TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
302 MAIN STREET
OLD SAYBROOK, CT 06475-2369
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION MINUTES
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Town of Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority met on Monday, August 18, 2008, in the Old Saybrook High School Auditorium at 1111 Boston Post Road, Old Saybrook, Connecticut to conduct a public information session.
WPCA members; Chairman Pavel Wilson, George Gwizd, Chuck Wehrly, John Claffey, Elsa Payne, Nelson Engborg, Robert Hansen, and Doris Zumbroski were present. Dr. Robert Powitz was absent.
Also in attendance were; Attorney David Royston, Don Lucas, WPCA Coordinator, Robbie Marshall, WPCA Recording Clerk, Peter Grose of Fuss & O’Neill, Attorneys John Wertam and Bruce Chudwick of Shipman & Goodwin, Dennis Greci of the CTDEP, 1st Selectman Michael Pace, Mary Jane Engle of the CT River Area Health District, Senator Andrea Stillman, Rep. Marilyn Guiliano, and members of the public.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Introduction: Pavel Wilson, WPCA Chairman
Chairman Wilson welcomed the assembly and introduced the WPCA members and consultants as well as Senator Stillman and Rep. Guiliano. He said that all the members are volunteers and clarified that there is no pay involved. The WPCA members are all property owners and some reside in the beach communities. The outcome of the program will affect the WPCA as well. This is the first of several meetings that will be held.
3. Appointment of Moderator
Chairman Wilson introduced Attorney David Royston. Attorney Royston announced that this session is a special meeting of the WPCA; a public informational session as provided for in the December 2005 Settlement Agreement. It is not a public hearing. It is for the purpose of providing citizens of Old Saybrook with information on the draft Wastewater Management Facilities Plan. He announced the presenters and the amount of time they would speak. Attorney Royston explained that index cards were provided for the audience to ask questions and would be collected after the presentation. He said there would be no public comment. Through the process there will be a public hearing and the matter will also go to referendum (which will be preceded by a public hearing.) The WPCA has
regular meetings which includes a period of public comment and questions. The WPCA is also willing to meet with organizations for further comment on the plan. The Question and Answer period will conclude at 9:45PM and he asked that the surveys that were provided be filled out at that time. The first presenter was 1st Selectman Michael Pace.
4. Public Information Session Presentation titled “Old Saybrook Draft Wastewater Management District Facilities Plan Public Information Session”
Key Historical Events: Michael Pace, First Selectman
1st Selectman Michael Pace reviewed the history as follows. This has been an important issue for 20-years. In 1989 the citizens disapproved a central treatment plant with traditional sewers. In 1990 the DEP sued the Town for failure to address a community pollution problem. Whether or not we agree with it; that is what happened. In 1996 the judge issued a final determination requiring Old Saybrook to address this wastewater problem, but did allow us to develop an alternative. From 1993-2003 the Town evaluated a number of alternatives with the DEP. The “Doing Nothing” alternative is not an option. Mr. Pace has a letter from the DEP Commissioner stating that if this occurred the Town would be taken back to court. In 2005 Mediation offered a
conceptual agreement with the DEP. The Town chose to pursue a lot-by-lot analysis to determine what solutions could be applied there. Even within the beach areas conditions are different (soils and depth to groundwater.) This would provide a better opportunity for the Town than a sewer. Mr. Pace said he heard residents say that the Town was better off with a sewer. He asked who wants a pipe from their beach; that is what we’re facing.
We are here to address tonight what the community can do collectively. What is going to be presented is the plan developed; working with the DEP, the legislators, the Department of Public Health, to find a lot-by-lot solution in the most cost effective way. You may have received a sheet that says it’s going to cost everyone $30,000. That is not true. We are going to give you as much information as possible and encourage you to stay informed because this will come to a vote next summer. That will be crucial for the Town. Take a look at the option for the Central Plant; where would the pipe be? What would that effect be on our Town beaches? What will the impact on the Sound be? How can we accommodate the cleaning of our environment, take care of what people want to do to
get the full beneficial use of their cottages, with a septic system upgrade? He asked that the audience be open-minded and take a look at the long view of their property. He asked that they consider what sewers and a treatment plant would do; the over development of Route 1. The Planning Commission looked at this 5-10 years ago and came up with a sewer avoidance policy. To the WPCA members’ credit, some have been on the Board for 10-15 years going through this process.
Stipulated Judgment and Mediated Settlement: Atty. John Wertam
Attorney John Wertam said that they would answer as many questions as they can, whatever they could not get to would be answered at follow up meetings. The reason for presenting the legal aspect is because of the question; “Why are we doing this?” The Town was issued orders by the DEP to manage their wastewater. Many other towns do it in a centralized way. The Town resisted doing that and was taken to the CT Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said the Town has a problem and must fix it; a judgment rendered over 10-years ago that the Town must live by. Attorney Wertam said there was a series of steps laid down by the Stipulated Judgment the Town must go through to manage its discharges to the waters of the State. In CT, the waters of the State include the groundwater
under each and everyone’s homes. For the next 6-7 years the WPCA went through an exhaustive survey and review with Fuss & O’Neill to choose the best option for the Town. The Directive was no “big pipe.” They examined over 60 different options and the best plan is a decentralized system; the management of wastewater onsite rather than collection and treatment in a centralized location. The DEP has not yet approved all the alternatives. DEP has indicated that the option can work. The Stipulated Judgment survives; the court retains jurisdiction over this matter, and the Attorney General’s office can be invoked by the DEP to seek further enforcement. Over the years he has heard the idea of “Vacate the Mandate.” It is not possible to do that unilaterally. The Stipulated Judgment is between the two parties; the Town and the DEP. The Town cannot simply go back to the judge and say “We don’t want to do that.” We have a clear direction from the DEP that this is not acceptable.
The Town is bound by court order to get this done. It distinguishes the Town from others. The situation the Town finds itself in is a process that has taken over 20-years.
What is the Mediated Settlement? The WPCA worked very carefully with the DEP to come up with a lot of the technical issues; how to get it done. At the point of where Mediation was entered, the parties were stuck but agreed to sit down and try to resolve the technical issues. It resulted in a roadmap for the next steps. What was agreed? First what sites are included in the WWMD and what had to be done. The Upgrade Standards were developed, but they are draft. For example; the size and types of systems which comply, distances on lots, Public Health Code compliance vs. what lots/systems require an extra step. The Implementation Plan and Schedule was developed. The Operation and Maintenance plan will be worked on by the engineers with the State and local Health Department. It is part of the process which is very new. It has not been done in the state of CT. Finally the Stipulated Judgment will be updated to reflect the current plan and how to manage the wastewater. All of
this is on the WPCA website and available at the Library.
Before introducing the next presenter Attorney Royston said the WPCA website is www.OSWPCA.org.
Draft Wastewater Management District Facilities Plan: Peter Grose, PE (Fuss & O’Neil)
Peter Grose explained that the Wastewater Management District Program was new and that he would just outline the highlights. First he described the Wastewater Facilities Plan which is a process required by the Stipulated Judgment. The Town needed to do an engineering study to look at managing wastewater. They needed to examine alternatives and would compare on-site versus off-site alternatives. The Facilities Plan identifies the needs and potential solutions and evaluates them. It makes a recommendation and then seeks the implementation. Mr. Grose referred to the 15 maps displayed in the auditorium of the following neighborhoods; Chalker Beach, Cornfield Park, Cornfield Point, Fenwood, Great Hammock Beach, Indiantown, Ingham Hill, Maple Avenue North, Meadowood, Oyster River East,
Plum Bank, Saybrook Acres, Saybrook Manor, Saybrook Point, and Thompson. These were names given to these areas many years ago and are the starting point for this onsite wastewater management plan. It could evolve over time to include other areas. That is one of the benefits of the decentralized plan.
What are we trying to do here? What are the problems we are trying to solve? There is the problem of high density; particularly along the coast. There are situations with 4-8 lots per acre; they are very small compared to the amount of land needed for adequate treatment. You could not build these neighborhoods today. Some systems are very old; over 50-years-old. They don’t meet today’s Public Health Code and are on some marginal land. The permeability of the soils is very good but they don’t provide much treatment; in many cases the groundwater is very shallow. That limits the amount of treatment that can take place in the soil.
The options boiled down to a central treatment plant; that is the conventional approach. Decentralized approach includes onsite fixes to those properties that have the needs. Those fixes can be tailored to individual properties. That is one of the things the WPCA has considered attractive over the years. Mr. Grose reviewed a table comparing the central system with the decentralized plan. The criteria used for comparison was specified in the Stipulated Judgment; environmental impacts, technical feasibility, economic viability, administrative issue, capital costs and O & M costs. Environmental impacts for “sewers” would be moderate. They would take the wastewater away from the small lots and treat it at a central location. The challenge is that the centralized
plant needs to have a discharge. The discharge would be to the Connecticut River. The CT River has a tremendous amount of dilution compared to the ½ a million gallons per day emptied into the many 100’s of gallons more than that. However there are some very important environmental receptors at the mouth of the CT River. North and South Cove and the marshes for example. Permitting such a discharge would be quite an arduous task. The decentralized plan has a low environmental impact. It deals with just those lots that need to be fixed. Technical feasibility; the “sewer” option has been done over many years and are better than they were. The decentralized approach is as well. It is new to CT but has been proven elsewhere. Economically they are both viable; they both have very large price tags. Administratively, a concern of the central treatment plant is that it may allow larger developments
and denser development of Route 1 and the commercial areas. When you have sewers it is easier to develop properties further than with onsite solutions. There is commercial development using advanced treatment systems, but putting sewers in there would be allow for an increase of growth pressure. There has been concern raised at the WPCA meetings about the multi-town aspect of putting a treatment plant in here. That was turned down in 1989. A decentralized plan is consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development for controlled growth. Capital costs: Sewer system would be approximately $70 million. It would connect all 15 neighborhoods. They are spread out, so the sewer pipes would collect them all and bring the wastewater to a treatment plant on the CT River for discharge. It would serve more properties than a decentralized plan would. It would go right by Route 1 and Main Street. Instead of
serving 1900 properties it would serve about 2500. That $71 million works out to $28,000 per property before any grants are applied. This is compared to the decentralized plan (based on records reviewed on a macro level – not the lot-by-lot basis that will be done later) estimate of $40-45 million. Divided by 1900 properties, it would average $21,000 per property vs. $28,000 for the sewers. The costs of the onsite program are going to vary tremendously depending on the property. Some will have essentially no costs if they meet today’s Public Health Code (PHC) requirements. Those with advanced treatment systems would be higher. O & M costs for sewers would have a sewer user fee and everyone that abuts the sewer would have to tie into it. It would be about $500 annually. The decentralized program could be as low as $200 every 5 years which is what is being done now with the pumpout program. At the higher end
an AT system could be about $600-$800. Out of 1900 properties (based on initial estimates) and according to the Upgrade Standards, we’d have to remove and replace about; 20 cesspools, 400 dry wells (because they are very deep), over 500 undersized septic tanks, 260 compact leaching systems, and add 480 AT systems to reduce nitrogen. A number of properties are going to need larger leaching areas.
Mr. Grose described the conventional septic system and how it works. These upgrades may range from nothing or run from $1000 - $7000 with $200 every 5-years for pumpout. The AT systems are required to reduce the nitrogen which is going into the groundwater and then reaches Long Island Sound. This is a key parameter to satisfy the judgment. The agreement was to reduce nitrogen by 50%. This needs to be done on waterfront lots. Waterfront means you abut Long Island Sound, a river, or other surface waterbody. Lots with a little blue W means it requires an AT system. The other criterion is a lot that cannot provide 2/3 of what the PHC requires for leaching areas; The PHC looks at the number of bedrooms and type of soil to determine the size of the leaching area. Mr. Grose
described some AT systems with recirculating sand filters, textile filters, and bottomless sand filters. They could range between $12,000 to $28,000 (which would include a new tank and leaching.)
The Implementation Plan includes; finishing the public education over the next year, develop the Town’s financing plan, finalizing the Draft Facilities Plan which the DEP has received and commented on, receiving sign off from the CT River Area Health District and Department of Public Health, present the WWMD ordinance for a Town vote and funding authorization, reach a consensus on responsibility on the different entities and delegation process to the WPCA for responsibility of the small systems, preselection of AT system models – 3-5, and multi-step process for researching and designing systems for individual lots.
Mr. Grose reviewed the schedule; Facilities Plan, Public Education, Vote and Authorization for funding next summer, and implementation of upgrades. The research phase will take place neighborhood-by-neighborhood in which the Town determines what needs to be done, designs the improvements (conventional or AT system) then construction, and then O & M. The whole process will take place over 8 years from 2010 – 2017. Early responses from DEP are quite positive. He read the following quote from Dennis Greci; “In general we concur with the overall recommendation to proceed with a decentralized alternative. The approach described in the study is consistent with the proposal agreed to in mediation, and will meet the requirements of the stipulated judgment when
implemented.”
Upgrade Program Finance Plan: Michael Pace, First Selectman
Mr. Pace said, you saw the sewer, $71 million. Some of us think that is a low number especially when you consider the tearing up of the streets and how we’re going to move the wastewater from point A to point B. We will need all sorts of pumps to move it. He then referred to the decentralized plan with individual systems and gave an example of how finances would apply to a $10,000 upgrade. With a 25% grant, that would subtract $2500. That leaves $7500. The intent of the Town is to bring 25% value, either in cash or service to the project. Under certain income levels, homeowners would be eligible for a loan at 0% interest for the time of ownership. Upon sale or transfer of the deed the loan would have to be repaid. If a resident is not eligible for that the
State will provide 20-year loans at 2% through the Town. So it becomes a 25% partnership with the State, 25% partnership with the Town and 50% partnership with the homeowner for beneficial use of the property. And then whatever the operating costs are.
Mr. Pace said the Town will be working with the neighborhoods to take a look at the total infrastructure. If we are going to do this, we might as well do it right the first time. We will be looking at the roads, drainage, elevation, public water, and determining the best environmental conditions for the different neighborhoods. He asked Attorney Bruce Chudwick to sum up the financial model. Attorney Chudwick said the primary financial model for the wastewater treatment plants is through the Clean Water Fund program since the 1990’s. The Federal Government puts money into the program and the State issues bonds and makes low interest grants and loans available to the community to build wastewater treatment plants. The CWF would be the entity the Town would access to provide
for the 2% loans. We will be working with the Town to develop the funding resolution that would come to you next summer.
Question and Answer Period
Q: Where can the public obtain definitive information on what the Upgrade Standards require so as to determine if an individual property requires a system upgrade?
A: We have estimates on what needs to be done on individual lots on these maps. The legends show where septic tanks might need to be replaced and AT systems need to be installed. The maps show the preliminary estimates. The Upgrade Standards are a draft document that can be found in the Wastewater Facilities Plan. A copy of that will be in the Library later this week.
Q: At what point will the property owner know whether or not their property will require an upgrade?
A: When the Implementation Process takes place, research will be done on individual lots to determine what needs to be done; perhaps nothing, replace a septic tank, add an effluent filter. The design and construction will take place after that. That will take place on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis in 2010- 2017 when the definitive answers will be developed.
Q: Is there a differentiation between season and year-round properties? If so how?
A: The wastewater management is not differentiated. You need to be able to handle that wastewater whether is 3 months of the year or 12 months. There is no different solution.
Q: Will the public hearing take place in the summer? If not what manner of information will be provided?
A: This is only the first of many meetings. The WPCA will be available for local boards and organizations. We’re dedicated to providing the very best and latest information we have. The public hearing will take place next summer. The Town meeting will have audience participation. There has been a lot of concern that we’re holding these meetings when the summer people are not here and that they don’t have a voice in this. That is not true. We put this meeting together is a very quick fashion to have as many people here before they leave for the academic year.
Q: It appears that the borough of Fenwick is not in the plan. It that because it is a borough or is there any other reason why?
A: No it’s not because it’s a borough. The evolution of the plan has its genesis a couple of decades ago. The areas have continued to go through the planning process (albeit some have been trimmed off); they have been kept the same and Fenwick was not included initially.
Q: Is there evidence that groundwater levels have risen over the years?
A: No.
Q: Could you explain on the map what yellow and gold with a line on it means?
A: The red lots (based on the information available to us) have ½ or less of the required leaching areas so require AT systems, the pink lots have less than 2/3 of the Public Health Code but based on the # of bedrooms they would also need AT systems, the yellow lots have 2/3 of the area but less than what the PHC requires today; in that case they need to add leaching area but don’t require an AT system. There are some indications of dry wells. The WPCA has been gathering data from the pumpouts and has found out where the cesspool and steel tanks are, which are very unsafe. The blue cross-hatch indicates dry wells and undersized tanks. White is probably a good thing; they have enough land just need to comply with conventional PHC system requirements. These maps are available on the
WPCA website.
Q: Does the Implementation Process include sessions to educate residents on state grants and other funding assistance opportunities? What is the consequence facing the homeowner if they are unable to pay the cost of the process?
A: There will be general sessions to work with the community and individuals to provide full opportunity to take advantage of the money that is out there. There is a $300,000 initial grant for those who cannot afford it. We are trying to make this as painless for residents and the Town as possible. We have already set up the process with the Health District for people to get funding.
Q: If the roads are dug up would consideration be given to installing natural gas lines and public water?
A: One of the reasons for public water is the necessity for the fire department. The reason for looking at the beach areas is because lifestyles have changed since they were built. The Department of Public Works will look at them so that as we go through and upgrade the septic systems we can see what other upgrade opportunities are available.
Q: Will the vote be held in the summer?
A: Yes. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. We will have public information, go out to the beach communities, on an individual basis, provide a lot-by-lot analysis. This is important for you and the Town. We don’t want this program to fail.
Q: Who will be eligible to vote at the referendum?
A: You are eligible to vote at a town meeting if you are a property owner; individually or collectively, of a property assessed at more than $1000. You can vote at a town meeting on any ordinance or financial issue.
Q: Will absentee ballots be allowed?
A: Yes.
Q: My septic system was installed in 1992; is there an exemption from upgrade? My house was built in 2003; does it meet DEP standard? Our house is just 3-years old were the WPCA concerns taken into consideration then?
A: The question of whether a property meets the requirements must be determined on a case-by-cast basis, but the more recently installed septic system would be more likely to be in compliance. The standards in the last 5-years are closer to what is required today than what was put in 50-years ago. Chances are you’ll have less to do. It depends on where you are. If you have a waterfront lot, even if the system was put in last year, it does not have an AT system. The Health Department was not requiring AT systems in anticipation of the new program. That will not happen until the ordinance is in place.
It is an issue we are working on in the ordinance. We have to figure out how to deal with those properties that have new systems in place but the regulations will require more treatment. The ordinance will allow for making upgrades sooner if you are not scheduled until the end but are making improvements. The ordinance will kick in then.
The Health District is talking with the WPCA to be able to come up with interim procedures in order to put something in that will meet the future standards.
Q: Is there any sort of grandfathering clause for newer systems?
A: Same as above.
Q: Will seasonal properties be automatically upgraded to year-round?
A: This WWMD ordinance will not address year-round requirements. That is a different commission. It is not under the purview of the WPCA. It is a component.
The Town will look at the cottages, size of the lot, building conditions, use and size of structure to make these determinations. That is not to say the ordinance (Winterization) will go away, we don’t have that authority.
Q: Is there any scientific proof of pollution caused by septic problems at Old Saybrook beaches? Yes or No?
A: Yes. Absolutely. Beyond a reasonable doubt. If you look at the report you’ll find that the numbers are higher than background data.
Q: Can you prove that my house is polluting and if so how?
A: You can’t prove that any given house is polluting at any given time. What we have is the Public Health Code which establishes the minimum standards you need to protect the environment. If you don’t meet those standards, we can reasonably assume (because we’re charged with doing the best we can) that there is a problem or a potential problem. That is the way the law is written in the State Statutes.
Q: If I’m not and my septic system is working why do I need to change it?
A: You can’t demonstrate your septic system is working. How do you if know if you haven’t done any of the sampling yourself? The only evidence you’re going to have is if you’ve got a backup in your system. But the problem you have in OS is that in some areas you have very sandy soils, so even if you’re discharging raw sewage and it gets no treatment, you’ll never see it. It’s still affecting the groundwater.
Q: Is Fenwick polluting? How do you know? Why aren’t they included? Why do only certain areas need to have AT systems? Is this based on old data?
A: The areas shown on the maps were based on studies done in the 1970’s. Since then, the soils have not changed. The lot sizes have not changed. The houses, if anything, have added more bedrooms. It’s not as if the pollution has gone away. Nothing has changed physically or structurally on these lots in that time.
Q: Have you smelled the odor coming from the AT system near the bridges?
A: The person who handles subsurface systems is not available tonight. She would need to see if it is operating right. We will look into it.
Q: Has there been any data on pollutants in the Long Island Sound in this area?
A: There is no specific testing in the Long Island Sound. Not in this area.
Q: Why not try an AT system at the Town Beach and see how it works?
A: These systems are currently installed in a number of other states. I don’t see that there is going to be any great benefit to trying one out in CT. The soils aren’t that much different from Rhode Island, Cape Cod, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. Up and down the coast the other states have them. The testing has pretty much been all done.
Q: Does a homeowner have any recourse if the information on their specific property is incorrect?
A: Yes. In the context of the ordinance there is an appeal process. By the time a determination is made that your lot is not code compliant or requires an AT system you will be issued an order and have an opportunity to appeal that order. That’s what the ordinance allows. We will work with each homeowner so it won’t be any surprise and hope that we will have done our homework by the time the order is issued.
Q: In the process of implementation of the upgrades why won’t the beach areas be the first to require upgrades?
A: There is an implementation schedule that the WPCA worked out with the DEP. The first area to be tackled is Saybrook Acres. It is not the most challenging neighborhood. The reason for choosing it is to get the program up and running, work out the bugs before we do get to the more challenging areas that require AT systems. Saybrook Acres has relatively few fixes to make the lots code compliant. It is going to get to each area eventually, but this was the area decided on in the Mediation process.
Q: What’s the guarantee that after spending all that money that this will work? Who is responsible for system failures?
A: There isn’t a specific guarantee that comes with this. However there is a whole series of steps that the WPCA plans to take; 1 get the right solution for each lot, 2 select a specific set of AT systems with proven track records, 3 there is a strong O & M component to this program. Those with AT systems are going to have to have a qualified operations firm checking on and maintaining those systems. They will have gone through a training program to make sure they are kept up and running. The Town is going to install remote monitoring of the AT systems. We’re actually going to have a hookup for each system. If there is an alarm condition reported to the service provider and WPCA office someone will go out to service it. These are the types of approaches the
WPCA will have in place to make sure the systems operate properly over time.
A: The operations people are responsible for keeping them running and the systems will be monitored remotely. This is being done quite successfully on Cape Cod. They use the same reporting software that the Health District has today. They will be modifying it to be able to collect information on these systems and provide notification to the Town and service providers if something goes awry. It’s a combination of the WPCA’s oversight and probably the Health District as well depending on how the regulations evolve with DPH and the service providers.
Q: Will there be training, qualifications, and licensing for the installers? Are there any AT systems installed in this area by your firm in comparable circumstances and what were the results of those installations?
A: There are not standards right now for the AT systems. We’re breaking new ground and have to set those standards. There is a very good course developed by the Consortium of Wastewater Treatment Institutions. That takes place around the country. Other states are doing a lot more than we are. There is an installer academy. Many of the WPCA members have gone to the training offered at the University of Rhode Island; the New England Training Center at URI. They have been approached about offering training courses for installers.
Q: Have any AT systems been installed? What were the results?
A: They have hundreds of systems installed in coastal Rhode Island; Westerly, with similar situations. AT URI they actually monitor in controlled conditions (have wastewater running through their test systems.) They have very good data available on Cape Cod. The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) has a new standard for these nitrogen removal systems.
Q: Some properties are rented out during the summer. There is high density of use during the summer months. What if anything will the ordinance do to address that question?
A: The ordinance doesn’t really speak to that. What we’re looking at in terms of designing the particular upgrade is the number of bedrooms. Design flows are generally on the conservative side. The designers use a pretty high flow volume per bedroom. Homeowners don’t usually generate 75 gallons a day per bedroom. It’s a much lower number than that. There is a reason for those standards. They have to be able to function when you have an unusual situation (like the one mentioned.)
A: The Public Health Code is the law of the land and will be incorporated into the ordinance. So you have to have first and foremost a PHC compliant system. It regulates some of these things being brought up. The PHC is already there. A lot of what you have to comply with, you already have to comply with. The ordinance is going to make it a district; a formalized process to make sure every system comes up to PHC.
Q: Is an AT system better than a conventional system? Is it preferable? If a homeowner wishes to upgrade his system between now and next year can you offer any advice as to what they should do? Look at an AT system or a conventional?
A: If you have a need for an upgrade the CT River Area Health District (CRAHD) will work with you. We are working towards having some interim steps to see what your future designation is going to be, so that you don’t do something you have to change later.
A: An AT system is not necessarily better, but it depends on the situation. If you have enough land and have reasonable soils a conventional system is fine. They work well and rely on treatment in the septic tank, settlement of solids and biological treatment. If you have groundwater that is deep and proper conditions in your leaching field there is more aerobic activity and biological treatment in the ground. As long as you have enough leaching area, they work fine. The problem we have here is that the lots are so small we don’t have the kind of treatment that you would have on a larger lot. And in a number of cases we don’t have the aerobic activity going on under the leaching field. The reason we are using the AT systems is because we have some difficult
situations and a need (per the DEP) to remove some nitrogen to protect the groundwater and Long Island Sound.
A: The Health District right now requires an upgrade that is as close to the PHC as possible. That is the current goal, but the CRAHD is going to work more closely with the WPCA, being cognizant of these maps, as people go forward with their repairs.
A: If you want to upgrade to an AT system now, don’t. The permitting system the DEP has in place right now is designed for businesses, not houses. It will drive you crazy and you will not have the requirements DEP will look for. There is a delegation process which is going forward, where we give the authority to the Town. That is going to simplify the permitting process. Wait until the delegation occurs.
Q: Why can’t installations and upgrades be done through attrition as old systems need to be replaced? Why are we only looking at focus areas? Why isn’t this a Town-wide problem solved on a Town-wide basis?
A: The WPCA back about 5-years ago did look at a plan to replace systems over time as property changed hands. That is what Massachusetts has done in their Title 5 regulation. When you sell your property you need to bring it up to standards. The answer came back from DEP; no that’s not fast enough. That is going to take decades to get to where we need to be in improving the groundwater quality. It was suggested and turned down.
A: The Town of OS does have a 5-year pumpout program. Many of the pumpouts have been witnessed by the past WPCA inspector. So there is a Town-wide program unlike almost any other town in the State. It doesn’t require the upgrades. What we are doing is starting with the neighborhoods that were chosen historically. It is a set of neighborhoods that could be addressed as time goes on. We’re setting up a program that will allow the Town to deal with identified pollution problems when you adopt a decentralized plan.
Attorney Royston said he understood that the maps are currently on the WPCA website www.oswpca.org.
Q: Can you explain the color coding on the maps?
A: It was already explained. When you look on the maps on the website and scroll down you can see the legend.
Q: What does the WPCA intend to do with the surveys? They should not be used as approving the WWMD.
A: We want those to find out how you perceive this meeting. It is to help us better plan the next meeting. It is the same thing with the questions. We have passed out an FAQ sheet and those questions that have not already been published, will be add to it.
Q: It was stated that the decentralized plan is consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Please explain why.
A: The Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development is based on a decentralized or sewer avoidance program. It is not a growth type of system; where some towns may wish to have growth occur for economic development purposes. OS said that is not what we want to do. We want to have controlled growth.
15 or 20 years ago when this came up, a sewer line was pictured on Route 1 similar to other towns. Planning, Zoning, and the WPCA back then chose sewer avoidance and a systematic pattern of growth. A sewer line only benefits a few property owners along Route 1; it then opens it up to higher density. You can take a look at examples of other towns, like Orange, which put in large commercial buildings. There was concern about other towns tying-in to Old Saybrook’s system. It is also a matter of “follow the money.” Who benefits the most? It is not the individual property owner. But it could open the door for over development of Route 1.
Q: Is every shoreline town doing this as required by DEP?
A: There are only 6 unsewered shoreline towns in CT at this point; starting from Guilford across to Old Lyme. OS is leading the charge but if you follow the news you’ll see us showing up in Clinton (consultants are attending tonight to see how the information is received). The DEP is working with Westbrook and have contacts going with Madison. The other two towns will come in the future.
The other questions will be considered and addressed by the WPCA. There will be additional Public Information sessions.
5. Closing
Chairman Wilson thanked the audience for attending and said the questions were outstanding. He said he failed to mention a few stalwarts (staff). The projectionist, Don Lucas, is the WPCA Coordinator who is employed by the Town in other capacities. And our Recording Secretary, Robbie Marshall.
It has been wonderful to see you all here and hope that this has given you comfort and satisfactory answers and we’re looking forward to continuing. Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority
Robbie A. Marshall
Robbie A. Marshall
WPCA Recording Clerk
| 
