Water Quality, Public Works and Nitrate Contamination

Transcription

1 Water Quality, Public Works and Nitrate Contamination SPEAKERS: Eric F. Weber, LGH, CWRE Principal Hydrogeologist Landau Associates WATER QUALITY, PUBLIC WORKS AND NITRATE CONTAMINATION: Topics Technical Background Defining the Problem Washington Regulatory Approach Public Utility Nexus 1

2 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND: Nitrates 2

3 BACKGROUND: Regulated Contaminant Discharges Surface Water Groundwater BACKGROUND: Groundwater Contamination Risk Increasing risk of groundwater contamination Nitrogen Input High High Low Low Aquifer Vulnerability High Low High Low Source: USGS A National Look at Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater 3

4 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Times are Changing Iowa Photo: Ryan Donnell, NY Times DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Times are Changing California 4

5 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Times are Changing Idaho Increasing nitrate trends in Pocatello public supply well (DWIMS, 2000) DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Idaho Nitrate Prioritization Project Source: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 5

6 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Idaho Nitrate Prioritization Project Idaho Regulatory Strategy PM 004 Policy for Addressing Degraded Groundwater Identify areas with significantly degraded areas Prioritize areas with significantly degraded areas Developmanagement strategies to improve groundwater quality Evaluate effectiveness of groundwater quality management strategies Remove area from high priority designation DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Nov Yakima Valley is an EPA Environmental Justice Community Jan EPA finds use of SDWA Section 1431 emergency order to address water supply hazards Feb EPA starts sampling private wells Sep Ecology/Yakima County Lower Yakima GW Management Area (GWMA) 6

7 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley and South Yakima Valley Irrigation and Wells DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley EPA Data Collection 331 residential drinking water samples 29 water wells (expanded list of contaminants) 15 dairy lagoon samples 11 agricultural field soil samples 5 dairy manure pile samples 3 wastewater treatment plant samples Analytes Nitrates Geochemical Parameters (i.e., chloride, calcium) Bacteria Pharmaceuticals Personal Care Products, Steroids, Hormones Pesticides and Herbicides Age dating 7

8 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Nitrate in Wells Lower Yakima Valley Phase 2 Nitrate Sampling Locations and Results Source: EPA DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley East Side Sources 66% 27% Sumas Blaine Aquifer Nitrate Contamination Study. June Publication No % 0.2% 8

9 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Dairies Lower Yakima Valley Dairy Locations Source: EPA DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Irrigated Cropland Lower Yakima Valley Crop Locations Source: EPA 9

10 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Septic Lower Yakima Valley Septic System Distribution Source: EPA DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Source Evaluation Nitrate Mass Balance Nitrogen Generated by Major Sources in Yakima County Source: EPA 10

11 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Field Sampling Data Root zone nitrate (estimated averages by crop type) - Corn/triticale 784 lbs per acre - Alfalfa 184 lbs per acre - Triticale/Sudan grass 212 lbs per acre Fall post harvest 2013 soil data DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley East Side Contaminant Trends 11

12 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley East Side Contaminant Trends DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley East Side Contaminant Signatures Isotopes Tracer chemicals Tetracycline (antibiotic) Monensin (antibiotic) Testosterone (hormone) Source: Kreitler

13 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Consent Order with EPA (March 2013) Alternate source of drinking water Soil and groundwater testing Monitoring well network and quarterly sampling Spring and Fall soil sampling at application fields Soil moisture sensors to regulate irrigation Evaluate Lagoons Control nitrogen sources DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Lawsuit (Feb. 2013) Community Association for Restoration of the Environment et al. v. Dairy Cluster Feb Filed under RCRA Citizen Suit Provisions June 2013 Defendants motion to dismiss denied Jan 2015 Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted Plaintiffs Surface application of manure is a solid waste under RCRA Conditions at the dairies violated RCRAs ban on open dumping Court determination Manure, lagoons, compost discarded material subject to regulation as a solid waste under RCRA 13

14 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: Lower Yakima Valley Lawsuit Settlement (May 2015) Settlement includes Consent Decree Terms of CD presented to EPA for incorporation into existing AOC between EPA and Defendants Terms - Overseen by EPA - Double lining of lagoons - Additional wells and monitoring - Centrifuge manure separator - Inspections - Field management with a 25 ppm concentration goal by Fund clean drinking water to residents - Payment of attorney s fees WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: Stakeholders Washington Department of Ecology Washington Statement of Health Washington State Department of Agriculture NRCS Conservation Districts Conservation Commission Local jurisdictions Universities Other stakeholders 14

15 WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: Authority Model Toxics Control Act: RCW D Toxic waste cleanup law Regulation of Public Groundwaters: RCW Water Pollution Control Act: RCW NPDES State Waste Discharge Permit Dairy Nutrient Management Act: RCW Nutrient management plans WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: MTCA Model Toxics Control Act - Site cleanup process - WAC Remedial investigation and feasibility study - Cleanup action plan - Compliance monitoring - Periodic review Groundwater cleanup standards - WAC Based on highest beneficial use 15

16 WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: Groundwater Management Area (GWMA) Authority: RCW Regulations: WAC Ecology 2. EPA 3. WA Dept of Agriculture 4. WA Dept of Health 5. Yakima County (lead agency) GWMA Description This local groundwater protection body will be a multiagency and citizen based, coordinated effort to address groundwater contamination in the Yakima basin. Pollution prevention will be a guiding principle for all work done by the coordinating body. The body will address all the significant sources of nitrate and bacterial pollution in a comprehensive manner. Multiple approaches including education, technical assistance and enforcement strategies will be used to prevent further contamination. Washington Department of Ecology WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: Nitrate Prioritization Project Draft Nitrate Priority Area candidates Goals Delineate areas where nitrates are high in groundwater Prioritize those areas by impact to people and resources Make information available to everyone 16

17 WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: DNMP Dairy Nutrient Management Program (DNMP) Administered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture Chapter RCW requires all grade A licensed dairies under Chapter RCW to: - Register with the DNMP - Develop a nutrient management plan - Prevent discharges to waters of the state - Maintain land applications records demonstrating agronomic use of all nutrients WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: The New CAFO Permit Old Permit 2006 to 2011 New Permit 2016 Confine animals for 45 days or more Discharges contaminants to surface or groundwater Approach More proactive than reactive Incorporate nutrient management into the permit Preliminary draft permit for public comment Facilities with soil lined lagoons have a discharge and are covered Lining of lagoons not required Compost facilities not covered No groundwater monitoring (reactive) Elements of NMP and adaptive management written into permit (proactive) Washington Department of Ecology 17

18 WASHINGTON REGULATORY APPROACH: Enforcement RCW Water Pollution Control Act - Fines up to $10,000/day - Nearly always complaint based as opposed to a permit violation - Response is typically technical outreach through Conservation Districts and Ecology Washington Department of Health Corrective Action PUBLIC UTILITY NEXUS Biosolids Public water supply Economic development Rural water supply: citizen health and well being 18

19 PUBLIC UTILITY NEXUS: Municipal Wells Public Works Concerns: Municipal Wells Washington Department of Ecology PUBLIC UTILITY NEXUS: Municipal Wells Washington Department of Ecology 19

20 PUBLIC UTILITY NEXUS: Nitrate Contamination Costs to Pubic Water Systems Example costs incurred by public water supply systems due to nitrate contamination of groundwater issues APPL B_NAME Project Description DWSRF LOAN PROJECT COST COUNTY RES POP Pasadena Park Irrigation District No. 17 Uniontown, Town of Beneficial Water Chelan County PUD #1 Uniontown, Town of Columbia View Water Services Desert Canyon Utility Company WATER SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION NEW SOURCE WELL (WELL NO. 6) NEW SOURCE FOR NITRATE MITIGATION EXTEND WATER SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY OF MONITOR WELL #6 COMPLETION DISTRIBUTION LINE INCREASE IN SUPPORT OF NEW SOURCE CONSTRUCTION FOR NITRATE REMOVAL NITRATE REDUCTION Extend 3,200 ft of 12" water main to connect Pleasant Prairie to Pasadena Park (PleasantPrairie has nitrate problems). 228, , SPOKANE 4312 Drill new municipal drinking water well. Current well's nitrate levels exceeds state standards. Drill new well abandon existing well Construct new well into aquifer with nitrates below MCL, including pump, controls, meters. Extend PUD water service to the community of Monitor, whose existing water services contain coliform bacteria and nitrate that exceed the maximum contaminant level. Complete municipal well to include pump, well house, and connection toaddress nitrate exceedance. This spreadsheet was sent from the Washington Department of Health to the Washington Department of Ecology via in December, It shows several projects funded by the Drinking Water Source Revolving Fund where the issue was nitrate contamination. 247, , WHITMAN , , FRANKLIN 84 2,569, ,044, CHELAN , , WHITMAN 324 Need additional engineering, design, construction permits & activities to address need to increase size of distribution system due to constructing new 1600' nitrate well (DWSRF ) 107, , WALLA WALLA 350 Phase I Construction of new nitrate facility; drill new well(s); Phase II installation 6000 irrigation line; 5000 LF transmission line from nitrate facility; service meters. 423, , DOUGLAS 43 PUBLIC UTILITY NEXUS: Simple Best Management Practices Water Supply Wells Location and depth - Locate wells in aquifers with low nitrate concentrations Use the existing data - Nitrate Prioritization Project - GWMA resources Process - Wellhead protection - Informed design Biosolids Location - Avoid impacted areas Use the existing data - Nitrate Prioritization Project - GWMA Resources Process - Have a plan 20

21 THANK YOU Eric Weber, LHg, CWRE Principal Water Resources Practice Lead Landau Associates (253)