Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee warned on 50% chance an on‑site wastewater plant would permit, complicating PreK–6 option
Summary
Engineers told the committee there is roughly a 50% chance that an on‑site wastewater treatment plant would be permitted for a PreK–6 option at the Roselle/Spring Street site, introducing material schedule and cost risk that could force off‑site solutions or program changes.
Engineers and the project team told the West Bridgewater School Building Committee on March 25 that siting a wastewater treatment plant on the proposed consolidated school site carries substantial permitting risk that could affect the feasibility of PreK–6 options.
Presentations explained that the most promising on-site location is still marginal — approximately 250 feet from wetlands — and that DEP permitting standards and site-specific soils can make approval uncertain. "We're saying 50%. It's approximately 50% likely that if the option was to go with a wastewater treatment plant on this site that at the end of this there'd be a project," the team stated during the meeting.
Committee members were told the implications of a failed on-site permitting outcome are significant: millions of dollars in design and testing fees would be at risk, schedules could slip by many months, and the MSBA’s willingness to proceed without a clear, permitted wastewater solution could be limited. Staff said off-site alternatives were possible but would add piping and connection costs (the team carried an allowance of roughly $1M per mile for piping in its comparisons) and would not necessarily meet the project schedule required by MSBA timelines.
The engineering team recommended additional test pits in the so‑called yellow zone on the site to better understand soils and groundwater conditions; staff cautioned that further testing would increase project costs but could modestly change permit confidence. Committee members said the permitting risk should factor into members’ preference about a PreK–6 footprint and whether to prioritize a PreK–4 solution that could use on-site septic or a smaller footprint.
Staff noted that if the committee selects an option that lacks a plausible wastewater solution at submittal, MSBA may question feasibility and that a failed permitting outcome later in the design process could force resubmission steps and additional costs. The committee asked staff to continue testing options and to present contingency cost scenarios for off‑site wastewater solutions before the April 8 preferred-schematic vote.
