Loading...
04/25/2013 - Minutes (3) • Salt Lake City Public Utilities Advisory Committee Minutes April 25, 2013 The Public Utilities Advisory Committee meeting was held at 7:00 a.m. April 25, 2013 at 1530 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. Committee members present were Dwight Butler, Dixie Huefner, Allen On, Roger Player and Christy Cushing. Committee member Larry Myers and Kent Moore were absent. Salt Lake City Public Utilities employees present were Jeff Niermeyer, Tom Ward, Jim Lewis, Florence Reynolds, Chuck Call, Bob Sperling, Laura Briefer, Bill Meyer, Kasey Chestnut and Zee Smith. Also in attendance were Rusty Vetter, SLC Attorney's Office; Mike Wilson, MWDSLS; Keith Larson, Cristina Nelson & Mike Collins, Bowen Collins & Associates; Jim Olson, & Karen Nichols, HDR; Jim Schwing, & Brock Emerson, CH2MHILL; Trevor Lindley &Jim Goodley, JUB Engineers; Alan Domonoske, Carollo Engineers; Doug Cromer, CRS Engineers; Stan Postma, MWH and Holly Hilton, SLC Mayor's Office. Approve Minutes of March 28. 2013 Meeting Committee member Allen On moved and committee member Roger Player seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2013, meeting as amended. All members present voted aye. Financial Report—Jim Lewis Mr. Jim Lewis briefed the Committee on the financial report for the period ending March 31, 2013. Mr. Lewis stated that all three funds are currently doing very well and are in good financial position at this time. He stated that, with the 2012 warmer summer season and early spring, current water-year sales are higher than the previous year by 3% (i.e, $6.5 million). He also presented the water conservation chart showing average water usage for the past 3 months. The next slide presented was a comparison of revenue for all three funds versus budget. Mr. Lewis started that two of the funds, Street Lighting and Storm Water are currently below budget expectations while Water and Sewer are above last year. He stated that revenue is a little off due to the fact that the billing process is still behind due to the implementation of the new street lighting fee and current vacant positions. The Water Utility is currently $6.5 million higher than last year. Sewer is $55,000 higher and Storm Water $343,860 below last year. Street Lighting is behind our current budget estimates at this time by $150,000. 1-1 a) ao • The next slide presented was a comparison of operating costs, comparing last year with the current budget amounts. Mr. Lewis stated that operating costs for the Water Utility are higher than last year by $4.7 million, which relates to additional water purchases over the previous year. The Sewer is higher than last year by $60,000 and the Storm Water is above last year by $677,000. Storm water is higher due to the additional street sweeping costs which were included in the current year's budget. Storm Water will still end the current budget year within budget. The Department has been doing a very good job of controlling expenditures over the last couple of years. The last slide presented listed the capital improvements for each of the funds as compared to budget. The Water Utility has expended $7 million in capital improvements with $5.3 million encumbered at the end of March. The Sewer Utility has expended $10.1 million with $5.7 million encumbered. The Storm Water Utility has expended $4.2 million with $3.4 million encumbered. Total for all three funds equals $21.3 million expended and $14.4 million encumbered as of the end of March 2013. Mr. Lewis than talked about the budget process. He stated that we would discuss the proposed budget with the City Council on April 23. The Council is interested in our capital improvement plans and asked if we should consider raising water rates to expand the proposed program. They have asked that we come back with additional capital replacement indicators and information on the effects of increasing fees to expand our current program. Comments: Dwight Butler—Do you get to keep the money that rolls over in the lighting budget? Jim Lewis—Yes, because it is an enterprise fund. Big Cottonwood Facility Plan—Tom Ward Project Summary • Background, Purpose &Need • Study, Scope & Process • Findings and Recommendations • Next Steps • Capital Improvements Projects ➢ Ongoing Asset Management Program Background Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant • 1904 First Big Cottonwood Exhange (Big Ditch) • 1907 Big Cottonwood Conduit completed • 1957-1959 Original plant constructed • 1997-1998 Upgrade to Chemical Building, Filters, SCADA, bar screen • BCWTP is about 25% of Salt Lake City Water supply Study Purpose and Need Updating Asset Management Framework and Tools • Aging Facility N • Regulatory review a • Resiliency to watershed pollution, drought, turbidity events, climate change o`� • New treatment technologies Asset Management Framework Asset Inventory—track life, condition, history Asset Criticality—What happens if this asset fails? • Asset Condition Assessment • Ability to perform service • Structural • Hydraulic • Process & Water Quality Asset Plan Next inspection, maintenance, rehab/replace Findings and recommendations: General BCWTP is a valuable asset • Replacement value $80,000,000 • With proper investment, can meet your needs for decades Backlog of deferred maintenance • Electrical and controls, leaking valves and pipes • Critical vs non-critical Industry recommends CIP funding at (2% asset value) • $1.6M for BCWTP, $4-6M for all 3 water plants • Funds annual repair and replacement of equipment • Accrues toward major upgrade and rehabilitation projects Findings and Recommendations: SCADA Hardware & software upgrades • Hardware/ software is no longer supported by the manufacturers • Does not meet current Arc Flash electrical safety code • Field wiring is not installed correctly • Documentation inaccurate and or incomplete • Software programs poorly written, or difficult to troubleshoot • False errors displayed on control panel • Ghost alarms shut down filters • Hypochlorite alarms not fully integrated • Automatic function do not function properly Consultant recommendation: SCADA SCADA • Phase 1: Correct high priority issues in the next 60 days. • Phase 2: Utility wide SCADA system master planning effort. Estimated cost $50,000 • Phase 3: Big Cottonwood SCADA system replacement. Estimated cost $800,000 Potential Impacts • Sudden and complete failure of plant control system • Inability to reliably treat water, • If process disruption not detected, potential public health and regulatory compliance issues. Next Steps: Cr) Address maintenance backing ao Capital Improvements Projects a. a Consultant Recommendation: Floc/Sediment Basins • Structural age, failure • Seismic upgrade • Outdated design: Replace existing basins with inclined plate clarifiers improves treatment, reduce footprint • $8M reconstruction. Need up to $1M repairs if not replaced • Concerns • Reliability & safety risks if basin fails • Plant shutdowns under high turbidity Recommended Project: Intake Structure Creek Side intake • $1,000,000 reconstruction • Intake has not been updated since 1950's • Recommend Passive "Coanda Screen" style intake Risk of Inaction • In the case of a Power House shut down; increased difficulty getting water into plant • Safety risk associated with cleaning Creek Side intake structure Next Steps: Ongoing Asset Management/Existing Program is solid foundation Areas of improvement • Standardization—Increase standardization across all facilities • Staff training, system data input, and metrics • Enhance quantitative, test elements in evaluation • Preventative and predictive maintenance tools; thermal imaging, voltage/current monitoring Improvement Timeframe/Cost Urgency SCADA Immediate $90,000 Significant risk of failure Immediate— 1 $850,000 Floc / Sed 1-5 Years $8,000,000 Structural repairs, Seismic upgrades Seismic upgrade, Process robustness Raw Water Inlets 1-5 Years $1,000,000 Structural /seismic repairs, Improve Safety, Water supply reliability Asset Management Immediate $15,000 Keep implementing program to all $40,000 assets 1 Year $10,000 Filter Upgrades 5-10 Years $6,000,000 Not urgent; improve robustness, water Comments: Allen Orr How often is the water tested in B/C Creek before water gets into the plant? Florence Reynolds— Source water is tested monthly and 2 times a month in high flow. Raw water is tested every day. a)' a Asset Management—Chuck Call Chuck Call gave a presentation to the Advisory Committee regarding Asset Management. Key factors in determining the right time and right place for pipe replacement are: Health & Safety—Public Health and safety can be an overriding factor. Condition Assessment— Condition rating of the existing infrastructure. Economic Impact—The consequences of not doing the project will have a negative economic impact. Coordination —This project is linked to other projects. Master Plan —Project is part of a Master Plan. Public Support—Project is a community priority. Environmental Quality & Conservation—Project will improve enviro. & social quality. Risk and Timeliness— If facility fails there will be negative consequences to critical facilities. 0 & M - Project will improve redundancy, operating efficiency and decrease 0 & M costs. Area Benefits —Project has area-wide benefits. Large Diameter Transmission Mains—Asset Management Condition Assessment Condition 1, 2 or 3 Action Re-inspect Condition 3 or 4 Repair or Rehabilitate Condition 5 Rehabilitate or Replace Failure Modes • PCCP —Wall thickness, wire breaks, break rate, mortar cover, steel cylinder, catastrophic • DIP— Wall thickness, corrosion, graphitization • CIP—Age, lead joint failure, graphitization • RCP —Wall thickness, H25 corrosion, cracking • AC —Wall loss • HDPE— Ovality and actual failures • PVC — Ovality and actual failures • Clay - Cracking and load issues (lateral • HDPE —Ovality and thermal expansion control PCCP Failure Mode 1. Overpressure 2. Coating Cracks 3. Wires Exposed to water 4. Wires Corrode & Break 5. Pressure Transferred to Cylinder 6. Core Cracks 7. Cylinder is Exposed to Water 8. Cylinder Corrodes & Fails by Catastrophic Rupture Asset Management— Condition Assessment Technologies Methods We Have Used • Visual Inspection • Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) L.n • Smoke Testing • Dye Testing • Flow Monitoring • CCTV with multi-sensor inspection (laser, sonar, etc) Newer Methods • Sewer Scanning (360 degree CCTV) • Laser Scanning • Sonar Scanning • Electromagnetic (P-Wave crawler used by PURE—PCCP • Smart Ball (leak detection—PURE) • Acoustics (wire breaks) • Magnetic Flux Leakage (corrosion & wall loss in metal pipes) • See Snake (Remote Field Eddy Current) PICA—For metal pipes (DIP, CIP, etc) • Pipe Penetrating Radar (PPR) —non-ferric pipe (conc.) • Electroscan (New Zealand) • Ultrasonic impact echo Trenchless Methods • Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) —Steam, water, UV cured • Aqua Pipe (NSF-6 approved CIPP for waterlines) • Sliplining— FRP, HDPE, fusible PVC, etc. • Danby pipe renovation—Grouted PVC culvert liners • Pipe bursting • Horizontal direction drilling (HDD) • Jack& bore • Quick cure spin-cast polyurea or geopolymer linings • Styrene free resin (Vinylester) for CIPP Regulatory Update—Florence Reynolds Regulatory Direction • EPA is required to review current regulation every six years • EPA conducts studies to determine the need to address new contaminants (UCMR) based on health effects, national occurrence and cost benefit • Regulatory changes are not instantaneous Current Federal Regulatory Changes Total Coliform Rule (April 2016) • Total coliform becomes an indicator • E. Coli public notification is not necessary • Changes non-compliance follow up from notification to "find and fix" Disinfection Byproducts-Regulated and must by measured • Changes compliance from system average to individual location running averages • Adjusted compliance locations to sites that demonstrate system vulnerability Nutrient Regulations Coming • National issues related to nitrification are pushing the need for rules • DEQ is actively pursuing a method for addressing nutrients Water Regulatory Concerns Non-Drinking Water Issues tio crs Herbicide Application • Application of herbicides near or potentially impacting water must be covered under UPDES —permits are regulated UCMR 3 • List of 30 unregulated contaminants (28 chemicals, 2 viruses) • Being tested to obtain National occurrence levels (Chromium 6 is included) • Required of systems > 100,000 population • Costs will be around $65,000 1996 Safe Drinking water Act (SDWA) amendments require that once every five years, EPA issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems (PWSs). This redefines applicability to include PWSs that purchase all of their water. The CCL is a list of contaminants that are not regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations that are known or anticipated to occur at public water systems; and many warrant regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Comments: Allen asked if weather change, less snow, more rain, has an effect on contaminants getting into the water? Florence Reynolds said, not yet. 300 East Slip Lining Project—Bob Sperling Mr. Bob Sperling gave a presentation to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee explaining that the Slip Lining Project extends from 3300 South to 3900 South along 300 East, which extends approximately 4,600 feet. The existing 36 - inch steel pipe was lined with 32-inch Outside Diameter Pipe (O.D.) HDPE Pipe. The HDPE pipe was in lengths of 55 feet which totaled 84 "sticks". The slip lining process consisted of fusing "sticks" together with a fusing machine that was on site. Push-pull pits were excavated and the pipes were pulled into the existing pipe through the pits. Lengths of pipe were then welded together in the pits. Connections were made to the existing lines at 3300 South and 3900 South. Two valve vaults and a manway were also constructed on site. The cost of this project was about $1,000,000. Without the sliplining process this project could have cost approximately $1,800,000. This process not only saves a lot of money, but the completion time is much shorter than for an open cut project. The sliplining process is also much more convenient for the residents and businesses in the area. Meeting Adjourned at 8:50 a) to as a