docPennsylvania`s Approach to AML
download 
Report Transcription
Pennsylvania`s Approach to AML
Pennsylvania’s Approach to AMLImpacted Water Supply Replacement Projects NAAMLP Conference September 29, 2015 Tom Wolf, Governor John Quigley, Secretary Overview • History – Marty Hughes, P.E. • Geologic Investigation by Rich Beam, P.G. • Project Examples by Pat Webb, P.E. History • First and second Waterline Projects (the second was an extension of the first) ‒ First: 4,150 feet to four residents Cost: $30,865 ‒ Second: 13,000 feet to 30 residents Cost: $398,000 Current Aerial View 1958 Aerial View Hurdles • Issues working with water company ‒ Pipe requirements and sizing PVC vs. ductile iron 3” vs. 8” • Issues working through eligibility ‒ Hydro Report Increased Interest • Elected Officials • Public Meetings • Media Involvement Press Release Alternate Options • Assist municipalities ‒ Purchase materials ‒ Pass-through agreement Types of Projects • In-house design/construction grant • Pass-through grant to a municipal water authority Investigation Objectives • Verification of individual water supply quality and/or quantity impacts • Confirmation of the impact source • Determining if identified coal mining impacts are predominately pre- or post-SMRCA activities Investigation Tools and Resources • Survey questionnaires • Existing water quality/quantity data ‒ ‒ Well driller records/homeowner records Mortgage and treatment companies’ analyses • Sample collection/yield testing ‒ ‒ DEP lab analysis Specific capacity yield tests • Mine permit and mapping database records ‒ ‒ Background and quarterly monitoring data Documentation of previous mining impacts • Historic aerial photography • Geology and hydrology data ‒ USGS and PA Geologic Survey published data OSM 11(0623) 101.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation • Eight individual water supplies wells ‒ Five shallow “hand dug” wells (<40 ft T.D.) ‒ Three drilled wells (about 120 feet TD) • Shallow supplies provide inadequate quantity and bacterial contamination • Drilled wells show characteristic mine drainage influences (elevated SO4 and metals) OSM 11(0623) 101.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation OSM 11(0623) 101.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation OSM OSM 11(0623) 11(0623) 101.1 101.1 Hydrogeologic HydrogeologicInvestigation Investigation • AML inventory GIS layers ‒ Problem areas ‒ Underground mines ‒ Geologic structure OSM 11(0623) 101.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation Hughes Mine Sonman Mine pH 4.0 5.5 Fe 93.6 (mg/l) 44.5 (mg/l) Mn 2.95 (mg/l) 2.65 (mg/l) Al 5.87 (mg/l) 2.73 (mg/l) SO4 665 (mg/l) 576 (mg/l) TDS 1050 (mg/l) 980 (mg/l) OSM OSM11(0623) 11(0623)101.1 101.1Hydrogeologic HydrogeologicInvestigation Investigation • Investigation ‒ Examined seven water supply investigation reports that were prepared by investigation staff ‒ Collected and analyzed laboratory samples of these supplies and one additional adjacent water supply ‒ Analyzed geologic/hydrologic data for the area and evaluated mine permit information from GIS databases ‒ Interviewed water supply owners • Conclusions ‒ Pre-SMRCA underground mining activity has likely diminished groundwater recharge to many of the shallow water supplies ‒ Mine pools and abandoned underground mine workings directly beneath and surrounding the investigation area preclude homeowners from developing deeper water sources PA 6483 Pinegrove North Water Supply Investigation PA 6483 PinegroveNorth North Water Investigation PA 6483 Pinegrove WaterSupply Supply Investigation • Located in Lawrence Township, Clearfield County • 120 residences claiming mining impacts to supplies (108 wells and 12 springs) • 94 samples collected in the investigation • Investigation area was subdivided into five subunits for evaluation purposes • 37 pre-SMRCA surface and underground mines within the study area • 23 post-SMRCA surface mines within the study area • Surface and underground mining on six different coal seams Area 1 Water Quality Summary Mine Mine Mapping Database MinePermit Permitand & Mine Mapping Database D-Seam (Lower Freeport) mining within investigation area – PA MAP File Sheet A Historic Aerial Photo Database May 13, 1958 aerial photo showing surface mines in western portion of investigation area PA 6483 Pinegrove North Water Supply Investigation • Significant evidence of widespread pre-SMCRA diminution and degradation of groundwater sources • A number of water supplies have been impacted by postSMRCA operations; replacement of individual supplies by surface mine operators was documented • In addition to the aerial photos and historic permit records, many of the interviewed homeowners that resided in the area prior to 1977 indicated that the older pre-primacy mining operations were responsible for their water quality problems • The homeowners’ observations are supported by sampling information that was collected by DEP surface mine inspectors in the early to mid-1970’s when they were performing field reviews of mining permit applications PA 6483 Pinegrove North Conclusions • With the exception of a portion of study Area 5, abandoned pre-SMRCA surface and underground mining activity and post-SMRCA surface mining activities have diminished groundwater recharge to many of the existing supplies • In 47 of the supplies, activities have also significantly degraded the quality of groundwater available • Mine pools and abandoned underground mine workings directly beneath and surrounding the investigation area preclude most homeowners from developing deeper water sources • Water supplies within Area 5 show no clear indication of water quality impact from mining activities and there is no clear indication of quantity diminution • Based upon all available information the predominate impacts within Areas 1 thru 4 are the result of pre-SMRCA mining activities In-House and Pass-Through Waterline Extension Projects • In-House Design/Construction Grant ‒ Goshen Church West - OSM 17(7184)102.1 ‒ Drane - OSM 17(1946)101.1 ‒ Cofinan Run - OSM 17(6872)102.1 • Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority ‒ Kooser Road - OSM 26(4715)101.1 In-House Design/Construction Grant Project Process In-House Design/Construction Grant Project Process • DEP Investigation ‒ Water loss/contamination survey ‒ Water sampling ‒ Hydro review/report by Professional Geologist (PG) (review of surface and deep mine permits) Background water samples Permit boundary Geologic review • DEP Project Development ‒ Project description ‒ OSM eligibility based from the PG Hydro Report ‒ Base map editing ‒ Cost estimate ‒ NEPA compliance environmental assessment ‒ SHPO review and USFWS review ‒ PNDI (environmental impact review tool) ‒ Efacts/eAMLIS editing In-House Design/Construction Grant Project Process • DEP Design ‒ Waterline alignment (elevations/pressures) ‒ Design Pipe and stone bedding Storage tanks Pressure reducing vaults Pump stations All other items that support water consumption by AML eligible residents Fire protection items are not AML eligible ‒ Pass-through agreement for water authority design/specs ‒ Construction plans and details ‒ Specifications • Construction ‒ State contract awarded to the qualified low bidder contactor Contractor installs the waterline extension project DEP performs project inspection tasks PA 7184 – Goshen Church In-House Design/Construction Grant • †$1,895,337 – Completed in 2012 • OSM 17(7184)101.1, Clearfield County, Goshen Township • Polluted Water Human Consumption (PWHC) AML feature ‒ 22 Count PHWC = 22 Homes • 26,507 linear foot water line extension (5 miles) • Contract bid items ‒ Waterline pipe, fittings, and valves ‒ 2A stone bedding ‒ Valve markers ‒ Service lateral connections: curb stops and boxes, meter ‒ Highway and stream crossings ‒ Concreate encasement and anchors ‒ Air release and blow-off values ‒ Water storage tank ‒ Pressure reducing vault ‒ Mob./demob., site restoration, erosion and sediment control, office facility †Construction Costs Only PA 7184 – Goshen Church In-House Design/Construction Grant PA 7184 – Goshen Church In-House Design/Construction Grant PA 1946 – Drane In-House Design/Construction Grant • †$3,498,711 – Completed in 2008 (split funding) ‒ OSM - *$1,154,320 ‒ State - *$2,344,105 • OSM 17(1946)101.1, Clearfield County, Decatur Township • Polluted Water Human Consumption (PWHC) AML feature ‒ 133 Count PHWC = 133 Homes • 70,215 linear foot water line extension (more than 13 miles) • Contract bid items ‒ Waterline pipe, fittings, and valves ‒ 2A and 2RC stone bedding ‒ Valve markers ‒ Service lateral connections: curb stops and boxes, meter ‒ Highway and stream crossings ‒ Concreate encasement and anchors ‒ Air release and blow-off values ‒ Water storage tank ‒ Pressure reducing vault and pump station ‒ Mob./demob., site restoration, erosion and sediment control, office facility †Construction Costs Only PA 1946 – Drane In-House Design/Construction Grant PA 6872 – Cofinan Run In-House Design/Construction Grant • †$778,046 – Completed in 2015 • OSM 17(6872)101.1, Clearfield County, Beccaria Township • Polluted Water Human Consumption (PWHC) AML feature ‒ 8 Count PHWC = 8 Homes • 17,000 linear foot water line extension (more than 3 miles) • Contract bid items ‒ Waterline pipe, fittings, and valves ‒ 2A stone bedding ‒ Valve markers ‒ Service lateral connections: curb stops and boxes, meter ‒ Highway and stream crossings ‒ Concreate encasement and anchors ‒ Air release and blow-off values ‒ Water storage tank ‒ Pressure reducing valves and pressure reducing vault ‒ Mob./demob., site restoration, erosion and sediment control, office facility †Construction Costs Only PA 6872 – Cofinan Run In-House Design/Construction Grant PA 6872 – Cofinan Run In-House Design/Construction Grant Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Process • DEP Investigation ‒ Same as a process as a In-House Design/Construction Grant Project • DEP Project Development ‒ Same as a process as a In-House Design/Construction Grant Project ‒ Add - Sole Source Grant Development Water authority provides cost estimate Three bid items Stone bedding Pipe Appurtenances (supporting items like: valves, fittings, and tracer wire) Period of performance Approval of grant to be used for bid item reimbursement Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Process Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Process • Water Authority Development and Design by Professional Engineering Consultant ‒ ‒ Development NEPA compliance - Uniform Environmental Report Cost estimate Design Elevations/pressures Pipe, stone bedding, and storage tanks Pressure-reducing vaults Pump stations Construction plans and details Specifications • Water Authority Construction Contract ‒ Awarded to a qualified low bidder ‒ Professional engineering consultant inspect the project DEP may inspect the project, on occasion Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Process • Professional Engineering Consultant, on behalf of the municipal water authority, submits detailed invoices to be reviewed for reimbursement by DEP • Covered items include: ‒ Stone bedding ‒ Pipe ‒ Appurtenances Valves Fittings Tracer wire Kooser Road Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority • ‡$181,445 – Completed in 2008 • OSM 26(4715)101.1, Fayette County, Springfield Township • Polluted Water Human Consumption (PWHC) AML feature ‒ 31 PHWC = 31 Homes • 15,000 linear foot water line extension (about 3 miles) • Materials ‒ Waterline pipe ‒ Stone bedding ‒ Appurtenances ‡Material Costs Only Kooser Road Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Invoices - Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Invoices - Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Invoice for pipe Invoicing Review of Waterline Extension Pass-Through Invoice for appurtenances Invoices - Pass-Through Grant to a Municipal Water Authority Invoice for stone bedding Invoicing Review of Waterline Extension Pass-Through Waterline Extension Project Overall Statistics • More than 70 (in-house and pass-through) projects since 1986 ‒ More than 1,000 homes/PWHC’s received potable water at more than 100 miles ‒ ᵛ$23 million total average cost ᵛ$333,000 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ Min: $10,000 Max: $3.5 million 59 Completed ᵛ$14 million More than 600,000 linear feet (100 miles) 3 in Construction ᵛ$2 million More than 35,000 linear feet (7 miles) 2 in Design ᵛ$2 million More than 7,000 linear feet (2 miles) 6 Developed for Design ᵛ$5 million ᵛIn-House/Construction Grant Costs and Pass-Through Material Costs Only Waterline Extension Project Overall Statistics • 33 In-House Design/Construction Grant Waterline Extension Projects ‒ †$19 Million ‒ 26 Completed ‒ 1 in Construction ‒ 2 in Design ‒ 4 in Development ‒ †$33,000 per home ‒ †$45 to 50 per linear foot ‒ †$250,000 per mile ‒ More than 400,000 linear feet (75 miles) • In-House Design/Construction Grants – More than $2.2 million has been credited back into the Pennsylvania AML grant due to additional homes connecting onto waterlines after project completion †Construction Costs Only Waterline Extension Project Overall Statistics • 37 Pass-Through Waterline Extension Projects ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‡$4 Million 33 Completed 2 in Construction 2 in Development ‡$7,000/Home ‡$13/Linear Foot ‡$67,000/Mile More than 200,000 linear feet (38 miles) ‡Material Costs Only Conclusions • Each process is effective to replace AML impacted water consumption resources • Each process has its PROS and CONS ‒ In-House Design/Construction Grant may be the only option for a municipal water authority due to overhead funding limitations ‒ In-House Design/Construction Grant projects can have the potential to develop additional funding back into an AML grant year ‒ A Pass-Through can happen quicker ‒ A Pass-Through is the most cost effective option use of OSM funds Questions? Patrick Webb P.E., Martin Hughes P.E., Richard L. Beam, P.G.
