Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Customers tell PURA of persistent hard‑water issues; Hazardville says treatment and testing steps are ongoing
Summary
During cross and follow‑up, company witnesses acknowledged periodic customer complaints about hardness and explained current use of polyphosphate (Aquadine) sequestering, weekly green‑sand filter backwashes, and planned PFAS/E. coli testing follow‑ups for offline wells. The company agreed to supply test results and supporting documentation as late files.
Public commenters who attended a Nov. 3 hearing and staff inquired on Dec. 4 about repeated household water‑quality problems in Hazardville’s service area. PURA staff read several names from the prior public comment hearing and asked the company to explain what it is doing to address water quality concerns from residents.
Company witnesses described the ongoing treatment approach and testing plan. A company treatment representative said the system has been using a polyphosphate sequestering agent (referred to in the record as Aquadaine/Aquadean) to keep dissolved hardness in solution rather than removing the hardness, which helps reduce precipitation in customers’ appliances. "We had the sequestering agent to sequester the hardness and to prevent it from precipitating out of a solution," the company witness said.
Treatment operations and testing Company explained that green‑sand filtration vessels are backwashed or air‑washed on a weekly basis, typically one vessel at a time. The backwash water is held in lagoons and treated to neutralize residual chlorine (sodium bisulfite) before discharge to a stream, the company said.
Staff asked specifically about the Grant Road well, which is offline because of E. coli detection. The company agreed to check whether the well had been tested for PFAS and to provide results as a late file (assigned Late File 50). The company also acknowledged that in previous testing PFOS concentrations had been above levels and said any PFAS detection would be factored into decisions about well rehabilitation and treatment to return the well to service. "I believe that the PFOS was above levels. The net would be factored into the treatment process for both the E. coli of that well and the PFAS would be factored into the to get that well back online," a company treatment representative said.
Public comments and follow‑ups PURA’s accounts examiner read names of multiple ratepayers who testified at the Nov. 3 public comment hearing and raised water‑quality complaints. Several of those attendees had not previously filed direct complaints with the company, the company said; the company agreed to follow up with individuals and to provide an exhibit describing post‑hearing outreach (Late File 51). Staff also requested sample data and instrument datasheets for Aquadaine (the sequestering product) as a supplement to RU52.
What the company says it has not implemented and future study Company witnesses said the firm has not installed large‑scale softening (ion exchange or reverse osmosis) and that such options would require a study to determine feasibility and cost‑effectiveness. The company also told staff that household filtration systems could be unevenly maintained by customers and that some interior filters may be clogged or overdue for replacement, which can confound complaint investigations.
Next steps: the company agreed to provide the requested lab results, full sampling values for hardness and manganese at Avery Well Field (Late File 49), PFAS testing results for the Grant Road well (Late File 50), and the Aquadaine product data sheet as a supplement to RU52.
