|
Appendix C (cont.)
MEETING SUMMARY
TECHNICAL AND CITIZENS' ADVISORY MEETING
JANUARY 12, 1999
- INTRODUCTION
- Bill Toomey, West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
(BPH) convened the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) Meeting at 10:00
a.m. on January 12, 1999 in the Water Development Authority conference
room in Charleston, West Virginia. The meeting began with each of the
SWAP - Technical and Citizens' Advisory Committee Members introducing
themselves. A complete attendance list is attached at the end of the minutes.
- DEADLINES
- The deadline to submit the draft to the EPA for approval
is February 8, 1999. EPA has reviewed the West Virginia Source Water Assessment
Draft and we will discuss their susceptibility comments during this meeting.
- REVIEW OF PUBLIC MEETING
- In late November and early December public meetings
were held on the Source Water Assessment and Protection program. Locations
of the meetings were as follows: Martinsburg, Morgantown, Wheeling, Beckley
and Charleston.
The attendance varied at each location. Overall, the discussions at the
meetings were informative concerning the SWAP program.
- SURFACE DELINEATION - RESERVOIRS AND LAKES
- Reuben Gillispie, BPH led the discussion on the issue
of surface delineation. The surface delineation method of reservoirs and
lakes needs to be finalized for the SWAP report. The major concern of
the surface delineation is how to delineate the Zone of Critical Concentration.
The standard equation we decided to use is 90% of the maximum measure
flow velocity multiplied by the 5-hour time of travel for distance. For
a watershed we will calculate what is the five-hour travel time and draw
a path which is a quarter of a mile on either side of the bank which will
then be known as the Zone of Critical Concern. For example, the Ohio River
is arbitrarily defined as 25 miles because the maximum movement is 5 miles
per hour. For the other streams in the State we will get the 90% flow
velocity. For the impoundments and dams your velocity is zero at the outer
portion of the dam but you have a velocity on the free-flowing portions.
The neighboring states are going to simply try to calculate the longest
period of time it would take a molecule of water to move from the farthest
part of the lake to the intake using a travel time of a year or longer.
This method is determined by dye studies, but we have decided not to use
this technique. The process we are going to look at is the feeder streams
by finding the main tributary and averaging velocity of this portion and
use this velocity and multiply it by the five-hour time of travel. The
time of travel is the straight line of distance up a stream. The cutoff
point could be about four miles and then proceed one thousand yards from
the bank in all directions into about a quarter of a mile downstream of
the intake. This will help us determine the impoundment setting a distance
upstream rather than an arbitrary number for where the water comes to
a stop.
Lew Baker -WVWRA, wanted flexibility on reservoirs. The biggest impacts
of water quality were organic and other nutrients. Not related to travel
time.
Reuben Gillispie, BPH, asked the committee where the fastest water is
going to be. Is it going to be from the dam or from the steeper part of
tributaries?
Mark Kozar, USGS, if you are looking at a percent the water is at a discharge
upstream sites are going to have the higher discharge. If you are looking
at the maximum that could occur, it could be downstream.
Vic Wilford, BPH - An example is a PWSS located 10 miles below the dam
area. If the ZCC delineation exceeds the dam, it should include the dam
and include the segments.
Tom Holbrook, WVAWC, you give the utilities downstream some amount of
time to figure out what is going upstream.
After discussion it was decided to use the fastest velocity (90%) found
upstream - within 25 miles of the dam.
- EPA COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT
- Susceptibility Concerns
Current susceptibility approach relied on the individual who was making
the determination of susceptibility for the system. EPA would like it
to be more consistent when determining the susceptibility.
BPH requested the USGS to help determine a method to determine an approach
to susceptibility. This approach was handed out and discussed at the meeting.
The main part of the change is using a susceptibility table to evaluate
the susceptibility of each system.
There will be two tables for determining the susceptibility. There will
be one table for the groundwater systems and the surface water systems.
Incorporate the vulnerability concept into this. The table is set up to
assign points to potential threats of contamination.
Reuben Gillispie, BPH, discussed each item on the table. Tables would
issue a ranking or point system of 3,2,1 to a scheme to determine susceptibility.
Lew Baker, WVRWA, and Mark Kozar, USGS, do not like ranking scores.
Tom Holbrook, WVAWC, wanted an area where the system can add comments
and concerns.
Vic Wilford, BPH, suggested having an introductory verbiage for the public.
Tell the purpose of ranking and let them know that it is not an absolute
number.
Dave Watkins, WVDEP-OWR, said submit what we have to the EPA. If it does
not meet their approval, EPA will then send it back. In the meantime,
we could have worked on it.
After a long discussion by the TAC and CAC committees on the USGS approach
to susceptibility it was determined it was very difficult to use if not
impossible to design a quantitative ranking technique which will accurately
assess the susceptibility of a ground or surface water supply to contamination.
Vic Wilford, BPH suggested that EED should try to develop a better and
simplified susceptibility process and submit this to the TAC subcommittee.
This committee would make any final comments or suggestions to the simplified
susceptibility approach. Bill Toomey, BPH, would revise the susceptibility
section of the SWAP draft and let the subcommittee review. They would
then fax or mail our office their recommendations to develop the final
approach. We will send a copy of the revised susceptibility section to
each of the TAC and CAC committee members for comments and suggestions.
- Assessment Report - Glossary
Decided to add a short listing of terms in the assessment report.
- Management and Contingency Plans
How to improve the plan to develop a better linkage among the different
agencies through the use of MOU's.
Vic Wilford, BPH, recommended reinstating the Emergency Spill Response
Network with the DEP- Office of Water Resources that was originally used.
It is still active but it needs updated.
- CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT (CCR) ADDITION
- Starting in 1999, owners of community water systems
will be required to prepare and distribute an annual Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR). The CCR must contain information about what is in the water
and the source(s) of the water.
Vic Wilford, BPH, wanted to emphasize the importance of having the SWAP
available to the public. The CCR requires each public water supply to
make available notification of the water.
- POSSIBLE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
SYSTEM
$1.2 million for assessment and delineation work.
Tom Holbrook, WVAWC, paperwork is hard for smaller systems. Suggestions: managements,
smaller utilities, mini-grants, give to University schools, templates - training
classes/seminars, and other sources of funding.
- ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. The next TAC and CAC meeting will be
held some time in the spring after submittal of the SWAP draft.
This site
maintained by the West Virginia Source Water Assessment and Wellhead Protection
Program.
Please address any comments or questions
to the program or the
webmaster.
|
