No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-16 Water and Sewer Advisory Committee MinutesWater Supply Advisory Committee Meeting September 16,1999 - ' The meeting was convened at 7:35 p.m. at the Berger Room, 16 Lowell Street. Present were committee members Stephen Blewitt, Mary Grimmer, Will Finch, Steve Oston, William Freeman, Gail Wood, Ri ore ndic» Howard. Also present were Assistant Town Manager Russell Dean, Water Treatment Plant tisor Pe er Tassi, Public Works Director Ted McIntire, John Gall from Camp Dresser McKee, Jeffrey Diercks from Camp Dresser McKee, and resident Bob Brown. Chairman Blewitt briefly discussed the agenda and noted the committee had a lot of business this evening. Chairman Blewitt asked for comments on the minutes of August 26t1i. Will Finch noted on page 3 that he did not say "we have to face the reality that common sense is telling us we cannot do it (take MWRA water)." Will Finch also noted on page 3 he did not say "In order to isolate treatment, you have to isolate water. Only advantage is to eliminate treatment." There was a question on the last page, first paragraph about 10% of the demand equaling 33,000 people coming off the system. The number was changed to 2300. Peter Tassi mentioned he did not say anything about Florida on the second page. It was noted John Gall said this, and it would be changed in the minutes. Dick Howard motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Will Finch seconded. Motion carried 7-0-1. Russ Dean went over the survey results of the Town Meeting members. There were 61 surveys returned. A majority of members who returned surveys rated their knowledge of water-issues good or fair. A majority of members who returned surveys said the cost of Reading water was higher than it should be or about right. A majority of members who returned surveys said the water quality was fair to good. A majority of members who returned surveys rated the customer service of the water department excellent or good. 31 said they would convert to the MWRA if water quality was similar, 23 said no, and 6 had no response. A majority of members who returned surveys said they would support more stringent conservation methods as part of a solution to maintaining a safe and adequate supply. More members said they would be willing to pay more for a water supply that had less of an impact on the Ipswich River. Richard Moore noted the last question was a "push" - 29 Yes, 26 No, with 5 no response. Russ Dean went through the criteria rankings of the Town Meeting members. 60 surveys were returned (31 Quality was ranked either 1 or 2 by 77% of those responding. Environmental Impacts and Cost were the second highest ranked criteria. More of those surveyed ranked environmental impacts higher than cost. Cost received more second place votes than Environmental Impacts. 66% of those surveyed ranked yield a 3, 4 or 5. 53% ranked Environmental Impacts and Control either 3, 4 or 5. 70% of those surveyed ranked implementability 6 or 7. 13 Town Meeting members did not fill out the survey. Steve Oston said quality is not a great discriminator. Dick Howard said the quality has to meet a certain standard. Richard Moore said the secondary characteristics of quality are what is important. Steve Oston said he was afraid we didn't get helped that much. Steven Blewitt said we going to resolve the issues around the options tonight. Gail Wood said it looked to her like the community thought what the committee members thought. Stephen Blewitt asked how the comments came out. Gail Wood said people didn't like the MWRA. Russ Dean noted in the survey that if water quality was similar, 31 would convert, 23 said no, 6 had no response. Will Finch said those who responded "no" were speaking had stronger feelings and the question did not ask those who said "yes" to explain why they would change. Stephen Blewitt said that has been addressed in the survey to the general public. There was a brief discussion on the merits of the MWRA option. Stephen Blewitt said he wanted to move on to the question and answer. He was surprised that a note that went out a couple of weeks ago asking committee members if there were still unclear areas went without comment. He had questions written down and Russ put together the answer sheet. Russ Dean noted the answers came from John Gall. John Gall introduced Jeffrey Diercks from Camp Dresser McKee who had joined him this evening. Stephen Blewitt went over the first question regarding the North Reading plume. Jeff Diercks from CDM said he had a lengthy conversation with Steve Johnson regarding his presentation to the committee in March. There is an ongoing evaluation of the North Reading plume. The water treatment plant can treat the chemicals found in the plume. Sometime in the fall we will know more. Peter Tassi noted that continued testing of well 82-20 occurs. Jeff Diercks said Steve Johnson was referring to the risk to the raw water and he worries about that risk. Mary Grimmer asked whether the plume was going away or will it be removed? Jeff Diercks said it will be there a long time. Dick Howard asked if there was any way to isolate the threat of a spill and would it be part of the evaluation by CDM? Gail Wood said Mass Highway has done containment and uses salt alternateson the way to the Cape. Steve Oston said there must be documentation on gas spills. Does it happen once every 10 years? Once every 100 years? John Gall said this could be researched and we would look for a standard Jeff Diercks listed the North Reading threats to the water supply in order of magnitude according to an email conversation he had with Steve Johnson. Stephen Blewitt went over the question on bedrock wells. John Gall and Jeff Diercks gave an overview of bedrock wells. We may get more than 200,000 gpd, but this is an unknown until we drill. Water may come through the bedrock fissures from outside the basin, but this is unlikely. Steve Oston asked if there would be an impact on Ipswich River surface water - the part we see - from bedrock wells. John Gall said the answer is yes. John Gall asked Jeff Diercks about the Lynnfield bedrock well. Jeff Diercks said the difference between the Lynnfield and Reading bedrock well development is Lynnfield is not near any known contamination sites. The Lynnfield well has excellent quality water. The well does not have the vulnerability issues that Reading may have. This is why CDM has assumed as part of the study that bedrock well sites will be developed away from the North Reading plume area. The Hundred Acre Wellfield is vulnerable. John Gall said no, for purposes of the study CDM assumed that bedrock wells would be developed away from contaminated sites and therefore were estimated with on-site treatment and a small amount for distribution. Gail Wood asked if it's treated on site and then pumped. ` John Gall said yes, this was the assumption. John Gall distributed a memo on the Ipswich River and issues regarding the river. A USGS model of the river has been calibrated and will be sent to DEP at the end of this month. There has been a communities connected by water grant issued to Towns including Reading that will help with master planning. The Woods Hole laboratory has been doing research on ecological effects on Plum Island and has involved the Ipswich in their studies. The Middleton gage shows a cubic feet per second of river flow. Different groups have debated this issue. It may become part of the Water Management Act permit renewal process. Reading has a registered not a permitted withdrawal, but may become part of the process. Steve Oston said the communities upstream are not as affected by the Middleton gage issue. John Gall said it does not have the same impact. Gail Wood asked when they're talking about flow at the gage, are decisions going to made on this? John Gall said the goal will be to develop a consensus on a series of options. The process will go for at least a year. Should they use 9.6 or 22. Both numbers are a little hokey. 9.6 is the average flow in small size Massachusetts basins in the summertime. They are useful benchmarks but don't ask specific questions about impacts on the Ipswich River. Gail Wood asked if they're going to spend a year getting to a number? - and then they `re going to find the source of that number. Stephen Blewitt said if we withdraw from the watershed does it cause a problem with our water rights? John Gall said it gives you an idea of how frequently you would not meet standards. Stephen Blewitt asked what happens to Reading's registered withdrawal? John Gall said that DEP makes that decision. Jeff Diercks said they could not take the registered withdrawal rights away from Reading - that was not the intent of the Act. Dick Howard asked if we could sell our registered withdrawal? Will Finch said so it couldn't be given to adjacent Towns. John Gall said he wasn't sure if DEP can accomplish their objectives without looking at streamflows. Dick Howard asked what would MWRA say if we gave up our rights and wanted to join? John Gall said send money and sign up. Will Finch said we are not giving away our rights, we are just not exercising them. There is a difference. John Gall said that's a way to. phrase it. John Gall said with the MWRA there are definitely hoops to jump through. Jonathan Yo said we have unique circumstances. Russ Dean said he wanted to get from the committee a list of unanswered issues to date. There are two things we are looking for. First is the historic effect of conservation programs on water usage, second is the measurable probability of a spill along 93 and try to get some measurement for that. A discussion then took place on per capita water usage. John Gall referred to a wastewater discharge memo written by CDM and contained in Friday's packet. Using wastewater to recharge the acquifer not unheard of Kingston and Plymouth recently bid wastewater plant projects. The bid costs in the memo do not include the sewer system. Will Finch asked if there was any state assistance in these cases? John Gall said yes, the State Revolving Fund - zero interest loans, which are essentially 50% grants. Russ Dean asked if these projects included the sewer system - he was thinking of geography of the Towns. John Gall said no, just the plant. Steve Oston said this may be a dumb question, but why not just use wastewater in the water system? John Gall said you couldn't hammer wastewater enough to make it potable. There are places where wastewater is in the drinking water. Nashua and Manchester discharge into the Merrimack. Lowell takes it out of the Merrimack. But there is a big dilution factor. Dick Howard asked if we built a wastewater treatment plant, would it lower our sewer bill? Bill Freeman said there are issues with building a wastewater treatment plant. You need acreage. The Cape uses lagoons for leaching. There are operating costs. Richard Moore said a company he knows offered to build a power plant in Lowell that involved treatment of sewage. A question was asked regarding the impact of private wells on the acquifer - for example Meadowbrook. How much do they withdraw? John Gall presented the cost attributes of alternatives sheet. Dick Howard asked if we could get 100% of our water from Andover? John Gall said yes, but the amounts charged would change. The Andover option included 38,000 linear feet of pipe. Steve Oston said it doesn't take into account the useful life of the asset. Dick Howard said the Andover option should be based on a 60 year useful life. John Gall agreed and said the modification would be made. Steve Oston said there is an issue of technical obsolescence with the current plant and how is that addressed in the projections? Mary Grimmer said we should show the water treatment plant replacement option even though CDM is not recommending total replacement. Richard Moore said we should talk about the time frame for upgrades. Timing is just as important. We shouldn't lose sight of the timing of the options. Stephen Blewitt asked if the estimated useful life was different for the new treatment plant option as opposed to the partial replacement? Richard Moore said the study doesn't take into account useful life changes affected by future regulations. John Gall said he doesn't think so. Reservoirs and tunnels typically are not affected by regulations. Regulations would be treatment intensive. Stephen Blewitt said we'll convert the numbers to cost per household. John Gall said this is a step we have not yet gotten to. John Gall referred to the water options sheet Russ Dean had put together. - Dick Howard asked if it was a supply deficit or vulnerability issue. John Gall said it's a vulnerability issue. The origin of the options were discussed. John Gall said the options were based on the two options that could meet the projected demand of the system. Only the MWRA and the current source could do that. Richard Moore questioned conservation - why is it listed as an option? We agreed that conservation was either in or out. Russ Dean said aggressive conservation was a possible but that the committee had to decide whether it wanted the option or not. Stephen Blewitt mentioned marginal costs - if the MWRA costs a certain amount for a certain amount of gallons per day, and the marginal cost of bedrock was lower, you would want to test to see if you could pump 200,000 gallons per day from a bedrock well. Steve Oston said there are no marginal costs - they are less favorable. There are up front capital costs. Richard Moore asked if we would have to add a mixing cost ? John Gall said Reading is running 9 ph water. MWRA water is close to 9. Bedrock would be an add to the plant. Andover water runs in the low 7's. On the options, it was decided the word "summer" would be deleted. John Gall said the third step was going to try to cost out the average homeowner cost. John Gall handed out a sample of cost forecasts. Steve Oston mentioned the financial comparison versus life-cycle cost comparison. Stephen Blewitt said for the two big options, there should be a sensitivity factor in each direction. If you decreased the cost of the Ipswich River plant by 10% there may be a 6/7% difference. On the MWRA rate increase, there are fixed costs, no increase in operating costs, supply cost with no increase, the local water department is considered a fixed cost. In the Ipswich River option, the fixed costs are less, the % increase is larger, but the total increase is not as much. MWRA varies linearly, the Ipswich River option does not. Both the Town's rates and the Ipswich River rates increase. Steve Oston said these costs are for business as usual. What is the cost if another gas spill occurs illustrating the vulnerability of the system? It is important to measure the vulnerability included as a cost. John Gall said he would look at the data to see how often accidents occur across the country like the Route 93 spill. The Committee requested CDM to evaluate the options and compare them to the committee's evaluation. overview. Dick Howard would talk about the criteria. Steve Oston would go over the options. John Gall would handle the cost analysis. Russ Dean will prepare a Power Point presentation and work with committee members so there is a consistent medium for presentation. Dick Howard moved to adjourn. Second by Gail Wood. Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. Russ Dean Assistant Town Manager