SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15, 2005

Prepared by Paul Lauenstein

Present at meeting:

WMAC Chairman Michael Birschbach; WMAC members Paul Lauenstein, Richard Mandell, Len Sekuler, Mike Sherman, Jack Sulik, and Cliff Towner; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Water Commissioner David Grasfield; Sharon High School delegate Emily Tran; Barbara Cook, PE of Weston & Sampson; and Jeffrey Hershberger, PG of ESS Group.

Summary of Minutes for the 12/15/05 WMAC Meeting

1. Radio Meter Procurement

2. Approve 11/10/05 minutes with corrections

3. WMAC Recap for the 2005 Town of Sharon Annual Report

4. Report of the Water Department

- Emergency backup

- Testing of new well sites

- Iron/manganese filtration plant at Well #6

- DEP permit pending

- Water audit program

5. Water Conservation Budget

6. Water Education

7. Other Business

8. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2005 at 7:30 PM

Detailed Minutes for the 12/15/05 WMAC Meeting

1. Radio Meter Procurement

Cliff Towner said he did not have an opinion about the specific merits of drive-by versus fixed network radio meter systems. He said at least two years had elapsed since the procurement process began and still no decision had been made. He said he had observed Sharon Water Department personnel struggling through snow and ice to read the meters, and warned of the potential liability to the town. He said that although there were differing opinions about the merits of the various options, the important thing at this stage is to make a decision and move on to bigger issues facing Sharon’s water supply. He asked Eric Hooper what kind of radio meter system he would prefer.

Eric Hooper replied that he was largely in agreement with Cliff Towner that it is time to make a decision and move forward. However, he said that the RFP process that has been set in motion must run its course, and that both Water Department employees and WMAC members should be involved in the selection process.

Eric Hooper commented that the technical capabilities of drive-by systems have been improving, while the prices of fixed network systems have been coming down, so the distinctions are now less sharp. He said he would not venture to pre-suppose the outcome of the selection process at this point.

Richard Mandell asked what is holding up the procurement process. Mike Sherman said the WMAC is not holding it up.

Eric Hooper said that the Inspector General’s office has been studying Sharon’s revised RFP, and although they have made suggestions, they will not approve or disapprove it. He added that the Selectmen have asked for a new review committee.

Michael Birschbach opposed involving others in the selection process. He pointed out that both WMAC members and Water Department employees have invested many hours informing themselves about radio meter reading systems. He said the radio meter system evaluation was central to the mission of the WMAC. He proposed sending a joint letter signed by Eric Hooper and Michael Birschbach as WMAC Chairman.

Cliff Towner made the following motion:

MOTION

WMAC Chairman Michael Birschbach and DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper will send a jointly signed letter to the Board of Selectmen recommending that Eric Hooper go ahead with the procurement process for a radio read meter system.

This motion passed unanimously.

2. Approve 11/10/05 minutes with corrections

The minutes of the November 10 WMAC meeting were unanimously approved with minor modifications.

3. WMAC Recap for the 2005 Town of Sharon Annual Report

Paul Lauenstein, Secretary, was assigned the task of composing a draft describing the accomplishments of the WMAC in 2005 for inclusion in the Annual Town Report.

4. Report of the Water Department

Emergency backup

Eric Hooper summarized the progress of Watermark on studying ways to ensure uninterrupted water supply to Sharon. He commented that there are a number of ways to back up Sharon’s existing water supply, including more wells, an Fe/Mn filtration plant at Well #6, and external sources such as surrounding towns, MWRA, and the proposed Taunton River desalination plant in Dighton. He said all options are on the table and a balanced approach should be taken.

Eric Hooper said Watermark began their analysis with a projection of demand out to the year 2020. He said Watermark projected that average daily demand in 2020 would be about 250,000 gallons per day higher than at present. DEP is currently reviewing Sharon’s pumping permit, which it does every 5 years. The new draft permit, which has not yet been finalized, specifies an annual average of 1.58 MGD, and a summertime average (May 1 – September 30) of 1.84 MGD. The current daily maximum allowance is 3.12 mgd.

Eric Hooper said Watermark will recommend an emergency backup connection to Stoughton. This will be governed by Op-5 MWRA regulations. The cost will be limited to the cost of the plumbing unless and until Sharon runs into an emergency situation and has to take water from Stoughton. If that happens, Stoughton will charge Sharon for the water taken.

Michael Birschbach asked if supplementary water could be purchased under Op-5 for summertime needs. Eric Hooper replied that non-emergency supplementary water would require a more expensive Op-10 arrangement whereby Sharon would be required to pay the membership fee to join MWRA, pay for permitting, and pay for a direct pipeline to MWRA, in addition to demonstrating that Sharon had taken every reasonable measure to minimize water use.

Paul Lauenstein questioned Watermark’s projection that Sharon’s water use would increase by 250,000 gallons per day by 2020. He cited the example of Weymouth, who used a water banking system to reduce their average daily water use from 4.9 million gallons daily (MGD) to around 4.1 MGD, well below the 4.5 MGD safe yield of their reservoir.

Eric Hooper said Watermark characterized the cost of desalinized water from Aquaria as prohibitive.

Eric Hooper said Watermark identified three potential sites for the Op-5 emergency connection to Stoughton water along Bay Road: one at Cobb’s Corner, one at Chemung Street, and one at Plain Street. He said the Chemung and Plain Street options would provide water faster to the elevated sections of eastern Sharon that would likely be the first to be affected by a water emergency, but all three sites are viable. He said Stoughton and Sharon would make the decision as to the best location without MWRA involvement, adding that Stoughton is concerned about how supplying emergency water to Sharon might impact their own water system, while Sharon is concerned about the cost of obtaining emergency water if it is ever needed.

Mike Sherman said MWRA offers mediation services in case Stoughton tries to set the price of the emergency water unreasonably high.

Paul Lauenstein commented that Op-5 provides for steep increases in the cost of emergency water for each subsequent use as a deterrent to towns chronically using Op-5 water instead of joining MWRA under the terms of Op-10.

Michael Birschbach asked if Eric Hooper needed input from the WMAC to choose a location for the emergency backup connection to Stoughton. Eric Hooper replied that he will provide the committee with an update upon conclusion of negotiations with Stoughton.

Eric Hooper reiterated that an Op-5 emergency backup would only address emergency requirements, and would not address potential long-term needs for supplementary water that would have to come from a new well or an Op-10 membership to MWRA.

Testing of new well sites

Eric Hooper, in introducing Jeffrey Hershberger of ESS, commented that none of the potential well sites is a “slam dunk,” but rather each site is viable with some drawbacks.

A. NSTAR Site

Jeffrey Hershberger said the NSTAR site is hampered by Zone I area constraints. He handed out diagrams showing 250 foot Zone I radii at each location. He explained that a 250 foot Zone I radius can be used instead of the standard 400 foot radius in cases where the diameter of the cone of depression is limited by drawdown. He said wells with a maximum drawdown of 20 feet are allowed the smaller 250 foot Zone I radius, adding that a multiple shaft well field could allow sufficient flow to be generated.

At the NSTAR site test bores were drilled at several locations, each with multiple 2.5” bores, and 48-hour preliminary pump tests were conducted. Flows of over 250,000 gallons per day were achieved, and maximum drawdown was less than 15 feet, well within the 20 foot limit for a 250’ Zone I. Pumping was not continued long enough to reach stabilization that would be satisfactory to DEP. That will require a formal pump test. Extrapolation of the 48-hour pump test results suggests that an extended pump test will not exceed the 20-foot drawdown limit, although heavy rain (3/4”) on the second day may have influenced the results.

Jack Sulik asked about DEP’s latest position on allowing a road (Canton Street) within the 250’ Zone I. Jeff Hershberger replied that contaminated runoff from the road could be mitigated by installing curbs and avoiding the use of road salt.

Eric Hooper pointed out that a residence on Canton Street south of the testing area has a septic leach field in the front yard bordering on the Zone I. Richard Mandell asked if the septic leach field could be relocated to the back yard. Eric Hooper said that would be difficult.

Jeff Hershberger said fine sand was consistently present in the water during the pump test. Mike Sherman asked if this would be a problem with a permanent well. Jeff Hershberger replied that permanent wells have gravel packs to filter out the fine sand.

Jeff Hershberger said the water quality at the NSTAR site, while less than ideal, was acceptable. The iron level detected was 0.06 mg/l, far below the 0.30 mg/l limit, and manganese was not detected. Sodium was detected at 22.8 mg/l. This is slightly in excess of the Office of Research and Standards Guideline (ORSG) of 20 mg/l.

Paul Lauenstein commented that levels of sodium over 30 mg/l have been detected in MWRA water, which is considered to be very high quality.

Jeff Hershberger said the nitrate level of 4.4 mg/l, while lower than the EPA maximum of 10 mg/l, is troubling. He added that levels of 3.5 and 4.6 mg/l were detected in earlier tests at the NSTAR site. However, the fact that nitrate, a precursor to nitrate, was not detected suggests that the nitrate is old and not the result of fresh, nearby contamination. The trend in the nitrate level will be important to watch in the extended formal pump test.

Emily Tran noted the acidic pH of 5.6.

Jack Sulik replied that this pH is typical of acidic rainfall in New England. He said the Water Department routinely adds KOH at the well heads to neutralize acid in the water.

Jeff Hershberger said the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a known carcinogen, was detected at 2 parts per billion (ppb), far below the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “health advisory" level for MTBE of 70 ppb. He said traces of MTBE are commonly found in water supplies.

B. Maskwonicut Street (MBTA) Site

Jeff Hershberger reported that more test bores were drilled than initially scoped. He said the permeable gravel layer between the bedrock and an overlying 30- to 40-foot-thick layer of silt varies in thickness from 2’ to 25’. Multiple bores were drilled to try to find a spot where this permeable gravel aquifer is thickest. All test bores yielded flows that were inferior to those at the NSTAR site.

Water quality at the MBTA site was adequate. Nitrates were less than 4 ppm, and iron and manganese were very low.

Richard Mandell asked what the blue-hatched area represented on the MBTA site map, pointing out that the map lacked a legend. Jeff Hershberger replied that the blue-hatched area represented wetlands, which affect access to the site.

Len Sekuler asked if the MBTA site taps the same aquifer as Well #4, Eric Hooper replied that Wells #2, #3, #4, and the NSTAR and MBTA sites all tap the same aquifer underlying Beaver Brook.

Len Sekuler asked if a nitrate level above 5 mg/l would trigger any action. Eric Hooper replied that nitrate levels above 5 mg/l mandate a remediation plan. Nitrate levels above 10 mg/l require the well to be shut down. Well #4 is typically 3 to 4 mg/l, which doesn’t allow much leeway to develop the Wilber School or other parts of Sharon that contribute to that aquifer.

Len Sekuler inquired about results from the past pump test at the Islamic Center. Eric Hooper replied that the pump test, which was conducted at 660,000 gallons per day, had an unacceptable impact on nearby wetlands. Eric Hooper speculated that pumping the Islamic Center site at 250,000 gallons per day might be acceptable. He added that any pumping will affect local ecosystems. It’s a question of trade-offs between the value of extra water supply for the town versus environmental impacts.

Iron/manganese filtration plant at Well #6

Eric Hooper said permitting costs alone for a new well will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, with no guarantee of a successful outcome. He commented that Well #6 is already permitted by DEP for up to 350,000 gallons per day, adding that the aquifer it taps is capable of supporting withdrawals of up to 700,000 gpd. He said that the Canoe River is designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and that it is already considered stressed, so it is unlikely that DEP would increase the 350,000 gpd currently permitted at Well #6. The total amount of water that may be withdrawn by the town is limited by the DEP’s 65 gallon per capita daily (gpcd) policy so the potential supplementary capacity of Well #6 would be of significance only for operational flexibility rather than increasing the amount of water for the town. However, Well #6 has excessive iron and manganese contamination, which presents cosmetic problems that limit its usefulness.

Barbara Cook of Weston & Sampson commented that there were many complaints of discolored water from pumping Well #6 last summer. She said it had been necessary to run the well to conduct pilot tests of various iron and manganese removal methods. She listed the alternatives as:

       • traditional greensand filtration

       • biological removal

       • membrane filtration

Richard Mandell asked what greensand filtration is. Barbara Cook replied that water is forced through greensand filtration media under pressure. The greensand is treated with potassium permanganate (KMnO₄). The KMnO₄ oxidizes the dissolved iron and manganese, which causes it to precipitate and become trapped by the greensand media. When the greensand becomes saturated with precipitate, it must be backwashed. When the media’s oxidizing capacity becomes exhausted, it must be regenerated with KMnO₄, or it must be replaced. Barbara Cook explained that there are a variety of proprietary greensand media available, most of which must be replaced at least once every 10 years.

Barbara Cook said the loading rate in gallons per minute per square foot is another differentiating variable among media types. Loading rate determines the amount of building space required to house the filtration system. Media are typically capable of processing three to five gallons per minute per square foot. However, some media, such as Pureflow, Greensand Plus and LayneOx, can process up to 10 gpm/sq. ft.

Barbara Cook described the biological removal approach as inert media, the particles of which are populated with a film of bacteria that actually metabolize dissolved iron and manganese, catalyzing their oxidation and forming a precipitate which can be filtered out. Infilco Degremont Inc. (IDI) manufactures biological iron and manganese removal systems. The media lasts considerably longer than greensand media. Although biological removal systems have not been formally approved yet in Massachusetts, piloting as been proceeding in Middleborough and it is likely that MA DEP will grant a permit. The biological approach to iron/manganese removal has the advantage of not requiring chemical additives such as KMnO₄. Also, there is less need for backwashing the media than there is with greensand, which results in less down-time. Most of the backwash water can be recycled. The non-toxic precipitate can be composted or pumped to a drying bed.

Barbara Cook said biological iron/manganese removal systems are sensitive to alkaline conditions that could result from too much KOH. Reseeding is no problem with iron-metabolizing bacteria, but manganese-metabolizing bacteria are more problematic and take longer to re-populate. Unfortunately, manganese is more of a problem than iron at Well #6. 95% of the manganese must be removed to reduce the concentration from 1.1 mg/l in the untreated water down to the recommended limit of 0.05 mg/l. One drawback of the biological removal system is that it takes about a month for enough manganese-metabolizing bacterial to fully colonize the media so that the system becomes effective at removing manganese.

Barbara Cook reported that the pilot test was spoiled last September by a surge in alkalinity from addition of KOH to the water that killed all the bacteria. Eric Hooper commented that he is disappointed that the IDI pilot failed, and said he hopes to try again next summer.

Jack Sulik said he is concerned about the fragility of IDI’s biological iron/manganese removal system.

Paul Lauenstein asked if other communities are using biological iron/manganese removal systems. Barbara Cook replied that there are currently 13 installations in North America, including one in Canada. Paul Lauenstein said it should be possible to interview operators of these installations to find out more about their reliability and any other issues.

Len Sekuler asked if membrane-based filtration systems had been evaluated. Barbara Cook replied that membrane systems are not cost-effective for small systems like Sharon’s. She added that it is important to remember that iron and manganese, while objectionable, are not toxic, and the focus should be on practical ways to substantially reduce these contaminants rather than 100% removal. She said that a greensand filtration plant would cost $2.2 to $2.5 million. In addition, she said there would be annual operating costs related to energy, chemicals and labor. Using LayneOx  media would remove a higher percentage of the iron and manganese, but would also increase power costs. She estimated that IDI’s biological system would cost about $2.2 million, and that operating costs would be the lowest of the various alternatives.

Eric Hooper said that the detrimental effects of excessive iron and manganese go beyond cosmetics. He buildup of iron and manganese can interfere with various aspects of the water delivery system.

Mike Sherman asked how much the operating and maintenance costs would be. Barbara Cook replied that the range would probably be $100,000 to $150,000 per year. She added that an aeration tower could raise the pH and reduce the amount of KOH needed to neutralize acidity. She said the savings in chemical costs would take about 15 years to pay back the capital cost of an aeration tower.

Eric Hooper said the sizing of the Fe/Mn filtration facility will depend on whether or not a new well will be located at the Islamic Center. If a new well is built at the Islamic Center, it might be advantageous to treat the combined output of both wells using one treatment facility.

Jack Sulik asked how much it would cost to build a pipeline to transport water from a well at the Islamic Center to an iron/manganese filtration plant at Well #6.

Barbara Cook replied that although she did not know the cost of a pipeline, it should be noted that a larger, more expensive iron/manganese filtration plant would also be needed to treat water from two wells than from just one.

Water audit program

Eric Hooper reported that residential water audits have ceased for the winter, because residents who use the most water tend to be those who irrigate their lawns. Residential water audits will resume in the spring. Meanwhile, no commercial or school audits have been conducted yet. Eric Hooper said he would discuss school water audits with Ken Wirtz, Superintendent of Maintenance for the Sharon Public Schools.

5. Water Conservation Budget

Paul Lauenstein proposed the following budget for water conservation in FY ’07.

Budget Proposal for Spending on Water Conservation for FY '07

1. Public Relations

Water Bill Inserts (two per year).................................................................................... $3,000

Additional page in Consumer Confidence Report............................................................ $1,000

Web site maintenance ................................................................................................... $2,500

Total for Public Relations............................................................................................... $6,500

2. Rebate Program

A $200 rebate is currently offered for washing machines with at least 3.0 cu. ft. capacity that use less than 15 gallons per load, and a $150 rebate is offered for washing machines with less than 3.0 cu. ft. capacity that use less than 12 gallons per load. A $100 rebate is offered for High Efficiency Toilets that use less than 1.28 gallons per flush. Rebates are only available for retrofits. New hookups are required by Water Division Regulations to use water efficient fixtures and appliances.

100 Washing Machine Rebates @ $200 each.............................................................. $20,000

50 Toilet Rebates @ $100 each..................................................................................... $5,000

Total for Rebates......................................................................................................... $25,000

The rebate program should also provide incentives for installing systems to capture storm runoff, substituting it for drinking water for outside watering in summer and/or diverting it into the ground for aquifer recharge. These rebates should be proportional to the amount of water saved. This aspect of the rebate program can wait until FY 2008.

3. Water Audits and Hotline

Water users in Sharon who use over 100,000 gallons per year should be invited to schedule a free water audit to learn how to reduce their water consumption. Household water audits performed by Energy New England cost the Water Department $120 each, and include advice on low-flow toilets and washing machines, leak detection, tips on lawn irrigation management, and free installation of low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators. The goal for FY '07 is to conduct 100 residential water audits.

Sharon’s schools and businesses that use significant quantities of water should also be audited in FY ’07.

In addition, an 800 hotline should be provided to residents who use less than 100,000 gallons per year so they can get advice on how to conserve water.

100 Residential Water Audits @ $120 each................................................................. $12,000

10 Commercial or Municipal Water Audits @$300 each................................................ $3,000

Water Conservation Hotline........................................................................................... $2,500

Total for Water Audits and Hotline............................................................................... $17,500

4. Education

Project WET is an example of a simple and inexpensive program to provide public school teachers with instruction and classroom materials for teaching about hydrology and water conservation across the curriculum. By promoting this subject in the Sharon school system, parents will be indirectly influenced to conserve water, and the next generation will be imbued with conservation values.

Two Project WET seminars for 16 teachers................................................................... $1,000

Conclusion

The total budgeted cost of the proposed water conservation program for FY ’07 comes to $50,000.

Eric Hooper said he had already independently allocated $50,000 for water conservation in FY ’07.

Michael Birschbach asked how much was spent on rebates last year. Eric Hooper said $22,000, and added that rebates must be included in the budget because it is not possible to use water bill credits in lieu of a check.

Paul Lauenstein suggested that promoting water conservation might be more cost-effective than supplying ever increasing quantities of water.

6. Water Education

Emily Tran questioned the effectiveness of Project Wet at the high school level. She commented that Earth Science had been discontinued at Sharon High School, and there is nothing on the MCAS exam related to water or earth science.

Emily  Tran said she was aware of a groundwater model that might be useful for communicating hydrology concepts to students and others.

7. Other Business

Paul Lauenstein reported that the Sharon Standing Building Committee had voted not to install water-conserving toilets as part of the $9 million Community Center renovation project, but that SSBC Chairman Gordon Gladstone agreed to reconsider this matter. Paul Lauenstein said this opportunity for the town to demonstrate its commitment to water conservation should not be missed.

8. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2005 at 7:30 PM