Wastewater Advisory Committee to the MWRA
MEETING MINUTES 2012
Below are WAC meeting minutes for 2012.
For past years' minutes, go to the Meeting Minutes Archive.
Return to WAC Main Page | Meeting Agendas
LATEST MINUTES
Minutes February 3, 2012. The Wastewater Advisory Committee to the MWRA held its monthly meeting at the MAPC in Boston. Attendees/Contributors: Stephen Greene (WAC), Ed Bretschneider (Staff), Bill Katz (WAC), Beth Miller (WAC), Taber Keally (WAC and NEPRWA), Maggie Atanasov (WAC/AB), Stephen Cullen (MWRA), Lisa Hamilton (MWRA), Kristina Bigdeli (SH/SB), Don Walker (AECOM), Stephen Kaiser (Cambridge) and Craig Allen (Commonwealth Research Group).
Stephen Greene called the meeting to order at 10:30. The January minutes were approved with some minor changes. Stephen Greene briefly talked about the emerging attention to pharmaceuticals in wastewater and the attention it is getting in the popular press and it’s something we need to be thinking about. Taber Keally mentioned this is a big issue in the mid-west where it is showing up in the drinking water.
North Dorchester Bay Start Up Update - Stephen Cullen and Lisa Hamilton
Stephen Cullen started by outlining CSO and Storm water requirements. Overall the goal is to make beach closings a rare event. Specifically for CSO control the objective is eliminate discharges up to the 25-year storm. For storm water control the objective is to prevent separate storm water discharges to the beaches up to the 5-year storm. The overall cost for the North Dorchester Bay CSO plan is $272 million: $3.2 million for Pleasure Bay Storm Drain completed in March 2006, $147 million for the Storage Tunnel, completed in November 2009, $26.9 million for Pump Station completed May 2011, $5.2 million for Below-Ground vent building completed May 2011, $36.2 million Morrissey Blvd. Drain completed July 2009 and $53.5 million for Permits.
There was a discussion of the CSO and Storm water control strategy. Stephen said that for up to a 1-year storm, the objective is to capture all CSO and storm water in the tunnel from the outfalls. For a 1-5 year storm the objective is to capture all CSO and storm water as well but to divert some storm water to BWSC’s Morrissey Boulevard Drain. For 5 to 25-year storms, storm water gates are closed and dedicate the tunnel to capturing CSO up to tunnel capacity. Stephen Cullen added that the total yearly O&M costs are a little over $355K.
There is an intensive training program for all staff. They have been trained in all aspects of the operation and maintenance of the pumping station, storage tunnel diversion chambers and odor control facility. Additionally, standard operations procedures have been developed and implemented that include SCADA control and monitoring, wet weather operation, tunnel dewatering and carbon monitoring.
The maintenance programmed is performed on a regular basis and includes:
Stephen mentioned that the MWRA has captured and pumped back to the sewer system about 191 million gallons of storm water and CSO flows since May 2011.
Stephen then reviewed South Boston water quality and noted that there are more beach days suitable for swimming after the tunnel start-up. For example in 2008 it was 60 days and in 2011 after start-up it was 75 days.
Complementing the above improvement there are fewer high-bacteria beach days in 2011, despite more rainfall. For example in 2008 21% of the time water quality standards were not met whereas in 2011 it was 5%.
In summary, the $272 million tunnel project was completed in May 2011, at the beginning of last year’s swimming season. Since start-up, the storage tunnel and related facilities have consistently performed as designed, preventing millions of gallons of CSO and separate stormwater from discharging to the harbor during more than 75 rainfall events and sending the stored flows at the end of each storm to Deer Island for treatment. Although summer 2011 was rainy, beach closings on South Boston beaches were minimal.
The work involved five major construction contracts by both MWRA and the Boston Water & Sewer Commission (BWSC), including the 2-mile long, 17-foot diameter tunnel; the pumping station located at Massport’s Conley Terminal and related 24-inch diameter force main that remove stored flows from the tunnel after each storm; the below-ground tunnel ventilation and odor control building behind the State Police Barracks on Day Boulevard; the BWSC Morrissey Boulevard storm drain; and the Pleasure Bay storm drain improvements that eliminated stormwater discharges to Pleasure Bay Beach.
Minutes January 6, 2012. The Wastewater Advisory Committee to the MWRA held its monthly meeting at the MAPC in Boston. Attendees/Contributors: Stephen Greene (WAC and Howland-Greene, by phone)), Ed Bretschneider (Staff), Karen Lachmayr (Harvard and WAC), Bill Katz (WAC), Mary Adelstein (WAC, Beth Miller Martin Pillsbury (WAC, and MAPC), Taber Keally (WAC and NEPRWA), Maggie Atanasov (WAC/AB), Joe Favaloro (Advisory Board), Paul Brinkman (Wright-Pierce), and Pam Heidell (MWRA),
Taber Keally called the meeting to order at 10:30. Stephen Greene joined us by phone.
The November minutes were approved with some minor changes
Ed Bretschneider briefly spoke about the open meeting law and how it pertains to WAC. He also explained why WAC has to undergo Online Conflict of Interest Training as all members are considered special state employees.
Karen Lachmayr agreed to give a presentation to the committee on her research at Harvard on “super bugs”.
There was a brief discussion of the Pellet Facility Tour, which is scheduled for March 6. Stephen, Taber, Ed, Beth, Martin and Maggie all expressed interest in attending.
System Expansion – Pam Heidell
Pam started by giving an overview of the MWRA sewer service area, that consists of 43 member communities covering an area over 500 square miles and serving almost 2.2 million people. She added that over 95% of the area in these 43 communities is sewered by the Deer Island Treatment Plant. Pam said that the enabling act lists the communities that are in the MWRA’s service area and it also provides the foundation for all our policies. She mentioned that system expansion for both water and sewer areas are addressed in Sections 8c and 8d of the enabling act. Pam reviewed the criteria that has to be met for communities to enter the system:
Early in the process we discovered that these initial criteria were not sufficient and we needed an update. The last update was in 2006.
A key requirement is that a verifiable four to one gallon reduction in peak inflow in the transporting community and communities downstream. This requires a report that identifies actual projects with follow-ups discussions. Also inflow removal projects cannot be projects that are being partially funded under MWRA’s I/I program; they must be new ones. The criteria have evolved over time with the MWRA and it’s Advisory Board working together. The System Expansion Policy is reviewed roughly every five years. The policy OP#11 is used for new communities and other requests for sewer service and policy OP#4 is used much less and deals with submissions for sewer connections that straddle town boundary lines.
Pam compared difference between the water system and sewer system. For example on the water side there’s been a significant reduction in water use which results in extra capacity that can be used to bring online more communities and generate revenue as well. There has not been the same reduction in volume on the sewer side, during heavy rains and inflow and infiltration, sewer transport capacity is constrained so the ability to bring in whole new communities is nil. We’d run the potential risk of overflows in our transport system. .
Bill Katz asked why has there been reduced demand on the water side of the business. Pam said it’s a number of things; part of the enabling act stressed conservation over expansion at the time the Authority was created, demand in the early years was reduced by getting rid of lots of leaks in the both the community and MWRA systems. We now require communities do leak detection every two years. Mary Adelstein said she thought the biggest driver for conservation is individual meters consumers and usage cost money. Pam said yes price response plays a role in conservation efforts. Pam added that changes to the plumbing code also played a role. Pam said per capita use is declining across the country so it’s more than just the price point. She added that there is also more of an environmental conscience on conservation.
Pam said the ideal situation for sewer system expansion is someone comes to the MWRA, tells us what they want to do, we give them a copy of the policy, and we meet with them to express key concerns and regulatory requirements. The key things we communicate is that the communities must be on board, both the originating community and the transporting community. The CEO and DPW have both communities need to be on board. Part of the reason for this is sometimes communities use lack of a wastewater systems to restrict growth, so we require documentation not just word of mouth and a handshake that both are on board. Pam said we don’t always get the ideal for example there can be connections to are system that are not authorized and sometimes these can be innocent mistakes and sometimes intentional. She added it is difficult for example for innocent connections that have been there for many years and than have to tell them that they have to disconnect. In some cases when large volumes are involved we look for ways to legalize the connection. Taber Keally added these could have large financial impacts. If a developer is looking to do a project and than discovers that the connection is not legal. Pam said we try to be sensible and not overly beauricreatic. Taber added that local attorneys might not catch these anomalies where in commercial situations it is more likely.
Pam added that we couldn’t just expand the service area “willy-nilly”; the service area is defined by the enabling act. If we add a property there has to be an addendum to the act that says add this property. Before we agree to an expansion we want to make sure that all alternatives were evaluated. Just saying you want to join because it’s cheaper than dealing with a septic system is not sufficient for entry. Pam stressed that the adapting community that we connect to must identify projects that achieve 4:1 inflow removal. Martin asked if that was strict, Pam replied very strict. Taber said he thought most of the low hanging fruit has probably already been dealt with. Pam agreed and added that that is often the case and the ones that are left tend to be significantly more expensive to accomplish. Sometimes people end up saying never mind. We don’t ask that an investment in inflow removal be made until there is formal approval from the MWRA. People tend to think it’s the entry fee that keeps people from looking to joining that can easily be out done by the cost of reducing inflow. Inflow was favored over infiltration since it’s real; you’re taking it out of the system, where infiltration can just pop up someplace else in the system. Pam added that this is an example of how thoughtful the process in designing and updating our system expansion policies.
Pam mentioned that we don’t recommend direct connections the MWRA system although we did accommodate Regis College; in general connections are made through the local sewer system. We assist communities and others in drafting legislation to get the necessary approval to join the system, so they don’t have to go out and hire a lawyer Mary Adelstein noted for Regis College, legislation was passed before any other parts of the process were completed which obliged the MWRA to approve their entry. Pam said we don’t dictate what order things need to get done in, but I will say that sometimes politics can play a role. She stressed no matter what the order, all parts of the process have to be completed. Pam added that the BOD could waive any part of the policy that is not part of the enabling act.
Pam stated that the entrance fee assessed by MWRA is to cover costs of servicing entities from communities outside its service area. She noted the entrance fee is based on new user share as a function of total system flow times the sewer system asset value.
Pam reviewed what happens after the connection is approved. She mentioned that there has to be an implementation of flow removal projects and completion of flow removal report, annual reporting to MWRA on wastewater discharges, annual reporting of commitments relating to maintenance and upkeep of measures to reduce flows as well as annual report to the BOD on the status f new connections to the system and compliance with MWRA conditions. We like to collect the entrance fee within 30 days of the connection.
Pam reviewed new possible connections such as Genzyme building of a new science building, Cambridge School of Weston wants to legalize an existing connection as well as a few others. She concluded by reviewing system expansion policies for water, which includes emergency water supply withdrawals.
Updated April 19, 2012