[music] [music] today started off as Wednesday the 13th and it's still Wednesday the 13th. It's now 4:30 which means that we are at the water quality management committee meetings uh with an interesting agenda. Um, we
start off with reports of members including Ed's summary of all the things that happened in the world of environment and Cape Cod and the world. How's Singapore doing? You got any updates on the Singapore situation? >> Nothing about Singapore. Okay.
>> I do have a San Diego but not a Singapore. >> All right. San Diego's close enough. It begins with this. [laughter] >> All right. Um, couple of interesting points. some minor, some more significant. Um, Nantucket had a vote at their town
meeting for $44 million sewer expansion uh project uh after a lot of debate. It did pass and its next step will be on the townwide ballot on May 19. But a comment that was in the press about how they
finally got it to pass was they had to remove a 25% betterment charge that was part of it. So what they're doing about that betterment and how they're going to get that funding. Will it go to townwide was unclear, but they removed that from the
article and then it passed by 304 to 116. Ed, a minor point. Are you talking about a 25% fee for the betterment? Are you talking about 25% betterment relief? >> It it said a 25% betterment. So I assume
that to mean >> So we have a 7030 split. They they were proposing a 7525 split. >> So it's relief you're talk that's what I'm trying to find out. They were removing the betterment that the property owners would have to pay 25% of the cost of the project the lines like
we do in Falmouth. And so that's the way it was worded in the press, but I I've been unable to get details on any of the websites. >> So just [snorts] interesting that you know they are going to spend another 44 million to expand their limited sewer
lines. Um, number two, San Diego. Kind of an interesting tidbit. Uh, some of the most beautiful beaches in the world are in Coronado area of San Diego, including where the Navy Seals do
their training. Those beaches in the last couple of years have been closed 250 plus days out of the year because of raw sewage contamination. And it's coming from Tijuana.
uh estimate that 30 million gallons per day at the worst case of raw sewage is going into the Pacific and flowing north from Tijuana which has 2.3 million people. Um and that's grown something
like uh tripled in the last couple of decades. So, they don't have adequate infrastructure for all that sewage and it's making a mess of some of the best beaches in the world. And I don't know what it's doing to the seal training grounds, but it it's incredible how it's
gotten out of control. And this is what happens when you don't react to a problem when it's controllable. um estimated cost a billion dollars to upgrade infrastructure to handle the flow and US Congress has allocated $300
million towards that as a joint effort with Mexico. Mexico has allocated so far the princely sum of 30 to 50 million. So they're they don't have anywhere near the money to do this at current dollars. So stay tuned. I mean it's a unmitigated
disaster. I've been in that area a few times on trips and it's absolutely incredible that this is going on. Um, interesting one closer to home now, Mash Peak. Uh, the good citizens of Mashp, I
think, are setting a fine example to the rest of the area on their sewing efforts. They had at their town meeting article 4 for [snorts] $12 million for initial design and planning of sewer
expansion to the quite bay area. Over a thousand homes would be done and this is something we've heard the uh WOI area uh people talk about how bad Wait is. So MASHP kind of at a very late in the game
put this article on their town meeting. It passed by 263 yes 112 no about 70%. So 263 yes to 112 sounds pretty good margin but a 2/3 they needed at least
250. So it was pretty damn close. Uh on this past Saturday, they had their townwide election ballot question because it is a uh prop 2 and a half override. 1132 yes, 474 no 70%.
Same percentage of participants voting approved it. So kudos to MASHP for taking a big step towards helping McCoy Bay. Um, also kind of interesting, their
total voter turnout was 12% of the eligible electorate. Um, pathetic turnout, but this is what happens in elections. You know, Flet has an election coming up soon that not any really major issues outside of some town offices, but you know, turnout was low,
but Mashby, good job. Well done. Um, Great Pond Phase One, for those who aren't aware and don't drive the area or look at the town website, uh, Route 28 work is continuing and it is now past the lights at the end of Marav Vista A
Extension. So, there's a whole new detour on Route 28. Starts at Sandwich Road and goes out to Oxbow. the road is closed and this is projected to be done by Memorial Day which is right around the corner because the state will not
permit the town to work on 28 after Memorial Day. Um, last but not least, for interest of this committee, the Snug Harbor notice of intent is finally going before Concom tonight and um hopefully
we'll get a favorable decision from Concom on the project going forward. So, u that's coming up starting at 7. It's last on the agenda at this point, but interesting thing to watch if you're interested. And that's all I have.
Can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> Um Ed just made me think of this. He mentioned MASHP voting $12 million for design of a sewer project and so the project probably costs at least 10 times that
because I mean the architect doesn't charge half the cost of the job. >> Well, it's it's design and planning. So there's >> it's a small fraction of the whole thing. >> I should know the answer to this, but I don't. I want somebody to educate me. It's something to do with municipal
finance, but no sane homeowner or business owner would commit to spending 10% of some of say designing a house without having in mind a way that they
were going to get the other 90%. It would be really insane. [clears throat] But the towns, including Falmouth, always do it that way. Can somebody tell me why? I >> I don't think that's necessarily true. They have a, you know, it's not a
published plan widely. It, you know, in the paper, for instance, people would be confused. But, you know, the town says, "Look, we're going to put this in our capital plan. We're going to put an article and get the money to get it started, but we plan on funding it through such and such, probably some
more Prop 2 and a half overrides, but also SRF funding and all that other good stuff." At the last meeting that we had, >> he gave a summary of the MASHB project. He indicated that they were going to town meeting for 12 million to get started, but they projected 108 million
for the overall project with the idea that they would be going back on a 2 and a half override. >> Oh, okay. >> So they so they were upfront about >> they were upfront with the >> they were upront about cost. Well, but this this that 108 is not just this. This is some a new part and an extension, let's say, of their original
plan for sewing. So this is an incremental project looking to address the severe problems of WOI Bay. And I I know Maggie, our good friend from the quite bay uh association or whatever is ecstatic that
they address this um and and this is a pretty recent addition to that plan. But you know, as as it's said all the time by Amy and Kristen, these are live documents. the watershed planning evolves as needs, technologies, and funding changes.
>> Well, I I wasn't criticizing the project at all. >> I don't know any I was just You just triggered my thought about the generic finance and electorate knowledge question. >> Yeah. I mean, I I I did not expect [clears throat] a successful vote on
this part of the project because they had several other Prop 2 and a half overrides, smaller amounts, million here, million there, couple of million there, and those path by much narrower margins. So, I think it's to me outstanding that their citizens are
saying, "We're going to take this hit. We're going to make this investment to improve things in our town." I think it was uh gratifying to me certainly to see people stepping up to the plate and saying, "Yep, we got to open our wallets." >> Um, second item under report of members
is uh you want to update us, John? Uh, George, I'm glad you're here. You've had some correspondence. >> Yeah. So, so I think we're all aware and we've chatted about it before a couple of weeks ago that in order to
successfully develop our watershed plans, uh, we're going to need to design an RME. And two of the really outstanding issues which D has not yet
uh engaged with us on are what's an acceptable monitoring program and uh what's an acceptable way to demonstrate compliance and we've chatted about a number of those ways and I think
we're all sort of familiar with the history uh years ago as we developed the Oyster Pond CWMP, we uh George and I and a number of other people sat down with Brian Dudley at the
Southeast region and proposed a way of of setting up an RE and a monitoring program and we would sit around the table and discuss it, but it never went any further than that. We never got any
responses from uh DP. Uh recently, George uh on behalf of the board of health wrote to Lielen Langley in Boston deciding to bypass the southeast region
and asked Lenon uh to set up a technical advisory group. Um the same day he emailed George back. Yeah, that's a good idea. Let us let us before we start this. We'll chat internally about
it. Nothing else has ever happened and Lielen Langley is retiring at the end of this month. So we basically >> black holes start over. >> That's right. So what are the next steps? and I'm suggesting uh next steps
that we might take with the board of health is that we s suggest that the selectman write to D in Boston directly uh stating what our problems are and that that letter from the selectman be
copied to Dylan Fernandez and Dave Vieira >> and we get our legislatures to start locally applying pressure to Yeah. And Moley Moley is our other rep. So, John, do you want to uh put together a
proposed recommendation to the select board and we'll bring it up at our next meeting? >> George, would you be willing to sit down and work on work? >> Yeah. >> So, will between the board of health and >> Yeah. Put you on the agenda. >> I like the sense of the committee that we should begin to develop that correspondence.
>> Yes, I think that's a good idea. I'll make that motion even. I don't think we need a motion because it's it's it's we're not ask ask no he he can a put a letter together put on the agenda next time and then >> John to know that we're behind you on this and George. >> Okay, that's good. Thank you, John. Amy,
you're next on the agenda. >> Um I'm glad to welcome to our committee Amy LOL, the town's wastewater superintendent who's >> responsible for all the detours. [laughter] >> Thank you. person >> responsible for all the detours, right?
Uh so since you're on reports though, I thought I would uh it's May I just give a a brief update that is not it's not on your agenda so it's not discussion but uh you were just giving updates. So >> we can't we can't discuss it. We can hear you though,
>> right? Okay. So um for the great pond phase one project um the select board will be discussing the betterment at their um the next phase in betterment uh on their at their meeting next Monday. A letter went out in the mail today to all
of the property owners saying the number of sus equivalent units that have been assigned to their property and what that translates into as far as cost. And there will also be a public information meeting specifically for the the owners
of property in that sewer service area next Wednesday. Um that is May >> 20 >> 20th >> May 20th next Wednesday May 20th at uh
the Lawrence School between 6:30 and 8. Lawrence school is 113 Lake View Avenue. So public information meeting about the great pawn sewer project um next Wednesday and the betterment will be discussed at the select board next
Monday. >> You officer didn't hear me say you can't comment. [laughter] >> We can't comment. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So, here to talk about the outfall um uh an outfall update and talk about the environment draft
environmental provide a draft environmental impact report preview. >> Amy, I have you listed as a discussion no vote because we previously voted on this. You still okay with that? >> [snorts] >> So you didn't So there's Yes. I don't
want to vote today, but you uh this is leading up to the outfall, which excuse me, the outfall, the DEI. You haven't voted on the DEI yet. You don't have that yet. Um but that's what this is about. >> Acronym. >> Yes. [snorts] Uh right here, draft
environmental impact report. Um so that's to be um here. So, I'm not going to go through this slide, but um this is in the packet. It's I want to include it every time to provide us a a summary of the project.
Um as for an update, we submitted the innerbasin transfer act application for a determination of insignificance um last week. Um and I'll be talking a little bit more about that. We are GHD
is working on the conceptual design that of the outfall that's needed for permitting and uh we've been preparing the draft environmental impact report or DEIR uh for submission in June. We plan to provide the draft DEIR an electronic
link to that um before the next meeting and uh we plan to present the select board in June uh likely on the outfall and that will likely be two meetings in June. we plan to submit to MEEPA at the
end of June and which will initiate the public the official public comment period uh and there'll be a public meeting to a a large public meeting with you know not just water quality or select board but a large pro um open public meeting uh about the project this
summer um interbasin transfer act I showed this map pre at the last meeting but to review waste water derived from water withdrawn withdrawn within the town Falmouth is exempt from interbasin transfer act review. Uh so water coming
from long pond and uh and wells in Falmouth and then is being discharged either to septic systems and the ground or to the outfall is exempt from the inner basin transfer act review. However, a portion of the town's water
is uh purchased from the uh upper Cape C cooperative uh in the on the base which is technically or specifically in Sandwich and that is subject to the interbas and transfer act. We filed an application for determination uh of
insignificance for that transfer last week May 8th and um this will be scheduled for review at a water resources commission meeting. I don't know what meeting it will be on. They meet monthly. So, I'm hoping for the June meeting.
Um, the Interbasin Transfer Act, it's actually it's a 30-page application. It's there's a lot to it. Uh, a lot of background about the water supply in Falmouth and, um, and the wastewater
management in Falmouth. Uh the the determination of insignificance is based heavily on um the United States Geological Survey uh report that was prepared for the outfall project which I believe you're quite familiar with. Uh
as you remember they they the USGS uh evaluated two sewing scenarios. Scenario one was uh sewing all property south of Route 28, which you know is not exactly what we're planning on doing, but it's an approximation of sewing that's
expected for the next 15 to 20 years. Uh scenario two was s evaluated sewing all properties in Falmouth. Obviously, we're not planning to do that and the outfall doesn't have the capacity to do that, but that was sort of a bracketing scenario. the USGS. The figure on the
right is one of the figures in the in the plan um or excuse me in the report which shows that the and what the USGS concluded was that the hydraologic response of the water table elevation meaning the water table elevation
changes and the stream flow changes in both of those scenarios even townwide sewing is relatively small compared to the fluctuation from natural recharge. The project provides a net environmental benefit um improving water quality while
maintaining hydraologic stability. So I said I want to give a DEI DEIR preview. The first sections introduce and and again you'll be seeing the the draft report uh before your next meeting. Um first three sections are an introduction, purpose and need and
project description. All of which you're very familiar with. Section four is project background. Um that is primarily about the relationship between the town's outfall project and the history
of of um um landbased or of discharge site evaluations in town and um so the the relationship between the town's outfall project and its watershed management planning project. The table on the
right, I don't want to re review in any detail here today. We talked about it in a meeting here. I can't remember if that was March or before. Um but the the table is a will be included in the outfall report and it shows that the
outfall provides discharge capacity for the sewing that's required to meet the TMDLs the total maximum daily load limits for nitrogen for each of the town's 14 nitrogen sensitive areas including the contingency flows that are required uh by the state
uh sewer the sewer expansion areas the exact sewer expansion areas are not set and um and they're not being defined in the alpha deir. They will be refined through the watershed management planning process.
Section five is the permitting and regulatory framework. Not going to go through these but those are outlined in detail in that section. Uh section six required in the MEPA documents is an evaluation of the impacts of a no no action alternative i.e. If we didn't put
in the alpha, what would happen? Um and um once the great pond phase one project is completed, the one that we're constructing right now, new discharge capacity will be required for all future sewer extensions in Falmouth. Our
existing groundwater discharge permit and uh does not allow will does not allow will not allow for additional discharge to our existing beds. So we need additional capacity. Uh we've talked a lot here about um landbased discharge. None of the town's land-based
discharge sites have the hydraulic capacity to accommodate all of the town's uh future treated wastewater flows. And discharging to land has additional environmental impacts due to discharging upgradient from sensitive estuaries and upgradient from inland
water resources. So without and there in [clears throat] addition without an outfall less sewer expansion could uh be implemented and TM TMDLs could likely not be met in some south coast watersheds. Section seven uh describes the proposed
action and in particular addresses some alternatives analyses that were analyses that were requested by MEPA after review of the environmental notification form. Um we talked we talk about um the
evaluation of the staging area location for the horizontal directional drilling. As you know we looked at three different sites for directional drilling staging in detail. We had reviewed previous sites before that but in detail we looked at Worcester Worcester Court um
Central Park and Kite Park. Uh the preferred staging area of course is Kite Park. It's the shortest distance um from the onshore location uh beyond the eelgrass meadows which are a real driver for the distance and the largest portion
of the kite park site of those three sites is uh beyond is outside of mapped flood areas. Uh so it's close to the shore but it is uh elevated and not uh a flood a flood zone.
Um we we also yes >> there's another advantage to it that you can see from this map is that the outlet point is in a region of higher velocity in Vineyard Sound >> the
we get a little okay >> I don't know if that helps your argument but it doesn't hurt it >> okay higher velocity then it just depends how how far from shore but it's it's you get further you can get further from shore in a shorter distance and
therefore get to a >> you get closer to the center line so you're in a higher tidal velocity range. >> Yes. Um the out the DI DEIR also goes through a
materials evaluation um recommended non- metallic pipe material either PVC or HDPE for the landbased pipe and HDPE highdensity polyethylene for the outfall pipe. Section 8 is the recommended plan and
the implementation approach. In particular, it talks a lot about construction methods. Um the treated effluent pipe which will go from the plant to kite park will be installed most likely through open cut trenching. Uh it could portions of it could be
through directional drilling but that is generally considered lower impact. So we're f we're focusing on a higher on the higher impact method. The ocean outfall will be drilled will be installed with horizontal directional drilling. Uh the diffusers will be
installed with marine trenching. Um the the photos on the right are of a a diffuser being installed for another outfall project. And so this is the small part of the outfall installation
which will involve trenching at the um on the um seafloor. And uh that's going to be about 110t section of pipe with as you can see small risers sticking up from it. And each of those risers will
have four uh diffusers coming off the sides of it. Um so the impact of that con those construction uh techniques is discussed in that or the the those construction methods are discussed in that section. Section nine is the
environmental impact analysis. Um there's there are a lot of pieces of that that are uh required under the MEPA um under the MEE me um um MEPA's guidance. Um and section 10 is
environmental justice analysis which I talked about a bit in a previous um in a previous meeting. Section 11 is public health impacts. We did get some questions about uh spill and emergency uh management in the case of leaks on
that outfall pipe. Again, if there were a leak in the outfall pipe between the wastewater plant and the shore, it's a leak of treated wastewater, highly treated wastewater. But uh we do plan to maintain our groundwater discharge at
the wastewater plant as a backup discharge option in case of an emergency issue with the outfall discharge. There will also be isolation valves within the um outfall pipeline to uh isolate sections.
Section 12 is the water quality and discharge analysis section. Um we've talked a lot here about hydrodnamic modeling that was done uh by Jim Churchill from HOIE for the project. He had originally done two million gallon per day and four million gallon per day
scenarios. He the three M MGD scenarios are included in the outfall. uh and they show the area um the dot in the July figure is um the model cell or the area
over which the dilution ratio of affluent um to ocean water is less than 1,000 to1. So we get to that dilution ratio within 300 ft obviously still not at at 3 million gallons per day. This
section also co covers the anti-degradation evaluation and a preliminary draft long-term monitoring program. The anti-degradation evaluation we did discuss uh in I did go through um at the March meeting. Um the scope was
developed in collaboration with regulators in 2025. We did the two-year sampling program in [snorts] Nantucket Sound and at the Falmouth wastewater plant. And we evaluated potential impacts of the proposed discharge based on the Massachusetts surface water
quality standards and anti-degradation examples from other uh New England communities. Uh this report was the anti-degradation report was submitted to for regulatory review on March 12th and the D is preparing a determination
uh based on that report through coordination with EPA. Section 14 is waterways and natural resources. Uh two-year benthic analysis is presented there. um shellfish program
coordination uh with the division of marine fisheries, eelgrass surveys, fisheries analysis uh and state listed species uh our coordination with mass wildlife on that will is discussed in that section as our historical and
archaeological resources. We're getting close here. Hang in hang [laughter] in there. I'm losing everybody. Uh section 14 is climate change adaptation and resiliency. Um there were uh there there
were comments in the ENF by the coastal zone management about the the type of climate hazard exposure analysis we should do and uh the so GHD performed that looked at the anticipated 200year
storm conditions through using the the tool that's recommended by CZM and um you can see highlighted on this or there's black line around the kite park site and the red is the um is
a wave action elevation and you can see that it does not though this you know this is an extreme case this is a 200-year storm out through 2070 and um the the back end of kite park is still
outside of this um zone we the outfall when you install ver using directional drilling you drill down uh deep the outfall will be deep at this um will will will drop off quickly below Kite
Park and so even if there were erosion at this shoreline there is not danger of of exposure of the outfall uh there if you know there will be a manhole with valve with valves in it in Towerhouse Road and that is outside of
this wave action area section 15 is section 61 findings and m mitigation commitments. Um that it outlines land-based and oceanbased mitigation measures including sound barriers around the staging area
during construction, restoration of kite park. uh the bore path design uh with HDD the directional drilling avoids coastal resource areas and there's a uh contingency plan a screenshot of which is on the the cover is on the right uh
that's a plan for in to prevent um inadvertent return flow of drilling uh mud during the horizontal directional drilling and then a notice to mariners during constru during construction. Those are just some examples. Uh the
alpha project schedule, you're you've seen you're quite familiar with the dashed line. I made this in Excel so I can't slide it over in between the two uh quarters there, but we're getting close to the end of the uh draft EIR U
uh bar here. And the next coming bars then are the review of the draft EIR and the preparation of the final. And the item I wanted to highlight is we're leading up to uh the next big milestone
is requesting funds for design of um of the outfall in uh April of 2027. So 11 months from now. Um so that's the presentation. Thanks for bearing with me
and we will be sending you a link to all of that uh next week. and and talking about it again at the next meeting. [snorts] >> Yes, sir. Oh, sorry. I'm gonna let Steve Steve's in control of the questions.
>> Ken, >> um, you know, very comprehensive. I got really nothing to say. Seems to have it covered. >> Okay. Looks like we're [snorts] making good progress. Um, any feel yet what the
design request will be in Springtown meeting next year? fun. >> I've so I don't want to speculate on that now. I have a number that I'm that's been in the capital plan and I don't have an update on that. GHD is working on it >> because I need to update the capital P
plan request. Um it's due to the town manager at the beginning of June. So, um I will have an updated number then. >> But but it'll it'll be in it'll be millions because we've got to do the pipeline all the way from the >> Yeah, it's millions. >> It's millions. The number I have in the in the capital plan is 7 million. I
don't think it'll be 7 million, but it's it's a lot because it's it's the whole pipe from the plant out to the end. >> Steve, >> I think it's great. I have two nitpicking comments if you want them or I can tell you later just to improve the pres places where I was initially
confused if >> Okay. >> going to be showing it to somebody else. >> Up to Steve. What do you Yeah. >> Yeah. This is what you're here for >> at the very beginning. Uh, yes. Yeah. No, that I've heard the phrase interbasin
transfer act before, but I wasn't sure exactly what it was. And you made it clear in what you said that it's because we're buying water from another jurisdiction. >> Yep. But then in huge font on the map there's these
mass coastal >> Oh, now I understand it. >> There's two. Okay. >> It's talking about town boundaries and the basin boundaries under the interbasin transfer act. >> All right. >> Town boundaries actually go three miles offshore, but the basin boundary, the
way it's drawn in the act is at the land. Um, >> I misread it. I was thinking at first, oh, it's because waters from places that drain into Buzzard's Bay is now going to drain into Vineyard Town, but it has nothing to do with that. >> No. >> Okay, >> you're right.
>> And the don't consider it the Sagamore lens. They consider it the Cape Cod Basin. >> Yeah, it's it's frustrating. And then way later in the talk, uh I think it was around par chapter 13. [laughter] >> Uh yes.
>> Maybe I missed 13. I think I have two 14s here. Okay, >> that's the one I mean. >> Yeah. >> Um [clears throat] where is the outfall on that map? >> That would be prominent. >> Yeah. So the the black dash line here is
the outfall pipe that's below ground below the seafloor. >> So it's where there's the little white rectangular flag. >> Yeah. Yeah. The re the white flag is pointing to the alpha. So I'm glad you brought that up because we have shown slightly different alpha alignments in
in over the over the past um couple of years. I mean they're all very similar, but we this this is the alignment we are standardizing on. Um, we don't want to put it right on our soil borings because we don't want that drilling mud to go up
through an old soil boring. Uh, but we do want it near the soil boring. Uh, because we want that information to be relevant for the bid. Uh, we also, you know, we want the end point to be beyond the ograss and we want a minimum distance from shore.
>> Yeah. All all that. No, it's just that from this distance with my eyes. >> Yep. That's a good point. >> You can't tell where it is. I'm not saying it's in the wrong place or you should move it. >> It's not a good figure for a public presentation now that you say that. Right. It needs more needs. >> Text box. You could just make it bigger
with a bigger font in it. >> Yep. >> Okay. John, how's that? I think we're in good shape. Dorm. >> Yes. Amy, how much difference in flow between February and August, do you think? at
the wastewater plant now or in the >> well now and then what's going to be coming out there because remember I asked you before about the DMF [clears throat] maybe there might be seasonal changes in the dilution horizon that matters to them.
>> Yes. So the town um we do have substantially higher flow to the wastewater plant in the summer. uh let's say double >> approximately double >> double okay >> the flow in the summer uh it's it's not
triple even though the population triples that doesn't triple all summer and it's not the same you know it's approximately double in the in the summer um your other point was about oh yeah so the modeling that's been done looks at
monthly um looks at it monthly not it's not an average for the whole I mean in the end we it can be presented as month quarter annual or whatever but but it was looked at month by month >> right
>> um because uh the so actually I correction we didn't look at month by month flow differences we looked at um month by month the modelers looked at month by month variation in the environment because the the currents the
the current varies the Wind in particular varies >> um with the wind and wave action can vary with the seasons. So the modeling does take that into account. The modeling assumes an average 3 million
gallon per day discharge which uh year round which is very conservative in the winter >> and in if maybe a future you know average in the summer. >> Yeah. Does that answer your question?
>> Yeah. I I was just I was curious when because when they were doing the modeling and we were looking at Church Hills I haven't looked at Chen's of course but looking at Church Hills models I didn't see any projected seasonal variation because to me
the hydrodnamic regime out there is pretty close to being constant in in that environment. There's monthly changes depending on tide range and stuff, but I didn't see any considerations of seasonal changes in
the input to the outfall. >> Right. And what we've done is used a very conservative number. Yes. So, it's a it's an it's a future average and the um I I so we've we've looked at 3 MGD.
We have not looked at fluctuations. Um >> Yeah. And yeah, I think that answers it. >> So, it's time for us to say yes, dear. >> Yes, dear. De Eir, the deer, [laughter] >> Jonathan.
>> Um, yeah, looks great. Can any of the environmental impact work that is done for the onore portion of the outfall be used for the wershed management planning? Is there any redundancies there that help save time and money or are they totally independent?
Um I don't >> I would say I would say they're more independent than overlapping. >> Yeah. because in the wershed management plan they're not yet looking at any potential environmental impacts along the route and we've already gone through
under the phase one of the great pawn the force main that has to get from uh the route 28 Augusta parcel up to the treatment plant. exercises of looking at archaeological stuff. They can piggy back. They've piggybacked a little bit along those
routes from past projects and information about where pipes are and wetlands and things like that. So, it's it's a little bit more of the reverse work already done has helped to inform this draft e about where wetlands and archaeological resources might be
because of past work. I mean, that's what I think. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yeah, it sounds good. >> Okay. Um, we don't have the report from Dr. Chen yet. >> Yeah, that was good. I was going to that was going to be my question. Where are we at with
this document going in? Are we going with Churchill's information or Chen's >> Churchill's information? We had hoped to have Dr. Chen's as a supplement or supplemental. Uh, so Dr. Chen for background is is um with school of
marine science and technology UMass Dartmouth and his team does um modeling for has done modeling for other outfalls that the division of marine fisheries has used for their shellfish uh management and uh so we asked Dr. Chen's
team to do the same kind of modeling for our discharge because he does it a little bit differently from Jim Jim Churchill. We do not yet have his report. We had a meeting with he and his team where they showed us preliminary results and um I think there what we saw
preliminarily was very consistent with um with Dr. with Dr. Churchill's results basically instead of being a little dot where the where the dis where the uh dilution is thousand to1 where dilution of a 1000 to1 is achieved it's a little
line it's a because because it's reflecting more the east west um component of the discharge. So, that's a that's my layman's summary of the preliminary report, but we expect that
report shortly. Um, but we have it we haven't received it yet. >> Anybody in the audience have have a comment that they'd like to step up to the microphone? >> Okay. >> Thank you, Amy. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> You want to [snorts] be on the next
agenda to talk about? >> Yes, please. >> This again? >> Yes. and and it will be more um open-ended for comments and questions. I'll try not to rehash the same material again.
>> You make this PowerPoint available? >> Yes, >> I have a flash drive. You can load it right on to it if you would like. >> Uh I can email it to you. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Next up, uh, is, uh, George Hoffeld. Uh, there go. [laughter] >> Don't shut it down. >> I'm trying. I was trying to get out my thumb drive safely and I went to the wrong spot. >> Okay. Well, you you while you met while you while you while you struggle with
that. >> So, presentation, >> George. Um, I I I wasn't quite sure how you wanted me to phrase it, so I said it. It's a presentation of an analysis of various IIA systems performance in Felmouth. If you have [snorts] something else you'd like to talk about, you're welcome.
>> Oh, good. >> Okay. >> And you know, we're on TV and everything. So, just do a quick uh I'm George and this is why I'm smart. >> I do as soon as I figure out how to work this. >> Do you want to help? >> Sure. >> I can always use help.
>> The way you The way you figure out how to work it is you turn around and you say, "Could you help me?" >> Oh, here we go. [laughter] Okay. Uh, two things. Uh, George Hyelder, I'm on the board of health and I've come to update you on two things.
One is the sort of more of the recent initiative of the board of health to sort of grapple with the whole idea of IIA systems and how they're working and how you as board uh committee can sort of use the information for projecting
any influence of IIA systems on any of your watershed plans and the second is to just update you on the data itself. So the recent recently we uh started grappling with the idea that Fmouth is
about to have a whole lot of innovative alternative septic systems as part of their watershed plants. We knew that we had a legacy out there of a number of systems. These were all installed when D had NSAs or nitrogen sensitive areas
defined primarily by drinking water. that has of course a whole different standard than NSAs or nitrogen sensitive areas that are influencer marine systems. So, we are now starting to work
with system operators and owners to optimize the performance of what we're calling legacy systems. Those that can or are under their approvals supposed to achieve at least 19 mg per liter total
nitrogen. Also, as you might know, we now require all new systems that are IAS uh to achieve less than 10 milligrams per liter total nitrogen and uh update you on the fact that we'll
continue the assessment of newly installed systems. Okay. Right now we have about 320 or so uh I systems in Felmouth over
3,000 data points since 19 uh since 2021 since 1999 that number would go up to about 6,000 but uh this will focus primarily on the last five years of data. The first part we had to do is of course
filter the data. I went into the uh database of the county which I'm fairly familiar with. And what we really had to do is filter out all the junk because all of the data we get are from the uh people who are doing the maintenance
operation maintenance of the systems. So some of them put in false data some duplicate data. We have algorithms that go through the data and pick it out. For instance, if we see in the any one day an operator that is out there and all of
a sudden three of his systems have the same data down to two decimal points in the nitrate and we kind of suspect those data and we discard it and we also contact them to give them a little refresher on how to enter data and how
it should be correct data when they do enter it. This is what it looks like. A big mess uh for more than 12 systems. This is a real 2,000 ft view of all of the systems
in Falmouth, not all 320 of them because these have systems where the number of samples are more than 12. And why you see more than 12 is because we see that will probably represent whether the system really works. those little blue
shaded areas there. This is part of our sort of looking closely at the data. The blue u box whiskers, they actually show where the system where the system has a
TKN value uh surrogate ammonia value that is higher than 10 milligrams per liter. We know on you probably know that to to dnitrify you have to first nitrify. If you don't nitrify the system, it stays as ammonia. Never going
to denitrify unless you're in Aminox or some other obscure nitrogen pathway that few know about and many uh many do not dare to go. So we represent the data pretty much this and this is how we sent
all of the data out to all of the operators for their systems. And basically this little explanation of what a bar chart looks like. We deal with both medians and mean. And of course, anybody statistically, if the
median and the mean are pretty much the same, you have a nice normal distribution or you have a skewed distribution if they're far apart. Okay, so this is filtered. You can see a little bit more detail because these are
ones with samples more than 15. So, what we're doing now is starting to pick the low apples on the tree or the high apples and and the nitrogen and start to contact the operators on these and say, "What the heck's going on? Are you
looking at your data?" Because what we see here is you're not nitrifying. Never were nitrifying. So, how come didn't you respond to it? Why didn't you respond to it? >> George, is that dotted red line 10? That dotted red line there is 19.
>> Oh, okay. >> Okay. I do have one graph because at the end, you know, they say don't never bury the lead. I buried my lead right to the end because, you know, just that keeps you awake. >> George, back to um the the time period
that you looked at. Are are all the systems currently still required to be sampling four times a year? They're sampled four times a year unless they come to us show that they've been in compliance eight consecutive. >> I'm trying to do multiplication in my head for the number n equals got to be
greater than 15 that these are systems that are >> they've been in there for more than two years but the the these data go back to 2020. >> Yeah. I guess you would say that some systems
didn't have at least 15 data points. And I'm wondering why they don't have 50 at least 15 data points. >> Well, that is a part of our chasing folks down who are not complying with the monitoring. Also, >> a question, where does this data get
reported to? >> This gets reported to a database that uh I was responsible for at least starting back in 1999. But now all of the anybody who owns, operates or maintains and monitors the
system in the county of Barnesville has to report to the county system. >> Okay, >> that's all pretty much public data. We make anonymous where it's from if somebody has access to it. And I have
fairly unfettered access to all of the data. >> Lucky you. >> Yeah. So approximately 40% of systems installed under the old NSA requirements are meeting 19 milligrams per liter TN. And that's that's not really a great
number. So just to show you an example, I took fast units. Fast units, fix activated sledge treatment units. These are single tank units. They were purchased. They are by far the majority of the systems
out there right now. and they are by far that because of the low capital cost upfront. Uh their performance can be good but as you'll see it's not terrific. So we're filtered by technology. We can
see something like this. These are all the fast units and you see the red circle there tells you those are our lowest apples on the tree. We're going to start working with those operators to say what's going on because there's either no alkalinity.
You've got a lot more water use than your design flow is or you have some toxic products going in there. Some drugs, some particular drugs will really stop things. Quattinary ammonia of course will really kill a nitrifying system. [snorts] We'll set it back. It
rarely dissolves the outer membrane of some of your nitrifiers. So in short, what we're doing is using these data so that we can successfively go through and optimize the performance. We know we're not going to get everybody
down below 19 milligrams per liter, but it's possible we'll get quite a few down below 10 and some below 19. And some will always be outliers because there's some medical issues in the family. there's some overuse w water overuse
issues with any technology. Even the best technology, you're always going to have some outliers. Okay. Filtering for temperature effects. These this is another thing we're doing. This is the first mess you've seen. [snorts] And really I get out out a
magnifying glass here for looking at this. But we're we're looking in a graph like this for what technologies are super sensitive to temperature. All of those in the upper graph that you see the little red bullse eyes those are
systems in which during the winter they lose 50% about 50% higher total nitrogen. So those particular technologies which if you could really see there you'd see what technologies
they are. NITR would be Nitro FAS fast. We're looking at these data to see what technologies should we really not be expecting as much in the winter as we do in the summer. What are the ones that are really wide and why are they wide?
So it's just one way we're analyzing the data to see how are these going to fit in our overall wastewater management plan. When we look at another technology and the board of health as it has been leaning people toward the banner of the
best available nitrogen technology, there's going to be other ones coming up, new technologies coming in. We want to know how sensitive are they going to be in our climate rather than just getting data from down south.
Okay. Operator effects. This was a very interesting thing. We started in fact our last meeting we met with the all the operators and actually sent them their data so that we could say hey what's going on
and what was very interesting we could hear all of their complaints because can we talk it's all going to be management to these systems so what are their challenges in management that we're going to have to deal with if we have
5,000 2,000 000 3,000 of these systems out there and we heard pretty plainly that owners are reluctant to have them on the property and spending more money. Obviously, I don't like to spend more money and when I don't have to either.
Uh sometimes even being told that they should pump their system, they're not pumping their system. So, we worked with the operators in the last meeting and said, "Look, we're going to develop a two-tiered system here. When you tell an owner to do something, send us an email
and here's what the tagline should be. Send the board of health an email. Tagline should be the property and notified. When that is not complied with as indicated by your next visit, say out of
compliance, non-compliant, then the board of health will act, go for the owner because who's ultimately responsible? The owner is. And if the operator who is class 4 or grade four operator by requirement is a grade four
operator and a professional says you need to do something and you don't do it then you're in violation of your approval and of course your board permit and then that would could be prosecuted under title five which is a pretty stiff fine per day.
So here's what we saw there. These are operate. This particular operator for instance, if you look on some of these, I know it's hard to read, but this operator has a number of fast units that are operating down around 10 milligrams
per liter. And we wanted to know why, how, why? And we got some of his indication from when we talked to him. And it makes perfect sense. You know, first of all, he's very conscientious operator. He notifies the
people. He doesn't have problem with his customers and they probably trust him when he says, "You need to pump this or it's going to go south on you." And they usually pump it. And when he inspects his system, he's got a few tricks of the
trade, which I had not even heard before in 40 years. Uh and he said, "Look, I do this and it it really perks the system up." And it made sense when he said it, knowing the technology and knowing how it operates. Yeah, that makes sense. That that would increase. The biggest
thing we uh learned was as we go forward putting IIA systems in, we really need to make sure that the sampling ports are clean, good sampling ports that get an adequate representative sample because this particular technology, it's very
tough to do that. They have very hard sampling ports. They're not accessible. No homeowner wants them dug up each time. Uh so what this gentleman does is actually tell them look you want your system to operate properly. You want us
to be able to tell somebody operate properly. You need to bring that up to grade put a good cover on it. I'll get in here be able to get a clean sample. Some of these operators just go in, they dip down into the debox which has residual sludge and all those other crap
in there. Uh and when they pull it up they get extra nitrogen in there. And that's why some of these wrong. By contrast, here's these are all fast systems and barely 40 barely 30% of
those are in compliance. So, I'm not going to say this is a poor operator, but let's say they're not as attentive as the other operator and working with the owner. Yes. So, is this leading you towards a best practices
uh manual recommendation memo? >> It's leading to us to a number of things. One is homeowners. Uh I know a lot of homeowners are not as understanding of this system and what will kill it. Uh so, we're developing,
in fact, I'm developing a whole sheet for homeowners to say, you know, the dos and don'ts. You know, not everybody is going to be able to hear to them. There are a lot of people on cancer treatments and other treatments that would uh I mean certainly ibuprofen can stop a
nitrifier if you put enough of it down there. So uh I think the key is going to be working. We can't go in and swing a sledgehammer right now. It's been loose for a long time and we're slowly bringing people around, the homeowners,
the operators, and having them both understand that mutually we all want the same thing. I've been in regulation for 40 years. What's the goal of regulating? Compliance. It's not to punish people, it's to gain
compliance. So, that's where we're going. A softer approach. And I always say in my own career, it's been about 10% people don't go to that and have to push them a little further. And there's another 5%. You're going to have to chase that rabbit all the way
down the hole. >> George, is there is there any way to incentivize the not so good operators to behave more like the good operators? Well, there's a way to incentivize that by making it clear that there are some
operators that are very good operators and there's some are poor. And when people don't want an operator on their property and they call and they say, "Hey, do you give me a list of operators?" We'll say, "Oh, we have some that operate that system fairly well." And we just leave the names of those
that don't operate it well off that particular list. But unless you're going in there and saying, "Gee, you know, you just we're we probably will see this on that that last section to the right." A number of those people are going to say,
"I never see my operator. I don't know his name. I don't know her name. And I only get a bill." >> And I'm going to guess that at that this operator here, he leaves something there that says, "I've been here. Here's what
I've found. here's what you need to do. If you have any questions, please give me a call. So, I think the market will start driving them in the newer systems that we're putting in. Uh there's definitely going to be a probably a smaller
sort of number of operators that are there and it will be very clear at the outset which ones are operating well and which ones are not. And by the way, if we don't get a response, our new
regulation allows us to pull a license to operate in the town of Falmouth of those operators who are nonresponsive. So incentives, yeah, some are carrots and some are sticks. Okay. more recent action of the board of
health. We met virtually with all the operators as I said and we determined action items for our board as well as for the operators. We had one operator did not show and we'll try one more time to reach out in a more friendly manner.
Otherwise, we've indicated to them if we don't get a response from an operator, we're going to start to go after the homeowners who they themselves. And my public service of 40 plus years, the individual homeowner can be very rish
when when aroused. Okay. Path forward. The new nitrogen sensitive areas and best available nitrogen technology. NSAs and Banner. Felmouth Board of Health now requires all new IAS to be uh installed in NSAs
to be on the banner list and meet less than 10 milligrams bel nitrogen at the discharge. >> George that that >> yeah is is there any system that has got full approval? >> No, they are have provision
>> you're allowing anybody that's on the the demonstration or the pilot or whatever. Yeah, >> correct. In fact, uh we just had a recent one that is not on the banner but has um a large project 40 units and they're
using a technology not on the banner but has a history data indicate it could definitely make less than 10. And we made the homeowner aware of the owner of the property which is going to be 40 units said if this doesn't work are you
aware what we can do. You're aware now this is not an approved system. It's now under piloting for 40 units. So this is by the way [snorts] the banner nitro all the town data that we have accumulated
with a number of samples. I think I had 12 as being the lowest number of samples because I want to get a good seasonal thing. As you can see that line is at 10. >> Okay. >> So now you can see how many are under 10. [snorts] In fact the majority
medians are under 10. The means are a little bit past about 50% of systems. They bounce around a little bit. And excuse me that's nitrx. We don't have as much data on nitrix. These are
the systems we do have. There is one over 10, but that only had two samples. This one I didn't filter based on 12 samples because we don't have that many out there that have any samples. And here's the seasonal on the nitro,
which is pretty interesting in my mind. I know it's it's not like what you talk over dinner, but it's interesting to me is that many of these systems in the winter are going to suffer performance, which we all know below 10 below 10°
centigrade, you're going to start dropping off on biological processes. At 5°, you're pretty much going to slow ditrification to a crawl. Nitrification in soil systems by the way carries on
all year round but the nitrification ditrification in the winter means little higher values. Uh so on average these would probably look like the first graph but why I'm looking at this is because I'm chasing
down why are some of these in the winter higher than other ones proportionally higher and I found looking at some data from a project where we get daily water
use in projects that somehow when you go out to take a sample we're taking a grab sample If anything in that house has pushed the water flow within the previous four days up above the design flow, you're going
to get a high sample. And so we know that water use particularly in the winter these systems are going to be because it a higher flow means decreased residence time means decreased performance. >> Question.
>> Yeah. What is the temperature in the I mean I presume that waste water coming out of a household is warm comparatively. >> Yeah. >> So >> no you're getting down to 5°. >> Mhm. >> See
so I I used to think Yeah. Well, hot showers, hot this, everything out of the dishwasher. There are a lot more people using coal wash now, but uh some of our temperatures are down around five, certainly below 10, 50° F, 10°
centigrade. So I chart look at that in our system performance even at our test center and I definitely know that if it's a soilbased system I'll get all the nitrification I want but ditrification
will slow down and uh 5 to 7° is when I start really losing the dite >> but groundwater is sort of 12ish right >> yeah right groundwater is but you'd be surprised when You put in a septic tank that's not
it's not insulated. It's below ground, but it's not insulated. >> I guess that's what maybe where I'm going is >> are there some design features that could result in warming things up? >> Yeah. Insulating a tank.
>> Okay. New technologies on the horizon. And this is what I was uh referring to is as we as a board of health evaluate these, we're probably going to be compelled, asked, begged to use other technologies
that promise to get less than 10 and the owners will be taking a chance at that, but we don't want to stifle those technologies as they come along. For instance, there's the Fuji Clean. Uh, and I know there's another couple
manufacturers I can't mention that are looking in an R&D fashion to do that. And as long as we as board of health can reflect to the owners that this is a chance you're taking. Uh, and so engage
with your manufacturer with the and combine your risk together. In other words, he'll take it out or she'll take it out if it doesn't work. Um, we want to be on that forefront because these two approved systems, as you know, are
rather expensive. They take up a little real estate and real estate is a little bit sort of sparse in some people's backyards. Fujacan is a single single tank system. I've looked at all the data out of New York and it looks promising
and it looks as though if there was good operator that might sweep below 10 10 milligrams per liter. So uh and there are other technologies coming along just like it. So, we kind of feel like uh in
the future we'll be tracking this a lot better and getting a little bit uh sort of working with the county as far as designing it so that we'll have access by folks who need the data. But I think
our actions with the operators and our actions with homeowners and everything sort of pretends that this might be it'll be a painful transition financially, but maybe not as far as managing the data from the system and
being able to respond to the system performances as a flagger when they're good. So that's my story. I'm sticking to it. Okay, >> we're going to start at the far left hand end. John. >> So I imagine if we go to the RM model
for sort of handling the interfaces between the homeowners and the operators, a lot of the problem systems will be dealt with by the RME. It wouldn't be incumbent upon the homeowner to take the lead on that just because they just don't have the knowledge, the
time or you know they just don't want to do it. But John, is that one of the functions that the RMES will be handling is if the system is not working up to specification that the RM steps in to work that issue for them.
>> You go back into a probationary period. But those are those are again things we're going to have to work out with D. >> Yeah. And uh until we get them to the table, uh I mean we can design what we think is a a reasonable scheme to make
things work in an RM, but until it's blessed by DP, uh we don't have product. >> There's a wide range of RM sort of models. You could have just the board of health watches the data as it goes,
responds to it like we're responding now, only a little bit hyped up because we'll have better data to manage and better tools to notify different people. Or the town may decide the RM should be contractors by the towns who actually
look at these systems and do the operation and maintenance of those systems. I'm not particularly in favor of that model because it's taking out of the sort of the cottage industry industry here on the Cape. I mean, we have some
good operators in town and if they're not in that particular the town doesn't hire them, then they're out of work. So, I think working with the industry, which is an industry of operation and maintenance, and letting them know that
we will back them up, uh, is probably the way to go. But the homeowner will definitely be still responsible unless the town takes full responsibility for it. And I'm going to say I don't believe the town will have the appetite
for that, but I could be wrong. I'm I'm going to we were very into a discussion of RME rather than performance of the systems and we had a thing from John a meeting or so ago and we're going to circle back to it. So I just I look at the clock and I try to keep it keep it
on topic. >> Tom. >> Oh, John, do you have more questions? >> No, that's good. >> Thank you, George. I I don't have any questions. Great stuff. That's right. >> George, um, under the new board of
health regulation requiring banner systems, when you have a large expansion of your house or something, what if somebody >> increased flow, >> right? What if somebody already has one of the 19 milligram systems,
not a title five? They a couple years ago, say they went just because they wanted to up to a 19 mgram system and now they're increasing their flow. Do they have to tear that out and put in >> they would have to have a variance from
the regulation because the regulation states that any increase in flow new construction as defined by title 5 and we would probably review their system review the data from their system their compliance of the system and if it was
really flagging and they're in an NSA yeah would probably require them >> well what do you mean by I mean let's say it was achieving 19 but not 10 >> we'd have to as a board and I can't speak for our board deal with that in a variance situation.
I submit that you should make that clear and totally well- definfined before someone thinks of the same gaming the system idea that I just thought of, which is before you put your addition on, you get a cheap 19 mgram system put
in, then you announce your addition and you say, "Well, I've already got a 19." Now from this from that day forward they couldn't put a cheap system in because we require banner for all new systems going in.
>> Oh good. Okay. >> All new IIA systems going in. >> Okay. >> Um I have just one question George. Uh the the recent regulation it's now been eight months >> in effect. During that eight months, how many
uh systems got got added? 10, 20, 30. >> I would say probably 10 to 20 somewhere in there. >> Okay, good. You're up, Ed. The um the D certification of you know um
general use approval is going to require 50 systems, three years of data, 90% performance to whatever level the certification they're seeking. So the chart the the graph makes it kind of hard to understand. Nitro, where do they
stand with they're asking for 11 or 10? How many systems do they have that are meeting that 90%. >> Okay, let me let me answer the question more broadly. You start out by saying D requires 90% of these systems before
they can make the jump. I would contend that that has not been adhered to in the past. We have a lot of general use systems for 19 that all our data would indicate there's no way they
made 90%. Just didn't do it. So how D makes that decision although that is what we hear that has not been shown to be in the past. So I can't speak for D. I don't
know how they'll make that decision to move say nitro into general use, but I would contend that if they hold tightly to the 90%, none of them, and that's my experience
with 3,000 systems out there, none of them make 90% for their general approval letter. So there has to be some leniency in there that I don't understand and I
would love to understand but isn't there. uh and I would look at these data here that would probably compel me to say if there's any leniency this is on the good side of that leniency whereas
some other technologies that firmly sit in the general use approval now I scratch my head >> yeah I it's a problem I have getting my head around is is you know D does not really seem to understand the impact and
the implications of these regulations. You know, it's hard and fast rule. This is what you have to have and you stated it very eloquently. Nobody meets it. You know, it's it's almost impossible to do it across 90% of the systems. There's
too many variables that impact it. And the whole issue then of who will monitor these thousands of systems, there's 3,000 odd systems now in the Cape and the Islands. And the data shows they haven't been meeting stuff and really no
entity is raising the flag and say, "Hey, what are we going to do about this?" You know, >> wait a minute. [laughter] He just gave a presentation about the fact that they they're they're well trying to maybe other people are doing but he's he's making the big effort. >> Yeah. I think you know Fmouth Board of
Health is taking a leading role here and saying [clears throat] look this is what it is and here's the data but D's got this regulation that's kind of blue sky and unachievable and they've still got their head in the sand you know there's a great need to
what John Waterberry was referencing to hey D we got to talk about this and you got to come up with some feasible plan of how this is going to go forward you know because plans are being made, watershed plans and everything else how
to address the nitrogen heavily utilizing these systems and yet they don't seem to understand what it is they've required. >> It's it's kind of scary. >> I can speak only to the performance because that's on the agenda. I will say
that despite what you might see in a graph as far as what they meet, do they meet the standard in their approval letter? I would say clearly none meet 90. If the approval letter presupposed a
certain reduction in nitrogen, I couldn't be as confident with that answer because I know that there are some homes that use sparingly water and those numbers can get very high, but their total load would be very low. And
vice versa, there's some that are high users that have very low numbers. And I'd say congratulations, you comply. And I would say to those that have very low numbers, say you want to comply, just keep pumping some water into that
septic system clean. So I think that fundamentally without commenting on where I think D's head is at, I think that we probably need to compel them to look at loads as opposed to just concentrations.
>> And if you look at the board of health regulation, we've actually accommodated that. We've said if you cannot meet your approval letter number then show us how you believe you are meeting a certain
percent removal and I think we settled on 75% removal >> sometimes 75 sometimes 70 >> yeah I think yeah pigs are out a little bit >> but uh I think that fundamentally in the
beginning the sort of the metric was wrong but we're Now, how many years in since 1995 we've been looking at IE systems and we haven't come around to that. We haven't
had to do that because most systems you can't get an influent number. However, the newest systems you can get an influent number. You can get an affluent number and you know the water use. There's no guessing anymore. >> And we have the technologies to be able
to track those very accurately. uh the only guesswork is if you're taking a sample every three months assigning that number to three months worth of your water use or daily water use but I think there's going to have to be some fundamental change and
unfortunately I think Felmouth is going to be at the forefront of trying to push that we have submitted to D a number of ways for instance for monitoring these systems to get representative numbers for loads
It's been two years, three years, we have had no response. And I think that reflects sort of the uncertainty going forward and how we're going to gain credit for these. So I firmly believe we should be
writing having the selectman write that letter because we can't get a response and we need a response because that drives a lot of the cost. You have to monitor everybody for a month every month. >> That's a lot of money.
>> If you can average, if you can randomly select, I mean, that's what statistics are for. Just randomly go out there and do one 12th of them and you'll get one a year from everybody and you'll get a better idea. But I'm not a statistician,
nor do I pretend to be. So, I'm going to let >> somebody with a bigger brain than my mind figure that one out. But we need to compel somebody to figure it out. >> Yeah, good good work to start this exercise moving on compliance and analysis of why
aren't they working or why are they working so you can share those best practices. So I think it's it's a great initiative and a huge task that the board of health has taken on but much needed. So thank you. >> Thank you >> Jen. >> Yes. So, I'm glad you talked about the influents issue because I was going to
raise that point and I know you've been an advocate for years on that. >> Uh, and I was curious as to whether there was any information correlating the per the presumptive performance based on the concentrations in the treated water
versus the inflow. But what you're saying is we're working towards that. We're going to have that. Well, we've done it in an area where we've said, okay, if the assumption is 40 or let's say 40 and we're getting
down to five, there's this. But when we look at those real influence, I mean, the influent numbers in the project up in Shubel somewhere average around 60 to 80 milligrams per liter coming in. It's higher than the treatment plant sees and
they're coming out at five. And >> so it's possible to get rid of that nitrogen. >> It is of course enough carbon the right situation, >> right? >> And that sort of leads me to the second thing which is as I as you showed the seasonal data, it
seems like that might be sort of a lowhanging fruit. If there was some modest design changes like insulating the tanks, which I can't imagine would be that costly. It's a passive improvement, right? Once the
insulation's in place, I know that when we made measurements uh at an experimental system in Wham, we got a a Q10 response for denitrification between three and four, which is very high and I've seen some data from Stanford that
corroborates that. So temperature sensitivity is important as you >> temperature or you know we're working with trying to figure out how much of an increase in volume because increase in volume of the denitrification unit gives
you increased resonance time and that may compensate for the slowness of the reactions. Uh the other thing I'm looking at is electrochemical. Stick an anode and cathode in there. Supply the electrons are not getting in the winter
because his enzyatic activity slows down. But uh you don't want me to go there. I'd talk for months. >> Go ahead. Earl, you had your hand up first. [clears throat] >> Uh yes. Earl Barnhard green center. We're very interested in the effect of
using the amount of water from a house into these IAS. And I was have asked Georgees this question. He said if the household used a larger amount of water, all else being equal, you would think the concentration of nitrogen would go
down because it's just diluted more. But George just said if they use a lot of water, the water goes through this thing quicker and spends less time in each of the compartments. So the performance goes down, so the concentration goes up. Is that correct?
>> Correct. because >> it will depend on the technology. But if your denitrification bed gets [clears throat] flooded quicker, then there's less resonance time in that reactive bed. In some systems, if you're just like a
trickling filter and you keep pumping more water into it, at some point your dilution will take over and you'll start seeing a decrease. But as far as denitrification and the systems that are out there now using woodbased denitrification,
then it's the size of the bed and the resonance time in that bed, particularly as the temperature goes down is what really drives the performance. And I will say because now I see we have somebody in the audience. We have to
look at all of the options and load reductions. Once D decides on a load reduction figure that you can tail, you can really tag it. You can say influent effluent this how much water this is a
load reduction. Then the next benefit benefactor of that will be urine diversion because then you can actually say I remove this much because we could not say that in other systems with these woodbased systems you can you got a
septic tank influent you got the effluent you got the water use that's basically saying I'm taking that out of the watershed urine diversion is the same way 50,000 gallons of urine at 7,000 000 milligrams per liter. Just do
the math. That's how much you just moved out of that watershed. So as we go to D for these sort of tell us how to do it and they acquies to a load reduction and
I think that will pave the way for other things like composting toilets and urine diversion. building. >> Yeah, you're next. >> Hilda Mang Green Center. Thank you, George. That was very interesting. Um,
it really helped towards your diversion when I see all the problems with IAS. Um, and your non-compliance systems was the first step to kind of figure out what the water load was, what the water use was. Um I have done or we have done
a green center for four months. Uh we have monthly data now of nitrous concentration, water use, indoor water use and therefore we could have the load and it shows very very clearly and I sent the report to you all uh maybe an
hour ago before the meeting so it was too too late. We have now for four months. So I'll send the next one over that will be done by the the weekend. But it shows very clear that concentration means absolutely nothing for what the load is has absolutely no
value. So just because one is out of compliance. The first thing they should do is measure for a while. It's a whole lot cheaper than working on anything else. How much water is used in the house and what is the concentration? And yes, it might cost $93 for for a total
nitrogen phosphorus um measurement and sample taking is a whole lot cheaper than going through making the effort of fixing the IIA system. So I'll I just sent this to you but again we have to go to load because concentration absolutely means nothing
and if we want to get a watershed plan that is based on load then we know exactly how many of these IAS or urine diversion we have to install because we have the loads right now for instance we have one one friend of ours her load
just was a cuber user one little urinal one older lady it went way down she has normal toilets. She flushes normal toilets when she needs to and the numbers are right here. She should never have to do an IIA because she has a load
of pound and a half a year. If that goes by the time it gets to the to the estuary, there's hardly anything left. But her neighbor is putting a new IIA in. Why did that neighbor ever be able to prove that they had a very low load? So
and even if that IIA was installed, it had absolutely no meaning for the actual environmental impact. And that's ultimately why we do this. So I really do hope you read this report and take it seriously. It is that right now I even
more convinced that you inversion is the only way that we can solve this problem in a in an effective way in a quick way because it has none of these problems. So this report I will give it to
newspaper but you all have it now too. >> George you're next. >> Good. Thank you. >> George Toplos precinct three. One of the other things we heard from the uh
companies who do this stuff is that they can't hire people and that they don't have enough people and they're having a hard time keeping up with the load they already have of maintenance. So, it kind of scared me to
death of what's going to happen if we have several thousand of these in a few years. The other thing I would uh say is that the way to control the amount of nitrogen is by controlling the number of kidneys. And that's fundamentally the
only way other than technology. And if we are never going to control the number of kidneys we choose to add to Cape Cod, we're never going to win this battle. >> So, >> hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. >> Just curious what
>> Steve's had his hand up. >> Oh, all right. Okay, George H, quick question. Could you go back to one of your first graphs in your series? The one with all the systems. >> Any one of Yeah.
Yeah. I obviously didn't count them, but that looks like way less than 320. >> Yeah. Because that is ones that had samples >> 12 samples >> greater than 12. >> I mean, if I put them all up there, they'd just be a blur.
I did that and then I even with the magnifying glass couldn't separate them. >> But they they're >> we have data on all of them >> and that that it wouldn't change any of your major conclusions. >> No, if you in fact you can yourselves go
on the county website. >> I trust you. >> And they will produce a graph that that you know nobody could read but there's so many of them there. But the line looks the same. the little red line that's going or the line that goes
through the medians, it looks the same. >> Thank you. >> And I will say sort of in closing that while we're thinking about loads versus concentration, the board will be considering requiring
certain water meters on there that would allow a remote reading of the daily water use. I haven't talked to water superintendent yet because I don't know what our present Neptune meters will do,
but there is a meter that gives you. Yeah. So, over 93% of the homes in Falmouth have uh the radio read meters, which you can drive by and read them remotely. Okay.
The next step would be to mount these um I'm not enough of a technician, but you you you mount them on telephone poles and they continually reading your meter, >> right? >> You can you can look it up yourself. >> Not to interrupt, but what I'm not sure
is our meters would give you daily readings. See, the ones in, for instance, Shoua, we do that. We drive up to the house, we push the button, >> you anytime you want to take the reading, you can take the reading. Yeah, I know you can take the reading any
time, but does it give you a daily reading? Can I go in there and say on March 15th did that how much water did that use? So I just see that at this point here >> you'd have to every day >> the the fundamental meter is there.
>> Yes. The next step would be for the town to have a capital program to mount stuff in places and have a data collection center to download all 22,000 meters daily basis. >> I agree. It's I heard that it's pretty
expensive to do that. So what we have at Shou is they roll up to the house and they can get the last 90day daily reading. So you can start seeing in fact you can pick up from most of those meters you can pick up a leak because it
gives a reading every 15 minutes and we just take that huge database and chop it up and say just give me two daily set you should set up a meeting with Matt Lannon who runs the water department and he can tell you where they're at with the meters and the >> what I'm sure I can when I get
>> Neptune Neptune gives him information all the time about the other systems and what they cost and everything else. So, we're off topic. We're off topic. I know really from green center. We need to have the indoor water use
only. I know the water meters could be red, but we only need the indoor water use. So, that's the important part. So, that's why we need to install water meters to deduct the outdoor water or only measure the indoor. So we have developed a system where the the meter
and the the system is in the debox and it reads continuously every day of how much water was actually going into the debox and that works for all the debugs unless they're too small. Um and that's you know cost very very little and we have
done that now for since October it reads daily. So we can do that or if water meters are not possible, water meters are more expensive. If it's indoor water use meters um in some houses cannot work or you have to do outdoor meters that you just hope that people well they
don't want to actually if they want to have good numbers they make sure that they're not going to fool around with the outdoor meters because as soon as you get a higher we meter reading then your numbers with nitrogen your load gets up. So people are very very sure not to f fool around with those and
those meters cost $20. Each faucet can have one. You deduct it from your your in your total amount and you get your indoor use. So there are ways to do it that is pretty inexpensive and and very valuable to get the right load numbers.
>> All right, George, you'll send me a copy of the presentation because we post everything. Okay, [clears throat] that'd be great. Um, moving along. Item four is uh was going to be a review of a draft letter that I circulated. Um Maggie is
not here and uh she because she she couldn't make it tonight. She asked that we table it till the next meeting and that she and uh the guy from Trout uh unlimited Cape Cod will be present. So I will entertain a motion to table item four until the next meeting.
>> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. It appears that there's a unanimous vote on that one. Okay, I'm going to uh skip to item six right now because looking at the time here, uh item five, I I don't really want to rush this. Item
five is actually hopefully to lay the groundwork where we can discuss how we can work up a recommendation to the select board on the way they should approach mitigation costs and expenses going forward uh for folks that are in nitrogen sensitive
areas in their new developments and they don't do whatever. So I there's some thought that should go into that presentation. Okay. So moving on to item six, unless anybody has an objection. Uh Tom, you want to lead this one?
>> Item six. You got the minutes. You're >> you're the minute man. >> Yeah, everybody got the minutes. >> Mhm. >> Both sets, right? >> April 15th. Has everybody had a chance to read? >> Any questions, comments on the 15th? >> Any comments? Does anybody want to make a motion to accept the minutes as
written? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Can I comment on the motion? I wanted to congratulate Steve for what he got. This was the day that Steve didn't bring his phone. It's here now. I see it now. It's You should probably just glue it right
there. Um, and I think he did a pretty spectacular job of pulling stuff together. Yeah, it was uh it was it was hit or miss. >> Okay. So, this is this is approved. >> Okay. Um and then um we have minutes
from April 29th, our last meeting. >> Yes. Two weeks ago today. >> Has everybody had a chance to read through those and any any any changes, corrections, comments, scribary errors? If anybody can find a comma or or a
possessive uh movement by missed by Tom they get an add boy. >> Move that be accepted as written. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. A little side tidbit. This whole
thing with the minutes came up. I went on to the um town's website under agenda and minutes and could not find any minutes from past meetings even though they got mailed in. So I stopped by the town clerk's office to figure out what was going on and it turns out that they
were there but hadn't been done with whatever. So, as of you know, the the one that kind was funny, there was one meeting cuz I came in with all the dates of our meetings trying to find out where they were and [laughter] one of them neither one of us could find until I realized that was the day we canled the meeting because of the
blizzard. [laughter] So, they were there were nobody's I spent a bunch of time going on going how could I not have the minutes from this meeting. >> So, that's where we're at. I'm going to entertain a motion to adjourn a few minutes early. >> One one slight comment on on the
minutes. Can can you post the 15th just as a formality to the members so it's in the electronic record the minutes from the 15th that I sent you? >> Yeah. No, now these are approved. I'll send them in tomorrow. Yeah. Get >> posted. Okay. So, you'll have access to
it there because otherwise I'll just go home and send you my copy. >> Okay. Good. >> Okay. Um the to the members of the committee where I have the thing that says reports from committee members. If any of you have something that you want to bring up, whether it's, you know, the
financing side, John, which you've been looking at, or some other things you've been doing, just drop a note to me by the Friday before the next meeting so I can get it into the agenda. And I'm not cutting anybody off from coming under reports from committee members. It's not listed directly here,
but it's nice to put it in there because we distribute the agenda and people will then see what is going to be talked about. And I, as I mentioned to you earlier, we still haven't gotten the shellfish data back completely from the growers. So >> So I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move.
>> Second. >> Second. No, no, no debate is allowed. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> They told you to either fish or cut the debate. [groaning] >> All right. Thank you.