PUBLIC RECORD OF DECISION
ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES
FOR NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
APPROVED BY:
/ x->
///
_ Date
fegional Administrator
-A-
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. Introduction 1
2. Screening and Evaluation of Alternatives 2
2.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives 2
2.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant 2
2.1.2 Sludge Disposal Facilities 9
2.1.3 Effluent Outfall 15
2.2 Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives 15
2.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites 18
2.2.1.1 Short-Term Impacts 18
2.2.1.2 Long-Term Impacts 19
2.2.2 Sludge Disposal Sites 23
2.2.2.1 Short-Term Impacts 23
2.2.2.2 Long-Term Impacts 24
2.2.3 Effluent Outfall 26
2.2.3.1 Short-Term Impacts 26
2.2.3.2 Long-Term Impacts 27
3. EPA Decision 31
3.1 Environmentally Acceptable Options 31
3.2 Recommended Management Option 35
3.2.1 Wastewater Treatment 35
3.2.2 Sludge Treatment and Disposal 36
3.2.3 Effluent Outfall 37
3.2.4 Summary of Recommendations 37
4. Mitigation 38
4.1 Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant 38
4.2 Sludge Disposal 43
4.3 Secondary Effluent Outfall 44
5. Conclusion 46
Appendix A Summary of Public Comments on the FEIS and Agency Responses
Appendix B Public Comments on the FEIS
Appendix C City Planner’s 10/1190 letter to MEPA
Appendix D City Council Resolution to Select Ft. Rodman Site
-------
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S
RECORD OF DECISION
ON iflE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR NEW BEDFORD, MA
1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared this document as its Record
of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Secondary
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. The Draft and
Final EISs evaluated a variety of alternative sites and suitable treatment technologies for
secondary wastewater treatment, sludge treatment and disposal, and effluent outfall from the
proposed treatment plant.
Concurrent with EPA’s environmental review, the City of New Bedford conducted
environmental review and facilities planning for the secondary treatment facilities in
compliance with Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations. The City of
New Bedford published its Final Facilities Plan/Environmental Impact Report (FPIEIR) in
October of 1990 and a March 1991 supplement to that which contained its final
recommendations for secondary wastewater treatment technologies and sites.
The City of New Bedford’s existing primary wastewater treatment system is currently in
violation of the Clean Water Act. In order to come into compliance with state and federal
wastewater treatment requirements, the City will be constructing secondary wastewater
treatment facilities in accordance with a 1987 federal court order. The three interrelated
components of secondary wastewater treatment system are secondary wastewater treatment
which removes solids from the wastewater and disinfects it; treatment of solids removed
from the wastewater and proper disposal of those solids; and conveyance of the treated
effluent from the WWTP to an acceptable off-shore location.
The City of New Bedford is responsible for selecting and implementing an environmentally
acceptable plan for implementing secondary wastewater treatment as required by the Clean
Water Act. EPA’s primary responsibilities are to ensure compliance with the Clean Water
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to provide an independent
analysis of the City’s Facilities Plan/Em. In preparing its NEPA environmental review,
EPA drew its own conclusions, but made use of the information generated by the City for the
state environmental review process as long as it met EPA’s needs under NEPA. Additional
information or analyses were provided by EPA where necessary. This “piggy-back”
approach allowed EPA to conduct a more efficient environmental review than otherwise
would have been possible.
1
-------
EPA published its Draft E IS on Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of New
Bedford, MA in November of 1989 (noticed in the December 15, 1989 Federal Register). A
public hearing was held in New Bedford on January 24, 1990. Oral and written comments
on the Draft ES were received during a sixty day public comment period. The Final EIS,
which responded to these comments, was published in July, 1991 (July 12, 1991 Federal
Register) and was followed by a 30 thy comment period. This Record of Decision has been
prepared taking into consideration comments received on the Final ETS. The comments
received on the Final ES and responses to them are attached as Appendices A and B,
respectively.
The Draft and Final BIS satisfy federal environmental review requirements in accordance
with the EPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEOJ procedures for implementing
NEPA as set out in 40 CFR Parts 6 and 1500, respectively.
This Record of Decision sets forth EPA’s final decision on the City of New Bedford’s plan
for implementing secondary wastewater treatment and is being circulated to inform the public
of EPA’s decision and to respond to the comments received on the Final E IS.
2. SCREENING AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Development and Screening of Alternatives
NEPA regulations require EPA, during environmental review, to rigorously explore a
reasonable range of siting and treatment technology alternatives illustrating the full spectrum
of potential impacts to be analyzed. Three analogous screening processes were conducted in
the E IS for the three components of the City’s facilities plan - - the wastewater treatment
plant, sludge facilities, and the effluent outfall.
2.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant
The screening and evaluation of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) alternatives involved
three steps:
• determination of the wastewater treatment plant influent quantity and quality;
• development of the liquid wastewater treatment process configuration; and
• determination of the location for the proposed wastewater treatment plant.
Determining the influent quantity and quality required detailed analysis of the existing and
future population serviced by the plant, sources of the wastewater, and existing and future
levels of pollutants in the wastewater. The existing New Bedford Primary Wastewater
Treatment Plant receives wastewater and its associated pollutants from residential,
2
-------
commercial, and industrial business activities in the region. Water also enters the facility
through infiltration, inflow, and combined sewer flows that result from the mixing of sewage
and urban stormwater runoff during periods of rain or snow melt. In addition, the plant
receives septage from septic systems in the unsewered areas of New Bedford, Acushnet,
Dartmouth, Fairhaven, and Mattapoisett.
Several technologies for preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, and
disinfection were considered for liquid wastewater treatment at the proposed facilities. To
limit the number of alternatives to be considered, and to make the evaluation of alternatives
more manageable, two screening analyses were conducted as part of the facilities planning
process. These analyses made use of technical, environmental, institutional, and cost criteria
for screening. The non-monetary screening criteria used to compare the liquid wastewater
treatment alternatives are shown in Table 1. The screening process employed is discussed in
detail in Section 2.2 of the Draft EIS and in the City of New Bedford’s Phase II Facilities
Plan/Effi (CDM, Volume III, 1989). Figure 2.2-2 of the Draft EIS shows the wastewater
treatment technologies which were examined, and the recommended wastewater treatment
technologies are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Preliminary Treatment: Catenary Bar Screen
Aerated Grit Chamber
Primary Treatment: Rectangular Clarifier
Secondary Treatment: Air Activated Sludge
Anaerobic Selector
Rectangular Clarifier
Disinfection: Sodium Hypochiorite followed by Dechlorination
The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site selection process began with the identification
of 47 potential sites within the City of New Bedford, which were then screened down in
several steps, with each screening making use of a set of criteria and specific categories of
information ranging from developable area to cost and environmental considerations. The
criteria and screening elements applied to the 5 most suitable sites are listed in Table 3.
The sites initially considered are shown in Figure 1 (Fig. 2-39 from the Draft EIS) and
details of the screening process are provided in Section 2.3 of the Draft EIS. Two sites, Site
1A (Fort Rodman) and Site 4A (Standard Times Field) were retained for final detailed
evaluation in the Draft and Final EIS (see Figure 2).
3
-------
Table 1
NON—MONETARY PHASE
I
SCREENING CRITERIA FOR LIQUID
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Criteria Description
Ratinci_
Reliability The level of assurance that the unit process will low, average, high
consistently achieve and the required degree
of treatment under an expected range of operating
conditions, including consideration of the track
record of the unit process at other large municipal
wastewater treatment facilities.
Flexibility The ability of a unit process to operate under low, average, high
atypical conditions or to adapt to major changes in flows
or loadings.
Constructability consideration of several aspects of construction difficult, normal
including the complexity of construction,
duration, and scheduling.
Safety The level of precautions needed to reduce risks special, normal
to plant personnel and the surrounding community,
including those required for operation under both
normal and special circumstances.
Operators Required A measure of the relative number of operators greater, average,
and maintenance personnel required to successfully fewer
operate and maintain the unit processes as compared
to the reference unit process .
Operational
Complexity The degree of difficulty in the maintenance and high, average, low
control of a unit process.
Power Efficiency The amount of power necessary to achieve the low, average, high
desired level of treatment.
-------
Table I (continued)
NON-MONETARY PHASE
I
8CREENING CRITERIA FOR LIQUID
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVZS
Criteria Description
Rating
Auxiliary Needs Any additional needs (e.g., chemical feed (no auxiliary need
facilities) required for a unit process. or specific need)
Residuals Aspects Consideration of the quality and quantity of difficult, average,
the residuals generated by a particular unit good
process regarding the difficulty of collection,
processing and disposal of residuals.
Spoils Disposal The amount of soils excavation and the difficulty difficult, average,
in the disposal of such material when compared to the simple
reference unit process.
Air Emissions The potential for generating air emissions and therefore low, average, high
Control the level of control necessary to limit air emissions
from a unit process.
Odor The potential for generating and emitting odor-causing high, average, low
compounds to the environment.
Noise Control The ease of controlling the noise generated during high, average, low
operation of a specific unit process.
Aesthetics The relative visual impact of a unit process on average, good
the surrounding communities and adjacent marine users.
Effluent Quality The relative impact of a unit process on downstream low, average, high
unit processes or receiving wate.
Adapted from: CDM, Volume III, 1989
-------
Table 3
CRITERIA AND SCREENING ELEMENTS APPLIED TO THE FIVE
“MOST SUITABLE” SITES’ IN PHASE I/SCREEN 2
Geoloc y. Soils & Topography
Geologic features
Depth to bedrock
Soil/subsurface conditions
Slope constraints and erosion potential
Drainage
Flooding
Groundwater Hydrology
Potential impact to groundwater quality/quantity
Depth to water table
Surface Water
Proximity to surface water bodies
Water quantity classification
Land Use
Onsite land use
Adjacent land use
Generalized (surrounding) land use
Zoning
Site zoning
Surrounding zoning
Regulatory Reguirements
Noise
Distance to sensitive receptors
Existing noise levels
Noise mitigation potential
Odors
Wetlands
Terrestrial Habitat
Marine Habitat
Historic Sites and Districts/Archaeological Areas
Aesthetics
Traffic
Routes through residential neighborhoods
Increase in traffic and delays caused by trucks
Site accessibility
Engineering Feasibility
Hydraulic compatibility
Effluent pipe length
Energy consumption
Expansion/buffer potential
Incineration
Air quality impacts
FAA restrictions
Hazardous Waste
1. Sites 1A, 4A, 7/8, 14/36 and 16.
Adapted from: CDM, Volume I, 1989.
6
-------
1
Miles
Scale 1:65,000
Adapted from COM, 1989
Figure 1
INIT iAL CANDIDATE
SITES FOR ThE WWTP
LEGEND
,‘ City/Town Boundary
—{ 3 Roadway/Highway
Surface Water/Ocean
Candidate Site No.
And Location
7
-------
Adapted from CDM, 1989
Figure 2
Miles
Scale 1:63,000
New Bedford
Massachusetts
LEGEND
City/Town Bc*mdaiy
Roadway/Highway
Surface Water/Ocean
2
New Bedford Area Showing Sites 40, 47, 4A, 1A, and Crapo Hill
8
-------
2.1.2 Sludge Disposal Facilities
The screening and evaluation of wastewater residuals (sludge) processing and disposal
alternatives also involved three steps:
• determination of the sludge quantity and quality;
• development of the sludge process configuration; and
• determination of the disposal site for the sludge or sludge product.
The evaluation of the quantity and quality of the sludge to be produced by the proposed
WWTP required a detailed analysis of the existing and projected solids removed by the
WWTP. The quality of sludge was important because it could restrict the ultimate method of
sludge product use or disposal.
Three successive screening steps were used to reduce the number of alternative technologies
for final consideration, based on criteria including technical and cost considerations in
addition to sludge quantity and quality. The evaluation criteria employed for sludge process
evaluations are listed in Table 4. The technology screening process employed is discussed in
detail in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS and the recommended sludge treatment process train is
shown in Figure 3.
The 47 sites initially identified for location of the WWTP were also considered for solids
disposal (see Fig. 1). Existing or proposed landfills and incinerators within a reasonable
distance of the City of New Bedford were also reviewed for possible use as sludge disposal
facilities. A number of successive screening steps using cost and environmental criteria
(shown in Table 5), in addition to acreage requirements and other technical considerations,
resulted in the identification of sites worthy of detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS. These
were the Crapo Hill Landfill (a proposed solid waste landfill in Dartmouth), Site 47 (near the
airport and adjacent to the New Bedford municipal golf course and an existing solid waste
landfill), and Site 40 (near the Polaroid facility and the Acushnet Cedar Swamp). These
three sites are shown in Figure 2.
After the site screening process had narrowed the number of candidate sites to 3, the ability
of those sites to accommodate the different sludge technologies was calculated based on the
volume required for the different disposal options and the available landfill volume at each
site. All of the sites were initially considered for all of the alternative technologies --
anaerobic digestion, chemical fixation, composting, incineration, and lime stabilization. The
results are shown in Table 6. Early in the technology and site screening process, a decision
was made to attempt to locate all sludge treatment facilities at one site to make sludge
handling and plant operations most efficient. Primary and secondary sludge processing (i.e.,
thickening, stabilization, and dewatering) are typically done at the WWTP site rather than at
the sludge disposal site if space allows because there is less duplication of facilities and
personnel as well as financial advantages to consolidating the sludge processing steps.
9
-------
Table 4
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
FOR PROCESS EVALUATIONS
Criteria Ratings
Reliability Low Average High
Flexibility Low Average High
Constructibility Difficult Normal
Safety Special Normal
Operators Required Greater Average Fever
Operational Complexity Difficult Average Simple
Power £fficiency Lov Average High
Auxiliary Needs (No auxiliary need or specific need)
Residuals Disposal Difficult Average Good
Air Emissions Control Difficult Average Good
Noise Control Difficult Average Good
Aesthetics Average Good
CI 4 Final FP/EIR, Vol. III, 1990
10
-------
Primary
Sludge
Secondary
(WAS)
Sludge
Legend:
F I - Recommended Process Train
— — I — — Recommended ilackup Unit Process
.1
‘I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
Stabilization - —
•Lime
.1
Figure 3
RECOMMENDED SLUDGE TREATMENT
PROCESS TRAIN
Sludge
Storage
Dewatering
(High Solids)
Centrifuge
Chemical
Fixation
Chemfix
Cover
Material
Landfill
LandI ill
• Sludge Only
Area Fill
• Sludge Only
Trench Fill
• Co-disposal
Adapted from CDM, 1989
-------
Table 5
IMPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
Constraints
Implications
Floodplain (100 year)
Wetlands and Vaterbodies
Freshwater — includes
bordering vegetated
wetlands, banks, land
permanently under water
Groundwater
Potential as high and
medium yield groundwater
source
Historic and Archaeological
Resources
Deed restrictions and
easements
Zoning
Residential
Existing On-site Land Uses
C 4 Final FP/EIR, Vol. Ill, 1990
Construction of a sludge disposal
facility in the 100—year floodplain is
not permitted under state regulations.
Disturbance of areas greater than 5,000
sq ft of bordering vegetated wetlands
requires a variance, which would
significantly impact the project
schedule. Generally, all areas that are
disturbed must be replaced within the
same hydrologic system.
State guidelines prohibit construction of
sludge landfills over aquifers that are
or could be used as a water supply.
Historic and archaeologic resources are
considered in terms of direct impacts,
which would disturb the integrity of
building or remains, and indirect
impacts, which change the
character/context or would impede public
access, and hence, enjoyment of an
historic resource.
Need to accommodate the deed restrictions
and easements in relation to the use of
the land, access, or other requirements.
Reflects incompatibility of facility with
types of land uses for the area.
Permanent disruption, perhaps requiring
relocation of existing uses.
12
-------
Table 6
SOLIDS DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR SITES IN NEW BEDFORD
(Based on Average Year)
Site 20
Site
40
Site 47
without
without
without
Disposal Option/Available Volume Impacts
Impacts
WWTP
Available volume at each site
0.41 mill 1.89 mill 1.55 mill
cy cy cy
1) Incineration with 0.71 mill cy no yes yes
High Solids, 15 year 20.7 ac (16.1 yrs)
ash landfill + 5 year
lime stab. sludge
landfill vol.
2) Chemical Fixation with 1.10 mill cy no yes yes
High Solids, 20 year 30.1 ac (7.5 yrs)
landfill vol.
3) Incineration with Low 1.33 mill cy no yes yes
Solids, 15 year ash 35.8 ac (6.2 yrs)
landfill + 5 year lime
stab. sludge landfill
vol.
4) Anaerobic Digestion 1.63 mill cy no yes no
with High Solids, 18 43.0 ac (5.0 yrs) (19.0 yrs)
year landfill vol.
+2 yr lime stab.
5) Lime Stabilization 1.75 mill cy no yes no
with High Solids, 45.8 ac (4.7 yrs) (17.7 yrs)
20 year landfill vol.
6) Chemical Fixation 1.80 mill cy no yes no
with Low Solids, 20 46.8 ac (4.7 yrs) (17.2 yrs)
year landfill vol.
without impacts a Available landfill volume without impacting wetlands or high
and medium yield groundwater areas.
13
-------
Table 6 (continued)
SOLIDS DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR SITES IN NEW BEDFORD
(Based on Average Year)
Disyosal Option/Available Volume
Site 20
without
Imvacts
Site 40 Site 47
without without
Impacts WWTP
Available volume at each site
0.41 mill
cy
1.89 mill 1.55 mill
cy cy
7) Invessel with High 2.11
Solids, 18 year land-
fill vol. + 2 yr
lime stab. backup
mill cy
54.3 ac
no no no
(3.9 yrs) (17.9 yrs) (14.7 yrs)
8) Invessel with Low 2.89
Solids, 18 year
landfill vol. + 2
yr lime stab.
mill cy
72.4 ac
no no no
(2.8 yrs) (13.1 yrs) (10.7 yrs)
9) Anaerobic Digestion 2.90
with Low Solids, 18
year landfill vol.
+ 2 yr lime stab.
mill cy
72.5 ac
no no no
(2.8 yrs) (13.0 yrs) (10.7 yrs)
10) Lime Stabilization 4.69
with Low Solids,
20 year landfill
vol.
mill cy
113.6 ac
no no no
(1.7 yrs) (8.1 yrs) (6.6 yrs)
NOTES
mill cy — million cubic yards
Area requirements do not include buffer
Yes or no indicates whether or not the site can support designated landfill
volume.
without impacts — Available landfill volume without impacting wetlands or high
and medium yield groundwater areas.
( ) - Landfill Life Expectancy in Years
Adapted from: CDM, Volume III, 1989.
14
-------
2.1.3 Effluent Outfall
The screening and evaluation process for outfall alternatives also involved three steps:
• determination of the quality and quantity of effluent to be discharged by the
new treatment plant;
• development of the best mechanism and construction technology through which
to discharge the effluent; and
• selection of the best discharge location.
The latter two steps were carried out simultaneously, although the outcome of both was
ultimately dependent upon effluent quality and quantity. Furthermore, choices made for
technology and siting alternatives were also interdependent.
Seven alternatives for the effluent outfall were initially identified. Each involved pipe
constructionor rehabilitation, with or without addition of a diffuser. Factors considered in
screening included engineering feasibility, con structability, and cost criteria. The outfall
screening criteria are listed in Table 7. This screening process, discussed in detail in
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Draft EIS, identified the following three alternatives for further
evaluation at the two locations shown in Figure 4.
• rehabilitation of the existing 60” pipe at the Existing Site;
• dredging of a trench and placement of a new outfall pipe this trench, with a
seabed diffuser at its terminus discharging at the Existing Site; and
• construction of a new tunnel to the 301(h) Site, with a seabed diffuser at its
terminus.
The Existing Site is located at the terminus of the present outfall from the Fort Rodman
wastewater treatment plant (see Fig. 4). The site is located in outer New Bedford Harbor
approximately 1000 m (3300 feet) south-southeast of Fort Rodman, at a depth of 9 m (29
feet) at mean low water. The 30 1(h) Site is located 7 km (22,200 feet) south of Clarks
Point, south-southwest of Negro Ledge, at a depth of 14 m (45 Feet) at mean low water
(Fig. 4).
2.2 Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
Chapters 5 and 6 of the Draft EIS and Chapter 2 of the Final EIS assessed the existing
conditions at the candidate WWTP, sludge disposal, and outfall sites remaining after
screening and predicted the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed use of each
site for the following potential impact areas:
15
-------
Table 7
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR OUTFALL SITING CRITERIA.
Environmental
Ability to meet EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Conformance with Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
Avoidance of Adverse Sediment Accumulation
Ability to Protect Local Species from Adverse Stress
Ability to Maintain Ecosystem Structure
Maintenance and Enhancement of Aesthetic Conditions
Protection of Shoreline
Protection of Marine Archeology
Construction Impacts
Engineering
Reliability
Flexibility
Constructab ii ity
Operational Complexity
Power Needs
Quality and Quantity of Dredged Material for Disposal
and/or Relocation
Cost
Permitting
Source: CDM, Volume IV, 1989.
16
-------
• On-site and Adjacent Land Use;
• Transportation and Traffic;
• Water Quality;
• Air QUaiity and Odors;
• Terrestrial, Wetland, and Marine Ecosystems;
• Socioeconomics; and
• Cultural Resources.
This section summarizes those findings and suggests mitigation measures for impacts
predicted to be significant.
2.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites
2.2.1.1 Short-Term Impacts
Anticipated short-term impacts during construction of the WWFP at either site include
increased traffic, fugitive dust, and noise. Recommended mitigation measures to alleviate
potential traffic problems during construction at Site 1A include policing the intersection of
JFK Boulevard and Cove Street during peak traffic hours, and scheduling construction work
shifts so as not to coincide with peak traffic flows. Traffic problems were not predicted to
be as severe at Site 4A, and could be avoided with minimal mitigation. To mitigate air
quality impacts during construction at either site, it was recommended that dust suppressants
be applied to main truck routes within the site to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
Typical sustained noise levels during WW1’P construction would be audible over background
noise levels at either site. Noise levels would be highest when rock drills were operating,
and when blasting took place. During this time, which should not last more than 6 months,
peak noise levels at the site boundaries could range up to 74 dBA at Site 1A and up to 83
dBA at Site 4A. Typical sustained construction noise levels at the nearest residences would
increase about 9 dBA at Site lA, but would not audibly increase at Site 4A because the
residences are at least 1000 feet away from construction noise sources and are separated from
the site by a highway. The City plans to minimize construction noise impacts at Site 1A by
placing a noise barrier such as an acoustic wall or berm along the northern boundary of the
site. This will reduce typical sustained construction noise levels at residences across the
street by 10 dBA. In addition, use of the best available noise muffling equipment on all
large pieces of construction equipment will achieve up to an additional 10 dBA reduction in
daytime noise. With these two measures, construction noise levels at the residences will only
occasionally be audible over the prevailing ambient traffic noise. Further mitigation
measures such as temporary barriers or enclosures should also be committed to by the City,
as needed, to control peak noise levels due to blasting and rock drilling.
18
-------
2.2.1.2 Long-Term Impacts
The construction of a WW’l’P at either Site 1A or 4A would, to a certain extent, conflict with
existing on-site and adjacent land use. At Site 1A, existing educational, social service, and
recreational facilities would be displaced, thereby requiring significant coordination between
the City and federal, state, and local agencies to relocate and replace those facilities. In
addition, there were deed restrictions on certain portions of the site which would have to be
removed before it could be used for a WWTP. At Site 4A, the WWTP would not be
compatible with the existing use of the site for recreation and as a parking area for local
industry; these uses would be displaced. However, the relocation effort required at Site 4A
would not be as major as that required at Site 1A.
A WWTP would not be compatible with adjacent residential land use at either candidate site.
There are approximately 450 single family residences within a one-half mile radius of Site
1A and 3,200 multi-family and single family residences in the vicinity of Site 4A. The
residences at Site 1A are separated from the site by Rodney French Boulevard and those at
Site 4A are separated from the site by a major highway. These roads would act as buffers to
help minimize the potential for any adjacent land use impacts due to a new WWTP.
Recommended land use mitigation measures at Site 1A included relocation of educational,
social service, and recreational facilities (providing them with comparable facilities at other
sites within the City of New Bedford), and development of a waterfront park and recreational
fields adjacent to the WWFP. The City’s proposed Taber Park would not only act as a
buffer to the adjacent neighborhoods, but would also improve public access to the waterfront,
provide recreational opportunities, and help preserve the Fort Taber Historical District by
stabilizing the fort and documenting the history of Clark’s Point through signs and public
exhibits of historic documents and photographs.
Potential land use impact mitigation measures at Site 4A included projects to improve public
access to the waterfront and upgrading the South First Street neighborhood. At the time the
project was initially proposed, waterfront access projects included creation of Palmer’s Island
(a condominium and marina complex), upgrading of the existing boat ramp, and provision of
parking facilities for the public. Infrastructure and facility improvements could include
building improvements and the creation of a neighborhood civic organization. Since that
time, plans for the Palmer’s Cove development were abandoned by the developer as a result
of the downturn in the economy, and the land was bought back by the mortgage company.
Although the Palmer’s Cove plan is no longer viable, Site 4A, being privately owned and not
subject to any deed restrictions as Site 1A is, is still considered a good candidate site for
industrial or mixed use development.
During operation of a WWTP, 14 additional car and no additional truck trips (over present
conditions), and 74 car and 48 truck trips would be required each day at Site 1A and 4A
respectively. Despite the small increase in traffic loads over existing conditions at Site 1A
(due to the existing treatment plant), due to its proximity to residential areas and its distance
from major highways, Site 1A has a greater potential for traffic impacts than Site 4A. The
main access route to Site 1A is Rodney French Boulevard, so additional traffic associated
with the WWTP could impact the nearby residential dwellings and local health clinic.
19
-------
Locating a WWTP at Site 4A, however, would not produce any noticeable traffic impacts
because it is located adjacent to a major limited access highway. In order to minimize traffic
impacts due to plant operation at Site 1A, road improvements should be made by the City at
the intersection of West Rodney French Boulevard/Cove Road and Brock Avenue.
Site 1A is most compatible with the existing wastewater conveyance system because all
existing dry weather flow currently flows to the site by gravity. Conveyance system
improvements associated with locating the WWTP at Site 1A would be minimal and would
be necessary only to correct some existing hydraulic capacity deficiencies. Site 4A is not as
compatible with the existing wastewater conveyance system as Site 1A, but the necessary
conveyance system modifications would not be extensive. Much of the flow could be
diverted by gravity. The existing Cove Road pumping station would have to be modified and
a new force main constructed, which would result in some traffic and street disruption, but
these additions would not significantly increase maintenance requirements. Modifications to
wastewater conveyance systems on Clark’s Point would also be necessary and would require
a new pumping station and force main, but these facilities would only be for a small
percentage of total City flow. The required conveyance system modifications are described
in greater detail in the City’s Draft FP/EIR Volume II, Section 8.
EPA has determined that constructing a WWTP in the floodplain at Site 1A would not
constitute a critical action requiring protection from a storm of 500-year magnitude.
Nevertheless, EPA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency recommend that a
WWTP built at Site 1A be designed to withstand greater than the 100-year flood. Mitigation
measures proposed by the City to provide protection at the 500-year stillwater level (no wave
action), include:
• constructing all facilities outside of the coastal high hazard zone;
• raising site grading to above elevation 11.5 ft.;
• constructing all first floors of buildings above elevation 13.5 ft.;
• for buildings with basements, insuring that water cannot reach basements until
flood level exceeds 13.5 ft.;
• providing stoplogs or equivalent for all garage entrances to buildings to keep
water out up to elevation 13.5 ft.; and
• mounting motors for sludge collector drives above elevation 13.5 ft. on all
process tankage.
These measures are a part of the City’s recommended plan. Taking these measures would
ensure that valuable equipment would be protected from water damage during a 500-year
flood. No protection would be installed to prevent inundation of tanks by flood waters rising
above elevation 13.5 feet because saltwater intrusion would not damage the tanks, but only
interrupt operations, which would be resumed once floodwaters had receded. Floodplain
20
-------
impacts are not a significant concern at Site 4A because only two acres of that site are in the
100-year floodplain and the site is protected by a hurricane barrier.
It is projected that there would be moderate air quality impacts from locating the WWTP at
either of the two alternative sites. Overall, both sites are considered equal with respect to
compliance with air quality and odor criteria. At both Sites 1A and 4A, the level of
mitigation needed to meet air quality standards is achievable through control technologies
normally applied to WWTPs. Although any air quality impacts at Site 4A would affect a
larger population (because there are more residences within one-half mile of Site 4A than
there are at Site 1A), these differences are not significant compared to other assumptions
made in the air quality analysis.
Impacts associated with plant operation noise would not be significant at either candidate
WWTP site. In both cases, the projected noise levels in the adjacent residential areas would
not exceed the noise criteria, and thus no significant noise impacts to nearby residences
would be expected to result from WWTP operation at either site. Minimization of
operational noise impacts would be accomplished through good engineering practice,
including muffling blower intakes, noise exhausts or generators, housing motors, and using
acoustical dampening and barriers around noisy equipment.
Construction of the WWTP would result in the alteration of sensitive areas due to filling.
Although coastal wetland resources would be avoided at either site, some minor filling would
be necessary at Site lA, arid filling of approximately 2000 square feet of wetlands and
isolated patches of reeds would be required to construct the WWTP at Site 4A. No
significant impacts to terrestrial ecology are predicted from siting the W’WTP at either Site
1A or 4A, other than the irreversible impacts resulting from filling of wetlands during
construction at Site 4A, as described above.
Cultural resource impacts associated with the location of a wastewater treatment plant in the
City of New Bedford include impacts to historic, archaeological, visual, and recreational
resources as well as socioeconomic impacts such as lost opportunity costs. A WWTP at Site
1A would be in close proximity to historic and archaeological resources because the site
contains the Fort Taber Historical District and several other historic structures and artifacts
potentially eligible for inclusion in the District or listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. The Massachusetts Historic Commission advised the City that if the City selected
Site IA as its preferred site for the WWTP, a more detailed evaluation would have to be
conducted to determine National Register Eligibility in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Location of a WWTP at Site 4A was predicted to have a moderate impact on historic and
archaeological resources because although no National Register eligible resources have yet
been identified, the site could potentially contain archaeological artifacts from prehistoric
times, the War of 1812, and a 19th century candle factory. If the City selected Site 4A as its
preferred site for the WWTP, a more detailed survey of the site and several adjacent
properties would be required in order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act
21
-------
and develop any necessary mitigation for adversely affected National Register eligible
resources.
The proposed WWTP is predicted to have a significant impact on visual resources at Site 1A
but only a moderate impact at Site 4A. The existing conditions at Site 1A provide an open
view of the ocean from the Fort Taber area and adjacent residential neighborhoods; thus
there are a number of locations from which the WWTP would be visible. Mitigation
measures to reduce the visual impacts of locating the new WWTP at Site 1A have been
incorporated in the proposed Taber Park mitigation plan. The park improvements would
rejuvenate the site, which is currently in disrepair, and significantly improve its appearance.
The view of the site from the water would be improved when the existing treatment plant is
demolished and plantings would be used along South Rodney French Boulevard to screen
views of the new WWTP from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
At Site 4A, existing visual quality would only be moderately impacted because views of the
site are limited by the adjacent industrial buildings and the hurricane barrier. The highway
bordering the site to the west separates it from the only residential area from which the
WWTP would be visible; thus views from that neighborhood would not be greatly degraded.
Similar to Site 1A, the proposed neighborhood improvements in relation to mitigation of land
use impacts at Site 4A (discussed in Section 7.3.2.2 of the Draft EIS) would also mitigate
visual impacts at the site. The benefits of the proposed Taber Park plan at Site 1A and
neighborhood improvements at Site 4A would also help to offset the potential socioeconomic
impacts to the City associated with constructing a WWTP at one of its two remaining
undeveloped waterfront sites.
Locating the WWTP at either candidate site would have a significant impact on recreational
uses on-site. At Site 1A, tennis courts and playing fields would be displaced by construction
of the WWTP. At Site 4A, there are many recreational uses including baseball, softball,
basketball, soccer, and bicycle racing. These resources would all be displaced by use of the
site for a WWTP. However, the impacts resulting from relocation would be mitigated by
improved public access to the waterfront and the new recreational facilities that have been
proposed as part of the Taber Park and Site 4A mitigation plans. These plans include
provisions for picnic areas, hiking paths, and boating facilities.
The potential for on-site contamination was not expected to be a significant constraint to
WWTP construction at either candidate site. Because Army activities at Site 1A have
resulted in minor contamination (including contamination from fuel storage and waste oil), a
Phase I Limited Site Investigation Report was prepared by the City in compliance with MGL
Chapter 21e. After reviewing that report, the MA DEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
(Bureau) determined on January 27, 1992 that the U.S. Army Reserve Center at Fort
Rodman should be classified as a non-priority site because it does not constitute a substantial
hazard to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment. The Bureau also advised the
City that any necessary remediation could take place during construction. Site 4A was also
investigated as part of compliance with MGL Chapter 21e. Extensive test pitting activities
revealed no evidence of significant contamination, though some minor contamination was
detected at one location. For either site, any project impact with respect to on-site
22
-------
contamination would be a positive one because remediation would take place prior to
construction.
There was a difference between the two alternative sites in the projected socioeconomic
impacts associated with locating the WWTP at Site 1A versus Site 4A. The cost of building
the WWTP (capital and operation and maintenance) was roughly the same for both sites.
However, the potential development revenues which might be realized at the two sites in the
absence of a WWTP differed significantly. Potential alternate uses of Site 1A, which
included combinations of housing, park land, and marina space, could have generated
estimated annual tax revenues of up to $1.6 million. Although there could also have been
non-quantifiable benefits associated with alternate development at Site 1A (e.g., additional
housing, additional park land, improved access to the waterfront) the deed restrictions on
portions of the site made it uncertain as to whether such plans could have been implemented.
The opportunity cost analysis in the Draft ELS estimated that alternate use of Site 4A for
industrial or mixed uses such as the Palmer’s Cove development could generate up to $3.4
million annually in property taxes to the City. Although the economic climate has changed
since the opportunity cost analysis was performed and plans have been abandoned for the
Palmer’s Cove development, EPA still considers the site a good candidate for industrial or
mixed use development due to the fact that it is privately owned with no complicating deed
restrictions. In addition, development at Site 4A still has the potential to bring improvements
to an under-utilized site, to be consistent with New Bedford Economic Development
Commission’s goal of increased industrial development, to improve access to the waterfront,
and even possibly to lead to improvement or rehabilitation of surrounding neighborhoods.
2.2.2 Sludge Disposal Sites
2.2.2.1 Short-Term Impacts
Short-term, reversible impacts during construction of the solids disposal landfill may include
increased traffic, fugitive dust and noise, and potential wetlands and ecological impacts.
Approximately 13 car and 43 truck trips per day would occur during construction at either
Site 40 or 47. Access to Site 47 would be along the railroad tracks from Shawmut Avenue
with a bridge over the wetlands to the landfill. Traffic impacts due to construction at Site 47
would occur only during peak evening traffic (2 pm - 5 pm), when left-turning trucks could
contribute to delays at the southbound on-ramp to Route 140. Traffic impacts during
construction activities at Site 40 could include increased delays at the intersection of Rice
Boulevard/Braley Road/Phillips Road between 3 pm and 4 pm on workdays. For this case, it
was recommended that transport be scheduled so as not to occur during this hour of peak
traffic at that location.
Fugitive dust emissions created during landfill construction could potentially cause an impact
to off-site receptors. At both Site 47 and Site 40, fugitive dust emissions created during
construction and operation should be mitigated through the use of good engineering practices
such as sprinkling water or a dust suppressant on both access roads and the landfill area.
23
-------
Noise from construction of solids disposal facilities at Site 47 would be audible only within
about 400 feet of the site, which includes a portion of the golf course. Noise levels of up to
78 CIBA at the edge of the course are predicted. No residences would be affected.
Construction activities at Site 40 would increase noise levels at site boundaries, but noise
increases at the nearest residences (Pine Hill Acres) would not be significant. Although
Polaroid has four buildings closer to the eastern site boundary than the Pine Hill Acres
development, the proposed access route would enter the site on the northern side. Also,
Polaroid has a central air handling system and without open windows, operational noises
would be expected to have little impact on that facility.
2.2.2.2 Long-Term Impacts
Construction of a 20-year solids disposal landfill at Site 47 would result in significant
wetlands impacts. Specifically, construction of the Final Phase of the sludge landfill would
result in filling of a large area of wetlands. Impacts to wetlands due to the extensive filling
that would have to occur during construction of a Final Phase Landfill at Site 47 could not be
reasonably mitigated. In contrast, no wetlands would need to be filled in order to develop
only the initial phase of the sludge landfill at Site 47 as part of the alternative including use
of chemically fixed sludge as daily cover at the Crapo Hill Landfill. The initial-phase
landfill layout avoids wetlands and the proposed access road would bridge the wetlands on
that portion of the site.
It is not anticipated that any wetland filling would be required for construction of a solids
disposal facilities at Site 40, although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not verified the
federal wetland boundary at that site. If the City were to revisit use of Site 40 as part of its
current supplemental sludge management facilities plan (see discussion in Section 3.1),
further wetlands delineation would be required before making any determination of site
acceptability. Nonetheless, potential impacts due to construction activity at Site 40 would
include erosion and siltation, which could impact wetlands in the adjacent Acushnet Cedar
Swamp. In addition, several species of special concern are reported to occur in the Acushnet
Cedar Swamp and could be affected by development at Site 40 unless precautions are taken.
To alleviate possible impact on the Acushnet Cedar Swamp and its special habitat, both
buffer zones and erosion and sedimentation control measures (e.g., containment berms, use
of double liners, and erosion control techniques such as silt curtains and haybales) would
have to be implemented at Site 40.
Both Site 40 and Site 47 are currently vacant and there are no existing adjacent residential
areas. Some areas aiijacent to Site 47 are zoned for residential use, but they are far from the
facility area and buffered by vegetation. Industrial uses around the sites (including the
municipal solid waste landfill and incinerator adjacent to Site 47) would be compatible with
the proposed solid waste facilities, however there are potential land-use conflicts associated
with Site 40 that diminish its potential utility as a sludge disposal site. There is a proposal
pending for an Eastern Energy cogeneration facility on this site. The project proponent has
received a permit from the Energy Facilities Siting Council (currently being appealed), its air
license from the DEP, has successfully completed the state environmental review process in
24
-------
accordance with MEPA, and is currently negotiating purchase of the parcel from the owner
of the site, Polaroid Corporation.
Traffic generated during operation of solids disposal facilities at either Site 40 or Site 47
would consist of 5 car and 14 truck trips per day. These would not result in significant
impacts because the additional traffic would be only a small increase from existing
conditions, and would be consistent with the general character of the routes.
The maximum seasonal high groundwater level at Site 47 is likely within four feet of the
ground surface under most if not all of the site. Therefore, the State landfill design criterion
of a 4 foot minimum separation between the bottom of the landfill liner and the maximum
high groundwater level would not be met without raising the ground elevation of much of the
area, resulting in potentially significant impacts. This same situation exists at Site 40. In
addition, groundwater near Site 40 is currently used for industrial purposes, and a portion of
the site has been preliminarily identified as being within the Zone II area of a possible future
public drinking water supply (although the likelihood of that supply being developed is low
because of other potential existing contamination problems). No groundwater supply
impacts are anticipated at Site 47, however, mitigation would be required for either site to be
suitable for a landfill. The sites would require extensive filling to ensure the required 4-foot
separation between the bottom-most landfill liner and the seasonal high groundwater. In
addition, more extensive investigations would have to be conducted at Site 40 to determine
accurate boundaries for the Zone II area of the potential water supply. The conclusions of a
preliminary Zone II analysis conducted by the City’s engineers are summarized on page 4-21
of the Final EIS. It is the current policy of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection that landfills not be constructed within the Zone II area of any existing or potential
public drinking water supply. Therefore, the boundaries of such an area at Site 40 would
dictate the size and layout of any potential landfill there. Because runoff from solids disposal
facilities would be controlled at either site, no surface water impacts would be expected.
No significant air quality or odor impacts were predicted at Sites 40 or 47 because the sludge
wiU undergo either chemical fixation or lime stabilization at the WWTP, which will
minimize volatilization of organic material prior to transport to the disposal site. Also, there
are no sensitive receptors in the immediate area of either site. EPA is aware that odor and
consistency problems with one of the patented processes (ChemFix ) for chemical fixation
of sludge have been encountered in isolated instances. However, as other patented processes
are available, EPA believes these problems can be avoided entirely or addressed adequately
through proper mitigation and contingency measures. Should it be determined that mitigation
is not possible or not adequate to ensure the goal of no detectable odors, the City will have
to address this issue in its Supplemental Sludge Management FP/EIR (see discussion in
Section 3.1).
Polaroid expressed concern in comments on the Draft EIS that air pollutants from a sludge
disposal facility at Site 40 could affect the company’s photographic film production processes
and products and generate odors detectable at their nearby facility. However, because the
physical characteristics of chemically fixed sludge are such that little dust is produced, and
25
-------
the landfilled material would be covered with soil daily, no significant impact on air quality
or Polaroid’s operations would be expected.
Again, because there are no residential areas or other sensitive receptors adjacent to either
Site 40 or 47, noise impacts during operation of solids disposal facilities are not predicted to
be significant. Noise level increases at the closest residential areas, the Pine Acres
Subdivision (near Site 40) or the Hathaway Road/Witlow Street intersection (near Site 47),
are predicted to be less than 1 dBA.
No visual impacts are predicted to result from operation of solids disposal facilities at either
Site 40 or 47 because they are not near residences and views would be buffered by
vegetation at either site.
Potentially significant archaeological artifacts were found during investigations at both Sites
40 and 47 and the Massachusetts Historic Commission advised the City that a Phase II
detailed investigation should be conducted at the site selected for the landfill.
2.2.3 Effluent Outfall
2.2.3.1 Short-Term Impacts
Short-term reversible impacts on water quality and the benthic community are predicted to
occur during construction for all three outfall alternatives under consideration. Dredging
would be required for outfall options that require diffusers, and these dredging operations
would temporarily resuspend bottom sediments into the water column. Sediments near the
current discharge are extremely contaminated and during dredging activities in this area,
polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and other contaminants would be unavoidably dispersed
into the water column, possibly resulting in some short-term water quality criteria violations.
Although dredging would also be required during construction of a new diffuser at the 301(h)
Site, the amount of material dredged and the contaminant levels in the sediment would be
much lower.
Sediment control techniques such as silt curtains and barrier shields could be used to help
confine sediment disturbance and minimize water quality impacts, where conditions will
allow them to be deployed. Also, sensitive areas (e.g., shellfish beds, known spawning
grounds, likely habitats for endangered species, archaeologically important areas), should be
identified so their protection can be factored into the fmal design.
Short-term impacts for the rehabilitation alternative would result from the disposal of
accumulated grit within the existing outfall pipe onto the sediments surrounding the
discharge. Rehabilitation of the existing discharge includes removing the extensive amount
of grit which has accumulated in several areas within the outfall. This grit, which contains
extremely high concentrations of several heavy metals, would be pushed out of the outfall
pipe and would cover some area of the bottom around the current discharge. This would
result in increased sediment toxic concentrations and could potentially alter sediment grain
26
-------
size in an area surrounding the outfall. A small area of the seabed would be covered with
contaminated debris, threatening survival of benthic organisms and increasing risks from
bioaccumulation. Recolonization of the area would be delayed until sediment reworking
returns the sediments to a condition favorable for resettlement.
2.2.3.2 Long-Term Impacts
Irreversible impacts predicted to occur during construction are related to habitat loss.
Approximately 1200 m 2 of seabed would be destroyed during construction of a diffuser at the
301(h) Site. Installation of a new pipe and diffuser at the existing outfall would result in the
loss of 27,000 m 2 of benthic habitat. No irreversible impacts are predicted to result from
rehabilitation of the existing outfall.
The presence of shipwrecks near the 301(h) Site increases the potential for archeological
impacts during construction at this site. However, if the outfall remains at the Existing Site,
there is much less potential for impacts due to the previously disturbed nature of the area.
Due to time constraints, the City has postponed further marine archaeology work until a later
date. Before any construction can begin, the City will have to provide MHC and EPA with
complete information (previously requested by MHC in a 9/19/89 letter) regarding the
identity, age, location, integrity, and potential significance of all shipwrecks in the area, in
order to determine whether any mitigation measures will be necessary to avoid or minimize
any anticipated impacts at the selected site in accordance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
Under worst-case conditions, secondary effluent discharge is predicted to result in levels of
contaminants that exceed EPA’s human health and aquatic toxicity water quality criteria for
all three outfall alternatives. The number of exceedances would be greatest for the
rehabilitation alternative and lowest for the 301(h) Site. The predicted exceedances of water
quality criteria and standards at the candidate outfall sites may affect biological communities.
Eight and four EPA water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life were predicted to
be exceeded at the Existing Site for the rehabilitation and new pipe with diffuser alternatives,
respectively. In particular, predicted copper concentrations were higher than levels shown to
be acutely toxic to blue mussels. One water quality criterion was predicted to be exceeded at
the 301(h) Site.
The response of the biota to toxic chemicals in a discharge can be predicted by examining the
results of whole effluent toxicity tests and by comparing water column concentrations of
contaminants to aquatic life criteria and sediment contaminant concentrations to threshold
values in the literature. No acute toxicity was predicted for any of the outfall alternatives,
based on whole effluent toxicity testing done with a simulated secondary effluent. Using
simulated effluent, chronic toxicity was predicted to occur for the rehabilitation alternative.
A discharge at the Existing Site from a new pipe with a diffuser would have sufficient initial
dilution to avoid chronic toxicity approximately 70% of the time. The 301(h) Site would
have sufficient initial dilution to avoid chronic toxicity 99% of the time. Sufficient dilution
to reach the no observable effects level would not be attained at the Existing Site with either
alternative. It would be attained at the 301(h) Site 95% of the time.
27
-------
The predicted chlorine residual concentrations around the Existing Site were above
concentrations known to be acutely toxic to some marine species. Residual chlorine levels at
the Existing Site (either option) at the edge of the mixing zone were predicted to exceed the
EPA chronic criteria. The 301(h) Site was not predicted to have chlorine toxicity problems
due to increased dilution capabilities and longer chlorine contact time (longer travel time in
the outfall pipe), allowing for lower chlorine dosing at the plant.
A secondary effluent at either site would increase the nitrogen input into the area around the
discharge. Nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient for phytoplankton and primary production
in marine systems. It seems likely that additional nutrient input would result in increased
primary productivity at both candidate sites, perhaps as much as double the current level at
the 30 1(h) Site. Extremely high levels of primary productivity currently occur at the
Existing Site due primarily to the current discharge. There is evidence to indicate that
nutrient-limitation does not exist for part of the year and thus the input of additional nutrients
from a new secondary discharge might slightly increase these high levels. The major result
of a secondary discharge at the Existing Site would be a dramatic increase in the areal extent
of this high level of productivity from the current estimated 1 square kilometer to
approximately 6 square kilometers, or 2/3 of the Outer Harbor.
A secondary impact resulting from this high level of productivity is the deposition of high
concentrations of organic carbon. The degradation of this organic material by natural
processes results in low dissolved oxygen concentrations near the bottom.
Historical dissolved oxygen (DO) records indicated that periods of extremely low DO
occurred in the bottom waters in areas near the existing discharge. The low DO
concentrations were primarily the result of solids in the discharge and organic matter being
deposited by the high levels of primary productivity being stimulated by the existing
discharge. Additional data was collected using continuous DO meters in the summer of
1990, which indicated DO in some areas near the discharge dipped to below 5.0 mg/i for up
to one week durations. Literature has indicated that extended exposure to DO concentrations
below 5.0 mg/i can be toxic to sensitive species (e.g., American Lobster). DO never
dropped below 5.0 mg/i and rarely dropped below 6.0 mg/i (the current State standard) near
the 301(h) Site.
The State DO standard would probably be violated by all three outfall alternatives
occasionally, but the major difference that occurs is the frequency, duration, and magnitude
of the violations. The 301(h) Site would have many fewer DO violations, and DO
concentrations are not predicted to fall below 5.0 mg/i. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
resulting from a discharge at the Existing Site would be similar for the existing pipe or a
discharge with a diffuser. The frequency of violations of the State’s DO standard would be
much greater than those experienced at the 301(h) Site. Also, the magnitude and duration of
the violations would be greater at the Existing Site than at the 301(h) Site. Occasionally, DO
around the existing discharge will fall below 5.0 mg/i, however, in general the duration of
these low DO events are not of sufficient duration to cause a significant biological impact.
28
-------
Effluent discharge is predicted to change the levels of trace metals and PCB’s in the
sediments. A discharge at the 301(h) Site would slightly elevate sediment concentrations of
trace metals and PCBs in a small area around the discharge. This increase is due to the
relatively low natural background concentrations currently found in this area and the
naturally low sedimentation rate. This low natural sedimentation rate means that solids from
the discharge make up a high percentage of all the solids being deposited into the sediments.
Solids from the discharge possess high concentrations of contaminants.
A discharge at the Existing Site (with or without the diffuser) would actually result in a
decrease in the sediment concentrations of many contaminants. This is primarily due to the
current extremely high concentrations of contaminants in the sediments. The sedimentation
rate at the Existing Site is much greater, so solids from the discharge are somewhat diluted
by a naturally high sedimentation rate. Due in part to existing conditions, a discharge at the
Existing Site would result in a large area of extremely high concentrations of PCBs and trace
metals in the sediments. A discharge at the Existing Site will result in a larger area of much
higher concentrations of contaminants than a similar discharge at the 30 1(h) Site.
The concentrations of contaminants in the sediments at the Existing Site would exceed
several threshold values. EPA has not yet developed sediment toxicity criteria; however a
sediment bioaccumulation criterion does exist for PCB’s. PCB levels in sediments were
predicted to continue to exceed this criterion at the Existing Site, but would not exceed it at
the 30 1(h) Site.
Effluent discharge is also predicted to increase sediment organic carbon levels by
approximately 4% at the Existing Site, and 9% at the 301(h) Site. Again, the greater
increase at the 301(h) site is due to the lower natural sedimentation rate at that site, and,
should the existing discharge cease, the total organic carbon level at the Existing Site would
remain much higher than that at the 301(h) Site for some period of time due to the effects of
the existing discharge.
Organic carbon inputs to sediment resulting from enhanced primary production would add to
the organic carbon input from the effluent. Sediment organic enrichment has a range of
effects on the underlying benthic community. In some cases, enrichment enhances benthic
productivity, while in other cases a stress-tolerant benthic community results. The benthic
community at the Existing Site is currently heavily stressed, thus any increase in organic
carbon would not likely alter community structure. The predicted increase in organic carbon
from a discharge at the 301(h) Site is minor, thus the benthic community structure is not
likely to be altered.
Neither of the candidate outfall areas contain critical habitat for threatened or endangered
species during any of their life stages. Although higher levels of contaminants and more
frequent plume surfacing would occur at the Existing Site in comparison to the 30 1(h) Site,
endangered and threatened species rarely occur in the project area, so the probability of
adverse impacts to these species at either site is low.
29
-------
Aesthetic impacts are related to the amount of time that the discharge plume reaches the
surface, and would be most severe at the Existing Site, where the discharge plume would
reach the surface all (under the rehabilitation option) or nearly all (for the new pipe and
diffuser option) of the time. The plume would surface a little more than half of the time at
the 301(h) Site. At the 301(h) Site, when the plume did surface, it would be much more
dilute and much farther from shore, further lessening aesthetic impacts.
No changes in the potential for nuisance algae blooms (such as red or brown tide) were
predicted for either site, and shoreline impacts from an outfall at either site are not expected.
Other impacts were also considered in evaluating the outfall alternatives. The long duration,
high complexity, and need for disposal of large quantities of excavated material for
construction of the 301(h) alternative obviously cause increased costs, currently estimated at
$70 million. At the Existing Site, installation of a new pipe and diffuser would involve
construction of moderate duration and complexity. Disposal of contaminated sediments for
this alternative would pose a logistical and costly challenge as well as an environmental risk.
Construction costs, not including disposal of this material, are estimated at $20 million. The
rehabilitation option at the Existing Site has the lowest impact in terms of construction
duration, complexity, and cost ($4-5 million). However, some level of additional treatment
would be needed in order to correct predicted toxicity problems at this site. This could
include an intensive pretreatment/source reduction program to decrease the amount of toxics
reaching the treatment plant or additional wastewater treatment processes designed to remove
problematic toxic pollutants once they have been fully identified. The cost of such toxicity
reduction measures has not been determined, however because the necessary toxicity
reduction is quite large, it is likely that the costs of such measures could be high.
The ability to meet future water quality needs must also be considered in addition to the
present needs. After full secondary treatment has been provided, the outfall’s flexibility in
meeting future water quality criteria is dependent on its potential for dilution. Both options
at the Existing Site are less able to meet the anticipated water quality needs of the future than
the 301(h) Site.
The only potentially feasible way of avoiding the adverse water quality and biological
impacts associated with outfall operation at the Existing Site is reduce the amount of toxic
and organic materials in the secondary effluent being discharged. This could be effected to
some degree by implementation of a Toxicity Reduction and Evaluation program. This
program would identify the following:
• the agent(s) responsible for the effluent toxicity problems;
• locations of important sources toxic agents;
• locations of important sources of pollutants predicted to exceed EPA Water
Quality;
30
-------
• correlations between different land uses and delivery of certain pollutants
through CSOs;
• a measure of the total in-plant capacity for removal of these pollutants; and
• a framework for allocating the treatment plant’s pollutant removal capacity
among polluters/regions in the watershed.
Implementation of the program should encourage (1) an evaluation of future land use and
zoning decisions and city-wide growth trends in light of their anticipated demand on the
treatment plant, and (2) cooperation between the City of New Bedford and private industry
through pretreatment pollutant reductions and/or transfers of allowable pollutant allocations.
The low dilution provided by the current outfall makes it unlikely that all toxicity problems
could be mitigated at this site even after implementation of an extensive Toxicity Reduction
and Evaluation program.
3. EPA DECISION
3.1 Environmentally Acceptable Options
As summarized in the previous sections, in the Draft and Final EISs, EPA evaluated the
potential impacts of various wastewater treatment management options, and identified
mitigation measures which could be used to reduce the predicted impacts for each potential
WWTP, sludge landfill, and effluent outfall site use. In doing so, it was necessary to take
into consideration the feasibility of the integrated plan to provide a reliable management
program for the full project planning period (1995-20 15). Although each component of the
plan was addressed separately, it was essential in considering alternative sites and
technologies to ensure that the interrelated components would work together as an integrated
treatment system.
Table 8 summarizes EPA’s acceptable management options for the three primary components
of the facilities plan: 1) secondary wastewater treatment plant siting, construction, and
operation; 2) sludge treatment and disposal; and 3) effluent discharge and outfall siting. All
of the options listed in Table 8 have been determined to be environmentally acceptable to
EPA with some mitigation required.
31
-------
Table 8
ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Secondary WWTP
Solids Disposal
Effluent Outfall
Site
1A
Crapo Hill
301(h) Site with Diffuser
Site
4A
Site 47; Initial
Phase Only
Existing Site with Diffuser
*
* - Contingent on meeting the regulatory requirements outlined on
pp. 34-35
It should benoted that Table 8 differs from Table 5.8 in the Final EIS in that Site 40 has
been removed from the list of environmentally acceptable alternatives because of several
unanswered questions concerning the site. Specifically, a Corps of Engineers wetlands
delineation would be required to ensure that no wetlands would be impacted, and more
extensive investigations would have to be conducted to determine accurate boundaries for the
Zone II area of potential water supply (which the landfill layout would have to then avoid).
Land use constraints could also preclude the use of Site 40 for a sludge landfill given the
status of the Eastern Energy proposal competing for use of that site (see discussion in Section
2.2.2.2). These issues were not pursued because Site 47 was the recommended site for the
backup landfill. EPA believes that Site 40 should not remain in the list of acceptable sludge
management options without further analysis. Although information gathered to date on Site
40 would not appear to preclude its use as a sludge landfill, additional studies would be
needed before its environmental acceptability could be fully determined. Until such time that
supplemental studies are conducted to address the unresolved issues concerning Site 40
(discussed above), it is EPA’s position that a backup landfill at Site 40 should not be
considered an environmentally acceptable sludge management option. -
The Draft and Final EISs found the City’s recommended plan for sludge disposal, reuse of
chemically-fixed sludge as daily cover material at the proposed Crapo Hill landfill with
backup lime stabilization and a 5-year backup sludge-only landfill at Site 47 to be
environmentally acceptable; however, there currently is some question as to the
implementability of that plan. The construction of the Crapo Hill landfill will require a
Proposition 2-½ override vote in both New Bedford and Dartmouth and there have been
some reports of odor and consistency problems with one of the patented processes
(ChemFix ) for chemical fixation of sludge in isolated instances (see discussion in Section
2.2.2.2).
32
-------
In response to concerns that the Proposition 2-½ override might not pass, that chemical
fixation may not prove to be viable, and other issues concerning the sludge treatment and
disposal plan, the City has initiated supplemental sludge management facilities planning. The
purpose of the Supplemental Sludge Management FPIEIR is to develop an alternative long-
term (20-year) sludge management plan in the event that the recommended plan proves
infeasible. The supplemental sludge facilities planning will be conducted in two phases.
Phase 1 will include an identification and preliminary screening evaluation of all reasonable
alternatives (including Site 40); Phase 2 will include a more detailed evaluation of only the
most promising options (CDM, Memorandum to Alan Slater, DEP, and Susan Coin, EPA
Region I, February 20, 1991). The following are included among the objectives of the Phase
1 preliminary evaluation:
• Update the status of the Phase 2 Final Wastewater Facilities Plan
recommendation to reuse chemically fixed sludge as daily cover material at the
proposed Crapo Hill landfill
• Summarize projected sludge quality and quantity
• Summarize the status of the proposed Site 47 sludge-only landfill design and
the estimated landfill capacity
• Define the additional disposal capacity required to provide the City with a 20-
year sludge management plan
• Develop a list of alternatives, including the following:
• Request for proposals for private-sector residuals treatment and disposal
for both short-term and long-term options
• Volume-reduction technologies such as sludge incineration and sludge
drying at a new facility (j ossibly at the site of the existing Shawmut
Avenue landfill incinerator)
• Additional sludge-only landfill construction at Site 40, at the proposed
Crapo Hill site, or at the existing Shawmut Avenue landfill site to
occur as the proposed Site 47 landfill reaches its useful life
• Disposal and/or sludge reuse options at existing or proposed facilities at
locations outside City limits but within the New England states and
upstate New York
Given continued uncertainties regarding the implementabiity of the City’s recommended
plan, EPA concurs with the City’s decision to initiate supplemental sludge management
facilities planning. EPA’s continued approval of the use of chemical fixation to treat the
sludge is contingent upon implementation of any necessary mitigation to preclude detectable
odors from the treated sludge. Although there remain uncertainties as to the viability of the
33
-------
proposal to chemically fix the sludge (as discussed above), this should not effect decisions
concerning the other parts of the plan (WWTP and outfall) because space for sludge
processing was factored into the area requirements for the WWTP and sludge processing,
whatever technology is ultimately selected (with the possible exception of composting), can
be performed at the WWTP site.
Should alternative management options for sludge disposal become necessary, EPA will
review and assess the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Sludge Management FP/EIR
as appropriate under NEPA. If necessary under 40 CFR § 1502.9(c), a Supplemental Final
E IS addressing alternative sludge management options would be prepared.
Throughout the planning process, EPA’s role has been to evaluate the City’s proposed
program and alternatives to it in accordance with NEPA to ensure that the sites and
technologies chosen are environmentally acceptable and will result in long term compliance
with the Clean Water Act. All the components of the City’s recommended plan were found
to be environmentally acceptable except for the outfall as discussed below.
In the City of New Bedford’s Supplemental Final Facilities Plan/EIR, its recommended
outfall alternative was to continue using its existing 60-inch cast iron outfall after
rehabilitation by cleaning out all debris and installing a high density polyethylene liner in the
cleaned pipe. EPA’s Draft ETS concluded, however, that the potential environmental impacts
resulting from secondary effluent discharge at the existing site would be unacceptable and
concluded that only a new outfall and diffuser at the 301(h) site would be environmentally
acceptable.
Although the Draft E IS only considered the three outfall alternatives listed in Section 2.1.3
of this ROD, in the Final ETS, in an effort to find an environmentally acceptable and more
cost effective solution for the City, EPA also considered a fourth alternative - - rehabilitation
of the existing pipe with addition of a diffuser at the Existing Site. The impacts associated
with this alternative are expected to be similar to and no worse than the predicted impacts for
the alternative of dredging a trench and placing a new outfall pipe with a diffuser at the
Existing Site.
A discharge at the Existing Site with a diffuser would still pose some regulatory problems.
To address these problems the City would need to satisfy the following regulatory
requirements:
• Develop a Use Attainability Study for the purpose of downgrading some defined area
of the waterbody from Class SA to Class SB. This would be done to more accurately
reflect the uses associated with this waterbody. SA waterbodies have as uses open
sheilfishing and excellent habitat for marine biota. Neither of these uses will be met
in the vicinity if the existing outfall, even with a diffuser.
• Develop an enforceable site-specific DO criterion for some area of water contiguous
to the outfall. The current DO standard for SA waters is 6 mg/L; the current
standard for SB waters is 5 mgIL. It is predicted that a secondary discharge at the
34
-------
existing site with a diffuser will violate the SA DO standard and the SB DO standard
in the bottom waters under critical summer conditions. Under the new Massachusetts
water quality standards, a site-specific DO criterion may be developed for bottom
waters, provided that the criterion is protective of designated uses.
• Demonstrate a reduction in effluent toxicity such that toxicity will not be predicted to
occur outside the mixing zone.
If these 3 regulatory requirements are met, then a discharge are the Existing Site with a
diffuser would also be an environmentally acceptable outfall option.
3.2 Recommended Management Option
The City of New Bedford, as the entity that will have to build and operate the wastewater
treatment facilities, has the primary voice in determining what combination of sites and
technologies would most optimally serve its needs for secondary wastewater treatment and
discharge and sludge management. EPA’s role is to evaluate the City’s proposed plan and
alternatives to it in accordance with NEPA and to ensure that the sites and technologies
selected are environmentally acceptable and will result in long-term compliance with the
Clean Water Act.
The City considered engineering, environmental, and institutional issues together with the
realities of its economic situation and came up with a proposed plan (including the Taber
Park mitigation measures) which will bring the City into compliance with the Clean Water
Act, minimize costs, and guarantee improvements for public access to Fort Rodman.
In accordance with Section 1505.2(b) of the NEPA regulations, the ROD must identify the
alternatives that EPA deems environmentally preferable. This discloses to the public EPA’s
assessment of the alternatives on solely environmental grounds. Thus, environmentally
preferable alternatives are those which EPA believes would result in the least damage to the
biological and physical environment and which, all other considerations aside, would best
protect, preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and natural resources. In determining its
environmentally preferred alternatives, EPA did not consider other important decision-
making factors such as economics, engineering, or institutional issues. The designation of
options as environmentally preferred was conducted solely for the purposes of full disclosure
and compliance with NEPA regulations, and does not in any way dictate which options are
finally recommended or implemented after consideration of all decision-making factors.
3.2.1 Wastewater Treatment
Although both sites are environmentally acceptable, the environmentally preferred site for the
WWTP would be Site 4A if a decision were to be made based strictly on environmental
factors. As presented in Table 7.3-1 in the Draft EIS and summarized in Section 2.2.1 of
this ROD, when the two alternative WWTP sites are compared based simply on potential
35
-------
environmental impacts, the predicted impacts were comparable for most impact categories
but greater at Site 1A (without considering mitigation) in the areas of traffic, noise, flood
hazard, historic and archaeological resources, and visual impacts. Site 1A, however, is more
compatible with the existing wastewater conveyance system than is Site 4A. When all
things are considered, including mitigation plans, the margin of difference between Site 4A
and Site 1A is relatively small.
The City’s reasons for selecting Site 1A for the WWTP were that it is most compatible with
the existing sewer piping system, it leaves other sites with higher economic potential
available for development, it guarantees improvements for public access to the waterfront and
historical resources at Fort Rodman, it is the least-cost option, and no private land would
have to be taken to acquire the site because it is government-owned. The City considered
engineering, environmental, and institutional issues together with the realities of its economic
situation and caine up with a proposed plan (including the Taber Park mitigation measures)
which will bring the City into compliance with the Clean Water Act, minimize costs, and
guarantee improvements for public access to Fort Rodman. EPA feel these were valid
reasons for selecting Site 1A over Site 4A and thus supports the City’s decision.
3.2.2 Sludge Treatment and Disposal
EPA’s environmentally preferred sludge management option coincides with tl e City’s
recommended plan -- reuse of chemically-fixed sludge as daily cover material at the proposed
Crapo Hill landfill with a 5-year backup sludge-only landifil at Site 47. Like the City of
New Bedford, EPA supports beneficial reuse of sludge and sludge products. This reuse
goal, together with the limited landfill capacity (based on potential for environmental
impacts) available within the City of New Bedford, makes sludge reuse as cover material at
the Crapo Hill landfill in Dartmouth the environmentally preferred alternative. Sites 40 and
47 were both considered as candidate sites for the backup landfill and the predicted
environmental impacts were compared in Table 7.4-1 of the Draft EIS and summarized
earlier in this ROD. The predicted impacts summarized in Table 7.4-1 were comparable for
most impact categories (with the exception of socioeconomic resources and wetlands),
however, some of the information in that table is no longer current. Since the time the DEIS
was published, a proposal has gone forward for an Eastern Energy cogeneration facility on
roughly the same portion of Site 40 as where the proposed landfill would have been located.
This project, a significant conflicting land use, is currently well into the permitting process.
In addition, supplemental studies would be required before Site 40’s environmental
acceptability could be fully determined (see discussion in Section 3.1). Given the land use
constraints and uncertainties as to the extent and location of wetlands on-site and potential for
water supply impacts at Site 40, Site 47 is environmentally preferable and thus the
recommended site for the backup landfill.
36
-------
3.2.3 Effluent Outfall
After an extensive technical analysis of supplemental water quality monitoring data collected
in Buzzard’s Bay during the summer of 1990 (presented in Chapter Two of the Final EIS),
EPA concluded that the 301(h) Site would be the environmentally preferred outfall location
(discussed further in Section 2.2.3) because of its greater dilution capabilities, its greater
compliance with water quality criteria, and the potential improvement that would result in
dissolved oxygen concentrations near the existing discharge. The selection of the 301(h) Site
as the environmentally preferred alternative is supported by the information in the summary
of outfall siting criteria for the three alternatives presented in Table 7.5-1 of the Draft EIS,
and by an additional technical analysis of supplemental water quality monitoring data
collected in Buzzard’s Bay during the summer of 1990 (presented in Chapter Two of the
Final EIS).
EPA recognizes that the City’s selection of the inner outfall site was driven by economic as
well as environmental factors. It has been estimated that moving the outfall to the 30 1(h)
Site would increase the cost of the project by nearly $70 million. EPA agrees with the City
that when cost is factored into the decision, the difference between the environmentally
preferable alternative versus the other environmentally acceptable alternative may not be
large enough to justify the additional expense. Thus, EPA feel this was a valid reason for
selecting the Existing Outfall Site over the 301(h) Site and supports the City’s decision
contingent upon addition of a diffuser and implementation of the outfall conditions discussed
in Section 3.1.
3.2.4 Summary of Recommendations
With the mitigation measures outlined in Section 4 of this Record of Decision, EPA believes
that the City of New Bedford’s recommended plan of secondary wastewater treatment at Site
1A, reuse of chemically-fixed sludge as daily cover material at the proposed Crapo Hill
landfill with a 5-year backup sludge-only landfill at Site 47, and effluent discharge through
the existing outfall pipe will be environmentally acceptable for reliable wastewater treatment
and disposal throughout the full 20-year planning period, assuming a diffuser is added to the
existing 60” outfall pipe and the regulatory requirements discussed in Section 3.1 are met.
Therefore, recognizing the City’s primacy in determining what combination of sites and
technologies would best serve its needs and economic constraints, EPA approves the City of
New Bedford’s proposed wastewater management plan contingent upon the outfall conditions
discussed above in Section 3.1 and with the understanding that should alternative
management options for sludge disposal become necessary (e.g., if Crapo Hill does not
obtain the Proposition 2-1/2 override required for its construction), EPA will review and
assess the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Sludge Management FP/EIR as
appropriate under NEPA. If necessary under 40 CFR § 1502.9(c), a Supplemental Final EIS
addressing alternative sludge management options will be prepared.
37
-------
4. MITIGATION
The following is a discussion of mitigation measures that EPA feels the City of New Bedford
should take in order to minimize the potential for any adverse environmental impacts
resulting from implementation of the recommended wastewater management plan. This
discussion is also contained in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is an integral part of the environmental
acceptability of this plan. Therefore, in order to ensure that these mitigation measures are
implemented, EPA will include appropriate requirements in whatever permits are issued by
the Agency for the project, such as NPDES permits (for any discharges of treated wastewater
effluent or stormwater).
4.1 Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant
Selection of Site 1A for the WWTP is predicated on specific mitigation measures as
summarized below.
Land Use and Zoning Siting the WWTP at Site 1A will result in land-use impacts
both to the existing programs at Fort Rodman and, to a lesser degree, to the adjacent
residential areas. The impacts of the WWTP and its operations will be reduced by
using screening and buffer areas around the facility, as well as minimizing the noise
and odors associated with the plant by covering all process tanks. Those land use
impacts associated with the plant will be mitigated by the creation of Taber Park
which will enhance the unique waterfront and historic portions of the site. The
impacts associated with the displacement of the existing programs at Site 1A will be
mitigated by moving those programs to newly renovated facilities elsewhere in town
(for details, see below). The benefits of Taber Park and the new education center
will substantially reduce the land use impacts of siting the plant at Site 1A.
Neighborhood Improvements
A key component of the proposed WWTP at Site 1A is the development of a
public park (Taber Park) around the perimeter of the facility. This is to
ensure that the valuable waterfront at Fort Rodman is preserved for public use.
The proposed Taber Park will provide public access to over a mile of multi-
faceted waterfront recreational land, and will also provide a buffer between the
existing residential and waterfront land uses and the proposed WWTP. Using
a network of paths, wooded areas, and open areas, the new park will integrate
the development of picnic areas, an educational center, swimming, biking,
boating, and jogging facilities with the rehabilitation of some of the City’s
significant historic resources and ocean overlooks. The park will link
recreational waterfront areas on the east and west sides of Clarks Point.
38
-------
Relocations
PACE Head Start -- the City’s plan is to relocate the private nonprofit
federally funded preschool program for low-income families to the Greene
School; the renovation design is completed and construction is scheduled for
completion in March 1992.
Early Learning Child Care, Inc. -- the City’s plan is to relocate the private
nonprofit day care program, currently under contract with the Department of
Social Services, to Building #6 at Hillman Street; the renovation design is
complete, construction is scheduled for completion by March 1992.
Camp Kennedy -- the City’s plan for this City-sponsored summer recreation
program is to renovate four on-site buildings, scheduled for completion by
1996. The program will be relocated to temporary facilities until the
renovations are completed.
Sea Lab Program -- the City’s plan for this summer educational program is to
renovate two on-site buildings and construct a new building on site, scheduled
for completion by 1996.
Alternative High School -- the City’s plan for this federally funded program
for special-needs students is to relocate it to Building #5 at Hiiman Street; the
renovation design is complete and construction is scheduled for completion by
March 1992.
Special Needs Program -- the City’s plan is to relocate this program, which
provides recreational and educational programs for handicapped adults, to
Building #9 at Human Street; the renovation design is complete and
construction is scheduled for completion by March 1992.
Noise Noise impacts resulting from operation of the WWTP at Site 1A are expected
to be minimal due to acoustical muffling. Plant operational noise will be barely
perceptible at residences along South Rodney French Boulevard. Noise impacts
associated with construction of the plant will be significant during construction
phases. However, these phases will be of limited duration and the construction noise
impacts will only occur during daytime hours. Concerns related to noise were
addressed in greater detail as responses to comments in Chapter Four of the Final
EIS.
Odors and Air Toxics Odor impacts from operation of a WWTP at Site 1A should
not be noticeable at nearby residences along South Rodney French Boulevard. The
use of covered tanks and wet scrubbers on vented gases will reduce odorous emissions
from the plant significantly so that perceptible odor thresholds will not be exceeded at
any point around the plant perimeter.
39
-------
To ensure that air toxic criteria will not be exceeded at perimeter locations around the
WWTP, covered tanks and carbon absorption units will control emissions of the
organic compounds typically associated with wastewater treatment. The impacts from
the majority of these compounds will be less than one-tenth of the current air quality
criteria for these compounds. Sludge produced by the plant will be chemically fixed,
thus minimizing odor, and will be removed in covered trucks, specially designed for
this type of application.
Wetlands No significant wetlands impact will result from development of WWTP at
Site 1A. Construction activities will be concentrated toward the center of the site,
away from the coastal bank and beach areas. To further ensure that there are no
wetlands impacts, buffer zones will be maintained between construction areas and
sensitive wetland areas. Proposed improvements to waterfront areas (e.g., regrading
and landscaping done as part of the Taber Park development) will avoid impact to
coastal waterfront areas.
Storm Protection The design of the WWTP at Site 1A will include protecting the
plant against flooding and storm damage that could otherwise result from major
storms. EPA has determined that the construction of the WWTP at Site 1A would
not constitute a “critical action” requiring protection from a storm of 500-year
magnitude. A critical action, as defined in Executive Order 11988 is one that, if
flooded, would create an added dimension to the flood disaster. Nevertheless, EPA,
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recommended that a
WWTP built at Site 1A be designed to withstand greater than a 100-year flood. The
plant design is geared to protect against the 500-year stiliwater level. The City plans
to implement the following actions to provide protection at the 500-year stiliwater
level (no wave action):
• constructing all facilities outside of the coastal high hazard zone;
• raising site grading to above elevation 11.5 ft.;
• constructing all first floors of buildings above elevation 13.5 ft.;
• for buildings with basements, insuring that water cannot reach basements until
flood level exceeds 13.5 ft.;
• providing stoplogs or equivalent for all garage entrances to buildings to keep
water out up to elevation 13.5 ft.; and
• mounting drives above elevation 13.5 . on all process tankage.
These and other measures will ensure that equipment and buildings are protected from
flood damage from storms greater than the 100-year flood. Construction of the plant
on Site 1A will include a variety of erosion-control measures to prevent damage to
40
-------
coastal wetland areas by siltation and erosion. These measures include the use of hay
bales and siltation fences.
Visual Aesthetics The aesthetic impact of siting the WW’FP at Site 1A has received
careful attention, and every effort is being made to mitigate this impact. EPA
concurs with the City’s recommendations for mitigating aesthetic impacts. The
creation of Taber Park and the enhancement of the Historic District and waterfront
areas will create a major beneficial aesthetic impact on the area around Fort Taber.
The proposed mitigation should offset any negative aesthetic impact associated with
the presence of a large secondary treatment facility. In addition, the plant is designed
to screen the facility from the surrounding area, including keeping the plant profile
low and using plantings and trees to screen views of the facility. These measures will
substantially mitigate the aesthetic impact of locating the plant at Site 1A.
Historic and Archaeological Features Site 1A contains a number of historic
structures. Because Site 1A was chosen by the City as the preferred location for the
WWTP, a more detailed evaluation was conducted to determine National Register
Eligibility in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. The Boston
University Office of Public Archaeology conducted the Phase II investigation at Fort
Rodman on behalf of the City of New Bedford.
The investigation concluded that the AllenfHowland Farmstead lacks sufficient
integrity to warrant its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-
two other structures on the site (including the officers’ quarters, World War II
structures, and Battery Milliken) contribute to the historic district and are eligible for
inclusion in the district. The existing Fort Taber Historic District, which includes
Fort Taber and several batteries, is excluded from the plant construction area,
however, the proposed treatment plant layout will impact a large number of these
structures. Therefore, efforts to preserve (through layout modification), relocate, or
record data from these historic structures are being made. Because the site provides
little opportunity for major changes to the plant layout, the focus of the mitigation
efforts will be on data recovery before the structures are removed.
These mitigation measures are described in Chapter Five of the Final EIS. The
proposed site improvements, creation of Taber Park, and the proposed enhancement
of the existing Historic District, will be a significant improvement over current site
conditions. The existing treatment plant, which is directly adjacent to Fort Taber,
will be demolished (and the site graded and seeded) and the Taber Park design will
incorporate historic uses to the fullest extent possible. Specific mitigation measures
are being developed as part of the consultation process under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. The Massachusetts Historical Commission, EPA,
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the U.S. Army,
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are working together to prepare a
Memorandum of Agreement for the project. A Draft MOA has been prepared and is
currently undergoing agency review.
41
-------
Currently, historic structures from the Endicott-Taft period and the World War II
period are to be removed, relocated on-site, or preserved as follows (MHC
Information Summary, March 27, 1991);
• Endicott-Taft Period structures to be removed:
• Radio Shack
• Endicott-Taft Period Structures to be relocated on site:
• NCO Quarters
• Fire Apparatus Building
• Quartermaster and Commissary Store House
• Post Exchange
• Endicott-Taft Period structures to be preserved:
• Officers Quarters
• Engineer Storehouse
• Bakehouse
• Batteries Barton-Walcott 1 and 2
• Battery Gaston
• Battery Craig
• Battery Cross
• World War II Period structures to be removed:
• Recreation Building
• Ten Enlisted Men’s Barracks
• Four Mess Halls
• Company Administration Building
• Four Company Day Rooms
• Ward Building
• Post Exchange
• Officer’s Quarters and Mess Hall
• P.E. Lumber Storage Building
• Maintenance Garage
• World War II Period structures to be preserved:
• Gas Chamber
• Storage
• Battery Milliken
42
-------
The existing Army Maintenance Building, constructed in the 1960’s, is also proposed
to be removed. It should be noted that the structures within the Fort Taber Historic
District will not be physically impacted (MHC Information Summary, March 27,
1991).
Site Remediation Because Army activities at Site 1A have resulted in minor
contamination (including contamination from fuel storage and waste oil), remediation
will be necessary. All cleanup activities should follow Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP) regulations. EPA does not expect remediation to interfere with site
preparation and WWTP construction. In order to minimize delays to achieving
compliance with the consent decree schedule, the removal of the underground storage
tanks, asbestos, and contaminated soils should be accomplished concurrently with
other site preparation activities. The City should adhere to its pians to remove the
underground storage tanks as part of the construction contract. During excavation
and dewatering activities, contaminated groundwater may be encountered in isolated
areas and should be treated prior to discharge or dewatenng. Ambient air monitoring
and engineering controls should be implemented as needed during construction.
4.2 Sludge Disposal
The preferred management option for sludge disposal of reusing chemically fixed sludge as
daily cover material at the proposed Crapo Hill landfill with a 5-year backup sludge-only
landfill at Site 47 required specific mitigation measures as summarized below.
The City has proposed to construct a backup sludge-only landfill and access road at Site 47
with a goal of no wetlands impact. In order to avoid wetlands, the landfill option
recommended for Site 47 is a 5-year, rather than a 20-year landfill. The 5-year capacity will
also provide an environmentally acceptable alternative for temporary use should the Crapo
Hill landfill not obtain the Proposition 2-1/2 override required for its construction.
Wetlands The recommendation of Site 47 for a backup sludge-only landfill with a 5-
year capacity includes design features to minimize wetlands impacts. The more
precise wetlands delineations performed for the City by Normandeau Associates in
July, 1990, which was confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicated
some potential wetlands ares along the proposed golf course access road. The
western edge of the golf course just beyond the fairways is close to extensive areas of
wetlands vegetation supported by poorly drained soil. In response, the City revised
its plans and will instead construct an access bridge to the site in order to avoid
impacts to existing wetlands. Although it adds to the cost of the facilities plan, EPA
supports this design, as it is protective of existing wetlands at Site 47.
Floodplain Protection Construction of a landfill at Site 47 will avoid any areas
within the 100-year floodplain. The delineation of this line was reconfirmed through
further analyses of potential flooding within the local drainage basin. Runoff of
surface water from the operating areas of the landfill will be captured and routed to a
43
-------
leachate collection system. A leachate pumping station, consisting of a separate, pre-
fabricated wet well and dry well, will be constructed. The dry well will contain two
non-clog sewage pumps with appropriate controls. Leachate will be pumped to a
gravity sewer that connects to a sewer along Shawmut Avenue. In order to control
transport of eroded soils and solids, sedimentation basins will be constructed in
exposed areas of the landfill. All site runoff will pass through a sedimentation basis
prior to discharge to surrounding wetlands.
Groundwater Potential groundwater contamination from the solids disposal landfill
was also considered. Site 47 was selected in part because of lack of potential
groundwater sources in the area and hence, the low potential for impact of aquifer
water supplies. The design of the landfill, including double liners the leachate
collection system described above, and groundwater monitoring programs should
ensure that the landfill will not lease contaminants to the groundwater.
Historic and Archaeological Features Site 47 contains one small area of
archaeological sensitivity and a Phase II detailed investigation was conducted to better
define the significance of this area. The report concluded that no further
archaeological work would be necessary at Site 47 due to the low density of artifacts
and lack of internal complexity. In a July 8, 1991 letter to the City, the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) concurred that Site 47 contains no
archaeological resources eligible for National Register listing and that no mitigation
will be required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
In summary, given the remaining uncertainties regarding the implementabiity of the City’s
recommended plan, EPA concurs with the City’s sludge management strategy, which
includes initiation of supplemental sludge management facilities planning (outlined in Section
3.1). Should alternative management options for sludge disposal become necessary, EPA
will review and assess the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Sludge Management
FP/EIR as appropriate under NEPA. If necessary under 40 CFR 1502.9 (C), a Supplemental
Final EIS addressing alternative sludge management options would be prepared.
4.3 Secondary Effluent Outfall
The discharge from the secondary treatment plant will receive a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit will set acceptable limits for a variety of
pollutants in the discharge. The City will be required to submit monthly reports detailing the
treatment plant’s ability to meet its discharge limits. The permit will also contain several
monitoring requirements, which will alert regulators to potential water quality problems.
Whole effluent toxicity testing will be required on several sensitive marine species to
determine potential toxic effects in the environment. Monitoring of dissolved oxygen (DO)
near the point of discharge will be done to monitor any changes in DO as a result of the
discharge.
44
-------
Marine Archaeological Features In order to determine whether there are any
resources (shipwrecks) potentially eligible for the National and State Register of
Historic Places that could be affected by outfall renovations (i.e. construction at the
301(h) Site or addition of a diffuser to the Existing Site), an underwater
archaeological documentation survey was conducted in the Spring of 1989. The study
did not include information on the identity, age, location, integrity, and potential
significance of all of the shipwrecks in the area. Only three of the known wrecks in
the study area were discussed in that report. Without complete data, MHC has been
unable to determine whether or not these resources are potentially eligible for the
National and State Register of Historic Places, and whether or not the outfall will
affect these resources.
If the outfall is moved to the 301(h) Site, these resources could be impacted during
construction of the new outfall pipe. It is less likely that use of the existing outfall
with a diffuser would disturb any archaeological resources because diffuser
construction would take place in a previously disturbed area.
If the City opts to add a diffuser to the existing outfall rather than moving it to the
301(h) Site, it is possible that no mitigation will be required. The Massachusetts State
Historic Preservation Officer has agreed with the City that cleaning and lining the
existing outfall pipe will have no effect on underwater archaeological resources. Due
to time constraints, the City has postponed further marine archaeology work until a
later date. Before construction of the diffuser can begin, however, the City will have
to provide MHC and EPA with supplemental information (previously requested by
MHC in a 9/19/89 letter) regarding the identity, age, location, integrity, and potential
significance of all shipwrecks in the area. If MHC’s review of supplemental
information concludes that there would likely be significant impacts, mitigation
measures will be taken to avoid or minimize any predicted impacts. Any additional
action required of the City will be specified in a Memorandum of Agreement on
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
45
-------
5. CONCLUSION
EPA has conducted an independent environmental review of the City of New Bedford’s plans
for implementation of secondary wastewater treatment, as directed by the National
Environmental Policy Act. This process has been subject to extensive public scrutiny,
through several public meetings, monthly meetings of a joint MEPA/NEPA citizen’s advisory
committee, a hearing on the Draft EIS, and public comment on both the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements. EPA believes that this open process has resulted in a fair
and reasonable conclusion.
After careful and objective analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives, EPA has, with the
mitigation measures and contingencies stipulated in the preceding sections, approved the City
of New Bedford’s proposed secondary wastewater treatment management plan:
• Secondary Wastewater Treatment at Site 1A
• Reuse of chemically-fixed sludge as daily cover material at the proposed Crapo
Hill landifil with backup lime stabilization and a 5-year backup sludge-only
landfill at Site 47
• Use of the existing 60-in cast iron outfall after rehabilitation (cleaning out all
debris and installing a high density polyethylene liner in the cleaned pipe) and
addition of a diffuser.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON TkLI FINAL EIS
COMMENTS RECEIVED
As part of the environmental review process for this Environmental Impact Statement, a 60
day public comment period followed the issuance of the Draft ELS in December 1989 and a
30 day comment period followed the issuance of the Final EIS in July 1991. Responses to
comments submitted on the Draft EIS were provided in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS. Similar
to the Draft EIS, the Final EIS was distributed to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, a
technical advisory group, libraries or other repositories, state and federal agencies, the City
of New Bedford, and other interested parties.
EPA has reviewed each comment letter on the Final EIS in preparing the Record of
Decision, and the approach used in responding to comments here parallels that used in
responding fo comments on the Draft EIS (the same issue categories have been used). Each
comment letter has been given an identification number, and has been reproduced in
Appendix B. Table A-l presents a matrix for locating the issues raised in each comment
letter, corresponding to the issue headings for the responses given below.
Some comments received were either very general or expressed the writer’s opinion without
addressing a particular issue. These comments are categorized as “Other” in Table A-i and
were considered, but do not require a direct response. The “Other” category also includes a
few miscellaneous comments that were not related to any of the other issue categories.
Some comments received by EPA incorporated comments on City of New Bedford (CDM)
documents by reference. These comments are responded to specifically here only if they
relate directly to EPA’s Final EIS. However, all of these comments have been read and
considered as part of the decision-making process. Most of the program-specific questions
raised in the Save Fort Rodman Committees’s August 8, 1991 comment letter to MEPA on
New Bedford’s “Volume IX, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Additional
Information, Final, 1991” were addressed in detail in New Bedford City Planner Richard
Bohn’s October 1, 1991 letter to MEPA (see copy provided in Appendix C). The substance
of some comments had been addressed previously in the Draft or Final EIS or is directly
covered in this Record of Decision. In such cases, the reader is referred to the appropriate
section of the relevant document.
AIR QUALITY, ODORS, AND NOISE
One commentor was concerned about the noise that would result from drilling and
blasting at the Fort Rodman site and asked whether new test borings taken in 1991
change previous predictions as to the duration of blasting, drilling and stone crushing.
A-i
-------
Table A-i
Public and Agency Comments
Received on Final EIS
ID
#
NAME
Affiliation or
Residence
01
Delia Sylvia
Resident, New
Bedford
•
*
02
Natalie Arnett
Save Ft. Rodman
Committee
*
*
*
*
*
*
03
Stephen Hickox
Camp,Dresser &
McKee
* *
O 4
Paul Taurasi
State DEP
*
05
Edward
Bretschne ider
Polaroid Corp.
*
*
*
06
Joseph Ignazio
ACOE, Waltham,
MA
*
-------
The new test borings were consistent with the previous assessment, so the predicted
frequency and duration of drilling and blasting remains unchanged (see Section 6.4.1 of the
Draft EIS). CDM has informed EPA that no stone crushing will be required (Susan Coin,
EPA 1/9/92 telephone conversation wI Liz Beardsley, CDM).
Polaroid reiterated its dissatisfaction with the air quality assessment at Site 40, the Final
EIS responses to their comments on that subject, and EPA’s continued inclusion of Site
40 in the list of environmentally acceptable options for sludge disposal in the Fmal ETS.
The company asked that the actual composition of New Bedford’s sludge and its
potential air quality impacts on Polaroids’s products and operations be evaluated and
that EPA commit to the issuance of a supplemental EIS regarding these issues to ensure
full public review.
EPA concurs with Polaroid that further assessment of outstanding environmental issues
related to Site 40 (including air quality) is needed before its environmental acceptability for
use as a sludge landfill can be fully assessed. Therefore, EPA has removed Site 40 from the
list of acceptable sludge management options (see Section 3.1 and Table 2 of this ROD).
EPA appreciates Polaroid’s concern that studies be based on the actual composition of the
City’s sludge. However, its “actual” composition will not be known until the secondary
treatment plant is operational. In the meantime, we continue to maintain that the estimates of
projected sludge quality, based on sound data and conservative assumptions, are adequate for
NEPA review purposes.
Given the continued uncertainties regarding the implementability of the City’s recommended
plan, EPA concurs with the City’s decision to initiate supplemental sludge management
facilities planning (outlined in Section 5.2.2 of the Final EIS). Should alternative
management options for sludge treatment and/or disposal become necessary, EPA will review
and assess the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Sludge Management FP/EIR as
appropriate under NEPA. Should Site 40 be identified as a remaining viable alternative,
EPA’s review would include a more detailed evaluation of the potential for air quality
impacts on Polaroid’s products and operations The supplemental FP/EIR would be
conducted under MEPA and thus there would be adequate opportunity for public review.
EPA would be an active participant in this review process and, if necessary under 40 CFR
Section 1502.9(c), a Supplemental Final EIS addressing alternative sludge management
options would be prepared. EPA will not commit to issuance of a supplemental EIS,
however, until such time as the need for one is demonstrated.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
One commentor asked EPA to explain what was meant by “stabilization of the existing
Fort Taber structure” which was listed as planned mitigation under the “Cultural
Resources” section of EPA’s response to comments on the Draft EIS (page 4 -5 Final
EIS).
A-3
-------
Portions of Fort Taber are currently structurally unstable and that the City plans to make
repairs to stabilize the historic fort so that it will be safely accessible to the public. At one
point in the planning process, the City had considered fully restoring Fort Taber to allow
tours, etc.; however, because this was not expressed to be a priority during the public
meetings held in the Fall of 1990 to solicit suggestions for Taber Park and to establish
priorities for mitigation improvements at Site 1A, the effort was scaled back and the
emphasis was placed on safety and accessibility improvements.
EPA stated in the response to comments on the Draft EIS that “planned mitigation...will
have a positive impact on the cultural resources at Site lA’. One commentor asked that
we identify the referenced “cultural resources”.
The cultural resources to which we were referring are Fort Taber and the historic batteries
on-site. These resources are shown in Figure A-i.
LAND USE
One commentor asked that we provide further details concerning the New Bedford City
Council’s May 1990 vote approving the selection of Fort Rodman as the site for the
WWTP. The commentor was concerned that the City Counciors may have voted
without knowing that the majority of the cost saving measures proposed for Site 1A in
Section 13 of the January 1990 Final FP/EIR were not approved by EPA, DEP, and
MIEPA.
EPA representatives were not present at that vote, however, the vote was 6 to 5 in favor of
approving the ranking of Site 1A first and Site 4A second for the siting of the proposed
secondary WWTP (a copy of the City Council’s resolution is included in Appendix D).
It is difficult for EPA to know just what information the councilors had available to them
prior to the May 1990 vote. However, a March 5, 1990 MEPA certificate stated that the
January 1990 Final FP/EIR did not adequately resolve all the comments made on the Draft
FP/EIR and that revisions made to the draft recommended plan (as a result of an informal
value engineering analysis) were not adequately supported by analysis. That certificate
requested the preparation of a supplemental report to respond to all unresolved concerns.
City representatives were also told at a March 8, 1991 meeting with federal and state
agencies that most of the proposed cost saving measures would not be accepted.
One commentor asked whether the fact that the Standard Times Field property (Site
4A) was to be sold at auction by the mortgagee on August 28, 1991 would negate one of
the Mayor’s arguments for choosing Site 1A over Site 4A -- that the City should not
take private property by eminent domain when a suitable public-owned site exists.
This is probably not as strong an argument in favor of Site 1A as it once was due to current
economic conditions; however, the mayor’s preference for using public land for a public
benefit project (such as a WWTP) rather than taking private property remains valid.
A-4
-------
N [ W RIOFOHI)
0111*10*14(001*10*0000 50(0 ,110*110*00 NEW
S(*00101011U0 L*0MTNP000 1lQ A MA
P4LOCAT(0 S41L01 10 (ON 5100*0 ,
1,ITRANcE 1010010100
WAITOWATIN TNEAINEI11 FACIJIT
*00 LANOICAPID 0000$. SUllEN. *550 5101WAtO
MONO 000(0110111CM 5(110
UCON000T ENTOAMI TO WAITIWAT*0
T01AT NT ? JT!
11111055*54111*11110 STUCCO 550(0040 054
COIU (ITE 50* 1 1110 1 1 1 1 w COMOST FAC$Ifl(S
_ .M(OCAl10 N GO 0 5 1* 0 1 (01 55*oS IOc Oo (OW 0101
1*0(1 CUSS AND COUSITI 50*11110
001* 01115(00*
*00 PAVID 1*010110*01*
*1011111(11 COUNT
CONII(CT 1*1110 PATH
TO II5$T110 IIOIW*t1
N5(OCATSD CO SSM1 5(0(05110
TO PUNCTION 101150*1*110100 PAM
NAINTIISANON 5001011(1115100*00
MTAM 10*01110 JT*AY 5*11*0115
• L*$ 510 AMA *550*00
WINPMTTII S O S
1*011111001010 $Th Ul$$. COOSNI11
1111551$ *110 StOlid ACCI$$
AMA OEIMOON
5010
PO l IO PATH
or 0101 POlIO PATH ION
NAINTINANCI 1,10001101
OCTC Il l0
0111*15111411011150*000 STNUCIUN*
TO C*IA?E 11111011$ AND (NW*0 100Pnu
5*000*11014 CINTIN *110 OTt *11(011
55(0 1* 5 (10*10
OP000 OTt
• 1*100 PATIO PAIN *1111 1 1 1INPNITIVI $50111
• OUAIN 101111110 *LRAOY SAITI00SCLUN UP
STNNCI *110*00 NITINP01 1 1VI $1055
0 PATH ION
I J0000SO’ SICYCtUIO
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
FORT TASER PARK AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACUlTY
Iii
14010$ ACCISS 00*0
- *0011*11510*5 lOot *IIDICAPSNO 1 11*11
0 00CM *00*1
IAII1JOIi
A*owi,P*oo 5u401 19
2 NATI a
$ Mi.lsd 05* loAN
• PsTNs,y Ssi01 Ta ,5a
1 Aoor MI IS
• ImAl S.55 • 155*. .
I CAloivo Coools T*iks
50 (Sons P 0 1* SNASIl
II P4S 0h SOwV
02 GiaSSy T) Ins ’P01*SIIb51l
*OtA 011(0(00511
Figure A-i
-------
That same conimentor questioned whether the deed restrictions at Fort Rodman are stifi
applicable and if not, whether that would negate another of the mayor’s arguments in
favor of Site 1A —that because of the existing deed restrictions at Fort Rodman, it could
never support tax revenue-producing development.
There seems to be some misunderstanding on this commentor’s part concerning the
conditions under which the deed restrictions could be removed. The agencies involved
(National Park Service, Department of Education, etc.) agreed to cooperate with the City’s
efforts to remove the deed restrictions and acquire the parcels in question because the land
was to be used for a public benefit project. Indeed, the commentor made reference to a
Senate bill authorizing the City to use certain land “for the construction and operation of a
wastewater treatment plant and related facilities”. Efforts to remove the deed restrictions for
reasons other than construction of the court-ordered secondary WW I’P would likely not have
been successful.
That commentor also questioned whether the mayor’s argument that development of
Taber Park would not be possible if Site 4A was chosen is valid given the fact that the
City now has a $900,000 grant for Taber Park which the commentor understood was
not contingent upon construction of a WWTP.
Again, there seems to be some misunderstanding by the commentor as to the nature and
conditions on the $900,000 grant. The EOEA Urban Self-Help Grant for 90% matching
funds from the MA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Division of Conservation is
being made available to the City contingent upon the City’s co-funding of the Taber Park
improvements. If they were not constructing the WWTP and spending funds on the Taber
Park mitigation plan, they would not be eligible for the EOEA matching funds and the grant
opportunity would have to be forfeited.
A commentor wanted to correct our erroneous statement on p. 4-11 of the Final EIS
that the New Bedford Vocational Technical High School Marine Industries Program will
not be displaced, but rather, wifi be leaving.
The New Bedford City planner has verified that the New Bedford Regional Vocational
Technical High School recently decided to end its marine education program due to lack of
student interest.
One commentor expressed continued concern over location of the WWTP outside the
hurricane barrier at Site 1A and asked about flood insurance costs and why the City
hadn’t applied to FEMA for a floodplain map revision.
The existing primary WWTP at Site 1A has flood insurance and the new secondary WWTP
will as well. Although the exact cost is not known, CDM informed EPA that the cost to
insure the existing facility is $1800 per year. EPA does not believe that this cost is included
in the WWTP operation and maintenance costs presented in Table 5.5 on page 5-9 of the
Final EIS, however, the number is expected to be small enough that it would not
A-6
-------
significantly affect the calculation of total project cost. The City applied to FEMA for a
floodplain map revision on December 10, 1991.
A commentor reiterated the potential land use conflicts between consideration of Site 40
for a sludge landfill and Eastern Energy Corporation’s (EEC) plan to build a
cogeneration facility on Site 40.
EPA is aware of the status of the EEC proposal (see discussion on p. 12 of this Record of
Decision). This potential land use conflict was a factor in EPA’s decision to withdraw Site
40 from the list of environmentally acceptable alternatives (see Section HI A).
TECHNOLOGY/DESIGN
A commentor asked why EPA’s response to a comment on the Draft EIS concerning
potential damage from salt water/air to electronic and computer equipment at Site 1A
(p. 4-18 FEES) made a comparison to Site 4A when comparisons were not made in
responses to comments on other issues such as mitigation, relocation, traffic, etc.
EPA does not feel that there was any bias in the way we responded to comments on the
Draft EIS. Although it is true that comparisons between the two WWTP sites were not
included in all sections of the response to comments, those comparisons were made for each
impact area in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS. The responses to comments presented in Chapter
4 of the Final EIS were geared toward the specific questions raised and in the case of the
aforementioned response, we felt it was logical to point out that the effects of salt water/air
on electronic components is a concern to any marine coastal facility and thus this would not
be a potential discriminator between the two candidate locations for siting the WWTP.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A commentor asked that EPA present not only a comparison of the munber of truck
trips, but also a comparison of the size of trucks that will be used for the new WWTP
versus the size of those currently used for the existing WWTP.
Most of the additional traffic generated in association with the new secondary WWTP will be
automobile traffic. As for the truck traffic, the 20 cubic yard 10 wheeler trucks for
transporting sludge will make 8 round trips to and from the WWTP during business hours.
Because the existing plant only has primary treatment, no sludge is hauled off-site. The
trucks presently used at the primary WWTP are for septage dumping, chemical delivery, and
transport of personnel. No data on the specific size of those trucks is available; however, it
is expected that the number and size of trucks employed at the new secondary WWTP for the
non-sludge hauling purposes listed above will be comparable to those presently used at the
primary treatment plant.
A-7
-------
WATER QUALITY/RESOURCES
Outfall Issues
A conimentor disagreed with EPA’s statement that some area of receiving water around
the discharge would need to be downgraded if site-specific criteria are adopted.
EPA believes that some area around the existing discharge should be reclassified, because the
uses of its current classification are not being attained. The current classification of the
receiving water is SA, which includes the following designated uses: excellent habitat for
fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife, and for primary and secondary contact recreation;
sheilfishing without depuration in approved areas; and excellent aesthetic value.
The area around the existing discharge is highly impacted and being considered for
Superfund status. A variety of studies with shellfish, lobsters, and flounder taken near this
area and in New Bedford Outer Harbor have indicated above normal incidence of health
problems (leukemia in hard shell clams, shell rot in lobsters, and tumors in flounder). Based
on these studies and predicted conditions resulting from a secondary wastewater treatment
discharge, EPA believes that the receiving waters around the discharge cannot be considered
excellent habitat for fish and other aquatic life. EPA believes that the receiving waters
should be reclassified to more accurately reflect the actual uses, and to enable the City to
meet appropriate water quality standards.
One comnientor disagreed with the statement that the monitoring of dissolved oxygen
missed the critical time period in the bottom waters at Meter 2.
The bottom water meter at Station 2 did not record data from July 14 to September 6.
During this time period, the bottom water meter at Station 3 recorded extended stretches of
dissolved oxygen below the State standard and also recorded the lowest dissolved oxygen
value of the deployment. For this area of the coast, late August/early September is typically
the time of highest water column stratification and thus lowest bottom water dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Figure A-2 shows the low DO levels recorded at Station 3 during
this period.
One commentor was unclear about EPA’s conclusion that some area around Station 3
exhibits a local dissolved oxygen pattern.
Based on comparisons of data collected at similar times at different locations, Station 3 on
several occasions (August 3-7, August 17-18) possessed distinctly different patterns than the
other Stations. This suggests that at times, local influences may affect Station 3, but not
other locations within the Outer Harbor and Buzzards Bay (see Figure A-2).
One commentor felt that it should be mentioned that Inner New Bedford Harbor may
be contributing some water with low dissolved oxygen contributions to the Outer
Harbor.
A-8
-------
S
S.
SN
lA ’ t m
K’
K,
1
I
N
S
SI
SN
lB
1
‘I
‘I
£
N
S
SI
SN
2
K’
‘I
‘I
N
S
SI
SN
3 ON
K,
N
City 01 New t3edlord, Massachusetts
VVastewaler lacililies Plan
Figure A-2
DISSOLVED OXYC [ N I)ATA AT MOORINGS
CDM Supplemental EIR, Vol. VIII, 1991
-------
EPA agrees that the Inner Harbor may contribute some water containing low dissolved
oxygen concentrations to the Outer Harbor.
One commentor was concerned that the conservative method used to estimate nitrogen
flux from the Inner Harbor to the Outer Harbor may have overrepresented this source.
The analysis used in the Final EIS was an assessment of how changes in nitrogen would
affect primary productivity and eventually dissolved oxygen concentrations. For this
analysis, major sources to the Outer Harbor were estimated. The contribution from the Inner
Harbor was estimated by determining a water column concentration of nitrogen, estimating
water exchange, and then doing a mass flux calculation. This did not consider nitrogen that
had already been assimilated by phytoplankton and would be transported out of the Inner
Harbor. It was beyond the scope of our analysis to estimate that value. For the level of the
analysis, EPA believes that the estimate of nitrogen contribution from the Inner Harbor is
reasonable.
One commentor stated that within the text of the EElS, the reason for the shellfish
closure around the existing discharge was misstated. The text claimed that the shellfish
closure was due to PCBs.
The closure for bivalve shellfish is due to high concentrations of fecal coliform. The lobster
closure is due to high concentrations of PCBs.
One commentor was concerned that the value used for sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
was too high.
The value used in this analysis was the conservative one used by the City in its Draft
FP/EIR. New information was then generated by the City for its Final FP/EIR, and that
information revealed that a lower SOD value would be more appropriate. EPA agrees that
the new information is more appropriate to use in this analysis; however, because the use of
this value is not significantly different from the estimate EPA used and would not change the
conclusions drawn from the analysis, EPA does not feel any further analysis is warranted.
Other Water Quality Issues
Polaroid was dissatisfied with EPA’s evaluation of potential water resource impacts at
Site 40 and the Final EIS response to their comment on that subject. The company
asked EPA to require a thorough evaluation of water quality and supply issues prior to
any final determination of the environmental acceptability of Site 40 for sludge disposal
and voiced the opinion that EPA should commit to preparing a supplemental EIS
regarding these issues to ensure full public review.
As stated in a previous response to a comment from Polaroid on air quality issues (see page
A-3), EPA concurs with Polaroid that further assessment of outstanding environmental issues
related to Site 40 (including water quality and supply and wetlands issues) is needed before
its environmental acceptability for use as a sludge landfill can be fully assessed. Therefore,
A-lO
-------
EPA has removed Site 40 from the list of acceptable sludge management options (see Section
3.1 and Table 2 of this ROD).
As stated before, given the continued uncertainties regarding the implementability of the
City’s recommended plan, EPA concurs with the City’s decision to initiate supplemental
sludge management facilities planning (outlined in Section 5.2.2 of the Final EIS). Should
alternative management options for sludge treatment and/or disposal become necessary, EPA
will review and assess the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Sludge Management
FP/EIR as appropriate under NEPA. And should Site 40 be identified as a remaining viable
alternative, EPA’s review would include a more detailed evaluation of the potential for water
resources impacts on Polaroid’s products and operations The supplemental FP/EIR would
be subject to environmental review under MEPA and thus there would be adequate
opportunity for public review. EPA would be an active participant in this review process
and, if necessary under 40 CFR Section 1502.9(c), a Supplemental Final EIS addressing
alternative sludge management options would be prepared. EPA will not commit to issuance
of a supplemental EIS, however, until such time as the need for one is demonstrated.
Polaroid believes EPA should require a more detailed delineation of wetlands, evaluation
of wetlands impacts, and identification of any necessary mitigation measures prior to
any final determination of the environmental acceptability of Site 40 for sludge disposal
and should commit to the issuance of a supplemental EIS to ensure full public review of
these issues.
See above response.
OTHER
There seems to be concern on the part of some Fort Rodman area residents that the
park has been down-sized from original plans and that “public facilities” planned as
part of the Taber Park mitigation plan wifi not be available to the public because of use
by the on-site programs. One commentor questioned whether the South End residents
in the vicinity of Site 1A would really be receiving “neighborhood improvements” from
the Taber Park mitigation plan or whether they would more accurately be termed on-
site improvements.
The overall park area, in excess of 40 acres, actually increased during the design process.
Although the Sea Lab program wifi remain on-site, the Sea Lab site has not been counted as
park acreage, although its landscape plan has been designed to blend into the park and
visually, will be part of it. The development of Taber Park was detailed in the City’s
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, July, 1991; however, several changes have
occurred since that time as the result of the planning and design process.
First, the WWTP design evolved into a more compact facility, shifting slightly to the west,
with the sludge handling building as far away from the residential area as possible. These
A-il
-------
changes were made in response to suggestions by the City Council and supported by local
residents.
Second, public meetings were held in the Fall of 1990 to solicit suggestions for Fort Taber
Park and to establish priorities for mitigation improvements. The selections and priorities of
the public and the design review committee were directly incorporated into the design of
Taber Park. Additional meetings were held in March 1991 and October 1991 to discuss and
clarify the final design. As a result of these changes, the final design for Taber Park
includes greater park area than the original pian from the Draft and Final FP/EIRs. Table
A-2 shows the approximate acreage for each use category for existing and proposed
conditions. Recreation area will increase from about 3 acres to about 36 acres. In addition,
the renovations (picnic facilities, paths, and landscaping) within the 11 acre historic district
will support passive recreation.
As for the concern that the on-site non-profit agencies would utilize the recreation and
parking facilities so that the facilities would not be equally accessible to the general public,
the park is specifically dedicated to use by the general public. Taber Park will be open from
dawn to dusk to everyone. In terms of the children’s playground, the only on-site group
likely to use the playground is Camp Kennedy. This program provides many other
recreational activities (swimming, archery, etc.) and is not anticipated to conflict with
neighborhood users of the playground. Furthermore, the playground will never be closed to
the public during park hours; if such a conflict did arise, the City would be required to find
or create new facilities for Camp Kennedy. Public parking is also not anticipated to be a
problem (see response below to a specific comment related to parking).
Taber Park has been designed to provide public access to multi-faceted waterfront
recreational land and to also provide a buffer between the existing residential and waterfront
land uses and the proposed WWTP. As far as EPA is concerned, Taber Park (as proposed
and detailed below), because it is adjacent to the South End neighborhood and readily
accessible to them, would truly be a benefit to the neighborhood, not simply “on-site”
improvements as suggested by one of the commentors.
The park’s main features are a one-mile plus network of publicly-accessible paths/trails, two
multi-use playing fields, a soccer field, additional open lawn areas, picnic facilities,
refurbishment of Fort Taber, a community boathouse, information signs, an environmental
center, a children’s playground, and lighted parking areas. The children’s playground will
consist of custom designed play structures that can accommodate around 100 children, mostly
enclosed by a combination of benches, tables, seating walls, and a four foot high metal
picket fence. The play structures will include slides, bridges, nets, ladders, climbing walls,
sandboxes, swings, and bouncing animals. The structure will serve a variety of children’s
age groups.
In the passive recreation areas, the park will include additional benches, picnic tables, and
waste receptacles throughout the site including areas along the western shore of the site by
the military batteries. Additional amenities will include an exercise station, drinking
fountains, bike racks, and substantial landscaping improvements.
A- 12
-------
Table A-2
Fort Rodman Present and Future
Land Uses
* Includes facilities in severe disrepair.
** The renovation of the historic district includes making the area more accessible. This
will be done through the refurbishing of the existing fort and batteries, relocation of
an existing historically significant structure within the district, and the addition of
pathways and landscaping to facilitate passive recreation. This area will thus become
an important combination historic and recreation resource.
Includes underutilized land and portions of South Rodney French Boulevard.
1991 correspondance to Susan Coin, EPA from Liz Beardsley, CDM
II
Present
Future
II
Land Use
acres
%
acres
%
WWTP
7.1
9
21.7
27
Active Recreation
2.9*
4
7.8
10
Passive Retreation
0
0
28.5
36
Education
21.7
27
5.1
7
U.S. Military
14.1
18
2.6
3
Historic District
11.2
14
11.2**
14
Other***
22.4
28
2.5
3
Total
79.4
100
79.4
100
A-13
-------
Area Residents are concerned that the proposed 229 parking spaces on Site IA will not
be adequate for public use given their use by personnel from the agencies that are to be
relocated on-site and the fans and players who will be using the soccer field.
The WVI7TP and the existing New Bedford Vocational Technical School have separate
parking areas and are not included in the 229 total spaces. The City has estimated that the
number of spaces should be adequate to serve both the on-site users and the general public.
Table A-3, based on information provided to EPA by CDM in a 1/23/92 letter, summarizes
the anticipated parking requirements of the on-site programs.
Table A-3
User Group Est. No. of Spaces Times Comments
Camp Kennedy 40 (staff) summer only; children are bussed
weekdays
Low Tide Yacht 8 (staff) ± July-August
Club 20 (others) only
Sea Lab 12 (staff) summer only; children are dropped
weekdays off or bussed
Soccer Players 40 (2 Teams year-round;
w/coaches) weekends
Total 120 maximum
The remaining spaces -- approximately 110 -- could be used to serve the general public,
including users of the children’s playground and other park facilities, as well as the soccer
players, coaches, and fans. Note also that the majority of the parking spaces are located at
overlooks or are not near to the cluster of non-profit agencies and would not be expected to
be used by those groups. The three existing parking lots near East Beach (just north of the
site) will also have improved vehicular and pedestrian access and landscaping.
One commentor expressed concern that the City has not found satisfactory alternate
locations for the programs which must be relocated off-site from Site lÀ in order to
allow for construction of the proposed WWTP.
The City of New Bedford has worked directly with each of the programs undergoing
permanent off-site relocation regarding site selection and design of new facilities.
Representatives from those programs have all expressed support of their proposed new sites
and the relocation plan, which was submitted to the Bureau of Relocation of the
A-14
-------
Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development for approval under MGL
Ch.79A, was approved on July 29, 1991.
The same commentor also questioned the suitabifity of the proposed sites selected for
temporary off-site relocations.
Sea Lab : The City’s ultimate plan for the Sea Lab program is to renovate two on-site
buildings and construct a new building on-site (scheduled for completion by 1996). In the
meantime, the City is still working with the Sea Lab program to identify a temporary site
adjacent to the water to accommodate this summer program while its new facilities are being
prepared. The program may utilize an existing New Bedford school.
Camp Kennedy : EPA concedes that the temporary relocation of this summer recreation
program to Keith Jr. High School will not provide the same kind of outdoor seashore
atmosphere that it currently has. However, Camp Kennedy will only be in these temporary
facilities for four summers and during that time, the campers will have access to a swimming
pool and athletic facilities not available at the current location.
Marine Program : This program will not require relocation. According to the director of the
New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School, the school has ended its marine
education program due to a lack of student interest. Only four students graduated last year
and budget reductions at the school forced the closing.
One commentor wanted to know whether installation of the proposed security gates
would interfere with truck access to the WWTP.
The park will include a series of gates that can be closed as portions of the park are closed at
night. The main security gate for the park will be placed after the turnoff for the WWTP so
that access to the treatment plant can remain open while the park is closed.
One commentor asked what group(s) will utilize the Environmental Information Center
and wanted to know the cost of asbestos removal for that building.
The City of New Bedford, in developing the mitigation program, believed it would be
important to provide an information center on-site dedicated to public information about the
environment -- the ultimate reason for the project. The City has included the environmental
information/education center in the fmal site layout plans. The center will be housed in a
renovated existing building with historic significance. EPA does not know the actual cost for
the asbestos removal, but CDM has informed us that the costs associated with renovation,
including necessary asbestos removal, are accounted for in the total project costs presented
thus far. The City plans to use the center as a museum and information center with space
available to environmental groups that request it. The center could include exhibits relating
to the history of Clarks Point, information about the City’s wastewater system, and other
environmental projects. The center will not be ready for use until 1997 or later and at this
point in time the City has not actively pursued securing specific tenants. It is expected that
A-15
-------
such newly renovated space will be in demand and the City will be able to fill it with
appropriate groups.
One commentor questioned whether the proposed “beach restoration” wifi simply be a
clean up project. -
A total of $800,000 in mitigation funds has been earmarked for beach restoration. Although
design has not been completed, the plan is to make major improvements to the public
beaches (East and West Beaches) and simply clean up the beaches on the project site
(because of their rocky nature, there has historically been limited public interest in using
them).
One cominentor asked for more details on the proposed picnic areas and overlooks.
The City plans to clean the batteries, to develop and implement a planting pian (grass and
other plantings), and to install park furniture such as picnic tables, benches, and trash
receptacles. Figure A-i shows the proposed location of the picnic areas and overlooks.
One commentor believed that the planned demolition, grading, and seeding of the
present primary WWTP site at Site 1A should not be considered a site improvement
because the Fort Rodman area would gain this area without the construction of a new
plant.
Although it is true that the existing treatment plant will be decommissioned when the new
treatment plant is built, it would not necessarily be demolished nor would funds likely be
made available for grading and seeding if the plant were built at Site 4A.
One commentor was concerned that Table 5.6 in the Final EIS is not up-to-date, but
instead based on 1988 figures. That commentor also wanted to see a comparison of
costs for Site 4A.
Table 5.6, based on 1990 estimated costs, was checked in the Fall of 1991 and is still
considered to be a good estimate of anticipated project costs. If anything, projected
engineering costs may actually have gone down due to the slow economy. Unfortunately,
cost estimates for Site 4A have not been updated since the Draft EIS because it was not part
of the recommended plan. For this reason, the 1990 estimated cost figures in Table 5.6 for
the recommended plan (including a WWTP at Site 1A) cannot really be compared to Site 4A;
however, EPA expects that any economic conditions affecting the cost figures for Site 1A
(e.g. economic downturn, inflation) would affect the figures for Site 4A in a comparable way
and therefore, they would remain approximately the same relative to each other.
One commentor asked about the current status of the proposed Howard Avenue septage
receiving facility.
The need for a new septage receiving facility was identified in the facilities planning process.
The City’s facilities plan identified the existing Howard Avenue pumping station as the site
A-16
-------
for the facility if the WWTP is located at Site 1A; the Site 4A alternative included a new on-
site septage receiving facility. Costs of the septage receiving facility were included in the
estimates for each site; however, the cost was considered an off-site cost for Site 1A and an
on-site cost for Site 4A.
At the present time, the City has decided that the existing Howard Avenue pump station
would not be suitable for renovation as a septage receiving facility. The main reason is that
the facility has inadequate space for vehicles; the facility could accommodate only one
vehicle, and no waiting vehicles. The City remains committed to relocation of the septage
receiving facility, however, and continues to carry its cost in the project budget. The City
will notify EPA and DEP when it identifies a new location for the septage receiving facility.
In the meantime, changing the location of the septage receiving facility should not make an
appreciable difference in the estimated costs for Site 1A and would not affect the analysis for
Site 4A at all because septage receiving would still be an on-site cost if the WWTP were
located at Site 4A.
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
OURNEAU-SURPRENANT-LETOURNEAU
Union Street, Box B-969, New Bedford, MA 02741
LS&L
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Raymond A. Letourneau
Robert L Surprenant
John P Lecourr au
Building Inspector of the
City of New Bedford
Building Department
City Hall
133 William Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
Dear Mr. Landreville:
July 9, 1991
(508) 994-5200
FAX (508) 990-7930
RE: Denis R. Silva, 979 Rodney French Blvd; Maurice
Metcalfe, 903 Rodney French Blvd; Charles L. Goulart, 15 Brock
Avenue; Thomas Kelleher, 199 Bay View St.; Diana B. Duarte, 193
Bay View Street;
We are the owners of land surrounding Fort Rodman in New
Bedford. Our property and those in our area are in a single
family residence district. The City of New Bedford by and
through the Mayor is in the process of building a secondary waste
water treatment plant on land located in Fort Rodman in violation
of the zoning laws. Such a plant is not allowed on land zoned
for Residential purposes.
Pursuant to Mass. G.L. c.40A §7 we hereby request that you
enforce the zoning ordinance against the City of New Bedford and
I request a report of the action you take on this matter and the
reasons therefore within fourteen days.
Sincerely yours,
RAYMOND A. LETOURNEAU
Attorney for the above-named land owners
\ [ JuL 15 9i
MEP-i,
01
-------
SAVE FORT RODMAN COMMITTEE
406 W. RODNEY FRENCH BLVD.
NEW BEDFORD, MA. 02744
TEL. (508) 992-9659
August 10, 1991 02
Ms. Ann Rodney
U. S. Environ enta1 Protection Agency
Region I
1 Congress Street
Boston, Mass.
Dear Ms. Rodnçy:
Re: Wastewater Treatment Facilities for
the City of New Bedford, Ma.
EOEA if 4 2 3
Final Environmental IDpact Sta nent
July 1991
We would ii e to take this opportunity to tnank EPA for
allowing our Committee to respond to your FEIS, and, tnerefore,
enclose our comments.
We also enclose a co?y of our August utfl, 1991 comments to
. .?.A. relative to relocation and mitigation, wriich we request
yOU incLide as part of our connents.
We wisa to advise that we do not agree witn your conclusions
and feel CL-lat after reading your statement, if the plant is constructed
at Site 1A, we can all ‘write 0 ffT tie wnole area. The only project we
will have on tnis last parcel of csastal pro?erty in New Bedford is an
Ind striai O iBX.
v,c y ru1y yours,
- .1• fl ‘Lit •
—. . — ..JL . .L. d..d
FORT RODMAN - EDUCATION AND RECREATION FOR ALL...
-------
SAVE FORT RODMAN COMMITTEE
406 W. RODNEY FRENCH
NEW BEDFORD, MA. 0274
TEL (508) 992-9659
August 10, 1991 02
RE: WA STE WA TER TREA THENT FAC IL ITIES FOR THE CITY
OF NEW BEDFORD, MA. E.O.E.A. #6425
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - JULY 1991
The “Save Fort Rodman Committee” comments on the captioned statement
are as follows:
4.1 AIR QUALITY, ODORS, AND NOISE
Page 4-3 Your statement mentions noise at Fort Radman as a result of
drilling and blasting. You state blasting would be necessary
and would occur 4 to 5 times daily, as isolated blasts iastin3
for perhaps severa . 3e(.cn s. : oz a troximateiy months.
After new test borings taken in 1991, which we assume you have
access to, what will be the duration of blasting, drilling and
stone r r ’ hing? How many times daily and how many months?
4.2 CULTURAL RE SOURCE S
Page 4-5 You mention that planned mitigation, which includes STABILIZATION
of the existing Fort Taber structure . . . Will you kindly
explain “stabilization” as referred to in this instance 2 This
is the first time we have seen this word used in reference to
Fort Taber.
You mention safety and accessibility improvements, and the paving
of the area in front of the Fort, will have a positive-impact on
the cultural resources that will result if the plant is built at
Fort Rodman (Site 1A). Please identify the CULTURAL RESOURCES.
4.4 LAND USE CONFLICTS
Page 4-9 Your report states that in May 1990, the New Bedford City Council
voted and approved the selection of Fort Rodman. . . . This vote
should be further explained to all interested parties. We r F :-
to M.E.P.’S statement of March 5, 1990, after the Mayor’s vis
Recommended Plan was submitted. M.E.P.A. stated that ‘si nif : nt
revisions to the recommended plan have raised additional
concerns relative to mitigation commitments and fundamental
issues of plant, design, fatuity siting and facilities plan
adequacy”. The City was told at a meeting on March 3, 1991,
in Boston with federal and state agencies that most of their
cost saving measures would not be accepted, as you have also
FORT RODMAN - EDUCATION AND RECREATION FOR ALL...
-------
-2- 02
stated on oage 4-5 of your Final EIS.
The Mayor, knowing that these savings would not be realized
or acce ted by the agencies, continued to LIE to the City
Council and the people of New Bedford, through his political
paid ads in our local newspaper.
The Mayor submitted his motion to the City Council, for
approval of the Fort Rodman site, and after their vote,
made statements publicly that thereWAS NO $20 to $30 million
savings plan at Fort Rodman!
Page 4-10 Epa mentions the Mayor’s reasons for choosing Fort Rodman
(Site LA):
- 1) “THE CITY SHOULD NOT TAKE PRIVATE 0’E TY Y EMINENT
DOMAIN”.
The r ortgagee of tne i roDerty kr r yn as “Tbe t n erd-Tj ies
Field’ as advertised that said - o erty will be sold at
auction on the d y of August 1 9l. Does this, there-
fore, negate this reason?
The statet,ent a’so states that t ’e Iayor sup?orts the .ty
Council in develcoing solutions to the restrictions on
the deeds at Fort Rodman. Should you not correct this
statement to read just the opposite? The Mayor is loo r...
to the City Council for support. In December 1990, the
Mayor requested a vote of the city council on a petition
for an act in the state legislature permitting tL e use of
oarcels of land at Fort Rodman, for educational, Dark,
public health, and other municipal Durposes, thereby 1iftin
the Drevious dced restrictions.
This same Mayor i ay of 1991, had his lawyers draft
Senate Bill 1500. s:hich was filed as a “Home Rule Petition T7 :
however the iiraseology in SB 1500, was not the same wordi
as the ‘Home Rule Petition”. Said bill was presented to the
Senate for their “ tc. The bill clearly stated “for the
construction and c-: :ztion of a ;•iastewater treatrent,
collection. and i:s csa1 lant and related faci1ities (
cooy of said wcrd is attached herewith).
e were apprise this fact by OLLr reoersentative,
Antonio Cabral, w-.o subsequently wes able to have the
language change-I to reflect the “i.iorne Rule Petiti r ’ of
the City Council vote.
-------
i 2 -The statement s iade that “because of t e e:::.st n deed
restrictions at Fort Rodman, it could never suDoort tax
revenue-producing development”. Here again, if the dee
restrictions are not applicable, this also negates his
as it now becomes residentially zoned.
#3 -The last reason in part stated “Development of Taber Park
would not be possible if the Standard-Times Field site was
chosen”. This mayor now states that he has a $900,000.
grant for Taber Park, which is not contigent on construc-
tion of a WWTP, therefore, is not this reason invalid also?
sage 4-10 With reference to the zoning at Fort Rodman, we wish to advise
that our Committee has commenced legal action against the City
of New Bedford on this matter.
Page 4-11 You in lude N. B. Vocational Tech. High School arine Indus-
tries Program as not being disolaced. It has now been made
public that they will be leaving. You may recall in our
orevious comments to the agencies, that we stated this program
was vacating Fort L odrxian. This was later denied by the City
Planner in a letter to Natalie B. Arnett, of our committee.
Incidentally, this letter dated March 21st, 1991, was allegedly
mailed to Mrs. Arnett; however, never received by her. We
received a copy of said letter at our meeting in Boston with
1s. Susan Tierney.
Page 4-il You state that commentors expressed concerns over location of
the WWTP (Site lÀ) outside the hurricane barrier. Our
comr itte is still deeply concerned with this problem and are
rLot pleased with your co nents. e : ave beon adv sed that
the City will be obligated to obtair Flood insurance at Fort
Rodrr.an. Can anyone at EPA advise the cost for this coverage?
Is this cost already in the WWTP operation and maintenance
cost - Table 5.5 on page 5-9?
Why has the City not app1ied to F.E.N.A. for a ap revisiorL
at Fort Rodrnan of t e flood Qlain?
Page 4-13 When speaking of Vis ia1 est et cs z
the view, the more people want to see it”. The view is there
already - there is no other spot in the City of New Bedford
where the people can view the ocean on three sides, with the
Elizabeth Islands in view and an expansive view of Buzzards
Bay. The only problem here is that with a WWTP on this site,
the “pretty view” will be lost forever.
4.8 TECHNOLOGY/DESIGN
Page 4-18 Concerns over potential damage from salt water/air to s1ectron c
and computer equipment -- W y is there a co parisor . •2r
b t - en Site LA & - ? W i is ..: r
issues, sucii as, mitigation, relocation, real estate values,
-------
-4- 02
trucking/traffic, visual aesthetics, land use conflicts,
just to namea few? We believe this to be bias.
4.9 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Page 4-19 Comparisons are made of the number of truck trips when
the plant will be operating. Why don’t the agencies and
Camp, Dresser, McKee also compare the size of the trucks
that will be used, so we can have a clear comparison?
It certainly does not make any sense to ma’e a statement
regarding the number of truck trips when the present plant
has only one building. There should be a clarification on
this issue, in view of the fact that the proposed plant will
have 12 buildings, arid generate triple the amount of sludge.
Again we point out that these are residential roads with
beacnes, boat ramps, etc. along tne major routes.
4.11 OTHER
Page 4-30 With reference to bias, we would like to point out that the
Camp, Dresser, McKee drafts were most certainly biased.
When referring to Fort Rodman (Site lÀ) the drafts repeatedly
stated that by locating the plant at lÀ, Buzzards Bay would
have cleaner waters. No where in these drafts, did CDM make
the same statement about the Standard-Times Field (Site 4A).
We wonder why?
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
Page 5-4 EPA states that the development of a public park around tne
oerimeter of the facility will ensure that the VALUABLE
waterfront at Fort Rodman will be preserved for public use.
The waterfront will lose - its distinction as T1 VALUA LE ” if
a WTP is constructed at tae site. This is the reason we
iave such deplorable conditions at t e site now -- tae
Dresent WWTP is situated there.
In view of the true definition of :.neig tborhood. , wnat will
the neighborhood receive in the line of improvements? All
the so-called neignborhood improvements” are on site, are
they not? Our answer to the questions is “ZERO”
The neighbors of Fort Rodman will receive nothing but
aggravation, noise, odors, air toxics, dust, blasting,
heavy vehicular traffic, just to mention a “few” (improve-
ments).
Page 5-12 - 5.2.5. Implementation considerations.
E.P.A. refers to the various tables; namely, Table 5.6 and
5.7. Is there anyone who can tihonestlylt say that any of the
measures for cost savings at Fort Rodman exclusively, are
realities?
-------
—5-
- Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 reflect 1988 figures. Can’t
Camp, Dresser, McKee or the City of New Bedford compute
p-to-date figures or do we all, live with costs that are
now 3 years old? We would also Like to see a comparison
of costs at the Standard-Times Field.
Page 5-15 5.3 1. Secondary Wa tewater Treatment Plant
Reference is again made to the City Council vote (Nay 1990).
We repeat again that this should not be a valid reason for
EPA’S consideration of Fort Rodman. The vote of the City
Council was taken before the members of the Council were
aware that the so’called cost. savings wer in fact an
illusion.
Again EPA refers to Neighborhood Improvements, when in
actuality the “neighbors” are receiving nothing in improve-
ments.
Page 5-19 5.3.1.1 - Land use and zoning.
EPA states that “land-use impacts . .. will enhance the
unique waterfront and historic portions on the site.
A “ UNIQUE ” waterfront does not need enhancing, if so, it
would not be “UNIQUE”.
-------
02
SENATE...... .No. 1500
By Mr. MacLean, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No.
1500) of Willium Q. MacLean, Jr., Joseph B. Mcintyre and Robert
M. Koczera (with the approval of the mayor and city council) for
legislation to authorize the city of New Bedford to use certain land
for the construction and operation of a wastewater treatment plant
and related facilities. State Administration.
t uuuefl)ata Rb of à%Mtbu%ett%
In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-One.
AN Acr AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD TO USE CERTAIN LAND
FOR THE CONSTRUCrION AND OPERATION OF A WASTEWATER TREAT-
MENT PLANT AND RELATED FACILITIES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives mGeneral
Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
I SECI1ON 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of any genera] or
2 special state or local law or ordinance to the contrary, the City
3 of New Bedford is hereby authorized to use certain land in said
4 city, portions of which may have been or were acquired or used
5 for public• park, recreational or educational purposes, for the
6 constructignand oneratign of a wastewater treatment, collection ,
7 and disposal plant and related facilities, and for other facilii ics
8 and uses, including but not linii d to public and private
9 education, recreation and historic facilities and uses, whether
10 directly by said city or indirectly through its agents, lessees or
11 others.
12 The land is bounded and described as follows:
13 Certain land in the City of New Bedford located in an area
14 known as Clark’s Point (Fort Rodman) and consisting of seven
15 parcels of land, bounded and described as follows:
16 Parcel 1. Beginning at a point in the northerly line of Rodney
17 French Boulevard (South), distant westerly therein 168 feet from
18 the easterly line of Brock Avenue; then South 70°-09 ‘-52 West
19 in said northerly line of Rodney French Boulevard (South), 844.22
-------
02
SAVE FORT RODMAN COMMITTEE
406 W. RODNEY FRENCH BLVD.
NEW BEDFORD, MA 02744
TEL. (508) 992-9659
August 8, 1991
Ms. Susan Tierney. Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Corn monweak h of Massachusetts, M EPA Unit
10(1 Cambridge Street
Boston. Massachusetts 02202
Re: Cit ’ of New Bed 1 rd. MA
Secondary Wastcwatcr Treatment Plan
E.O.E.A. #6425
Dear Ms. Tiemcv:
On hehaliol the Save Fort Rodman Committee and rcsidcnt.s of the city of New Bedford,
lind enclosed comments on Camp Dresser & McKee Inc’s “Volume IX, Supplcmcntal
I:i, ironmenial Impact Report Additional Information Final 1991.” The comments address Lhe
i. ’ .stiC ’ . ol:
I. Relocation’. 1mm Fort Rodman Site
2. Proieet Mitiizaiion Taher Park
PERMANENT OFF-SITE RELOCATIONS
The permanent oli-’ .itc relocations that must take place to locate the secondary Waste Water
Treatment Plant at Fort Rodrnan involve educational programs. Early Learning Child Care Inc.,
PAC Head ’ .art. Alternative High School, and the Special Nceds Program are in a unique
edLicational setting at Fort Rodman. The Fort Rodman setting provides the students with a protcctcd
and seciLid ed open space area separated from the traffic and activities associated with the inner city.
The City of New Bedford has had difficulty in obtaining for these programs an equitable and
cost efficient alternative to there present facilities as proven by the numerous changc.s that the
relocation plan has undergone. Currently, the City is to relocate the programs to various buildings --
the Hiliman Street Complex, Thomas Greene School, and the Ben Rose Community Center. The
huildings are in congested, heavily trafficked arcas of the City and are in need of costly major
renovation’..
Early Lcarnin Child Care Inc. :
Relocated to Building 6 of the Hiliman Strcct Complcx, this program services one hundred
lificen (I 15) students. The Hiliman Street Complex houses many of the City’s department and other
olhces. The proposed outdoor playground for the pre-school children is located across a major
thoroughfare. Lead paint is present in the complex but its removal is not listed in any of the
specilications. The presence of lead paint was one of the reasons why the Poor Farm site wa.s
eliminated as a rekxaiion consideration. What will be the cost for removal of the lead paint?
-------
Ms. Susan T rncv. Scciccary 02
/\tigiist . 19’)!
Pcit e 2.
Special Needs Pro zrarn :
Relocated to Building 9 of the Hillman Street Complex, this program services the
educational and recreational needs of thirty (30) handicapped adults.
Alternative lliizh School :
Relocated to Building 5 (Girl’s Gym) of the Hiliman Street Complex, this program scrvices
one hundred (100) special needs studenLs. The young people enrolled in this program arc students
thai cannot con lorm to a structured educational atmosphcrc and also have difficulty functioning in a
typical classrooni setting. Representatives of the Ncw Bedford School Departmcnt, recalling when
the Alternative High School was originally at Hillman Street, stated that the program had been a
complete Iailure there. Duc to the Hiliman Street Complcx being a multi-usc building, it was
dillicult to maintain control over who was entering and exiting the building. As a result, the
AlternaLi e I-ugh School’s students found ii. easy to come and go from the vast complex. The
nioving ol the-program to Fort. rodman eliminated many of the problems hindering the program and
it became siiccesslitl. The Fort Rodman site afforded the instructors privacy and security that.
enabled them to conduct their classes without outsidc interference and confusion. The instructor.s
had a location to give troubled youth private guidance by removing them irom a problem situation
1 iiid walking viih theni around the grounds or on the beach. To relocate the program back into an
airnosphere were it has already been proven unsucce.ssiul is absurd. (See pictures of Hiliman Street
Corn plex)
The I lilinian Street Complex is in need of maior renovations involving work in the lbllowing
ilre;us. rnisunrv is in need ot cleaning and repair. repair and repiaccmcnt of miscellaneous metals,
hashing and sheet metal. rnet iI roofing, and siding: scalanLs and caulking are required:
metal windows: linish hardware: plaster work, including gypsum drywall; replacement of composite
stone, ceramic Lile. quarry tile. re ilicni flooring including carpeting. painting; hydraulic elevator,
plumbing, sprinkler systems: HVAC system; electrical system; not mentioned arc drainage,
underground utilities, lead cleaning and lead paint removal.
The Specilications have since been recalled due to the omission of additional renovations
that would hc required on this building.
PACE/Head Start :
This program i.s to hc relocated to the Thomas Greene School and to Ben Rose Community
Center. This program is Federally funded and ser ’iccs two hundred forty (240) pre-school students
Irom low-income l imihies. Two hundred twenty (220) of the students will be relocated to the
Greene School. The Greene School has been vacant for many years and has deteriorated. It is in a
thickly settled and heavily traflicked location across from a public housing project. The school is
situated on a corner lot with minimal play .spacc. The outside area measures 5400 square feet and,
thcrel rc. does not meet ihe Federal criteria of seventy-five (75) square feet per pupil. A total of
sixteen thousand i vc hundred (16,500) square feet would be required to meed Federal criteria.
The Thomas Greene School (see pictures enclosed) is in need of major renovations involving
work in the l iIlowing arca.s: unit masonzy repairs; repairs and replacement of miscellaneous metals,
building insulation llashing, sheet metal, scalants, caulking, glass and glazing, wood windows, finish
hardware. gypstini drywall systems, resilient flooring, including carpeting, painting and finishing;
hydraulic elevator.; plumbing, sprinkler, HVAC and electrical systems; not mentioned are drainage
and underground utilities.
-------
M . Swan Tiernev. Secretary 0
Aiitzusl . Y ) I
Page 3.
The specilicat ions have since been recalled due to the omission of additional renovations that
would he required on this building.
Ben Rose COITI rn Li n ity Center :
CDM has not included, in their report, that twcnty (20) of the Hcad Start students will be
permanently houscd in the Ben Rose community Center. This building is located in one of the most
dangerous sections ol the City due to the high crime and thug dealing activities that take place.
Sometime during August 3, 4, and 5. 1991 the building wa.s fired upon. Bullet holes can be scen in
the windows and children’s play equipment in thc building . The safcly of Lhcsc children is in
question. Thus is also evidenced by the fact that thcre are iron bars placed on all the windows of the
center. The Iront ol the building is painted over with drawings and the words 11 Rcst in Pcasc” in
very large letters. The building next door is vacant, hoarded up, and labeled with no trespassing
signs. The center’s plan area of twelve hundred (1200) square feet also does not meet Federal
Guidelines and abuts the hack yards of the adjoining housing project. (Soc pictures enclosed.)
ON-SITE RELOCATIONS WITH TEMPORARY OFF-SITE MOVE
Sea Lab :
The Summer Marine Biology Program which services onc hundred forty (140) students. It
will be relocated during construction to a downtown location on the working waterfront and not to
Roosevelt .lunior Hitth School as last stated by CDM.
All l icilities needed to property conduct Sea Lab arc not available at this location.
Classroom space l r one hundred tony (140) students is needed. While at Fort Rodman, the
students had the advantage of a private beach for their water rclatcd activities and studic.s. Now the
students will he bussed to West Beach which is heavily utilized by the public bccau.sc it is the only
City beach with lileguards.
Camp Kennedy :
This Summer Recreation Program services two hundred ten (210) children. The temporary
move is to existiuig school laculities and lields. Locating Camp Kennedy in a school setting lacks the
outdoor seashore atmosphere associated with summer camp. For many of these city children, Camp
Kennedy providc.s them with their only contact with an outdoor, open-space, sea-shore atmosphere.
This will definitely he lacking while the camp is situated in a school setting.
Fort Rodman Marine Program :
This wa.s previously referred to as the thw Tide Yacht club. It was given this new name in
an attempt to justify its existence as a Leaching program whilc, in reality, it is a private sailing club
on city owned land.
The City of New Bed l rd has gone to great lengths to find locations for all these recreational
and educational prograrn.s. The City established certain characteristics when reviewing potential
sites: (1) already owned by the city, (2) suitable for the proposed program, 3) immediate
availabiLity. (4) ol historic interest and in need of renovation, and (5) located in areas which would
be compatible with the proposed use.
-------
M¼. St.ic,iin Ticrne . Secretary
/ LItZIiS1 S. l ) )l
Pat c 4.
Alter reviewing CD M’s report and bcing familiar with the locations, questions must be raised
rcg;irding some of the characteristics. The immediate availability of thcsc buildings is not
uuai-antccd (tue to all the major renovation work that must occur. Also, the Locations of the buildings
thcrn’%clves irc not necessarily in areas appropriate as cducational settings for the children. The
process sccnm l oIhardy and unnecessary when the current placement of these programs at Fort
Rodman meets all the izuidclinc.s.
MITIGATION
The Access Road
1 lie exIsting road into Fort Rodman is the main road to Fort Tabor and the educational
lacilu ties no v located at Fort Rodman. Although the city lists the new acccs.s road as a mitigation
rnea urc. it is required as the main access to thc new Waste Water Treatment Plant. This road will
he utilized by the relocated programs -- Sea Lab, Camp Kennedy. The Fort Rodman Marine
Program. The Soccer Field. and the general public who desire to use the park facilities. This is also
the enlrance to the historic district (Fort Tabor). All this will he shared with the daily functtons at
the Waste Water Treatment Plant and the sludge trucks that will be entering an exiting every hour.
The road is riot capable. in its present condition, of handling the sludge trucks, therefore, we feel this
is a construction cost. not a m itRtalion cost.
P irkin
The city h.is proposed two hundred twenty-nine (229) parking spaces. With the addition of
the on-sue relocated agencies, these parking spaces will be utilized by the instructors and personnel
;ind tans and players of the relocated soccer field. I-low many spaces does that provide the public?
This is a necessity brought on by relocation.
Gaie House
The letter c i i March 21st from the City Planner states an elaborate network of security
devices, including a gate house. As the Save Fort Rodman Committee reported previously, the city
eliminated all hut the gales that would be closed at dusk. This was reported to us at a meeting with
the City Planner long bel irc he reported this elaborate system to the agencies in the March 21st
letter. The City Planner also stated that the gates would be locked at dusk. Since this is the main
access road to the Wasie Water Treatment Plant, how will the sludge trucks, which operate on an
hourly basis, enter the Waste Water Treatment Plant?
Environmental Information Center :
The building thai is proposed as an Environmental Information Center is identified as the
building containing asbestos and is so labeled with a “Danger” sign. What will be the cost of
making this building safe for public use? What organization will utilize this building?
Marine Proi ram :
The vocational high schxi l Marinc Program has been eliminated at Fort Rodman. In the
letter From the city dated March 21st, the City Planner stated that there were no plans to ask thts
program to move. However, the program is, in fact, moving and there will no longer be a Marine
Program.
-------
Ms. Susan ricrnev. Secretary 02
,\Ligusl , 1)1)
Page 5.
The Vocational High School has had no rcccnt hudgct cuts and as a matter of fact thc Marine
Program has just been awarded two (2) grants of$l0 ,000 and $25,000 respectively. Boats havc also
been doria ted to the program br the USC of the stUdents.
South Rodney French Boulevard
South Rodney French Boulevard will not have the promised improvements described in
earlier issues. Thc DPW’s plan to widen the road is not a mitigation. This will have to occur before
any improvements to the South side of the Boulevard can be made.
The Beach Restoration
The beach restoration is simply a clean up project. The buffer area is adjacent to the new
access road and will be in disarray because of road construction that will bc needed Lbr the main
access road br the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Picnic Areas and Overlooks
CDM has only told u’s what they will not do . The only plans arc to clean batteries and plant
grass. l ’ s this a mitigation?
Play Areas and Exercise Center
The large play area proposed will bc provided for the agencies being relocated on-site. Will
a park visitor he allowed to utitiLc these playground fealures during the summer months when Camp
Keiiriedy is in session?
Fort •rabor Sii Improvements
The city plans to secure the historic Fort Tabor and clean it up. This is solely br cosmetic
purposes and will not allow tourists or students, or the public to tour this unique at rac ion. The city
Plans to have signs to tell visitors what is contained in Fort Tabor instead of allowing walking tours.
The location of the present Waste Water Trcat.mcnt Plant will be graded and seeded. This
plant vill he demolished o matter which location is selected 1 r the new Waste Water Treatment
Plant. This is not a mitigation. It should be a construction cost. Fort Rodman would gain this area
without the construction of a new plant.
Path System
The construction of a path system is one of the few additions to this property that does not
fall tinder a con.slruction or relocation category.
Multi-use Playing Field
Due to the fact that the city could not rclocaLc the Federally Funded Soccer Field, ii. has been
relocated on-site with parking l r forty (40) cars. There arc a multitude of soccer players associated
with this league that will he using this field. The parking lot associated with this field will not even
accommodate the teams, manages and coaches. This will eliminate the parking lot from public use.
Sea Lat
Sea Lab which is an on-site relocation will be housed in two refurbished buildings and one
newly constructed building at the entrance to the site. Parking spaces will be made available. This
on-site relocation will mean a down-sizing of Tabor Park. This Marine Program, as part of the
-------
Ms. Susan Tierncv. S cretary 02
AugList (9 JI
Pa c ( .
curricular, will uliliLe the beaches and therelore limit the area for public use. The school will he
located outsidc of the security gate.
I loward Avenue
The Howard A cnue Pumping Station was required to accept scptagc of thc leaching beds
lrom the surrounding towns. This was a mitigation measurc not mentioned with the on-site
niiligations hut ii was a mitigation measure only on Site IA (Fort Rodman). This proposal was
undertaken to eliminate the additional truck traffic that would be traveling through this residential
neighborhood. The estimate of ninety (96) trucks per week (192 round trips) would add a
suh tantial burden to the already significant truck traffic that the Waste Water Treatment Plant
would generate.
There is no mention in the mitigation section as to where the septage trucks would deposit to
if I-Inward Avenue is not an acceptable location. This is also an added expense as there would be no
need li r a second seplagc depository ii The Standard-Times Field, Site 4A. is the location of the
Waste Wiiler Treatment Plant.
SUMMARY
We arc concerned about the on-going changes to the mitigation plans at Fort Rodman.
The dralt states that the park area has increased due to the down-siLing of the Waste Water
Treatment Plant. We note. however, that the original plan loT Lhc Fort Rodrnan complex w s to only
include the Fort Taher Historic District, the Low Tide Yacht Club, Sea Lab, and the Waste Water
Treatment Plant. The remainder of the properly was to bc developed for a public park. Due to the
inability ol the city to relocate Camp Kennedy and the l dcraLly funded soccer field, these programs
are now icniaining on the Tihcr Park site. The latest plan calls br the ftllowirig on-site additions:
I. Sea Lab: One (I) newly constructed building, two (2) renovated buildings, and
parking lacilitic.s.
2. Camp Kennedy will occupy four (4) renovated buildings, outside recreational areas,
beach privileges and parking facilities.
3. The Fort Rodman Marine Program (formerly Low Tide Yacht Club, a private boating
lacility) will occupy three (3) renovated buildings and control of the renovated boat
house lacilities.
4. Federally-funded Soccer Field: used by a soccer league and has parking for forty
(40) cars. This area was previously designated for a multipurpose piayfield.
These additional nine (9) buildings and parking facilities will take an enormous area of Taber
Park from public use. The on-site presence of these programs points out the impossibility and
inability ol the City to find locations of equal atmosphere and surroundings for them. It also means
that any money spent in relation to these programs must come from relocation funds.
The Mayor announced. on several occasions, that $7.3 million had been carmarkcd for
mitigation and neighborhood improvements. This was to give the host neighborhood so-called
-------
Ms. Susan Tiernet. Secretary
August 8. 1 9’) I
Page 7. 02
“sweeteners” to Ie sen the impact ol the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Relocation funds, however,
were to he a separate category with separate funding.
Most of the area designated lbr “public use”, except lbr the jogging paths, grassed areas and
parking areas are on the site oE the present Waste Water Treatmeni Plant. This area will be available
br tins use without the presence ol a Waste Water Treatment Plant on this site.
The Army. despite being an economic advantage to the city, is already a casualty of the
proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant siting. The most recent casualty is the Vocational Marine
Program.
The City-run Agencies are remaining on-site while the educational facility, having a choice,
is moving out. This should point out that being on a complex with a Waste Water Treatment Plant is
not where an educational program would choose to locate. We feel that locattng the federal and city
agencies 0 1 ,-site would he detrimental. CDM states that even the best constructed Waste Water
Treatment Plants will have odors.
The Save Fort Rodman Committee would like to request that the agencies not allow the
Waste Water Treatment Plant to he built on Fort Rodman because they too recognize the fact that
the City is unable to Iull’ill the mitigation or off-site relocation plans that were proposed.
Additionally. this proposal calls for the hourly trucking of sludge which would prove a disruption to
the on-s ite educational lne,l,ties. the neighbors in a residential ‘A’ neighborhood. a highly utilized
public recreational and beach area, and the entire peninsula.
There is another alternative Site 4A, The Standard-Times Field, which is located oil a four-
lane liighwa and is properly Limed. This site can he obtained immediately as the land is to he
auctioned oil on August 28. 1991. The City could obtain this property at a tremendous cost savings.
The Mayor has announced he would like to go ahead with a $30 million loan to begin with
relocation.s. However, current agencies could remain on site with the repairs they may need being
made with other lunding. The site of the current Waste Water Treatment Plant which will be
demolished .is part of the construction cost could become part of a park and be funded with the
$900.OO() grant which the Mayor has already acquired. Fort Tahor would then be able to be
designated an “historic building” making it eligible for funds to restore it and allow it to finally
become the tourist attraction it would never be with a Waste Water Treatment Plant as its neighbor.
The Mayor has said that the reasons for selecting Fort Rodman as his preferred site were:
I. The Standard-Times Field is privately owned and he frowned on acquiring land by
eminent domain.
This land has been foreclosed on and is on the auction block. Our sources have
inlurmed us it could be acquired for $2 million dollars
2. That Fort Rotiman is already City owned land
The millions of dollars needed to relocate agencies presently occupying the site and
the mitigation measures needed to justify this selection will far exceed the $2 million
needed to acquire the Standard-Times Field.
-------
Ms. Susan Tierney. Secretary 02
Aut iu i : ‘ i I
Page 4.
3. Fort Rodman is in need of repair.
There are repairs needed on some of the buildings. These projects can he addressed
and funded ihrough other means. The city has alrcady received a $900,000 Grant to
be used at Fort Rodman. These funds could be the beginning of making Fort Rodman
a “true park”. and gaining acceptance as a National Historic Landmark. New Bedford
would Finally have a true seashore toudst attraction that would be enjoyed for
generations. All of which will not hc possible if a Waste Water Treatment Plant is
allowed to locate at the site.
Ii there arc any questions concerning this report, please feel free to call:
Marilyn Pontes (508) 993-6076
Natalie Arnctt (508) 992-9659
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Pontcs
MAP: mao
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Susan Coin. E.P.A.
Mr. Alan Slater. MA. DEP
Mr. Jan Smith. MA. CZM
-------
PACE/Head Start
Permanent relocation Site for 20 Pre-school Children
02
-------
PACE/Head Start
Relocation Site for 220 Head Start Pre-school Children
(Greene School)
-------
i e for Early Learning Child Care, Inc., Sped
leeds Program, and Alternative Hign school
e ocai
HILIMAN STREET COMPLEX
-------
CDM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
environmental engineers, scientists, Hospital Trust Tower
planners. & management consultants One Hospital Trust Plaza
Providence. Rhode Island 02903
401 751-5360
12 August 1991
Ms.AnnRodney 03
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building, WQE
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Rodney,
For the City of New Bedford, we are writing to submit comments on the Final EIS for the New Bedford
Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
We found the document generally to be accurate and consistent with the City’s Facilities Plan/EIR. On
one component of the recommended plan, the outfall location, the EIR and EIS disagree. It is our opinion
that the additional cost of the 301(h) site is prohibitive and unwarranted, given its associated
environmental benefits and detriments. The City believes that use of the existing outfall, without a
diffuser, is the best practicable option at this time. We are aware that this issue will be the subject of
future negotiation, arid look forward to its resolution at the appropriate time.
Specific comments are discussed below.
1. Page 2-1: The text states that DO data were not available for the lower meter for station M2 in
September. Figure 2.3 of the FEIS shows that data were available from this station begining
September 6. The text also implies that the DO data for M2L missed the “non-critical period.”
Actually, we did collect and present data at M2L during this period, which occurred in mid-September
when M3L experienced its longest duration excursion below 6 mg/I.
2. Page 2-9: We are unclear about the “area” in the statement “the area around station M3 occasionally
exhibits a distinctly local DO pattern.” The 1988-89 measurements (see Volume W, Section 4 of the
final FP/EIR) show that the SOD at station B3 (that closest to M3) was typically in the middle of the
range of other stations. This fact does not support the idea of a local DO pattern at this station.
3. Page 2-13: Portions of Section 2 discuss the role of the Inner Harbor as a major contributor of DO-
demanding material (e.g., DOD) to the Outer Harbor. We wish to point ut further that the lowest DO
levels measured were in the Inner Harbor, making this water a direct contributor of low DO water
to the Outer Harbor.
4. Page 2-25: We feel that the conservative method used to approximate the loading from the Inner
Harbor may significantly overrepresent the load from this source. First, the station inside the
Inner Harbor is not very distant from the Fairhaven WWTP discharge, which could raise nutrient
concentrations. Second, the value depends highly on the assumption that the total volume of the tidal
prism is well mixed with Outer Harbor water before a change of tide (i.e., the tide
flowing in).
5. Page 4-24: The current shellfish dosure around the outfall terminus is due to coliform bacteria
levels, not PCBs as stated in the text. The lobster and bottom fish closure is partially due to PCBs.
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
Ms. Ann Rodney 03
12 August 1991
Page Two
6. Page 4-29: The PEtS responds to an MCZM comment regarding the need for an Ocean Sanctuaries Act
(OSA) variance. The response was incorrect, as the City has not applied for a variance from the OSA.
The variance may not be required, and we will be pursuing this question with Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the administering agency. (Please note also that
DEM has not promulgated the OSA variance regulations as of this date.) If DEM determines a variance
is required, the City will apply for the permit.
7. Page 5-26: This section discusses the archeological investigations at Site 47. Since publication of
the FEIS, the Massachusetts Historical Commission has determined that the site contains no
archaeological resources eligible for listing. Thus, the project can proceed without further study or
mitigation.
8. Page A-7: The analysis of existing conditions in the FEIS uses an SOD of 1.5 g-0 2 /m 2 /day. The FEIS
does not attribute the source of this value. The highest value of measured SOD during the 1988-89 field
program was 1.26 g-O 2 /m /day (see Table 4-9 of Volume IV). In the SOD analysis for the final FP/EIR
(see Section 8.0 of Volume l v), we suggested that the most appropriate way to estimate SOD across the
Outer Harbor was to use the average of the highest measured SODs from the outfall station and its two
flanking stations. This resulted in a value of 1.1 g-0 2 /m 2 /day.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please call Bernadette Koib at (617)252-
8000 if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
CAMP DR ESSER & McKEE INC.
,4r .St enJ.Hickox
‘ Senior Vice President
cc: Mike Glinski, New Bedford
Jim Small, CDM
Joe Ridge, CDM
Bernadette Koib, CDM
Susan Coin, EPA
Alan Slater, DEP
-------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of
Environmental Protection 04
August 12, 1991
Ann Rodney Re: New Bedford
U.S. EPA, Region I Final EIS
WQE, JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Rodney:
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has reviewed
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (July 1991) for Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for the City of New Bedford, MA. DEP is in
agreement with the recommendations of the EIS with the exception
of the following comment:
We disagree with the EPA position that some defined area of
the receiving water would need to be downgraded from SA to SB if
site specific criteria for the area of the discharge are adopted.
It is DEP’s position that reclassification is not necessary
required if site specific criteria are adopted. The EPA and the
DEP, Bureau of Resource Protection, Division of Water Pollution
Control will need to further discuss this matter relative to its
implications for the New Bedford project in specific and the
application of the state Water Quality Standards in general.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
If you should have any questions, please call Alan Slater of my
staff at (617) 292—5749.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Taurasi, P.E.
Assistant Commissioner
PAT/ADS/nm
cc: Camp Dresser & McKee, Attn: James W. Small
Coastal Zone Management, Attn: Jeffrey R. Benoit
Russell, Isaac, DWPC, TSB
Daniel S. Greenbaum
CommIs ion.r
One Winter Sb’eet • Boston, Massachusetts 02108
. F X (617) 55&1 049 • Telephone (617) 292-5500
-------
Polaroid
Polaroid Corporation
100 Duchaune BouIevard
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02745
05
August 12, 1991 ___________________
1 ©t llV r’
_______ LA 1291
BYHAND J t J
EPA
Ms • Ann Rodney MEP - W03
Program Assistant
U.S. EPA, Region I
Water Quality Branch, WQE
One Coagress Street - 11th Floor
Boston, MassachusettS 02203
Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
City of New Bedford, Massachusetts
Dear Ms. Rodney:
Polaroid has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (“Final EIS”) for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for the City of New Bedford (the “City”) , as well as the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (“Draft EIS”) and portions of
the Wastewater Facilities Plan submitted by the City to the
MEPA Unit of the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (“EOEA”). This letter summarizes
Polaroid’s comments on these documents arid addresses more
particularly the responses contained in the Final EIS to
polaroid’s previous comments on the evaluation of sludge
disposal site alternatives.
I. Summary
The sludge disposal sites proposed by the City include
Site 40, which is owned by Polaroid and which is located
adjacent to Polaroid’s New Bedford plant. Polaroid has
significant concerns about the potential environmental impacts
on Polaroid’s sensitive manufacturing operations that could
result from placement of a sludge disposal landfill on
Polaroid’s New Bedford property, and the Company has raised
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 199].
Page 2
these concerns in its comments on the Draft EIS which were
submitted on February 12, 1990(copy attached as Exhibit A) and
its comments submitted to the MEPA Unit. In addition, in July
1990, Polaroid furnished the City’s consultant, Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc. (“CDM”), with a report (copy attached as Exhibit B)
prepared at Polaroid’s expense by Dr. Edgar B. Cutoff, a
chemical engineering consultant, to facilitate consideration of
potential impacts on Polaroid’s sensitive manufacturing
operations of a sludge landfill located at Site 40. These
submissions document Polaroid’s efforts to ensure that the
potential impacts of a sludge disposal landfill at Site 40 are
properly evaluated as part of the NEPA review process. Based
on its review of the Final EIS, Polaroid believes that its
concerns have not been adequately addressed in this process.
According tO the Final EIS, EPA decided not to address all
of Polaroid’s concerns therein because the City’s recommended
plan does not call for the use of Site 40 for sludge disposal
unless the two preferred alternatives, the Crapo Hill Landfill
and Site 47, cannot be used. In addition, the Final EIS
contains numerous statements that further study would be needed
if Site 40 were to be used for sludge disposal. Nevertheless,
the Final EIS has listed Site 40 as an acceptable management
option for solids disposal. Final EIS, Table 5.8. Indeed, the
Final EIS states: “All of the options listed in Table 5.8 have
been determined to be environmentally acceptable to EPA.”
Final EIS at 5—15. See also Final EIS at 5—25. This
determination is clearly inconsistent with the fact that many
issues relative to Site 40 have not been addressed and the
statements throughout the Final EIS that selection of Site 40
will necessitate further study. The determination is
particularly disturbing in light of the significant questions
about whether it will be possible to use the Crapo Hill
Landfill or Site 47 for sludge disposal.
Polaroid believes that the attention to issues relative to
Site 40 has been inadequate to support any determination that
the site is acceptable for sludge disposal. In addition,
Polaroid is concerned that the determination of acceptability
could allow the City to select Site 40 for sludge disposal
without properly addressing Polaroid’s valid concerns in the
NEPA review process. Accordingly, Polaroid believes that EPA’S
Record of Decision should retract the determination of
acceptability for Site 40 and make clear that, based on current
information, Site 40 is ot acceptable for slud e disposal .
Polaroid also believes that the Record of Decision should
state that Site 40 should not be considered further as a sludge
disposal option unless and untiT appropriate evaluation of all
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991
Page 3
outstanding issues has been completed and a supplemental EIS
has been issued . This approach would be similar to that taken
by the Secretary of the Massachusetts EOEA and would not
preclude approval of the City’s current recommended plan to
allow the design process to go forward, if EPA considers such
approval appropriate.
II. Discussion
A. Background
Polaroid owns two parcels of land in the New Bedford
Industrial Park —— a 126—acre parcel which is the site of the
Company’s unique film negative manufacturing operation and will
be the site of a new Polaroid manufacturing facility now under
construction, and an adjacent 390-acre undeveloped parcel which
includes Site 40. Polaroid has studied its undeveloped
property in connection with the proposed construction of a
cogeneration facility by Eastern Energy Corporation (“EEC”) on
a portion of the undeveloped land. As a result of this study,
Polaroid concluded that one—third of the land should be
retained for Polaroid’s future needs and that two—thirds of the
land could be used for industrial development by others, such
as EEC, provided that such development is compatible with
Polaroid’s current and future operations. Accordingly,
Polaroid is concerned about the potential impacts of a sludge
disposal site on operations at its existing and planned
manufacturing facilities, as well as on the future use of
Polaroid’s undeveloped land by the Company or for possible
industrial development by others.
Polaroid’s existing New Bedford film negative manufacturing
plant employs 450 people and produces coatings which are very
sensitive to environmental agents. This facility manufactures
99% of the Company’s light—sensitive silver halide—based
coatings which are used by other Polaroid plants throughout the
world. The Company’s new facility now under construction will
employ between 100 and 150 people and will manufacture new
imaging products, with the primary product being a laser—type
imaging product. An important factor in Polaroid’s choice of
New Bedford as the location for its facilities was the City’s
clean air and water, both of which are necessary in the
manufacture of the Company’s photosensitive materials. Another
factor was the availability of the City water supply and a
groundwater supply to accommodate future expansion. The
existing New Bedford facility is the heart of Polaroid’s
world—wide photographic film operations, and, therefore, any
potential detrimental impacts of the sludge disposal operation
are of tremendous concern to the Company.
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1 91 05
Page 4
B. Polaroid’s Comments on Draft EIS
1. Introduction
Because the Final EIS does not provide substantive
responses to most of the issues raised in Polaroid’s comments
on the Draft EIS, it is appropriate to reiterate the most
important of those issues. In its comments on the Draft EIS,
Polaroid urged that the City’s wastewater facilities plan and
the EIS address fully, both in scope and in depth of technical
analysis, the proposed sludge site’s potentially serious
impacts on Polaroid’s ability to continue its operations in New
Bedford, as well as on plans for future use of Polaroid’s
undeveloped property. Polaroid expressed concetn that its very
sensitive coating process could be disrupted, or its products
harmed, by air or water pollutants from the sludge itself, from
chemicals used to attempt to render the sludge inert or to
control air emissions, or from construction and operation of
any sludge disposal facility on the site.
2. Air Pollution
In particular, Polaroid stated its belief that the Draft
EIS’s analyses and conclusions regarding air pollutants based
on a predicted composition of the sludge derived from
literature, rather than from experience in New Bedford, were
insufficient, and the Company requested that the potential air
emissions actually be identified and that field contamination
tests be performed on Polaroid’s film products to determine the
impact of such emissions. Polaroid listed certain chemicals
known to adversely affect Polaroid’s operations, even if
present in only small concentrations. These include mercury
compounds, nitro—substituted compounds, phenazines, thiazines,
sulfur compounds, aldehydes, iron compounds, lead compounds,
tin compounds, bacteria, and all strong reducing agents.
Polaroid noted that impacts of the sludge disposal facility
which may not be harmful to the environment or the public
health may still have a detrimental effect upon Polaroid’s
operations and products. In this regard, Polaroid pointed out
that EEC had already participated in tests on Polaroid film
products in connection with the proposed cogeneration facility,
in order to assure Polaroid that EEC’s emissions would not harm
Polaroid’s film negative manufacturing operations and possibly
threaten the entire Company’s film business. Polaroid asked
that determinations be made as to whether these chemicals could
be expected to be present due to operation of the sludge
disposal site and whether the amounts present could affect
Polaroid’s products and operations.
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991 05
Page 5
3. Water Quality and Supply
With respect to impacts on water quality, Polaroid urged
that the EIS indicate clearly whether Site 40 is within the
Zone 2 boundary of any existing or potential water supply well
and that it consider whether the use of Site 40 for sludge
disposal would comply with applicable regulations governing the
location of such facilities. Polaroid observed that the
location of the sludge disposal operation in such close
proximity to a water supply would constitute a “significant”
rather than a “moderate” constraint on the use of Site 40 as a
sludge disposal facility., Polaroid also expressed concern that
siting the proposed sludge disposal operation on Site 40 could
result in the leaching of materials harmful to the Company’s
operations into the groundwater supply. Polaroid noted that,
although the facility would have a double liner and leachate
collection and monitoring system, no mechanical or manmade
system can be totally reliable. In addition, Polaroid asked
that the EIS address the expected life of the liner, the
possibility of premature liner failure, and measures to be
taken to respond to leaks and the effectiveness of such
measures. As to the potential impacts of the sludge disposal
facility on future water supplies, Polaroid noted that, due to
increased demand on the City’s existing surface water supplies,
Polaroid’s operations might require groundwater from the site
or the vicinity in the future, and thus Polaroid expressed
reservations about any operation which could jeopardize the
quality of that groundwater.
4. Other Environmental Issues
In its comments on the Draft EIS, Polaroid also stated that
sludge and runoff from the proposed sludge disposal facility
could contaminate soil and surface water, and the Company
expressed concern about such impacts on both its property and
the environmentally sensitive Acushnet Cedar Swamp State
Reservation. Polaroid raised questions about the extent and
contours of wetlands on and adjacent to Site 40, and stated
that the capacity of Site 40 for sludge disposal may have been
overestimated. In addition, because of the proximity of
Site 40 to Polaroid’s facility and to a possible future
expansion area for the Company, Polaroid stated concerns about
the potential negative effects of the sludge disposal site in
the areas of public health, aesthetics, noise, and odor.
5. Land use Conflicts
Finally, Polaroid pointed out that the EIS did not
adequately address conflicts between the proposed sludge
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program AssiStant
August 12, 1991
Page 6
disposal operation and alternative potential uses of Polaroid’s
undeveloped land or the impediments to acquisition and use of
such land for sludge disposal. As noted above, one such plan
for the property is for EEC’s cogeneration plant, which would:
(a) make Polaroid more competitive by providing energy directly
to Polaroid; (b) provide approximately 600 construction jobs
and 80 full—time jobs; (C) provide additional tax revenues to
the City; and (d) supply southeastern Massachusetts with much
needed electrical energy for schools, homes, and businesses.
C. June 1990 Report by Edgar B. Gutoff
To ensure that impacts on Polaroid’s products and processes
were given due consideration in the City’s planning process,
Polaroid engaged Dr. Edgar B. Cutoff, a consulting chemical
engineer whose specialties include photographic emulsions, to
identify, in a preliminary way, the potential risks to
Polaroid’s sensitive operations and products posed by the use
of Polaroid’s property for sludge disposal. Dr. Gutoff was
formerly employed by Polaroid and is thus very familiar with
Polaroid’s operations and products. Dr. Gutoff’s report
highlighted the potential impacts on Polaroid’s processes and
products which should be more extensively evaluated prior to
selection of Site 40 as a sludge disposal site. This report
was furnished to the City’s consultant, CDM, in July 1990.
Dr. Gutoff’s report documented the extreme sensitivity of
photographic manufacturing processes and products to numerous
contaminants. In particular, Dr. Gutoff’s research showed that
such processes and products are sensitive to oxidizing and
reducing agents, materials that can affect pH, sulfur
compounds, metals, and organics. Dr. Gutoff pointed out that
many of these photographically active substances are known to
be present in the influent to the New Bedford wastewater
treatment plant and in the primary sludge from the plant and
can be expected to be present in the sludge disposed of at
whatever disposal site is selected. He also explained that
additional photographically active substances may be formed
during or as a result of the wastewater and sludge treatment
process. Thus, according to Dr. Gutoff, the sludge could well
contain constituents which would negatively affect Polaroid’s
processes and products.
Dr. Gutoff’s report discussed the fact that
photographically active constituents of the sludge will
inevitably be released from the sludge disposal facility via
air emissions or leachate. He reinforced Polaroid’s concern
that complete capture of all contaminants cannot be expected
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991
Page 7
even in a “best case” scenario, and noted that, while
safeguards and stabilization are planned, human error and
mechanical failure could allow the release of these substances
into the air or into groundwater in such a way that they would
affect Polaroid’s processes and products. Dr. Gutoff pointed
out that the City predicted the eventual generation and venting
of “landfill gas” composed primarily of methane, carbon
dioxide, trace organic compounds, and reduced sulfur compounds,
and that such venting of gases could significantly affect
Polaroid’s highly sensitive processes. In addition, he
concluded that Polaroid’s future use of a well on its property
for process water could be affected by contaminated leachate
emanating from a sludge disposal site.
Dr. Gutoff’s report raised serious questions about the
possible impacts of a sludge disposal facility on Polaroid 1 s
sensitive processes and products, none of which were considered
when Site 40 was selected as an alternative sludge disposal
site. Polaroid submitted Dr. Gutoff’s report to the MEPA Unit
amd to the City’s consultant, CDM, and, based on the report,
Polaroid requested that the City evaluate potential impacts of
the sludge landfill on Polaroid’s operations and products.
Polaroid further requested that any costs of modifying
Polaroid’s plant and processes to eliminate environmental
impacts of the sludge landfill be assessed and factored into
the siting decision. Polaroid asserted that, unless the City
of New Bedford can demonstrate that negative impacts to
Polaroid’s processes and products will not occur, the sludge
landfill should not be sited in the vicinity of Polaroid’s
facility.
D. Polaroid’s Comments on Final EIS
1. Introduction
The Final EIS acknowledges many of Polaroid’s comments on
the Draft EIS, but it repeatedly states that EPA did not choose
to respond to Polaroid’s concerns because the City’s
recommended plan does not include sludge disposal at Site 40.
See , e.g., Final EIS at 4—3 (sludge composition), 4—8, 4—9
(wetlands delineation), 4—21 (groundwater impacts) . In
addition, the Final EIS states that a number of significant
issues would require further analysis before Site 40 could be
selected for sludge disposal. These issues, which are
discussed in greater detail below, include air pollution
impacts, water quality and supply impacts, wetlands
delineation, and land use conflicts.
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991
Page 8
In spite of the foregoing, the Final EIS lists Site 40 as
an acceptable management option for solids disposal. Final
EIS, Table 5.8. See also Final EIS at 5-15, 5—25.
Furthermore, this designation could be used to justify
selection of Site 40 by default, without further evaluation in
the NEPA review process, if the City’s preferred sludge
disposal sites cannot be utilized. This scenario is a real
possibility given the limitations and uncertainties associated
with use of those sites. See Final EIS at 4—7, 4—9, 4—14,
4—15, 5—10.
2. Air pollution
The Final EIS acknowledges Polaroid’s concerns about the
sensitivity of the Company’s products and processes and the
potential effects of air contaminants that may be associated
with municipal sludge. The EIS states, in fact, that there
have been odor and consistency problems with the sludge
fixation process (ChemFix) proposed by the City. Final EIS at
4—17. Furthermore, the EIS indicates the need for mitigation
measures to address certain air pollution issues, see Final EIS
at 4—3, 4—17, and apparently assumes that such measures will be
available and will be implemented. However, because the
recommended plan does not include sludge disposal at Site 40,
the Final EIS denies Polaroid’s request that the actual
composition of New Bedford’s sludge and its potential air
quality impacts on Polaroid’s products and operations be
evaluated.
In light of EPA’s characterization of Site 40 as an
acceptable option for sludge disposal, Polaroid believes that
the Final EIS’s manner of addressing air pollution issues
associated with sludge disposal is inadequate. Polaroid is
particularly concerned about the reliability and effectiveness
of the proposed fixation process and the system planned to
contain air emissions at the sludge disposal site and about the
risk that emissions of harmful gases or particles from the
landfill may affect Polaroid’s ability to operate at its
present location. While the proposed fixation system and gas
collection system may be considered adequate for some purposes,
they may not be adequate at Site 40 given the ultra-sensitive
nature of Polaroid’s products and processes.
Based on the air pollution issues raised in Polaroid’s
comments on the Draft EIS and Dr. Gutoff’s report, Polaroid
believes that EPA should require, prior to any determination of
acceptability regarding Site 40 and any further consideration
of the site for sludge disposal, studies based on the actual
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991 05
Page 9
composition of the City’s sludge to determine whether the
proposed stabilization process and any mitigation measures
necessary in connection with maintenance of the landfill or the
capture of air emissions will ensure protection of Polaroid’s
sensitive processes and products from all possible harmful air
contaminants.! 1 ! Polaroid also believes that EPA should
commit to the issuance of a supplemental EIS regarding these
issues to ensure full public review of such matters.
3. Water Quality and Supply
The Final EIS recognizes the validity of Polaroid’s
concerns that a sludge landfill might adversely affect water
resources in the vicinity of Site 40 and that this could affect
both Polaroid’s ability to use the groundwater for its current
and future operations and the City’s ability to use the
groundwater for a public drinking water supply. Indeed, the
Final EIS states that “ [ t]he major impact associated with
operation of a sludge disposal landfill at Site 40 would be
potential contamination of groundwater.” Final EIS at 4—22.
In addition, the Final EIS acknowledges the need for mitigation
measures to protect water resources and the uncertainty about
the extent of groundwater resources in the area of Site 40.
However, it defers, or declines to evaluate, several major
issues relating to surface water and groundwater and indicates
that EPA has decided to rely on other reviewing agencies to
ensure that water quality and supply are protected. Final EIS
at 4—21, 4—22.
In light of the determination that Site 40 is an acceptable
option for sludge disposal, Polaroid believes that EPA’S
abdication of responsibility for evaluating the acknowledged
potential impacts of a sludge landfill on valuable water
resources is an inadequate response to the concerns raised by
the Company. Polaroid believes that the potential water
quality impacts of sludge disposal at Site 40 on the Company’s
sensitive processes and products must be carefully evaluated
prior to any determination that Site 40 is acceptable for a
sludge landfill, and the Company is particularly concerned
about the effectiveness and reliability of the liner and
/1/ In determining the toxicity of the sludge in connection
with such studies, Polaroid believes that EPA’S current
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, not the
superseded EP toxicity test, should be utilized. See Final
EIS at 4—15.
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991 05
Page 10
leachate collection system proposed for the landfill. In
addition, Polaroid believes that the impacts of sludge disposal
at Site 40 on the Company’s arid the City’s possible future use
of groundwater in the area must be evaluated. In this regard,
in a letter dated September 25, 1990 (copy enclosed as Exhibit
C), Polaroid provided the City’s consultant with information on
groundwater resources in the area and with a drawing indicating
the locations of groundwater wells on Polaroid’s property.
According to a 1976 report prepared for Polaroid by D.L. Maher
Co. (copy attached as Exhibit D), Wells No. 2 and 8 as shown in
the aforementioned drawing offer potential for development.
Based on preliminary testing, the report concludes that Well
NO. 2 would have a maximum yield of 111 gallons per minute
(“GPM”), or approximately 160,000 gallons per day (“GPD”), and
that Well No. B would have a maximum yield of 1076 GPM, or
approximately 1,550,000 GPD. The Final ElS recognizes the need
to evaluate the zones of contribution for wells such as these
and to re—examine the determination of acceptability. Final
EIS at 4—22, 4—23.
Based on the foregoing and on Polaroid’s comments on the
Draft EIS, there remain, even by the standards stated by EPA in
the Final EIS, significant unresolved water quality and supply
issues relating to the acceptability of Site 40 for sludge
disposal. Polaroid believes that EPA should require, prior to
any determination of acceptability regarding Site 40 and any
further consideration of the site for sludge disposal, a
thorough evaluation of the water quality and supply issues to
determine whether Polaroid’s operations and valuable water
resources will be protected, and should commit to the issuance
of a supplemental EIS regarding these issues to ensure full
public review.
4. Wetlands Delineation
According to the Final EIS, there remain significant
questions concerning the extent of wetlands on Site 40, which
is in the vicinity of the Acushnet Cedar Swamp. The EIS
indicates that such wetlands might be affected by erosion of
surface soils during construction and subsequent sedimentation,
and that mitigation measures would therefore be needed.
Moreover, the Final EIS states that the federal wetland
boundary has not been verified because Site 40 is not part of
the City’s recommended plan, and that if the City proposes to
use Site 40 for sludge disposal, “EPA will assess any new
information provided prior to making a determination of
acceptability.” Final EIS at 4—8, 4—9.
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assfstant
August 12, 1991
Page 11 05
The foregoing is contradicted by Table 5.8 of the Final
EIS, which states that use of Site 40 for sludge disposal is an
acceptable option. See also Final EIS at 5—15, 5—25. Polaroid
agrees that a delineation of wetlands on Site 40 is needed and
believes that the results of such a delineation, as well as
evaluation of wetlands impacts and identification of necessary
mitigation measures, are important to determining the
suitability of Site 40 for sludge disposal. Accordingly,
Polaroid believes that EPA should require evaluation and
resolution of these issues prior to any determination of
acceptability regarding Site 40 and any further consideration
of the site for sludge disposal, to determine whether Site 40
is appropriate for such use, and should commit to the issuance
of a supplemental EIS to ensure full public review of these
issues.
5. Land Use Conflicts
The Final EIS correctly concedes that “there are potential
land—use conflicts associated with Site 40 that diminish its
potential utility as a sludge disposal site.” Final EIS at
4—12, 4—13. In particular, EEC is actively pursuing its plan
to build a cogeneration facility on Site 40, and the likelihood
of this project being carried out was greatly enhanced when the
Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council recently issued
its conditional approval of EEC’S petition to construct its
facility. In addition, it should be noted that if Site 40 is
taken by eminent domain, the City will be deprived of the
significant employment and revenue opportunities that would
result from development of the EEC facility and any other
industrial facilities that might be constructed at the site.
Moreover, the delays inherent in such a taking may make it
difficult for the City to implement the sludge management
component of its wastewater facilities plan in a timely
manner. The foregoing factors continue to weigh against the
selection of Site 40 for sludge disposal.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Polaroid objects to the inclusion of Site 40 in the list of
acceptable management options, particularly in light of the
fact that the Final EIS expressly reserves several key issues
raised by Polaroid’s comments on the Draft EIS and identifies
significant environmental issues which must be reviewed in
advance of use of Site 40 for sludge disposal. Polaroid is
extremely concerned that the ambiguous message of the Final EIS
regarding Site 40 could allow the site to be selected for
sludge disposal without the timely consideration merited by the
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assi taflt
August 12, 1991
Page 12 05
Company’s serious concerns. Given the potentially significant
obstacles to, and limitations on, the use of the City’s
recommended sludge disposal sites, the lack of evaluation of
issues raised by Polaroid might ensure that these issues are
not considered until Site 40 has been selected by default.
This would be an unacceptable situation.
Polaroid believes that the Record of Decision must be
consistent with the level of evaluation of Site 40 which has
been performed and with EPA’s own statements regarding the need
for further studies prior to selection of Site 40.
Accordingly, Polaroid believes that the Record of Decision
should retract the determination of acceptability for Site 40
and make clear that, based on current information, Site 40 ii
not an acceptable option for sludge disposal . In additi iL
Polaroid urges EPA to require adequate evaluation of the issues
raised in the Company’s comments on the Draft EIS, in Dr.
Gutoff’s report, and herein, prior to any further consideration
of Site 40 for sludge disposal . Polaroid further urges EPA to
commit to the issuance of a supplemental EIS addressing these
matters in order to provide an opportunity for public review
and comment, as would have been the case if responses to
Polaroid’s comments had been provided in the Final EIS. As
discussed herein, it is particularly important that the
following matters be evaluated: (1) the actual sludge
composition, the reliability and effectiveness of the sludge
fixation process and planned mitigation measures, and the
potential impacts of air emissions on Polaroid’s products and
processes; (2) potential surface water and groundwater impacts
of the sludge disposal and the reliability and effectiveness of
the liner and leachate collection system and planned mitigation
measures; (3) the location of areas of contribution of existing
and potential water supply wells; and (4) the location of
wetlands, their effect on the suitability of the site for
sludge disposal, and the potential impacts of sludge disposal
on wetlands.
The issues raised by Polaroid and acknowledged by EPA in
the Final EIS are more than sufficient to trigger the
requirement for a supplemental EIS. The discussion in the EIS
demonstrates that selection of Site 40 would be a fundamental
change from the recommended plan, a change that is certainly
“relevant to environmental concerns” and therefore necessitates
a supplemental review under 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c) (1) (i), and
that such a review would be entirely consistent with the
objectives of NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c) (1), (2).
Moreover, Polaroid is entitled to have a response to its
previously submitted comments in accordance with 40 C.F.R.
-------
Ms. Ann Rodney
Program Assistant
August 12, 1991 05
Page 13
§ 1502.9(b) , and failure to consider Polaroid’s concerns in a
timely manner would be contrary to the NEPA objectives stated
in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(e) that “alternatives discussed in
environmental impact statements shall encompass those to be
considered by the ultimate agency decisionmaker.”
The approach described above would not preclude EPA from
approving the City’s recommended plan, if the Agency considers
such action appropriate, to allow the design process to go
forward. Indeed, this approach would be similar to that
adopted by the Secretary of the Massachusetts EOEA in his
November 26, 1990 Certificate, which requires the submission of
an additional Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report
covering a number of issues, including sludge landfill siting.
However, such action would ensure that the valid concerns
raised by Polaroid are evaluated and that the analyses
necessary to satisfy the requirements of NEPA are conducted at
a meaningful time in the decision—making process.
Sincerely,
POLAROID CORPORATION
i J
Edward Bretschneider
Plant Manager
DCM/mm
Enclosures
cc: Governor William F. Weld
Janet G. McCabe, Esquire,
MEPA Unit
Michael Glinski,
City planner, City of New Bedford
Lawrence D. Wordon,
Commissioner of public Works, City of New Bedford
Steven Hickox
Camp Dresser & McKee
Susan M. Cooke, Esquire,
Goodwin, Procter & Hoar
XP—0034/p
8/7/91
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
III/ NEW ENGLAND DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
J 424 TRAPELO ROAD
S WALTHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149
REPtY TO
P UgUSt 15, 1991 06
P1ar nin Directorate
Ltipact Analysis Division
Ms. Ann Rodney, Pt øm Assistant
U.S. Envirorm ental Protection Agency
R ion 1, JE1 Biildiii, E—1900c
Boston, Massadiusetts 02203
ar Ms. Rodney:
New lard Division has reviewed the Final Erwironae.nta]. Impact
Stat nt (dated July 1991) on the Wastewater Treathent Facilities for the
City of New Bedford, M achusetts.
The Final EIS adequately respords to all issues raised in ir c iux nt
letter (dated February 20, 1990) on the draft EIS. We believe the doam nt
fully oc )lies with the intent aid pro iral recpirenents of NEPA.
The EElS nctes that wetlards fill ir for the proposed access road to the
secordazy laidf ill site will be avoided by bridgirq the wetlards on a
pile-su orted strucbjre. Plane for this rk aid any other proposed work in
wetlards shcx ld be snF nitted to our Requlatoxy Division for our review before
we can concur with that stat nent. Any questions on the regulatory pexiait
aspects of the project shaild be directed to the Regulatory Project Manager,
Ms. Paula Levin at (617) 647-8493 our Regulatory Division.
Sincerely,
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
ç 3 !Ie4 d
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City Hall • 133 William St. • New Bedford, MA 02740 • (508) 979-1489
October 1, 1991
Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Ma. sachusetts 02202
Re: City responses to comments from the Save Fort RolImnn Committee and others
regarding the City of New Bedford Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plan,
E.O.E.A. #6425.
Dear Ms. Tierney:
I am in receipt of a copy of a letter to you from the Save Fort Rodman Committee, dated August
8, 1991, as well as recent correspondence to Mr. Robert Donovan, Acting Regional Director
of DEP, regarding City plans for relocations and park construction in connection with the above
referenced project. The City’s responses to the comments are as follows:
Permanent Off-site Relocations
The construction of a new wastewater treatment facility gives the City a unique opportunity to
achieve two important goals at once; it will allow several educational and social service agencies
currently housed in outmoded and deteriorated facilities to be relocated to vastly improved
quarters, and it will allow the City to renovate other existing buildings of significant historic
value, which would have otherwise remained vacant and perhaps permanently lost to the City.
Each of the programs undergoing permanent off-site relocation has worked directly with the City
on both the selection of new sites, and the design of new facilities. Representatives of these
programs have all supported, in writing, their proposed new sites, and copies of their letters are
attached to this letter. Each of these programs is discussed in more detail below. No money
Job ,, K. Bullard. Mayor
Richard F. Bohn. coy Planner
-------
2
earmarked for wmitigationN improvements will be spent for any relocation activities.
Early Learning Child Care Inc .
As indicated on bid documents, the playground area required for this day care program is
located on the same grounds as the facility—children will not have to cross any driveway or
street areas to reach it. All lead paint and asbestos abatement work will be completed prior to
occupancy. Total renovation costs for this program and the Recreation Department’s Special
Needs Program are in excess of $700,000. Construction work is scheduled to begin on or about
October 15, 1991.
Alternative High School
This program will completely occupy Building 5 in the renovated Hillman Street Complex, and
will be physically separate from other buildings in the complex. The new facility will provide
the program with more and better space than it currently has, and allow room for future program
expansion. The building will have only one main entrance and alarmed emergency exits. Total
renovation costs for the building are in excess of $1,800,000 and any lead or asbestos abatement
work will be completed prior to occupancy. Construction work is scheduled to begin in
November.
PACE/Head Start Program
This program does not operate for a full day, and therefore is not required to meet the seventy-
five square foot per child outdoor play space requirement. The requirement, nevertheless, will
be met through the utilization of a recently constructed playground several houses lots away
from the site. Because it is located on the same block as the Head Start site, children wili not
have to cross any streets to reach it. Unlike the program’s current location at Fort Rodman—at
the extreme south end of New Bedford, this location is more convenient for families utilizing
the program, and will thus decrease transportation time for the children. The Ben Rose
Community Center Head Start location is an addition to the Head Start Program, and not,
therefore, part of the relocation plan.
Temporary Off-site Relocations
Because of their close connection with the waterfront, and their compatibility with the future
Taber Park, several existing programs will be relocated back to the site in completely renovated
historic buildings, after the completion of treatment plant construction. No mit gaI on funds
will be used for these relocations.
Sea Lab
Although the possibility was considered, the temporary location for Sea Lab will not be
downtown. The program, which operates only in the summer, may utilize an existing New
Bedford School, but we also continue to work with the program to identify a temporary site
adjacent to the water.
-------
3
Camp Kennedy
A temporary relocation to Keith Jr. High would give campers access to a swimming pool and
athletic facilities not available in their current location.
Mitigation
Access Road
The portion of the access road leading to the treatment plant has n been considered or budgeted
as a mitigation item.
Parking
Not all park activities will be happening at once, and therefore the number of parking spaces will
be shared by several user groups.
Gate House
A new gate house will be included in the park plan. The park includes a series of gates that can
be closed as portions of the park are closed at night. The main security gate for the park occurs
after the turnoff for the treatment plant so that access for the plant can remain open while the
park is closed.
Environmental Information Center
All asbestos will be removed from renovated buildings.
Marine Program
According to the school’s director, the New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School
decided to end its marine education program because of a lack of student interest. Only four
students graduated last year, and budget reductions at the school forced the closing.
Beach Restoration & South Rodney French Blvd .
Through a community review process conducted last summer, a total of $800,000 in mitigation
funding was allocated to improvements along East and West Beach. Funding for improvements
along South Rodney French Blvd. was set at a lower priority. Further public meetings will be
held to review specific landscape designs. The City has requested that the State approve
construction of these improvements now, rather than waiting until completion of the plant.
Park Improvements
With an overall park facility in excess of 40 acres, there is clearly no conifict between the use
of the park by public recreational and educational programs (such as Camp Kennedy) and
general park users. (The Sea Lab site has not been counted as park acreage, although its
landscape plan has been designed to blend into the park and will be visually part of it.) Shared
use is common in all City parks, and helps to assure that city children who participate in these
organized activities will enjoy the benefits that go along with an having this unique recreational
resource. This park is also a direct mitigation benefit to the immediate neighborhood since local
-------
4
residents will have the most convenient access to it, and benefit from any appreciation of
property values resulting from it.
By placing the treatment plant in the center of the site and screening it from view, the most
valuable portion—the waterfront perimeter—will be preserved and improved for public enjoyment.
In summary, without the selection of the Fort Rodman site for the proposed treatment facility,
there would have been no way for the City of New Bedford to assure the development of a
public park on the site, the renovation of existing historic buildings, or the renovation of existing
obsolete program facilities now located there.
rb/sub2fr
Attachments
cc: Susan Coin, EPA
Alan Slater, Mass DEP
Joe Ridge, CDM
City Planner
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
IN CITY COUNCIL
April 26, 1990
RESOLUTION OF THE NEW BEDFORD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
RANKING OF THE FORT RODMAN SITE (1A) FIRST AND THE
STANDARD TIMES FIELD SITE (4A) SECOND FOR THE SITING OF
THE PROPOSED SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT .
-,-<
C,. -
- C) C)
—
-
IN CITY COUNCIL, April 26, 1990 ‘ = - —‘
Janice A. David n. i Clerk
Charter Ruled.
IN CITY a)uNcu, May 1, 1990
Adopted - Yeas 6, Nays 5. Janice A. Davidian, City Clerk
Presented to the Mayor for approval May 3, 1990
Janice A. Davidian, City Clerk
Approved May 7, 1990
A ue copy, Attest
C.M.C.
City Clerk. New Bedford, MA
John K. Bullard, Mayor
31—192
------- |