GARDNER — During a public information meeting held at Perry Auditorium on February 10, 2025, Gardner officials detailed plans to expand the city’s six-acre sludge landfill by 8.75 acres to prevent it from reaching capacity, which is anticipated between 2027 and 2030. This expansion is estimated to cost $12 million and extend the landfill’s life by 17 years. The decision follows an evaluation of alternatives that were deemed financially or logistically unfeasible.
At the meeting, Dane Arnold, director of the Gardner Department of Public Works, along with representatives from Woodard & Curran, the engineering firm managing the project, presented the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Gardner Sludge Landfill Expansion Project. The DEIR is available for public review and comment until February 15. Feedback can be submitted via email at slf@gardner-ma.gov or by calling the DPW at 978-630-8195. The final DEIR must be submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection by February 28.
During the meeting, Megan Gatto, a project manager at Woodard & Curran overseeing the environmental review for the sludge landfill expansion, explained that while alternatives like closing the landfill or introducing new waste processing technologies were considered, their implementation would exceed the two to five-year timeframe Gardner has before the landfill reaches capacity. She then presented the two alternatives, which are summarized as follows:
- Continue Using the Current Landfill: This plan would operate the existing Gardner sludge landfill until it is full and then close it at a cost of $13 million. Subsequently, Gardner might negotiate contract with the Fitchburg Biosolids Management Facility, which is estimated to cost $270 million. Gatto noted that this option carries significant risk due to the early planning stages of the Fitchburg facility and the uncertainties regarding its approval and funding.
- Implement Hydrothermal Carbonization Technology: This option involves retrofitting the Crystal Lake wastewater treatment facility with hydrothermal carbonization technology to convert organic waste directly into fuel. This process would allow the facility to process all the city’s sewage and wastewater into sludge, subsequently transforming it into fuel instead of depositing it at the West Street landfill. Such an upgrade would not only eliminate the need for transporting sludge but could also turn the facility into a regional center for biosolid processing. The fuel would then be used by the city or perhaps sold to other municipalities in the area. The estimated cost for this technology ranges from $15 million to $20 million.
Gatto explained that either option would temporarily require moving sludge off-site until the project is completed, which could double local sewer rates, according to The Gardner News. She also stated that although the hydrothermal carbonization technology is still under consideration, it would not fulfill Gardner’s disposal needs by 2027.
Residents Voice Opposition to Landfill Expansion
Several Gardner residents spoke out against the proposed landfill expansion during the public comment period at the February 10 public information meeting, The Gardner News Reported. Many cited longstanding concerns over odor and environmental impacts on the Otter River and private property. Others argued that the expansion is only a temporary fix.
Alan Rousseau, a longtime Gardner resident and property owner near the landfill, called the project a poor financial decision and a “money pit.”
“In 2044, Gardner will have to make another investment, but we don’t have to wait for 2044,” Rousseau said. “We need a solution that generates revenue for future generations.”
Templeton Residents Raise Water Supply Concerns
During the meeting, Theresa Griffis, a Templeton select board member, said residents in her town are worried about how the expansion could affect their water supply. Griffis noted that the Otter River, Templeton’s primary water source, is about five miles from the landfill, with nearby wetlands directing water toward the river. She questioned how Gardner could ensure there would be no contamination and asked whether the city would be responsible for cleanup if contamination occurred.
