2016 seminar · 2018. 4. 16. · 2016 seminar: the future of utility infrastructure award” for...

Capital Area Chapter Texas Section American Water Works Association

2016 SEMINAR

TheFutureofUtilityInfrastructure

December07,2016

Capital Area Chapter, Texas Section American Water Works Association

2016 Seminar: The Future of Utility Infrastructure December 7, 2016

Hornsby Bend Environmental Research Center 2210 FM 973, Austin, Texas 78725

PROGRAM AGENDA

7:30 – 8:20 AM Sign-in and Breakfast

8:20 – 8:30 AM Welcome & Introductions

CAC TAWWA Seminar Chair – Mark Graves, P.E., Freese and Nichols

MORNING SESSION

Moderator – Katie Walker, P.E., HDR, CAC TAWWA President

8:30 – 9:00 AM Keynote

Dr. Robert Mace, Deputy Executive Administrator, Texas Water Development Board

9:00 – 9:30 AM Partnership Funding for Water Reuse - Revenue for Municipality, Insurance for Industry

Jonathan Sandhu, P.E., Brown and Caldwell

9:30 – 10:00 AM

Feasibility Planning Study for Direct Potable Reuse in Central Texas

Martin Rumbaugh, P.E., AECOM & Brian Lillibridge, City of Buda

10:00 – 10:15 AM Break

10:15 – 11:45 AM

Communications Panel

Embracing Modern Data Management at Bistone MWSD

Steve Walden, Walden Consulting (Moderator)

We Conserved and You Just Raised Our Rates!

Bill Hoffman, P.E., Bill Hoffman & Associates, LLC

Hidden Gems: Self-Service Resolution Tools that Improve Satisfaction and Reduce Costs

Michelle Camp, WaterSmart

Smart Metering = Water Education Tool in Round Rock, TX

Jessica Woods, City of Round Rock

11:45 – 12:45 PM Lunch

AFTERNOON SESSION

Moderator – Roman Grijalva, P.E., Brown & Gay

12:45 – 1:15 PM Keeping the Water Moving: Developing the Water Resources Integration Program for San Antonio

Lou Portillo, P.E., Black & Veatch

1:15 – 1:45 PM Time-of-Use Demand Charge Management at Municipal Pump Stations

Scott Vitter, University of Texas at Austin

1:45 – 2:15 PM Moneyball: Data-Driven Asset Management Enhances SAWS’ SSO Reduction Program

Bill Lloyd, HDR & Alissa Lockett, P.E., San Antonio Water System

2:15 – 2:30 PM Break

2:30 – 3:00 PM

Austin Water’s Large Diameter Pipeline Condition Assessment

Kirk Obst, Austin Water & Matt Cullen, P.E. Austin Water

3:00 – 3:30PM Texas Water Conservation Scorecard

Dr. Ken Kramer, Sierra Club

3:30 – 4:00 PM Top 10 Reasons to Love the Water-Energy Nexus

Jonathan Kleinman, AIQUEOUS

4:00 PM Wrap Up

CAC TAWWA Seminar Chair – Mark Graves, P.E., Freese and Nichols

4:00 – 7:00 PM Networking Happy Hour sponsored by Pump Solutions, Inc.

Hilton Austin Airport, 9515 Hotel Drive

GoldSponsors

SilverSponsors

HappyHourSponsor:


2016 Seminar: The Future of Utility Infrastructure

Speaker Biographies Robert Mace is a Deputy Executive Administrator at the Texas Water Development Board and leads the agency’s Water Science & Conservation office, a department of 79 scientists, engineers, and specialists dedicated to better understanding groundwater and surface water resources; advancing water conservation and innovative water technologies such as desalination, aquifer storage and recovery, reuse, and rainwater harvesting; and better preparing Texas for floods. Prior to joining the Texas Water Development Board in 1999, Robert worked for almost nine years at the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas at Austin as a hydrologist and research scientist. Robert has a B.S. in Geophysics and an M.S. in Hydrology from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a Ph.D. in Hydrogeology from The University of Texas at Austin. His residential consumption of water is less than 30 gallons per person per day (and would be lower if his wife was more cooperative). Jonathan Sandhu is currently a senior engineer for Brown and Caldwell’s industrial water division in Houston. In this role, he works with industrial facilities to determine source and treatment options for water supply and wastewater discharge. Over the course of his career, Jonathan has had the privilege of being involved in a wide variety of projects ranging from some of the largest water treatment plants in the United States, to local water reclamation projects. Jonathan and received both his Bachelor and Master’s degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri. Marty Rumbaugh is a Project Manager in AECOM’s Austin, Texas office with 23 years of experience in water and wastewater engineering. He earned a BS in Civil Engineering and MS in Environmental and Water Resources Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He is licensed as a PE in Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering, and Board Certified in the Water Supply and Wastewater Engineering specialty by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. He currently serves as Project Manager for an expansion of the City of Buda’s WWTP to meet the City’s wastewater treatment capacity needs through 2040. In 2015 he led a planning study for the City of Buda to evaluate the feasibility and cost of developing potable effluent reuse facilities as an alternative source of water supply. Brian Lillibridge is the Water Specialist for the City of Buda, where he has the opportunity to work on a wide variety of water related topics and “other duties as assigned”. Prior to this position, Lillibridge worked for the San Antonio Water System in the areas of resource protection and compliance and water conservation. He has also worked for the Edwards Aquifer Authority where he engaged in conservation work and field data collection. Lillibridge received a B.S. in Resource and Environmental Management from the Geography Department at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos. Yes, Southwest Texas State. Steve Walden has over 39 years of experience in the Texas water arena. Under his leadership, TCEQ’s Water Utilities Division was recognized nationally for innovation and collaboration. Steve is active in Texas Section of AWWA, Texas Water Conservation Association and as a current board member of the Texas Desalination Association. Steve has been honored with several water industry awards including AWWA’s “Fuller



Award” for lifetime contributions to the water industry in Texas. Following his 2003 retirement from TCEQ, Steve launched a successful consulting business with a focus on three areas: Project management for many university clients on water research initiatives that have served TWDB, TCEQ and EPA; Assisting public water suppliers create efficient regulatory compliance strategies; and Assisting water technology companies to create and implement growth strategies for Texas and the US. On a personal note- Steve enjoys spending time with his family, fishing, and playing the blues harmonica at jam sessions. Herman William (Bill) Hoffman, Jr. has 50 years of work in the water industry. As Assistant Director for Water Resource Planning for the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), he implemented that agency's urban and industrial water conservation (ICI) programs and supervised the water reuse, desalinization, and alternate sources (rainwater, gray water, etc.) programs. At various times, he was also in charge of developing future water use projections for the commercial and industrial sectors based on changed in water efficiency, and examining the implications of conservation on future water use trends. His first cooling tower to work on professionally was in 1967. He also worked for seven and a half years at the City of Austin, Water Utility where he was supervisor of Institutional, Commercial and Industrial Water Conservation (ICI) Programs and for predicting the impact conservation and changing water use technologies would have on future water use. He is now a consultant working to help utilities, States, and commercial entities develop effective ICI programs, conduct ICI conservation studies and develop water use benchmarks. He serves on numerous national water efficiency standards and codes committees. He has authored numerous articles, publication, and books on water efficiency, audited multiple industrial, commercial and institutional operation and written water conservation guides and was on the team to develop a Best Management Practices Guide for EPA’s WaterSense® program. A specialty of his is the energy water nexus of the end user. He has worked in six countries. He has conducted workshops and seminars in six countries regarding water conservation activities of all types. He is a native Texan and currently lives in Austin, Texas. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering and MS degree in environmental engineering, both from the University of Texas at Austin. Michelle Camp works to build partnerships between WaterSmart Software and Texas water utilities. As a native Texan, Michelle understands the difficult challenges facing Texas including increased water scarcity. Prior to joining WaterSmart, Michelle gained relevant experience in municipal and state water management at the Lower Colorado River Authority, the City of Austin Watershed Protection Department, and at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Michelle graduated from The University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Environmental Science. She also holds a Masters in Environmental Management from Yale University with a specialization in water resource science and management. During her graduate studies at Yale, Michelle gained experience in sustainable water management in the Western US and abroad, which included spending time in Australia at the Murray–Darling Basin Authority. Michelle enjoys swimming in Barton Springs Pool, playing tennis, and eating tacos. Jessica Woods has served as the Water Conservation Coordinator for the City of Round Rock since 2009, managing all aspects of the program. She holds TCEQ LI license #8763. She’s the Texas AWWA Water Conservation committee chair, and the



coordinator of the Central Texas Water Efficiency Network. She’s also a certified member of the Goodwater Master Naturalists, and enjoys volunteering to learn more about our environment and spend time outdoors. She graduated from the former Southwest Texas State University with a Master’s of Applied Geography Degree. She’s lived in Round Rock with her family since 2003. Lou Portillo graduated from Texas Tech University with a Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering. He has been a project engineer for over 7 years on multiple design-build projects for ground storage tanks, booster pump stations, and large diameter water transmission mains. His involvement within the Water Resources Integration Program (WRIP) included producing detailed pipeline and pump station hydraulics, developing the mechanical process design for each pump station, and managing the construction phase services. Scott Vitter is a PhD student in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin and is advised by Dr. Michael Webber. Scott's area of research is the Energy and Water Nexus in the municipal and residential sector, particularly the energy intensity of urban water systems. Prior to arriving at UT, Scott spent four years in the United States Army as an engineer officer. Bill Lloyd is the Asset Management Practice Lead for HDR’s Water Business Group. During more than 30 years of water utility consulting experience, he has specialized in improving utilities’ effectiveness by implementing asset management and information technology solutions. He has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from University of Tennessee and an MBA from Southern Methodist University. Alissa Lockett is Director of Distribution and Collection at SAWS, where she has held positions of increasing responsibility for the past 7 years. She has 14 years of water industry experience and is Past Chair of the AWWA Texas Section. She has a BS, Civil & Environmental Engineering from Cornell University and an MBA from UTSA. Kirk Obst attended Bowling Green State University and is a Scheduler Analyst at Austin Water, where he has worked for over 23 years, He is currently managing the Utility's Large Diameter Leak Detection and Condition Assessment Program. During his time with Austin Water his previous responsibilities were supervising wastewater line cleaning, House Connections and Pipeline Operations Emergency Maintenance groups. Matt Cullen is a Supervising Engineer at Austin Water, where he has worked for over 24 years. Matt has planned rehabilitation programs, chaired AW’s design criteria committee, and supervised the execution of leak detection and condition assessment projects. Matt holds a BS in Civil Engineering from UT Austin and is a registered professional engineer in Texas. Ken Kramer is the volunteer Water Resources Chair for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Dr. Kramer retired in 2012 after over 23 years as the first Director of the Lone Star Chapter and a previous seven years as a contract lobbyist for the Chapter. Dr. Kramer has a B.A. in History from Texas Lutheran University, an M.A. in Political Science from Stephen F. Austin State University, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Rice University. His dissertation focused on the implementation of federal air and water



pollution control policy in Texas. Dr. Kramer has taught at El Paso Community College, Houston Community College, Angelo State University, and Texas A&M University. Dr. Kramer currently serves on the state’s Water Conservation Advisory Council and on the stakeholder committees on environmental flows for two Texas bay/basin areas (Galveston Bay/Trinity & San Jacinto Basins and the Brazos Basin). He is a member of the board of the Texas Water Foundation and a member of the Advisory Council for the Environmental Science Institute at The University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Kramer is the editor of The Living Waters of Texas, published by Texas A&M University Press in 2010. Jonathan Kleinman is the President of AIQUEOUS, an Austin-based company using software to modernize utility operations. In addition to his experience in the water sector, Mr. Kleinman is a Certified Energy Manager, and has over 15 years of experience in the energy conservation / energy efficiency sector. He supported numerous investor-owned energy utilities across the United States and Canada in designing and implementing energy efficiency programs. Jonathan holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and B.A. in Environmental Policy from Cornell University in 1991, and an M.S. in Environmental Engineering and M.S. in Technology and Policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.



PRESENTATIONS



Keynote Dr. Robert Mace,

Deputy Executive Administrator, Texas Water Development Board



Partnership Funding for Water Reuse - Revenue for Municipality, Insurance for Industry

Jonathan Sandhu, P.E., Brown and Caldwell

12/3/16

1

Partnership Funding for Water Reuse Revenue for Municipalities, Insurance for Industry Jonathan Sandhu, P.E. CAC TAWWA December 7,2016

Cost – Always a Driver

•  Industrial Water Demand and Economic Analysis

• Municipal Effluent =Industrial Water •  Funding Partnership Examples • Additional Considerations

Overview

Brown and Caldwell 2

Industrial Water Demands

• Refining, petrochemical facilities, food & beverage production, all need water

• Cooling tower makeup water, boiler feed, process supply water, cleaning water

•  Texas refineries require approximately 1,500 mgd on average ! 725 mgd for cooling tower makeup

alone • Among the first to have water supply

eliminated in drought


12/3/16

2

Industrial Water Risk Assessment

• What are the operational, regulatory, reputational impacts of no water?

• What is the likelihood of having no water?

• What is the true value/cost

of water?

No Water = No Production Brown and Caldwell 4


What is the base cost of water?

Purchase Price

True Cost

Shadow Price

Value at Risk

How much revenue is at risk? Can a water reuse project be justified as insurance?

How to compare source options?

How to compare quality changes?

What is the true value of water?

Water Economic Analysis


$-

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

Base Costs CT Makeup

Boiler Feed

Per 1

000

gallo

ns

Potable Reclaimed

Refinery| True Cost


12/3/16

3

Refinery| Value at Risk (VaR)


Drought Event – Loss of Water Supply •  Recurrence - 10% (10 year event) •  Loss of Profit - $1MM/day •  Duration – 90 days

VaR $90 MM

$9 MM/y

Insurance Plan •  Municipal reclaimed water •  Project TIC – $25 MM •  30 year amortization •  Tax write-off 35%

Plan

<$1 MM/y


Refinery


Water Supply Reservoir Experiences Large Changes in Volume


0

20

40

60

80

100

4/10/1

962

4/10/1

968

4/10/1

974

4/10/1

980

4/10/1

986

4/10/1

992

4/10/1

998

4/10/2

004

4/10/2

010

4/10/2

016

Perc

ent F

ull

Supply Curtailment Possible at 40%

Municipal Wastewater Effluent


• Consistent supply • Rate changes undesirable • Potential capital constraints • Reduces strain on potable water

system •  Industrial partnership presents

new revenue stream

Effluent = $$$

12/3/16

4

Example 1 Industrial Facility Provides Capital

Background • Refinery A with 4 mgd demand for cooling tower

makeup • Shut-off clause in potable contract during drought

conditions • Historical source " Purchased potable water • Nearby municipal WWTP


Example 1 Industrial Facility Provides Capital

Facilities Required for Reuse •  Filtration system, chemical facilities,

and pump station installed at municipal WWTP

• Nine mile pipeline to refinery • Additional chemical facilities at

refinery


Example 1 Industrial Facility Provides Capital Cost for Reuse • Capital Cost: $25 MM • Effluent Water: $1.50/1,000 gallons

•  O&M cost included in cost of effluent

Existing Potable Supply Cost • $2.50/1,000 gallons


12/3/16

5

Example 2 Municipality Provides Capital Background • Refinery B with 3 mgd demand for cooling tower

makeup •  Low water rights priority during drought

conditions • Historical source " Purchased raw water • Nearby municipal WWTP

Municipality provided capital


Example 2 Municipality Provides Capital

Facilities Required for Reuse •  Filtration system, chemical facilities,

reuse water storage tank, and pump station installed at municipal WWTP

•  Three mile pipeline to refinery • Additional chemical facilities at

refinery


Example 2 Municipality Provides Capital

Cost for Reuse • Capital Cost: $14.3 MM • Effluent Water: $1.70/1,000 gallons

•  O&M cost included in cost of effluent

Existing Raw Water Supply Cost • $0.48/1,000 gallons

Increased cost for increased reliability


12/3/16

6

Additional Considerations


• Environmental •  Revisions to Title V and NSR air permits

o  VOC Generation o  PM from additional TDS

•  Changes to cooling tower blowdown quality •  Cooling tower chemical program changes

Additional Considerations


•  Impacts to Existing WWTP Operations •  If filtration is used, additional solids load from backwash •  Do changes require compliance with 30 TAC Chap. 217? •  Compliance with Chap. 210? •  Additional chemical demands •  Increased operations staff

Questions? Jonathan Sandhu, P.E. [email protected] 713-646-1101

18



Feasibility Planning Study for Direct Potable Reuse in Central Texas

Martin Rumbaugh, P.E., AECOM & Brian Lillibridge, City of Buda

1

Feasibility Planning Study for Direct Potable Reuse in Central Texas Brian Lillibridge Water Specialist, City of Buda, Texas Martin Rumbaugh, PE, BCEE Project Manager, AECOM, Austin, Texas

Growing Community

The Song Remains the Same…

2010 Census Data 7,295 2015 Population Estimate* 12,979

Percent Change 2010-2015* 77.9%

*Source: Texas State Data Center

Current Water Supplies

GROUNDWATER

•  40% of current supply

•  BSEACD permit- 275,000,000 gallons annually

•  4 wells; 5th well under construction (no increase in permitted amount)

2


GROUNDWATER City of Buda BSEACD Permitted AmountsDrought Stage Reduction GPY AC/FT MGDTotal Permitted 0% 275,000,000 843.94 0.75

Stage 1 (Voluntary) 10% 247,500,000 759.55 0.68Stage 2 20% 220,000,000 675.16 0.60Stage 3 30% 192,500,000 590.76 0.53Stage 4 40% 165,000,000 506.37 0.45*ERP 50% 137,500,000 421.97 0.38

*Emergency Response Period curtailments become effective October 11, 2015


SURFACE WATER

•  60% of current supply

•  Contract with GBRA to supply 1.5 MGD

•  Sourced from Canyon Reservoir; treated at the San Marcos WTP

•  Delivered via I-35 Treated Water Delivery System

map created by GBRA


•  More expensive than

groundwater •  Historically has not

been curtailed by drought but always a possibility.

3

New Supply

Hays Caldwell Public Utility Agency

•  New groundwater supply from Carrizo Aquifer

•  Phase 1 – 15,000 AF; Operational in 2023

•  Buda has a 5.08% stake in the project - 0.68MGD

•  Interim Water Sharing Agreement 2017-2023

Future Supply Considerations

Diversification is good.

Strong and flexible.

Drought will always be an uninvited guest.

Feasibility Studies

City Leaders supportive of exploring innovative water supply strategies

•  Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) –  storage of Edwards water in Middle Trinity Aquifer

•  Direct Potable Reuse –  favorable wastewater collection area for size of

community

4

Scope of DPR Study

Regulatory, Technical, and Economic Feasibility

•  Developed baseline data

•  Met with CRMWD / visited Big Spring

•  Met with TCEQ

•  Reviewed Buda WWTP Effluent Quality

•  Estimated DPR Water Quality and Waste Stream

Scope of DPR Study

Regulatory, Technical, and Economic Feasibility

•  Evaluated Feasible DPR capacity •  Blending requirements •  Treatment process alternatives

•  DPR WTP waste stream disposal

Scope of DPR Study

Regulatory, Technical, and Economic Feasibility •  Concepts for treatment, storage, and conveyance

•  Evaluated O&M requirements

•  Capital and operations cost estimates

5

Background - IPR

Existing IPR Project Treatment Year Capacity (MGD)

Orange County Water District (CA) Water Factory 21 Seawater Barrier

Tertiary WWTP, Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis 1976 15

El Paso Water Utility (Texas) Hueco Bolson Aquifer Recharge Activated Carbon, Lime, Ozone 1985 10

Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works (CA) West Coast Basin Seawater Barrier

Tertiary WWTP, Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis, UV 1995 30

Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works (CA) Alamitos Seawater Barrier

Tertiary WWTP, Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis, UV 2005 3

Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works (CA) Dominguez Gap Seawater Barrier

Tertiary WWTP, Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis 2006 4.5

Orange County Water District (CA) Seawater Barrier and Groundwater Recharge

Tertiary WWTP, Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis, UV/H2O2

2008 70

City of San Diego (CA) Water Purification Demonstration Project

Tertiary WWTP, Membrane Filtration, RO, UV/ H2O2

2008 1.0

Aurora Water (CO) Aurora Prairie Waters Project

Riverbank Filtration, Advanced UV Oxidation, GAC Adsorption 2011 50

Background - DPR

Existing DPR Projects Treatment Year Capacity (MGD)

Colorado River Municipal Water District, Big Spring (TX) Raw Water Production Facility

Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis, UV/H2O2

2013 2.0

Wichita Falls Water Utilities (TX) Emergency Direct Potable Reuse

Microfiltration, Reverse Osmosis, UV/H2O2

2014 (Discontinued) 7.5

TCEQ - Approved

Planned DPR Projects

Treatment Year Capacity (MGD)

City of Brownwood (TX), Proposed DPR System

Ultrafiltration, Reverse Osmosis, Activated Carbon, UV TBD 1.5

El Paso Water Utilities (TX) Advanced Purified WTP UF, RO, UV/H2O2, GAC 2018 10

Background

Buda WWTP

•  1.5 MGD, Planned Expansion to 3.5 MGD

•  CMAS/Alum→Filtration→Cl2→DeChlor

•  Provides Effluent for Type I Non-Potable Reuse

•  5-Year Average Effluent Quality 1.9/1.4/0.3/0.4

6

DPR Study Findings

Regulatory Feasibility

•  TCEQ willing to work with Buda on DPR

•  TCEQ prefers large DPR projects (smallest DPR approved is 1.5 MGD)

•  Case-by-case reviews and approval

•  Coordination needed with TCEQ and requirements may change over time

DPR Study Findings

Regulatory Requirements

•  One year effluent sampling and Data Review •  Pilot Study Design, Implementation and Review •  TCEQ review design concept, plans, specifications •  Permit for DPR WTP and TPDES permit for waste •  Startup and Full Scale Verification testing •  Operational Monitoring and Reporting •  Continued TCEQ involvement in operations

DPR Study Findings


•  Staffed 24/7 by operator with ‘B’ license •  Operations entity must have existing capability

(TCEQ would not approve Buda as operator)

•  Same entity should operate WWTP and the DPR WTP •  Operational Capacity a major hurdle for Buda

7

DPR Study Findings


•  DPR an important future water resource for Texas

•  Public perception the main obstacle to development

•  Case-by-case review to ensure not a single failure

DPR Study Findings

Technical Feasibility

•  Buda WWTP Effluent can be treated to meet SDWA

•  Higher quality water than City’s existing sources

•  Significant removal of EDCs/ PPCPs vs. almost none

Technical Feasibility Review


•  Disposal of waste from a DPR WTP is key constraint

•  WW Service Area larger than Potable Service Area

•  Dispose under TPDES permit, blend w/ WWTP effluent

•  May require treatment to decrease chloride/ TDS,

•  Waste stream disposal a key driver for DPR WTP treatment process selection and design

8


•  Effluent quality data - DMRs and permit renewals

•  Effluent quality data incomplete for DPR evaluation

•  In the available data, SDWA MCLs exceeded for E. coli, NO3-N, Turbidity, and Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

•  Reviewed potable water data for water chemistry



•  Existing DPR in Texas : Microfiltration → Reverse Osmosis → UV/H2O2

•  Review did not identify constituents that could not be treated using similar process

•  Detailed effluent sampling and analysis required by TCEQ to characterize effluent for DPR


DPR WTP Conceptual Design

Treatment Process Alternatives

Focused on evaluating RO vs. NF based on:

•  Effluent availability, % recovery •  Mineral content of blended potable water •  Stabilization to avoid distribution system impacts •  Maintenance of influent alkalinity at WWTP •  Feasibility of DPR WTP waste stream disposal

9

DPR WTP Conceptual Design

Similar to TCEQ-Approved WTPs

Microfiltration (or UF)

Reverse Osmosis (or NF) UV/H2O2

Photos courtesy of CRMWD Raw Water Production Facility (Big Spring, TX)

Waste Stream Disposal Alternatives

•  Waste disposal - the main technical constraint

•  To concentrate or dilute, that is the question •  CA IPR systems discharge RO concentrate to ocean;

Existing Texas DPR - discharge waste to saline creeks •  No such concentrate disposal options exist for Buda

Concentrate Disposal Options

10

Concentrate Disposal Options

Waste Stream Disposal Alternatives

•  Evaporation ponds require more area than available

•  Deep well injection effectively not feasible per location •  Zero Liquid Discharge technologies development

promising but so far very expensive •  An option may be treatment to remove TDS/Sulfate,

and co-disposal with WWTP effluent under TPDES

RO/NF Treatment Alternatives

DPR Treatment Process Evaluation

•  Nitrate can be removed at DPR WTP using RO •  Denitrification at the WWTP could allow use of NF

•  Denitrification at WWTP has collateral benefits: –  increased capacity –  reduced energy –  future TN limits

DPR Treatment Process Evaluation

•  NF has greater % recovery and yield vs. RO •  NF needs less chemical for finished water stabilization

•  NF waste stream requires less treatment vs. RO –  possibly discharge by blending without treatment

•  Use of effluent for blending and co-disposal would more than offset NF’s higher % recovery

RO/NF Treatment Alternatives

11

DPR Conceptual Costs

Cost Evaluation

•  Capital Cost using RO: $20,462,000 vs. NF: $21,561,000

•  2015 dollars, including 30% Contingency

•  Costs do not include land/easements, permits, lab analyses, pilot testing, professional services

DPR Conceptual Costs

Cost Evaluation

•  Estimated annual O&M comparable using RO or NF

•  Annual Operation cost $611,000 (2015 dollars)

•  Does not include energy, chemicals, analytical laboratory fees, or professional services

•  Potentially lower chemical costs and energy costs for NF vs. RO

DPR System Concepts

Recommended DPR Facilities

•  DPR WTP Capacity of 1.5 MGD to 2.0 MGD appears feasible at 2040 WWTP buildout flow of 3.5 MGD

•  Co-dispose DPR WTP waste stream with 1.5 - 2.0 MGD of WWTP Effluent

12

DPR System Concepts


•  NF recommended vs. RO –  greater feasibility of concentrate disposal –  blended water stability with less chemical addition –  TN removal benefits at WWTP

•  Upgrade Buda WWTP for NO3-N removal •  Continue to evaluate RO vs. NF and concentrate

disposal options – revisit based on effluent sampling

DPR System Concepts


•  Conceptual DPR facilities include: –  Denitrification process at WWTP –  Effluent pumping to DPR WTP –  DPR Advanced WTP –  Water storage, pumping, pipeline and blending

DPR System Concepts

13

DPR System Concepts

Pros and Cons

Key Considerations

•  Projects are costly

•  Major effort over several years

•  Drought proof water supply –  particularly for Buda’s WW service area > water

•  Higher quality water than conventional sources

•  Buda’s (and nearly everyone’s) existing water supply includes unintended potable reuse

Developing Public Support

Key Considerations

•  Public involvement is crucial –  DPR projects not viable without public support

•  Public involvement effort needs to begin early and continue through the life of the project

•  Consider strategies that have been used successfully in previous and ongoing DPR projects

14

Follow-up Actions

Steps Taken

•  Updated water strategies in the Region K Water Plan (DPR was included as an Alternative Strategy)

•  Draft Effluent Characterization Study Plan was submitted to TCEQ in February, 2016…

•  Approved by TCEQ in November, 2016

•  Sampling will begin in January 2017

Follow-up Actions

Effluent Characterization Study:

•  Required and Recommended Samples/Frequencies (by TCEQ) for Source Water Characterization

•  Samples for evaluating treatment and concentrate disposal (Nitrate, Bromide, Sulfate, Chloride, TDS)

•  Follow-up sampling for Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate •  Quarterly Full PPCP Suite – No added cost to City vs.

only analyzing for Indicator Compounds

Questions?



Embracing Modern Data Management at Bistone MWSD

Steve Walden, Walden Consulting

12/3/16

1

CaseStudy

UpgradingDataManagementBistoneMunicipalWaterSupplyDistrict

StevenWaldenSteveWaldenConsul/ng

BistoneMunicipalWaterSupplyDist.

BistoneMWSD-Introduc<on

! WholesalertomostofLimestoneCounty

! GroundwaterTreatment(upgradedSWTonlinesoon)

! Widelysca?eredwells&pumpsta/ons

! ~1.5MDGofproducedWater

BistoneMWSD-Before

! Paper&ExcelOriented! Poten/alforHumanErrors

! ComplianceandManagement

! DataAvailability! TimeManagement

12/3/16

2

!  OperatorCentric

!  Highlyconfigurable

!  Comprehensive

!  Rightlevelofcomplexity

DatabaseManagementRequirements

!  Vendorneutral

! MobileReady

!  Alwaysevolving

!  Scalable

BENEFITS

!  SaveTime

!  IncreasedReliability

!  PathwayforOpera/onalITDevelopment

!  Pathwayforcollabora/veopera/onalmanagement

Informa<onManagementTargets

FOCUS

! Compliance

! AssetMaintenance

! BusinessPerformance

! Trending&Modeling

BistoneMWSD–PlaHormSelec<on

!  CostFactors

!  CloudCompu/ng

! MinimizeITCapitalExpenses

!  Pay-As-You-GoModel

!  PlaWormFeatures

!  FieldDataCapture,OnlineData(SCADA)

!  ComplianceRepor/ng,AssetManagement

! Mobility

12/3/16

3

BillingCloudDataPlaHorm

Energy&Consumables

PlantOpera<ons

Labor

Assets&Maintenance

Alerts&No<fica<ons

Dashboards&Repor<ng

Ac<vityManagement

BusinessIntelligence&ManagementAnaly<cs

Simula<on&Modeling

BistoneMWSD-Now

! One-clickTCEQreports! Saving80-100hrs/month,Regonly

! Automatedalerts-waterquality

! CapturingIns/tu/onalmemory,BMPsandSOPs

! AssuringEquipmentwarran/es

LessonsLearned

! ITSolu/onsareAvailable–Pickwisely! PrepareforgrowingReg.Complexity

! IdealPlaWorm:

! Userfriendly,Configurable,Expandable! SolveComplianceFirst!!!

! RealizeTimeSavings,ExpandtoAssetMgmt.&Opera/onalop/miza/on

12/3/16

4

Thankyou!

STEVENWALDENSteveWaldenConsul<ng

[email protected]



We Conserved and You Just Raised Our Rates! Bill Hoffman, P.E., Bill Hoffman & Associates, LLC

12/3/16

1

I Conserved - You Raised Rates – Yes But You Pay Less!

H.W.(Bill)Hoffman,P.E.H.W.(Bill)Hoffman&Associates,LLC

[email protected]

What We Will Cover • What is happening across the nation with water and

wastewater rates;

• The Texas Example – Conservation, Reuse and Drought Management offer the most water for the least cost;

• A hypothetical case that shows how 10 homes; and

• The impact on increased efficiency on the expansion of future treatment capacity.

Water & Wastewater Rates

12/3/16

2

Circle of Blue April, 2016 http://www.circleofblue.org/waterpricing/

Price of Water 2015: Up 5 % in 2016 in 30 Major U.S. Cities;

48 % Since 2010!

$4.78 $5.73

$7.94

$9.47

$11.27

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

2001 2005 2010 2013 2016

Dol

lars

per

Tho

usan

d G

allo

ns

Year

Commercial Water and Sewer Rates for 100,000 gallons for Nation's 50 Largest Cities Source: Black & Veatch - 50 Largest Cities Reports

Average rate of increase over 15 years – 5.85%

Total Water Sewer

Consumer Price Index for Utilities h"p://www.circleo.lue.org/waterpricing/

12/3/16

3

Even in Chicago, the Mayor Wants to Double Water Rates!

“Water is the oil of the 21st

century.”

Andrew Liveris, Chief Execu4ve,

Dow Chemical Co., August 2008.

Source:

$3.23

$4.05

$4.00

$4.17

$4.27

$7.48

$4.53

$4.75

$2.95

$3.78

$4.23

$5.94

$6.00

$9.36

$5.38

$6.52

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18

El Paso

San Antonio

Dallas

Fort Worth

Houston

Austin

Six Tx. City Avg.

US Average

Commercial Water and Wastewater Rates 2016 Based on total bill for 100,000 gallons per month.

Source: Black and Veatch https://www.google.com/#q=black+and+veatch+50+largest+cities+water+and+wastewater+rate+survey+2016

Water Wastewater

12/3/16

4

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Bill

ions

of G

al./D

ay

Gal

./Per

son/

Day

Public and Domestic Water Use USGS 2014

US Per Capita Use (gpcd) Total Municipal/Domestic Use

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

GallonsperPersonpe

rDay

Year

PerCapitaMunicipalUseinTexas

SixLargestCiVesinTexas AllTexasCiVes

5

22

29

40

42

44

48

49

53

66

74

79

85

95

99

100

129

149

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

3rd World China India

United Kingdom Philippines

Peru Brazil

Germany Denmark

Austria France

Norway Spain

Mexico Japan

Italy Australia

USA

Gallons per Person per Day

Worldwide Municipal Per Capita Water Use Source: Data 360

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=757

12/3/16

5

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40

Denmark

Austria

Germany

France

England

Czech Republic

USA (Black & Veatch)

Dollars per Thousand Gallons

Average Residential Water and Sewer Rates in European Countries Compared to USA in 2013

Sources of Information: Europe -http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/12/9/market-profile/global-water-tariffs-continue-upward-trend.html

USA - http://bv.com/docs/mana

Cost to Flush a Toilet at Current Inflation Rate of 5.85%

Gallons per Flush

Cents per Flush in 2014

Cents per Flush in 2034

5 4.9 15.4 3.5 3.4 10.8 1.6 1.6 4.9

1.28 1.2 4.0

Bridges have been the Poster Child for Infrastructure Needs!

12/3/16

6

h"p://www.infrastructurereportcard.org

h1p://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/texas/texas-overview/

Buried No Longer: Confronting America's

Water Infrastructure Challenge

Investment needs for buried drinking water infrastructure total more than $1 trillion

nationwide over the next 25 years.

This does not include wastewater!!!!!!!!

(American Water Works Association, 2012) www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/BuriedNoLonger.pdf

12/3/16

7

Water 58%

Wastewater 42%

EPA Breakdown of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Dollar Needs

http://www.usmayors.org/urbanwater/documents/LocalGovt%20InvtInMunicipalWaterandSewerInfrastructure.pdf

This graph shows when residential water and sewer bills will exceed energy bills in selected cities (source – Alliance for Water Efficiency)

The Texas Example

12/3/16

8

From the 2012 Texas Water Plan! The primary message of the 2012 State

Water Plan is a simple one: In serious drought conditions, Texas does

not and will not have enough water to meet

the needs of its people, its businesses, and its agricultural

enterprises.

Future Capital Cost Through 2070 in Texas

•  TotalFutureCapitalCostsforTexasWater/WastewaterRelatedResources=$230to$300Billion

•  75%to80%ofthesecostsNOTRELATEDTONEWSUPPLY

• NewSupplyisonlyabout20%to25%ofFutureCapitalCosts

• NewSupplyCosts=$62.6Billion

Detailed Breakdown of Projected Water Use in Texas by Category

12/3/16

9

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Mill

ions

of A

cre-

Feet

per

Yea

r

Year

Future Texas Water Use 2017 Texas Water Plan

Agricultural Urban & Industrial

3.24.3

5.26.1

6.88.0

18.419.2 19.7

20.3 20.821.6

15.2 14.9 14.5 14.2 14 13.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Mill

ions

of A

cre

Feet

per

Yea

r

Year

Total Demand, Existing Supply, & Shortfall in Texas How do we fill the gap in 2070?

Shortfall Demand Exsisting Supply

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

MillionsofA

creFeetperYear

TexasWaterSupply&DemandProjecVonsWearetappingourconven/onalsupplies!

IRRIGATION LIVESTOCK MANUFACTURING MINING MUNICIPAL STEAMELECTRICPOWER

ExisDngSupply

ExisDng+ConvenDonalNewSupply+DesalinizaDon

SupplyGap

12/3/16

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

MillionsofA

creFeetperYear

TexasWaterSupply&DemandProjecVonsWithConservaVon,Reuse&DroughtMgt.

IRRIGATION LIVESTOCK MANUFACTURING MINING MUNICIPAL STEAMELECTRICPOWER

ExisDngSupply

ExisDng+ConvenDonalNewSupply+DesalinizaDon

WithConservaDon,Reuse,&Drou

ghtMgt.

51 64 87 111 116

152 203 226

371 631 649

811 887

1,100 1,330

2,584

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800

Other Strategies Conjuncitve Use

Direct Potable Reuse Ground Water Desalination

Sea Water Desalination Aquifer Storage & Recovery

Other Conservation Drought Management

Other Reuse Ground Water Development

Indirect Reuse Municipal Conservation

Passive Conservation New Resevoirs

Irrigation Conservation Existing Surface Water

Thousands of Acre Feet per Year

New Supply in Texas in 2070

Desalinization 2% of Supply

Other 3%of Supply

New Reservoirs 12%

Existing Supply 34% of Supply

Conservation, Reuse & Drought

Management 49% of Supply

WhereFutureWaterWillComeFromAnditsCapitalCostinTexasin2070

12/3/16

11

Conservation, Reuse

12% of Cost

49% of Supply

All Other 88% of Cost

51% of Supply

Capital Cost of Future Projects in 2017 Texas Water Plan - $62.6 Billion

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/swp/2017/index.asp

$0.00 $0.00

$0.45 $0.58

$0.87 $1.15 $1.17

$1.30 $1.38 $1.44

$1.52 $2.19

$2.31 $3.48

$3.83 $4.39

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5

Passive Conservation Drought Management

Irrigation Conservation Other Conservation

Indirect Reuse Municipal Conservation Existing Surface Water

Other Reuse Aquifer Storage & Recovery

New Resevoirs Ground Water Wells & Other

Ground Water Desalination Conjuncitve Use

Direct Potable Reuse Other Strategies

Sea Water Desalination

Dollars per Thousand Gallons - Not Delivered

Texas 2017 Water Plan Cost in Dollars per Thousand Gallons

The Cheapest Water You Will Ever Have Is The Water You

Already Have!

12/3/16

12

10 Homes in a Hypothetical City

Variable, 20% Fixed, 80%

Typical Utility Water/Wastewater Cost Breakdown

11

10 10

9

8 8

7 7

5 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Thou

sand

s of

Gal

lons

per

Mon

th

Household

Hypothetical Household Use for 10 Houses Average Use - 10Kgal/Month Before - 8 Kgal/Month After

Use Before Conservation Use After Conservation

12/3/16

13

Analysis of Costs After Conservation •  Of the $1,300 collected for the 10 homes, 20% is variable cost.

•  Therefore variable cost equal $260 each month.

•  The 10 homes reduce total water use to 8,000 gallons a month, down from 10,000 gallons a month, a 20% reduction

•  Variable costs are also reduced by 20% or $52 a month that does not have to be recovered to cover operating and fixed costs.

•  This means that the Utility still needs to receive $1,248 in revenue to cover its costs each month, down from $1,300.

•  The utility must raise rates for the 10 homes by 11.4%

$1,300

$1,100

$1,248

$1,000

$1,050

$1,100

$1,150

$1,200

$1,250

$1,300

$1,350

Revenue Before Conservation Revenue After Use Reduction After Adjustment for Nuteral Revenue

Dol

lars

per

Mon

th

Impact of Conservation on Revenue from 10 Homes A $52 per Month Savings

Well, Rates DID have to Go Up!

Current Rate Structure Use fees per 1,000 Gallons

Type of Service Water Sewer Total

$/kgal over 2,000 gallons $4.50 $5.50 $10.00

Base fees for first 2,000 gallons $25.00 $25.00 $50.00

New Rate Structure Use fees per 1,000 Gallons

Type of Service Water Sewer Total

$/kgal over 2,000 gallons $5.85 $5.785 $11.635

Base fees for first 2,000 gallons $27.50 $27.50 $55.00

12/3/16

14

$130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $130 $130

$160 $148 $148

$136 $125 $125

$113 $113

$90 $90

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dol

lars

per

Mon

th

Household

Monthly Water & Wastewater Fees Before and After Conservation

Montlhly Cost Before Monthly Cost After

So What Does this mean? •  Those who did not conserve pay more.

•  Those who do a good job pay less – some way less.

•  Total bills are actually reduced even though rates are higher and total revenue demands WENT DOWN!

• AND THE TOTAL CHARGE FOR WATER SERVICE TO THE 10 HOMES WAS REDUCED BY $52 A MONTH!


Already Have!

12/3/16

15

Water Treatment Capacity Impacts

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

Conventional Potable Water

Conventional Wastewater

Advanced Wastewater

Sea Water Desalinization

Dollars per Gallon Day of Capacity

Capital Cost of Water and Wastewater Treatment

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055

Mill

ions

of G

allo

ns p

er D

ay (M

GD

)

Year

Future Expansions of Water Treatment Capacity if Utility Population Grows at 2.5% a Year

4 expansions no conservation - 2 expansions with conservation

Current Average Rate of Use Current Peak Rate of 1.7 X Avg. Future Average Use @ 20% GPCD Reduction Future Peak Rate at 1.5 and 20% GPCD Reduction

12/3/16

16

Example City BeforeConservaVon

• Nowuses150MGD• PopulaDonGrowth–2.5%/Year• PeakFactor1.7• PeakDay–225MGD•  In40yearswillexpandto405MGD

• Peak604MGD•  Fourplantexpansions

WithConservaVon

• ConservaDon–20%usereducDon

• Peakdaydownto1.5•  In40yearsaverage=322MGD

• Peak483MGD•  Twoplantexpansions

That is a $300 Million to $800 Million Dollar Capital Savings by not having to

build 200 MGD of capacity and expanded supply!

Conservation Delays Future Capital Investment Needs

12/3/16

17

The Bottom Line!

With Conservation & Reuse 1.  We get more economic expansion on the same

infrastructure;

2.  Delay when politically sensitive bond elections must be held;

3.  Reduce future costs;

4.  Keep rates as low as possible.


Already Have!

12/3/16

18

The

End

I Conserved - You Raised Rates – Yes But You Pay Less!

H.W.(Bill)Hoffman,P.E.H.W.(Bill)Hoffman&Associates,LLC

[email protected]



Hidden Gems: Self-Service Resolution Tools that Improve Satisfaction and Reduce Costs

Michelle Camp, WaterSmart

12/5/2016

1

1

Hidden Gems: Self-Service Resolution Tools that Improve

Satisfaction and Reduce Costs

Michelle Camp

TAWWA CAC Seminar 2016

2

We are living in an always-connected era

• Ubiquitous digital connectivity

• Rising customer expectations

• Immediate amplification –

through social media – when

expectations aren’t met

3

Cut through the clutter

• 121 emails/day (DMR)

• 11 hr/day on gadgets

(Nielsen)

• 46% of people use 1-5

apps/week (Pew)

12/5/2016

2

4

Did you know…

• A third of U.S. online households now pay at least one bill with

their mobile phone

•Mobile bill pay usage doubled for households with incomes below

$50,000

• 78% of utility bills are still sent by postal mail

• Even though 58% of utility bills are paid electronically

• It costs around $0.80 to deliver and process a print bill

5

How many paper bills do you mail that customers pay online?

22%

58%

78%

42%

How bills are sent How bills are paid

Electronic

Mail

Source: Fiserv 8th Annual Household Billing Survey

6

Survey results

•20-30% of customer service calls result in a field visit

•Top priorities for customer support:

• 26.2% reducing escalations that result in field visits

• 25.5% lowering call volumes

• 11.4% improving overall customer service experience

• Despite the above concerns, 40% of utilities rarely or never utilize

self-service tools to resolve customer issues online

12/5/2016

3

7

What’s the common thread?

8

Cost-effective, rapid, data-

driven demand-side solutions

Tiered or budget rates

Demand management slows

rate increases

Water as a service

Targeted, personalized communications

New strategies to face change

OLD APPROACH NEW APPROACH

Expensive, slow

supply-side solutions

Volumetric rates

Reduced water delivery

erodes revenue

Water as a commodity

Mass communications

9

12/5/2016

4

10

Reduce costs and hassle

Reduce customer support costs

$1,500

$3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

1 2 3 4 5

Year

Avoided printing costs: $13,500

Savings

$1,200

$2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400

1 2 3 4 5

Year

Avoided cost of calls: $10,800 Savings

$1,350

$2,700 $2,700 $2,700 $2,700

1 2 3 4 5

Year

Lower billing fees: $12,150 Savings

$105,000 $105,000

1 2 3 4 5

Year

Fewer disconnects: $210,000 Savings

11


Increase electronic self-servicePersistent benefits to utilities:

•Nudge customers to convert to

online bill pay

• Customers who go paperless

are unlikely to revert

Assumptions

• 5% adoption rate per year

• $6 savings per customer (Source: Opower Value of an

Engaged Customer)

$1,500

$3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

1 2 3 4 5

Year

Avoided printing costs: $13,500

Savings

12


Reduce customer service calls• Reduce unnecessary calls to call

center with good online self-

service options in the portal

• >40% of calls to Utility are

billing-related

• Having a better way to pay

online and see use can reduce

inbound calls

$1,200

$2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400

1 2 3 4 5

Year

Avoided cost of calls: $10,800

Savings

12/5/2016

5

13

Michelle Camp

Thank you

[email protected]



Smart Metering = Water Education Tool in Round Rock, TX

Jessica Woods, City of Round Rock

12/3/16

1

Smart Water Metering =

Water Education Tool in Round Rock

Jessica Woods Water Conservation Coordinator City of Round Rock

City Stats Rapid population growth:

!  1990 = 30,923 residents !  Current Estimate = 106,462 residents in city limits !  Service area population ~ 150,000

~31,600 direct water connections !  Of those 29,000 are residential

Wholesale to 8 MUDs

Own & Operate WTP Diversified Water Sources:

!  Lake Georgetown/Lake Stillhouse Hollow System (BRA) !  Edwards Aquifer (<8 mgd) !  Lake Travis (future) (LCRA)

AMR Metering Retrofit

! Begin in November 2009—pilot project ! Originally planned as 7-year project ! 7.2 million dollars dedicated ! 98% of meters replaced by early 2014 ! Fully drive-by system ! Able to get water use reports

Master Meter 3G USG RF register with data logging

12/3/16

2

12/3/16

3

AMI Infrastructure Upgrade

! March 2014: considered AMR completed. Prepared to install AMI infrastructure, but hit a snag.

! Technology change forced us to reevaluate program & essentially start from scratch:

! New meter lids " ! New antenna ! New registers

Allegro 2-way, 4G meter

AMI Program Today ! 90.7% registers (over 29,000) replaced as of Nov. 2016 ! 4 base sites installed ! 3 repeaters ! plastic meter lids installed

12/3/16

4

Summer Stress!

! Rainy winter/spring 2015 (28.48” by end of June!)

! All water restrictions lifted at end of May 2015

! July 2015 = zero rain

! August 2015 = 0.76”

! Water bills were delivered…

What happened?

•  2015 = 1,733 •  2014 = 1,017

Meter Re-Reads

•  2015 = 357 •  2014 = 23

Data Logs

•  2015 = 40 (1 failed) •  2014 = 20

Meter Tests

•  2015 = 69 •  2014 = 33

Irrigation Evals

can drill down to daily water use now seeing hourly water use

12/3/16

5

Moving ahead

! No customer access to a portal yet (soon!)

! Are manually sending out leak notifications

! Resolving issues over phone/email vs. site visits

Thank you! Jessica Woods Water Conservation Coordinator, City of Round Rock [email protected] 512-799-7148



Keeping the Water Moving: Developing the Water Resources Integration Program for San Antonio

Lou Portillo, P.E., Black & Veatch

3December2016

1

December7,2016

Keeping the Water Moving

DEVELOPING THE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROGRAM FOR SAN ANTONIO

INTRODUCTION

2

•  Background of the Water Resources Integration Program •  Developing complex hydraulics required to meet wide range of

flows and overcome significant pipeline friction headloss •  Allowing water to flow both directions •  Protecting the system with proper surge mitigation •  Developing a sequence for operating the system in both

production and recharge modes •  Testing the system

KEY TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

3

3December2016

2

•  Twin Oaks West Pump Station (45 MGD Booster Station) •  Approximately 28 miles of 60” Transmission Main •  Old Pearsall Road Pump Station (10 MGD into Distribution of

Pressure Zone 4)

PHASE 1 OF WRIP

4

OVERVIEW OF WRIP

5

•  Stored Edwards Aquifer Water (ASR Wells) •  Local Carrizo Wells •  Brackish Groundwater Wells

AVAILABLE WATER RESOURCES

12/3/16

6

Black&Veatch

3December2016

3

12/3/16

Black&Veatch

7

TWIN OAKS WATER RESOURCES OVERVIEW

Projectoverview

OVERALL PROGRAM SCHEMATIC Black&Veatch

8

TWIN OAKS WEST PUMP STATION

9

3December2016

4

•  Vertical Diffusion Vane Pumps •  Number of pumps: 3 •  Max/Firm Capacity: 45 MGD •  Rated Total Dynamic Head: 360 ft •  Rated Capacity at full speed (ea): 15 MGD (10,240 gpm) •  Motor Horsepower: 1,250 hp •  Adjustable Frequency Drives (AFD’s)

•  Surge Control System •  4 Tanks: 19,300 gallons each •  2 Compressors and 1 Air Receiver

•  Recharge Control Structure with 24” Globe Valve and 24” Sleeve Valve •  Electrical Building

•  Houses AFD’s, Switchgear, Control Panels, PLC, etc.

TOPS – PHASE 1

10

•  Vertical Diffusion Vane Pumps • Number of pumps: 5 • Max/Firm Capacity: 75 MGD • Rated Total Dynamic Head: 360 ft • Rated Capacity at full speed (ea): 15 MGD (10,240 gpm) • Motor Horsepower: 1,250 hp

•  Electrical Building • Updates associated with additional pumps i.e. AFD’s,

Switchgear, and PLC Programming.

TOPS – PHASE 2

11

TOPS - SCHEMATIC

12

3December2016

5

TOPS – SITE PLAN

13

TOPS – PUMP BOWL, IMPELLERS, AND MOTOR

14

TOPS – PUMP DISCHARGE SECTION

15

3December2016

6

TOPS – SURGE TANKS

16

TOPS – RECHARGE CONTROL STRUCTURE 12/3/16

Black&Veatch

17

24”GlobeValve(toASRWellField)

24”SleeveValve(toWestClearwell)

OLD PEARSALL ROAD PUMP STATION

18

3December2016

7

•  Horizontal Split Case Centrifugal Pumps •  Number of pumps: 3 •  Firm Capacity: 10 MGD (6,950 gpm) •  2 operating pumps and 1 redundant pump •  Rated Total Dynamic Head: 262 ft •  Rated Capacity at full speed (ea): 5 MGD (3,480 gpm) •  Motor Horsepower: 350 hp

•  Storage Tank •  Capacity: 7.5 million gallons

•  Recharge Flowmeter Structure •  Electrical Building

•  Houses Switchgear, Control Panels, PLC, etc.

OPPS – PHASE 1

19

•  Horizontal Split Case Centrifugal Pumps •  Number of pumps: 4 •  Firm Capacity: 15 MGD •  3 operating pumps and 1 redundant pump

•  Surge Tank •  Volume: 19,300 gallons each •  Quantity: 3 tanks

•  Second Storage Tank •  Capacity: 7.5 million gallons

•  Vertical Diffusion Vane Pumps (To Anderson) •  Number of pumps: 5 (zero redundant) •  Max/Firm capacity: 55 MGD •  Rated Total Dynamic Head : 545 ft •  Rated Capacity at full speed (ea): 11 MGD (7,640 gpm) •  Motor Horsepower : 1,500 hp

OPPS – PHASE 2

20

OPPS - SCHEMATIC

21

3December2016

8

Projectoverview

OPPS – SITE PLAN

22

OPPS GROUND STORAGE TANK

23

OPPS PUMPS

24

3December2016

9

OPPS RECHARGE FLOWMETER STRUCTURE

25

•  Production mode is the operation mode where water from the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) system, Local Carrizo wells, and/or the Brackish Groundwater wells is pumped from the Twin Oaks West Pump Station to the Old Pearsall Road Pump Station.

•  TOPS Vertical Diffusion Vane Pumps have a varying range from 6 mgd (minimum) to 60 mgd (maximum)

•  OPPS Horizontal Split Case Pumps have the ability to send 5 mgd to 10 mgd into Pressure Zone 4 (PZ4).

PRODUCTION MODE

26

•  Recharge Mode is the operation mode where water will reverse direction and flow from Pressure Zone 4 at the Old Pearsall Road PS by gravity to the Twin Oaks Pump Station.

•  SAWS has the ability to make adjustments within Pressure Zone 4 at certain pump stations to boost the pressure within this pressure zone in order to pump water down to Twin Oaks Pump Station.

•  After the head is reduced at the Twin Oaks Recharge Control Structure the recharge water will be injected back into the ASR wellfields.

RECHARGE MODE

27

3December2016

10

•  SAWS Operators have the ability to control the location and amount of water being recharged. • Recharge to the well fields through the 24” pressure reducing

globe valve, which maintains a downstream pressure of 60 psi.

• Recharge to the West clearwell through the 24” sleeve valve, which maintains a set flowrate into the clearwell.

•  Ability to recharge from 3 mgd to 30 mgd from PZ4 •  During Phase 2, SAWS could potentially recharge up to 45 mgd

RECHARGE MODE

28

HYDRAULICS

29

•  TOPS Booster Pumps • Designed to overcome 360 feet of head, with a varying flow of

6 to 75 mgd. • Friction and Static Head Loss account for 340 feet. • Assumed C values of 150, 130, and 120

•  OPPS Pumps • Designed to overcome 262 feet of head, with a total capacity

of 15 mgd. • Friction and Static Head Loss account for 250 feet. • Assumed C values of 135, 130, and 120

HYDRAULICS

30

3December2016

11

•  Modeling the system under maximum and minimum day demand conditions for both 2017 and 2027. • Evaluated to make sure working pressures remain under 250

psi when pumping 75 mgd. •  Modeling the system to evaluate delivery of recharge water.

• Evaluated to maintain a minimum pressure of 5 psi on the upstream end and at least 60 psi at Twin Oaks PS when recharging 45 mgd from Anderson

•  Pressure class of pipe was determined from 75 mgd production mode and 45 mgd recharge mode scenarios, none of the piping associated within Phase 1 exceeds 250 psi.

HYDRAULICS

31

PROGRAM HYDRAULIC PROFILE

32

TOPS – SYSTEM CURVE AND PUMP CURVES

33

3December2016

12

OPPS – SYSTEM CURVE AND PUMP CURVES

34

•  Minimum Allowable Surge Pressure 5 psi per TCEQ •  Per AWWA M11 the Maximum Allowable Surge Pressure can exceed

the working pressure by 50%, so for 150 psi class pipe the maximum total pressure including surge is 225 psi.

•  Surge Protection: • Air/Vacuum Valves used along transmission main to reduce the

size of the Surge Tanks • Four (4) ~19,000 gallon Surge Tanks • Pressure Sustaining Valve on Pump Bypass

•  Built in SCADA Alarms •  Sleeve Valve and Globe Valve at Recharge Control Structure •  Old Pearsall Tank operates as a one way surge tank to minimize a

down-surge

PROTECTING THE SYSTEM

35

SURGE PRESSURE ENVELOPES

36

3December2016

13

OPERATION AND TESTING

37

•  Operating in Production Mode • Determining amount of water to move • Maintaining proper levels within existing clearwells and ground

storage tanks. • Operating existing valves as necessary to move water. • Operating pumps with the AFD’s to keep them on their curves.

•  Operating in Recharge Mode • Coordinating with SAWS operators to valve the existing system

so that water can be accepted. •  Isolating valves, pumps, and surge tank system • Reaching static conditions before recharge can be initiated, so

that a down surge is avoided. • Determining where to send the recharge water and how much.

PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE OPERATING SEQUENCE

38

•  Built in Safety Shutdown Alarms: •  West Clearwell tank level drops below low-low set-point alarm. •  OPPS GST level reaches the high-high set-point alarm. •  The TOPS pumps are over-pressurized. •  The TOPS pumps are overheating. •  A power failure occurs or an E-Stop is activated at TOPS.

•  Since both pump stations operate in unison, if the OPPS pumps stop operating then the OPPS GST level will rise causing the TOPS pumps to shut-off.

•  Likewise if the TOPS pumps stop operating then the OPPS GST level will drop causing the OPPS pumps to shut-off.

PRODUCTION MODE

39

3December2016

14

•  Factory Acceptance Testing of the Pumps •  Field Testing of the Pumps •  Calibrating Valves in the system to recommended set-

points •  Testing Recharge Control System •  Testing Surge Control System

TESTING THE SYSTEM

40

•  Purpose - Validate that they are operating on certified curves •  Start one pump at a time and monitor inlet/outlet pressures, flow

rate, AFD speed, and control valve •  Modify programming to adjust pump ramp up/down speeds and

when to turn on lag pumps •  Inspect for mechanical failures or adjustments •  Inspect ancillary equipment and instrumentation

FIELD TESTING PUMPS ON AFD’S

41

SCADA HMI SCREEN

42

3December2016

15

SCADA HMI SCREEN 12/3/16

43

Black&Veatch

TOPS – SYSTEM CURVE AND PUMP CURVES

44

Black&Veatch

•  Verify that the valves operate as intended •  Send recharge water from Old Pearsall to Twin Oaks

and confirm that the target pressures and flows are being met

•  Inspect for mechanical failures or adjustments •  Inspect ancillary equipment and instrumentation

TESTING RECHARGE CONTROL SYSTEM

45

3December2016

16

•  Confirm that the surge tanks properly mitigate a surge event •  Pump and maintain similar conditions for a short period of

time and then hit E-Stop •  Record pressures on discharge of pumps •  Perform this for 1, 2, and 3 pumps running

TESTING THE SURGE CONTROL SYSTEM

46

SURGE TESTING DATA

47

SURGE TESTING DATA

48

3December2016

17

•  The final product for the WRIP resulted in new water resources that are now available to SAWS.

•  With these water resources SAWS can move water to the north/northwest area of San Antonio.

•  SAWS will also have the availability to recharge the aquifer through the ASR wellfields.

•  Overall this is a well rounded program that will help provide additional water to areas in need as demands increase and it also acts as a conservation method to help recover additional water and inject it back into the aquifer.

CONCLUSION

49

50

QuesNons?

3December2016

18

www.bv.com



Time-of-Use Demand Charge Management at Municipal Pump Stations

Scott Vitter, University of Texas at Austin

12/3/16

1

Time-of-use Demand Charge Management at Municipal Pump Stations

Scott Vitter Capital Area Chapter, Texas Section American Water Works Association 2016 Seminar: The Future of Utility Infrastructure December 7, 2016

Scott Vitter| Demand Charge Management at Pump Stations

December 1, 2016 2

Increasingly complex electricity rates that include demand charges more accurately reflect the variable cost of supplying power. This research proposes a framework to evaluate demand charge management strategies at municipal pump stations.

A case study investigates the relationship between peak period duration, peak load shifting, and costs to the pump station. Load shifting heuristics for scheduling pumps can lesson the financial burden imposed by demand charges.


December 1, 2016 3

Supplying peak demand can be challenge for electric utilities. Load shifting can help make better use of existing infrastructure

Time of Day

Load

(Pow

er)

Image credit: EE Publishers

12/3/16

2


December 1, 2016 4

Demand charges help assign the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure to customers

Time of Day

Load

(Pow

er)


EnergyCharge($/kWh)

MaximumDemandCharge($/kW)


December 1, 2016 5

Increasingly, electricity rates have demand charge time windows. Demand charges are only relevant for peak hours.

Time of Day

Load

(Pow

er)


Nodemandchargesapplytoconsump?onduringnon-peak


December 1, 2016 6

Unlike Electricity, Water is Simple to Store in Large Volumes

12/3/16

3


December 1, 2016 7

So, load shifting is possible if water storage allows pumping to be moved away from peak hours

Water Storage

Demand

PumpStatus:ON

PumpStatus:OFF

PeakPeriod

Water Storage

Demand

Non-PeakPeriod


December 1, 2016 8

Cost savings might be possible if the pump station can exploit cheap energy and mitigate maximum demand charges


December 1, 2016 9

The proposed framework estimates peak shifting potential and economic impacts when electric rates with peak period demand charges are present.

EPANET 2.0

Pump Scheduling Heuristics

Water Demand Profiles

Pump Curves

Hydraulic System Information

Post-processing

Calibration (for existing networks)

Electric Rate Tariffs

Electric Bill Predictions

Load Shifting Potential

Network selection Hydraulicsimulations Post-processing

Power: kW-max / month Energy: kWh-peak / month

Money: $/month

12/3/16

4


December 1, 2016 10

Network selection: inputs and constraints

Storage Volume – Upper and lower limits

Water Demand Profile

Electric Rate Structure

Off-Peak Hours Peak Hours

Peak Demand Charge ($/kW)

Pump Station Parameters


December 1, 2016 11

Building the Model – Pump Scheduling Heuristics

Baseline Agressive Middle Ground


December 1, 2016 12

Hydraulic Modeling Was Done Using EPANET

Source: EPA

12/3/16

5


December 1, 2016 13

Ctot

= total monthly cost for electric rate with TOU/MD charges ($)C

cust

= customer charge ($)C

edr

= charge for electric delivery and regulatory charges ($/kW)C

dem

= maximum demand charge ($/kW)Ct

e

� = TOU energy charge for a specified time interval ($/kWh)Pmax

= max power consumption during billed month (kW)Ppeak

= max power consumption during peak hours in billed month (kW)P t

e

= load from pumps for each time step (kW)d = duration of the time step (one hour)h = the time step corresponding to the first hour of each month.H = the time step corresponding to the last hour of each month.

Ctot = Ccust + (Pmax · Cedr) + (Ppeak · Cdem) +HX

t=h

⇣P te · d · Cj

e�

⌘

The Model Also Computes Monthly Electricity Bills in a Post-Processing Step


December 1, 2016 14

The Framework Looks Like This

EPANET 2.0

Pump Scheduling Heuristics

Water Demand Profiles

Pump Curves

Hydraulic System Information

Post-processing

Calibration (for existing networks)

Electric Rate Tariffs

Electric Bill Predictions

Load Shifting Potential

Network selection Hydraulicsimulations Post-processing


December 1, 2016 15

A case study applied the framework to a network similar to the Davis Lane pump station (Austin Water) for one month during the summer

12/3/16

6


December 1, 2016 16

The case study considered two electric rates, identical other than the duration of the peak period


December 1, 2016 17

All three load shifting heuristics (baseline, aggressive, conservative) were implemented for a range of peak period durations


December 1, 2016 18

For peak demand (kW), aggressive heuristics look promising when the peak period is short.

Heuristic 1 shifts peak load from short peak periods. However, the heuristic breaks down over longer peak periods

Heuristic 2 reliably shifts partial load over a range of peak period durations

12/3/16

7


December 1, 2016 19

The same trends hold for overall energy consumption. The aggressive heuristic breaks down for long peak periods


December 1, 2016 20

The aggressive heuristic significantly reduced the monthly electricity bill when peak period was three hours (Rate 1)

Heuristic 1: 22% reduction relative to baseline

Note:PeakPeriod=3hours2pm-5pm


December 1, 2016 21

For the longer peak period in Rate 2, the partial shifting heuristic achieves better performance

Note:PeakPeriod=6hours(2pm-8pm)Heuristic 1: increased

demand charge relative to baseline

Heuristic 2: non-trivial reduction of both energy and demand charges

Heuristic 2: 19% reduction relative to baseline

12/3/16

8


December 1, 2016 22

Is 800 kW of peak load shifting worth $40,000 per year to an electric company?

Cost of Load Shifting

Capital Cost for New Peaker Plants

~$50 per kW per year

~$650 per kW ~$57 per kW per year (annualized at 6%)

VS


December 1, 2016 23

Future Work

-  Expand the scope, consider other electricity rates

-  Model pump station on the wholesale electricity market

-  Model ancillary services and demand response

-  Change from heuristic methods to an optimization approach


December 1, 2016 24

Acknowledgements

•  Jill Kjellsson •  Austin Water Utility •  Pecan Street Inc. •  Tarrant Regional Water District •  Specific Energy •  Dr. Michael Webber •  Webber Energy Group

12/3/16

9

www.webberenergygroup.com

Scott Vitter Graduate Research Assistant Department of Mechanical Engineering Cockrell School of Engineering The University of Texas at Austin

[email protected] (C) 979.587.9904

Back-up and extra slides

Scott Vitter TAWWA December 7, 2016


December 1, 2016 27

Traditionally, electric rates include volumetric energy charges. The electricity bill is proportional to monthly energy use.

Time of Day

Load

(Pow

er)


EnergyCharge($/kWh)

12/3/16

10


December 1, 2016 28

Storage Volume – Upper and Lower limits

Building the Model – Inputs & Constraints


December 1, 2016 29





December 1, 2016 30





12/3/16

11


December 1, 2016 31



Electric Rate Structure

Off-Peak Hours Peak Hours

Peak Demand Charge ($/kW)





Moneyball: Data-Driven Asset Management Enhances SAWS’ SSO Reduction Program

Bill Lloyd, HDR & Alissa Lockett, P.E., San Antonio Water System

12/3/16

1

© 2015 HDR, all rights reserved.

The Moneyball Approach to Managing Your Utility Alissa Lockett, PE, PMP: SAWS Director, Construction & Maintenance

Bill Lloyd: HDR Asset Management Practice Lead

Capital Area Chapter, Texas Section AWWA December 7, 2016

Moneyball’s Role in SAWS’ SSO Reduction Program

Data-Drive Operations Improvements

Rules-Based Condition Assessment & Renewal Planning

Got Risk? (How Much?)

Right-Sized Replacement Programs

Alamo Plaza, San Antonio

Moneyball’s Role in SAWS’ SSO Reduction Program

12/3/16

2

Results/Benefits of SAWS’ SSO Reduction Program

SAWS SSOs: 12 Month Moving Average

SSOs by Cause:

Wet Weather Caused 78 SSOs in 2015; 58 More Than in 2014

Data-Driven Operations Improvement

12/3/16

3

Benefits: ! Overflow Reduction ! Continuous

Improvement

Cleaning Frequency Optimization: COTools

Findings Roots Grease Debris

Seve

rity

Update to Cleaning

Frequency

Exceptions

CCTV

Capital Projects

COTools Algorithm

Increase/Decrease Cleaning Frequency?

Findings Roots Grease Debris

Seve

rity

Clear Light

Medium Heavy

Cleaning WOs

CMMS Work order history Cleaning schedule

Cleaning Frequency Optimization: COTools

Efficient Crew Routing: COTools GIS

12/3/16

4

Rules-Based Condition Assessment & Renewal Planning

CCTV: A-E Condition Assessment

Condition Assessment

“E” pipe: Failure is Imminent

“D” pipe: High Priority for Renewal

“A” pipe: Like New

“E” pipe: Failure is Imminent


CCTV: A-E Condition Assessment

12/3/16

5

Engineering Confirms; Project

Packaging & Design

InfoMaster Applies SAWS’

Remediation Guidelines

QC: Senior Reviewers

Verify Outcomes

Proposed Projects in CPMS

Program Cost

Forecast

InfoMaster Applies SAWS’

Ratings Guidelines

Preliminary A-E

Condition Rating

Maintenance History


Coding

Verified A-E Condition

Rating

Preliminary Remediation

Approach

Hansen CMMS

Renewal Planning

CostEstimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

EAPPhase1ConditionRemediationCapacityRemediationEAPPhase2ConditionRemediationCapacityRemediationCDCapacityRemediationConditionRemediationLiftStations

Project Packaging:

• Risk • Remediation methods

• Neighborhoods •  Fiscal constraints •  Project management

capacity

Long-Term Asset Renewal Plan: Condition + Capacity

Got Risk? (How Much?)

12/3/16

6

Why Prioritize? •  When there are more projects than dollars •  Which “Ds” will be replaced sooner?

Asset Criticality: Risk Ranking of 112,000 Pipes

Likelihood of Failure

Consequence of Failure

Risk

Objectives: !  Reproducible Results

!  Risk Score for Each Pipe !  Results Stored in GIS or CMMS

x

•  Future monitoring •  Establishing maintenance strategies

Risk = Consequence of Failure x Likelihood of Failure

Status Quo

Immediate Evaluation/

Rehabilitation

Additional Condition

Assessment

Programmatic Condition Monitoring

Programmatic

Evaluation

Programmatic Rehabilitation

Routine Condition Monitoring

Periodic

Condition

Monitoring

Likelihood of Failure

Cons

eque

nces

of F

ailur

e

Medium Risk

Low Risk

High Risk

Critical Risk

Identify Consequence Factors Linked to Level of Service Goals and Objectives

Protect the Public

Minimize Nuisance Public Impacts

Minimize Impacts to Customers

Meet Environmental Regulations

Large Spills

Commuter Impacts

Key Customers Many Customers Critical Services

Surface Waters

Size of Sewer

Road Type

Land Use Areas

Distance to Water

Goals Objectives CoF Factors

12/3/16

7

Set Criteria for Rating Consequence of Failure (CoF) Factors – Avoid Large Spills

Size of Sewer

CoF Factors

Size of Sewer

Road Type

CoF Factors

Set Criteria for Rating Consequence of Failure (CoF) Factors – Avoid Commuter Impacts

Size of Sewer

Road Type

Land Use Areas

CoF Factors

Set Criteria for Rating CoF Factors – Avoid Impacting Key Customers & Critical Services

12/3/16

8

Size of Sewer

Road Type

Land Use Areas

Distance to Water 100’ 500’ 1000’

CoF Factors

Set Criteria for Rating Consequence of Failure (CoF) Factors – Avoid Impacting Surface Waters

Objective Criteria for Likelihood of Failure

1 Unlikely = 2

Possible = 4 5 6 Likely

= 7 8 9 Very Likely = 10

Physical Condition W = 90%

“A – Very Good” “B –

Good” “C – Fair”

“D – Poor” “E – Very

Poor”

Age <20 years

20 - 24 years

25 - 29 years

30 - 34 years

35 - 39 years

40 - 44 years

45 - 49 years

50 - 54 years

55 - 59 years >60 years

Maintenance History W = 10%

Cleaning Every 120 months



Every 12 months OR 1 blockage

Every 6 months OR >= 2 blockages

Every 3 months OR 1 SSO

Every 1 month OR >= 2 SSOs

RiskClass CapitalAc-on

ExtremeHighPriorityinCIP/YearlyOpera@onalFrequency

HighStandardPriorityinCIP/Biannual

Opera@onalFrequency

MediumLowPriorityinCIP/1in5Years

Opera@onalFrequency

Low1in10YearsOpera@onal

Frequency

Negligible Waitforaproblemtoarise

Conclusion: SAWS’ Highest Risk Sewer Pipes

12/3/16

9

Right-Sized Replacement Programs

Deterioration Model Estimates Pipe Failure Over Time

Failure Curves Estimate Annual Miles of Failure

12/3/16

10

Impacts of Various Investment Scenarios

!  “Moneyball” produced significant effectiveness improvements o  Reduced SSOs o  Continuous improvement o  Increased efficiency o  Optimized capital program o  Credible business cases

Conclusions & Lessons Learned

Bill Lloyd [email protected]

210.260.2891

Alissa Lockett [email protected]

210.233.3401



Austin Water’s Large Diameter Pipeline Condition Assessment

Kirk Obst, Austin Water & Matt Cullen, P.E.

Austin Water

12/3/16

1

Austin Water’s Large Diameter Leak Detection and Condition Assessment Program

Kirk Obst, Austin Water

Matt Cullen P.E., Austin Water

•  Service area of more than 540 square miles •  Over 1million customers served •  Surface water is treated at three (3) plants

with a combined capacity of 335 MGD •  Distribution system consists of 40 reservoirs,

23 pump stations and approximately 3,750 miles of main –  Large Diameter (24” and larger) 429 miles made

up of: •  CSC DI CI STL HDPE

Austin Water’s Stats

Large Diameter Pipe Based on Length

12/3/16

2

Large Diameter Pipe Material

Leak Detection Prior to 2009

•  Before 2007 the only leak detection AW conducted was reactive, with in-house staff

•  2007 – first “small diameter” contract for routine/proactive leak detection

•  This contract did not perform condition assessment

•  Clear that this type of technology would not detect leaks on large diameter lines

Asset Management Plan

•  2010 -AW hired a consultant to produce an asset management plan

•  “Final” plan was produced in 2011 •  During the entire process we stressed age

was not the best way to determine the condition of an asset

•  Used age because it was all we had

12/3/16

3

Large Diameter Leak Detection and Condition Assessment Pilots

•  Several trial projects with various technologies (2009) –  Leak detection

•  Loggers/correlators •  Free swimming

– Condition Assessment •  Electromagnetic Testing (EMT)

–  Manned –  Robotic

•  In 2011 procured a yearly contract using the most advanced technology

Free Swimming Acoustic Listening Device •  Non tethered foam ball with instrumented core •  Detects leaks & air pockets, (collects acoustic data

activity) •  Insertion/Extraction in live main

Leak Detection Technology Utilized

Leak Detection Technology Utilized (cont.)

•  Sensors track device position •  Covers long distances •  Leaks as small as 0.15 GPH @ 150 psi. •  Accuracy +/- 5’

12/3/16

4

Leak Detection Technology Utilized (cont.)

Tethered Acoustic Listening Device •  Acoustic signal processer allows real-time

locating •  5000 feet of cable •  Video sensor •  Launch and retrieve in a live main

Condition Assessment Technology Utilized

Electromagnetic Testing (EMT) EMT is a form of non destructive testing which consists of inducing a magnetic field through the wall of a pipe, measuring resistance, and analyzing the signal for anomalies. •  Electromagnetic Testing Platforms

•  Long Range Robotic •  Depressurized Pipeline •  8,000’ distance capability •  Pipe Diameter 18” & up •  CCTV •  GIS Mapping capabilities

12/3/16

5

Condition Assessment Technology Utilized (cont.)

Manned •  Dewatered system •  Allows for visual and sounding inspection •  Pipe diameters 36” & up

Condition Assessment Technology Utilized (cont.)

Free Swimming Device

• Pipeline diameters 16” & up •  Insertion/Extraction in live main • Capable of long distances

12/3/16

6

12/3/16

7

Condition Assessment Technology (cont.)

External (Manned) EMT •  Any size diameter •  High Resolution •  For individual joints •  Partial excavation needed (to springline)

Project Execution Process

• Prioritization/Selection • Planning

• Preparation • Scheduling/Execution

•  Follow up

12/3/16

8

Challenges/Solutions

•  Challenges – Broken valves/valves not to grade –  Lack of access points – Shortage of valve operation staff – Achieving flow velocities/meeting demand/maxing

system capacity •  Solutions

– Using IDIQ to fix/replace valves/RTG manways hot taps

– Sub-contracting valve operations through LD LD/CA contract; then stand alone valve contract

– Extensive coordination with Treatment/Pumping

Miles Investigated

260 Miles

429 Miles

Fiscal Year

Miles LD Leaks

Leaks/Mi. Cost

Miles CA

Distressed Joints DJ/Mile Cost

2010 24.3 4 0.2 $ 114,504 4.8 18 3.6

$131,266 2011 3.9 0 0.0 $ 42,658 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0

2012 7.6 6 0.8 $ 176,138 2.8 17 6.0 $237,473 2013 9.1 3 0.3 $ 118,557 0.6 4 7.1 $65,000 2014 5.7 4 0.7 $ 169,837 8.2 20 2.4 $504,370 2015 6.4 1 0.2 $ 146,937 7.0 23 3.3 $425,4012016 8.9 4 0.5 $ 111,820 9.9 49 5.0 $487,237 Total 65.9 22 0.3avg $ 880,451 33.3 131 3.9avg $1,850,747

Note: Cost does not include GIS data or AW construction preparation costs.

Large Diameter Leak Detection and Condition Assessment Results (Inception to date)

12/3/16

9

Leak Found in 2012

•  Giles Lane 54”/48” TM

•  28,504 LF of WSP and DIP constructed in 1987 – 3 leaks located with free swimming device – Largest was approximately 15 gpm leaking at

a joint –  Water was not surfacing and was flowing into

adjacent creek- unknown for how long – Fire hydrant lead valve leaking out of broken

packing gland and 48” packing leak other 2 leaks

Leak Found in 2012 (cont.)

12/3/16

10

Leak Found in 2012 (cont.)

Leak Pinpointed in 2015 East Austin 66” TM Leak Repair/Forensic Assessment

•  66” E-301 main put into service in 1989 (32,600’) •  AW received a call about a significant amount of water ponding in a

soccer field near a creek •  In house leak detection resources and excavations were unable to

locate the leak

Ponding water Leak search excavation

•  Brought in leak detection contractor-used tethered acoustic device – leak was pinpointed (see orange flag in picture)

Leak Pinpointed in 2015 (cont.)

Leak marker Estimated 515 gpm leak (shown after depressurization)

12/3/16

11

•  Upon entering pipe, found many cracks in adjacent pipes.


•  This, combined with 5 previous failures in this 9,600’ section of pipe (1991, 1993, 2005, 2008, 2011) led to decision to inspect pipe further.

•  Hired forensics firm to assist •  Visually inspected pipe interior (about 13,000’) •  Conducted EM inspection of pipe


•  Results –  Identified and replaced about 120’ of pipe in

three separate locations – EM found minimal wire breaks; not related to

failures – Failures were related to cylinder thickness

and tied lengths adjacent to bends


12/3/16

12

Condition Assessment Project 2015

Davis High Service 48” TM (L-301 Pipe)

•  Constructed from 1976 to 1980 •  26,252’ inspected using “Free Swimming” EM platform

•  14 pipe joints identified with 5 broken wire wraps •  3 pipe joints identified with 10 broken wire wraps •  2 pipe joints identified with 15 broken wire wraps •  1 pipe joint identified with 40 broken wire wraps

•  Break position 3.0’ & 7.5’ 10 & 30 wire breaks respectively. .

•  Pipe joint with 40 wire breaks next to MoPac Expressway entrance ramp and 65’ from 3 story commercial building.

•  High consequence of failure; location /system impact/typical 78 psi to 94 psi range

•  AW ordered steel replacement pipe and 48” compression clamps prior to excavation

•  Excavated pipe and condition assessment contractor used external EM tool to verify previous results and to ensure right pipe joint was exposed

•  Delamination was evident and subsequent chipping away of mortar revealed broken wires and corrosion - thought to be caused by hydrogen embrittlement

Condition Assessment Project 2015 (cont.)


12/3/16

13




12/3/16

14

GIS Data

•  AW elected to receive dynamic GIS mapping files for completed inspections –  Identifies every pipe joint detected during survey – Files highlight pipe joints identified with distress – Contains customizable meta data tables

–  Wire breaks –  Location –  Pipe number –  Plan set identifier –  Inspection dates

GIS Data

Condition of AW’s Leak Detection & Condition Assessment Program

•  Benefits Realized/Lessons Learned –  Significant leaks have been found and pinpointed

•  Conservation efforts have been effectively bolstered -less non revenue water loss –  Distressed PCCP pipe has been located in high consequence of failure

areas –  Unknown turbine meter removed –  Critical valves were found to be partially or fully closed –  Age of Pipe not a major factor –  Poor Installation practices predisposed pipe for distress –  Broken pre-stressing wires not a major issue for AW’s system

•  Where to go from here –  Long way to go to survey all CSC pipe in the system (23 miles/260

miles) –  Will continue to evaluate technologies for all pipe types for both leak

detection and condition assessment

12/3/16

15

12/3/16

16

12/3/16

17

Questions?

•  Kirk Obst, [email protected] 512 972-1120

•  Matt Cullen, P.E., [email protected] 512 972-1241

12/3/16

18



Texas Water Conservation Scorecard Dr. Ken Kramer, Sierra Club

12/3/16

1

TexasWaterConserva.onScorecardAtoolforpromo/ngconserva/on&efficiencyinTexas

KenKramer,SierraClubCapitalAreaChapter,TXSec/onof

AWWA–2016Seminar

photos courtesy Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TheTexasLivingWatersProjectisajointeffortoftheSierraClub,LoneStarChapter,

Na/onalWildlifeFedera/onandourregionalpartner,GalvestonBayFounda/on.

Together,weworktotransformthewayTexasmanageswatertobeTerprotectoursprings,

riversandestuariesinordertomeetthewaterneedsofbothpeopleandtheenvironment.

Ourgoalsincrea/ngtheTexasWaterConserva/onScorecard

TheScorecardasks:

–  Arewateru/li/esmee/ngtheState’slegalrequirementsonconserva/on?

–  Arethese“municipal”watersuppliersmakingtheirbesteffortstoreducepercapitawateruse,andthussavingwaterandmoneyforTexans?

WATERCONSERVATIONISABIGDEALINTEXASBECAUSEWATERISABIGDEALINTEXAS

12/3/16

2

Wheredidwegetourdata?

•  WaterConserva/onPlan(WCP)andWaterConserva/onPlanAnnualReportAsof2016,TexasAdministra/veCode(TAC)31Chapter363SubchapterA,Rule363.15requiresthesubmissionofaWaterConserva/onPlan(WCP)every5yearsandtheWaterConserva/onPlanAnnualReporttotheTWDBeveryyearforu/li/esmee/ngcertaincriteria.

•  U/lityProfileAsof2016,theTAC31Chapter363SubchapterA,Rule363.15(b)(1)(A)requiresaU/lityProfiletobeincludedintheabovemen/onedWaterConserva/onPlanforu/li/esmee/ngcertaincriteria.

•  WaterLossAuditAsof2016,TAC31Chapter358,SubchapterB,Rule358.6requiresaWaterLossAudittobeperformedandsubmiTedtotheTWDBannuallyforu/li/esmee/ngcertaincriteria.

OurDataSources

TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB)Submissions

TexasMunicipalLeague(TML)AnnualWaterSurvey

WaterU.lityWebsite

WATERCONSERVATIONPLAN(WCP)

WATERRATEINCREASEFORMONTHLYUSEOF5,000GALLONSVS.10,000GALLONS

RESTRICTIONSONOUTDOORWATERINGUSE

WCPANNUALREPORT

WATERCONSERVATIONPLANSAND/ORWATERCONSERVATIONINFO

WATERLOSSAUDIT

TexasWaterConserva.onScorecardEvalua.onCriteria

LargeU/li/es:serveapopula/onof100,000ormore•  U/lityEvalua/on–10criteria•  Highestpossiblescore–100•  Narra/vedetailingu/lityprogramdetailsnotreflectedbycriteria•  35U/li/esEvaluated

MediumU/li/es:servepopula/onsizeof25,000-100,000•  U/lityEvalua/on–10criteria•  Highestpossiblescore–100•  91U/li/esEvaluated

SmallU/li/es:servepopula/onsizeof3,300-25,000•  U/lityEvalua/on–6criteria•  Highestpossiblescore–55•  180U/li/esEvaluated

12/3/16

3

•  Yes5points•  No0points

ThepurposeofaWaterConserva/onPlanistoensurewateruseefficiencywithinawateru/lity’sopera/on.Subminngthisplanisessen/altoau/lityreducingtheconsump/onofwater,reducingthelossorwasteofwater,andimprovingormaintainingtheefficiencyintheuseofwater.Thisinforma/onisalsohelpfultoTWDBinwaterresourcesplanning.(allu&li&esevaluated)

No.1-Didtheu.litysubmititsmost-recentrequiredWaterConserva.onPlan(WCP)totheState?


ThepurposeofanAnnualReportistoevaluateanen/ty’sprogressinimplemen/ngprogramstoachievetargetsandgoalsinthewaterconserva/onplan.Subminngthisreportisessen/altoau/lityreviewingconserva/onprogramsannuallyandevalua/ngprogramsuccessesandneeds.Thisinforma/onisalsohelpfultoTWDBinwaterresourcesplanning.(allu&li&esevaluated)

No.2-Didtheu.litysubmititsmostrecentAnnualReport(onimplementa.onofitsWaterConserva.onPlan)totheState?

12/3/16

4

No.3-DidtheU.litysubmititsmost-recentannualWaterAuditReporttotheState?


ThepurposeofaWaterAuditReport(alsoknownasaWaterLossAudit)istoprovideu/li/eswithastandardizedapproachtoaudi/ngwaterloss.PreparingaWaterAuditReportisessen/altohelpau/lityunderstandwhereandhowmuchwaterisbeinglostfromthedistribu/onsystem.SubminngaWaterAuditReporttoTWDBishelpfultotheagencyinwaterresourcesplanninganddecisionsaboutStatefinancialassistance.(allu&li&esevaluated)

No.4-WhatwastheU.lity’smostrecentreportedtotalpercentwaterlossasstatedinitsWaterAuditReport?

•  %WaterLossoflessthanorequalto6.5%-15points•  %WaterLossofgreaterthan6.5%to11%-10points•  %WaterLossofgreaterthan11%to15.4%-5points•  %WaterLossgreaterthan15.4%-0points

EachWaterAuditReporthasanumberofmetricsthatmightbeusedtodescribeau/lity’swaterloss.Wechosetouse“unadjustedtotalwaterloss,”whichispresentedasapercentageoftheu/lity’stotalwaterpumped,asthemetricforthisevalua/on.Thismetricistheonethatthepublicmostlikelywillseefrom/meto/meinthenewsmediainreportsabouttheiru/lity’s“waterloss.”(allu&li&esevaluated)

•  Yes,WaterConserva&onPlan(WCP),5points•  Yes,WaterConserva&onInforma&onOnly,3points•  No,0points

TheWCPisastrategyorcombina/onofstrategiesforreducingtheconsump/onofwater.Communica/onoftheWCPand/orwaterconserva/oninforma/ononau/lityorcitywebsiteeducatesthepubliconcurrentprogramsandhowresidentscanbecomemoreengagedinconserva/onprac/ces.(onlylargeandmediumu&li&esevaluated)

No.5-DoestheU.lityhaveapubliclyaccessibleWaterConserva.onPlan(WCP)and/orotherconserva.oninforma.onontheirwebsite?

12/3/16

5

•  5-yearwaterusereduc&ongoalexceeded,10points•  5-yearwaterusereduc&ongoalreached,5points•  5-yearwaterusereduc&ongoalnotachieved,0points

Comparingau/lity’s5-yearwaterusegoalsetinitspreviousWCPtoitsactualwaterusesubmiTedinits2014AnnualReportprovidesfeedbackastotheu/lity’sabilitytomeeta5-yeargoaltoreducewateruse.(onlylargeandmediumu&li&esevaluated)

No.6-Didtheu.lityachievethe5-yeargoalforwaterusereduc.onstatedinitsmostrecentpreviousWaterConserva.onPlan(WCP)?

No.7-Hastheu.lityalreadyachievedarela.velylowGPCD(gallonspercapitaperday)ofwateruse?Ifnot,whatisthe5-yrgoalforwaterusereduc.oninitsmostrecentWCP?

–  AchievedaGPCDof125orlessORsetanaverageannualreduc&onofmorethan1.25%,15points

–  AchievedaGPCDoflessthan140butmorethan125ORsetanaverageannualreduc&onof0.85%to1.25%,10points

–  Setanaverageannualreduc&onof0.1%tolessthan0.85%,5points

–  Setanaverageannualreduc&onoflessthan0.1%,0points(onlylargeandmediumu&li&esevaluated)

No.8-Howmanyofthemunicipalwaterconserva.onBMPspresentedinthestate’sBMPGuidedidtheu.lityreportinitsAnnualReport(AR)?

•  Incorporated15+BMPs,10pts

•  Incorporated12-14BMPs,8pts




•  IncorporatednoBMPs,0pts

BestManagementPrac/ces(BMPs)arevoluntaryefficiencymeasuresthatareintendedtosaveaquan/fiableamountofwaterandcanbeimplementedwithinaspecified/meframe.Detailedinforma/ononover20municipalwaterconserva/onBMPsisavailableintheState’sBMPGuide,whichisaccessibleonlineatwww.savetexaswater.org

(allu&li&esevaluated)

12/3/16

6

–  Outdoorwateringlimitedtonomorethan1xperweek,15points

–  Outdoorwateringlimitedtonomorethan2xperweek,10points

–  Timeofdayoutdoorwateringscheduleonly,5points

–  Nooutdoorwateringscheduleonongoingbasis,0points

(onlylargeandmediumu&li&esevaluated)

No.9-Hastheu.lityimplementedmandatoryoutdoorwateringschedulesonanongoingbasis(notjustaspartofadroughtcon.ngencyplan)?

No.10–Doestheu.lity’sratestructuresenda“waterconserva.onpricingsignal”totheu.lity’sSFResiden.alcustomers?Percentincreaseinwaterrateper1,000gallonswithcustomeruseof5,000gallonsvs.10,000gallons.

•  Strong:>=40%increase,15points

•  Moderate:>=25%and<40%increase,10points

•  Slight:>zeroand<25%increase,5points

•  Nosignal:NoIncrease0points

(allu&li&esevaluated)

12/3/16

7

ExampleofaLargeU/lity–SnapshotandNarra/ve

ExampleofMedium-sizeU/litySnapshots

12/3/16

8

ExampleofSmallU/litySnapshots

TexasWaterConserva.onScorecardRecommenda.ons&NextSteps

•  WaterU/li/es•  TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard•  TexasLegislature

Contactus:JenniferWalkerWaterResourcesProgramManagerjennifer.walker@sierraclub.orgRuthieRedmondWaterResourcesSpecialistruthie.redmond@sierraclub.org

Toviewinterac/vewebsiteand/ordownloadtheTexasWaterConserva/onScorecard

www.texaswaterconserva.onscorecard.org

Formoreinforma/onabouttheTexasLivingWatersProjectwww.texaslivingwaters.org



Top 10 Reasons to Love the Water-Energy Nexus Jonathan Kleinman, AIQUEOUS

12/3/16

1

Top 10 Reasons to Love the Water-Energy Nexus

CAPITAL AREA CHAPTER ANNUAL SEMINAR

DECEMBER 7, 2016

CityofAbilene’sIndirectReuseTreatmentFacility(TX) OrangeCounty’sIndirectReuseTreatmentFacility(CA)

Natel’sEcoSmartHydroPower

FloaDngPhotovoltaics

LucidEnergy’sPowerGeneraDngWaterpipes

12/3/16

2

Food

energy needed for: •  ExtracLon •  Treatment •  DistribuLon

Water Energywater needed for: •  Hydropower •  Thermoelectric cooling •  Power plant operaLons •  Fuel extracLon &

refining

water & energy needed for: •  ProducLon •  DistribuLon •  ConsumpLon

ERCOT’sLong-TermSystemAssessment–DroughtPlanningScenario

USDOE’sAnalysisofDrought-relatedImpactstoElectricPowerGeneraDonintheWesternUS

Source:NedSpang,UC-Davis,TheWater–EnergyNexus:Informa7on,Analy7csandInnova7on,10/15/15

12/3/16

3

PG&E&LocalWaterUDliDeshigh-efficiencyclotheswasherrebateprogram

SCE’sLeakDetecDonPilotProgram&OzoneLaundryProgram

AusDnEnergy’sMulDfamilyEnergy&WaterEfficiencyProgram

TownofWindsor’sEfficiencyPaysProgram

PaloAlto’sSmartEnergyProgram

12/3/16

4

CityofDanville,MD

SCE

Water&WastewaterSectorsaccountfor1.8%oftotalUSelectricityuse

Sponsor:SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCurtailmentStrategy:TemporarypumpshutdownSavings:$100,000(annual)

Sponsor:DukeEnergyCurtailmentStrategy:BackupGeneratorSavings:$429,258(2013)

CharloZe-MecklenburgUDliDes(NC)

EasternMunicipalWaterDistrict(CA)

Sponsor:PacificGas&EnergyCurtailmentStrategy:Temporaryshutdownofpumps,chillers/HVACsystem,&otherequipmentSavings:$23,000(basedon3MWreducZonoverthreedays)

WaterDistrictinCalifornia

MicrobialFuelCells(e.g.,Emefcy)

BiogasRecoveryEnhancedAeraDonTechnology

(e.g.,Zeelung,OXYMEM)WastewaterTreatmentEnergyUseDistribuDon

EnergyConservaDonMeasures:aeraZonsystemupgrade(usingHST®ABSmagneZcbearingturboblowers)ProjectCost:$850,000Savings:50%reducZon(2,143,975kWh/yr)

EnergyConservaDonMeasures:OpZmizaZonandautomaZonofacZvatedsludgesystemProjectCost:$135,000Savings:20%reducZon(306,600kWh/yr)

Oxnard,CAWastewaterTreatmentPlant#32

GreenBayMetropolitanSewerageDistrict(DePere,WI)

EnergyConservaDonMeasures:MBRtechnology,specialmicro-turbineblowersProjectCost:N/ASavings:50%(4.5millionkWhr/yr)

BrightwaterWastewaterTreatmentFacility(SeaZle,WA)

2016 seminar · 2018. 4. 16. · 2016 seminar: the future of utility infrastructure award” for...

Documents