| Wastewater | Deer Island, Boston Harbor - Page 15 |
|
While the drama leading to the creation of the MWRA was playing out in the public arena, behind the scenes the EPA continued to pressure the MDC for a decision on the same two big issues it faced in the mid-1970s, what to do with the sludge, and where to build the required new sewage treatment plant, or plants. Starting the process again, MDC turned to the Providence, R.I. engineering firm CE Maguire for a study on a new site for a wastewater treatment facility. Faced with a similar task in 1978 a Draft EIS written by Greeley and Hansen had recommended building a single new facility on Deer Island. It would provide both primary and secondary wastewater treatment, but that report had been written before the Dukakis administration had applied for a 301(h) waiver leaving open the question if secondary treatment would be required in a new plant. Rather than refining earlier work, CE Maguire had to reexamine multiple scenarios with and without secondary treatment. |
| Then, in the spirit of confusing the process, the EPA required the firm to evaluate three new wastewater handling schemes, two of them were very similar to ones that had been rejected earlier. Published in 1984, even the report’s title was confusing, “Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Report on Siting of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Boston Harbor.” |
| A proposal for satellite wastewater treatment plants was back on the list for consideration. The earlier plan in the EMMA reports had two plants located upstream on the Charles and Neponset Rivers. The benefits would have included an increase in the flow of the two rivers during dry periods and a reduction in the wastewater being sent to the main sewage treatment plants. The problem was the effluent while rated as swimmable it was determined that it would still contribute to an increased pollution level in the rivers. And likely more important, no city or town on either river wanted a sewage treatment plant in their neighborhood. The new proposal, presented by an obscure company named the Quincy River Associates, called for three “subregional” treatment plants on the Charles, Neponset, and Weymouth Fore Rivers. The goal of recharging the freshwater flow of the rivers was similar but instead of discharging effluent directly into the rivers. The new proposal would direct the effluent discharge into nearby wetlands, the Broad Meadows wetlands on the Cochato River, the Fowl Meadows in Sharon, and the Cow Island Meadows. It would be rejected for similar reasons to the earlier satellite treatment plant proposal. |
|
Another proposal CE Maguire evaluated harkened back to the 1960’s Deep Tunnel Plan developed by Camp, Dresser & McKee for the city of Boston. Like the earlier one the goal of new plan, offered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, was only CSO abatement. State officials had disapproved of the focus on providing secondary treatment arguing that eliminating CSO would more quickly result in a cleaner harbor. The proposal in 1984 would convert the Deer Island sewage treatment plant into a CSO storage facility with the existing Boston Drainage Tunnel used to transport storm water from a consolidated network of CSOs to the facility. Initial screening would occur there before the wastewater would be pumped to a major new wastewater treatment plant on Long Island. Clearly a series of new deep rock tunnels would have to be dug, several pumping stations built, as would the obvious commitment to build a new treatment plant on Long Island. The solution would solve just the CSO problem in the Dorchester Bay area and as such could not be accepted by the EPA as a solution to the overall problem of pollution in the harbor. The CSO issue at Dorchester Bay would be addressed by the MWRA with the completion in 2010 of a 2-mile, 17-foot tunnel to nowhere under the shoreline of the bay that can hold 19 million gallons of storm overflow. Ultimately to be gets pumped into Boston Drainage Tunnel for treatment at the DITP. |
| An even more outlandish plan the EPA had CE Maguire evaluate was to build an all-new sewage treatment plant on a man-made island adjacent Lovells Island or further out in the harbor near the Brewster Islands. The estimated costs of converting the Deer Island and Nut Island treatment facilities to headworks, digging multiple new deep-rock tunnels, creating a 154-acre island, then building a massive treatment plant on it was over $2 billion, more than twice all the other proposals. It is not clear how it would be even possible to estimate the total costs of such a colossal project. The study does not identify who proposed the concept. CE Maguire in recommending that no further study be made of plan pointed to likely environmental, transportation, and maintenance problems. Though it took more explanation, CE Maguire also recommended no further study the satellite treatment or the CSO storage proposals. |
|
After discounting the three outlandish ideas CE Maguire went about the normal next step in the Environmental Impact Statement process of reviewing the Greeley and Hansen analysis. Faced with the uncertainty if secondary treatment would be required they had no choice but to provide at least two options, with or without secondary. G&H had considered ten locations in addition to Deer Island for a second sewage treatment site eventually reducing the list to Broad Meadows in Quncy, Long island, Nut Island, and Squantum Point. For various reasons all were rejected and the all-Deer Island recommendation made. CE Maguire took a different path. They only considered three sites, Nut Island, Long Island, and Deer Island. In various combinations of headworks, primary treatment, and secondary treatment as required, eighteen different combinations on the three locations were identified. Instead of making one recommendation each for primary-only and primary and secondary treatment, the final report had seven suitable sites. |
| CE Maguire wastewater treatment site recommendations - 1984 |
|
| Recommended solutions if secondary treatment required (301h waiver denied) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Recommended solutions if primary-only treatment (301(h) waiver accepted) |
| While not identified as preferred in the report, the first option listed for both primary-only and primary and secondary was an all-Deer Island solution. What is unusual is that an MDC preference is also identified. For both scenarios it endorsed expanding the Nut Island facility. It is not clear why such a politically driven agency such as MDC would have a say in what should be an independent process. Diplomatically, the report cites a desire to “foster public scrutiny and obtain formal public comment” as the reason for additional options. |
|
The EPA’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for siting a new treatment was published in December of 1985. Written with technical assistance by the relatively obscure environmental firm from Providence, R.I., Thibault/Bubly, the report looked at only the four options that offered secondary treatment. It could do this because the EPA had rejected for a second time the 301(h) waiver the MDC had sought for seven years. The all secondary at Deer Island is identified as the preferred choice with the EPA hedging its bets allowing that an all-Long Island, and a split primary and secondary between Deer Island and Long Island also environmentally acceptable. The only option rejected was to expand primary treatment on Nut Island. At that point in time any idea that did not have the sewage treatment plant on Nut Island being eliminated was getting stiff opposition from local and state officials. Even the idea of using Long Island for any type of sewage treatment plant was problematic likely introducing a whole new cast of characters in opposition. |
| Thibault/Bubly wastewater treatment site recommendations - 1985 |
|
| Recommended solutions if secondary treatment required (301h waiver denied) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
