The Board of Selectmen held a special meeting Monday that included reports from state Sens. George "Doc" Gunther, R-Stratford, and Louis C. DeLuca, R-Woodbury, as well as state Rep. Len Greene, R-Beacon Falls.
In 1999 residents approved the $5.5 million sewer project that brought both city water and sewer to 216 homes. But at that time, the residents were told that the assessments would run about $15,000 per house, and could be paid over a 10-year period.
Shortly after that approval, it was discovered that the town was millions of dollars in debt, a situation that was only resolved after a special 3-mill tax was assessed. At that time, all major projects, including the sewer project, were put on hold, First Selectman Robert Koskelowski said.
It was almost four years later that work finally began, and recently the bills for the sewer hookup arrived. Shocked residents found that sewer assessment alone ran $15,000, with the water hookups yet to be billed.
It isn't likely
the state will contribute anything to help out the homeowners, the
legislators
told the residents. But Koskelowski said if that is the case, he will
advocate
for the town budget for the next 10 years to include an allocation to
go
toward the assessments, meaning all taxpayers would chip in to pay off
the bills.
After so much
time, and with costs in the interim increasing so much, the residents
should
have had another opportunity to revisit the issue before the work was
done,
Lakeview Avenue resident Art Berardi told the Board of Selectmen.
"The town has a lot of nerve holding the residents responsible for not revoting on the project," he said. "We should only have to pay the original amount that was approved.
"Don't you feel that we should have had a say as to whether we wanted it or not?" he asked. "You went out to bid on this four years ago — why are we being held liable for that?"
Berardi also reminded Koskelowski he promised a forensic audit would be done of the project by an independent auditor. "That hasn't happened," Berardi said. "Bob, you gave us your word."
An independent audit of the work will be done, Koskelowski said. The first bids received for the work were too high, he said, and a second round of bids will be opened next month.
"If [an audit]
shows that you were overcharged, a correction will be made," he said.
And across
the state line...Weston doesn't have this problem (or a big water
tank),
but environmental headaches can always crop up!
Lead Found Near Another Westerly
Water Tank; Town property on Tower Street found to be contaminated
By DAN PEARSON
Day Arts Writer, Westerly, North
Stonington
Published on 9/8/2004
Westerly — A “very significant” amount of lead paint contamination has been discovered on town property and on at least one residential property around a water tank on Tower Street.
At the same time, an inspection report on the Winnapaug water tank calls for the town to repair the tank to prevent it from falling down in a windstorm.
George Prete, the town's special projects coordinator, said Tuesday that Pare Engineering has found lead contamination on at least one private property on Ledward Avenue and under blacktop on the town-owned tank property. A copy of Pare's report was unavailable Tuesday. But Prete said lead levels in some places were 10 times higher than allowed for safe residential exposure limits.
Lead also may have contaminated a commercial property on Granite Street and entered a drain on Tower Street. Prete said the drain is blocked and that it is believed the lead did not travel.
Lead paint was sandblasted from the Tower Street tank before it was painted with non-lead paint in 1985.
Prete said Pare would continue testing and was working on testing guidelines with the Rhode Island departments of Environmental Management and Health. He said the town may conduct lead testing at a water tank site in Bradford.
The
discovery of lead on Tower Street
comes months after the town found high lead levels on public and
private
property at and around the Winnapaug tank off Winnapaug Road, where the
town is preparing to replace the 500,000-gallon tank with a
one-million-gallon
tank. Before the town can build the tank, it must clean up lead on its
property, a process that soon will be completed. It is now conducting
further
testing on residential property and plans to clean that as well.
Residents around the Winnapaug tank
have been critical of the town and recently formed the Winnapaug Tank
Neighborhood
Association. Last week, the association expressed disbelief that the
town
had not performed repairs recommended after a 2001 inspection labeled
the
tank's condition “highly questionable” and warned a severe storm could
result in “catastrophic” damage to houses.
These findings were confirmed in 2003, by C&E Engineering, the town's water consultant, which found that the tank had “undergone extensive structural and coatings deterioration.”
After meeting with residents two weeks ago, the town hired structural engineer Richard St. Jean to again inspect the tank. A copy of his report was not available Tuesday. But Prete said St. Jean determined the tank did not present an “imminent threat” although he found the tank was “compromised” and would present a safety issue to residents in high winds and heavy snows.
As a result, Prete on Tuesday asked C&E's Thomas Nicholson to solicit bids from welding firms to repair rods that support the tank. Residents welcomed the repair plan, but believe the town never would have performed the repairs if homeowners had not brought the structural problems to light.
Members of the neighborhood association again asked the town Tuesday to consider building a low-lying “reservoir” tank instead of the elevated “gravity” tank planned for the site. Residents said this would represent a compromise with the town because it would allow the town to build a tank but would provide homeowners with a less dangerous and invasive structure.
Nicholson
said the town's $1.8 million
elevated tank was already fabricated and stored in Delaware. The town
would
have to pay a $639,000 “termination” fee to cancel its order. Nicholson
said reservoir tanks typically cost $1.4 million, but that they require
sophisticated pumping mechanisms that could cost the town anywhere from
$800,000 to $1.2 million.
A small cottage on the shore might accommodate a family of five for a few days, but a 250-gallon septic tank will not.
Brushing their teeth, flushing the toilet and doing the dishes, mom, dad and the kids will send close to 375 gallons of wastewater gurgling through the pipes of their home into the undersized tank each day.
Eventually, the system will fail and waste will come bubbling to the surface.
Such septic woes have come to plague towns along the Connecticut shoreline, where small cottages often host big crowds in the summer. Even when septic tanks are adequately sized, small plots and high water tables make it hard for the systems to function properly. The result: pollution of groundwater and possibly Long Island Sound.
But a typical alternative, a sewage treatment plant, isn't right for all towns, local officials say. They argue that sewers and a large treatment plant would promote uncontrolled development. High-rise apartment buildings and chain restaurants - familiar sights in other communities with sewers - would destroy the towns' character, they say. Put them in the ground, they warn, and the developers will come.
In 1989, Old Saybrook residents balked at a state Department of Environmental Protection order requiring the town to construct a sewage treatment plant that would also serve Westbrook and Clinton. Since then, the festering problem has gone largely unaddressed, as the towns and DEP continue to haggle over the best solution.
"I don't want to rush anything, but I do think we need to address [this problem]," said State Rep. Brian O'Connor, D-Clinton. "We don't want people dragging their feet."
O'Connor said a large, regional sewer plant is not the solution, but as developers and home-builders increasingly look beyond the crowded Gold Coast of Fairfield County for suitable shoreline lots, the sewer issue remains a concern for the three towns.
The plan Old Saybrook officials developed as an alternative for handling local wastewater, which includes a mix of on-site septic technology, stricter regulations and a mini-treatment plant, would be environmentally better than sewers and a single, large treatment plant, local officials say. They point to Rhode Island, which has researched enhanced on-site systems and has many in the ground, as a model for the future of wastewater treatment.
Now, town officials say, it's a matter of convincing the DEP to embrace these alternative technologies. O'Connor said he would like to see a pilot study of the on-site systems that would demonstrate their effectiveness.
A solution could be reached within the next year, officials say. In the meantime, each of the three towns is proceeding with its own plan. Westbrook is investigating sites that could be used to discharge effluent into the ground. Old Saybrook is evaluating individual septic systems in homes it does not plan to hook up to sewers. And Clinton's consultants have presented the town with a plan for a daunting, $56-million, centralized sewer and treatment plant or several mini-plants, an even more expensive option. Neither option is sitting well with town officials, and nothing is decided.
But Old Saybrook's fight has implications for other communities in Connecticut that will eventually have to address wastewater problems. Whether their future holds sewers or a mix of technologies could hinge on the outcome of this shoreline town's battle with the state.
Magnets For Development?
"Any time you put an urban solution in place, you're going to get urban development," said Steve Luckett, Old Saybrook's water pollution control authority coordinator.
Luckett, a vocal critic of sewers and large treatment plants for communities such as Old Saybrook, was hired two years ago to implement the town's wastewater plan. With approval from the DEP still unclear, Luckett has taken to spreading the word - often on his own time - about the town's plan. He has no doubt sewers and a large treatment plant will contribute to development.
Even if the town tried to restrict building, Luckett said, it would be overwhelmed by high-powered attorneys that developers would use to grab land on the lucrative shoreline. "They would argue [that] if there is capacity and a wastewater pipe, and I want to build something next to it, then how is it you can restrict me from doing that," he said.
With the high cost of sewers, there is also concern that the towns would want to extend them to as many properties as possible, spreading out the expense. The DEP's record over the last decade proves otherwise, said Dennis Greci, a supervising sanitary engineer with the agency's water management bureau. Towns that have gone to sewers have successfully kept unwanted development out through local regulations that restrict where sewers can be used, he said.
Even within an area where sewer-use is allowed, the town can restrict the flow of wastewater from each property, limiting the type of development that can be built, Greci said. Attorney Michael A. Zizka, who has helped craft sewer regulations for North Stonington, Burlington and Coventry among other Connecticut towns, said he has not seen a developer successfully challenge a town's sewer regulations in court.
"If a commission develops regulations, reasonable regulations, that specifically say this is who can connect and spells out the circumstances and nobody else, as long as those regulations pass constitutional muster, courts will respect them," he said. Towns with no regulations, Zizka said, are the ones that have to worry.
"Holding your hands up and saying no sewer means no development isn't true, isn't even close to true anymore," said Greci. But concern over development is only a small part of the conflict between Old Saybrook and the DEP. From the agency's plans for the town to the benefits of on-site technology, the parties agree on nothing.
"It doesn't seem the bureaucracy of the DEP wants to move towards new technology," said Old Saybrook First Selectman Michael Pace, former chairman of the local water pollution control commission. "They are comfortable to stay with old technology and old solutions which have, by their own nature, their own design, proven not to be the most environmentally correct things to do - like the bigger sewer plants."
Old Saybrook officials think the DEP is still committed to a regional sewage treatment plant. Greci calls that "sheer nonsense," saying the DEP has not ruled the technology out. One of the concerns is simply who will maintain the enhanced on-site septic systems, which require more care than conventional septic systems, he said.
"If a town wants this, we're going to look to have the town take the ultimate responsibility for keeping them running because it is an alternative to putting pipes in the ground," Greci said.
Luckett said he is eager to manage such a system. The town has come to the end of its 5-year, subsidized pump-out program that encouraged residents to pump their septic tanks. With backing from the state, Luckett said, the town could enforce these and other regulations that would ensure septic systems run properly and remain up-to-date.
Advanced Technology
David Dow filled a plastic cup with wastewater and held it to his nose. The effluent from a home in South Kingstown, R.I., had passed through a sand filter - one of the filters that can be used in an advanced septic system. "It's a lot like tap water," Dow said, noting that the effluent had no smell and was almost clear.
The system is one of more than 35 that Dow and his team at the University of Rhode Island's Onsite Wastewater Training Center have installed over the last six years using federal and state grants. Dow, an on-site systems specialist, said the filte technology has proven effective for properties on which conventional systems would not work because there is not enough space, the water table is too high, or the soils are not good - the same limitations many properties along the Connecticut coast face. The URI center is demonstrating the technology to get towns on board.
"The technologies in the last 20 or 30 years have been refined to the point where they're easy to maintain, relatively simple to install, and are very reliable," he said. The advanced treatment units consist of either filters or blowers, which add air to encourage the growth of aerobic bacteria that thrive on the effluent. They can be fitted with an ultraviolet light source that knocks down the pathogen and bacteria count. They also often employ pumps to move effluent to the filter and dose it into the leaching field at certain intervals, so the entire field is used and not overwhelmed.
The technology in Rhode Island is coupled with regulations that the state's department of environmental management has given the towns authority to implement. Some towns in the state now require septic systems be inspected and maintained and the towns enforce their regulations with fines. Dow and others say Connecticut has simply lagged behind other states when it comes to the advanced technology, which has not been approved for use in an individual home in the state. Back in Old Saybrook, Luckett hopes he will be among the first to get that chance.
"If the state would let us go and do this, we'd see a tremendous product," he said. "And I have faith that they will."
"From my experience, it's not normal," said Craig Motasky, the DEP inspector who gathered the spill records yesterday from the South Smith Street facility.
A spate of spills
in Norwalk and at other plants, including one in Bridgeport, have led
the
state Bureau of Aquaculture to consider streamlining the process for
determining
if harmful bacteria has been released into waterways. Under the
current
system, state wastewater treatment facilities are not required to
immediately
test spills to determine
whether hazardous
bacteria was released. In such cases, the state may send inspectors,
such
as Motasky, to check claims by plant personnel that the spills do not
pose
health hazards to the public.
Subsequent water sampling and testing by the state require beaches and shellfish beds to be temporarily closed. The process can take several days. "The minute they (plants) have a problem, we want them to be able to take a sample from their effluent pipe and find out the next day the bacterial numbers they're getting," said Lori Romick, an environmental analyst for the aquaculture bureau, which makes the decision to close the shellfish beds. "Right now, I'm using my best professional judgment to close (the beds) on a precautionary basis. Sometimes it may prove necessary, sometimes not."
Romick closed shellfish beds in Norwalk for almost a week after last Friday's spill while she determined whether the waters were clean enough for harvesting. The beds were reopened yesterday morning. Her argument is that immediate testing of spilled sewage could help her determine whether to reopen shellfish beds within 24 hours. Martin Overton, assistant director of Norwalk's public works department and the city's liaison with the plant, said he believes her solution could prove more complicated than it sounds. But Overton added: "When you have the public saying 'how do we know things are safe?,' sometimes the only way is to go a little beyond what you know is safety."
Romick said she plans to speak with Motasky and Bill Hogan, the DEP's engineer of water pollution control facilities, about requiring "emergency sampling." In light of recent concern over spills at the Norwalk plant -- two this past weekend -- Motasky collected data back to May 1 to determine whether they were properly reported to the DEP and how they can be avoided. He found that, in addition to spills documented in the media -- on May 26, May 31, June 4, June 7, June 13 and June 14 -- three others were recorded by plant staff in the past month and a half.
DEP officials late last week speculated plant officials were focusing too much effort on removing environmentally harmful nitrogen from the wastewater and shortchanging its abilities to handle extra flow introduced to the system during heavy rain. Motasky could not provide the dates of the additional spills. He emphasized the spilled material, though not desirable, was not "terrible" because it was not raw sewage.The sewage sludge that has been spilling from the Norwalk plant is one of the final products of the treatment process, in which chemicals are introduced to raw sewage to kill bacteria such as fecal coliform that is hazardous to human health. The treated wastewater is released into the Norwalk River while the sludge is hauled off for incineration.
Having tested 40 water samples she collected by boat Tuesday, Romick found it was safe to reopen the shellfish beds yesterday morning. But she noted that the only thing the tests told her about this past weekends' spills was "they were not enough to pollute the waters up until the 17th." She said the only way to determine quickly whether the spilled sludge was fully treated "is (to) take samples right from the plant effluent, which was not done."
"It would probably make people feel more comfortable simply because there's more information" Hogan said of additional testing. But there are several obstacles, such as a lack of lab personnel on weekends at some plants, he said.