Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord committee warned wastewater system is at capacity; MCI facility flagged as a time‑sensitive opportunity
Summary
The Town of Concord’s Economic Vitality Committee was briefed on long‑standing wastewater capacity limits, regulatory hurdles with EPA/DEP, and a time‑sensitive possibility to leverage the MCI facility’s discharge permit; the town opened new technical studies and consultant work but took no vote.
Alan Cathcart, the town’s director of public works, told the Economic Vitality Committee that Concord is operating near or above its wastewater design capacity and faces regulatory limits that constrain new sewer connections and local development. Cathcart traced the problem to planning decisions made decades ago and to how federal and state regulators now treat increases in flow.
Cathcart said regulators in Region 1 treat “flow” as a pollutant in permit reviews, making it difficult for smaller communities to win permission to increase capacity. “Flow, they consider it a pollutant,” he said, describing unsuccessful appeals to federal review boards and persistent technical and political hurdles. He added: “We could have a forced moratorium,” warning that the town could be barred from connecting new development until it resolves over‑capacity issues.
The presentation reviewed several technical paths under study. Consultants modeled a local option that would divert roughly 50,000 gallons per day to an adjacent sand‑bed polishing area; Cathcart said that approach could cost about $3.5 million. He also described a larger, location‑based option tied to the state’s MCI property: the MCI facility carries a surface‑water discharge permit and roughly 300,000 gallons of capacity that could possibly be leveraged if town and state negotiations succeed.
“They have a surface water discharge permit. That’s gold,” Cathcart said of MCI’s existing permit, but he warned that fully upgrading or replacing a treatment facility at that scale could cost approximately $25,000,000, and ratepayers could bear much of that burden if additional users do not match the expense. The town has reengaged the consultant who produced Concord’s wastewater master plan 20 years ago to recalibrate options in light of current regulatory, economic and engineering realities.
Committee members asked technical questions about groundwater permits, abandoned filter beds, and tradeoffs between phosphorus and nitrogen treatment; staff responded that some reuse and split‑treatment strategies could be feasible but are constrained by permits and by local site conditions. Members also urged that background materials and recordings be posted to the town website to improve public understanding of the technical constraints and tradeoffs.
No formal action or vote on a capital project occurred at the meeting. Cathcart said the committee’s role would be to advise the select board on policy choices and messaging — including coordinated outreach to state officials and regulators — and to help prioritize near‑term options while the town explores the MCI opportunity and consultant recommendations.
Next steps: the town is updating the wastewater master plan with its consultant, continuing technical evaluation of reuse and decentralized options, and monitoring state decisions about MCI. The committee did not approve any construction or funding at this meeting.
