Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 8/25/2020
WESTFIELD – After the Westfield City Council submitted two rounds of questions to the Water Department about opening Wells 7 and 8 in June and July, an engineer with the Department of Public Works answered the questions at the council’s Aug. 18 meeting.
Heather Stayton, the systems engineer for the Department of Public Works, jumped into the call to answer the more than 50 questions submitted by the City Council. She explained that while the wells and Water Department were outside the council’s jurisdiction, Mayor Don Humason asked the department to answer the questions.
One of the biggest concerns from residents and councilors alike was whether polyfluoroalkyl substances were present in the water in wells 7 and 8 at the Owen District Road Water Treatment Plant, which she confirmed they are not.
“All sampling done throughout the operational trial as well as since the Aug. 4 opening has shown the presence of PFAS in raw water and then non-detects for all PFAS at the mid-point of treatment in each vessel, as well as non-detect at the point of entry to the water distribution system,” Stayton said. “This demonstrates that the granular activated carbon is working as designed to remove PFAS.”
She said that the Westfield Water Department has been recognized for its work addressing the PFAS issue.
“Westfield and our expert consultant firms have been recognized nationally by Water and Waste Digest with the number one project reward in 2019 for our comprehensive work to address the PFAS issue in our water,” Stayton said.
She added that the department tests the raw water as much as required by the Department of Environmental Protection and as often as needed to make sure the plant is running properly.
Another concern from Councilor Dan Allie was over trace amounts of arsenic in the city’s water.
“Granular activated carbon, like that used in the Owen District Road Water Treatment Plant, tends to have a naturally occurring arsenic in it that is typically found in low concentrations in the first water put through a filter. This water was not put into the distribution system, these amounts typically reduce to negligible levels as more water is put through the filters during start up,” Stayton said.
As part of ongoing litigation regarding the wells, Stayton said she could not provide a current cost for the project.
“What goes into calculating this number is not only the bills the city is paying to the contractor, but also money that is spent throughout design, testing, sampling, permitting, consultants, staff, personnel, and equipment. What venturing an estimated dollar amount at this time will do however, is cripple our ability to recover our costs from the entities who are actually responsible for this contamination,” she said.
While there was some difficulty planning the question and answer session, Councilor Dave Flaherty said the main reason for planning it was to give answers to residents.
“One of the reasons we asked for this is so that the public can see the answers. The reason we asked for it is so that it can be broadcast on the internet and recorded for the citizens who are concerned about this kind of stuff,” he said.