Can it be done quicker, smarter, cheaper?
Infiltration and Inflow Solutions:
-
Pursuing already identified I&I solutions would open up the needed 100,000 gpd capacity. Hopkinton processed on average less than 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) at the Westborough Treatment Plant during July and August 2007 (drought conditions). In September (near drought conditions and school back in session) Hopkinton sent on average just over 250,000 gpd to Westborough.
We have 400,000 gpd contracted with Westborough.
With an efficient, well-maintained and tight system, we should have in excess of 100,000 gpd available as soon as the system is as tight as feasible.
-
I&I solutions save all users money. Without storm activity,
Hopkinton sends about 250,000 gpd to Westborough; during some excessive rain
events, Hopkinton has sent over 1,000,000 gpd (October 2006); that means that
all the users are paying to treat storm-water, not just sewer.
The system has major leaks that need to be addressed. I&I solutions save all users money.
-
I&I solutions will open up needed capacity immediately, save all users money, and be environmentally sound.
If storm-water is kept out of the system, it recharges the aquifer as it
falls and is reclaimed where it falls rather than traveling out of the
aquifer via the sewer system. Storm water that enters the sewer is processed
at cost in Westborough and discharged to the
Assabet River.
If we tighten up the system, we save the users money and recharge the local aquifer most efficiently.
-
I&I solutions are improvements to the existing system and should not be open to appeal; additionally, given the nature of the effort, it is not likely to trigger opposition.
-
The DPW Board needs support and money to address I&I. They have agreed that it is a priority. Jim Pyne asserted at a recent October meeting that addressing I&I was “necessary whether we have a WWTF on
Fruit Street
or not.” The DPW Board is in agreement that this is a priority issue.
-
Does Hopkinton have a capacity problem or an I&I problem?
In July 2007, Dan McIntyre, while representing Hopkinton Square as a
private consultant and not acting as DPW Chairman, responded to a direct
question/concern about sewer capacity and asserted
Hopkinton doesn’t have a capacity problem, we have an I&I problem.
-
I&I solutions should be Hopkinton’s top priority. The July and August numbers from Westborough show our sewer flow to be at about, or less than 250,000 gpd in drought conditions; more typical (wet) weather causes those numbers to jump past our daily limit of 400,000 gpd on a regular basis.
That means we should be able to increase our customer use capacity by over 100,000 gpd by tightening up the existing system.
-
Identified I&I solutions in the past have been looked at as too costly especially when we are working to build a treatment facility; that argument was made when the facility was projected to cost under $5 million. The most current cost estimate is just over $10,000,000.
I&I fixes need to be looked at aggressively from a cost savings perspective today. This is important with or without a WWTF on
Fruit Street
.
-
The DPW Board set the cost of recovering capacity through I&I
improvements at $2.25 per gallon on 9/12/07 . In actuality, it is likely closer to
@ least $15 per gallon (Earth Tech study). That means Hopkinton could
be working to provide the necessary 100,000 gpd capacity within the
existing infrastructure for approximately $1,500,000— a fraction
of today’s projected cost for the new WWTF.
-
I&I improvements are 100% environmentally positive; there is no
“down” side to tightening up the system from an
environmental perspective. Tightening the system means that storm
water (clean water) is kept out of the system and is reclaimed where
it falls (recharge). This also means that
sewer customers are not charged to process storm water; storm water should
not ever be in the sewer system.
-
The sewer customers rates will be reduced when the system is tight
because the rates will be set to meet the sewer flow processing cost,
not the sewer flow plus the storm water flow. Sewer customers today,
depending on the weather, pay more than they should for their service;
the rates are set to cover the cost of treating the flow arriving at
the Westborough plant regardless of composition (rainwater or
sewerage).
-
Consider the argument that we can’t afford to/or simply
haven’t maintained our existing system to avoid excessive
I&I; will we have the necessary resources to maintain the new
infrastructure adequately to avoid this situation on
Fruit Street? Porous infrastructure on
Fruit Street would be both costly and potentially dangerous.
WWTF Permitting Delays:
- The voters were told at Annual Town Meeting in May 2006 that the entire WWTF project would stay out of the wetlands; therefore, “no ConCom review would be necessary”, and it is a fact no dollars were budgeted to take the project through the ConCom process. We now know that the plant was designed to sit on a virtual “island” surrounded by wetlands—not just any wetlands, Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) wetlands. Hopkinton needs to know the impact of that ORW distinction and the projected cost impact to the project. An independent cost estimate is needed.
Further, are the questions being raised in the appeals process legitimate concerns that we need to address?
-
Hopkinton needs to know if it will be possible to build the plant and
beds on that specific parcel or if it makes better sense to use 10
of the available other 100 acres without similar constraints.
Bridge Alternative:
The design of the bridge to cross the culvert is estimated at $25,000;
building the bridge by one estimate from Earth Tech will cost
$500,000—the entire design of the plant was only supposed to be
$365,000. Theoretically, we could redesign and re-site the
plant for less money than we will spend to get across the culvert. The
cost overruns to date are in large measure to cover the cost of the
permitting process and the appeals this work has generated. An additional
unknown is the cost of reclaiming the wetlands and who is responsible for
those costs. Hopkinton is the developer, so we have to understand and
provide for all the associated costs. This should be part of the
independent cost estimate.
At the very least we need to know if the bridge idea actually passes
muster with DEP and our own ConCom before we spend any design or
construction money to build it. We should also run the numbers to find
out how much it would cost to re-work the existing design to put it on the
property nearby that does not require the ORW crossing. We also need to
realistically consider the likelihood of an appeal if and when the DEP
approves the bridge concept.
While the original design effort was contracted to cost $365,000, with
amendments and additional work, it is now at approximately $600,000.
Before we spend the additional $200,000 (bridge design, cost overruns due
to appeals and $100K to design the utility approach with Verizon and
NStar) just borrowed in September 2007, we must be sure, absolutely sure,
the project can go forward as intended on that specific parcel. If not,
the money should be spent for the relocation work.
I propose an independent peer review to validate both the technical
approach, projected project costs through completion, and a cost benefit
analysis that addresses the technical approach and the environmental
implications. I don’t know how much that will cost, but it has to be
less than the bridge.
Future Needs:
- It has been repeatedly asserted that Fruit Street will help address the seven (7) future needs areas identified in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) as well as Phase VI (South Street Commercial/Industrial sector) needs.
This is not true. Despite that, our newly received Groundwater Discharge
Permit cites meeting future needs areas as an advantage. The facility for
Fruit Street is not
designed to accept flow from any CWMP identified future needs area; as
currently designed, the pipes don’t even go through any future needs
area; the new pipe is designed to be a “Fast Track” pipe into
the property, so even if it did go through any need areas, no one could
connect in.
Significant additional work (at considerable additional expense) will
have to be accomplished if the future uses at Fruit Street (i.e.
Affordable Housing) or any CWMP identified needs areas are to tie
in.
The Ground water Discharge permit states in part, “The Town
estimates the current daily phosphorous loading from existing septic
systems near Whitehall Brook to be over 6 lbs. The elimination of these
onsite systems is believed to achieve an ultimate reduction in the current
nutrient loading to this drainage area. We find that the proposed
reduction in net nutrient loading from elimination of septic systems to be
protective…”The problem is the WWTF in its current design
does not eliminate any septic systems in the needs areas
around Whitehall Brook. Hopkinton in fact will be simply adding to the
local “nutrient load”, arguably degrading the
situation.
-
The verbal legal opinion from Town Counsel last May made it clear that
the WWTF paid for by one set of users (the customers in Phase VI) cannot be
expanded to service other future users.
A betterment structure has been put in place to pay for the WWTF on
Fruit Street; that
means only the users that paid for the betterment (including pipes,
facility, treatment equipment, etc.) can use it. In this case, it is the
Phase VI customers that will pay for and be entitled to use the facility;
that means Hopkinton will be forever obligated to use the facility for the
amount of treatment needed by customers in Phase VI. Fruit Street is
planned to treat up to 350,000 gpd, BUT we won’t ever be able to
make that happen unless and until Phase VI users need that amount of
capacity.
We need the formal written legal opinion on this from Mr. DeAngelis. He
has his notes from last year and should be able to put this together
easily. We want to be sure to correct this problem, so we can use the
facility as intended regardless of the capacity used by Phase VI
customers.
The key question is how much capacity will Phase VI customers need at build-out.
The CWMP does address seven (7) future needs areas, and those needs areas
are not in any way accommodated by the current design or funding
mechanism. Hopkinton could have funded the plant to be able to address
current and future needs, but we did not. The way it stands now,
Hopkinton will spend premium dollars (at our commercial/industrial customers expense) to get less than we need to go forward.
Simply put Hopkinton does not have a viable plan that adequately addresses future sewer needs.
Recharge is the most frequently sited benefit from the
WWTF on Fruit Street. Is
Fruit Street the best
place to get the most benefit? The aquifer is not infinite, and we do need to
protect our stake in it; that means we should look to ways to recharge deeper
(up gradient) in the Hopkinton portion, not at the far edge of town (down
gradient).
Under the most stressed pumping conditions, only 3% of
the discharge will get to the well on Fruit
Street (Earth Tech). That doesn’t equal
recharge in a meaningful way. If we are going to pay a premium price to
situate the plant in such a sensitive area, the recharge benefit to Hopkinton
should be much greater.
The best model for recharge is one that has small waste
treatment facilities processing and discharging in locations around town.
I&I fixes are a huge step in the right direction with the existing system
because keeping the storm water out of the sewer pipes helps the water stay
local and recharge where it lands.
- Future recharge/cost/solution ideas:
Fruit Street was first looked at as a potential discharge site, so
Hopkinton could reclaim treated water from Westborough rather than send it
downstream (Assabet). There was a possibility that we could open up more
treatment capacity in Westborough by bringing back treated effluent and
discharging (after additional treatment) into the environmentally
sensitive area at Fruit
Street. That was dismissed at the time as being
too expensive especially when we were to build, treat and discharge for
under $5 million (May 2006 estimate for the WWTF @ Fruit Street); that
amount for the WWTF has more than doubled in one year and will likely
climb higher. It is time to re-look at all possible solutions from a cost,
time and environmental impact perspective. It may be more cost effective
to bring back treated effluent for discharge using today’s cost
estimates; we should know that answer.
Westborough is currently in the final stages of its own CWMP, and we have
largely ignored this opportunity to negotiate for more capacity. We need
to work all the options including potentially bringing back treated
effluent to open up capacity while addressing our need to recharge in
Hopkinton. Further we need an agreement in writing to satisfy our planned
emergency response for the WWTF at Fruit Street; our emergency plan is to
throw a switch and send all flow to Westborough if need be; that is an
idea that must have Westborough’s formal agreement.
A frank assessment of the costs and options does not mean backing away
from the current plan for the WWTF on
Fruit
Street, but we also do not want to
throw good money after bad.
-
Additional Issues to Address and/or Consider:
The spine road on the Fruit
Street property needs to be addressed. The road
needs to manage DPW trucks and sludge trucks on a regular basis. The
current cart path is not going to work long term (not likely to be
serviceable the first wet season- that is the first winter/spring season),
and this cost has to be addressed. The road needs to be designed and
built; it is a cost of developing the site. This is a multi-million dollar
effort that needs to be accounted for.
Has the cost of monitoring wells and the necessary testing & analysis
been factored in? Has the cost of staffing and operating the facility been
addressed?
Legacy Farms may provide Hopkinton with a mitigation/negotiation
opportunity to access needed sewer capacity. It needs to be on the list of
negotiating points.
Communities like Hopkinton can also achieve great reductions in needed
capacity and water use by vigorously encouraging the installation of
low-flow toilets and shower heads. Homes built in the 50’s and
60’s average 6 gallons per flush (gpf). Homes built in the
80’s average 3.5 gpf. Today’s toilets use 1.6 gpf. We need to
be looking at this for the future for both new and existing customers.
Parcel the property. One parcel can support just one use if my
understanding is correct. We have a well site being developed, a
wastewater treatment plant and discharge site being developed, a
Conservation Restriction ready to be finalized and Affordable Housing
targeting a location—when is the right time to address parceling
those areas? The ZEO and Planning Director should be able to give us the
information we need on that. If it makes sense from a practical
development aspect to have an engineer layout the uses and formally parcel
the property, we may benefit in another way by allowing for a full Board
of Selectmen to discuss and vote on the uses at
Fruit Street if
there are separate parcels. Mary Pratt would only then abut the parcel
originally slated for resale, and Mike Shepard’s daughter the one
slated for the school (I believe) A full board is absolutely better than a
partial board on any issue but especially on such a prominent town asset
and set of priority projects.
Appropriation Detail
Phase VI: 1996 Annual Town Meeting $5,600,000.00
Fruit Street Plant: 2006 Annual Town Meeting $2,927,000.00
2007 Annual Town Meeting $4,499,295.00
Total: $13,026,295.00*
* Projected cost for the WWTF @ Fruit Street as of May ’07 is $10,226,295.00. The total appropriated amount includes the money spent to lay pipe to take sewage to Milford, the original plan for Phase VI sewer that was not allowed by DEP