Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee
to the MWRA (WSCAC)
Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Below are meeting agendas and minutes for 2011. Please visit our archive for prior years' agendas and minutes.

If you would like to receive WSCAC agendas and meeting minutes by email, please contact us at info@wscac.org

Agenda
WSCAC and WAC Joint Meeting
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
10:30 AM
at the MWRA Facilities in Southborough directions

Please note the meeting start time will be 1030 AM

Introduction-Stephen Greene, WAC Chair
Approval of September WSCAC Meeting Summary

1. Presentation: Austin Polebitski from the Hydrology and Systems Group of the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UMass-Amherst will speak about climate change in New England and the potential impacts on local water resources.  He will also discuss the CT River Basin Study in progress with The Nature Conservancy, the Army Corps of Engineers and UMass.
   
   
2. Presentation: Kathleen Baskin, Director of Water Policy at the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, will speak on the Massachusetts Climate Change Adaption Report.  (see attached Executive Summary)
   
   
3. MWRA  Briefs:  Steve Estes-Smargiassi 

THE NEXT WSCAC MEETING WILL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 15TH AT 10:00 A.M. IN SOUTHBOROUGH

Back to top

Minutes
Joint MWRA Advisory Board, WSCAC and WAC Meeting
September 15, 2011
at Lexington City Hall

WSCAC Attendees:

Dana Motts
Martin Pillsbury
Whitney Beals
Lexi Dewey - WSCAC staff
Nancy Bryant
Jerry Eves
Paul Brinkman
Sue Costa - WSCAC staff
Paul Launenstein

Katherine Dunphy, Chair of the MWRA Advisory Board, opened the meeting and introduced Richard Sullivan, EOEEA Secretary and Chairman of the MWRA Board of Directors. The remarks by Secretary Sullivan as well as those of Fred Laskey, MWRA Executive Director, follow.

A Summary of Secretary Sullivan’s Presentation-Where We are Headed at EOEEA

Secretary Sullivan emphasized his 13 year mayoral background and opined that the best decisions are made at the local level.   People need to consider where they get and how they use energy.  Massachusetts residents spend $22 billion on energy annually.  $18 billion or 80 % of that money not only leaves the Commonwealth but also the country.    We want to utilize clean energy alternatives and recapture that $18 billion.

The Patrick administration has made an unprecedented commitment to land preservation and conservation in Massachusetts including lands for recreation, farms, open space, and wildlife habitats.

The MWRA Board of Directors has made it a priority to look at system expansion and sustainable water management.  We need to balance community growth with protecting the basins.

The Secretary was asked about DCR.   The DCR budget is stable but down from where it was in FY2009.  Staff reductions from attrition resulted in a significant loss of experience.  We cannot continue do more with less, we’ve done that so now we must do less with less.   We need to be smart and strategic with our resources.  As a result we have closed some satellite facilities and some of the staff are working in clusters rather than being assigned to a single park. 

The Governor has made a commitment to DCR infrastructure.  We are committed to supporting the beaches as well as the 25 “iconic” parks that play a role in our economy and tourism industry.

The Secretary was asked about the year and a half old Sustainable Water Management Initiative and said we are coming to the end of that process and hopefully reaching a consensus.    We are trying to come up with a reasonable and sensible policy that does not burden communities and at the same time addresses the environmental issues of stressed basins.

The issue of energy efficient light bulbs was raised.   Manufacturers have stopped making some of the less efficient bulbs so switching over is not always a choice but a necessity.  People don’t think about this in their day to day lives but federal rules may mandate changes.  The state itself is not planning to mandate changes but rather encourage changes by getting information out to cities, towns and citizens.

A question was raised about water and sewer infrastructure getting lost in the shuffle.  Expenditures on roads and bridges are more visible to citizens and seem to be more easily accepted. 

The Secretary suggested that water, sewer, and electricity are taken for granted.  People expect the water to flow when the tap is turned on just as they expect the light to come on at the flip of a switch.  Water and sewer infrastructure isn’t as visible as much of it is buried underground.  It’s easier to get approval for expenditures on bridges and roads that citizens drive daily.  We need to continue talking about water infrastructure and making investments.

A Summary of Fred Laskey’s Presentation on Challenges Facing the MWRA

By far the biggest challenge this year is the ongoing repair and rehabilitation of the Lower Hultman Aqueduct.   This is an 18-month redundancy project that is expected to conclude in the spring of 2012.  While this project is under construction we are in weakened position with fewer backup options.  Once it’s complete we will have full redundancy in that portion of the system.

Another current issue is less than anticipated use of the pipeline assistance program.   This may just be a reflection of the economic times but it will be a concern if it turns out to be a long-term trend that towns are not updating and repairing their infrastructure.

The treatment of sludge with biochemicals is a new technology the MWRA is looking into.  There is an important strategic decision to be made on the cost versus the benefit of the different ways to deal with sludge.

We have a program to increase the real-time monitoring of water quality.   The number of locations, number of triggers to look at, and what to do with the resulting information are all currently under consideration.  We do/will monitor the temperature, the Ph, the cloudiness, and other more technical measures.  This is not an easy project to implement.  Particularly challenging is what we will do with the information we get; what does an operator do at 2 a.m. if some aspect of the water has changed?

Two studies are underway: MWRA staffing and IT.  These studies should give us a road map for going forward.  We expect that the studies will recommend changes.  

We have excess capacity in our water system and are having active discussions with North Reading.   In addition, Ashland, Holbrook, and the potential Mohegan Sun casino, potentially in Palmer are all considering the use of MWRA water. 

Communications are an issue for the MWRA.  Our cell phone coverage has limitations when phones are used underground. When problems arise, we need to be able to communicate efficiently and effectively.   Again we get back to the cost versus the benefit of switching to another carrier.  Deer Island communications went down when the one main line coming into the station broke down.   The Chelsea facility has 89 different T1 lines that come into it and then go out to other facilities.   If the Chelsea line came down, the problem would spread from there.  New technology - iPhones etc. – is something we need to look into.

The 2 ½ % water and sewer rate initiative petition is a big problem – both directly and indirectly.   The indirect problem is in the form of a potential negative ad campaign focusing on the MWRA – i.e. promoting the initiative by attacking the MWRA. 

The Charlestown wind turbine is currently being installed. It is 360 feet tall and will produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity.  Its presence will change the skyline of Boston.  This project utilized stimulus money so payback will begin as soon as it’s up and running.

Mr. Laskey was asked about the MWRA public relations program versus proposition 2 ½%.  Fred noted that If people understand what they are getting for their money, they usually accept the cost.  He speaks frequently to tell the MWRA story. 

This concluded the comments of Secretary Sullivan and Mr. Laskey.

Back to top

Minutes
WSCAC Meeting
July 21, 2011
at the Water Works Museum

Attendees:

Lexi Dewey-WSCAC staff                                       
Jeanne Richardson-BWSC
Colin Donnelley-BWSC                                           
Martin Pillsbury-MAPC
Jerry Eves-Trout Unlimited                                      
Paul Lauenstein-NepRWA
Alice Clemente-Blackstone River Watershed

The meeting began with a presentation and slide show on the history of the Water Works museum by Marcis Kempe, Director of Operations Support in the Field Operations Department at the MWRA. 

Marcis noted that the museum focuses on the period around 1900.  The building itself was built in 1887.  In the late 1800s the importance of public works was emphasized by the quality of the architecture – it’s a beautiful building.  Major decisions made regarding the water supply were made in this building.  

To give a complete picture, Marcis traced the history of Boston water beginning with the founding of the city in 1630.  The location for Boston was chosen because of its water supply – it was the place of a good spring.  This is the first water works in the American Colonies.  Elsewhere people carried water in buckets but in Boston they built wooden pipes, buried them underground, and piped water into people’s homes.

As the need for more water and better water arose the system became a private for profit venture.  This was not water for everyone; it was basically for the rich.   Water availability determined where people lived and worked – you needed to consider the elevation of the land and the quality of the water.   As need increased the Cochituate Aqueduct came in and the Chestnut Hill Reservoir was built by clearing out an old swamp.  A pipe was built down Beacon Street to provide water. 

Boston and New York were pioneers on getting water to their cities.  Boston chose Long Pond as its source of water.  As more and more towns were annexed to Boston there was need for more water and in 1870 Boston started using pumps. The first pumps in the United States were paddle driven - steam came later.   When the great fire of Boston occurred lessons were learned.  They had trouble fighting the fire because of there was no storage in the system and pipe diameters were too small. 

By 1887 water use had skyrocketed and the Chestnut Hill station, i.e. this building, was constructed.  Water quality was a major concern for the Board of Health, particularly in the outlying areas that were supplied by the Boston water works.   By 1895 it was clear that water borne diseases were a result of contamination from sewage.  Thus, the Metropolitan District was formed and better water was distributed to all the towns.

By then the Sudbury Aqueduct was built.   Other aqueduct lines came in and more pumps were added.  A question of how this infrastructure was funded was raised and Marcis replied that Boston funded all of its own capital improvements but it had a separate water fund.   Boston water works had to justify their improvements and was the biggest single infrastructure investment in Boston in the middle of the 1800s.  Bonds were written supported by the State.

Triple expansion pumps were used.  Wheelbarrows of coal were hauled to the boilers.  Contracts were written with efficiency requirements on engines and you didn’t get paid if the specs weren’t met.

When technology to bring higher water sources into the system became available Quabbin and Wachusett were added to the system.   Coal was replaced by oil for the engines but going to gravity fed water with the higher sources of Quabbin and Wachusett saved considerable money.

Moving back in time again, from 1848 on they were draining watersheds like the South Natick and the dumping of sewage was a problem.   There were rampant epidemics of typhoid and cholera in places like Lowell.  There were 100 deaths per 100,000 associated with water borne illnesses. 

Steam engines enabled poor choices as far as water was concerned.  It was a learning process to drive for better solutions and better quality water.   They studied the Sudbury reservoir and learned from that.   They studied filtration and storage retention and realized the importance of both for “cleaning” the water.   Much was learned from the Mystic where in the 1860s they were pumping water from the river at the lowest point.   There were 22 tanneries up river of where they were pumping.  Water borne diseases drove improvement in water supplies.  New water supplies were chosen for water quality. 

The first state wide testing of rivers began and Boston’s philosophy was to choose unpolluted water supplies.   Most other areas tried water treatment which, at the time, was sketchy as people were patenting some questionable treatments. Chlorination was discovered in the 1908 and first used in New Jersey.  It was not a complete solution but enabled the use of questionable water.  

Back in Boston, Whipple (and Fitzgerald) started testing for water borne diseases in the 1880s in a tiny laboratory.  They cataloged what was in the water and what should be avoided.  Fitzgerald made day to day adjustments by shutting off reservoirs as necessary for algae blooms.   Both men would go out to the water sources to look for the sources of pollution and try to find a way to clean it up.  The tone was set here by Fitzgerald and their work affected choices on future reservoirs such as Wachusett and Quabbin.

Marcis then did a tour and in-depth explanation of the pumps and their cylinders that will not be detailed here.

The meeting was adjourned.

Back to top

Agenda
WSCAC MEETING
July 21, 2011
10:00-12:00 pm
Metropolitan Waterworks Museum
2450 Beacon Street, Boston
(617) 277-0065

The July 21st WSCAC meeting will be a tour of the Metropolitan Waterworks Museum in Boston.

Marcis Kempe, Director of Operations Support in the Field Operations Department at the MWRA will give a tour of the museum from 10:00-12:00.

For additional information and directions please go to:  www.waterworksmuseum.org

WSCAC does not have a scheduled meeting in August. Members are encouraged to attend the MWRA Advisory Board Field Trip on August 18th. This year’s trip is a cruise around Boston Harbor with lunch at Spectacle Island. The itinerary is attached. Please email the WSCAC office if you would like to attend.

Back to top

Minutes
WSCAC MEETING
June 23, 2011
At Quabbin

Attendees –
Paul Lauenstein – NepRWA                                  
Steve Estes-Smargiassi – MWRA
Whitney Sanford - RCOG                            
Paul Brinkman - WSCAC
Whit Beals - Chair, WSCAC                        
Mason Phelps - Millers River
Alice Clemente - Blackstone                                
Tom Miner - FRCOG
Dona Motts - At Large                                            
Jerry Eves - TU                      
Barbara Eves - visitor                                             
Lexi Dewey - WSCAC staff  
Sue Costa - WSCAC staff     

The June 23rd WSCAC meeting began with a boat ride on the reservoir with Bill Pula and Clif Read.  Afterward, lunch was served at the Blue Meadow Conference Center and the second half of the meeting began with guest Whit Sanford, former co-executive director of the CT River Watershed Council, talking about membership, visibility and identifying the message.

WSCAC Brochure – Whit Sanford presented her suggestions and ideas at length on the WSCAC brochure.  A summary of her initial comments follows.

Receiving a copy of the WSCAC draft brochure made her realize that WSCAC has issues similar to those at CRWC when she and Tom arrived there.   In particular, she feels that people are not aware of WSCAC and the MWRA.   Thus, WSCAC and the MWRA need to increase visibility and regain public awareness. 

At CRWC they used a two-pronged approach to outreach to make the watershed visible.  The first prong was a brochure for members and potential members on what the watershed council was with detailed accomplishments and future goals.  

The second prong was outreach to build a network and database of people and institutions – both friends and foes – within the watershed to gain a better understanding of the watershed.  

Whitty suggested that the WSCAC members look at what they want to accomplish with the brochure and outreach.  Based on what she has read, WSCAC would like to increase membership, public awareness, and legislator awareness.   She noted that a brochure is costly and hard for a limited number of people to distribute.

The discussion then opened up for comments from members.  Dona Motts mentioned that WSCAC has open slots for legislators.   Lexi noted the difficulty in getting legislators on board but said that we are trying to get Representative Anne Gobi as a WSCAC member.  She also noted that Representative Steve Kulik recently resigned due to too many commitments and too little time.

Whitty acknowledged that there is a divide and vulcanization of Eastern and Western Mass., but feels there is now an opportunity for increased visibility for WSCAC and the MWRA because environmental issues are more highly accepted.  She thinks Western Massachusetts communities might be ready to get involved with water systems and management and take pride in the quality of the water we provide.   She suggested WSCAC do outreach to involve whole communities.

Lexi noted the negative impressions generated by recent reports on logging and forestry practices at Quabbin - particularly in Pelham, Shutesbury and Leverett.  She agreed that WSCAC can work on getting more information out to watershed communities.

Whitty sees an opportunity for DCR, MWRA, and WSCAC to tell the stories of scenic by-ways such as gate 31 where there is fishing access.  Although not specifically a WSCAC mission, she felt it might bring the communities along and garner support.   Lexi mentioned that many people still want more access to Quabbin so we would have to address the public’s perception of appropriate water supply recreation. She asked the committee for their opinions. 

Paul Lauenstein thinks new members are vital to WSCAC and sees the brochure as a good tool to attract new members.  He feels every member should carry a few brochures with them to hand out to potential members.   Lexi would like to distribute the brochure to MWRA Advisory Board members and other watershed organizations.  Paul Brinkman asked if we are we getting to the right people in the communities.

Whitty suggested WSCAC define the term “members”.  Her definition of members includes WSCAC’s traditional view of members (as specified by our contract) as well as community members and legislators.  She views a brochure as something for traditional members. 

Dona suggested a tighter focus if we want to do community outreach – maybe starting with conservation commissions and others involved with the environment.  Paul Brinkman suggested talking with planners or infrastructure people as well.

Steve Estes-Smargiassi made lengthy comments.  A summary of those comments follows.

Different kinds of organizations have different kinds of outreach and structures based on their purposes.  There are many different kinds of outreach - to gain information, to get political support, to increase membership, to raise funds, etc.    

WSCAC is a narrowly focused advisory group to the MWRA.  It’s membership categories were structured to provide for a diversity of opinion.   As we think about outreach we should be thinking about diversity of opinion.  The MWRA thinks of WSCAC as a broadly structured citizens group – East, West, user, non-user, etc.  They want to know how that diversity of opinion coalesces into public policy. 

Paul Lauenstein noted, and several others agreed, that the legitimacy of WSCAC’s advice is related to its diversity.   Paul reiterated that the brochure will be a very useful tool to help with recruiting members.  

WSCAC Newsletter –

Lexi noted that we are planning to put out a seasonal WSCAC newsletter.  Material in the newsletter will include information from meetings Lexi attends, news from the watersheds, a discussion of current issues, and our meeting schedule.   Steve mentioned there may also be some work on the WSCAC website. 

Paul Brinkman asked who receives the information electronically – specifically how large the distribution list is.  The list is not as large as it could be so he asked if there was an easy way to have people to sign up for emails from us.  Currently an individual or organization would have to email, call, or send us a request that they be added to our mailing list. 

Dona noted she would prefer a hard copy mailed newsletter.  Lexi pointed out the high cost of mailings and said we prefer to email but will send hard copies as requested.  The group noted that email is the preferred method of distribution for most people.  Alice noted that the minutes used to be mailed to over 200 people.  

 The discussion focused on email versus hard copy and the fact that preferences are largely age dependent.  It was noted that there are audiences for both minutes and a newsletter.  Whitty mentioned that knowing your different audiences, setting your priorities, and tailoring your distributions is important.  Dona reminded the group that meeting minutes are a requirement of the WSCAC contract.  

 Dona feels WSCAC as a fully funded advisory committee has a different focus than CRWC.   She suggested that focusing on where to find members and getting them on board is key and emphasized the importance of meeting minutes in keeping members abreast of current topics and issues.

Paul Lauenstein noted that to fill 30 or 40 seats we would probably need to contact several hundred people.   Alice suggested we look into student interns to fill some slots and Lexi noted she is looking for interns at UMASS.  Steve pointed out that if you want to utilize interns you need well defined short term projects for them to work on.  The issues of concern to WSCAC today are more defuse long term projects that make it harder to utilize students.  This also makes it harder to attract new members.   Defuse long term projects aren’t as compelling and exciting as more short term immediate projects. 

Future Meeting Topics -

Future meeting topics were reviewed for comment.  Steve asked if there are topics missing that the MWRA should be addressing.  Paul Lauenstein praised the quality of the presentations done at various recent MWRA meetings.  

Paul suggested downstream releases should be reviewed and researched in light of the many changes that have occurred since the guidelines were determined.  The MWRA Infrastructure Master Plan is not on the topics list but it will be added to it.   Whit would like a 6-year look back at the Carroll Water Treatment Plant.  He also asked if Pam Heidell could do a presentation on power generation now and in the future. 

Whit asked about the Asian Long-Horned beetle and the Wachusett watershed.  Steve said there are 2 or 3 areas in the watershed where clearing is occurring.  They think the beetle is contained but are nervous about it.  Steve suggested that this might be a good topic for a meeting.  It was noted that although there maybe pests that are climate related, the Asian Long-Horned beetle is not here as a result of climate change.  

Paul Lauenstein suggested several topics including:

• The storm water pipe
• Water rates
• Water chemistry and changes over the last decade – the effect of the Carroll Water Treatment plant
• Alternative clean energy
• Climate change impacts on watersheds such as Quabbin
• The role of biodiversity at the Quabbin
• Public access, education, and recreation at the Quabbin
• The public image of the MWRA – highlighting the value it delivers

Steve suggested the possibility of a presentation on the water redundancy projects.  Paul Brinkman brought up the 2010 water main break.  Steve noted that there are two reports on the web – one on the MWRA’s response to the break and the other the expert panel report on the causes of the break.  

Sediment in the Charles was also discussed.  The MWRA has agreed to work with the Weston Conservation Commission.  

Whit asked about the Boston Harbor cleanup and whether anything has been done to highlight the economic benefit of it.   Steve said a couple of people have looked at the project and its benefits.   Several people noted positive economic and personal benefits such as people fishing, sailing and swimming in the Harbor.

Whitty stated that people identify with Quabbin and have a sense of place with it.  She suggested that the economic benefits of Quabbin should be a topic of a meeting.  Lexi mentioned the sometimes controversial line between recreation and water supply and reminded the group that many people in the area would like to utilize the Quabbin watershed more.  The New England Scenic Trail spearheaded by the AMC is a prime example.  She noted that it’s interesting that most of the people against the scenic trail were people living in the watershed and yet DCR has a mandate to encourage recreation.

Whitty suggested that the Quabbin visitors’ center would benefit from a few changes to better draw people in.  Steve agreed it was a good point but noted that there are now two distinct entrances and many people never make it to the visitors’ center.  Steve suggested that a WSCAC meeting be held at the WaterWorks Museum to compare and contrast this brand new museum with the Quabbin center.

Whitty again suggested that the WSCAC members determine what they want to accomplish with the brochure and outreach so the committee can move forward on it.

The meeting was adjourned.

Back to top

Minutes - Joint WAC/WSCAC Meeting
Friday, April 8, 2011

Paul Lauenstein-WSCAC
Stephen Greene-WAC Chair
Lexi Dewey-WSCAC staff
Ed Bretschneider-WAC staff
Jeanne Richardson-WSCAC
Mary Adelstein-WAC
Martin Pillsbury-WSCAC/WAC
Vin Spada-WAC
Michael Baram-WSCAC
Karen Lachmayer-WAC
Joe Favaloro-Adv. Bd.
Beth Miller-WAC
Maggie Atanasov-Adv. Bd.
Steve Kaiser-WAC
Kathy Soni-MWRA
Tom Durkin-MWRA
Steve Estes-Smargiassi-MWRA

Kathy Soni, MWRA Budget Director and Tom Durkin, Treasurer, gave a very detailed and informative presentation titled, Fiscal Year 2012-Current Expense and Capital Improvement Budget Overviews to WAC and WSCAC members at MAPC in Boston on April 8th.

As all who were present can confirm, the subject is complex and far-reaching. Please use the following link to view the presentation for more detailed information and graphics: FY2010 CEB and CIP Overviews

As noted in the MWRA Staff Summary:

The largest component of the MWRA’s annual Current Expense Budget (CEB) is the cost associated with the capital finance program. In the Proposed FY12 CEB, capital finance costs account for approximately 60% of the total budget. The capital finance portion of the CEB will continue to increase until it accounts for approximately 64% of the total budget in 2021. These increases to debt service expenses are the result of the MWRA’s 5.8 billion in outstanding debt necessitated by capital improvements to the water and wastewater systems.

Presentation facts include:

• Historically 80% of the MWRA’s capital spending has been driven by court ordered or regulatory mandated projects.
• Projected FY11 $28 million surplus will reduce future rate increases by defeasing (prepaying) debt coming due in FY14.
• Direct Expense underspending due to lower maintenance, wages and salaries and chemicals offset by higher utility costs, worker’s compensation and overtime. (FEMA reimb. of $230,000 in overtime)
• Debt service is the largest portion of the CEB-$371.9 million
• Risks include: Utility and chemical pricing, changing regulatory requirements, debt financing and investment income interest rates
• MWRA acknowledges there are limited tools available to address its growing obligations without impacting their core mission: Reduce capital spending, reduce headcount, defer principal payments beyond 2015, ignore OPEB obligations, cut maintenance, maximize non-rate revenue, system expansion initiatives
• Water System Redundancy expenditures are projected to increase from 12.1% FY10 to 15.7% through FY13, and 37.8% for the FY14-18 period
• The MWRA is on track to meet the Govenor’s initiative that 35% of power demand be met by green sources by the year 2020
• Summary of MWRA Credit Quality: Strong Security Provisions, Substantial Reserves Totaling Over $420 Million, Strong and Stable Credit Quality

Kathy Soni and Tom Durkin’s presentation was extremely helpful in creating a picture of the MWRA’s financial structure, monetary policies in use, upcoming costs and projects, and a forecast of the Authority’s focus in the years ahead.

Back to top

Agenda - WSCAC Meeting
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02108
Friday, April 8, 2011
10:30 AM

Presentation: MWRA Budget Update and Challenges
Kathy Soni, MWRA Budget Director

The next WSCAC meeting will be Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at the MWRA Facilities in Southborough. Beth Lambert from the Division of Ecological Restoration will present several dam removal projects and Linda Hutchins from DCR will give an update on the Sustainable Water Management Initiative.

Back to top

Agenda - WSCAC Meeting
MWRA Facilities in Southborough - Directions
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
10:00 AM
(508) 872-4388

Introduction-Whitney Beals, WSCAC Chair
Approval of July and November 2010 Minutes

I. FEATURED PRESENTATION: Steve Estes-Smargiassi will be presenting the Report on 2010 Water Use Trends and provide an update on the Hultman redundancy projects. (30 min.)

II. WSCAC Briefs: Lexi Dewey will update the committee on the SWMI process with the goal of obtaining member feedback to be used in generating WSCAC comments. (Material will be sent out before the meeting) A quick update and discussion on the status of the bottle bill to solidify WSCAC’s position. Comments will be sent to legislators.

THE NEXT WSCAC MEETING WILL BE A JOINT MEETING WITH WAC ON THE MWRA BUDGET UPDATE & CHALLENGES WITH KATHY SONI, MWRA BUDGET DIRECTOR FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 2011 T 10:30 AM AT THE METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION IN BOSTON.

Back to top

Minutes - WSCAC Meeting
Thursday, February 3, 2011

Minutes February 3, 2011. The Wastewater Advisory Committee and Water Supply Citizen Advisory Committee to the MWRA held its joint monthly meeting at the MAPC in Boston.

Attendees: Larry Schafer WAC, (Newton)
Ed Bretschneider (Staff-WAC)
Karen Lachmayr (WAC and Harvard)
Stephen Greene (WAC and Howland-Greene Consultants)
Martin Pillsbury (MAPC, WAC&WSCAC)
Joseph Favaloro (Advisory Board)
Pamela Heidell (MWRA)
Beth Miller (Civil Infrastructure)
Taber Keally (WAC and NepRWA)
Maggie Atanasov (Advisory Board and WAC)
Lexi Dewey (WSCAC)
Whitney Beals (WSCAC and NEFF)
Fred Laskey (MWRA)
Richard Trubiano (MWRA)
John Vetere (MWRA)
Mike Morris (MWRA)
Mike Hornbrook (MWRA),
Joel Bariera (MAPC and MWRA BOD)
Paul Lauenstein (WSCAC)
Steve Cullen (MWRA)
Margaret Van Hausen (WSCAC and CRWA)
Betsy Works (WatchWater Gloucester)

Stephen Greene called the joint meeting to order at 10:30. The WAC minutes for January was presented and approved.

Legislative Agenda Update – Fred Laskey

Fred said that the MWRA works closely with Joe Favaloro and the Advisory Board on what the legislative agenda should be. Approval of the MWRA Board of Directors on MWRA’s legislative agenda is obtained. He added we work with our legislative caucus and what they think is acceptable. Fred mentioned once the BOD accepts it we file the
legislation. He added that the MWRA has sought federal relief funding for emergency related expenses associated with the excessive wet weather events in the spring.

One of the most significant issues for the Authority is debt service assistance. The state subsidy for the portion of the debt service on many of our major projects is now on life support: This program starting years back to help support the cleaning of the harbor.

Over the last few years we’ve lost about $60 million in assistance that now has to be absorbed by ratepayers rather than assisted by the entire state.

To try to make up for some of these costs the Advisory Board is advocating expansion of the bottle bill to include a deposit on bottled water. Unclaimed deposits would go into a dedicated Water and Wastewater Infrastructure fund to be used by municipalities, water
districts, and the MWRA for water and sewer infrastructure repairs and projects.

Fred mentioned the PILOT (Payment-in-lieu of taxes) program in the Quabbin Reservoir that now in effect results in some duplicate payments. Reform is sought. He continued that an important goal is that when laws are mandated by the state they should put up some funds to support them.

Stephen Greene asked as you look at these proposals is there anyway that the two committees can weigh in to lend support and assistance. Fred said support to keep the bottle bill in play would be helpful. Also the funding we are asking for is to support statewide projects and benefits and that the state should provide some level of support.

He added that projects went forth with the idea that the state would be partners with the MWRA. Joe Favaloro added that to the extent that the committees can support that there should be a dedicated state support for sewer and water infrastructure like the bottle bill and like debt service assistance that would be helpful. Fred added that municipalities are dealing with additional direction from regulators on storm water and that is going to drive another whole set of issues regarding funding.

Stephen Greene asked in the unlikely event that there is some federal funding is the MWRA positioned to compete for it. Fred said we are always well positioned because of our Master Plan as well as our long-term capital strategy. This means we have projects that are shovel ready or close enough to get going. Joe Favaloro added just look at the stimulus funding and how much went to the MWRA because of being ready to implement. He added that with all the talk about cutting spending at the federal level there is not much funding in the foreseeable future.

Fred moved to water issues where he said redundancy and storage is key. The water break suffered last year just emphasized the discussions we have been having with the Board about new redundancy projects.

Maintenance – John Vetere and Steven Cullen

John said maintenance is a high priority at the MWRA to ensure that we keep the operations running smoothly and we don’t run into the problems we did many years ago at Deer Island. He then reviewed what he called the archway, which is our maintenance program, and how we maintain and how we design the maintenance system. John talked
about the Facility Asset Management Plan (FAMP). He said it is all encompassing and includes benchmarking, the master plan as well as the computer system that measures everything we do and tracks the costs associated with that (Maximo). John said the most important item, which is the foundation of our success, is management commitment. He
added like any archway all components are important, remove anyone and the archway will collapse.

John said our goal is very simple we want to prolong equipment life and we want to make sure we don’t have large spikes in our capital spending because if we do it shows we are not doing proper planning or proper maintenance. He said we don’t want to replace things prematurely or obviously wait till they fail. John said it is an art as well as a science.

John moved to Deer Island and noted it was the centerpiece to the clean up of Boston Harbor. He noted that it was a $3.8 billion construction project and it is built on 120 acres. He added that maximum treatment capacity is 1.27 billion gal/day and average daily flow is 365 million gal/day. Maximum treatment capacity occurs during storm
conditions. John said Deer Island is the second largest treatment plant in the U.S., the largest is Detroit.

John next discussed the John J. Carroll Water Treatment Plant, which was placed in service in the summer of 2005 at a cost of $350 million. Maximum plant capacity is 405mgd and is designed for 270 mgd average, but operates at less than 200mgd. John said some interesting points are that primary disinfection is ozone, our secondary
disinfection is going to be UV, requiring a $38 million upgrade, which will start this fall. This obviously is a huge asset and we want to make sure it is protected and maintained.

Fred Laskey added that in winter flows are so low we might have to make upgrades to make sure we can handle these low flows, which is a result of very successful conservation efforts.

John reviewed Metro Operations which he described as well designed and that the people who came up with this system were geniuses. He said the transport system is $2.2 billion of assets and the water system is $6.0 billion of assets. When you think of that it is a tremendous amount of assets to keep maintained and running.

Regarding capital spending John said we get tremendous support from the MWRA BOD, Spending FY08 through FY12 is $1,010 million to keep operations running and improve redundancy and the overall system. He reviewed some major capital projects; spot pond storage facility ($63M), Metrowest Tunnel ($704M) and Huitman Aqueduct that we
continue to do for the next 21/2 years and of course Deer Island ($512M). He said where spending a ton of money on just replacement of equipment. John said that maintenance is 17% of the total FY12 expense budget and we are going to continue to argue for similar expenditures to ensure best in class operations.

John reviewed maintenance planning, which consists of crating a maintenance priority list and a daily dispatch record that schedules work and tracks productivity. He reviewed the tremendous amount of work this entails including over 41000-work orders/year and over 2000 preventive maintenance/month. The results speak for themselves, 100% preventive maintenance completed, 98% equipment availability and less than 1% emergency maintenance. He said we use reliability centric maintenance system (RCM) to help us determine when equipment is going to fail that allows us time to repair or replace. This all meets or exceeds industry goals for maintenance metrics, in many cases it is best in class performance but not all, we are always striving to improve our performance. John added that operations also does light maintenance which a major productivity advantage.

One of our metrics is backlog, which tells do we have enough money, do we have enough staff. There is always a 3-5 week backlog. We work this to make sure we are not over or understaffing and the same goes for materials.

John talked about wastewater pipeline maintenance. He noted there are 228 miles of sewer pipeline and we are able to maintain 32 miles at a time with our camera inspection system every year. We then identify as good, needs repair or needs immediate repair. We then build that into our capital program. There are also siphon inspections and manhole
inspections. On the waterside we have a leak detection system and we inspect our entire water pipeline of 284 miles every year.

John said regarding preventive maintenance it is done on a set program. These programs are audited and monitored through our quality control program. He added predictive maintenance is much more complicated. If you can predict when something is going to fail you have a better way of replacing it; you can plan it and schedule it in a proactive
not reactive way. Heat analysis and oil analysis are examples of predictive maintenance. Some of these analyses are done through contract work John said one of the areas where we are best in class is having operations do light maintenance PM’s. This was
accomplished through a program that we negotiated successfully with the unions. This approach is much more productive than to continue to work in silos. This saves time for maintenance to do some of the more critical work. John showed the impact of dealing with water leaks in a vigilant fashion and how that has contributed to declines in water usage.

John mentioned the Maximo computerized maintenance system where every piece of equipment is entered into and tracked that now is interfaced with our Lawson system that tacks all our account payable, all our purchasing and all our warehouse activity. We can now measure costs for every piece of equipment that is being maintained.

All that we have described takes knowledgeable skilled workers to execute. We have an intensive operations and maintenance training program that covers alignment, Maximo, Vibration, RCM and others to keep the knowledge base where it needs to be. John said to control costs much training is done on site.

Back to top

Agenda - WAC/WSCAC Joint Meeting
at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council -  Directions (PDF)
Thursday, February 3, 2011
10:30 AM
(617) 451-2770

Introduction-Stephen Greene, WAC Chair

(Approval of WSCAC July and November 2010 Minutes-end of meeting)

FEATURED PRESENTATION: John Vetere, Deputy Chief Operating Officer of Operations, Engineering & Construction and Richard Trubiano, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Programs, Policy & Planning will be presenting on System Maintenance. The presentation will highlight the rigorous nature of the Authority’s asset management and maintenance efforts. John and Rick will review the framework for the maintenance program for water and wastewater facilities, equipment, pipelines and valves, and outline the MWRA’s longer term Facilities Asset Management Program strategy.

MWRA Exec. Director Fred Laskey is scheduled to present the current legislative agenda, update members on the status of ongoing redundancy projects and NPDES permitting. Advisory Board Director Joe Favaloro will be available to contribute to the discussion.

If you would like to receive WSCAC agendas and minutes by email, please email the WSCAC office at info@wscac.org

THE NEXT WSCAC MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011 AT THE MWRA FACILITIES IN SOUTHBOROUGH AT 10:00 AM

Back to top

DIRECTIONS

Directions to MWRA - Southborough

266 Boston Road
Southborough, MA  01772
(508) 872-4388

MA Pike East or West to Exit 12 (Rt. 9-Framingham)
Proceed to Rt. 9 West and follow toward the Sheraton Tara Hotel
At the first set of lights make a RIGHT onto California Ave.
(You will see a sign for the entrance to the Framingham Industrial Park)
Follow California Ave. and make a LEFT onto New York Ave.
Make a RIGHT onto Rt. 30 East
Entrance is 50 yards on the LEFT. Stay right and park in the first lot
Enter through the double doors and proceed to the conference room on the left.

Back to top

Directions to the DCR Quabbin Visitors Center and Administration Building

FROM BOSTON: Take the Mass. Turnpike to Exit 8 (Palmer). At the end of the Exit Ramp turn left onto Route 32 North and proceed for 8 miles. In Ware turn left at the green sign "Route 9 West" (just past McDonalds). Go 2/10ths of a mile to a stop sign. Turn left onto Route 9 and proceed west for 7 miles. Turn right at the green sign marked "Quabbin Reservoir - Winsor Dam" (Note: This will be the second green sign on your right. The first sign, located at the 5.3 mile mark, provides access to the main Quabbin Park area, including the Enfield Lookout and Quabbin Observation Tower). Turn right at this entrance and proceed 1/2 mile to DCR Quabbin Administration Building, the large brick building on the right.

FROM SPRINGFIELD: Take the Mass. Turnpike to Exit 7 (Ludlow). Turn right on Route 21 heading north towards Belchertown. Continue on Route 21 through Belchertown Center to Route 9. Turn right at the stop sign onto Route 9 east and proceed 2 miles to the green sign marked "Quabbin Reservoir - Winsor Dam". Turn left at the sign and go 1/2 mile to the large brick building which overlooks the reservoir.

FROM AMHERST: Take Route 9 east towards Belchertown. The entrance to Quabbin is 3 miles east of the intersection with Route 202 and is marked with a sign "Quabbin Reservoir - Winsor Dam". Turn left at the sign and go 1/2 mile to the large brick building which overlooks the reservoir.

FROM THE NORTH: Take Route 2 to Route 202 south. Proceed 21 miles to the traffic light at the intersection with Route 9. Turn left onto Route 9 east and proceed 3 miles to the green sign marked "Quabbin Reservoir - Winsor Dam". Turn left and proceed 1/2 mile to the large brick building which overlooks the reservoir.
A parking lot is marked on your right, just before the Administration Building.

Back to top

Directions to the MWRA Facilities in Southborough

MA Pike East or West to Exit 12 (Rt. 9-Framingham)
Proceed to Rt. 9 West and follow toward the Sheraton Tara Hotel
At the first set of lights make a RIGHT onto California Ave.
(You will see a sign for the entrance to the Framingham Industrial Park)
Follow California Ave. and make a LEFT onto New York Ave.
Make a RIGHT onto Rt. 30 East
Entrance is 50 yards on the LEFT.  Stay right and park in the first lot. Enter through the double doors and proceed to the conference room on the left.

Back to top

Updated December 14, 2011