20171127Teton Water to Staff - Revised 4.pdf

TETON WATER & SEWER COMPANY
PO Box 786, Driggs Idaho 83422
RECEIVED
?Blt lt0Y 27 Plt hr 35
u r r Jr? #$*ctun?fi II *' o *Date:November 14,2017
To:Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Prepared By: Jon Pinardi, Teton Water & Sewer Company
RE:CaseNo. TTS-W-17-01
Response to First Production Request of Commission Staff
Revised to include infomation for "Request No 4"
Request No. 1
Enclosed is a CD containing the full system map, on file with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
The overview map is located on ASBWl, Pumphouse information on ASBW 76-77 and Storage Tank
information on tab titled "Pittsburg". The totality of the pages show all of the system equipment, pipes,
valves and hydrants. The water treatment equipment is housed in the pumphouses.
a. Well #1 is Goulds 7 clc, Well#2is Goulds 5RWAL
b. Well #1 is Goulds 7 clc. Well#2is Goulds 5RWALc. There is no pressurized storage tank
d. Pittsburg, please reference enclosed CD, file name "Pittsburg"
e. There are no booster pumpsf. Well #l uses a Blue-White M224-SND chlorinator pump. Well #2 uses a Blue-White A1N20V-47
chlorinator pump.
Reouest No.2
The enclosed CD shows the proposed new well location on ASBWI. Also enclosed is a Transfer
Application to IDWR, referenced as Appendix A, prepared by Rendezvous Engineering and dated October
19,2017. The equipment associated with groundwater production from this well is anticipated to be very
similar to that described above for the two wells, currently serving the system to which the new well would
be added."
Request No 3
With regard to altematives to drilling a new well, the Company considered 2 alternatives:
1. The possibility of increasing production of WeIl#2
2. The possibility of increasing "storage" capacity beyond the current 500,000 gallons
To meet the goal of redundancy in the event of a well failure, option 2 was not deemed prudent. Also, given
the location of the current reservoir and complexities and potential costs associated with this option, this
option was not pursued.
As to option l, and to answer the question of why drilling a new well was preferable to option 1, in addition
to the information contained in Appendix A, please see the enclosed document titled "Response to Idaho
Public Utilities Commission Production Request to Teton Springs Water", dated November 2,2011,
hereafter referenced as Appendix B.
With respect to the teleconference conducted between Commission staff and myself a few weeks ago, I
thought it prudent to present these documents to answer the question of okhy" a new well as opposed to
spending additional funds to have Rendezvous Engineering prepare a new and separate response.
Please let me know if you require anything further to satisfu this Request.
Request No 4
The site of proposed Well No. 3 is in one of two general areas identified for groundwater-production
exploration in 1999 by Tom Wood (PG 643) based on the potential occurrence of Paleozoic-age bedrock
uplifted and fractured in association with covered Jackson Thrust Fault mapped by Pampayan et al. (USGS
Mineral Investigations Field Studies Map MF-300;1967). The specific site selection of what is now
proposed for Well No. 3 was a subsequent refinement of this concept by Mr. Wood and Bern Hinckley (PG
590), targeting the intersection offractured/faulted carbonate bedrock present beneath the volcanic rocks
along the south boundary of the project, uzith further refinement guided by the occrurence of springs along
that boundary, and by the middle-eastern segment of the south boundary potentially providing the "fresher"
flow seen in the eastern springs (42 - 43oF vs. 64 - 70oF, and 190 vs. 300 mg/l TDS).
The existing WellNo. 2 was subsequently drilled somewhat east of the selected site, primarily for access
and engineering reasons. While that site produced a less productive well than desired, it confirmed the
basic geologic model, as indicated on the attached draft cross-section for Teton Springs Well No. 2. Well
No. 2 encountered the Paleozoic-age carbonates beneath the volcanics (at 181 ft.), as anticipated, but was
lower (stratigraphically) in the section than expected. The available outcrop mapping in the area indicates
the proposed location of WellNo. 3 will be stratigraphically higher, but still within the carbonate formations
thought to be suitable for development. Also, it was suggested that Well No. 2 may have intersected the
Teton Thrust Fault at the bottom, an unfavorable condition that should be less likely at the proposed site of
Well No. 3.
Fracturing in the bedrock units at Well No. 2,the key to favorable groundwater production, was less than
hoped for. The proposed site for Well No. 3 is also seeking fracture-enhanced permeability. The site
potentially benefits from normal faulting as has been mapped in outcrops to the south and is suggested in
the attached cross-section.
Beyond the initial compilations of Mr. Wood, there has been no formal hydrogeologic report prepared.
However, additional analysis and the details of Well No. 2 construction may be available from the project
files if desired.
Request No 5
There have not yet been any invoices paid for the research and development of the new well as of October
29,2017.
Per requirement, a copy of this reply, in addition to copies of Appendix A and Appendix B are contained on
the enclosed CD.
YOU,
Water & Sewer Company
(208) 3s4-02s6
[phone]
l!
IIJJJ bt
J-<FFo-OUJFcl
I
o.
lrJo
r
etlBstF(rro -l crtJtt
Hp
oo
oItJ
FJf
lrFoJuJLlJ-JJI-trrrQ zz:EE g,O
5due9e-J>OE,^(JsE93"S
t!to>odl>
ftoed<t>o
ooz"-3urii.
EgPIIJ(JYtszs.
-zJ
EEi
u=2OaJa= J9BE63:
HEg5FEJ>o-o@ollJ nr z
"siE.. 4 !.uluJF5dHzso
zoz<g
26o'oou9=
==
IoolOF-
ooot-
I
oorO(0
Iooo(o
oolf,lO
Iooo1l)
Iooro$
ooo\t
00-23"1
PROJECT ITNI:
TETON SPRINGS
on^flrG Tlru:
WELL #2
CROSS SECTION A RENDEZVaUS E NGINEERING, P,c.
('ivil l)ngireers and Planrrms in \tloming rnd ldrhr
15S.(;r{\\(uIf \trcri l'.(}.Bor4,{5NJr(krr}.\!\'831}{)lI'fiiJ01L7.1i.5252 l:J\tiiul i].L11 t.l
018302
I.* &,ah
DRlWtt6
NUdBIR:
1nr1 m mllX'.T,t"ij,*"^"
'fi
rfl
H L-a\-{
I
\