Potential Water Source Solutions Nov. 14, 2017

Transcription

1 Potential Water Source Solutions Nov. 14, 2017 All costs and THM and Haloacetic Acid levels are estimates. Non-grant costs are calculated on a 30 year loan at 3% (as of 11/3/17, EFC has yet to confirm this interest rate but it is expected it to increase somewhat ) PROBLEMATIC SOLUTIONS (Numbers 1-5): 1. Move point of chlorination downstream of tank Chlorinate the water after it exits the tank so there isn t a significant build-up of Trihalomethanes (THMs) and Haloacetic Acids(HAA5) in the tank, which has put the Village in violation by EPA standards (80ppb for THMs). The standard for Haloacetic Acids is 60ppb (levels in the Village have been very close to this). With

2 the mixer, there no longer appears to be a significant increase in DBPs due to the tank. ADVANTAGES: 1. Decreases contact time of organic matter with chlorine, which significantly decreases the THM and Haloacetic Acid levels. 2. The tank would still be used for fires and as a backup water supply (which will require daily treatment to prevent bacteria buildup). Note: if the tank is bypassed (which this suggests), there would be no need to move the chlorination point. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Residual chlorine levels would have to be maintained in the tank? Would DBP's

3 buildup in the tank from the CP water that has chlorine, or would that be very minimal? 2. Unclear this option would solve the problem (according to Feb.2017 proposal). According to from Engineer (6/13/17): The proposed demonstration test for taking the tank off-line would give us an indication of how well the chlorine feed relocation would work, but we d still have the unknown of what is going on in the tank with DBP generation with just the CPWA water, un-boosted. Piloting a relocation of the chlorine injection with the tank in service would likely be expensive because you d really have to build the system (including installation of a flow meter) to test it. COST:

4 With 60% Grant Funding: Cost: $20,000 Cost per user $3 (based on 343 users) THM estimate: Haloacetic Acid estimate: TIMEFRAME: months 2. Clifton Park Water Authority (CPWA) Direct Bypass water tank The water the Village currently receives is from Clifton Park Water Authority (CPWA), which purchases Saratoga County Water Authority (SCWA) water from the Hudson River. If the water is no longer stored in the water tank, there will not be a further buildup of THMs and Haloacetic Acids, thus keeping the water at the levels we get from CPWA (which does have THMs and Haloacetic Acids). The water will go directly to residents.

5 Update: we have done the preparatory work for this. We need to commission an engineering study (DOH requirement) prior to doing this. One note of concern is that while we have been doing monthly readings for the last four months, the levels of THMs and HAA5 in the water coming into the Village from CPWA has been quite high, and simply bypassing the tank will not address this. ADVANTAGES: 1. Immediate reduction of Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) to the level of Clifton Park/Saratoga County Water Authority. 2. Low-cost ($5,000 per estimate below for temporary trial) if allowed to permanently bypass tank. NOTE: the tank could still be filled with water for use for fires and as a backup water source until a permanent

6 solution is found. Avoids proposed tank upgrades. 3. Eliminates the pressure problem for New York Avenue and a need for a booster station ($150,000 savings) to remedy that problem (may need a pressure reducing valve). 4. Would be an immediate temporary fix until other water solutions are tested and evaluated. 5. The Engineer said the Village could use a short-term financing from the DWSRF program (EFC) (not a bond note) to pilot test solutions. Water source solutions could include using SWS as a primary water source with CPWA as a secondary source,or vice versa, or direct connection to SCWA in Maltaville, or perhaps using wells.

7 DISADVANTAGES: 1. Will not get DBPs down to single digit levels. 2. May need to keep tank filled and chlorinated for emergency fire use and backup water supply until a long-term additional water source is determined/connected. 3. Single point of failure - pipe under Northway. [note: that's what we have now, anyway; it's why we should have another source] 4. Update: while we have been doing monthly readings for the last four months, the levels of THMs and HAA5 in the water coming into the Village from CPWA has been quite high, and simply bypassing the tank will not address this. COST: With 60% Grant Funding:

8 Cost: $2,000 Cost per user minimal THM estimate: 50 Haloacetic Acid estimate: 40 TIMEFRAME: Thoughts: Need to test for sufficient pressure for fire flow. 3. Continue with existing plan - Aeration of water tank. This would be the next stage of the plan after mixing the tank. Aeration sprays water within the tank, causing harmful THMs to vaporize (turns from liquid into vapor in the air) to be vented into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, Haloacetic Acids and some THMs are not volatile enough to be

9 vaporized. Piloting of this may be difficult and case studies would need to be relied upon. ADVANTAGES: 1. Better water quality than we currently have. 2. Would significantly lower Chloroform, which is the highest level of the four THMs in our water, and most volatile. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Expense. 2. Ongoing maintenance cost. 3. Aeration would not lower Haloacetic Acids (which are very close to the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)), and some THMs. COST: With 60% Grant Funding:

10 Cost: $40,000 Cost per user $6 (based on 343 users) THM estimate: 40 Haloacetic Acid estimate: minimal reduction Annual Costs/Maint: $3,000 TIMEFRAME: months 4. Regional Solution Long term, we might look into regional initiatives where there might be potential for increased consolidation services. We are currently part of a partial regional solution with connections to CPWA and SCWA. A more comprehensive example that was suggested could be using SCWA water/hudson River to connect with Troy, Albany and possibly Schenectady. Water could be very well-managed and treated. There could also the possibility of having a random monitoring system in place to make sure test results are accurate. In the future

11 (planning years), with tech parks and volatile chemicals, including trends everywhere, water contamination will become more common. We would most likely need a very advanced filtration system where the cost could be shared. ADVANTAGES: 1. Increased water flow could potentially lower THM and HAA5 levels, because the water would not stay as long in the system. The water sits in the system too long and that s one of the ways the byproducts build up. The capacity for the CPWA/SCWA is 5 million and less than 2 million is currently being used (according to village resident with expertise in the field). 2. Oversight of water system would be done by professionals in the field. 3. The Village water care and maintenance costs would be lowered.

12 DISADVANTAGES: 1. This would be a long-term solution that might not be feasible based on DOH time frame requirements. 2. The Village would not be in charge of water quality (some see this as an advantage, others a disadvantage). 3. There are questions about the quality of CPWA/SCWA water based on the Village s recent monthly testing results. 4. The retired Executive Director of The Capital District Regional Planning Commission (CDRPC) said it would be very challenging to merge so many separate water systems in this area, although it has worked in other areas. It has worked for six (6) cities in the Capital District to address storm water overflow for sewers, but a regional water system would be much more difficult.

13 THM estimate: Haloacetic Acid estimate: COSTS: TIMEFRAME: 5. Ultraviolet Light (UV) ADVANTAGES: 1. Ultraviolet light can lower the amount of chlorine needed. It can also eliminate microorganisms. 2. UV can be combined with a hydrogen peroxide feed to destroy DBP precursors, but is typically only done economically at large scale.

14 B DISADVANTAGES: 1. There exists the same concern as with water tank bypass - levels coming into the tank are quite high already. 2. UV will not do anything to reduce DBP s that are already formed. 3. Chlorine is still needed to establish residual. COSTS: TIME FRAME: Locally, Niskayuna use UV treatment for its wastewater, prior to going into the Mohawk River.

15 Lamont has designed a UV system that is in operation at the Village of Granville Well Water treatment system this is the more traditional application of UV for drinking water. VIABLE SOLUTIONS (Numbers 6-9): 6. Continue with existing plan - Granular Activated Charcoal Filter (GAC). This would be the final stage of the plan. It is possible to skip aeration and go right to GAC. These industrial-sized filters remove a significant amount of THMs and Haloacetic Acids (estimates levels could go as low as 0 to 20 for THMs). They also remove naturally occurring organic materials and residual disinfectants. ADVANTAGES:

16 1. Very good water quality. Level: 0-20ppb THMs. Also, significantly addresses Haloacetic acids. Would eliminate majority of DBP s and DBP precursors. Reliable, proven technology. 2. Can pilot test for $15,000 to determine estimated reduction DISADVANTAGES: 1. Expense. 2. Ongoing maintenance. Costs. COST: With 60% Grant Funding: Cost:$120,000 Cost per user $38, including maintenance (based on 343 users) THM estimate: minimal to 20 Haloacetic Acid estimate:

17 Annual Costs/Maint: $7,000 (~$20 per user). This would be verified during pilot testing. TIMEFRAME: months 7. Wells in Round Lake/Maltaville: As of the Fall, more than one resident who worked in the field reported that the Colonie Channel, the biggest or one of the biggest aquifers in the Northeast, flows underneath Round Lake. It was also reported that the Colonie Channel water is very high in quantity and quality. Potential sites are Northeast and Northwest of the Village. A Phase 1 Desktop study is an important first step to target realistic drilling sites. All previous information

18 available to the hydrogeologist is considered in the study. One of the advantages of using well water is that it has very little organic material. Surface water (like what we get from the Hudson River through Clifton Park Water Authority) has a much greater amount of organic matter that comes into contact with the chlorination process, which creates these problematic disinfectant byproducts (DBPs). The byproducts also increase when they are stored and aged in our Village water tank (but maybe not as much now with the mixer), as well as in our water mains as they come to our houses. Well water would have minimal organic matter so that byproducts would not be a significant result of the chlorination process (possibly 3 or 4 ppb).

19 Saratoga Water Services (SWS) and parts of the Clifton Park Water Authority (CPWA) system use the Colonie Channel (based on SWS and Clifton Park aquifer reports). Some consideration was given to Round Lake using this channel until Saratoga County Water Authority (SWCA) opened up. The engineering report paid for by the Village in 1997 recommended searching for groundwater by drilling test wells (this was not done). ADVANTAGES: 1. Water quality could be much better (has to be tested). The Colonie Channel is supposed to have very high quantity and quality water sources. There has been some discussion of selling water to others if there was enough (Maltaville has 90 hookups).

20 2. There is a site identified by a hydrogeologist that has been used for water previously. An area in the Village may also be possible. Both options have to be examined further. DISADVANTAGES: 1. A $5,000 desk top evaluation could give an idea of what is possible (according to Engineer). 2. Some areas could require spending a lot of money determining whether we have an aquifer with sufficient quality and flow rate. 3. The Village need to acquire land sometimes this is easy, sometimes it is not. 4. If treatment beyond disinfection is required, the advantages of this option fade quickly.

21 COST: Variable depending on underlying hydrogeology. With 60% Grant Funding: Cost: $100,000 - $300,000 Cost per user $15-45 (based on 343 users) THM estimate: should be minimal Haloacetic Acid estimate: should be minimal TIMEFRAME: 8. Continue with existing plan - run line up Rt 9 to SCWA (on hold) The existing plan proposed by the Engineer, prior to the public meeting, could use Saratoga County Water Authority (SCWA) as a primary water source instead of Clifton Park Water Authority (CWPA). It could also be used as a backup water supply.

22 ADVANTAGES: 1. Straight run up Route Gets us down 3. to SCWA Disinfectant Byproduct (DBP) levels. 4. Provide for redundant water supply. Could be backup for CPWA or SWS. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Potential conflict issues with SWS down the road COST: With 60% Grant Funding: Cost: $200,000 Cost per user $30 (based on 343 users) THM estimate: 50 Haloacetic Acid estimate:

23 9. Saratoga Water Services (SWS) Saratoga Water Services (SWS) is a fortyyear-old family-run company that uses only well water. It has negligible levels of THMs and Haloacetic Acids. Their wells are located south of Saratoga Lake in Luther Forest. One of the aquifers used by SWS is the Colonie Channel, which is one of the largest in the Northeast. It is reported that Round Lake sits on top of it. ADVANTAGES: 1. Very low DBPs: THMs 4.8 ppb, HAA5s 1.8 ppb 2. Can be used with CPWA as a backup, eliminating the need for the water tank (which has generated the high DPBs) and thereby significantly reducing costs of implementing a solution involving the tank.

24 3. Water pressure problems would be eliminated, thus negating the need for a booster station to increase water pressure (save $150,000) to remedy that problem (may need a pressure reducing valve). 4. Suggested at public meeting: SWS develop a well in the village and give us reduced prices for water. Also, (potentially) better water quality. Tank would still be in use in this scenario. Saratoga Water has not expressed an interest in doing this. DISADVANTAGES: 1. About a mile away from nearest connection. No known time frame for development south along route 9 which would potentially bring the main closer.

25 2. Possible source contaminants from retired EPA Superfund site. 3. There are test wells within 1,500 to 1,800 feet of the center of the Retired Superfund site that act as buffers. They are tested 2x per year. Two chemicals from the site are still in exceedance of regulations. Drinking wells are not allowed within this buffer zone. Source: phone conversation with Malta Rocket Site Project Manager for EPA. 4. There are differing opinions about fire flow rates and more investigation may be required. Solution #1 with SWS: Run water line north from Goldfoot Rd. to Village boundary. SWS (or a developer) run water line south to Village boundary. With 60% Grant Funding: Cost: $110,000

26 Cost per user $16 (based on 343 users) THM estimate: 5 Haloacetic Acid estimate: Solution #2 Run water line north from Goldfoot Rd. to southern-most point of SWS service (about a mile). With 60% Grant Funding: Cost: $550,000 Cost per user: 343 users) $81 (based on TIMEFRAME: