UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION ONE
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC HEARING
ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
UPGRADING OF THE
BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA SEWERAGE SYSTEM
Faneuil Hall
Boston, Massachusetts
Monday, November 20, 1978
1:30 o'clock p.m.
CO-CHAIRMEN:
REBECCA HANMER, Deputy Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Boston
WILLIAM HICKS, Special Assistant,
Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs
PANEL:
LESTER SUTTON, Director,
Water Programs Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Boston
WALLACE STICKENY, Director,
Environmental and Economic Impact Office,
Environmental Protection Agency, Boston
KENNETH JOHNSON,. Special Assistant,
^'
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
STENOTVPE REPORTERS
294 WASHINGTON ST. (SUITE 4O1)
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS O2I08
(617) 426-1412
-------
2
CONTENTS
STATEMENT_BY: PACE
William Hicks, Special Assistant to 10
Evelyn Murphy, Massachusetts
Secretary of Environmental Affairs
Arthur H. Tobin, Mayor 12
City of Ouincy
Leo J. Kelly, Chairman, 14
Environmental Control Commission,
Quincy City Council
Edward A. Coyle, President, 19
Quincy Central Business & Professional
Association
Charles F. Grein, 20
Co-Owner, Maxwells Parrot Restaurant,
Qu inc y
Paul Harold, 2l
Quincy City Council
Alfred Saqesse, 23
State Representative
Richard D. Dimes, President, 26
Board of Selectment, Town of Winthrop
Margaret Riley, 33
Concerned Citizens Committee of Winthrop
Alan Lupo, Member, 42
Concerned Citizens Committee of Winthrop
Arthur Cummings, Winthrop 52
erome E. Falbo, Chairman, 56
Winthrop Planning Board
Ronald H. Wayland, Chairman, 62
Winthrop Conservation Commission
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
3
STATEMENT BY (Continued): PAGE
Dennis Kearney, Sheriff, 67
Suffolk County
Thomas A. Maguire, Winthrop 71
George DiLorenzo, East Boston• 73
Dr. Herbert Meyer, Chairman, 79
Boston Harbor Citizens’ Advisory
Committee
Mrs. Eugene Beale, 86
Boston Harbor Citizens’
Advisory Committee
Bud Reece, 89
Boston Harbor Citizens’
Advisory Committee
Terry Colby, 93
Boston Harbor Citizens’
Advisory Committee
Thomas Brownell 95
State Representative
Marian Uliman, 99
League of Women Voters
Thomas 3. Nut].ey, Director, 108
Public Relations,
Atlantic Neighborhood Association
Nancy Wrenn, Executive Secretary, 109
Boston Harbor Associates
Lydia R. Coodhue, 114
Charles River Watershed Association
Grace Saphir 119
Save Our Shores, Inc.
Shirley M. Brown, 122
Natick Representative on Citizens’
Advisory Committee to EPA
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
4
STATEMENT BY (Continued) : PAGE
Bill Schmidt, Legislative Assistant, 131
to Congressman Edward Markey
Dorothy C. Kelly, Secretary, 138
Quincy citizens Association,
Wollaston Park Association
Waldo Holcombe, 141
Neponset Conservation Association
Jim Patui 147
Mary Cougian, President, 152
Squantum Community Association, Inc.
John E. Murphy, 155
Boston Harbor Pollution Committee
Gary P. Kosciusko, President, 161
Save Our Shores, Inc.
Irene Burns 164
Thomas Conroy, Planner, 166
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
EVENING SESSION 172
Arthur Chandler, President, 176
Ouincy Citizens’ Association
Paul Kodad 181
Quincy Citizens’ Association
Joe Malay 187
Clair Plaud 190
Greater Boston Group of the Sierra Club
Arthur Barnes, President 196
Norumbega Association
Michael Morrissey 200
State Representative
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
5
STATEMENT BY (Continued): PA(’ E
Diane Lindb].ad, 204
Civic Committee,
Squantum Community Association
Janet Berg ’rmeister 206
John Conway, 207
Wintrhop
LIST OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED 210
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
6
PROCEEDINGS
MS. HANMER: Good afternoon, if I could have your
attention, please. We’ve got a very full afternoon.
I was going to keep time by the clock up there, but it
already says 5:18, so I’m going to have to use my watch.
My name is Rebecca Hanmer, and I’m the Deputy
Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency Office here in Boston. With me today Co-chairing
this hearing is William Hicks, who is Special Assistant
to Evelyn Murphy, Massachusetts’ Secretary of Environ-
mental ‘Affairs.
We’re going to have a hering panel composed of
Lester Sutton, who is the Director of the Water Programs
Division at the EPA Region One Office; Wally Stickney,
who heads the Environmental and Economic Impact Office
for our Region; and Ken Johnson, who is the Special
Assistant to the Regional Administrator.
This hearing is convened to receive public comment
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage
System. The Draft Impact Statement has been prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and to EPA’S regulations.
The National Environmental Policy Act provides
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
7
that prior to commencing a major federal action which
would have a significant impact on the environment,
the responsible agency has to prepare an environmental
impact statement which analyzes the potential environ-
mental impacts of the action. The statement should
discuss alternatives to the project and permit affected
agencies and the public to make comments on the factual
material and conclusions that are presented in the
document. So we are here to receive comment and your
views.
Copies of the impact statement have been available
since September 29th, 1978. Copies were circulated
to a number of federal, state and local agencies and
concerned citizens.
At the time the impact statement was circulated,
notice of this hearing was given and the news release
announcing the hearing appeared in newspapers having
circulation in this general area.
We are prepared to hear testimony today and to
stay here as long as necessary to get a complete record
of what citizens and concerned agencies wish to say.
The 60-day comment period on the Environmental
Impact Statement closes on November 28, 1978.
This hearing is being stenographically recorded,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
8
and the written trar script of the hearing will be
available within the next several weeks. The hearing
record will be maintained at least until November 28th
so that persons who wish to make written comments to
the record may do so.
Today if you have a written statement with you,
I would appreciate it if you would give it directly
to the stenographer, who is here on the first row.
It’s easier than trying to reach up here to get it to
me.
We’ve asked that those who wish to testify call
us in advance so that the schedule could be arranged,
and we do have a full schedule this afternoon. We’ll
try to stay within that schedule even though we’re
starting off on the wrong foot, about 15 minutes late.
We will recess at 5:30 and reconvene at 7:00 p.m.
this evening.
All those wishing to speak should have filled out
or should fill out now a card at the receptionist’s
table in the back and indicate that you wish to speak,
so that we can schedule you.
Because we have so many people who want to make
statements, we have to ask that the presentation be
limited to five minutes and that you summarize your
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
9
written statement and present the complete statement
for the record.
I would like to clarify a bit how this Environmental
Impact Statement fitS into what’s going on. EPA is
not going to be laying any concrete any time soon. This
Environmental Impact Statement is part of a continuing
process in which we are trying to clarify the options
and alternatives for a Boston Harbor Cleanup Program.
The next step in the process which will start very soon
is. that the MDC will go into facilities planning. So
part of the purpose of this hearing is not only to tell
EPA how you feel about the Environmental Impact State-
ment which we have produced in draft form but to help
us clarify the issues that must be resolved in the MDC
facilities planning.
There will be further opportunity for public
hearings during the facilities planning process. So
I think that you can see that the Environmental Impact
Statement, which represents the results of several
years of work and consideration, is but a stage at this
point in the process of planning.
I have asked the staff to give us a short slide
presentation of about ten minutes which will summarize
the project and our activities thus far, and then we’ll
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
10
go right into the testimony.
While he’s setting up, I might mention that the
National Park Service has asked us not to eat, drink
or smoke.
(A slide presentation was given.)
MS. HA.NMER: While people are getting seated, let
me tell the first five speakers who they are. William
Hicks is going to make the first presentation on behalf
of the Massachusets Office of Environmental Affairs
followed by Mayor Arthur Tobin of Quincy, Leo Kelly
of the Quincy City Council, Ed Coyle of the Quincy
Businessmen’s Association, and Charles Grèin. So those
will be the first five speakers.
Since we have a full program, I would like to move
right into it. I’m very, very pleased to see so many
people here. We’re going to move quickly. It’s because
we have all of our minutes filled up that I’m going to
have to do this.
The first speaker, as I said, is Mr. Hicks.
STATEMENT BY WILLIAM HICKS, SPECIAL
ASSISTANT TO EVELYN MURPHY,
MASSACHUSETTS SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS
MR. HICKS: Ms. Hammer, thank you.
On behalf of Secretary Murphy, I’m very grateful
to be able to be here today. My name is William Hicks.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
11
I’m Assistant Secretary of Environmental Affairs.
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs is
particularly pleased to be able to Co-chair this
hearing with the EPA because over the next several
years, many of the decisions that need to be implemented
will be implemented through agencies within the State’s
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
We will be submitting fairly detailed formal
comments on the DEIS by the end on the hearing record,
but I would like to briefly make a few points before
this hearing gets underway.
First, we must recognize that the Draft EIS was
undertaken and most of the work on it done before the
more recent changes in the Federal Clean Waters Act
which made it possible for municipal sewerage treatment
plants that discharge in coastal waters to apply for
and receiv if appropriate conditions are met,a waiver
of the secondary treatment requirements.
Now, while a decision on the submission of such
a waiver application has not yet been made and while
clearly no decision on whether such a waiver would be
granted can yet be made, and I would not wish to
prejudge the merits of that particular issue, it does
seem clear that if a waiver were granted, many of the
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
12
problems associated with the current proposals would
be mitigated. I think we ought to keep our minds
free as we both receive testimony today and continue
the planning process to be alert to many of the
dangers in the proposal that could come about as a
result of that particular change in federal legal
requirements.
I think for now I would like to get on with the
hearing. There are a number of people who have come
here to give their views to us, and as I said at the
outset, we will be’ submitting some detailed comments
by the end of the closing period. Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
I’d like to call on Mayor Tobin at this time.
STATEMENT BY MAYOR ARTHUR H TOBIN,
CITY OF QUINCY
MAYOR TOBIN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I’d like to thank you and the
members of the committee for this opportunity to adress
you to state the official position of our community.
This is the second time that the plan of major proportion
has come out to affect our community. Once before, the
MDC through an EMMA study wanted to fill in 26 acres
of Quincy Bay which we felt would be most distructive
to our community, and now we find in the proposed plan
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
13
that approximately 70 acres of good, valuable water-
front property is also under consideration which we
feel would be most destructive. And I’d like to read
a brief, official statement and then hand it to the
secretary with your permission. Thank you.
As Mayor of the City of Quincy, I am extremely
familiar with the sewerage problems of the
Metropolitan Boston area, and more specifically
Quincy Bay. I look forward to the completion of a
proposal to relieve the very serious pollution problems
now confronting the people of Quincy and Greater Boston.
I look forward to a proposal which is both
economically and environmentally sound.
Under the recommended plan, the outright loss
of 70 acres of prime, ocean-front property in the
City of Quincy and great negative impact on hundreds
of acres of adjacent waterfront land which is
potentially developable is of utmost concern to this
administration,
After careful consideration and consultation of
this matter with all concerned department heads, I
strongly recommend that an alternative which proposes
thorough primary treatment of all sewerage a the deep
ocean outfall. I understand that among other positive
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCiATES, INC.
-------
14
features, the deep ocean outfall concept when properly
constructed can add beneficial nutrients in the ocean.
In view of the great value of all ocean front
property in Massachusetts, and especially in the
greater Boston area, I most strongly advise against the
use of any proposed land area in Quincy and urge the
use of deep ocean outfall.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
MS. HANMER: Thank you very much. If you would
leave your statement with the stenographer, I would
appreciate it.
May I ask Leo Kelly to come forward?
STATEMENT BY LEO J. KELLY, CHAIRMAN,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMITTEE,
QUINCY CITY COUNCIL
MR. KELLY: I want to thank you, Madam Chairman,
for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the
City Council, civic associations and business associa-
tions in the City of Quincy. And I’d like to read a
resolve that will be submitted to the City Council
tonight by myself and City Councillor Joanne Condon.
Whereas, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region One, has endorsed the
continued centralized treatment of waste water at
coastal facilities, and
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
15
Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region One, has recommended that the Deer Island
treatment plant be expanded and upgraded to provide
primary and secondary treatment for the waste water
from the entire metropolitan sewerage district, and
Whereas, the recommended plan of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region One, calls
for a proposed sewerage sludge and ash disposal area
to be constructed on 70 acres of land at Squantum
Point, and
Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has stated that if Deer Island is not available,
it will be up to the Commonwealth to recommend alterna-
tive sites, and
Whereas, the Commonwealth is studying alternative
site plans as follows:
an expanded Nut Island primary plant requiring
the filling of up to three acres of Quincy Bay,
and expanded new facilities to be located at
either Broad Meadows or Squantum,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Quincy
City Council be recorded as opposed to the use of any
Quincy land or water sites for the location or expansion
of waste water treatment facilities or for the disposal
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
16
of sludge or incinerated ash.
This resolve has the support of the following
civic and business associations throughout the entire
length of the City of Quincy, and I intend to read them
for the record. Each one of them has sent a letter of
endorsement.
The Adams Shore Community Association.
Our Lady of Good Counsel Church, which has 700
families at that church which abuts one of these sites.
Strongly opposes it.
The Houghs Neck Community Council.
The Baker Beach Improvement Association.
The South Quincy Civic Association.
The Wollaston Park Association.
Save Our Shores, Incorporated, one of the most
outstanding environmental associations in the state of
Massachusetts. -
The Quincy Citizens Association.
The Ward 2 Civic Association.
The Merrymount Association.
The Squantum Yacht Club.
The Wollaston Yacht Club.
The Town River Yacht Club.
The Quincy Yacht Club.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
17
The North Quincy Business & Professional Association.
The Squantum Community Association.
The Atlantic Neighborhood Association.
The Downtown Quincy Business & Professional
Association, and
The South Shore Chamber of Commerce endorses this
resolve that was read to you. This shows the strong
support throughout the City of Quincy to stop Quincy
from being any further used as a dumping ground for
sewerage all the way to Framinqham. I think we’ve had
enough of it. We’ve been having it since, I think,
the year 1920, I believe, when it first started.
I have two personal comments to make on the issue
and on the Environmental Impact Statement that is
before us; and that is, number one, I can’t understand
why you did not also study a compost facility in the
in].ands of the state of Massachusetts whereas the
product, the compost, the fertilizer could then be
shipped in a more easier, more centralized area. And
I believe you could probably find an area that would
not be residents like the Squantum site is. I just
cant understand why you didn’t study that further.
And I also cannot understand, seeing now that
your recommended plan is Deer Island, why, as I had
B. P. A. REPORTJNG ASSOCIATESq INC.
-------
18
sent you a letter, I think, on June 22nd addressed to
Mr. Adams recommendinq or requesting that the EPA
enter into publicly the court case that was then being
heard in Judge Garrity’s court, and that was a court
case on the Charles Street Jail. Why you did not,
after making the recommendation that you have today,
did not enter into that publicly and stand firm in
support of a combined jails at Charles Street and
Deer Island. I cannot for the life of me understand
why you didn’t take a more public stand after you
had made your environmental impact study. Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Mr. Kelly, one of our panel members
would like to ask you a question.
MR. STICKNEY: Councillor Kelly, to clarify one
thing you said. I believe your resolve said you were
opposed to the use of Quincy land for expansion of
treatment facilities. Does that include a limited
expansion at Nut Island for primary treatment?
MR. KELLY: I think if you read the resolve, we
say that the MDC is studying Nut Island for expansion
of primary for up to three acres, and it certainly
includes that.
we went through that about ten years ago when
you expanded Nut Island for seven acres. It was a
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
19
horrendous disservice you did to the community I
represent, and we certainly can’t go through it again
for three acres or for any acreage. Yes. Very clear.
MR. STICKNEY: Thank you.
MS. HAMMER: Ed Coyle.
EDWARD A. COYLE, PRESIDENT, QUINCY CENTER
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
MR. COYLE: Good afternoon. Madam Chairman, thank
you for the opportunity to speak before you.
My name is Edward Coyle. I am President of the
Quincy Center Businessmen’s Association. I’ve come
here today to speak in opposition to this proposal
because it is our feeling that Quincy and every city
in the Commonwealth should not be imposed upon in this
manner.
If we can sent an astronaut to the moon, we
certainly can do something with our sludge, our
sewerage processing other than dumping it in the City
of Quincy or in any other city in the Commonwealth.
We are talking dollars.
In your proposal, which was very articulate and
graphic, we talk about jobs. We’ll have a lot more
jobs if we do a deep ocean outfall. It will take
longer. It will cost more money. There’ll be more
jobs. But the little man, the homeowners, the small
ft P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
businessmen, his property won’t be affected. His
property won’t be devalued. It’s very cavalier to
say there will be someimpact. These people who build
their homes and spend their lives paying for them
should not be adversely affected for one dollar.
We don’t want it in Quincy. We don’t want it
anywhere in Massachusetts. Let us use our technology
to get us offshore into a deep ocean fill. Thank
you for your time.
MS. HA. lMER: Do you -have any questions?
(No response.)
MS. HANMER: Mr. Charles rèin.
While he’s coming up, the next speakers will be
Paul Harold of the Quincy City Council, State Senator
Mike LoPresti, the Concerned Citizens’ Committee of
Winthrop, State Representative Al Sagesse, and Richard
Dimes, Chairman of the Quincy Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Grèin.
STATEMENT BY CHARLES F. GREIN,
CO-OWNER OP MAXWELLS PARROT, QUINCY
MR. GREIN: Madam Chairman, I’m Co-owner of
Maxwells Parrot, a restaurant located in the City of
Quincy. I am here today to state my opposition to the
use of any Quincy land for sewerage treatment centers
or dumping grounds of processed sewerage. I am, therefore,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
21.
endorsing Councillor Leo Xelly’s resolution.
MS. HANMER: Thank you very much.
As the audience said, Mr. Dines is from Winthrop,
not Quincy.
Paul Harold.
STATEMENT BY PAUL HAROLD,
QUINCY CITY COUNCIL.
MR. HAROLD: Thank you. My name is Paul Harold.
I’m on the Quincy City Council, and I’m the Senator
Elect from Quincy.
I wanted to speak briefly for the many people
who are at work and couldn’t take time to be here in
opposition to any alternative plan which would include
a facility at Broad Meadows and a proposed dumping
site at Squantuni Point.
The proposal for Deer Island was one that we had
much hoped for, but with the problem of relocating
the House of Correction, it’s going to jeopardize the
proposed sites in Quincy which might leave them to be
the prime relocation for the sewerage treatment plant.
The City of Quincy like the Town of Winthrop has
had the burden of having a facility in its jurisdiction
for a number of years. When we appeared here three
years ago, we asked that they consider not locating
a giant facility in Quincy or in Winthrop but to spread
. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
22
the facilities out through the system further upstream
along the line. We’ve asked this proposal be consid-
ered. It hasn’t been. It’s been three years, and it
seems like we’re back where we started from.
Speaking for the people of the City of Quincy,
we’re opposed to any site in Quincy which would
jeopardize these two prime areas that abut the prime
residential areas of Quincy but also two areas that
have been set aside generations ago to develop an
open space in the City of Quincy.
So I want to be recorded in opposition to any
alternative for location in the City of puincy
jurisdiction.
MS. HANMER: Thank you. Do you have a written
statement?
MR. HAROLD: No, I don’t.
MS. HAMMER: Thank you.
Senator LoPresti.
MR. SAGESSE: Madam Chairlady, my name is
Representative Al Sagesse from Winthrop. I understand
that Senator LoPresti is detained and he will be here
shortly. I also understand that I am the next
scheduled speaker and would beg your permission to
proceed at this time.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
23
MS. HANMER: Yes. The people from Winthrop would
hang me if I didn’t.
(Laughter and applause.)
STATEMENT B? ALFRED SAGESSE,
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MR. SAGESSE: Madam Chairlady and members of the
Commission, my name is Representative Alfred Sagesse.
I’m a life-long resident of the Town of Winthrop, and
have served my Town in the State Legislature these
past four years.
I come here today to record my unalterable
opposition to the proposed sewerage system plan which
you have before you, a plan that if implemented would
drain the very life blood out of my community and
tear at the hearts of tho5e 21,000 people who call our
pleasant water—front community their home.
I guess there are many reasons why this plan is
so objectionable, but in my five allotted minutes, I
can only touch upon those which I find particularly
offensive. Perhaps in the final analysis, our position
can be simply stated. The people of Winthrop love our
Town dearly. We will no longer stand to see her dumped
upon, spat upon and defecated upon with the bureaucratic
irreverence that this plan suggests.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCiATES, INC.
-------
24
Let me quickly assess the problem and my objections.
The Town of Winthrop is the most densely populated Town
in the state of Massachusetts. Its rising congestion
and consequential auto traffic have made a previously 0
menacing situation into what is now a serious safety
hazard. Its simple network of roads with only two
means of egress cannot bear more cars, more trucks,
more people as the proposed plan would demand.
And what of the increased number of chlorine trucks
which must necessarily pass homes for the elderly and
schools on their daily treks through our Town. I ask
you that during your deliberations you can weigh the
cOst of a small child’s life snuffed out in a chlorine
disaster when you balance your search for cleaner
water. And what of the environmental impact of those
residents who live within 200 yards of this proposed
incinerator and its 120 foot smoke stacks? Have you
balanced the stench that these persons must endure?
Have you asked yourself what their quality of living
will become if this plan is implemented?
Winthrop’s Deer Island is perhaps the most scenic,
most beautiful, Most attractive of all the harbor
islands. How ironic, indeed how absurd is the though
to transform one of Nature’s most resplendent
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
25
recreational sites into a treatment plant for sludge.
Madam Chairlady, make no mistake about it, the
Town of Winthrop is a lovely place to live. It is not
Gary, Indiana; it is Erie, Pennsylvania; it is not a
Newark; and it’s not a Buffalo. Please don’t make it
one.
In closing, may I state the most reprehensible
aspect of the entire matter, and that is the process
that has been followed to date. In four years of
public life, I have learned much about democracy and
the democratic way. We truly do live in an age of
environmental impact studies, of open meetings, of
public hearings. The voice of the everyday citizen
has become important and well it should. But not with
this plan, for this draft was written without the
benefit of a public hearing, without the pulse of the
affected residents being taken, without that all—
important voice being heard until today. And that is
why we are here today. And as I speak, I speak as a
surrogate of the 21,000 people back home who want a
chance to be heard and perhaps couldn’t be here today,
a chance to persuade you that this report is ill-
conceived and ill-founded.
In his inaugural address in 1960, President
B. P. A. REPORTLNG ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
26
John F. Kennedy addressed the need to begin again.
And that’s the point I’m going to leave you with.
Begin this process again. Give our community a chance
to be heard, a chance to receive the input from an
expert consultant’s point of view, a chance to provide
you with a better, more effective alternative. In
essence, all we’re asking you for is a chance to prove
that we are deserving of the quality of life that I ant
sure your agency seeks, indeed demands, for all
Americans. Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
Is Senator LoPresti here now?
(No response.)
MS. HANMER: Mr. Dimes.
STATEMENT BY RICHARD D. DIMES,
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SELECTMEN,
TOWN OF WINTHROP.
MR. DIMES: Thank you, Madam Chairman and
gentlemen.
My name is Richard Dimes. I’nt Chairman of the
Winthrop Board of Selectmen of the Town of Winthrop.
The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Winthrop
have reviewed the EPA’s Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan
Area Sewerage System. And after giving careful
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
27
consideration to the affects that such a proposal would
have on the Town of Winthrop, the Board, in speaking
for the Town, must go on record as being strongly
opposed to the recommended plan of an all Deer Island
facility.
We feel that the proposed plan does not give
adequate consideration to the adverse impacts that
such a facility would have on the socio-economic
character of the Town of Winthrop.
The Town of Winthrop is the second most densely
populated town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Town houses a population in excess of 23,000 people
on little over one square mile of land. The principal
source of revenue for this community is its tax on
residential property. And we question the impact that
the proposed plan will have on the revenue generated
by that tax. For instance, we have serious reservations
on the future value of private property which is
located, only 700 feet from one of the largest sewerage
treatment plants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We also question the burden that such a proposal
places on the services provided by the Town of Winthrop
to Deer Island at the expense of the taxpayers of
Winthrop.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
28
The Town of Wintrhop is the only land area in
the Commonwealth which is geographically and physically
connected to Deer Island. As such, the Town of
Winthrop provides and must maintain the only public
access roads to Deer Island. Increased traffic on
these roads places an additional burden on the services
provided by the Winthrop Police Department, not to
mention the strain that such a development places on
the residents of the Point Shirley area of Winthrop,
which is a highly developed residential area adjacent
to Deer Island.
To some extent, the fears of the Town with
regard to traffic volume have been placated by the
EPA’S recommendation to use barges to transport materials
to the site. However, we cannot ignore the fact that
the EPA can only make such assurances and enforce those
assurances while it holds the purse strings. Once the
construction phase has been completed, the Town of
Winthrop has no guarantee that there will be any
restrictions placed on the use of Town roads. Therefore,
the Town is reluctant to accept any proposal that
cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens.
Also, the Town of Winthrop Fire Department
provides a first line, first response to Deer Island.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
29
Expansion of the Deer Island facility and its sub-
sequent increased use of shiorine gas and other
combustibles raises a serious question on the potential
threat that this facility poses to the property and
personal safety of the residents of Winthrop as well
as raising a serious question with regard to the added
responsibilities which must be assumed by the Winthrop
Fire Department.
In light of these questions, we do not feel that
the EIS has taken the specific interests of the Town
of Winthrop into consideration. The plan is, by far,
more institutionally oriented than it is people
oriented. And it is this lack of a concern for people
over institutions which we feel will be most severely
felt by the citizens of Winthrop due to their close
proximity to Deer Island.
For instance, One of the areas in which the
proposal fails to adequately convince the reader of
its viability is that of air quality. The suggested
incineration process is one which suggests a trade-off
in which the residents of the Town of Winthrop and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be able to have
clean water at the expense of clean air.
Incineration of sludge, whether used for primary
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
30
or secondary treatment purposes, seems to be one of
those nebulous areas where answers are lacking. The
EPA’s own consultants for the so-called Boston Case
Study, Environmental REsearch and Technology, Incorpora-
ted, have stated that there are too many uncertainties
connected with the incineration process to guarantee
either its economic value or its effectiveness as a
sludge management alternative. More specifically,
the ERT consultants have stated they feel that if
secondary incineration is combined with primary
incineration at Deer Island, then the air quality of
the Boston area will be seriously affected.
Therefore, due to these technological uncertainties,
the Town of Winthrop must be recorded as being opposed
to any use of any incineration process at Deer Island.
Further, we question the aesthetic value of a
plan which proposes, indeed, to level an entire island
in the name of progress. It was our understanding
that Deer Island was considered an integral part of
the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan which
called for the southern tip of the Island to be used
for recreational purposes. That plan was mandated by
Chapter 742 of the Acts of 1970. Under that Act, the
Massachusetts Legislature made a commitment to plan
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
31
and institute a program for recreation and conservation
of the Boston Harbor Islands. The plan, as prepared
and adopted by the MAPC, not only called for the
development of a recreation site at Deer Island but
also strongly recommended that the existing sewerage
treatment plant be screened from public view in order
to add to the aesthetic value of the Island.
It was our understanding that the MDC’s
acquisition of the southern tip of Deer Island was
made expressly for the development of a recreational
site. Although the MDC did make reference to limited
expansion of the sewerage treatment plant, they did
emphasize the important role that they felt the Island
would play in the recreational development of Boston
Harbor.
We, therefore, suggest that if the islands
designated by the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan are to be used for purposes other than recreation,
then the EPA should consider locating part of the
proposed facility on Long Island, and this option was
considered very strongly in many of the alternatives
discussed in the EIS. In eliminating the most viable
Long Island alternatives, the EPA stressed two argu-
ments: First, the recreational value of Long Island;
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
32
and second, the additional cost of such an alternative.
We challenge the validity of these arguments. First,
because we feel that Deer Island’s role as a key
recreational site is just as essential to the
implementation of the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan as the role of Long Island. And second, because
we must question the use of a cost factor as the bottom
line im the implei tentation of a proposal which will
work to the detriment of an entire community.
Therefore, we respectfully petition the EPA to
reconsider some use of Long Island so that both Deer
and Long Island may retain a portion of their
recreational potential.
In conclusion, we would like to state that we are
opposed to the recommended plan in its present form.
And we would also like to go on record as being in
support of the MDC’s application for a waiver from
secondary treatment. We do so due to our uncertainty
that secondary treatment will in any way uncondition-
ally guarantee the improvement of air and water quality
in Boston Harbor.’
Respectfully submitted, the Winthrop Board of
Selectment.
In closing, quickly a couple of personal notes.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
33
Again, I would have to mention that the EPA did not
mention in any great detail the complete removal of
the House of Correction on Deer Island in their
proposed plan which the Town had gone on record in
the past and still is on record that in any type of
expansion on Deer Island, we would want the removal
of the prison facility. Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
Is Senator LoPresti here?
(No response.)
MS. HANMER: Can someone keep an eye out for
Senator LoPresti and tell me when he gets here?
Okay, the next five speakers are Peggy Riley,,
Alan Lupo, Arthur Cummings, Jerry Falbo, and Ron
Wayland.
STATEMENT BY MARGARET RILEY,
CONCERNED CITIZENS COMMITTEE OF WINTHROP
MS. RILEY: Thank you, Madam Chairlady.
In reply to your invitation to present oral and
written testimony on the upgrading of the Boston
Metropolitan Area Sewerage System, the Concerned
Citizens Committee of Winthrop, opposing the expansion
of the present primary sewerage facility on Deer Island,
submits the following testimony for your consideration.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
34
While this committee realizes that it is the
obligation of the Environmental Protection Agency to
come up with the most environmentally sound and cost
effective overall system for the upgrading of the
Boston Metropolitan area sewerage system, it must be
noted that the EPA failed grossly to consider the
extreme effects on those residents who would be most
adversely impacted by its recommendations.
It is our intention to show your agency why we
feel your proposal is totally unreasonable.
Under public notice and participation, from the
beginning of the EPA draft, the residents of Winthrop
were not properly notified as to your intentions. As
a member of the Metropolitan Sewerage District, the
residents of Winthrop should have been notified by
mail on any action taken to insure public awareness
of alternatives and/or other information concerning
ou Town.
We oppose the EPA ’s proposal of this study, which
lacked total citizen participation, and in its place
we demand a new study with benefit of federal or state
funds. With funds being made available, we can be
assured of total participation and the availability of•
our own consultants.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
35
The federal government, throuqh its proposal,
intends to obliterate the entire 210 acres of Deer
Island and in turn replace it with a massive
industrial complex. Deer Island will be permanently
committed to waste water treatment, with a 150 foot
stack for air pollutant emissions.
The Deer Island Peninsula is now presently owned
by three landlords -- the federal qovernment,.the
Metropolitan District Commission and the City of
Boston. Although this is true, it is also a fact
that the only land access is through our small streets.
It should be noted that there is only one very narrow
street, approximately one mile in length, which leads
directly to the Island.
Winthrop is one of the most densely populated
towns in the state. Any increase in traffic through
our streets will cause a great deal of congestion and
most certainly poses a safety hazard to the residents
of Winthrop, as well as our neighbors in East Boston
and Revere.
As your draft notes, this project will require
4,400 person years for construction. Two thousand
potential vehicle trips per day for workers, not to
mention the 4,000 trips per day during peak periods
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
36
of construction not noted in the summary of adverse
effects.
Your recommendations for barging material and
machinery is just that, only recommendations. Exceptions
will undoubtedly be given. For example, in Volume 1
EIS, pipe will be delivered by truck. I note that this
may only be six trucks a day, but what other exceptions
will be made to go against the recommendations planned.
It is a definite fact that construction of this
massive facility will make for severe disruption to
our community. The only way this construction would
not severely affect us is to reopen the land bridqe
which connects Winthrop .and the Island.
We feel that operation and maintenance indeed will
be a problem - a permanent staff of 384 persons, again
traffic ongestion. There is no fire equipment on the
Island to handle fires now. Winthrop must respond
while waiting for Boston.
We have been told by EPA that once the seconday
facility ii constructed that if it is properly maintained,
there should be no adverse effects to the residents. We
were told this ten years ago when the primary facility
was built. Now because this treatment procedure is not
doing what it is supposed to, we need another facility.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
37
For example, EIS Volume 1 1-9, because of seawater:
intrusion into the sewer system which increased flows,
a decrease in treatment facility efficiencies arose.
Both treatment plants are overloaded due to storm
water runoff and infiltration and inflow into the
sewerage system, resulting in less than efficient
treatment. This inflow has created operation and
maintenance problems.
No guarantee that these problems will not occur
with yet another system. We will become an experiment
for the massive treatment of waste.
Incineration and its unavoidable adverse effects.
The proposed plan attempts to minimize air quality
impacts through the use of alternate sludge disposal
methods, thereby relying on sludge incineration to the
least degree. However, air emissions from sludge
incineration will be significant and will represent
an unavoidable adverse effect. These are from your
own volumes. Also, air emissions resulting from
additional barge, truck and automobile traffic are
unavoidable. All air quality standards are projected
to be met except the secondary 24 hour particulate
standard which will exacerbate a projected violation.
EIS Volume 1.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
38
My question, will Winthrop, which is presently an
attainment area, become a non-attainment area with the
use of incineration? Indications are that air quality
will certainly decrease in Winthrop and the surrounding
communities,
Discharge of chlorinated secondary effluent into
Boston Harbor can have significant water quality impact.
In addition to toxicity effects, residual chlorine has
been reported as impairing fish flavor. Chlorination
of wastewater also results in formation of chlorinated
organics.
Dredging operations will have temporary negative
impact upon water quality, depending upon prevailinq
currents. It’s not that I’m so knowledgeable in all
these facts. These I take directly from your books.
Property value. In locating sites for new treatment
facilities, the number of facility sites to be used is
of great importance, especially in densely populated
areas such as Boston. Waste water treatment facilities
are, unfortunately -- and your quotes again -- though
of as bad neighbors and are not generally welcome by
nearby residents. While this is not true in all cases,
there is no doubt that facilities of this magnitude
under discussion will significantly and unavoidably
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
39
impact the settings in which they are located.
In addressing the issue of property valuation in
Squanturn, it was determined by EPA that there would
be a definite devaluation of land in the area. At no
time was I able to find one sentence which addressed
the valuation of property in the adjacent area to the
plant in Winthrop, when in fact the nearest resident
is only 700 feet away.
This committee most certainly realizes the need
for cleaning up the water, We also most certainly
believe that there are viable alternatives to the
recommended plan. For example, the secondary treatment
of sewerage on Long Island or an uninhabited island
or the inland treatment of sewerage in a non-residential
area such as now serves the City of Lawrence.
In conclusion, the citizens of Winthrop most
certainly want to accept their share in the responsi-
bility of treatment of sewerage as a member community
in the MSD and we feel that we are presently doing so
by the treatment of primary sewerage for the Northern
Service Area.
The Concerned citizens of Wintrhop feel that with
the ever increasing noise and air pollution from Logan
Airport, the potential of disaster with the on-going
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
40
trucking of shiorine through our streets, the threat
from the prison facility and the upgrading of the
primary sewerage facility, we can absorb no more.
We will not sit back an accept the secondary
treatment of sewerage from 51 communities. We insist
that you seriously review your recommended plan until
such time as you consider the human factor as seriously
as you say you have considered the environmental factor.
This summary is submitted by the Concerned Citizens
Committee of Winthrop.
I’d like to add just one personal statement. I
live in the Point Shirley area of Winthrop, which is
directly adjacent to the Deer Island site. My husband
and myself have four children whose safety and whose
quality of life is of the utmost importance to us.
Like so many of my neighbors who share in the every-
day problems of all human beings, we feel that we are
now being asked to take too much.
We are afraid of the chance of flooding, after
living through the Flood of ‘78. We are tired of the
air and noise pollution from Loqan, with living with
decibal levels of over 95 on a daily level. We are
afraid of the potential of disaster from the still
on-going trucking of chlorine, not to mention the
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
41
alternatives of barging or storing or possibly the
manufacturing of this chlorine. We have lived with the
threat of the ‘population at Deer Island. I had an
inmate break into my home last year. Thank God he
didn’t hurt anybody. We had three inmates from Deer
Island leave within the last 24 hours. They haven’t
been found. People say, “Well, we’ll get rid of the
prison.” Well I don’t want to have to make deals
with anybody. No, the prison shouldn’t be there,
neIther should the secondary treatment of sewerage.
One might say, why are you so disturbed with the
proposed plan, and my answer is that I would rather
live with the fear from the present problems than face
the unknown, what I believe to be devastating effects
that I honestly believe will be intolerable to cope
with.
Your agency may indeed have the distinction of
striking the final blow to an already battered
community. Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Ms. Riley, we have a question for
you.
MR. STICKNEY: I just wanted to say that I’m
impressed that you’d gone through that statement with
so much detail. I should have known you would after
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
42
we had talked before about it.
We did attempt public participation with all of
the communities, including two early workshops in
Winthrop and then the later workshops, of course, which
were much better attended. Do you think that we’ve
established lines of communication now, so that
public participation will be more effective?
MS. RILEY: I believe that you followed the
standards which you were told to follow for public
participation. I believe, and you folks here -- and
I must say, somebody asked me the other day at our
press conference, “How was EPA?” I said, “They were
the most courteous persons I’ve ever had to work with.”
And indeed, you have been. You are doing your job
and I’m doing mine as a citizen.
What we’re asking for, and I’ll reiterate, is
public participation with the benefit of consultants,
and the only way we can do that is with a share of the
millions of dollars that have been spent to prepare
this draft. And that’s what we’re looking for.
STATEMENT BY ALAN LUPO, MEMBER OF
CONCERNED CITIZENS COMMITTEE OF WINTHROP
MR. LUPO: I don’t believe Senator LoPresti is
here. In his absence, we’ll just continue with your
list. Before I make my statement, there are a couple
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATESI INC.
-------
43
of housekeeping details here.
First of all, I just want it noted that the
Concerned Citizens Committee is supported fully by
the Massachusetts Air Pollution and Noise Abatement
Committee, by Mass Blast, by the East Boston
Legislative Committee, by the East Boston Recreation
and Land Use Advisory Council, by East Boston Fair
Share, by Revere Fair Share, and by Neptune Road
Adhoc Committee of East Boston.
The second detail is as follows: For those
members of the media who do not, we have a press
packet available with copies of the statements and
a news release, and we’ll be happy to provide them to
you.
The third detail is this, and then I’ll go into
my statement. My profession normally is that of
journalist. I want to make it very clear that I’m
not here in that role today. I am not here to cover
this story. That would be a conflict of interest.
My name is Alan Lupo. I 1 ve at 54 Johnson
Avenue in Winthrop. I’m a member of the Concened
Citizens Committee of Winthrop. I come here fully
aware of the complexities of this issue, and I’m
equally well aware of the need to clean up Boston
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
- 44
Harbor, which after all is part of my backyard.
But I must say to you that despite my awareness
of the difficulties of this task and with all due
respect to the enormous amount of work that went into
your report, we do not itend to allow that plan to
be implemented. There will be no leveling of Deer
Island, one of, our few natural resources, for an
industrial complex that one might expect to find off
the New Jersey Turnpike. There will be no barging;
there will be no filling; there will be no construction;
there will be no trucking. There will be no shuttling
by either car or bus of 2000 construction workers
daily through the narrow residential streets of this
most densely populated community.
There will be no incineration of sewerage sludge
to pollute our air. There will be no haphazard
introduction of additional chemicals into our air or
water or into our neighborhoods.
Winthrop has taken on more than its share of
Greater Boston’s social responsibilities. We have
seen part of our harbor filled in f or Logan Airport,
and we suffer daily the awesome noise and air pollution
created by that facility. We have already on Deer
Island an antiquated prison, harmful to its inmates,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
45
to its correction officers, and to its neighbors in
Point Shirley. We have already on Deer Island a
primary treatment plant with its own history of
bureaucratic bumbling and malfunctions.
We are treated hourly to deafening high decibel
whines, groans, shrieks, roars of jets warming up,
taking off, flying overhead, landing and reversing
thrust. We are treated daily to tanker trucks full
of deadly chlorine moving through densely populated
streets.
We are treated sporadically to inmates trying to
escape from thatGod forsaken excuse for a penal
institution.
We are technically a suburb of Boston, but we are
in fact an urban neighborhood, with all the virtues and
problems that come with the territory. We are precisely
the kind of urban neighborhood that the Carter Admini-
stration says it wants to insure remains alive and
healthy. We agree with President Carter, and therefore,
we say to you, no, no sewerage treatment expansion on
Deer Island.
Instead, we demand true citizen participation as
opposed to the tokenism displayed so far. To hold a few
public meetings and invite some statements is a farce,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
46
a further confirmation of a 3-year old New York Times
article which said of your Water Pollution Control Act,
and I quote: “One of the law’s objectives of extensive
public participation in the pollution abatement.program
has been almost completely fruitless.”
Instead of a real community study where citizens
enjoy equal access and clout with the federal, state
and regional arms of government, we have some hernia-
producing volumes of federa].ese -- a language that many
educated Americans do not speak or easily comprehend.
We have a so-called study that presumes Deer Island
must be part of the solution and then proceeds to
eliminate all alternatives in order to justify the
original presumption.
Americans had enough of these kinds of studies.
We thought the events of the 1960s and early l9lOs
meant an end to such studies, that from then on citizens
would be part of the process in major decisions affecting
their lives and their neighborhoods. How naive and how
foolish we apparently were.
We are back to where we were in the bad old days
of early urban renewal. Experts communicating in their
own jargon hand us voluminous studies and expect us to
respond with immediate and intelligent answers to such
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
47
statements as, and I quote:
“If SIP revisions are judged necessary by EPA to
meet the NAAQS, no construction can be initiated...”
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
But despite all that, if one could struggle
through this study with the limited time available to
the average citizen, one could see a plan fraught with
danger and destruction. Some examples:
The plan calls for the trucking and/or barging in
of 7,135 tons of liquid chlorine a year. The EPA
report acknowledges that chlorine can be harmful to
water and marine life. I would add to that a reminder
of what could happen, God forbid, if one of those
chlorine tanks ruptured and the liquid turned to gas.
The gas can burn the skin and eyes; the vapors if inhaled
can kill. Early this year a freight train carrying
chlorine was derailed in the Florida panhandle. I
quote from Time magazine:
“Ambulance driver Doug Lister and his partner
Marty Shipman were the first rescuers to reach the
twisted wreckage. Said Shipman, ‘Suddenly, I couldn’t
breathe. I started screaming at Doug to get the hell
out of there.’ Listed added, ‘I was spitting up blood.
I felt like I was breathing flames. I thought I was
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
48
going to die.’ Lister managed to put the ambulance
in reverse and rush away. Others were not so lucky.
Eight did die, and 50 were injured.”
That was a train accident, true; not a truck or
a barge accident. Yet the federal government reports
that rail, truck, plane and ship companies had 16,000
spills of dangerous cargo in 1977 alone, resulting in
32 deaths and 750 injuries. Trucks account for more
than 80 percent of the spills.
Another example: Air pollution. The plan proposes
that sewerage sludge will be incinerated at Deer Island.
The EPA report itself says repeatedly, “Incineration
of the sludge would add significant quantities of
pollutants to the atmosphere.”
But you have to travel down another little road in
the bureaucracy to find this little tidbit from the
General Accounting Office, and I quote again:
“Coping with rapidly increasing volumes of sewerage
sludge, a potentially toxic substance, is a nationwide
problem. Some disposal methods are being phased out;
others are being increasingly restricted by governmental
actions.”
The General Accounting Office cited a “lack of
scientific data on environmental and health effects of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
49
sludge disposal, unproven technology and high costs.”
In other words, what may seem beneficial today to
clean up a harbor amy prove devastating tomorrow and
clean out a neighborhood, a town and a bunch of other
communities.
I want to add an important footnote here. The
EPA proposal seems contrary to the Ca ter Administration’s
hopes for urban neighborhoods. The EPA and the GAO,
General Accounting Office, are at odds. The EPA proposal
also rejects sewerage plans by the MDC. The MAPC,
the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, was supposed to
study the MDC’S sewerage plan known as the EMMA, but it
r n out of money. And meanwhile the 0MB, Office of
Management and Budget, says the EPA proposal is already
useless because it doesn’t deal with all the causes of
sewerage pollution runoff in the harbor.
I don’t know what the FBI, the CIA or the KGB say
about it. But I know one local official has said
privately that it’s an administrative nightmare. On
that one, you’ve got our sympathy.
Meanwhile, some communities with foresight and/or
political clout have convinced the EPA that sewerage
treatment facilities recommended for their neighborhoods
are dangerous and unnecessary.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
50
So it all comes back to good old dependable
Winthrop and Deer Island. Lucky Winthrop, and its
neighbor East Boston, will get 25 buses full of
construction workers making round trips every day
for four to six to ten years. Enough air and noise
pollution to decrease property values, destroy public
roads, and combined with the noise and pollution of
Logan’s jets and the construction activity at Deer
Island create lots of physical and psychological
trauma -- just enough to wipe our community.
When EPA in its report does acknowledge the
disruptions, both temporary and permanent, that will
occur, it suggests that measures be taken to alleviate
them. What measures? By whom? Who will pay for these
measures? Who will insure that they be carried out?
Where is it written?
Finally in its report, EPA makes much of endangered
species, some of whom allegedly live on the islands that
were ruled out as sites for treatment plants. The EPA
shows proper concern for the Northern Copperhead snake,
the Ipswich Sparrow, and even the famous numenius
borealis. But the EPA has shown less concern for what
we call Urbanus Humanus, which may not be Latin but
which we’ve just made up, and that means us, people
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
51
who live in an urban setting with precious few natural
resources.
In fact, EPA has the audacity to dismiss the
removal of 210 acres, all of Deer Island, as less than
traumatic. It sees little ecological value, except
for a glacial hil]. or two and no historic or educational
significance. Well, maybe if you live in the country
or a wealthier suburb, a Deer Island doesn’t look like
much, but it means a lot to us aesthetically. Don’t
write us of f as cretins who can’t appreciate the beauty
of a drumlin with a view of the Atlantic. And make no
mistake about the history of that place, often a sad
history, but very real and very relevant nonetheless.
Old Urbanus Humanus has taken about enough. Our
message to you is clear -- no further work on the
sewerage treatment plant, primary or secondary. We
want a new study, similar to the one sponsored by the
state in the early 1970s after the insane interstate
highways was stopped, a Study where citizens are equal
partners with government and can select their own
planners and experts and technicians with federal and/or
state funds.
It was civil disobedience that helped stop those
highways and make that study possible. I hope and pray
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
52
such actions will not be forced upon us in this day
and age. But rather than leave you with a warning,
I owu].d rather leave you with a plea for compassion
and what I believe to be fairness.
In Fiddleron the Roof, Tevye, who is much like
Winthrop, he looks to God and Heaven and he says,
“God, I know you’ve made us the chosen people, but
once in a while, couldn’t you choose somebody else?”
Thank you.
MS. HANMER: The good news is that these have
been very good statements. The bad news is now we’re
a half hour behind. So let’s continue.
MR. CUMMINGS Nice to start on a good note.
You’re a tough act to follow, Al.
STATEMENT BY ARTHUR CUMMINGS, WINTHROP
MR. CUMMINGS: Madam Chairlady, my name is Arthur
Cummings. I live at 51 Emerson Road, Winthrop, Mass.
I wish to address my remarks to the alternatives, or
lack of alternatives, available to the proposed expansion
of the EPA sewerage system at Deer Island.
It should first be noted that the proposed program,
as well as all alternative programs which were dismissed,
did not include any meaningful citizen participation
despite the impact on the communities and the lives of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
53
their residents.
The preliminary screening draft of the Environmental
Impact Statement is biased and in favor of, I quote,
“large treatment plant sites...in the vicinity of Boston
Harbor.” Page 3-32. This bias then eliminates any
serious consideration of a larger number of smaller size
facilities which would result in the reduction in the
cost for interceptor relief, since the den andwould be
lower. Furthermore, innovative sludge management plans
may be possible since the quantities generated would
be over a larger metropolitan area and would be smaller
and more realistically handled.
For the inland plants, 29 sites were investigated.
In the preliminary screening, twenty sites were
eliminated for such reasons as:
Proximity to a golf course, a private one at that;
Distances from discharge points, three or more
miles;
Heavily wooded areas;
Dedicated to open space;
Obvious better alternatives, whatever they might
be;
Incompatible with residential areas, such as
Wellesley;
B. P. £ REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
54
Inhabited by birdlife and rookery populations.
The secondary screening investigated sixteen
coastal area plant configurations. Eight with inland
satellite plants; eight without. Nut Island was
eliminated simply due to cost. The plan would cost
one percent more to build. This one piece of faulty
logic actually eliminates from consideration six of
the sixteen alternatives. And the beat goes on.
No community effects and affects were allowed to
enter the decision making process.
Winthrop has had enough of this type of alternative --
the alternative without choice. We have an alternative
prison -- Deer Island. We have an alternative airport --
Logan -- which when we complain to Massport of the noise
pollution from the takeoffs, the landing and the
revving up concoct alternative flight patterns, such
as the loop that strangles Winthrop, and the teardrop
that is squeezed from Winthrop, and the infamous
corkscrew and we all know what that did for good old
Winthrop.
Serious consideration must be given to the people
of Winthrop and t e surrounding communities. Once the
sewerage plant has been constructed, our opposition is
academic -- the danger and damage is irrevocable. The
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
55
reports of different agencies are contradictory. The
MDC for one is opposed to the EIS. Furthermore, the
EIS report is full of maybe’s and should’s. This is
not good enough when we are talking about human life
and’ environmental resources, the destruction of which
is irrevocable. These specific problems have been or
will be discussed by other speakers.
It is very possible that the problems created by
an expanded sewerage plant at Deer Island will have as
adverse effect on the residents of Winthrop and
adjacent communities as the insideous consequences of
those people who worked closely with asbestos. Despite
warnings as early as 1930 that asbestos was harmful,
little or nothing was done to correct it because a
few people wanted to save a few dollars. We can clearly
see now the cost in human suffering as well as the
dollar cost because of this short-sightedness.
Deer Island and Winthrop are the gateway to Boston
Harbor. We wish to maintain it as a natural and human
resource. Viable alternatives to the proposed EIS plan
have been too easily dismissed. The citizens of Winthrop
want to control their own destiny. This can be
accomplished only if the EIS plan is stopped and citizen
participation becomes in integral part of the decision
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
56
making process.
MR. HICKS: The next five speakers are Jerry Falbo,
Ron Wayland, Sheriff Kearney, and then Thomas Maguire
and C. E. McDonald.
Mr. Falbo,
STATEMENT BY JEROME E. FALBO, CHAIRMAN
WINTROP PLANNING BOARD
MR. FALBO: Ladies and gentlemen and fellow
citizens, my name is Jerome Falbo, and I’m Chairman
of the Winthrop Planning Board.
I’d like to preface my remarks at this time by
stating that we consider this problem as part of the
totalitarian picture, the total picture in regards to
all of the other forces that have affected residential
zoning in Winthrop. And this is the mind in which the
statement was presented, prepared and presented to you
this evening.
Historically, the development of the Town of
Winthrop has been characterized by massive population
growth followed closely by intervening forces of
private and governmental agencies under the color and
guise of progress. These forces have been awesome and
disruptive to residential quality of the Town of
Winthrop.
We are a small town surrounded by a large city and
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
57
the Atlantic Ocean. The community, while constantly
fighting off the threat of urbanization and its evils,
cannot ever hope to expand its residential capacity.
The Town is small and Overcrowded. There are
approximately 22,000 human beings attempting to enjoy
the benefits of surburban living in an area of one
and a half square miles. There are over 13,000 of
these human beings living in one square mile.
The task of attempting to enjoy living in this
community becomes increasingly difficult by its mere
geographical location, lack of tax generating conditions,
and shortage of usable land. But now, as so often in
the past, we face additional outside forces with
awesome plans to further infringe on the residential
quality of the Town of Winthrop.
I’d like for a moment to quote in part from the
zoning by-laws of the Town of Winthrop, Section 13.03,
entitled Purpose, and again I state in part. “The
purpose of this By-Law is to promote health, safety,
convenience, morals and welfare of the inhabitants
of the Town of Winthrop; lessen congestion in the
streets; to conserve health; to secure safety from fire,
panic axid other dangers; to provide adequate light and
a 4 r “
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
58
The Planning Board, as you may well know, is
charged by law with the duty to carry out these stated
purposes. But through the years the various changes
in land uses involuntarily placed on our community has
made this mandate difficult if not impossible to carry
out by this Planning Board or predecessor boards. Let
us consider the facts of the past, and some you have
heard today from other citizens, where private and
governmental and quasi private and quasi governmental
agencies have forced upon Us, the Community of Winthrop,
programs of progress and development which have brought
to our community a state of lower residential standards.
First, many years ago the construction of Deer
Island as a minimal penal institution for the benefit
of Suffolk County and connected by a strip of land to
the Town of Winthrop. Not much can be said about the
development as it predated this Board as well as the
early concept of zoning and land planning.
The second, however, we saw the creation of the
Mass. Port Authority. During the years of its early
development, 1960 through 1971 or thereabouts, in
which we watched a phenomenal growth. While the Port
is to be commended for such growth and significant
contribution to the economic growth of the City of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
59
Boston and possibly the Commonwealth, it must bear an
equally significant blame for the decline of Winthrop
as a residential community. During this period and
against the vociferous opposition of the Planning
Board and the community as a whole, this growth
phenomena adversely affected the life style and quality
of living in Winthrop. It was at this time that people
started to question the desirability of buying homes
and living in Winthrop.
True, there was no significant decrease in
population. Why? Because as native Winthropites
moved out, their position was taken over and their
homes by people who had previously enjoyed living in
areas closer to the airport but by then were eager to
escape the threat of expansion and the new noise
experiences.
Ironically, ladies and gentlemen, a few years
ago this Board, in fact I appeared before your agency
to protest the construction of the proposed parallel
Runway 15-33. Fortunately, the community prevailed
and a further decline in residential standards was
averted.
Next, what do we have? In 1968 we experienced
the construction of the first sewerage plant at Deer
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
60
Island. There is no doubt that this plant was
necessary to fight the existing sewerage problems.
But can anyone question that the plant, although
located at the edge of the Town and not on the Town’s
property, contributed further to discourage people
from living in Winthrop? Again, the desirability of
establishing a residency in the community declined.
To this very day, as you have heard and again
I’ll repeat, the residents are apprehensive about the
daily chlorine qas truck wh’iéh passes through our
residential streets. This truck constantly and
unnecessarily looms as a threat to the safety and
peace of the residents. Yet, has there been any attempts
to find an alternate viable method of transporting the
chlorine?
During this same period of time in Winthrop’s
history, a decision was made that drastically
curtailed even the potential to broaden the tax base.
The Boston Transportation Task Force and other state
agencies eliminated consideration of construction of
a third road to Winthrop. The experts gave many
reasons for this adverse opinion. Strongely, one of
these reasons was that the Town of Winthrop was
residential in nature and would not be supportive of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
61
industry and commerce, commercial interests that would
expected to be attracted to Winthrop if there was a
third access road. Clearly, as we view it, members
of the Planning Board consider the community as locked
in, locked in in its capacity to increase tax revenue
and the accompanying added services which in turn
generates further residential development.
And now, as you have heard and are aware, we have
been chosen as the site of yet further non—residential
construction effects. Will the proposed construction
adversely affect the Town of Winthrop? Will the
community continue to experience irreversible setbacks
and irretrievable losses?
We believe that the construction of a secondary
treatment plant at Deer Island -- that is, we on the
Planning Board -- will have an adverse affect on the
residential desirability of the Town of Winthrop.
The initial construction activity at the site, the
increased use of our roads by traffic generated by
this construction, the air emission from the incinerary
process, elimination of Deer Island for recreational
use, and the possible land taking, easements, for
relief sewers will cause a devaluation of the value of
the adjacent property at Point Shirley; in addition,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
62
this construction will cause a further decline in the
residential value of the Town.
The necessity of the proposal to affectively deal
with the sewerage problem is not in doubt. That is a
necessity. But we are of the opinion that the Town of
Winthrop cannot survive another residentially dis-
ruptive project such as the proposed construction.
We gladly welcome some of the technological benefits
but not if we must bear all of the technological burdens.
Therefore, we urge you to recommend the
elimination of the Deer Island site for the construction
of a secondary sewerage plant or as a site for any
additional non-residential or non-recreational use.
We would prefer, the members of the Planning Board,
to be allowed to continue -- again, I quote within the
words of the purpose of the zoning by-laws of the Town
of Winthrop -- “making of Winthrop a more viable and
more pleasing place to live, work and play.”
Respectfully submitted by the Winthrop Planning
Board. Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Mr. Wayland.
STATEMENT BY RONALD H. WAYLAND,
CHAIRMAN, WINTHROP CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
MR. WAYLAND: Madam Chairman, gentlemen, my name
B. P. A. REPORTLNG ASSOC1ATES INC.
-------
63
is Ronald Wayland. I am.the Chairman of the Winthrop
Conservation Commission.
Because I am actively ‘involved in the task of
protecting Winthrop’s endangered wetlands and other
environmental interests, I can appreciate your concern
for and commitment to improving water quality standards
in the area of Boston Harbor. I can also, in some
measure, appreciate and understand those elements which
should be considered in reaching an objective conclusion
on this very important environmental issue.
After studying the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, which is the subject of this Public Hearing,
and after having had the opportunity of discussing its
recommendations with Mr. Johnson of the Environmental
Protection Agency and others, I have come to the
conclusion that this impact statement is most obviously
incomplete in its analysis of all the pertinent facts.
It5 conclusions therefore should be considered to be
totally premature.
Perhaps the most serious flaw in this statement
is its almost total silence on the question of what
impact the recommended proposal will have on the over
20,000 inhabitants of the Town of Winthrop, on the
people of East Boston, but especially on the residents
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
64
of Point Shirley. The Environmental Impact Statement
leaves unanswered such questions as:
What impact will this project have on the health
and safety of the people of Winthrop?
What impact will this project have on property
values in the Town of Winthrop?
How will this project effect economic growth in
Winthrop?
And how will this project impact on the recreational
needs of the people of Winthrop, East Boston, Chelsea
and Revere?
The answers to these questions become meaningful
when you ask the same questions or similar questions
with respect to alternative sites, and then make a
comparison between the two. This process has not been
followed.
Secondly, what credibility can be given to an
environmental impact statement concerning a project
of the magnitude suggested by the Environmental
Protection Agency that does not mention, not one word
is mentioned of the negative environmental impact of
Logan Airport. It does not seem right that after you
have reached your conclusions you must now rely on the
concerned citizens of Winthrop to provide you with th:Ls
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
65
most significant information.
Again, this leaves important questions still
unanswered. Does the Environmental Protection Agency
know what the recommended proposal, what impact the
recommended proposal will have on the citizens of
Winthrop when the environmentally damaging elements
of this project are added to the already existing
pollutants of all kinds that impact upon this
community? And how do these findings necessarily
compare when applied to alternative sites?
Thirdly, and I suspect at the heart of your
decision to destroy Deer Island, is the Boston Harbor
Island Comprehensive Plan which was prepared initially,
I think, by the Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources and by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
When your Draft Environmental Impact Statement dealt
with alternative sites, the Boston Harbor Islands’
Plan was given seemingly as the only reason necessary
for rejecting that site. This apparently fool proof
defense, however, failed with respect to Deer Island.
In effect, it was decided that Deer Island and the
interests of the people of Winthrop and the North Shore
would be sacrificed for the sake of the rest of that plan.
This effectively makes the Boston Harbor Plan
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
66
primarily a program for South Shore communities and
tourists; that is, unless you happen to be able to
afford a boat. We in Winthrop wait with great
anticipation to see if the authors of this Boston
Harbor Island Plan are as quick as you are to cut
Winthrop loose.
So what has the Environmental Protection Agency
done to Winthrop with their proposed recommendation?
We think they have taken the Boston Harbor Island Plan,
which in many ways was Winthrop’s hope for the future,
hope for growth, hope for development, and have con-
verted that plan into a blueprint for future decay
and degeneration of Winthrop.
We feel that the Environmental protection Agency’s
recommendations, based upon incomplete information,
are at the very least unfair to the people of Winthrop.
We hope you will recognize this and will reconsider
yourrecommendations. We suggest that other ways can
a d must be found that will enable you to achieve high
water quality standards without destroying Deer Island,
without destroying the Boston Harbor Islands Plan and
without destroying the Town of Winthrop. Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Thank you, Mr. Wayland.
Sheriff Kearney.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
67
DENNIS KEARNEY, SHERIFF,
SUFFOLK COUNTY
MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chairlady, and
members of the Commission, for giving me this opportunity
to speak here this afternoon.
I am here as Sheriff Dennis Kierney, Sheriff of
Suffolk County. I reside at 35 West Eagle Street in
East Boston.
My interest in this issue was piqued by the inter-
relationship of the controversy surrounding the Charles
Street Jail, issue and the Deer Island House of Correction.
It was a topic of great debate during the past year as
to what the best long range physical and correctional
public policy of the City and County would be in
addressing the problems that exist at both the Charles
Street Jail and the Deer Island House of Correction.
It was hoped that a combined jail and house of
correction could be constructed on a Downtown Boston
site that would have the following effect:
Number One, remove the House of Correction from
Deer Island in Winthrop; secondly, save the City
operating costs in combining services through a
combined facility; thirdly, returning to the County
$15 million in federal funds for the swap of land at
Dear Is1and and fourth, the construction of a new
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
68
sewerage treatment plant to further clean up Boston
Harbor waters.
However, as I stand here today, I recognize two
problems with that scenario. First and foremost is
the recent action of the Boston City Council. Rather
than construct a combined facility on a Downtown Boston
site to instead renovate or rehabilitate the Charles
Street Jail where it is at Charles Street.
That means that the Deer Island House of
Correction will remain at Deer Island. It also means,
given new state minimum standards from the Department
of Correction, the Deer Island House of Correction
itself will have to be renovated at Deer Island. Thai:
renovation and rehabilitation and reconstruction
process in and of itself I am sure will have some
impact in terms of construction vehicles on this very
impacted area where you intend to build a secondary
sewerage treatment plant.
I think that it is unfair to the people of
Winthrop for government or bureaucracy in general to
place both a renovated House of Correction and a
secondary sewerage treatment plant at Deer Island.
My original support of that scenario was based
on the removal of the House of Correction from Deer
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES INC.
-------
69
Island.
A second problem experienced by all of us, I’m
sure, was an unfamiliarity with the scope, the size
and the impact of the proposed secondary sewerage
treatment plant at the time of these jail discussions.
And I do feel that the timeliness of this issue was
a problem. It would have been helpful to all of us
if this issue had come to a head a year ago. But
given the outcome of the jail construction issue and
given the serious questions raised about the
construction of the secondary sewerage treatment plant,
I urge a new study, as the people of Winthrop have also
urged, with maximum feasible citizen participation to
give the people of Winthrop greater impact and control
of the quality of life in their community.
Thank you for the opportunity. I’d be happy to
answer anyof your questions.
MR. JOHNSON: I have just one question, Sheriff
Kearney. In the Clean Water Act of 1977, the Congress
did authorize several millions of dollars for the
construction, toward the construction of a prison
facility away from Deer Island if the secondary treatment
plant was to be built there. Are you saying now in your
testimony that there is no chance of a prison anywhere
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
70
away from Deer Island?
MR. KEARNEY: That was the topic of discussion
surrounding the recent jail issue. Several defendants
in the case -- myself, the City of Boston, and the
State’s Correction Commissioner —- advocated the
construction of a dual correctional facility for
Suffolk County, consisting of both a jail and a house
of correction.
Given the City Council’s actions just to renovate
the jail and the inability to locate a site in a
downtown area for a combined facility, it is, I think,
almost a mute issue at this poin.t that the Deer Island
House of Correction will ever be removed from Deer
Island.
MR. JOHNSON: Even thoughthere may be federal
monies for the construction of a jail, you’re saying
that’s not possible?
MR. KEARNEY: Unfortunately, that was my argumeni:
during the entire debate, that here we have a golden
opportunity on a county-wide level on a long range
correctional basis, also on a fiscal basis, to build
a combined facility and receive $15 million in federal
funds. And the construction of such facilities was
contingent upon a combined facility. Yet the City Council
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
71
by their action voted just to renovate the jail. And
it was hoped that an action to build a combined facility
would have completed a scenario of the federal money
being returned to the City and the County and the
removal of Deer Island from Winthrop.
But again, that was the first basis for my support,
and I fear that that will never happen, given the City
Council’ s actions.
In addition, as I said, I think at the time of
those debates, of that debate, it would have been
helpful if this issue had come to a head in terms of
trying to determine what would indeed be the best
policy for the City and the County. But I’m here
today, also, to stress that I think a lot of the
support for a combined facility was also based on an
unfamiliarity with the magnitude of this issue.
I look forward to working with the people of
Winthrop and this committee to see that the people of
Winthrop are adequately represented. Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Mr. Maguire.
STATEMENT BY THOMAS A MAGUIRE, WINTHROP
MR. MAGUIRE: My name is Thomas A. Maguire. I
live at Point Shirley in Winthrop.
I’ve been very close to this problem over many
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
72
years. I wish to note at this time lust one thing
which has not been said, because I concur with everything
to this point. And that is, I believe the civil rights
of those prisoners at Deer Island will be a matter of
issue in the coming days if this thing is pursued by
the environmental impact commission.
As a retired person, sometimes they label us as
those who could use their neckties to tie up tomato
plants. Well, we as a group of retired citizens do
not intend to bequeath apathy to the people of Winthrop.
We do want you to know that Where there is strength,
and there is strength in Winthrop and there is 2ight,
and where there is strength, we will take care of it.
But where there is weakness, no words of ours can do
anything.
I want you to know that that does not exist.
Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Mr. McDonald is next.
MR. MCDONALD: Thank you for the opportunity to
speak, but I have no further comments.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
The next three speakers are Mr. DiLorenzo, the
Boston Harbor Citizens Advisory Coinmi tee, Dr. Meyer,
and Mrs. Bea] .e. Mr. DiLorenzo.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
73
STATEMENT BY GEORGE DILORENZO, EAST BOSTON
MR. DILORENZO: Mr. Chairman, George DiLorenzo,
former Representative of East Boston. My greatest claim
to joy is that I’m a grandfather of two grandchildren
who live in Winthrop. I still live in East Boston.
I’d just like to tell you that I’m not going to
continue on the facts that have been presented before
you on the pros and cons of whether this is riqht or
wrong. Men with greater ability have presented their
case. But I’m forced to remind this committee and
the people here of a community once East Boston who
allowed and listened and went through the process of
pleading. ‘No, no,”we said, “we don’t want a tunnel.”
They gave us a tunnel. “No, no, a second tunnel?
That t s impossible.” They said,”just do this. Appear
at meetings. Let them know how you feel. Go before
the group and plead with them.” We did. They gave
us a second tunnel.
“My God, you want to take Wood Island Park?
That’s impossible. Ridiculous. What shall we do?”
“Go before the Governor.” We did. But quietly like
you’re doing, Winthrop. Are you. going to learn.
And they said, “Go before the Mayor.” We did. We
lost Wood Island Park.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
74
Then a legislator was elected named George
DiLorenzo. There was a thing called an airport. We
said, “Please, don’t disturb our children.” They said,
“We won’t.” And they did. “Please, please, don’t
grow inward. Grow outward.” They said, “We won’t.”
They did.
In the meantime we were told, told by our priests
and by our elderly, “Behave yourself. Do what’s right.
Don’t do that. Just plead.” And we pled and we lost.
However, one day on Maverick Street, it was about
only 150 trucks every ten minutes going by, starting
at 6:30 in the morning, and I got there and made a
speech and we stopped it. They stopped it how? We
stopped 50 trucks in one hour, had a confrontation
with the State Police, sat on the street, refused
them to go. There are no trucks on Maverick Street
today.
But, ladies and gentlemen on Winthrop, plead,
beg, continue. We only started in 1955. We learned
in 1972.
Now, I’ll give you one more occasion that happened
and again I was slapped on the hand for that contronta-
tion. The Globe carried a story showing the State
Policemen, the poor State Policemen who removed their
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
75
badges and dragged the women on the street as they sang,
“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the...” you know, the
usual democratic -- no greater place than this auditorium,
this Faneuil Hall to make a speech as I’m about to say
when we say, “Are we really disturbing the tranquillity
of democracy?” Well, let me tell you, very peacefully
and under full control, do you realize what happens if
a chlorine truck were to strike a hole that was over
a storm and it leaked or exploded? Now, don’t get
nervous because it only means about three or five
hundred lives. Not much. Behave yourself. Don’t you
dare get rambunctious. Don’t you dare display some
animosity towards those who are leading you on.
But let me tell you something. East Boston will
not allow you to bring the chlorine trucks through it.
You cannot get into Winthrop without getting through
East Boston, and we won’t let you.
Take this back. May I remind you, ladies and
gentlemen of the committee, I have a Master’s degree,
an Honorary Degree in what was work as a legislator.
I have two Bachelor’s Degrees, thirteen years of college
so I’m a professional man. I don’t like to behave like
this. I, too, control the vocabulary that I Can
appeal and beg, but I did. But Winthrop hasn’t learned
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
76
yet, but they will slowly get there.
I wonder if you realize what is meant by 4,000
trucks. Have you any idea? Mothers, sand in the sheets.
You know when you put a poached egg, give it to your
baby; sand in the poached egg.
Can you believe it if I told you when you crack
an egg, sand is in the center of the egg. HOW did it
get there, trucks going through East Boston streets
every three minutes, and what happens? The streets --
well, forget that.
Itm going to close, and when I close, I want to
appeal to you. Don’t put East Boston on the front
page of the Globe or on TV again. Don’t make our
disobedience appear as though we are very unrestful
and very undeserving people. We’ve been very tolerable.
We’ve tolerated all these abuses that Winthrop is about
to start. And I was very interested to see my friend
Tobin of Quincy who, when he was a legislator with me,
didn’t dream that the progress and the growth of the
airport would ever interfere with Winthrop, so he voted
for the progress of aviation, but it came back to haunt
him.
And I’m telling you now, Winthrop, don’t paint
your houses. It’s not worth it. The value of your
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
77
house will drop five percent per month. I’ve always
wanted to live in Winthrop. You have no idea how I
love Winthrop. You can have it. I’ll stay where I
am. Right in Maverick Square, across a project,
across the ocean, a town of a million stinks, oil
trucks, airport, noises. But at least it’s tolerable.
You’re not. God, be aware what this is going to do to
your children. You know how softly they speak? Listen
to them soon. When they just ask for a glass of water
and you say, “You don’t have to shout.” You’re not
aware of this environmental impact, are you?
Let me just close by saying, in 1968 we passed a
law. It was to give the community the desire for input.
That’s a federal term, you know. As a matter of fact,
ith even in your basis. I got it from you, that word
“input.” That you were established as the Environmental
Protection Agency to create a vehicle of what they call
citizen input. This is what you’re doing. Input on
what? Do eight years, ten years, of $177 million --
oh, I’ve got to remind you, oh, if you only knew how
many times they said, you know those 355 jobs, they
all go to Winthrop. Ha, ha, ha. You know that $700
million, do you know what that’s going to do to your
economy in Winthrop? Everybody is going to be a
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
78
millionaire. We heard that. You know something else?
you know what kind of an input this is going to be on
the economy of the businessmen in Winthrop? They’re
going to get so rich that they’ll take over the
problems in Winthrop. We heard that. And you want to
know something? I couldn’t even get a job, and I was
a legislator, at the airport and I live there. I can’t
even get a job in the tunnel as one who is collecting
money. We’ve got to make way for the veterans and
the minorities, majority and the seniority groups.
So I’d just like to say, Winthrop, beware, don’t
be tricked. Fight, you’re fighting for your life.
You don’t believe this, do you? Because I didn’t
believe it ten years ago. You’re fighting for eduction.
The moment this happens, your process of education
goes down. The child starts to slur instead of speak.
He’s in special class, and you’re going to say, “How
did this happen?” It happened in East Boston. It’s
happening in Boston. And I know, I’m an educator and
I see it every day.
Something else, fair ladies, and for your
information, why is it that a woman has a change of
life between the ages of 35 and 40? It’s more
predominant in East Boston and Winthrop. Could it be
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
79
because of the noise and sound? Could it be for this
frustration that comes because of the frustrating sound
and noise? So ladies and qentlentent, I’m appealing
again, please don’t accept it.
Once more, how can you sit there and plan to
compound an environment with one pollution on top of
another? Your job is to dissipate it and isolate it.
What you’re doing is putting more effluents, more
environment problems on top of another. What do you
want, noise pollution? We have it. What do you
want, more pollution?
I’ve just lived through the BBD, the noice thing.
We’re going through it now in East Boston, and they’re
telling us now that the sound intensity is so bad,
it’s interferring with education.
Please, I appeal to you, don’t let us behave
what the papers will call us uncouth and rough. Give
this to somewhere else. Spread it out. It can be
done. Spread it out in Pittsfield. Spread it out in
Southboro., Put it out in Worcester. Spread it out.
Put it out. That’s your job. Thank you very much.
MR. HICKS: Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT MEYER, Chairman
BOSTON HARBOR CITIZENS” ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DR. MEYER: Ladies and gentlemen of the panel,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
80
fellow citizens, my name is Herbert Meyer. I’m the
Chairman of the Boston Harbor Citizens’ Advisory
Committee for the EPA.
Let me start with a personal remark which I have
not prepared. The members of such Citizens’ Advisory
Committee for the EPA are impressed by the emotional.
and passionate testimony we have heard from the
citizens from Quincy and Winthrop. We are not less
concerned than they are.
The difference is that possibly we are committed
to a certain staying power. We have been around for
two and a half years and have met recrularly, monthly
and when necessary more often, not because there was
a crisis in our backyard but out of a certain
responsibility which transgresses the loyalty to our
neighborhood.
We have at heart the good and the healthy future
of the Boston region, and we consider ourselves
citizens of Greater Boston whose greatest asset perhaps
is the Boston Harbor, the Boston Harbor which has been
neglected for so long and which has been poisoned by
the sewer overflows from all those nice communities
including Quincy and Winthrop.
It is a fact of life that not only animals but
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
81
also human beings have and p±oduce waste, and that
for generations not only (reater Boston• and our whole
country have neglected to care of the waste, dumping
it into a nearby ocean and hopinq it would go away.
We now begin to realize that human waste doesn’t go
away and that we have to do something about it.
Some of the speakers have complained that there
is no participation. I would like to differ with them.
The Citizens’ Advisory Committee and others of that
sort in which I have been involved for the last twenty
years of my life, and by now I am 81, are the beginninq
of a trend which for the future maybe constructive.
On our Committee we have a member each from
Winthrop and from Ouincy. If there are more of them
willing to participate, I as the Chairman would welcome
them. Then they could help us to patiently search for
a compromise which will, find or try to find solutions
for nasty problems which nobody wants to solve in his
backyard. We would welcome any more participants from
Winthrop and from Quincy and from wherever they are
to heLp us find a solution for sotnethina we all are
responsible for and a solution from which all of us
will profit. The whole region will have a better future
for it.
B. P. . REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
82
And now let me read my prepared statement.
The Boston Harbor Citizens’ Advisory Committee is
a group of more than 30 citizens and aqency people
formed to advise the EPA and the State Office of
Environmental Affairs on Boston Harbor related
projects. Formed in early ‘76, we have met monthly,
sometimes more frequently. In addition to its
function as a citizen forum and action group, the
committee also is an arena where agency people can
interact not only with citizens but with each other.
One of our tasks has been to consider the EIS
which is before us. We understand that the EMMA
Report needed updatinq. EMMA recommended, among other
things, satellite treatment plants in the mid-Charles
and mid-Neponset; upgrading of the Nut and Deer Island
plants to secondary treatment; and enlargement of the
area served.
EMMA’S recommendations were, on the whole, not
acceptable partly because of changing situations and
laws and partly because of an evolutionary process in
the thinking of us all.
Because this is an on-going process, there are
problems also with the present EIS:
The writing and research for the EIS ended a year
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
83
ago. New situations and reports have emerged since
then.
The EIS is only a segment of the problem of water
quality management of Boston Harbor and its three
tributaries. Other important segments are under study
by other agencies and they are all interrelated. Work
on them should be coordinated. The more important of
them are combined sewer overflows; inflow infiltration
control, primary sludge management, upkeep and upgrading
of local sewers and plants, urban run-off, groundwater
pollution.
The intended waiver application from secondary
treatment is another step, and possibly I regret all
our nice fellow citizens from Winthrop and Quincy have
left before they would have heard that pleasant
surprise. The intended waiver application from
secondary treatment is another step in the evolving
process. There will be an 18 month to two year
wait for the waiver decision. Menatime much needed
research will have to be done.
This is not meant as a criticism of the EIS, but
we realize in our Committee, and you on the panel
certainly do realize to, that options should not be
frozen during this on-going process. EPA and its
B. P. A. REPOR’UNG ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
84
consultants did research and looked at alternatives,
but new questions come up, old questions remain.
The recent Boston Case Study by the Office of
Management and Budget, the National Science Foundation,
and CEQ reinforced many of the questions which our
Committee has been asking for years, and it added some
new ones. This report and the Draft EIS were
unfortunately issued at about the same time, so that
the EIS could neither take into account the 0MB
questions nor answer them.
What is good about the EIS? First, EMMA needed
redoing if for not other reason than because of new
situations, new techniques, new laws, and new public
awareness. Therefore the EXS presents a wealth of
research and reference material for those willing to
dig into the many thick volumes.
Its approach to conservation is strong and helpful.
So helpful, in fact, that it should be made available
apart from the voluminous format of the rest of the
report. Furthermore, its suggestions for conservation
should be put into effect. The effort to include
composting of sludge is a small step towards what we
hope is a widespread future reuse of the fertilizing
elements of sewage.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
85
The Committee appreciates the thoughtful efforts
of public participation. There were workshops, a
satellite site evaluation committee worked hard on
the matter of mid-Charles sites. There was continuous
cooperation and participation in our Committee
deliberations. We also appreciate the effective media
coverage, including an advertisement in the general
section of the newspaper to stimulate interest in this
hearing. We would have appreciated more openness with
our Committee regarding the EPA-MDC relationships
during the whole procedure. We were all feeling our
way, and frankly, we still are, about the role of
citizen advisory committees. We would like greater
involvement of our Committee in the on-going work of
the EIS consultants.
We should be aware that this is a draft. The
final draft of the EIS is scheduled for early ‘81.
Let us take advantage of the times until then.
Finally, we think the suggestions at the end of
the EIS summary regarding mitigating actions are good.
The section on treatment chlorination and its effects
seems to suggest mitigating procedures.
At the end I would like to introduce my various
speakers for the Committee. First Eugene Beale from
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
86
the Boston Conservation Commission who will speak of
some of our questions we have; then Bud Reece, a
citizen who will speak on the more important concerns
we have; and Terry Colby, a citizen who will summarize
the conclusions of the Committee.
I would like to express my thanks for the
opportunity to testify here before you.
MR. HICKS: Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF MRS. EUGENE BEALE
BOSTON HARBOR CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMI1 TEE
MRS. BEALE: We have some questions which are
mainly unanswered, and we want to acknowledge’ that we
know that not all the answers can come from EPA. Some
may come from other agencies, but we want to list them
in the interest of trying to put everybody’s information
together and make some sense out of this shall I call
it a hodge-podge.
Why is there no Boston Harbor Basin plan with
water quality goals and with a ranked ordered list of
projects and actions to be taken to clean up Boston
Harbor and its tributaries? The 208 Report which was
required by the Memorandum of Understanding to accept
the EMMA Report is not a Boston Harbor Basin Plan and
doesn’t provide a basis for what to do to get an
implementable plan.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
87
How is this Environmental Impact Statement
integrated with all other water quality plans for the
harbor and tributaries?
Indeed, what is the impact of the proposed EIS
project on the water quality of the harbor and
tributaries?
Does the EIS -reflect a bias towards what is there,
thus memorializing a centralized system and putting
concrete upon concrete, so to speak?
In fact, does the proposed centralized system go
in the opposite direction from new ideas and the new
Clean Water Act which encourages so-called innovative
and alternative solutions such as on-site disposal,
small-scale package systems of treatment, waterless
toilets, and the like? Does the centralized proposal
also go counter to the new Act’s emphasis on
dispersement of the systems especially in the fringes
of urban areas? In other words, are we still locked
in that we can’t turn around even to some degree?
Are the satellites really put away? Are the water
guality restrictions out of reach? If so, how can EPA
grant funding to other treatment plants on the tributaries
in the Commonwealth? What is, in fact, the state of the
art?
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
88
Allied to that question is one about operations.
Are operational hazards really a governing factor?
Cannot a system be run safely? If not, how can the
EPA make grants for plants anywhere on streams in
New England.
What’s the situation regarding the use of Deer
Island in view of the recent Boston City Council vote
on the Charles Street Jail?
The EIS says a significant reduction in waste-
water volume could be realized with reduction of
infiltration and inflow into the system from ground-
water and sea water. How can we qo into Step 1
facilities planning and design a system for a certain
volume until the I/I reduction is known? How are
we going to impose best practicable control technology
on communities, until we decide what can be done with I/I
and what is cost effective, especially in view of the
fact that water is an increasingly valuable commodity?
Why discuss secondary sludge management in the
EIS when there are important obstacles regarding
primary sludge management, the EIS for which has not
been issued because it can’t be completed?
What’s the significance of sewage pollution as
against the other known and unknown sources of harbor
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATESq INC.
-------
89
and tributary pollution? How do areas of the harbor
differ as to the sources and degree of pollution?
Why doesn’t the EIS include as givens that there
will be co rection of combined sewer overflows and that
there will be an MDC pretreatment program so that there
can be more specific evaluation of treatment needs?
In long-range corrections, what about a step-by-step
approach?
STATEMENT BY BUD REECE, BOSTON HARBOR
CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MR. REECE: I’m just going to address briefly a
few concerns which are interrelated to the EIS but
go beyond this, the specifics of the report.
One, water quality management. The HIS does not
include analysis of impacts on water quality of the
harbor and tributaries, but is primarily concerned with
the quality of the effluent being discharged from the
treatment plant or plants. If we had a Basin Plan,
adequate and sufficient data, and some form of
comprehensive framework, it would be possible to do
such an analysis.
As the 0MB/NSF Study noted, we continue to deal
with wastewater management rather than water quality
management. The whole 201 construction grant process
should be done in synch with a true priority list which
evolves from areawide planning using water quality
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
90
goals as the basis and not merely federally mandated
effluent standards,
Two, water supply. Many elements go into consider-
ation of water quality besides treatment of sewerage,
and particularly we need a management program which
relates water quality management to water supply
management as well.
And related to that, export of water. We’re
concerned about the export of potable fresh water from
areas which need it, such as the Sudbury-Concord area
and the Charles River •area, and the discharge of it
into the ocean and with no return to the original water
supply sources.
Four, sludge incineration. We have no position
at this time on the sludge incineration process, but
we are deeply concerned not-only about the losses of
resources but also about air quality. We wonder why
there should be a plan to pollute the area’s Only clean
air zone? We also wonder why actions about air
pollution were not included among mitigating actions.
Conservation of useable resources. We are
concerned that there is not enough emphasis on reducing
the volume of water used which would also result in
a reduction in the sewerage having to be treated. This
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
91
should be both voluntary and regulatory. We are
concerned that there be maximum reuse of the good
elements in sewerage by properly managed composting
or other uses of sludge, by ocean dispersal or by
other means. We are interested in an in-depth sludge
management study with pilot projects. We look forward
to the studies which would be necessary should a waiver
application be made. In order to make the best use of
reusable resources, we look forward to a workable
program to remove harmful metals and toxics from the
sewerage.
Six, expanding the area served. We are dealing
with a sewerage system in trouble, and yet there are
many on-going plans to expand the system. These
proposals involve adding new towns as proposed by both
EMMA and this particular EIS or else adding new sections
within user towns. We realize that urban areas are
more obviously tied to the need for pipes and other
new facilities, but the fringes of the system have
other options such as on-site septic systems, small
package systems, and waterless toilets. And surely all
should clean up their act as far as infiltration and
inflow goes before the system is expanded any further.
Centralization. We are concerned about
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
92
institutionalizing structures which are already there;
for instance, that incineration of primary sludge would
institutionalize the structure and make it more likely
that incineration of secondary sludge is chosen simply
because the structure is already there. By the same
token, we fear that the all-Deer Island solution is
found the most cost effective principally because the
struture is there, further institutionalizing it.
Eight, the full costs, We hope the towns and
cities will cOme to know the full cost of the operation
and maintenance phase of this proposal, as well as know
how’ the user charge system will operate. We hope that
cities and towns along the interceptor lines will come
to know the full cost of enlargement of those inter-
ceptors which lead to Deer and Nut Island.
Nine, enforcement and permits. We are wondering
how much of the problem outlined in the EIS could be
handled by better enforcement and better permitting,
another example of how other programs tie in with water
quality management.
Ten, conflicting information. Finally, we are
concerned about some of the conflicting information
we receive -- conflicts between the 0MB and the NSF
Report and the EIS; conflicts between officials reacting
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
93
to the same data; and conflicts in actual data. For
example, there was the matter of the two mathematical
models and what they told us about the possibility of
a satellite plant. Also, the consultant’s preliminary
data collected for the waiver application this past
summer suggests that there is serious disagreement
with the bacterial and metals pollution projections
of the current ElS. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF TERRY COLBY, BOSTON HARBOR
CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MR COLBY: Madam Chairwoman, gentlemen, this
process is not over, not by any means. There is a long
way to go, and in the opinion of the Boston Harbor
Citizens’ Advisory Committee, it is not too late to
do something good, not too late for building upon what
we have, not too late to have a Basin Plan, and not to
late to gear the work to water quality and not effluent
quality.
We are encouraged by some things -- greater public
participation in decisions as called for by the Clean
Water Act and its regulations. We’re encouraged by the
greater consideration of alternative and innovative
solutions as called for by the Act. We are encouraged
by the possibility of flexibility and of a variety of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
94
solutions as pilot projects across the nation come to
fruition.
We subscribe to the swimmable-fishable water
quality goals for our rivers and lakes and we subscribe
to the concern about our wetlands and our groundwater.
While we have an eye on the tax dollars, we also have
the other eye on a better harbor, better rivers, better
and more water, better recreation, cleaner air, and
more recycled resources.
We plan, as the Boston Harbor Citizens’ Advisory
Committee, to continue with our broad concerns. We
look forward to a stronger, more recognized and better
supported and funded ro].è when the new public partici-
pation regulations are put into effect. And we hope
to stay involved not only during the planning phase of
nonstructural and structural solutions but also we
hope to be involved as an advisory committee with the
design, construction, and operation phases as well.
Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
MR. STICKNEY! Mr. Chairman, just one comment
really. The Advisory Committee has worked hard and
long over the past couple of years, and I must say
that public participation is difficult to even attempt
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
95
let alone achieve, but the Committee has worked hard
and worked objectively. In many aspects I’m sure we’ve
not been able to be responsive, but we certainly
appreciate the efforts that the Committee has bent
toward making this a better project.
MR. HICKS: Is Representative Tom Brownell here?
He would be the next speaker.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS BROWNELL
MR. BROWNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, I’m Representative Thomas F.
Brownell. I represent the Second Norfolk District,
which now comprises Houghs Neck, Germantown, Adams
Shore, Merrymount and the downtown central business
district.
This coming January 1st, I’ll be representing
a good part of Wollaston, but I’m here today to make
a few comments relative to your plans.
First of all, I’d like to start off on a positive
note. Obviously we in Quincy are very pleased that
we are not once again the focal point of a plan to
build a secondary treatment plant in the City of Quincy.
You have had before you the so-called Broad Meadow
site and also the Nut Island site.
These particular parcels of land in the view point
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
96
of our citizens have a higher and better use than what
has been considered for them in the past. As you well
know, our citizens are adamantly against any kind of
development of these two sites for sewerage treatment
plants.
The City of Quincy has a declining tax base. We
have a City that is growing, and the sites that have
been considered by your Committee are sites, frankly,
that we need for other uses other than sewerage treat—
ment plants.
We feel that over the years that we have more
than our contribution to the Metropolitan District
Sewerage System, and we feel that it is about time
that some of the other communities in the District
take on part of their fair share.
With respect to your recommended plan, we note
that you have designated a section of Quincy, the
Squantum Point area, as an area for a possible land—
filled composting-type development. Again, although
this area I do not represent, I can tell you that
the citizens of Quincy are adamantly against the
development of this site. Since this is a water-front
site, as you well know, a water-front’ site is unique
and we feel that this is not appropriate to the highest
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
97
and best use.
We are also deeply concerned about the safety
aspects of that plan. That plan proposes that trucks
be utilized on roads, over 125 trucks a day. I can
tell you were deeply concerned about that aspect of
the plan. So, although we can somehow endorse your
plan, I also have some reservations about centralizing
such a massive secondary sewerage treatment plant in
once place. We also recognize that Deer Island is
one of the few remaining sites that is now available.
I also would like to suggest to this Committee
that I personally feel that of all the options that
have been considered that I frankly at this point in
time, with a change in the corner office and also a
change in our Congressional delegation and some
changes in Washington, that I intend to sit down right
after the first of the year when our new Governor gets
organized and form a committee to take a positive step
in the direction of coming about to a consensus of
opinion as to what our citizens should do.
I personally thingk that the modified no action
plan is the one plan that I can endorse now, at this
moment in time. I frankly feel that secondary sewerage
treatment plants are far too expensive and take up far
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOC1ATES INC.
-------
98
too much land in urban centers located on the ocean.
I frankly feel that we ought to go back to basics and
once again consider primary treatment plants with
deep rock ocean tunnels. I know that this has been
a consideration by the MDC and other engineers. I
know that it has some unfavorable, what some consider
unfavorable environmental impacts; but I do think
that in the long run, it’s less expensive, easier
to operate, easier to maintain, and I think that it’s
a plan that most everyone that I know will be able
to accept.
And so, members of the Committee, I would like to
leave you with those comments and I would like to
confer with you in the future, and I’d like to advise
you too that I’m also filing legislation which will,
in effect, state that the City of Quincy shall no longer
be eligible for sewerage treatment plant facilities,
land fill operations, composting operations without
a vote of our citizens. And I think that this is a
step that I must take in order to protect citizens
that I represent so that we have some sort of leverage
in dealing with the massive EPA agency which I, to this
day after working six years, fail to comprehend the
process. It seems to be spending a lot of time and a
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
99
lot of money on processes and coming up with solutions
that everyone detests or everyone rejects.
So with those comments, members of the panel, I
want to thank you for taking me out of turn, and I
hope to meet with you in the future.
MS. HANMER: Representative, Brownell, I just hope
you will keep us advised of the status of that committee.
Thank you.
MR. BROWNELL: Yes.
MS. HANMER: The next five speakers are Marian
Ul].nian of the Boston League of Women Voters; Joanne
Condon of the Quincy City Council; and Tom Nutley.
I don’t know whether that’s together or one after the
other; Nany Wrenn of the Boston Harbor Associates;
and Lydia Goodhue of the Charles River Watershed
Association.
STATEMENT OF MARIAN ULLMAN,
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF BOSTON
MS. ULLMAN: Madam Chairman, gentlemen, my name
is Marian Uliman. I am Chairman of the Committee on
Boston Harbor of the League of Women Voters of Boston.
In the past Boston Harbor was an important resource
for the pursuit of commerce, fishing and for recreation.
More recently it has been used to house institutions
which the community wished to put out of sight, such
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
100
as a prison or a rendering plant and to dispose of its
waste waters which became, as industry grew and the
automobile proliferated, more and more polluted. But
the Boston League considers that Boston Harbor is still
a great resource today.
The League has long stood for abatement of
pollution of thewaters o the harbor in order that,
among other reasons, recreational activities such as
sailing and swimming could be carried on with pleasure
and without danger to health. The League also has a
position that the harbor islands should be used only
for recreation and/or education. Therefore, now
that EPA calls for the use of all Deer Island for a
secondary sewerage treatment plant in addition to the
primaryplant, the League finds itself between a rock
and a hard place. Though we acknowledge the need for
new pollution control measures, we would not want to
sacrifice the southern part of the island, which has
been scheduled for recreation as part of the Harbor
Islands State Park, to a use which is a continuation
and extension of old practices. And we are not
convinced that the partial use of Nut Island for
recreation is a fair trade of f for the loss of the
beautiful end of Deer Island, inaccessible though it
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
101
be at the present time.
The design of the proposed secondary treatment
plant in Boston’s front yard is as large as it is
because of a combination of factors: a large ntralized
sewerage system covering 54 communities and extending
geographically to most of the communities within
Route 495, the elimination of the proposed satellite
plants within the system, a lack of incentives to
conserve water and the excessive and as yet unmeasured
infiltration and inflow of water into the system.
We also suspect that some controls on size and
centralization might have resulted if the 208 planning
process of the Clean Waters Act had not lagged so far
behind the 201 construction grants program and more
though given thereby to overall water management and
water supply. As the Boston Case Study points out,
EPA’s consultants, whose proposed solutions are
recommended in the EIR, are after all construction
engineers, and it is only natural for them to think
in terms of building much as a surgeon thinks of
healing in terms of the knife.
There are questions that need to be asked: Could
a different treatment and disposal method at the Satellite
plants which were recommended in the EMMA Report have
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
102
alleviated the reasons for which they were abandoned
and preserve the reduction of flow to the system?
Are the satellite plants entirely out now?
What happens in the event of a breakdown or a
power failure at Deer Island? Is the resulting
pass through a serious threat to the ocean?
MDC’S waste waters have been flowing to the
harbor for primary treatment for years. In view of the
projected increase in flow from a larger population and
addition of seven communities to the system, will
there come a time when some agency will say “enough”
or have we grown so accustomed to the pattern that we
take for granted that ever-increasing flows will continue
to come in the direction of Boston, while at the same
time we’re asked to curtail the use of water in order
to lessen the flow to Deer Island? And what about the
communities which depend on wells and ground water for
their supply, can they afford to export water to the
ocean?
And finally, granted that a treatment plant has
to be located, somewhere, why is there no compensation
for the host community?
Water quality goals. It appears to us that in
planning for upgraded sewerage treatment, construction
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
103
of secondary treatment facilities and incineration of
sludge for both primary and secondary treatment have
been emphasized and the goal of fishable/swimmable
water quality has been somewhat overlooked. In 1975
the Boston League and other organizations, believing
that elimination of the combined sewer overflows into
the harbor would do the most to improve water quality,
pushed for immediate attention to this problem, but
only now is a feasibility study underway. Tied to
this problem is the one of continually breaking tide
gates and admission of salt water into the system.
We know that water quality in the harbor will be
significantly better once the overflows have been
eliminated, but we’re not sure that it will be
significantly better, other than from the removal of
sludge, or meet water quality standards any better
as a result of secondary treatment. As a result of
the anticipated heavy schedule of chlorination, we
may even be buying additional problems. We would like
to know more about the degree of success in reaching
water quality standards as a result of secondary
treatment so that we can judge whether it is worth
the tremendous cost in dollars and in energy. We would
have preferred an approach to water pollution control
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
104
that tailored the solution to the problem rather than
the federal government mandate to proceed to secondary
treatment with its extensive and expensive facilities
and no certainty that the results will justify the
commitment.
We would like to see a reappraisal of the methods
for achievement of water quality standards with
emphasis on the goal rather than the process and a
serious consideration of the cost in terms of dollars
and energy.
Sludge. It is difficult to comment on treatment
of secondary sludge until more is known about the
plans for primary sludge treatment.
Although the impact of sludge incineration is
discussed at length in the EIR, nowhere is there mention
of the most obvious impact of all, namely, the replace-.
ment of the view of a drumlin with the sight of eight
tall stacks standing on one small island emitting their
plumes of smoke and pliutants from the incineration of
sludge. From every point on the waterfront, from the
John Hancock Tower and every building, we are expected
to substitute these eight scarring interruptions of a
beautiful view without so much as a mention that this
is indeed an impact and an important one.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
105
We are gravely concerned about the incineration
process itself. Although we are far from being expert
on air pollution, we wonder if we are not simply
exchanging one form of pollution, the twice-daily
discharge of sludge to the harbor which, to the best
of our knowledge, has not caused any epidemic nor
threat to the health of the community, for a different
form which may affect the health of thousands of people
in the metropolitan area. This is a windy city; the
east winds in spring and summer are an ameliorating
influence on the rigors of our climate. We would not
want to see the time when we might fear the wind from
the east.
Although we are certainly pleased with the corn-
posting solution f or part of the sludge in the southern
district, we point out the obvious fact that some of
the sludge from the northern district could also be
composted were it not mixed with the wastes from
industrial and heavily-traff iced communities because
of the centralized system. We would like to see sludge
regarded as a resource to the greatest possible extent
and more use made of the composting process.
We would like to see more research on pretreatment
of industrial waste, more attention to enforcement of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
106
pretreatment and more research on control of urban
runoff with postponement of incineration until we are
more certain that this is the only way to go. It does
not fill us with confidence to learn that other cities
have already tried and abandoned this method. We
should profit as much as possible from their experience.
Management. Along with better enforcement
procedur s on the Boston and MDC permits, we would like
to see financial support for better maintenance of
existing: facilities and more concern for maifltenance of
projected facilities.
We would also like to see at least one person
devoting full time to this billion dollar water quality
upgrading program instead of the gragmented responsibility
that now exists. We would also recommend the formation
of a technical task force on water, including supply, waste
water and achievement of water quality standards, to
include representatives from the city, state and the
EPA.
MDC waiver application. We are, of course, interested
in the MDC’S application for a waiver to secondary treat—
ment. We take no position at this time, but it does not
escape us that ocean dispersal of primary sewage would
remove many of the elements of secondary treatment which
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
107
are objectionable to us. On the other hand, we are
aware of and nervous about the possible connection
between sewerage and red tide and other implications.
During the time that data is being collected, the
League of Women Voters, and EPA, should keep an open
mind not only on this possible solution but on any
innovative technology which will make the process
more acceptable and less expensive. We urge full use
of available grants for the study of alternative and
unconventional techniques such as an experimental
sewer flushing program. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOANNE CONDON,
QUINCY CITY COUNCIL
MS. CONDON: My name is Joanne Condon, and I ant
the City Councillor from Ward 6 in Quincy. Ward 6 is
the area known at Atlantic and Squantum. I have with
me from the Squantum Community Association and the
Atlantic Neighborl ood Association and the North
Quincy Buàiness and- Professional Association as well
as a number of petitions the feeling of the residents
in WArd 6 and the north end of the City. They are
unanimously opposed to any new or enlargement of
existing sewerage treatment facilities in the City of
Quincy.
Some of the negative factors regarding the Squantum
H. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
108
site and the area that I represent brouqht out in the
Environmental Impact Statement are: the economic
impact on Squantuin; a disruption of traffic already
a problem; the air quality would be affected by open
transportation; a removal of 70 acres of land from
the tax rolls; loss of future taxes could be greater
at the time when the community is struqg’ling and
asking for tax relief; a loss of a small salt marsh
around the perimeter of the Squantum site termed
insignificant in your report; property devaluations;
road closures; again the loss of 70 acres of land;
removal of roadside vegetation; 125 trucks a week,
which is the corrected statement, one every 15 minutes
on already overburdened streets.
With all these negative factors, as the
representative of the area, I would suggest you’re
looking into an alternative, more positive plan.
Thank you.
STATEMENT BY THOMAS J. NUTLEY,
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC RELATIONS,
ATLANTIC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
MR. NUTLEY: My name is Thomas Nutley. I’m the
Acting President of the Atlantic Neighborhood
Association. I think you for the opportunity to
appear here today. I wish to make only a very brief
H. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
109
statement prepared by the officers and executive
board of the Atlantic Neighborhood Association.
I speak today on behalf of the Atlantic Neighborhood
Association, a community civic association representing
three thousand families and approximately thirteen
thousand residents of the North Ouincy area.
At our November 8, 1978 general membership
meeting, the subject of the proposed recommendations
to upgrade the e cisting MDC sewerage system was dis-
cussed at lenqth.
At that time the membership voted unanimously to
oppose the proposed recommendations regarding the
additions to or the expansion of the existing seweraqe
treatment facilities of the City of c uincy. We also
strongly oppose the utilization of the Quincy area or
adjacent areas for storage of sewerage by-products.
We trust that this brief statement will convey
the concern and unanimous opinion of the thirteen
thousand residents of the North Quincy area.
Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
Nancy Wrenn.
STATEMENT BY NANCY WRENN,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
BOSTON HARBOR ASSOCIATES
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
110
MS. WRENN: I’m Nancy Wrenn, Executive Secretary
of the Boston Harbor Associates, a citizen advocacy
group of men and women from civic groups, businesses
related to the harbor, public agencies with jurisdic-
tion in the harbor and people who enjoy living near
the harbor, who are committed to improving this great
natural and economic resource. We want to be able to
swim in beaches we trust. There are thousands of
people who depend on Constitution, Malibu, Tenean and
Wollaston Beaches for summer relief and recreation.
We see a growing desire for waterfront living and
boating and we want to believe that our health is not
endangered if we should flip our sailboat. And we
look back to a time when shelifishing was a hobby. Now
only the professions can reap the questionable bounty.
The questions before us relate to people. HOW
much is it worth to us to renew this resource? And
how are we going to do it?
Treatment is the focus of this environmental impact
statement - - $770 million worth -- but I would suggest
that one of the best investments we could make is in
prevention. The more water we waste, the more waste-
water we’ll have. Just as we have learned to turn
down our thermostats and put on extra sweaters to save
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
111
energy, we can learn the trjckg to saving water.
And just as we have learned to insulate our homes
against heat loss, we can find ways to mend our leaky
pipes and faulty tidegates so that unmeasured and
unwanted water doesn’t go to our treatment plant.
Infiltration and inflow may be expensive to correct
but we are told that by doing so we could reduce the
flows to our treatment plants by 30 to 50 percent.
Now is the time before we commit ourselves
irrevocably to a giant disposal to give the non-sewered
communities time to evaluate all reasonable alternatives
to joining the big metropolitan sewer system. We hope
EPA will participate with the Division of Water Pollution
Control to help local planning move forward expeditiously.
The state priority list for projects to be funded should
reflect a preference for development in existing
developed areas, in concert with state growth policy.
Prevention, or reduction of flows, must be our first
order of business if our goal is to keep our wastewater
and our sludge from overwhelming us.
The second order of business is quality control.
Metals and toxics going into our sewers do immeasurable
harm to the end product. Whether we burn it, compost
it or send it to the forests or to the fish in the ocean,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
112
we cannot afford the unknown health cost of chemical
introductions into the food chain. Sludge is the chief
reason for going to secondary treatment. We have a
case of what the scientists describe as “black
mayonnaise” building up in our harbor. Not only must
we hit the problem at its source -- pretreatment may
be able to reduce the metals and toxics by 20 percent
- but also during the treatment process where more
efficient reduction may be possible.
We must clean our streats regularly and efficiently
and sewer flushing, perhaps the most critical treatment
we can administer, can limit the pollution load from
combined sewers at an estimated cost of $50 per acre
per year. It is the quality of the water in the harbor
toward which treatment must be aimed. Building a
$770 million sewerage treatment plant should be one
of the last decisions we make after all other remedial
measures are assigned costs and values.
It is because we have not yet understood all the
pieces which can bring health to our harbor that it is
impossible to make a firm judgment about the all-Deer
Island recommended plan. A major component of this
health program will be the correction of combined
sewer overflows.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
113
There is impressive reasoning in the upgrading EIS
regarding the decision to forget satellite treatment
plants and to convert Nut Island into a headworks with
accompanying interceptor repair and installation of
pipes. But until we have the decision to waive or not
waive secondary treatment and until the projections
of flows are more accurate, it is impossible to make
such a judgment.
Incineration of sludge is the least desirable
solution to the disposal problem for several reasons.
Within the new air quality program there will be serious
economic growth questions to be addressed. We do not
yet have a dependable technology for pollutant-free
incineration.
The question of a single centralized facility is
political, as well as logistical. No one wants to be
the host community for the sewerage from over a million
homes and industries, We must find ways to make this
host role more palatable. The suqgestions made by the
writers of the EIS are helpful. We support the seasonal
use of chlorine to relieve the problem of transporting
this hazardous material and reduce the danger of over-
chlorination. And we believe in the potential of Deer
Island as part of the public water transportation system
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
114
of the harbor. A multi-purpose dock to serve passenger
ferries, as well as barges for chlorine and construction
vehicles, should be included in the basic costs.
Deer Island is in center stage of nearly all of
the harbor views from Nahant to Dorchester. We would
like to see a minimal impact on the community and the
landscape. We would regret the loss of its tip as a
piece of the island park network. Its unappreciated
beach lies waiting, its views are outstanding. We urge
every possible measure to reduce the scale of the
facility if the central plant approach is chosen.
The most critical task ahead for all of us,
citizens and public agencies, is to see that this
billion-dollar cleanup program does not continue tobe
managed in a piecemeal manner. There must be a system
created whereby all the treatment measures can be
evaluated in a single conceptual framework. Once
decisions are made, progress in changing the quality
of our harbor water should be reported. We want to
participate and to know that we have chosen well.
MS. HANMER Thank you.
STATEMENT BY LYDIA R. (OODHUE,
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
MS. GOODHUE: I am Lydia R. Goodhue of Wellesley,
and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
115
Charles River Watershed Association, which I represent
today. Our Association, established in 1965, is to
protect the resources of the Charles River, a tributary
of Boston Harbor.
I want to say first, something about the design
flow. The facility design is based on flow information
produced in the EMMA Report. These figures were based
on populations estimates several years ago that have
now been somewhat discredited. Design flow should
reflect full control of inflow and infiltration into
the MSD system as well as into the local systems, and
it is our understanding that possibly up to 50 percent
of treated flow is either groundwater or seawater and
given the value of water today, this can hardly be cost
effective.
Also the export of 57.5 million gallons a day from
the originating watershed to the harbor is unacceptable,
especially in view of present and impending shortages
of water and is inconsistent, moreover, with the
Massachusetts water resources policy, which is at this
very moment developing. Draft regulations for this
policy call for municipal, watershed, and statewide
water resource management plans with emphasis on
conservation, metering and rehabilitation. Public
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
116
attitudes toward water use and interbasin transfers
have changed since EMMA. And in the light of all this,
we feel the plant may be overdesigned.
As to the area served, this is an allied concern,
and we are concerned about the EIS’s includion of eight
more communities to be served in the future, most of
those proposed added communities being in the Charles
watershed. Again, the old EMMA projections were used,
and since then, attitudes have changed.
Public Law 95-217 requires consideration of
alternative and innovative techniques that don’t
include building and extending sewers. Now the 208
study was responsive to this expressed wishes of these
towns which didn’t want to sewer, and this study did
recommend nonstructural alternatives or small structures
onsite, and we hope that the EIS would do the same.
The Charles River Watershed Association doesn’t
believe that any additions to the present system should
be allowed until the system is cured of its often-
surcharged condition, regardless of the time required
for corrections. It’s inconsistent to permit system
expansion in Ashland, for example, while there are
still overflows at Nut Island and in Wellesley., to just
pick some.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
117
We support consideration of water conservation,
recognizing the indisputable relationship between water
supply and the flow through sewer systems. A strong
case should be made for mandatory conservation through
regulation, pricing and sanctions directed equitably
at industrial, commercial, institutional, municipal
and residential users. The true cost of water reflects
treatment and reclamation of it as well as its delivery.
Reuse of effluent for suitable purposes should be
encouraged.
Now as to the satellite plant, we have long
supported a satellite treatment plant in the area of
the midwat rshed of the Charles. We believe that if
possible we should not export our sewerage problems
to Quincy or to Winthrop, but we should cope with them
where they are generated. Neither should we export our
precious water if it can be used here to augment our
streams. This is socially and environmentally
responsible, we believe. The level of treatment
required to meet the Class B standard in the mid-Charles
and its specific cost shàuld be stated. We asked this
in our reaction to the preliminary EIS and this
information still hasn’t been provided. This cost
should be compared then with the cost of harbor
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
118
discharge of the disruptive sewer relief work and the
interceptors and of the loss of water. Without this
information, we can’t withdraw our support for a mid-
Chalres satellite plant.
It has been stated that a plant cannot be built
because of dissolved oxygen problems, but surely plants
are being built all over the country to discharge into
streams with dissolved oxygen problems. We can’t
believe that imagination and modern technology cannot
produce a solution, given determination and funding.
Also we are told that the possibility of plant
failure would endanger the river, and again, we suggest
that complete system redundancy and really qualified
personnel with good supervision and monitoring should
be assumed for any new treatment.
And finally, as to interceptor relief. If a
satellite plant is built in the mid-Charles, the
southern system interceptors presumably will not require
enlargement but possibly will require replacement. This
will be cost saving when consideration is given to the
social and environmental costs not currently included
in the table, which is on page 4-27, about the southern
interceptor costs.
Whatever the case, proposed relief work includes
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
119
56 miles of interceptors. Much of that work will be
done along the Charles River. Shoreline disruption should
be minimIzed during and after construction. And consistent
with the purpose of the Memorandum of Agreement between
the EPA and the old BOR, Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, the interceptor route should provide
public access as an element of the Charles River Corridor
for open space and recreation. This commitment should
be included in the facilities planning. Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
Any questions?
(No response.)
MS. HAMMER: The next speakers are Grace Saphir,
Shirley Brown, Bill Schmitz of Congressman Marckey’s
office, and Dorothy Kelly of the Quincy Citizen’s
Association.
STATEMENT BY GRACE SAPHIR,
SAVE OUR SHORES
MS. SAPHIR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name
is Grace Saphir from East Sandwich, formerly of Quincy,
the founder and a member of SOS, Inc., Save Our Shores.
Thank you for holding this meetinq to allow us to
express our views and concerns as to the future of the
greatest natural resource left in Massachusetts. The
harbor is money to Massachusetts, and what happens to
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
120
it through its use can be an asset or a cesspool.
Misuse of the shorelines such as alterations for
unrelated water use and filling of the waterways must
cease.
The MDC’S projected interest and promise of
separation of storm sewers is a very good step in the
right direction. We must recognize and realize that
what we are wasting is a precious commodity known as
water and that by processing rain water and the by-
product of sewage known as the liquids will make some
sense to the sewaae problem. Sewage must be treated
at the source of the sewaqe.
There are two end products of sewage treatment --
water and solids. The water is very much needed in
the ground, and I mean in the cities and towns. This
water should get into the water table instead of being
shot to the Atlantic Ocean whore it is not needed.
Therefore, gentlemen, I recommend the following:
One, only the cities and towns bordering the
harbor or ocean should utilize the treatment plants
now in existence;
Two, that the pipelines is existence be reversed
so that each city and town in the Commonwealth must
process its own sewage through satellite plants,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
121
emptying the water’ into the ground, not the nearest
river or ocean;
Three, the sludae from these plants be utilized
as fertilizer through proper methods or if burned,
the final ash should be used as landfill where hills
of sand have been removed for construction throuqh
the Commonwealth;
And four, legislation hould be enforced
prohibiting any fill in the waterways of Boston Harbor,
that no pipelines be laid on the mudflats or in the
waterways and no further expansion of the existing
plants located along the shores. Expansion will not
be necessary but good maintenance of the existing
plants is a must. Since storm runoff should not go
to these plants for processing, there will be room
for expansion of population and growth.
In my opinion, this is simply a good housekeeping
problem. Yes, it will put the people to work, and
yes, we will spend money- doing it, but how sad we
didn’t do it many years ago. To throw all of eastern
Massachusetts sewage into the tides of Boston Harbor
will only come back to us as it has with the first
big wave. And I thank you for hearing me out.
MS. HANMER: Thank you, Ms. Saphir.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
122
STATEMENT BY SHIRLEY M. BROWN
NATICK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
CITIZENS” ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE EPA
MR. BROWN: I’m Shirley Brown of Natick. I
represent Natick on the Citizens’ Advisory Committee.
I represented Natick on both the MDC and EPA Mid-
Charles River Satellite Plant Site Selection
Committees. I live beside Lake Cochituate, a founder
of the Lake Cochituate Watershed Association, and I’d
like to keep Sudbury water at home. I speak as a
citizen today.
I take issue with the premise of discharging
more fresh water to the harbor. That’s what my
disagreement with the EIS is in the main. I have a
few further contentions and proposals:
Challenging the adequacy of the conventional
sewer system and advocacy of its expansion ;
Taking issues with the figures on the flow
contribution of the Sudbury Watershed and hydroloqic
budgets as set out; *
Questioning the cost effectiveness of re-engineering
natural support systems;
Disagreeing with the plan to incinerate sludge.
I recognize that we need an organized planning
process system which will integrate all the water quality
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATESq INC.
-------
123
plans for the harbor and is necessary to save fresh
water, to develop water consei vation, to spend money
on infiltration/inflow, to develop pretreatment of
toxics and heavy metals from point and nonpoint sources,
to evaluate new plants and pipelines, centralized and
satellite systems, to implement sludge management
without transferring pollution from water to the air
when more biological means are available, such as
composting which will utjlize nutrients, and deep
ocean disposal.
I hope to show that a basin plan for Boston Harbor
and its tributaries should provide a detailed analysis
of the potential impact on areas of groundwater
favorability and recharge areas, and that minimum stream-
flow standards to assure existing use capacities and
requirements for downstream water supplies must be
established before planning further diversion projects
aS recommended by the New England River Basins
Commission.
The inflow/infiltration which discharges water
vastly exceeding sewage flows suggests that waterless
toilets and onsite disposal systems could provide
solutions whenever and wherever possible. Alternative
systems must be fully utilized.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
124
We know engineering can accomplish marvelous
works but the expense must be logical. Shall we spend
millions of dollars to pipe water out and millions
of dollars to pipe in more fresh water? Or should
we use naturally arranged self-supporting systems
right where they exist allowing for the use of our
finanóial resources elsewhere?
Does EPA have the necessary jurisdiction, and will
it be exercised? Must 25 percent of funding be spent
on pipes?
There is a broad failure of the EIS to mitigate
increased and enlarged use of fresh water sources in
the preferred plan. The recommended plan increasing
and enlarging the sewer system fails to adequately
address the problem of discharging more fresh water
to the harbor. And I document some material on the
inf low/infiltration figures with the newer studies
that have shown increased inflor/infiltration greater
than what has been used in the EIS.
A sewage system which draws in the extraneous dry
weather flows of nontreatment water much greater than
the transported sewage must be rated inadequate and
unsatisfactory. Such sewer system deserves to be
called an underground highway. These nonsewage flows
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
125
must be excluded from the sewers. Visualize, if you
will, our sewer system as one giant septic system with
a leach lane reaching all the way to Boston Harbor.
Then, before the sewer system reaches the harbor, it
is joined at the coastline by influent seawater totalling
all together three-quarters more than the original sewage
flows.
According to the Engineering Report on the Boston
Case Study submitted to the Federal Interagency Study
Team, National Science Foundation, 0MB, fully 90 plus
percent of MSC member communities have deficiencies
such as combined sewer overflows, raw sewage discharges,
excess infiltration and inflow which at present cost
levels would exceed $3 billion to correct. Certainly
corrective work on the present system would provide
jobs enough and work projects to lay pipe into the
foreseeable future. The Metropolitan Seweraqe District
should not be expanded as advocated before fully
serving existing communities.
High standards of performance for projects
within existing communities should be met. Major
inflow/infiltration areas should be identified and
reduced. Significant savings can be made. Save costs
of water transport, design capacity and costs for
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
126
treatment by this means of flow and wastewater reduction.
The side benefit is keeping water in the watershed.
Communities will get a message that extraneous flow
costs are insupportable in future. Placing pipes and
pumps in wetlands and floodplains will no longer appear
to be advantageious and more prudent construction will
be encouraged.
Although the EIS recommends water conservation
as a means of significant flow reduction, it is unlikely
that water conservation measures will be implemented
until and unless money is withheld from upgrading and
expanding plants and pipes. As long as money is being
spent on sewers, why would reason prevail? To spur
serious water conservation development, as a first
priority money should be directed towards research
and development in water conservation. When a plan
has been selected, then evaluation for not expanding
trunklines can proceed.
Other cost effective, cost-reducing measures
unmentioned by the EIS are:
The ban on phosphate detergents as the states of
New York, Indiana., and Michigan have done. According
to an EPA funded local publication -- Your Deterqents
and Your Lake by the Lake Cochituate Watershed
B. P. A. REPORTiNG ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
127
Association -- eliminating phosphate from detergents
would result in an immediate 50 percent reduction of
phosphate in virtually all municipal wastes. It would
result in a substantial reduction of treatment costs
at sewage treatment plants.
Eliminate garbarge disposals. Discourage use of
garbage disposals in new and rehabilitated construction.
City-wide use of these applicances can increase
suspended solids in sewage by 55 perCent, BOD by 30
percent, principal concerns in the design of sewage
treatment plants.
The Sudbury Watershed. I disagree with the EIS
flow figures contribution from the Sudbury Watershed
and dispute the projected flows from that watershed.
The figure used, one quarter of the projected flow
coming from the Sudbury River Basin can be disputed.
Natick’s present water -- well, Natick takes its water
from the Sudbury. It’s projected flow will remain with
the Sudbury. Framingham is presently considering a
water purification plant which will, allow them to
reactivate the Sudbury Reservoir system. Upstreat
communities are looking to the river at the present time
for water supply. And I have documented it in my report.
It is well known that MDC cannot increase its supply
to current customers from the c uabbin Reservoir.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCJATES. INC.
-------
128
There is a declining supply in the flow in the
Sudbury, although the 97-year average discharge has
been high as noted in the EIS. There is an accelerating
decline in the Sudbury flow. During the drout of the
late ‘60s, 1960 that is, the Quabbin Reservoir was
dangerously low and discharge from this Framingham
Reservoir system very nearly ceased. Quabbin could
not supplement this supply.
Where will future supplies come from when more
water will be taken for water supply and more water
will be diverted out as sewage? Facilities planning
for the Framingham Extension Sewer has begun outside
this EIS as part of an MDC/EPA agreement. The premise
for expansion of this MDC area interceptor is the water
quality problem experienced by Framingham and Ashland,
but it can be seen to have the greatest impact on
ground and surface water resources within the Sudbury
River watershed because of the increased withdrawals
from the Sudbury River as previously noted. Nonethe-
less facilities planning for the Framingham Extension
Sewer is about to proceed. Not only Ashland and
Hopkinton as stated but also Framingham and Natick
would transfer their wastewaters from the Sudbury
River basin of origin to the adjacent Charles River,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
129
Mid-Charles satellite plant or to Boston Harbor in an
all-Deer Island concept.
According to the New England River Basins Commission
in the Merrimack River Basin Overview, any diversion of
the Sudbury River is significant.
Water conservation, onsite disposal, maintenance
management systems for onsite disposal systems, drastic
reduction of inflow/infiltration and waterless toilets
are alternatives to be used now. If not, EPA should
probably be consister t and recyôle water using satellite
plants as is required of upstream communities on the
Charles and Sudbury Rivers.
I hope that the Framingham Extension Sewer
facilities planning will receive detailed analysis with
special attention to the planned extensions to Hopkinton
and Southborough, two new and additional Sudbury River
communities posed for transfers and transport of water
and sewage to Boston Harbor.
Indeed, as g-eater flows will emanate from the
Sudbury River Basin, export figures probably are
greatly underestimated and should be revised.
An analysis of demand reduction methods by the
Corps of Engineers concluded that water conservation
efforts could make signficant contributions to the
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
130
area’s water supply picture. As well as a study, the
water policy study by the Mass. Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. Maintenance of basin integrity
is recommended as a statewide priority. The study
makes extensive recommendations for water conservation
efforts.
MS. HANMER: Ms. Brown, could you summarize your
statement?
MS. BROWN: Yes. I believe that exporting
additional water from the Sudbury basin will have a
significant effect on the Sudhury River low flow, is
linked to future water quality in the Sudbury River
and will necessitate low flow augmentation from
increased out-of-basin diversions. In turn, Quabbin
and the Boston system must receive additional supply.
Facilities planning is not the method of choice
for alternatives but rather the hydraulic design.
If we forego treatment in the outlying communities
around Boston, will we predestine Boston to a tunnel
system like Chicago and Rochester? That would be the
most expensive of all, and I think that the unbroken
sequence in the history of the Metropolitan Sewerage
District since 1833 of repeating the same structural
mistakes -- facilities planning without any water
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
131
quality benefits, increasing and enlarging the sewerage
system -- must not continue. The need for water quality
management to balance water budgets must prevail. And
I hope the EIS will provide better answers to the
burden of treating nontreatment water.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
Bill Schmidt.
STATEMENT BY BILL SCHMIDT
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO
CONGRESSMAN EDWARD MARKEY
MR. SCHMIDT: The Congressman originally planned
to be here to make this statement, but he is in
Washington, so I will read it for him.
I appreciate this opportunity to offer my
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area
Sewage Systems prepared for the EPA Region One by
Greeley & Hansom and the Environmental Assessment
Council, Incorporated
In reading over the report and additional
information obtained from concerned parties in this
matter, several questions are raised and few
comprehensive answers are qiven. I would like to
express several o my concerns to you how, and I
hope that answers to these questions will be forthcoming
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
132
in the very near future.
As the Congressman representing the Town of
Wintrhop,I’m concerned as to the impact this
facility will have on that community and its
people. Also, as the Congressman representing the
Metropolitan Area, I’m aware of the need to improve
the quality of the water in the Metropolitan Boston
area.
My interest is to see that this goal is achieved
in the most desirable manner that will have the least
adverse affect upon the people residing in the
surrounding communities to any treatment facility.
I am not sure that this present plan meets this test.
The present proposal calls for the complete take-
over of Deer Island r the construction of a massive
treatment facility that will handle all the sewage
treatment needs of the Metropolitan area. A major
harbor pipeline to carry material from the South Shore
to the facility is also part of this plan, this being
the Nut Island facility in Quincy.
One question that arises here, at Deer Island,
is the need for the leveling of the drumlin on the
island and the takeover of the prison facility. As
Sheriff Kearney stated earlier, and unfortunately it’s
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
133
not included in this report, there is no answers as
to how this will occur and obviously there is a need
for a correction facility. The recent actions by the
Boston City Council, which the Sheriff explained,
went into this in some detail.
The people of Winthrop through their local
representatives and concerned citizens have expressed
a number of fears over the potential and real.affects
of this facility. The Town of Winthrop is presently
severely affected by Logan Airport, the existing
prioson, and the present sewage facility. So the
quality of life in Winthrop has deteriorated in the
past 20 years. Any new construction will most likely
add to this problem. Even now trucks carrying chlorine
through the streets of Winthrop pose an ever increasing
sanger to the Town’s citizens. A larger faáility would
enhance this problem and lead to decreased property
values in the Town and possible water contamination and
air pollution as a result of the facility.
This proposal has taken into account potential
effects on the environment but nowhere has it taken
into account the effects upon the people living in the
area. The time for construction of the facility has
been estimated at being six years, and the impact of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
134
the construction vehicles and those of the workers on
the Town’s streets and the only road leading to Deer
Island as well as Winthrop’s only two access roads
will be severe. Nowhere is there any mention of any
compensation to the Town of Winthrop or its people
for having to put up with these hardships and the
inconveniences. Nowhere is there any evidence of
citizen participation within this study.
This all-Deer Island plan is the recommended site
as proposed by those conducting the study. However,
the Metropolitan District Commission who handles the
present facility and will operate the new facility
has some different ideas. Their study, known as the
EMMA study, proposes to renovate and improve the
primary treatment plantsat Deer Island and Nut Island
and to construct additional ones on the Neponset and
Charles Rivers. They will seek a waiver for this
alternative system which is allowed under an amendment
to the Clean Water Act passed in 1977.
The Winthrop Conservation ommittee also favors
this waiver.
The MDC study in another portion says that the
secondary treatment will not significantly improve
the water quality of the harbor. And this curremt
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
135
proposal also seems to be at odds with the Boston
Harbor Islands Study which calls for open recreational
space at the end of Deer Island.
Within the study itself, I’m quite interested in
the relative tradeoffs of the Deer Island plan and the
on€ including the facility at Broad Meadows. I’m
also concerned as to other options studied, if they
were at all, utilizing other islands in Boston Harbor,
most notably Long Island.
It seems that if the MDC improves the water
quality of the ‘Neponset and the Charles Rivers by
modifying the original EMMA study, then we must consider
the relative tradeoffs of the Deer Island plan and the
EMMA study. We must debate the partial filling of
Quincy Bay and the area of f Deer Island versus the
complete taking of Deer Island and the major pipeline
crossing under Boston Harbor.
The people conducting this Environmental Impact
statement found the EMMA proposal unacceptable, but
that is their opinion.’ It does not seem to be the
opinion of the people affected in Winthrop or possibly
the MDC.
At the end of this statement I am still left with
these questions unanswered. I hope that answers will
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
136
be forthcoming before anything is done to drastically
alter the situation as we know it today. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Schmidt, when, the Clean Water
Act was passed in 1977, it included a provision
requiring secondary treatment for all municipal
wastewater treatment authorities but, as you indicated,
provided for an application for a waiver for those
treatment authorities discharging into marine. waters.
I assume that Congressman Markey voted in favor of the
Clean Water Act with both those provisions in it.
The question I have for you is, is it the position
of Congressman Markey that the Metropolitan District
Commission should be granted a waiver provided that
they meet the criteria that the Congress set into the
Act, and only upon that basis?
MR. SCHMIDT: I think, first of all, unfortunately
the Congressman nor I, a member of his staff, have
the available expertise in terms of evaluating those
criteria that you mentioned. I think basically what
has happened in this occurrence and what has happened
through the statement here today is that much of this
information has only reached us at a very late date.
• We couldn’t fully evaluate this whole statement.
I think the people of Winthrop were not fully aware
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
137
of the land at Deer Island. When the original plans
for the construction of a combined facility in downtown
Boston which would provide the House of Correction site
for $15 million was passed in an amendment, again that
was not contemplated as to the extent of the Deer
Island facility. So that many of those items that
were possibly going to be considered in an overall
proposal were not known at that time.
I think basically what we’re trying to find out
is some answers to these questions. If those proposals
are made and a waiver is sought, then we can evaluate
what the MDC has proposed as well as this plan, and
then maybe we can make a determination at that time.
I don’t see how I could answer that right now.
MR. JOHNSON: One final question I have, when
Congressman Markey voted, as I assume he did, on the
Clean Water Act, did he at that time support the eight
criteria that are in the law for a waiver?
MR. SCHMIDT: I’m not exactly sure on that whole
issue. I could check it for you.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Before we go on, I’d just like to
point out that we have ten more people scheduled to
speak in the next 25 minutes or so. Certainly we will
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
138
hear everybody out, but to the extent that people do
have written statements and can summarize them briefly
and hand in the written statement, I think that would
be appreciated particularly by those people who have
waited a very long time to speak.
The next person is Dorothy Kelly, and following
her will be Waldo Holcombe, Jim Patui, Mary Cougian,
if I pronounced that name right.
STATEMENT BY DOROTHY KELLY, SECRETARY
QUINCY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION AND THE
WOLLASTON PARK ASSOCIATION, INC.
MS. KELLY: My name is Dorothy Kelly, and I’m
Secretary of the Quincy Citizens Association and the
Wollaston Park Association, which I represent. These
associations feel that the satellite sewerage plants
inland from Boston Harbor were dismissed too lightly
and not given adequate consideration in the Impact
Statement on the Upgrading of the Metropolitan Area
Sewerage System, Volume I. We feel further that
Boston Harbor cannot ecologically stand the disaster
that a proposed enlarged one-plant sewerage system at
Deer Island or Quincy Bay would engender.
Why do we say this? I’ll give you one personal
example. One warm July Saturday afternoon a year ago,
my sister and I took our sailboat out of the Boston
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
139
Harbor Marina, anticipating a lovely sail around the
harbor, a leisurely lunch and plenty of blue sky and
sun. we got none of these because only a few yards
out into Dorchester Bay we became aware of a see of
red-brown sewerage surrounding our boat, We couldn’t
even see through it, it was so deep. So we put on the
motor, and no matter where we went, out to Thompson’s
Island, down to Spectacle Island, Long Island,over
to Rainsford in Quincy Bay, and as far out as our eyes
could see, to Boston Light and beyond, there was nothing
but brown sewerage on the surface of the ocean.
We had to cover our faces with handkerchiefs
and we couldn’t eat our lunch, and so we put on the
motor quick and went back to the marina to get out of
that awful sight. And that wasn’t the first time that
we’ve seen something like that in Boston Harbor as
the yachtsmen in the audience will tell you. We
learned later that there was a mechanical breakdown
on that weekend at Deer Island, and with the light
easterly wind blowing, the sewage just sat there and
contaminated the whole of Boston Bay for the entire
weekend. And in the papers there was no mention of
this, but the ecological loss must have been tremendous.
And I hope that you gentlemen and lady will take note
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
140
of this because this is a common occurrence in Boston
Harbor.
That is why we insist that the EPA build satellite
plants to handle the sewerage produced in the communities
of Wellesley, Framingham and other suburbs and not
brought down to QLiincy or Deer Island for disposal.
Deer Island and Nut Island should be improved to
properly handle the sewerage currently directed there,
but no additional load should be added to these plants
or dumped in Boston Harbor.
As for the proposal to make Squantum Point a
composting area for Deer Islandts residue sludge and
incinerator ash, this plan is totally unacceptable to
the community. Such an operation would ruin the
waterfront potential of the Boston Harbor Marina and
be detrimental to the University of Massachusetts,
the Savin Hill Yacht Club and the new Kennedy Library
that under construction only a few thousand yards
across the channel.
We wonder what kind of environmental planning
would even suggest putting this pig in the parlor of
Dorchester Bay. To ruin Boston Harbor’s prime yachting
anchorage, the Boston Harbor Marina, by putting a
sewerage composting dump adjacent to it would be
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
141
criminal.
When the Environmental Protection Agency was set
up by Congress, the people of America felt that for
‘the first time that at last the value of our precious
environment and natural resources was going to be
recognized and saved from manmade ruin. We felt the
EPA would recognize this sacred trust and would heed
the admonition in the Bible even, according to John,
“Harm not the land or the Sea.” But we are here today
because we feel that the Impact Statement presented
here is an environmental and engineering nightmare,
a matter of expediency, not a sacred trust.
We urge the EPA to rethink this entire sewerage
project and come up with alternative proposals that
utilize the latest technological advances but are
sonsitive to the protection of our invaluable ocean
environment and natural resources -- proposals that
will be acceptable to the residents of the communities
involved. Thank you very much.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
STATEMENT BY WALDO HOLCOMBE,
NEPONSET CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
MR. HOLCOMBE: I’m Waldo Holcombe of the Neponset
Conservation Association. I’ve also been associated
with the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, with the EMMA
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
142
Study, the 208 Study, as well as the Boston Harbor
Study.
Before passing judgment on this Environmental
Impact Statement, we must understand clearly what it
is intended to do and how it fits in with other related
studies both recent and now going on.
The EMMA study issued jointly by the Corps of
Engineers and the MDC in 1975 was concerned wi th the
main sewage collection and treatment system for the
EMMA area. It presented for general consideration a
fairly wide range of alternatives for the relief of
overburdened interceptors, pumping stations and the
Nut and Deer Island treatment plants. The latter
were to be greatly enlarged to permit advanced secondary
treatment as required by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, PL 92-500. Satellite treatment plants
on the Charles and Neponset Rivers were proposed to
ease the burden on the harbor treatment plants and to
increase the low river flow during the summer months.
Also included in this study were a number of
alternatives for setting up a system of user charges
and for a regional or state agency to manage the
implementation and operation of whatever plans would
be forthcoming. The resolution of the choice among
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
143
these alternatives is intended by PL 92-500 to be by
an environmental impact statement as part of a
continuing updating and study process.
By 1977 it had become clearly evident that many
circumstances had changed and much new information was
available as well as some serious gaps in the available
information regarding the factors affecting the water
quality in Boston Harbor:
The Legislature restricted any significant
increase in the size of Nut Island;
The Boston City Council refused to abandon the
prison on Deer Island;
There was strong objection to. the discharge of
treatment plants’ effluents in the residential areas
of Wellesley along the Charles or among the existing
municipal water system well fields in the Neponset
aquifer;
There is a major amount of seawater inflow into
the sewage collection and transportation system, 30 to
50 percent it is estimated;
It became increasingly clear that the major
sources of pollution in Boston Harbor include combined
sewer overflows and the stormwater runoff from the
city streets, not just the sewage treatment plants’
B P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
144
effluents.
It was soon realized that there was insufficient
data to permit any system recommendation to be unquestioned,
more information was essential to ensure the cost effect-
iveness of any program. The 208 study for the waste
management guidelines for the 101 towns and cities of
the metropolitan area could not make comprehensive
recommendations without knowing what kind of treatment
plant would be developed.
The MDC which provides waste treatment facilities
for 42 of these 101 cities and towns in the area started
new studies for which the need had become evident:
One, the e ttent of the combined sewer overflow
problem, including stormwater runoff, and their impact
on the Boston Harbor water quality;
And two, an evaluation of a proposal for an of f-
shore discharge of primary treated effluent in order
to get beneficial recycling of organic matter
incidentally enriching the coastal fisheries.
The EPA whiäh must make the final determination
among the alternatives proposed started this present
study in the light of the information available in
1977. It serves the very valuable purpose of helping us
focus clearly on the information we now have and also
on the information we still lack:
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
145
The combined sewer overflow study must be completed
since this seems to be the single most serious source
of pollution in the inner harbor and along the
Dorchester beaches;
The stormwater runoff from the streets may well
be the second most serious source of pollution to the
inner harbor and the Dorchester Bay region which is
heavilly used for boating and swimming;
A comprehensive study of the relative effects of
the various pollution inputs to Boston Harbor. A
positively needed study since it is the effect,
pollutantS’ effect on the receiving water rather than
the detail of what’s being put into them that we must
focus our attention on.
The upgrading of the treatment plant may well
accomplish little that is benefician in the inner
harbor or in the Dorchester Bay region unless the
other problems are corrected. To answer these questions
a study of the harbor as an entity is needed, such a
stody does not now exist. And there will be a need
for more information and better understanding as the
implementation of this program proceeds. We are
beginning to see the meaning of planning must be a
continuing process.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
146
The popular objective of PL 92-500 is to make the
nation’s waters swimmable and fishable. But much more
important in the tsleponset aquifer area and not properly
addressed in this study is the probleri of keeping
highway runoff pollution, both salt and toxic chemicals,
out of the local groundwater used by a number of
municipal water systems and near which a number of
major highways pass. Highway drainage design and
construction need an attention they have not yet
received.
The law specifies that in each region a system of
user charges must be worked out so that there will be
an equitable sharing of the burden of maintenance and
operation costs between residential, commercial and
industrial users. While the federal government is
willing to pay 75 percent of the capital costs for
system construction and up to a hundred percent of the
cost for the original planning, it is largely up to
the state and local municipalities to pay for all of
the maintenance and operation costs, also the planning
costs after the first three years. User charges based
on quantity alone throw an unequal burden on the
residential user compared to the industrial user.
There is still a great deal of investigation to
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
147
be done, much of it controversial or not yet well
understood, before we are ready to propose a viable
plan that must be regional in concept and before it is
ready o sell to the voters of this area who must
implement much of it and pay for its operation on a
local municipality basis. A properly designed system
does not need to be objectionable to the communities
at the receiving end in order to serve the rest of
the region without damage to the environment we are
trying to protect. But it is going to require some
more rational planning on a regional basis.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
STATEMENT BY JIM PATUI
MR. PATUI: Thank you. I don’t have any really
prepared statements here, but more or less’ observations.
I’d like to thank everyone here for their presence
here rather than for the words I am going to say.
To continue here, I would say again, do not
applaud my words, rather the fact of your concerned
presence. You should also be thankful for the ability
to speak and listen and hear to what others think.
Word for word, that is one thing, and I believe that
when the deed has been done and the action has been
taken, that will be another.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
148
My observations after having been in Europe for
a year or so are quite different than the way people
or their attitude as displayed here, rather they use
water a bit differently. They don’t have toilets like
we have toilets. They have what might be considered
a water troth, a simple wall system where people have
a full wall and a troth at the bottom and there is a
water pipe along about five feet high and it keeps the
water usage down. And I think that’s a consideration
rather than people playing Captain Torpedo with the
urinals like they do here. For instance, Schaefer
Stadium there is a habit of people being intoxicated
there on occasion, going into the men’s room and tearing
the urinals out. And if such is their sports attitude,
I don’t know.
There are other considerations. There is the
Waltham Reservoir. There’s the western side of that
reservoir, I believe Winter Street, on the top of that
hill, the western ridqe, there is a pig farm with
open 5iles of garbage with, I believe, rat holes,
I believe sea gulls flying out from the Boston Harbor
area consuming that garbage, flyina down to the
Waltham Reservoir, washina it down with water and
perhaps regurgitating it such as the habit of some
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
149
sea birds to carry food in their gullet. Of course,
this doesn’t concern me. I don’t drink the Waltham
Rcservoir water. I drink the water from Quabbin, so
that’s your problem.
Among other things, there are others also. I
believe the marathon, the Boston marathon, the largest
marathon in America, about the time Bill Rogers was
running behind a diesel bus blowing smoke or exhaust
smoke all over the place such as a lot of the vehicles
in Massachusetts are doing, blowing a lot of smoke,
they need mechanical work. The Registry doesn’t seem
to be jumping in their case, and I hope there is no one
from the Registry present because I’m parked right
outside. Thanks of that nature. I believe at the
time Bill Rogers was crossing the finish line, I was
going over the North Beacon Street Bridge in Watertown,
which is where I’m from. I do not represent any
organization. Perhaps you could start one right now,
call it the Watertown Improvement Society or the
Charles River Society, cause that’s what it is, a
river, not so much the fact that it’s a watershed but
how it got that way, which is to say I can’t swim in
it nor in my life time have I gone swimming in it, but
I’ve heard stories or perhaps legends to the effect
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
150
that people once upon a time, which is another fable,
to have gone swimming in theCharles River.
These are very fragmented notes here.
The Environmental Protection Agency, this is our
environment. There a e other things to say to th3
effect that tomorrow would be cancelled due to lack
of interest. There doesn’t seem to be any politicians
here or any people from the notable news agencies with
their cameras and blinding lights and all the other
microphones that are put in your face when you don’t
want them there.
Essentially I would like to paint you a picture
but the way things are qoing now it would turnout
more like a silhouette. I go up on the John Hancock
at times with binoculars and this camera right here,
and it would be just more simple to show you a IDicture
and say, “This is what I saw. This is what you can
see for yourself,” rather than stand here and expound
on the English language and words thereof. Essentially
to paint a picture would centered on the broken glass
or beer cans in the drainage ditches. I’ve been
lobbying certain people to keep these streets clean
because the water tends to flow through the gutters
and that’s another aspect of the severs.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
151
Containerization. I believe the Port of Boston
would benefit from that. It would maintain materials
in a single area, and it would restrict the sewerage
and the environment.
I meant to say upon the time that Bill Rogers
was crossing the finish line or during the Marathon
anyway, I was going over the Beacon Street Bridge and
there was an oil slick coming from the upper northern
tributary of the Charles River or western tributary,
and I do not know where that came from. It didn’t
have a name on it. Essentially things to that effect.
I have photographs of certain power companies
pushing black smojce. I was over in Winthrop on the
10th of Novembex this month, and I have some very
ugly pictures of the chimneys on the Boston Harbor
skyline and I don’t know who they belong to, and at
the moment they can go unnamed but I would be willing
to submit a written statement to all of this, so the
people at present would know who I am and wouldn’t
have any instant enemies, not to be afraid of that
fact. But I don’t believe it’s a legal possibility
at the moment to be sued by making some form of
slander or libel to people who are otherwise polluting
our environment. Thank you.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
152
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
MaryGougian. I’m not sure I pronounced your name
properly.
STATEMENT BY MARY GOUGIAN, PRESIDENT
SC)UANTUM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
MS. GOUGIAN: Hello. My name is Mary Gouaian.
Thank you for givinq us the opportunity to speak here
today.
September 1974 was the first meeting concerning
sewerage problems in Quincy that I ever attended, but
I have attended many meetings since. That first
meeting I referred to was held in Quincv City Hall
with the MDC because the beaches were closed on the
Labor Day weekend because of raw sewerage on the
beaches.
At the various meetinqs I have attended there
is always a new or partially new plan unveiled as to
where to treat or where to release the MDC sewerage.
But some how and sadly, all the great minds and
researchers all come back to the same solution -- dump
it in the harbor. They might suggest a longer fallout
drain or treat it more or burn it more, but somehow
it always comes back to “dump it in the harbor.”
We are running short of water and it really is
ludicrous to continue to dump our gtormdrajn water
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
153
and the water collected in the MDC sewerage pipes into
the harbor. This water should be returned to the around
to help the water table.
Jacques Cousteau, the world famous pioneer of
underwater exploration, speaks from an impressive array
of e xperiences. He probably has more first-hand
experience of life in the seas than any other man alive,
and I quote him: “The sea is threatened, We are
facing distruction of the ocean by pollution and by
other causes...We believe that the damage done to the
ocean from pollution in the last 20 years is somewhere
in the vicinity of 20 to 50 percent which is a frightening
figure...I passionately believe that the perceptive
few who have the opportunity to see the ultimate
disaster ahead must band together now to warn the
slumbering many. Pioneering research and exploration
to help us better understand the sea and its creatures
must be undertaken without delay. If the oceans should
die, by which I mean that all life in the sea would
finally cease, then this would signal the end not only
for all marine life but for all animals and plants of
this earth, including mankind.” End of quote.
I cannot urge you enough to, please, first, go
back to your technology and your research departments
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
154
and come up with better proposals for sewerage treatment
inland;
Two, return the water to the soil to help the
water table;
Three, build regional sewerage treatment plants
and keep them well maintained;
And four, please, stop the 19th Century mentality
of dumping what people no longer want or need into
the harbor.
Finally, I would like to mention we collected over
400 signatures in less than a week on a petition against
the ‘location of any new or any enlaraexnent of any
sewerage treatment facilities for sludge deposits
anywhere in Quincy.
Thank you very much for listening.
MR. SUTTON: Just one question, please. I was
interested in the quote that you indicated. Some of
the proposals that we’ve heard today as an alternative
to the plan are to merely extend the outfall further
out so that the inadeauately treated effluent, which
is presently discharging over 400,000 pounds per day
of pollutants, would not enter the harbor but would
go further out into the coastal area. Would you favor
that type of solution? -
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
155
MS. GOUGIAN: No. I think Ouincy where we do----
I met somebody yesterday who made an interesting quote.
He said a hundred years ago they made a mistake when
they put in the combined sewers and the drains, the
storm drains and we’re still living with them, and
we just keep compounding it. We enlarge plants to cover
an area that has already been made. I would like to
see an end to that.
If we have to keep the one in Nut Island for
Quincy and Weymouth, I think the people in Quincy would
probably live with that, but they really would like most
of the trunk lines removed off our sewerage treatment
plant.
MR. HICKS: The next scheduled speaker is John
Murphy, then Gary Kosciusko, then Irene Burns, then
Joseph Quirk. Mr. Murphy.
STATEMENT BY JOHN E. MURPHY
BOSTON HARBOR POLLUTION COMMITTEE
MR. MURPHY: I’m John E. Murphy, representing the
Boston - Harbor Pollution Committee.
Now, I realize that we’re listening to the report
on the EIS. That is an overall proposition which
probably will take five to twenty years before it is
completed, but there must be a first step before we
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. JNC.
-------
156
go into that long-range proposition, because the area
of Boston Harbor can’t wait much longer. Five years
would be too much. So I want to thank you for the
opportunity to make my remarks today, and I hope that
they are along the lines that will brincr about some
results.
The intended purpose of this statement is to
derive, to obtain the highest auality clean air and
pure water as is possible by locating the sources of
the contamination of the air and the water in Boston
Harbor area and suggestinq 1 the means that can be
pursued to eliminate the sources of this pollution.
The Quincy Bay area - Nut Island Flat. The outflow
from the Nut Island Flat, about 35 million gallons a day,
is a great source of pollution contributing to the
pollution of the water in that area under normal
operating conditions, and that has increased due to
the breakdowns and the malfunctions of the plant.
The first corrective measure is to provide adequate
routine servicing and preventive maintenance to
eliminate operating failures. The long—range plan of
development is to control the outflow by constructing
a pipeline and/or a tunnel to carry the waste out to
deeper water, thr to five miles beyond Graves Light,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
157
to be combined with the outfall from Deer Island
s t• erage where it can be readily ingested in the
greater area of deeper water.
The Winthrop area Deer Island Plant. The
tremendous amount of outfall from this plant into
Boston Harbor, approximately 415 million gallons per
day or more certainly cannot continue without grave
consequences to human health and the contamination
of marine matter to gill fish and to shell fish.
Secondary sewerage treatment plants will not be
the answer to clean water. They may ameliorate the
conditions but will not eliminate the contamination.
The outflow from Deer Island must be piped out, tunneled
• out to deeper water and combined with the outflow from
Nut Island Flat to accomplish what is huma nly desired
and required in order to obtain the objective of clean
water in Boston Harbor. Otherwise the beaches, both
on the.mainland and the islands, will be destroyed.
Swimming as a sport and recreation will not be available
in the Boston Harbor area.
Boston Harbor is a congested area because of its
many islands. The ebb of the tide does not carry the
sewerage out to the ocean, thereby causing the floor
of the tide to carry the pollutants back to the inner
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
158
harbor.
Now, let me quote a distinguished person on this
particular point. Organic nutrients resulting from
the discharge of either primary or secondary effluents
should not be released in any semi-enclosed body of
water such as Boston Harbor or Quincy Bay in which
the nutrient concentration can increase to the point
of using up the normally existing dissolved oxygen
content of the water.
Boston Harbor drainage area. Phis is the area
beyond what we gall the outflows of these particular
places, overflow drains and other means of outflowinq
sewage into the area. There is occasional and
periodical permission of sewerage discharge into
Boston Harbor and into Dorchester Bay from the pumping
station at Columbia Point. This discharge however
slight or often should not and must not be allowed to
continue. Clean water and the health of the people
should and must be the first consideration.
Whatever reason there may be for the discharge
from this plant, it must be thoroughly surveyed and
correCtive measures taken to control the sewaae at
this location to eliminate the discharge immediately.
Combined sewage overflows, storm drains,
B. P. A. REPORT INC ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
159
water runoffs and industrial outf lows into Boston Harbor
contribute to a great degree to the constant pollution
of the shore lines in many sections of the harbor.
Steps should be taken to get at these sources and
remedying them by correcting the damaging influence of
these that are contributing to the polluted condition.
Tide Gates. There are several of these located
in and around the shores of Boston Harbor, and it is
known that many of these are in very poor working
operating condition. Because of faulty operating
conditions, seawater flows back into the sewage system
causing damage to the equipment often resulting in
breakdowns to the main plant.
It would seem imperative that tide gates should
be eliminated from the sewage system withdut any further
delay. For one who has observed the outflow from some
of these tide gates, no time should be further delayed
in eliminating that by rerouting the sewaae into the
mainstream of the sewage system.
Air quality, We are all aware that much proqress
has been made in controlling the filtration of smoke
from industrial plants. Similarly, automobile emissions
have been under scrutiny and much has been accomplished
and progrese toward clean air. This is true in those
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
160
autos using gasoline. But from observation, it appears
that not much is being done to supervise and control
emissions from autos, trucks and vessels equipped with
motors using diesel fuel. These also contribute to
poor air quality.
Closer scrutiny should be exercised in those areas
where diesel fuel is used in motors.
Incineration of sewage waste. This form of
disposal of sludge should not be permitted in the Boston
Harbor area, since its process could and would be a
source of qreat danger to the health of the immediate
population. The fly ash that is produced from the
burning and the residue that will result must be carted
away for disposal as land fill, but this creates
problems difficult to solve.
The prevailing winds over Boston Harbor are north
to northeast, east by southeast and southwest which
are usually damp and heavy with moisture which would
Cause the smoke from the incinerator to lay low over
the inhabited area, thereby being a menace to health,
particularly to those with breathing ailments.
Then there is the danger from fly ash which is
produced from the smoke in the smoke stacks, the
chimneys, which must be removed and it is very difficult
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
161
to handle and transport.
Incineration should not and must not be adopted
as a means of disposing of sludge or any other waste
from sewage filtration in the Boston Harbor area.
Incineration should not be recommended for the
destruction of sludge until we are certain whether or
not there are means of treatment whereby the product
can be successfully used as fertilizer. Thank you
very much.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
STATEMENT BY GARY P. KOSCIUSKO,
PRESIDENT, SAVE OUR SHORES, INC.
MR. KOSCIUSKO: Good evening. My name is Gary
Kosciusko, and I’m President of Save Our Shores,
Incorporated. I appreciate this opportunity to talk
on a matter of great importance to all of us.
Save Our Shores is committed to the preservation
and restoration of the waterways, islands, and
foreshores of Boston Harbor. We believe this area
is a unique resource for Boston, the Commonwealth,
and the Country, because nowhere else in the United
States is there such a rich concentration of history
and natural features so close to an urban environment.
The harbor’s proximity to the city has subjected
the islands and waterways to high levels of use and
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
162
abuse over the years. It is the aim of Save Our
Shores to stop the abuse and to promote the area as a
National Recreation and Historic Site for the benefit
of all citizens.
As such, we object to the provisions of any plan
which would allow:
One, the filling of any marshland or waterway;
Two, the permanent damage or destruction to
natural features, both living and non-living;
Three, the damage or destruction to human historic
or prehistoric sites; and
Four, any processes which would contribute to
a noticeable reduction in long-term air or water quality
in the Boston Harbor area.
Save Our Shores encourages provisions which would:
One, significantly improve water and air quality
for the enhancement of recreation and fisheries;
Two, provide for a vigorous program of water
conservation; and
Three, preserve or enhance the natural beauty of
the area. A reforestation program would be a welcome
move in this direction. However, tall incinerator
stacks would tend to negate the effect.
We feel the recommended plan of the EIS comes
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
163
closer than th3 EMMA Study recommendations in satisfying
the provisions above. Nevertheless, we have the following
reservations about the recommended plan.
One, It provides for the use of the entire expanse
of Deer Island. It indicates the facility could be
expanded through at least the year 2050. But to expect
the plant to continue for that long without a certain
amount of landfill seems overly optimistic;
Two, the plan needs to assess the realistic impact
of increased odors and air pollution in a virtually
clean-air zone used for recreational purposes;
Three, the plan should provide for the complete
recording of the selected sites, for historical
purposes, before actual construction begins;
Four, and finally, the plan does not adequately
deal with the problem of water conservation. What
impact, in particular, would a drought have on upstream
ground water levels? This issue is highlighted by
the current water shortages being experienced by some
communities in Massachusetts, How can water levels be
maintained upstream when much of the flow is being
diverted directly to the harbor? We see this as the
greatest potential problem and worthy of far more
attention than has been given it by the recommended
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
164
plan. Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
Irene Burns.
STATEMENT OF IRENE BURNS
MS. BURNS: For the record, and by the way my
address is South Cove Project R-92, a 92-acre urban
renewal project for Tufts New England Medical Center,
composed of Chinese, Puerto Ricans, Blacks, Combat
Zone and me. I am here, they are not.
I am here because you put an ad in the newspaper,
and it says, “Question: Does it have to be this way?
No. Are you responsible? Yes, meaning personally
every day. What do you want done for a clean Boston
Harbor?”
Number two, I have another notice from the
newspaper in my hand. It is a notice of a public
hearing to be held at the Boston Water and Sewer
Commission concerning its proposed capital improvement
program. They are not here.
I read the new program because the new law,
Public Law 92-500, demands at this point that the plans
be available for those of us who cannot buy them. So
I went up to read the capital improvement plans, and I
hope you realize they have already devised a capital
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
165
improvement plan to relign the pipes we have. Also
they expect the Governor to come forth with 15 percent
of the cost.
So now I see me at the bottom, a $770 million
water pollution control project, I’m sitting in a
$500 million Park Plaza project with a brand new
transportation building, and now I am qoinq to have a
new capital improvement for my Boston water.
My real estate tax for less than 1/64th of an
acrea is climbing, has climbed since urban renewal
from $500 to the $3,000 bracket before 100 percent.
Now I will add my quarterly water bill and sewer bill,
a d I’ve alrea4y paid one and it comes in a beautiful
IBM form like the brand new AT&T bill, and it tells
yoñ what your credit is and what your balance is and
what you owe. I hope the Internal Revenue starts
producing a bill like that. I’d love to see the credit
go up there.
Now, for the record, in this room when I arrived
today at most I’d say there were 121 people to my left
and 120 on my right, or 120 on each side, at most 50
on either end. At no time did anybody lack space to
sit here. No one was standing. The complexion of
the audience was 100 percent white up until about
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
166
5 o’clock when one black woman stepped into the room
for a second. Also the complexion of the population
in the room was elderly, male and female. At least
this time it wasn’t like urban renewal, all women.
At least 50 percent of the women -- that is against,
50 percent of the men appeared, 50 percent were women.
I realize they have to leave because of crime, and I
too will be apprehensive going home except that it is
a shopping night.
I’d rather not talk any more, but I do hope you
send someone next, November 30th at 2 o’clock to the
New England ife Hall for my Boston Sewer and Water
Meeting. Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
Mr. Quirk.
(No response.)
MR. HICKS: The next person then is Mr. Conroy,
Thomas Conroy.
STATEMENT BY THOMAS CONROY, PLANNER,
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL
MR. CONROY: I’ll. try to keep it brief. My name
is Tom Conroy. I’m a planner with the Metropolitan
Area Planning Council, which has recently produced the
area-wide water quality plan, the 208 study, that
several of the previous speakers have mentioned.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
167
The plan includes a set of strutural and on-
structural solutions to both point and nonpoint
sources of water pollution throughout 92 of MAPC’s
101 member communities, including all 43 of the
Metropolitan Sewerage District communities.
The 208 planning process was intended to be the
key to the release of federal and state funds for the
construction of treatment facilities once the 208 plan
is certified as part of the state’s water quality plan.
With that as background, well, first let me say
that the plan was adopted by the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council on November 12th, but that the Council
recognizes that the final answers are not yet available
to us. So the Council will shortly submit the plan to
the state and EPA for partial ce tificatidn only. That
is the wording of the Council’s resolution on the 208
plan.
The most significant portion of the 208 plan which
cannot and should not be certified in its present form
is the portion dealing with the Boston Harbor. The
MAPC 208 plan had intended to produce a Boston Harbor
Basin Report based on the original Boston Harbor EMMA
study. That study’s conclusions were thrown into doubt
by the initiation of the EIS which was not itself
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
168
completed when the MAPC draft area-wide plan was completed.
So with that as background, we make the following
recommendations:
Number One, the MAPC is concerned that the massive
and costly facilities proposed in the EMMA Study and
the EIS are not related to specific improvements in water
quality. In other words, we know a good deal about the
cost in economic and human terms of the facilities
construction but we can’t say yet whether the result in
terms of water quality will be worth it to the
Metropolitan area.
These water quality improvements are the stated -
purpose for the appropriation of over $40 billion by the
U. S. Congress. A major effort must be made to assess
the water quality benefits to the harbor before the
facilities are built and before the EMMA EIS results
are certified by MAPC as part of the area’s 208 plan.
The EPA and MDC should publicly commit themselves
to such an evaluation as the facilities planning
proceeds. It should include an evaluation of the
comparative benefjts of the efforts to improve waste-
water treatment and efforts to eliminate combined
sewer overflows and storm water runoff pollution.
The facilities which don’t contribute to the achievement
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
169
of the water quality goals should not be built.
Point Two, the MAPC supports the filing of an
application by the MDC to seek a waiver from the
requirements to provide secondary treatment at Boston
Harbor. We call for the evaluation of the likely water
quality impacts of both secondary and primary treatment
in the application process.
Three, in the location of regionally needed
facilities, some communities have always been asked or
told to bear a larger share of the costs while all
communities share the benefits. The EPA and MDC needs
to do more than assess the impacts. The means of -
mitigating these impacts should be sought and defined
in the coming facilities plans.
Four, if the continuing planning to answer the
questions I have raised is to take place, the funds
must be made available. It is impossible to miss the
irony of the dollar amounts shown in the EIS -- that
is, $770 million dollars for construction alone. Please
contrast that $770 million figure with the mere $40,000
to be made available next year to the regional planning
agency which will be responsible for integrating all
of the decisions affecting the harbor and adopting a
coordinated set of actions to protect the harbor.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
- 170
And fifth and finally, the massive costs of
treatment facilities to correct water quality problems
should point out the obvious need to apply our resources
to prevent problems before the occur whenever possible,
to correct infiltration/inflow to the ancient sewer
system to the metropolitan area and to aggressively
promote water conservation and the protection of
existing ground water supplies.
Thank you.
MR. SUTTON: Excuse me, could I ask just one
question. You indicated your concern with not proceeding
with these expensive facilities, perhaps until it can
be prooven what benefit there would be to water quality
or the necessity. Would you also recommend that that
same provision be made to the industrial discharges
in New England? As you know, under the law the industry
must apply the best practicable treatment technology
to their effluent regardless of the quality of the
water it’s discharging to. Would you recommend that
we apply waivers to industrial discharqers also?
MR.CONROY: I’m not aware of Council policy
regarding industrial discharges, so I can only make
a personal statement on that. I would say that all
discharge requirements should be related to the quality
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCiATES. INC.
-------
17].
of the receiving waters and the likelihood of damage
of the discharge.
MR. SUTTON: Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Mr. Milton Fistel.
(No response.)
MR. HICKS: Is there anybody else who would want
to speak at this time? We’re a little bit over our
afternoon session, but it will be reconvening at
7 o’clock, I believe, promptly.
Thank you al l, for being here this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 6:00 o’clock p.m., the above-
entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at 7:00
o’clock p.m. the same day.)
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
172
EVENING SESSION
(7:00 o’clock p.m.)
MS. HANMER: Good evening. My name is Rebecca
Hanmer. I am the Deputy Regional Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Aqency Office here in
Boston.
With me today co-chairing the hearing is William
Hicks who is the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We have
a hearing panel which is over there on my right,
composed of Lester Sutton, who is the head of our
Water Programs Division, Wally Stickney, who is the
Director of our Environmental and Economic Impact Office,
and Ken Johnson, who is Special Assistant to the Regional
Administrator. These are all members of the Region One
EPA staff.
This hearing has been convened to receive public
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage
System. The Draft Impact Statement has been prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1961 and EPA’s regulations for implementing that law.
The National Environmental Policy Act provides
that prior to commencing a major federal action which
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
173
might have a significant impact on the environment, the
responsible agency has to prepare an environmental
impact statement which analyzes the potential impact
of the action, That statement must discuss alternatives
•to that project and permit affected agencies and the
public to make comments to the agency on the factual
material and the conclusions presented in the document.
Copies of our environmental impact statement have
been available since September 29, 1978. Copies were
circulated to a number of agencies, both federal, state
and local, and to concerned citizens. At the time the
impact statement was circulated, notices of this
hearing were given and a news release announcing the
hearing appeared in newspapers having circulation in
the general area.
We are prepared to hear testimony tonight and we
are prepared to stay here as long as necessary to get
a complete record of what citizens and concerned
agencies have to say about the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
The 60-day comment period on the Draft Impact
Statement closes on November 28th, 1978.
This hearing is being stenographically recorded
and a written transcript of the hearing will be available
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
174
within the next several weeks. The hearing record
will be open until at least November 28th so that
persons who wish to make written statements to the
record may do so.
We asked those wishing to testify to call our
office so that a schedule could be arranged, and we
have a schedule for this evening which we’re going to
try to stay within.
All those wishing to speak should have filled out
a card at our receptionist desk at the back of the
auditorium indicating that the wish to speak. We have
asked that each presentation be limited to about five
minutes and asked that people summarize their written
statements and present the complete statement for the
record to the stenographer who is located up here in
front.
I’d like to clarify where the Environmental Impact
Statement process fits into the overall planning
process for Boston Harbor cleanup. The next stage
after receiving comments on this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement will be for the Metropolitan District
Commission to begin facilities planning. The purpose
of the impact statement comments is to present to the
public the information that we’ve gathered in the last
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
175
several years of study and also help us clarify the
issues that have to be dealt with in the facilities
planning. There will be a further opportunity for
public involvement in the facility planning process.
We’re now going to give you, if you want, a short
slide presentation that summarizes the project and
our activfties thus far and then go right on with the
testimony.
There are some people here who were here this
afternoon, so if I hear a lot of boos and hisses, we
can dispense with the slide presentation. Can I have
some feeling that you’d like to see the slide presenta-
tion? It will take about ten minutes.
We have a few people, so let’s go ahead with it.
It won’t take long. Thank you.
(Slide presentation.)
MS. HANMER: Thank you. For those of you who were
with us this afternoon and are back again, thank you
for your steadfastness, and for those of you who have
just come, welcome.
To help you in your planning, at this time we only
have eight speakers scheduled for this evening, which
means that we stand a chance of completing the hearing
by about 8:15.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
176
I’d like to ask my Co-chairman, Bill flicks, if he’d
like to say anything at this time.
MR. HICKS: Well, I’d just like to express again
the appreciation of the State’s Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs to be able to be here and listen
with the EPA to many of the concerns, to all of the
concerns that have been expressed today. Our office
will be submitting formal comments on the EIS back to
the EPA by the end of the month, and it has been very
valuable to me in part of that process to have been
here and to have heard what transpired this afternoon
and I look forward to hearing your comments this evening.
Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Our first four speakers this evening
are Arthur Chandler of the Ouincy Citizens’ Association,
Paul. Kodad of the Quincy Citizens’ Association, Joe
Malay and Claire Plaud of the Sierra Club. Is Mr.
Chandler here? Would you care to come forward?
STAPEMENT BY ARTHUR CHANDLER,
QUINCY CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION
MR. CHANDLER: My name is Arthur Chandler and I
live at 320 Belmont Street in Wollaston, Mass., and
I’m speaking as President of the Quincy Citizens’
Association.
We have joined forces with many political offices
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
177
of city government, the business, civic and recreational
groups from the City to oppose the use of Quincy lands
and waters for the location or expansion of wastewater
treatment facilities or for the disposal of sludge or
incinerated ash. This union has united the entire city
as a whole in opposition to these proposals.
In plain words, Quincy does not want to become
the toilet bowl or outhouse for the entire MDC system,
and we plan to continually oppose these plans because
other alternatives ar possible.
The use of Broad Meadows or Squantum as a secondary
treatment facility is not acceptable to the city because
of the effects to the environment and the surrounding
residential area due to the expansion and construction
or truck traffic. Squantum is not acceptable for the
use of sludge disposal either. Supposedly in disposinq
of the sludge there will be 125 roundtrips a week or
250 single runs. On a 5-day work basis, this amounts
to about 50 trucks per day. For an 8-hour day, this
is about 6 runs per hour or one every ten minutes and
this is for 20 years.
The location adjacent to residential or potential
rcsidential areas is detrimental to the prese nt tax
base or expansion of the tax bass through development
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
178
because of odor and sight especially to highrise
apartments overlooking the site. These are also listed
as adverse effects in the executive summary, and they
are also on the film we saw lust a few minutes ago.
In winter storms it’s doubtful that full compost
work can be continued due to icing. The Expressway
actually is not that handy when you consider that to
go south, you would have to use Morrissey Boulevard
which is for pleasure vehicles or Callivan Boulevard,
And if Jordan Marsh does not approve the use of their
private road, then more residential streets in Squantum
will have to be used.
At present the real problem on the southern
portion of the MDC sewerage system is that peak flows
of about 180 million gallons a day are put through a
plant designed for around and 112 million qa].lons a
day. This necessitates the difference being dumped
into Quincy Bay as overflow or bypass. This condition
is aggravated or increased when each town along the
MDC system increases in size or is added and contributes
more sewage to the system.
The existing MDC interceptor lines in Quincy,
Milton, Hyde Park, Dedham, Norwood, Canton, Westwood
and Stoughton now surcharged sometimes coming out of
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
179
the manholes themselves. This then is an indication
that the complete system itself is overloaded or under-
sized, not just the Nut Island Treatment Plant.
Therefore, it makes sense to get at the source of
the trouble itself and not use stopgap measures. The
first most logical solution is to reduce the ground-
water leakage which is estimated to be about half the
total flow. Elimination of this leakage will c1ra. tica1ly
reduce the total volume so that flow at Nut Island will
be contained and not have to be overflowed. This in
itself will clean up the harbor. The same would be
true for Deer Island.
Satellite plants must be built in the suburbs and
then these communities should be cut loose from the
present MDC system. With proper treatment, secondary
or tertiary and/or washing of nutrients, the effluent
could be discharged into the adjacent rivers or be
returned to the groundwater table. This also would
reduce the total flow to Nut Island. And when
hearin were held in the suburb, there did not appear
to be much opposition or concern at the meeting, and
I understand that they had about a dozen at the meeting
or workshop.
Each community should be responsible for its own
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
180
treatment and not push it along to the end of the line
at the harbor.
I would like to quote MDC Commissioner John
Snedecker from his statement made here February 18th,
1976: “That today there is no evidence that secondary
treatment will benefit the marine environment of Boston
Harbor. It had been established for some time that
the major source of pollution in Boston Harbor are
the combined sewer overflows. The construction of
combined sewer facilities and expansion of primary
treatment with extended outfalls in our judgment
provide ample water quality in the harbor for at least
the next two or three decades.”
In summary, we recommend:
One, that groundwater leakage be reduced;
Two, updating the existing primary treatment
facilities and extend the outfalls;
Three, building satellite plants in the suburb
and cut these communities loose from the present
MDC system;
And four, elimination of the combined sewage
system;
And five, working to have the law waived requiring
secondary treatment facilities for coastal areas.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
181
I thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you, Mr. Chandler.
Any questions?
(No response.)
STATEMENT BY PAUL KODAD,
QUINCY CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION
MR. IçODAD: For the record, my name is Paul Kodad.
I’m also a member of the Quincy Citizens’ Association.
I live at 256 Sea Street in Quincy in the Merrymount
section. I live directly across the street from the
Broad Meadows marsh.
The government and all its agencies and all their
employees and all those who are under contract to the
government have a responsibility, a moral and legal
obligation to treat each citizen, each community fairly,
honestly and ethically. A proposal such as this under
consideration here this evening should have considered
far more alternatives than were presented i the report.
Instead it appears that the decision was made to
unfairly concentrate on the City of Quincy.
One earlier proposal would have adversely affected
Nut Island in the Houghs Neck area of Quincy. Another
proposal would have coupled adverse effects with Nut
Island and Broad Meadows. And still another adverse
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
182
effects with the Broad Meadows and the Squantum Point
marsh. And still another with the Squantum Point and
Broad Meadows and reverse. And still another, the
Deer Island proposal coupled with Broad Meadows. And
lastly, the proposal under discussion here this evening,
the Deer Island proposal with a Squantum Point site
used as the sludge disposal area.
Most reasonable people who review this study reach
the same conclusion. The study is biased against the
City of Quincy and that it is an example of the aae-o].d
technique of dividing and conquering. First you threaten
Houghs Neck and then you threaten Broad Meadows, and
they will both be quiet when only Squantum is concerned.
Let the Squantum proposal be defeated, and then their
area is rethreatened.
I say that is this is true, then it is a government
by intimidation, government by extortion, and it is
therefore despicable. Certainly somewhere within the
43 communities there must have been at least one other
site which could have been considered for a sludge
disposal area. Certainly there must be somewhere on the
shoreline an area more remote from the residential areas
of either Squantuin or Broad Meadows.
Further, I say that for the Environmental Protection
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
183
Agency to have even seriotisly considered destroying
either the shoreline of Squantum or the marshy open area
of the Broad Meadow Marsh is in conflict with every
federal act which created their agency. For surely it
was the intent of the Congress of the United States to
preserve and enhance the value of our shoreline and
open spaces. Time and time again we read in the paper
where the federal government has appropriated money to
take land from the private domain and return to the
public domain either on the shoreline or in other open
space areas.
Turning briefly to the report itself, in many ways
the impact statement appears to be insufficient,
particularly in the area of considering the adverse
effects on the animal, vegetable and aquatic life in
the Squantum area or the Broad Meadows area marash.
A rather vague, not to specific general conclusion is
reached that there will be minimum negative impact
affects on the vegetable, the animal life of the marsh
involved.
I would strong suggest that a previous impact
statement relative to the Broad Meadows marsh in 1974
which treated with the proposal to build a college on
Broad Meadows be contrasted with the impact report here
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
184
this evening. Then you will readily see how insufficient
this present report is in that area. The previous impact
report on Broad Meadows detailed the catalog of all of
the animal, vegetable and aquatic life that lived there
and showed how each and every incident, how the project
would have affected this life.
I say the report under consideration tonight is
very, very insufficient, and therefore, if it is
insufficient, it’s conclusions must be questioned,
and questioned enough to be reviewed.
The appropriateness of the Squantum site. In some
of the reports that have been given out at the workshop
hearings, they treat four other sludge disposal plants.
One of them is in Maryland, one of them in Los Angeles
which they did admit the Los Angeles plant did have a
problem of odors but it was of a different type of
system. The plant in Maryland is in the South and
certainly suffers far less from the weath3r than we do
up hero in the North.
The other two systems which were considered were
at Durham, New Hampshire, and at Bangor, Maine. And
these were included in the report, I believe, to
demonstrate the fact that it would be possible in a
northern climate to efficiently operate a sludge
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
185
disposal system. But that is not necessarily truo.
For in both areas they are far more removed from the
dense residential area as is the Squantum sitc , and we
all realize that in a small operation like Bangor,
Maine, or Durham, New Hampshire, problems which are
created are much more easily remedied than would be
the case in a large facility such as Squantum.
Let me just give you one example. The sludge
which is treated at Bangor is brought in by a truck.
Should that truck overturn, it is a rather simple
process to send out a frontend loader and repack the
sludge onto a new truck. But would happen if a
bardge load of sludge was to overturn in Ouincy Bay
or split its bottom? You certainly wouldn’t be able
to send a frontend loader and pick it out of the water.
I do not think, also, that any real consideration
has been given to the atmospheric effects of Squantom
Point relative to the wind chill factor which would
occur there in the wintertime. Last year we had a
tremendous snow storm. I do not know for how many
weeks during the winter a facility like Sguantum Point
would be out of operation due to adverse weather, and
I do not know what would happen then. I don’t think
it was fairly treated in the report.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
186
There is one last area in the report which causes
me some serious concern and that is the question of
truck volume. I don’t think it is detailed enough.
In the report itself, they talk about 125 truck loads
per day, and I know it’s been corrected to a week.
Now, we’re not sure. Does that mean it’s 250 roundtrips
a week? And again the question arises, how did they
arrive at the 250 roundtrips? Is that a yearly figure
of 5,000 roundtrips divided by weeks so that they
arrive at the figure of 125? We don’t know.
But I can tell you one thing, that if you’re
talking about composting operations, then the truck
volume traffic would only occur in the Spring and the
Fall. Only at both those times of the year do ou
normally use compost in an agricultural operation.
And so the question remains there, what would be
the volume of truck traffic during those times of the
year when the composting operation would occur?
So in conclusion, I would say there are many, many
points in that report that are incomplete. So we must
question the validity of the conclusion that the
proper posture is to place the sludge disposal point
at Squantum point. Thank you very much.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
187
Are there any questions?
(No response.)
MS. HANMER: Joe Malay.
STATEMENT BY JOE MALAY
MR. MALAY: My name is Joe Malay, and I live at
227 North Beacon Street in Watertown which is one
block from the Charles River and within a half a mile
of about seven of the 150 combined sewer outfalls
which I fee]. are not adequately dealt with in the
report.
I understand in the City of Boston alone there
are 125 such outlets,and in the system, over 150.
On page 20 of the executive summary of the report,
it states that the all-Deer Island plan, which I feel
is the best alternative, isnst going to do anything
to improve the water quality in the rivers going
into it, and this is my concern, because if the water
quality in the rivers leading into the harbor is poor,
the water ends up in the harbor eventually.
I understand that there are a number of the flood
gates now at the end of the end of some of these
outfalls which are presently being fixed, but this
does not help us who live near the river itself and
not near the outer harbor or inner harbor.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
188
It seems that in the report the sewer relief
projects are stated sort of vaguely as to be happening
in the future, and I think that with regard to the
sewage system impact on human beings, the parts of it
which should be dealt first should be the parts that
are closest where human beings live. Very few people
live near President’s Roads but a lot of people live
along the Neponset and Charles and Mystic Rivers and
would like to see this problem addressed earlier, I
feel.
I feel the report also has some highly commendable
parts, the decision to compost some of the sludge is
a very good idea, and the decision to scrap the present
plan on Nut Island is also a very good idea. However,
I think that some investigation should be made to
perhaps try and extend the outfall. There has to be
a new outfall built anyway, to see how far it could
possibly be extended out beyond the present President’s
Roads location.
And then -- I’m sorry if this seems a little bit
rambling, but I only found out about this meeting
yesterday, but I would like to close with a report
by the general counsel to the U.S. EPA, Mr. G. William
Frick, which was dated the 30th of June 1976 with
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
189
regard to the MDC’s discharge permits. And in summary,
the permits in question, and I quote, “In summary, the
permits in question are deficient in that they do not
impose effluent limitations consistent with the
Regional Administrators determination of best practicable
control technology currently available on discharges
from (a) storm sewer system outf ails and (b) the over-
flow outfalls from combined sewer systems.”
I think these are the areas where we should be
looking to perhaps look at trying to fix up first and
not years in the future and an undefined term of years.
Thank you.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Just for the record, Mr. Malay,
combined sewer overflows are being addressed right now
in a separate planning exercise by the Metropolitan
District Commission. It’s unfortunate that we, EPA,
have not stressed that enough in the Environmental
Impact Statement, and it’s a valid point you make,
but the work is going on right now. And it can be
oxpected that that will be taken before the expanding
and upgrading of the treatment facilities.
MR. MALAY: Wonderful.
MS. HANMER: Thank you.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
190
Claire Plaud of the Sierra Club.
STATEMENT BY CLAIRE PLAUD,
GREATER BOSTON GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB
MS. PLAUD: My name is Claire Plaud, and I’m
representing the Greater Boston Group of the Sierra
Club. And we wanted to take this opportunity to make
some suggestions to this facilities planning based on
the recommendations in the EIS.
One of our main concerns is reducing the estimated
flows, and one of the ways we see of doinq this is to
have a moratorium on the cities and towns that are
joining the Metropolitan Sewer District, and part cularly
ones which were not recommended in the 208 Basin Plan
to be included.
We’d also like to see, of course, a reduction in
infiltration and inflow. And if this is one half of
the current flows, then this is a great loss in ground-
water to the cities in the river basins.
And the third thing we’d like to see is an economic
incentive for some of the water conservation methods
that were mentioned in the report, such as meterinq,
and we just don’t think the conservation section goes
far enough. And we want the MDC to take responsibility
for a serious water conservation effort.
Our comments on the location of facilities, right
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
191
now we do not support the centralization of all treatment
facilities on Deer Island. We don’t see that a sufficient
case has been used for using all of the island, so that
its use for recreation is completely eliminated.
We also at this point don’t see a strong enough
case for eliminating satellite treatment plants from
consideration. We certainly don’t support satellite
treatment plants if it really is shown that the
dissolved oxygen cannot be met, the standards, but
we just think it’s an important decision, and some more
sites can be looked at, some more discharge points maybe,
land application of the effluent. But that can be looked
into more before they are completely eliminated from
consideration.
In regard to the sludge disposal, we don’t support
locating an incinerator on Deer Island, and we really
hope that the EIS on the primary sludge will have some
other rocommendations.
We are pleased with the acknowledgement of composting
as an economically feasible and suitable way of disposin—
of sludge. And we’d like to see a more serious market-
ing of fort by the MDC.
So in summary, we would like to see the reduction
of estimated flows in the facilities plan based on a
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
192
serious water conservation and infiltration/inflow
reduction effort, less centralization of sowacrn
trc atment plants, and further investigation of satellite
treatment plants.
We also wanted to take this opportunity to make
a comment about the request for a waiver from secondary
troatment. The National Sierra Club is strongly opposed
to all waivers to secondary treatment, particularly on
the East Coast. But the Greater Boston Group realizes
that there would environmental advantages in the case
of Boston. for doing so, that there would be less land
requirement for treatment facilities, there would be
no need for disposing of secondary sludge, and the
ocean dumping that would occur would be further from the
coast. There would be more time and money to spend on
the problems of combined sewer overflows, industrial
pretreatment if the secondary requirement were
postponed.
But we are also very much aware that there are
disadvantages to postponing it, including the higher
biological oxygen demand in suspended solids that would
go into the ocean. And we’re very concerned about
what the regulations for a secondary waiver would be,
what chemicals would be monitored, by whom, how often,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
193
and what the penalties would be if state and frderal
standards for toxicity particularly are not met. And
if the waiver is granted, that we want it to be kept
in mind that it is only a temporary alternative and
that the ocean shouldn’t be used indefinitely for
waste disposal.
MR. HICKS: Thank you very much. There is a
question for you.
MR. SUTTON: I’m always particularly interested
in the comments and recommendations of the Sierra
Club because of their high standards of protection
of the environment, but I’d like to clarify what I
thought you said. For one thing you said the National
Group generally does not favor the waiver on secondary
treatment, but you indicated that the Boston Group does
favor it?
NS. PLAUD: Not that they do but they do see why,
th€ y see the advantages to it. I’m not sayihg that
we favor it. We see that there are advantages to it.
MR. SUTTON: You mentioned among the advantages
that less land would be required for the secondary
facilities?
MR. PLAUD: Yes. Wouldn’t that be true, that
on Deer Island that there would be no need for, say,
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
194
you wouldn’t have to build an incinerator on Deer
Island. f the primary sludge is pretreated, then the
recommendations for the secondary sludge -- such as
composting and land filling -- could be taken care
of or could take care of the piimary sludge.
MR. SUTTON: I don’t think that’s quite true.
In fact, the document today really talks more about
th primary sludge, not the secondary.
Well, I believe that the study on the primary
sludge particularly has indicated that incineration
would be the intermediate method to be used at the
present time because of the presence of other materials
in there that would prevent it from being recycled and
used as compost. So even if they don’t go to secondary
treatment, I think the recommendation still would be
the same, unfortunately.
I wanted to ask though, you realize where the
sludqe is going now? As was indicated earlier,
100,000 pounds a day of sludge are now being deposited
in Boston Harbor, which is one of the reasons for this
impact statement to see how we can get rid of this
violation of the Water Pollution Control Act.
Has the Sierra Club taken a position on the
present method of discharge of the sludge?
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
195
MS. PLAUD: On the method that’s----
MR. SUTTON: Putting it in the harbor? At the
present time the sludge is disposed of by putting it
into Boston Harbor.
MS. PLAUD: Oh, yes. We’re opposed to that.
What we would like to see, we want to see more on
composting; we want to see more on the land fill;
and also we want to see, we can’t really say we want
to see the EIS on the primary sludge disposal before
we could say what we want to do with it. We don’t
want to dump it in the harbor.
And the same on the statements on the secondary -
waiver, we’re saying that through rumors we hear this,
so we haven’t really formulated what we want. We just
wanted to make a comment based on rumors that we’ve
heard and would like to hear more about what is
happening.
MR. SUTTON: Well, there is a provision for a
waiver in the new legislation and MDC has applied for
a waiver.
MS. PLAUD: What we want to see is what kind of
regulations there would be for the waiver before we
would make a statement on it.
MR. SUTTON: Well, they would be out, what, in
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
196
two months? In about a month.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
The next scheduled speaker is Arthur Barnes.
STATEMENT BY ARTHUR BARNES,
PRESIDENT OF THE NORUMBEGA ASSOCIATION
MR. BARNES: I’m Arthur Barnes, President of the
Norumbega Association. I’ve been involved aè our
organization has in previous Citizens’ Advisory
Committees on the CENE Study, EMMA STudy, the 208
STud r. I’ve testified at previous public hearings,
and Robert Meridoza of the EPA has copies of comments
I’ve made at past times. But tonight I’ll expand on
the previous testimony which recommended that
secondary treatment not go forward but that the primary
treatment of effluents and sludge be upgraded, using
new technology.
Regional experts in the Boston area want to
cooperate in the use of the MDC sewer district and
the harbor as a demonstration case study of their
effectiveness, as the effectiveness of some new
technology.
I want to assume that there will be vigorous
attention to the following actions as a basis for
my recommendatio , not that it be continued as primary
treatment alone in the style of the past five years.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
197
First, to locate and intercept and treat sources
of industrial waste, heavy metals, biodegradable organics,
etc., at their source. I think Boston is a digestible
size area for preventing these kinds of things getting
into sanitary sewers.
Second, the minimization of point sources of
pollution. Many of them are already well known and
being worked at.
Third, to continue work of further separation of
storm and sanitary sewers in the MDC District.
Fourth, that the final treatment of the present
MDC system will be consolidated at Deer Island,
eliminating the occasional, mpre than occasional
problems of Nut Island that show up in the harbor.
And Fifth, that a 6-mile outfall pipe be installed
promptly to insure a more acceptable location for the
occasional necessity to dump and disperse inadequately
treated sewage into the inner harbor.
Tonight I wish to speak as a taxpayer. ± haven’t
heard anybody who has spoken as a taxpayer at previous
hearings. They’ve all been environmentalists. I also
want to speak as a recreational user of the harbor
with a personal appreciation of the rich fishing
resources, and as one concerned about land use policy
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
198
for the harbor islands, remembering that the tip half
of Deer Island should be a public recreation area.
First, as a taxpayer, the costs of the project
as described in the October Environmental News are
understated, and I’m glad that tonight’s TV report
of what’s gone on today has boosted that capital cost
up to a billion dollars, which of course is what it’s
going to surpass by the time the capital is spent.
In addition, the MDC sewer assessments, which I
pay, I also pay state and federal taxes, and most
people in Massachusetts seem to think that state and
federal money comes free. The billion dollar cost by
completion time, five years hence if we hurry, and
the annual real cost of operation and amortization
which will be a hundred million dollars not the $25
million that is mentioned in the Environmental News
as the operating cost. If you take the $84 million
of annual cost, including the cost of paying two
taxes back our debt, it’s a hundred million dollars
a year for the 40 some towns -- not for the towns
themselves but for us individuals.
Thesc costs can be substantially cut if we
accept the judgm nt that Boston Harbor can diqest
effluent and sludge not as presently dumped into it but
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
199
from a properly managed, carefully controlled, 1980’s
style primary treatment plant.
Now, as a recreation, open-space buff, I
recommend the development of the tip of Deer Island
as a part of the harbor islands recreational system
of Metropolitan Boston. I don’t know how many of you
have walked around it, looked at it, tried to use
imagination, but by extending the Winthrop bus line
in the summer, this island will become easily
accessible by public transit especially for citizens
of East Boston and Revere and Winthrop.
Fishing piers, picnià grounds and indore
recreation use of the old MDC pumping station are
easy to visualize if you have walked on it.
Most impOrtant of all, however, ismy perception
that Mother Nature and her marine, plant, animal
ecological system will, benefit from the nutrients
f lowing to the harbor from properly operated upgraded
primary treatment plants. I can give first hand
testimony from a beautiful clear, blue sky, late
morning last Thursday. My friend Larry and I launched
our outboard at the Winthrop ramp, wont to a favorite
spot not far away, and brought home 50 at flounder
for two hours in the sun and fresh air.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES INC.
-------
200
My summary then, 1978 technology applied to
primary treatment, a six mile pipe as insurance, better
control and management by the MDC, and I would like
to underline that but I don’t think this is the forum,
and we want to catch the exotic pollutants at their
source, trust Mother Nature. Mother Nature never
lived on distilled water. Don t t strive for that kind
of purity. Save the tax dollars. Save land for
conservation use and enjoy fishing.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
The next scheduled speaker is Michael l4orrissey,
State Representative.
STATEMENT BY MICHAEL W. MORRISSEY,
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, my name is Michael Morrissey.
I’m a State Representative from Quincy, from the
North Quincy-Squantum section. And I would like to
be recorded in oppoisition to plans that would expand
sewerage treatment facilities in the City of Quincy.
For too many years, the City of Quincy has had to
endure the brunt of sewerage treatment for a large
part of the Metropolitan Boston area.
The Nut Island plant has often caused a lot of
problems over the years for Quincy residents and
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
201
property owners not only in Onincy but the South Shore
in general. I agree that there is a need to upgrade
the facilities, but the question comes as to what
areas and where they should be upgraded.
It would seem to make more sense and it’s gettinq
down to that point now where you look at those
alternatives to have upstream treatment facilities,
and it seems you have rejected those ideas. But in
all fairness, it would have seemed to have made sense
to take the brunt off those communities. There is
more than Quincy that have been dumping grounds for
a number of years and have some of those other cities
and towns that are in the system do some of their own
treatment. And I would definitely oppose any new
treatment or waste facility in the City, and I would
especially like to be recorded in opposition to a
sludge deposit area slated for the Squantum section
of Quincy.
I understand some of the implications as far
as the sludge area in the Squantum section, but one
of the problems, and I don’t know whether it’s been
looked into yet, is that Squantum is only reached by
one road. The other road is a private entrance, the
Jordan Marsh roadway is private. They own that. They
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
202
built that at a cost of a million dollars, and it’s
an unaccepted city street. The only other access is
East Squantum Street. And right now we, meaning the
City Council and the State Legislature, are having
our problems convincing the MDC to allow trucks on
a portion of Quincy Shore Drive. Quiñcy Shore Drive
is an MDC parkway, and under the law they are not
allowed to have truck traffic. So as a result, you
will be bringing in -- I don’t mean you per se but
the sludge has to get down to Squantum some way and
that East Squantum Street is the main artery for
four different schools in the North Quincy area --
the high school, therc are two elementary schools
and the junior high school, and that right now when
you get a bus or two busses on that narrow 5treet
and the number of children who walk to the schools
which probably numbers about 4,000, between three
and four thousand kids a day who use that road,
and with the volume of traffic, we have problems now.
And there are a number of dangerous curves and
intersections.
So by putting it in the Squantum area, I don’t
think you’ve fully looked at the impact of traffic
that it will have on the North Quincy area.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, [ NC.
-------
203
I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. JOHNSON: Representative Morrissey, the
question I have has to do with traffic at Squantum or
expected traffic. We have been apprised, the EPA has
been apprised that there have been plans to develop
greatly that Squantum area with something like 2100
residential units and industrial units. Have you
or has the City of Quincy taken a position on that
development with its increased traffic?
MR. MORRISSEY: I believe there have been a
number of different traffic studies done on the
proposal you’re talking about, and it was by a
Connecticut developer and it was 3,000 units of
apartments. It was mixed housing. There was some
elderly housing. There were both townhouse, mid-
range and highrise apartments, and it was a self-
contained city within a city. And we had problems
with it for a number of reasons, and one of the basic
problems that we had was the increase in the volume of
traffic, and that was, we had asked that the engineers
on the project do studies, and I know that they are
available right now.
But I think what we in the City had wanted was
the City to go into that land where it is already zoned
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
204
PUD and industrial, we were looking more for a technical
nature industry, light industry with low volume traffic
emplyinq like skilled technicians or light factory work,
and that is what it is zoned for. A good portion of
that parcel is zoned for that right now.
They are in the process, and I don’t know whether
it is true or not, I haven’t seen any plans, but I know
th3y are in the process of revising the number of units
and putting a proposal before the planning board as to
what they would like to do with the property out there.
I know Edison at one point owned a portion of land
and I’ve been talking with their lobbyist about the
fonce that borders the property, and he had said they
had sold a lot of the options. So that led me to
believe that a developer has bought a good portion of
the property.
And the traffic studies, if you would like to
look at them, I’m not sure who the engineer is, but
maybe the City Planning Department would have at
least the consulting engineer for the traffic studies
on it.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
The next scheduled speaker is Diane Lindblad.
STATEMENT BY DIANE LINDBLAD, CIVXC COMMITTEE
OF THE S UANTUM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
205
MS. LINDBLAD: Good evening. For the record, my
name is Diane Lindblad, and I’m here to represent
Michael Kelly of the Civic Committee of the Squantum
Co amunity Association. Good evening.
I welcome the opportunity to speak. The residents
of Squantum are strictly opposed to the plans of the
sludge and fly ash being dumped in Squantum. We have
such a very high flood plain level as is, especially
du6 to the storm of February 1978.
Most of the statements or comments that I have
this evening were summed up pretty well by Mike
Morrissey as well one of my fellow workers, Mary
Gougian, this afternoon regarding, again, one of the
big factors the trucks, 250 single trips or 125
roundtrips weekly. And we also came up with over
400 signatures in less than a week in opposition to
this plan. It would develuate property. We would
have the problem with the roads, and there is quite
a problem with the groundwater leakage right now,
and that also would have to be reduced.
We do have several proposals and we are working
on them, and we would take into consideration other
proposals made by the EPA. But at this time, the
plan is completoly unacceptable.
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
206
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
The next speak r I have shceduled is Alan Bruno.
I may be misreading the handwriting, it could be
Mr. Brusso. Is there a Mr. Bruno or Brusso?
(No response..)
MR. HICKS: In that case, the last sch du1ed
speaker that we have is Janet Borgermeist r.
STATEMENT BY JANET BERGERMEISTER
MR. BERGERMEISTER: I’m glad to receive this
opportunity to express my opinion. This will be a
small. statement. But I suggest that every community
assume the responsibility of erecting a plant in their
own area to dispose of their waste properly. I feel
that Quincy, Winthrop or any other area on the seashore
shouldn’t have the responsibility of taking care of
the situation alone. It’s too much of a burden.
I’m opposed to any expansion of any of the areas.
I suggest a place in Boston, a particular place
in Boston where Boston can erect the place, and I
suggest under the Expressway, Route 93. There is a
whole barren site that I would consider an excellent
place to erect a sewerage plant for the City of
Boston.
Winthrop, their place should only be advanced
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
207
Lo assist their own area. In Quincy, likewise.
But I believe every place, such as Randolph,
Braintreo, any other area, they should find a solution
within their own town, not subject us to sewage and
destroy the view of our harbor because the vicw of
our harbor not only assists us but it helps us
financially by bring tourism to the state. And if
our harbor is destroyed, I believe the whole state
cna be destroyed because that’s one of the necc ssities
of Massachusetts. So I am against the proposal of
advancing any sewerage system for Quincy or Winthrop
or any area, and I hope they can settle the situation,
anti I hope they come up with some advanced technology
to make sewerage systems in their own area, such as
laser rays. If that’s too expensive, find some other
solution, But I think each town should find their
own solution of handlinq the waste.
Thank you very much for your time.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
I have no other names of scheduled speakers. Is
thE re anyone else who would like to make a statement
at this time?
STATEMENT BY JOHN CONWAY, WINTHROP
MR. CONWAY: My name is John Conway. I’m from
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
208
Winthrop. I was not able tobe here this afternoon.
I don’t have anything prepared, and I did not expect
to speak. However, I felt that I would be hurting my
own cause if I did not get up and say what I’ve been
1 hinking of in the last couple of weeks since we came
into this problem.
I was born and brought up in Winthrop. I’ve
lived there close to 43 years. I don’t understand
how the Environmental Protection Agency can come up
with a study such as they have if they looked into
the history of Winthrop and what we have put up with
in the last 30 to 40 years. We have been beaten to
death by an airport; we have been beaten to death
by the primary treatment plant; we have been beaten
to death by the City of Boston dumping its jail Ofl US;
and now you want to dump another sewerage treatment
plant on us.
It doesn’t make any sense in a small town of
one and three-quarters square miles with 22,000 people
and two access roads, you’re going to dump this thing
on top of us again. You certainly have not taken
into consideration all the time, money and effort the
people of Winthrop have put into their town when you
start to bring chlorine trucks through, 285 or 485
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
209
people a day in cars, and more sewage for our harbor,
more environmental pollution with your smoke stacks.
I have eight children and I plan to bring them
up for the rest. of their lives in that town, and I
hope they stay there, but you’re doing everything
possible to drive people out. It doesn’t make any
sense at all. You should be called the Environmental
Pollution Agency. It doesn’t make any sense at all.
Thank you.
MR. HICKS: Is there anyone else who would like
to make a statement who hasn’t signed in?
(No response.)
MR. HICKS: On behalf of the State’s Executive
Office, I do want to thank you for coming this
evening, and now let me turn it back to the EPA
people.
MS HANMER: Thank you very muc i for staying with
us. We’ve learned a lot today.
I want to remind you that the record will be
open until November 28th for written statements.
Thank you very much. Good night.
(Whereupon, at 8:10 p.m. the above-entitled
matter was concluded.)
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATES. INC.
-------
210
WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY:
Arthur H. Tobin, Mayor, City of Quincy
Leo J. Kelly, Chairman, Environmental Control
Committee, Quincy City Council
tonald E. Zooleck, Executive Vice President,
South Shore Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
Edward A. Coy].e, President,
Quincy Center Business & Professional Association
Charles F. Grein, Co-Owner, Maxwells Parrot Restaurant
Richard D. Dimes, Chairman,
Winthrop Board of Selectmen
Arthur Cummings, Concerned Citizens Committee
of Winthrop
Peggy Riley, Concorned Citizens Committee of Winthrop
Alan Lupo, Concerned Citizens Committee on Winthrop
Jerome E. Falbo, Chairman, Winthrop Planning Board
Ronald H. Wayland, Chairman,
Withrop Conservation Commission
Dr. Herbert Meyer, Chiarman,
Boston Harbor Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Marian Ullman, League of Women Voters of Boston
Thomas J. Nutley, Director, Public Relations,
Atlantic Neighborhood Association
Nancy Wrenn, Executive Secretary,
Boston Harbor Associates
Lydia R. Goodhue, Charles River Watershed Association
Grace Saphir, Save Our Shores, Inc.
Shirley M. Brown, Natick Representative,
Citizens’ Advisory Committee to the EPA
B. P. A. REPORTiNG ASSOCIATES, INC.
-------
211
Dorothy C. Kelly, Quincy Citizens Association
Waldo H. Holcombe, Neponset Conservation Association
Mrs. Mary Gougian, President,
Squantum Community Association
John E. Murphy, Boston Harbor Pollution Committee
Gary P. Kosciusko, President, Save our Shores, Inc.
Claire Plaud, Greater Boston Group of the Sierra Club
Michael W. Morrissey, State Representative
Milton S. Fistel, P.E., Winthrop
Roland N. Fluet, Chairman,
Winthrop School Committee
B. P. A. REPORTING ASSOCIATESq INC.
------- |