DEPWorkshop

I.        Call to Order

       The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Lord at 7:03PM.

II.        Pledge of Allegiance

III.        Roll Call of Members by WPCA Secretary – Thomas McKenna

WPCA Secretary, Thomas McKenna, called the roll of members. Chairman John
Lord, George Gwizd, Chuck Wehrly, Ed Gyllenhammer, Nelson Engborg and Robert
Powitz were present.

Also in attendance were Peter Grose of Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Dennis Greci and Bill
Hogan of DEP, Robbie Marshall, WPCA Clerk, and members of the public.

IV.        Comments from the Public

Jean Castagno asked if questions could be asked afterwards.

It was noted that since it was a special meeting the agenda could not be changed but
there could be further questions from the public at the end of the meeting.

Wayne Orsie said that any talk of sewerization will be fought very vigorously,
logically, factually, and scientifically.

V.        Chairman’s Comments and Correspondence

Chairman Lord said there was correspondence from Robert Scully (Department of
Public Health) to Dr. Irving concerning alternative sewer treatment systems and a
study that was conducted in the state of Washington. It was entitled Aerobic
Residential Onsite Sewage Systems: An Evaluation of Treated-Effluent Quality. Mr.
Scully suggested that the DEP and WPCA consider the report in their efforts to
establish proper administrative controls and design standards. He offered to discuss
the wastewater management district legislation with Dr. Irving.

Chairman Lord reviewed the October 6, 2003 letter from Peter Grose of Fuss & O’
Neill to Warren Herzig with particular attention to the 6 detailed design issues.

At the last meeting, Ordinance 71 was tabled to the next meeting. Since this is a
special meeting, Chairman Lord asked that the item be added to the next regular
agenda.

A motion was made by Robert Powitz to move the discussion on Ordinance 71 to the
next regular WPCA meeting. It was seconded by George Gwizd and approved
unanimously.

VI.        Approval of Minutes

The WPCA reviewed the October 14, 2003 Regular Meeting minutes.

A motion was made by Robert Powitz to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of
October 14, 2003. It was seconded by George Gwizd. The motion carried with 3
abstentions; Robert Powitz, Thomas McKenna, and Nelson Engborg.

VII.        Review & Pay Bills

There were 2 reimbursement bills from Coordinator Steve Luckett. The first was for
mileage reimbursement for official travel from July 1, 2003 to October 1, 2003 in the
amount of $89.64. The second was for postage from July 1, 2003 to October 25,
2003 in the amount of $67.66.

A motion was made by Robert Powitz to pay for mileage reimbursement to
Coordinator Luckett for official travel in the amount of $89.64 and postage in the
amount of $67.66. It was seconded by Ed Gyllenhammer and approved unanimously.

VIII.   Inspector/Sanitarian/Coordinator Reports

There was 1 referral to the Sanitarian. The WPCA Inspector noted a residence in
the Group A area with backup to the surface. The system was pumped, soil testing
has been completed, and repairs have been begun. There was insufficient leaching
and the tank was too small.

The Inspector has been busy this month. It was noted that repairs are high this
month about 18% perhaps because pump-outs are being conducted in sections of
Town with older systems. They were done 5 years ago; this is the second iteration.
Coordinator Luckett explained how baffles are being repaired and the difficulty with
concrete baffles. The Health Code has no mechanism for replacement or repair of
baffles.

The October 2003 Inspector’s report indicates: 139 pump-outs performed, 128
during workdays, 118 witnessed, 12 pump-out confirmation walkovers, 0 random
walkovers, 1 referral to the Sanitarian, 32 missing baffles identified, 2 follow-up
visits, 3 system repair verifications, and 9 surface waters monitored.

Mr. Luckett visited a large system outside of Connecticut. It processes 45,000
gallons of wastewater a day. It had a fairly weak wastewater BOD of about 100. The
business was a commercial animal farm with $3 million worth of rodents. The
difficulty they have at the site is the contamination of the groundwater from the
bodies of animals buried there. The wells are no longer functioning. They are
taking discharge from the plant, running it through a filtration process, and returning
it to use as potable water. The receiving tank is an open lagoon exposed to sunlight,
where algae are growing. Algae are going into the sewage treatment plant, passing
through the process and clogging the filters. After a few hours of operation they
have to backwash and get all the algae out. One recommendation is to put a 10-20
gallon tank on the front end instead of an open pit. Although it is processing 43,000
gallons a day, there is no discernable odor. The water comes out clear at the back
end (except for filaments of algae.) Then it goes to the water treatment facility where
they will have to fix the process to remove the algae.

Chairman Lord asked who attended the demonstration.

Mr. Luckett replied that there were some developers looking at the process for a
community system for use in a development in the Boston area. It is an easy setup
and a good possibility for a community system or several businesses.

Mr. Luckett spoke to the Town counsel and other WPCA’s regarding the collection of
engineering fees during application process. It was suggested that the WPCA draft
and adopt the regulation and then it be attached to Ordinance 75. After public
hearing the WPCA could actually put it into place. So if someone comes in with a
community system greater than 5000 gallons per day it would go through the same
process a smaller system going through the Health Department does. The Town
attorney felt the updated ordinance was too much of a change whereas the First
Selectman suggested leaving it all in. The Town counsel will send a memo advising
the WPCA on this.

Coordinator Luckett remarked that when developers are building a subdivision they
never consider building a community system. In Old Saybrook, developments come
in build many homes, strip the forests, install many septic systems and nobody has a
clue on what the impact is. They only look at individual systems with 500 gallons per
day going into the ground, but not the impact of being in a certain area, especially
when we have the Oyster River and Ragged Rock Creek which are very sensitive. It
wouldn’t take much at all to have some of these septic systems intercept the
groundwater and cause problems. Mr. Luckett recommended the WPCA review
subdivision plans projected to produce wastewater greater than 5000 gpd. We need
to have another level of review in order to monitor the impacts to the watershed,
housing density, proximity to wells and public wells, and stormwater management.

The date for the Connecticut Association of WPCA’s (CAWPA) conference is set for
November 15, 2003.

Coordinator Luckett said he is continuing to review innovative/alternative technology
and centralized collection and treatment systems.

Thomas McKenna asked how the WPCA would implement the subdivision review.

Mr. Luckett replied that the WPCA would need to put together a memorandum to
Planning and Zoning and develop something that would trigger an application to
come to us. If it's greater than 5000gpd then it automatically comes to us for review,
but if it’s a whole series of individual systems then we don’t get a chance to look at
it. If you look at the way shopping centers are set up, owners typically keep the
systems segregated. So it’s not considered one big piece of property with 15
systems on it. It’s considered 15 properties with 15 separate businesses. So we don’
t get a chance to look at it in total. It goes to the Department of Health. When it
goes over 5000gpd it kicks in DEP review and then it brings in WPCA. In many
cases we have shopping centers with over 5000 gallons going into the ground, but
because they are 6 different systems, DEP was never a part of it.

Robert Powitz advised they ask Dr. Irving to draft a policy. He could direct the WPCA
to have reviews.

Dennis Greci said Warren Herzig made a recent change that as long as it is under a
single owner we can catch it, but not several different physical properties.

There was a discussion on drafting a letter to this effect.

Chairman Lord suggested modifying the wastewater management district legislation
to include not only where we have a pollution situation but one like Steve described
requires
that a person refers to the legislation.

Mr. Luckett replied that if a developer comes in with 15 houses processing 500gpd
they only get individual house reviews, not the real detailed reviews and it doesn’t
kick over to the State.

Chairman Lord requested the Town Counsel draft a letter and submit it to Dr. Irving.

Dr. McKenna asked if the review would have any teeth.

Dr. Powitz replied that the review would start asking questions. We did that with a
couple of them so far and it’s worked out quite well.

IX.      Fuss & O’Neill Report and Public Participation

Peter Grose distributed the Fuss & O’Neill October 27, 2003 Progress Report - Old
Saybrook Wastewater Study, Phase 4. He prepared a response to the Warren
Herzig letter of August 29, 2003 on Group A Disposal System. It was finalized after
the October 14, 2003 meeting. The attached budget sheet showed that the project
is at about 80% of the Amendment 4 budget including the invoice approved at the
last meeting.

Chuck Wehrly asked how much of the project is completed.

Mr. Grose replied that the project duration is becoming longer. There is not a lot of
the budget left, just for Public Participation, not much else. It will be tight.

Chairman Lord asked for clarification on the Group A amount of 98%.

Mr. Grose replied that the budget was revised for Group A and almost all expended.
He also confirmed that addressing the remaining issues in Mr. Herzig’s letter would
cost an additional $13,000.

The meeting recessed at 7:40PM. Chairman Lord called the meeting back to order
at 7:47PM.

X.        Workshop to Review and Discuss Correspondence Associated with the May
5, 2003 Submittal to the DEP – DEP Concerns

Chairman Lord said the purpose of the special meeting was to get together and have
the interim chief Betsy Wingfield attend. Unfortunately her schedule did not permit
it. She will attend the next regular meeting on November 10, 2003. We want to
focus on DEP’s responses to our preliminary draft which were labeled administrative
items and which were of the highest priority. A package was distributed with DEP’s
comments and the WPCA’s responses to them.

There was a discussion on Item 1 regarding Minimum Remediation Standards.

Bill Hogan said there is nothing new here in your response. We are going to refer
these back to the technical advisory committee. We’d like to expand the advisory
committee to include Scott Martinson, Robert Scully, and Warren Herzig. They need
to look at everything and have concurrence. That would be an effective means to try
to resolve the differences between the 2 parties. We believed that the advisory
committee would establish the standards and neither Michael Pace nor
Commissioner Art Rocque would be commenting on it. It would be accepted by all
parties when it came out of the technical advisory committee. When we wrote the
approval letter back in 2001, it was clearly stated that we granted approval with the
use of the remediation standards as they were developed.

Dr. McKenna commented that the WPCA feels that their numbers are very
reasonable.

Mr. Hogan replied that we have to approve the remediation standards, so how are
we going to break the log jam? Going back to the technical committee is the best
way to do that.

Mr. Greci said that in January of 2002 numbers were agreed on but that the WPCA
wanted them changed. DEP is not willing to concede much more, it is not
appropriate. You jumped outside of what we were willing to accept.

Mr. Hogan said that they did not have open discussions in order to avoid offending
Mr. Pace and Mr. Rocque. The latter technical discussions were more frank. When
we started out, we were at 4600 square feet per bedroom. The original proposal
from Fuss & O’Neill was 2000 sq. ft. per bedroom for every property in the study
area. We refined it based on actual sewage flow and moved it down to 2300 sq. ft.
We discussed sensitivity. Areas closest to the water body should be protected. We
dropped even further in the interior lots, anything less than 1700 sq. ft. per bedroom
had to go to an AT system. That's a pretty small lot, one on top of another to rely on
conventional systems. That’s what we agreed to with 200’ set back, 2300 sq. ft.
Interior lots were 1700 sq. ft. to be applied everywhere.

Dr. Powitz said the technical committee still has to report to this body, which has to
report to the Town. We rely on our consultant and Coordinator. He questioned
where the numbers come from and said we have the final say on what we bring to
the Town.

Mr. Hogan said we believe that this breaks the agreement reached by Mr. Pace and
Mr. Rocque that the technical advisory committee would beat out those details; those
would be the numbers.

Ed Gyllenhammer replied that it has never been the understanding that the technical
committee would provide output with no reviews on either side. We agreed to let the
committee work out the details, but we still have oversight and review, because we
are the decision making body. The technical committee was not given 100% carte
blanche.

There was a discussion on the original understanding.

Mr. Greci said that a year and ½ ago the Commissioner said there would be a final
report by a certain date. Politicians and the WPCA said it was an approximation; a
goal that might be reached by then. DEP had taken it as cast in stone.

There was further discussion on the scope time table, no consensus that the
technical subcommittee had the final word, without review by either side.

Chairman Lord asked about the differences 100’ vs. 200’ and 2300’ vs. 1700’,
alternative systems within 100’, and what the basis is for 200’, from an engineering
standpoint.

Mr. Greci answered that it is 1700 sq. ft. on internal lots and 2300’ within 100’ of a
water body. There is no basis for the 200’, it was a negotiated number. We were at
a logger jam so I suggested an arbitrary number, it is 2 lots depth.

Dr. Powitz asked if DEP has jurisdiction over the health code.

Mr. Greci said that 4600 sq. ft. per bedroom per property is necessary to renovate
the wastewater. You could look at a lot of different information like 6/10th of an acre
for a 3 bedroom home for adequate renovation. We were looking to negotiate well
below the normal standards. He explained that you wouldn’t permit these numbers
outside the study areas, allowing that kind of density anywhere else. He advised that
the WPCA be careful with phrasing, “absolutely, we can treat on this size property,”
or they undermine Planning and Zoning rules.

Chairman Lord asked about the letter from Mr. Scully dated April 7, 2003 regarding
studies on subsurface disposal systems which are directly applicable. He asked are
you requiring something greater than the health code requires?

Mr. Greci replied that everyone has their own opinion and the systems in other
states don’t meet health code to begin with. 100’ feet would meet separating
distance but not for renovation.

Dr. Powitz said that advancements made in the last 10 years are significant. He
mentioned systems in other states and Indian reservations that are interesting and
said that we shouldn’t be bounded by distance but by performance and
technologies. He asked why Old Saybrook should have to use numbers which are
arbitrary, when no one else is. Dr. Powitz advised that a number like 50’ can become
meaningless with today’s technology, that everyone should keep an open mind when
developing numbers. A lot can be done with pre-treatment.

There was a discussion on boundaries versus technology.

Dr. Powitz said if the technology can erase the boundary – Mr. Hogan said then
apply a higher level to the technology. Let the technology be employed more.

Dr. Powitz replied that is what we wanted to hear you say all along. You have not
allowed us to do that.

Mr. Hogan felt this was unfair.

Dr. Powitz said if we had started with I/A technology all the way, using state of the art
designing and tell Fuss & O’Neill to go for the higher technology, would you have
allowed it back then?

Mr. Greci said yes and mentioned FAST systems (which is now older technology)
and said that has always been on the table.

Mr. Hogan said when we talked about distances you could have made a
counterproposal saying in lieu of this 200’ setback this is what we’d like to propose.
He reiterated that the DEP thought the technical committee was to make the
decisions which were announced. We got no counterproposals, just “we don’t agree
with these, too rigid, we’re cutting them back.” But I did hear a good thing – you may
be willing to put more alternative systems out there.

Chairman Lord asked if our representatives agreed to the figures you were
advancing.

Mr. Hogan said that is correct.

Chairman Lord asked, if we came to you and said we are looking at these advanced
systems, you would have been pleased to work with us and see if we could
accommodate that? Are you taking it into the next phase? We’re at a phase where
we are laying out parameters and then we will decide what to use to accomplish the
areas of 100’ separation.

Mr. Greci said the first page asked, where does planning and design begin? In any
facilities plan, (public sector projects that we fund) there is a lot more data required
than in the private sector. They can get all the way through design before we say
no. Because you are developing a report, that we have to approve and say yes this
is implementable, we need a lot more data to be able to make that statement. Under
the Clean Water Fund and the EPA Grants Program this has to be pretty much ½
way through design, because we have to stamp it approved, yes it can be done….

Mr. Hogan continued it will work, it is reliable. There can be no questions left. You
don’t want to expend planning, design, and construction money and have it not
work. There is a standard that says we have to have enough information to be
reliably sure it will function, it is permitable and it can fit on the site.

Mr. Greci said a lot of that is codified both in the Connecticut Environmental Policy
Act as well as the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), that requires us to write
environmental assessments or impact evaluations before we approve a project. It is
a lot more burden. You are absolutely right; it is ½ way through design.

Chairman Lord asked if the WPCA must lay out exactly what alternative systems they
intend to use in any given area.

Mr. Hogan said no, we know there are systems that will provide the treatment level
required. He said we asked what is the basis for you choosing a vacuum sewer over
a low pressure sewer. The report says we defer this to the design phase and that is
not a legitimate response from our viewpoint and your citizens. If it is $1 million less
or is more effective than a low pressure sewer your citizens are going to want to
know that information. We are holding you to the very same standard we hold every
community. You’ve got to demonstrate the pros and cons of a vacuum sewer and
propose the reasons why it was chosen.

Chairman Lord said that until we have a decision from you on a site the choice of
sewers is moot.

Mr. Hogan asked about the mixed on-site off-site letter which was submitted for
information and review and said he is wondering what the WPCA wants them to do
with these reports. They are not submitted for review and approval.

Dr. Powitz replied that the WPCA has expected some consistency from the DEP. For
instance, you must do groundwater monitoring. Groundwater monitoring is useless.
Nitrogen is not an issue. Nitrogen is an issue; it must be below a certain level. He
described trying to outguess DEP, not being told “This is what we expect,” spending
more money each time, while Fuss & O’Neill designs something else. It is costing the
Town money and tremendous delays.

Mr. Greci said that is why the technical committee came up with those standards;
here is the target.

Dr. Powitz replied that if we can come up with I/A systems, remediation standards,
agreed upon by the Town, sensitive to the environment, sensitive to Public Health,
then we can go forward. He explained that the DEP has established a pattern of
behavior over a period of years by which they will not recognize resources. It has
been difficult for us and the Town because we have not been reimbursed. And we
don’t know what we’re doing because we have a moving target. If you give us
reasonable standards we can work with that, because we do have models we can
work with. He was concerned about using a model, tailoring it, spending the money,
but not knowing how it will be received.

There was a discussion on other states’ standards, I/A systems, and lack of I/A
systems in Connecticut.

Chairman Lord asked if the A Municipal standards have been approved.

Mr. Hogan replied no.

Chairman Lord said yet you are asking us to come up with a report and a site when
they haven’t been approved. And then whether we go vacuum or pressure system.

Mr. Hogan replied that if we were to do a facilities plan in another community we
would have public participation, cost analysis, gravity vs. vacuum, alternative
evaluations, capital costs, O & M costs, implementation schedule, and environmental
review. We have a complete package submitted to us in a report. He said with Old
Saybrook everything comes later, I’m not certain what is it you want us to say yes to.

Dr. Powitz replied, you’re absolutely right. Why go through that expense?

Mr. Hogan said we’ve already given you the conceptual approval for the on-site
technologies. We gave you that letter, that part has been granted to you. We then
said let’s develop Amendment 4. You were to develop the alternatives, a single
report to be submitted to DEP per your scope of services with Fuss & O’Neill.

Dr. Powitz wanted to know how much it would cost Old Saybrook.

Mr. Hogan replied that facilities plans run 3, 4, $500,000.

Dr. Powitz replied, without any reimbursement and knowing if it would be approved.

Mr. Hogan said, we have written you a letter saying with these remediation standards
we approve your concept. That was your go ahead to then develop the rest of the
details.

Chairman Lord asked if Phase 4 is inadequate.

Mr. Hogan said no.

Dennis Greci said we would have not approved a partial amendment. Amendment 4
should have gotten you to the end of the project. What you have left in the budget is
what we don’t have yet, the other pieces of the puzzle.

Chairman Lord asked how we can take this giant step if we don’t have any idea of
the outcome. And if we are still trying to work out issues with respect to your
comments.

Mr. Greci said the only issue you don’t know for sure in Group A, is where you’re
getting rid of the wastewater. There are a limited number of choices in technology.
The original proposal, “the big pipe” was to move it to the Connecticut River, where
nobody wants to at this point. Which means we are stuck with trying to deal with it
inland.

George Gwizd asked why are we taking so long with this project? What are we
missing here?

Mr. Hogan said it’s this unwillingness to move forward to the next step until you have
absolute assurance that you can never slide backwards. The unwillingness to do the
whole picture and get the reaction from the citizens. We don’t have a complete
picture.

Dr. Powitz replied, we don’t have a complete picture from you. He described DEP
rejection of a proposal and having to try something else.

Mr. Greci said, why didn’t you come to us and ask what was wrong?

An historical discussion continued which included the stipulated judgment and hiring
of two consultants. There was an argument about communication problems.

Mr. Gyllenhammer reviewed the process: the time line, alternatives, costs, discussion
with the public, analysis of the meetings, and presented solutions. Six months later
(after we were asked not to do the costs) we were asked to do the costs with Mr.
Morrissey. It took 2 years to get the approval of the report and the comments that
put us in Phase 4.

Mr. Greci agreed that it took 14 months to produce the reasons why it was
disapproved, after the May 1999 meeting.

Item 7 on the list of issues was discusses. Mr. Hogan said we are looking for a
change in the text to make sure that it is clear that the DEP does not agree with the
remediation standards. He was asked to be more explicit about revising the text and
agreed.

Item 8 – Mr. Hogan asked if the WPCA is looking for comments on the commercial
remediation standards and said it needed to go back to the advisory committee.

Chairman Lord said the WPCA would think about it.

Mr. Hogan discussed the addition of 3 people to the advisory board, Scott Martinson,
Warren Herzig (who will wind up writing the general permit for the alternative
systems), and Robert Scully.

There was a discussion on the legislation and its impact on the State Health
department, sensitivity to other towns and ramifications.

Item 11 – Mr. Greci described the 3 study areas and rationale behind their
designations. He said now that we are talking about individual properties, it doesn’t
matter if you have a Group B or C. It’s the same piece of standard. Why is Fenwood
treated less sensitively than Maple Avenue? If a property is larger is will fall out of
the standards.

Dr. Powitz reminded Mr. Greci that, we started out that way, you shot it down. A, B &
C are political boundaries; a lot of it doesn’t belong where it is. He said he agrees
with it, but it is being revisited. Were we ahead of our time or what?

Mr. Greci said that the first step was to redefine the boundaries, which was done.
There was further discussion on boundaries.

Dr. Powitz said we agree in concept but are reluctant because we don’t know what
the outcome is going to be. We’re coming full circle.

Mr. Greci said you want to revisit your boundaries. We added and subtracted in
other towns and it wasn’t a huge ordeal.

Dr. Powitz said knowing where our systems are, if that’s agreeable it may be
something for both our consideration.

Chairman Lord wanted to know why we are going back to the beginning. It doesn’t
make any economic sense. And we haven’t seen a penny.

Mr. Greci said, on the issue of money, it will cost you what it costs you. You
overdeveloped your land and have been reaping the benefits for 40-50 years. You’
ve avoided building a sewer for 20 years and saved an incredible amount of money.
I really think it’s inappropriate for you to whine over a few hundred thousand dollars.
You’ve avoided spending $20-30 million dollars over the last 10 years.

Dr. Powitz said it’s very difficult to go to these folks, we cannot demonstrate
environmental problems, and say cough up $45 million. If it were your home town
you’d say why are we doing this? If you want a certain outcome, we have to have
some help. Where do we take that money from? The school system?

Mr. Greci asked if the WPCA wants to do it the right way. You believe in making the
B & C distinction, but you don’t want to correct it.

Dr. McKenna said the right way is to meet the stipulated judgment.

It was decided that the B and C areas will be discussed by the WPCA and a decision
given to Mr. Greci. Mr. Greci was asked what he is open to. He replied that he is not
open to on-site systems in the Group A area. It is not appropriate in a lot of those
areas. If you want to chop a few properties out and add a few properties; it’s open
for discussion.

Chairman Lord said we might want to ask Fuss & O’Neill to come up with a plan to
guide us on B and C, will we be eligible for Clean Water Act funds for that?

Mr. Hogan said we hung you on a technicality on the Amendment 4 because the
conceptual letter that gave you approval said utilizing the remediation standards as
of the date of that letter. You deviated from them; therefore we said we’re not going
to assist with any further payments.

Chairman Lord said that we should be entitled to reimbursement for Group A since
the standards do not apply.

Mr. Hogan said they would give that consideration.

Item 16 concerned property setbacks. Mr. Greci said that instead of using it on a few
specific sites, a broad brush was being used on the entire system. The intent was to
relax it for one or two properties with not enough space. He said that going to a
lesser setback from everything when you’ve got a huge number of lots all together
you don’t have the space on the adjoining lots. One top of that we did a lot of
variances from the Health Code in the remediation standards. If this was something
we intended to do, it would have been in the remediation standards.

Mr. Hogan referred to paragraph 7 in the remediation standards in which they may
be able to grant variances for a particular lot, not every single lot.

Dr. Powitz said in dealing with A, B, and C areas you’re dealing area wide, not pulling
down houses or telling people they can’t live there any more. I think we have to be a
little open minded looking at I/A systems. If we start rearranging the A, B, and C
areas to accommodate on-site/off-site, I would say yes even if there is a cluster on
the variance. We are trying to remediate that which is existing. Basically a property
line is an economic boundary. It has nothing whatever to do with where the
groundwater and transport of the groundwater is.

Mr. Hogan said what is being applied here is 90% modification of conventional
systems and 10% alternative. I would lean in your favor if these were alternative
systems; we could grant a variance.

There was a discussion on modifications to conventional systems and their
performance.

Peter Grose said that his interpretation was a little different. He expected that it was
going to be more widely applied that what DEP was stating.

Item #33 was a technical issue regarding Great Hammock and off-site solutions. Mr.
Greci said there are a lot of homes that have no viable solution on site. You have a
proposed sewer source right down the road. If I have to develop a brand new
treatment system here or just connect to a pipe, what is the more appropriate
approach? There is a limitation on what the site can hold, however it may be
possible after redrawing the boundaries that a little of the capacity will loosen up.
You may have enough of these properties in an area where you have to ask where
are you taking the wastewater?

Mr. Hogan wanted to know where the off-site sites are in Cornfield Park.

Dr. Powitz asked if he would accept on-site I/A systems or clusters.

There was a discussion on the solutions for areas B and C, the boundaries, and
communication difficulties.

Mr. Hogan said this is the most beneficial discussion we’ve had in 3 years. Why did it
take this long? We’ve never had any frank discussions. We have been blocked out
by you. There was further discussion on relationships with DEP.

Chairman Lord said you have suggested that there may be other solutions to Great
Hammock. Do you want us to discuss other solutions in this report and decide on
one?

Mr. Greci said I told you that in 2001. I actually wrote up the different areas and
possible solutions. He will e-mail a copy of the letter per Chairman Lord’s request.

Item 43 was a clerical item regarding Saybrook Point. Mr. Greci reviewed the
reasons for using a community system at Saybrook Point. There are 2 DEP systems
which are not working real well, there are tiny properties, a neighborhood removed
from everyone else, and some questionable residential systems. It may be a logical
solution.

Item 45 was a clerical item regarding a timeline proposed for data gathering for
groups B and C. Mr. Greci said any facilities plan we get shows us a timeline. You
could stagger the different areas. The people will want to know too.

Dr. Powitz asked if a date definite was needed. This is another instance of
miscommunication. We were told a couple of times we needed date definites.

Mr. Greci replied that a lot of the facilities plans have a date definite but they are
treated theoretically. When you approve the money, you start. I want to see how
you’re going to progress; try to do all the areas at one, concentrate on one area.
That may drive my comments.

Chairman Lord said he didn’t believe we were submitting a facilities plan.

Mr. Greci answered that for all intents and purposes the end product of Amendment
4 is a facilities plan. Go back to the stipulated judgment.

Dr. Powitz said the stipulated judgment didn’t say that.

Mr. Greci said it doesn’t use the term, even the statutes don’t. They use
“engineering report.”

Mr. Hogan wanted to know what the WPCA wanted the DEP to do with the report.
We have reviewed it and given you our comments. What do you mean by, “It’s under
consideration?”

Dr. Powitz replied that is the same thing as “we don’t have sufficient data.”

Mr. Hogan listed the items under consideration: Items 27, 29, 31.

Mr. Gyllenhammer expressed frustration in not having the A municipals.

Mr. Greci said all the people who were working on them left. They are no longer A
municipal; they are GA, a groundwater standard instead of a surface water standard,
which we control.

Mr. Hogan wanted to know what will be accomplished on November 10th when Betsy
Wingfield comes down.

He was told that she would meet the WPCA, see what has been accomplished,
discuss goals, and what they hope to do.

XI.      Adjournment

A motion to adjourn was made by George Gwizd at 9:00PM and seconded by Robert
Powitz. The motion was carried unanimously.

Respectfully Submitted,
Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority

Robbie A. Marshall
WPCA Recording Clerk