A feasibility study draft commissioned by the Nodaway County Public Water Supply District was released Tuesday afternoon. It was conducted by Lamp Rynearson of Kansas City under the supervision of White Cloud Engineering. It evaluated potable and non-potable water service alternatives for the proposed data center for southern Nodaway County. This is a draft report and is subject to revision.
The District has not made any determination regarding whether water service will be provided or what their preferred alternative. Upon completion, the study will serve as one of several resources available to the board as it considers future requests. The board will take no action until it reviews the final study, considers applicable legal and regulatory requirements, evaluates impact on existing customers, and listens to further public comment. The board has a stated goal of putting residential customers first in the event of a drought or other serious water emergency.
The proposed data center will need an estimated minimum of 82,000 gallons per day, on average, to run the site. It covers 12,000 for potable water and 70,000 gallons per day for cooling water. The cooling water demand is seasonal; however, the fluctuation levels are unknown at this time. The cooling system may require an initial fill that may necessitate a 500,000 gallon per day flow rate. The study assumed the data center would have equalization and storage on site to be able to handle swings in demand.
The first option looked at involves potable water from the Rural Water District. The proposed site would be able to tap directly into a 4” diameter transmission line, which should enable a draw of 400,000 gallons per day. If more flow is needed, there is a six inch diameter line two miles south of the proposed facility. The Rural Water District could be used to meet just the domestic water demand or the total site water demand. The price is estimated to be $9.15 per 1,000 gallons based on current information, but is expected to rise due to recouping the impending costs of planned infrastructure improvements at Maryville.
The estimated cost would be $450,000 to the data center if only potable water were used, and $1,450,000 if it drew all of its water from the Rural Water District.
The advantages listed include no additional water conveyance infrastructure required, since Evergy is building a power station right next to the proposed facility that will need 90,000 gallons of water per day. There is minimal additional treatment needed, and the Water District has the capacity. Disadvantages listed include the fact that it may hinder future industrial or residential growth in the service area if demand nears capacity. Another disadvantage listed included poor optics over the use of potable water for industrial activities.
The second option involve using potable water from the Maryville water system, where the data center could construct a dedicated pump station at the Water Treatment Plant and draw the water to the site. Maryville is permitted for an average 1.5 million gallons per day and a total design capacity of 5.6 million gallons per day. It would have the capacity to meet the data center’s needs. It would require construction of a dedicated pump station and pipeline, using right-of-way along existing roads. Maryville water could be used to either meet just the demand for potable water or the entire industrial demand of the site.
Advantages listed include minimal additional treatment needed by the data center, minimal need to acquire additional right-of-way, and the fact that Maryville has the capacity.
One disadvantage is the cost; it would cost $1,370,000 if they drew potable water only from Maryville and $6,260,000 if it purchased all of its water from the city. Other disadvantages listed included limited industrial or residential growth in Maryville and the surrounding areas if water demand nears capacity, poor optics over the use of potable water for industrial activities, and the fact that potable water piping will prevent using the same trench for wastewater piping should the facility need to send wastewater back to the Maryville Wastewater Treatment Facility.
The third option involves onsite wells. The proposed project is in one of the areas of lowest water yield. Many users in the area obtain water from wells; however, the groundwater in the area is variable. It would incur the lowest capital cost; however, the study said it was unknown whether local aquifers could meet the demands of the data center. At this time, the study said that the uncertainty around that option rendered it infeasible. Additional test wells could determine whether such an option is realistic.
Advantages listed included minimal additional treatment needed by the user. There would be no need to acquire right-of-way or easements. There would be no need for the data center to coordinate with Maryville, the Rural Water District, or other entities other than regulators. There would be no off-site pipeline construction required. Disadvantages included the fact that it would require test wells and drawdown studies to determine if it was feasible. There would be no revenue generation for Maryville or the Rural Water District. There would be poor optics from using potentially scarce groundwater for industrial purposes. There would be no backup plan if supplemental water was needed.
The fourth option is effluent from the Maryville Wastewater Treatment Facility. This involves construction of a pump station at the effluent and pipe it to the data center. They would construct their own storage tank or pond and treat it to meet cooling specifications. The Maryville Wastewater Treatment Facility discharges 2.6 million gallons per day, which would cover the needs of the data center. The 102 has a flow range of 100 to 300 cubic feet per second, so the study says that the plant effluent would affect it minimally, given that it would average four cubic feet per second. It would require construction of a dedicate pump station. The estimated cost would be $6.3 million.
Advantages listed included the fact that it was a new source of revenue for Maryville, no need to acquire right-of-way or easements, the ability to use the same trench and right-of-way to send water back to Maryville, and better optics for the data center and the government by avoiding use of fresh or potable water. Disadvantages listed include the fact that more water treatment would be needed and the fact that water quality may vary.
A fifth option, drawing water from other facilities, was not deemed feasible. The two nearest sources are the ANR Pipeline Company’s Maitland Compressor Station and the City of Barnard’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. The danger is that at minimum flow, even both plants together cannot meet site water demand.
The sixth option, drawing water from the 102, would meet water demand of the data center and use existing rights-of-way to route water to the site. It would require just over one mile of piping and a pump station near the river to draw water. Estimated cost would be $1.9 million, making it one of the lowest-cost options; however, the study said the costs would be higher due to the higher variable of water quality.
The biggest disadvantage, as locals have noted, is that during droughts, one can walk across the 102. Others listed include variable water quality and quantity, poor optics of using surface water in a region where droughts have occurred, and no new revenue source for Maryville or Public Water Supply District #1.
Wastewater treatment costs would be in addition to the costs presented above. Assuming usage of 70,000 gallons of water per day, the center would need to treat 35,000 gallons per day of wastewater. It would be administered through a DNR permit requiring some form of a physical, chemical, or biological treatment before discharge into the 102.
The study says that evaluation of wastewater treatment feasibility is limited because the quality is unknown and discharge limits are not set until DNR review.
The report recommended using potable water from the Rural Water District, using industrial water from the Maryville Wastewater Treatment Facility, and then sending pretreated industrial wastewater back to the Maryville facility.
The study recommended discussion between the Rural Water District, the City of Maryville, and the data center to determine who pays for which components of the system, estimate water quality, and finalization of industrial water demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment