Laserfiche WebLink
suggested that historic numbers or the MEP numbers should have been used to make the process <br /> consistent. <br /> Will the presentation be made available to the public? Mr. Eichner will forward the presentation to <br /> Chairman Fudala, <br /> If 3.75 is the result after the wastewater travels through a biomat and would there be the same <br /> reduction in a nitrex filter? Chairman Fudala responded that the numbers were based on 5 as the <br /> effluent and the same reduction given to the septic systems in MEP report which is a range similar to <br /> the plant located near Town Hall. The Chair again expressed concern about use of the higher number <br /> being used for the existing plants. Mr. Eichner responded that all numbers were discussed with the <br /> consulting fines. The Chair also suggested the likelihood of the Town pursuing a variety of solutions <br /> in order to be cost effective and Mr. Eichner agreed that the results will allow the Town to better <br /> evaluate the options. <br /> The Chair noted that Scenario 4 was a political scenario that is not intended for development. Each <br /> town would be responsible for their own wastewater based on their percentage of the load. <br /> Mr. Lombardo questioned whether or not a column could be added to address out of base <br /> transfers. Mr. Eichner responded that they could find a way to reconcile it and it could be addressed <br /> with the Waquoit presentation. <br /> Conflicting numbers in Scenario 3? Mr. Eichner responded that the existing plants are 3.75 and the <br /> number in Scenario 1 for the existing wastewater treatment flow is the same as the number in Scenario <br /> 3. Any onsites with an increase in flow received I/A systems. <br /> Is there a table that indicates the resulting loads in each scenario for each of the watersheds? <br /> Mr. Eichner pointed out Table 2 in the memo which is broken into sub watersheds that discharge into <br /> Popponesset Bay proper. <br /> How much information will be available to determine where to locate discharges? Mr. Eichner <br /> responded that the issue will be part of the balancing act. <br /> Tom Cambereri of the Cape Cod Commission expressed pleasure that the scenarios had been <br /> completed and questioned Scenario 3 and whether the total existing wastewater treatment <br /> facility flow was also the existing package treatment plants? Yes. Is the total new wastewater <br /> treatment facility flow of 1,378,852 representative of the 16 cluster systems? Yes. The number of <br /> UA systems is not included, a variety of types would be used in the watershed, both IIA and septic <br /> systems. Mr. Lombardo clarified that new systems not within the cluster service area would be served <br /> by an individual system,which is the operative mechanism. Mr. Lombardo also did not anticipate a <br /> high number. Individual properties could be folded into cluster systems. The Chair stated that the <br /> intent for Scenario.3 was not to have a lot of UA systems. Mr. Eichner noted that in Scenario 3,there <br /> are 3 categories treated at the same level and questioned whether the technology will meet the <br /> treatment level. <br /> Mr. Cambereri noted the challenges with Mashpee River, stating that Scenario 3 has the most impact. <br /> Do any scenarios include the New Seabury effluent pipe flow? Mr. Gregg responded that the <br /> capacity was used. An early scenario included pipeline 7 but there was resistance to it. <br /> 4 <br />