SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 7, 2005

Prepared by Paul Lauenstein

Present at meeting:

WMAC Chairman Michael Birschbach; WMAC members Lealdon Langley, Paul Lauenstein, Richard Mandell, Len Sekuler, Mike Sherman, Jack Sulik and Cliff Towner; and DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper.

Summary of Minutes for the 7/7/05 WMAC Meeting

1. General Discussion

- Conservation requirement added to Water Division Rules & Regulations

- Miscellaneous water conservation updates

- Islamic Center pump testing

2. Report of the Water Department

- Monthly pumping, tank levels, & nitrates

- Low productivity at Well #5

- Nitrate levels

- Perchlorate

- Major leak reported

- Pending RFPs: water audits and Fe/Mn filtration

- Radio meter RFP

- Time line project management

- Microparticulates at Well #7

3. Review and Approve Minutes of June 9

4. Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal for New Developments

- Horizons For Youth (HFY) property

- Avalon Bay (MWRA water vs. Sharon water)

5. Wastewater Disposal for Sharon Center

- Involvement of various committees

- CHAPA grant and proposed CDM study

- Septic system issues – Mandarin Taste Restaurant and Rattlesnake Hill

6. Water Conservation

- Avalon Bay

- Municipal facilities

- Web site

7. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 11, 2005 at 7:30 PM

Detailed Minutes for the 7/7/05 WMAC Meeting

1. General Discussion

Conservation requirement added to Water Division Rules & Regulations

Jack Sulik provided each WMAC member with a copy of the Water Division Rules and Regulations, along with a proposed amendment that would require developers to incorporae water efficient fixtures and appliances into all new residential construction. He said Sharon should not have to subsidize developers in order to get them to design their projects to conserve water. Jack Sulik reported that he discussed the proposed amendment with Joseph Jacobs, Sharon’s plumbing and gas inspector, who was enthusiastic about the proposal, and said he would enforce it, if adopted.

Jack Sulik added that requiring developers to install water conserving fixtures and appliances might lead to disagreement about what constitutes compliance, and said an appeals process should be established to resolve any such disputes.

Mike Sherman said the WMAC should delineate clear criteria for specifying water conserving fixtures and appliances.

Lealdon Langley asked if there is already an appeals procedure in place.

Jack Sulik said the Water Department routinely enforces lawn watering restrictions. He said the criteria for low-flow devices that qualify for the rebate program are already available at the Water Department, and could be used for new construction as well.

Len Sekuler expressed concern that a builder might install non-compliant fixtures and then be required to replace them at considerable needless expense, and asked what would prevent that from happening.

Jack Sulik replied that builders must apply for a building permit prior to undertaking any actual construction, at which time they would be informed of the requirement for water-conserving fixtures.

Lealdon Langley asked if home buyers who already owned an inefficient but otherwise serviceable washing machine could install it in a new home.

Jack Sulik replied that a disagreement of this nature could be appealed to the DPW Superintendent, who would make a reasonable decision based on the circumstances.

Michael Birschbach commended Jack Sulik for his work.

Len Sekuler asked when the new rule would take effect, noting that some development projects may already be in progress.

Jack Sulik said that the effective date would be up to the Selectmen, but he supposed that the Selectmen would not require developers to replace plumbing fixtures installed before the effective date.

Cliff Towner asked if the Water Division Rules and Regulations apply to subdivisions not connected to town water. He noted that the Article VI of the Water Division Rules and Regulations calls for the Planning Board to approve or disapprove subdivision plans where connection to the public water system is not feasible. Stating that recent Planning Boards have left a lot to be desired, he questioned whether the Planning Board is the appropriate entity to decide whether adequate supplies of potable water are available to allow a subdivision to go forward. He suggested that the DPW might be better qualified to make such decisions.

Jack Sulik commented that certain subdivisions off Bay Road have fire hydrants and pipes in the ground that are not connected to Sharon’s water supply.

Lealdon Langley asked why the amendment requiring water efficient fixtures and appliances should not apply to commercial construction as well as residential construction.

Len Sekuler asked if a laundromat opened in Sharon whether the proposed amendment to the rules and regulations would dictate the type of washing machines they must install.

Jack Sulik replied that there will never be another laundromat opening in Sharon.

Richard Mandell suggested that all new construction should be required to install water efficient fixtures, not just residential construction.

Len Sekuler expressed concern that such a requirement might deter business from coming to Sharon, causing the town to lose out on tax revenues.

Richard Mandell responded that he doubted the incremental cost of having to install water efficient fixtures would deter any business seriously interested in locating in Sharon, particularly in view of the fact that lower water bills would help pay for the water efficient fixtures.

The WMAC voted to recommend that the Selectmen amend the Town of Sharon Water Division Rules and Regulations by adding a paragraph 7, Low Flow Fixtures, to Article III as follows:

7. Low Flow Fixtures.

Ultra low flow toilets and washing machines shall be installed in all new construction whose building permits have been issued on or after (month/day/year). Only those fixtures approved by the Department of Public Works, listing available on request, shall be installed. Appeals to this provision may be addressed in writing to the Superintendent of Public Works.

The vote was 7 in favor and 1 opposed. The dissenting member requested that the Selectmen be informed that his reason for dissenting was that he thinks this regulation should apply only to residences to avoid discouraging new business from coming to Sharon.

Miscellaneous water conservation updates

Paul Lauenstein pointed out that the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) recently mailed to every Sharon resident erroneously states that a $150 water bill credit is available for installing a High Efficiency Toilet (HET). The policy only offers a $100 water bill credit.

Eric Hooper acknowledged the error and assured the committee that only a $100 water bill credit would be granted.

Paul Lauenstein asked when a contract would be awarded for water audits.

Eric Hooper replied that the Selectmen would take up the matter at their July 19 meeting.

Paul Lauenstein reported that he and Rory McGregor had met with Gerry Schanz and Ernie Varitimos regarding a water web site. Paul Lauenstein said Rory and he would create an outline for basic web site content and present it at the next WMAC meeting.

Lealdon Langley reported that he presented the letter to the Board of Selectmen from the WMAC advocating a variety of water conservation measures at the proposed Avalon Bay development. The next step is for the Selectmen to negotiate with Avalon Bay as a “friendly 40-B” to build water efficiency into their development.

Richard Mandell requested a copy of Lealdon Langley’s xeriscape list.

Islamic Center pump testing

Cliff Towner asked Eric Hooper why a new pump test is needed at Well #8 if prior pump tests indicate that there is plenty of water there.

Eric Hooper replied that it is important to compare drawdown at Well #8 with drawdown at other potential well sites to determine the most advantageous site.

2. Report of the Water Department

Monthly pumping, tank levels, & nitrates

Eric Hooper provided WMAC members with monthly pumping records, tank level graphs and nitrate concentration graphs for June. He said groundwater monitoring well data was unavailable for June. He asked if the WMAC had any questions or comments.

Michael Birschbach commented that it is difficult to review the data when it arrives so soon before the monthly meeting.

Eric Hooper replied that when the WMAC meeting is early in the month it is difficult to compile the data, make copies and distribute them to the committee members in a timely fashion.

Low productivity at Well #5

Mike Sherman asked why Well #5 was running at about 1/3 of the permitted pumping level when the other wells were running at about 2/3 of permitted pumping levels.

Eric Hooper replied that the permeability of the soil at Well #5 has declined, and the well will need to be rehabilitated soon.

Nitrate levels

Richard Mandell asked why nitrates at Well #3 trend down and then spike up sharply.

Eric Hooper replied that a spike from 2.2 ppm to 3.0 ppm is within normal sampling variability, and well below the 5 ppm level when the Board of Health gets involved. It would only be of concern if it continues to trend upward.

Paul Lauenstein asked why the nitrate level at Well #4 was measured as high as 7 ppm around 1996, but then dropped down to 3 to 4 ppm and stayed there since the late 1990’s.

Eric Hooper replied that a cesspool in the Zone 1 of Well #4 was removed. He added that sampling methodology was changed to ensure that Well #4 was running for awhile before taking a nitrate sample, rather than taking the sample immediately after starting the well.

Paul Lauenstein asked why nitrate readings stayed below 5 ppm for 20 years prior to the 7 ppm spikes in 1995 and 1996.

Richard Mandell pointed out that the Y-axis scales for Wells #2 and #3 are different from that of Well #4, making it difficult to compare the graphs.

Perchlorate contamination

Cliff Towner, referring to the perchlorate level of 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) reported in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), asked where this contamination might be coming from. He said perchlorate is associated with explosives, and suggested the source might be fireworks or blasting.

Lealdon Langley said the 0.3 ppb is well below the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) limit is 1 ppb, as well as the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limit is 4 ppb, and confirmed that perchlorate comes from explosives.

Paul Lauenstein commented that 90% of perchlorate contamination is attributed to man-made sources, and 10% is naturally occurring.

Mike Sherman said that, in addition to explosives, perchlorate is associated with the dry cleaning industry.

Major leak reported

Eric Hooper reported that total pumping has been high for the past few months compared to 2004. He said the Water Department noticed that water use seemed unusually high. Upon investigation, a major leak involving as much as 200,000 gallons per day was discovered. A six inch water main along North Main Street had burst where it transected a culvert. Since the leaking water was flowing out of a culvert it did not attract attention. Moreover, acoustic leak detection did not find it because the rushing sound of the water is normal for a culvert.

Pending RFPs: water audits and Fe/Mn filtration

Michael Birschbach asked if there were any new RFP’s pending.

Eric Hooper replied that a contract to conduct water audits to promote water conservation would be awarded to Energy New England on or about July 19. He said the standard audits would cost $110 and audits including automatic irrigation systems would cost $120. He said other sources for water audits were much more expensive.

Eric Hooper also reported that Weston & Sampson is working on the second phase of the Fe/Mn filtration plant for Well #6, which is able to produce about 350,000 gallons per day. The first phase, which cost $31,531 identified four alternative technologies for removing iron and manganese: the traditional greensand method, two proprietary filtration systems, and a new biological process involving bacteria. The second phase, projected to cost $50,000 to $100,000, will involve pilot studies of those technologies deemed suitable for Sharon in the first phase.

Radio meter RFP

Eric Hooper also reported on the revised radio meter procurement. He said the new RFP has been structured in three tiers: non-migratable drive-by, migratable drive-by and fixed network.

Paul Lauenstein commented that new acoustic leak detection technology should be considered in conjunction with a radio meter system. He pointed out that unaccounted-for water in Sharon amounts to 50 to 75 million gallons annually. He said acoustic leak detection could help detect and locate leaks that could save millions of gallons per year without compromising Water Department revenues. Significant cost savings could be achieved if a leak detection system were installed concurrently with a radio meter system as an integrated solution.

Eric Hooper said that, from the point of view of the Finance Committee, there would be no cash outlay to install the radio meter system since the work would be performed by Water Department employees.

Paul Lauenstein pointed out that the Water Department employees’ time costs money and should be managed as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, with proper planning, dual channel radio transmitters capable of handling data transmission for both water meters and leak detectors could be employed to further reduce the cost of an integrated solution.

Eric Hooper said he doubted that an acoustic leak detection system would have been able to detect the massive leak on North Main Street because the sounds of the leak would have been masked by the sounds of water normally flowing through the culvert.

Time line project management

Michael Birschbach asked when the WMAC could expect a time line showing estimated completion dates for stages of projects currently in progress or planned by the Water Department as agreed at the April 7 WMAC meeting.

Eric Hooper said that with so many concurrent projects he needed project management software that could display a time line.

Michael Birschbach replied that he is not looking for a complex report, and special software should not be necessary. Ordinary spreadsheet software such as Excel should suffice. He said the WMAC just needs a time line to help keep track of where we are, where we are going and when we are likely to get there.

Lealdon Langely commented that he had been assigned to act as liaison between the WMAC and the Water Department, regarding the emergency backup issue. He said he had spoken with Selectman Bill Heitin about the project management issue.

Microparticulates in Well #7

Cliff Towner reported that the boards are in at Well #7 which raises the water level, and asked Eric Hooper what effect this might have on microparticulates.

Eric Hooper said there is minimal risk of microparticulate contamination at Well #7.

3. Review Minutes of June 9

The minutes of June 9 were unanimously approved with minor alterations.

4. Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal for New Developments

Horizons For Youth (HFY) property

Cliff Towner asked Eric Hooper if Eric knew whether the 50-acre HFY land had been sold to the Salvation Army.

Eric Hooper said his understanding was that camp operations had been moved to western Massachusetts.

Cliff Towner expressed concern that this parcel would be vulnerable to 40-B development.

Avalon Bay (MWRA water vs. Sharon water)

Paul Lauenstein asked where the water for the proposed 156 unit Avalon Bay development should come from. He said there are two options: Sharon town water or MWRA water from Norwood.

Richard Mandell added that there is also concern about whether Avalon Bay’s wastewater will be disposed of on site, or sent to Deer Island via Norwood’s sewer system.

Mike Sherman said the source of the water may be linked to disposal of the wastewater.

Cliff Towner said David Grasfield is negotiating with the Norwood Selectmen and the MWRA to avoid burdening Sharon’s water supply with additional demand.

Michael Birschbach asked what advice the WMAC should give the Selectmen.

Cliff Towner said he thought the best outcome would be for Avalon Bay to obtain MWRA water from Norwood, and send its wastewater to Deer Island via the Norwood sewer system. He added that he thought this could be accomplished without obliging Sharon to join MWRA.

Lealdon Langley asked if the wastewater disposal issue was significant, adding that he saw no reason why the wastewater decision should be linked to the decision about where the water supply should come from.

Cliff Towner replied that an on-site wastewater treatment facility would be costly, and there are issues with the capacity of the land to absorb more water. Some neighbors have already complained about wet basements. Cliff Towner also said the high cost of an on-site wastewater treatment facility, and permitting requirements of connecting Avalon Bay to Norwood’s sewer system provide Sharon with some leverage to get Avalon Bay to use MWRA water through Norwood instead of town water.

Eric Hooper said that the Town of Sharon would not be involved in a decision to build an on-site wastewater treatment facility, and that there would be no justification for Sharon to deny Avalon Bay a permit for a sewer connection to Norwood.

Cliff Towner said permits would be required from Sharon to tear up Edge Hill Road for sewer pipes or water mains.

Eric Hooper said there are no grounds for presumption that Sharon’s water supply system lacks the capacity to supply Avalon Bay. He said it is hard to argue that the environmental impact of adding only six million gallons to Sharon’s aggregate demand for water of almost 600 million gallons per year would be significant. He added that there would be no problem with running a service line to the site.

Lealdon Langley replied that, given the current stress on Sharon’s water supply, every increment of demand is significant. He added that anything we can do to minimize demand on Sharon’s water supply would postpone the necessity of importing supplemental water into Sharon at great expense.

Cliff Towner agreed, saying there are potentially several large developments such as Rattlesnake Hill, HFY and the Gobbi property that could significantly increase demand for water in Sharon in the near future and hasten the need to import supplementary MWRA water.

Eric Hooper said that requiring Avalon Bay to use MWRA water based on Sharon’s limited water resources would be a matter for a court of law.

Cliff Towner replied that Avalon Bay is a Local Initiative Program (LIP) development so issues such as water supply should be negotiated between the town and the developer.

Lealdon Langley asked if there is already a water main near the site.

Eric Hooper said there is a water main, and Sharon is obliged to provide water for the development.

Cliff Towner said Eric Hooper is correct in saying that Sharon has an obligation to provide Avalon Bay with water and that Sharon’s water supply is adequate at present. However, he pointed out that precipitation has been above average. The more Sharon allows development to increase demand for water, the more serious would be the environmental consequences of a drought. He said Sharon would be better off if Avalon Bay takes its water from Norwood, and added that the Norwood Selectmen have no objections to this arrangement.

Michael Birschbach repeated his call for a motion to provide the Selectmen with advice on this matter.

Eric Hooper asked how many additional housing units should Sharon allow if Avalon Bay agrees to take its water from Norwood.

Jack Sulik said Avalon Bay would already save the $600,000 in hookup fees to Sharon’s water system if Avalon Bay takes their water from Norwood, so there should be no need to concede any additional housing units.

Eric Hooper replied that the cost to hook up to Norwood would be similar to the cost to hook up to Sharon.

Len Sekuler said the WMAC should recommend that the Selectmen negotiate with Avalon Bay to use Norwood water.

Richard Mandell made the following motion.

MOTION:

The WMAC strongly encourages the Board of Selectmen to negotiate with Avalon Bay to purchase water from the Town of Norwood.

This motion passed unanimously.

Mike Sherman asked if the WMAC should also recommend a course of action to the Selectmen regarding how to dispose of Avalon Bay’s wastewater.

Jack Sulik said this is a Board of Health issue, and is outside the jurisdiction of the WMAC.

5. Wastewater Disposal for Sharon Center

Involvement of various committees

Michael Birschbach commented that the Board of Health is concerned about steps taken to address the wastewater disposal issue in the center of town without input from various committees.

Lealdon Langley said Eric Hooper and Ben Puritz have been working independently of town committees on the issue of septic waste disposal in the center of town.

Cliff Towner agreed that town committees are out of the loop with regard to a local sewage treatment system for the center of Sharon.

Eric Hooper confirmed that the consulting firm Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) is working with the town to develop a growth plan to proactively address the 40B issue. He said it is unrealistic to expect that Sharon can obtain an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 40B because there is nothing unique about Sharon upon which to base an exemption. He said CDM’s growth plan would drive the 40B growth process instead of being driven by it. Part of the work to be performed by CDM would be outreach to all relevant boards and committees in Sharon to gather input. He said Sharon’s various boards and committees such as the Planning Board, the Board of Health, the Conservation Commission, and the Water Management Advisory Committee sometimes work at cross purposes. CDM proposes to pull the various stakeholders together, accommodating the priorities of each. He said the main thrust of the CDM proposal was to look at the big picture by finding out the priorities of the stakeholders and assessing legal requirements and septic loading constraints in the center of Sharon in order to control 40B growth.

CHAPA grant and proposed CDM study

Eric Hooper said the DPW had received a Citizen’s Housing And Planning Association (CHAPA) grant. He said the grant is intended to encompass many issues. Part of the CHAPA grant was used to hire Weston & Sampson to study septic loading capacity at the Wilber School site to determine how much housing the site could accommodate, and whether any additional septic waste from Sharon center could also be accommodated. The balance may be used to help fund the CDM study.

Eric Hooper said the Board of Health had expressed an interest in having input into the process of developing the scope of the CDM study. He said he is opposed because the Board of Health is only one of many stakeholders. He said developing the scope of the CDM study should be arm’s length. He added that the scope is not being determined by the DPW.

Michael Birschbach asked who is providing direction to CDM.

Eric Hooper replied that Ben Puritz and Eric Hooper are providing that direction.

Michael Birschbach said consultants usually listen and respond to their employers. He said he would like the WMAC to have input into determining the scope of the CDM study.

Eric Hooper said CDM would identify the stakeholders, interview them to find out their concerns, and bring these concerns to the table.

Cliff Towner said no public hearings have been held in connection with the proposed CDM study. He recalled that Article 31 proposed by the Planning Board for the last Town Meeting was withdrawn prior to Town Meeting largely because other boards and committees were not involved in the process from the start. He contrasted this with the approach taken by the Board of Health, which has been holding hearings about the septic waste disposal issues in the center of Sharon because they are responsible for issuing any permits that may be required by the Wilber School redevelopment.

Eric Hooper responded by saying that too much latitude has been attributed to the Board of Health with respect to an overall waste treatment plan for the center of town. He said that if a treatment system meets regulations, the Board of Health has no choice except to approve it.

Lealdon Langley expressed concern that the CHAPA grant money might be used to fund projects for which it was not intended.

Eric Hooper replied that the CHAPA grant was specifically intended for determining the loading capacity at the Wilber School site. He said the broader picture has to do with other projects. He commented that no discussions had taken place about who would connect to a sewer line if one were constructed in the center of Sharon.

Eric Hooper continued by saying that Ben Puritz and Eric Hooper are currently reviewing the scope of the CDM study. When complete it will be submitted to the boards and committees for comment.

Michael Birschbach asked it that would include the WMAC.

Eric Hooper said the Board of Health indicated that only policy-making committees should review the scope of the CDM study, but Eric Hooper favors including the WMAC in the scope review process.

Septic system issues – Mandarin Taste Restaurant and Rattlesnake Hill

Richard Mandell commented that Alice’s Restaurant is installing a new septic system. He also asked if there had been a problem with a leaking gas tank years ago.

Eric Hooper said the tanks are gone. He added that records may be available at the Fire Department. Jack Sulik said the tank had been properly removed and, according to ex-fire chief Jim Polito, there were no residual problems.

Richard Mandell said the location for the leaching field for the Rattlesnake Hill development proposed by the Striars flows out of Sharon, and asked if the Inter Basin Transfer Act would prohibit this kind of transfer of water out of Sharon. Richard Mandell said that the three wells along Beaver Brook, which drains to the Neponset River basin, provide more than half of Sharon’s water, and some of that water would end up at Rattlesnake Hill and drain to the Taunton River basin.

Eric Hooper said the Inter Basin Transfer Act would not apply because some of the wells that contribute to Sharon’s water supply tap aquifers in the Taunton River basin.

Richard Mandell asked whether Sharon would be able to supply enough water to Rattlesnake Hill for all its needs.

Eric Hooper replied that water for fire fighting would be stored on site.

6. Water Conservation

Avalon Bay

Paul Lauenstein asked if the WMAC should advocate for water conservation measures if Avalon Bay decides to use MWRA water instead of Sharon water. The consensus was that Sharon would not have any reason to require Avalon Bay to conserve water if Avalon Bay does not intend to use Sharon water. If Sharon water will be used, toilets and washing machines would be the most important issues to address with respect to conserving water.

Municipal facilities

Lealdon Langley asked whether all school and municipal buildings in Sharon have water-efficient flushometer toilets. He commented that it is important for public buildings to set a good example for the town as far as water-efficient plumbing.

Eric Hooper replied that the DPW, Police and Fire stations all have flushometer toilets. Jack Sulik said Town Hall also has flushometer toilets.

Mike Sherman asked whether the schools and the School Department offices also have flushometer toilets.

Web site

Mike Sherman volunteered to assist Rory McGregor and Paul Lauenstein in developing content for a water web site for Sharon.

7. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 11, 2005 at 7:30 PM