Once the level of treatment has been determined, the second major 
management issue is the siting of new treatment plants. The adequacy of the MDC 
system has been studied for quite a few years. Beginning in 1968, the MDC undertook its 
first comprehensive management study of the metropolitan region to see how and in what 
manner its two wastewater treatment facilities could be upgraded. 
In an unusual sequence of events, EPA determined that it would be useful to 
draft an environmental impact statement at this point in time, although the 
environmental review process usually follows actual facilities planning. The draft siting 
of treatment facilities was completed in 1978, and though information was updated and 
further refined during a site options study conducted in 1982, no final environmental 
impact statement was ever issued. In 1983, both EPA and the state agreed that because 
so many years had elapsed, it was time to determine once and for all where the new 
facilities should be located, if, in fact, the locations were to change from what they 
currently are. A joint environmental impact statement and an environmental impact 
report that would satisfy both Federal and state environmental review regulations was 
undertaken, completed in December 1984, and put out for public review in February 1983. 
This report analysed all the past reports, reviewed all the old siting options, and added a 
few new ones. The initial 22 different siting options were winnowed down to eight 
remaining viable options, that were presented and fully evaluated in the draft report. At 
the time, it was felt that because the waiver decision had yet to be resolved, the draft 
would include siting options for both primary and secondary treatment. The decision for 
selection of a site could then proceed rapidly after the waiver decision was issued. 
The choices involved in the siting of MDC wastewater treatment facilities 
essentially include evaluating the placement of facilities on three islands in Boston 
Harbor: the two that are now occupied, Deer Island and Nut Island, and one that lies right 
in the middle, Long Island. If the MDC proceeds to contest the waiver decision and that 
decision is ultimately overturned, the sites would include long deep-ocean outfalls. The 
outfall that was proposed in the 301(h) application extended approximately 9 miles out 
into Massachusetts Bay. If a secondary treatment option is chosen, the outfalls will be 
located closer to Boston Harbor, but probably not in their current positions. It was 
unusual that a preferred alternative was not selected when the draft EIS was issued. The 
current plan is for EPA, the MDC, and the Commonwealth to make a joint announcement 
July 10th, 1983 on a preferred siting alternative. Following this announcement, the EPA 
and the MDC will be able to proceed with completion of a final EIS and a final 
environmental impact report; this will ultimately lead to a recommended decision that 
should put to rest the whole question of where the sites for the new treatment plants will 
be located to rest once and for all. 
The third important management issue that I wanted to discuss is sludge 
disposal, which has a lengthy chronology similar to the siting issue. Sludge management 
studies began in 1971 when the first major circulation model for the Harbor was 
developed. Following this, a draft and final EIS were prepared. In 1980, EPA issued a 
decision on the recommended disposal option. This was something that was not able to be 
accomplished in the siting process. 
25 
