TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
302 MAIN STREET
OLD SAYBROOK, CT 06475-2369
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 10, 2006
The Town of Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority met on Monday, July 10, 2006, in the Pasbeshauke Pavilion at Saybrook Point Park, College Street Extension, Old Saybrook, Connecticut to conduct a special meeting on the scheduled second Monday of the month.
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman George Gwizd at 6:38PM.
II. Public Information Session
WPCA Coordinator Steve Luckett began a Power Point Presentation to update the communities and public invited to the session on where the WPCA and Town is on the wastewater solutions for the areas identified back in the 1970’s. Mr. Luckett introduced Dennis Greci and Bill Hogan of the DEP, who have dedicated a lot of time to Old Saybrook. He then explained the mediation process and the options; centralized sewer system vs. decentralized wastewater management and the 2003 wastewater management district legislation.
Mr. Luckett explained the history behind the recent developments; including the problems noticed by the Town sanitarians (high density, low depth to groundwater, proximity to Long Island Sound, and archaic systems), the original reports done in the 70’s, the court order and stipulated judgment in the 80’s and 90’s, the Town vote, the suggested sewer line from Clinton, Westbrook, through Old Saybrook into the CT River, groundwater and surface water sampling, and the pump-out ordinance. To do nothing is not an option.
The pump-out program is in its second cycle and is very successful. There is some impact to the groundwater and the surface waters are very impacted due to run-off. The WPCA was formed in 1996 and began the pump-out program. The WPCA investigated building a large community treatment system. They also continued to research on-site upgrades and advanced treatment systems. The 2003 wastewater management district legislation (WWMD) was described. In 2005 the mediation process began and resulted in on-site solutions which would help to limit growth. The 2000 Plan of Conservation and Development was written with that in mind. There are good soils south of I95 which prevent systems from backing up, but hardly any treatment is accomplished. The untreated wastewater goes directly into the groundwater.
Mr. Luckett described the setting. The slide depicted Cornfield Point with its density of housing, some of which are within 25 feet of the high tide mark. Nitrogen winds up in Long Island Sound. Nitrogen eats up the oxygen and creates large dead zones. There are no sewers from Guilford to Old Lyme to hook up to.
The proper setting for septic systems for efficient treatment was explained. In the areas identified there is shallow depth to groundwater, high density, poorly maintained systems, old cesspools, and poor structures.
Mr. Luckett reviewed the different areas and their features. He described the geography of Plum Bank and Cornfield Point. The depth to groundwater is not too bad except where Plum Bank Road and Great Hammock Road run together. In Plum Bank there are areas of dense development and in the winter a wide pond forms. Fuss & O’Neill reviewed the properties and have determined that approximately 56 AT systems would be required. There are about 15 cesspools or drywells that are in the groundwater. Some are so deep they could not be located. There are 40 undersized or steel tanks from the 50’s that are rotten and must be removed.
Saybrook Acres has large lots, but the systems have not been upgraded in a long time. Mr. Luckett explained the goal to bring the systems into compliance. They must either be up to the public health code, meet the upgrade standards or be replaced with AT systems. Although the lots may be large some of them are located near the marsh. This means there is groundwater right at the surface. Although the nitrogen issue is a concern, marshes tend to take up nitrogen. There are 104 properties, 2 will require an AT system, 2 tank upgrades, and there are 34 cesspools or drywells.
Many people don’t realize that Saybrook Point is subject to problems. These are very long narrow lots close to the water. Approximately 9 will require AT systems. There are 5 undersized tanks.
Mr. Luckett discussed challenges to on-site disposal. When building a new house, the public health code must be met, but the public health code does not provide for the upgrading of old systems. Mechanical systems are under the oversight of the DEP. The WPCA has not been involved in on-site wastewater until ordinance 75 was instituted. In moving forward the WPCA requires the support and cooperation of residents to set up the WWMD and oversee the operation of 2000 systems.
The WPCA continues to work on the upgrade standards and research new technology. AT systems are required for waterfront properties and those that cannot accommodate a 2/3 public health code system in order to minimize the impact to Long Island Sound. Mr. Luckett described a situation in Rhode Island in which the contracts on the systems’ O & M were not renewed.
A question was asked how do you determine a system is polluting. There was a discussion on samples and the approach the Town has decided to take.
Tom McKenna replied that it was a court decision.
Question: What are you looking for in the samples? Answer: We are looking for ph, nitrates, ammonia, e coli. There is a full set of sampling results in the Library.
Question: How many samples are taken per cycle in Plum Bank? Answer: There are 88 micro wells across the Town and 4 samples are taken a year. Mr. Luckett located the 2 wells on the map. The wells show human impact which equates to ammonia and nitrates.
Question: What do you look for in a malfunctioning system?
Dr. McKenna responded that there is a misconception that the valuation of groundwater has something to do with what the outcome is. In the 70’s there was interest in the pollution in the LIS. In the 80’s there was a lawsuit and some areas were identified. We did collect water samples and evaluated them. That data was never used in the decision on what to do. The DEP said that Old Saybrook had to do something with these properties that were identified in the lawsuit. The stipulated judgment said we have to do something, all the science in the world does not matter; this is what has been decided. That is where we move forward from.
Dennis Greci has been involved with the process for 25 years. He explained the background again. The Town hired consultants back in the 70’s. The consultants decided to sewer everything. Build a huge treatment plant in Clinton and connect everybody up. Every town on the shoreline said, are you crazy? The second report said just look at community systems. None of the towns did anything with the reports. Developers bought the sites and developed them. In 1982 the Town was told to collect data and monitor. In the mid-1980’s they did another study. The three towns decided to build a treatment plant. Clinton and Westbrook said let’s ship it to Saybrook. Old Saybrook voted it down. In 1989 the new officials were not up to speed and did nothing. In 1990 suit was filed. It took 5 years to go
through the courts. The reports are not the DEP reports. They are the Town reports that were submitted to the DEP. In 1995 the court said the DEP has the Town under order; go solve your problem. The Town hired Fuss & O’Neill. The sewer was not an option and there wasn’t enough land for a community system. The issue became; how do we make an on-site solution work? The current health code defines the minimum you need to avoid pollution. You need this much leaching area and this size tank. If you meet the requirements you don’t pollute the groundwater.
Question: There was a question about the criteria; the specified distance from the septic tank, e coli, nitrates. Mr. Greci said there are prescriptive criteria. The likelihood of actually sampling anybody’s septic system and coming up with a number that actually shows the water coming from point A to point B is next to impossible. We cannot define how water moves underground. You can look at the neighborhood and if you start seeing elevated samples there might be a problem. But you have a health code that says you need this much space and none of these homes are near that; I can presume there is probably a problem.
Question: there was a question on conforming and nonconforming systems. Answer: Below 1000 gallons for a tank is nonconforming. If you have minimal leaching; 100 square feet is only good for 1 bedroom. He explained the set of rules that is required for the area.
Question: Do the mechanical systems require electricity? Answer: Yes.
The upgrade standards address removal and replacement of cesspools. Cesspools do not treat wastewater, they pollute the groundwater. Expected costs are; $2000-$3000 for a new tank, $12,000 - $25,000 for an AT system, and $2000 - $7000 for leaching. Tank size is based on the number of bedrooms.
Question: Does it matter if the house is seasonal or year-round? Answer: The size is based on the structures not the use. There was a comment that a seasonal house is not being used for 12 months and is not polluting, and that a 3-bedroom seasonal is equal to a 6-bedroom year-round and if an AT system is installed the house should then be considered year-round.
Question: Does an AT system require a new leaching system? Answer: If it is very deep it needs to be raised to meet the 24” depth to groundwater.
Question: If you’re on the water is an AT system is required? Answer: Yes. Question: Who is paying for it? Answer: Hopefully the federal government will have some money left over by then and there will be financing available.
Question: What about the setbacks? Answer: We will do the best we can with the setbacks.
Question: Will we start with one area and see if it actually works? Answer: Yes.
Question: What are the maintenance costs for the mechanical systems? Answer: We don’t have specific costs right now but will talk about it later.
Question: Are there maps for the whole Town. Answer: We have all the areas covered, but this meeting is just for these specific areas.
Question: Will the Town have to put AT systems in at the Town beaches. Answer: Yes.
Mr. Luckett explained that grants had normally been available for sewer projects, but there are low interest loans for 20-30 years available. The 1st Selectman is working on the financial plan to prevent it from being so painful. He then discussed property values, the prices now being around $800,000. The system cost virtually nothing in 1939 and now at $10,000 or $12,000. When you compare the costs of the property to the systems, the septic systems are a real bargain.
Question: What kind of maintenance is required on an AT system and what is its longevity. Answer: An AT system requires cleaning filters, rotating and replacement of pumps, and removal of media in some cases. We’re not sure of these costs. An AT system should last between 20-30 years. In the end the Town will be responsible for the monitoring costs.
Mr. Luckett explained where the WPCA is now. The upgrade standards are available at the Library. The draft of the ordinance and O & M costs are in progress. The facilities plan as being developed by Fuss & O’Neill requires approval from the DEP.
He then reviewed the Forecasts for the future. A referendum will be held, probably next summer, on the WWMD ordinance. There will be local funding available for research on the property, the DEP must delegate authority to the Town, and the upgrades will be implemented.
Question: Do the AT systems have any odor? Answer: Peter Grose described the AT systems and wastewater treatment process.
Question: Can the systems be turned off? Answer: Yes. We will look at systems that lend themselves to being stopped and started. They require a little time to ramp up when restarted.
Question: Does the pump run continuously? Answer: No. It runs for 30-40 seconds then shuts off.
Question: How much leaching do you need? Answer: About 280-300 square feet.
Question: Is that above ground? Answer: It depends what kind of technology you use.
Mr. Luckett showed slides of tanks and different AT systems.
Question: How long does the pump last? Answer: About 8-10 years. They range between $100-$2000.
Question: What happens during a power failure? Answer: The system stops.
Mr. Grose described the filters and that they will look for simple systems to operate as well as those that are aesthetically less intrusive. The State does not have a list to pick from. The Town will select certain systems and the DEP will approve them. There will only be 3 or 4 types and a bid process. Costs to purchase and run the systems are being developed as well as the instances where they will be used and which make the most sense. They are not being chosen now, as the technology continues to advance.
Question: Who will install the systems? Answer: The Town will act as your broker and try to keep the project under budget by lining up contracts and buying in bulk.
Question: Does the homeowner have the right to choose what they want? Answer: The homeowner will have their choice after being given the best option. You can hire your own contractor. We will put things together for you. If you want to do something else you give us your proposal and we’ll work out if it’s acceptable. The buying power of the Town is a lot more efficient.
Question: Does the buying power include installation? Answer: We will work out as much of the process as possible by obtaining bids.
Question: Concerned about being in compliance; having standardized systems in his neighborhood. Answer: We will work out the best possible deals in construction costs, O & M and engineering.
Question: Which homes on the map require upgrades? Answer: If the lot has a “W” on it then it requires an AT system. Mr. Grose added that we don’t know exactly except for the waterfront lots. We have made some estimates based on the data available from the Assessor’s Office and WPCA data base on how much land there is available on the lot, configurations, and number of bedrooms. They are only estimates. There is a schedule of neighborhoods that will completed over a period of 8 years. The Town will investigate each lot. If they were upgraded recently they are probably okay. If they were built prior to the 80’s; probably not. We have a good idea about the septic tank from the pump out program. With the information gathered in the field and from the records, the Town will make
the decision on what needs to be done. The idea is to get all the leaching fields up to the public health code. If you don’t have enough room (it is less than the 2/3 of the area required by the public health code) then a new leaching field will be required. A designer will plan what needs to be done, the Town will approve it, and construction takes place.
Question: What are the estimated costs to the Town? Answer: We are working on the capital cost, and O & M, financing, if grant money is available, and low interest loans. Details need to be worked out on submitting the bills for the designer or contractor. We are trying to make this as painless as possible.
Question: Is this on the website? Answer: To put all the maps on the website would use up the memory and slow it down.
Question: We’ll need a list of every property, the owner, address, and value. Answer: This is available from the Assessor or via a series of FOI’s.
Chairman Powitz explained that the WPCA has a limited budget and would rather use it for preplanning. All of this information is available not only at the Library but at the WPCA office in Town Hall. We’re available to answer questions. If you have a specific question about your lot that is easy for Steve to do. But to prepare a list of your neighbors’ assessed values is not a wise expenditure. Mr. Luckett said that Zillow.com provides home values.
Question: What do you do about properties that are under water at high tide? Answer: You need to raise the components. If the property is under water it means the leaching field is not working properly. We discussed bottomless sand filters with landscaped timbers. We have been able to work out in mediation with DEP smaller leaching areas.
Question: Along Plum Bank there is a set back that is State property. Is there any way of working with the State to use that land for this process? Answer: I would think so.
Question: What is Westbrook and Clinton doing? Answer: Mr. Greci said he had amendment #6 to the engineering agreement made by Clinton’s consultant which makes direct reference to Old Saybrook. Clinton is hinging what they are going to do on what Old Saybrook does. They are right behind you. This is the second reference to using Old Saybrook’s criteria.
Question: Will the upgrades be prioritized? Answer: Yes. We will do the easiest ones first and work into the harder ones. This is why we have chosen these neighborhoods; the majority of the lots will require conventional upgrades. There are only a couple of situations that have a “W” on them.
Chairman Powitz said it is called sustainability. You don’t do the worst first. One of the biggest components that we have worked out with DEP through the mediator is the O & M. If you are going to do any kind of monitoring you want it to sustain. The O & M portion is not an easy one but there are models. There are some in Texas and Florida that we can model after. We want to try to avoid second guessing and going to court again. He invited the assembly to go to the Library or to the WPCA Office to review the program. Chairman Powitz described the WPCA workbook that has a lot of detail mostly administrative. He explained that the WPCA does not want to make the process onerous and the Town wants to keep the costs and staffing down.
Mr. Luckett reviewed retrofit examples.
Question: Can we put one in now?
Mr. Greci explained that the DEP currently has the authority to permit these technologies, so you would have to come to our office to go through the process. The intent here is to delegate the authority to someone at Steve’s level to maintain them and to the homeowner to operate the system. There will be some kind of report to the DEP. We don’t have the final details but the process will be handled as locally as possible. The Town will issue permits.
Question: How long have these systems been on the market? Answer: These systems were developed for riverboats in the 1950’s. They were miniaturized for aboard vessels, but have been around for more than 50 years. He gave further examples of systems.
The Public Information Session ended at 8:35PM. The Regular Meeting portion resumed at 8:45PM.
III. Roll Call of Members by WPCA Secretary – Thomas McKenna
WPCA Secretary, Thomas McKenna, called the roll of members; Chairman Robert Powitz, Vice Chairman George Gwizd, Doris Zumbroski, Chuck Wehrly, Nelson Engborg, Elsa Payne, Thomas McKenna, and Pavel Wilson were present.
Also in attendance were; Peter Grose of Fuss & O’Neill, Dennis Greci, and Bill Hogan of the CTDEP, WPCA Coordinator Steve Luckett, Robbie Marshall, WPCA Recording Clerk, and members of the public.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The WPCA reviewed the Regular Meeting minutes from the June 26, 2006 meeting.
The following amendments were made.
Page 2 Section V Paragraph 2
DELETE:
behind the Fire Station and bordering Sheffield Street.
ADD:
(Dr. Greenberg’s house.) Mr. Luckett described the location of the parking lot and entrance.
A motion was made by Nelson Engborg to approve the Regular Meeting minutes from June 26, 2006 as amended. It was seconded by Chuck Wehrly and approved with one abstention; Thomas McKenna.
V. Chairman’s Comments & Correspondence
There was no correspondence or further comments.
VI. Review & Pay Bills
Coordinator Luckett presented 1 contractual bill for payment. The bill was from Fuss & O’Neill for engineering services rendered in the amount of $4168.30.
A motion was made by Doris Zumbroski to pay the bill from Fuss & O’Neill for engineering services rendered in the amount of $4168.30. It was seconded by Nelson Engborg and approved unanimously.
This closes out the fiscal year of 2005. The Shipman & Goodwin bill is still outstanding.
Jean Castagno thanked the WPCA for letting everyone ask questions. She felt the meeting was relaxed and was pleased with the turn out.
Tom McKenna asked about the money that was initially set aside for the sewer fund. He asked if there was a way to keep track of the money and remind the Town that it was for the purpose of the resolution.
Chairman Powitz said the money had already been ceded to the Selectmen. It is the WPCA’s obligation to come up with policy and meet the mediated agreement while the Board of Selectmen come up with a way to fund it. The only other way would be for the WPCA to become a tax district. There was a discussion on the original intentions for the budget item (sewer plant). Mr. Wehrly said it was to begin the project with the purchase of land for the site. It was a sinking fund that had been passed year after year. Chairman Powitz reminded the WPCA what the money has been used for; among the items was mediation. Mr. Luckett said about $100,000 a year was used to cover legal and consulting fees. Mr. Wehrly said some of it may be used for the revolving fund to finance the systems. It would be repaid after a
period of time. Chairman Powitz said we need money for the O & M and the engineering. He would rather the Selectmen handle the financing.
Chairman Powitz addressed some of the questions that were asked in the session saying the BOS needs to be prepared to answer how it will be funded and the winterizing of seasonal homes (if an AT system is put in.) These need to be firmed up as they are out of our purview.
VII. New Business
The next Special Meeting and Public Education Session will be held on July 24, 2006 at 6:30PM in the Goodwin Elementary School Cafeteria. Letters have been printed and will be mailed. The areas are Cornfield Point, Cornfield Park, and the rest of Saybrook Acres.
VIII. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was made by George Gwizd at 8:50PM and seconded by Nelson Engborg. The motion was carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority
Robbie A. Marshall
Robbie A. Marshall
WPCA Recording Clerk
| 
