Sludge Watch ==> Boston Dredge Sludge - Plant Oozes Forward

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch AdminL


This sludge comes from a variety of sources...dredging sludge included.  But 
you can see that the politics and sneaky permitting is the same...are they 
talking 'wet' or 'dry' tons? Are they pulling a 'bait and switch' studying 
one site and then actually putting the sludge in a different site without 
evaluating the new site...etc...etc.

...................................................

http://www.townonline.com/somerville/homepage/8999024553996845055


Sludge plant still to become East Somerville's neighbor
By Meghann Ackerman
Friday, January 05, 2007 - Updated: 12:31 AM EST



A sludge processing plant right next to East Somerville's border is still in 
the works.

The Boston Water and Sewer Commission will not refile a plan to move the 
city's catch basin treatment plant to Alford Street on the 
Charlestown/Everett/Somerville line. Local lawmakers said they had been led 
to believe the commission would resubmit the plan.

“Boston Water and Sewer has never announced refiling a Change of 
Notification for the project,” said Vincent Mannering, executive director of 
BWSC.

Last week Sen. Jarrett Barrios's office sent out a press release saying the 
commission had agreed to refile the plan, which would reopen the public 
processes. At Thursday night's meeting of the Charlestown Community Council, 
Barrios said Robert Golledge, outgoing secretary of the Executive Office of 
Environmental Affairs, had said that after a series of meetings BWSC had 
informally agreed to refile.

Barrios asked that, whether they refile or not, BWSC keep citizens of 
Charlestown, Everett, and Somerville informed about the plan.

“We should slow this down a little so everyone, including agencies in the 
City of Boston, have all the information,” he said.

Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, who represents part of Charlestown, said he was 
working with Barrios and newly elected Rep. Stephen Smith, of Everett, to 
find legislative ways to deal with the issue.

“We are exploring legislative solutions to not only this issue, but to also 
the future of the Mystic River,” he said.


Jarrett Barrios addresses members of the Boston Water and Sewer Commission
(Meghann Ackerman)







Everett fights sludge project on Mystic RiverDocument Actions  Written by : 
Officer Patrick Johnston, Everett Police-Marine Unit
Last modified 2007-01-06 08:25
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.

http://bridgenews.org/news/1206/everettsludge