5/17/2011 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

i 4 The voucher was distributed to be signed by the Commissioners. Mr. Klenert requested that Mr. Greggpresent updates, additional photographs or plans when the work was being completed. Discussion of GHD Proposals on Next w.�"`Scenarios" W. Gregg reported that he did not have naps because there were still many unknowns and drafts of data. Mr. Gregg stated that the general approach for the first of two scenarios would be based on information provided by the Sewer Commission and outlined on the map. The Clair stated that the vendors utilized the same map information, Mr. Gregg identified all the ideas that had been highlighted on the map, including recharge sites and the expansion of New Seabury and willowbend and the back road parcels and various treatment facilities. lam-. Gregg has grouped the various areas into treatment locations, such as New Seabury, Keeter Property, Mashpee Commons, windchime Point,the high school, Mashpee village, Southport, the back roads, the shumet site, the Transfer Station site,wa npanoag Village, Stratford Fonds, Cotuit Meadows, willowbend and the area behind Santuit Pond. Mr. Gregg assessed the area flagged by the Commission, as well as other areas such as the arnstable Cotuit area. Mr. Gregg also reviewed the recharge areas but eliminated the two south western sites located in the Mood zone. In response to Mr. Klenert's question about his role, Mr, Gregg anticipated presenting a facilities plan that would meet Mshpee's needs to identify the next step, noting that his contract would end when the plan was submitted to the state. Mr. Gregg emphasized that the plan informs the state about Mashpee's intent to pursue implementation. Mr. Menert suggested the possibility that an engineering company would design a system but that the solution may'not work. Mr. Gregg agreed that there may be changes from the general plan and noted that the plan will outline how the town will address the nitrogen removal issue, at the time.- Mr. Gregg suggested that over time, the plan will need to be adapted to meet the current needs. The Chair suggested that it would be a master plan and not an engineering plan. Mr. Gregg added that changes to the plan would require approval from the state, Mr. Gregg emphasized the need to identify target areas to run through the MEP model to determine whether the TMDL could be met, However, there nilly be areas identified that could be eliminated due to issues such as Natural Heritage. Mr. Gurnee inquired whether each station could have different results and Mr. Gregg responded . that it could be d i erent results based on how much needed to be removed, where it could be discharged and the ramifications of the recharge, and could require compensation in other areas. Mir. Gregg noted that details would be worked out during design. Mr. Gregg stated that some existing facilities may need to treat at a higher level. Chairman Fudala stated that there were eight existing plants and that a discussion would be necessary to determine which facilities io. keep, remove or update. The Chair noted that there had been discussion about the town taking over the private plants. Chairman Fudala also noted that bottom line costs are needed so some assumptions must be made, such as types of collection systems or level of treatment. Most importantly, discharge locations, the amount being discharged and the level of nitrogen in the discharge will be input into the MEP model to determine whether or not the TMDL will be met. Chairman Fudala also suggested the possibility that two versions of the plan may be necessary, one that assumes New Seat could used for discharge and the other that does not include � g discharge at New Seabury. Mr.Klenert inquired whether more sites would be tested and Chairman Fud la responded that there were state funds available to test only one site. Mr. Gregg suggested that private facilities would be an unknown, and a contingency plan will be needed.