1
U II R
JFI r’- AR?
(j )3-22i 1
SITING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES FOR BOSTON HARBOR
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Final Environmental Impact Report
Wednesday, January 15, 1986
Winthrop Middle School
Winthrop, Mass.
7:30 p.m.
Barry Lawson, Lawson Associates, Moderator
LEAVITT & EINSTEIN
Administrative Offices 0 TIMI’ c Boston Office
541 COLUMBIAN ST P0 BOX 13 I ‘I’, 8 WHITTIER PLACE
SO WE’VMDUTH HA 02190 SIIPIO1 IPd . 9 .poiIi’iq BOSTON MA 021
AREA CODE 61? AREA CODE 61?
3354791 CONVENTIONS — HEARINGS — CONFERENCES — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 335-6791

-------
2
1 INDEX
Call to order 3
2 Comments 9
Adjournment 115
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT 6 FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
3
1 THE MODERATOR: Good evening,
2 ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the third
3 of three public hearings on the Final
4 Environmental Impact Statement and Final
5 Environmental Impact Report of the Wastewater
6 Treatment Facilities in Boston Harobr.
7 My name is Barry Lawson, and I am
8 serving as Moderator of this hearing. This
9 session is sponsored by the Massachusetts Water
10 Resources Authority and the United States
11 Environmental Protection Agency.
12 The purpose of this hearing is to have
13 the officials of these public agencies receive
14 your testimony concerning the three reports. It
15 is important to realize the different roles of
16 the two agencies. The Massachusetts Water Resources
17 Authority is responsible for selecting the site
18 for the wastewater treatment facilities. Both
19 the Authority and the Environmental Protection
20 Agency are responsible for conducting
21 independent evaluations sites of environmental
22 acceptability. In addition, EPA provi des
23 federal financial assistance if available and
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
4
1 assures rapid compliance with the Federal Clean
2 Water Act.
3 Nearly 10 months ago a series of
4 information meetsing and hearings were held, EPA
5 and the MWRA to explain the content of the draft
6 EIS and EIR which has been prepared jointly by
7 the two agencies. As you will recall, the draft
8 documents now in —— of alternatives under
9 consideration by the agencies.
10 The three public hearings held at that
11 time solicited the views and concerns of the
12 greeter Boston public, especially those of the
13 communities most potentially and directly
14 effected. Several hundred pages of transcripts
15 plus many thoughtful statements resulted from
16 those hearings. The agencies reviewed all of
17 these comments and directed the consultants to
18 undertake new or expanded studies to understand
19 as much as possible about potential impacts of
20 the wastewater treatment project, and to
21 formulate a set of mitigation measures to
22 minimize and in some cases avoid the adverse
23 impacts which could be anticipated.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
5
1 These studies have been completed, and
2 the final recommendations of the two agencies
3 are presented in the respective Final
4 Environmental Impact Statement and Final
5 Environmental Impact Report. The two principal
6 agencies have continued on a parallel course
7 during this time and as sponsoring these
8 hearings to receive your written and oral
9 testimony.
10 You are probably familiar with the four
11 EIS and two EIR volumes. I understand that an
12 executive summary of the Environmental Impact
13 Report and volume 1 and selected other volumes
14 of the Environmental Impact Statement are
15 available outside this hail. All volumes are
16 also available in several libraries in the
17 region. Please check at the desk outside the
18 hall should you wish a volume that you do not
19 presently have.
20 Tonight we are pleased to have
21 representatives from both the Water Resources
22 Authority and the Environmental Protec tion
23 Agency here. Let me introduce them to you.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
6
1 From the Authority and to my right is Mr.
2 Michael Gritzuk, the Executive Director of the
3 Authority. With Mr. Gritzuk and to my left are
4 several members of the Authority’s Board of
5 Directors. In order they are, to my left, Mr.
6 Anthony Fletcher, Mr. Paul Anderson, Mr. Charles
7 Lyons, Mr. Tom Arnold, Jonathan Souweine, and
8 John Carroll and Lorraine Downey.
9 From the Environmental Protection
10 Agency, let me introduce, to the right of Mr.
11 Gritzuk, Mr. Michael Deland, the Regional
12 Administrator of Region 1 of the Environmental
13 Protection Agency. To his right is Steve Ells,
14 Director of the Intergovernmental Program for
15 EPA.
16 Mr. Gritzuk and Mr. Deland will both
17 make opening statements. After these statements
18 I will recognize one at a time a number of
19 people who have been identified by the Town of
20 Winthrop as lead off speakers and to speak for
21 the community. After their presentations, I
22 will recognize people who have signei.on these
23 yellow slips at the top of the hall. They’ve
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
7
1 signed in to indicate that they would like to
2 make statements. I will recognize those people
3 and take your oral statements.
4 A couple of ground rules for this
5 evening’s hearing. First, when you are called
6 upon, I would like to have you stand at the
7 microphone down at the front. If you would
8 speak loudly and please give us your name and
9 address. Also, at the time that I announce you
10 as a speaker, I will also announce the on—deck
11 speaker so that he or she can be prepared.
12 The general order will be federal,
13 state, and local officials, and we’ll also,
14 every third speaker or so, make sure that we
15 have some of the local citizens and
16 organizations. I do understand that we are
17 expecting some state and federal officials here.
18 They may not be here at the present time, but
19 when they come and I recognize them, we’ll have
20 them speak as soon as possible.
21 Tonight is a hearing, and as such there
22 will be no opportunity for after dialogue or
23 questions and answer between the speakers and
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
8
1 the hearing officers. You should know, however,
2 that all the comments that are made, both the
3 local testimony as well as written comments,
4 will be seriously considered by both agencies
5 before final decisions by both are made in
6 February.
7 You should also recognize that the
8 hearing record will remain open for roughly
9 another week. I believe that the Enviromental
10 Impact Statement hearing, or EPA, is open until
11 the 21st of January, and the record for the
12 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority until
13 the 24th.
14 With respect to the written testimony
15 to be submitted to the Authority, you are asked,
16 if you would, please, to submit your comments
17 care of James Hoyte in the MEPA unit in the
18 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. If
19 you care also to send a copy of that to the
20 Authority, you may do so. Comments sent to the
21 Environmental Protection Agency may be addressed
22 directly to Mike Deland, the Regiona1
23 Administrator.
tEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
9
1 As this is the last of the three
2 hearings, this is the last opportunity for the
3 public to verbalize their thoughts and
4 statements about the project.
5 At this point I would like to turn it
6 over for an opening statement from Mr. Gritzuk.
7 MR. GRITZiJK: Thank you. I am
8 Michael Gritzuk. I’m the Executive Director of
9 the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. On
10 behalf of the Authority members and myself, I
11 appreciate all of you coming out tonight, and I
12 also appreciate the comments that you have
13 prov.ided to us this evening.
14 The selection of a preferred site for
15 Boston Harbor’s secondary sewage treatment plant
16 has been a primary item on the Board’s agenda
17 since its members were first sworn in on
18 February 27th of last year. The Board knew that
19 the decision would be among the most difficult
20 and controversial it would ever have to make.
21 It approached this decision with the knowledge
22 that the prospective host community .ould be
23 asked to bear a tremendous burden to provide a
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
10
1 service critical to the lives of the almost two
2 million residents of the Authority’s district.
3 Tonight, I would like to briefly review
4 the elements on this decision—making process and
5 offer a few comments of my own.
6 Soon after the Authority’s board was
7 sworn in, it made a commitment to select a
8 preferred alternative site for the new harbor
9 treatment plant by July of last year. The Board
10 began by selecting eight criteria as a basis for
11 reaching its decision. Those criteria are:
12 enhancement of the harbor, implementability,
13 impacts on neighbors, impacts on cultural and
14 natural resources, cost, reliability, mitigation-
15 and equitable distribution of regional
16 responsibilities.
17 It is particularly worth noting that
18 the last two of these criteria, mitigation and
19 equitable distribution of regional
20 responsibilities, was added to the six original
21 criteria. The Board specifically added these
22 two criteria in order to be responsive to the
23 needs of the community selected to host the new
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
11
1 facility.
2 Long hours of expert testimony by
3 Authority consultants and staff and others with
4 a stake in the outcome stretched into weeks and
5 then also stretched into months. The process,
6 carried out in meetings open to the public and
7 the press, exhaustively reviewed every aspect of
8 this most complex and difficult decision. Board
9 members probed and challenged, questioned and
10 then questioned again. It was one of the most
11 thorough processes ever completed for the
12 construction of a public facility.
13 True to its promise, on July 10th of 1985,
14 the Board met at the Boston Aquarium and made
15 the difficult selection of the preferred
16 alternative site. It selected Deer Island as
17 that preferred site. Lost in a fallout of the
18 site selection were two other Board votes
19 important to the host community, and I would
20 like to go over those. One vote committed the
21 Authority to work with any and all public
22 officials and agencies to remove and elocate
23 any other institutions on the selected site, and
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
12
the second vote stated the Board’s desire not to
site the sludge disposal facilities at the
selected site
In the case of Winthrop, the Board vote
to move any existing institutions translates
into relocation of the Deer Island House of
Correction. We have recently received written
commitments from both Governor Dukakis and Mayor
Flynn to work with us to move the prison. We
not only believe this should be done, we believe
it can be done. The Board feels the use of the
entire island fo the new plant would not only
insure efficient operation and effective
supression of noise and odor, it will also be
more fair to the people of Winthrop who have had
to endure this institution as a neighbor for too
long. We urge EPA to join us in our efforts to
accomplish this necessary goal.
Other. Board. commitments are also most
important, and I would like to go over them. 1,
barging of construction materials to the site to
the maximum extent feasible, and busin g or
ferrying of workers;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
r
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
13
1 2, using the best available
2 technologies which are economically feasible
3 during construction of the plant to minimize
4 noise; and also to surpass the legal noise
5 standards set up by the City of Boston. We’ll
6 also set up an aggressive monitoring program
7 with the detection equipment and an oversight
8 panel made up of citizens and experts to monitor
9 I this activity;
10 3, a goal of no off—site odor. Working
11 to prevent odors at the source by controlling
12 materials which enter the system; implementing
13 on—site odor control systems, and establishing
14 aggressive monitoring programs with a citizen
15 and expert oversight panel;
16 4, the Authority is now completing its
17 study of alternatives to the use of chlorine as
18 a disinfectant and will conduct a thorough
19 investigatipn through the, facilities planning
20 activity. While chlorine continues to be used,
21 the Authority is committed to maximizing safety
22 of workers and the public through emergency
23 training and the use of safety equipment.
LE VITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
14
5, using the whole island for the
treatment plant, which has significant impacts
on plant design and thus affects operations and
maintenance, noise, odor, visual impact, and
landscaping plans, as well as providing optimum
recreational opportunities
6, providing adequate budget and
for the proper operations and maintenance
facility.
And finally 7, undertaking aggressive
management and planning initiatives which will
assist in the proper functioning of the
facilities and avoid the need for plant ex
expansion.
staff
of the
To the people of Winthrop, my comments
tonight might seem to be so much more talk, but
we are here to tell you that the Authority will
deliver on its word. As an illustration of this,
I can point, totheagreement we ha erecent1y
reached with the Board of Selectmen of Winthrop
after long hours of negotiations concerning
mitigation efforts in relationship tc the
emergency improvement planned for the current
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
15
1 Deer Island facility. That agreement, which is
2 an existing binding agreement, includes more
3 than $1 million of funding for dealing with
4 traffic problems, transportation of materials
5 and workers, odor, noise, and other matters
6 relating to construction, can serve as a model
7 for discussions focusing on the new plant.
8 We invite you to watch how well we do
9 in this mitigation agreement as an illustration
10 of our performance and as an illustration of
11 things to come in the future.
12 In the years to come, many will talk
13 about helping to balance the burden of hosting
14 this new treatment facility, but only one
15 organization will have the job of actually
16 delivering the results. And that organization
17 is the Mass Water Resources Authority. We are
18 ready to work with the people of Winthrop, to
19, make the best of a, very difficult situation. We
20 hope that they are also ready to work with us.
21 Thank you.
22 THE MODERATOR: Mr. Delánd.
23 MR. DELAND: Thank you. Good
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
16
1 evening. My name is Mike Deland, and I’m
2 Regional Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
3 Protection Agency for the New England region. I,
4 too, thank all of you for taking the time this
5 whole evening to attend this hearing and express
6 your opinions of siting of wastewater treatment
7 facilities for Boston Harbor.
8 I know that each of you is aware of the
9 severity of the problem facing Boston Harbor..
10 Siting of construction of new treatment
11 facilities are essential first steps in cleaning
12 up the harbor.
13 Ten months ago we held here, in this
14 very hall, a similar hearing gathering input on
15 the draft version of the Environmental Impact
16 Statement on treatment facility siting. Since
17 that time, many changes have taken place, and
18 much progress has been made.
19 The Authority has rapidly d.eveloped
20 into a competent and effective agency. In
21 inspiring new confidence that a clean harbor
22 would indeed be a reality.
23 On a personal note, it’s been a
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
17
1 pleasure for me to work with Mike Gritzuk and
2 see first hand the thoughtful leadership that he
3 and in a very short time has brought to the
4 Board. Further, the Board itself has taken its
5 responsibilities extremely seriously. I know of
6 no other organization in this Commonwealth that
7 has evidenced the dedication to its job that
8 this Board has. It has met often and taken its
9 responsibilities extremely seriously. An
10 example of public service at its very best.
11 In particular, Peg Riley, who I see in
12 the audience tonight, has lived with this
13 problem for longer than most of us, eight years,
14 attended each one of the public hearings held,
15 not only this year but last year. She has
16 represented the interests of Winthrop agressively
17 and well. And Peg, I commend you on your
18 remarkable example of public service. We can
19 all take inspiration from the job that you have
20 done.
21 EPA and the Authority have worked to
22 address the concerns voiced at our last public
23 hearings. New technical studies have been
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
18
1 performed so that we may better understand the
2 impacts of building and operating treatment
3 facilitiesanddevelopwaysof avoiding or
4 mitigating those exhibits.
5 EPA endorses the Authority’s tentative
6 decision that Deer Island is the best site for a
7 Boston Harbor treatment plant. But that
8 determination is wedded to several mitigation
9 measures designed to protect the community of
10 Winthrop from possible impacts of building and
11 operating one of the world’s largest treatment
12 plants. Among the mandatory mitigation measures
13 required by EPA: barging of construction
14 materials and equipment to reduce trucking
15 through Winthrop; busing and ferrying of
16 construction workers to reduce commuter traffic
17 in Winthrop and East Boston during construction
18 period; use of maximum feasible degree of odor
19 control and investigation of state of the art
20 odor control technology; a ban, a ban of the use
21 of liquid chlorine unless there is clear and
22 convincing need for it, and all steps have been
23 taken to ensure its safe use; prohibition
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
19
1 against trucking chlorine through Winthrop as
2 soon as piers and staging areas are available;
3 and maximum noise control measures.
4 EPA is committed to guarantee that the
S mandatory mitigation measures are carried out by
6 making those measures a condition of any federal
7 construction grants and possibly invoking the
8 independent authority of the federal courts.
9 But, it is ultimately the responsibility of the
10 Authority to guarantee appropriate and tough
11 mitigation measures to protect the citizens of
12 Winthrop. Given the concern the Board has
13 evidenceed thus far, I am confident that that
14 will happen.
15 Clearly, siting the secondary treatment
16 facility on Deer Island is not a course you, the
17 residents of Winthrop, would have chose. But a
18 modern, well—run secondary plant could and
- .19.- s-hou1d be a bette .r neighbor than the disgraceful
20 conditions which now abuts you.
21 Clearly, the removal of the prison
22 would have a beneficial impact on you lives.
23 applaud the commitment of Governor Dukakis and
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
20
1 Mayor Flynn and the legislative leadership to
2 move the prison; but I must confess disappointment
3 that no concrete steps have yet been taken to
4 accomplish that move. The time to relocate the
5 prison is now. Planning and design for the new
6 treatment plant will commence in February.
7 As much as I personally join with you
8 in Winthrop in wanting the prison to be moved, I
9 cannot permit harbor clean up to be held hostage
10 to the relocation of the prison. I pledge to do
11 all that I can to assist those whose
12 responsibility it is to move the prison. But I
13 again stress that I cannot allow the prison or
14 anything else to still further delay the long,
15 long overdue clean up of Boston Harbor.
16 Under a related note, the Authority’s
17 decision to relocate the treatment plant on Deer
18 Island was predicated in part on preserving the
19 recreationa,l potential of Long Island. That
20 potential must be preserved in perpetuity for
21 you and for generations to come. A legally binding
22 commitment creating the Long Island ‘ark and
23 opening it for access to all must be executed
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
21
1 soon. I again call on the political leadership
2 of the City and of the Commonwealth to do just
3 that.
4 After years of neglect, we at last have
5 and must now maintain momentum toward a clean
6 harbor. EPA’s overriding responsibility is to
7 ensure that the treatment plant is built and
8 built on schedule. I pledge to you tonight to
9 I join in working with you, the Authority, the
10 Governor, Mayor, and legislative leadership, to
11 see that the plant is built, the prison is moved,
12 and the park is created.
13 Parenthetically, I was delighted on
14 Monday night to hear the leadership of the City
15 of Quincy and its residents join in that support.
16 Only then will we have a clean alive and
17 accessible Boston Harbor.
18 Once again, I thank you for coming. I
19 .loolç.forward, to b a,ri ng your comments. -
20 THE MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll
21 now begin taking the testimony, and I again
22 remind those of you who have not yet !filled out
23 these yellow sheets, if you would like to speak,
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
22
1 to please do so at the top of the hall.
2 The first speaker will be Ronald
3 Vecchia, Chairman of the Board of selectmen of
4 the Town of Winthrop.
5 MR. VECCHIA: I would just like to
6 first set the record straight on a few things.
7 With all due respect to Mr. Gritzuk, you did
8 make a comment relative to the fast—track
9 mitigation package that was signed. I know
10 there was some signals crossed today with legal
11 counsel for both ends. That has not been signed
12 by this Town yet. We expect the Town to
13 accomplish it, but at this point in time it has
14 not been signed. So I would like that to be
15 reflected as well.
16 Number 2, I would like to —— it’s not
17 very often that I agree with Mr. Deland. I
18 would like to settle this evening about the
19 .mq vemerkt,.of the prison. I would like tg .hear
20 this, with or without the treatment plant, we
21 would like the prison moved. One other thing,
22 again before my prepared remarks, I wo uld like
23 to teke this opportunity, as Mr. Deland did, to
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
23
1 thank one individual in this room, specifically;
2 that’s Peggy Riley, for outstanding work in
3 providing leadership on behalf of the people of
4 Winthrop, representing their interests on the
5 Water and Sewer Authority. There is no doubt
6 that she is a minority.
7 On July 10th, 1985, a group of
8 political appointees, working in the name of
9 fairness, stated for the record what had been
10 the public perception for years, that Winthrop
11 would pay -- Winthrop would play, I should say -—
12 in the sewage bowl. The decision screened by
13 the word “tentative came as no surprise to the
14 people of Winthrop. We have been running game
15 plans on harbor clean up for years, like that of
16 the New England Patriots, our battered response
17 for 26 years of frustration. Make no mistake
18 about it, our fight continues.
19 Over the course of the last six months,
20 this community has had its up and downs in the
21 courts, in meetings with elected officials, and
22 with positions taken by public servants,
23 including Governor Dukakis and Mayor Flynn. On
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
24
1 the very evening of the Authority’s decision,
2 our Governor said, and I quote, “I would rather
3 live next to a sewerage treatment plant than a
4 prison.” He went on to pledge to move the house
5 of correction. Hours earlier, Mayor Raymond
6 Flynn decided that his choice for the expanded
7 facility was Deer Island too. He also pledged
8 to see the prison moved. Not long after Flynn
9 pledged for a new site for the prison, some of
10 the potential locations in Boston became part of
11 the proposals, some from out of state developers.
12 Once again the people of Winthrop have
13 been victims of talk and empty promises. Since
14 the decision, not one constructive document, not
15 a plan, not even legislation, has been sponsored
16 by either leader to back up their promises and
17 pledges to the people of Winthrop. In fact,
18 both the Governor and the Mayor had a golden
19 opportunity in dealing with the relocation issue,
20 but the legislature passed a new fronting bill
21 for the Charles Street Jail in the closing days
22 of the 1985 legislative year. A miss d
23 opportunity for sure. However, Winthrop is not
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
25
1 surprised. Make no mistake about it, ladies and
2 gentlemen, our fight continues.
3 Several weeks ago I had an opportunity
4 to spend a full day with all of the parties
5 involved in the now infamous federal suit. We
6 toured Boston Harbor and viewed facilities in
7 the sewerage network. During the discussion
8 with an MWRA official, I was relating the
9 concerns of the residents of our town as it
10 regards to expansion and, just as important,
11 our desire for a cleaner harbor. This community
12 knows only too well the effects of a polluted
13 harbor on our quality of life. After relating
14 our concerns regarding harbor clean—up, the MWRA
15 official shot back at me, “Well, why did you
16 nail our hides to the wall?” referring to a
17 legal suit against the state.
18 Let me now answer that question for the
19 record, for that very official is in this room
20 this evening. About the same time that the New
21 England Patriots were joining the AFC, the MDC
22 was designing a state of the art sewc.rage
23 treatment plant for Deer Island. It was the
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
26
1 state’s answer to Boston Harbor’s ills. No more
2 sewage was to pollute the beaches of Winthrop
3 and the surrounding areas. Yes, he said to us
4 then, as you say to us now, “Trust us.” Once
5 again we hear the political rhetoric and we read
6 in the volumes of reports generated on this
7 expansion plan: “the impacts would be minimal.
8 This will be a state of the art. You will have
9 input. You will be protected. We’ll move the
10 prison. We’ll mitigate the noise and odor.”
11 The song is the same in many cases, and in many
12 cases the names of the players are the same.
13 The only thing that is really changed, ladies
14 and gentlemen, is the team franchise. Make no
15 mistake about it, our fight continues.
16 About the same time some of us turned
17 in our season tickets to answer the call to
18 service in South East Asia the new Deer Island
19 Pumping Station went on line. The day the big
20 noisy engines were fired and began pumping they
21 were obsolete. Thus another chapter begins. It
22 was all down hill from there. As brclkdown upon
23 breakdown occurred, the water quality of the
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
27
1 greater Winthrop area deteriorated. The once
2 fertile shellfish beaches that many of us as
3 youngsters enjoyed and ventured upon became
4 untouchable.
5 Part of Winthropdied, ladies and
6 gentlemen, in the mid ‘60s. It died out of
7 neglect of the system, a system that felt more
8 responsive to concerts on the Charles than
9 providing a clean environment for our children.
10 Yes, a part of Winthrop did die, and there are
11 no mitigations that will replace what our
12 children have been missing in growing up in the
13 seashore community. Could it have happened in
14 communities like Cohasset, Hull, Duxbury or
15 Plymouth? in Marshfield, Scituate and Kingston?
16 Probably not. They, after all, are affluent
17 communities, not effluent. Make no mistake
18 about it, our fight continues.
19 About the-same t.irne. t-he Patriots played
20 their first game in the Orange Bowl an
21 organization called MAPC, the Metropolitan Area
22 Planning Counsel, released a master p1 an on
23 Boston Harbor islands. The plan called for
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
28
1 recreation on Deer Island including picnic areas,
2 boat marines, passive recreation, and just open
3 space for kids, young and old, to enjoy. It was
4 to be the North Shore’s access to the Harbor
5 Islands.
6 Also during that period of time,
7 volumes of reports have been generated on
8 cleaning up the harbor. Little known hearings
9 which seemed unimportant were held, and a series
10 of decisions were made within the system that
11 started the wheels moving towards the rationale
12 that all Dear Island plan —— Satellite treatment
13 was quickly eliminated. Options were dropped
14 with little or no input from the Town. And
15 strangely enough, ladies and gentlemen, Deer
16 Island was dropped from the Boston Harbor
17 recreation plan.
18 At the same time, the legislature was
19 moving on anot.herfront-: to reorganize the MDC
20 Sewerage Division and make it separate from the
21 legislative process. That put it squarely in
22 control of the Governor and the Mayor of Boston.
23 The scams were crashing down in favor of
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
29
1 politics over reason and fairness. As the
2 veteran players got walked down the field, the
3 coaches were called in now to revise the game
4 plan. At mid point in the game, enter a new
5 player: the Massachusetts Water Resources
6 Authority. By an act of legislation a new name
7 for an old problem; some fresh new faces; but
8 more importantly, many of the old players with
9 I new titles and the same stats.
10 In a season opener, on July 10th, 1985,
11 the Authority kicked off with the decision to
12 site the new harbor treatment facility at Deer
13 Island. We submit this decision is based on the
14 same old game. All of the reports to date have
15 been biased against the Town of Winthrop. Two
16 sets of standards were used in discussing the
17 environmental impacts on Winthrop versus that of
18 Quincy of that of Long Island.
19 The list goes on and. on and stated in
20 detail by our legal counsel and technical
21 consultant this evening. Make no mistake about
22 it, ladies and gentlemen, our fight continues.
23 And the weeks and months that have
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
30
1 passed since that day at the Aquarium conference
2 room, there have been some who have suggested
3 that the path I’ve chosen to fight is a losing
4 one. There have been some setbacks. However,
5 the path we have chosen is the only one that
6 treats this community fairly and equally. And
7 that path is the courts. We shall persist and
8 press for mitigations that are substantive and
9 legally binding as opposed to empty promises.
10 We will do what is necessary through legislature
11 to sponsor legislation that will protect our
12 community, and we’ll not sit to idle talk and
13 promises from either the Governor of the
14 Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the Mayor of
15 Boston.
16 Our town existence is at stake here.
17 And for those of you in the Authority who take
18 our legal battle personally, let me remind you
19 that this community has been dealing with this
20 issue for only 30 years, and we take it very
21 personally. We have been dealing with a system
22 that has been stacked against the Towrof
23 Winthrop, a system that has thrust upon the
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
31
1 people of our community Logan International
2 Airport, the Dear Island House of Correction,
3 and the MDC’S legacy to the water and sewer
4 authority, the Pumping Station at Deer Island.
5 As long as the system continues to treat this
6 community unfairly in its actions, policies, and
7 needs, I pledge to you this evening, on behalf
8 of my colleagues on the Board of Selectmen and
9 the people of Winthrop, that we’ll continue to
10 press in the courts. Make no mistake about it,
11 our fight continues.
12 In the Winthrop Town Hall there is a
13 plaque dedicated toll Winthrop patriots who
14 stood in vigilance on Cottage Hill overlooking
15 Dear Island. They were waiting to warn the
16 inhabitants that the British were coming.
17 Little did those patriots know that another
18 adversary would stock the Town on that very
19 location.
20 We the people of this current
21 generation stand vigilant in that same spirit
22 against those who would harm the qua1i ty of life
23 of our residents. We insist on equal
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
32
1 representation in the process, legally binding
2 mitigations and final review before any action
3 is implemented. Fairness and just compensation
4 to the people of Winthrop is paramount. If the
5 system continues to fail us, then this Board of
6 Selectmen will once again lead the fight. If
7 all else fails, we’ll stand shoulder to shoulder
8 with the citizens of this Town, for as the
9 leaders of this community, it is our obligation
10 to protect the rights of our citizens.
11 The ball is in your end, Mr. Gritzuk.
12 You can run the same plays those before you have
13 run, or you can kindle a new spirit of fairness
14 and leadership so that once again the people of
15 Winthrop will be able to live without fear or
16 confrontation or litigation. Our hope for the
17 future is that our Town will once again be a
18 place that it was for many of us as children,
19 and that fairness will dictate reason. Make no
20 mistake about it, our fit continues. The ball
21 is yours, Mr. Gritzuk. Thank you. (Handing)
22 THE MODERATOR: Thank y u. Is
23 Congressman Markey here, or has he arrived?
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
33
1 The next speaker will be State
2 Representative Alan Saggese, and he will be
3 followed by Robert Noonan.
4 MR. SAGGESE: Thank you very much,
5 Mr. Chairman.
6 First, I would like to thank all of you
7 who have been faced with the bitter cold this
8 evening to join us here this evening. It’s
9 really people like yourself who have kept the
10 waters boiled for this particular fight. Nobody
11 can fight it for you.
12 I would also like to thank the news
13 media here who happen to be covering this
14 important event for the Town of Winthrop.
15 I would like to begin —— I really have
16 no prepared remarks, first of all because I have
17 said what I am about to say many many times. I
18 think the people in this room know how I feel
19 aboutthis issue. I’ve stood with the selectmen.
20 I’ve stood with our other public officials for
21 many, many years in fighting this battle.
22 But I do have a lot of resp&&t for the
23 people who walked through this auditorium prior
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
34
1 to the meeting, who stand outside tonight.
2 They’re not giving up. They’re making a
3 statement. Because I know, too, that many times
4 I’ve addressed this Board, and boards like this,
5 on this issue, and felt as though I have been
6 talking to deaf ears.
7 And that’s their statement tonight,
8 that whatever we say, whatever they may have to
9 say to you tonight is not going to be listened
10 to. The decisions have all been made. And in a
11 sense that’s true. The decisions have been made.
12 And we’ve been getting a lot of lip service from
13 new found friends. New found friends who have
14 indicated mitigative factors.
15 But I just want to say that I have a
16 lot of respect for the people who are outside
17 standing in the cold tonight, who really care
18 about this Town, who are really part of the team
19 effort that I want to talk about tonight.
20 And this has been a team effort, and
21 I’m very proud to be a part of that. Your Board
22 of Selectmen, people of the Town shou d be very
23 proud of what they’ve done and the way we’ve
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
35
1 worked together; like members of the selectmen,
2 myself, and Senator Lopresti, and Board of
3 Selectmen, and concerned citizens.
4 Each has their own tactic, each has
5 their own methods, concerned citizens with their
6 demonstrations, the Board of Selectmen with the
7 well-founded lawsuit which I’ve had the
8 opportunity to peruse and to speak to their
9 lawyers about, which I feel -has a very fine
10 chance of prevailing. What I’ve done in the
11 legislature and the threats that I’ve made of
12 opening the gut, all of us have taken our
13 different tactics, but we all have the same goal:
14 and that’s to stop this misdirected and
15 unethical project that you have placed upon us.
16 Lately, our little team has received
17 some lip service, as I said. Governor Dukakis
18 says he wants to move the prison. Mayor Flynn
19 said he wants to move the prison. The Water
20 Resources Authority throws us a bone. EPA
21 throws us a bone that they’re mitigaing factors
22 which stuck with this plan. Mr. DelaA’d has said
23 that he would like the prison to be moved, and I
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
36
1 commend him for saying that. However, the
2 report of the Authority says that they plan to
3 have this sewerage treatment plant in Winthrop
4 whether or not the Deer Island House of
5 Correction is moved or not.
6 That’s wrong. That’s absolutely wrong.
7 It’s unethical. It’s unfounded. It’s unfair.
8 If everyone agrees that the prison should be
9 moved then it should be mandated that the prison
10 be moved before we are hosted with this terrible
11 treatment plant amongst our Town. And as I said
12 before, we’ve heard talk, “We’re removing that
13 ugly and archiac prison.” We have heard talk
14 about barging all construction workers in and
15 all construction materials in, and we’ve all
16 heard talk about helping us in any way we can to
17 alleviate the burden to mitigate.
18 But talk is cheap. We have to see
19 something in writing, as the Selectmen and
20 Chairman of the Board of Selectmen has said. We
21 have to see something concrete. But both the
22 Governor and Mayor Flynn should come forward and
23 do more than give lip service with a letter.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
37
1 I’ve heard political promises. I have been in
2 the game 12 years. I’ve heard many politicians
3 say things, that, perhaps they mean it; but
4 whether or not those things get done or not are
5 not always true.
6 The Governor of our Commonwealth, whom
7 I respect, made a statement when he first ran,
8 lead pipe guarantee he wouldn’t raise taxes. My
9 I first year in the legislature and I had to vote,
10 my first big vote was the Governor’s plan to
11 raise the taxes more than any other governor had
12 in the history of this Commonwealth. And he was
13 sincere when he made that promise just as I’m
14 sure as when he makes the promise that he’ll
15 remove that prison.
16 But it has to be firmer than that. We
17 cannot accept lip service. We have to see
18 legislation. We have to see something in
19 writing.
20 sludge management should be off site.
21 That’s intolerable even to consider the fact
22 that we are to have the treatment plaint among
23 our midst with sludge management also there.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
38
1 And traffic and noise measures have not been
2 addressed adequately, as far as 1 can see.
3 ALthough we may not agree with these mitigating
4 factors, and perhaps if you come forward with
5 them we’ll say no because our lawsuit continues.
6 I think tonight we should call for a
7 signed agreement signed by all of the parties,
8 including Governor Dukakis and including Mayor
9 Flynn, EPA, and the Water Resources Authority;
10 and I must tell you that the people outside are
11 not the only warriors. There are many people
12 amongst this Town who are fighters.
13 And the message I would like to give to
14 this Board and to the people that are here
15 tonight, perhaps you’ll go back, and a question
16 is asked rhetorically “Have they given up?’ 4 We
17 have not given up on Winthrop. Have they
18 stopped coming? Have they stopped complaining?
19 Are they going to accept this reasonably and
20 rationally? -
21 I want to let them know they are
22 warriors in Winthrop and not giving u . If the
23 people are prepared to take on another fight,
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
39
1 perhaps in the Street, perhaps in other corners,
2 the court streets, the legislation, I’ve said
3 before, whatever has to be done to stop this
4 illfounded project will be done.
5 There were some young people here
6 tonight, and I guess if they were here they
7 would respond by telling you that there are
8 words to a very new recording out, which is
9 about another underdog like the Town of Winthrop,
10 Rocky Balboa and his quest against the Russian
11 in Rocky IV, and that the words of the song by a
12 group called Survivor and the song called
13 Burning Heart. It says in the warriors code
14 there is no surrender. So his body says stop
15 and the spirit says never.
16 And that’s the message I want to leave
17 this evening. We’re never going to stop. We’re
18 never going to quit. And I know I speak not
19 only for the public officials we join hands in
20 but also the many people who have continued to
21 fight, and hopefully we will win this battle.
22 THE MODERATOR: Thank y&ü. I note
23 Congressman Markey has arrived, and Mr. Noonan,
LE VITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
NOV 29 ‘95 01:26PM 1—617—241—6070 P.2
40
1 if you will acquiesce, I would like to call on
2 Congressman Markey.
3 CONGRESSMAN MARKEY: Thank you
4 very much, and I appreciate be rtg allowed to be
5 taken out of turn,
6 Almost one year ago, I stood before the
7 people of Winthrop and questioned the wisdom of
S moving forward on the siting of the sewerage
9 facility without solving the problem of sludge
10 disposal. Much the came way that I objected 20
11 years ago to — as a young man —— to building
12 nuclear power plants without solving the problem
13 of nuclear waste, which now as the chairman of
14 the energy subcommittee 20 years later in
15 congress I am being called upon to pass a bill
16 to try to resolve that issue.
17 This is still the unresolved, major
18 undigested part of this problem, and a tough
19 part of this problem. But it’s one that this
20 Board and this entire regional ooi munity has
21 continued to beg hoping thet they can move
22 forward with the less difficult problem of, in
23 fact, of voisting the first two phases of this
LEAVITT b’INSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
NOV 29 ‘95 1:27PM 1—617—241—6e70 P.3
41
1 program upon the community of Winthrop.
2 At that time, last year, I also said
3 that the people of Winthrop already had to live
4 with a prison and an airport, and that a
S sewerage facility was not fairs and I said that
6 enough was enough.
7 Now that the Final Environmental Impact
8 Statement has been released and the citing
9 decision has been made, I feel obligated to
10 restate my view that the siting decision was
12. made on the basis of incomplete information,
12 Furthermore, in light of this, certainty I think
13 that it is only fair tø the people of Winthrop
14 that the construction should not move forward
15 until the City of Boston, the State, and the
16 Water Resources Authority answers some ritiea1
17 questions.
18 I fear that the Water Resources
19 AuthOrity wants to turn on a sludge generating
20 machine on Deer Island without knowing how to
21 turn it off. The question I ask is this;
22 Where is all this sludge going to go7 Through
23 the streets of Winthrop? No way. Is it going
LEAVIT? & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
NOV 29 ‘95 1:27PM 1—617—241—6e70 P.4
42
1 to be burned on Deer Island? No way. Those are
2 assurances that I thought that we got from the
3 Water Re 0urces Authority, and those are the
4 promises that we’re going to try to n ake sure
5 that you keep.
6 But how can we have certainty where the
7 sludge will go and will not go if the decision
B has not yet been made? And that is why I call
9 on the Water Resources Authority to delay
10 construction until the sludge decision is made.
11 We should not turn the sludge generating machine
12 on until we know where the off button is. Only
13 then can the people of Winthrop have a guarantee
14 that they will not be burned twice by this
15 process.
16 X am not saying that the Environmental
17 Protection Agency and the Water Resources
18 Authority are not concerned shout the sludge
19 issue, In fact, I understand that the Authority
20 has ongoing pilot composting studies and has
21 looked at the effects of landfill and
22 Incineration and even the marketing o;f the
23 sludge for fertilizer on the short-.term and
t.EAVITT FINSTEIN REFORTINC SERVICE

-------
NOV 29 ‘95 G1:27Pf1 1—617—241—6 7
43
1 long-term basis.
2 What bothers me is the order of the
3 busiae s. Why was this not done before the
4 final siting decision was made so that the full
5 cost of sludge can be understood? Why ha the
6 Authority not promised to delay c nstructlon
7 untIl the sludge decision is final? I am
8 encouraged by the pledges made by the EPA and
9 the Authority to minimise the effects of the
10 construction and sludge. I am encouraged but
11 not complaisant.
2.2 The issue of mitigation must be a part
13 of every step in the process, from financing
14 considerations to procuring federal funds. And
15 I am working to make sure that these promises
16 last as long as the sewerage facility is
17 operating.
18 Finally, pressure must remain on the
19 CIty of Boston to move the prison now, a job
20 that should have been done years ago. But the
21 people of Winthrop still, remain stuck with this
22 prison facility, along with the airpç rt, and now
23 a primary and secondary facility, along with-—
LEhVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
NOV 29 ‘95 12:59PM 1-617—241—6 7Ø P 2
44
1 my belief Is still —— a chance that the sludge
2 will wind up in Winthrop as well.
3 It’s time for the City of Boston to get
4 down to the business of moving this prison out
5 of Winthrop so that the sewerage problem can be
6 dealt with at least In a manner that doesn’t
7 have us with every regional problem from sewage
to planes to prison all in one small densely
9 populated island.
10 With your help and with your diligence
11 we can accomplish all of our goals, through the
12 work of Peg Riley and others, the people
13 throughout the greater Boston community realize
14 the position of Winthrop, and are seeking ways
15 to minimize the impact.
16 I pledge to continue my work to see
17 that this job is done and done fairly, but my
18 belief, and my initial study of sludg?
19 facilIties along the east coast of this country
20 is that this Is a much more difficult problem
21 than the people have been led to believe in
22 terms of lt permanent olutlon, in much the
23 same way that the construction of primary and
LEAVITT . FINSTEIW REPORTING SERVICE

-------
NOV 29 ‘95 12:59PM 1-617—241—6070
P.3
4S
1 secondary facilities are not so easy to
2 guarantee that the long—term consequences are
3 not great for the aornmunities In which they are
4 constructed.
5 All of my studies now indicate that
6 that is a difficulty in every major city, that
7 promises are made, but ultimately the money runs
8 short. There is not enough to protect people in
9 mitigation, and when it finally comes down to it,
10 the money is there to build the facility, to
11. take ears of the garbage, but in the end the
12 money isn’t there to take care of the problems
13 that are created for the people and the
14 surrounding neighborhood around those facilities.
15 You have an obligation and a
16 responsibility to these people and to the
17 thousands of others who have shown up at
19 meetings over the past several years to make
19 sure that you’ve got everything put in a row
20 before you move forward, because If you don’t,
21 you will probably very likely run into the same
22 problem that most people in politics do, that
23 you will fall short in the political expediency
L.EAVIT? s FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
46
of the time two, three and four years down the
line when your successors or my political
successors don’t have the same kind of
commitment to this issue, and all of these
promises are cut and trimmed back and people
wind up with 50 cents on the dollar being spent
for what were your good intentions here tonight.
So I ask to link it and to link
irrevocably the question of sludge with all of
the rest of your questions, and to not just tie
it to ultimately to funding from the Federal
Government that may or may not be forthcoming,
but to link it, to tie it, to assure that it is
there, to build it in permanently; and then you
have dealt fairly with the people who are here
tonight. But until you can give them those
kinds of assurances, I feel that in the long run
that the guarantees that you give them are
nothing more than wishful thoughts of good luck,
as they will have to deal with this question 5
and 10, 15 years down the line without any
guarantees that in fact their environment and
their children will be protected from the sludge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
47
1 and the other unwanted consequences from these
2 facilities having been brought to these
3 communities.
4 I thank you for allowing me to testify
5 once again before you. It is, I am sure, not
6 the last time that I will do so. But I can
7 assure you that my subcommittee and the people
8 on my staff —— that now include a PhD in sludge
9 management, a person that I’ve put on my staff
10 as of three months ago —— will be doing a
11 detailed study, internal in Congress, of the
12 relative effectiveness of primary and secondary
13 and sludge facilities across this country to be
14 used as a comparison for the work that you are
15 doing and the promises that you’re making and
16 the cost estimates that you are giving to the
17 people in this community to ensure that in fact
18 there will be some effective congressional
19 oversight documented check upon the promises
20 being made to these communities.
21 Because what we’ve found from nuclear
22 power plants to sludge facilities is that the
23 people have every right not to trust experts any
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
48
1 more. And we have a right to know up front in
2 fact what all of the consequences are and all
3 the funding that will be for mitigation of the
4 conditions that these people have to live with
5 for as long as they live in this community.
6 I thank you for the opportunity of
7 being here, and I again congratulate you upon
8 your diligence with which you work. And I know
9 it’s a tough issue. I only hope that you
10 exercise the kind of tough judgment and
11 political courage to take on others in this
12 state who are not so politically valuable as is
13 the tiny community of 23,000 in Winthrop. You
14 have some tough nuts that you have to take on,
15 including some of your own bosses, to make them
16 politically accountable for dealing with these
17 people fairly, and I hope that you do. Thank
18 you all very much.
19 THE MODERATOR: Thank you. The
20 next speaker will be Robert Noonan, and he will
21 be followed by Robert DeLeo.
• 22 MR. NOONAN: Citizens of Winthrop,
23 just before I start my statement I’ll say one
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
49
1 thing. My experience in the past year, I would
2 say this Board of Directors and Mr. Gritzuk have
3 negotiated documents and is any indication of
4 what we have to go through in the long-term, we
5 find it very difficult, and I suggest that maybe
6 some mid level management should be taken out of
7 there to be more involved.
8 Some items in that document have been
9 very difficult to negotiate: reimbursement,
10 permit process, identification issues. That
11 should not be held up for the Town. The Town
12 should not have to negotiate on those terms.
13 You should not take the point of view of viewing
14 as an adversary, but more or less something of
15 what you can do for the Town.
16 Very disappointed in what we’ve gone
17 through in trying to lay out the terms, and
18 except for maybe Peg Riley running some
19 interference for us once in a while, we probably
20 would still be in the very beginnings of that
21 document. I point that Out for your information,
22 in case you’re not aware of it.
23 The siting of the sewage treatment
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
50
1 plant is the test by which the Massachusetts
2 Resources Authority’s credibility will ultimately
3 be judged. This Authority has done little to allay
4 the perception that the selection of Deer Island
5 was nothing more than a prejudgment call. Other
6 than contest Winthrop’s lawsuit, both the
7 Authority and EPA have done little or nothing to
8 change the public’s notion that the decision
9 process is a fiat accompli. The legislation by
10 which the members were chosen and their ultimate
11 selection, if one would be totally honest, would
12 not be a litmus test for objectivity.
13 Winthrop cannot and will not take the
14 Authority on a trust us basis. Prudence, past
15 history, and performance of public officials and
16 agencies have left Winthrop with the keen
17 awareness that trust must be deomonstrated and
18 earned. This is why the trust us approach of
19 -the Authority is suspect not only in the site
20 selection process, but just as importantly in
21 the area of mitigation. For example, in the
22 Section entitled Construction Impacts Property
23 Values, quote from the Authority’s FEIR document,
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
51
1 “The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
2 evidenced its concern with respect to the issue
3 of possible diminished real estate values by
4 voting on July 9, 1985, for the preparation of a
5 complete discussion, for use by the Board of
6 Directors, of proposed non—environmental
7 mitigation measures that would provide
8 protection against diminished real estate vales
9 I for nearby construction activities.
10 This is just one example of a rather
11 than addressing publically an important concern
12 such as diminished property values, the
13 Authority merely states that they recognize the
14 issue and that they have ordered a preparation
15 of discussion that would be for their use only;
16 yet the FEIR document of the Authority does not
17 contain any representation that such a complete
18 discussion was ever prepared nor was it ever
19 taken up and considered by the Board of
20 Directors, nor is the discussion included in the
21 Authority’s document. Additionally, there are
22 no such non-environmental mitigation rneasures
23 committed to in the Board’s document or elsewhere
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
52
in the public environmental review process. It
is unrealistic for the Authority to expect that
the people of Winthrop will expect this massive
facility to be imposed on them in exchange for
the private nonaccessible review of Winthrop’s
concern by the Authority. What is required is
the public disclosure of such a discussion, the
evaluation of such impacts, and actual
commitment to adequate mitigation.
On March 18, 1985, Secretary Hoyte’s
certificate set forth the additions and analyses
that he required to be generated for and appear
in the FEIR. The approach taken in the FEIR was
to announce that the majority of the important
issues such as alternatives to liquid chlorine
transport, the transportation planning, water
quality analysis, and issues such as prison
relocation have now been segmented and deferred
to future plan review processes-and documents.
Winthrop’s consistent position since the
inception of the environmental review has been
the Authority is legally obligated to do an
integrated non-segmented environmental review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
53
1 which would address not only Secretary Hoyte’s
2 certificate requirements, but also set forth all
3 the impacts and necessary mitigations for a
4 proposed sewage treatment facilities. I ask you,
5 if you haven’t complied with Secretary Hoyte’s
6 requirements, why should Winthrop trust the
7 Authority to do the right thing by the Town?
8 The other major flaw for the Board’s
9 i FEIR is of course failure to commit to any of
10 the mitigations which the PETS says is necessary.
11 It should be underscored that the mitigation
12 measures called for by EPA ub the FEIR statement
13 are in no way binding on the Water Resources
14 Authority. The public, including the people of
15 Winthrop, cannot expect any of the mitigation
16 discussed in the FEIS document to happen until
17 the Authority obligates itself to implement such
18 mitigation.
19 Winthrop wants a joint document by both
20 the Board and the EPA which integrates all of
21 the aspects and impacts of the Boston Harbor
22 cleanup program in a fashion so that Winthrop
23 and the public may know and plan for all the
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
54
1 environmental impacts that will result, not only
2 from the plant siting, but also plant
3 construction operation, transportation, long—
4 and short—term sludge management, long- and
5 short—term scum grit and screenings management,
6 chlorine transportation, chlorine generation,
7 harbor tunnel construction, and all of the other
8 issues that are necessary to address and resolve
9 before going forward with plant siting. Not
10 only does Winthrop expect and feel entitled to
11 such environmental review as a courtesy because
12 of the burdens that Winthrop has shouldered for
13 the entire region, but such a review is in fact
14 required by law.
15 Winthrop wants improved water quality
16 in Boston Harbor. They are just as impacted as
17 any other harbor community, if not more so, by
18 the poor water quality.
19 Therefore, Winthrop’s position is that
20 any new sewage treatment facilities should be
21 predicated upon the demonstrably workable design
22 based upon adequate environmental datia that will
23 actually result in improved Boston Harbor
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
55
1 quality. This conclusion cannot be reached upon
2 the present environmental review documents.
3 Let there be no misunderstanding, the
4 present Board of Selectmen and the citizens of
5 Winthrop are committed to the cleanup of Boston
6 Harbor, but if anybody expects us to sacrifice
7 our community in the process, they’re sadly
8 mistaken. Winthrop will continue to vigorously
9 contest all aspects of this process until such
10 time as the concerns of Winthrop are addressed
11 and met. Thank you.
12 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
13 will be Robert DeLeo, and he will be followed by
14 David Graber.
15 MR. DeLEO: Thank you, ladies and
16 gentlemen. As a member of the Board of Selectmen,
17 I come before you with direct concerns of my
18 colleagues on the Board.
19 - As an elected official, it is my legal
20 and moral obligation to do so. However, I
21 understand those of this Town who chose not to
22 take part in this evening’s hearing, due to
23 their total frustration with the process that
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
56
1 has endured.
2 In the defense of my own frustration, I
3 question whether you will hear us now. Can you
4 hear the voice of Winthrop in January silence?
5 It is telling you that we are at a crucial
6 turning point. The future of this Town and the
7 very —- of our lives are at stake. We are a
8 small community fighting for our very existence.
9 It is a battle turned to a voiceless question.
10 When will you listen to us?
11 We’ve listened. We’ve listened in the
12 spirit of patriotism during World War II. We
13 listened and heard you say that Deer Island was
14 important to our nation’s security. Because we
15 listened and because we believed, we allowed the
16 Federal Government to build a roadway which,
17 today, is the only land access to the island.
18 Little did we know that when World War II ended,
19 Winthrop’s war would begin.
20 Our war began because we listened. We
21 listened again 20 years ago. We listened and
22 believed the MDC’S promise to cure thet ills of
23 an ailing harbor by building a newer and better
LE VITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
57
1 treatment facility on Deer Island. But like the
2 promise of a better mouse trap, the facility
3 fell short. Obsolete and not functioning from
4 the day it opened, the present facility stands
5 inmemorium of what promises mean.
6 We listened almost ten years ago as
7 these hearings began. We listened to the
8 promises of fairness, of equity, of justice. We
9 listened at the beginning of this process, a
10 process which for ten years has financially
11 burdened this community as its unwilling
12 participant.
13 We listened one year ago when
14 discussions began on MDC’S proposed fast-track
15 mitigation. We continued listening. And the
16 MWRA asked for our renewed trust, as the new kid
17 on the block. More than 20 years we’ve listened,
18 and for more than 20 years we’ve heard nothing
19 but disappointment and frustration.
20 The Board of Selectmen want no more
21 empty promises, promises which have done little
22 more than what the Town wants, more time, more
23 money, and more resources to fight a battle
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
58
1 which is well beyond the time, money, and
2 resources of this community.
3 Look at what your promises have cost.
4 You promised us mitigation from the impact of
5 fast—track, but there is no mitigation package.
6 It has become bogged down in bureaucratic games.
7 Suspicion of the merit of the cards, and yet you
8 still ask us to trust. You promised to enclose
9 the vehicle for transport of grit and screening,
10 but no such vehicle has been seen on the streets
11 of the Town of Winthrop, and as we watch sewage
12 spilled from loosely covered dump trucks you
13 still ask our trust. You promised to close the
14 landfill, and as we wonder about the toxicity of
15 it, you ask that we trust.
16 These are the promises on which you ask
17 that we base our trust. These are the promises
18 that have caused us more than other communities
19 in the system will ever be asked to pay. Then
20 you ask us to buy you to more, more time, more
21 expenditures, more resources. You now ask us to
22 buy into more mitigation. But mitigation
23 without funding is just another empty promise.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
59
1 It’s the beginning of another battle of the
2 sewerage war.
3 Both of the documents proudly point to
4 mitigation, but the FEIR leads full disclosure
5 of its mitigation package with some nebulus
6 future environmental process. L.iquid chlorine
7 transportation, barging water quality, a relocation
8 of the prison have been segmented out of the
9 process.
10 As for the FEIS, the package and
11 mandatory mitigation presented by the EPA looks
12 impressive on the surface, but in reality it has
13 no teeth. The EPA mitigation package is not
14 legally binding on the Authority and is
15 therefore little more than an expensive wish.
16 The so—called mitigation package is a little
17 more than empty promises of years gone by
18 dressed up to appeal to the masses.
19 But I remind you, ladies and gentlemen,
20 that Winthrop has been down the path of many
21 empty promises before. We walked that path, and
22 we are told that there would be a plait sited on
23 Deer Island which would improve water quality,
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
60
1 which would be state of the art, which would be
2 properly maintained and operated. Those
3 promises were made 20 years ago, and they were
4 made on the very facility, that which is on Deer
5 Island today.
6 These empty promises deserve the
7 silence of our citizens. There will be no more
8 empty rhetoric. This Board is proposed to do
9 whatever is necessary to protect the health,
10 well—being, and constitutional rights of the
11 people of Winthrop. Whether that ball is fought
12 in the courts or on the street, this Board is
13 prepared to lead the fight. Thank you.
14 THE MODERATOR: Thank you. The
15 next speaker will be Mr. Graber, and followed by
16 Harlan Doliner.
17 MR. GRABER: By now I think you
18 know that I’m the environmental engineering
‘19 consultant hired by the Winthrop Board of
20 Selectmen to evaluate first the SDEIS and now
21 the FEIS and documents.
22 I have been working for the wn of
23 Winthrop for more than a year now on the matters
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
61
1 of tonight’s hearing.
2 I would like to concentrate my comments
3 tonight on noise impacts, which, if you will
4 recall, was the subject of much of my commentary
5 with the public hearing on the SDEIS in February
6 of last year.
7 The noise assessments that have been
8 prepared for the FEIS and FEIR would be more
9 accurately termed legal assessments than
10 environmental assessment. That is because they
11 have limited their attention to whether or not
12 construction and operating noises would comply
13 with the letter of the law rather than make any
14 meaningful assessments of the environmental
15 impact of noise.
16 The noise impacts of concern are those
17 related to the plant operations and plant
18 construction. Taking these in order, we note
19 first that the SDEIS paid little attention to
20 the issue of plant operating noise, and the new
21 documents have added little or nothing to
22 address our expressed concerns in this regard.
23 Much more attention to this area is required to
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
62
1 insure against noise problems.
2 The documents now use Boston’s 50 dBA
3 residential standards as a basis for addressing
4 operating noise. However, to use this standard
5 as the basis for the statement, and quote from
6 the FEIS, that “no adverse operational noise
7 impacts are anticipated” is illogical. Noise
8 impact is a function of the resulting increase
9 above ambient noise levels and not a function of
10 a legal standard of arguable applicability.
11 Such a criterion is clearly inappropriate,
12 particularly for nighttime noise levels in this
13 community.
14 We believe that the data supports a 35
15 dBA ambient noise level at Shirley Point. And
16 in fact, the revised Fast—Track Report essentially
17 concurred when it stated, quote, Any new
18 improvements should consistently strive for a
19 dBA value of’ 35 or less- in Winthrop to assure
20 against community—related impacts. End of quote.
21 There has been considerable discussion
22 of operating noise impacts in connect ion with
23 the ongoing Fast—Track work. The discussions
T.F ’JTPr F. ‘T r ’T 3 PvPr p’rTpJr q PVTC ,

-------
63
1 have centered on the impacts of diesel engines
2 installed for power generation. It is our view
3 that the installation of the single 6,000
4 kilowatt diesel engine, as part of the Fast—Track
5 improvements, will create nighttime noise levels
6 at Point Shirley that will be an absolute
7 maximum that can be accepted by this community.
8 Since there is a great likelihood of the
9 installation of additional diesel engines and
10 other noise-generating equipment in the future,
1]. if the Deer Island site is selected, this has
12 been a subject of substantial deliberation
13 between the Town of Winthrop and the MWRA.
14 Information that the Town of Winthrop
15 insisted the MWRA provide has demonstrated that
16 under future secondary treatment conditions, all
17 excess digester gas can be utilized by running
18 the diesel engines only during daylight hours.
19 Such a demonstration is necessary to’the Town’s
20 acceptance of the Fast—Track pump and power
21 station improvements.
22 We further note that the noise level
23 predicted by the MWRA’s consultant for the
T. .AVTPT . FTNSPFTN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
64
1 single large diesel at the plant property line
2 is in excess of the DEQE requirement of not
3 greater than 10 dBA above ambient. That
4 requirement is overlooked completely in the FEIS.
5 Although we believe it is possible to
6 acceptably mitigate the operating noise levels
7 of the future plant, it would require very
8 purposeful attention to do so. Appropriate
9 project conditions and appropriate commitments
10 must be assigned in this area, and we refer you
11 to the written comments which we will be
12 submitting for detailed technical arguments in
13 this area.
14 As-regards to construction noise, both
15 the FEIS and FEIR have now considered multiple
16 units of construction equipment and have thus
17 rectified a significant error of the SDEIS.
18 Interesting to know that the FEIS estimate of
19 construction noise at Point Shirley in Winthrop
20 is very close to the higher levels that we
21 projected in our SDEIS comments. However, the
22 new documents merely compare the projected
23 construction noise levels with the legal limits
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
65
1 of the City of Boston noise regulations. The
2 projected construction noise level is more than
3 15 dBA above what we regard as a representative
4 of daytime ambient noise levels of Point
5 Shirley. And that corresponds, in our view, to
6 a severe impact, and corresponds to severe
7 impact according to EPA’s own criteria.
8 As we argued in our SDEIS commentary,
9 considering the duration of construction in this
10 case, this would be better characterized as a
11 severe to extremely severe impact. This clearly
12 becomes a site—determinative consideration when
13 comparing the impacts of Deer Island construction
14 on the impacted neighborhood versus the impacts
15 of Long Island construction on the impacted
16 neighborhoods.
17 We suggest that you take a long, hard
18 and fair look at the issue of contruction noise
19 impacts and determine whether that issue, in
20 conjunction with the other relative issues,
21 doesn’t suggest Long Island as the
22 environmentally sounder site. At th very least,
23 the data you have has to suggest the absolute
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
66
necessity of removing the Deer Island prison to
prevent x acceptable noise impacts at the prison
to allow :onstruction of noise barriers over the
present site of the prison, and for any of a
number of other obvious reasons.
rhe solution to harbor cleanup without
immediate and effective plans for the removal of
locate the plant at Long
the prisoi is clear:
Islnd.
Thank you
Thank you. The
He will be
THE MODERATOR:
next speaker is Harlan Doliner.
followed by Thomas I 0 I ’ S
Mr. Doliner.
MR. DOLINER: Thank you very much.
My name is Harlan Doliner. I’m an attorney with
the firm of McGee, Shea, and Doliner, in Boston,
and we are counsel to the Winthrop Board of
Selectmen in relation to the siting process and
litigation surr-ound.ing that.
We are, at this time, preparing
detailed written comments, both on the FEIS as
well as the FEIR, and those will be suBmitted to
the appropriate agencies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
67
1 Tonight I would like to concentrate on
2 three discreet areas that will be part of those
3 comments. So please, take my comments tonight
4 as somewhat representative but not the complete
5 universe of our concerns.
6 I would like to talk a little bit about
7 the issue of mitigation as it has been raised by
8 prior speakers, then talk a bit about the review
9 ‘ process itself, and finally the ramifications of
10 that review process.
11 I think it’s important to underscore
12 what has already been touched upon tonight. And
13 that is that the mitigations that are proposed
14 in the EIS are not, at this time, legally binding
15 on the Authority. It’s very important for the
16 people of Winthrop and public in general not to
17 be misled to think that because those mitigations
18 are stated by the EPA and because of the
19 commitments made tonight by Mr. Deland —-and
20 I’m sure that they are made in good faith ——
21 that that again does not equate to legally binding
22 commitments on the Water Resources Au hority.
23 The absence of those commitments in the FEIR
L P TM TFTN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
68
speaks for itself.
The absence of those mitigations in the
FEIR, commitments to many of those mitigations
in the FEIR, also must be taken in context with
the representation and the conclusion made in
the FEIR by the Authority, that the plant
construction and operation could go forward if
necessary in the absence of federal grant money.
As an attorney for the Town of Winthrop,
I have to always be advising my client as to the
worse case analysis. The worst case analysis in
this instance is the possibility of the
construction and the operation of primary and
secondary treatment facilities without all of
the mitigations in place that are postulated by
the FEIS.
Let me move on to the review process.
Briefly, many of the conclusions that I stated
at the hearing on the joint draft document and
that were stated in our written comments on the
draft document still hold. We feel that this
environmental review process is fatally flawed,
unfair, misleading, legally insufficient, that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
69
1 do not meet the scopes set out for it, either
2 under the federal or the state system, and that
3 it is fatally segmented.
4 I might add that Congressman Markey’s
5 remarks tonight underscore what you have heard
6 me and the other Winthrop officials say over and
7 over again. The issue of segmentation,
8 particularly in relation to sludge management,
9 I not only is one of grave concern to the people
10 of Winthrop because of the potential impacts of
11 sludge management on the Town, but we feel gives
12 rise to a serious legal impediment to this
13 particular environmental review process.
14 There are a few other serious legal
15 impediments and flaws in these documents and in
16 the environmental review process today that
17 really haven’t been touched on, and I think
18 they’re important to raise tonight. They arise
19 out of one of the major differences between the
20 draft SDEIS SDEIR and the two documents that are
21 subject of tonight’s hearing.
22 The fact that there are two documents
23 is indicative of the separate process that has
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
70
1 occurred, the EPA going their way and the
2 Authority going their way, and the generation of
3 these two documents.
4 First of all, on the issue of fairness
5 so eloquently discussed by Selectman Vecchia,
6 there is a real burden to the Town of Winthrop
7 and to any other reviewer of these documents to
8 have to do two reviews in place of one, to have
9 to consult experts and legal counsel to look at
10 both sets of documents instead of one unified
11 document.
12 Secondly, and perhaps more importantly,
13 there are two aspects to the split review
14 process that are plainly illegal. I would like
15 to point out one tonight, and in the interest of
16 time, I won’t read the entire regulation into
17 the record, but, federal law, and in
18 specifically 40 code federal regulation, Section
19 1506.2, mandates that, in fact this stage, of the
20 process would hav.e had to have been done as a
21 joint environmental review, a joint document
22 just as the SDEIS SDEIR was a joint document.
23 At Part C, and I will paraphrase it in
PTMc T’PTN PPPflpq’TP,J(’ SRRVTCr

-------
71
1 the interest of time, it states, agencies shall
2 cooperate with state and local agencies to the
3 fullest extent possible to reduce duplication
4 between NEPA and comparable state and local
5 requirements unless the agencies are
6 specifically barred from doing so by some other
7 law. Then it moves on to say, such cooperation
8 shall be to the fullest extent possible include
9 joint environmenal impact statements. And I
10 might point out for the lawyers amongst us, the
11 word is shall.
12 In such cases one or more federal
13 agencies and one or more state or local agencies
14 shall be joint lead agencies where state laws
15 and local ordinances have environmental impact
16 state requirements in addition to but not in
17 conflict with those in NEPA. Federal agencies
18 shall cooperate in fullfilling those
19 requirements as well as those of federal laws.
20 So that one document will comply with all
21 applicable laws.
22 Now the next legal issue that has not
23 received much discussion in the past is the very
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
72
1 serious issue of the legal ability of Secretary
2 Hoyte to serve two roles in this process. And
3 let me interject here that I have every
4 admiration and confidence in Mr. Hoyte’s ability
5 as an individual and as a professional. What
6 we’re talking about here is the actual legal
7 ability for Secretary Hoyte to function both as
8 the project proponent in part as he chairs the
9 Board of Directors for the Water Resources
10 Authority, and as he is Secretary of the
11 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the
12 person charged with the responsibility of making
13 a determination of the legal sufficiency under
14 state law of the review documents, meaning the
15 PEIR in this case, that study the proposal which
16 he is overseeing as chair of the MWRA. We
17 believe that this is a serious legal impediment
18 and one that we’ll be commenting on in our
19 written comments and elsewhere in the future.
20 The split process and its attendant
21 lack of cooperation between the EPA and the
22 Authority has resulted in serious deficiencies
23 to both documents. One example is in our joint
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
73
1 comments on the draft. We pointed out the very,
2 very insufficient legal and institutional
3 analysis contained in the draft of the document.
4 One area was the lack, because of the timing of
5 that document, of any analysis of Chapter 372,
6 the statute under which the Authority is
7 organized. The EIS made a valient attempt to
8 comply with this comment by including in it a
9 rather lengthy analysis of 372. However, that
10 analysis did not pick up, for example, on the
11 issue I’ve just mentioned, of Secretary Hoyte’s
12 dilemma having to have to wear two hats. The
13 EIR merely printed the text of Chapter 372
14 without any analysis at all, without taking a
15 stand so the public would know what the
16 Authority’s position is and what the public may
17 expect the Authority to do in conducting itself
18 as this process unfolded under this statute.
19 Now the third subject area and final
20 subject area is the results of this process.
21 The results of the process include the fact that
22 after all the thousands of hours and t housands
23 of dollars that had been spent in this review
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
74
1 process, the public at this time still has a
2 very unclear picture of exactly what is
3 postulated for either Deer Island or Long Island.
4 As a matter of fact, a careful reader of both
5 documents quickly comes away with a notion that
6 there are actually two different proposals out
7 there, two universes: one EPA, one the
8 Authority.
9 For tonight’s hearing, purposes of
10 tonight’s hearing, I’ll just talk about one
11 example. Both documents postulate the siting of
12 the facility on Deer Island in the absence of
13 the House of Correction and how that will go
14 forward. That’s one of the alternatives that’s
15 been discussed in both documents.
16 Now, figure Roman numeral 3—3 on Page
17 24 of the FEIS, there is a picture -— and I know
18 you’re going to have difficulty seeing it——but
19 there is a rendering in the federal document of
20 a schematic of Deer Island that shows the
21 drumlin that has been discussed tonight on one
22 end of the island. The purpose of thedrumlin
23 or the illustration, I assume, is to illustrate
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
75
1 in part of kinds of mitigations that have been
2 discussed tonight that EPA wants to see with the
3 Deer Island siting.
4 When one turns to the FEIR produced by
5 the Authority, at figure 3—5, one also sees a
6 rendering of the Authority’s view of Deer Island
7 siting in the absence of the House of Correction,
8 and where, or roughly where, the drumlin that
9 would —— the noise or mitigate the noise in the
10 federal drawing, there one sees structures that
11 are labeled as secondary clarifiers.
12 In other words in the Authority’s view,
13 the relocation of the House of Correction is
14 going to free up more land area for sewage
15 treatment facilities. Whereas in the EPA’S view,
16 the relocation of the House of Correction,
17 apparently, will free up more area for
18 mitigation.
19 The failure of this process, because it
20 is a split one, is the public is left not
21 knowing in which direction you are headed, which
22 kind of facility is actually going tc be out
23 there out of those two? Winthrop, of course, IS
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
76
1 at a loss to undertake adequate planning for a
2 facility, first of all without knowing in which
3 direction we’re headed; and secondly, without
4 knowing all of the other impacts that would come
S with either facility because of the segmentation
6 of sludge management and other factors.
7 Thank you very much.
8 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr.
9 Doliner.
10 The next speaker will be Thomas Riley,
11 and he will be followed by Ernest Hardy.
12 MR. RILEY: Thank you very much.
13 I’m Thomas Riley, and I reside at 30 Cottage
14 Park Road in Winthrop. Last March I think it
15 was, when we were down here, many of us in the
16 Town came to this podium and spoke about flaws
17 in the draft Environmental Impact Study saying
18 that things were not accurate, that they were
19 incomplete and misleading.
20 The document as it now stands today
21 says that in many of those instances we were in
22 fact correct. That those documents were not
23 correct. Yet with that incomplete, inaccurate
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
77
1 misleading document in front of them the Water
2 Resources Authority voted to make us the site on
3 Deer Island.
4 One of the items that I spoke on at
5 that time was on the cost estimates. At that
6 time I believe I was talking that the sewerage
7 treatment plant on Deer Island would cost
8 approximately $111 million more than it would to
9 go on Long Island. During the public discussion
10 that was taking place, some of the media was
11 played up to $150 million.
12 A summary report now states that there
13 is no significant difference in there, but yet
14 that cost difference was played up as a
15 justification publically as a rationalization
16 for that decision. That cost item that had no
17 significant difference right now still contains
18 no dollars for mitigation. And again on the
19 segmentation of sludge, there is no
20 consideration for the sludge disposal. Both
21 should have been cited together. The segmentation
22 is such an integral part of the burdersome
23 impact from the siting decision.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
1
78
1 The prison, to add to the comments made
2 earlier, it’s recommended that it be removed but
3 it doesn’t make it mandatory. And prior to a
4 vote when there were discussions about the —— Mr.
S Deland stated that although he supported the
6 change, he doubted whether or not that was in
7 fact going to take place. People advocating
8 Deer Island told him that he was niave, he
9 didn’t understand politics. We think he does
10 understand. Recent history, because I was
11 serving on the Board of Selectmen in 1978 when
12 we were told that prison was going to be moved.
13 Mr. Rose was at that press conference with us at
14 that time. So I don’t know how much he
15 understands politics, but I think he knows what
16 has happened in the past to us, why we have a
17 difficult time accepting promises that the
18 prison is going to be moved now.
19 I think the mitigation package or
20 whatever site is taken must be undertaken and
21 supported by the Water Resources Authority with
22 a guarantee of funding at that time. I believe
23 if we wait until the time of construction has
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
79
1 taken place and then we’re faced with millions
2 of dollar expenditures at that time, we may have
3 a different situation economically. You don’t
4 know who is going to be in office. You don’t
5 know what the situation is going to be regarding
6 to taxes. We suggest that if there is that kind
7 of strong commitment to impact to any host
S community, that that be taken up as a —- written
9 into the fee structure to build up a fund for
10 all those kinds of activities starting now, not
11 waiting until 1991 when it’s a one—time bill
12 that is laid out for purchase of money, and I
13 think a proof of that kind of thing would be
14 that type of activity being taken in the near
15 future.
16 We all came down here at that time and
17 asked for fairness. The document tells us that
18 it’s only basis of implementability, that it’s
19 the decision, it’s the leading of people in
20 certain places to put it in here that has
21 created for us to making that decision. If some
22 questions in any way about the commit ient on the
23 moving of the prison were in the summary
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
80
1 statement of implementability, discussing the
2 position of the City of Boston, it ends with a
3 sentence that more —— Boston has indicated to
4 EPA its lack of —— and principle to the transfer
5 of land needed for all secondary with or without
6 the prison.
7 I think we need stronger commitments of
8 mitigation and stronger binding steps of things
9 now on the prison, and we need a stronger thing
10 of funding mitigation package for wherever it’s
11 to go within the next short period of time and
12 not waiting until the start of construction
13 periods.
14 THE MODERATOR: Thank you. The
15 next speaker is Ernest Hardy, and he will be
16 followed by Mary Kelly.
17 ERNEST D. HARDY, Jr.(229 Woodside
18 Ave.): In my opinion, the FEIR is a considerable
19 improvement over the supplemental draft.
20 Unfortunately, misconceptions still exist along
21 with the lack of study in certain areas.
22 Unfortunately, the mitigation suggesti ons are
23 not legally binding, and they are therefore
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
81
1 worthless to us. The description of the key
2 I features of Long Island include historical
3 burial ground, the Long Island chronic disease
4 hospital, an abandoned U.S. Government nike
5 missile base, and the remains of U.S. Military
6 fortifications.
7 Well, the report compared Deer Island
8 and Long Island. I fail to understand why the
9 historical burial grounds on Long Island are
10 more important than the cemetery area on Deer
11 Island, which the report admits will be impacted
12 by the construction of the expanded sewerage
13 treatment plant. Hundreds of men have been
14 buried in unmarked graves on Deer Island since
15 1847.
16 The Long Island Hospital appears o be
17 a serious issue, yet much of the structure in
18 the hospital, 28 buildings some dating from the
19 late 1800’s, and some are unused and in disrepair.
20 On top of that, there had been a plan for the
21 closing of the Long Island Hospital.
22 I fail to see the significan ce of the
23 abandoned nike missile base. Replacement of the
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
82
1 so—called history fortification, which presumably is
2 the grave area, Fort Strong along with mislaid
3 fortification appears to the conclusion that i
4 was amazed to see in the report that the Deer
5 Island former pumping station and screening
6 plant have been determined as being eligible for
7 listing on the National Register of Historical
8 places. I can’t believe it.
9 It is apparent almost every island in
10 Boston Harbor has got a fort on it at one time
11 or another. Fort Strong is not that significant
12 nor is there any need to tear down the
13 lighthouse on Long Island head. The priorities
14 of the report is somewhat deficient when the
15 questionable significance of Long Island is
16 allowed to dominate the need of 28 thousand
17 residents of Winthrop.
18 In other areas that need further study
19 is the subject of chlorine. Chlorine gas is
20 more dense than air, and in the event after a
21 release of hazardous concentration at or near
22 ground level, the potential for humais exposures
23 are high up to periods of an hour or more. A
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
83
1 risk of the accidental spill and the entrance of
2 liquid chlorine by tank truck during storage and
3 handling at the sewerage treatment plant should
4 therefor be considered a threat to the health
5 and safety of treatment plant staff and local
6 residents.
7 Such accidents have occurred. There
8 have been approximately 300 cases involving the
9 release of the chlorine between 1981 and 1985,
10 making it one of the most frequently spilled
11 chemicals for which data is available.
12 Concentrations in the range of 18 to 1,000 parts
13 per million are repeatedly cited as being lethal
14 to most man in a very short time. A spill of
15 approximately 67 pounds of chlorine would even
16 be sufficient to produce lethal concentration at
17 a distance of only 1 kilometer, which is the
18 distance from the existing Deer Island treatment
19 plant to the other end of Point Shirley.
20 To place these spills in perspective,
21 it should be noted that chlorine is presently
22 stored in Deer Island in two 16—ton tanks. A
23 new plant will use approximately 17,490 tons of
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
84
1 chlorine per year, an unbelievable exposure to
2 Winthrop. A spill of a few pounds would result
3 in lethal concentrations at a distance of Only
4 250 meters from the release point, this being
5 the approximate distance from the existing Deer
6 Island plant to the Deer Island land prison. Of
7 course this assumes there are a few prisoners at
8 Deer Island, based on the current rate of escape.
9 Residents of Point Shirley will remain
10 at risk to small to moderate size spills under a
11 range of atmospheric conditions, which are not
12 uncommon. Safety procedures currently in effect
13 of most sewerage treatment plants are designed
14 to prevent accidental release. However, such
15 procedures have proven less than foolproof in
16 the past. One might expect workers in the
17 sewerage treatment plant to help solve an
18 emergency problem. We must bear in mind that
19 the worker at or near the release point are
20 forced to evacuate the site or be stricken by
21 the gas cloud before initiating any energy cleanup
22 action.
23 The continued use of liquid chlorine in
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
85
1 the Deer Island plant presents a tremendous life
2 safety problem to the people of Winthrop. Maybe
3 the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority will
4 issue a gas mask to every man, woman, and child
5 in Winthrop.
6 These reports list Long Island as being
7 the central line in Boston Harbor. It is nearly
8 a good distance to all residential areas, a
9 distance of approximately 3 miles. A gas cloud
10 released on Long Island would, by virture of
11 traveling a longer distance before reaching
12 populated areas, undergo greater dilution prior
13 to any public exposure than would a gas cloud
14 released from Deer Island. Obviously, this was
15 not a significance in the siting process.
16 The continued use of liquid chlorine as
17 a wastewater disinfectant in Boston Harbor is a
18 severe potential public safety hazard, and that
19 alternatives to the continued use of liquid
20 chlorine must be explored seriously. If the use
21 of chlorine is hazardous in a sewerage treatment
22 plan so close to densely populated areas, you
23 can imagine the hazards of transporting chlorine
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
86
through conjested neighborhoods.
Figures provided by the Transportation
System Center over in Cambridge also indicate a
need for concern of the safety of chlorine in
transportation. During the pe iod from January
1983 to March 1985, the number of chlorine releases
while undergoing transportation were significant.
Over the last two years there was an average of
roughly 100 chlorine releases per year within
the transportation system alone.
A 20,000 pound chlorine leak from a
truck parked at a chemical plant in Michigan
forced the evacuation of 6,000 local residents.
The sewer treatment plant releases a range in
size from 25 pounds to 1,500 pounds which is a
very small amount by Boston standards. Most
harmful is combined chlorine and methane released
in Pennsylvania in July of ‘83 which resulted in
9 injuries and caused a fire and explosion which
destroyed the sewer plant releasing raw sewage
at a nearby stream. A tank truck accident
involving a chlorine spill along the oute where
from Revere to East Boston to Winthrop and Deer
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
87
1 Island would have the potential for exposing
2 densely populated areas to a very high
3 concentration of chlorine gas.
4 It would therefore be imperative to
5 adopt an alternative means of chlorine transport
6 at the earliest years’ possible opportunity.
7 This brings us to the subject of
8 barging. During the so—called Fast—Track
9 meetings last year, the one point million
10 dollars temporary pier was rejected because of
11 the permit process and the lack of staging or
12 transfer staging areas. All of a sudden piers
13 are not a problem nor are the stationary since
14 the federal EPA has almost required barging as a
15 mitigation measure.
16 It amazes me how the Commonwealth has
17 so many problems with barging. Now, there is no
18 problem at all. Barging of bulk materials
19 including chlorine and construction materials
20 are entirely feasible as is the possibility of
21 more extensive over water transportation such as
22 the ferry workers, and facilities. N t only are
23 they reasonable it is entirely possible. Two
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
88
1 major considerations in determining the
2 feasibility of barging. You have materials, the
3 existence of suitable sites, pier construction
4 at the wastewater treatment plant site, and
5 available transfer stations to transport bulk
6 materials.
7 Your reports have concluded that at a
8 minimum there are four potential transfer sites
9 in existence, including the General Dynamic
io shipyard in Quincy described in your report as
11 having “excellent water access facilities.”
12 Your report on barging also included
13 the pier construction is feasible at both Deer
14 and Long Island. I personally use the use of
15 liquid chlorine in the treatment plant in Boston
16 Harbor must be eliminated if at all possible.
17 realize this would present some problems, but it
18 must be studied as soon as possible, and every
19 effort made to switch to sodium hypochiorite
20 from purely a safety standpoint. If it turns
21 out that liquid chlorine must be used, it cannot
22 be transported through the streets of Greater
23 Boston.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
89
1 The Secretary’s certificate
2 specifically states that the trucking of
3 chlorine should be eliminated from each
4 alternative either by a verifyable ability to
5 deliver chlorine by barge or by a commitment to
6 on—site chlorine generation. There is no
7 question whatsoever that trucking of chlorine is
8 going to stop at an earliest possible time.
9 The bulk transportation of barging, the
10 barging section of the report, was very slanted
11 to Deer Island. No serious study and
12 constructions was done on Long Island. The cost
13 estimates at Long Island would not vary greatly
14 from those estimated for Deer Island, although
15 the report did state that using the existing
16 Long Island pier would save approximately
17 $200,000. Other than that, very little
18 attention was given to the pier facilities at
19 Long Island.
20 The use of barges for construction
21 access to the island site are well established
22 practice in existence of large facilities as the
23 House of Correction, Long Island Hospital and
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
90
1 Fort Warren and miscellaneous lighthouses off
2 shore. That is how they were built in the first
3 place.
4 During peak construction periods,
5 traffic would include as much as 1,000
6 automobiles and 500 heavy trucks going from
7 residential neighborhoods causing massive
8 traffic problems. Truck traffic would include
9 not only heavy construction materials, including
10 cement and steel, but also involve either soils
11 from excavation from the construction site.
12 On the question of barging excavated
13 material and gravel for construction, the really
14 significant part of the potential of traffic,
15 the assumptions are that excavated either cannot
16 be moved on the island and would likely be
17 glacial till from the island or broken rock from
18 the tunnels. Likely to have a ready market at
19 the quantities expected and would have to be
20 discarded.
21 The assumption in the SDEIS is that it
22 would be dumped in the ocean, as reasonable
23 dumping would be environmentally accepted and
LEAVITT ‘ 1’EIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
91
1 low in cost.
2 As far as the acquisition of gravel,
3 the assumption that it would be shipped to Deer
4 Island by barge appears to be reasonable since
5 gravel is expensive in Boston, but very
6 inexpensive in Maine and New Hampshire where it
7 is plentiful. And the scale of the project
8 makes the construction of unloading at the pier
9 very feasible.
10 Extensive use of over-water
11 transportation involves two issues; namely, the
12 feasibility of roll off truck barging and the
13 ferrying of workers. People are ferried to
14 Boston every day, so we know it’s possible. All
15 available information for truck barging and
16 ferrying the workers appears to be reasonable.
17 For pier and docking facilities
18 recommended in its report are economically and
19 practically feasible. Water transportation of
20 labor material versus land transport of the same
21 will not delay construction schedule and most
22 importantly will not disrupt the 1ives of the
23 residents in the vicinity.
LEAVTTT & FIN PVTN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
92
1 Dredging is not required for
2 construction of these pier facility at either
3 Deer or Long Island. Therefore, there are no
4 environmental risks or potential of delays
5 waiting for the areas to be dredged.
6 Just as barging of materials and
7 ferrying of workers during the construction
8 phase is extremely important after a sewer plant
9 is functional, we then must address the issue of
10 the remaining sludge. There is no way sludge
11 material should be transported by truck through
12 any community in the area.
13 slight modifications and piping at the
14 treatment site, the existing pier facilities
15 could be easily be used to barge sludge out of
16 the Boston area.
17 I would like now to state a personal
18 opinion. Winthrop pushed hard for a long siting
19 decision, honestly feeling Long Island was the
20 most equitable alternative. It is amazing the
21 number of studies recently conducted on Long
22 Island to in effect justify why Long island
23 should not be used.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
93
1 During the summer of 1984 the
2 University of Massachusetts and Boston’s
3 Department of Archeology goes up on Long Island
4 and produces history. In 1984 Boston Mayor
5 Flynn decided to have a five-year plan to
6 reorganize the provision of medical and social
7 services to the city’s chronic ill and homeless.
8 This plan proposed crossing the Long Island
9 Hospital in 1989 and consolidated operations
10 through the City’s existing chronic care
11 facilities in Mattapan. Future use of those
12 facilities on Long Island was identified and
13 further study was recommended.
14 At the present time the Mayor’s plans
15 for the hospital facilities reportedly included
16 the emphasis on the provision of medical care in
17 increased use as a shelter for the City’s homeless.
18 I am sure the City of homeless population will
19 be just as well served with the mayor
20 concentrating on abandoning buildings in the
21 City of Boston and not on Long Island.
22 On dune 29th, Mayor FLynn wri*es that
23 he has made a commitment to insure that the park
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
94
1 and recreation site be constructed on Long
2 Island, something that could occur within a
3 year’s time. I’ll bet you won’t see it in a
4 year. In the same letter he suggested
5 mItigation measures for the selected site of the
6 sewerage treatment plant. One week later, on
7 July 8th, Mayor Flynn announces he is willing to
8 work to remove the Deer Island prison, driving
9 the final nail into Winthrop’s coffin before the
10 siting vote of the Massachusetts Water Resources
11 Authority.
12 Is there any doubt as to why the people
13 of Winthrop chose to boycott this meeting?
14 Obviously they do not feel they have received a
15 fair shake from the State or the City of Boston.
16 Speaking of fair shakes, I note the
17 study is prepared to add the towns of Lynn,
18 Dover, Hopkinton, Sharon and Sherburne to the
19 Boston Harbor Treatment Plant. You haven’t said
20 you’re going to do it, but it’s in the plant.
21 It has capability to have those towns. It
22 didn’t take you long to act like the MDC.
23 Mayor Flynn and the Governor
LEAVTTP & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
95
1 recommended mitigation measures. I do not
2 consider the ferry or barging of construction
3 material to or from the selected site and the
4 barging of chlorine or its substitute to be
5 mitigation measures as stated by Mayor Flynn.
6 Nor is the relocation of the Deer Island prison
7 a mitigation measure, as suggested by the
8 Governor as a, quote, integral part of fair and
9 i workable siting decision. unquote.
10 I do consider the pier construction to
11 be mandatory along with the ferrying of workers,
12 barging of construction materials and equipment,
13 and later sludge material. We’ll not accept
14 additional 1,600 cars and heavy trucks. The
15 barging of liquid chlorine or its substitute is
16 mandatory. We’ll not accept continued trucking
17 of liquid chlorine. The use of the prison must
18 go as soon as possible. All of these items are
19 nothing more than common courtesy to any
20 impacted community. Winthrop considers these
21 items to be mandatory. Thank you.
22 THE MODERATOR: The nex t speaker
23 is Ms. Kelly, followed by Lois Baxter.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
96
MS. KELLY: The Winthrop
Conservation Commission is submitting comments
on the FEIR and the FEIS regarding the site of
the wastewater treatment plant. But, tonight I
don’t think I’ll read them to you. They deal
with mostly with the subjects that have already
been discussed. And they deal with the
discrepancies and the deficiencies in the reports.
I think I’ll just change it a little
bit, and Mr. Deland was here about ten months
ago when this auditorium was full, and when
people had a reason to believe. They don’t
believe in you any longer. Most of us don’t
believe in you at all. You say that the prison
should be relocated, but there is no mandatory
statement that it will be relocated. You say
that there should be mitigating measures, this
one and the other one. But there is no adequate
funding. There is no guarantee that this will
be happening.
The citizens of Winthrop feel that no
one knows the meaning of the word “fai r.” That
doesn’t mean that we are not as residents all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FIN 1’ TN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
97
1 working towards a common goal because some of us
2 are here and some of us are not. But I think
3 that perhaps that we should all decide that the
4 bottom line should be, at least for us, for you
5 to think about, is that the mitigating measures
6 and their funding are in place before any
7 construction in started on this disaster that
8 you have for the Town of Winthrop. Thank you.
9 THE MODERATOR: Next person is
10 Lois Baxter.
11 LOIS BAXTER: Winthrop
12 Conservation Commission. Some credit for
13 recognizing the consequences that siting of a
14 major project in Dear Island, Massachusetts,
15 will have on abutting towns, the EPA has failed
16 to provide satisfactory relief in many areas.
17 Two of the most flagrant defficiency tests
18 concern the prison and transporation of the
19 operation staff. We find it morally disheartening
20 to see EPA so willing to site treatment plants
21 together with the prison. It has obviously
22 ignored many negative impacts from ou state of
23 living so close to the regional airport and the
LE VITT & FTNSPrTN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
1
98
1 many dramatic incidents at the prison.
2 Certainly any regard for the fairness issue
3 would obligate the EPA not only require the
4 prison to be removed, but also insist that no
5 construction be initiated without said removal.
6 The EPA mitigation measures are not
7 specific to Winthrop. Now that Deer Island has
8 been selected, we must have written guarantees
9 that adequate and irrevocable funding for site
10 specific mitigation is in place.
11 Deer Island was once part of the Boston
12 Harbor Islands plan. Then one day it was taken
13 out of the plan, no longer historically geologically
14 or aesthetic their in existence. The drumlin
15 can only be retained if the prison is removed.
16 At the very least, EPA should make a genuine
17 attempt to preserve this unique geological
18 entity.
19 Operation of 250 personnel, 250 cars a
20 day to operate the facility, that doesn’t
21 include repair service, civilians, supervisor,
22 or tourist. Over a 15-minute period t that’s at
23 least 7 cars a minute over conjested town road.
LEAV1T ” . FT’ JSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
99
1 Translated when you’re trying to get out of your
2 driveway or on to a main street, more danger to
3 school children and elderly, more chances of
4 accidents, more school crossing guards, more
5 police on duty, higher insurance rates, and
6 naturally more taxes.
7 The streets are already deteriorated
8 under the stress of Proposition 2 1/2 and will
9 deteriorate at much faster rates, and while they
10 are being repaired the traffic will be funneled
11 to narrow sidestreet. When the night shift
12 leaves in the morning congestion at the Heights,
13 already unbearable, will be disasterous.
14 Winthrop cannot account for the same scenario at
15 rush hour in the late afternoon.
16 We believe that it’s absolutely
17 essential to the safety of Winthrop residents
18 and especially school children that busing or
19 some other mode of transportation be required
20 for the plant workers. If something is not done
21 now, Winthrop could be ignored again by the MWRA.
22 No amount of consultant study can estimate the
23 degree of danger to school children running in
r r - C’ fl’ t ’ 0 0 fl ( ‘ 0 m Y .t f C 0 0 F T f’ 0

-------
100
1 the street in the dark to catch a bus.
2 MR. MODERATOR: I understand that
3 the next speaker has declined to speak, and the
4 next speaker will therefore be Joseph Illeo. He
5 will be followed by Russell Hughes.
6 MR. ILLEO: She asked me to state
7 briefly, unfortunately she had to leave, but
8 that she was going to bring a message that a
9 number of East Boston civic groups were going to
10 be filing some statements concerning the
11 proposed barging in East Boston and Chelsea, and
12 their opposition to that as well as their
13 continued concerns for replacement group of the
14 facility on Deer Island.
15 What I would like to do is simply focus
16 on an issue raised earlier by Tom Riley of
17 Winthrop, that has to do with mitigation
18 financing.
19 With respect to mitigation, I think a
20 number of us feel that neither of the studies
21 has yet to identify a complete program of
22 adequate mitigation for this proposea facility.
23 But secondly, as we get into more detailed
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
101
1 design of the facility, opportunities will
2 continue to present themselves to less impact
3 and to create a function of a better facility,
4 and finally, that you will continue to identify
5 more problems than you identify to date with
6 respect to the design, construction, and
7 operation of the facility.
8 Secondly, as was pointed out by one of
9 the lawyers representing the Town, to the extent
10 that mitigation has been identified to date,
11 they are only promises. The Town has not yet
12 had any guarantees that those mitigation efforts
13 will in fact be implemented.
14 Secondly, while some people make
15 assurances because of the favorable political
16 points—— and both stated very strongly their
17 concerns that adequate mitigation is put into
18 place. When it cams to 1991 or hereafter the
19 construction is going to take place, we have no
20 guarantee that those folks will be there nor
21 that their successor will have the same approach
22 to the problem.
23 Second state ensuring of what it has
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
102
1 been, a relatively good period of economic
2 growth and financing availability, and there is
3 no guarantee that that will continue.
4 There is an additional concern about
5 the ability to deliver mitigation in a review of
6 what is already a very limited allowable scope
7 of mitigation measures as identified by the
8 Federal Government. This is going to be
9 probably an even worsening situation if the
10 Federal Government gets less and less into the
11 area of financing these treatment plants.
12 I think what Tom Riley was trying to do
13 is establish a goal. And that goal was for the
14 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and the
15 community to identify and be able to deliver
16 adequate operating resources to ensure that
17 mitigation does take place during construction
18 in the design for the facility and for the
19 operation years after.
20 The proposal that he has put forward, I
21 think, has extensive merit and ought to be
22 responded to by Massachusetts Water k sources
23 Authority. And that is to build into the rate
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
1
103
1 structure, and implement beginning this year, a
2 set aside funds sufficient to capitalize what i
3 say $250 million mitigation requirement, and
4 that is based on 25 percent of what your
5 proposed construction cost is going to be. So
6 that by the time you get to 1991 you will have
7 that money in place and you can tell the
8 citizens of this community that in fact it is in
9 place this year.
10 And secondly, that increment in the
1]. rate structure will allow for sufficient
12 operating funds over future years once the
13 facility is up and running, so that way you can
14 guarantee we won’t have to suffer the —— of
15 politics, Proposition 2 1/2, or some other kind
16 of budget cutting requirements. I think you can
17 sell this idea. I think an increment in the
18 sewer rate that sets aside adequate resources
19 for mitigation, simply a price that the City of
20 Boston, South Shore, the entire area should have
21 to pay for the placement of this regional
22 facility in a small Town of Winthrop..t Thank you.
23 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
104
1 The last speaker that I have information on who
2 would like to speak is Mr. Russell Hughes. If
3 there is anybody else who would like to speak,
4 please fill out the card so that I can so note.
5 Mr. Hughes.
6 MR. HUGHES: My name is Russell
7 Hughes. I’m a professional engineer, and have
8 been for 57 consecutive years. I was former
9 airport engineer for Connecticut Bacon Parker
10 Snow who was putting a WPA airport with 35
1]. hundred feet foot runways on it. I was putting
12 3 in Connecticut for Bridgeport, New Haven and
13 Hartford. From 1962 or 1952 to 1960 I was
14 selected by headquarters United States Air Force
15 on the Pentagon as chief civilian engineer for
16 Lorin Air Force Base, Baker Air Force Base,
17 Pease Air Force Base, Westover Air Force Base,
18 for new facilities for this strategic air
19 command for Omaha Nebraska.
20 At the same time, I represented
21 facilities for the Eastern Air Defense Forces,
22 for all their sites throughout New Eng1 and. I
23 believe I have had more siting experience than
. F! ’t Tp Pt’pnR rT 3( € JTr’

-------
105
1 any other engineer in Boston. I served at the
2 request of EPA as a member for Winthrop, for the
3 Technical Advisory Committee.
4 On December the 20th, 1983, and their
5 last meeting, which was a voting meeting, my
6 brother engineer from Quincy made a motion that
7 the Nut Island facilities should be transferred
8 to Long Island. There was 35 members present.
9 Two of us engineers, and a third the moderator.
10 The rest were intelligent members of the various
11 towns and cities concerned. The vote was
12 unanimous and the moderator was in consternation
13 because he represented the consultant engineer
14 for EPA.
15 Nothing has ever been put out to let
16 the communities know that it was the unanimous
17 decision of 35 people representing the 42 cities
18 and towns that Long Island was the place to put
19 preliminary and secondary treatment for Boston
20 Harbor.
21 A second thing that has never been
22 considered, and I consider it the most important
23 one of all, that subject is the inevitable
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
106
1 expansion of Logan International Airport. It is
2 unsafe today, but the airplane facilities being
3 used to land or take off on runways is less than
4 12,000 or 12,500 lineal feet in dimension. Logan
S has only ten thousand. That’s the reason the
6 young pilot that came in here in 1978 and overshot
7 the very first foot of the runway that he was
8 landing on and went off into water.
9 And I’m positively sure that with all
10 the airplane disasters over the year, that the
11 FAA is going to require that Logan extend its
12 runways. Logan’s traffic, air traffic, has
13 built up every single year for the past ten
14 years. And that traffic depends on runway
15 lengths and runway widths. The only productive
16 on any airport is its runway’s lengths and
17 runway widths. That’s what brings in the money.
18 Not the extra land for parking garages and other
19 facilities.
20 THE MODERATOR: Mr. Hughes, I hate
21 to interrupt you in your eloquent statement, but
22 would you try to confine your comment to the
23 FEIS and the FEIR, if you would, please.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTINC SERVTCF

-------
107
1 MR. HUGHES: Simply this, sir: I
2 find nothing in the two documents that talks
3 about Logan International Airport being modified
4 and improved to safety standard. I find nothing
5 in those two documents you speak about. It’s a
6 serious omission by the EPA and the
7 Massachusetts Water Authority in not looking
8 into that problem. And in my opinion, that
9 I requirement is going to come within the next
10 five years at the max. When that does come in,
11 I’m making this last statement, when that occurs,
12 in my opinion as one who has cited many
13 facilities and knows the consequences of the
14 impact of $3 millon for a primary and secondary
15 sewage plant, and who knows the monetary costs
16 of improving Logan, I make this statement, the
17 last statement, in my opinion the Town of
18 Winthrop will not exist after ten years. Thank
19 you.
20 THE MODERATOR: Thank you for your
21 statement.
22 Is there anyone else who wisWes to make
23 a statement? I remind you that the hearing
LEAVTTT £ FT !c T’FTN Rr.PORTTNr cFRVTCF

-------
108
record remains open. The comment period for the
Environmental Protection Agency EIS ends on
January 21st, and the comment period for the
tIWRA’s FEIR ends on January 24th. All of the
comments made this evening and testimony which
is received by those dates will be given serious
consideration.
I would now like to ask Mr. Deland and
Mr. Gritzuk if they have any further statements.
Mr. Deland.
MR. DELAND: Thank
you a year ago when the call was
and a resounding emotional chant
was “enough is enough.” I hear
tonight. And I pledge to do all in my power to
construction and the operation
to be located on Deer Island, if
to be the decision of the
1 be done in sucha way as tobe a
to the community of Winthrop.
who live on the harbor, have earned
enjoy the benefit that an come
harbor without disruption from the
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
you. I heard
made and warned
of that evening
you again
ensure that the
of the facility
that continues
Authority, wil
good neighbor
You
the right to
from a clean
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
that I can t
right. Thank
THE MODERATOR
MR. GRITZUK:
from, primarily, Selectmen
to kindle a new spirit of
I believe that was your c
statement. I accept that
court rather than in say i
the support to implement a
harbor that should
And I will
o see that you indeed
you very much.
Mr. Gritzuk?
I heard a suggestion
Vecchia that we ought
fairness, and reason.
omment. I accept that
the ball is in our
n my court. I accept
cleanup plan for the
entity that does that cleanup job.
do everything
realize that
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
have at least negative impact
on the residents of Winthrop. To repeat, I feel
that I have the responsibility to implement a
project like that, especially with the least
impact on the neighboring communities. And I
will do everything that I can to make sure that
a plan like that is implemented.
I’ve also heard throughout the evening,
this evening, threats of litigation. Personally,
I’d rather negotiate and compromise than to
litigate and spend a substantial portion of my
lifetime to come here in this area and caucus.
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
110
1 And I really have to ask a question,
2 especially to Selectman Vecchia, when you say
3 that the ball is in my court, I accept that.
4 But are you saying court or are you saying
5 courtroom?
6 I’ve also heard that there has been lip
7 sqrvice given to the residents of Winthrop for
8 the last 25 years or so, and that somehow the
9 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority has been
10 given that lip service or been given the credit
11 for giving the lip service. I don’t accept that.
12 This Authority is only about a year old. And
13 what it has been saying in the year, or the one
14 year of its existence, is that it intends to
15 clean up the harbor, and it also intends to
16 mitigate any negative impacts as a result of
17 that cleanup program.
18 Let’s take some time out and look at
19 what you have now. You have about 450 million
20 gallons a day of sewage that is receiving some
21 type of marginal treatment. From that treatment
22 process you also have sludge that is being
23 discharged to this very same harbor that we’re
LF VT’T’T & TN’ ” PORTING SERVICE

-------
111
1 trying to clean up, and everybody knows that
2 that’s a gross environmental condition.
3 I’ve also heard tonight let’s delay
4 that cleanup project and let’s do some
5 additional study or what have you. I don’t
6 understand the reasoning here. I don”t
7 understand why the Authority is being condemned
8 to implement a project that will provide
9 secondary treatment for those 450 million
10 gallons of waste, a degree of treatment that is
11 probably about 400 percent higher over what you
12 have now.
13 The project also includes the removal
14 of that sludge discharge to the harbor. It
15 includes an immediate plan, hopefully to bring
16 that sludge out to sea some 106 miles as a
17 measure immediately. It includes a plan for
18 long—term sludge treatment and disposal for some
19 mainline method. The plan also commits the
20 Authority to do everything it is humanly
21 possible to do to move that prison, and it also
22 commits the Authority to implement cer tain
23 mitigation measures, which everybody wants.
rt s,ymm tr)r%omT 1r CtD 7TI ’

-------
112
1 And let’s talk about the initial
2 attempt at mitigation. I do stand corrected.
3 thought that the initial mitigation agreement
4 between the Authority and Winthrop was signed.
5 It has not been signed by both parties. It has
6 been signed by me initially. I signed an
7 agreement that I thought that both parties
8 agreed to. I stand corrected again. I met with
9 a representative of Winthrop, and they said they
10 wanted some additional ingredients in that
11 agreement. I agreed to those additional
12 ingredients. Those ingredients were
13 incorporated into the next version of that
14 agreement, and I signed that agreement, and that
15 agreement went forth to the Town of Winthrop for
16 signature.
17 If you want guarantees, sign the
18 agreement and you have the guarantee, because
19 that’s a legally binding document.
20 MR. NOONAN: Mr. Gritzuk, don’t
21 say to us -— We sent that document to you and
22 you came back ——
23 MR. GRITZUK: Allow me to finish
LEAVITT & FINSTET’J REPORTING SERVICE

-------
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
a few statements,
Excuse me a second.
He’s been addressing
to answer.
You will have an
Mr. Gritzuk
I just have one
I’m w-illing to meet
any time. I’m willing
blems that you have
my statement.
THE MODERATOR:
MR. VECCHIA:
and I want
THE MODERATOR:
opportunity to respond after
finishes his comments.
MR. GRITZUK:
further comment to make.
with the Town of Winthrop
to hear first hand the pro
experienced over the last 20 years or so, and I
think it is my job to do whatever I can in order
to implement this project and its impact to you.
I will come alone to meet with you. I’ll come
unarmed. I’ll come with an open mind, with a
desire that we can get together and develop a
project that is necessary for all of us and that
would have the least impact on surrounding
communities. That’s a standing promise. Thank
you.
THE MODERATOR: Mr Vecchia,
given the hour of the evening, I would ask you
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
114
1 to make one clarifying comment, if you would
2 like to, and that’s it. We then have Mr.
3 Gritzuk to do so.
4 MR. VECCHIA: First of all,
5 let’s set the report straight: that if the
6 stenographer goes back to my comments that I
7 read into the record, I did not say the ball is
8 in your court, referring to a basketball court
9 or a court court. I said the ball is in your
10 end. So you can take that any way you like.
11 Number 2, if you’re referring to the
12 draft mitigation document, the draft mitigation
13 document has been gone over by this Town, by the
14 Board of Selectmen, and our legal people several
15 times. There were several items that we were
16 supposed to iron out that were not ironed out.
17 It was brought to your attention. You agreed to
18 it, and you signed it and sent it back to us.
19 However, there was additional amendments in that
20 before we had approved it which the Board did
21 not agree to. The Board did not even read it.
22 The Board didn’t even see it. That wa the
23 reason we didn’t sign the final draft that you
LEAVITT& FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVTCE

-------
115
sent
in to us with your signature
Yes you agreed to the changes that we
talked about. There was also a new paragraph
entered on there. So let the record show that
we did not sign it because we didn’t care, or we
didn’t sign it because we felt that the document
was not in good faith. - We didn’t sign it
because we didn’t agree to it as it was received
by this community this week. When it’s signed
as we agreed to sign it, we’ll be sure to sign
it.
THE MODERATOR: I thank you once
again for your time and interest and your
concern and many thoughtful statements. They
will take serious consideration before the
decision is reached. Thank you once again
(The hearing concluded at 10:10 p.m.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN REPORTING SERVICE

-------
33 Summer St.
Nahant, MA 01908
January 18, 1986
Mr. Michael Deland
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. Deland:
Please include this letter as testimony on the Final Environmental Impact
Statener.t and Final Environmental Impact Report on Siting of Boston Harbor
Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
After reviewing the documents concerning siting of the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority sewage treatment plant for the Boston area, I believe that
the decision to site the plant on Deer Island is in the best interests of the
larger community surrounding Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay.
As a citizen of Nahant, I am very much concerned about proper construction
and maintenance of the plant and about safe disposal of sludge, ash, and other
residue. As you know, anything that gets into the water at the end of Winthrop
frequently drifts north with winds and currents towards Nahant’s shores, and
anything that gets into the air often goes eastward or northeast&’ward towards
Nahant. (We are one of the few communities on the East Coast where one can
watch the sunset over the ocean.)
As a neighbor of Winthrop, I am concerned (as you are) about mitigation of
Winthrop’s disproportionate share of the impacts of city life. To this end I
strongly support efforts to move the Deer Island House of Correction from its
present site, not “with all deliberate speed” but quickly . I would hope that
after the construction phase of’ the sewage treatment plant a large proportion
of’ the prison land could become a park for the enjoyment of Winthrop residents,
who have been closed off from so much of’ their own shores. Once the sewage
treatment plant is working properly, such a park would go far towards making
Winthrop a more beautiful and enjoyable place to live.
I recognize that the decision to move the prison is not in your hands.
However, I hope you will give guidance and leadership to the citizens of
Gz’eater Boston, to citizens’ groups like Save the Harbor; Save the Bay and SWIM
in our efforts to support moving the prison as well as cleaning up the Boston
Harbor and Massachusetts Bay.
Thank you again for your outstanding decisions and strong leadership in
the effort to make the entire New England coastline fishable, swimmable, and
enjoyable.
Sincerely yours,
Polly Bradley
SWIM: Nahant Citizens Committee to
Seek Water Improvement Measures
cc: Mr. Michael Gritzuk, Executive Director
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

-------
REGION VI

-------
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
‘2
Administrative Offices
541 COLUMBIAN ST PD BOX 13
SO WEYMOUTII• MA 02190
AREA CODE 617
335-6791
LEAVITT & FINSTEIN
REPORTING SERVICE
Siir totyp g S O%IU,I 9
CONVENTIONS — HE ARINGS — CONFERENCES — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Boston Ott ice
8 WHITTIER PLACE
BOStON MA 02114
AREA CODE 617
335-679;
PUBLIC HEARING
SITING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES FOR BOSTON HARBOR
NORTH QUINCY HIGH SCHOOL
NORTH QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1985
MODERATOR: BARRY LAWSON
US EPA R C ’OM iJBRARY
‘FV r’ -
r
r_ —-‘•

-------
2
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 THE MODERATOR: Good evening,
3 ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the first of
4 three public hearings on the Final EIS and Final
5 EIR for the siting of wastewater treatment
6 facilities in Boston Harbor. I am Barry Lawson
7 of Lawson Associates and will serve as Moderator
8 for this evening’s hearing.
9 This session is sponsored by the United
10 States Environmental Protection Agency and the
11 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. The
12 purpose of this meeting is to have officials of
13 both agencies receive your comments and
14 testimony concerning the two reports.
15 It is important to realize the
16 different roles of the two agencies. The
17 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is
18 responsible for selecting the site for the
19 wastewater treatment facilities. Both the
20 Authority and the Environmental Protection
21 Agency are responsible for conducting
22 independent evaluation of the site’s
23 environmental acceptability. In addition, EPA

-------
uaw ea.i ja 2, a se, aq q tt s 3edWT 1e uaiod
aq noq a qtssod s q nw s pu s. apun o
satpn s papuedx .10 i au a 2 .1apun 04 S U2 nsUO3
te3!u43a itaq pa 3a .1tp PU2 S UaWWO3 O
asaq jo ire pa a i a a eq sa!3uabe al_ilL 61
sbut . 1eaq asoq wo.1,3 pa rtisa . 1 81
s uawa e s ua tie A nj q6noi ,cuew snid LI
s d! . 1 sue1 o sabed pa.ipunq ieia ag pa 3a J2 91
At a.i p PU2 AT1e! ua od sow sat tunwwo3
asoq o AjteT3adsa ‘3ç qnd uo so ia;eai Vt
aq JO SU.1a3UO3 aq pue SM9tA aq pa 3UOS aW1 El
eq pjaq S6UTJe9M 3 tqnd aa.1q aqj.
sal3uabe aq Aq uOt eiaptsuO3 .lapun 11
saAt eu1a re ;o abuei aq u ou sI uaun op 01
eip aq ‘ I IeDal IITA noA Sv SaT3Uabe 6
o, aq Aq Ar u 1 oc pa.ieda.id uaaq peq q3 qM 8
JeiQ pUQ S13 JeIQ aL JO S1U UO3 L
utetdxa o A ioq n aq pue Vd2 Aq p aq a.laM 9
sôut.ieaq 3ttqnd pue s5u! aaw UO 2W . 1OJU 3 Iqnd
o satias e obe sq uow ua AtleaN v
.1a eM uear t Pad
aq a3ue Tdwoo sainsua pue ‘aIqe1 eAe
Jt ‘aoue stsse 1Q! 14 u1J 1Q P J saptAO.zd

-------
4
1 project and to formulate a set of mitigation
2 measures to minimize and in some cases avoid the
3 adverse impacts which can be anticipated. These
4 studies have been completed, and the final
5 recommendations of the two agencies are
6 presented in the respective FEIS and FEIR.
7 The two principal ag encies have
8 continued on a parallel course during this time
9 in sponsoring these hearings to receive your
10 written and oral testimony. You are probably
11 familiar with the four EIS and two EIR volumes,
12 and I understand that both an executive summary
13 of the EIR and Volume 1 of the EIS are displayed
14 and available outside this hail. All volumes
15 are also available at several libraries in the
16 region including here in Quincy. Please check
17 the desk outside the hail after the meeting for
18 the location of these volumes.
19 Tonight we are pleased to have
20 representatives from both the Water Resources
21 Authority and the Environmental Protection
22 Agency here. Let me introduce the people at the
23 head table first.

-------
C.
1 Directly to my right is Mr. Michael
2 Gritzuk, Executive Director of the Water
3 Authority. To his right is Michael Deland, the
4 Regional Administrator of Region 1 ofthe U.S.
5 Environmental Protection Agency. To the right
6 of Mr. Deland is Stephen Ellis who is the
7 Director of the Office of Intergovernmental
8 Affairs for the Environmental Protection Agency.
9 To the right of him is Anthony Fletcher, a
10 member of the Board of the Water Resources
11 Authority, and Margaret Riley who is also a
12 member of the Water Resources Authority Board.
13 To my left is Robert Ciolek who is also a member
14 of the Board.
1.5 There are at least one and, perhaps,
16 more members of the Board who are in the
17 audience who are not up here or who will be
18 making statements later on. One of them I have
19 recognized, Mr. Paul Anderson from Quincy, who
20 will be making a statement a little bit later.
21 I might also mention that as part of
22 this process of the Environmental Impact
23 Statement preparation it is the fact that

-------
1 another federal agency, the General Services
2 Administration, is involved as an interested
3 party in that the GSA owns some land which is a
4 potential site for development on Deer Island.
5 As part of the process of conducting an
6 EIS, the possible disposition of that land is
7 subject also to environmental evaluation, and
8 the Environmental Protection Agency as part of
9 its course in doing the evaluation is also
10 conducting simultaneously satisfactory
11 evaluation for the GSA. Members of that agency
12 are here this evening.
13 After my introduction, we will have
14 brief opening statements from both Mr. Gritzuk
15 of the Authority and Mr. Deland from EPA. Then
16 we will begin taking public testimony from you
17 folks.
18 A couple of ground rules, first of all.
19 The number of people here, I believe, is a
20 little less than we had last year, so I don’t
21 think we are going to have to worry too much
22 about the length of the presentations. I would
23 encourage, you, however, if you have a long,

-------
7
1 ‘written testimony to submit to us, that you try
2 to keep your oral remarks to five minutes or
3 less, if possible. I’m not going to be terribly
4 stringent on that, unless it looks like we are
5 being unreasonable or it’s possible we may run
6 out of time or a number of other people will
7 sign up to speak.
8 The second is I will be calling on you
9 to speak, and when I do I would like to have you
10 please come up to this microphone and address
11 your comments to the Board members and the
12 Agency members up here. When you do please
13 identify yourself and your address. In order to
14 speed things along just that much more, I will
15 be announcing not only the next speaker, but
16 also the on deck speaker, so that you can be
17 prepared and know when you will be next.
18 There will be a general order in which
19 we will try to take the federal officials first,
20 state officials second and local officials third.
21 There may be some variation in that in that I’m
22 trying to find a balance among those three, but
23 also we will, as we did last year, make at least

-------
8
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
public, so those folks wi
to speak earlier and will
one o’clock in the morning
Also, I remind yo
records of both the state
federal process will rema
Water Resources Authority
received by the Authority
and the Environmental Pro
testimony may be received
They can be sent to each
So without furth
I would like to pass the
11 have an opportunity
not have to wait until
to speak.
u that the hearing
process and the
in open. The State
testimony can be
until January 21st,
tection Agency’s
up until January 24th.
of the various agencies.
er adieu at this time,
microphone to Mr.
every third speaker a member of the general
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Michael Gritzuk, Executive Director of the
Authority, for his opening statement.
MR. MICHAEL GRITZUK: Thank you.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Michael Gritzuk. I’m the Executive Director of
Mass. Water Resources Authority. On behalf of
the Board of Directors of the Authority, I would
like to express our appreciation for you to take
the time out and attend this hearing this

-------
9
1 vening.
2 Tonight’s hearing is one of a series of
3 public hearings being held to receive public
4 comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 on the siting of wastewater treatment facilities
6 for Boston Harbor. As you may know, the
7 Authority which was created by an act of the
8 legislature and signed into law on December 19,
9 1984, officially took over control of the
10’ Sewerage and Water Works Divisions of the state’s
11 Metropolitan District Commission as of July 1,
12 1985. With that transition, the Authority
13 became the public proponent for this study.
14 On February 27, 1985, the Board of
15 Directors of the Water Resources Authority was
16 sworn in. Immediately thereafter the Board met
17 at least once weekly to both prepare for the
18 transition from the MDC and to undertake the
19 process of deciding upon a preferred alternative
20 site to the proposed treatment facilities for
21 Boston Harbor.
22 In line with its mandate to clean up
23 the badly polluted harbor, the Authority decided

-------
in
1 €o name a preferred alternative site by July,
2 1985. The Board took into account the previous
3 studies done on the plant site in question, and
4 the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
5 Statement, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
6 along with the Certificate of Adequacy issued by
7 the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, James
8 Hoyte, who also chairs the Authority Board.
9 Throughout several months of
10 deliberations, the Board used eight criteria
11 against which to measure all of the information
12 it was receiving. These criteria included
13 enhancing the harbor, implementability, impacts
14 on neighbors, impacts on cultural and natural
15 resources, cost, reliability, mitigation and
16 equitable distribution of regional
17 responsibility. The latter two criteria were
18 added to the six original criteria at the
19 request of the Authority Board of Directors.
20 Upon examination of the information it
21 received at numerous public meetings and taking
22 into consideration comments received from the
23 public and from representatives of potentially

-------
11
1 ‘impacteti communities, the Board of Directors
2 determined by a vote on July 10, 1985, that Deer
3 Island would be the preferred alternative for
4 siting of the new treatment facility.
5 Shortly after the July 10th decision,
6 the Board decided it would not appeal the
7 Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of a
8 Section 301—H waiver and would, therefore, plan
9 to design and construct a secondary treatment
10 facility.
11 Other actions taken by the Board in
12 conjunction with the siting decision included a
13 vote on July 9, 1985, to direct Authority staff
14 to work with any and all elected and appointed
15 officials for the purpose of expediting the
16 removal and relocation of any other institution
17 located on whichever island it ultimately
18 designated as the preferred alternative site for
19 the new wastewater treatment facility. It also
20 voted on July 10 that the preferred siting for
21 the sludge disposal facility be somewhere other
22 than the island at which the treatment plant was
23 to be constructed.

-------
12
1 The Authority Board of Directors
2 strongly supports a list of mitigation measures
3 which are outlined in the Final Environmental
4 Impact Report. They include transportation
5 which is barging of construction materials to
6 the site to the maximum extent feasible and busing
7 or ferrying of workers.
8 Two, noise. Using the best available
9 technologies which are economically feasible
10 during construction of the plant to minimize
11 noise surpassing the legal noise standards of
12 the City of Boston and setting up an aggressive
13 monitoring program with detection equipment and
14 an oversight panel made up of citizens and
15 experts.
16 Three, odor. A goal of no off site
17 odor, working to prevent odors at the source by
18 controlling materials which enter the system,
19 implement on site odor control systems and
20 establishing aggressive monitoring programs with
21 a citizen and expert oversight panel.
22 Disinfection. The Authority is now
23 completing a study of alternatives to the use of

-------
13
1 ‘chlorine as a disinfectant and will conduct a
2 thorough investigation within the context of the
3 facility’s planning activity for the new plant.
4 While chlorine continues to be used, the
5 Authority is committed to maximizing safety of
6 workers and the public through emergency
7 training and the use of safety equipment.
8 Site layout. Using the whole island
9- for the treatment plant which has significant
10 impacts on plant design and thus affects
11 operations and maintenance, noise, odor, visual
12 impact and landscaping plans as well as
13 providing optimal recreational opportunities.
14 Operations and maintenance. Providing
15 adequate budget and staff for proper maintenance
16 and operation of the facility.
17 Finally, the last item, flow and growth.
18 Undertaking aggressive management and planning
19 initiatives which will assist in the proper
20 functioning of the facility and, hopefully,
21 avoid the need for plant expansion.
22 The Authority Board of Directors upon
23 review of public comment and the substantial

-------
14
1 information and evaluations received subsequent
2 to its tentative siting decision will make a
3 final siting decision in the month of February
4 coming up. The close of the official comment
5 period on the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 is January 24 for the Authority.
7 I wish to thank you for your attention
8 and look forward to your continued interest in
9 this vitally important project.
10 With that statement, I would like to
11 pass on to Mr. Michael Deland, the Regional
12 Administrator of EPA.
13 MR. MICHAEL DELAND: It’s a
14 pleasure for me to be here this evening and I,
15 too, can thank you all for taking the time this
16 evening to attend this hearing and express your
17 opinions on the siting of a wastewater treatment
18 facility for Boston Harbor. I’m sure that each
19 of you is aware of the severity of the problems
20 confronting Boston Harbor. The siting and
21 construction of new treatment facilities are
22 essential first steps to clean up the harbor.
23 One year ago we held a similar hearing,

-------
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
new confidence that
become a reality.
pleasure for me to
see first hand the
already is bringing
will continue to br
As far as
r e s 0 n s i b
doing has
of public service.
this commonweal
diligently than
here with us thi
a clean harbor can, indeed,
It has been a privilege and a
Michael
leader
ard and
future.
itself goes, it has
tremely seriously
inest of examples
I know of no other board in
worked any more
of whose members are
and that is an action
of EPA
for some reason slightly better attended than
the one tonight, to gather input on the draft
version of the Environmental Impact Statement on
treatment facilities siting. Since that time,
many changes have taken place and much progress
has been made.
The Authority has rapidly developed
into a competent and effective agency inspiring
Gritzuk and
ship that he
that he
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
work with
thoughtful
to the Bo
ing in the
the Board
ilities ex
set the f
taken its
and in so
th
th
S
that has
at, many
evening
and an ongoing activity that I and all
applaud.

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16
EPA and the Authority have worked to
address the concerns you voiced at our last
round of hearings. New technical studies have
been performed so that we may better understand
the impacts of building and operating treatment
facilities and develop ways of avoiding or
mitigating those impacts. EPA endorses the
Authority’s tentative decision that Deer Island
is the best site for a Boston Harbor treatment
plant. But that determination is wedded to
several mitigation measures designed to protect
the Community of Winthrop from the possible
impacts of building and operating one of the
largest treatment plants in the world.
Mandatory mitigation measures which EPA
will impose include, first, barging of
construction materials and equipment to reduce
trucking through Winthrop, busing and ferrying
of construction workers to reduce commuter
traffic in Winthrop and East Boston during the
construction period, use of the maximum feasible
degree of odor control and investigation on
state of the art odor control technology, a ban

-------
17
1 on the use of liquid chlorine unless there is a
2 clear and convincing demonstration that it is
3 needed, prohibition against trucking chlorine
4 through Winthrop as soon as piers and staging
5 areas are available, and maximum noise control
6 measures.
7 EPA is committed to ensuring that the
8 mandatory mitigation measures are carried out by
9 making those measures a condition of any federal
10 construction grant and possibly seeking support
11 of the federal courts for the measures.
12 I would like to offer a personal
13 comment to the officials and citizens of Quincy.
14 I have long admired and applauded your active
15 concern and commitment to a clean harbor. In
16 fact, it was a suit filed on behalf of Quincy
17 that set in motion the process that we are
18 following tonight. But there is still much,
19 much to be done. We all recognize that the
20 Authority’s tentative decision places difficult
21 burdens on Winthrop.
22 You and I must join the Authority, the
23 Governor, the Mayor of Boston, the legislative

-------
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
leadership, to maintain momentum toward a clean
harbor. Our overriding responsibility is to
ensure that the treatment plant is built and
built on schedule.
Our further mutual charge is to
implement the mitigation measures to get the
Deer Island Prison moved and moved soon, and to
ensure that the development of the Long Island
Park. I trust we can all join together to meet
this long overdue mandate.
Once again, I thank you for coming, and
I look forward to hearing your comments. Thank
you very much.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you.
In a second I will introduce the first
speaker who will be the Honorable Mayor McCauley.
Before I do, I have a correction to an earlier
statement that I made. I won’t state it
incorrectly again. I’ll state it correctly.
The Environmental Protection comment
period extends until January 21st, and comments
should be sent into the agency. The Water
Resources Authority comment period ends on

-------
19
1 January 24th. I have been informed that those
2 comments should be sent to the MEPA Unit at the
3 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. It’s
4 also okay if you would like to send a copy of
5 that over to the Authority as well.
6 I would also like to introduce at the
7 end of the table John Carroll who is also a
8 member of the Water Resources Authority Board
9 who has joined us this evening.
10 The first speaker this evening will be
11 Mayor Francis Mccauley, Mayor of Quincy. He
12 will be followed by Joan Oates representing
13 Senator Harold.
14 MAYOR FRANCIS MCCAULEY: -Thank you
15 very much, Mr. Lawson.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Mass. Water
17 Resources Authority, Mr. Deland and Mr. Gritzuk,
18 let me first welcome you all to the City of
19 Quincy again.
20 Let me offer my congratulations to you,
21 Mr. Gritzuk —— Mike I think we can call you ——
22 for your appointment. I understand the Board
23 unamimously approved you. I think I can speak

-------
20
1 for the citizens of Quincy when I say we
2 consider your job probably one of the most
3 important jobs that is going to affect the City
4 of Quincy in the years ahead.
5 It has been about ten months ago since
6 we all gathered together in Quincy. It was the
7 second of three public hearings. We met in
8 Cambridge on February 27, I believe. I attended
9 that meeting. We met on March 7 in Quincy. I
10 couldn’t get over to Winthrop, but I did get to
11 the Quincy meeting.
12 I just want to thank you, Mr. Deland,
13 and also, Mike, you might pass it on to Jamie
14 Hoyte who sat in who is the Chairman of the MWRA
15 Board of Directors, for coming to Quincy and
16 being very patient, listening.
17 We had a lengthy meeting on March 7.
18 believe it went to somewhere around one o’clock
19 in the morning. You had a very difficult
20 decision, the MWRA I’m talking about, to make.
21 You made that decision on July 10th of this past
22 year. The decision was that the new expanded
23 treatment plant that would effect the cleanup of

-------
21
1 Quincy Bay and Boston Harbor would be built in
2 WInthrop.
3 It was an unfortunate situation that
4 the Town of Winthrop was pitted against the City
5 of Quincy to a large extent. It was unfortunate
6 that somebody had to win and somebody had, in
7 effect, to lose a bit, but the decision was made.
8 Obviously, those of us in Quincy think it was a
9 good decision, we are pleased that these
10 Environmental Impact Reports that you have been
11 working on since that time bear that decision
12 out.
13 If I heard you correctly, Mr. Deland,
14 there will be a final vote on this matter
15 sometime in February by the MWRA.
16 Once again, we are confident and we
17 hope that vote will be the confirmation of the
18 first vote that was made on July 10. Obviously,
19 we are very supportive here in the City of
20 Quincy for any mitigation devices that you might
21 put into effect to help the Town of Winthrop,
22 obviously. We want that plant to be built as
23 easily as possible at the least inconvenience to

-------
22
1 tour neighbors in Winthrop.
2 Let me thank you for coming to Quincy.
3 Let me thank you for all of the work that you
4 have done on this Board. I know Mr. Anderson.
5 I have to keep chasing him. He spends a good
6 deal of his time in there. He has been a good
7 representative for the City of Quincy. You have
8 all done an excellent job. I want to wish you
9 the very best of luck in your efforts for the
10 cleanup of Boston Harbor and Quincy Bay in the
11 years ahead. Thank you. (Applause)
12 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
13 will be Joan Oates representing Senator Harold,
14 and she will be followed by Lydia Goodhue.
15 MS. JOAN OATES: I’m Senator
16 Harold’s Legislative Aide, and I’m here
17 representing Senator Harold. The Senator regrets
18 that he is unable to be here to give his
19 testimony to you in person because he regards
20 the cleanup of our harbors and the solving of
21 our sewering problems as the most pressing
22 issues facing the residents of this area.
23 Senator Harold approves the conclusions

-------
23
1 of both documents, the Water Resources Authority’s
2 Final Environmental Impact Report and the
3 Environmental Protection Agency’s Final
4 Environmental Impact Statement on waste
5 treatment facilities in Boston Harbor.
6 The siting process has been long, the
7 advantages and disadvantages of the viable sites
8 have been analyzed and weighed, and the
9 conclusion is that Deer Island is the most
10 viable site. Senator Harold is eager for the
11 completion of the siting process, so that the
12 implementation process can begin. He is
13 concerned also that during that implementation
14 process that the impacts on the Town of Winthrop
15 and the residents be mitigated as far as are
16 possible.
17 Senator Harold will continue to monitor
18 the issue, and he would like to know if you have
19 an implementation schedule and if there is a
20 date for the phase out of the Nut Island
21 Treatment Plant.
22 THE MODERATOR: We will provide
23 that information to you. This being a public

-------
24
much.
THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
this evening will be Lydia Goodhue. She will be
followed by Paul Anderson.
MRS. LYDIA GOODHUE: My name is
Lydia Goodhue. I live at 90 Dover Road in
Wellesley. I’m making a statement on behalf of
the Charles River Watershed Association which is
the association that I represented for many,
many years on the Boston Housing Citizen
Advisory Commi ttee -
CRWA has reviewed the FEIS and FEIR,
and we believe that the preferred alternative,
Deer Island, is the environmentally acceptable
choice. We urge that all parties Involved in
this decision work quickly to find ways to
mitigate the negative impacts associated with
hearing, however, we are primarily going to be
taking testimony, and there will not be
opportunity for dialogue. But we will make sure
someone is in contact with the Senator’s office
and, perhaps, you tomorrow with that information.
MS. JOAN OATES: Thank you very
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

-------
25
1 ‘this alternative, so that the planning and the
2 construction can begin as soon as possible.
3 While it will have a major positive
4 impact on harbor pollution, upgrading the harbor
5 wastewater treatment facility will not solve all
6 of the metropolitan area’s wastewater problems.
7 CSO’s will continue to pollute the harbor and
8 major tributaries such as the Charles until they
9 can be rehabilitated.
10 With a modern, well run secondary
11 treatment facility on line, it will be tempting
12 to assume that Boston’s sewerage system will
13 have the capacity to cope with added loads from
14 upstream development. CRWP 1 cautions those
15 involved in planning for the MWRA system that
16 the harbor plant should not be made to accept
17 wastes from communities which are not currently
18 members of the system. Within member
19 communities, II elimination must be mandated and
20 supported through appropriate government funding.
21 All the communities in eastern Massachusetts
22 should be encouraged to plan for the future,
23 looking away from the harbor facilities for

-------
26
to choose composting
e MWRA system communi
methods are chosen.
ppl a use)
THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
will be Mr. Paul Anderson. He will be followed
by State Representative Michael Morrissey.
MR. PAUL ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr.
Lawson.
It is, indeed, a pleasure to welcome
everyone back to Quincy at this time, obviously
under a little bit better and more hospitable
wastewater treatment and toward
satellite plants, package plants and
expanded
advanced
growth morator
Final
Contamination
reduce heavy m
concentrations
believe that t
must be immedi
Without this,
options will b
make it easier
sites among th
these disposal
very much. (A
Ia instead.
ly, in order to minimize toxic
from current CSO discharges and to
etal and toxic organic chemical
in the secondary sludge, we
he industrial pretreatment program
ately and vigorously enforced.
the range of sludge disposal
e narrowed. A cleaner sludge will
or landfill
ties, if
Thank you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

-------
27
maybe circumstances than the last time.
only reason I say that is because at the
if you recall, th
there was a fear
lawsuit that Mayo
attempt to clean
actions subsequen
a situation where
Statements process
Tonight I
is indicative
great deal of
of
sup
The
time,
a fear in this city,
ere was
that in effect not
r Mccauley brought
up the harbor, but
t to that were goin
the Environmental
was not going to
think the crowd
the fact that ther
port in Quincy for
you are seeing
it was ten month
t moreover
rest than
quite frankly,
only the
in our
moreover the
g to lead to
Impact
be preserved.
that is here
e is still a
the harbor
a city that
s ago. It
because we believe
the MWRA and the EPA acting together have come
together in a decision making process that has
led to the right result.
Mr. Deland, we sat and we beat up on
you for three hours that night and asked you to
listen to us. We feel that you have. I for one
salute you in the difficult decislons that you
made on the issues that confronted you. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
cleanup, bu
is more at
is at rest,

-------
28
1 firmly believe that you acted in the best
2 interests of not only the harbor communities,
3 but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a whole.
4 And for that I salute you because I know those
5 decisions were not easy, and certainly I’m sure
6 you spent a lot of time yourself thinking about
7 the ramifications of those decisions.
8 To my colleagues on the Board of
9 Directors, I thank you all very much for
10 supporting the basic positions that I took in
11 representing Quincy on the Board. I say that to
12 all of you except for Peg.
13 And, Peg, I knew you couldn’t support
14 what I wanted you to support. But as you heard
15 Mayor McCauley tonight, we know how difficult it
16 is to accept such a decision because we were
17 afraid we might have to accept that same
18 decision.
19 You have not only the commitment from
20 the Mayor of the City of Quincy and our State
21 Senator, but have my continued support for any
22 and all efforts of mitigation to makethis
2-3 decision more palatable to your community. I.

-------
29
1 believe my votes in the past have shown you that
2 commitment is real and that commitment will
3 continue.
4 Mr. Deland mentioned the importance of
5 that mitigation not only to the people of the
6 Town of Winthrop, but moreover to the whole use
7 of the harbor in the future. Mr. Deland, I will
8 continue to work in my position as a member of
9 the Board of Directors on the MWRA to secure the
10 removal of the jail, the commitment that
11 Governor Dukakis and Mayor Flynn made public
12 prior to our Board vote that enabled many people
13 on the Board to support the Deer Island
14 alternative. I agree with you it’s very, very
15 necessary to move that jail, and we will
16 continue to work to that effort.
17 I would just like to say one more thing.
18 I’m not going to speak too long because I think
19 I overstayed my welcome ten months ago, but I am
20 very, very proud ‘to be a member of the MWRA
21 Board of Directors —— I was appointed by
22 Governor Dukakis upon Mayor Harold’s
23Th ‘recomin-endation ——because sitting withthe fine
___________________ _______

-------
30
objective on this Board
harbor. The commitment
effort has been unyield
deal of their own time,
cases patience, certain
For that, we appreciate
But moreover for
started this battle and
objectives not only to c
how, there were several
fight for that we thought
We are going to
and our programs in this
has been most supportive
no other
Quincy, when we
looking for
the harbor, but
we continued to
were lost, but MWRA in
taken notice of
fic issue of
are also
area. One of
trol. This is
to limit the
protect the size
inent plant.
people with whom I sit who have
than to clean up the
of this Board to that
mg, it has taken a great
effort, and in some
of us Board members.
your consideration.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
we were
lean up
things
future its planning has already
and as they relate to the speci
siting are important, but they
important to the future of our
them is infiltration inflow con
part of our mitigation package,
amount of flow in the system to
and integrity of that new treat
continue our efforts
area, and thIs Board
of efforts to do that.

-------
31
19
20
21
22
23
Moreover, conservation
part of mitigation are
integrity of the whole
leaking and causing the
Nut Island today, and if
today, we will be facing
The one othe
look at your booklet
tonight, you will see
call alternative faci
Mr. Griffith what an
It’s what we call up
plant. I would just
commitment to looking
potential growth rest
in fact, the flow in
design capability of
effect, that battle i
and pricing strategies as
going to help again the
systems that we know is
problems that we face at
we don’t face here
at Deer Island tomorrow.
r one that we want, if you
that you have with you
under Mitigation what we
lities. I found out from
alternative facility is.
here a satellite treatment
like to say MWRA has made a
to that measure as a
riction on the system, if,
the system exceeds the
the new plant. So, in
$ not done.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The sharing of the regional burden for
sewerage treatment, at least on the part of MWRA,
that search will continue. And I will indicate,
if anyone needs any proof of that, you can look
at our Sludge Option Study that shows that no

-------
32
1 longer are we only looking to send our waste to
2 the oceans, but we are looking for a way to
3 handle our wastes where they should be handled,
4 basically within our area.
5 So for those commitments from the Board,
6 I thank them, for their patience and
7 understanding for the City of Quincy’s
8 representative, I salute you. But thank you
9 again for coming back here tonight, and we
10 appreciate the decisions that have been made.
1]. Mr. Deland, you have the city’s
12 commitment to continue to work with the EPA as
13 well as the MWRA in meeting the objectives of
14 cleaning up the harbor. I think our effort and
15 your recent court suit has shown you what we are
16 attempting to do. I know the Mayor in a meeting
17 the other day instructed Mr. Coughlin, Stan and
18 myself to follow those efforts, and we are
19 looking forward to working with both the MWRA
20 and the EPA. Thank you very much. (Applause)
21 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
22 is Michael Morrissey, State Representative. He
23 will be followed by Barbara McConville.

-------
33
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MORRISSEY:
Thank you very much. As most of the speakers
have mentioned,
under these cir
because of the
have had and we
couple of years
various recomme
by the EPA and
Authority and t
established for
were skeptical
there was conc
think
applau
their
it is a pleasure to be here
cumstances. I believe it is
integrity of the system that we
have implemented over this past
I think when you look at the
ndations that have been borne out
the Mass. Water Resources
he criteria that has been
siting recommendations, people
at first, and you may recall
rn about back room dealings. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
e
that has all been put aside and that I
d the efforts of the EPA and MWRA and
primary alternative of Deer Island.
I would say when you looked at the
initial reports economically, financially,
ecologically, historical and environmental
concerns, it was clear that the choice, sorry to
say, should have been Deer Island.
Like many of the other speakers here
tonight from the City of Quincy, we think Quincy

-------
34
1 and Winthrop for a long period of time have
2 really borne the brunt of regional
3 responsibility and that the alternatives pitted
4 two fine communities against each other and
5 Boston as well for that matter in the sewer
6 siting alternative.
7 I would echo the sentiment of our
8 Public Works Commissioner and support any kind
9 of mitigation action including a ban on chlorine
10 in the future, if some alternative was able to
11 be found that would make it safer, because that
12 has always been a concern of the people in the
13 City of Quincy. The chlorine trucks traveling
14 down Sea Street in Houghs Neck, I’m sure won’t
15 be any different in Winthrop, and they have
16 also, I’m sure, expressed that concern to you.
17 I would point out that the Water
18 Resources Authority, my colleague in Quincy, Tom
19 Brownell, the State Legislator and I had for a
20 number of years and Tom even prior to my filing
21 had filed legislation to create a Water
22 Resources Authority or a separate Sewer and
2.3. Water Division as i-t was known.then, not so much

-------
35
1 the Sewer and Water Authority. That support was
2 picked up by the Governor office, and I for
3 eight years sat on the Committee on Housing and
4 Urban Development, the committee which helped
5 create the Water Resources Authority. I think
6 we are very pleased with the way it’s going and
7 the support it has received. We hope that
8 continues, and we hope you’re able to use all
9 due speed for implementation of this long term
10 solution.
11 I would point out in my new role as
12 Chairman of the Committee on Counties I seem to
13 have gone from the frying pan to the fire. We
14 were instrumental this year in putting a bond
15 issue through of two hundred fifty million
16 dollars for jail reconstruction. We stand ready
17 next year to, hopefully, file legislation and
18 support legilation that would allow for the
19 rebuilding and the take over of Deer Island
20 House of Correction. You have my support and
21 I’m sure a number of my colleagues in the
22 legislature, and we stand ready to beof
-23 assistance to you-when the time comes for Deer

-------
36
1 Island.
2 Again, I would support any kind of
3 mitigation actions. And, as the Commissioner
4 mentioned, satellite treatment plants in the
5 future have always been a goal of those in the
6 City of Quincy. I thank you for listening
7 tonight. (Applause)
8 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
9 will be Barbara McConville. She will be
10 followed by Senator Thomas Brownell, if he is
11 here.
12 MS. BARBARA MCCONVILLE: My name
13 is Barbara McConvllle. I live at 29 Chickatabut
14 Road in Quincy. I was one of the organizers of
15 a ten thousand name state—wide petition to clean
16 up the Bay which we presented to Senator Kennedy.
17 After reading the reports, I feel Deer
18 Island would be the best site for a secondary
19 treatment plant, but with several primary
20 treatment plants inland at the locations of
21 current or proposed pumping stations and a deep
22 water outfall at Deer Island. I do not feel
23 that all treatment can be dc ne on the water

-------
37
1 because of untreated overflows into the bays.
2 Our waterfront is precious to the entire state.
3 I do not think it would be any more expensive
4 and it could be implemented faster. No new hook—ups
5 without a primary treating plant along with a
6 pumping station. (Applause)
7 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
8 will be Leo Kelly.
9 MR. LEO KELLY: First of all, I
10 would just like to make my own personal feelings
11 clear, and that is that I don’t think sludge and
12 industrial waste belongs deposited in our harbor
13 at any time or any place, whether in the present
14 or the future. But of the treatment options
15 that are offered tonight, of the two, Long
16 Island and Deer Island, I naturally have to
17 endorse strongly the Deer Island treatment
18 facility.
19 I don’t think the siting though
20 addresses the cause of the damage that has been
21 done to the harbor. The sludge and sewerage and
22 effluent and industrial waste that hasbeen
2,3 poured into that over the years, it addresses

-------
38
1 that and addresses it in the future. Possibly,
2 as I understand, the site could be opened and
3 taking in the first effluents would probably be
4 in the year 2010. So it’s my opinion that it
5 does really not address the problems of the bay
6 destruction today.
7 I would just like to let you people
8 know that I think that we have it in Falmouth,
9 the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who for
10 years been working in conjunction with the
11 United States Government and the University of
12 Columbia in charting the ocean bottom, the
13 Atlantic Ocean. They have been taking soundings
14 and water temperatures at extreme depths. They
15 have been taking samples of the ocean’s floor.
16 When you have that kind of an agency,
17 kind of people, kind of equipment, in existence
18 already in our state, then it would seem to me
19 that we could implement this type of agencies
20 that could find out where is the sludge in the
21 bay, where is it in Boston Harbor, where is it
22 in Quincy Bay, how deep is it, where is the
23 industrial waste, where is the toxins, where areS

-------
39
1 the heavy metals, where are they located in the
2 bay. Locate them immediately, and remove them
3 immediately. Start already cleaning up the bay,
4 so that when the facility opens after the year
5 2010, we would already start cleaning the
6 environment.
7 As you people know, you’re all
8 environmentalists, once you start cleaning the
9 environment, it will come back, it will start
10 rejuvenating itself. You can never kill. You
11 can damage it and destroy it, but it has a life
12 that can be rejuvenated. You start to clean it.
13 I think we should be doing that immediately.
14 Whether we mean to scrape the bottom or remove
15 or dredge, but get it out of there and start the
16 cleanup immediately.
17 I don’t know whether the Water
18 Resources Authority because of its environmental
19 work that is ahead of it, not only in the siting
20 and construction and management of sewerage, but
21 also addressing the major water problems which
22 are going to be of extreme cost, I don’t know
23 whether the Water Resources Author ity can do

-------
40
1 that.
2 I certainly don’t think it should be
3 paying for it. I think we have federal Super
4 Funds and state agencies and funding that would
5 pay for the immediate cleaning up of the bay,
6 that we start that tomorrow, that we get the
7 people in, we have them in the state, clean it
8 up and get going with the cleaning of the bay.
9 Thank you. (Applause)
10 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr.
11 Kelly.
12 The next speaker will be Steve McGrath
13 of the City Council of Quincy. He will be
14 followed by Michael Cheney of the same body.
15 MR. STEVE MCGRATH: Greetings.
16 This will be very brief. Just in associating my
17 comments with some of the previous speakers from
18 the City of Quincy indicating our continued
19 support to locate the site of the treatment
20 plant at Deer Island, basically my reasons are
21 those of cost and the lesser cost of siting the
22 facility at that particular location as opposed
23 to some of the other ones and primarily not

-------
41
1 locating the site at Long Island for two reasons.
2 Number one, due to the hospital health care
3 facility that currently exists at that site and
4 also the planned future use of Long Island as a
5 recreational facility for the Boston area.
6 I also would like to associate myself
7 with Mayor McCauley’s remarks indicating our
8 support for the mitigation efforts relative to
9 the construction effort that will be undertaken
10 in Winthrop in support of our Winthrop neighbors.
11 Thank you very much. (Applause)
12 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.
13 Before I introduce the next speaker, I
14 would like to acknowledge that Lorraine Downey,
15 another member of the Mass. Water Resources
16 Authority Board, has joined us.
17 The next speaker will be Michael Cheney,
18 followed by Jack Walsh.
19 MR. MICHAEL CHENEY: I would like
20 to first take this opportunity to congratulate
21 Michael Deland and your entire staff. It has
22 been much longer than a two—year process to come
23 this far. I would also like to thank the Board

-------
42
1 of Directo
2 Authority.
3 passed the
4 signed it
5 Mass. Wat
6 perceived
7 sometime
8 one other
9 found was
10 made some
11 toward the
12
13 Hoyte. I
14 his admini
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
rs of the Mass. Water Resources
Certainly when the legislation
House and Senate and the Governor
into enactment, the creation of the
er Resources Authority, it was
among many people they would take
for an interim period to get used to
and central administration. That we
not true at all. Within ten days you
very tough, long standing actions
clean up of Boston Harbor.
I would also like to comment on Jamie
think that any prior person sitting in
strative position would envy him. He
now has the tools to clean up Quincy Bay and
Boston Harbor that no other administration had
before. I’m referring to the Mass. Water
Resources Authority. The actions they have
taken within the past few months has really
given us an indication that we can foresee the
cleaning up of the harbor at least within my
lifetime.
As we know, the-FEIS and and FEIR is a

-------
43
1 very lengthy document. I would like to limit i y
2 comments to some very specific portions of both
3 reports that I am concerning myself with. First
4 of all, the use of the chlorine as a
5 disinfection was thoroughly addressed in the new
6 facility. However, it did not go far enough.
7 What I’m referring to is I would have liked to
8 have seen it expanded to the complete
9 prohibition of the use of chlorine as a
10 disinfection. I think we have seen the concern
11 of Winthrop, Quincy and Boston proper to call
12 for an immediate prohibition on the use of
13 chlorine.
14 . The study that you refer to at our
15 public meeting that took place, I think that
16 again I’ll just reiterate I think you’re giving
17 people a false impression that the chlorine
18 study is a method —— the current chlorine study
19 of alternative method of disinfection is a
20 method in which we are currently looking at ways
21 for alternative methods of disinfection. As a
22 participant in that, I feel it’s reall y not a
23 reflection of what has taken place •in the City

-------
44
1 of Quincy.
2 We have Set out in the City of Quincy,
3 both Jack Walsh of the Citizens Advisory
4 Committee and myself, and have met with a member
5 of the Mass. Water Resources Authority, asked
6 for a study to be performed by you that would
7 address the use of chlorine as it’s being used
8 today with the sixteen ton tanker and chlorine
9 as we use it with the one ton cylinders, where
10 we have have been and where we go in terms of
11 methods of disinfection, including some research
12 that we might do ourselves. I don’t think there
13 is enough research that is being done currently.
14 We should be trend setters, not trend followers.
15 It’s a deep concern of mine.
16 One of the things that the City of
17 Quincy has done, we have provided an ordinance
18 that has cost the Mass. Water Resources former
19 MDC Agency considerable money in terms of
20 mitigation, police escorts, equipment, to the
21 City of Quincy for the protection of firemen in
22 the event an accident takes place. But one
23 stops to think when there is another method of

-------
45
disinfection,
implement it
implement it,
it’s good enou
it good enough
for the people
What I
reports seem to
the method to g
found that. Hi
itself. New Yo
thing we have g
twenty—five yea
thoroughly. In
the City of New
been pondering
I hay
why not implement it? Why
for a new facility? Why not
because it’s so dangerous. If
gh for a new facility, why isn’t
for the people in Houghs Neck,
in the City of Quincy?
might suggest is that all the
indicate that chlorine
o. The City of New York
story se
rk went
one thro
rs ago.
fact, t
Yo r k.
in the
e, in fa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is not
has
ems to be repeating
through the very same
ugh some twenty,
They researched it out
hey banned chlorine from
It’s something we have
City of Quincy.
Ct, drafted an ordinance
that would, in fact, ban it. However, because
of the cooperation between the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority and the City of Quincy,
I have been somewhat reluctant in doing that.
preferred rather to give you the oppor’tunity to
do a complete, thorough investigation, to go

-------
46
1 through the entire process and to come up with
2 all the alternatives before introducing such a
3 measure.
4 Secondly, one of the things that I am
5 most concerned about is the capping of the total
6 MGD in the new plant. We have been following
7 very closely the combined CSO’s, up in the
8 Neponset River Valley project that is currently
9 on the shelf but soon to be pulled off, the
10 Braintree/Weymouth Pumping Station which is on
11 the shelf, soon to be pulled off, and a number
12 of other projects including expansion within the
13 current system.
14 The concern I have is as we go through
15 a facilities planning stage, we are going to be
16 looking at a five hundred MGD plant, but what is
17 actually going to be happening behind us is over
18 development within the communities, and we will
19 be looking at six hundred MGD plant. I saw, in
20 fact, a strong commitment for a satellite
21 treatment facility. I applaud you for that. I
22 think you have heard over and over again from
23 the citizens of Quincy, Winthrop, Boston that

-------
47
1 satellite treatment facilities is certainly the
2 way to address new expanded growth.
3 I would like to see the satellite
4 treatment facility expand on its own, and, in
5 fact, communities within the forty—three
6 communities be capped to a certain MGD. In
7 fact, if they want to expand, if they have very
8 large development projects, then they should
9 address their own sewerage problem rather burden
10 those treatment plants that are already both
11 implemented and on the drawing boards.
12 To the people of Winthrop we offer a
13 strong commitment of continued support to ensure
14 those residents that the mitigation measures
15 which have been agreed upon will be implemented.
16 Peg, I heard your comments and I agree
17 with you. I have the same fear that the federal
18 government funds are going to be cut back. I
19 think once a decision is made, the City of
20 Quincy should not be out of it. The City of
21 Quincy should participate strongly in the
22 facilities plan. In the event the fe 3era1
23 government steps back on its commitment in

-------
48
1 cleaning up the Harbor in terms of funding it,
2 then the State is going to have to step In. I
3 think that is where we can help you out.
4 Myself, I have signed up as a member of
5 the Facilities Plan. I intend to remain on that
6 and see it through to the end to ensure that the
7 mitigation measures that Winthrop has been
8 promised will be followed through on.
9 As to the Federal Environmental Impact
10 Study, one comment on your funding criteria. I
11 again do not agree with Long Island. I have a
12 strong commitment in the past months for an
13 increase in some of the health care facilities
14 that are out there, an increase in commitment
15 for some of the open space and recreational
16 parcels that are on Long Island. It seems to me
17 it makes little to no sense to take an island
18 that is as beautiful as Long Island is and turn
19 it into a treatment facility.
20 As far as Winthrop is concerned and
21 Deer Island, it has a treatment facility on it,
22 you would not be taking away much. You, in
23 fact, might enhance the community by taking the

-------
49
1 prison away, that being one of the stronger
2 mitigation measures. I encourage all those who
3 would participate in removing the facility to
4 move so as quickly as possible. Thank you very
5 much. (Applause)
6 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
7 will be Jack Walsh. He will be followed by
8 Thomas Nutley.
9 MR. THOMAS WALSH: Good evening.
10 My name is Jack Walsh. I live at 63 Sea Avenue,
11 Quincy, Mass.
12 I look around here, and I see the same
13 faces at the same meetings every year, year
14 after year. The proposed cleanup of Boston
15 Harbor has been an extremely long process. We
16 are now completing the third major study
17 involving Boston Harbor in the siting of the
18 harbor treatment facility. As a member of the
19 Site Option CAC, which was started around 1978,
20 and the federal EPA’s Citizens Advisory
21 Committee, I feel I must comment on the federal
22 EIR and EIS.
23 There has been a substantial amount of

-------
50
1 information compiled regarding Boston Harbor and
2 how, because of over expansion, a lack of a long
3 range sewerage system plant and a neglected
4 treatment facility, this valuable resource has
5 been severely damaged. Although the bulk of the
6 most recent documents appear to be accurate,
7 there are some major differences between the
8 Federal EPA’s EIS and the MWRA’s EIR. It’s my
9 opinion that the Federal EPA’s evaluation of the
10 siting Issues are more realistic and presented a
11 more unbiased comparison of the siting
12 alternatives than did the MWRA’s.
13 I find it strange that although the
14 MWRA and Federal EPA share the same data base,
15 they could not agree on the siting issues that
16 did not have the site distinguishing
17 significance. The federal EPA stated that cost,
18 impact on cultural and natural resources and
19 reliability are not site specific, while the
20 MWRA concluded that implementability, impacts on
21 neighbors and reliability were neutral with
22 regard to the siting decision.
23 As a neighbor of the Nut Island

-------
51
1 Treatment Plant, I have to take exception to the
2 MWRA’s assessment of effects on neighbors siting
3 criteria. The MWRA states the sum total im Yacts
4 was roughly comparable for each location. I
5 cannot believe that the MWRA considers a two
6 hundred eighty foot separation at Nut Island
7 equivalent to a two thousand foot separation at
8 Deer Island or a two mile buffer a-t Long Island.
9 I also cannot believe that the MWRA consi ..s
10 the taking of homes or the filling of the bay
11 equivalent to construction impacts at either of
12 the other two sites.
13 My primary objection with the federal
14 EPA’s Environmental Impact Statement was with’
15 Appendex A. They stated at Nut Island this
16 change would include demolition of most of the
17 existing plant except chlorination facility. I
18 cannot understand how the dangers associated
19 with the use of chlorine at Deer Island can be
20 of such importance without realizing the Houghs
21 Neck community has the same problems.
22 In conclusion, the character of the
23 Houghs Neck community and the Point Shirley

-------
52
1 community are very similar; therefore, I can
2 appreciate how this decision, if not properly
3 implemented, can destroy a community. The
4 selection of the Deer Island sites only makes
5 sense if all barging and busing in mitigation is
6 guaranteed. The Deer Island Prison must be
7 removed, and all of Long Island must be
8 converted into a recreational resource. If the
9 above measures are not mandatory commitments of
10 the MWRA, it’s my opinion that the Deer Island
11 site is not the option that should be
12 implemented. Thank you.
13 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr.
14 Walsh.
15 The next speaker will be Thomas Nutley,
16 City Councillor of Quincy. He will be followed
17 by Pat Toland, also a City Councillor.
18 MR. THOMAS NUTLEY: Thank you. I
19 commend you for your wise decision making and
20 also your patience. The last time I testified
21 before this group I went on at ten minutes to
22 one, and Commissioner Deland was squirming in
23 his seat. When I left the hall I turned back

-------
53
1 and there were several people still in line
2 waiting to speak. I commend you for your
3 patience.
4 There are optimists and pessimists,
5 despite the decision by the Massachusetts Water
6 Authority and a nearly unanimous vote and EPA.
7 Watching the Patriots on yesterday, the
8 optimists looked and said we are ahead 24 to 7,
9 we are ahead, we can’t lose. I’m the pessimist.
10 I looked and said, my God, we’re only head by 24
11 to 7, we can’t win.
12 I won’t be happy and satisfied until
13 this is totally resolved and over and done with.
14 I’m relieved by the MWRA decision and EPA
15 decision. But I have cause for concern. There
16 are many good reasons for the EPA’s decision and
17 Mass. Water Resource Authority decision, the
18 least cost to the taxpayers, building a plant
19 where there is already a plant, the potential
20 trade offs beneficial to Winthrop, possibly the
21 demolition of the prison, something that would
22 be acceptable to the taxpayers, and certainly
23 the people of Quincy would strongly support some

-------
54
1 kind of assistance to the people of Winthrop in
2 removing that prison and providing state funds,
3 so they could have a recreational facility there.
4 Of the saving of Long Island Hospital to serve
5 the rapidly increasing number of the sick, homeless
6 and needy.
7 Another savings of great importance, if
8 Long Island is not chosen, of course, is that we
9 provide a legacy to our children, a legacy of an
10 unspoiled island and wilderness that forces us
11 almost into a moral decision as well as an
12 engineering and a technical decision. What are
13 we leaving to our children? We have a rapidly
14 growing development throughout the state of
15 concrete towers and concrete walls. We have
16 little land and grass left, few islands. We
17 have a legacy and a moral decision, and a legacy
18 to leave to our children. I suggest that Long
19 Island is not the place to build a sewerage
20 plant, to leave it for a recreational site.
21 Finally, on a very local level in this
22 Ward 6 area in the street just out front, if
23 Long Island had been chosen and the MDC would

-------
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
cross town traffic
literally thousand
elementary school
school students in
Therefore, any sew
attempting to use
crowded street wou
situation for all
In summar
evaluate the facts
we believe sincere
taxpayers that Deer
reasonable site for
(Applause)
there is a great deal of
on that Street serving
s of working pedestrians and
and middle school and high
the North Quincy area.
erage facilities vehicles
this narrow and already over
id present a very dangerous
concerned.
y, I ask all concerned to
objectively, and in so doing
ly as parents, residents, as
Island is the most
the plant. Thank,you.
not allow the use of Quincy Shore Drive, you
would have to use East Squantum Street out front
here. East Squantum Street could not handle
construction trucks, could not handle sludge
trucks and other heavy vehicles. It’s a much
too narrow Street, not only too narrow, and
could not be widened. There is no way that
Street could be widened.
In addition,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

-------
5
1 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.
2 The next speaker will be Pat Toland of
3 the City Council. She will be followed by Bob
4 Michaelson.
5 MS. PAT TOLAND: Thank you. Good
6 evening, ladies and gentlemen. As City
7 Councillor—At-Large, I’m here on behalf of the
8 residents of Quincy, as I have been before at
9 previous hearings, and, obviously, to say that
10 we are pleased with the Massachusetts Water
11 Resources Authority’s decision back in July to
12 choose Deer Island as the site for the treatment
13 plant. Obviously, we do have sympathy for the
14 Deer Island residents. I think it’s
15 specifically here tonight and agree thoroughly
16 there should be certainly consideration of
17 removal of that prison from Deer Island.
18 I also think that the satellite
19 treatment consideration that was emphasized in
20 your recent summary is something that definitely
21 should be considered in the future because the
22 people who have to live with this treatment
23 plant have long said, as we have here in Quincy,

-------
57
1 that the satellite treatment strategy would
2 probably have been the best one to begin with.
3 The former Councillor Kelly mentioned
4 the idea of cleaning up the harbor right now, to
5 start removing the toxic wastes that are there
6 now, whatever is at the bottom of that harbor,
7 because it will have such a long term effect.
8 All of us have been to the Aquarium in Boston
9 and seen what Boston Harbor has come to look
10 like over the last twenty—five years. It’s
11 certainly going to take another twenty—five
12 years to change that.
13 I hope you will certainly consider, you
14 the EPA, what the Mass. Water Resources
15 Authority has determined that Deer Island is
16 certainly the place as opposed to Long Island
17 which is a beautiful island, and there would be
18 no beneficial result from picking that island to
19 put a treatment plant on. But also the impact
20 on the City of Quincy, the one little road that
21 goes into Long Island through Squantum. It’s a
22 seaside community. The impact would
23 devastating. However, we would like to support

-------
58
1 Deer Island, too, in making it as easy as
2 possible to construct this treatment plant.
3 Thank you.
4 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
5 will be Bob Michelson, and he will be followed
6 by Joseph MacRitchie.
7 MR. BOB MICHELSON: Ladies and
8 gentlemen, to begin with, for the record, my
9 name is Bob Michelson. I’m the spokesperson for
10 the Quincy Department of Public Works
11 Environmental Inspection Unit.
12 I would, first of all, Mr. Deland, like
13 to commend and applaud your actions and the
14 actions of the EPA and the Mass. Water Resource
15 Authority for initiating the first steps in the
16 clean up of Boston Harbor and Quincy Bay and the
17 first steps that are ongoing as we speak at Nut
18 Island. I commend you for that.
19 We of the EIU are also taking steps to
20 clean up our waters. We are the unit in the
21 city responsible for investigating and
22 monitoring all possible generators pollution
23 withIn the city that affect the environmentY We

-------
59
1 have and will continue to monitor sludge deposits
2 in Quincy Bay and its tributaries. We take
3 water samples of any possible contaminants
4 within the City of Quincy. The City of Quincy
5 is taking action to prevent future pollution of
6 its waters. We would like to thank you for
7 helping us in the eventual clean up of our
8 waterways.
9 In conclusion, I would like to state
10 that I hope that Quincy DPW’s Environmental
11 Inspection Unit can play a helpful role in the
12 cleaning up of our waters over the upcoming
13 years. Thank you. (Applause)
14 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
15 will be Joseph MacRitchie. He will be followed
16 by Mr. Terry Fancher.
17 MR. JOSEPH MACRITCHIE: My name is
18 Joseph MacRitchie. I’m City Solicitor from
19 Quincy. I am also the Chairman of the Mass.
20 Water Pollution Task Force. I wasn’t the City
21 Solicitor in 1982 when the city filed a lawsuit,
22 but I was the attorney that physically carried
23 the suit out and filed it in the Nofolk Superior

-------
60
1 Court. It’s certainly gratifying tonight to
2 hear Mr. Deland say that he’s proud of the City
3 of Quincy. I think we all have to be proud of
4 that lawsuit. Thank you.
5 Now this evening I was looking through
6 the Executive Summary of the Massachusetts Water
7 Resources Authority’s booklet here, and I was
8 looking over the criteria that was used in
9 selecting ——in choosing Deer Island over Long
10 Island and Nut Island. There is one section
11 here that I found very gratifying. That is the
12 impact on the neighborhoods.
13 Leading up to the decision in July, I
14 attended the public hearings for public comments
15 in both Cambridge and at the Vo Tech School.
16 One of the issues that I spoke of was the
17 inappropriateness of both Long Island and Nut
18 Island based on the narrow roads in the
19 neighborhoods that the vehicles would have to
20 travel through in both the North Quincy and
21 Houghs Neck area.
22 Mr. Nutley, Ward 6 Councillor, has
23 spoken of East Squantum. Mike Cheney has spoken
j

-------
1 of about Sea Street. He’s a representative of
2 Ward 1. Both of those areas are older streets
3 within the communities. They are areas where
4 the houses are right on the streets. They
5 couldn’t be widened even though they are very
6 narrow. They would make the traffic vehicles
7 very inconvenient. It was at that time when I
8 formed those opinions and spoke at those
9 meetings that I was speaking from experience.
10 I’m a graduate of this high school that
11 we’re visiting tonight. And I remember very
12 distinctly sitting in the fourth floor of this
13 school at the end of the building listening to
14 trucks rumbling by when they were bringing in
15 fill for the Jordan Marsh Warehouse in Quincy.
16 A good friend of mine growing up walking down
17 Squantum Street was on his way home from school
18 one day and a truck hit him, knocked him down to
19 the ground, continued on, didn’t even realize
20 that it hit him. You know, he ended up bringing
21 a claim, he recovered, he’s all right, you know,
22 no ill effects. But this is the type of thing I
23 think we have to be careful of. I think this is

-------
62
1 the type of thing that we have to be sure that
2 Winthrop is mitigated for.
3 I know the ordinance that we wrote last
4 year in the City of Quincy we said no chlorine
5 trucks would be in school districts just before
6 or just after the beginning and ending of school.
7 I think we have to very sure there is no traffic
8 around the school children commuting on these
9 busy streets, and I hope similar measures are
10 made in Winthrop.
1]. With that in mind, I hope that the
12 Environmental Protection Agency and the
13 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority will
14 affirm their earlier decision that Long Island
15 and Deer Island —— Long Island and Nut Island
16 would not be the site, but Deer Island with
17 appropriate mitigation measures would be the
18 site of the new sewerage treatment plant.
19 (Applause)
20 THE MODERATOR: Terry Fancher. He
21 will be followed by Maureen Mazrimas.
22 MR. TERRY FANCHER: I’m the
23 Manager of Business and Transporation of the

-------
63
1 South Shore Chamber of Commerce. This letter is
2 addressed to Mr. Michael Deland.
3 The South Shore Chamber of Commerce
4 would like to take this opportunity to
5 congratulate you and your staff on working with
6 both state and local officials on one of the
7 most important issues of our time, the clean up
8 of Boston Harbor. Through your perseverence and
9 skill, something will finally be done to upgrade
10 our sewerage facility. As we have said in the
11 past, we would have liked to have seen more
12 planning in the area of regional treatment
13 facilities. I hope that the door has not been
14 closed on that permanently. That not being the
15 case tonight, however, we do support the
16 Environmental Impact Statement and the
17 Environmental Impact Report.
18 It is our hope that your office, the
19 office of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs,
20 the Mass. Water Resources Authority and the
21 Advisory Board and citizens groups like the CAC
22 on which we sat during the process will continue
.23 . to work on the mitigating measures -to lessen the

-------
64
1 impact on the Winthrop area that the
2 construction of the Deer Island alternative may
3 have.
4 I personally hope that you push for the
5 removal of the Deer Island Correctional Facility
6 from Deer Island in order to strengthen the
7 quality of life for those living in Winthrop.
8 We stand by previous statements in support of
9 the Deer Island alternative for both primary and
10 secondary treatment. Best wishes for a most
11 complex job well done. Thanks.
12 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
13 is Maureen Mazrimas, and she will be followed by
14 Clara Yeamans.
15 MS. MAUREEN MAZRIMAS: For the
16 record, my name is Maureen Mazrimas. I’m
17 Chairman of the Board of Directors of Save Our
18 Shores. However, I would like to make my
19 comments tonight on a personal basis.
20 Initially I would like to congratulate
21 the Water Resources Authority and the EPA for
22 coming to North Quincy High School this evening.
23 In the past it has been felt by many that the

-------
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Wh
to have the
towns, it S
satell ites
considered
however, t
considered
has
5 i t i ng
north end of Quincy, including Squanturn,
really not thought to be impacted by the
decision, and your being here tonight
acknowledges that you do recognize that we are
impacted, and we thank you for that.
ile most of us would have preferred
siting spread out among the user
eems the implementability of
recommended by so many is not
at this time. It is encouraging,
o see that the satellites are being
for future expansion. However, any
expansion of the system should be considered
very thoughtfully.
The system, as has been noted in the
past, was never designed to carry the load that
it’s carrying now. It was never designed to
handle the number of towns that are currently in
the system. And I feel that before we get into
the same state of affairs again, any expansion
should be considered very, very thoughtfully.
Since satellites have not been among the
alternatives in the EIR/EIS’s, the unfortunate

-------
66
1 choice must be Deer Island. It is the least
2 expensive, requires the least number of years to
3 complete and does not have the legislative
4 problems of, you know, relocating the cemetary,
5 et cetera, that Long Island has.
6 I would also like to echo the
7 sentiments of Miss Goodhue of the Charles River
8 Watershed Association regarding the CSO’s and
9 the INR. These must be addressed as soon as
10 possible, especially in view of the fact that
11 the new plant will not be in working order for
12 some six to eight years.
13 Another problem which has had little
14 attention is the quantity of industrial wastes
15 in the system. Without these wastes, it might
16 be possible to do something else with the sludge
17 such as composting. The sludge has also been
18 another issue which I don’t think has been
19 really defined very clearly enough where it’s
20 going and what’s happening to it in the EIR and
21 EIS.
22 Lastly, I think that the c mmunity of
23 North Quincy can encpathize with Winthrop, and I

-------
1 seriously think that Jack Walsh’s comments
2 regarding mandating these mitigating measures
3 for Deer Island must be guaranteed before Deer
4 Island has to suffer any further with something
5 having been taken back after it’s been promised.
6 Thank you. (Applause)
7 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
8 will be Clara leamans followed by Roger Lyons.
9 MS. CLARA YEAMANS: I’m Clara
10 Yeamans of 115 Winthrop Avenue in Wollaston. At
11 present, I’m President of the organization which
12 we call Save Our Shores. We are very much
13 interested certainly in all of the situations
14 that we have in the harbor. I have been
15 impressed in reviewing the Final Environmental
16 Impact Statement by the considered comments and
17 recommendations of the Citizens Advisory
18 Committee and simply want to concur for Save Our
19 Shores with their concern about sludge
20 management.
21 Here I want to interpose that Lydia
22 Goodhue’s suggestion or recommendatior that
23 ce tain1y the industrial sludge must be

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
speak, and
speak for
will beco
that Save
that ther
capacity,
initial d
know you
concern a
Watershed
one of the things
y concurs with is
initial design
pansion of the
68
controlled at the source. Then we can make use
of what we know is a valuable resource. When
use it. We are
this sludge is clean, we can
destroying and throwing away
value in America today. I’m
but we are on the right trac
talk about these things and
It is gratifying to
Mr. Anderson and
satellite plants.
me a necessity since
Our Shores certaini
e be no expansion of
that there be no ex
far too much of
sure we know that,
k when we begin to
begin to remedy them.
hear Mr. Anderson
many others now,
Here again, this
esign capacity allowed. So, you see, I
see, where we all are heading.
We appreciate your work and your
nd hope, along with the Charles River
Association, with the Neponset
Conservation Association, with that fine Waldo
Holkem helping in every direction and.along with
ever so many people, that we of Save Our Shores
can also be of service, and p-lease be sure to

-------
69
1 call upon us if we can help in any way. Thank
2 you very much. (Applause)
3 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
4 will be Roger Lyons. He will be followed by
5 Andrea Sault.
6 MR. ROGER LYONS: Mr. Chairman,
7 members of the panel, some of you people know me,
8 most of you don’t. But I have been around this
9 waterfront for some few years. I have seen the
10 pollution in Boston Harbor and Quincy Bay since
11 I was a teen—ager swimming in Wollaston Bay. It
12 really hasn’t changed a bit. I know you people
13 have worked hard to come up with a program that
14 may or may not work.
15 I’m the doubtful Thomas tonight. I
16 can’t see why we should continue to add so many
17 surrounding towns into our over burdened
18 sewerage system and say we can come up with a
19 new program that is going to work within reason.
20 I can’t see why a lot of these surrounding towns
21 can’t maintain their own sewerage to some degree
22 at least, and I can’t see why we shc uldn’t have
23 - some guarantee that we won’t be pickiru up more

-------
70
surrounding communities as the years come and go
to come in and pollute our harbors and Boston
Harbor.
If you know the harbors like I do,
there isn’t a prettier harbor in the whole
country. It’s a lovely place to visit, and few
people really appreciate the values of Boston
Harbor.
I could go into some of the details in
the past of where I worked with the fifty—five
thousand dollar study as to how to develop the
harbor islands, that type of thing. Most people
can’t conceive of the filth in Boston Harbor.
Even the fisherman
up the fish in Bost
If I felt
that you people are
good for us down the
a few years; I know
years to do it. Bu
could see the magni
in the several bill
really clean up Bos
today are skeptic of picking
on Harbor.
satisfied that this program
working on actually could be
road —— I don’t mean within
it’s going to take many
t if I was satisfied that I
tude of what is contemplated
ions of dollars that will
ton Harbor, I would say
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

-------
71
1 wonderful. But I think it would be awfully
2 important to be assured that no more communities
3 would join the system and those communities in
4 the system now that could maintain their own
5 sewerage should be forced to do it before we
6 inundate the systems that we are contemplating.
7 Thank you very much. (Applause)
8 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
9 will be Andrea Sault. She will be followed by
10 Mr. Bill Grabowsi.
11 MS. ANDREA SAULT: My name is
12 Andrea Sault. I live at 136 Sea Avenue. I’m a
13 member of the Nut Island CAC and the
14 Supplementary Draft EIS CAC.
15 I found the statement somewhat
16 difficult to prepare as I’m addressing two
17 separate documents on somewhat unrelated issues.
18 However, there are four basic points which I
19 would like to make.
20 First, I question why the MWRA report
21 gives little discussion to the impacts at Nut
22 Island and yet does not eliminate it as an
23 option for primary treatment, especially with

-------
7.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
regard to implementability and the effects on
neighbors. The EPA report finds Nut Island as
an unacceptable site because of the severe
impacts on neighbors and natural resources and
the strong barriers to implementation.
The MWRA concludes that the three parts,
implementability, impact on neighbors and
reliability, were essentially neutral with
regard to the siting. They did this primarily
by comparing Deer Island and Long Island and
almost ignored Nut Island. They introduced few
facts as to why they concluded this in regard to
Nut Island. Thus, they have not given the
public the right to question their conclusions
in regard to Nut. It might be assumed this is
because they have eliminated Nut as a site. But
they did not state this in
Nut is considered as a site
it’s my opinion that the MWRA must present the
facts and gather input before a final decision
is made.
Secondly, I would like to point out
every effort should be made to ensure that the
their
document.
in
any future
If
date,

-------
73
1 new treatment plant does not become overloaded.
2 MWRA has stated they would ensure this by
3 reducing inflowing infiltration, a pre—treatment
4 program and building ancilliary facilities, if
5 necessary. These are commendable measures.
6 However, many engineers would question whether
7 inflow can actually be reduced. They would
8 argue that in a system as old and as large as
9 the one operated by MWRA that as soon as you
10 plug up one leak, another would spring up in its
11 place. Ancilliary facilities must be planned
12 and be ready to be implemented before a problem
13 exists, or it will not do much good.
14 Pre—treatment must be enforced aggressively in
15 order for it to work.
16 Thirdly, I strongly urge that if Deer
17 Island is chosen as the final site, every effort
18 be made to remove the prison. The prison and
19 treatment plant are mutually incompatible
20 facilities. The Prison and the guards will be
21 the most severely affected population •by the
22 adverse effects of construction and operation of
23 the plant. From listening to news reports, it

-------
74
1 seems that the proximity to the plant to the
2 parking lot for the treatment plant would aid
3 escapees by providing the escapees with vehicles
4 which to steal.
5 Fourth, I would like to point out that
6 if Nut Island is made into a head works,
7 mitigating measures cannot be ignored. The
8 neighbors will still have to endure with two
9 years of construction, demolition and noise,
10 traffic and dust associated with it. Every
11 effort to lessen these effects should be made as
12 much as possible.
13 But the issue which I feel most
14 strongly about is that of chlorine at the head
15 works. Although it would be smaller and require
16 less chlorine than a treatment plant, the
17 facility for chlorine at Nut Island was built to
18 accommodate an upgraded treatment plant, thus
19 posing as much danger. Those of us living next
20 to the plant or along the truck routes will be
21 just as severely affected as those living next
22 to a treatment plant if there were to be a
23 severe accident.

-------
75
1 Arguments which apply to using chlorine
2 at a treatment plant apply to using chlorine at
3 Nut Island as a head works. Placement of a head
4 works at Nut Island is a direct result of the
5 siting of the treatment plant and, therefore,
6 should be considered when considering measures
7 to mitigate it. (Applause)
8 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
9 will be Bill Grabowski. He will be followed by
10 Lora Goodman.
11 MR. BILL GRABOWSKI: Good evening.
12 At least, Tom, you don’t have to wait until ten
13 of two. Now that you’re Councillor you get to
14 speak earlier.
15 I think I would like to preface the
16 remarks and questions that I’m going to leave
17 this hearing with this evening and before this
18 whole thing degenerates into some political back
19 slapping because we are in Quincy tonight and
20 not in Winthrop. And I’m pretty happy, too,
21 because I live in Squantum, that the plant is
22 not in my backyard. I feel sorry f r you over
23 there.

-------
76
But I would like to say to the people
here that we have a difficult job ahead, and the
people here in Quincy are feeling pretty relaxed.
We can see how empty this room is here tonight
and the good natured voices of our local
politicians. Some even feel relaxed enough to
send their legislative aides. The first meeting
was important enough for them to show up. So I
think we need to preface our remarks with that.
We are not really out of the woods here
yet, gentleman, and I have several questions
that I would ask that I asked this board earlier
at our first meeting. It was pretty late at
night, so I’m going to ask them again.
My first question, I think it’s the
most important question, is do we have
technology here today in this country and in the
world to build a mega sewer plant. It’s never
been done before. We are going to gamble a
billion dollars to do it. We are going to
gamble the future of Boston Harbor for the next
fifty years to do it. Okay. Because the most
viable alternative, satellite treatment, has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

-------
77
1 been kind of set aside. I’m going to leave you
2 with that question because in any of these
3 documents, although they don’t —— They talk
4 about siting.
5 Maybe the most important part of the
6 siting document and the first logical premise
7 for doing that is can we do it. Do we know for
8 certain that we can do it, one hundred percent
9 absolute sure? Because I think this harbor,
10 after two hundred fifty years or three hundred
11 years of development, is looking for some
12 guarantees, guarantees, gentleman, not maybe we
13 can do it, not if we can do it, guarantees.
14 There are one hundred million gallon
15 plants on line today. They work. Does
16 something five times that plant work? We don’t
17 know that. We don’t know the performance level,
18 and don’t think it has been properly addressed.
19 So the whole premise for siting this plant, all
20 these wonderful documents, is really a question.
21 You may have put the cart before the horse. I
22 think you better consider that.
23 My second question has to do with

-------
78
1 secondary treatment. I have to ask myself, and
2 I think this Board has to ask themselves, what
3 are the environmental benefits of secondard
4 treatment if we are going to use ocean dumping
5 for the disposal, if we are going to bury those
6 toxic wastes into the ground. What is the
7 environmental benefit of that? Why don’t we
8 just dump it right out in an outfall pipe and
9 save ourselves four or five hundred million
10 dollars and get it over with?
11 Because if that is all we are going to
12 do, after we’ve built this mega plant, and maybe
13 it will work, and then we are going to dump it
14 and hide it in some other holes, I think we
15 better ask ourselves is that really a good idea,
16 too. Are we going to take that sludge and put
17 it on a barge and then drive it up the Fore
18 River and drop it off in Walpole? Why don’t we
19 just leave it there to start with? I think we
20 have to ask ourselves those questions.
21 My training is in chemistry. I have a
22 degree in chemistry. I have to ask myself is
23 the mitigation plan to reduce or eliminate the

-------
79
1 chlorine treatment political lip service or is
2 it a true possibility? I think we know the draw
3 backs of hyper chloride treatment, the cost.
4 I think we really have to ask ourselves
5 are we just placating the community of Winthrop
6 in these early stages or are we really giving
7 them a promise that we are going to live up to
8 because those people deserve a hell of a lot for
9 what they’re being asked to bear. Because there
10 are forty—three communities and towns in this
11 system that aren’t carrying their share, and
12 we’re putting it in one community and you have
13 to protect those people.
14 Now I’m going to ask Mr. De]and a
15 question directly. Mr. Deland, as our Regional
16 EPA Administrator, you’re charged with the
17 enforcement of the Clean Water Act in this
18 Commonwealth and for the entire New England
19 region. I’m going to ask you while we wait for
20 eight to ten years for us to build this plant
21 that right now looks iffy at best, I’m going to
22 ask you are you doing your job, because I don’t
23 think anybody should be added to this system and

-------
80
1 I don’t think this system, the way it stands
2 today, should get any worse until this new plant
3 is on stream and that means a building
4 moratorium because that is the law. I think the
5 law should be enforced.
6 I’m sorry that maybe I had to put a
7 damper on these festivities tonight for our
8 local politicians, but I think it’s important
9 that some of these things be said. Thank you.
10 (Applause)
11 THE MODERATOR: The next speaker
12 will be Lora Goodman. She will be followed by
13 Richard Golden. I might also add that at this
14 point Mr. Golden is the last speaker that I have
15 signed up. I assume that there will be a
16 statement from Thomas Brownell, and, if I don’t
17 have any others, that will be it for this
18 evening. If anybody else would like to make a
19 statement after Mr. Golden, please tell us.
20 Mrs. Goodman.
21 FROM THE FLOOR: She left.
22 THE MODERATOR: Mr. Richard Golden.
23 MR. RICHARD GOLDEN: Good evening.

-------
81
1 Thank you for the opportunity to be here this
2 evening and get in some final comments before
3 you go off in the appointed task and become the
4 caretakers for Quincy Bay, Boston Harbor and
5 surrounding waters.
6 The future of your environmental well
7 being, of a recreational and a livelihood for
8 many people, it can’t be replaced. It can be
9 replenished. I feel secure in the trust and the
10 care taking of our political leaders, in our
11 civic activists who I think have done a
12 fantastic job these last few years speaking for
13 the public, even when the public wasn’t always
14 there to speak for themselves.
15 But I would like to move on to what I
16 think is going to be one of the larger decisions
17 facing you. That is the management of the
18 Authority itself. How are you going to spend
19 the money that the legislature has empowered the
20 Authority and the authorization for bonding to
21 separate you from the state and put th
22 responsibility where it belongs, with the people
23 who use the system, and that’s right. But that

-------
82
1 is a lot of money. It’s going to have a drastic
2 increase on people’s water, people’s sewerage
3 bills, but that is appropriate. All I can ask
4 is that you take that measured approach to
5 economy and efficiency.
6 The history of Boston Harbor and the
7 potential solutions has been a litany of
8 incremental failure. The direction that you’re
9 going to set will set the tenure for the
10 environmental quality for the year two thousand
11 and beyond. It’s not the responsibility —— and
12 I know the involvement of the people who
13 continue to be involved will continue to help,
14 but where you spend that money as well as the
15 effect of it, but the efficiency of it, I think,
16 is the most important aspect in the challenge
17 that you face.
18 I know that you will spend the money
19 wisely on the technical advice, on the
20 professionals who have been involved in this and
21 look at other cities and what other cities have
22 done. And as you are involved in that, I’m sure
23 you will come up with an equitable solution.

-------
83
1 However, the impact of an inefficient system
2 will not be forgotten and will certainly never
3 be forgiven by the people who have already lost
4 a precious environmental gift. Good luck.
5 Thank you very much.
6 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, sir.
7 Are there any other speakers? I must
8 say we do have a statement prepared by Thomas
9 Brownell. Since he was not able to make it this
10 evening, we will go without his oral
11 presentation.
12 If there are no other speakers, I would
13 like to make two short announcements before we
14 close. The first is to remind you that tomorrow
15 evening will be the second of the three hearings.
16 It will be held at seven o’clock at Faneuil Hall
17 in Boston. The third hearing will be held on
18 Wednesday night at 7:30 at the Junior High
19 School, Winthrop. You’re all cordially invited
20 to attend.
21 Also, I remind you that the hearing
22 record does remain open until January 21st for
23 the Environmental Prptection Agency’s EIS and

-------
1 January
2 period.
3 you woul
4 dates to
5
6 Michael
7 Michael
8 Water Re
9 you very
10 you have
11 and hear
12 you have
13 the oral
14 be taken
15 decision
16 month of
17 your att
18
19
20
21
22
23
84
24th for the Water Resources comment
If you have additional comments that
d like to submit, you have until those
submit them.
On behalf of the members of the Board,
Deland, the Regional Administrator, and
Gritzuk, the Executive Director of the
sources Authority, I would like to thank
much for your time and the effort that
made both here and in the past meetings
ings and the thoughtful statements that
prepared. You should know that both
testimony and the written comments will
into serious consideration before final
s are made by both agencies during the
February. I thank you very much for
endance, and the meeting is adjourned.
at 9:10 p.m., the hearing
(Whereupon,
was adjourned.)

-------
85
1 CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, Ruth E. Hulke, a Certified Shorthand
4 Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing
5 Pages 1 through 84 are a true and accurate
6 transcript of my stenographic notes taken of the
7 afore—captioned matter, to the best of my
8 knowledge, skill and ability on Monday, January
9 13, 1986.
10
11
12
13 4 4
Certified Shortha d Reporter
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

-------