November 17, 2015 Victor A. D’Amato Diversifying your Source Water Portfolio for Resiliency in the face of Emergency - the Case of West Virginia

Presentation Outline It was just like any other January morning… ▪Freedom Industries spill into the Kanawha River What not to do… ▪Emergency “reaction” There’s nothing like a good crisis… ▪Legislative response: Source Water Protection Planning

Incident Questions Details It was just like any other January morning…

Spill Incident - January 9 th, 2014 Spill Hotline Report from Freedom Industries ▪11:40 am spill of a “mixture of a lot of things”, principally 4- methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM), a coal-washing agent ▪Toxic? “No” and reported that dike was containing the spill Morning leading up to the call ▪DEP Inspectors respond to odor complaints logged at 8:15 am ▪Identify leak in tank and secondary containment Afternoon media reports ▪DEP thought chemical was not toxic, unsure of environmental impacts ▪West Virginia American Water (WVAW) believed carbon filtration treatment could take care of contamination if not already diluted

Infamous Notice Do Not Use Water Notification issued just before 6:00 pm ▪No consumption or bathing ▪Use only for flushing commodes ▪Fire protection Impacted 300,000 people in 9 counties Reports of exposure

Immediate Questions What was leaked? How much leaked? What happens if you consume or come in contact with it? When did the water system know? Why didn’t they shut down their intake? How long before the Do Not Use is lifted? How could this happen?!

Spill Details 10,000 gallons of MCHM leaked from Freedom Industries Tank Farm Spill into Elk River, tributary of Kanawha River, Charleston’s water supply 1.5 miles upstream of intake Contaminated the plant and distribution system – 1,900 miles of lines and 100 tanks.

Spill Details Eastman MSDS: WARNING! HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED CAUSES SKIN AND EYE IRRITATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES, VAPOR MAY CAUSE IRRITATION OF EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT No specific information on safe concentrations or MCLs ▪CDC, USEPA, WVDHHR provided 1 ppm concentration ▪Odor detectable at 0.1 ppm concentrations No standard method to test for the chemical Safe concentration established and analytical method developed within 2 days

Spill Details Restaurants closed, events canceled, daycares and school closed Flushed the water system in pressure zones Released areas from Do Not Use Warning from CDC for pregnant women- “out of an abundance of caution” Notification lifted for all areas 10 days later, non- detect at 0.01 ppm.

Public Health Impact 369 people were treated in area emergency departments. 96.5% were treated and released with only medication or IV fluids. Symptoms ▪Nausea, rash, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, headache, itching, sore throat, eye pain, cough Symptoms consistent with expected exposure reactions known from tests on laboratory animals Source: Elk River Chemical Spill Health Effects Findings of Emergency Department Record Review, %20Findings%20of%20Emergency%20Department%20Record%20Review.pdf %20Findings%20of%20Emergency%20Department%20Record%20Review.pdf Accessed 4/29/2014

Emergency response reaction What not to do…

Emergency “Reaction” Several circumstances placed WVAW in a reaction mode ▪Potentially negligent facility owners ▪No inspections of AST or stormwater permit Photo by Associated Press /Chattanooga Times Free Press

Emergency “Reaction” Several circumstances placed WVAW in a reaction mode ▪Potentially negligent facility owners ▪No inspections of AST or stormwater permit ▪WVAW producing at near capacity - approximately 42 MGD ▪Unaccounted for water – subzero temperatures, main breaks ▪Water Storage Issues –Consumers running water to prevent freezing –“customers without water within 15 minutes to two hours if the plant had been shut down” (source: us/news.html. Accessed April 30, 2014) us/news.html

Emergency “Reaction” Not prepared for a response ▪No direct contact with the facility operators/owners ▪Unaware of the type of chemical hazard ▪Unaware of how to detect the chemical ▪Disseminated incomplete, inaccurate information ▪Public not educated on conservation or alternative sources

Lessons learned Legislation Source water and contingency planning There’s nothing like a good crisis…

Lessons Learned Source water protection voluntary under the Safe Drinking Water Act 1996 Amendment WV Governor signed SB373: Aboveground Storage Tank Act and the Public Water Supply Protection Act (eff. June 6, 2014) ▪Source Water and Contingency Planning ▪Regulatory oversight of contaminant sources ▪Communications Plans

Source Water Protection Planning Local Advisory Committee to serve as a protection team Strategy In Place (SIP) or Source Water Protection Plan Source Water Protection Area ▪WHP: Zone 1= 1,000’; Zone 2= 1 mile radius ▪Surface: Zone 1= 5 mile radius; Zone 2= watershed Investigate Potential Sources of Contamination Prioritize threats and identify protective measures ▪Threat Matrix/Public Comment Minimize Future Threats- Implementation Action Plan ▪Who/When ▪Substantial Implementation

Contingency Plan and Feasibility Study Contingency Plan ▪Responding to Water Shortage or Contamination Event –Intake isolation or shutdown, use of alternative sources –Raw and treated water storage capacity –Response notification and coordination (WVRWA, WV- WARN, mutual aid agreements) ▪Operation During Loss of Power –Generator availability and capacity (intake, treatment, distribution)

Contingency Plan and Feasibility Study Contingency Plan ▪Future Water Supply Needs (5-year minimum projection) ▪Water Loss Reduction ▪Early Warning Monitoring System –Existing capabilities –Analysis of chemical monitoring systems WV Region 4AverageMinimumMaximum Water Loss42%080% ADF0.54 MGD Design Cap.1.04 MGD Utilization*88%37%129% Storage2.47 days * MDD/Design Capacity

Contingency Plan and Feasibility Study Single Source Alternatives Feasibility Study ▪Backup Intake –Different water body –Substantially different location on water body ▪Raw Water Storage –2-day minimum ▪Treated Water Storage –Maintain 20% daily turnover ▪Interconnection –Feasibility for remote systems?

Contingency Plan and Feasibility Study

Contingency Plan and Feasibility Study

Questions Dan River Spill photo by The Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability (published in New York Times, Feb. 28, 2014) Victor D’Amato, PE