TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
302 MAIN STREET
OLD SAYBROOK, CT 06475-2369
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Town of Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority met on Monday, July 24, 2006, in the Kathleen E. Goodwin Elementary School Cafeteria at 80 Old Boston Post Road, Old Saybrook, Connecticut to conduct a special meeting on the scheduled fourth Monday of the month.
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Powitz at 6:30PM.
II. Public Information Session
Chairman Powitz welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced, Steve Luckett the WPCA Coordinator, Dennis Greci of DEP, and members of the WPCA. The WPCA is bipartisan. The WPCA is created by legislation. We began in 1996 and our mission was sewer avoidance. It’s been a hard road. We did engineering studies and worked with attorneys, selectmen, other towns and states. We will be the first in the state of Connecticut to have a WPCA that does not have a community system.
We received a notice that the Water Pollution Control Board was going to meet. We’re not a board. This is unsigned. But before you get upset there is no such thing as a $30,000 upgrade. We were formed because the Town lost a lawsuit. The DEP sued us. We were subject to a consent decree and were fined. We couldn’t come to an agreement in the process of sewer avoidance so we asked DEP to mediation. That was completed and set forth the conditions of sewer avoidance. He reminded the assembly that no matter what is said, we are under court order. We do not have an option to do nothing. He repeated it and explained that is what the Town voted on, sewer avoidance. It is up to us to make it as painless as possible. We’re hoping that Michael Pace will be here tonight because we are loathe to speak
of financing.
Q: You said this is what the Town voted on? Chairman Powitz replied yes the Town voted on sewer avoidance in 1989.
Q: The court order negates doing nothing, are there other possibilities than the ones we discuss tonight? Chairman Powitz replied there is sewer or sewer avoidance; septic upgrades or cluster systems.
Q: Is Old Saybrook the only town the State is after to do something? Chairman Powitz replied no, we are the first town that has been taken to court. We had legislation passed establishing a Wastewater Management District, with individual septic systems. All WPCA’s in the State now have to do with sewer systems. This one will be managing individual systems which the Town wanted initially.
Q: Don’t we already have individual septic systems. A: Yes.
WPCA Coordinator Steve Luckett explained that the meeting was strictly for information; they wouldn’t be able to give prices on individual systems and upgrades. He explained the mediation process with the State Department of Public Health (DPH), DEP, WPCA, and engineers, Fuss & O’Neill. Mr. Luckett also mentioned the legislation enacted in 2003.
He began a Power Point Presentation titled, “Town of Old Saybrook Decentralized Management Program – Public Information Session – July 06.” Mr. Luckett said the Library has the WPCA reference materials; Malcolm Pirney Reports, Fuss & O’Neill reports, groundwater sampling etc. Following the Background slide, Mr. Luckett discussed The History. The reason we’re doing this is (because of the court order) but the low depth to groundwater, high density, proximity to Long Island Sound, and archaic and poorly maintained systems. We have the best maintained systems in the state of Connecticut. We have over 5000 systems in our computer; we know when they were pumped, how big the septic tanks are, and a clear idea of what is on the property. That being said we still have to do
more.
Mr. Luckett explained the history behind the recent developments; the court order in 1982, tri-town sewer voted down in 1989, Attorney General sued in 1990, and in 1995 a stipulated judgment said we had to address this problem with either an off-site or on-site solution. Off-site is strictly centralized collection and treatment discharging to a class-B water like a river or Long Island Sound. He showed the areas that were identified for being included in the centralized sewer system on a map. Mr. Luckett continued with the third History slide about addressing community wastewater problems, investigating solutions, and conducting ground and surface water testing. We followed all the orders that came down from the State and came up with a package; parts of which we are showing you right now.
Mr. Luckett referred to the flow chart that Fuss & O’Neill developed showing the steps involved in implementing the program.
History Slide 4 - In 1996 we formed the WPCA and in 1997 instituted the 5-year pump out plan that has been very successful. We have looked at all the different things available to us; the option “to do nothing” is not an alternative. We could do an off-site sewer plant and a series of off-site community systems if we had the land. There is very little open land available in the Town for this type of activity. You have to have good depth to ground water and good soils; the large parcels left do not have this. The alternatives are on-site upgrades and advanced treatment. Advanced treatment is where you lower the concentration of nitrogen and the discharge from the septic system.
History Slide 5 – In 2003 the wastewater management district legislation was enacted with help from the State and representatives. We needed to figure out how to implement the legislation, so in 2005 we developed the package in mediation with the DEP.
On-Site Solutions - We have been looking at on-site solutions since 1990. It accomplishes the controlled growth of the Town, avoids the adverse changes of putting in a centralized system, and maintains the character of the Town.
Q: What adverse changes would you have with a community system? Mr. Luckett replied not so much with a community system but with a centralized system you lose control of development.
We are consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development; the document which is considered the Town’s guidance for the future. On-site solutions take advantage of the very permeable soils we have here in Old Saybrook which makes subsurface disposal a good possibility.
The Setting – Mr. Luckett said we are very close to Long Island Sound so any kind of discharge form our soils will enter LIS. We have very dense population here, 4-8 houses per acre and shallow depth to groundwater.
Chairman Powitz asked the assembly to quiet down and wait until the end of the presentation.
The Second Setting Slide – The groundwater shows impacts. There are old systems from the 1940’s and ‘50’s which require upgrading. If they meet the Public Health Code they are okay.
Proper Setting – The conventional system uses gravity. The water flows from the high point to the low point. You should have a septic tank followed by some sort of leaching structures; they could be dry wells or trenches. The idea is to have the effluent leach 18” between the bottom of the system and the groundwater. We raised the number to 24” to be more effective.
Setting Slide 3 - We looked at the areas of concern that were identified for a centralized system to address those solutions first. There are 15 residential neighborhoods with 1900 properties. When that is done, we will go on to the rest of the Town; where necessary.
Q: Are those the areas in green? A: Green and Gray.
Challenges for On-site Disposal - Decentralized wastewater management and authority was not defined. We had no way of doing this. Typically WPCA’s put in sewer systems. The Town chose the on-site solution. So we looked at different states to see what they had for technologies. Several states had advanced treatment systems. Here in Connecticut, larger systems use advanced treatment. What happened is local and state Public Health departments, the DEP, and WPCA got together to develop the program.
Challenges Slide 2 – The Public Health Code (PHC) only focuses on new construction, it does not address older systems. There is resistance to fixing them. The PHC only addresses back ups or break-outs. In Old Saybrook the soils keep taking the wastewater. Most WPCA’s only have jurisdiction over centralized collection systems and they are responsible for resolution of town-wide pollution problems.
Moving Forward – What we are looking at is legislation in the form of a referendum to put together a wastewater management district which will allow us to research and organize all these different types of septic systems (on-site AT and conventional systems.) We would manage upgrades and introduce new technology.
Q: Most people affected are summer residents, so we have no say. A: We will hold the votes in the summer; we would never hold them when all the residents are not here. Both part-time and full-time residents can vote in the referendum.
The WPCA continues to research technology which has been around for 100 years. They were first used on riverboats on the Mississippi and are used extensively in other states; New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and a some in Connecticut.
Q: Where in Connecticut? A: On larger facilities.
Q: Does it address depth to groundwater. A: Yes. In the leaching field.
Q: Does the leaching field have to be raised up? A: In some areas and cases.
Q: The was a question on the influence of the tides on the depth to groundwater. A: The groundwater readings are taken in spring; February and May. The depth to groundwater changes 1” to every foot of tide.
WWMD – To meet the upgrade standards we need to remove the cesspools (he described a cesspool) some of which have been intact since the 1800’s. The septic tanks must be upgraded to meet the PHC. Leaching must be upgraded to 2/3 of a PHC system.
Q: There was a question on the size required. A: If you have a 3-bedroom house you need about 375-400 square feet of leaching.
According to the mediated agreement, advanced treatment systems are required for all waterfront properties regardless of how used.
There was a discussion on locations; other areas of Town.
Chairman Powitz asked for the assembly’s attention. He explained that the Town had engineering studies which went before a judge. The judge made the decision on what the Town had to address, this was the stipulated judgment.
Q: Did the judge say there had to be an AT system on all waterfront lots? A: No. This was determined in the mediated settlement because we could not come to an agreement on the depth to groundwater and the size of lots. If we did not have the mediated settlement people could have lost their homes if they stayed with on-site systems, simply because we had no place to put the wastewater. If we had a sewer system, the Town character would change dramatically. He introduced Jean Castagno who wrote a description of the Town Character of Old Saybrook a while back. It included everything from limiting big box stores and huge hotels. There was a discussion about how this would be accomplished, references to New London and their dilemma. The Town gave us the mandate; the court gave us construction.
WWMD – We put together standards on how to install, maintain, and operate these systems. We will require upgrade for every system in Town. There are some that have undergone upgrade recently and will be re-visited to see if they require anything further.
Q: There was a question about the waterfront lots. A: They were designated in the mediated agreement. He could not be specific.
WWMD 2- The WWMD required cooperation by the WPCA, DEP and DPH. To establish a WWMD it must be adopted by a local ordinance.
Q: Voted on by us? A: Absolutely. It will go to referendum. He explained the process of setting up a referendum; advertising in a newspaper and voting on it.
Comment: Only 10% of the people are impacted. It will be passed by 90% of the people but they won’t be affected by it.
Mr. Luckett explained that the WPCA would have to come up with the ability to maintain and monitor these systems.
Cornfield Point – was one of the study areas that was designated because it is very dense. The good thing is it has plenty of depth to groundwater.
Q: Explain the colors. A: We have series of maps. On them the red lots are the most difficult to fix. A PHC system cannot be put on those lots and have it function. They would require an AT system.
Q: What does that mean? A community or AT system. A: Individual AT systems. There is no land left for a community system. There was a discussion on centralized versus decentralized.
Q: What does green and white mean? A: The specifics are in my office. You can come and see me on specific lots.
Cornfield Point Estimates – 305 developed lots, 37 AT systems on waterfront lots, 90 AT systems on interior lots, 135 cesspool and drywell upgrades, unknown number of other leaching systems, 171 septic tank upgrades.
Q: What is the source of the data we used? A: The source of the data was the engineering studies that were done in the 1970’s and continue today. The maps are based on the most recent information; 2003.
Q: Do our beaches get tested? How often? A: Yes in the summer.
Q: System upgraded in the last few years, hasn’t failed, pump it every year, waterfront, do we need to change it? A: All the waterfront lots require changes. Pumping every year is not an option.
Q: Does DEP have any bacterial counts in LIS? What are they? A: All our beach front has tested less than 100 count. We have only closed our beaches once.
Q: Then, why are we here?
Chairman Powitz said we are here because the courts say we are here. The State Supreme Court made the decision.
Dennis Greci introduced himself and gave a historical overview. In the 1970’s, you and a number of towns along the shoreline hired a consultant to look at your problems. The consultant said build a big sewer and put the treatment plant in Clinton. Every single town in this area said, “What, are you crazy?” The consultants came back several years later; this is the Malcolm Pirney report. Here’s how you deal with your problems without building the big pipe. The only people that looked at the report (that said build these little community systems) were the developers. The developers said, they identified buildable land for us. So by the time anyone got around to implementing the reports, the land was gone. In the mid ‘80’s, nothing really happened. The towns of Westbrook,
Clinton, and Old Saybrook hired more consultants. We need to find a way to deal with some of the issues down here. We know there has to be problems, look at the density and the depth to groundwater. We want a solution before the State forces us. By 1989 the three towns have agreed to build a treatment pipe in Old Saybrook. Clinton votes for it overwhelmingly. Westbrook passed it too. Old Saybrook said no, we don’t want to treat everyone’s wastewater. They were going to put it right next to the bridge. They said, we don’t want another Mattabesset. Those who drove north to Hartford, knew what it smelled like. That was the vision of a treatment plant. There were issues of development and community character but that was the big issue back then. The referendum failed in Old Saybrook. Then the government changed. The new Selectmen did not have a lot of experience with it and focused on other issues. The DEP reminded the Town that they had identified problems and asked
them what they were going to do about it. The DEP heard nothing. In 1990, the Attorney General’s office filed suit. The judge had multiple reports filed to the State from Old Saybrook saying the Town had a problem that needed to be solved but wasn’t doing anything. In 1995, the judge came back with a decision ordering the Town to fix the problem either on or off-site. Those are the options you have available. We have been working on this since 1996. It took a while for the WPCA to convince the DEP that there was a viable option to putting in the pipe.
Q: Are you articulating the specific environmental problem? A: Yes. In simplest terms, you have too many people in too small an area. You are polluting the groundwater. My opinion of the data says there is a problem. It is above background level; substantially above background levels. The bottom line in DEP is; nobody has the right to pollute. The numbers are far higher than what we consider background.
Comment: You don’t understand the biology of a septic system. Mr. Greci: I do actually, and the mechanics.
Q: Why isn’t there elevated bacteria counts if there are humans that are doing this? A: There are. Which data are you looking at?
Q: Have you tested the water around Mattabesset? A: I don’t need to, I know what it’s like.
Chairman Powitz explained the groundwater sampling program. The tests are in the Library, we test 2 times a year September and March/February. In September we get elevated levels.
Q: Of what? Mr. Greci replied, pathogenic bacteria, coli form, nitrogen, nitrates, ammonia.
Comment: Nitrates are not pathogenic bacteria. A: I didn’t say they were. Pathogenic bacteria comma nitrates comma ammonia…. There was a discussion about geese collecting around well heads, where the samples are taken.
Mr. Greci said the samples verify what you would expect to see in a densely developed area. That is there is more pollutants coming from the surface (namely from your septic system) than could be attributed to natural sources.
Q: Has a Town-wide study been done and what are the results? How many properties outside the study area also have problems? A: I have no idea. Those were the areas that your studies identified as having problems. Your Sanitarian at the time said these are the problem areas; this is where we expect the worst situations to occur. This is where the greatest concentration is. Are there properties outside of the study area? Sure. There probably are.
Q: I thought from the minutes that a Town-wide study was going to be done to evaluate the problem.
Chairman Powitz said he would have like to have a Town-wide study done but there are limited funds for it. Either it’s an on-site solution or an off-site solution. Either way it’s going to cost. This solution that DEP finally bought into is the least onerous on anyone. What is the average cost to hooking up to a sewer plant? We are looking at a major sewer plant that amortizes and pipes to maintain. This was the least onerous on the Town.
Several people said “On the Town.” A: Do you think if we got a sewer system you would be untouched? You would not feel any kind of assessment? Continued discussion about sharing the cost with the rest of the Town.
Chairman Powitz explained that we have to do something.
Comment: That is not the judge’s solution. It is your solution. When we vote, it is not going to cost them anything. It is unfair to 10% of the population.
Chairman Powitz told the assembly that the WPCA has been meeting since 1996 and has very little attendance by the public. He explained how the addresses are obtained for the mailings.
Q: With the amount of building that is going on in Old Saybrook have you spoken to Land Use about the septic systems being put in by CVS? What kind of system is it? A: Chairman Powitz tried to explain to the assembly that CVS has less sewage than most homes.
Q: Why aren’t there any demands on them to put systems in that won’t pollute the Sound? A: Every system that has gone in for new construction meets the PHC. Anything over 5000 gallons per day is monitored by the DEP.
Q: What is the purpose of this meeting? A: The purpose is to inform you about what has been happening and what we will be doing.
Mr. Luckett added that the WPCA is not asking for a decision. This information will be in the Library for review as well.
Q: Lots are only 40 x 80, where are they going to be put? What is it going to cost? A: That information is included in the presentation.
Mr. Greci circulated the maps.
Chairman Powitz spoke while Mr. Luckett set up slides of AT systems. He said he is in public health and that in TX, FL, GA, and New England states there are AT systems which are landscaped into the properties. It is not too far to see the systems in Rhode Island or Massachusetts and you cannot tell that they are there.
Q: He had a proposal that the Town should set up test systems at the Town Beach and Harvey’s Beach so everyone can see them. The Town can get data on them, O & M, and check the smell. He said he had heard that AT systems have an odor. He continued to expand on the idea and said there are no baseline levels or State standards. He said we are not responsible for the nitrogen problem in Fairfield County.
Chairman Powitz said the baseline levels and groundwater studies are in the Library.
Comment: There is no one to go over the information with. He made an appointment to see Mr. Luckett in his office.
Mr. Luckett showed slides of AT systems in Rhode Island with trickling filters. He described the tank and showed the lid. You can put the whole thing below ground, but you need access to clean them. They may need maintenance quarterly or annually.
Q: There was a question on the cost. A: The range is $10,000 – $15,000.
Q: Will the Town help us pay for that? A: We are looking at getting a grant for 20% and passing it on to the homeowner. The rest can be paid over 20 years with a low interest loan.
Q: Do they have to be used continually or can they be used seasonally? A: We are looking at systems that can be stopped and restarted.
There was a discussion amongst the assembly on receiving year-round status or only paying seasonal taxes.
Q: There was a question on the lids. A: They can be landscaped over.
There was a discussion on the AT systems being placed on the properties and complaints about room and landscaping.
Q: Are there AT systems here? Mr. Greci responded, there are no individual on-site AT systems on private property in the state. If you were to apply to put one in today, you would be held to DEP standards for treatment and siting. They are onerous. That is why only developers with large projects are going through the process.
Q: What is the time period? A: If you had all your permits, 2 or 3 weeks. If you go through the permitting process, 6 months- 2 years.
Q: This was mandated by the court? A: The solution was to be on or off-site. You can vote for on-site management or be faced with a centralized system.
Q: What is the ballpark figure for a centralized system? Mr. Greci replied he updated the figures on the first slide from Fuss & O’Neill, if you were going to build a complete sewer system it would be about 50 million dollars or an average of $20,000 per home.
Q: If we go to a sewer system can we winterize our homes? A: You would eliminate that aspect of the winterization ordinance but there are 3 or 4 hurdles. There are still other things like setbacks.
Comment: We should get our seasonal tax back.
Q: It would cost 50 million to build, but what about maintenance? A: Operational cost for ½ million gpd, means you would be paying about $350 per household per year.
Q: Would the DEP approve a centralized system on the Connecticut River for just Old Saybrook? Mr. Greci said that is an unequivocal yes.
Q: Was that referendum specifically for Old Saybrook? A: No. The people that spoke to me said the referendum failed because they did not want to take other people’s sewage.
Q: Is there land available for a centralized system? Chairman Powitz said there is no land available.
Comment: It would be eminent domain.
Comment: She said the decision seemed arbitrary but the money is most upsetting. She said she was a former First Selectman from Simsbury and worked on the Board of Finance. We have a sewer treatment plant. At the time Old Saybrook, Clinton, and Lyme was 1, 2, 3 on the DEP hit list. Simsbury was # 4. Simsbury dealt with this by doubling the size of their wastewater treatment plant. It is currently undergoing a 28 million dollar upgrade that does not include the pipes and the road. Then you have staff, tanker trucks; unbelievable costs associated with it. I am glad that you are not looking to have a centralized system. It goes to the town character as well. The town of Simsbury has a 28 million dollar 2% 20-year loan. Would those terms be given to us?
Mr. Greci replied yes. Assuming the State has money, Old Saybrook is eligible to receive Clean Water Fund assistance. That provides a grant of 25% of your costs and a loan for the balance of 2% for 20 years.
Q: Governor Rell approved a $208 million Clean Air and Water dispersement to Towns. Why didn’t Old Saybrook get any of it? A: You have to have the package ready; have gone to referendum to receive the money.
Mr. Greci added that they gave us $208 million, we asked for 4 times that, because that’s how many projects we had ready to go to bid that day. We had to tell 4 out of 5 towns, that the DEP doesn’t have any money.
Q: The letter from Gina McCarthy dated 12/13/05, said principal amongst these efforts must be the Town’s fiscal commitment to the project at both the capital and operational levels. I haven’t heard any discussion about what the Town is anteing up. I’ve only heard that 1900 people are going to bear the burden of the cost to clean the water that is going to benefit everybody in this Town.
Mr. Greci said you need to bring that to the Board of Selectmen. Chairman Powitz said that the BOS has specifically asked that they address any financial questions and they had said they would attend. He apologized for them not being present.
Q: There was a question on cost. Mr. Luckett said he could not discuss specific properties but that many have 2/3 of the system already in the ground. You just need to add one component. If you have a PHC system you can backfit.
There was a discussion on adding more Town staff. Chairman Powitz said the Town has committed to doing the monitoring. But someone has to clean out the system, they way you are doing now. Right now we don’t know about additional staff. We need the Selectmen to answer that. We are just here to let you know about the alternatives to the pipe.
Comment: You are asking us to ante up $5 million but the most disturbing thing is we do not know if it is our pollution or the rest of the Town’s pollution. You’re asking us to pay so Old Saybrook can avoid sewers. He continued about the studies done 20 or 30 years ago and the only people paying the bills are the ones on the shore.
Chairman Powitz said that the WPCA does not do the financing. We were given a mandate. The reality is the judge ordered it.
Comment: The mediated settlement means that the Town of Old Saybrook and the judge approved the agreement. We are footing the bill to keep the DEP from forcing sewers on the Town.
Comment: What is to stop the Town and the DEP from 5 years from now saying we need the centralized system? He continued along this line.
Q: Is the total responsibility of the system on the resident? If the system fails, the resident has to fix it. A: You’re doing that right now. If your system fails you have to fix it. That is State law.
Q: You’re going to tell us what kind of system to install and who is going to put it in. What liability is the Town going to accept for the system? A: Speak to the selectmen.
Q: Who mediated it? A: Most of the WPCA members were involved.
Q: When can we see the transcripts of the mediation? A: There are no transcripts of mediation available. There was no stenographer present. The results are in the white notebook available in the Library.
Q: You said that we haven’t done anything since 1989. We passed a pump-out ordinance. Can you prove to me that it’s not working? A: Sure it’s working.
Q: What if we got rid of the cesspools? Mr. Greci replied that would solve 1/3 of the problems and is in the proposals.
Comment: We tested and we did not find any statistically significant scientific proof of pollution subsequent to the stipulated judgment. And that was done by a professional testing firm. The key term is statistically significant. We also instituted a pump-out program and repaired imperfect systems. He said he had a problem with the court case and referred to the “Daubert” case settled by the Supreme Court. The judge has to guarantee that the evidence is of a scientific nature. That was clearly not done. The Town did not challenge the science of the State. The State did not have any science. There were two politicians that started this. We have other evidence that there is no aesthetic problem; no pollution problem. His solution was to use the Daubert case and go back and petition the court to
vacate the mandate. There is one other piece of evidence. The Old Saybrook Health Director of 30 years said the reports done were suspect.
Mrs. Castagno introduced herself and offered to send people information about the issues and background via e-mail. She said the health official was named Dr. Saunders and he said there was no pollution in Town.
Q: If the referendum doesn’t pass, what happens? Mr. Greci replied that when a Town is under order and fails a referendum they are brought back to court. They force the Town to do want they want.
Comment: I have a copy of the letter from Gina McCarthy that says, “Failure to move forward will result in the Department taking steps to require the construction of another environmentally sound alternative, most likely the installation of a conventional sewage system with a discharge to the Connecticut River.”
Q: Does the $20,000 per household (sewer) include roadwork? Mr. Greci replied yes that includes construction and full restoration. It does not include any grants or loans.
Comment: But if the pollution numbers are suspect, what do we need a sewer system for?
Chairman Powitz said he is not the judge, he is working for the residents. He said that the early members of the WPCA agreed to work on sewer avoidance because that is what the Town mandated. But if we want a sewer, we will guarantee the best damn sewer in the world.
Comment: They didn’t want to take Clinton and Westbrook’s sewage. A: The BOS had stressed this over and over again (sewer avoidance.)
Q: If in fact there is no hard data. Mr. Greci said he said you are not polluting Fairfield County. You are polluting LIS by the DEP’s judgment. Your impact is probably in New Haven.
Comment: I would expect you to come to the meeting with hard data. We have to vote not in our own interest but in the interest of the waterways we hold dear. If you had hard data, the reaction you had gotten would have been far different. She said she would comply if she knew she was polluting. Under what condition would the DEP back down? Mr. Greci replied that first of all he considers it a huge concession that the DEP is willing to consider something that we have never considered anywhere else in the State. We backed down from our very staunch decision that there be a sewer. It took years to convince our bosses that sewer avoidance might have some merit. # 2 - The intent here tonight was to show you what an alternative to sewers would look like and to get some feedback. You’re doing that. In terms
of the data, I honesty did not expect to come down here and deliver it because it seems so old at this point in the number of times we’ve done it.
Comment: I want to see the pollution levels in Old Saybrook. A: When I’ve done it in the past, people said please get to what you’re going to do, not what we’ve seen before.
The bottom line is the court has already made the decision. Unless Wayne’s (Orsi) proposal has some merit and we can get it to go through, we are stuck with that decision.
Q: Did you take part in the court case? A: No. My understanding is the evidence was the previous studies, 1970 to 1989.
Q: What did your data show before the pump-out program and what direction is it going in? A: Without having a lot of data prior to the pump-out program I wouldn’t be able to give a good answer. Compared to when the pump-out program started the data collected is huge, and incredibly good data regardless of whether Wayne and I agree or not. Prior to that the data is sketchy.
Comment: So the decision was based on sketchy data. A: During the time period when that was the norm. The typical approach to develop was to sewer. So if a consultant comes into a community and sees small lots, poor soil and shallow depth to groundwater (not Cornfield Point), they don’t do a lot of sampling. They rely on their previous judgment and experience.
Q: The pump-out program is 5-years old so everyone has probably had a pump-out, so now what does your data show? A: Why isn’t that a good solution? Because if all you do to your car is change the oil it will still break down. All you are doing to your septic system is the equivalent of changing the oil, it will still break down. You are maintaining it at a certain level of performance. That does not make a Yugo into a Porsche. The analogy is basically a number of you have the equivalent of a Yugo sitting in the ground. A really poor car. Call it an Edsel. The point is it is maintenance, but does not address the system. There was continued discussion.
Chairman Powitz said from my experience (40 years as a sanitarian) in other areas of the country the 5-year pump-out is mandatory. It is simply good practice. We continue doing it because it will avoid failure and yes there is improvement, but not the improvement the DEP wants. If you fail to pump out the system you have 2 inches of water on top and nothing works anymore.
Q: If there are no residential AT systems in Connecticut how is the DEP so sure that if we put these systems in they will work? Are there State standards if the Town exceeds that you have a pollution problem? A: No, there is not. The definition of pollution basically says any change from background, however minimal. We do have substantial data from Rhode Island, including a huge study from the University of Rhode Island; several New England states using them right now that have gone through all this. We have the test facility at Otis Airforce Base on the Cape. They are waterfront, seasonal, and year-round.
Mr. Luckett explained that at Otis Airforce Base they sample the discharge and measure how well the system is performing. They do it seasonally as well. They have different settings. They are test systems which are put in different situations; power, no power. Some do well and some do not.
Q: When is the next meeting? A: The next meeting is August 14th.
Comment: We should put a call in to the selectmen and ask them to show up at the next meeting.
Q: Why can’t we meet someplace else? A: The High School and Middle School are not available, they are being worked on.
The Public Information Session ended at 8:35PM.
The Regular Meeting portion resumed at 9:00PM.
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, Elsa Payne, Thomas McKenna, and Pavel Wilson were present. Nelson Engborg was absent.
Also in attendance were; Dennis Greci 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 July 10, 2006 Special meeting.
The following amendments were made:
Page 3 Section II Paragraph 6
DELETE
3-bedroom seasonal
ADD
6-bedroom seasonal
DELETE
6-bedroom year-round
ADD
3-bedroom year-round
A motion was made by Thomas McKenna to approve the Special Meeting minutes from July 10, 2006 as amended. It was seconded by George Gwizd and approved unanimously.
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 Shipman & Goodwin for legal services rendered through June 2006 in the amount of $3889.63.
A motion was made by Thomas McKenna to pay the bill from Shipman & Goodwin for legal services rendered through June 2006 in the amount of $3889.63. It was seconded by George Gwizd and approved unanimously.
VII. New Business
There were some comments on the presentation. Tom McKenna said we start the presentation saying, “Doing nothing is not an option,” but maybe we should add some of the information you may not agree with. This is an informational meeting about what the Town has decided to do. Any discussion on this needs to be taken up with DEP and the selectmen. Chairman Powitz said he personally asked Michael Pace and Bill Peace to show up or send somebody. Mike said he would be here.
Dr. McKenna said we could just say this meeting is not about whether the decision is right or not, this meeting is about showing you what has been agreed to.
Chuck Wehrly said they should be told that this meeting is in advance of a referendum that will be held in a year from now.
Dr. McKenna said we should tell them that early on and when they drift into it we tell them that discussion is for a different meeting.
George Gwizd said that the first thing is to have a microphone. Then it is up to the WPCA to decide when to ask for questions. Chairman Powitz said he doesn’t mind the spontaneity, you just have to be able to bring it back in. Most of the questions needed answers from selectmen. That’s what they wanted to hear. It’s the selectmen that have the financial plan. If you remember at the meeting, it was taken away from us. Chuck Wehrly added, or the Board of Finance.
Mr. Gwizd said Mr. Pace added the meeting to his hand held computer.
Pavel Wilson brought up the discussions on the data which he felt had no redeeming value. Chairman Powitz said that it has been going on for 10 years. Dr. McKenna said it is attractive to people to discuss whether or not there is pollution, but it is not the purpose of the meeting. There was continued discussion on the scientific proof and going to court comments.
Mrs. Castagno said that the major problem they have is the pick and choose and they are not going to accept any reason or rationale on being first.
The next Special Meeting and Public Education Session will be held on August 14, 2006 at 6:30PM in the Goodwin Elementary School Cafeteria.
VIII. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was made by Thomas McKenna at 9:06PM and seconded by George Gwizd. The motion was carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority
Robbie A. Marshall
Robbie A. Marshall
WPCA Recording Clerk
| 
