Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Maple Street PW Street File
Gantick, Michael From: Robbins, Gary[gary.robbins@uconn.edu] Sent: Monday, January 28, 200811:08 AM To: Gantick, Michael Subject: FW: preproposal ranking questions Gary A. Robbins Professor of Geology Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Road W.B. Young Bldg, Room 313 Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Office: (860) 486-2448 Fax (860) 486-5408 E-mail: gary.robbins@uconn.edu website: http://www.water.uconn.edu <http://www.water.uconn.edu/> From: Meyer, Thomas Sent: Wed 1/23/2008 8:31 AM To: Robbins, Gary Subject: RE: preproposal ranking questions nicely put From: Robbins, Gary Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:50 PM To: Meyer, Thomas Subject: FW: preproposal ranking questions My letter to Norm Gary Gary A. Robbins Professor of Geology Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Road W.B. Young Bldg, Room 313 Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Office: (860) 486-2448 Fax (860) 486-5408 E-mail: gary.robbins@uconn.edu website: http://www.water.uconn.edu <http://www.water.uconn.edu/> From: Robbins, Gary Sent: Tue 1/22/2008 9:56 AM To: NORMAN.GARRICK@uconn.edu; vivianc@engr.uconn.edu Subject: preproposal ranking questions 1 Hi Norm and Vivian: My co-PIs and I would like some information in order to decide on whether to generate the full proposal. We are listed as proposal 15. Does this mean we rank 15th? We were quite supprised by the ratings: relevance-2, potential of fundamental contributions-2 and level of cross disciplinary cross collaboration-l! With respect to the last rating--As far as I can determine we are the only proposal to team up with the actual folks that implement smart growth at the town level--officials from South Windsor. The team consists of 6 folks with diverse expertise --at UConn faculty representing (hydrology, geomatics, plant science) in two Departments, and at the town level (tranportation engineering, planning, and conservation) . How can this level of collaboration be rated at the lowest level? Perhaps, you you might define just what is meant by "cross disciplinary collaboration". In terms of relevance, we developed the preproposal in response to the need of a town here in Connecticut. South Windsor represents a rural town that has been urbanizing at an accelerated pace. They try to be foward thinking in implementing developments in context of smart growth--Evergreen Walk is an example. Despite the use of smart growth means to control stormwater drainage--salt pollution from road and development salting has become a critical groundwater and stormwater problem--very relevant to those who practice real as opposed to academic smart growth measures. With respect to fundamental contributions-- there is much room for innovation in this field. You can only reduce the amount of stormwater generated and salt used just so far. Other innovations are needed. I am not trying to justify our preproposal here but just to express our bewilderment with our ratings. My team members would appreciate some explanation so that we might make a decision in short order. Thanks Gary Gary A. Robbins Professor of Geology Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Road W.B. Young Bldg, Room 313 Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Office: (860) 486-2448 Fax (860) 486-5408 E-mail: gary.robbins@uconn.edu website: http://www.water.uconn.edu <http://www.water.uconn.edu/> 2 South Windsor, CT Maple Street Samples 1/14/08 Address HPC Color vH Turb Hard Alk Na Cl Fe Mn #16 130 0 6.9 0.6 88 42 49 98 .09 <0.04 #23 380 0 6.6 0.7 140 72 51 114 .08 <0.04 #28 8 2 7.7 1.0 130 94 10 34 0.23 <0.04 #31 35 18 6.5 8.7 150 62 50 115 0.27 <0.04 TDS Fl Sulfates #16 190 <0.2 15 #23 340 <0.2 17 #28 200 <0.2 11 #31 290 <0.2 17 I 7/26/06 Publication #28 Private Well Regulations/Standards **Private Well Monitoring/Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCLs) Parameter Level Comment Total Coliform Negative Important. A positive result requires action Copper 1.3 mg/1 *** "Action Levels"above this may require treatment Nitrate as N 10 mg/1 If exceeded test for pesticides,young children should not drink, see specific information for action Sodium 28 mg/1# Contact physician if on a very low sodium diet * Chloride 250 mg/1 May impart a salty taste, look for sources * Iron 0.3 mg/1 Levels greater than this may need treatment * Manganese 0.5 mg/1 (rec. health limit) May need further 0.05 mg/1 (possible investigation&treatment discoloration) Lead 0.015 mg/1 *** Exceedance of this "Action Level"needs further investigation * Hardness Levels greater than 150mg/I (8.8 Soap scum in laundry, grains per gallon) consider treatment of hot water * Turbidity 5.0 Nephlometric Turbidity Units Cloudy water NTU * pH 6.4 - 10.0 pH outside this range may need treatment *Sulfate 250 mg/I Levels above this may cause gastrointestinal discomfort *Apparent color 15 Color Units Aesthetically a problem above this level *Odor 2 units or less on a 5 unit scale Odor may require more follow-up * These tests do not have an MCL, however these are useful parameters to indicate the aesthetic as well as potability of a water source. ** For compounds not listed, refer to Sec. 19-13-13102 of the CT Public Health Code for guidance and contact local Health Department and/or State Public Health Department. *** Action Level for public water systems only, not an MCL. #Notification Level for community water systems only, not an MCL. [ mg/1 (milligrams per liter)=ppm (parts per million)] s 1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO. I ACCOUNT NO. JAGE I S I PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:16 22377455 A00233 0 1 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR -�i 9wti.-,, w qa " Hartford, CT 06144 DEREWIANKA r CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 16 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 01/14/08 01/14/08 02/01/08 09:00 10:46 09:27 DPH-DWS MS 51 PRW JAREMA/MCLELLAN PO BOX 340308 HARTFORD CT 06134 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: PRIVATE WELL COLLECTOR: MCLELLEN TITLE: SE3 PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 1/14/08 1300 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD HETEROTROPHIC PLATE COUNT(HPC) HPC (POUR PLATE) 130 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 0 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 1 DISAGREEABLE TURBIDITY 0.6 _ PH 6.9 �* �o *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED �0 ALKALINITY 42.0 HARDNESS 88 �0 CHLORIDE 98 �0 NITRATE 1.4 !Magm* NITRITE <0.2 SOLIDS,DISSOLVED 190. FLUORIDE, DIRECT <0.2 IRON 0.09 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 49 SULFATES,COMPLEX 15 ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO. I ACCOUNT NO. JAGE1 S PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:23 22377468 A00233 0 1 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 KEPHART CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 23 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 01/14/08 01/14/08 02/01/08 00:00 10:46 09:27 DPH-DWS MS 51 PRW JAREMA/MCLELLAN PO BOX 340308 HARTFORD CT 06134 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: PRIVATE WELL COLLECTOR: MCLELLAN TITLE: SE3 PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 1/14/08 1300 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD HETEROTROPHIC PLATE COUNT(HPC) HPC (POUR PLATE) 380 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 0 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY 0.7 PH 6.6 �* -N *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 72.0 HARDNESS 140 �0 CHLORIDE 114 �0 NITRATE 2.2 NITRITE <0.2 SOLIDS,DISSOLVED 340. FLUORIDE, DIRECT <0.2 IRON 0.08 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 51 SULFATES,COMPLEX 17 ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO. I ACCOUNT NO. AGE S PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:28 22377457 A00233 0 1 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 KOLINSKY „ CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 28 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 01/14/08 01/14/08 02/01/08 00:00 10:46 09:27 DPH-DWS MS 51 PRW JAREMA/MCLELLAN PO BOX 340308 HARTFORD CT 06134 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: PRIVATE WELL COLLECTOR: MCLELLAN, C TITLE: SE3 PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 1/1.4/08 1300 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD HETEROTROPHIC PLATE COUNT(HPC) HPC (POUR PLATE) 8 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 2. TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY 1.0 C PH 7.7 *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED �o ALKALINITY 94.0 HARDNESS 130 �o CHLORIDE 34 �o NITRATE 2.5 NITRITE <0.2 SOLIDS,DISSOLVED 200. FLUORIDE, DIRECT <0.2 IRON 0.23 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 10 SULFATES,COMPLEX 11 a I�lo� ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT I I.D. ACCESSIONNO. 1 ACCOUNT NO. JAGEIS1 PAGE Department of Public Health NR:31 22377456 A00233 0 1 Division of Laboratory Services INFORMATION 10 Clinton St. P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 CARLSON w CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 31 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 01/14/08 01/14/08 02/01/08 09:45 10:46 09:27 DPH-DWS MS 51 PRW JAREMA/MCLELLAN PO BOX 340308 HARTFORD CT 06134 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: PRIVATE WELL COLLECTOR: MCLELLAN, C TITLE: SE3 PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 1/14/08 1300 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD HETEROTROPHIC PLATE COUNT(HPC) HPC (POUR PLATE) 35 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 18. TRUE COLOR 3. ODOR 1 EARTHY TURBIDITY 8.7 PH 6.5 *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 62.0 0 HARDNESS 150 CHLORIDE 115 NITRATE 2.4 �o NITRITE <0.2 �* SOLIDS,DISSOLVED 290. FLUORIDE, DIRECT <0.2 IRON 0.27 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 50 SULFATES,COMPLEX 17 ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL 7/26/06 Publication #23 Private Drinking Water Standards The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) was authorized by the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments to establish limits on the concentration of certain contaminants that are allowed in public drinking water systems. These limits or standards are set to protect public health by ensuring good water quality. EPA standards for drinking water fall into two categories: Primary Standards and Secondary Standards. National Primary Drinking Water Standards Primary standards protect consumers from microbial contaminants, radioactive elements, and toxic chemicals. The EPA sets a non-enforceable goal and an enforceable goal for each drinking water contaminant that is a concern for health. The non-enforceable, maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is based entirely on health considerations; as a health goal, it is set at a level at which no adverse health effects should occur. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) represents an enforceable limit. The MCL is the highest concentration of a contaminant allowed in public drinking water systems. The MCL is set as close as possible to the MCLG for any particular contaminant. However, the MCL also takes into consideration the ability of laboratories to detect the contaminant at low levels, the feasibility of treatment, and the cost of maintaining the levels of the contaminant below the MCL. National Secondary Drinking Water Standards Secondary standards relate to aesthetic contaminants that cause offensive taste, odor, color, corrosivity, foaming, or staining. The concentration limit is called the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). Secondary standards are not enforced; they are guidelines for water treatment plant operators and state governments attempting to provide communities with the best quality water possible. Health Advisories EPA also issues Health Advisories (HA) which provide information on contaminants that can cause human health effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. Health Advisories are guidance values based on non-cancer health effects for different durations of exposure (e.g.; one-day, ten-day, and lifetime). They provide technical guidance to EPA Regional Offices, State governments, and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methodologies, and treatment technologies associated with drinking water contamination. How Standards Are Set Primary standards for drinking water contaminants are based on three criteria: 1. The contaminant causes adverse health effects. 2. The contaminant is detectable in drinking water. 3. The contaminant is known to occur in drinking water. 1 7/26/06 Publication #23 How EPA Sets Primary Drinking Water Standards In setting Primary Standards for a drinking water contaminant, the EPA first looks at the toxicological data on that contaminant,usually obtained from acute and chronic animal studies. (Human clinical or epidemiological data are used when available, but scientific data linking human health to drinking water contaminants are limited). Experts use this information to estimate the concentration of the contaminant that may be toxic and the concentration level, if any, at which the contaminant causes no adverse health effects. Acute and Chronic Health Effects Toxic doses of chemicals cause either acute or chronic health effects. An acute effect usually follows exposure to a large dose of a chemical and occurs almost immediately. Examples of acute health effects are nausea,vomiting, lung irritation, skin rash, dizziness, and even death. The levels of contaminants found in drinking water are seldom high enough to cause acute health effects. Levels of some contaminants may cause chronic health effects, which occur long after exposure to small amounts of a contaminant. Examples of chronic health effects include cancer, birth defects, organ damage, disorders of the nervous system, and damage to immune system. Acceptable Daily Intake The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is the daily dose of a substance (including a safety margin) that a person can ingest over a lifetime without suffering adverse health effects. The ADI is used to establish the MCLG for a contaminant, which in turn is used to set the enforceable MCL. Risk Estimate If a contaminant causes cancer, it is assumed that no concentration is safe. Consequently, the MCLG is set at zero, a level that is not always possible to achieve. However, at very low levels the risk of cancer becomes so small that it is considered negligible. Therefore, regulatory officials must decide what level of risk is acceptable. The risk estimate is the level of exposure to a chemical estimated to cause this "acceptable level" of risk. Current Drinking Water Standards The EPA is required to update the list of regulated contaminants every 5 years. Currently, EPA regulates over 80 contaminants found in drinking water. Although the EPA oversees public drinking water quality, regulatory officials in each state ultimately set and enforce drinking water standards for EPA-regulated and other contaminants. States are permitted to set standards that are stricter,but not less stringent, than those set by EPA. When a standard is exceeded,the EPA, through the designated state agency, requires that the contaminant level be reduced to the MCL. The corrective treatment is left to the individual water system. 2 7/26/06 Publication #23 Private Well Owner Responsibility As a private well owner, you are responsible for ensuring the quality of your own drinking water. Homeowners with private wells are generally not required to test their drinking water to meet standards. However, you can use the public drinking water standards as guidelines when evaluating the quality of your drinking water. Please refer to Public Health Code Section 19-13-13101 (attached) which identifies the monitoring test required for new wells. Public water systems provide treated,potable water to their customers for a fee. The cost of public water includes the costs of protecting the water source, managing and training personnel to use the water supply equipment,monitoring the water for contaminants, obtaining professional engineers' opinions and advice, making improvements to the water treatment and distribution system, planning for expansion, reporting to State and Federal agencies, and managing the financial aspects of the business. Private well owners should consider the cost of well water maintenance and protections as a budget item,just as if they were paying a water bill. Improvements to water wells, treatment systems and plumbing are a necessary expense that directly benefits the homeowner. Although some treatment systems are expensive, the cost is often less than the price paid by the owner in health effects or nuisance problems. The seller must disclose the condition of a private well water system at the time of sale of their home. The buyer will likely investigate the water quality and quantity. It is advisable for both parties to work with qualified professionals to inspect the condition of homes and to seek legal advice from attorneys during their transactions. Drinking Water Standards Are Not Absolute Setting drinking water standards is an imperfect process influenced by economic, political, and social considerations, in addition to scientific data. Data relating human health effects to chemicals in drinking water are limited, and scientists have difficulty predicting the effects of drinking small amounts of chemicals for many years. Furthermore, standards do not take into consideration the presence of multiple chemicals, which may increase or decrease the toxicity of a particular contaminant. For these reasons, it is important to understand that primary drinking water standards do not guarantee that water with a contaminant level below the standard is risk-free,nor do they indicate that water with a higher level is unsafe. Drinking water standards represent conservative judgments of scientists and regulatory officials based on all available information on the health effects of drinking water contaminants. Testing your drinking water will tell you what is in your water at the time the sample is collected. Test results from 6 months ago represent the water quality of the well 6 months ago. The levels of most naturally occurring contaminants stay fairly consistent, or slowly increase or decrease over time, or have a seasonal fluctuation, depending on water levels. The bottom line is that water quality can and does change. Connecticut's requirements for private wells are identified in Section 19-13-B 101 of the Public Health Code (attached)while water quality standards are included in Section 19-13-B102 (e) of the Public Health Code. Action levels for contaminants are also identified in the Public Health web page under private well action levels. (www.dph.state.ct.us) 3 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION l,u,� W PRIVATE WELL PROGRAM Recommendations for Sampling Private Wells for Bacteria Sampling Technique Nothing is more frustrating than to investigate a water quality complaint,take some samples, wait a week or more for the results and,when they finally come in, realize that should have asked for other parameters and possibly should have been more careful when you took the samples. Therefore take your time in sampling, sample preservation and deciding what definitive parameters you need to solve the problem you are addressing. This is the one of two articles covering well sampling. This article focuses on sampling for bacteria. When sampling for bacterial populations aseptic(pathogen free) sampling technique must be followed and any and all variables that would affect water quality must be eliminated where possible. Any well that requires sampling, if buried,must be found and uncovered so that sanitary construction of the well can be checked. If the well is in a pit,check to see if the pit is flooded with rainwater and if water is running into the well casing via the vent or electric conduit. Perhaps the well doesn't even have a sanitary seal. If the well has obvious flaws such as these the well should be brought up to present code standards and disinfected before any water sampling is done. Allowing these conditions to exist, even with good bacteriological results, allows for future problems to develop and reoccur. The sample must be representative of untreated or raw well water only. We recommend the following: • Sample as close to the well as possible, at the well head if practical • Sample ahead/upstream of any and all point of entry (POE)/point of use (POU)water treatment devices, or the first downstream faucet after the pressure storage tank. • Remove any aerators or similar devices from the sample tap/faucet • Thoroughly flush the cold water tap before sampling • For sampling, only use an outside hose-bib as a last resort, and after thorough disinfection of the faucet(flame, alcohol,bleach) • Flush out storage tank until water runs clear • After sampling and if practical, remove the well bonnet to inspect the sanitary seal, pitless adapter(if present) and upper terminus of well casing for watertight integrity • Nota Bene-any repair or replacement of the well and its pump, tank, etc. will always require disinfection of the well and the home's plumbing Phone: (860) 509-7296, Fax: (860) 509-7295 Telephone Device for the Deaf (860) 509-7191 410 Capitol Avenue-MS 9 51 REC P.O. Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134 An Equal Opportunity Employer Recommended Bacteriologic Tests The standard bacteria test for determining the sanitary quality of a well is total coliforms with simultaneous determination of either fecal coliforms or e. coli. Currently there are several approved methods laboratories can use and results can be qualitative (e.g. presence/absence) or quantitative (the number of colony forming units are reported). The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total coliforms is 0 colony forming unit(cfu)per 100 mis. Therefore if any coliforms are found,the water is considered not safe for drinking. The writer feels that to properly evaluate the extent of well contamination, a quantitative method for coliforms analysis should be used. Some tests will yield final results in 24-hours, while others may take 3-4 days. We recommend you specify to the laboratory that you need to enumerate the number of colonies, not just presence/absence, and ask when results will be available. We also strongly recommend that when sampling for coliforms to also do a suite of physical tests (at least pH, color, and turbidity) and some specific sanitary chemical tests (detergents, chloride, ammonia, nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, iron, manganese & sulfates). If the coliform count is 1, 10, 100 or to numerous to count(TNTC),the chemical and physical results will allow a better assessment of the extent of contamination in the well and possible cause. Heterotrophic Plate Count or HPC (formally know as Standard Plate Count) Some coliform tests are susceptible to interferences if the HPC bacterial counts are high. One may want to sample for HPCs when investigating a suspected well contamination. It is the nature of HPC methods to measure all bacteriological activity, pathogens and non-pathogens alike. A large density of organisms, greater than 500 colonies/ml, may also be indicative of a breached well or unsatisfactory well construction. To emphasize the value of the HPC test AWWA Standard C651-92 (sec. 7.1) refers to the use of this as a quality control method. The Connecticut Public Health Code also states that an HPC result of over 200 cfu/ml negates a negative coliform count,when using a membrane filter method. Further justification of this test is in EPA's implementation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (as part of the SDWA)that uses HPC as a surrogate for free chlorine residuals [refer 40 CFR Part 141.721. When a sample has 500 or less colonies,the sample is deemed to have a"detectable disinfectant residual"when disinfection is being implemented in the system. CFR section 141.74 mandates that all public water systems,to comply with this rule, must sample for turbidity, coliforms, fecal coliforms and heterotrophic bacteria. The writer has seen bacteriological analyses that have a total coliform count of zero with HPC bacteria count of greater than 5700 cfu/ml (or TNTC)which means the P-A coliform method of"absent"does not always guarantee potable water! The HPC test will also confirm surface/rain water intrusion into the well. Properly constructed bedrock wells will not yield significant numbers of coliforms or heterotrophs as there are no nutrients in deep bedrock aquifers to support these organisms. Surface water and water table wells have the nutrients available,therefore a high HPC would be an indication of contamination. Overall the HPC test is an excellent indicator of general bacteriological background quality of the subject water and of proper disinfection procedures. If the well is rarely used the water may exhibit elevated HPCs, color,turbidity and iron (from the well casing). Wells that are rarely utilized end up with stagnant and aesthetically unappealing water in the borehole. Remember the result of 200/colonies negates a negative membrane filter coliform result and requires resampling at that sample site. *Note: Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) beds are notorious for harboring large populations of heterotrophic bacteria that could interfere with membrane filter coliform detection by shielding the coliforms in its biomass. This is why one should thoroughly flush GAC filters before consuming the treated water and change the filters on a frequent basis. Should further questions arise contact your local health department/district or call the State Private Well Program in Hartford at 860-509-7296. CAMJ 9/7/05 7/26/06 Publication 018 PH— Acidity of Private Drinking Water Wells The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) does not regulate private wells. Private well owners are responsible for the quality of their drinking water. Homeowners with private wells are generally not required to test their drinking water. However, they can use the public drinking water standards as guidelines to ensure drinking water quality. Refer to Publication#23 Drinking Water Standards for more information. The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for pH for public water systems in CT is 6.4 to 10.0. This is to accommodate public water systems that may have to raise their pH to address corrosivity issues in their extensive distribution systems. The maximum pH as established by the EPA is 8.5. This is not an enforceable standard,but a guidance. Introduction pH is an indicator of the acid or alkaline condition of water. The pH scale ranges from 0- 14; 7 indicates the theoretical neutral point and typically is the optimum target. Water with a pH value less than 7 indicates acidity and tends to be corrosive, while water with a value greater than 7 indicates alkalinity and tends to affect the taste of the water. Generally, groundwater in Connecticut is naturally acidic. Acidity or low pH of drinking water is usually a result of natural geological conditions at the site. Testing for the pH of your well water is crucial for: ➢ Evaluating the potential for your household plumbing to be subject to aggressive corrosion by your well water. ➢ Evaluating the potential for your drinking water to contain leached metals such as copper, lead, iron, cadmium, and zinc from your well pump and plumbing system. ➢ Determining the effects of proper home treatment on other drinking water contaminants. Depending on the pH level (how acidic or alkaline), pre-treatment may be needed to adjust the pH of your water to a more neutral range. Otherwise, home treatment systems may not work as designed. Home treatment methods to adjust pH include neutralizing filters (calcium carbonate) and neutralizing solutions (soda ash). Potential Health Effects The pH of drinking water is not a health concern, however, acidic water(low pH) can leach metals (e.g.; lead, copper,zinc, etc.) from plumbing systems, which can cause health problems. Indications of low pH Indications of low pH are bluish-green stains on copper plumbing fixtures, reddish stains on galvanized iron plumbing, water system corrosion problems, and plumbing leaks. 1 7/26/06 Publication # 18 Sources In most locations, well water in Connecticut is naturally acidic due to the surrounding soils and bedrock. Testing for pH in Private Drinking Water Wells To determine the pH, arrange to test your drinking water at a state certified laboratory. Follow laboratory instructions carefully to avoid contamination and to obtain a good sample. Home test kits may not provide accurate results. Determining pH is often essential in evaluating the presence and effective treatment of other drinking water contaminants. ➢ Determination of proper chemical or other home treatment methods that may be needed for other well water quality problems ➢ Adequate disinfections, the lower the pH, the better the chlorination results. Corrective Actions NeutralizingFilter iiter If your water is acidic (low pH), you can use a neutralizing filter containing calcite (marble chips) or ground limestone (calcium carbonate) or magnesia(magnesium oxide) to raise the pH. Neutralizing filters must be backwashed periodically, since they serve as mechanical filters to remove solid particles from the water. They also require periodic replenishment of the neutralizing material within the filter bed. When acidic water is treated with a neutralizing filter such as ground limestone (calcium carbonate), hardness is being added to the water. This happens as a result of adding calcium and magnesium minerals, which the water absorbs when passing through the filter. This is also why the neutralizing filter will remove solid particles from the water and can help to prolong the life of the neutralizing filter. Arrange to test your water for hardness after installation of a neutralizing filter. Levels up to 120 milligrams per liter of calcium and magnesium are acceptable. At levels between 120 - 180 milligrams per liter,the user may prefer to soften the water, or remove some of the calcium and magnesium. If either calcium or magnesium is present in your water in substantial amounts,the water is said to be "hard,"because making lather or suds for washing is "hard" (difficult) to do. Cleaning with hard water is difficult. Water containing little calcium or magnesium is called"soft"water. Ion exchange treatment can be used to treat"hard" water. As a rule softening is not encouraged. It is also commonly used in Connecticut to remove iron and manganese in low concentration; however,this may not be the most efficient process or removal of these elements. Check with the manufacturer, it should be NSF approved. Refer to Publication#10 Ion Exchange Treatment of Drinking Water for more information. If treatment by a softener is determined as being necessary, typically treatment is suggested for the hot water system only and not on the entire water supply, discharges or regeneration waste is prohibited from going into a septic system. (Recommend regeneration off site with replaceable units). 2 7/26/06 Publication ##18 Neutralizing Solutions For high yield water systems, an alternate method of neutralizing acidic water is to feed a solution of soda ash to the water supply with a chemical feed pump. Sodium carbonate can raise the pH level to 8 or higher. Where water contains a lot of iron, or if you need to disinfect the water, a chemical feed pump is often used since hypochlorite bleach and soda ash may be mixed in single container if needed. Like sodium,the potassium substitute should be evaluated for any possible human health effects. Too much potassium can cause nausea, diarrhea, muscle weakness, and even cardiac arrest. When choosing a treatment method, consider both the initial cost and the operating costs. Operating costs include the energy needed to operate the system, additional water that maybe needed for flushing the system, replaceable supplies and filters, repairs, and general maintenance. Regardless of the quality of the equipment you purchased, it will not operate unless maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Keep a logbook to record equipment maintenance and repairs. Equipment maintenance may include periodic cleaning and replacement of some components. Also consider any special installation requirements that may add to the equipment cost. See Publication#19 Questions to Ask When Purchasing Water Treatment Equipment for more information. Protection of Private Drinking Water Supplies You can protect your private well by paying careful attention to what you do in and around your home as well as your neighbor's activities near your well. Regular testing and adopting practices to prevent contamination can help ensure that your well supplies you and your family with good quality drinking water. For more information on well protection see Publication#26 Drinking Water Wells. Produced by: Clifford McClellan, RS and Ray Jarema, PE Private Well Program-860-509-7296 3 7/26/06 Publication# 11 Iron and Manganese in Private Drinking Water Wells (Part I) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently does not regulate private wells. Private well owners are responsible for the quality of their drinking water. Homeowners with private wells are generally not required to test their drinking water. However,they can use the public drinking water standards as guidelines to ensure drinking water quality. Refer to Publication#23 Private Drinking Water Standards for more information. The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for iron is 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/1) or parts per million(ppm) and for manganese is 0.05 milligrams per liter(mg/1) or parts per million(ppm) as established by the EPA. Introduction Iron and manganese are naturally occurring elements commonly found in Connecticut groundwater and wells. While not considered a health hazard,their presence often results in staining of laundry and plumbing components, as well as offensive taste and appearance. Treatment methods for these elements depend on the form in which they occur in the untreated water. Therefore, accurate water testing is important before considering your options and selecting treatment equipment. A summary of treatment options is shown in Table 1. Indications of Iron and Manganese Forms of Iron and Manganese in Drinking Water • Iron and manganese come in three different forms, which cause the appearance of the water to range from clear to discolored. • In deep wells, where oxygen content is low, the iron/manganese-bearing water is clear and colorless because the iron and manganese are dissolved. Water from the tap may appear clear, but once it is exposed to air, iron and manganese are oxidized and change from colorless, dissolved forms to colored, solid forms. • When oxygen in the air mixes with dissolved iron particles in water,the iron changes to white, then yellow and finally to red-brown solid particles that can settle out of the water. If the water coming from your tap appears "rust" colored, then this process has already begun to take place by the time the water reaches your faucet. • Iron that does not form large enough particles to settle out remains suspended (colloidal iron) leaving the water with a red or yellow tint. Manganese is usually dissolved in water, although some shallow wells contain colloidal manganese (black tint). These colloidal sediments tend to form when iron and manganese combine with organic matter(tannins) in the water and produce the staining properties of water containing high concentrations of iron and manganese particles may be plentiful enough to clog water pipes. 1 7/26/06 Publication # 11 Effects of Iron and Manganese in Drinking Water • Iron and manganese can affect the flavor and color of food and water. They may react with tannins in coffee and tea to produce a black sludge, which affects both taste and appearance. Manganese is objectionable in water when present in smaller concentrations than iron. • Iron will cause reddish-brown staining of laundry, porcelain, dishes, utensils and glassware. Manganese causes a brownish-black stain. Soaps and detergents do not remove these stains, and use of chlorine bleach and alkaline builders (such as sodium and carbonate) may intensify the stains. • Iron and manganese deposits can build up in pipelines, pressure tanks,water heaters, and ion exchange units. This reduces the available quantity and pressure of the water supply. Iron and manganese accumulations become an economic problem when water supply or treatment equipment needs replacing. There are increases in energy costs from pumping water through constricted pipes or heating water with heating rods coated with iron or manganese mineral deposits. • A problem that frequently results from iron or manganese in water is iron or manganese bacteria, which feed on the iron and manganese;these bacteria are not health threatening. They can occur naturally in soil, shallow groundwater, and surface water. These bacteria form red-brown(iron) or black-brown(manganese) slime or an oily sheen in toilet tanks and can clog pipes. These bacteria can give the water a musty or swampy smell. See Part Two of this Publication re: Iron and Manganese Bacteria. Sources of Iron and Manganese in Drinking Water Iron and manganese are naturally occurring elements in the earth. Iron and manganese are not hazardous, but can be a nuisance in a water supply. Iron and manganese are chemically similar, causing similar problems. Iron occurs most frequently, while manganese is typically found within iron-bearing water. As water percolates through soil and rock, it can dissolve minerals containing iron and manganese and hold them in solution. Corrosion and deterioration of old iron pipes may also be a source of iron in water. Testing for Iron and Manganese in Private Drinking Water Wells To determine if iron and manganese are present, have your drinking water tested at a state certified laboratory. Follow laboratory instruction carefully to avoid contamination and to obtain a good sample. Home test kits may not provide accurate results. The amount of iron and manganese in water is important to help you determine the type of treatment system you need to remedy the problem and make sure you have your well water tested for iron/manganese bacteria! This type of bacteria is not a coliform so it will not be detected by the standard coliform test. For more information, see Publication#24 Residential Well Water Testing. Corrective Action Several methods are available for removing iron and manganese from water. The most appropriate method depends on many factors, including the concentration and form of the 2 7/26/06 Publication # 11 iron and/or manganese in the water, the presence of iron or manganese bacteria, and the volume of water you need to treat. Generally speaking,there are five basic methods for treating water containing these contaminants. They are: (1) phosphate compounds; (2) ion exchange; (3) oxidizing filters; (4) aeration (pressure type) followed by filtration; and (5) chemical oxidation followed by filtration. Most treatment techniques are effective in water within a narrow pH range near 7.0. The phosphate compound treatment is effective within a pH range of 5.0 to 8.0. Therefore, it may also be necessary to treat well water for pH in order to effectively treat for iron and manganese. Refer to Publication#18 pH—Acidity of Private Drinking Water Wells for more information. Table 1 summarized the treatment option of iron and manganese in drinking water. Table I of Iron and Manganese in Drinking Water Indication Cause Treatment Water clear when drawn but Dissolved iron or Phosphate compounds, red-brown or black particles manganese <3mg/1 iron appear as water stands; red- brown or black stains on fixtures or laundry Ion Exchange, < 5mg combined concentration of iron and manganese Oxidizing filter(manganese greensand or zeolite) (< 15mg/1 combined concentrations of iron and manganese) Aeration(pressure) (<25mg/l combined concentrations of iron and manganese) Chemical oxidation with potassium permanganate or chlorine; followed with filtration(> 1 Omg/1 combined concentrations of iron and manganese) Water contains red-brown Iron particles from Raise pH with neutralizing particles when drawn; corrosion of iron pipes and filter, then filter for removal particles settle out as water equipment. stands 3 7/26/06 Publication # 11 Water contains red-brown Oxidized iron/manganese Particle filter(if quantity of or black particles when due to exposure of water to oxidized material is high, drawn; particles settle out as air prior to tap use larger filter than inline water stands e.g. sand filter) Red-brown or black slime Iron and manganese Kill bacteria masses by appears in toilet tanks or bacteria shock treatment with from clogs in faucets chlorine or potassium permanganate,then filter. Bacteria may originate in well, so it may require continuous feed or chlorine or potassium permanganate, then filter. Reddish or black color that Colloidal iron/manganese; Chemical oxidation with remains longer than 24 organically complexed chlorine or potassium hours iron/manganese permanganate followed with filtration Note: mg/1=milligrams per liter, <= less than, >= greater than Also refer to Publication#28 Private Well Standards Adapted from "Iron and Manganese in Household Water," Water Treatment Notes. Fact Sheet 6, Cornell Cooperative Extension(1989). Treatment for plumbing corrosion Corroded iron pipes and equipment may cause reddish-brown particles in the water that, when drawn from the tap, will settle out as the water stands. This can indicate oxidized iron or it may only be iron corrosion particles. Raising the water's pH and using a sediment filter is the simplest solution to this problem. For more information, refer to the Publication#14 Microfiltration Treatment of Drinking Water Systems and Publication #18 pH—Acidity of Private Drinking Water Wells. Treatment for iron and manganese bacteria The most common approach to control iron and manganese bacteria is shock chlorination. Shock chlorination procedures are described in Publication#4 Bacteria in Private Drinking Water Wells. It is almost impossible to kill all the iron and manganese bacteria in your system. They will grow back eventually so be prepared to repeat the treatment from time to time. Chlorination rapidly changes dissolved iron into oxidized (colored) iron that will precipitate into a solid form. If bacteria re-growth is rapid, repeated shock chlorination can be time consuming. Continuous application of low levels of chlorine may be less work and more effective. An automatic liquid chlorine injector pump or dispenser that drops chlorine pellets into the well is a common choice. The iron precipitate will dissipate over time. A filter may be needed to remove oxidized iron if continuous chlorination is used to control iron bacteria. 4 7/26/06 Publication # 11 When choosing a treatment method, consider both the initial and the operating costs. Operating costs include the energy needed to operate the system, additional water that may be needed for flushing the system, consumable supplies and filters,repairs, and general maintenance. Regardless of the quality of the equipment purchased, it will not operate well unless maintained in accordance the manufacturer's recommendations. Keep a logbook to record equipment maintenance and repairs. Equipment maintenance may include periodic cleaning and replacement of some components. Also consider any special installation requirements that may add to the equipment cost. For more information, refer to Publication#19 Questions to Ask When Purchasing Water Treatment Equipment. Protection of Private Drinking Water Supplies You can protect your private well by paying careful attention to what you do in and around your home as well as our neighbor's activities near your well. Regular testing of your drinking and adopting practices that prevent contamination can help ensure that your well supplies you and your family with good quality drinking water. For more information on well protection see the Publication#26 Drinking Water Wells. Note: Also refer to Circular letter 2006-12 and attached Fact Sheet, dated 3/28/06, re: manganese in well water. Produced by: Clifford McClellan, RS and Ray Jarema, PE Private Well Program-860-509-7296 5 �. �. �, �� � � '��, 4�vat ..� y � � tt �, �r-a ,� ,�,, gym.£ � �: ,_ .,-� ;. �,,, ��'= } �, .. �+ ` s �' ..� � p�.: �> d;. 4_ 11 I major concern in the design of a well is preventing contaminants from entering the aquifer. The 2 major components of a typical groundwater well are shown in Exhibit 4.1. 3 4 5 Exhibit 4.1 Major Components of a t 6 WELL VENT SANITARY WELL SEAL r r" CONCRETE TOPSOIL WATER TABLEgu; WATER BEARING SAND CEMENT GROUT FORMATION SEAL CASING •a; k DROP 'F ,t ',.�, • CLAY r r a SUBMERSIBLE PUMP f T�re WATER BEARING SAND DRIVE SHOE SCREEN 7 ©Arasmith Consulting Resources 8 (Source:UFTREEO Center, 1998;Used with permission) 9 10 11 Although there are many well drilling techniques, a typical well may be started by 12 drilling a hole in the ground into a water-bearing aquifer. The drilled hole is supported by solid 13 casing installed to just below the water table. The well casing is usually made of steel or 14 polyvinyl chloride (PVC). It should have walls thick enough to meet collapse strength 15 requirements for its use(Recommended Standards for Water Works, 2003). PVC casing is not 16 recommended at locations where there is a chance that the overlying soil contains hydrocarbons 17 that could permeate the casing and contaminate the deeper water being used. November 2007 Sanitary Survey 4-4 Draft for Discussion Guidance Manual for Ground Water Systems Do not Quote. Do not Cite x i lot, d ff 52 A �Y�'9hs. # �° �y P �fA TAWS x ;t` AIR LAIR AIR AIR' WAFER DIAPHRAGM BLADDER i AIR _ VOLUME 014TROL WATER - WATER WATER WATER gore 11.1.Types of pressure storage tanks. Figure 11AA shows plain steel nks; Figure 11.1 , the plain steel tank with float or wafer, 11.1C,the iaphragm tank;and Figure 11.1D,the bladder tank. 23 P}po PWq x�s�kmtaxl# s,axtil�yct�er+: v«u €)rtuxa3�s:ct�sl+a� ow"" x3#+o1e f 4kYoc{Q}{ � w+n Moth pt - a i' a+bt�dxiuin� ' uz#I, 6Nrn4n{murn ' _ f dtx ux�e omp Pu»mm coat #tee' sto4wa" pow �Vx+i`1 s43a i1 be ut least�2"abate r�gt� wenrna�i+r u^al�+'{eaal s tt JOHN CZAJA,DEH � h PMP f<{cupm 9. Well seal for submcrslbk pump inatallatlon. C3P41jWS5 5chemutic-No+4.scale SRd §u#o-vmdl orm IrAiulawJ!SA}a+srr'kWk S"t*ie s 10 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH—DRINKING WATER DIVISION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT WELL CASING EXTENSIONS I. PURPOSE: To clarify the regulatory requirements when drilled well casings for public water supply wells are extended to bring the well head above ground to comply with Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 19-13- B51f(e). Also, to provide technical guidelines and useful information to personnel performing this work. It is common to encounter older drilled wells in Connecticut that have well heads buried beneath the ground surface or located in below ground well pits. Modern well construction methods and the introduction of pitless adapters in the 1960's have, in most cases, eliminated the need for well heads to be located below the ground surface. Well heads located below the ground surface increase the risk of contamination to the well because of potential surface water intrusion. In addition, many well pits, even if properly constructed to current PHC standards, are considered confined spaces subject to strict entry procedures for the safety of personnel entering the space to perform necessary inspection or work. The use of well pits is discouraged and, where they exist, are encouraged to be eliminated by extending the well head out of the pit. II. PERMIT REQUIREMENT: RCSA Section 25-128-61 requires that a registered well contractor apply for a permit from the Department of Consumer Protection's (DCP)Examining Board for Plumbing and Piping Work before commencing work on the repair of a well. Well casing extensions are considered repair work to a well as defined in RCSA Section 25-128-36(21). A local well drilling permit application is also required to be submitted by the registered well contractor to the local health department. III. WORK AUTHORIZATION: RCSA Section 25-128-61 requires that a Connecticut registered well drilling contractor apply to the Department of Consumer Protection's (DCP) Examining Board for Plumbing and Piping Work, herein referred to as the "Board", for a permit before commencing work on the repair of a well. Well casing extensions are considered repair work to a well as defined in RCSA Section 25-128-36(21). Contractors who possess a W-5 (Contractor-limited to well casing extension) license issued by the DCP are also authorized to perform well casing extensions and apply to the Board for a permit for this work. RCSA Section 25-128-64 allows the Board to grant informal verbal authorization for well repair work if it determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the necessity for the well repair work. The well drilling contractor shall also obtain approval from the local director of health or his agent for the work intended to be done. Within a reasonable time after giving its authorization,the Board shall require that a written application for a permit be applied for by the well driller. 1 IV. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF CASING: RCSA Section 19-13-1351f(e) requires that the casing of every well shall project not less than six(6) inches above the established grade at the well. However, it is strongly recommended that the casing project a minimum of twelve (12)to twenty-four(24) inches above grade at the well. V. WELL HEAD PROTECTION: In some cases, raising well casings out of well pits may subject the well casing to the additional hazard of collision damage from vehicles, snow plowing activities, or may pose a safety hazard to pedestrians. This is a common problem when wells are located beneath parking lots or sidewalks and when they are located very close to roads or other high traffic areas. When wells are located in these areas, it is strongly recommended that protective barriers be placed around the well for safety purposes and to reduce the risk of accidental collisions with moving vehicles. When wells are located in or near heavy traffic areas, the area around the well should be curbed a sufficient distance to provide a non-destructive but effective barrier from vehicle traffic and comply with any Department of Transportation (DOT)traffic safety requirements. Curbing should be done in a manner that would prevent ponding of surface water around the well casing. If curbing cannot be accomplished,then four(4) concrete filled steel bollards may be placed around the well for protection. A typical pipe bollard detail is provided in Figure 1. VI. MATERIALS: Materials should be selected for strength and resistance in corrosion. Corrosion potential is highest closest to the surface of the ground where there is more moisture and air. Electrolytic corrosion can also occur when dissimilar metals are used in contact with each other. Some metals that by themselves are resistant to corrosion (e.g. bronze, brass, copper, aluminum) may corrode, or cause others to corrode, when placed in contact with a different type of metal. Different metals placed in a corrosive environment should be insulated from each other by rubber, plastic, or some other non-conductor. Care should be taken in the selection of welding materials, as the weld connection is frequently the point where corrosion begins. Materials and regulatory requirements for specific components used in well casing extensions are described below. Well Casing: RCSA Section 25-128-43(d) and Section 19-13-1351f(a)require that the primary well casing shall be new steel and shall be free of pits, breaks, or other serious imperfections. Casing pipes shall have minimum weights and thickness per diameter as specified in Table 1. Couplings: RCSA Section 25-128-43(e) requires that when lengths of well casing are assembled together, they shall be joined by means of watertight welded joints, screw coupling joints, or slip joints. Where welded joints are used,the weld shall be 2 at least as thick as the wall thickness of the well casing and welding should be performed by a qualified welder under the supervision of a registered well contractor. Welded joints using steel screw couplings are the common method of joining new sections of well casing. This allows for the best vertical alignment of well casings, offers the greatest strength, and provides the most reliable watertight seal. Steel screw couplings are pipe couplings where both inside ends of the coupling are threaded. In most cases,when extending an existing well casing, the use of these couplings would require the existing well casing to be threaded by the well drilling contractor to accept the coupling. This is commonly difficult to do and may not be possible if the old section of casing is of different dimensions than the new section. When steel screw couplings are used both the upper and lower external ends of the coupling should be welded. These couplings must meet the minimum dimensional characteristics in Table 1. Welded joints using half-weld half-screw steel couplings may also be used to join sections of well casing. When half-weld half-threaded couplings are used the lower inside and outside end of coupling should be welded as well as the upper external end. These couplings are more commonly used for extending older well casings rather than steel screw couplings. These couplings must meet the minimum dimensional characteristics in Table 1. Slip joint couplings may be used to join well casing but provide the lowest joint strength. These couplings are often used when the old and new sections of well casing have slightly different dimensional characteristics. Commonly, older well casings may have thinner wall construction than the minimum casing thicknesses required by the current well drilling code. Many manufacturers have compression couplings available to account for these dimensional differences and provide a positive seal to both sections of well casing. When slip joint couplings must be used,the top of the coupling shall be located below the frost line, as determined by the applicable building codes,to reduce the possibility of premature separation of the joined sections of well casing due to frost heave. Only slip joint couplings conforming to the current American Water Works Association (AWWA)Standard C219 or pitless units conforming to the Water Systems Council's(WSC)Pitless Adapter Standard 97(PAS-97) shall be used to extend well casings for public water systems. Pitless units meeting the PAS-97 standard can found by accessing the WSC website at www.wschome.ora. Figure 2 shows some common examples of couplings used to extend well casing. Pitless Adapter: Pitless adapters shall be installed on wells that are extended above ground in order to keep the well discharge piping below the frost line. All pitless adapters must meet PAS-97. Building Service Line Connection to Pitless Adapter: All connectors used to transition the pitless adapter discharge hub to the building's water service line shall be made of the same non-corrosive metal as the pitless adapter discharge end, typically stainless steel or brass. Galvanized steel, plastic, or other non-metallic connectors should never be used for this purpose. 3 Well Cap: After the well casing has been successfully raised above grade,the well must be fitted with a watertight vented well cap as required by RCSA Section 19- 13-1351j(a). All watertight vented well caps must meet PAS-97. VII. TESTING: Pitless adapters and couplings are installed within the upper 10 feet of the well structure. This area is the zone of greatest potential for corrosion and contamination. Procedures for testing the completed casing extension are therefore important and highly recommended. Field connections on pitless adapters and couplings can be tested and Figure 3 provides a typical testing apparatus setup. First,the lower plumber's test plug is positioned just below the deepest joint to be tested, and then inflated to the required pressure. The test apparatus sanitary well seal is then positioned in the top of the well and tightened securely to form an airtight seal. The discharge end of the pitless adapter is capped. This isolated section of the casing or unit is then pressurized through the discharge fitting in the sanitary well seal. A pressure of 5 to 7 pounds per square inch (psi) should be applied and maintained,without the addition of more air, for 1 hour. Warning: do not over pressurize and do not face over the well seal while pressurized! While under pressure, all field connections should be tested for leaks with non-toxic soap foam.Any sign of leakage, either by loss of pressure or by the appearance of bubbles through the soap, calls for repair and retesting. Positive pressure may be applied to the isolated section by means of a tire pump or powered air compressor. The lumber's test plug should only he inflated h a P P P P g Y .� Y hand-operated tire pump. Adapters and pitless units that depend on rubber or plastic seals in the field P p P connection should also be tested under"negative"pressure conditions. This can be accomplished by connecting the hose fitting to a vacuum source and applying a vacuum in the desired range of 10-14 inches of mercury vacuum. Once the desired vacuum is reached the vacuum hose is clamped shut or plugged. The negative pressure is read on the vacuum gauge and the vacuum reading is observed over a period of one hour to see if there is any detectable loss of negative pressure. Leaks found in rubber or plastic seals should be closed by tightening the clamps, if possible. If a cement sealant must be used, it should be one that will provide a strong yet flexible bond between the sealing surfaces, and should be compounded to provide long service when buried. All sealants used must be certified under the National Sanitation Foundation's Standard 61 (Listing of Certified Drinking Water System Components). VIII.WATER SERVICE LINE/EXCAVATION/BACKFILLING: In many cases, excavation around the well is required in order to perform the work necessary to successfully raise a well casing. Proper safety measures must be employed for personnel working in excavated trenches. Excavation creates unstable soil conditions, and later settlement will occur. Settlement may place a sufficient load on the pitless adapter and well discharge pipe to cause the connection to break or leak. For this reason it is recommended that 4 flexible pipe be used for the water line from the pitless adapter to the building entrance point. If rigid pipe is necessary, connection to the pitless adapter should be made by means of a"gooseneck", a"swing joint", or other device that will adjust to settlement without transferring the load to the pitless adapter. The best fill material to use to minimize settlement of the well discharge line is fine to medium sand, washed into place. With a correctly placed cement grout seal around the well casing below the casing extension coupling(See Figure 3)the sand will not find its way into the well. Sand does not shrink or crack in drying, and several feet of it will help to filter out any bacteria. 5 Figure 1: Typical pipe bollard detail 8"O.D.Steel Pipe To Be Filled with Concrete c� Finished grade 0 Poured concrete Notes: 1)Steel pipe shall be 28.55 pounds per foot conforming to ASTM A53. 2)Bollards shall be painted.Color to be safety yellow. Figure 2—Common examples of couplings used to extend well casing Steel Screw Coupling Steel Half-Weld Half- Screw Pidess Unit .r 6 Figure 3-Pitless adapter and coupling testing apparatus v4000M Gag! Prelvi to Gage MugSnlfler Valve for ftsitht Pressure Test Hose R*9 for 14"Otlre PMmk %tW Pressure Tc*t SOWINy Moll S" Air Lin to Safety Chan Test P"g Aotached to Test Plug 1"l Aawvwumi Plpe Pin Roir Line I k4'IAkenlwm C"Ptd Pathmp PiOe CMF"tlon 'Pitkm Udt" Plumber's w Plug Fteld Connection inflated to Mouf hiff RecommtndW Press" FlarW COMOM MMI Couq G+eur Table 1: Casing Pipe Weights and Dimensions Wt.Lbs. Pipe CO', lin s Per Ft. Thickness Diameter-inches Threads Length External Size in Threads and in Per in Diameter inches Couplings_ Inches External Internal Inch Inches Inches 1 1.68 .133 1.315 1.049 11.5 1.875 1.556 1.25 2.28 .140 1.660 1.380 11.5 2.125 1.907 1.5 2.73 .145 1.900 1.610 11.5 2.375 2.218 2 3.68 .154 2.375 2.067 11.5 1 2.625 2.760 2.5 5.82 .203 2.875 2.469 8 2.875 3.276 3 7.62 .216 3.500 3.068 8 3.125 3.948 3.5 9.20 .226 4.000 1 3.548 8 3.625 4.591 4 10.89 .237 4.500 4.026 8 3.625 5.091 4.5 12.64 .247 5.000 4.506 8 4.125 5.591 5 14.81 .255 5.563 5.047 8 4.125 6.296 6 17.00 .250 6.625 6.375 8 4.125 7.358 7 23.769 .301 7.625 7.023 8 4.125 8.358 8 25.00 .277 8.625 8.071 8 4.625 9.420 10 35.00 .307 10.750 10.136 8 6.125 11.721 12 45.00 .330 12.750 1 12.090 8 6.125 13.958 14 57.00 .375 14.000 13.250 8 7.125 15.446 15 61.15 .375 15.000 14.250 8 7.125 16.446 16 65.30 .375 16.000 15.250 8 7.125 17.446 17 73.20 .375 17.000 16.250 8 7.125 18.683 18 81.20 .375 18.000 17.250 8 7.125 19.921 20 1 90.00 1 .375 1 20.000 19.250 8 7.625 1 21.706 7 7/26/06 Publication #22 Sodium Chloride in Private Drinking Water Wells The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) does not regulate private wells. Private well owners are responsible for the quality of their drinking water. Homeowners with private wells are generally not required to test their drinking water. However, they can use the public drinking water standards as guidelines to ensure drinking water quality. Refer to Publication# 23 Private Drinking Water Standards for more information. The Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for chloride is 250 milligrams per liter (mg/1) as established by the EPA. There is no standard set for sodium in water. However, EPA has recommended that sodium levels in water not exceed 20 mg/1 for individuals on"no salt diets." Connecticut's current"notification level" is 28mg/1 for individuals on low sodium diets and receiving water from a community water system. Individuals should notify their physician to assure that the ingested sodium in water has been considered. Introduction Sodium and chloride occur naturally in groundwater. However, sources such as road salt storage and application, industrial wastes, sewage, fertilizers, water softener discharge, and proximity to saltwater are usually the cause of elevated levels in drinking water supplies. This can be a concern for people on low-sodium diets. Elevated levels of sodium and chloride can also interfere with taste, the watering of certain plants, and increase the corrosivity of water, which in turn can affect the household plumbing. Identifying and eliminating the source of contamination is the first step. Installing a new well or purchasing bottled water may be appropriate solutions. Home treatment options include reverse osmosis and distillation. Potential Health Effects Sodium in our diets results mainly from eating table salt found within many food products. Sodium in drinking water normally presents no health risks, as about 99 percent of the daily salt intake is from food and only about one percent from water. However, elevated sodium in well water may be considered a health concern for those on a salt-restricted diet. The treatment of certain heart conditions, circulatory or kidney diseases, or cirrhosis of the liver may require a sodium-restricted diet. Individuals on a low sodium diet due to a high blood pressure or other medical problems are often restricted to water containing less than 20 milligrams per liter of sodium. Consult your physician if your drinking water exceeds such a level. All ion exchange treatment systems using sodium chloride(NaCI) water softeners will increase the amount of sodium in water. If this type of treatment system is installed in the home, arrange to test the treated tap water for sodium levels if people in the household are on low salt diets. Some of these units use potassium rather than sodium. It 1 7/26/06 Publication #22 is also important to monitor potassium levels in the treated water. Consult your physician. Indications of Sodium Chloride in Drinking Water High chloride levels cause corrosion and shorten the life of pipes, pumps, hot water heaters, and plumbing fixtures. Chloride concentrations in excess of about 250 milligrams per liter usually produce a noticeable taste in drinking water. An increase in chloride content in well water may indicate possible pollution from a sewage source, particularly if the normal chloride content in surrounding wells is known to be low. In this case, also have your water tested for bacteria. In addition, you may also want to conduct a detergent test. Sources of Sodium Chloride in Drinking Water Sodium and chloride occur naturally in the environment. These elements combine chemically to form the common, stable substance "salt." Salt readily dissolves in water however natural background levels of sodium and chloride in drinking water are not usually elevated. Sources that usually contribute to increased levels include ion exchange units (type of home water softening treatment system),road salt storage and application, fertilizers, industrial wastes, sewage, and saltwater intrusion along coastal areas. Testing for Sodium Chloride in Private Drinking Water Wells To determine if sodium or chloride is present, arrange to test your drinking water at a state certified laboratory. Follow laboratory instructions carefully to avoid contamination and to obtain a good sample. Home test kits may not provide accurate results. Refer to Publication# 24 Residential Well Water Testing for more information. Corrective Action If chloride is present in well water at concentrations above the SMCL, arrange to test the water periodically to determine if any upward trend exists. If concentrations are clearly increasing with time, an effort should be made to define the source of contamination and take steps to eliminate the source. If you cannot locate and remove the contamination source, consider using bottled water for infants in the household. A new well may be the best solution over the long term. Treatment methods for sodium and chloride include reverse osmosis and distillation. If sodium levels in your well water are moderately high(over 100 milligrams per liter) small treatment units are available that will produce three to ten gallons of water per day (enough for the usual drinking and cooking needs). For more information on these treatment options, please see Publications: #21 Reverse Osmosis Treatment of Private Drinking Water Systems and 2 7/26/06 Publication #22 #7 Distillation Treatment of Drinking Water Systems. When choosing a treatment method, consider both the initial cost and the operating costs. Operating costs include the energy needed to operate the system, additional water that may be needed for flushing the system, consumable supplies and filters, repairs, and general maintenance. Regardless of the quality of the equipment purchased, it will not operate well unless maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. Keep a logbook to record equipment maintenance and repairs. Equipment maintenance may include periodic cleaning and replacement of some components. Also consider any special installation requirements that may add to the equipment costs. For more information, refer to Publication#19 Questions to Ask When Purchasing Water Treatment Equipment. Bottled water is an alternative. Read the label to determine the sodium content in the bottled water. See Publication#5 Frequently Asked Questions about Bottled Water for more information. Protection of Private Drinking Water Supplies You can protect your private well by paying careful attention to what you do in and around your home as well as your neighbor's activities near your well. Regular testing and adopting practices to prevent contamination can help ensure that your well supplies you and your family with good quality drinking water. For more information on well protection, see Publication#23 Private Drinking Water Standards. Produced by: Clifford McClellan, RS and Ray Jarema, PE Private Well Program-860-509-7296 3 7/26/06 Publication#27 Disinfection Procedure for Private Wells Private Wells All new or repaired wells should be routinely disinfected prior to use of the water system. A water system should also be disinfected following plumbing repairs or modifications, as internal piping may have been exposed to contamination. All wells at some point need to be properly disinfected to ensure the bacteriological quality of the well is satisfactory. When should you consider disinfecting your well? • Whenever an unsatisfactory bacteriological result has been collected from your well or home. • When the well cap has been taken off the well exposing the well casing interior. • If the well is flooded over • Routine maintenance of the well to reduce iron and manganese bacteria In the case of a new well, try to coordinate between the well driller and pump installer and the contractor-plumber(if applicable). That way, the disinfection can be combined with pressure and leak tests of the entire water system, and the required bacteriological test for assuring safety of the drinking water supply can be performed at the same time. The chance of contamination is less likely to occur if there is no long delay between the time the well is drilled and the time the pump installer completes the connection from the well to the house plumbing along with the CTPHC mandated, section 19-13-1351 k disinfection requirement. Prior to disinfection, it is expected that the entire well and piping system has been running clear and clean/purged of any sediment, foreign matter, or corrosion materials (due to incomplete development, unsanitary construction, or long idleness of the well). These substances react with the chlorine and decrease its effectiveness in destroying harmful bacteria and organic materials. 1. Prepare a chlorine solution by mixing the required amount of chlorine to about 10 gallons of water. For effective disinfection, a minimum of 50 parts per million(ppm) chlorine dosage is specified. See Tables 1 and 2 and"Examples"for exact amount of chlorine compound needed to develop the required 50-ppm dosage.Note: For a typical 6 inch well of about 100-300 foot depth, use approximately 4oz. of 70% available chlorine granules (HTH) or 1.0 quart of household 5.25% bleach(Clorox). 2. Pour the 10-gallon solution down the well casing. 3. Open every hot and cold-water faucet and tap in the plumbing system until the chlorine odor is noticed; then close the taps. During this time, it is important that all internal parts of the water system come in contact with this chlorinated water, including hot water tanks, if installed. If there are large non-pressure or pressure storage tanks (used in a community well supply) on the water system,they should be temporarily waterlogged to assure that all water-contact surfaces are chlorinated adequately. 1 7/26/06 Publication#27 4. With the use of a hose connected to a nearby sill cock, recirculate some of the chlorinated water back down and along the interior of the well casing to dilute the initial concentrated solution. (The initial chlorine solution could attach concrete grout between the tile sections of a dug well). 5. Replace the sanitary seal and cover the well casing so that the system cannot be subsequently contaminated. 6 Allow the chlorinated water to stand idle in the well and piping system for at least three hours, but preferably, overnight. 7 With the well pumping, flush the chlorinated water from the system through the storage tank and taps. An outside sill cock may be used to flush the water to waste, however, care should be taken to avoid contact of chlorinated water with the grass and shrubbery. (In a small well supply, it may take a few days to remove all the chlorine from the system). Do NOT over tax a low-yielding well. 8 All water tanks should be flushed thoroughly so that any sediment will not interfere with the disinfection process. Drilled vs. Dug Wells Most homeowner wells are either drilled or dug. In the case of a drilled well,the steel casing should extend a minimum of six inches above the established grade. It should also be outfitted with a certified watertight well cap with screened vent, as is specified in Public Health Code 19-13-1351 0)(b). The following web site lists all approved watertight well caps in the State of CT: http://www.watersystemscouncil.org/upload/standards/pitless.Mdf. An existing well pit should be eliminated and the well casing raised to a minimum of six inches above established grade. The above listed well casing extension guidance document should be referred to for this procedure. Dug wells are "high risk." They are typically not constructed watertight and allow the entrance of surface water, insects and rodents. Du wells should be inspected and repaired prior to disinfection. > g p P They should be tightly sealed after chlorination. Serious consideration should be given to connecting to a public water system, if available. If this is not possible, a properly constructed drilled well should be considered. Bacteriological Test Before the required water sample is taken, it is very important that there be no trace of chlorine left in the water supply. A desirable and precise method to determine the complete absence of chlorine in the water is to use a chlorine residual test kit or simply, to add several drops of orthotolodine to a half glass of water taken from the supply. If chlorine is still present, a yellowish color will develop. Once the chlorine is absent from the water system, a sample is collected in a sterile bottle furnished by, and to be analyzed at, a state-approved laboratory. The collection of the sample should be done with care, following the instructions of the laboratory. effectiveness o edisinfection and safe of the water supply for drinking purposes is shown if Thef the t Y �r Y g r � the test report results an absence of coliform bacteria. 2 7/26/06 Publication#27 Note: If the test is found positive for coliform bacteria,a resample should be taken to confirm the first test. Occasional positive tests result from improper sampling technique or other chance contamination. If the resample test is again unsatisfactory, the disinfecting and sampling should be repeated. Table 1 VOLUME OF WATER PER FOOT OF PIPE Pipe Diameter Gal/Ft Of Pipe Pipe Diameter Gal/Ft. Of Pipe 2.5" 0.254 24" 23.4 4" 0.672 30" 36.6 6" 1.47 36" 52.6 8" 2.61 42" 71.6 10" 4.08 48" 93.6 12" 5.86 54" 119.0 16" 10.45 60" 146.0 18" 13.20 72" 211.0 Table 2 TABLE OF DOSAGE OF DISINFECTANT FOR VARIOUS VOLUMES OF WATER APPROXIMATE CHLORINE DOSAGE TO PRODUCE 50 PPM AVAILABLE CHLORINE Volume Dry Calcium Hypochlorite No. of 5 Gram Liquid 5.25% Sodium Of Water HTH,Perchloron, or HTH Tablets Hypochlorite Clorox or Similar (Gallons) Similar Compound (70%of Available Household Bleach(5.25 - (70%Available Chlorine) Chlorine) Available Chlorine) 50 0.5 oz. 3 5fl.oz. 100 1.0 oz. 6 11 fl. oz. 150 1.5 oz. 9 16 fl. oz. 200 2.0 oz. 12 22 fl. oz. 300 3.0 oz. 17 1 quart 500 5.0 oz. 28 2 quarts 1,000 10.0 oz. 56 1 gallon 2,000 1 lb. 3 oz. 2 gallons 3,000 1 lb. 13 oz. 3 gallons 4,000 2 lbs.7 oz. 4 gallons 5,000 3 lbs. 5 gallons 10,000 6 lbs. 25,000 15 lbs. 50,000 30 lbs. 100,000 60 lbs. (1 quart=32 fl.oz) (1 gallon 4 quarts) 3 7/26/06 Publication#27 Example A Given: 6"drilled well,Depth—500 feet Calculations: (from Table 1) 500 feet x 1.47 gallons per feet=735 gallons of water to be disinfected Dosage Required: 50 ppm Chlorine Use: (from Table 2) 7.5 oz. of 70%HTH or similar compound; or 42 HTH tablets (5 grams each); or approximately 3 quarts Clorox or similar household bleach. Example B: Given: 36"dug well, depth-20' Calculations: (from Table 1) 20 feet x 52.6 gallons per foot= 1052 gallons of water to be disinfected. Dosage Required: 50-ppm chlorine Use: (from Table 2) 10 oz. of 70% HTH or similar compound; or 56 HTH tablets (5 grams each); or approximately 1 gallon Clorox or similar household bleach. Example C• Given: Community well water supply,with same well as in"Example B"(1052 gallons); and 1-10,000 gallon non-pressure tank; and 1-5,000 gallon pressure tank Calculations: Total volume to be disinfected= 1052 gallons+ 10,000 gallons+5,000 gallons= 16,052 gallons Dosage Required: 50 ppm chlorine Use: (from Table 2) 9 lbs. 10 oz. of 70%HTH or similar compound NOTE: In a case where such a large concentration of chorine is required, it is suggested that the dosage applied at the well be staggered, i.e., 5 portions of 21bs. HTH per each 10 gallons of solution water over a period of time. Produced by: Clifford McClellan,RS and Ray Jarema,PE Private Well Program-860-509-7296 4 7/26/06 Publication #26 Private Drinking Water Wells Types & Construction When you turn on the faucet to get a drink or to take a shower, do you know where your water comes from? It is estimated that approximately 400,000 Connecticut citizens drink groundwater supplied by a private well on their property. Groundwater is water beneath the earth's surface that fills and saturates the spaces between sediment particles as well as the cracks and crevices within bedrock. When rain falls or snow melts some of the water percolates into the ground and becomes part of the groundwater. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) does not regulate private wells. As an individual well owner, you are responsible for the quality of your own water. Individual well owners do not benefit from the public health safeguards provided by a regulated and regularly tested public water supply system. Responsibility for wellhead protection, adequate well maintenance, and water testing falls on the homeowner. Although your first call should be to your Local Health Department with water quality concerns, the CT Department of Public Health's Environmental Health Section can also assist private well owners. So, what exactly is a well, where is it located and what can you do to maintain it? Simply put, your well is circular hole that extends into the earth until it reaches an underground water-bearing formation known as an aquifer. Three basic types of wells are common in Connecticut; dug wells, driven wells and drilled wells. Well Construction The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection regulates the construction of private wells through their well drilling regulations. Additionally there are regulations in the Connecticut Public Health Code dealing with wells. A CT registered well driller should install a new well or improve or repair an existing well. All new wells have to be tested in accordance with section 19-13-B101 of the CTPHC. These professionals are knowledgeable of the well construction specifications. For more information on these specifications, see the Department of Public Health and Consumer Protection's websites. Dug Wells Dug wells are holes in the ground dug by shovel or backhoe. Historically, a dug well was excavated below the groundwater table until incoming water exceeded the digger's bailing rate. The well was then lined (cased)with stones, brick, tile, or other material to prevent collapse. It was covered with a cap of wood, stone, or concrete. Since it is so difficult to dig beneath the groundwater table, dug wells are not very deep; typically,they are only 10 to 30 feet deep. Dug wells have the highest risk of becoming contaminated because they are so shallow. To minimize the likelihood of contamination, your dug well should have certain features to help prevent contaminants from traveling along the outside of the casing or through the casing and into the well. 1 7/26/06 Publication #26 Dug Well Construction ■ The well should be cased with a watertight material (for example, tongue-and- groove pre-cast concrete drainage tiles) and a cement grout or bentonite clay sealant poured along the outside of the casing to the top of the well. ■ The well should be covered by a concrete curb and cap that stands about a foot above the ground. ■ The land surface around the well should be mounded so that surface water runs away from the well and is not allowed to pond around the outside of the wellhead. ■ Ideally,the pump for your well should be inside your home or in a separate pump house, rather than in a pit next to the well. Land activities around a dug well can contaminate it. Examples include disposal of household chemicals or oil on the ground or down the drain, car or other vehicle maintenance, failing septic systems, lawn fertilization and pesticide application, roadway runoff, and pet or livestock waste. Protecting the water quality of your dug well means that you must monitor activities around it and reduce or eliminate potential contamination sources. While dug wells have been used as a household water supply source for many years, most are "relics"of older homes, dug before drilling equipment was readily available or when drilling was considered expensive. If you are using a dug well on your property for of a dug well is that it may go dry during drought when the drinking water, check to make sure it is properly covered and sealed. Another problem relating to the shallowness groundwater table drops. Construction requirements are covered in Section 19-13-B51 of the CT Public Health Code. Driven (sand-point)wells Like dug wells, driven wells pull water from the water-saturated zone above the bedrock. Driven wells can be deeper than dug wells. The are typically 30 to 50 feet deep and are located in areas with thick sand and gravel deposits where the groundwater table is within 15 feet of the ground's surface. In the proper geologic setting, driven wells can be easy and relatively inexpensive to install, although there may be limited locations where these wells could be located in Connecticut. The soil conditions must be such that little if any large rocks, boulders or large outcroppings exist, otherwise this type of well would not be feasible. Driven Well Construction ■ Assembled lengths of 2"to 3"diameter metal pipes are driven into the ground. A screened"well point" located at the end of the pipe helps drive the pipe through the sand and gravel. The screen allows water to enter the well and filter out sediment. ■ The pump for the well is in one of two places: on top of the well or in the house. ■ An access pit is usually dug around the well down to the frost line and a water discharge pipe to the house is joined to the well pipe with a fitting. 2 7/26/06 Publication #26 ■ The well and pit are capped with the same kind of large-diameter concrete tile used for a dug well. The access pit may be cased with pre-cast concrete tiles. The pit should be gravity drained and not subject to flooding. Although deeper than dug wells, driven wells are still relatively shallow and have a moderate-to-high risk of contamination from nearby land activities. To minimize this risk, the well cover should be a tight-fitting concrete curb and cap with no cracks and should sit about one foot above the ground. Slope the ground away from the well so that surface water will not pond around the well. If there is a pit above the well, either to hold the pump or to access the fitting,you may be able to pour a grout sealant along the outside of the well pipe. Protecting the water quality requires that you maintain proper well construction and monitor your activities around the well. It is also important to follow the same land use precautions around the driven well as described under dug wells. Drilled Wells Most drilled wells in Connecticut penetrate 100-400 feet into the bedrock. Bedrock found at or near the surface is commonly called ledge. A drilled well must intersect bedrock fractures containing groundwater to serve as a water supply. Drilled Well Construction ■ Most wells drilled today incorporate a number of construction features to help protect water quality. ■ The casing is usually metal pipe, six inches in diameter that extends into the bedrock to prevent shallow groundwater from entering the well. By law, the casing has to extend at least 20 feet into the ground. The casing should also extend at least one foot above final grade of the ground's surface. A sealant, such as cement grout or bentonite clay, should be used to grout the well to the top of the well's casing. The well is capped to prevent surface water from entering the well. ■ Submersible pumps located near the bottom of the well, are most commonly used in drilled wells. Wells with a shallow water table may feature a jet pump located inside the home. Pumps require special wiring and electrical service. Well pumps should be installed and serviced by a qualified professional licensed by the Department of Consumer Protection. ■ Most modern drilled wells incorporate a pitless adapter designed to provide a sanitary seal at the point where the discharge water line leaves the well to enter your home. The device attaches directly to the casing below the frost line and provides a watertight subsurface connection, protecting the well from the frost and contamination. ■ Older drilled wells may lack some of these sanitary features. The well pipe used was often 8, 10, or 12 inches in diameter and covered with a concrete well cap either at or below the ground's surface. This outmoded type of construction does not provide the same degree of protection from surface contamination. Also, older wells may not have a pitless adapter to provide a seal at the point of discharge from the well. 3 7/26/06 Publication #26 Hydrofracting a Drilled Well Hydrofracting is a process that applies water or air under pressure into your well to open up existing fractures near your well and can even create new ones. Often this can increase the yield of your well. This process can be applied to new wells with insufficient yield and to improve the quantity of older wells. Locating your well Locating your well is the first step to protection. Start by walking around your yard. If you discover a metal pipe, six or eight inches wide, sticking up above the ground's surface and topped with a metal cap,then you have a drilled well. If you find a large cement well cap about three to five feet in diameter at the ground's surface, it could be a dug, driven or older drilled well. To determine what's below the cement cap, remove it. If you see an open hole with water standing in it,you have a dug well; if you see a pit with a pipe and/or pump at the bottom of the pit,you have either a driven or older drilled well. If you've looked and can't find your well or still aren't sure what kind you have, consider enlisting the help of a registered well driller or someone with a metal detector. Even dug wells contain metal fittings and pipe that can be picked up by a metal detector. The original cover of an older well may be covered by topsoil, grass or other vegetation. If this is the case, it is recommended that the well is located and repaired with some additional casing, extending 1 to 2 feet above the ground surface, and properly capped. In some cases, old wells may be located in the basement of your home. A well driller registered with the Department of Consumer Protection(DCP) should complete new well construction, repairs to existing wells, and hydrofracting. DCP regulates the construction of private wells through the well drilling code. These regulations along with the Connecticut Public Health Code detail procedures for the siting and construction of new wells, the improvement or abandonment of old wells, and provide for registration of well drillers and pump installers. Since 1969 all registered well drillers are required to file well drilling reports with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection(DEP). An agent of your local health department signs the well permit. New well owners should maintain a copy of the well driller's report for their own files. Six Important Ways to Protect Your Drinking Water Well 1. Proper Location Locate a new well as far away from potential contamination sources as possible. CT DPH regulates the distance a private well should be from some potential contamination sources. Sources are identified in CT Public Health Code Section 19-13-1351. 2. Proper Construction Construction of a new well or maintenance of an existing well should be performed by a well driller or pump installer registered with the CT DCP. Periodically inspect exposed parts of the well. 4 7/26/06 Publication #26 Look for: ➢ Cracks, corrosion, or damaged well casing ➢ Cracked or missing well cap ➢ Settling or cracking of surface seals. When placing your hands on the well, you should not be able to move it. ■ Keep accurate records of well maintenance, such as disinfection or sediment removal ■ Inspect your well at least annually; consider an inspection by a professional every 3 to 5 years (well driller, local health authorities, state health department, etc.) ■ Slope the area around the well to drain surface runoff away from the well. Do not allow surface water to pond around the well. 3. Keep Contaminants Away Keep potential contaminants as far away as possible from your well. ■ Avoid mixing or using pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, degreasers, fuels, and other pollutants near the well. ■ Do not dispose of wastes in dry wells or abandoned wells. ■ Inspect your septic system every 1-3 years and pump as needed. ■ Never dispose of hazardous materials in the septic system ■ Do not allow runoff from the road, driveway or rooftop to pond around the well. Keep the area around the well clear and free of debris. . ■ Keep pet waste, dog runs and other livestock away from the well. a. Prevent Backflow Use backflow prevention devices on all outside faucets with hose connections. This is especially important if you fill pesticide sprayers, other chemical container or swimming pools. Backflow devices prevent these chemicals from being drawn into the household water supply in the event of a drop in water pressure. You can purchase backflow prevention devices at a hardware store. 5. Seal Abandoned Wells Abandoned and unused wells are a potential source of ground water contamination as they provide a direct access or conduit from the ground surface to the groundwater source. They can also be a safety hazard on your property. These wells should be properly sealed when no longer in use. The well drilling code regulations state that a CT registered well driller should properly abandon wells. 6. Test Well Water Test your well semi-annually (spring/fall) for nitrates,bacteria, physical parameters turbidity, and her constituents of concern. Test whenever you notice a color, odor, urbid H of ( Y p ) change in taste, color, or odor of your drinking water. For more information see Publication# 24 Residential Well Water Testing. 5 7/26/06 Publication #24 Residential Well Water Testing Testing your well water can provide you with information on the quality of your drinking water. Testing is one way to ensure that your private drinking water supply is safe from harmful impurities. In addition,testing can determine what other nuisance impurities— like iron and manganese—may exist. Private Water Supplies The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) does not regulate Private wells. Private well owners are responsible for the quality of their own drinking water. Homeowners with private wells are generally not required to test their drinking water. However,they can use the public drinking water standards as guidelines to ensure drinking water quality. We suggest you test your water semi-annually(spring/fall) for a few of the more common contaminants. Even if your current water supply proves to be clean and safe to drink, regular testing is important because it establishes a record of water quality that may help solve future problems. Additionally, if there are known contamination problems in your area and if neighbors have experienced well water contamination, you should consider testing your drinking water for those contaminants. Know the history of your neighborhood and whether or not there are any water quality problems from either natural or manmade contaminants. If you have questions, you should call your local health department first. The State Department of Public Health(DPH) @ 860-509-7296 can also be utilized as a resource for questions. Public Water Systems If you receive your drinking water from a public water system,the source of drinking water is either a surface water reservoir, a public well that pumps groundwater, or both. Then a system of pipes distributes the water to you and your neighbors. Federal and State laws require the public water systems regularly test for over 80 contaminants in the water. Public water systems test water from the raw supply—the rivers and ponds in their watershed,the reservoir(s), or the well(s)—the water treatment plant, and public and private buildings throughout their distribution system. The water quality must meet standards set by the EPA as well as additional standards set by the Department of Public Health(DPH). These standards are limits on the amount of contaminants allowed in the treated drinking water. The water is safe to drink if the amount of the contaminant is below the water quality standard. If the amount is above the water quality standard,the water is not safe to drink. Public water systems are required by the law to develop and distribute an annual water quality report (known as the Consumer Confidence Report)to their customers. This report contains information about the previous year's water quality and whether or not there were any violations of the federal and state water quality standards. You can also call your water utility for information about drinking water quality. 1 7/26/06 Publication #24 Drinking Water Standards As authorized by the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments, the EPA has established limits, or standards, on the concentrations of certain contaminants that are allowed in public water systems. These standards are set to protect public health by ensuring good water quality. EPA standards for drinking water fall into two categories: primary standards and secondary standards. Refer to Publication#23 Drinking Water Standards for more information. When should you test your water? Use the following testing frequencies as guidelines, but test more often if you suspect a problem or notice a sudden change in the quality of your drinking water. ■ Twice each year, have routine analyses,which test for: total coliform bacteria, nitrate, sodium,turbidity, and color. All are good general indicators of water quality. You may want to test for nitrogen parameters (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia). Test the pH of your well water—this will help you to determine the acidity of the water and whether you might have problems with pipe pitting and leaching of metals from the plumbing. The best times to test are usually after a spring or summer rainy period or after repair or replacement of your well, pumps, or water pipes. ■ Whenever you notice a change in taste, color, odor, turbidity(as indicated by cloudiness), or sediments, or if you think your water quality has been affected, as indicated by unexplained household illness. Contact your local health department or DPH. ■ If household plumbing contains lead pipes, fittings, or solder joints,test for pH, lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc. Also,brass contains 3% - 8% lead and may be found in your fixtures or well pump parts. Additionally, chrome contains brass. Lead testing every 3-5 years would be a good idea. ■ If there are children under 6 years old living in a house, test for lead. If there are children under 12 years of age, include a fluoride test. ■ If you wish to monitor the efficiency and performance of home water treatment equipment: Test for the specific contaminant(s)being treated upon installation of a treatment device, at regular intervals after installation, and if you notice a change in water quality as indicated by odor,taste, color,turbidity, sediments, or other conditions. Comparing water tests of untreated and treated water will help you determine if the treatment system is doing its job. 2 7/26/06 Publication #24 Summary of Water Testing COMMON TEST PROBLEM SIGNS/SITUATIONS CAUSES RECOMMENDED Rust-colored water Rust stains on clothing Iron, and porcelain plumbing Manganese Iron test, fixtures. Metallic taste to or Manganese test, water. Rust coating in Iron bacteria Fe/Mn Bacteria Test toilet tank. Tap water turns rust-colored after exposure to air. Blue stains Copper plumbing. Blue Corrosive water(low Copper,Lead,pH, stains on plumbing, pH)leaching copper hardness&alkalinity fixtures,and laundry from plumbing tests, Sulfate test "Rotten egg"odor Iron,steel,or copper Hydrogen sulfide gas, Odor test, parts of pumps,pipes, sulfate-reducing Hydrogen sulfide test, and fixtures corroded. bacteria or Sulfate test, Fine black particles in Sulfur bacteria. Lead test(if home was water. Silverware turns built before 1990) black. Corrosive water Metal parts on pump, Corrosive water(low PH,alkalinity,hardness piping,tank and fixtures pH)is naturally tests corroded. Red stains occurring in Sulfate test from corrosion or Connecticut Lead test(if home was galvanized pipe;blue- groundwater. built before 1990) green stains from corrosion of copper or Copper test(if copper brass. pipes resent) Cloudy turbid water "Dirty"or muddy Silt,sediment, Turbidity test appearance microorganisms Bacteria test Check well construction with local well driller Frothy,sudsy water Water appears frothy Malfunctioning septic Detergent Screen system possible Chemical or fuel odor Underground fuel storage Leaking underground tank nearby;gas station fuel storage tank Volatile organic improper use,storage,or chemical(VOC)scan disposal of fuels used Fuel spills around the home(car, lawn mower,other gas owered machines) Unusual chemical odor Well near dump, Groundwater Organic chemical scan, junkyard,landfill, contamination of Heavy metals industrial facilities,dry chemicals Consult with DPH on cleaners,and gas stations. testing suggestions. Fruity odor Underground fuel storage Fuel spill, tank nearby. Gas station: Leaking underground Volatile organic improper use,storage,or fuel storage tank, Chemical(VOC)scans. disposal of fuels used around the home(car, Road runoff,ponding lawn mower,other gas- near well. powered machines), Well close to a road 3 7/26/06 Publication#24 COMMON TEST PROBLEM SIGNS/SITUATIONS CAUSES RECOMMENDED Recurrent Stomach problems, Bacterial contamination Coliform Bacteria test, gastrointestinal illness nausea,diarrhea Cracked well casing Nitrite,Nitrate N tests Malfunctioning septic Detergent test system,Flooded well Sodium restricted diet, Well near the coast,a salt Saltwater intrusion, Chloride test, salty brackish taste storage pile,or heavily Groundwater Sodium test, salted roadway,discharge contamination Total Dissolved Solids of softener waste. Ion exchange water (TDS)tests treatment system. No obvious problem Well in an area of past or Arsenic in pesticide present apple orchards. formulations— Arsenic test Some naturally- occurring areas of arsenic Natural arsenate is possible in Connecticut locations No obvious problem If your well is in an Pesticide leaching from Consult with local agricultural area agricultural practices. health department regarding any known contaminant problems. Test for pesticides used in the area. Nitrate test contact CT DEP Department of Environmental Protection for pesticides used in your area Fluoride in the water Children under age 12 Fluoride is naturally in the house occurring in Fluoride test Connecticut groundwater in some limited areas. How should you collect a water sample? Most water testing laboratories supply their own sample containers with detailed instruction on how to properly collect a water sample. Use the bottles provided and carefully follow laboratory instructions to obtain a good sample. Complete all forms that come with the containers so that your sample can be processed quickly and accurately. Make sure you understand the sampling procedure before you begin. How to take a sample varies depending on the tests being done. For example, some contaminants such as lead and copper may require that water remains stagnant in the pipes for a minimum of 6 hours and is collected upon the first draw of water. Other contaminants require that the water be flushed or run for a minimum period of time before collecting the sample. Some contaminants require special sample bottles and procedures. Cleanliness is a must; make sure that nothing but the water comes in contact with the opening of the bottle or the inside of the cap. 4 7/26/06 Publication #24 Timeliness is important, too; some contaminants deteriorate or change form with time. Most water samples need to be kept cool when being taken to the lab. To assure accurate results, make certain the lab receives your water sample within the specified time directed on the instructions. For example, some labs may not accept certain water samples on a Friday, as the test procedure must be started within 24 hours of sample collection. If you have a water sample that is going to be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), don't stop for gasoline with the sample in the car, as you may contaminate it. A listing of State approved certified laboratories is available on the DPH website, www.dph.state.ct.us. Lab certification means that the lab is using accepted testing procedures approved by the State. Confirm that the lab is certified to test for the contaminants you want tested. Some labs may be certified to test for microbiology, but not for inorganics (nitrate, fluoride, or sodium). Please note that some of the listed labs are associated with public water systems and do not accept private clients. Selecting a State-Certified Lab .Make sure the private lab is certified to test for the contaminants you are requesting. Ask the following questions: ■ Do you accept samples to test individual homeowner well water? ■ What type of screening packages do you offer? ■ How much does it cost? ■ Do I pick up the sample bottles or will you send them to me? ■ How much time do I have to bring the sample back to the lab? ■ How long will it take to get results? Keep Records Keep a record of all your water tests for reference. Include the date and the test results. A change in the concentration of a contaminant may indicate that a water quality problem is developing. By comparing test results, you may find that a change in treatment is necessary or that a treatment device is not functioning properly. Interpreting the test results Once the tests are completed, you are faced with interpreting any positive results. The presence of a contaminant is not always an indication of a health hazard or a serious nuisance. It is the level at which it is found that is most important. You can discuss your results with a certified laboratory, your local health department,or the State Department of Public Health(DPH). General questions should be directed to the CT DPH Private Well Program; health effects questions should be directed to the Environmental & Occupational Health Assessment Program. If the well is contaminated with levels that might have significant health effects,the well should not be used. At this point,there are four basic alternatives: ■ Install a new well with expert guidance. ■ Connect with a public water system (if available). ■ Use bottled water. ■ Install a treatment system. 5 �I 7/26/06 Publication#24 Certain nuisance contaminants, such as hydrogen sulfide or sodium, can also render the need for alternative water sources or at home treatment when found at high enough levels. Refer to other Private Well Publications about specific problematic contaminants in drinking water for more information. Protection of Private Drinking Water System You can protect your private well by paying careful attention to what you do in and around your home as well as your neighbor's activities near your well. Regular testing and adopting practices to prevent contamination can help ensure that your well supplies you and your family with good quality drinking water. For more information on well protection see Publication#26 Residential Drinking Water Wells. Produced by: Clifford McClellan, RS and Ray Jarema, PE Private Well Program-8 60-5 09-7296 6 Connecticut Department of Public Health Drinking Water Section STATE OF CONNECTICUT Department of Public Health Drinking Water Section x"pjng catph"`°`Healthy MwwdPhjtatecGus -06.0.50943331bumness hours) P,piMyyaner j,Fyyfdwi,MArM.P.H. $60.509-8000(after hours) www.dph.state,ct.us/water/dwd.hb" Connecticut Statutes and Regulations For The Protection of Public Drinking Water Sources Water Company Lands: P.H.C. Sections 25-37c-1 et esq. and 25-37d-1 et seq. regulates the sale and/or change of use of water company owned lands, along with defining watershed land classifications,and through Connecticut General Statute 25-32(b),prohibits the sale of the most critical watershed lands(i.e. Class I land). Less critical water company owned watershed lands, defined as Class II land, is allowed to be sold or have its present use changed through a permit process. Source Abandonment: C.G.S. Sections 25-33k, 25-331, &25-33m regulates the sale and abandonment of public water supply sources. Location of Cemeteries: C.G.S. Section 25-41 prohibits the location of cemeteries within one-half mile of a public water supply reservoir. Prohibition of Sewage Discharge: C.G.S Section 22a-417 prohibits sewage discharge within a public water supply watershed area. Sanitation of Watersheds:-P.H.C. Section 19-13-1332 et. seq. mandates various separating distances from potential sources of pollution to the edge of an established watercourse within a public water supply watershed area or aquifer recharge area and requires that special protections be taken during construction to protect stream quality. Watershed Survey: P.H.C. Section 19-13-B 102(b)requires a water company having an active water source of supply under its control to conduct a sanitary survey of the watershed at least annually and report the results of this survey to the Department of Public Health by March 1 each year. Sanitary Survey Of A System Using Groundwater: In conducting a sanitary survey of a system using groundwater pursuant to P.H.C. Section 19-13-B 102(e)(7)(E)(iii), information on sources of contamination within the delineated wellhead protection area shall be considered. Watershed Prohibitions,Fishing,Passive Recreation & Penalties For Polluting A Reservoir: C.G.S. Sections 25-43,25-43c and 43(a)prohibits (i.e. bathing, aircraft, and general pollution) and regulates specific activities (i.e. fishing from boats with electric motors, fishing from shoreline) on public water supply reservoirs and associated watershed. Allows passive recreation for both surface and ground water source areas through a permitting process. Any person who causes or allows any pollutant or harmful substance to enter any public water supply reservoir is subject to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both. Threat of Pollution: C.G.S. Section 25-34(a) The Department of Public Health may make orders as it deems necessary to protect public drinking water sources or ice supplies for any pollution or threatened pollution, which, in its judgment is prejudicial to public health. Orders To Correct Pollution: C.G.S. Section 25-32g. allows, after investigation, the issuance of orders in writing to any person to discontinue, abate, alleviate or correct conditions or activities that constitutes an immediate threat to public water supplies Abbreviations: C.G.S. -Connecticut General Statute P.H.C. -Public Health Code Regulation Connecticut Statutes and Regulations For The Protection Of Public Drinking Water Sources Monitoring Waivers: The department may grant a public water system a waiver from the monitoring requirement for certain chemicals pursuant to P.H.C. Section 19-13-B102(e)(7)(C)(xii)—(xvi) if the watershed or zone of influence is not subject to certain types of land uses,and for certain chemicals, previous analytical results showed no detectable limit of the contaminant to be waived. Review of Proiects In A Watershed By The Department of Public Health: C.G.S Section 25-32f allows the State Department of Public Health to review and comment on proposed development projects and zoning changes within public water supply source water areas. Water Company Review of Proiects In A Source Water Area: C.G.S. Sections 8-3i and 22a-42f requires an applicant to either the municipal planning and zoning commission, zoning board of appeals or the inland wetlands commission to notify the water company of the proposed development if this proposal is within the water company's public water supply watershed area(8-3i also includes aquifer protection areas). The water company therefore has the opportunity to provide comments to the municipality concerning the development proposal. Individual Water Supply Plans: C.G.S. Sections 25-32d and 25-32d-1 et seq. requires water companies which serve over 1000 people to produce long term water supply plans in which the water company must plan for adequate supply to meet projected demand for the next fifty years, which includes an evaluation of source water protection measures. Regional Water Supply Plans: C.G.S. Section 25-33d through 25-33j mandates water supply planning on a regional basis. Regulations detail the creation of the regional water supply plan. Individual water supply plans are a part of this regional process. Local Governmental Consideration Of Public Drinking Water Sources: C.G.S. Section 8-2 & 8-23 requires that a municipal plan of conservation&development and zoning regulations shall be made with consideration for the protection of existing and potential public surface and ground drinking water supplies. Suggested Reading: The State's Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 1998- 2003 sets-forth specific goals and policies for the State of Connecticut and local communities. Sections concerning potable water supplies are located on pages 59-68, 120-123. This document is revised and updated every five years by the Office of Policy and Management. For More Information Contact the Source Water Protection Unit Abbreviations: C.G.S. -Connecticut General Statute P.H.C. -Public Health Code Regulation The Farmington River Watershed Road Salt Review Farmington River Watershed-Route 8 Corridor In the Towns of Becket, Otis, Sandisfield and Tolland ;4 �n �xx: Prepared for The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Farmington River Watershed Team By Michael J. Mattos Graduate Research Assistant Directed by Robert L. Ryan Assistant Professor The Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning University of Massachusetts, Amherst August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................... 1 Sodium as a Contaminant ..........................................................3 Regulations of Sodium Levels .................................................... 6 Massachusetts Highway Department—Salting Policies &Practices .........7 Existing Water Quality Data ....................................................... 13 Summary .............................................................................. 22 Recommendations .................................................................. 24 References Appendices I. Massachusetts Highway Department Snow &Ice Control Policy, 1996 H. Massachusetts Highway Department Salt Contamination Compliant Policy, 1996 III. Causes &Remedy of Elevated Sodium Concentrations in Aquifers of Becket, Massachusetts, 1987 IV. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Public Well Sodium Data for the Towns of Becket, Otis, Sandisfield and Tolland,2002 V. Map of Private Wells Along Route 8 Corridor VI. Town of Otis Private Well Data along Route 8, 1984-1996 VII. Massachusetts Highway Department Private Well Investigation Data for the Town of Otis 1992-1996 Maps Farmington River Watershed Farmington River Watershed-Residential Landuse(Upper Route 8 Corridor) Farmington River Watershed—Residential Landuse(Lower Route 8 Corridor) i 4. Acknowledgements This Draft Farmington River Watershed Salt Review was prepared by Michael J.Mattos (Regional Planning Graduate Student)of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts,under the direction of Assistant Professor Robert Ryan. This study was initiated and financed by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Farmington River Watershed Team. Special thanks to the following people for their help and assistance in gathering water quality data and other information for this report: David Abbott,Massachusetts Highway Department; Christopher Ahmadjian,Baystate Roads Program; Kevin Case,Farmington River Watershed Association;Ross Dindio,Massachusetts Highway Department; Susan Donnelly, Becket Board of Assessors;William Elovirta,Becket Chief of Police;William Fuller, Becket Board of Health;James Gibbs,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection;Victor Hrychrich, Sandisfield Board of Health; Charles Kaniecki,Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Harold Kobrin, Otis Planning Board; Peter Kolodziej, Otis Health Agent;Richard Larson,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection;Andrew Madden,Massachusetts Fish&Wildlife;James Mc Grath, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission; Valerie Nickerson,Tolland Health Agent;Michael Parker, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs; Susan Voudren, Tolland Board of Assessors;Elaine Ziegiler, Sandisfield Board of Assessors. We would also like to express our appreciation to the Farmington River Watershed Team as a group for initiating this study.We also would like to acknowledge the support and cooperation of the Towns of Becket, Otis, Sandisfield and Tolland. Introduction: This report has been prepared for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA)and Farmington River Watershed Team in response to on-going local concerns regarding salt content in drinking water and will be distributed to the municipalities within the Farmington River Watershed. The report is intended to serve as a resource document for assessing the current and potential impact of road salt on the Farmington River, as well as on the public and private water supplies within the watershed. For the purposes of this report,the study area was limited to the towns of Becket, Otis, Sandisfield and Tolland. Specifically, the Route 8 corridor within these communities has been targeted for analysis to identify areas of non-point source storm water pollution to the Farmington River,the impacts to wells, and to provide possible remediation alternatives for the communities. Geographically,the study area along Route 8 begins at the intersection of Route 20 in Becket and runs approximately 15 miles south parallel to the Farmington River to the Connecticut border, where the Farmington River feeds into the Colebrook Reservoir, the City of Hartford's future water supply(See Farmington River Watershed Map). Nffl Figuree 1. Colebrook Reservoir, an impoundment along the Farmington River There are approximately 150 wells located along the Route 8 corridor between the towns of Becket and Tolland. Approximately ten are public wells, which are subjected to regular testing practices regulated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MA DEP).The majority of the wells (approximately 83) are found in the town of Otis where most of the development along Route 8 is located. The Town of Tolland has the fewest, with only one private residential well that abuts Route 8. The Town of Sandisfield has 42 public and private wells and the Town of Becket has 24 wells. 1 ' 1• ' This report will attempt to explain the impacts to these wells by the elevated levels of sodium chloride(salt). It will present an overview of sodium chloride as one source of non-point source pollution and discuss the way in which this contaminant moves through the hydrologic cycle.This report will also review the regulations and standards that govern the acceptable limits of sodium levels in public and private water supplies, as well as the past and most recent well data for the study area. In addition,the road salting policy and salt complaint policy of the Massachusetts Highway Department(MHD)will be summarized by explaining the salt mixture and application ratios used, the salt storage practices and the criteria implemented for private well testing and replacement. The conclusion of the report will recommend alternatives that the Farmington Watershed communities may pursue to address possible issues of sodium chloride pollution in the public and private water supplies along the Route 8 corridor. 2 Sodium as a Contaminant: Sodium is a natural constituent of groundwater. In Massachusetts,normal background concentrations of sodium in freshwater range from 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/1)to 15 mg/l(MA DEP, 1991). However,high sodium concentrations in groundwater can result from the use and storage of road salt(sodium chloride).The sodium chloride is soluble in water and can enter the groundwater as run-off from uncovered piles of road salt piles and salt treated roads. In Massachusetts,the Division of Water Pollution Control found 70% of rivers, coastal waters and almost 100% of all lakes to be impacted to some degree by non-point source pollution.Non-point source pollution is caused by various factors associated with activities of land use such as agriculture,highway and parking lot run-off, landfills, construction, septic systems and underground storage tanks(MA DEP, 1991). Highway maintenance and run-off are significant contributors of non-point source pollution,but do not have as widespread an impact on surface and groundwater as other sources. Road salt storage,handling and application have the potential to increase levels of water pollution and impact residential wells,which may affect people who are at risk to elevated levels of sodium in their diets.This is a historical issue in the Farmington River Watershed along the Route 8 corridor,particularly in the Town of Otis where elevated levels of sodium in drinking water are suspected to have been impacted by road salting (Farmington River Assessment, 1995 p. VI-24). In the Town of Otis,there is a significant amount of data that indicates that many of the wells, which were tested in the vicinity of the MHD depot and adjacent to the Otis Department of Public Works (DPW) depot, had sodium levels which exceeded the maximum contaminant level of 20 mg/l, which was the standard at the time. Prior to 1993, 20 mg/l was the maximum contaminant level established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and MA DEP.This level was based on the American Heart Association(AHA)recommendation for people on sodium- restricted diets of 500-1000 mg of sodium per day use distilled water if sodium levels in their drinking water exceeds 20 mg/l. This recommendation by the AHA was based on an assumption that people use approximately two liters of water per day for drinking and cooking, and that water does not account for more than 10%of daily sodium consumption. However, the AHA has no opinion on sodium concentrations for general public drinking water(U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998 p.5). Since 1993,the EPA and MA DEP do not regulate sodium as a contaminant because of the minor contribution of drinking water to daily sodium consumption. However, as a general guidance level the EPA recommends that the sodium levels in drinking water not exceed 20 mg/1 for the at-risk population, (i.e.people on low-sodium diets.The EPA requires that all public wells be monitored for sodium and that concentrations in excess of 20 mg/1 be reported to local health officials.As a comparison, European countries such as Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands allow sodium 3 concentrations in drinking water up to 125 mg/l (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998 p.5). There are also other sources of sodium in groundwater as well, such as salts from septic system leachate,residential water softening devices and other chemicals containing sodium such as sodium hydroxide, which is commonly used in municipal water supplies to adjust Ph levels and to treat lead(MA DEP, 1991). For example, a study conducted by the city of Stamford Health Department in Connecticut of well water in the Stamford area showed a significant difference in total chloride concentrations in wells not treated with a softener. In the water softening process, calcium and magnesium ions are exchanged for sodium or potassium ions. Sodium is more commonly used in water softening. Most softeners use an on-site regeneration system, which discharges the salt solution into either a septic system or dry well. In the Stamford study, approximately 40%of the sampled wells with high sodium chloride levels seem to have been affected by the discharge of brine used in the water softening process (Kuntz,p.4). According to staff at the MA DEP, a New Hampshire study released in 1997 reports that for every 10 mg/1 of hardness removed from water,4.6 mg/1 of sodium is added and 7.6 mg/1 of potassium is added(Larson, 1997). The sodium from road salting can enter ground water supplies by percolating through the soils into ground water. Road run-off can drain directly into reservoirs. If the road salt enters fast flowing rivers and lakes,run-off will usually have little impact, because the sodium concentrations will become quickly diluted(U.S. Department of Transportation p.6). Road salt will usually have a greater impact on groundwater supplies, such as wells, springs,which are primarily recharged by groundwater. Road salt reaches groundwater in multiple ways depending on factors such as the frequency of precipitation and the drainage characteristics of the roadside soils (Pollock, 1990 p.5). Many of the highways in rural areas of Massachusetts use an "open"drainage system,which do not direct highway run-off into retention basins,but instead direct drainage into roadside ditches and swales (Pollock, 1990 p.2).Also, during winter snowstorms the applied road salt often mixes with snow that has been plowed into a snow bank.When the snow bank melts,the dissolved salt can filter through the soil towards the water table. In cold regions where snow banks accumulate during winter storms, spring thaws can generate higher than normal levels of sodium concentrations (Pollock, 1990 p.2). The factors that determine whether the salt will actually enter nearby wells and other water supplies include the depth of the wells and their distance from the road, the permeability of the soils and the direction and rate of groundwater flow. Ground water flow in Massachusetts generally moves slowly,ranging from a few feet per year to a couple of hundred feet per year. Therefore, sodium contamination, which may have originated as highway run-off will vary greatly in the time it may take to be detected in nearby wells (Pollock, 1990 p.12). 4 Although the effects of road salting as a source of non-point source pollution are most commonly associated with groundwater,there are other environmental, structural and economic impacts associated with road salt. Road salt has the potential to cause harm to aquatic life and vegetation such as roadside trees, shrubs and grasses, as well as damage infrastructure by expediting the corrosion process to bridges and automobiles (Keating,2001 p.9). Elevated levels of sodium chloride in soils generate an osmotic imbalance in plants, which can inhibit a plant's water absorption and stunt root growth.The salt can also interfere with the uptake of plant nutrients and inhibit the plant's long-term growth. Sodium chloride can cause severe injury to flowering, seed germination,roots and stems, as well as damage vegetation up to 200 meters from roads that are treated with deicing salts. In a report on sodium chloride concentrations in soils in Ontario Canada, sodium exposure as low as 100 mg/kg was alleged to inhibit seed germination and root growth rates for grasses and wildflowers (Keating, 2001 p.9). Damage to roadside vegetation can also intensify the impacts on drinking water quality by limiting the retention and processing of pollutants transported in run-off, and by diminishing the buffer zones to groundwater sources and reservoirs (Keating, 2001 p.10). Damage to vegetation can also have an impact on wildlife habitat by destroying food resources, shelter and breeding and nesting sites.Another impact common to wildlife is the ingestion of high levels of sodium.For example, many animals drink the salty snow-melt to relieve thirst, which may be toxic to salt-sensitive species. Birds also often mistake the road salt crystals for seeds. The impact of road salt on aquatic life varies. Salt tolerance of fish range from 400-30,000 mg/l, depending on if they are fresh or salt-water species. Rainbow trout,for example, are killed at salt concentrations of 1,000 mg/1. Stream studies in upstate New York suggest that diversity of aquatic species decreases when salinity increases, and that salt tolerant species become dominant during periods of road salting activity(Keating, 2001 p.13). Road salt can also significantly impact infrastructure. The chloride ions in salt increase the conductivity of water, which induces and expedites corrosion. Road salt corrosion can affect automobile parts,bridge decks,concrete and reinforcing rods. In addition,the affects of road salting can have an economic impact on real estate values of property.For instance,if a potential home buyer inquires about the sodium concentration of a well associated with a prospective home and learns that the well has been affected from sodium infiltration, then the sale may not go through or the selling price may be adjusted downward(Burger, 1997). 5 Regulation of Sodium Levels: As previously stated, since 1993 the EPA,the MA DEP and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health(MA DPH) do not recognize or regulate sodium chloride as a contaminant because of the minor contribution of drinking water to daily sodium consumption. However, in accordance with the AHA recommendation, the EPA and the MA DEP have observed 20 mg/1 as an advisory limit for drinking water and the EPA has set a"secondary maximum contaminant level for chloride at 250 mg/l. The MA DEP monitors public water supplies for sodium levels. In the Farmington River Watershed study area along the Route 8 corridor,there are a total of 150 public and private wells. Thirteen of the wells are public wells monitored by the MA DEP. Three wells are in the Town of Becket, seven public wells are located along Route 8 in the Town of Otis,three public wells are in Sandisfield and there are no public wells in Tolland within the study area. The MA DEP defines a public water system as one that services 25 or more people per day on an average of 60 or more days per year, or has 15 service connections (Gibbs, 2002).There are two classifications of public water systems defined in the Drinking Water Regulations. The first is called Community systems, which is a water source that the same people are regularly exposed to an average of eight hours or greater per day. Examples of these systems would be nursing homes and town halls. Another classification of public water system is a Non-Community system, which has two sub- types: Transient and Non-Transient. A Transient/Non-Community public water system services different people. Examples of these systems include restaurants and campgrounds. A Non-Transient/Non-Community system services the same people up to eight hours or less per day. Examples of these systems include factories, schools, and other workplaces. The primary difference between these types of water systems is the regularity of exposure of people to the water, which in turn dictates the procedure for testing. MA DEP requires that Community System water sources be tested most extensively.These water supplies require testing for all inorganic compounds. The Non-Transit/Non- Community water supplies are also tested for inorganic compounds,but to a lesser degree. The Transient/Non-Community water supplies are tested for just one inorganic chemical at a time,much less extensive sampling is required for these systems (Gibbs, 2002). The MA DEP requires water sampling for public wells once every three years. This testing is conducted at the system owners' expense by outside laboratories, which meet MA DEP standards. The data is then analyzed and if the sodium concentrations exceed 20 mg/1 the town and the water users are notified. However, no other action is required beyond notification. In Becket,there are no public wells in the study area that exceed 20 mg/1 of sodium concentration. There is one public well in Otis, which exceeds 40 mg/1 of sodium and two public wells in Sandisfield, which exceed 40 mg/1. In Tolland there are no public wells within the study area. 6 S t Massachusetts Highway Department—Salting Policies and Practices The Massachusetts Highway Department(MHD) conducts snow and ice control activities throughout the Massachusetts highway network.MHD's goal is to promote highway safety and mobility during inclement winter weather. Table I lists the best management practices followed by the MHD for road and depot salt operations. The MHD most commonly relies on sodium chloride(road salt)and plowing to remove snow and ice from state roads.MHD also uses abrasives such as sand to provide traction on untreated roads (MHD, GEIR, 1995 p.2-1). Sand application,however,is not an efficient deicing option.Although it increases the frictional resistance on icy surfaces, it does not melt snow or ice nor will it prevent binding of ice and snow to pavement (MHD, GEIR, 1995 p.2-2).According to the MHD's Statewide 1996 Snow and Ice Control Policy(Appendix 1), sand is expensive to clean up, causes damages to vehicles, and can block drainage systems which causes flooding. MHD often pre-mixes sand with sodium chloride at a ratio of 1:40(50 lbs of salt per one ton of sand).This mixture helps to prevent the sand from freezing during storage. The application rate is 240 lbs per lane-mile for both pre-mixtures and pure salt. The pre- mixtures of sand and salt are primarily used in low salt areas designated throughout the state. Currently,there are no low-salt areas designated within the Farmington Watershed study area along Route 8.The reduced salt areas are re-established annually by a vote of the MHD commissioners (MHD, 1996 p.40). The storage of salt at the MHD and local highway maintenance facilities represents a potential threat to groundwater if the salt is not completely covered and located on an impermeable surface. MHD stores salt spreading equipment, sand, and covered salt at their Otis facility along Route 8 approximately 1,200 feet south of the town's highway maintenance facility, which also stores sand and salt(See Figure 2). Figure 2. Town of Otis Highway Facility across from the MHD Highway Facility 7 Figure 3. The MHD Highway Facility along Route 8 in Otis The Town of Otis stores its road salt in a covered shed at their facility on Route 8 just north of the town's village.The Otis highway department applies a 1:25 salt sand ratio (80 lbs. of salt per one ton of sand)to all of the town's local roads. No salt is stored in that section of Becket located in the Farmington River Watershed or the Route 8 corridor study area. In Sandisfield, salt storage is located within the Farmington River Watershed,but outside of the Route 8 corridor study area. The salt at their facility is covered, however the sand that is pre-mixed with salt is uncovered. Sandisfield is currently awaiting grant funds to construct a new storage shed for the sand and salt (Farmington River Watershed Assessment, 1996 p. IV-24). The Sandisfield Highway Department uses a 1:18 salt-sand mix (110 lbs. salt per ton of sand)on their local roads. The salt storage in Tolland is also located within the Farmington River Watershed,but is located outside of the Route 8 corridor study area.The Tolland highway maintenance facility is located near the town's transfer center on Colebrook River Road. The Tolland Highway Department uses a 1:10 salt/sand mixture(200 lbs. salt per ton of sand) on their local roads (Farmington River Watershed Assessment Report,p. IV-24). Sodium Remediation: In the early 1990's, some businesses and residents in the Town of Otis were suspicious of a potential problem with elevated sodium concentrations in the public and private wells along Route 8. Initially, approximately twenty wells were tested by the town; the results of which indicated that sodium levels were elevated in groundwater. At that time,many of the wells had sodium concentrations in excess of 20 mg/l for over a period of years. The town then contacted and worked with the MADEP and the MHD for several years to resolve the issue of sodium-contaminated wells along Route 8 in Otis. Several elected officials from the Town of Otis felt that MHD was responsible for the well contamination(Farmington River Assessment, 1995 p. VI-24).However,there are many factors cited by the MHD that suggest that they were not entirely responsible for this problem.MHD has procedures and policies established for addressing salt 8 contamination issues. In the 1996 MHD Salt Contamination Complaint Policy(Appendix II),the MHD clearly states its criteria for investigating sodium-contaminated wells. MHD will investigate wells if: 1. Chloride concentrations are greater than or equal to 250 mg/l.MHD chose this concentration level because that at 250 mg/1 water begins to taste salty to most people.Furthermore,this concentration is defined by the EPA as a "secondary maximum contaminant level"for chloride 2. (a)A resident of the property is on a specific,documented sodium restricted diet determined by a physician to be 1,000 mg/day and to have a sodium concentration in their water supply that exceeds 20 mg/l; (b)A resident of the property is on specific,documented sodium restricted diet determined by a physician to be less than 2,000 mg/day and to have a sodium concentration in their water supply that exceeds 40 mg/l. The MHD policy regarding non-community public water supplies is that investigation and remediation of all public water supplies should be conducted in cooperation with the MA DEP.MHD will deny any public water salt complaint that is from a water supplier that is not in full compliance with the MA DEP's "Drinking Water Regulations" 310 CMR 22 for at least one year,including the time MHD investigates the well. The purpose of this policy is to insure that public water suppliers are not just simply registered with the MA DEP,but also comply with the MA DEP's drinking water regulations. The MHD will deny complaints of sodium-contaminated wells if: 1. The water is not potable due to the presence of non-highway related contaminants that exceed the levels of the Massachusetts drinking water standards, regardless of the salt content of the water; 2. The well is poorly constructed, so that surface contamination can easily enter the well; 3. There are significant non-MHD sources of salt within the well, such as sources from municipal salt storage, municipal salt application to local roads, salt applied to private property, water treated chemicals, or other sources of salt contamination. Based on the MHD Salt Complaint Policy(Appendix II)� the MHD will only investigate complaints about salt contaminated wells after the complaint has been submitted in writing attached with water quality data and other evidence of contamination. The MHD will then conduct a site visit;the findings of the site visit will be presented to the MHD salt committee with a recommendation to either conduct a detailed investigation or deny the complaint. If the MHD feels that an in- depth investigation is warranted,water samples are then collected monthly for a one- year period from the water sources of concern. After the MHD conducts an investigation for one-year, a recommendation is made to either gather more data, deny the complaint or conduct remedial actions (MHD, 1996 p.1). 9 4 t Some of the remedial actions that the MHD may employ if they are found to be the source of sodium contamination include, ■ Well replacement ■ Connection to a public water supply, if applicable ■ Installing a water treatment unit such as a reverse osmosis unit ■ Modify or construct a new highway drainage system ■ Reduce salt applications on nearby highways ■ Eliminate salt use on highways and use alternative deicing materials ■ Install and operate a scavenger well There are a variety of techniques that the MHD has the capacity to implement to reduce the potential impacts of road salting to public and private water supplies. Table I lists the best management practices for road deicing and storage at maintenance depots developed by the MA DER These practices identify the best procedures for salt storage and handling, snow dumping,road salt application and employee training. Table I. Best Management Practices Road and Maintenance Depots/Road Deicing Source:MA Department of Environmental Protection, 1986 Salt Storage and Handling Cover Salt Piles Provide for drainage Keep handling area clean of spilled chemicals Reduce unnecessary handling through proper shipment planning Shield truck-loading&unloading from weather Snow Dumping Do not dispose snow in primary recharge areas of public wells Do not dispose of snow at a sanitary landfill Avoid direct dumping of snow into rivers or water sources Choose a site to dump snow near a large river with suitable soils for filtering Road Salt Application Identify sensitive areas around public water supplies Ground-speed controllers should be used for all spreaders Spreaders should be calibrated before winter storms Determine level of service and application rates for weather types and road types prior to the winter Salt mixtures with sand,calcium chloride should be used in identified areas Maintain plow and spreading equipment After storms determine the amount of materials used,area covered&results Explore alternatives and conduct experiments as new chemical alternatives are introduced 10 One of the training programs offered to MHD employees is the Baystate Roads Program located at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. The program is affiliated with the University's Engineering Department and is focused on training highway personal with the most effective and cost efficient ways to treat roads in inclement winter weather. Some of the issues covered by the Baystate Roads program include comparing proactive pre-storm chemical application to reactive post-storm deicing,factors affecting snow and ice treatment, snow types and preferred treatments, the costs of alternative road treatments and the disadvantages and advantages of sand and alternative deicing chemicals. Deicing Alternatives: There are a number of alternative solutions to highway deicing, such as the application of Liquid Calcium Chloride(LCC), Calcium Magnesium Acete (CMA), Magnesium Chloride(MAG) and pre-wetting salt. The result of an Ottawa, Canada study on pre-wetting salt with LCC showed that more material stays on the road surface and less material is lost in run-off(Pollock, 1990 p.18). Pre-wetting the salt with LCC induces the melting action on snow and ice and is effective at a much lower temperature than normal road salt. The MHD has experimented with two alternative highway-deicing chemicals, Calcium Magnesium Acete (CMA)and Liquid Calcium Chloride(LCC).The first used was CMA in the winter of 1986-1987. It was used to gauge the success of alleviating sodium chloride contamination along Route 138 in Somerset,MA.At that time, CMA was 23 times the cost of salt,thereby not being the most cost-effective approach,however the experiment was successful and CMA was determined by the Massachusetts Highway Department to be an acceptable highway deicing chemical(Pollock, 1990 p.18). The second alternative deicing chemical, LCC was evaluated by the Massachusetts Highway Department in the winters of 1993, 1994 and 1995 in surrounding Boston area. The experiment was conducted to test whether LCC was equally effective as a"50150"equal sand and salt mixture.The experiment was documented as a success by the MHD.The cost to purchase and apply LCC to the study area was approximately 15%higher than the cost of salt and sand(MHD,Anti-ice Experiment, 1995 p.12). The way LCC works is by absorbing moisture from the air and dissolving it to form a liquid solution, when placed on pavement it continues to absorb moisture until equilibrium is reached. LCC also has a very low freezing point of—59'Fahrenheit and has the fastest melting action of any deicing chemical produced(MHD, Anti-ice Experiment, 1995 p.6). Salt typically loses 75% or greater of its effectiveness to melt snow and ice when temperatures drop 10'from 30'to 20°. At temperatures below 20°,moisture is not available for the salt to use to become a brine solution, which stops ice and snow from forming(MHD,Anti-ice Experiment, 1995 p.6). In order to get salt crystals into brine 11 f � solution there must be both moisture and heat. LCC has both elements and works more effectively by lowering the freezing point of water and increasing the number of freeze and thaw cycles (MHD,Anti-ice Experiment, 1995 p.12). Based on pre-wetting trials with LCC performed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation,reduction in salt use ranged from 10-40%. The salt reduction was achieved by pre-wetting the salt with 32% LCC at a rate of 4-8%by weight. The cost for the Minnesota experiment was approximately$58 per ton for the salt and$0.11 per liter for the LCC, at a Minnesota average application rate of 800 lbs per two-lane mile,the cost savings of pre-wetting totaled$1.42 per two-lane mile(Miner, Better Roads, December 1995 p.4). According to a 1997 letter to the Town of Otis,the MHD was in the process of requesting funding at that time to equip their trucks with saddle tanks to apply the LCC, and although MHD had not designated the Route 8 corridor within the Farmington Watershed as a"low-salt area",they agreed to make an effort to reduce the amount of road salt used within Otis. Existing Water Ouality Data Four sets of data from the Town of Otis,the MHD, the Town of Becket and the MA DEP were examined to determine the extent of sodium contamination in public and private water supplies along the Route 8 corridor in the Farmington River Watershed. All of the available data gathered and analyzed for private wells within the study area were determined to be in accordance with the data gathering and testing procedural standards associated with Quality Assurance/Quality Control(QA/QC). The data gathered on behalf of the Town of Otis was collected by a licensed environmental testing laboratory, which must follow the QA/QC guidelines as part of their certification. Additionally,the data gathered by the MHD and the MA DEP were also collected and analyzed by professional scientist trained to follow and regulate the standards of QA/QC water quality sampling(Gibbs, 2002). The well data gathered by the Town of Becket was also and was collected and sampled by MA DEP in 1987 (Motts and Spencer, 1987). Private Well Data: The Town of Otis Board of Health provided most of the private well water data. Other private well data for the other communities within the study area are relatively limited,for example there are no private well data available for the Towns of Sandisfield and Tolland and the private well data that are available for the Town of Becket do not come from within the Farmington River Watershed study area. In the late 1980's,the local businesses and residents of the town of Otis suspected that there was a potential problem with the quality of drinking water in some of the public and private wells along Route 8.The town's planning board hired a private 12 environmental laboratory, Berkshire Enviro-Labs, Inc., to conduct drinking water analysis for approximately 20 wells within the Farmington River Watershed study area. All of the wells that were tested were private residential wells except a real estate office and a church, which were commercial uses but did not qualify as public water systems under the MA DEP criteria. Of these wells, 12 had sodium concentrations in excess of 20 mg/l, which was still regulated by the EPA and MA DEP as a water contaminant at that time. Table 11 shows the sodium levels of the wells tested on behalf of the Town of Otis between the years of 1984 and 1996. The sodium levels of those wells initially tested during the 1980's,that exceeded the maximum contaminant level ranged from 21 mg/1 to 720 mg/l. These high levels of sodium in the drinking water supplies along Route 8 in Otis were in close proximity to the MHD depot,which indicated to local public officials of the town that the road salting and storage practices of the MHD may be the source of sodium pollution to these wells. Table II. Town of Otis-Sodium Concentrations-Sampled Wells on Route 8 Tested By: Water Test Corporation of America,for the Town of Otis Location Date Sodium(mg/1) Location Date Sodium(mg/1) Adams(resident) 5/14/89 21 Higgins(resident) 5/14/89 78 Beaudry(resident) 5/14/89 2.1 10/3/91 94 Clark(resident) 8/18/88 56 Hood(resident) 5/14/89 9.4 10/3/91 42 J&D Marina&Campground 9/11/96 126 10/14/92 37 Jasman(resident) 5/14/89 22 Coffey(resident) 5/14/89 14 10/3/91 9 Comarato/McNally(resident) 5/14/89 19 Kearin(resident) 5/14/89 12 Crandall 3/22/89 112 Lane(resident) 5/14/89 9 5/14/89 52 10/24/96 18 10/3/91 66.6 Maintenance Depot 10/24/96 4.3 Fennelly(resident) 5/14/89 41 Mott(resident) 5/14/89 2.1 10/3/91 39 Murphy(resident) 5/14/89 6.4 1/5/93 205 Schilling(resident) 5/13/89 82 10/23/96 64 10/3/91 96 First Congregational Church 5/14/89 89 Slakteris(resident) 5/14/89 27 Gage(resident) 5/14/89 35 10/24/96 62 10/3/91 60 Snow(resident) 5/14/89 33 Gaiton(resident) 5/14/89 33 10/3/91 121 11/4/96 52 Terranova(resident) 10/3/91 56.2 Gile 10/31/84 720 10/29/96 70 11/2/86 99 Town Hall 10/3/91 148.5 8/18/88 56 10/24/96 104 *Note:There are approximately 70 wells along Route 8 in Otis 25 wells were sampled,23 private and 2 public. Concentrations in bold exceed 20 mg/1 13 In 1991,the Town of Otis initiated correspondence with the MHD and MA DEP asking for assistance in determining which wells should be replaced and who should be responsible for their replacement. In Otis the MHD decided to conduct an in depth investigation,based on the information provided by the town.The MHD investigation was limited to wells where residents were on sodium-restricted diets of less than 2,000 mg/1 per day and had a sodium concentration of 40 mg/1 or if the well had a sodium content of 250 mg/l. Most of the sodium contaminated well complaints were denied by MHD because it was determined by the MHD that other factors degraded the water quality of the well. These factors included bacterial contamination,public water supplies that should have been registered with the MA DEP, and the source of sodium pollution was believed to be the municipal salt storage facility. Table III shows the sodium levels of wells sampled by the MHD. Of the water quality data collected by the MHD,their tests at their maintenance facility showed the most fluctuation in sodium concentrations. Originally,the MHD maintenance facility well had sodium concentrations of 160 mg/1 in 1988 before they had their well replaced in 1992. The sodium levels ranged from 68 mg/l in 1992 to 6 mg/l in 1994,but then increased in concentrations in 1995 up to 20 mg/l. Table III. Town of Otis -Sodium Concentrations-Selected Private and Public Wells Tested By:Massachusetts Highway Department Date Sodium(mg/1) Date Sodium(mg/1) Maintenance Depot 11/22/88 160 Snow 9/9/92 60 w/o softner 12/16/92 68 9/9/92 136 w/softener 12/18/92 10 11/17/92 42 12/19/92 8 12/17/92 49 1/5/93 15 12/21/92 47 1/12/93 15 1/21/93 51 1/29/93 15 2/23/93 51 9/10/93 8 3/25/93 53 3/11/94 4 4/20/93 38 4/14/94 14 5/12/93 47 5/3/94 14 6/15/93 58 7/27/94 8 Crandall 11/17/92 81 8/29/94 6 10/25/94 4.9 9/30/94 8 11/29/94 4.8 10/25/94 8 12/20/94 4.6 11/29/94 16 4/24/95 5.2 12/20/94 10 6/26/95 3.6 2/3/95 12 7/27/95 5.4 3/15/95 12 8/17/95 5.4 4/24/95 18 9/21/95 4 14 y 1 6/26/95 20 11/24/95 3.7 7/27/95 11 12/28/95 3.7 8/17/95 12 Clark 4/15/92 36 9/21/95 11 11/17/92 45 11/24/95 12 12/21/92 46 3/13/96 24 1/21/93 40 Terranova 4/15/92 54 2/23/93 42 11/17/92 60 3/25/93 42 12/21/92 58 4/21/93 44 1/21/93 56 5/12/93 50 2/23/93 54 6/15/93 48 3/25/93 54 12/20/93 44 4/20/93 54 Higgins 5/14/89 78 5/12/93 58 Gile 4/15/92 3.8 6/15/93 58 12/17/93 60 In all of the wells sampled by the MHD except one, sodium concentrations exceeded the EPA and MADEP advisory limit of 20 mg/l, ranging in concentration levels from 20 mg/1 to 136 mg/l. One well tested in 1992 by the MHD was tested with a water softener and without the softener to determine the sodium contribution of the softener. The sodium concentration without the softener was 60 mg/1 and the concentration with the softener was 136 mg/l. Two of the seven sampled wells were replaced by the MHD by 1994. In addition to the MHD replacing their own contaminated well, a residential well with a sodium concentration of 81 mg/1 was replaced because the resident was on a restricted sodium diet and complied with the MHD policy regarding well replacement. The one private well sampled by the MHD that did not have sodium concentrations in excess of 20 mg/1 had been replaced by the resident themselves due to unpalatable concentrations of sodium chloride in their well prior to the MHD investigation.Although the owners of this well were hoping to have the MHD reimburse them for the cost of their well replacement,the MHD would only evaluate such a request if samples from both the old well and the new well were conducted for one year. Since sampling of the old well had not been conducted for one year,the residents where unable to receive reimbursement for the cost of their well replacement(MHD, Stevens, 1996). Although all of the private well data gathered for the Town of Becket is outside of the Farmington Watershed study area,the information is still useful as a comparison of the data within the study area to determine the extent of sodium contamination.The data collected for the Town of Becket was from a 1987 report by Dr.Ward Motts and Mr. Robert Spencer of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission on the causes and remedies of elevated sodium in groundwater(Appendix III). 15 Table IV. shows the Becket data samples along Route 8 North, outside the Farmington River Watershed study area. Of the eleven samples,nine wells had sodium levels ranging from 20 mg/l to 110 mg/l.These samples indicate that during this testing period sodium was affecting the quality of water along Route 8 outside of the Farmington watershed study area. However, along the south section of Route within the Becket portion of the study area,there are approximately 24 private wells,however none of the data for these wells exist, and therefore the water quality of the private water supplies for this area cannot be determined at this time. Table IV. Town of Becket-Sodium Concentrations Tested By:Dr.Ward Motts&Robert Spencer, 1987 Date Sodium(mg/1) Andrews 5/84-3/85 2.8-4.4 Becket General Store 5/84-3/85 20.0-42.0 Dean 5/84-3/85 33.0-40.0 Fire Dept. 5/84-3/85 30.0-72.0 Frisbee 5/84-3/85 10.0-40.0 Hohl 5/84-3/85 34.0-110 Leonhardt(deep well) 5/84-3/85 2.0-46.0 Leonhardt(shallow well) 5/84-3/85 1.5-5.0 Robinson 5/84-3/85 20.0-42.0 Sweet 5/84-3/85 20.0-50.0 Trembley 5/84-3/85 20.0-38.0 *Note:Multiple well tests were done over this time period. The sodium concentrations are given from lowest to highest Public Well Data: According to public well data prepared by the MA DEP,there are thirteen public water supplies along the Route 8 Farmington Watershed study area.Three wells are located in the Town of Becket, seven in the Town of Otis, three in the Town of Sandisfield and no wells in the Town of Tolland. All of the public well data was collected and analyzed by the MA DEP in accordance with QA/QC guidelines (See Table V.). 16 Table V. MA DEP Public Well Data-Route 8 Corridor- Farmington Watershed Sodium Concentration Levels PWS PWS PWS Town PWS Street Collection Sodium PWSID PWS Name Status* Class Name Addr Date (mg/L) CAMP GREYLOCK 1022015 FOR BOYS I NC BECKET RTE 8 15-Jun-95 5.8 CAMP GREYLOCK 1022015 FOR BOYS I NC BECKET RTE 8 15-Jun-95 10 CAMP GREYLOCK 1022015 FOR BOYS I NC BECKET RTE 8 15-Jun-95 7.7 CAMP GREYLOCK 1022015 FOR BOYS I NC BECKET RTE 8 15-Jun-95 9.5 2042 NORTH 1022009 CAMP LENOX A NC BECKET MAIN RD 27-Jun-95 19.5 BECKET GENERAL 1022002 STORE A NC BECKET ROUTE 8 5-May-98 90 BECKET GENERAL 1022002 STORE A NC BECKET ROUTE 8 23-Aug-01 44 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1856 SOUTH 1225014 CAMPGROUNDS A NC OTIS MAIN ST 25-May-95 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1856 SOUTH 1225014 CAMPGROUNDS A NC OTIS MAIN ST 25-May-95 8.2 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 25-May-95 5 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 25-May-95 3 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 25-May-95 5.3 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 25-May-95 6.2 TOWN OF OTIS MUNICIPAL 1 NORTH 1225028 BUILDING A NC OTIS MAIN RD 25-May-95 3.4 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 28-Apr-98 2.9 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 28-Apr-98 4.6 TOWN OF OTIS MUNICIPAL 1 NORTH 1225028 BUILDING A NC OTIS MAIN RD 28-Apr-98 2.4 FARMINGTON RIVER COUNTRY 119 SOUTH 1225036 STORE A NC OTIS MAIN RD 28-Apr-98 60 OTIS POULTRY 1570 N 1225034 FARM A NC OTIS MAIN RD 28-Apr-98 4 17 Table V. Continued OTIS POULTRY 1570 N 1225034 FARM A NC OTIS MAIN RD 28-Apr-98 2.4 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1856 SOUTH 1225014 CAMPGROUNDS A NC OTIS MAIN ST 22-May-98 1.6 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1856 SOUTH 1225014 CAMPGROUNDS A NC OTIS MAIN ST 22-May-98 4.8 FARMINGTON RIVER REGIONAL 555 NORTH 1225040 SCHOOL A NTNC OTIS MAIN RD 12-Jun-00 4.8 FARMINGTON RIVER COUNTRY 119 SOUTH 1225036 STORE A NC OTIS MAIN RD 19-Apr-01 72 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1856 SOUTH 1225014 CAMPGROUNDS A NC OTIS MAIN ST 9-May-01 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 1856 SOUTH 1225014 CAMPGROUNDS A NC OTIS MAIN ST 9-May-01 5.3 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 27-Aug-01 3.7 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 27-Aug-01 5.3 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 27-Aug-01 3.5 KLONDIKE 1225017 CAMPGROUND A NC OTIS ROUTE 8 27-Aug-01 5 OTIS POULTRY 1570 N 1225034 FARM A NC OTIS MAIN RD 27-Aug-01 4.8 OTIS POULTRY 1570 N 1225034 FARM A NC OTIS MAIN RD 27-Aug-01 4.8 TOWN OF OTIS MUNICIPAL 1 NORTH 1225028 BUILDING A NC OTIS MAIN RD 22-Oct-01 3 101 NORTH MAIN 1260007 NEW BOSTON INN A NC SANDISFIELD STREET 25-May-95 8.4 61 SOUTH 1260009 TUCKERS PLACE A NC SANDISFIELD MAIN ST 13-Sep-95 8.7 61 SOUTH 1260009 TUCKERS PLACE A NC SANDISFIELD MAIN ST 20-Apr-01 59 101 NORTH MAIN 1260007 NEW BOSTON INN A NC SANDISFIELD STREET 27-Aug-01 42 *Status I=Inactive A=Active 18 In Becket,the MA DEP has certified Camp Lenox on Route 8 as a public water supply and has required the owner to have the well sampled by an approved water testing lab twice during the last six year time period,first in 1995 and most recently in 2001. In the sample analyzed in 1995,there was a sodium concentration of 19.5 mg/l,just under the 20 mg/l advisory limit. In August of 2001 when the camp's well was tested again,the sodium concentration had dropped to a level of 9.6 mg/l, which is relatively low at less than half the advisory limit. In the Town of Otis,the public wells in the Route 8 Farmington Watershed study area that were sampled approximately three times over a nine year period from 1993 to 2001 were Otis Poultry Farm, Klondike Campground,Town of Otis's Municipal Building,the Farmington River Country Store,the Farmington River Regional School, the Olde Otis Inn and the Mountain View Campground. The Otis Poultry Farm was first sampled in 1993,which produced a sodium concentration level of 4.7 mg/l, in 1998 the sodium levels for two on-site wells tested was 4 mg/l.The sodium levels at the Poultry Farm have stayed relatively low for nine years, which indicates that there is not an issue of sodium contamination at the Otis Poultry Farm(MA DEP,2002). The Klondike Campground has four wells that have been tested for the MA DEP three times, once in 1995, 1998 and 2001. In 1995 all four wells were tested and respective sodium concentrations were 5.0, 3.0, 5.3, 1, and 6.2 mg/l. In 1998 just wells# 1 and#4 were tested and their respective sodium concentrations were 2.9 mg/1 and 4.6 mg/l.Most recently in August of 2001, all four wells were sampled again and their sodium levels were 3.7, 5.3, 3.5 and 5 mg/l.The sodium concentrations found in the water supplies at Klondike Campground have remained consistently low during the years between sampling and therefore indicate that sodium contamination is not affecting the quality of the campground's water(MA DEP, 2002). The Town of Otis's relatively new municipal building,Town Hall has been tested three times by the MA DEP,once in 1995, 1998 and 2001. In 1995, around the time the new Town Hall was built,the sodium concentration level was 3.4 mg/l, in 1998 the sodium level decreased to 2.4 mg/l. The most recent sample collected in October of 200, had a sodium concentration of 3 mg/l. The sodium levels for the Otis Municipal Building are very low and have remained relatively consistent during a six year time period, therefore sodium contamination does not seem to be affecting the quality of the water at the Otis Town Hall (MA DEP, 2002). The Farmington River Country Store well was also tested three times, once in 1995, 1998 and 2001. In the 1995 the well sample produced sodium concentration of 8 mg/l. Three years later in 1998,the well sample produced a sodium concentration of 60 mg/l, over seven times the 1995 reading. In 2001 the sodium level had increased again to 72 mg/l.The sodium concentration levels at the Farmington River Country Store indicate that sodium contamination is occurring. The sharp increase of sodium content between 1995 and 1998 suggests that a significant source of sodium entered the well during that 19 time period. However, in order to determine the exact source of pollution, a more detailed study and analysis will need to be conducted (MA DEP, 2002). The Farmington River Regional School,just north of the Otis village center, was built in 1998 and the well was tested in June, 2000. At that time the sodium concentration was 4.8 mg/l, which suggests little threat of sodium affecting the quality of water in this well (MA DEP,2002). The school well was also tested on June 5, 1997 and sodium was 5 mg/l. The Olde Otis Inn,near the town's village center, is also relatively new and has had its public well tested once in April of 2001. The sodium concentration level was 10.5 mg/1 at that time, which indicates that sodium contamination is not significant (MA DEP, 2002). The Mountain View Campground on Route 8, south of the town's village center, has had its two wells sampled three times,once in 1995, 1998 and 2001. In 1995,the campground's wells had sodium concentrations of 2 mg/1 in well# 1 and 8.2 mg/1 in well #2. In 1998, well#1 decreased to 1.6 mg/1 and well#2 decreased to 4.8 mg/l,but in 2001 both wells increased slightly in sodium concentrations to 3 mg/1 for well#1 and 5.3 mg/l for well#2(MA DEP, 2002). In the Town of Sandisfield,the MA DEP regulates three public water supplies within the Farmington Watershed study area, the New Boston Inn and Restaurant,M.J. Tucker's Plac, and the New Boston Nursing Home. The New Boston Inn and Restaurant, at the intersection of Route 8 and Route 57 has had its well sampled twice,once in 1995 and in 2001. In 1995 the samples sodium content level was 8.4 mg/l and in the most recent sample of August 2001,the level had increased over 5 times to 42 mg/l.This data suggests that there has been sodium contamination affecting the well during the six-year time period between testing.The source of the significant increase in the level of sodium is currently not known.A more detailed study and analysis should be conducted to determine the exact source of sodium pollution(MA DEP, 2002). M.J. Tucker's Place,located on Route 8 south towards the Town of Tolland,has had its public well tested twice. The first sample was in 1995 and its sodium concentration level was 8.7 mg/l. Six years later in 2001 the well was sampled again and its sodium content level had increased nearly seven times to 59 mg/l. The sodium concentrations for the public water supply at M.J. Tuckers place seem to indicate that a significant source of sodium pollution has affected the quality of the well's water during the six-year time period between MA DEP testing. Again, a more detailed study and analysis is needed to determine the exact source of the sodium pollution(MA DEP, 2002). 20 Sodium analyses conducted for the New Boston Nursing Home reported concentrations of 12.5 mg/1 in August 1995, 15 mg/1 in September 1998, and 22 mg/l in August 2001. The Farmington River: Data for sodium concentration levels in the Farmington River was not available for this study.However,the Draft 1996 Farmington River Assessment report states that due to"the very rural character of the basin and the absence of any point source discharges, any water quality problems in the basin will be the result of non-point source pollution" (Farmington River Watershed Assessment, 1996 p.4). At the Farmington River Watershed Team meeting in January of 1996, representatives of the Town of Sandisfield stated that road salting practices, the lack of trash receptacles and failing septic systems were problems that may negatively affect water quality in the Farmington River Basin(Farmington River Watershed Assessment, 1996 p.4). The Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife(DFW)conducted a fish survey in the summer of 2001 in several brooks surrounding the Farmington River, as well as in the main stem of the Farmington River.The conductivity measurements can be used to estimate the amount of dissolved salts in the water,but do not identify individual ions or potential sources. The conductivity is measured in microsiemens per liter. The conductivity levels for the main stem of the Farmington River were relatively high, ranging from 200-250 microsiemens/liter,compared to the surrounding brooks,which had conductivity levels between 50 and 80 microsiemens/1(Madden, 2002). An earlier study of the Farmington River by the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management in 1996 assessed the biologic quality of the Farmington River. A comparison of sections of the West Branch Farmington River in Otis,upstream and downstream of the MHD facility revealed no impacts on"the downstream aquatic community in terms of water quality and habitat quality, save for localized effects of deposition immediately adjacent to the yard, where sampling was not conducted (Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management, 1997,p.4). This study suggests that road salt may not have an impact on the Farmington River since the sodium would be heavily diluted by stormwater drainage and the flow of the river. 21 Summary: Road salt is a source of non-point source pollution that has potentially impacted the private and public water supplies along the Route 8 corridor within the Farmington River Watershed. Although there are a number of non-point source pollutants that may affect the quality of water,the practice of road salting, which has been studied and determined to increase sodium chloride levels in groundwater,may have been a primary source of sodium contamination in the Town of Otis. However,there is a need for more recent testing of private wells to determine if this problem continues. There are approximately 150 wells along the Route 8 Farmington Watershed study area, approximately 140 of them are private wells and 13 are public wells.Forty- seven wells (32%)were sampled between 1984 and 2001.During this time period a total of 147 samples have been analyzed and 21 wells had sodium concentration levels in excess of 20 mg/l. Of these 21 wells, 19 wells had sodium concentrations greater than 40 mg/1 and one well had a sodium level greater than 250 mg/l. The MHD is one of the most active highway departments in the country in terms of salt monitoring and remediation. The MHD has established guidelines for salt storage and road salting, as well as guidelines to address complaints of salt-contaminated wells. These guidelines call for the MHD to use the best practices and technology available to them in dealing with salt storage,as well as to employ the most cost effective and efficient deicing procedures. The review of public and private water supply data available for the Route 8 corridor within the Farmington Watershed study area indicates a lack of information that need to be determined before an accurate assessment of the groundwater quality can be determined. Data Gaps: ■ No data exist for private wells in the Town of Sandisfield or the Town of Tolland,which only has one private well; ■ No water quality data exists in the Town of Becket for private wells along Route 8 in the Farmington Watershed ■ Available private well data for the towns of Otis and Becket are outdated and not contiguous ■ Public water systems that are legally registered with the MA DEP are routinely tested and have available data every three years for sodium. ■ Data for sodium concentrations in the Farmington River are not available. However,the rate of dilution in the river may make salt concentrations in the river inconsequential In the past residents and officials of the Town of Otis have had concerns regarding salt pollution within groundwater wells along Route 8. Based on the more 22 recent public well data from the MA DEP,the Town of Sandisfield had three public water supplies,the New Boston Inn and Restaurant,New Boston Nursing Home, and M.J. Tucker's Place that experienced increased sodium concentrations by five to six times as much as previously recorded within a six-year time period. While the statistical significance of a sample population of three wells may be questionable, an upward trend in sodium concentrations in groundwater wells is borne out in each of the three Sandisfield public water systems. Additionally, in the Town of Otis the Farmington River Country Store is also a public water supply,which has had its sodium concentration level increase by seven times within a three-year period, also suggesting that there may be a significant source of contamination polluting the well. These public wells may be important locations for further study. Based on the available data and the number of private and public well samples that have experienced elevated levels of sodium concentrations, and given the lack of point sources of pollution along the Route 8 corridor,there may be some relationship between road salting and the ground water contamination of wells within the Farmington Watershed study. Water quality testing should be performed at regular intervals to determine the actual sources of elevated sodium levels. 23 Recommendations: Based on the existing data presented in this report,there are several options that the Farmington River Watershed Team may pursue to determine the causes of sodium non-point source pollution in the public and private wells along the Route 8 corridor and reduce any future impacts from non-point sources: ■ Organize private well testing in Becket, Sandisfield and Tolland, as well as update private well testing data in Otis; ■ Seek funds to conduct a larger more scientific study, to look at water supplies outside of the Route 8 corridor in order to determine how much sodium naturally occurs and how much is caused by humans and to identify potential groundwater flows and environmental impacts to the Farmington River; ■ Encourage involvement of town highway departments in highway training programs, such as the Bay State Roads Program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst; ■ Encourage the Massachusetts Highway Department to become an active member of the Farmington River Watershed Team and to assist in addressing issues of sodium non-point source pollution along Route 8; ■ Gather information about the criteria used by Massachusetts Highway Department to designate a"low-salt area." Use this information and meetings with Massachusetts Highway Department to determine if the Route 8 corridor should be designated as a"low-salt area"and/or a demonstration area for the use of available alternative chemical deicing solutions. In conclusion,the public and water quality data along the Route 8 corridor suggests that further investigation is needed to determine the causes of non-point source pollution in the Farmington River Watershed. The alternatives listed above are not in exact order and may be pursued concurrently or separately as each opportunity presents itself. The Farmington River Watershed Team along with other stakeholders in the watershed will ultimately decide the best strategy to address the issue of sodium pollution along the Route 8 corridor. 24 REFERENCES Bay State Roads Program, 2002.Various documents summarizing highway deicing training and alternative deicing chemicals.Photocopied. Braile, Robert. "Alternatives to Road Salt get a look—Lake contamination increases concerns". Boston Globe 5 December. 1999, Sunday 3rd Ed. Burger,Theresa S. "Inspecting a home for environmental flaws can save you more than money". Hartford Courant. 9 November 1997, Sunday ed.Article available on-line. Environmental Institute,University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1988. Private Well Water Quality Data Bank Feasibility Analysis for Massachusetts. Farmington River Watershed, 1996. Farmington River Watershed Assessment Report pp- IV-23—IV24.Photocopied. Farmington River Watershed, 1996. Draft Farmington River Watershed 1996 resource Assessment Report. Photocopied. Federal Highway Administration, 1995.U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers: Test and Evaluation Project No. 28. "Anti-Icing Technology" Anti-Icing experiment Liquid Calcium Chloride,Winter 93/94/95.Prepared by the Massachusetts Highway Department. Photocopied. Gesualdo,Nicole. "Residents/Town settle lawsuit over tainted wells". Providence Journal-Bulletin. 16 February 2001,west Bay Ed. Available online. Gibbs,James. Department of Environmental Protection, Springfield,MA. Personal Interview,May 2002. Health Goods, 2002. www.healthizoods.com/education/healthy homeinfo/water qualti�. Major Sources of Water Contamination. Keating,Janis. "Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternative in the New York City Watershed". Publication of Stormwater,May/June 2001: 1-22. Kuntz,Joseph E. 1989 (?). Salt in Well Water:Is a Softener in the Background? : City of Stamford Health Department,Connecticut. Photocopied. Larson, Richard. Correspondence Memorandum, 1997 Madden, Andrew. Department of Fish&Wildlife,Personal Interview,April 2002. 25 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1985. Best Management Practices: Road and Maintenance Depots/Road Deicing. Photocopied. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1991. Non-Point Source Pollution: Fact sheet. Photocopied. Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management, 1997. Farmington River Watershed Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring Study. Technical Memorandum TM-31-1. Prepared for the Farmington River Basin Team. Photocopied. Massachusetts Highway Department, 1995. Final Generic Environmental Impact Report. Snow and Ice Control Program. July 1995. Massachusetts Highway Department, 1996. Maintenance Manual for Snow and Ice Control Operations.Photocopied Massachusetts Highway Department, 1996. Salt Contamination Complaint Policy. Photocopied Motts,Ward S.,Robert L. Spencer, 1987. Causes and Remedy of Elevated Sodium Concentrations in the Aquifers of Becket, Massachusetts April 1987. Otis, Town of. 2002 Various documents of correspondence and data regarding sodium contamination in wells along Route 8 in Otis.Photocopied. Pollock, Samuel J. 1988.Massachusetts Highway Department:Highway Deicing—Salt Contamination Problems and Solutions in Massachusetts. Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well Association. Pollock, Samuel J. 1992. Remediating Highway Deicing Salt Contamination of Public and Private Water Supplies in Massachusetts. Boston, MA Research and Material Section,Massachusetts Highway Department. Stormwater Manager's Resource Center, 1995. (?). hqp://www.stormwater.net/practice/139-deicin %g o20agents.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970.Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing:Interim Report. Prepared by the Edison Water Quality Laboratory.Edison, New Jersey. U.S.Department of Transportation, 1998. Road Salt Impacts on Drinking Water. http://htl.bts.gov/docs/hs-041 382_1099 112.pdf. 26 s f !�( Farmington River 9 }} 2 Watershed Location dm uma>< TYRIN HAM n a Oft Fadtry Farm 9 l as dk C9TPefaun 1 ~i TIS MONTEREY '2 2 ✓ P d (' j Otis Taen Ha _ 4{ i 9 �\ Famin tan.[iryer Counuy$m 'Oti BLANDFOR[} j 1. k�s oir Fr€ - w..�_ MASSACHUSETTS Ca QW C.. 9 L MOU 'Wien f NEW N—eactan a.stanrant a n MARLBOROUGN . ► 5 ' LLAND 5 SOU7 CK Colekro(* FUver Lake TLAND I , ( i NORFOCK COLEBROOK ♦ �(7 l .. Barlchrlstec� _. Reservoir t CONNECTICUT - 7 s j { GRANBY t WINCHESTER BARKH ED f' Farmington River Watershed Farmington River Watershed OdA) Farmington River Watershed(CT) Lakes&Ponds f^,/:Streams&River s Interim Wellhead Protection Areas Watershed Towns 0 2 4 6 Miles Roads State Highway Salt Shed State Highway Designated &urcei Massachusetts Geographic Information System:(MassGIS9, Reduced Salting .Executive Office of Environmental Afflirs 27 9 g Farmington River -�' ` • Watershed Residential Landuse 20 Upper Route 8 Corridor 9. i 8 i OT r A � - 2 2 " ~ • �_ Residential Landuse A s 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Miles - S DI FIEL Source:MassachusettsC7eograpletc Mformalgon d Executrz Of)ice ofEnirom ental Affairs 28 23 OT + r. Farmington River Watershed Residential Landuse Lower Route 8 Corridor 8 al SA DI FIELD(- 5 1 R - T NQ_' s 5 - " M Residential Landuse R 0.4 a 0.4 0.8 1.2 Miles + Source-Massachusetts Geographic Information System{MassGIS), Executive Office ofBnvironmenfdlAffairs 29 5 Road Salt Impacts on Drinking Water Many studies during the past 30 years have linked increased salt concentrations in drinking water with highway salting opera- tions. Concerns about road salt as a potential contaminant in drinking water date back to the 1950s, when it was discovered that salt was contaminating drinking water supplies because of improper storage and, in some cases, highway runoff. One objection to salt in drinking water is its taste; a more serious concern is its impact on health. In recent years, considerable attention has been focused on the effects of salt on hypertension, or high blood pressure. Recommendations by govern- ment and private health care organizations for moderate salt restric- tion to prevent hypertension have made people more aware of sources of salt in the diet, including drinking water. Accordingly, salt's rel- evance to health, road salt's impact on drinking water, and measures being taken to mitigate the contamination of drinking water by road salt are reviewed in this chapter. RELEVANCE OF SALT TO HEALTH Salt is relevant to health primarily because it is a principal source of sodium in the diet. Salt is about 40 percent sodium and 60 percent chloride by weight. The quantity of dietary sodium is often expressed in milligrams per day. For healthy adults, the recommended mini- mum safe intake of sodium is 500 mg/day(NRC 1989a, 253). Sodium 99 100 HIGHWAY DEICING is necessary for the body and cells to regulate fluids and for the transmission of electrical impulses in the nervous system and muscles (NRC 1989b, 413). Though it is a dietary essential, sodium has been negatively asso- ciated with health primarily because of concerns related to hyper- tension.Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death in the United States (NRC 1989b, 414). Definitions of hypertension vary, but it is believed that between 12 and 30 percent of the U.S. population have borderline to pronounced hypertension (NRC 1989b,550).No single factor is thought to cause hypertension; it is widely believed that several factors have an influence, including age, weight, lifestyle, family history, race, gender, and diet (NRC 1989b,550).For most individuals with high blood pressure,the exact causes are unknown (DHHS 1988, 144). The hypothesis that excess sodium causes or contributes to high blood pressure has dominated nutritional and dietary research in hypertension. At present,most medical researchers who have exam- ined the evidence agree that moderate sodium restriction will reduce the prevalence of hypertension in this country by benefiting a portion of the population with the disorder and reducing the number of new cases(DHHS 1988, 152-153).The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences and several governmental and private health care organizations (including the Surgeon General and the American Heart Association) recommend that Americans reduce their sodium intake by eating fewer sodium-rich foods and limiting the use of salt in cooking and at the table (NRC 1989b, 16). Sources of Sodium in the Diet The average daily sodium intake of adults is estimated to be 4000 to 6000 mg/day (DHHS 1988, 150). Intake of sodium is influenced almost entirely by the presence of salt in food. Salt is found naturally in varying concentrations in both vegetables and meats and is used as an additive in many foods for flavoring and preservation. Other sodium salts, such as sodium bicarbonate and monosodium gluta- mate, are sometimes added to foods. The contribution of major food groups to daily sodium intake is shown in Table 5-1. According to this survey by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), food accounts for 98 to 99 percent of daily sodium intake, and all beverages, including drinking water, account for the remaining 1 to 2 percent. f TABLE 5-1 PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION OF MAJOR FOOD GROUPS TO DAILY INTAKE OF SODIUM (Pennington and Young 1991)" Age and Sex Group(%) 6-11 2 14-16 years 30-35 years 60-65 years Food Group months years F M F M F M Vegetables 6 7 8 8 10 9 9 9 Fruits 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grain products 21 26 25 25 24 22 26 28 Nuts 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dairy products 35 16 12 12 12 11 10 9 Eggs 4 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 Animal flesh 8 16 17 17 19 23 20 22 Mixed dishes 17 18 20 20 18 17 16 14 Desserts 5 7 9 9 7 7 7 8 Sweeteners 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 Fats and sauces 3 4 5 4 6 5 6 6 Beverages,including drinking water 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 NOTE:F = female,M = male. Columns may not sum to 100 because of rounding. "Dietary intakes of sodium by specific age and sex group in the United States as determined by the Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study from 1982 to 1989.The foods selected for the Total Diet Study represent the core foods of the U.S.food supply as determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Discretionary salt that is added to food during cooking and at the table was not included in the study. All regions of the country are represented in the study. 102 HIGHWAY DEICING Sodium Concentrations in Drinking Water Sodium concentrations in drinking water are variable. For example, a study conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)during the 1970s found that concentrations in tap water varied from 1 to 90 mg/L (EPA 1975). Likewise, in a survey of 354 public water systems conducted by the New York State Department of Public Health, sodium concentrations ranged from 5 to 20 mg/L in 265 communities to as high as 220 mg/L in two communities (New York State Department of Public Health 1977). Craun et al., in an analysis of tap water nationwide, reported a mean sodium concen- tration of 28 mg/L (Craun et al. 1977). Among the reasons for the wide variability is that sodium can reach water supplies through a number of sources, including sea- water, natural salt deposits, oil field brines, sewage and industrial waste, and agricultural chemicals, as well as road salt (Hanes et al. 1970, 28). Water in and and semiarid regions is naturally high in soluble salts compared with regions where rainfall is abundant (Hanes et al. 1970,4).Also,water treatment is frequently a source of sodium in drinking water. For example, sodium fluoride is often added to water supplies during fluoridation,sodium hypochlorite during chlo- rination, sodium carbonate for corrosion control, and sodium car- bonate or sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment (New York State Department of Public Health 1977).Likewise,sodium is often added to tap water from residential wells by softening units that exchange sodium ions for"harder"calcium and magnesium(NRC 1980,285). Even efficient central water-softening systems at the treatment plant can add more than 25 mg of sodium to 1 L of treated water (Van der Veen and Graveland 1988, 52). Recommended Levels of Sodium in Drinking Water No federal regulatory standards for sodium concentrations in drink- ing water have been established in the United States, although some states have standards for public water supplies. In diet booklets for patients restricted to 500 to 1000 mg sodium per day, the American Heart Association(AHA) recommends that distilled water be used if drinking water contains more than 20 mg/L (AHA 1957). This recommendation is based on the assumption that people use about 2 L of water daily for drinking and cooking and that, accordingly, water does not contribute more than 10 percent of sodium consumed Road Salt Impacts on Drinking Water 103 daily. AHA has no position on sodium concentrations in drinking water for the general public. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to periodically update drinking water quality criteria. The criteria, which generally reflect the latest scientific knowledge, are announced through Fed- eral Register notices for explanation of rationale and for public com- ment. EPA does not regulate sodium because of the normally minor contribution of drinking water to daily sodium intake (Federal Reg- ister 1985, 46,890; Federal Register 1988, 1,894). As a general guid- ance level,EPA recommends that sodium concentrations in drinking water not exceed 20 mg/L for the higher-risk population(i.e.,persons on low-sodium diets), on the basis of dietary recommendations by AHA.Currently,EPA requires that all public water systems monitor sodium levels and report levels greater than 20 mg/L to local health authorities so that physicians treating people on sodium-restricted diets can advise patients accordingly (40 CFR 141.4). For comparison, regulatory norms in the European Economic Community allow sodium concentrations in drinking water of up to 125 mg/L (Van der Veen and Graveland 1988, 52). If contributed by sodium chloride, this level is equivalent to roughly 250 mg/L chloride, at which level dissolved salt can usually be tasted. ROAD SALT CONCENTRATIONS IN DRINKING WATER Road salt can enter water supplies by percolation through soil into groundwater or runoff and drainage directly into reservoirs. Upon entering fast-flowing streams and larger rivers and lakes, salt runoff usually has little-effect, because concentrations are quickly diluted (Hanes et al. 1970, 19). Road salt infiltration is more common for groundwater-based supplies, such as wells, springs, and reservoirs that are recharged primarily by groundwater. Road salt can reach groundwater in several ways. For example, many highways, especially in rural areas, use "open" drainage sys- tems,whereby highway runoff is not collected and diverted by gutters and catch basins but instead flows off the pavement into unlined ditches and roadside soil (Pollock 1990, 2). In addition, road salt applied during snowstorms often mixes with snow that is plowed completely off the roadway and paved shoulder. When the snow- banks melt,the meltwater,together with the dissolved salt,can migrate through the soil and move to the water table (Pollock 1990, 2). In colder regions where large snowbanks accumulate during the winter, y' 9 104 HIGHWAY DEICING spring thaws can produce high concentrations of salt. For example, meltwater samples near several large snowbanks in Wisconsin con- tained sodium concentrations exceeding 1000 mg/L(Schraufnagel 1965). The ability of road salt to reach groundwater depends on a number of factors, including the frequency of precipitation and the texture and drainage characteristics of roadside soil. Only a portion of the sodium ever reaches the groundwater. Moreover,whether the saltier groundwater beneath the highway will eventually migrate into nearby wells depends on several factors, including the depth of the well and its distance from the highway,the permeability of the aquifer material, and the direction and rate of groundwater flow(Pollock 1990,5).Wells most likely to be affected are those within 100 ft down-gradient of the roadway in the direction of groundwater movement.In locations where groundwater moves slowly(e.g., a few feet per year), road salt con- centrations may have originated,at least in part,from highway runoff generated several years earlier (Pollock 1990, 5). Perhaps the state most actively monitoring the effects of road salt on drinking water is Massachusetts, which has done so regularly for the past 25 years. Sodium concentrations of 10 mg/L are natural throughout much of the state (Pollock 1988). The number of public water systems reporting sodium levels twice the natural level jumped from 69 in 1970 to 95 by 1973,the period during which road salt use peaked (Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1973; Murray and Ernst 1976, 15).After several years of investigating and resolving salt contamination complaints,however,the number has dropped to 63 (Pollock 1990, 2). Of the 363 public water systems in the state, 45 are within the range 20 to 40 mg/L and 18 are greater. The single highest concentration is 95 mg/L(Pollock 1990,2).The highest sodium concentrations in Massachusetts are currently in the more urban, eastern half of the'state, where road salt use is heaviest. In addition to monitoring public water systems for sodium, Mas- sachusetts investigates complaints of salt contamination in private water supplies. Since 1973,for example,the state has regularly mon- itored seven residential wells located along a section of highway where salt contamination complaints are common.The average median sodium concentration in these wells was 79 mg/L between 1973 and 1983,before any remedial action(Pollock 1990).Since 1983,in response to complaints by residents,the state has instituted a reduced-salting program along this section of highway. Straight salt was replaced by sand and a mixture of salt and calcium chloride. The state believes that this program has succeeded in both identifying and diminishing the effect of salt runoff on roadside wells(Pollock 1990). Four years Road Salt Impacts on Drinking Water 105 after the program began,average sodium concentrations in the wells dropped by more than 50 percent,from 79 to 36 mg/L(Pollock 1990). The experience in Massachusetts indicates that highway runoff can elevate sodium levels in water supplies. Because so few states rou- tinely monitor the effect of road salt on water supplies, however, it is difficult to characterize the impact of salt runoff nationwide. In the survey of state highway agencies conducted for this study, seven other states reported that they periodically investigate and monitor runoff in water supplies. Of these states, the most active are New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New York. Altogether, 16 states reported receiving complaints related to road salt contamination of drinking water during the past 10 years. The number ranged from one or two per year in Maryland,West Virginia, and Ohio to several dozen per year in the New England states and New York. As might be expected, most states that reported complaints are located in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions, where population densities are highest and road salt use is heaviest. MITIGATION MEASURES The first complaints of road salt contamination of water supplies were during the 1950s and stemmed mainly from improper salt stor- age. At that time, salt piles were often left uncovered and lacked drainage and flooring adequate to prevent salt from migrating into surrounding soils and groundwater. During the past 20 years,many highway agencies have made efforts to improve storage. They have constructed facilities with contained drainage and leakproof covering and placed impervious pads under stockpiles and salt-handling areas (TRB 1974, 6-7). In Massachu- setts,for example,road salt used by state agencies is stored in covered buildings with bituminous concrete flooring; in addition, highway crews pay special attention to minimizing salt spillage during loading and.immediately clean spills in salt-sensitive areas (Pollock 1988, 11). Results from the survey of highway agencies for this study indi- cate that most states that have taken such remedial action have done so primarily because of complaints related to poor storage.Michigan, Ohio,Indiana, and New York, for example,have done so following litigation.In New England,Vermont and Maine spend about$35,000 and $75,000 per year, respectively, to upgrade storage facilities and replace nearby contaminated wells when .necessary. At least one state, Illinois, has enacted legislation requiring all storage sites to be located at least 200 ft from water supplies. 106 HIGHWAY DEICING Though it appears that most egregious salt storage problems are now being corrected, during the past 20 years concerns about the potential for salt contamination of water from highway runoff have increased (Murray and Ernst 1976, 14). Highway surface runoff sel- dom results in sodium concentrations as high as those associated with poor salt storage,but it can be a difficult problem to redress because of the widespread use of road salt and the potential for numerous water supplies (e.g., public and private wells) to be affected. Mea- sures taken to remedy road salt runoff problems vary widely by state and local jurisdiction, depending on the extent of the problem and the level of awareness and concern by the community and govern- ment agencies.Typical remediation measures include highway drain- age changes, reduction of salt use near water supplies, delivery of bottled water, and connection of well users to public water systems. In the survey of state highway agencies,nine states reported taking action to mitigate salt runoff into water supplies during the past 10 years. For the most part, these states are in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. For instance, New Hampshire has replaced private wells contaminated by road salt for more than 30 years. During the 1960s and 1970s,when its well-replacement program was at its peak, about 40 wells per year were replaced at a typical cost of$2,000 per well(Murray and Ernst 1976,59-60).Today,the state spends about $200,000 per year to divert highway runoff from sen- sitive areas(through drainage improvements)and replace wells when necessary. The program operates on a complaint basis only,when it is determined that road salt is responsible for chloride concentrations in well water exceeding 250 mg/L, which indicates sodium concen- trations of about 125 mg/L. Again,perhaps the most active mitigation program is that of Mas- sachusetts.Between 1982 and 1988 the state spent nearly$1.5 million to investigate and remediate the 119 complaints it received about salt contamination of private wells (Pollock 1988, 1). Among the actions taken were • Well replacement, • Connection to public water supplies, • Water treatment (temporary use of reverse-osmosis filters), • Improvements in highway drainage, and • Use of salt substitutes. Table 5-2 shows expenditures in Massachusetts between 1982 and 1988 by mitigation measure. By far the most common measure was connection of well owners to public water systems. In 1984 and 1985, w TABLE 5-2 DISPOSITION OF ROAD SALT CONTAMINATION COMPLAINTS BY PRIVATE WELL OWNERS IN MASSACHUSETTS, 1982-1988(Pollock 1988) Public Annual Well Supply Water Drainage Salt Expenditure for Year Replacement Connection Treatment Change Substitute Other Fiscal Year(S) 1982 7 55,150 1983 2 67,548 1984 1 32 1 442,260 1985 2 27,085 1986 1 1 3 416,347 1987 10 12 2 118,672 1988" 9 14 _ 1 20 1 349,750 Total 23 61 7 2 20 6 1,476,812 "Half-year total. 108 HIGHWAY DEICING for example, 34 wells with sodium concentrations exceeding 20 mg/L were connected to public water systems at a cost of $430,000, or about $13,000 per complaint. Well replacement (whereby wells are drilled deeper and carefully sealed)is the next most common method of remediation, accounting for the resolution of 23 complaints, at a cost of $5,000 to $30,000 per well. Remediation expenditures aver- aged about $12,500 per complaint for the 119 complaints resolved. In addition to remediating the effects of salt contamination on private water supplies, Massachusetts has acted to reduce sodium levels in some public water systems. Remediation measures include reduced salting in the vicinity of water supplies and, in a few cases, construction of special drainage systems to divert highway runoff. As mentioned previously,the reduced-salting program in Massachu- setts generally involves greater use of sand and a deicer "pre-mix" of 80 percent sodium chloride and 20 percent calcium chloride. The reduced-salting program was initiated when a reservoir near several state highways was found to have sodium concentrations fluctuating from 30 to 60 mg/L. In another instance, a special highway drainage system was constructed that collects meltwater from plowed snow- banks on the median and highway shoulders (Pollock 1984). The system, constructed on a 2-mi section of freeway near Cape Cod, cost about$2.5 million/mi more to build than a conventional system (Pollock 1988). Other mitigation(and in some cases prevention)measures adopted by state highway agencies include a special$2 million drainage system in Pennsylvania—constructed on an Interstate highway passing sev- eral large water supplies—and the installation of test wells in Ohio and New Jersey to monitor sodium concentrations in groundwater near salt-treated highways. COST Two cost items related to road salt contamination of drinking water are mitigation expenses and potential public health effects. Mitigation Costs Only nine state highway agencies reported annual spending on pre- vention and remediation of salt-contaminated water supplies. How- Road Salt Impacts on Drinking Water 109 ever, the nine states apply about one-half of all salt used by states, and their reports are useful reference points for estimating nation- wide spending on prevention and remediation. All nine states— Illinois,Indiana,Maine,Massachusetts,Michigan,New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont—are located in the north- eastern and central United States, where concerns about salt con- tamination of drinking water are greatest. Mitigation spending by these states totaled about $1.8 million in 1989, or, on the average, about $1 per ton of salt applied (Table 5-3). Accordingly, a rough estimate of national expenditures on mitigation measures is that about $10 million is spent each year for the 10 million tons of salt applied annually by state and local highway agencies. Public Health Costs Ideally,an estimate of the total cost of salt contamination of drinking water would include not only those resources spent on mitigation but also any adverse effects on public health when mitigation is inadequate. Such a thorough determination of costs, however, is complicated by the lack of evidence linking salt in drinking water TABLE 5-3 STATE SPENDING ON PREVENTION AND REMEDIATION OF DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION BY ROAD SALT, 1989 Amount of Salt State Spread Annually State Expenditures°.($) by Stateb(tons) Illinois 200,000 275,000 Indiana 175,000 240,000 Maine 75,000 60,000 Massachusetts 500,000 225,000 Michigan 200,000 350,000 New Hampshire 195,000 125,000 New York 175,000 450,000 Pennsylvania 200,000 425,000 Vermont 35,000 100,000 Total 1,755,000 2,250,000 'From survey of state highway departments. °From survey of state highway departments and Salt Institute data. 110 HIGHWAY DEICING with a health risk to the general public. As a result, no attempt was made in this study to estimate public health risks and costs. SUMMARY Road salt can enter drinking water supplies by migrating through soil into groundwater or by runoff and drainage directly into surface water. In general,only wells or reservoirs near salt-treated highways or salt storage facilities are susceptible to salt infiltration. Suscepti- bility depends on many factors, such as salting intensity, soil type, climate, topography, and water volume and dilution. Sources of salt in drinking water other than road salt include natural brines and salt deposits, industrial and agricultural chemicals, and water treatment and softening processes. During the past 30 years, communities in several states,primarily in the Northeast, have reported higher sodium and chloride concen- trations in private wells and public water supplies that have been linked to road salt. Many of these problems have resulted from improper salt storage.Most of the more egregious salt storage problems are being corrected.Some communities continue to report higher-than- usual salt concentrations in water supplies due to highway runoff, although such concentrations are seldom as high as those associated with improper salt storage. The discovery of higher salt concentrations in drinking water due to road salt has raised concerns about possible adverse effects on public health. Salt is a source of sodium in the diet. Excess dietary sodium has been negatively associated with health primarily because of concerns related to hypertension, or high blood pressure. Typi- cally, drinking water and all other beverages combined (which tend to have much higher concentrations of sodium than drinking water) account for less•than 5 percent of daily sodium intake. Because of the normally minor contribution of drinking water to sodium intake, no federal standards have been established for salt (i.e., sodium or chloride) concentrations in water supplies. Efforts to mitigate salt impacts on drinking water vary from state to state and by community. Common measures include modification of highway drainage, relocation of private wells, upgrading of salt storage facilities, and reduced salting activity in the vicinity of public water supplies. Nationally, about $10 million is spent on mitigation each year by state and local governments, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest. Potential costs due to road salt in drinking water other than government spending on mitigation are largely unknown, prin- •y. Road Salt Impacts on Drinking Water 111 cipally because of the uncertain effects of salt on health. As a result, no attempt was made in this study to estimate other costs of salting, if any, that might be related to public health. REFERENCES ABBREVIATIONS AHA American Heart Association DHHS Department of Health and Human Services EPA Environmental Protection Agency HRB Highway Research Board NRC National Research Council TRB Transportation Research Board AHA. 1957. Your 500 Milligram Diet. New York. Craun,G.,D.Greathouse,N.Ulmer,and L.McCabe.1977.Preliminary Report of an Epidemiological Investigation of the Relationship Between Tap Water Constituents and Cardiovascular Disease. Paper 10-2B. Proc., 97th Annual Conference of the American Water Works Association, Anaheim, Calif. DHHS. 1988. The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. Report 88-50210. Public Health Service,Washington, D.C. EPA. 1975. Joint Federal/State Survey of Organics and Inorganics in Selected Drinking Water Supplies. Draft. EPA Region V,Chicago,I11. Federal Register. 1985. Part IV EPA: National Primary Drinking Water Reg- ulations. Nov. 13,p. 46,980. Federal Register. 1988.Part 11 EPA: Safe Drinking Water Regulations.Jan.22, p. 1,894. Hanes, R. E., L. W. Zelazny, and R. E. Blaser. 1970. NCHRP Report 91: Effects of Deicing Salts on Water Quality and Biota.HRB,National Research Council, Washington,D.C. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1973.Report of Routine Chemical and Physical Analyses of Public Water Supplies in Massachusetts. Division of Environmental Health, Boston. Murray, D., and U: Ernst. 1976.An Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing. Report EPA-600/2-76-105. Office of Research and Development,Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,Environ- mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. New York State Department of Public Health. 1977. Occurrence of Sodium in Water Supply Systems in New York State. Bureau of Public Water Supply, Albany, 52 pp. NRC. 1980. Drinking Water and Health, Vol. 3. Board on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards,National Academy Press,Washington,D.C. NRC. 1989a.Recommended Dietary Allowances(loth ed.).Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences, National Academy Press, Washing- ton, D.C. NRC. 1989b. Diet and Health:Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. Food and Nutrition Board,National Academy Press, Washington,D.C. Pennington,J. A., and B. E. Young. 1991. Total Diet Study: Nutritional Ele- ments, 1982-1989. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Feb., pp. 179-183. Of! 112 HIGHWAY DEICING Pollock, S. 1984. Effectiveness of Highway Drainage Systems in Preventing Salt Contamination of Ground Water, Route 25 from Wareham to the Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Boston, Mass. Pollock,S. 1988.Highway Deicing Salt Contamination Problems and Solutions in Massachusetts. Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues. National Water Well Association, Dublin,Ohio. Pollock, S. 1990. Mitigating Highway Deicing Salt Contamination of Private Water Supplies in Massachusetts. Research and Materials Section,Massachu- setts Department of Public Works,Wellesley. Schraufnagel,F.H. 1965.Chlorides.Commission on Water Pollution,Madison, Wis. TRB. 1974. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 24: Minimizing Deicing Chemical Use. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Van der Veen,C.,and A.Graveland.1988.Central Softening by Crystallization in Fluidized-Bed Process.Journal of the American Water Works Association, June, pp. 51-58. t �+ Vol.44 No.2 Spring 2007 1 y , SALT �c. Highway Deicing. Published by SALT INSTITUTE =, for the WINTER MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL RATIONAL SELECTION OF DEICING MATERIALS very winter,millions of tons studies have examined the environ- These variables can be weighted in of snow and ice control ma- mental impacts of salt and other the political process and then the terials are applied to North deicing alternatives. None have Guidebook tool will spit out the most American roadways,sodium chlo- tried to integrate the questions of advantageous material after ratio- ride chief among them. Applauded material selection,application rate nally weighing these factors—all by highway safety advocates and and environmental impact. That's of which have been employed with economic development interests what Report 577 has done. more heat than light,more emotion who extol safe and passable winter than reason when decisions have driving,use of deicers and abrasives TOWARDS RATIONAL, been debated over the years. has been accompanied by a half- LOCAL MATERIAL century of concern and distrust by SELECTION DECISIONS Past debates have featured salt pro- environmental groups and citizens "Rational decision-making guide- ponents'advocacy of salt's economy, wondering if their tax dollars are be- lines are needed to assist winter handling characteristics and known ing well-spent. Too often,it seems, maintenance managers in selecting —if not liked—environmental im- the decision on which material to the most appropriate snow and ice Pacts. Those promoting alternative apply and in what amounts has control materials for the conditions products have claimed superiority been seen as more art than science that exist in their jurisdictions;'the in terms of corrosion reduction and —and some people just don't like Report explains,hinting at what's to lessened impacts on the environ- "modem art"! come. The report culminates with ment,arguing that salt's adverse a user manual Guidebook to the Deci- environmental and infrastructure In May 2007,the Transportation sion Tool,Purchase Specification,and impacts outweigh the higher costs of Research Board published a new Quality Assurance Monitoring Program. alternative products. This new tool set of research-based Guidelines for In other words,this isn't a research crunches the numbers dispassion- the Selection of Snow and Ice Control report destined to be shelved for ately and should make materials Materials to Mitigate Environmental future reference,it's a hands-on tool selection a more rational process. Impacts."This article is based on for government policy-makers and NCHRP Report 577. agency decision-makers to use in Report 577 examined all deicers be- how to respond to their local needs. ing used,42 in all,including sodium Previous studies have exhaustively It's been said that the future of man- chloride,calcium chloride,magne- evaluated the effectiveness of the ufacturing is"mass customization:' sium chloride,calcium magnesium several deicers being used. Our That phrase captures the use of this acetate,potassium acetate,organic summer 2004 issue of Salt and tool quite well. matter from biomass and abrasives Highway Deicing answered the (the latter,of course,not a deicer, question: `Are you using the right Each agency can determine how but sometimes used as an altema- amount of ice control chemical?"(httaj to balance its required level of ser- five to using a deicer). Recognizing //wwwsaltinstitute.org[publications/ vice with four variables that can that the effect of a deicer depends shd/shd-June-2004.pdf).It reported be fine-tuned by policy-makers: on other variables than simply results of another NCHRP study cost,effectiveness,environmental chemical constituency,the Report (NCHRP Report 526). Still other impact and infrastructure impact. continued on page 2 z also examined application amounts, metals in similar fashion, ables explicitly and includes several exposure pathways,chemical- Non-chloride deicers have superior subcategories under"environment" specific impacts and site-specific corrosion rates to chlorides for and"infrastructure"that fit such characteristics. Areas of greatest en- some metals,but worse for others. customization to local needs. The vironmental concern included water Corrosion inhibitor effectiveness subcategory impacts,in turn,are quality and aquatic life,air quality was"varied and poorly quantified" "based on a material's potential and vegetation impacts. Drinking and the benefit is"questionable" to elicit an effect on a receptor,as water source contamination was Tests on normal highway concrete developed from a comprehensive in- also considered as were impacts on rather than poorer-quality samples formation review and analytical test soil structure that might contribute designed to fail during shorter results" The weighting is subjective to impacts on water and vegetation. (more affordable)test periods has -and,frankly,political;the result is Infrastructure impacts included produced no adverse effects in two an evidence-based,rational product corrosion of concreted reinforcing years of testing;tests are continu- of the political judgments. (rebar)and atmospheric corrosion ing. on exposed metals and the research Purchase specification. After the not only examined these impacts, USER PRODUCTS agency uses the decision tool to but the mitigating potential of corro- The decision tool. The Report rec- select its preferred product,the sion inhibited products. ognizes that"factors affecting the purchase specification is applied, decision processes can be numer- primarily to ensure the material RESEARCH FINDINGS ous and complex;'but boil down meets its environmental perfor- Analysis of the research produced to four basic considerations which mance objectives,particularly in these significant conclusions: "balance economic value related to the protection of aquatic ecosys- cost and performance with potential tems. The Report divides snow and • High organic concentrations,par ice control materials into three ticularl liquid products,led consequences of use related to en- y in q p vironmental and corrosion impacts" categories: those with a base in to biochemical oxygen demand This balance must be the product the hardness ions(calcium and (BOD)concerns. of a local process for both unique magnesium,e.g.CaCl,MgCI,CMA), • Nitrogen and phosphorus in or- other deicersKA,organics) anic deicers have potential for environmental and infrastructure (NaCl,( g ) g exposures and,perhaps even more of greater risk due to heavy met- environmental harm. importantly,because users are vot- als,and abrasives which,although • The"total cyanide test"produces ers who,themselves,balance costs themselves not soluble,"may significant amounts of toxic contain contaminants that are solu- cyanide,from otherwise-stable against the quality of the product an e...bld in high toxicant hexa anoferrate free-flowing (safe and passable roads)they expect (and)can contain g cY g from snowfighters. The end product: levels" agents used with salt. "a practical tool that generates a nu- * Levels of heavy metals were below merical evaluation that can be used Quality assurance monitoring pro- concentrations of concern in each to compare snow and ice control gram. The Report recommends that deicer. materials" The Report wisely con agencies specify quality assurance • Variability in product character- tests in the contract documentation istics requires qualityassurance cedes a"one size fits all"approach is q unworkable. "Each agency will have and then perform"a suite of quali- monitoring by user agencies. n tests and submittals"before • Aquatic toxicity is only of concern unique objectives and priorities that g q ty y will affect their selections for the de- accepting delivery. It references close to the roadway d methods standard test metos to quantify cision categories" The decision tool q fy • Chloride deicers affect all tested requires agencies to weight the vari- material characteristics. Development of relative purchase price rankings. ,. � f111 Abras�re Purchase Price per Ton($)' $50 $ 130 $ 120 $1000 $ 1150 $80 Active ingredient Concentration{°!°) 23% 32% 30°I° 50°!° 25% NA Purchase Price per Dry Pound($/Ib) $0.11 $0.20 $0.20 $ 1.00 $2.302 $0.04 Maximurn:Price;Material Price 21 11 12 2 1 58 Price Ranking(Maximum 100) 37 20 20 4 2 100 'Pricing was gathered from contracts published on the Internet and provides semi-realistic demonstration of relative purchase price calculations and rankings. 2 Bold text indicates maximum purchase price per dry pound($/LB) wpm man ASSESSING THE FOUR infrastructure,concrete pavements ples of agency policy weightings. The FACTORS and structures,and rebar. As with investigators surveyed snowfighting the environmental impacts,each is agencies and determined that those Cost The cost comparison work sheetscored separately(there is only one surveyed weighted the variables em- purr chase costs considers materrialial p develop and rank subcategory,under metal infrastruc- phasizing cost and performance(45% ma ture),and then weighted. cost,35%performance,11%environ- the concentration of the active in- ment and 9%infrastructure). They gredie for salt, for Finally,the four variables are worked the model using two other MgCl)a p ranking" weighted one against the other(total sets of assumptions: one where the basedd and produces a"price r on 100 points. Among deicers, =100%). Thus,the model is con- four variables were equally weighted salt fared best with 37 points;CaCl structed. Changes are required only (25%each) and the other emphasiz- and MgCl tied for second with 20, when costs change,application op- ing environment and infrastructure while KA scored 4 and CMA,2. erations are altered or policy-makers impacts(though they caution"Given re-evaluate the political importance that the primary objective of winter Performance. As would be expect- of the environmental and/or infra- maintenance is controlling snow and ed,evaluating performance entails structure impacts. Done right the ice,it is recommended that perfor- a complex of variables including, first time,such fine-tuning would mance weighting not be assigned assessment of the melting perfor- not be expected to alter the out- a value below 25%"). The"environ mance of the concentration of active comes in most circumstances. ment and infrastructure priority" chemical ingredients,physiochemi- example disregards cost entirely, cal properties of the deicer such as USING THE DECISION assigns the self-imposed minimum solubility and whether it takes on or TOOL. 25%for performance and divides gives off heat as it works,operating obviously each agency is going to the remaining 75%equally,37.5% conditions like the rates of precipi- Y g y g g for environment and 37.5%for infra- are and temperature,the timing come out differently. Its variables and amounts of material to be ap- are different. Even neighboring structure. All the examples assume an anti-icing strategy,prices were plied and associated variables like communities which share similar weather patterns and common ma- obtained from Internet-published er spreader controls,roadway factors p contracts and the results calculated such as topography and pavement terials sourcing will have different roughness,and,finally,operational topography,crews with different at temperatures ranging from 30' considerations like operator training, skills and preferences,different local F to-20°F. The decision tool cal- handling,storage,supply reliability, ecosystems(e.g.a wetland here or culates a numerical product score etc. a river there)and,most of all,they that incorporates user priorities and will reach unique weightings reflect- conditions with a technical assess- Environmental perceived in their desires of their Environmental impacts. The deci- p ment of potentials for impairment. sion tool has six subcategories to customers-the roadway users and It produces scores,the highest being describe environmental impacts local voters who provide their fund the preferred product. The agency, on aquatic life,drinking water,air ing• of course,is free to accept the model quality,vegetation,soil and animals. results or make its decision on other And most of these have multiple The Report,usefully,illustrates the criteria,ignoring the"rational"calcu- sub-subcategories;aquatic life has Guidebook process with three exam- lation. 14,the most. Each subcategory is scored 1-5 reflecting the scientific Three example agency policy weightings. evidence for the extent of impact. = " - Agencies weight each sub(and sub-sub) category for its relative importance to them. Some will be WIN easy-there may be none of a par- r�- ticular type of ecosystem(e.g.large, Purchase Price 45% 25% 0% nutrient poor lake)in the service Performance' 35°I° 25°l° 25 area-but often tough decisions are " required in assigning weighting. Environment 11 % 25% 37.5% Infrastructure 9% 25% 37.5% Infrastructure impacts. There are four subcategories of infra 'Given that the primary objective of winter maintenance is controlling snow and ice,it is g recommended that performance weighting not be assigned a value below 25%. structure impacts:vehicles,metal continued on page 4 `�ITHE ENVELOPE, Decision tool example 1-survey priorities. PLEASE.., emperaure Final Product Sores used onTemperatures It didn't surprise us much at the Salt (F} NaC1 CaC12 MgC12 KA., GMA Institute that the decision tool,ap plied to the survey object weighting, 30 90.4 64.8 71.7 23.9 18.2 gave the edge to salt. That's not only 25 90.4 76.1 76:4 31.fi 19:2 reassuring to salt users,but a use- 20 90.4 68.8 72.7 32.4 18.8 ful means of validating the model, 15 90.4 77.0 83.6 35.3 18.6 since most product used today is 10 80.8 78.2 91.3 38.1 18.2 sodium chloride. In the temperature 5 57,4 76.3 91,3' 38,0 17;3 range for most snowfall,25'to 30°, salt(NaCl)scored 90.4 compared 0 39.3 76.0 91.3 38.7 Too Cold to second-place MgCl(71.1 to 76.4), -5 12.6 73.5 91.3 1 37.4 Too Cold followed by CaC1(64.8 to 76.1),KA -10 Too Cold 72.3 91.3 39.5 Too Cold (23.9 to 31.6) and CMA(18.2 to 19.2). -15 Too Cold 7 .0 91.3 39.9 Too Cold Sodium chloride retains its strong -20 Too Cold 66.0 91.3 40.2 Too Cold preference score of 90.4 down to See graph on facing page 15'F(at that temperature,MgC1 is 83.6; CaCl,77;KA,35.3 and CMA, Decision tool example 2-equal priorities. 18.6). Salt surpasses the acetates down to zero Fahrenheit(we don't recommend NaCl at this tempera _ =' _ - - - - . ture ourselves,even though we sell 30 75.0 60.4 64.4 45.7 42.9 it!)and salt is still preferred to CaCl 25 75.0 6 .5 67.7 50.5 43.6 down to 10,F,though narrowly,80.8 for NaCl to 78.2 for CaCl(and 91.3 20 75.0 62.9 65.4 51.0 43.2 for MgCl). This model,of course, 15 75.0 68.1 72.2 52.8 431 reflects the current preference for 10 69.0 68.8 77.0 54.6 42.9 cost-savings and roadway clearing 5 54.4 6 .fi 77.01 54.5 " 42.4 performance. 0 43.1 67.4 77.0 54.9 Too Cold The second example weights all four -5 26.4 65,8 77.0 54a Too Gold variables equally. Surprise,while -10 Too Cold 65.1 77.0 55.4 Too Cold salt's advantage is muted by lower- -15 Too Cold 63.6 77.0 5517 Too Cold ing the weight of its strongest suits, -20 Too Cold 61.2 77.0 55.9 Too Cold its lower cost and effective perfor- See graph on facing page mance,the results are unchanged. Unchanged. Salt earns the highest Decision tool example 3-environmental and infrastructure scores down to 15'F and the other priority objectives. deicers follow in rank,though more tightly bunched(e.g.at 15°,NaC1 is = 75;MgCl,72.2;CaCl,68.1;KA,52.8; - z_ =---- and CMA,43.1). 30 62.5 57.2 59.2 63.8 63.5 25 62.5 60.7 6018 663 63.8 Now for some real news. Using the 20 62.5 58.5 59.7 66.5 63.6 "environment/infrastructure prior fro 625 610 63.1 67.4 636 ity"weightings,all four deicers are -- tightly clustered between 15'and 10 59.5 61.4 65.5 68.3 63.4 30'F. Potassium Acetate earns top 5 52.2 60,•8 65.5 68.3 63:2 honors at 63.8 to 67.4;narrowly edg- 0 46.6 60.7 65.5 68.5 Too Cold ing out CMA at 63.5 to 63.6;NaC1 -5 3$.2 59.9 65.5' 68.1 Tao Cold ; is third,62.5 at each temperature; -10 Too Cold 59.6 65.5 68.7 Too Cold MgCl is 59.2 to 63.1(edging out salt _16 too Cold 58.8. 65.5.! 8818 Too Cold below 20'F;while CaCl registers 57.2 to 61.0. -20 Too Cold 57.6 65.5 68.9 Too Cold See graph on facing page Example 1 The Report sums up: (For the sur- Final Score vey priorities example):"NaCl is 100 the preferred product between 22 90 and 12°F,after which MgClZ and 80 ICI2 CaCl2 are preferred" (For the equal priorities example): "NaCl is the 70 preferred product between 22 and 60 :L 10 GaCI 12°F,after which MgCl2 and CaClz are C e_p_ `s' preferred" (For the environment/ 50 infrastructure priority example): 40 T "All materials have similar scores KA 30 until temperatures reach below 20 NaCI 10°F and NaCl and CMA lose perfor- C[IA mance benefits. Although KA is the 10 h preferred product,CMA also scores 0 °= "` 1 NNII I I well at warmer temperatures" 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 Temperature(F) SUMMARY If your community has been restive Example 2 with the choice of sodium chlo- ride as its primary deicer-pre-wet 100 with another chloride below 15°F, 90 this Report,five years in prepara- IilgClx 80 4- tion,provides a scientifically-sound 70 -` basis both for examining options CaCl2 and community priorities-and for 60 affirming your choice of salt. That 50 - " KA has never been to say that there are 40 = not locations,as well as operating temperatures,where an alternative should be preferred. Sensible Salting 20 a NaCI remains,after more than 36 years as CMA the centerpiece of environmentally- 10 a sensitive snowfighting,the preferred 0 30 25- 20 15 10 5 0 -5 10 -15 _20 solution to keeping our winter roads Temperature(F) safe and passable. ■ Example 3 Final Score 100 m 90m Elm 80 KA MOC12\ 70 ` 60 50 Ca—Cl z 40 30 ` 20 NaCI 10 CP11A mgpt 0 r 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 Temperature(F) 4 9 If you'd like this newsletter or our other salt-related information delivered f automatically via a newsreader, you can subscribe to our Salt Institute NewsCentral service or add any of our http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/use own newsreader.html feeds to your newsreader. You just enjoyed another electronic Sa►t and Highway Deicing Newsletter! It helps you make better decisions in your winter maintenance responsibilities and gives even more information by active links to www.saltinstitute.org <http://www.saltinstitute.ora>with specific pages to further snowfighter information. 'Feel free to forward this newsletter to other interested persons so they can also enjoy this informative free quarterly. Be aware Salt institute never sells or distributes.any of your contact information to any outside source. Please sign up at: http://www.safinstitute.ora/subscribe/ihdex.html �s Salt Institute 700 North Fairfax Street Fairfax Plaza,Suite 600 Alexandria,VA 22314-2040 Voice:703/549-4648 Fax:703/548-2194 Fax Web Site:httu://www.saltinstitute.org e-mail:info@saltinstitute.org Published four times a year.Permission is granted to reprint material from Salt&Highway Deicing provided credit is given. J TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SNOW AND ICE GUIDELINES For 2007/ 2008 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL MEASURES: The procedures outlined in the following paragraphs are to be used as a guide. It is impossible to cover the many types of storms that will occur in any winter period. The person in over-all charge of a material application or a plowing operation will have to determine the details of an operational plan within the scope of the materials, equipment and man-power they have available. Generally, this will be the Superintendent of Operations. A Division Manager will assume this responsibility in his absence. GENERAL: There are 139 miles of town-owned roadways in South Windsor. There are ten plow routes staffed with a combination of town-owned vehicles and contracted trucks. Material application routes will be staffed by fifteen town-owned trucks. MANAGEMENT STAFF: The Superintendent of Operations, or in his absence the designated Manager,will be responsible for determining the resources necessary to cope with a winter emergency. After regular working hours,the designated Manager will be the first to be notified by the Police Department. Once notified the Manager will assess the situation and initiate appropriate action. The five Managers will rotate these duties every fifth week. This "On-Call"Manager will be listed on the daily sign-off sheet. When weather conditions dictate full staffing, other Managers will be required for assistance in Storm Operations. In severe weather conditions, additional management staff,including the Superintendent of Operations and/or the Director of Public Works,may also be called for service. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 1 of 10 FULL CALL OUT MANAGEMENT • When snow or ice storms begin during normal working hours, all personnel will remain on duty until further notice. • When a storm is predicted beyond regular working hours, all trucks will be loaded in advance with the appropriate material and parked in the bays. • Prior to discharging employees from regular working hours, each employee shall be apprised of any probability of a return to work and their availability will be confirmed. • All personnel in all Divisions are considered to be on a call basis 24/7. When there is a predicted storm event and a maintainer's availability is in question they should notify their Manager. • A report from the National Weather Service will be posted highlighting impending storms. • The Superintendent of Operations -or his designee-will notify the Police Department to call when the patrolmen first report evidence of the storm. • The Manager on duty will then review the latest weather information, Police Department information, and the actual conditions. He will determine the call-out time,make initial calls to designated Managers and then call the appropriate personnel. • Personnel not able to be contacted at their primary number will be re-called once everyone else has been contacted. Secondary numbers (beepers and personal cell phones)will be then be used. Employees will be expected to return calls. • The entire call out and reporting procedure will take approximately 30-45 minutes and the trucks will be on the road 45-60 minutes after notification. Management's responsibilities include: • Coordination of route drivers, contract drivers and substitute drivers. • Distribution of personnel and equipment for parking lots and walk ways. • Preparation of Storm Sheet(a record of storm conditions, incoming calls, personnel availability and assignments, significant events and quantity of materials used.) • Dispatch radio and phone calls. • Evaluation of routes and parking lots on a rotating basis to assess current conditions and ensure that the team understands the prevailing instructions. • Assignment of mechanics according to need(safe fleet operation,breakdowns, etc.) • Determination of meal breaks. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 2 of 10 r Maintainer's responsibilities include: • Know and plan your route. • Provide management with one primary emergency contact number. A second contact number is strongly advised. Town provided"beepers" and/or personal cell phones are acceptable. • Communicate your availability with your Division Manager or the"On-call"Manager • Report to Dispatcher upon arrival and receive instructions. • Always make sure your assigned truck is never overloaded. • Split snow to both sides of an intersection when necessary. • Avoid blocking driveways with excessive snow. • Limit the amount of snow deposited on any sidewalk. • Report any accidental or problematic situations to the Dispatcher. • Complete Blue Slips for necessary but non-urgent repairs • Fuel trucks and equipment at end of storm. • Check plow blades for wear after each plowing; if worn to (1 3/4"), notify your Supervisor Material Application Procedures W:\TownGamge\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 3 of 10 Treatment routes will be numbered 1-15. There will be one Town Driver assigned to each route. Appropriate material and application rates will be determined by Superintendent of Operations—or the"On-call"Manager. There will be only two spreader settings for every application. Initial application will be 500 lbs of material per mile. Additional applications will be 250f lbs of material per mile. Trucks will be pre-loaded in anticipation of impending bad weather whenever possible. Loader Operator will use Load-rite system to individually record the weight of material put on each truck. Initial Treatment Operation will have no trucks with snow plows attached. Roads will be pre-treated shortly before actual snowfall whenever possible. When time allows for pre-treatment, collector roads and cul-de sacs will be treated before main drags. If time does not allow for pre-treatment,main drags will be done first followed by collector roads and finishing with side streets and cul-de sacs. Material will be applied until the route has been completed or it has been determined by Dispatch that plowing has become necessary. Upon completion of Treatment Route, drivers will notify Dispatch for further instruction. If plowing is the course of action Drivers will then mount plows, adjust sanders to '/2 rate (250f lbs) and await orders to begin plowing. If there will be no plowing operations Drivers will park their vehicles indoors until they are able to unload their trucks during regular working hours. The Loader Operator will weigh all material brought back and emptied from Treatment Operations. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 4 of 10 Plowiniz Procedures There are 10 Plow Routes titled"A"through"J". Loader Operator becomes "D"Route Driver. The"D"Route Driver will make additional loading the priority. Two trucks are assigned to all but"D"route. Route Drivers will work together to determine the most effective way to manage their route. Mission Drivers will be sent where needed by the Dispatcher. Contractors will be contacted shortly before anticipated plowing operations. Contractors will be loaded with material before they begin plowing. Their application rates will always be set at the %2 rate(250f lbs). Drivers will first plow out the centers of the main drags on their routes then plow the centers of the collector roads and finally side streets and cul-de sacs. Dispatch will determine if and when re-treating is necessary. Drivers will make a second pass in the same order. Additional passes on main drags may be necessary prior to second passes on subdivision roads. Dispatch will communicate when to start pushing back from the centers to the curb. "Push back", "Push Back to Curb", etc. means moving snow as close as practical to the curb or edge of road to avoid damage. Drivers will notify Dispatch upon completion of route and stand ready for new instruction. When snow plow operations are complete,material may be left in truck until the next regular work day. The Loader Operator will weigh all material brought back and emptied from Plowing Operations. W:\TownGamge\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 5 of 10 Shifting Procedures Superintendent of Operations or his designee shall determine when a shift situation will be needed. Crews will have as much advance notice as can be provided prior to shifting. There are 7 Plow Routes titled"T"through"Z" Two trucks will be assigned to each route. There will be six contracted trucks for every shift. Lots and Walks will be staffed by 4 people whenever possible. Pollution Control will provide at least 2 people to help staff the shifts. Shift personnel will be determined by the current overtime list. Shift times and hours will be determined based on the best available information at the time. Drivers will park their route trucks inside the bays before at the end of their shift. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 6 of 10 STAFFING 2007 / 2008 MANAGEMENT Karl Reichle Superintendent of Operations Stephan Lavigueur Manager of Park and Grounds Mark Owens Street Services Manager Ronald Asselin Administrative Manager Richard R lander Fleet Services Manager John Caldwell Associate Manager MAINTAINERS Application Route Plow Route 1 Richard Olmstead Maintainer III Truck 58 Route#7 "F"route 2 Bill Dzen Maintainer III Truck 43 Loader "D"route 3 Mike Hurlburt Maintainer III Truck 65 Route#1 "A"route 4 1 Rob Hunt Maintainer III Truck 59 Route# 12 "I"route 5 Mike Spielman Maintainer III Truck 47 Route# 11 "H"route 6 Dan Jacobsen Maintainer II Truck 51 Route#9 "G"route 7 Allen Livingston Maintainer II Truck 56 Route#3 `B"route 8 Gail Sadonis Maintainer II Truck 57 Route# 5 "J"route 9 Bob Brown Maintainer II Truck 42 Route#4 `B"route 10 Alec Arnold Maintainer II Truck 52 Route#2 "A"route 11 Steve Linton Maintainer II Truck 50 Route# 14 "C"route 12 Ian McGregor Maintainer II Truck 55 Route# 13 "C"route 13 Jim Butler Maintainer II Truck 48 Route#6 "B"route 14 Gary Schact Maintainer II Truck 44 Route#8 Mission 15 Eric Heinrich Maintainer II Truck 53 Route# 10 Mission 16 Glenn Bo Tisch Maintainer II Truck 45 Route# 15 Mission 17 Dave Turkington. Maintainer II Truck 49 Lots &walks Lots &walks 18 Phil Cassatteri Maintainer II Truck 71 Comm. Center Comm. Center 19 Mike Driscoll Maintainer II Truck 78 Comm. Center Comm. Center 20 Mike Hanrahan Maintainer II Truck 76 Comm. Center Comm. Center 21 Jeff Doss Maintainer I Truck 54 Police Dept. Police Dept. 22 Tim Cronin Maintainer I Truck 74 T.H./Libr T.H./Library 23 John Mulready Maintainer I Truck 41 T.H./Libr T.H./Library 24 Chris Braun Maintainer I Truck 72 Police Dept. Police Dept. 25 Jeff Ewing Maintainer I Truck 66/46 T.H./Librar T.H./Librar FLEET SERVICES 26 John TrippMechanic 27 Walter Parker Mechanic 28 Leon Clough Assistant Mechanic W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 7 of 10 WINTER REMINDERS 2007 / 2008 •Be prepared for storm emergencies. Communicate your availability with your Manager. •Time limit for beeper or cell phone response is five minutes. •Report to Operations Room upon your arrival to the Town Garage. The dispatcher will give you instructions •Give your vehicle / equipment safety inspections periodically during storms. Relief driver (shifts) or back up driver must complete safety checks before reporting to assigned route. Fill out blue slips clearly and completely and turn in to the dispatcher. •Plan and prioritize Treatment and Plow routes (time of day is a key factor). •It will be the driver's responsibility to make sure their assigned truck is not overloaded. •When sanding or plowing, obey traffic signs and signals, especially when returning to yard for another load and when traveling from one plow route to another. •Avoid creating sight line issues at intersections. •Be careful not to push snow onto sidewalks, driveways and wheelchair ramps. •Plow as close to mailboxes, without making contact, to eliminate possible mail delivery problems. •Turn down spinner speed when approaching oncoming cars. •Plow and treat drifts at the same time. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 8 of 10 •Scan intersections before clearing an intersection. •Make sure the back up alarm is working during operations. •Avoid backing and making left turns whenever possible. •Clean "Keep Back 50FT" sign, windows, wipers and lights periodically. •Avoid confrontations with residents. Report disturbances to Dispatch. •Report whenever plow edge is approaching 1 V (with the exception of 1-ton vehicles). •Lunch provisions will follow the guidelines provided in the attachment labeled: Lunch Break Provisions. •Pushing back means to clean as close as to the curb or edge of pavement without incurring damage to lawn or curb. •When finished with your assignment report to Dispatcher for further assignments. •Return any sanding/plowing maps to Operations Room and report any concerns to Dispatch. •Close overhead doors when leaving yard to treat or to plow. o Prevents snow from accumulating on floor. o So you can close doors. o Prevents slips and falls. •Trucks will not be left idling for longer than 15 minutes •If trucks are to be parked longer than one hour they will be parked in the bays. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.doePage 9 of 10 Isolated Emergencies Situations may dictate the need for a reduced number of personnel to respond to isolated or limited emergency situations not always snow related. The staff requirements, quantity and class, are at the discretion of the On-call Manager. Staff shall be chosen from the daily"Sign-off' sheet.Preference shall be consistent with the weekly overtime standing. The"Sign-off' sheet will be used for any type of emergency. W:\TownGarage\USERDIRS\PROGRAMS\SNOPRO\GUIDELINES\2007-2008\2007.08SNOWPLOW GUIDELINES.docPage 10 of 10 Page 1 of 1 i Gantick, Michael From: Cutler, Ruth [ruth.cutler@uconn.edu] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:19 AM To: MICHAEL GANTICK Subject: Phragmitis Hi Mike You all may know already that the Common Reed Phragmites australis growing along the banks of the Poduck.The board of Strawbridge is interested in getting rid of the encroaching Phragmites in the upstream part of the mill pond on the Podunk River. Only a small patch exists on the Strawbridge property. The majority is just upstream. The herbicide of choice ,'Rodeo requires"a CT A D.E.P. permit is required to buy and use of the herbicide and control may take several years.The fall is the best time set the reed back.As you know the town open space is directly across from the major patch of Hamates. It will not take long for that invasive reed to overtake what is a rare and productive wetland complex—a shrub area in a stream. My question is can the town act to get rid of the reed before it takes over? I have been working with Strawbridge to eventually make the complex a model of sustainable landscaping to correct and catch the drainage into rain gardens, fix areas that are causing mildew and rot to the buildings and drastically reduce costs for landscape maintenance. Hopefully they will have a master plan by next June done by a graduate school of landscape design. I cannot do the design because it would be a conflict as the job came through my UCONN teaching. I am hoping to have Peter Picone walk the property with the residents and maybe open the walk to other condos communities. Is there any interest by the town to endorse such projects? I am looking for some small grants that would give the project some recognition so that the residents will celebrate the project and run with it. Do you know of any that would be available to a condo complex? Have good Thanksgiving in your new house. Is it your first there? Ruth Ruth Cutler GVI , Coverts Project 11/26/2007 - •'96900023 42900118 969000 54003 ROW < 31 6 19 06300661 06300656 65400311 42900126 0630L031A 6.�,400303 06300639 0630048 ® ' 96900059 6 i 96900026 " 96900069 % 96900034; 06300630 96900077 /96900042 96900052 •' . --96900087 06300620 ` 96900060 06300623 94800096 06300614 94800085 �. • I 96900088 30600050 06300604 94800079 dk 94800086 96906096 06300559 -52600091 06300595 94800071 94800076 3060 49500016 94800068 52500079 0049 ' • ... 94800063 6300559 52500071 30600039 94800060 30600044 94800053 06300571 800016 30600031 94800052 52500063 ........ 55 49500012 28 `000 06S00 59;`" 30600021 , 94800044 52500055 ' 30600026 55800015 r 94800036 52500045 49500020 r 55800023 • . 49500028 ? 5580003 -- 1 52500037 ••' 94800030 49500042 49500050 50 25 27 0 0 ; 49500011 49500060 r` 94800020 5 000 49500068 49500019 49500029 J" t 49500080 52500021 0630 0�4 - 49500090 49500045/ 75300012 i' ;49500053i • 46500102 O N1�1 ��S Vk 4 W L itI G(Z W. /�"r C(Z •` I;49500069"i / ' 4 950010849500061 `49500087215 i49500079 90 Q409600 49500095 1285 5001034909600229 ;09600235 49500111 49500119 1300500 09600195\ ` 09600243 # s p 0 °ps{ •- 50 " gym no- OBDL .p Z Ol{ g 9S'EOZ O ti S 8" aces 'stt m m6 zet let nag Za'Z84 °hL °lulYt'e N icy 8 d. °oe{ q sstot � B•sz� �� zod{ � F ODttl > 'V w _I ^m B201 8 S,� szot� LesB eA�° � {sso4 osu mn sy OL. a r , _ MAI out ^ —�A1• "1 / iaarnn v S'm BBL � szo{ zg'Dtt $ rz'9o{ rtrue ra'ru 1721Rb7S '�rA out °.00t 0 O'9Lt aADt` sS 6 d' m ^ N •5+•1 g R DS $ $ �8. OOBL ^^m g '� 8 OZOt.,�:.S•�l iS � {� S A ,�' ,,pp 9 Oa0...,szot is L•7 F h 09 zaL m BDfB[ 246 a• 0 m^& 9 080 ^^ y N 12aG 211 0. V O� l51 l2'OE m 4{Ol 'p.,. .. 0. o-CSg[^ °OL Se'((l °zot f � °l�y 16.03 ea'SB ZCSO 0' a �• V O'ZOt 8 BOLL n sot °VO MO11fM PZOt t4.B2 °ilC $ Za'0{t ba LOl •yg S� ,g $ °pot g 20{ ZL 0OOI2 olyi mR: EoDn et �^'. 3�sz 0 7)/M °ose o 80 O ozbr o'ro{ Dl OBI L°ai l<�{ 8 sz'e� O'sot st Om Al 8 Zf'af a3.30 m 8 t'§'pfL 0-0' 4 o0[i °�i "Vo ,C* o 0'qk $ lBD 8 � lBSI[L 8 wN � ry °opi 0LPL $' E� m�� BOSB 0 m L44 f. np ^oF 8. ' i Of'DB Slf ^0 8 Val31,42 O� S�BGt 40y2 {<' ^o-m. 0 o. A seyzt �64'1 m 0 °OBL ,p 9at' N SOL FYI ai[•b[ `d 0 8 g.: �.5Oe gy.� 0 �• ,,. ADS li 9' OSl ry roQ. Ofl j Bl � cb'oh °o0t �' d 3 °bLz �r ro'eD 1 6 sr B��z{ o• a � I , NOW .. ♦ o �. SOONER !,, � .�-� ��•.,, !`���® �����? �t���%tee►♦-w 'YON 0����,� 14 WP MIS I%9q k" WHOM 1 M� �+���►�....,��� � �r 1 �, �>. Z�,,,�� ,� • ��'s,<,��r � �!:fir. �., 1��� .�i1i��.�a�/�� � �11���►0�►"r• r1 �%MRS��rI JF4 : ��AVY 5�70��s�.a. wa ma 'd M --, , 1',- '7 _;,� 011 ow i'll V- 1 4w♦ l !;. ,` •. ■ ( � r-.�, l �� +�® if ����► `v�?1! ��\ �/ � •G� ! �, 1 �► � -� � � ham_ / �p' \� . SANDING ROUTES !MILEAGE ! TRUCK iPLOW ROUTES MILEAGE ;TRUCK 1) MIKE HURLBURT 8.7 2065 A) MIKE HURLBURT 15.6 2065 -- _ 8.4 2052 - A) ALEC ARNOLD 15.6 2052 3 ALLEN LIVINGSTON 1 - 6.8 2056 B) ALLEN LIVINSTON I 14.9 2056 4) BOB BROWN 8.6 2042 B) BOB BROWN 14.9 2055 5) GAIL SADONIS 9.8 j 2057 C) STEVE LINTON 15.7 2050 6) JIM BUTLER 11.2 2048 C) IAN MACGR_EGO_R 15.7 2055 7) RICHARD OLMSTEAD 6.9 2058 D) BILL DZEN 6.1 8) GARY SCHA_CT 5.3 � 2044 E JIM BUTLER DAN JACOBSEN _- I __-- )-_.- -_--_-- --_- � 16.3 2048 12.6 2051 E) MITCHELL -3 16.3 10) ERIC HEINRICH 11.9 I 2053 F) RICH OLMSTEA_D 13_8 2058 11) MIKE SPIELMAN 8.7 2047 F) MITCHELLL-4 1 - 13.8 1 12) ROB HUNT 13.3 2059 G) DAN JACOBSEN 12.5 1 2051-- - -- - ------- -- -- -- ----- T- -------- 13) IAN MACGREGOR 10.7 2055 G) MITCHELL- 5 12.5! _ 14) STEVE LINTON 7.4 2050 H) MIKE SPIELMAN 15.5 2047 15) GLENN BOGLISH 9.5 2045 H) FOLSOM- 1 15.5 _ 1) ROB HUNT 12.0 j 2059-- --------- MITCHELL- 6 --12.0 J) GAIL SADONIS 14.4 2057 - J)__FOLSOM- 2 14.4 2044 -- MISSION DRIVER _ f GARY SCHACT_ -- MISSION DRIVER -- - - i ERIC HEINRICH ! ! 2053 MISSION DRIVER GLENN BOGLISH -__ 2045 d� Gantick, Michael From: Mike Derewianka [mxd@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:17 AM To: Gantick, Michael Cc: Galligan, Matthew; Depula, Robert; Reichle, Karl Subject: RE: Salt contamination of well at 16 Maple St South Windsor Dear Mr. Gantick, Around late April or early May, in accordance with Mr. Deptula's recommendation, I contacted a licensed well driller, as he suggested. Before contacting the well driller, I ascertained with Mr. Deptula that he well driller I was going to contact was one that Mr. Deptula believed to be reputable. Mr. Deptula estimated the recommended inspection might cost roughly $100 to $200. However, I the driller said the inspection could not be done unless additional work costing thousands of dollars was done at the same time to bring the well up to the current code. That is a lot of money. In effect, your preconditions for a meeting are that I spend thousands of dollars. I do not think that this is your intent. The probability of a cracked well casing is extremely low. In Mr. Deptula's many years of experience, he has never seen one. Further, the drilling firm told me that if a cracked casing were the source of the bacteria, they would expect a higher bacteria count than the low 1 or 2 total coliform as is my case. (I had two samples in which a count was done; they were 1 and 2, respectively. ) They said that cracked casings were quite rare, and that a low bacteria count such as was found in my well was most probably due either to a faulty well seal at the top or contamination during sampling. I subsequently replaced the well seal and chlorinated the well. This did not clear up the bacteria. I believe I did not do the chlorination properly and should repeat it. Most importantly for you, the presence of bacteria does not excuse the town from remedying the salt problem. Even if my well casing were cracked from top to bottom, it would not be the likely path salt would take to enter my drinking water. Water prefers to flow down, not sideways. My well is in a highly permeable gravelly sand. The ground above my well is about 30 feet horizontally distant and slightly uphill from the road. The salt water would have to travel about 30 feet horizontally to reach the well casing. That's one path to my drinking water. However, water prefers to flow down - vertically. It need only travel 30 feet down from the edge of the road to reach to the water table I draw from. Obviously the salt water coming off the road is going to prefer to travel down rather than sideways. The pump drawdown would then draw the water toward my well and be the logical explanation for the salt contamination. (My entire well - to the foot valve - is roughly a little under 50 feet deep. I am drawing off water near the surface. ) The idea that the water flowed horizontally to reach a casing that the town speculates might be cracked (contrary to the experience of a licensed well driller) instead of flowing downward to reach the water table is probably not something we want to continue with. I feel sure my concerns about the health risks to my family, including my low- sodium diet mother-in-law are something you share. Now that you have more information, I trust that you will agree to let me meet with town staff (Mr. Reichle) to review my concerns and how the town plans to address them. In particular, I have questions about how you will ensure that future salt application on my street does create a health risk. 1 y Please let me know when I can meet with town staff that oversee road salting. Thank you, Mike Derewianka work: 258-0354 home: 644-0359 ---- "Gantick wrote: Dear Mr. Derewianka: As of this date we have not heard back from you regarding Mr Deptula's October 18, 2007 letter. The town has been updating it's effort on our snow removal program and are willing to monitor your situation , but are looking for verification of your wells integrity as per Mr. Deptula's letter. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Derewianka [mailto:mxd@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:15 PM To: Gantick, Michael Cc: Pelkey, John; reichle@southwindsor.org Subject: Salt contamination of well at 16 Maple St Dear Mr. Gantic, Thank you for talking with me at the town meeting. Attached are some of the photos I took showing that the excessive salt town trucks left within 70 feet of my well not many days after I phoned Karl Reichle on March 13, 2007 and asked for his help in keeping town trucks from not spreading salt on my (Maple) street. The home in the background on the third photo are my house. The well is roughly 15 feet from the tree. This is the largest of 3 piles of salt left within 70 feet of my well, which is in a highly permeable sand-gravel acquifer, with a water table roughly only 31 feet below the surface. My drinking water supply is within 31 feet of the surface. My wife's mother lives with us. She is 85 year old and is on a sodium restricted diet. This practice is a threat to her health and possibly the rest of my family. I insist that you take steps to stop this practice of over-salting. As I shared with you tonight, there is no reasonable doubt that the salt in my well came from town trucks. After the town salted the road late this past winter, lab analysis showed sodium levels that were over ten times what they were in 1991 and 1992. After the winter ended and some weeks had passed since the last salting, the sodium levels where down to half of what they were at the peak. Clearly there was a peak in sodium (and chloride) levels that coincided with the town salting. There are no storm drains that run along Maple Street. I am asking that the town switch back to a low salt, more sand mixture (as in prior years) , or make other arrangements to assure that this problem will not re-occur. I request that we arrange a meeting with me and the necessary town officials to make a decision on this. Please contact me to arrange a meeting. Thank you, Mike Derewianka 2 e work: 258-0354 home: 644-0359 3 - Call for Proposals - Center for Transportation and Urban Planning at UConn Faculty members from all departments at UConn are invited to respond to the first call for proposals of the Center for Transportation and Urban Planning at UConn. CTUP is UConn's University Transportation Center(UTC) as designated in the federal legislation titled the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users," or SAFETEA-LU in August 2005. Projects will be for one-year duration (with the possibility of one-year extension renewal pending a review of progress) and Pis may request up to $100,000 of federal funding each year. Research teams will be asked to match 1 dollar for every 2 dollars awarded from the CTUP. This match may be in-kind including faculty academic year time and graduate student tuition waiver. Research Theme The theme of the CTUP is Transportation for Smart Growth. Within this theme research will be focused on the following three (3)target areas: • Document, evaluate and disseminate transportation and land use policies that support the goals for smart growth a � - v� + IIt =syatms on • Develop operating protocols and designs that maximize the efficiency, convenience and competitiveness of green modes of transportation Proposal Selection Process The procedure for developing and selecting projects for funding in 2008-09 is outlined below: UConn Smart Growth Research Forum October 16, 2007 Submit Intent to Propose December 1, 2007 Deadline for Full Proposal March 1, 2008 Announcement of Projects for Funding April 1, 2008 First Year Projects Start May 23, 2008 The research forum, held on October 16, introduced the UTC and outlined our research program to potential Pi's at UConn. One of the goals of this forum was to encourage researchers that are doing complimentary work in different disciples to submit joint projects. To re-enforce this point we are requiring researchers that are interested in developing proposals to submit an "intent" to propose — a document outlining the potential research team and their area of expertise and a one- or two-paragraph description of proposed research (see Intent to Propose Template). This will allow CTUP to pre-screen the projects with the intention of encouraging researchers with similar ideas to work together on a joint submission. Send the Intent to Propose to Vivian Castelli at vivianc(a)engr.uconn.edu by December 1, 2007. Proposal Format Research proposals must be 8 pages maximum in length, plus a title page, CVs and budget (see Proposal Template). They must also include a one-paragraph abstract on the title page. A separate one-page budget must also be submitted for each proposal. The principal investigator's and co-principal investigator's CV should be no more than one page each; if a longer CV is submitted; only the first page will be used. Each of the following sections must be clearly identified and addressed in a respondent's proposal. The following headings and subject order should be used in submissions: 1. Statement of Project Objectives - -What is the specific transportation problem or policy issue to be addressed and what is the scope of the proposed research? How does it specifically contribute the University Transportation Center theme? 2. Research Contribution - - How is the proposed research innovative, unique and a contribution to current work in the field of investigation? 3. Technical Approach or Methodology- -What is the proposed methodology, analytical techniques, data sources, etc.? 4. Anticipated Results --What does the respondent anticipate to be the results of their research? Can any of the projected results be of immediate application to transportation firms, government agencies or providers? 5. Technology Transfer- - How will the knowledge and information learned from the research be transferred to the transportation research community as well as the transportation practitioner? Specifically, who is anticipated to benefit from the research - - who is the end "customer"? Transfer technology activities can include: professional exchange programs, including conferences and workshops; newsletters; publications; fulfilling information requests; training activities such as seminars and workshops; journal articles; conference papers; presentations; implementation of research results; and coordination with on-going. 6. Budget Request- - State your full funding request as a total dollar amount, separating it into Federal funds and matching funds. 7. Principal Investigator and Other Researchers - - On the 9tt' page and beyond of your proposal, provide a one-page summary of each principal investigator's curriculum vitae. This page is in addition to the eight pages used for the research proposal's technical component. As a separate document, submit a one-page detailed project budget, prepared following the attached DOT Budget template. Respondents must identify the potential source of the matching fund where indicated on the budget template. Send research proposals to Vivian Castelli at vivianca-engr.uconn.edu by March 1, 2008. Proposal Review Proposals will be reviewed by a team of external reviewers including at least one individual from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The panel of peer reviewers will meet in person to discuss and rank the projects. In addition to the quality of Project Description, proposal reviews will be strongly guided by the following criteria: 1. Is the project truly relevant to the UTC theme? 2. Is the project relevant to broad, national strategic planning goals of the US Department of Transportation for research and development, including the UTC program? 3. Does the project have the potential to make fundamental research, education and policy contributions, as well as offer technology transfer and community outreach? 4. Is the project feasible within the time frame presented? 5. Does the project involve both undergraduate and graduate students in research? 6. Does the project encourage cross-disciplinary and multi-school collaboration? The final selection of the projects will be made by the center director based on the recommendations and rankings from the research panel. Center for Transportation and Urban Planning Research Program Year 2008-2009 Intent to Propose Principle Investigator Please provide name, department, and area of expertise. Research Team Members Please provide each member's name, department, and area of expertise. Proposed Research Please describe in one or two paragraphs. Submit to Vivian Castelli at vivianc(a)-engr.uconn.edu by December 1, 2007. Center for Transportation and Urban Planning Research Proposal 2008-2009 Program Year Submitted Proposal Title Principal Investigator Full Name Co-Principal Investigator Full Name One paragraph abstract: Statement of Project Objectives Research Contribution Technical Approach or Methodology Anticipated Results Technology Transfer 1 Budget Request Federal funds $ Matching funds $ Total $ Submit to Vivian Castelli at vivianc(a)-engr.uconn.edu by March 1, 2008. 2 DOT Budget Template Center for Transportation and Urban Planning Research Program Year I— May 23, 2008 thru May 22, 2009 Name of PI: Title of Proposal: CATEGORIES Budgeted Amount Explanatory Notes Faculty Salaries Administrative Staff Salaries Other Staff Salaries Student Salaries Fringe Total Salaries and Fringe Scholarships/Tuition Permanent Equipment(in excess of$5,000) Expendable Property, Supplies, and Services Travel Other Direct Costs (Specify) Total Direct Costs F&A(Indirect) Costs TOTAL COSTS Federal Share Matching Share Source of Matching Funds: Additional information: 1. Please provide a basic explanation and justification for your costs such as 1 faculty,multiple research staff @ various rates, number of students funded, number of computers,or number of trips and approved rates. 2. Research Assistant/Grad student salaries should be included in Other Staff Salaries. 3. Budget supplies,phone calls, copying,postage, minor equipment, should be included under Expendable Property&Supplies&Services. Should your proposal be awarded, this form must also be used to report the final actual expenses as well, Page 1 of 2 Gantick, Michael From: Folger, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:32 PM To: Gantick, Michael; Banach, Marcia Subject: FW: CTUP Call for Proposals Attachments: UConn UTC Call for Proposals.doc; UTC Intent to Propose Template.doc; UTC Proposal Template.doc; DOT Budget Template.doc From: Robbins, Gary [mailto:gary.robbins@uconn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:51 PM To: Folger, Jeffrey Cc: banach@sothwinsor.org Subject: FW: CTUP Call for Proposals Jeff: If possible, I would like to have our meeting on Thursday November_29_at.10._am at the Starbucks at Evergreen Walk and then tour the area. I have attached the call for proposal materials. With me at the meeting will be Tom Meyer and Tom Morris(whom I believe you know). The intent to propose is due December I. 2007. Also,thanks for checking on our lost NEC computer projector. Gary Gary A.Robbins Professor of Geology Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering University of Connecticut 1376 Storrs Road W.B.Young Bldg,Room 313 Storrs,CT 062694087 Office: (860)486-2448 Fax: (860)486-5408 E-mail: .robbins uconn.edu Subject: CTUP Call for Proposals This message is sent on behalf of Dr. Norman Garrick, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Center for Transportation and Urban Planning. I am pleased to release this call for proposals for first year research projects of the Center for Transportation and Urban Planning at UConn. This year we will fund approximately five proposals for up to $100,000 each. The procedure for developing and selecting projects for funding in 2007-8 is outlined below: 11/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 Submit Intent to Propose December 1, 2007 Deadline for Full Proposal March 1, 2008 Announcement of Projects for Funding April 1, 2008 First Year Projects Starts May 23, 2008 Full details of this process are given in the attachment. If you would like to discuss any aspect of CTUP's research program please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also direct questions to Stephanie Merrall, the program coordinator for CTUP. I look forward to working with you on building UConn's program in Transportation and Urban Planning. Respectively, Norman W. Garrick CTUP Director and Associate Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Connecticut 860 486 2990 www.engr.uconn.edu/—garrick 11/19/2007 SOW N Sf4 ti FTown O-P South ?A�� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�OSOR-co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 October 18, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0109®ULAR MAIL Mr. &Mrs. Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. &Mrs. Derewianka, The Town has met with the Environmental Health Services Section of the State Health Department regarding your well water situation. It would seem as though the aquifer supplying your well recharges rather quickly(i.e. drastic change in sodium and chloride over a relatively short time). The bacterial contamination, especially right after chlorination may be indicative of surface water containing bacteria quickly moving through the soil and entering your well, perhaps through a faulty casing or a deteriorated seal where the casing is grouted into bedrock. It is strongly recommended that you have your well casing and seal inspected (to ascertain its'integrity) by a licensed well driller. Based on these actions by you, the Town will then collect water samples from your well at critical times to ascertain the status of sodium and chloride content. Also included with this correspondence is certified mail #7004 2510 0003 9803 0062, post marked 8-31-07 and which was unclaimed and returned to the Town. The cover letter of the above referenced correspondence is included also. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robe�a, IRS Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Matthew Galligan,Town Manager Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations / Michael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works V Mr. Cliff McClellan, Department of Health Environmental Health Services Section 410 Capitol Avenue, MS#51 EHS Hartford, CT 06134-0308 * s, �Y '3o-U7)2'0f,-SO,Utfi "winC15,01Z 5oc w7nr�sor GT,0607 4 ate- 08i31.12007 m -ns€ r, f 0607 6g 4 ; .i7004 2510 0003 9803 0062 4 — Mr. & Mrs. Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street _ South Windsor, CT 06074 •« •• •• •• •` »' '« "' """ n{:!f'i= 1iFiiei�ii ti ,COW N S fq p x r 70� v I siot� V&U&Ot � - u 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 28, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0062 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Derewianka, Enclosed in this packet of information are the bacterial reports of your well water of which you were notified when I received verbal notification from the laboratory and the chemistry analysis of samples collected on 3-21-07 and 5-10-07. The chloride levels went from 240 Mg/L to 70 Mg/L and the sodium went from 91 Mg/L to less than 1 Mg/L respectively. Also, included is a report from a private laboratory for a compound called Triethanolamine, a component of the product used on the roads last winter. None was detected down to 50 Mg/L. If you wish, this department will collect another water sample to be analyzed for bacteria upon your request. If you have'any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Dept a, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Michael 7. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works CERTIFIED MAIL OREBH2.6504963 i WlnOsflr�,•GT,06074... �fb 3 '2607 Sb USUq•CU', .,,,�. w.:Fcf.J+. •vim Fib•" b +�4 ii'ki}VGF�: CiJG'R 06074 t a d 71MOayAQ� U POSTAG x '" ,,,,_,• y e fa? ; 7004 2512 0003 9803 0062 0 *� Yr • v p �" ,F Vt�4rrx 'C== 1 'litI ° Mr. & Mrs. Michael Derewianka n " . 16 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 FFF`�$67'PFFP13#7iF�F#,.1FE�1 F11, FFF 1FF3Y Rill iiFF JIF FFFii it A 9000 tons of sand will no longer plague the Town of New Milford The Largest Town, New Milford, in CT sweeps sand under the carpet with the Implementation of Ice B'Gone treated salt. , Two years ago Gerry Hollins started looking for ways to reduce the amount of sand his town kept using each winter to maintain traveling safety in their hilly town.Gerry states"Sand was almost a year round function in New Milford,3 months to haul it in and mix it with salt,5 months of applying it during the winter,and INNOVATIVE MUNICIPAL then in the spring it would take a 5 man crew 4 months to sweep up the roadsides" and this doesn't even PRODUCTS (US) INC. include the year-round catch basin cleaning that is required to keep his system clear. His largest single motivator to try Ice B'Gone was to"get out of the sand business!" He had heard Buffalo,NY Box 712 from the City of Torrington,that Ice B'Gone would achieve this goal.Gerry attended several presentations Bu and eventually decided to do the entire Town and in one year eliminate all sand usage.With this in mind 14302 he invited Daren Crawford,V.P.Sales&Marketing to give a driver training class at his town hall.The driv- ers were very hesitant even hostile to this change.They were concerned about not having enough traction Phone:800-387-5777 during the storms to make it up and down the severely hilly areas within the Town(Berkshire Mountains). Fax: 905-683-9444 Daren Crawford's perspective was that this was the longest driver training class he had ever given.The ques- Email• tions were excellent,thought-out and driven by their concern for public safety. info@innovativecompany.com Gerry had to continually reinforce that the product would perform and that they would persist until it did work,"no going back".After the first storm we discovered the product was everything it was said to be. We adjusted our timing in the beginning and got the material down early and we never lost the bond,"the snow never stuck". "We moved the overtime from the back of the storm to the front and in turn,it elimi- We're on the Web! nated all of our traditional call backs."Through the balance of the winter we found the product worked WWW. better and better and as our confidence grew we were able to reduce our applications from 2501b to 2001bs innovativecompany.com per single lane mile. Daren Crawford gave a presentation near Hartford in March and five of the drivers from New Milford came to speak of their experiences.The glowing reviews and stories were well received by the other 60 high- way officials.It was a stark contrast from the fall meeting. Their future plans are to implement a weather service to see if they can get better forecasting and to implement an anti-icing strategy to increase their proactivity in preventing the snow from getting a bond with the road. The neighboring towns From Page 3 The neighboring towns were out everyday. He has found Mag chloride great for de-icing due to strength and cost but it doesn't work as well as a bond breaker. As a de-icer he found it to be more effective than Ice B'Gone. Todd says, "20 gal- Ions/mile does great for melt- ing hard pack even into single digit temps." For gravel roads, mixing liquid in his sand gives him winter applications or as a and small pumps. He wants amazing results. In the spring, summer dust control product. 300 gallons/truck and larger roads harden faster, pothole Future plans: add more pumps to pump 7-8 less and dust less. Ice B'Gone capacity. Currently only have gal/minute: There are three acts like a glue both during 120-140 gallon/truck capacity trucks in his fleet. Gantick, Michael From: Mike Derewianka[mxd@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:40 PM To: Gantick, Michael Cc: Pelkey, John; reichle@southwindsor.org Subject: Salt photos on 16 Maple Street Attachments: Salt Pictures 005.jpg;Salt Pictures 006.jpg;Salt Pictures 007.jpg Salt Pictures Salt Pictures Salt Pictures 005.jpg (1 MB) 006.jpg (1 MB) 07.jpg (632 KB).. Salt photos on 16 Maple Street are attached. Kindly note the crack in the pavement that runs underneath the salt, parallel to the tape measure, about 10 inches from the tape measure. The pavement has significant cracking and frost heaves resulting from water infiltration of cracks. The road needs crack sealing or repair. The cracks aid the infiltration of the salt into the ground. 1 tjm4. ✓ik N� � � M. ,m Pell- 77 JCSAAA >� Rr r $' 9 1 i 4 5 8 7 , 4' s 5 6, -i: r N .�i�-� •.v -mac '1 �u�l.`� t_-. -� � .. �k� r"k ._ .^r Tz7 r'n t.aa `y a1+ m ` ti 74 1• D t. F`Y J `�•.. 7.4 t� a a y 1 1 v 5 j * R i 1 e: c �; +�v `a - „$i.as s ram" ��s v; �' .• .t-•. :r �3+p� f� ��� �,' ,a.. � ,_i_�1.a + K yii7 ,j t � t 1i t •t:,: 'XTI. _t-� - .� � Nd+} #� yap i�s a4"'� :, u� `� - T�•, s off .'i- ��• f �' �ti sY` t-t R}`.t� ka -� \ P �`- }� '� - -♦ r ^.. ♦ -. {.yr 'L ze. } a:q� fir' s: rr t �.a $ :�.• 1a," ' ..y��' p'3i� ~ W r,.r j a ���it>f+",yTa.y�>ti t t Y.�iT <� r�x y. Gantick, Michael MMMMUMEMNOW From: Mike Derewianka [mxd@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 15, 200710:15 PM To: Gantick, Michael Cc: Pelkey, John; reichle@southwindsor.org Subject: Salt contamination of well at 16 Maple St Dear Mr. Gantic, Thank you for talking with me at the town meeting. Attached are some of the photos I took showing that the excessive salt town trucks left within 70 feet of my well not many days after I phoned Karl Reichle on March 13, 2007 and asked for his help in keeping town trucks from not spreading salt on my (Maple) street. The home in the background on the third photo are my house. The well is roughly 15 feet from the tree. This is the largest of 3 piles of salt left within 70 feet of my well, which is in a highly permeable sand-gravel acquifer, with a water table roughly only 31 feet below the surface. My drinking water supply is within 31 feet of the surface. My wife's mother lives with us. She is 85 year old and is on a sodium restricted diet. This practice is a threat to her health and possibly the rest of my family. I insist that you take steps to stop this practice of over-salting. As I shared with you tonight, there is no reasonable doubt that the salt in my well came from town trucks. After the town salted the road late this past winter, lab analysis showed sodium levels that were over ten times what they were in 1991 and 1992. After the winter ended and some weeks had passed since the last salting, the sodium levels where down to half of what they were at the peak. Clearly there was a peak in sodium (and chloride) levels that coincided with the town salting. There are no storm drains that run along Maple Street. I am asking that the town switch back to a low salt, more sand mixture (as in prior years) , or make other arrangements to assure that this problem will not re-occur. I request that we arrange a meeting with me and the necessary town officials to make a decision on this. Please contact me to arrange a meeting. Thank you, Mike Derewianka work: ConnDOT: 258-0354 home: 644-0359 1 To: South Windsor Town_ Council From: Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street, S. Windsor Phone: 644-0359 Work 258-0354 Re: Request to return to the minimal road salting that was practice prior to 1991. Date: April 2, 2007 Well at 16 Maple Street Contaminated with over 6 times the Advisory Level of Sodium Before we bought our home in 1991 we had the water tested. In 1992,the water was tested again. The water seemed fine until shortly after the first salting of this winter. Becoming concerned, we switched to bottled water and sent out the water for testing. The results showed that both the sodium and chloride levels had sky-rocketed to over ten times the 1991, 1992 levels. Sodium Chloride mg/liter mg(liter 1991 (Sept) 15 26.8 1992 (March) NA 26 2007 (March) 182 440 Max Advisory 28 250 Town Greatly Increased the Amount of Salt per Storm from 1991 levels. Preliminary information from town staff is that they have switched from using almost all sand with little salt in the early 1990s to pure salt(Clear Lane)with no sand this year. We observed heavy salting-levels on our street_and surrounding streets.______ We have shallow well in a gravel-sand acquifer—highly permeable. The water table is only about 30 feet from the surface. Our well is only 28 feet from the road. It is likely that the town over salting has contaminated our well. The state DEP plans to look into this and hopes to work with Bob Deptula on this. 01 CT\ � o r i Salt policy usage for 2007 -2008 Draft 9-18-07 Preload Trucks with Salt before leaving work at 3:30 in anticipation of a Snow Storm and on Friday afternoons from November 19, 2007 to March 30, 2008 Salt routes without a plow on the truck 15 Salt Routes Town Trucks shall be preset for delivery of treated salt at the 400, 500, and 600 pound per mile rate . Contracted Trucks shall be preset for a delivery of 400 lbs per mile The Supervisor in charge for the storm shall determine the actual rate of treated salt to use due to the weather conditions. We will track the amount of treated salt loaded into each truck by the bucket weighing system on the L-70 and keep track by the number of pounds not yards of material used. DRAFT 9/5/2007 Winter Maintenance Practices for the town of South Windsor's Public Works Department We are reconfiguring our routes and our plan of attack which will allow us to better manage our snow removal operations. • We are purchasing a pay loader weighing system to better manage our salt use. This system will allow us the ability to know exactly how much salt was used on a particular route and it will be able to report how much salt was used for the entire storm town wide. Potential problems. 1. Drivers assisting other routes. Solution ? 2. Salt left over that is in the truck at the end of the storm will be difficult to weigh at the end of a shift or at the end of the storm. (Solution)? 3. Driver's ability to put out more than the amount they are instructed to. (solutions covered under calibration) 4. Multi operators using the system and not recording loads or weights. (Solution, everyone trained to use the system and TQM process to I;et everyone on board.) 5. Driver's re-treating throughout the storm and having multi applications. Solution we will dictate when the route should be re-treated by predicted temperatures and or conditions.) • We are examining our truck calibration techniques for the ground speed control systems,the v jet systems and the side winder systems. Potential problems. 1. Ground speed controllers were not properly calibrated in the past. This system is supposed to offer the ultimate in ideal storm fighting practices. It can allow for different application rates for different conditions but leaves the truck operator in total control. Without their total commitment to the plan of attack they can do what ever they desire, such as melting the snow of when it could be scraped. Solution get the technical support and training we need to calibrate them and possibly lock out the system at a maximum application rate.) 2. V- Jet sanders were calibrated with a simulated speed of 20 mph. (Solution, calibrate at 15mph and look at new calibration techniques.) 3. Drivers having the ability to change control and gate flow openings. (Solution,weld gates and calibrate control at its highest allowable setting for a desired application rate.) 4. Contractor's over salting and their antiquated equipment. (Solution, send them out with a minimum ballast load to be used at the end of the route where they are working alone and have our people apply and retreat as directed. Have our people do the first application and plow the gutter pass while in the tandem mode. Calibrate their trucks for one minimum setting and allow them to salt only if absolutely necessary.) DRAFT 9/5/2007 s' • Our goal is to provide quality snow removal services along with sensible salting practices that use effective application rates vs. storm conditions. We must promote best management practices and be sensitive to the environment. Salt use recommended rates are anywhere from 200 lbs. per lane mile of road to 800 lbs. of salt or treated salt per lane mile of road. The two treated salt companies that conduct business in our area recommend an application rate of 500 lbs per two lane mile of road to achieve good results. Potential problems. 1. There are many different approaches to applying salt or treated salt at different rates depending on conditions both present and predicted. A storm that starts with very warm wet conditions and is predicted to end with very cold conditions presents the greatest probability of post storm problems such as hard pack and bonding. We have some guidelines to use but they are not as clear as they could be and don't cover many of the different storm conditions that we New Englanders face. (Solution,develop a storm fighting procedure where application rates can be adjusted to conditions and or predictions that can be somewhat a guide that everyone will be on board with and which can easily be referred to. Another option is have a two set application rates, one for initial treatment and one for re-treatment which will allow for a simplified approach.) • Our goal is again is to practice best management practices and provide quality snow removal practices while not contaminating well water. Potential problems. 1. There are roads in town that lack curbing and proper storm water control structures and discharge. 2. There are shallow wells with faulty seals and are conducive to tainted storm water runoff due to the grade they are at and the road grade. 3. Not every area in town has or has the potential to have a city water supply. (Solutions identify the areas that lack storm water control and use reduced salt amounts to limit future exposure. Another solution is to find out through the two water company where their water service areas are and where they ere not present and treat these areas different.) J� tltl 'fin y k iy y. ll r kl' v �'� „. fir-'.' A~ „� � y�, t' tl�� � •@ '� �• � � r<v of �'_:. ,� 1 `'�."�x'... � �bx• %� y 3 � Av 'fit. k� �° r rc K r-1 _ u w ) » r !yam U �� Y�. �� e r^" � L ,�• ,, �s.£� ,fir �ne �,,, ' `� � � � � Apr, r• c.�. ; '�`-��'� � � P l + 3, �k• t ^� E Y � � fi Y t nm" r u S � eta "'' "�J r ��, �!� '�• ��„�-,�_ �"\��� � � �� ���a►lam � �� . � , : ,,�,,�, , , � Ili► _ , -NIT4 400 N 174j M - N 174 N 175.000 -N 17S 200 r xN/F RICHARD ACE T 7 LOIS A - N F SACW N•IOCCO N/F JO/AT N.✓R DOR077.LA �eF ROL+£Rr M. NAACY Al Do / N, WAOOOCK BRANOENBEgCf77 - LJ O 010 MwD PRIME arr Vs 1 VL(TORT 1 Vt E1171V I VE STORY v f �' ./F' \y` R f1� MOOD FRYIE MOOD FRAM 7'•rrs, - �} RAW WOOD SPLIT �s }vim ' �Ti7 i SPLIT TLEVEL �y RRrt LEVEL f a ;tro iF MOM. GY(eT LM. 0 G LFY. W ( 7,f'Ot/w S7ALG7q- r74 I� MAk2B. 7'L�!/ •. IOYi/�65 •(y�{ • o F_ �IC//A - y %'OCEN• �. 1 9'LICCI L� SON • -` -; .. ... ilSR4• O ENET �raEai aTr I �iA4tii OQ F!2 - RK. AF ,T WL00 w.n • ast O ;o sx ( c 6� • ! a Y� e • s use c Q�. n siw'[ovc" ••�l �e� l� �� 1.v .. sw f1� acc /• /Y� i •Rc >r , S.S'oe/P � P� I 1 4+1 sPRANER1RF • w000 FFRwYE 4 w000 FRnRE V 1 T ' Iq�Dsn*,' - EVEL s7 SFL1T LEVEL SFUT LEVEL © OF k Q t pc o r/xllccs a ACWnt4 -xs Y N/F✓GMY Aft - f L771wFR0 y NQTAE 4 KENAETlY d¢ANII M. Ol3Y0VAN N/F LR F .. jy '�OSY,yyy. ` / .k - •: _ r$ Z. STEr(/Lf O FOOOY 1T� .f�S - «' 0 I 6 VF N CS PLAN MNSr.4.4#O M.h(STw./t7*!I M.H.Srv./2+70 .- /NV.Z2S.9B /Nv.Rl7-53 /N✓.2Q6.7t3 . 7 - a 250 y t 260 24$ , w T O 79 2-55 t, �'. i O '7/ Ex T/NG G.QAOE 240 . . 250 _• i E`X13T/N4 GQAOE - `..' - - _ - i - . 235 { T +ems /i'e.c-P MT4 245 2 230 240 225 . �.� /N✓.225.e0 23�r� rNrs Oft HAS' sM NV 2d7.59 - _ TO SH A11$FWf p:.T ESN-01T' . 220 230 SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTIOF AVERY HEIG.HT5 AREA • - SOUTH W/N7F-SOU.: CON-NECTICUT I - 215 215 225 WILLOW ST. STA. `?+40 TO STA. I2+ 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 MMES S.!MINGf S b ASSE If ` PROFILE `- CONSULTme d"t"41=ERS AN$LAND.PLANS c FAfMiM!ltrrTON, CQNNE6i7CUT G,ieAIV NO. .. A11n! RT. 1" 4'-0" NORM 40'-0" - MOTE! SHAOLcO FORT/ON OP SGWEA!,CONSTRUCTION �'�' Sly,KA. NO , A_E - FOAM T-1-TL NorEua/ae�FophIUD.Pa4rie/A.4rioN VW �eeuE, wa,xQrto' Cal" NO. "a-$ 174 000 E 211 600 N 174,200 N 174.400 E 211 800 N 174,600 E 212,200 N 174,400 E 212 400 - .{ « c � G K/F(ERALOPE SNARO / � E E N P.R. RAAE �BERERAV � 0 — � o ' z { 3y N/F W/LLM P 4. M.CAROL ' I ❑ ANW ELEANOR KRb ©' 'LL �c r F 47 W Q -- - A(/F EONICRO J.F(L70A1 1^ - .' 1 APLANA L. S K ❑a a i NAUDIUS N/F PAIL ✓eKArNERWe- W o" N r-- � O 1 1 D1111E f ynM _—� i ►OOl � O � / 1 tiV{I � OMVE to N 1 p +\ `r ®1 r �S1pt 1SeS� �IA N/F ✓AMES W. FRAW.LS F. E - 1 O E SrdM3SOOD 1 E f#AYE N L - /WeawO IT LEVEL i s11A11E 1 SH.IT lEiEl �. .—J 1 ARET �' 1 SrU �ppp 1 bYLLrC SPLIT LEYQL ' � I LEVEL I RL �� O rMYE sDArE SKrc LEVEL S0.rc LEVEL so fy;. $b o I ��'LONOOb JI � I � SL• GYLM. I �I 6lCIZ �_ GYc�z a lT,L 3r SS �' -12r EL9!?f7.759 , 4 eT sS' bre.J ro4 +1 ELM zrfo luu. IE� .senssea I Gs'LrcP w o ( MAPiE D / � s 2l2iays ccs ' _leas Q - ��� 190.0 __ L c t_ cx�w ST EET f7O s'oeaPl I`o. STREET ' ros.00 L�j m '' a , i a a ,`^' 4.1 I w-D4. 9r Wt. �"iL� IM leer Q �I Oi T +°Lex_ 0 0 M-�415 si9i� cs. a -25 cSo.ro - -..► S n[i7 _- IN _ __ 's _ -- •- a Loya 1400 +00 • - '4EE'v + ff4 9►©7 G •�� \ 4r0ofr4ofioub Lil4'r .L.APP@o S7ub SM T.T. ' / o ISO.00\6"b LOT. sa. -_ ET r_ /'A o ISq.001 G'![,17. •�i. '1i, N.7S _ pn IOL i74/IGQ - 110 s264 0. I I 4i X'• `v+ /9'LBNf - '1.r7 I �54' L$70.!9/ ' 9 ' I O '• 0 I ilq (9'GONb o 1 0 9O G d, 'OEFP e3 /''CaA/G (•- G'OEN. So' ao vsi, OF NERVE F04RN/AURET7E AL - L=.1 i'0tfr W I o SLID © N/F✓ONR✓. NELEN T. I■ © - 'd1 _ I•IdIGL -.. .:- Fes.. C''1 L •44� 1 o - xa - ; , �+ ! - '- . ; 4r ° fiEIE'et+°° /y. '=c✓ :f+�'. yE _; J 1_ rrM SPU LEVEL $ tJ SnR LEVEL FMNE I iM- L SLOWLY w4OB- �n (� 9 __J' - p 1 mIr i IEYEL SPLIT L srLliMiiv i I S . $ e tI- 1(lF✓OHN N - 1 $ - ES 0 T. O Q-- Q -- _ Q E f'?"O • II © O�" i; .N./F E-LEANOR KRU[/NL✓.t/L.�B v I - :o.. �!--_-—JrI L Slow © O O F WOOD MH-Srw.Sr97 IT LEVEL 0 _ A61F BAN/SiirkT£R/Na4a -A/K-R 00 O O 0 J f R06E,r/MYJ;o - 0 A. A'SSON I M.H.STA./t98 ta' Q N/F M7N'A� .E GYA/REL i /NM/96+30 A4H.57,9.&oa,&4"sT= PLAN . W..14,57.4.0+00,NwaLa 5r W PLAN ALH..3na.•N50�'ez y Po- /NV.el 7B.3EEPcwN/ M./f.S7w.0r00Mw,o,.,e M.N.S7w..9*/O (/P•oER /N✓/96.00 1".40=0" PaoF/Le TN/SDwG:. M.H.3rw.4r45&,w Sr. -A /NV• 2/G.45 LOW,-R/NV./92.B0,SEE Ow4•N`2F - //vV.Z//.7.9.SEePLaN 1( 1"=40'-0" r It PeoF(LrT--. pwG. h h ^I 230 230 230 - - H A'I4 h yLL1 "li w44 - r lea - o 225' 225 0v ELM sr. 22 - - (!g - rX 272.34 EX/5T/NG GszwOe• -Zw 222.2/ h h _-� 1 45/r. cows rs 2 flai/__ T.F. - °s/ 220 220 220 /2 @.f.P. /ZQ.C.P. . 4.72 r — , .14;[15t .(...- CAPfyL'0 J�TL/b r rb� - Q ELM Srr. - - - 215 215- /A/✓. 216.45 Gv✓2/G.2/ %�AvaRoX.LOCwr/O/✓ BT D/w-EL A?. r. �/EE PLAN(P OP/LG This DWb. era^ / ry 210 210 210 C / 6 Kcuv Powv - � �- J /^/✓2//' -V V,.2//.73 - - -BIT.CONC. � B IA' zf 20$.6/ a tl 205 205 205 246 8 DIw.MNPLC Sr.- 0+'00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 .r� SPw��.ae f� PROFILE 200 VERT. 1"s 4'-Q" THIS DRAWING HAS DIEEN Rt VISEC .� !./59 TO SHOW AS $Ult--T 6ANDi TIOf1E . 1.a.4 L.P. _ - - ®ATE_. IO_ - SANITARY SEWER FON9 UCTION 195 ��/w•K�LLyPO. SeEDwc.Ni2E I AVERY HEIGHTS: AREA SOUTH WLNDSOR. COI4N£GTIEUT /^'✓/9e.ea ELM ST. S'fA.0+00 0 $1"A. 5+ 5 190 MAPLE ST. $TA,O+O0 TQ $TA +Qfl I+UO 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 JAMES S. 1046 S & ASS{'1CIATI S. (NC •'�" CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANO LAND PLANNERS _ PROFILE �3 FARMR4GTENI, CONW40TICUT' VERT 1"=4'-O" • W. 9T: K.D. NORIZ.1'-40'-O" NOTE% S/-/wD&O/00.P7/ON Uf S&WER C0N37-,PUC7-/17N ku DATE: 7-1-71 A/orEuo(acr co.,H.U.RPn4r/c//�qr/oN `` �'-E scALe: AS Nc"T{D {- t s l .0. �r x - 3 .- S a. ❑ $ALVA Q�0 000. pig r {R.°ROE « I- / Z © • � b 1 © � �4�..as I � n�LR 8 - 45' /Las Q F I WW " ► / No WILLOW- I ssc3�Lex 3 ., L i _4. air- �!j e•ou� y -f. . .♦- - -� th ,(1� -N, N. - O {a /I'Lsss- } d/LIb f! A- ax/dApi six.3Y�O.00WictowSr.� M.H 3Y�. !/ 9+SOA'ecLRo �' I� 1� • �t sLo/PCA /N✓.00 7 9r � o• _ - 1 In- p , 1 x °a*S A L "V Jz- OwGN•2G LIT LEVEL x °nlwE k r : " LEVEL ' e 5 - • �- - - C Z _ • O A,tC W N/FJGINA.Jt F�✓�N - .. O N/F ttbl� xb 'AM•t/M'l�,q..714KY4P. .N/ /LY/AM it IAA- AVi N tTtEB?Z - a -- ELACjy f.CAAPSWTiw 4 Q - - 2 +. / PLAN. �' - I".gyp•-o" -TrA..fr0¢ 235 10 230 4 i� Mw e S - 9 EX/6T/1V4 GQ/IGE xIf 4Y2Z; � 9-•27 - 44�� � .CeccY 40. . - f � B/T.CCNR. - - - 220 sae /a✓.2/3.9=Ar f X 220 T.!/I.OG9- F. 215 Xz\ /NV.2/0.5t /N✓.Z/S.so 215 e 21O- w✓2is 9/ f 7+00 . -210 - Tills QRAW1.NS HAS EEEf1 REYISE9! /Nv.G07.98 Ta 0h0V�w Ah'B,U1LT a®HaITlol/s;q -05 - ©DiA.ire LLy,pv. SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION /NV.2oss9 - 205 A . sEsDrA .N=tE AVERY . HEIGH`rS AREA ' WINDSO R. 210 60NN€GTI4;•f/T o+oo WILLOW sT. STA. 0+00 To TA-. . • 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 210 � P R FILE + s+oo LAMES S. MINGES & ASSOCIATES, INC _._ - _ _ _ .•` 4 ,fii... V*"SULTiNG ENG1149ERS Awn LAND PLANNERS; .FARMI/?IG* Gp�.• ` HURIZ.1".4U'-0" NOTE- 5H.4D&O.44enoN Of'TewER CON_ 9Ys K O E.[ AeP. i.L. srawcriaw — oATE r1 >1 NOT�u4/CLEFoQ/Y.UQPger/0/pqT/ON 8 A3IWOM6 a. . coMw.Hal to{•s:: . • .l Mike Gantick- Page 1 From: "McClellan, Clifford"<Clifford.McClellan@ct.gov> To: <gantic@southwindsor.org> Date: 9/6/07 12:50PM Michael-here are the names of the 2 people I talked to at the CTDOT. Hopefully they are still there and can be of some help to you. Good Luck! * Paul Corrente-594-2932 *Mark Alexander-594-2931 P. i �.� �•�.. � _ I�4�� Irk'' ,� ♦� � \, gg FA 31, It IN ►��� F� j �11 t �yl � r � s 1 ►14f� 1 ''fit `'++ �� �„s`� � a � L, "�� SYNTHESES OF BEST PRACTICES ROAD SALT MANAGEMENT Transportation Association of Canada Association des transports du Canada 4.0 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT , t� Manage►nent}tdicie� �`9�9 ` �� �' - � ��- - INTRODUCTION The third is through spray caused by traffic and wind, potentially affecting adjacent vegetation and agricultural Salt-laden runoff can have impacts on the natural envi- crops. ronment. The nature and extent of these impacts are site specific,and may be temporary or can persist for If any of these pathways introduce high salt concentra- long periods of time. In some areas,the concentration tions to salt vulnerable areas,then adverse impacts may of chloride in the groundwater and stream baseflow may occur. reach levels sufficient to impair the potability of groundwater or alter aquatic habitat.This Synthesis of Best Practices establishes Guiding Principles to aid in CONTENTS the design of drainage works for existing or new roadways,and provides a framework to identify the spe- Introduction 1 cific practices that can be implemented to minimize Relationship to Salt Management 1 potential impacts of salt on the surrounding environment. Salt Management Practices 2 This Chapter of the Synthesis of Best Practices does Impact Identification 2 not specifically address the impacts of salt-laden runoff Ground Water 2 and salt spray on vegetation. The Synthesis of Best Aquatic Habitat 2 Practices for Vegetation Management provides Agricultural Land 3 information on this aspect of snow and ice control Wetlands 3 chemicals.It also does not deal with other contaminants Wildlife 3 in roadway runoff. Impact Identification Survey 3 RELATIONSHIP TO SALT MANAGEMENT Identification of Alternative Management Practices 4 Much of the salt that is placed on a road during snow Design Requirements of Preferred and ice control operations eventually runs off with the Management Practices 5 roadway drainage.This drainage enters the environment Salt Vulnerable Areas 5 through three primary pathways. The first is through overland drainage or stormsewer systems ultimately dis- Training 6 charging to nearby surface water.The second is infiltra- Monitoring and Record Keeping 6 tion into the ground potentially entering groundwater. September 2003 MAP Syntheses of Best Practices 4.0 DRAINAGE AND Road Salt Management STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Proper drainage planning and design can reduce the of each feature as defined by low,medium or high Po- potential impacts on salt vulnerable areas by isolating tential for impact. Specific site characteristics may re- the drainage from vulnerable areas. quire that other features be considered as well. The This Synthesis of Best Practices,when used in combi- impact potential identified for all significant features will nation with other policies and guidelines for drainage assist in the selection of suitable mitigative measures. design,will assist in the responsible selection of drain- Ground Water age management measures.Regardless of the policy framework,the following guiding principles exist for cre- The suitability of groundwater for potable use and irriga- ating an overall management plan that also minimizes tion can be significantly impaired by the infiltration of salt related impacts: salt captured by roadway runoff.To determine the po- tential for impact from salt-laden runoff on groundwater, 1. Roadway safety is the priority. Drainage design the following questions must be addressed: must ensure that roadway runoff is efficiently and safely removed from the travel surface. ■ Are there domestic wells near the roadway? 2. Drainage design must comprehensively consider • If there are wells,do they draw from a surficial aq- all drainage related impacts in the formulation of a uifer? responsible,effective management strategy. s Are the surficial soils permeable (sands and 3. The most significant, potential, long-term impact loams)? of salt-laden runoff is impairment of domestic The degree of potential impact on groundwater can be groundwater supply. determined based on the responses to these questions: 4. Drainage design must endeavorto protectthe natu- 0 High: The answer is 'yes' to all three ral environment. questions. 5. Drainage design must be practical and must not E Medium: The answer is`yes'to the first question impose undue maintenance requirements. and `yes'to either the second or third SALT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES question. The main purpose of any road drainage system is to • Low: All other cases. safely convey runoff downstream to either a natural or Aquatic Habitat man-made drainage system. Management measures should be implemented to ensure that this is done with Salt-laden runoff can potentially impact aquatic habitat minimal impact to the infiltration characteristics,water in two ways:sudden pulses of chlorides during spring quality,erosion potential,and flood risk of the receiving runoff,and continuous levels of chloride present in the drainage system. At the onset of any drainage design, groundwater discharging to the receiving stream.AI- sufficient information should be collected to character- though both types of impacts are a concern,the litera- ize the existing drainage system surrounding and down- ture generally points to sudden pulses as the greater stream of the roadway. concern.With either type of impact,the existing litera- ture is not clear on"how much is too much". The follow- ing provides a guideline for assessing the potential im- A detailed surface water assessment should be com- pact: pleted to identify all potential impacts to natural fea- High: The receiving watercourse has a perma- tures as a result of the roadway. The requirements of nent baseflow,and the catchment area the assessment will be defined by the policy framework of the road represents more than 10 Per- in the area where the drainage design is being com- cent of the catchment area of the stream. pleted. As a minimum,the assessment should include a review of the impacts of salt-laden surface water on ■ Medium: The receiving watercourse has a perma- potable water taken from groundwater sources,sensi- nent baseflow,and the catchment area tive aquatic habitat, agricultural lands,wetlands, and of the road represents less than 10 per- wildlife. cent of the catchment area of the stream. Each of these features is described below.Guidelines ■ Low: All other cases (i.e. receiving water- have been provided to establish the relative importance courses with no permanent baseflow). MA 2 September 2003 4.0 DRAINAGE AND Syntheses of Best Practices STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Road Salt Management Agricultural Land ■ Medium: Poorly defined channel evident through Salt-laden runoff can impact crops in cases where there the wetland and/or moderate sizedin wetland w with better dilution potential is the potential for water to pond on agricultural lands. tla size). This situation can arise where there is poor positive drain- age or an outlet has been blocked by ice or debris. ■ Low: Clearly defined channel evident through Guidelines for assessing potential impacts are as fol- the wetland and/or large wetland with lows: good dilution potential(>20 ha in size). ■ High: Agricultural land is adjacent to the road, Wildlife and off road drainage has a high likeli- hood of ponding or blockage. Ponded runoff can serve as a salt source for wildlife. The attraction of the wildlife to the saltwater can be a ■ Medium: Agricultural land is adjacent to the road, safety hazard.Potential impacts may be classified as and off road drainage has a low to follows: moderate potential for ponding or blockage. ■ High: Roadway located in an area where large ■ Low: Agricultural land is either outside the mammals (such as elk, big hornedsheep,white-tailed deer and moose)are road runoff influence zone,or there is no present and where roadside ponding is agricultural land adjacent to the road. a current problem or has a high Wetlands potential based on design limitations and Swamps, peat bogs, marshes, and other types of topography. wetlands can be impacted where runoff is directed to ■ Medium: Roadway located as above but roadside natural roadside vegetation features. In these cases ponding is not a current problem or has the runoff may enter the wetland as sheet flow or via a only a moderate potential based on roadside ditch.With very high and prolonged chloride design limitations and topography. loading, there is the possibility that changes in local ■ Low: Roadway located as above but there is plant composition may occur, with the possibility of a no existing or future roadside ponding reduction in the overall value and diversity of the wetland. problem,or large mammals are limited Small,perched wetlands that intercept the shallow wa- or absent in the area. ter table or that are primarily surface water dependant may be most susceptible to chloride loading effects due Impact Identification Summary to their small size and a reduced dilution potential. Large wetlands with extensive catchment areas and high dilu- The potential impacts of salt on each of the categories tion potential are likely more tolerant of chloride load- can be summarized in a table similar to the following ing. Potential impacts may be classified as follows for example.This table represents a starting point for iden- wetlands located adjacent to the roadway: tifying appropriate drainage management practices that ■ High: No clear flow path evident through the can be used to minimize the impacts of salt on the wetland and/or small perched roadside adjacent environment: wetlands present(<5 ha in size). Features That May Be Impacted Impact Potential Groundwater Aquatic Habitat Agriculture Wetlands Wildlife Not Applicable ■ Low ■ Medium ■ High ■ ■ September 2003 3 ZA Syntheses of Best Practices 4.0 DRAINAGE AND Road Salt Management STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IDENTIFICATION OFAL TERNA TIVE while increasing potential impacts on aquatic environ- MANAGEMENT PRACTI CES ment. The minimization of salt related impacts should be one Eight alternative management practices can be consid- objective of any management strategy formulated for ered. In most cases,these practices will be required to roadway drainage systems. Unfortunately,the range of achieve other drainage objectives. For some sites,com- potential impacts from salt-laden runoff offers consider- binations of these measures may be required to effec- able challenges to the designer.There are a number of tively minimize impacts related to salt rich surface drain- practices that can aid in the management of runoff,how- age. This is not a comprehensive list of measures avail- ever each practice may mitigate some types of impacts able to the designer. Local drainage policies in different while accentuating others.For example,promoting rapid parts of the country may identify additional measures conveyance of runoff to a receiving watercourse will re- that could be implemented effectively to mitigate drain- duce the potential for impairment of potable groundwater age impacts. Management Practice Purpose 1 Sheet Flow Runoff conveyed across grass buffer strips or embankments. 2 V-ditch Runoff conveyed by roadside ditch to receiving watercourse. 3 Storm Sewer Runoff conveyed away from sensitive areas using storm sewer system(negligible infiltration potential). 4 Flat Bottom(Trapezoidal)Ditch Runoff conveyed by roadside ditch with flat bottom ditch. 5 Flat Bottom(Trapezoidal) Runoff conveyed by flat bottom ditch which includes on-line storage Ditch with Storage to trap sediment and reduce velocities and runoff rates. 6 Dry Basin(Pond) Runoff directed to stormwater management basin designed to reduce runoff rates and promote sedimentation. 7 Wet Basin(Pond) Runoff directed to stormwater management basin designed to reduce runoff rates,promote sedimentation and enlarge biological uptake. 8 Buffer Strip and Berm designed to contain runoff within buffer strip,with positive Containment Berm outlet provided to prevent flooding and sustained water levels. The following table illustrates the merits of each man- In most cases conflicts will not arise,and the selection agement practice in addressing the potential impacts of suitable management practices for minimization of that can result from salt-laden runoff.As the table illus- salt impacts will be relatively simple. The measures trates the practices which benefit groundwater impacts will typically be selected as part of the overall manage- are typically consistent with those that benefit agricul- ment strategy formulated to achieve other drainage and ture,wetlands,and wildlife.However,most of these prac- stormwater management objectives. In cases where tices have the potential to negatively impact aquatic objectives are conflicting,the practitioner must review resources.This fable, in conjunction with the ranking each site on its own merits and set priorities such that summary table prepared at the end of the impact iden- the overall impacts are minimized. tification process,will help to determine which impacts can be successfully mitigated through the use of spe- cific drainage measures. mg"= 4 September 2003 4.0 DRAINAGE AND Syntheses of Best Practices STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Road Salt Management Feature that May be Impacted Management Ground- Aquatic Practice Characteristics water Habitat A riculture Wetlands Wildlife Sheet Flow Disperses runoff - + 0 0 0 V-Ditch Channels runoff + - + + + Storm Sewer Channels runoff with little + - + + + opportunity for infiltration Flat Bottom Channels runoff 0 - + + 0 Ditch Some attenuation of flow rate Some sediment trapping Some potential for infiltration Flat Bottom Channels runoff - + + + Ditch with Attenuates flow rate Storage Some sediment trapping Some potential for infiltration Dry Basin Attenuates flow rate - + 0 0 0 (Pond) Sediment trapping Potential for infiltration Wet Basin Attenuates flow rate - + 0 0 - (Pond) Sediment trapping Potential for infiltration Buffer Strip Contains and - + 0 +and Contain- disperses runoff ment Berm _Leaend: +The identified management measure may reduce the level of impact from salt-laden runoff (i.e. The level of impact potential for a feature may be decreased from high to medium, medium to low, etc.). - The identified management measure may increase the level of impact from salt-laden runoff (i.e. The level of impact potential for a feature may be increased from low to medium, medium to high, etc.). 0 The identified management measure will have minimal effect on the level of impact potential. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF PREFERRED SALT VULNERABLEAREAS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Drainage designers need to consider the environmental The policy framework in the area where the design is setting into which their drainage system will be placed. being completed will define specific design characteds- Salt vulnerable areas need to be identified and the po- tics of the recommended stormwater management tential for salt impacted drainage to affect these vulner- measures. In most cases, stormwater management able areas must be assessed.Special design modifi- objectives other than salt management will dictate the cations to traditional stormwater management meas- design requirements. ures may be warranted to protect these salt vulnerable areas.Measures may include clay or geosynthetic lin- In addition to local policy frameworks,design informa- ers in conveyance ditches and ponds,infiltration ponds tion for these measures can be found in numerous tech- where appropriate,or use of storm sewers to transport nical documents relating to stormwater management. drainage past vulnerable areas. September 2003 5 VMS Syntheses of Best Practices 4.0 DRAINAGE AND Road Salt Management STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TRAINING ■ Will the data be communicated back to a central Since roadway drainage depends primarily on design location automatically? and not on operations,typical salt management train- • The sampling stations will likely need power and ing programs would pay little attention to drainage is- telephone capability for communicating the data. sues except to teach the concept and importance of Sampling locations must be protected from van- proper design. dalism,flooding and ice impacts. Training for drainage designers should include design ■ If conductivity is being used as the measure,then options for managing the adverse effects of snow and it will need to be correlated to chloride levels. ice control chemicals. MONITORING AND RECORD KEEPING • Data analysis will have to take into account any confounding data such as chlorides entering the It is not practical to monitor all runoff from roadways for environment from other sources(e.g.private uses, chloride levels.However,road authorities should con- water softeners,landfills etc.) sider monitoring salt vulnerable areas.One municipal- Records should be kept on the chloride or conductivity ity worked with their local conservation authority to add levels and snow and ice control events to determine chloride monitors to their stream monitoring network. how the levels fluctuate around an event.The analyst They measured the chloride concentration in the water- will want to be able to draw conclusions on whether or courses as they entered the municipality and again as not the applications of best salt management practices they left the municipality to track fluctuations. There are having an effect on the chloride levels in the aquatic are many complications with such a monitoring pro- environment.It will be important to determine whether gram.These include: or not drops in chloride levels can be attributed to im- ■ At what frequency will samples be collected? proved practices and not just different weather condi- ■ Will the sampling be continuous? tions. el Acknowledgements This Synthesis of Best Practices was made possi- This document is the product of a project conducted ble with funding provided by fourteen agencies. TAC on behalf of the Chief Engineers'Council under the gratefully acknowledges the following sponsors for supervision of a project steering committee com- their generous contributions to the project. prised of project sponsors and volunteer members. TAC thanks all the committee members who con- Alberta Transportation tributed their time and effort to the project. City of Calgary City of Ottawa City of Saskatoon City of Toronto City of Winnipeg Environment Canada Manitoba Transportation and Government Services Ministere des Transports du Quebec New Brunswick Department of Transportation Nova Scotia Transportation and Public Works Salt Institute Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation Transportation Association of Canada Transport Canada 2323 St.Blvd.,Ottawa,Canada K1 G 4J8 Tel.(613)736-1350 Principal Consultant Fax(613)736-1395 Ecoplans Limited www.tac-atc.ca ,�„ 6 September 2003 z Sp NN Stq C * F_ 7-0v� �slcw� V&U&ot U 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 6, 2007 Ms. Lorraine Mulready 39 Elm Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Mulready, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. Your water meets guidelines for all parameters tested for. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Deptul , R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations jftael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works 08/01/2007 15:21 18605098698 DPH ENV CHEM PAGE 04 • �� STATE O C �7��EC UT � �.l`�1.\f.sI.+TIC 1J 1 ie%R•x)�': i2i v r. x�4� •>:: •. : `t f:i;k'�t.:`:~.•.��`�•'. 4a.. oi6 < :sg:c�:xi. :. 7. 22368912 S06074 0 D atgpptept of Public Health Laboratory llriical T :>::K s•a. t)";sa t;< �,. CS[llq�T�.lC'CIISC:Cr--0z97 .^ t•:e�:<:.`.7:iY:?xh�^eta.rnx-i�:;'�];.. ..i •k:`sax.:•.. �::y:�ss:•,�t y;'£:sz:.� 10 awtonSt 1325. WINDSOR >• .E):::�::.:� z� , '` P.O,box 1689 Hartford.CT 06144 MULREADY Telephone(960)509-8500 39 ELM ST S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTu-LA, SANITARIAN 1640 SULLIVAN AVE the TOWN HALL 05/31/07 06/01/07 08/01/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 09:30 03.06 14:19 isYJ# = REPORT FINAL E£iva...tx .r• fix:s:o'r'�r•;!�.��.�fs$,��;' >>".r'•c�.•:.k:S'. :,�.;,rx>`;>�:.,w.�.R.:'S•..,, :..-�;,•�.,.;:.3. v'°"'.•:e.,;-:�.•ry c<<¢.%,I,'N;,.~n,•t'. >�:•:•�.c uC<'.3>%?>:1"'3 S"1Mtw r:)`a.�C.�.'.v•C.j�.-xrx�J:6:�•yy'«``o. �:>rt>� 'J}'�x:,�)�:.A�y u 'Ff�.x<]%�cw�••'i h•>. Y'�y''�"�M jx�'S,.><'t•>a'Y, •d SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R, DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WEi,.L x� DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/31/07 1555 ANALYZED BY R-CI Tp ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT MO-MUG FLUORESCENCE TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONE. TOTAL •COLIF'ORM ABSENT PER 100 ML BOCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML xx APPARENT -COLOR 4 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS TWiN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY <0-2 PH 7.5 AMMONIA <0.05 ** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 58, HARDN,E3S 88 CHLORIDE 14 NITRATE <0.05 NITRITE 0.7 ZINC <0.04 IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 7.5 ?Uk" -----` END OF REPORT ** =0W'i N0. Ol,6A REV.3,00 100 Y e 6/05 When water is considered"hard, "it means that the water is highly mineralized and contains high amounts of total dissolved solids, e.g. various salts and dissolved minerals. The principal contributing ions are calcium and magnesium. Hard water doesn't lend itself to lathering and makes laundering difficult. The water is not necessarily harmful but aesthetically it can be unacceptable to the taste. The groundwater in CT is basically soft to moderately hard with one of the exceptions being a large fault line along the Ridgefield, CT/New York border where the groundwater is highly mineralized. Historic DPH guidelines have recommended softening when the hardness level exceeds 150 parts per million(ppm) or 8.8 grain per gallon(gpg)hardness. (lgpg= 17.lppm) There is no recognized standard or maximum contaminant level for hardness. The American Water Works Association has recommended 80ppm hardness in the past "as the best level, considering all the quality factors, and the necessity for striking a balance between mineral deposition and corrosion characteristics". For every 100ppm hardness removed, 46ppm sodium will be added to treated water, using salt as a regenerative agent. With potassium chloride(KCl), 76ppm potassium will be added. Softened water is made potentially aggressive to metallic piping, a properly sized and maintained softener will produce a water with zero hardness that can be corrosive to home plumbing. Water with zero hardness will also attack glassware resulting in a hazy surface sheen or"rainbow etching". All of the standard indices for a water's aggressiveness i.e. Langlier, Rhyzner and the Aggressive Index,require the level of calcium carbonate, CaCO3,hardness for computation, so we know hardness plays a major role in the aggressive(corrosive) quality of water. Other factors include pH, alkalinity, chlorides and temperature. If one feels that the hardness in their water is becoming problematic there are solutions: • Instead of soap alone use sequestering (polyphosphate) detergents e.g. "Calgon" • K hot water temperature<140 ° Keep p • Hard water in CT is mostly Calcium Carbonate(temporary hardness)that can be removed from heater elements and boiler tubes by treatment and flushing. • Using potassium chloride (KC1)K-Life over sodium chloride (salt)will minimize sodium in the treated water. Potassium has no maximum regulatory levels. CT is unique in that we have a Notification Level for sodium of 28ppm for CT's public water systems. It is not a health regulated MCL but our PWSs' must notify their customers on an annual basis if their treated water exceeds 28ppm. This notification mainly targets people who are on a severely restricted sodium diet. It is also a de facto annual sodium-monitoring requirement for the PWSs. • Only treat(soften)hot water and boiler feed lines. This would greatly reduce the amount of water softened especially since there is no need to soften water for flushing toilets! • Use softener that backwashes by volume of water treated vs. automatic timer regeneration. This would reduce regeneration cycles and make the treatment system more cost effective. One cubic foot of high capacity zeolite resin can exchange 30,000 grains, or about 500,000 ppm of hardness. This means if water has 100ppm hardness, one cubic foot of resin will soften approximately 5000 gallons of raw water before requiring regeneration with salt. For a family of 4 (300gpd) this resin bed would require regeneration every 17 days, which would lessen the hydraulic loads on septic systems. • Using dealer-supplied canisters that are regenerated off-site should be considered over on-site regeneration. • Check quality control of dealer regenerated off-site units. Use a simple swimming pool hardness test kit to see if the new unit has been properly regenerated i.e. softened water with zero hardness. Newly regenerated units should result in zero hardness water. Backwashing softener regenerant to a septic system is specifically prohibited by the CT Public Health Code Technical Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal systems. The homeowner is usually unaware of the prohibition however, and it often happens that such backwash discharges are plumbed to the septic system,potentially leading to the following problems: • hydraulic overloading of marginally sized septic systems, • spalling of cement in concrete septic tanks,baffles, drywells and D-boxes, due to the introduction of salt or potassium chloride contained in the backwash discharge, and • sludge buildup in the leaching system when significant levels of iron and manganese are present in the raw water,possibly leading to leaching field failure. Regulatory Issues Backwashing of a softener to a septic system is specifically prohibited in the CT Public Health Code section 19-13-B103 and in the Technical Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems. Discharging the backwash to a separate dedicated system is a viable option and is under the authority of the CT DEP,pursuant to Section 22a-430 of the CT General Statutes. For information on recommended disposal alternatives call CT DEP at(860) 424-3018. It is common practice in CT to use softeners for iron/manganese removal,which this office does not support. There are better treatment techniques available for iron/manganese removal without the addition of any chemicals. Any questions on this or other private well issues can be addressed to Cliff McClellan, RS or Ray Jarema, PE at the CTDPH- (860) 509-7296. DEP Note: The DEP is working on a General Permit which would allow the discharge of water softener backwash into a dedicated subsurface disposal system, but not into a septic system. The current plan is to present this DRAFT to other"stakeholders"such as water treatment vendors,the CT Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association and the CT Homebuilders Association. The CT Environmental Health Association and the DPH have been closely involved with the development of this Permit. A public hearing process will be followed prior to the formal issuing of the Permit. Article#1 CAMJ (4/28/05) 4. E 212,200 N 174,400 E 212 4' O ' Q x�.x�x , x K ;1 � vli��:i�• iN/F ELEANOR KRULL N.1F ORLANIIO L. PHYLL/S H. a I ,6BET ^. N/F PAUL J. 0 d Q R. B/ANClyCC/ c W x a BIT DRIVE 0 Q#44 0 + I # 2 STORYIZ .z I " I *1-16 x—x—x 4k28 O x— --x— y 1m L FRAME - I �-- SPLIT l�I ©� 2 STO RY WOOD - � 2 STORY WOOD LEVEL i — i1 Q FRAME X x FRAME IT r SPLIT LEVEL SFLIT LEVEL 1, O p k x © c n �^ fn 55 43.7 © © z 53 � f)JJ s7v. 04 W —J ti MAPLE Coo o I GS 540C�'P sc.s Q sz.s 1 STREET 'I A°j F z 8 12' RCP v 0 _0113.16 P/ 4_ ml 125 ml 0 Z ea a 5U lo36 Sze, /t92 LLI a / 'aO.V /6'LOUG i 2 7'OECD ' -G aEEP 6" _'" 6M 3007 i z G Z„ 2r0o �-S�A//P G coo ` SNET �r SNETO SNET• tl (� Ga. -_ _-2844 '>1 SIGN. 3 ?� 101. 67A/66 > 110 II o 90 0°0 top /9 GONls K rrjF GO06'Dej SO I 70 F col Im 2 I� sl a N/F ✓OHN✓. HEL EN T. -4k15 2 STORY W000 c 2 WOOD I 2 STORY OD ..I FRAME I FRAM FRAME. I I' 1 R NI>{000 E211F00 NI1e2. NI1{+00 l%Ei2 611ENLn�f SH�AKO / /N2� E[EeNOx.Yx✓LL � �: t o � — E212{ 6'a E 1AM6.iMC9jxCIVE4 4�•a^•'�• F 3p gN/FEONNOJSLrop3{ x I wFLNWMOtl<. n,N �0 O 1'r `�' 0 xaunzus II p d J: LIT R I� 'M/F ✓ANES w f fRawYT F p Q I I, �� ` HBFAvO 171717 a Frcv I w�, ca I fxr m'�Igl `e � i -�� p a • � d 1 ' w�^w� Q I `�,r a4' I� rnxnaF hEx 2NTss • \IY r o.b'r I I a>N qq g o~i ss > / .r. z`� �L Si LET tl I ©M AjE ,Qp -pI1~ © s'oFevi+c.e"le QSTREET e 1 o -- - -- s pow - irw ie �_ °'!� 1{—eL3-_•• � •oa.a --_ STA 9•0> o o I •rp "c' � © �Win•` I rI>uc n.oxs '�' D I '�°+ - �� o � $ 1n Q ani so' I' Q 0 = �... la `° a a° { = p I61 M.F NFRK MU°NMFVETTE M I l_l •OIMj I _ I C,•/ O N/F✓OHM.R HEL FN> .rro r „� � � -- eau uv6l G n IQ a rt NiMG Ir ©` W 0 I - " / 8 {a r 4 3 -rQ 8 L �F xiF✓ox .EyFe€N T I" I -^L niF ELEaNaN xxu<L S I I r G'J ° II 0 o © ao •I I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 I arc } x arssox - I• I 1 Cw e � iF rowaw f aeLrEL ' ( 4 1. AVeHI E3RT a/N.4✓.+50 Ke tty RO. �AMt.H.S3raa0-001dvM eOH SO+Doz— T.= PLAN N NS:r9 m 0 H.S . 5PI"L•40AN M H.Sr I"•40'-0" 7—0— MZH3-.4-4561M 2I6.4.5 /9G.J0 / / T.Ow�a,r/ 'Lowell/V./92.r0.See OwGN>2E 230 �1n nl 230 230 h PR°a,c•• • 230 225 i o •so h s 225 225 o W •aa .r? �' 225' � ? e.M s> �^ I I�;� '. h ti •.Ts .....� >F z2z.st �h c.r Guw G,rauo- _ —...--. �, :z 222 2r..-_ l r 2Ja � a y rr. / rY' a " t 220 — -- ----- ,ar 220 220 F , - 220 I S .,1� /z e.c.a wv�ro. rA Qe•• f I ..tee_ caveat•s>utl r--� w 215 --.. oIA 215 215 -- AQJss vv.2146.46 215 {� W� �.'' •u :Gas /v.2/s.z/ Nm ,�I O ti gvvxoF.LOCH>�ON f 210 ° 210 210 JLePLaN/P .rceT.aDwo. 210 { } O tl .. - 'r %h txrsrNe G.exoe F re.tot+c. ! J5•g°'�° r.IY y �Z err.CoNc. IA.. ' 205 TF tea v p 205 205 205 a lvra.o".s>- 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 T See PLaN/PRaFJLF PROFILE ;. •+ is L7 w6• rnlF ONawrno Naa• 4 e0 � a ecr. 200 N /99.7= —._..__ ____ _._ 200 VERT I'•4'-0" o anew AS BUILT eodemoni NOAl2 1"•40'-0" ,9es L.v i ersr.22 SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION.." 195 /ate/ys� ---- 195 AV'ERY HEIGHTS AREA ` 'i.lY O/a. SOUTH VVINDSOR, CONNFCTICUT 190 / y/92 er ELM ST. STA.0+00 TO STA.5+05 MAPLE ST. STA.0+00 TO STA.3+ 0 ' - 190 " 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 w, n JAMES S. MINGES 3 ASSOCIATES, INC. PROFILE j yy CONSULTING FNOINFFRS AND LAND RLANNSRS' 1� 1 IARMOJGMN.CONNtCrKUT'.. ! )j Sn N•e F.J.Avn.J.L. VERT.1"•4'-0' • N07P;5--o PORT/ON 04 Se WLR C'—rRUC na, ��df °Mwlnc na oATF'>-1->1• NORM I"•40'-0" Nor ELJortlte FoR H.U.a AeRTJGJPA>rON 7�Ei Lo Af NOTEO EDUCTION. M III-DATA A ' "....AataGIAIEF..ING...-. .:•-.�.K'Y•.,.. U t H F � aa?a r �F „a =a r g. + .tea `✓" �I H 4 •rt. .�.. �'ax � Y„Y�,�,a��¢i 6 III , II lot Os Aw Y .YN s M� ^ro I�, ,i✓y"' IIII Y - Y , Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 1 of 14 Home the Journal for surface water Quality Professionats About Current Issue Subscribe :ilor News calendar FE RES Talk Images Adverrtlse Contact Us Search Aster Ironmental Impacts d Salt and 0 offMves rn...N in the York City Waftrshed In our May/June 2001 issue, Janis New York City's Keating looked at what cities Watershed around the country are doing about deicing roads. This article takes a Environmental close look at salt's potential Fate and impacts, with special focus on a Transport single watershed. Soils By William Wegner and Marc Yaggi Vegetation The use of road salt as a deicer on Wildlife C 'aAVE THIS roads and other impervious surfaces is the preferred method to promote Human Health Impacts safe motor vehicle and pedestrian travel during winter months. The most Infrastructure commonly used deicing salt is sodium Impacts chloride (NaCl), which is readily available and inexpensive and effectively depresses the freezing Conclusions point of water to melt ice. But what References Comment are the impacts of road-salt n This application to drinking-water supplies and watershed ecosystems? Historically, regulators in the management of nonpoint-source pollution have been concerned principally with heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons, pathogens, and sediment that scour http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 2 of 14 Create a link from road surfaces in stormwater runoff and contaminate o this artiste groundwater and surface-water supplies. Recently, after more on your webs website than half a century of its widespread use in North America, the application of NaCl and its environmental consequences have come under scrutiny by the environmental and scientific communities as well as regulators and legislators. Growing concern over roadside habitat degradation, wildlife kills, and water-quality issues in Canada prompted Environment Canada (EC) to conduct a comprehensive assessment of road-salt application to determine whether conventional deicers should be considered toxic substances under the Canadian Subscribe Environmental Protection Act (EC, 1999). California and Nevada restrict road-salt use in certain areas to reduce chloride injury to roadside trees. Massachusetts turned to alternative road deicers to prevent sodium contamination of residential drinking wells. New York State legislators recently proposed a pilot study in the New York City watershed to examine road-salt alternatives that might be more protective of drinking-water quality. There are compelling concerns behind these legislative decisions. According to the National Research Council (NRC), road- salt use in the United States ranges from 8 million to 12 million tons of NaCl per year. Massachusetts, New Road salt is often applied in areas with Hampshire, and New narrow buffers to surface waters. York report the highest annual road-salt loadings, with 1 A#) yet at ,lF j r. New York's annual road-salt loading averages t yr. or; "-,t" / . (NRC, 1991). The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) requires a road-salt application rate of KO- mi. for light snow and for each application during rapidly accumulating snow (NYSDOT, 1993). What has been the fate of millions of tons of NaCl that has been deposited on impervious surfaces in close proximity to unfiltered drinking-water supplies? This article reviews the findings of several government and peer-reviewed road-salt studies and discusses them in the context of environmental and water-quality impacts in the New York City watershed. New York City's Watershed Nineteen reservoirs and three controlled lakes in upstate New http://www.forester.net/sw—O I 07—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 3 of 14 York provide more than 9 million consumers with 1.5 billion gal. of unfiltered drinking water daily. The reservoirs and lakes are located in three distinct watersheds—Croton, Catskill, and Delaware—covering 2,000 mi.2 of forested, agricultural, and suburban lands. There are approximately 6,000 mi. of paved roadways in the watersheds, where road-salt application ranges front . Two-lane town, county, and state Mlstoce!!e V tons/lane-mi./yr. The Taconic Parkway, which travels through three watershed sub-basins in the Croton watershed, receives 75 tons/lane-mi./yr. Interstate 84 travels through two sub-basins in the Croton watershed and receives 298 tons/lane-mi./yr. (Heisig, 2000). The 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement regulates land use and water-quality protection in the New York City watersheds. A comprehensive protection scheme signed by more than 60 watershed towns, New York City, New York State, USEPA, and five environmental organizations, the Watershed Agreement protects drinking water through land acquisition, land-use regulations, and partnership programs. Most of the regulations and partnership programs are framed to prevent pollutants from entering the water supply. Road salt, however, is a pollutant that received little attention in the Watershed Agreement. Aside from a partnership program in which New York City pays to construct salt and sand storage facilities in watershed towns, road salt is not specifically regulated in the Watershed Agreement. Environmental Fate and Transport Chloride salts are composed of approximately 60% chloride and 40% positive ion. Deicing operations use calcium, potassium, and magnesium chlorides, but to a lesser degree than NaCl. These salts may be applied in liquid or crystalline form, either of which can be used in conjunction with abrasives. Liquid salt solutions provide immediate deicing upon application to roads and sidewalks. Crystalline forms are slower and longer acting than liquid solutions. Sodium ferrocyanide is added to chloride salts to prevent clumping during storage and application. In water, sodium ferrocyanide can be photolyzed to release approximately 25% cyanide ions (EPA, 1971). Runoff to surface waters and percolation to groundwater are the most common mechanisms for road salts to enter water supplies. Infiltration is more common for groundwater-based supplies. In the New York City watersheds, groundwater is a major contributor to streams. Groundwater discharge accounts for at least 60% of total annual stream flow in the Croton watershed. Chloride concentration in groundwater supplies exhibits a relatively linear relation to road-salt application rate or http://www.forester.net/sw—O I 07—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 4 of 14 two-lane road density throughout the year. In surface-water supplies, chloride concentration depends on salting intensity, soil type, climate, topography, and water volume, with larger water bodies exhibiting lower concentrations through the process of dilution. Deicing salts applied to roads during winter are the primary source of solutes to groundwater in the Croton watershed, where chloride concentrations in baseflow of sampled streams ranged from 18 to 280 mg/I (Heisig, 2000). NaCl dissociates in aquatic systems into chloride ions (CL-) and sodium cations (Na+). While sodium may bond to negatively charged soil particles or be taken up in biological processes, chloride ions are less reactive and can be transported to surface waters through soil and groundwater. Road salts applied to roadways can enter air, soil, groundwater, and surface water from direct or snowmelt runoff, release from surface soils, and/or wind-borne spray. These salts remain in solution in surface waters and are not subject to any significant natural removal mechanisms (EC, 2000). Their accumulation and persistence in watersheds pose risks to aquatic ecosystems and to water quality. Approximately 55% of road- salt chlorides are transported in surface runoff with the remaining 45% infiltrating through soils and into groundwater aquifers (Church and Friesz, 1993). Chloride ion exchange in soils is predicted to reach a steady-state concentration—the point at which input at the subsurface equals output in baseflow—of 400 mg/I within 200 years of initial salt application (Howard et al., 1993). Soils Soil biotic communities cycle nutrients, decompose organic matter, and increase soil aeration and water-holding capacity. EC (2000) reported soil chloride concentrations exceeding 200 mg/I as far as 200 m from roadsides. EPA has set the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for chloride at 250 mg/I in drinking-water supplies. Comment On This Create a link o this article an your wst http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—envirorunental.htrnl 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 5 of 14 , rst WARE ^^ WATERSWO A 1-1 Subscribe r � Exposure to NaCl inhibits some soil bacteria at concentrations as low as 90 mg/I, which ultimately compromises soil structure and thereby inhibits erosion control. Federal standards for turbidity require that a drinking-water supply not exceed 5 nephelometric turbidity units; however, the creation of friable soils from bacteria die-off can increase the suspension of sediment in runoff and contaminate drinking-water supplies to levels that exceed standards. These changes in soil conditions could lead to turbidity violations and trigger an automatic filtration order requiring New York City to construct a filtration plant at the cost of up to $8 billion. Vegetation Elevated sodium and chloride levels in soils create osmotic imbalances in plants, which inhibit water absorption and reduce http://www.forester.net/sw—O 1 07—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 6 of 14 root growth. Salt also disrupts the uptake of plant nutrients and inhibits long-term growth. EC (2000) cites numerous studies attributing tree injury = and decline to road-salt application, concluding that NaCl can cause severe injury to the flowering, seed germination, roots, and stems of roadside plant species. Damage to vegetation can occur up to 200 m from roadways that are treated with deicing i salts. Up to 50.8% of woody plant species 4 are sensitive to NaCI, . ,V R and many of these Road salt eventually finds its way into have disappeared from Kensico Reservoir, one of New York's Canadian roadsides. Of drinking-water sources. the 15 principal tree genera occurring in Canadian forests, 11 have been rated as sensitive to road salt. Threshold values for woody and herbaceous plant forms can be as low as 67.5 ppm in soils, with pine seedlings being the most sensitive; 280 ppm in herbaceous tissues; and 200 ppm in woody tissues. Plants may be sensitive to concentrations of either or both salt ions present in soil. An Ontario study reported a soil chloride concentration of 1,050 ppm in soil taken from a highway median and 890 ppm in soil sampled 10 m from the highway (Hofstra and Smith, 1984). NaCl exposure as low as 100 ppm in soil inhibits seed germination and root growth rates for grasses and wildflowers. As a result of salt concentrations in roadside soils, salt-tolerant halophytic plant species, formerly endemic to coastal wetlands, now colonize inland roadsides (EC, 2000). These species include cattails and Phragmites, both of which can be indicators of degraded wetlands subject to excessive nutrient loading and/or salt contamination. Damage to vegetation can amplify adverse impacts on drinking- water quality in the New York City watersheds. Degradation of soils and vegetation in buffer areas between roads and watercourses compromises the retention and processing of pollutants transported in stormwater runoff and diminishes the beneficial value of buffer zones to groundwater sources and http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 7 of 14 reservoirs. Impacts to water quality can be particularly acute when high level-of-service roads are adjacent to drinking-water reservoirs insulated by narrow buffers, as is the case in several of the New York City watershed sub-basins. Wildlife Damage to vegetation degrades wildlife habitat by destroying food resources, habitat corridors, shelter, and breeding or nesting sites. Behavioral and toxicological impacts to wildlife also are associated with road salts. Sodium-deficient wildlife sometimes travel great distances to ingest road salt. Many animals tend to overshoot their salt deficit and then drink salty snow melt to relieve thirst, which increases salt toxicity in blood and tissues (EC, 2000). While wildlife impacts might not be construed as directly relating to water-quality impacts, kills and population declines among salt-sensitive species can be indicators of salt toxicity in aquatic ecosystems. Mammals. In Jasper National Park, AB, road-salt ingestion is responsible for kills of elk and bighorn sheep. In northern Ontario and Quebec, ingestion of salty snowmelt is a major cause of moose/vehicle accidents. Salt toxicosis has not been documented in moose or deer, but moose drinking salty water lose their fear of vehicles and humans. Road-salt—related mortality of small mammals commonly killed by traffic, while probably significant, remains to be studied. The LD50 (lethal oral dose at which 50% of a population dies) for rats is 3,000 mg/kg body mass (EC, 2000), which is comparable to the lethal mean for birds. Birds. EC (2000) cites 12 reports of bird kills associated with road salt in the US, Canada, and Germany. Two reports involved kills in excess of 1,000 birds. Seed-eating birds may not be able to distinguish between road-salt crystals and the mineral grit their diets require. Laboratory studies of sparrows consuming salt particles at the upper limits of their known preference range reveal that ingestion of 0.25 NaCl particles (266 mg/kg) results in a breach of homeostasis; ingestion of 1.4 particles (1,500 mg/kg) may result in death (median lethal dose = 2.8 at 3,000 mg/kg). This means behavioral abnormalities can occur in small bird species with ingestion of a single salt particle and death can occur with ingestion of two particles. Salt toxicosis in birds increases their vulnerability to car strike. The local human inhabitants near Mount Revelstoke Park, BC, refer to winter finches as "grille birds" because of the large numbers that collect on the grilles of moving vehicles. Although there is a high correlation between the distribution of winter finches and the Canadian road system receiving salt, risk characterization is difficult to assess in terms of kill frequency because of the http://www.forester.net/sw—O 1 07—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 8 of 14 various mechanisms—fatal attraction, toxicosis-induced car strike, lethal ingestion—that contribute to mortality. Nevertheless, EC concluded that transportation officials probably underestimated the contribution of road salt to wildlife kills. Aquatic Biota. Road-salt loadings in surface waters vary with regional climate conditions, season, and air temperature fluctuation. Snowmelt may proceed gradually overall, but it increases dramatically following application of road salt. Shock loads of salt to aquatic ecosystems might last less than a day following application, with concentration decreasing thereafter. Salt held in solution in snow or deposited on surface soil layers is readily dissolved by rain and can be transported to receiving waters in runoff. Prolonged retention of salt in streambeds or lakebeds decreases dissolved oxygen and can increase nutrient loading, which in turn promotes eutrophication. Toxicity responses of aquatic organisms to NaCl vary. Laboratory studies report that the LC50 for six freshwater fish and crustacean species exposed to NaCl for one day ranged from 2,724 to 14,100 mg/l with a mean of 7,115 mg/I (Cowgill et al., 1990). These values decreased significantly as exposure time increased. The LC50 for 17 species of fish, amphibians, and crustaceans exposed to NaCl for seven days ranged from 1,440 to 6,031 mg/I with a mean of 3,345 mg/I (EC, 2000). Reports of chloride concentrations in highway runoff run as high as 19,135 mg/I. Salt tolerance of fishes ranges from 400 to 30,000 mg/I, greater than the salt concentration of seawater. A seven-day exposure of 1,000 mg/I is lethal to rainbow trout (NRC, 1991). While an estimated 10% of aquatic species will exceed their critical tolerance values for chloride with prolonged exposure to concentrations above 220 mg/I, many of the macroinvertebrates upon which the more tolerant species feed might exhibit lower tolerances. Stream studies in northern New York revealed that benthic diversity decreases as salinity increases and dominance of salt-tolerant invertebrates is synchronous with periods of road-salt application. Salinity stresses the periphyton community upon which benthic grazers forage and inhibits microbial processing of leaf litter(EC, 2000). Reduction of primary productivity causes repercussions at the top of the food chain in addition to the stress salinity imposes on the organisms themselves. The presence of salt in aquatic ecosystems also releases toxic metals from sediment into the water column and impairs distribution and cycling of oxygen and nutrients. Human Health Impacts http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 9 of 14 A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study concluded that the major objection to concentrations of sodium in public water supplies arises from the n taste preference of consumers (Winters et New York State Department of al., 1985). EC agreed Transportation plowing and spreading. that the primary problem of road salt in drinking water is its adverse effect on taste. NRC's Transportation Research Board reported a more serious concern of road salt's impact on human health. Excess dietary sodium is associated with hypertension, and up to 30% of the US population could have borderline to pronounced hypertension. This amounts to nearly 3 million New Yorkers potentially affected by road-salt loading. EPA requires that sodium concentrations in drinking water not exceed 20 mg/I and requires monitoring and reporting of higher levels in public water supplies (NRC, 1991). Infrastructure Impacts In addition to the public health and environmental problems associated with chloride deicers, the corrosivity of road salt adversely impacts motor vehicles and infrastructure. Chloride ions in salt increase the conductivity of water, which induces and accelerates corrosion. In automobiles, corrosion can affect critical vehicle parts, such as brake linings, frames, and bumpers, and can cause cosmetic corrosion. Corrosion protection practices increase the cost of auto manufacturing by nearly$4 billion/yr. (NRC, 1991). Although road salt rarely jeopardizes the structural integrity of bridges, its corrosivity damages bridge decks. Chloride ions penetrate concrete and corrode reinforcing rods, causing the surrounding concrete to crack and fragment. Installing corrosion protection measures in new bridges and repairing old bridges could cost Snowbelt states between $250 million and $650 million per year. Similarly, road salt causes reinforcing steel in parking garages to rust, thereby compromising the structural integrity of the surrounding concrete. Installing corrosion protection measures in parking garages and restoring damaged parking garages could easily cost Northeast and Midwest states between $75 million and $175 million per year. Other roadside hardware and some nonhighway objects near salt-treated roads also are affected by the corrosive properties of road salts (NRC, 1991). http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—enviromnental.httnl 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 10 of 14 Road-Salt Alternatives Calcium Magnesium Acetate NRC (1991) examined calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) as an alternative to road salt in deicing operations. CMA solution is prepared by dissolving solid CMA in water. Optimal concentration in solution is 25%. NRC concluded that CMA is relatively harmless to plants and animals, noncorrosive to metals, and nondestructive to concrete and other highway materials. Because of its low density and small particle size, CMA may be dusty during handling and storage and may blow off roadways after spreading. When exposed to moisture, CMA can clog spreading equipment. The calculated ratio of CMA to salt for comparable ice melting is 1.7:1. In practice, however, the amount varies. An Ontario study lowered the ratio to 1.5:1 and found CMA to be effective in penetrating light snowpack and preventing pavement icebond (Manning and Crowder, 1989). A study by Wisconsin Department of Transportation (1987) reported application rates of CMA at 1.2-1.6 times greater than salt. CMA also functions as an effective anti-icer when applied prior to or at the outset of snow events at rates 20-40% higher than salt. Washington State uses CMA in anti-icing operations to reduce the volume of sand-based abrasives that enter salmon spawning streams in snowmelt and stormwater runoff(Washington State Department of Transportation, personal communication). CMA acts more slowly and is less effective than salt in cold conditions. Notwithstanding the difference in application rate, CMA's deicing performance is comparable to that of salt but less successful in melting accumulated snow and ice. The California Department of Transportation (1989)found CMA effective in preventing the formation of snowpack but less effective than salt treatments in removing heavy snowpack and less effective at temperatures below 23°F. In general, nearly all studies of CMA rated the substance as an acceptable deicer but not as effective or consistent as salt when applied in equal amounts. As experience with CMA increases, some highway agencies predict its ratio to salt application will approach 1:1. Health and Environmental Impacts. Comprehensive studies performed by Caltrans (Winters et al., 1985) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)found CMA to be much more environmentally benign than NaCl (Horner et al., 1988). The Caltrans study found few adverse impacts associated with CMA. CMA was less toxic to fish than road salt, although Caltrans associated CMA concentrations of 5,000 mg/I with slightly delayed hatching in rainbow trout. At high exposure http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—environmental.hbnl 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 11 of 14 levels CMA is more toxic to phytoplankton than sodium chloride. Inhibitory effects in algae occurred at CMA concentrations of 85 mg/I; algae did not exhibit any inhibition from sodium chloride at test concentrations. The CMA LC50 for rainbow trout is 18,700 versus the NaCl LC50 of 12,200 (Cheng and Guthrie, 1998). In soils, CMA tends to exchange calcium and magnesium with other metals already present. CMA can extract iron, aluminum, sodium, and potassium from roadside soils but is less harmful to plants than road salt. Of 18 tree species tested, only the Russian olive was more sensitive to CMA than to NaCl (NRC, 1991). CMA may actually stimulate plant growth by improving soil structure and permeability (Cheng and Guthrie, 1998). NCHRP reported that CMA decomposes within two weeks when in soils at temperatures above 50°F. At 35.6°F, decomposition time was around four weeks. Two potential problems associated with CMA are temporary oxygen depletion in water from CMA decomposition and the potential for phosphorous enrichment of surface waters that are exposed to high concentrations of CMA derived from agricultural products. Costs. The average cost of road salt is $30/ton. NRC (1991) estimated the cost of CMA between $500 and $700/ton. The $500 figure represents use of a corn fermentation process to derive acetic acid, which reacts with dolomitic lime to produce CMA. Chevron Chemical Company produces CMA using acetic acid from natural gas and sells the product for$600-$700/ton delivered. Conversion to CMA would incur additional costs to municipalities in the modification of storage, handling, equipment and spreading operations. Potassium Acetate Potassium acetate (KA) is often used as a base for commercial chloride-free liquid deicer formulations. Its advantages include low corrosion, relatively high performance, and low environmental impact. Although less study information is available on KA, some of the findings are clear. Health and Environmental Impacts. Health impacts of KA are slight. Inhalation of the substance may cause mild irritation to the respiratory tract. The Material Data Safety Sheet for KA documents no significant adverse effects from skin and eye contact with the product. As with NaCl and CMA, KA can temporarily deplete oxygen in aquatic ecosystems but may stimulate plant growth. The 96- http://www.forester.net/sw—O I 07—enviromnental.htrnl 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 12 of 14 hour LC50 for rainbow trout is 1,500 mg/I. Along with CMA, KA is one of the most benign road-salt alternatives because it contains nonpersistent, biodegradable acids. Cryotech CF7, a commercial form of KA, has been selected for use in Yosemite National Park. KA is stable and is removed from application areas by flushing, dispersion, and dilution. Davis et al. (1994) concluded that KA does not penetrate groundwater aquifers and does not impact water chemistry. Cost of KA is $700- $800/ton. Conclusions Applying road salt in deicing operations could create significant adverse health, environmental, and infrastructure problems. Equally troubling is the fact that New York State applies up to 298 tons of road salt/lane-mi./yr. in the unfiltered drinking- water—supply watersheds for more than 9 million citizens. This level of salt use jeopardizes the health of consumers having heart or kidney disease, destroys protective vegetation and soil, and corrodes automobiles, bridges, and other infrastructure. CMA and KA both appear to be viable road-salt alternatives. No significant health, environmental, or infrastructure impacts occur with the use of these alternatives. CMA is the most studied of all road-salt alternatives; more field studies should be performed using KA. Both products are preferable to road salt in the New York City drinking-water—supply watersheds, which supply drinking water to more than half of New York State's population. The biggest drawback to using CMA and KA is high cost. It will be a challenge to mandate or obtain buy-in from watershed communities to use these products at$500-$700/ton versus $30/ton for road salt. Perhaps some communities will recognize the cost savings to public health, the environment, and local infrastructure from using road-salt alternatives. At present, however, the most likely mechanism for introducing CMA and KA in the New York City drinking-water—supply watersheds is through legislative mandate. References California Department of Transportation. Technical Report.A Summary of CMA Use and Research and Development, Specifically in California. Division of Technology and Research, Sacramento, CA. 1989. Cheng, K.C. and T.F. Guthrie. Liquid Road Deicing Environment Impact. Levelton Engineering Ltd., Richmond, BC. www_.wsdot.wa.govlfossc/mamt/pns/Envlmpacts.pdf. 1998. Church, P.E. and P.J. Friesz. Effectiveness of Highway Drainage Systems in http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—enviromnental.html 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 13 of 14 Preventing Road-Salt Contamination of Groundwater:Preliminary Findings. Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Record 1420. http✓/books._nap edu/books/NI000009/html/3,_html. 1993. Cowgill, U.M. and D.P. Milazzo. "The sensitivity of two cladocerans to water quality variables: salinity and hardness."Arch. Hydrobiol. 120(2): 185-196. 1990. Davis, G., S. Krannitz, and M. Goldstein. Phase //.A reconnaissance study of roadside tree injury and decline at 17 sites in interior British Columbia for the Roadside Tree Injury Committee. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 1992. Environment Canada. Priority Substances Assessment Report:Road Salts. www.ec.gc.ca/cceb1/eng/public/road salts.html. 2000. Heisig, P.M. Effects of Residential and Agricultural Land Uses on the Chemical Quality of Baseflow of Small Streams in the Croton Watershed, Southeastern New York. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4173. http://ny.usgs.gov/projectslmisclWRIR99- 4173.pdf. March 2000. Hofstra, G. and D.W. Smith. "The effects of road deicing salt on the levels of ions in roadside soils in southern Ontario."Journal of Environmental Management. 19:261-271. 1984. Horner, R. NCHRP Report 305.Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA). National Research Council. 1988. Howard, K.W.F., J.I. Boyce, S.J. Livingston, S. Salvatori, and Groundwater Research Group at University of Toronto. 'Road Salt Impacts on Ground- water Quality." GSA Today.Volume 3, Number 12. wwwhistory_.rochester_edu/class/roadsalf/home.html. December 1993. Manning, D. and L. Crowder. Comparative Field Study of the Operational Characteristics of Calcium Magnesium Acetate and Rock Salt. National Research Council, Transportation Research Record 1246. 1989. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. Highway Deicing: Comparing Salt and Calcium Magnesium Acetate. Special Report 235. www.nas_edu/trb/publications/sr2_.35.html. 1991. New York State Department of Transportation. Highway Maintenance Guidelines,Snow and Ice Control. December 1993. US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing. Edison Water Quality Laboratory, Edison, NJ. 1971. Winters, G., J. Gidley, and H. Hunt. Environmental Evaluation of CMA. Report FHWA-RD-84-095. FHWA, US Department of Transportation. 1985. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Field Deicing Tests of High Quality Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA). Madison, WI. 1987. William Wegner is a watershed analyst and Marc Yaggi is a senior watershed attorney with Riverkeeper Inc., a nonprofit http://www.forester.net/sw-0107—enviromnental.htrnl 9/4/2007 Stormwater Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in New York Page 14 of 14 environmental organization based in Hudson Valley, NY. Return To Home+About+Subscribe+News+Calendar+Glossary Toole of Talk+ Images +Advertise+Contact Us +Search + Register+Services Contents Erosion Control Magazine I MSW Management Magazine Grading &Excavation Contractor 1 ForesterPress 1 Forester Communications 0_2000-2007_Forester..Commu..nicati.ons,Inc. http://www.forester.net/sw—O I 07—environmental.htmI 9/4/2007 Road Salt Claims Pagel of 5 Agencies Online Services Help Page Tools 1A GO State Search: tmaineuff Contact MaineDOT ( Home Working with MAINEDOT- Guide for Municipal Officials Maine Local Roads Center Road Salt Contamination Claims: Technical And Legal Issues Community Programs State Labor Rates Locally Administered (from Maine Townsman, November 2004) Projects B Keith Taylor, CG Stratex LLC Gregory Cunningham, Es Bernstein Shur Maine's Transportation y y ' g g Q'� 11 Systems Sawyer & Nelson Flagger Training Information Home Even during low snow winters such as our most recent one, Maine municipalities depend on salt to keep their roads safe for the public. Some have their own salt storage piles at the public works garage, while others use a private contractor to supply and/or treat the roads. The salt is usually mixed with sand and liberally spread on trouble spots such as hills and at busy intersections. Slick roads are particularly a problem in the more rural communities where the roads still have sharp curves and steep slopes inherited from the old horse and wagon paths of the past. Unfortunately, these rural areas are also known for their reliance on private water supply wells. Most municipalities are aware that salt leaching from storage piles can contaminate wells, but road runoff containing salt is also the source of contamination for many private wells. Legal claims by citizens against Maine municipalities for salt- contaminated wells are much more common than you might think. A Maine statute specifically addresses the process for filing such claims and describes the responsibilities of the municipality. These claims can cost thousands of dollars to simply assess their validity, even if the claim never goes to court. If the municipality is responsible, the costs for a new well, treatment, and/or other damages can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. It may be too late to avoid a claim if salt contaminated-ground water is already heading toward someone's well. However, this article should help you understand why the contamination occurs, how to deal with homeowner's claims, and what your legal responsibilities are. Road Salt Contamination The most well-known source of salt in ground water is salt storage piles. In the past, road salt was usually stored in large uncovered piles. Rain and snow falling on the pile dissolves the salt and carries http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 9/4/2007 Read Salt Claims Page 2 of 5 it into the ground, where it enters the water table. Continued leaching of salt through time produces a "plume" of salty water that migrates away from the salt pile in the direction of ground water flow, which usually follows the slope of the land. If the migrating plume reaches a well, or is drawn toward the well because of pumping, the well becomes contaminated. These contamination plumes can be hundreds of feet long and therefore may contaminate a well for many years even after the salt pile is covered or removed. Because of the risk these salt piles posed to public and private ground water supplies, the Maine DEP completed a risk rating in 1986 of all known public and private road salt storage areas. As many readers may know, this priority list was to be used by the Maine DOT to direct funds for the construction of salt storage buildings. However, fund shortages prevented many buildings from being constructed, so the DEP updated the list in 2000 and identified a subset of salt piles that posed the greatest risk to ground water supplies. These high-risk sites remain eligible for funding from the DOT. Despite the construction of many new salt storage buildings, contamination still occurs from road salt that remains in the ground from previously uncovered salt storage piles, and from the direct application of salt to roads. Salt contamination from road applications is more difficult to predict and assess than from salt piles since the pathway of the salt to the well may not be obvious. In the simplest case, this type of contamination occurs when the road grade or drainage system channels the salty meltwater directly toward the well. However, road salt contamination can sometimes occur where this type of surface flow is not evident. The most common indicators of salt contamination are taste and corrosion or staining of plumbing fixtures. Other indicators of salt contamination include corrosion of water heater components and well pumps, stressed vegetation in the yard, and unhealthy houseplants. Homeowners typically will contact a local laboratory and have a sample tested for chloride and sodium. For uncontaminated wells in Maine, the average concentrations of chloride and sodium are 29 and 13 milligrams per liter (mg/L), respectively. Highly contaminated wells can show chloride and sodium concentrations between 500 and 1,000 mg/L. Elevated chloride in drinking water does not represent a health risk, but a Federal Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250 mg/L is in place because of the taste and corrosion problems. Elevated sodium concentrations can pose a risk to those on a low sodium diet due to high blood pressure or other health problems, therefore the State has established a Maximum Exposure Guideline of 20 mg/L. There is no Federal drinking water standard for sodium. Other Sources of Salt Contamination It is important to note that there are other possible sources of salt contamination in a well. Modern seawater intrusion can contaminate http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_000.php 9/4/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 3 of 5 a well near the coastline. Trapped ancient seawater has been documented in Maine as a source of salty water in private wells. Septic system leachfield discharges can produce localized plumes of ground water high in salt under certain conditions. A detailed analysis of water quality, well construction, and site geology are needed to determine if any of these or any other alternative sources are the cause of elevated salt concentrations in a well. Legal Claims and Responsibilities of a Municipality Municipalities in Maine should be familiar with the specific statutory provisions that outline both the procedure for addressing road salt contamination claims and that define the scope of any liability arising from such contamination. In 1987 the Legislature enacted 23 M.R.S.A. § 3659, which creates a cause of action for any landowner whose private water supply located on his or her land has been "destroyed or rendered unfit for human consumption" by a municipality or other political subdivision. Arguably the impacts contemplated by section 3659 can include road salt contamination of private water supplies. A municipality is susceptible to liability under this provision if it has damaged a private water supply as a result of its construction or maintenance of a public highway under the municipality's jurisdiction. The State is also potentially liable for its acts of construction and maintenance that impact private water supplies located on land adjacent to state or state-aid highways, pursuant to a separate statutory provision. See 23 M.R.S.A. § 652. As a result, any claim must be analyzed closely to determine whether it involves either actions of the municipality, alleges actions taken on municipal roads, or both. Section 3659 places limitations on both the scope of liability and the damages that a municipality may confront in a road salt contamination case. Any damages claimed must be based on the lesser of (a) the difference between the fair market value of the property before the private water supply was impacted and its fair market value thereafter or (b) the cost to cure any damage to the private water supply. A municipality will not be liable if the private water supply is located within the road right of way, if the location of the private water supply does not provide for adequate surface drainage (unless the surface drainage problems were as a result of the municipality's actions in constructing or maintaining the road), or if the private water supply was contaminated by another source prior to the municipality's work on the road. Road salt contamination claims have their own notice and settlement procedures as well. Because the cause of action created by section 3659 is a statutory exception to the Maine Tort Claims Act, municipalities must be mindful that the less common road salt contamination claim procedure must be followed. The statute requires that the landowner apply in writing to the municipality for a determination of the cause of the unfit private water supply and an assessment of damages resulting from it. This application must http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 9/4/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 4 of 5 be filed within two years after completion of the roadwork at issue and must set forth specific information relative to the private land at issue and its owner, and must describe both the damage and the perceived cause of that damage. The triggering of this limitations period for filing claims is the date of the completion of the work as documented in the records of the municipality. The municipality is obligated to respond within 90 days of receipt of the application. A timely response to the claim is critical, as a one-year statute of limitations for filing a claim in superior court begins to run as of the municipality's response. This response must either deny responsibility or propose an offer of settlement. The statute suggests that the municipality consider remedies that include replacing the water supply (as well as any piping, tanks, pumps, heating systems or related fixtures that were impacted), repairing the damage to the water supply, or offering to either purchase the affected property or to pay a monetary settlement. Should the municipality deny responsibility, the landowner's recourse is to file suit against the municipality in the superior court of the county in which the land is located within one year after receiving the municipality's response. A court-appointed referee thereafter hears and rules upon the landowner's claims. How to Assess Contamination Claims It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate that the municipality is responsible for road salt contamination of their well. Most claims are based on one or more laboratory reports provided by the homeowner. However, as discussed earlier, there are a variety of mechanisms for wells to become contaminated and different sources for salt contamination. Before assuming responsibility, a municipality should seek the advice of an environmental professional experienced in ground water contamination. Additional sampling or other investigations may be necessary to assess the claim and evaluate the possible remedies. Options for Settling Claims Road salt contamination in ground water can take years to dissipate even after the source of contamination has been removed. Removing the contaminated ground water would be very expensive and impractical. Therefore, if a municipality assumes responsibility, and assuming public water is not available in the area, there are three primary options for settling road salt contamination claims: 1) modifying the existing well, 2) installing a new well, or 3) installing a water treatment system. In some cases, an existing well can be modified to seal off the water-bearing fractures in the rock that are the source of the salt. However, geologic investigations may be necessary to determine if this approach is feasible. A new well is the simplest solution since it represents a one-time cost for the municipality. One possible complication is if there isn't a suitable http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims OOO.php 9/4/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 5 of 5 location on the property for a new well. This situation can arise when the salt contamination is found to be present throughout the property, or setback limitations are present due to property lines or septic systems. An easement on an adjacent property may be necessary under these circumstances. Installation of a water treatment system is always feasible but is expensive. Annual maintenance and electricity costs will be significant and represent a long-term responsibility of the municipality. Summary Road salt contamination claims against municipalities are more common in Maine than you may think. Despite the covering of many salt piles, groundwater contamination may still exist or could be generated from road salting. However, other sources of salt contamination in wells do exist. Salt contamination generally does not present a health threat, but can result in damaged plumbing fixtures and make the water unusable. A Maine statute outlines the procedures for making claims against a municipality and how a municipality is to respond. Because the legal and technical costs for settling claims can be high, Maine municipalities should be familiar with the technical and legal implications of road salt contamination claims. Privacy Policy I Organizational Chart I Site Map I For Technical Problems,Contact the MaineDOT Webmaster http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 9/4/2007 „Road Salt and Water Quality Page 1 of 4 Tuesday,Sept.4,2007 Watershed Management Bureau a'v'f-a"Pshire cp3r.gent of Home Environmental Environmental Services Fact Sheet `� 29 azen-b—G Conccrd NH 03301 About DES DES Programs Print Version_ Public Information Rules/Regulatory WMB-4 1996 Business Center Road Salt and Water Quality OneStop Data Background What's New? The amount of snowfall in northern New England and the necessity of Sign up for a-news overland travel require the use of plows and de-icing materials to keep highways safe in the winter. Salt, or sodium chloride, is the most commonly A-Z Topics List used de-icing material in New Hampshire. In general, the purpose of salt is to: 1) reduce adherence of snow to the pavement; 2) keep the snow in a "mealy” condition and thereby permit nearly full removal by plowing; and 3) prevent the formation of ice or snow ice (hard pack). Sodium chloride can negatively impact drinking water and aquatic life. Sodium is a drinking water concern for individuals restricted to low-sodium diets due to hypertension (high blood pressure), although a review of scientific evidence by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed that the vast amount of sodium ingestion (90 percent) was from food rather than drinking water and that the linkage between sodium and hypertension was still not well documented. Chloride can affect the taste of drinking water, but is not a health concern. If levels of either sodium or chloride approach 250mg/I in drinking water, an alternative source should be found. Chloride ions were found by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be toxic to certain forms of aquatic life at a four-day average concentration of 230 mg/I. Some plant species at the base of the food chain can be impacted at much lower concentrations. Roadside vegetation is visibly impacted from road salt. Burned grass and shrubs, as well as burned foliage on roadside trees from salt spray are common in New Hampshire. Road Salt Management Issues The New Hampshire Department of Transportation's (DOT) winter maintenance goal is to obtain bare and dry pavements on most roads at the earliest practical time following cessation of a storm. Many municipal highway departments have similar goals. Traffic volume, speed, and gradient are the primary factors in determining the level of winter maintenance service for particular roads. When the temperature is 200 F or greater, DOT applies 250-300 lbs. of salt per lane-mile and/or abrasive (sand) as needed. At temperatures below 200 F, DOT uses various combinations of salt, sand, and calcium chloride, depending on road conditions. http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/wmb/wmb-4.htm 9/4/2007 .Road Salt and Water Quality Page 2 of 4 Salt storage facilities can have a greater potential for causing water pollution than roadway application. For maximum environmental protection, salt storage facilities should be roofed and paved, with adequate drainage controls to prevent runoff water from contacting salt. Alternatives to Road Salt Salt is the most commonly used highway de-icer. Its effectiveness decreases as temperatures drop. Salt is most effective at temperatures above 200 F. Below 100 F, salt cannot dissolve and cannot break the ice- pavement bond. The second most commonly used de-icing chemical, calcium chloride, is effective in much lower temperatures than salt (as low as 00 F). Liquid calcium chloride can be used to pre-wet salt and sand, which can facilitate de-icing at lower temperatures. The disadvantages to calcium chloride are: 1) it costs more than salt; 2) it is difficult to handle and store; 3) if used alone it may contribute to slippery, black-ice conditions; and 4) the presence of chloride ions makes calcium chloride at least as corrosive to structural materials and toxic to aquatic life as salt. Sand is sometimes considered an alternative to salt. Sand does provide additional traction in slippery conditions but it cannot melt snow and ice on the road surface. A disadvantage to sand is that great effort must be expended to clean the sand from road surfaces at the end of winter to prevent clogging of roadside ditches and catch basins, and eventually sedimentation in water bodies. Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) is another alternative to salt. CMA is made from limestone and acetic acid, the principal ingredient of vinegar. CMA is less damaging to soils, less corrosive to concrete and steel, and non- toxic to aquatic organisms. It is also benign to roadside vegetation. The components of CMA are not harmful to groundwater, although CMA, like salt, has the potential to mobilize trace metals (Fe, Al, Zn, Cu) through cationic exchange reactions in soil. A drawback of CMA is its cost, about $600/ton, compared to about $40/ton for salt. However, a full cost analysis, comparing CMA to salt is needed to determine the full cost of both alternatives. CMA use should lead to longer lasting bridges and cars and less environmental damage. Including avoided costs, CMA may be an economically viable alternative to salt, even though its initial cost is 15 times greater. DOT Reduced Salt Pilot Program Chapter 239, Laws of 1994, authorized and required the DOT, in cooperation with the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, to implement a pilot program to minimize salt use during the winters of 1994-95 and 1995- 96. Three test sections were found on low traffic volume highways in the Nashua region, public hearings were held, and warning signs were posted on the roads. During the two winters, test sections were treated with approximately one half the amount of salt used on the control sections, which were treated using standard DOT procedures. DOT evaluated road conditions, accidents, costs, environmental benefits, and public acceptance of the pilot program. Monitoring wells were installed along test and control highway sections to measure chloride levels in groundwater. http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/wmb/wmb-4.htm 9/4/2007 ,.Road Salt and Water Quality Page 3 of 4 The results of the pilot program were: 1. While poorer driving conditions were noted on the test sections, safety was not significantly compromised by the reduction in salt use. This was attributed to the absence of curves, hills, and heavy traffic on test sections, as well as the highway signing and public notification of the program. 2. While substantial savings for salt were noted, other costs such as sand and labor were higher. Additional costs were estimated by DOT at $16,774 during the two-year test period for the 8.3 lane-miles in the test sections. It was noted that additional costs could be incurred due to sand cleanup for lawns, drainage ditches, and culverts. DOT also noted that the higher costs were partially due to the short length of the test sections. 3. Public acceptance of the test was mixed. Very few complaints were from the public, but local police were less than satisfied with road conditions during storms. 4. In each test section chloride levels in monitoring wells were substantially lower than those in corresponding control sections. Application of additional sand in test sections created environmental concerns due to sediment deposition, but these impacts were not measured. DOT concluded that reduced salt application for winter maintenance is beneficial within very specific parameters. The type of highway to be included in a reduced salt program needs to be carefully considered. The highway must be relatively flat, without hills and curves, and in a low speed/low volume section. Based on the results of the pilot program, DOT will consider conducting other reduced salt programs in communities which request consideration and on roads which meet the specific requirements of the program. Local officials interested in the reduced salt program should contact the DOT Bureau of Highway Maintenance at 271-2693. Best Management Practices for Road Salt Application Storage and Handling • Facilities should be located on flat sites away from surface water and on impervious surfaces that are easily protected from overland runoff. • Salt should be stored under cover to prevent a loss due to runoff. Application of Road Salts • Sensitive areas, such as public water supplies, lakes and ponds, should be identified and made known to salt applicators. Consider de- icing alternatives in sensitive areas. • Ground-speed controllers should be used for all spreaders. • Give salt time to work; time plowing operations to allow maximum http://www.des.state.nh.us/factshects/wmb/wmb-4.htm 9/4/2007 ,Road'halt and Water Quality Page 4 of 4 melting by salt, before snow is plowed off the highway. • Know when to plow and reapply salt. The need for another salt application can be determined by watching melting snow kicked out behind vehicle tires. If the slush is soft and fans out like water, the salt is still working. Once the slush begins to stiffen and is thrown directly to the rear of vehicle tires, it is time to plow. • For lesser traveled roads, consider applying salt in a windrow in a four to eight foot strip along the centerline of a two lane road. Less salt is wasted with this pattern and quickly gives vehicles clear pavement under at least two wheels. Traffic will soon move some salt off the centerline and the salt brine will move toward both shoulders for added melting across the entire road width. • Determine levels of service for all roads in a service area. Salt application rates and frequency should be based on traffic volume, road grade and curvature, intersections, and weather conditions. Sand or sand/salt mix should be used based on the level of service requirements. Snow Dumping Dumping plowed snow directly into waterbodies is illegal. For recommended snow dump areas, please see DES Fact Sheet wo-wMB-3. Print Version ®� NH.GQ I R vacy-Noli.r-y I A.acessii my P24y http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/wmb/wmb-4.htm 9/4/2007 COW N sc C: To� I sloam Vzez� o w � C U.1 : 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 OR-CO � TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 September 5, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0079 Ms. Budarz 63 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Budarz, This correspondence is to inform you that I have been notified verbally by the State Health Department laboratory that a sample of your drinking water submitted on 8-30-07 was positive for total coliform. The State guidelines are that well water containing any bacteria is not potable and it is therefore recommended that your well water not be consumed. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Ph,*"4 Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Michael 1. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works ✓ 1p.NN Sf4 s w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 Sox-co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 September 5, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0086 Rosemary Carlson 31 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Carlson, This correspondence is to inform you that I have been notified verbally by the State Health Department laboratory that a sample of your drinking water submitted on 8-30-07 was positive for total coliform. The State guidelines are that well water containing any bacteria is not potable and it is therefore recommended that your well water not be consumed. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Michael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works ✓ a 1Q.N N SC C ' Town O-P SafdA ?And4at y C w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR•co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 28, 2007 Ms. Jill Kolinsky 28 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Kolinsky, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. Your water meets guidelines for all parameters tested for. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Relchle, Superintendent of Operations Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO.I ACCOUNT NO. JAGE S PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:K2 22368291 IS06074 10 1 1 11 c� 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132S. WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 KOLINSKI CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 05/10/07 05/10/07 08/10/07 TOWN HALL 11:35 12:03 18:23 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT HIGH CL NA ADJACENT WELL TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R. DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL TREATMENT: *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/10/07 1320 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 6 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 0 TRUE COLOR 0 ODOR 0 TURBIDITY 0.29 PH 6.9 AMMONIA <0.05 ANALYZED PAST HOLDING TIME *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 61 HARDNESS 84 CHLORIDE 53 NITRATE 2.3 NITRITE <0.05 IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 17 SULFATES,COMPLEX 18. (SAMPLE DONE PAST HOLDING TIME) CALCIUM 36 *** CONTINUED *** ORIGINAL STATE OF CONNECTI CUT I.D. ACCESSION NO. ACCOUNT NO. AGES PAGE a Department of Public Health ' Division of Laboratory Services NR:K2 22368291 S06074 0 2 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132S. WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 KOLINSKI CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 05/10/07 05/10/07 08/10/07 TOWN HALL SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 11:35 12:03 18:23 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT HIGH CL NA ADJACENT WELL TEST(S) RESULT(S) NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET MAGNESIUM 4 ------ Flo ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL COWN SPA O-P Soa� ?dbll� s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�dSox-co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 28, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0062 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Derewianka, Enclosed in this packet of information are the bacterial reports of your well water of which you were notified when I received verbal notification from the laboratory and the chemistry analysis of samples collected on 3-21-07 and 5-10-07. The chloride levels went from 240 Mg/L to 70 Mg/L and the sodium went from 91 Mg/L to less than 1 Mg/L respectively. Also, included is a report from a private laboratory for a compound called Triethanolamine, a component of the product used on the roads last winter. None was detected down to 50 Mg/L. If you wish, this department will collect another water sample to be analyzed for bacteria upon your request. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Dept a, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO.I ACCOUNT NO. AGE S PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:D-1 08263856 S06074 0 1 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132S. WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 DEREWIANKA CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 16 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 03/28/07 03/28/07 03/29/07 TOWN HALL � SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 09:30 10:16 08:22 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TOTAL COUNTS&E.COLI TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R. DEPTULA TITLE: R.S. PRIVATE WELL TREATMENT: *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 3/28/07 1315 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT MMO-MUG FLUORESCENCE TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM i PRESENT ** PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI PRESENT ** PER 100 ML DOUBLE STARRED RESULTS (**) DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USEPA NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS. I I I I i t I ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL ' STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO. ACCOUNT NO. AGE S PAGE Department of Public Health 1 Division of Laboratory Services NR:D1 22368290 S06074 0 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132S. WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 DEREWIANKA CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 16 MAPLE TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 05/10/07 05/10/07 08/10/07 TOWN HALL 11:25 12:03 18:23 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT HIGH C1 NA NO TREATMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R. DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/10/07 1320 ANALYZED BY RG/RG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML DOUBLE STARRED RESULTS (**) DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USEPA NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS. ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 130 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 7 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY 0.70 PH 6.6 AMMONIA <0.05 ANALYZED PAST HOLDING TIME *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 42 HARDNESS 58 CHLORIDE 70 NITRATE 1.3 NITRITE <0.05 IRON 0_07 *** CON INUED *** ORIGINAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO.I ACCOUNT N0. AGE S PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:D1 22368290 IS06074 jo 1 1 12 c �. 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132S. WINDSOR Hartford, CT 06144 DEREWIANKA CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 16 MAPLE TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 05/10/07 05/10/07 08/10/07 TOWN HALL SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 11:25 12:03 18:23 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT HIGH C1 NA NO TREATMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT <1 SULFATES,COMPLEX 15. (SAMPLE DONE PAST HOLDING TIME) CALCIUM 25 NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET MAGNESIUM 4.2 ------ two ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL PHOEWS C) U � Q _ Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 587 East Middle Turnpike,P.O.Bog 370,Manchester,CT 06040 Tel.(860)645-1102 Fax(860)645-0823 Analysis Report FOR: Attn:Mr.Bob Deptula Town Of South Windsor April 16, 2007 Health Dept 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor CT 06074 Sample Information Custodv Information Date Time Matrix: WATER Collected by: RD 03/21/07 10:00 Location Code: TWNSOUTH Received by: LP 03/21/07 12:12 Rush Request: Analyzed by: see "By"below P.O.#: SDG I.D.: GAR98868 Laboratory Data Phoenix I.D.: AH98868 Client ID: 16 MAPLE ST Parameter Result RL Units Date Time By Reference Triethanolamine ND 50 mg/L 04/13/07 KCA MOD8015 Comments: If there are any questions regarding this data,please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200. ND=Not detected BDL=Below Detection Limit RL=Reporting Limit Phyllis hiller,Laboratory Director April 6,2007 Page 1 of 1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT ;..;..::.::.:acts . :,Moo NR:D1 22368290 S06074 0 1 Department of Public Health Laboratory a.. Clinical Testing License:CL-0 10 Clinton St. 1325. WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689DEREWIANKA Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 16 MAPLE S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE ::::::: :>: TOWN HALL 05/10/07 05/10/07 05/11/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 11:25 12:03 07:57 INTERIM REPORT >''! ..... s<:>:<:::::::>:::;:•:: IGH C1 NA NO TREATMENT ���.�'•.:,::..:`:' <s `��>>°.<' <s�:' `>;::::;:? ss::::::}< ::�a::;<;>:<;<>i«:ss:s;:>::> ;'.>'»f:::?<::<::>`::>s::':�s's;'::>'3i>?:s>�'<�?:;:>:;ri:: .............. .. ... . SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R. DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/10/07 1320 ANALYZED BY RGjRG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML DOUBLE STARRED RESULTS (**) DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USEPA NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS. ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML ** PENDING TESTS **************** ALKALINITY CHLORIDE DETERGENT, CCMPLEX HARDNESS CALCIUM IRON MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NITROGEN — NITRATE NITROGEN — NITRITE SODIUM SULFATES, COMPLEX STANDARD PLATE COUNT APPARENT COLOR TRUE COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY PH 22368290 1325. WINDSOR PAGE 1 ORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT .� NR:Dl 22368290 s06074......? � 0 2.... Department of Public Health Laboratory ::;:::;::;::;::;::;::;::;::;;<;;;::;;;:;;;::;:;>;::;::;.:.:..:.......:.::.....:..:.:•:::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.::.. Clinical Testing Li (% t.:1EfS[..::::::::::::..::::::::::::::::::::.:: g censer CL 0197 :::::::::>: >�:>: T>::>::>:.;:.;� : . .;:,.. 10 Clinton St. 1325. WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689DEREWIANKA Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 16 MAPLE S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE ................................:::.:.:::.:::::.:::. TOWN HALL 05/10/07 05/10/07 05/11/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 11:25 12:03 07:57 .......................... .......... . .. ... INTERIM REPORT IGH C1 NA NO TREATMENT AMMONIA ------ ** END OF REPORT ** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUTION p NR:D1 22366524 506074 0 1 ::.. Department of Public Health Laboratory Cloaca]Testing License: CL-0197 :.:•::•:::::•:•:•::::::::::::::::::::::...:..:.:::.::::..:.;:.;:.:;.;:.;:.;:.;�.;:<;:;•>:::::<::.::.:;�::;.;:.;:.;;:> 10 Clinton St. 1325. WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 MIKE Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 16 MAPLE ST S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN min1540 SULLIVAN AVE :......................:::::..::::::.�:::::.:::::::::::::..:::::::::.::::::::::::::.:::::. TOWN HALL 03/21/07 03/21/07 05/02/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:30 11:29 08:12 FINAL REPORT `''` >'' IG H NA CL MG :::»<;>::;::>: > ....................:......................................................:...:# Slf£? ............................................ .....................................:..............................................:................ SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL ** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 3/21/07 1320 ANALYZED BY RG/SK ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI PRESENT ** PER 100 ML DOUBLE STARRED RESULTS (**) DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USEPA NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS. HPC (POUR PLATE) 44 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR IRON BACTERIA WATER NO IRON BACTERIA FOUND ** APPARENT COLOR 0 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY 0.44 PH 6.9 AMMONIA <0.05 ** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 230 TEST PERFORMED PAST HOLDING TIME HARDNESS 120 CHLORIDE 240 NITRATE 1.4 NITRITE <0.05 *** CONTINUED *** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT NR:D1 22366524 506074""""" 0 -2" "" Department of Public Health Laboratory :>::»>:;:::»>;<:_::>;:<:>::»::>::>::>::>::>::>::»:.....:......:.:::....:..:.::•:::::::::::::::.::::::::::._::::.::::. Clinical Testing License: CL 0197 10 Clinton St. 1325 " WINDSOR"" P.O.Box 1689 MIKE Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 16 MAPLE ST S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE .................:.:::::::.:.::::::::::..�:::::::::::::..:::::::::.�::.�:::::::::::.::�. TOWN HALL 03/21/07 03/21/07 05/02/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:30 11:29 08:12 ;: FINAL REPORT IGH NA CL MG ' ::•.<.;:;::::#><;F$<�>> r >'•t<z ;zz_ < <`.z> << > > >; <:s':y: 3<:t:>:: :;;:.>: ..... »`::»:>zs>::>:>::::>::::>::>:>::::>:<::z:><:<:�>::::::>3::>::>:z:::>:s>::>::::>::>::::>::>::>::::>:zs>:<:'s:><:>::»;:::>::»>s:>:::'•>:::: DETERGENT CMPLX <0.1 ALL ANALYTICAL QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA WERE NOT MET. REPORTED NUMBERS ARE ESTIMATED VALUES. IRON 0.13 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 91 SULFATES,COMPLEX 17. CALCIUM 39 MAGNESIUM 8 ------ ** END OF REPORT ** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT NR:D1 22366524 S06074 0 1 Department of Public Health Laboratory ::>::s............... .::>::». >::>::::»::>::>::::>::::...•;.....:..::.....:..::.::::::::::::::::::•:::::::::::.::::::::. Clinical T ca Testing License:CL 0197 ::<:<:::<:::::>:>:#:::::::>:?:'?:<`><:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:•:.;:.;:.;::.;::::<.;•.:....................:::.::.:....::::::::...................... 10 Clinton St. 1325. WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 MIKE Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 16 MAPLE ST S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN ..... 1540 SULLIVAN AVE am TOWN HALL 03/21/07 03/21/07 03/22/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:30 11:29 08:15 INTERIM REPORT IGH NA CL MG SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: R DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL ** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 3/21/07 1320 ANALYZED BY RG/SK ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI PRESENT ** PER 100 ML DOUBLE STARRED RESULTS (**) DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USEPA NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS. IRON BACTERIA WATER NO IRON BACTERIA FOUND ** PENDING TESTS **************** ALKALINITY CHLORIDE DETERGENT, CCMPLEX HARDNESS NITRATE/NITRITE CALCIUM IRON MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NITROGEN - NITRATE NITROGEN - NITRITE SODIUM SULFATES, COMPLEX STANDARD PLATE COUNT APPARENT COLCR TRUE COLOR ODOR 22366524 1325. WINDSOR PAGE 1 FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT �c.c ss�nra:e c>�.:::.:a� u r:" .: NR.D1' r 22366524 S06074 0.... 2. Department of Public Health Laborat ::.::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::.:...:.:....:•:. .......:.:•.:::.:::.:::.:.::::::::::::::: p ory Clinical Testing License. CL 0197 .... ......... .......................... 10 Clinton St. 1325. WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 MIKE Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 16 MAPLE ST S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE TOWN HALL 03/21/07 03/21/07 03/22/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:30 11:29 08:15 >`>>< zi INTERIM REPORT IGH NA CL MG >:.:.»>:<.;:.- :.»»::» :.::::::::::::::::::......... .... :...................:.....................::..:::.::::::::............................ ..................................................:................................................................................................ TURBIDITY PH AMMONIA ------ ** END OF REPORT ** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 i • 'C0WN Sf4 4 X F 70� V/ S-0� V&U�� J M. ' � w 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 May 11, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 4497 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Derewianka, This correspondence is to inform you that I have been notified verbally by the State Health Department laboratory that a sample of your drinking water submitted on 5-10-07 was positive for total coliform. The State guidelines are that well water containing any bacteria is not potable and it is therefore recommended that your well water not be consumed. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert�Depta, Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Michael 1. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works 0'q N S f 4 s Wo� O-Psc� ?A w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 March 22, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 4480 Mr. &Mrs. Michael Derewianka 16 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Derewianka, This correspondence is to inform you that I have been notified verbally by the State Health Department laboratory that a sample of your drinking_water submitted on 3-21-07 was positive for both total coliform and a-soli bacteria. The State guidelines are that well water containing any bacteria is not potable and it is therefore recommended that your well water not be consumed. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, A�rtDegfa,&R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD%cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations PHOEVIX ��� �IS�C,N ACCpgOR�� O v � v � Environmental Laboratories, Inc. y 587 East Middle Turnpike,P.O.Box 370,Manchester,CT 06040 Tel.(860)645-1102 Fax(860)645-0823 FOR: Mr.Michael Derewianka W 0351 16 Maple St. Analysis Report South Windsor,CT 06074 March 09, 2007 Sample Information Custody Information Date Time Matrix: WATER Collected by: PD 03/01/07 10:30 Location Code: SPECIAL Received by.- LB 03/01/07 11:04 Laboratory Data Client ID: 16 MAPLE ST.HITCHEN SINK Phoenix I.D.:AH94437 S F-el M 2 0 a7 Maximum Maximum Parameter t��1 �94Z Analysis Contaminant Advisory Detection Measurement Result Level Level Limit Units Nitrite as Nitrogen BDL 1 0.01 mg/L Nitrate as Nitrogen 1A 10 0.05 mg/L Calcium 67.4 0.010 mg/L Chloride �'° � ' 440 250 30 mg/L ***Chloride exceeds ADVI SORY� levels*** Chlorine Residual BDL 0.02 mg/L Color BDL 15 1 P.C.U. Iron 0.031 0.3 0.002 mg/L Hardness(CaCO3) ` 217 200 0.10 mg/L ***Hardness(CaCO3)exa*ds A DVISORY levels*** Magnesium 11.9 0.01 mg/L Manganese BDL 0.5 0.05 0.002 mg/L Sodium 15 182 28 1.0 mg/L ***Sodium exceeds ADVI ORY levels*** Odor BDL 2 1 T.O.N. PH { 6.57 6.5-8.5 0.10 pH Units Sulfate 23 250 3.0 mg/L Turbidity 0.37 5 0.10 NTU MBAS BDL 0.05 mg/L -r(415 gfAR SovTN iv11" C1 FR rti3 { S. I i)G SAWb AN- SALT -To :Tus-r O-S'N " rrCLFN ,� L 1 �i td}l�1Ct1 it l S } j-! -TRI E-TMAOOff... A MINE , Columbia Environmental Laboratory Drinking Water Analysis - Formaldehyde Testing STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH iL DCYS Region 6 CERTIFICATION NUMBER 1.320 Main Street PH-0514 Willimantic, CT 06226 RE: Lab No. 920357, Inv. No. 92272 March 16, 1992 SAMPLING LOCATION: Derewianka 16 Maple Street South Windsor Connecticut SAMPLING / DELIVERY TIMES: 1310/1610 Laboratory Sampled 3/14/92 STANDARD WATER ANALYSIS STATE OFCONNECTICUT TEST RESULTS RECOMMENDED/MAXIMUM LEVEL S PHUNITS 6.9 6.5-9.0 RECOMMENDEDRANGE COLOR UNITS <5 15 RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM ODOR 0-5 RECOMMENDED 0 (none) 3 MAXIMUM TURBIDITY NTU 5 RECOMMENDED 0.10 MAXIMUM ALKALINIIY mg/L __ NO RECOMMENDED LEVEL CI-ILORIDE mg/L 250 MAXIMUM 26 ALLOWABLE HARDNESS, Ong/L 0-60 soft, 61-120 mod.hard _ 71 121-180 hard, >181 r.hard AMMONIA AS N mg/L Q50 RECOMMENDED <.05 MAXIMUM NITRITE AS N mg/I. 10 MAXIMUM <.005 ALLOWABLE NITRATE AS N mg/L 2.3 10.0 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DFTERGENIS mg/L 0.5 MAXIMUM <0.5 ALLOWABLE IRON mg/L 03 RECOMMENDED <0.10 MAXIMUM MANGANESE mg/L 050 RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM SODIUM mg/L 20 RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM COLIFORM BACTERIA 1/100m1 MAXIMUM 0/100 ml ALLOWABLE For the parameters analyzed, this is a satisfactory potable drinking water supply. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, 4ohn C. Burrell From: Phoenix Environmental Laboratories Inc. 587 E. Middle Turnpike, Box 418 Manchester, Ct. 06040 (203) 645-1102 Fax 645-0823 September 13, 1991 To: Michael Derewianka 11 Denver Road Manchester, CT 06040 The following analytical results have been obtained for the indicated sample which was submitted to this laboratory: Sample I.D. AA10720 Location code: SPECIAL Location Description: Water - Maple St. , S. Windsor Sample collector: M. DEREWIANKA Sample collection date: 08/30/91 Laboratory submittal date: 08/30/91 Time: 08:15 Received by: DB Validated by: BGB Parameter: pH Method reference: S423/E150.1 Result: 6.8 pH Units MDL or sensitivity: 1.0 Date started: 09/05/91 Date finished: 09/05/91 Time started: 17:23 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Alkalinity-Suter Matrix Method reference: S403/E310 .1 Result: 53 mg/L MDL or sensitivity: 10 Date started: 09/11/91 Date finished: 09/11/91 Time started: 10:29 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Hardness - Water Matrix Method reference: S314B/E130.2 Result: 83.3 mg/L MDL or sensitivity: 1.0 Date started: 09/11/91 Date finished: 09/11/91 Time started: 10:32 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Chloride-Water Matrix Method reference: S407B/E325 .3 Result: 26.8 mg/L MDL or sensitivity: 0. 1 Date started: 09/11/91 Date finished: 09/11/91 Time started: 10:24 Analyst: DMM Michael Derewianka Sample I.D. AA10720 (continued) Page: 2 September 13, 1991 Parameter: Color - Water Matrix Method reference: S204A/E110.2 Result: 4 Color Units MDL or sensitivity: 1 Date started: 09/12/91 Date finished: 09/12/91 Time started: 18:33 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Odor - Water Matrix Method reference: S207/140.1 Result: 2 T.O.N. Number MDL or sensitivity: 1 Date started: 09/12/91 Date finished: 09/12/91 Time started: 18:35 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Turbidity - Water Matrix Method reference: S214A/E180.1 Result: 1 NTU MDL or sensitivity: 0 Date started: 09/12/91 Date finished: 09/12/91 Time started: 18:37 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Nitrate - Water Matrix Method reference: S418C/E353.3 Result: 1.50 mg/L MDL or sensitivity: 0.01 Date started: 09/12/91 Date finished: 09/12/91 Time started: 17:40 Analyst: MCH Parameter: Nitrite - Water Matrix Method reference: S419/354.1 Result: 0.24 mg/L MDL or sensitivity: 0.01 Date started: 09/13/91 Date finished: 09/13/91 Time started: 16:24 Analyst: MCH Parameter: Ammonia - Water Matrix Method reference: S417/E350.2 Result: less than 0.05 mg/L Date started: 09/12/91 Date finished: 09/12/91 Time started: 18:26 Analyst: DMM Parameter: Iron-Water Matrix Method reference: 6010/E200.7 Result: less than 0.01 mg/L Date started: 09/10/91 Date finished: 09/10/91 Time started: 16:59 Analyst: DV Parameter: Total Coliforms Method reference: Result: 8 /100 mis. MDL or sensitivity: 0 Date started: 08/30/91 Date finished: 08/31/91 Time started: 15:31 Analyst: BGB Michael Derewianka Sample I.D. AA10720 (continued) Page: 3 September 13, 1991 Parameter: Manganese-Water Matrix Method reference: 6010/E200.7 Result: less than 0.01 mg/L Date started: 09/10/91 Date finished: 09/10/91 Time started: 16:59 Analyst: DV Parameter: Sodium-Water Matrix Method reference: 6010/E200.7 Result: 15. 00 mg/L MDL or sensitivity: 0. 10 Date started: 09/10/91 Date finished: 09/10/91 Time started: 16:59 Analyst: DV Parameter: MBAS - Water Matrix Method reference: S512B/E425.1 Result: less than 0.025 mg/L Date started: 09/10/91 Date finished: 09/10/91 Time started: 16:59 Analyst: DV Parameter: Total Metals Digest. H2O Matrix. Method reference: SW846 - 3005 Result: done Date started: 09/10/91 Date finished: 09/11/91 Time started: 09:26 Analyst: MR Parameter: Ethylene Dibromide-Water Matrix Method reference: E504 Result: less than 0. 05 ug/L Date started: 09/04/91 Date finished: 09/04/91 Time ,started: 17 :18 Analyst: RR Parameter: Radon Test Method reference: Result: 481 pCi/l . MDL or sensitivity: Date started: 09/12/91 Date finished: 09/12/91 Time started: 12:24 Analyst: LMZ Parameter: Quotation for Services - Total Method reference: Result: done Date started: 08/31/91 Date finished: 08/31/91 Time started: 09:57 Analyst: BGB Comments: 10,000 pCi/l in water releases approximately 1 pCi/l in air, the state action level for radon in air is 4 pCi/l. Sample represents an unpotable (not drinkable) supply, due to elevated levels of Coliform bacteria. Please see the enclosed information for further details. APWA- infoNOW communities Page 1 of 2 H �411 N` AT IFy R ftt s AV k wft Duty - - , j t E` • , Tuesday,August 07 Home About Us Advocacy Members Only Events Education Chapters Reporter Resource Center Jobs Operations Topic:Snow and Ice control Messages Author Date 1 Snow and,.Ice..con_trot Thomas Kelley 3/8/2006 9:47 AM 2 -Re:Snow and Ice control George Haines 3/8/2006 11:17 AM #1 Snow and Ice control REPLY TO COMMUNITY Posted By:Thomas Kelley on Print 3/8/2006 9:47:00 AM ,,_REPLY TO AUTHOR I am looking for an effective and more environmentally friendly alternative to rock salt.Each winter we apply approximately 6,500 tons of rock salt to address snow and ice conditions within our municipality.Our winter snow falls' range between 35 and 40 inches and we respond to approximately 35 snow and ice call outs.We are a densely populated residential community,and our roads are situated on hilly terrain,and we maintain 150 lane miles. Commission members and residents want safe streets,but complain about the damage that rock salt is doing to their lawns.We have tried to cut down on the use of salt,but because of the hill terrain we can't cut back too much.Does anyone out there have any proven alternatives to rock salt? Top of page #2 Re:Snow and Ice control REPLY TO COMMUNITY Posted By:George Haines on 3/8/2006 11:17:00 AM Print REPLY TO AUTHOR Check out the website for Ice Slicer,http://www.iceslicer.com/.We've been using it in Gillette,WY for almost 5 years now and we are extremely happy with its performance and believe it is very friendly to the environment compared to the alternatives.It is mined in Utah,so it is used mostly West of the Mississippi,although it is being used in New York, Pennsylvania,New Jersey,Michigan,and Illinois as well.We pay about$86/ton.Transportation charges may add to or lessen your costs.Since ours has to be trucked in it would cost more than if you have rail access.We average about 64 inches of snow and we use about 2500 tons a year for 500 lane miles,so you can use much less product compared to salt to get the same or better performance,since it also works at much lower temperatures and has a residual effect that aids us when we have back to back storms.Check out our City website at www.ci.gillette.wy.us,and click on Snow&Ice Control information.We have some brochures on-line that tell more about the materials we use.We also use a liquid material,Caliber M-1000 produced by Envirotech.We use it for anti-icing and for enhancing the Ice Slicer on occasion.Because Ice slicer is much less corrosive than rock salt and we can use less product,we have noticed no damage to lawns,trees,or other vegetation.We have done some tests and have not detected any chlorides.Of course,with any product containing chlorides,over application is possible,but we are now getting ground speed controls on all our plow trucks,so that possibility will be minimal from here on out. George Haines Public Works Director City of Gillette 611 N. Exchange Ave. Gillette,WY 82716 PH:(307)686-5320 FAX:(307)686-6564 george@ci.gillefte.wy.us http://www.apwa.net/infoNOW/read/index.asp?mode=readl&list=operations&MID=13880 8/7/2007 APWA - infoNOW communities Page 2 of 2 >>>tkelley@mtlebanon.org 3/8/2006 8:46 AM>>> ---To UNSUBSCRIBE, DO NOT HIT REPLY.All replies will be sent to the ENTIRE community.See the bottom of this message for more information-- I am looking for an effective and more environmentally friendly alternative to rock salt.Each winter we apply approximately 6,500 tons of rock salt to address snow and ice conditions within our municipality.Our winter snow falls' range between 35 and 40 inches and we respond to approximately 35 snow and ice call outs.We are a densely populated residential community,and our roads are situated on hilly terrain,and we maintain 150 lane miles. Commission members and residents want safe streets,but complain about the damage that rock salt is doing to their lawns.We have tried to cut down on the use of salt,but because of the hill terrain we can't cut back too much.Does anyone out there have any proven alternatives to rock salt? To unsubscribe,subscribe to additional communities,change your e-mail address or delivery options,or to search previous infoNOW postings,please visit http_//infonow.apwa.net or you may contact infoNOW support at infonow@apwa.net. You are currently subscribed to operations as:george@ci.gillette.wy.us To UNSUBSCRIBE via e-mail,DO NOT HIT REPLY--please send a BLANK email to the following e-mail address: leave-operations-241 5958[@infonow.apwa.net Top of page Related Links • infoNOW Home • Read.Messages By using the infoNOW communities,you agree to the terms of use. ©2007 American Public Works Association http://www.apwa.net/infoNOW/read/index.asp?mode=readl&list=operations&MID=13 880 8/7/2007 APWA-infoNOW communities Page 1 of 2 Jate saw at A E a. Tuesday,August 07 Home About Us Advocacy Members Only Events Education Chapters Reporter Resource Center Jobs Am Topic: Re:Snow and Ice control Posted George Haines on 3/8/2006 11:17:00 AM by: Message: Check out the website for Ice Slicer,http://www.iceslicer.com/.We've been using it in Gillette,WY for almost 5 years now and we are extremely happy with its performance and believe it is very friendly to the environment compared to the alternatives.It is mined in Utah,so it is used mostly West of the Mississippi, although it is being used in New York,Pennsylvania, New Jersey,Michigan,and Illinois as well.We pay about$86/ton.Transportation charges may add to or lessen your costs.Since ours has to be trucked in it would cost more than if you have rail access.We average about 64 inches of snow and we use about 2500 tons a year for 500 lane miles,so you can use much less product compared to salt to get the same or better performance,since it also works at much lower temperatures and has a residual effect that aids us when we have back to back storms.Check out our City website at www.ci.gillette.wy.us,and click on Snow &Ice Control information.We have some brochures on-line that tell more about the materials we use.We also use a liquid material,Caliber M-1000 produced by Envirotech.We use it for anti-icing and for enhancing the Ice Slicer on occasion.Because Ice slicer is much less corrosive than rock salt and we can use less product,we have noticed no damage to lawns,trees,or other vegetation.We have done some tests and have not detected any chlorides.Of course,with any product containing chlorides,over application is possible,but we are now getting ground speed controls on all our plow trucks,so that possibility will be minimal from here on out. George Haines Public Works Director City of Gillette 611 N.Exchange Ave. Gillette,WY 82716 PH:(307)686-5320 FAX:(307)686-6564 george@ci.gillefte.wy.us >>>tkelley@mtlebanon.org 3/8/2006 8:46 AM>>> --To UNSUBSCRIBE,DO NOT HIT REPLY.All replies will be sent to the ENTIRE community.See the bottom of this message for more information-- I am looking for an effective and more environmentally friendly alternative to rock salt.Each winter we apply approximately 6,500 tons of rock salt to address snow and ice conditions within our municipality.Our winter snow falls'range between 35 and 40 inches and we respond to approximately 35 snow and ice call outs.We are a densely populated residential community,and our roads are situated on hilly terrain,and we maintain 150 lane miles.Commission members and residents want safe streets,but complain about the damage that rock salt is doing to their lawns.We have tried to cut down on the use of salt,but because of the hill terrain we can't cut back too much.Does anyone out there have any proven alternatives to rock salt? To unsubscribe,subscribe to additional communities,change your e-mail address or delivery options,or to search previous infoNOW postings,please visit http://infonow.apwa.net or you may contact infoNOW support at infonow@apwa.net. You are currently subscribed to operations as:george@ci.gillette.wy.us To UNSUBSCRIBE via e-mail,DO NOT HIT REPLY--please send a BLANK email to the following e-mail address: leave-operations-24159581@infonow.apwa.net http://www.apwa.net/infoNOW/read/Print.asp?MID=13882 8/7/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 1 of 5 t Agencies Online Services Help Page Tools GO State Search: 11 1. ..., - *MaineDOT Contact MaineDOT I Home Working with MAINEDOT- Guide for Municipal Officials Maine Local Roads Center Road Salt Contamination Claims: Technical And Legal Issues Community Programs State Labor Rates Locally Administered (from Maine Townsman, November 2004) Projects By Keith Taylor, CG, Stratex, LLC, Gregory Cunningham, Esq., Bernstein Shur Maine's Transportation Sawyer & Nelson Systems Flagger Training Information Home Even during low snow winters such as our most recent one, Maine municipalities depend on salt to keep their roads safe for the public. Some have their own salt storage piles at the public works garage, while others use a private contractor to supply and/or treat the roads. The salt is usually mixed with sand and liberally spread on trouble spots such as hills and at busy intersections. Slick roads are particularly a problem in the more rural communities where the roads still have sharp curves and steep slopes inherited from the old horse and wagon paths of the past. Unfortunately, these rural areas are also known for their reliance on private water supply wells. Most municipalities are aware that salt leaching from storage piles can contaminate wells, but road runoff containing salt is also the source of contamination for many private wells. Legal claims by citizens against Maine municipalities for salt- contaminated wells are much more common than you might think. A Maine statute specifically addresses the process for filing such claims and describes the responsibilities of the municipality. These claims can cost thousands of dollars to simply assess their validity, even if the claim never goes to court. If the municipality is responsible, the costs for a new well, treatment, and/or other damages can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. It may be too late to avoid a claim if salt contaminated-ground water is already heading toward someone's well. However, this article should help you understand why the contamination occurs, how to deal with homeowner's claims, and what your legal responsibilities are. Road Salt Contamination The most well-known source of salt in ground water is salt storage piles. In the past, road salt was usually stored in large uncovered piles. Rain and snow falling on the pile dissolves the salt and carries http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 8n/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 2 of 5 it into the ground, where it enters the water table. Continued leaching of salt through time produces a "plume" of salty water that migrates away from the salt pile in the direction of ground water flow, which usually follows the slope of the land. If the migrating plume reaches a well, or is drawn toward the well because of pumping, the well becomes contaminated. These contamination plumes can be hundreds of feet long and therefore may contaminate a well for many years even after the salt pile is covered or removed. Because of the risk these salt piles posed to public and private ground water supplies, the Maine DEP completed a risk rating in 1986 of all known public and private road salt storage areas. As many readers may know, this priority list was to be used by the Maine DOT to direct funds for the construction of salt storage buildings. However, fund shortages prevented many buildings from being constructed, so the DEP updated the list in 2000 and identified a subset of salt piles that posed the greatest risk to ground water supplies. These high-risk sites remain eligible for funding from the DOT. Despite the construction of many new salt storage buildings, contamination still occurs from road salt that remains in the ground from previously uncovered salt storage piles, and from the direct application of salt to roads. Salt contamination from road applications is more difficult to predict and assess than from salt piles since the pathway of the salt to the well may not be obvious. In the simplest case, this type of contamination occurs when the road grade or drainage system channels the salty meltwater directly toward the well. However, road salt contamination can sometimes occur where this type of surface flow is not evident. The most common indicators of salt contamination are taste and corrosion or staining of plumbing fixtures. Other indicators of salt contamination include corrosion of water heater components and well pumps, stressed vegetation in the yard, and unhealthy houseplants. Homeowners typically will contact a local laboratory and have a sample tested for chloride and sodium. For uncontaminated wells in Maine, the average concentrations of chloride and sodium are 29 and 13 milligrams per liter (mg/L), respectively. Highly contaminated wells can show chloride and sodium concentrations between 500 and 1,000 mg/L. Elevated chloride in drinking water does not represent a health risk, but a Federal Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 250 mg/L is in place because of the taste and corrosion problems. Elevated sodium concentrations can pose a risk to those on a low sodium diet due to high blood pressure or other health problems, therefore the State has established a Maximum Exposure Guideline of 20 mg/L. There is no Federal drinking water standard for sodium. Other Sources of Salt Contamination It is important to note that there are other possible sources of salt contamination in a well. Modern seawater intrusion can contaminate http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_000.php 8/7/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 3 of 5 • r • t a well near the coastline. Trapped ancient seawater has been documented in Maine as a source of salty water in private wells. Septic system leachfield discharges can produce localized plumes of ground water high in salt under certain conditions. A detailed analysis of water quality, well construction, and site geology are needed to determine if any of these or any other alternative sources are the cause of elevated salt concentrations in a well. Legal Claims and Responsibilities of a Municipality Municipalities in Maine should be familiar with the specific statutory provisions that outline both the procedure for addressing road salt contamination claims and that define the scope of any liability arising from such contamination. In 1987 the Legislature enacted 23 M.R.S.A. § 3659, which creates a cause of action for any landowner whose private water supply located on his or her land has been "destroyed or rendered unfit for human consumption" by a municipality or other political subdivision. Arguably the impacts contemplated by section 3659 can include road salt contamination of private water supplies. A municipality is susceptible to liability under this provision if it has damaged a private water supply as a result of its construction or maintenance of a public highway under the municipality's jurisdiction. The State is also potentially liable for its acts of construction and maintenance that impact private water supplies located on land adjacent to state or state-aid highways, pursuant to a separate statutory provision. See 23 M.R.S.A. § 652. As a result, any claim must be analyzed closely to determine whether it involves either actions of the municipality, alleges actions taken on municipal roads, or both. Section 3659 places limitations on both the scope of liability and the damages that a municipality may confront in a road salt contamination case. Any damages claimed must be based on the lesser of (a) the difference between the fair market value of the property before the private water supply was impacted and its fair market value thereafter or (b) the cost to cure any damage to the private water supply. A municipality will not be liable if the private water supply is located within the road right of way, if the location of the private water supply does not provide for adequate surface drainage (unless the surface drainage problems were as a result of the municipality's actions in constructing or maintaining the road), or if the private water supply was contaminated by another source prior to the municipality's work on the road. Road salt contamination claims have their own notice and settlement procedures as well. Because the cause of action created by section 3659 is a statutory exception to the Maine Tort Claims Act, municipalities must be mindful that the less common road salt contamination claim procedure must be followed. The statute requires that the landowner apply in writing to the municipality for a determination of the cause of the unfit private water supply and an assessment of damages resulting from it. This application must http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 8/7/2007 Road Salt Claims Page 4 of 5 • q be filed within two years after completion of the roadwork at issue and must set forth specific information relative to the private land at issue and its owner, and must describe both the damage and the perceived cause of that damage. The triggering of this limitations period for filing claims is the date of the completion of the work as documented in the records of the municipality. The municipality is obligated to respond within 90 days of receipt of the application. A timely response to the claim is critical, as a one-year statute of limitations for filing a claim in superior court begins to run as of the municipality's response. This response must either deny responsibility or propose an offer of settlement. The statute suggests that the municipality consider remedies that include replacing the water supply (as well as any piping, tanks, pumps, heating systems or related fixtures that were impacted), repairing the damage to the water supply, or offering to either purchase the affected property or to pay a monetary settlement. Should the municipality deny responsibility, the landowner's recourse is to file suit against the municipality in the superior court of the county in which the land is located within one year after receiving the municipality's response. A court-appointed referee thereafter hears and rules upon the landowner's claims. How to Assess Contamination Claims It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate that the municipality is responsible for road salt contamination of their well. Most claims are based on one or more laboratory reports provided by the homeowner. However, as discussed earlier, there are a variety of mechanisms for wells to become contaminated and different sources for salt contamination. Before assuming responsibility, a municipality should seek the advice of an environmental professional experienced in ground water contamination. Additional sampling or other investigations may be necessary to assess the claim and evaluate the possible remedies. Options for Settling Claims Road salt contamination in ground water can take years to dissipate even after the source of contamination has been removed. Removing the contaminated ground water would be very expensive and impractical. Therefore, if a municipality assumes responsibility, and assuming public water is not available in the area, there are three primary options for settling road salt contamination claims: 1) modifying the existing well, 2) installing a new well, or 3) installing a water treatment system. In some cases, an existing well can be modified to seal off the water-bearing fractures in the rock that are the source of the salt. However, geologic investigations may be necessary to determine if this approach is feasible. A new well is the simplest solution since it represents a one-time cost for the municipality. One possible complication is if there isn't a suitable http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 8n12007 Road Salt Claims Page 5 of 5 S location on the property for a new well. This situation can arise when the salt contamination is found to be present throughout the property, or setback limitations are present due to property lines or septic systems. An easement on an adjacent property may be necessary under these circumstances. Installation of a water treatment system is always feasible but is expensive. Annual maintenance and electricity costs will be significant and represent a long-term responsibility of the municipality. Summary Road salt contamination claims against municipalities are more common in Maine than you may think. Despite the covering of many salt piles, groundwater contamination may still exist or could be generated from road salting. However, other sources of salt contamination in wells do exist. Salt contamination generally does not present a health threat, but can result in damaged plumbing fixtures and make the water unusable. A Maine statute outlines the procedures for making claims against a municipality and how a municipality is to respond. Because the legal and technical costs for settling claims can be high, Maine municipalities should be familiar with the technical and legal implications of road salt contamination claims. Privacy Policy I Organizational Chart I Site Map I For Technical Problems,Contact the MaineDOT Webmaster http://www.maine.gov/mdot/community-programs/roadsaltclaims_OOO.php 8/7/2007 AQ SYNTHESES OF BEST PRACTICES ROAD SALT MANAGEMENT Transportation Association of Canada Association des transports du Canada 1 .0 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS zy INTRODUCTION their pursuit of best management practices and the preparation of salt management plans. The framework follows an environment management system (EMS) In Canada, over$1 billion is spent annually on winter approach. maintenance to keep roads safe and passable.Snow and ice control is a key part of winter maintenance op- A successful Salt Management Plan is based on the erations.Road salts(particularly sodium chloride)are following principles: the preferred deicing/anti-icing chemicals for maintain- ing winter roadway safety because of their cost,effec- • It is grounded in policy with guiding principles—set tiveness,and ease of handling.Road salt(particularly and endorsed at the highest level in the organiza- calcium chloride)is also used to control dust on gravel tion. roads and construction sites during dry weather. Ex- ■ It is activity based, with each activity being as- cessive use of salt can have environmental impacts. sessed at the outset against clearly established Recognizing their responsibility to the environment, standards and/or objectives to determine how they many road authorities across Canada are taking posi- can be carried out with minimal environmental im- tive actions towards implementing salt best manage- pact. ment practices. The Transportation Association of Canada has published a Salt Management Guide and a • Deficiencies in current operations are identified and series of Syntheses of Best Practices to assist road corrective action established and implemented. authorities as they find ways to more effectively man- age their salt used in winter maintenance and provide the public with the safe and efficient road systems they CONTENTS expect,while minimizing effects on the environment. The amount of salt used is a function of local policies, Introduction 1 practices, roadway system, funding constraints and Objectives of a Salt Management Plan 2 weather conditions.Because of the variability of condi- Commitment and Policy 2 tions across Canada,salt management initiatives need to be developed and implemented locally by each road Guiding Principles 2 authority. Road authorities should be responsible for Framework for a Salt Management Plan 3 developing their own salt management plans.This frame- Conclusion 5 work has been developed to support road authorities in September 2003 Syntheses of Best Practices Road Salt Management 1.0 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS ■ Required actions are documented in policies and responsible and accountable for the implementation of procedures and communicated throughout the or the agencys salt management plan should be appointed gani ation. Road agencies should establish a clearroad salt man ■ Activities are recorded,monitored,audited and re agement policy endorsed at the highest level of the or ported periodically to assess progress and identify gani ation. areas forfurtherimprovement. GUIDING PRINCIPLES ■ Gaps between actions and desired outcomes are The salt management plan should be grounded in the identified and corrective actions are developed and following principles implemented,with necessary modifications being made to policies and procedures and appropriate i Safety— n recognition of the importance of effec training. tive winter maintenance to the safety of roadway ■ The cycle begins again and continues on an ongo users and maintenance crews, the development ing basis in the spirit of continual improvement. and implementation of the salt management plan Figure 1 illustrates the process. will ma a safety the overriding priority. ii Environmental protection— n recognition of the OBJECTIVE OFA SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN adverse effects that a cessive use of road salt can have on the environment,the salt management plan An agency salt management plan will provide the ve will strive to minimi a the amount of road salt en hicle through which each agency commits to implement tering the environment. ing salt best management practices as it fulfills its obli gation to provide safe,efficient and cost effective road N Continual improvement—Different roadway authori way systems. The Plan should contain best manage ties within Canada are at different stages of imple ment practices to protect the environment from the nega mentation of salt best management practices salt tive impacts of road salts. The Plan should apply to all BMPs. The cost of moving towards salt BMPs wintermaintenance personnel—both staff and hired re can be high,and changes must be phased in over sources contractors. time. Therefore the salt management plan must recogni a that change will be incremental and on COMMITMENT&POLICY going. To be effective, the senior management of an agency iv Fiscal responsibility—The salt management plan must commit to developing,implementing and updating will need to be within the financial capabilities of its salt management plan. A senior manager who is each road authority. y I I Rmkw iS+�i�m�nlatiaa� 9 I Ii II 'I Figure 1 '�_„�7+ 2 September 2003 ' s Syntheses of Best Practices 1.0 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS Road Salt Management v Efficient transportation systems— n recognition of On Road Use: the importance of efficient roadway transportation to Canada's economy and quality of life,develop ■ Type and amount of chloride free a point depres ment and implementation of the salt management sant used all sources including solids,liquids,and plan will to a into account the effects on transpor abrasive mi es tation system performance. ■ Type and amount of non chloride free a point de vi Accountability—Each road authority must be re pressant used all sources including solids,liquids, sponsible and accountable for developing and im and abrasive mi es plementing its salt management plan. ■ Current application rate for each type of material vii Measurable Progress— ndicators must be devel ■ Percentage of fleet with pre wetting oped to ensure that progress on implementing the salt management plans can be trac ed and re ■ Percentage of fleet with liquid only applications viewed. ■ Percentage of fleet with electronic spreader con vN Agency based—The plans must be developed and trols implemented by each road agency rather than be ■ umber of road weather information systems centrally driven. RW S installations i Communication—A communication plan must be ■ umber of other surface temperature measuring developed forcommunicating internally and a ter devices hand held or vehicle mounted nally with ey sta eholders. ■ se of dedicated pavement and or atmospheric nowledgeable and S filled Wor force—The plans forecasting must include regular,comprehensive and effective training for managers,supervisors and operators. Salt Vulnerable Areas: FRAMEWORK FORA SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN ■ ocations of salt vulnerable areas Each road authority should develop and implement its ■ Description of wintermaintenance practices in the own salt management plan incorporating the guiding vidnityofsalt vulnerable areas e.g.alternate treat principles set out in this framewor . The plan should be ment results oriented and contain the following elements. 1. Salt Management Policy and Objectives Examples of Possible Salt Vulnerable Areas The road authority should adopt a salt management policy ■ Groundwaterrecharge areas that commits the organi ation to measurable improve ■ Areas with a posed orshallow watertables ments in its salt management practices. with medium to high permeability soils ■ Sources of drin ing water The cornerstone of an effective plan is a clearsalt ■ Salt sensitive vegetative communities management policy endorsed by senior manage ■ Salt sensitive wetlands ment and communicated to the organi ation. ■ Small ponds la es 2. Situational Analysis ■ Rivers with low flows An inventory of current practices must be established ■ Salt sensitive agricultural areas to form a benchmar against which progress can be ■ Salt sensitive habitats forspecies at ris measured. t should contain consistent elements to allow the transportation community to measure and trac Sand and Salt Storage Sites: progress in managing the amount of road salt being placed into the environment on a national basis. The ■ umber and capacity of storage sites following elements may be considered in an overall ■ Percentage ofsand salt piles covered and type of situational analysis cover September 2003 3 �, Syntheses of Best Practices Road Salt Management 1.0 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS ■ Percentage of indoorloading The documentation should be aimed at introducing best ■ Management of drainage from sand salt mi piles salt management practices with both in house and out sourced operations. ■ evels of environmental indicators e.g. chloride levels TAC's Salt Management Guide and Syntheses of Best Practices can be used to supplement in house proce ■ Percentage of salt in winter sand dures and other available documentation on best man ■ Percentage of sites with washwater treatment agement practices. ■ E istence of a good house eeping policy,and ad herence to the policy Policies, procedures and guidelines should be clearly documented and communicated through Snow Disposal Sites: out the organ ation. ■ umberand capacity of disposal sites permanent and ortemporary 4. Proposed Approaches ■ evels of environmental indicators e.g, chloride levels Salt management plans should have cleartas s,sched ules with milestones, budget considerations and as ■ Percentage of disposal sites with water manage signed responsibilities for implementing best salt man ment systems agement practices. The plans should deal with fourar ■ Conformance with a isting environmental standards eas of concern—general road use,salt use in salt vul forsnow disposal sites nerable areas,salt storage,and snow storage and dis ■ E istence of a good house eeping policy and ad posa/. herence to the policy The plan can be developed by comparing current prac Training: tices to best management practices and documenting the gaps. The salt management plan should then focus ■ Percentage and frequency of staff receiving train on closing these gaps. The plan should include pre ing in best salt management practices bro en down season,in season and post season actions to be to en into categories e.g. managers,supervisors and to reduce the adverse impacts of road salts. t should operators also include consideration of equipment,labour,mated als and the local climate. 3. Documentation Although not all salt management techniques are appli Each road authority should have documented policies, cable to all regions of Canada, the salt management procedures and guidelines in the following areas plan should considerstrategies forintroducing best prac ■ eve/of service foreach roadway type tices in the four areas of concern. ■ Salt and sand application rates Where specific technologies are inappropriate,the fact that they were considered and determined to be inap ■ Managed sand and salt storage propriate should be a plained in the plan. The plans ■ Good house eeping practices for maintenance should be results oriented and measurable with proper yards consistent with TAC's Design and Operation commitment of funding and personnel to ensure suc of Road Maintenance Yards Synthesis of BestPrac cessful implementation. tices The other TAC Syntheses of Best Practices will assist ■ Equipment calibration re calibration road authorities in assessing these practices. ■ Training 5. Training ■ Snow disposal uman behaviour is predicated upon attitudes based ■ ncorporationofsalt management consideration into on nowledge and a perience. Changes in approach road design and construction require changes in behaviour.A successfully managed ■ Salt vulnerable areas salt strategy requires changes in procedures,practices VAS 4 September 2003 Syntheses of Best Practices 1.0 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS Road Salt Management and equipment. Success also requires acceptance of Where there are nown releases to the environment the new approaches by managers,supervisors and op being monitored e.g.stormwateroutfalls,waterinta es, erators.Each salt management plan should therefore water treatment plants,monitoring wells,material stor include a comprehensive education program that deco age sites orsnow disposal sites,then these data should onstrates the value of new procedures and ensures that be included in the annual progress report. personnel are competent in delivering the new program. The Training Synthesis of Best Practice provides guid Each plan should include monitoring of progress, ance on developing a salt management training program. analysis and reporting of the results to senior man The public must also be educated on proposed initia agement tives and on their role in ad usting driver behaviour to roadway conditions. Each road authority should have a 7. Management Review program for informing the public of winter maintenance practices. Each year,senior management within each administra tion should review the results of the previous year's salt Each plan should include a training plan to ensure management actions to confirm that the plan is achiev that wor ers have the necessary s ills and now ing the desired results and toad ust the ne t year's salt ledge to implement the plan effectively. management plan to respond to shortcomings and new opportunities. Policies and procedures should be up dated priorto the ne t snow and ice control season and 6. Monitoring,Record Keeping,Reporting communicated to management and operational person &Analysis nel. Progress on implementation of the salt management This review should be integrated into the budgetary proc plan can only be confirmed by trac ing specific indica ess to permit timely acquisitions of new equipment and tors and comparing these to the baseline that was to identify other funding needs. benchmar ad at the outset of the program. Progress on implementation of the salt management Each salt management plan should assign responsbbel plan should be communicated to senior management, ity for monitoring and reporting on implementation of local politicians,staff and the public. the plan. These results should be reported annually to the senior a ecutive responsible for the salt manage Each road authority should have an annual review ment plan. by senior management to confirm that progress is The monitoring and record eeping system should docu being made, and that corrective action is to an ment and assess the indicators identified in the when necessary. situational analysis. Where there are new issues or activities being implemented as part of the salt man CONCLUSION agement plan, new monitoring initiatives may be re quired.Any changes from the baseline established in Effective road salt management requires dedication to the situational analysis need to be analy ad to assess adopting,implementing and refining best management the degree of progress being made. The analysis should practices. This is not an easy tas . t will require a long- also to a into account the type of wintere perienced to term vision,senior management support,dedicated re ensure that realistic conclusions are being drawn. For sources, adequate and regular training,perseverance, e ample, an increase in salt use may be due to an continual innovation and improvement,and an ability to unusually severe winterratherthan the failure of a plan. deal with changing organ ational culture and attitudes. Similarly,a reduction in salt use maybe due to a milder t cannot be rushed.Public safety must be maintained than normal winter rather than the successful imple as best management practices are implemented.Per mentation of a plan. Therefore the analysis must be sonnel at all levels of the organi ation will need to be sufficiently in depth to account for these variances. trained and educated so that ma imum benefits are re ali ad. September 2003 5 VAN! Syntheses of Best Practices Road Salt Management 1.0 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS Acknowledgements This Synthesis of Best Practice was made possible This document is the product ofa pro ect conducted with funding provided by fourteen agencies. TAC on behalf of the Chief Engineers'Council under the gratefully ac nowledges the following sponsors for supervision of a pro ect steering committee com theirgenerous contributions to the pro ect. prised of pro ect sponsors and volunteermembers. TAC than s all the committee members who con Alberta Transportation tributed their time and effort to the pro ect. City of Calgary City of Ottawa City of Sas atoon City of Toronto City of Winnipeg Environment Canada Manitoba Transportation and Government Services Minist re des Transports du u bec ew Brunswic Department of Transportation ova Scotia Transportation and Public Wor s Salt nstitute Sas atchewan ighways and Transportation Transportation Association of Canada Transport Canada St.Blvd., Ottawa, Canada 1 G Tel. 1 1 Principal Consultant Fa 1 1 9 Ecoplans imited www.tac-atc.ca WAS 6 September 2003 � k 10 41 N Sf07 O m � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 6, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0055 Mr. James Kephart 23 Maple Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Kephart, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. Your water meets guidelines for all parameters tested for with the exception of sodium which is slightly elevated. The Recommended guide line for sodium is 28 milligrams per liter (Mg/L). Your sodium reading was 40 Mg/L. This does not render your water non-potable. If any users of the supply are on a low salt or no salt diet, they should consult their physician regarding this result. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, U -"j Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Iftel J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION N0. ACCOUNT NO. 14,124''IS1 IPAGE Department of Public Health t Division of Laboratory services NR:K6 22368529 S06074 10 1 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR S Hartford, CT 06144 KEPHANTD CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 23 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/18/07 TOWN HALL 11:10 12:55 14:31 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) i i SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: DEPTULA, TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL DATE/TIME ANALYZED ( 5/16/07 1335 ANALYZED BY LM/EG ANALYTICAL METHOD ; COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 2 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR I *** APPARENT COLOR ' 4 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY l <0.2 PH 1 6.3 AMMONIA <0.05 *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 52 HARDNESS 71 CHLORIDE 90 NITRATE/NITRITE ; 1.4 -.IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 40 SULFATES,COMPLEX 29. CALCIUM 31 NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET I *** CONTINUED *** ORIGINAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO.I ACCOUNT NO. AGES PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:K6 22368529 S06074 0 2 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR rwesr �'mS Hartford, CT 06144 KEPHANTD CONK. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 23 MAPLE ST TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SULLIVAN AVE 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/18/07 TOWN HALL 11:10 12:55 14:31 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) MAGNESIUM I 6.3 I I i i ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL 10C (d To� apslou� d&uaot Sf4 0 tz' a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SORTO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 3, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0024 Foster Philip &Stephanie Anne Lamm 56 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lamm, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. As you are aware from our recent conversation, all parameters tested for met guidelines with the exception of chloride and sodium. The notification level for chloride is 250 milligrams per liter (Mg/L) and for sodium it is 28 Mg/L. The chlorides in your well water were 330 Mg/L and the sodium was 59 Mg/L. Exceedence of these notification levels do not render your water non-potable. If any users of the supply are on a no salt or low salt diet you may want to consult with your physician regarding these elevated results. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Deptu a, R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations fft el J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works t r STATE OF CONNIsCTICUT I.D. ACCESS(ONNO, ACCOUNT NO, AGE S PAGE Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:L5 22368530 IS06074 10 1 1 11 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132SOUTH WINDSOR .•a.N„ � Hartford, CT 06144 LAMM CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 56 CLINTON DR TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPORTED 1540 SUILIVAN AVE 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/18/07 TOWN HALL 10:55 12:55 14:39 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: DEPTULA TITLE: RS ' PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/16/07 1335 ANALYZED BY LM/EG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF, TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) I 1 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR *** APPARENT COLOR 4 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY I 0.37 PH I 6.4 AMMONIA <0.05 *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 82 HARDNESS 170 CHLORIDE 330 NITRATE/NITRITE 3.9 IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 59 SULFATES,COMPLEX 28. CALCIUM 76 NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET *** CONTINUED *** ORIGINAL r S0YIN Sfq rl * ti w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 3, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0003 9803 0031 Frederick & Cheryl Gerber 24 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gerber, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. As you-are aware from our recent conversation, all parameters tested for met guidelines. Sodium, at 28 milligrams per liter (Mg/L) is right at the 28 Mg/L notification level. This does not render your water non-potable. If any users of the supply are on a low salt or no salt diet, you may want to consult your physician regarding this result. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, RobefCSe ` #P— p Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Mhael ). Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT I.D. ACCESSION NO.I ACCOUNT NO. AGE S PAGE 1 Department of Public Health Division of Laboratory Services NR:G2 22368913 IS06074 101 11 10 Clinton St. INFORMATION P.O. Box 1689 132S. WINDSOR P�'axsr ' � Hartford, CT 06144 GERBER CONN. CLINICAL TESTING LICENSE# CL-0197 24 CLINTON DR TELEPHONE: (860)509-8500 S. WINDSOR CT 06074 ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN COLLECTED RECEIVED REPO HAPORTED ' 1540SULLIVANLLIVAN AVE 05/31/07 06/01/07 07/16/07 TOWN HALL SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:05 03:04 09:12 REPORT FINAL REPORT COMMENT TEST(S) RESULT(S) I SAMPLING POINT: TAP I COLLECTOR: RD TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL *** DATE/TIME ANALYZED i 5/31/07 1555 ANALYZED BY I RG/JP ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT MMO-MUG FLUORESCENCE TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML *** APPARENT COLOR 4 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY <0.2 PH 6.8 AMMONIA <0.05 *** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 64. HARDNESS 120 CHLORIDE 72 NITRATE 1.4 NITRITE <0.05 ZINC <0.04 IRON I <0.04 MANGANESE 1 <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 28 ------ ** END OF REPORT ** ORIGINAL SOWN Se4 F Town O-P S-0-a;(A vl�u� s � w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR.CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 3, 2007 Katherine & Gregory Cordeira 64 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Cordeira, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. Your well water meets guidelines for all parameters tested for. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, RWbeDeglarR.S., Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations I(Wael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT �����stor�.;t�t�-:.;:: �c.:::::;� .� NR:C4 22368531 IS06074 0 1 Department of Public Health Laboratory Clinical Testing License:CL-0197 10 Clinton St. 132SOUTH WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 CONDENE Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 64 CLINTON DR SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/18/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:45 12:55 09:28 ................... FINAL REPORT :.:.:.::::::::.....................:..:::::::::::::::::::::..::::.:................................................................ .).:..............:.::::.:::::::...........::::.:::::.::;:;...............::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:;::::.:::::;:::::.::::::::. ....:.::::: SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: DEPTULA, A TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL ** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/16/07 1335 ANALYZED BY LM/EG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 1 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR ** APPARENT COLOR 0 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY <0.2 PH 6.9 AMMONIA <0.05 ** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 110 HARDNESS 110 CHLORIDE 54 NITRATE/NITRITE 2.0 NITRATE RESULT IS TOTAL NITRATE AND NITRITE IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT 16 SULFATES,COMPLEX 18. CALCIUM 59 *** CONTINUED *** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 SOW N Sf4 Wow O-P sou� ?d&U&Ot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 soR-co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 3, 2007 Gretchen Bickford 53 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Bickford, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. Your well water meets guidelines for all parameters tested for. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert P Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations jiael 1. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT NR:G2 22368533 506074 0 1 Department of Public Health Laboratory :•:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::..:....:..::::.::::::•::<:::>::<>:>::>>:::>::>:<:»>::>::>::::>::>::»::»::: Clinical Testing - N > G tm License:CL 0197 g 10 Clinton St. 132SOUTH WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 BECKFORD Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 53 CLINTON DR SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE .......:.::::::.:::::::. TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/25/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:15 12:55 08:57 .......................... :':;;;:ilk)3KttT`• > >> IffE > ? .;; FINAL REPORT SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: DEPTULA, A TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL ** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/16/07 1335 ANALYZED BY LM/EG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 25 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR ** APPARENT COLOR 3 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY 0.20 PH 7.6 AMMONIA <0.05 ** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 110 HARDNESS 110 CHLORIDE 19 NITRATE/NITRITE 2.0 RESULT IS TOTAL NITRATE AND NITRITE IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT <1 SULFATES,COMPLEX <10.SAMPLE DONE PAST HOLDING TIME CALCIUM 42 *** CONTINUED *** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT :::<:>:::>::::::::::.:.:..:::;:.;:.;:.:::.;;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:;; tsstora.;e+€>:.:.;: ,±ccur! c ::>; c:::<:»; ,;>::;:.::» �, NR:G2 22368533 S06074 0 2 Department of Public Health Laboratory >::>::>::...S ...:......:.:.:....;.:..:•::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:. zm�' Clinical Testin License:CL-0197 g `. 10 Clinton St. 132SOUTH WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 BECKFORD Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 53 CLINTON DR SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/25/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:15 12:55 08:57 FINAL REPORT <> ' ......................... ................................................................:................. 1 SU#T .................................................................................:............................................................. .... NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET MAGNESIUM 7.3 ------ ** END OF REPORT ** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 I ' ,SOW N SFq Town O-P S-0-fdA ?dZad4ot wG 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 i I August 3, 2007 Ms. Budarz 63 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Budarz, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. As you are aware from a previous conversation and written communication (copy enclosed), total coliform bacteria was present in your well water. If you have chlorinated your well as discussed, I can resample it for you to be analyzed again for bacteria. Please inform me if you would like a resample. Your water met all chemical parameters tested for. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, P Robert a eu , Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations Gael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT ..... .: . ::::::......:::.::::::..:.:::::.:..:::::::,:::.:...... NR:B3 22368532 506074 0 1 Department of Public Health Laboratory :..:............ .......... :::::::::::.:::.:::::::::::::::: Clinical T stirs »:::.>I .... e ..Li cense:CL g 0197 10ClintonSt. 132SOUTH WINDSOR ' P.O.Box 1689 BODERS Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 63 CLINTON DR SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE •.......:....:.....::...:.....:::.:::::::::::::::::::::....::::::::::..::::.._:::.::•:... TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/19/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:35 12:55 09:28 FINAL REPORT SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL ** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/16/07 1335 ANALYZED BY LM/EG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM PRESENT ** PER 100 ML DOUBLE STARRED RESULTS (**) DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE USEPA NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS. ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 8 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR ** APPARENT COLOR 1 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY <0.2 PH 7.0 AMMONIA <0.05 ** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 120 HARDNESS 130 CHLORIDE 52 NITRATE/NITRITE 2.8 NITRATE RESULT IS TOTAL NITRATE AND NITRITE IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 *** CONTINUED *** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT ACCf 5SiO3 '.Ni}{:::::'s .;.::. :: ::... ' NR:B3 22368532 S06074 0 2 Department of Public Health Laboratory ::<;:.....::»::>::>:>::>;>::>::::;::»::> Clinical Testing License:CL-0197 10 Clinton St. 132SOUTH WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 BODERS Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 63 CLINTON DR SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/19/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:35 12:55 09:28 .......................... ;: FINAL REPORT :•::ass::»;::;::>::»::;.::<>. ss;:»:::::•::•>;:<>s:.;:::::.::•:; SODIUM, DIRECT 16 SULFATES,COMPLEX 19. SAMPLE DONE PAST HOLDING TIME CALCIUM 67 NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET MAGNESIUM 6.2 ** END OF REPORT ** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 9� �O.N N SF4 Y Town Aso-A � w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 x co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 August 3, 2007 Karen Steele 45 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Steele, Enclosed is a copy of your well water analysis conducted at the State Health Department laboratory. Your well water meets guidelines for all parameters tested for. If you have any questions please contact me at the South Windsor Town Hall at 644-2511 ext. 248. Yours truly, Robert Deptul , R.S. Environmental Health Officer RD/cm CC: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations chael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works STATE OF CONNECTICUT >:::>:>:>:::<:::..: ....:::.;:.::.::<.>:.;:.:.:.:;.:.;:.;: c ora:;t o.;.;::: ..... u r: € :; c:....:.;;;......:::>::::::::.... 1 Department of Public Health Laboratory NR:51 223 68534 S06074 0 Clinical Testing C L-License: 0197 10 Clinton St. 132SOUTH WINDSOR ` P.O.Box 1689 STEEL Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 45 CLINTON SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE •:.............................:.�::::::::::::::::::::::.:.;::::;:::::;::::::::::.::::;:. TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/25/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:05 12:55 08:57 FINAL REPORT :•;:•>: :;;;;•>:.:;::>:>;::>:::><.:;:.;:.>:<: SAMPLING POINT: TAP COLLECTOR: DEPTULA TITLE: RS PRIVATE WELL ** DATE/TIME ANALYZED 5/16/07 1335 ANALYZED BY LM/EG ANALYTICAL METHOD COLILERT / PLATE COUNT TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML CONF. TOTAL COLIFORM ABSENT PER 100 ML ESCHERICHIA COLI ABSENT PER 100 ML HPC (POUR PLATE) 1 CFU/ML 35 DEGREE C/48 HOUR ** APPARENT COLOR 3 TRUE COLOR TRUE COLOR LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO APPARENT COLOR. ODOR 0 TURBIDITY <0.2 PH 8.2 AMMONIA <0.05 ** UNITS: MG/L UNLESS NOTED ALKALINITY 58 HARDNESS 66 CHLORIDE 15 NITRATE/NITRITE 1.7 RESULT IS TOTAL NITRATE AND NITRITE NITRITE <0.05 IRON <0.04 MANGANESE <0.04 SODIUM, DIRECT <1 SULFATES,COMPLEX <10. SAMPLE DONE PAST HOLDING TIME *** CONTINUED *** FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 STATE OF CONNECTICUT NR:51 22368534 .S06074' 0 2 Department of Public Health Laboratory : :;»::»::»»»»::>::.:.;...:..:...:•:::....:..:•: .......... Clinical Tf% k1£3C estmg License:CL 0197 ::::>s#:: ::?>:>:>::>:i::>;::%:<:::#>:`•>... :::::::.�:.�::......................::::..::•::::::•.�:::::.�::::::•::::•::•. 10 Clinton St. 132SOUTH WINDSOR P.O.Box 1689 STEEL Hartford,CT 06144 Telephone(860)509-8500 45 CLINTON SOUTH WINDSOR CT ROBERT DEPTULA, SANITARIAN 1540 SULLIVAN AVE �:........:.:...................:.:::::::.::::::::::::::..:.�:::::.�::::::::::::::.:::::. TOWN HALL 05/16/07 05/16/07 07/25/07 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 10:05 12:55 08:57 .......................... ................. .;; FINAL REPORT CALCIUM 24 NOT ALL QC CRITERIA MET MAGNESIUM 3.7 ------ ** ** END OF REPORT FORM NO. OL-6A REV.3-00 100 Mike Gantick RE' operations digest July 18, 2007 Page 1 From: "Bard Lower"<Brlower@springsgov.com> To: <gantic@southwindsor.org> Date: 7/19/07 8:40AM Subject: RE: operations digest:July 18, 2007 1 worked for the Michigan DOT for a lot of years and the only time this was found (that I can remember)was back before there were salt domes (25-30 years ago)and they has some problems near the salt storage location. I've never heard of regular street operations causing this problem. Bard Lower -----Original Message----- From: bounce-operations-2151351@infonow.apwa.net [mailto:bounce-operations-2151351 @infonow.apwa.net] On Behalf Of Operations digest Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:00 PM To: operations digest recipients Subject: operations digest: July 18, 2007 ---To UNSUBSCRIBE, DO NOT HIT REPLY.All replies will be sent to the ENTIRE community. See the bottom of this message for more information OPERATIONS Digest for Wednesday, July 18, 2007. 1. Road Salt Impacts on Domestic Wells 2. RE: Road Salt Impacts on Domestic Wells -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Road Salt Impacts on Domestic Wells From: <gantic@southwindsor.org> Date:Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:10:38-0500 X-Message-Number: 1 This past winter we finally made the transition to using only pure salt and the product ClearLane for treating our roads during winter conditions. We spread the materials in keeping with noted industry application rate standards.We received a complaint from one resident that had their well water tested and found elevated levels of sodium and chlorides. Subsequent testing showed reduced levels of both constituents. The conditions of frost, application rates,well location do not seem to correlate to the Town's application of salt being the culprit, but we are keeping an open mind and looking at wether to develop differat application rates for areas with domestic wells. Has anyopne else found there to be a problem of and/or direct link to well contamination from salting operations? If so could you share your experiences and methodology used to evaluate your situation?Thanks. Michael J. Gantick. P.E. Director of Public Works ;Mike Gantick- RE operations digest July 18, 2007 Pa e 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Road Salt Impacts on Domestic Wells From: "Tony Hayes"<THAYES@town.fal mouth.me.us> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:19:08-0400 X-Message-Number: 2 Your state DOT would be a good resource I imagine. If not Maine MDOT may be of help.They have specialists for this problem. -----Original Message----- From: bounce-operations-137419@infonow.apwa.net [mailto:bounce-operations-1 3741 9@infonow.apwa.net] On Behalf Of gantic@southwindsor.org Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:11 PM To: Operations Subject: [operations] Road Salt Impacts on Domestic Wells ---To UNSUBSCRIBE, DO NOT HIT REPLY.All replies will be sent to the ENTIRE community. See the bottom of this message for more information This past winter we finally made the transition to using only pure salt and the product ClearLane for treating our roads during winter conditions.We spread the materials in keeping with noted industry application rate standards.We received a complaint from one resident that had their well water tested and found elevated levels of sodium and chlorides. Subsequent testing showed reduced levels of both constituents.The conditions of frost, application rates,well location do not seem to correlate to the Town's application of salt being the culprit, but we are keeping an open mind and looking at wether to develop differat application rates for areas with domestic wells. Has anyopne else found there to be a problem of and/or direct link to well contamination from salting operations? If so could you share your experiences and methodology used to evaluate your situation?Thanks. Michael J. Gantick. P.E. Director of Public Works To unsubscribe, subscribe to additional communities, change your e-mail address or delivery options, or to search previous infoNOW postings, please visit http://infonow.apwa.net or you may contact infoNOW support at infonow@apwa.net. You are currently subscribed to operations as: thayes@town.falmouth.me.us To UNSUBSCRIBE visit http://www.apwa.net/unsubscribe.asp?ID=3Dl37419 END OF DIGEST APWA -infoNOW communities Page 1 of 1 ,/, jal r Man"*Accamd Ar M Wednesday,July 18 Home About Us Advocacy Members Only Events Education Chapters Reporter Resource Center Jobs NIANkIsAks wur— AIRI .. J19101 NAVaN:ANft 8PPf3fFc&KING 6N THE WIN Topic: Road Salt Impacts on Domestic Wells Posted Michael Gantick on 7/18/2007 1:11:00 PM by: Message: This past winter we finally made the transition to using only pure salt and the product Clearl-ane for treating our roads during winter conditions.We spread the materials in keeping with noted industry application rate standards.We received a complaint from one resident that had their well water tested and found elevated levels of sodium and chlorides.Subsequent testing showed reduced levels of both constituents.The conditions of frost,application rates,well location do not seem to correlate to the Town's application of salt being the culprit,but we are keeping an open mind and looking at wether to develop differat application rates for areas with domestic wells.Has anyopne else found there to be a problem of and/or direct link to well contamination from salting operations?If so could you share your experiences and methodology used to evaluate your situation?Thanks. Michael J.Gantick.P.E. Director of Public Works PRINT [-CLOSE WINDOW ©2007 American Public Works Association http://www.apwa.net/infoNOW/read/print.asp?MID=17727 7/18/2007 MEMORANDUM To: Matthew B. Galligan,Town Manager Cc: Michael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Operations From: Bob Deptula fab- Date: April 13, 2007 Re: Drinking Water Quality— 16 Maple Street As you are aware the resident at 16 Maple Street collected a sample of his well water and delivered it to a private laboratory for analysis. The lab results indicated elevated sodium at 182 milligrams per liter(182 mg/L). The recommended maximum level is 28 mg/L. Also, the chlorides at 440 mg/L were elevated above the recommended maximum level of 250 mg/L. This department collected a follow up sample to be analyzed at the State Health Department Laboratory. Verbal notification from the laboratory indicated bacterial contamination(an indicator of surface contamination into the well). A preliminary chemistry report indicates a reduced sodium(91 mg/L),but still above guidelines and also a reduced chloride level of 240 mg/L. (within guidelines). The property owner has been notified of these results. I am awaiting final State Health Department lab results as well as results from a private lab for an additional test. gWr;siaeni says road-salting practices affecting well water C� By Megan Collins 1992,the water was tested again,he the road and the land slopes from based product ClearLane for about "We're trying to balance all the Journal Inquirer said, and the results in both years Derewianka's house to the well,"the three years, but that this was the issues,and certainly we're concerned ( Q- were satisfactory. odds are pretty strong that the source first year that it was used extensive about the environmental impact.We w SOUTH WINDSOR—Michael In fact, he added, he-has never is the salt and the change of practice:' ly throughout town. don't believe there's any-negative Derewianka's house at 16 Maple St. experienced a problem with his Previously,the town had used a Gantick said that the town began impact here,but if there is one that may be miles from the ocean, but water until recently,when his wife mostly sand mixture,with some salt to change its.road-salting practices we're unaware of,we're going to get salty water.isn't far away. noticed that it"tasted funny." added to keep the sand from freez- when residents complained that the to the bottom of it. Derewianka urged the Town After switching to bottled water, ing, Derewianka said,but this was sand, tracked a lot of dirt every- Town Manager Matthew Galligan Council this week to return to the the family had the water tested again the fast year that the town used an where.The town was also looking told the council this week that the town's prior road-salting practices and this time found that-both the all-salt product on the roads. to mitigate impacts to storm water town has done tests to Derewianka's since he believes that the pure salt sodium and chloride levels were over "It could be a bit of a liability run-off in compliance with state well and hopes to have the results of product that has been used after 10 times what they had been in 1991 problem"if there is a resident on a requirements,he added. a chemical analysis by-the next coun- snow and ice storms has contami- and 1992, and about six times the low-salt diet who then incurs prob- South Windsor began to use cil meeting on April 16. nated his water. maximum advisory levels of each. lems because of the water,he said. .ClearLane when town officials wit- "We're going to try to come up Derewianka told the council that Derewianka said that an engineer Public Works Director Michael nessed the success it had in neigh- with some kind of formula to deter- the water was tested when his fam- at the Department of Transportation Gantick said on Thursday that the boring communities,he said. mine what is the problem,where is ily moved into the house in 1991.In said that because there is no curb on town has been using the sodium- "We're looking to use the best it coming from,and what can we do practice available to minimize the to fix it,"Galligan said. impact to the environment and Several Town Council members Tolland ready to launch its new,Web site make things safer"Gantick said. expressed concern for the problem But nothing,as far as ClearLane that Derewianka brought to their the site rather than going through a. company of Tolland. goes, is set in stone. Gantick said attention. B Mark D.-Simpson - Ythat the town is continuing to "It sounds to me like more test Journal Inquirer Web master., Work on the project has lasted review the product and will listen to ing is in order here,"Deputy Mayor The site will be updated and new about six months,Werbner said. any concerns from residents. Thomas Delnicki said. "Certainly TOLLAND—Town officials hope information added as time goes on, Werbner said there will be no real I think the facts are going to this is an issue that we all take ve g g rYY to unveil the new municipal Web.site Werbner said. down time in the town's Web page speak for themselves," he said. seriously." on Tuesday, Town Mana er Steven He said the project came about as because the new site will o online g P J g R.Werbner said Thursday. - officials were talking about creating right after the current one is taken 1,, The town's new Web site will a separate site to provide economic offline. . —Arrest made in SW burglary allow users to access information development information to busi- He also said that the project is more easily,Werbner said. nesses possibly interested in mov- .only for the creation of a new manic- By Journal Inquirer staff charged with third-degree burglary "It was hard to navigate through;' ing to town. ipal Web site and not the school sys- and third-degree larceny,police said. Werbner said of the current Web site. Werbner said officials figured it tem's page.But,he said that a link SOUTH WINDSOR -A local The arrest occurred after police The town's Web site is: made more economic sense instead will be provided to allow people to man was arrested Tuesday on a discovered Devlin was involved in www.tolland.org. to create a new town site while hav- view the school board's Web•site. warrant in connection with a bur- the burglary of a Rosemary Lane Werbner said the new site will ing a section on the site dedicated to Werbner said that the e-mail sub- glary that occurred on Rosemary home on Dec.23,police said. have the same address. economic development. scription service will be provided to Lane in December,police said. He was released in lieu of a As part of the new site,Werbner Werbner said the project cost allow residents to receive informs- The man,Stephen C. Devlin,21, $100,000 surety bond and is sched- said that some individual depart- approximately$4,800 and officials tional bulletins.The subscriptions will of 143 Morgan Farms Road, was uled to appear in Manchester ments will be able.to post things on were working with the DigiwiZe be available on the town Web page. arrested at his home and was Superior Court on April 12. i RM F# �� k tt , m � E Y .g 3 s # w.. Thunderbird .s,,., r�, ae�. a;a ...a �"�.ua�� ,ss ,ck` .>rs§'�3,+ � ss �a @,a' ••, 3, v vandalized By Journal Inquirer Staff I ELLINGTON — Several large Ei �U, , rocks were hurled through the front door of the Thunderbird package t;rt so- store this week,state police said. A state police report indicated the incident was reported at 7:46 a.m. nh �" Thursday. No items were taken from the store,state police said. The building sustained approxi- mately$500 worth of damage, and ythA those responsible could face a sec x, and-degree criminal mischief charge if caught,state police said. Anyone with information regard- '" s �,"�' inn +hP inriAr+nt ie anr•ro,ranar9 to ROUTE #50 - TREATMENT HISTORY - 06/07 (sanding rt: 7.92 mi) START END DURATION WEATHER TEMP DEPTH MATERIAL LOADS YDS LBS PER LOAD PER MILE 1 6:00pm / 1-18-07 10:15pm / 1-18-07 4hr / 15min Light Snow 33' / 34' .25in Clear Lane 0.50 2.50 4,480 566 2 5:00am / 1-19-07 9:00am / 1-19-07 4hr / 0 min Trace 330 / 350 Oin Salt 0.50 2.50 4,480 283 3 5:00pm / 1-22-07 9:00pm / 1-22-07 4 hr / 0 min Light Snow 24' / 28' .25in Clear Lane 0.50 2.50 4,480 566 4 4:00am / 1-23-07 8:00am / 1-23-07 4 hr / 0 min Light Snow 27' / 24' .50in Clear Lane 0.50 2.50 4,480 566 5 6:45pm / 2-2-07 6:00am / 2-3-07 11 hr / 15 min Light Snow 33' / 250 2.25in Clear Lane 1 .75 8.75 15,680 660 6 10:00pm / 2-13-07 4:15pm / 2-15-07 42 hr/ 15 min Snow / Sleet 16' / 200 3in Clear Lane 4.50 22.50 40,320 1,273 7 6:00am / 2-21-07 8:00am / 2-21-07 2 hr / 0 min Black Ice 31° / 37' Oin Salt 0.50 2.50 4,480 566 8 3:30pm / 2-22-07 12:00pm / 2-23-07 20 hr / 30 min Light Snow 370 / 290 1 .25in Salt 2.00 10.00 17,920 754 9 2:45am / 2-26-07 12:00pm / 2-26-07 9 hr / 15 min Snow 300 / 330 4.50in Salt 1 .25 6.25 11,200 707 10 7:00am / 2-27-07 12:00pm / 2-27-07 5hr / 0 min Light Snow n/a ! 36' .50in Salt 1 .00 5.00 8,960 566 11 9:30pm / 2-27-07 12:00am / 2-28-07 2 hr / 30 min Light Snow 330 / 31° 2.00in Clear Lane 1 .00 5.00 8,960 566 12 8:15pm / 3-2-07 12,30am / 3-3-07 4 hr / 15 min lce 320 / 300 Oin Clear Lane 0.75 3.75 6,720 848 13 9:00am / 3-16-07 2:30am / 3-18-07 41 hr / 30 min Snow / Sleet 31° / 250 8.50in Clear Lane 2.75 13.75 24,640 1 ,037 14 6:00pm / 3-19-07 10:45pm / 3-19-07 4 hr / 45 min Snow 320 / 340 1 .00in Salt 1 .50 7.50 13,440 848 TOTALS 24in 19.00 -95.00 - 170,240 - 9,805 ROUTE #50 (48) TREATMENT HISTORY -05/06 (sanding rt: 7.92 mi) ( 6.3 cu yds) START END DURATION WEATHER TEMP DEPTH MATERIAL LOADS YDS LBS LBS 2 LANE PASSES 1 7:00am / 12-04-05 6:30pm / 12-04-05 11 hr / 30 min Light Snow 29' / 27' 1 .75in Salt 0.50 3.15 6,804 429 1 2 4:00am / 12-09-05 10:00pm / 12-09-05 18hr / 00 min Snow 260 / 300 8.50in Salt 2.00 12.60 27,216 429 3 3 12:00am / 12/16/05 3:30pm / 12-16-05 15 hr / 00 min Sleet 260 / 41° Oin 50 / 50 2.00 6.30 13,608 429 2 4 4:15pm / 12-31-05 6:20am / 1-1-06 14 hr / 00 min Snow 270 / 290 4.00in Salt 0.50 3.15 6,804 429 1 5 12:30am / 1-03-06 6:45pm / 1-3-06 18 hr / 45 min Snow 330 / 340 1 .75in Salt 1 .50 9.45 20,412 644 2 6 9:00pm / 1-08-06 11 :45pm / 1-08-06 2 hr / 45 min Light Snow 270 / 41° 1 in 50 / 50 1 .50 4.71 10,173 321 1 7 12:30am / 1-14-06 4:00pm / 1-15-06 15 hr / 30 min Snow 350 / 200 2in 50 / 50 3.00 1 .50 3,240 204 1 8 4:00am / 1-23-06 5:45pm / 1-23-06 13 hr / 45 min Snow 320 / 350 3.50in Salt 1 .25 6.25 13,500 426 2 9 11 :45pm / 2-11-06 10:00am / 2-13-06 34 hr / 15 min Snow 270 / 370 18in Salt / 50 / 50 1 .50 7.5 16,200 511 2 10 10:45am / 3-2-06 8:00am / 3-03-06 21 hr / 15 min Snow 260 / 200 4.25in Salt / 50 / 50 2.00 10.00 21 ,600 340 3 TOTALS 44.75in 15.75 64.61 1 139,557 4162.00 18 VA MENE"' 01 CODE OF PRACTICE Transportation Association of Canada Association des transport du Canada July 2002 SALT MANAGEMENT PLANS This is one in a.senes of Cedes of Practice related to the effect/ve management of road salt. This Code is provided as advice to road maintainers for c©nsidetation when developing their own policies;.practices and procedures. The Code is not Intended lobe used prescriptively brit is to be used in concert with the legislation, manuals, directives and procedures of IndiUidual road agenoles. Codes of Practice haiie been produced on Road and.8ridge Design, Desl4n of Road.Maintenance Yards, Pavement Design, Drainage and Starrr�vvater;Atarragement, Good housekeeping Practices, Vegetation Management and Winter Maintenance Equipment For more detailed information,�piease'reter to TAC's Salt Management Guide. INTRODUCTION agement plans. This code of practice has been developed to support road authorities in their pur- In Canada, over $1 billion is spent annually on suit of best management practices and the prepa- winter maintenance including road salts. Road ration of salt management plans. The framework salts (particularly sodium chloride) are the pre- follows an environment management system ferred deicing/anti-icing chemicals for maintain- (EMS) framework. A successful EMS is based ing winter roadway safety because of their cost, on the following principles: effectiveness, and ease of handling. Road salt (particularly calcium chloride)is also used to con- ■ It is grounded in policy with guiding principles trol dust on gravel roads and construction sites —set and endorsed at the highest level in the during dry weather. Excessive use of salt can organization. have environmental impacts and, recognizing m It is activity based, with each activity being their responsibility to the environment,many road assessed at the outset against clearly authorities across Canada are taking positive established standards and/or objectives. actions towards implementing salt best manage- ment practices. The Transportation Association ■ Deficiencies in current operations are of Canada has published a Salt Management identified and corrective action established Guide and a series of Codes of Practice to as- and implemented. sist road authorities as they find ways to more effectively manage their salt use and provide the public with the safe and efficient road systems CONTENTS they expect, while minimizing effects on the en- vironment. Introduction 1 Objective of a Salt The amount of salt used is a function of local Management Plan 2 policies,practices,roadway system and weather Commitment and Policy 2 conditions. Because of the variability of condi- Guiding Principles 2 tions across Canada,salt management initiatives Framework for a need to be developed and implemented locally Salt Management Plan 3 by each road authority. Road authorities should Conclusion 6 be responsible for developing their own salt man- • Required actions are documented in policies GUIDING PRINCIPLES and procedures and communicated through- The salt management plan should be grounded out the organization. in the following principles: • Activities are monitored/audited periodically to assess progress and identify areas for i) Safety— In recognition of the importance of further improvement. effective winter maintenance to the safety of roadway users, the development and imple- • Gaps between actions and desired outcomes mentation of the salt management plan will are identified and corrective actions are make safety the overriding priority. developed and implemented,with necessary modifications being made to policies and ii) Environmental protection — In recognition of procedures and appropriate training. the adverse effects that excessive use of road salt can have on the environment, the salt • The cycle begins again and continues on an management plan will strive to minimize the ongoing basis. amount of road salt entering the environment. Figure 1 illustrates the process. Environmental Policies&Guiding Principles Background Review&Analysis Management Implementation, Review Continual Improvement & Documentation Stakeholder Consultation Education& Training Monitoring& �/ Analysis Figure 1 OBJECTIVE OF SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN iii) Continual improvement—Different roadway authorities within Canada are at different An agency's salt management plan will provide stages of implementation of salt best the vehicle through which each agency commits management practices(salt BMPs).The cost to implementing salt best management practices of moving towards salt BMPs can be high, as it fulfills its obligation to provide safe, efficient and changes must be phased in over time. and cost-effective roadway systems. Therefore the salt management plan must COMMITMENT AND POLICY recognize that change will be incremental and ongoing. To be effective, the senior management of an agency must commit to developing, implement- iv) Fiscal responsibility — The phase-in period ing and updating its salt management plan. A for the salt management plan will need to be senior manager who is responsible and account- within the financial capabilities of each road able for the implementation of the agency's salt authority. management plan should be appointed. Road v) Efficient transportation systems — In recog- agencies should establish a clear road salt man- nition of the importance of efficient roadway agement policy endorsed at the highest level of transportation to Canada's economy and the organization. quality of life, development and implementa- —"'—, j 2 tion of the salt management plan will take On Road Use: into account the effects on transportation efficiency. ■ Typ e and amount of salt used all sources including solids, liquids,and abrasive mixes) vi) Accountability—Each road authority must be ■ Current application rate for each type of responsible and accountable for developing material and implementing its salt management plan. ■ Percentage of fleet with pre-wetting vii) Measurable Progress — Indicators must be ■ Percentage of fleet with liquid only a li developed to ensure that progress on imple- g q y pp - menting the salt management plans can be cations tracked and reviewed. ■ Percentage of fleet with electronic spreader viii)Agency-based — The plans must be controls developed and implemented by each road ■ Use of alternative freeze point depressants agency rather than be centrally driven. ■ Number of advanced road weather infor- ix) Communication — A communication plan mation systems (ARWIS) installations must be developed for communicating inter- ■ Number of other surface temperature nally and externally with key stakeholders. measuring devices (hand-held or vehicle FRAMEWORK FORA mounted) SALT MANAGEMENT PLAN ■ Use of dedicated pavement and/or atmo- spheric forecasting Each road authority should develop and imple- ment its own salt management plan incorporat- Salt Sensitive Environmentally Sensitive Areas(FBAs)(as defined by the local authority) ing the guiding principles set out in this frame- work. The plan should be results-oriented and ■ Locations of nationally, provincially or locally contain the following elements. designated ESAs (criteria for ESA will need 1. Salt Management Policy and Objectives to be established) The road authority should adopt a salt manage- ■ Description of winter maintenance practices ment policy that commits the organization to in the vicinity of ESAs (e.g. alternate treat- measurable improvements in its salt manage- ment) ment practices. r ra £ a� 2. Situational Analysis r� An inventory of current practices must be estab- Sand and Salt Storage Sites: lished to form a benchmark against which progress can be measured. It should contain ■ Number and capacity of storage sites consistent elements to allow the transportation ■ Percentage of sand/salt piles covered and community to measure and track progress to- type of cover wards the goal of managing the amount of road salt being placed into the environment on a na- ■ Percentage of indoor loading tional basis.The following elements may be con- ■ Management of drainage from sand/salt mix sidered in an overall situational analysis: piles ■ Levels of environmental indicators(e.g.chlo- The documentation should be aimed at introduc- ride levels) ing best salt management practices with both in- ■ Percentage of salt in winter sand house and out-sourced operations. ■ Percentage of sites with washwater treatment TAC's Salt Management Guide and Codes of Practice can be used to supplement in-house ■ Existence of good housekeeping code of procedures and other available documentation practice on best management practices. Snow Disposal Sites: ■ Number and capacity of disposal sites to r (permanent and/or temporary) ■ Levels of environmental indicators(e.g.chlo- ride levels) rt ■ Percentage of disposal sites with water 4. Proposed Approaches management systems Salt management plans should have clear tasks, ■ Conformance with existing environmental schedules with milestones, budget consider- standards for snow disposal sites ations and assigned responsibilities for imple- ■ Existence of good housekeeping code of menting salt best management practices. The practice plans should deal with five areas of concern — general road use,salt use in sensitive areas,stor- Ferrocyanides age, snow disposal and ferrocyanides. ■ Percentage of ferrocyanides in salt The plan can be developed by comparing cur- Training rent practices to best management practices and documenting the gaps. The salt management ■ Percentage and frequency of staff receiving plan should then focus on closing these gaps. training in best salt management practices The salt management plan should include pre- broken down into categories: e.g. senior season, in-season and post-season actions to managers, middle managers, operational be taken to reduce salt loadings. It should also personnel include consideration of equipment, labour and materials. 3. Documentation Although not all salt management techniques are Each road authority should have documented applicable to all regions of Canada,the salt man- policies,procedures and guidelines in the follow- agement plan should consider strategies for fin- ing areas: troducing technologies including: ■ Level of service for each roadway type ■ Electronic spreader controls ■ Salt and sand application rates ■ ARWIS ■ Managed sand and salt storage ■ Pre-wetting ■ Good housekeeping practices for mainte- ■ Anti-icing nance yards consistent with TAC's Good ■ Covered stockpiles Housekeeping Code of Practice p ■ Equipment calibration & re-calibration ■ Drainage management at storage and snow ■ Training disposal sites ■ Snow disposal ■ Snow fencing Where specific technologies are inappropriate, ■ Incorporation of salt management consider- the fact that they were considered and deter- ation into road design and construction mined to be inappropriate should be explained ._...* 4 in the plan.The plans should be results-oriented Where there are new issues or activities being and measurable with proper commitment of fund- implemented as part of the salt management ing and personnel to ensure successful imple- plan, new monitoring initiatives will likely be ce- mentation. quired. Any changes from the baseline estab- lished in the situational analysis need to be ana- l. Education lyzed to assess the degree of progress being Human behaviour is predicated upon attitudes made.The analysis should also take into account based on knowledge and experience. Changes the type of winter experienced to ensure that re- in approach require changes in behaviour.A suc- alistic conclusions are being drawn.For example, cessfully managed salt strategy requires changes an increase in salt use may be due to an unusu- in procedures,practices and equipment.Success ally severe winter rather than to failure of the plan. also requires acceptance of the new approaches Similarly, a reduction in salt use may be due to a by senior management,middle management and milder than normal winter rather than successful line personnel. Each salt management plan implementation of the plan.Therefore the analy- should therefore include a comprehensive edu- sis must be sufficiently in-depth to account for cation program that demonstrates the value of these variances. new procedures and ensures that personnel are4 ` competent in delivering the new program. F - The public must also be educated on proposed initiatives and on their role in adjusting driver behaviour to roadway conditions. Each road A authority should have a program for informing the public of winter maintenance practices. �• Management Review Each year, senior management within each ad- �a� E ministration should review the results of the pre- vious year's salt management actions to confirm that the plan is achieving the desired results and E adjust the next year's salt management plan to g respond to shortcomings and new opportunities. { aF. Policies and procedures should be updated prior 6. Monitoring, Reporting &Analysis to the next snow and ice control season and com- municated to management and operational per- Progress on implementation of the salt manage- sonnel. ment plan can only be confirmed by tracking spe- cific indicators and comparing these to the This review should be integrated into the bud- baseline that was benchmarked at the outset of getary process to permit timely acquisitions of the program. new equipment and identify other funding needs. Each sat management plan should assign re- sponsibility for monitoring and reporting on imple- mentation of the plan. These results should be 4 reported to the senior executive responsible for 8 r the salt management plan. wl� n The monitoring should document and assess the indicators identified in the situational analysis. 5 VXAM , CONCLUSION Effective road salt management requires dedi- ^ FOR MORE INFORMATION cation to adopting, implementing and refining More information on the effective manage- best management practices.This is not an easy ment of road salt can be obtained from the task.It will require a long-term vision,senior man- Transportation Association of Canada at: agement support, dedicated resources, perse- verance,continual innovation and improvement, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard and an ability to deal with changing organizational Ottawa, ON Canada K1 G 4J8 culture. It cannot be rushed. Public safety must www.tac-atc.ca be maintained as best management practices are In particular,refer to the TAC Salt Manage- implemented. Personnel at all levels of the orga- ment Guide and the series of Codes of nization will need to be trained and educated so Practice on the management of road salt. that maximum benefits are realized. "en= 6 ��ka�b° ,�n p'zti i 5 � r 2�frrm, nr s n 2 I �. d�vh r. OWN S' t Y +k �1 4, �� "a E ff �y a n r a a I r t A. f ton hot Z: R'; C'�a`.i r ' ,x � 3 �a ° W � rL AMEN, R eY r z Fr e'�7�3." r p��' 'W�vAm Motu of r A � L Salt Institute a THETM SNO%NMHMR'S HANDBOOK A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR SNOW AND ICE CONTROL Dedicated to the people who provide safety and mobility on roads in winter —the snowfighters. .....__..__...... CONTENTS _�_.._. _..._.._....-- —..._............__ 1 /How Important is the Winter Maintenance Function? 2 2/Train for Teamwork 3 3/Making Equipment Count 4 �— ._ --- -_....._..... _.. ._ _Jrt 4/Other Pre-Winter Planning 6 5/Know Different Types of Snow 8 61 Calibration 10 7/Guidelines for Salt Application - 11 8/Special Spreading and Plowing Problems 13 rt -- - ....—_—............... _._ 9!Anti-Icing 14 10/Deicing-Prewetting 16 11 /After the Storm 18 _—... ...._......._ ...... ll 12/A Word About Safety 18 .._......._ ---- - -- 13/Keep the Public Informed 19 d CHARTS,TABLES AND FORMS O Suggested Program Outline for Fall Training Sessions _ 3 Tons of Salt Required per Season 7 ..-- _....._... ...........................—..._...............- ........_..........- Stormfighting Guidelines 8 --- — ._................ __ ........ M Pounds of Ice Melted per Pound of Salt 9 Application of Salt 9 --- ........._........ --..._..._ - ...._Calibration Chart 10 _...-...-........... _____......._._................._........ Brine Salometer Chart 14 -......... _...—......_....._ _._..............__................._. NaCl Phase Change Chart 15 --- --................._—_._ ........_ Snow and Ice Control Check Sheet 2{}-21 Storm Record 22 _....-- ................ __......_....... - --- published by the Salt Institute,700 North Fairfax Street Suite 600,Alexandria,Virginia copyright 1967,1977,1991,1999 Sh1991R a , FOREWORD This manual prepared by the Salt Insti- Environmental problems concerning tute is dedicated to the thousands of men use and storage of salt need not exist if and women in public works agencies at all there is a balanced approach to use of levels whose task is providing safe streets salt for snow and ice control—one that and highways during winter storms. demonstrates care for safety of the envi- We commend all those agencies prac- ronment as well as for safety and mobility ticing the Sensible Salting approach to of people. snow and ice control, either through their Winter maintenance procedures are own initiative or acceptance of the con- constantly changing.Current practices will cept after being trained at a Sensible be improved and new techniques per- Salting seminar conducted by the Salt in- fected. But it is unlikely there will ever be stitute. a material as efficient, as inexpensive, as Sensible Salting emphasizes getting safe or as plentiful as sodium chloride, or- the most from every application of deicing dinary salt, for removing ice and snow salt while maintaining the safest roads from roads in winter. possible in the most economical way and `The Sno"ghter's Handbook"was protecting the environment. originally published in 1967. it has been Proper spreading of road salt, im- accepted as the authoritative guide for proved equipment, calibration of spread- proper salting procedures and techniques. Yy;M r x z tea- -s w h ers, automatic spreader controls, ade- This is the fourth edition of this popular quate covered storage and relocation of training tool, some stockpiles have combined to make The purpose of this nual is th pro- salting of roads the most effective and vide the s0owfighter with Information, In- safest method for snow and Ice control. eluding the latest procedures and Salt is a necessary and accepted part techniques,for coming winter storms. of our winter environment to assure safety It will help sncwvfighters give the public and mobility for the individual motorist, the most effective snow and Ice contra commercial vehicles and, especially, am- program possible and,therefore,safe win bulances, fire engines and other emer- ter roads at the least ovemil cost. gency equipment. Delays in reaching The Sensible Sal!t/ng methods con- victims or getting them to hospitals often tained In this manual are the cornerstone, is the critical difference between life and of an effective winter maintenance pro- death. gram.,It can only result In benefits to the But while providing safety and essen- snowflghter and the public that far exceed tial mobility,the modern snowfighter must any detrimental effects on the environ- be concerned as well with safeguarding meat. our environment: 1 ! HOW IMPORTANT IS THE WINTER MAINTENANCE FUNCTION? Snow and ice control is often the single •Increasing traffic volumes, the reli- largest cost item in the maintenance bud- ance of our society on daily mobility and ``--~ get for streets and highways. In a recent the urgency of moving emergency vehi- year,snow removal in 33 snow belt states cles without delay demand efficient snow accounted for 16.2 percent of total main- and ice removal to keep traffic moving all tenance costs and 3.6 percent of all high- year'round. way expenditures. Sensible Salting simply means pro- For this reason, and because of its im- viding safe pavement by clearing all snow pact on public safety and essential mobil- and ice from pavements as soon as pos- m, ity,snow and ice control deserves special sible during storms.Benefits of this high attention from top highway management maintenance standard are apparent: l as well as from those in maintenance at •Traffic keeps moving. _= all levels. •Commerce and industry go on at With nearly 190 million motor vehicles near-normal pace. registered in the U.S.,and nearly four mil- •There are fewer accidents, injuries N tat f j f� lion miles of roads and streets,more must and deaths. -; be done with the winter maintenance dol- •Emergency vehicles get through. � r lar than simply providing traction over ice The public is less tolerant of failure in - zi,.. and snow. snow and ice control than in any other Most Canadian road authorities have highway or street department function. A an even tougher job than their U.S.coun- snowstorm affects the entire commu- terparts. Canada's commerce and indus- nity—often entire states. Unless a storm l try depend upon safe transportation and is handled capably by maintenance 4D O communication throughout the vast na- forces, it can upset considerably the daily 5 0 Lion.Yet,Canadian winters threaten for six routines of individuals, adversely affect months every year, with colder tempera- business and commerce and endanger tures and more frequent snows than in public safety. the United States. The common standard for snow and ice control on many mites of streets and -- highways is removal as soon as possible .. to provide safe pavement through Se i- �'` ble Sing. Nearly every Vie, p - Ince and toil road in the wvw belt has -'' some mileage on a char pavement pro- f gram, These facts about our motorized .. .. economy show why: C ...,. »Motorists now travel two tt#Uw vehil- �.- cle miles each year. 4� •70.6 percent of the workers who ' commute to work use the automobile. L, •80.5 percent of intercity travel is by ` motor vehicle. •Suburban growth has drastically in- creased traffic densities on most street and highway systems. Access to retailers,_service establish- ments and other businesses is often _. ...". _ . - wholly dependent on auto or truck trans- portation. •"Just-in-time"manufacturing practices require reliable highway access for eco- nomic efficiency and competitiveness in snowbett areas. li increasing traffic volumes,the need for daily mobility and the urgency of eliml- crating delays for emergency vehicles demand efficient snow and Ice re- ,,,�� movaL 2 e e 2/ TRAIN FOR TEAMWORK Maintenance.people typically feel a Why have a tall meeting?A session winters operation with operators and su- keen obligation to the traveling public. on snow and ice removal well ahead of pervising personnel. Use it to determine They have a kind of esprit de corps that winter gives a chance to discuss your what may have gone wrong last winter, comes only with training and experience. plans with the people expected to carry then make corrections for the coming Proper training for maintenance per- them out. This meeting is a refresher season. sonnel is vital.it provides the know-how to course on snowfighting tactics for expel- Promote a free exchange of ideas at get the job done and encouragement to enced employees and an introduction to the fall meeting. Encourage all personnel perform in a way that brings praise rather winter maintenance for new personnel. to speak up.New ideas and better tactics than discredit to your organization. This meeting gives management a can come out of this session. Many maintenance organizations con- chance to formally review the previous duct training courses in the early fall months to assure that: < r , •Equipment operators fully understand �� f a 1 how to operate and maintain plows, x s# r ix'xx g spreaders, loaders and other equipment # {v; P used for winter maintenance. �� � All employees are thoroughly familiar , { with their responsibilities. g yx j •All employees receive a full review of snow removal schedules, snow routes €� S` 3 s{ and personnel and equipment assigned. ' £ �� £Mn �*',''� AS- acV F •Dry-runs are made over areas to be covered during actual snowfighting opera- tions. •All employees understand how salt works in snow and ice so they know how, �, h s when and in what amounts it should be applied. r The underlying theme of all training sessions should be the Sensible Sattinry � � 3 n f i s r, ztk+' fe gz concept,which includes: d •Proper covered storage •Good maintenance of storage areas � � •Good equipment maintenance and knowledge of equipment - N •Proper spreader calibration •Proper salt application f3 } •Concern for our environment as well as the public's safety r' 3 � 5 3/ MAKING EQUIPMENT COUNT Equipment can make or break a main- tenance organization. It must be suited to the job. Winter operations require the highest level of equipment maintenance. # It is a good idea to review equipment 1 s needs immediately after each winter sea- ` son, when they are fresh in your mind. If _ P new equipment is required, it can be or- dared with good assurance of delivery d d prior to the next winter season. .. _ But the secret to successful winter ._r maintenance is the ability to fight storms �r f with equipment already on hand.The key ° } is proper equipment maintenance. Snow .•---- and ice control equipment should never - be stored without being cleaned. It should be inspected for possible repairs, and re- paired if necessary. •Inspect all vehicle lighting, including Prager equipment maintenance is es- In fall training sessions, discuss each wiring and sockets on headlights, tail sentlal to a successful winter ,mafnte- type and class of equipment which em- lights, stop lights and turn signals.(Warn- nance program. Equipment should be ployees will operate. Go over strengths ing lights must be visible from all sides, cleaned and parts ordered before it is and weaknesses of each. Describe per- whether bodies are raised or lowered.) stored formance capabilities, load and weight *Make sure sufficient stocks of tire limits, specifications, safety consider- chains, tires, spreader repair parts and to expect of each piece of equipment. ations,attachments and modifications. other miscellaneous supplies are on Operators should check these items care- if possible, assign each operator to a hand. fully. specific spreader, plow or loader. Man , •Make sure all personnel are familiar Spreaders—inspect pumps, hoses, and machine make a better team when with spreader controls,whether manual or controls, and fittings.Check spinners, au- they work together regularly. The feeling automatic. gers,and auxiliary engines. that a vehicle "belongs" to an employee To keep equipment in top condition, Controls—The two major components also will make an operator show more re- establish.a rear maintenance rouffne to of any hydraulic system are the pump and sponsibility for Its upkeep. be followed all winter. Equipment opera- the controls, whether manual or auto- In some organizations, it'may be nec- tors should inspect vehicles after each matic. Ali operators should become thor- essary to switch operators from one piece storm and report needt tt repairs to the oughly familiar with spreader controls.No of equipment to another. Then manage- garage or to the -staff machanic. two hydraulic systems are exactly the ment must depend on a system of checks Spreader$will need to be mcllillbrMi a£f- same,Ttwrefore, controls may differ from to ensure that equipment is properly oiler- ter repair to the hydraulic system. truck to truck. Know your equipment and ated and maintained. The first step in vehicle malritenarlice is how the auger or conveyor and the spin- Thoroughly inspect all equipment dur- to make sure every ooerator knows whet ner react at various settings. ing late summer or early fall. Make all re- Plows—Carefully Inspect blades after pairs and order stocks of parts not locally each use.If blade wear begins eating into available.Pay particular attention`to these the moMoard, it will be very costly to re- components: place. Iletnerriber that snow plow bledes •Inspect condition of moldboard and do not wear evenly.Replace blades when cutting edge of all snowplows.Order ode- they are badly worn at arty po1W1 Have quate stocks of parts for all types of operators check blade wear during Plows. l l •Ins ec: snowplow hoists and under- storms. p p �` {Right-hand .plows wear most rapidly body blades. Check air and hydraulic on the left side, while the opposite is true hoses and other critical parts of power for left-hand plows. Reversible plows may units and obtain adequate replacement show wear on either side, depending stocks. upon operating time in each position.} •Mount,. load and test all spreaders. ,'��_- � Ai/Electrical Equipment---Inspect Make necessary repairs to spreaders and and service all lighting and electrical order critical parts.Calibrate all spreaders and place calibration card on visor or in glove compartment of truck. Supervisors Remember that snowplow blades do should have copies of all calibration cards not wear evenly.Check the entire blade on file. u.._... for near. 4 equipment regularly, including wiring and sockets. Carry ample stocks of parts for rotating flasher units,including tenses and '? lamps. Faulty wiring and failure of alterna- tors, generators and batteries cause the most downtime in winter maintenance ve- hicles.Nothing is more terrifying and dan- gerous than a stalled and darkened vehicle in a winter storm. Safety Equipment—Make sure there are flashlights, flares, flags and safety 7 vests in truck cabs.A first aid kit is also a good idea. It is preferable to wear hardhats at all times and don't start out without securing seat belts. All vehicle operators should know the location and telephone numbers of emer- gency repair and refueling stations.Qual- a list of all rental equipment available Nothing ie more terrifying than a dis- ified personnel should be on hand in from contractors or haulers during snow abled,darkened vehicle in a bad storm. garages during storms to promptly carry emergencies. List specifications, .rental out minor repairs or make a start on major rates and the names,addresses and tele- repairs. Replenish spare parts lnvento- phone numbers of owners. equipment. Training sessions should in- rim Immediately following storms. Establish ground rules for contracting elude operators who may be brought in Equipment needs vary markedly. How for this equipment. It is important that ev- during emergencies,whether contract op- many plows or spreaders are necessary ery supervisor understand who has the erators and/or equipment. They should for each mile of pavement depends upon authority to call rental equipment into ac- also include other departments such as snowfall, frequency of storms, traffic and tion. . sewer and water or the park service. In topography. How much equipment an Arrange before winter to "borrow" fact, anyone capable of driving a plow agency can afford is an important consid- equipment and operators in emergencies and/or spreader should be included. eration as well.A straight salt program re- from local and try ins llatlo ; reserve Warningi Before permitting rented or quires less equipment than one using units or nel htoring mainte� agen- loaned eqt� to operate, make sure abrasives, or so-called "alternative" cies. Detern ine who, officer le=r onsi- your00 warftjJs protected from liability deicers. ble for specific equi Ment a# to for, P or Injuries resulting Despite cared planning, equipment details for fts use, If It is It Is dtffi- , 1.that insurance cover- on hand may be inadequate in certain sit- cult to know when a blizzard vA stft re- � . � compiles uations. Don't be caught shot Compile quiring tracked vehicles err heavy c#r o eS . After 09 ftw be w s ArAd` to dry. Vlffl h di ._ sue'as chains, . _ , 're ettd other' rtiuot ingf if be wig used motor oil; :fuel or tetrosens.Grease ---------__� all bearirt 'Che k hydraulics and quick �.,,. disconnects for leakage. Al washing and ,., maintenar must be conducted in spe- cific areas to prolea the equipment. The verse#its andabody plow is very „ r valuable in snghting. In light snow, it can rust at fairly Nggh.speeds with safety.It �M `F can usually be purchased economically. The underbody blade is also a good train- ing tool for new operators. imrrtediartely following storms, equip- ment must. be d coned, hosed down and 0~ to dry Raphonloft spare parts inventories immediately. 5 4/ OTHER PRE-WINTER PLANNING All major arteries and feeders, includ- ing interstates, primary and secondary roads should-be included in an agency's Sensible Salting program. Primary routes should have higher priority than second- ary roads. Only someone thoroughly familiar with =$ a given locality can assign levels of main- tenance and schedule performance of the work for optimum results.Local traffic pat- terns,traffic volume,the needs of local in- dustry and business and special problems created by topography or climate must be considered. However, here are a few guidelines for determining required levels of mainte- nance: •Many agencies determine mainte- nance levels based on average daily traf- fic(ADT). •Give priority to important local arteri- als, including school bus routes, access roads to industrial parks or major plants, mail delivery routes and streets leading to hospitals, fire stations and maintenance garages. p;= � �.. •Provide safe pavement on all truck routes that carry heavy vehicles around a city or through selected sections.Remem- ,,�...� " ber that these routes require around-the-clock attention. Carry levels of maintenance to logical stopping points,such as traffic signals,in- tersections or slow speed zones.This pri- ority gig motorists time to adjust to the shrift in mala •Make sure makftneme sections link '.` or overlap. .a op betwom sec- tions on a high4peod roaftay can pres- ent potentially hazardous oonditions. Interstate and expressway routes that N pass through or near Miles wry in- :, creased traffic volumes onto city artenals, Ramps and other approaches to major �.. city routes need specie! attention.A bare Give priority to hospital, school, mail ..�---- and truck routes, other important local arterlsla, carry maintenance to logical stopping points and mark fire hydrants and other utility points for quick loca- tion. 6 street or road is worthless unless traffic can get on and off. Plow and salt ramps of major arterials earty in storm. After thorough planning has been done, post a master-map showing routes, snowplowing and salting schedules and equipment and operator assignments.For added control,give each driver an individ- r A ual map of his route or area.Be sure to update maps each year to show new 1 roads, interchanges, streets, bridges and governmental boundary lines. For top efficiency in scheduling oper- ations, aim for maximum equipment and manpower utilization. Try setting up salt routes that bring spreaders back to stor- age sites as they empty. it may be desir- able to stockpile salt at several locations so spreaders won't waste time "deadheading." Spreading rates differ based on types of storm, weather conditions and opera- spreading vehicle. Use special markers to blow and should be perpendicular to wind tional procedures. Application rates gen- pinpoint locations of drains and water- direction, not necessarily parallel to the erally range from 300 to 800 pounds per ways that must be opened after each road. Positioning of snow fencing may be two-lane mile. For convenience in esti- storm. changed from one year to the next. mating ymw season needs, the follow- Where does snow fencing go?Only Slopes, grading and tree growth often al- ing chart is based on four 500-1b. practical experience and analysis can tell ter placement. applications per storm. where to erect snow fencing.Where it is Notify property owners. Remember Mark the spots that won't be there. placed dependa.entirely.upon topography, to contact property owners before erect- Before winter,mark all structures,such as prevailing winds and existing vegetation. ing snow fence outside rights-of-way. In drop inlets, catch basins, ends of curbing Fencing should never be erected nearer tong fence sections, leave an occasional and guardrail and fire hydrants.Once cov- than 75 to 100 feet from the centerflne. It gap so livestock can go through.It is good ered with snow, they will be difficult or im- always Is placed on the side of the road- community relations and will prevent dam- possible to see from a plowing or way from which prevailing winter winds age to fencing as well. TONS OF SALT REQUIRED ., SEASON (Based on 4 applications of 5100 lbs.per 2-lane mile per storm) Q#Sfvt"t1S % A _- 4 400 800 120t3 1600 2000 2400 2800 _. ..........._.-....__._.._..._ W_ _ _ 6 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 --.............._........._..._.._._...__._._.__.._ — ..........................-___................._..._................ -_...... . — 8 800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4800 5600 .._..._............._.. ..........._...------.....;-----._.._..—.._............- .__..._.._..._........---...__..._.._..__._..__..—........ _ 10 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 __._............_.._. 12 1200 2400 3600 4800 6000 7200 8400 14 1400 2800 4200 5600 7000 8400 9200 ..__....._..--.....---._.....-.........._._..,..-_.-_.....—..___.._—.._._.__..—_ ---- ----- _._..- ..._...--- .....................------------ 16 1600 3200 4800 6400 8000 9600 10,200 .._......_............__....___.___.__i..._._...___...._.____.__-------_.__.,___ _.._.._—_— ° _____ ..._._.---.__......._..._......._ 18 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000 10,800 11,600 _ .---__._.__...................._.._�....._..—.—.__.._...._.— ......____. ^..._ 20 2004 4000 8000 8000 ; 10,000 12,000 14,000 __...__._...___._.___._.a......___._..--......... —.._._.:—.........._..............._.._.__-- _. _...__.._.... !Vote:Minimum storage requirement is usually half of annuai.sait use. This chart is computed on the basis of one ton of salt per two-lane m#a per storm,or four 500-1b.applications per storm. !Vote:These are average figures.Oondii"ons in soma areas , Wre several times the salt needed in some other areas. 7 { I KNOW DIFFERENT TYPES OF SNOW In spots where unusual drifting is ex- Snow occurs when water vapor in an forecasting services allows for crew readi- pected, place one or more rows of fence, air mass is cooled below freezing.Density ness in advance of storms.Salt should be with the second line parallel to and about of snow varies greatly.Some storms pro- applied as soon as snow or ice begins to 50 feet from the first. duce "wet' snow like wet sand, others accumulate. What about "self-help" barrels? "dry" snow like sawdust. Wet or heavy Winter storms produce a number of Many public works agencies place snow can often be plowed away.Time is hazardous conditions other than snow. "self-help" salt barrels at critical points of the essence. Use of reliable weather Even without rain, ice may occur when where motorists are likely to have tough going during winter. Eliminate runoff from stored salt. ` ■ MFIGHTING GUIDELINES Improper stockpiling of salt is responsiblep for about 80 percent of environmental `��1�1 ��tgf$I1a1'1S A gi to+Ctill7llk{a19ir�Ug t�f fit . problems sometimes associated with salt LEcncticns" rid` il � t�ttt`.l< use.Rain and melting snow can carry salt from uncovered piles into the ground and nearby bodies of water and possibly ff snow:or,,rff aft t3 s'per cause chloride build-up. e � to-IataEe� . Salt piles must be covered. Salt users rt: e usually prefer permanent structures on ft f► e !n9 �� tier -_ aspW pads with .proper drainage. Tem •�� g fain � �e � porary waterproof coverings can be effec € ' p� Mane � fie. five if termed carefully.Covering salt also pr€�cedures. - - helps avoid loss of material through leaching and caking. Also, salt without salt two calves and lumps spreads with no diffE I4d �� fate;As ruttyi� al#W snow, u � pe Mn aat - f " , 1 3�'aC a., tit 1 tzk Or ft17 arfde . � lresrtt mw I A�rife �, Aer + Dire t �bbb� � s of �-ixb� 'o-�te Arta n rum=t i ,ec ttrYr y- � fritn l� tapeatlt� rt art;plaelrtg as ffq�cirE �f sew er ice 8 ti moist air contacts a cold surface, particu- less management anticipates when it will forecast indicates snow during the night, larly on bridge decks. Rain may freeze as arrive, how long it will last and the nature the work force should be sent home to get it falls on pavement. Frozen rain falls as of its special characteristics. Arrange with some rest, but alerted that they may be sleet or hail;it may stick to pavements. the U.S.Weather Bureau, a local airport called back during the night.Arrange with There are roughly five major kinds of weather station or a private forecasting the highway patrol, local police, sheriff's storms. Each requires a somewhat differ- service to get complete; detailed reports department or weather service to notify ent approach. Everyone on the mainte- during winter. Some maintenance depart- key personnel of storms that develop late nance force should know these basic ments hire a private forecaster to assure at night. Ensure that someone is respon- kinds of storms and how to combat them. a balanced and more localized weather sible for relaying the alert to the entire Most storms occur under Conditions 1, picture. Some progressive agencies are maintenance force, if and when the need 2,or 3.But variations in temperature,pre- using pavement sensors and local arises. cipitation, pavement condition or other weather instruments to receive instanta- factors are common. Management must neous road and atmospheric conditions depend upon well-trained maintenance for more precise snow and ice control op- crews to use initiative and imagination in erations. coping with unforeseen problems. Any changes in weather conditions Pavement will often"freeze dry"follow- should be relayed to all personnel. If late ing a storm, if the last salt application is afternoon reports indicate possibility of properly timed. Often, moisture on the overnight snowfall, prepare equipment by 1 pavement will turn to vapor and disappear attaching snowplows and spreaders be- % as it freezes, leaving a completely clear, fore the workday ends. if weather fore- dry surface. casts indicate, a certain portion of the Keep an eye on the weather. Proper work force should remain on duty to start preparation for a stem is not possible un- fighting the storm when it arrives. if the ` • POUNDS OF ICE MELTED PER POUND OF SALT 4k { A mid y !+w ON, P5 144yt 20 j .19 15 �tkaa3�of i4� 10 1 �e a APPLICATION OF SALT b Et�t O Ap 311 e#[4n .. COV 0 r" r�-LLa,e Nllie H10 800 lbs. 2.1 J2 700 lbs. 2 4 6,00 Its. 3 ; 500 lbs. 4 400 lbs. 5 300 lbs. 6 206 lbs. 1 111C3TE: Salt meeting ASTM SSperfication t)832,wegla ;approxira`ateiy �i lbs per cubic foot. -~----... 9 01 CAUBRA71ON Different materials will spread at differ- Calibration steps: "For example,at 20 MPH with 30 Shaft ent_rates at the same setting, so spread- RPM and 7 lbs.discharge—30 x 7=210 ers must be calibrated with the material 1.Warm truck's hydraulic oil to normal x 3.00=630 lbs.per mile. that will be used. operating temperature with spreader sys- Calibrating Automatic Controls SSpreader Calibration Procedure tem running. P 2.Put partial load of salt an truck. Automatic controls some with factory Calibration of spreaders is simply cal- 3.Mark shaft end of auger or conveyor. calibration cards that indicate the proper culating the pounds per mile discharged 4.Dump salt on auger or conveyor. rate of spread for each setting. However, at various spreader control settings and 5. Rev truck engine to operating RPM when there is a need to calibrate, use the truck speeds by first counting the number (at least 2000 RPM). following steps: of auger or conveyor shaft revolutions per 6. Count number of shaft revolutions 1.Remove or turn off spinner. minute, measuring the salt discharged in per minute at each spreader control set- 2.Set auger on given number,such as one revolution, then multiplying the two ting,and record. No.2. and finally multiplying the discharge rate 7. Collect salt for one revolution & 3.Tie sack or heavy canvas under dis- by the minutes it takes to travel one mile. weigh,deducting weight of container.(For charge chute. With hopper-type spreaders, specific greater accuracy, collect salt for several 4.Mark specific distance, such as 100 gate openings must be calibrated. Mea- revolutions and divide by this number of or 1,000 feet. sure from floor of conveyor to bottom turns to get the weight for one revolution.) 5. Drive that distance with spreader edge of gate. This can be accomplished at idle or very operating. Each spreader must be calibrated indi- low engine RPM. 6.Weigh salt collected in sack or can- viduaily; even the same models can vary 6. Multiply shaft RPM (Column A) by vas. widely at the same setting. discharge per revolution (Column B) to 7.Multiply weight of salt by 5.2(in ease Equipment needed: get discharge rate in pounds per minute of 1,000 feet)or 52.8.(in case of 100 feet). 1.Scale for weighing. (Column C), then multiply discharge rate This will be the amount of salt dis- 2.Canvas or bucket/collection device. by minutes to travel one mile at various charged per mile,which remains constant 3.Chalk,crayon or other marker. truck speeds to get pounds discharged regardless of speed, but calibration must 4.Watch with second hand. per mile." be done for each control setting. CALIBRATION Agency: Location: Truck No.: Spreader No.: Date: By: A B C - _. Discharge Control shaft RPM Per i Discharge 5 Ratem¢h ' t0 + 15 apt► �t 3tltnit 86�f Ott ti411 Suing (Loaded) Revolution {t bsAulin) x 12.00 j x 6.00 ':. x 4.00 x 3 x 2 1 x 2 ` x i. x (Founds) i i t ......-_...._..._.. _. _ _........._ ...... 1 I � _._......_...__.__ _.._....._._ _._ ..__ ........_.__... -- 2 '...-_._......._.............—_....—.._.—........__........._........ i i i € 3 , 4 L i ° _.._..-_._.....-.........._.° L-.____._..._...._ ......._._......_..- ..... _ This i 5 —�� weight -......—_........ —_ 6 remains - I €�_ .._..... _._-............_..._ _.... —constant 7 ' I - ........_..--...:_.._—_...._.— _` _.................... _. _...._............_...... _ _ 9 i 10 i ......--............ 10 7/ GUIDELINES FOR SALT APPLICATION Timing is crucial in applying salt. .,,, N., Ideally, salt should be spread as soon asj, M a storm begins in order to prevent bond- r ing of snow or ice to the pavement. The . salt will quickly`produce a brine or keep snow mealy,allowing for efficient plowing. The melting action of salt applied early in a storm works from the pavement sur- face up so snow and ice do not form hardpack. There are times and storm conditions where salt alone. is the only answer to _ keeping the pavements clear. For exam- " pie, freezing rain cannot be plowed and salt is the only solution for clearing the roads when it occurs. Anti-Icing, or applying salt before the storm actually begins is practiced in Euro- pean countries and by a few agencies in North America.Since Mother Nature and storm forecasting are not always precise, ice and snow in the next storm. A deicer this can be tricky.But, done successfully, Play the wind to pout salt where it will only has residual effect if too much was presalling is the hest means to prevent do the most good. applied for the storm condition. ice-pavement bonding; Many agencies in the North American The best advice would be to be pre- snowbelt have found that prewetting salt pared to mobilize all forces as soon as a buildings)and wind chill factor,to name a with brine speeds the reaction time of salt Winter storm approaches. few variables. and also provides melting action at lower There are no easy answers or solu- Snow and ice control is a very complex temperatures. See Chapter 10 on page tions with snow and ice control because issue and those people on the front line 16 for details on this deicing procedure there are too many variables. It has been need the best information possible. There may also be a combination of estimated there are over 66,666 different Salt is usually applied at the rate of applications of any of the above.Although storm conditions-pavement temperature, 300 to 800 pounds per two-lane mite. As most agenOes agree that prewetting pro- ambient temperature, pavement type, so- temperatures drop, either the quantity of vides a faster,higher l of service at all lar radiation, traffic fume, traffic speed, salt or the frequency of application must temperatures, they do not agree on wind direction and velocity,type of precip- be increased. method of lion. itation, topography, lake or ocean effect, Ideally, with any deicer, at the end of shaded areas {by mountains, trees or the storm all material should be com- pletety used. Since storm forecasting Is Correct "overthrow" by adjusting the not precise, some residue may remain on Trafficdensity. and highwey design drop location on the spinnerr the surface after some storms.That resi largely control the spreading pattern. due, if not blown off or washed away, will be effective in helping prevent bonding of .._.... , 11 t Spreading can be done full-width or ment condition. Spreader operators Don't overlook salt's anti-skid value. windrow.Both have strengths depending should"play the wind"to put salt where it For years, maintenance people have ob- on conditions. Pay special attention to will do the most good, served that salt, applied as an ice matter, spinner speeds. A spinner that revolves Give salt time to work. Time plowing also gives anti-skid protection.Tests con- too fast will throw salt over a wide area, operations to allow maximum melting by ducted in cooperation with the National possibly wasting material. You may cor- salt.When you plow salt off the pavement, Safety Council show that salt, applied at rect "overthrow" by adjusting the drop lo- you waste the deicing material and in- normal deicing rates, gives as much cation on the spinner by using your crease the cost of snow removal. anti-skid protection as abrasives. The directional baffles or reducing spinner Know when to plow and reapply salt. anti-skid effect of salt is immediate as it speed.Traffic density and highway design The need for another salt application can starts melting snow or ice. largely determine the spreading pattern be determined by watching melting snow Safeguard the environment. The way required. kicked out behind vehicle tires.If the slush salt is spread can make the difference be- A windrow of salt applied in a 4-8 foot is soft and"fans"out like water,the salt is tween whether the public appreciates or strip along the centerline is effective on still working. Once the slush begins to condemns snowfighters' efforts. Overuse two-lane pavements with a low to medium stiffen and is thrown directly to the rear of and misuse ignore concern for the envi- traffic count. Less salt is wasted with this vehicle tires, it is time to plow and spread ronment. Proper calibration of spreading pattern and quickly gives vehicles clear more salt. equipment and good storage can avoid pavement under at least two wheels.Traf- Has the weather changed? Remember most problems. fic will soon move some salt off the can- that salt application rates may have to be There is no correlation between yearly increased at night, on sunless days and snowfall and the total quantity of salt when the temperature drops sharply. used. The type of storm dictates fre- Without the sun, the effect of solar radia- quency of application and total amount of tion and warmth is lost. At night, traffic salt necessary. A freezing rain or ice usually diminishes, minimizing another storm may require enormous amounts of heat source that helps melt ice and snow. salt,perhaps even more than a prolonged Also,pavement temperature is not always snowstorm. There is no way to combat the same as air temperature. freezing rain other than salt use. f Salt,provides Immediate anti-skid pro- Apply salt to the high side of elevated tectio►a while starting the melting proc- curves so brine will flow down and ass. across the roadway terline and the salt brine will move toward both shoulders for added melting across the entire road width. The full-width spreading pattern is used most often on multiple-lane pave- ments with medium to high traffic vol- umes. Melting action is obtained over the full pavement width.Vehicles tend to stay .. in line to clear wheel paths in the lanes. Often the full width pattern is used when trying to get salt down "under a storm" But be careful not to waste salt when using this pattern. A Play the wind In spreading.A strong wind blowing across a street or highway can cause salt to"drift"as it comes out of the spreader, pushing it onto the shoulder or into a gutter.This is particularly true in rural areas where there are few "wind- breaks" How the wind affects spreading depends on both wind velocity and pave- 12 I SPECIAL SPREADING AND PLOMNG PROBLEMS Salt bridges first, Bridges freeze long as soon as possible. Delay in getting to road conditions to one trucking company before road surfaces because they do not critical areas may cause severe traffic in their area.The trucking firm passes the hold warmth as a roadbed does, since tie-ups. information on to other truckers who re cold air reaches both the top and bottom Make a list of trouble spots that opera- quest it by radio or telephone. The road surfaces of bridge decks.They should re- tors should salt first during storms. Make condition information becomes available ceive early attention and an application of sure all personnel understand that within minutes to a vast number of motor salt, Bridge decks may ice over even bridges, intersections, ramps, hills and ists equipped with CB radios as it is re- when there is no precipitation because of curves come first. Have operators patrol layed on various citizens'band channels. high humidity and low temperatures. (Or highways rather than wait at maintenance Company dispatchers are instructed under certain other conditions, bridges areas for direction. not to send trucks into areas where trou- t` wilt frost over without precipitation and It is far better to have equipment on ble spots exist and to advise drivers if must be salted.) the road when snow begins than in the chains are needed. Salt on the :high side of elevated maintenance yard. Nothing is more reas- The"Snow Alert"eliminates many seri- curves. Salt brine will flow down and suring to motorists than to see loaded ous tie-ups caused by trucks andother across a banked curve. if salt is spread spreaders and plows patrolling prior to vehicles trying to negotiate impassable dawn the centerline,.everything above it storms. routes, giving maintenance crews a will remain icy. Spread salt on the high Give interchanges special attention. chance to work with less interference side of the curve and let gravity do the Salt on and off-ramps as quickly as possi- from traffic. rest of the work. ble.A safe road or street is of little value Deicing grates on bridges.Many draw- Leave no gaps.Operators must go be without safe entrances and exits. bridges and other opening spans have yond their assigned areas,if necessary,to Can trucks be kept out of the way? open metal grating over part of their plow or salt a gap that has not been One state has a novel plan aimed at re- length. Salt applied on these structures treated for some reason. A short, ne- ducing costly and dangerous traffic simply falls through the mesh with very lit- glected stretch of =dway can be very tie-ups during snowstorms by keeping tle melting effect.To melt ice that forms on hazardous to an unsuspecting motorist. truckers posted on road conditions. Here the metal, spread a salt application up to Watch for drifting. In oonlnued high is how it works: the dividing point between concrete and winds, maintain a patrol to watch for drift- Eight district engineers in different re- steel and let traffic move the brine across ing and slick spots, even after the pave- guns of the state relay information about the grating. ment has been cleared.,Treat icy buildups __.._.._ with a salt application.if the highway has a blacktop or stabilized shoulder, drif€ing may be controlled with a safe application on the shoulder to form a"mefting furrier." �► � � � During some very low temperature stoms with dry blowg snow, salt should be used cautiously. The dry snow may blew off the pavement If no raft Is used. Avoid slick conditions from buildup of ice or panted snow by applying a salt ap- plication heavy enough to prevent refreezing. Traffic_ icing is very dangerous. Occa- sionally,under certain weather conditions, a paper-thin sheet of ice forms in wheel paths on a bare pavement even when pavement looks clear.The light ice forma- tion can be deadly. Maintenance opera tors should be instructed to watch for this condition and to apply salt immediately X when it is detected. Get equipment on the road. Once a word of an impending storm has been re- ceived and plows are mounted and trucks loaded, get vehicles out of the yard and onto their plowing and spreading sections Salt on and off tamps early and re- rove mowed snow ir+m bridges as --_ soon its possiblo Aw 13 1 AN714CING if the storm is delayed, salt residue agencies have made their own brine mak- remains on the road ready to begin work ers using water tanks and PVC pipe for •___ ;� � when precipitation begins. substantially lower cost. Brine is usually �a t q; • Crews can begin treatment in ad- made at the local maintenance facility vane of a storm. Because anti-icing pre- sites and stored in large tanks in locations It E CON r Rr' Ili vents the bonding of snow and ice to convenient for loading into saddle tanks St8QK pavement,snowfighters have less work to on the sides of the V-box or anti-icing FT maintain safe roadways as the storm pro- equipment. grosses. Increased efficiency results in use of Application Equipment less deicer and manpower,therefore low Brine applicators are commercially ering the cost of maintaining safe road available for about $1,000. Some agen- conditions.The use of less deicing materi- ties have manufactured their own applica- "' als also minimizes environmental con- tion equipment using large tanks and corns. PVC piping.Some equipment is designed Products available for use in an to be loaded onto the bed of spreading --- --- anti-icing program are sodium chloride, trucks, towed behind maintenance equip- calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, ment or permanently mounted on truck potassium acetate, and calcium magne- beds. It can be as simple as a gravity fed slum acetate. Each product has its own spraying system with a operator con- " advantages and disadvantages.The most trolled cut-off valve or a more complex common material in use is sodium chlo- "Iowa found salt brine with Its eutectic ride {salt) in the form of a brine made temperature of-6F, works as well as from a mixture of rock salt and water.Salt Hydrometer ' • # " i er liquid CaC12.Liquid calcium chloride is brine is effective to-6° F and is a proven Chart for extremely expensive at 63 centslgallon anti-icing agent in use throughout the compared to salt at 6 centslgallon," snowbelt. MT = ;Z —Tom Donehey, Director of Mainte- Some agencies use calcium or magne '��� ` � nartce Programs,l6ti:?CPT sium chloride in a brine solution which is A0r effective down to -6(}°F, but is more than � k r, A relatively new weapon in the six times as expensive than salt, and is snowfighter's arsenal in North America is more difficult to handle.Also,calcium andn 1,007 anti-icing. But it has a long history of magnesium chloride residue.on road sur keeping European roads safe and pass- faces can attract moisture at lower relaWe1 t1 $} able. humidity than salt resulting in dan"mus, Anti-icing measures take place before slippery conditions under certain cirt ' a precipitation event to prevent the forma- stances. tion or development of bonded snow and Salt Brine Manufacture ice on the road surface. Research has shown that timely applications of anti-icing Salt brine is made by mixing rook sal l t materials can cut the cost of maintaining or solar salt with water. The W;=W is 7 � a safe road surface by 90%over the cost simple: the resulting brine should be ap of deicing.-Anti-icing chemicals are ap- proximately 23%NaCl. L plied in liquid form(brine)to road surfaces The proportion of salt to water is crth just before a snow or ice storm. Liquid cal to the effectiveness of the brine. Too �3 sodium chloride (NaCI) is the most effec- much or too little salt affects the freeze tine choice for anti-icing above 15°F point depressing qualities of the brine 4 i.1 r The proper brine mixture is 23.3% salt 1 1 w Anti-icing has many advantages. content by weight. This is the concentra 1 = Anti-icing returns road surfaces to tion at which salt brine has the lowest normal faster, resulting in fewer accidents freezing point, -6°F. It is known as the # and delays. eutectic point. This percentage is mea • Salt needs moisture to be effective. sured with a salometer, a specialized by 1 158 }f Applying brine jumpstarts the melting pro- drometer. Salt is added to the water until _ 1 23 1 17$__ 85 " toss. a 88.3% measurement on the salomotor -.�...,.-,— •Brine sticks to the road surface.it will is obtained. This results in the proper 1 1 not be as easily blown off the road by 23.3%salt content. wind or traffic so material is more effi- Commercial brine makers are available ciently used. at a cost of approximately $4500. Many 14 ce :`�.. Application r.M Accurate weather and road surface in- - formation are critical for the efficient use a' of anti-icing chemicals.Road surface tem- peratures, precipitation amounts and form, wind conditions, and road environ- -- I ment (sunlight exposure, surface condi- tion, bridges, etc.) all affect the use and t application of anti-icing measures. Understanding the freeze point de- pressing qualities of brine is important to ` its use and application as an anti-icing agent.(See the Phase diagram below).As Some Iowa agencies have made their Commercial brine making equipment you can see from the chart, the minimum awn brine making equlpmrit for ap- is available for approximately$4,500 freeze point of salt brine is-6°F at a con- proximately$1,000. centration of 23.3%. Road surface tem- peratures are indicated on the side of the chart, solution concentrations along the bottom. The line represents the freeze precipitation and heavy traffic can dilute point of the solution at a given tempera- the brine solution allowing the road to (and more controllable) pump driven ture.The colored portion in the center of refreeze. ADDITIONAL PRECIPITATION sprayer system. Control should be avail- the chart .shows the melting range of ALWAYS RESULTS IN A DILUTION OF able to vary spreading rates from 25 to 60 brine solutions.The area to the left shows BRINE AT THE ROAD SURFACE. gallons per lane mile. the results of a solution with too little salt, Weather information is getting better If large, horizontal tanks are used in the road surface will refreeze unless more with the introduction of doppler radar re- the design, consider installing baffles in- salt brine or deicing salt is applied. The ports,often distributed over the Internet or side the tanks to help prevent the liquid area to the right shows the results with to subscribers of weather service provid- from suddenly shifting In the tank, creat- too much salt,and once again the surface ers. RWIS costs continue to drop as the ing a hazardous control situation for the will freeze without ft Introduction of technology becomes more frequently de- operator. more molsluire.As you can see,additional ployed. Everything from air temperature, dew point, optical weather identifiers, to pavement temperature, surface status, Phase Dhigrain for . and chemical information is available. Some agencies uti remote television 30 0 cameras to monitor taft and bridge con- ditions.This infimation will help agencies accurst* determine the appropriats ap- -5 pliNcation of anti-loars. 20 Summary -10 Anti-icing measures are an important weapon in the snowfightoes arsenal.The 10 .. appropriate use of anti-hang techniques results in: Temp l -15 Temp. • Returning to bare pavement condi- tions more quickly,saving lives and reduc- ('F) 0 (G) ing property daynage due to fewer . accicts,`as wells the reduction of traf- -20 }. _ fic delays and the resulting reduction of losses to local eoonomfes; -10 • Reduction in the quantity of deicer Too Cole! 25 use,resulting in cost savings and less en- Refrewing OOM vironmental concerns;and • Reduction in the manpower neces- -20 sary to mA*tain safe road conditions, re- i _. _..__-.._ —_L_ _.... ... ..._ 1..._._—__ -30 salting in less overtime costs, less 5 10 15 20 23 25 operator fatigue and.safer working condi- tions. Soiution Concentration(°lo by Weight) 15 i 10/DEICING-PREwETnNG "Prewetted salt. . .works faster,and at Abrasives have no melting effect for prewetted solid or liquid form.The type of lower temperatures than dues dry salt, deicing operations, in fact research by the precipitation event, dry snow, wet snow, with less waste." —rechnology News, Strategic Highway Research Program ice, sleet,freezing rain, etc. must be con- October 1995 (SHRP) and the University of Wisconsin sidered. Keep in mind that changing con- suggests that sand inhibits the melting ditions will affect operations. Falling process of deicing materials. temperatures can cause refreezing. Addi- Once snow has accumulated and tional precipitation can dilute winter main- bonded to the road or an ice storm has Choosing the Proper Application tenance materials, rendering them glazed road surfaces, deicing operations Salt can be applied in solid, prewetted ineffective. Refer to the Phase Change di- must begin to restore safe driving condi- solid, or liquid form. Application methods agram in the previous chapter for assis- tions.The bond between snow and/or ice are determined by weather and road con- tance in determining the proper course of and the pavement surface must be de- ditions as well as equipment available. action. stroyed by chemical or physical means or Salt needs moisture to provide melting ac- if the road surface is wet and tempera- a combination of the two. tion. Deicing rock salt or solar salt dis- tures will not cause refreezing,then appli- More than a dozen chemicals have solves in road surface moisture to form a cation of dry salt is appropriate. been tested for deicing use. The most brine which melts snow and ice to form Necessary moisture is already present so common products used are sodium chlo- more brine which continues the process. brine will be formed immediately and ride, calcium chloride and magnesium Once salt has penetrated the packed melting action can begin.The application chloride. Sodium chloride in the form of snow and ice to make brine on the pave- rate will be determined by the amount of rock salt or brine(see previous chapter)is ment surface,the bond will be broken and snow and ice coverage.Keep in mind the by far the most commonly used chemical removal operations can be successful in reduced mobility effect as dilution of in deicing operations due to its lower cost restoring bare pavement conditions. deicing salt occurs. and proven effectiveness. Therefore, in Forecasted conditions and road sur- If snow pack and ice is solid, or tem- the words of the Transportation Research face temperatures at the time of treatment peratures will fall to the point that Board in its 1992 analysis of deicers says determine whether winter maintenance refreezing will take place, then prewetted salt remains the"deicer of choice" materials should be applied in solid, solid application of deicers may provide more rapid results.Adding moisture to the salt either at loading or at the spinner when applied will jump start the deicing process by providing more moisture to be- gin the melting process. Spraying liquids is not recommended for packed:snow as the liquid destroys E11716 surkm Metim and ft brine may become f I -- 3 re rae(ting action is corn- treatment for l f 1 r can low as �1 t b. _ �t of cation is o0naldisted,by ministration to be� rid 1 0F:Below Ott -texture, pro-Wet With GOWUM ter s ride or calcium magrw*jm chloride mixed with sdrrn tlorfds. Detests shoultiz be applied ctcw to the DACK crown or high point of the read. Tare re-- ( 10 0 Fr suiting brine will run downhill from the \ a i Prewetting brine can be added to the £B load at the yard,(see next page)or dur- ing spreading operations using coddle tanks, shown here, or home built "over-cab"tanks. 16 crown to the rest of the surface. Spinner speed should be low enough to ensure that deicing materials remain on the road surface. Spinner speed and application rates should be higher at intersections and other high traffic areas to spread ------.� deicing material over a larger area or in higher concentrations as required by the condition. However, use of the "BLAST' override on automatic controls while stopped at a stop sign or light is not ap- propriate. Road conditions, temperature, amount _ J of snow and ice cover, storm progress, ..�..::: and traffic conditions all affect deicing ap- plication rate.The tables on page 5 of this ;. Handbook, will assist you in determining appropriate application rates. Equipment Used Solid deicers or rewetted salt is a - p p a \ 9 4 ,, { piled with spreader trucks. If the load is wetted, then no additional equipment is +� } ,x, o necessary.Saddle tanks and a sprayer at � �� � .✓ � ' :;.: � ; the spinner are necessary if brine is ap- ; ., plied to the salt at time of application to b 8 g the roadway. Brine can be applied with $ n�ce v tank trucks or towed equipment using the same equipment discussed in Chapter 9. " Summary a \� % ' o Qy no Use of salt is a proven snowf ghting «,- ter hnique with many advantages: •Returns roadway surfaces to bars pavement conditions more quickly, 4d thereby reducing the number of accidents Y ems:• and property damage, and saving lives. ditches because wetted salt sticks to the Prewetting brine can be s p onto Research has shown that use of salt as a pavement, deicing materials at t!0 spinner during deicer more than pays for itself; +The amount of dry materials used snowgghting operations using com- +L amers manpower costs by reducing can be.cut by 20- 4ADOt•! cause r,arciai or home burg`equipment. the time necessary to restore dry pave- of the" d action of added b , and ment conditions; more rnate►`tals remain on roadway, +Eliminates or greatly reduces +Works faster Muse more brine is cleanup costs; present- *Compared to alternatives, salt .is +Driving/spreading speeds can be in- An entire load can be prewetted at the safer to handle, and kinder to the environ- creased because salt stays on the road- yard using equipment designed for ment when.property used. way. this purpose, Prewetting may enhance salt use: +Salt can be spread more uniformly with less waste on shoulders and in - : • . "Sodium chloride, or common road salt, is by far the most popular deicer, because It is reliable, Inexpensive,and easy to handle, store, and spp4e' Transportation Research Soared Spa- cial Report 235 on Highway Deicing 17 1 1 AFTER THE STORM 12 A WORD ABOUT SAFETY Most snowstorms occur at 20 degrees away, if necessary, to make sure all The whole purpose of snow and ice re- or above, with the temperature dropping drains in the bridge floor are open and moval is, of course, to provide safe travel most severely after the snow stops. free-draining. for motorists.In doing this,those in main- After the storm, with the pavement Clear snow from raised medians to tenance must not overlook their own clear and dry, is the time to wing back prevent drifting.Also clear snow from bar- safety; neither must they overlook the shoulders,clear structures and haul snow rier walls and traffic dividers to reduce possibility that in trying to provide safe away from critical areas to make room for later melting and refreezing and to im- pavement they may be creating another future snow storage. prove driver visibility. safety hazard. In plowing, a windrow of snow is often Clear those drains! It is vital that Become familiar with a few "do"s and left on each side of bridges.These wind- roadway drains and catch basins be kept "don'ts that can make your work far rows reduce the usable roadway width on open to allow melting ice and snow to run safer: the bridge.Moreover, if allowed to remain, off. When water ponds and puddles •Check all equipment before each use. they will later melt and form ice. Remove around drains, falling temperatures may Make sure lights, brakes, windshield wip- this snow as soon as possible. cause it to refreeze.A salt application on ers, exhaust systems, tires, chains and Caution. Do not dump material from frozen drains, catch basins and culverts steering are safe. overhead bridges onto roadway or rail- frees them of snow and ice. •Promptly report all mechanical trou- road tracks below. Hand shovel the snow ble. •Remember that speed can kill, espe- cially in a snowstorm or at night. Resist the urge to get the job done in a s �H hurry. •Respect rights of others.Be consider- ate of motorists who have trouble driving in snow; report stranded motorists when a E_ possible. Keep first aid kits completely stocked. f Check fire extinguishers and flares often. ' �< •Observe traffic laws. •Watch for signs of fatigue in equip- meet operators.A limit of twelve continu- ous hours on duty seems fairly common 0WIc works agencies in the snow belt, afthough some organizations permit lon- er work periods. Usually, however, the 0utine is twelve hours on and twelve off. a�h Studies have shown that sensible salt- ing saves fives. i� 18 /KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED Publicize snow emergency procedures ation,officers from local military units and and. regulations. Keep broadcasters and news media representatives. newspapers periodically informed of snow Snowfighters are not miracle work- clearing progress and specific problem ar- ers. They are dedicated, hardworking eas. This way, motorists will know on human beings who pit their will 6 which routes they will be able to travel against the forces of nature—and usu- { f with the least difficulty. Advance publicity ally wlnl on snow clearing priorities will reduce The real record of their accomplish- time-consuming calls from people de- ment is not the tons of snow removed manding to know when their streets or or the miles of pavement kept clear or roads will be cleared. number .of streets plowed. The .r Before storms arrive,pass on informa- achievement of open highways that al tion about approaching snow in time for low business, industry and govern schools, industry and government agen- ment to function and people to travel cies to decide whether or not to remain safety and without undue delay Is the open or to close early. testament of good snowflghting. Wake contact with other agencies. There are no comprehensive data to Long before winter, meet with representa- support the number of lives saved tives of other public agencies to discuss through the efforts of public works and means of cooperating in snow and ice re- highway agencies,yet, lives are saved moval. Take the initiative to let others and you may have saved one of them. Fr , know of your plans and to enlist their co- The findings of one quality study _ - - operation. are displayed below.There is no doubt Consider inviting these people to the about the benefits of deicing.Even cal- pre-winter session:a representative of the culating all the known costs of deicing top elected public official in your area,the such as vehicle and bridge corrosion local civil defense director, those in and environmental damages,the bene- charge of bus transportation for school fits of using deicing salt are more than systems, police and fire officials, emer- 18 times the cost of providing this es- t gency road service managers of nearby sential public aafety service. clubs of the American Automobile Assoc!- ACCIDEW RAfE y (per 10 million ve ., kin) SPREADING TIME �~ �a 10 M y 7 ._._— __ _-.___..._ ___..._.______, _.._._._ ..___. 1 8 __ .........._..... ____. ......... _ 6. .. ............. ...... _.. _._ ` t --- a --- ..............__.....__.__..............._........_..___ ....._.._._............._.... 4 _____ .._.._. _....._.._...._.._._.. .t _._...................__.__ f 1 r_..- A form to assure that pre-winter preps- 0 rations are made on schedule and one : to keep a record of storm ,information are on the following pages. -12 -10 - -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 TIME (In!"Tours) BUWE AFTER c c ident Rate Before and After Salt Spreading 19 r SNOW AND ICE CONTROL CHECK SHEET (Answer YES or NO except where more information is requested) Organization: Please complete,sign and return this form to by (DATE) Miles on Clear Pavement Estimated Winter Salt Salt On Hand Soft On Order Abrasives On Hand Abrasives On Order Requirement(Tons) ras Standandard j :. ......... : STORAGE FACILITIES AVAILABLE FACILITIES- �E ltlUNt� trAPAGt ) f NOW #� d A } BUILDINGS BUILDINGS --- _. --..... -----------..........................._ ........ CRIBs i GFIBS -..__ __.... _. -_- -..__. PADS GRAVITY fIM -- — 1.If cover material needed:Type 2.Condition of salt on hand: Dry Wet 3.All mechanical parts storage facilities-such as hinges,slides conveyors-are operating properly and ready for winter uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 4.If no,explain needed repairs. 5.Area lights are In working condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 6.Storage areas are clean and cleared of items that might cause accidents or impede operations. . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 7.Drainage is adequate at storage sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 8.Have there been public complaints about any storage area? . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 9.If so,please explain and give dates. 10.Traffic warning or control signs are posted at entrances and exits to storage areas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Cl Yes❑ No 11.Engine heaters and shed facilities are available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No EOUIPMENT 1. LOADERS A. Loaders of all types have been checked and needed repairs made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No B. Describe repairs not yet completed: 1 2. SPREADERS f A. All spreaders have been calibrated and needed repairs made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No i B. Spreading rates posted in cab,spinners checked for width of spread. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No C. Following items have been inspected and tested on all spreaders: 1. Spinners and auger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 2. Sheet metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 3. Gasoline Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 4. Cab and other operator controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No 5. Number of spreaders ready for operation: 6. Hydraulic systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑ No a.Filter element in systems(replace if necessary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes LQ No b.Oil-drain and flush hydraulic system,fill with oil of manufacturer's recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes❑. No 20 ............... ...........---—------------- 3.SNOWPLOWS&UNDERBODY BLADES A. All plows have been checked and needed repairs made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 1771 No B. Blade edges checked and replaced if necessary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No C. Plows have been placed on trucks to be sure all attachments and fittings are available. . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No D. All hoses,cylinders and fittings have been inspected and tested.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 171 No E. Reversible plows work properly and freely. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No F. Plow ends are marked with flags. . 0 Yes 0 No G. An adequate stock of all types of blades and bolts is on hand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes D No H. Number of plows ready for operation. 4.SAFETY DEVICES A. All winter maintenance vehicles are equipped with lights according to official guidelines. . . . . . . . . . El Yes 0 No B. If not,describe preparations: C. Wiring and connections have been inspected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Yes 0 No D. Following items have been inspected on all equipment: Headlights . . . . . . . . . . El Yes C1 No Rotary lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Yes C3 No Tail lights. . . . . . . . . . . El Yes 0 No Flashing lights . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes El No Stop lights . . . . . . . . . . 171 Yes 13 No Instrument lights . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes El No Turn lights . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes El No Dome lights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes D No Rear&side view mirrors. . . 0 Yes El No E. All trucks are equipped with: Flares . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑0 Yes❑D No Flashlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Yes 0 No Safety Vest. . . . . . . . . . 171 Yes 0 No First aid kit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes El No Tire chains. . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 11 No Tow chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1771 Yes 1771 No F. Following Items have been inspected and found in working order: Windshield wipers . . . . . . El Yes 171 No Wiper blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . D Yes 0 No Tires . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Yes 0 No Heater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes D No Def roster. . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 171 No Fuel gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No Exhaust system . . . . . . . El Yes El No Front end alignment. . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No ASSIGNMENTS AND TRAINING -------A. Personnel and equipment have been assigned to specific sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Yes 0 No B. Operators have been fully informed of their duties and responsibilities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Yes El No C. All operators understand the operation of equipment and work procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Yes El No i D. "Dry runs"have been made to check routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ Yes C-1 No E. Operators and supervisory personnel understand that each spreader must be calibrated separately;using salt,on a"dry run". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 NO F Operators have been instructed to clean and lubricate all equipment immediately after each storm,. . . . 0 Yes D No G. Operators have been told to report needed equipment repairs immediately. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes El No H. All operators have received safety instructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No I. Reserve operators are fully trained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes 0 No WEATHER WARNING AND MOBILIZATION OF CREWS A. Arrangements have been made with a U.S.Bureau Station or other forecaster to get advance warning of storms.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Yes C3 No B. Arrangements have been made with local police,sheriff's department,highway patrol or others to notify you in the event of a night storm.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Yes El No List checks and maintenance procedures that have not been completed on a separate sheet and attach to this form. Signed Title Signed Title Signed Title ....................--.......... ........ 21 STORM RECORD E Storm No.: Sec.: Div.: Date: Storm Started ; From: Storm Ended To: Road Cleared Or Snow ,1 Y Temp 1 Wind w0tSnow Max.: j Min.: = Direction: Velocity - Mph -- �_- - - - Skwt I _ Dept of Snow Vfsii ft ty Avg.(in.) Drifts(ft) Good: Fair: Poor: d a f No.of Apps Time Excellent Good a'aor --___ -..-........ ....... Salt From: To. Salt 3 From: To: 9 _..._.._..... _ —----- -- -...._._ -----------._ �ltirres", From: To: Labor,6. • 77 Personnel Tote! Type Hewn 3,1 (Torts) Salt — j —........_.__..—�_....—.__._ —.._ ............. —...__.._....—..........—---........_........_...... _.......——...— I j Abmshm � I - � 1 _.._._—._.........._.........._......_.___-___..__._ 1 i � l E I T i 3 � ._._......_................_.__ �...—_._.._....._._.... [ TOTAL i Comments: _..........._..._....__.._.._._...._._.___ ____ Completed by: Name,Title 22 r 1 ► . Additional Publications and Audio Visual Materials Salt Institute Available from the Salt Institute ❑ Deicing Salt and Our Environment $2/up to 10 $1.50/over 10 Details effects of deicing salt, if overused,on plants, trees, and grasses, and water supplies. Also disucsses auto abrasives. 12 pages. corrosion,damage to pavement and bridges and the problems created by other deicers and p g ❑, Salt Storage Handbook $1 each A guide for the handling and storing deicing salt. Dozens of storage ideas. ❑ Salt Storage Summary $501 hundred A 3-page summary of the very popular handbook. ❑ The Snowfighter's Handbook $1 each Manual for winter maintenance. Includes pre-winter planning, equipment scheduling and maintenance, special plowing and spreading problems and environmental considerations. 24 pages. Revised 1999. ❑ Calibration Chart $151 hundred Card for use in calibrating spreaders. One side for recording calibration figures, other side explains calibration steps. 5" x 7". ❑ Comparative Cost Analysis of Salt and Abrasives $15/hundred A useful form for snow and ice control agencies for comparing the total cost of salt vs. and abrasive salt mix. ❑ Deicing Salt Facts $30/hundred 4=page multi-colored fact sheet covering common questions asked about deicing salt. Includes storage, environmental protection, corrosion, safety benefits, and potholes. ❑ Salt&Highway Deicing $301 hundred A full-color newsletter about highway uses of salt. Published twice annually. Single Copies of all literature are free.AN materials are not free. VIDEOS ($20/video) ❑ Snowfighting(22 minutes) A comprehensive training video for use by snowfighters,whose job it is to keep traffic safely moving when snow and ice make that job very difficult. Explains basics of snow and ice removal,equipment preparation and maintenance, salt&ice and fuel consumption, history and uses of salt,etc. in a very informative manner, Revised 1999. ❑ Risk Management Video(9 minutes) A video for every Risk Manager. Explains the necessity for highway safety and the accidents it can help managers avoid. To place your order call(703)649-4648,fax your request to(703)549-2194 or order online at www.sa1tlnstltute.org4,html � ) Published by \ Salt Institute } w ] oAxym« m0 - ) AlexAlm% Virg.nia22m 2040 ) e+me :263}: ) Fax:7 >548 D m ) Websito:hex «yam ae:g ! Emall i,» + g } Page 1 of 1 Gantick, Michael From: Friend, Timothy Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:02 PM To: Gantick, Michael; Shaw, Fred; Reichle, Karl Cc: Owens, Mark Subject: RE: TV of storm sewer--Willow&Woodland We camera'd the storm lines as below today, finding no problems on Woodland. At the intersection of Maple and Willow however there is a problem. About half way across the road from the east side of Willow towards Maple there is a significant joint separation. Rebar can be seen and there are pieces of concrete protruding into the pipe. The road above the joint is in reasonable condition—no sinking. Tim From: Gantick, Michael Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:32 AM To: Shaw, Fred; Friend,Timothy; Reichle, Karl Cc: Owens, Mark Subject: TV of storm sewer--Willow&Woodland I would like to get the storm sewer on willow and on woodland (From Highland to Laurel)TV'ed before the snow flies to see if we have any exfiltration issues that might be a connection to the issue raised by the resident on Maple street. Sincerely, Michael J. Gantick, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Ct. 06074 (860)644-2511 ext. 242 11/27/2007 y ' i I . w r a% sI J gz�sr�, r., r yr"s, Y ; n G l rs � - 1 { y_ 4 Y' w ' , �z w w �r r. 1 r Y t l ot 9', MAs Y T wr y k i C r4 I z rat �xs'a���a •��� E t q7 - Call for Proposals - Center for Transportation and Urban Planning at UConn Faculty members from all departments at UConn are invited to respond to the first call for proposals of the Center for Transportation and Urban Planning at UConn. CTUP is UConn's University Transportation Center(UTC) as designated in the federal legislation titled the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users," or SAFETEA-LU in August 2005. Projects will be for one-year duration (with the possibility of one-year extension renewal pending a review of progress) and Pis may request up to $100,000 of federal funding each year. Research teams will be asked to match 1 dollar for every 2 dollars awarded from the CTUP. This match may be in-kind including faculty academic year time and graduate student tuition waiver. Research Theme The theme of the CTUP is Transportation for Smart Growth. Within this theme research will be focused on the following three (3)target areas: • Document, evaluate and disseminate transportation and land use policies that support the goals for smart growth • Evaluate the impact of various transportation and land use systems on economic, environmental, and societal sustainability • Develop operating protocols and designs that maximize the efficiency, convenience and competitiveness of green modes of transportation Proposal Selection Process The procedure for developing and selecting projects for funding in 2008-09 is outlined below: UConn Smart Growth Research Forum October 16, 2007 Submit Intent to Propose December 1, 2007 Deadline for Full Proposal March 1, 2008 Announcement of Projects for Funding April 1, 2008 First Year Projects Start May 23, 2008 The research forum, held on October 16, introduced the UTC and outlined our research program to potential Pi's at UConn. One of the goals of this forum was to encourage researchers that are doing complimentary work in different disciples to submit joint projects. To re-enforce this point we are requiring researchers that are interested in developing proposals to submit an "intent" to propose — a document outlining the potential research team and their area of expertise and a one- or two-paragraph description of proposed research (see Intent to Propose Template). This will allow CTUP to pre-screen the projects with the intention of encouraging researchers with similar ideas to work together on a e joint submission. Send the Intent to Propose to Vivian Castelli at vivianc(Q-engr.uconn.edu by December 1, 2007. Proposal Format Research proposals must be 8 pages maximum in length, plus a title page, CVs and budget(see Proposal Template). They must also include a one-paragraph abstract on the title page. A separate one-page budget must also be submitted for each proposal. The principal investigator's and co-principal investigator's CV should be no more than one page each; if a longer CV is submitted; only the first page will be used. Each of the following sections must be clearly identified and addressed in a respondent's proposal. The following headings and subject order should be used in submissions: 1. Statement of Project Objectives - -What is the specific transportation problem or policy issue to be addressed and what is the scope of the proposed research? How does it specifically contribute the University Transportation Center theme? 2. Research Contribution - - How is the proposed research innovative, unique and a contribution to current work in the field of investigation? 3. Technical Approach or Methodology- -What is the proposed methodology, analytical techniques, data sources, etc.? 4. Anticipated Results - -What does the respondent anticipate to be the results of their research? Can any of the projected results be of immediate application to transportation firms, government agencies or providers? 5. Technology Transfer- - How will the knowledge and information learned from the research be transferred to the transportation research community as well as the transportation practitioner? Specifically, who is anticipated to benefit from the research - -who is the end "customer'? Transfer technology activities can include: professional exchange programs, including conferences and workshops; newsletters; publications; fulfilling information requests; training activities such as seminars and workshops; journal articles; conference papers; presentations; implementation of research results; and coordination with on-going. 6. Budget Request- - State your full funding request as a total dollar amount, separating it into Federal funds and matching funds. 7. Principal Investigator and Other Researchers - - On the 9t" page and beyond of your proposal, provide a one-page summary of each principal investigator's curriculum vitae. This page is in addition to the eight pages used for the research proposal's technical component. As a separate document, submit a one-page detailed project budget, prepared following the attached DOT Budget template. Respondents must identify the potential source of the matching fund where indicated on the budget template. s Send research proposals to Vivian Castelli at vivianc(aD-engr.uconn.edu by March 1, 2008. Proposal Review Proposals will be reviewed by a team of external reviewers including at least one individual from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The panel of peer reviewers will meet in person to discuss and rank the projects. In addition to the quality of Project Description, proposal reviews will be strongly guided by the following criteria: 1. Is the project truly relevant to the UTC theme? 2. Is the project relevant to broad, national strategic planning goals of the US Department of Transportation for research and development, including the UTC program? 3. Does the project have the potential to make fundamental research, education and policy contributions, as well as offer technology transfer and community outreach? 4. Is the project feasible within the time frame presented? 5. Does the project involve both undergraduate and graduate students in research? 6. Does the project encourage cross-d iscipi i nary and multi-school collaboration? The final selection of the projects will be made by the center director based on the recommendations and rankings from the research panel. A Center for Transportation and Urban Planning Research Program Year 2008-2009 Intent to Propose Principle Investigator Please provide name, department, and area of expertise. Research Team Members Please provide each member's name, department, and area of expertise. Proposed Research Please describe in one or two paragraphs. Submit to Vivian Castelli at vivianc engr.uconn.edu by December 1, 2007. z