Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sludge Landfill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears updates on sludge landfill discharge, continues enforcement hearing to April 14
Summary
After a recent sediment discharge, the Gardner City Conservation Commission discussed MassDEP site visits, maintenance lapses at the sludge landfill operated by Veolia, and interim fixes. Commissioners voted to continue the enforcement hearing to April 14 while awaiting DEP test results and documentation.
Get email alerts on the Sludge Landfill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Gardner City Conservation Commission on April 1 discussed a recent sediment discharge from the city’s sludge landfill and voted to continue the enforcement hearing to April 14 while awaiting additional reports from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and documentation from the landfill operator.
Commissioners and members of the public pressed city staff and Veolia representatives for details about a March incident and about long-standing maintenance and design issues at the site. Public commenter Dan Majruso asked, “Is there a report from Mass DEP on the incident that happened on March 6?” and said he was concerned that a pool of material on top of the landfill had not been noted in earlier DEP correspondence. The commission noted it had been under an enforcement order since November.
Why it matters: The landfill sits above wooded wetlands and a discharge can send sediment into downstream wetlands and streams. Residents and commissioners said repeated releases over several years indicate a need for stronger oversight, clearer maintenance records and a plan from Veolia to prevent future releases.
City engineer Rob Hall and Lee Huddle, the city’s VPW director, described actions taken after DEP’s recent site meeting. Huddle said DEP reviewer Tom Rebula recommended immediate measures that were implemented, including installing a containment barrier around the plume of sediment, cleaning sand stockpiles that had migrated down the slope, and adding netting and riprap to stabilize slopes. Huddle said, “When we were out there, Tom Rebula did have a couple of recommendations to take immediately, which were done shortly thereafter, which was, a roof control barrier around that plume of sediment… And then there was an area on a slope where sand stockpiles for the operation on the landfill went down the slope. During that meeting, that got cleaned up, and then his department went back with, slow netting, to stabilize it, wet and cleaned up.”
Commissioners and public speakers pressed for records and clearer oversight. Huddle said a bound book of maintenance records exists but suggested some records have not yet been circulated to the commission. A city staff member said the 02/2016 operations and maintenance (O&M) manual exists; one speaker said they had the manual in hand. City staff acknowledged additional maintenance and updated operating procedures are planned.
Veolia and city staff described the March event as a combination of weather and operational factors: snowmelt, 1.7 inches of rain on frozen ground, and sand stockpiles that created a low point and pooling. Huddle said crews have adjusted plowing practices around the stockpile and instructed Veolia to change how the sand is stored. He added crews had “added check, riprap check dams to the swale…the stone was replaced, so we have been maintaining them.”
Testing and next steps: Staff said laboratory results for the outfall sampling had not been received at the meeting; a Veolia contact (Joe) had been out of the office and had not yet provided results. Commissioners requested that Veolia bring the O&M manual, maintenance records and a written plan to the next meeting and asked staff to follow up with DEP comments. The commission voted to continue the enforcement hearing to April 14 to review DEP comments, Veolia’s O&M and maintenance documentation, and any lab results.
Action taken: The commission voted, on a motion to continue the enforcement hearing to April 14; the motion passed (voice vote: “Aye”).
What remains unresolved: lab results for the March discharge, a full accounting of maintenance records and the commission’s ability to enforce contract provisions with Veolia. Several residents asked the city to bring Veolia representatives and their project manager to the next hearing so the commission could hear the operator’s plan directly.
Ending note: Commissioners said they will seek DEP’s technical comments, review Veolia’s documentation and consider contract-oversight steps before the April 14 continuation.

