Washington County Water Consortium Please join us for a discussion on water resource studies.

Transcription

1 Agenda Washington County Water Consortium Please join us for a discussion on water resource studies. March 1st, p.m. to 4 p.m. Washington County Government Center, nd St. N Stillwater Lower Level Room 14 2:00 2:05 Welcome Introductions, Announcements 2:05 2:50 Update on Perfluorochemical (PFC) for Washington County Topic: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs; also known as perfluorochemicals or PFCs) were first detected in groundwater in Washington County in Since then, the state of Minnesota has been working with Washington County and affected communities to evaluate the extent of the PFAS contamination and level of exposures for residents and providing alternate drinking water supplies or treatment where needed. In 2016, new information regarding potential health effects to developing fetuses, infants, and young children led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue new, lower health advisory values for two PFASs PFOS and PFOA. In response, the state has expanded the scope of drinking water well and surface water sampling to identify areas that exceed the new health advice levels. Ginny Yingling will provide an update on the status of the expanded investigation and response actions. Presenter: Ginny Yingling, Hydrogeologist, MN Department of Health 2:50 3:30 Washington County Municipal Water Coalition Study Topic: The Metropolitan Council in cooperation with cities within Washington County conducted a strategic planning study towards the long term sustainability of water resources within Washington County. The objective of this study was to document the existing source water and supply conditions, identify opportunities for sustainable approaches to water use, and complete an evaluation of multiple options that may be available to increase long term water supply and efficient use of water resources. This study assessed the costs, barriers, and the potential benefits of alternative sustainable water supply and water use approaches within the study area. Presenters: Chris Larson, Project Manager SEH Brian Davis, Senior Engineer, Metropolitan Council 3:30 4:00 Questions/ Adjourn

2 March 2017, Water Consortium Notes Announcements: Workshop for Realtors is March 9 th at Stillwater Public Library 9-10am. Topic: Selling shoreline and riverfront properties. County is hosting realtor workshop March 30 th for septic systems. The County is now taking nominations for Public Health Achievement Awards. Source water protection grants are open for application from March 1, 2017 to March 25, Funding is available for activities that are in wellhead protection plans that have been approved by MDH. 50% grants to do adjustments on irrigation in Woodbury focused on HOA s. Check on website for further information. Update on PFC in Washington County: PFASs is now used instead of PFC. PFASs is a large class of surfactants with unique chemical properties. They are attracted to and repel water. Used since the 1940 s. The chemicals have been spread widely in the environment. Its found in many commercial settings such as chrome plating, scotch guard, firefighting foam, agriculture applications and personal care products. There is a slight difference between PFC vs PFAS. Florine in PFC will not breakdown due to the bond strength. Does not adsorb readily to aquifer materials. Infiltrate rapidly to groundwater and create big plumes. PFCs are similar to the fatty acids and readily adsorbed into blood stream of humans. Health department is concerned with the chemicals that stay in humans bodies over a long time. Because the concern of chemicals getting into humans blood stream there is worry on developing fetuses, infants, and children. PFAS, susceptible to degradation due to weakness of C-H bond. MDH has been investigating since 2003 the data in Washington County. Sampling wells to see results. Bedrock structures and groundwater have been a location of where the chemicals are found in the south part of Washington County. There are still ancient tributaries in Southern Washington County. These tributaries are avenues of how the chemicals can travel underground. Sand and gravel pits was where the garbage was thrown. Over 100 sq miles of contaminated groundwater.

3 Groundwater and surface water interactions and how humans have changed the land has affected how the chemicals have traveled. The investigations have been expanded to additional cities in the East Metro. Looking at surface water transport on how it s been moved across the county. Well advisories have been issued. Whole house carbon filtration system is recommended to be installed, until then bottled water is provided by MPCA. Chemicals are being found to have spread. Newer technology has allowed the department to look closer to data. The dump sites have different decades of materials in it and are showing different plumes due to the contents production timeline. PFAs are found traveling through groundwater and surface water and originally were not known at time of flood control structure installation. There was a pump out system going on to keep solvents out of people s wells. Washington County Landfill plume has triggered the plume that is draining through Raleigh creek and through the pipeline, which was a flood control project. PFO s numbers are increasing as they go through the drainage system. The reasons for this increase are unknown. There are drinking water treatments in cities and in private wells. Q: Any testing of PFO s in the St. Croix? A: Found in the fish in Mississippi. Not found in St. Croix. Biomonitoring is being done by taking blood samples from residents. Over the years the residents were tested the rates had gone down. Q: Where do the carbon filters get disposed of? A: Shipped off to a plant where it s regenerated and thermally treated. The carbon is then broken down by the heat. Concern on textiles and paper treatment is also a concern. In the Carolinas there is a lot of water concern due to the textile industry. Washington County Municipal Water Coalition study: The coalition is 9 communities that agreed to work together and study future water use. Water demand has gone up since the 1990 s. The scope of work was created by coalition and Metropolitan Council in late Meetings were held with 3M, Northern Tier Refinery, MDH, MPCA.

4 Jordan aquifer is primary source of water for coalition communities. There are contamination issues and drawdown. There were four approaches that were analyzed. Asked what future conservation and efficiency could be done. These are all ideas to keep in mind as water supply issues occur. The group was looking for cost estimates on the different ideas to save funding. Prior to this study there were no cost estimates. Cottage Grove Woodbury border is location of the pipeline that is pumped 5 million gallons a day. This is possibly a landfill site and unknown contaminants, which is part of why so much water is pumped out each day. They looked into non-potable alternatives for this area. Approach 1 Shows the costs of all the alternative routes for water source. Approach 2, Surface water treatment plant and costs on where it would be located close to the Mississippi or St. Croix. Approach 3, Connect to St. Paul regional water system. McCarrons water treatment plant. Surrounding communities are adjacent to Maplewood, which uses the SPRWS. Approach 4, Optimized well fields. Attempt to identify new well field locations. There were contamination and drawdown concerns. Lime softening is done in St. Paul. Homes that have water softener may need to switch in the future to limit chloride additions. Alternative Evaluation: Approach 1 Drinking water options possible, but expensive. Approach 2, new surface WTP on Mississippi River of St. Croix River. Approach 3, connect to SPRWS. Approach 4, Optimized Well Fields. The rivers are not going to save every town by drawing water, instead it s an option to also have access to the river along with existing wells. In the case of a drought in the future, water restrictions will likely be in place. Reducing water demand will adjust the amount of capitol it will take to prepare for a large project. Reducing water in the collation communities on the non-essential demands such as lawn irrigation will save millions of gallons of water a day. There are different peaks from summer to winter water demand. Look for opportunities to improve such as not irrigating when it s raining or a broken irrigation pipe. Next steps are to put together an efficiency study to analyze water use data from the coalition communities and give recommendations for ways to reduce water by having better practices. Water conservation toolbox is available on Met Council website. Q: Is it practical to use grey water as drinking water? A: plumbing code is factor We are running up natural limits and efficiencies are needed to conserve our water.

5 Update on Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in Washington County Washington County Water Consortium March 1, 2017 Ginny Yingling Site Assessment and Consultation Unit

6 Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Large class (200+) of surfactants with unique chemical properties - Fluorinated carbon chain with various functional group(s) Used since 1940s in products that resist heat, stains, water, oil and grease; production increased rapidly in 1970s Many other specialized industrial and commercial uses (operative word: non-stick)

7 PFC vs PFAS PFC: Perfluoro = fully fluorinated All carbons in the chain bonded only to F Example: PFOA, PFOS, PFBA, PFBS, etc. Essentially non-degradable due to strength of C-F bond PFAS: Polyfluoro = partially fluorinated Some carbons in the chain bonded to H Susceptible to degradation (biotic and abiotic) due to weakness of C-H bond Some polyfluoroalkyl substances may degrade to PFCs

8 PFCs Behave in Unique Ways Do not break down in the environment No hydrolysis, photolysis, or biodegradation Do not adsorb readily to aquifer materials Infiltrate rapidly to the groundwater Little or no retardation Rates affected by PFC chain length and functional group Chemical structure similar to fatty acids Readily adsorbed into blood serum of living organisms

9 PFCs In The News Again EPA Lifetime Health Advisories (HAs) PFOS and PFOA 70 ng/l, individually or combined Based on animal studies and human correlation studies suggesting developmental & immune system effects Short-term exposure concerns for developing fetuses, infants, and children MDH Evaluation Currently using EPA HAs for PFOS and PFOA Calculate additive effect using PFBA and PFBS HRLs (7 ug/l) and surrogate value for PFHxS (70 ng/l) Hope to establish new HBVs in early 2017 Values may be lower than EPA HAs

10 PFASs in the East Metro Manufactured in Cottage Grove, MN since the 1940s Wastes disposed of at plant and 3 major offsite disposal areas Investigated since 2003 New EPA Health Advisories for PFOS & PFOA: more sampling & well advisories

11 PFCs of Concern in Washington Co. PFOS: C 8 F 17 SO 3 - Perfluorooctane sulfonate PFOA: C 8 F 15 O 2 - Perfluorooctanoic acid PFBA: C 4 F 7 O 2 - Perfluorobutanoic acid PFHxS: C 10 F 19 SO 3 - Perfluorohexane sulfonate Other PFCs detected: PFPeA, PFHxA, PFBS; nearly always as a mixture

12 Bedrock Structures & Groundwater Faults Fractures Parallel and at an angle to faults Vertical and horizontal Buried Bedrock Valleys Groundwater Divide Bisects south Washington Co.

13 Result: A PFAS Megaplume Over 100 mi 2 contaminated 4 major aquifers 8 municipal systems >1,500 private wells Much larger plume than models predicted PFBA most widespread Short-chain carboxylate Distribution controlled by: Bedrock features GW-SW interactions Human interventions PFC partitioning

14 MPCA & MDH Response to EPA HAs Expanded investigations in East Metro West Lakeland Twp. & Afton now within affected area Grey Cloud Island Twp. also an area of concern Sampling 500+ wells this fall/winter Surface water transport again a major pathway 175 new well advisories issued since Aug. 22, 2016 Bottled water GAC or city water Working w/ affected public water systems (Oakdale and Cottage Grove) MN Public Health Laboratory lowered PFC reporting limits

15

16

17

18

19

20 Groundwater flow Surface water / storm water flow

21 Project 1007: The Rest of the Story

22 Additional Planned Sampling North

23 Additional Planned Sampling South

24 Drinking Water Treatment Public Wells Oakdale Wells 5 and 9 large scale GAC New advisories for wells 1, 2, and 7 - blending Other East Metro cities MDH monitors regularly Some wells may exceed additivity evaluation once new HBVs set Private Wells 1,800+ sampled to date Approximately 500 sampled annually 350+ well advisories have been issued since 2005 Residents provided bottled water, then GAC 220 homes in Lake Elmo connected to city water (2007)

25 Biomonitoring Three rounds: 2008, 2010, initial participants (164 returned) PFCs decreased in blood of people drinking treated water (but average concentrations > national average) Concentrations in micrograms PFC in liter blood (ppb)

26

27 Washington County Municipal Water Coalition Water Supply Feasibility Study Brian Davis, PhD, PE, PG Christopher Larson, PE, SEH Washington County Water Consortium March 1, 2017

28 Washington County Municipal Water Coalition Bayport, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, Newport, Oakdale, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, St. Paul Park, and Woodbury Year Population 169, ,601 Annual Water Usage (MGY) Average Daily Demand (MGD) Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) 7,270 9,

29 Water Demand

30 Feasibility Assessment Scope of Work created by Coalition and Metropolitan Council in late 2014 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings with 3M, Northern Tier Refinery, MDH, MPCA

31 Feasibility Study Jordan aquifer is primary source of water for Coalition communities Contamination issues Drawdown Water sustainability approaches Approach 1 Reuse of 3M pollution containment water Approach 2 New surface water treatment plant on Mississippi or St. Croix Rivers Approach 3 Connect to St. Paul Regional Water Services Approach 4 New Wells Efficiency Not prescriptive solutions

32 Approach 1-3M Contaminant Containment Water 3M pumps 3,000 gpm water from contaminant containment wells PFCs, potentially unknown contaminants Non-potable alternatives Surface water augmentation Industrial reuse Potable alternatives use as drinking water

33 Approach 1 Costs Alternative Alternative 1A Contaminant containment water from 3M Woodbury to Valley Creek Alternative 1B Contaminant containment water from 3M Woodbury to Northern Tier Refinery Alternative 1C Contaminant containment water from 3M Cottage Grove to Northern Tier Refinery Alternative 1D Contaminant containment water from 3M Woodbury to Valley Creek and Northern Tier Refinery Alternative 2A Contaminant containment water to Woodbury Alternative 2B Contaminant containment water to Cottage Grove Alternative 2C Contaminant containment water to Woodbury & Cottage Grove Capital Cost Water Provided (MGY) Cost per 1,000 gallons $17,700,000 1,575 $1.03 $20,100,000 1,575 $1.20 $24,700,000 1,575 $1.40 $32,200,000 1,575 $1.74 $32,300,000 1,260 $4.40 $34,100,000 1,260 $4.50 $37,500,000 1,260 $5.10

34 Approach 2 Surface Water Treatment Plant Construct a new surface water treatment plant on Mississippi or St. Croix River Conjunctive Use Average day demand from new surface water treatment plant Peaking from existing wells Water Quality

35 Approach 2 Costs Alternative Capital Cost Water Provided Cost per 1,000 gallons Alternative 4A Surface WTP on Mississippi River Woodbury and Cottage Grove Alternative 4B Surface WTP on Mississippi River Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, Oakdale, Newport, St. Paul Park Alternative 5A - Surface WTP on St. Croix River Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport Alternative 5B - Surface WTP on St. Croix River Woodbury and Cottage Grove $131,400, MGD $3.60 $174,500, MGD $3.60 $68,600, MGD $6.90 $184,900, MGD $3.70

36 Approach 3 Connect to SPRWS SPRWS is adjacent to some Coalition communities Could connect communities to SPRWS Capacity limitations Hazel Park Pressure Zone Raw water, treatment limitations Conjunctive use options

37 Approach 3 Costs Alternative Alternative 6A SPRWS Connection to North Woodbury Alternative 6B SPRWS Connection to Woodbury Alternative 6C SPRWS Connection to Woodbury & Cottage Grove Alternative 6D SPRWS Connection to Newport Alternative 6E SPRWS Connection to Oakdale Alternative 6F SPRWS Connection to Lake Elmo in Addition to 6E Alternative 6G SPRWS Connection to Newport in Addition to 6A Capital Cost Water Provided (MGY) Cost per 1,000 gal $4,800, $3.20 $77,600,000 3,210 $5.01 $96,500,000 4,900 $4.68 $6,500, $7.68 $13,100,000 1,020 $4.17 $23,900,000 1,470 $4.62 $10,200, $3.77

38 Approach 4 Optimized Well Fields Attempt to identify new well field locations Contamination Drawdown Woodbury and Cottage Grove concept could apply to other Coalition communities Consider areas outside of municipal boundaries

39 Approach 4 Costs Alternative Alternative 7A Optimized Well Fields for Woodbury and Cottage Grove Woodbury Location Alternative 7B Optimized Well Fields for Woodbury and Cottage Grove Denmark Township Location Alternative 7C Optimized Well Fields for Woodbury and Cottage Grove Cottage Grove Location Capital Cost Water Provided (MGY) Cost per 1,000 gallons $26,400,000 3,125 $1.10 $30,600,000 3,125 $1.20 $25,000,000 3,125 $1.10

40 Alternative Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Description Capital Cost Identify the capital cost of the alternative. Capital Cost per Million Gallons of Water Provided Operation and Maintenance per Million Gallons of Water Provided Reduction in Groundwater Pumping Water System Reliability Implementation Obstacles Advantages and Disadvantages Effects on Surface Waters Identify the capital cost of the alternative per million gallons of water provided. Identify the Operation and Maintenance costs per million gallons of water provided. Some alternatives may have a lower capital cost, but have a high operation and maintenance cost. Identify if the alternative reduces groundwater pumping volume and time. Identify if the alternative adds redundancy to existing water systems. Identify items that could make the alternative difficult to implement; potentially including permitting, public opposition, difficult construction, or risk with construction methods. Identify the advantages and disadvantages that may be unique to that alternative. Identify if the alternative has the potential to help or harm a surface water body.

41 Alternative Evaluation Approach 1 Alternate Uses for 3M Contaminant Containment Wells Industrial reuse options expensive, no Drinking water options possible, but expensive Higher priority use of water Approach 2 New Surface WTP on Mississippi River or St. Croix River New source of water redundancy Different water quality softened, conjunctive use surface water Higher cost of water Major infrastructure needed

42 Alternative Evaluation Approach 3 Connect to SPRWS Smaller scale projects feasible New source of water redundancy Different water quality softened, surface water Higher cost of water Major infrastructure needed for larger scale projects Approach 4 Optimized Well Fields Lowest cost alternative No taste and odor issues All well sites have drawbacks

43 Cost Sharing Example Alternative 4B Item Annual Cost Water Used (thousand gallons) Cost/1,000 gallons 1 Annualized Payment $15,651,000 6,400,000 $2.45 Joint Utility O&M Costs $10,250,000 6,400,000 $1.60 Repair and Replacement $2,150,000 6,400,000 $0.34 Cities Existing O&M $1.25/1,000 gal 6,400,000 $1.25 Total $5.64 To bring the cost down to SPRWS existing rates, the utility would need to be offset by $2.44 per 1,000 gallons (approximately $16,000,000 per year) If $16,000,000 were spread across entire North and East GWMA, results in $0.54 per 1,000 gallons groundwater fee

44 Efficiency City Winter Month Demand (MG) 1 Avg. Month Demand (MG) Peak Month Demand (MG) Non-Essential Demand (MG/month) Bayport Cottage Grove Lake Elmo Newport Oak Park Heights Oakdale St. Paul Park Stillwater Woodbury Total 192.4

45 Efficiency Monthly Demand Winter Demand

46 Summer to Winter Water Demand Ratio

47 Opportunities to Improve sdinspect.com smartearthsprinklers.com

48 Next Steps Efficiency Study Coalition, MCES, Washington County Analyze water use data from Coalition communities Residential Water Efficiency Irrigation Smart Controllers Audits Free Nozzle programs Irrigreen Efficient Toilets, Faucet Aerators, Washing Machines

49 Efficiency Study Industrial and commercial water efficiency MnTAP City water metering, unaccounted water Water Conservation Toolbox Water Billing Rate Structures Cost Estimating, Alternative Evaluation, Efficiency Scoring, Report Preparation Report Completion June 2017

50 Questions