SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20, 2005

Prepared by Paul Lauenstein

Present at meeting:

WMAC Chairman Michael Birschbach; WMAC members Paul Lauenstein, Richard Mandell, Rory McGregor, Mike Sherman, Jack Sulik and Cliff Towner; Sharon DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper, Sharon Water Commissioner David Grasfield, and Sharon High School Representative Emily Tran

Summary of Minutes for the 10/20/05 WMAC Meeting

1. Approve 9/15/05 minutes

2. Report of the Water Department

- Exploratory test well results

- Tank level data

- Emergency backup

- Iron/manganese pilot at Well #6

- Water audit program

- Radio meter system procurement

3. Avalon Bay water issues

- Norwood/MWRA water vs Sharon water

- Norwood/MWRA sewer vs on-site wastewater disposal

- Water banking

4. Water web site

5. Concord’s toilet rebate program

6. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 7:30 PM

Detailed Minutes for the 10/20/05 WMAC Meeting

1. Approve 9/15/05 minutes

The 9/15/05 minutes were unanimously approved.

2. Report of the Water Department

Exploratory test well results

Eric Hooper reported that results of exploratory test well drilling in the vicinity of Blair Circle were unfavorable enough to rule out this site as a potential well site.

Preliminary indications for the remaining three sites are as follows:

Quantity Rank Quality Rank

Islamic Center 1 2

NSTAR (Canton St.) 2 3

MBTA (Maskwonicut) 3 1

Eric Hooper said that all three sites have potential for a 300,000 gallon per day municipal well. He added that the Islamic Center site has the most iron/manganese and the least nitrate of the three sites. The two NSTAR test wells had 4.6 ppm and 3.5 ppm of nitrate, respectively. The MBTA site had 2.5 ppm of nitrate. All three have good enough water quality that they cannot be ruled out on that basis.

Eric Hooper said that one geologist from D.L. Maher pointed out to him that it is possible to use the relative concentrations of the breakdown byproducts of organic nitrogen (nitrite and nitrate) to draw conclusions about the likelihood that nitrate concentration in the well water would increase as a result of pumping large volumes of water over a long time period. If the proportion of nitrite to nitrate is low, it means that the total nitrogen in the aquifer is stable and should not increase markedly as a consequence of pumping.

Paul Lauenstein asked why the nitrates were lower at the MBTA site upstream of the NSTAR site and also at Sharon Memorial Park downstream of the NSTAR site. He suggested that there might be localized sources of nitrate affecting the NSTAR site.

Eric Hooper said there is no immediate answer, but that more intensive pump tests might shed light on that later.

Richard Mandell asked what direction the groundwater flows in that area.

Eric Hooper said the direction of flow of the Beaver Brook aquifer, which underlies the MBTA site, the NSTAR site and Sharon Memorial Park, is generally from south to north.

Eric Hooper reported that the hydrogeology of the NSTAR and MBTA sites consists of a relatively uniform, 40’ – 50’ deep layer of fine silty sand on top of an aquifer of coarser sandy gravel. This layer is a result of the fact that the area was once under water, during which time the thick layer fine sediments was deposited. The floor of the aquifer is an undulating surface of bedrock. The more permeable gravel layer immediately above the bedrock and beneath the fine silty sand varies in thickness from 4’ to 25’, depending on the depth to bedrock, which varies considerably. A good depth of permeable coarse sand and gravel aquifer is needed for a well to function optimally.

Contaminants dissolved in the water travel easily through the permeable aquifer and do not decompose or get filtered out. This means that these well sites are vulnerable to chemical spills that might result from a train accident, since they are close to the tracks.

Eric Hooper suggested that a well field might help resolve the problem of residences within the 400’ Zone I radius typically required around a municipal well. He said a well field only requires a Zone I with a 250’ radius. He explained that the smaller radius allowed for a well field is an artifact of the outdated use of above-ground pumps to suck water out of the ground. Suction pumps could only draw water down about 20’ in the well shaft, so they generated a relatively small cone of depression. Even though well fields now employ immersion pumps that push water out of the well to avoid “inhaling” contaminated surface water in the event of a perforation in the well pipe, they are restricted to 20’ drawdown, so the effective cone of depression remains modest, and the Zone I radius can be reduced.

Eric Hooper said that by using a well field with a 250’ Zone I radius, all three sites could avoid the problem of homes within their respective Zone I areas.

Richard Mandell inquired about the progress of negotiations with Sharon Memorial Park.

Eric Hooper said they are ongoing.

Richard Mandell asked about using echo-sounding to map the contours of the bedrock to locate a site with a relatively thick layer of permeable sand and gravel.

Eric Hooper said the theory is good, but in practice the areas available to locate a well are so constrained by residences that the exploratory test wells are sufficient to determine their viability.

Cliff Towner asked about the time frame for the next phase of pump testing.

Eric Hooper said he hopes to conduct at least one preliminary pump test before winter weather sets in.

Cliff Towner asked how long the preliminary pump test would last.

Eric Hooper said the preliminary pump test, for which no permit is required from DEP, would be conducted for six to eight hours. He added that a more extended pump test, for which a DEP permit would be required, would last a week or more, and would be necessary to obtain a permit to construct a permanent municipal well.

Jack Sulik commented that he is concerned about the nitrate concentration of 4.6 ppm at the NSTAR site, which could lead the DEP to deny approval for construction of a municipal well. He cautioned against spending a significant amount of money on testing and consulting fees for obtaining a well permit from DEP, only to be turned down in the end.

Eric Hooper expressed concern that flooding that might result from storm water runoff from impervious surfaces at the Saw Mill Pond Road development might affect the NSTAR/Canton St. site, but would not pose a problem for the uphill MBTA/Maskwonicut site.

Mike Sherman asked what is happening with testing at the Gobbi site.

Cliff Towner replied that this matter is in the hands of the town’s leaders.

Tank level data

Eric Hooper asked if it were necessary to provide WMAC members with tank level data through the winter when the tanks remain full virtually all the time. The consensus was that these reports are only needed during lawn-irrigation season.

Paul Lauenstein suggested digitizing the graphs and posting them on the proposed Sharon water web site for everyone to refer to as needed, which would save time and Xeroxing costs.

Emergency backup

Eric Hooper reported that emergency backup investigations have been stalled due to issues related to Stoughton’s water supply.

Iron/manganese pilot at Well #6

Eric Hooper said that more time is still needed to complete the pilot test of the biological system, which should be done by mid-December. He said that water from Well #6 is not being taken for water supply purposes now that the heavy summer demand period has ended. He said the Conservation Commission has granted permission to direct the 100 to 200 gpm of effluent from the pilot test into a nearby wetland.

Water audit program

Eric Hooper reported that only one water audit has been conducted to date because the lawn irrigation season has come to an end. He said heavy residential water users that are the target of the water audit program tend to be those with automatic irrigation systems. He said the audits would recommence next spring when lawn irrigation begins again.

Richard Mandell commented that he had observed the Sharon High School irrigating their playing fields subsequent to the prior WMAC meeting of September 15 while it was raining heavily.

Paul Lauenstein pointed out that part of the money allocated for water audits was intended for auditing large commercial or municipal water users.

Emily Tran said that some of the plumbing fixtures at Sharon High School do not seem to be working properly, and might be wasting water.

Eric Hooper said that schools tend to be significant water users, and that perhaps one or more of Sharon’s public schools could be audited over the winter.

Radio meter system procurement

Michael Birschbach asked what is happening with the procurement process for an automatic meter read (AMR) system.

Eric Hooper said the Inspector General (IG) is still reviewing the RFP. He added that he is anxious to proceed.

Paul Lauenstein asked why is it urgent to get the radio meter reading system running.

Eric Hooper said that without an AMR system he cannot fine-tune the hydraulic model by inputting actual water use data to better simulate demand in different neighborhoods in Sharon. He also said that an AMR system would be useful for monitoring unaccounted-for water, as well as a host of other management issues.

Paul Lauenstein asked Eric Hooper if he had visited other towns that have installed fixed network systems.

Eric Hooper replied that he has visited Walpole and Norwood to see their systems. He said Norwood’s system is up and running, but Walpole is just beginning the installation process. He added that the committee members should try to visit other cities and towns to see how they are using AMR systems, both fixed network and drive-by, to manage their water systems.

Michael Birschbach reported that Eric Hooper and he had jointly recommended to the Selectmen that they appoint the entire WMAC to review the AMR proposals. He said he expects the Selectmen to go along with that proposal, but that he has not yet received a formal response.

3. Avalon Bay water issues

Eric Hooper described a meeting attended by himself, David Grasfield, Ben Puritz, Norwood’s John Carroll and Bernie Cooper, and representatives from Avalon Bay to discuss the possibility of providing the proposed 156-unit Avalon Bay development in Sharon with MWRA water via Norwood. It so happens that John Carroll is both the Town Manager for Norwood as well as a member of MWRA’s Board of Directors.

Eric Hooper said that he believes the Norwood Selectmen favor the idea of selling water to Avalon Bay and also taking their wastewater, because it would result in a profit for Norwood. He said the wastewater aspect is more profitable because Avalon Bay would have to mitigate 4 gallons of wastewater in Norwood (by paying for repairs to sewer pipes) for every gallon of wastewater from Avalon Bay.

Supplying water to Avalon Bay is not as lucrative for Norwood because the water conservation measures needed to satisfy MWRA’s offset requirements would reduce Norwood’s water revenues. Also, supplying MWRA water from Norwood to Avalon Bay would entail 3,500 feet of dead end pipeline, an unusually long distance. Dead end pipelines are limited to a maximum of 150’ by Sharon Water Department regulations. There are also issues of maintenance and liability for a pipeline owned by Norwood but located in Sharon.

Eric Hooper pointed out that water is just one of several community values at stake. He suggested that a 1% increase in the burden on Sharon’s aquifers might be worth trading for 35% of Sharon’s 40b quota.

Michael Birschbach commented that the town will get the 40b benefit regardless of the resolution of the water and wastewater issues. He suggested that by using water and sewer from Norwood, it might be possible to locate more housing units on the site.

Eric Hooper said that at this stage of negotiations it is probably too late to consider changing the number of housing units.

Paul Lauenstein said that state water policy favors local wastewater treatment to avoid depletion of groundwater aquifers.

Cliff Towner said that Avalon Bay would prefer an on-site wastewater treatment system because of the high cost of a hookup to Norwood’s sewer system. He said the cost for the sewer hookup would be around $2 million, whereas the cost of 3,500 feet of water main would be much less, around $350,000. He said MWRA would limit Norwood’s markup on MWRA water to a modest percentage, and that the Norwood Selectmen expressed an interest gaining this profit for Norwood.

Cliff Towner mentioned an October 9 Boston Globe article describing an action taken by Duane Knapp, the water superintendent for the Town of Norton. Mr. Knapp denied permission to connect to the Norton water supply to a 42-home development with 2-acre zoning in a groundwater protection district. He did the same thing to a proposed 150-unit development, also in the groundwater protection district. Mr. Knapp took the position that nitrate levels were already near the limit, and he would not risk new development raising the nitrate level to a point where it caused the loss of the water source.

Cliff Towner asked if Eric Hooper would be willing to tell a Sharon Selectman that he would not allow a development to connect to Sharon’s water supply if a risk of contamination existed.

Jack Sulik suggested that Mr. Knapp might not prevail in Norton.

Cliff Towner replied that in the meantime he is protecting his customers.

Rory McGregor asked if there were not some way to use MWRA water to supply Avalon Bay while simultaneously serving as an emergency backup water supply for Sharon.

Eric Hooper replied that MWRA does not like to “wheel” water through other towns, preferring a direct hookup instead.

Jack Sulik suggested that if Avalon Bay encounters too much difficulty and delay in obtaining water from one source or another, they might back away from pursuing the proposed development entirely. That would deprive Sharon of a major component in its strategy to satisfy its 40-b quota of 10% affordable housing, since all 156 units of the Avalon Bay development are rental units classified as affordable.

Richard Mandell commented that even if the town’s water supply is ultimately held hostage by the imperatives of 40-b, the environmentally responsible thing to do is to return the wastewater to the ground on site, rather than sending it down the sewer pipe to Deer Island.

Mike Birschbach said supplying Avalon Bay with some of Sharon’s limited well water resources, and then sending it to Deer Island instead of recharging it locally represents the worst possible scenario.

Rory McGregor replied that the alternative appears to be losing the development entirely if Sharon insists on treating the wastewater on-site due to opposition from abutters.

Mike Birschbach said the responsible thing to do is look at the bigger picture and advocate for an environmentally sound solution.

Cliff Towner commented that the proposed 104-unit 40-b development on Norwood Street will also need water, and it is not nearly as close to MWRA water as Avalon Bay.

Richard Mandell added that water required by the proposed 89 units at Rattlesnake Hill will also add to the burden on Sharon’s limited aquifers.

Mike Birschbach asked how much revenue Avalon Bay would generate for the Sharon Water Department if they connect to Sharon’s water supply.

Mike Sherman said the committee has a responsibility to protect and preserve Sharon’s water supply, and should be concerned about aggregate demand.

Eric Hooper replied that the amount of affordable housing outweighs the loss of the water. He said the water revenues associated with Avalon Bay would be relatively insignificant, about 1% of total revenues, or under $20,000 per year. He also said he thinks Bernie Cooper of Norwood is opposed to supplying Avalon Bay with MWRA water through Norwood because of the risks associated with a 3,500 foot dead-end pipeline.

Eric Hooper added that he agrees with disposing of the wastewater on-site. However, one advantage to the MWRA sewer option is that it would minimize the risk of on-site flooding in the event of heavy rains.

Cliff Towner said he agrees with Eric Hooper that Sharon cannot afford to lose the 156-unit credit toward the town’s 40-b quota, even if that means supplying Avalon Bay with Sharon water.

Eric Hooper said the impact could be minimized using water-efficient fixtures and appliances.

Paul Lauenstein suggested that Sharon resort to a water banking system whereby developers would be required to contribute to a separate account reserved for promoting water conservation, stormwater recharge, and/or wastewater recirculation. The formula for determining the amount of money contributed per housing unit would be based on assumptions about the cost of conserving two to three gallons of water for every gallon to be used by the development. In this way, aggregate demand for water in Sharon could actually be reduced by every new development. He said that Sharon currently has about 6,000 homes. Assuming each home has two toilets, there are about 12,000 toilets in town. If half the toilets in Sharon were installed before 1994 when low-flow toilets were required, then about 6,000 toilets in Sharon use 3.5 gallons per flush or more, which translates to 35 gallons per day. Replacing these with High Efficiency Toilets that need only 1.1 gallons per flush, or 11 gallons per day, would save over 50 million gallons per year, enough for 10 projects the size of Avalon Bay.

Paul Lauenstein pointed out that the Town of Weymouth already has a successful water banking program. He added that there is a veritable tsunami of new development, roughly 1,000 new homes, in the pipeline for Sharon, and that a water banking policy could protect Sharon’s water supply from excessive demand caused by new development.

Michael Birschbach moved that the following recommendations be made to the Sharon Water Commissioners:

1. It is in the best interests of Sharon's water supply that Avalon Bay should obtain its water supply from Norwood.

2. If a decision is nevertheless made that Avalon Bay will obtain its water from the Sharon municipal water supply, then the wastewater effluent should be retained to recharge groundwater locally in the Neponset River watershed by means of an on-site wastewater treatment facility.

This motion was approved unanimously.

Eric Hooper concurred that the water source and the wastewater destination should be linked, i.e. use MWRA water and MWRA sewer, or use Sharon water and on-site wastewater treatment.

4. Water web site

Rory McGregor reported on progress regarding a web site to provide residents with useful information about Sharon’s water supply. He said that Paul Lauenstein and he had met with Ernie Varitimos and Gerry Schanz to discuss constructing a web site. Mssrs. Varitimos and Schanz provided Rory McGregor with a written proposal to construct a web site for a price of $1,500 plus a modest annual hosting fee.

Rory McGregor made a motion to recommend that up to $2,000 be spent from the water conservation budget to establish a web site for disseminating information pertaining to Sharon's water supply, water pricing and water conservation.

This motion was approved unanimously.

Rory McGregor suggested that the software used to build the site should be compatible with that of the Town of Sharon web site in case it becomes necessary in the future to migrate the water web site to www.townofsharon.net.

Rory McGregor said parts of the web site involving certain kinds of variable data would be updatable by authorized WMAC members and/or town employees, subject to approval by the committee. This would minimize web site modification costs going forward.

David Grasfield suggested contacting Don Hillegas at Town Hall to ascertain compatibility.

Eric Hooper commented that well and tank locations should not be published on the web site for security reasons, although Zone II areas and pipe schematics (not including pipe sizes) would be permissible.

Mike Birschbach responded that detailed maps are readily available that show this supposedly restricted information.

Rory McGregor asked how and by whom the procurement would be authorized.

Eric Hooper replied that the Water Department would request permission from the Selectmen to spend the money based on the contract proposal submitted by Mssrs. Varitimos and Schanz.

Suggestions for a name for the proposed web site, such as www.SharonH₂O.com, were solicited from the committee.

5. Water Conservation

Paul Lauenstein reported that he had learned that the Town of Concord has a rebate program for low-flow toilets. The program has resulted in replacement of 110 high-flow toilets installed prior to 1989 with 1.6 gpf low-flow units. These toilets are currently saving water in Concord at the rate of over one million gallons per year.

6. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 7:30 PM