There was Board questions and discussion. Vice Chairman Herr noted it was ten years ago
that there was a reading that exceeded the regulatory limit, and it was 2016 the last time there
was a level that was at the level but not above the reporting requirement level.
Upon inquiry of Commissioner Dallari, Ms. Ornberg explained a well was shut down in 2016,
but it is still used for compliance monitoring. In regards to the two cities, Ms. Ornberg advised
Lake Mary has constructed and is operating a high-level water treatment plant. They were
affected the most from their wells. Funding for their water treatment plant was provided by
Siemens. Lake Mary has had some issues with one of their wells that they are looking to add
some processes. Commissioner Dallari inquired, even though they shut down Well 6, how did
that affect the system. Ms. Ornberg responded they were able to change their operating
schedule and were able to provide the necessary water at a better quality. Commissioner
Dallari requested more information about that.
Commissioner Zembower inquired how the additional costs for the processes (consultant,
additional testing, etc) will be offset for the rate payers and what are the County's rights to
recover from the negligent entity. He would like the County Attorney's Office to look into this.
Vice Chairman Herr stated if there are opportunities to seek funding for infrastructure change
that changes the output of the systems, then that is worth pursuing. If this is about pursuing
damages for punitive purposes that may not be significant, she would not like to spend time
on that.
Chairman Lockhart inquired how many potential contaminants there are in water. Ms.
Thomas responded countless contaminants that they know of today; many, many more that
they have no idea of; and many that have not been created. The UCMR, unregulated
contaminants, data is collected every five years in an effort for the EPA to identify what is up
and coming and what requires regulation.
Chairman Lockhart inquired what is the industry standard for testing for contaminants. Ms.
Thomas responded it is generally the EPA or Department of Health of the Department of
Environmental Protection. In general, public water suppliers, such as the County, have far
more rigorous requirements than the bottled water industry does. Upon Chairman Lockhart's
inquiry to explain in laymen's terms of how many gallons over how many years are they
concerned that there is a potential impact, Ms. Thomas explained the DEP's guidance is if you
drink above the health advisory limit for 70 years or more, your likelihood of getting cancer is
increased by one in a million. Chairman Lockhart inquired after learning a lot more, if they
were to put in to place a system like Lake Mary has, could they assure there would be zero
1,4-dioxane in the water. Ms. Thomas responded no. The process Lake Mary uses is an
ozone advanced oxidation process. Those type of processes are designed to reduce
contaminants by some level, and there is no guarantee that this treatment will completely
eliminate it. There is a very high likelihood that a treatment could reduce concentrations.
Discussion ensued.
Vice Chairman Herr inquired if there is a difference between Lake Mary's methodology for
reduction in the level and the outcome and the County's dilution methodology. If the level
goes down, is it important how they got there. Ms. Thomas responded the outcome is to
provide customers safe drinking water, whether that's through dilution or some other means.
There are byproducts associated with treatment that also need to tackled. Comparing Lake
