ 12t -, jL 1 q ,4d j i1.flitc*1? 0
MCt4Q /
4 i ‘t
AUJ. 622e8
- -
-- Aea a. Ajtft 4 e
/ b,Ao’ Q—4.. “ b. sac,.ujis _____
___ 1 rfl bft e
- - Ovea. / A
4 Jaçç s .se 1 .. O ca ‘ - -‘ ci. .
) s C2 tj_ /0
Curr#rJ% Coukt. ir f ,,j , P)o,.
beaci.a c as.
CAaLm _lCfeu . - -
- - .Z U , b.O(A. 10 ) a, - -
foc,j , 4i 6”- qfl%IJAPI
IThrb4e i aaiI ., 11 M4,.* 0ft 4 .(. Nc-
Ic r9 p4 , . & u
..S 0 ktewlsL cpe. As . a.
CI w bL ‘ .a, 3)/70 dagrv i.i
01 -4 /? Z Oc44 .J/1. i i ___
. 5 4)cz *Lt
_ -
1191t3P G .t .
/fl°fbIc I eci, ‘?W -
5/Iq/gp
ON?/ 1( .
Plate help protect 10111 Sostew Narbse- Missadlutetti Sap fron
poP lotion.
The ire. sine ftr tue Irgest outfall In tile arId
Is dangerously clots to shire. Tidal cwrents could bing it onto Uirth
I .re heiches. shellfish reas could riwain closed fireve ,. ted fish and
lobster diseases could inerease. It doesat site sense to clean up one area--
lotion Naibir .— by polluting metier - — lossacisesetts Sap.
I sege you to regeire:
it Si outfall location it ‘Site 1’ - nine .iies fron irbtalsead.
S scott. Ushant. loll, Cobassit. and Scituate.
7) wy and SIC0 7 plants hilt sineltmeously, so .inioullp
boated sewage is slot dildurged into Uassmdmsetts Sip.
3) Us dep!.batiu,sf Use lossedneetta lot Usality Standards.
4) St.dp the igeact of tie disdirged effmonnts on the coastal
en,iro , nt &.ring the c occsesnce of the No -theist sto event.
I fl7I
aEG Nt
s
lAt AOMlNSS’ i __ ,
Sincerely.
—A. t A - I t(U.k.
7Mrv’ ’-e ’- 1 c3 ,,—
X J L.-t’; ,i ;,J.
-------
II
P2 j , SAUCUS ACTION VOLUNTEERS FOR THE ENVIRONI 22
li M..... t.. .... . “SOS
Miv 31, I II
Mr. D. .i4 ?o .p
U.S. EPA — l. 1on I
WQE - baa 1900C
JFK F.der.I SuiIdin
Do.ton, MA 02203
De.r Mr. Tosey:
( ot.*I ’ . MoLaad ’-” 4 ”’ Sire en we ibis to rsps.eset i i . S . ia Action Voltateer. for it. wIrcwent
(SAVE) at the IwerlnR cii iby II 1955. cii iii. .ten lbrtor weter . ., .... .
Spet Ihsfl çpl —i wUsea1 l t Ststte • bec.u.r of conflict Ir
lor.I ee.tun 5. .rc .ir4 the fcl lovun written .Latweni within the period
S1t, SAVE I. on envirciweit.I oratlgai icii Utick Is u ori.he.tbSO it. fifteenth .id-
.pecllied In puiw . socy’s April Vrt gad.-
varsary In Saugu .. Thrcia aut or hi.tory, en bee. one only .i orted local ceniree-
0i6 4 Lt. .
sent .1 effort.. bat re ia .l U enticial ..... enil. At the present i i . or
ee r . are a rerd thee uathhnp I. onre i aortont to tim Slate of Ibasactmaett.
of or eetI Iy ial len
ibrbor.
a,.ereV g . ti id,Iacw 1 For wey aaiths , en he .. follm.d the ielo it of p1 .. to I ai it the i wid-
bv1 hg clean-up, J hews c mtwtiy r..heed in tciidi with II. r. of tim orgeni-
tat Ion knee, 5 OS (tenant Chit.. C it te. for Safer bier In IbesacIiiiett.) ,
l4eiae re.esrch Into all eec t sr. ii. boatcit lbrbcr cianI-I4 en bel lees
he. been tiErcugh enIi-Inloeend. lb therefore back thee orgenisaticit c i.t.Iy
In ii. rec eh.t leant to the EPA en this IWort* pro ct.
I a psetienl, hci...w • en he the follosiSiS .-... ... Liicim to ,or
I) That the smt.ii be hosted at U.s I i it. enll-bwm as Sit. 6;
3) llntt en slt i fili be located at the law ( rTy , U.cl i I. orb too close
to the Snt u .frw,e ti, list l.rp. salt isreb left iadr baton. it. bslr
proposed for des lwmttw i;
3) That prieery . a... ,..4..gy trsa * plant.. hi cee.cttci, with the claw-t*,
be befit sieelt Jy , en list —‘ - ‘—‘lrsmtsd se Is ont di.cintrg.d the.
lisasctmntett. la y,
6) That tint fi,nt1 plant eanalt to a. dsgr. tion of ii . —‘ ----gta lbtac nt3ity
A1t1i Ssugen has am heed s, to he prwiect.d free the .1 flanis ddch .I $ he
wetted or wy if the outfall Is itet ailed with acer.. car., or .rc ent
auly I dent to — bled .peries ed other wildlife, bat are en eronaic i. ity
to or l.rits fleet of I Idseen J idst.een i i the ladasry of the lila ..i .Iaii-
lila they tape to catch.
lb laps yen viii canti r ciw r’-- t -ticint c.ralWly to .iir por we
lions reg.rdlrs the laston biter tawcer Specs.
Shimely your.,
Ek’1i 4 . 11 f( 4#’
Elirn burns President
30 Cliff bid, Ssugus NA 01906
-------
rr
0
I
I >
P PA.
IF kewdy Ru41dhs
R ’ seIMA 02203
2Sb y l I
5 .-
i 23
-JI
1 Isv.
1. s owlie bioki w sod dw ow e .akus 1w
N’sdwasv’sn (J’si,enity. I ‘ s sho a c ’ s who wswld he so so
1w Si 6 so d sosos ,, ,.. Iec os soèa s w 1w d urw o. I ê ’ s
Msos hwtss Ray. Ii ss ’ ss sly doso , so w ckai Rnssos Hwhw
by oflvess Msosx howiis Ray. 21w sw pe_iely bell u lthi is s es .iIy dow
in the cowl sod dw,aer’ss sos slows, ow owow wiow es . ow 1waI std d ow
health Ima mr no’ cP kbeis s ’ susso ( so bew$we poIlv d by wwII, bernie die wlid
sod cvnrn those the sewage wheat!
I wg , you in , 5 ,ioweawl d Siso & 1wb Is 1woudI whes tow ow sowso die
Nwthshnse. be chow’s the oudhll so. Is so ..,wouw this buds prissoy aisl
sseondwy o’M,. M pbews be beds a isso Iy so hose. the ls , si so die doses sore
die disclsoje beguss.
Pirow ow yow pouldius d ud be *1. L,.s 1w die
dow cowial cososiwisacs sl p IMge this use wil be tha höous d die w.wv gushy
our shows. This Isa owl urges’s isS psewiag isKss I hs you will suppsal
the ‘w*l sousid cllou. die i t .41 be .4th so 1w owy o vy ye_i.
S. /4 44.e’I /- J 1P1 %
Mw I -
Mwhe a . Cowdusow
9 ICFI ’ c 1t /miç y t fro ty
j,,Ith c”
. 5,
‘I V
Ii
‘I
I,
; i;,s .,iII ..-- —
e•Lt,In1
,1
I
‘It
-------
____ P24 2
N C u I ois$
Ib U. INS
II ,k4 ‘ flU
N —‘ — Im—. l . T Wd I NITC4
— Jt,,L
avId I
u.s. -a s I
l - IN
Jil P. v I .I1dI U. 1. wL. .taI Pl t.
So.ti. 11% 02203
- 11tA1 wL .% A I t
r I . 1 :
- l I ttor ts.st.r C Svst
I s 1.s Is wt11 pàllo . .. _ lbs st
C . _ .. , sput tt p1ts I t Slatant. INS. ml. j1 INS
wItt c t.rt I. tnt d to lb. .,.I alt IMI I .t lbs
11o hrt,g Ib IS. INS.
.I .1, ..
. .14L p
14 U. P. rI
P d tof of L .rIIS sd P,sf . r of Isr4
: lo
of Cl I1 I Ii
— —tt . Iit ba. of T ’
I
I r 15. INS
-------
I.
Thu U.S. . Rest.. I Is t. to w ,atuIst for uo’ldtes In th.
S .II INS.
U. tsciethl Inforeetlee the
ee,tr .,ta .I I ta of .ffI t . I a Itotor f, toth wIry .d
trestasit sdsr iáu,tiesI es *fsl 1 o..HtI S. liii.
. ortt.ilt, i . fort .It .l,. of U. o.tr .u,t ltn ties-tail.
ttot for ..stI.. of Us ,iIes. .fl. . eetf.l1 dlff..sr ..d
U. uee. ttes t pl t toit.u.ies I. IS IS; udiores.. U.
_ .&k. , tres at .t s I . eel to Into o .eettes ..tl 1 1999.
— .opI lately I ee U. . t......_.1 a1 l ta of U. Iesry off h .t
, .Iy .Ies U. pint ISIS -ISIS. ales ..i.tos U. .wt. .......t*l
I eeta of — - Uk.- , sffl nt stantl.U Ia ISIS tot , ren s . U.. otot...
I ... of U. u.. * l.v.l. . sitir. the
for I rtlU thi. ntwiit. is ttot R r at ,ss toth. lr? .da
. ..,... _ Ljy t. ptoit to Ia upureti.. by ISIS. SIR I.e .tuU.lp
•r’ ’ U. reiuIMes imtfo . ty of . ......&kny t, it esS
for. i..eel uiM.. ...... .A.i * of esti. . for oItiU ‘
tes Rei . U. to.A.ø..il fir SIS’s . vIotery lesisto . is as..i..L
.tstad foil..;
Ct . . . Retir tot ,s , . . ttot s.st..ts, t t .t pI. .ta to
o.tr ...tt .4 .Ith at ii puee’t .. Lry t,tit wd.es ,
.a.br .tnict StatUtory g , . .Its . U IVPV. II IaF 9.,ctl
301 11.1 of U. Cl .ee lbtar t. pieelttless I... • ry• • , 5re 5
of t,.. t with a .p on... dI .ns.. SIA I.e twice a. .I.d Us
Il A r . .ut for . .tI a eel... tot flee! nidita of . l I . ,.
u.t eiplv .d. SIR toII It is htd .ly dItoIy —, m . . 1.
If .e .Id pi.usti on the . eIta. or tMt U. di.c1195
of lry off lt.et Into Re.u . .stt Re7 . ald uleleetal. be
p.eetttt U. ttlon of U. . . .d otto.
officit..
U. , ...... _ .t la.kidiip of SIR, . — - sd U. Offion of U. retsry of
Re .tr . . . .tM Affel,, of U. ith tore , .f .mM to dI . . U.
Ipastlon of dust!., tIa,, will to .wL_.__.t*l .f It of tJai..Ii*
tta s......ss .u-it,. uiti.s
Pantatot..,
U. t,,.tomt of U. off lasit f.. U. uulne.tI. on .*fa !1 fres U ..
Iasy to U. . .........t.ry I.,.l. . Is for this ,.f .I is ii. d c i.
U.t the I .., I.. tou .sttlt by SIR’. INS &..I.I of U.
tr,etas,t esluer. 11t the, tore fo otl.n. es eel bee.. Is ttot U.
eels., spiliontlon.. ftosd fi ito .*t by SIR. p’s.kdles I . fs
of .it fore i... ... . b.ry t, . . it. I qont. fees U. rule. d i lutt .
aesabi IsI.ies . onite.’t. f . . I,tes for U. ret ’., it U. _ .. . ,
tre.tirnt ,equIi .t for dl.d . .on. lot. asi.. ret.,.;
SIrm . the ta.,.t if ii. *992 _ . .d U. pI.ed tIon of
SPA. tros t esuletto.. s .u r of usmIcIpiuItlee
to toth Oo. _ d U. IPR ttot — - .7 ta’.tas,t IS
lust . to puot t Uus esri.. .nvtr,,’.nt or to ae the
.ttai.,nt .d Int.won. of i.e., quality In i istors. Those
as.lclpiuitles ow .t.. thut . . , .w ry t, ’ .teent
tr.ilitl.usll, toes d .fl.al In to ,.. of piulutest t.r. .d
l. ’.I. of pi .I lutont r ,á.1 1on .áulU. tao i rtast for fr .d..t.,
erningy a.,. U. dI .d .a,, of c p .- li t . .d
•tI.,ntotln. of . ..... _ -.J...I soli r, Ita In d utIi t ..‘i. ...........t*i
I.-1i.. tIes. tot s Aud. lass lIttI. .I iflus. for on .Io ad
eel I,. e.tuarlius sat.,. slusiw te. cr5 uSptdiy lai l.tt ad
dl. r..d by utzord .rrest . asA tIthi .otias. ... , Ut. tout..
three siiclpuultles las. adntatseA U.t they duesild 1.. .ept.d
fire U. tot. — -—J..ry ts . .tit requttst. ad U. useoctetul
it.1 • estot.e ad .pie . II .qu oIiSta. 2
SPRe his. NSIeet puI, tt . . it I. don . by U. folle.t99
o l y. that prt,y L.... t ala., wIth alidad
ap.dupI solid. . .., -..A - . with e .ea’. a.ta l - Is
.nsi....._ t&lly ti .pata for a.t ..sioipil eerie. dt.d.rre.
liii. • sectIon 30 111.) .yplIa.t ..sbt a .tIfI..tlee tousdon
only yrt.e y trsutt —ill r . pirtlsiularly I . . ,’, ba s in
ustr .ties to SIR U.t . tree st I. .dTIcl.nt to puolont
esri,. uat er..
m. .t inisrestliw a.Ues of thu isla. eel.. ad , MtI.. is
U. 1011.4 ,4 —— . .. _ . . to pAuli. . .....- a al the , .,,......J ,. ,latI ..:
. o .t.r , ...,........ l that U. J...... _ L ..(Ies ,s vt w r this
sectIon to toad on a c .ria. of the I t of U. .pplta.t’s
2 1p1
F .l.,.I Resistor Vol , I I. lb. 117. 1w II. 1979.
p. 1 I7M.
Ibid., pN 99.
I
2
-------
i.ss-t -.scs r, di .rss with s i fv sf11_it.
dis.ir.ss. Cs.ist’st with U. t UI. Cis’s ,aF tI • ii .
I.iislst l ’ s htsIorv. othst ‘ soil_i of 11_is r ic ’ s . Us bbl. 00-i
roguish_i pr_iulgiwi to ,. I I I . ths woçossd roguish_i.
ispil is hI. ss_iu I usUir SsotIsi 301 U. 112) to in si Uis ri _ i of PtIrs . scos r, If fl _ it .
t..$s of hA. sotl& or proj.rtad t et of the s i i nt s
discisris . 151 is C 1I_iI ho hAS t ci of S sSOW i7 for to _ i itfs1I s1
disclusrips. 4
I _i i_e as this ‘spti tist , is ‘st o_ii rii s
o rI. ’ s of I I . .sh ...ta1 i oto .1 ,wIry s — ---- ‘—v sift_it
tAroi l his — cc_i s*fsll. did 1st wt to is occfho bf hAs fuchs.
Is U. psi ,. si_i it. 1W . itt U. istiur . pliosU ’ s is *970 . lbs stItI gtki
As ssos dOf is INS, NS — l. to this logisil S•• 5.1
c ri_i. 5_i iog is lbs f (Mt D , is d ias lbs I t I ’ sp.I
isiror. NSIiui ‘star 51it7 ‘stuns (Mt is v. s ’s ’ s rustrictirs Usit
his’s a lbs ‘s,tr .’stal i t st.tit 1st lbs *55110 Ufa tat4s
istar qisitty urltaris isus NSli to U. .ffltusit f_i lbs . ikrp 5 5I 0 4
tr ’ s * pI’st. It l ’ s umuld 111.i U. NS ‘slog, isit. (p.stioi ill •
• _isa I
5. ,i.taI l tIaT1S
t1i Lt it.rts
this NS 55 J. pthliU.d is tl INS. o_iI ts lbs _isqius hit ______
Is , — 44 I 4
i_i•, Of f — ,t dl x 5 tt. 5* S SIlO ft. .iltti_t dtffIS 5I S ‘• IS via his_b. i Ip.sttoi s (II.
U of ‘so d*Isl1 rtog U. iMurl. psrtod INS-ION U — v
•ffl’sut bisl,isiN i. INS for ‘sri_i .*fsii isist I .. It 1. U. p •i_5 ., ..iic. I
of this usw7 to . lbs ri_i of U. U. l ist _ itt Isogis.
Owl _ b bwL _ it
is’ J... .J.i 0 0.0 5w
t_i. for sit. S sèi 1 usiMtalp aiM . 11’s sit is lbs sissi f_i _______
I I . pro_itt sr ! .1 c i*Ss*i is siMit *00 fist d.pth. Sit. S I. within ______
isa _ • __ 4 S IS
lbs _i hip NS . . - for lbs diffisur to’stius.
this , a is i ls 1. s rtsc. of U. to for mt 555 ‘ -ill _ it ?osielt ,
c. itiwis r ,dlog _bi of lbs ‘stunts for uos1tsttu U. 1isims of is’ of .ffIc% 0 5
sfflusita. A stifisitisi of this labi, I. prus’stad ._ or’s) .1 i_ 4 *0
is ThAi. 00-I. it. sup diff.is t.U.si TsAR. 00-i s NS. Tubis * is
a ,d.jfi ’ stIsi of 3..... r, ? ,‘s t Is for Dis(Mr,es into I: __________________________________________
lUrins hgru . Fwli.l gistar Vol_i 44 I . Ii?. Ji.. iS. 1979. ci*i,s _ i sf I 0013 . Apr11 INS.
p3tNS. ___
5 11b1. I. 0*1.11 511. ri_i, D I. 55. bo *L,s w . IS TsR. is IsionsotlS gi_i — 1 is’ I. isAls i of U. 3. it.
oglus of 0.05 is 1 is gi_isi i_s 5-30 .1 . Vol _ i 1 .
4
3
-------
(Mt ta f., (M u,tar sAfutli (Rita. I d 42 ue isittid. In
.Itiu.. critaris iJildi uIu.d is d l ? f.r tat’a.n wIu.ry sd
•fftwnt at 3It % s e isittul.
Thu crud. is ’ M frs ui 2. (Mu. u.t.oer*u.
I. t.r qi.litp d2 . .ol t s r ....._.._tIssl poLlutita.
1. A tIc Hf. .d pMlo t.slth . .ltarl. fur - ._ _ .tIcisl
psi lutist..
3. sulia.m td iI .d ea.loft, f..
pul luts,ta.
b iu.tuu tMt ‘l ta 1St IMariu psia.r dl.du.,eI at
Rtt.s I .d 3 s ...jstIvuiy ll . .iuiLsr to i otis. ed is.,
u t .t l,. tiu , isusrulbi. sd tl. ,sfers u. pt.tt• r thu
fiv.— p.r4oii.
0. th. fis. .1 it. thu stst.t dd t o bu.. ..J. .. . ...t
of psiu.i .fflu.it. . ciu3l ti . ...o krt tiistIIt lSI ’uTu • If
gis .t . ,. i,s istaistis .It Li to I,u.a, 1iu. d t bu
r od St fI’u— tiita, ,ula.
Ii. .t ta iii 1 Is -I ti. pu t •v
.ftlu.nt I. a Isis t. dil. lIti .t I .. rt.is with I - .. .
It i ?SlSti! 5 17 W to u .S US ta cistoulusi IS (to 7 S 70J to siulyis
iMtM , (is.. diU.._..._ u.s In fist .wt.,.._. Ml7 sI%ifi it.
I.e RattUis Vulocitis. I . . Pftlu.r* fulls
Its .uulu.tiu. .f ot L . .tfl .u. .ta for tir.. of
U. fi’. cvItavIa I. IWiI. .I list.. slft . — i swIdu .t d
.sdlit tislcltv) —, II . ..41V InfIu.i IP (Mt. 1u. of Us
dI.trI *Is . of dludsriul uuli fall ,.lu.iti.. f . . d — -
.fflurnta. Ill. 0 0 -I , •. ..ruu thu fall ,.Iscltr dI.trib*tos Iii thu
.u.u.t .m .u.t .t u.. w — U1 . t * iu . .
— -- krv off kisit.. A sr In total a _ ..........t for Ito e .ntu.u
of .oLI ts ’IIU full ,ulisIii i s In US .__ of 0.2 to 0.000* ..c. A
d 11A d2r.. for ti. psi..rp .ffba.t. flu .jii?I .t dlf?urss.
•PM. elI. 0.
1W 2. 1001 p 1.3.
‘SwuctiussItu vatsr ia.c.u toUsfit,. - r ?raauS fIIItIu .
pt sn V.1... L Lit lisat QStISIL fIsl Iis.rL - S. th 3L L I II Appsadi .
A i%U p).H.
iuIId. I . . this rsrqu t ssttli.
( dii. is.,
r.rtsis.f RI..h.r . . tuita .
p... . 11. n,.r.ito.I.. .. e..a S. A SMA
—. p.. l p.Ii .
I I I I
fail V.Lsrlt, PrIm , furuoturv PriisT, lsz u ur ,
is.
70 %
2 5%
00%
3 5%
105
345
0001
I II
S
-------
Wior that — — list 5% of lii. peiiw .ff I_st so) i lsvs fall
locItIeS .f 0.1 en/_s. thersee 1 1 .8 0% for this category. i..
oil pertlelel bevu Il.r foil v IociIles. gives (hive fereflces’°
to mauVe Ii. fail ,eIcciI. distribitlen for 115 prienr’ errluent. cain
the first nfsi_ss. 100 I lIS2bl 1 1 . S tth — - . f 5fl 0 t )4 111 1..
s.ttliis tomb _ s - rforesd g iv spirt for lii. 5% foil velociti
.1 0.1 .sc. its esosli refs,_ss. ci SI II9ISlu . o.wi ted
tests at I tenlf sli en bst sh s pei_ii effluent fuen er
Islad. Thsi, ast, latien of the prir eff I _ s I (OUt r, ,lta to fl.ld
csliuii_s (F1. I) list .11 fail ,.lecitior are less U_i 0.1
en/sec. Thur. I . so vslid srgi list its bi .r foil velocIties sie a
mull of floosiisti_ after dl. s fees Its diffias,. its
eoiI - - eeui I. Us pei_rp off henit Is IS or/i. iors
diff_sr diligien of its Of ‘so. ta. ossentistlen of — .—-
soli at ths . of Its ,.sr -fisld senid is 0.4 /l. This is .dy *0%
of urns aver ent ._ ,. _ . _ i _ d aon o trotien .r .s rd/I. 3
floosilstlc, Is sot .ffsct i,a at th.ss 1ev os_sitiotiss. lbs thud
refersEe is its isa* lISP rspeit t i tek is jart*clss in ths 0.1
esc ies .
The fist U_i 10% oversstltsl its hidi foil velocity , . for
Us pelesay . ri li_si Is fists, ‘if ted is Its _srflee. rot.
of Its peiesiy os,if is, , ., ., __ J for Its i_s Os ., Ists pelenrv JOUtIi
plent. lbs _sml ___ . tm it pl f 1ev rota is 450 d Us
sirfacs ages of Its _s pelrv ol.rifior 3. 835.500 fi’ • This is en
ove rflsi . iota of 154 galI y-fl’ or 0.033 es/s.c. Aooo,du.* to gsii_sflp
v.i_s ,. .
lMIt.d Ststes Osvt. .......toL Piotectien Osvts.d Sorties 301(kI
. _ .. _ .t Plintird Off ice. U.S. 1 3 ’ S.
duIrdtes. D.C. 118Th
2 C5,dimi. 1. .1. • 0. 5. li . li N. 0. Osretta. Oslg lnliwJIl1liig_
Velocities in Smuts, . presented St the Iar Folluties Control Fsber oUcn
C .s ,f.rsss. I S I S.
13,2 10 voiss ii. t . pa -se.
14 Ns.s.cI._stta IaT oses. Asls,tt . 3...J.r, Tyestrnt Porilities
Psi Vol _ s V. f 1 _ st *falI. Pil t . I rdi 31. lO ll .
socepted pr _ tv clarifies th.ar, . all pert lelss isvl,w foil v.lorit l..
greater U .n .033 en/s.c or. rmu.il . lOses at th. peek fis. rot, of 12T0
.. pert.cles hsviag fall el.citi.a nf 0.1 ssc will bs r_svod.I It
is therefore ecncli lust ‘s itslimiio of 3% of eel lo s he fl fall
%elocities of 0.1 enis.c _sst is srndporied the fed.. its effect of
this li diffues. on sisia sedlnt d.posliiio istos is laege 1 ss
siwsern In Table 10-3. Th. fort list 100 ’s ends. s.di_nt diposltion rot.
I. sic its.. larger t A ’s I. prieerilp to 17* ’. bi isr fall
velocity distribitien. It t Interesting to s,w list (7*’. 00 difielt
to usd1_sit resisp.ien Is sine sic ties. larger t A ’s for Its
mu v_son.
2.b ibtgr Qailt, St rd
l Thbls 10-I.)
‘s isret core CO I t for a prienrp .ffl_st is i itIfied in
TabI. I ll-I or 5.1 /1 in oont,ort to 8.4 or/I for a _ ...... Mzy effirnenit.
lr-—- or the ith st sd for 10 is 8.0 or/i. this mild s
to be a signifiosit b1 -orrb ” .gei_t plenty effLiesit. lkusver. IS O’s
bins in favor of , .-- - , u_st_st egein c_se to the for. in ssttirg tts
amIss i.nt 10 at lb. ostfall sit.. As in TabI. OS-), 11.8
11981) states that the .ini .. ient 03 is 1.1 or/I. vision ISO us ia it
at 5.5 veIl. ‘s violation of thu CO st id is ‘ ‘.ted is
sv trocting the inflated tesisipsision CO dificit of 0.5 or/i f_s lbs
isiut of 8.5 to ,i.Ld 5.1 or/I I_s Teble 10-I).
The fi.sl blee to ISO. elMs list its peliy sff 1_st will violate
its 10 s ( ,d Is ositM In Its foL1evi .lsuiee i idrn diecribee lb.
vort case scsisrio list 10* csstiestsd for thu metal “it
U_sapssion emit:
IIs lle.t .ini... 10 essentistion Is .s,olLy Usaiu for
prI.n effluent in stratified. vest ust drift osuutlsiis. after
s resiapsisicn soOt. These voluss osi is ebtalnud only see per
pear, at thu rid of lbs si_sr s.d asem thu foilevirs c iostIon
of event, no essispuueeles emit 1rlrd 10 j’s in the si_sr.
foIl_sd by s 10 dr period of enro st drift. follovod his
r.saap_siio event. Given Its ii.ut.d ompuoted ati of pleery
15 pl•I0eJ V I I , I.e. t..ter si _ srIis tio t! ii u t.
R1,uoesl . Pius. . N. _s4iiI. 1979. p 205.
1
S
-------
dI .cii .rgp. It I. lIk.l. IMI . , ., u,it VI I I , r
rn-i
!.c , q tIr Life Crite , j . IS.. ?.tiie I-I.I
of l.d L _ k . ir as tic if. eritaria a,, t i . ar ,,,n, , VI I . ie et fset at
U.i SO . uwi-....... _ ...ti _I p.1 luteata. Of tI . f. . t .l IVI U. tast
for ii. . prL ry •fflun%. Of U. f ... I,, p!stici s .d . Is ,
Prt if fi...t at SIts 4 . ______
, . of s4dd a,. pus _ tip tartVI I . U ,. tofluent to II . I * S..,
ial tr tnt pl. ,ta. . ‘s It V7. p.SdICt by
POdIA to .x..d crit .ri. far byj p prI.. .VI s —..... b.ry 5ff Iusmta.
id ‘Iic S..lth Ltari . lS.s ? I . a-I.
Th. puthile Mslth crit*iis a.. 1.. .Iuifteent t 21. tie lit.
posItIcn I. . o.ii crit.rI.. Arsenic .d t.Il U. crlta,4. far puI .d . ..........J..iy
effluents. th• u InIen ten U.t fall far p.I . .rp enip a ,, U.
rat. iF.’ . y) ( W I . p A..flI (lISP. V.A. 0-29)
p.st icids. 11.1 a .. , t pt .tIy t.ct.l I. U. ten Infl its.
2.. d ,4I tJt.jøjt , ( Sibi. rn-i. I
f tell to 0.1 0.4 Th. diff.........,.. Is pri.., .d . .....J.. ,p .tfi..ts far uaiI..,t
ewId.ei ’t s.dIst t lei1y a,, Iu.i. ,Lfi..t. . sal . .. a.
(WI. 0-22) (lISP. V.A. p6-torn
bia,VI .g.iu.t U. p1ry .ffl..,t —of 21. Ienh .Ien of U. h* .r
p.stieI. fall suloeltI.. far U. pri . . y .fflu.ut.
oo irnrn 9.1 I c hal , .i U. ..hsl. at s 5 is 21.2 U.,. I.
u dIffiuwws In ..t......_.t.l l .ots for U. lit. I ..en S.1I L4
(WI. p642) (lISP. V.A. ri-lOll _______
prtenpp .d . .... kry .ffienuts 21.1 aenld Juetify 21. ...tasatl . . of 21.
_ . ___ I _ . , t,en ,t .t .
Vo at. o..ld.r U. floe 21.2 VIst . tsu. a plent
lsves 21. t.sa t plait. .Ith.r — .ffl . .ut Uao i U. oe entilil or
slt ,. II. A o... ,taitlp ...I ,. alp U. t....._..ts3
Vol. I. ION. p 0-23.
19 PN 1A , Vol. 9., INU. 0-22 al 0-SI.
I0
-------
l t. of li i . effluent. Civ . . list thu l ct. en Ib..uehen.tta .
ihuthur of prlenrv or . —- ..ibrv .fflient ., .a, is?. . uguiif .ewtI. different.
is .,, fc .d to v..idu, U.. fuel list thu i i ten or the uurueui.r
uu.t,t •lale will Iliwiete Iu..oo u. s i owi eliot the present.
si iIensi enjor pIilboo i. .octel , . eniC luwi du.sen 1 prvblen.
It I. obuto. tist thu oussil Idltstor envlr.i1a1 i t of thu
— - - .7 Uist1 fDilIt9 IS tlV 5.
l tlen to thu — 1.: — ___ . IfW thu ‘ s of
t s bUll.. doUe of en-PSI.,’. sy on• — -
- j9 4.u i _ T— _ i fflit,p?
This Uen I bu . .tI.f . .torll7 ssr be .t.ti list it
usItIsi thu * ‘. ulaI of thu — -- b,y trentnt In I S IS. Thu
‘SI , ., s iIbootIoo r .llssd . rIuen of prlry
sf1 ban?. thr..* t hu .*f .ll. In itIen, difl.v.ut bit
rs.t,lctiv. Ditorl. en,, enud far list deniaL
W I ’. rv of ViMi tueltd enIp antitativs ..oe list
l to Shut, hul of thu - -— Us. ut isis ,:
r..,. ....J dte rg. 109 Ir7 .ffluenti is eu tad to
violet. thu ‘ lth of Ihu du .stt. 1 . 5sF qiai lt.
ul rd for dlu.oIvud y en iro sr resiapu ’sion
sv.it.. bit I. ust to violut. Us Cui,enelth ’u
for — - a u.iiau
I. ardor to lentil, It. hul of thu steer en thu buatu of. 10
shu id .Iol.tlen, WI Ibu . I u. t Ito . .tl si enIt r reels.
to .enu.u i ot. . ti.t s bppoth.tIeni i.nt SO pruftia.
This profile 1uet 191 thu et SO luslu et dopth
II 9 5 . Vol. III . INS. p 1 14 1.
len I. kshuiu of thu Suvlu.d Sucticut 30J(hl Aenlicutlen of tls _
91C. Boulen. I . 3I .d bp MIdeni isrdi 29. 1985. ry of
Flvdia u. p 4.
?uti’u Tn . ten. • to ‘is1 oA99L P’l,.. of uouqJbr ..
Iulen &1I1 i ’LPi sia tcti 3OI IhLA99Llc.ti
t.re far U.S. wi s .tal Protactlan ihudi ISIS.
rugurdis.. of ii . dot. or loentien ut .huth ii. . il. ‘Sue ..
Thu CO enenoenente isur thu s .tf.lI lit. I ii thu sr of 1978 .sys
tb Io.sut .AI thu.. enue cisu to r wIn t thu Iwpothuticul irnt SO
pof ii. in th , folloris. ens.,:
1 3 . 191 thu et irs prof Ii . , with thu u.uuel .t.d
ient boll.. dluuoleei arysen ensententien of 1.2 s./I —
the bitt.. lOt ent.r. i I thu vuitieni uvelegu Isnt
diuuolvud oups.. oauusitrntlen for thu Lop 29.9 l.r. of thu
profll . of 5.0
lb.. thu eni utad - . . bypothutleni iu.t DO for thu u.tiru
enter enter ooiv.i aul..st to bu 5.91 91.1? With thu. Ient 10
thu prirp - uffluent . .enld viol.?.. thu .t zd of 1.0
9111. Thi. . ,...i1 I. t uienilp ws ud Iisousiuts.t with envis.
reel... enU l enwi by WI In suslentlug otis, isis, . ll..tI . ..
. .tIau .ldo. 11 u)d is ustsd Shut thu louts.’. orlgi islvur
u .lbatIen en. for u. .si fir of 405 . s .d . Li .11.
autfell teeing . $ ft. diUbo.r. .u.u.tlally thu u. thu fenility
doucribud In thu INS WI s.d NSA ta.
his fust list WI I. ,.......tl, opsu.tIN . r thu - ±y Us. t
enebt. In no is, Fulls ,.. It of lbs .,.....ibillty to . thu
uuwirc,s.nt.l s.d — .—io uqsen of It. uetla.. lotens. Is. s.d
1995. thu ‘ud U.. for Iiud91 thu s..taentl . . .1 thu — -—p
tr..tit ut . ( M i, I. lu t ( M for — 1s . to bu __ , __ .. .
list lisle I , .lllng us to do en.
Fart .ast.l . WI Mi left thu door op for thu . l of thu usivur.
If WI will not ru iien thu folly of MiI tia en — --.l r , tgistit.
this u SA. .a with lb. sistlabi. .vt s.. ald sutor thu o i door
sd senolu. It.. rI t of .l. Thu , by .lIoientIas thu
enscu...rp . —-- brp trislust .tngs us bu huttsr ueni I. solving thu
c In.d ussr osrf is. probIen I. thu Ii. . , hurhur by I eelng thu
ustrol of trio s.d bsen, . t.rl.l. ut thuir uenus.
loglen I. ksl,.l. of Us Vo,iuud l.. SOlihi U . .tlst of thu
. 3IS by IS ul lols.d. Ihuob 29, IS IS. ry of
Vludl .. p It.
ii
I i
-------
W (owecA? ey ’ 1 ffa44ac’ “-‘F
q/mI q.zMarAN r# l . [ uhs#p 2 5
ci ,, 11 t1 .TP! J
Mr. bawid toe y
11.5. IPO-Region I
I E floe. iO(”C
Jr. .uldi..q
Postnn. MA 022I’3
IN... Ct. . Ioneyu
After .eadu.uq lh boston Mar60. Wastouat. . COn.eyanc. bv ste . iVOlu ...s ad
III. D ,aft Supple.enl.l Inwironsentel I act St.tea.nt. I f..l it Cflfl ..eys
th i .essIn.. .1 a.butra. ness in choosinq In, cost acceptable sIte 10 . hi.
outfall. This say be r.sadi.d bt . editoriel wnrI, hut •s ut now stands. f’o•
the p.. ertu.e of an “iepa,tiai” outside obserwer. the d.r,..ent doe.. ‘.1
saLe a conuinttnq case for tn• ie ation of an outfall .1 Sit,. I. • ot,pns.d
to so.e iocatuo,. het en Site 2 and Site 6, Mo.-. iiieiy. the abut. a. i.u.sj
can be attributed to th. lach of •wtdence that any for. of rush •ana.pe..nt
sas r..nd.ucted. Uiue.t the u.w. rtatu.ty of lb. Scientific ulata u Sed to
(letp.ai.,. tie effects o ? •ach sit, on the Harbor. such an analysis would
s... andto .
I.. part uc..l.r. all sites inland of Sit• S •r elielnated t.ecaus• all.. u1.’
S there is a lar . decr.as. in predicted bachqround bu, Id-up of
ro..’a.,nanls Ip. 351 and nearfi,id dilution is uncr.as.d. ,.t is.
..aiuat ion of eels d.c..... I.. bechqround build-up or incr es. . in n —.r C 1.1.1
.lulu.tuo. is •ttsapt.d despite the ia. e increase In cost of e.teo.iunq I.e
outfall to thus point.
In Sction 7.1.2. 1. on peq• 7-6. it is stateds 01.cha.q. at an, nf the
DrOpusPd sit,s us pre .Jict.d to na.. sini.aI Shor.I.ne u.pacls and all sit..
..uil •.‘p.ess’nt a 5 .qniftcant ueprn.e.eet ower ..istunq condition... It Is
then a .t.t.d that Sites S and 5 puowide ..tua protection, buS in light of tt.
prr . lo.us qtat..ent ibis .uOuid not see. to be ..ortn ..,(h. Tet nn p...j. 7-u it
is statedI Pollutants in the . ?flu.nt could trawei to snorelin ,. receptors
in es. than .,n. tidal cyCle Iund.r e.ire.. she. e..ard wun.i e..ent 5u.
resuitu..q un leeds of effluent at lb. shore oW.. u .c. that e.pnt.ul fm.,
CII I... ste s or .ute S un.le. Ii . sa.• co..dit inns. VII. us listed as one
of the thr L ’LJ ’!J tnnc.r.,. with cit. . A.jain. hoeu•r. ha .ed .... thi.
stet —ent on pag. 7-6 and whit app.ars to 6,. an •,ni .l.i, orcu,rre..cp, thus
des nt see. to lu ..ery ‘seq. i au.t. ii u. ,y ,, • hO.. us the u,.ade. s.q,po ..‘d In
inn..’ N.. ai..ati,... is Sue... for thus l.’..l of effluu.nt .d.uci. ref l.cis II . .
luteiy d...aq. or b ”itiability of Occurrence.
the uunl , seruous u$lff.r.n e between Site d and Sites u ,P.S .d.u.t. Is cited i ’s
5 .. tinn 7 is In. t .umh larger Dh,toplanhIon Produciuo.. whim cay occur at
ci. .‘. Ti.e.einm.., qien the iep.essuo,. the .lncusa..i no. lea.... II .. lb...,
of this auldutuonal phytu,pi nhten production qust be worth th. 5113 •illuon
a’idiuio..ai .051 CI bus 1. 1mg a tunnel Vu. Sit. 2 to 5iu. S. ct his is
.. . er e.plicitl , stated or Calculeted unde, a r , 56 •anag..ent I.a.euorh.
Ii ,. othe. .li .t inc (C,,., a.nng hi, sites is It.. inter a spat t be?.... seu.ousfa.
t.eat..nt begins. Iiqain. Sit. P has nore serious umq.acts than In. other
t ...., yst o.. pap..7 U’ these au. not but into. prob at.ulit ,n.ujl aa’.eq. .....t
nor are they ewaluated,
?.. ..ll,. in Appendi. F, Se tlnn ..‘.l.2.?. udier. dilution cruhe.ia a c used
to .‘ . ai.u.t . th, different sit... Only In the cese of stratified cnn.litti,n .
us ti.,me no du l.,tlo.. i .wreas. for bachq. Ound contasiuua.uts ..Ith 6.1-0., al
Iire bet....n Sites 2 and S. liowe..er. this se.as to be the basis for
iq... ,. i.wj all possible sites between these l points that .u, .fiII..e.we.
—ill ocr , ., in she C.iteqor Ie s used Co. criteria between Sites 2 and S. Thus
is .01 cii. .. f.n. th. dotucent and giwen lb. unc.easing cost p.. ‘005 of ti...
Outfall, needs to be eo.e clearly laid Out.
I.. sunsa.y, it is not clear Cr ., the docusent that the cr,te. Ia .5.5 to
eliusinate Sit. 6 - - ...does not produce significantly isprowed u.ater
.i .ualit.. i.rartirai differ..... In pubimc health risi, 5r deceased ,noact 0’.
tue ear,,.. .(ns..ste. he only Justification for e.tendinq he bounder,
i.a’t Site us to increase initiel and far field dulutio..s. - - told op
be used a. a basis for reject mg Site S ower Site 2.5 or ewen owe. Site 2.
I .n .;eflUI ..t ly. the doc,.eent does .‘ot yet .ale a cnn . .Incinq rase for c’.o.ce if
an outfall site in the range between Site 2 and Site 6. the., appears to
he no justuficutin.. to e.te..d the ouatfall beyond Sites. •ltho.ui h the
,l,.cu nt see —s reluctant to state this e .plicitly. It is strongly i—olie.i
U.’ tape 7-9 I tu.o..trest, the differences In ispect . bet..een Sut..s .. awl ‘I
are reiat,.eeiy ceall and are generally within the precision of the
p. ..lurtion sethnfls. In. eajor differences between these u,.o sites is the
additional cost uslu? •ilii.nt required to ,onstrutt iii. tunnel to Site S
I huipe ,ou will find these consents useful in flneliiinq the dnc.ue.ut.
Sincerel, yours.
Oeuid Te.Lia
Assistant Professor of
tcnooeict a’d
TAG Meeber
-2-
If .,. 26. l’JRul
. 1! tudy Pet,r.on
-------
South Shore Coalition
— • IS • . SOeI .Niflewa-aN S
P26
. Pith..) heland . hegto.al * i.lstrstor
C.viroiountal Protection AqIMCy
J. F. Iaiu,e v Fe u l Suildiag
Potion. NA W203
Suer . SuI :
The South mare Coalition (a walontary association of I. . tams) is
writing to urgo you to tiawa your strong efforts to see that the
waters of lesion Harbor are cleaned op.
The Coalition wary ouch s rt 5 the good begionings — by the lISA
to carry cut this goal by .ebulldi.g their samraqe trealoust facilities.
I war . the gre.. ii furieS that the ii and financial p.essuras
ingosed for ecc lishing this .dstory objectire y result in Sucisions
that will be ultlwat.ly ha,.ful to other parts of the anviron.t - oust
specificilly. Massachusetts Saj. The •,v . feels that concen, for the
e.vtrc,amt ibsuld be the overriding onesi raiion I . planning and
ccn tnacti .g facilities to handle the sago fr the lISA district.
ma Coalition sited eeiwawaly St its last amtiaq to wake the follanilig
to you:
I. That the nothing to violate the Clean Haters Act. (Therefore
before any discharge begius a Hasa. Sag the s.onsdary treatamt
plant amt be operational.)
2. That the outfall pipe be located as far out as possibi SIt. 6)
I. orthr to provile U .s best cgportwaltg for dilution and spa iou
of the affh. .t amy I’am our beaches.
I. That the financing for this criticel project be enpanthd beyond the
rat. payer bat, to iucluHa a arch broathr siats-vith base so that
econonics not drive the thcistos waking process.
Ha reciato your i retion of these re ndationa.
Silva. mairam
cc: San. Williwa Gotae
Pop. Frank N s
Il)
P27
—
.S . — .a
fl a . i. _s
—
‘si._ S . _a. a_s
a
Ma, 27, 19th
Mr. Michael .Islagd
aerlorel Adidnletn,iov
C.P. A.
J.r. konnady uil4in
oetcn i . 0220)
Ce.. Er. r.l.d.
viut. to sAd another .10c of rout f 5r Iha pucpc..d auifefl alt.
of the esu “onion lbrtor c_see trant ii e,etae. There Ia ohalcuely a naid
P0th to cla.n outan rtoi . s .d ei.o ro protect die ..ia . of the PSutifp
orthahors. ur pgo to ouqur an ouile.ll locetton at att. st1 • nine
nil.. (roe lbrb1d . 1 yscoli • Salient, lull. Con ae.t s.d Scitoete.
Thia are. dape.dacn ftl htng aid reciwation aid Ic rioutly U iaoid y
the proupeci of e.waa. dlecrs flour ha ahore.
!Iouare ly,
. Cr. l i N. Soap,
I1 ri r ii
IIr.IU I
QIU .44V3 (
I - j
I
OsiC Or
NA tii . *o ,
p,.
._ fl&L ._s.ouD.ouELL oucaL_s.sCn.TI .wa ,_siiii
a — - —
-------
P28
I , 2S.t BS
MusItos Corner
Mr. 0.vid ta_v
li lA EPA - helium I
- Ra_ l90
Jiw red.,.) Deildiel
De.to..Ma.s 02203
J.ct: Yurths , c .ts Os . r,...,...Si _atf.ll
Deer Die.
Th. A f t De..t’ 1.4 IN. II IIa_ eaiiaus flails that
Should be r.d 1.d b.Iare _av autlall is built. Tn.
401 louise r. es_al. ev f_all_as 1. the tie. far ca_at
s o ds.
The,, is PI%JS0 is the heart 04 De5tOI 5 Liv. ? without
• s. Crossly .ollvthd •t tn. saiut. it will. within tais
years. be cl_amer than U.S Muddy River a.d the bord.r4s 1
? ,.s. ..d _aarl.’ as are, as the Charles ..d ...arl. as
That river. sow Isaw. the Dosto. Ga_r will be totally
chanledi altar sri_a, ud e.coedarv tr.oteait it will
asar le asd b. D 9Z .vee. he. to trees of tonic. aid
bet•oia it will still b u.f It lop swiinl or drisbtse.
but alte r a Is.. hours shine with ... sater its a.s. i.c.
will .p1 esd.tect i.. It will cow_a so odors. sor will it
cast ee dlsewstisl d.bris as UI. s_abe beech...
There Is coatrevers. o .t h_a to direct itS course. *
stroel casti,ls_at a_ts it sisad i_a •il.s out Iro . Deer
1.11.4 1st. secl1_eett. he.. rather thas co.tiuuue to
rel.a_a it free th tosatet el_at direct hto th.
Pr.sidemte ds. _a at er_a_at • a.d liar.. accordine to th.
l iliAn the svet_a Is sail ei.ed. or out to Bit. 2. four silas
live Sear lslasd. It’s sot lib. s_at. .eiar. aloud shed
s,st_a a_ties isto Lv .. Murbw . loss tha. a .11. a_v. a.d
with littl. or me .i.UIe. It’s rhO .., lii. the lbrri b.
.s..r. sa_e tr.at.e.t .1_at. discO_ale treated s e into
Us. river .md. bac_ase .1 th, rivers satural clsaseisl
acti_a. I_a ca_aauiit les ta I,.to th river far their
drink 1.1 sail? aed .t Use _a.th of the river thai. is
bathise asd Ilehiel.
co,d1n to IN. . a.d .t.ta_sts. i ii. osI.
silsilic_at •r la_ are sesticides. ,ed..su.ts, • d iN.
.os.ibilitv that mutriest. is the allluest could c_a_a
bIn_as. Euinatio. .4 theiL data. how. an- . shows that he
•ee(icide data sas not s_as rsd. but only luees.d at. 5 15cc
so ,.sticid.s could be detected. the scientists studvisl the
a_oiudar, s.di_aet failed to realis, that it ses
biodeered l. (this Is the s elude, that Mr Levy waste to
sell as ca_out). aid it I. mailerS •.elaisad umv bleve.
will be a .rtthlee. sail, the _aCh richer eros_at dtschareas
c_as. so blouse.
The cleasu . of heel.. Ibetor .aet ca_ iut is a_v
staSes. .rvb l. as follow.:
I) Restore erie.,, tre.te..t. to r t Cress filth
five vaWsine us 0. the bsches.
2) It_a dusaisI dieeeted 51.41. let. the harbor, to
reduc, th, rat, of sudist builds,..
31 hart sacosdarv treala_t. to reduce coathasts
is the effluent to carte .er .illio. laud eatislv the
court).
4) T . ca_ of c isad ea_, a_rI la_ (C s) by
divertise all sa _ rs b.ariae soni_as terlals to Deer
I. lad.
—That, with ious s ,et.. irou.ue.ts. Is f as
the hetharit. is .reeentlv caitted to p0.—
C) ha _ s _ a reduce the re_aleC eel lut..te Is the
h.,boe eethe.sts. The ,.tost and bioloilcal status of the
sadie_ate asd the dv.ice of the is_ar i,a.bor ..st be
better iso . .. if a ari l. solutios is to be lousd.
Tours very trel.
L_are.c. *hch.fe ,.
-------
P29
hr. David Tøv
USA EPA - S10. I
- Rois I00
J F K F.d.rsl .ildlad
Sostos.N .. .02203
sbI.c1: Cts is . rzz .utf.I1
0... Sir.
I reSist .s.di.p La this. c st. •L.c.l • but tis.
so ,. I loi at tiis draft of th. Eavirousisust.) Iso.ct
Stat.u.at. tui• so,. .ss( is I I lad. Oa r...iaia 5 tiss
basic dat., it ..ors that II .. EPA assuaud valu. (or
assilcids cascest t lea. is Us. isa s i. that .mre so sach
as l iv. this. I Sis .1. 1... 11.11 of thu I 5 A studiss idshch,
sa basa. lovad asIhf ...t (cid.. user P .. Also. isis
.LlcaIloa of Ii i. EPA critoris Siwus odd rssu lts. ha 5
.61. ..thcIias v.rv usosiLosubI..
I r.c that tis. 9010 draft sot b. cavtsd eathi this
1o11...,.i ls.u.s ii. resolvudS
I) D at c. lbl. sad cis.lst..t dat. Os nsa - ui to.lcs.
2) asstIv sv.luaat . this .lfsctlv...ss of I i,. s.istlai
aitfall. sod Us. r latlvs .ff.ct so Nisaai of in. .roso..d
a .tlalls this Lvas-iaiius outfall.
3) FI.d butt.. iu.sIllec.tlas for this co.structlo..
0or.tlos sad laI .s s of Us. .. o.ad tusasl/dhlIus .r.
IUT J IN
101TISI * U
Areas I C
Caas.r
0.rcur,
1sf luuut isis
p
-------
I
I
.——
—
———V
us,
--- -,
us
-.---
I
-. - -
e —
—
—-V
P
—
.— I
—a
-—---V
——a-
.- — -tea
— ——a
—a-
——a
a-—
— — a_a
—at—
s a
P30
M.,31,19e8
wId To.i y
I (Mild Sills P u ’% Ol1tV
Joii ,i FI d k* .ad , FidSrSI BuUdkI
Dusbn MA Ofl
Des’ Mr. TomsV
Save us libtis’ . Savs e , . a ,,o, ieIlt aonslbis’4
Ii RosIn Ns’tior id P.lss usstes Ray. s’gipo il
us . .a.SI1IWIUH C I ,s Masudwsslb Wets, Rescuicus
AaiThoiIty I , th. osetd p . lbs b..lsd ki Raprsa
b ..dsisd tic Sbus 4.5 CI 5.0.. CIe s ItveIan bald us Is’ out
— , .R,le .
W m isit. 5 Sib Sb Ks ’ fuitisr cost
&.J CI vIS.a-vIS his ns.4sd she acos ths Qe .,h .JhJ ..i
stialy via. bus” ,.. ,M.4 is s. ’atibs EPA. assethon Old no
sls, 4Li4 b.nelR Is aoonisd b. ond Sib Five. hiIIe his cost
eases ihepiopoibonMsl ’ is S ’s bsnsIL
SbI siuIy .
flavil Nov
ExsaiSvs D
uso usI,ta
.—-..——
I_. a-.
--- --I .-
p..
u s c i—j-
V..——
—- - a
‘S.—.
.
——a—,—
.--- —
L__— ——
- ‘ S.—
O
V
us —
‘S.-.——
—‘ —
— __.__
—S
I.usj fl
I- . .-
I—— ——-V
___..__ a
— — _-__
I-.. —
—
—
—a-
— pS -.
-p ——
a- —
— .____
• —a-
i usaI.
Mr. David Tesey
U.S. CPA Peqton I
i C - noon I 90CC
JFIC feder.I RuiIdinq
Boston. MA 02203
Dear Mr. ?usSy:
I so writing to respectfully ask that the teflI.ony
given s’s b.hslf of Save the N.rbor. Save the hay at the
public hearing on th Jo.ton Harbor WaSt. wat.r Conveyance
Systea Draft Suppi..ent.I I iact Statve.nt On Noy I I be
wtthrdrson. Our porition ha. yet to be tinaiiied.
Thank you for your con .Idsratlon.
Sincerely.
David N. Novak
Snecutive Director
Noy 54. iS IS
,,,m.,Nvesoum I’is” .scs ..a i1s will .Oins’
-------
—S.——
— —
a—.——
Q I _
-
-
—-- 5
—
V
—
—.-e—
— __ wa
——
p a
(—I—
at—
__ ___
I—
———a
— __t _
— — —
— __t_
s— —
— — ——
u-ac-
t————
Mr I vIdToniey
U.S EPA.Icziasl
WQ€ - Roan 1900C
JFK F aI Buildiug
Bssaos . MA O2 3
l Mr. To y,
Follaoliig Is $ uiI capy 1k E _ ‘bIch I
the Pvblic Hwmg ca lbs Doaos Nai bar Jauewiiwr Coawi’yaacs
S,aa. Dn t Sqçkl.e l Saç i S1 euiu as May II, 198$.
. w, i - - I I I .. $ __ ,• _ I —
Sass He Sass Sap ci P des
ci — - ___So H .t
lbs p wipes p L — Ilbi a
£ a lWS U Ici w tale bes
__________ H.t
i — Sap Ic.cs Sa
I •- ISa • N 7 lb $
U - .Sat pi*k d e
asliS — — dill ec • es S as es tIes
— Ac Nwtb S uc. (oc —
lbs t — — bs Uc bsiMi .- h— - Bay
S... Ac Ibsb Se.sSa Sep bs*
ep — ta — _ .. , — e a.
lbs ta,.. - — U bbs . -4BaI - lbs b
5e al ss Isle le — l iu
— . rI _ cb . , ...i , . 1
le lies Ac esIdl p .esi . t
W SWiM. U ., .d. as 1i Tb ,ss’
RECEIVES). EPA
•, :;.4I1
BuiI Esia.d
I4..J ..bp Dbvesw
WAl!I OUJIDIT 8 1*1 1 (1 1
ca vid Novak, Eascuive Dbecsar. Save lbs HbrslSavt 1k Bay
p
P31
tEPlED • EPA
SlAt d a
R..n .ld Naflfreu..hia
W te. Us.ali ly branch
U’.LlA
h.p.,. F. ltChhedi, I ’uildi
bostcq,. Idi •. . #.L
hear Mr. Man redi.niaI
Tt,poe cc.ents address the Draft Buppleeental tnvi,c.noa,ntal SIaleeer.t
c r4 it led 1.c.slc.r. i,..-bur Wastewater Cor.veyarice Bystee, V. ’luwes I ar.d 1I.
he ct..v.ls ar. •ut .s It ted as part of th• public cisv.i record ahdee the
NEP requireponls.
The NtiA regulat I c . ’ . require IN. federal lead ff6, to .e.t
certain Criteria i , •v.luatlli$ Ill. ., ,vIrovSfit al CO.assQ...liCes c.V
federally •..r.ded prcj.vts. Tile NEPS r.g..latiu .is also reasuire Ih• Era
t . . fulIr.,. certair. pc.ced. .r. 5 to perfceo.mq tile.e •.aluatio s’ .s. As outlined
b.lts. CfA has riot fulfilled .11 the PS obligatio..a.
I. Under i PA, Era Oust eveluate all reasar ,able alteroatives for the
Drc.i.4 . Sad aclicr.. TN. follawing •llerviattve appears not to hare .. e l i
•e•l uat•d.
A. Era has not evaluetad the vl...v .lal i.Oact s assotiat.d with
lc.a-.1.nq the effluent outfall at Site . The c.Sc ..lat ions
p.rtc.rwed by N. Maneillig, P . C . 1 and preserited , . the Saphlr.
Neihlace, indicate that adequate pr...ur. lead evisis to aau.
lit. 6 a,. alternative ccparal.l. to all others. LPA, however,
•li.Inaled this Sate frc cC.risideratiori. by r.otl ..q that Site 6
c.?f..-ed no Increased .vvirc-neer.tal benefits ever Sit. 5 but was
ocr. cn tly. FPA utilised data fr w Site S ili the analysis of
Site 6 10 support this conclusion. charging Only the death. £16
use q.V the saw. data fc.r bc-tN Sites reached the ..pected result
•f r differaliow setween the two sites.
II, (J..der rd’r.A, EfA oust cluoc-sa an .,ivi. .... .tal ly acceptable alternatIve.
TI,. follow.nQ list dcuponts the ..iiy owi.sIOhs, violaticrSs.
, ncori st e, •5. I .ad.qvac es, and errors i ic are presanted as
.vider.ce Sr. support cf the pr.lieir.ary outfall s.tih deciSiOri
preser.tea •n the OwlS. The list dewcvsstrateS that this decision 5
i nviri .w ,.tal ly ur,acLeptable.
t. r;A’ , ralculatit-r.5 result irs the dawarsstratit.n that the Water
O.,a,i’i, 31.rriards of the Ccc.r.wSalth of Massachusetts will be
.....l. ,taal. T.it ,,ai.nstratic.. Is sade by the predict icr. that the
fl. ..ci,.ad O.yqer. Criterion will not be pot ,.nder a variety c-f
,..., .i., n ’s iJ..rlr.g the tentative year peric.d of ar.warv
d. .u .a. ’P. Acrrrillnq IC. tie (lea., Water Act, the State Waler
I..,....I cta.r.dr.d.. phc.uld be pot, aria one cf £I’fl’s furici 11.5 is to
e Ii. ...,.wuiflatlor. ar.d cneil.anCe with the Otale Rta,.dards.
i. ,.. lU.. l’.. I.... VA is e..suri ... that In. YWRfl will viL.late the
I.t .t ., II ..N rVtS.
May IL 191111
,7 tw . seqit • 5 l W3 5 SAIfl1 WIN.
-------
iage ? of 5
I . q. 3 if S
P. ENt. by prosic.sing iliaC ghe effluent ut fall be ticated I .. tie
CI.e . S . re let i v.1 v undpreded eat .r c if Mas ,aih .,st cit 5 P.y• C.i
tie tentat.ve S ye.— period. is viol.ii ..g the fedeal and in.
Ci..astuo.aIth 5 anti—degradation rovis.oeS o the CI . . ,. Wet.
act. flciording to these p.pvisStw. curt. a p.c.posal c.n c...ly be
..s,leented if all •lt.r,iatives are etc.iic.icallv nit feasible.
Deidi.t to ties. Orrisibns tile eccrcniiv.lty fe..sihle co..ti,.ued
diseiia gP into the Class P waters of Pisto.. Ha.bc., shc.uld
tint i.n c .rC i i seetsda.y treatea. .t is i. place.
c. rro is ust.fyiiig the above violatlohe ef the CI .. .. Water ( I CC hi
stating that IP.ese violations will orcu . over the tentative S
yea. prr.c.d if pi-iwary effluent discharge. The l . 5 .el ihot.d of
.‘ie.wy t.ateent iieii.g iepl.we..ted ..ti.in the t.t.tive court
i ned.. led deed I 5 no. is guest i o . .ab Ic at best. FlO dC. . nit of fe .
• rc.nt .nseniy plan in the event th.t tie prieary d.seharqe
period. f C.. ....tever i. c .c ... is pri.lO..ged. (CA •lsc. dies not
•.alu•te the iep.rts which wo .aj 5 .esrt f ow the cC. ..ttoued
.iseh.rg. if priwary .ffIuent t’ .it e siting cf the
tre.teer.t olant on Deer tsIand. when CIA apprcn.ed the siting of
the fe. lily .5th or .iithout the p.l.o.. rewaining c.n the Island.
cc. shc.uld £ 041 be approving the siting of the p . iary discharge
fir en u,deie.w$ nod period of tiwa. It lies already bee.. 5hc..e.
that the cit regutresetits can be changed and the “temtat .ve
dead I i.as pt .st pored.
0. It is highly likely that the iweects predicted by C PA for th.
o.-c.posed Bites I .. Passacfiu..t%s Pay are underestieati.ig adueSe
lewarts. The fol$owi..g list docuse ts the reasc..s why the CIA
analyses are se.iously fla..ad.
I. C iA doss not set ebsoicte standards ci cite —Ia wi .ic 4 . oust he
wet fir the propo.ed Bites. l.etead £041 eouates apart. frc.w
qi,e 6 with those frog Site 6.5. the,. eguates eoerts fion
Rite 65 with thr.5 frog 5, sod finally eu..ates spans f.os
Tilt. 5 with thee. free Bite S. This ar.alysis leads CPA ti
contlude that Site S is indi stt..guishable free Site S wIth
..sient to water suality iheacts. This cinclusic.. is not
sunDc.ted by the IS4UA ’s sodding. which shows that
s.t.nifica ’it differences euist between Bite a and Bite 5.
P. 5041 is stiltuttig s ,idere.tisated BroJectin . .5 for f Ices and
loads. PA S proJect i a . . are those developed by th. P.500 and
s..f?er the see. i,.aiiaguaeies. rtr.t the pro3ect loris are
l.a..ed on the design life of the treat.et facility 12
yearsl. t the design life of th, affluent outfall SIhe
ypu.gl. A d.tei led in DubI ii ccents to the PUPA tie
ucuulatic.n prc.)ectinri are urdorestisated. Alsi, the
n.e.C.. . of fliw I ,. tie i..atae..t plant as the .ev,lt if the
i.u.eno.taticc. cf f,.t..,a C5fl facilit..i ii nt ..c.sidered.
£1 Is acceot ing the .ie.C.nd . ry t.eatpe..i esursil retep IC .
I.. enie. ( I. I c s end ITissnlved Ony.. r. I.el.w ih. 5t i.itn.ut
fit r.,..,ir,r.q t.at the i ’UIIA Ce...st,etr that in C 9 lt a.
nit the nf •.e,isiru lnfiltr. .ti.n i.d l.I. ..w.
.5. 11.0 i him., the valr.lat...ns f the wat... puality riteria
ii lit ii. .. f.root’nn.es, anil tiers fore. tn. cit.. evaluation
if .i.a.-ts di.. to p.tcrity p..ii..ta.its. by io,.slderi..p sno
a,tcr.. tunh as water col,.—,. st.at.f.cat...., cu—Cents, fleas
ti the plant. ,ewc.ial .ff.r..nt.es , and o..llutant
it central ions as independent events. It is ce-ta.,. thee all
if the abi.ve events a—c we.ther dependent, and that (1*
si.iuId tie evaluating the lii. ctiebir.ed freguencies if the
.ust t.,tical situations which are likely to res.,lt i. ester
coal .ty v.c.lat ions.
4. ilA uses eedtsentation rat.. It ’lL then these that it used ii.
on-for—mg the evalautio.m if thSt.II dIW1 i5 3Pilhi Waiver
Oooliretic.n. The sediwentalic . . rates pete—wino en. eatent f
b..sc.lued fl.ygsn d .piet ii. .. and the e.tent of bc.ttc s.dtwar.t
cc ..teeinat.c.i. by o.lluta,.ts. Pith of tilet.. i.oacts are.
thor.f.’.e. undetest seated by CIA.
£A does nit sal.. use of the tc..ieity studies 0 the P.400’s
effluent presently regutred by the 10E9 aerwit. It is nit
Certain that the discharge at £ 1O ’s p .-._.-.-.ded Sites wilt 0.
will net be tcaic to sensitive wart ’s life as weasured by the
N C. Observed Effect Cs.ce .4 rat ion and the No Observed Acute
(ffett Level.
c ia wakes is evaluation of the adeowaey of chlori,.at ion as a
weans if disinfection. Btvdie Sky Victor Cabelli. fir
e.aeplel ave show.. that ri—uses a—. resistant to
chIceinat ion and die—off in sarine waters. These urgenisiss
are also essectatad edth hi..a. . heeetit.s. gast —oente.itis.
aid c.ther illness. CIA has also p.lerel’sd that 5. coIl us
nit the ec’.st app.oprlate indiretor o.ga.misa for earl, water.
yet the DSEIB sal... reference only t. 5. coIl i the
evaluation of the likelihood of hisaft infect iou. by pathogen..
7. ( IA wakes i evaluation of the c hIorloe toaicity to earl’s
c.rganisiee although (PA criteria esist for this hichly to.uic
pollutant. EPA does not p.rforw this evaleation and also
toes nit place a r,quirwe..t cv . the P.400 to ieglawer.t
ue-chlc.inatio ’ i. If dc-chlorination wilt not be a eandatury
treatsi.nt prcces5 then ehlcrino toeicity to sari.. ergenisles
present. a singularly l.po.tant danger.
6. •NI has perfoused vs evatset ions whirl. pertain to the
outr let .nrirhwe..t of the north shore waters and the
a.i.iciated likelihood of ...acerbation if the 0ilei ells
l.ttc.alis. puiytoolafj 3ofl b.c .o’s probles. £541 iincluded iu.
it.. e.al..atitP. of t. l’t400’i 3611h 1 Waiver Application that
there was i.sadaauate irifireat ia. to .55. 1w, that the
e.o.e.beIlc” if this p.c.btsv. would not peru . with p.isary
,sci.C.ns ’ at Site 5. Vet in the D%EIS. r I O concludes that
‘i...e bl.s. .s will be unliu .sily with •ffluent diseharues •t
lii. C. rrn ‘es this withut collecting any addit.iial
in the priOlPe.
-------
rauie 4 rf
i. e !. c.f 5
1. £ II dIes nd •ciurate ly redre.e. .t the ncrth shc.re rest..,.’. is,
part ii .1.... ly In. north silC.rS beaches. I... m l and •...we
..qi. .ial b..ach.l .r. simply not C . .. Ire’s . . .s ..‘. it.. OSLI’..
cr ’ .lso makes no e.aiuatiofi of en. adverb. aesth .tiC imi.aCts
at lc ’cal r.urSh 51 1cr. beaches with the primary e?fluuni
,j,iutic. ’ . at 175 to i.
IP. EPA makes i i . evaiuat law of lwpscts .t td.h.nt and Rev.re
b..ches resulting frc. th. coubmnod discharge Cf In. Lynn •nd
in. mend ...ag eff I u.wts. The cc... nod pathogenic
c....tasinat iO . ’i from tii. two S.p.rate sourc.s is r.ot evaiuat.d
in Ii .. OUID.
II. CPA c.b . S tnstcui’st . assessment of the FCD concentrat it.r.s in
In. effI ...nt. i..ii. in. co . .cc.trat s of PCtis In In. Oser
Islam effluent were rspt.rt.d In th& ibIRA’s jAl liii Waiver
Applitaticm. at .l. I.e. 1.5. i.3 .icrtqra.s p.r ilt.r I,.
fcs,r of the eight s.mples from i9et . EtA repn.’ts that mess
,, . ..cpatrat ion, me , . at l, micrograms p.r lit. . . dliii. In.
PopS itat ton d.C. indicatad th.I four Arc.ehlor .islures nor.
. ‘ epr .s .nled, eli. [ IA 51.1.5 ,h.t o..iy c. .4 m l .tur. u.s
nauc.I. Bloc. [ PA’. consultant c c i l.ct.d the $304
Application data It is difficult to urd.rsiand why CPA’s
DSEIB does not r•iste cu .’r ct Information.
$2. CPA does not p.rfc.rm any ov. vat ion of •d,.rs . I .pact 5
ass Iat.d with In. coq .tami ,i.r.ts ft..” which no wat.r quality
criteria ..ist but which are found in the effluent. N.qativ.
sytorgistic Sf facts r•suiting frc. the multitude of
contc.inants which will empty into Ih Nassachosetts Bay
daily ar nor eve- .e-ilon,d.
C 3. [ PA s I y represents av I5nc.d .f fact I vera.. of source
controls for toNic ccwtc.mnants, through the iiiL..asad
enfcrcsment of ttgor.ireatment program. as the means of
red ..cinb concentrations of contaminants which have no point
SCurces, ouch as. t 5. PCBs, and copper.
it. Ti.. endangered spades oval uat lot. p.rft.rmed by EPA norei y
dC...user.t 5 Sight I ngs of otid.ng.rad spec • 5. Ott ID does rot
evalmut. en. .Vf.cts of this tremendous discharge cf frash,
ch.c..’lnatotl, and conIc.ir.at.d effiu.r.t into N..sachus.tts Pay
t.’. Ii .. endanger.d 5..cies cr no in. prey species upon whiCh
the e.danI ,er.U apacias depend. The lad. of this •v.luatic.n
aupears it. 0 not in dt,nfc.rmamc with H PA as I . ’.. conciu. .i.V.s
r...,he,l ..r ,d.r sect ions adII. ’e.sin; in. Marl re Mamma I l’rc.t..i . ii,.
I and ti.e [ ndsngsrad dust •5 ACt nOt s ..opi’rted, I ..
ciI.ng It.. Mann. Maai Prr,tacI Ion Act in Ai.p.r.di. 0. the
itt.. ic st..tus that harassment is a I.. ,. uf 1. 1. 1 ,4, a,., 1’,aI the
O,,w..Iit.. of tie outfall carniut harass macire .es .me ‘.r
,c.’ ,.,e their sillily it’ eairlaiV. t.t.t.m.,.. sr ..ta .....oIe
I .. at ... . ’. levels. The fact that • iii,.,, ci tI,,.at.ne,I ar. .J
Wt.uSV tiee vu ui es at. rare wi thu. tn t’ •.t uilv a. r i.’.t iiiil fl ’t
I .. C ,. rstresent that th.,v no,. h...I.’ . ...iiiy ,..rn it
t l..t ia .....l but anal... pujaulat it.. iliv..lS m l vii. ,4.t if. liar
fit .h’ i . e habitat witi.i.’. the l.tii.,y a, .,..
i . 1111 Claims that the aff I’. Of tha t.r.t.liva S va .. primary
u.OL ,,a,ue miii be r.v.rsible. l*..mever. LI % dIes i.t.t penfo ,..
a,..’ study or prms.nt any a.ampIe to mails such a claim valid.
II I. tln.ier rcCl’A. ErA must follow pr•scrib.d procedura s. The fc,ilim.ng
p... .dn.res appear II. violata tha t C’A e.quir.menta.
A. Thu purta’s. of is to iead the f.der.l aqancy, E.’io. toward Ira
seie.I in.’. ci the . ‘.vi...........ta&ly acceptable alternative. the
e ...l.,at.CJ. sntuld .ocivda the COnoiUeraIior. O f iii . ‘no-act ion
alternativa. As EPA’s comments on In. meSA’s Facility Plan
.n.Iitale. the discharge into Presid...t Soads is cer lai ’.iv
pcss.bie. However. the rajactioV. of the no-adtic.n alternat lv.
wan .rqu.ad fcr by th, parties in the I... suit against tha HaSA and
..cr..uuuu.sntly dictatad by the court. The .nvirur.mentally
arieptable aitern.ativas were in this way pre-saiett.d prior to tha
draft 5(19 being ..rltten. The continued s.iaCt.ca. of the outfall
alternatures is presently being dictat.d Dy a court schedule.
ii. EtA has s.gmented the proc.ss of evaluating the different
.r,epor.en.ts of en. co.utrc.ve.’sial Wastmmater Treatment I’rc.jett for
mecropc.Iitar. Ba,tc,. and therefore, is riot •vaiuatino tie ccmbin.d
sc.cuo—ecc c.ic and ...vir . .er.tai impacts of the sev•ral segmented
prc.jedt components, such asi iii transportation of wori.ars, I i
Iransoorta l .ov. of materials, Ii ) siudge handling and disposal
facilities, ItS treatment plant siting, and IS) affiu.nt t.utfall
sitir.g. on the ,a.rth shcr• ccurities. The treatment plant is.
been located in Winthrop and the outfail may be lecated to the
north of Posit.,. Harbor. Th remaining projade cCepc.r.ents an• now
being considered for the ,.orth shore without the LIP evaluat inn
the cuei.in.d adv.rs. •ff ta or. water quality, air quality, noise.
i.a,ards, iransportatle-, property values, etc., as a result of Iii.
u’mb.n.d iepai,ts from the various projmCt co.puc..r.ts. if any
mtrc.ject is segmentad enough, the individual impacts may s.c.
insuqnif.ca ’.l whii. th. project as a whole may have tr.menait.us
ada.tse .erironn.ntai and social cuws.gueiic.s.
C. NEf’A require- that CPA make a cnoic. among alternatives. Tue
OSF I I. does not make a CcnCr.t e recconenloat ion, it merely Out I inns
a.. area for eli, discharge muthout providing the cocrdinates whicn
ft..’ in. this area. By doing this ins document aquaees an outfall
i..catiov. 2,9 mules from land INanant) milh a’. outfall Ifcatio . ’. at
Dii. 5. it is untenable that tn.s. tmo location, a .. .nui.’aler*
from the .ovironwontal i.pa t standpoint.
Thit ...cl.iiias the cc.nts for the record on eli. D i9. ihay are
. . . ,i.mitt . .ui ... i. Ii, . ht.pe mat en, [ CA mill mt.nl. eitnin its c’riginai charter
t.. ii.’ ..t tt tP , 5 envir..nwoi.i. the EPA sho..li ) not .1 Its, the Boston Harbor
I, mn-.... I I. ue ill ne am tie e.usnse of Wasb .cnubetts Say and this. whO
ii,,. Sn.. ii Ii.q L.a.” s r,.c.u.rces. Ti .. EPA’s q. ai should not be erpadiency.
• i.. . ii... iy fI.u .rS,
-------
5A’ _ rrE Q 1 -7.0 &oVWJMENr r4G- (O U 1
“IT is o.i& to SwiM IPJIIUMAN AND I lws,tIAL
.lc,ooo÷r = 143 t’-
ic i w 5 4L.,i
J J ) ‘ i
! PmPIAA.q I1UMA J A --___________
AND i A vLr”p’ %6 Fg ..o. .
n r 1 or P*.IPIA rwAGE = B
IESuCT: (,qa e) 0 isu.’i p opi.E WPN J.. I, ro- ie
I PRJMA.’q SELIJAG.E 7bfl fWSP+
. !? 1 FWS (ol.D8u,k I,1 .Cob
I FI USI4 — 1.6 r.LL..is (NQ.J Bvi&. ipZ. CoDe)
ItE5ULT; (I’,3+I.6 9q cLus,s s irn,-r,.ePbol
• Wisnr IS P&IMAL’f j4 ?
1UM*rl WA TE F&ep i3 CcP,I,uNmcs4. INW*TW.HSL WM1
F*OM G000 INDU ’sTP..,ES + INFEc.nous WASTE rt&j
Hu6Prr*L!, *ND o4.A-, ,t, 4 RAWw4TtR. wrrls sntctr
5c.uP-i — ‘ °‘, 5oi-: S I . Ci1LO .iI Iç
S. David Grab. , r3 2
Ccn,ulhiu t unss,
Ill tsns. 5 d I £*.‘. .
Stoui . o.’ Mui sftsOBO7l PIniuw.r
16111 341 O3 0 f _ -f -i .I g.—# —..IU. ...II—..- ._—n
Ma, 11. lASS
SIr. D..id ?e.sr
Ii S. f,wtrons.ntal Prot.etIeu Ag.scv
- Roes 1900C
.1 ?. K.nnsd ?.d.rsl luilding
Boston. MA 02203
BUBJIC?: 08118 fop Post.. Partor Wsst tr CoS’SVsaes Apstis
bs.r Mr. tas. :
0., b.h.1? of th. S.I.et..i of U .. ?... of Vinth,. . this l.tt.
pro ’ld.. c .t. on th. Dr.? t Bup l stsl InvI.,,...t.I l acS
Stot nt 108118) for U.. Boston harbor V..t..st., Co.w.ps.c.
Orat... dat.d April I. IBIS. Also Ieeorporatsd at. ee nts on
r.1.t.d portions of 101*. 8scosdar Tr.at.sst V. 01 lIti.. P1..
Volu.s I V (lnt .r-lsland Cos’.y.nc. flyst..). d.t.d March V SASS.
and Volu.. V (Iffluant Outf.11). dat.d March 31. lASS. s.d
s.soci.t.d appsndic.s.
0. ,r u . .s..ts v.g.rdl.g Ist.r-is)d oesonpescs 5.. Ilsitod to
thos. pr.s.nt.d I. our IOPA c..aat I.tt., of Na Ii •
psrtin.nt •acsrpts ft.. which ar. .ttach.d.
Our ,..snts es outfall slt l.g sr. satiraip Is U.. a ,.. of uat.r
quality i.p.et.. r co. ..ts at. orga.Issd slang lbs Sbus of
lb. OutfalL ILtiag Crlt.rls 1.pout Conearius pr.pos.d I . . asp
81P* ccsnts of April IS. ISP? land .dopt.d tha CAC Outfall
Subcol tt.. and full CAC. sad Iaoorporat.d 1. lbs Psoll L II..
P1.. (Vol... V• .1 8 2.21).
Ssfor. pr.santi.g sp.cif is as wish to c _ . _ - * sad
thsir consult.ats for preparIng a wall orgi..d 581 18. which
pInks. an •icallsnt balanc. but .... r..dsbi)Itp and teobaboal
content the md i i s.d 110...,? are sppr.e lstad. US also
acknowl.dga lb. eossid.rsbls work of MIIRA and their consultants.
which provid.d .ost of lb. sss.ntlal Input for the BIllS .Uort.
F,....:
EPA s CiS—5.gt.,.
Il o’ ’6’ 530o cvI, 4t
*r,ooo ?tbo .%*
A Poo 1 . WIU..G ,,J
I’IS &U..n. C,
.iMAL’f 6CWA
p
-------
Mr. David To..y
Hay 31. *96 .
SIflIT & P*&aTuILm 01 11191 & -‘-‘I TO u ’—in
—2—
S.ction 6. 1 4.2 and labia 5.1. 1.1.1 (p. 5-26) indic.t. that a
n .r of c.rcinogons are projected to .sc..d th. E PA 00.-in-on.
nillios ( 10) .ad aa.-ia-o..-buadr.d-thouaasd (l0 ) n.h
criteria for tusa consouption V. baiter, that to be caus. for
cons ld.rabla cotsc.r.. .r concern Is baa.d In part on (ha nunb.r
of ch..icaia Involv.d. tb. .agnttud. of the eaceadances. and the
a.t. m. of (ha at,. that nay be •f f.cted by the . .c..d.nc.a
That. at. also .ajor concern, of a general nature r.garding
wastawstar charact .risatioa sad $n.titutionai aspacts of
pollution control.
Isc..dancs. of oarcinug..ici(y cr lt.rI. at. proj.cted for
ar..nlc. PCB’.. aldria. DOT. .h.ptachlor. di.Idrln. and fluorene
Titer. is no coosidaration of (ha synargistic •f facts that thai.
ch.alcals .ay hay. which oouid result in risks considerably
highar than project.d for any of (Ma. chs.icsls alon.. Ev.n for
secondary aft lu.nt (and so not, that reduction of such pollutants
can be an i.portsnt advs.tsga of secondary tr•at.ant I • (ha risk
factors are .acaedad aubstsntiaiiy, such as by a factor of 6 for
the 10 risk 1.’.I for sidria at Sit. S and a factor of S for
the I0 risk l. .1 for that chooteal and Site. That indicates
that eve, for that ch..ioai al. th. risk in graat.r than
and that (he at.. of significant nab .a(.nda well b.yond (ha
ada. of the .isl .g sonq.
V. also not. (hat pri.ar, discharge of ncury is projactad to
..c..d tha 0.025 ug 1 ajuatic lit. criterion by a factor of about
S at Sit. 2 (lab Ia. 5.1.3 1 and 4.2.2.c) Sinc. (ha hunan h.alth
(osicity onit.rio. (0.i4S ui/i par labia 4.2 2.c) would be
contravan.d at only S (in.. (ha aquat.io life criterion, it s.a.a
lIk.l, that (he hunan blaith ..rcury crit.nion I. in .ubatantl.l
violation at tb. •si.(ing D..r Island and possibly Nut Island)
discharg.a. The dilution. at ..l.(ing dischsrga locations should
ha aat.d. and lb. inpaots at (boa. loontions quantifiad ((ha No
Actlon alternative).
Mar. gsn.nally, there is no discussion of vary i.portant
institutional considerationa. Planning is baing carried out for
a parlod aat.nding nor, than 30 years I to. tb, prasant ba..d on
snapshot spling which rev.ais (ha pr.s.nca of a c.rtain
Mr Dsvid Tone,
May 31. *966
-3-
nu.b.n of pollutants. In our March 13. 1955 ccants to EPA on
the Siting SD€IS/R. us id.stItI.d by nan. 29 c.rcinog.nic
chs.icals or chesical group. tisni ha ,. b..n found in *9*
waalswaters in (ha r.c.nt past. What Is to pravant son. of (boa.
chanicala ftc. being found sgsin In 1 1 19* wastonaters. and what is
to pr.vant incr.as.a a prea.at levais of carcinogenic
cb.sicala?
Tha answer in part has in U sa pretr.atn.n( pnogmen (.aant here
to include source control and tonic reduction), but no
consid.rntion has bean given to (ha inportaat interrelations
b.twaen hat progmsa and lb. 061*5 aaalys.a. V. not. that
discharge of four of the sew., problematic ch.nicals ..ntio.ed in
the 06115 (PCB’e. DOT. haptnchlor, sad di.ldnin) is prohibitad by
MWRAs S.w.r U.. Rula. and hagulations (340 Q19 *0.000, 10 024:
Specific Disch.rga LI.itstiona/Iocni Li.itai. (Tb. discharg. of
norcury is siMlarly probibit.d ) Tb. likahihood of success in
realislng (has, prohibitions should ha addr.as.d V. also note
(hat PCD projsctions an. bas.d on (ha dat.ctio. units, Uniting
thair validity. CB’s sad thu othar probibit.d chemicals should
ha .ff.ct.ively ancludad 1 ron the ayat .
Th. discharge of ars.nlo and aldri. is ailosod, at halted
concantrationa, by 119* 5 Sawer Use Ha).. and R.gulationa 360
019 10.000. 10.024 Sp.ctfio Discharge Llnitationa/Local
Limits). Ar. Induatri.a in conpli.nca with (boa. li.itatioisa?
What is tha relation be(ua.n Us. ailowed l.vais and pro j.ctad
lavels? Ware the 1119* 11.11. aa(abhished with reahisation of lb.
carcinog.nici(y of tbasa chemicals? What oth.r c icals could
aac..d affluent carcinoganicity units if discharged by
industries at *9*. allowable 11.11sf Noting that has.
chemical. an, Sot d.t.c(.d in (ha w.a(ema(ers of so..
indu.triaila.d citi.a. is it nacassary for Induatries to
dischnrge arsenic sad aNtis to the system? Would it not ha
fas.ibll. to spacificaily prohibit tha discharga to the
w.st.wat.r system of all carcinogsaic chemical.?
Why I. fluorene (pre.onad to refer to diplisnytemunatbanel present
In the wast.water syatsa? What is It wand for? ISa.d It be
presant? If so, and slaca it a presently not specifically
regul.t.d by 1619*. ehould it not be added to (ha list of raguls-
(ad chemicals? Doe. (ha ITO (Totoi Tosic Organic.) Unit
suffici.ntly ragulata this cb..ical?
PCS’ s and arsanio are said to already esce.d carcinoganicity
halts in tb. sabi nt waters by up to 100 tin.. (pag. S-S al.
Ho.. much of the Harbor and Bay are thus .t fectad? What I. (ha
sourca of thos. cha.Icals? What is the present public health
signhficanc.?
p
-------
-4-
Hr. Dsvid To.ap
V.y 31. 1155
V. SI.. .i.h to reitarato a prior t usda rag.rding th.
public hs.ith aiquificascu of PCI.. Li.it.d Io.ton Harbor
. ling has found PCI ,....entr.tio .s a. high 5. 0 S pp. Ia
udibla fish tissu.s. Vhs. thu Food sod Drug Ad.i,i.trstion (F DA)
rec.ntly lo..r.d (ha tol.rsncu li.it for PCI I. food f ro. S 0 pp
to 2 0 pp. ( ( Ii. value 0Usd on 551 15 p.ge S-Si). FDA .t.tud ‘(h.
2 pp. lavel strik.s a prop.r bal.nc. b.twese protucting consou.r.
fic. thu risks a..oeist.d with u.po.ur. to PCI. s.d thu os. of
food do. to thu )ou..rud tolar.nce. Our Siting 6Dh1 (/R co.nts
cit.d scientific uviduwea and as IPA sugg..tloui thst s 0 5 pp.
level sy b. ours appropri.t. for bu.sn eo..u.ptios. or
ona-feurth thu f DA l.’.l. This is below L. .l. found i. lost..
P11 ’bor fish.
Th. argona.ts sugg.ati.g thu iasignlfieanc. of thu ar.uslo
,aacaud.nc.s pat. 154) .ro failaoious Thu •vid.ne. for •rsanic
c.rcinog.nieitr is s .....uhst’ typical of that for oth.i’
earcinog.ns. sad is sot to ho tak.. lightly. Also, although
srasnic ..y not biosceulst . is at 1...t so.. tissu. of
rusidsot ds..r.si food fish sr.und Iarg. municipal wa.t.w.t.r
utf.I l. • arsenic concoutrstions is sasoster Sr. .ccuoul.t.d by
oy.t.rs sad other .ollusesn •h.llfi.h (Ouslity Crituri. for
Vatur (Rsd look), I B. IPA. July 1175, p. IS).
for p.bl io h.alth ip.Licstl .es of s.dLount eontioatios. thu
focus a cm Pd ’. (quastionably based on tha d.t.ctio haitI
08116 pug. 5-55 i.dicat.s that ald Us s.d haptachlor usy also ho
of coscarn fro. that st.ndpoiut.
ii . 051 18 do.. oorr.ctly sot. th.t thu diachares of s.cou,dary
afflu.nt is prsdiot.d to produce ouch lass public h..lth risk
cc.psr.d to pri.arp.
V. halL . .. that p,etrsatassts .ouvea control ha. ..eh grsstar
potanti.i (ha. outfall siting .. thu ussas for d..hing with thu
public h..lth Las.. raisud. This should ho addr..sad i h
great., d.t.il I. thu Fi..l 5118. If . sound b..is for thu
sd.qu.cy of pretreat.sat a. a u.s.a of •ddra..ing this problu.
cannot ho ds,elaqed. thou thu soiLs’. area of l0 ’ risk
.sc.uds*c. should ho •stabli.had sad eomsid.rsti.a give, to
,u.tieting that .r.a to fishing, 1. that c.s., thu .co.oaic
ccn.uquune.. of doing so should be dut.r.ined, and con.td.,.tion
•hould ho gives to outf.ll .ltis sore rs .ot. fres fI.h .ria.
resources.
Our Biting 538 15 1 1 ...ats aatud by . Ii,. choniesis fcu*d in
NVRA ws.t..ster is thu reosat past for which orgsnoluptic
crlt.ria sr. Iowa, (so ,. stringent) than thusa for arin. hf..
Hr David Tcsuy
Hay 3%. lIeS
-5-
How ar. such eritaria to ho factored into thu pr.tr.ata..(
progrs., ut.?
?,ust.unt plast of lu.at sad affI t lisitatiens. raf looting
..su.pttons mad. 1. outfall siting and harbor/lay iepuct
analy..., a. v.11 as i,hibitory and othur fsctor., .ho id ho
d.vnlop.d as part of thu ?aeiiitiuu Plaaaing proc.... Such
hi.itations should ho cosp.rsd with inf)u.nt li.itation. i .h.rs.t
ii , thu ratiouslu for HURA’ s pr.tr.atsunt/sourc.-reductioo
progra.. Insti tutioual r.e.,....datioas should ho da,.lop.d
rulativu to pr.tr.atonnt sad HPDIS li.itattou..
I P55PBBA?!08 A?lC lift
Thu 1)6118 addr..s.a quatic hf. upsets is t of sadi.aat
orisnic s.richuset, ..di.sat towicity, nutrient .srlc nt. oat.,
coloun tdiicity, dissolved oypgus daficits, s.d upset. to
proteetad spucius. Co.ts ou oust of tt,.se are provided usdsr
thu pr.s.nt ha.diug Although recogaislng thu aquatic Ilfo
i.pl ication. of nutrient •n,ichusnt, our focus ce that i.p.et is
provldad undar the separst , heeding of NAINTENAPCI *51) mhII*IICI-
HINT OF AIRTHITIC S (D!TIOW5. Protuctod spaciss cens under our
sspuratu huadiug of APOIDAIICI OP 1 RT*JIT HABITAT IIJNIWI HA hN!
RISOURCIS)
S.dl,sat 0r jo 1a,i _ t
Sadisant orgaaio a.richu.at is addr.ss.d is iubuuctiou S 1.3.1.1
Thu aui.lysis i.dicatu. advast.gus of sucoedary trat.s.t,
•sp.ciahly is preventing benthic .,. ,..ity d.gradstiou. Site 4
shows a sub.t.ati.l advantage over Bite 2 with priusrv tr.atus.t
und.r non.trstiflsd conditions Sit. B shows s aub.tsatisl
advsatagu over Sit. 4 with priu.ry tra.tonnt u.d.r thu .ev.
critical .trstif lad conditions. Th. sosipsis also indiestu. that
Si$. S is ad.qu.t. fro. this st.sdpoist, with .i .i..I d.grsdatloi,
undar all conditions. Th. par.graph at (ha .iddl. of psga 535
ragarding ssdl.sntstiou rat.. could be clarified substantially
(Including correct prsssatstion of diu.esioeal units). sad sad.
sore aecassibla by referring to thu propur itisi STVP
app.ndicu.. Also. thu figure refarunces I. the l..t two
paragraphs of paga 5.35 should ho corructad
a
p
-------
-7-
Hr. Devid To..?
May 31. ISIS
Mr David To..?
May 31. I9SS
DCI II Subsection 5.1 3.1 2 .iarlses an Innovative •ffort to
addr... thu issue of .ediuent togiclty Using ll.it.d aci.ntific
evidanc.. two chesicais are id.ntified as being of conc.rn
bIn (2 .tbylheayl) pthaiate and DOT The terser. a plastiolser.
is ubtquitoua in .od.rn wast.wat.ra (including do..atIC waste-
waters I, ths reaulte (ai.r laed in Tabi. S I 3 di provide • good
arguaant in favor of secondary tr..l.ent that can quite poaalbly
b. astended to othar waslewater conatituents. CDT Ia a long’
bann.d p.aticide that aluply should not be ellow.d In the
wa.tawat.r s,at..; lb. pr.tr.ataent prograw should includ, a vary
conc.rl.d .f fort to id..tify .ourc.. of that ch..icai and
•li.Inale It The Chapt.r 7 d lacuaaiOn of s.di.ent tosicity (pp.
7-IC to (2) should ha •spand.d to Include lb. two ch..icals lust
.antion.d. Tb. rav.rsibility of cont..inatlon du. to Int.riu
prisery discharge of th... two ch..icala should be addr.as.d (as
It. a for PCI.. In Chspter I p
Water Coii Tonielly
A.s.as..ata of water .coli touchy are s ris.d at Subsection
S I 3 I 4 PCI’s at. proj.ct.d to .sceed lb. chronic touicity
crilaric. with prinary trsat.ant st all sites However, that wss
bassd on proj•ctiona using tb. d.t.ct lon ((sit, as diacuss.d
above (under SAPITY A PALATABILITY Of PIMFISH A SHILL7ISH TO
COS UPUDCI. Fda ahould be cc.pletly .actud.d f row th. ayatow.
As not.d pr.vlously, th. discharge of PCI’. to th. IIWRA saver
syataw I. prohIbited by MWRA’. Sewer Us. Rulas and Regulations
PCD’a ars not IA. only priority pollutant which would be
proble.attC. with r.ap.ct to water coluan touchy, at conc.5
Iratlona n.ay Its d.tectloa liwit. Suggestions have b.an given
.arll.r for sp.olf icaily d.aling with such ch..icals via th.
pretraatonnt progrow
H.ptschlor. CDT. and narcury at. projsct.d to e.c..d chronic
touch? crit.ris for priuery effiu.nt discharged to any of the
sitaa, while h.ptachlor (SIt. 2) and ourcury lSit.a 2 and 4) ar.
proj.cted to euoe.d chronic tosicit, criteria with a.condary
.fflu.nt at certain sit.a Tabi. 5 1.3 Pp Copp.r Is proiect.d to
.scaad lb. acute touicRy crit.rlon (sad, of coors.. lb. Iow.r
chronio touicity crit.rios as well) for prl.ar? .fflu.nt
diachari.d to II I. . 2 and 4.
It is noteworthy that th. anal,a.e cl.arly Indicat. the signifi-
cant r.dwction in touiciti.s of h.pt.chlor. CDT. .srcury, and
potentially other chawicals obt.in.d with a.condary treatusni.
Coupering Tables 5.1.3.0 sad I.l.3.f. it h . evidant that DOT in
pri.ary .fflu.nt would •aceed lb. wat.r doloun togicily criterion
by a larger factor thaw IA. a.di..uit touicity criterion As
discussed above r.1.tive to aed)isant toulcit . CDT should be
•li.insted Pro. the wast.wat., collection syate. As noted
previously. th. discharga of DOT to lb. I RA sew., ayat.. is
prohIbited by SIRA’a Sewer Use Rules .nd Ragulations.
Peithar the .uca.dance projected for h.ptachlor nor the argaw.at
us.d to justify that •ucesdenc. should be acc.pt.d (oat
particularly. the fact that cartels .arlne orgaaia.s I. g. • lb.
sheapahead winnow - psge 5-4 .) ar. less e.n.itiv. to h.ptachlor
is not a vslid ergou.nt for lb. acceptability of •ic.edanc. of
the CPA ontario.. Unlesa it can be d..onslrat.d that there are
no significant satin. orgaalsaa In the Harbor/Bay area of
couparable s.naitivitv to those on which the criterion is based,
then the critarion ahould be prasua.d to be directly applicable.
The fact that the projected concentration is s s.ell .ultiple of
th, criterion suggasta that hatter pr.traat.eet say enebla the
haptacklor criterion to be attained. That f.e.ibhlit, should be
thoroughly sa.asa.d during pr.peratian of the rind ISIS As
noted previously. th, discharge of heptechior to lb. ISIRA sawer
aysten La prohibited by MWRA’s Sawer Us. Rules and Ragulatioss.
All of the c enta iu the preceding paregraph apply equally to
sercury (although the con.erv.tiae of the surcury critarioa could
possibly be ergued in relation to sercury levels cconlp found
In seawater). The argu.ent regarding e s*d ahriep on page 5- 50
should ha praeant.d in detail. (Also, should the I I ui/I
concentration ..ntioead on that pega by 1.6 ugh?) As noted
previously, the discharge of sercury to the ( li lA sawer systa. is
prohibited by lilA’s Busier Rae Rules end Regulations.
The san. co.nts sade for heptachlor and n.rcurv apply to
copper Since the QIC (acute tosiclly is,el) is ascended, the
CCC (chronic tosloity level I would also be esceadad The chronic
touicity level say be aup.ctsd to be an order of ..gnitude below
the acute tosicity level. As estleat. of the acute touicity
level should be sad. and sided to Table II 3 f Should the units
“ng/l ha “ug/i in the paragraph ow copper on pages 5- 50 and
517
Although euc.edencea of sqestie lif, criteria are projected fog
only e few cbicela. those auceedancas are potentially sigsifi
csnt The conclusion (pega i-Il) that the crlt.els eaceadancas
‘ar, not eupsct.d to have a significant i.pect on lb. .cosyst
due to the snail areel sliest in which they ste predicted to
occur and coservativenaea of the criteria is not well supported
by the lnfor..tioe presented.
p
-------
Mr. I’s.ld Toast
May 31, *999
-I-
ResidusI olden.. loudly should .3.0 b. addres,.d. with
appropriate r.f.reuc. to SIP, voli.s end eppendic..
Dianolved 9f jolt .
Dissolved onygse d.fietts cre addressed I, Suba.ction S I 3 I 5,
along with peg.s 5- Il, IS to 19, and 21 to 23. and Subsection
4 2 2.2 (Disaoiv.d Ovyg..). Coechu.ione are .uarised at pains
7-4 1 5, 9. I I, and 12. Priua,y discharge at Sit. 2 I. ihown to
ecu.. •uc.a.lvs dissolv.d ouy(sn depletion und.r •trstif ted
conditions ?abl. 5.3 I g), with the potential (aosswhat
uncertain) for still wore. d.pl.tlo. during rssusp.n.ioe sventa
(Tables 5.3.3 h and 5 I 3 •) Condition, at Sites 4 end S are
found scceptsble for .11 conditions
iaiia A AS
The I., .. end., this heedleg d.els with coliforu bectenisl levels
at shellfish area., oo lifor. repre..nting the ti.e-teeted
indIcator for this perpose. Other issue. rel.tiv. to shellfish
consueptica coon under the heading of Safety &
Paletability.. . - . Tb. (Sill does not add,... this ares as
euplicitly 5, asald be desired. Hawser , a synthe.is of
lnforosttoe presented by MWR* s .d SPA yields an adequate
aasessonnt,
S? VoJwo.T, Appeedi, C. notes at pege C-Ill that the EPA
criterion for proteoti., of shelLfish harvesting cress is It
fecal eolifor.e per 300 .1. That I. followed by the following
conclusion: It we, unnecessary to evaluat, health upsets
Irru .h.ilfl.h cosianop tlcu .inc. fec.L colif own levels w.r. below
thi. standard ci .11 ti s at a distance of wore than 300 font
frau the proposed outfall. - Thet oo.cluaiae can be understood by
noting thst (I) the discharge peruit require, en average fecai
coliforu level of 200 per l aO .1 and a aeulosos not to euceed 400
par 100 .1; (2) that a dilutIon of 400/34 29 is required to
reduc, the .ui level t. the criterion level; sad (3) that the
eini.on (*0 percentile) i.iti,i near? l.ld) dllutio . at SItes 2,
4. and S Teble S lid is at least twic, that Ii..., ‘ 2 a 29).
A 10:3 ratio of totsi eol lfora to fe sL coliforu is typical of
chionineted effluents. The, the ZOO feed colifom per 100 .1
Ileit correaponds spprosluat.Iy to 2000 total coliforus per *00
.1. Dilution of that total coliforu level by 29 would result in
about 70 total coliforu. per 100 ci. which equals the Mass
Mr Usvid To.oy
May 31, *990
-0-
Surface Water Scality Standard for Class IA wool,. wet.ra (Teble
4 2 2 bi that also corresponds to the U.S Public Health Service
.sdian stsndsrd, for approved e.d coedltionai ly .pproved
,hellrish cress.
Shellfish reaeorces are l .cstsd predonie..tly 1. nesrskor.
ares, Even if deep-water .hel Irish (such a. Ocean Osahogs) wore
found n.ar the outfall site, the Initiel dilution would be
sufficiently protective. I. this connection, it is helpful to
note the cons.rvstlae of the fart leld vertIcal-slung ..sueptlon
relative to botto, organis.. doe, to the diffuser (e.g
shellfish).
Although site, kayoed Sit. P provid. a greeter factor of safety
for near-shore shellfl,h resources (d i i, to the sddltioiiel
tarfield dilution), it is evident that reliability of the
wastswater disinfection process a far sore leportent Bit.. 4
and S do provid, the advsntsge of havIng travel lions to share
whIch eaceed a .ingie flood tide. allowing greater Ii.. for
notification in the unlikely event of a disisfectio. fsilwre.
It is sic. aot.d that cosbie.d sews, overflows oust be gre.tly
reduced in order to provide substantial further i.pr .......t to
certain ehellfish areas, end that urban atorow.t.r runoff .111
continue to inpact tho.e shellfish resources.
P nni.iIOP C I MTIIUB AXIS I O Th?T 0& U
Although the lupects on thoee beaches asp have been considered
see below), a conker of recreational beech., hews not bee.
included on Pluurs 4.2.5 d .1.0 Appendi, 0, FIgure 0 3 dl A
wore complete reprea.ntstion is found is Secondary ?reata,.t
Fecilities Plan. Vol... V. Appendii C, at Vigure C-IS a.d Teble
C-04. That Vol.., V Appendla C listing should be e.p.nded to
include Ilslford Beech (on Broad Sound south of Short Beech. off
WahAnt Avenue in Winthrop); should note thet there is publlo
eec. .. to Boston Rarbor beaches feoing leak. Islend and crowed
Court Perk ii, Winthrop that would be used If aol for the
pollution, and ahoeld note that whet I. given thersie as Tirrell
Beech sctuall? coaslata of Tinreil Beach s.d Point Shirley B.ack
(Town of Winthrop Open Specs A Recrestioe P1... lOSS). Tbsre our
also be edditiouisl beech,, at shoreline locatIons in other
coastal coinities. Pigu e I.2.S.d should be au .t .d
accordingly.
p
p
-------
—ii—
Mr. David Yceap
lay 31. 1005
- *0-
As noted above. under r i .CT1CU 01 al (ZLLSISII AMAS. the Class 5*
colifor. bacterial standard (70 total colifores par 100 . 1) is
projected to b. sat at tile edge of the siring son, for all sites
considered That standard (.quivalent to approitnately 1 f.cal
colifor .s per 100 .1) has traditionally been considered auffi-
clantly protective of waters used for contact recreation
that basis. tha additional farfield dilution between the .ising
son, and b.achss would provida a factor of safety An analysis
using the Transient Pluaa Nodal is reported (Subsaction S I 1.6 -
Shoralise l.pact Analyses, also Appendix £ at A 3.7). which
indleatsa the cosbinsd nearf ield sad fart laid) concentrations
that would result at shorelin, locations along Sws.pscott,
Nahant. Deer Island. sad Hull (Tsbla 5 1 1.1) It should be
stated what shoreline iocatloes were considered along boss
c iaitles. sad whether those were the sost critical locations.
It would also be helpful if .a.aouptioos used in the transient
pluns .odelling vera related to critical wind conditions
corresponding to austsisad aboreward set drift (Wind-driven
surface currents reportedly vary Ire. 20 to sore than 100 feet
par .innte. 2
Section 5.1.4.1 concludes that (tha) potential for direct
exposure of bun.. populations to bacterial sad virai pathogen.
will be reducad over existing conditions by the overall watsuater
treatanat facli I lies lppr aaa..ts.. (including 3 the proposed
shift to as offshore discharge location. . . . - It further
concludes that discharga at any of tha outfall altos considered
wouid so longer contlbute to (beach and shellfishingl.. closures
or to sny diacharge-reiat.d exposure to bacterial or virsi
pathog.as.
Psges 7-5 A S (Shoreline sad Recreation Impacts) add to the
above, by stating Discharga at any of the proposed sitas is
I. it is not.sorthy that Ilassschusatts Class SB .arine waters.
considered sultable for bathing and recreational purposes
including water contact sports have total colifor. bsctarial
sisndards of 700 per 100 .1 .sdlsn and 2300 in not sore than lOt
of samples. The upper fIgure is used for beach-closing
daclsiona Although not suggesting thst is a desirable
situation, we not, that the Class 5* coliforn standard is far
sore stringsnt.
2. Darchett. N £ , ichobasagions, 0 • sad Dardoin, £.J ,
Practicsl Approach to Sub.srise Outfall Calculations .
May. 1967.
Mr David Toner
Nay 31, 1955
predicted to have .inl.sl shoreline i.pacts and all sites will
represent a slinificant i.prove.ant ovar existing conditIons - A
much sore aspilcit discussion of the existing conditons (the Po
ActIon £lternstive) would be helpful i. aking thIs point.
Appendix I pages 1-30 to 33) Ia especially pertinent Is this
rsgsrd It is noted there that distance Ire, the discharge to
shore can be 5 nisleading indicator of shoreline l.pects Table
1 2 g indicates that undar estr events the dilutions at
Winthrop, Hull, and Nahant due to Site 4 or Site S discharges
will be better than the dilutloes at the President Bonds
discharges by factors of S to IS (Winthrop). S to IT (Hull), s.d
4 to 7 (Pahant). The eatrane event conditions should be
defined. A si.ilsr analysis under other conditions e.g..
average conditions end are net drift I would also be
informative.
We suggest that the s reasoning givea above, under P iTtCTICN
01 SI(ELIJISII *00*8. applies relative to the relatIve I.portenca
of disinfection reliability and the prafereac. for Site 4 and S
over Sit. 2. The earlier coants relative to ccobl.sd sawer
overflow. and urban stolunat., runoff also apply.
Appendix II Subsections H.2.i.3, 5.2 4 1. s .d H 3.3 I
(Disinfection Syates/Pri.ary Treatment Phasa) indicate that
cartsin daticiencles could exist is the chlorine contact tsmkags
during intari. primary trest .sst. Rectification of those
deficiencies should be eddreased.
With a view towards obtsining an added aslaty factor at little
addttlonal cost, considerstios should be given to less thss
cospiets dechiorinstion. The possibility should be evaluated of
dachlorinsting to a residual chlorine level safely below (but Ot
excessively so) that corresponding to incipient chlorine touicity
after •ini Initial dilution, so thst use can be made of the
considerable additional chlorine contact tine in the outfall
Icr e.aopla, with en outfall to Site 4 (43.000 ft and 24 ft
disaster, per Table 3 2.2..) an additional ISO sillica gsl lans of
contact volu.e would be evallsble This would give over 300
minute. of additional chlorine contact at the svarasa da, high
groundwater flow of 670 mad Table 6.1 1.e), resulting I. about a
five-fold incresse in chlorine contact.
879? Tolvea , Appendis C. Section 6.0 (Pathogea Assessment) sad
Subsection 7.4 (Pathogen Assessment Associated with l.plonsata-
tion of the Alternate Plea) adds an interesting evaluatlos of
potential shoreline Impacts, which considers projected virus
levels at cartel. beaches The analysis 5 se,ewh .t Iaaovativa.
but questionable on several counts. Whst proportion of the
asaunad infiveet virva level (1000 P!U/liter per pege C-iSS)
P
-------
Hr. David ?eme
Nsf 31. i.eS
-12-
repoesente ,.th.r.i. vliussS IS thor. any .pidsnl.1.stosl
.vid.nca (list calls into the qusatiem th. adequacy of strIct
colt form etandarda alone? Are Us. Saver. and lishant beach
illness incidenceS r.f.rred to on page C-lBS differential
ralatiwe to (ha contpol population? Can h. •aau.ptions •a.le by
ju.tlfisd. and ess say correlation be established between
incidence of Illness and projscted virus levels? What disper.i.e
traneport conditions were ...ouad in d...loping Table C-55? Is
their any .vld.ne . supporting the I P?U Infectious dose
aa.umption (p C-Ill)? Tb. analysis would have been such sore
meaningful I •aiating conditons had been analyzed by the as ..
.thods (note Figures C-i2 to 14), and if the l.p.et. of all
.ii.ting discharges on all three b..ch.a ware conald.rsd (not
merely Pr.aldent Seeds/Revere as In T.bl. C-SI). Th. promises
(particulari? with ragard to ace.pt.able incidsncas) and
conclusions on R?FP pag C-l70 are contradictory and
questionable. The PillS ahould kno.iedge and critiqu. the ST?P
analysis. Including its l.plicstiona (page C-l 54 1 that imp o.’ad
virus rs.ovala way be a significant addItional advantage of
secondary treatment an4 its implications regarding the adeq acy
of fecal coliform at.ndar4. A good review of related •pidsmt
ological research would be useful (probably such sure so than the
STY? approach).
rw? l 51 $ IAL 51-? ATU *cri,itian
Although the 35118 enggssts that oe.rc lal fishing impacts would
be minimal due t. outfall operation (e a • at 5 I 5 2 -
Cc.rcial fishtail. It also indicatas (paga 3-83) that diffuser
construction could be d.tri.sntsl to coerctsl fishing during
the 5-year construction period Vithout waking it clear whether
the rating a basad on construction or operating l.p.cts. the
STY? IVolums T, pp. 7-29 • 30 and table 7 4-I (p. 7-li. also see
p. 7-IS)), rates Sites 3 S and S as ‘escelleat vs. good for
th. other sites because (ha former are sore distant from knee’s
flounder spawning areas although no wars so practically speaking
than Sites 4 .‘sd 4 1) s.d because ‘the, border. but are not
directly situated in. 5 maJor cosroial fishery’
Further clarity should be provided relative to potential impacts
on coarcisl fiaherles. 90th documents indicate that a location
between Site 4 and S could be found thst would not impact this
important reeourca. Appropriate mapping o ceanercial fishing
areas may be helpful in establishing sore precisely the better
outfall locations
Hr. David Tomey
Hay 3i. IS IS
-‘3-
Navigatien is anetiser ares under thia •St .ey in shish the 35818
and ITYP differ The STY? (Volume V p 7-33 and Table 7 4-I (p.
7-IS)) rates Sits I and I e ,celient and Sits 4.1 good
relative to interference with navigation during outfall
con,truction Thu 351)5 deals only with operational Impacts (p.
5-’.B, also note pp 4-48 A 4?), this should be reconcIled. by
overlaying combined interests of coanarcial fisherie, and
navigation, to better define the better outfall locations
N31N? WI & WJ 351? 01 Mm. . ..lC C 1t1
The n.e treatment fscilitlas will •ffectiv.ly eliminate floatable
estarisla (as will tie’ ..iatisg Des, Island treatment facility
beginning this ai r wham the Interim Scum Nsnsgment Progr
gets underway). The diatanca from she,. under any of the
alternatives will effectively •Iiminst . direct s.athstic impacts
to shoreline or nssr-shore areas To observers on the ester and
near the plume itself, (ha degres of treatmast and initial
(nearfield) dilution should effectively eliminate observable
turbidity. Secondary t,.stmsst could prove marginally sure
effective than primary treatmant is the regard.
the predominant issue relative to sasthstio cosditioms (sad on.
also having broader implications) concerns secondsi’v i.p.cta
associated with algal productivity. The potential for algal
blooms Is influenced by nutrient leadings. diaperei.s character-
istics of the site, and the percentage of tim. the pious surfaces
(allowing nutrients to reach the photic sons) The DSF.IS
indicates iSub.actloa 5.i.3 1.3 - Nutrient ts,ichusnt. also note
Sactlon 1.1 1 • Deate. Harbor Consequences and pals 7-9) that
algal productivity map be one of the meat significant and
clear-cut reasons for a Longer outfall. We concur with the 351)8
s.sumptios ti.st primary and secondary effluent have similar
potential for algal stisulation (the specific types of algae ear
be uo.swhst different).
The relevant sentence is the seooed psrsgrseli from the bottom on
page 5-47 .hould reads “The ares of clisagad conditions is SI
percant smaller at Site I then Site Z during no nat drift
conditions - following that aemtesoe. thu DSIIS reasons, is
effsct. that the cha.iid conditions doe to a Site I discharge
could actusilr result in duz.d.d conditions ova, a large ares
due to higher ‘anbient nutrient loadings in the vicisity of Site
2 This argument could be usefully buttressed by sure
quantitatlvs dIscussion, perhaps based on modellIng, of a.blent
-------
II,. David ?ou.y
May Ii. iBSS
-14-
coutributions.
The SIT? (Volsas V. pp. 1-3 1 & 32 and ?.bl. I 4- I (p 1- 12)) 1.
in basic agrs.ssnt with U i. 06118 0. this criterios. but gives a
.arginsl advantage (a. ing1p subjective) to Sit.a 4 5 and 5 ov.r
SIte 4.
w i r it UBIXTA? I06l ns i — —
Tb. 05119 co.clude. that all .f tbs outfall sit.. would avoid
uniqu. usrins resours.. I. g. • 5.1 3 * 0 - 1.p.cts on Protected
Sp.ciss. sad 7 I.) - Cc.perison of 5.co.ndation for Discharg.
Locationi. Bas.d oa Ui. infor..tios pressnt.d is th. 06118. we
concur with th. conclusion that this criterion is lot sit.
d.t.ruin.tiv.. with th. eaceptios that th. qu.stioa of inpacts us
cosrciai llsh.ri.s should be r.solvsd as di.cuss.d abov.
Thank you for the opportunity to suheit thss. c ats.
Very truly yours.
8. D.v ld Orsb.r
cc: Mr. John I.. Lyons. Chairuan. Winthrop Board of S.l.ota.n
Mr. Robert I Moossa. Winthrop S.L.ct.an
Mr Richard F. DiNsnto. Winthrop B.l.ct.aa
Ms. Virginia I.. Wild.r. Winthrop Dir, of Coaalty Develoussat
II . Margaret Ril.y. MWRA Board of Director.
Ms. Mary k.il.y. Chairman. Winthrop Cons.rvstion Cousissios
Ms. Polly Brsdl.y. Chairman. CAC Detfall Subcoitt.e
Ms. Ksthle.n M.sr.. MWRA
Mr Richard ron HWRA
Mr. Dan OBrian. IWSA
Mr. Jack IIWOOd. 111 18*
Ms. Mary Usovics. ISIRA
Ms. Dennis Minus. 11118*
Mr. Stevsn C Davis. Director I PA Unit
Ms. Marilyn Notch. IWIRA
Mr. Harlan Dol*n.r. McOr.por Shea A DoUser
The Honorable Janos 8. Hoyt.. 5.cr.tary
lay Ii. lDbI
-7-
It is i.portent to do so to provide a coon basis for .valusting
noise •itigallo. dst .ils during Iactliti.s d.sign and
Construction.
lois. uitigstio. is discussed is Volu.. III at Ii.4 S pl.sss
not, that a nor, couplet. datailing of nolan situation oaasur.s
is providsd In b i os VII at 10.1.1.
? raa..ortntinn
Section •.3.S of bolos III Is .ss..tlally the sos as Section
5 2 6 of bolos VI. C—sat. on that Volu.. III s.ctlon Sr. th.
ssas as provid.d for Voiu.. VI b.lcw. Also. co.nts provided
b.low on Volu.. VI. App.nd& . C. apply to cosos portions of
Volos III . Appundl. 1.
Iat.r-lsisad Csa,ppos. Uyst, Vol. IV
The sp.cifio •Itigatioa sassures listed Is Beotios 6.5
Mitigation Nsesure. ) are not osaplat.. sad there sue
inaccuracies. For sooping dasign of int.r-lslsnd tunnel..
r.f.renc. should be sad, to Bubs.ctios 10.1.1 of Voluns VIII sad
th. F.bruary Ill lION for applicsbl. sttlgstioa woasure..
In our Volo. IV c.sat l.tt.r of January IS. IWSO. no suggssted
coordination of lntsr-islend tunnel d..ign sad construction with
the pipeline transport of sludge being co..id.r.d und.r the
Rssidusls Nsnsgs nt Vscilltl.s Plan (UBYP 1O(A 65932 ). and
that conjunctive planning. d.aig. and construction of sludge
piping and the int.r-isiand tua.sls be considered for all
fsasib la r.sidusl. siting acenarioa, Tb. re. a. 11. 1w .. VIII.
p. 6-406) correctly stst.5 that such an evalustion a being
perforwod as part of the 18 P .1 fort. H. want to saphasise hors
the importanc, us place on that and also to not. th. need to
bring together th, findings of the UBf? work sad Psoilitiss
Design in a holy fashion. Volos LV notes that g.ot.clinicsi
work would have to begin later this yaar 119151 to ost lb. Court
schedul. for construction of the inter-Island tunnel. It will be
important to have final d.cisio.s on coordinative esp.cts that
could lapact the tunnel aiignnsnt sad branch points in tins for
inclusion in the g.ot.chnical sifort.
e
p
-------
II. IWS
*. m .i
iusi £4.IMsl,st
lpS...st.l w,t..tl.. ..,
.1. P. ls..ud , idiup
Sis rn. i.i i
lbs UPS • 1. us Sis us trIbis MutMa.
Mat us sup 1. .. _ .*.A 1. Eta 11 far Sn.E.
II pus — s.ty Si. 1 . 5 4 1 1 .. Pus — talusialus - bus lp lbs rsgsrta
Pr.. tis .4.s . .ta. St ,..t ts,.t . . p.1l.y. 45 ,S supust Is usds.taud
lutsusUsusi Str .ir.? Zr p.. us usi, — ..usMsusl ‘V. usst Sit. ,’ sal bus
usi, I i. riits . 4—4us pspust. t , ii. .tstt list is is Ii . bu.lus.sSt
4.rIaup Lt.s ust, 4. psu ..p.st ts d.rstsal .4 Sit.S is us is.s,tastt
Palusbis . 5 pus 1 .4sf vial ,iii . _ . Si,vsuiss , . Ma.1 1.sst ,
Sal VUfl a. Sir tsp buss bu, it us. ust sb usr tSsu ‘U..dliui.
Pus’... psisps It suSid Is I. lbs t rp St S uuspot .55 ustI...) IV
. , Ills m.i talk us lupip s .u’i.M , sppsruuUp.
UPIl ussil Iii. is I . ,. us sMustift. sM ta aus.i ,up talk . 4th p.s
shut us lsliUust. _.._.. — _ lbs ,idu.t.ps. Pr.. Ps,tiS.stsru
Siiusalt,. II ,. Is ta. 3 5.1$. I3ti us buss Sius oar bust 1. us
vistus.. I 1 ar psi itissi . s scull Ia tap to l thu .tl..tios St thu
4..lsius-lss (1u.iu41 Ii. Juls.) .s Issi. sus.tu s, . .stitto sal
t. stss1 • sal it us —u put • b.urt us P . 51 •sStids.t St u . .us. V. srs
ust . bush St , sSils-. ius , 1.,.. t _ = := usuut St voiuutsur
Uus 4.tal by usli—usi L?1 . 4 pSttusls uhu, I. put I I .iuply . Russ
tb..us.. UPilU Pus. Mat lb. . .r,..t i s . d UPS pta.
Siussbustta .
11. PS al,.ii sM lbs UPS _ Js (Sits. 54) us. pi 4 Is Si.
St lbs rishust Mats tfshsrtus is V.s.s tt. £ius.t Is!? lbs
lobular t La V. : _ Ct a us u s t huiss.. V.. sutar .54 SsitIs 1.
ustuss stat is, Ii.. 110 P5.1. £ tars. puss.staas St fist s.d shuts ups
diusa sI. lila usut sM Wuus St pslluti so M .ilfistsriss up.
upss vi M aul ,s.1rt.U f ,ss ?izMa.ts 1. Si . Ii. st.ii . ...t ustuss uPS
lb. ri.b..t I. shuts, ftst, s .d us.iitlst (purtip bususs Ii. .uslight sd ,
russhsa 41us us tar). Sitisut 5 Isupsa us a1R, Si... ._ . . _ s v i ii rust.
psilutad luSitivitsip.
lbs lull us Ma UN buss h ssst Sttt .t t. Isiuss.
Ma use at s441U.ssi usU..Si alis. vs. Si. vslus St lbs riSisiss St
V.= ustS. Sir. lu Islisiss Mat usst ssMp . 1u scull uhus siusly lbs
varti c i 5 isupur ustf .1i.
1. us,. us,, d s.t at Si. pMaIs tauS 11., II. Si. Sivil
tar ’. . _.1aUss lbs s t.r 4.iiis. us. .stutaudls. , .54 .p still
. .i lust us15 _ . UP puss pus .1.?? sIlls. 15.11..., s .d us..
uddiUsusi tastlusup is sisual. Z hp. _ vii i Issh us., Sis ustusid
yssusir.
up 5111 is. tr.u Sitiup Sptius tar U t.. Sirs... Si S. tt—
Sist lusipulu Lastut.• us. 5,111.5 by l I u , 5 .slla uts5.ut is
sssirussst s.d s..sis. si lbs Mavsr.Itp St 1 154. 1. 1.54. 11. is 5.1 5
Puhusi., 5k. us. Is . sTW 5 vurbuhup uI lb. isv iusl ii,sus.tai
Casfarss 1. 1.r5k Isauss i.tst . 4 is Si. susussis prsbi vi.. uhs
3ss..d list us .tt t 1.4 Is.. 4. ta .3 . ... lbs 5.51. St lbs suiPsil sul
lbs ussls vi p . 1.1.4 •
I I I . . . .s.st I . usl.st . 1 ius it I. stsdid. lu r utsS sustats
t .Ip of SilaS — _. _t. .lsMs. , ulsivity 5.1 t arstars pStiIs.,
bi.icØusi stulisi, .. Isshslssl ut . .. st. Pbs ,. 5 51.. ts r lii ., It
viii tubs ut lusiP psar. t. s. I Si. lusl Mdus it Is all .
Thu Sill sal UPS buss both s.ll Shut 551.5 usa Is ._ sMad by 5, 11p , olliust
pusps. Siss SilaS is .1 .41.4, us SMuh list Ii. us tsr uhusSIs. ii vii i
I. .I...r.
Sit., susid is ustal4. U4.1 —. hu , Mash .5_lust. s, shurs. Thu
Sill ..d UPS s .d. !. 5k.. ._ J.a si usury . 4 1*5k vup us, stars. It Sits S .
I. ii. Os!? St Siius, Istusudiul. Sits. lbs Stflust voull 1. hupsul Ud.i
rusub. This ussil st.st lbs uhwss sM lbs sssi St 11.s. ttu Sip.
Plus.. 1.5k surofifly st Ptpusss 5.1. 5.5 Ma 5.1. 5.4 St. NUN.
Ib.us pu ss uhusil . siy I 4. sot ussI S. p. ist d.Sai l 5. Mat Is
sv vi i i tisu. lash tsp pususiP. is lila UPS’. usuaspt St Si. .__ __ su
St lbs 1. 111 Mars s a l V..auststta ?
c I uupss.’u ru-al St lbiMa Is , ...- ... . lbs usul ditflsMt
155k 1 .5 . 1 hIS. Sill arpu psu t• a hu.b fp sup V.slo.-s.starsl, Sib-st.
lh..1.1.. ,us vt..p.ist sal tush Pr.. Si. .I . .psl.t St Si =:tta .
Silts pst , tituk tp lbs p.1st St vi . . St a apsusMap l . .il dusu upsu us
busutitsi Ii .. sal viSta Mali.
Nh, I? is us Mats, eSlb lb. lust auvIrs 1.i lus, lbs
sdssslal psupIs, lbs 5. 5 54.dist.I susIeusu.tsiiut. s s t 5115 I,svsstp,
vist La Si. 1.,. Sir sial up lbs psi 1U list SSitus t. aupuif
ustias sal us usrid?
lbs s.tt.1i viii lasS a ....... I 1 _ h _ i plus Ma pMaass ftr 410’.
5.4 psiesslasut, ususs ,sI.sUss Ma ..I.t . . sup o svs is list 11.5,
us tbsp buys 1. lbs 5551 ustarp alus PP . 4.riul 1 . 5 OlMasud (tss k...h.l
pusa .h.sd St ii. LI.., us 1 ..hal puss sg.) d.alpuul Sb. Sisr .lI Isukius.
P15 .5. dsslpu lii. tt.il rtØi, us list Is ...lbs i h .d puss us
WsaluiII ss usu lush sut ups. lb. husutIfil hiss ustar. vi lbs MaMa ,.
Ps sb.1 5
Si.usaly .
P33
Ssfer%
/ Q4
PsIly rnuIl.p, 11.5141st
UMast Si’l, is..
(1l7)S1i40i1( 5Ii)SSt.lall
-------
Pag. 2
I.-. rncha.I Osland
May 3 1, l ODe
May 31, lODe
w. mcka.I •. DoI id
M.qIOnal adsini.t,at
ia i t.d Otatss £nv ironaital st.Ction 4g.ncV
Maglan I
J.F.K. F.doral .ildIn
Maston, Ma.agc$iusstts 02203
Door W. Dold
liii stir contains ti• cits of DeIM r.gordlng 11* I in.nci.l
analysis conta in.d in I0 and r.lat.d iDe* dscuaants. Ma have
1 1w.. coss.nts, as I oll s
I. ii.. fSn iai i aet of Cit. a is noninal. ISA and MaIM
financial proj.ctions both indicats that ths svoraga
ratspoyr will I.e. a rats incr.a.. of only I to 2 psrc.nt
p r yar ring ti. construction poriod for sutonding th
outfall Iron Sit. S to •it. a. Tha actual r.sults vory in
.$nor malts b.toson i i . projsction. do. to a.thodolugy and
ass , tiona. ..vor , ti. r..uI Is oro consist.ni ut. a
rovldas vastly I .prsvsd ustor g.al I ty at ti. rst ati vol y
nosinsI cost of only I to 3 porcont por ratspayor. Tho
additional costs or. agplicabl. only Ow ti. I Iv. to 5.von
poor outfall construction p.rlod. iDol.r.ncs P.O.. -i I
through a-taD of laSt Voliow VI II)
2. Ti. - tgnor s sipoif leant cost saving. as.ac istsd with
inflation and intorost. Inflation and Int.rsst ors r.al
casts stick rat.payor. oust b.or. c.lsratinq ti.
construct Ion sch.thil. will rsduc. cost. to tho rsl .payorS duo
to roducod intorost and Inflation. Ma bslisvo that ti. 15 5*
has not adS...d th$o Sousa. ft.for.nc. pag. 4-366 of 155*
Voluos VIIII
3. Ti. t asss contradictory po.ltlon. r.gordlng ti.
financial i act on ratupayr.. Ti. 155* dis.ias.. with on.
..ntsnc. potuntial savings in intsrsst and inflation of our
I billion doll or.. In ti. 5 docunt ii. 155* d.votsu
O ow pagas of analysis and osgativs coontory to ti. $00
slllion doil ’s of sstis.tsd additional costs assaciatad with
sit, a. Ma b.lisv. this position contradictory. Cost
savings and additional costs should 66 svaluatsd .spaallv and
fairly. Raloronc. pag.. 4-101 through 4-443 and pag. 4-346
of 555* Voluss VIII)
In suosory, as b.lisv. that both Sit. a and tho acc.loratsd
construction sclwdula or. financially dssirabl.. Ma loot Iorowd
to discussing thou. iagortant .attrs with you.
Sinc.rsly yaws,
i1. .LLL_
ManUre . Vandrsiic., *
-------
Nahant SWIM, Inc. Nahant SWIM, Inc.
S.fir Witeri In Mas,achu Its.. Sift, W.trrs In Massactwstfts
1 ‘
e ...ea.
Ip r.iI frSIt.
EPA: Miii ,,.. : ______
an SIop wade
-
_______ 11s1 P..I..INa A 5. , p 5
— Ip.I —
b 1 u _ ...-,.j
— •bN b
( L.Lk W.. ___
1 W pull. s
—.5, I
,,tM 5I. s INIW.
%. __ ..Jl _ N II
d . Nu.is. .6Ig l.Wlp
W W . d i . s p
S tis3s fr lbs PSstss M II . fft.sItp
t s ti fl psI1.U lb. t. _ l sts t Ii,. . . to slip
I t.1SI stss s bssst, _ ps stIss, . L.. .... __ l , its. to —
ti.)s pslsts , U. RIuss Pit 1 s ssl stSIp ssIs.I
1k’.ls. . 1. Ito.. sst P. )tUtsl t is _ . -l.
— __ ‘• , tr.s sl I i it.. )? d.ss t ssI ,. lbs . ssst. itIss.
I. 1101 . 1 lb... m . .iti.s, ..‘t 1$ ss to sss lb.
sstftfl It’.. lb. plitsul s.sstsI t, I• 4 to ,. — tr. — —
s4tp to is. sst.SI rs __ ... _ s.t
C. Ir _ s slIq, s ‘s ts d T _ .lts IlltuI. . 1 ?.* . .I ,
resslusi It. sts..’. d.’.s I. th tls. ?rsu th.%s.s tsl, .r 1,.
NI. n .t I is is .rU?iStsI i.tsIIl s..
3I. I
ucm . p .n.mii
),C. l ___ lb .dRip
) sta. JSIst .L.t1iIUs., 1 first t .tb lb.
i.lbv1 1 P. ItIiU . . s. _ it .tb.
lbs tosi ’t 1 tiI t .___td fip.st ilst ..t - ssl.sI.tSI J.tst
w bil1U ss If lbq I - 1 .it .11.. P..t... . s.
. . ..... ..I* , ?1 , ulisM . . di psilutost.. psssI diflsl.sds. its., s.’.
ss If RIup __ bliul, dslsI to 0 sib... I. r.sihtp, tbsp
Is s1 ) , estotsi, it siR — rsIi is - -
It is S tIs ) is — ._ l RIli 1 1t 11 _._ is wd.s to . .IIst.
t.. qs.IItp 1 si..
_ J. _ J _ . -- tI __
-d IW sW S d. 1W
d 1W — d
1W s .d ’s bsd -, S d 1W
S.5 Iwsp s.s.d e.fs
N pbsl. i.5 1 IPA.p
— .10N —
b J..a. . SW
SW _ * - _ t
( 17) ISIMOIS s .(M7)jjl.I .Z s
PW (.rn,u,.ss,,.,s,1)Iu,.IOl
-------
Co..ents far the (.vlron...tal ProtectIon Agency on Iii Draft £ 13
for proposed sewage •utfall at ella I
lieu cosaeats are baud partly an several years of closel 7
following tie plans f.r the tartar clean-up effort. I also
conducted so., researci oa lobster and shellfish resources In an
area that would be affected by the sewaga outfall at site 3. In
collect lag and pres.ntiag this Infersatlin I Cave tried to be
accurate, although I certainly have an opinion. i ask that the
CPA coasider tat it is their jet Ia be c..pletely objective in
considering it. .lter.atTiiit.s fir the sewage outfall Iron
Deer Island,
I do not feal that be PA sad ths NINA have object Ively
studi.d tie beaefltl that wield b. r.aliz.d by using sill d. as
proposed by the citilen’s group SWIN(and aenerous otters). Nor do
I thInk that enough coasideration was given to the severe lipids
that a. outfall at site I would have oa teens north of Soston.
Ti. Draft (IS reads liii a .edlicre jesllfication for a forego..
coaclus ion.
Much if what follies is based en tue •ajgr points that are
strongly sepportid by the SWIM ripen eatitled The Saphire
Necklace . the first paint is that 5iti I uill allow too •uch
pollution (0 r.ach sensitive waters tiat are isportant for
their econo.ic and racrealional resources. The second point ii
that site A offers aech biller protection of these resources and
deservis better analysis than it has received Iron CPA and NINA.
I haul focused •p attentlea en the coastal waters between
Nahant and Manchester.
Mere are just a few if the quest isis that I feel need to be
answered bef.re a proper siting decision can be reached.
I. As towns along the north shire upgrade their sewage treat.ent
fron prI.ary to secoadary, are the i.prove.ents going to be
obliterated by the •as$lvi desping of sewage Iron a Deer Island
•etfall located leo clase te shore?
Consider:
Pelati.e flows Iris sewage treatseat plaits In NGD(.illion
gallons per day):
Lynn 25. 1 MID
Swanpscott 2.11 MID
Gloucester (3.0 MID
Manchester 0.37 MID
Deer lsl.ad 377-310 NID(ti)Pradicted flow Iron new plant
(via if only Ii of thi sewage fri. the Deer islaad outfall strays
into the waters north if lahant, It will be equal to adding a
sewage flow equal te the pollution fri. Paaihester and Swa.pscett
conbined.
2. Will thg additienal nutrients flowing Ire, the outfall add to
the proble. of algae bioosa along hi narth shore beachis? What
will be the econo.ic ispact if the live years of pri.ary affluent
nakes thIs problen worse than it it now? Will the regloa recover
fron that inpact evea if the situatlan inproves with secondary
treatnent?
Consider:
the towns of Nahant. Lynn. and Swaspscett are plagued by blso.s
of the algae PyIaiella Ilitoralls . the algae covers large
areas of the beaches, and even coats th. sea-walls, It 5( 11 %. and
it is oftea(.ery understandably) •istakea fir raw siwage because
of th. odor. On a bad day the etherwise very beautiful shore is
really alnost unbearable te go near.
In a conversatiea with Mr. David Tisey of the CPA. I learned
that the enact causes of this probln. are poorly uaderstood. Per.
taps this Is why I couldn’t find p y rel.rance te this problen in
the CPA’s Invironmontal Inpact Stitineat. If you caa’t e.plaIn
why the problen enists. it isis aa incredible leap of faith to
assune that 330 Millie. Galloas per Day(er sire) if sewage dwnped
In shallow water won’t sake the prohleu wires.
3. Will the lobster iadustry be irreparably harsed by higher
Incidence of black gill disaase and shell dIsease on the North
Shore? Why did the nap Of fishing resources in veluse I fail to
show the 16 .1 9 % of the Slate’s lobster resources that eiisl
between Nahiat and MagaoIiaHsip on page 4-SO. flgurid.2.S.c.)
Why was the potential inpact on tiese areas not considered sore
carefully? There ire sari questions here, bet these will di for
now.
Consider:
According tO Dave (sterella if the Massachusetts Divi lon of
Marine FisherIes, tie di,isiea has separated the lebster fishery
for tie State into lanes, lone 3 conprises the waters three
nautical niles Irs. sho,O, starting just north of the Uahant
pennlntula. going parallel 1 shore to Magnolia, ere it cones
to shore to for, a rectangle. Zone 3 also reughif fellews tie $20
foot contour line.
This Zone, or catch area, accounts for .Pg$ if th. lobster
caught in tie State. acc.rdiag to catch reports. Since the total
landIngs of lobster in Massichuletts was lZ. l4.3$S pounds In
-------
I U. ti’e catch fir lime 3 wag l.I6S. 7 pewsids if lobster. This
Is $ comservativi esthete, 5 1 0C c tile iebster.em say temd to
.mder.repert their catches.
Attached ii this statemeat is a sap fri. the the repirt
emtitied Assesssemt at Aid-Decade , by the DivisioN of Narine
the imcidemce of lobtter
diseases amd the sewage discharge ratio fir Nassachus.tts. he
area described .arlh.r(tomi 3) as • sigmlficamt lmcldesce of
lobster diseases. It is alsi Just mirth if tile areas with the
highest se agi discharge rates. Tile idea if •ovimg • large
outfall closer te semi 3 shield cot ices be cos id.red wmtll the
i.pacts em the libster fishery are sir. fully .aaaimed.
4 I? the bacteria frem the iutf.ll add ti the problems •f
sh4llfi;h beds mirth if lutes, will there be amy hope of
reclaiming these beds far harvest in the meat cestury?
Cimsider:
Massachusetts is facimg • challemgi that has bees successfully
set by •tber states em the fast Least; that if cleaning their
eaters enough Ii support a strom , shellfish isdustry.
Accerdimg Ii the Nivisisi if Narime Fisheries, b.tveem
Revere amd Manchester there were SPAS acres if pridwctive
shellfish areas im l $4, Nearly all if tho;i areas are either
restricted or clesed ci letely te harvest. This is largely due
Ii the bacteria present even im treated sewage. If the effluent
fri. Deer Islamd has amy further impact em these a .s them we
viii have closed a vast resiurce to harvestimg for at least the
neat century. lacterial c.mtasimitien already costs am estimated
•nnwal loss of $11.1 silliem dellars Im lamded valwe to Massachu-
setts sheilfisherhis. A very c.ms.rvative approach is called for
to emsure that this dies git verse.
I i.uld lite ti disc sy testi..my by asbiog the (PA ti
recinsider Site 6. The (PA has played am i.portamt rile in
start lag to r.ctaia list.. Warber. This is me ti.e ti sake a rash
decisiim based em shirt-ter. savimgs at the cist of severely
damaging Massacil.sitts lay fir tile meat cemtwry.
Sespec full submitted,
Jib. gartlett Nsskimg
14 semsimgtom Park apt. 3
Lyms MA 01507
Ptguro 2. Pirc.nt Inetdeme. of two dloea.ia In !obmtor - l I3 and
1554. locatIon, of major s.waq. outfall..
-------
; tgj ft
C.—— . ’.
id C. £ J 5 l.t,odvctloa
Th• lo...OloS.ttS Vats Va . .s, *ui s, it 5355*) los
lOI) 7l3 -Iø .c..ti, c..plo iol .1.4.. Is .itio• aS S. sill.... ..tl.ll pip.
4.. 1.4 pr — . 4., IsIsad 5501.s1s t o o1 t fa.Slitp is
loot.. M.rbor. Th. pips w ill •ri . dlach.r. f!DS 1.4 t...ts..1
pls.t sso tro. 1.4 Soil.,. Ito 0v . .sa t I.r.s.... sad dSpo.lt $1
I. Nas..ch.sattS ls . llama for I I. ..Itsll moo soIl for a.
a.dpoi .t bst .soo 554 5.4 ......... 04 555 , Is lsad. TI.
S.sluati.s TV. 5514. 11 lati. Optass.
r.c..saadad ..dpo$St rspioa $0 .l.d Ip I. . •l sos .. sat..
for lost .. Na.bor $
lit.. 4.5 54 5) oosaidsssd bp lb £.tlor$tp. Tb. soy..
C.. 55.5411 - Cost 55okvs ia 5.51.1?
cos.adsr04 sit.. so ,., so or.. ...r.Up soot .4 55., Isload sad
,. s. gras 5 to 5.4 . 51 5 5 dIstost. Tb. *. • dios .5s 5 5 5 at.
sslsctsas of lbs SIt. 4.5 - SIt. 5 r i5s. fsrihsr 50* thai
.3 11. 5.0 otis. .sso .dd lta...1 s.vl.50t.$ bs..flt. .t
cool oossi.rstlsaS f. ,or Sit. 4.S.$
A svsbsr 4 r—p—-ah1O puns.. u.sstsss 10. As closes
of II . II I. 4.55 Isostiss .1 I I . ..tf.ll Io,.i.... Tb. No.4.1-
. 45 .4 cuss... qno.p 3513. Vs osospI.. los p. 11 1.0 .4 5 ..p.us
wIld .d.so.t.s ..t . .dI. 105 . .tfslI pip. 2 sal.. h.po.d lab 5
laid C. Semi.
NST IS5 *Jis s to a beats.. ad . . tsSisd Os ait. a. 35150 . . ...r. I .. a.d&eat.
151. UIi. .ton
April 15. ISSo lIst. i .e. •. ...ius..uomts l p.r.p.cti ’s. Ill. a usold ho s bit..
outfall t.rsiseo lbs. lIt. 5. s .d that 115 sdlitlsl
cosatructbss — rp ..s .ld .lnib.t0 s.lp S .5.11 p.s. .to5.
P..li.i .srp 55.11
Pot is •opiodu.ct lOs £10.1 Psnøissios is isis total •.psass .4 lbs .sstsws l 5 lrsstsS .t pfs so$.
of lbs Lush
3... a. lb. imts ,..t.d 00.s.vsr to sough tba srgu..t f-
lit. 4.5-5 .5. Iast ..gsaost. is. 0 lange. aulfail) Cs. is.
.o.t,sbuIO to diacormiOg tOo b. Itsr olic, option?
-------
—3—
—2—
* Pl.t.rp .1 DsclIalap D. c., S..lItp
n. y . a c..aidsfabls . Cwp is p loa .ia for i.pr.wsd
1,..1s s .t (.011 II I .. l ls.t.a larba,. This .r,s.cp
rsflsck.d Ia Iks pSasat ss t *z*,dsl• whIch dictot.s tho
1sap 1 useD 51 PUll os fa.il IllsS pia . .i..p s.d es.atr.eti...
host.. I. c i. .1 .Mp Iss as,uc Ill. sills. utah r. lva. ,ua
p .s.. . , trst.ost SI wacts s.d 1k. asIp such urbsa cost., s lb.
...1 . . .a1. t _ II. . I s I s lb. k.rbs, s,uv. .. 900 aillic.
.h1 . .5 p., dsp. 4 This Il,u00 I. ..... as 795 .1 lb. co.bi..d
I I .. . aøtriboIsd W elsie. sladiap Is lbs N..b.e. 9 Tb.
r.l.tl,.lp l.,e. . p . flu. 5. s..psrsd 1. ri’s. lapse 51...
.1.uosIaI .1 1k. lrbus. l ..h1V h.r.tu1 I. 1k. ssst l.u.d
ds.p lsp.1 -.p . .l.dI. s1 1k. .a.th .1 lb. 1s1k sr. OIls. lb.
aiudp. fails I . .Id. I . as lb. ustp.Iap lId5 5 I.t.ad.d.
I , ,.1..d driftiap b.wh l. .di. .d 5 ’., tIa..S
Co sarlp as $939. .tudi.. .1 ..at.u.1.r trss1 1 Ia, 1k.
p.aat.r hosts. .,.s I.dIe.lud lb. a..d 100 osat,c1los .1
ddltls ..I . ..tu..tas t, 5a15s.t fauilltl.s. Pbs ,. . . ..s.d.t loss
Sf 1k. 1939 rspsu* us.. .lp p. .1i.hI , ,os1I . .d. Th. rapo.t
uspkl 1k. a.s.t rsuli .. 1 lhrs . prlsor , 1.5.1.5.1 pl..1.. 1k..
eNs b s1 .,.ll.bI. 1 chola9v. fur latispslI l.s hauls.. 0.11, two
p1st. 5 ,. built.’ 2. .ut..._ ..&1 N..s•wh.stts pe.w.d
u.s. I . .. rasdp I. .f1..tI’.3p I. u..tsw.tsr di.as.1
l u ,.. Ph. hosts. lark.r P.h1.1 1 s . lasultI.. I. 1k. 1910. s .d
th law lspl..d ki .r l..io Css.Ia Is. I. 1k. 19705 both c.l Iud
I., but 1. 5 lad 1a achl... rosudial 5.11.... last.. N..b.,
p.Ii ullsO.*
laa..sh* I.. l i i. uctr.a•Ip ..Iu.bls .. .e.. .1 lost,,, N.,bor
us,. b.i.ss dspr.d.d with lrI htui ,i .p . d s.d .1 .l...i. lp hlpk
coat • Tb. ..ta .t SI d...,. t• lbs .aast.I ..lar. s.d lb.
.h.,.li.. us. .ods all 1 s p.spbiu by Iks ..p.yioscs 5 1 StIlls.
Golds.. . N....chu..l1. leak. 0. 5 .1., I rs. 0.l.. . Cold.. us.
.t..tl.d to (lad hu.a. sucrossal usakud Osts lbs bosch .ls. hi.
,.spi., path os. saral.,.. loulsas Sawtk u.s’s. lt..rtlp
lh.r..11s . 1k. l...1s, t.1s.r.d such ad INs pe....t .511.11, a.
Sorb.. p.11.11.. las... with hi. 3932 lauault S. bulialI 51 05iaop
alaa1 lb. N.t,.poilts. District C...Iaaios hOC) •.d 1k. lasts.
Vats. s.d 35,.. Co..l..I.a. ’
£b.st (ho as.. lla IbsI Gold.. us. lSftI.ti.g ..urt
soIls.. ..oai. as usil a. hapal. hasheD, sad u,lk.ti.
u,s.qss.e.. ad Psrb.r p. 11.11.5 5,. 11r5a1 1a9 51151 15..
l as .ksrS was (hi. as,a Ipso thus Ia eN. Ii.hI. Isduatry. a is.s
‘ sps,e pr.psesd by lk.Dl.l.ls. .1 Purl.. Plchs,lss
C...a.w..Ith ad U..ucbs..tts. •st .idsd .s......ilp kiD s.tsa ad
hIwS esac.u sad Ii. r.t I. hauls Parks, wiatsr Il.—
Vilki. lb. astir. stat.. wiats, Il_. was u.s ad I apses..
.p..sap PU ad 1k. t tsh .53,. 51 l. 5s..hsaatt. Ilah.rl..
laudlupu I. 19S4. 1. aPIS. 9.3. 0111.. SI ?acka. la,p
a...aa a.t SOTICI ussipsis ad saps., soul.. 55154 (hot aura 1k..
... ..a •kall 51 1k. .h.l if ash had. I. la.t.. Park., a’s sj.a.d.
.1 aa .atlaat.d .u,.l I... .1 54 .i1lis.. ?hs aludp .51 5s
ts us, tksl lbs .lI.ctad r.piss hod abs.. .1.. b.1 stasdy 9. 5.1k
o ..r 1k. p,aead lap 3-p.ar paelsd. Thu .ddIIisa of s..rup . ala
acu...ic .ull*pllura •u39sata lbs 1... to la.tos I ,..
-------
-4-
-5-
. ..$lfa.k.rass .$osvrU .0.1 tisue k..s ...n so,. .u$0tant l 51 thSs
Ik OTIC lap .r . L .d$ss1S 5. 12
$0d.r..I.I.p Sstse P.r ,10 .s
Ga ,.. 1k. l.11.i ...d$1I.a s4 Dust.. P. ,b.. s.d s..*...•
II ,sp u us.’ suip . 1 5 1 5. 1.$I1.1$p. 1$01 sIr.s, 5db. 10 r.duc•
p.11.11 .. U0. O1 Isku. .s,11u. kp 1k. *‘u pr.d......r s.ncp
1k. MDC. P..1 . 4 Ills Se... 1 511 5u.1 $0 .llr$ $ 01.d 10 pr.b1...
.111 1 5 110 MDC 1I..Ui p . 01 1. 110 11.1.1.. .1 M.rk., ••ns sasa1
u..5 • .. sI s,u0.ISS S I1.d Is ussrdlusls Ik.lr
•1i.rts.ID usd purl I . 11. ...&I11. sasss of 1k. 51u1 1. .11.1
1k. MDC. lsrp. u.s _ p k.dpul 1 do ItS .srk. 5 1 .1 551
.s.Ir1.1 1 5s5. fur .u..p$.. ..r. rsspu.usbIo 1.. 1k. 1us$us of a
$75 ci.sa.p plus .1 101 us lI.d fur a sau .1.tl.. l.v..ts. .1 of
•l.2 $1111... &S. I I .. •1.3 . 1111.. .4 1k. ro Ir.d aos1.• us,.
sa ..Ittsd 1. 1k. pr.) .ol I... 157$ 1 l112.’ In rsf ..l.p 10
..11ur 155 £IL ._u1• (usd5 I . . p .11u11. .uu. tr.l. N....c$0us tt.
upusludip ..d.r..lusd 11 . 1 SI . 51 5 , .ur.bu.. 10 lbs public.
7kb. e.dsr..I.alISS uss rsflust .d Is ----a ,.lv Is. ck.r.. foe
....r ..r.b La $0510. us1 51 1 .s 1. 1k. r..1 .4 h Is cs..trp. 1.
1115. . fs.aIp 54 (sur p 511 55 s ’5u 55 .4 550 for MDC us —sr
....Iusa. 51..--—, . I. 1 10 Ooua tPp 1151 pssr. 1k. .sa. ..r.lc..
.s.1d $0.0 sast us •.ur.,s s( oDCO. IS
Iws.1u.$1y. 1k. 1.51 11 117 .1 1k. MDC So uvrt.II $0.1..
N.ebor p.1 1.115. .5.11 1usd 10 1k. Crush.. .11k. MUSS is
D.c . .k.r. 1114 Sad Ito d ob55St1.s 0. 1k. 10.1 .pu .cy for ..t.r
quality ...s,... 51 fur $0.1.. Nuebor.i’ Pvsor 10 thIs t,ssaIa,
of ..hbo,b1v. b..s..r. I. l 7$. 1k. MDC prussalsI ous 10.1 .cks..
for up rsI$s 5 M.rbor us15r qu.slbhy. Ua lorls..t.$y. 1k. MDC
pr.p0.sI . ksv 1k. .55.1 s.5.ck.. 511* asll..I . ... fur
s.lcvlahbNq sad p. a.g fur 1k. lull 1 ud poilula... 7k. MDC.
r.tk.r 1155 f.d1.r 1k. s.IrasIII$ss .4 p011011.. IsIs It.
pl.n . 1np. a11s.ptsd to .v.14 p...la .. 00515 10 r.1. p•7•ra.
TI... I. I$svsI pisprsa usIa, $501 0.5 11.11. 1.01.ol. y
ie_cs.d uryI 5 S i 1,0.1.0.1) 10 lspro M.rlur uu1Sr 5551117. 1$
MDC 5 . 1usd for S Is s sup...),. $01 l.f.,b.. s11 . .1I,.i
prbsurv lr..1us.1 sad 111.1$.. .4 1 .s.1s. a Us.• ckusst1s Sup ‘I.
dillu.ssrs 51 INs s.d SI 5 1555 .011.11 p*p.. l CI..rlp sIliolsis
1.4 s0 15151551 5 oosvlaC Isp 1k. publIc 1k.l at ..a t.d Is .paad
..rs us public — Ilk. .utor S51sIuss.
10.05. 1115 1k. MDC 10*1.) VOle., Spp$IcslIs.
I. ti..pI. walk £155511 VOl prI5.T , f51k.f 115. -_ _ ar y
1 1s1u0.1. 1k. MDC p.1111.551 lbs Maebr.s...t.l Puse.1 1.. £puucp
UPS) l O U u 30 1 1k) . s,srusa.r 115 C l. . . U.ts aCt St 1572. TN.
MDC p.1 )1 10.es• d..lsd sad .k.r11p 1k.rsslls. 1k. Co..as.a.s
c.d.d als 5u1k., 11p I. $551.5 M.rb.r estur q ..lI ly SuItors 10 lbs
pUpa. 7k. SUMS k.• put Isruard s plus t s r 1k. Marks. .kL .k 0.11.
for ..os a dary Irsut .0.1 .1 sf 110. 51. l..dbsusd slsdp. d$.pu..l.
s .d soro .1r 1 .p. 1 11 pr.-tr5.15551 .1 . 0.15.51.. .1 IS
7kb. as .ur1si ly us 1.p ,a Saaat s ’s. 11. MDC puspu..I .11.1 1k.
ipa u.s ..l.sd Is .e.1..ts. Ma051k.l555. sari.). Sapsdls •f lbs
MDC propossl dousres 11.0.0.1... sot .a lp I.. Ibsir sus saral.
but in purl b . c . . . . tbsp bs.r lbs ..a ..sa.nI of lb. s . c.
-------
—7-
..o..( Mo P S p lo. .
7k. MDC ..b.l(t.d Its 0.1310.1 lOlihi ..1 o.t •pp II .OtiO s to
(ho lPa I. hottosbsr. lI73. 7k. l.a t.st.(Io.IV donl.d (ho MDC
.ppI 10.110. . . -.t.I (loss botuso. l37 sod 1109. l.clu p. 1st in
(ho IPS a.oipoIO I.,.1,sd (..ho lc.l : ( of lspoct. to
.øoI r.nsost o l p.c..5S La (ho .ffIusat dIsposal or... Au.
.a.l,.i. pr.psrod I. 1 500kv (ho SPA attics of M..Ia. Di.eh.e.
5. 51.01 50. ooacl.dsd (hot • --.s.s of orpo.Ic.llv ..rkch.d
•ff1 t por(Io1OO. (ro.spsrt of .ff .0.1 Iu .shor. toword.
Sr... 3ou.ud. 3 Soot.. Sorb., o.d upooss(. sod dopo.*tiouu of
looses I . .olØbor l .I ..di o suitS silk roouIinf oopoouro of
blots 3 ’ u.r. sli 1Ib.l t sseu , .. 0 eeao.3us505 of (ho MDC
p..posaI. So (ho ass hood. (ho
. . ,s1 ..d v .1 . 00( 500 of diochorsd off boot
0usd .sso..1 of (ho sIod. dl.vbOrpo fros boston M.rbor Ito
l.o..eh..ottO S.pI .osId Is.. bo.ofIclob of fort. on (ho
s.rlns blot. sad , .crso(Iou usl ootI.ItIso .51kb (N.
l..b.r .
ho (I. s Iho r loo m. (ho II.c%.13od .ff boost 0 1h1 sot f is. sst to
s.... dis00050 .offi.lsot iv If ..a .svod Is Iho .nob005d ..toro
of P....c%uo.t ( 5 Sop. 33
7k... I. .adltboo to doopI (ho U S C ooI..r as r..ndo of
.it.-op.clf i e .o.b.iv. (ho Spa unrocoptl.s to s tr.âo-ott
botvs0. I.pu.usd W0 (0t q.oIItV for Soot.. Sorb.. o1 (ho sap.. ...
of rsdue.d use., quoII( toe U000aoloOOtts Soy. 71 10 1. (toe
e sIdStSti0. .i Nt hoES boos offoctod 00 such by .eoso.So. o. by
.coor.o3e5ph7. Ohio (otol I. s . O .ad .0 . 5 50 so. ..Iuo. of Soot...
Psrbor osy o....sod (h500 of aorthorO N...oehu.ott. S•y. (ho Soy
or.. north of 5.5(0 5 55 .1.0511 Or.. of c.n.sd.rsbbo •cono.sc
.•1... I. 1905. (ho IPA. .0.10.1.9 •ao(hof oosu .d.d .0.5100 of
(ho MDC uO lVO , .ppl loots. .. a.tod o ha3hor l.o.I of 00r 1u 1 0-b.sod
.oonoslO sctb .I(y In lbs .u(toIl or.. (ho. did (ho USC. 2
IPa v.0.00(5 or. p., (lau lorIv i.t.,00( Iaq (ho oub,oot. of
ti.h 103 .c(I .Ity sod hooch .... 7k. MDC 01 INtO ( Is O orpood (hot
(ho pr.p000d dispoSal oro. oso sot 0 ..I(.bb. hobIIS( for
shoUt lob. 7 1.0 lp , .rchsO di .s lo.Od. ho.,or. (hot so...
q .oh.. w.v. p.00001 at (ho alt. and (hot shot. .. soro
p i. ot ifuI.7 no lv. 01.0 di.. v..d .Ilb (ho USC. ..-es t of
(ho l.por(5000 of .portII&blaS In 10z to Soy. WallS (ho
MDC .tr...od (ho volus St .psrttloIllaO I. 500(00 Sorb.,. (ho SPA
... .pcr(fiOhioP two. short. ’ ond port boSto os o sopor poet of
(ho N.u.chusa((O ,o.t..(lo.o1 flohi..f ladustry. with 11.133
fl.hIas t d.ys d 132.033 os 1o.o d In l973. Such
I Isk Is , ti .Ity. (10 SPa dotsv.laod. • 1%( I. od ..rooly l.p.se.d
l v (ho suISoIi boss... of p.t.s tlsl donpor to (ho
qualIty of Soy fIshorb o s.
Po ,owd ls bo .ch s o s. SPA f IMo’ S . out (ho St suss..
to Pohsn( .Sd 55030 Sascb.5S olso, (ho Soy .1 33.000
pooplo pow .0000 . 1 by ond 10.000 p. r do, b 50 503 lb. . ..h.
PoksO( sod 1 1030 OVO (0. of f so. backS. chlctl oust 1.0 1 . 5th (ho
.ppOO ’ Soco of p,IotaiIs 1i (Smsit . tsr .1 100.1 •...,oi doyo ooe%
ou.sor. so sIp.. P.1010110 11t(arsLA soy 0000’ b.achoO .11k a
boy.. of 3 o.uth 00 such a. ksbf 0.010. dos ,. VhS foul odor
whIch .ccospOOlOO (ho .lpoo doeS, c.o .Ido,sbbV s.o .s (ho
4..lr.bI lity of (ho bosch for ..cr.otb000l or uthor uOO. 51.11.
(ho wows. of INS probbso IS dispu(Sd. otudioO point to oi.trIOnt
-------
- C-
—S.
..,tCbsSat 4,0 5 0 1.0.1 pl..t us a p..b.b lo t.cl.r.
$js.s his r.crsshionOl .0 1 55 04 1hsS bo0Ch 5 is high. lb. CP a
— ——-a (lot lb. outtoi I pip.. Is. to and sslp 1.1
.11.. ow .?. si b. .51 .44 ..... .... .54 lr.q.sst als. bIsoss
Seth ....r—vC C 1 . 01.S• l 1 hoes v 10to 1 iaSu0lrp.
losposlap .4 ?r.sl04 I1tls.atI ta. NUlo Ipprooch
Tb. sb)ootisSS r51 I! to. SP to (ho SOCe 101 ib) w.ir.r
•pplloatl0. r. .o ls. I. prls .ipOlIV. uu*d Is. Ia0u 5O. Tb... so ’.
I I too sitlsp .4 t h.ouUOlI pips torSiowol .04. 2 ) (ho d*s c harpo
.4 wsst.. t,..tad . . ly to lb. poloory 10.01 s t thu t.ulsus.
*lIh.wph 11. NIC wsicoe .ppllcshl0. 1• so cm i.. a c.sc.rn. SPI
to lb. woiwor horo t.k . 0 us rs..wad sa nillc.nc..
Thi. 1a das to lb. shill .51.151 .t,sp IlO I. rosolvo boatsos
w..tuw.t so,... 504 lb. rossIp to (ho probi.. which (ho C V I I
ls ,oro. Is ssslisus04 o.rIlsr. lbs p .0.0 .1 505* sot.,
. ..sp.s.t p 1.0 i bsttar tb•a th.to4 Its p, .d.c..sorsCsI icV.
This Is t,so for • .4 rsssssO. P.r .u..pio. it •hipsl .los
sac . 0dO rV lovol troslsast 54 s..ts.. Th. p1.. also od.oc.t.m
soro .0 0 ,50.1 ’s . lforts •1 p.o-tr0.tasst .1 watos. In on. so ,.
hows’sr. lbs 151* p1.. ....Wh lsa Ito 510 proposol I troslod
sllvssl is d.p..itsd 510 5 1.ni . .tt. l1 pip. to lb. a... ,.g io.
of Ia .sOhlS is v 0.siposlod for (hot pwrp000 by (ho S OC. 3 °
Consoqucacosof (ho 050* Plo.
Tho t..t (hot (10 155* u ld sand .11 3.5.1 wIth — srp
rsthsr tt.os prasse , 1..a1 tr..t..nt isle N.as.cIIusotta is is
i.po.l.st. Ii hsr iov.i 1,0.1.0.1 should los... lb. sowseil , of
.n.ir .n.ostak Ispocl O 51 11. dispoo.l sit. ,othse spool, will
ho r.duo.d uslda.lo.t lp I . p.. ..sl d. r.d.tl.s04
I. , ssd ito psso0.0 5. Is usol.... b... a..,.. . • W.,h by (ho CPa on
(ho IDC prsp.sol uwp,0.%a (hot ..t .1l dioshsrp. Is a. iIb.ly to
.ie.wlols is 110 lop so to to t...opo.lod to op.. ...... il
•s.lrosssts i Iu.sy thus — U— - - 5 lsoct$ o n .1 Oftlwsst qsolIty
0.4 (ho ....ili.*tpOS lb. lops 000sputon to such ds.chsrs.
Tb. r . .posos .4 lb. Soy I. =z y lrast. . .t z---- as
. radssIC q WsOlIss. t.. —ar*f . u.d.r lbs p.0.ost court actod )s I.e
bates Si.rbor olasaup. Tb. schodsis n.d . rs .51 1.11 ossstewctios
by July. 1004. asd p1stius of v teo.t t losilita..
is This hl..lsbi. producos. is oStOVt. 110 son. oslosso
which SP* Isp Il si hl I Is dsu.pis (ho USC. soisor
spplicatios. It .0.510.5 a.hstoshisl qssstill.o of aft iwust with
0.1, prissep (rsst. . 5t to •SsOschIisstto iop s ’ sr . 5-ps.. p.rl.d.
*lLbOwlh (ho 055* lstosdu to plSt0 - - y trosts..t
faci lltIOO .1.01 04 . .b.d.io ontd° dl.chur. ut peisory
tr t04 . 14 iwosi still 50050 liholy. Tb. boots.. at lb. outloll
t.r5a.w5 s.d It. dssWhsrSO to. p..spt.d S sw.hor o4 h. .wlodo.ohls
l.d I.idwsls to 15115105 cs.osrs. Tho - - to od lb.
Nssoauhusstt s S i ll.. 04 4.0.1.1 1.50 I1 or. illustrotiwo.
*ccordiop to 5411.
..slvsls 405 lhO adIscts .4 ss.t os_a ..04ili..5 .pps.rs
to ho Iisiisd 1. 5 cussIdorOtaOiI osip for a psesod .4
p.r.i slOst .ssto, IV wind.. This I. sot 420. ise.rprotsts.s
of . worst c.so as.Ip.ss. V. or. i.t...5l.d is S
co.p.rsts’s .ssIysis .4 lbs 5 5 C10.5 silos I.e .owseossostol
sffsCls of buses Is lb. ChlorsIislio. proc... 5.1 10, o
4.ilueo is th t.s.ts ssl proc.... Vs ars o.p.cI.II v
concs.flod with lb. of loot. on uussss51 baacnss sal otb.r
-------
-to-
—I,—
5 50 .5.ti.5SI .tl.1t15 5S wolI Sues sisilfish s.d
IAsh.ui .s r.esurS. 4
Tb. Pr.. -?w .sl..st l.
il. — d.grsdstisssf Psss. .hos.tt. S.y esess
i..uit.bl.., r$s .0.a pr.-tr.sla..t Sf .551.. St 1.1 , taurus
•$ lil •adt . ds.up ....id..sbly. l.d..d. 1b PUPa wsSts
ss.spu—s —t p1... Sdd.StaS5 lb. sssd IS• pr.-t055ts.iit .0S SU0 5 5 St
so.. est1. Gs..e.lly tbssS 5 5 5 5 ,5 5 . is,.lw . ssttls Stssdsrd.
foe ,sl ctis. of 10. 10 pollutasts t tb.ie sour... at is....
b,.. __ i . is uh.thoe a bi h l,l Sf ..u,.s esdooti.. 5s ho
.ehss?sd loe s.istsi.sd. ok 55su sss hoe.. so ts r. p.u a4
lift bull to i.pls.ss l.US
Sooss.i.t. .esu. list tastes , J.stIs. .b,..ti,.. ass sl.o
b s.,is..d tkr.ub off lusst okor555 Piposoass 15555). tkwoyh it
prs thot lb. Luthorily Is. el,. . 1 1111. .tt..tIes Is this
possibility. is hi. book 5.oe s.d lbs Is,Arss.sat . ails. V.
I.sss. 555. 5 s.s. study .1 sit luest oksr,ss es lbs D. lsusr.
•stusry 1• ds.osstrst lbs systoos US ,k.bil$1V. 5. No. such PUSS
should e ly es po..tr.st.o.t of 15.1.4 by .ith.e r.eui.li.. Sr.
eta sy.ts. is dsbstsblo. Gus. r.,Isuoe . 51 ti. Rm s tr.st.. . .l
Psoilitiss 51.. 4SItP) upsouiot . l11 SstshIs pollut. .ils b.f or.
tbsp s.t., It .. souse systas asp ho lb. l soot .Hasti,. s.swr
1. host... wost.usts , Sib., r.,isw.,.. luokiup o t
lbs uscs ,lsi.li55 of ...t tSr dispossi St Silo 4.3-3. wont so,.
th.55i .t •i si, t. eossspis5 th. 51 (1.5.1 ( . 0th .,
of
Co .p.ri. 5 I i . boils of 311. 4.3-3 s.d Sit, a
asoorliss to lbs 555 .utssdi. lbs of llu i 0.11.11 b.yosd
git• S oils,. so slvsstssl
Soure. es.tr.l .r pv.er.st.sst would bs .qu.lIy
sifscti.s .t ut. S s .d St sat. a. S.ssd .n bstli Spa.
•cr.. .is .n.lysis s.d 0 . 5 5 5 work. thsrS SrS Iwo
prsdictsd s .wi.owossts l lsp .ets s.s.si.t.d with Silo S.
Of Ii. Sports list sos posdictsd 51 ti. •lt.. 50.5
would ho .ll.l..I.d If 5 sors •Ifsbs,s sit. .sys
wsod. 3 ’
11 sppssrs. how..sr. thot soitiso lbs 55* 5 5 lbs PUSS ho.
stullod It.. rspios hoyssi Sits S .s..sh to ustlfy sash s
.o.elu.iss. Irs I lsed hot.... as . .sphs , with lbs 5. 5.
G.oloIe.l horny st hood. Gui.. isual lbst lb. 00.5 study
I.cus.l es lh flushi. shurs.ts iistis . S f .slsot.d sits. 5 5.15.4
of boils, St lii. dyss.ios of lbs hop .,s,.ll. Thu., hots..
ssys. ti. fisdis, list lbs suloys.5t silas sue 0.55, 15,
dilution p.ts.tisl is 5 rslstis. 5... II lbs study us,. to
Sodas otis ., so.. sssusrd boostiss.. still bolt., rs .u lta si 5bt
ho obtsl.sd. Tsis is supsoislip tees .i 1st. .11.51.5 lIst
tbs sets , 005t sit.. Sits. 4.5-5 ) Is lbs PUSS study s.rk tbs od ,o
o t so —. . . u .s. ,. loss uod l-fbushsl rs,is.. sod list ii lbs
.utlslb woo. sstssdsd ly. fsu ho Zzl . lbs rssidusl
Owrr55lS would .5,0.0. bps 1.ut of I .. spois 51 lsssti • 4 0
ls.estt . Sts 5. 5 51 lbs Tsob.iosl £J iss.y Group of
It.. lIsts lussuties Sill. of Is.i.saaustsl Al (sirs, ossour. with
lutssn. St.bsss ..istoi. . tbsl os.psrIs Sits S t s.othSv p0 1st
two silos out is boopsv wstor. would rs,ssl sa sos.
•ub.t.stisily dIfIsrsst Irs. Ihoss sbrssdy ..sIyesl. Such 5
study could cossIdse his bs.sfltS of r.stso dilutios.
-------
—I..
•t.stiIicstisa. s.d s.pos.rS to sirs., corrsnts. Ths I ans i
ssl3 aa 5 .1 Sits 4.3-5 a s$act S Sara disisni sit.. I. Stabs..
sind. could I rast 5t*SO PsI* 1.e.t ans5 a 5a. 11
•.t..dan it. .utlsll scald pl.ld °...a.r ,ia.1 •ddsd ban.Iit. and
•u.bat.ntSal sot., 0.51. this cooN ..l*d.t. sits S as it.
approprists ctoics. *1. tsssssr. costa car. onlp sncrsasntsl*y
ti ,hsr La cot . ,. for c.a.idsrabls diScuss sad transport
b stits. this would usrrsal ItS 5.15db. of Its nor, distant
Op ”.... 5
Costs ad I.toadia Its .tSall
a has with St.hsaa thinhis ,. 13. a oaths.. acts..
•roup b.ssd in Pstaai. boa 1st.. a visa.. Isat su costa
•ssscistsd with buIldIng tbs ..tf.hl paps sao ubsr 2 . 51.. cut to
Its ssigsst.d sat. a arss. 2135 found s diU$Ouhtiss In
.ahiag tosar po.3satsass d .s I. iaca .sists.cI.s in NVI*a
sips,... In its scs.bae. 1217 sf I S?VP. Is, s.saphs. tos Swim
q.otsd to. Iiguooa for sutIsil sssst,cat*ss at ale. a.
Supsadaturs usa ant St 54*5 aillica 1 11S7 dsihs,sS in Vol. V. and
at .490 aa ihiaa in Vsi. V •42 Vurtbs aors. Uwia cost ssti.atsa
•rsu irragulseip with i .c,ssasd cattaIl lasgut. (las ?aais i .
5s 5 rssult. SWIM sand S bs llpsrt ligurs of 320 •ihhisn par ails
• 2 .15.. Ia calsulating sddltlsss l csnstcostasa costs far sa
outfall sutsadad Is SIts *. With Its indhuaaoa of IS psrcan%
bspOsd this asowat f s , s.gina..ing sad 005struetioli aansgsasnt.
saoItsr 20 porcast S. 05.5, esntinpsaaa.s. and 35 aIflac. for
issuap. SVIU dsri .oa sa .stlaats .1 355 aiflaan for too nor.
Sits 2 to 2.5
lii. 2.5 to 3.0
SIt. 3.0 to 4.0
SIts 4.0 to P.S
Sit. 15 to 4.5
Skis 4.5 to 5.0.
.11 Its location of Sits S is 51 704711 Luag. sad 43 ’3S 10
L.t. location prouldad b , Ito SWiSS tossi
Sits 4.5 tO 5.0 1.1 aS 540
lourcol
SWIM. Ybs Ssppbirs Porkh (Psbs4*. - ----...tt.s
0.cs.bsr a. sas7 ,. so.
Pro. N.sssohuastts Vstar iaaou,sas Lottoriup.
Iz.aat.nant. faeIlit.Laa Plan . Vol. V. 111 1 .5.1 OutIsil
Sostan. Ns.sschs.sttsi Noosabs, I). I ’s ’ s. 7-3.
tAILS I
cost PIP SILl * 5 OUTVAL$. LIIGTNIMS
5.5 aS
0.7 a 5
0.5 as
0.5 51
0.7 . 5
2* , 1
Cost I.arasas
. N
2lU
•44 3
• ii
.53 ’
5•0u
Cost p.. N Il.
.333
.
5. 5 5
•2N
. 57.
-------
—Il—
—14.
oils. if .stfsli.
SIN aociasta that .l 1) Pal • VII • Z.otLtvttOaSI
Ld.ratI.aa . sat. tha wale. .2 tO. owls,. .stswstar pra,.ct
at 52.51. billS... sad •Sas . 2) 1k. h lphar 4,O aililsa flqur•
S.. 1k. 1I.ll coawapsora appoara I . this woluOa. th.1 2) 1k.
I l .ro isoad’ Is V (ha ..tIalI .e.’spow .a a. t.bv1 tiui5 totsi cost.
is prsbsblp eh. hi,hsr .s.sot .1 1,O sills... SPIN thorf...
fosla jo.taIlid a. .ddaap O sillS.. t. 2. Sl5 ballS.. to •.t so
ld.. of tks fl.s .sia l i.p.et .1 a I.aps. sutIsU eowo•ps es on
lb. .,orail p,. .st. I. lbs 5. 51*51 slap.. of cow.tr.etls.i.
SPIN I _ ros s . . that a Iso,sV .ut l.Il would aa. a. Soc ..... i.
Costa ha,l .isI at B p.r.owt .2 tatal pTa .ct sapsaditur. dv.a.
15 1 0.4 issliolap 1. 1 p...smt b
Vhs NO.5 ..a..t . that 0 loapse owtf.Il tu.oal wall coat for
Os .. ttioc SPIN owtlSIp.taa 4.. ts sa,i.sorIapdaai .cssi.t.aiot..
$ee.rdlap 10t h . *. BIt. 5 so .1 1k. set.. 1 Soil faa
0.ost teetio5 pta.itp 21.. teooal will (ha hpdr. .I Sc spot..
...i.i.aad I., ha.. 1. 15.4. Ia lb. * psevisu. to. h..disqa.
a. 5 .1 .0. 5 lila shift, aid ow off lesat p.api., atoll.. sap ha
uiscssss,p is a (sisal built bapsad B I 5•4 V hs psoplop
statlo.. 115 t aopo.oloS .2 1 5... at.... would add sooth.,
•iow .un.. t. Dr. Ulsh..l Nso.lop. a SPIN oo .ouIt..t.
b.lia,oa 15.51 slorstis, lbs ws.lasot., I.clliti.o a. baa, Ials.d
aid s.difpls 15. d..aq . .2 . peops., atata.. .l.oadp slat.d I. .
cowst.setioa will allow 5 l.aae aetfall st .1010.1 act., cost
oilli ..i.
Scsi if 115 louse SPIN pco,setio..s sea sara .ceursts than
I I. saRa lisuras. sod aso If los Sost of sut•idiop 10. outfall
will ha a I,aetisa of 5?fP total cost. to. ovia ho. pasS ross..
to ha warp. V.a i.e ..... I. prara of Boat.. a... vats, sa..ae...
0-sr (ho osol two dseSdsa will Is s.s.0555.’• OI ,a 050 . 100 10 50
ocr . . .. .a tha IsilesI rasull of Ss.to.a ls.sq ,.f..al to Sac.
to. costs of ollutas .. L.pi.. hswo,ar, wIll p.0500 1, So hills
to .odue. 15.. a.. of Passaek.satts rats papa.. c..,f.o..tad with
.apr000atiop vitae .111.. It isp Os I.. l .a. .aa500 toot ths
IVRS ha. coo... to IsildIap tha 0 .110* 5 to Sit. 4.9-5 s. to
Bits I So toes. of fl.s.clsl i.paeta . . IIs £sthaaitpa rats
papsr. raIl.. than So tsraO 01 .sosfat-.iat . ..lp.as. 5 II soIp
to add anothar d,.a.saos ts tha dsea.as .-.a OI.p p .s . .. .. bows....
at sap os .safwl bra to appip a ss.afSt-ssa l p.,spaeta,..
C.lewlotlop Saam lita
Coats a. lOla i.ata . vIals tha A sad SPIN Is . .,..
dilfa,. voold aaas..tlallp ha (ha sup .u s. astod oath
.utauidiuiq tOO aIlleast sutfohl papa ftos Sit. 4.5-S Ia Silo I.
TO. eslcwlataohl of sssa lita dspa.ds I rat ow 10. 411.110. s.d
transport quslatisa at Sat. S sod hac.odlp ow (Is soil of
dosaps antacipatad to too . .aa.rcsa of 0005achassttO Isp. ii .o
scoldicol dsoaps Is s..ticapolsd I. Nsa.asiswsstts Sap, toss this
long.. siliwast pip. is sat uotafs. Nowa—ar. atw.aa. a.
coassetlo. with lbs NbC 20551) osacar applasatasa
,ossc.ta that .1 5 1.0.1 with saip p.isa .V t..atsa.t p.aas 5 os5r5
to fashaseass. 0000O.a, au,d lotte. oodisaota a. t.5 Isp. 005 50
sconooie. .0. 110. sos a.sthatie eo.atraI.t 00 iwsans. TO.,. ,a—a
-------
Is-
-16-
b..n no .tudi.a don. to anoora that .11 luani with e.con..,) ...i
tr.ats.nt will Not b.V at l...t aOaS of in. a... dolatsrioua
afloat..
Ta. D..r I.laad a.c. arp-lowol traat..ni plauit wall atall
ha cosplatad aft.. ihs •lflwa.l outfall pip. .won with pr.a.ne
taIb 04 cn.naS as in. co.atrwcta.. achadula. Thus. •t in. wary
£.aat. adwaraa spacis I . .. •fllwani Sr. la.•Iy du.&np in. ii ..
b.iwSsn tarsisation of lb. ai.IfaAl papa and COsplatios of in.
..cond.ry 1.5515.5% plant. Pr.wonta. such ad.a... ispacis wouio
COa.t$iIItO an SC.aosaO bs.afal.
0uan i4ya., auch potastasi basafata a hot •aay. A first
slap as to ....a. (ho .als.a 54 NaaSSciav..Lta fian.rla.. in
195). for aoa.p&s. siOS .allaos warts of •na ,lfa.I, wars £5 1 10.0.
With In. applacaisas of as .pproprsai. aconosac •ultapla., 4.5,
10 isciwOs ralatod basafita. in. vaiw. of in. fiahary naar. •5
aaiiaon. Os e lla r.c.s.laosal Sid. 1950 daIs allows SSu.Ouu
•siIwat•r •n9iar• cosaa,sss, 5111.6 •tllaon to In. sport an
Naa..cnw..its. 52 Naw bosi •sd i 1.5 1 purcnas.. to.
,acraataonak fiahan,. whio b a.. £5 addlios 10 this Ii , . . .. war.
.pp.o.a.aI.d at 520.4 aillios for I9O4. Tn. North has,.. of
which In. lay is a part, baa ilaaataosally haas a. a.p..t.. .r..
for both .h.Iiflshan and •porlli.hanf. it eiasr.do,a a....
.s.aoaabla to aarsaru a . .Oa parca .ia . .4 Naaa.ch..aate.
flan.raaa •.rnasp. for in. North In.,.. if. u.anp in. an...
4a ur.a. on.-fourth in. waiwa of Saaaschu..ita •naa.i. an.
saitwalar anpiar lasoo.aaa plus ass-fourth ill. vaaua of sisw
oOa i an. ho5t I v.a puICaaas.. sra saau..o to oan..it in. hera,.
Shora. ihs Sr.. pain. rawanuo of approa&aat.iy a 195 sillion
dollars.
Anoihar £.di.atar of : -— io bas.f at. say ho in. worth of
baadh visit, to (ha ma rtha ,, s.d., of •sssschwaatis S.p. If
figursa q.ioead .arlsar for Nshant and linga ILpss Ia.cha. a..
sad to e.l culat. dm.d f, ill. two baacsa. ow., a 1)-u.s.a
a ..... ..aaon. thawS will ho 10.001, a S a I) w.aal.p .asaia plus
25.000 a 2 . I) waahasd vaa.i. for a 1.1.1 anda.. of 1.200.011.
.aaata par •w saar .aa.os. Aaavaaag that • 5c5 .aaiia, spa... 55
p.r .l.lt on food. drlnh. ls.l. .ad sihor 11 . 5a. a cautiowa
.ata..ta of ella wotih of ths a .saata is Os.SO0.000. lanes
Nahani sad king. sra but twa of a ..ra.. of s.acoo. a. is. a,...
aA.S00.000 a. only a partial .ats.ai. of •cosoaac ban54ata
aceruan . to lii. North Inoro fro. lasaocnua.tt. lay ss.dha..
* third bas.f at of as unpollutas Isp a. in. as.,,a.
quality of Important coastal habitats a.ch as sarriar .a.chaa.
aaii •.,.has , ass tidal fiat.. *10.1 1 iiia North lno.a a. Is...
County alon. . 1005 rachasang put arrsar 5.5db .cr.ag. at
2.955.4. salt aaraa at * 5.026.9 oar.., •sd 1 10.1 flats at I.e.?.?
.c,...54 Tb. sarh.t .alw .1 salt ..rshoa and tidal usia woui
ha a fun .t sos of ta.ar costraawtsa. I. 000aa.caal a..
racraationa i 4 aaharaaa sad is s .c. laaoor. pursuit. a. walba.g.
va.wsng. and Dardi ,atCbSng.
* final Oscuona.g
Adding ib. aall sarsh# ts.al fists .aiv. to Saasf ii. to lbs
be,th Snor. 1,0 5 Nsaa.enwaatts bay asn.raoa and ndacn.a prhouC.5
-------
—I,-
• eo.buii.d t.t.i ourO ISiS . . 0*00.000.000 Shoes ho cost of
•ut.udiusS too •ff*riS(st outfall paps to lito . Tous. or... id his
o .t of ISis usd011 is ti.stod St 0.05 d l i... SwIM. 000.000.uuO
I 9 5 ,0. buqiof to less ssf.,ss .f &m N oo.00$.uustta Soy soy
COSP00SSCO for eli. •upaS. S I 0000t05CtIOo. .nsf it. of dli .
ostlall 05150510. wIll outotiSli coats If Ii dIseS .Sr S •l •flluont
with p.i...y-lO 5I tpo.t.sus ..kp is 5110usd an N....cI,uotts bay
sos . ’ of 2 . lilutlOM of .lfluset is ,...t.r St tlio Sat. ,.qaon
tisas St thS fitS 4.39 W09 100. Iu Ills first c... to. MuSS.
•ch.duIo 5sf ISis quIsli. usir.tos l .dopeIss of 5tr009 pr.-
trostsOIlt •ooour0. Soy bo by. Is Iii. 5500M. c... tootS is
iu ...if f 101051 ..I. for ialorssd dsci.i0s- .Shasg. furlS..,
.eaootafic •tso of too Silo A T09 10 5 5 sotioSbis.
* • N....cliuss ltS Vats? Posout0.o Author ity. S...ssdas ,
fro.t.u*L .Lse IlIhI SSPA00. Vol. I. I..eutiwO 5..... . final
P.port (Soaton. SI....cSiu00ttSi MUSS. 31 U.rch 1,551. 5.0.
2. •.liont SWIM. lie. Tiif.J..sSaLra locuLac. . P, oool lot
l..l..tao . . of Sit. A Pin. P 1 10. 4,0. N.h.nt sod lull IP00 50t.
Ma.escnua.ttS: SWIM. IA Docos... 1947). 0- ..
3. SoCk Poibois. ko N..borl 50.1000 r1.oeus CtSp
C000. 50 .100 79. N.y *9471 1 *94.
4. 1 Mg.
S. CosouluwsaItli of P...oetuwsot IO. Di.$.Ios of N.,,.
fisliorios. 9JofaCfl.Sat lS I.rA.o fAaharAsSI 4a.e p nt at Na4
tc.dt boston. N.a..cluu..tt.: DNF Potoab.. .9551. 7.
A. iMd.
. CliselOS P. MaSt. 1 5t, .suctisS. is Q% flq.s Po1ita
and flousudpra: Por...ctAvSS 50 100 CASSIIISS So
Lisucolu. lastituito of L.uud Policy. L.nd Policy Rou.uotabia. C...
Studios S.rioa. No. 105. Sd. Cn..lss U. Psue C...ridOO.
P....ehuSotta l Lineollu InotitutO of L.sd Policy. *4005. will.
I. M.t eopolit50 A,.. P*snuuiuue Cousuil. taqi 1 5.5sf
1..J.nd. .CS’Rrf Plan . p .0 P .rod f or U.SOOCluuSSttS l,.otrtsost
04 N.tu .Ol RS.Ou,CSS lS0.tOuI. M..ascuiusSttSl N.t,opoiit.n or..
P1S..lnq Council. 0c10b0f *972). 27.
. lisrif b...ois. CloOiiu.9 Up S.Stso No .00,1 foci or
flee i01 1 1 Squ Ios C OLA0 5S 1Ii ArO5n5fl15A AIf.iro Law IotLow 12.
(j9 5 5i i 503-503.
*0. CO. ._IW1%Si of P..0.Ck.sSttS. biwiois. of Saris.
fislisrioS. lUscutIV0 Svussey. 2.
ii • U.S. Ce.qr.SS. Off Leo of tseSisolstv aa0..a. .st. Vms.
&LJ.rln. In.ar0 50eot.a IV.shis ios. PCI U.S. Aot.,n..nt P,i..t.n
OlIies. *prsi 1957?. 119.
13. Co. riltk of Mos00eiuuSOtta. 5 1 . 10 150 of M•rsno
fiSSion ... 4.
-------
3,
33. Jud&tI i . 5*1 4. .. Soatos Sorbor $.n.q.s.,.t. Ztudv . a
VI..1 Ssport. NITP Il-IS ICsabr8d . •sSS•CNUSSLL5 NIT S..
G,.at. No .5.941 1911). 91.
$4. So.t . . 5.d..•lopsSRt aatko,stv. N.r94rs.rk: A
frasa94rk I . Plant.. Daanwaa&os IS.I.s. N.s.sca...t 1 .$ 55*.
Oct0 5., 3914). 7.
IS. 5. 15.15. 154.
14. N...sC5.00ttS Wst 5. IIrCSS £ .tko,Ity. TA. Cl.an-Us
03 Saton parson A St.tu.. Sspo ,t 505105. S.sascnws•11i Nwaa.
30 Nap 1945). 1.
37. Co.soawss ltk •t •a ..cIi.ssttS. N.t .opo llt.n Dkst,aot
CossiasiOs. asollr.LlOe br SodAILratlOe 01 5.coodarv Tr.aL .anL
P.oa .ran.nLa go. I L. 0... IAaas an. MilL lag.n. £AI.w.ni.
jacharSa 5 anlo Nartna V.1gm . £.sc .IIv• Suu ssrp (So.to..
P.asschu. .tIa N. tcail A lOMp. 194.. 1..... , 1963.. 1I.
IS. •s...oti.s•tts Vet., 555594055 AuthOr £ 17. SCOfldSRl
Trastasn t f.e iLL1a . Plnn . Vol. 3.. 1.7.
IS. Co...i,wss I Ik of Nss.ooii .S .tt s. Pslr.poIiIss D&.tr*ct
C6.sI..los. I.
20. U.S. S..*roa94staI Prot.ot*o. * 3n.C7. AnalysIs of the
S.c taon 303(5) Socondary TmaatasfiL Wsiysm Asoitcatign 10. thI
toaton flatrosoltlan Diatrict CossIaa&on . pr.p.r.d bp Lbs EPA
Oálsca 03 N.rln• Discissr . E.alont&0n. 5. aon I (3954). 4- 5.
2*. *1.
22. 20.
23. IMI.. 21.
24. U.S. Ia .aron.satsI P.01551*05 a snc,. An.lyaga of th
Ps.pa.d 3.cLAon 30km) AsalIcatlon .1 L A. I.tr000A&1.n D *u.i .cJ..
Cps.gaation . pr.parsd 57 lbs In .sroa..nt.1 Prot.cu.ion A9oncp.
55ion I (3955). 39.
25. g.
a. g. sd-as.
27. LM*. 4.
25. g.
2 . 43-64.
30. IVIN. 3).
33. U.S. I..&ros..at.I Protctios A s.oy. AnaL . *915). *0.
32. IVIN. Cwrrsat Coupt $Ckadu.lI. Parch 24. 1311.
33. U*cb..l D.la.d. C..a..t. •t Vorkabop Proq.... 05 lb.
CI..nup .3 So.ion Mark.,.” tho Psi. In I.ad Sonirosasslal
Co.I..ascs. TwIt. Una. 5r 51t 7 . 4.4 40, 4. 5.s5achu t1s. 24 Narak
3965.
34. N.aa .cbwastia Vats? P..o..c.. Awthorsty. l.condary
Traatasiit. FactiALnas Pan . Vol. VIII. PhOlic Psrl$clp.liw. sad
S.sponalvsuiasa Sw. .. . ,. r&a.l Isport Soot... Ns...cbw.at l.:
MWS.. 31 NarcIl $955). a.fl7.
33. U.S. Cos r.. .. 0tt$o .4 T.cha.l. A...s..n.t. 3 59.
a. AIls V. S... . .. Iranoatca and tan InyAroeaan l . IN..
VorkI P.. vIs S.4s. *377). Chsp t.r 7.
37. N.s..vtiwsstt S V.10? boar ... 4v 1R94317. 4.e.n .ary
Trastaait FarA l Atta. P1.. . Vol. VIII. 4.754.
35. SWIN. Ta. Sasanira I.r.A. . . . 2-3.
34. U.S. Ia.$r....ats l Prot.ctIo. A ..cp. 5. ao. I. Soat...
harbor Vaai wa1ar Cnn..yanra S.1.. S..a ..aet.1 ti .g.tn.pantal
l . ..rL SLataas .it . “FaCt Sh..t. N.,ch 1915. 3.
40. Ua.s sc94aOtt. V.tsr 55.ouircsa Awtiioritp. laranda.,
Traa,.aant farniAttas Plan . V.1. VU). 4.914.
41. ) . 4.523.
42. SVZN. Tb. lanabira lacAlac. . 51.
43. 52.
e4. 1 g. 53.53•
43. M..ascb st15 V.1.r 55. .wrc.s authority. S.cona.rv
tg.. ..n1 _ F.cgAALAsa Plan . Vol. V. IIII.si.t 0.13. 11. Final Rapori
Soaton. Na.aacbw.s ital SWIA. SI !arck 3955 2.3.
4$. SWIN. TA. Sasohira I.rai.ca . I I.
47. J4jg. $2.
IS. N.a.aCk94stts V.1.. •SsOuiiCss A.tkorety. 2.co .d.r.
Tr.6t94A1 FacgAaiAaa Plan . Vol. I. 7. 3 4. 8 5.
49. Ns..scbwSsttS P5151 P.aowicos Satborit ,. Samoa,,
pp p.nl F.ciLAc t.a P on . Vol. VIII. 4.959.
-------
I ’
90. I I.
93. C.sso., s3ID St N.s.sch.s .tts. Di,a.io., of Narans
psoo,.s. S*D1*o esph
32. lkLI. _____ ___________
Cit. of Sostos. ostoll N.4.. slopssot *utts.e*tv. N.ror.toI *
3 . J Ig. I. ( jj 9uork Los Plsosaos Dl .css fl . Sos1oi . Psussehuasitsi
SPA. Octo 0 .r. *9 54.
94. t.bls 1.
Co..ooossi . of U.s..ehusst .S. 51.1.bos •f U.n ... Pish.ni•s.
11 55L 5•VDJILS 11 5 Mor Ass IA.osrAs.: A.s55 5.snt. St Pid.fisc . 44 .
So.toIl. Nssssct .u sstts l Eu utI.S Off In. of Isvi,0 1 10su.Isl
Albino. ho ...O 5r. 953.
C...ooss.lth of Ns.ssehssott s. SotnopoI*t Di.t.i.e Coseissios.
A pJ 5 st As 1.rModJI pc.I.Asfl of Sse.od.r .
. utt.siL 5 for _ LIL..D94lJSLslld on. l v.LL.Jsnd Elf 1 nt
lu,c .r.q,. til ls NafAfls W.t. 1 5. I..c ti.. 5un.sr . Sostol,.
Nsss.chu..tts: N.tc.If P Eddp. In.. • J.nosrp. *953.
I,o. ,.sI .I. Dodd. ClssnIi l9 Up So.t N sr0o.t Poet n.
QstolI C011s In.Lrsen.nt.1 Allair. 1.0. 1..ts . 12 (3 ,53) ,
Duss0050a • DI•ss. Vhs •pssbs I.e Ph. Ns.Son Soots. *1094
950 5AiSs. 20 fu,ust 39573 l U- I ?. 02-93.
Nose. Chsr lss N.. .4. 01 3.4.... P.LatI . o s . d I Is.odoul
______ 0 Ph. Cp.siipi.. U. .1Jp .isnM5rs . La .ool I.
In.t .tut S of L.i,d PolIrv. 10110 Police Roui ,dt.bIs. Cs..
Studios 94. 15.. No. 303. C.ab. 1d9.. Nsssscnus.It st
LlpeoIn I.,.tiI.t. .1 Loud Pollcp. 190*.
kudos. Judith I. Soot.. 05.5.. N....oo. _ t. Itudy. 0 P asi
Pipor.&. P37 ,5 51-iS. Cosbnad,.. Nuss chusst1oI NIT
9.. r.r.nt. N..S.osr. 194*.
I.s..s. SI Ion V. Ins5s. e5 sod Ph. Ik,kroo5. . .t . No. V.rkl
Psp uiui Sosh.. 3977.
Iu,onss. Oils. V. • sad Setueliss. Churl.. I.. P.11.t t. Nope...
sad Pubitu Psitcy . V.sh$ toll. D.C. I Ill. Sr000lP95
In.titutaoa. 3919.
N.ss.ch .sstts Not., P. 0 . . , . .. PsthsrItp. losed . ’ . Trsst.osst
( pck1tt.Ass PA so . Vol. V. Uffiu..,t 0.1 1.11. 50515.,.
N...sct,uisstt SI UNRA. NSsssbOr 3). 3957.
M 55 0sellus.1t5 Vstse Posoureos OutliorIt?. 3scoedsrv Trsstssst
Isc iA ttAss Plus . Vol. I.VI1I. fissi P.,o,t. boston.
Nsss.el,u.sttsT NWSA. Porch 31. 955.
Psssschvi s tts V.1., Nosoureo s AuthOrItV. I.S pSn .9t._S2SjQfl
ttz.o ,rI * St.tus*4 )QL.L . 5 0.1011. Nsssscnussttul l’VA.
N. 30. 1903.
-------
l w
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
Saks Waleus In Massachusifi.
a.tropo*ato . a... Pismu., C . .. ,c$1. M.jo., Ib.rbor 1.1.n .
Cpporoosn.r.. Plan . Pr . .rod for N....cnua.It. ls.p.rts. .I
of N.tursl M.onrc.s. bit. ,. Nsaa.chu. oLt.t NseropoIit.n
Iroo P3.a.s., C.s .nc&1. Oct. .., *972.
lst...t l v i i. S.c. Tb. 1 . kir. Occkl sc . . Propo..l 1.,
loslusti.. of Sits 6 Na.,. Nil.. Sr .. N.n.nt sod Null.
N.h. .t. Nsssscbu . cltaS Sill. Dsc..b.r *6. *907.
lis a.. 0..,.. ElI . .. No.l Oiats..t S.us . Outfall SIt.
S.cb.d. Vi.&Aroa 3un-Ta1.ara.k . 4 Nooo.b.r 3967: 2.36.
b.lb.in. Istli. Tbs N.r96r1 So.t.,. Plosta., Cr.p Ga... -
boston 79 N.y 19I7I 190164. 701-211.
U.S. Con r.sa. Of Sic, of T.cSiii.I.qy *s. . ....nt. n
nan .. £n.inoon.nc. . W.aha .9t... D.C.: U.S. .o.srn..n
Pri .t .o 0th ... April. *907.
U.S. E ..i. . ....laI Protactios A, u ,Cy. Anslysi, of tha Isyipap
b.cti .n 3011h) As. a..Lio . of Lb. Natr .golAtan biarZACL
Copsission . Pr.p.rod by lb. E ,.ar ..nt.1 Proi.ci.on
A9.ncy. I., , .. 3. Soot..,. N....chus.tt.: EPA. *9a .
U.S. I ..i.ons..tsl P..t.ctios 6 0 . 0e v. Analysis of INS Sactaon
31,. .61 S.c . , . . ,, Tr.stn. ,t & .nhAesLion Io n Li i. S _ og g
R.trosoLiL. . District Co as.ion . Pr.p.r.d by L b. EPA
Ott. .. of Ma, , ,. D .achar.s lyaluotion. R.qson 1. Boston.
•..a.chua.tt si EPa. 1964.
U.S. En.i ,ons.uil.1 P..t.ot&on As . .,c,. la.aon 1. 5 sLntI y.p
Wastaystar Con..v.ncs Spat•.. Suon lp..nt.L En.pgpns.nt.
Ispact. tact Sn..t . Boston. M.sascn ....it.: EPA.
I I. IIN
lb. mth. . 1 D.1s.d
b.gIosoI 196 1 .I.1r.to,
l.,lros..Dt.I pro1. .1 . 1...y
J. . Isns.dy P.d.rsl lolidics
96.Ion . MI 02203
r lb. 0.1 5sf.
Plo... 101.dS SM .1...d srtlo ls .. psrt 1W. ..sSa so SM
bat I 1.ppI.Isry S..lro.sl.l iai..1 5%a1 .1 so 10. opo..d
Naa.s u ..11. 1 .1, Is o,oss I.tb .rlIy o.IrslI. lb. artlol. by lb.B I.
Fail..... vs. url II.o s 5 1 of iW. _ s . .rnl lpo .s 30 5(b)
5 53 , ,. oppIlostlo.. It l.ol.dso l or.aIIo. about ro.t . s.d .lro.lsUos Is
5.96.15. , last Is p.1Is..l I A.
I bills,, 561. 1.t 96U.s sopp.rta MDl’. p.sIlI.. 16 ,1 tOo ssttal l
uboild b. pl.s.d at 1. 6.
PIssus .l.Ip 5610 sot Is3 Is rolatlo.m lp I. SO, ..l. sop. east Is, Is
.Mrg.srd b.s sods ... pail of ‘. 96silsoap. I.p.s so. . 16. VII
outrsl l p1... sooN 96 cs.ro..2p .1... to 5.6. 5 5 , sb i SO. s1g.s p551..
0 .3.1..
I Is.. 96oi.d.d s.,.11 1. tO. .3g.. t1st . 3.11. f,so 91131..
. .fsrd or isMal v ,t lt.. Sb.t 56. alp.. tsi 560 s.olt 301(b) soI ,
appIlosilo. a das . Iptt.. of 560 .1g.. toe lb... .96 Isv. aol ll . d SI. s.d
• po lo fro. lao 5.atoo P.rbor Ildal r.ol SMrl uboilso ho. tIdal .vsa l.
flu IITO 5.h.st I.jo. SM 96 03 IN. bsosaoo of 565 . .sosoL Udal p.Il.’so
aro.md 5.96.1.
N.i.h. *900.
Na.w’olp p..s
p4 Lty d -’4? .y
P.lIp Vedisy Pbo.Idsot
5.96.1 1N. 3 ...
IWNi,, PlC. __ . - IJ..o.ily lAnas k.,o. C. E Pd.. I96s.. MA OIVI
- (6fl5iSI 07Si.hII7)SII Ills
-------
*5. PsIle easdts,
Cilslr•srsem
itll • Nsilest CltieeaI• t itte . *5
i. &as e’s ’a lJ,siarIe
Nei.sst Ta Hell
Nailsat. Il SS
ease C itt.s *bblPS,
Mvlal kl.ae l s .d Mieltias 51.1115 teats’
Nrtilesstlra Mlesrtuti
last P0 1.1
NsilSat, ea Sills
S..
•lels iCut L .beesttrils
Nareard l ielrsit
4 0I..alt, .5,5.,.
C IdS5. St 11 13 1
3S .1.1, ill S
Isp s is fl irt PattIPl e a sad I em. gesdests student .1 lisreseS
Sti,l,litp a il . Ollartasat •I Osgemlemit sad .oiet,oaure 1 15 155 ,. I em
ysSestiss alit Jess with a P1.0. Ia Serial aisles, (buems cilaaics 54 SerIal
•au,rtsirsles). I us. beau a rssl e e SC*St di.sr Ia Nailsat esters 5.5(5
i’lli 5.5€. l’ll I ilmes ceatlaususi. asiutsias l tubtrsler , tests at
NtrtlisSstePa ljil.l,sit,5 ltspiae Scllacs sad tisritias Studies CestIr at last
Psust, irl I ursula, a, tilIsiS weel. I site eeaute be $Ct divlSq
laS 11111 sits. a•se tile isitralee, semirel lass • asahI. 2 seethe a •esr.
0.. sIts Is lecated St Slag PscSs ( .sd leesdi is IS a ii wailP I t I m StIle?
is ass, Camee 5secil tees sad East P.Iat INS IS5 S Is,) I . IS a •l water. Ptrt
•I a, truisiug Is IS 1 1uSd aSCISSICSI I em Sill lsailiSP wltil liii
•r.I.tsueusl titeratepl persiasat to a,u,—eilees 5 1, 1 1 ( 5 1 ecesasqrseilp. I
aIds 5 &em ettletlsa Is seesral llhIci,aCils Ia till decsaeutS aeeh,Cst.5 5
itr NediIi ( 5t 1sa ol l.teadee, teessulat Ss elr utS her DIscilarges ,uto
IssrIa. Wsts.s sad .Ps.iSIsaS a tile dsplicStiSa her N.duIlC.liea .4
Sccssdser Treetasat • uI, uts lee Siselsege late Its, sue Waters’. subeittid
be tile CIt, •i Lcea Ia smpeet . 4 a Sculls 351(i) wales’ ol tile Class SIster
mC 5.
it. USlee ipitiells semiePal wati. seprest dets pessealld tr tile
press.sd eutisli sits. I . r .a ..Iatsl.l lust ehhlesut disciiarqsd Ieee tile
peesesed sits will, lu gs.e.el, be sebje ct S. S alt g 5etillPIy t,suilltr’. sad
tiles dec11 set scsi 5 sugellItsat ds.qsP 1 Nsiluat’e tileesluse, hl .er,
bell ptsts III1S (sileelag tile eeel..ut 04 ebb tIll *1 11 psi. Sept.’.) sad
push Ill—IS (silemuag till dispeesies ml dsI is tie • rIi i stIles) indicate
115 1 tesjscteep •4 tam ebb ctrreuts Is Isle temeud Itsilsat Is,. laded. lile
sell .cstiem states Tils ebb pleas. It caatrsst, i.csllld dilbe .a lesgtil sad
ass botil !E •lnuI t . (Italics ai.e.i tIlls 1,1 ..tsadsd
•stt lulrtil .slt Ieee till .iteeaatl e eihsli site Sal 3Su Q ce .atertiOCSW’ts j
iii SIlL t! (itslucs al .s ) tile . 5 pl , ile.u..eP. cerreletld ciessi,
with till r.s.lts II tils IS .iit pets e.plriaeat us less 0’ till
sucees M , I*fl 5j lalitil II,S.?liSe . 1I lL JL 5jJt1_eUt 5 (Si c i
e,SeP. p. Ill l.). Os p. Ill- lI. cstielStueas buIld em till di sillS see
pess.utsd t5 .stuuste tile fir—lull dulutisa ii Ifliusut free las pee,esli
sits. Tile u lrs iadi€stl tilut sill sill pl Sell 5 ,susi st is let wits 55
Is, to eciliems till s di lessee as list 1155.5.1 I, till pi em e flesliug
till. I. is.. Sill sIb plees would ilsag teqstiler aetil leagIr 55 it tesuell
sleag MsilSut Isleel elsiniug tile ceuaterCtSClwise il lass Ns*uSat Sue.
i .iSil till ilttsls stteatiem te weet deal be aisa StuelIl
11115 5 gesdests shiest at tile lteeeucilslltte lsstituth .1 T. cilaSlO,. Nil
asst,rI tilesus Is sutitill ‘St StsI,sus si iepdsed,aSeiC Circuietiem •5
Neilsat Is,’ sad .ss c . Ietsl I. SIN. Stersu. sipiled 5 tem .sssr aslsl
ist Ill CN 11 50 sssi,is •tls Jeist lahtesacl •I lids sad aid em till
t,sasptrt SI seusge seticles free tile Sc scett kieags trletslat Plsat eel
sd till distribut,sa al siges leuliag Sill a,srsileel re 5uea •f tile Is,. (p.2).
Nllr lll c .ted pseliClI petill sad till •sautude sad directles 51 cirrsats
Is tile bu, ends? a usrletr si .1.1 csadltueas sad tidal stalls. It 515 ,11 be
sa ils5i led tilsi Neurlu ,s stsd, lee sat besu 41.1 1 teeth. lll’i ssee ’sl
•I lie resells sileeld be II ceeclea wutil re55lct IS tile tiesesat 55 pl
Sties Weull hurt ileesiag Is diractuem user Cast Puss ieee till pres.ssd
eetIsIl sits.
Peges 4 5-75 distese tile flee I. till be. deriag a tidal c til .45 1 5
lSut st wind ut II lasts, 5 s P ceadltlem. FlierIs 15, Ii , Sal 11 ieee
list deriag aucil sI till tidal cis a gres sap s.iet .a till lu , Particles
lateral tile 5,el 55, 15 .5 5 rleldeall u.s 51 5 Welt ee StrI. Sill tie
•,es dell taees d derisg ebb tIde, till cielrsst asters II tile ebb illiusat
pi free tile prelolsI estlsil sap pelts smeege sewage 5 ill .at,a,aed bp
tile gvre ebsa ii releesI S few ileurl stIr. Till p.tsstial sculls Itr aster
landed us a,trueuts te ill beeehlt 555 till Is, free till ebb sewsgl pl .
til?euqI i till setiem •f Sill ceuaiaecieclise il sad tie sutusa II 55, g,rl.
* s.persle etsd, Ic No . 15 (IllS) iadicstsd Slut tile sigs, Ictecarast
a(lu ule5e5 , ebicil limes is Nailsat Sac ass lieitld is its greets erilg Sell
SI tile ..sr by tile aeu,lsbhlit, 54 Si ruts I. till watlr. IclecitIsi us u
close reistlal sI PII5,ells lItItrilIl . till laleelse nellasce .igs II
Nsilsat/be hlStt. sad it limes in tile a ilabhtst. lbs ,a . 4.calleae lee
till gro.hil SI PuIa,eIIs eel iee5.
Steele. discusses lbs ti.itstilal 54 tile c .tl? .sdlt em pages 75—75
sad tiles t srsh us es..ite aitil tile 115111 su.ulisble 1,511 data. SI
ceacludle slat ills lslelitp ceIClIatleme Itr till salad asters are
cemhistest will held Is Is derleed free tilell a cee. * •ls. usd5 tilat
tile psrtitis trujecterils taliulatsd lee eel .151 ceuditlea (St 5 tile Sal, ems
ltr wiiicil Slier . ass 1,111 IsIs) are scud, sad t.ststiuel, cemdluiet till
Others ars usild ISO,
It .5.11 II S ie tO .ssclpbetl till preblem I i till asSesses stge 11155
pstsatusllv d.giag tile usiqid iatsrtidal sad subtidet ilubitats use, Nuilsati
yst tile premIsed desip hut list pstlutlsi. Ia till sullacI si iu,tiler Lull
testia 5 .1 tile assr—sileel currsut 41.11 aresad NsilSat sad L,sa. as
eli-,alerSli decueleas isa be sell rsguediag till •hletts SI tile prelsssd
llsIl. Issuing tie eutfull lucIlle •hhiiltrs will sqlid till ileaisdile SI
sr,.ag 1 preduct till aS,ealht oh •hll.eat Iu till asse—siltrI •uu.ure nt.
Isiotut, li.ide is silullee astIr Ia tills scsi (liSS tim ISa) srI eu , t .
,arusilll holIsm ills). II, asaSer aS5 sale sr till pull tilcll peSel
st o. two I.sld sites , lia 5 S (lStSa .sdsrwstlr hle.wotlr sad e. pertSal
sbseruut lees suppeet tilil. Tiled Il 5 alt sletilsel, lieu d tile cash 55
-------
L os c ’ . 1 . ’ ( I i . PI4S S .C•$ Ii Ns.PiSi liNli’. Dii It. •44ut will bi
IS.ss0l •44so ’ •oilnoisist.
no. 1 1 ,, I wIse Si c e .t ii Shi r iw$s•d .oiutsrio 00 biitisc
..c,. ,as.rt.brstIS lOst L iii wIll •UCHI t• ois.tii tOs •44sc11 04 l Os
oh s 1 1 . TO. prililsI pt is.d Ii 101 berist •I0I hOst civil 0, liii to
coipwhI s oy .t.t..hic,’ to. •t.tI .tIc .I p r sO iii osslis ’S Iii. so tO•si
s l.S ..Il 0. Ia . iii ( 1011), SOd I b.h..vi WI •.tsiS.vi siiIso ,
w.rrsotsd 0 yoS wibis is Os ’s 50. csasbilit , Is dstsct soy sivs’,s •44,cts S
I4 o . oi l s 1 1 is lbs scsI b liSS.
a
Slscprsly vSvrs,
M I I. Pettirts.
a
5 ’.
-4 ).
LiS.est,r. Cil.d
. 5
5 5Db.. u. P. lOSS. li,estlsstis . j sDwefis.1 inks . Lzfl luih.
Piistschi.ss(t 5 . shns..l.hso Ossleici C ,.ssis Iip t. 32 pp. 0
I .. so
I Sq ,I.ii. .t .I Prst.ctl.. a 5..c ,. lOl l. l jj. ii soi’’ri s
. rs 5 j S ilL 55$ wiltiwiti? liscOsrISs 31 SiL .ftL ‘iL1J! I•
WasD.s,iis, 0. C. 133 ••.
SS,rn., a. 1. lOSS. iiuI, .Ii f j ooIc cIrcylithis 1! 5’ &
iI1l1 . Nsst.r’i TO.sls, 0.p. t..it 54 Pisclis*.csl tii soiiniis 5, .4 k
. I. T. IS pp.
Na.. ,. J. I. IS IS. tc.dyhIc iiul,ai f j 3j if Ict.c.?p.s
I I I Cs!I$iI J. 5jj& iL1iu • L I r. I ii 55 Is 11211 D.Li i iai1 .n1
1 .1!Lt liz li.u. i.s. lissisri Th.sls, O,p.rt..ob 04 PtcIi.n,CiI
t.,.s..r ,.,, Ii. I. T. $31 pp.
I
p
-4
C
-s
I —
-------
1 Etrl • 4 t”• s • “ ‘ ‘ cc)
• 70
l_ptw iT .ii i ) L . I AI—
17—---- -
,? , ‘ ,.
N \ \ ‘
‘k “ “
LO V T!a
, .. . —
— .— - — — —
?t’T 1
/
I, — —
A — a
1’ — -. % I I
I,, -‘ \ \\
1•- N
• -o s N_
1.1,111 tI .
( I a , .
I\ \ \ \ \ -
1’ ’\
*
S — .
S S
I,. .5—
I,, • •
I , • • .
I • .
I ’ ‘ —
I’ — S S I
— —— • • a
—7’’ —. • • S 1
. 5
“ S
I 4
JI / _.— : -
I ’
I •• — %
I’ • - —
I •- ‘ “
‘ S ”. “ ‘SN
“_,.. ‘ S ’ -’ ’ - ’ N
‘.. ——
w o.
. 1 ’Tt %
\ ‘ .
I, “ ‘ “
‘S ‘S
I’ ‘S. “S - • - —
‘S- -p%
( ‘S —
WT 3,C .PS \
. ‘r’ .2 ‘V .i’! ‘ - :
rlcur. 20. Co.uted 0i .-Lay.r Ctrc 1at1o Pattsr . a
‘4aha st Say — Sout!iw.it • m d at 2’ ot,.
i
I !:
ii ;
—
1•
-------
I C 1% a , I l’1•c )
/ 4. - . -
Ps41 71 FIL v a ,i . -ie • ( l tc)
LD TE
4T11 Ia IC.
U
4 ’
ir- iii - k ’s
IIz &
__1.. 7.. :%_
aFT!? 134 i .a’S \
I’
,# 1 It
- ‘ __l__ _
T 3 O.P5 \
‘4 M ,aY( ‘ifl •4
Ftqur. 22. Cosputad P.rttcl. Path for a P.t .a . . at
eb. Swa .pSCOtt fraatsnt Plant Outfall -
Souttn’S•t Wind at 20 lnota. laaLd.ncI
Tia. • 1 waak.
rIqur. 21. C utsd On.-Lay.r Circulation Pattsrns in
Nahant lay Shc inq t1 Str.aalina. Conv.rq-
trig into • Gyr. - louthwsat Wind at 20 Pnots.
-------
i Rg.• bqs
Ishsnt, M I 0l OI
Say H. I n?
. Michael Island, Isgionul Adalaistretor
Inviruonental Protection Agency — legion I
J. P. l. . .nedy federal Isildi.sg
lIsten, VA 02201
Oser W a. Istandl
I an witting as a eoncev.ed tithes sad a valuates to U.. lahant S.N.IN. Con-
•,ttee. I have reviewed I. detail the recent InvIted 301(1.) Waiver Auplication
fron the Tom. of Svangscott. I an coi.csr..d that the proposed treat.ent syst..
pro,id.s only for priry treataust . with no sacondarary trest.ent. It is on-
conscionable at this late date that a plan be uo.ld put forth to discharge any—
thing less than full sec ar ,-treated 1ff 1.1St into Soston Narborffia;s.chu—
seth Say, scbnoul.dg.d to be the .tit polluted body of water In the United
States. Is addition. it is not clear that the plan adequetely providei for
tr.sting the pollutioa cOntinaties fron Stacy UrooL The continuous closing
of shellfish beds I. this re,ion. al with the frequent closing of publIc
beaches due to bacterial centa.inetion should provide reason enough to correct
the pollution pvcbl to obich Sv scott, along with neighboring c snitles,
ha. contributed. I trust that your upconing decision on the Sw.upscott Waiver
Application wilt be a dental, consistent with your decisions on other related
cases. In addition, I very concerned that the estr ly short outfall
eutension proposed by S scott will not provide sufficient diffusion of the
effluent to significantly reduce pollution i. laheut Say.
isp concern over the issuee of prtoury-treatnt-only and the Stacy Sroob poll...
tic., have liheip bees addreised by other writers. It is with respect to the
outfall location that I wish to eiebovste. I. the Lyns —Swa n gscott.Mahant area.
we have an additional problon resulting f,en the decay of jJayella littoralls ,
a forn of free—floating alga. ISles the alga, driven by the wind, washes up on
the beech, it quickly decays, resultIng a a vile stench. Since wind direction
is variable, the location of the rotting ss of alga changes fron to... to
touu, surrounding lehant Say — truly a regional pvoble.. My acade.ic training
and professional elperhence are as an engineer, net as a botanist, but It Is
clear to ne that all plant species require nutrients, and fro. personal chic’—
vatio., debris ubich o.ke op inadequately treated sewerage (tango.. inserters.
etc.) invariably are found with the alga buildup. Ise csnnot tell fron v4iich
of the nuny outfalls in the Creater Soston region a given piece of debris ori-
ginates. but it is obvious that the Swangscott outfall and Stacy Iroak aake a
significant contribution, and these sources of pollution nest be corrected.
In addition, the drogu. data presented in the Swaopscott Waiver Application
are suspect, as outlined in op letter of Warcb IS to the Mass. Water lesources
Authority — copy atteched. fldal circulations In this region are highly vari-
able, and the data are far too halted to be conclusive. Wind end tidal condi-
tions can lust ubich ld force S scott’s effluent onto the beaches of
Sv scott itself, along with lyon, Iahau.t, and Marblehead.
I urge you to reject the T of seett’s 101(1.) Waives Application, along
with its acc anying e.tr ly short outfall e.tension proposal.
Pevy truly yours.
Willis. Crawford
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
— _____ Sates’ Walere hi Musadsusaffs
Ii. 10$
11., lu,lpeautal Yretaetlea liens,
Pivat Poll, lIndlop, Miss
las algae ( Pulolmil. lItt.11 .I
Wave po. near Slives aleng Lyon ihers Drive on a Isestifel dept
Wave pow euwi elled the slgae. • .tbe oree of baautlftl?
tee l I el leesylnu algae neor the ee. .11 Sl’ifta a1 the
b.aeb.. .dr5.wi oloae th.lr vI.lena, • ,ehllfre.e bOll their onona and r_, Loop
eIret e. el beeub 1. lye., — 1 1, Ia t ore ble,
P.Iai.ute Iron Saae. .tta help brUiSe. the algae .
1.1. the Udel — ._ t chart (attached), Ihiob of the 21 ) (sUe of
leltial dileUon) of a. lilt .etfall at oat. I. l ae...aLyse.
Loch et U.. elre.laUon pott is (attached). I Ue
effluent and algae.. • (rappel.
T e. the - &ui . of Pa . Lye., _ ti... all tie peopl, of
Or_tar heat.. cho one l.taaVta .u.tt
SWIM rft - U.lo.,ap Iheta !esO. . MA oi
5el?)iII 0hiIIl7)i 5l liii
-------
.4 ’ .
Cal. ,. ii Mi 5
at StIi*i Ci t
J0 ft El.
Mu,shasetat Waam Iisi A y
Ciistkwi .i 1 Navy Yatd
100 line Avenai
Iosaat.MA O2l2
E t* D
Map $0, IWI
West, sts s at sq s camatam . the - 01 I I 6
iá ii 1 By oat ssstithii$ of dat £?As C am W An. ii s the msam.bs1a 01
I , , MWWAs oadsl i.ms satdy chamse a seat sub slat i pssssble gr atss at the
inaiw a ivejo_mss We ha.., , , fat Eavv ws sal I i Lepx, at, ha’s c dst
of seadat 01 be baidsec coismisisoes at stats S amdt h at th
EPA. appio..sl 01. it sam cesar vamd siam 4 at 43 suM ,uuM at euMsIamsaiuly . .
dc n_1aoos at sha bamds.c liakatat of Maswha Bay th seat I Bath slat EPA
MWRA iep ste .saat by so. avis. a u y seat be th atpis
camipatuom hat that i 4-S — bail at — l the rep 01
those dait
, Jk puh ai . at(th EPA aid MWIA’s poalfos at, — Iofloate
I. As she samivis auth MWRA at Naleam am Apnl 22. NI sbe *suo c cc
ssa thai fsey erpatata a s..atmssat of 10% weve thlsiam 01 atatqe c (flaene dncha, ai
61)111 siati. aat the acstaj atvcemsae cosid be (at atate atatal thepensoss 4... ate
.vs,Iable (cat use ft Isenrv cn& thlaat soil osely seeds as ikai atatat at
atn dsclhnj Wed M tsat ha .,m R ae . Wi MWRA at atveeo isest
(at held csmw .ss at seat ôosee the seat atthm se cs (selcate Sat seat Ic be
3. ftp pIsebs uM at sbe 6v alam 4-1. that. I w ly las
sew e plaise will th A aid poBa. c sa$ habs atbath sapposu ps cvva (Wienee
— have cosse&eebus eseie iaI v The at based am the (ats thai oudal plated at I SO
ft psh (seat 6) suM be suM s,dai ( Is V of Meat., L.atnsedsaat W sod dims amatsi at
slits &psis suM have a be pobahskey 01 be .s mspcsied amuliate by .usdéu , ,s cmnesat
• slat M . Sedate W sham emse ,s ( .ed.u soo ft 41 ).
No atesooçapluc d.s - collesed (mat use 6 (sat the EIL the. slat MW*A ceso.
mslrIp eus comas is she S.ap feate Natk1 popoad sithosi sslosasam am
cateesu d seat .ou, cesthsosat Ocw vup c aat at samI .am thai be ad
0 ”e she seal y .
* B sojor apols where sl . sullerts.
It *i.sa P5If.- L0at11IQ s .d r.WOdVams
Y1U ?L0ITIUO 1. Liii Isp.
..Üv V 5 ( iIay
(am Pais. iakis. iI
us F)71
POlls ?ted serrests tL
atll UaIsSat Bay
am oa oim $154 e
22
er ie
i s 5 ’
.si tam Usrber Tidal Cat-peat Chart
BaUsal Ooeseis sad £tao.5s.ria *dalsiatr stioa
-------
f/
C.
p* 1 U. B
May 10. I S
P. Tao
1 t _d ___ I.U, k —4 I
ua iasiØcd cas dy N Øa uiicbp l Oaa(at uc 0ve sb .da.- ci staa
.sws.u biso 1 ...u. kol,sNiNI as m.sS.Ió?ci VoL Vlsy ,rada D)cl
W diN CoO cidai’as fil l ad cpl i laUfhJi by e D$Vli lw cidud
audiO ova e. ddflcall b u’. ci la any bcu un ad ao ’W u ,fIuuu ci fad h*san n
Oi July ad perd.ip ‘a S.,. _ . u Vs Pas Joud ‘a’. mc’.Ii au had br,.u brnd
lv OW ci Uvia ha la alp a y ad a. iac..v eva ’ . ci k*’.i ad
fib a ,anby kb’. a cc ,dun u s . _ ailb hia, ad ,ubme,ubles. ‘au ,
daunt coaS S. vudao ad a daploy wa-Iap.s cawsa I . ,i..ul days p au Said’.
‘ .dscraov a ii’. 44 va plidvi lull’. ad rci daiiuitiis all s.gidkadp
lu. Nui 60’. So’. OSVIO , cdlau .i ‘ . Ou Vt l .a dat
Ni aa wti u.b j,udso ,fru’suvus dv pipulNas ci.. . - . . dip . . aail
ip ’ .. W 5 pi ct ha lv audiO asS duct vv ud I I . (lull (Ida’. idIawlp 6..
•pi ci M....J—o Bay ilk a lataid N iv . 44.
ua.64.. . - . ad pcpuhaaus ci . ..... ... L.D) 1... _ s nv. — ov 4 We’. . . ..Jt k.J you
viii ad l.a lv ci dv add. dv ’ . hd viii Is
ii iudlcadp lu. a au 6 dial ay ada at
t..b Wkuia Pb 0
A’.’. uwciRIdo
keath P 1.1... Pb 0
Pwileaaci Bsola 5y ad
i&S.. Mao ’s kv ’ .
D.NW d.s.. PIb
C’.b ad
l . MA SI’.
bad - ‘ .dv i . b ____ a-
b u.sr — -a im,) ill. $ . ta l l. VO..’. C _ _ .i
I) l a . - - Is ills Ut I .b . _ja.J F.. . Auay lu A4 d
I’. Ii ha.ib. adi. ta.la, 1 i r.adv P ITP,p
piad Is lb. M.....jbNaS Va. B’. ... AulhaWp V. dvi db
Sb. dilu ci lb. ‘aibi. allI B.. — b.s. .i adS
dSb.B.S.N Api —dhAd .dauUdlb.
DuO !VI usda.. ill. - ‘—i -’ — sab.da ad Ii LM. MWtA.
sl . . b --- - i, , —AadJaV
V div 511W
b iv - ---b . d piip a d I’.
— a ib. - -b _ L.I _ L..*4 a -
taiB. I ’ . . .L.. _ .h 4 ha. di. Bi il aohavp ad aty —
. .,...I . ill. lda c .4th — SIT . .,.4,lil Tb SIT v.4b b
‘.e d 11.6 -Nt. (b,4.dp , ‘ . ) ad U.A l _ .d i d
pOu ’ . ) Mdv - “.1tAJU.’.bp. d
ILA. il. . .. Nob... a iv ..sB. il (2.6 l.,d — iv
aMA iO.àd I, t EA- N t. b Ap Sill., 111? 1b. SIT
•, .si Sb. lu v. aNd
L tEAlS. l.v. f..LL...d J ala b M v .6.
Ut.. — Isp Ut’.’. — B. baa. St.ha
S
NI. allb a id ‘Pb.. LI by las .staad —
ê’. di. ala
ala I. - - - _____
-
S
-------
k IIMt b I — isis - - ) 1%b
d — m m. idu .uI d p s uS
N. eailil W cW N — $ k . 4 N — .. ‘$1 — b
—b . N Is Ned N __ .Is J 1k (1 . 4
4 _ d N 1k —
1k ( ktJli _ J* . N.. - N ku N 1k
—
AN. — _i 14*. — —14 lUlL Sb
• 1SI N — • .bl .4111k dl .ày NL l N
_ , _ L 1k — 1IAI* N N .4 Ii. S. wN .
(—S 41k dal 1k _____ —‘4._i 1S4J .
N psb .u .piu . 1,dI.u*. l i.Nd . 4bs. ( ’ 4c
— IN. N
____ - UT11.IL— u .I
— _ $ . 4i..4SU— d y
L4
— II.. — 11*41.4. .? P.1k —
—N UUA•1 - — - — — - 5
.4 $ d Ap.54li £ N V V d IN. SlIP (. 11.4.4 1 lu INe
1k plN. 4. — .4 .1 .4 IA. d l. 4
b N..pld Sb.u .4. Th .p. 1A p.1k
• 5 idy è1kd. . 4b...I&. 4b,1k _ . IN..
1k 1k 11.1 d l. lb è— -- 4 . 4 1k N NuN N.
N4N4. p . 4 si.414 N d l .. 4.4.4 NusA., . .
Ns .uIA .4 N 1k . N 1k. .4. .bnpu1k
d Si. 1k $ i. — ..q. iNN. q . Is.. IN. . 4.
TI.. isspd 1ks*1k* I 4. kp.4u,d .s IN.
--g
Is — N 1kb . .. 1k —4.4 $4.. 5*. —
bSip . . 1... — Ib &spsuNNb. • ms., T.I IdA11.
1k .. .ns. 1k b I. b y I A. .1k
N I A. .414 dlii
pW. ‘4(’4 - I .14. .
— I SA u . N. .. N . . S is.. ... . 4 iN
— I A .4 NN . lb. IS 1k uI$ . idy s.,. Nwy
b .Nà.t N . .q’4 .l N 1 . — Sb. . bsE .y. .5*
A....1. , $ iii. C s 4.. 1.1$?. . 1 P 1sd .L lb.
ii. LI _ I* -Sid — — — ; 5k .4... A.
1.Sid1k .. .b S . 4?d1k.5k Sy1k ,t
IN. 4. 1.s d — — . . IN. .
14 l hu . 4. .y 1 ) 14 • — . .N 1 41k Is. ON..,.
lbs INN iN. 4 . 4N. . . . p 5 dN4 N d l. 1 1k . IsuAN. .pb
.uu.N4.$NIN4. 1s li bIN.1k --- ------.,
4qIN s..u14 .4 — — . I. 14.4 N
N 1k by u — — 1kk 1k
• a. 14 . .S. .4 usSup I .s14 .i
$ 54 ,
£ d . 14 - — A... . T INS. N
. .Nuk .14. Iii .5* N w s . lb. sb. $5 b.14 INS
11A.M. 1k . .p. ‘A.. ii . N ki u - ss iNN SkIN. .1kNSO .
U.N.u..l*. INS N 1ks Nb. IN. iI A. INN __ .111
1.1k T Ua l i1TP. AI .e iN V V. sf 1k. 1k
- N1kR*S 1—S1kh.p . 1 k
.n.L (1.5* - S 1dL
11A.M. — Is by 1k .1k 1k Si.. .14. .5* S
SI. A. SI. . SkIN. “. b Es. ‘4
I .. a .4I 1.4.4.1k N N. l i _ i
—4
1%. pA. — I Es.. 1k 1k IN. p.1k 14
154 5*ãlw . .5 è N IN. dq L k 1i INN p.1k
. . s pSI . 14*. IS IN. ..1k N. J
— . chaiN. .
lb
ThIN
14.I.4& Is1kch.4 . - ps
.4. 4 _ N • i s 41k . . 4 I .. N..
AN.. 4.14 1 . .iN — IN. — -I 4
dk_ _ 4, - liEs.
— 4 _ - -. — 1k
b , i ,N 1k p5*
N. a .4 r — N.e4.
______ -
I
$
-------
‘a
-------
1*
90
65
SO
70
65
60
55
0 $ IG 15 30
Siznu .d PartIci. Tracku : WLndz0 T1ft+IOcm
35
0 $ 10 *5 20 25 30
Stm & C.d ParUci. Trtckt Wjn4sQ, TUL——IOcm
-------
di.t. c.a o km
Stmulat.4 Pertkcl• Trtcka,: WLndaO. Ttltz—lOcm
.
.
!i
1:
-I
;
III
;iI
‘
I
K
!
2
2
ti 2 1
•
; IgZ
s• . t
• • A
I
I I I I - . I U
II
I; I1 ’Ih
I i.,’• .
C4L, ; 4
. 1 1 i!V
2$ ! f 2 I
‘‘.
fI I1! II
*
2EIIIa’ 1
•$
2
.
I I 1 Iz
ff zji•i
V I .’
I2 I! !!11
1$;
••
II
2
Ii It,I*
A 1’ 1ZI
;:
‘f I
ii
• 0
•
I II I -.$
I Ii
S
S
I
Z 1
!
,z
.q
, .
•
: /
-
3
•
g=
‘,
.
L
:
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ti)
I
-------
trs11 j 3 e .ri
I __ S . SM st .4ou of tM 0ki S 1 of 1.00? IBsousod. of I.r.s. 550
s .sl at SM 50S of t u.ud Bob. .015. ?.Prit.rp 10
lOSS Is .1.3. SM 1V •s *ss . 001 .slp ours sotoockilos sad stvpZsoss.
s1ssSrt ii i. s Bo1_*11 , *s I. sad spsos.if oukMes, but
of .is.*Uos sad Us Fs __ ...
a.i soa 100 p..,. up.. SMI vi ii bspgss 1. SM oust I SO pssra? Sod
stubs sad 5o os.lssr ours SM I Ii sfflssat su Its )) sill b. Ibor.. poupi
300 .000.000 slloos a oup .,ur... up 1. 1, 125,000.000 galb050 1. abcs.. day
Is, dsp cut, for. it. ZIP — SM lass if laitisi 00 1 .1105. SM Boss of
Nrpstl 0011.1155.
soup 1i Is 5551 oostp sill t5- 5 Is bosry ’ (or our..)
coedS 11.. .. d o s to Osiups is buildiup os SM 5 5 , 5 , 51 5 5 5 tr.sSMS l pissli.
- to Poor osI5t os , 1. atauIa ls fsilors, dus to si of ob bcsls
put — ° — to — , dos to pebI .115 I. tttsl PostrouMoll or so s
,sd o ut b.s ?
p,uIu b1, tIMe.
Th. BPS spa that -ttI Isp sill bs upsadsd ’ O.k’s lb. p Iod
of dlssisri. of plasry offlMet . Mt 5551 SB lups.ts srs r.,seslbl s.’
odsd’ Ml 5,.rs1bl . to sot od ..o 00r 3 ——
Moo .11515 100 pm — is ss. of SM ri at Most.? fIlkorIss is 555
ostios, Wobsblp is IS. mid. lbs lupisool UPS 55. (rlti,) t.ks s .15.0
. isai sil aiiaup is s-.i.s buIl pus s1d tabs.. sq.iflp str.up slsu,d
2sst oft lt dlslksups is IS. rick, 1 lou. .ssr ..55r. fisbsriss of
00s a.lts Isp.
Is Ssdks.s l ilk.sst ’ sad Istor CoiMe i sot’ , os rupislor s
protestS Vs dssbt 1551 sup ups fr putliup sg. .1 flousI s .yplso Is 001
5 ds .dstIo. It ii Is cksup.d — £1 is c.rS .lslp sot Suprosid.
Is ‘CMesrif si 550 I.or.stiSi 00soisS°i m lock St poor rsa..w1 s ’ s.s
ssk.s I I .WlOi .O vbp 15. UPS Ibisk. Boor.’. so prsbl lb. 11* kIcks Ik.5
so rifo.ras.
11 usuld 1155 to odd stosup lupsorS fur issoutras I ydlrossosst, s .o .s
roduollos. .o Iutb o ss to lBs p’sif of 1s.d 5 l sosfisus. sod lBs .SMr
Ospoosata that sce so iuporl.st to SM n o) p.00.01 — S 01155 10.105 U.,Isr
sod S ol•ss Isa .slks s .tts Isp. 101 Mao pta.. a t r.p lsc . 5 tosSer
0 .ltsl l.
Ilsss oft., roil sod p’sui.ss sce sf1.. Bo s, Jt S. lb. p.soi . .a sr.
oM Mt ,s Isdlss Tu slIory to ISO 1.0050 ‘I s ’sr.’ IMo. Is so resoss
to 15155 5551 SM l..soss of bIstoc o. sos ssltd m lkss Ibup ours a
ssolcs7 55,. 00155.1 . 5 SuIt.)) to 0010 5, SM t lorp .511 sot W 00
doss . 51 ,? to SM PortS SMr..
1N sill .ok dIlI5,stlp for .1.1. sod tif.r.l 510 for lb. I SIS pros ldsd
SM th sad Ib 00or.. ors out La Bk. pack U.S of puplup to pofluto
. ossim.
lbs I orlasos (is rot. o.s SM my 5 .1 51 s .) of miss spssboo I .
so.sist. .tip Isu.sIMotod. sod 55.1? hsslIb La .ssk’t.stIp s . osoIMoIid Is
15. SOUL
lbs bislosbool Bo La 00.51 Isoud La s1 •trsssod. lk•$Iflsk
Mos a,. up.. vitbout r.UistIOs f, 00.00.515? to 00. 00.Ufllk
Is O . s .. cpss 51 .1) (sitS sc uItSout r..t,I5US5) is 105.51. Ipus. or bosgua.
5 Isu.r. 1033 sscos a,. stolid) 32.0 sos. rsstristod. 15.5. dSifIrIlk bad.
sr. olosud Moss.. of poltatlo..
-------
I.
? -rttMi
I ‘w Ii !! ‘ I. d.M’sIs .1811 1 ce lbs Ml .sl - --- ? si iii !
S. lbs keelS ’ s ke , lbs kites lesSer kt tsr les .ss $p 5 5
frØl gs,$s . e el.i kthuil.* Is.s.l ulakests
91. Ies..t. . 5 M Is. I I __ s_..,..rsii ’e*p m i ii s.d shut I.
urn ste. ’ ui sips l u’l.sii , lbq Sri imiulbi. s.d S1.’.IitS
Mu lsb1e mip lbs Nu’pssp Mliii.
Mu isis ,.. list ft is. Wes - dsfliiU ’.ip ip fr Still k im I i
II . istk u.si suslpvis, W fr VIM’. St. 1a tl kilSi Ii 15.15
Ms$.sls$ s..s. . .t, i hula m sst sai lb. siulis. P. bes.ia IN lists
5PPUNUS. ‘p ii s i ut ii, 5 iii ip s*m itsSsrs . ss.lps
Sr.. sdesti.ti i.rn es St. kidS. q’. _ &øIs uusIpsIs tsr Uls
kitS kirl T ) 1 slsslid dftslsis (sum ss SM .t lslsSM’ 5’s
SM SN pies. es ecU us i i .tla lePSI s.d kuth Ike
loud, ststs s .d fs .i.st.d .dtisl.i.) Is ousy sltb. (ousl..
sa... sSs M’s untIes 1. SM Sri s.d tksc . 5 . spits St SM SN ls.hsp) test,
Its Issots c i MIss S s.d sri ccl essil. I I . IspssI. srI eel
slsli.r. leer a psrSei IN p’ a rs, Ulq irs cc l s. 1sbis. le1
Uslipl..iyte.— ss sristursi.ttslist.r
sd ld 55.55 imisIs 5. Sssspt.iis.
— — ii ahiii — lii — W. z.
its, ile piptidEI.1p ii IS II ISLIII1 lii tuM 1 l P M
kiss 5 1 1, 5 Up laNa 5. Miss. saI thi.’s. u I Pisi Msps . kis.eeiIIli
‘smi.Ui t M ’!’ Q ’ ‘!!‘uIrl, ,Ø 1’! our. ke’ ! r’s ’s
sMut 0 ft PP1 11 •’!p kI 5 . ‘!ut iii kU1PI! Is U” !.,!551
Vilsisi is Ssi I ..%4. s.d Pa’!s. lulisbis kIs iS I ’ S
VISSISSI kiI.Is.iU, Ii IslIlt SIIS.III kpsss., kid. Usli Ss.sisq ’i I
imsUl e l Isa . 5511155 Ie 5s’s en N,isS lilsu, i.leiuS ps.l.u Ikiesutet
kilt Ililsass. 8w).
Vim. fliusdss ii suteslutid mimi sum ii *i lien 1 5’piNIIP M’s
Ill Pelhiuls. , .s.il
• sI..UIUU.s ft. iil IilsI sku $Ilis. SesPj I bush
.S*psIPSISI Ii juullilti
5 sM sllU.. s.d r. sissllus liii... is ukits
• ips.l1. sWisrssUUsu ssd .sti d 5r11 . .I.. _ s
• dealt er .b. s1 de ,si.s,sut it lss ,ss
1 .1.1s, 1..osllust .i s .t.rs buss seminstis aWs ’ sSI IUs..
leth of II 1.itslsal lets ublit fuusI lost.. r l e. ..
poiIut.d s fres ii .. kiM’ (s % it kid le ). Psiletest . peer IS
fP SM sunsost is., !slaui tr . .5.s.t play — f SM Lu.. l elesI—
less.. . . t,s.M’.I plest (fsrltsip sitsiuhd Is ouspists its .s.oS l ent
•ISUI SMut lii i) — fr’s l.srnisp it Its pslist.uU La SM ill M’ s . . k s
stilt is is. used fur set Sr.. SM NUN IuIs.rstsr — Sr ’ s sir p51 1. 1k. fri.
lU’s s .d rapeSsr usst, ceus ayd sic fr’s SM Nikist — fr ’ s fUrtbw kitS
1u leumicell sd Still kiss Ssps ktrtst (INU) ubu’s I lis7 tr ’ sSesst
1. (i..rsiibly) still isisp psukhd Mt slurs us trust its IN v i ii -
lb. us..
cey, pisses le sot it Useout fur SM siss it UN s .d
&dpsoott.
-------
Ii IN S O S I. NI OSOss$ Ses.tssss sas, m i,ssu d.as,.IsIv I.
I ap Ils-sil rS rS4 b SOS stat. s.d tidiest siear. s.taL .1...
15. plea Is PP $ w*$ piSl, IeaI a. 0.Uall e ..Neflp
•L dire. .1555. 4 s Ilas tie, laid s.d I C ash 10 f..S sf eaSe. 1
i Su 4s1 rs!1 wI I I* VP ! tI pIs li. S W UJI p.Ii.l O(11$
I A ?6 SW 13 lo . ps
1?:? r ’ 1Z . 2: :t ril : . P:: H: P
rr ,Hai
I VP iasø IsI*i up PS iIAE
• ISs$0 Mat, ‘r --Wljas. up WINS
• Il Mm d i, 1IuW)is.ui 13q up Is ).NS
I Lius Mats
(I.u’sss Mb. At V IIIU)
t1S IS Oslitid sat I. diN di i do rs 5. sat I shea __ Stat
•saI. iMt .s i.asta.s. NIl S lats Is. ._ _ s W PsillUw. s I ..I 1 ltd
N I iSMits sI p.UIUN IdIss. 5 5r4 Isas sill SMI SN MiSs. O I l
NsIUs. I.i. usSlI lass sIll M.d SO. U’ — N _ flat
ta. Is Sit r.ar) sl - ss. It ps . east fwSts. Pssas5 pIUSSO
MIS Ps ! ’ .q.s s. !!uIe u!e& SOs ssudus j !dsIIsI ,.st .
tISI0.lSU!’!e I !‘uosWStI,Ml s , IfSdNI IsNla5,jjI
I s ftus IS POINt W SM I ad
SW1 1 5M1 SMii NS usslIsMs.
‘ --a. .I so sId.Msis’ (ISsIssI Nwd.s N liplis
sSPM.s NtIs. N MI,..saj M?stps, ISIS) sup. (psi. 5). •I u .ls..d
I NSUfII Mm t M Is Isalealsi NS s.U,s Nisa S s .tItid .s l
- : _ s lass sI $ 5 Is slUtas.’ Pie S — t 15,SSi..nt is JVM .0. 51
S Si Isups, its itu .ru...t s.stsu s.. 0. Nt W N 50.1 far W’dnd
lasts ‘Li’s I. in s vti 1 .1 . N 5 I.i . P..os .4ss N 50.1 t ges Fee itt
hiM I IS
IIi 1411p i..il s a.a tmIn S iIu .d -‘ 5 easta Is SOs Nil Pllas.1#,
La IqtSIpIUO ilsit ii hat, ha .’! ’c 5 •Ølfsa, sq puss ..urs
tP’! : p IL 1g.IipJ If 5 5 ,i, :PP 1 P”?’
i ’ ‘‘ P’ 5$ sasS
... ,. , ,. ., L..M.I.,I! slet f rp rr r • • 554
S Pill. 5 5
i i. • .1 IdSi ... r? j’r4 lOS p 3pt pliurP Isiup. ,
,,s a psi ..... . Nab P 50 • m55
irtS it •i .asi ‘as .s ’essi,iss..- Isalel’s las 5551 55 Its IIuas...l.
-------
0 0..løIIOWl l.w • ___ S
50kw S it O • .01 I ’*
1 .1 —. M. 1. 4.I 0&
.0.0w lod . 4 S01’ 10 0w’ Iit . 4
— .p ’° qesth ’l I ” ” —
s —. DPW ’ ’ ovS ,* N 1 1w d
oW 4wsol0” d wesic i d l Ie. su*
ee’ S #7 Ow 0et ’ 1. l5 lV tON. W N S tSlll. 055 5
,w, .55 1. pSd .11’
TO MOCS .e.1P 1 . 404 *015 1 10*05•
• .4 .1. ree .P 15 5 ’td l O ll w. *0 11w q050 10
— N p 1 140 1t 4 0 * 0r ’ 0 — — .w. sod w
— .e ” .4 l0 S sOrt N OS ,ow1’ . 4 ,4.0 ’ ow
silO d 0*010 lw .I . Ow
N 0 ’ ee .as’ .swic*l ,OSS. SlId t0i ’5555’
•, lwq 0tW ’1. Sidid 0 *0 Oil .4
,so.ob Nrsiw ’ re OntO. d OIls IsdlrS*t
l Ie. poOSWl . 4 ow’. — . 0 . 0w
lIst ritOty . ‘y N port Out ‘ 0. 147
Is i k —. ,w w 0 ,1 .01 10 .r1*d Np
*0.” Np . low’ T ll OS . 44.
si M baaslt* . 1SS
list 0Pt0 (Ni*dil f su.4lSlo O S 1 ,
‘ — rIdl ’ • 0,’t’lo” Ooi edOl’S * 0 w
prtkwlrt 40.01 s .d oSlod wol’S
r pile..’ s.’w’i iO ,t wIlI vd 2
II1 ssi55llH ’• 4 WOnt St .w” 1 e.INS sit
se b o w 1 ”. silwo 505.4
l. ,s4 5 V4d 0 ow’ Ilisis lw.4J .0 so .’
NI psee!W I 5 ul. i soIf .5
*0” . TIe. W I ’ 4.5511 ,, 01 Nut4 . o
I’ ‘ y’s’ ’ 10” I
Nr.thIS 21 i4 S
Si
lk $4
Essi 1.40 0Th 3010
• 3 .14 l 5 NaSisil 1151 30 243
Csi . ,h e.sk N .sl *34) 43 4001
Aruth. nnr ,4e.55 ” I I . IS 273
2I
13 3 1S
iq1 ,u1f ’
a... a. .’wo was s .nt’s -.
, .d s.bt 24 iN lots . tw’ 5b4t. Is Is. ,
o4.” 1.10 1 4, • p .llwlN ’ . I
5 4 ’wll • P” p 1d 5nt 0 . .5sW ’5 ” I
INPiNit sO w’r Is 051 etd 50 . ’’
lOuis .uoow I w Ire.’ .i ’w. ed , , 1u0 “
w’l• w W OlIst ’S ‘sta’ eS a, ,Aw’5
I’. olIst ’ hsISi b ” 5 55 ’
*11 1.554 ’ p ’#eSItT ,is - . ssd .
*0” .,, . 1 1kw lw.I 5l ’ isk, asowNir.’ eN
340 .or ” a. Is.’ 1. ow S
,, ,d w’l,Ir ’ 45 ’ 4.11’ 5’. po05’
Ow 0. 1w .0 51’ Il( .kwS ,
— — 0._h i_I
I •n ’ SV w4,IN0 l ,e0’
Sire’. lr ’. ys N .Wcf S I C.I#te ’l •
lwteUSi want .a0w5 S.
auy lOIIflN I ’ . sIwol” SP. IrecI ”( N
11.5 11
1.0111 10 117 w,IfsWslIfll I ’ . fit 4 .sI r ” 1
si 50 IllIrt Is.. 11, s ’ .PJr n( v05 f N ist
, ,s4Ilw rul I. 0 ,5,15 . 1Wt015 1 1 % I ’ . e•
V,t7 ,—.a . s s ’i siw.’ 05*’ ”
. 1 1 1 1*0 Sw , . ’ Or 4lwnlrclnt (.0’s.
01141 .01 104 , .,sy In 11w 41 shell
1.0
5*0 __
CsOcOl 01 50 ,*0 .4 . -t. . 04 si
IS ,w.’ pSfIW1I$S0 ,,. S .1w q*
5* ewwt d5 Si 0*04 l ’ .PJ d frf ’ .’l ’ . ( II
lIst 1.Sl11 lI On id OtfeelfIf IN I , ,”.
, 1111 p ’ 41 ” .nh p’.lls5 e ,I , slu
lIwik lIOn ‘ .wdl’SI N,,1lIlw I r’ I I I
0,1. .4 .1104 s ,i ..” 50 1 1w davb ‘ .0 r 5N*
Is sb’ Is S ’ .IIW l1llInrl0l? 1 . ’ 5 Vl lUfld 515
pa. sit .1 1,5.1 l’ .Ief.4 ” Tlse 05* 00
05* SIw
( p . ’1 ( nnlL ‘ .51tssspdh
low sod r..lw, ’ .#’ . 40w 1we J
Our ¶0*015 ys.4 , ‘ .eu4ls I
.s01SitIWIS , 11iuI° Al h$S IP 1 Ill
. voy 0.115. 4ad0
51 .Jdy. pSdIy 4.. .Wd b7 C’°’ Ill
.0 0 br” •N slo4 lI s t .454 ’
50 04 1 110 0*0” .01w Iolrrc01d
OyS Thw.nN A ” I’55# nail, i 15
ps ’ . II. .c .0 0. owe veeNi w a ’ . ” . ’
01.1. l wISl’.. 115 II.k*’54 o15i54ry . p
Is.. 41 ,,d . 4*lw ,stSi 5 ’ otwo
555.1 55 0 .,w1Sl IuI.k. Is 1.11.0
SipI5* lwrt I .ss Ow
SO eiwêp .10 p* ’ 5 ”
11 . 1 1w NsI5fIl . 0.4,1o *l Wy.
*0 e .Iff 4.1 p14 past 0.41’. N 51.
r e. 4.1 p 50*0, ,44,nl Os
Psi 114.5011111150.4 .psdkiiON
,s, s nOuiwsa Ikw’ . 1St
‘4 ’ I NIrpsf 4 ‘. . ‘ 10 1055
w’*lo .0. I I. Oaths e5.c waN1y
e 0, •sW pcbs. 1015111104 I
IlostSW’ 1’ 011*1.5” I ,wl P1
.140404 se11ssO.l 45OS’ WW
sr . iw O NpIPw m.,..l osrl ” to’ ir eOS
0 lIst .y Irl e.Id 0 . 4
eas tb td N51 y.’ 0,aidi I.’ p 1415510’
wi0s0 I0Ø srte5 S I, . .n’.4 b lIe. r
Is51’ lO s” 0.04
A I,05 ° • “ if *01.
.o.l 113 (IsiN)
Plo. (ll t) Par o.
Orsot 114.1 rss.1 , .s 114. ) ay.1•
Sisal 120 toot sesthar (lIlst)
ISO root oato (. .d l)
iso root .o.t.ar (darN)
11 S
P1.... wa. ...loood pl.Uis.
-------
iii
P1s (Ub1) f . oom
?14s1 r.so . t1 . 1 . 1I
izo r.ot oost (1I l)
t O foot oo.to (..dl )
I SO foot oo.t (4sr )
pi.... sos .solossd ., 1.ostbos.
eso UWIN P S
SITS S
ooat lID (d.rt)
PIi s (I1 l) t.I• —
Or..et Tidal rss , tlsl S7SIS
Slast 120 toot oosto (l,& t)
I 0 toot oo.t (..dii)
I SO fool oo.to (osis)
5. I
Pisaso os. ssclossd ..ptsastls.
Ill’’
-------
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
Safer Waters In Mass.chucetls
N., . I SS
COLOD NIPS
5, 10, 1. JesIsard. 1. 1. 1.
COIN. Is p.5,10.5 s..sts 5, Dr. Sallies N. Doss.., las
r.oes...l.d list p ipsisr.flhs IstorsIsIs . is .c .i to sid I . 55 1 10Us$
a. ..ltail l..sliss. Ti. ssos .psspie$ tiler.. ill..tr.ts I I . b.ast lti
it Iii. sppr.s.i s .d at.. lsssestpats Ii. superiorIty .f Sit. 6.
Tb ursa ..l.p ill.str.t loss ease lb. •ttle.ei pie.. for Sit..
I, 3, s.d 6. Tho graphs •appossiss 0? eDo plu..s is 55.51 Se
pl.ttis$ its us.. of 1.11151 111.11.. (lID) •u its punish trill.
by Ito ?II.SL eadal. flo 11$ dlss.t.r r.prss..ts It. isitisi
11 1 . 115 . .11.1 • 5s5P5 1.11.1 Ii. first to. aisetos as I I. sftl..t
.1... .1 1 1 lie sos s1. .. Ti. pats •f 111.11.. lbs. is..... is,,
•r.d.sl s.I shoes .l.vly our s p.1101 of by.. D.nls$ tils
s....d.ry 111.1155 ni.d, its sttiuo.t dispsrssl i i siSsitIlsetly
stt..tod by hiss ssd • srr..t5. I usotul ass1o p Is soaks ..ittis I
tre . a s..ksstssi. V hs 51 5 — IL usd 51 .I..Istss lb. trail s,sr UdsI
spells derleg a sousa icy p0.15 1. V hs 1.5 11 1 it Its is 5r5 50 Is lbs
ft eros Ihlesiretis Ii. lists.ss Its sttiusst mauls our s as... Isp
panel tsr bolt a s.rtiors asd ...tbsr. tilt. Ti. liei.. piss
1.11.515 a tsstor disporsal aid dii.tI.s. Ti. Sits 1 pleas Is
sebslsstisl lp basin ii.. lb. shIP ssl •oos aft Its u.n 5. Its
50.11.,, drIft.
TI. a.... lies I.dlosts s tidal reset. St sac ii .sos list Ii.
Site I p1... is alibis tb• tidal roast of its lorti sad S..tt. hors..
Tb. S rI- IL s.bsI has eubibltol dissgroe.o•i .111 r.st lets ..lIietad
aWN. o. TL & .... _ . _ t Ise* P I idsea c . . PV e N . MA OtIM
- ( 5I7)ISIlOlSw( 5I?)SII Ill
Nay 11, 135 ,
e.Ie esr,.st •.tors 55 Ito 0.15. of I I p.ps.st. Tils l..oI of
se.eraey .ay sos , 11.1 tie Sits 3 plo osuld elsa 1 uttlis tis tidal
. 5 5 . 1.
Tb. S.lf of V.P.. Iator..dI.to Vats, is o 0.11 1. OP of vats.
vital se.snai) bs 1ss 100 ho 120 toot Del.. tie serf.... Till aloe
e.. set as a ..adsit to tr s ssport is pleas ott she,. •sd pn....t It
tree .Isi. to its sertaso. To tipeo .1.100 of 11.0 i.li.ato l.ptis
.t 120, ItO s.d ISO toot or dospen. Sits 6 is 130 foot do.p. allot
p.0.1 1.5 at 1..si a 30 tool ao.e solo. tao pyo.o.lIeo. To tiler. tor
Ills 5 stovs list Ito 0.lt of P.l.c Ist.r.oIistl Veter ciii laus a
aar 1.sl lap.ot st Ibis littesor 1.5.1105.
Tb. MVII aould e.rtalaly rstl.o this illestratiess ied also Pint
o..rlsps for Ito otbor tastoro poss..osdsl by Dr. Do.e.a ie Ii.
.11 5.1.1 papor, Oetrall Sits Iolostioa.’ Vhs isoely it Ibis apsis.
I. 11.1 s..ie.tlo. sa, is isesdiste, .Itisut v.dIe iciest psueds of
toil asI t.bl.s.
COLOl NIPS
Palo 2
-------
•1I
• t i SIT, SILICTIN
sills.. p. •is.ii
TI. parIsst 5 ISSIPISSI Ip 651151 lii. SI SHill.
uap, , .rIlIs II .111 111 .11,11 Set .5.11 SI isplesH Sp Is
1.11. 5111 plus 5111.51
•..t.(liIi.l Satillt i il liti Iii1
II I Sill us sO PSISuItSiS 5 SI 5 1.115154 I. Is 5.1.111..
SI a. setlill 15111.55,1 SItS IS O Ii i 0.81 IbiS It . 1 11 .601,111 5
i...IlsrSSIi 166551 •I •lSS,ilisittl Isp s.flsStS SI lt p5 1 .5 Sp
pslst 66111111 IS .61111 I II Iptli.I 1.1.51.. sIll II ISII 66srSeS
s.d s.sl.st I. 66 ,5 ’S 5. lbS S66 lllstI66 SI 15 1 1. 11 uIdIII IiSISS SI
lbs .sSIsd SI p 5,sIs 5iiIbIS .t66.ISi.s Is ,sa.d54 as a s.s
s• ssuss l 1 1 II I sIl lill isS SI J .sI II . psrtl.e.t .a,IsIIss us ii
.,..l p 5 111, II . . p.1.1 bull. PSI III166IS IuslrIpll .5 Iii
u.Sb.d Is i.c . ’pIsd Ins Sulr .s stSI l..I.p, bid .0., liii, Sp
LI. 1.111,, 115,1.1 1. 11rnilI P .54IubIs l..p . .p, Csl.M.S, Ills.
O..’15’ds SIIiI ..sU
P1,1661 ,I.II.I sillaist
I. •.s ,huIsS 111111.1 IspssISS
liP 55 15.111,1 Ib IS 1.115.5 155
1.111 1., issIll
led SluibIssi .55.5 Isi..1 11.1
list OS.
bI0,.665Ii . .rl . .tMI
bit sill SSISWISSSIS.
866155
1.11.15 1166
As L lilU 5 rip 5 iiidisd NSIIdiS
66 plu,..s 5 1 1 1 5 1( £. _ .........i . 1, 1 .w 4 II
isii I InilSuild iudi .1 .. li i i app l ipflslS .. 1 .uii lliV
IibIuI ii . 1 (U ) IT.. .11104 illS plipluUL lucid. 554
. . . . d i ii. .54 d i , .5 i€4ui ii ii 1,5.15, ISlid
bs . iI .i wide . . iwj uot.d uI
U.. sciiuI . • w 1n1N1 5 .
uW SI its luu.y. uipcid & N½. .5 pl.li ii
1,111 liPid uls . 54 .e . luluillis • I’ P id 16(101. SI
plipsial iud 1,0.1. 1661 hu..di lath. hlisuii
$isdeI c i in .iNi. —s . 1pp.d 66 ltiI .tp.1.iflIS
so . ., SI diii ii dsiN Tb. dalbil SIws .ducM5
w,a, ci coudiul iMie phylatal ccndil..u. ale lii i ..
p u p i luh i i iudd 111111 ii , 5 1(66111(1 wded ,iduhiiid
luid ii . WI . . ,. die lisnipSieSlall HiS So. s .d. 16th .)
ale ._ . _ sid .pcis ciii Slhciluli dii dsdinl liii
.,pnS .huhHiS plo. .. - 515.5166.11 pip..o51.pSI
iiid S uiid shi l. Is.., ii.. . Np.
— p 1 1 ( 1 1 . 5 . .s dii plspwal ihslhS (coslii1(
bus COWS sid eo (iiI (011 11.11166 Sy 4.. . 54.04.
d i i SIul . 5 ., ihIgi a. SN. I$hIMI .155.1 in lii ci
hupinsipOIld ll&. . _ liU0.S Pie null Iii.. dub 5155
iiiiui Sill y loiN. thIs. W iNispS IS . ..l -.I ,
h Nus . ..s. 1 12)
lb. u.dmd ci As....J.J.. liii losisu md to
kid smu , Ii i . usSodOW d.scuind ala., ., ,rn.o .
N., ii .dd.u .n. 5 .on.l eilu iis. usill a, Iiid,t.u..
pIiyuc .l.cono ii iil..us bill ii hi ll 11055 (uuhiflhl
luci .s ,p .vt edflvs Ni 1155 1 OIl .1lo.i do..., thi iii
uiluss siI l , 1151 55(5 ., said di ., luinhall. build, .1
loni.uli slid ii its. .id..hmi Pu, ..snpl, in is .1,
1111.5 liii stu . 5 cii hiKw.p ins. Ph. .sahuuuo, iii
41.4. Phil y.sy.ltp . 11 . 6, Me .uu.pouiinl and limp up
ds.10. Ion. ,huuld I. a... . ..d uoh.h p..p..i. .ahui
ft., dun... .swnlidly p..irnb.i Phil iii. h. 1 1... a
Ibiuld Ii .ouiid OWIp I . o .u p.cpl. maid . 6aI,h . p..
p11 s.o.s ci 11 a po.i mi pl..uim .oould ui o.aui
M 5u 1 sp..uihl (5) Asahi, Illuoh Ihi us Plus. ill uatho,
ihwitso. plisiatal ii sonil .din Si, ...p1.u.d It
liMe Phil 5. 1566051151(5.. iu (h ii hu,labdi, . ill Ii ’
SI Is..i .dil.o.. ..ueaiil ii huu,5pu uus .0
u hs.d squall, iii , ,onal iilu . 5.1 (111 II .
v . 1.6 ii i,c pe sliimil pups,,, isSue R.ga,dh’u.
Os .,. Pho .1(aluun 5I d li a..ihod ci plspua iaØi.C ii.
Waimiuuus ..shisu.m$ SIb p0 , 1.54 i .o.u.,, ado.
s.d tocual cdi . .. is in,.. d u.ajss d.i,,uo. , ill
5.55, 66511
SsIl.i uI StI i sSi lHi
ISS. I I laulhsI 1111.1166
6.1,655 I,,ruil sst
5.515 *5 Sell SI US$55 1 5l1,
.111111 11151.
C lueS. 660 ss..dl i
PI.S ha,
C.Ic .IM I . s
Hillel 111.15. 661551
6661,5. isliulitliS
?sip 1 ,sl.ss psilIlsi
1111, ss05llU
1.111 51661155
5 WIllIS. W N ISIS ISIHi — C.id .. CUp. Pu. SIb OlalSiday
II MuNAIC. I I. 11.1 Hip . 6sil Ci idusCUp P05 list .du .
SbiII Ili l S i lsi
PS. I II 115551115
Slssil’id 5SfØS
Iutr..Sl Ills I. ’sl
-------
I .., l.sr.tSU? lli
I ills 11 ,551
iUsuS Us 01551
I, us, ISIS
Sit. I is. ills IS I Salts’ seats.. is’ is •, .ssd
5 sstiSSl ISI S SItUS 4.1 .al I S Si. UsSs.t-SsSsd lull ,.s p
s.d tilt, s’.tSS . . 5 s. pWtsd S S S USE estlill 5 SrSu.I
Ii . 55ti S elpeUSiSUlles Si III 555. St I S IS Is.. is •.SIisl,
•u rsussl luturUSt Si PS Is SI.I ills SIts stedisi 5 5515’s tU SI
P1 (5 1 5555 II lUShes sslp 1 ,5 5 S Sal ItS esassitsuts.
I isul SWIlusi loslhsSis sats’lSls I. tis Øyslesi (USd15 11.5
II SW SPS ’ieIS.ssIsd IUSIIII ltsd SUlI is.turll 55555 1 liii.
1,15 5115.1 I.E •ili. I, 1.11. 5,.. 5 isstsiiSI eII 55 1.5 •i
•5.s , is bUtts’ 51. 15 111.5 is’ I I ssssl,sstlss . Sl I Ililues. a,.
Is I ii 55,5 1.,. isIl Si Ills uris. IsIltstlsss iris SeISsSgPSp iSe
SS.s’oItl I .S I I eSs 5UtSU .illIis s’s tilt ilihuist dIe urs.l .111
S. isprUS i l ss,.Ilissstlp . 551 •I? 15 55 Irl.atii.lI,. 55 thU sutisli
Sit. is lIsdeiSE sssu..d.
I 5P5 5 5 5 1 1 s.d 55’• IN ..ds’ass..t S I lUll. last 555 555-
.5 (US.55lS sluip aPIS is i slsisid Is shaDS 5, iah .5 5 5 Its ss,ti•
lists s.d .sShIs S IS •55t-ssst OSs..SSI Ssi il uIStIPU ill
hells’. WualS 55 esIssli. sill 5 5. • ssast 11515,5 ISCI asS
5 5 5t h . . Cii hisSES si Si. SM .a.s.as.. isis IttiS. 555 1 11
ii 15.1.1 1 55 5 1St gisIlsielislip ls.s’sllS pIStilS 5, 5 55 aPIS.
2 5 5.t . .l Iii studs vu 5 5 1. 1,0 555 055555 . 5 W SitS s• hiss
tsts’sSd i Sat.,.
Ii Sselsds Sits I.
Ii 5.51,5 5. lOISSItSI s’l 5 . 50 iss s Ii. iasi 1.5.55 II
• .spipsSeil 5 SUE lPlhlhsq IS is esrrssthp pla..s0.
lienS.,, 11155 1. S.pts
1.55.11.. Sills. ii ls.l,i SuUStaS SII ID I
itt a. SUeS 1 1116
.‘ 1 11 •.h. •...... P 4.5
ii 5 5 IP SISIS 11551550 II. l Il5 WIS ps s5iIPII SUE .
psri tPSt Eats. P., S. 5IP 5l.’ 5Pt ?sstSU 5 555 ID. tIP—Ill. us.
his. Ill IlIt I. a l.IqS t 5I se.Is ‘sgtupts ill.
. 5a5 5 5p5 s it 5•.
Ii .55. uis’SSpl sO 1W 5M IltWS SI. Si ,ii0lS 511W ur
..itr.ct.d. .5555 1 155 sap SI .iS ISs ill Sp .W SS 5 5s 0 . 5555, si
5 5• 5 I 585555 s’ 555 ii isitlill s.i’IipS Ii is 551. parsIlts’.
iii p.sesd.rI 55 aaSsiilS 55 iSsistISSiStlI. 55.,S li ithiil 555.t
5 app ’sp’laIl iI 5USltil , Sad s’sP 55 •lspt .
S p ’is tstsss sI ii i 55.0 .5.50 5s I s ’ Is restS. sit
5at.Iltid pSUhial • i elill II I 1.55511155, isasultists.
,sppass.tst i.sS .1 554, SIPS. C I I, alt.. 555 i is ’ l 55551555 sits
S. UadIPllSSdaSIl ...‘Sl . si IS 5.55551. 11 1.1.51 sad Is. II sea
,i.t iIE.
-------
(1 ptsd tr U I hsa4.st
si lsv SrS Publie N,.t1ms.
£ &* . liii)
RECOMMENDED LOCATION OF THE DEER K vis Wa itpi JANOAARD
ISLAND WWTP DISCHARGE
i7( k A.. 1 .t L.-
k A , 4 é 44 4 o,, ,
IS(47 /0, /?
fC i# c2//ir s
/a, , ..,_
‘ 1m 4 4 . /fF? 4 /• 6..e
£,#. -# v*- i
, - /
(2 A. .4 7 ih..
Mt y
4 / 9 4 LdId/ — AL o,4,c Y * t
‘f t ,4 m
, i- a-. # i .’ t* 4lS ? -
441 4 L / ,4 , ‘ e Ca - a d (d
,, 4g4e ls5 p - /f 7%L
,-?1 ’::, l
S
NAUT M L1$
St 1 bp IM — y, I SI
-------
.1
c DAI &i 1.*(4, 1 *m4.. g .I.
4(o 7 / 1- ,4a ff43 ( ,4 /h t JI’441 D€eca aet t.
7L 6’ ” 1 M Pl1 44.d £. .
‘ /X, e( 4 e*lic&’i4 r Aa
Cv . , .4,.ik. h. .voi od” .dd
lAa tt aa4 c . . . i tt
E4t j4 att.s . a
‘ • 4Y #€ as.1/m.eF
1* s. 444,v( 4 .i; c .c ,. ‘ d
At ’ 44’I IL#’.’ 7% . N(v . 4 /. -
? cL.l. /I.ft’l ,C.4 I (
64 .. __
i G ‘se 4
£4..l’&t ....” . SS øC *‘A,i 1 #t4 . d*, ? ii.y
fli...A .ø i€’ ,4c “
.%cc4 .444 i cm€ .
‘ ( .4.C)
b - u.’ S 4,P 4
____ £ it as .’m.€. .A.(. 7
.- ,....,‘ # m’/Dl k - 17.. .d,4. . .
/t 4 a(I øs 1 Ja. t 7 7 ‘ Id- 4 . ,iL 6 , ,.
- .*‘St dsk..s 1,d . , as.f £
IU 4i&i # d..a’ 7 fr, 4 -
C.4” - e, . £.....#‘ .. 1 . • .i .- m* •
4 Cip3iit& c,’i Ae.A.d6 ‘
iX.. 6. I. *WS d iC s t& - 5.i. ‘1 c
5 DCc. A’ fl i. de
£l(It*dl.*l #t.I .1’e Pc. 7 4i .i* € gr4. m..i.(
4_,.... AA e.4(. 7 t 4 .
4 p 4ps / c.Li 44...4
cI .v7 e .c # ,,,b... 5t75 J’4 td . .P .d(.u.., .
4 fr4 4 47 fr44(
a.. t e.S . #. . e.... d
,1, &, 4 •L.4 b( .VUJ
a .. ss 4.t .,c. # UlP . S&Isv’- c .’v .i.
a”— a.4l..S . . .# k. A .e p.
u. 14 -
. e. .” e.s.4
iJL I.--. . . YL .4’a e .v
/t3 ’. r dL*i.
.4’ /t,4 . c&.C £ ,. i f . . d ’ -ee. I ’7
£ Z / ,G 4 d4i( ,F
“J 144.f ‘ .- .P - • - .-‘ ‘-j I4 .
é4 . u ca..,4 7 . 2c. fti. .. a . -
/h-e i. . .,,i I—
- ,. .S ‘4w.
—S.,— /4, ‘ fra,.e
.. .4 _
ç ’ 1I%2 /M 4.4 c .iylM. .. 4c. ma.. ’
‘ - fr’ ’-- 7) . A ’ V .4 7 ,‘4
-------
q
I
5
,‘I -s..;
? 14a,s. Li / ,
/h. o _ 1 i.’. ‘ ‘ 2 .-.v(. Can—
£ e . ms’ , .. 4 t •.4 — # 4
/ (tm fr’ wh 4 g. .i 1W
b ” fi4... #I_ D5 $, 5.k.
1 4 14 A.. - Al 4
X i 6.im,.s tuit . .‘ j
9ô-cs . ., é - £.#1.
a. .4.J.(, h. “;a 1 .#. 1 . 14I. 7 d’YvI41’4
£ .4 ‘
7 54 .11 c.4# ;,._., •
14
£A.4,. . . . .
e4 1 r t X . . C11.d
S-#11V . 4....
8. 2X 1 oS/. 1.I ....•‘I o.”4 s — 1h
b- ’ ”7• 7 4 # 1 4 641 -I* -a-- ILl 1 ..
‘, ,,
•iS 4 V .i 1 & 44l a_.#S#7
.
9 7/ . a i4. 4 I ?i d i ..i.1
T 7’LilA.44 7 L A . 1 d1.
‘I
/1 7Z. ,
4. I%4Y11II 11 .a ’ .rd .64l 4 .6 1#. . f l .4
74 f s m — . . tLr. 1’Id abIZ
....d ? *u# O 6ii Lf .
£ ) 7h .... — *)A. . . ’ a....
4• ,C
/ ,1,4- e4 ( •4ldh? I
h ...., - — *- a.C #1j1 7 m f e . . .. v 4.
.d .AI/.C... g 1 . 4.. f 41 I. 1 ._— .u ##/
/t. Ae ,e.4’ ,$L1 d . . -
YL d s.do c .. ...# .
f ’g i. 2w.,4..
/ / ..,jn ip,s 4 s..? 5 7Z £.S fr... a. . .-
h... . # 41.?’ 4 d . . .1/’41 . . .
L ,4 .‘ J2
- 5. r,’ 7...
,$4 11/d .4’ 7 *q...
gØ. 4 . 11 l4 •tX 4 14 1 ,4I dffdl .
,.z ._ . s .- .5 , s.. - ?&.. . . p’.. Z 4 dL S
4.0’ f4 .’ yt. • . 4 . .,#t
12 *C&S 1 U4( .
-------
7A, ,4IA’A’I 4S.1 e w1.l4. 4 %/ •
/4 c t i1t 4 - C—.’. -i-
(- -dJ-1. i -t ... M V. 1 j —
t d# 1/41 , .
,h(? —. .4 ./ sm A’
f , / - 7
a-
ncvii 4.1$... NI*aAL n u
?r PS E tr . .stsl I. .t 11a1..t
Urbsr sst t C S7 OS Spet - Ipril, , P
VU s pt P..s . . lb. P.rth
Iab.t.r .p1.t.lp $ .d
.Uflub p tl .1y I .•N ts
IlstI t tSel.s4 .1 .11
N
N
- e
-------
MM ’
*.s*NS ?w r $.sa , &11 .11 PsMaI bss .s
ør. u IW. . SI 1 S1 1 YmrSl . 5..d sSs
,1 ) .fsS ’• $sIS , SI I sI I St1 bs S
£21 $M% NI• IS O S.SSI ..ö.
M d W S4p LI Ill hID) IU Is s$.sIaI.
‘.s
SM - Ms O
. VOL V. S I. IN
F)
l.... .sI St RId—b...d.’
...cSI SMtt. I’1SS I.bM $••
.v5.e, 1W5
s i I.
125?.J It )r,
O s ’. Irsal l).
.atr.s
•C 3v V
I! 5 d4;:’,
£ 1
. .Z.!2L
I .sSa !
:.M.Iw.rvpM
:l. .s 1 57
1....
.SC3SS
k..r y
3.. IS4
$4t 1
:v
Sa g m
M’
O.S
r..i
1$.l
-••‘
113.1
)s 5.f
sail
.S.,
17.6
I i. )
..i
‘ l
2.1
I I . )
14
1.I s.I
3
,
..
— .
.13.1
1—s. -
..:.s
S
I
3
I
I
3
I
I
e
:, .is..
35 ). .
.5
:
:
:
r.
I II
E..2
C.)
:.i
.31..
.ri..
—,
i_
,
sc.s
3
-.i
3
I
11.1
1.6
•
•
•
f :..)
)cr A.’VP
kr!m
! —
-_ cy
!..._
14 ’
:..a Ii.
II.)
.:1I.3
211.3
:
I
3
:
31.3
3 !..:
::.
‘.r?3 : ,f
!t:...
:
I II. )
3ru .s
e’ i 3
_I - ..2
.: : • ap
.:.s
)IC.I
I...S
f _I. ’
SIN.)
S
I
__
3
I
1.. )
.:.3
.i:s..
.3.3
331.3
n:.s
..2 _!.
:.n’.:
1.&.
:. :i.,
s..: .1
3.! 1.)
*t a..
,,,:
.s
—
flGUU &U4. tAoitS. IOUUNt P*UJ. A D ISLAND lAW
. — q ;.t4P
\ k”
. U. —
I
IS) I
.
0
— I
S
in sf I ippI.SMstIl t. IrOSMSM1SI i.p.cL StsIsat
s1.s Ssrbsr C..,.ys .SM Iy.ISM - L II, 1966
-------
‘I.
P,,t tt.. li... bsSvt
*.,ta i . i si P bU. Ps sr.)
ICOMMIND1D LOCATION OF Th. O11
ISLAND WWTP DISCNAROI
I S
N*UT M. II
-------
Jr
II . . . e.bi. d s. 3. N.yt.
3 .tar , si b,l , .ea..1.a Utsi s
I SO C tE4s ilrss l
bli... Ni oaioa
11’ I’lS
blr — Sts
I — ilU.s Sb. ssl...I ts’lsi as S l .eats. I..lnd.4 si ’s
sit... sad 1. P sills... s .d .Ulsi 51 5 , frus s.l.utl.1. sad
ft . . , UNsp0 p.eS. s.d Sb. S_ e srt, .11. 3.p i . . l..kl , . SRi
J list p.. r. sirs lbs S_is 1. sslssi aat.i i.e it. . s• . 1rs1i.
S_i? OP Ill Pill. Lasill. U I IIT3I S_lU PIUS lUiU VhS_S. IllS
53 IS_S_SI IU.S_ S Il 1 1P1 1 Ill S_m.S_lT XUU’T slid •UIU TO S_PS_IT
isa L an. 55111 13 UPS_I Ill ISPIU PUS_ I Ill laS_UT iøi OCS_IS.
Til lS. UIUPTO NU . .asUl S_il UPSI. Ill S_li UI UPS S_DU.I S_SO
S_1UN15 UOUN sOUP vu NIT UW S_S_U. IT SITU I. I I III CUSS OP MaINE
INTIUUDIITI ViTIlS Ii? UPVLOS_T VS_ I D U UPS_I TillS. l Isa. Ills VS_to
S_SlUT Ill S_S_U UI III UPISOT.
SMslr. list uslil ill. I is stu ad , It ea I I. s.i..lud Si Ibis
1*55! p usst list 5 i.Is study si 311.1 —— ..,.st sIsal... sni*uilp . 54
Ipersl. W.f has. blsR eaI s1. ss, s..t.Stsis.l .iudi.. .10 — I. usda.
lisps ha lies foe Ibis. $1 sift lab. 51 R.saI 2 pears 10 551 Its iea..l borlsg
.bius sea. I I $5 und. Sits’ I Sa 515 1$ SI ds s 5 fisSi Sit. asisolad,
t5s Stssld is 5. UN1r01s* e..l.
mess ms.id is a. UN 11s5 1.l rust,. sits’ Sits 5. 1.511.. i•s.p us..
— 535 S_li s$rsi• s.d 3. sPA esst.ea1s srsse s. .. 1,.. Ii. S_Ui
5. 15 Slat 311. S UN eat NiSSlISb I.. P*.sss rust.. lbs UNusol. .54. bp isis
05% 1 Stsa I. p0 5.55155 lbs r u*ts si lb. Cp ’ ss•.r 5 betas studs to lbs
S_li Seend si beasts’s. is us. .155.5.1 asUNr . 1.s lbs i5si.Q u soi.5.? 111.
5. 1.1 lbs .sU.1i a. p0s.a..d ld s1 1 I. 3 11 S.
I r ea.t sss.1UNI51 : - i , Sa.. .t, p0siSTSbIy sUb p0ius’p s .d
: ..is.p pisats built .Ills...s.lp. is.l..sd s.s rs.ubua..io. ls S_ZN.
p0 5*11,. p0psr Ni ssrsI n d ssus .7 trsslisSt.
I . e ust Is s,uht lb. is.ea tt. isis’ Qusilty Stasdards I. Is
4. 5 . -S-S .
ill usid Is us ssrftus ’ 1.11 w lbs S_li did eat sdsq..tslp respond to
lbs $spi’s lss li.ss. 5 11. sfisr—Ibs.fsot digglr4 lSWou$b lbs pogss to 5ss
51.1 I I Niuld 51.4 thaI It oseid ash , I.sot sdIlsissl. I
r55UNI list a earl... r—----u I. ssel. N i r ort I. 5*ees. Our saisslisIs
sad 1551Ssar5 S ’s 5tl tIs I. p0 tbrsi Its d 15j.h.I54 5 paUN. a. j is
IiwOod’s .115 , of Spill , 153* 1.1 bssi. bad snip I v. 555 1. 10 Study I I
.nd bsv l55 oI ler profss5*oea1 r..sea*b1 l ii i . .. . si S_US. poea5s Is
Jots Cisoods riposess I. •5 5 lsppilrs 5aslI.as• sill I. sisal 1 .0 dsps bat..
Vs .111 Isad ds iis.r Si,. .s . e sissi PPidsp lb. ?tirt .ssIl.
Jeal.. I l.p ls’s poe 55 i.sisrp si I slirsUNuts i ifisirs is, Sb.
S_SUSSPLSLI I OP Ni33 5S_D35lTl . pl p0steat NI33iS_DSUTTI Sup, .01 just
lust.. isrbse.
t.s I.,. is.. .rod i. s t is.. Stat pi. s .d piusas.. sit
asleep. lb oulisil 1505 built. .1 1* last SOS pear., tosrp ott, p.a’t si lb.
piss ass I. Sts sd , rs4.us S us. V. ’ ,. steal silt lb. 5.1f511.
lissI tar all , as..ld.rstl.. and ‘ • i.e lslkk Is S_US sad
lisl , to us. V.1 .5s us si tr .Ib ,..OjVl Si SITU II
Ussursip pus’.,
blip .dRq Isst4.st
.I S_ZN, 1 . ..
if,
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
Saks ’ Waters in Massachuseit,
(7
557) i 5 1407 1 5 5 17) lii SN
I i . . . 15*01101
-------
lb. ft. ISlS .l. thpts
i t bvi,sist.i LIV SIPS
,00 CislrIdSS thrust — 10th PI
bust... thss. 1LS 0130*
ISPI 0 51$
‘is, — th ,b.s
I. ? Ss up sti Il tO, 10*1. i.Uup s . 1 tOil tO.
thiliebusslie but., Is __ S (liii) isd ii i isslul.l li15. r.pur% , sib.
Ispi,s P..O1 . ’ I. its p . 1 1 1. psritiup.tl.s 5.1 essps . . 1vss.ss Isu _ at
lbs liii list S list it gs. I 5 tO. 5s 1 1.51 iis lro,ss.tsl lse..i U. t
55 .11.1 tOsre its u slb rslst . 1 to ilDi’s rup i t t, 1115 lspthlre U.skIs.s.’
10.50 — 11 15551 I.UI S Dith tIS this . ... k I. IisIs tsi
II) it tie s - isrel is p . 1st . stit. *DPS
t. vu,. .p.s1fl 5.1 I.t.1I.I. hr suispi.. tsr. it.
IisI.iistS ts us ‘S.tsutIf is S1.Ip S I 3 11 i s1 551 5’ 551
.1? .5 thtss l.1.re.t.t. but., (P.,ss 31 toil it ‘lbs
Isp lre l.skl . ’
(1) £—.$ tisIS 0* tiS tie... psr1,llp. P., .. I. ,
thu ..sisr is — vuull •1.vt .0*111.5.1 ustrIusts I. tO.
viusis sigs PuI I.1I 3 US 10.5.1 lidlists. flit
isIar.t51 lig if Ii. issus. (P.s. 30 it ‘lbs Supiirs liskises’.’
( I) hiss it — p.tsta _ use s. __ i.J .t .11. 1., . , l. , hits
5r• ist ____ 5 is sit IS. 1t tutu 15 t Oo 555th. ‘155.515
it lisigs .1 this 1.’ llqss II 1l ,. II it 1b. SspØIr.
s . 1l. i s.’) hiss ef tOss., 55.1 us 1 5. rsi t it.. ssisS t
us 51.155, IS. dlssvgs Id pl , sill tO. 01st. .51 tO.
1.05, 51 Ist 110051$.s Phisisiss.’ (Pigs ii) it. .utris.ly
iup tist.
(3) Di sOil 0115 isO , trio $l IS t. It I. , as...4 to tO.
5511 risp.siss, 1.05 55s the rousirsI 5515 runs 11.5. 011.. ,.
.15 ieis i..I tie Pill i s1 psip.51 St sit.
(I ) lbs sib., psipli - isss resiDed iii th’itt ip. i sist .l tipsit
5s t r.s.Ivsd siutb Diliti 5.5.5515 sit Ii. 5551 lIst it
g.s but s . D . 5 t i sIst. s ry .1 tO. 5.155*. it ‘lbs
!.pIS .l ,s 1.5 11555’, s isis,, if up urli .55.1. 5% lbs D _ i . 1Sr
IS, I . l i ii s..tiup .uI up st e. , it issis , , 30, lOSS vOl. 11
o.t Os ’Id lligs,105. DiPS
C. is . .s. 51,0. 1.. Sie,sstoS
15 ,1 La.y 5.55
P id IssI 0. 15.1. UPS
,l 5? S.Iusta.5 , ? it lust
Psiur 31.11.,, Cousreittus 1 rutiU i s
Ph. hills U. bus...
lists Jsursstl• Ill
br. 55 . 1..I P. th,51u
5110.51 J. bu sr. t. .
Dr. 55.5510 P. 3.0.55
buisri 5.515,5* he. , Cfl
Dr. Jus hit . ..
Villas J. Cotfip
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
Safer Waters In Masnachuseffs
thy I, ISIS
issues it ii. oust. IS sib. lupSItre 11113555’ 551 sI10 s
his is,., trio tius. 11.5510, 55.5 sMug 5.ies lilt it tie
stbur uvius, it I I. Pill 55 Set is Is-d.ptb usdsr .taMug st
nr. sts. is .tbur wurds, 311W. issuts Sr. ..ss.iIsllp
set Wig I S ’.s 1Ii P 5 . 1 .5.
tsl (be Dill Is 10.. I. t tste sIt ii. II.Jdstu. ISsisitoisus . 110
sad sad, it e.’.’.ts uW riupuad Is this. .051 vies lISPS 555 luiersul, viii.
tb.gI.i-ssl. .sl i sUfl.ulp Wisi usst. It rssp,51sd is s dtsJsI.151 sad
lisdusisie v . p.
Sl. i sruly psite,
144L./ .e 1 r’ ’
Psi !, Phedlup, Prustlust
Dill
1WituhI_t __ Udvuøp ie ld. . ’C IsPila. Pies, IS P. 0l
s I$I7)hSI 0’3.(SI?)iSI•ui1l
-------
Ill 0.a 11 . 4 I I. 0.pw
kePdi& , If kvs ulM LUtin
g-.——..1s I it 31ssa S.SiI
100 1 1r 1401 ilr . .t
I.oI ., ea. ouoa
swiM. I4ehant ( lIiiøns CommUte. io,
S fei WãIOI in MAURthusefti
.,S iaft0 1 10 1 1?I Ii $ ipittp
40P0.. s#I ioP. .u1.P
lift P01.1, 0.0 1 ,1, 01 01001
gptia iS, lii
111100000, 00001 1 1 10 1, 1 1 1 1t 10 0 1 1, IPISSINIS, lOOperS, d#liw’. . srlftts,
•ul PIPPIPPII I4SIM 110 5 •SPI l..pll SNIS liovIr S l .joe & .&..i .st.p
sod I SItS S00IPSNII ,l IS toluiri pPiP0 11iU. 0 . villiSbie tui.I ual .0%
lass S I$ISPS$.
ft. bI’s lieS St N $ ‘OW kp 1N uSn IS ,. . S. lbs po o
luu$psso la& Isp. .. NplrI sup Sipulo IS M D I p IlI. .wt ‘. o. .sii
P PM,4 I. too Suit 111.11 $sss.dsrp TPssIisao PIss.
lb ur.lp lies,
Nt 20 1$ (ISI I)
Nut — 01701$
£ ee.ll Ilk. Is puiii 1 ssrlp 10 31. P 1 r S . 0 pseuu. tsr SI. uI
:= rp 151.01 .51 1.031 111.. P 1 .. 10.1 tNt. I a. is.. .1 replp Is *01’.
CCuSI £ 5 Ths lspØIrs Us.kls..,• 1e0 1.a is.. &tIaI frs. 1.1... PI l l,
II. yablI. Us$po11 sod r ‘Ii..I . i.s01..I.
‘Oil S .p,laP . ui IM. s.s0310 I. Sb. 50.1 NI d 00 1 as a p.0th
01 0.eS • • . 10 at 10.1 tieS I b.u.. . ,.iIy 1i i.b I ..pp Is
0..Id sgsrd.. Ce Spa, s.,l , •ThIS IS Cerlelal M!P1 c 20*t.
£1.. Is PI i S1 1. 11w If J..eery 10, 101. I 11 71....
laeI ii. 111a01i1 s00 11*1.1 1 C ..t. .00 *IWS report • The
iucit.c4: Prop...t tsr £v.l..Il.a Ce 311.0, Pbs 011.. Cud usfs sod Nl1.•
ii — t.t 01 part Ce III . .t ee 11110 Ni$ . 5
£ 5 S Os .dd$tI u.l 0 1 e1l PItees P lltfl . 0Ot Outfall) utIuCISO 1 111.1
1. 11w, I .,sie, IDS’s rspwt, ‘lb. 3p00l,. U.eil.c., rejojit p.r
tislmIIo. of 311.4 • I I.. Muss free l.Osat sad U .II . si I.r1b Io 1t.d Si
a. $uI sl purl Ce a1 s. 5.1’.. 5.. 1 . 11 1w eepi ii Th. Slppii Ir.
S..Il.o. ‘ . leelui0.d. I11IO I Is 1.11.r Ce J.ausr, 20 d l i 5 .iLocopt.
....rsl 11. I. P.l 1111 u I II. 11 1 II I , . 111kw lii ) %Sr Fupr It..
0111110.03 .ut5 .ur 1.11.0. 1 Lu Ill Sloth.. Ce Voleei It I dlIiui. 5 ulli
P .t ’ .. Vo l us. 135. NI ’ .. P ul Sb. 71 1 130 II I 011 .Ir. iii q . 0uI lo . 0
rs. 5.00 $ ‘lb. Oufp s.P 1a...
I .1I .3 £31. 55 a% 015 tNt I a poe CNS1t44.I( Si IS Draft
Netr..isl b ps01 auØPu 0.a01ry • I$I)j . •.ui ffiS iii irmald
01 S1.I S .MI.g ,4a 00 a.f 5ittlM . 0 ,04.01 SI.IPSII II 04 1 01 .igiu. at
. a.,. r iè 01141 IosIuu40i I II I.s.i .uo If Iii IlIMubill of abs 1 1. a
IS llS IIiluu IIPISIIPINIM 00111 NissbSi ION 054 usd111 $f pu.ub s i sa
1171109. 015011 ts&t .i. 51.01 55 1.1$ $5 0.ppl$r. P01I IS 0 1• 015 1.1
5.0 C tuds. is lbs 111 laeir.u.Is$ I01ael upon.
fl• 11 r.ee31 Ce 0107 1Is of vsluMsur ’ . , 0 Op
I d10 lCat.I prCe.s.I 1i. 1005 Ia. .0 ,0.4 srIIv.Ip uulhlu I I I 5.4
Is. ds s . 0I.tso%l,. cc .1 155 ‘..I uscosisry Irsa31.et p1.. sod I .
purlloalar 01 lOs Cefl.% Outfall 551 sIp .1 0w reep. OOr .0,0 vu. dons
vilNut 557 pull slat?, 17 S p...II001 aid Ial.o103 0vp I l 01,10. blolOgt.1i
011 Nyu lbSp irduuS , 0170
Co.u.u PucOsis. NVW01ISS
1.01 I.vp . 1 5 1 1 *
IlicIss I 0.1.10. (71
Soon If 3.I.cIala , Pu.. St NOssi
P. 5w 11. 1157, Cl*NpI.UuS 150 1 USS
(uP ilsitis a. 101001
lUli JuI10iS 4; iii
Dr. lièIsjuu 1: PimlItig
ittEk..i . s .ut .r !uq.
Pr. pi.,1t4 1. 3.0...
Pobi , t duniir.iio., cpa
Dr. Joi S*t.s.
11111$ ’ . J. Cotr.p
NUp OOslI.y. Ws.hl.st
1001
-------
e P34
Aqwari
hay 31, 1908
Jilli..
Nlcha.l D.Iand
.inistr.tor PM!l •
U.S. £PA. P.gio ” I
3rK F d .aI Out Idtnq
Ouston. l 02203
Mini David Toa.y
Uat.r Hana meent Division
R i Draft 9 .plementai £18. Ousto., Harbor iiast.water
Conveyance Systes
Dear . Delarid.
Has Enoland Aauarium ,l• Draft Ss ai.-
08ntal Envirammental ipoact Statesent fir thi IoatonJ4rb.r
W sj ijer Convev nci ..5y j. ISEISI. S. e.al issu.s •m..ged fri.
our ..vias. we eel there are important questions to be anered
r.iardinq ..at•r oumlity impact. and noncompliance ..lth Uater
Duality CrIteria.
£..aluatlonS and conclusions reached in Ii. federal 5(35 are
qene.-ally consIstent ..itit those reamed in the semi. ! ..ciIItime
PIa,.#E1R on the £ffIu.nt Outfall irplElni. U. e•POnded to theSi
ConclusIons In comment, to MFPA. ..hlch a.. •ttaCh.d. U. .esp.ct—
fully requ.st that EP* revias the attach.d document re, th.
effluent outfall. and r.spond to each of the queStiOiislts su.U
raised.
U. of f.r here some edditlonal comment,,
5 Th• 5(JJ su.mariae available phyulcel oceanoqraohy data.
Currentlproject.d estimates of mater iuailty parameters. ChSraC
terilation of bottom sediments. listinqs of bloloqical SOecles.
projected Impacts on commercial fishtnq operations. and tabuia-
ito., of resources In the proposed outfall areas. However, there
I. a !eat deal of bioloitcel data, contained in P 5*s FP#Cl0
iVSlu V a. d assmciated appendIces. December. 19971 .dtich the
SL1I appears to have Ignored.
For e.ampl.. flassachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards
for Class SA mate’s state that nutrients shall not e.ce.d the
site-specific lImits necessary to control accelerated or cultural
eutrophication. Data mere Inc laded in the rp,rip supplied by
Dr. theodore Smayda. University of Plod. Isiandi that specifi-
cally addressed the issue of i. ’ lent-spurred shifts In alqai
composition, yet the data mere not mentioned in the
p
-------
Mo. D.land
Draft Supplemental LID
Boslon Harbor Uaste . .ater Conveyance System
Fag. Iwo
and the question of chang.. in ap.ci.s composition and
pot.ntial food chain effectsl not s . .fflciently •ddressed.
in addition, data on fieli histopathoiOgy. fish body bID-
burden. .nd contaminant bio.ccuaulation in oar in. mussels. while
not available in time for the production of the stae.’s facIli-
ties plan#enviroiumntal impact docuant, are currently •vai laDle
and Should be included in the
0 It is pradiCted that. onc. secondary treat.ent Is in .ff.ct.
the s.a . .aier at Site S —iii still •.Ceed fiv• Public Health
Criteria at the one-tn—one million Fist factor PCB’s, arsenic,
aidrln. 4.5 DOT, and haptachlorl. •ed will •.csed two Pi iic
Health Critecia at the on.-in-one hundred thousand level PCB’s
and arsenic). Th. does riot address th. question of whether
or not steps ..tll bs taken IS .nsure that federal eat., Ouaiity
Criteria ..iil be not. dial sp.cific me.sur.s canlwill bs tak.n
to achieve compiiance
C.n ongoing poirit-sourcs reduction of touics in the 1 5 A
system. the Lynn system, and the South Lsse. S....rage District.
along with reduction of Inputs into the Mere l.acl. Riv.r. sad to
co.pi lance with W.t.r Duality Crit.tla? Is progress being .ade
with curtailment of these inputs?
5 ,s Aquariu, believes these points •r. especially import•nt
for the EPA to address. given this agency’s regional authority
and oversight responsibIlity.
o In vi... of SPA’s denial of the State’s 30111.1 alvar appli-
cation, reasons for d.nial .f p.rmission to dlscharg. primary
effiuant in Massachusetts Day ar, still valid. Four to five
months of primary discharge Is s..fficlent Ii .. to degrade watsr
Quality and adversely iapact marin, resources. due the Impacts
of convent ion.i pollutants should b. reversible, temporary im-
pacts may nevertheless be unacceptabis,
Accumulation of certain tO.ics under primary discharge may
produce lasting affects. As many as five Aquatic Life Criteria
and five Public Health Criteria would be eaceeded by interim
p. mary discharge in the region bounded by Sites S and 5. One
Aquatic Life Criterion and, as noted above, two Public Health
Criteria would be eaCeeded Dy Secondary discharge. These
e.Ceedences pisce in qu estion the adequacy of the reconoended
site, in absolute terms, for both secondary and Inter,, primary
discharge.
Mr. Deland
Draft Supplemental LID
Boston H.rbor Waste..aler Conveyance System
Pa , 1 . three
0 Like the FP’(IR , the lacks specificity as to the cl i i.-
mate fate of the particulates that .111 be released by the new
outfall. idler, will the pollutants be deposited under varying
tidal conditions and current flo..sT
Again, the Aquarium requests that the EPA respond to each of
the points contained in the attached cosments to the state on the
effluent outfall, noting especially our concerns with regard to
compliance ..ith eater Quality Criteria.
the Aquarium believes that because the Boston Harbor case is
so large in scale. it is of national importance as a model for
gainIng control over coastal pollution. ldiile no recognise that
huge financial burden, are involved, no also feel it is critical
that the most cautious path possible be chosen ri solv. 29 these
pollution problems. It mould be the most ironic of tr edies if
we simply moved the harbor’s present pollution further Offshore,
to the long-term detriment of the tremendously valuable fishery
areas of Massachusetts Day. the Gulf of Stain, and Georges Bank.
Clearly, the EPA Is best positIoned to facilItate cautious, co-
ordinated action to prevent and abate pollution of thes, regional
resources.
the N... England Aquarium is ready to aid EPA’s decision-
mating needs in what ever way no can.
Thank you in advance for your response to tiles, Co nl5.
If you have any questions about the issums no have raised. please
contact a.,
SE 0
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Sharon C. Dean
Conservation Coordinator
lie.. England Aquarium
p
-------
Do. 3am.. I. Nayt
S OCr.t. ry
I”ocuti, Offic, Sf PItvlps. ,.l £ffalrs
100 Cash. idg. Strm.t
boston, m. o oe
Attn. !t.upn Davi.. Dir.ct.,, I PS IMIt
P.. 0. . , l.) ir .at .e Faciliti.. Plait
Final Nalum. itt PacilIti.. Planning •actgrou,id
Flnas lt hIs ?r•atm.nt Plant
Fl. . .I Volum. V Ffflum.t Outfall
0... . S.cr.e.,, ,
Vow England Agu.. 1w. co nds Utd Pass. Mat., Pa oUr
Authority ,iaRitp for th u thorough r . spons.. glua.. to QUSstiOns
and co •rns raisad by t • Pouarlu. and Di ’ ... part i.s during th
cowo.nt p uriOd for th• 0.aft Do s . Island Facl1Itj.I ?J , Our
has focus.d On th• Issu.s of 110.. and load osnagomant, f t
Industrial mast. progr.., unit proc s5 s d.slq... tI .. plant’s
•blIlt, to mast watn- quality Standards undo. ho full ‘ang. of
oporating CondItions, and •nvironm.ntai Con5id ration, surround-
Ing siting Of P.. •fflu.nt outfall in Nassachus.tts Pay.
V. stft.it thus. Cnt. on th . lnai Faclilti.. Plan ,
Volum.. II. Ill, and V. rSqu,stinq fur%h.r •laboratlon on cortain
points containad in our previous co nt. on Ut Draft
and raising soma -_ issu.s , Na ash that qu ost ion. on
•ssu.s outuid. iN. seep, of i i .. FacIliti.. Plan b. dlrsct,d to
th, appropriat• ag ncv as part of i i .. S.cr tary’s SuctIon 61
fIndings, pursuant to th Mas.achus.tts Environ .epta Policy Act,
ts.il. ma strongly support U .. A’s plan for socondary tr atm.n%
facilltl.. on P.s.’ Island. it. 5tr ss that suCC 55fuI iapIm..n%a —
tion of th. Pl.n and attainm.. .t •f mat., quality goals in Boston
Harbor and flassaCh .s.tts Pay mill raquiro att,ntion to thus,
“pO ’iph•r.l i$s. .os,
Volum. it. Faciliti.. Plaiw.i,i. acbg,..jnd
Floe. 5 and Loads.
o N .ndatorp •iiig stion maam.r.s that ha,. boa. fsd.rally n-
Pound throug ’ . MESA and stat. iapo..d through I P* Sect Ion 61
Findings •r. Conditiom. of all ?.d.ral ConstructIon grants award-
•d to ‘i. fllaiA fFjqaj raeIlttI., ,fjj , Volu. II, SOCilon th.m.,
pp. I-..3p• hOs. —anpatory- (Owoilpont., in Contrast to w,ti
p
gatian eosaiem.nts sot fart’. by h iSa* i. ali. ,iat, l actu
as.ocIat.d with U.. construction and oporation of t , 0... Island
plant, do not app.ar to Inc ludo flo.. ama load Cowoitndnts, Is it
th. S.cr,tary’s int.nt Ion to sat, ash.,,nc. to f Is.. and load con-
•itm,nts a qualification for pjjj grantsl
Na .C0m..nd that Ut. awarding of stat, grants fa . •opansion
of tr,atm.nt capacity sat,IIit, faciliti.s or .oa cOnm.Ctlonsi
b. mad. conditional upon ‘“Paustion of VIe.. aanag,mant tschnlqu.s
and pollutant • .ni.i,ation maasur.s, Such tochn.ou.sIm.as. .r.s
Include infIltratIon and inflow aanag.s.nt. ..at•. cons,r.ation.
trua.cost pricing of m.ryic,s, soUrs, rduction and pr.—
tr.atm.nt. and strict adh.ranc. locally and ? gsonallyl to intn-
qratnd land us lwast,wae.r tr.atmai.t plans.
o Pr ppnt and futu.. w..t.w.t., troatas..t ma.d, oust b. mat
through adh.,.nc. to ma5t watsr tr•at . .nt planning goals and land
us. .anaq. . .nt goals. Such goals mara formally ostab)is ’ .nd
through Sit. l.d.ral Cloan Vat.r Act’s Suction 300 and 303. plan-
ning proc.ss.s institut.d in U .• l ?0’s. Suction 200 and 303,
Plans for In. m.tropolitan Boston r.glon should ho uodat,d and
incorpor.t.d into Curr.nt Planning •f forts for th. .5aiA district
.at.r and s r systpo, and subsmqu.nt ly iepl.m.ntd and .nforc.d
by IN. . 5aiA.
o Ph. Aquarius raqusts that sit. iit* and 0th., 0mairo,w.ntal
aq.nci.s d..onst.at, progross to dat. r.qarding lflt.grat ion .f
mastm.at , tr.atm.nt planning with land um. planning. Do tie.
uarious D.r.ittlng programs and long-range planning for maui.—
mats. tr.at..nt capacity imads ‘Oflact th. ieport.nc, of into-
grating, rat’.., than sagr.gating. tho two planning procpos.. on
an ongoing basis?
• V. racopod that flow and load triggo ,• l .l. ha ostab-
llsh.d as b.nch.arhs foe initiating planning for anag.s.nt of
..c.ss flow and loads. Actual no.so.plianc. with mats.’ Quality
standards should not b. r.ll,d on as trlgg.rs. Path... tronds
toward ..iolat ion of industrial as.... us. p.r.its and of t.aiA’s
NPOES p.r.it should b. r.cognl..d . rly •nouqi, to allow for
planning and iaplm..ntatIon of maasuras that will amart nonc..-
Dl .anc.,
o Cent ingncy plans to ..nago .ucoss flows and loads should ho
or.par.d by tho toan as soon as po.sibl,. Such plans sight in—
clud tightor controls on s.mar uso Dorsitting and Infrastructur.
hoot-ups, and focus.d •ffort on sourcu r.ductioi and pr.tr.at-
wont. Uastawat.r t..atm.nt capacity tin i.r.s of flows and
loadal must iou, , b. ..c..d0d in th district.
P
e
“ow
MV
iil l . ‘L
I——
— afl
Nay II. l OSS
S cr.tary Hoyt.
Final 0r Island ‘acllIti,s Plan
Page two
-------
S.cr.tar, Hoyto
F v.1 D.•r Island FacilIti.. Plan
P a g . throw
• Estla.t.s of flows for th. no.. •r .tow..t facillti.s allo..
for infiltration and inflow •t a.ist.ng •etimat•d ls.is. As
poinewa out in ens O lnt.ri. Infiltr.tionl lnf low 11111 Nanage-
want Progr.. Plan, en. assumption en.t U I lions —ill not In-
c’s .. . is bas.d on ens addition.I assumptIon tI ..I Ill r.duCtiOn
.nlll OS rsquir.d. Secause •.isiing syslows can be enpOc ted 10
d.t.rsorat. and SySi.. •.pan sion will Occur, Ill r sduCtion must
0. efl.ctiw in ord., to maintain curr.nt flows. U. strongly
r.co...nd that a leng—t.ra ill reductIon program shich prOduCs S
w.rif iabls results ho developed nd iapl.sent.d by P% A as soon
as p0 5. 10 1..
• Sswsr coiw cSIon. Iess than 2000 gal.lday are p.rsitt.d by
local cO anities. s communities complying suCh Ins capacity
il —its of Ihoir Infrastructur.’ If not, PSo.O should faciiit.t.
incr..s.d •nforc .f .5 In this •r...
• Tha FInal F.eIlIt. . Pious , Volume It, do.. not contaIn In-
fora.tlon on dial. if any, provisions rO boing mad . for storm-
w.ter flow. In Ins South System during storms gr..t.r than In.
one ysar-slu hour storm. In portions of th South Syst... in.
stor, runoff fro, the one ye .r— 5i. hour St.,, may c.us. bachups
in the I% A Int.rceptor sawers, resultIng in sower surch.rgsng.
*lt.rnativ. mean, of managIng scums flow. in en. South Syst•m
should Os .nplorsd.
Industrial Uasto Proqr..s
o The aariu comeends In. isaa In its O.panslon of t1 in-
dustrlal prs-tr.atasnt program. However, not snough attsntion
has b n givow to sourc. reduction , CW* should coit to ee
panning agsecy •ffort. in promoting source reduction of touic
w.st.5. Emphasis Should b Placed on posltis.. incontiwes, r.eh..
than a strictly regulatory approach. * succss sful sourc. reduc-
tion progrom will achies.. for the IS A improved complianc. wIth
disch.rge limits .nd conslstont eslntenanc. of walor quality
Stand.fds. This prsvontlvs approach to w.stsw.1.r manag.m.nt
will provId. in 5ur., . ag.lnst ins awolgs.ous f.0.,.i Cisan hat.,
Act discharge stand.rd of ‘ no tonic. in tonic 000unts.
o Tn. Final FacIliti.s Plan , Volinoe II , do.. not sp.ci?y sdsich
chemicals lIsted on the Iedsral and stat. Ha zardous Substancss
List tin. prohibit.d subaiancss listi ar. monitored. 1 50n.tor-
ing for Hauardo.as Subs l.nc.s List pollutants 5 150uSd 0. COntra.t.d
with monitoring for PriorIty Pollutants.
o Ue und.rscors a recommondation we mad. in our co —sentS on
*1.. Draft Faciliji.s Pl. , that ISdiA establish a municipal in-
Secr.tary Hoyt.
Final D.er Island Fac$liti. Plan
Page four
sp.ctlon prog, . . for the puroos. of monitoring *a.tewater quality
at main int.rceptor points. St sampling .nd characteri,Ing mun.-
cipai effiu.nt, oacn co znlty’. relative tonics Contribution c.n
bo asse ...d. Coincident with this inspection program, ISdiA must
snort to .stabiish an aggr.s.ive housalsold hazardous oases coii.c—
Iionl .dctionlu o.j ,c reduction program. I%uvic.pal sampling
results can a. used as a .sasur. of .ach community’s progress In
r.duc lag to.ic disch.rg.. Into the sau.r systea.
o Th. A Should also monitor for tonic constituants in sep
tag., as port of ths s.ptag. disposal lnsp.ction progr... Char-
act.ri,ation of •.ptage would assist in measurement of COeaanity
progr.ss in houssnold hazardous wast. reduction.
o Tn. pOdiA ha. indic.t.d that Category II industries a’s not
permittad under the 55.,., Use P.rit progra.. How elso are
Category II industrios r.gul.t.d and tonic dlscharq. limItations
onforcad’
o ii i still incIsor as to .disthor or not an industry is ln
compliance’ with s. . .er usa permits only onco it has acni.w.d
actual compliance with tonic discharg. Ilaitat ions and .ffiu.nt
standards. If p.r.its stand •srely as goals for icn industries
ar. requirod to sho.. good falth to..ard coapisanco. P 5 5 .0 must
co.mit to strict enforcement of comellanc. schedulos and daad
lin.s for meetIng io.lc dischorgs iI.itotion. and offluont stand
•rds.
o U. again offer tns rsco ndatlon that tno a. a. part of
its onforc.m.nt program. require co.pani.s to propar. Tonics
Usag. Reduction Plans • a pr.conditIon of r.ceivsng a p.rait to
discharg. industrIal wastswa tar into ills district system. Co.—
pans.. sdiich fail to prspar. such a plan should be Subj.ct to
added foss.
Tn. P 55.0 shOuld rsquire that industrial sower us.rs contin-
ually mos.. toward improving ths quality of thair •ffluontl simply
m..iing Ins p.rmlt standard should not bo the final goal of s.wor
users. U. rocoowend that A Consider l.pl..entsng industrial
sewer us. f..s based on quality of discharge, with fee reductions
awarded to users .ich 5 150w progress in cutting bach on tonIcs
productlonldischarg s. Apportioning sower costs basad on each
industry’s relativ, tonics contribution laeasur.d according to
.ach Ionic’s hanard#toeic sty l.u.l and quantityi would 0. con-
sistent with P 5 5 .0’s plans to establish a rato structure basad on
water u50. Financial inc .ntiv.s can o, a s.aluablo addition to
en. Denaity system applied to p.rmit violations.
P
-------
Secretary Hoyte
final Deer Island facilities P 1.,,
Page fI ,,
Secretary Hoyte
final Deer island faciiiti., Plan
Page sir
• A eritital stqu tos.ard reductie,, of t uic discharges is
Iliurate qualification and Quantification of hapardous ..aste that
is being prod.,c.d in the PSIPA di 5tri t , and •ete.inat ion of the
routes of disposal •f th s• 10. 1cc. Tt’p.s and Quantities of
to.i s being disposed of In waste..atqu by V•ry Small Quantity
Gener.ior.-, nonreporling discharger., •nd households. in
addition to .ajor industries, must be assessed.
VoI II I, trestemet Plant
‘he New legS and Aqua. Sum esphasi es the i.er tanc. of the
Os ., Island treatment Plant meeting Water Duality Standards under
ft .• full range of operating conditions.
• teat sill b. plant pe’ orma , .c. during pevi.ds idien ulcisually
high Ii.•. gr.at.r than anticipated or proj.ct. i amounts of
to..ics .it.. the system! The jnaI acllltl s Plan stat.. that
O .VQe.V aeration syst..s have a proven tract r.cor in succ .ss—
fully handling large variations In organic leadings Volume Ill.
p. 10- elI. ta .t about metal, and chIo,ides Can the ouyqen
activated sludge system rebound from an infusion of these che...
Scale’
• The 1 55 has stated that with the selector U.. secondary
ciarifi.vs heve bessi d• 5ign. to sandia a Sludge Volume nd.. of
IS, with a factor of Saf.t, of l.A. for the design ‘ASS at D.ak
flow. 0 .s ig . . with a saisetar aliens the secondary Clarifiers to
be reduced in Si ,.. Sat if the selectors should fall or operat.
at reduced efficiency ldsa to chemical sssset. for e.aeplel, idiat
alternative owasur.. can as tahen to unsure proper sludge s.t-
• ling?
o As our consents On Vois II lopip, tas Aquarlu. blieyes
that touic Chemicals in the wastewat.r a.. a .alor threat to
effect.,, treatment of district sewage. they are problematic in
terms of meeting •fflue t standards, water quality standards, and
in II .e oroduction of residuals clean enough, for land applica-
tion and incineration. I 5 A should therefore develop a Coopre—
hunsi,, Plan for identifying. controlling and reducing t o.ics
loading -- from both pOint-sourc.s and non-point sources -- to
the wastewate, stream, Such a Pta,, should furthe, establish
goals for reductions in total Oouf.ds of dlscharoe for certain
Priority Pollutant.. Reductions in tosics discharge will hans
th, effect of creating widening margins of safety against future
permit violations. We maintain that this Comprehensive Plan
should be incorpor j into the aciliti,s Plan, and adopted as
the Official Plan of h 5 A Industrial Pretreatment lFSource
Reduetio i Program.
o The Aquarium is generally in s.*.o.t of the Accelerated
Schedule for construction of the secondary treatment plant on
Deer Island. However, we urge that water Quaiity implications
and impacts on the residuals program be assessed beor. pro-
ceeding with the new schedule.
Hoiume U, Effluent Dutfalt
o the hew England Aquarium strongly maintains that the 15
must mate every effort to Implement federal EPA Nat.., Duality
Criteria for listed organic and inorganic Chemical,.
Scientific uncer tel nty surrounds ass.ssments ef chemical
tO.icits,, and relat iv impacts on humans and the enviro,nsnt,
Da’ticularl, as regards the effects of discharge at the proo.sed
outfall location. Consequently, wail, the federal criteria are
guid.iin,s. net legally enforceable standards, cemplianc, with
tne is Important to maintaining water quality awa to prevention
of chronic or acute to.ic e.posures in marine lif, and humans,
The ,sa* states, in its response to the Secretary’s Certif-
icat, for Volume V i
The view of EPA’ 5 hater Duality Criteria
casting them a. inviolable. • is inconsistent
with their regulatpry meplicatie,, —— either as
it is proeqigated, er as practic.d,
ia,ii. this is trus, the .sa* gees on to stat. that the 1551
amendments to the fsdersi Clean laster Act r.qt.ire that the stat.
develop ,,,amerital limits fo, pollutants for shich the EPA has
published criteria, Although the states are not required to
adopt the (PA ‘samericai crit.ria, it should b. noted that the
federal Water Duality Criteria reflect the latest scientific
hno..iedge on enviro,nsntai and human health ‘Sets, Massachusetts
ma, Choose to adopt standard values dliCh are consIstent with
federal Waler Quality Oiieris. Therefore, at this time, we
believe it is imperativ that the effluent discharge comply with
federal Water Duality Criteria.
0 The Aquarium is critical of the state’s guidane. recL_.J
mgi Ii use of th, one-in-one million or one-in—one hundred
thousand .isbs as goals, and D I In cases idiere the bactgreund
levels e.ceed criteria, that the discharg. emet the esisting
baclqround levels.
P
-------
S .1r.tsry Hayts
Pinal D..r Island Pociliti.. Plan
Pag. • r n
S.cresavv HoylO
Pinal D..r Island Patfilti.. Plan
Pag. sight
Tli risb analysis guidanc. Is aopII.d to ‘..0 —DDT and
aldrin. concluding that •NC .0 nC5 5 by th.ss Ch.aical. at th
pr050s.d outfall location ar. not a violatson Oscaus. en. ..-
c..d.nc•s a..t Sn. goal of Sn. risi, crit.rion. In contrast, for
ars.nic and PCU.. Sn. •abi nS I•vsls Caund tho •.Cu.d.nc.s and
aro us.d as en. discn.rg. Crit.ria. which th• two Ch.sicala ..St.
la at is tn. rational, for application of diff r nt critse a to
Sn... Ch.sic.Ist
In cas.. sll.t. th• b.cbground l•v• 1 5 •uc,.d critsria. v 5ly
asating en. •.isting aaoi.ne l.wol. in th di.charg. say •ff.c—
tiv.iy Push tn ..cnod.nc.s higfl.r and hiqh.r ovsr ti.. Tile is
unacc..t.bl.. isnt l.v sls should cl sarly not b• us.d a. In.
cr1 I., a.
Again, th possibility •.i.ts that th f.dsral Uat r Guality
Crit.ria will 0. sad. l.gally .nlorc.abl. stat. standards. W
urgs that cnoic. of th outfall location Considsr this possibil-
ity.
o Tn. Aquarius strongly concurs with stats guidslinss sugg.st-
ing that shoe. otnsr contasinant sourc.s int.ract to caus. ..—
c..dsncss, en. Division of Mats, Pollution Control d.wolop a
Masts Load Allocation for all discharg.s.
o According to en. 1 5A. in th.ir r.spon.. to Sn• S crstarys
C.rtificat.. •fflu.nt tosicity t..ts how secondary tr sats.nt
discharge will lia..• Ha nstic.abl. i.pact on sand organisas,
This conclusion is bassd on t.oiclty t.sts p.rforssd on In. nose
5.n5ttiv sp.ciss, Chaqaia garyuL. . Do.. this conclusion hold
trus for pri.ary discharg.t Also of conc.rn is that ens s.rcury
..c..d.nc, of wat.r quality critria in both en. pnia.ry and
sscondaey discnarg.s say rssult In cuawlatly. in.acts on fatty
sp.ci.s. such as bl f isle a b iltIlCc inv.rt.brat...
o Ths Aquarius salntain . that infor..tion pr.s.nt d in Volua
U of Ins Facilitiss Plan , and in l% A’s r.s pons. to outfall Co.-
a.nts. do.. not asply lustify •.CsHa.nc• of In. f.d.r.l Uat.r
Ouality Cr,t.ri.. Cons.qu.qtly, As cont5nelon that th.
r.coa..ndsd outfall location is ad.qu.t. in abSoluts tsrno
nnods furth.r swhstantiatisn,
o Oo.s salnt.nanc• of aabi.nt watsr quality crit.ria within
en. rngion bOuHasd by Sit 5 OS and S r.gule. significant pro-
gr.ss with sourcs ?sdUctionlprstr,atnont in th s i 5 A districtI
o In answor to ..v.rai of our qu.stion. on th. outfall r.port.
.. nays b..n r.f.rrad to P% A. r.spons. to en. Sscr.tary. C.r-
tificat.. U, r.stats too qusstlons which smro not addr,ss.d in
this rsspOn..i
Ii Is en. pro o .,e outfall location in atta,n.,nt or non.
attalns.ne of Class 5* eat., quality for conv,ntionai DOllu
tant5 iaiat a,. In isplication of en. discnarg. with r.sp.ct
to aaint.nanc. of Class SA quality in Sn. r.c.iving wat.rsT With
th outf.ii, is att.isa.nt of •Haisnj quality a goal. raths, than
an ia..dlat r.qu l,no,nt, pro •ctsd to occu, at so. futurs Ci..
eh sn en. s.condary t’.at..nt Plant is on Sins and othsr sourc.s
of pollution such as Sal.. Harbor and CEO dlscharg.s an.
.5 iainatsdT
?l If dsgradation of Class 5* quality is sup.ct.d for
cortain Daraa.t.rs during en. lnt.ni. p.’.od of urinary tr.atnont
and prior to ispl.a.neation of a r.sadial progn.. for CEO dis-
charq.s, dial ar. ti. sourcss aabi.nt l v.is, s.di.snt rssus-
P,n.ion, oth.r discharg.sP of this noncoapltanc. ’
o Tn. Ms.. England Aquarius has rsvi 4 S.W.I.M. s Sapphir.
Nsctlacs proposal. Th.ir moon ‘also. lsgitisais Qusst ion s
r.qardinq In. suitability of ens ar.a within Sit.s ‘.5 and 5 for
location of i sis outfall. 5.U.I.M. s findings that, I) by going
toSita_ th. outfall will bs within ens Gulf of Main. lnt.rs.d-
ial. uat.r - - in. Hasp Hats, lay•r -— not lust in an arsa aargin-
ally at its •dgsi Dl both Sitss 0.5 and 5 ar. dspositionali and
31 en. rsasone for 3Ollpip •.nial of p.raisslon to dischaeg. Sri-
.ary .fflu.nt at Sit. S a. still valid, fueth., w.ak,ns i SdiAs
arguasne that U i . rogi.n baundud by Sit.. 0.5 and 5 is ao.quat.
in absoluts tsrss. ii. ‘5Co nd S.W.I.Ms proposai b. thoroughly
rsspond.d to by tho 1Q*. and that norious Con.id.ratIoq bs giv.n
to •vaiuat ion of Sit. A V., location of th oulfail
s Oncs again w. call stt..ti.n to en. isportanc. of dsHaloplng
a Copprshsnsiv. Sourc. Rsduction PI. fo, ens .wa district, to
Co.Pl.nont prstrsatss..t inhtiatlv.s. Maintaining a quality
•fflusnl which COspli,s with wotse quality standards and cnli.nia
for llassachus.tls bay rsqulr ss d svslopasflt, aggrssssv. is pls n on-
tat ion, and .nforc..snt of such a Pian. both poini-sourcss and
non-point sourcss of to.l loadings should Os targ.tHa.
o Th. Ms.. England Aqua, iii. Cone moss to swap.. t dsool osnont of
a lonq-t.r. sonitoring and r ss sarch progra. for boston Harbor and
MassAcnus.tjs bay. Such a prognas should Os dirsct.d at long-
tsr. •valuation of Hats? quality status anw tr..ids in en, harbor
and bay, and basic r.s.arch on shOrt-tsr. and Iong-t.ra physical.
cn..scai and biological proc.ss.s in en... wat.rs. Monitoring
and r.soarch activitiss in boston Harbor and Piassachus.tts bay
p
-------
m swmu . P 1.
- . .t - _______ I -
Nay 31. 1555
Pr. Nicha.l a.a(1.nd. Isquire
Regional Ad.$ iistrator
u.s. C,,viro j nta1 Protection Agency
Region I f
.,.r.i. ldd.ra l Duilding
Deato,I’NA 02303
Atta, Pr. Sovid ?vossy
later Panaqesunt 01.1.10.
is, Draft Sogplesuntal I II
So.tou Narbor leatevatel Oisvayance lysts.
Dir Pr. island.
These e Rts so lb. Dr.ft i.ppl.souital isvlronaental I.pact
Statesunt (00515) for the Soston larbor Wauteseter Conveyance
system are •ub.itted Os, bshalf of U.. city of Qulncy. n.y
supplesesit contS sub.itted 0,5117 by so on Nay 15. 1q55 at th.
public bearing held by SPA in Ca.bridge. NA. S.r lI.r. on N.y 10.
ITS., I related Uuiutcy’s concern. vith those •i.nts of lb. PUPA
P.cillty Plan relating to the vastevater conveyance slates to NA
rOSA and the PUPA. A copy of thou. contu are appended and I
ask that all r.levSlit portions be included in the coent record
(or this 05115.
is Wedn.sday. is, 25 the P00k iee 6 voted aeceptaaci of lb.
reco ndatiOli5 of its staff ousicerning th raclllty.rian for
vaStevater treatflt and conveyance. A copy of those reconda-
lions is ale. app.ndsd. It La clearly Stated therein that dis-
charge of South Syste. floes through De.r island vould & belt be
delayed S - 15 sonthe fro. tha sohadule (Parch. 1 S) currently
ordered by the P.der.1 Court 11.. 2. page 3) and the inter-
island con.ey.lice syste. vould e delayed accordingly. This
delay. V. are given to understand, Is because the original
acheduls culled for South Syete. flows. treated it Nut lulsnd. to
be conveyed and discharged through the new outfall lsub ect to
conditional by Parch 15li. Ssvsver, an ..tend.d outfall will
take .uch longer to construct. The parties did not conte late.
4— — —
sin, so .n
S.cr.t.ry i4o,te
r ,r ,a fleer Island FacilIties Plan
Pa i’ flint.
have thus far been fr.qae..ted. Nssearrn Nuet be directed a
onQOh. q. So that D,ogress ith the narbor clean-go can be contin-
oally ass . ed •nd aonronr,at. remed,all.an.q.. ,en, %eciin .aues
ann lied.
0 Our QueStion regarding the Dote’itial for shifts lii Ø,iyto-
Plankton species co—positlo . . froi. cleated .n.t.ient levels as
not been Cu1f icipntly responded to by loan. Once again. .5th
regard to the result. of the Sltrient-spIke •.oeria.nts sho . i,.g
Ih t after 50 hours .. the esisting dominant spec Ies tended to
increase their 000tnance aft.’ enri chmen% lVoiu V. AppendS. •,
P. 0-6 ,.
Since a shIft ii . the percent of the desitnant species is
apparent after 50 hours, ho.. can the conclusis . . bs cad, that the
comunity structure s.ill not change. or that an algal .o,lsa. .
species —ill not prsSoa5n 5te Rat are the isplicatlon . fur the
•..sting trophic structure -- eight the food source of certain
fish or .aale species be ,aoacted by changes In algal seeds.
conoosition and succession’
In conclusion, the l Ie. Ingland Aegaflus 5 generally In
support of the Peer Island Facilities Plan . iIe..evsr, us believe
(nat the several outatanoing issues discussed above suet be
aod,essed. in order that the Deer Island Facilities Plan -- and
tne long term . ..ter oual,ty goals the Plan is intended to
acconol ,she d —- can be realliad.
Thank ou for ConsIderation of tl,ess Ceents.
SIncerely,
Sitar... S. Dean
Censervat ion Coordinator
Ne.. Cnqland Aquarius
!t 0
. Paul Levy. E.ecutlve DIrect. ,. P SOsA
P1,chael DelanO. Regional Administrator, SPA
Daniel Gre.ns,ag.. Co—missioner. 0(01
Tho.as l Mahon. Direetor, DISC Division of Nate,
Pollution Control
Pets, johnson. Chalrsan. S * Facilitiss Planning
Cit.,.... Advisory Cunnitte•
Jack £l..ood. PSOsA Program Planager
p
p
-------
- A ulp.Shemaivl WSSSI ailSy asSlusmalik based ii
•urrsntly -available data and applicabl. mod.ls should b
carried out to coopais wat.r quality and envigon.ental
and public health i .ct. in lbs affected waters and for
four discbarg. or opsiatlog Condition..
— lbs .1 fectsd watsra at. Presidsnt Roads and contiguous
waters and •hor.a. especially of Winthrop: Quincy and
Uingha. Says, fiats, and b.achss and lb. natural
drainage aystem of those land. a.rvsd by lbs South
Matropolitan divags diatrict.
— The four conditions are lbs prsssntp the condition, that
will l ust alter the c.saation of di.charg. of aludge and
scums the conditiona that would shut v.rs Ret island
effluent discharged at President Roeds in 1993p and the
conditions that would waist wets all MWRA ..vags flows
provided primary treatment in new facilitis. at Desr
island, and part of those flows further provided
secondary tisatnt. with diacharge through lbs 5. 1. 1 1mg
Rest Z.l. d outfall.
Upon a reasonable shoving that water quality in the waters off
Deer island and Winthrop would not be aignificantly deteriorated.
or that a net benefit to the affected vaters would result, from
a comparison of the third or fourth conditions to the first
condition above, the URRA should proceed in accordance with the
original Court—ordered schedule (activation of lbs inter-Island
aysts. in either March 1551, or in January 1555 when full priaary
ia operational).
It 1. strongly reconded that the outfall ha a gravity system.
for conservation of energy and to minimise operational coopleulty.
The shaft/tunnel/bored diffuser concept of daaign for the outfall
is appropriate and should be accepted.
The preferred design and layout of the inter—i,land conveyance
ayate.. including the Skit island headworis, the shaft/bored tunnel.
and the South System pumping station at Deer island. Ia supported
as the nest appropriate both environmentally and economically.
The acheduls (or design and Cohatruction of the facllitiea
(especially the tunnel md pumping station) should be advanced a.
sech as poasible to minimi.s the impact or delay. in acquisition
of squipsent or in Constru.o%toa.
mar did INC Court seReluls inolipotats. my discharge of sff lueiit
.t she Nut aia l s,.ainems plank Shisugh Ike eui.sing Deer
island outfall.
Pull new prisary facilities at Deer island were not required by
the schedule to hi fully operational until January 556. It
appears the mm doss ent intend to meet that obligation, and
thereby provide full pri.ary treatment at Deer island (or South
System flow.. nolsa . the water quality a..esauent dlacusaed below
and in the appended MWRA ataf I recosndat ion is favorable to
diacharge of that effluent through the e.ist ing Deer Island
outfall. Otherwise. the SMIRk would defer completion of the
entire inter-island conveyance system (headworks. .ba(t., tunnel.
and pumping station) and of the third and fourth halter tea of lb.
new Deer Island priary tr.atment plant until the e.tended out-
fall a operational. The dat. for that mUsatone is quite
conjectural at this tine, but it Could well fell In 1597 or 9955
An outfall longer than nov proposed by lb. CoPA and under con-
sideration by CPA through thia SDEIS would probably require even
nose time for •nvironmrntal studies, redesign of Deer laland
facilities, and construction.
South System diecharges to Deincy Bay and overflow, to the
Si.ponset River are to be ended in March of 1991 under the current
Court schedule. That pollution, it now a ars the SMIRk has
determined, will .ssvsrthslesa continue at least until January of
1 li as a result of the decision to slIced the outfall, dsaplte
the ..jor improvement in water quality in the President Roads
area that will result from termination of all aludge diacharges
by January of 1997. lbs SMIRk must bear lbs burden of
eatabliuhing either that unacceptable water quality impacts would
ensue from maintaining the March 1559 millstone for activation of
the lnter-i.land conveyance system (using the Deer Island out-
fall.) or that it is technically infea.Ible to do so. Should
elth.r situation ha reasonably dst.rmined to he th. case, then
the fallback and steal aoosptabls date for activation of the
inter-island conveyance syatsa Is January 1565. when primary
treatment capacity on Dsr island is required to he operational.
Until this dlaagrsemsnt La resolved and any linkage between
activation of the inter—island conveyance system and lb. new 5 5cr
Island outfall is dissolved Quincy cannot recosnd that
sutension of the outfall beyond the original site hi found to be
environmentally or economically appropriate.
With respect to the weter quality assessment program aseociated
with the decision on activation ,f the inter—island cooveyamce
sya&e., Quincys position is elated below.
p
p
-------
•
D SudUT. U.
— .e•- ___
‘I.. ,.. 1
seö1. .i s p. yeo, ki. .Iaep
Rusautlee lilIes .1 b,l,se.sa,s1 Mill..
S. ite..e.11 its.. Sills. l.l1dl.p
100 C rli s usrase
•sstis. MA 03101
£s.g Mr. it. ,. la, Die....
p& lilt
ls UA ks..s., Tv..t...t
P.cllleia. PIe. — I00A Sill
Sir.,
b1 lb. tess
Mr. a.(.1 1. 0R,4M. M.l, 5 Di,..t.,
Iass.la 5 Dlvs.i.s
- p h
Cb.risst N . , y V.,d
I SO Pir.t A ......
Past... MA 03t2
Letat Mr. Is a Sivs.4
1 1 1th Pr.r.. lsss.r
Thank you for he oppoitwity to •snt I I I behalf of the City of
Qu my.
00 S tI 00 the PIPSI Sipsit .1 ti. IUIA’a Trsits.se Paslilel..
Pl 1., ti. t.s P.,har . ,.esr e,..t.e.t I..lIIep •,s .ub.itt.l S.
b.huil .1 thu City .1 Mrt.ey. lbs City. ...U. . c e.tu is dill portl.s. .1
eli. U.prt h .,s La t C.. bSs Sstlslsetsrily .dd,....d La V.1... S .1 tti.
(Iss I r.pre. Thu .ir.ptl. eli... ss t• shush e.,..e.rl.ekidsr Cs akin
1b r _ : at. ss..ebf.st..p e• th. City. .111 is d.sit viii p.Iat by poise.
CR7 (a ._ .a. i êe.t Sip.... .5 thu A pv.p...1 e. .ecsI.rst. ss-
•t,vcti.s .1 .e. .q trs.sssas sap lty. I .ll.r e t. h.i.v.
Mlit(...lip. eli. City lias vi i , •svi e .vs vitli eli. li lA pivp..sL e. 4. 5. ,
e t.ti . . .1 Cli. lsI l pilasry f.sttle, at liar *.1ss1 s.d thu. ts dais, ii.
trs.ts..t th. ,..e .1 .s.ss I , . . i. Sash NsIrsp.lite. ly.te. u.til .vch thus
as eli. ..v ..tl.i1 I. .p.r.tte..l. Sans... this e si . I i s.e.rlc. .sd ha.
usisrasca C. ..,.rsi viis .5 thu Pie.l iap.re. it viii is dI.cu...d • 00
1 . 0 0..
Cc l ColSSIOliai *utdiiSOii
Daniel OBrien. 111tA
kathy liar.. PWRA
Rich.rd pot. im*
St.phsn Lip.... 0S S
Cheryl Preen kOCh
Peter loll. !squlre
David Ceaber
Cue. Rut.. D l SPA
$ • C.. tivet I.. lii .. se lush. Ruth (V.1s _ fi,j.te ,-ie1 C.s, _ . _ i. Pr.ee.1
Ii. t.sp. _ S. its se.e .5 .1e...rp Ii ...s.vsla s t,vet1. . sat..
100.1 1. P.. li. Rush ..po.tad that 53 lilA) 1. thu essie.. thick ussli ha
e.p.riass.d at lusli. Suck .,.r eli. due.tiss .1 esstrvnti.s. 5 ml. ii . ..
thu i.p ,...$.. list ii 0(A) 1. s sh 1. ,.1. Pelt.. IV h..s,.i as... is
t.dicst. thue 5.115 1e.ai viii b• eup.rie.c.4 00 thu ase. d.ri. cia psri.d
.1 p1st ess.t.vel.s. lb. p11. . .ppart .y.te. 1., thu p1st. l.. bass
eha.sd 1 ,.. piss e ii a. rats puss by s.psil. ci 1,1. 1.5.1 sts.t
p11... Viii. ah , uau sap have s.s •iIkt bisslisial (upset. .4
•artsla ly .hasll is .upisysl. it e is .spple..st.d by sear pSI. 4,1.1 . .
I 1 is is
•0 3111.,
beipsithily.
:;: . ;
livid St.ndley. P.S.
Consultant to the City of Q.(.cy
EicloeureS $2)
e
p
-------
sot . b.. d lo .1 II. p11... ..i.set.s .f lb. 1...S s.i.p pit.—
Irivi . . boobsijos. l .y sosiviet.. s 1I b. rsse.lat.d is puv id.d Ii lbs
sLti .tt.. c lll. to, II. Pt... • 1 11 . . P ,.J.ce (Ii .. .1 d.y sod
vsskd .sitrtcetsos . s tep 11..... .st•s ...ii.sl ).
1. Pre1sc sd 100 14,01 Ilss.ti.•
11111. lb. pll.. p.rt.4 I., S It. pisj.ce . .e . usIp is lb. psi. 2020.
.ad . 1.1 (s. c is. l...1 .ia...p Is jute. opp,.p.t.t. I.. II. plsa.l.
p..i.d. ibis tootitep sod 11. .oeIoll viii Ii 1. s.t.Isocs s.d opsrotio. Iii
so., d.codsi forth.,. I. lbs (tail loot 1 . (so lb. t.cuily. bpdrsultc •r.4 .
Ii ... sbsoid I. i---, -ad . s1.se • 00-p . ., plt. boris... ldt.bl.
.p.tsli.. uii e ..Jsv lieu’s iobsv ’ spiis.. i v .sj.r (sciliep rs.so—
.1_sit.. .bsuld I. oss..sd by s.uit. lb. Soctltep .14 , 5 11.. • lbs
bpdrsolta s’.’. has. e_st.es.s sill Slit psiJ.cetso.
3. rIb Ioiç,s i (ic.et ... (Yd III .
C.ssldo ,oijos. )
PIsot. I Ill Ctrscttao
Ailsioset,. El. v Ital _sld lists lbs osnI sot. sbus. ii soip
I t.i .p..ái. p s (iv tbt vsp lops prosusts s .t ..tttc s oIlp Sr..t.r risk .1
opus.. 1 e 1 .p sod svs.f lou. lb.. d... £leu..ety. I. Aht. ’ s.ei.. 1 is ii ..
prsl..obi. Irs. eli ol p.l.s of l..$—lsi fIsoibtItep. Th.r.f.r.. it to
or .d *1 .. lbs ..e. .p t I M Aht.,uast ,. I ci I. lb. _st ,...sst . llp
pruSoroll. ilisiu.ttv..
A U25Afl00 Cf TUA1i (t
TI. ISISA Is. ..do I.. pr.p...l. .11.1 5ri iu•uItI . iss.lp s.d t —°iju.t.1 ,
sddrss.od 1. lb. (tail (scilist.. plus. Th..s pr.p.ssls. is scc.i.vot. lb.
cousliocetso .1 osc..d.,p elsotausi sod to d.l.y lb. c_sscet.. s.d 1,..tosot Of
tooth iiot .op.hlsso Iyssso 11. .. as Os.. lsl . its lIaksd aftbovh u . s tstsr
dsp.od.as.
TI. flail .opost pr.,asiss so .1 5._sit,. so Sb. I... ph.. lbs ...ly cus-
51 1 0c C iso if sos—forth ii eli oscsod.rp l .s. e ..pscttp. Tb. r.s.it _sld
I. a thrs..ps., p. 11.4 (13 5 0—lOSS) to obtcb spprsoIasI.1y 302 of lbs ov.ro .
di i i, (los ii lbs tr..lasoe ploas usold ‘scot.. s.c . .y trose005l. I.duc.d
di sc s , 5 ., of both cssvs.ltso.l s.d oss sss ’soito.si p.lluts.t. Is Nsss.cbo..tl.
Is, vsull resole. This _s14 Ii s folly I s ods Il. sole_s VSIS tI sot for lbs
os_sisisd coils. TI. prsp...1 burst.,. riqutro. csostd.rsbl. iss.eiup lot.,.
Cl vs. Is t . w . a so 1. lbs sootrs sslly p1.1. 1.11. olls , .sli.. s.d sdoplsd is
lbs 151 10 po. iit s o sbJ.s lt,..
l..l.t.,t.. of lbs p,.,...l vusId sipstftcssflp t.oroiso lb. .01... of sl id 1 .
Is Is b..dlsd 1. lbs 1050-1535 llasfr_s. usold ,s.d., clii slsd 5 s sir.
difficult is .sos$.. vsotd isc,.sss It. ssotsot.’siso by sso—csovsottos.1
p.11 ’ ss.s.. Tb. p ,s,o ,s1 elsisIp sop otlocs lb. p.esosi.l to. isussol
tb.so b bus. (ici .I rsos. .1 all Sb. .l.d. dun. 0 else p 5 .1st.
TI. *stbsnltp ha. pr.p...d I. ovoid tonI., c ltcostso of 0055_sIt.. sso. .—
soul sod cu.s e,uc e io.. b.eb si Os.. &it sod 55 eli s.—s l i t. •‘ i °. uris.. by
d.t.r,i . 0 lbs c_ssrvcliso of pits. ,, hoiso.i.. C s.d 0 is s ...olio. 1.. lbs
iscr.ss.d .cli.tep ossocl.I.d sill lbs p.,it.t ssc o,y fs.ll itp. This
d.l.r..l is .1.. j..ei(i.d by lbsr1ey spsbs.p.t..s, so sib.. rsoods. .11.1
sill I. discoss.d h. i.v. TI. d.I.,nsi ho. lb. sUits .1 lsollaota$ lb. 0p01s
St.. of lb. tssd.qu.t. t Sol Itsososos pa_s sod Is. diacbo. 5 .. lass .i.cp
Ps , (or it los ’ s oo. so,. p.... vhs. c s ,od so lbs b_s plus. TIsoost
•ltnIItc.n e o.c.r guolley la .ct. 1... dI. eb. ’ s. fl lnsO sd and unersslsd s _ ss.
( not •lud 5 s or sib., ,s.Id.ot.) Iv lbs 1511* or. clout , Ibis 555oclot.4 ‘ill
ib. Quincy boy dischs,’ss .
As sIc.. in belts. 0 if V.1_st. Ill louse soefall soy vies, quality bso.lies.
or Isasite. I. soil.. sr s.ias. or Ii pisesceto. .1 p.111. bs.lib. I , .. lbs
•ll.oi.i. p1.. (for scc.l.,.s.d is0 s.7 Close_si) irs otaIssI flso Sto.
Ilbil. .ssso,sbl. cbs.... to 5_sit loso t c_ssoer.sI.. Ia lbs .Iat. so.. sip ho
prsjsce.4 so c sr.d ii lb. boss plo. is Ii s .erso.ly doubtful Ibis cbs . ... to
lb. spilso would occur is lbs ibis.-,.., ponisd oblch v.old rosule I . diii.,
.scss 1. 000liosossl.l or public h..lib. I. esolis’s cs.tt.d disc S, 5 .. if
11.1 blond .Illossc into Qstscp Isp boos dinois dsooost,sbl. sod Ooilstssd
odour.. ispiti. so uses, qosliep oovic otsl hostel p.111. 10.111 sod
roersolto.. Ii to not • roossooll. trod. off. TI. opisni . . Ipdrsolic copictlp
of Sb. Sooth Iiotrspolie.o Ips iso is b.t. iscr.ss.d by lb. usostroceiso .1 so).c
roIi’sIn o_sro. 5. lbs Clip ho. Ca lbs pose p.t.i.d sot. lb... Iacnoss.. .111
e,so.(.r psok Il_s If... .iebs, seor..o viebla lb. opolso .1 sv.n(l_s) 10 lbs
lows, costs. of lbs Ii b ls,.l I_sr. s lbs talss—i.l lossol Is to
•or,tc.. 0.4 lbs in.. toll topsoil, if lbs U1b 1...i b_s , if 350 o 5d Ii
Iboroby rssli..d. lbs.. pssIlau oft.ce. sill .se I. of lpdrsolts on so.tr..
ooneol csoco’s in Qulaip. Us....,. lbs 1511* o Ils_se. prv,s.ol. dsforria 1
o_slroce Coo of toll priso.y cspscilp . 5 Door bo1 i_sosltso of II. _slb
syssso 11... ton 01 Isise 0 p.o, sos sosibs. poor (or sirs — .so 1.1. .) 1.
vbicb lbs nail_s lydrsoltc cspsctip of lbs e Islsal e,.se_ss plsoe (250 sad)
s.d lb. co,ro.e cspocliy of lbs bt . 1 l.v.l s_sr (103 ..d) sr. .1 sorisos ny
.1 b.is .ocs.d.d. (This 5t ’ s . .ool rocoquta.. 1st lbs DUOS lb. 15(10 irs
sokia rsdocelso. I. UI I. lb. buseh Spots..)
II.. lbs c .i....ss. of Sb. slt.mei p1.. otlI I. _slsta . 4 diacbs s. of
•intaslly 1,051.4 s.o.s. so tacp Sop. sod poloist sosnilous if osinsilod
s.o.ss is lbs Osps.s.t Ii.., v. 1 5, 51.4 sod byposs.. .i sb Ose ls la.d elsie_sI
plosi for o i loose sso sir. p . . ,.
DTflIIAL 0? PSINAUT TYlAilsol? CAPACITY
II. 1511* 1.. roc.piunsd II . , lbs pros.os c_sit_si So so ssIfsII . 11. 1 ns.cb..
snos is... is sins oil.. off—sb.,. v i i i So. csnsids,sbly looio, to c_se_st
lbs. lb. prs.jooslp—.._s g ibis, to I so, oils outfall. Uhtl. eli. is sob
ctssnlp slol.d ‘liii. lbs I loot ropors. Ii Is sos vlsi. Ibse lbs Csori.os . doe.d
.cbsdu.1. to, coploetso sI lb. ortisli col I, sot if lbs sotf.ll 1. ..to.dsd
os fir a. oil.. iS on S Is d.eisln. uhich lbs City sopp.ui.). TI. air.... 1.
3
3 4
-------
lu 1 boys. eDo. 1. . dicue f ets . .1 eDo uisuosss I. eu .us l is.sth. ?o
pr.Sriss Irs.. soy, sits 3 to o.y. sits P. r.pr0505ti is Doer.... if lv. y.sr.
1 eunsi Dsri. ti. lbs eeresi.ttss is such s pr.jeet srs sore ha. .
dirsee touch.. .1 lb. l...tb 51 lbs hors. Dot oily do lbs odds . 1 “heletuiS 5
us0 15cr.... O 0 . liaise besisi tb. c..plitp of the bors. .perstts.
aersous subeloutisIly vith dists. e D orsbp tuersisist tb. .isbs .1 .t. D op
dun has. Th.r.f.,. It lessi u,, u ssesab l. to pu.j.el that lb. currest Court
scbsd.i. I.e. is. c l.%iou .1 lbs ..tllou soy is ,.slilp bs .i...4 by so such
55 “Iii ii5.
Sb, is this of sour.,. to 15oy? lull persuousi 15 ,5 postuisted lIst eDo
eurrout Doe lsl tr.its..t l.eilily s.d sutislis should sot b. dsestssiossd.
s.d un priasry trsSlou.t espscily se Dour Ii1s.d •hould sot be provided f.i lbs
Booth Systs.. ustil lbs iitf.l1 is toady to i .t.t ’s tbst diacbat i. fls
lUll Is. sr for the I.l.ri.i I. un Sr ..ro of tb l.llo .t . i. .ds.
first. that soDIS pesoit esiditieso unid .tDos,i.s ho .1.1.1.4. 3 .coud. that
vats. quality I. ohs .ic i.tty .1 Dour l.l s.d V1.lhrsy usuld ho .i u .tIies.lly
ouscssbat.d it tbs sllsrssti.s Id.. , Iliad Di i.. ours L.p1s.s.tid. Third. that
ss.sbo . l.sl.stso I. lbs Court .eb.duls ,. srdi. discbar . of Dot 3 .1. 1 14
. 11 luout %hr.. 5 b sus, Ds.v bud outl.l1 unld hi .l.lsted.
du . le.s .at Ius. tael ,sly d. toebsiestly Isosiblu by lbs lull. is to
cunt,vct tbs full priory trese...t csp.ciey (uilb or vtthsut 5 p . 1110. of lbs
o.c sry c.psc ley) tbs i.t.r—i.1 e.aduIe cou.i.t .sl vith lbs currust
Court ichod.i• (i999) s. ls.por.ry cs..srtio. 1• lbs s.i.lt . Door hod
outfull c.ud.it (.150 teststivsly d.e.,.15.J by lbs lOlU to Do tiebsieslly
ls..tbl.)i ,..dsr the spies. sp.riti.s.1 sit., tsotia Is 199S sad d.cisilss
lb. Doe aloud lasilily.
II. tutor. co.lieisou 15, d1ouDou . 55 psilutouts by 115 hulA a,. .slmlishsd
by lbs Court. is. ho usdilled by I I. Court ii uni.siry s.d spproprtsls.
This. s.d lbs llir of polisli.l d.Srsd.ti.. . 1 vats. qusflty I. lbs vitiate,
of Dii , hsl . sri iI id s. d sill ho dissussid tisth.r. first. I I ouSt he
roc.suiusd that lbs tilia. di.cbar$.i Is Prisidest bids eiistsl of trusted
elf lu.sl fri. Dii. i.l . dip.lid elul s Iris Diii hsl . sad dl$istsd sludge
Its. Doe bsl . Ibd s 11.ch.rgii .111 •es.s us Lalir lbs. .Iisssiy 1993.
p,ividia oujir isduseiess is lb. dlsibsrgss 51 cs.,sotie..l s.d .os-eo..ou-
tiessi p.lluts.ts es Pr..id.se ssds. ?r..eunt I. ss. pri.sey facilitt.s at
Is.. hoOd .111 uirs .ss Ilu ,s.oval s.d sisutfks.lly i.ere.ss TI! rs.s,.l. is
e .rid to lbs porfuns.cs .1 tbs ps.ss.t lest b.1 0.1 Dot Isbid lr..tuout
ploul.. Isslusi. . if pined sscusdsuy t,s.s.s.t unid psoridi ours the. sue-
third fu,tb., r.dueei.. is tbi.i l Ob. , 5 .. is viii .s riduci . tb. disebs,•i of
va.-cvs.lis..1 poll.ts.e.. Ti. lriuid .st lied. outlill. is c itid Is lbs
Qsioy lsy oullalls. pruvidus aig.iIIcoutly highir saint ..l.cItIi.. tbn.s
IL... cbs ut.r d.ptb. unb sr.stsr diseoucis to puhlicly-u.id b.eht. iris. -
ibsr .li.s., sad sts.tfIcs.t ly ii.. oupseuri to sehorviis—prslurtivo sbsllIl.b
flits. it is s.pece.d that s ses.-to-bs-n.iiisid IPA study es.eeru l.• Quiscy
Sup solo, quality heslel of lose.. .1.. iddid Is lb. otudi.. eoscir .iuu lbs
Pt.stdsst buds irs.. .U1 ii .. ebst 5 psuid of feiluli.. dtschargsd to Qutucy
Sup is of cousidirahly ours sisujilcuni eh. pou.d .1 pol luIiou diseb.rgsd to
Presideot beds. Psi tbess ross __ s Dusty bolt.,.. it to i..ppripristi to
riject out-el-baud the ci.slr.c lii. it lull priusty espocity it Doer biliud
of cbs 151st—island tussil. vith trostunt of lb. !eulb 17. 10. lIsso 51 Our
shad diichsrgsd throu 5 b the s.i.tis Pr.sidi.t sad. su IlsIl. It is further
b. Ii,vsd that so ss.iruut.eses i o.. . o e of cbs iptiun viii ds.sistrsti lbs
overall .upsri.rttp .1 lb. .ieo,astl,s ..t li .sd shun.
it Is ibm lIst lb. fi.ts . ees is tie ,e stimuli is. (I) h,stsus.t Dies...
tbsp idd,.ss.d a dillirost sie.stis. s.d (2) see prihibiti .s but sip ooutiou.ry.
lbs csspltc.ej.. to lb. residual. — — t pies,.. suited by s Isfiroil of
dicuntssiosi . if Dot fsl Ii. . ported if sonorsi yssrs ago cunit Di
ov.rlo .&od. Doris 5 the pirisd of dsfirrsl , i sv priory slud . usuld cash... 5
hi sser.tsd st Dot h.l • ,o.ld I.,. to Do trisepereid s.d tr.et.d through
sitber so .its.ai.. ii lbs tutu. sIud i prieeeai. 5 IieiItti.s •i it uov h ’ el
is. focilitioss vhils dig..tsd siuds. c i..l uilb ss .sc..darp 51.4g. fri.
Deer IsIsad vi ii b.tsg processed. lists the risiduuis .unUoueoe ficilittes
p1.. bus sit eossidir.d such . p..sibiltty. it is uholely ipecuislive to dtsc’es
lbs Space., but tbsp oust ho dovslsp.4 s.d esssidsu.d as part of lbs decisis.
procsus.
it s..t he ii ... lIst lb. City of Di.ey viii eppos., Issid is lbs 515 5s.t slits
.1 haouh.ds., asp d.lirrai if cu prism, hrselunt St Diii isi for bulb
Spats. 11... bipood lb. Court—scheduled dat. of 1999.
tI NA 5 5
I, Schedule for lbs !.ley-1.l . ,d so.Is.d South Suets. Doslis .
(Tots.. I V. licetsu 5)
no roe— p0 it 5o. sislis, 1’—tls. at deid. es.us.es
for the istor-isloud 10 .00* s.d for tb. Death Ipots.J is Stasis.. Is
•rd.r I. pr.utdi •ddittsosl has for vucirtsisties s.d sly. ,r.itot
a.svr . to lb. ietsi.u.st of lb. 994 c l.ei.u d.t.. lbs City ste .siy
supp.rls this roe udsei... It ts soled tiust tho seh.dul. pross.eu .aly
evil.. south. tsr lbs di.1 5 s, •unt..eeis.. s .d ass ly .5 lb. Thussi
b .risg iiscbtsa. That Is ils.hl is as eutro .sly oplisistic .5. liis. lbs
ri.Iitp sop he at i.sit Ivies thee. oil ovsrp sppo,toutly 10 pruvidi
eddttis.sL loud ho. siold I. tsh ’ e.
I. South Sists. Puliut
l.ction 5)
(Tols.o i v.
none 1. o outs is iigur. 1.1.1-A (paso 54) ohIo _ sts thee stsvtep if
lb. p isg .1.11.. should sot lugis u.,il the un . 51 luout utfsll to “ely
to r.eii,o us.le out... Cessistest .ieh the org e rabid .bun. this
portios of this sees should Do 1.1.1.1.
p
-------
i’ S(,
FRANKLIN PARK IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION INC .
. &tAuii kli , 1tt.ul 4M11’q
iuui*o..si (al PwgscL&o. 4qsa04
LV. ltaatd Vsdual &ulduq
—e . tZ4A (lilt
l *. sla i
PL*au M(p p%.4(tI $011 1 (Nb. Nubu Al p l s ’ . ’iLts (sq — potluLiou.
1k usa — .—.‘u u AM ktit*t u .qs . gdl . e s ...sa
du, s* .u4Lq c1s to houe. 14ds ci *suLi could M.tisq a o uAo ouu Macbsa
•àtU tah uua cauU * u cloud (outeu. sod 4.s sad t.b.Lu dcoeoui
couI4 acUsu. U doso.t hu .emu I. this up out us a (siLos llubu
b p . l’ i - lM —. Li .’ .oSCt4 (sq.
, A. - tq— .s
II. A. .u aU L.c.LLou .1 9111 4 — moat .ctu msa (tutu
icaU 0 (sUaL, (sU, C.Musl 1 u s A ‘ .‘ °‘s
I). 114is04 iod iW.AI*q pta .t .s kiLt - — .‘-—asalq , oo .tmoasUq
4’ s a L duchisq.4 .iato l .ea.cM .&eLLI Sap
( s dsq . .d .i .u . L U lb.MtUu*t4 tu Wu Sa.dsadi .
rii*st.
3. Pit... A..ll.bllIl . (i.lu.. I)
11 I. uo,..tjitje to, eli. (t..l ,.p.rt e. I. s ..vyla • titus
d.co . .l..1..ta 5 4.1. .1 l ii i . lb.,. 1. ..w .p1. .vtda.c. 1. 1b ,.s •,4.
..d I.. Ia .. I., •us It ... 11.1 liii 1. lb. . .,ll..l d.cusl..t..la 4. 1.
..4 tb.e ii 1.1 I i.. t.n.t .. Th. .toi. lb. ..nly ate. pr.p.n.lt . .
actistils. s. d •tb. , CI I I p1 t. .b..14 I. r.il..d 5 Ib.1 pit...
d.c.t..Io .1. I. 1101 I. lb.. b... pt.. Tb. ..cou..ry l .ci .llI .tlss
•..r.•. ‘ . . ‘ has. sad ltlpI. ..tul.1. b•sdlta 5 .squtn . .i. 1 . ..d
by lb., d.l.p .bould b. t.c.vp.i.s.A Lu. • •up,l . ..st.I (last i.poil.
bald I .1 lb. C1 11 .1 Sslacp. I slab t• .zpnaa. my spp,.clall.. Is. lb.
opponlustly to .I(.n lb... c l.. 3 .1... VLS I lb. sbs.nstt.s lIst lb.
IIa.I ,.p.r1 .1 lb. a.e s .y ,mlusu (stilt, st ph.. La sa sataIssdl.S Sal •I
dscouts. I.. vItal lb. u.st,fb.t.,. sod . ia.b.I1 4 . ..n. cusIdu.bl. maul.
1 5*y £Aaauttq
Adtlt J. sa Vol ..
COSAUIIOr4LPI 5 52* 52*041
((PA ri’ Li LU (A liqiat Tsoh
£ ,iA 4s.fbD
(sq 1 , l u
tI. 11 t- t’q Au5 t
NO REVERE, MA 02151 P36
pS.lIv 1y.
Duell (lan d is ,. P.S. /
Cus. ltsa i I. lb. GIly .y’Qst.CP
c c i Cc1..la.., M l. ,. . .
Psi., loll, Caq.in.
I tc I sni Pa.
Is.... G.. Lip...
0. 1 11... 1. Dull
p
a
------- |