Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutWWMSC MINUTES 2005-11-17 WMSC ASTEWATER ANAGEMENT TEERING OMMITTEE Minutes of November 17, 2005 A meeting of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in Members Present: Meeting Room A, Orleans Town Hall. Augusta McKusick (Board of Health); Ann Hodgkinson (Board of Water Commissioners); John Hinckley (Board of Selectmen); Judith Bruce (Conservation Commission); Victor Noerdlinger (Finance Committee); John Fallender (Planning Board); Also Present: George Meservey (Planning Director); Mike Giggey and Heather Merriman (Wright- Pierce); John Hodgkinson (Citizen's Advisory Committee); Andree Yager (Citizen's Advisory ; Committee)Mary Hartley (Friends of Namskaket Marsh); Sherman Reed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 20, 2005 MOTION: Judith BruceAnn Hodgkinson On a motion by , seconded by , the Committee voted to approve the minutes of October 20, 2005. VOTE: 4-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 27, 2005 MOTION: Judith BruceAnn Hodgkinson On a motion by , seconded by , the Committee voted to approve the minutes of October 27, 2005. VOTE: 4-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Conservation Commission –Bruce noted that Mary Kelsey is the new President of the Friends of  Pleasant Bay and Len Short is the new President of the Orleans Pond Coalition. Board of Health - McKusick indicated that the Board of Health is working on measures to help  townspeople avoid spending unnecessary funds on systems that will have to be replaced. Board of Water Commissioners - Hodgkinson stated that the Board of Water Commissioners is  working on the first cut on revisions to two chapters of the Bylaws with the assistance of the Water Superintendent. Planning Department - Meservey noted that the Planning Board will be working on Village  Center planning over the next several months. NEW BUSINESS: Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – November 17, 2005 Page 1 of 6 Mike Giggey & Heather Merriman (Wright-Pierce) led a discussion on the following: Wright-Pierce letter dated November 11, 2005 entitled, “Identification of Site for Wastewater  Treatment and Disposal”. Wright-Pierce letter dated November 15, 2005 entitled, “Update on TMDL Allocation  Discussions”. Site Identification worksheets from October 2002.  Questions need to be determined: 1. How to deal with Department of Environmental Protection on the issue of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocation. 2. How to approach the identification and evaluation of wastewater treatment and disposal sites. 3. How much effort should be spent on regional options? Term Definitions: Giggey noted that the following terms need to be clarified: Watershed nitrogen loads = how much nitrogen is going into the embayments from a  watershed. Watershed Load = the load that enters the groundwater.  Attenuating Load = when the load gets to the embayment. (The raw load going in is attenuated  by natural systems between there and the embayment). Important Tasks: 1. Attribution of Load by Town: Attribute that load to the town in which it was generated. (If an embayment might receive 10,000 lbs of nitrogen, it is important that we understand where the nitrogen is coming from). 2. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a shorthand term for assimilative capacity. If we know that the watershed in question has an assimilative capacity of 5,000 lbs. it is going to be important to know the percentage of that capacity that is owned by each town. a. Attributing the current load to the towns where it originated. b. Allocating the assimilative capacity. Giggey noted that the expectation that the Department of Environmental Protection will tell Orleans the attribution and allocation was not correct. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – November 17, 2005 Page 2 of 6 Key Points: A. Regulatory Framework: Once the Town of Orleans can begin compliance after the Total Maximum Daily Load has been issued, it should be noted that the Department of Environmental Protection is generally supportive of the ideas put forth by Wright-Pierce on behalf of the Town of Orleans and indicated that Orleans is on the right track. 1) Hinckley asked for clarification of the following: In the letters from the Department of Environmental Protection and Wright-Pierce there is an implication of an evolutionary process; 2) and Throughout the letters from Department of Environmental Protection and Wright-Pierce, watershed is talked about as a singular word and asked if the implication is that the Department of Environmental Protection’s position is to look at them as single entities (like Pleasant Bay over multiple towns) or multiple sub-embayments by town (like Meetinghouse Pond). Giggey answered that there will be actions required across the entire Pleasant Bay Watershed and the same questions apply when you’re talking about sub-embayments (like Meetinghouse Pond or Arey’s Pond). Hinckley asked if Giggey’s impression of communities or areas will be able to determine based upon the science sub-embayments that are the contributing factors so that the town can address density issues. Giggey noted that the following information is needed from the Department of Environmental Protection: 1. The attribution of the current attenuated load originated by each town (Orleans and Brewster). 2. The same kind of numbers for the buildout condition (or planning horizon, short of buildout). 3. Who owns the assimilative capacity? Giggey stated that Orleans’ problem is defined as the difference between Orleans future attenuated load and the assimilative aspect. The Department of Environmental Protection is willing to provide the attribution on current conditions, but not on buildout. Giggey stated the Town of Orleans should develop a phased program so that phases are implemented over time with a priority setting that is includes both Town Needs as well as Department of Environmental Protection input. Every five years the Town of Orleans should sit with the Department of Environmental Protection and rethink the phasing and the priorities and move ahead accordingly. Every year Wright-Pierce issues a report card on the nitrogen load in each of the sub-watersheds and all of these issues will result in the Town of Orleans being in compliance. The Department of Environmental Protection has essentially agreed with this plan through Brian Dudley, Project Manager of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project. The Town of Orleans has established the regulatory framework needed to work with the Department of Environmental Protection. B. Attenuated Load: Everybody agrees that it is important to know the attenuated load by town; the Department of Environmental Protection has agreed that they will tell us that, but only for current conditions. The only way to provide attenuation information for buildout conditions is to take the Massachusetts Estuaries Project’s model and run it for different conditions. The Department of Environmental Protection will not provide this information; one scenario would be to have Wright-Pierce and ENSR do it on behalf of the Town. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – November 17, 2005 Page 3 of 6 C. Allocating the Assimilative Capacity: The Department of Environmental Protection is taking the stance that the most important part is to figure out the watershed-wide solution that gets down to the Total Maximum Daily Load without being worried about whose responsibility it is. Conceptually, the best and most cost effective solution is one that addresses the regional needs. According to the Department of Environmental Protection, towns need to figure out the best solution and then tackle the issue of how to fund it. D. Allocation of Total Maximum Daily Load’s: The Department of Environmental Protection is hearing that all parties need to be involved financially, and they have capability to coerce recalcitrant towns to live up to their responsibilities. Giggey noted that a lot is happening in this field and there is a way to benefit the Town of Orleans as well as the region. Issues to be carried forward: 1. Regionalization – Whose responsibility is it to come up with the best regional plan. 2. Funding – Efforts that benefit Orleans as well as other towns. Siting Giggey stated the importance of finding the right wastewater treatment and disposal sites. The old school approach of having one site for wastewater treatment and disposal may not work. The Town of Orleans should look at sites that might be good for effluent disposal only and not for both. It is easier to find a place to put effluent underneath the parking lot or on a ball field, and not have to worry about putting the wastewater treatment plant at the same location. Ideally it would be nice to find sites where you can do both treatment and disposal, but we may have to split those functions which add costs, but there may not be enough room to do all that we want to do on one site. Inter-watershed Transfer There are people that believe that wastewater that is collected in one watershed should be treated and disposed of in that same watershed and not be moved to another watershed. There are a lot of sound reasons for that: 1. Hydrologic - Maintaining the water balance, if you collect water and move it elsewhere, you are going to change water tables and impact other areas. 2. Political and Public Perception – People will question why water is being moved to another watershed. 3. Net Nitrogen Influx – Depending on what treatment you use, there is a net nitrogen influx being transferred to another watershed. You will have increased the nitrogen input into the target estuary. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – November 17, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Different Approaches: 1. Centralized – Find a place where you can treat and dispose of everything in one location without worrying about keeping the wastewater in the watershed where it is generated. Find the treatment site first, put as much effluent disposal there as you can, and if you still have effluent left over then you put that somewhere close by. The emphasis in centralized would be to minimize the number of sites. 2. Decentralized – In the unlikely extreme case, you would find a site at least for disposal and also maybe for treatment in each of the sub-watersheds. That would mean one site (or maybe even two in case of complications) for Arey’s Pond, Lonnie’s Pond, Meetinghouse Pond, etc. It is important for Wright-Pierce to research this option to maximize that concept and keep it as local as possible as there are significant advantages to this method. 1)2) Hinckley stated that two points must be addressed in the process: The bottom line cost; and What is the cost of maintenance of the function of a centralized system vs. a decentralized set of systems? Giggey noted that transport costs will be a significant determinate in getting a low cost solution. We need to find the viable sites. In comparing a centralized solution with a decentralized solution it is important to know how decentralized you can get, how much can be saved in transport costs, after determining the number of viable sites and identify them. After the work is completed, you need to put together the most decentralized option that makes sense and compare its costs with the one or two more centralized options. Giggey stated that this research is the heart of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan. 1) Hinckley voiced the following concerns based on experiences in Provincetown: Bringing the “what 2) ifs” to a logical conclusion; and The infrastructural costs of maintenance and oversight. Giggey noted that more sites means the involvement of more neighbors which then poses more complications in the process. Merriman noted that treatment facilities can be made to fit into the neighborhoods designed to look like a house, eliminating visual concerns from neighbors. McKusick noted that there will be a bus tour in the spring of 2006 of Cape facilities for key people in the wastewater decision making process. McKusick reported that two subdivisions have come into town where the Orleans Conservation Trust has been willing to work with the Planning Board and the Board of Health to get land set aside in the Conservation Area for wastewater disposal. McKusick noted that land can be used for multiple purposes. Giggey noted that Bailey’s Pass subdivision in Chatham where the effluent disposal is under the tennis court that serves the subdivision, the treatment units are within a landscaped area and the generator is behind a stockade fence. Giggey expressed his pleasure that the Planning Board is involved in working on a Village Center Plan and offered to meet with the Planning Board to discuss Village Center/wastewater issues. Fallender noted that the Planning Board realizes the importance of sharing information between the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and the Village Center Master Plan and commented that the Planning Board has moved the Village Center Plan up on their list of priorities. Reed inquired about the risk of failure in the small plants. Giggey replied that the smaller systems are more modular and it is easier to keep or quickly bring in replacement parts for specific components. Giggey stated he is a very strong advocate of land treatment of wastewater, preferring to put it on top of the sod, rather than burying it underneath the sod. The simplest way to do that is to have a dedicated site that you own with a fence around it allowing you to spray any time of day or night without interfering with anything. Giggey said it is important to know what pieces of land are available to do this type of operation. Hinckley suggested leasing land, if necessary. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – November 17, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Regionalization Giggey stated that one way to keep the costs down for Orleans is to have a facility that is shared with the neighboring towns of Eastham and Brewster. A wastewater collaborative task for the Nauset System needs cooperation from all of the towns involved, not just Orleans. Giggey noted that one scenario would be to have a Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan for all three towns done by the Cape Cod Commission. Giggey stated that from a regionalization point of view, it would be the best way to get the best answer. Giggey also noted that a Memorandum of Understanding with the Eastham and Brewster Boards of Selectmen should be required if Orleans is doing the major share of the work involved in regionalization of wastewater treatment. Meservey reminded the board that the Wastewater Management Steering Committee is only authorized to complete a Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan for the Town of Orleans, and the regional issues need to be fully articulated to the Board of Selectmen in the December 2005 update in order to enlist their help with coordinating efforts with other towns. Hinckley stated that given the Department of Environmental Protection regional issues, it important to have an interactive environment that crosses political boundaries in the case of Pleasant Bay. Hinckley further noted that it behooves us to find ways to work cooperatively where it positively impacts the cost of us doing business and a return on that investment. If we fail to do that, we are being short-sighted. Hinckley stated that the issue needs to be projected in such a way that we can accomplish these particular goals in a manner that allows us to live appropriately in the timeframe that we set out. Hinckley stated that it is the responsibility of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee under its charge from the Board of Selectmen to substantiate the facts and make appropriate recommendations regarding wastewater funding to the Board of Selectmen. Public Education Plan John Hodgkinson requested a meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee with Wright-Pierce in order to coordinate the Public Education Plan approved by the Wastewater Management Steering Committee and the Board of Selectmen. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen C. Sharpless Recording Secretary Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – November 17, 2005 Page 6 of 6