Back to Wastewater Master Planning Committee Meeting Minutes
JANUARY 9, 2008
A scheduled meeting of the Hingham Wastewater Master Planning Committee (Committee) was held on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 in the South Central Hearing Room, 210 Central St. Hingham, MA.
The meeting was called to order by Dr. Shilts at 7:11pm
MEMBERS PRESENT Kirk Shilts, Board of Health, Chair
Gene Babin, Conservation Commission
John Brandt, Sewer Commission
Richard (Skip) Hull
Mat MacIver
Frank Mahony
John Riley, Selectmen
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. (CDM) David Polcari, Project manager, CDM
Allan Roscoe, Assistant project manager, CDM
Thomas Morgan, Community liaison, CDM
CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS Dr. Shilts mentioned that about a year and a quarter has passed since the committee’s last meeting.
Dr. Shilts mentioned having spoken to Mr. Polcari during this past summer where he learned that a Needs Analysis-Phase I “Draft Report” had been printed, shared with officials at Massachusetts DEP, but not provided to committee members.
AGENDA Dr. Shilts reviewed with the Committee a draft agenda for the meeting.
Thereafter, the agenda was accepted as drafted.
MINUTES Dr. Shilts reviewed with the Committee draft minutes from the October 26, 2006 meeting.
Thereafter, a MOTION was made by Mr. Mahony and Seconded by Mr. Riley and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To approve the minutes of October 26, 2006 as presented.
PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE PROTOCOLS:
• POLICY ON COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee discussed the issue of whether the committee’s recommendations relative to the CWMP (Plan) are just suggestions or would the committee’s recommendations comprise the actual context of the Plan.
Thereafter, the Committee will have the responsibility to review and provide comment on all completed drafts of the Plan before any draft or final version of the Plan is disseminated.
• POLICY ON AMENDING COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee discussed the issue of whether CDM may exclude specific committee recommendations from the Plan should CDM believe that the subject item would not be of significance to the overall Plan.
Thereafter, the Sewer Commission and Committee Chair will have the responsibility to work with CDM to best address instances of editorial differences.
COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT
► PROJECT SCOPE: Mr. Roscoe reviewed with the Committee the March 2007, Needs Analysis-Phase I, Draft Report. The draft analysis is composed of four (4) sections encompassing Existing Conditions, Identification of Basin-wide Water Issues, Projected Future Conditions, and Wastewater Needs/ problem Identification.
NEEDS ANALYSIS-PHASE I, DRAFT
REPORT:
• EXISTING CONDITIONS (Section #1) The Committee reviewed with CDM the three (3) bulleted comments listed under this section on page two of the committee meeting minutes of 10/18/06.
• IDENTIFICATION OF BASIN-WIDE
WATER ISSUES (Section #2) The Committee reviewed with CDM the two (2) bulleted comments listed under this section on page two of the committee meeting minutes of 10/18/06.
• PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS
(Section #3) The Committee reviewed with CDM the four (4) bulleted comments listed under this section on pages 2-3 of the Committee’s minutes of 10/18/06 and the five (5) comments listed under this section on page two of the committee meeting minutes of 10/26/08.
Mr. Polcari reminded the Committee that he took notes during the 10/26/06 committee meeting, but only had the opportunity to review the committee minutes of 10/18/06 prior to writting the March/07 draft report.
• WASTEWATER NEEDS/ PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION (Section #4) The Committee reviewed with CDM the eight (8) bulleted comments listed under this section on page two of the committee meeting minutes of 10/26/08.
Mr. Roscoe facilitated a discussion of Section #4 with the Committee.
The Committee discussed the Needs Assessment Matrix (Table 4-18) and a suggestion to exclude the interim wellhead protection area (IWPA) relative to the registered, but non-permitted, Free St. #4 well as one of the study’s identified criteria due to its duplicative overlap with the existing Zone II aquifer protection zone.
Thereafter, the Committee decided not to amend Table 4-18.
The Committee discussed the scoring & weighting system for each of the study’s identified criteria and a suggestion to revisit the Committees’ prior decision not to give greater weight to certain criteria, in particular the ‘Prevalence of Fine/Silty Soils’ and ‘Prevalence of Till/Bedrock Soils’.
Thereafter, the Committee decided against revisiting its earlier decision, and will not include a weighting system for comparatively scoring the various study criteria.
The Committee discussed the preliminary results of the needs assessment. The study areas of greatest need in decreasing order (on a proportional 100-point scale) are: Fulling Mill (100), Weir River Sewer District (94), Gardner St. (78), Accord Pond (72), Hingham Center (72), McKenna Marsh (61), & Prospect St. (61). Also noted are: Foundry Pond (39), Industrial (22), & Wompatuck State Park (0).
Mr. Riley commented that the Industrial Area has been long considered an area of wastewater-related difficulty where these preliminary results do not appear to match this common understanding.
• SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
(Section #6) Mr. Roscoe discussed a draft analysis of Section 6, “Screening of Alternatives”, which include examples of different wastewater management options and cost comparisons. The alternatives that were provided include:
(#1) Connect High Priority needs areas into the MWRA sewer system
(#2) Develop a de-centralized treatment and disposal system for High Priority needs areas
(#3) Expand Hingham’s use of the Hull sewer system
(#4) Expand Hingham’s use of the Rockland sewer system (this alternative was determined to be unavailable, and was removed from the list of alternatives)
(#5) De-centralized treatment and disposal within the “Foundry Pond” study area
(#6) Sewer the entire town of Hingham through the MWRA sewer system.
(#7) A “no action” approach
The Committee discussed the following concerns:
There is confusion about what defines and/or differentiates an area of ‘greatest need’ and an area of ‘high priority’. Section 6, Alternative #1 states that a high priority area is a region that possesses soils with limitations for suitable septic dispersion system (SDS) construction and shallow depth to groundwater. On the other hand, Section 4 implies that an area of need is a region that scores at a certain (high) level relative to the study’s fifteen identified criteria. Mr. Roscoe acknowledged this difference.
The Committee questioned why the Foundry Pond area was uniquely identified with its own alternative, (Alternative #5), relative to any other study area. This alternative appears to be but one of many possible examples of Alternative #2. Mr. Roscoe stated that this was the example selected.
The average cost of a septic system repair is tabulated at $20,000. A 1/2/08 document provided by the Hingham Health Dept. describes a range of comparative cost relative to septic system construction differentiated by soil conditions. The costs appear to average somewhat lower than the $20,000 CDM figure. Mr. Roscoe stated that the $20,000 amount is an average cost that CDM estimated within the entire geographic region south of Boston. The Committee asked CDM to revisit, for future discussion, the topic of septic system costs in Hingham.
Alternative #3 should include a more definitive determination of sewage flow limits and available additional capacity of the Hull system. Mr. Brandt stated that the Hull system purportedly has a 100,000gal/day additional capacity and Hull is supposedly quoting a $66/gal fee for developers to tie into their system. Dr. Shilts also mentioned that summer and winter flow volumes at the Hull treatment plant was something that the Committee had previously discussed which still needs to be investigated and could shed more insight on this matter.
The “Hingham Alternatives Evaluation, Summary Table” lists an additional eighth alternative called the “Central Street Sewer Project” including a projected cost. It is not clear why this extra alternative was being included as a comparative alternative. The listing of this item as “Central St.” and “project” as opposed to an “alternative” for the “Hingham Center” study area may suggest a particular focus about a project that transcends the objective parameters of this Study. Mr. Roscoe stated that the Central St./ Hingham Center area abuts the current North Sewer District and would likely precede any sewer expansion to the south.
Detailed “Conceptual Sewer Layout” engineering technical drawings are provided for the Industrial study area and also the Hingham Center study area. It was not adequately explained what purpose these graphically detailed drawings serve within the Study.
► PROJECT BUDGET: Mr. Brandt reported that approximately 90% of the money budgeted for the study has been spent to date.
► PROJECT SCHEDULE: The Committee did not discuss this item.
MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Brandt reported on a conversation that the Sewer Commission had recently with the Massachusetts DEP. He stated that the DEP no longer encourages communities to develop ‘wastewater’ plans. He said that the DEP now prefers that communities develop a comprehensive water resource plan that combines both wastewater and drinking water supply elements. He further stated that our Plan, when completed, might not hold great significance with the DEP because of the much publicized water supply problem that Hingham faces. He said that a critical section of the Study would be about the water balance analysis.
Mr. MacIver stated it was his understanding that the DEP would allow Hingham to ‘fast track’ sewer permit application(s) relative to expanding into the MWRA sewer system because Hingham undertook this wastewater study as the DEP had specifically requested. Mr. Polcari questioned whether sewer permits could be expedited in this manner, and said he will investigate and follow-up on this issue at a future meeting.
SCHEDULING Mr. Polcari anticipated that the Committee would likely need to meet again in about two months. The Committee tentatively discussed a Monday meeting during late February or early March.
ADJOURNMENT The January 9, 2008 meeting of the Hingham Wastewater Master Planning Committee adjourned at 10:06pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk J. Shilts, D.C.
Chairman,
Hingham Wastewater Master Planning Committee