saEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
JFK Feder
Boston MA 02203
Environmental
Impact Statement
Final
Wastewater
Collection and
Treatment Facilities,
Nantucket,
Massachusetts
-------
Appendix A
Synopsis of Public Hearing
-------
Synopsis of Nantucket Public Hearing
The Public Hearing for the Nantucket DEIS/201 Facilities Plan was
held at 7 pm, January 8, 1981, in the Nantucket Town and County
Building. Eight townspeople were in attendance and eight members
of the 201/EIS team attended (see attendance list attached).
A large public advertisement had been run December 4, a front-page
notice was run on December 31, a related news article on the sewer
grants was run on January 1, and a news article on the Hearing and
the EIS cost-savings was run on January 8, the day of the Hearing.
Robert Mendoza Hearing Officer, opened the meeting with a brief
statement explaining the events leading up to the Public Hearing
and laying the ground rules as to how the hearing would be conducted.
Mr. Mendoza then introduced Mr. Fred Roland, of the firm Shaeffer &
Roland, Inc., the 201 Facilities Planning Engineer, who presented a
brief overview of the treatment alternatives and recommended options
contained in the Nantucket 201 Facilities Plan. Bill Richardson,
EIS Project Manager, then gave a slide presentation which reviewed
the water sampling program, need for an Islandwide water resource
management program, identification of future sewer service areas,
recommended treatment process, impacts to groundwater at the filter
beds and need for an ongoing monitoring program at the beds. A
clarification was made on the costs of the recommended alternatives
and methods for calculating the actual user fees by both Richardson
and Roland.
Following the presentations, Mr. Mendoza opened the hearing up to
the general public for comment. (Note: Response to comments raised
at this hearing have been responded to in Chapter 5 of this Final
EIS.)
The following comments were raised:
A-l. Mr. Walter Knott representing the Board of Selectmen, wanted
to know what percentage of nitrates was found in the groundwater
of Madaket and if there was any danger to anybody's home.
A-2. Mr. Knott asked if there was any saline found in Madaket
groundwater.
A-3. Mr. Knott asked if the use of chlorine or other chemicals at
the Surfside and Siasconset filter beds posed any danger to
drinking water in areas where a lot of, houses are being built.
A-4. Mr. Knott asked how the proposed sewer user tax was arrived at,
and if it would be possible to look at user fees from other
-------
-2-
communities in the State, comparable in size to Nantucket, for
comparison.
A-5. A question was asked from the floor as £o whether the sewerage
system in Siasconset is going to include the Codfish Park area.
A-6. Mr. Alfred Bornemann asked why a cost credit was not assigned
to the beneficial uses of wastewater and sewage sludge.
A-7. Ms. Ellen Powers asked how many tons of sludge would be produced
annually and if it could all be utilized on Nantucket.
A-8. Mr. Michael Driscoll wanted to know how much sludge is presently
generated at the existing filter beds and what would be the
advantage of removing solids from the wastewater, through
primary treatment, prior to applying the wastewater to the
filter beds.
A-9. Mr. Driscoll asked if the tidal action that exists at the
present filter beds isn't the most effective way of promoting
cleanliness of the soil and isn't that what keeps the filter
beds clean.
A-lO. Mr. Driscoll wanted to know what the effect on the community
would be if the emergency outfall to Brant Point were closed
and main and emergency power goes out during a rainstorm.
A-ll. Mr. Driscoll asked why all sewage is directed to the downtown
pump station as opposed to diverting wastewater flow away from
the downtown area and directly to the filter beds.
A-12. Mr. Driscoll asked why the existing filter beds at Surfside
have to be raised as they seem to be working fine now.
A copy of the Public Hearing transcript is available for review at
the Nantucket Ttown and County Building.
-------
ATTANDANCE
NANTUCKET EIS/201 HEARING
January 8, 1981
NAME
Fred Roland
Bill Richardson
Chet Janowski
Alan Slater
Paul Pinault
Mark Thompson
Jerry Potamis
Bob Mendoza
C. Pearl
Deborah Nicholson
Robert Wareham
Walter Bassett
Walter Knott
William Klein
Michael Griswold
Ellen Powers
ADDRESS
Sheaffer & Roland, Chicago
A-N, 150 Causewat St., Boston
U.S. EPA
Mass. D.W.P.C.
U.S. EPA
Anderson-Nichols
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
Siasconset
Monomoy
25 Hussey, Nantucket
20 Fair St., Nantucket
15 Hussey, Nantucket
Broad St., Nantucket
22 Broad St., ACT
Channel 3 Cable TV
-------
Appendix B
Agency Comments
-------
B-1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS O2254
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
NEDPL-I
30 January 1981
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
FEE ' 3 198V
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
We have reviewed your Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities on Nantucket Island,
Massachusetts. The information presented is sufficient for our public
interest review. We generally support the nonstructural Madaket "M-3"
alternative which is less costly and has no impact on the Madaket Creek
wetlands. If any of Alternatives "M-1A", "M-1B", "M-1C", or "M-2" is
chosen to meet future needs, a Department of the Army permit will be
required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There would be no
Corps of Engineers involvement with any of the Nantucket Center or
Siasconset Alternatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Draft EIS. If you
have any questions, please call Mr. David Tomey, of my staff, at (617)
894-2400, extension 234, or Mr. Ralph Atkinson, of our Regulatory
Branch, at extension 332.
Sincerely,
-------
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON 20426
IN REPLY REFER TO:
B-2
<6
December 3,
RECEIVED
OtC - n ix^o
REGION I
OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. William R. Adams, .Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reg ion 1
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. Adams:
I am replying to your request of November 18, 1980 to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Facilities, Nantucket, Massachusetts. This Draft
EIS has been reviewed by appropriate FERC staff components upon
whose evaluation this response is based.
This staff concentrates its review of other agencies' en-
vironmental impact statements basically on those areas of the
electric power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries for .
which the Commission .has jurisdiction by law, or where staff
has special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts in-
voled with the proposed action. It does not appear that there
would be any significant impacts in these areas of concern nor
serious conflicts with this agency's responsibilities should
this action be undertaken.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
"Ja'dk M. Heinemann
Advisor on Environmental Quality
-------
a *
°%
\ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT B~3
!y * 5
BOSTON AREA OFFICE
BULFINCH BUILDING, 15 NEW CHARDON STREET
-'3oa *- ' BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114
REGION I '
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental and Economic
Impact Office rC -qT;
EPA, Region I CI --' v
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Re: Draft EIS, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Nautucket, MA
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
The above draft EIS which was sent to HUD Regional Office has been
referred to the Boston Area Office of HUD for review and comment.
This office has reviewed the draft EIS and finds no conflicts with HUD
goals and objectives.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIS.
Sincerely,
idwarfMachado
Environmental Officer
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION ONE
31 St. James Avenue-Room 211
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
B-4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Nantucket, Massachusetts
HEV-MA
January 28, 1981
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Adams:
We have reviewed the subject Draft EIS and have no comments. Thank you for the
opportunity to review this document.
Sincerely yours,
N. J. Van Ness
Division Administrato
By:
Edwin P. Holahan, Assistant
Division Administrator
cc: Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
EPA Region 1
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
-------
DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION B- 5
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
NEW ENGLAND REGION
12 NEW ENGLAND EXECUTIVE PARK
BURLINGTON. MASS. O18O3
January 16, 1981 Tel: (617) 273-7233
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. Adams: ,
In response to your letter of November 18, 1980, we have reviewed the
Draft EIS for waste water treatment facilities, Nantucket, Massachusetts,
in coordination with the Nantucket Airport Commission.
We would like to point out that the Site #5 listed as a possible treatment
site in Figure - R, "Alternate Land Disposal Sites" (following page 2-6)
has severe constraints in terms, of financial implications and future
operations and development of the Nantucket Airport. In this regard the
Nantucket Airport Commission has directly communicated with your office
(copy enclosed).
We do realize that the alternative Site #5 is not the recommended site,
but nevertheless, we consider it important to inform you that this site
has important implications for the future development of Nantucket Airport,
and therefore should be dropped from any further consideration.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the potential impacts of the proposed
project on aviation activities, and should you have any further questions,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
VINCENT A. SCARANO
Chief, Plans/Programs Branch
Enclosure
-------
B-6
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Northeast Region
15 State Street
ER80/H»22 Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr. January 14, 1980
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Adams:
This letter represents the Departmental comments on the draft environmental
statement for wastewater collection and treatment facilities in Nantucket,
Massachusetts.
Impacts resulting from treatment facilities and disposal sites as well
as proposed mitigation have not received adequate discussion in the
draft statement. Discussion of impacts should include those resulting
from any ground disturbing activities and visual impacts and should be
related directly to specific sites or structures. For instance, it is
noted on page 4-12 that a spray irrigation system near Miacomet Pond
could have significant effects on archeological sites. What sites would
be affected, and what is the significance of these sites? What are the
impacts to the sites, and what measures are proposed for mitigation?
We concur with the recommendations cited in the Historic Archeological
Analysis (Appendix B), that further studies be conducted in undisturbed
areas and in areas near known archeological sites. Results of these
studies should be addressed in the final statement. The State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) should be afforded an opportunity to review
and comment on the historic-archeological analysis, on any future studies
conducted, and on impacts and proposed mitigation. These comments
should be documented in the final statement. The SHPO for Massachusetts
is Ms. Patricia L. Weslowski, Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical
Commission, 294 Washington Street, Room 516, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617-727-8470).
The proposed plan will have no significant impact on the mineral resources
of the area. However, the draft includes no statement in this regard.
We recommend that a subsection concerning mineral resources be included
in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Evaluation.
Sincerely,
William Patterson
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
B-7
DATE: December 12, 1980
SUBJECT: Nantucket: Draft EI3 Review
PROM'
Steven J. Koorse, Environmental Engineer(
Drinking Water Branch
Chester L. Janowski, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Environmental Impacts Office
The draft Environmental Impact Statement for Nantucket, Massachusetts
has been reviewed within this branch. With the exception of our concerns
over Madaket, previously expressed in a memo dated February 5, 1980 from
myself to Wallace Stickney, we have no further comments to offer.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at x6486.
PA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BJate: January 19, 1981
Subject: COMMENTS ON NANTUCKET DRAFT EIS
From: Paul Pinault, Project Engineer
MA Engineering Section
To: Chet Janowski, Project Officer
EIS Office
Thru: Anthony V. DePalma, Chief
MA Engineering Section
\l
JAN 261931
B-8
We offer the following comments on the above referenced document:
1. The Table of Contents has many errors (some sections do not match up
with page numbers)
2. There are numerous typographical errors throughout the document, ex.
page 13 should read 10 mg/1 nitrate not 20.
3. The EIS must not only address the impacts of the treatment facilities at
Surfside and Siasconset but must also address the impacts of the proposed
sewer rehab, work in Nantucket Center and the proposed sewer extensions for
the Center and Siasconset.
4. Page 1-19, Section 1.4.4, paragraph two states that "primary treatment
which removes all solids". This is not true, only gets 30-40% removal of
suspended solids and little or no removal of disolved solids.
5. Based upon the previous Region I legal opinion the facility plan and the
EIS must evaluate .secondary treatment with discharge to the ocean, at least
on a preliminary cost basis.
6. Page 2-5 states the average concentration of septage is 600 mg/1. But
of what BOD, SS?
7. Figure R should show the Siasconset well field also.
8. Table 8 should have an index which explains all of the numerical headings
and factors, without this the Table is useless.
9. Page 2-11 Section 2.3.5 - No Action - the only reasons given not to keep
the status quo is that if the town does not improve the level of treatment,
the State and EPA will not fund anything. This is not true, there should
also be a discussion on the environmental reasons i.e. minimize bed area and
maintenance, minimize potential odor problems, better control of the O&M of
the facility, restricted access to beds, production of a useful compost
byproduct, monitoring of groundwater movement and quality, ownership of the
site, etc., etc. This same comment applies whenever the proposed alternative
is discussed in the document.
10. On Majjiaket, which alternative has the Town selected? Will or should
EPA require the Town to do anything in this area in the record of decision?
-------
-2-
B-8
11. Page 2-14 No Action - statement does not make sense.
12. Page 2-15 Section 2.6,3.1 - wording very confusing on cost of N-l
vs. N-2.
13. Page 2-16 Section 2.6.3.3 - Alternative M-2 should be defined.
14. On table 12 - Is the total flow in mgd, gpd?
15. Section 2.7.3 - is extremely confusing and difficult to understand.
I thought that an EIS was supposed to be easy to read for an average person.
16. Page 2-25 paragraphs one through four gets to the main reasons for
justifying the proposed pretreatment systems and this should be expanded
and highlighted whenever the proposed alternatives are discussed. See
comment No. 9.
17. Page 2-27 sludge composting with woodchips is proposed but how much
bulking material is needed? is it available? if not how does this affect
user costs? Composting area should be located on site map and all impacts
of the operation should be discussed.
18. Page 2-27 Mitigation - this section is totally inadequate. The new
NEPA regulations are very clear that an EIS should outline all of the
mitigation measures needed to minimize impacts. This includes standard
mitigation measures like scheduling of construction and control of dust
and noise to special measures such as conducting a Phase II Archaeological
surey prior to construction, prohibiting sewer hookups in sensitive areas,
burying of existing sludge piles, etc., etc.
r
This section notes that the State and EPA will determine what buffer zone
is eligible, but the EIS should recommend from an environmental point of
view what the minimum buffer zone should be for each site.
19. Page 3-8, for Siasconset it states that the limit of the plume is two
times the calculated value which was 80 ft. Therefore, this would be 160
ft. but it states its equal to 250 ft. Which is it? Also, what is the
lateral extension of the plume? The site plan does not indicate what the
plume extent is at Siasconset.
20. Chapter 4 - Impacts - NEPA requires that the following items be
addressed - environmentally significant agricultural lands, wild and scenic
rivers, conformance with CZM, and endangered species.
21. Water Quality Impacts - wherever this topic is discussed there should
also be a section on the proposed impacts on surface water quality.
The impacts of a Case III zone on groundwater quality should also be
elaborated on i.e. zone is non-potable and Town will be responsible to
ensure that this area is not used for water supply in the future and if
there are wells within the zone how they will have to be eliminated and
put on an alternate water supply, etc.
It should also be mentioned that the State will permit each facility and
require periodic monitoring of groundwater quality.
-------
-3-
B-8
22. Page 4-5 - it is stated that the access road will be paved. This should
be clarified to note that the road within the treatment site will be paved
and not the whole length of Sewer Bed Road.
23. Page 4-6 and 4-17 Does the $45/yr. and $52/year figures include debt
service plus O&M?
24. The facility plan states that chlorination is not needed for disin-
fection. The EIS should access whether or not disinfection is needed and if
it is what the impacts are.
25. Under the No Action Alternatives the draft EIS frequently refers back
to the proposed alternative as having the same impacts, and this is not true,
because in general the proposed alternative involves construction and general
improvements and the No Action does not.
26. In the discussion of Coastal Zones and Wetlands and Floodplains EPA's
policies should also be discussed i.e. prohibition of future growth in sensi-
tive areas from using any facilities that we participate in, etc.
27. Page 4-16 Land Induced Growth - I disagree with the statement that
increasing the size of the sewer system in Siasconset will not have any
affect on growth.
28. Page 4-29 Water Quality impacts of alternative M-2. It states ground-
water conditions would not change by extending a public water supply into
the area. But wouldn't this add an additional amount of water from outside
of the Manaket area, and in turn increase water levels through on-site re-
charge?
-------
EDWARD J. KING
GOVERNOR
JOHN A BEWICK
SECRETARY
tie
(OQnwnc-nwcaM/i.
xcattirfi ([J/^icf of
400
ftf- Sw/frrr
ollon,
02202
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT NAME:
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for
Nantucket Center & Siasconset.
B-9
EOEA NUMBER:
03940.
PROJECT PROPONENT:
Nantucket Board of Selectmen
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR:
December 8. 1980.
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs hc.irein issues a statement
that"the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted on the above-
referenced project dd"es adequately and properly comply with Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 30, Section 62-6211 inclusive, and the regulations
implementing MEPA.
J011
DATE/
c.c. Robert Mendoza - EPA
Bill Klein - Nantucket Planning Commission.
Brian Donahoe - WPC , Edward Reilly, CZM.
FORM I) Enclosed: CZM comments.
-------
COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT
\Q
B-10
Executive dJtnce Of 0nv won men/at Stf/fa
400 (bamwif/qe y4
7>\
FROM: Edward J. ReillK* Director
DATE: January 7, 1981
SUBJECT: Nantucket Wastewater Facility - MEPA //03940
Coastal Zone Management supports the findings and conclusions of
the Nantucket Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities EIS/EIR.
The recommended option of constructing primary treatment facilities
with disposal by rapid sand infiltration at Siasconset and Surfside
are consistent with all CZM policies.
RECEIVED
JAN V r'dl
-------
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
op G>M0t/
/
i'ew of Wa
B-11
ff
'«/*
(7
December 19, 1980
RECEIVED
I '
REGION I
D OE OF T
REGIONAL AD,vilNiST;vATOR
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J. F. Kennedy Building
Boston, Massachusetts, 02203
Dear Mr. Adams:
This is to submit the following comments pertaining to the Draft EIS -
Wastewater Cbllection and Treatment Facilities, Nantucket, Massachusetts.
1. Page 1-23, 1. 5. 3 - Floodplains or flood prone areas should be
added to the list of land with constraints. A further constraint may be pro-
vided by DEQE Drinking Water Regulation 2lb, which provides that the
owner of a public water supply shall control the use of the land within 400
feet of a gravel packed well.
2. Page 1-25, 1st paragraph, last sentence. This is misleading since
there are no restrictions presently imposed under the Wetlands Restriction
Act. (M. G. L. C 140 S 40A.)
We hope that this assists your agency in its efforts.
Sincerely yours.
8
Charles F. Kennedy
Director & Chief Engineer
CFK/WFB/hrb
-------
IIIIIII
MASSACHUSETTS
HISTORICAL
^COMMISSION
B-12
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Office of the Secretary of State
294 Washington Street
Boston, Massachusetts
021Q8
617-727-8470
MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY
Secretary of State
June 10, 1981
Curt J.anow'ski
EPA
J.F.K. Building
Boston, MA 02203
RE: Nantucket, Water Pollution Control project, proposed
trunk sewer replacement
Dear Mr. Janowski:
Thank you for supplying the Massachusetts Historical Commission
with information on the proposed trunk sewer replacement in con-
junction with the Nantucket water pollution control project.
MHC staff have reviewed the project and feel that this project
is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological re-
sources. No further review in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is required.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call
Valerie Talmage, State Archaeologist.
Sincerely,
Patricia L. Weslowski
Executive Director
Massachusetts Historical Commission
State Historic Preservation Officer
PLW/VT/pb
-------
B-13
S &' s J &fi /
ty iTvsedfo a/tff <^/a/tA:4
yStulctvna, ^ovewiment venter-
- V-' v
,'
400 ^amlrUfye 0/Leet, 3§o^on 02202
January 1*», 1981
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1 - JFK BuiIding
Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02203
Attention: Environmental Information Office
Subject: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
concerning Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities, Nantucket, Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
This office has reviewed the attached document and it does not seem
that any of the proposed facilities, as shown in Fig. R map in Chapter 2,
will effect the Nantucket State Forest either directly by land involvement
or indirectly by subsurface" changes in water quality since there are no
developed facilities within the State Forest. The same map shows that the
nearest proposed alternate site is Site No. 3 which is east of Lovers Lane
and abuts the southeast corner of the State Forest. . However, the authors
of this report do not recommend this area as a viable sit:e as indicated in
their conclusions on pages 2-9- If it turns out that Site No. 3 is developed
then the facility should be screened from view along Lovers Lane so that this
approach to the State Forest will not have its visual aesthetics destroyed.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposed project.
Gi
Director of Forests and Parks
GAB:mk
attachment map
-------
B-14
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPO
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 0255
Office of Airport Manager
Phone (617) 228-1255
January 63 1981
RECEIVED
REGIONAL
vat,
REGION I
OFFICE OF THE
Div-iNiSTRATHR
t> Statement.
Re: Environmen
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Nantucket County
Nantucket, Massachusetts
Mr. William P. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston* Ma. 02203
Dear Mr. Adams:
The Nantucket Airport Commission Dishes to be recorded as opposed
to the area shown on Figure 5 as alternate land disposal site No. 5.
This site is in the approach to Runway 243 our main instrument
runway. The Airport recently acquired this property as to have
control of its use.
A waste water treatment facility could be detrimental to aviation
by attracting' wildlife, seagulls, migratory birds, etc. If a
spray treatment was used, it would form vapor clouds, cutting into
the visibility of landing aircraft. Lighting of the facility would
detract from our nighttime landing aids.
Nantucket Airport has govd approaches to its runways, and we try
to keep them that way. This Airport is vital for its emergency
use and the economy of the Island.
Sincerely ,
ft
"/Kenneth W. Holdgate
/Airport Manager
KWH:jmn
-------
B-15
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
County Commissioners Board of Health.
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
617-228-0790 ^^-'
March 20, 1981 ^ 9- 0
Division of Water Pollution Control
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
Att: Al Slater RE: Selected Plan For Madaket Area
Dear Mr. Slater:
The Town of Nantucket recognizes that there are waste disposal problems
with respect to a number of on-site septic systems in the Madaket area. In the
EIS Needs Study three contaminated private well supplies were identified out of
a sample of approximately 26 homes that were tested. Additional well contamin-
ation problems may exist for a number of the approximately 250 homes that
were not tested.
At the present time, the Town does not believe that a public water or
sewer supply system is justified for the area. The plan that the Town wishes
to pursue for Madaket is the development of a non-structural management plan
for the area. This would entail the identification of local corrective action to
eliminate well contamination conditions and to correct problems with septic disposal
system problems where they exist.
To properly evaluate the cost-effectiveness and long range performance
capability of this plan,compared with the installation of a public water or sewer -
system; will require a comprehensive analysis of all individual well/septic
systems in Madaket. Land use density controls will also need to be evaluated in
light of the limited local water supply resource of the area. The Town would like
to undertake this additional evaluation work under the Step I Facilities Planning
Program.
Until a corrective action program is implemented in Madaket, the Town
health officer will continue to monitor the premises where private well supply
problems have been identified and advise occupants on appropriate action to pro-
tect public health.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Holdgate,
Chairman
KH/sdb
-------
Appendix C
Technical Background -Table 8
Screening of Alternative Filter Bed Sites
-------
.TABLE "8A7;
NANTUCKET DEIS
INTERPRETATION OF TABLE 8
I. KEY TO NUMERICAL DESIGNATIONS
A. Ma^or Environmental Impact Components
Environmental Effects
1. Soil
2. Vegetation
3. Groundwater
4. Air Quality
5. Animal and Insect
Life
6. Climate
7. Surface Water
8. Geologic Formations
Public Health Effects
1. Groundwater
2. Insects and.Rodents
3. Site Run-off*
4. Aerosols and Odors
5. Crops/Food Chain
6. Noise and Traffic
7. Surface Water
Social/Aesthetic Effects
1. Land Use
2. Community Growth
3. Relocation of Residents
4. Greenbelts/Open Space
5. Recreational Activities
Economic Effects
1. Loss of Tax Revenues
2. Land Devaluation
3. Energy Commitment
4. Resource Commitment
5. Groundwater
6. Surface Water
7. Revenues
Legal Effects
1. Water Rights
2. Implementation Authority
3. Existing Regulation and
Plans
B. Environmental Impact Identification Factors
Environmental Impact Identification Factors indicate an increasing
degree of adversity with values of from 1 to 3. Beneficial impacts
are indicated with a value of 1 and the most adverse impacts are
indicated with a value of 3.
II. ANALYSIS OF THE TABLE 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
The overriding factors considered in the analysis were groundwater impact,
public health effects, land use, and the value of land. By placing the major
emphasis on these factors the list of most viable land disposal sites can be
reduced to three sites; namely, the existing disposal beds sites 2 and 10 and
site 1 on the west side of Miacomet Pond. Sites 2 and 10 are the most suitable
rapid infiltration sites.
Site 1 is the most promising slow rate irrigation site on the island due mainly
to its adequate land area, its proximity to the ocean and distance from Nantucket's
major population center. Major disadvantages of this site include: substantial
land acquisition costs,- a relatively high level of preapplication treatment,
and expensive storage facilities.
Based on the results of the screening, the most promising land, treatment site (s)
for the island of Nantucket are the existing Surfside and Siasconset treatment sites.
-------
Appendix D
Bibliography
-------
Appendix E
List of Preparers
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE). The State Environmental Code:
Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary
Sewage - Title 5. May 20, 1977.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE). A Guide to the Coastal Wetland
Regulations, MA Wetlands Protection Act (GL 131, s. 40),
100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02202. December 31, 1978.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental
Management. Planning Office. Final Water Quality Manage-
ment Program for Nantucket (208). December 1979.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region I. Existing Water
Quality Problems, Nantucket, MA. Interim 201/EIS Draft
Report. Anderson-Nichols, Inc. August 1979.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region I. Current Condi-
tions - Future Sewer Needs, Nantucket, MA. Interim 201/EIS
Draft Report. Anderson-Nichols, Inc. August 1979.
Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water.
EPA-440/9-76-023. Undated. Pages 201-203.
Environmental Protection Agency. Population Projections and
Future Sewer Service Area Population. (Draft)Nantucket, MA.
Interim 201/EIS Memorandum.Anderson-Nichols, Inc.
February 1980.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region I. Draft EIS for
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities in Nantucket,
MA. Anderson-Nichols, Inc. November 21, 1980.
Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff & Associates, Inc. Nantucket
EIS Geohydrologic Report. Newton Upper Falls, MA.
May 9, 1980.
Nantucket Conservation Foundation. Properties of the
Nantucket Conservation Foundation. Map. Harbor Square,
Nantucket, MA. August 1975. (updated).
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NPEDC)
Basic Data Report. Broad Street, Nantucket, MA. 1978.
(updated with personal interviews).
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NPEDC)
(Draft) Environmental Review; Alternate Force Main Routes,
Nantucket, MA. July 24, 1980.
Nantucket, Town and County of. Official Zoning Map - 1979;
Assessor's Maps, May 9, 1975 (Photogrammetric map - set of
99 sheets).
-------
Pierce, Anne M. Phase I Reconnaissance Survey and Study;
Proposed Wastewater Transmission Facilities, Nantucket, MA.
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc. September 12, 1980.
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. Performance Assessment of Surfside
and Siasconset Rapid Infiltration Beds Annex Report A.
December 1979.
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. (Final) Wastewater Facilities
Planning Alternatives for Nantucket, MA. June 1980.
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. Item 1 - Cost of Ocean Outfall.
Letter to Bill Richardson, Anderson-Nichols,Inc.
March 3, 1981.
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. Cost Comparison of AWT Plant at
Surfside to Achieve Nitrogen Removal with Primary Treatment
and' Subsurface Disposal Requiring 90-Acre Case III Plume
Area.Technical Memorandum.April 1981.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Nantucket
County, Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service and
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station.
GPO:1979 0-273-220. June 1979.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Flood
Hazard Boundary Maps - Sheets 1 through 26. Federal
Insurance Administration. September 13, 1974. Updated
to 12/3/76.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Water Resources of
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. Eugene H. Walker, Geologi-
cal Survey.Open File Report 79-558.
Weston Geophysical Engineers, Inc. Geophysical Investiga-
tions of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts for the Massachu-
setts Water Resources Commission.Weston, MA. November 8, 1966
Whitman & Howard, Inc. Report on Proposed Sewerage System
and Sewage Treatment Facilities, Nantucket, MA. 89 Broad St.,
Boston, Mass. July 1973.
Whitman & Howard, Inc. Facilities Plan Environmental Assess-
ment and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for the Report on Pro-
posedTSewerage System, Nantucket, MassachusettsT45 William
Street, Wellesley, Mass. October 1976.
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Bob Mendoza, Environmental Impact Office,
Overall Direction and Review
Chet Janowski, Project Manager, Continuing
Review and Coordination
Paul Pinault, Construction Grants Review and
201/EIS Coordination
Steven Koorse, Groundwater Supply Review
U.S. Geologic Survey
Michael Frimpter, Chief Groundwater Division,
Groundwater Modeling Review
Eugene Walker, Groundwater Specialist
Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission
Bill Klein, NPEDC Director, Continuing Review and
201/EIS Coordination
Sheaffer and Roland, Inc.
Fred Roland, Facilities Planning and EIS/201
Coordination
Goldberg-Zoino Associates/ Inc.
John Ayres, Coordination and Review
Mike Powers, Senior Groundwater Hydrologist,
Groundwater Modeling
-------
Anderson-Nichols & Co.., Inc.
Burk Ketcham, Director, Planning Division
Bill Richardson, EIS Project Manager, Principal
Writer of DEIS/EIS, Overall 201/EIS
Coordination and Review
Jim Sempere, Resource Analysis, Public Participation
and Communications
Ruth Baxter, Graphics, Report Production, Photography
Virginia Pink, Hydrologic Field Sampling and
Groundwater Analysis
Anne Pierce, Historic and Archaeological Review
and Coordination
Mark Thompson, Sanitary Engineering Review
Mike Sills, Sanitary Engineering Review
Joe Zeneski, Sanitary Engineering Review
-------
^eosr.,,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.F.KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203
To: All Interested Governmental Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Pursuant to Section 102 ( 2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), and implementing regulations promulgated
by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and EPA, the enclosed
copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
Wastewater Management Program for Nantucket, Massachusetts is provided
for your review and comment. A period of 30 days following the
notification of availability in the Federal Register will be allowed
for this review, after which a Record of Decision will be issued and
distributed by EPA.
The Final EIS provides a summary of the findings and recommendations
resulting from the EIS process, with the revisions necessitated by
comments received on the Draft EIS. All comments, and EPA's response
to these comments, are included in the report, as well as a synopsis
of the Public Hearing held on January 8, 1981.
Additional copies of the EIS are available at EPA's Region I office
in Boston or at the Town and County Building in Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Lester A. Sutton, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
NANTUCKET, NANTUCKET COUNTY, MASS.
August 1981
This FINAL Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
presents the recommended treatment and land disposal
alternative for Nantucket Center and Siasconset Village
on Nantucket Island, MA. The facilities will be
upgraded to provide primary treatment with land
disposal at the existing sand filter beds at Surfside
and Siasconset. Groundwater affected by the plume from
the filter beds will be designated as non-potable and ,
the area will be controlled by the Town's acquisition
of management zones. A non-structural, water quality
management program is recommended for Madaket Village
to preclude contamination of the Madaket aquifer. A
limited sewer rehabilitation program is recommended for
Nantucket Village.
Further information on this FEIS can be provided by:
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental Impact Office
EPA Region I (LEAD AGENCY)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02114 (617) 223-4635
Technical Consultants:
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc.
Boston, MA 02114
Approved by:
SEP 21 1981
Lester A. Suttoi
Regional Administrator
EPA Region I
Final Date by which
Comments on this
FINAL EIS may be
received
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
o The Public Hearing for the Nantucket DEIS/201 Facilities
Plan was held at 7 p.m., January 8, 1981, in the Nantucket
Town and County Building. A presentation was made on the
treatment alternatives and recommended options contained in
the 201 Plan. Background was also given on the DEIS sewer
needs analysis, identification of future sewer service
areas, impact to groundwater at the filter beds and the
requirement for an on-going monitoring program at the beds.
o Comments on the Draft EIS were received from seven federal
agencies, five state agencies and one local public body.
The comments were generally favorable and very limited in
scope. Many respondents had no comment. In those
instances where revision or additions were warranted, they
have been added to the text of this FEIS (see Chapter 5).
Comments at the public hearing were similarly limited and
all were responded to at the hearing.
o The final recommendations are to upgrade the existing
wastewater disposal facilities for Nantucket Center and
Siasconset Village to, provide primary treatment prior to
land disposal at the existing sand filter beds at Surfside
and Siasconset. The area around the filter beds.will be
acquired by the Town and water supply wells will be
restricted within that area. A limited sewer
rehabilitation program is recommended for Nantucket
Center. A long term, non-structural water resource and
groundwater quality management program is recommended for
Madaket Village.
o EPA recommends that new sewer extensions be limited to an
as-needed basis within the high-density zones which
immediately abut the existing sewer systems in Nantucket
Center and Siasconset. Sewering should be provided over
the next 20 years, as needed, in the high-density
commerical corridor running south and east from Nantucket
Center toward the airport. The town wellfields are located
in this area. They should be protected from potential
groundwater contamination which could result from
high-density development.
o The 1976 Facilities Plan had recommended the sewering of
Madaket and the construction of a secondary wastewater
treatment plant. Similar recommendations were made for the
outlying villages of Quidnet and Wauwinet. EPA found no
need to sewer either Quidnet or Wauwinet. In Madaket,
water quality tests show no pattern of general
contamination. Four wells in Madaket with high nitrates
were found to be widely scattered, the lots of varying
sizes, the septic systems of varying ages and the wells at
different depths. Although the nitrates have a limited
11
-------
3.3.2 Siasconset Recommended Actions 38
3.3..2.1 Water Quality 38
thru
3.3.2.19 CZM Consistency 42
3.3.3 Madaket Recommended Actions 42
3.3.3.1.Water Quality42
thru
3.3.3.19 CZM Consistency 45
O CHAPTER 4 MITIGATION MEASURES 46
4.1 WATER QUALITY 4 6
4.2 COASTAL FLOOD HAZARDS 46
4.3 WILDLIFE/ENDANGERED SPECIES 47
4.4 WETLANDS 47
4.5 AIR POLLUTION/ODORS 47
4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH 47
4.7 SOIL FILTRATION 48
4.8 NOISE 48
4.9 LAND USE/INDUCED GROWTH 48
4.10 RECREATIONAL USE 48
4.11 TRAFFIC 48
4.12 BUSINESS ' 48
4.13 COSTS 49
4.14 ENERGY 49
4.15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORIC 49
4.16 MINERAL RESOURCES 50
4.17 SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LAND 50
4.18 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 50
4.19 CZM CONSISTENCY 50
O CHAPTER 5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5.1 INTRODUCTION 51
5.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS 51
5.2.1 Nantucket Center Comments 51
5.2.2 Siasconset Area Comments 53
5.2.3 Madaket Area Comments 53
5.2.4 Comments on Alternative Actions 54
5.2.5 Comments on Treatment Levels 55
5.2.6 Buffer Zone Comment 57
5.2.7 Environmental Impacts Comments 57
5.2.8 Mitigation Measures59
5.2.9 Costs 59
O APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SYNOPSIS OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPENDIX B - AGENCY COMMENTS
APPENDIX C - TECHNICAL BACKGROUND - TABLE 8
SCREENING OF ALTERNATE FILTER BED SITES
APPENDIX D - BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX E - LIST OF PREPARERS
V
-------
o LIST OF FIGURES follows page
FIGURE A - Nantucket Sewer System -
Existing and Future Service Areas 7
FIGURE B - Siasconset Sewer System -
Existing and Future Service Areas 8
FIGURE C - Nantucket Center Sewer Rehabilitation 8
FIGURE D - Surfside Treatment Facility 17
FIGURE E - Siasconset Treatment Facility 19
o LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - Summary of Recommended Actions -
Capital Costs 24
TABLE 2 - Environmental Impact Profile -
Nantucket Center Alternatives 28
TABLE 3 - Environmental Impact Profile -
Siasconset Alternatives 29
TABLE 4 - Environmental Impact Profile -
Madaket Alternatives 30
VI
-------
effect on public health/ measures are readily available to
counter these effects.; The EPA, therefore, finds no
justification for sewering Madaket.
In addition to the sewering and wastewater treatment
issues, an overriding problem with sewage overflows into
Nantucket Harbor was addressed. Because of the immediate
nature of the overflow problems, the associated engineering
solutions were "segmented" from the main body of the EIS
and their review was "fast-tracked" by state and federal
agencies. Following an intense review of impacts, a final
plan was approved to eliminate the overflows. This
consisted of constructing a new force main plus the
relining of the existing main and improvements to the pump
station. Grants have already been awarded for the design
and construction of the new force main, as well as
improvements to the pump station. Total costs for the
force main project will be $3,415,900.
Costs of the recommended actions in this FEIS are projected
at $7,000,000 (force main not included). Costs per user
will be approximately $50 to $55 per year per residential
unit.
Impacts of the recommended actions on local resources are
generally insignificant and do not conflict with local
conditions or bylaws. The most important long-term effect
will be a positive one: the recommendations sustain local
growth and land use policies, which are aimed at
concentrating future development within the downtown area
and along a corridor leading toward the airport.
Groundwater impacts at the existing land disposal sites
will not change significantly, although the area affected
by the future plume will be somewhat larger.
The most significant mitigation measure is the requirement
for a management zone around the filter beds. This zone
will preclude the installation of wells within the area
contaminated by the wastewater plume. Other mitigation
measures include construction during the off-season to
minimize disruption to the Island's tourist-based economy
and a water quality monitoring program in Madaket. An
archaeological field survey is required during construction
of the force main to help locate and identify potential
artifacts.
No special permits will be necessary to construct the
recommended projects. No federal or State permits are
required. A local wetlands permit and hearing may be
required for certain elements of the sewer rehabilitation
project which are within 100 feet of a wetland area.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet i
Executive Summary ii
Table of Contents iv
O CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1.1 Project History 1
1.1.2 Force Main Problem 2
1.2 NEEDS ANALYSIS 4
1.2.1 Sewer Needs 4
1.2.1.1 Groundwater Testing 4
1.2.1.2 Future Development and Sewer Needs 6
1.2.1.3 Sewer Rehabilitation 8
1.2.2 Sewage Treatment Needs 9
1.2.3 Disinfection12
1.2.4 Buffer Zone 15
O CHAPTER 2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
2.1 NANTUCKET CENTER WASTEWATER FACILITIES 17
2.2 SIASCONSET WASTEWATER FACILITIES 19
2.3 MADAKET AREA RECOMMENDATIONS 21
2.4 COSTS OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 23
o CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1 INTRODUCTION - ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 25
3.2 IMPACT EVALUATION PROCESS 27
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION 32
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions 3 2
3.3.1.1 Water Quality 32
3.3.1.2 Coastal Flood Hazard 33
3.3.1.3 Wildlife/Endangered Species 33
3.3.1.4 Wetlands 34
3.3.1.5 Air Pollution/Odors 34
3.3.1.6 Public Health 34
3.3.1.7 Soil Filtration 35
3.3.1.8 Noise 35
3.3.1.9 Land Use/Induced Growth 35
3.3.1.10 Recreational Use 35
3.3.1.11 Traffic 36
3.3.1.12 Business 36
3.3.1.13 Costs 36
3.3.1.14 Energy 37
3.3.1.15 Archaeological/Historic 37
3.3.1.16 Mineral Resources 37
3.3.1.17 Significant Agricultural Land 37
3.3.1.18 Wild and Scenic Rivers 37
3.3.1.19 CZM Consistency 37
iv
-------
Chapter 1
Purpose & Need
-------
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Facilities in Nantucket,
Massachusetts, was published by EPA on November 21, 1980.
The Draft EIS was prepared as part of a "piggy-back" EIS
process in conjunction with Nantucket's Supplemental 201
Facilities Plan. The Town's Final "Wastewater Facilities
Planning Alternatives" report had been published on June
20, 1980, by Sheaffer and Roland, Inc.
The Draft EIS reported on the need for new sewers on
Nantucket. It also identified the groundwater impacts,
evaluated the level of treatment for the sewage and '
reviewed the general impact of the wastewater facilities
upon the Island. The 201 Facilities Plan investigated
various treatment options for the Nantucket and Siasconset
sewer system, as well as alternatives for the Madaket
Village area.
1.1.1 Project History
A 1973 sewerage facilities plan was prepared for
Nantucket by Whitman and Howard, Inc.(l) This was
updated with revisions and an Environmental Assessment
in 1976(2). The report recommended sewering nearly
two-thirds of the Island and building four secondary
sewage treatment plants at a (1976) cost of over $24
million.
There was significant local controversy over the
project. Townspeople objected to the costs and the
large area proposed to be sewered. The Town
subsequently decided to explore other treatment
alternatives which would be less costly.
In August, 1978, Nantucket retained Sheaffer and
Roland, Inc. to prepare a "supplemental" 201
Facilities Plan. The supplemental plan explored
various low-cost, low-technology sewage treatment
alternatives.
v-HReport on Proposed Sewerage System and Sewage Treatment
FaciTTties, Nantucket, MA; Whitman & Howard, Inc., July 1973.
(2) Facilities Plan, Environmental Assessment and Cost
EffecTive Analysis for the Report on Proposed Sewerage System,
Nantucket, MA; Whitman & Howard, October 1976.
-------
EPA's Region I Office indicated that it would assist
the Town of Nantucket by preparing a "Problems and
Needs" survey as part of a "piggy-back" EIS. This
"needs" survey was performed in conjunction with the
supplemental 201 Facilities Plan and indicated how
much of the Island actually needed to be sewered.
The need for sewers was established by field testing
the quality of water in the areas proposed for
sewering in the original Facilities Plan. Poor water
quality would indicate a potential need for sewers.
EPA conducted water quality tests during the spring
and summer of 1979. The previous summer, water
quality tests had been done by the state as input to
their overall "208" water quality management plan for
the Island(3). The combined results of all this
testing gave a solid basis for the supplemental
Facilities Plan, which was completed in June of 1980.
1.1.2 Force Main Problem
Very quickly after the new Facilities Plan was
submitted, the critical problems with the force main
in Nantucket Center were acknowledged and acted upon.
During heavy rainstorms, the pipes would be surcharged
with rainwater and the resulting flows would exceed
the capacity of the pumps and the force mains in
Nantucket Center. Sewage would back up in the pump
station and have to be vented off through an overflow
pipe to the harbor. There, the raw sewage caused
closure of beaches and shellfish beds. This
threatened the Island's tourism and shellfish
industries, both of which are mainstays of Nantucket's
seasonal economy.
Both the state and EPA required that Nantucket
eliminate this overflow from the pump station. The
Town had been issued an NPDES discharge permit with a
schedule to clean up the problem. ,The permit expired
in 1977.
Immediate action was needed. Emergency action to
upgrade the pumps and patch the leaks had been
approved by EPA and the state early in the project.
This alleviated the overflows that were experienced
during heavy summer rainstorms.
(3)Final Water Quality Management Program for Nantucket,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Planning
Office, December 1979.
-------
But sewage overflows also occur when there are breaks
in the force main.
*
The aging force main has had problems with sewage
leaking from joints and undermining the brittle cast
iron pipe, causing it to sag and snap. This has
occurred as often as five times in one year. Every
time the force main breaks, the pump station has to be
shut down and the overflow pipe opened to the harbor.
The overflow stays open during the 12 to 24 hours it
takes to fix the break in the main.
It was quickly decided to expedite the force main
element of the new Facilities Plan. Shortly after the
supplemental 201 Plan was submitted, EPA and the state
"segmented" the force main from the overall EIS
process and reviewed it on an accelerated schedule.
The Nantucket Planning Commission prepared an
"Environmental Review (of the) Alternate Force Main
Routes"(4) during late July of 1980. It was
recommended that a new force main be built along a
route which avoided the heart of the downtown area.
The existing main was to be slip-lined as a backup to
the new force main.
An archaeological-historical review of the force main
routes was prepared by the EPA's contractor for the
EIS, Anderson-Nichols. The archaeological review was
entitled "Phase 1 Reconnaissance Survey and Study:
Proposed Wastewater Transmission Facilities,
Nantucket, MA"(5). This report was prepared in close
collaboration with the Nantucket Historical
Association, the Peter Foulger Museum and the
Massachusetts Historical Commission.
A Phase II archaeological survey will be required
prior to the actual construction of the force main on
certain sensitive portions of the route. These
include the area along Cato Land and adjacent to the
high school (See page 24, Appendix B, Nantucket DEIS).
l^MDraft)Environmental Review: Alternate Force Main Routes,
Nantucket, MA; Nantucket Planning and Economic Development
Commission, July 24, 1980.
(5)phase I Reconnaissance Survey and Study; Proposed
Wastewater Transmission Facilities, Nantucket, MA
Anne M. Pierce, Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc. September 12, 1980
-------
The EPA and State have approved the Town's force main
project for a combined Step 2 and 3 design and
construction grant of $3,415,900.
The completion of the new force main and relining the
old main will eliminate the problems which caused
overflows of sewage into the harbor. This will
alleviate the most critical wastewater-related problem
facing the Town.
L.2 NEEDS ANALYSIS
1.2.1 Sewer Needs
The Draft EIS analyzed the need for new sewers on
Nantucket Island. This analysis had to be done in
response to the public controversy over the 1976 sewer
plan, which recommended sewers for 2/3 of the Island.
The first step was a review of groundwater conditions
and the second was a review of development trends.
The groundwater conditions established the degree of
contamination attributable to wastewater disposal
practices. Development trends indicated the
likelihood of future, high-density growth which could
lead to groundwater contamination.
The state's earlier 208 program had found that surface
water quality conditions were generally good. Two
problem areas, however, were recommended for
clean-up. One was to make the boat pump-out system at
the marina fully operational. The second was to
control leachates from the landfill in order to
protect water quality in Long Pond.
1.2.1.1 Groundwater Testing
Groundwater conditions were established through a
water quality testing program. This groundwater
testing program built upon the results of the
state's 208 program, which had found that
groundwater and surface water conditions were
generally good (see DEIS pg. 1-10).
To verify these results, the EIS retested
groundwater conditions at the same sites surveyed
by the 208 study. Additional areas were added to
the sampling program to check on conditions
across the Island. A total of forty-eight
sampling points were tested by the EIS effort.
-------
The tests were run in May and July of 1979. The
May samples were taken preceding the influx of
summer tourists and the July samples were taken
just after the peak summer season (July 4)
holiday weekend. This was done to determine the
effect of summer population on groundwater
quality.
The results showed that overall groundwater
conditions are good. There was little overall
change between the two sets of samples. No
general increase in contamination was detected
during the summer season tests.
Four of twenty-seven wells (14;8%) sampled in the
Madaket area, however, showed increased levels of
nitrate in the groundwater.
Decreases in nitrate levels also occuring in
eight Madaket wells (29.6%) during the same
May-July period. This decrease in nitrates is
important since it illustrates the variability of
groundwater conditions at Madaket.
No single pattern could be identified among the
few, random occurrences of high nitrate levels at
Madaket. The nitrate problem was found on small
lots with older septic systems as well as on
large lots with newer systems. In a cluster of
small, year-round houses, one well tested as
safe, whereas the adjoining well was above the
safe nitrate limit.
Elevated levels of nitrate/nitrites pose a
potential risk only to very young infants (under
three months of age) who are bottle-fed and whose
formula might be prepared using tapwater from
contaminated wells(6). Nitrates can cause a
"blue baby" condition to develop. Older children
and adults are not affected.
The four families whose wells were found to have
the higher nitrate levels were notified by the
Nantucket Board of Health. It was suggested that
they ought to temporarily get water from a
different water supply source, if they had
bottle-fed infants younger than three months old.
v°fQuality Criteria for; Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency EPA-440/9-76-023, Pages 201-203.
-------
Although nitrates have been identified as a
limited problem in Madaket, the Town has
alternative, non-structural management options
which it promptly exercises. The Board of Health
helps to make arrangements for temporary
alternate water supplies when needed.
The availability of these alternate measures,
coupled with the low frequency of occurrence, low
housing density of the village and seasonal use
of the area, do not justify the construction of a
complete sewage system and treatment facility.
This Final EI§ f;inds no need to sewer Madaket
Village.
Groundwater tests were also conducted in the
villages of Quidnet, Wauwinet and Surfside.
Sample? were also taken along Hummock Pond Road
and Hooper Farm Road. No evidence of
contamination was found in any of the wells
sampled.
The lack of contamination, however, does not
indicate that the potential for groundwater
pollution does not exist. Contamination could
still result from over-fertilization of gardens
or lawns and from the improper placement of
septic leaching fields relative tp well screens.
The overall results of the Nantucket groundwater
testing program did not reveal any conditions
severe enough to warrant consideration of sewers
as a corrective measure.
\
The sewering of Madaket and construction of a
secondary wastewater treatment plant had been
recommended in Nantucket's 1976 Facilities Plan.
That plan had made similar recommendations for
the outlying villages of Quidnet and Wauwinet.
This EIS finds no need to sewer Madaket, Quidnet
or Wauwinet.
1.2.1.2 Future Development and Sewer Needs
As noted above, the groundwater tests of current
conditions revealed no need to sewer the outlying
villages of the Island. Conditions which might,
however, create a need for sewers at some future
date also need to be analyzed.
Wastewater problems are generally created by land
use activities which dispose too much on-site
sewage in too little an area. Basic determinants
-------
of the need for future sewers, therefore, are
growth rates and land use density.
Where will future development be located? How
many people will live there? What present trends
serve to indicate the location and densities of
that future growth? Building permit trends, real
estate market demands, zoning bylaws and
subdivision plans offer the best clues.
The DEIS reviewed the growth trends on the Island
and determined that roughly 25 percent of all new
construction is tying into the two existing sewer
systems. Based upon present zoning densities and
real estate market trends, there is a need to
plan for the extension of sewers into the
adjoining high-density use zones which surround
the downtown sewer system (see Figure A).
This extension of the sewer service area will
occur gradually and in response to pressures for
service generated by new high-density
development. This development will follow
existing zoning.
Fanning south from downtown to the west toward
Cisco, between Somerset Road and Miacomet Avenue,
as well as to the east along Old South Road
beyond Nobadeer Road, are very high density 5,000
square foot Residential-Commercial zones. These
areas of high density residential and commercial
zoning serve to direct growth southeast from
downtown along Old South Road toward the airport.
This is of concern to water resource planning
since the primary well field of the Wannacomet
Water Company, which supplies Nantucket Center,
is located right in the middle of this growth
corridor. Already proposed for Old South Road
are several motel complexes and automobile
dealerships. The Nantucket Planning Commission
projects that additional motel-hotel complexes
could easily bring the total to 8 to 12 new
facilities by the year 2000.
The extension of sewers into this area southeast
of Nantucket Center was reflected in the 201
Plan. This is intended to help protect the
existing Wannacomet well field from potential
contamination which could result from these
high-density uses.
-------
A long-range planning policy of the Nantucket
Planning and Economic Development Commission
(NPEDC) is to cluster future growth in and around
the downtown area. Given that policy, it is
anticipated that most of the open parcels within
or adjacent to the present downtown sewer system
would be serviced as they develop. The same
infill of open parcels was anticipated for the
Siasconset Village.
Siasconset Village is zoned Residential-Old
Historic (5000 square foot lots) and Residential
1 (5000 square foot lots). Southwest of Morey
Lane and at the town well field off of Milestone
Road, the zone is R-2 (20,000 square foot lots).
Real estate trends, however, show that the market
is demanding half-acre lots, even in the
one-eighth acre zone. People buying lots in
Nantucket prefer the 20,000 sq. ft. parcels, even
though they can build on 5000 sq. ft.
Building permit records indicate that only 5 or 6
new houses are put up each year in Siasconset,
far less a building rate than at Nantucket
Center. The 201 Plan recommends that the
existing sewer system be extended as necessary to
service this construction within the one-eighth
acre zone (see Figure B).
1.2.1.3 Sewer Rehabilitation
The 201 Facilities Plan made a series of
recommendations regarding rehabilitation of the
existing sewer system in Nantucket Center. This
Final EIS concurs with those recommendations.
The North Beach Street sewer line should be
replaced from Jetties Beach Road to Easton
Street. Internal inspection of this pipe
revealed a large number of dips and a few broken
or cracked pipes. The sewer also has an
inadequate slope to maintain self cleaning
velocities and is subject to considerable amounts
of infiltration. Approximately 2,400 feet of
sewer will be replaced (see Figure C).
The South Beach Street sewer from Easton Street
to Broad Street (800 feet) has been recommended
for rehabilitation. This line is subject to
excessive groundwater infiltration. Relining of
this sewer has been determined the most
cost-effective means of rehabilitation.
-------
* Whale Rock
Fig. A. Existing & Future Nantucket Sewer Service Area
Final EIS Report Nantucket Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Steamboat
^Wharf
>^y NANTUCKET
*r~^ *^ \
-------
"SankatyHead *
*. Golf Club. ,;
II /Of vr
Filter Beds
.kf * N\ r\auiu i
Fig. B. Existing & Future
Siasconset Sewc
Sewer Service Area
;ARY
Existing
Future
Final EIS Report Nantucket Wastewater Treatment Facilities
-------
mta^ SEWER GROUTED 1980
Illllllll SEWER TO BE REPLACED
Fig. C. Nantucket Center Sewer Rehabilitation
Final EIS Report Nantucket Wastewater Treatment Facilities
-------
Approximately 600 feet of sewer in Washington
Street, between Coffin Street and Main Street is
recommended to be replaced. This existing line
has inadequate capacity for existing peak flows
and is subject to large amounts of infiltration.
Approximately 750 feet of sewer in South Water
Street, between Main Street and Broad Street will
be replaced. The existing sewer is inadequate to
convey existing flows and has some minor
structural defects.
1.2.2 Sewage Treatment Needs
In addition to the need for new sewers, a second issue
which the DEIS reported on was the level of treatment
for the sewage. Section 2.7 of. the DEIS presents an
evaluation of primary treatment vs. secondary
treatment. The final recommendation is for primary
treatment, followed by disposal on the existing filter
beds (pg. 2-25, Section 2.7.3, DEIS). The 201
Facilities Plan also recommends primary treatment.
In the evaluation of primary vs. secondary treatment,
the basic comparison was between the increased costs
of land (with primary treatment and land disposal) vs.
the higher costs of advanced treatment processes (with
secondary facilities) .
The DEIS reported on a method for calculating the
breakeven point between various wastewater treatment
levels (Section 2.7.3 and Appendix A, DEIS). Using
assumptions on land costs, infiltration rates at the
filter beds, and pollutant levels, a series of present
worth cost-curves were plotted for various wastewater
flows (Fig. 5, DEIS). Using this approach, it was
found that land costs would have to be more than
$100,000 per acre (present worth) before secondary
treatment became more cost-effective than primary.
The 201 Plan issued a memorandum report on a
cost-comparison of advanced (secondary) vs. primary
treatment (7). This included an update on land costs
and 0 & M costs for an advanced facility on 40 acres
at Surfside designed to achieve nitrogen removal and
disinfection. Total present worth cost of the
(7)Cost Comparison of AWT Plant at Surfside to Achieve
Nitrogen Removal with Primary Treatment and Subsurface Disposal
Requiring 90 Acre Case 3 Plume Area Sheaffer and Roland, Inc.,
April 1981
-------
advanced treatment plant was estimated at $9.665
million. Present worth cost for primary treatment (on
90 acres) was $4.584 million. The $5 million dollar
differential would mean that land costs (for the 50
acres saved by going AWT) would have to be more than
$100,000 per acre.
In determining the final level of treatment, a series
of evaluations were made. These included a
performance review of the existing filter beds and an
evaluation of primary treatment vs. continued raw
wastewater dis;posal. This latter option represented
the "no action" alternative of continuing present
practice of no treatment, at all, prior to disposal.
The effect of the filter beds on groundwater was
tested during the EIS/201 groundwater sampling
program. These tests were run in conjunction with
Sheaffer and Roland, the Town's 201 engineering
consultant.
The groundwater quality test data obtained for the
Surfside and Siasconset filter beds reveal that the
beds have provided a high level of BOD and solids
removal. However, due to the high loading rates, the
beds operate at their limit as anaerobic treatment
units. This results in high ammonia and very low
dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels in the underlying
groundwater plume. As a result, Sheaffer and Roland
propose to eliminate the anaerobic conditions by
raising the beds to maintain an elevation of 4 ft.
above the groundwater level.
The effluent plume that reaches the ocean through the
groundwater is much higher in overall quality than
that provided by a conventional secondary treatment
facilitiy with respect to removal of biodegradable
organics and bacteriologic organisms. The effluent
plume is comparable to that provided by a secondary
treatment plant in terms of dissolved nutrients and
other inorganic substances(8).
Although the existing system provides adequate
pollutant removal from an environmental impact
viewpoint, other impacts must be considered. These
include: wastewater contaminants which affect the
operation of the beds; potential public health
problems; aesthetic problems such as odor and visual
impacts; potential vector problems associated with
(^Performance Assessment of Surfside and Siasconset Rapid
Infiltration Beds (Annex Report A) Sheaffer and Roland7 Inc.,
December 1979.
10
-------
disease-carrying insects or rodents; and operation and
maintenance considerations.
Grease is a contaminant contained in all wastewater.
Nantucket, with its heavy tourism and hotel-restaurant
activity, has higher levels of grease in its
wastewater than does the average, residential
community. Grease can cause serious problems by
clogging the filter' beds.
Full primary treatment will reduce the amount of
grease in wastewater to acceptable limits prior to
disposal. This will minimize clogging of the filter
beds and allow full rapid infiltration of wastewater
into the soil.
The necessity of removing grease from the wastewater
will increase as the 201 Plan's recommended
infiltration/inflow reduction measures are
implemented. The I/I reduction measures will reduce
flows and increase relative grease concentrations in
the wastewater. Unless primary treatment is used to
remove the grease, the clogging problem will rapidly
worsen.
A second problem with raw wastewater disposal is
caused when the surface of the filter bed is rapidly
sealed by unfiltered solids. The wastewater backs up
and is precluded from rapidly infiltrating into the
soils. This creates the potential for odor-producing
anaerobic conditions to develop. Occasional problems
with odors have been'noticed at Surfside during summer
peak-use periods. Odor problems would be most
noticeable during periods of high humidity when fog or
mist is present.
Because of the relative isolation of the Surfside and
Siasconset filter beds, localized odor problems have
generally not led to public complaints. However, as
the land around both sites continues to develop, the
likelihood of public objections will increase,
especially if disposal of raw wastewater continues.
The primary treatment facility proposed by the 201
Facilities Plan will have a significant effect on the
reduction of pathogenic microorganisms, aerosols and
associated odors, thereby reducing the potential of
public health/nuisance problems.
An additional problem of applying raw effluent is the
removal and disposal of the organic mat that develops
after each loading cycle. Presently, after a bed has
been used and has dried, the surface is scraped with a
tractor towing a chain rake. The accumulated solids
are broken up and piled on the embankment areas around
the beds.
11
-------
This accumulated material can be the source of odor
problems. It also creates a potential public health
problem. It attracts flies, insects, birds and some
mammals which feed on it or use it as a breeding
habitat. Drying of the organic mat on the filter
beds, which is necessary before it can be scraped,
also creates a potential odor and vector problem.
Once completely dried, the particles can be
transported by the wind and become an airborne
contaminant problem.
Based on the problems discussed above, the DEIS found
that continued disposal of raw sewage on the filter
beds is not acceptable for meeting future treatment
requirements on Nantucket. The final recommendation,
therefore, continues to be that primary treatment be
provided prior to disposal on the filter beds.
1.2.3 Disinfection
Disinfection is the only treatment process
specifically designed to remove pathogens from
wastewater. This is intended to eliminate potential
threats to public health. It should be pointed out,
however, that raw sewage has been applied to the
filter beds at Surfside since 1929 with no
disinfection. Since that time, there have been no
reported problems of disease or contamination in the
adjacent area.
Historically, regulatory authorities have required
that disinfection facilities be provided regardless of
the receiving water (ground or surface water). This
practice, however, has come under increased scrutiny
over recent years.
Particular attention has been focused on the
requirement for disinfectionvprior to land disposal.
This is due to: (1) the pathogen removal capacity of
soil; and (2) the potential for certain disinfectants
to form compounds which may be carcinogenic.
There is a distinct lack of information available on
disease caused by, or related to, wastewater treatment
processes. This may reflect either the absence of a
problem, lack of intensive surveillance, or the
inadequacy of existing "tools" for detecting incidents
of disease. It should be emphasized, however, that no
incidents of disease have been documented from a
properly planned and properly operated land treatment
system.
If it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the
soil matrix within a wastewater management area will
12
-------
adequately remove pathogens from the wastewater
effluent, then there is no need to provide
disinfection as part of the above-ground treatment
facilities.
A large number of disease-causing microorganisms and
parasites are present in domestic wastewater. These
include pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa and
parasitic worms. Their concentrations in primary
effluent range from 1 to 20,000 organisms per gallon.
Pathogens suryive fairly well in soil for periods of a
few hours to as long as 5 years. Their survival is
highly dependent upon the following factors: type of
organism; type of soil; moisture and organic content
of the soil; pH; temperature; sunlight and rain; and
the pollutant content of the wastewater.
Subsurface pathogen removal is a function of the
characteristics of the soil, such as particle size,
shape and surface properties. Most pathogens are
removed after a brief passage through clay soils' and
consolidated sands by filtration and adsorption.
Wastewater pathogens are effectively removed by
percolation through a few feet of fine soil. The
organic mat that develops in the top 0.2 inches of
soil has been observed to provide the greatest removal
of pathogens, followed by a subsequent buildup at
lower levels to a depth of 7 to 10 feet.
With regard to horizontal transport, it should be
noted that pathogens do not travel significant
distances in all directions from a concentrated
source, but are carried with and in the direction of
groundwater flow. Several studies have shown that the
great majority of pathogens which remain after passing
vertically into the groundwater are reduced to
negligible levels after appproximately 200 feet of
horizontal groundwater transport.
In the case of Nantucket, the disinfection
capabilities of the soil were confirmed by analyzing
samples drawn from test wells. These wells are
located inland of the beds as well as between the
filter beds and the ocean, which is down gradient from
the beds. Little or no coliform bacteria were
detected in any of the well samples taken 135 feet
down gradient from filter beds(9).
l*)Ibid.Pages 12-15
13
-------
Based on the above discussion, and the following
considerations that were presented in the Facilities
Plan, it is recommended that disinfection facilities
not be provided as part of the preapplication
treatment train.
1. Monitoring data for the down gradient wells show
that the sand filter beds are achieving
disinfection standards within the boundary of the
managed groundwater area.
2. Disinfection prior to filter bed application will
have a detrimental impact on the biological
treatment performance of the filter beds.
3. Disinfection of primary effluent will require
large doses of chlorine which increases the
potential for creating chlorinated organic
compounds which may be carcinogenic.
It should be emphasized that as long as wastewater is
applied to the rapid infiltration basins, pathogens
will be present in some degree in the wastewater plume
in the immediate vicinity of the filter beds. The
concentration at any one point will be dependent
mainly on the initial concentration and distance from
the application point, and to a lesser degeee on the
conditions that exist in the soil matrix.
With the recommended "Case 3" management of
groundwater at the site, disinfection would not be
necessary to comply with the regulations that are part
of that designation. Since there is no possibility
that the groundwater will be used for drinking water,
the more strict disinfection requirements of Case 1 or
2 designation are not necessary. Case 3 designation
will require that groundwater use within the extent of
the plume be strictly regulated due to the presence of
pathogens and other pollutants in the wastewater (see
Section 1.2.4, below).
Disinfection facilities (chlorination) were included
in the Facilities Plan's cost-effective analysis of
the treatment alternatives. The elimination of
disinfection will not affect the outcome of that
analysis since the facilities were common to all
structural alternatives.
In terms of costs to the user, the elimination of
disinfection will have little effect on the costs
presented. Capital costs will be reduced by about 3%
and operation and maintenance costs will be reduced
minimally, mainly by cost of chlorine. The major
advantage in terms of operation and maintenance will
14
-------
be the elimination of potential environmental problems
associated with transportation and handling of
chlorine.
It is recommended, however, that the treatment
facilities be designed so that chlorination facilities
could be added at some future date, if and when
needed. This would necessitate a plant layout which
does not foreclose the option of adding chlorination
equipment in the event that future groundwater
monitoring indicates a need for them.
1.2.4 Buffer Zone
The effect of the wastewater plumes on local
groundwater was analyzed in the DEIS geohydrologic
report(lO). Goldberg-Zoino performed loading tests at
the Surfside sewer beds and estimated the lateral
extent of leachate plumes at both Surfside and
Siasconset.
The results show that the expanded Surfside filter
beds would create a leachate plume that, at its
maximum lateral extent, would affect a 90 acre area
450 feet inland and 700 feet to each side of the beds
(Fig. 8 in Goldberg-Zoino report). The Siasconset
beds would affect a 20 acre area 250 feet inland and
200 feet to each side (Fig. 9 in the Goldberg-Zoino
report).
In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations
dated February 11, 1976, the groundwater resulting
from the land application of wastewater must be
classified into one of the following:
Case I: The groundwater can potentially be used
for drinking water supply.
Case II: The groundwater is used for drinking
water supply.
Case III: uses other than drinking water.
The Regional Administrator of EPA, in conjunction with
state and local officials shall determine, on a
site-by-site basis, the areas in the vicinity of a
land application site where the above criteria apply.
In the case of the Surfside and Siasconset filter bed
sites, the expected area of contamination, as shown on
TIP") Nan tucket BIS Goldberg- Ziono-Dunniclif f & Associates, Inc
Newton Upper Falls, MA. May 9, 1980
15
-------
Figures 8 and 10 pf the Goldberg, Zoino Report, could
not be designated as Case II because there are no
drinking water supplies present. Also, as both filter
bed sites are presently in operation, a plume of
contamination currently exists which forecloses the
Case I option for both sites.
With the design of the new facilities, the
contaminated plume is expected to enlarge to the
extent mentioned above. This enlargement will be
inland and to either side of the existing sites. The
additional area of contamination represents an
insignificant loss to the total groundwater supplies
for the Island, and, because of its proximity to the
existing filter beds and ocean, was unlikely to ever
be developed for drinking water purposes. The
benefits derived from the new treatment facilities
outweigh the insignificant loss of potential water
supply area.
The Board of Selectmen for Nantucket has requested the
Mass. Division of Water Pollution Control to designate
the contaminated groundwater plumes, identified on
Figures 8 and 10 of the Goldberg, Zoino report as Case
III. The Town intends to purchase ;the area in fee
simple and has agreed to convenant the title of the
land within the control area to preclude the possible
construction of drinking water wells.
16
-------
Chapter 2
Recommended Actions
-------
CHAPTER 2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
2.1 NANTUCKET CENTER WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The Nantucket Center planning area will require a
wastewater treatment facility with a 20-year planning
period design average flow of 1.8 mgd. The principal
facility elements include: preliminary treatment facility
comprising comminution, grit removal and flow metering;
primary treatment settling tank; and rapid infiltration
recharge beds for Affluent disposal. Provision for future
disinfection facilities will be included. The facility
will be located at the same site as the existing rapid
infiltration beds at Surfside. The site will be expanded
to include a 90 acre buffer zone around the filter beds
and a sludge composting facility. This will provide a
Case III management zone consistent with Section 1.2.4,
above (see Figure D).
The basic design criteria are as follows:
a. Preliminary treatment
Two parallel comminutor and aerated grit chamber
units sized for 6.0 mgd peak hydraulic flow
b. Flow metering:
Parshall flume with capacity to 6.0 mgd
c. Primary Sedimentation:
Three parallel 0.6 mgd sedimentation basins;
600 gpd/sq.ft. overflow rate at 1.8 mgd flow rate
d. Recharge Beds:'
Gravity flow pipeline from primary treatment
facility with peak flow capacity of 6.0 mgd
10 beds with total area of 10.1 Ac.; design
application rate of 4.0 gpd/sq.ft. @ 1.80 mgd
design average flow
e. Composting facility:
One acre paved pad with forced air blower system
of perforated plastic pipe; 1700 cu. yd. wood
chips per year; pad drained to primary treatment
units.
The existing site will be regraded and the beds will be
raised to provide a minimum free-flowing depth of 4 feet
to groundwater. The construction of an access control
17
-------
fence around the treatment facilities will be required as
part of the site improvements. A control building and
laboratory facility will be required at the treatment
site. A 1,000 sq.ft. building will be adequate for
facility needs.
The high cost of electrical power on Nantucket makes the
installation of a wind turbine at the Surfside site a
cost-effective and innovative action. A 10 kw wind
turbine would cost approximately $25,000 installed and
would produce at least 30,000 kwh/yr of electrical power.
At $.10 per kwh for purchased energy, the present worth
value of the power produced by the wind machine is at
least $31,500 for the 20-year planning period and is,
therefore, cost-effective. A 10-kw wind machine could
supply approximately 60 percent of the electrical power
requirements at Surfside (for Siasconset a 5 kw machine
may be more cost-effective). The type of wind machine
that would be selected would be one that would operate in
a synchronized manner with the power company supply such
that there would be no interruption in service.
A number of potential treatment site locations were
investigated between the airport and Long Pond. However,
none presented any advantages over that of the present
Surfside location. In fact, the Surfside site appears to
be by far the best location for a facility in terms of
transmission and separation from conflicting land uses.
The present acceptance of this site by the public, and the
fact that the groundwater under this site is already
dedicated to wastewater discharge, also supports the
conclusion that this site is the most cost-effective and
environmentally suitable location for the Nantucket Center
treatment facility.
Sludge composting at the Surfside facility is recommended
as the preferred method of sludge stabilization. The
composted sludge will be used by the DPW and local
citizens for gardening a,nd landscape activities. The
composing facility will serve the Siasconset as well as
the Surfside service areas. Dewatering and chemical
stabilization of the sludge will be provided prior to
composting.
The Nantucket Center treatment facility will be used for
handling septage wastes from all areas of the island.
Facility requirements for septage handling include a
receiving station, grit removal facility, aerated holding
tanks with 16,000 gallons capacity and pumping and
conveyance facilities to discharge the septage into the
head end of the primary settling facility.
Collection and transmission facility improvements are also
recommended for the Nantucket Center area. Downtown
18
-------
MAXIMUM EXTENT
OF LEACHATE PLUME
PRIMARY; TREATI
FACILITY
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Recommended Case 3 Control Area
Fig. D. Surfside Treatment Facility
Final EIS Report Nantucket Wastewater Treatment Facilities
-------
sewers will be rehabilitated as described previously in
Section 1.2.1.3. Recommended improvements to the Sea
Street pumping station, plus a new force main and relining
the old force main, are being accomplished under a
separate project which was removed from the EIS process
because of the need for immediate improvements.
Other collection facility improvements which are
recommended as second phase actions, to be undertaken at
the point in time when their need becomes apparent,
include:
o Construction of a pump station and force main to
divert flows from Milestone, Old South Fairgrounds and
Hooper Farm Roads away from the Washington Street
interceptor and the Sea Street pumping station.
o Construction of a new trunk sewer to serve the Old
South Road corridor.
Miscellaneous infiltration/inflow reduction measures are
also recommended to be undertaken in accordance with
Section 6.3 of the 201 Facilities Plan. These include
sewer grouting and relining, the removal of several roof
drainage connections,'and the removal of several catch
basins.
2.2 Siasconset Wastewater Facilities
The Siasconset planning area will require a wastewater
treatment facility to be located at the currently utilized
site, with a 20-year planning period design average flow
capacity of 260,000 gpd. An additional 5 acres will be
acquired to adequately buffer the 20 acre plume,
consistent with Section 1.2.4, above (see Figure E).
Raw wastewater will be comminuted, receive grit removal
treatment and flow metering prior to the primary
clarification units. Two primary clarifiers will be
provided. Each will have a design flow capacity of
130,000 gpd. During peak summer flow periods both
clarifiers will be used in parallel fashion. During the
winter low flow period only one clarifier will be required.
Clarified effluent will flow by gravity onto the filter
beds through a system of conveyance channels. A total of
65,000 sq.ft. of bed application area will be required for
the 20-year design summer flow based on an application
rate of 4.0 gpd per sq.ft. Provision for future
disinfection facilities will be included in the design.
19
-------
The basis of design for the facility components are as follows:
Preliminary Treatment:
Comminution, grit removal and filow measurement sized
for 1.2 mgd peak flow
Primary Treatment
- Two clarifiers sized for 130,000 gpd each
- Overflow rate = 600 gpd/sq.ft. at 0.26 mgd flow
rate
Sand Filter Beds:
Six beds with total area of 65,000 sq.ft.
- Hydraulic loading rate =4.0 gpd/sq.ft. at
0.26 mgd
Organic loading rate = 274 Ib./ac/day
In terms of sludge handling, it ,is recommended that the
sludge be chemically stablized and stored for eventual
transportation and further processing at the Surfside
Facility.
Site improvements will include a control fence around the
treatment facilities, a paved access road, a small (20' x
20') control building, and a 5 kw wind turbine electrical
generator.
( . . .. .
The present recharge bed treatment site is the most
suitable location for treating the wastes from the
Siasconset area for the following reasons:
1. The site is in close proximity to the service area.
2. The present filter beds and conveyance pipeline can be
utilized.
3. The site is a good location relative to the diffusion
of the underflow into the ocean.
4. There is good isolation from most surrounding land
uses and land is available to secure adequate buffers
from future development.
20
-------
:::::::::::::::: Recommended Case 3 Control Area
«
' Fig. E. SiasconsetTreatment Facility
Final EIS Report
_ Nantucket Wastewater Treatment Facilities
-------
The main trunk sewer to the filter beds is a 12" line with
a peak flow capacity of 1.3 mgd. This line will be
adequate for the flow projected through the 20-year
planning period.
The 201 Facilities Plan's proposed second-phase
improvements to the Siasconset collection system would
include the eventual installation of approximately 8,200
L.F. of 8" sewers to service that portion of Siasconset
zoned for 5,000 square foot lots. A portion of this area,
Cod Fish Park, would require a small lift station and 300
feet of 6" force main to tie into the main trunk sewer.
Funding for these improvements is not included in the
recommended Phase I project.
2.3 Madaket Area Recommendations
Although nitrates in groundwater was identified as a
limited problem in Section 1.2.1.1 "Groundwater Testing,"
the Town has alternative control mechanisms available.
These include the Board of Health's notifying affected
families and, in the event the family includes an infant,
helping to secure a temporary alternate source of water.
Once the infant reaches 3 months of age, the potential
threat passes and the family can return to its original
supply.
This is, at best, a temporary fix and does not resolve the
original problem. However, sewers are not warranted due
to the low land use density and seasonal use of the area.
The Town of Nantucket should develop a comprehensive
approach to managing wastewater disposal and water supply
protection for the entire Island. The Town should begin
this effort in Madaket Village.
Wastewater disposal through on-site leaching systems is
regulated under Title 5 of the state Environmental
Code(11). Title 5 is based upon standard rates of
percolation, wastewater volumes and minimum distances
between water resources and on-site facilities. The
minimum distance between a leaching facility and a well is
100 feet.
State Environmental Code; Minimum Requirements for
the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage - Title 5,
Commonwealth of Mass., Dept. of Environmental Quality
Engineering, May 20, 1977.
21
-------
Title 5, however, states that specific, identifiable local
conditions may require more stringent regulation to
protect the public health and environment.
The Nantucket Board of Health has adopted more stringent
regulations for new construction in Madaket. These
"Madaket Reg's" require at least 150 feet between a well
and a leaching field. This is a constructive step in the
right direction.
In at least two of the Madaket wells that were found to
have nitrates, however, it was noted that the distance
between the well and the septic system was 150 feet, or
more.
Clearly, the criterion of horizontal separation alone is
not enough to protect wells in such rapidly-permeable
soil. Other factors should be considered in developing
local regulations for on-site wastewater disposal.
These variables include:
1. design of leaching fields;
2. seasonal occupancy and water usage rates;
3. actual wastewater output per household/season;
4. density of leaching fields and volume of
wastewater per acre;
5. soil permeability and transmissivity;
6. pumping rates and density of wells;
7. aquifer gradients and recharge volumes;
8. agricultural fertilizer or livestock keeping
practices;
9. water conservation to reduce domestic usage.
The Madaket situation does indicate a need for better
management practices. These would include improved
regulations for locating wells relative to septic fields,
especially in soil with high permeability. Such improved
practices are necessary to protect the Island's potable
groundwater resources from degradation due to on-site
wastewater disposal.
Such a management program could require the installation
of waterless toilet systems in new construction;
initiating a water conservation program; recommending
proper horticultural and agricultural fertilization
procedures; and increasing the Board of Health's
requirement for separation between a private well and
on-site septic disposal systems.
22
-------
The longer-term implications for Nantucket Island are
clear: the need to properly manage and protect its
groundwater is critical. Groundwater is the sole source
of potable water on the Island. The Town should begin
acting now to manage- that resource.
2.4 Costs of Recommended Actions
Table 1 presents a summary of the estimated construction
costs for the various components of the recommended
facilities plan. Costs are shown for both the Nantucket
and Siasconset construction activities. Costs for the
recommended non-structural management program for Madaket
are unavailable.
The total capital cost for the recommended actions is
$7,000,000. This cost is based upon the Engineering News
Record (ENR) base cost for construction as of July, 1981,
and reflects the most recent estimates from Sheaffer and
Roland, the 201 Facilities Plan engineer.
Table 1 also indicates the estimated U.S. EPA and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts grant assistance
participation in the proposed improvements. Federal and
State participation are projected to be $6,464,000 or 92
percent of the total cost of the recommended project
costs. The remaining local cost of $536,000 would be
funded by the Town. The first year payment on a typical
20-year bond at 7 percent interest would be $64,320 on
this local share.
The 201 Facilities Plan (pg VIII-7) has a thorough
discussion of user fees as the preferred method for
recovering these capital costs and the annual operation
and maintenance (0 & M) costs. Based upon the number of
summer season residential users, combined with commercial,
hotel, motel and public equivalents, a total residential
user equivalent of 3,270 was used to determine individual.
fees. Depending upon the final allocation of costs, the
typical residential user can expect a fee of $50 to $55
per household per year.
23
-------
Table 1
Summary of Recommended Actions
Capital Costs
ITEM
Surfside Primary
Treatment Facilities
and Recharge Beds
Siasconset Primary
Treatment Facilities
and Recharge Beds
Sewer Rehabilitation
- So. Water trunk sewer
- N. Beach sewer
- Lining sewers
- Remove catch basins
- Sewer grouting
Construction Total
Surfside Case III Land
Siasconset Case III Land
Engineering, Contingencies
and Administration
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION
COST
650,000,
500,000.
425,000.
80,000.
20,000.
25,000.
1,350,000.
100,000.
FEDERAL &
STATE
GRANTS
$2,450,000. 2,303,000,
611,000,
450,000
382,500
72,000
-0-
22,500
$4,150,000. 3,841,000,
1,269,000
94,000
1,400,000. 1,260,000
LOCAL
SHARE
$7,000,000. $6,464,000
147,000
39,000
50,000
42,500
8,000
20,000
2,500
309,000,
81,000,
6,000,
140,000,
$536,000
Source: Sheaffer and Roland, Inc., July 1981 (ENR = 3475)
24
-------
Chapter 3
Environmental Consequences
-------
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1 INTRODUCTION - ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
The Draft EIS evaluated ten alternate locatons for the
treatment site, five treatment alternatives for Nantucket
Center, four treatment alternatives for Siasconset and six
service options for Madaket Village (see Chapter 2, DEIS).
In accordance witp CEQ guidelines, not every conceivable
impact for each alternative was covered. Rather, the
categories were focused, through an inter-agency scoping
process, on those impacts which were judged to be most
important. This resulted in an impact evaluation of the
following fifteen environmental categories:
Water Quality . Noise
Coast Flood Hazard Zones Land Use/Induced Growth
Wildlife/Endangered Species Recreational Use
Wetlands Traffic
Air Pollution Business
Public Health Costs
Soil Erosion Energy
Archeological/Historical Sites
Comments on the DEIS suggested that four additional
categories be added:
CZM Consistency Significant Agricultural
Land
Wild and Scenic Rivers Mineral Resources
A summary of the environmental screening process is
presented on Tables 2,3 and 4. Table 2 has the Nantucket
Center Alternatives. Table 3 has the Siasconset
Alternatives and Table 4 has the Madaket Alternatives. A
complete discussion of each of these impacts is contained
in Chapter 4 of the DEIS.
The screening of alternate locations for the treatment
facilities and filter bed sites is not included on these
tables. Because alternate sites was not an issue during
the review of the DEIS, the reader is referred to pages 2-1
through 2-10 of the DEIS for a complete discussion of that
evaluation. It concluded that, from both an environmental
and transmission costs standpoint, the present sites should
continue in use as filter beds.
25
-------
The 201 engineer also evaluated secondary treatment with a
discharge to the ocean.(12) Based upon a preliminary
cost estimate of £.7,587,000 for treatment and a 5,500 L.F.
ocean outfall pipe, plus environmental effects to bathing
beaches, the ocean outfall was dropped from further
consideration.
The five treatment alternatives for Nantucket Center
depicted on table 2 were reviewed in detail on pages 4-3
through 4-14 of the DEIS. Table 2 lists the Nantucket
alternatives in five vertical columns, with the type and
intensity of impact indicated by graphic symbols within
each category. The categories are read horizontally across
each column to give a relative sense of how each
alternative compares with another.
The summary charts give an overall picture of the
environmental impacts and environmental significance of all
the alternatives. The more black dots that appear to the
right in each column, the more significant are the adverse
impacts. The more triangles in a column, the less
environmentally significant, and more favorable, an
alternative.
Using these summary tables, the alternatives that were
dropped from consideration and the resulting recommended
actions can be easily seen at a glance.
For the Nantucket options, other than no action, the
least-cost construction option is primary treatment. The
two secondary treatment options are next most expensive
with low-rate irrigation the most costly. No action and
low-rate irrigation have more significant, adverse
impacts. Based upon costs and impacts, therefore, primary
treatment is the perferred option, for Nantucket and the
others dropped from consideration.
For the Siasconset options on Table 3, the option with the
lowest initial capital cost is secondary: aerated lagoon,
which is only slightly less costly than primary treatment.
However, when the 201 Plan added the costs of operating and
maintaining a secondary treatment plant, it found that
primary treatment costs were less by a factor of 36% (Table
29, pg. VII-11, 201 Plan). Over the long run, therefore,
primary is actually less expensive than secondary
treatment. Although primary treatment has minor adverse
impacts to groundwater quality and soil filtration, the
riZ)"Item 1 - Cost of Ocean Outfall", Sheaffer and Roland,
Inc. letter to Bill Richardson, Anderson-Nichols, Inc. March 3,
1981.
26
-------
significance can be minimized by applying a buffer zone
around the site as a mitigation measure. While no action
has no impact in most categories, potential operational
problems and an increased effect on public health (see
Section 1.2.2) make it an undesirable option. Due to
costs, impacts and mitigation measures, primary treatment
is the preferred option for Siasconset.
For the Madaket area alternatives on Table 4, public water
is the least expepsive construction option, whereas each
of the treatment pptions is nearly twice as expensive.
From the standpoint of impacts, the four structural
alternatives (3 treatment options; plus water) each have a
number of significant, adverse environmental impacts. The
no action and non-structural management options have the
least impact. The non-structural management option has
the most beneficial impacts of all the Madaket
alternatives. Based upon the environmental impacts, costs
and the findings of the sewer needs analysis (which found
no need to sewer Madaket), the preferred option is the the
non-structural management program.
3.2 IMPACT EVALUATION PROCESS
The recommended actions have a number of environmental
effects on the Island. Some of those impacts may be
beneficial, others will be adverse. The significance of
those impacts has been evaluated in context with the
Island of Nantucket and its local resources.
The recommended actions have been evaluated using the
nineteen environmental categories listed above. Each
action is evaluated within each parameter to establish the
intensity and type of impact. Impacts are categorized as
direct or indirect, and short or long-term. There may be
no impact, insignificant impact, minor or major impact.
The key consideration is the "significance" of an impact,
whether it be of a short or long term (over six months)
nature. Significance requires considerations of both
context and intensity. These are used to gauge the
severity of impact. For this EIS, four categories of
impact have been used. These are none, insignificant,
minor and significant. These are more fully described
below:
a. No Impact
This is self-explanatory; there are no impacts on
the environment due to the actions proposed.
27
-------
Table 2
Nantucket EIS
Environmental Impact Profile
Nantucket Center Alternatives
NJ
oo
Category of Impact
1 Water Quality
2 Coastal Flood Hazard
3 Wildlife / Endangered Species
4 Wetlands
5 Air Pollution / Odors
6 Public Health
7 Soil Filtration
8 Noise
9 Land Use / Induced Growth
10 Recreational Use
11 Traffic
12 Business
13 Costs
14 Energy
15 Archeological / Historic Sites
16 Mineral Resources
17 Significant Agricultural Land
18 Wild & Scenic Rivers
19 CZM Consistency
COST (Total Capital Costs: $ million
updated from 201 Plan x 1.29 as per
S & R)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
$4.626
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
e
A
$5.356
^
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
A
$5.289
O
O
0
O
A
A
A'
1
,-
$7.611
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
Type S Intensity of Impacts: ^adverse Abeneficial O no impact
-------
Table 3
Siasconset Alternatives
Nantucket EIS
Environmental Impact Profile
Category of Impact
1 Water Quality
2 Coastal Flood Hazard
3 Wildlife / Endangered Species
4 Wetlands
5 Air Pollution / Odors
6 Public Health
7 Soil Filtration
8 Noise
9 Land Use / induced Growth
10 Recreational Use
11 Traffic
12 Business
13 Costs
14 Energy
15 Archeological / Historic Sites
16 Mineral Resources
17 Significant Agricultural Land
18 Wild & Scenic Rivers
19 CZM Consistency
COST (Total Capital Costs: $ millions
updated from 201 Plan x 1.5 as per S&R)
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
$0.974
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
$1.658
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
$0.915
o
0
.0
o
0
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
e
Type & intensity of impacts: adverse A beneficial O no impact
-------
Table 4
Nantucket EIS
Environmental Impact Profile
Madaket Alternatives
Category of Impacts
1 Water Quality
2 Coastal Flood Hazard
3 Wildlife / Endangered Species
4 Wetlands
5 Air Pollution / Odors
6 Public Health
7 Soil Filtration
8 Noise
9 Land Use / Induced Growth
10 Recreational Use
11 Traffic
12 Business
13 Costs
14 Energy
15 Archeological / Historic Sites
16 Mineral .Resources
17 Significant Agricultural Land
18 Wild & Scenic Rivers
19 CZM Consistency
COST (Total Capital Costs: $ millions
updated from 201 Plan x 1.4 as per S&R)
O
0
O
O
»
©
«
O
©
9
%
A
e
$5.740
o
o
o
o
G
A
$6.216
O
O
O
o
e
e
e
A
$5.698
O
O
o
o
o
o
A
A
$3.724
O
O
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
e
A
A
A
O
O
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
Type & Intensity of^Impacts: ^adverse Abeneficial O no impact
-------
b. Insignificant Impact
The action will have a negligible impact on the
environment.
c. Minor Impact
The impact will be of importance but not severe
enough to be considered under the definition of
significant, below.
d. Significant Impact
An impact of major severity and critical
importance would be rated as significant. There
are no hard or fast rules to rate significance.
The criteria listed below were considered in
determining the significance of impacts:
Public health or safety is threatened.
Unique characteristics, such as locally
important wetlands or historic resources may
be adversely affected.
The effects on the quality of the human
environment, including economic concerns are
likely to be highly controversial.
The actions proposed by the alternative may
open up potentials for future growth not
consistent with local goals and plans.
The action, in concert with other
insignificant or minor actions, could result
in a cumulative impact of a significant
nature.
The action may have a significant adverse
effect on a site listed or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. The
action may cause the destruction of
significant scientific, cultural or
.. historical resources.
\
The action may have a significant adverse
effect on the habitat of a species
identified by the Endangered Species Act of
1973.
The action threatens a violation of Federal,
State, or local law or requirements imposed
for the protection of the .environment.
31
-------
In addition to Significance, an impact may be either
Direct or Indirect. These two general categories can be
defined as follows:
e. Direct effects which are caused by the action and
occur at the same time and place.
f Indirect effects, which are caused by the action
and are later in time or farther removed in
distance. Indirect effects may include growth or
induced changes in the pattern of land use,
population density and their related effects on
other natural systems.
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION
The recommended actions to service Nantucket Center and
Siasconset are primary treatment of wastewater followed by
rapid infiltration land disposal at separate facilities
located at the present Surfside and Siasconset disposal
sites. A long-term water supply-wastewater disposal
management program is recommended for Madaket Village.
These recommended actions are evaluated in the following
section. Each action is evaluated within each of the
nineteen environmental categories, noted above, and
impacts are categorized as direct or indirect, short or
long term and in the level of significance. A narrative
text provides background on each evaluation.
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions
Primary wastewater pretreatment facilities with rapid
infiltration at the Surfside filter beds, a 90 acre
management area, a septage handling facility, sludge
composting, wind generator, downtown sewer
rehabilitation and long-term sewer service along Old
South Road towar(? the Airport are the recommended
actions for Nantucket Center. The impacts and
environmental consequences are as follows.
3.3.1.1 Water Quality; Direct, Long-Term,
Minor, Adverse
Groundwater quality in the vicinity of the
filterbeds would continue to be adversely
affected by high nitrate levels in the wastewater
plume. Since this represents no change over that
of the previous 50-odd years, the impact is of
minor importance. A Case III designation of the
32
-------
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions (cent.)
plume area as non-potable and the Town's
acquisition of the 90 acre area to preclude the
installation of private wells would also have an
impact. Since there are no houses in the area,
however, and since ownership patterns are so
fragmented, this Case III designation will have
only a minor impact because of the remote
likelihood of ever using the groundwater for
potable supplies. The Mass. Division of Water
Pollution Control (DWPC) will require groundwater
monitoring wells to check on future pollutant
loadings within the plume.
Surface water quality in Nantucket Harbor should
be improved as a result of the improvements to
the Sea Street Pump Station and force main.
These improvements will eliminate the causes of
sewage overflows to the Harbor. This will
alleviate the most serious water quality problem
facing the Island.
3.3.1.2 Coastal Flood Hazard; No Effect
None of the facilities at the Surfside treatment
beds would be located within a Federal flood
hazard area. Neither the completed project or
any future growth on the Island are expected to
worsen flood damage and losses due to storms.
EPA policy is not to provide funding for, any
project that would promote growth in an
environmentally sensitive area such as a flood
hazard zone.
3.3.1.3 Wildlife/Endangered Species! Indirect,
Long-Term, Minor, Beneficial
Construction of the facilties and the new sewer
beds would not directly effect the tern nesting
areas at Surfside. The terns presently nest in
the area between the filter beds and the beach.
The location of the new filter beds is in a line
behind those presently constructed and parallel
to the beach. The proposed ownership-management
area which would be associated with the Surfside
treatment facilities would enable the management
of wildlife within that zone. This creates an
indirect, long-term, minor, beneficial impact for
wildlife management within the ownership area.
No endangered species are affected by the
proposed project.
33
-------
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.1.4 Wetlands; No Effect
The only wetland in the vicinity of the Surfside
filter beds is the beach and dune system along
the Atlantic Ocean. Since the proposed filter
beds will be built well behind the primary dunes,
no wetland impacts are anticipated. EPA policy
is not to fund any projects that would promote
growth ip an environmentally sensitive area, such
as wetland.
3.3.1.5 Air Pollution-Odors; Direct, Long-Term,
Minor, Adverse
Adverse effects are probable, due to odor and
aerosols generated by the proposed facilities.
Major sources of odor are likely to be the open
primary clarifiers, the septage receiving
facility and the sludge processing facility.
Meteorological data indicate that the prevailing
wind direction is from the southwest during the
warm weather months and from the northwest during
the cold weather months. The predominant
direction is from the southwest at an average
velocity of 13 mph. At Surfside, the area with
the highest potential for odor or aerosol impact
is the area east-northeast of the beds at the
southerly end of Surfside Road. Proper operation
of the primary treatment facility and the
proposed management buffer zone should keep,the
odor impacts minor. Operation of the facility
should have no effect on the Massachusetts SIP
air pollution control plan. Exhaust from
construction vehicles would create temporary
impacts during the reconstruction of the sewers
in the downtown area. These impacts would be
highly localized and relatively minor.
3.3.1.6 Public Health; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Minor adverse impacts which currently exist would
be further reduced by the implementation of the
proposed action. The provision of the management
area and associated fencing of the filter beds
would minimize public contact. The buffer zone,
if extended to the boundary of the wastewater
plume, would also prevent private wells inside
the plume that could jeopardize public health.
34
-------
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.1.7 Soil Filtration; Direct, Long-Term,
Minor, Adverse
The filtration of wastewater would be improved
over the present no-action situation. However,
nitrates would still reach the groundwater at a
rate of 392 Ibs./day by the year 2000. Suspended
solids on the beds would be reduced, improving
oxidation and improving drying time, but the
presence of nearly a ton per day of solids would
still require scraping to keep the beds from
clogging, causing long-term, minor, adverse
effects.
3.3.1.8 Noise; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Noise effects from the operation of equipment,
sludge processing, septage dumping and composting
would be on-going, but insignificant impacts.
Short-term noise impacts would result during
construction of the facility and the
rehabilitation of the sewers.
3.3.1.9 Land Use/Induced Growth; Direct,
Long-Term, Insignificant, Adverse
The proposed actions will serve to concentrate
growth in the downtown areas as lots are infilled
and tie into the existing sewer system.
Long-term impacts will be to consolidate growth
in a corridor running out toward the airport.
Both of these impacts are consistent with the
Town's zoning and its growth management policy.
The proposed 90 acre Case III management area at
the filter beds would have an adverse affect on
the future development of those parcels. Because
the parcels are so small and title is difficult
to clear, this impact is relatively minor.
3.3.1.10 Recreational Use; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
The project will hinder recreational access
to the beach. At present, beachgoers may gain
access through the filter bed site on their way
to the beach. This access will be
blocked by a fence around the treatment
facilities. Access along the beach is not be
affected. This impact is rated as insignificant,
since the filter beds are not used to any great
extent for beach access.
35
-------
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.1.11 Traffic; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Increased movement of septage pumper trucks will
increase the flow of traffic to the filter beds.
The beds, however, are remote and the access road
runs through a sparsely populated area. The
impacts would, therefore, be insignificant.
Plans ar£ to pave only that portion of the access
road within the treatment plant site to allow
maneuverability to septage haulers on a
year-round basis.
Temporary traffic impacts could result during the
rehabilitation of the downtown sewers. Streets
that will be affected include: North Beach,
South Water, South Beach and Washington.
Temporary detours and construction during the
off-peak season from September through June will
minimize the impact on local traffic.
3.3.1.12 Business; No Effect
The proposed action is located entirely at the
filter bed site at Surfside Beach. It will not
affect businesses. (It should be pointed out,
however, that the associated force main project
could have a direct effect on businesses if the
force main route were to be constructed through
the downtown business district. For a discussion
of the forcemain and impact on business, please
see the "Environmental Review: Alternate Force
Main Routes", NPEDC, July 24, 1980).
The rehabilitation of the sewers in downtown
Nantucket could have an adverse effect on
businesses if work is done during the summer
tourist season. This will be avoided, however,
by completing all construction during September
through June. The only street where businesses
could be affected, South Water, has largely a
summer-oriented clientel.
3.3.1.13 Costs; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Primary treatment at the Surfside filter beds is
the least costly of the options proposed for
Nantucket Center. The capital cost would amount
to $4,626,000, including land acquisition,
engineering and contingencies. This is
determined to have an adverse impact, but it is
less signficant than the other treatment options
36
-------
3.3.1 Nantucket Center Recommended Actions (cont.)
proposed. The cost to service an average
customer would be about $50 per year, which is
the least expensive unit service cost of any
alternative.
3.3.1.14 Energy; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
There is some energy cost associated with the
operation of the control building, disinfection
facilities and sludge composting facilities. The
combined power requirements for the recommended
action are expected to be 50,000 kilowatt hours
per year, at an annual cost of £5,000. This is
the least energy-consuming alternative. Energy
costs will be further reduced by the installation
of a wind powered.turbine generator on site.
3.3.1.15 Archaeological/Historical; No Effect
An archaeological review of the proposed project,
including the rehabilitation of the downtown
sewers, was conducted through the Mass.
Historical Commission. MHC staff concluded that
the proposed actions were unlikely to affect
significant historic or archaeological
resources. No further review in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act is required.
3.3.1.16 Mineral Resources; No Effect
No significant mineral resources are affected by
the recommended actions.
3.3.1.17 Significant Agricultural Land; No
Effect
No significant agricultural lands will be
affected by the recommended actions.
3.3.1.18 Wild and Scenic Rivers; No Effect
There are no listed wild or scenic rivers in
Nantucket.
3.3.1.19 CZM Consistency; No Effect
The proposed actions for Nantucket Center are
consistent with all Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management policies.
37
-------
3.3.2 Siasconset Recommended Actions
Primary wastewater pretreatment facilities with rapid
infiltration at the Siasconset filter beds, a 20 acre
management area, six sand filter beds, a small wind
generator and sludge stabilization and storage
facility are the recommended actions for Siasconset.
3.3.2.1 Water Quality; Direct, Long-Term,
Minor, Adverse
The groundwater in the vicinity of the filter
beds has been degraded as the result of more than
50 years of wastewater disposal at the site.
Nitrates in the wastewater column would continue
to degrade the groundwater (65 Ibs./day by 2000),
preventing its use as a source of drinking water
supply. A Case III designation of the 20 acre
plume area has been requested by the Town to
prevent installation of wells. There is public
water service available in the street immediately
above the filter beds. Overall effects on ground
water quality would be adverse, although not
significant in context with the entire Island.
No surface water resources are affected by the
recommended actions.
3.3.2.2 Coastal Flood Hazard; No Effect
None of the facilities recommended for
construction at the filter bed sites would be
located within a federal flood hazard area. EPA
policy is not to fund projects which would
promote growth in environmentally sensitive
areas, such as a coastal flood hazard zone.
3.3.2.3 Wildlife/Endangered Species; No Effect
Construction of the facilities at the Siasconset
filter beds would not affect the habitat of any
major wildlife species. There are no known
nesting areas in the immediate vicinity of the
filter beds on the beach. The proposed Case III
management area associated with the Siasconset
treatment facilities would enable management of
wildlife within that zone if a wildlife habitat
became established there. No endangered species
would be affected by the recommended action.
38
-------
3.3.2 Siasconset Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.2.4 Wetlands; No Effect
The only wetland in the vicinity of the proposed
Siasconset treatment facilities is the beach and
dune system along the Atlantic Ocean. EPA policy
is not to fund projects which would promote
growth in environmentally sensitive areas, such
as wetlands or beaches. Although the existing
filter beds are located on,a high beach and,
therefore, technically in a wetland area, they do
not adversely effect the function of the beach as
a wetland. Since the existing and the proposed
filter beds would be built well behind the
primary dunes, no wetlands impacts are
anticipated. Cod Fish Park is also on the high
beach and technically may come under state
coastal wetland regulations. Since the proposal
is to serve only existing houses, no new effects
are anticipated. Capacity at the proposed filter
beds includes only existing development at Cod
Fish Park.
3.3.2.5 Air Pollution/Odors; Direct, Long-Term,
Minor, Adverse
Odor generated by the proposed facilities is
probable, although probably less than what
presently exists. Potential sources of odor are
the two open primary clarifiers and the sand
filter beds. At Siasconset the potential for
odor impact is somewhat less than at Surfside,
even though there are several houses within 1,000
feet of the beds. This is because the prevailing
winds would normally carry odors and aerosols out
to sea. Proper operation of the plant would
keep the air pollution impacts to a minor level.
Temporary air quality impacts could exist on a
highly localized basis as a result of
construction activities.
3.3.2.6 Public Health; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Minor adverse impacts which currently exist
include the potential for human contact and
vector transport by insects, birds and rodents.
These conditions would still exist, but would be
improved by this alternative, due to the
inclusion of fencing around the site and a land
buffer zone. Private wells would be precluded
within the area, so no nitrate contamination
would result from the filter beds. Although
these mitigating measures can be used to reduce
the impact on public health, an insignificant
adverse effect would remain.
39
-------
3.3.2 Siasconset Recommended Actions (cpnt.)
3.3.2.7 Soil Filtration; Direct, Long-Term, Minor,
Adverse
Clogging of the surface on the filter beds would
be reduced over that experienced with no
treatment. Solids would be applied at a rate of
up to 174 Ibs./day by the year 2000 and would
still clog the sand beds. The beds would have to
be scraped on a regular basis in order to remove
the organic mat that develops, and the use of the
beds would still have to be rotated as each bed
became loaded to capacity. This would be less a
problem than with no treatment.
3.3.2.8 Noise; Direct, Long-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Short-term noise impacts would be probable, due
to construction of the facilities. Long-term
impacts would result from maintenance equipment
but these effects are expected to be very
insignificant.
3.3.2.9 Land Use/Induced Growth; Indirect,
Long-Term, Insignificant, Adverse
The proposed actions will serve to concentrate
growth in the high-density zoned areas of
Siasconset Village. This is consistent with the
Town's growth management policies. The
additional 5 acres which the Town would need to
add to control the 20 acre area affected by the
plume will have an adverse affect on development
of those parcels. This adverse impact would be
of insignificant importance in context with the
entire Island. A new house constructed to the
south of the disposal site will not be affected
any more than it presently is as a result of its
proximity to the filter beds. The Town should*
discourage such construction on the high beach
area, consistent with coastal regulations.
3.3.2.10 Recreational Use; No Effect
The proposed treatment option will not have any
effect on the recreational use of the beach. At
present, there is very little use of the
back-shore behind the beach in the immediate
vicinity of ,the filter beds. Most swimming takes
place further up the beach at Cod Fish Park.
Access along the beach will not be affected.
40
-------
3.3.2 Siasconset Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.2.11 Traffic; No Effect
A small, paved access road would be constructed
onto the site for access to the control
building. The access road would be used only
occasionally by DPW personnel. The frequency of
these visits would not increase appreciably over
those at present.
3.3.2.12 Business; No Effect
The proppsed action is located entirely at the
filter bed site at Siasconset. It will not
effect existing businesses in the Siasconset area,
3.3.2.13 Costs; Direct, Long-term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Costs of the recommended action are estimated at
$974,000 with annual user charges of about $50
per house. These costs are judged to be adverse,
although relatively insignificant in terms of the
costs of alternatives.
3.3.2.14 Energy; Direct, Long-term,
Insignificant, Adverse
Energy requirements for the recommended action
amount to 10,000 kilowatt hours per year at a
cost of $1,000 per year. These requirements are
the least energy consuming of any treatment
alternative and have an insignificant adverse
effect. These costs will be mitigated by the
installation of a wind-powered generator on site.
3.3.2.15 Archaeological/Historical; No Effect
No historical or poteritial archaeological sites
have been identified in the vicinity of the
Siasconset filter beds. A Phase I survey
indicated there would be no archaeological or
historical impacts associated with any treatment
process at the Siasconset site. Mass. Historical
Commission staff concluded that there will be no
impact to significant historic or archaeological
resources. No further review in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act is required.
3.3.2.16 Mineral Resources; No Effect
No mineral resources are affected by the
recommended actions.
41
-------
3.3.2 Siasconset Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.2.17 Significant Agricultural Land; No
Effect
No significant agricultural lands are affected by
the recommended actions.
3.3.2.18 Wild and Scenic Rivers; No Effect
There are no wild or scenic rivers, underground
or otherwise, on Nantucket Island.
3.3.2.19 CZM Consistency; No Effect
The recommended actions are consistent with all
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management policies.
3.3.3 Madaket Village Recommended Actions
The recommended action for Madaket is that the town
initiate a non-structural, comprehensive wastewater
disposal and water supply protection management
program. This should include improved regulations for
locating wells relative to septic fields, initiating a
water conservation program, encouraging the use of
waterless toilet systems in new construction, and
encouraging improved agricultural fertilization and
livestock keeping practices.
3.3.3.1 Water Quality; Direct, Long-term, Minor,
Beneficial
Continued on-site disposal of wastewater at
Madaket under the present Madaket regulations
creates the potential for occasional
contamination of wells. The relatively low
frequency of contamination would be of minor
significance.
Based on a sample survey, the 201 facilities plan
projects that 20 to 40 houses in Madaket might
experience problems with private water supply.
These problems would include nitrate levels above
the 10 milligrams per liter level (mg/1) of
contamination. Implementation of £he
non-structural program would consist of a number
of elements designed to eliminate contamination
of new or existing private wells. This would
have an important beneficial effect on water
quality in private wells.
42
-------
3.3.3 Madaket Village Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.3.2 Coastal Flood Hazard; No Effect
The implementation of a non-structural management
program in Madaket would not have an impact on
future growth. Therefore, there would be no
likelihood of induced construction in the coastal
flood hazard zone as a result of this option.
3.3.3.3 Wildlife/Endangered Species; No Effect
Implementation of the non-structural management
option would not affect any wildlife habitat.
Since no induced growth would result, there would
be no indirect impact on wildlife or endangered
species.
3.3.3.4 Wetlands; No Effect
Implementation of the non-structural management
program would not impact wetlands, and, since no
induced growth would be generated, there is no
likelihood of any indirect adverse impacts on
wetlands.
3.3.3.5 Air Pollution/Odors; Direct, Short-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
There would be exhaust from equipment during
implementation of various elements of the
non-structural program. However, these air
pollution effects would be highly localized and
very insignificant.
3.3.3.6 Public Health; Direct, Long-Term, Minor,
Beneficial
Construction of the various non-structural
program elements would have a beneficial
long-term effect on public health. This would be
due to the reduction in exposure to potential
nitrate contamination in the private water
supplies. Because relatively few houses
experience problems, the overall beneficial
result will be minor.
3.3.3.7 Soil Filtration; No Effect
Since no primary or secondary treatment facility
would be constructed with filter beds, there
would be no requirement for soil filtration as an
element in the treatment process. The continued
use of on-site septic systems will not have any
appreciable effect on soils in the area.
43
-------
3.3.3 Madaket Village Recommended Actions (cont.)
3.3.3.8 Noise; Direct, Short-Term,
Insignificant, Adverse
There would be short-term insignificant noise
generated by the construction of various
non-structural elements. This would not be
excessive and would be highly localized in nature,
3.3.3.9 Land Use/Induced Growth; Indirect,
Long-Term, Insignificant, Adverse
The implementation of a non-structural management
program could require increased lot sizes in
Madaket to prevent excessive depletion of the
limited water supply and to reduce the further
build-up of nitrates from septic tank leachates.
This element of the program could have an
adverse, short-term impact on growth, although
the long-term effect would be to sustain balanced
growth within the carrying capacity of the
aquifer. This is consistent with the Town's
growth management policy and is considered to be
an insignificant private impact in terms of the
costs of the alternative to the general public.
3.3.3.10 Recreational Use; No Effect
The recommended action would not have any impact
on recreational activities in Madaket.
3.3.3.11 Traffic; No Effect
The implementation of a non-structural program in
Madaket would not have any effect on traffic.
Since there would be no new growth induced by the
management program there would be no potential
for resulting traffic increases.
3.3.3.12 Business; Indirect, Long-Term, Minor,
Beneficial
The implementation of a non-structural program in
Madaket could have a long-term minor beneficial
impact resulting from future growth in Madaket
under the improved regulations.
3.3.3.13 Costs; Direct, Long-term, Minor,
Adverse
Although the Final EIS has not been provided any
costs for the non-structural program, there would
be costs associated with the various elements.
44
-------
3.3.3 Madaket Village Recommended Actions (cont.)
The elements might include community leaching
fields or a limited water supply system or
relocation of septic systems or improved land use
regulations. Each of these elements would have a
public cost that is judged to be adverse,
although not of major significance in context
with the other recommendations.
3.3.3.14 Energy; No Effect
The implementation of a non-structural management
program would have little or no energy
requirements.
3.3.3.15 Archaeological/Historical; No Effect
A non-structural management program would be
oriented to improving on-site septic systems.
Since the earlier construction of these systems
would have disturbed earth at that site, there
would be little or no potential for historic or
archaeological impacts.
3.3.3.16 Mineral Resources; No Effect
No mineral resources are affected by the
recommended actions.
3.3.3.17 Significant Agricultural Land; No
Effect
No significant agricultural lands will be
affected by the non-structural management program.
3.3.3.18 Wild .and Scenic Rivers; No Effect
\
There are no wild or scenic rivers in Madaket.
3.3.3.19 CMZ Consistency; No Effect
The proposed actions for Madaket Village are
consistent with Massachusetts CZM policies.
45
-------
Chapter 4
Mitigation Measures
-------
CHAPTER 4 MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 WATER QUALITY
The implementation, of a Case III buffer zone around the
Surfside and Siasconset filter beds is the most
significant mitigation measure for water quality. The
Town of Nantucket has requested the Division of Water
Pollution Control (DWPC) to designate the 90 acre plume at
Surfside and the 20 acre plume at Siasconset as Case III
buffer zones. The Town will then acquire these zones and
preclude private wells from being established in the area
affected by the plumes.
This Case III measure will be supplemented by a DWPC
requirement to monitor the quality of groundwater in the
plume on a regular basis. If pollutant loadings increase
substantially over projected levels, the monitoring will
detect it and the need for disinfection could be
evaluated. The recommended action suggests that, while
disinfection facilities are not warranted under present
circumstances, the facilities will be designed to allow
their provision, if and when needed.
Good construction practices will be followed during the
construction of the new facilities and the rehabilitation
of sewers. These practices will ensure that runoff and
siltation is minimized and that dewatering operations be
controlled with sediment traps or retention basins. When
such activities takes place within 100 feet of a wetland,
a permit will be sought from the Nantucket Conservation
Commission. Runoff from the composting pad at Surfs'ide
will be collected and run back to the head end of the
treatment plant.
The Mandaket non-structural program will result in a
gradual improvement of groundwater quality in the Madaket
aquifer. This will have an important, beneficial effect
on water quality in private wells.
4.2 COASTAL FLOOD HAZARDS
EPA policy is not to provide funding for any project that
would promote growth in an environmentally sensitive area,
such as a coastal storm hazard flood zone. The controls
on the provision of sewers will be consistent with the
prevention of coastal flood hazard, the Massachusetts
Wetland Protection Act, MA Executive Order 181 and the
Nantucket Conservation Commission requirements.
46
-------
4.3 WILDLIFE/ENDANGERED SPECIES
The improvements at the Surfside filter beds will be
implemented in a manner that enhances the adjacent tern
nesting area. The Nantucket Planning and Economic
Development Commission's (NPEDC) proposed management area,
in conjunction with the 90 acre buffer zone, would enable
the management of wildlife within the entire area. The
Town should coordinate such a management program with
representatives of local wildlife groups.
4.4 WETLANDS
EPA policy is not to provide funds for any project that
would promote growth in a wetland area. The controls on
the provision of sewers shall be consistent with the
requirements of the Mass. Wetlands Protection Act,
Massachusetts Executive Order 181 and the requirements of
the Nantucket Conservation Commission. The provision of
sewers to Cod Fish Park, which might technically be
considered a wetland area, shall be conditioned with these
requirements. Capacity at the Siasconset filter beds has
been provided only for existing structures located at Cod
Fish Park. No new structures will be serviced. Future
grants should preclude service to structures located in
wetlands which may be built subsequent to the grant action,
4.5 AIR POLLUTION/ODORS
The most important item in keeping possible odor and air
quality impacts to a minimum is to operate and maintain
the treatment facilities, the land application system, and
the composting facilities in accordance with modern
sanitary engineering standards. Any variation from
recommended operating procedures can have an adverse
impact on neighbors adjacent to the treatment facilities.
4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH
The designation of a Case III buffer zone around the
Surfside and Siasconset filter beds, as recommended by the
Draft EIS and requested by the Town, will minimize risks
to public health by preventing public wells from being
installed in the areas contaminated by the wastewater
plume. Fencing the area around the treatment facilities
will prevent public contact with the filter beds and
wastewater equipment. The Madaket non-structural program
will have a beneficial long-term effect due to the gradual
improvement in groundwater quality in the Madaket
aquifer. This will improve water quality in private wells
and reduce the risk of nitrates contaminating public water
supplies.
47
-------
4.7 SOIL FILTRATION
Proper maintenance of the filter beds will include regular
scraping of the dried, organic mat. Loading rates will be
kept to 4 gallons per day per square foot to ensure
adequate filtration of wastewater pollutants.
4.8 NOISE
Proper operation and maintenance procedures will reduce
noise levels emanating from the treatment facilities.
These will be coupled with considerate construction
practices which minimize noise generated by heavy
equipment during the construction or rehabilitation of the
sewer facilities.
4.9 LAND USE/INDUCED GROWTH
The Town of Nantucket should consider growth and land use
density controls as a part of the non-structural water
quality management controls for Madaket Village. Sewer
hookups will be prohibited in environmentally sensitive
areas such as coastal flood plains, wetlands, prime
agricultural lands or beachfront areas.
Aesthetic impacts at the filter beds, such at those
created by high visibility of the facility, will be
minimized by design elements such as fences, vegetative
screens, and earth berms. A vegetated, earth berm will
help to screen the site and any associated buildings or
lab facilities.
4.10 RECREATIONAL USE
(No mitigating measures required.)
4.11 TRAFFIC
The rehabilitation of downtown Nantucket sewers will take
place on North Beach, South Beach, South Water and
Washington Streets. Construction will be scheduled during
the off-peak, non-tourist season from September through
June. Local detours will be well-posted and minimize the
routing of heavy traffic flows along narrow, residential
side streets whenever possible.
4.12 BUSINESS
The rehabilitation of sewers in downtown Nantucket will be
scheduled for the off-peak, non-tourist season, as noted
above. This will minimize disruption of downtown
businesses during their peak volume period.
48
-------
4.13 COSTS
(No mitigating measures required.)
4.14 ENERGY
Due to the excessive costs of shipping diesel generator
fuel to the Island, the use of wind turbine generators is
recommended to help offset power generation costs. This
will entail the installation of a 10-kw wind turbine
generator at Surfjside and a 5-kw machine at Siasconset.
As mentioned in Section 2.1, such wind machines are
cost-effective and, in ^antucket's exposed and wind-swept
location, are an ideal means of energy production.
4.15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORIC
The recommended projects will not have any significant
effect on historic or archaeological resources on
Nantucket. Several mitigating measures, however, are
proposed to lessen what minor impacts could occur as a
result of sewer rehabilitation. Paving materials such as
cobblestones, beach stones, granite curbing or brick
paving shall be replaced, wherever possible, with the
original stones in the same, original pattern. Use of new
material of the same type as the original, in the same
patterns and textures, would be an alternative under
certain circumstances.
Although the construction of sewer laterals is not
included in the recommended funding package, the Town
should be aware of the potential for archaeological sites
in certain areas which may have laterals installed during
the 20 year planning period covered by the Facilities
Plan. These areas include:
the undeveloped land west of the high school and
elementary school; west side of Atlantic Ave.
the undeveloped land east of the high school and south
of Sparks Ave.
the undeveloped land north of Vesper Lane, west of the
hospital.
the undeveloped land north of the junction of Orange
Street and Milestone Road, south of the area known as
The Creeks.
If laterals are constructed in these areas, the following
suggested mitigation measures could be taken.
49
-------
Before the time of construction or trenching, the
Nantucket Historical Association should be notified. A
person with appropriate background in the archaeology of
Nantucket should be available to the construction crew to
monitor excavation), in cooperation with the Nantucket
Historical Association (NHA).
If evidence is found indicating the presence of a site,
construction should be temporarily halted until a
determination is made of the significance of the material
found.
In the absence of an official monitor, back hoe operators
and crew members can be made aware of their relative
proximity to archaeologically sensitive areas. If, during
construction, some materials thought to be archaeological
or historical were disturbed, the NHA should be notified
by those people conducting the excavations.
4 .16 MINERAL RESOURCES
(No mitigation measures required.)
4.17 SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LAND
(No mitigation measures required.)
4.18 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
(No mitigation measures required.)
4.19 CZM CONSISTENCY
(See Sections 4.2, 4.4 and 4.9)
50
-------
Chapter 5
Comments & Responses
-------
CHAPTER 5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Nantucket's
wastewater treatment facilities was published on November
28, 1980. During the period allowed for public comments,
November 28, 1980 through January 19, 1981, EPA received
14 written responses. These are reproduced in Appendix B.
Of those written Responses, nine had no conflict or no
comment, two were opposed to alternatives that had been
rejected in the Draft EIS but had no conflict with the
recommended actions, and three had comments on various
aspects of the DEIS.
At the Public Hearing held on January 8, 1981, background
statements on the Draft EIS were made by Mr. Robert
Mendoza, Hearing Officer, by Mr. Fred Roland, 201
Facilities Planning Engineer, and by Mr. Bill Richardson,
EIS Project Manager. Comments and questions on the Draft
EIS were raised by 5 members of the audience. Eight
townspeople and eight memebers of the 201/EIS team were in
attendance. (See Appendix A).
It should be noted that many of the comments overlapped on
similar issues. The questions raised at the Public
Hearing were answered by EPA reprsentatives at the hearing,
In the sections that follow, EPA has prepared a response
to the oral comments at the Public Hearing and the written
comments received during the review period. The comments
are identified with a letter and number keyed to their
sources in either Appendix A or B. Comment A-9, for
example, is from the ninth response, or question, listed
in Appendix A, "Synopsis of Public Hearing."
5.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
5.2.1 NANTUCKET CENTER COMMENTS
5.2.1.1 Comment; (A-9)
Will tidal action affect the cleanliness of the
filter beds and help to keep them clean?
Response;
Tidal action does not affect the filter beds at
Surfside or Siasconset, since the groundwater
beneath the beds is fresh water which is flowing
toward the sea. The beds are kept clean by
periodically scraping them.
51
-------
5.2.1.2 Comment; (A-10)
What if the emergency outfall is sealed off and
there is an emergency power failure during a
rainstorm?
Response;
The likelihood of a complete power outage is
remote, but the project is designed with dual
force mains, stand-by power, improvements to
catch basins and reduction in leakage, plus three
pumps for excess flows. If the entire system
fails during an exceptionally heavy rainstorm,
the sewer manholes will pop their covers. The
NPDES permit requires that the overflow be sealed
off.
5.2.1.3 Comment: (A-ll)
Why does all the sewer flow get directed downtown
instead of diverting directly to the beds?
Response;
The proposed sewers along Old South Road out
toward the airport will be diverted at a lift
station to flow to the filter beds.
5.2.1.4. Comment; (A-12)
Why raise the Surfside filter beds if they are
working all right, now?
Response;
The beds should be raised to ensure at least 4
feet of free drainage before hitting
groundwater. This will improve the filtration of
wastewater and conform to state regulations.
5.2.1.5 Comment; (B-8.17)
How much woodchip bulking material is needed for
composting? Is it available? How much does it
cost? What are the impacts?
Repsonse;
Approximately 1700 cubic yards of woodchips would
be used per year and it would be available free
through the Nantucket DPW. The compost pad will
be screened from view by an earth berm and
drainage will be collected for return to the
treatment plant.
52
-------
5.2.1.6 Comment (B-8.22)
The access road within the site will be paved,
not Sewer Bed Road.
Responses
The Final EIS text has been modified to clarify
this point.
5.2.2 SIASCONSET ARljlA COMMENTS:
5.2.2.1 Comment; (A-5)
Will the Cod Fish Park area be sewered?
Response;
Phase two of the 201 Plan proposes to sewer this
beachfront cottage area. The provision of sewers
to the area should be consistent with coastal
wetland regulations, CZM policies, EPA policies
and coastal flood hazard potential.
5.2.2.2 Comment; (B-8.27)
Increasing the size of the sewer system in
Siasconset will have an effect on growth there.
Response;
The pressure for growth in Siasconset is not
great; new houses are built much less frequently
there than elsewhere on the Island. Most new
homes are on lots of one half acre or more, even
in areas zoned for 5,000 sq. ft. lots. Sewer
laterals have been extended infrequently to
service new growth due to the lack of demand for
connections. The increased size of the
Siasconset filter beds will enable new growth to
be serviced on an as-needed basis, but will not,
in and of itself, generate new growth there. If
anything, the costs to tie into the sewer will
have a somewhat negative effect in Siasconset.
5.2.3 MADAKET AREA COMMENTS
5.2.3.1 Comment; (A-l) (A-2)
What is the amount of nitrates found in Madaket
water and is there any danger to anyone? Was any
salt found?
53
-------
Response;
There was no general problem with nitrates found
in Madaket's water. Four houses had levels above
the safe limit of 10 mg./l. Nitrates affect only
very young infants who are less than three months
old. Older children and adults are not affected
(see Section 2.3). No traces of specific
conductance, an indicator of salt, were found in
the Madaket wells.
5.2.3.2 Comment; (B-8.10)
Which alternative has the Town selected and will
EPA require the Town to do anything in Madaket?
Reponse;
The Town has selected the non-structural
management action, consistent with EPA
recommendations. This Final EIS recommends the
Town undertake such a program and lists the
elements to be included in Section 2.3.
5.2.3.3. Comment; (B-8.28)
Adding public water service to Madaket (pg. 4-29,
DEIS) could increase groundwater levels through
on-site recharge.
Response;
This statement is theoretically true. However,
in Madaket's sandy and rapidly-permeable soils,
water percolates so quickly and the aquifer is so
large, relative to on-site wastewater volumes,
that it would take a massive influx of outside
water to raise the groundwater level.
5.2.4 COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
5.2.4.1 Comment; (B-5) (B-14)
The FAA and Nantucket Airport Commission oppose
Site #5 as an alternate site for the filter beds.
Reponse;
The Draft EIS, later in the discussion of
alternate sites for the filter beds, rejects Site
#5 and all other alternates in favor of continued
use of the existing filter beds (see Draft EIS
Section 2.2.3, page 2-9).
54
-------
5.2.4.2 Comment; (B-8.5)
The EIS must evaluate the alernative of secondary
treatment with discharge to the ocean, at least
on a preliminary cost basis.
Reponse;
Ocean outfall of secondary effluent has been
considered and rejected on the basis of high
costs (spe Secion 3.10).
5.2.4.3 Comment; (B-8.8)
Table 8 in the DEIS should have an index which
explains the headings.
Response;
An interpretation of Table 8 has been prepared
and is on file at EPA (see also Appendix C).
5.2.5 COMMENTS ON TREATMENT LEVELS
5.2.5.1 Comment; (A-7) (A-8)
How many tons of sludge per year will be
generated at the Surfside filter beds? Can it be
used on Nantucket?
Response;
About 100 tons of dried material, a type of dried
sludge, will produced each year. The Town DPW
could easily use that much a year, plus local
farmers or gardeners.
5.2.5.2 Comment; (A-8) (B-8.9, 8.16,)
What are the advantages of primary treatment
prior to applying wastewater to the filter beds?
Response;
The text in Section 1.2.2 of this Final EIS has
been expanded to provide a complete discussion of
the advantages of primary pretreatment prior to
land disposal.
55
-------
5.2.5.3 Comment; (B-8.4)
Primary treatment removes 30% to 40% of suspended
solids and little or no dissolved solids.
Response;
This statement is correct. Page 1-19 of the
Draft EIS should be reworded accordingly.
5.2.5.4 Comment; (B-8.14)
Is the total flow on Table 12 of the Draft EIS in
mgd or gpd?
Response;
Mgd.
5.2.5.5. Comment; (B-8.24) (A-3)
The EIS should assess whether or not disinfection
is needed as part of the treatment process.
Response;
A new section has been added in the Final EIS
dealing specifically with the disinfection issue
(See Section 1.2.3).
t
5.2.5.6 Comment; (B-8.15)
Section 2.7.3 of the Draft EIS is difficult to
understand. Aren't EIS's supposed to be easy to
read?
Response;
Yes they are supposed to be easy to read. But a
cost-effective analysis, required by EPA
regulations, is not an easy subject that is
readily grasped by the lay reader. The analysis
is technical and complicated. A technical
appendix was developed as back-up in order to
keep 2.7.3 as simple as possible. Reducing the
section further would result in an incomplete
cost-effective analysis on the level of
treatment, which was a basic issue in the DEIS.
56
-------
5.2.6 BUFFER ZONE COMMENT
5.2.6.1 Comment; (B-18) (B-19)
The EIS (Should recommend what the minimum buffer
zone should be for Surfside and Siasconset. What
is the lateral extent of the plume as Siasconset?1
Response;
A new section has been added to this Final EIS
which consolidates all discussion of the buffer
zones, effluent plumes and Case III designation
procedures (see Section 1.2.4). The lateral
extent of the 20 acre plume at Siasconset is 250
feet inland and 200 feet to each, side of the
filter beds.
5.2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.2.7.1 Comment; (B-6) (B-8.20)
The EIS should also discuss impacts on mineral
resources, significant agricultural lands,
endangered species, wild and scenic rivers and
CZM consistency. Impacts on surface water
quality should be discussed under the water
quality section.
Response;
New impact categories were added to this Final
EIS, as suggested. It sould be pointed out,
however, that this EIS went through an early and
thorough scoping process with all federal, state
and local agencies, plus public input. The
original 15 impact categories in the DEIS
reflected the results of that process. These
additional categories, many of which are purely
administrative in value, were not included
originally due to their irrelevance to the
Nantucket EIS process. They have been added to
satisfy administrative purposes. Surface water
impacts are a justifiable concern and have been
adde"d to the discussion of water quality impacts,
as appropriate.
57
-------
5.2.7.2 Comment; (B-8.3)
The EIS should discuss the impacts of the sewer
rehabilitation work in Nantucket, as well as the
sewer service extensions in Nantucket Center and
Siasconset.
Response;
The Final EIS includes a more specific discussion
of the rehabilitation and sewer extension impacts
in Sectipn 3.3. These generally fall under the
categories of Land Use/Induced Growth, Traffic,
Business and Archaeological/Historic.
5.2.7.3 Comment; (B-8.25)
The Draft EIS impact evaluation section
frequently referred back from a proposed action
alternative to a no action alternative,
indicating that each had the same impacts. This
is not always true since the proposed alternate
freuently involved construction and the no action
does not.
Response;
This statement is correct. However, in those
instances where references are made back from one
alternative's impacts to another's, the type of
environmental impact in a specific category was
often similar, if not the same. Additional
language added to the description of impacts,
rather than a simple reference, would have been
more complete. This editorial technique,
however, did not affect the substance of the
evaluation process or alter the outcome of the
findings.
5.2.7.4 Comment; (B-8.26)
EPA's policies on not funding projects which
promote growth in critical environmental areas
should be mentioned.
Response;
The text in Chapters 3 and 4 of this Final EIS
has been altered to include this reference in the
sections on coastal flood hazard zones, wetlands
and CZM consistency.
58
-------
5.2.7.5 Comment; (B-6)
The EIS (Should discuss the archaeological
significancer impacts and mitigation measures for
all alternatives. The EIS should undertake
further studies in undisturbed areas and in areas
near knoyn archaeological sites and the results
addressed in the Final EIS. The comments of the
State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO)
should be included in the Final EIS.
Response?
A thorough archaeological and historic review was
made of all known sites on Nantucket Island.
This was conducted jointly with Mass. Historical
Commission (MHC) and the Nantucket Historical
Association (NHA). The results of that review
are summarized in Appendix B of the Draft EIS.
MHC policy prevents full discussion of all
sites. The SHPO has reviewed the Draft EIS and
the new, proposed sewer projects and the response
letter is in Appendix B of this Final EIS.
Mitigating measures are proposed in Section 4.15
of this Final EIS for the recommended actions.
5.2.8 MITIGATION MEASURES
5.2.8.1 Comment; (B-8.18)
A more complete mitgation section should have
been developed.
Response;
A new, expanded section on Mitigation Measures
has been added to this Final EIS (see Chapter 4).
5.2.9 COSTS
5.2.9.1 Comment; (A-4)
How are sewer user fees arrrived at?
Response;
One way to establish a user fee is to establish
an equivalent residential unit. As an example,
an average home contributes "x" gallons of
sewerage a month and a restaurant or hotel
contributes 5"x" or 10"x" gallons per month. A
fee can be established equivalent to that amount
59
-------
and the user would pay in proportion to that
schedule, A typical house might pay $10 a month
and a restaraunt $60 a month depending on the
amount of sewage it contributed. A number of
options are also available.
5.2.9.2 Comment; (A-6)
Could a cost credit be assigned to the beneficial
uses of sludge and wastewater?
Response^
The 201 Planning Engineer reviewed the benefits
of using recycled sludge as compost fertilizer
and of using wastewater for spray irrigation of
crops. Beneficial values can be assigned to each
use, but it was found to be difficult to quantify
in terms of a dollar value or a cost credit. in
practice, the dried sludge will be given away by
the DPW to whomever wishes to use it as a
fertilizer.
5.2.9.3 Comment; (B-8.23)
Do the cost figures given on page 4-6 and 4-17 of
the Draft EIS include debt service plus O&M?
Response;
No. These costs only reflected the capital cost
per house to service an area. Actual user
charges are given for the recommended actions in
Section 2.4.
60
-------
Appendices
------- |