The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-SLC-water resource presentationLexington Water Resources Ensuring a Resilient Water Supply Introduction • The SLC has begun to look into the question: What plans are in place to ensure that Lexington residents have access to potable water if there is a disruption in supply from MWRA? Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 2 Background • The Town of Lexington belongs to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and purchases approximately 1.5 billion gallons of water annually —about 3.5 million gallons per day in the winter and up to 7.5 million gallons in the summer. • The Town pays the MWRA to treat and dispose of the town's sewage. • Lexington has implemented a policy that allows installation of a second meter for outdoor watering. Water consumed through this meter is only charged a water rate. There have been approximately 2,261 irrigation meters installed to date. • The Water /Sewer System infrastructure consists of 158 miles of water main, 2 water towers storing 3 million gallons, 1,500 fire hydrants, 3,400 street and hydrant control valves, and about 10,000 residential control valves located on property lines. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 3 Background • Four main water transmission lines serve Lexington: — 16" main at Summer St., — 16" main on Mass. Ave. in East Lexington, — 12" main at Watertown Street, and — 24" main on Concord Avenue. • The sewer system has 137 miles of street line sewers, 34 miles of trunk line sewers and 10 sewer pump stations, including the main pumping station at Route 128 and Bedford St., and 4,924 manholes. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 4 Water /Sewer Map r 11 1 kr l 1�- Q z o - 4 a .% ► SEWEB aU MOrLEZENGrON Ikai ea w�.tl. �M�' Nfiw lMA « i�ii 1M� {J L�rri lr 1`el` wrr.w Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 5 Water /Sewer Map DOWNING � a _i 4 1275 t r" R5 286 8• 6 - S* RS 227 \ '�, ^ ' � 7 \ Q c ,�SB 376 c%1I t 1 m go �, ♦ to do op D + +% VP S ID t , +� 21g r ► �i ERs 1 FAIRBANKS RD- f 1 R.S. 2f 5 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 6 Annual Water Consumpt .m-j' -' ------ '--- 7.� uk ' ' --- ------'- — -- - -- '' -'-------- -' F& hImm Apr -~* ,h . - ---_ -__ |~M-cyjw ' --- '------ 0 i'TJ00�� --- ---' ` \'2N�V | | uk ' ' --- ------'- — -- - -- '' -'-------- -' F& hImm Apr jgb ,h An |~M-cyjw ' --- '------ 0 i'TJ00�� --- ---' ` \'2N�V Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation no* - � ------' . -_-_- Lexington Water Con&umpdon ~~~^------- --'- - ' ' ----------_ ___~_- - / / -----_-___. -----._-- _� ----'------------------'--- ' - ----- � 7 gz To iii � ------' . -_-_- Lexington Water Con&umpdon ~~~^------- --'- - ' ' ----------_ ___~_- - / / -----_-___. -----._-- _� ----'------------------'--- ' - ----- � 7 Annual Water Consumption Service Category Residential Residential Institutions Commercial! Busin Agricultural Industrial No.. of Service cvnnoctions 12564 tl Total. Valurhhv Category Doscrlption MGY Water provided to residences in your distribution system, 803.5 including for - profit apartments, condos, and seawnal Re=d in Table homes. All wafer utsed for lawn watering at reside G buildings belongs in this catogofy. Repord i Tab G8. Water sorvod 1D institutions with residential population 0 such as colleges or prisons. It is optional to account resMential Institutions' volumes separately (may to incl uded I Rosl dential above -see ASR Instructions). 243 143.81 Watet sawed to bus inesses and other commercial enti tics. Metered water u sed for construction, 0 A Water used mainly lo grow food, raise annals, or rtin e rden center. 36 23.2 Water used mainly for industrial purr os . Munic 26 7.2 In stitut ional, 202 34.6 Non-profits Other 3 573.3 TOTAUS 13072 1541.64 Metered water ussd for munidpal purposes, including schools, playing fields, rnuniclpal buildings, traalment n �, and water main con struction. Nan- profits such as churches; non- residential ins6tuillons such as privato schools and hospitals. Water used kor purposes not included in the above crxtagaries (specif puns bell ow� ii'otal n^ . of meteruci service GonnaMions and volume. If you Included vo i urnes in the "01hor" ca tegory above. list the service type(s) included: Hanscom, Town of Be Ward. VA Hospital Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation The Challenge • So, what plans are in place to provide at least 3.5 million gallons of potable water per day to Lexington residents as the result of a disruption in MWRA service in the: —Short Term: Days? — Medium Term: Weeks? —Long Term: Months? Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 9 Short Term Plan • A tactical Emergency Response Plan is established identifying responsibilities and numbers to call to address an emergency. • If the disruption is specific to Lexington, neighboring towns can divert water to Lexington. —Such agreements have been described, but we have not seen that they have been documented. • Disruptions affecting a broader area, would be MWRA's responsibility to resolve. — The 2010 Westin failure and "boil water" requirement is an example of such a disruption. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 10 Mid- /Long -Term Plan • We have found no evidence that Lexington has a plan in place to address anything other than a short -term disruption. — Interviews with both the former and current Water Resources Director support that no mid - /long -term plans are established. • Suggested options for accessing potable water during such a disruption include: — Trucking in water from Lowell (their water comes from the Merrimack) — Establishing potable water wells in Lexington. — Other? Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 11 Potable Wells (Historical) Based on a 1980 MDC Report, two sets of wells in Lexington: there once were Location Type [usage period] Capacity Defects Impact of Use Great Tubular wells 1.0 mgd Color and iron Could reduce Meadows (35' deep) flow of Mystic (served River Arlington) [1895 — 1899] Vine Brook 4 dug wells 0.20 to 0.30 None, but Could reduce Supply (Old and 10 -15 mgd part of site yield of Res. Area) tubular wells. was solid Burlington [1884 — 1902] waste wells on Vine disposal Brook • The Bedford VA also once had a well. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 12 Potable Wells (Current) •The Town Health Clerk has identified the following permitted wells: — Drinking - 7 — Monitoring - 16 — Geothermal - 16 — Irrigation - 182 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 13 Size or Lexington Aquifer The Town does not have any information related to the size /capacity of our groundwater resources, or the impact of accessing those resources to address potable water needs. — We have contacted the Conservation Commission which may have this information. • The use of groundwater for potable water would require significant water treatment resources. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 14 Next Steps •Short -term Plan: — Confirm that water sharing agreements have been established with neighboring towns. — Other? • Mid - /Long -term Plans — Confirm whether the size of the Lexington aquifer has been studied. — Discuss what additional steps should be taken • For example, would it be valuable to identify the steps /time/ money involved in establishing potable wells for the town (i.e., a plan for a plan)? Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 15 MWRA Feedback • In January 2012, T. Rhodes delivered a list of questions to Steve Estes- Smargiassi, MWRA Director — Planning Department. • Todd met with Steve on February 14, 2012 at the WSCAC tour of the Carroll Water Treatment Facility. Steve provided a variety of documents and maps to help answer the list of questions. Todd and Steve discussed many of the questions. • The following provides answers to the list of questions based on the provided documents and discussions. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 16 MWRA Feedback How does Lexington's water /irrigation /sewage usage compare to other towns? • Per capita use • Seasonal use • Indoor vs. Outdoor usage • Total annual use • Trends over time Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 17 MWRA Feedback 4 2 Annual base decline = - 0.087mgd /yr jj Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 18 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201: 0 LO N O N M 0 F 0 f r- Q� U 0 d 0 0 MWRA Feedback Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 19 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2090 2011 MWRA Feedback IM CY)� E N O Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 20 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 MWRA Feedback Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 21 POPULATION RESIDENTIAL USE (Gallons) PER CAPITA (GPC /DAY) LEXINGTON 30,355 856,110,000 77.3 W ESTO N 11,475 457, 400, 000 109.2 BELMONT 24,229 683,407,751 77.3 BOSTON 617,594 9,458,147, 200 42.0 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 21 MWRA Feedback Summer /Winter Ratio Lexington 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Indoor Estimate 4.48 4.39 4,37 4,27 4.20 4,04 3.95 3,88 3.76 3,75 3,70 3.61 3.51 Outdoor Estimate 1.28 0.65 0,77 1.09 0.84 0.721 1.03 0,801 1.21 0.861 0,97 1.40 1.14 Total 5.76 5.05 5.15 5.36 5.041 436 4,98 4,68 4,97 4,60 4.67 5 4.65 Summer /Winter Ratio Lexington 1.38 Belmont 1.23 Boston 1.09 Weston 2.35 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 22 MWRA Feedback How much energy is required to deliver a unit (e.g., million gallons) of water to Lexington? MWRA has stated: "So, one 500ml bottle of US bottle water would have the equivalent [carbon] footprint of over 2,100 gallons of MWRA tap water." kWh per gallon of delivered water Source: Dave Coppes MWRA email (5/13/2011) • 1 haven't been able to confirm the comparison provided by MWRA. Another source, with a different scope, has bottled water generating 300x the CO2 of tap water — TR. • The MWRA system benefits from the gravity delivery of water from the Quabbin, significant hydropower generation, and limited need for pumping. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 23 FY08 FY09 FY10 Electricity 0.000380 0.000379 0.000384 Hydro 0.000222 0.000197 0.000259 Total 0.000602 0.000576 0.000643 Source: Dave Coppes MWRA email (5/13/2011) • 1 haven't been able to confirm the comparison provided by MWRA. Another source, with a different scope, has bottled water generating 300x the CO2 of tap water — TR. • The MWRA system benefits from the gravity delivery of water from the Quabbin, significant hydropower generation, and limited need for pumping. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 23 MWRA Feedback How much energy is required to treat a unit of waste water? Or storm water? "Over the past few years the approximate average energy use for Deer Island is 1.2 — 1.4 kWh /kgal" — Steve Estes- Smargiassi email 2/5/2010. kV� h per gallon of deIIlvered water plus sewage Note: • The MWRA system benefits from the gravity delivery of water from the Quabbin, significant hydropower generation, and limited need for pumping. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 24 =Y08 ZY09 FY10 ":eater 0.000330 0.000379 0.00038" Sew age 0.001300 0.001.300 0.001300 Total 0.001680 0.001679 0.00168.' Note: • The MWRA system benefits from the gravity delivery of water from the Quabbin, significant hydropower generation, and limited need for pumping. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 24 MWRA Feedback The "per gallon" data translates to nearly 8 MWh per day for Lexinton's water use and treatment. Average kWh per ass all water to server) -*o Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 25 YCS ZY C9 ='r' Aater 1,75 C' I Sewage 5,985 6,06 6, C Tota T 7 3 7 r S34 ►� -*o Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 25 MWRA Feedback What amount of water storage is appropriate for Lexington (current storage = 3.24 mgal, or about 0.7 day supply)? What amount of storage do other communities have? Days of Water Storage for Communities with Storage that Receive all Water from MWRA - 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Lynnfield Water Southborough Swampscott Norwood Weston Waltham Marblehead Newton Brookline (SEH) Framingham • 15 other communities on the Winthrop list have no storage Lexington Milton (SEH) • 10 communities with storage Revere are only partially supplied by Saugus MWRA glue Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 26 MWRA Feedback Do any communities have a backup water supply (e.g., wells, river, other surface water, etc.) established to meet demand in case MWRA supply is disrupted? If so: — Is the supply potable or non - potable? — What percentage of the current supply do they cover? • According to Steve E -S, it's unusual for a community to maintain a backup water supply. — There are —14 towns that have a limited local water supply and purchase MWRA water. For example, Bedfore purchases MWRA water from Lexington to satisfy their full needs. — Cambridge maintains it's own water supply, but could access MWRA water if needed • Maintaining a 100% back -up water supply would be expensive -requiring the construction and maintenance of potable water supply infrastructure that would not be used. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 27 MWRA Feedback What restrictions are there for a town to use untreated well /surface water in the case of an emergency? How could it be used? • The Mass DEP and US EPA regulate potable water systems. • Since the same water supply lines support emergency water (i.e., fire hydrants) and potable water (i.e., water to homes), all water in the system must be potable. — MWRA's priority is to maintain water pressure in the system for emergency use and to prevent the system from becoming air - bound. For example, in May 2010 the pressure was maintained even though there was a boil water advisory. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 28 MWRA Feedback What are the formal agreements among MWRA communities to share water? • According to Steve E -S, there are varying levels of formality of in MWRA water sharing agreements. • Generally, if one community loses water due to a break, the neighboring communities supply the needed water — typically without payment. • The general feeling is that we're all in this together. If one community was unwilling to supply water to another community in need, the Mass DEP would likely step in and force the transfer of water. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 29 MWRA Feedback What agreements are in place with regard to sewage? • According to Steve E -S, sewage is less of a problem. If there is a break, the approach is to go back one pipe section and bypass the damaged line during the repair. • Also, the sewage lines in Lexington are small and are therefore relatively easy to bypass and repair. • The question regarding sewage system failure downstream of Lexington (that could affect Lexington) was not addressed. — For example, what would happen if a major downstream line or Deer Island was shut down for an extended period of time? Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 30 MWRA Feedback How many years into the future does MWRA consider when it conducts its long -term planning? • This question was not addressed. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 31 MWRA Feedback How does MWRA assess risks to the system? What is the process and who is involved? • This question was addressed briefly. • Following 9/11, security and risk analysis activities have increased significantly. Their risk assessment process is divided between the Eastern and Western parts of the system (i.e., either side of the Carroll Treatment Facility). Each component of the system has been assessed as well as the implications of multiple failures. Security at the Carroll Treatment Facility includes a staffed guard house. Chemical deliveries are under tight control. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 32 MWRA Feedback What level of risk analysis has MWRA conducted to address the following types of hazards: • Potable water pipe failure (that would affect Lexington) • Contamination (e.g., sabotage, invasive species, biological agents, nuclear, etc.) • Sewage system failure — Pipe failure — Stormwater backup — Deer Island disaster • MWRA has a ongoing program to identify risks, upgrade infrastructure, and add redundancy to mitigate the risks of pipe failure. • M. Sandeen identified that in a previous discussion with Steve E -S that Steve identified that MWRA holds about a year's demand in the Wachusett reservoir. If the Quabbin were to be contaminated by Vermont Pilgrim, it could rely on the Wachusett water while the Quabbin is drained and refreshed. • The other questions were not specifically addressed. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 33 MWRA Feedback How does MWRA factor anticipated changes in storm intensity into its plans? • Does MWRA use historical storm levels (e.g., 50 yr, 100 yr, etc.) in its plans or is it using projections for more intense storms? • What plans are in place to deal with more intense storms? • This question was not addressed. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 34 MWRA Feedback Does MWRA have programs in place to implement Green Infrastructures to manage storm water? • This question was not addressed. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 35 MWRA Feedback What plans does MWRA have to deal with sea level rise, particularly with regard to Deer Island? • This question was not addressed. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 36 MWRA Feedback What are the MWRA's major concerns regarding its ability to meet the water resource /sewage demands of the MWRA communities in the next 50 years, 100 years, beyond? • This question was not addressed. The following concerns should be considered. - Nuclear contamination: Vermont Yankee is within 50 miles of the Quabbin - Sea level rise: Deer Island was built -2 feet higher than needed, but it's not clear what level of sea level rise would affect operations - Drought - Intense storms Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 37 Background • Nuclear contamination - local sources — "In addition to the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, here in Plymouth, we are concerned about all of the region's nuclear power plants, including Vermont Yankee," Clark said, "which has a deplorable safety record and is also within 50 miles of the Quabbin reservoir, the largest source of drinking water in New England." — Almost 50 million Americans use drinking water from sources within 50 miles of active nuclear power plants — "inside the boundary the Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses to assess risk to food and water supplies" — the report states. — Among the top 10 largest water systems that have intakes within 50 miles of nuclear plants is the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), which serves more than two million residents of the state. — The report warns against contamination from other incidents and /or sources within nuclear power plants as well, including Tritium, noting that 75 percent of U.S. nuclear plants — including Pilgrim — have reported leaks of this radioactive form of hydrogen. — Read more: NUCLEAR POWER AND THE THREAT TO DRINKING WATER: Pilgrim in hot water - Plymouth, MA - Wicked Local Plymouth http: / /www.wickedlocal.com /plymouth/ news / x767703992 /NUCLEAR - POWER- AND -THE- THREA T-TO- DRINKING - WATER - Pilgrim -in- hot - water #ixzz1 mrwPfZHb Source: http: / /www.wickedlocal.com /plymouth/ news / x767703992 /NUCLEAR - POWER- AND -THE- THREAT-TO- DRINKING - WATER - Pilgrim -in- hot - water #axzz1 mrtt8wEA February 19, 20' Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 38 Background • Nuclear contamination - local sources • ( Nn necticut River d ater Ra mple Confirms Tritium Pollution • Aug 18, 2011 by Sandy Levine I Leave a Comment • Water sampling confirms that pollution from the Vermont Yankee plant is fouling the Connecticut River. For the first time, water samples of th r , Cor necticut River reveal that tritiur -, a radioactive substance from the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility, is in the river. Previous sampling ignored Conservation Law Foundation recommendations and failed to investigate areas along the shoreline where the tritium from the plant would be expected to be found. • This finding confirms that the Vermont Yankee facility is too old to keep operating. Beyond any legal violations, this shows the ibiect failure of Entert4y LO responsibly manage Vermont Yankvv Entergy is first failing to avoid pollution problems and then failing to clean up the messes it makes. • The continued lackluster oversight by regulators must stop. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not allow Vermont Yankee to pollute with impunity. Last week another i dUlUdU LIVE H611 VVIU 16LUMIU101 -90 was found in the river. This week tritium is confirmed in the Connecticut River. • Vermont Yankee should stop polluting our water and Entergy should stop saying the plant is responsibly managed. • Source: nttp: / / www.cit.org /blog /tag /water - pollution/ February 19. 2012 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 39 Background • Nuclear contamination — other sources: • Boston Herald (March 27, 2011) — In Massachusetts, DPH officials said today raw drinking water samples were taken from the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs last week as part of an expanded monitoring system by the MWRA. Those reservoirs supply Greater Boston with its daily drinking water and all tests were negative. — "The initial result of DPH tests on water samples from the Quabbin and Wachusetts Reservoirs - the source of drinking water for 2.5 million Massachusetts residents - is good news," said state Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr., who chairs the board of the MWRA. "In an abundance of caution, however, MassDEP is sampling additional areas today so that we can be confident that water bodies across the Commonwealth have not been impacted by the nuclear incident in Japan." — Source: http: / /bostonherald.com /news /regional /view /2011 0327low- level radiation found in bay state rainwater February 19 2012 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 40 Background • Climate Forecast: 70% of U.S. Counties Could Face Some Risk of Water Shortages by 205 • By Climate Guest Blogger on Feb 21, 2012 at 9:44 am • More than 1 in 3 U.S. counties could face a "high" or "extreme" risk of water shortages by 2050 • The end result of all this — hotter temperatures, changed precipitation, more people withdrawing more water — is that 412 of 3,141 counties (13 percent) in the lower 48 might be at "extreme" risk of water shortages in 2050. Another 608 counties will be at high risk, while 1,192 and 929 will be at moderate and low risk, respectively. Without climate change? Just 29 counties (less than 1 percent) would be at extreme risk, 271 at high risk, and more than 2,000 would be at low risk. It's enough to make you thirsty for real action on this whole climate change thing. I'll cheers to that. • Source: http:// thinkoroaress .orq /romm/2012/02/21 /428900 /climate- forecast -us- counties - face - risk -of- water - shortages -bv- 2050 / ?mobile =nc February 22, 2012 (a) Wacw supply 5ustAw%abdkty RrsA. IrAex 12050) Ctrr * Lh&tVk Eft as sbOarM• �. t r iQ Y Low III MIAW Supply SuStiAabI114 R+;k kwUa 12OSO1 noObnato Change E"*Cts = E.rarna ;:w mvep an) um cda Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation tr i 0 M No 1AN 41 Storm Intensity Standards From John Livsey (5/21/2012): Todd, It is not a simple answer and there are many other factors that go into design that effect the results. For example modeling type, infiltration rates, etc... In general our standards refer directly to the DEP Massachusetts stormwater handbook. This handbook recommends TR 20 and TR 55. TR 55 uses TP40 still. A standard subdivision design is typically performed using Hydrocad. Hydrocad uses TR 55 in part but not in its entirety. Mainly for calculating time of concentration and looking up curve numbers. It then leaves TR 55 for unit hydrographs, infiltration, some hydraulics, storage, tailwater, etc.... The capability to use other storm data is available in Hydrocad. For culvert design work there are a number of methods that are used to calculate design capacity. These include review of Flood insurance studies, regression equations, TR -55, Wandle method (USGS), and FHA — Hydraulic design series no. 5. Additionally there are standards for bank -full width and an openness ratio. We will review the design size based on all of these methods (which will give varying dimensions). Using that data, field conditions, and engineering judgment we will make a determination on the appropriate culvert size (typically we will meet with the local commission, Army Corps, and DEP prior to making that decision so that we can get there professional opinions as well). Note that TR 55 is typically very conservative in these designs and generally not be used. Clear as mud now, right J Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification. Thanks, John From Todd (5/21/2012) Hi John, Thanks - at least I got the "not a simple answer" part right. I'll update the committee tomorrow. Our committee's attention focuses on the impact of increasing intensity of storm events (data from Bedford show a pretty steady trend toward more intense storms). So the question that I'm likely to be asked is given that TP40 is based on data from 1961, TP55 uses TP40 data, and storm intensity is increasing, how can TP55 be so conservative that it is typically not used? I'm guessing the the more detailed the question, the complex the answer. If it would be easier, maybe we could just talk briefly either right before or right after our meeting on Thursday (i.e., Green Infrastructure opportunities). On that point, Ken and I are meeting with folks from the bike committee and Center committee this week, so we should have some thoughts from them to share on Thursday. Thanks again, Todd From John (5/21/2012) Actually, I may have mis- spoke. TR55 uses data from NRCS 1986. There are many factors that make it conservative (or can). Most of which are the conservative nature of the input put in by engineers and required by reviewers. In general it is a familiar simplified approach and that is why it is supplemented with Hydrocad. Have you noticed during extreme storm events detention pond still seem to remain empty. This is a demonstration of the conservative designs. Note that a conservative stormwater design is not necessarily a good thing as the hydrology of the surrounding area< of those peaks play a great significance as to the impacts of the design. Note that some of the alternative approaches in culvert design include data from stream gages. Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 42