Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I would like to call to order the Infrastructure Planning and Sustainability Committee meeting of July 22nd, 2026. Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Diaz? Absent. Councilmember Hines?

Here. Here.

Vice-Chair Sedalge?

Here.

Chair Walker? Absent. And Deputy Mayor Bushnell?

Present.

Um, moving on to public comment clerk, will you please read to request to speak during public comment for items on the agenda, please sign up in the front of the room. If you wish to speak virtually, please press the raise hand button near the bottom of your secret note or star nine on your phone. Your name or the last four digits of your phone number will be called out when it is your turn to speak.

Um, Clark, anyone signed up to speak virtually or in person?

Um, none virtually.

Would you like to? Okay, great. All right, so closing public comment. We have one briefing item today. It's on PFAS treatment evaluation update. Kim, I would like to ask Kim DiFoglio and anyone else to come and start. No.

I know they're all back there. Good afternoon, Vice Chair Siedlowski and members of the committee. My name is Kim DiFullo and I lead the water quality engineering team at Tacoma Water. Today I will be providing an update on PFAS management efforts at Tacoma Water. Next slide please. This presentation is informational only. I believe it was requested by the committee and it's a good time to provide you with an update because it has been a few years since I last spoke to you about PFAS. And we just wrapped up our PFAS treatment evaluation project and have started incorporating PFAS treatment planning into our capital budget. Today, I will provide a quick review on PFAS and Tacoma Water's groundwater system. tell you about our recent PFAS treatment evaluation project and the implementation plan that we've prepared, and talk about the next steps, what they are as we move forward. Next slide, please. There you go. PFAS, quick review, PFAS are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals. They are widely used in everyday products, and many of them have been linked to various health effects. It can be difficult to understand how this one type of chemical can contaminate so many drinking water supplies, but PFAS were commonly used in aqueous film forming foam to put out fuel-based fires. I think I've shared this photo from SeaTac Airport before, but you can see that even in training exercises, the foam is sprayed everywhere. It's up to their knees in this photo, and then it seeps into the ground. goes away, but we know that similar exercises were done at JBLM and possibly at other fire training facilities in our area. So it's easy to see how PFAS can enter and contaminate a groundwater supply. Tacoma Water is fortunate to have two reliable supplies of drinking water. The Green River is our primary supply, but our groundwater wells provide a critical backup to the river supply, and it's been that way for over 100 years. We don't currently use our groundwater wells all the time, but we might use them for situations like droughts, emergencies, or operational needs. In fact, we're running wells this week because of the higher demands from the high temperatures. As we've shared before, the green river supply continues to have no detections for the regulated PFAS compounds. And therefore, because the majority of the water supply to all our customers, Throughout the years from the Green River, overall exposure to PFAS through drinking water is very low for Tacoma Water customers. The South Tacoma wells and the other in-town wells have had varying PFAS concentrations. A couple of the wells have had no detections, while a couple of the wells have had very high detections, and those were immediately removed from service. Of the remaining wells, roughly half are just below the EPA and Washington state standards, and about half are just above those standards. Next slide, please. Although we have groundwater wells in various locations in Pierce County, we primarily use the South Tacoma wells. And so this slide has a little more detail on those wells. There's 14 wells that roughly follow South Tacoma Way from Oak Tree Park near 74th Street on the south end, all the way around South Tacoma Way to Hood Street Reservoir that's just off of I-5 on the north end. And all the wells feed into the Wells Piedmont, which is that yellow line on the map. It roughly follows South Tacoma Way. And they, typically all the, well water flows in that wells pipeline up to, down to the street reservoir where it's disinfected and treated for corrosion control and fluoridation. When necessary, we can treat some of our well water at South Tacoma Plum Station, and that would be where it enters our distribution system. From the photos of the well houses on the left side of the slide and then the map on the right, you can see how spread out the South Tacoma wells are. and how little space is available around those well houses for building any additional treatment for PFAS. In fact, one of our wells is in the median in Clement Street. So there's not room for the treatment that I'll show you in a couple slides. Right now, in a typical year, the groundwater supply provides roughly 5% of Tacoma Water's total supply, as identified in Tacoma Water's integrated resource plan. update and discussions about the Cascade Water Alliance agreement. Tacoma Water expects to need much more groundwater over the next 30 plus years. By 2061, we're estimating that groundwater may supply about 36% of the supplies in a typical year. Next slide, please. Drinking water PFAS regulations have been in flux over the last few years. You may have seen in the news there's been some changes. The current EPA PFAS rule sets limits for six PFAS compounds in drinking water that water systems have to meet by the year 2029. The current administration just published two proposed rule changes. One which cuts it back to only the two most prevalent PFAS chemicals and the other rule change which allows specific water systems to request a two-year extension to build treatment. However, those proposals aren't finalized yet and there are some legal actions that may affect what EPA is actually allowed to do. Regardless of what EPA does at the federal level, the state of Washington just set new state action levels for PFAS that they match the current EPA requirements. the state has indicated they don't plan to change those regulations anytime soon, regardless of what EPA does. So in Washington, we have some certainty what those PFAS limits will be that we need to meet. And then both the federal and the state rules are based on our running annual average at the entry point to the distribution system. So you're not talking about a single sample or a sampling at a single wellhead itself. It's based on averaging what water goes into the system over a year's time. Next slide, please. Given that our wells are a backup supply, they're not in continuous use. We have 20 plus wells in different locations throughout Pierce County. They all have varying concentrations of PFAS detected and the regulations have been changing. Figuring out how we mix and match our sources and when and where we treat them for PFAS, it's a pretty complex issue. So to help us sort that out, we hired Brown and Caldwell as an engineering consultant to lead a PFAS treatment evaluation. Their team worked with a representative group of Tacoma Water staff over the last two years to help us define water quality objectives and operational capacity projections, and then evaluate alternatives for managing PFAS in our groundwater supplies. In that evaluation, we looked into both near-term and long-term approaches to protecting public health and meeting regulatory requirements. In the near term, as I noted, we primarily rely on green river water. and when we do use well water we operate wells with lower PFAS levels or we blend well water to ensure that we meet regulatory requirements for the water supply to our customers. These approaches ensure that running annual average levels in our system in our water stay very low. By doing this in the near term we provide water that's protective of public health and compliant with the rules but it allows us to push out the cost of building and operating PFAS treatment for as long as possible, which will save our rate payers, it will allow PFAS technologies more time to mature, and limit the challenges of operating PFAS treatment on an intermittent basis. Long-term, as groundwater needs increase over the coming decades and wells are on more and more each year, we will need to build PFAS treatment for our wells. And when we're ready to build that treatment, we need to know what that treatment will consist of and where it will go. So that was the focus of this evaluation as we thought long term. Two of the most widely used treatment methods for P-passing drinking water use large vessels, like the ones on the left, filled with media that the water flows through. The greater the flow rate of water, the more vessels you need. We have a lot of really large wells in our system, so we need When we have treatment, we're going to need a lot of those vessels. You can see why they don't fit on our well sites. On the right, on the slide, is an example of an analysis that our consultant did for each alternative that we looked at. This one is for PFAS treatment along the South Tacoma Wells pipeline. And in the sketch, they've identified how well water could be diverted out of and back into our wells pipeline, the number of treatment vessels that would be needed, In that case, I think it's 10 pairs of these large vessels, 10 pairs for 30 million gallons per day worth of water. And then the ancillary equipment needed for that site and the overall footprint. The consultant also did a laboratory bench scopes methods using our water in their lab, and they found that we can successfully remove PFAS from our groundwater And based on their testing and the way in which we operate our wells, they recommended cutting the number of vessels in half from what might typically be designed, which will ultimately save our rate payers money down the road. I'll also note that many other utilities around the country are designing, constructing, and operating systems like this now. In particular, we've learned a lot from Lakewood Water District and the City of Vancouver about their PFAS treatment systems and will continue to do so. Next slide. Our entire evaluation is wrapped up into an implementation plan for groundwater PFAS treatment, which lays out timing and costs to manage PFAS in our groundwater. The figure on the right side of the slide summarizes our best estimates for when we need to begin work on each strategy in order to meet the groundwater demands that were identified in our Innovative Resource Plan. The blue line on the chart is the anticipated groundwater demand based on the IRP. It peaks in the year 2061 due to the timing of the Cascade Water Alliance Agreement. The orange dashed line is kind of hard to see behind the gray boxes, but it represents the groundwater available at each point in time as we build the projects identified here. So with each project, that amount of groundwater available goes up to try to make sure we have enough to cover the blue line, the demands shown in the blue line. And then the gray boxes represent the projects that we identified during our evaluation project that will be needed over time to manage PFAS in our groundwater supply. And the length of those boxes represents the expected project implementation period. The timing for these projects isn't set in stone. We have an adaptive process in which We'll continuously be tracking a number of the conditions that would trigger us to require treatment be built or triggers to move to the next project in the plan. And then we'll be continuously iterating these estimates over time as we update our IRP, sell wholesale water, and keep an eye on the triggers that we identified. Next slide, please. Here are those projects and the timing from the chart laid out with capital cost. And these are not insignificant amounts, which is why it's important that we construct projects incrementally, adapting as we go based on actual conditions that we face. For the 27-28 budget, we've included $2 million for a PFAS pilot study and some other preliminary work to help us define what our future PFAS treatment will look like. Our 10-year CIP currently includes some of the earlier projects, the projects on the upper part of this list. And because there's less certainty about when the projects lower on the list would happen, they're not currently in our 10 year CIP, but we'll work on refining that timing. I'll also note that once PFAS treatment is constructed, we're committed to ongoing O&M costs, which are estimated at several hundred thousand dollars per year. And as those future projects get underway, Obviously we'll seek any grants or other funds available at that time to offset the effects on our rates. A little good news is that we have already received over $7 million from a multi-district litigation settlement that involves utilities from all over the country against the manufacturers of PFAS fire-fighting coal. And we anticipate receiving at least $11 million in total from that. amount compared to some of these numbers, but it will be directed toward our capital needs. Next slide, please. So now that our implementation plan has been prepared, the next steps are that we are working to finalize our monitoring plan with the State Department of Health, and we'll continue quarterly PPAS monitoring as required. We are considering land acquisition for a PPAS treatment facility for the South Tacoma Wells, given that we have some pretty strict criteria about where that site needs to be located along our pipeline, we want to pin down that location sooner rather than later, even if we don't build treatment immediately. We're continuing to work with our engineering consultant to get started with a pilot study for PFAS treatment for the wells. We know that treatment will work for our water. The pilot testing will help us understand some of the more complex issues associated with how we have to operate that treatment. Since it's a backup supply, how does running our wells intermittently affect the treatment process itself, and how does switching between all of our different well sources affect the treatment process? So that will help us, the results from that study will help us plan for the most cost-effective system down the road. As we move forward and obtain more clarity on the many uncertainties we face, we will continuously evaluate our groundwater demands, the PFAS levels in our sources, various regulatory changes, and other conditions to determine when we need to start building our initial capital projects in that implementation plan. And as we do that, then we'll continuously adjust our capital budgets and our 10-year CIP accordingly. Next slide, please. Overall, Tacoma Water is concerned about the PFAS contamination in the groundwater supply. but we now have a plan for how to address it and how to adapt that plan as conditions or needs change. We want to assure you and your constituents that our drinking water is in compliance with any regulations and remains safe to drink for our customers. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. I'll open it up for questions. Maybe we'll go online first and see if Councilmember Hines has any questions to start off with.

Thank you. Sorry. There we go. Thank you, Vice Chair Szilagyi. Thank you for the presentation. No, I think when you think of the scope and scale, We've got a lot ahead of us to go forward. You know, we had a conversation yesterday, uh, kind of reporters and finance about the, uh, South Tacoma groundwater, or sorry, the, the well field and potential further expansion of the well field. Um, was that part of this? Is that also considered as part of those conversations? We're thinking about not only treating the groundwater that we are currently using and impact around PFAS, but also kind of further expansion opportunities and thinking about that too.

So, um, Glenn George, who gave the presentation yesterday, was part of the project for this implementation plan. So we've been working together for the last several years on this. And so I guess the answer would be yes. We didn't explicitly talk about additional sources during that project, but we're talking about the amount of treatment capacity that we need to meet that 47 MGD million gallons per day of water in the year 2061. So however we get that amount, that's how much PFAS treatment ultimately that we need to have available.

No, I think just as I'm thinking, because I think one of the key points that I think you've made in the presentation, which I think is very important is being smart about the technological investments we're making to manage PFAS. You know, we don't quite know where the numbers are going to land. We don't quite know what technology is being innovated right now or where it's going to be 10, 15, 20 years from now. Environmental services, or sorry, Tomewater is always thinking further, you know, 30, 40 year, 50 year plans around how to manage our infrastructure. So I think the approach we're looking at here of what do we need to do right now and then kind of phasing things over time makes a lot of sense, especially, you know, considering we have quite a bit of water available to us from the Green River with even more water coming soon down that line with the Howard Hansen food books. So long story short to say, I appreciate the presentation and thank you for much for what we shared here. Vice Chair, I really don't have any more specific questions.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I appreciate the presentation. I do recall when I was in the TV work, there was conversations around this at some point, but I don't think it was as far along as it is now. So I really appreciate seeing the progression we've got. We've got some hard numbers on what and I apologize if I missed it, is we do have what's on our side, I think, kind of time, especially when it comes to paying for these projects. Has there been any consideration on our rate structure to make sure that we're not seeing kind of rate shocks, for example, to try and fund these projects and kind of have a really long time horizon in order to, till we get to 2061, but then also try to,

That's a good question. Our financial stewardship team would have all the details on that. But ultimately, like I said, the top half of that list of projects, I put it into our 10-year CIP and set up when design, construction, different components would happen. And then we even have a longer look ahead for projects down the road. All that information goes to our financial team, and they are building. I'm pretty confident to say they're building our rate structure with knowledge of that work.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense. Part of the reason why I bring it up is for some of my colleagues that one of the things, one of the strategic directives for the director is to try to to try to keep it as even as possible. There's some years where you collect less, some years where you collect more, but it should average itself out. Historically, because the council's kind of the last, you know, we're the ones that make the final decision on where rates go, in times past, the council has increased or decreased rates that kind of are a little more jagged than I think even the board would prefer to try to reduce those rate shocks. And one example is like in 2016, there was a 0% increase, which in the following year they had an increase of like 6.5% because of that. And that's a rate shock right there when it could have been a two and a two or a three and a three instead. And so I just wanted to throw that out there for consideration. When I was on the board at the time, I was kind of like, we're going to pay for it one way or the other. It's like how strategic do you want to be about paying for it? And I personally, I would prefer it to be something gradual over time as opposed to like, up and down shocks.

And so that's why I want to bring it up. So thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to kind of dial it back. And first of all, early as a council member, I got to do a tour of many of our facilities. In fact, I think you actually took me on the tour. And so I appreciate the tour because it actually really makes a lot of this real the reservoir being so protected up there is really beneficial. So the question I have, so we have 14 wells. How many did we detect some amount of PFAS in so far of our roughly 14?

Unfortunately, the majority of the wells had detections. We have a couple very deep wells that are like 900,000 feet deep and they did not have detections, but they are smaller wells and they have some other water quality issues. So it's there. But most of our wells have had some level detected. Some level. Your PFAS is prevalent in the environment and you're even finding it in Arctic ice and rainwater.

So we have some and you said it's roughly right around what the

regulations are going to kind of mandate that we deal with is that what i also heard so yes and the regulations we know what they are now so that you do have to meet these regulations um and we are meeting them uh and like i said it's a running annual average and so when you picture the green river water with a zero is normally coming into hood street reservoir And we're averaging what's going out of Hood Street Reservoir on an annual basis, essentially. So when the well water is coming in and if we had anything, any of the well water concentrations are being essentially averaged out by the water. And we're actually trying in most cases to have well water levels that are below the regulatory limits regardless.

Good.

And so one of the things we do need to do regardless of whatever

actual mitigation technology we end up using because I from what I understand there's there's still a lot of work around trying to find more efficient ways of mitigating for PFAS for drinking water there's definitely a lot of innovation going on related to PFAS for drinking water treatment itself with the how you actually remove it from drinking water the methods are pretty well set but there's ways you can improve those methods We're helping some vendors test out some innovations in that now. But a lot of the real innovation is happening in the destruction of PFAS. So after it leaves drinking water and it becomes concentrated and goes to a wastewater treatment plant or a landfill, you've got very concentrated liquids. That's where a lot of the destruction technology is. There's some really interesting things happening with that.

got it that's that's a good point to to point out because once you take water you still have to deal with it responsibly and so that's another section and um is that more of a environmental services or is it also a tacoma water kind of consideration i know we've done some sort of pilot in these technologies correct yeah we had one in the central treatment plant

And that was a pilot for one year. I think it was effective. It was a mechanical type of removal. And we still don't have regulation yet on wastewater rate because I know that's coming.

Because there's drinking water, but at some point you're going to have wastewater because you can't just... take it out of the drinking water and put it in your wastewater. You're just going to get it back in, right?

Some of it requires it not to come out in the future. Maybe a little more difficult with wastewater because the source are so many source points. It would be difficult to address that.

And it's taken out of the drinking water. It doesn't actually go into the wastewater. It attaches to the media that's in those vessels. And so once they get full, you have to dispose of that media. So it becomes a solid waste or hazardous waste process that Tacoma Water would have to find the location to landfill that somewhere.

Got it. That is fascinating. And, you know, I'm glad we're thinking on these horizons because this is a chemical we need to mitigate for and we should mitigate for. It's an absolute responsibility. And I appreciate... you know, the forethought of thinking about how do we site places so that we, regardless of, we need the space to be able to treat it, right? Great.

I don't have any other questions, actually.

So thank you very much. Moving on to topics for upcoming meetings. I would like to call on Martin Griffins.

uh committee coordinator for topics for upcoming meetings on august 12th they'll be about transportation commission interviews then on august 26th tree and landscaping tree and landscaping code update and then the urban forestry point priority action plan update and then september 9th solid waste management fleet alternative fuels and the green blocks south tacoma plantable space inventory findings and project progress

Other items of interest. The committee has received a memo from public work staff responding to the committee's request for additional background information on Schuster Parkway Trail project. This letter was sent to the committee along with today's meeting materials and will be available to the public on Legistar after this meeting. Would any of my colleagues like to discuss the letter in any way? See nothing. Since our last meeting, has anyone visited one of our committees, boards, or commissions?

I had the Sustainability Committee meet with me.

Oh.

Well, one of them, one of our members.

That counts.

And it was good. It was a good meeting.

Actually, the Sustainability Committee met with me as well. It was nice to get an update from an individual, to your point. Are there any other items of interest? Seeing none.

Okay. Just real quick. So the Brown and Caldwell report, will that be on the website after?

The Brown and Caldwell report.

But you mentioned, you know, before a little bit of that, the implementation plan for Brown and Caldwell.

I don't know that we've decided yet, but we'll consider it on the website.

Yeah, I was doing PDR before I went out. But I just thought it might be part of it. I didn't ask. I just asked. Oh, one other comment. So, PFAS is actually in toilet paper. It's everywhere. So, I was stunned when I found out about it.

It is absolutely everywhere.

Especially when you look at the . Thank you, Kit. That's how I found out.

No. I guess at this point... Move to adjourn.

Motion.

Second.

We are adjourned. No, all those in favor signify by saying aye. We got that. Aye. All those opposed? Okay, we are adjourned. Aye.