HomeMy Public PortalAboutWMSC Minutes 2009-02-12 Date Approved: April 9,2009
TOWN OF ORLEANS
TOWN CLERICS OF'FICI-
09 APR 10 PFD 2: 09
For Official Use Only
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE
Joint Meeting with the
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT VALIDATION AND DESIGN COMMITTEE
and the
ORLEANS BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Minutes of February 12, 2009
A meeting of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the
Skaket Meeting Room at the Orleans Town Hall. The following people were present: Wastewater
Management Steering Committee: Augusta McKusick(Board of Health); Sims McGrath(Planning
Board); Ann Hodgkinson(Board of Water Commissioners); Judith Bruce(Conservation
Commission);Walter Bennett(Finance Committee); George Meservey(Planning Director)and John
F. Kelly(Town Administrator). Wastewater Management Validation c&Design Committee: Paul
Ammann,Ed Daly; Sims McGrath;Ron Collins,Greg Home, and Jeffrey Eagles. Board of
Selectmen: David Dunford,Mark Carron and Margie Fulcher. Wright-Pierce: Michael Giggey.
Department of Environmental Protection: David DiLorenzo, Brian Dudley. Wetlands and
Waterways Office: Liz Kouloheras.
DISCUSSION
Selectman Dunford chaired the joint meeting of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee and
the Wastewater Validation&Design Committee. Dunford stated that the intent of this meeting is to
have a dialogue with the members of the Department of Environmental Protection regarding the
sequencing of the wastewater tasks that need to be completed through the final version of the
Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan. Dunford noted the need for the two wastewater
committees to understand what options would and would not be allowed as the wastewater planning
process moves forward.
Meservey gave a summary of the questions that need to be answered with the help of the Department
of Environmental Protection. Meservey noted that a consultant contract has been awarded to the
Woods Hole Group to oversee the Peer Review. Meservey noted that various alternative technologies
available for wastewater cleanup are being explored by the two committees and need input from the
Department of Environmental Protection representatives regarding whether they are viable options for
Orleans. The committees discussed the following questions:
Question 1: Can alternatives such as aeration, flushing, and
dredging be considered as viable alternatives to meet the
TMDLs, as primary systems or only as supplemental to
conventional sewering?
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 1 of 9
Meservey noted the five alternative technologies are: 1)Aeration; 2) Flushing&Nitrogen
Bearing Sediment Removal; 3)Recirculating Filter Systems; 4)Dredging; and 5)Individual
Treatment Systems.
Aeration and Flushing:
Brian Dudley noted the need to have a basic understanding that what the
Department of Environmental Protection is primarily looking at, is source
reduction,rather than transferring a problem from one place to another. Dudley
stated the fact that there are nitrogen impacts on the estuaries resulting from land
use and as the source that is what needs to be attacked. Dudley stated that through
the enforcement of the Clean Water Act,the Environmental Protection Agency
looks at different treatment and remediation schemes,but they do not look at in-
stream treatment as a substitute for source reduction. Dudley explained that
source reduction is the primary means of addressing a pollutant contamination
issue, and in-stream treatment is not going to be considered to be acceptable as a
primary means of addressing the problem. Dudley stated that aeration and
flushing would only be acceptable as supplemental to a more comprehensive
conventional process as identified in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan as the recommended alternative. Dudley stated that any alternative option
that the town wants to pursue will have to include some degree of sewering.
Dudley stated that the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan has been
very well laid out in terms of the phasing that initially allows for 50%of
construction for ultimate flow and treatment with the appropriate sewering in the
first phase that would address the problem. Dudley stated that he does not see the
Department of Environmental Protection looking at any other option that would
alter the initiation of the first phase of the Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan. Dudley clarified that the town has to coordinate through the
Department of Environmental Protection in order to meet the requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency and other state agencies. Dudley stated that
everyone has to deal with the same standard practice as the wastewater process
progresses.
Meservey questioned whether the Department of Environmental Protection would
allow alternatives (possibly as supplemental treatments),to count toward meeting
the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Dudley stated that supplements
would have to be modeled to determine how they would impact the overall
system,and how they would work toward improving the goals that have been set
wider the TMDLs and through the Tech Report. Dudley stated that they are
primarily looking at habitat restoration as the benchmark,which is all part of
adaptive management. Dudley noted that the Department of Environmental
Protection will consider the town to be in compliance as long as the town is
moving forward within the timelines established Linder the Comprehensive
Wastewater Management Plan. Dudley stated that the Department of
Environmental Protection will not accept any implementation delays based on
furthering the study of alternatives that do not reduce nitrogen sources.
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 2 of 9
Amman questioned whether-using aeration would encourage rapid habitat
restoration. Dudley responded that source reduction is the primary goal and other
types of strategies would have to compliment source reduction not be used as a
substitute.
Bruce acknowledged the need to address source reduction of nutrients from septic
systems which may take many years,and supplemental strategies could be
undertaken as treatment of a symptom rather than treatment of a source, which
may include options such as aeration and better flushing in the short term.
McKusick questioned whether the benthic decomposition at the bottom of ponds
which is a temperature related phenomenon and effective aeration would be most
beneficial in the summer during the higher temperature months, as opposed to
year ro-und. Dudley agreed that benthic demand is at its highest point from late
June through August and is temperature driven as well as oxygen demands.
Dudley stressed that the Department of Environmental Protection does not want
communities to stray from the main goal of source reduction and the means to
achieve that goal. Dudley stated that the phased approach that the Wastewater
Management Steering Committee has arrived at through the Comprehensive
Wastewater Management Plan makes a lot of sense.
Dimford noted that Dudley has stressed that the main goal is source reduction and
the aeration and flushing are potentially supplemental options that could be
explored later in the process.
Margie Fulcher questioned the alternative options explored in the Wright-Pierce
letter dated November 8,2006,entitled, "Orleans Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan: Non-Traditional.Nitrogen Control Options", and Meservey
responded that Wright-Pierce did explore a number of alternative options and
determined that it was best to move on to better options for the primary plan.
Eagles noted that the Massachusetts Estuaries project report explains
environmental problems in the bay,but he questioned his understanding that the
state is mandating source reduction regardless of environmental problems.
Dudley responded that in order to solve the environmental problems,you have to
remove the sources as clearly stipulated in the Pleasant Bay Report as well as all
of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project reports. Dudley further explained that
there is nutrient overload, and particularly on the Cape the primary source of that
overload is coming from wastewater. Dudley stated that in order to remove the
nutrient load in the water column,you have to remove the source of that load and
where it is coming from.
Eagles stated his understanding that inlet management should be explored to help
solve environmental problems as alternatives to sewering. Dudley responded that
Dr. Howes has suggested looking at inlet configuration but it has always been
with the caveat that it is part of the solution,but it is not a substitute for the overall
plan. Dudley noted that inlet flushing/inlet management is studied because inlets
have been artificially restricted and the inlet movement restoration would put them
back to a more natural condition because the inlet restriction was done through a
manmade activity. Dudley gave some examples including muddy creek which is
restricted because of culverts from the construction on Route 28. Dudley
reiterated the theory that restoration is not a substitute,but rather a compliment to
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 3 of 9
source reduction and stated that that message has been consistent throughout the
whole Massachusetts Estuaries Project area.
Recirculating Filter Systems:
Brian Dudley explained that treating water from the water column is really
treating a symptom because a particular organic nitrogen is a result of the source
nitrogen entering the watershed.
Dredging:
Liz Kouloheras explained that a series of permits would be required for any
dredging work,particularly for Pleasant Bay which is in a established Area of
Critical Environmental Concern which excluded any existing navigation channels.
Kouloheras stated that the existing navigation channels may be maintained after
the extensive permitting process is completed,but new dredging(also known as
improvement dredging)is specifically prohibited in an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern. Kouloheras declared that if the towns that are part of the
Pleasant Bay watershed want to dredge,they would have to petition the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary to remove specific areas of
Pleasant Bay from the Area of Critical Environmental Concern,which is a
difficult process. Judith Bruce reminded committee members that Cape Cod Bay
is also an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
Ammann posed a hypothetical question of whether dredging would be allowed in
an Area of Critical Environmental Concern area such as the Arey's Pond sub-
enbayment and Namequoit River if,as noted in the SMAST report,the source of
nitrogen in the summertime from the natural biological sediments (benthic flux) is
seven or eight times the septic system contribution(which is in excess of the
threshold number), even if the septic system contribution is removed 100%.
Kouloheras reiterated that permits would be required due to the Area of Critical
Environmental Concern designation.
DiLorenzo stated that pilot studies could be done during the implementation of
Phase 1,not in place of it. DiLorenzo emphasized the fiscal responsibility of
Orleans continuing to move forward with the phased approach as written in the
Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan along with review of various state
agencies such as the Department of Environmental Protection and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Individual Treatment Systems:
Brian Dudley stated that individual treatment systems were evaluated as part of
the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and it was concluded that it
was not an appropriate means for the degree of source reduction and nitrogen
reduction that was required in order to meet the water quality standards. Dudley
further stated that individual on-site treatment systems as they exist currently are
not able to consistently achieve the levels that are necessary to meet the water
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 4 of 9
qualities under the Total Maximum Daily Load or have been projected under the
modeling of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project reports using that model. Dudley
stated that re-circulating sand filters are not going to go down to the necessary
levels(they have been approved for 25 milligrams per liter).
Dudley discussed Nitrex units and noted that preliminary results show that it has a
potential to be a promising technology but the Department of Environmental
Protection are not willing to stake a plan on that technology at this point. Dudley
stated that there is not enough operating data to be able to assure that an entire
source reduction program could be based on that technology. Dudley stated that
the analysis that was done under the Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan was thorough in its review of options and subsequent determination that they
were not appropriate for the level of treatment that was necessary. McKusick
referred to available data that indicates that in reference to cost per pound nitrogen
reduction,the most expensive option is with an individual FA system. Fulcher
stated her support for the phased in approach. Kelly questioned whether the
Department of Environmental Protection has established parameters as to the
length of a phased approach to be considered to be in compliance.
Bruce asked for clarification on the extent dredging that would be allowed to
maintain existing navigation channel parameters vs.new dredging to remove
nutrient sediments. Kouloheras responded that the current regulations and the
Area of Critical Environmental Concern program would not approve new or
expanded dredging. Kouloheras stated that permission would need to be obtained
through the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency process to change
any boundary of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern to allow any dredging
or sediment removal to occur. Dudley emphasized that benthic load is only
exerted a short portion of the year as opposed to the septic load being exerted
throughout the entire year. Dudley stated that the modeling takes into account all
of the benthic load and the percentages of reduction through the model and in the
sub-embayments have shown that we are going to be able to meet the water
quality goals.
Question 2: What level of flexibility will be accorded to a
DEP-approved CWMP? Are certain components of the approval
unchangeable?
Meservey questioned how far Orleans is committed to the specifics of the Comprehensive
Wastewater Management Plan permitting and approval level as opposed to looking at various
alternatives and sewering scenarios and asked Dudley to explain the permitting process.
Dudley responded that the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan generally looks at a
planning horizon of 20 years. Dudley stated that as a general guiding principal twenty years
would be the overall timeframe during which time the Department of Environmental
Protection would expect the town to set goals and prepare a schedule of target dates for
achieving those goals. Dudley stated that Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan is a core of the project which needs to be accomplished,but may run in
conjunction with research into alternatives which would compliment the plan. Dudley
explained that once the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan is approved, a
Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency certificate is issued, and a Notice of Project
Wastewater t1lanagenzent Steering Committee t lfinutes—February 12, 2009 Page 5 of 9
Change would have to be filed under the Adaptive Management Process for any deviations
from the original filed plan,and the Department of Environmental Protection would be willing
to look at the alternatives and judge them on their merit which provides for some flexibility.
Meservey asked how much the town is locked in to the draft Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan after the Environmental Notification Filing and Environmental Impact
Report are completed, and whether other alternatives or sewering designs would be considered
by the Department of Environmental Protection if valuable alternatives are found during the
preliminary design phase. Dudley responded that rational changes that make sense and
continue to move the wastewater goal forward would be considered by the Department of
Environmental Protection as long as they are consistent with the big picture target goals of
restoration and source reduction. Dudley stated that rather than get locked into a plan,it is
important to use adaptive management to come up with an optimal plan that makes the most
sense environmentally, ecologically and economically. DiLorenzo stated that unlike many
other towns, Orleans has acknowledged the problem of wastewater,and when the town is
exploring funding options,the Department of Environmental Protection does not want to
discourage the town from researching viable alternatives. DiLorenzo emphasized that there
are some areas that need more traditional wastewater management and the town is not locked
into a single option. DiLorenzo warned that unnecessary delays could be very costly to the
town with the way technology costs are escalating and projects need to be"shovel ready"in
order to be considered for any upcoming funding opportunities.
Giggey summarized the section ofthe draft Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan
referred to as the TMDL Compliance Plan(Section 11.6)which states that the Town of
Orleans submit an annual report to the Department of Environmental Protection that
documents the following:
•o• A status report of where the town is in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan process and what has been done over the past year.
*:• Annual estimates on how the nitrogen load has been reduced in the watershed,
❖ Results of water quality monitoring.
❖ Documentation of capital expenditures expected over the next five years based on the
Capital Improvement Plan.
❖ Progress on non-structural elements of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan.
❖ Annual proposed changes in implementation(such as acceleration or delay of
upcoming segments of the plan).
In a discussion regarding finding, Kelly stated that the Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan is presently listed in the Capital Improvement Plan for design with a target
date of FY 2011,but the State Revolving Fund does not cover design. DiLorenzo stated that
the Department of Environmental Protection would consider Design/Build fiinding which
addresses the distinction between design and constriction. Kelly questioned whether the State
Revolving Fund would consider funding a Design/Build and DiLorenzo responded
affirmatively and explained that it is a way for communities to address the distinction between
design and construction. DiLorenzo stated that Jack Hamm is the Cape representative
regarding the details of Design/Build information and his town contact will be John Kelly.
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 6 of 9
Ammann questioned the sizing of pipes and trunk lines and whether there is a possibility of
oversizing the system to meet the needs. Dudley responded that given the magnitude of the
project from a compacted Phase 1 to full buildout, in order to accommodate future growth,the
size of the pipe will not constitute a major change in cost.
Dunford questioned the impact of the Chatham break in Pleasant Bay as part of the flexibility
of the final Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and its impact on the restoration
issue. Dunford stated that the information in the draft Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan and in the Total Maximum Daily Load calculations was gathered before the
Chatham break, and questioned the process for the"after break"calculations to be included in
the final Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan. Dudley emphasized that there is no
way to know how the break will finally end up and whether it will remain in place or undergo
more changes. Dudley noted that the Pleasant Bay AIliance has produced some studies that
may need adjustment when more data is produced. Dudley stated that as long as there is the
capability to evaluate the conditions as they exist, and as they change,there is a way to adapt
the modeling for the plan as it moves forward and can be done in the annual reviews.
DiLorenzo assured the committees that there will be some Department of Environmental
Protection flexibility in trying to determine the calculation adjustments needed to stay current
with the Pleasant Bay water quality needs.
Bruce cautioned the committees to remember that it takes anywhere from 5 -20 years for
groundwater to reach the embayments, and the inlets in Pleasant Bay have never stayed put for
more than about 20 years. Bruce noted that currently the inlet is proving valuable flushing to
the nutrients that are being put into the ground. Bruce stated that part of the wastewater plan
means we need to stop putting the nutrients into the ground so that we become much less
dependent on where the inlet shifts to or whether it ends up closing in the future. Hodgkinson
noted that the Chatham break has no influence on Cape Cod Bay or the Nauset Estuary.
Question 3: Will cluster systems as a temporary solution be
given credit towards TMDL compliance?
Meservey questioned whether cluster systems(less than 10,000 gallons per day)to deal with
some of the neighborhoods around terminal salt ponds would be given credit toward Total
Maximum Daily Load compliance knowing that they are temporary and will eventually be
usurped by collection and removal of wastewater from those watersheds entirely. Dudley
stated that the Department of Environmental Protection will look at whether the town is
meeting the targets established in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan
to determine the eligibility for compliance points. Dudley commented that if the town is
putting in the cluster systems as part of an approved Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan,then there will be credit for compliance as the various phases progress which will be
reviewed annually.
Question 4: What are the impacts of existing ambiguities in
nitrogen removal requirements, such as the lack of an MEP
report for Nauset Estuary? Can a CWMP be approved prior to the
issuance of final TMDLs?
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 7 of 9
Meservey questioned the impact on the town regarding the Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan approval process where the Massachusetts Estuaries Project for the Nauset
Estuary has never been received and the town's inability to realistically know when it will
become available. Dudley stated that the town currently has a placeholder,as part of adaptive
management, and the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan can be approved prior to
the issuance of the final Total Maximum Daily Loads.
Bennett questioned the risk to the town if the cost of the placeholder drastically changes.
Dudley responded that the placeholder is a reasonable number to carry,but hopefully the
Nauset Estuary report will be made available by June or July. Dudley explained that since the
report does not affect Phase One,through adaptive management adjustments can be made and
reviewed as needed.
Giggey stated that the recommended plan outlines initiating the Massachusetts Environmental
Protection Agency process which involves filing the Environmental Notification Form which
starts the process soon despite the absence of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project report on the
Nauset Estuary. Giggey noted that final Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan could
be filed after receipt of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project report on the Nauset Estuary.
Giggey stated that the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency process is a multi-step
process and this would be the first step of that process. Giggey stated that the Environmental
Impact Report would be filed in Phase Two of the Massachusetts Environmental Protection
Agency process, after the Nauset Estuary report is received. Giggey stressed the importance
of receiving the Nauset Estuary report as soon as possible and noted the value of having the
infonnation in the report in tallis with abutting towns for regionalization efforts. DiLorenzo
requested that Orleans officials send him a letter stating the reasons that the Nauset Estuary
Report is necessary to the ongoing Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan process.
Question 5: Do towns need to plan now for full sewering to
address Contaminants of Emerging Concern?
Meservey posed a question regarding whether Orleans needs to plan for full sewering in an
effort to understand future planning and regionalization efforts with neighboring towns such as
issues with contaminants of emerging concern. Meservey noted that Orleans may be able to
meet its core program and be able to provide treatment capacity for neighboring towns which
helps meet the Total Maximum Daily Loads for everyone and may offset some of Orleans'
capital and operating costs. DiLorenzo agreed that wastewater treatment is an issue that must
be addressed and,it is possible that centralized treatment is the way to deal with the issue.
Giggey noted that there are human health concerns and environmental health concerns
resulting from the impacts of wastewater. Giggey stated that 95%of residents and businesses
in Orleans are on the town water system and there is a well-protected water recharge area.
Giggey stated that another advantage is that Orleans has a proposed wastewater treatment
plant site that is not in the water recharge area. DiLorenzo stated that centralized treatment
with decentralized discharge would be the ideal scenario if finances were not an issue.
McKissick posed a question to the Department of Environmental Protection representatives of
whether they feel the draft Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan is consistent with
the goals of restoration and source protection as an adaptable,phased plan that the town
approved and would it be prudent to move forward now with that phased plan. Dudley stated
that the draft Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan is acceptable with the goals that
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 8 of 9
the Department of Environmental Protection has set forth and it would serve the town of
Orleans very well to move forward.
Giggey praised the Town of Orleans for being pro-active about wastewater issues and noted
that it makes the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan process much smoother.
Bruce thanked the Department of Environmental Protection representatives for coming down
and providing the committees with clarification on wastewater issues and concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:47 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen C. Sharpless
Recording Secretary
Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes—February 12, 2009 Page 9 of 9