Heat. [music] [music] Heat. We're calling the meeting to order then. This is Wednesday, April 15th. It's 4:30. This is the water quality management committee.
And we have an agenda with five items. And the first item is going to be reports of members including but not limited to I should have written down there summary of recent environmental actions uh by other communities and agencies. Uh
Ed uh keeps track of all of this for us and I'm grateful for the fact that he reads multiple newspapers and environmental monitors and we always look forward to what you know. >> Hey, I try to catch them all but I'm sure I miss some. always willing to get
input from other people as to what they might have seen, but um quite a few items. I didn't expect this, but uh the past week's been busy. Um some of you may be aware OSHA has issued fines for $4.7 million
to Ravoli Construction over the work in Yarmouth where a man was killed. 4. I think it's the highest OSHA fine I've ever heard of. I'm sure they'll appeal, but that dig is just an ongoing disaster along 28. Anybody that goes out to
Yarmouth should check the Yarmouth website. They do weekly post where they're going to be working, but it's it's all part of their uh 40-year plan. 40 years of spending um budgeted or planned 207 million. uh they
expect to have their treatment plant completed by the end of next year and uh start connecting um early 2028. Do we know the size of that treatment plant and the discharge? >> Question. Um it's funny you should ask 370,000
gallons per day permitted uh at a 10 milligram per liter uh level of treatment. Uh, another interesting tidbit I found in the MASHP Enterprise Edition, MASHB as a community has a a water district
that manages the municipal water supply. And in the fine print of their uh policies, they do not allow any new connections for irrigation to the town water supply. I thought you might like
that, George. uh they're they're doing this as an active part of water conservation. I think you know this would be something somewhere down the road Felmouth needs to look at but no new irrigation existing systems prior to the rule are allowed to continue but any
new irrigation systems have to have their own well >> what's an irrig I mean does Harry home homeowner was a lawn sprinkler >> a lawn sprinkler automatic sprinkler systems cannot be connected [clears throat] to town water in Mashby
>> but not if you have a hose hooked up to a faucet >> no you know, that that's considered, I think, a portable connection. But, you know, as a municipal policy, I think it's outstanding. Uh, anyway, um, beyond that, um, I I've been reading about for the
past month or two in the Mashp enterprise. Again, great great little source of info. There is a development uh that is a concern for uh both Falmouth and Mashby because it's it's a proposed development of 25 single family
homes of the 2,000 square foot size order of magnitude. Um it's called the reserve at quashnet valley country club and uh January 29 of this year the executive office of energy and
environmental affairs decreed that they do have to just submit a single EIR and the the big issue there is adding nitrogen to the quashnet river that watershed feeding into the quite bay um
that means Both Falmouth and Mashp will be looking at some additional nitrogen load that will require mitigation going forward. Um there are various groups primarily um I think it was the APCC
and the the trout unlimited national organization which has been working for many years on restoring the quashnet to an active trout stream and they have appealed and asked the uh secretary to change that
policy. There there is the same things we have seen in Felmouth's discussion of the sandwich road easterly project. How can you allow more nitrogen to go in with these housing developments when we've got to clean up the thing and mitigate this? So that's an ongoing saga
and um you know this quashnet river restoration is fascinating. I hike that probably once a week. It's a it's a great place for a walk if you're a walker. And uh a Falmouth native uh not a Falmouth resident, Francis Francis Smith used to
own Panton Plumbing. He's been working on that project for over 60 years. Since the 60s, he's been part of restoring that stream. And the problem is going to be adding the nitrogen from this development. Even though they'll each have an IIA, is adding that nitrogen and making it that much harder to keep
healthy. So stay tuned for information on that. um Oak Bluffs at Springtown meeting, they're going to be looking to establish what we've talked about here, OIF, wastewater
uh infrastructure investment fund. Um and they they characterize it as a savings account which will help ease the burden of unforeseen wastewater management costs. um they're they're looking to possibly fund that through retained earnings in
the sewer department. So, as they get fees and have some leftover from the quarterly or whenever they bill, they're looking to maybe build the fund that way. But that's an active town meeting discussion item for bluffs and coincidentally found looking at it going
forward. Uh they've got some debt exclusions to fund maintenance of pump stations and things. They have a very limited sewering uh capacity both treatment and collection but they're looking for a million there and another 825,000 to do design for mitigation
along Lagoon Pond um purely design and let's see what else we got. Um, D has finally put up 2025
figures for performance for IIA systems. And I've mentioned this in the past. Um, you know, Falmouth has kind of committed to a 10 milligram per liter standard for nitrogen remediation out of an IA
system. And as of this juncture there is no system that is certified for that for general use. Um the nitro which seems to be the best performing is under provisional at 11. Um the nitrex is
provisional under 10 as a standard. Nitrex has only installed nine systems, nine that are part of the measurement for best available reduction technology. Nitro is up at as of now
systems that qualify which means they need at least two years of data twice a year testing data to be part of even the beginning an uh acceptance to general use. But they need 3 years of 50 systems performing that 90% of them have to meet
that to get certified for general use. And as of 2025 data, 57 systems, Nitro um only met only 54% of them met the 11.
84% met the 19 standard which is the current general use certification. So, you know, 19 to 10 is a long way, but it's a heck of a lot better than somewhere in the 70 or more milligram per liter that a title five does. But
the uh I I've got a call in to Nitro. They haven't called me back to to talk about what where their data is and where they see their process for certification proceeding. Uh the state looks at 90% of the systems
have to meet it their average performance. Masttec data looks at median performance, but [clears throat] I had correspondence with D last December stating very emphatically they are looking at averages, not medians. So
stay tuned for that certification issue. Um let's see. Lastly, uh and kind of not least is Truro has submitted on March 30th their compreh comprehensive
watershed management plan. Fut's working on this. Kristen and Amy and GHD have a very big project they're working on. Uh Truro is pretty early in the game and they they submitted theirs. Um it's a small situation up there. They
have three wheds that are uh considered impacted but only one has a TMDL and and that is the shared watershed with Province Town. So Pamett River uh wershed has no TMDL or MEP report but um
it is considered significantly degraded based on observation of algae [clears throat] bloom and everything else death of eel grass. So um they are looking at a a kind of a menu
of mitigation in their plan going forward. um PRBs, fertilizer bylaw, some cluster systems to collect a number of homes in an area, and also some additional sewering. Uh and they have an
agreement with Province Town to use some capacity there for a treatment plant. Truro has no treatment plant or any plans or place to build one at this juncture. So their game plan um it runs 103 pages of mostly boring stuff but
highlighting they already have um board of health triggers for conversion of title five systems to IAS in their letter in their law for this
currently it's for a 19 mg per liter concentration and the current triggers are flow flows greater than 600 gallons a day. Um certain non-conforming systems as defined by board of health, it's
probably cesspools. Uh and they're considering and this is only consideration but they're proposing triggers at sale of property failed systems specific [clears throat] undefined at
this point distance from a wetland new construction or expansion. So simil similarities to what Felmouth has recently promulgated but also you know a big one in my estimation is sale and transfer. A number of communities are
including that and I would suspect and hope that that would be the next trigger our board of health will consider going forward. Um I'm almost done. >> Keep going. I'm not I was kind of thought I was getting a look. uh their
new uh performance criteria that they're considering would be 11 milligrams or less. Um so permeable reactive barrier they're proposing in their CWMP is um downgradient of a high nitrogen
producing agricultural property in the Pame River watershed and they're very early in looking at it. Um they're going to they have not even initiated a coordination with the property owner for the identified PRB
site, but they've got an idea. The uh the the cluster system I mentioned will be anywhere from just 34 houses to 57. So not a huge cluster system and then uh
additional sewing for only 91 houses. So it's it's a very smallcale um project but yet it's interesting they have already laid it out and presented it to the the Commonwealth. Uh they talk about RME which is on our agenda later
tonight and their um statement is the RME would need to manage the proposed cluster system and monitor the results of the IAS not do anything beyond that. um but they feel it could be fulfilled either through a town department or a
subcontractor. Um their estimated costs run from um a low of uh 23.5 million to 60 million. So and that's kind of their 20-year preliminary plan uh provisions of course
for five-year updates and and adaptation as things change. But uh a lot of similar things to what Falmouth is looking at considering or should consider but on a much smaller scale but I think it provides a model going forward of of things and they have some
good ideas and some bad ideas. So um that's it. >> Yeah I I just I just want to jump >> you got a bunch of questions. >> No I don't I just want to jump in. Uh so uh Maggie uh earlier today um flagged to
me this issue in the upper portion of the uh MASH beyond the river and I point out during that I couldn't put it on the agenda at a late time because it's a discussion and a vote. Thank you for bringing it up Ed and raising it. I have you on the agenda for the next meeting
uh for us to look at that so that we should be prepared to listen to to Maggie give a little better presentation of what's going on and be able to we have a joint memorandum of understanding between the two communities. I need to pick it up and read it and make sure
what we're doing. But I think that it's appropriate for us to whether we have to go through this selectment, I'll determine. But um make make comments in support of the fact that they can't put more nitrogen into the upper estuary and expect
Falmouth to have to clean it up downstream. Okay. >> You you need to you need to come to the mag microphone, please. I'm sorry. >> I should get you your own microphone. [laughter] So, Maggie McGau, um, Wakoy, Citizens for the Protection of Waco Bay.
You may have already, you probably have already discussed this, but I thought it fits in the category of this kind of information that MASHP has an article, article 4 on its upcoming town meeting warrant um to fund $12 million for
design of their phase three sewing, which is 100% addressing the Walkway Bay wershed and is expected to reduce the nitrogen contribution. bution from MASHB to WA Bay by 30%.
>> Is that the total load for the whole Waco Bay >> or just Mashby's component? >> It's Mash's component. >> Yeah, I hadn't seen that town meeting article warrant. So, thanks Maggie. That's great. [snorts] What was the percentage, Maggie? Because I'm trying to take notes.
>> 30 >> article. Doctor, >> while he's going up, when is Mash Peace Town meeting, Maggie? >> May 4th. >> May 4th. Thank you. >> George Topoulos precinct 3. Just as a
for your information, the board of health has started uh to uh George Hoyfelder has created a database from the mastc database and we've we're about to contact every
maintenance company who takes care of IIA systems in Falmouth and uh point out to them all of theirs that are not meeting the standard at which they were approved. Um, and also
having a meeting with all of them to discuss how we could work together to get them all up to their or down to their approved level or lower. And then the as George the smart George points
out, one of the problems is if the massec [clears throat] database doesn't have a property in it because nobody ever sent in a sample, we may not know about it. So the next thing will be trying to find all of those.
looking at what's going on, what [clears throat] companies are doing well, how much of it is that people aren't taking care of their systems and not following the directions they're given from their companies is something we're going to start doing a lot of. >> I have put a request into George to come
in with his graphs showing means and medians and uh you know talk to this board. So, >> don't forget SDS. >> You next time you see George, remind him that he needs to say yes or no. >> Okay. Um, >> send him an email that will get bounced
by >> question. I mean, Ken may be next, but >> Ken had his >> Well, I had a just a quick You mentioned uh PRBs in uh one of the [snorts] plants. Was it I can't remember. >> Well, Furl's plan has a PRB hope for. My
my question was does D recognize PRBs as being legit? >> Well, I think we're going to find out more as D uh questions their filing, which is great because, you know, here it is end of March, they filed. So, the comment period started ticking u last
week when it was published in the environmental monitor. So, I'm sure the state agencies and private citizens will be commenting and as I see those comments, I'll [snorts] put it up in my next report or right after that. Okay, >> Steve. >> Yeah, Ed, that was a great series of
reports and I may have misunderstood this, but I want to make sure that other people don't misunderstand it the same way. [clears throat] It sounded like you were emphasizing the fact that Nitro's numbers were not as good as they should be as sort of a
problem with certification. But if it's in fact a physical failing, it affects how many IAS we need to put in a given area to to meet a TMDL. If they're only half as good, you
have to put in twice as many. >> Right. Yeah. But they're, you know, they've got some real outliers in their data um that show way above, you know, 30 performance. So, they've got to do some work on those to get them down and in compliance. But the key thing from D
to get that certification for general use, it's got to be three years of data for 50 and 90% of that 50, meaning, you know, 45 of them have to meet the 10 or the 11. They're actually on record at an 11 for provisional use. Um they had
hoped to have uh general use approval at 10 the end of last year and obviously that didn't happen. So um [clears throat] I did call Moren Thomas who's their administrator and Jill of all trades um to to talk about it but I
haven't heard back from her. Um, one other thing I might mention just for people that haven't looked on the town website, the sewering low pressure line construction that was supposed to start a week or so ago has now been pushed off uh to the
27th of this month due to supply issues with the materials they need. Uh I don't know if they're postponing [clears throat] concurrently the planting of the signs where the laterals are going to be going for the homeowners in that area because that is an area of
concern for those homeowners. Some have reached out to me uh directly saying what are we supposed to do [clears throat] and um hopefully we'll have aformational meeting in the not too distant future. But at this point, if people have questions, I would just recommend
talk to the wastewater department. They're >> call call the DPW and ask for Chris Sarinac. >> Yeah. >> And they they're happy to help and give advice. They have indicated uh through Chris, the assistant wastewater
superintendent, that uh septic contractors will be allowed to make the actual hookup at the lateral. It won't have to be a licensed plumber. Stipulation of course under board of health is if you're within 10 feet of the foundation wall, you're under board
of health and you need a plumber for work within the house and up to 10 ft out from the foundation. >> But you can use just a approved septic contractor to run the line all the way out to the street and actually tie into the town sewer. So, that's a change from
Little Pond's uh sewering area where a licensed plumber had to do that connection and and actually pull the permit. They're still working on the online permitting system to get to SEP the sewer hookups as part of that. But that hookups are, you know, a year, year
and a half away at the minimum. So, that that is something. One other thing, if I may, Steve, um that I didn't general interest, it's not directly environmental. Um, people have observed and been wondering what the hell is Eversource doing with all these barges
out in Nantucket Sound off of Surf Drive and Kite Park and all that. And they're still finishing up their cables to the vineyard as part of their upgrade project. I got an email today from their uh public outreach person because I'd asked what's going on. Uh, they expect
to energize those cables at the end of the month in the barge activity that some may have seen in the past couple of weeks. They're laying what they call mattresses on top of the cables. The cables are in the buried under the seabed, but they put a protective barrier that they call a mattress on top
of the entire run to prevent damage from anchors or draggers or whatever going on. So, point of information, not directly related, but of interest. any further comments on um >> undersea cables or
>> Well, it was more on the performance of Nitro. It seems to be really somewhat disappointing, I guess. And is there anybody at the company looking back to see, you know, on these outliers, which is probably really killing the average. Um what what could be potential causes
of that? I mean, is it malfunction of the in, you know, the equipment? Is it homeowners? Do I mean they have any idea of what what's causing >> that's why I'm I want to have a dialogue with the company and um Moring has been my contact [clears throat] >> they have said in the past if the
aeration fails then you don't get nitrate right and then you don't get denitrification so they they said that if they can monitor that with this airlift you know remotely right >> yeah so you would think that they' be able to fix it fast >> I'm guessing that's the reason
>> so I so I'm always you can see some of the outliers up up. Let's just structure conversation. Sorry. >> So, this is begging for at some point in the near future, future meeting, >> maybe invite the folks in
>> to talk about where they're at with getting certification and issues they've encountered. So, I'll reach out and see if they're willing to put somebody in front of us to talk about how it's working. Okay. >> Yeah, we're at 84%. John, >> uh, the major problem with those systems
is the inputs are much higher than the state thinks. >> And so >> the milligrams per liter of of nitrogen. >> So if if it's coming in at 120, >> you can't expect them to get 10. >> Yeah. >> Well, according to them, there's lots and there are quite a few of them that
are very high. >> Yeah. quite surprisingly most of their systems well um would you would you raise your hand and ask to speak rather than just jumping in okay >> sorry that John >> you have another comment >> no >> okay
>> can I ask >> Steve >> I don't think >> are there any cases where >> I think it's because >> there's some [snorts] chemical that some >> homeowner with a weird hobby like >> like a lathe like having a lathe in their basement lathe in their basement where they're washing off the wood.
>> Let's say a dark room or an amateur chemist with or just a weird chef. [laughter] >> No, let me finish this. >> How about a meth lab? Listen to you. I think >> it's some chemical that Harry Homer may
put [clears throat] in that gets by the nitroe that nitrogen is in a different form somehow. >> Yeah. I'm not a chemist, but I >> and neither am I, but chemistry's got some interesting pathways. >> Yes. So, >> let's let's get let's let's reach out
and see if the the vendor was willing to come in and >> Yep. >> talk about where they're at and and and and performances and issues. Okay. Um under reports of members, um uh Steve,
you're up under where are we at? you we wrote a letter about the fairness committee and board of health wrote that is any progress. >> The board of health as you know in in 2025 I think sent a memo to the select board requesting that they set up a
committee to look into the fairness of the different technologies, the fairness of how much the homeowner has to pay for it. And this committee also unanimously sent a supporting memo. And so um uh
when I didn't expect this to be on the agenda, but when I saw it, I thought, "Wow, Steve Rafferty has handed me a gift. Now I have an excuse to bug the assistant town manager and and Jed Goldstone."
And um the best I've heard is that the town manager is on welldeserved vacation after town meeting, >> but that he is considering a proposal for a committee which he will
present to the select board sometime, but uh I I was hoping that Doug Brown was going to be here, in which case I would slightly put him on the spot, but I will politely ask him to uh check with
the select board to make sure it goes along. >> Okay. Thank you for that update, Steve. Um Ken, although I don't have you listed officially, >> he said reports of other members. >> It's other members. Can you update us on where the Snug Harbor project is?
>> So, um we have pretty much completed the the quality assurance project plan, the quap. Uh it's just needs a couple of folks to look over it one last time before it sub Kristen submits it. Correct.
>> So that's the status of that. >> So just I just want to frame this a little bit. So data has been collected all around the place and done different things. And because we got grant money, because we got grant money for this
project, there was a requirement that the data that we gather and collect is real data or has been vetted out. And we got another grant. What was it? Did you remember Kristen? It wasn't a big grant, but it was some money to prepare the
quap. So >> two different things. >> You're talking about two different quaps. >> Oh, there's two quaps. So, so, >> oh, we're a two quap committee, right? >> And if it quaps like a duck, [laughter] maybe >> if it quaps like a duck, >> I I'm I'm going to point of order. I
think for people in the room, you should spell out exactly what the acronym quap. [clears throat] >> He did. >> You weren't listening, Tom. >> I guess not. It got by me. >> Quality assurance project plan. You got to tweak that thing in your right here. And EPA requires any of their projects
funded for fill out of this crap uh which has a lot of details about how you collect the data, what how you uh assure that it's high quality data, what the standards are for minimum detectable
limits, etc., etc., etc. Uh so each time one of those grants is funded, uh this You know they have this format that involves a lot of little sections that you have to provide information sometimes redundantly
uh for uh including how the project's going to be managed who's what's the flow of data how will the data be preserved uh etc. Uh so that that needed to be completed and then filed and so
it's in that it's in the middle. Uh the last step being just one last review by our data assurance data quality assurance manager who is interestingly can't be someone who is actually doing any work on the project [laughter]
according to their criteria. >> So that's the status of that. Good. That is that helpful? And then um the other bit is that in order to and no money is released until this is accepted. Is that correct Kristen?
>> Or submitted. >> Have invoices that get paid. You can't do it. You can't touch the ground or collect data until that's >> okay. Um then uh in order to touch the ground, we
have to get by the conservation commission. So, we now have filed uh Kristen who is project manager by the way uh has filed a uh notice of intent and the hearing for that will be May
6th. Uh and that lays out all the again all the details of what we're planning to do where the you know shows a map with transexs of where we're going to be installing it um etc. And uh
so May 6th hopefully we'll have a chance to present to them and then if we then need to have a hearing they'll let us know. I guess >> that is the hearing. >> Okay, that is the hearing. So the so they've indicated that uh hearing is
required. >> We didn't ask. >> Oh, we just assumed >> Yeah. Because we're so close to the water and other resources. >> Okay. But I I I read the notice of intent.
It's a decent decent write up. Um I imagine one or two people in the Hong Kong might have a question, but I think we've done a good job of explaining what we're doing and how we're not really impacting any resource areas uh with what we're doing.
>> This is a chance for a butters also to >> Yeah. >> comment. >> Yeah. I I would encourage anybody that doesn't have anything on their calendar for May 6th >> and would like to support it. Well, I if you have not sat through a Cong hearing before,
um it might be a good opportunity to understand that the the step of a notice of intent and getting the Congom to make a determination and then it takes usually a couple of weeks to get a determination letter from them where they'll tell you
that you've got to get rid of things like um I don't know, notweed that's located within 50 ft of the bore holes were taken or something. I don't know. It's always something. >> It's usually >> starts at 6:30. >> Yeah, I was going to say they start at
6:30, >> but they're all online. They're all remote. >> Only online. No live, >> Steve. >> Oh, still. >> Can um >> Wow. >> I'm not familiar with the details of the PRB project. Is any of it on private property?
>> Yes. >> Uh I think it's either in the road layout or on town property. Those are Yeah. at the moment. >> So, it's not on private property. >> No, we we lost our private property owner uh unfortunately.
>> There may be some that'll touch, >> if I may, Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. That may touch salt pond uh area bird sanctuaries land and we do have a signed authorization to utilize their property. >> Yeah. What what I was concerned about
was an angle that came up in connection with the urine diversion pilot project where we made sure >> I was hoping to get through this video without hearing the word urine diversion but go ahead. Um the we had to make
since town management decided I think wisely that the town was not promising any participants freedom from requirements for sewers or IAS because of their permission that we
have a clause in to clearly warn them of that so they're not making any assumptions so they can't come back and say, "Hey, I volunteered for this. I'm a good guy >> and it's an experiment and now you're going to make me connect to a sewer."
>> Yes, you might >> relate this relate this back to the PRB. >> No one there is involved to the extent that they think they're immune from IAS or sewers should they be decided to be needed in
that area. I >> I don't believe we've introduced It's not on private property probably. >> No, not a problem. >> So, >> not an issue. >> Good point, but not an issue. >> Other members of the committee, if they
have anything to report, uh uh John, um things are quiet on the outfall. I hear >> we're making good progress. >> Yep. Everybody the just so we had a May 15th date for doing the um MEPA sub the
submitt. moved to May 30th because the fisheries report and the bet that reports are not complete yet and we need to have them complete to have as appendix. >> Um other than that there's nothing nothing new to report on um outfalls as
as I know. Tom, anything with shellfish? >> No, I've asked for the data but so far it hasn't shown up. >> Okay. >> I'm pretty sure they have it. I have an ant on my table. [laughter] >> Okay. Um John, we we're going to move on
to item two then. Presentation, discussion on needed elements of a responsible management entity. Steve, I apologize. Uh my pins are not very reliable, so I can't manage to stand for any period of time at the
podium. But what I thought I'd like to do today in a very general sense, this RME draft uh was uh an evolution from what we wrote several years ago for the Oyster Pond
CWMP, which never got uh submitted. So, it was a what the committee was fairly comfortable with at that point. But what I'd like to do is today not nitpick about uh editing. Uh I want to go
through what I think are the major problem areas that we're going to need to think about uh extensively. And what I'd like to do is go through uh each point by point all the way through and then come back and at to the
beginning again and have the committee uh answer questions. So Steve, if you could just scroll down. Um, the definitions are totally self-explanatory. Stop it at two. The boundaries are the watershed boundaries which have been set
up by the state and approved by town meeting. uh we need to remember that they are different than the geo boundaries which will end up being the areas within each watershed that we're going to treat with some combination of
either all IAS or IAS and sewers. Um and three the plan is just we intend to to do this uh with both sewering and the use of IAS. you go to 3.1.
So this definition of of the advanced alternative septic systems is taken right from the board of health's home rule regulations. So they're much stricter than the state standard.
But uh I think that's again an area which uh the board of health through George Hoy Felder has developed very nicely. Can you go to the next Steve? >> You you don't want suggestions now? >> No, I don't want. >> Okay.
So face implementation is a really major area that we're going to need and basically the burden of that has been placed on GHD and science whereas let's >> it's alive. Okay, I'll try this again.
I'll try to get there George. Uh wow. Click on that again and it'll clear. >> It'll stop doing it. >> Yeah. Click your cursor. >> I find throwing the uh mouse out the window helps.
>> Yeah. Yeah. My my three-year-old grandchild. Where >> and now I finally figured out how don't touch any buttons that I don't know what they do. Oops. Okay. >> He's going back, Steve. >> Yeah.
>> Hopefully I get there. You want You're back at [clears throat] two, right? >> That's 32. No, >> you want two for >> 32. >> Yeah. But we want the top of the second page, right? >> All right. That's where we want [sighs] to go. So this is an area which uh sort
of falls in the DPW uh science wares um and and GHD, but it seems to me and that it's going to need to be organized
around the five-year reporting period that D has mandated. Uh, and we're going to need to consider when we're beginning to think about where the IIA should go first to get them closest to the water bodies where they'll do the most work. We're going to
need to think about what the town can afford in any one phase. And then we're going to need to consider how many of them can the installers manage to handle in any given time period. So, in the very simplest case, if we're over on
Buzzard's Bay where we've got a small watershed, let's just say that has 75 houses, we probably can do that in a single phase, uh, where they would be all I get down on the south coast where
we might have a large area that gets sewered, but then a a really considerable number of IAS, which get mandated that we might need to put in one set of IAS first that we can manage
considering these things and then have a second set that would go in in the next 5year period but that's just a big area which is uh I think going to take a lot of thought can we go to the management
so management also is a place where uh I think we're going you have to get the right of access to people's properties. Um, and uh, I think it may require state
legislation for us to be able to do that. Uh, is that your sort of thought, Steve, on that? >> It's always good to make sure you have the right to go on somebody's property. >> So, let's go to the next one. 4.2. Now,
this is just an absolute straw man. Um, and we've been trying to think about how the town can contribute to the cost of IAS that would be comparable to how they contribute through betterments to the
when the sewer goes in. And this is just an idea that the town would give a a grant for $15,000. Uh if the person put it in quickly, uh
they might get another $5,000. Um just sort of this is sort of the what I believe is the order of magnitude that the town needs to think about. They're going to need to be able to contribute
to these things. >> Your your point being there's got to be a municipal participation. >> The town has got to contribute in some way. >> This seems to me to be about the level that would be comparable to what the sewer people get with their betterment.
But I I think it's been the sense of this body that the town has some responsibility for people that are going to mandate putting IAS in to help them at some level. Um
so with setting up an RME the a responsible management entity uh there's some question about who's going to be responsible. I think there's thought within town now that the a town
department would be responsible for managing the RME. They might contract out components of it. For instance, the monitoring or the maintenance. Uh but
uh and if it is a town department, it's going to be a big ca task. Will the town need to be think about whatever department is responsible or is will it require some new hirings in order to be able to accomplish what's necessary?
Go the next one, Steve. So I think the assumption here is that for each watershed there'd be an RFP put out uh for uh contractors or technique technologies that would meet the
requirements of the RME and the idea being that technologies are going to improve over time and that as we take on watersheds one at a time or
two at a time uh we can decide that uh upgraded systems will be competitive. Okay. So this this next few paragraphs are what we thought was a reasonable
monitoring scheme. If if the town is held to the monitoring regimes that come with the approval letters of each of these technologies, it will render the whole exercise totally unaffordable.
So, we sat down when we did Oyster Pond and came up with this set of schemes and uh at the time we were doing that, we sat down with Brian Dudley at the
Southern District of of the D and we sat around in coffee and presented it to him and uh we never could get them to acquies to that >> uh scheme. which we thought was absolutely
rational. And the the object of course is to get the maintenance and monitoring scheme for the IAS to be basically equivalent to what we charge for the sewer fee every year. And uh I think
through the board of health, George has decided that working through the southeast region is just not going to get us there. and he has gone to Leland Langley in Boston and basically presented this to him and said, "Look,
we need some help." And apparently he has heard back from Langley saying that they will discuss it internally and we'll get some sort of a working group going. That would be very nice if we could do
that. So cut down again. Steve, >> you want to do the probation period? >> Yeah, I don't think we don't need to go through the details of this. I thought it was >> okay >> pretty well thought out. If people have specific >> You want me compliance system? >> H >> where do you want me to go to?
>> Go down to the I guess it's five. Well, operating and maintenance again, let me just comment on that. Operation and maintenance. Again, if the town were to run the RME through one of our departments, we could contract out uh
the monitoring uh and also the ma the the maintenance. Again, things need to be decided once the structure of the R& gets pumpouts. Uh in our plan uh we had a 5-year plan
to pump out systems uh which would be part of the uh RME annual fee. So it would be something that would be covered with them. Uh let's look at recordeping. Steve recordkeeping uh [laughter] is fairly obvious.
We'd want to have the engineered drawings. We want the water readings, the monitoring results, operation and maintenance records and the pumpout records and of reporting. Now this is a again a
fairly interesting area which we've discussed with D and we don't have an answer to yet but you could imagine four different ways of us meeting the standards which D is
mandated for these IAS. uh one would be that all the systems meet the 10 mgram standard standard or 75% removal by mass balance. Uh second way would be uh if you if you
assume some of the some of the systems will operate at much better than the standard and some will probably be at less. Uh let them balance each other out. Uh the third way was that we
actually meet the TMDL at the Sentinel Station. And uh the fourth way is that we meet the TMDL mass load for that watershed that we're working in.
And the fees would be uh assessed by annually by the RME and would cover uh the monitoring and maintenance and pumping costs and and the cost of of
managing the RME and hopefully by getting the monitoring costs reasonable they would we would hope that they'd be basically fairly equal. to the uh sewer
costs. Is that the last of that, Steve? >> Yeah. >> So, scroll back to the beginning, Steve, and then if the committee uh has questions on sections, I think that's the
>> So, Steve, take take over uh chairing the meeting because I'm up here. Okay. >> All right. Although, I'll have to balance that against the comments I want to make. Does does anyone want to comment on the definitions?
Okay. Next could Oh, okay. Does anyone want to comment on 2.0? The board of health spent a lot of time and effort defining the areas of um requirement requiring IAS for new
construction or flow increases which went beyond the uh I believe the definition you're laying out here for the boundaries. So it would seem to me this should be modified to be in sync with what the board of health has
already decreed in their regulation where they get into things like you know great ciphet marsh and things that are not currently in the state listing. >> Our our watershed plan that's going to go to the state will only be for the
state watersheds. In other words, will not be presenting for simplicisit marsh or uh >> but then are you saying that there's going to be a double standard? There'll be people that have to put it in because
of our committee. >> They have to deal with all this. The other people that have to put it in because of the board of health. They marched to the tune of a different drummer. >> Yep. >> I think that's essentially right. That sounds like a recipe for town
stress. >> Yeah, I think it's something that needs to be clarified. It's just an issue that should be addressed. John >> Steve, isn't that your understanding that the watershed permits >> that will go to the state? >> I think I think John just let's hold
this as as as an item that requires further clarification because we're proposing the RME. The rules of the RE can be incorporated into the watershed plans, but the RM
could be a townwide requirement, not necessarily just w the D watershed. So >> this is where the board of health does their thing and >> DPW which you're you're touching on a much bigger issue that eventually is
going to occur to enough people that it will be problem which is the whole argument a few couple years ago I think it was for the D gave us a choice either come up with watershed plans with a limited
number of IAS and sewers or put eyes everywhere. >> Yep. >> In the NSA >> for the We did the obvious math in our head in two seconds. >> Did you hear Jonathan? >> What? >> It's It's not everywhere in the town. It's in all the NSAs and their wersheds,
which doesn't we specifically did the watershed plans, >> but it didn't cover the other places that the board of health included in their requirement for new. >> Exactly. But let me say it that we did the water we went the watershed
plan route in order to reduce the the amount the town and the people in it and the taxpayers have to pay whether they're subsidized or not for IAS by reducing the number of IAS required. Then the board of health comes along and says
eventually you have to put them everywhere. No, >> it's too big a topic to go on with now, but it should be in the back of everybody's mind. >> I don't think the board of health said everywhere that they expanded the definition.
>> It's a much bigger area than was required by the >> included areas that were not um nitrogen sensitive areas per D. Yes, >> correct. Okay. So, any other comments on 2.0? Please, please step to the
microphone. Doctor, [snorts] [clears throat] >> I of all the people on the board of health, I probably understand this least. Nonetheless, I think we didn't have a lot of interaction, at least officially
about that this issue when we were writing the regulation. Maybe I'm guessing John and the other George spoke a lot and maybe you and others spoke a lot but revisiting this to make it
if not equivalent at least in some sense equivalent seems to me hugely important >> and once again I'm basically trying to say what Steve said in different
just so it'll seem different. Um, and the other thing is this has a great interaction with the distribution of the economic burden. >> Yes. Yes. Uh and lastly for the board of
health that distribution of the economic burden, we didn't limit that to just trying to make things fair uh equivalently as much as possible for the IIA folks as for the sewer folks. uh
because of a guy with a big nose on the committee, we thought it ought to be making it distributed across the entire community, including all those people who are going to not have to do
anything. and that it should include the outflow pipe, the improvements to the uh waste treatment plants to the whole nine yards of what have to be done to really implement the stuff you guys are talking about here.
This watershed plan is not just implementing the 8,000 or whatever it is IIA systems and making that fair compared to the however many people get connected to the sewer. There's a lot more to it than just those two things.
>> And George, how many residences are there outside the NSAs that are included with the new umbrella from the board of health? >> I have no idea. >> Somebody Tom I it may be my fault, but
we're getting far kind of far away from Thank you, George. But >> And can somebody send me this? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean, John, >> George, look, everything that we we have [clears throat] up here gets posted to our site. >> Is this the whole plan [clears throat]
that George John wrote? >> Okay. >> That'll get posted. >> What we've just been talking about in the last 3 minutes is maybe more important than this, but this is what's the agenda item right now is John's plan for the RME. So, I apologize. Let's get
back to that. Anything more on 2.0? 0 3.0 obvious 3 point one. >> So >> I would you know well three of us start >> Steve's been going this way so I'll go this way for a
>> All right. So the 75% removal number right now I think that incorporates a much broader you know um range of the homestead like for the nitro system they they fail on the 10 milligrams per liter a lot of them or or a larger percentage
than I thought but a lot of them will be successful when you use the 75% criteria but the D doesn't recognize that percent removal right so is that going to be an inconsistency that needs to be dealt I'm going to try let me try let me try
to answer Jonathan's question directly. >> So the bo the D permits systems for general use. The town's board of health has got a
regulation already in place that talks about not the a 10 or 12 or an 18 or a 19. It says, you know, if you have a system that does this, all well and good. If you got to have a system that
doesn't do that, but you can demonstrate that you're removing 75%. The town will accept that. >> I know that, but the DP is putting together a list of vendors that we're supposed to be working with in terms of having the criteria met for their best
available nitrogen reducing technology. and you can meet the 75% removal but not be considered that banner technology, right? >> I'm probably the optimist here. Um, if the state if the state says this technology will make 11,
>> okay, as and it's and it's approved for general use and the town approves something to go into a parcel and the parcel doesn't make the 11, it's gets a higher number, the D is not going to come back and say you put the wrong system in. They're going to say you put the system in on our general use
approval, but the town will say the system's performing because you can demonstrate it's doing 75%. So I think the I think the measurement of performance of the system, at least my impression of it is D is not out there measuring any of this stuff.
We report numbers to the county, but it's usually numbers that get back to the local board of health. And then if the numbers are over whatever, the board of health will say, "You got to go out and measure some things because somebody will say, I'm stronger and I'm I'm at 75%." It's a more of a local regulation
for that. >> How do we measure 75%. You need two numbers to get a percent, >> right? >> How do you get the input? >> How would you think we do it, Steve? >> I thought that was very problematical, except in research situations. And one of John's goals is to reduce the cost of
monitoring if you not only have to measure the debox to know the the output. How do you get the input? So you have your percent removal. >> You measure you measure it at the septic tank coming in. There's a sample port at
the at the septic tank and then there's a sample port at the debox. >> Oh, that's right. Okay. >> Yeah. Two measurements. >> Brilliant. I I think the point John is that the board of health is set up so that they can promulgate regulations
which are stricter than the state and they have that right and that's what they've done. So this is taken directly from their home regulations. So we assume that when the RM is set up, we're going to tell our vendors, if you
want to install a system in the town of Felmouth, it's going to meet 10 mg per liter or 75% reduction by mass balance. And when you see the things that in the record keeping, we're going to keep
records of the water uh flow and and so we'll be able to calculate mass balance. >> Yeah. I I guess I'm just going back to the data that like what Eda showed. If you look at their graphs from um clean to technologies, all of their systems, I
think make the 75% reduction. They they calculate that because they're looking at the effluent and the influent. But most or a lot of them aren't making the 10 or 11 milligrams per liter based on the data that you just mentioned. So to me that's just the inconsistency of it.
>> Well that goes to where the one of the last sections is how you calculate success for the watershed. >> Um you know everybody either meets their 10 milligrams per liter. You know, I listed four ways we can do that.
>> And I think depending on negotiations with DP, we've got to get them to acquies to >> Yeah. >> And by the way, this this isn't you could call this an editing comment, but in your fourth line where you say it must maintain that level, you don't mean
just 10 milligrams per liter. You mean 10 milligrams per liter or at least 75% removal. Right? And so you have to what you this it makes the 75% makes sense but it is doubling your monitoring costs
other things being equal. I don't believe it will. >> Not not doubling it because it's still the guy comes out, drives to your house, >> taking he's taking the data anyway, >> but but the lab the cost per sample in the lab is twice
>> because you have to collect the septic and the debox, >> right? That's why it's >> Yeah, that's doubling it. >> And I mean those costs are substantial. Um but it may be worth it. Any other comments on 3.1? >> Yes.
>> Um the same same comment I had on [clears throat] 3.0, but it conflicts with the the recently installed regulation for IAS on new construction and flow increases. It does all it says is 10 milligram per liter. There's no
mention of this 75% right >> in that regulation. So I have the same comment, you know, and it needs to be rectified and and we don't need to believe >> that ought to be put in there then. >> Yeah. Something has to give. You can't have it. I I don't think it makes any sense for the town to have conflicting
regulations for disaster. >> George, did you >> He wants to see George, >> you do have to go up to the podium. [clears throat] >> I'm fairly certain that we don't have a a 75% removal in anything. And one of
the things we struggle with and that I've been bringing up since day one as have others, it's not news to anybody on the board that without talking about mass balance, all this other stuff is, you know, as the smart judge always says, well, we just tell people to use more water.
>> Yes. >> If they're nitrogen levels are too high. So that this is not and the and the having the ability to do this these measurements is not in any of
the systems that we have currently. I had suggested couldn't we have a a real time flow and a real time concentration going in and going out and just integrate those but uh they tend to get clogged when or lots of other reasons we
don't have the technology >> absolutely necessary that we have the ability to use ma mass power >> I I I couldn't agree more but I think we need to get >> the outputs of septic systems are so
high Yes. And we've one of the things [clears throat] we have put put in that we're going to require of the maintenance companies that's not in there now. For everyone that has an IIA system, they have to have a forever
maintenance contract is that every time they collect a sample, they also have to get what the uh water flow usage has been. But that's those two numbers are not going to connect well. And if somebody has an irrigation system, then they're
it's completely and utterly useless. >> Thank you, George. I mean, we've got to keep I I think we The point the point of this presentation today is to give John feedback on where there are problems. If he doesn't realize there are problems in
3.1, there's no hope for any of us. [laughter] >> So, I I I just I I I I don't want to refute say you're wrong. I will go back and review the board of health regulations but um when I was on the board we went through an exercise I
thought that gave an option under the mass loading correct John >> so I I think it's I think it it does I don't don't know that anybody's ever come in to to ask for it but I think it's in Falmouth home regulation 15.0 I
know. Okay. >> But we do have to integrate. >> My book is right next to you. You want to hand it to me? I'll look it up. No, no, don't leave it there. Just leave it there. Just leave it there. The The other thing is when you talked about measuring nitrogen in and out. This is one of those odd conundrums of
the business of nitrogen. A number of years ago, the EPA offered a program for people if they could come up with an effective nitrogen monitor. They offered all sorts of money to people and all sorts of people participated.
The best they got to was a nitrogen analyzer. The last time I knew it was $25,000 and was very tricky to keep calibrated. So to turn around and say to somebody put in an IIA system in we want you to put in two of these nitrogen analyzers
you know real time real stream and then monitoring them and maintain them uh is is a heavy liftable >> but impractical >> it's impractable right now and they and to their credit the EPA did >> Steve am I still program >> am I still in charge or are you in charge
>> I'm just answering his question >> okay yeah so there's more questions you can take over if you on but no way in the weeds. We got to make a phone call. >> Okay. So, >> any different comments on 3.1? >> Yeah, I had a comment on 3.1
[clears throat] and also relate in a related sense uh 4.1 uh which is uh [snorts] what happens if there's exceedences and uh
uh should that be included as part of this? Should there be more detail? >> If you read the monitoring, there's a whole regime in there. What happens if you if you're not meeting the standard? >> Yeah. So, we're getting to that in a subsequent section. Okay. Let's wait till we get there.
>> Right. >> And then, uh, I guess the the obviously I think what's becoming apparent is for, you know, any single measurement, you might have an exceedence, but maybe you shouldn't base everything. >> Well, John's saying let's wait and see it on section 4.
>> Okay. Anything else on 3.1? >> Yes, I'm a perennial optimist and my experience has been is that best available technology improves over time. >> So you need to indicate some sort of timekeeper where it says as defined by
DP. So when this goes into effect and people are start you have to say DP defined definition as of the start of a particular watershed because this is going to be going on for years. Well, I I think we've you'll see what we
said is at each watershed there'll be an RFP issued for the technologies, right? >> As they evolve and if we get ones better, that's where the town will put the contract for that watershed >> and then
>> a town can any government body can always change its regulations. Well, sure, but I'm just saying right here if you it would be clear if you said by D at the time of whatever process, >> right? But it also has to be integrated with the mathematics of our plan for meeting the TMDL.
>> Of course, >> and the budget and a whole lot of other things, >> right? But it's just the time [clears throat] just the definition that's in effect at the time of starting a particular one. That's all. >> Okay. Anything else on 3.1? next.
Okay. Come start at the other at Ken's end this time on 3.2.1. >> I have nothing on >> anybody. >> You're you're in four, right? >> We're we're we're on 3.2.1,
>> right? >> 3.2.1 >> 3.2.1. >> Yes. >> The phasing for each water, >> right? I think John's hit all the important things here. >> Yeah, that seemed good. >> Okay. >> And it's it's it is the major challenge. >> Yes, it is going to be,
>> you know, and and this will be a significant part of the comprehensive watershed management plan. So, this would fall under the plan that is laid out that uh Kristen, Amy, and GHD are
working on. Um and the question would be you know what what are the triggers and when all other communities that I'm aware of have some defined triggers we only have in Falmouth new construction and flow
increase and other towns have got the property transfer etc etc and a very important one is what can the town afford so that's a whole meeting unto itself as to the economics of this um but I feel this is beyond the
the RME draft saying you know basically phasing is part of comprehensive wershed management plan my comment >> anything else okay 4.1 4.1 property owner requirements
Starting with John. Anybody? >> Not for 4.1. No. >> No. >> 4.2. Yeah. >> 4.2. >> Okay. 4.2. Okay. John. >> Yeah. And I know John, you just put up numbers that at this point haven't
really been discussed greatly, but I think what we also need to factor in there is that I'm not sure what's going to happen with the tax uh septic tax credits, but if you couple that with this $20,000,
then even in the current situation where you only can uh subtract off that um septic f title 5 tax credit, you're still looking at potentially leaving just you know a few thousand $5,000 depending
on how much an IIA system costs. So they actually be potentially cheaper to go the IIA route than the sewer route because you're getting this 20,000 plus um some amount of that up to $18,000.
that that very nice chart that you did >> shows the difference is more of the order of 10,000 >> and and there's some nuances because when you take the the title five septic tax credit if you get some subsidies from the town you have to subtract that off so you know you might only get an
additional 12,000 of the 18,000 but still that would leave on a $40,000 system $8,000 you'd be paying out of your pocket. So, I think we just need I don't want to get into the weeds on this, but I think we need to think about these numbers and what this means. And it means that somebody who's very
wealthy may be paying the lowest cost for an IIA system relative to somebody who is not as wealthy. >> In a way, this doesn't belong in this document. It's more the purview of this fairness committee that we hope will start soon.
I put it in only I mean it was it was a section that was in our CWMP for Oyster Pond >> and I I put it in only to sort of put the town on notice >> that in some substantial way they need
to contribute. >> It's wonderful the only place >> it it's wonderful politically and you should keep it there. I'm just saying it functionally it doesn't affect [snorts] what the RME does from day to day.
>> No, it's just setting up how we're successfully going to deal with IAS >> right >> in the watersheds. >> Yeah. And I I agree with what both you Steve and and what John was saying that it's it's outside the scope and I understand why it's there. and and John,
I think this is a great start the discussion document and that's what it is. Get it out there, throw a proposal out, and then let's start working on the details. So, I think it's it's excellent for that. But, you know,
there is no money in long-term town budget projections for this kind of subsidy. And to John's point, it's very important to what he said about the state tax credit and the cost of the IIA and what the
reimbursement formula is. So if the town grants somebody a $20,000 subsidy to a 30 or $40,000 IIA, you're leaving state money on the table because they will only reimburse 60% of the cost. So you
would take the cost of the IIA, deduct the 20 and then put the 60% factor on and suddenly you gave the state a gift of well we don't need your money. Felma's paying for it anyway. So that's part of the long-term fairness
discussion when when >> when that starts Ken. >> Um well with any of these numbers whether it's the 10 mg or the 5,000 or 15,000 it seems to me you want to
provide some language that says this is adjustable with inflation with improvements in technology etc. So that's just, you know, if you want the document to be uh long lived,
which it certainly will be if we're doing this over 50 years. >> Yes. >> And I guess my feeling is this is a section which is going to be have to be developed by the financial people in the town. >> This is not something that's our
committee needs to deal with. I simply put it in there and I disagree that and I think at the moment the town cap capital capital plan for 10 years does not figure in uh assisting with all of
these IAS that we're going to be putting in our geo boundaries. And what I hope this would do is send a signal to the front office. Yeah. >> That if you're giving people who are sewered an abatement, you better be
prepared to chip in in a comparable way to the people who are having to put in IAS. >> Okay. Anybody else on 4.2? Okay. 4.3. Um, so the I
whenever uh which way are we going? Oh, yeah. Ken. Well, I guess the thing I'm looking at is 4.3. Um, suggests maybe that we would have uh a town department responsible, which I
think is a good idea. And I I think I would in I would be in favor of even arguing for a you know outright for municipal addition of a municipal position to at least oversee
any subcontractors etc. I think that's going to be needed. Uh but what bothers me is that when we get down to 4.4 before. Uh we've got this [clears throat] potential
inconsistency of who's doing the work because for each watershed we're we're getting different contractors and vendors and I'm not sure why. >> No, no, the vendors and contractors are different than the RME. >> I Yeah.
um in >> other words the same department it's just in different years they buy the toilet paper from a different company >> to what >> I think the point was that if a town department let's just say for the moment
it's the department of public works uh as each watershed uh gets uh contracted out They could contract out the maintenance and the monitoring.
They don't have to do it themselves, >> right? >> They could do it themselves. >> Yeah, it's a good starting point. Anybody else on 4.3? John, >> I just had one question. I haven't heard the word Barnstable SUP mentioned at
all. Are they in consideration for this type of role or we have are we dismissing what they've proposed? >> Well, I I I think in the case of Barnstable, they've decided to have their town manage the RME.
>> Oh, this was a county thing. >> Yeah, this is >> Oh, I'm talking about the town of Barnstable. >> Okay. >> The town of Barnstable is going to set up their own RV. I think from the discussions the brief discussions with D
our DPW is that the thought is that it would be best if we managed the RME within town and the town was responsible for contracting out. they could contract out to the mastc for the monitoring and
and maintenance if they wanted to or they could contract the maintenance out >> to the vendors uh contractors who do maintenance. uh but then the town ultimately at the end of the year is going to be
responsible to DP for reporting just the way we are responsible for reporting the and keeping our main treatment plant going to a certain specification. >> Right. I I think you've both got good points. I don't think there was ever a formal
decision not to go with the county SUP, but if you think about it, it it's so intimately connected to town finances. It's not like there's going to be some subsidy from the county. If you listen to between the lines when that gentleman
was presenting here, they're not it's not a gift. His his cost figures were quite high. I don't see why we can't compete economically with them. There's no economy of scale. >> And that's fine. I I'm not I'm not
proposing that plenty to keep all these presentations [clears throat] and we talked to the gentlemen there and they'd come back with, you know, a potential cost of $1,500 per household per year for their Cadillac set of services that would handle all the maintenance. They >> So, but you're saying the town will
serve that function. And and I think if you have listened to the the presentations by the Mass Tech people, they have not been prepared to operate at a scale that we're talking about. >> Mhm. >> I mean to make this work, we're going to
be looking at managing several thousands >> at least. >> And that's not a scale that I believe they're prepared to manage >> or at least not at all. If any I'm just being silly here, but if anything, if the town was entrepreneurial,
we're better than the other towns. I mean, no, we are we're big and we have a lot of smart people and a lot of the other towns are a bunch of yals and I don't care if that's on TV. They know it already. And um so we could actually make money
doing their work for them, too. But I'm being silly. Um anybody else on 4.3 the um again this is really you know you're giving RME responsibility for start date
of installation within a watershed this is something that is part of comprehensive wershed management plan so that is where the responsibility because they ultimately are the making the plan that the state will either accept
or deny. Um there would be economies of scale to have a capewide, countywide entity performing the function primarily and you list a lot of detail of what was
be involved. It's recordkeeping and reporting. you're getting the data and you're also going to start getting into though the actual operation portion of pulling samples and all that which is getting really into some dangerous territory and it probably would be
better to have for an example from Masttec doing this. It's important I think that we listen to what the other towns are doing. Also, MASHP has an IIA mandate. They're doing some
significant sewing and they have some pretty good ideas. Uh, one of the things they do is an IIA homeowner, their contractor are required to do the
sampling and testing. Yeah. >> And report it to Masttec. Masttec is supposed to maintain that data and D currently relies on Masttec to see how things are going. There is no middleman.
There is no town involvement outside. If you got to put one in and then it's your baby, you report it via your contractor to Masttec and the town washes their hands of it. They are not managing any of those functions. It's it's working
right now. that is their stated policy per their wastewater management via the board of selectment. So I think it behooves us to look at is there a potential for economy of scale with an entity doing the whole thing because it's not just Felmouth and remember to
this this is 3,000 IAS already on the Cape nobody's monitoring worth beans you know um Dr. George from the board of health said the board of health is going to start looking at the data but to this point and there's over 300 IAS in
Falmouth that are probably not doing what they're supposed to be doing. Maybe some of them are doing great but there's been no monitoring. There's been no RME. There's been no cost to the town and the taxpayers. So
we've got to also look at them as we get into fairness. Wait a minute. All these folks that are already under a mandate or did it and there's 3,000 of them wide. What are they stupid? They already did it. >> Wow. Fairness issue. Steve, just to add
to your sort of concerns that um the board of health when they issue an IIA, they require monitoring and the monitoring results get submitted to the county. right now. Um, George Hoofelder over the last few weeks has been delving
into those that reporting data and I believe oh George's the other George has left but um they he's he's put together some stuff showing out the performance of different systems and where they're at from the reporting data. I've invited him to come
before this board and show, you know, the mean, the median for various systems and how they're performing. So, um, it's not like it's not being monitored right now. It goes to the county and there is a county database. It's I don't know if it rests at massec
uh or not. Um, John, does it rest at mastec or does it rest at the uh health board down in Barnstable? >> I'm not sure where the D is getting their data from. mastec that is who they hold responsible for understood >> I think one of the important points is
measure >> I don't believe this can work if the individual property owners contract for their maintenance it's got to be >> uh an RME is is responsible for
maintaining and and reporting and monitoring and and then reporting to D. It would be a nightmare. >> Yes. [laughter] >> If if every homeowner >> I agree. >> Uh was uh having a maintenance contract. >> Yeah.
>> You want to go to the next uh Ken? >> Well, I guess I would just add that, you know, having just written the quap. >> They're worried about how do you collect your samples? You know, there needs to be insurance that you're doing things in
a uniform way. And if >> so that sort of goes to what fraud >> I think John has in there partly to prevent fraud, >> right? Of course there's intentional and unintentional errors, >> right?
>> Uh but but uh so I think that argues for >> okay >> some consistency in how >> is there another section or is that the last one? >> There's a bunch more. >> This four >> full page >> 4.4 for advanced IIA system approval.
>> We're only halfway through. >> Anybody have thoughts on that? And >> uh I I think as a point of concern
if if a town entity RME a town department is saying this is the system you're going to use if that system goes south for whatever reason and there's rampid system failures the town will be
getting sued all over the place. have a liability for the performance, the improvement, the replacement of a system. And I think that's >> I think that's covered very carefully in here that says that the vendors who are
going to have to be uh qualified and they're they're responsible for >> the bonded >> bonded performance bonding. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Mhm. >> And you know, >> lawyers like to sue everybody and anybody hoping somebody will come up with money and they'll go after the
deepest pockets. So I I'm worried as a taxpayer and as a member of this committee recommending a path that might expose the town to liability. >> Ed has a point. I mean, you could you could put more burden on the homeowner.
It it it's a matter of preference. you the the town could specify but the but force the homeowner to do the contracting. >> Well, that's what's going to happen. >> Although then the homeowner could still say, "Hey, you made me go with this
stupid company." >> Well, look at a different scenario. I mean, what we'd like to do to do economies of scale is to have one vendor say if you can come up with the best deal
and put in an average price or some sort of thing for this watershed, this is what you'll get. You'll get 150 customers or whatever the case might be. >> It's all whole age-old thing of all your eggs in one
basket. If you only need one basket, but if it breaks, you're screwed, >> right? But I'm not talking about one B. I'm talking about other vendors could bid also. And they might if they're going to have a performance bond, they have to perform. They're the talent. But I think John was going for
the economy of of letting in instead of each vendor there being a bidding process for each individual property. >> No, each
I'm saying instead of having it for each there and only one vendor by definition is going to win. >> You don't >> doesn't have to be. It doesn't say one vendor. >> No, it says vendors. >> Vendor or vendors. >> Yeah. Oh, I see. Yeah,
>> you're not limiting. But they have to meet the standards that the RME sets up and the the technology people have to have a bonded system. [clears throat] You you're right, but you've sort of hit
it in the last sentence where you put vendors in parenthesis, >> right? >> If you read that quickly, you think that the town is picking a vendor for the water. >> So, Steve, >> so to me, I think of the trash pickup.
You know, the town puts together something to have the trash picked up. They don't do it by water sheds. They do it for the town. But there's a duration and there's the opportunity to renew if the vendor is doing the proper performance. And if not, they put it
back out to bid. So, you know, will this go smooth the first year? I would hope so. But if it doesn't go smooth the first year, I would hope we don't put this thing out there saying you've got this contract for 10 years. I mean, this would should be a a term
contract with clauses for renewal. If if both parties agree that things are going well. >> Well, >> I think that's not a great analogy because if my trash is improperly picked up, I don't get fined for it. I don't have to do anything in response.
>> I apologize for my analogy then. >> Well, I'm just saying. >> No, I just this goes back. I was just f I was just framing how contracts my concern is >> trying to frame how the town contracts for outside services. My concern is that there be consistency in who's doing
>> the monitoring >> and and the idea that I mean if for instance in the first watershed we do the vendor doesn't perform very well the next time we do the next watershed and send out the RFP we'll say don't bother
to submit a >> well you could and and it calls for some strategic clever planning by whoever sets this whole thing up that the first few are not so big. They're smaller. Maybe there are two small ones and so they're really incentivized to do well
and then it gets bigger and bigger. >> Well, I if I can jump in just with a little bit of a curveball. I visualize sort of a Dutch auction particularly for the first couple watersheds where the installers bid. They say I and it's going to be a very strict time frame. You know, these have to be installed and
operational by X date. He could say I'm a small company. I could only get 35 done in that time at this price. So they'd commit and then the next bidder up that the more expensive one gets a shot as many as he thinks he can do.
>> Well, that's this whole issue of phasing. >> Right. That's that's my point is >> that's a good point. These are all good points. So I I submit that that's something that the RME and us and the rest of the town has to think about.
thicken the weeds, >> but not decide tonight. >> No, not tonight. I I think this is all pretty good. >> But the way I read this is they're just looking to qualify these vendors, not get a price bid, not saying, "Oh, we're
going to install it for $30,000." Cuz every property will vary from, you know, $30,000 to $150,000. But that you're looking to um qualify contractors that meet your requirements, not by cost, but by
capability. >> Not the not the contractor who's installing it. The vendor of the technology. >> Right. That's what I mean. By contract. >> The vendor of the technology could very well give a bid on what price he was going to supply his technology. It's not
the guy who's digging it in the ground. It's the we're saying vendor X comes to us and we say we've got a watershed now with 500 IAS give us a price and your guarantee for what these things will do
>> and if the RM is happy with it we'll pick your technology >> maybe better just selling the box >> maybe better than the trash >> good >> better than the trash trucks is the grinder pumps >> right that you have a manufacturer I
don't know if there were competitive biz on that. >> They did. >> Was there more than one bid? It doesn't matter because >> Yeah, there. Yeah, they they >> there could have been >> and the installer is a different entity. So, you're both right.
>> Okay. Can we move on to 4.5? Nothing to change there. I mean, we know it's going to be a big issue. It's a, you know, this is just something we've got to duke out with with D. I think it's a perfectly reasonable scheme,
>> John. >> 4.5.2. Okay. >> Well, I have something for 45. >> I'm I'm going I'm switching the direction this time. >> I I I just focusing on four 4.51 right now, or can I talk about two? If not, I'll just wait.
>> Let's Let's do 4.1 first. Okay, I'll wait >> cuz it's up on the screen. >> I'm good. >> Tom, >> what what's the definition of a system not in use? Because I could see a situation where family takes a 3 week
vacation and suddenly that month shows up as a zero. >> It doesn't do any good to monitor something that isn't being used. >> Right. But I >> and so during if someone is a seasonal resident, you manage to monitor it outside >> when they're there,
>> right? I'm very tuned into that. But what defines it? Says if a system is not in use for any months, so a family goes on vacation in October and they're gone for 3 weeks. Does that >> There's a continuum from being there
24/7 to not being there at all. >> Right. and every conceivable fraction in between. Exactly. That's my point. How do you decide? >> So you wanted uh to say greater than four months. >> How many days would you like? Like like >> h >> how many days would you like?
>> Oh, I don't I'm not saying I said that there has to be some for deciding this was a non needs to consider it. >> Greater than four months. >> Let's do greater than four months. >> We're not editing. We John is looking for ideas. brought up the point that
he's got to define it more carefully, >> right? >> So, it's up to John to think about that. It's not for us to pick, >> right? Let's not decide today. I just >> crazy over the numbers. >> Okay. Y point, man. >> I I would say that there is the line that says the R at its discretion,
>> right? >> So, the RMs get some discretion about whether or not it's in use. >> That's what the board of health does, >> right? All right. >> Sorry, I cut you [laughter] off. >> Okay. Um the the only thing I would ask for a lot of consideration is sampling
every other month for a year. Sampling's expensive. Testing is expensive. You're going to do it six times a year. That that's a lot more rigorous than D even. And D created a monster that they have no idea what it is. >> Well, there's no sense for us fighting
about that. This is something that's going to has to be negotiated with. >> That's all I say. and George and the board of health have [clears throat] got to deal with Boston D to sit down. Ed is >> I hear Ed saying that you're going into
the negotiations with a position that's worse than you know for us than D is asking for to start. >> So currently currently >> it's quarterly >> when you put a system in you have to monitor it four times a year >> until you get consistent readings. This
is saying monitor it every other month for six months. I I'm not sure that it's that much prohibitive and it will give a better indication of the system's performance because of the variability early on when a system has not been in use. >> Oh, I see. But three monitoring instead
of it's the same number of monitoring. I think that's got to be looked at >> 4.5.2 is after probation period. So you put the system in, you have to measure it every other month. Okay, let's I guess we want to move down to four. John,
>> well, if you're going to move into 4.52 5.2. >> Yeah. So, I I had I guess an issue where the sentence says the owner shall be responsible for the cost of bringing the system into compliance. And to me, as as an owner, think of somebody who knows
nothing about IAS. as long as they're doing all that they were asked to do, keep the pumps going or whatever it is that they're doing. Shouldn't it be the RM with the vendor working out that if it's not performing the way I paid the $40,000 for it to pay, why should I be penalized again?
>> I agree. I think it should be the vendor. >> Yes. The vendor is is guaranteeing you a certain performance. >> Yes. Or or you give the home meet at the end of the probationary period >> or or you give the homeowner >> John was getting it was getting late in the night for John and he just he just
own it down instead of that >> again. I just brought it up and sounds like a solution point. Anybody else on that? Okay, wait. Yeah, we've got to hurry up. >> This was this was the main point >> 4.6 six now >> that you do uh every month you do a 12th
of the the IAS and uh chosen by random number and and that's uh how you how you calculate I mean if you consider how many samples Amy takes at the main water
treatment plant to show that it's I mean she takes what weekly measurements Steve Yes. So she takes four four u four samples a month and if you've got a big watershed with hundreds of IAS if you
simply do a 12th of them say every system is going to get tested once a year >> but you choose a 12th every month by random choice and anyway >> it's so so to the first time when you're paying a little more upfront to get
through your probationary The current regulation would have you doing your system twice a year. This now tells you you're probably going to get done once a year. >> Steve, we've got 11 minutes to your typical Do you want me to speed it up or
I mean I don't know how much you have mind for after this? >> Could I say one more one thing about 46 or 4? Um in line four the word calendar shouldn't be there. It says monitoring calendar year. It
should just say monitoring year because a calendar year by definition runs from January 1st to December 31st. >> We're editing it from September 1st to >> right. So drop calendar and you still have your monitoring year which is what you're talking about. >> Okay.
>> Okay. 4.7. >> Yeah. So the operation and maintenance, this is where if we're running a town RMA ourselves that there's where we can contract out to Masttec or
uh to a variety of vendors to to do that. I think we want to be careful that you know there are a lot of private vendors now who maintain and monitor septic systems as a as a as an industry
>> and we don't want to by any means cut them out of them. I think you have to be careful to think on the one hand of giving the vendors every opportunity to keep their system that they're
they've warranted for them to do their best to keep it good versus [snorts] and at the same time on the monitoring itself you want to prevent fraud. >> Right? So there's a you have to draw the line carefully in between the two
different kinds of things. >> Yep. >> Anybody care about pumpouts or record keeping? >> Five years seems like a good number. >> That's probably fine. >> I thought two was the recommended and a
lot of people cheat by going to five. Two. >> Five is fine. You guys told me that you don't even pump your systems out. When I proposed that seasonal, you probably don't even there were houses in the Heights that never pumped out septic tank in 25
years, >> right? >> Never. And never had a problem, >> right? >> You know, an elderly couple using the thing living there full-time year round. They never pumped it. Absolutely never. >> That again is an area of discretion. They are >> just Yeah. >> recordeping.
Anybody >> even if they were taking me >> anybody in recordkeeping? >> Looks good. >> Next reporting. >> Reporting. >> And there again, we're going to have to see what D will acquies to fees. [clears throat]
>> I I this is maybe edited, but I don't like the word appropriate. I think you need to be more specific. justifiable. >> I mean, no. I mean, at some point there should be a list. >> Are you saying all the costs or
because appropriate >> I I would say that we're not we're not going to charge for inappropriate costs. [laughter] Okay. Only appropriate cost. We can change the wording, Steve. >> Okay. You're editing. >> I'm editing. But I mean, >> yeah,
>> you can't you can't hide behind a word like that. You got to decide >> which word you're going to charge the home. >> What word would you like? >> The following approved and audited. Approved an audit. Approved an audited cost by an outside independent auditor. >> Yeah. >> Well, you can just
>> Well, it's a town it's a it's part of the whole town legislation of what are you going to soak and and it has to do with the cost balance of sewers and IAS. What are you going to charge the >> Well, we've just listed for and
>> what the recordkeeping is and if we have the salary of an additional person, those are going to be the cost. We can say >> well then they then that's all cost >> or we'll cover its costs. >> Okay, that's fine too.
>> The change appropriate to the >> cover the RME cost. >> Cover the RE costs. Okay. >> Okay, >> that's all right. >> Big [clears throat] Is that it? >> That's the last one. >> Symphony.
>> I hand the gavl back to you, sir. [clears throat] All right. The next presentation, we're going to move to a future meeting, which is the presentation U Martha's Vineyard Commission has a draft policy on
mitigation costs. Um but it's it's an interesting sort of step by step of what this only replies to applies to uh developments of environment or it's a de there's a thing that they have I can't remember the phrase
um anyways they they don't manage individual things but there's a certain size development it's considered of regional interest and they promulgated draft regulations of um water quality quality and they they they
came up with this little exercise to determine >> what's sort of an acceptable loading of per acre with some factors in it well which I'll cover in my presentation and then they talked about if you don't meet it on the site with what you're doing
you can either go you have to go downstream and do things like sewering or more IAS and if you can't go downstream how they calculate the cost that you have to come up with to pay for the commission to have money to do other
things to knock nitrogen down. So it it's it's not a fivem minute presentation or discussion. So I'll I'll just move it to another meeting. Uh I don't think it's critical. I got a couple of people lined up for the next meeting. >> Okay. Are we going to penalize you since you can't deliver product on time?
>> You could try to penalize me, but I have nothing to offer you. [laughter] >> A great place to be. >> All right. Uh item four, discussion and vote to approve the minutes of the prior meeting from March 18. >> Be approved as written. >> I need to change one thing. I I messed
up >> scribner errors. >> I I I messed up the acronym for water infrastructure investment fund. I put wastewater improvement fund. But I'll hand that off to >> say approved with script. >> Approved with scrier's errors. Correct. Great. Second.
>> Thank you. >> The motion move been made and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> I. >> And now we got 5 minutes to kill or we can leave early. Vote to >> adjournment. Second. >> Before Before you do, what are the next
steps that we need to do with this? >> Um >> I I guess maybe I would suggest this, John, based upon everything you heard tonight, if if you want to go through another time and maybe tweak some wording based upon everything you heard.
I mean are are there >> well you you say you some you have to negotiate with DP at some point you have to suffer editing by all of us >> as terrible as that may be >> let me do this let me do this
>> could we just send s let's see we're not allowed to do that >> can we send suggest who can we send suggestions >> let let me do this Amy's scheduled to come in at our next meeting and provide an update on watershed planning I will add an item
to uh discuss with Amy how to how how how our view of an RME can be integrated into their watershed plan and the best best next steps forward. Is that >> she's got this?
>> Yeah, she's out of town, but I we're we we're giving some advice and input that will get incorporated into watershed planning. So I just think let's set her up for the next time through to talk about how she wants us to interact with her and the wershed
planning. >> I would just submit that John even if he has to listen to the video of this meeting should certainly incorporate in it anything that was said tonight that he agrees with. >> Yeah. >> There were a few things that were
no-brainers. We all agreed with them. >> Y >> we don't want to run into those again. Those ought to get into the text. >> Yeah. >> Right. I I'm wondering what we're allowed to do. I think we >> we can make a recommendation to the
select one. >> No, no, no. In terms of providing, >> specific feedback on the text, like anything that was discussed at the meeting openly, it seems to me we could put in writing and submit.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. And it'll be in the minutes. The minutes are >> so excruciatingly detailed nowadays. >> I I do not have my phone. So I'm going to do my best to remember what was said. >> Oh, >> I'm going to have video. >> Yeah, I'm going to have to go and go online. And
>> the thing about you putting the phone here is it gives me back a piece of text already. I don't have to >> spend all day with going through everything. >> The thing that threw me for a loop was the phone kept referring to that body of water over that way as McCoy Bay. [laughter]
The first time I saw it, I said, "There's a body of water in Val. I don't have a clue." I got to tell you another thing that I I [clears throat] apprised of at a board of directors of a different organization. When you pay to let chat GPT or any
entity like that do your minutes, >> they get it. >> They also use that as training. So it's in their database including all the informal things you said that so and so is a jerk or something. >> So in principle someone in Topeka could
say who are all the jerks the water quality committee has ever named in the last 3 years and it would spit them out. >> Yeah. >> And now it will think everyone everywhere else on the Cape are yals. That's right. >> That's right. So, Steve, I just as an
aside to I was at my GP this week and all of a sudden there was a microphone on the top of his >> monitor >> and he had a a AI system that for doctors and it listens to the discussion
between you and the doctor and if you talk about something here and then you talk about something else and you come back to the first thing it's sort sorts it all out and prints out uh >> Yep. >> It's it's it's pretty amazing. I mean,
all these doctors, you know, I go you go to a doctor and they have a scribe sitting in the room. >> They won't need those anymore. >> The scribe is >> history. Yeah. >> So, if you want to get a real sense of where this is all going in last week's New Yorker, there's a lengthy article about Sam Alton and who he is, how he
thinks, the different people he's coordinated with along the way. >> You know, this is all on TV. >> That's fine. Okay, >> it's it's a great article if you want to understand the development of AI, who's involved, where they're going, all the different things back and forth. And a
lot of it has to do with the um some early people wanted to like put guard rails in to make sure it's, you know, safe and productive. And over time, several people have moved into let's make money with this. And who cares about the guardrail? So, it's >> it's very enlightening.
>> Sounds like a great way to run a country. assistant GP was using was free. >> I can imagine that the minutes from the board as well. >> Okay. Motion to adjurnn because we're not talking about >> Did we vote this? No, >> not yet. >> Oh, let's vote. I
>> I Thank you. >> [music]