1

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion regarding the water situation currently facing the City
of Westfield and the efforts to address it. The goal of this article is to clear up some of the
misconception surrounding this polarizing issue. What will be addressed here is the mechanical and
process to achieve solutions to a problem the City did not create, and how this administration is going to
remain focused returning clean drinking water to Northside of town.

Most are aware of the history but a brief synopsis is offered to clear up some confusion. In 2013, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified contaminants of concern, that being the family of
perfluorinated carbons. The EPA issued a health advisory of 600 parts per trillion (ppt) for two of these
compounds. All Westfield drinking water sources were under the advisory levels. In late 2015, the
Water Division of the Department of Public Works (DPW) became aware that a new health advisory was
imminent. Out of an abundance of caution, and before said advisory was issued, the department ceased
to use of Wells 7 & 8. Test results for these sources were substantially higher than levels in Wells 1 & 2.
The DPW proactively began addressing the issue by investigating all alternatives, including carbon
filtration on impacted wells.

In May of 2016, EPA did indeed update the advisory with new levels of 70 ppt. In February 2018, the
department was notified the advisory was changing again to include five long chain compounds as
opposed to the two originally identified. Again, the department reacted immediately and removed well
2 from service out of caution. This left only Well 1 in operation with no redundancy and that is where
we remain presently.

It is important to note that no source testing above the advisory level was ever introduced into the
system. Residents were notified by the City in partnership with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) as to the status of the drinking water supply. The DEP is a regulatory
agency that oversees drinking water systems across Massachusetts. All test results are reported to
them and they decide if a public notice should be published and the language in such report is approved
by them. At no time was any information withheld from the people of Westfield.

Currently, the City has four sources of water on the affected Northside, Wells 1, 2, 7, and 8. The output
of these Wells is as follows;

Well #1- 2.00 million gallons per day (mgd)

Well #2- 2.00 mgd

Well #7- 2.39 mgd

Well #8- 1.58 mgd

There have been several alternatives to those in the bond proposal offered by individuals outside the
department. Many have arisen in the past and the purpose of this correspondence is not to engage in a
back and forth but to inform residents of the facts surrounding this issue. We have been answering
these questions and explaining why the alternatives that have been identified and investigated
previously are not good solutions.
 2

Montgomery Reservoir- this source was taken off line in 1971 for odor and color issues. The
department commissioned a study in 2002 to determine the feasibility and cost to reestablish this as an
additional source. Water quality sampling and analysis was conducted and organic, inorganic and
microbiological parameters were evaluated. Besides meeting regulatory filtration and disinfection
standards for treating surface water, treatment would include; reducing levels of organic carbon,
meeting standards for removal and/or inactivation of Giardia and viruses, reducing levels of iron and
manganese and corrosion control.

To provide 1.4 mgd capacity would require rehabilitating the downstream Tekoa Dam, constructing a
water treatment plant and installing new pipelines. The estimated capital cost (in 2002 dollars) was $7.9
million and that didn’t include the 150 year old pipe that ran to the City. Considering the project would
not supply as much water as any of the existing sources on the Northside, the option was dismissed.

Springfield Interconnect- Westfield already has emergency interconnects with Springfield on the
Southside of the City. These interconnects are activated when there is a shortage of water on that side
of the City but with four functioning Wells and the Granville Reservoir they are only used in an
emergency.

The bond proposal includes $1.3 million for an additional interconnect to maintain hydraulics in the
Northwest water tank and would allow discontinuance of Wells 5 & 6. These two shallow, low yield
Wells are problematic at best. It is important to note that while the Westfield water system is blended
and some water from the Southside reaches the Northside it is not enough to sustain the system during
even moderate demand conditions.

Holyoke Interconnect- These are several issues with connecting to Holyoke, primarily the water is
untreated. This would mean construction of a new water treatment plant. The pipe that would supply
this plant from Holyoke is not functional and would need extensive repair or replacement. If Westfield
was to investigate purchasing treated water form Holyoke there is no functioning pipe in existence from
their treatment plant at the top of the mountain to supply a newly constructed Westfield treatment
plant. Holyoke also adds fluoride to their water, which further complicates the matter.

While it is true Holyoke has an abundance of water, so does Westfield. Why would we invest millions of
dollars in capital to buy water form another community when that money could be spent on our own
water sources?
 3

New confirmation of a well on the Northside- It has been erroneously stated that a new well could be
constructed on the Northside of the City away from the source of contamination in three months.
More reasonable estimates are three to five years as confirmed by DEP. Once again the City has
investigated establishing a redundant source on the Northside several years ago and the results
indicated the only viable location would yield roughly 0.5 mgd. It is also unlikely in today’s climate that
the City would be allowed or want to construct a new well without adding a treatment plant, which
means spending millions more for that project and still not eliminating the present contamination.

Temporary Treatment of Wells 1 & 2- The City is pursuing temporary treatment on City owned land at
Well 2. There has been a suggestion that temporary treatment should be explored at Well 1. Again, this
has been looked at extensively within the department and discussed with DEP. There is insufficient
property at the Well 1 site to place a vessel.

It has also been reported that a resident offered a portion of their property for construction of this
alternative. By regulation, you cannot place public drinking water supply equipment on private property;
the land has to be owned by the City. If property was gifted to the City there would still be permitting
and legal issues that are not quickly resolved. Once again a very expensive process that still does not
clean the current contamination problem.

Of greater concern is contact time from treatment to the first customer. A certain amount of time is
required for water to travel in a pipe before it meets regulatory requirements. There doesn’t appear to
be a location in the vicinity of Well 1 (on City owned or private property) where this could be achieved.
The simplest way to understand this is we don’t have a well problem, we have a contaminated water
problem. We need to fix the problem.

It is important to note that temporary treatment is in fact that, temporary. There is no redundancy built
in and the systems are not permitted for long time usage. Some of the cost incurred is not recoverable
and the longer you run these systems the more those costs mount. Temporary treatment also runs at
significantly reduced capacity and may require an all-out water ban to ensure sufficient water for basic
needs.

Temporary Treatment of Wells 7 & 8- It was questioned why temporary treatment was not investigated
at Wells 7 & 8 when the problem first surfaced. In fact, it has been investigated extensively. Analysis
revealed that it cost more to rent temporary vessels than to purchase them. There were also spatial
constraints at the Well 7 & 8 site. It is not possible to install temporary treatment and construct a
permanent treatment plant simultaneously. Additionally, Wells 1 & 2 were well below the advisory with
no indication there would be change forthcoming. Given the circumstances permanent treatment was
aggressively pursued at Wells 7 & 8.

We know there are other alternative items being discussed at this time, none of which ultimately make
sense or are an affordable, reimbursable solution. Approving only some of the project and cutting the
bond in half is only leaving the contamination in aquifer for someone else to manage. Also, the latest
 4

new procedure is a very expensive pump and dump which makes no sense in restoring clean water for
our residential faucets

The bottom line is we find ourselves in a vulnerable position. The health and safety of Westfield’s
residents are at risk and the best, quickest and most economical solution are those put forward by the
Water Division personnel of the Westfield DPW. These people have years of experience and education
dealing with matters of engineering, water chemistry, treatment and distribution that always have and
will continue to act in the best interest of the residents of Westfield.

The City has filed a number of legal documents and a lawsuit in order to assess our losses to the
responsible parties. This is a long and complicated process. To date we have filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court against 3M and other corporations who either manufactured or distributed
the chemicals causing the water contamination. We have claimed all legally available theories. The
City has also filed a Notice of Tort Claim against the United States Airforce, a prerequisite to filing a
lawsuit. This notice is required so that the parties may engage in negotiation prior to filing suit.

The City has engaged two nationally known environmental law firms to assist in this process. Both firms
have handled similar matter for governmental entities and are exploring all potential courses to
recovery. The City continues to outreach with legislators, both State and Federal along with all agencies
which may have access to funding.

In conclusion, and despite imputations to the contrary, we have no hidden agenda(s) or personal gain
associated with this bond request. There is one goal and one goal only, to bring clean drinking water to
the residents of the City of Westfield. Please ask your City Councilors for the support of this plan.

From the desk of Mayor Brian P. Sullivan and Director of Department of Public Works, David Billips