GARDNER – Area residents who may support or oppose the proposed expansion of Gardner’s sludge landfill have just a couple more days to respond a draft environmental impact report on the project.

The report was done for the city by the Portland, Maine-based engineering firm of Woodard & Curran. While the document concludes expansion of the landfill will have a “positive impact.” it dismisses a trio of alternatives put forward by the Coalition for a Sustainable Alternative for the Gardner Sludge Landfill expansion, saying all three would result in a negative impact for economic or environmental reasons.

The Millers River Watershed Council and the coalition have opposed the project on multiple grounds, including cost, the potential for contamination of nearby drinking water wells in Gardner and Templeton, ongoing local efforts to construct clean and less costly alternatives, and the problems with the existing sludge landfill to keep pooled liquids, sediment and contaminants from migrating off site. Contaminants from the site could eventually enter the Millers River via nearby tributaries, opponents to the project say.

In an interview, MWRC Director Ivan Ussach said the report released by Woodard & Curran, “Continues to be lacking in thoroughness in a way that make the landfill expansion look good and makes the alternatives look less good. The financial information is really not as thorough as it should be in such a way that it presents the landfill expansion as clearly the best option. The numbers are there to be looked at but they’re not fully reflected in this document. So, we think the shortcomings (of expansion) continue to be quite severe.”

The impact report puts the cost of expansion at about $12 million. The cost of two of the proposed alternatives – trucking sludge off-site or transferring it to the Fitchburg Biomass Power Station, which is currently under construction – would each cost $13 million.

The third alternative – establishment of a hydrothermal carbonization facility in Gardner would, according to Tighe & Bond, run between $15 million and $20 million.

The proposed expansion would add 4.5 acres to the landfill site while increasing its height by 20 feet, according to Ussach. It would extend the life of the facility by 17 years.

“The project stills stinks, literally and figuratively,” Ussach said. “Why lock into a 17-year commitment and then need to deal with the same problem and the new expenses all over again? That doesn’t sound very cost-effective to me.”

Gardner Public Works Director told the Athol Daily News, “We looked into several alternatives, including hauling to another facility, hauling to Fitchburg’s future disposal site, or permitting and building a hydrothermal carbonization facility in-town. According to a report the state has just released, hauling to another facility’s costs have gone up nearly 35% since 2018 and will only increase exponentially in the future. Our rates could potentially double in the next few years if we chose to haul out of town.”

Arnold added, “The last we checked with DEP; Fitchburg hasn’t begun permitting their facility. Thus, it is unknown when we would be able to haul to this facility – if at all, if it doesn’t get permitted and constructed. The facility in Fitchburg would still need to dispose of their byproduct and would be exposed to high disposal fees of other facilities and/or states.

“As far as permitting and constructing the hydrothermal carbonization facility, there is not one permitted in the state of Massachusetts that we are aware of. This would take years to permit, and millions of dollars to construct if it was even allowed in the state.”

According Ussach, there was an uncontrolled sediment release from the sludge landfill into neighboring wetlands last September. Another larger one occurred in March of this year. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection inspected the site on March 10.

According to Dane, citizens can comment on the impact report until the end of the day this Friday, May 9.

“MEPA has a review period….and will give us a decision as to what our next steps will need to be for permitting.”

And if Mass DEP doesn’t approve the expansion project?

“We hope this doesn’t happen,” he said, “so I’d rather not comment on this at this time.”

Public comment can be made via email via the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency Public Comment Portal (link on MEPA website).

Comments can be emailed to MEPA Analyst Alexander Strysky at alexander.strysky@mass.gov: reference Gardner Sludge Landfill and EEA #16643 in subject line.

An electronic copy of the impact report may be found here: https://www.gardner-ma.gov/1276/Sludge-Landfill-Expansion.

Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com.