19 1. Discussion and Possible Action: I&I- Endorsement of Selected Approach of

Transcription

1 1 DRAFT 2 PUBLIC UTILillES COMMISSION JOHN STREET 4 WALLINGFORD, CT 5 Tuesday, February 3, :30P.M. 7 MINUTES 8 9 PRESENT: Vice-Chair David Gessert, Acting as Chair; Commissioners Richard Nunn & Robert 10 Beaumont, (via telephone); Director George Adair; Mayor William Dickinson; Vincent Mascia, Sr. 11 Engineer, Water & Sewer Divisions; Erik Krueger, P.E., Engineer/Planner, Water & Sewer 12 Divisions; Office Manager William Phelan; Cynthia Kleist, Recording Secretary 13 Vice-Chair Gessert, Acting as Chair, called the Meeting to order at 6:32p.m. 14 Acting-Chair Gessert asked about the statement in the Water mailer regarding the Minutes 15 being available. He asked that the Minutes also be available at the Library. Mr. Adair said he will 16 investigate the matter. 17 Public Question & Answer Period- 6:30 to 6:45P.M. 18 No Questions from the Public Discussion and Possible Action: I&I- Endorsement of Selected Approach of 20 Removal of Customer-owned I&I.: 21 a. Endorse the attached Policy Regarding Reimbursement of Infiltration and 22 Inflow Removal Costs (the "III Reimbursement Policy") 23 b. Endorse the proposed Private-Side I/ I Removal Program. 24 Mr. Beaumont moved the endorsement of Selected Approach of Removal of 25 Customer-owned I&I: Endorse the attached Policy Regarding Reimbursement of 26 Infiltration and Inflow Removal Costs (the "III Reimbursement Policy") and 27 Endorse the proposed Private-Side I/I Removal Program. Mr. Nunn seconded the 28 motion. 29 Mr. Adair discussed the removal program. He said there have been a number of meetings 30 amongst staff to hammer out the terms. He said he believes this is a sustainable and credible 31 program for addressing I&I and will be a multi-year undertaking. He noted this program will Tuesda~Feb.3,2015 Page 1

2 1 not extinguish all customer-owned I&I in two or three years, but will be an ongoing effort. Mr. 2 Gessert asked Mr. Adair to explain why the I&I issue is being addressed. Mr. Adair said the 1/I 3 is the unwanted intrusion of water into the Division's collection system, (Inflow & Infiltration), 4 with inflow being typically from roof leaders, open pipes which cross streams, where you have 5 direct rainwater or surface water entering. Mr. Adair said infiltration is typically from 6 groundwater seeping or flowing into cracks and the two together cause an overload of the 7 sewage treatment plant. He added there is a dry weather flow rate of 4.5 million gallons a day 8 and during wet weather conditions, the figure can be 30 million gallons or more. He said this is 9 a huge peaking factor which has on occasion resulted in overflows from the plant which 10 interferes with the treatment process. Mr. Adair said on South Turnpike and the I-91 pump 11 station there are overflows. He said there has been surcharging of sewer lines which can result 12 in the backup of sewage in people's basements. He said there is a range of operational 13 problems related to I/I. He pointed out the language in the Division's NPDES permit which 14 states that if the average flow rate in a 12-month period exceeds 90% of the plant capacity, 15 which would be 7.2 MGD, the Division is required to perform a study with the intent of either 16 upgrading plant capacity to deal with the flow, or addressing the problem. 17 Mr. Adair said costs to upgrade the plant could cost approximately $30 million. He said even 18 more likely would be an administrative order from DEEP to mitigate the I/1. He cited the 19 Metropolitan District and the Town of Greenwich and others are under some sort of order to do 20 this on a timetable imposed by DEEP. Mr. Adair spoke about the 2009 Wright-Pierce Report 21 concerning four basins, which the Division felt were representative of different ages of 22 construction and types of materials in Towns, The study evaluated where the I/1 was coming 23 from, i.e., the mains, manholes and the public system, which the Division continues to address 24 with linings and point repairs; or was the I/I from private sources, i.e., roof leaders, sump 25 pumps, foundation drains, window well drains, leaking laterals, etc. He said the Wright-Pearce 26 study revealed that over 80% of the excess flow reaching the treatment plant was from 27 privately-owned sources. He said the source of the problem is myriad, all over town. He said 28 in 2012, the ordinance which had been in effect since the 1970's was updated. This Ordinance 29 addresses the removal of private I/I sources, The creation of this original ordinance was 30 associated with the upgrade of the treatment plant and to satisfy at that time, the EPA. He 31 said this ordinance, which was found to be outdated and outmoded, was upgraded to 32 effectively go after privately-owned sources. He said this ordinance makes it clear that the cost 33 to remove these sources is to be borne by the property owner and not by the Town. 34 Mr. Adair said, following the passage of that ordinance, there were memoranda and a variety of 35 meetings in which staff developed various approaches to address the PUC's concerns regarding 36 the impact of the costs of removal on the private citizen. He spoke about people on a fixed 37 income and in older homes that may not be aware their roof leaders; sump pump may be 38 connected to a sanitary sewer, or who may reside in a part of Town where this was legal at one 39 time. He said concerns about some property owners incurring large financial burdens to make Tuesda~Feb.3,2015 Page 2

3 1 these removals were discussed by the PUC and by staff. He said the I/I reimbursement policy 2 being presented, lays out the rule book and the reimbursement amounts, including deductibles 3 of how the Sewer Division could go about requiring people to remove these sources and how 4 the Division would go about paying for the cost of removal. He noted there are exceptions, i.e., 5 deductibles for laterals where the Sewer Division would pay half but no more than half. He said 6 this proposed ordinance is aimed at covering that cost. Mr. Adair pointed out the most salient 7 feature of this proposed removal program takes monies which are currently in the amount of 8 approximately $1 million which are being collected through customer service charges, and are 9 being set aside with the idea of doing a system-wide I/I study to track down every one of these 10 private sources and once identified, begin the process of removing them with or without help 11 from the Sewer Division. He said the main feature of what is being proposed for the removal 12 program, would be to change the purpose of this money, and instead use it to hire necessary 13 staff and purchase additional flow monitoring equipment and have the remainder available to 14 pay for those removals. 15 Mr. Adair said in lieu of a system-wide study, the Sewer Division would take the information in 16 currently has and improve upon it with a more comprehensive flow monitoring study. He said 17 beginning in July, the Division could begin identifying and paying to remove these sources. He 18 said this program would allow the Sewer Division to target the problem areas such as the area 19 around the I-91 pump station. Mr. Adair said he believed this could be handled with one 20 additional inspector. Mr. Adair said all of this would be done with no impact on current rates by 21 changing the purpose of this fund which is now being set aside for a study. He said according 22 to Corporation Counsel Janis Small, changing the use of these funds would not require a rate 23 making action because the funds are already part of the rates. 24 Mr. Gessert said he was shocked with the first version came out and what it might do to the 25 customer who couldn't pay for this. He said progress has been made and asked about the flow 26 monitoring system, the cost and installation time. Mr. Phelan said there are preliminary budget 27 figures for 20 additional flow meters, which would cost approximately $ Mr. Phelan said 28 the Division currently has 6 flow meters. Mr. Adair said these flow meters are portable and can 29 be moved from manhole to manhole. Mr. Mascia explained the rationale for the number of flow 30 meters (26). He said the collection system is divided roughly into 26 drainage areas. He said in 31 defining the scope of the problem is not having enough flow monitors in place simultaneously. 32 He said each storm is different, and one storm area may have a lower flow component of I/I 33 measured/ then during a different period of time. Mr. Mascia said what the Division wants to 34 do is put the flow meters to use simultaneously, one in each drainage area at strategic locations 35 to find out how each area behaves. He said this would help the Division to be able to focus 36 more on where the problems are. Mr. Gessert asked why the Division can't purchase six flow 37 meters and install them in the major quadrants. Mr. Mascia said the problem with this idea is 38 that the data needed cannot be captured. Mayor Dickinson said most storms don't affect the 39 Town equally. He said he assumes that most periods of precipitation don't affect all of the Tuesda~Feb.3,2015 Page 3

4 _~:'/'f:ii!'i~' ~ ' ~>..:.-...::_:,;0, 'j l. ~ j i I basins equally. He asked how the Division would take that dynamic into account; it won't be an equal measurement. Mr. Mascia noted there is variability in the amount of rainfall in Town in one given storm. He said that typically, there are different components of the I.I; the inflow from roof leaders is usually an immediate effect that can be seen. He said other effects from the infiltration, takes place from cracks and crevices from pipes which is not seen for days later and tends to build and accumulate. Mr. Mascia said if we have the 26 units in service simultaneously, there could be a rain event that affects one area of town, but with only the six units, they may not be in the correct location to catch a peak event. He said if we had all the units in place during a rain event, some of the units may be able to catch this worst case rainfall in that zone. He said the Division wants to know what the main peak area is and if there is no flow monitor there, we may not catch the storm event. Mayor Dickinson asked if this was meant as a study, because at least two years of data would be needed. Mr. Adair said the Division would target the l-91 pump station because of known I/I problems and other upgrades need to be made in that area. He said there is no shortage of known areas to begin pursuing I/I removal, but as we continue, we want to be able to characterize each part of Town and this is the best available method to do this because we have means of comparison. Mayor Dickinson said he believed there was a confused message here. He said on one hand, the Division is speaking about an ordinance which immediately has people made responsible to clean up their I/I and on the other hand, the Division is saying they want to spend money in an attempt to determine what the circumstances are in each of the basins. He said we are not going to do everything at the same time. Mr. Adair noted that program envisioned earlier The Division would have done a Town-wide study; we were literally going to set foot on every premise in Town to look for violations. Mayor Dickinson asked how long of a time period would be needed for the 26 flow meters in operation to reach a conclusion. Mr. Mascia said the rough estimate would be two years minimum. He said we could have a dry year next year and would need more time. Mr. Mascia said there are other areas we have problems such as the South Turnpike Rd siphon. He said one problem with that area, is that the Division isn't certain they have enough information to size the replacement pipes so flow monitoring would be implemented there. He said going forward, there are other areas nearing failure conditions on a piece of pipe. He said the Division would like to focus its efforts on I/I removal program in those areas we can forestall another pipe replacement if the Division can get the I/I equipment out in advance. Mr. Adair noted replacing the pipe is the Town's problem but removing the cause of the problem would be on the private-side. Mr. Mascia said if we can go into the problem drainage area and move deeper into it to identify a neighborhood or street and compare It to another neighborhood or street to determine which one is giving us the. peaking factor, this could take less than two years. He said the one with the highest peaking area is where the Division needs to focus on I/I removal rather than a broad drainage area. He noted the flow monitoring is necessary to determine whether the Division was successful in removing Tuesday,Feb.3,2015 Page 4

5 1 the I/I. Mr. Adair said this is a way to calibrate the hydraulic model of the sewer system which 2 has taken a long time because the Division hasn't had enough flow data points to plug in. Mr. 3 Mascia said if the Division works on the worst streets, they will get the biggest bang for the 4 buck in terms of I/I removal. He noted when defects are identified in our system, we attend to 5 it right away. 6 Mayor Dickinson said he was a troubled about the way this program was going to be presented 7 because he didn't see a connection between the ramp-up and what we are going to do. He said 8 he is hearing a specific area will be done. He said he understood we need the ordinance to be 9 in place, but that is not going to be that everyone in Town is going to be notified to check their 10 roof leaders and sump pumps and immediately notify the Division if there is a problem. 11 Mr. Adair said this will be presented universally. Mr. Phelan said realistically, once the flow 12 monitors are installed, we could have significant rainfall within a month and have data of 13 problematic areas within six months. Mayor Dickinson noted that if one area is going to be 14 compared to another it would take two years to get enough data, one storm is not going to tell 15 you this. He said what is confusing is that it is being said we need to years to analyze the data, 16 but we are starting this I/I removal program immediately for everyone. Mr. Adair said we are 17 not moving ahead to enforce the ordinance on the books because the message and the 18 approach have been in question. He said whether or not we go after any given areas, we have 19 to do something. He said the reason we want to do a program now is that we are finding 20 occasional I/I issues and noted there will be a link with the Building Dept. to ensure the Division 21 will forge communications with them and involved in the inspection process to ensure 22 foundation drains are connected to the sewer system. 23 Mr. Adair discussed why the Division should pay for the cost of I/I removal. He said there is 24 funding to begin paying for these removals. Mayor Dickinson said any monies for I/I shall not 25 be used for any other purpose that is not part of the I/I program. Mr. Adair suggested the 26 possibility of funding the purchase of the flow monitors separately. Mr. Mascia pointed out that 27 if the I/I program were not here for discussion, we would still be budgeting for these flow 28 monitors. Mr. Gessert asked how close the Town was to getting an order from DEEP. Mr. Adair 29 said the last time the Town was close was four to five years ago, 6.9 vs. 7.2, a 12-month 30 average. 31 Mr. Gessert asked how the message would be given to the public that this program is needed, 32 what it is about, and how it is in the public's best interest to cooperate. Mr. Adair said the 33 program hasn't been designed yet and might look at time with a PR firm for preparation of print 34 material, using the Water/Sewer website and possibly something in the newspaper, mail outs 35 and very likely meeting with organizations and explaining this to them. He said we could ask 36 the Health Dept. and Parks and Recreation to help with ideas. Mayor Dickinson suggested 37 sending notices out to everyone in the targeted areas. He said there has to be general 38 knowledge. Mr. Nunn stated that we have made a commitment to the public that we are not.tuesday, Feb. 3, 2015 Page 5

6 1 walking away from these issues and laying all the expenses for correction on the customer. Mr. 2 Mascia talked about implementing a public information program. Mayor Dickinson said this has 3 two be individually addressed with a notice to the particular area. He said there has to be a 4 presentation to the Town Council and then a second presentation to the Ordinance Committee. 5 Mr. Gessert asked questions about information on pg. 1.4, procedure for re-imbursement and. 6 pg. 1.5 of the draft proposal. Mr. Adair said a form for re-imbursement would have to 7 accompany the notice. Regarding pg. 1.5, Mr. Krueger said this is meant to be anyone who is 8 qualified to do the work can get a permit from the Sewer Division, a contractor or in the case of 9 a single-family home, a homeowner. He said it is saying that an individual that meets the 10 requirement to obtain a permit from the Sewer Division. He said the requirements are that a 11 person has to be a licensed plumber working through the homeowner with bond or insurance 12 on file with the Sewer Division, or a single-family home which is owned by the homeowner can 13 take the permit out as a homeowner and work solely on their property. Mr. Mascia noted this is 14 the same condition as of today which would allow a homeowner to do a repair on their lateral. 15 Mr. Adair said an earlier version left out the homeowner as the party that might do the work to 16 remove an I/I source. Mr. Phelan said that paragraph was intended to advise the property 17 owner on what category of re-imbursement they may fall into. He said the property owner may 18 not understand there are certain deductibles associated with a roof leader which had to be 19 removed, certain caps, and so what we wanted to do at this point is to advise the property 20 owner that there are a list of items which need to be addressed and this is what you are eligible 21 to receive. 22 Mr. Mascia explained that before the property owner proceeds to make the repairs, a permit 23 must be taken out from our office in order to proceed with the repairs. He noted that prior to 24 this occurrence, the Sewer Division would want to review the quote to ensure it's a reasonable 25 expense and the repair being done will remove the I/I. Mayor Dickinson asked about the Order 26 to Correct and what would happen if a property owner came in to the Sewer Division, and said 27 he was aware of the issue without being notified, he came in on his own. Mayor Dickinson said 28 he was unsure if this proposed language creates an issue of whether or not the property owner 29 has to receive an Order to Correct or could they come in on their own. Mr. Mascia said if the 30 property owner self-identifies, they could be issued an Order to Correct at that point. Mr. 31 Phelan said he believed the intent was that if the Division offered this up as was planned to the 32 entire Town, the Division would issue an Order to Correct to anyone who either volunteered or 33 that we found to have a violation. 34 Mr. Gessert suggested that under this re-imbursement procedure that if someone who self- 35 identifies and has a problem, be eligible for re-imbursement if the problem is corrected. Mr. 36 Adair said something could be added that the same rules would apply whether or not the 37 problem was self-identified or was found by the Division. Mr. Gessert asked about "defective 38 main" on pg. 1.6 He asked how many customers would have defective mains. Mr. Phelan Regu\ar Meeting Tuesda~Feb.3,2015 Page6

7 1 explained this would occur in condo complexes which may have private mains. Mr. Mascia said 2 this is not uncommon because there are a number of private mains and do not want to 3 preclude this from being repaired under the program. The Commission then discussed possible 4 edits to the draft policy. Mr. Gessert asked questions about laterals. Mr. Mascia explained that 5 a homeowner who would look to use this program to have a lateral replaced that maybe is 6 materially deficient but not necessarily taking in I/1. He said we don't want to pay for 7 everyone's lateral to be upgraded just because they have an old lateral; we want to be certain 8 by our means of assessment that it is taking on I/I and the repair will remove I/1. He said we 9 need to judge whether the lateral is I/I potential. 10 Mr. Gessert cited an example of old laterals in the center of Town. He asked how many of those 11 laterals were likely to have root invasion. Mr. Mascia said one must look at the area. He gave an 12 example of a lateral on South Cherry St. which had roots but no infiltration. He said the ground 13 conditions and the area must be looked at and considered. He noted that just having a 14 defective pipe doesn't mean it is an I/I contributor. 15 Mr. Adair said laterals constitute the only category here that represents an improvement to the 16 property if they are repaired. All the other categories, if they are functioning properly, can kill 17 the Division with I/I, but represent no problem to the homeowner. He noted that leaking 18 laterals are the one category where not every one of them is a source of I/1. He said this is 19 why there cannot be an open-ended program with this category. 20 Mr. Nunn said the major thrust is what are we attempting to do to get rid of I/1. He said we 21 should not lose sight of what our purpose is. Mr. Mascia said we should not be using money to 22 do things that are not going to have an I/I benefit. Mr. Adair said based on the Wright-Pierce 23 study, we cannot leave that category off because laterals can be a real source of I/I. Mayor 24 Dickinson said behind all of this is the issue of too much water entering our system which 25 means we have the overflows and damage to the environment we don't want. He said this is a 26 far more real issue than phosphorous. Mr. Mascia noted that if we have overflows, we are 27 looking at moratoriums, telling people they can't connect and don't want to go down that road. 28 Mr. Gessert asked about the numbers (costs) on pg. 1.5, i.e., roof leaders at $125 each 29 maximum reimbursement with a $62.50 deductible. He suggested the $62.50 be changed to 30 $50.00 which he believed was an easier number to work with. Mr. Gessert also said he believed 31 $250 each for the deductible for sump pumps was too high of a percentage and suggested this 32 $250 be changed to $100. He asked if there is an inspection would a list and potential costs be 33 given to the property owner and the amount the Division would pay. Mr. Adair said this has to 34 be part of the program and is the Division's intention. Mr. Gessert asked about economic 35 hardships and appeal payments on pg "Advanced Payment". 36 Mayor Dickinson on pg. 1.7 asked about "Lateral Repair". Mr. Phelan said the property owner 37 would have to pay their $1,750 share eventually. Mr. Gessert asked about time limits. Mr. Adair Tuesday,Feb.3,2015 Page7

8 1 explained this was the time to remove after a problem had been identified and he believes is up 2 to the PUC. Mr. Krueger said he believed this would be an individual agreement with each 3 property owner. Mr. Phelan said if the cost was between $1,500 and $1,800 the property owner 4 would have 18 months to pay. He said this is a proposal at this point. Mr. Gessert asked about 5 an appeal process when the property owner sees the cost. Mr. Adair said there is an appeal 6 process in the adopted policy and in the ordinance. Mr. Gessert asked if there would be public 7 input as far as the setting of the cost figures. Mr. Krueger said these costs were generally taken 8 from the Wright-Pierce Study. He said he has generated numbers for costs which were not in 9 the Study. Mr. Adair said the PUC would have to adopt the policy and would be a matter of a 10 public meeting. Mr. Mascia pointed out the owner has the ability of obtaining his own quotes for 11 the work; he gets his own contractor and can get as many costs as he wants and control the 12 cost and to an extent, this is where the public has input. He emphasized these costs are the 13 maximum amounts. He said this is why we have to review the quotation to ensure it is a 14 reasonable number, we won't just rubber stamp everyone's quote. 15 Mr. Gessert suggested $50 deductible for the roof leaders and $100 deductible for the sump 16 pump and leave the rest alone. Mr. Nunn said he didn't see the need to change the original 17 estimate staff has made. Mr. Beaumont said he didn't have a problem with the $250 and said 18 he has had nothing to do with roof leaders and doesn't see this being a lot of money depending 19 upon where it is in town; if it were on Center Street, where the water can come out onto the 20 street that is another issue. He said most roof drains corrections can be a matter of installing an 21 elbow on it so it is no longer corrected. 22 Mr. Adair noted there was a meeting with Engineering and Public Works and will require a close 23 working relationship. Mr. Mascia suggested having a sub-category for the sump pumps; it could 24 be either a splash pad or roof leader drain. He said there has to be a program which recognizes 25 that if the water is not properly discharged when the disconnect takes place, it will come back 26 into the system and must ensure there is a viable drain alternative. He said this has been our 27 experience to date. He said we have to make sure we have a program to fund this type of 28 repair. Mr. Adair said the deductibles were in place to balance some involvement by the 29 property owner. He said the total dollars we avoid paying are obviously small, compared to the 30 total expenditures. Mayor Dickinson said there should be some responsibility and where we can 31 encourage people to become a part of the program for a minor amount is worth it. Mr. Gessert 32 said if the fact is promoted there are a certain amount of funds available right now to help do 33 this, and if there are problems in the house and they are defined and want help fixing this, now 34 is the time to come forward. 35 Mr. Beaumont said this is something that will work and will give us a working policy and as time 36 goes on the policy can certainly be amended if we find there are issues. Mr. Gessert said there 37 have been a lot of positive changes and applauded everyone's effort to move in the right 38 direction. Mr. Mascia said the lower sump pump deductible will encourage more participation. 39 Mayor Dickinson said we have a good program which is environmentally sound. Mr. Gessert said Tuesday,Feb.3,2015 Page 8

9 1 the simple sump pump deductible would now be $100. Mr. Beaumont said he would agree to 2 this because he is looking at a percentage basis. 3 Vote: 3 ayes Discussion and Possible Action: I&I - Endorsing Request to Wallingford Town 5 Ordinance Committee to Amend Ordinance 577 to Allow for financing of 6 Customer-owned 1&1 using Sewer Division Funds and to Authorize the 7 Chairman of the PUC to go before the Town Council. Mr. Beaumont made a 8 motion which was seconded by Mr. Nunn. 9 Mayor Dickinson suggested this item be put onto the Town Council agenda to discuss this as an 10 informational meeting; an amendment for the ordinance and selected approach for removal of 11 I&I. He said after appearing in front of the Town Council, a meeting should take place with the 12 Ordinance Committee. 13 Vote: 3 ayes. 14 Mr. Gessert announced this was his last PUC meeting at 100 John Street and his last day will be 15 March 31, He said it was a pleasure to work with everyone over the past 21 years and it 16 was interesting and challenging and expressed hope that he did the best for the utilities and the 17 customers. 18 Mr. Beaumont said he appreciated Mr. Gessert's effort, input and time. 19 ADJOURNMENT 20 Mr. Beaumont made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Mr. Nunn 21 seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 22 Respectfully submitted, 23 Cynthia A. Kleist 24 Recording Secretary Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Nunn Secretary Tuesday,Feb.3,2015 Page 9