Forgot your password?
New user?
State prison plans: mental therapy or torture?
Voters sue to put health amendment on ballot
Learning from the Goldschmidt Report: Land Reform and American Agriculture
Document Actions
Everett fights sludge project on Mystic River
At the January 4 public meeting of the Charlestown Neighborhood Council, Vincent Mannering of the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) stated that he never promised to re-file a Notice of project Change (NPC) for this project and rejected our request to do so. We need everyone’s help to get the word out on this issue. They are trying to force a sewage processing facility into the backyards of the low-income and minority neighborhoods of Charlestown, Everett and Somerville without due process and must be stopped.
I was not truly surprised that Mannering withdrew his offer to re-file the NPC. That offer was obviously meant only to sandbag the people of Everett, to forestall an appeal under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
I believe we can still file that appeal but it will take more effort on the part of our Attorney, Michael Parker.
Stop The Sludge (STS)
This project is a 34,000 sq ft building, designed to receive over 150 tons per day of catch basin cleanings, sewer cleanings and trench excavation material from the City of Boston. Sixty-two truckloads of this stuff would come in every day.
Boston originally proposed to build the facility in Dorchester at Columbia Point. Then they switched to a new location at Frontage Road, near Newmarket Square. There was a Notice of Project Change (NPC), and the new site got a MEPA review, which was published in Environmental Monitor, April 2006.
Ater that, the site was changed again to 180 Alford Street in Charlestown, on the Everett side of the Mystic River.
|
|
Boston submitted a new NPC for the Alford Street site, but claimed there was no need for another MEPA review. On October 26, the state Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) agreed with Boston and issued a Certificate.
After reviewing these documents, we believe there are a number of errors in this decision. We contend that it was appropriate to require further MEPA review and that BWSC should be forced to file at least an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) if not a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The issues
(1.) The BWSC contends that moving the site 6 miles is not a material change that requires further MEPA Review. We contend that moving a proposed facility from a landlocked area well within the city limits of Boston to a region bordering Everett on one side and the Mystic River on the another completely changes the scope and dynamic of the project and therefore constitutes a material change. At a minimum the BWSC should have filed a new ENF.
(2.) The purchase of the Alford Street site in April of 2006 for $3,365,000 should have required the filing of an ENF under the Enabling Act for the BWSC. Chapter 436 of the Acts of 1977 states that projects in excess of $1 million must comply with MEPA. Testimony at the Boston Conservation Commission showed that the BWSC purchased this property specifically as a site for the sludge plant, so the BWSC should have filed the ENF before the purchase was finalized.
(3.) Page 4 of the EOEA Certificate under the heading “Wetlands” includes serious factual errors. US Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Ch. 91 jurisdiction was waived using a calculation of land positioning that stated the proposed location was landlocked and 800 feet away from "Fort Point Channel". This determination was clearly based on the Frontage Road facility. The Charlestown site is certainly not landlocked and Fort Point Channel is in South Boston.
(4.) We contend that the BWSC denies they are processing materials in an effort to sidestep further review. The BWSC has stated that they will be dewatering the Hazardous Materials at the proposed facility. This in itself constitutes a “process” that should trigger further MEPA review and site assignment for the facility.
(5.) BWSC states they are bringing 137 tons per day of these hazardous materials. They base this on the dry weight as measured at the final disposal site in New Hampshire. But the dewatering process will generate an estimated 5,000 gallons per day.
A gallon of water weighs roughly 8.34 pounds. 5,000 times 8.34 equals 41,700 or 20.85 Tons. This brings the wet materials entering the proposed facility to over 150 tons per day. This is over the 150 ton per day threshold that requires a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
It also triggers a requirement of enhanced public participation, due to Everett’s status as an Environmental Justice Community as recognized by the DEP and EPA.
(6.) The Alford Street Bridge is presently under repair, so the weight limit has been lowered substantially (6 tons for 2 axles, 12 tons for 3 axles and 18 tons for 5 axles). These limits would not allow the BWSC trucks to pass over the bridge while loaded until repairs are completed.
That completion date is unknown and has already been postponed many times. There is a possibility that the limit will not be raised even after these repairs are complete.
The BWSC claims that trucks will remain within Boston city limits at all times while hauling materials to this facility. But with these weight limits, they cannot use the Alford Street Bridge as their main route, and must use Somerville and Everett to reach the facility. This is further reason for MEPA review and Environmental Justice enhanced public participation.
(7.) City of Boston Ordinances clearly state that any facility that will store waste generated off-site must go through all applicable city and state assignment processes. The state component of site assignment must be a reason to reopen the MEPA review process. By ignoring the site assignment regulations the BWSC is violating their own city ordinances.
(8.) The area intended for this site is on the Everett side of the Mystic River and is less than a half mile from an Environmental Justice Population in Everett. This location should trigger Enhanced Public Participation under EOEA policy. The failure to do so is a slap in the face to the people of Everett, its residents and its businesses.
Pollution Solution:MORE Infrastructure Program-Chapter 40T
By BOB DORFMAN
November 27, 2007
As a resident of Cotuit I've been swimming, boating and nature walking in and around what are known as the Three Bays — Cotuit Bay, North Bay and West Bay — for four decades. The beauty and tranquillity of this area is the reason I chose to move here from Boston in 1997 and make the Cape my home. The Cape appeared to be a great place to establish roots and to raise a family.
As I transitioned from a summer and weekend Cape visitor to a full-time resident, it became clear to me that the Cape, beyond the beauty and tranquillity, had and has challenges. Those challenges need to be addressed by the adult generation of today to make sure the Cape is a place my children and generations to come will be able to enjoy, thrive and build a viable future here.
Remedying the wastewater infrastructure problem should be No. 1 on the list. A no-brainer. Try imagining the impact on our economy and property values of a Cape without the benefit of our oceans and lakes. This is what is at risk.
Since the 1960s the Cape has grown from 70,000 to 220,000 year-round residents. We have 100,000 year-round housing units and 50,000 vacation homes, and 1 million visitors per year. With few exceptions this growth had been possible through the use of on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal. The treated effluent from these systems is causing serious water-quality problems to the point that some of our beaches have needed to close temporarily and desirable life forms in the ocean are disappearing. Now it is clear that using these systems has created a wastewater problem requiring what may be a $3 billion solution.
Professionally, I have served as a financial adviser to investor-owned water utility companies in Connecticut and New Hampshire. The Clean Water Act of 1972, amended in 1977, sets standards for safe drinking water and has been the impetus for major upgrading of water treatment and wastewater facilities throughout the country. The act also has been the basis for litigation in our federal courts, which has guided and forced the cleanup of Boston Harbor and Chesapeake Bay.
I've heard Paul Niedzwiecki, executive director of the Cape Cod Commission, when asked about the wastewater infrastructure issue on Cape Cod, say, "We can address this issue voluntarily, and if we wait and the federal courts get involved, it gets more painful, as the cost of a solution is dramatically increased." Niedzwiecki's words are an inspiration to get busy.
What can be done, and by whom?
Each and every citizen of Cape Cod can look at his or her own practices like using toxic fertilizer for grass and gardens instead of benign organic fertilizers, or toxic pharmaceutical drugs, which end up in human waste, instead of benign alternatives.
Our politicians and citizens can encourage a "smart growth" strategy that allows for more density than currently allowed in areas where sewers are available or at least easily expandable.
Because this issue affects everyone on the Cape, all businesses, property owners and homeowners need to prepare themselves and be willing to pay for their fair share of the expense of building and maintaining wastewater infrastructure.
Supporting the work of the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative under the direction of Andrew Gottlieb is critical, because its mission is to unite our 15 towns for a regional approach, which will result in better economies of scale from a financing and operational point of view.
We need to create financing vehicles to support the needed improvements. Our state senator, Rob O'Leary, has proposed wastewater legislation intended to bring substantial state funding to the issue. Federal money may be part of the equation, although it is not currently readily available. Other proposed legislation, known as Chapter 40T, will allow low-cost revenue bonds based on betterment fees, not municipal credit and the necessary Proposition 2½ overrides, to provide money for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
In conclusion, we know we need a substantial investment in our wastewater infrastructure and that it is going to cost a substantial amount of money. How can we best finance these costs and fairly allocate the costs among businesses, property owners and homeowners? The answer to these questions will determine the long-term viability of our community.