SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR 2/12/04
Prepared by Paul Lauenstein
Present at meeting:
WMAC Chairman Rory McGregor; WMAC members Lealdon Langley, Michael Birschbach, Richard Mandell, Len Sekuler, David Mark, Roger Thibault, Jack Sulik and Paul Lauenstein; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Finance Committee member Charles Goodman; and Selectman David Grasfield
Summary of Minutes for the 2/12/04 WMAC Meeting
1) Reviewed and approved the minutes of the January 22, 2004 meeting with no amendments.
2) Recapped water issues discussed at 2/3/04 Selectmen’s meeting
Eric Hooper and attending WMAC members recounted the February 3 Selectmen’s meeting for the benefit of other WMAC members who were unable to attend.
Eric Hooper’s presentation of the Water Department’s capital plan to the Selectmen on Feb. 3 was not discussed.
Most of the WMAC meeting was spent discussing the process of evaluating well sites. A motion to add a fifth site for evaluation as a potential well site for the town (in the vicinity of Pud’s Pond and Briggs Pond near Mountain Street and Bay Road) passed by a vote of 8 in favor and one abstention.
3) Primer on hydraulics presented by Roger Thibault
WMAC member Roger Thibault presented concepts related to flow and pressure of water in pipes. He concluded by saying that predicting flow rates and pressures in a complex system is best done with a computer simulation.
Eric Hooper related Roger’s comments on hydraulic theory to the practical question of whether or not to enlarge the 6” pipe on Morse Street. He said that according to the town’s hydraulic model, the improvement in flow from the Massapoag Avenue tank to the Hampton Road tank would be negligible. He said this project is not warranted unless it is done in conjunction with the proposed HPSD project.
4) Requested Water Department records
Several members said they would like to receive pumping records and other relevant information from the Water Department on a monthly basis.
5) Scheduled the next meeting for Thursday, March 18 at 7:30 PM and the following meeting for Thursday, April 15 at 7:30 PM.
1) Reviewed and approved the minutes of the January 22, 2004 meeting with no amendments.
2) Recap of water issues discussed at 2/3/04 Selectmen’s meeting, and discussion of well site evaluation
Eric Hooper said he saw no need at present to conduct exploratory test wells at the four potential well sites recommended by the WMAC at the December 11 meeting. He cited extensive studies that have been done over the years since 1966 and said these studies should be used to evaluate the four sites. He suggested that the WMAC should do more homework before making recommendations to drill exploratory test wells. He said he has scheduled water quality tests for the Canton Street site this spring. Assuming these tests indicate good water quality, he would then proceed with further testing at Canton Street.
Rory McGregor acknowledged that there are varying levels of knowledge among WMAC members about Sharon’s water supply, and therefore it is important that Eric Hooper as head of the Water Department continue to impart his knowledge to the committee.
Roger Thibault favored backing away from the December 11 recommendation to conduct exploratory test wells. He said that if he had been present at that meeting, he would have voted against the recommendation. He endorsed Eric Hooper’s suggestion to study existing data before conducting exploratory test wells, and said that the Selectmen appeared to be confused by the divergence of views presented at the 2/3 Selectmen’s meeting. He saw no reason to drill an exploratory test well at the Maskwonicut Street site, and questioned the availability of land at Blair Circle.
Eric Hooper said he would prepare an RFP by February 13th to hire a consultant to evaluate the four sites recommended on December 11 based on a review of the existing information, and prepare DEP site evaluation forms for each site. He also said he would do an exploratory test well at the Gobbi site if he could get permission from the landowner, and if someone would show him exactly where to drill, since this site is the one most likely to be developed for housing in the near future.
Paul Lauenstein requested that Eric Hooper circulate the draft RFP to the WMAC by email on Friday, February 13th, with a deadline of Tuesday, February 17th for review and feedback from WMAC members, which Eric Hooper agreed to do.
Lealdon Langley said that DEP site evaluation forms often indicate potential environmental impacts that do not preclude locating a well at the site. Such impacts can frequently be mitigated, and in any event should be weighed against the benefit to the community of a new well. He said Sharon needs a new source of water. He emphasized that the unanimous vote of the WMAC on December 11 should be respected, and that the four named sites should be evaluated in a timely fashion. That way they can be ruled in or out based on information from past studies, site evaluation forms, and exploratory test wells. The sooner we know whether a new well is feasible, the sooner we will know whether or not we will have to look to MWRA and/or Aquaria for supplementary water.
Richard Mandell agreed that the vote of the WMAC to recommend exploratory test wells should be honored by the Water Department regardless of personal opinions. He advised moving forward cautiously, but without stalling. He thought the focus should be on gaining access to the Gobbi gravel pit site, and reported that Selectman David Grasfield promised to look into that following the February 3rd Selectmen’s meeting. He also reported that the Selectmen voted to hire a hydrogeologist to prepare a report on the four sites within 60 to 90 days, and said he felt this was a reasonable time frame.
Michael Birschbach concurred that the WMAC vote to recommend exploratory test wells should be respected. He felt like we are going in circles. He urged that both site evaluations and exploratory test wells be done in parallel. He recalled Eric Hooper’s admonition that existing aquifer maps are notoriously unreliable, and argued that the only way to find out how much water there is at the four sites is to drill. He said he believed that the town owns sufficient land at Blair Circle for a well. He reminded the committee of our responsibility to our neighbors to provide for a good water supply in the future.
Lealdon Langley recounted that he had issues with the motion to recommend drilling exploratory test wells at the December 11 meeting. However, he voted for it because he thought it was important to mandate action to get the kind of information only available by drilling the exploratory test wells, in order to properly evaluate the four sites. He said it was the duty of the Water Department to facilitate the process of site evaluation by assisting the site evaluation subcommittee and suggesting other possible well sites. He reminded the committee of the time, effort and money involved in obtaining a permit from the state to build a new well.
Len Sekuler commented that it is unreasonable to expect the volunteer WMAC members to do the site evaluations. Instead, the town should hire a professional consultant to do the job, and then the site evaluation subcommittee should review the evaluations and make its recommendations to the WMAC. Roger Thibault agreed with having the subcommittee function as a review board.
David Mark said he questioned the necessity of drilling exploratory test wells. He said much could be learned from studies that have already been done.
Lealdon Langley asked Eric Hooper if he knew of any other sites the town should evaluate. Eric said he was reluctant to recommend potential well sites in view of the Water Department’s track record, and alluded to the political aspects of site selection. He did offer his opinion that the Islamic Center site has more potential than any of the four sites recommended by the WMAC, and said that perhaps the Islamic Center site might qualify for a permit at a lower pumping level than the one million gallons per day originally applied for. He said a lower pumping level at the Islamic Center site might still be higher than any of the four recommended sites. He commented again on the Canton Street site, saying he expected that to be a productive well site if the water quality is acceptable.
David Mark said he thought an attempt had been made to obtain a permit to pump a lesser amount from the Islamic Center site, but Eric Hooper said that an application for a lesser quantity had never been submitted. Lealdon Langley said it was conceivable that a lower pumping rate might be approved.
Eric Hooper reminded the committee of his unsuccessful attempts to drill irrigation wells near several of the town’s playing fields, including Deborah Sampson Park, Ames Street, Sharon High School, East Elementary School, and Gavins Pond Road. He said his strategy was to substitute untreated irrigation water for treated drinking water from town wells for watering the ball fields. He also reminded the committee of the two test wells drilled in 2003 near the Gobbi property which indicated that this area may not be productive enough to warrant the cost of permitting, land acquisition and well construction.
Lealdon Langley underscored the urgency of finding new sources of water. He said the town’s wells are old and their capacity is not sufficient to provide for redundancy in the present or meet projected demand in 2020. He added that the town’s state-permitted allocation of water is a function of population, and as the town grows it will be permitted by the state to pump more water from the ground if it is able to do so on a sustainable basis.
Michael Birschbach said the results of site evaluation will be useful regardless of whether the town is successful in developing a new well, because even if all the sites are rejected, we will at least understand our situation and be in a position to focus on water conservation, outsourcing, or both.
Len Sekuler asked about the purpose of a Request For Proposal (RFP) to evaluate the recommended sites. Eric Hooper explained that the RFP would solicit bids from qualified professionals to produce a report that would explore the prerequisites for drilling exploratory test wells at the four proposed sites, and estimated that the job would take about a month to complete following the award of the contract.
Jack Sulik thought the site evaluation report was sufficiently important to warrant the review of the entire WMAC, not just the subcommittee.
Roger Thibault proposed two additional steps to the site screening process: evaluating the availability and cost of real estate, and circulating the site evaluations to the Lake Management Committee, the Conservation Commission, and the Board of Selectmen for vetting.
Lealdon Langley and Rory McGregor asked Eric Hooper once again to suggest any other possible well sites in Sharon. Eric Hooper responded by pointing out problems with the four recommended sites. He said Maskwonicut is not a site for an additional well, but rather a replacement site for Well #4, the town’s largest well, in the event it should fail. This is because Well #4 is too close to Maskwonicut Street to put a well there and run it concurrently with Well #4. He said Blair Circle may lack sufficient acreage for a Zone I with the required 400’ radius, and mentioned the herbicides associated with nearby high tension wires and I-95 right of way. He also cited a large commercial parking lot nearby as a potential source of contamination. He believed yields at Blair Circle would be modest at best – in the order of 200,000 gpd.
Roger Thibault added that the Blair Circle location is just upstream of several Walpole town wells, and drilling a town well there might provoke a dispute with Walpole over water rights.
After Eric Hooper stated that he saw no other viable options in Sharon for siting a well, Rory McGregor asked if there are any hydrologically feasible sites, ignoring cost as a factor. Eric Hooper mentioned a site at the south end of town in the vicinity of Pud’s Pond. Lealdon Langley clarified the location for the committee, saying it was near Brigg’s Pond and the intersection of Bay Road and Mountain Street. One problem with the site is its distance from Sharon’s water mains and the high cost of installing connecting pipes.
Richard Mandell suggested selling water from this site to Stoughton, which, he said, has a water main nearby (he had seen fire hydrants along Bay Road). In exchange, Sharon could purchase water from Stoughton where their mains are near our mains, and spare the cost of installing an expensive pipeline connecting a Pud’s Pond well with the Sharon grid.
Continuing with his review of possible sites, Eric Hooper said Easton had requested permission to locate a well at Borderland State Park, but had been denied.
Lealdon Langley then raised the possibility of a deep bedrock well. Eric Hooper said such a well might be possible near the cemetery off Edge Hill Road. He said one prospecting technique is to review aerial photos, looking for fracture zones where geologic formations intersect. He said this technique, called fracture trace analysis, is not much better than a divining rod, given New England’s granite bedrock, and he felt that deep bedrock wells tend to be more expensive and less productive than surficial wells. Responding to a suggestion from Lealdon Langley to combine both deep and surficial wells in the site screening process, Eric Hooper said that site screening methods for surficial wells are not appropriate for screening for deep bedrock wells. Both agreed that evaluating sites has value even if only to rule them out.
Lealdon Langley suggested that we may have to consider several small wells instead of one big one. In any event, he said we must do a thorough evaluation of all possible sites before MWRA would agree to sell water to Sharon, and cited Stoughton’s application to get MWRA water as an example.
Eric Hooper said Canton operates satellite wells at partial capacity.
Eric Hooper said the Sharon Conservation Commission would object to pumping more water from Well #3.
Roger Thibault suggested a strategy involving multiple small wells including Well #8 running at a fraction of maximum capacity. Lealdon Langley and David Mark agreed that it might be possible to get a permit to pump Well #8 at 300,000 gpd. Lealdon Langley said it would depend on the impacts on local stream flow and the Atlantic White Cedar Swamp.
Jack Sulik said he believed that environmental impact to the Atlantic White Cedar Swamp was used as a red herring to stop Well #8. He said the swamp was drained by a ditch dug behind Sharon Heights about 20 years ago to prevent flooded basements in that neighborhood. Roger Thibault agreed that protection of the swamp was the reason for stopping the Islamic Center well.
Len Sekuler suggesting adding potential irrigation well sites to the list for site evaluation in the RFP. Eric Hooper pointed out that borings had been tried at all the town’s ball fields and came up dry.
Michael Birschbach said the important thing is to get the process of site evaluation moving.
Rory McGregor asked about the cost of evaluating a fifth site.
Eric Hooper replied that since three of the four original sites don’t need further exploration, adding a new site should pose no problem cost-wise.
Jack Sulik said that many sites ruled out in prior years because of yield limitations should be reconsidered by lowering the yield criterion to 250,000 gpd for a site to qualify for consideration. He suggested retaining a consultant to do an exhaustive well survey of the town, and allowing the consultant to select the well sites. Eric Hooper said an exhaustive survey of all possible well sites in Sharon would take six months. Rory McGregor suggested a two-pronged strategy involving immediate evaluation of the four sites recommended on December 11, plus a longer-term exhaustive study.
Richard Mandell moved to add a fifth site, the Pud’s Pond/Briggs Pond area near the junction of Mountain Street and Bay Road, to the list of possible well sites to be evaluated. Lealdon Langley seconded the motion, which passed: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, with 1 abstention.
Roger Thibault asked that a cost estimate and a graphic for each well site be required by the RFP. Lealdon Langley requested that access and ability to meet Zone I requirements should be included as well as a 2020 demand projection. Eric Hooper recommended a minimum threshold of 250,000 gpd for a site to be considered for a well.
Michael Birschbach asked Eric Hooper if old site screening forms were still valid for the various sites. Eric Hooper answered that the information on the prospective well sites he referred to earlier is not compiled on site screening forms. He speculated that some of the selected sites might be ruled out for environmental reasons.
Lealdon Langley said once the site screening documents are completed and the exploratory test well results are obtained, the formal approval process can begin.
Eric Hooper commented that 2.5” exploratory test wells are different from monitoring wells. He said that after completion of tests, exploratory test wells are plugged with clay (so as not to leave a portal for aquifer contamination) and left in the ground. By contrast, monitoring wells are not plugged so that periodic checks can be done on the level of the water table.
Rory McGregor asked when the draft RFP for well site evaluation would be ready for circulation to the committee. Eric Hooper said he would get it done by Friday, February 13th. It was agreed that WMAC members would have until Tuesday evening, February 17th to submit any requests for alterations.
A number of consulting firms (ESS, Tata & Howard, Haley & Ward, Amory Engineers, Woodard & Curran, and Metcalf & Eddy) were mentioned as candidates for the job. Eric Hooper expressed a preference not to broadcast the RFP for fear of being inundated with proposals. He said it would take about two weeks to select a vendor and a month to complete the report. He thought it would be complete by the end of March.
Roger Thibault asked how long it had been since a comprehensive survey had been done of all potential well sites in Sharon. Eric Hooper replied that it has been 16-20 years. Roger proposed an update including all the old data included in the IEP Report plus new information on stratified drift and transmissivity accumulated since the IEP Report came out in 1987.
3) Primer on hydraulics presented by Roger Thibault
WMAC member Roger Thibault presented concepts related to flow and pressure of water in pipes. He began with an explanation of conservation of mass and energy, and accounting for all inputs to, and outputs from, a control volume.
He then presented Bernoulli’s equation governing fluid flow. Bernoulli’s equation states that the sum of pressure head, elevation head and velocity head of fluid entering a pipe must equal the sum of pressure head, elevation head and velocity head of fluid exiting a pipe, plus the head loss due to friction.
The general flow equation Q = V x A, where Q is quantity of flow (cubic feet per second), V is velocity of flow (feet per second) and A is cross-sectional area of the pipe (square feet) was also introduced. The Hazen-Williams equation, one of several formulas available for approximating head loss of fluid flowing through a pipe, was given, along with the following key points:
• Head loss is proportional to the length of the pipe.
• Head loss increases with more friction (rougher surfaces inside the pipe).
• Head loss is proportional to flow velocity, but in a very non-linear fashion.
• Head loss decreases as the pipe radius increases, in a very non-linear fashion.
He presented the iterative Hardy Cross method of approximating flow in a pipe network, and gave a simple example which still required a page of calculations to solve. He discussed how the Hardy Cross method is incorporated into sophisticated computer simulation software such as EPLANET used by Metcalf & Eddy, and WaterCAD used by the Sharon DPW, to model complex piping networks such as Sharon’s water distribution system.
Roger Thibault concluded by saying that predicting flow rates and pressures in a complex system is best done with a computer simulation, and that actual results are often counter-intuitive. He suggested modeling the Morse Street situation with both 6” and 10” pipe to see if it would significantly improve flow to the Hampton Road area.
Rory McGregor then asked Eric Hooper to relate Roger’s comments on hydraulic theory to the practical question of whether or not to enlarge the 6” pipe on Morse Street. He said that according to the town’s hydraulic model, enlarging the Morse Street water main from 6” to 10” would only result in an additional 5.5 gpm (330 gallons per hour) under the extreme condition of the Massapoag Avenue tank being full and the Hampton Road tank empty. He concluded that such a negligible increase would not warrant doing this project unless done in conjunction with the proposed HPSD project.
Paul Lauenstein asked why enlarging the 6” pipe along Morse Street was recommended by all the Water Master Plans dating back many years if it would have no significant effect on facilitating flow from the Massapoag Avenue tank and the wells to the area around the Hampton Road tank.
Eric Hooper replied that the pipe enlargement only makes sense in the context of an overall HPSD project including a booster pump and storage tank in the Hampton Road area.
Paul Lauenstein then asked if the recently completed 16” Depot Street pipe enlargement would similarly have little effect on moving water to the Hampton Road area in the absence of the HPSD.
Eric Hooper explained that when water enters the main from Well #4 near the train station, it must either turn right toward the Upland Road tank or turn left toward the center of town. Prior to the 16” Depot Street upgrade, more water was forced toward the Upland Road tank. When the Upland Road tank was full, it would signal Well #4 to shut off, temporarily arresting the flow of water up Depot Street toward the east side of town where it was needed. By enlarging the Depot Street water main, more water can now flow uninterrupted toward the east side of town where it is needed. This solves the problem of the Upland Road tank filling to capacity and shutting off Well #4, and also reduces head loss up Depot Street resulting in a higher flow rate of water to the east side of town. He added that the new 16” main will not be activated until spring to avoid problems related to freezing winter temperatures, but he said it would be operational in time for next summer’s dry season.
Rory McGregor asked Eric Hooper how often the model should be re-calibrated. Eric Hooper replied that it should be done annually in conjunction with annual flushing of the system, but he said that in some years flushing is not done. Roger Thibault commented that the calibration frequency would be dictated by changes to the physical system, in the absence of which no re-calibration would be necessary.
Rory McGregor said that the results of the pressure gauge experiment conducted by WMAC members and Water Department personnel indicate that the hydraulic model is reliable under normal conditions. The results to date are:
PREDICTED** PREDICTED**
PRESSURE PRESSURE
WITH TANKS WITH TANKS MEASURED
Sulik 292 58 47
McGregor 264 70 59
Mark 290 58 48
Sekuler 224 87 77
Birschbach 244 78 68
Thibaud 288 59 49 56.5
Mandell* 314 48 38 N/A*
Lauenstein 266 69 58 68
Langley 304 52 42 50
Masciarelli 272 66 56 63
DPW HQ 268 68 58 64
Cuneo 252 75 65 70
Water Dept. 206 95 84 92
Cobbs Corner 168 111 101 114
*Richard Mandell has a private well.
**Static pressure can also be predicted by subtracting the elevation at the sampling site from the elevation of the water level in the tanks and multiplying by .433 pounds per foot of elevation differential.
4) Requested Water Department records
The meeting concluded with a discussion of the WMAC members’ need for information from the Water Department. Richard Mandell said he would like to obtain reports of daily tank levels, daily pumping volume for each well, monitoring well data, drinking water quality data, and any other communications regarding issues or problems that would help keep him informed of the water supply situation. He said he did not want to receive daily emails. Instead, these reports should be provided weekly or monthly by email to WMAC members, or posted on the town web site for WMAC members as well as any other interested individuals or branches of town government.
Eric Hooper said he delivers a daily hardcopy SCADA report to Ben Puritz at Town Hall. Paul Lauenstein suggested that if the SCADA report could be emailed, it could be broadcast to the all the WMAC members, while saving the cost of driving the hardcopy report to Town Hall on a daily basis.
Jack Sulik commented that providing too much information to WMAC members might lead to the WMAC trying to micro-manage the Water Department.
Len Sekuler proposed that the Water Department provide information to WMAC members on a monthly basis. Other members concurred.
5) Scheduled the next meeting for Thursday, March 18 at 7:30 PM and the following meeting for Thursday, April 15 at 7:30 PM.