My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/27/2024 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
01/27/2024 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2024 5:00:47 PM
Creation date
1/30/2024 8:34:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/27/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
continued there is a possible win-win here if we take the offer to do the layer cake system. If we <br /> argue it and try for a better system, because I know Mr. Baumgeartel isn't crazy about this <br /> proposal here, this type of layer-cake system, the way that this is designed, then, I don't know <br /> where we would be if we fight to get something additional. In this article I don't know which type <br /> of layer-cake system this is,the Eastham one? <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL replied that the Eastham one is unsaturated. The county has had problems <br /> with it. Installation location is kind of a multi-unit house. There are miniature apartments inside, <br /> I don't know how they fit all this in this house. I think there are 7 or 8 little apartments that are <br /> connected to this system. The county is doing the monitoring on this system and knows exactly <br /> what the results are and they're not so great. The county took a look at the water use on this <br /> property and it was easily 300 or 400%above design load. So this was designed for 770/day since <br /> there are 7 bedrooms in this house. And they are routinely using 1500 gallons of water every day <br /> through that property. So it's not performing very well, we get minimal retention time. So any <br /> assumptions on how it would perform on that property since there are unknowns with respect <br /> to that. The bigger issue, is that the 12 pilots that the DEP would typically approve for a new <br /> technology have been used for that particular layer cake design. <br /> Mr. Harrington said that Drew Osay stated at the pre-hearing conference it would have to be <br /> approved as remedial. This is the 15t" layer cake and the piloting gets 15 systems, so they have <br /> maxed out the systems they can do under piloting and I think that's Drew Osay, the regional <br /> engineer said that it had to be remedial. <br /> Ms. Willander: It is just site specific approval? <br /> Mr. Harrington: It can be technology wide and can be site specific as well. <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : DEP hasn't granted it remedial approval yet, usually it's the vendor of <br /> the technology who gets that approval. Environmental Services has Singulair and they're listed <br /> for remdial approval for that system. <br /> Mr. Harrington : is this a proprietary design,the layer-cake? <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : No <br /> Mr. Harrington: So anyone can use it? It's like an RSF? <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : Basically, yes. <br /> Mr. Harrington: So there is no proprietary nature, so DEP can issue a remedial based upon <br /> something similar to an RSF basis? <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : They could do it, in theory, yes. <br /> Mr. Harrington: What about the time and the hold-up on the approval because they have <br /> standard remedial approval, guidance and requirements, so if its approved, there are some <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.