Future of Gardner Sludge Dump Raises Concerns for Local Residents

By Wayne Jurgeleit
Assistant Editor

Sewage sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment, presents significant environmental and public health challenges. Wastewater and stormwater flow into treatment facilities, where solid wastes are separated from liquids through settling and then decomposed by bacteria. These processed solids—sewage sludge—contain numerous hazardous materials, including household, medical, chemical, and industrial waste.

Once treated, sewage sludge is dried and disposed of in landfills. This “chemical soup” is laden with toxic compounds, nanomaterials, hormones, and dangerous pathogens. When a landfill reaches capacity, the site is capped, and the extremely slow process of breaking down these substances to safe levels begins. While sanitation processes mitigate some health risks, chemicals like PCBs, flame retardants, heavy metals, and endocrine disruptors, many of which are carcinogens, are not filtered out. Additionally, landfills are vulnerable to leaks caused by severe weather and aging infrastructure.

Gardner faces an impending crisis as the city’s sludge landfill at 808 West Street nears capacity, projected between 2027 and 2030. City officials have identified expanding the landfill as the most feasible solution. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDFP), but approval is hardly certain.

Dane Arnold, Gardner’s Department of Public Works (GPW) director, presented the Draft Environmental Impact Report alongside representatives from Woodard & Curran, the engineering firm overseeing the project, during a public information meeting. Megan Gotto, the project manager, stated that the expansion would add 8.75 acres to the west of the existing landfill, extending its lifespan by 17 years at an estimated cost of $12 million. Currently, the landfill occupies six acres.

Gotto outlined two alternatives to the expansion, though both were deemed financially unviable within the two- to five-year timeline before the landfill reaches capacity. The first alternative involves closing the landfill, costing $13 million, and contracting with the proposed Fitchburg Biosolids Management Facility to treat the sludge. However, the Fitchburg facility is still in early planning stages, leaving this option highly uncertain.

The second alternative would upgrade Gardner’s wastewater treatment facility with hydrothermal carbonization technology to process human and food waste into fuel. This method would eliminate the need for landfills, allow Gardner to potentially sell fuel to other municipalities, and position the facility as a regional biosolid processing hub. However, this option is estimated to cost $15–$20 million and does not provide a timely solution for Gardner’s needs. Additionally, hauling sludge off-site during construction would significantly raise sewer rates for residents.

Gotto emphasized that while hydrothermal carbonization remains a potential future solution, it cannot address Gardner’s immediate sludge disposal needs.

During the public comment period, several Gardner residents opposed the expansion, citing long-standing issues such as odor and environmental impacts on the Otter River and private property. Many argued that the expansion is only a temporary fix.

Alan Rousseau, a longtime Gardner resident and property owner near the landfill, criticized the project as “a poor financial decision and a money pit.” He added, “[The city] can’t handle what they have already. We need a solution that considers future generations.”

Theresa Griffis, a Templeton select board member, raised concerns about potential contamination of the Otter River, Templeton’s primary water source, located less than a mile from the landfill. Griffis questioned Gardner’s preparedness to handle contamination and cleanup. “There is no protocol for problems that arise. I’m astonished it’s completely off their radar screen,” she remarked.

MWCC student and Templeton resident Beckett Caisse echoed these concerns, stating, “The landfill is right next to a cemetery and conservation land. People complain of the stench when the wind is right. There has got to be a better long-term solution.”

Ian Dolan, another MWCC student and producer at Templeton Community Television, expressed similar sentiments. “It’s short-sighted and not a good look, really. Gardner is the Chair City; it doesn’t have to be the Sludge Expansion City, too,” he said.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the landfill expansion is still under consideration. Students seeking more information can contact the Brewer Center or Gardner Clean Air via Facebook.