The meeting began with a presentation by Megan Gado, a project manager from Woodard and Curran, detailing the Gardner Sledge Landfill Expansion Project. This project aims to extend the operational life of the existing landfill, which has been in service since 1990 and is nearing its capacity. Gado explained that the expansion is necessary to continue the city’s wastewater treatment operations without increases in sewer rates for residents. The expansion would involve constructing an 8.75-acre addition to the landfill, designed to manage Gardner’s sludge production for at least the next 17 years.

Despite the technical details provided about the expansion, including safety measures and environmental safeguards, residents expressed concerns. One resident, Susan Russo, raised alarms about water contamination linked to the landfill, referencing tests that detected harmful dioxins in nearby water bodies. Her concerns were echoed by others, who questioned the adequacy of the city’s monitoring systems and the potential health risks associated with exposure to toxins.

Residents like Mary E. Marsh and Phil Brer emphasized the unpleasant odors emanating from the landfill, with Marsh describing personal health issues attributed to the stench. The potential for worsening air quality if the landfill were expanded was a recurring theme among the comments. Residents feared that the expansion would exacerbate existing issues and negatively impact the quality of life in Gardner.

The council also faced criticism over the perceived lack of viable alternatives to the landfill expansion. Alternatives discussed included off-site hauling of sludge and potential partnerships for new facilities, such as the proposed Fitchburg biosolids Management Facility. However, these options were found to have significant uncertainties, including logistical and financial challenges.

David Antea brought attention to the dismissal of hydrothermal carbonization technology as an alternative, questioning the thoroughness of the city’s environmental impact assessment. He called for a more comprehensive evaluation of this method, which could offer a more sustainable solution to waste management.

The absence of the mayor during the discussions was noted, with some residents interpreting it as a lack of engagement with their concerns.

The council committed to addressing these issues by incorporating public feedback into the final draft of the environmental impact report. This commitment was seen as crucial by residents, who demanded greater transparency and accountability in managing the city’s waste disposal challenges.