I think what's gone wrong with the wastewater treatment end of it is that it is 
the most expensive part of the "hardware" solution. I consider the hardware solution the 
construction of CSO facilities and the construction of adequate sludge management 
facilities; multiple or sludge management can be used. Ocean discharge, ocean disposal 
will be one of the options evaluated for the sewage sludge. Sludge management will be 
examined in light of many alternatives. There will be a new environmental impact 
statement in the summer of 1985 on the issue of sludge disposal for this system. 
But from the public point of view, a tremendous amount of controversy has 
centered on where the plant will go. One reason the controversy is so intense is that the 
existing plants are extremely bad neighbors because, as I said before, of their antiquated 
condition. They generate odors, noise, and traffic. I would describe it as a horror show 
to live near some of those plants. The focus in the media has been on the plants because 
of this controversy and the cost, but from our regional perspective, we feel a new plant is 
the only solution. We feel it's one of many steps needed in Boston Harbor. 
C Breen: I hate to do this, but I just have to comment on something that Rich 
Delaney said about the decision being made on the waiver. It is true that EPA issued that 
tentative denial of the waiver in April and that the MDC did not respond within the 45 
days that they had to contest that decision. But, as I mentioned in my talk this morning, 
the next step in the whole process is for the EPA to issue a draft discharge permit. 
When that draft permit is issued and goes out for public comment, the MDC, 
the new Water Resources Authority, or some other party will have an opportunity to 
contest the decision or to begin negotiations on the permit's actual final effluent 
limitations. Rich is correct in saying that the Commonwealth stands behind and supports 
EPA's decision for denial, but the Commonwealth's position doesn't speak for the new 
Water Resources Authority. 
G. Gallagher: If I might make one comment, I think you set up a false 
opposition. You said the scientists are saying, "we need more study," and the policy 
people are saying, "Well, okay, go to secondary sewage treatment," and the decision will 
be made July 10th about the site. I don't think they're incompatible. The scientists are 
saying we need more study, and I think that was a lot of the reason that I, for one, felt 
that the EPA had very little choice in turning down Boston's application for a section 
301(h) waiver. The knowledge of physical oceanography 7 miles out in the Harbor, which 
is the old diffuser site, is so inadequate we really don't know where the sewage plume 
would go. Drogues released at one time a year with one wind-forcing condition would be 
washed to the northwest; drogues released at another time of the year would be washed to 
the southwest. We really didn't know what the physical oceanography is. 
And when we are that uncertain about the physical oceanography of a site out 
in Massachusetts Bay, we have to give the environment the benefit of the doubt. In 
reviewing the work, I don't think the waiver could have been granted to the MDC. 
114 
