Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : I just wondered if DEP said it's going to sewer on Phase 1, I'm just trying <br /> to figure out why they would have approved it this way knowing where it is <br /> Ms. Willander: They haven't mapped it as a nitrogen sensitive area. <br /> Mr. Harrington:They still don't consider it a nitrogen sensitive area so there was no requirement. <br /> It meant all the other setbacks were nothing dictated or met a threshold for there to be advanced <br /> treatment. I also think the DEP is worried about the precedent that this will set. If they buy my <br /> argument that the estuary plan and the comprehensive waste water management plan has been <br /> approved by DEP and TMVL's have been established and approved by DEP,then every town that <br /> has done a comprehensive wastewater management plan is going to have mapped areas of <br /> nitrogen sensitive areas and it has to meet that standard will open up a can of worms for all the <br /> towns that have done that. I don't think DEP wants to go there and that's another reason why <br /> they may have given us time to settle this out and not have DEP make any decision on it. Even <br /> though they say we don't have any standing. I still think there is an argument there that all of <br /> the mapping that was done over 30 years where Tom Fadula (SP??) was fighting to get sewers in <br /> town and working with the estuary plan and SMAST??? And Brian Howes and all of hard work <br /> isn't going to meet a mapping project that DEP had approved. <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : It sounds like they're suggesting it could go through remedial approval. <br /> It could go that route. I hadn't considered that a possibility <br /> Mr. Harrington: That's what DEP said at this hearing. They put it on record that they would <br /> approve it as a remedial <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : do you have the design plans handy? <br /> Mr. Harrington: Yes. What was the nitrogen removal for this type of system that Winston's <br /> proposing? <br /> CHAIR BAUMGAERTEL : It's varied a lot and that's a concern. The research done; we have <br /> installed 11 at this point under a grant project. It was put on residences, mostly in Westport to <br /> Marian stretch. It was set up half-half. Half of the system is the layer cake design, it's that exact <br /> design and the other half is designed as a control and we did that to the best of our ability. Not <br /> all of them worked out that way but that's how it was set up so we could say for sure whether <br /> removal was from this or it was just occurring anyways. The results were mixed. Some <br /> performed pretty well for a while and then performance dropped off over a period of time. In <br /> fact one of them studied most closely in Acushnet where we had side by side, standard leach <br /> field or standard Title 5 system,they're all pressure distribution,still standard in every other way <br /> and now at this point 2 years since installed, there is very little difference in performance <br /> between the two. There are concerns for the longevity of it. As far as research efforts at the test <br /> center goes with that particular design we decided to back off on it because of the mixed results. <br /> Of the designs with the wood chip type of systems, this was the cheapest of them which is why <br /> we chose it for the grant project, simplest to install, least amount of materials required, least <br /> amount of labor to do it, least amount of space. It checked all those boxes but it didn't quite meet <br /> performance expectations which is backed up by the research in Suffolk County Long Island, <br /> which shows the same thing that they perform pretty well for 2-3 years and then performance <br />