HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASTER PLAN 2000 WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
',/t
"
L?i
I
'7 ,(, . :; . ,'_ _.__ 'i l. ~,t~ :i' J"(__;
t-H-J' _ E~ 'I --'"1-.,"
M;r.':<. '~'a';, ','~s!:"~t,. "sr. "~~.. r,,~, 8i.~ :B' (":~1\~:,;~;,.~)~~~jf0;.f~\~<I,
<~-' I .i ~ y, ~-,~....; '," F f'- r:- ;'," .(,;~ ',~' ,~ iil i' ,..+--.,,:~
~ '\, ' -\i'" c'~,.': H ",l 1:. .".,1 ',;"j \>~r ~'._, 'c1' )';'
'.. 'of" i.'", 'I' iI,', ", ",' ._..... .' ~,,' 1\" i'/i/ i'~
If) " /,1 J'
/ I }:( I.
,r ,. / \.
= lJj' .Y
l:)~ " rf
,>,
for
Water and~ Wastewate.t;1 System-s
'.I'
,\
T,
'1c
;'-i
,1
AugustaUtijities Depa~J;ll,ent~ ".--
-".....
F_;'i
....~, I
,
I'
I ,\., j
Q CH2MHILL
~
-j
\ 'l,j,-
t .. .
d'
February 2000
~ .:..=..--
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
CH2MHILL
Summary of Recommendations for Expansions and
Improvements
DATE:
February 4, 2000
Contents
Projected Population and Flow Demands .................................................................................1
Population Forecast....................................................................................................................... 2
P opula tion Distribution................................................................................................................ 2
Water Supply and Distribution................................................................................................... 3
Wastewater Treatment ...............................................................................................................1 0
Computerized Maintenance and Management System......................................................... 12
Imp lementa tion Plan .................................................................................................................. 16
Organizational Strategies.......................................................................................................... .18
.
Projected Population and Flow Demands
Augusta's population is expected to increase from the'1998 level of 191,329 to 242,150 by
2020. In addition, many areas of the City are seeing new development as a result of a
shifting population. This growing, shifting population will require the Augusta Utilities
Department (AUD) to expand service to new areas and to increase water production and
wastewater treatment. Water production needs are projected to increase from 57.7 million
gallons per day (mgd) (maximum day) to between 74.6 and 77.0 mgd (maximum day),
depending upon level of conservation achieved1. Wastewater flows to be treated will vary
with the level of conservation attained and also with the development pattern of the
County. Table 1 summarizes the maximum month flows, by wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) through 2020.
TABLE 1
Summary of Wastewater Flows, by WWTP, annual average and m~imum month (mgd)
Plant 1998 2000 2010 2020
Spirit Creek (Capacity: 3.0 mgd) 3.0 3.2 6.2 8.6
Maximum Month Flows 3.6 3.8 7.5 10.3
J. B. Messerly (Capacity: 46.1 mgd) 30.7 ,. 32.7 36.6 38.9
Maximum Month Flows 36.8 39.2 44.0 46.7
Total WWTP Flows 33.7 35.9 42.9 47.5
Maximum Month Flows 40.4 43.0 51.4 57.0
Maximum month flows are estimated as 120 percent of annual flow.
Assume declining urban population and an increasing population in suburban and rural areas.
.
1 Fort Gordon is not included in the study area for this Technical Memorandum. Water and wastewater demands at Fort
Gordon are met by on-base facilities and not included in the discussion of demands for Augusta.
P:\152572\DEUVERABLES\RECCOMMEND.DOC
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
From 1980 to 1990, the total population of Augusta-Richmond County (Augusta) grew by
only 4.5 percent, from 181,629 to 189,719. Since 1990, the population has increased by only
1,610 persons (0.8 percent). Over the 1997 to 1998 period, it was estimated that Augusta lost
433 persons. Despite the slowing growth, Augusta ranks seventh in the State in terms of
total population, only behind five Metropolitan Atlanta counties (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb,
Gwinnett, and Clayton) and Savannah's Chatham County. While the growth rate of
Augusta as a whole has slowed significantly, growth within the city has varied widely.
Population Forecast
Several population projections have been developed for Augusta, and are presented in
Technical Memorandum (TM) 1.2. The projection recommended for use in forecasting water
and wastewater flows is based on the high forecast presented in the Augusta-Richmond
County Comprehensive l.Jlnd Use Plan. Table 2 summarizes the population forecast through
2020.
TABLE 2
Population Forecasts
Forecast
Master Plan Basis
1990 (estimate)
189,719
2000 (projected)
204,439
7.8
2010 (projected)
222,497
8.8
2020 (projected)
242,150
8.8
Percent Cl)ange
.
The recommended forecast uses the 2000 and 2010 high projections developed by the
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission as part of the Augusta-Richmond County
Comprehensive l.Jlnd Use Plan. The 2020 projection is extrapolated based on the expected
percentage change between 2000 and 2010. This projection was chosen as a basis for this
Master Plan because it reflects the Planning Commission's own vision and, based on the
2000 estimate, appears to provide a balance between the 1998 building permit estimate and
Census estimate. The use of the somewhat higher projection will also help ensure that the
Utilities Department will have adequate resources to support future growth.
.
Population Distribution
The shift of population within the County from developed areas, which have the
infrastructure in place to support the water and wastewater demands of the population, to
undeveloped areas, which were previously unserved~ presents many challenges to the water
and wastewater utilities. The two population distribution scenarios prepared for the Master
Plan are designed to present the utility with a rang~ of potential growth patterns. However,
it is highly unlikely that the pattern of growth over the next two decades will follow either
of these scenarios exactly. While growth is affected by factors that the AUD cannot directly
control, such as growth in adjacent counties and the health of the Metropolitan Statistical
Area's (MSA) economy, the pattern of population distribution that ultimately occurs will be
heavily influenced by the vision of the local government.
The two development scenarios generate different patterns of growth and population
distribution within the planning area. Detailed results of the modeling for each scenario are
included in a separate TM. The equal proportion growth scenario, Scenario 1, maintains the
current population distribution (population share) through 2020. Currently, population
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLES\RECCOMMEND.DOC
2
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
trends vary widely throughout Augusta. Under this scenario, growth would have to slow
dramatically in some areas, increase in others, and, in many tracts, reverse trends of
decreasing population. None-the-Iess, this scenario may somewhat represent growth
patterns that could occur if infill development was actively encouraged.
Scenario 2 represents a continuation of the current trend towards the low-density
development of previously undeveloped properties. This model focuses growth in the
City's southern Census tracts and Tract 102.04 in the BelAir Neighborhood Planning Area
(NP A). Augusta should expect the future distribution of population to be reflected in this
scenario as a continuation of current trends and is the basis of the Master Plan projections.
Water Supply and Distribution
System improvements will be discussed based on short and long term needs. The short term
recommendations are aimed at solving current pressure and storage problems. Long term
improvements are aimed at maintaining adequate supply to meet future demands,
modifications to the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant and potential additional sources of
supply.
.
Water Supply by 2003
Based on recent water samples results and ground water level, the Georgia Environmental
ProtectioI). Division (GAEPD), has indicated that the AUO should consider removing GW
Plant No.1 from service. The GAEPD has indicated similar concerns about GW Plant No.2.
In order to ensure adequate supply capacity, the shott term improvements will be based on
the following anticipated sources of supply that will be available by 2003 (Table 3). A
detailed evaluation and recommended improvements to the Highland Avenue Filtration
Plant is presented in a separate TM.
TABLE 3
Water Supply 2003
Water Supply by 2003 :Capacity (mgd)
Highland Avenue WTP 60
Highland Avenue Raw Water PS 60
Groundwater Treatment Plant No.3 5
Groundwater Treatment Plant NO.4 5
Total System Capacity 70
Total Estimated Cost $M.3 M
GWTP No. 1 well field deactivated. Use as re-pump of additionat~upply from Highland WTP.
GWTP NO.2 well field will be used as supplemental supply.
In Service by
2003
2003
2000
2001
.
If the GAEPD requires the AUD to remove GW Plant No.1 from service, additional supply
capacity will have to be provided from the Plant to the 417 feet gradient and to refill the
Faircrest and Golden Camp tanks. Adequacy of the existing piping capacity from the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant to supplement the loss of GW Plant No.1 is not known.
Limited supply capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant can potentially reduce
the useable volume of the existing clearwells at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant or will
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
.
require the AUD to lower the operating water levels in the existing elevated tanks which
will lower the system pressure. If the AUD chooses to use GW Plant No.1 as are-pumping
station, piping modifications to the GW Plant No.1, and the addition of pressure sustaining
valve on the suction piping to minimize reduction in system pressure will be required. The
supply capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant and the impact of taking the GW
Plant No.1 out of service cannot be determined till further modeling is completed.
The AUD has already identified several distribution system improvements that are needed
to maintain adequate system pressure, improve reliability and operating conditions. A
detailed list of system improvements is presented in the attached Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP). Near future major system improvements should be finalized based on detailed
hydraulic analysis. The following list of recommendations to improve current pressure and
operational difficulties represents some of the more immediate needs.
1. Install20-inch main and storage facility along Tobacco Road to improve pressure and
storage in the Tobacco Road area- Currently Under construction
2. Provide additional supply capacity to the Tobacco Road area from the Faircrest Storage
and Pump Station (Estimated Cost = $0.8 M)
3. Improve hydraulic capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant to the 417-foot
service area -Complete Central Connector (Estimated Cost = $3.3 M). Connector final
route should be based on computer modeling, reliability and the recommended location
of the future water treatment plant.
4. Improve supply capacity to the west part of system (Estimated Cost = $1.71 M).
5. The AUD previous plans to add a 16-inch main along Doug Bernard Parkway should be
re-evaluated to improve hydraulic capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant
(Estimated Cost = 1.2 M).
6. Evaluate the feasibility of retro-fitting the existing 18-inch raw water line to finished
water in order to improve the supply capacity to the 417-foot service area north of the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant. Evaluation should include at a minimum the overall
condition, age, and pressure rating of the existing lines (Estimated Cost = $0.1 M).
7. Improve supply distribution from Ground Water Plant No.3 (Estimated Cost =
$0.325 M). .
8. Improve supply distribution from Ground Water Plant No.4 (Estimated Cost = $1.58 M)
9. Combine areas south of Tobacco Road into one 521-foot pressure gradient. A review of
the existing pressure gradients in the southempart of the System indicated that the 457-
foot and 521-foot service areas can be combined mto the 521-foot gradient with little
modifications to the system. Elimination of one pressure gradient will allow
streamlining the operation of the almost the entire area south of Tobacco Road into one
pressure gradient. This would simplify the operation of GW Plant No.2 and the
proposed GW Plants No.3 and No.4. Some of the existing storage tanks can be either
retired due to small volume (Pine Hill 0.3 MG @457 feet) and negligible impact on the
system or can be retrofitted with booster pump stations (Rose Hill 2 MG @417feet,
Brown Road Tank 1 MG @417 feet, and Hwy 57 @457 feet).
.
P:\152572\DELlVERABLES\RECCOMMEND.DOC
4
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
10. The AUD is currently planning on adding a pumped storage facility for the Tobacco
Road area. The pumped storage will ensure adequate storage capacity to pump to the
Tobacco Road during high demands. In addition, to the pumped storage it is
recommended that additional elevated storage be provided at the Tobacco Road The use
of elevated storage will provide the required equalization volume and fire protection for
the Tobacco Road area by gravity. Final storage volume and location can be determined
based on computer modeling.
Water Supply by 2008
In order to meet projected water demands and to allow for future removal of ground water
plants, and to supplement the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant capacity, several
alternatives for additional sources of supply were reviewed with the AUD and is
summarized in Table 4. The final capacity of the additional source will be a function of how
the GAEPD will allow the AUD to utilize GW Plants No.3 and No.4. The recommended
capacity is based on assuming that the AUD will be allowed to utilized GW Plants No.3 and
No.4 only. GW Plants No.1 and No.2 are assumed to be used for re-pumping stations.
TABLE 4
Water Supply 2008
.
Water Supply
Water Treatment Capacity 2003
Capacity (mgd)
70
In Service by
New Water Treatment Plan
10
10
80
$32.5 M
2008
2008
New Raw Water Intake and PS
Total System Capacity
Total Estimated Cost
GWTP No.2 well field as supplementary supply.
GWTP Pump Station used as Re-pump for New WTP
.
Development of a new plant will require evaluation and selection of optimum raw water
source and treatment plant location, a source water assessment, watershed assessment and
other related permitting support. To allow the new facilities to begin operations as
scheduled these tasks must be started as soon as funds are available.
Four alternate intake locations for water supply have been identified as a part of the Master
Planning effort. -"-,
. Alternative I: River raw water source using river bank infiltration (vertical wells or
Ranney wells east of Tobacco Road).
. Alternative II: River raw water intake directly from the Savannah River. GAEPD has
indicated concerns with a river location downstream of industrial development along
the river due to potential contamination. Therefore, an intake upstream of the current
industries is recommended for consideration.
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
5
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
. Alternative III: Locate the raw water intake just upstream of Interstate 20 on the
Savannah River.
. Alternative IV: Evaluate the feasibility of constructing an intake on the Canal similar to
the existing intake. This will allow the AUD to utilize turbines to drive raw water
pumps to the proposed Plant.
Table 5 lists benefits and concerns associated with each alternative.
TABLE 5
Proposed Sources of Supply for New Water Treatment Plant
.
Alternative Benefits Concerns
Alternative I - River . Reduces/eliminates impact of current . Ground water allocation
Bank Infiltration and future water quality regulations . GW contamination
. Consistent raw water quality . Well head protection
. Lower treatment cost . Adequate capacity
. Proximity to two potential locations of . GAEPD permitting
future treatment plants
Alternative II - River . Adequate safe yield . Feasibility due to lack of river front
Intake at Augusta . Separate source from the Canal space
. Contamination due to upstream
discharge
. Cost of raw water oioeline
Alternative III - River . Upstream of development and Industry . Length of raw water line and
Intake Upstream of . Adequate yield impact on cost
Interstate 20 . Withdrawal permit not an issue . Proximity to potential future plant
. Potential tie in to neighboring counties locations
Alternative IV- Canal . Potential expansion of the existing . Same source of supply for both
Intake station plants
. Potential use of the existing raw water . Adequate safe yield
lines . Length and feasibility of raw water
. Extensive knowledge in treatment of line to future plant
the raw water source
.
Potential locations of the future plant are determined based on anticipated need to meet
future demands, ability to supplement the loss of the existing ground water facilities and
support of distribution system. The following is a list of recommended locations of the
proposed treatment plant:
. Alternative 1: Locate the proposed Plant to the 'South of Tobacco Road area to
supplement areas currently supplied by the GW Plant No.2 and the proposed GW
Plants No.3 and No.4.
. Alternative 2: Locate north of Tobacco Road this will allow the use of finished water
mains to supplement the Highland Avenue Filtr~tion Plant. This alternative would be
considered if the AUD chooses Intake Alternatives IV or II listed above.
. Alternative 3: Fort Gordon and Bobby Jones Expressway Vicinity.
. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 - Adjacent to Intake Alternative III.
Table 6 lists benefits and concerns associated with these alternatives.
TABLE 6
New Water Treatment Plant Location Alternatives
P:\ 152572\DEUVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
6
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative Benefits Concerns
Alternative 1 - Tobacco . Allows new Plant to supplement potential . Space availability
Road in the Vicinity of loss of GW NO.1 and NO.2 . Transmission main to deliver
GW Plant No.2 . Supplements flow from the Highland Plant flow to system
. Can feed directly into a separate pressure
gradient for Tobacco Road Area
. Will allow AUD to direct more flow to the
northem part of the system from the
Highland Avenue Plant
. Proximity to two intake altematives
. Can be used to supplements the areas to
be served bv GW No.3 and NO.4.
Alternative 2 - East of . Allows new Plant to supplement system . Space availability
GW No.1 demands north of GW Plant No.2 . Transmission main to the
. Supplements flow from the Highland Plant system
. Will allow AUD to direct more flow to the . Transmission main to deliver
northem high elevation areas from the flow to system
Highland Avenue Plant
. Proximity to two intake alternatives
Alternative 3- Fort . Supplements flow from the Highland . Limited to one intake option
Gordon and Bobby Avenue Filtration Plant . Length of raw water piping
Jones Expressway . Proximity to the Tobacco Road area . Transmission main to deliver
Vicinity flow to system
Alternative 4 - Adjacent . Proximity to Alternative III intake location . Length of raw water line
to Intake Alternative III . Proximity to neighboring county for . Growth in the southern
potential portion of the system
. Does not supplement existing
ground water plants supply
. Transmission main to deliver
flow to system
Water Supply by 2020
Year 2020 improvements are aimed at meeting maximum day demands of 80 mgd and will
be a function of the improvements implemented earlier. It is anticipated that the major
component of 2020 improvements will consist of expanding the proposed new plant to a
capacity of 20 mgd, and any distribution system improvements that are needed to meet
system demands. Table 71ists water supply sources for 2020.
TABLE 7
Water Supply 2020
Water Supply 2020
Est. Cost
Expansion
In Service by
Capacity mgd
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant (Raw Water PS)
New Surface Water Intake
New Water Treatment Plant
Distribution System Improvements
Total Rated Capacity
Total Estimated Cost
$3M
$2M
$10M
$15.6M
In service
2020
2020
i 60
20'\,
20*
80
$30.6M
GWTP Nos. 3 & 4 will be used as supplemental supply vs. primary supply.
This will eliminate reliance on groundwater supply,
*Modular system increased in capacity based upon projected needs.
P:\152572\DEUVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
7
.
.
...
c
c (I)
0 E
-- (I)
...
::s (.)
.c I..
-- 0
I.. ~
... C
o __
-- (I)
Oct
I..
(I) E
"'(1)
(0...
. 3:0
~
U)
1~;~~'~h.;
Q "{*~~~~k,
~ "lEWd
a::E ,.:,:.".;.;,,;-;-;-
~ ~ ;1~~~~;t~j:'~mM:m1~~Q;::.,
ca CD rI~~J~~J{~~~~f~~~~~;~~~~~~~J~~;~t~:~;._,
~ ~ .:~~1~~~:i~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~i~~ii~~:s:,
i~ ,I'illt,,],
':q~~i~i:if~~~itl~~tl:~~~~~I:~i~li.~:l:l~:;i:~t~:~!~i~~i~j~!:~i!~~;~1~1~i~~l
~",'"''.'..,'''...'.'.'.',......,~...'.'.'..,'.'i''...'.'^''',.,....,..........'..,...,.,.,...,....'.....~......,-~...-'^............,
~;.::~l~~r~~}t~tt~ftt?~~~~~~~~~~~i~f~~f~rt~~;~~}~i~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~g~1~~~~~~~i~~~~
, .~::::::: ~::::~::: ::::~~;::::::: ;::~ ::: ~ ~::::~::::::~~::;. ::;:: ~~:: ::::~ ::;:: ~:;:~::: :;::;~:;;~~:.:~:::::~: ::.:: (::~:~::::~
".-,. :::~;::..:~:~::::::':;::::;:~~:~:~~:;t~~:~;~:;:~~;~;.~~:~ :;:::,~::t;:~~~s~~;:~;:~~:;:~;~t~:;:~:~*~~;:~~:~~~~
";:;!~~r~..~jjll;!I~!lj\i1~.;~i~iJl~;:II~!II~I~~~~:ltir~~~~ill~il.I~~~)~-
'!W"!iiitie~t
':~g:;:~:~: :~{:~:~~~~~~:~~~~~;~:i ~:~:~~:;~:~8~::,::~
~', ~'~h~~~B~~~~:~::~~~:~~~~:~~:1~~~;~~~~i~:...
-. ::: r:::::j;:.i.;.:l:jii;~f:~;~~~~l~:~::~:'
.- .~~:~:~~:~::::;~:~:~:V
.>:;~;~J~~f~'
''':',',,1'".
.
=
lIII:t
=*I:
t:
o
~;
"as
(,)
o
...J
~
s
,.!;;
-
t:
.!!
c.
-
t:
... U) as
C c.
ca (1)
- >
a.. .-
...
... ca
c c
(1) ~
E (1)
...
... -
ca <C
(1) c
~
I- 0
.-
. ~ ...
(1) ca
... (.)
ca 0
~ ..J
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
. Wastewater Treatment
To meet the planning period loadings and regulatory treatment requirements the
J.B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) requires significant improvement. This
will result in increased treatment capacity from the addition of new facilities, maximized
use of existing plant components, and increase the level of reliability in meeting stringent
effluent limits.
The following summarizes improvements detailed in TM 5.1 and are listed in their
recommended order of implementation.
Solids Handling System
1. At a minimum, add a second GBT and increase thickened sludge transfer capacity. The
two thickeners should have the capacity to thicken all of the primary sludge and waste
activated sludge produced during a maximum week loading condition.
2. Repair and rehabilitate digesters. Replace valves and piping. Rebuild sludge heaters and
upgrade controls. Replace recirculation and transfer pumps. Replace gas mixing system.
Clean out accumulated grit and solids from digesters. This activity is currently
underway, therefore costs are not included.
3. Rehabilitate the centrifuges; upgrade backdrives for high solids output.
4. Reroute the GBT filtrate and centrifuge centrate to one of the equalization basins. Add a
transfer pumping station and piping. Modify equalization inlet and outlet piping to
accommodate filtrate/ centrate and feed back into plant for treatment.
5. Replace digester control system.
Secondary System
1. Add additional aeration basin volume. The plant is currently at aeration basin capacity.
An additional 5 MG of aeration basin volume will provide sufficient capacity through
year 2010. At that time an additional 5.6 MG may need to be added to meet year 2020
requirements. The additional aeration basin volume will also require modifications to
the plant flow splitting scheme, yard piping (both liquid and air), and controls.
2. Upgrade existing aeration basins. Both North and South Plant aeration basins need
rehabilitation. Flow splitting needs to be replaced with a more positive means such as
weirs. The diffused aeration systems need to be either rehabilitated or replaced.
3. Replace aeration blowers. The blowers at each plant should be replaced and upgraded.
An additional 8,700 scfm of blower capacity needs to be added to match the additional
aeration basin capacity for year 2010 conditions, and 9,700 scfm of blower capacity
should be added in 2010 to meet year 2020 conditions. In addition to the blowers, the
blower control systems should be replaced, and the blower buildings should be
upgraded including new HV AC systems, lights, and air inlet louvers.
4. The secondary clarifier mechanisms should be replaced at both plants, including the
drive mechanisms and gear box, center column, flocculation well, effluent weirs and
. troughs (as applicable). They should be replaced with new higher capacity components.
-
P:\152572\DELlVERABLESlRECCOMMEND.DOC
10
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
5. The waste activated sludge (WAS) and return activated sludge (RAS) pumps have met
or exceeded their useful life and should be replaced as a part of a larger secondary
system upgrade. The new pumps should be supplied with variable frequency drives
(VFDs) and flow meters. The secondary clarifier RAS /W AS piping needs to be modified
so that pumps can be dedicated to specific clarifiers.
Effluent Disinfection
Replacement of the effluent disinfection system is recommended more from a safety
perspective rather than as a capacity-related issue. It is recommended that the gas
chlorination system be replaced with a liquid sodium hypochlorite disinfection system.
Primary Treatment
1. Replace primary clarifier collector drives, mechanisms, and wear shoes. Replace cross
collectors.
2. Replace scum collectors and scum pump stations.
3. Replace primary sludge pumps. They have exceeded their useful life and should be
replaced.
4. Repair leaking construction joints.
5. Repair primary sludge box (valves and drainage).
Electrical and Control Systems
1. Replace existing plant monitoring system with a new system that will provide positive
. monitoring and remote control capability for plant staff.
2. Replace and relocate exterior MCCs into buildings.
3. Update flow measurement devices. Many existing flow measurement devices are out of
service and should be repaired or replaced. Additional flow measurement devices are
needed for flow streams that should be measured for process control but are not
currently measured. Flow meters should be tied back into the new plant control system.
4. Add specific unit process control package systems such as flow proportional control of
RAS pumps (with new VFDs), dissolved oxygen set point control of aeration blowers,
automatic primary scum removal, and automatically coordinate operation of grit
removal system components.
Preliminary Treatment
1. Replace drives and bar racks on mechanical bar screens. Replace screenings conveyor
with higher capacity unit.
2. Add a second access point to top of grit basins. Replace corroded gate hardware.
3. Replace grit basin mechanisms, grit pumping system and grit piping.
4. Replace grit classifiers and conveyors.
5. Rehabilitate scum strainer.
.
P:\152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
11
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
Miscellaneous Improvements
Virtually all of the plant doors and handrail need to be replaced because of corrosion. The
plant air system needs to be upgraded. The laboratory fume hood and walk-in incubator
need replacement.
Upgrade Original Influent Pumping Station
It is our understanding that the City intends to rehabilitate the original influent pumping
station so that it can serve as a backup facility to the new influent pumping station. If the
original station is to be rehabilitated, then the four pumps need to rebuilt, the valves and
sump pump need to be rehabilitated, and the HV AC, lighting, and stair rails need to be
replaced. The pumping station has severe concrete corrosion in the vicinity of the original
wet well; this area of the station should be evaluated by a structural engineer. Because of
uncertainty as to whether this cost item will become a capital project, costs are not provided.
.
Wastewater Conveyance
The existing collection system has generally been developed to serve major drainage basins
discharging to the J. B. Messerly and Spirit Creek wastewater treatment plants. TM 5.2
addresses the wastewater conveyance facilities Table 8 summarizes the recommended
improvements. However, a few key issues should be noted.
Because of the long service history of the system, the conveyance system piping includes a
wide variety of materials including clay/brick, concrete and PVc. This has and will
continue to create significant problems in the maintenance of the system. In a recent system
evaluation of the Spirit/Butler/Rocky Creek Basins major infiltration/inflow (1/1) has been
identified. Also, a major portion of the Butler Creek interceptor sewer was found to be in
need of replacement. It is anticipated that similar problems will be encountered in most
other basins of the system. For this reason budget has been allocated for both 1/1 and sewer
line rehabilitation throughout the entire planning period. In addition to the existing system
improvements, individual segment expansions have been identified. This includes the
previously defined unsewered pockets and other locations needing additional sewerage.
Finally, to meet the population growth projections two major expansion projects have been
defined, the Little Spirit Creek Basin system and the extended Butler Creek and Rae's Creek
Basins service areas.
TABLE 8
Conveyance System and Special Projects
Project
Unsewered Pockets*
Sewer Line Extensions ($1.5M/yr.)
Rehabilitation - III Reduction ($2.4M/yr.)
Butler Creek Interceptor Improvements
Butler Creek Interceptor Extension
Butler I Rae's Creek Collector Expansion
Little Spirit Collector System
Conveyance System and Special Projects
Estimated Cost
$19.1M
$7.5M
$ 13.4M
$5.2M
$4.0M
$ .75M
$4.3M
$13.0M
Total $67.3M
.
* Approximately $6.4/yr for 3 years.
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
12
.
.
.
. .'-. ,......,~.'-"....
-,;;::::~:~~~~~~~~:?~:~~~~;,
t~:r~:;~~;:~~?}~:.~:r:~:~~~:~t:~ ,. ~
~~{ ~:~:~i:j~~i':~;: ~;~:~;~:;~:::;;~~~:~:}~::::;:
,<~:~[.il~1~~~~~~~1<~~:~tlll~I~~!.iIM!ji~:~):~.,.
'::~[:~mnm@tir::~:;:wmm~m]1:::~:W~:j~b~;~,;<;....,.
..........'...",., ,'........"..,>w.'.".....";,,,'",w.,..;.... 2,."",...,.,.........,..;.,.,,,,,,.,..w..;w,.,
.::~~::;):;:::g:::::;~;~:,:::{:;:~:::;:::;:~~:;:::::t:::2h;.:.::~:;:~:~:::::~,~,~?~;:f::;:::~::w;m.
:;:~::~:.[il~i~~~:~~~~:~~!~i1~~:ji[~;Jl:!.~i~::~:~j:l~~l~~@:::I~f.:::~i;r~~~:jmlrJ~~~~,
;:;\:;~~~:~~~t:~~.!;.j~;~~f;::[;':~~~~!li:l:~~i::1~:f:.~~ili,lfJ~:~ll~l!i~~~:;t.
:,~..;~~{:~~:~~::i:~;i;~g~:~ :::.::i:i;~t~~~;~~:~:;:~:~;:}~;~:.;.:~;;:~::;;~:~:~~:~:~~~':~:::~;j:~{~~~
"'~::;~~:~~:~:~~:~:~:~~~:~:~:~~:~;1:;~:~~i:::~:~:~~~~~~:~~~~~:~;i:~:~:~:1:~:1.:~~::;:'::::.~~:;;t:.
:-:.;.;.:.: .:.:.; .;.:. :.;.;.: .;.~<.;.;.; -: ': .;.;.:,;.;.;. ;:.:.: .:-~.:.;.:. ;,;. ;.: .:.:-- :.;.~ ,;.
..'..~......'.'.._..'....................,'_..-'.....'~'.~.,...........,'...'.....'......
'.:~::::j::;~;~;~~~~~g~:~i;~~~;~~:~::~{~;~~;~t~;~:~~;~:~~~~~:~~;i;~:::~;~~;.~{& '"'"..~
...'_...~..:.'''A..n.._;..-~.'.............,.~.''./',..~_..V......."..,~..................~..,....'.y,..-A...."~.-<
.' ::\:::~!...:,!~I'.i~lt[~~:::.~~:.!;!:r!~],~~~I~.I~~..~l~~~~;~I~~lii~i;.
'i{!ff1j~l,r
. -, ........~'.....'~'<
-......'......"..,.....-."..,....-
'.', '................~.~..;
"', ".,..._~......~.......
.......'............
'.V,'.','
.",;.>~;
,-;.:-:
.
.
tn
c: ~
0 ~
--
tn (!)
c: ...
Q) ~
...
>< 0,'_,- .'.
w
Q)
c:
--
..J
1-
Q)
. ~
Q)
en
.
.
~
CJ) c
CJ) 0
... .-
00
... C
CJ) ca
-Co
- ><
~W
:-:.::.
.,...,.>>
....,.:
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Computerized Maintenance and Management System
As part of the Master Plan, the AUD explored the potential use of information systems to
facilitate the management of the water distribution system, sewer collection system, water
filter plant, ground water plants, and pump stations. The results of this was the clear
definition of need (see TM 6.1 for details on the Needs Assessment) and preparation and
implementation of the Computerized Maintenance and Management System (CMMS) plan.
Implementation Plan
The successful implementation of the CMMS hinges on two things: 1) proper management
of the implementation activities and 2) the commitment from staff. With this in mind, the
organization chart below illustrates the recommended structure of the CMMS
Implementation Team. The organization shown in Figure 1 is intended to promote
communication between management, technical, and operations staff and the software
vendor so that Utilities Department and other County staff develop a sense of ownership of
the CMMS.
Advisory
Committee
PROJECT
MANAGER
I
Vendor Project
Manager
I
I
I
I
I
Technical
Team
Business
Function
Redesign Team
Training Team
Data Conversion
Team
Figure 1. Implementation Team Organization
Descriptions of the key positions are as follows:
· Project Manager: The AUD should assign a management staff to the project manager
role and expect that person to contribute, on average, 50 percent of their time to the
project. This person will be responsible for communicating to the advisory committee
the progress of the implementation. The project manager will also manage the CMMS
vendor contract, including payment schedules and milestones, to ensure tasks are being
completed per the scope of work.
. Advisory Committee: The Advisory Committee should be comprised of at least four
management staff: one from senior management, two from operations, and one from
engineering. This group should meet on a two-week basis for the first two months of the
project and on a monthly basis for the duration of the implementation and should expect
to commit two to four hours per meeting. Responsibilities of the committee include:
- Developing and promoting governance of the CMMS
P:1152572IDELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
16
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
Making executive decisions to resolve personnel, management, cost, schedule, and
technical issues as they arise
Providing the guidance and oversight to ensure successful completion of the project
Vendor Project Manager: Developing a strong relationship with the vendor will be
critical to the success of the project. To nurture the relationship the vendor should
identify a qualified integrator of the CMMS software package as the Vendor Project
Manager. This person will work closely with project team members in a supervisory
capacity. Because the AUD does not have the depth of knowledge of the CMMS
software package or CMMS experience, the Vendor Project Manager should provide
routine guidance to the Project Manager.
Technical Team: The Technical Team will deal with the information technology aspects
of the project. This will include software, hardware, and peripheral procurement,
implementation, and administration. The team should be comprised of at least one
vendor staff, a County Geographical Information Sytem (GIS) analyst, and one to two
County Information Technology (IT) staff.
Initially, the GIS analyst will work with the vendor staff person to understand the
technique used to integrate the GIS with the CMMS. Both will also need to dedicate
some time to the data conversion effort to ensure that any relevant data being collected
comply with the County's GIS data standards. This will minimize redundant data
conversion efforts and could potentially expedite tasks already planned as part of the
GIS project.
The County IT staff will act in a supporting role to the vendor staff person throughout
the project. One of the IT staff will become the designated CMMS database
administrator and application support person once the project is complete. Activities
that these staff will be involved in include:
.
Gathering and documenting network information
Enhancing the network infrastructure to support the CMMS
Installing and testing software, hardware, and peripherals
Implementing backup and recovery procedures
Implementing software support procedures
Configuring and administering the client-server database
· Data Conversion Team: The Data Conversion Team should be comprised of one vendor
staff, one management staff, and at least one support staff. The vendor staff will work
with the management staff to verify the prioritization of data to be converted and
QA/QC the effort. The support staff will assist in physically collecting the data to be
converted and will assist in data entry tasks. The vendor staff should provide basic
guidance in converting the data and may decide to involve the Technology Team in data
massaging, systems integration, and data migration. Based on staff availability, the
vendor staff and management staff may need to retain, with the approval of the
Advisory Committee, the services of a contractor to provide data conversion services.
· Business Function Redesign Team: The Business Function Redesign Team will be
responsible for holding workshops with management, operations, and support staff to
identify, discuss, and document the impacts to the current methods for conducting day-
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
17
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
to-day activities. The team will consist of one vendor staff and one management staff.
The vendor staff will facilitate the workshops and the management staff will use their
knowledge of the AUD's business functions to ensure that major impacts are identified
and discussed. The team will also be responsible for overseeing the implementation of
the redesigned business functions and refining them as needed.
Training Team: The training team will consist of at least one vendor staff and one IT
staff. The IT staff will assist in preparing the County computer training room. The
vendor staff will be responsible for preparing all training materials and conducting the
training sessions.
.
.
Schedule
The approach is a phased one that prioritizes the rollout of the CMMS based on types of
assets and is comprise of the following tasks:
1. Project Management: This task consists of general project management meetings.
2. Phase 1, Wastewater Assets: This task includes activities to obtain the necessary
hardware and software, software training, application set-up, data preparation and
deployment activities that will enable the Utilities Department to make use of the
CMMS' wastewater maintenance management functions.
3. Phase 2, Water Assets: This task is similar to Phase 1 but concentrates on making use of
the CMMS' water maintenance management functions. The integration of the GIS with
the CMMS is included within this task due to the fact that Water GIS coverages have
already been developed.
4. Phase 3, Pump Station: This task consists of implementing a standalone version of the
CMMS' facilities functions at the main Pump Station.
5. Phase 4, Other Facilities: This task consists of implementing a standalone version of the
CMMS' facilities functions at the Filter Plant and a separate one at the Groundwater
Treatment Plant.
.
Organizational Strategies
One of the defining characteristics of the AUD is that as the "combined system" it has
become a fundamentally different service provider than it was as two separate systems only
a few years ago-with greater responsibilities and a much larger customer base. This type of
change has impacted both its internal operations and its external image before customers
and third-party investors.
The Financial Analysis section analyzes AUD's projected financial performance and
indicates that AUD can be positioned to generate sufficient revenues to support
operations and Capital Improvement debt service for the next 10 years.
The assumptions, calculations, and caveats built into this forecast are outlined in depth in
that section. However, the forecast will contain three critical underlying assumptions:
· The AUD will be able to effectively continue the transition from two separate systems-
both operationally and administratively-to ensure uninterrupted, quality service;
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
18
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
· The AUD will be able to sufficiently manage growth-both operationally and
administratively-to ensure successful expansion and uninterrupted service; and
· The AUD intends for water and wastewater operations to be self-supporting.
Expansion/ growth management is a common problem for public and private sector entities
alike. Many companies have experienced skyrocketing growth through mergers and/ or
acquisition, only to become overwhelmed by the changing needs and challenges of larger
enterprises. Thus, implementation of successful growth management is critical.
To develop organizational improvements in AUD and to provide for overall enhancement
of the department to support growth several steps are recommended. The recommended
approach combines a significant level of involvement and participation from AUD
personnel along with direct involvement from members of the consultant staff. This
approach is outlined in a separate TM and includes development of the following three
elements:
· Operations and Maintenance Manuals / Standard Operating Procedures
· Technical, Engineering and Operations Evaluation
. Business Plan
Program Management
The implementation of this Master Plan will require expansion of your Program
Management Team. Many of the recommended projects will need to be initiated
concurrently, with a few requiring critically tight schedules. Program management enables
AUD to focus on those projects, delivering design and construction of each closely
coordinated to meet their unique requirements.
Program Management is customized to meet your specific requirements but typically
includes the following scope of services:
· Conceptual design
. Value engineering
. Regulatory compliance assistance
· Development of funding strategies, including grant application assistance
· Development of public involvement programs
· Design and construction management assistance
· Quality assurance
. Facility startup and training
· Cost and schedule development and monitoring
The Program Management team's basic responsibility is to ensure that all aspects of the
AUD's responsibilities are addressed with regard to their water and wastewater capital
improvements programs.
As is the case now under the current 1997 Bond Program the Program Management team
would include AUD's staff. This integration of your staff on the team ensures that AUD
retains the valuable history of the program and serves as an excellent training opportunity
for AUD staff.
P:1152572IDELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
19
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
Program Management Options
Within the framework of Program Management, various design and construction projects
can be implemented. The project delivery approaches include a spectrum of options
presented in Figure 2.
Traditional
Delivery
Partnering Construction CM at Risk
Management
(CM)
.~
Design/Build
Privatization
Figure 2. Water Industry Project Delivery Options
.
Traditional Project Delivery
The traditional design-bid-build method of project delivery has been widely used
throughout the United States for more than a century. It is a proven method of project
Figure 3. Traditional Project Delivery Organization delivery to which consulting
engineers, suppliers, and general
construction and trade contractors
have become accustomed. Figure 3
illustrates the contractual
arrangement between an owner,
general contractor, and engineer on a
traditionally delivered project. No
contractual relationship exists
between the engineer and contractor
during construction; the lack of such
relationships, more often than not,
has led to problems during the
construction phase of the project.
Owner
Engineer
General
Contractor
Further, with this delivery method, there normally is no general construction contractor
input regarding constructability and cost issues during design. Therefore, the design often
does not reflect the most cost-effective construction approach. From a timing perspective,
the traditional method of project delivery is the most time-consuming option.
.
Partnering
Partnering is a concept in which the owner, engineer, and contractor agree to work as a
team. Often, partnering is not incorporated as a formal contractual commitment, but rather
as an informal agreement usually embodied in a "partnering charter" or similar document.
The intent of partnering is to get the team to focus on the objective of the project, to
understand each other's goals for the assignment, and to resolve issues as they unfold. The
Corps of Engineers and the Business Roundtable were early promoters of partnering, a
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLES\RECCOMMEND. DOC
20
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
.
concept that is now used throughout the United States, primarily for traditionally delivered
assignments. Partnering can be combined with other options.
Construction Management
Construction management is similar to the traditional method of project delivery in that all
the design documents are prepared and bid to trade subcontractors and suppliers.
However, the construction manager-instead of the general contractor-functions as the
overall coordinator of construction.
With this alternative, the construction manager does not take cost or project delivery risks
normally taken by a general contractor. These project risks are retained by the owner,
although the expectation of most owners is that the project will be constructed on budget
and within the time constraints associated with the project delivery contract. To the owner,
this usually results in cost savings compared to the fee that would have been charged by the
general contractor performing a similar function.
Normally, the design engineer is either contracted directly by the owner (Figure 3) or is
under a direct subcontract as a team member with the construction management firm. If the
Figure 4. Organization of Construction Management Project Delivery Method
I
I Owner I
I
I
Construction Partnering
Manager
I
I I
Suppliers Trade
Subcontractors
.
Engineer
engineer separately contracts with the owner as illustrated in Figure 4, it is advantageous to
extend a partnering "umbrella" over the two firms in an effort to form a teaming
relationship.
Having a single point of accountability is appealing to many owners desiring one
responsible party for the total delivery of a project.
.
Construction Management at Risk
The construction management at risk alternative is similar to the construction management
option except the construction manager offers guarantees to the owner related to project
price, delivery time, and/ or overall process performance. In exchange for any or all of these
guarantees, the construction manager normally seeks an additional fee to take the risk, and
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESIRECCOMMEND.DOC
21
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
the owner benefits from knowing that the project has a construction cost upper limit, that it
will be delivered on time, and that the performance requirements of the project will be met
and guaranteed.
In a traditionally delivered project, minimum standards for the level of quality are
established by the contract documents; however, the quality of the finished project may also
be influenced by cost in a low-bid environment. With either of the construction
management options, the owner has a relatively high degree of control over the quality of
the finished project because the owner is involved in the cost decisions affecting the
construction process.
With construction management, even though the individual packages are bid, usually to
pre qualified firms, the owner is exposed to the bid results of the individual trade
subcontractors and equipment suppliers and vendors. The owner, not the general
contractor, in conjunction with the construction manager, then has the flexibility to decide
what equipment and materials are to be furnished on the project, based on the detailed
project cost estimate prepared by the construction manager. This delivery method allows
the owner to control the quality of the equipment and materials used on the project.
Finally, both construction management options allow the owner to pre-purchase equipment
in a manner similar to that used in traditional project delivery. Certain "fast-track" options
can also be used, if desired, by the owner to shorten the duration of the project.
Construction management projects are typically somewhat shorter than traditionally
delivered projects.
. Design/Build
The design/build option offers many owners the ability to deliver a project rapidly and
cost-effectively. In this alternative, the owner prepares a bid package that includes design
criteria for the project and a design development document (DDD) that is approximately 25
to 30 percent complete. Bids are then solicited from several qualified designer /builders; the
award is generally based on the lowest project cost, although other qualitative selection
criteria are also taken into account. Once selected, the designer /builder is charged with
executing the conceptual design over the specified project delivery period.
.
.
For some owners, this concept of project delivery best meets their needs for the following
reasons:
· Sole-source responsibility. Because the contractor and engineer are operating as a
unified team, one entity is responsible for the delivery and acceptability of the finished
project.
· Cost. Normally, these projects are the most cost-effective for the owner for several
reasons: (1) the delivery time is much shorter and administrative and construction costs
therefore tend to be lower, (2) the design is completed only to the extent required by the
designer /builder and permitting agencies, and (3) because 70 to 75 percent of the design
details are left up to the designer/builder, the marketplace tends to provide the owner
with the most cost-effective solution that fulfills the obligations contained in the request
for proposal (RFP).
P:\152572\DELlVERABLES\RECCOMMEND.DOC
22
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
· Time. A traditionally delivered project includes time allocations for the engineer
selection process and for a general contractor bid solicitation plus owner and regulatory
agency document and approval review periods. Because design/build streamlines,
"fast-tracks," and eliminates certain aspects of the traditional delivery process, the
overall project implementation period is normally shortened. On most projects, this can
shorten the schedule by at least 3 to 6 months.
In this method of delivery, owners have less control over the execution of the project than
with other methods. However, if the contract documents are prepared carefully and
reviewed thoroughly by competent professionals before distribution, they will reflect the
specific preferences and requirements of the owner. It is imperative that the owner
understand the level of quality required before using a design/build approach.
Privatization
At the opposite end of the spectrum from traditional project delivery is privatization.
Privatization concepts are gaining more appeal as communities and water and wastewater
purveyors across the United States deal with fiscal issues. Privatization includes a variety of
options ranging from outsourcing specific functions (e.g., sludge hauling, lawn
maintenance) to contract operations to full ownership of facilities. In some cases, a private
entity is able to deliver a specific service to a municipal water purveyor for a lower cost and
to guarantee a prescribed product or outcome.
P:\ 152572\DELlVERABLESlRECCOMMEND.DOC
23
.
.
co
sg
Q.N
I:
- co
ciL
Q) ...
EJ!!
Q) UJ
> co
o~
... UJ
c..:!
E=
-':;:;
.::)~
-~E
c.. ~ E
as ~~
(..)<1:(1)
~
~
o
~
o
o
o
ci
C\I
(()
u'i
...
o
o
o
ci
C\I
It)
t--"
o
o
o
cD
It)
C":!.
o
o
o
cD
It)
~
o
o
as
o
ex>
'<t
en
C\I
o
C\i
...
o
o
o
ci
o
o
u'i
...
o
o
o
ci
o
o
en
o
o
o
ci
o
'<t
(()"
...
o
o
o
ci
o
0"
o
o
o
ci
o
t--
en
o
o
o
u'i
C\I
ex>
as
...
o
o
o
ci
o
o
ci
o
o
o
ci
o
o
u'i
o
o
o
ci
It)
~
u'i
o
o
o
ci
o
Ol
cD
o
o
o
u'i
o
o
It)
as
~
t--"
...
o
o
o
ci
o
o
'<t"
o
o
o
ci
o
o
en
o
o
o
ci
(()
ex>
en
...
o
o
o
as
o
Ol
u'i
C\I
o
o
o
ci
It)
t--
ci
(()
...
'<t
0)
t--
It!.
...
...
(()
Ol
~
...
ex>
(()
u'i
C')
:5
w
I-
UJ
>
en
z
o
j:
::::l
III
a:
I-
en
C
0::
W
l-
e:(
3:
o
o
o
ci
...
t--
t--"
It)
en
w
j:
::i
(3
e:(
u.
I-
Z
w
:5
~
W
0::
I-
0::
W
~
3:
o
o
It)
as
'<t
C')
C\i
(()
w
o
z
e:(
>
w
>
z
o
o
0::
W
l-
e:(
3:
w
I-
en
e:(
3:
o
o
o
as
...
It)
t--"
It)
en
I-
Z
e:(
..J
Q.
I-
Z
w
:5
~
W
0::
I-
0::
W
l-
e:(
3:
w
I-
en
e:(
3:
o
o
o
ci
o
C\I
o
o
o
ci
o
C\I
o
o
o
ci
o
(()
o
o
o
ci
o
It)
C\i
o
o
o
u'i
'<t
C\I
cD
~
o
w
.,
o
0::
Q.
W
c
3E
:5
w
I-
en
>
en
(;j'
~
~
~
z
o
C
0::
o
C)
t:
.:.:
0::
o
Q.
Q.
::::l
en
..J
e:(
Z
o
a
w
0::
o
o
o
C
N
co
C
'<t
o
o
o
C
~
ai
N
o
o
o
lIS
o
C>>
u;-
N
o
o
o
lIS
,..
co
cw;
N
o
o
o
C
C>>
"-
,..:
co
o
co
C>>
lIS
,..
Ilt
,..
co
CD
,..
'<t
~
"-
co
C
."
co
C>>
('f)
cw;
o
It)
a)
,..
N
.....
CIl
.Q
{l
t:
-2
l!::
CIl ~
'"O.Q<l:l
~~~
....;;::-
~ CIl 19
!'ll .0 0
;;:: ~ .
.t:: CIl ~
.!!,! <I) -E
E Iii ~
-2S<1l
o O:l~
- t:
~'g~
SCll~
"l::: ><CIl ~
o -..::
&'0 CIl
o~s
CIl<l).E'ti
:5 0'"0 CIl
o CIl-
~Q)c:g
<l:l ~.!;2l <l:l
.t:: <l)CIl
~ c:: gj ~
E.g<l)CIl
... CIl :::>
.ll!o~~
~C!l~6
~50t:
oq:LCCIl'"O
.0 CIl
ooS:....
l--c.cu
0~31,g
C\j._ v
;,., ~ .s,S
~31'"Oiji
C\j .... ~ CIl
~ ~,~ ~
o CIl 0 0
<:<I)ot:
o
o
~
.S
'S
ijll
.Q
3;!
::J
o
fil
...
o
~
.S
'"0
~
<l:l
t:
.!;2l
<I)
~
.l!l
o
CIl
oe'
Q.'
CIl~
g~
CI) ~
.;..; ttJ
~ ~
~ 8
~
<<l
E
E
:J
(/)
<I)
X
cxi
o
C\I
o
~
<<l
E
E
:J
(/)
D-
<3
<<l
Ui
:J
Cl
:J
<(
.
.
c
o
';
:::J
.c
'i:
-
U)
c
COCl)
.!2gtn
a. N e
c 0
- ctI -
CO::cn
Q)..cn
E ~'a.
Q) ctI E
~:E:::J
... U) D..
c.~Q;
E=-
~~~
-== u; ~
C. :::J U)
lU tn.-
(.) :::J.E
oCtu.
o
o
o
o
o
M
~ M
.8
"-0
010
.s "<1'.
~~
{lCO
c:
Ii:
E
Gl
-
Ul
U)
C
o
:;::
:l
.c
i:
-
Ul
is
(!)
::E
It)
O/l
Q)
c
:::i
~ CD
"tCii
;:';E3:
j...:: =
E~
.g~~ 0
~8~ 'g
.!;!OQ) .c
.....IllCl"CC
{g.cllla:O
t:I::OOOO
Q) -0-
E..-enol!!
g ~~ ~ ~
~:r:el-o
a:...:(!)C\jC'j
00
00
"<1'0
c60
00
COM
M
'E
Q) ~
~Ci5
> >
e Q)
0.-
EW
.- (!)
~::E
.~ C! en
0."- a..
~ ~ .~
C "i:: .....
QiOO
(;)55
Q) en en
3::2:2
..;WW
00
0,,0
00
0"0
0(0
O>M
0000
0000
0000
0000
0(0"<1'..-
O>MC\lC\l
C\l
o
o
o
o
CO
C\l
M
o
o
o
o
o
r-..
c6
o
o
o
as
o
00
00
00
00
"<1'..-
C\lC\l
000
000
000
oom
00C\l
C\l. ..- M
0000
0000
0000
oomo
00 C\l co
C\!. ..- M It).
"C
III Q)
o >
a: 'C
xO
o C
"C 0
"C en
1ll"C
::EiIi
~ Qi
:::iCii
Qi3:
Ciial c
3:~ 0
(0 'c .~
,.... i.i:.~.~ ~
i'~llllll~
a..g~~E
"Ca:002
~ C\l C\l !Z. 5
c~~"<I'en'-
~t:'*"'*"c'g
co Q) a.. a.. .Q c
g>i;t:-t:-:;5
oo~~:@u
OO(!)(!)1ijQi
ll'i~ctioii5E
o
o
o
o
CO
III
o
o
o
as
o
~
o
o
C\l
...:
It)
C\l
N
o
o
o
o
CO
M
o
o
o
...:
"<I'
It)
N
o 0/0
000
00"'0
omm
Mr-..r-..
('l")r....-
o
o
C\l
M
~
o
..-
0000
0000
0000
ommo
Mr-..r-..CO
M,.-....-M
en c. it)
'E0"CC\l
Q)oa:en
...Jo::::>
E(Oo-.
~~~~
.l!l a. en 1-0 a:
u E en
.~ ;:. @ @ '"':'
elll>- ."C
Q.. :: ~"C a:
~"Cwa:"C
!II III Q)....
s:OIDCl~
.c:a: c:2 0
0),.... 0 ..... .....
:i:en-,coo
::::> >-en.c
~~~1ij1il
.l!la:0Q)Q)
Cl)en CO 0 a..
.2
'S
.c
'C
U;
is
Qi
1ii
~
'"
x
cO
o
C\l
o
~
<1l
E
E
:>
en
a.
U
<1l
U;
:>
01
:>
<(
.
.
C
o
~
:::I
..c
.;::
-
en
i5
COCl)
_CO 0 en
Ocu
a..N...
C 0
- cu -
CC:(/)
(1)...c::n
ESc
en '0.
(1)cuE
~:!E:::I
....enQ.
c..!!! m
E=a;
a;;~~
-== 1;) ~
a. :::I en
CO en.-
o~~
e
o
.0
II)
E
OJ
~
.r::
u
_ro
ii: 2:
Q) Q)
> >
caa:
>-
(0 lZ -::
.... tll a:
-c1l)g;Q;
a:5lD"O
<l)C'@cc
c::i:_o::>
ooC/)+:ic
"-.... S 0
{glDQ;(J)".;:
c:~~c.al
Q) 0 0 E c
E.olDd:5
EgJc....O
8c.g2Q)
<D~""'~_
ct:tllo3:tll
tQ3:C!) 3:
~5~&~
000000
o 0 0 0'0 0
OOC\lOtOO
cicialci .0
C\lOOltOMC\l
.... M ,"t . to ....
,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000000
00000000
.,fC\iC\i . . . . .
tOMM
.... ....
to
....
C\l
C\i
to
C\l
0000000000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOtO
OOC\lOtOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"t
cicialci .ciciw~.,fC\iC\iwciw~cici .
C\lOOltOMC\lM....OltOMMOtO"tC\ltOC\l"t
~Mv ro~M ~~~~MM ~~
II)
Q)C~
ro Q) C
Q) :> E tll
c:>Q)1-
:::i"'e-g~
en ,.... 0.-
-Q)E~'5 'E C\l
tll '6 - Q) 0'0 .r::
3: W Q; ill eX c. c..
'" 1: ro OJ :] "O.g, "0 "0
....ro3:E>- a:J: a: a:
.lD LOO Q) OJ OJ
"0 Ql ~ I'-: lD E.s ~ .S ,S
c a: Ql'C: 0 -c 0"0 II) Q) . c.. c..
Q)Q)~O"Oa: ::r:a:C>Ci)(J)(J)Q)
1I),g~=a:"O"8'E....tll<( ........~
~ gJ 1I)-E.!!15 ~ m.gj~ f~ g g~
~1ijo~ECtllQ)e.o:i:"O"Oo
o 0 Q) .r:: Q) :] ~ ~ .r:: Q) :] 0 .S .S 0
od::r:OI-O<(lDc..3:lD<(::r:3:3:3:
~
C
tll
I-
"0
tll
o
a:
:g OJ
:::i C
.... c..
*~:g >-
3: o:::i N
.... ~ Q; 'c
-C 0 '" C iii :c
~ ~';~ 3: "O"O~
tll c~Q) "'-tlltll "OQ)
.r:: 5Q)~c""[00:gLO~.~
e .... 0 <(> Ci) '(ij Q) tll a: a: 't: C\l a: Ci
o ~ .r:: .... C .- >-_
OCc"O::EtlloQ):s;:<(tllQjc
.r::.... Q).... 1ii....'O II)Qj c.c:i::i: Q)
al.!!1~.E:i:* g g>~ E ~.g,"O~
~~<3~~3:3:~3:.3oJ:iD3:
'E
Q)
E
Q)
U
tll
c..
~
Q)
~
c
C\j
....
C')
o
to
"t.
~
....
000000000
000000000
"t"tooooooo
~~.,fcici~c5ci.,f
tOtO"ttOLOOlOlM"t
LOLO,....,.....q- M,....
000000000
000000000
"t"t0000000
~~.,fcici~c5ci.,f
tOtO "t to LOOlOlM"t
LOLO........"t M....
(0
.2
'S
.0
.;::
(jj
i5
Q;
(;j
~
UJ
X
<Xi
o
C\/
o
e:-
l'll
E
E
::>
en
D-
13
l'll
(jj
::>
Ol
::>
~
.
.
c:
o
:;::;
::I
.c
'i::
-
II)
i5
COG)
mOO)
_ocu
a..N...
c: 0
-cu-
CC:C/)
CD ... en
E ~'a.
CD cu E
~::5::1
...II)Q.
c.~~
E=-
a;~~
-=u;~
C. ::I II)
m 0)--
o~~
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
OO";OcDOOOcDO
.,....o:>"<tO:>(')(\IO:>COLOI'-
(\I"<t.,.....,.... .,....1'-Cl)"<tLO
00
00
00
00
.,....CO
(\I
00
00
00
00
.,....CO
(\I
000000000
000000000
000000000
O";OcDOOOcDO
o:>"<t 0:>(')(\1 0:> CO LOI'-
"<t.,.....,.... .,....1'-Cl)"<tLO
"'C"'C
ctl ctl
-OlOO
ex:ex:rn-
Ol wen-g
~~:ll-=o
Ci5 Ben :E ~ ~ ex:
"E oooen
ctl32ctlcaca.E
~~~::E::E~
"'C
ctl
o
ex:
c:
Ol ctl
,C!: Ol
"'Co 'B
ctlOl coo:>::E
~"'C2tLOO:>L:
c: .~ .c >. >. 1]
g .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ol....'-"L:L:c.
> 0 :c .2'.2' Ol
O::E "<t :c :C,:C
o
o
o
o
110
N
cw)
.,....
o
o
o
o
o
I'-
eD
o
o
o
oj
o
~
.,....
o
o
o
oj
o
~
.,....
o
o
o
ai
.,....
.,....
oj
o
110
"<t
iii'
'0:1'
Cl)
o
.,....
CD
.,....
"<t
..;
o
.,....
o
,...
CD
Cl)
110
~
110
I'-~
.,....
M
~
o
w
..,
o
a:
0.
w
z
::i
z
o
i=
:J
m
it
....
t/)
is
..J
~
o
....
o
o
o
o
0:>
.,....
o
o
o
o
"<t
LO
o
o
o
o
"<t
LO
00
00
00
00
0:>0
"<tco
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0:> 0 0 "<t
.,.... (\I (\I (\I
0
0
q
o
o
o
o
LO
.,....
0 0
0 0
0 0
as 0
"<t 0
LO
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 as 0
0 "<t 0
(\I LO
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 as 0 0
0 "<t 0 0:>
(\I LO
0,0
00
00
00
LOO:>
T-.....,.....
000
000
000
LOaSO
(\I"<tO
"<t co
00
00
00
00
00:>
(').,....
o
o
o
o
o
(\I
0000000
0000000
0000000
OLOOOONO
O(\l"<tOOI'-O:>
(\I "<t (\I co LO. .,....
J!l
()
41
o
...
0.
iii
U
41
t/)
.lie:
c: 0
o 0
~:Q'~ ~ Ol
:f! ~ .lie: g> .g>
liil-O Ol
Olii~ ~ 0
-g <!l 0> a. "'C
ctl.lle:~ .lie: ~ 5
255c: ~ Ol a.
~ ~ 'iij I- en 0 5 E
c. 0> a. gJ, c<:l Ol +:: C.
::> .!: ~ l!! Qj 'e 55 00> .ri
-'Ectl -a.-Ol -.::
Ol 'iij I- B ctl 55 '$
"Ba."'C en 3:Olex: (')ex:
~ ~ * ~ .~ ~.~ ~ ~
2~~ e 020. enLO
en c: W <!l ~ Qj .!: en :c (\I
~B= =~"'Cctl=<(e:-~
Ol.... O>:c~:c ctl~::E ~o~;:
.!: Ol.lIe: Ol I- x .lie: .lie: <( .- L:
Cii .~ .!: ~ .!: lii ..91 ~ :; 0 ~ 0>
3:u.a.I-a.<!l<(l-l-en<(J:
o
o
o
o
"<t
M
N
o
o
o
o
N
CD
iii'
.,....
o
o
o
o
N
110
o
o
o
o
N
It)
r.:
o
o
o
oj
'0:1'
o
o
o
CD~
It)
M~
.,....
o
o
o
oj
'0:1'
It)
o
o
o
eD
It)
1IO~
.,....
o
o
o
oj
"<t
I'-
o
o
o
r.:
CD
110
oj
o
110
"<t
cw)
N
o
N
.,....
o
o
o
oj
I'-
et
.,....
o
o
o
u;
'I'-
"'t
,...
cQ
,...
'0:1'
ai
I'-
~
,....
,...
o
o
o
r.:
Cl)
110
cw)
CD
Cl)
~
.,....
110
CD
iii'
M
en
t
w
..,
o
a:
D.
..J
c(
(3
W
0.
t/)
..J
c(
I-
o
I-
:E
w
....
t/)
>
t/)
z
o
i=
:J
m
it
....
t/)
is
a:
w
~
3:
"<t
.2
'S
.c
.;:
0;
o
Gi
10
:!:
en
x
<Xi
o
C\I
o
~
ctl
E
E
::>
en
a..
t5
ctl
0;
::>
Ol
::>
<
.
.
>-
COe..
('CSOa..
-~::J
~ ~~
CC::.$
Q)...~
E~==
Q) ns ns
>==~
orn_
... Q) C
Q.:;::::;Q)
E=E
-;:1;
. :::) ~
-~'::
Q. ::J Q)
('CS C'l-
O~~
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
OOLOOOOO
OCO'<tC\lOC\lO
a.O ....: -.f co'
00
00
00
00
OLO
LO......
00000
o 00,0 0
00000
00000
'<tC\l000
CO......LO
N
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
OLOO>C\lOOO
0,.... '<tC\lO>O>LO
O' r-: c<i
..... .....
0.
~
Gl
::l
C
Gl
>
<t
'C
C
.!2
or;
i:
Cl
c:
.5.
E
::l
Cl CIl a.
CIl'8.. CIl.~ E Q)
C E E .~ Cll .S! Cii
~ ~ .S! ~ co ~::s:
Gl.......CIlcoc:en3:
> ~ ~ c: .2 c: Cll
e .- 0 Cii 0 a:
a. .,. x .- +-'
Efu~]i55~~
- en 'C ::J .E_ .2 Cll
.... or; .- (.) 0....
~ .2> g- ~ ~ :c ~
iI::r:a: L1.en()::>
o
o
o
o
o
o
c<i
o
o
o
o
o
o
M
o
o
o
o
~
,......
.....
o
o
o
o
CD
,....
-.f
C')
en
...
z
w
==
w
>
o
0:
0.
~
0.
~
C
z
<t
...J
J:
C)
i:
00
00
00
Oa.O
0,....
..... .....
o
o
o
o
o
In
cwi"
0000
0000
0000
0"000
LOLOOO
C\l,....oo
T-".,.:a;
000
00
00
00
00
'<to
C\i
.....
o
o
o
o
o
LO
o
o
o
o
o
LO
o
o
o
o
LO
.....
o
o
q
o
o
o
o
o
......
00000
00000
00000
00000
OOOLOO
C'l 0 0..... 0
.,.: -r-- -.::t" or-" N
.....
::l
en
3:
C)
iii
-
C
Gl
E
.!!!
c:
,g 5, c:
:111'~ 0
::Jou
8":t= 2 c:
<CEooC)c
'C Q) 5 'w 0
.2 a. () ~ U
CiiQiQi:t=2
.2~~ E+-'CIl
~ g Cll ....
wc:cGl5
-::a.()
g>Q).S!li.:a.
V5~~~~
a.~ 3: 3: 3: 3:
Cll Cll Q) Q)
a:a:zz
::l
en
o:r
o
z
==
w
...
en
>
en
3:
C)
0.
~
~
Gl
Z
o
o
o
o
o
o
c<i
.....
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
.....
o
o
o
o
o
o
cwi"
.....
o
o
o
o
o
o:r
cD
.....
o
o
o
o
o
q
..... .....
o
o
o
o
o
C')
o
o
o
~
~
.....
o
o
o
.n
,....
C')
o
o
o
o
In
o:r
en
.....
w
~
~
~
c
z
<t
LL
~
3:
w
z
LO
o
o
o
o
o
o
.n
.....
o
o
o
o
o
o
M
.....
o
o
o
o
o
o:r
cD
.....
o
o
o
o
o
q
o
o
o
o
o
"'"
cwi"
,...
o
o
o
.n
N
co
as
.....
o
o
o
.n
co
"'"
,......
o
o
o
o
.....
"'"
,......
In
o
o
o
o
o
'<t
r-:
.....
E
Ql
E
iil
Ql
~
lii
iil
3
en
x
cx:i
o
C\j
o
~
<tl
E
E
::::l
en
a.
U
<tl
rn
::::l
OJ
::::l
<l:
en
w
j::
:J
(3
<t
LL
...
Z
W
==
...
<t
w
0:
...
0:
W
~
3:
.
.
co
.!!!8
a.,N
c
- as
Cii:
G) ...
E~
G) as
>:e
o U)
.... C1)
c.:;:::
E=
:;:::
.~
c.::J
caD)
O~
E
S
U)
>-
en
C1)
(,)
c
as
>-
C1)
>
c
o
U
...
C1)
-
as
::
C1)
-
U)
as
3:
0000000
OLOOLOOOO
LO/'-O/'-LOLOLO
,.,: ro Il'i ro N N /'-"
CXl.-LO'<t.-CDC')
C\I.-.-C')C\IC\I
- - cri
co
00000000 0
LO LO 0 0 0 0 0'0 0
C\lC\ILOLOLOOOO 0
.-"cONN/'--Il'ic5c5 u;
CXl 0 LO CD CD CD C\I: LO 0
'<t ~ C\I ~ CD '<t '<t_ '0:1'
.;... C\I cO
o
o
II)
N
C\I
'0:1'
cO
o
o
o
U;
o
('I)
cO
00000000000000000000000 0
OOOOOOOOOLOOLOOOOLOLOOOOOOO 0
000000001O/'-0/'-10101OC\lC\l101O10000 II)
oll'ic5ll'ic5oll'io"':roll'iroNN"':~cONN"':Il'ic5c5 N
O/'-O'<tOCDC\lOCXl.-1O'<t.-CDC')CXlO1OCDCDCDC\l1O ('I)
C\I/'-OCXlC')'<t1OC\I C\I.-.-C')C\lC\I'<tO C\lOCD'<t'<t .-
- - - - - cri - - N en
,..
III
-
U
CIl
o
...
0-
~
u
o
0-
't:l
CIl
...
;
CIl
III
C
::J
~
I
(1j
c
o
~
z
32 't:l
Iii c ~
a.oa::=
>. 0, c .!!!
5'~ ~ ~
- .... >. c
8~~ii:
10
..r::
a.
od
'<t
..r::
a.
't:l .l!l'g
a: '5,0
Qj. 'w a:
c :=~:c
~g~8~
CIl ~ c Co't:l
E ~ '00 E 5
ctl ..r:: .!!1 CIl >
"")u)~~<(
CIl
>
'C
't:l 0
~'t:l.l1l:
a:ctlOO~
o .... ._
~lija:.co
.... E E := ....
:g ..l<: ctl .g CIl
.5 e t ctl ~
.l1l: CIl CIl ~ CIl
u)lDlD..::lD
CIl
>
8
:=
CIl
'g .~ 't:l
o 'Cij ctl
a:u.0
CIl.."a:
:E c ....
:J 0 :g
o E c
UQj~
:2:lDu)
't:l
ctl
o
~a:
'C CIl l/)
CIlo~CIl
.~ Qj 'C ~
o't:llDc
't:llij~.9
~~m(1j
U::<(o~
>.
CIl't:l
X ~
:fa:
=0 0
c U
o U
E2
:J 0
<(I-
C/)
I-
o
W
..,
o
a:
0-
C/)
I-
W
~
o
o
~~
.....w
8la:
...W
'tii3:
::3W
~C/)
"'(Z
o::J
;;...1
.$!1<(
~I-
~~
Q)
<..l
c:
III
>.
Q)
>
c:
o
U
CD
iU
;:
Q)
'lii
III
~
fIl_X
ex:)
o
C\l
o
~
III
E
E
::s
en
a..
C3
III
'lii
::s
Cl
::s
<(
.
.
1::0
~gE
a.C'\I,S!
s::: U)
-ca>-
I::O::(/)
CI) ... CI)
E,S!g
CI) ~ ca
>:E~
o U) >
- CI) s:::
C.:;::::;R
E=-
-;...
::),S!
. ca ~
_'tiCl)
c. ~-
ca en U)
(.)~~
Ul
-
U
Cl)
o
"-
Q,
E
Cl)
-
Ul
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
,....
o
o
o
o
o
o
It'i
00
00
00
00
00
LOv
. C\J'
00
00
00
00
OLO
OC\J
C\J'
o 0,0
000
000
000
000
LOvO
. e\i e\i
000
00'0
000
000
OOLO
OLOC\J
C\J' ...:.
o
o
o
o
o
to
0000
0000
0000
OOOeD
000Ct)
LOC\JOLO
~ -r-- C\I" r--
00
00
00
00
00
OCt)
e\i
0000
0000
0000
0000
OOCOO
V. to LO ll't
0000
0000
0000
0000
mooo
,....,...."!.C\J
,.... ,....
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
OOOOOOeDOOOOO
oocoooCOCt)moooLO
vCOLOLOvOLO,....,....C\JO""
.. ",,' cxi -.:i ,..... ,.... It'i -.:i
o
o
o
o
LO
C\J
o
o
o
o
LO
""
o
o
o
o
o
LO
e\i
o
o
o
o
LO
C\J
000
000
000
000
LOLOO
C\JC\JLO
-.:i -
c:
.2 .l!l
t5 c:
1Il:::l 0)
c"C E5c:c:
0) ~ ~ '00 0 0
E 0 c: '00 '00
~ S c.O)C:C:E.l!l
e .... EJj 113 113.$ 55
~1Il:2 ~ ~oo$$lIlE
....c:~ ~ ena.a.oo~~
~.~:o Q;~~~t5t5oe
0)C:113 0);:113........0)~t5a._
en ~ ..c: 0 ~ ,~ '2 .$ .$ '5 0 --00)~. ~O)
""'wx O)-a:"" 113 C:.Eoo
1:..' a: g...ll: ~ en ..ll: ..ll: ..ll: ..ll: 0 "Ca: en
BO)O) u 0) - "C 0) 0) 0) 0)
U c: c: ....0) 0).... ~ 113 0) 0) 0) 0) .... ~ _
Lf::J~co-g&Oooo~5;
1IlQ;0)-1Il- ............lIlen(1j......
00 ;: ;: .= '0) ;: ~ ~ ~ ~ -0) 0) Ol v
.!!!0)0)1131130)-:::l:::l:::lI13E5a:
(!)enen~a:ZOlDlDlDa:::JlDen
....
0)
;:
0)
en
..ll: 5
5 '00
t= 55
c:x
o)w
a.LO
3lC\J
oen
:1:::::>
o
o
o
o
o
ll't
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
o
o
o
an
o
o
o
o
II)
...
u;
o
o
o
o
o
m
eD
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
eD
('I)
co
o
...
o
o
o
o
co
N
,..:
o
o
o
cD
m
N
N
v
:!:
w
I-
en
>
en
w
o
z
e:(
>
w
>
z
o
o
...J
e:(
I-
o
I-
o
o
o
o
co
,....
o
o
o
o
co
,....
000
000
000
000
COOv
,....C\JC\J
000
000
000
000
tOov
vC\JC\J
Ul
-
u
Cl)
o
"-
Q,
iii
'u
Cl)
en
c:i
o
113
:0
E
:::l ~
(5 0)
o E
, 0
EUi
0) :::l
EO
a.(1j
.S ot:
0'-
W ~
0l"C
c:.E
"t: '-
o 0
- -
"g ~
en~~
~ ;: ~
~.Q113
ou..en
""
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
o
o
o
an
o
o
o
o
II)
,.....
an
o
o
o
o
o
m
cD
o
o
o
o
co
...
o
o
o
an
...
""
as
...
o
o
o
o
co
...
o
o
II)
as
...
o:r
,..:
...
o
o
O.
o
o
co
o
o
o
u;
co
...
-.:i
...
o
o
o
o
N
m
o
o
II)
as
o:r
('I)
N
co
Cl)
o
c:
(ll
>-
Cl)
>
c:
o
()
~
1il
==
Cl)
Cii
(ll
3i:
en
x
ai
o
C\J
o
~
(ll
E
E
:::l
en
a.
U
(ll
Cii
:::l
en
:::l
<(
en
I-
o
W
..,
o
a:
Q,
...J
e:(
o
w
Q,
en
...J
~
o
I-
w
o
z
e:(
>
w
>
z
o
o
a:
w
l-
e:(
3:
w
I-
en
e:(
3:
.
.
co
,!g8
Q"N
c
- as
CD:
(1) ...
ES-
...~ U) c
>asQ)
o:l:,S
- U) m
c..:!...
E="-
-5A!
~ as;
we 1;) Q)
c.. ::J -
co OJ U)
O~~
o
o
o
o
o
o
'<t-
to
o
o
o
C
o
o
~
o
o
o
C
o
o
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 C C
0 COO 0 0 CO CO
CO ~~~ 0 CO CO
,..: N c-) c-)
... ...
000000
000000
000000
o~cDooo
00C\l0C\l0
LOCOO>O>'<tC\l
cv)N N
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
*,N
00000000
00000000
00000000
o 0 '<to '<t- 0 0 0 0
0000>0C\l00
CXlO>CXlCXlCXl/'-COO
cv) en N C\l- en N C\l-
C\l
u..
~
~
E E CJ)
0> 0>"E
en 1;) CD
E~ ~ ~m
Q) E>'-
(jjr::r:: 00>0<(
>- ~ .2 "E -E E c."E
(f')--o>oCijEO>
OJt1l~E()o>-E
r:: 0>....-"01-... CJ)Cij
:gt=.~t1lr:: :Jo>
r:: ."..!1l 0> t1l ~ ~ ...
t1l 1:.." 0 I- - t1l r:: l-
I {g - ~ .~_ .~ g "Or::
CJ)r::53t1l~EO>t1l
320.2Eo=o+=
O 0>0.....- 0> 0> CJ) 0>
~(f')Wa:[ija:~~
;:
0>
CJ)
CJ)
0>
~
o
o
o
C
~
C
...
o
o
o
C
o
o
~
o
o
o
ai
...
l/')
~
l/')
u..
~
~
>
...J
e:
W
en
en
w
~
...J
<(
I-
o
I-
u..
~
~
~
CIl
CIl
o
-
:5
en
o
o
o
o
o
o
cv)
CJ)
0>
"0
t1l
0,
0.
::>
;:
o
u::
~
o
Cij
"S
OJ
0>
a:
o
o
o
C
l/')
"'"
c
...
o
o
o
C
o
o
c-)
o
o
o
ai
...
l/')
,..:
l/')
'E
Q)
E
1ii
Q)
~
Oi
1ii
:;:
Q)
Ci5
al
:s:
<J)
x
ex)
o
C\I
o
~
al
E
E
::l
en
Q..
C3
al
Ci5
::l
01
::l
<(
u..
~
~
~
W
w
e:
o
l-
ii:
a:
en
...J
<(
I-
o
I-
UI
I-
Z
<(
...J
c..
I-
Z
W
~
I-
<(
W
e:
l-
e:
W
~
~
W
I-
en
<(
~
.
.
co
cog
Q.N
C
- ca
Cc::
CI) ...
E.e
CI)~!!
>:!!:~
o 0'0
... Q) ...
c.:;::::;Q.
E=Q)
.-5~
_~E
c. :::s .e
CO C) 0
U:::s>-
<(en
000
000
000
000
000
A. "<I' LO
o
o
o
o
o
C\l
o
o
o
o
o
C\l
00
00
00
00
00
C\l"<l'
00000
00000
00000
00000
000"<1'0
~OOC\!.C\lC\l
III
-
U
Q)
'0
..
0-
Q)
'C
'i
E
Q)
-
III
en
~
'0
III
U.
OJ
o
c:
III E
5i OJ
"E~
'(ij III
::2: OJ
Q):i5
> III ·
+::>'E
~ 'Qj OJ
1ii g ~
'2 ex: III
'E l!!c: 3l
"t:l III
<(::J<(
.?;>8"t:l
.- 0 OJ
==<(-c
5Ol!!!
== ~ ~
~ffi~
00000
00000
00000
otriooo
..-..-"<I'OOCO
,... ,- ,.... LO C\I..
"t:l
~
"t:l
c:
: III
cOO ic
OJ (n III
E- c:
a. III .Q
o ~ ca
- III ::J
~::2: ca
OJ >
EO~ w
OJ OJ c: ~
Eca~. .Q
Ulex:Q)Ul_
Ul"t:l'El!?~
Q) c: .- ::J Q)
~ III ~"t:l a.
<(>-"",OJO
.... .2 "t:l g "t:l 'c:
OJoc:O-....c:lll
caO- III lllC:
~cagg>caUl
OJ '0 +: +: .2 gJ
~ c: ~ ~ c: c:
::JlllQ)OJ{3'(jj
oc:a.a.Q)::J
(l)U::OOI-CO
Ul
a.
III
::2:
OJ
Ul
III
CO
OJ
"t:l
.~
ooE
::2: OJ
::2:1ii
0>-
__(I)
0'>
o
o
o
o
o
N
o
o
o
o
o
N
CD
.Q
.E
~
CD
CD
c::
01
~
c::
.2
Q'
fu
"" E
c:: I!!
.!;2 01
.~ e
a Cl.
c:: 01
.0 ~
-n c:
~ .a
e E
~.9:! ~
.rg :9 01
ijj ~ ~
E 2. 5
~ CI) """
..,. <Il ~
- c:: <Il
~ 8 ~
.!!l ~ a.
~;;.E
lil CD .!J1
(!)]i~
~ ~ ~
..... 0 Cl.
o (,) CI)
.l!! 1: <Il
ijj ~ 8
E "0 CI)
.~ c:: CI)
::J <Il <Il
g- .!J1 .S;
'" .Q r;J)
CD~~
:5~"O
.E co "S
CD CD 0
::J~c55
~ E :
o
o
o
o
o
co
o
o
o
o
o
In
N
o
o
o
'4
N
cD
en
I-
o
w
..,
o
a:
0-
w
Q
3E
==
W
I-
en
>
en
CD
"0
'3:
E
CD
~
en
l/)
x
cx:i
o
C\l
o
~
t1l
E
E
::l
en
a.
U
t1l
'In
::l
01
::l
<t:
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
CH2MHILL
Financial Analysis Methodology
DATE:
February 2, 2000
Contents
.
Introduction............ .... .................... ... ............ ................ ........ ............ .......... ...... ........ ........... ......... 1
Fiscal Policies..... ....................... ...... ........... ............. ........ ...... ......... .............. ............................. .....2
Across-the-Board Percentage Rate Increases.. ................. ............ ................................... .......... 2
Combined Utility ................................ .............. ..... ........... .............. ....................... ........................2
Coverage Criteria ...... ............................... ............................... ................... ...................................2
Use of Existing Reserves............. ...................... ..................... ........ ................................... ........... 3
Transfers to the City of Augusta General Fund........................................................................ 3
Sales Tax Revenues ............ ....................... .......... ..... ................ ..................................... ........... ..... 3
Tapping Fees................................................. ................ ............................................... ..................3
System Development Charge ........ ..... ............................. ......... ................................ ............. ......3
Rate Forecasting Methodology... ........... .... ....... ................... ...... ...... ..... ........... ..... .......... .............4
AUD Water and Sewer System Fund Structure........................................................................ 4
Operation and Maintenance Expense Projections .................................................................... 5
Capital Expense Projections........... ............................ ....... ............ ....................................... ..... ",.6
Debt Service Expense Projections ....:..... ......................... ......................... ....... ............... .............6
Revenue Projections... ...... ........ ...... ............. ................ .......... ...... .... ....... ......... ....... ................ .......7
Rate Forecast Results ................... ...................................... ......... .......................,.. ........... ....... ....... 8
Model Limitations .......... ....... ............. ................. ..... ...... .... .............. ......... ....... ........... ..................8
Recommendations (Draft) ............... ........ .... .................. ................ ....... ........... ......... ... .... ... ..........9
.
Introduction
The Augusta Utilities Department (AUD) owns and operates water and sanitary sewer
systems that provide retail utility service to approximately 64,000 active water accounts and
approximately 48,000 active sewer accounts. CH2M HILL is completing water and sewer
system master planning for AUD and has developed a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for
the water and sewer systems. Concurrent with the development of the CIP is the completion
of a financial analysis to identify projected water and sewer system rate impacts over a 10-
year planning period.
The financial analysis identifies preliminary rate impacts required to meet the ADD's
projected water and sewer system expenses, including operating expenses, capital
improvement expenses, and debt service payments. This document contains a discussion of
fiscal policies, forecasting methodology, and model limitations. Draft rate forecast results
are included in this memorandum, and will be revised after modifications are made. The
rate forecasts should be considered preliminary as they are not supported by AUD metered
water consumption data, and there is no attempt to allocate costs among and develop
specific rate forecasts for each class of AUD customers.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. DOC
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
.
Fiscal Policies
This financial analysis incorporates several fiscal policy assumptions that guide the
development of proposed rate increases.
.
Across-the-Board Percentage Rate Increases
The AUD's current water rate structure consists of a monthly base charge and a volume
charge. For residential customers with metered water consumption exceeding 3,000 gallons
per month, the current monthly base charge is $5.66 and the volume charge is $0.79 per
thousand gallons (kgal). In April 2000, the AUD will increase water rates by 2.75 percent
and implement a two-tiered water volume charge structure. A $0.10/kgal surcharge will be
applied to metered water consumption exceeding 3,000 gallons per month.
The AUD's current sewer rate structure is based on water used for sewer service, and also
consists of a monthly base charge and a volume charge. For residential customers with
metered water consumption exceeding 3,000 gallons per month, the current monthly base
charge is $9.62 and the volume charge is $0.89 per thousand gallons (kgal). In April 2000, the
base charge and the volume charge will increase by 10 percent.
Three rate increase scenarios are described below and, in this analysis, rate increases are
presented as across-the-board percentage increases, i.e., the same rate increase applies
across customer classes. The same percent rate increase also applies to both water and sewer
rates. Additionally, the percentage increase is applied to both the AUD base charge and the
AUD volume charge. The surcharge for metered water consumption exceeding 3,000
gallons per month remains constant at $0.10/kgal, except in one of the three rate scenarios
described below.
Combined Utility
The AUD operates the water and sewer systems as a single utility and does not separate
every revenue and expense item into water and sewer components. In maintaining
consistency with AUD practice, this financial analysis does not present separate financial
analyses for the water and sewer systems. Recommendations discussing eventual separation
of water and sewer system expenses are contained at the end of this document.
Coverage Criteria
A debt coverage requirement is a common feature of ordinances that authorize municipal
utilities to issue revenue bond debt. This requirement typically specifies that the utility
revenue must exceed the combined operating and parity-issued revenue bond debt costs by
a specified percentage. This requirement is intended to help ensure that utilities collect
sufficient revenues to repay the debt. The coverage criteria is important in this financial
analysis because the coverage criteria determines, in part, the magnitude of projected rate
increases.
.
A coverage criteria is specified in the covenants applicable to past revenue bond debt issued
by the Consolidated Government. This ordinance describes a coverage calculation requiring
pledged revenues (operating revenues plus investment interest less operation and
maintenance expenses) to exceed 1.25 times the maximum annual debt service requirement
on all revenue bonds, other than subordinate bonds.
P:\152572IALL FILES IN 1438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESIFINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. DOC
2
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
.
Use of Existing Reserves
The projected Operating Fund balance as of January 2000 is $1,618,000. AUD policy is that
the required Operating Fund minimum balance is the lessor of $2,500,000 or 5 percent of the
preceding year's operating revenues. Since the current balance is approximately 5 percent
of 1999 operating revenues, none of the existing Operating Fund reserves can be used to
finance master plan CIP projects.
Transfers to the City of Augusta General Fund
In the past, there have been transfers of funds from the Operating Fund to the City of
Augusta's General Fund. This transfer is a separate payment from an additional transfer of
funds to cover administrative and vehicle maintenance expenses. In 1997, 1998, and 1999,
these transfers to the City's General Fund were approximately $5,200,000, $3,700,000, and
$2,500,000, respectively. AUD staff indicate that no transfer is budgeted for 2000. This
financial analysis does not allow for any future transfers to the City's General Fund through
2009.
Sales Tax Revenues
.
Recently, the AUD has received sales tax revenue dedicated toward construction of specific
capital projects. Remaining sales tax revenues include $3,009,460 to be received in 2000.
Although the AUD may pursue obtaining additional sales tax revenue for the master plan
CIP, receipt of any future sales tax revenue is not included in this analysis. Receipt of
additional sales tax revenue would allow the AUD to reduce the size of future debt issues
and consequently reduce both the magnitude of debt service payments and the magnitude
of future rate increases. Each $2,500,000 of sales tax revenue received will result in an
avoided debt service cost that would require a water and sewer volume charge of
$O.01/kgal to repay.
Tapping Fees
The AUD currently charges a tapping fee, which is a one-time charge for new connections
that is intended to recover the cost of making the physical connection to AUD's water and
sewer system. The current water tapping fee is $350 for installation of a 5/8-inch by 3/4-
inch meter, and the current sewer tapping fee is $350 for installation of a 6-inch side sewer.
This analysis includes rate forecasts which show the rate impact resulting from an increase
to the AUD's tapping fee.
System Development Charge
The AUD currently does not have a System Development Charge (SDC), which would be a
separate one-time charge for new connections that is intended to recover the costs of
growth-related capacity in the existing utility system and the costs of capacity-increasing
future improvements needed to meet the demands of growth. This analysis includes rate
forecasts that show the rate impact resulting from implementation of example SDCs, but it
does not include the calculation of a defensible SDC.
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDElIVERABLESlFlNANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY,DOC
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
.
Within the next four years, the AUD intends to connect pockets of existing unsewered
development to the sewer system. For the purposes of this analysis, SDCs are not applied to
these new connections with existing septic systems. This analysis only applies SDCs to new
development.
.
Rate Forecasting Methodology
System Growth Projections
Projections of system growth are required to project water and sewer sales revenues, impact
fee revenues, and operating expenses. Projections of the population served by the AUD's
water and sewer systems are described in a September 30,1999 Technical Memorandum
(TM), prepared by CH2M HILL, titled" Augusta-Richmond County Population Distribution
and Water and Water and Wastewater Flow Projections." Table 5 of the September 30,1999
TM shows a projected 2000 County population of 204,439 and a projected 2010 population of
222,497. System growth for specific years within the 10-year planning period is not
identified. In this analysis, water service population growth between 2000 and 2010 is
projected to be 1,806 people per year, resulting in a 0.88 percent system growth rate in 2000
and a 0.82 percent growth rate in 2010.
Table 7 of the September 30,1999 TM shows a projected 2000 sewered population of 156,217
and contains two scenarios for a projected 2010 sewered population. From the first scenario,
the projected 2010 sewered population is 191,393.
Sewered population growth for specific years within the 10-year planning period is not
identified. The rate of sewered population growth exceeds that of water system growth
because of existing unsewered areas that will be connecting to the AUD sewer system. This
analysis assumes that connecting these existing unsewered connections will occur in
between 2000 and 2003, resulting in an approximate 3.7 percent annual growth rate between
2000 and 2003, and an approximate 1 percent annual growth rate between 2004 and 2009.
AUD Water and Sewer System Fund Structure
The AUD tracks water and sewer system revenues and expenditures through a system of
the three funds: Operating Fund (No. 506), Renewal Fund (No. 507), and the Bond Fund
(No. 508).
All revenues except sales tax proceeds are deposited into the Operating Fund, and the
Operating Fund's primary income sources are water sales and sewer sales. Other sources of
revenues include interest income, tap fees, delinquent fees, penalties, and rental fees.
Operating fund expenses include all operation and maintenance expenses, transfers to the
Renewal Fund for capital projects and transfers to the Bond Fund for capital projects funded
through debt proceeds.
The Renewal Fund's revenue sources are transfers from the Operating Fund and sales tax
proceeds The Renewal Fund is operated as a pass-through fund, where transfers from the
Operating Fund are made as required to cover capital project expenses. The Renewal Fund
typically carries no reserve balance and earns no interest income.
.
P:\ 152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLESIFINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY, DOC
4
.
.
.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Bond fund revenues are transfers from the Operating Fund and Bond Fund expenses are
capital expenses funded by bond proceeds. The Bond Fund is operated as a pass-through
fund, where transfers from the Operating Fund are made as required to cover capital project
expenses. The Fund typically carries no reserve balance and earns no interest income.
Operation and Maintenance Expense Projections
The basis for operating expenses is the AUD's 2000 budget, as reported in an AUD
document called the 2000 Budget - Departmental Combining Schedule. Operation and
Maintenance expenses are listed separately for the following nine system components:
administration, customer service, J. B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP),
construction and maintenance, raw water, surface water treatment, and groundwater. For
each system component, separate totals are listed for personnel services and supplies,
operating services and supplies, and interfund/interdepartmental charges.
Interfund/interdepartmental charges are payments to other City funds, including payments
to the City's general fund in lieu of taxes and franchise fees, administrative cost allocations,
vehicle maintenance, and risk management.
Budgeted 2000 operating expenses are projected for all cost categories using an escalation
rate equal to the projected inflation rate plus half the rate of growth. The annual inflation
escalator is 3 percent. Growth is factored into projected operating expenses because some
operating expenses will increase as the system grows, including power, customer service
costs, and maintenance of distribution system extensions to accommodate growth. Over the
ten-year planning period, incorporating both the inflation and growth adjustments, water
system operating expenses are escalated at a rate of 3.43 percent per year and sewer system
operating expenses are escalated at a rate of 4.03 percent per year. Administration and
indirect expenses, which contain water and sewer components, are escalated at 3.73 percent
per year, which is the average of 3.43 and 4.03 percents.
In addition to the inflationary and growth adjustments to operation and maintenance
(O&M) expenses, the following other O&M expense adjustments are included:
. Highland Avenue Filtration Plant, 2000: 5 percent increase as part of the ADD's
response to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) directive.
· Highland Avenue Filtration Plant, 2002: 10 percent increase, starting July 2002, resulting
from startup of plant expansion.
. Construction and Maintenance, 2000: 5 percent increase as part of the AUD's response
to the GAEPD directive.
· Groundwater (non-power expenses), 2000: 5 percent increase as part of the ADD's
response to the GAEPD directive.
. Raw Water, 2001: 20 percent increase, resulting from startup of new facilities and
additional repair/replacement of existing facilities.
. Raw Water, 2002: additional 20 percent increase, resulting from startup of new facilities
and additional repair/replacement of existing facilities.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. DOC
5
.
.
.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
· New Water Treatment Plant (WTP), 2007: increase equal to Highland Avenue Filtration
Plant cost of providing water on $ / cd basis, adjusted for inflation.
· Staffing Increases, 2001: Increased 2001 expense of $630,000 anticipated by AUD staff,
and in subsequent years, increased system-wide expenses of $370,000 per year.
In 2007, startup of a new water treatment plant is anticipated. The operating expenses
associated with this treatment plant, for financial planning purposes, are based on existing
costs associated with the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant and raw water facilities. In 2000
dollars, the future costs of the new WTP are equal to the existing Highland Avenue
Filtration Plant and raw water facility operating cost per unit of water produced, based on
an approximate Highland Filtration Plant average day production of 24 million gallons per
day (mgd) and anticipated new WTP average production of 7 mgd. The new WTP
operating expense also incorporates the 5 percent increase in Highland Avenue Filtration
Plant expenses described above, the two 20 percent raw water facility increases described
above, and an additional 5 percent increase associated with an expected increased chemical
use at the new WTP compared to the existing Highland Avenue Filtration Plant.
Capital Expense Projections
Capital project costs and schedules are obtained from the master plan CIP. In 2000 dollars,
the master plan CIP totals approximately $243,000,000. Of this total, 69 percent, or
approximately $167,000,000, is scheduled between 2001 and 2003. Capital costs are adjusted
for inflation by applying a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
The AUD's 2000 budget also lists operating capital acquisitions for each of the nine system
components listed above. The operating capital acquisitions listed in the AUD's 2000 budget
are related to AUD buildings, equipment, computer systems, along with an annual $500,000
capital expense paid to the J. B. Messerly WWTP facility operator, and some smaller capital
projects related to AUD water facilities and construction/maintenance program. The
J. B. Messerly WWTP expenses are expected to be for minor repair/replacement projects
that are not included in the master plan CIP. This analysis incorporates operating capital
expenditures of $1,475,000 in 2000 and $2,500,000 per year, in 2000 dollars, in subsequent
years.
An additional $1,000,000 per year is added in each year except 2000 for renewal and
extension projects. This expense, combined with the renewal and extension projects in the
master plan CIP, will allow the AUD to continue its existing renewal and extension
program.
Debt Service Expense Projections
Debt service projections for existing outstanding debt issuances were provided by AUD
staff. The AUD is currently repaying three revenue bond issues (Series 1996A Bonds, Series
1996B Bonds, and Series 1997 Bonds).The combined annual principal and interest payments
for the three bonds are approximately $4,700,000 per year. The 1996B Bonds will be retired
in 2002, the 1997 Bonds will be retired in 2021, and the 1996A Bonds will be retired in 2028.
The debt service payments of the three individual bond issues are structured so that the
total combined debt service payment is approximately constant. The AUD is also repaying
three loans issued by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. Loan 94-CS1-WQ of
P:\ 152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.DOC
6
.
.
.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
$12,442,958.32 was issued in 1996, and is repayable in 60 quarterly leveled principal and
interest payments, at an interest rate of 5.5 percent. The annual debt service is $1,223,616.68.
Loan SRF91-033 of $5,143,272.22 was issued in 1997, and is repayable in 78 quarterly leveled
principal and interest payments, at an interest rate of 4 percent. The annual debt service is
$378,651.52. Loan SRF95-00l of $6,553,216.52 was issued in 1999, and is repayable in 80
quarterly leveled principal and interest payments, at an interest rate of 4 percent. The
annual debt service is $477,568.28.
This financial analysis uses issuance of future revenue bonds to fund a large portion of the
master plan CIP. For planning purposes, future debt issuance amounts were selected by
CH2M HILL, to maintain appropriate utility reserves, meet debt coverage criteria, and
minimize rate impacts.
Future debt issues are based on a leveled repayment of debt over a 20-year period, at a
6 percent interest rate. Bond reserves, approximately 8.7 percent of the bond proceeds, and
debt issuance costs, approximately 2 percent of the bond proceeds, are capitalized. Debt
service issues would occur at the beginning of each year in which the capital expenditure is
planned. The bond issue proceeds would be spent throughout the year, and bond proceeds
would earn interest from the time of receipt by the AUD until the time of expenditure. This
analysis projects that bond proceeds from each issue would earn interest at a 5 percent
annual rate for six months.
Revenue Projections
Non-Rate Revenues
Non-rate revenues include tap fees, penalties, delinquent fees, rental income, interest
income, septic tank fees, industrial sewer charges, and other miscellaneous income.
Projected 2000 non-rate revenues total approximately $4,000,000, which includes $750,000 of
interest income, $1,505,000 of industrial surcharge revenue, and $420,000 of tapping fee
revenue.
Non-rate revenues are based on the 2000 budget, and, with the exception of interest,
industrial sewer charges and tapping fees are projected to increase at a rate of 3 percent per
year. Interest income is estimated to be 5 percent of the AUD's reserve balance, calculated
as the average of the beginning year balance and ending year balance. In 2000, AUD will
earn an estimated $600,000 interest on remaining proceeds from the 1996/97 bond issue.
This analysis assumes that the 1996/97 bond proceeds will be spent by the end of 2000 to
fund previously identified capital projects that are not included in the master plan. As
described above, proceeds from future bond issues would earn interest for an estimated six
months.
Industrial sewer charges are projected to increase proportionally with the percentage
increase in sewer rates, as described below. They are also increased at a 1 percent annual
growth rate, corresponding to the approximate population growth excluding connection of
existing unsewered development. Projected tapping fee revenues are based on the projected
number of new connections multiplied by the projected tapping fee per connection.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESIFINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. DOC
7
.
.
.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Water and Sewer Rate Revenues
Water and sewer rate revenues are projected to increase with system growth and as a result
of projected rate increases. Rate increases are described below and, in this analysis,
presented as across-the-board percentage increases, Le., the same percentage rate increase
applies across customer classes. Rate revenues are based on FY 1999 actual revenues, and
since they are projected to increase at the rate of population growth, this forecast is based on
the assumption that non-residential rate revenue grows at the same rate as residential rate
revenue. Several rate scenarios are presented, corresponding to different schedules for rate
increases and differences in some fiscal policy decisions. All scenarios incorporate the
projected 2.75 percent water rate increase, $0.10/kgal water volume charge surcharge, and
10 percent sewer increase scheduled for April 1, 2000. All subsequent rate increases are
scheduled to be effective on April 1 of the given calendar year.
Rate Forecast Results
Scenario 1: 2001 Increase of 18 Percent and Subsequent Rate Increases Limited to 8 Percent
In this scenario, an 18 percent increase to both water and sewer rates is forecast in 2001 and
subsequent increases are limited to 8 percent per year. Four subsequent 8 percent rate
increases are forecast in the years 2002 through 2005, followed by three 3.25 percent annual
rate increases in 2006 through 2008.
Of the three rate scenarios presented in this analysis, Scenario 1 results in the largest
projected rate increases. It is presented in this analysis as a means to allow the AUD to
consider the policy changes that would result in the lower rate impacts associated with
Scenarios 2 and 3.
Scenario 2: Increased Tapping Fee and $1,000 SDC Adoption
Scenario 2 incorporates an increased AUD tapping fee, implementation of an $1,000 water
SDC in 2001, and implementation of a $1,000 sewer SDC in 2001. The magnitude of the 2001
rate increase would be reduced to 14 percent. Forecast rate increases in subsequent years
include four annual 8 percent increases in 2002 through 2006 and three annual 3.9 percent
increases in 2006 through 2008.
Scenario 3: Increased Water Volume Charge For High Water Consumption, Increased Tapping
Fee, and $1,000 SDC Adoption
In April 2000, the AUD will adopt a two-tiered water volume charge structure, where a
$0.10/kgal surcharge will be applied to metered water consumption exceeding 3,000 gallons
per month. This $0.10/kgal surcharge is continued in Scenarios 1 and 2; in Scenario 3, the
surcharge is increased to $0.20/kgal in April 2001. Increasing this surcharge, along with the
higher tapping charge and adoption of SDCs would result in a forecast 11 percent increase
in 2001, followed by four annual 8 percent increases in 2002 through 2006 and three annual
4.1 percent increases in 2006 through 2008.
Model Limitations
The rate forecasts presented in this document use budgeted FY 2000 revenues as a basis for
revenue projections. No attempt has yet been made to project rate revenues based on the
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESIFINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. DOC
8
.
1.
. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
AUD's billing data and customer data. This is particularly important when considering the
price elasticity of demand. This analysis does not incorporate any reduction in metered
consumption that may result from an increased volume charge.
The policy assumptions that were used in the development of this rate forecast should be
confirmed by the AUD and model refinements, if necessary, should be completed.
This rate forecast does not contain an SDC fee calculation. The master plan CIP incorporates
a number of capacity expansions that could form the basis for an SDC.
There is no analysis of the extent, if any, of subsidization between the water and sewer
systems, or of subsidization among the AUD's customer classes. No cost-of-service
calculations are included in this analysis.
Additional limitations relate to the debt financing calculations. Use alternative debt service
structures or debt instruments will require working with the AUD's financial advisors.
Recommendations (Draft)
The following recommendations are presented for purposes of discussion so that this
financial analysis will represent an implementable method of financing the CIP contained in
the AUD's master plan.
Consider adoption of formal financial policies or modification of existing financial
policies regarding: reserve balances, cross-utility subsidization, impact fees, renewal and
replacement program funding
Develop long-term rate management strategy, particularly with respect to phased rate
increases over time
Conduct a cost-of-service rate analysis and incorporate transition to cost-based rates in
long-term strategy
Conduct an impact fee analysis and develop an explicit policy and strategy for financing
growth-related improvements
Address rate design issues including use of metered water use (year-round) for sewer
service charges, affordability and use of lifeline rates, and conservation rate designs
If AUD implements an SDC, it should consider allowing all new connections the ability
to finance the SDC over a period of time.
AUD has considerable expenditures planned associated with extending sewer service to
pockets of currently unsewered development. From a utility financing perspective,
extension of service to these areas should be accompanied by a requirement for existing
unsewered connections to hook up to the sewer system within a specified intervaL
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLESIFINANCIALANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. DOC
9
.'0
.
s:::
m
a::
..~
m
s:::
i.i:
(;)
(;)
(;)
N
c:
nl
a::
"-
CD
U;
nl
:E
Ul
~
5
nl
u;
::l
Cl
::l
c(
:0
co
~
o
00
.9
"0
2
'e m
:::iu..
Vl 01
o $.!:
'S al 2:
c e al
coOl-
~ ~.!:
~5i~
al::lC:u
2gjgo
~lluu)
u.. ::l 0 0
MU)ZZ
"0
~OOOOMf'o-OOOO<OIl)""Mf'o-
:ot:!"!~lX!~'":O!"!"llX!<l:!
Ere::~n::l~~~~~~~~
8 (fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
'-
l!?~ .r::
al=:a:"E
:3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ::n~ ~ ~ ~ lJi ~ ~CZi
o:c=(ij~~~~~(\jgjgj~~gj
g"EiIiJf(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
C\l0 <0
,!::::lE
CD =
1iia:c:
3:u..OC\lMooO<Oll)f'o-oom....M
>.U).€'":lX!~'":I';~'":"!~"lt:!
:c=ca::::~:!~~~~~~~
"EiIiJf(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
~ f'o-
"0
~OOOOOMOOIl)<O<OM<O<O
:ot:!,,!~o!l';lX!'":lX!<l:!~~
E<OooMll)oo....Il)<OooOO
OC\lC\lMMM................Il)LO
u(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
Vl
~
o~ .r::
o=: "E
"~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CO:c=(ij~~~~gj~re~rerere
>-"EiIiJf(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
eo <0
::l:::lE
"5
u..
.5
CD oS
1iia:c:
3:u..~~l218~~~~~~OiOi
~U:=iij~~M-<i<o"":ccienooo
~ffi~~0~0~W~W~~~
~ f'o-
ai
Vl
me
~~
coo.
1ii
a:
0'
o
....
o 0
-r:~'rfl.cfl.?fl.cft.(/!.cfl.(fl.
0t:!000 000 0000
(flOOccicciccicciMMM
"if....
LO
~
co
01
~ 18;j1j~re~~~~~~
1; NN~~
u
"0
co
"O:::lE
5(fl
u..a:lo~[O~rere~ LO
.go
o
:08lgo~~~:g~l:n~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
u
o
U)
~
=:
co
U)
o
COO
C\lcot:!.
.2 u.. ;;;
:0 g'"O
5i 05. a
~g.Q5
~ I- 1ii
al-g3:
2cno
~~g
u.. 0 -
C").E~
"0
~OOOOLOMmMLO<Of'o-m<o
:ot:!,,!,,!I';"!O!<l:!~"lI';<l:!
ErereC;;~~~~~~~~
8 (fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
~CD =
.!!!=:a:c:
8~~~~~C\!~~~~~tlit:;~
o~==iij~~~~~(\jgjgjgjgjgj
g"EiIiJf(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
C\l0 <0
,!::::lE
~ .r::
1aa:"E
3:~~~~~CZi~~~S!~~~
~=:a::::~~;!~~~~~~
"EiIiJf(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
~ f'o-
"0
~oooomMf'o-............""MM
0- 0 C\l .... f'o- .... .... <0 00 .... .... ....
DE <0 cci N -<i ,...: ci M Il'i ,...: en en
OC\lC\lMMM........................
u(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
Vl
~
0<1> -5
O=:a:c:
" COu.. O<O<O<O<OOOMC\lO<O<O<O
l!?U)U)Em....f'o-C\loo<Oll)oof'o-f'o-f'o-
8l~==iij~~~~C\i~~~~rere
>-"EiIiJf(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
eo <0
.a:::lE
::l ....
u..co -5
cCticcc ,.
-~u..OC\lM(,)f'o-m....C\l""OOf'o-f'o-
>U)E'":lX!~~"llX!....q<l:!~~
~=:;;::::~;!~~~~~~~
"EiIi~(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl(fl
~ f'o-
ai
Vl
al"E
~ Q)
.E~
coo.
1ii
a:
0'
o
....
0...." :>':00
cit:!~~~
(fl.... . .
oi<r-a:JCIJ
LO
~
ffl.(fl.cfl.cfl.
00<0<0
cciccill'iMM
co
01
e! OOC\lOOC\lf'o-f'o-mM<OO
~ ~~I';~,,!,,!,,!~~~
o
U
"0
co
"O:::lE
5(fl
u..a:lo~[O~rere~
.go
o
LO
-<i
:08l8o~~~:g~l:;~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
C\l
....
~
.,
E
E
"
(J)
.Q
:;;
c:
~
(J)
!II
X
.0
Q)
lL
CO)
'in
~
Q)
&
l!!
.,
II:
o
~
-<
.'
.
c
ca
a:
e!
c
ii:
c
c
c
C'\I
c::
l'll
ii:
...
CIl
1ii
l'll
::
II)
~
5
l'll
-
II)
~
Ol
~
c:(
C')
.,...
o
o
C\l
.5
Cij
Cl
()~
VJ~
....0
m(l}
:: 0
CD-
OOCD
o~
O<ll
C')31C!.-5
aLL"" ....
.~ Cl ~ ~
15 .8, ai :D
u Q. 10... Cti
oo~.S!~
~"O ~ "0
<ll CD> CD
~m8~
Q)eo~
u. (.) - (.)
C").E:~.s
"0
~COCOC\lco""lt).,...o""lt)C')
:cC!"!CX!"!":~c!":c!'<l;~
Erereg~~~~~~~~
8(1}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}~(I}(I}(I}
"-
(/)Q; .c .
~3: 'E -'
'5c1.lfEo~~~gg~;~~~{O
O>-oo~..,....,.. .
oE=ctS:!~~~~~C\iC\i~gjN
8"Eiii~(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}
C\lo co
.s::E
....
CD .r:
a;a:'E
~u.OC\lC')o)"""""",""~o)C')co
>-oo.€'":CX!C!CC!"!~II'!CX!~'":CC!
E=(ij;::::~~~~~~~~~
"Eiii~(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}
~ ,...
"0
~COCOIt)C\loO)"",,,,,,C\l
:CC!"!":"!~":~C!CX!":":
Ecoco"",~coO)C\lIt)COCOCO
OC\lC\lC')C')C')C')~~~~~
()(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}
<Il
~ ....
om .s
O::a:c:
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CD:C=<ll~~~~(\j~~re~rere
>-"Eiii~(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}
~o co
:::l::E
"S
u.
.s
....
CD .s
ma:c:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~==a;:::~;!~~~~~~~
"Eiii~(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}(I}
~ ,...
ai
<Il
<ll_
CD c:
.... CD
(.) (.)
c: ....
- CD
CDQ.
m
a:
0'
o
.,...
~~
'0
o .
(I}.,...
?fT"""
It)
':';
cfl.cfl.tfl.tfl.,*",*,tfl,
00000.,....,...
cO cO cO cO ui..r..r
CD
Cl
~ coC')O)C\l"",...COC\lCOCO
~ ~~~~~~~~~~
()
"0
CD
"O::E
5(1}
u. -
Q.
:gu
o
It),... II'! co 0) co
0C\l1t);:::C\lC\l,....
co
~
...
E
E
::s
l/)
o
.'"
...
'"
~
l/)
VI
x
.c
'"
u.
CO)
"
~
~
o
u.
'"
'iij
a:
o
::>
<(
~8l80~8g~~t;~~
:e~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
c:
co
.i
co
c:
u:::
<:>
<:>
<:>
N
C
..
0::
~
.l!!
CIl
..
:;;
CIl
~
:5
Jg
CIl
:J
Cl
:J
,oct
"il \1
"8 ...
::Eoo:
....
c c
C'~ :~
u l! UJ
.5 0 i)
1l"-."
fr~:3
Q'" u
- "
u u c
:~ ~ ~
-5(1)~
fr:e]]
~ :g 0 ~
.0 0.0'" '=
~<~~
-
8
N
~~f;.~O~~~~~O~O~O
a$~~ ~~&!g~ ~ ~
..tNa' a' N"':- ...:
""riN N
f-
8
N
R~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~.~ 0
~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~
MNO\ 00 N__ \0- '-
ioI'tNN N
I-
~:g~go~g~~~og:o~o
~~~~ ~:2r.{~~ ~ ci
;;!;.::.q~ ">~~~; - ~,
f'I1NOO I:"-- N-- ....
foI't N N N
~
8
N
~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~.~ 0
;~~~ :!gg~&:igg:x=~~
OOMt--l""'i -('f')V'llI"'i-v V')-
NOIlS -D N':-: 0;"':
tll'tNN N ....
].,..
.~ g
ON
.l::
~~~~Ot1~~~~~~~~O
~~~~ ~~~:;!~=~~
&i~~ ~ r-i"':"': ~...:
8
N
~~!~OE~~~&;~~~~O
~v:rrr)v1 OoOo;r-:':O"':NO
o~~~ ~~~~~:a-~~
M'.,fM' M M": 00":
...,-M N N
8
N
g ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ 8.~ 0
. . ., ...... .">..
~&~~ ~~&~~~~~&
Moo- 0-1:"1-.... r"--
~ N N r--
8
N
;:~~~oE~~C!i~~~~o
~~~~ ~~i~~~::f~g
.,fNo\ 00"':"':":"':"':":
il"')........ \0
~
~O~~O~SQ~i:l~~~~~O
cf. ~~ ~~~~~~~~~
M _C""I M-\Of"'lV\O _00
..: 00 ..0":":": r:
............ N
..
i~
,gN
~ 0 ~~. 0 ~~~~~.~~ 00 q
~ i2~ ~~~g~~:i5 ~
"':.n .,f"':"': M
.. - -
-
e
.!l
~ ~
.:! 1l
].:! ~l
'5] e g
d; ~~ ~
2 III g ~ u
;:l~ <Il eo]';
'-> \) ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,; '"
]~~ on t,Il~eo"o~ ]
=.... ~ 1l".a~e8.~\1
~a:l~~U.R~tJ,.~f889]~
Q ~ ~ia g.u..";J ~ca 8...5..s g g ~ ~
~ .~ .~ ~ ': <5 ~ ': .~ c: ~ 'il ~ <f: .:! f--
~ 't>'~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ .g .s ~ B .s g ~ ~
lJ'lt:Ct:C~~UV,lV,l..5o.s..sot:CV,)V,)
'---
....
00
:::f
00
:;i
..
-vV)ooON",
8~~~ ~~
g"'cOM ",cO
r--~$~ :8$
o\..oNr: <<iN
N N N
..
~
N
,.;
....
">
S;
..
~~~~~~~
~~~g~~~
oO..oN..o..o<<iN
N N N
..
....
00
.,..
,.;
v
a.
00
00
..
OV"'f""lOOV)
r---V)\Cl ro")V)
oor--o- r--o
g~Ei ~a
r:..oN;:! riri
N N N
..
00
00
N
00
00
N
,.;
o
;;
~~a~~~~
~~~$~~2
vi'..ori<<icOMri
N N - N
..
'"
~
a.
'"
N
a'
o
;;
~~~@~~~
~~~~~~~
<<i..o dvi' 0:. rid
N N N N
..
$
o
!.::
gi
..
~~E{~~~E{
~~~~~~&1
M"..or:";...orir:
N _ N _
..
00
2:
00
.,..
N
~
;;
g~g~~~g
~~~~~~~
M..o<<ivi'''':M"'';
N _ r-- _
..
o
'"
a.
;!
;;
~~~~~~~
~g~~~~~
~..ooOo\&fM"cO
..
;:::
,.;
.,..
v.
a.
....
..
~s~~~~~
~~~g~~~
"':..0 r-ir'vi-i'ri
N -N
..
00
v
'"
.,;
....
N
a'
'"
..
~~o~o~o
~..; vi" ...:
MOO l' 0\
O\V 'V ro")
0\..0 ...: ...:
;;
]
"-
....
o
~
~
o
en
ii
o
f--
\1 \1
1: 1:
1l1l
~~
'3 ]~
8 'S'~
8 1i e .:!
~ 'E ~ ~ :5 H
s::: t,) B LL. fi .. s:::
.a 8. <:;E ~ u !j ~
=~~~f-o"B~CQ
~ Dl)Ql) n-gca ~
'0 '~ ,~ Q ~ & ~'~
R &.'~ ~ ~ .0 ~ 't>
;>o.:lzOO:~UJ'"
....
00
N
N
00
,.;
a.
..
~
,.;
....
">
S;
..
....
00
.,..
~
a.
:;g-
..
00
00
N
00
00
N
,.;
o
;;
'"
:;;
a'
'"
N
~
;;
$
o
!.::
gi
..
00
2:
00
.,..
N
o
v
;;
~
a.
;!
;;
;:::
,.;
.,..
v
a'
....
..
00
;l;
.,;
....
N
a'
'"
..
]
"-
"0
~
;>
ii
~
c
o
."
..
-=
~
~
u
00:
3l e
cs S
::E '2
~~
."
c ~ 1
~ tf ,g
au.!!
Q~~
\1 ~ u
:~ ~ ~
~5~~
~ ~ ~ 8
:c ~~.o
~<?;Q
ItOt"'oO\f""l1tO
;;!;~:q:g"1
ooglis:art- ~
N~~a~ ~
""40")40")40")
ooOoof""lN
~to~~~
t"'oM~oOoO-
~~S~5 ~
'o()Nf""lN
""""40")""
Nt"'oV)f""loo
00 v f""l-N
MV)t"'oQ\-:
8~~~~
Ng~;i~
""40")40")40")
g~~~5
",..ovid"';
8~~~q
N~c:!i;;;~
40")40")40") 40")
~~~~~
:t~oo""'"
~N:;:g~
N&{~ri~
..".."..., .."
~~s::~f1
f""l~";d~-
gqqq~ :i!
N~Ellj!~
8
.~ g
~ ~
~.:!
'0 ~
lll'"
.,.. !!
;t
~"o
8.~
~ l5
,Eg
~~
ot::
.s~
_ 0
~ ~
B~
.s 8
]~
~'"
g ~
h
00:00:
1!' e
." "
!! .5
t~
.:..:t=-i
.. ..
't: 't:
u u
'C 'C
uu
V'lv_MO\
V'lNf""lMt'
oo-r--ro")"';
...:r-:..;...:
8~~~~
N::f:::l:::l!::!
tilt..".."...,
~~~~~
."l~-:'N
8~~~~
NSfN~t;
.. .. ..
I-
~~~~~
~0\r')\Clr--
"'Nf""lN
V'l0\\Clr--
N~~~~
.. .. ..
'-
8
'E
u
en
~
~ -g
] 1I.il
." \'l 'E,:
; ~ ~ ~
~8. ....>,
g~ ~~~,
~ ~ -g~-:
~ '~ ~ c3 .~
.5 8. '5 g '5 (5
!! 0 S c 0
8.~.o~.oH
o~.il.:!.il::E
co
~
u
>-
u
>-
u
>-
~
u
>-
:i!
-;.
~
u
>-
~
"
>-
"
>-
~
u
>-
~
u
>-
~
u
>-
~
u
>-
~
u
>-
~
u
>-
:i!
:i!
~.
N
..
.~
B
.~
U
~
::E
c
~
0-
I
,S;
lL
-ll
~
lL
'"
I
*
a:
o
::>
<
.
.
C>
C>
C>
'"
c:
OJ
;;:
~
..
u;
OJ
c:::i:
III '"
.i!
III gJ
c Cl
u:~
~
C
~ .~
::;:.~
~~
." U
- ~ E
~ - ~
~tf~
0.. B B
8<>1<>1
.~ ~ ~
:.:: t) 0
~5~~
ft .!l ~ ~
u "" ... ...
:o~~*
~<(~~
;t~
'1'1
8~B
N"'N
- ...
...
:g~
'" -
oov:S..,f
8tc~
MvlC"f
- ...
...
f-
00'"
~8
r-~':i
8l';."1
NVlN
- ...
...
f-
~~
Vl a-
~~~
~"'N
NviC"i'
- ...
...
N Vl
$\(;
]Vl.o.o
~8~l;
'e N ~~
0.. ...
~le
r- r-
:t~&;
~"'N
",v\ri
- ...
...
'" '"
Nr-
00'"
M..oaa
8~~
N..nN
- ...
...
00r-
-r-
~"l
8~~
NVlN
- ...
...
ON
-'"
q"l
8~~
N"'-
-...
...
88
~!X~~
"O(:Soooo
='('1"''''
.. -
...
'--
u
~
.c
t!
"
tIl
~~
"
<l
&l
~
~
~
d
II
- ri
~ 8
~ ~
\'l~
"; ~
~~
~ -
_~Ol
~~~~~~~~O
:ilN:::ll;;~~~~
~~~~~~-:-:
~~~~~~~:a
~~~~~~~a
~-::2-:~~~oo
~~~~5sE
~~9g~~~
~:}:2~~~t'
~~$~~~
~~~~~~
~:::~~~oo
-~-O\O
~N~~~
8i!i~:i~
~:}~:1~
_OONV')
~C;;r:::dt
c\ttiNN
oo\Ot---O\
~:::~J.
-NVl
~:!:~
~Nv{
S55
- Vl
:g~
~~
00
r-
r-
.;
3
~1lle"e"IllIlle"Ille"1ll
OVl\t")\nVlV")V'l'1"'1 VlV'l
r---r---r---r---r---r---r-..f"'-t"'--
e"
E'#.ffl.'#."#.~rf.~'#-~
~~88888~~8
~::aicOcritOui~~ci
~
!l
u
.5
*
~~8888888[38
O>ONNNNNNNNN
.::
u
"
c
u
~
~
<a
c
.g
'6
"0
<(
:!l-
o;!;t
S;l;;
"'00
=11:
......
~~
:q~
- '"
- a-
_ N
......
~=
-'"
~~
l:;i 2i
...
000
~~
~~
e; ~ '-
...
~:g
-M
Vl '"
oor-
~~
...
Vl _
ON
"1"!.
r-O
~~
tni
...
...
'"
]Vl~
.~ 8 ~
J:N~
~~
"'-
OOM
- '"
r- '"
~r:i
...
f-
~g
'" 00
Nr-'
NOO
- Vl
.,;....;
... N
...
I-
000
r-Vl
r-",
~~
N_
-:-00
... -
...
g
Vl
i~~
~N:!
-
~
..5
II
~
~
e
~
g
c u
u "
~ ~
,,~
c ~
.g ~
~cn
~ ~
3;;
0_
.0 :l
" 0
till-
-
S
8~
Nr-
..
~VlO"ltr----NO
oo:!:a~~~~~
~~.n~~~~g
~:!~~~:::!::::
...
:q
[3 ~.
N'"
..
OOMO'INM-O\O\
a~~~~~~~
$gg~~si&fc!~
~:}~~~~~oo
...
:;;
8~
N'"
..
\0('1000\0\--
~~~~~~f:i
;;:;~::!;~oo~~
~~~~~~oo
...
r-
'"
8~
N~
...
~:;o&;~~c;
~O"'1"t""'l"'1'oo
~g~~i~
~~~~~O\
fa~~~~
~v{~~;;i
~~:2~::1
-g,
00
8~
N~
....
00 ooVl 0
~~:J~
r:-=r:o\"
0\ Vl\O \0
~~::~
...
:g
",t'i
8~
N'"
..
s~i
O..oM
00"''''
~~~
...
00
'"
NoO
8~
NVl
..
Vl '"
8~
0-:
~~
N
'"
"1
8~
NVl
..
Vl
'"
o
'"
...
"!
~Illlllllllllllllllllle"e"
OV\VlVl"'V')V')VlVlVl
,....,....r-..r-..r-..r-..r--.r-..r-..
III
~ 1ll81ll III III e" III III e" e"
~ ...: $ :En:n:n:p~ ~ $
Q.._ooooooooV')~~o
~ ~
~.s
Nll
eij~1i!-Nt""'l;tV')~r-..OOO\
.!!~g~~~~~~~~~~
~~
~ u
c ~
~ ~
~ u
~ ~
~a
b :E
~:g
'-- '" <(
'"
- Vl
'" N
r-oo
- ...
N r-
'" ...
Na-
_ N
......
Vl a-
~~
~~
_ 00
_ N
......
Vl 0
N'"
r- -
le8
'" Vl
or-
- '"
... ...
'" r-
"'0
r- '"
~;
a- '"
... N
...
00 N
00 N
"'...
~~
r-';
... N
...
- Vl
...'"
N -
"'0
00 '"
0...
.oN
... N
...
'" a-
'" 00
a- a-
ON
00 '"
'" Vl
';0
... '"
...
00 N
'" N
...-
"':00
"'a-
r- '"
N 00
... -
...
Vl r-
'" '"
0'"
.n..o
...'"
N '"
-'"
... -
...
g
C g
~ ~
~ U
~~
0_
:e ~
~ ~
5~
0_
15 S
" 0
till-
c
~
Ii:
0'
ii:
~
.ci
of
M
~
of
*
a:
o
::>
0(
.
.
c:
m
.~
m
c:
u::
<:>
8
N
C
ca
a:
...
Q)
'In
ca
~
!
:5
.5
U)
:>
Cl
:>
c(
"il
"0
o
::0
co
"
""
- ~~ ~
" "
" ~
13 & 8-
as III
8 ~.5
_.g ~ E
~'3~8-
~~]]
:5 ~ ~ .~
~~~J:
-
c
o
'a .!l
]~
l>l
b'lb'lb'lb'lb'lb'lb'lb'lb'lb'l
~~~~~~aa8~
MMf'l"irrir'iI"'i-.:i-.:i-ff'irri
-
8
'"
-'l:t--O\N\OOr--Q
;;C;~!:::;l;~~~ a~
g~g~~~~ ~~
\OMvi' N~oO ...:
....
r-
8
'"
~~~~~~~Oi8~
~~~~~~g ~g
.oN'" C'i"':oO
....
r-
~~~~~~so~;
NN..nNo\..,f'~ c\'r<'i'
OONNM('t'l_OO Nv
"'V)V'l0\~V)r-- vo-.
v\N'v\ c-i.-:r-:
....
8
'"
8
'"
S\ON('t'll'\OV'lOO\O
\D~~::8~b~ ~
~~~8~:i&f ~
"1.v..t"').O\<"1~V.. v
V"lNv) M-f"'-
....
8
'"
N\()lI"'l('f'l-NO\OMO
r--_OON\Qo-.v 00
r"lvO\oor--anN -
gg:f~~g~sf ~
-M-OONv- '<:t
..nN'..n r-i...:r:
....
"0
.!l
l!
~
\Ov---rt'l-ONO
N_NlIiM_t" 00
ONV'lO\Mr--OO M
g~~~~~~ ~
vi'N'''; C"i'''';..o
....
8
'"
8
'"
~~~iS:ato~O~O
MO\OONrrlN 0\
No\~viNMr--: ...:
&1!:~;;C;::~~ ~
-..iN"; N"':..o
....
,...
'"
8
'"
"''''O~('f'lNr---080
r--r--t""'l N\O-
_r--N anV'lO 00
";-8N~~~:;f ~
;2;-~r-"''''.... ....
aN.... ":":-.0
I-
8
'"
("I"lf'l"l\O-r--OOMO~O
O\NC"'lOO_OON
_f""\O\vt"-_r--
N'..n..ocOMr:M' d
OOC'lMM-t""'Iv fO'l
vO"lt\OOON- \0
-.:fN'''; "':"':..0
....
I-
~
'"
~~~~~..~~..ooo
_Nl'r--rf1\O\I"')
~~~;;::~~~
..;...:..; "':"':vi'
....
1-'-
E
.!j
1l
;j
~ ~ ~
"" 0: 8-
::E = ~
.~] S 1t:
.g ~ ~ ~ B ~ b5
~~'B~~~~ oe:
"2 E g ~ 1l "0 -.:: "0 ~ ~
'6 ~ ~ ~ -t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~a8~~o:E:5zz
-
'"
8
o
00
f"o;.
~
....
r-
oo
""
..:
o
r-
,,;
'"
....
'-
o
~
M
~
~
....
~
..;
'"
r-
:1
....
'"
00
....
..;
....
00
....
'"
....
o
;:
,,;
....
'"
M
'"
....
~
....
[;
1i
....
...
~
~
N
'"
....
'"
'"
""
~
N
....
~
M
'"
'"
.,;-
;;;
11
I ~
I';
c
11
o
l:l
~
"
'"
"0
;j
B
~
"3
~
:;
..
o
~
x
D
<D
U.
.,
I
u.
<D
OJ
a:
o
=>
<
.
.
Augusta, Georgia
Water and Sewerage Revenue Bonds,
Series 2000
~ '
!
<>
~
Augusta Raw Water Pump Station, Circa 1899
. Engineer's Report
August 2000
. Prepared by
CH2MHILL
REPORT
.
Engineer's Report
Water and Sewerage Revenue
Bonds, Series 2000
Prepared for
Augusta Utilities Department
.
August 30, 2000
Prepared by
CH2MHILL
Management Solutions
';.
.
.
Contents
1.0 In tro d u cti on............................... .................................................................................. ..1-1
1.1 Authorization and Purpose.......................................................................... ..1-1
1.2 References.. ...... ... ..................... ......... ..... ......... ............... ... ....... ......... ...... ......... ..1-2
1.3 Assumptions........ ........... ....... ........ ........... ....................... ....... ............. .......... ...1-3
2.0 System History and Organization, and County Growth ......................................2-1
2.1 Organizational Structure.... ............. ................ ............... ...... ................ .......... .2-1
2.1.1 Augusta ............... ............. ....... .................................. ................. ..........2-1
2.1.2 System Management ............................. ........... ............. .....................2-1
2.2 Augusta-Richmond County Population Trends..........................................2-3
3 .0 Water System ..... ............ ...... ......... ............. ..... .... .............. ........ .......... ..... .... ...... ........ ... 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
.
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Overview of Potable Water System .................................................. .............3-1
Water Service Area......................................................................................... ..3-1
Water Supply.................................................................................................. ..3-1
3.3.1 Raw Water Pumping ..........................................................................3-2
3.3.2 Raw Water Transmission and Storage .............................................3-3
Water Treatment Facilities ............................ ....... ...........................................3-4
3.4.1 HigWand Avenue WTP System Processes ......................................3-4
Finished Water Storage, Chemical Feed Systems, and High
Service Pumping ............................................................................................. .3-5
3.5.1 Finished Water Storage ...... .................. ......... ................. ....................3-5
3.5.2 Chemical Feed Systems ................................. ............... ........ ..............3-6
3.5.3 High Service Pumping .............. .............. .............. ..... ........ ...... ..........3-6
Water Distribution System ................ ...... ............ ......... ........ ....... ................. ..3-7
Water Quality .............................................. ............. ............ ........... ............ ...3-10
Projected Water Demand ...................................... ................... ........ .......... ...3-10
Regula tory Impacts...................................................................................... ..3-13
3.9.1 Summary ........................................................................................... .3-13
3.9.2 State of Georgia Regulations ...........................................................3-14
3.9.3 Surface Water Treatment Rule and Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule ........................................................3-14
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule ..........................3-14
Lead and Copper Rule... .................................. ........ ......... ........ ........3-15
Arsenic............................................................................................... .3-15
Risk Management Plans (RMPs) .....................................................3-15
Residuals Management .............................. ....................... ...............3-16
3.9.4
3.9.5
3.9.6
3.9.7
3.9.8
4.0 Sewerage System ..........................................................................................................4-1
.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Overview of Sewerage System ............................................ ....... ....................4-1
Sewerage Service Area ................................................................................... .4-1
Wastewater Collection and Conveyance ......................................................4-1
Wastewater Treatment Facilities................................................................... .4-2
Projected Wastewater Flows.......................................................................... .4-3
Regulatory Impacts........... ............................................................................... 4-5
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA LJfILlTIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS. SERIES 2000
.
4.6.1 Watershed Management ....................................................................4-5
4.6.2 TMDL Development.......................................................................... .4-5
4.6.3 NPDES Permitting and Nutrient Management ..............................4-6
4.6.4 Onsite Septage Systems.................................................................... ..4-6
4.6.5 Residuals Management and 503 Regulations .................................4-6
4.6.6 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan..................4-6
4.6.7 Storm Water Management Plans ......................................................4-7
Proposed S ys tern CIP ........... ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Planning Criteria and Assumptions ..............................................................5-1
5.2 Summary of Capital Improvements ..............................................................5-1
5.2.1 Water Treatment. ................. .......... ........ .................... ........ .................5-2
5.2.2 Water Distribution System ..... ............................................... ......... ...5-4
5.2.3 Wastewater Treatment ............................ ........ ...................................5-6
5.2.4 Wastewater Conveyance ......... .......... ..... .......... ..... .................. ...........5-7
5.2.5 System-wide Improvements ...... ........ ..... ..... ................... ...................5-9
5.2.6 System Enhancement Projects .......... .................. .............................5-10
5.3 Anticipated Future Work .............................................. ...... ......... .................5-10
5.0
6.0 Financial Performance .................................................................................................6-1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
.
6.5
6.6
6.7
Historical Performance.................................................................................... 6-1
Water and Sewer Rates.............................. ...... ......................... .......................6-1
Financial Policies.............................................................................................. 6-5
Projected Operating Results ........................................................................... 6-5
6.4.1 Revenues .............................................................................................. 6-5
6.4.2 Expenses............................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.3 Debt Service ....................... ............ ...... ..... ....... ........ ....... ...... ..... ..........6-8
6.4.4 Debt Service Coverage .......................................................................6-8
6.4.5 Operating Fund Balances...... ................. ..... ..... ........ ..... ............... ......6-9
Capital Financing............................................................................................. 6-9
Series 2000 Bonds Analysis............................................................................. 6-9
Conclusions. ...................................... .... ................................... ..... ..... .............6-14
Appendix A Acronyms .........................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B Estimated Growth within Census Tracts ................................................... B-1
Appendix C 10 year Capital Improvement Plan..............................................................C-1
.
'-
IIIP:\ 143875\PUBLlCA TIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
III
.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Authorization and Purpose
.
CH2M HILL was retained to prepare this Engineer's Report ("the Report") as an analysis of
the feasibility of the issuance of $98,900,000 Augusta, Georgia Water and Sewerage Revenue
Bonds, Series 2000 (the "Series 2000 bonds"). CH2M HILL has served as the overall program
manager for the $42 million water and wastewater capital improvement program in
Augusta-Richmond County (the "County") funded by the 1996 bond issue. CH2M HILL
also completed the Augusta Master Plan 2000, approved by the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission July 19, 2000, which will serve as a basis for the current capital improvement
plan (CIP).
The proceeds of the Series 2000 Bonds will be applied to:
$ 88,011,062 - (combined with interest earnings) will finance improvements to the water and
sewerage system of the County in the amount of $90,127,000 (adjusted for
inflation, $94,021,372);
$ 910,465 - costs of issuance (includes underwriter's discount, legal fees, rating fees, and
other miscellaneous costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2000
Bonds);
$ 2,058,606 - original issue discount;
$ 733,247 - pay the premium for a debt service reserve surety bond and bond insurance;
$ 6,663,896 - capitalized interest through October 1, 2001; and
$ 522,724 - contingency associated with the preliminary sizing of the Series 2000 Bonds.
"The System" is defined as the water and sewerage facilities that are owned and operated
by Augusta, Georgia (" Augusta") together with all water and sewerage facilities acquired or
used by Augusta in furnishing water and sewerage services.
This Report contains the following sections:
· Section 1- Introduction - outlines authorization and purpose of the Report, study
references and assumptions.
· Section 2 - System History and Organization, and County Growth - provides an
overview of the System's history, organization and management, and County
population trends.
· Section 3 - Water System - describes the current Water System service area, facilities,
operations and assets.
· Section 4 - Sewerage System - describes the current Sewerage System's service area,
facilities, operations and assets.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
1-1
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
1.2 References
.
CH2M HILL reviewed and relied upon information provided by the Augusta Utilities
Department ("the Department"). While CH2M HILL has not independently verified this
information and offers no assurances regarding it, CH2M HILL has no reason to believe that
the information is invalid for the purposes of this Report.
Information used to complete this Report included:
· Interviews with the Augusta Utilities Department staff
· Preliminary Official Statement, Augusta, Georgia Water and Sewerage Revenue Bonds,
Series 2000, dated August, 2000.
· Augusta Utilities Department, 2001 Budget Workbook
· AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA, Annual Financial Statements,
December 31, 1995 to December 31, 1999
· AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY UTILmES, Financial Statements and
Accompanying Information for the year ended December 31,1999
· City of Augusta, Georgia and Richmond County, Georgia, Combined Water and
Sewerage Funds, Combined Balance Sheets, 1995;'
· Augusta-Richmond County Utilities, Miscellaneous Statistical Data for the year ended
December 31,1999 (prepared by Augusta Utilities Department)
. Augusta Canal Power Utilization and Raw Water Pumping Engineering Study, prepared by
ZEL Engineers, July 6, 1998.
. Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (prepared by Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission)
· The Regional Economic Forecast of Population and Employment Comprehensive Study, volume
II. prepared by DRI/McGraw-Hill for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(GDNR), September 1996.
. Georgia Office of Planning and Budget projection-The Georgia County Guide, Eighteenth
Edition 1999. Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. Ed. Boatright, Susan
R. Bachtel and Douglas C. Bachtel. 1999.
. Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Depar{plent, Technical Memorandum 1.2:
Population Distribution and Water and Wastewater Flow Projections, 1999 (prepared by
Diane Reilly, CH2M HILL)
. Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 2.1:
Water System Regulatory Compliance Review, October 4,1999 (prepared by Ed Minchew,
CH2M HILL)
. Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 2.2:
Wastewater Treatment Regulatory Review, January 2000 (prepared by CH2M HILL)
.
P:\1438751PUBLlCATIONSIENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
1-2
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
· Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 4.2:
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant Evaluation, December 18, 1999 (prepared by CH2M
HILL)
· Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 4.3:
Distribution System Improvements, January 31, 1999 (prepared by CH2M HILL)
· Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 5.1:
James B. Messerly WWTP Evaluation, January 21, 2000 (prepared by CH2M HILL)
· Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 5.2:
Augusta-Richmond County Wastewater Conveyance System Evaluation, Apri12000 (prepared
by CH2M HILL)
· Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Technical Memorandum 6.1:
Needs Assessment for Computerized Maintenance Management System, February 7, 2000
(prepared by CH2M HILL)
· Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta Utilities Department, Summary of Recommendations
for Expansions and Improvements, February 4, 2000 (prepared by CH2M HILL)
1.3 Assumptions
.
CH2M HILL also made certain assumptions about future conditions with regard to the
System. While these assumptions are reasonable for the purposes of this Report, actual
conditions may differ from those assumed. To the extent that future conditions differ from
those assumed, results will vary from those forecast. CH2M HILL's principal assumptions
regarding future conditions are:
· The County's population will increase from the 1998 level of 191,329 to 242,150 by 2020
according to the Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In addition,
many areas of the County are under new development as a result of a shift in growth
patterns. This growing, shifting population will require the Department to expand
service to new areas to provide water and wastewater utility service to new customers.
· System water consumption and wastewater flows will increase in proportion to the
forecasted increases in the number of water and sewer accounts and per capita flows.
· The Augusta-Richmond County Commission will adopt the rate increases necessary to
implement the financial plan outlined in Section 5.
Additional assumptions used in the preparation of the CIP are described in Section 5.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSIENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
1.3
.
.
.
\./
2.0 System History and Organization, and
County Growth
Augusta, Georgia (Augusta) is a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, created on
January 1,1996 pursuant to Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia which
authorized the consolidation of the municipal corporation known as "The City Council of
Augusta" and the political subdivision known as "Richmond County, Georgia" (the
"Consolidation Charter"). See Figure 2-1 for the County's location in Georgia.
Augusta owns the water supply, treatment, and distribution system and sanitary sewer
collection and treatment system. The Augusta Utilities Department (the "Department") is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the water treatment and distribution
facilities (the "Water System") and the wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities (the
"Sewerage System") that serves Augusta's service area. In addition, the Department
provides customer service functions including meter reading and customer billing, revenue
collections, and inspection of new construction.
2.1 Organizational Structure
2.1.1 Augusta
On January 1, 1996, Augusta was created as a consolidated city-county government, whose
territorial jurisdiction extends to all of what was formerly Richmond County. Blythe and
Hephzibah, small municipalities with populations of approximately 400 and 2600,
respectively, still hold their own municipal charters within the consolidated territory. The
relationship between Augusta and Blythe and Hephzibah is similar to that of counties to
municipalities located within the territorial limits of such counties. As a result of
consolidation, Augusta is able to provide, under one management, public services
throughout its territorial limits.
Augusta has a municipal form of government. Under the Consolidation Charter, the
, governing authority of Augusta is a board of commissioners designated as the Augusta-
Richmond County Commission (the "Commission"). The Commission consists of a Mayor,
who is the chief executive officer of the Commission, and ten commissioners.
2.1.2 System Management "'-
The System is managed by Augusta through the Department. The Administrator of
Augusta, who is appointed by the Commission upon recommendation of the Mayor,
oversees the management and coordination of the operations and activities of the
Department. The chief managerial officer of the Department is the Director, who is
appointed by the Commission.
Charles R. Oliver, c.P.A., P.E. has been the Administrator of Augusta since December 1,
1996. From 1991 to 1996, Mr. Oliver was the Assistant County Manager/ Assistant for
P:\143875\PUBlICATIONSIENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
2-1
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Special Projects of Polk County, Florida. From 1988 to 1991, he was the Special Assistant to
the County Administrator of Lee County, Florida, and from 1984 to 1988, he was the
Director of Program Support for a political subdivision of the City of Richmond, Virginia.
Mr. Oliver received a B.S. degree in 1972 from Clemson University, an M.S. degree in 1977
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an M.S. degree in 1981 from Frostburg
State College. Mr. Oliver is a Certified Public Accountant and a Registered Professional
Engineer.
Lon W. Morrey, c.P.A. has been the Comptroller of Augusta since September 28,1998. From
1993 to 1998, Mr. Morrey was a shareholder in a Washington-based accounting firm
providing accounting and auditing services to federal and state agencies including the
District of Columbia. From 1988 to 1993, Mr. Morrey was the senior manager for a large
regional accounting firm. Mr. Morrey also has served as the Supervisor of Special Reporting
for Fairfax County, Virginia, and as Director of Finance of a medium-sized, municipally-
owned utility system providing electric, gas, water, and sewer service. Mr. Morrey received
a B.A. degree in Business from Lake Forest University, and Mr. Morrey is a Certified Public
Accountant.
.
N. Max Hicks, P.E. has been the Director of the Department since June 4,1996. From 1991 to
1996, Mr. Hicks was the General Superintendent and the Assistant General Superintendent,
respectively, of the City's Waterworks Operations. From 1989 to 1991, Mr. Hicks was Public
Works Director for the City of Toccoa, Georgia. Prior to that he was a partner, director, and
vice president of the consulting engineering firm of Zimmerman, Evans, and Leopold, Inc.,
Augusta, Georgia. He is a licensed professional engineer in Georgia and South Carolina. Mr.
Hicks studied Engineering and English at Charlotte College (now University of North
Carolina at Charlotte), Charlotte, North Carolina, and Economics and Accounting at the
University of South Carolina at Aiken, South Carolina.
The Commission is currently interviewing candidates for the position of Assistant Director.
Mary H. Williams, c.P.A. has been the Finance Director of the Department since November,
1998. From January, 1997 until November, 1998, she was the Administrative and Finance
Manager for Bush Field Airport and from May, 1996 until January, 1997, she was the
Finance Officer for Housing and Neighborhood Development, both departments of
Augusta. Prior to joining Augusta, she was a Senior Auditor for Cherry, Bekaert & Holland,
L.L.C., from 1992 until 1996. Ms. Williams is a licensed certified public accountant and is a
member of the AICP A, the Georgia Society of CPA's and the Georgia Government Finance
Officer's Association. Ms. Williams received a BBA degree in 1992 from Augusta State
University.
Robin Austin McMillon, P.E. has been the Engineering Services Manager for the Department
since January, 1999. Ms. McMillon received a BS degree in Civil Engineering from North
Carolina State University in May, 1993. She worked as a Project Engineer for the
Government Services Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. in
Kennesaw, Georgia from July, 1993 until September, 1996. She worked as a design engineer,
technical writer, and manager for several small firms in West Palm Beach, Florida from 1996
until the end of 1998. Ms. McMillon is professionally licensed in Civil Engineering in both
Georgia and Florida.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
2-2
.
~
c:(
~i:
::)-J
00
Cl)Et:
~
.
.- !:l.
I ro
N~
a.l
'- C
::::l 0
0).-
,- .......
LL ro
U
o
-1
co
.-
E>
o
Q)
CD
-
co
'+-'
en
:J
C)
:J
c::(
z~
.J
::!
:I
:i
N
:c
u
CJt
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Alma Stephenson has been the Superintendent of Sales, Collections, and Customer Service
of the Department since June 4,1996. Ms. Stephenson has been employed by the City for 27
years and was appointed Director/Manager of the Waterworks Office and Sales in June
1995, after serving for 8 years as the Assistant Manager of the Waterworks Office and Sales.
The Department has 215 full-time equivalent positions authorized in its FY 1999-2000
budget and had 24 vacancies as of June 30, 2000.
No employees of the System are represented by labor organizations or are covered by
collective bargaining agreements, and the Commission is not aware of any union organizing
efforts at the present time.
The System's plant operators and maintenance and repair personnel are required to be to
meet the mandated certification levels prescribed by the State of Georgia Board of
Certification of Water and Wastewater Operators. Augusta pays for continuing education
programs to ensure that System personnel are qualified and maintain or achieve
certification. The System's operators meet or exceed the minimum credentials required by
the State of Georgia.
Additionally, all field employees must attend safety meetings and participate in Safety
Training Programs; these cover shoring and trenching, confined space entry, lock-out/tag-
out, and other safety topics.
.
2.2 Augusta-Richmond County Population Trends
.
From 1980 to 1990, the total population of the County grew by 4.5 percent, from 181,629 to
189,719 according to the US bureau of the Census. Since 1990, the population has increased
by 1,610 persons (0.8 percent) according to the US Bureau of the Census. Over the 1997 to
1998 period, the Bureau of the Census estimated that the County lost 433 persons. Despite
the slowing growth, the County ranks seventh in the State in terms of total population,
behind five Metropolitan Atlanta counties (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Clayton)
and Savannah's Chatham County. While the growth rate of the County as a whole has
slowed significantly, previously undeveloped areas of the County have experienced
population growth as the in-County population has shifted.
The shift of population within the County from developed areas, which have the
infrastructure in place to support the water and wastewater demands of the population, to
undeveloped areas, which previously had limited services or were unserved, will require
the Department to expand the capacity of the System in the growth areas. Appendix B
shows population growth by Census Tract, illustrating the recent growth (in positive
percent change) within the County occurring in the h!ss developed areas of the County
(measured by 1990 Density). The Department retained CH2M HILL to prepare the Master
Plan 2000 for Water and Sewer to meet the needs of its shifting population efficiently and
cost-effectively.
Several population projections have been developed for the County, and are presented in
Table 2-1. The projections used by CH2M HILL in forecasting water and wastewater flows
(see Sections 3.8 and 4.5), are based on the high forecast presented in the Augusta-Richmond
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This forecast is an estimate by the Augusta-Richmond
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORTB 3OA.DOC
2.3
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
County Planning Commission of population by traffic zones (sub-areas of Census tracts)
developed from building permit activity, the percentage of units occupied, and number of
persons per occupied dwelling unit as of the 1990 Census. The resulting population share
was used to allocate the 1998 Census estimate (see Appendix B) to County tracts.
The 2020 projection is extrapolated based on the expected percentage change between 2000
and 2010 as shown in Figure 2-2. These projections reflect the Planning Commission's own
vision and, based on the 2000 estimate, appears to provide a balance between the 1998
building permit estimate and Census estimate.
While growth is affected by factors that Augusta cannot directly control, such as growth in
adjacent counties and the health of the MSA's economy, the pattern of population
distribution that ultimately occurs will be heavily influenced by the vision of the local
government. The population distribution projections are intended to help the Department to
make informed choices when deciding how to better serve the community's citizens.
TABLE 2-1
Population Forecasts
Augusta-Richmond County, 1990 (estimate) through 2020
Forecast
Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Projection used for this Analysis
Percent Change
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission 1
Low 189,719
Percent Change
Moderate
Percent Change
High
Percent Change
"Building Permit" Projectlon2
Percent Change
Regional Economic Forecast3
Percent Change
Georgia Office of Planning and Budget4
Percent Change
Sources:
1 Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, prepared by Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission)
2The Building Permit Projection uses the August-Richmond Planning Commission's 1998 population estimate,
based on building permit activity, as a starting point and then applies the moderate projection's growth rate [from
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan]
3The Regional Economic Forecast of Population and Employment Comprehensive Study, volume II. prepared by
DRI/McGraw-HiII for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), September 1996.
4Georgia Office of Planning and Budget projection- The Georgia County Guide, Eighteenth Edition 1999. Center
for Agribusiness and Economic Development. Ed. Boatright, Susan R. and Douglas C. Bachtel. 1999.
1990
(estimate)
189,719
2000
(projected)
204,439
.
7.8%
196,465
3.6%
189,719
199,990
5.4%
189,719
204,439
7.8%
189,719
208,022
9.6%
189,719
207,261
9.2%
189,719
211,688
11.6%
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
2010
(projected)
222,497
2020
(projected)
242,150
8.8%
8.8%
203,450
3.6%
213,826
6.9%
222,497
8.8%
222,414
233,745
6.9%
5.1%
230,423
11.2%
260,904
13.2%
234,582
10.8%
2-4
NCU)'-O
W IO_or-
N"Cl <..> 0
W WWC1lN
l..L. :JO::~.c
. 0 .~ >- t.n g-
O l..L...o::)O
0 :6~.c
to 3;w-
o()O
..... 0
0 Oco
0 ON
0 co.
CO o~W
.- Cl
(i;"OC
-WC1l
::)t.n.c
0 o.C1l()
OlD
a...~c
0
L- 0 -
C1l
Q) 0 :5
> 0
CO 0.
0
a...
"#
"lit
t:~
00
._~
0l(W)
~
CO
.-
C)
....
0
Q)
C)
. CO
+-'
(/J
:::J
C)
:::J
<(
.
..
:;::;
c:
..
o
-
.. >-
.2 ..
.. E
" VI
...:.:
.... "
.. 0
.~ :;;
X c:
~~
0. ..
o.s
..
..
"'O~"
-g ~ .~
'0 ~ ~
c: _ "
.~ ~-;Q....
c: ... J c:
c: ~ 1) ~
-2~<J:;;
; .. c ~
~ .~ .;;:;
1:: 0 CD ~
~z~.Q
z~
...J
...J
-
I
~
N
:c
u
<Jt
.
3.0 Water System
3.1 Overview of Potable Water System
Augusta owns and operates a potable water system serving 58,473 residential and 6,415
commercial and industrial customers as of June 30, 2000. The System's surface water supply
is the Savannah River, supplemented by groundwater wells throughout the County. Water
from the Savannah River is treated at the Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant (WTP).
Water from the wells is treated at one of two ground water treatment plants (GWTP). A
third GWTP is under construction. Water transmission and distribution facilities convey the
water from the treatment plants throughout the 210 square mile water service area.
3.2 Water Service Area
.
The System supplies water to residential, commercial, and industrial customers located
within the County. The system supplies water to a geographic area of approximately 210
square miles (which constitutes approximately 88% of the land area of the County exclusive
of Fort Gordon) containing an estimated population in excess of 180,000.
The water systems of Fort Gordon and the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah provide water
service within those jurisdictions in the County.
Figure 3-1 presents the areas currently served by the Water System with overlays of existing
major water distribution lines. Generally, the service area can be characterized as having
complete water service coverage for potential customers who wish to connect to the System.
Projects defined in Section 5 as part of the CIP will further enhance the System's ability to
serve this area.
3.3 Water Supply
.
The System's primary source of raw water is the Augusta Canal. The System has four raw
water intakes on the canal, two primary and two secondary. In addition, there is a diesel
engine driven standby raw water pump. The raw water supply is pumped from the
System's raw water facilities located on the Augusta Canal to the System's Highland
Avenue Water Treatment Plant through a system of parallel raw water lines. There are four
pipe lines: 30 inch diameter cast iron, 36 inch steel, 6'6 inch ductile iron and a currently
inactive 42 inch pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe. The Augusta Canal is fed by, and runs
parallel to, the Savannah River; therefore the source of raw water is still considered as
coming from the river. The standby raw water supply facility is at the same general location
as the primary facility but pumps water directly from the Savannah River to the Highland
Avenue Water Treatment Plant through the same system of raw water supply pipelines.
The Georgia Water Quality Control Act authorizes the State of Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to regulate the withdrawal of
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
3-1
.
.
...-'-(1)
I 0 (D
('1') O(ii' c
~2 :.::i
:J-oC
ClCO
u::: (IJ 0"5
(IJ.o
~ oc
<(til
(DO
u '-
.~ 2:J
(D (IJ
({)S
'-
(D
.......
(IJ
S
ca
.-
C)
....
e
Q)
C>
ca
'+-'
tJ)
:::::li
C)
:::::li
<(
I;:
a
'E
a
0
~
"-
~
a; z~
Q)
u.
O~ 0
.. c (Il .J
., (J):f! 0
.( 0 ...I
Q) N co
., o~ -
0 "0 0.. :I:
.~ (Il Q)
Q)I 0 :i
., VI 0
(J) ., ~ c- o
c: ~ co
';:J Q).g N
.. ., u ..... %
51;; .;; 0
Q;~ 0
.:l5~ oot: U
~ :; ~ 2~Q)
ao"_ Q,I
. =' rq.;:. (J)Q)~ 0 ~t
<(~(J) =- "0 >. 0
D< '^-, O\:J- 0
......... :J-CIl co
-.....~. ~ u
C ~
~ 0_ 0
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
water from lakes, streams and aquifers in Georgia. Augusta holds permits for raw water
sources as noted below in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1
Water Use Permits
Raw Water Source
Permitted Withdrawal (mgd)
Monthly Average
24 hour Max. Day
Surface Water:
Primary Source: Savannah River/ - Augusta Canal 60.0
EPD Permit No. 121-0191-06
60.0
North Location: Savannah River EPD Permit No. 15.0
121-0191-09(currently unused)
Ground Water: Monthly Average
27 Active Wells - located at GWTP No.1, GWTP 18.4
No.2, and four individual sites (Rural Chlorination
Sys.) EPD Permit No. 121-0007
18.5
Annual Average
17.4
.
In 1991 EPD issued to the former the County a permit for withdrawal of raw water from the
Savannah River of 30 million gallons per day (mgd) monthly average and 37 mgd max daily
located just north of Interstate 20 where a new water treatment plant was to be constructed
(EPD Permit No. 121-0191-09). This plant was not constructed. After the consolidation of the
former City of Augusta and Richmond County, all permits were also consolidated. In June
2000 EPD approved transfer of 15 mgd monthly average and 37 mgd max daily capacity to
the current secondary raw water intake allowing the monthly average withdrawal capacity
from the Savannah River to be 60 mgd. The remaining 15-mgd capacity will be dedicated to
the new water treatment plant and intake discussed in Section 5.
In addition, Augusta is permitted to withdraw supplemental raw water from the Tuscaloosa
Formation aquifer through 28 wells, 27 actively producing and one deactivated. The System
is currently permitted to use groundwater under EPD Permit No. 121-0007 to pump 18.4
mgd max month average; 17.4 mgd max annual average. An additional well field and
treatment plant (GWTP No.3) is under construction scheduled for completion in the first
quarter of 2001. This facility will be rated at 5 mgd and receive raw water from four new
wells and one existing well currently using the Rural Chlorination System. When these
wells become active approximately 4-mgd capacity of the older wells will be reduced
maintaining the net capacity at current levels. The oldest wells will be taken off line.
See Figure 3-2 for the location of the wells and new WTPs in the Department's service area.
.
3.3.1 Raw Water Pumping
Withdrawal of raw water from Augusta's primary raw water supply is accomplished via a
raw water pump station which has an aggregate pump capacity of 88 mgd and is located at
the System's water intake on the Augusta Canal. Raw water pumping is accomplished
P:\ 143875\PUBLICATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
3-2
.
.
~-gEl
(Y)ro~
~(/)o...
:::l(l)......
.Qls ~
LLOlE
.~ 1U
ti~
'x I-
W"-
(l)
......
ro
S
ca
.-
C)
I-
o
Q)
C>
ca
.....,
CIJ
~
C)
~
<(
0
'E c .~
CO z~
2 co .~ W
0... 0::: Q)
- 0 LL.
-
C C ~
Q) Q) U 0 .J
0
.s E 0 ..I
rn co (S)
co '- -
Q) Q) :::l J:
'- .... a:
f- f- 0 :&
'- .... c 0
Q) Q) 0 0
co - 00 N
ro a.
5 5 Q) :I:
::::s::
"'0 Q) '-" 0
c u ~~ U
:::l co
e 't: Q) Q)
. (!) ~ 55 0 <It
0
0
13 13 0 f.l 00
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
primarily with two pumps, Units 1 and 4, with capacities of 20 mgd and 30 mgd,
respectively. Units 1 and 4 are powered by water driven turbines, originally constructed in
1952 and 1975, respectively, and improved in 1993 and 1999. Unit 1 is a two-stage
centrifugal pump and Unit 4 is a single-stage centrifugal pump. Units 2 and 3 are older
pumps, each with a capacity of 9.0 mgd, which are used less frequently. These pumps were
originally constructed in 1898, were improved in 1939 and received major upgrading in
1999.
A fifth unit, Unit 5, is a standby diesel engine-driven raw water pump, with a water intake
which can be used in the Augusta Canal or the Savannah River, and a raw water pumping
capacity of 20 mgd. This standby auxiliary system was originally constructed in 1975 and is
housed in the same building as Unit 4, which received major upgrading in 1999. See Table 3-
2 below for details of the five raw water pumps.
TABLE 3-2
Existing Equipment at the Raw Water Pump Station
Pump No. Flow Capacity Turbine Flow (cfs) Installed Capacity Comments
(mgd)
No.1 20 550 1,650 hp Good condition
No.2 9 250 750 hp Fair condition
No.3 9 250 750 hp Fair condition
No.4 30 814 2,500 hp Good condition
No.5 20 (17 if o (Diesel-driven) . 2,000 hp Good condition
withdrawing water
directly from the
river)
.
Source: Technical Memorandum 4.2: Highland Avenue Filtration Plant Evaluation, December 18,1999
3.3.2 Raw Water Transmission and Storage
Transmission lines for raw water from the existing pump station to the raw water reservoirs
at the Highland Avenue WTP is currently accomplished via three pipelines, older 30-inch
cast iron and 36-inch steel pipes and a recently completed 60-inch ductile iron (DI)
transmission line. (An existing 42-inch concrete pipeline has been taken out of service to be
evaluated for possible use as a backup supply line). The pipelines have a total capacity
range of 102.15 to 163.40 mgd (or a firm carrying capacity with the 6O-inch out of service of
38.7 to 61.88 mgd) at typical velocity ranges of 5 to 8 feet per second (fps) for pumped flow,
respectively. "-
Augusta has raw water storage capacity of approximately 379 acre-feet or 124 million
gallons at two raw water storage reservoirs which serve the System. They provide pre-
settling of suspended matter in the raw water as well as storage during times of low river or
canal flows. Water flows by gravity from these reservoirs to the WTP'
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
3-3
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
3.4 Water Treatment Facilities
Augusta owns three water treatment plants and a rural cWorination system, as illustrated in
Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3
Water Treatment Plants and Chlorination System
Rated Capacity 1999 Production of Date of
for Treatment of Treated Water Original Dates of
Plant Raw Water (maximum day) Construction Improvements
Highland Avenue WTP 60.0 mgd 43.1 mgd 1939 1949,1954,1987,
Permitted to 60 mgd (EPD 1994,2000
Permit No. CS2450000) but
improvements are necessary
before plant can sustain that
production level.
Peach Orchard (GWTP No.1) 10.0 mgd 9.0 mgd 1966 1969, 1996
Highway 56 Loop (GWTP No.2) 10.0 mgd 8.9 mgd 1979 1985,1992, 1996
Rural Chlorination System 3.7 mgd 2.9 mgd 1972 Each year since 1981
Totals 83.7 mgd 63.9
.
The rural cWorination system is served by four wells identified as Brown Road, Plantation
Road, Old Waynesboro Road and Kimberly-Clarke Wells; at each well there is a cWorine
solution feed system for disinfection, a caustic soda solution feed system for pH adjustment,
and fluoridation via addition of hydrofluosilicic acid.
Augusta is currently constructing an additional ground water treatment plant (GWTP No.
3) with a rated capacity of 5.0 mgd to be complete and operational March 2001. Raw water
for this new plant will be supplied by four new wells and one of the existing Rural
CWorination System wells. The current chemical treatment at this existing well will be
removed. GWTP No.3, when placed in service, will allow the Department to remove the
oldest wells serving GWTP No.1 from primary service. Section 5 outlines the capital
improvements planned for the water treatment facilities.
.
3.4.1 Highland Avenue WTP System Processes
Pre-Flash Mixing and Flow Splitting: Pre-treatment chemicals are added just downstream
of the raw water venturi meter and control valve. These chemicals include chlorine, lime
and alum. (Polymer, when added, is injected upstream of the flow meter.)
Flocculation: Flocculation is provided through six flocculation basins - the effluents from
the first two are combined and split among sedimentation basins 1, 2 and 3. Each of the
remaining four sedimentation basins has its own flocculation basin.
Sedimentation Basins: Flow into sedimentation basins 1, 2 and 3 is through a series of 12
inlets for each basin. Settled water from these first three basins enters a settled water flume
which is separate from the one serving the other basins. The two settled water flumes
combine in the filter influent flume.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
3-4
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Sedimentation basins 4, 5, 6 and 7 each receive flow from their respective flocculation basin.
Influent into the basin is through a series of ten openings in the bottom of the respective
inlet flume. The effluent from basins 4, 5, 6 and 7 combines in a single settled water flume,
which flows to the filter influent flume.
Filtration: From the sedimentation basins, settled water flows through two separate
channels (one from sedimentation basins 1 through 3; the second from sedimentation basins
4 through 7) to the filter influent flume.
The Highland Avenue Filtration Plant includes ten dual-media, two-celled filters, each with
a surface area of approximately 1050 ft2. At the current rated capacity of 60 mgd, the
filtration rate is 4.0 gpm/ ft2 with all filters in service. Each filter includes Leopold
underdrains, 8 inches of gravel, 9 inches of sand, and 20 inches of anthracite.
Backwash troughs are cast-in-place concrete. Rotary surface wash arms with nozzles are
included for cleaning of the expanded media during backwashing. Filter effluent piping
includes a rate-of-flow controller for each filter.
Post Flash Mixing: The post flash mixer basin is a two-compartment basin, with each
compartment having a pitched blade turbine mixer. Post-treatment chemicals (fluoride,
lime, phosphate, and chlorine solution) are added as the filtered water enters the basin in
the transition piece from a 60-inch pipe to a 6-foot by 4-foot rectangular opening.
.
3.5 Finished Water Storage, Chemical Feed Systems, and High
Service Pumping
3.5.1 Finished Water Storage
The Highland finished water storage supplies the lower pressure zones directly by gravity
while the remainder is pumped to the System's storage facilities located in various pressure
zones. The treated water is then fed by gravity or pumped throughout the System's water
distribution network.
There are five finished water storage tanks (clearwells) at the Highland Avenue WTP, with a
total storage capacity of 15.45 MG:
. Clearwell No.1 - 1.25 MG
. Clearwell No.2 - 3.0 MG
. Clearwell No.3 - 5.0 MG
. Clearwell No.4 - 1.6 MG
. Clearwell No.5 - 4.6 MG '-
.
Clearwell No.2 was recently modified to add baffling for disinfection concentration
multiplied by time (CT). The current modifications will result in all treated water being
directed through Clearwell No.2. Two additional30-inch influent pipes are being added
from the post flash mix basin into this clearwell. From Clearwell No.2, several pipes
connect this clearwell with the four remaining finished water clearwells.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSIENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
3-5
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
3.5.2 Chemical Feed Systems
The chemical feed system at the Highland Avenue WTP includes: a liquid lime system
which includes tWo bulk tanks and three lime slurry feed pumps; a dry lime system used as
a backup to the liquid feed system: a chlorination system with five chlorine containers on-
line and five that serve on a standby basis; A Polymer feed system used when required by
high turbidity levels; a Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) when required for taste and odor
problems; and a phosphate feed system. Also, the liquid alum system includes two bulk
tanks, a day tank, and new feed pumps
3.5.3 High Service Pumping
There are three sets of high service pumps at the Highland Avenue WTP: the generator
building pumps (also identified as the old Fort Gordon High Service pumps), the filter
gallery pumps, and the auxiliary pumps plus the Central Avenue Booster Station. An
additional set of high service pumps are located at the Wrightsboro Road Booster Station.
Table 3-41ists each system's pumping capacities in gallons per minute (gpm), elevation of
the pressure zone served (nominal mean sea level, feet) and the difference in elevation the
pumps must pump against (head, feet). The pressure zone is designated in terms of the
mean sea level (MSL) elevation of the water surface in storage tanks serving the area when
the water is at the full tank level. Section 5 outlines the capital improvements planned for
the High Service Pumps.
.
TABLE 3-4
Summary of High Service Pumping
Location
Central Avenue Booster Station
Aux. High Service Pump
Aux. High Service Pump - Diesel
High Service Pump - Diesel
High Service Pump
High Service Pump - Backup
High Service Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Wrightsboro Road Pump (Existing)
Wrightsboro Road Pump (New)
Wrightsboro Road Pump (New)
*This station can pump to either pressure zone.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
From To Head (ft) Flow
Elevation Elevation Total Dynamic gpm
MSL MSL Head (TDH)
433 420 66 3,000
----------
433 564 173 8,100
433 564 173 8,100
433 564 160 2,000
433 564 160 5,600
433 564 160 2,000
433 564 160 3,500
433 630 or 598* 310 1,250
433 630 or 598* 300 2,500
433 630 or 598* 300 2,500
433 630 or 598* 300 1,250
564 630 100 700
564 630 100 900
564 630 100 900
3-6
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS. SERIES 2000
.
3.6 Water Distribution System
The System's water distribution consists of approximately 1,010 miles of pipelines, ranging
in size from 6 inches to 24 inches in diameter. Most of the pipelines are made of cast iron or
ductile iron. Approximately 20% of these pipelines have been in service for 50 years or
more, with the oldest pipelines installed approximately 140 years ago.
Finished water is distributed from the Highland Avenue WTP by gravity and by pumping.
Finished wate! is pumped using the High Service Pump Station and Fort Gordon Pump
Stations. Gravity flow is used to supply the 417 ft MSL gradient (Intermediate) and the 310
ft MSL gradients (Low). High Service PS is used to supply the northern part of the system
which has pressure zone elevations of 564 ft. MSL and 500 ft. MSL. The Fort Gordon PS is
used to supply the western part of the System and can supply either the 598 ft. MSL system
or the 630 ft. MSL system. The Wrightsboro Road PS has been recently refurbished to supply
the 630 ft. MSL pressure zone.
Finished water is pumped from GWTP No.1 and No.2 into the intermediate pressure
gradient (417 ft. MSL). Distribution system pump stations situated at various locations are
used to feed isolated higher pressure zones. See Figure 3-3 for the locations of the pump
stations.
Water levels in the finished water clearwells at the Highland Avenue WTP and system
pressure requirement at the 417 ft. MSL gradient limits gravity flow from the clearwells into
the 417 ft. MSL pressure zone. Areas in the 417 ft. MSL pressure zone not served from the
Highland Avenue WTP are supplied from GWTP No. 1.
In addition to the pressure zones listed above, the distribution system contains several
pressure zones that are fed using individual wells, booster pump stations or pressure
reducing valves. Some of the existing pressure zones consist of small areas with limited
volume of storage. In addition, the difference in the hydraulic elevation of some pressure
zones is relatively small. A summary of pressure zones is presented in Table 3-5.
.
TABLE 3-5
Pressure Gradient Summary
System
Overflow
Elevation (ft)
Water Source
Surface Water Plant Pressure Zones
Super High
High
Adjusted High
.
Intermediate
Low
Ground Water Plant Pressure Zones
High
Pine Hill High
Pine Hill
Water Plant
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
630
564
500
Fort Gordon PS
High Service and Auxiliary HS PS
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) from
the High System
Gravity for the Plant's Clearwell
PRVs from the Intermediate System
. ~~
433
310
598
521
457
437/417
BPS from 417 feet
BPS from 457 at Brown Road
Pine Hill Wells 1, 2, and 3
GW Plants No. 1 and No.2
3-7
.
.
"E C
('CI ('CI
0...0...
.
+" +"
C C (J)
Q) Q) C
E E"~
co co ro
~ ~ en
f-f-O)
:D :>>.~
+" +" c..
('CI ('CI E
5: 5: :J
"1:J Q) 0...
c ~ m
=-'t:......
e ('CI
~ ~5:
Gl Gl Gl
(YJ (I)
'c
(YJO
".+::i
QJ ro
..... .......
~(f)
"- OJ
LLC
"0..
E
::J
0....
.....
QJ
.......
ro
S
a1
.-
C)
....
o
Q)
C)
a1
~
en
:::J
C)
:::J
<(
a;
Q)
I.J...
z<
C)
C)
C)
lD
...J
..I
-
:I
:i
N
:z:
u
~t
C)
C)
C)
co
C)
C)
C)
C)
co
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
In addition, the distribution system is equipped with several storage tanks and booster
pumping stations. Summaries of distribution system storage and pumping facilities for the
surface and ground water plants are presented in Tables 3-6 and 3-7.
TABLE 3-6
Surface Water Storage and Pumping Facilities
Location
Location
Elevation
Gallons
Capacity
Pressure
Systems
Served
Highland Ave WTP Clearwell1 433 1,250,000
Highland Ave WTP Clearwell 2 433 3,000,000
Highland Ave WTP Clearwell 3 433 5,000,000
Highland Ave WTP Clearwell 4 433 1,600,000
Highland Ave WTP Clearwell 5 433 4,600,000
----..-----------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------
Total Clearwells 433 All 15,450,000
Berkman's Road 418 420 500,000
Highland Ave WTP Tank 564 564 500,000
Highpoint Tank 564 564 1,000,000
Walton Way Extension 501 500 750,000
Belair Road 630 630 1,000,000
Total Elevated Storage 3,750,000
.
From
To
gpm
Location
Summary of Surface Water System Pumping
Central Avenue Booster Station
Aux. High Service Pump
Aux. High Service Pump - Future
Aux. High Service Pump - Future
Aux. High Service Pump - Diesel
High Service Pump - Diesel
High Service Pump
High Service Pump - Backup
High Service Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Fort Gordon Pump
Wrightsboro Road Booster (new)
Wrightsboro Road Booster (new)
Wrightsboro Road Booster (Existing)
Total Pumping
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
433
564
564
564
420
564
564
564
564
564
564
564
564
630 or 598
630 or 598
630 or 598
630 or 598
630
630
630
Head (ft)
66
173
173
160
160
160
160
310
300
300
300
100
100
100
3,000
8,100
o
o
8,100
2,000
5,600
2,000
3,500
1,250
2,500
2,500
1,250
900
900
700
42,300
.
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 :lOA.DOC
3-8
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
. TABLE 3-7
Ground Water System Storage and Pumping Facilities
Location Elevation System Gallons
Ground Water System Ground Storage
GWTP No. 1 Clearwell 162 All 500,000
GWTP No.2 Clearwell 128 All 1 ,000,000
Faircrest Avenue 436 417 5,000,000
Faircrest Avenue 417 417 500,000
Windsor Spring Road 417 417 500,000
Richmond Hill Road 417 417 500,000
Golden Camp Road 417 417 250,000
Morgan Road 417 417 2,000,000
Tobacco/Morgan Rd 417 598 5,000,000
(placed in operation Aug 2000)
Brown Road 417 417 1,000,000
Pine Hill 457 521 300,000
Rose Hill 412 417 2,000,000
Wallie Drive 457 457 300,000
Total Ground 18,850,000
Ground Water System Elevated Storage
Pine Hill 521 521 150,000
. Highway 56 457 417 500,000
Tobacco Road 598 598 500,000
Fairington Drive 598 598 250,000
Georgetown 598 598 500,000
Lumpkin Road 598 598 250,000
Old Waynesboro Road 521 521 500,000
Greenland Road 598 598 500,000
Total Elevated 3,150,000
Location From To Head (ft) gpm
Summary of Ground Water System Pumping
GWTP No. 1 - Pump 1 162 417 310 1,400
GWTP No.1 - Pump 2 162 417 310 1,400
GWTP No.1 - Pump 3 162, 417 310 1,400
GWTP No.1 - Pump 4 162 "'-"'- . 417 310 1,400
GWTP No.1 - Pump 5 162 417 310 1 ,400
GWTP No.2 - Pump 1 128 417 352 1,800
GWTP No.2 - Pump 2 128 417 352 1,800
GWTP No.2 - Pump 3 128 417 352 1,800
GWTP No.2 - Pump 4 128 417 352 1,800
GWTP No.2 - Pump 5 128 417 352 1,800
. TobaccolMorgan Rd Booster (Aug. 2000) 417 598 280
Tobacco Rd/Morgan Rd Booster (Aug. 2000) 417 598 280
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC 3-9
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
'. Location From To Head (ft) gpm
Summary of Ground Water System Pumping
Highway 56 Booster (inactive) 417 457 153 1 ,400
Highway 56 Booster (inactive) 417 457 153 1 ,400
Brown's Road Booster (inactive) 417 417 124 1 ,400
Brown's Road Booster (inactive) 417 417 124 1 ,400
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Richmond Hill Booster Station 417 598 280 1,060
Richmond Hill Booster Station 417 598 280 1,060
Richmond Hill Booster Station 417 598 280 1,060
Norton Road Booster Station 417 417 59 1,360
Norton Road Booster Station 417 417 59 1,360
Norton Road Booster Station 417 417 52 2,350
Golden Camp Booster - Vertical 417 598 285 1,050
Golden Camp Booster Station 417 598 236 1,100
Golden Camp Booster Station (spare) 417 598 700
Golden Camp Booster Station (spare) 417 598 700
.
The meters at each connection are read once per month for billing purposes. The 1999 ratio
of non-billed water to purchased water or unaccounted for water (representing water that
was lost because of unmetered usage and/ or leaks), was approximately 8 percent.
3.7 Water Quality
As a retail water system, Augusta is required to conduct testing of distribution system water
quality. The System's program is in compliance with regulatory criteria. Raw water from the
Augusta Canal and Savannah River is of good quality, ideal for surface water supply. See
section 3.9 on regulation impacts for further discussion of water quality requirements.
3.8 Projected Water Demand
During 1999, Augusta billed customers for approximately 143,080 million gallons. See
Table 3-8 for the number of customers by class and average daily water consumption. The
total revenue of the 10 largest customers represented 12.94 percent of 1999 sales. The ten
largest water customers of the System are presented in Table 3-9. No independent
investigation has been made of, and consequently no representation can be made as to the
stability or financial condition of any of the customers listed in Table 3-9 or that such
customers will continue to maintain their status as major customers of Augusta.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.OOC
3-10
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUST A UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
TABLE 3-8
Water Demand 1999
Actual 1999 water consumption
Water Demand
Average Daily (mgd)
Maximum Daily (mgd)
39.2
59.7
Number of Water Connections
Residential
Commercial and Industrial
Total
58,042
6,355
64,397
TABLE 3-9
The Ten Largest Water Customers
(for the 12-month period ending December 31, 1999)
Thousand Gallons % of Total Water
Customer (kgal) Metered Annual Billing Revenues
Nutra Sweet 582,765 $587,561 3.67
Proctor & Gamble 277 ,576 2851180 1.78
MCG Complex 191,260 220,205 1.37
. Huron Tech 178,452 180,620 1.13
Kendall 154,108 156,070 .97
Searle 150,189 152,584 .95
Castleberry Food Co. 147,052 148,982 .93
Avondale Sibley Mill 142,549 145,054 .90
Spartan Mills 130,510 133,918 .83
University Hospital 104,848 112,917 .70
Total of 10 Largest Water 2,059,309 $2,123,091 13.23%
Customers
.
Augusta's projection of future water production needs is based on the County's anticipated
total population, excluding Fort Gordon. The ge9graphical distribution of population is not
a factor in the plant-level planning, but is impoitant",with respect to water transmission as
part of the hydraulic distribution of water to custo~ers.
The EPD mandates that utility systems achieve some measure of water conservation and
Augusta continues to practice passive conservation rather than a more aggressive
conservation program. With the current level of conservation, Augusta is expected to
experience a small increase in per capita use over the next few years. The Technical
Memorandum prepared to analyze the projected water demand (TM 1.2, Population
Distribution and Water and Wastewater Flow Projections, dated December 2, 1999), estimates
P:\143875\PUBLICATlONS\ENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
3-11
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
that the System will experience a 2 percent (0.09 percent per year) increase in per capita
water usage.
Table 3-10 presents Augusta's 1998 and projected per capita water usage in terms of gallons
per day. This usage rate is determined by total water produced divided by population. This
rate then includes both customer billed usage plus unaccounted for water. The per capita
needs include residential and commercial usage. Industrial needs are presented separately,
since they are not expected to be directly linked to population growth. The projected annual
average production in million gallons per day (mgd) and maximum day production are
intended to be planning-level estimates of the Department's future needs.
TABLE 3.10
Projected Water Consumption
1998 to 2020
1998 2000 2010 2020
Total Population 191,329 204,439 222,497 242,150
Per capita Water Usage, gpd (commercial and 151 151 153 154
residential)
Industrial Usage, mgd 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.7
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd 39.2 41.2 44.5 48.1
Max. Day Water Usage, mgd 57.7 61.1* 71.2 n.o
.
. Although the system did record one day of 63.2 within the first 6 months of 2000, the annual maximum day is
expected to be 61.1 mgd.
, While the Department can take actions to encourage conservation, it should be noted that
the development style, or population distribution, can also affect the level of water
consumption. This would affect both per capita water usage and the peaking of the
maximum day production, factors which are held constant in these projections.
Residential and commercial water usage is projected to be directly related to the growth in
population. Industrial needs, however, are developed independently of population growth.
It is assumed that industrial water usage, exclusive of conservation, will increase by 5
percent over the planning period. Table 3-11 presents water usage by customer class.
The peaking factor as defined in Technical Memorandum 1.2, Population Distribution and
Water and Wastewater Flow Projections, for industrial usage is assumed to be 1.0; in other
words, maximum day and average annual needs would be roughly the same. Commercial
consumption is expected to have a maximum day peaking factor of 1.2 times average day
demand. All additional peak day needs are assumed to be associated with residential
consumption. System-wide maximum day needs are currently 1.47 times average annual
usage. By 2010, the system-wide peaking factor is expected to increase to 1.6, as additional
water becomes available for irrigation which tends to have a significant impact on peak
demands.
.
P:\143875\PUBUCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT83OA.DOC
3-12
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS. SERIES 2000
.
TABLE 3-11
Projected Water Usage by Customer Class, Recommended Projection
1998 to 2020
Class
1998
2000
2010
2020
Residential
Avg. Annual Water Usage 17.4 18.6 20.4 22.4
Max. Day Water Usage 35.8 36.0 44.4 48.3
(Peaking factor: varies)
Commercial
Avg. Annual Water Usage 11.6 12.4 13.6 14.9
Max. Day Water Usage 12.6 14.8 16.3 17.9
(Peaking factor: 1.2)
Industrial
Avg. Annual Water Usage 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.7
Max. Day Water Usage 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.7
(Peaking factor: 1.0)
Total
Avg. Annual Water Usage 39.2 41.2 44.5 48.1
Max. Day Water Usage 57.7 61.1 71.2 77.0
Source: T~hnical Memorandum 1.2, Population Distribution and Water and Wastewater Flow Projections,
dated December 2, 1999.
.
To meet projected demands the Department will need to upgrade the Highland Avenue
WTP and build a new surface water treatment plant. The current withdrawal permits for
raw water from the Savannah River will be sufficient to meet surface water supply needs for
both facilities discussed in Section 5.
.
3.9 Regulatory Impacts
3.9.1 Summary
The Department has responded to the challenges of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDW A) to produce drinking water that is in compliance with all
applicable rules and regulations and should remain in compliance with anticipated
regulations through 2001. However, the recently proposed SDW A regulations may have a
significant impact on the Department. Contaminant levels and goals continue to be
proposed and promulgated for specific contamin~, and additional compounds are being
added to the list of those already being regulated. Although the Department is currently in
compliance with all of the primary and secondary standards as promulgated by the SDW A,
the Department will continue its proactive strategy of planning for treatment system
improvements in order to be prepared to meet new treatment challenges resulting from the
SDW A regulations.
Regulatory issues affecting the water service are described below.
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORTB 3OA.OOC
3-13
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
3.9.2 State of Georgia Regulations
The Georgia EPD has issued rules (Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia DNR,
Chapter 391-3-5- Safe Drinking Water) to establish policies, procedures, requirements, and
standards for implementing the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (and its
amendments) and the Federal SDW A. The EPD recently revised its rules regarding initial
permitting of water treatment facilities. New facilities are granted an initial permitted
capacity of up to 4 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/ ft2) of filter area to ensure that
safe drinking water regulations are met.
The Total Coliform Rule was promulgated on June 29, 1989. Total coliforms include both
fecal coliforms and E. coli. The System has always been in compliance with the total coliform
rule. It will need to continu~ its current practices of maintaining the distribution system by
providing an adequate disinfectant residual and frequent flushing of low flow areas. The
Department also continues to collect samples to determine pH, alkalinity, temperature, Ca
hardness, and the Langlier Index throughout the system.
The initial list of 83 contaminants that the EP A is required to regulate include IOCs, and
VOCs (including phase IT, phase V, and phase VI.) These contaminants do not occur at
concentrations of concern in most surface waters that are not subject to contamination.
Surface water used by Augusta, from the Savannah River, have concentrations of regulated
contaminants well below EP A prescribed limits. On-site reservoirs act to dampen any spikes
in turbidity which occasionally occur in the river. Some monitoring will be required. Strict
watershed protection is recommended to prevent these contaminants from being introduced
into the watershed and to maintain the quality of source water.
.
3.9.3 Surface Water Treatment Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule
The SWTR establishes treatment techniques instead of MCLs for the control of Giardia,
viruses, heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria, and Legionella. The Highland Avenue
WTP is providing the required 2.5 log removal of cyst-sized particles through chemical
, treatment and filtration. However, the depth and condition of the filter media are currently
of concern and may need to be brought up to standards to continue receiving full credit for
the filtration process. In addition, current hydraulic restrictions through the post chlorine
contact basin are forcing the operations staff to pre-chlorinate in order to achieve the
necessary disinfection contact time through the treatment plant. This practice could have a
negative impact on the System's ability to meet the limitations of the
Disinfectants/Disinfectants Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule. All of these conditions will be
addressed as part of the planned improvements discussed in Section 5.
3.9.4 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
This rule establishes MCLs of 0.080 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for total trihalomethanes
(lTHMs) and 0.060 mg/L for the haloaceticacids. Based on average values, the finished
water from the Highland Avenue plant meets the Stage I requirements. However, as noted
previously, the current hydraulic restrictions at the WTP are forcing the operations group to
pre-chlorinate the water in order to achieve the required disinfection credit. This step of pre-
. chlorination can impact the overall production of DBPs. It is uncertain ~t this time whether
P:\143875\PUBlICATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT83OA.DOC
3-14
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
or not the DBPs limitations are being violated by this pre-chlorination strategy, continued
monitoring throughout the distribution system will be necessary to make this
determina tion.
Another provision of the D jDBP Rule is the requirement for enhanced coagulation based
upon the total organic carbon (TOC) in the raw water. The System's raw water quality
would indicate that enhanced coagulation should be practiced. To accomplish this,
modifications will be required to the sedimentation basins to alleviate hydraulic restrictions.
One way to increase the capacity of the sedimentation basins to address this regulatory
requirement would be to add tube or plate settlers. Improvements to address this concern
are part of Highland Avenue WTP Improvements discussed in Section 5.
3.9.5 Lead and Copper Rule
On June 7, 1991, the EP A published MCLGs and national primary drinking water
regulations for lead and copper. This regulation required lead and copper to be'monitored .
at consumers' taps every 6 months. Water samples at the customer's tap are required to be
taken at high-risk locations, which are homes with lead solder installed after 1982, lead
service lines, and lead interior piping.
The Department currently controls the corrosivity of its finished water by the addition of a
phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor. The System has continuously been in compliance with
the lead and copper action levels. If future testing shqws results higher than the prescribed
action levels, then the requirement of lead and copper compliance would be mandated.
.
3.9.6
Arsenic
New lower limitations for arsenic in drinking water have recently been proposed. Despite
the new, lower limit, it is not anticipated that the arsenic regulations will have an impact on
the Department. Arsenic is not expected to occur in the surface water supply at
concentrations of concern.
.
3.9.7 Risk Management Plans (RMPs)
The EP A set a deadline of June 21, 1999 for all utilities that store hazardous chemicals
(including chlorine gas) above a specified threshold limit, to prepare a risk management
plan (RMP). The regulation outlines requirements for preventing or minimizing the
consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.
The threshold level for chlorine is 2,500 pounds. The RMP must contain extensive
evaluations of buildings and equipment to protect the safety of workers around chlorine
facilities and to develop an emergency response plan if a leak occurs. Key information
developed will be submitted to the EP A and poste<i.l>n the internet for public access.
The Department has prepared an RMP for the Highland Avenue WTP. Any future
improvements to the chlorine facilities will be designed with the appropriate safeguards for
minimizing the impact of a chlorine gas release, which may include enclosing the chlorine
storage facility and providing a chlorine scrubber or possibly switching from chlorine gas to
a hypochlorite solution. In addition, the Department is improving the existing safety
program that provides guidance to operators on correct chlorine operations and
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT83OA.DOC
i
3-15
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
maintenance procedures and the emergency response plan to be used if there is a leak. All
operators have HAZMA T Tech. Certification.
3.9.8 Residuals Management
The State of Georgia currently disallows the direct discharge of water treatment residuals to
a receiving stream. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is
required which specifies an acceptable pH and total suspended solids concentration for the
discharge of decant water produced from the sludge. As a result of this discharge permit, it
is necessary for utilities to develop alternative means of disposing water treatment
residuals, such as transfer to landfills, land application, soil amendment, or other
applications. The Highland Avenue WTP is currently discharging all WTP residuals to
Turknett Pond, along with the filter backwash water. As long as the discharge from this
pond continues to meet the NPDES permit requirements, this practice will most likely be
allowed to continue.
.
.
P:\143875\PUBUCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT83OA.DOC
3-16
. 4.0 Sewerage System
4.1 Overview of Sewerage System
The Sewerage System serves approximately 44,210 residential and 4,841 commercial and
industrial customers, as of June 30, 2000.
4.2 Sewerage Service Area
The System provides sewer services to a geographic area of approximately 135 square miles
containing an estimated population in excess of 150,000. Figure 4-1 presents the areas
currently served by the Sewerage System with overlays of existing sewerage lines and
location of treatment plants. The currently sewered population is estimated to be 156,217
(see Table 4-3). Augusta has the non-exclusive right to provide water and sewer service
within the County.
The sewer systems of Fort Gordon and the Cities of Blythe and Hephzibah provide sewer
service within those jurisdictions in the County.
The Department's service area generally includes eight drainage basins shown in Figure 4-2.
.
4.3 Wastewater Collection and Conveyance
.
Augusta's sewer system dates from storm water drains constructed in downtown Augusta
prior to 1900. Over time, sanitary sewage was diverted into the storm sewers, and Augusta's
downtown storm sewers evolved into a combined storm and sanitary sewer system. Until
1968, the outfall sewers emptied into the Savannah River without treatment. In the 1980's
and early 1990's, Augusta intercepted all known combined sewers by constructing trunk
mains to separate sanitary sewage from storm water. It is possible that some unknown
interconnections of the two systems were not discovered and still remain so the Department
recently implemented a program to verify complete separation over the next 2 years.
Augusta's wastewater collection and conveyance system consists of 8 drainage basins, 30
wastewater pumping stations, and approximately 850 miles of collection sewers which
transport primarily sanitary sewage. Approxim~tely 80 percent of the sewer system is
drained by gravity; the remainder requires pump~at least once. The collection and
conveyance system includes sewers ranging in size from 8-inch to 72-inch diameters, most
made of vitrified clay. Approximately 20% of the sewers have been in service for 50 years or
more. The collection and conveyance system has standby pumps and a standby power
system.
The conveyance system piping includes a wide variety of materials including clay, brick,
concrete, and PVC which creates significant problems for maintenance of the System. In a
recent system evaluation of the Spirit, Butler, and Rocky Creek Basins major infiltration and
P;\1438751PUBUCATlONS\ENGINEERSREPORTB 3OA.OOC
4-1
.
0...
~
.
"'-"OE]
'ee
"f"roro
~roo....
::::lw.......
'-e
"Ql <:( W
LLwE
u.......
"2: ~
w'-
(1)1--
w'-
Cl~
ro ro
'- ~
w w
~.......
w Ul
(j)ro
S
en
.-
C)
....
o
Q)
(!)
en
+-'
(/J
:::::s
C)
:::::s
<(
a; z~
Q)
I..L
0 ...J
0 ..I
0
u:l -
::I
0 :i
0
0
co N
-
c: :I:
.,
.s
.. 0 CJ
.,
I-
., 0 <It
- 0
0
co
.
.
.
N(/)
I C
-.::t .-
(/)
Q) ro
~(]]
C'lQ)
. - C'l
LLro
C
ro
'-
o
rn
.-
0)
.....
e
Q)
C>
...
rn
~
fJ)
:J
0)
:J
<(
s::
..... 0
5'2
u"o
<:l z~
a;
Q)
u.
0 .J
0
0 ...I
co -
J:
0 :i
0
0
en N
0 :I:
U
0 ~t
. 0
0
en
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
inflow (III) has been identified. The CIP (Section 5) discusses corrections to the problems
encountered in the System's basins.
4.4 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Augusta owns two wastewater treatment plants as detailed in Table 4-1 below.
TABLE 4-1
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Date of 1999 Treated
Rated Treatment Original Wastewater Dates of Receiving
Plant Capacity Construction (Maximum Day) Improvements Stream
James 8. Messerly (also known 46.1 mgd 1968 52.1 mgd* 1975. 1988, Butler Creek
as the Butler Creek WWTP) 1995, 1996
Spirit Creek 2.24 mgd . 1988 4.5 mgd* 1995 Spirit Creek
Totals 48.34 mgd 56.6 mgd
*Excessive flows resulted from major infiltration and inflow into collection systems following significant rainfall.
.
The J. B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has two separate treatment trains,
the North Plant and the South Plant. The North Plant, constructed in 1976, was originally
designed to provide only primary treatment.1 Later, an oxidation ditch was constructed to
provide secondary treatment capacity of approximately 17.8 million gallons per day (mgd).
In 1984, the South Plant was constructed with a design capacity of about 28.4 mgd. Flow
equalization basins were added in 1995. In 1997, the first stage of a wetlands system was
constructed to provide additional ammonia-nitrogen removal. Effluent flows from the
wetlands to the Savannah River by way of Butler Street.
The J. B. Messerly WWTP receives domestic wastewater from the surrounding community
as well as a significant load (1.865 million gallons in 1999) from several major industrial
contributors. The J. B. Messerly WWTP was originally rated, based on "normal strength"
wastewater, to have a treatment capacity of 46 mgd, and in 1996 was permitted for a
capacity of 46.1 mgd. The influent strength of the wastewater has increased over the years as
a result of additional industrial waste and reduction in collection system infiltration and
inflow. This increased organic loading has reduced the effective capacity. Improvements
discussed in Section 5 will restore the full capacity as needed.
As of January, 2000, several improvement projects have been initiated or completed. The
projects are:
. New Influent Lift Pump Station
. North Plant Aeration Piping and Diffuser Replacement
. North Plant Secondary Clarifier Launder Modification
. Chlorination System Modifications
. Digester Rehabilitation and Modifications
.
1 The primary treatment system Includes the primary clarifiers. primary sludge pumps and scum pumps. This system removes
settleable solids from the screened and degritted wastewater. The secondary treatment system includes the aeration basins,
aeration blower systems, and secondary clarification.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONS\ENGINEERSREPORT83OA.OOC
4-2
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Augusta plans to implement improvements to the wastewater treatment system are
expected to maximize use of existing plant components and increase the level of reliability
in meeting stringent effluent limits. See Section 5 for a description of the capital
improvements.
The J. B. Messerly WWTP discharges under NPDES permit GA0037621, issued in 1996 and
modified in 1998. Table 4-2 presents the plant's permit information. It is anticipated that a
new NPDES permit will be issued in January 2001 when the treatment wetlands become
operationaL It is also anticipated that the new permit will decrease the allowable monthly
average for ammonia from 1.5 to 1.0 mg/L.
TABLE 4-2
Effluent Limitations
Discharge Limitations mg/L (kg/day) unless otherwise specified
Parameter
Flow - m3/day (mgd)
BOD (5-day)
Total Suspended Solids
Ammonia as N
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Total Residual Chlorine
Cyanide, Total
Monthly Average
No limit
10(1,747)
20 (3,494)
1.5 (262)
200/100 mL
0.023'
0.0063' (1.1)
Weekly Average
No limit
15 (2,184)
30 (4,367)
2.25 (328)
400/100 mL
0.023"
0.0063' (1.1)
.
*
m3/d
ml
mg/I
kg/day
Daily maximum limitations.
cubic meters per day
milliliters
milligrams per liter
kilograms per day
4.5 Projected Wastewater Flows
To project future wastewater flows, the projected population and proportion of water
accounts connected to the wastewater system in each WWTP's service area were considered.
WWTP service area population projections were constructed through an allocation of 1990
census population by tract, and uniform application of the growth rate required to account
for current total population estimates.
Wastewater flows were projected based on the estimated proportion of households
connected to the System, using the 1990 Census~s a basis. This proportion is expected to
change over time as new residents and business'es,~well as some portion of the existing
residents who are not served currently, connect to the System.
It is assumed that residential and commercial wastewater flows will grow proportionately
with the growth in the sewered population. However, if Augusta implements a successful
infiltration and inflow (1/1) reduction program, a reduction in future per capita wastewater
flows of 2 percent may be achieved by 2020.
.
P:\1438751PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
4-3
.
.
.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
Table 4-3 presents the sewered population and percentage change in sewered population in
each WWTP's service area as well as projected annual average flows and maximum month
flows. The maximum month flow was calculated as 120 percent of the annual average flow.
TABLE 4-3
Wastewater Flows, by Plant (mgd),
1998 to 2020
Plant 1998
Spirit Creek WWTP (Capacity: 3 mgd)
Sewered Population 9,585
Percent change
2000 2010 2020
10,275 21,436 30,214
7.2% 108.6% 41.0%
3.2 6.2 8.6
3.8 7.5 10.3
Average Annual Flow 3.0
Max. Month Flow (a) 3.6
J. B. Messerly WWTP (Capacity: 46.1 mgd)
Sewered Population 135,848
Percent change
165,752
13.6%
176,984
6.8%
145,943
7.4%
Average Annual Flow
Max. Month Flow (a)
30.7
36.8
32.7
39.2
36.6
44.0
38.9
46.7
Total WWTP Flows (Capacity: 49.1 mgd)
Sewered Population 145,433
Percent change
156,217 187,188 207,198
7.4% 19.8% 10.7%
35.9 42.9 47.5
43.0 51.4 57.0
Average Annual Flow
Max. Month Flow (a)
33.7
40.4
(a) The maximum day flows are 120 percent of the annual average flows based on historical
relationships.
As part of the 2000 Series Bonds the collection system serving the Spirit Creek WWTP will
undergo major infiltration/inflow improvements that will significantly reduce flows.
Assuming the WWTP service area remains the same; however, the Spirit Creek WWTP will
need to be significantly expanded in the near future to meet the demands of the growing
population in the southern Census Tracts. This expansion will be funded in future years, see
Section 5.
The J. B. Messerly WWTP is the larger of the two plants in the wastewater system. Increases
in wastewater flows to this plant are the result of expanding service areas, as well as a
growing population. Based on current service areas, however, the Messerly WWTP does
have sufficient capacity to treat maximum month wastewater flows.
The combined volume of the 10 largest customers represented 17.39 percent of 1999 sales.
The ten largest wastewater customers of the System are presented in Table 4-4. No
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
4-4
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
independent investigation has been made of, and consequently no representation can be
made as to, the stability or financial condition of any of the customers listed in Table 4-4 or
that such customers will continue to maintain their status as major customers of Augusta.
4.6 Regulatory Impacts
Regulatory issues affecting the sewerage area include:
4.6.1 Watershed Management
The EPD has formulated a policy to mandate watershed assessments for non-point pollution
sources and water supply protection. Since EPD does not have direct authority over land
use, the strategy has been to couple watershed management goals to NPDES permits for
total pollutant loading.
Augusta will be conducting a watershed assessment "'for the entire County area that flows
into the Savannah River Basin. This is being funded as a part of this program as noted in
Section 5. The next cycle of NPDES permit renewal will likely require watershed
management implementation benchmarks.
.
4.6.2 TMDL Development
The Clean Water Act (CW A) provides for a trigger mechanism for requiring development of
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) when a water body does not meet water quality
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONS\ENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.OOC
4.5
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
standards. When setting a TMDL, the regulatory agency must consider the uses of the water
body, water quality standards, various pollutant sources, and the ability of the water body
to assimilate pollutants. The State of Georgia has court-mandated TMDL deadlines.
4.6.3 NPDES Permitting and Nutrient Management
The NPDES is a federal program for regulating the discharge of pollutants to the waters of
the United States. In Georgia, the EPD has been delegated the authority to administer the
program. EPD has adopted a "zero tolerance" policy for permit violations and is imposing
penalties or issuing Consent Orders specifying responses that the permittee must
accomplish when violations occur. Augusta facilities were not designed with a "zero
, tolerance" perspective, and therefore do not have the level of redundancy that would be
included in a facility designed today. Although operational excursions and facility bypasses
are expected to be infrequent, Augusta's infrastructure will be evaluated for modifications
that would prevent overflows and bypasses, retain pollutants, or upgrade treatment
capabilities to enhance the ability to achieve 100 percent compliance with permit conditions.
As a result of interstate discussions on water resources, EPD decided to mandate maximum
retention of a community's water consumption to minimize the amount of water lost to the
resource. EPD expects to be working on the implementation strategy and policy in the next
year. Permit conditions may change to restrict the consumptive retention of water, which
may necessitate the elimination of onsite septage systems where feasible, and a revision to
the water pricing structure.
.
4.6.4 Onsite Septage Systems
The design of septage systems is regulated by the Georgia Department of Health (Georgia
Code Chapter 290-5-26. Local jurisdictions establish minimum lot requirements for septage
systems and requirements for connection to a central sewerage collection system. With the
increasing emphasis on minimizing water consumption and water quality issues in
watershed management, it will be necessary to evaluate policies related to septage systems
and prepare for an expanded role for central sewerage systems in the future.
4.6.5 Residuals Management and 503 Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) mandates that wastewater residuals must
be managed in compliance with its 503 regulations. Since 1993, these regulations have
required that utilities obtain 503 permits and provide annual documentation of compliance
with regulatory requirements. The 503 regulations identify different classes of sludge and
mandate minimum practices for treatment, handling, and disposal for each class of sludge.
.
4.6.6 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
The EP A, through 40 CPR Part 112, mandates that a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) must be prepared for any facility or location where one of
several threshold oil-based material storage triggers are exceeded: any tank of 660-gallon
capacity or greater; 1,320-gallons total onsite storage; or a 20,000-gallon underground tank
of petroleum-based product. An SPCCP provides documentation on oil-based products and
specifies reporting and documentation of BMPs. Augusta does not have an SPCCP for any
of its facilities.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSIENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
4-6
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Augusta plans to conduct a formal inspection of all system facilities and document the tanks
and quantities of oil-based products stored onsite. This review will provide legal protection
if no SPCCP is required or will identify those locations that need an SPCCP.
4.6.7 Storm Water Management Plans
As part of the NPDES Permit program, the EP A mandates that certain industrial activities
require obtaining an NPDES permit for storm water. Georgia EPD has issued a general
storm water permit that can be used by any location wishing to conform to the permit
conditions, as opposed to applying for a site-specific permit. An important aspect of the
permit requires that the applicant prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) which identifies BMPs for that facility and the required documentation of
compliance. During the original round of storm water issuance, the Department complied
with the general conditions for its storm water permitting.
In 1998, the EPD issued a new general permit, GAROOOOOO, and mandated that any entity
with an intent to use that general permit would have to update its plans and conform to the
new requirements of the permit. Augusta plans to update and modify all SWPPPs to
conform to the additional conditions in the 1998 storm water permit, and identify new
locations which might be subject to a storm water plan.
.
""-""-
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.OOC
4-7
. 5.0 Proposed System CIP
Proceeds of the Series 2000 Bonds will be used to fund a three-year Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) that will assist in eliminating current System deficiencies, meeting current and
future regulatory requirements and accommodating future demands related to system
growth. It is anticipated that construction of the CIP will be completed in 2003.
5.1 Planning Criteria and Assumptions
The Department's Master Plan 2000, which includes the CIP for the next three years,
employs a number of planning criteria for determining the facilities necessary for the
System. The Master Plan includes Technical Memoranda that document a baseline approach
to evaluating the System facilities with respect to water demands, wastewater conveyance
needs and treatment requirements. The planning criteria and assumptions used for
development of the CIP include:
· Population in Augusta-Richmond County is shifting within the County from developed
areas, to undeveloped areas, which were previously unserved.
/
.
· Water and Wastewater System demand is projected to increase as the population is
projected to grow in Augusta. Projected water demands for the design year of 2020 are
for average day demand of approximately 50 mgd and maximum day demand of 80
mgd. Wastewater demand projections are for an average day flow of 47.5 mgd and a
maximum day flow of 57 mgd.
· Water and wastewater treatment improvements and expansions must be planned for
compliance with all current regulatory requirements, and changes to these requirements
anticipated in the next three years.
5.2 Summary of Capital Improvements
The three-year CIP is summarized in Table 5-1 and further described in the following
sections. It will provide for upgrades and development of the water treatment and
distribution system, wastewater conveyance, and wastewater treatment facilities. For the
Water System, the CIP provides for significant improvements to the existing Highland
Avenue Water Treatment Plant, improvements to the water distribution system, and pre-
construction activities. for a new water treatment plant, including siting, permitting, and
design improvements. For the Wastewater System, the CIP provides for significant
improvements to the J.B. Messerly WWTP and expansions and extensions to the wastewater
conveyance system.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONS\ENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
5-1
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
TABLE 5-1
Series 2000 Bond Projects-Summary of Estimated Costs
Water Treatment Facilities (Section 5.2.1)
$28,655,000
Water Distribution System (Section 5.2.2)
19,789,000
Wastewater Treatment Plants (Section 5.2.3)
9.322,000
Wastewater Conveyance System (Section 5.2.4)
26,466,000
System-Wide Projects (Section 5.2.5)
TOTAL SYSTEM
5,895,000
$ 90,127,000
.
A description of the Series 2000 Bonds Projects follows. Planning-level cost estimates have
been developed from available information for guidance in project evaluation. Final project
costs will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, actual
site conditions, implementation schedules, and other variables. Detailed engineering plans
have not yet been developed for these projects but will be funded by the proceeds of the
Series 2000 Bonds. Conceptual layouts, however, have been conSidered. An allowance has
been added to all construction costs to cover legal, ad,ministrative, financial, engineering
and program management costs. The construction costs are based on Augusta and Atlanta-
area market conditions, as of the first-quarter of 2000~
5.2.1 Water Treatment
The existing Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant has a rated capacity of 60 mgd and
the two existing Ground Water Treatment Plants (GWTP) No.1 (located at Peach Orchard)
and No.2 (located at the Highway 56 Loop) together add 20 mgd. Well field No.1 will be
phased out and replaced by two new groundwater treatment plants and well fields. The
new well fields, GWTP No.3 (currently under construction) and GWTP No.4 (to be funded
from the Series 2000 Bonds), will replace the 10 mgd lost when GWTP No.1 is taken off line.
The strategy for meeting the 2020 water needs defined in Master Plan 2000 for the Augusta
Utilities Department recommends surface water as the primary water source. This will
require expansion and modification of the Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant to
increase reliability, efficiency, and sustain operation capacity of 60 mgd. In addition,
construction of a new 20 mgd Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) will be required to
meet additional demand and minimize reliance'upoq groundwater supply. This new SWTP
will be built in two 10 mgd stages. Upon completio'hof the first 10 mgd unit, the remaining
wells serving GWTP No.1 and half of the wells serving GWTP No.2 will be taken off line.
When the SWTP is completed as a fu1l20-mgd facility, the System will have a total
production capability of 80 mgd from surface water supply only as required by EPD to
meet the projected 77-mgd maximum day demand. The additional reserve capacity of 10
mgd from the GWTPs will bring that total capacity to 90 mgd.
.
P:\ 143875\PUBLlCA TIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.OOC
5-2
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Full implementation of this strategy begins with improvements and upgrade of the
Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant, construction of GWTP No.4, and initial
permitting and design work for the first stage of the new SWTP with a 10 mgd capacity.
5.2.1.1 Improvements to the Water Treatment Plant
Improvements to the water treatment system to be funded by the Series 2000 Bonds are
shown in Table 5-2.
TABLE 5.2
Series 2000 Bond Projects-Summary of Estimated Water Treatment Costs
Recommended Improvements
Note: All estimated costs in 2000 dollars
Estimated
Costs
HiQhland Avenue WTP
Filter Improvements
High Service Pumping
Rapid Mix System
Flocculation Basins
Sedimentation Basins
Chlorination System
Upgrade Raw Water Pumping
$7,450,000
1,630,000
470,000
255,000
2,300,000
200.000
5,400,000
TOTAL HIGHLAND WTP IMPROVEMENTS
$17,705,000
.
Supplemental GW Supplv
Ground Water Well Field and Treatment Plant No.4
Ground Water Systems stand-by generators (equipment
Installation>
$3,850,000
$600,000
New Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP)
WTP Siting Evaluation/Acquisition
Raw Water Intake Prop Acquisition
RW Une easements
Raw Water Intake: Permit/Design
New WTP: PermitJDesign
$1,300,000
200,000
500,000
1,500.000
3,000,000
TOTAL NEW WTF AND INTAKE
$6,500,000
Total Water Treatment System
$28,655,000
.
Augusta has been instructed by EPD to move toward use of surface water supply as its
primary water supply source and away from groundwater due to the shallow depths of its
older well fields No. 1 and 2, the reduction of aquifer recharge areas from development
activity, and the EPD policy of minimizing groundwater reliance if quality surface water is
available. In order to meet projected water demands and commit Augusta to surface water
as its primary supply source (with use of groundwater as supplemental source) an
additional source of water supply is required.
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONS\ENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
5-3
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Augusta plans to construct a new surface water treatment facility on the Savannah River.
The recommended capacity is based on use of GWTPs No.3 and No.4 as primary water
sources until the second stage of the new plant is completed. GWTPs No.1 and No.2 well
fields and treatment facilities will be taken off line although the pumping systems will be
used as re-pumping stations (distribution system booster pumps).
Development of a new plant will require selection of another raw water withdrawal location
along the Savannah River as well as a treatment plant location. Augusta currently has two
permits for withdrawing water from the Savannah River, one on the Augusta Canal for the
Highland Avenue WTP at 60 mgd (EPD Permit No. 121-0191-06) and another on the
Savannah River for 15 mgd (EPD Permit No. 121-0191-09) to be assigned to the new SWTP
intake location when determined.
5.2.2 Water Distribution System
Table 5-3 is a summary of water distribution system improvements to be funded by the 2000
Series Bonds.
TABLE 5-3
Series 2000 Bonds Projects-Summary of Estimated Water Distribution Costs
Recommended Improvements
Note: All estimated costs in 2000 dollars
Estimated
Costs
.
PRIMARY SUPPLY SYSTEM
Tobacco Rd.16" Water Une & 2 MG Elevated Tank
$3,235,000
Central Connector
18" Conversion of RWL To Finished Water & 16" Connector @
Riverwatch & Claussen
$3,275,000
$550,000
GWTP #3 - 20" Transmission Line
GWTP #4 - 20" Transmission Line
Undesignated Distribution System Expansion I Interconnection
$130,000
$190,000
$3,000,000
OTHER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
$9,409,000
Total Water Distribution System
$19,789,000
.
5.2.2.1 Primary Supply System Improvements
The Master Plan identified several distribution system improvements that will be completed
as part of a program to maintain adequate system pressure and improve reliability and
operating conditions. The following list identifies &~most critical projects from Table 5-3
providing major improvements to be completed within the next three years. These projects
will strengthen delivery capability throughout the System.
. Provision of an additional 16-inch waterline supply capacity and 2 mgd elevated tank to
the Tobacco Road area from the Faircrest Storage and Pump Station. As one of the most
rapidly growing commercial and residential areas, this project is necessary to complete
integration of a recently completed primary connector line from the Highland Avenue
Water Treatment Plant to a 5 million gallon ground storage tank in this area.
P:\143875\PUBlICATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
5-4
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
· The Central Connector will improve hydraulic capacity from Highland Avenue
Filtration Plant to GWTP No.1 and the 417 ft service area: the GWTP No.1 high service
pumps will serve as a booster station after the well field is taken out of service.
· Convert an existing 18 inch raw water line to finished water distribution significantly
improving the supply capacity to the 500 ft. MSL and 417 ft. MSL pressure zone areas to
be created along Washington Road and in the northwestern area near the Columbia
County line. Although the area is built out, low pressure has been a significant problem.
Using this abandoned raw water supply line will save construction costs and allow
relatively fast implementation of this plan to improve pressure.
· The rapidly growing southern water service area of Augusta will be further served by
expanding the distribution system supplied by the new GWTPs No.3 and No.4. These
lines will stabilize pressures throughout the area once there is sufficient supply
available.
Undesignated Expansion and Interconnection project funding provides an allowance to
various projects that are to be finalized when the hydraulic water model of the System is
completed. Although the general location and configuration of these improvements have
been determined, exact sizing and routing has yet to be determined.
.
5.2.2.2 Other System Improvements
Other system improvements include multiple water distribution line improvements listed in
the Master Plan to complete pressure distribution, strengthen supply, and support fire
protection in the city. These include the following:
State highway improvements that require the Department to relocate water lines prior to
roadway improvements. This is an advantage to the System allowing improvements to the
water system as needed and relocation away from roadways where repair and maintenance
can be costly. The projects to be built are:
SR4/US1 Roadway Improvements
1-520 @ SR 56 Intersection
Peach Orchard Rd. (SR 121/US 25)
$490,000
180,000
380,000
Total Highway Projects:
$1,050,000
.
Miscellaneous projects identified by Augusta to enhance the System's performance include
raw water supply pump station improvements, line extensions to serve additional
customers (Horseshoe Rd. and US Hwy 1), elevated storage tanks to enhance supply
reliability (Brown Rd. and Dennis Rd tanks), and older line replacement to meet growing
demands and eliminate problem lines (Peach Orchard Rd.). These projects are:
Raw Water Pump Station Bypass Valve Pit $367,000
Horseshoe Rd. 12" Water Line 300,000
US Hwy 1/Bath-Edie 12" Water 600,000
Brown Road 1 MG Elev. Tank (includes 1,090,000
demolition of existing Tank)
Dennis Rd 1 MG Elevated Tank
Peach Orchard Rd. 12in line replacement
Total Miscellaneous Improvements
1,150,000
440,000
$3,947,000
P:\143875\PUBUCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
5-5
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Special Projects address several unique needs of the System. The Alexander Drive and
Etterly Drive projects will provide water line improvements as part of a combined water
and sewer project. The Turknett Springs project will dredge the Highland Avenue WTP
sludge pond (Turknett Springs). Expansion of the System's SCADA will improve
operations. Refitting and replacing all water meters with meters fitted for radio-read will
improve meter reading and billing efficiency and replace older meters that are no longer
reliable. Two key pump stations, Hwy 25 PS and Auxiliary HS PS, will be refurbished to
enhance efficiency and reliability. Finally, the Water System hydraulic model will be
updated and calibrated for ongoing analysis of system performance.
Alexander Drive Water & Sewer $460,000
Etterly Drive Water Lines 350,000
Turknett Springs Retention Pond Dredging 600,000
SCADA system additions 200,000
Meter Replacement Program 2,400,000
Hwy 25 PS and Auxiliary HS PS refurbishing 252,000
Water System Hydraulic Model Update 150,000
Total Special Projects
$4,412,000
5.2.3
Wastewater Treatment
.
Planned 'improvements to the J.B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will
maximize treatment capacity and reliability in meeting future effluent limits. The prioritized
projects summarized in Table 5-4 address components of the J. B. Messerly facility with the
greatest potential for failure and which pose limitations to future growth and development.
These projects also include appropriate initial steps for implementation of improvements
planned for later years.
TABLE 5-4
Series 2000 Bonds Projects-Summary of Estimated Wastewater Treatment Costs
Recommended Improvements Estimated Costs
Note: All estimated costs in 2000 dollars
Messerlv WWTP
Secondary Treatment System
Primary Treatment
Electrical and Control Systems
Miscellaneous Improvements
Wetland Treatment Area
Industrial Samplers
TOTAL MESSERLY WWTP
....
.....
$4,316,000
2,136,000
450,000
180,000
2,000,000
240,000
$9,322,000
.
The secondary treatment system includes the aeration basins, aeration blower systems,
RAS/W AS pumping, and secondary clarification at both North and South Plants.
Projects to be completed in the three-year CIP include the upgrading of existing aeration
basins, design for replacement of aeration blowers, and secondary clarifier mechanisms at
both the North and South plants.
P:\143875V'UBlICATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.OOC
5-6
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
The primary treatment system includes the primary clarifiers, primary sludge pumps and
the scum pumps at both North and South Plants. All of the equipment at the South Plant
primary clarifiers is near the end, or has exceeded, its expected useful life. The equipment at
the North Plant is also approaching the end of its useful life. Planned projects in the three-
year CIP are as follows:
· Replace primary clarifier collector drives, and mechanisms. Replace primary sludge
pumps; repair significant deterioration and leaking of construction joints.
· Repair primary sludge box (valves and drainage).
· Replace key laboratory equipment including the laboratory fume hood and walk-in
incubator.
· Replace existing outside motor control centers (MCCs) with new indoor MCCs.
· Conclude the ongoing improvement to the wetlands system (underway for the last three
years) with the second stage of the system constructed to provide additional ammonia-
nitrogen removal required by permit discharge limitations.
5.2.4 Wastewater Conveyance
Table 5-5 is a summary of wastewater conveyance system improvements funded by the
Series 2000 Bonds.
Recommended Improvements
Note: All estimated costs in 2000 dollars
Estimated Costs
.
Planning/Operations/Monitoring
Interceptor Upgrades
Infiltration/Inflow Reduction
Unsewered Pockets
Expansions/Extensions
Pump Sta. Evaluation/Special Projects
$1,730,000
4,220,000
1,235,000
9,445,000
6,316,000
3,520,000
Total Conveyance System
$26,466,000
5.2.4.1 Planning/OperationsIMonitoring
The Series 2000 Bond program includes initial P 101M projects that will provide immediate
benefit through identification of previously undetected problems and development of
baseline information upon which to base the Department's system-wide hydraulic capacity
management plan. Projects to be funded by the Series 2000 Bond program include:
Determine design basin event and standardize evaluation/analysis/reporting
System Re- calibration for Spirit Creek basin
Risk Management Audit
Maintenance system development
Interceptor right-of-way clearing and survey: all basins
Flow monitoring: Rae, Rock, Oats, and Butler Creek Basins
Columbia County monitoring station
$90,000
250,000
90,000
100,000
580,000
300,000
320,000
.
Total Planning/OperationsIMonitoring
$1,730,00
o
P:\143875\PUBlICATlONSlENGINEERSREPORTB 3OA.OOC
5-7
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
5.2.4.2 Interceptor Upgrades
The Butler Creek and Rae's Creek interceptors will be upgraded with new lines to replace or
supplement current pipes. The required areas have been defined by previous studies.
Butler Creek
Rae's Creek Relief Sewer
Mid-City (Main)
$1,820,000
2,000,000
400,000
Total Interceptor Upgrades
$4,220,000
5.2.4.3 Infiltration/lnflow Reduction
The collection systems in the following basins will have ongoing infiltration/inflow
reduction projects funded by this program. The result will be reduced external flow
allowing for more wastewater flow and fewer maintenance problems. The allocation among
basins is estimated to be as follows:
Rae's Creek
Butler Creek
Rocky Creek
Spirit Creek
$35,000
600,000
200,000
400,000
.
Total Infiltration/Inflow Reduction
5.2.4.4 Pocketed Sewers
Throughout the existing collection system there are various "pockets" of unsewered areas.
These are locations ranging in size from one block long to entire subdivisions that were
bypassed when sewers were first built in a neighborhood and are now surrounded by
sewered areas. Projects in the following pockets have been identified for this Series 2000
Bond:
$1,235,000
Alexander Dr
Colony Park/National Hills
Sherwood
Kemp Dr
Skinner Mill Rd
Berckman Rd
Skinner RD
Kissingbower Rd; Ph 4&5
Avondale Hts
Farrington
Boykin Rd
Pineview
Jamestown
$262,500
1,200,000
275,000
220,000
218,750
1,155,000
1,006,250
910,000
87,500
160,000
2,350,000
450,OOQ.......
1,150,000
Total Pockets
$9,445,000
.
5.2.4.5 Expansions and Extensions
Expansion is defined as providing sewer service to basins not currently having access to
sewer systems. Extensions are defined as existing lines being extended beyond their current
point of terminus to unsewered areas. These projects will enhance environmental protection
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
5-8
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
through reduced reliance on septic systems and provide additional connections to the
System, The proposed areas for sewer expansion and extensions are listed below:
Glass Factory Sewer
Butler Ck Interceptor Ext
Butler Ck Collector Ext (BelAir area)
Horsepen Trunk Sewer
US 25 Extension
$626,000
1,800,000
750,000
1,540,000
1,600,000
Total Expansion/Extension Projects
$6,316,000
5.2.4.6 Pump Station Evaluation/Special Projects
Several Pump Stations will be upgraded to correct current operation problems and SCADA
added to improve monitoring of operations. Special projects will include an allowance for
extensions that have not been defined at this time, an additional lift station and force main
to serve an industrial site, and roadway improvement related sewer work. These are listed
as follows:
Extensions (generic)
Intemational Blvd LS/FM
Bungalow Rd Improvements
SCADA Installation (Pump Stations)
Pump Station Reliability Upgrade
$1,000,000
1,000,000
170,000
350,000
1,000,000
Total PS/Special Projects
$3,520,000
.
5.2.5
System-wide Improvements
Svstem-wlde ProJects
New Utility Administrative/Maintenance Facility
Billing/Accounts Receivable system
Watershed Assessment*
Source Water Assessment*
1,600,000
900,000
1,200,000
240,000
Operation and Maintenance Manuals/Standard
Operating Procedures*
Technical and Operations Evaluations*
Business Plan*
Computerized Maintenance Management Sys
(FY2001 includes $135,000 for FY2000)
System-wide Base Maps
110,000
115,000
140,000
330,000
1,260,000
SYSTEM-WIDE PROJECTS
5,895,000
.
P:\ 143875\PUBLlCA T10NSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
5-9
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
. A new Utility Administration/Maintenance Building will also be constructed to relieve
space constraints for administrative operations and meet the Department's growing
needs.
. The existing billing/ accounts receivable system is cumbersome and does not have the
capability to produce consumption and billing reports for the different classes of users.
A new system will provide needed billing and reporting functions and enhance
customer service efficiency.
. Augusta will complete a Source Water Assessment Plan and Watershed Assessment
Plan to address service area non-point source water pollution and comply with
requirements discussed in Section 4.6. These planning studies will include a careful
review of basin-wide impacts on the city's surface water supply.
. Implementation and management of the Master Plan 2000 capital program will be
enhanced through several key management planning tools including a financial policy
and rate study, an Operation and Maintenance manual, Operating Procedures
guidelines, a technical and operations evaluation, and development of the Department's
Business Plan.
. After consolidation of the two systems (City and County), a single preventive
maintenance system was not implemented. The Computerized Maintenance
Management System (CMMS) for both water and ~ewer systems will provide this
capability and greatly enhance system maintenance.
. Development of complete system-wide base maps of the water and sewer systems to be
placed on the Augusta Geographic Information System (GIS) will facilitate effective
management of the system.
.
5.2.6 System Enhancement Projects
The projects described in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5 have been developed based upon the
Master Plan 2000 and its specific recommendations for system expansion and improvement.
In addition, system enhancement projects will also be required to address factors such as
critical stress on older segments of the System. They are estimated to require $2,000,000 per
year beginning in 2003 after initial implementation of the Master Plan 2000 capital program.
Costs will be funded by scheduled debt issues in 2002, 2004, and 2006 (see Appendix C).
These funds will give the Department the ability to make necessary improvements and
extend the useful life of improved segments without impacting scheduled implementation
of the Master Plan 2000 projects.
5.3 Anticipated Future Work
~
.
The System will require a substantial investment to meet projected demands throughout the
service area, address regulatory requirements, and continue to deliver quality services.
Much of the work involves replacement of equipment and facilities that have met or
exceeded their useful life because of the age of the System.
Priority capital improvement funding needed to meet projected demands and address
system deficiencies are summarized in Appendix C, Table C-l. Projects funded by the Series
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.OOC
5-10
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
2000 Bonds address facilities with the greatest potential for failure, those that will alleviate
potential limitations to future growth and development, and projects that will provide
service to areas that need water and sewer infrastructure immediately. Improvements
planned for later years will continue strengthening and expanding the water distribution
and sewer collection network as well as completing projects initiated with funds from the
Series 2000 Bonds such as the new WTP and upgrades to the Highland Avenue WTP, the
Messerly WWTF and the Spirit Creek WWTF.
.
.
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSIENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
5-11
. 6.0 Financial Performance
This section presents an overview and evaluation of the historical and projected financial
performance of the System for the study period 2000 through 2009.
6.1 Historical Performance
Table 6-1 presents the financial performance of the Department for the past five years.
System revenues increased from $31.0 to $33.5 million during this period, an increase of
8.1 percent. Operations and maintenance expenses have increased 63.2 percent, from
$17.1 million to $27.9 million. After deducting depreciation and other expenses, net
revenues available to pay debt service totaled between $17.4 and $26.3 million. Over the five
year period the Department has received sales tax proceeds of approximately $18 million.
(The Department will not receive tax proceeds in future years). During that same time, the
Department has made transfers to Augusta's General Fund totaling $41.4 million.
The Department' sminimum parity debt service coverage requirement is 1.25. Actual debt
service coverage has exceeded the minimum requirement in each of the last five years,
ranging between 4.01 and 6.38 over the five year period.
.
6.2 Water and Sewer Rates
The Department's current water rate structure consists of a monthly base charge and a two-
tiered volume charge. For residential customers with metered consumption exceeding 3,000
gallons per month, the current monthly base charge is $5.91. The volume charge is $0.81 per
kgal for the first 3,000 gallons and $0.91 for each additional kgal. For customers using less
than 3,000 gallons per month, a $8.53 base charge applies with no volumetric charges.
The Department's current sewer rate structure is based on monthly gallons of water used
and also consists of a monthly base charge and volume charge. For residential customers
with metered water consumption exceeding 3,000 gallons per month, the current monthly
base charge is $10.75 and the volume charge is $0.99 per kgal. For customers using less than
3,000 gallons per month, a $7.66 base charge applies with no volumetric charges. Rates and
surcharges for both residential and non-residential customers are shown in Table 6-2.
The current monthly water bill for a typical residential water customer is $13.802, and the
residential sewer bill is $19.66.2 A comparison of typ"lcal residential monthly water and
sewer bills for customers of various systems throughout Georgia is presented in Table 6-3.
This table indicates that Augusta's existing water and sewer rates are relatively low
compared to other Georgia communities.
~
.
2 Based on average consumption of 9.000 gallons per month.
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
6-1
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
6-2
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
TABLE 6.2
Current Water and Sewer Rates
RESIDENTIAL RATES
Meter Size kgals Metered Water Base Surcharge (per Sewer Base Surcharge
Charge kgal) Charge (per kgal)
All Meters Less than 3 $8.53 NA $7.66 NA
All Meters Greater than 3 $5.91 $0.81,0.91" $10.75 $0.99
NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
Meter Size kgals Metered Water Base Surcharge (per Sewer Base Surcharge
Charge kgal) Charge (per kgal)
5/8" & 34" NA $6.41 $1.04,1.14" $11.32 $1.25
1" NA $9.08 Same $16.18 Same
1-1/4" & 1-1/2" NA $15.05 Same $27.04 Same
2" NA $21.62 Same $39.05 Same
3" NA $36.18 Same $65.74 Same
4" NA $52.41 Same $95.24 Same
. 6" NA $88.38 Same $160.97 Same
8" NA $128.20 Same $233.70 Same
10" NA $171.22 Same $312.40 Same
12" NA $222.19 Same $395.64 Same
" The first charge is applied to each of the first 3 kgals of metered consumption, the second charge is
applied to each additional kgal.
~
.
P:\143875\PUBUCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
6-3
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
. TABLE 6-3
Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Customer Bills
Monthly Billing
Local Jurisdiction Water* Sewer* Total
Augusta $ 13.80 $ 19.66 $ 33.46
Cherokee County 31.50 31.50 63.00
Clayton County 18.00 18.90 36.90
City of Cumming (inside City limits) 18.60 19.50 38.10
Dawson County (Etowah Water) 33.75 0.00 33.75
Douglas County 29.44 27.94 57.38
Fayette County 35.60 31.50 67.10
Forsyth County 33.24 43.56 76.80
Fulton County 22.50 42.75 65.25
City of Gainesville 18.32 33.03 51.35
Gwinnett County 31.96 29.43 61.39
Henry County 30.21 30.21 60.42
. City of Lawrenceville 12.78 30.19 42.97
Paulding County 38.25 38.25 76.50
Rockdale County 14.38 40.55 54.93
City of Roswell 26.70 42.75 69.45
"Based on average consumption of 9,000 gallons per month. Data source: Forsyth County
Official Statement, June 1, 2000.
I
/
For purposes of this analysis, equal percentage water and sewer rate increases are projected
and are assumed to be applied uniformly across customer classes3. Subject to approval by
the Commission, 11 percent per annum increases are scheduled in 2001 through 2007
followed by 3 percent per annum increases in 2008 and 2009. These planned rate increases
will increase the typical residential customer's monthly water bill to $30.40 ($23.30 in 2000
dollars) and monthly sewer bill to $43.30 (or $33.19 in 2000 dollars). While this represents a
total increase of 114% in combined monthly bills over the 10 year forecast period, the
combined monthly bill in current dollars ($56.49) is below the median of the range of typical
monthly bills presented in Table 6-3, without accounting for prospective increases in these
communities' water and sewer rates.
.
3 The Department established a uniform water and sewer rate schedule for the System effective April 1, 1996.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
6-4
.
.
.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
Water and sewer tap fees are $350 per service for residential connections4. Under
conservative assumptions, tap fees charged to new customers connecting to the system are
assumed to remain constant throughout the forecast period.
6.3 Financial Policies
The Department uses a system of fund accounting to track water and sewer system
revenues and expenditures. There are three funds: the Operating Fund, the Renewal Fund,
and the Sinking Fund. With the exception of sales tax proceeds, all revenues are deposited
into the Operating Fund. Operating Fund expenses include all operation and maintenance
expenses, transfers to the Renewal Fund for capital projects, and transfers to the Bond Fund
for capital projects funded through debt proceeds. Bond proceeds are deposited into the
Construction Fund, a restricted asset of the Operating Fund.
The Operating Cash balance as of January 1, 2000 was $9,478,263. As indicated in the Bond
Resolution, the Department is required to maintain a minimum balance in the Operating
Fund of the lessor of $2,500,000 or 5% of the preceding fiscal year's operating revenues. This
analysis assumes interest revenue is earned on bond proceeds in the Construction Fund.
Under conservative assumptions, interest revenue is not assumed to accrue on Operating
Fund balances.
In the past, the Department has made transfers from ~e Operating Fund to Augusta's
General Fund. In 1997,1998, and 1999 these transfers totaled approximately $5.2 million,
$3.7 million, and $2.5 million, respectively. Conversely, over the same period, the
Department has received sales tax revenues totaling approximately $18 million. To ensure
financial integrity and self-sufficiency, the Bond Resolution contemplates, and this analysis
assumes, that the Department will not make transfers to Augusta's General Fund nor
receive sales tax revenue in the future.
6.4 Projected Operating Results
Table 6-4 presents projected operating results for the System, including projected revenues,
expenses, debt service, and debt service coverage through 2009.
6.4.1 Revenues
Projections of system growth are used to forecast water and sewer sales revenues, and
operating expenses. As of December 31,1999, the System provided service to 64,397 active
water accounts and 48,699 active sewer accounts; Account growth is based on population
.......""
4 Tap fees vary depending on water meter and tap sizes. Cost does not Include additional fees assessed for road crossing or
sidewalk replacement.
P:\ 143875\PUBLICA T10NSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
6-5
:j
@
~
~
~
~
z
C'I
~
:II
m
~
~
~
~
c
d?
l13/l13 38~d
lr ~ ~
~ 5t !
X' f III
< < Q,
cr n ~
dl " E'
~ g a1
~ if
~ ~
n :::I
:J:I C
III CII
~ ~
:l
Q,.
/jl
...
N ~
~ .v
- ~
in
...
N .....
~ t'S
~
o
04
...
.... .....
k ~
8
-
04
.... ~
~ J3
2
c>>
04
01
C v~
en ~
~
-
.... ~
~ ;;j
~
'"
o
.... (.,
~ ~
N
&l
.... .~
~ ~
~
QI
'"
en
~ <0
III ~
(,,)
2
.... ~
tt ~
N
~
:i
g
~
<
t;'
"'
III
0,
.g
..
8
....
...
Ol
!D
m
o
(l) Ql
~ :c..
Ul ~
~ ~
. -...I ..
Po ~ en
iG _ ~
~ 0. ~
o 8 CD
II>
t;
!D
...
o
o
-
s-
;
1:n
8
(J) m UlZ
~, tl. ~ 11
3 g. Ii' &'
N I:l ct~
50! 0 :I
o CIl C
III 5t 1lI
~ f€l ~
tf' ~. !l!,
o III iii
2: !f
a-
...
o
III
~
en
."
<
g'
Q)
t;
aI
in
8
./11
~
1n
8
01
1';
c>>
in
8
<l>
~
co
in
8
o"j s-
ilo ~
a: C,/l
~ ;"
01 ~
!Il ....
~ ~
81 (:,
o !il
...
~
.'l
~
....
~
c.,
co
o
...
~
III
~
...
<:n
~
~
aI
.11>
~
!
..
~
~
..
~
""
CD
&l
~ i i
~ AI
g 3'
:I I:l
CD :;I
~
~
ii!
~ 9l5' ~
-~::lu
Ccaa.ii1
'15"m-n
!!! l/l i iii'
t.j _ ct.
~' ~ g
-l po
iiI :n
::l III
*' e1.
iJ
o
S
-
I\,;)
io
~
~
o
!-' IQ
~ I ~
.~
to)
~
t\)
o
(,,) ~ ~
~ ~ N
c., 2 bl
~ ~ ~
....
sn
o
~
~ (Q ~
?6 ~ i
~ ~ ~
CD III .!!l
~
-
10
in
~
~
.lD : N
~ :g
~ 8 ~
~
m
OJ
ic
8l
..~ ~ t3
~ ~ ~
~ N ~
~ ~ ...
'"
~
jl
~ lD
~ ~ j
f g: ~
'I ~ S
~
N
(l)
~
8l
""
m (C :--
~ ~ g
N :i ;,
~ lD ~
c.I
I\l
~
~
~ CD
~ ~ Pi
~ ~ j
1::
~
~
~ ~ ,04
~ -
III ~ .rg
~ ~ ~
~
m
8l
~
(Q
~ 0 .~
~ i>l -
UI ! B:
;.", '~ ilo
RJ 0 ;:j
Id3G S3IIIlIln 8n~
!fi~i~[
uiooglV:Il
;rS ~~~~~
3'S" !lJ.:I:l::!
lD g ~o'C:Ci
:tl i 'i iil ~ ~
~ ijlll"s,2.
~ ~ ~~ir
11l 3' ~ 5
~ ! '" 9-
~' ~~'
!!l ~;r
! IX
'<:i
~ t
~ ~
Q ~ ~~ ~ ~
~1!~~~[
:II ll'> C C/) en C
~ cnlll~~ ~
~ ~ III II :II
~!!! S/O:Il~
;< [~5'
'0 f;j E Q
it :i, ~ ~
~ C1l
~ ~ lP
.. n
:::I ~
<: III
(II .a
III
c.l ~
o QI
~ ~
~ ~
.... ~ 0; gt
~gi.l~8l~(.)
....~.~~I\)"'~
"'O~!ie~g:o
~8o_s<:s
c:; w w
....!-'~o
~~~~8~
S~~~~g}
~ Ql
~ '
. ~
'" '
~ ~
1C 0
Ol ~
.... ....
iu 0.
~ ~
'" ~ ~
'\oJ 0 ~
a; &l u:l
~ f ~
I oS ...... 0
~ ~
~ ~ !
~ ~ ~
lD en <:>
'" ...
Ql "oj 9)
bOln~ilo ~
1ZJ~ID~=g
~~~~~~
~ ~
t .!:::
N ""
~ ~
l>o
...-- 9
~ 8
g ~
o III
....
..tQ CD i')
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2
~o,~~iloq
/D~OQ'l~(jl:
- t ~ ~ N
~~~~~~::6
~~~80~o
8i!iicno~Q)~
g ~
- ...
~ ~
.ll.
aI
Sol t ......
!Z (Jl ~
:c.. ~ ~
~ '" (Q
I\)
..
~ ~
~ ~
N
N I\)
~ = g
~ ~
-::
~~~~.8u:l~~o
~5J<D!::: !P
~~~~~~~
N ~
tl JB
~ ~
Pi ~
f
.<Q ~
~ i
~~~!ll ~... ~
~t~*~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
.... ~ ~ ~
) ~ ~ ~
~ J:l
i.l (1\
! ,~
~ ~
.0. W
- ""
~ ~ !
~ t ~
N
.: '"
~ - ~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ Q) ....
N i! '"
~ ~ OJ
ld ~ '"
~ ~ = ~
~ ~ ~
~~~~~~8l;..~,:~ N
~ Q) ""~"'o~8lo ~ $c.l~
:. S'! e.ft~io~~!:! ~ f:!li;!
~8 ~NOI~WoC5 _ C>>~
~ ~
1:n g
~ <:>
~ !:l III N
~~~~~~c.>i
i~~~~~~
~~
(b ,....
..., m
~t
CJ)
i
en
~
~
3
o
'0
(1)
!i
5'
cc
:0
m
UI
c:
if
'"
<:>
<:>
o
...
CI
... ~
~
~
~
~
i~
~~
~..
~~
~3~
z::lj_
iil~~
~"C ~,
:D ~,
~~u
8~~
Ellp-llE-913L
913:El S1313l/l0/l1
b:~8
ow'"
.ff;~ff3
a:_
<a:
a..w
w'"
wc) .
~ff3~
~E~
w~ro
!3~
<z
I-W
"'i]j
ffia:
:::>w
<Cl
~
W
~
'"
C)
z
<
a:
~
3:
.
.
jg
'3
en
Q)
a:
Cl
~
e
Q)
a.
o
E
Q)
~
!
C/)
;tog
co
w .....
~ Q)
mai
:53:
C7l
o
o
N
~
o
o
M
co
o
o
N
~
o
o
M
,...
o
o
N
'$.
q
~
...
co
o
o
N
'$.
q
~
...
It)
o
o
N
'$.
q
~
~
..,.
o
o
N
'$.
q
~
~
C')
o
o
N
'$.
q
...
~
N
o
o
N
'$.
q
~
...
...
o
o
N
'$.
q
~
~
o
o
o
N
<X)
(")
<X)
o
<0
<0
o
(")
Ol
l()
<X)
~
I--
oi
C\I
l()
<X)
I--
~
<X)
as
C\I
'<t
co
~
o
~
a5
C\I
C7l
co
co
Ii
......
..;
C\I
~
C7l
Lti
co
o
~
co
I--
o
'i
...
o
C\I
C\I
I--
CO
lS
'<t
as
......
C7l
CO
t')
8
CI)
a5
......
o
co
~
C;;
t')
Lti
......
Ol
e'
l'Cl
.s::
e
~
(J)
(ij
'1::
Ol in
~ ~
I:: 'C
~ .5
Gl
a:
<II
CD
<II
l'Cl
l!!
o
.5
Ol
iii
a: rl
-g -
'5 ~
-g Qj
.s:: iii
~ ;:
'<t
C\I
(")
Lti
I--
'<t
..;
(")
I--
(")
l()
'"
I--
t')
'"
t')
C7l
o
Ol
'"
o
t')
C\i
t')
l()
CI)
l()
C\i
t')
l()
oi
C\I
C7l
C7l
10
oi
'<t
C7l
a5
C\I
I--
C\I
~
~
..;
C\I
t')
C\I
o
'"
10
o
C\i
N
co
10
10
Lti
CI)
co
oi
......
t')
CI)
CI)
~
co
,..:
......
o
o
I--
a5
'<t
o
a5
......
oll
<II
Gl
iiiGl
(J)~
CD c: ....
~! ~
(J) a: :>
o 0
o <X)
o (")
o as
C\I <X)
'<t ~
o C\I
o '<t
o C7l
o ,..:
~ ~
g 0;
o co
o as
C\I 0
'<t ~
o
o
l()
as
10
'<t
o
Ie
oi
10
co
o C7l
8 ~
'" ,..:
co C7l
I-- ......
o
o
o
'"
I--
C7l
(") l() co
'<t I--
l() Ol '<t
'<t 0 '"
i ~. ~
a5
(0
<X) Ol Ol
(") Ol C7l
(") 0 CI)
a5 ..; '"
I-- <X) <X)
CI) 1--. C7l
'$
co t') C\I l()
{;; l2 ~ t6
,..: as Lti a5
co C\I l() 0
~I--.Ol~
co t')
~
l()
o
I--
t\!.
~ Ie C7l 0
~ 0> :;;: co
Lti ,..: Lti
f5 ~ ~ M
,..: Lti
l() t')
CI)
10
10
gf
t\!.
co ~ ,.... 0)
It; (J; ~ ~
oaSo
8 ~ g ~
g ~
I-- ... C\I I--
~ ~ ~ &l
~ ~ tf (\j
~ . CI) ~
'<t t')
co
~
C\i
co
......
CI) t') 0 co
~ R ~ ~
C\i oi as a5
~ C\i ~ ~
~ &f
o 0
o CI)
l() CI)
a5 as
o C\I
C7l or:
CI) l() 0 0
g ;n 8 ~
,..: '" ..; ..;
~ ~ ~ ~
~ C;;
~ 8
a5 a5
C\I C7l
10 q
~ ~ 8 ~
gf r::: 8 ~
~qCl)~
t') t')
o 0'
~ 18
C\i Lti
:g co
le.
~ 8 ~ ~
Lti 0 ,..: '"
co 0 C7l C\I
~qco:-
C;; C\I
Ol
~
I::
CD
6i
a:
CD
If
0.
~
...
Ol
it
Gl
(J)
oll
<II
Gl
If
Ol
<II
:E
o <II
I:: CD
~ ~
o '0
~ ~
Ol Ol
:J ::J
.5 .5
19 19
I:: I::
Ol Gl
~ ~ ~
0.. 0.. 0
Ol
~
I::
!
a:
...
Ol
.s::
o
Gl
~
I::
Ol
>
Gl
a:
<II
<II
e
Cl
C\I
C\I
co
'"
Ol
I--
oi
(")
~
CI)
oi
I--
l()
as
t')
(")
;;
as
'<t
co
C\i
'<t
C\I
~
,..:
~
~
o
t')
I--
o
Ol
o
o
'<t
~
o
oi
C\I
CI)
,..:
t')
I--
Ie
oi
o
co
a5
t')
o
10
'<t
oi
C\I
'<t
Lti
t')
C7l
~
Lti
C7l
C\I
i
10
o
t')
~
'"
t')
C\I
a:
~
C\i
t')
o
IX;
o
C\I
co
o
t')
~
I::
l'Cl
I::
Ol
'E
"iij
~
oll
<II
I::
o
~
Ol
0.
o
o
(")
l()
a5
Ol
C\I
..;
C\I
l()
C7l
'<t
as
C\I
l()
'"
C\I
co
~
a5
I:::
C\i
C\I
C7l
C\I
CI)
C\i
'<t
CI)
oi
...
C7l
o
CI)
o
C\I
'<t
a5
......
I--
'<t
C7l
as
10
o
'"
......
C7l
C7l
10
,..:
10
o
o
......
'<t
o
10
Lti
CI)
co
a5
o
C\I
......
oi
CI)
......
'"
o
Ie
~
<II
Ol
<II
I::
Gl
an
~
oll
o
!
Gl
E
o
u
.5
Dl
C
;::
f!
!
o
(\j'
r:::
o
'<t
...
C\i
~
0'
10
o
oi
C7l
t')
C\i
~
<0
Ol
co
,..:
C\I
Ol
C\i
~
(\j'
CI)
~
......
r:::
as
......
it)
co
......
,..:
;;
,..:
......
(i)
Ol
I--
as
C;;
Lti
C
~
;n
C\I
Ii
I--
e
a;-
t')
C\I
Lti
t')
CI)
e
a;-
I--
~
~
a
~
o
'<t
'$
~
Iii'
CD
<II
c:
CD
~
!!!
<II
Ol
~
c:
Ol
6i
a:
CI
c:
;:l
l!!
!
o
C:
o
z
~
-m
c:
~
CI
c:
~
8-
o
I--
co
Lti
l()
...
C\i
l()
~
oi
C\I
~
0'
l()
q
;n
~
I--
~
c;;
......
<0
10
t')
a5
Ol
!2.
;n
CI)
oi
10
C\I
~
CI)
(J;
o
Ol
C\I
it)
t')
I--
oi
'<t
...
a
a;-
10
N
C\i
CI)
~
co
c;lj
o
CI)
t')
o
;n
o
Ol
C\I
o
...
(")
(")
'<t
as
C')
...
o
......
~
co
as
CI)
Ol
oi
Ol
CI)
Ol
o
~
oi
co
10
It)
Lti
Ol
co
oi
C\I
I--
C\I
C\i
It)
10
oi
10
o
......
~
~
oi
It)
C\I
o
~
C\I
oi
8
o
Lti
C')
......
oi
8
o
g
oi
C\I
l()
C\I
oi
(\j
C\i
C\I
C')
o
C')
Lti
I--
'<t
C\i
C\I
I--
~.
;;
o
'"
C\I
I--
It)
C\I
'"
CI)
I--
as
...
~
Ol
a5
CI)
o
,..:
......
I--
;jIj
a5
CI)
C')
Lti
......
~
o
'"
C')
CI)
oi
Ol
Ol
o
oi
C7l
CI)
oi
Ol
I--
C')
'"
t')
It)
'"
'<t
...
~
C\i
Ol
It)
'"
'S
o
~ 15
B -me!
<II C:..
u:: l!!.2
oll t- Gl
1;) m:o
l5 l!! :E.!!!
~ J!l <II m i
i.5~8'<
0.'gl'Cl_ !
OlO.s::GlC
omOZ I!
Gl8
iIi ~~
~ GlGl
ii: zen
II
E
8
.5
ti
z
Ol
I--
l()
Lti
co
co
..;
(")
co
~
'"
'<t
I--
'"
C')
co
C\I
oi
C')
CI)
C\i
C')
'<t
Ol
co
Lti
It)
I--
oi
C\I
I--
'<t
...
a5
CI)
......
a5
C\I
CI)
co
Ol
~
co
C\i
C\I
o
CI)
'<t
~
10
oi
......
Ol
CI)
~
(\j
o
a5
o
C\I
......
a5
CI)
t')
C\i
......
o
co
'<t
~
Ol
C\i
......
C')
o
o
a5
I--
co
..;
CI)
C\I
co
Lti
I--
co
..;
CI)
C\I
C')
Lti
!D
..;
CI)
It)
CI)
..;
!D
..;
CI)
Ol
I--
as
I--
co
..;
CI)
'<t
co
as
!D
..;
CI)
C\I
It)
tf
co
..;
o
o
co
Lti
R
..;
o
CI)
C')
'"
C\I
I--
..;
It)
...
~
,..:
~
..;
Ol
o
~
Ol
(J)
Z
Gl
o
CI
c:
15
x
w
o
l()
<0
a5
'<t
...
as
l()
I--
It)
Lti
o
CI)
,..:
o
o
l()
'"
I--
'<t
,..:
o
o
It)
as
C\I
'<t
a5
o
o
l()
as
C\I
'<t
a5
o
o
10
as
C\I
'<t
a5
o
o
It)
as
~
a5
o
o
10
as
~
a5
Ol
o
.~
Gl
(J)
Z
CD
o
<II
'C
c:
o
m
~
N
<II
Ol
'1::
Ol
(J)
o
o
<0
a5
C')
CI)
..;
o
o
oi
C')
'<t
..;
o
o
Ol
C\i
10
o
..;
o
o
Ol
oi
10
C\I
oi
o
10
co
oi
co
C')
,..:
o
o
'<t
oi
o
co
Lti
~
.~
Ol
(J)
Z
Ol
o
l!!
~
-g
~
e-
o..
C')
lC)
N
oi
lC)
co
,..:
N
It)
C'!
<0
<b
C')
o
C')
o
C\I
Ol
a5
C\I
10
C'!
co
C\I
1--.
;;
C\I
a5
C\I
It)
C'!
...
co
10
C\I
'"
co
C')
o
C\I
co
~
...
co
'<t
Ol
a5
I--
'<t
as
......
N
~
...
co
;jIj
a5
r:::
a5
...
co
~
...
co
C\I
o
'"
o
...
......
...
~
...
o
o
~
~
~
...
....
......
~
o
co
C')
'"
~
..;
N
co
N
10
~
......
,..:
C\I
I--
..;
~
N
8
<
lil
~
~
W
a:
en
a:
W
w
z
a
z
~
z
o
~
::J
i
Ii:
CIl
'tl
c:
o
lQ
Gl
~
c:
Gl
>
Gl
IX:
c
o
8
~
Gl
en
-
.D
Gl
Q
o
i
IX:
CD
CI
f!
~
8
~
~
15
Gl
Q
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS. SERIES 2000
.
projections and planned expansion of the service area. Consistent with historical data,
annual water system growth is expected to range between .85% and 1.24%-an increase of
between 600 and 800 new water accounts per year. Total water accounts are expected to
increase 9.8 percent over the 10-year study periodS. Annual sewer growth is expected to
fluctuate over the forecast period reaching a peak in 2003 of 3.82% as transmission lines are
extended to new sewer customers. New sewer accounts number between 600 and 1,980
annually. Total sewer accounts are projected to increase 19.2 percent over the forecast
period 6.
Annual water sales revenues are forecast to increase from $15.3 to $30.7 million and sewer
sales and industrial surcharge revenues from $16.0 to $34.5 million. Water and sewer tap
fees are projected based on new accounts resulting from system growth and expansion.
These fees are expected to generate $6.2 million between 2000 and 2009. Cut-on fees, set to
recover administrative costs associated with new accounts, and other miscellaneous
revenues are assumed to increase 3 percent per annum. In 2009, total revenues of $66.9
million are projected to be comprised of water sales (45.9 percent), sewer sales (51.6
percent), other revenues (2.1 percent), and water and sewer tap fees (less than one percent).
Total revenues are expected to grow 113 percent from $31.4 million in 2000 to $66.9 million
in 2009. Of the $35.5 million differential, nearly $29.4 million is attributed to water and
sewer rate increases (82.8 percent) and $6.1 million to system growth and expansion (17.2
percent).
.
6.4.2 Expenses
Total system operation and maintenance expenses for 1999 were $27.9 million and are
projected to be $30.6 million in 2000. System operating expenses are stated in nine expense
categories: Administration (includes payments to the General Fund in lieu of Franchise Fees
and Taxes), Customer Service, Construction and Maintenance, Raw Water, Surface Water
Treatment, Groundwater, Messerly Treatment Plant, New Water Treatment Plant, and
Depreciation. The escalation rate for these categories is computed as the annual rate of
inflation (3%) plus half the rate of annual population growth; for water-related categories,
3.43 percent, for sewer-related categories, 4.03 percent? Operating capital, excluded from
the debt service coverage calculation, is expected to total $1.5 million in 2000 and is
escalated at 3.73 percent per annum throughout the forecast period.
Additional O&M expenses attributed to the capital improvement program are included in
the fiscal year 2001 budget and include additional staffing expenses and recurring costs
related to process changes, system expansions, and other circumstances.
Two significant aspects of the revenue and expense ~rojections are:
"1:.
. Fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budgeted revenues, adjusted for account growth and rate
increases, are used as the basis for revenue projections throughout the forecast period.
.
5As indicated in Table 2-1, population growth in the service area over the ten year period is projected to be 8.8%.
6As indicated in Table 4-3, sewered population growth In the service area over the ten year period is projected to be 19.8%.
7 For Categories such as administration and customer service, 3.73 percent Is used-an average of the two escalation rates.
Exceptions are: depreciation is escalated at 1.5 percent per annum; payments in lieu of franchise fees are calculated as 2.75
percent of total revenues; and payments in lieu of taxes are escalated at 3.0 percent per annum.
P:\143875\PUBLICATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT83OA.DOC
6-7
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
· Interest revenue is assumed to accrue only in the Construction Fund at an earnings rate
of 5.5 percent; under conservative assumptions, no interest revenue is assumed to accrue
on Operating Fund balances.
6.4.3 Debt Service
.
Projected debt service includes debt service for both existing and proposed revenue bond
issues. Currently, the Department is repaying three revenue bond issues: Series 1996A
Bonds, Series 1996B Bonds, and Series 1997 Bonds. The combined annual principal and
interest payment for the three bonds is approximately $4.7 million per year8. The 1996B
Bonds will be retired in 2002, the 1997 Bonds in 2021, and the 1996A Bonds in 2028. The
Department is also repaying three loans issued by the Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority. These loans do not have coverage requirements and are therefore not included in
debt service coverage calculations.
Proposed bond amounts were selected to fund the capital program, maintain appropriate
Operating Fund reserves, meet debt service coverage criteria, and minimize rate impacts. In
addition to existing debt service and the projected debt service schedule for the Series 2000
Bonds, annual debt service includes payments associated with scheduled debt issues in
2002, 2004, and 2006. All future debt issues assume a 30 year term, an interest rate of 6.5
percent, an issuance cost of $750,000, and an underwriter's discount equal to 0.5 percent of
the par amount. Future debt issues also assume a debt service surety bond premium equal
to 2.5% of debt service requirements and a bond insurance cost equal to 20 basis points of
total debt service. Capitalized interest on the Series 2000 Bonds and subsequent issues in
2002 and 2004 totals $13.2 million.
Annual debt service costs are budgeted at $4.7 million in 2000. Future annual debt service
costs are projected to increase to $27.7 million in 2009 under the proposed bond issuance
schedule.
6.4.4 Debt Service Coverage
Debt service coverage is evaluated in terms of the System as a whole (combined water and
sewer). The System has a minimum parity coverage requirement of 1.25 times annual debt
service. System debt service coverage is estimated to be 2.74 in 2000 and projected to range
from 1.25 to 2.74 over the study period as shown in Table 6-4. As indicated in Table 6-5,
under rate projections established in the Bond Resolution for the Series 2000 Bonds and
upon completion of the construction period, the System will generate net revenues available
for debt service in excess of maximum annual debt service requirements in ratios ranging
from 1.53 to 2.57, and above Bond Resolution requirements of 1.25 for Additional Bonds.
.
8 Debt service payments for previous revenue bonds are structured so that the combined payment remains relatively constant.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA,DOC
6-8
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
TABLE 6-5
Additional Bonds Test"
Net Revenues Available 17,802,006 18,366,669 18,660,058 18,089,653 18,518,364
Maximum Debt Service 12.826,875 12,826,875 12,826,875 12,826,875 12,826,875
Debt Service Coverage 1.39 1.43 1.45 1.41 1.44
*The Additional Bonds test shows debt service coverage ratios for the forecast period following completion of construction
using the maximum annual debt service payment.
6.4.5 Operating Fund Balances
Operating Fund cash flows are presented in Table 6-6. Scheduled rate increases provide for
compliance with the Bond Resolution requirement to maintain Operating Fund balances
equal to the lesser of $2.5 million or 5 percent of the preceding fiscal year's operating
revenues. Operating fund balances range from $1.8 million to $11.3 million over the forecast
period and reflect the effect of debt service payments inclusive of Georgia Environmental
Facilities Authority loans as well as projected debt issues.
6.5 Capital Financing
.
The CIP will require approximately $312.2 million ($278.1 million in 2000 dollars) in total
funding over the ten year period, as discussed in Section 5 and shown in Table 6-7. Two
sources of funds will be used to fund the capital program: bond proceeds (94.5 percent) and
interest in the Construction Fund (5.6 percent). $295 million in bond proceeds will be
generated by separate issues in 2000 ($88.0 million), 2002 ($87.1 million), 2004 ($55.2
million), and 2006 ($64.7 million). Interest in the Construction Fund is expected to total $17.2
million over the la-year period.
Proposed water and sewer rate increases are projected to generate nearly $150.8 million in
additional revenues over the forecast period; tap fees, $6.2 million. Use of these revenues
provide an appropriate matching of revenues to capital expenses (including debt service
payments) planned to accommodate growth. In the event that actual growth in the
Department's water and sewer systems is less than projected, project deferrals may be
employed without degradation of services to ensure adequate matching of system revenues
and projected capital expenditures.
6.6 Series 2000 Bonds Analysis "1.."1..
.
This financial analysis has presented projections of revenues, expenses, debt service, and
debt service coverage to indicate financial feasibility of the 10-year capital plan, including
projects identified in the Master Plan as well as system enhancement projects. The financial
feasibility of the Series 2000 Bonds is demonstrated through an evaluation of required rate
increases to achieve adequate debt service coverage and fund balances in the absence of
future capital expenditures and debt issues beyond that contemplated for the Series 2000
Bonds financing.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
6-9
l,
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Table 6-8 presents Operating Results related solely to the feasibility of the Series 2000 Bonds,
and is comparable to Table 6-4. Feasibility of the 2000 Series Bonds will require 11 percent
rate increases in 2001 and 2002, followed by 3 percent per annum rate increases in all
subsequent years of the forecast period to achieve required debt service coverage and fund
balances. This compares to 11 percent per annum increases in 2001-2007, followed by 3
percent increases in 2008 and 2009, for the contemplated 10-year capital program financing
presented in previous sections.
.
.
P:\ 143875\PUBLlGATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
6-10
1-!zS<
.0: W cs
:;:""
1-'"
o:~
",<:0:
.o..w
O:w",
wo .
w",'"
ZwO
(5-Z
z!::O
W:dCD
~~
i5aJ
"'Gi
~o:
::>w
<:Cl
~
w
fiB
'"
o
z
<:
0:
~
.
.
-
o
Ul
Q)
Ul
::>
'C
c:
<U
Ul
Q)
e
::s
o
(f)
~
c:
::s
U.
:g g>
W ~
-I Q)
m c.
~ 0
~
o
u:
.r:.
Ul
<U
()
Ol
o
o
N
CXl
o
o
N
.....
o
o
N
co
o
o
N
I/)
o
o
N
..,.
o
o
N
C')
C
C
N
N
C
o
N
8
N
c
c
o
N
C')
C\l
as
l!)
o
~
~
"<t
.....
~
......
Ol
.....
o
~
Ol
ex>
o.
<0
l!)
o
Ol
o
"<t
u)
~
,..:
I/)
Ol
.....
C'5
o
CXl
u)
C\l
C')
~
u)
Ol
.....
u)
C')
co
.....
as
.....
~
C'5
Ol
"<t
CXl
~
Ol
C'5
co
co
III
N
co
IX!.
C')
co
N
as
.....
"<t
0;
~
c::
.!l!
8l
tl)
.S:
c::
.c::
~
!Xl
.....
C')
ex>
<0
.....
l!)
,..:
C')
o
C\l
co
N
o
N
,..:
C')
Ol
ex>
.....
0;
N
ex>
<0
C')
o
co
<0
Ol
"<t
<0
C')
~
<0
Ol
N
<0
C')
a;
o
u)
"<t
ex>
u)
C')
III
ex>
C')
,..:
~
u)
C')
co
N
ex>
N
"<t
III
~
o
C')
III
o
,....
"<t
C'5
C')
o
N
co
u)
co
~
M
1Il
CD
::s
c:
CD
~
0:
E
CD
i
(f)
I
::s
(f)
<0
o
.....
.....-
<0
C')
0;
N
ex>
1:
C'5
.....
co
,..:
N
.....
ex>
III
,..:
C')
o
<0
N
C')
N
o
u)
.....
,....
(\j
III
C')
,....
~
C')
.....
<0
,....
<0
o
C')
C'5
"<t
<0
N
,....
C')
<0
"<t
u)
C')
Ol
as
N
ex>
Ol
~
ex>
III
u)
N
Ol
"<t
N
N
<0
N
E
~t
0:1Il
E'O
e~
-.0
GlE
~8
~ui
GlCD
0:1Il
Sl~
~~
Gl
::s
c:
!
0:
1ii
l!!
J!!
E
C')
o
l!)
,..:
l!)
C')
N
C')
Ol
o
"<t
0;
o
"!.
M
<0
C\l
N
o
,....
o
C')
III
o
cD
ex>
Ol
,..:
N
,....
(\j
~
a;
cD
N
ex>
.....
,....
~
ex>
u)
N
C')
"<t
,....
;t
CXl
~
N
o
ex>
N
o
.....
,....
~
N
~
Ol
cD
g
C'5
N
g
CXl
o
N
<<!.
(\j
1Il
CD
1Il
c:
Gl
8
01
c:
~
li>
c.
o
l!)
l!)
Ol
0;
<0
l!)
~
o
N
ex>
u)
o
"<t
~
ex;
l!)
,..:
"<t
N
~
"<t
N
o
u)
Ol
o
~
.....
"<t
Ol
,..:
"<t
Ol
C'5
C')
III
~
cD
o
ex>
C'5
10
"<t
0;
<0
<0
C'5
Ol
III
<0
,..:
C')
III
C'5
o
o
<0
o
~
C'5
o
o
o
u)
.....
"t
Iii
'0.
III
o
01
c:
-e
Gl
c.
o
o
::>
<
'0
c:
.r
.s
'0
Q)
1Il
::>
1Il
Gl
~y
~.-
Gle
0:0...
'E1ij
~'5.
::Sill
00
Ol
o
0;
C')
.....
0;
N
Ol
III
~
o
o
o
0;
N
"<t
ex>
It!.
ex;
N
cD
N
"<t
,....
,....
C'5
;
N
N
"<t
o
ex>
cD
III
III
o
N
"<t
o
"<t
cD
Ol
.....
cD
,....
"<t
ex>
ex>
N
ex>
,....
C'5
,....
<0
III
Ol
C'5
(\j
C'5
,....
.....
C')
N
C'5
o
ex>
cD
1:
Ol
to
o
ex>
cD
.1'.l
c:
Q)
~
0...
8
.~
Q)
(f)
j5
Q)
o
it)
~
cD
......1:;
e
>:
c:
o
o
o
o
~
~
Q)
~
::s
~
...
Gl
.s::
o
0>
0>
0_
<0
C')
~
<0
.....
0>
,..:
.....
N
<b
~
~
C')
N
,....
cD
III
q
,....
,....
0>
"<t
0>
o
<0
N
"<t
.....
~
,..:
Ol
.....
o
,....
<0
ex>
o
cD
C')
N
Ol
ex>
q
<0
III
o
,....
o
ex>
<0
u)
"<t
,....
C'5
Ol
o
"<t
u)
~
,..:
..,.
~
,....
~
l!)
(l)
.....
C'5
o
ex>
u)
N
<0
<0
cD
N
C')
,....
u)
(l)
.....
u)
o
.....
C')
cD
,....
<0
N
C')
<0
.....
cD
.....
,....
C'5
r:::-
ex>
o
~
(l)
t::..
(l)
~
N
.....
(l)
C'5
C')
CXl
N
o
,....
,....
N
<0
<0
III
N
<0
IX!.
8
...:
g
~
~
w
0:
'"
0:
W
W
Z
(5
Z
~
Z
o
!:i
(,)
:J
<0
::>
i
:::
0:
~
z
g
.!l!
8l
~
(3
~
'6
ai
Q)
1Il
III
l!!
g
o
$
III
l!!
u
E
a;
z
tI:!zg
.O~~
h:~
,,<(II
- c.. UJ
IIUJ(/)
UJ 0 _
~ffi~
(3-Z
z!::O
w::::!W
5~
~ffi
~[jj
CJII
::>UJ
<(CJ
<(
II
UJ
~
(/)
o
z
<(
a:
~
;;:
.
.
0'> 0'> CJ:i t'... : C"l 0
0 U; '-0 C"l N '-0
...J CJ:i 0'> t'... 0 t'... t'...
~ u-) ~ '<1<' ......' u-)
<( '-0 '<1< 0'> N ......
..... '<1< t'... N 0'> N N
0 u-) ..0 N '<1<' t-.:' N
..... 0'> ...... ...... 0'> ...... ......
N C"l N C"l
0 , '-0 '-0 , : CJ:i CJ:i ~
t'... '<1< '<1< '-0 '-0
01 N U; U; N N
0 ~ ~ g ~ ~
0 0
N U; '-0 '-0
N' N N'
U; ...... 0 ~ , , t'... t'... R
N CO ~ , '-0 '-0
...... CO '<1< ILl. ILl. N
110 .....< M C"l t-.:' 0 0 ~
0 CO ...... C"l '<1< 0 0
0 <'1, t'... U; N '<1< '<1< ILl.
N ...... ..0 N ~ N
......
'-0 C"l CJ:i 0 , , 0 0 ~
~ CO t:!: C"l , C"l C"l
N 0 '<1<, '<1< ......
r0- M ~ ~ u-) N N' .....<
0 ...... ~, CO ~ It') CJ:i
0 0'> ~ <'1, <Xl. <'1,
N N' 0 N ~ ...... ...... ......
It') '<1< ......
!;fl 0'> ~ C"l ~, . It') CO '-0
It') '-0 , 0 C!: ~
0'> ...... ...... N <'1,
CD 00 d 00 00 ...... ...... M M
0 It') It') CO C"l ~ t'... 0'> ......
0 0 ...... ~ ILl. \C(, ~ 0'>,
N t-.:' 00 0 'i ...... N
C"l '<1< It') '-0 It')
0 ~ ~ \0 I I I'- I'- ~
...... N ~ ~
CO <'1,
I/) gi a\ CO ~ 1'-' 00
0 It') ...... 0 0 It')
0 It') <'1, <'1, \0 N N 0
N ~ '-0 N 00 N N 1'-'
C"l
'-0 t'... CO ~ '" I 0 $ 0
~ &l ...... "'" , N ......
0 ...... a ~ <Xl.
qo ~ ~ .....< t-.:' a\ ~
0 ~ ~ co ......
0 ...... ...... I'- ILl.
N \0 1'-' N '" u-) ...... ..0 ~
C"l "'" "'" It') It')
~ 0 ~, ;1; I , l::: ...... \0
...... , I'- ~
0 F} ~ ~ ILl.
CO) ~' l2 0 ~
0 0 co co
0 0 ...... ...... C"l ~ "'"
N 1'-' N N ;t C"l M '-0
co It') C"l
0 I'- , I'- ~ I 8 l2 ~
"'" ""'- "'"
~ ~ ~ 0 0 q
N '-0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .....< ~
0 '" ~
'-0 <Xl. co 0 ...... 0
0 a\ d t-.:' .....< t-.:'
N ~ CJ:i
C"l "'" co 00 00
I'- ~ , ~ , . ~ 00 0
8 I It') "'"
<'1, <'1, ~
0- M It') It') ~ ~ \0
0 ...... "'" "'" '"
0 "l ...... ...... \0 \0 '-0
N '" m m M M a\
00 C"l
, , , , N , ~ I'- I'-
'-0 . ~ 8
q '"
0 ...... .....< C"l M
0 ...... 0 ...... ......
0 0 "l N "l
N 00 ...... a\ g;
CJ:i 00
~ e:
- 0
e: '0 'fi
CIl Ol
'[ E Ol 0 ~
0.. ~ :is e:
C ~ III
e: e: e:
8'0 III Ol e ~ u: 0
ii: E Co e:'O U
e:e: ~ E ~s Oe: ~
Ill:l .... III ala!
_u. 1ll e: =11I al e: e: .
&:s III S! Ol:l Ee: III
ClI .s:: ~ >0 'C III
~ e: Ci.,a OlE ClI.!:? iii
g''fi w a:c( wt) c 10
C) :;; ~~ 11I- ::J
~ '2s CJ~ 0.. Cg 'liis u. 01
.5 III ~ !!. '0 ~.~ l!!1Il iii ,5 '0
c: Ole: ~:[ e: Ole: 'Oe:
::J OlO 0 ~~ 0 :le s8 ~ e::l
IOU .... cnQ. 10 uo.. wu.
(/)
c:
o
'00
'g
~o
~ '0
In
~ u..
('oJ
<h
ci
o
o
C\I
:;;
~
ai
o
e:
III
iii
.c
'0
e:
:l
U.
e:
o
'fi
2
'Iii
e:
o
U
01
e:
'c
e:
'i:;)
Ol
.c
CIl
=
'0
e:
III
'Iii
e
.s
.5
III
CIl
'0
:l
'0
.5
8
~
~
o
c..
w
a:
(/)
a:
w
w
z
(3
z
~
z
o
5
:J
i
:::
a.:
hetz~
.OWN
::;:rn
....W
0:_
",<0:
- O-W
o:wrn
ttl~(fj
ZWO
~Ea
w:::!CC
!3~
~ffi
rn~
ijlo:
::>w
<C!l
~
w
a;
rn
o
Z
<
0:
~
.
.
S-8
'SO
Ul C'l
Q)
a:
Cl
c:
1ii
....
Q)
c.
o
E
Q)
~
en
~
Q)
en
:g~
~J
~:>
C'l
>>8
'CC'l
o
Ul
"C
c:
o
lD
o ~ ::
00
0C'l
C\I
Ul
Q)
'C:
Q)
en
en
o
o
N
<Xl
o
o
C'l
""
o
o
N
CD
o
o
C'l
~
o
o
C':i
~
o
o
C':i
~
o
o
C':i
~
o
o
C':i
'ifl.
o
It) C':i
o
o
C'l
""
o
o
C'l
~
o
o
C':i
l')
o
o
C'l
'ifl.
o
C':i
~
o
q
~
~
'ifl.
q
ll)
ex)
f'-
-.i
ll)
o
C'5
C\J
'l'
U;
05
ll)
C'l
N
C\J
C\J
C\J
~
co
"!.
N
o
en
<Xl
M'
C\I
q
N
en
o
It)
i,
l')
o
C\I
f'-
10
'l'
.0
o
""
ai
~
en
~
05
g
ai
~
~
<Xl
05
o
'l'
05
~
en
<Xl
C'l
8
<Xl
05
o
<0
<Xl.
M
C'l
.0
~
III
Ql
III
as
l!!
o
.E
Ql
1ii
a:
'0
Ql
:;
'0
Ql
s::;
o
en
o
o
C'5
C\J
en
III
C\J
o 0
o ex)
o C'l
o 05
C\J ex)
'l' C'l.
C'l
'l'
III
-.i
en
o
.0
C\I
o C\J
o 'l'
o en
o r-:-
~ ~
en
It)
C\I
o
en
C\I
-.i
N
8 to
o 10
o 05
C\J 0
'l' ~
III
<Xl
'l'
ai
o
III
M'
N
g ~
It) It)
05 0
It) ""
'l' N.
III
10
~
N
~
N
C\I
o <Xl
It) It)
"" It)
ai M'
It) C'l
<0 C\!.
o
C'l
'l'
~
IX!.
N
o
o
o
M'
Ie
It)
<Xl
10
o
C'l
<Xl
o
C\I
o
o
o
~
en
10
It)
It)
.0
<Xl
<0
ai
~
l')
<Xl
<Xl
ai
o
<0
r-:-
~
o
o
.....
05
g
05
~
Ql
2'
as
s::;
e
::l
en
iii
'c:
Ql 1ii
::l ::l
~'O
&i .E
a:
fIl
Ql
iii
en
~ ~
Ql Ql
1iiQlen
en::loll
lii ~ ~ lii
1iiQlQl~
:= en a: :>
III 0
f'- C\J
~ to
cD cD
ex) Ol
:;. C'l.
III
to
'l'
C'5
q
C\J ex)
C\J III
to to
C'5 C'5
Ol 0
f'- C\J
ai N
C'l 'l'
Ol f'-
Ol .....
Ol III
o C'5
C\I III
~ C'l.
'l'
Ol
Ol
<Xl
M'
<Xl
Ol
~ ~
ai r-:-
ro 0;
05 0
C'l 'l'
C\I <Xl
<0 to
d ~
R M.
r-:-
'l'
C\I It) III
~ 13 ~
.0 05 M'
It) 0 .....
Ol 'l' 10
r-:- ai
C'l C'l
en ..... en 0 10
~ C\i ~ co ~
NNr-:-.o.o
10 ..... N ~ ~
C\IIO_C\!.enC'l1t)
.0 r-:-
'l' C'l C'l
Nit)..... en 0
8l ~ ~ q 18
m ~ 8 u; ~
en C\!. en C\I C'l
~ i ~
en
C\I
<0
r-:-
en
~
N ..... ~
~ &t ~
~ ~ gj
M' .0
C'l l')
re ~
It) It)
M' .0
~ ~
~
10
'l'
.....
N
10
~
o 'l' 0 III en
..... It) C\I C\I 0)
<Xl C'l ..... <Xl <Xl
N.o 0505 0
c; ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ i
o 0
o <Xl
It) <Xl
05 05
o C\I
Ol ~.
<Xl It) 0 0 It)
g u; g ~ g
r-:-M'-.i-.iN
~~~~;
~ M ~
~ g
05 05
~ &
o ~ C\I
g 'l' ~
8 ~ ~
<Xl 0) Ul
o N
C'l C'l
~ g
M' 'l'.
~ ~
05
C'l
o
'l'
Ol
N
It)
<0
o 0 III III 0
~ g Pl ~ lD
.oor-:-M'o
<0 0 en C\I C\I
~ q 10 ~ ~
'" C\I C'l
5'
<Xl
<Xl
.0
<0
!e.
Ql
::l
c:
Ql
>
Ql
a:
Ql
If
a.
~
III
Ql
Ql
u..
Ql
fIl
:E
o fIl
c: Ql
~ ~
'0 "0
::l ::l
Gl Ql
::i ::i
.5 .5
.e J1
c: c:
Ql Gl
~ ~
a.. a..
Gl
::l
c:
Ql
&i
a:
lii
s::;
5
Ql
::l
c:
~
Gl
a:
fIl
fIl
e
(!)
fIl
Gl
fIl
c:
Ql
an
8
c:
as
c:
J!l
c:
'iij
~
oll
fIl
c:
8
Q; e
s::; 8-
5 0
Gl
o
c:
as
c:
Ql
'E
'iij
~
oll
fIl
c:
o
~
Ql
a.
o
f'-
u;
N
ex)
III
cO
N
~
~
-.i
C'l
ex)
~
ex)
.....
to
C'5
o
C'l
cO
.....
o
r-:-
C\J
o
05
C'l
Ol
~
r-:-
i'!
05
C\I
C'l
~
c;
10
05
It)
co
O!,
co
~
05
o
.....
O!,
co
.....
r-:-
g
It)
.0
co
<0
05
o
C\I
~
ai
co
~
M'
o
l!?
~
Ql
E
o
u
.E
DI
c:
~
8-
o
0'
III
Ol
ai
co
en
~
<0
en
.....
i
~
e
C\j'
co
'l'
05
C\I
~
e
iO
u;
~
e
co
Ol
C'l
ai
R
e
u;
C\I
r-:-
10
.....
e
en
C'l
C\I
.0
C'l
<Xl
e
en
~
~
"'t
~
g
'l'
t
~
'iil
Gl
III
c:
Gl
g
III
Ql
::l
c:
Ql
&i
a:
Cl
c:
~
~
c.
o
Z
it)
Ol
Ill.
u;
~
~
C\J
05
co
!e..
en
I::
r-:-
o
~-
::::..
en
co
C\I
ai
.....
~
~
co
~
05
&
~
(i)
~
r-:-
C\I
~
~
-
co
N
.0
co
O!,
::::..
iO
C')
.....
ai
'l'
~
~
en
It)
C\I
N
co
~
10
~
o
co
C')
o
u;
o
Ol
C\J
o
C'l
C'l
'l'
cO
C')
~
o
~
g
10
05
co
Ol
ai
en
ex)
0)
o
~
ai
CD
It)
It)
.0
en
<0
ai
~
C\I
N
It)
It)
ai
It)
o
~
~
~
ai
It)
C\I
o
~
C\I
ai
8
o
.0
C')
~
ai
8
o
o
8
ai
C\J
III
to
N
0;
cO
C\J
o
C\J
05
<0
o
ai
.....
C\I
co
05
o
C\I
ai
.....
It)
C')
05
en
~
ai
.....
en
C\I
r-:-
~
ai
~
g
ai
.....
C\I
o
M'
C')
co
ai
en
0)
o
ai
en
co
ai
0)
l::;
M'
C')
It)
M'
'l'
~
~
N
en
It)
M'
,,-"-
to
to
Ill.
u;
Ol
cO
'l'
to
C'l
05
u;
cO
~
C'l
It)
10
ai
co
o
05
~
co
It)
o
o
10
10
05
~
en
10
<0
05
10
C')
05
~
10
o
o
N
o
<Xl
r-:-
C\I
It)
co
05
It)
C\I
r-:-
0)
co
~
N
o
05
~
o
N
~
05
co
C')
N
~
o
10
'l'
g
N
~
:;
o
2! 12
B ~ ~
III C:..
u: 1!!.2
oll I- Ql
c:1ii g>:i5
o l!! "":ll!
:--~;U _~ fIl ~ ~
Qla.c(
'02'0 Ql
~ c: as - ::l
O~ os::; Ql c:
m () z ~
Ql 8
in ~~
::l Ql Ql
0:: zen
2!
Gl
"Iii
c:
~
Cl
c:
~
8-
o
Gl
E
o
u
.E
"ai
z
C')
o
o
cD
f'-
10
-.i
ex)
C\J
10
.0
.....
10
-.i
co
C\I
C'l
.0
.....
<0
-.i
<Xl
It)
<Xl
it
10
-.i
co
en
.....
cO
.....
<0
..;
<Xl
~
05
.....
10
-.i
<Xl
C\I
It)
-.i
.....
<0
-.i
o
o
<0
.0
o
.....
-.i
o
co
C'l
M'
~
-.i
It)
~
~
r-:-
~
-.i
Gl
o
.~
Gl
en
15
Ql
o
Cl
c:
~
'x
w
o
III
to
05
'l'
~
cO
III
f'-
III
.0
o
co
r-:-
o
o
It)
M'
.....
'l'
r-:-
o
o
It)
05
C\I
'l'
05
o
o
It)
cO
C\I
'l'
05
o
o
It)
05
C\I
'l'
05
o
o
III
05
C\I
'l'
05
o
o
It)
05
C\I
'l'
05
8
.~
Ql
en
15
Ql
o
III
'0
c:
o
m
8
C\I
III
Ql
'c:
Ql
en
Ql
o
.~
Ql
en
15
Ql
o
l!!
~
u..
"i
g
.e-
a..
C')
ll)
to
N
C\J
ex)
N
co
'<l;
'"
<b
C')
o
C\J.
co
'l'
N
~
<Xl
'<l;
co
C\J
co
cO
'l'
~
N
~
en
'<l;
...
co
III
C'l
M'
o
~
~
~
<Xl
~
...
co
en
C\I
~
~
~
~
It)
~
...
co
'l'
~
r-:-
o
~
o
~
...
~
~
co
C\I
o
M'
o
~
~
~
It)
II'!
...
o
o
~
i
""
'<l;
...
~.
~
~
o
co
C'l
M'
~
-.i
C'l
CD
~
III
~
~
r-:-
~
-.i
~
~
u
8
<i.
o
'"
ex>
he
o
0-
w
0:
rn
0:
w
w
Z
(5
Z
~
Z
o
~
u
::;
co
i
::::
0.:
III
'0
c:
o
m
Ql
=
c:
~
GI
a:
c
o
8
~
CD
en
12
Ql
o
o
~
a:
Gl
Cl
I!!
~
o
o
8
~
GI
U)
-
.t::I
GI
o
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
6.7 Conclusions
.
CH2M HILL's projection of the financial performance of the System for the 10-year period
2000 through 2009 is summarized as follows:
· Total revenues are projected to increase 113 percent over the 10-year period. Operating
expenses, including expenses attributable to planned capital expenditures, are projected
to increase by 39.2 percent over the 10-year forecast period.
· Projects identified in the Department's 10-year CIP reflect priority needs of the system
and, after adjusting for inflation, are expected to total $312.2 million. These expenditures
will be primarily funded through a combination of debt issues in 2000, 2002, 2004, and
2006 ($295.0 million) and interest on the Construction Fund ($17.2 million).
· Financing of the planned 10-year capital program will require system-wide water and
sewer rate increases of 11 percent per annum from 2001 through 2007, and 3 percent in
2008 and 2009. Typical residential bills, for both water and sewer service, are projected
to increase 114 percent over the forecast period as a result of these rate increases.
However, projected residential bills are expected to remain comparable to, and
competitive with, other Georgia communities.
· Net revenues of the System will be sufficient to meet projected debt service obligations
on the Series 2000 Bonds and planned 2002, 2004, and 2006 bonds if scheduled water and
sewer rate increases are implemented.
· Net revenues of the System will be sufficient to meet projected debt service obligations
on the Series 2000 Bonds if scheduled rate increases of 11 percent per annum are
implemented in 2001 and 2002, and rates are increased at 3 percent per annum,
equivalent to projected inflation, over the remainder of the forecast period.
.
P:\143875\PUBlICATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT83OA.DOC
6-14
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
Appendix A
Acronyms
.
BPS
CIP
DI
D/DBP
DNR
EPA
EPD
FM
FPS
gpm/ ft2
GPD
GWTP
. 1/1
LAS
MCC
MCL(G)
MG
mgd
MSL
NPDES
PS
PSI
PVC
RMP
SDWA
SWTR
TIHM
WTP
WWTP
.
booster pump station
Capital Improvement Plan
ductile iron
Disinfectants/Disinfectants Byproducts Rule
Department of Natural Resources
United States Environmental Protection Agency
State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division
force main
feet per second
gallons per minute per square foot
gallons per day
ground water treatment plant
infiltration and inflow
land application system
motor control center
maximum contaminant level (goal)
million gallon
million gallons per day
mean sea level
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
pump station
per square inch
polyvinyl chloride
risk management plan ",'c..
Safe Drinking Water Act
Surface Water Treatment Rule
total trihalomethanes
water treatment plant
wastewater treatment plant
P:\143875\PUBLlCATIONS\ENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
A-I
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Appendix B
Estimated Growth within Census Tracts
Estimated Growth within Census Tracts
Augusta-Richmond County, 1990 to 1998
Census Acres 1990 1990 1990 Density 1998 Adjusted 1998 1998 Change,
Tract Census Population (persons per Building Permit Population Density 1990 to
population Share acre) Estimate Share 1998
1 1,152 4,672 2.6% 4.06 4,256 2.3% 3.68 -9.2%
2 640 3,260 1.8% 5.09 3,000 1.6% 4.67 -8.3%
3 320 1,963 1.1% 6.13 1,771 1.0% 5.52 -10.1%
4 384 783 0.4% 2.04 727 0.4% 1.89 -7.5%
6 512 2,691 1.5% 5.26 2,388 1.3% 4.65 -11.6%
7 320 1,837 1.0% 5.74 1,470 0.8% 4.58 -20.2%
8 384 1,022 0.6% 2.66 999 0.5% 2.59 -2.6%
9 320 3,394 1.9% 10.61 3,041 1.7% 9.47 -10.7%
10 512 3,311 1.8% 6.47 2,884 1.6% 5.61 -13.2%
11 512 1,753 1.0% 3.42 1,774 1.0% 3.45 0.8%
12 960 4,808 2.7% 5.01 4,479 2.4% 4.65 -7.2%
13 448 1,748 1.0% 3.90 1,640 0.9% 3.65 -6.5%
14 384 2,755 1.5% 7.17 2,408 1.3% 6.25 -12.9%
15 320 2,411 1.3% 7.53 1,998 1.1% 6.22 -17.4%
16 2,112 8,876 4.9% 4.20 8,523 4.7% 4.02 -4.3%
. 101.01 1,280 3,994 2.2% 3.12 3,798 2.1% 2.96 -5.3%
101.02 1,984 6,274 3.5% 3.16 6,708 3.7% 3.37 6.5%
101.04 1,920 3,466 1.9% 1.81 3,607 2.0% 1.87 3.7%
101.05 1,216 5,654 3.1% 4.65 6,002 3.3% 4.92 5.8%
102.01 1,472 5,356 3.0% 3.64 5,125 2.8% 3.47 -4.7%
102.03 1,216 4,014 2.2% 3.30 3,697 2.0% 3.03 -8.2%
102.04 8,000 4,480 2.5% ,0.56 5,975 3.3% 0.74 32.9%
103 1,280 5,899 3.3% 4.61 5,457 3.0% 4.25 -7.8%
104 1,216 4,987 2.8% 4.10 4,559 2.5% 3.74 -8.9%
105.04 3,136 7,541 4.2% 2.40 6,901 3.8% 2.19 -8.8%
105.05 2,368 8,126 4.5% 3.43 8,444 4.6% 3.55 3.5%
105.06 1,280 5,282 2.9% 4.13 4,797 2.6% 3.73 -9.5%
105.07 1,728 6,701 3.7% 3.88 6,261 3.4% 3.61 -6.9%
105.08 768 3,844 2.1% 5.01 3,580 2.0% 4.64 -7.2%
105.09 1,024 4,602 2.5% 4.49 4,281 2.3% 4.17 -7.3%
105.1 1,344 5,456 3.0% 4.06 5,119 2.8% 3.79 -6.5%
105.11 1,792 3,796 2.1% 2.12 3,492 1.9% 1.94 -8.3%
106 17 ,856 6,512 3.6% 0.36 6,259 3.4% 0.35 -4.2%
107.03 3,008 8,210 4.5% 2.73 8,752 4.8% 2.90 6.2%
107.04 5,504 6,859 3.8% 1.25 8,866 4.8% 1.61 28.8%
107.05 4,032 7,363 4.1% 1.83 9,061 5.0% 2.24 22.6%
107.06 7,616 3,548 2.0% 0.47 4,046 2.2% 0.53 13.6%
109.01 37,824 5,508 3.1% 0.15 6,780 3.7% 0.18 22.7%
109.02 44,800 7,823 4.3% 0.17 9,919 5.4% 0.22 26.3%
Total (a) 207,167 180,579 100% 1.11 190,850 100% 1.12 0.9%
(a) Excludes Census Tract 108 (Fort Gordon), which had an estimated 9,140 persons in 1990.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCA TIONSlENGINEERSREPORT8 3OA.DOC
B-1
ENGINEER'S REPORT
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000
.
Appendix C
10 year Capital Improvement Plan
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
SYSTEM-WIDE PROJECTS
MASTER PLAN 2000 PROJECTS
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS"
10 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
.
.' ,',.:;'."".,'.'E:. ;.'s':l.I~~,..O!'M;'~.,"..:,"T".,.~.",; :;q.Q~] . . ;',P9,~l";'
'" .. _~.. ,'.,ES;n!'A.AIJ;.. . 'ESTIMATE'
~..,.,. .", ,,,,., '" ,.,..',..2',.,...,00"2..'.r..'.',U..N.'."D'''S...,.. ~.:."',';,,'"""-"-""~,.:,
~~;#i2..qq9)~QN,Q,$l '. ",., ".",~".. '., .,'. ;2QQ,:t'FUNPS
28,655,000 25,640,000 14,400,000
19,789,000 14,705,480 10,940,000
9,322,000 19,848,000 10,416,000
26,466,000 29,222,000 10,005,000
5,895,000 200,000 50,000
90,127,000 89,615,480 45,811,000
4,000,000 4,000,000
90,127,000' 93,615,480
49,811,000
7,000,000
9,810,000
17,166,000
4,600,000
38,576,000
6,000,000
44,576,000
"System Enhancement Projects: The capital improvement projects funded over the next 10
years have been developed based upon the Master Plan 2000 and its specific
recommendations for system expansion and improvement. In future years (beginning in
2004) some limited additional system enhancement projects may be required to address
critical stress on some older segments of the System that were not defined in the Master
Plan 2000. These are estimated to require $2,000,000 per year.
.
P:\143875\PUBLlCATlONSlENGINEERSREPORT830A.DOC
'" '-
0-1
PN 152572
REFERENCE
AUGUSTA MASTER PLAN 2000
Table of Contents
.
TM1.1 Document Review will list the
documents reviewed and highlight issues
of concern as well as summarize previous
recommendations with recommendations
for modification if appropriate.
TM1.2 Flow Projections will present
estimated water and wastewater flows to
be used for development of the PLAN and
scope of any additional required hydraulic
modeling needed to support the PLAN. It
will also include a discussion of the data
sources and methods used to develop the
future growth and projections.
.
TM2 Regulatory Compliance will
summarize current regulatory requirements
and future anticipated trends that will
influence strategic decision OWNER will be
making during the planning period.
Potential actions that may be required by
those trends will be discussed.
2.1 Water Regulations
2.2 Wastewater Regulations
TM4.1 Raw Water Source and Regional
Agreements: Review findings of evaluation
and recommend steps to strengthen
reliability of existing raw water sources and
explore development of new sources.
Status of existing regional agreements will
be discussed as well as new opportunities
of service.
.
Augusta Master Plan Deliverables.xls
.
.
.
PN 152572
REFERENCE
AUGUSTA MASTER PLAN 2000
Table of Contents
TM4.2 Water Treatment Facilities will
include condition assessments, alternative
water-treatment technology options that
could be implemented to meet current and
anticipated requirements of the SDW A; and
recommended 10-year Water Treatment
Facilities Improvement and Development
Program.
TM4.2A Water Treatment Alternative
Evaluation will include the raw water
diversion options, conventional treatment
and membrane processes and bench scale
test results.
TM4.3 Water System Improvement Strategy
for near and long-term replacement,
rehabilitation, and development program
of OWNER's finished water pumping,
storage, and distribution system.
TM5.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities will
include condition assessments, alternative
wastewater treatment upgrade and
improvement options that can be
implemented to improve the operations
and performance; and recommended 10-
year Wastewater Treatment Improvement
and Expansion Program.
TM5.2 Wastewater Conveyance System
Improvement Strategy for near and long-
term replacement, rehabilitation, and
development program of OWNER's
wastewater conveyance system.
Augusta Master Plan Deliverables,xls
PN 152572
REFERENCE
AUGUSTA MASTER PLAN 2000
Table of Contents
.
TM6 Regulatory Compliance Status and
Support Strategies including guidance
documents for the needed actions,
schedules and costs.
TM7.1 Needs Assessment for
Computerized Maintenance Management
System (CMMS) describes the general
approach to identifying the appropriate
computerized maintenance management
system and the data gathering process
along with the activities that took place to
gather pertinent data.
.
TM7.2 Implementation of Computerized
Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
includes the focus of handling service
requests, the evaluation of alternative
software products and the objective of
developing a tool to assist mangers with
better information for their planning
alternatives.
TM7.3 Operating Strategy
.
Augusta Master Plan Deliverables.xls
.
TECHNICAL: MEMORANDUM 1.1
CH2MHILL
Document Review
DATE:
April 1999
The following documents were utilized as reference documents in the development of the
Master Plan. The accuracy and reliability of information contained within those documents
has not been verified except where noted in the Reference Technical Memorandums.
Recommendations contained in the documents, that have been accepted by the City of
Georgia, were incorporated into the Master Plan.
Title
Central Savannah River Area Regional Plan
1995-2015 - Regional Agenda & Executive
Summary
Date
October 1996
Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation
Plan
North Augusta - South Carolina's Riverfront
- Economic Profile
April 1999
.
Augusta-Richmond Utilities Department July 1998
- Comprehensive Water System Study
Master Plan Study for the Water and April 1999
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Augusta-
Richmond Utility Department
Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive 1995
Land Use Plan
City of Augusta Sanitary Sewer System July 1975
Inventory
Data on Existing Manholes for the City of January 1952
Augusta, Georgia
.
Author
Central Savannah
City of Aiken
City of North Augusta
Department of
Economic &
Community
Development
ZEL Engineers
Rothberg Tamburini
Winsor
Augusta-Richmond
County Planning
Commission
The City Engineering
Department
Patchen and
Zimmerman
Engineers
DOCUMENT REVIEW
. Title Date Author
201 Facilities Planning Report for Augusta- Zimmerman, Evans
Richmond County, Georgia and Leopold, Inc.
Columbia County New Horizons Growth December 1994 Cooper · Ross sv
Management Plan
Project Manual June 1998 Freeman & Vaughn
- Bennock Mill Rd. Pumping Station & Engineering, Inc.
Forcemain Augusta-Richmond County, GA
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation for February 1998 Rothberg Tamburini
the Butler Creek Facility for Augusta- Winsor
Richmond Utility Department
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation for May 1998 Rothberg Tamburini
the Water Treatment Facilities for Augusta Winsor
Richmond Utility Department
Augusta Richmond County Master Plan October 1996 ZEL Engineers
Reference Document
- Water & Sewer Capital Improvements 1996
. Revenue Bond Issue Engineering Report
Engineering Report November 1989 ZEL Engineers
- Hydroelectric Generating Facility - New
Savannah Bluff Site for the City of Augusta,
GA
Engineering Study July 1998 ZEL Engineers
- Augusta Canal Power Utilization and Raw
Water Pumping
Sewer Improvements and Sewage Treatment January 1952 Patchen and
Plan Zimmerman
Engineers
Augusta Richmond County Master Plan February 1998 Rothberg Tamburini
Reference Document Winsor
- Comprehensive Performance Evaluation for
the Butler Creek Facility
Augusta Richmond County Master Plan December 1998 Rothberg Tamburini
Reference Document Winsor
- Utilities Department Briefing for Mayor-
Elect Bob Young
.
ATVTMU,DOC
A-2
DOCUMENT REVIEW
. Title Date Author
State of Georgia Water and Sewerage Systems 1999/2000 Wachovia
Rate Comparisons
Investigative Report September 1999 James G. Swift &
- Little Spirit Creek - Trunk Line Sanitary Associa tes
Sewer
Augusta Richmond County Master Plan September 1983 Rothberg Tamburini
Reference Document - Programs for Water Winsor
Conservation and Cross-Connection Control
Augusta Richmond County Master Plan May 1998 Rothberg Tamburini
Reference Document - Comprehensive Winsor
Performance evaluation for the Water
Treatment Facilities for Augusta-Richmond
Utility Department
Augusta Program Management - Conveyance 1998 CH2M HILL
System Control Plan
Augusta Utilities Department - Report on December 1998 ZEL Engineers
Central Avenue Water Treatment Plant
Clearwell Cleaning & Valve Evaluation
. ~overnber9-23, 1998
Augusta Bond Resolution CH2M HILL
1999
~orth Augusta, South Carolina - September 1995 CH2M HILL
Comprehensive Land Use and Development
Plan
Augusta-Richmond County, GA - Annual December 1998 CH2M HILL
Financial Statements
Augusta-Richmond County, GA - Annual December 1997 CH2M HILL
Financial Statements
.
ATUTMU,DOC
A.3
.
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1.2
CH2MHILL
Population Distribution and Water and Wastewater
Flow Projections
DATE:
December 2, 1999
Contents
Introduction ........... ...... ... ..... ...... ...... ..... .... ....... ..... ..... .... ......... ..... ........... ....... ..... ..... ................. .....1
Population Trends ....... ................ .... ......... ..... .... ... ......... ......... ..... ........... ..... ..... ....... ..... ....... ..... ..... 2
Population Forecast .... .......... .... .... ......... ......... ..... ......... ......... .............. ................ ... ..... ....... ..........7
Population Distribution. ........... ...... ..... ......... .............. ................... ........ ....... ................... ... ....... ...7
Expected Growth in Water Consumption ................................................................................. 9
Expected Growth in Wastewater Flows. ...... .............. ......... ................ ............ ................. ........12
Conclusions .... ........ ...... ..... ..... .......... ....... ......... ..... ....... .... ....... ................ ....... ..... ..... ......... ..... ......14
Introduction
Richmond County's population is expected to increase from the 1998 level of 191,329 to
242,150 by 2020. In addition, many areas of the County are seeing new development as a
result of a shifting population. This growing, shifting population will require the Augusta
Utilities Department (AUD) to expand service to new areas and to increase water
production and wastewater treatment. Water production needs are projected to increase
from 57.7 million gallons per day (mgd) (maximum day) to between 74.6 mgd and 77.0 mgd
(maximum day), depending upon level of conservation achieved1. Wastewater flows to be
treated will vary with the level of conservation attained and also with the development
pattern of the County. Table 1 summarizes the maximum month flows, with and without
conservation, by wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) through 2020.
From 1980 to 1990, the total population of Richmond County grew by only 4.5 percent, from
181,629 to 189,719. Since 1990, the population has increased by only 1,610 persons (0.8
percent). Over the 1997 to 1998 period, it was estimated that the County lost 433 persons.
Despite the slowing growth, the County ranks seventh in the State in terms of total
population, only behind five Metropolitan Atlanta counties (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb,
Gwinnett, and Clayton) and Savannah's Chatham County. While the growth rate of
Richmond County as a whole has slowed significantly, growth within the County has
varied widely. For the utility to meet the needs of its shifting population efficiently and
cost-effectively, it is important to have reliable forecasts to aid in planning and policy-
making. This Technical Memorandum (TM) seeks to meet the need for reliable forecasts by
addressing four main areas: projected population of Richmond County, distribution of
. 1 Fort Gordon is not included in the study area for this Technical Memorandum. Water and wastewater demands at Fort
Gordon are met by on-base facilities and not included in the county-wide discussion of demands.
P:\152572\All FilES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABlES\TMl-2,DOC
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
population among Census tracts, projected water and wastewater customers, and regional
growth.
TABLE 1
Summary of Wastewater Flows, by WWTP, annual average and maximum month (mgd) (a)
Augusta Utilities Department, 1998 to 2020
Scenario 1 (b) Scenario 2 (c)
Plant 1998 (c) 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
Without Conservation
Spirit Creek (Capacity: 3.0 mgd) 3.0 3.2 5.3 6.4 6.2 8.6
Maximum Month Flows 3.6 3.8 6.3 7.7 7.5 10.3
J. B. Messerly (Capacity: 46.1 mgd) 30.7 32.7 38.1 41.9 36.6 38.9
Maximum Month Flows 36.8 39.2 45.8 50.2 44.0 46.7
Total WWTP Flows 33.7 35.9 43.4 48.3 42.9 47.5
Maximum Month Flows 40.4 43.0 52.1 57.9 51.4 57.0
With Conservation (d)
Spirit Creek (Capacity: 3.0 mgd) 3.2 5.2 6.3 6.1 8.4
Maximum Month Flows 3.8 6.3 7.6 7.4 10.1
J. B. Messerly (Capacity: 46.0 mgd) 32.6 37.8 41.1 36.3 38.2
Maximum Month Flows 39.2 45.3 49.3 43.5 45.9
Total WWTP Flows 35.8 43.0 47.4 42.4 46.7
. Maximum Month Flows 43.0 51.6 56.9 50.9 56.0
(a) Maximum month flows are estimated as 120 percent of annual flow.
(b) Scenario 1 assumes growth is distributed equally throughout the County.
(c) Scenario 2 projects a declining urban population and an increasing population in suburban and rural areas.
(d) For the conservation scenario, a 2 percent reduction in per capita flows is assumed over the 22-year study
period.
POpu lation Trends
The Augusta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) continues to experience steady growth.
From 1980 to 1990, the MSA grew from 363,451 to 416,863 persons (14.7 percent). Since
1990, the population has grown 9.5 percent, to 456,628. The growth, however, is not
distributed uniformly throughout the five-county MSA. Columbia County, in particular,
has experienced strong growth. Columbia County was the sixth fastest growing county in
Georgia from 1980 to 1990 and 17th fastest from 1990 to 1998. During the 1990s, Richmond
County has been one of the slower growing counties. Table 2 presents the population
growth of Richmond County, the Augusta MSA, and the counties comprising the Augusta
MSA.
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TMl-2,DOC
2
.
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
TABLE 2
Population Growth
Augusta MSA, 1980 to 1998
'.'...............o.o-.,..,..,..-.-.-.o-...'..o'_/p.".l"''1li%illil' '~..='~...=._,.-.".,._.,---.,..--,."
Bil'."~"li'iII.III\ ," .. ( ..' ..
--""'."'"""",,,-
1."1111_
Aiken County, SC
Percentage Change
Edgefield County, SC
Percentage Change
Columbia County, GA
Percentage Change
McDuffie County, GA
Percentage Change
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA
Percentage Change
Source: US Bureau of the Census.
1980
[f~jlfig~
1998
1'111111
II.
134,051
10.8%
18,360
-8.2%
91,118
38.0%
21,770
8.2%
456,628
9.5%
1990
j~j~fa:~
li~
tt'imlB
105,630
120,991
14.5%
20,003
14.1%
66,031
64.6%
20,119
8.5%
416,863
14.7%
17,528
40,118
18,546
363,451
Even within counties, growth may vary significantly. Historically, growth in Richmond
County has progressed from those areas closer to downtown Augusta, with better
transportation and infrastructure, to those areas further from the City, with poorer
transportation and infrastructure. Recent growth within Richmond County has occurred in
the less developed areas of the County. Table 3 presents each tract's area (in acres),
population estimate from the 1990 Census, percentage of the County's 1990 population,
population density (persons per acre), 1998 estimate, 1998 population share, 1998 density,
and the percentage change in population from 1990 to 1998. The 1998 population share
estimate is from the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission's (Planning
Commission) 1998 estimate of population by traffic zones (sub-areas of Census tracts),
developed from building permit activity. Based on building permit activity and the
percentage of units occupied and number of persons per occupied dwelling unit as of the
1990 Census, an estimate of current population was developed. The US Bureau of the
Census generates tract-level estimates only as part of the decennial census. Because the
"building permit" population estimate (206,115) was considerably higher than the Census
estimate (191,329), for the purposes of this TM, the population share, based on the building
permit activity, was used to allocate the 1998 Census estimate to the County's tracts. The
original distribution, based on building permit activity is presented in the Appendix in
Table A-I. Figure 1 illustrates the Census tracts in Richmond County. Figure 2 illustrates
the percentage change in each Census tract, based on the 1998 Census population estimate.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM1.2,DOC
3
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE 3
Estimated Growth within Census Tracts
Richmond County, 1990 to 1998
Census Acres 1990 1990 1990 1998 Adjusted 1998 1998
Tract Census Population Density Building Permit Population Density
Share Estimate Share
1 4,765 4,672 2.6% 4.06 4,256 2.3% 3.68
2 3,359 3,260 1.8% 5.09 3,000 1.6% 4.67
3 1,983 1,963 1.1% 6.13 1,771 1.0% 5.52
4 814 783 0.4% 2.04 727 0.4% 1.89
6 2,673 2,691 1.5% 5.26 2,388 1.3% 4.65
7 1,646 1,837 1.0% 5.74 1,470 0.8% 4.58
8 1,118 1,022 0.6% 2.66 999 0.5% 2.59
9 3,404 3,394 1.9% 10.61 3,041 1.7% 9.47
10 3,229 3,311 1.8% 6.47 2,884 1.6% 5.61
11 1,986 1,753 1.0% 3.42 1,774 1.0% 3.45
12 5,014 4,808 2.7% 5,01 4,479 2.4% 4.65
13 1,836 1,748 1.0% 3.90 1,640 0.9% 3.65
14 2,696 2,755 1.5% 7.17 2,408 1.3% 6.25
15 2,236 2,411 1.3% 7.53 1,998 1.1% 6.22
16 9,541 8,876 4.9% 4.20 8,523 4.7% 4.02
101.01 4,251 3,994 2.2% 3.12 3,798 2.1% 2.96
101.02 7,509 6,274 3.5% 3.16 6,708 3.7% 3.37
101.04 4,038 3,466 1.9% 1.81 3,607 2.0% 1.87
101.05 6,718 5,654 3.1% 4.65 6,002 3.3% 4.92
102.01 5,737 5,356 3.0% 3.64 5,125 2.8% 3.47
. 102.03 4,138 4,014 2.2% 3.30 3,697 2.0% 3.03
102.04 6,688 4,480 2.5% 0.56 5,975 3.3% 0.74
103 6,108 5,899 3.3% 4.61 5,457 3.0% 4.25
104 5,104 4,987 2.8% 4.10 4,559 2.5% 3.74
105.04 7,725 7,541 4.2% 2.40 6,901 3.8% 2.19
105.05 9,453 8,126 4.5% 3.43 8,444 4.6% 3.55
105.06 5,370 5,282 2.9% 4.13 4,797 2.6% 3.73
105.07 7,009 6,701 3.7% 3.88 6,261 3.4% 3.61
105.08 4,007 3,844 2.1% 5.01 3,580 2.0% 4.64
105.09 4,793 4,602 2.5% 4.49 4,281 2.3% 4.17
105.1 5,730 5,456 3.0% 4.06 5,119 2.8% 3.79
105.11 3,909 3,796 2.1% 2.12 3,492 1.9% 1.94
106 7,006 6,512 3.6% 0.36 6,259 3.4% 0.35
107.03 9,798 8,210 4.5% 2,73 8,752 4.8% 2.90
107.04 9,925 6,859 3.8% 1.25 8,866 4.8% 1.61
107.05 10,144 7,363 4.1% 1.83 9,061 5.0% 2.24
107.06 4,530 3,548 2.0% 0.47 4,046 2.2% 0.53
109.01 7,590 5,508 3.1% 0.15 6,780 3.7% 0.18
109.02 1,104 7,823 4.3% 0.17 9,919 5.4% 0.22
,Total a 162,943 180,579 100% 1.11 190,850 100% 1.12
(a) Excludes Census Tract 108 (Fort Gordon), which had an estimated 9,140 persons in 1990.
Based on the distribution of building permit activity, of the 39 Census tracts in the County
(excluding Fort Gordon), only 13 are estimated to have increased in population from 1990 to
1998, as shown in Figure 2. Tract 102.04, located in the BelAir Neighborhood Planning Area
(NP A), saw the most growth, 32.9 percent over the 8-year period. Strong growth also
occurred in Tracts 107.04 (28.8 percent), 109.02 (26.3 percent), 109.01 (22.7 percent), 107.05
. (22.6 percent), and 107.06 (13.6 percent) in the southern portion of Richmond County. The
tracts that experienced the largest declines in population are located within the eastern
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TMl-2,DOC
6
.
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
portion of the former City of Augusta area. Six tracts are estimated to have lost more than
10 percent of their population over the 8-year period: Tract 7 (-20.2 percent), 15 (17.4
percent), 10 (13.2 percent), 14 (12.9 percent), 6 (11.6 percent), and 9 (10.7).
Popu lation Forecast
Several population projections have been developed for Richmond County, and are
presented below, along with CH2M HILL's recommended projection. The Building Permit
Projection uses the Planning Commission's 1998 population estimate, based on building
permit activity, as a starting point and then applies the moderate projection's growth rate.
The Regional Economic Forecast was prepared by DRI/McGraw-Hill for the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). The projection recommended for use in
forecasting water and wastewater flows is based on the high forecast presented in the
Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The recommended forecast uses the 2000 and 2010 high projections developed by the
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission as part of the Augusta-Richmond County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The 2020 projection is extrapolated based on the expected
percentage change between 2000 and 2010. This projection was chosen as a basis for this
analysis because it reflects the Planning Commission's own vision and, based on the 2000
estimate, appears to provide a balance between the 1998 building permit estimate and
Census estimate. The use of high projection will also help ensure that the Utilities
Department will have adequate resources to support future growth.
Population Distribution
The shift of population within the County from developed areas, which have the
infrastructure in place to support the water and wastewater demands of the population, to
undeveloped areas, which were previously unserved, presents many challenges to the
water and wastewater utilities. The two population distribution scenarios prepared for this
TM are designed to present the utility with a range of potential growth patterns. However,
it is highly unlikely that the pattern of growth over the next two decades will follow either
of these scenarios exactly. While growth is affected by factors that the Augusta Utilities
Department (AUD) cannot directly control, such as growth in adjacent counties and the
health of the MSA's economy, the pattern of population distribution that ultimately occurs
will be heavily influenced by the vision of the local government. These population
distribution scenarios are intended to help the utility to make informed choices whendeciding how to better serve the community's citizens.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLES\TMl-2,DOC
7
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE 4
Population Forecasts
Richmond County, 1990 (estimate) through 2020
Forecast
~H~JEtgr.:l~~g"f;ln~
1I:a[~lit.G:[{JlIlJU
1990 (estimate)
2000 (projected) 2010 (projected)
~!
~Ja
m8~
2020 (projected)
I.JIII
..
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
Low 189,719
Percent Change
196,465
203,450
3.6%
3.6%
Moderate
Percent Change
High
Percent Change
189,719
199,990
213,826
5.4%
6.9%
189,719
204,439
222,497
7.8%
8.8%
"Building Permit" Projection
Percent Change
189,719
208,022
222,414
233,745
9.6%
6.9%
5.1%
.
Regional Economic Forecast
Percent Change
189,719
207,261
230,423
260,904
9.2%
11.2%
13.2%
Georgia Office of Planning
and Budget
Percent Change
189,719
211,688
234,582
11.6%
10.8%
.
The tract-level estimates are based on the January 1999 figures developed by the Augusta
Richmond County Planning Commission from building permit data, rather than the older
1990 estimates developed by the US Bureau of the Census. Year 2000 estimates for each
tract have been generated by assuming that the existing population distribution will be
unchanged between 1999 and 2000. Each tract's 1999 population share was multiplied by
the projected 2000 population, yielding tract-level estimates of the year 2000 population.
Scenario 1 can be considered the equal proportion growth scenario. Under this approach,
each Census tract would be expected to grow at the same rate. This scenario was modeled
by applying each decade's projected growth rate to each of the County's tracts. The
population in each tract is forecasted to grow by 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2010 and from
2010 to 2020. This scenario can be considered to be reasonable only if infill development
and redevelopment occurs equally across the County. On page 81 of the Augusta Richmond
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Planning Commission states that II A very general
and basic policy of this plan is to encourage infill development. II Scenario 1 supports this
objective.
Scenario 2 is the continuation of current trends projection, with increasing development of
the less-developed NP As of BelAir, Meadowbrook, and South Richmond. With this
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM1.2,DOC
8
.
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
scenario, infill and redevelopment of the area within the former city limits of Augusta
would not occur. Several Census tracts are projected to continue to experience a declining
population. This approach to distributing population among the Census tracts assumes that
the proportion of total County growth each tract receives will remain constant. Growth
rates vary across Census tracts, based on the share of population growth (persons) attracted
to that location from 1990 to 1998. The percentage change from 2000 to 2010 ranges from-
20.8 percent (Tract 7) to a high of 36.6 percent (Tract 102.04, BelAir NP A). As density in the
growing tracts increase, the range ofrates of change shifts to -28.6 percent (Tract 7) to 29.1
percent (Tract 102.04) from 2010 to 2020.
The two development scenarios generate different patterns of growth and population
distribution within Richmond County. Detailed results of the modeling for each scenario
are included in the Appendix in Tables A-2 and A-3. The equal proportion growth scenario,
Scenario 1, maintains the current population distribution (population share) through 2020.
Currently, population trends vary widely across Augusta. Under this scenario, growth
would have to slow dramatically in some areas, increase in others, and, in many tracts,
reverse trends of decreasing population. Nonetheless, this scenario may somewhat
represent growth patterns that could occur if the local government actively encourages infill
development.
Scenario 2 represents a continuation of the current trend towards the low-density
development of previously undeveloped properties. This model focuses growth in the
County's southern Census tracts and Tract 102.04 in the BelAir NP A. Richmond County
should expect the future distribution of population to be reflected in this scenario if a
managed-growth policy of some degree is not pursued.
Expected Growth in Water Consumption
The AVO takes a county-wide approach to providing water to its residents and businesses.
Therefore, when projecting future water production needs, only the County's anticipated
total population, excluding Fort Gordon, is considered. The population distribution is not a
factor in the plant-level planning, but is important with respect to water transmission as
part of the hydraulic distribution of water to customers. Population distribution is also
important in planning for other water-related infrastructure needs, such as pipes and water
towers.
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) mandates that utility systems
achieve some measure of water conservation. This TM presents two water conservation
scenarios: passive conservation and active conservation. Under passive conservation, the
utility would actually experience a 2 percent (0.09 percent per year) increase in per capita
water usage. Passive conservation occurs through increases in water use efficiency
resulting from changes in plumbing codes, the natural replacement of water fixtures, and
increases in residential water rates. In the case of Augusta-Richmond County, the reduction
in per capita consumption would be more than offset by the increase in availability of
water, which would end the outdoor watering bans and low pressure occurrences that have
depressed per capita consumption in the past. To achieve passive conservation, the AUD
would implement polices that would only have a low influence on water use.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TMl-2,DOC
9
.
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
Under aggressive conservation, a 2 percent (0.09 percent per year) reduction in per capita
water usage would occur. Aggressive conservation can be achieved through the increases
in water use efficiency described above, along with active measures, such as a summer
surcharge for residential customers and a rebate program supporting the installation of
low-flow toilets. The utility would implement policies encouraging more significant
changes in water usage to advance aggressive conservation. The 2 percent decrease in per
capita consumption is lower than the reduction a utility would typically experience because
of the increased water availability in the future.
Table 5 presents the AUD's 1998 and projected per capita water usage in terms of gallons
per day under the two conservation scenarios. The per capita needs include residential and
commercial usage. Industrial needs are presented separately, since they are not expected to
be directly linked to population growth. The projected annual average production in
million gallons per day (mgd) and maximum day production are intended to be planning-
level estimates of the utility's future needs. The total population is also provided. Because
the County's population is difficult to project, the annual average and maximum day water
usage associated with the low, moderate, and building permit projections are presented in
Table A-4 in the Appendix.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLES\TM1.2,DOC
10
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE 5
Projected Water Consumption, Recommended Population Projection
1998 to 2020
Passive Conservation (2%
increase)
Aggressive Conservation
(2% decrease)
.
Total Population
Per capita Water Usage, gpd
(commercial and residential)
Industrial Usage, mgd 10.2 10.3 10.5
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd 39.2 41.2 44.5
,..,Avih.a....i1:iIII III ~. ..
(a) The 2020 population is extrapolated based on the percentage change between 2000 and 2010.
(b) Based on 1998 population estimate using building permit activity and the growth rate of the moderate
projection.
Per capita water consumption, including residential and commercial usage, is estimated to
be 151 gpd. Under the passive conservation scenario, this would be expected to increase to
154 gpd by 2020. The aggressive conservation scenario would achieve per capita water
usage of 148 gpd by 2020. Under the recommended population projection, annual average
production is forecasted to increase from 39.2 mgd currently to between 46.6 mgd
(aggressive) and 48.1 mgd (passive), depending on the level of conservation. Maximum
day production is anticipated to increase from 57.7 mgd to between 74.6 mgd (aggressive)
and 77.0 mgd (passive).
1998
191,329
151
2000
204,439
151
2010
222,497
153
2020
242,150
154
2000
204,439
151
2010
222,497
150
2020
242,150
148
10.7
48.1
10.3
41.1
10.5
43.8
10.7
46.6
..
While the utility can take actions to encourage more aggressive conservation, it should be
noted that the development style, or population distribution, can also affect the level of
water consumption. In general, Scenario 1, which focuses on higher density development
and redevelopment would be expected to have lower per capita production needs, and,
therefore, lower total annual average and maximum day production. Scenario 2 would be
anticipated to have greater demands for irrigation, as large residential lots demanding more
water would be spread throughout the County. This would affect both per capita water
usage and the peaking of the maximum day production, factors which are held constant for
the purposes of this TM.
Residential and commercial water usage is projected to be directly related to the growth in
population. Industrial needs, however, are developed independently of population growth.
It is assumed that industrial water usage, exclusive of conservation, will increase by 5
percent over the study period, after including the effects of conservation. Table 6 presents
water usage by customer class.
.
P:\152572\ALl FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM1-2,DOC
11
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE 6
Projected Water Usage by Customer Class, Recommended Projection
1998 to 2020
Passive Conservation Aggressive Conservation (2%
(2% increase) decrease)
Class 1998 2000 2010 2020 2000 2010 2020
Residential
Avg. Annual Water Usage 17.4 18.6 20.4 22.4 18.5 20.0 21.6
Max. Day Water Usage 35.8 36.0 44.4 48.3 35.8 46.3 49.5
(Peaking factor: varies)
Commercial
Avg. Annual Water Usage 11.6 12.4 13.6 14.9 12.3 13.3 14.3
Max. Day Water Usage 12.6 14.8 16.3 17.9 14.8 15.9 17.2
(Peaking factor: 1.2)
Industrial
Avg. Annual Water Usage 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.3 10.5 10.7
Max. Day Water Usage 9.3 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.3 10.5 10.7
(Peaking factor: 1.0)
Total
Avg. Annual Water Usage 39.2 41.2 44.5 48.1 41.1 43.8 46.6
. Max. Day Water Usage 57.7 61.1 71.2 77.0 60.9 70.1 74.6
The peaking factor for industrial usage is assumed to be 1.0; e.g., maximum day and
average annual needs would be roughly the same. Commercial consumption is expected to
have a maximum day peaking factor of 1.2 times average annual needs. All additional peak
day needs are assumed to be associated with residential consumption. System-wide,
maximum day needs are currently 1.47 times average annual usage. By 2010, the system-
wide peaking factor is expected to increase to 1.6, as additional water becomes available for
irrigation.
Expected Growth in Wastewater Flows
.
While water needs are evaluated on the county-level, wastewater needs should be
examined at the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) level. Therefore, when projecting
future wastewater flows, the projected population and proportion of water accounts
connected to the wastewater system in each WWTP's service area are considered. To
estimate the projected population in the service area of each WWTP, an allocation of the
Census tract's population to the two WWTPs was made, as shown in Table A-5 in the
Appendix. These percentages were then applied to the population distributions developed
for each scenario. Wastewater flows were projected based on the estimated proportion of
households connected to the system, using the 1990 Census as a basis. This proportion is
expected to change over time as new residents and businesses and some portion of the
existing residents who are not served connect to the system. Table A-5 also presents the
estimated proportion of connections over time.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TMl-2,DOC
12
.
.
'.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
The No Conservation Scenario assumes that residential and commercial wastewater flows
will grow proportionately with the growth in the sewered population growth. However, if
the AUD pursues a successful water conservation program coupled with a successful
infiltration and inflow (III) reduction program, it is possible to achieve a reduction in future
per capita wastewater flows. For the purposes of this memorandum, it will be assumed that
in a best-case scenario (Conservation Scenario), a 2 percent reduction in per capita
wastewater flows will occur through the 22-year period ending in 2020. This is based on
the assumptions that a system with moderate III can achieve some long-term III reduction.
Other savings would follow from reduced consumption by water conserving plumbing
fixtures as a result of a successful water conservation program.
Table 7 presents the sewered population and percentage change in sewered population in
each WWTP's service area under the population distribution scenarios. The projected
annual average flows and maximum month flows are given. The maximum month flow
was calculated as 120 percent of the annual average flow. Projected flows under alternative
population projections are presented in Table A-6 in the Appendix.
TABLE 7
Wastewater Flows, by Plant (mgd), With and Without Conservation
1998 to 2020
Plant 1998 2000
Spirit Creek WWTP (Capacity: 3 mgd)
Sewered Population 9,585 10,275
Percent change 7.2%
No Conservation:
Average Annual Flow 3.0 3.2
-.-ifllil_
Conservation:
Average Annual Flow 3.2
1IIIIIIIII[1I1\'ID
J. B. Messerly WWTP (Capacity: 46.1 mgd)
Sewered Population 135,848 145,943
Percent change 7.4%
No Conservation:
Average Annual Flow 30.7 32.7
Conservation:
Average Annual Flow
Blll1.''''.
32.6
~1?5
i!qite
Total WWTP Flows (Capacity: 49.1 mgd)
Sewered Population 145,433 156,217
Percent change 7.4%
No Conservation:
Average Annual Flow
33.7
35.9
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLES\TM1.2,DOC
Scenario 1
2010
2020
18,010 22,120
75.3% 28.0%
5.3 6.4
II .
"
5.2 6.3
II .
173,383 191,981
18.8% 15.4%
38.1 41.9
IE III
37.8 41.1
191,393
22.5%
214,101
16.6%
43.4
48.3
2010
21 ,436
108.6%
6.2
6.1
Scenario 2
2020
30,214
41.0%
8.6
8.4
165,752
13.6%
36.6
36.3
III
187,188
19.8%
42.9
176,984
6.8%
38.9
it~B
38.2
81
207,198
10.7%
47.5
13
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE 7
Wastewater Flows, by Plant (mgd), With and Without Conservation
1998 to 2020
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Plant
!!t~!lli.l!lt1tlmlil_[~l
Conservation:
Average Annual Flow
IIItlJnlfiU,6"JL(IJ
1998
III
2000
2010
2020
2010
..
2020
35.8
43.0
47.4
42.4
I'd"
~,;,.",Xil
46.7
mm
(a) The maximum day flows are 120 percent of the annual average flows based on historical relationships.
Total projected flows vary for each scenario because of the differences in the percentage
connected to the wastewater system in each Census Tract. As seen in the table above, the
growth pattern that occurs over the next two decades will influence the burdens placed on
each of the treatment facilities.
.
Under both growth distribution scenarios, the Spirit Creek WWTP would experience the
largest change in wastewater flows to be treated. Over the 22-year study period, flows are
expected to at least double. With no conservation, average annual flow would increase
from 3.0 mgd to between 6.4 mgd (Scenario 1) and 8.6 mgd (Scenario 2). Maximum month
flows would rise from 3.6 mgd to between 7.6 mgd (Scenario 1) and 10.1 mgd (Scenario 2)
by 2020. Conservation would somewhat offset the population growth in the southern
portion of the County. Even with an active conservation program, flows to the Spirit Creek
WWTP are projected to increase almost threefold by 2020, as shown in Table 7. Assuming
the WWTP service areas remain constant, the Spirit Creek WWTP will need to be
significantly expanded to meet the demands of the growing population in the southern
Census Tracts.
The J. B. Messerly WWTP is the larger of the two plants in the wastewater system.
Increases in wastewater flows to this plant are the result of expanding service areas, as well
as a growing population. Under Scenario 1, Messerly would need to treat a maximum
month flow of between 49.3 mgd (with conservation) and 50.2 mgd (without conservation)
by 2020. The average annual treatment capability required to serve the plant's current
service area would range from 41.1 mgd (with conservation) to 41.9 mgd (without
conservation) under Scenario 1. Because Scenario 2 assumes much of the population
growth shifts southward, Messerly would need to treat lower flows under that scenario
than under Scenario 1. With Scenario 2, average annual flows are expected to be 38.2 mgd
(with conservation) to 38.9 mgd (without conservation). Maximum month flows with
Scenario 2 would range from 45.9 mgd (with conservation) to 46.7 mgd (without
conservation). Based on current service areas, the Messerly WWTP does have sufficient
capacity to treat maximum month wastewater flows under both scenarios.
Conclusions
.
Over the 22 years from 1998 to 2020, Augusta's population is expected to increase by 50,821
persons. Such an increase would translate into 7.5 to 8.9 mgd of additional, average annual
water consumption (maximum day: 16.9 to 19.3 mgd), depending on the level of
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM1.2,DOC
14
.
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
conservation achieved. Maximum day water usage is expected to total between 74.6 and
77.0 mgd by 2020. This is more than the currently permitted treatment capacity of 67.0 mgd
of the surface and groundwater systems combined. Further, if the AUD aims to decrease its
reliance on the groundwater system, additional expansions to the surface water system
would be required. Greater expansion would also be necessary if treated water were to be
sold wholesale within the MSA, as discussed in TM 4.1. One of the AUD's most
challenging tasks will be to expand the distribution system as the population shifts from
urban areas to previously undeveloped or minimally developed areas.
Wastewater flows to be treated will also vary with the level of conservation attained.
Without conservation, maximum month demands are expected to be between 57.0 mgd
(Scenario 2) and 57.9 mgd (Scenario 1), system-wide, by 2020. If the AUD can achieve a 2
percent per capita reduction in wastewater flows through a reduction in 1/1 and through
water conservation, expected flows would be between 56.0 mgd (Scenario 2) and 56.9 mgd
(Scenario 1). The Spirit Creek WWTP will be more greatly affected than the Messerly
WWTP by growth and any shift in population to the southern portion of the County.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAMDElIVERABLES\TM1.2,DOC
15
. TABLE A-1
Population Distribution, Based on Building Permit Activity
Augusta-Richmond County, 1990 to 1998
Tract 1990 1990 1990 1990 Building 1998 1998
Census Population ODUs (a) Persons Permits Estimated Population
Share Per ODU Issued 1990s ODUs Estimate
1 4,672 3.6% 2,383 1.96 -25 4,134 4,585
2 3,260 2.5% 1,557 2.09 -15 2,959 3,232
3 1,963 1.5% 943 2.08 -24 1,695 1,908
4 783 0.6% 734 1.07 51 726 783
6 2,691 2.0% 1,367 1.97 -61 2,224 2,572
7 1,837 1.4% 929 1.98 -107 1,128 1,584
8 1,022 0.8% 468 2.18 0 1,070 1,076
9 3,394 2.6% 1 ,481 2.29 -60 2,878 3,276
10 3,311 2.5% 1 ,460 2.27 -20 2,606 3,107
11 1,753 1.3% 960 1.83 -2 1,985 1,911
12 4,808 3.7% 2,291 2.10 10 4,496 4,825
13 1,748 1.3% 810 2.16 -12 1,664 1,767
14 2,755 2.1% 1 ,487 1.85 -49 2,188 2,594
15 2,411 1.8% 1,197 2.01 -90 1,646 2,152
16 8,876 6.8% 4,375 2.03 81 8,923 9,181
101.01 3,994 3.0% 1,943 2.06 11 3,924 4,091
101.02 6,274 4.8% 3,269 1.92 623 7,982 7,226
101.04 3,466 2.6% 1,746 1.99 263 4,169 3,886
. 101.05 5,654 4.3% 2,246 2.52 293 7,086 6,465
102.01 5,356 4.1% 2,039 2.63 92 5,341 5,521
102.03 4,014 3.1% 1,818 2.21 1 3,649 3,982
102.04 4,480 3.4% 2,233 2.01 918 8,602 6,436
103 5,899 4.5% 2,562 2.30 -23 5,421 5,878
104 4,987 3.8% 2,107 2.37 -38 4,451 4,911
105.04 7,541 5.7% 2,823 2.67 33 6,748 7,434
105.05 8,126 6.2% 2,651 3.07 246 9,740 9,096
105.06 5,282 4,0% 2,286 2.31 0 4,636 5,167
105.07 6,701 5.1% 2,586 2.59 18 6,313 6,745
105.08 3,844 2.9% 1,744 2,20 5 3,591 3,856
105.09 4,602 3.5% 1,722 2.67 4 4,289 4,612
105.1 5,456 4.2% 2,046 2.67 -1 5,190 5,514
105.11 3,796 2.9% 1,225 3.10 3 3,442 3,762
106 6,512 5.0% 2,415 2.70 63 6,561 6,742
107.03 8,210 6.3% 2,748 2.99 428 10,382 9,428
107.04 6,859 5.2% 2,383 2.88 982 12,481 9,551
107.05 7,363 5.6% 2,704 2.72 888 12,280 9,761
107.06 3,548 2.7% 1,358 2.61 363 5,134 4,359
109.Q1 5,508 4.2% 2,240 2.46 737 9,191 7,304
109.02 7.823 6.0% 3.070 2.55 1.120 13,762 10.685
Total (b) 180,579 76,406 2.36 6,706 73,602 196,965
(a) ODU indicates occupied dwelling unit.
(b) Excludes Census Tract 108 (Fort Gordon), which had an estimated 9,140 persons in 1990.
.
A.l
.
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
TABLE A.2
Population Distribution
Augusta-Richmond County, 2000 to 2020
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Tract 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
1 4,546 4,967 5,424 4,392 4.224
2 3,205 3,501 3,823 3.137 3,063
3 1,892 2,067 2.257 1,805 1,710
4 776 848 926 768 759
6 2,550 2,786 3.043 2,378 2,190
7 1,571 1,716 1,874 1,244 888
8 1,067 1,166 1,273 1,122 1,182
9 3.248 3,549 3,876 3,070 2,875
10 3.081 3,366 3,676 2,798 2,491
11 1,895 2,070 2,261 2,069 2,258
12 4,784 5,227 5,708 4,755 4,723
13 1,752 1,914 2,090 1,757 1,762
14 2,572 2,810 3,069 2,348 2,103
15 2,134 2,331 2,546 1,794 1,424
16 9,103 9,945 10,861 9,382 9,686
101.01 4,056 4,431 4,840 4,133 4,216
101.02 7,165 7.827 8,548 8,258 9,447
101.04 3,853 4,209 4,597 4,328 4,845
101.05 6,410 7,003 7,648 7.338 8,348
102.01 5,474 5,980 6,531 5,619 5,777
102.03 3,948 4.313 4,711 3.868 3,780
102.04 6,382 6,972 7.614 8,714 11 ,253
103 5,828 6.367 6,954 5,742 5,647
104 4,869 5,320 5.810 4,725 4,568
105.04 7.371 8,053 8,794 7,163 6,936
105.05 9,019 9,853 10,761 10,115 11 .307
105.06 5,123 5,597 6.113 4,929 4,717
105.07 6.688 7,306 7.979 6,672 6,655
105.08 3,823 4.177 4,562 3.798 3,771
105.09 4.573 4,996 5,456 4,537 4,499
105.1 5,467 5.973 6,523 5,481 5,496
105.11 3.730 4,075 4,450 3,649 3,562
106 6,685 7,303 7,976 6,897 7,128
107.03 9,348 10,213 11,153 10,745 12,264
107.04 9,470 10,346 11 ,299 12,674 16,160
107.05 9,678 10,573 11,547 12,519 15,610
107.06 4,322 4,722 5,157 5,272 6,305
109.01 7,242 7,912 8,641 9,370 11 ,685
109.02 10.595 11 .574 12.640 13.995 17.695
Total (a) 195,299 213,357 233,010 213,357 233,010
(a) Excludes Census Tract 108 (Fort Gordon), which had an estimated 9,140 persons in 1990.
ATUTMl-2,DOC
A-2
.'
.
.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
TABLE A-3
Population Density (persons per acre)
Augusta-Richmond County, 2000 to 2020
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Tract 2000 2010 2020 2010 2020
1 3.95 4.31 4.71 3.81 3.67
2 5.01 5.47 5.97 4.90 4.79
3 5.91 6.46 7.05 5.64 5.34
4 2.02 2,21 2.41 2.00 1.98
6 4.98 5.44 5.94 4.64 4.28 '
7 4.91 5.36 5.86 3.89 2.78
8 2.78 3.04 3.31 2.92 3.08
9 10.15 11.09 12.11 9.59 8.98
10 6.02 6.57 7.18 5.47 4.86
11 3.70 4.04 4.42 4.04 4.41
12 4.98 5.44 5.95 4.95 4.92
13 3.91 4.27 4.67 3.92 3.93
14 6.70 7.32 7.99 6.11 5.48
15 6.67 7.28 7.96 5.61 4.45
16 4.31 4.71 5.14 4.44 4.59
101.01 3.17 3.46 3.78 3.23 3.29
101.02 3.61 3.95 4.31 4.16 4.76
101.04 2.01 2.19 2.39 2.25 2.52
101.05 5.27 5.76 6.29 6.03 6.87
102.01 3.72 4.06 4.44 3.82 3.92
102.03 3.25 3.55 3.87 3.18 3.11
102.04 0.80 0.87 0.95 1.09 1.41
103 4.55 4.97 5.43 4.49 4.41
104 4.00 4.37 4.78 3.89 3.76
105.04 2.35 2.57 2.80 2.28 2.21
105.05 3.81 4.16 4.54 4.27 4.77
105.06 4.00 4.37 4.78 3.85 3.68
105.07 3.87 4.23 4.62 3.86 3.85
105.08 4.98 5.44 5.94 4.95 4.91
105.09 4.47 4.88 5.33 4.43 4.39
105.1 4.07 4.44 4.85 4.08 4.09
105.11 2.08 2,27 2.48 2.04 1.99
106 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.39 0.40
107.03 3.11 3.40 3.71 3.57 4.08
107.04 1.72 1.88 2.05 2.30 2.94
107.05 2.40 2.62 2.86 3.10 3.87
107.06 0,57 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.83
109.01 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.31
109.02 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.39
Total (a) 1.20 1.31 1.43 1.31 1.43
(a) Excludes Census Tract 108 (Fort Gordon), which had a population density of 0.21 persons per acre in
1990.
ATUTMl-2,DOC
A-3
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER flOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE A-4
Projected Water Consumption Under Alternative Population Projections
1998 to 2020
Passive Conservation (2%
increase)
Aggressive Conservation
(4% decrease)
2000 2010 2020
1998
2000
2010
2020
Recommended Projection
Total Population
Per capita Water Usage, gpd
(commercial and residential)
Industrial Usage, mgd
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd
..tll~~t_i.~
Low Projection (a)
Total Population
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd
Max. Day Water Usage, mgd
Moderate Projection (a)
Total Population
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd
Max. Day Water Usage, mgd
Building Permit Projection (b)
Total Population 206,115 208,022 222,414 233,745 208,022 222,414
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd 39.2 41.8 44.5 46.8 41.7 43.8
Max. Day Water Usage, mgd 57.7 61.6 65.6 69.0 61.4 64.5
(a) The 2020 population is extrapolated based on the percentage change between 2000 and 2010.
(b) Based on 1998 population estimate using building permit activity and the growth rate of the moderate
projection.
191,329
151
204,439 222,497
151 153
242,150 204,439
154 151
222,497
150
242,150
148
10.2
39.2
10.3
41.2
10.5
44.5
10.7
48.1
~i:1:i
m-.&:",<~
10.3
41.1
~.
10.5
43.8
r_
10.7
46.6
,*'llliHEI
flJ1t~A
196,465 203,450
40.0 41.6
59.0 61.3
210,683
43.2
63.7
196,465
39.9
58.8
203,450
40.9
60.3
210,683
42.0
61.8
39.2
57.7
199,990 213,826
40.6 43.2
59.8 63.6
224,719
45.4
66.9
199,990
40.5
59.6
213,826
42.5
62.6
224,719
44.0
64.9
39.2
57.7
.
233,745
44.5
65.6
.
ATUTM1.2,DOC
A4
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE A-5
Percentage of Population on Wastewater System by Census Tract
Augusta-Richmond County, 1998 to 2020
Estimated Percentage on Wastewater System
Tract Spirit Creek WWTP J. B. Messerly WWTP 1998 2000 2010 2020
1 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
6 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
7 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
8 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
9 0% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100%
10 0% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100%
11 0% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100%
12 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
13 0% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100%
14 0% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100%
15 0% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100%
16 0% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100%
101.01 0% 100% 80% 80% 90% 95%
101.02 0% 100% 94% 94% 96% 98%
. 101.04 0% 100% 95% 95% 97% 98%
101.05 0% 100% 92% 92% 100% 100%
102.01 0% 100% 96% 96% 100% 100%
102.03 0% 100% 93% 93% 100% 100%
102.04 0% 100% 39% 39% 39% 39%
103 0% 100% 81% 81% 100% 100%
104 0% 100% 85% 85% 100% 100%
105.04 0% 100% 83% 83% 100% 100%
105.05 0% 100% 85% 85% 100% 100%
105.06 0% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100%
105.07 0% 100% 90% 90% 100% 100%
105.08 0% 100% 96% 96% 100% 100%
105.09 0% 100% 93% 93% 100% 100%
105.1 0% 100% 96% 96% 100% 100%
105.11 0% 100% 97% 97% 100% 100%
106 7% 93% 96% 96% 96% 96%
107.03 0% 100% 96% 96% 100% 100%
107.04 76% 24% 42% 42% 75% 80%
107.05 34% 66% 49% 49% 85% 90%
107.06 50% 50% 56% 56% 75% 80%
109.01 100% 0% 13% 13% 35% 40%
109.02 100% 0% 29% 29% 50% 60%
.
ATUTMl-2,DOC
A.5
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND WATER AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
.
TABLE A-6
Wastewater Flows, Various Population Projections
1998 to 2020
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Plant
1998
2000
2010
2020
2010
2020
Recommended Population Projection
No Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 33.7 35.9 43.4 48.3 42.9 47.5
.1I1I1_..lj III III ..
$;;;l.;,
Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 35.8 43.0 47.4 42.4 46.7
1\m1"IIIi1tfUllllB III Ill\} III
. '" -. __'0_000","',_,' -- , '" ,:4~",>' .~: -. - ':: -
Low Projection
No Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 33.7 34.6 40.0 42.4 39.5 41.8
Max. Month Flow (a) 40.4 41.5 48.0 50.9 47.4 50.1
Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 34.5 39.6 41.7 39.1 41.1
Max. Month Flow (a) 41.5 47.5 50.0 46.9 49.3
. Moderate Projection
No Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 33.7 35.2 41.8 45.0 41.2 44.3
Max. Month Flow (a) 40.4 42.2 50.2 54.0 49.5 53.2
Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 35.1 41.4 44.2 40.8 43.5
Max. Month Flow (a) 42.1 49.7 53.1 49.0 52.2
Building Permit Projection
No Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 33.7 36.4 43.4 46.7 43.0 46.3
Max. Month Flow (a) 40.4 43.7 52.1 56.0 51.6 55.5
Conservation:
Ann. Average Flow 36.4 43.0 45.9 42.6 45.5
Max. Month Flow (a) 43.7 51.6 55.0 51.1 54.5
(a) The maximum day flows are 120 percent of the annual average flow based on historical relationships.
.
ATUTMl-2,DOC
A-6
\
'-
'e
~
U) C
t):J
,...caO
(1)~o
~1-
:JU)"C
C):JC
.- U) 0
u..cE
(1)J:
ou
.-
a:
~
.
.
c
o
;:;
~
~
C-
O
D..
C
Q)
N ~
Q) m
-,c
~O
.~-
l1. C
Q)
(,)
_
Q)
D..
"C
Q)
-
m
E
;:;
en
W
.
I ...............................................
..............................................
<.!." I
..................':Jt..................................................
-5}.
l .......... ............
l <J,,_
.......... ...........
"'".
.......... .......
~~
.:..::.........=.;r.. .....::.
6';h.'1
I ..................':JI........
! C}.~ "'f
; ....:....:..::.':Jt'..:
~ 190.
~ ......... '.
~ .(.10 "0$>
l
I ........... ~
! -~
l .........
i "'0. 't
~
I ~ "0$>
! ~
+ "0$>
l ~
~
~" "0$>
~ ~. ~
't
b ~ ~
.... ..........
b ~,
en
9'>> ~'" "0$>
~ .::::..:.... ~
~~ "0$>
......... ~
):: '""<;.
S ~-% Jo
~; ~
~ ........ -% J. 't
~ .".l "0$>
.... "~ ~
....
0 "0.
~ ~ "Gl t,.oo$>
L
~ o~
U . .9-Gl ~
- 1:-00$>
i ~ ;(.10
, "~ ;,~
.90
III ;(.10
! 11IIII cS}0 't
I ~
" "
! ".Io~
I
I .$'0.
! S(;
l ..50. "0$>
i ", ~
! .$'0. "0$>
I ", ~
c!'o. "0$>
<0 ~
l cb. .100$>
! ",
! 1_ ~
I .90. "0$>
<0 ~
.$'0. .100$>
! <0 ~
I "0. .100$>
6'0 ~
C'O. .1"0$> I
I 6'0 ~
..50. .100$>
. <0 ~
v'
~
o
l!)
'<:t
~
o
o
~
o
o
C'a.:, ~/
~ '< 'if.
l!)"o$> 0
I ~ ~
~
o
l!)
,.-
,
~
o
o
C\J
,
~
o
o
(')
~
o
l!)
'if.
l!)
~
o
l!)
C\J
~
o
o
C\J
~
o
o
'<:t
~
o
l!)
(')
-
(,)
CU
...
~
III
:s
III
C
Q)
o
~
o
l!)
C\J
,
.
0~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~g~~~~~gg~~~gre~~~_~~
f~~MM~MMM~~m~MM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q ~~
u ~
<
CO~C\I~
OOM~
O~O~
Mui~r-:
~~O
~~g
~r-:~
~M~
.!!~
:E
0-
Ul
~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ggggggg~~~g~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~*~~~~
G).....,....,..........,....,....,.... .....
Ul
~~~~~~~~~d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ciciR
,.... N ,....~~
<f.
~OOOOOoocoOOOmOOC\lOOOOOOMmOOOOO~MOO~m~OM~~O
CD C\l ..... C\lN ..... "'l:t ('f') T'"" T"'"
.c
o
coOOO~OO~~~
C\I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~
('f'),.... ..... ,....~.~v('f')~('f') C\I,.... ('f')('f')m m.....
,.... .......... ,....C\I
u
:;:
D-
4)
Ul
~~~*re~~o~~~~~EM~~~~~~~~~C\I~co*~g8~~~~~~~~~~
4)M~m~Mm~~~m,~~~,~C\I~O~OCO~COO~~~C\lM~~mC\lM~mC\l~COC\lm
~C\I"'" ,.... .....,.... C\I ..... ~,....('f'),....C\I.......... C\I C\lC\lC\lC\I,....,..............C\lC\I .....
4)
Ul
~OOOOOoooooomOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOooooo~mOOOC\l~
CD .......... .....
.c
...
o
.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~O~OOO~MOCOOOMOOOO~O~O~OO~
m OC\l ~ ~ M COC\l
= ~
Q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ggggggggggg~gggg~~~g~~~~~gg~~~g~~gm~~g~m
=,..............,....,.... .....,.....,....,......... ,....,..............,.... ,.....,....,....,.........
a.
<f.
~OOOOOOOOoooooomooo~mC\l~m~mooo
~ ~ M~~ C\I~~~~ ~
.;:
Q
~~~*re~~O~*~m~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~m~~m~~ m~~~~~~M~N~~~~~re~~~~~~~~~N~~CO~~
==
.2
~
=
a.
,.... C\I 0 c.o,....o LOT"'" co 0 m....-
.......... ,....,.... LO,.....~ ,....1.0
~ ~C\I
...~COo~~o~~co~mo~~~~CO~CO~M~~~~~M~om~M~OOOMmMM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~re~N~re~~~co~~~~~g~~~
u
~
-g~
._ C\I
D-C\I
=
U
U
o
o
~
'0
.c
4)
o
=
o
J:
~~~8g~~~~~~~g~~~~reN~~~gM~~8~~~~~~~~~g~~
~CX)~~~~~~CX)N ~m~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~N~~CX)~~
~~~~5~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~gg~~~~~~~~~~~~g
N~CX)~,....~~.....~CX)N ~m~~~~N~~~C\I~C\I~~~~~~~~~N~~CX)~~
.
CC\lOMM~~C\I~~MCOCO~~~~~~~~~om~~~C\lo~C\I~~C\lOmMCOOCOM
O~~~~*~~~M~g~~~~~~~~~O~~~~C\lCO~re~~g~~~N~~~~~~
~~M~ C\I~~MM ~~C\lC\lCOM~M~~~~~~~ ~~M~~M~CO~~Mm~~
:i
D-
O
a.
O~~M~~~~~~~~~m~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~
ooootit5ot5ooootiti
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~t-~t-
C!~
como;
000
~ ~ ~
C!~~8
O,....C\JC')~1J')c.o5C;o
,.... ,.... ..... or- ,.... ..... ,....
o<:3titit5t5o
co ~ ~ ~ (1j co ctS
'=1-1-1-'='='=
uti~~~~~~~t5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'::'='='=1-1-'='='=1-
~ ~
t5t5
~ ~
1-1-
~
t5t>t5t5t5t5t50
~ ~ ~ ~ as as en cu
1-1-1-1-'='='='=
c:
o
.~
~
C
8
~
'E
0-
en
~~
~- ~
~m
o .
C\I~
m
~
C\I
M
<f.
~
co
~
M
C\I
~
o
M
C\i
~
co
~
~
~
m
o
m
~
C\I
M
~
~
m
C\I
M
C\I
C\i
o
~
m
~
~
M
~
~
<Xi
~
~
~
<Xi
~
~
co
~
<Xi
m
m
r::.
en
co
~
(ij
~
1990
. Est. Pop. on Est. Pop.
Public Water %-age on Sewer %-age
Tract
Tract1 4,672 100% 4,656 99.7%
Tract2 3,260 100% 3,260 100%
Tract3 1,963 100% 1,963 100%
Tract4 783 100% 783 100%
Tract6 2,691 100% 2,683 99.7%
Tract7 1,837 100% 1,837 100%
Tract8 1,022 100% 1,022 100%
Tract9 3,394 100% 3,360 99.0%
Tract10 3,311 100% 3,253 98.2%
Tract11 1,753 100% 1,742 99.4%
Tract12 4,808 100% 4,785 99.5%
Tract13 1,728 98.8% 1,716 98.2%
Tract14 2,755 100% 2,731 99.1%
Tract15 2,411 100% 2,386 98.9%
Tract16 8,837 99.6% 8,671 97.7%
Tract101.01 3,986 99.8% 3,189 79.8%
Tract101.02 6,217 99.1% 5,913 94.2%
Tract101.04 3,434 99.1% 3,296 95.1%
Tract101.05 5,536 97.9% 5,183 91.7%
Tract102.01 5,332 99.5% 5,157 96.3%
. Tract102.03 3,966 98.8% 3,739 93.1%
Tract102.04 3,354 74.9% 1,732 38.7%
Tract103 5,545 94.0% 4,804 81.4%
Tract1 04 4,830 96.9% 4,214 84.5%
Tract105.04 7,216 95.7% 6,253 82.9%
Tract105.05 8,126 100% 6,934 85.3%
Tract105.06 5,282 100% 5,172 97.9%
Tract105.07 6,641 99.1% 6,056 90.4%
Tract105.08 3,820 99.4% 3,703 96.3%
Tract105.09 4,570 99.3% 4,289 93.2%
Tract1 05.1 0 5,456 100.0% 5,248 96.2%
Tract105.11 3,748 98.7% 3,700 97.5%
Tract1 06 6,464 99.3% 6,268 96.3%
Tract 107.03 8,178 99.6% 7,900 96.2%
Tract 107.04 6,255 91.2% 2,854 41.6%
Tract 107.05 7,165 97.3% 3,601 48.9%
Tract 107.06 3,407 96.0% 1,980 55.8%
Tract 108 9,140 100.0% 9,026 98.7%
Tract 109.01 3,391 61.6% 696 12.6%
Tract 109.02 7,104 90.8% 2,304 29.4%
Total 183,387 96.7% 158,058 83.3%
.
. Building Permit Activity Population Estimates
Census 1990 Total Permits 1998 Total 1990 Pop Persons 19980DU 1998 Pop.
Tracts ODUs Issued Units Est per ODU Est. Est.
1 2,383 -25 2,358 4,672 1.96 2,196 4,585
2 1,557 -15 1,542 3,260 2.09 1,386 3,232
3 943 -24 919 1,963 2.08 784 1,908
4 734 51 785 783 1.07 668 783
6 1,367 -61 1,306 2,691 1.97 984 2,572
7 929 -107 822 1,837 1.98 699 1,584
8 468 0 468 1,022 2.18 391 1,076
9 1 ,481 -60 1,421 3,394 2.29 1,237 3,276
10 1 ,460 -20 1 ,440 3,311 2.27 1,270 3,107
11 960 -2 958 1,753 1.83 895 1,911
12 2,291 10 2,301 4,808 2.10 2,107 4,825
13 810 -12 798 1,748 2.16 738 1,767
14 1 ,487 -49 1 ,438 2,755 1.85 1,017 2,594
15 1,197 -90 1,107 2,411 2.01 876 2,152
16 4,375 81 4,456 8,876 2.03 3,795 9,181
101.01 1,943 11 1,954 3,994 2.06 1,729 4,091
101.02 3,269 623 3,892 6,274 1.92 3,469 7,226
101.04 1,746 263 2,009 3,466 1.99 1,786 3,886
101.05 2,246 293 2,539 5,654 2.52 2,408 6,465
102.01 2,039 92 2,131 5,356 2.63 2,067 5,521
102.03 1,818 1 1,819 4,014 2.21 1,706 3,982
. 102.04 2,233 918 3,151 4,480 2.01 2,680 6,436
103 2,562 -23 2,539 5,899 2.30 2,258 5,878
104 2,107 -38 2,069 4,987 2.37 1,843 4,911
105.04 2,823 33 2,856 7,541 2.67 2,629 7,434
105.05 2,651 246 2,897 8,126 3.07 2,731 9,096
105.06 2,286 0 2,286 5,282 2.31 2,002 5,167
105.07 2,586 18 2,604 6,701 2.59 2,421 6,745
105.08 1,744 5 1,749 3,844 2.20 1,598 3,856
105.09 1,722 4 1,726 4,602 2.67 1,656 4,612
105.1 2,046 -1 2,045 5,456 2.67 1,952 5,514
105.11 1,225 3 1,228 3,796 3.10 1,092 3,762
106 2,415 63 2,478 6,512 2.70 2,175 6,742
107.03 2,748 428 3,176 8,210 2.99 2,894 9,428
107.04 2,383 982 3,365 6,859 2.88 2,996 9,551
107.05 2,704 888 3,592 7,363 2.72 2,977 9,761
107.06 1,358 363 1,721 3,548 2.61 1,358 4,359
109.01 2,240 737 2,977 5,508 2.46 2,490 7,304
109.02 3,070 1,120 4,190 7,823 2.55 3,642 10,685
TOTAL 76,406 6,706 83,112 180,579 2.36 73,602 196,965
Not in Study Area
108 879 879 0 9140
.
County Est. Census Pop
. 1990 Pop 90 Share 1998 Pop 98 Share 1998 Pop % chg. Chg in share
Tract
1 4,672 2.6% 4,585 2.3% 4,241 -9.2% -10.0% 1
2 3,260 1.8% 3,232 1.6% 2,990 -8.3% -9.1% 1
3 1,963 1.1% 1,908 1.0% 1,765 -10.1% -10.9% 1
4 783 0.4% 783 0.4% 724 -7.5% -8.3% 1
6 2,691 1.5% 2,572 1.3% 2,379 -11.6% -12.4% 1
7 1,837 1.0% 1,584 0.8% 1 ,465 -20.2% -20.9% 1
8 1,022 0.6% 1,076 0.5% 995 -2.6% -3.5% 1
9 3,394 1.9% 3,276 1.7% 3,030 -10.7% -11 .5% 1
10 3,311 1.8% 3,107 1.6% 2,874 -13.2% -14.0% 1
11 1,753 1.0% 1,911 1.0% 1,768 0.8% -0.1% 1
12 4,808 2.7% 4,825 2.4% 4,463 -7.2% ~8.0% 1
13 1,748 1.0% 1,767 0.9% 1,634 -6.5% -7.3% 1
14 2,755 1.5% 2,594 1.3% 2,399 -12.9% -13.7% 1
15 2,411 1.3% 2,1~2 1.1% 1,991 -17.4% -18.2% 1
16 8,876 4.9% 9,181 4.7% 8,492 -4.3% -5.2% 1
101.01 3,994 2.2% 4,091 2.1% 3,784 -5.3% -6.1% 1
101.02 6,274 3.5% 7,226 3.7% 6,684 6.5% 5.6% 1
101.04 3,466 1.9% 3,886 2.0% 3,594 3.7% 2.8% 1
101.05 5,654 3.1% 6,465 3.3% 5,980 5.8% 4.8% 1
102.01 5,356 3.0% 5,521 2.8% 5,107 -4.7% -5.5% 1
102.03 4,014 2.2% 3,982 2.0% 3,683 -8.2% -9.1% 1
102.04 4,480 2.5% 6,436 3.3% 5,953 32.9% 31.7% 1
. 103 5,899 3.3% 5,878 3.0% 5,437 -7.8% -8.6% 1
104 4,987 2.8% 4,911 2.5% 4,543 -8.9% -9.7% 1
105.04 7,541 4.2% 7,434 3.8% 6,876 -8.8% -9.6% 1
105.05 8,126 4.5% 9,096 4.6% 8,414 3.5% 2.6% 1
105.06 5,282 2.9% 5,167 2.6% 4,779 -9.5% -10.3% 1
105.07 6,701 3.7% 6,745 3.4% 6,239 -6.9% -7.7% 1
105.08 3,844 2.1% 3,856 2.0% 3,567 -7.2% -8.0% 1
105.09 4,602 2.5% 4,612 2.3% 4,266 -7.3% -8.1% 1
105.10 5,456 3.0% 5,514 2.8% 5,100 -6.5% -7.3% 1
105.11 3,796 2.1% 3,762 1.9% 3,480 -8.3% -9.1% 1
106 6,512 3.6% 6,742 3.4% 6,236 -4.2% -5.1% 1
107.03 8,210 4.5% 9,428 4.8% 8,721 6.2% 5.3% 1
107.04 6,859 3.8% 9,551 4.8% 8,834 28.8% 27.7% 1
107.05 7,363 4.1% 9,761 5.0% 9,029 22.6% 21.5% 1
107.06 3,548 2.0% 4,359 2.2% 4,032 13.6% 12.6% 1
109.01 5,508 3.1% 7,304 3.7% 6,756 22.7% 21.6% 1
109.02 7,823 4.3% 10,685 5.4% 9,883 26.3% 25.2% 1
39
Total 180,579 100% 196,965 100% 182,189
Not in Study Area
108 9,140 5.1% 9,140 4.6% 9,140 0.0%
.
for chart
. County Est. Census Pop
1990 Pop 90 Share 1998 Pop 98 Share 1998 Pop % chg. Chg in share
Tract102.04 4,480 2.4% 6,436 3.2% 6,167 37.7% 33.3%
Tract 107.04 6,859 3.7% 9,551 4.8% 9,152 33.4% 29.2%
Tract 109.02 7,823 4.2% 10,685 5.4% 10,239 30.9% 26.7%
Tract 109.01 5,508 3.0% 7,304 3.7% 6,999 27.1% 23.0%
Tract 107.05 7,363 4.0% 9,761 4.9% 9,353 27.0% 23.0%
Tract 107.06 3,548 1.9% 4,359 2.2% 4,177 17.7% 14.0%
Tract101.02 6,274 3.4% 7,226 3.6% 6,924 10.4% 6.9%
Tract 107.03 8,210 4.4% 9,428 4.7% 9,034 10.0% 6.5%
Tract101.05 5,654 3.1% 6,465 3.2% 6,195 9.6% 6.1%
Tract101.04 3,466 1.9% 3,886 1.9% 3,724 7.4% 4.0%
Tract105.05 8,126 4.4% 9,096 4.6% 8,716 7.3% 3.8%
Tract11 1,753 0.9% 1,911 1.0% 1,831 4.5% 1.1%
Tract8 1,022 0.6% 1,076 0.5% 1,031 0.9% -2.3%
Tract106 6,512 3.5% 6,742 3.4% 6,460 -0.8% -4.0%
Tract16 8,876 4.8% 9,181 4.6% 8,798 -0.9% -4.0%
Tract102.01 5,356 2.9% 5,521 2.8% 5,290 -1.2% -4.4%
Tract101.01 3,994 2.2% 4,091 2.0% 3,920 -1.8% -5.0%
Tract13 1,748 0.9% 1,767 0.9% 1,693 -3.1% -6.2%
Tract1 05.1 0 5,456 2.9% 5,514 2.8% 5,284 -3.2% -6.2%
Tract105.07 6,701 3.6% 6,745 3.4% 6,463 -3.5% -6.6%
Tract12 4,808 2.6% 4,825 2.4% 4,623 -3.8% -6.9%
Tract105.08 3,844 2.1% 3,856 1.9% 3,695 -3.9% -6.9%
. Tract105.09 4,602 2.5% 4,612 2.3% . 4,419 -4.0% -7.0%
Tract4 783 0.4% 783 0.4% 750 -4.2% -7.2%
Tract 108 9,140 4.9% 9,140 4.6% 8,758 -4.2% -7.2%
Tract103 5,899 3.2% 5,878 2.9% 5,632 -4.5% -7.6%
Tract102.03 4,014 2.2% 3,982 2.0% 3,816 -4.9% -8.0%
Tract2 3,260 1.8% 3,232 1.6% 3,097 -5.0% -8.0%
Tract105.11 3,796 2.0% 3,762 1.9% 3,605 -5.0% -8.1%
Tract105.04 7,541 4.1% 7,434 3.7% 7,123 -5.5% -8.5%
Tract104 4,987 2.7% 4,911 2.5% 4,706 -5.6% -8.6%
Tract1 4,672 2.5% 4,585 2.3% 4,393 -6.0% -9.0%
Tract105.06 5,282 2.9% 5,167 2.6% 4,951 -6.3% -9.2%
Tract3 1,963 1.1% 1,908 1.0% 1,828 -6.9% -9.8%
Tract9 3,394 1.8% 3,276 1.6% 3,139 -7.5% -10.5%
Tract6 2,691 1.5% 2,572 1.3% 2,465 -8.4% -11.3%
Tract14 2,755 1.5% 2,594 1.3% 2,486 -9.8% -12.6%
Tract10 3,311 1.8% 3,107 1.6% 2,977 -10.1% -12.9%
Tract15 2,411 1.3% 2,152 1.1% 2,062 -14.5% -17.2%
Tract7 1,837 1.0% 1,584 0.8% 1,518 -17.4% -20.0%
Tract
Total 185,239 100% 199,669 100% 191 ,329
.
. County Est. Census Pop
1990 Pop 90 Share 1998 Pop 98 Share 1998 Pop % chg. Chg in share
Tract1 4,672 2.6% 4,585 2.3% 4,454 -4.7% -10.0%
Tract2 3,260 1.8% 3,232 1.6% 3,140 -3.7% -9.1%
Tract3 1,963 1.1% 1,908 1.0% 1,853 -5.6% -10.9%
Tract4 783 0.4% 783 0.4% 761 -2.9% -8.3%
Tract6 2,691 1.5% 2,572 1.3% 2,498 -7.2% -12.4%
Tract7 1,837 1.0% 1,584 0.8% 1,539 -16.2% -20.9%
Tract8 1,022 0.6% 1,076 0.5% 1,045 2.3% -3.5%
TractS 3,394 1.9% 3,276 1.7% 3,182 -6.2% -11 .5%
Tract10 3,311 1.8% 3,107 1.6% 3,018 -8.8% -14.0%
Tract11 1,753 1.0% 1,911 1.0% 1,856 5.9% -0.1%
Tract12 4,808 2.7% 4,825 2.4% 4,687 -2.5% -8.0%
Tract13 1,748 1.0% 1,767 0.9% 1,716 -1.8% -7.3%
Tract14 2,755 1.5% 2,594 1.3% 2,520 -8.5% -13.7%
Tract15 2,411 1.3% 2,152 1.1% 2,090 -13.3% -18.2%
Tract16 8,876 4.9% 9,181 4.7% 8,918 0.5% -5.2%
Tract101.01 3,994 2.2% 4,091 2.1% 3,974 -0.5% -6.1%
Tract101.02 6,274 3.5% 7,226 3.7% 7,019 11.9% 5.6%
Tract101.04 3,466 1.9% 3,886 2.0% 3,775 8.9% 2.8%
Tract101.05 5,654 3.1% 6,465 3.3% 6,280 11.1% 4.8%
Tract102.01 5,356 3.0% 5,521 2.8% 5,363 0.1% -5.5%
Tract102.03 4,014 2.2% 3,982 2.0% 3,868 -3.6% -9.1%
Tract102.04 4,480 2.5% 6,436 3.3% 6,252 39.5% 31.7%
. Tract103 5,899 3.3% 5,878 3.0% 5,710 -3.2% -8.6%
Tract104 4,987 2.8% 4,911 2.5% 4,770 -4.3% -9.7%
Tract105.04 7,541 4.2% 7,434 3.8% 7,221 -4.2% -9.6%
Tract105.05 8,126 4.5% 9,096 4.6% 8,836 8.7% 2.6%
Tract105.06 5,282 2.9% 5,167 2.6% 5,019 -5.0% -10.3%
Tract105.07 6,701 3.7% 6,745 3.4% 6,552 -2.2% -7.7%
Tract105.08 3,844 2.1% 3,856 2.0% 3,746 -2.6% -8.0%
Tract105.09 4,602 2.5% 4,612 2.3% 4,480 -2.7% -8.1%
Tract1 05.1 0 5,456 3.0% 5,514 2.8% 5,356 -1.8% -7.3%
Tract1 05.11 3,796 2.1% 3,762 1.9% 3,654 -3.7% -9.1%
Tract1 06 6,512 3.6% 6,742 3.4% 6,549 0.6% -5.1%
Tract107.03 8,210 4.5% 9,428 4.8% 9,158 11.5% 5.3%
Tract107.04 6,859 3.8% 9,551 4.8% 9,278 35.3% 27.7%
Tract107.05 7,363 4.1% 9,761 5.0% 9,482 28.8% 21.5%
Tract107.06 3,548 2.0% 4,359 2.2% 4,234 19.3% 12.6%
Tract109.01 5,508 3.1% 7,304 3.7% 7,095 28.8% 21.6%
Tract109.02 7,823 4.3% 10,685 5.4% 10,379 32.7% 25.2%
Total 180,579 100% 196,965 100% 191 ,329
Not in Study Area
Tract108 9,140 5.1% 9,140 4.6% 8,878 -2.9% -8.3%
.
.
It)
}~
NN
(.)-J
cnw
N
,....I'-"<:tC')COLOtOtOI'-,....LOLOCOC\l
C')I'-"<:tl'-COtO,....C)"<:tOOCOLOC')
~ ~ "<:t. to 1'-. "<:t ~ cq, ~ C\!. C\!. III ~ C)
C')C\I,.... ,.... ,....C\I,....C\I"<:t,....,....
I'-COCOLOLOI'-I'-"<:tLOOl'-CO,....OLOI'-C\I,....tO,....tOLOtOC')C\1
tOLOI'-C\IC\1C\10LOI'-LOO"<:tC')LOLOC)"<:t,....0,....C')I'-,....C'),....
C)COLOCO"<:tC')C')"<:tC)C)OC\lOC)C')C)C),....tO"<:tl'-COtOtOC')
oo~m~oo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m
~ ~ ~~~ ~~
It) C)CO,....C')
} ,... COC\lOO
0 C\!. 1'-_ C\!. C)
N
,... LOC')C\1
(.)-J
cnw
N
1'-1'-,.... C)"<:t "<:t tOCOC\lC'),....C)tOC')COC)"<:t"<:t,....LOtOC'),....,.... COO,.... Ol'-tOCOOCOtOtO
tOC\I"<:tl'-COOtOC')C)COC),....C')COLOtOC)C\ICOtOI'-C)tOCO"<:tC\ltO"<:tl'-I'-,....tOC\IC\IC\I
C)COC\ll'-LOC\lLOOC)"<:tLOI'-C')"<:t"<:tC')LO"<:tl'-tOLO"<:tc)I'-"<:tC')C')C')I'-COOC\lO"<:tC')
~~~~~~~~~~O~oo~~~~~~~ooO~~~~~~~O~~~oo~
~ ~ ~~~ ~
NOC')"<:tO
(')C)C\I1'-O
:!:cn~~llll'-
N
:I:c:i'C')C\I,....
O~
N
C')I'-
,....0
qco
C\I
C\ILOI'-C)LOtOC\I,...."<:tC\l"<:ttO"<:t"<:t"<:tLOtOCOOc)C')I'-I'-COOC\lC\lC')C\IC\10LOLOC)
C)"<:tCOCOLOC\lC')O"<:tC)LOCOC')C')COtOOOC)tO"<:tC')I'-"<:tl'-COCOtOC\lOLOLO"<:tl'-
OtOC\lOC')tOc)C')c)COl'-"<:tl'-C')"<:t"<:tC\lC\lC')"<:tC'),...."<:t,....OC\lLOC')OLOCOCO"<:tLO
~~~~~~~~oo~oo~~~~O~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O~~
~ ~ ~~~ ~~~
C\I
(])
~ ""COl'-COl'-It)"<:tCOtO,....C\I,...."<:tC)It)C)COC)C')tOC')CO"<:t"<:tIt)I'-tOIt)C\I0COIt)COC)C)"<:tC'),...."<:tIt)C)
~_~O,....It)C')OCOIt)CO,....C')I'-COOC)COC')C')It)"<:tl'-OIt)I'-"<:tIt)"<:tC')I'-C')It)It)COC\l"<:tC'),....I'-,....It)COl'-C)C)I'-1t)
~v. COl'-,....It)"<:tOC\lC)COC')0"<:tC)C\I00C')0"<:tC'),....C)tOC')C\I00,....C')C')"<:ttOI'-c)tO
-gN ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~oom~~~~~~~OOO~~~ ~
.~ ,.... ,....,....,.... ""'N
~ It)C\IC\1,....tOC\lOCOl'-C')C')COtOtO''<:t''<:tC\lIt),....I'-C')''<:tl'-C\I,....COC\lC')COCOl'-C'),....lt)tO''<:tC')''<:tO~,....C\1
o I'-C),....I'-tOCOIt)C')C)OC\lOOl'-C\IC\1COtOI'-tOCOIt)C\IC')COC)COC\ll'-COC\lC)C')OCOCO,....C\I"<:tCO.
N~Ill~~I'-~Ill~~~~~~C\!.~~~C\!.C\!.cq,~~cq,~~~~~Ill~~~q~~IllIll~~C\I~C\1
-J~"<:tC\l,.... C\I,....,....C\IC\1,...."<:t,....C\I,....C)It)C)It)I'-tOlt)tOlt)"<:ttOI'-"<:ttOC')"<:tLOC')It)C)CO,....COC),....I'-
W ,.... ,....C\1 C\I
N C\I
SS~~~~~SS~8~~S88~coS~S~~~~~~8~~SS~SC\l8~SIt)
C')"<:t"<:tl'-,....C)COtOC')"<:tl'-C')Ol'-"<:tOC'),...."<:tC)tOo"<:tl'-c)I'-COl'-C)"<:tOl'-,....oC')C')tOCOC\l
C')C\I,....-C\I,....-C\IC\1,....C'),....C\I,....tOC')C\1 C')C\IC\1,...."<:tC')"<:t"<:tC')"<:tC\lC')"<:tC\lC')C')C\I-,....,....,....
'-'.........'-" .................. ..................'-"'-"'...................'-".........'-""........... '-"''-''...................'-'......................'-''...................'''-'''-'''...............................'-'' ""-"'-"
:e
N
:I:
o
~o,....OIt)"<:t
.."<:tC)tOC\I
-C\IC)I'-I'-
CO~~~
0)
0)
,...
C)It)It)O"<:tCOC')"<:tC),....C\I"<:t"<:t"<:tOl'-C')C')I'-C')tO"<:tc)C)I'-tOOOtO,...."<:tc)C\ItOC')C)
I'-tOc)C')I'-tOtOC')C)C)C)COCOC)COOCOIt)C')"<:tl'-,....I'-C')tOtOOCOC')C\IC')C\IC')It)COCO
cq,~C)OCOl'-"<:ttOC')C)"<:tl'-tOlt)C),....tOC)"<:tIt)CO"<:tl'-C\IIt)C\I,...."<:tC\ll'-COOOl'-CO,....
C\I,.... ~~~~~~~oo~~~~~~~~~~oo~~~~~~~oooom~~m~
co
,....
co~~~8~
--,....C\I1'-
........................... I
8~C\IS~S~C)I'-C)OtO,....,....tO~S"<:t,....
C\I- ---,...."<:t O,....C')C\IC')I'---tO,....
- - C')C'),....,.... C') C\I
tOtO~lt)tOtO"<:t,....C)C\IIt)C\I1'-tO
C') - C) 0 "<:t 0 to to C\I C)
,...."<:tc)I'-,....C')C),....
10
~ci.
(]) 0
D:c.
C'lCO
"00)
-0)
m,...
It)C\ICOC')
COC')OCO
..;LOC\lC)I'-
I/) - - -
W"<:tC'),....
C\I"<:ttOtOI'-,....It)I'-"<:tC\l,....,....tOtOlt),....C\ItOCO,...."<:ttOI'-lt)tOC\I"<:tC\lC\lCO,....,....C)"<:t1t)1t)
I'-COl'-I'-O,....C\ItOC)It)COC>C\ICOtOC\lCOC')I'-,....C')C)tO"<:tLO,....,....tO"<:tC\llt)tOIt)OCOtO
LOIt)OC\l,....C>COl'-It),....,....OC\lCO"<:tLOC>"<:tCOC>"<:tO,....I'-COtOLOI'-I'-"<:tIt)I'-C')C')tOC)
~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~mmm~~o~
,.... C)
,....
CD I'-C>OtO
0) I'-C'),....C>
0) ~ 10 C\I C> I'-
,... 0 - - -
-Jc."<:tC'),....
....,....C\IC')"<:ttOI'-COC)~;:
(.)
('Cl
...
I-
C\ICOtOtOC\lC>C'),....C\I1'-C\I"<:tl'-tOC>O,....O,....I'-OIt),....C>COl'-COtOCOl'-C\IC>"<:tC\lCOC>
C>1t)I'-C>,....0C')I'-OtOC')CO""'I'-C\I0LOtOCO,....I'-COtOOIt)001t)"<:tC\lOIt)C>"<:tlt)tO
It)tOOC\l,....C>COl'-tO,....,....OC>It)C')''<:tC>OCOC>C')CO,....I'-COtOlt)I'-LOOtOO,....C>I'-~
~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~oo~~~~~~~moom~~m,....
C)
,....
C\IC')"<:tLOtO,....C\I"<:tIt),....C')"<:tC')"<:t"<:tlt)tOI'-CO
,.... ,....,....,....00000000000000
,....,....,....,....C\IC\1C\1""''''''LOLOLOLOLO
0000000 00000
T"-r-,....,....,....,....,.... ,....,....,....,....
C>O,....
0,....,....
LO
o
,....
tOC')"<:tLOtO,....C\1
0000000
""'""",,0>0>
000000
,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,....
LOLO
00
,.... ,....
COil)
'10
C\I"<:t
00
-
o
CO
III
C)
-
ClJO
~"<:t
<C ,.....
;>.C>
"0
:s
...
en
C::g
... ,....
o
Z
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2.1
CH2MHILL
Water System Regulatory Compliance Review
PREPARED FOR:
DATE:
Augusta Utilities Department
Ed Minchew /CH2M HILL
Larry Scott/CH2M HILL
File
October 4, 1999
PREPARED BY:
COPIES:
Contents
Introduction .. ........ ... .............. ....... ................ ..... .............. .......... .............. ... ............. ....... ....... ......... ....1
Purpose. .......... ..... ..... ........ ...... ......... .............. .... ............. ............ ..... ......... ........ ...... ......... ....... ....... ... ...1
Regionalism........ .... ............ .... .... ..... ........... ......... ..... ...... ... .... ................ ....... ................. ... .... ....... .... ....1
1996 SDW A Amendments ....... ....... ......................... .................... ......... ............ ...... ................ ..........2
.
Introduction
The Augusta Utilities Department (AUD) has responded to the challenges of the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A). The AUD's water system is in
compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and should remain in compliance with
anticipated regulations through 2001. However, depending upon the stringency of upcoming
drinking water quality regulations, the new evolving SDW A regulations may have a
significant impact on the AUD. More stringent disinfection/ disinfection byproduct (D /DBP)
requirements and increased organic removal targets may force the AUD to modify current
treatment processes. Contaminant levels and goals continue to be proposed and promulgated
for specific contaminants, and additional compounds are being added to the list of those
already being regulated. Although the AUD is currently in compliance with all of the primary
and secondary standards as promulgated by the SDW A, the AUD should continue its
proactive strategy of planning for treatment system improvements in order to be prepared to
meet the new treatment challenges resulting from the SDW A regulations.
Purpose
This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes the multiple water quality criteria under
which a community water system such as the AUD must operate to remain,in compliance.
The AUD is classified as a large (> 10,000 people) community system and as such must be in
compliance with many regulatory requirements promulgated by the SDW A and its
amendments. When utility systems conduct system evaluations and prepare master plans,
it is important to understand the regulatory demands and the potential changes to those
demands that must be addressed. This TM summarizes regulatory issues that may
influence the future operation and management of the AUD, as well as the compliance
issues that may be faced.
.
Regionalism
Regionalism refers to those issues that will cause the AUD to work outside the bounds of its
traditional service area. Because the AUD is a county-wide utilities department, it is itself a
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-1,DQC
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
regional operating system within Richmond County, and as such, should be capable of
adapting easily to pro-regional approaches that may be developed in the future. There are
several developments related to regionalism that the AUD should be aware of, including the
following:
· State Planning Issues. The State of Georgia has been increasing the requirements for
governments and authorities to work together in recent years, and the outlook is for this
trend to continue. Certainly, all governments have had to address interjurisdictional
services in response to new legislative issues, and the current political atmosphere has
prompted the proposal of several initiatives that will result in or require additional
coordinated planning between government entities. In the past, the State has enforced
compliance with the mandate to address interjurisdictional issues by withholding state
money and permitting. The AUD will need to monitor developments related to regional
planning efforts and be prepared to be proactive and responsive to proposed regional
solutions by taking a leadership role if possible.
· Regional Water Resources. Although regional agreements are not yet established, they
will ultimately influence water management, supply and permitting in the region. One
of the major concepts that have been discussed in these negotiations includes the
potential for having water source and wastewater discharge permits coupled with a
consumptive water relationship. This would limit water withdrawals to some
relationship with respect to consumptive usage.
· River Basin Management Authorities. As part of the recent statewide trend towards
emphasizing regionalization issues, the State may consider institution of a regional
utility management authority for oversight of regional or river basin water and
wastewater utility issues. Several proposals have been considered, and the 1998
legislative session even considered one proposed bill to establish a Chattahoochee River
Basin Authority. The nature and extent of regional authorities, if they are implemented,
cannot be predicted at this time, but the AUD will most likely fall within its jurisdiction
if one is established for the Savannah River Basin.
Regional regulatory impacts will have to. be closely monitored, and the AUD should be
preparing to adapt to any potential new governmental authority by planning for sufficient
capacity and flexibility in obtaining the necessary water supply to meet its needs over the
next 20 years and beyond.
1996 SOW A Amendments
.
This section summarizes regulatory compliance issues for the AUD resulting from the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (SDW AA). In addition, it includes CH2M
HILL's understanding of the anticipated changes in the regulations that may impact the
treatment process. The section is subdivided as follows:
· Summary of Regulatory Impacts
· Current Regulatory Outlook
· Comprehensive Regulatory Review
.
Summary of Regulatory Impacts
Since being introduced in 1974, the SDW A has been amended twice, once in 1986 and more
recently on August 2, 1996. The intent of these amendments was to strengthen the original
SDW A legislation, primarily in the area of setting regulations to ensure that public water
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-1.DOC
2
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
supplies are safe. The u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) was mandated by
Congress to establish rules and regulations relating to the SDW AA. The original SDW A
established primary and secondary standards for drinking water, and this original list has been
added to and modified by subsequent amendments to the SDW A.
The primary standards are federally enforceable limits expressed as maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs), above which contaminants can cause acute or chronic health threats to the
public. These values are not to be exceeded; if they are, the utility system is required to
provide public notification through electronic or other means depending upon the type of
violation and the size of the system. A summary of the primary standards is provided in
subsequent sections that discuss the existing regulations and potential changes that may
result from the 1996 amendments (see Tables 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9).
EP A has also established secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) for some
contaminants. SMCLs are federally non-enforceable and establish limits for contaminants in
drinking water that may affect the aesthetic qualities and the public's acceptance of drinking
water. A list of SMCLs is shown in Table 1. Levels are stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
unless specified otherwise.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-1.DOC
3
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
TABLE 1
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels
Contaminant
Level
Aluminum
Chloride
Color
Copper
Corrosivity
Fluoride
Foaming agents
Iron
Manganese
Odor
pH
Silver
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Zinc
0.05 To 0.2 mglL
250 mglL
15 color units
1 mglL
Non-corrosive
2.0 mglL
0.5 mglL
0.3 mglL
0.05 mglL
3 threshold odor number
6.5-8.5
0.1 mglL
250 mglL
500 mglL
5 mg/L
.
SMCLs are federally non-enforceable limits for contaminants that
may affect the aesthetic qualities of drinking water.
Current Regulatory Outlook
Reauthorization of the SOW A
The SDW A was reauthorized on August 2, 1996. Regulations stemming from the SDW AA
have always been in flux. The current regulatory environment is under even more change
than in previous years. In addition to establishing schedules for promulgating MCLs for
various water quality parameters, the highlights of the 1996 SDW AA can be categorized as
follows:
· Standard-Setting Process
· Consumer Confidence Reports
· Source Water Protection
· State Revolving Loan Fund
· Operator Certification
· Capacity Development
· Small Systems Technology
· Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
· Water Quality Standards
These rules can be summarized as follows.
.
Standard-Setting Process
The 1996 amendments established a new standard-setting process for establishing new or
revised MCLs. The process includes setting up a National Contaminant Occurrence
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2.1.DOC
4
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
Database (NCOD) and contaminant candidate list (CCL), and establishing appropriate
regulatory tools to establish risk. The purpose of these rules is threefold:
· To update the standard-setting process by focusing regulations on contaminants known
to pose greater public health risks, and also to apply an economic analysis of the
costs/benefits when setting an MCL.
· To select at least five new candidate contaminants to consider for regulation every five
years; but regulation must be geared toward contaminants posing the greatest health
risks. There are also several specific contaminants, including arsenic, sulfate and radon,
that EP A will need to address in this first period.
· To utilize the negotiated rule-making process for the Stage I disinfectant/ disinfection by-
products rule for use in Stage II rule development. However, the Stage II rule will have
to take II cost/benefit" and risk considerations into account.
.
Contaminant Identification Method and Contaminant Candidate List. The CCL is a
starting point from which the EP A Administrator must make the determination on whether
to regulate a specific contaminant or not. The EP A Administrator has to make this decision
for at least five contaminants by 2001, and the Contaminant Identification Method is the
process used to make this determination. EP A developed a broad list of contaminants (300
to 400) initially, then used screening criteria to narrow that list down to the first CCL of 60
contaminants. The first CCL was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 1998. The
National Academy of Sciences is assisting EP A in narrowing down the list of chemicals on
the first CCL and establishing criteria for developing future CCLs. The American Water
Works Association Research Foundation (A WW ARF) has also started a project to develop a
system to prioritize microbials for future regulation.
National Contaminant Occurrence Database. Based on the 1996 SDW AA, an NCOD was
developed in August 1999 which will serve as the foundation for future contaminant lists.
EP A has decided to use its current Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) as the
foundation for this national occurrence database.
.
The first phase NCOD will consist of the Phase 1 unregulated contaminant monitoring data,
some of the Phase 2 unregulated contaminant monitoring data, and some ambient water
data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Regulatory Tools. EP A is developing the regulatory tools needed to support the new
standard-setting process in the 1996 SDW AA. EP A is developing reference materials for a
regulatory analysis guidance manual that would be used for any regulation, as well as
guidelines for other documents that will be developed for each specific regulation. EP A
released outlines of all of these documents at a stakeholder meeting in September 1997.
EP A also conducted an engineering design workshop prior to the 1997 Water Quality
Technology Conference (WQTC) to get stakeholder input on how treatment plants are really
designed. Other components for the new standard-setting process, such as the first phase of
their model systems and their initial work on interest rates, were reviewed at a second
stakeholder meeting in November 1998. It remains to be determined how all of these
components will fit together in the new standard-setting process.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2-1,DOC
5
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
A Benefits Working Group under the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee
(NOW AC) developed recommendations for benefits assessment, and an overall benefits
guidance manual for EP A regulatory managers has been developed. An A WW ARF project
to develop a protocol for assessing benefits is underway. Pulling all of these efforts together
into a new cost/benefit process for the setting of specific MCLs is a major challenge for EP A.
While substantial work is being done to refine the cost side, the benefits side has much more
uncertainty.
Consumer Confidence Reports
The 1996 SDW AA require utilities to mail an annual report to each of their customers. These
annual reports must provide detailed information including where customers' water comes
from, how it is treated, and what is detected in it (not just what standards are violated). The
reports must list levels of regulated contaminants along with maximum contaminant level
goals (MCLGs) and MCLs and plainly worded definitions of both. The reports must also
include a plainly worded statement of the health concerns for any contaminants for which
there has been a violation, describe the utility's sources of drinking water, and provide data
on unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is required, including Cryptosporidium
and radon.
.
Another NOW AC working group assisted EP A in the development of the proposed
regulation, which was published in the Federal Register on February 20,1998. The final CCR
regulation was published in the Federal Register in August 1998, and the American Water
Works Association (A WW A) is working with EP A on a utility guidance manual which will
help utilities in complying with this regulation. Utilities will be required to publish their
first CCR by October 1999 using 1998 monitoring data.
EP A also started a general consumer awareness campaign with an annual report on the
state of the nation's drinking water last September. The second report was combined with
the first report evaluating state compliance and released in September 1998. Two NOW AC
working groups, one for the consumer and one for healthcare providers, have been
established to address this broader issue of consumer's right-to-know, which will integrate
all of EPA's public information efforts on drinking water such as the CCR, the Index of
Watershed Indicators (IWI), etc. It is not clear how the results of these working groups will
be implemented by EPA's program office.
Source Water Protection
EP A is required to publish guidance for state source water assessment programs that
delineate protection areas and assess contamination risks. The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) has proposed an approach to mandating completion of watershed
assessments for those locations needing to enhance source water protection.
The initial source water protection guidances for delineating and assessing source waters,
developing petition programs, and developing alternative monitoring requirements were
published in August 1997. This program has moved from development to implementation,
with the majority of states submitting their programs to EPA by February 6,1999. The
Technical Advisory Council (TAC) remains active on total maximum daily load (TMDL)
issues, animal feeding operations, and implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan.
Recently, sulfur in gasoline has become a regulatory issue because sulfur inhibits catalytic
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2-1.DOC
6
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
converters, which causes increased NOx emissions, which increases air deposition of
nitrogen.
AUD's current plan to alter source water withdrawal configuration calls for reduction and
ultimately eliminating dependence on groundwater as a primary source and subsequently
increasing surface water withdrawals from the Savannah River. Given the imminent needs
to expand surface water withdrawals (described in detail in Section 4), AUD should begin
preparing necessary technical studies to support this expansion. The two major efforts
would include a Watershed Assessment of the AUD Service Area and the Source Water
Assessment Plan (SWAP) for that portion of the Savannah River that influences the AUD
water supply. As many of the data collection efforts are similar for the two studies, they
should be conducted concurrently to reduce the overall time and cost. The Watershed
Assessment is addressed in the following TM2B.
State Revolving Loan Fund
The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRLF) will provide loans at or below
market rates for treatment and infrastructure improvements. The amount of money
authorized through 2003 is approximately $9.3 billion; however, to date, Congress has yet to
appropriate the full authorization. At this time, this program has moved from development
to implementation. Allotments are based on the Drinking Water Needs Survey, which was
released in early February 1997. Potential issues still remaining with this fund include the
allotment formula and transfers between the wastewater and drinking water loan funds.
EP A has disbanded the NOW AC working group on SRLF issues and is now using an EP A-
state workgroup, as most of the issues are between EP A and the states. EP A is continuing
their work on the next Drinking Water Needs Survey, with the data analysis to be
completed in 1999. Compilation of this data may take some time, and release of the results
of this survey is scheduled for early 2000.
Operator Certification
EP A is required by the 1996 SDW AA to develop minimum national guidance for operator
certification. Current programs at the state level have a wide variety of requirements. EP A
has developed some flexible guidelines that still have some consistency for a national
program. The national guidelines were finalized in the Federal Register on February 5,1999.
The State of Georgia has minimum requirements for certification of operators that exceed
the minimum levels set. This rule should have no impact on utilities within the state.
Capacity Development
EP A is required by the 1996 SDW AA to develop guidelines for States' capacity development
programs. States must have programs in place to assure that utility staff have the technical,
financial, and managerial expertise necessary to run a water system. While capacity
development is generally a small system issue, it does apply to all systems. Through another
NOW AC working group, EP A developed a set of guidances with minimum elements to
allow State flexibility, and a set of information "tools" that the States can use to implement
their programs. The final guidances were published in the Federal Register in August 1998.
Small Systems Technology
EP A was required by the 1996 SDW AA to develop a listing of small system technologies to
meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) by August 1997, and other small system
technologies to meet the other existing regulations, along with variance technologies, by
.
.
P:\152572\All FilES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABlES\TM2-1.DOC
7
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
August 1998. The SWTR listing of technologies is complete but is rather intuitive and only
briefly covers innovative technology. A larger list was published in the Federal Register in
August 1998; however, variance technologies were only listed for a few contaminants.
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Data from both the regulated and unregulated contaminant monitoring will eventually be
the bulk of the initial NCOD data. EP A has drafted a reasonable number of data elements
(in the 20 to 30 range) that will be required to be reported with each sample. An
unregulated contaminant monitoring regulation (for not more than 30 contaminants) that
details which contaminants will be monitored and which data elements will need to be
reported has been finalized. EP A recently proposed a direct final rule (the rule will go
directly to final if nobody objects) for the small systems monitoring requirements; however,
it is not yet clear how (or when) EP A will revise the current regulated contaminant
monitoring requirements for the additional required data elements.
Water Quality Standards
The SDW A also has many new regulations that may impact the way treatment systems
produce potable water. These regulations will improve the finished water quality and will
possibly require additional treatment processes at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant.
Table 2 provides a brief discussion summarizing the specific water quality regulations and
the impact on AUD, while the following discussion provides a more comprehensive
regulatory review on these water quality issues.
.
Comprehensive Regulatory Review
The following subsections present a comprehensive review of each regulation and its
potential impact on AUD.
State of Georgia Regulations
The GAEPD has issued rules (Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia DNR, Chapter
391-3-5- Safe Drinking Water) to establish policies, procedures, requirements, and standards
for implementing the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 (and its amendments) and
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
In general, the rules mirror the rules described in the following sections for the Federal
SDW A and are generally revised as EP A promulgates final rules. The specific limits that the
GAEPD has developed are listed later in the tables that also show the EP A limits.
Generally, the Federal and State MCLs are very similar. By law, the EPD must adopt
regulations that are at least as stringent as the EP A requirements to retain primacy.
Surface Water Treatment Rule
The SWTR establishes treatment techniques instead of MCLs for the control of Giardia,
viruses, heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria, and Legionella. Turbidity limits depend
on the filtration method employed in its removal. Treatment must achieve at least 99.9
percent (3-10g) removal or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent (4-log)
removal or inactivation of viruses. The MCLGs for Giardia, viruses, and Legionella are zero.
There are no MCLGs for heterotrophic plate count bacteria and turbidity.
Purveyors must achieve 3-log removal/inactivation of Giardia and 4-log removal/
inactivation of viruses. Partial removal/inactivation credit is given to systems that provide
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-1,DOC
8
s:
w
:>
w
a:
w
u
z
<
.~
>-
a:
~
::J
Cl
w
a:
::;:
w
I-
en
>-
en
a:
w
!;;(
s:
.
.
~
en
c
.Q
co
"5
C>
Q)
a:
~
3:
o
en
15
en
::J
CO
U5
"C
C
ell
('\jC:-
w~
ffiE
~c75
c
::::)
ct
c
o
-
U
l'll
D-
E
l'll
.;:
Q)
-
.;:
o
c
o
:;:::
l'll
'S
en
Q)
a:
...
... Ol
Ol....
....tll
tll :s:
:s: Ol
:s: 0
tll tll
...'t:
0l:J
C en
'gtll
Ol Ol-:
- c'-
(5 'c: E
o .- ""-
en tll Ol
Ol 15 a.
>0-
- tll
O"C :s:
> c tll
,!: tll -0
,!Q .s .c
.ctll::::
I-"C:S:
.
en
'E
Ol
E
~
'5
0-
Ol
...
.2
:0
:J
a.
(ij
...
E
>.
c.
a.
:J
en
...
Ol
10
:s:
Ol
~
:J
o
en
Ol
.;;
Ol
>
e
a.
a.
tll
(;j
:J
E
E
tll
0,
o
a.
...
Ol
10
:s:
Ol
c
:i2ai
,!: E
-02
o~
a... en
w...
Ol2
~~
<(
a...
W
Ol
.;;
...
e
...
'E
en
'E
Ol
E
~
'5
0-
~
o
a...
W
Ol
.;;
(ij
Qj
c
Ol
Ol
C
.
~
(ij
c
~
l'll
'c,
...
o
Q)
o
-
o
Ol
-
l'll
-
en
.
(;j
:J
E
Em
~....
a.c
Ol
~Eai
........Ol
Oltll....
C ~ ~
~.::"O
Ol tll Ol
::ga
o ,- Ol
='E8
a.Oltll
"C>
'- c c:-
~8(;j
tll Ol :J
Oen"C
I- :J.!:
.
"C
Ol
(;j
2
~
'5-
Ol
.c
.8
en
Ol
en
en
Ol
o
e
a.
'E
Ol
E
10
~
:s:
Ol
c
en
~
'5
0-
~
o
a...
W
Ol
.c
I-
.
(ijai
:s: Ol
tll ~
-0>.
0';;0
:J'~ lii
<(...~
....OlOl
~lOE
....:s:Ol
"C"C...
Ol C 0
cog:::
"C.....a.
COlOl
tlleno
E:::: ~
enOlen
tlllOE
.cc
o'E 2
0...= ~
WOlen
.
o
a...
W
>.
.c
"C
Ol
>
o
a.
a.
tll
Ol
en
'~
Ol
.c
(5
en
en
Ol
C
:J
"C
Ol
t5
Ol
"E
'en
'5
Ol
.c
(;j
:J
E
Qi
:s:
tll
E
~
Qj
10
~
.
Ol
~U).8
OlEa.
a.Ol:J
0........
"Cen.c
c~g>
tllco
co.....
.- ,-.c
~t5m
,!: 2 .c
tllc....
E ,- en
,!Q :J
~"C E
'S"Cen
-C"C .
OltllOlen
eac:.o"E
00 tll tll
+"" :.;::::; .- "'0
entll"Cc
:J-=Oltll
::2:~E(;j
.
(;j~
E~
.....
'E'S;
Ol-
E 0
....c
tllo
0):;:::
zg
C"C
~~
~~
c&
'en ~
'5~
"C"C
C C
tlltll
5,~
:+="E
~tll
==(3
LL
'0
:Jc
1-0
z'g
LO:J
ci~
V .....
2#
....~
enOl
:J0l
EOl
~.~
3;2Ol
.e:c:
.2~
IDe
lOOl
:s::o
"Ctll
~g-
OlU
:=Q)
LL.c
.
~
(ij
c
~
Ol
'S
a:
-
c
Q)
E
-
l'll
e
I-
...
Q)
-
l'll
3:
Q)
U
~
:J
en
=
.2~
c,Q
Ol....
Ol,~,g
.c Ol (;j
~2 ~
E (5,S!
cc"C
o C Ol
:+=tllE
00_
2eno
'~2 5l
~~~
:g; ~
OOl.c
E'5 :a
"C 0- Ol
~~o
.
'"
o
:J
<(
t5
Ol
:::::
tll
(5
C
'~
Qj
o
c
,S!
C.
E
o
U
c
u
o
q
N
~
en
w
-'
co
<
a:
w
>
:J
w
Cl
:z
:5
"-
a:
w
I-
en
<
::;:
'"
"-
'"
'"
'"
~
"-
CD
<')
;:!
:;!;
en
w
-'
u:
-'
-'
~
'"
f)j
"-
;:::
w
:>
w
a:
w
o
:z
<<:
.i
>-
a:
o
~
::>
Cl
w
a:
::;;
w
f-
en
>-
en
a:
w
~
;:::
.
.
...
en
c
.Q
ro
'S
C)
Q)
a:
<(
<(
3:
Cl
en
15
en
::>
ro
U5
"0
c
ca
N2:'
w~
alE
~&.l
c
:)
<(
c
o
-
U
ell
Co
.E
o
=>
<( <:'-'
>,....-
..eQ)U
-Q)
'Cell....
.$;:0
U Q) U
:J :J en
'C c:'-
C:Q)-E
o > en
U <( =
en'C_
co c: c:
;:ell~
O):C 0..
,!: .21 C
UiIQ)
.$Q)S
a:-Eell
O-Q)
_ctS~
Q)
>
'iij
en
Q)
U
x
Q)
:;
o
-E
':;:
en
c:
Q)
0)
o
.!:
iii
0..
0)
c:
'0
:J
'C
Q)
....
"0
1:: en
o en
0.. Q)
C\l c:
Q) ~
f6>u
Ci5Jg
Q) Q)
-E ~
0.. e
o 0.. '
~ E~
Q) ,- III
'C .90
.8 S '0
CO CO c:
ca ;:.Q
'C u-
c: ~ ~
'co 0 ....
DO,E
o
o
I- .
,!:!1
'C'iii
Q) >
U 0
c: E .
~~~
5i 0 5;
0'-
iiil-13
-5~ctS
;:,E g>
o C:'-
,!:0Q)
en~..e
enco>,
=:'S'C
:J 0) CO
~~~
a:u'iii
.
'C
c:
CO
en
a...
III
o
.E
en
Q)
iii
0)
g
:J
en
]!c
C .Q
2ca
8.E
- 0
en "-
a... a...
III III
00
"Og>
Q).-
go
~Jg
.... CO
13 ~
g,Q
Q):!:::
-E-g
c: 0
o U
coc
-Q)
~S
'iiim
c: ....
,Q ::
:52
'CCO
co ;:
-Q)
~ ~
'55
Oen
.
o {;5
=> CO
<( >,~
Uc~
~O..e
E.9:;
.- en 0
~,!!! .g
E a. ioU
co 0..-
,S! co ~
~~~
0) en .
,- 0 en
~EE
g:!::: 2",.
=Q)~2:'
,- en en Q)
;::J_>
en co'iii 0
:2~Eu
I-..een~
.
en
en
~
en
E
Q)
Ui
>,
en
'iii
.9
en
c:
o
~
'S
0)
~
a:
l-
(/')
UJ
'C
c:
CO
a:
I-
~
'C
Q)
iii
0)
'S
E
o
0..
>'Q)
-gc..
~ g
'iiio..
Q)a
-E8
enci
Q).....
=c:
0.. CO
~-E
.
-
C
G)
E
-
ell
l!!
I-
...
Q)
-
ell
3:
G)
u
~
::I
UJ
E
...
G)
I-
DIG)
c-
0::1
..Ja:
a
a
a
mC\l
m ....
m Q)
.......e
.... E
Q) Q)
..e >
E 0
Q) Z
>
o c:
Z ,Q
_iii
co 0)
~'S
o..E
e e
a... a...
~"-
Q) co 0.9
~Jg31~
"t:Q):Jcof)'
:J;:~enc:
enO)Q)=Q)
_en c: ..e Q) 0)
o~'C;:Cii
=><( 'x ~ ~ E
Q)ocQ)
o _en 'iij Q) 1ii
~ 0 .!:!1 .!: en
E=>EI-co
.- <( E >. >,
o-:o:!:::c
c:1iicr'iiio
--Q):J'C
= 0.. 'C CT Q) >.
;:.... 0)"" en-
en.$c:.$:Jo..
.- co ,- co 0..
F;:~;:~~
~
.
Q)
-E
"-
Q)
'S
a:
Q)
~
U
Q)
a:
.!:
en
co
;:
.:.::
U
co
III
Q)
c:
o 'E
2 Q;
ecn<D
0.. >, 'C
.9~.9
en :J c:
c:eno
g 2:'~
o..co....
o:::~
c: c:._
.Q m ~
OQ)O
Q)'CU
'E2Q5
'iij U 'C
'C ,!: c:
, en :J
25 25 ~
c: ~ 0
...... a.:.;::
000..
25 c: ~
,_ 0 Q)
EU-E
c:Q)0
Q)c'C
E 'iij c:
Q) ,- co
_'C
o..E C: $
o c:
,- Z Q)
o E.
c:enl:l~
g ~ m'c
~:J~iii
c g u,!:!1
"en 10....0, 10-
:;::;.$0.$
~ co- co
en ;: g ;:
~ 'C O)'C
'55 e 5
ge~e
a: o).!: 0)
o
o
q
N
::;;
':::
en
w
--'
lD
~
W
>
::J
w
Cl
z
:'.5
Cl..
a:
w
f-
en
<<:
::;;
('oJ
....
on
('oJ
on
fii
....
<Xl
CO)
;!
~
en
w
--'
u::
--'
--'
~
on
1;j
c.:
~
u::
Q)
-E
-E
':;:
c:
o
n
c:
:J
'c-
o
U
.!:
'C
Q)
iii
0)
'S
E
e
0..
Q)
..e
~
.
.
a
a
a
C\l
....
m Q)
m..e
m E
G) Q)
:; Ui ~
a: :J Z
lii g> c:
'Iii <( ,Q
;:_iii
" co 0)
c ~ 'S
::I 0.. E
o e e
<;a...a...
:!:
w
:>
w
a:
w
u
z
<
ei
>-
a:
o
~
:::>
Cl
w
a:
::;;
w
.....
en
>-
en
a:
w
~
.
.
~
en
c:
.2
<ti
'S
C)
0)
a:
~
$:
o
en
15
en
=:l
<ti
Ci5
'0
c:
ctl
N2:-
w~
alE
~~
C
::::l
<C
c
o
-
u
ClI
Q.
.E
'Oc:
<1>,_
Ul ctl
ctl-
.0 ,!: c:
E ctl.-
.... E to .!:
O-=:lUl
~ ~ :2 .-
o~ UlO
~ ~:J
.E-ciC:<{
Ol 0) ,Q .
c:~oE
'e: 0) <1> <1>
ocn.....-
~ c: .!: ~
c: 0 .!Q Ul .
0:;:::'0 c: 0)
E..!!l <1>.Q g
~ 5. ~ '5 ,!!l
-5 0 0':9 0.
c: 0.. 0) -= E
.g c: '0 .!Q 0
..::: 0 ctl '0 U
.
ClI
.t:
Q)
-
.t:
o
ui
E
....
g
'0
u
to
B
'0
<1>
U
c:
0)
Ul
.0
ctl
....
o
0)
u
c:
<1>
Ul
0)
....
0..
0)
-5
....
<1>
-5
'(j)
c:
o
'0
0)
Ul
ctl
.0
.!Q
-I
()
~
-5
.;;:
0)
u
c:
.!!l
0.
E
o
()
.
c
o
:;:::
ClI
:;
Cl
<1>
a:
~
to
c:
~
Q)
:;
a:
E
..
o
:!::
'0
o
jij
-
o
I-
'0
c:
ctl
.8~
'O~C:
<1> .-
<1> .8 .!Q
'::00
.- O):J
~ ~<{
2~r::
~ -5.Q
:> ,- Ul
'O~e
0)'0....0)
..c:O)og
,!Q iii U ctl
~.2= Cii~
O)gJ&E
~ ~8 8
.
'0
c:
ctl
-I
--
Ol
E
to
......
o
oui
-0)
0-
0..
!!l.E
0) ctl
> Ul
~o..
c: ctl
0-
~c
uo
co;
'0,,5
0),-
<1>-=
U Ul
x'-
0)'0
-
(50
C:cf.
-0
~......
E c:
.... ctl
0)-5
0..<1>
0......
00
U E
'Oc:
c:._
ctl _
'O~
ctl <1>
~~
-u
o 0)
c:o..
o Ul
,- <1>
iii....
.... -
--I
c:--
<1>Ol
U E
aM
(),...:
.
~
to
c:
~
Q)
:;
a:
..
Q)
Q.
Q.
o
o
'0
C
ClI
'0
ClI
Q)
..J
Ul
() '00)2
o 2g.s
><1>~OUlc,
Ctio-_cc
-5 g ~ 1@:$ '15
<1>Ul'O~.g:g
E<1>:;iiioo
~-5~Ul-Eai
!!lC:en()'O<1>'OU
'u .- 0 <1> c:
o-~><1>Uctl
-:E<1> Z::I=
<1> Ul iii '0 . al 0..
Li<1>~2C:....E
ctl c.. ctl .Q .... 0
c: <1>:;-OU
O<1>..c:Olctl-c:
Ul .0 f- <1>.g to .-
co_ '-'->(1)
<1> 0 .....: - (j; 0'-
....c:<1>tO>....o
,!Q := iii .... .... &:J
.=:~~.E.Ectl<{
.
Ul
()
o
>
1::
Ol
'(j)
....
.E
Ol
c:
'e:
.8
'c
o
E
Ul
~
'5
0'
~
'0
c:
ctl
Ul
<1>
iii
:;
Ol
<1>
a:
.
en
'0
c:
::I
o
0..
E
o
()
U
'c
ctl
Ol
<5
~~
:;:'cc
..!!lc:
0'-
>!:::..
.
U
'c Ul '0
ctl._ <1>
e> Ul ,!: c:
o to E .8 .-
.2,2 (j; <1> .!Q
QiEQiLio
-5~'Oe:J
C:UUl<1><{
>'u (j;.E .
(J)._ _ ::J C
o@~>g
-Ol:><1>ctl
Ol....<1>'Oc:
.!: g ~ 0 'E-
'- .- ::J -
.8'000.s
'c c: Ul a... c:
octloWO
E!!l.-<{~
<1>~alCJ~
:S 'E ,: ~ 'E
:::l <1> g.- <1>
a:o..c: <1> >...c:
U .....0 U
.
ui
to
U
'E
<1>
..c:
U
U
'c
ctl
Ol
o
.!:
'0
c:
ctl
Ul
to
U
'E
<1>
..c:
U
U
'c
ctl
Ol
o
U
~
..c:
'E
>.
en
en
<1>
iii
:;
Ol
<1>
a:
.
~
~~
._ c:
!:::..iL
III";;
00
~Q
=>
<1> Q)
III III
ClI ClI
.c.c
a. a.
.8
'0
<1>
c:O
ctl <1>
..c:~
:: <1l .
~Om
_c:-
~.!Q ~
~,2 <1>
o..C:u
E <1> :;
.- e? 0
o <{ en
c: <1>
2 g>-5
<1> ctl'e: c:
g 0..0 ,-
.~ :Q~::;
o..-ou
~ ~ E g
o
U
.
~
f=~
ctl-
_ c:
<1> ,-
Ul-l
o()
!!l.~
ctl <1>
>. ..c:
ctl-
E g>
<{ 'e:
a... <1>
W ~
.2
~o
~~
~a
-g gJ
ctl8.
r.q <1>
o..c:
c:~
<1>_
~.;;: ...:
Q) ~ ';;;
.0 Ol <1>
U ::l..~
.- 0-
:EC\l~
Ul '0 ,~
<<;~"fi
ooCti
-......<1>
-Ic:Ul
()<1>~
~ <1>-
c:~~
ctl <1> 0
Ci).oE:
Ul-l'O
>.()~
(jj~~
~"<1> <1>
- C)::;
~~2
.
......
o
o
oC\l
o ~
o ctl
C\l :::l
~ c:
ctl ctl
:::l'
c:
ctl c:
, 0
-~
u ctl Ol
'2 ~ :;
Q) 0.. E
III 0 0
.:ta:a:
'0
<1>
73 ~
<1> 0
C. +=
x <1> ctl
~=E
0_ <1>
c: 0 U
.!Q <1> a
c:UlU
.Q iil <1> .....:
I2~]!~
::1.0:; ctl
OlO en ~
~:J ~ <1>
<1><{ 0 ~
.Et5~g
:;~~Ul
UlE:;:::~
<1>,_ ctl_
~ .8 ~ .!:
.
0>.
0.0
Oc:
C\lo
~:;:::
ctl..!!l
:::l :::l
c:Ol
ctl <1>
,....
>.<1>
.0-5
0<1>
Ul Ul
<1> 0
'00..
.- 0
U ....
<1>0..
'0 -
iii~
::1'0
E c:
_ctl
:::l _
.0-1
--
<1>Ol
iiiE
:=0
::10
UltO
2'0
ctl c:
:;:::l
OlO
<1> ....
.... ctl
0-1
-()
(j;~
-5c:
<1> ctl
..c:_
~ <1>
Ul
'0>.
<1>-
'0<1>
._~
U,-
<1>-
'0:=
-~M
0_0
c:.- 0
Ul en C\l
ctl<1>_
..c:OUl
<{'O:::l
a... ~ g>
W:=<{
.
o
o
o
C\l
~
ctl
:::l
c:
ctl
,
to
Q) Ul
- 0
.e 0..
:; e
tna...
c:
<1> <1>
..c:~
-ctlctl
.~ -;;; en
E.o ctl
~32~
.0 :::l 'e:
000
c.. iii .@
ctl<1>Ol
<1> Cti,!:
~ () ~ 0
o .'0
,; 2 ~ ~
.- ctl >
~~o ai
~ <1>:2 .g
'e: ~ ~ 'e:
g't: ctl 'E
u: ~.8 ~
;::
<1>
U
c:
.!!l
0.
E
o
U
,!:
.!Q
.
c:
ctl
.!Q
Ul
;S
iii
-5
en
E
.:
'E
o
U
~
<1>
'5
~
C/)
<{
Z
c:
ctl
'0
c:
ctl;'0
<1>
..c:
.!Q
Li
ctl
iii
<1>
c:
<1>
<1>
.0
Ul
ctl .
..c:-I
-I()
o,~
E <1>
"<t~
00.
-Ie
()o..
~~
u
o
q
c(,
::;;
!::
en
w
--'
co
<
a:
w
:>
:J
w
o
z
:'S
c...
a:
w
.....
en
<
::;;
'"
....
on
'"
on
rii
....
IX)
'"
;!
~
en
w
--'
u::
--'
--'
~
on
'"
on
0..:
.
~
to
c:
~
Q)
'0
.t:
o
:s
u:
;;:
UJ
:>
UJ
a:
UJ
U
Z
<(
.~
'. >-
a:
o
~
::J
Cl
UJ
a:
::;:
UJ
f-
en
>-
en
a:
UJ
~
.
.
..
en
c
o
~
"5
C>
Q)
a:
~
:s:
Cl
CI)
'0
en
::J
Ci'i
Ci5
'0
c
CO
C'\I~
w~
~E
~~
C
:::l
<(
c
o
-
U
III
Co
.E
.rn
C\J ,-
C\J.s
~E
Co
o ....
=-0.....
III III '0
.... a: Ol
.12"-0
OlOOl
-0.
,!:; a. x
OOlOl
-om
cx-
o Ol 1il
Erno.
~~.~
'500
C" ;j .~
Ol C III
~ .2 E Q)
='00-
~~z2
.
III
.;::
Ol
-
.;::
o
>.
.s::.
- '5 3:
Eoo
,~o c
c Ol 0
co.s::. ,-
~~~
co rn.-
....-
C\JOlrn
C\J-;j
1+"'"0_
E'E Ol
;j Ol .2:
'CcOl
III 0-
a:-rn
o ;j
tci-g,E
C\J'O<(
~co..
ElllW
;j Ol ....
'Coo
lll'-O
a:to
III 0
itj 0. C\J
III III ....
.s::.'Q)Ol
0.0.0
;j '0 E .
rncOlrn
mill 1)2
~uiZOl
=OlrnE
g :2 'Qi ~
Ctclll
o III = 0.
'C 0. '0 Ol
III III III rn
.... .s::. Ol Ol
.... 0. 'O.s::.
0___
-1ll1ll0l
rnrnrnc
-l rn 0 ,-
() 0 0. a;
0:::.... 0_
0<::: Ol.... ;j
rn 0.0l
Ol '0 '0 Ol
"C2Q):to-
.;; ~ Cii '0
e:c'EC
a.. III 0 ,~
.
c
o
:;::
III
'3
Cl
Ol
a:
o
o
o
C\J
Cii
.0
E
UI Ol
Ol 1)
:Ez
U
::s tii
C rn
o 0
:c 0.
III 0
a: a:
UI
.:E
c-
o E
~e
a:-
_'0
02
g>~
'i:: ~
.8Ol
'c rn
0-
E 1il
Ol o.E
....
'5 '0
~z
~N Q)
~gj2
.
rn
<(d
:>.~
'OOl
;j-
- .0
rn,-
.... rn
Ol rn
.s::.0
to..
;j .
_ '0
OlOl
C rn
,- 0
'00.
co
Ol ....
0.0.
- UI
Ol'-
-en
2<(
rnz
~Ol
'-.s::. .
0->'
;j >. '0
c.o;j
o -
._ '0 rn
'OOlrn
co -.-
a:o.s::.
;j-
~-go
-om
EU-S
oOlrn
.... .0 Ol
-0....
'O_Ol
Ol >..s::.
>'0-
0;j0l
E-c
Olrn:;:;
....-0
c c Ol
OlOl;;:::
OlEOl
.om....
rnrn'O
-OlOl
.u rn rn
.s::.rno
C\Jlllo.
C\J..l<:0
C\J.~ C.
C:~Q)
00.0
'0'0-
III III =
a:....3:
.
o
o
o
0>C\J
O>(jj
0> ;j
Ol
rn ;j
;j<(
Ol
;j C
<( ,2
_a;
III Ol
C ~ 'S
o 0. E
"tl 0 0
III .... ....
a: 0..0..
~
c::i
::::>
<(
'0
III
0.
,~
'~
a;
.s
rn
c
o
~
'S
Ol
Ol
....
U
o
q
~
~
en
UJ
--'
lD
<(
a:
UJ
>
:::;
UJ
Cl
z
:5
"-
a:
UJ
f-
en
<(
::;:
'"
....
U'l
'"
U'l
Iii
....
00
""
..,.
Ol
a;
o
'C
,!:;
rn
3:
e
'0
Ol
'0
III
.s::.
en
~
en
UJ
--'
u:::
--'
--'
::5
~
U'l
ftl
0.:
..
;:
w
:>
w
0:
W
U
Z
<(
.~
>-
0:
o
~
::J
Cl
w
0:
::;;
w
I-
Cf)
>-
Cf)
0:
w
!;;:
;:
.
.
~
Cf)
C
o
~
'S
0>
Q)
a::
~
o
en
15
Cf)
::J
co
U5
'0
c
a:l
N2:'
W~
ffiE
~~
C
::l
<
c
o
-
U
III
C.
~
III
.;:
Gl
-
.;:
o
Q)
'S I::
a: 0
(3 >.:1Q
:J 0 .2:
'01::0
o Q) I::
CiC>o
>. <( +=
ro I:: 0
'E ,Q .8
ctS (3 e
(3 Q) 0-
meca
CD..E
'00 - Q)
cO.l!lECIl
O~I::I::'O
:; I:: Q)E 0 '(3
_ III ,= III
::;'(31::>0
C1Q)OI::E
Q) C '5 W Q)
a: '00 I:: ,!!l [6
oW2'o
II 0 g]1
a::)C)1I
~ II II LO
D~5:~
OWWI
Q)
'S
a:
'E
Q)
E
Iii
Q)
.=
(j;
Iii
s:
Q)
o
III
"t:
:J
CJ)
'0
Q)
o
I::
III
..r:::
I::
W
E
.~
'E
Iii
o Q)
0> CIl 'S
Q) Q) a:
Q) ~6; g~ 11l'E
'S Q)Q)= ,Q!s oQ)
a: 0>-1:: OI::'-ECIl
.l!l'E11l CJ)~I1lE-Q)
.~ CJ) III ,I::E- 0:C a: ~ m I::
-;;; E ,!:; >.:.c ~ 0 .= III
(3.u....EI1l E!::;....O -5
~ 0 Q) III 'E ~ Q) ~ Q) 'c (j; Q)
(5'EI-'EO 'OoQ)El1lliiE
o Q) 0> 0 0 .... III ';:: ~ 0>.... > Q)
1::13 I:: 0 E ~oQj lil'o> Iii
o ,0_ .3 E :J E <( E 5 0 Q)o ..r:::
- :JE liio'u'- E
';;j I:: II E 'x ~ I:: Q) ~ Qj ~ -;;;
E III a: ,_ III O>o..r:::..:.::-5:J'u
0.... 2'1- x E=+= o.CIl I:: Q
o > III '-E III Q) ,- >. CJ) ~
c.s~EII ZI::a:CIlIlI1
III1WIIC)III1I1I1I1a:~
a:o,.........J.....J:::::!CJ):)O-OI-I
gQ~~~E~~~g~~
~
u
o
q
'0
I::
:J
o
0.-
E ~
0-
o 0.
o 'E
.- Q)
~ E
0>-
.... III
o Q)
....
Q) -
== '- - Q)
III _
- III
~ :i:
II II
00-
01-
>s:
N
::;;
!:::
Cf)
w
-'
<Xl
<(
0:
w
>
~
w
'"
z
:5
0-
0:
w
I-
Cf)
<(
::;;
N
....
'"
N
'"
r6
....
lX)
M
:;!:
~
Cf)
w
-'
u::
-'
-'
~
....
'"
N
'"
a.:
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
filtration, with the remainder achieved through chemical disinfection. Removal/inactivation
credit for chemical disinfectants is based on contact time (CT), which equals the free disinfectant
residual concentration (in mg/L) times the disinfectant contact time (in minutes).
Impact to AUD. The Highland Avenue plant must be capable of providing a minimum of 2.5
log removal of cyst-sized particles through chemical treatment and filtration. The disinfection
system must be designed to provide a minimum of 0.5-10g inactivation of Giardia. Utilities are
still required to meet the requirements of the SWTR. The newly promulgated Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) is intended to build upon the SWTR by requiring
lower filter effluent turbidities and to ensure adequate public health protection against
Cryptosporidium, which was not addressed in the SWTR.
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The IESWTR was promulgated in December 1998. This rule builds upon the provisions of the
SWTR, and provides improved public health protection against Cryptosporidium, as well as
addressing risk trade-offs with disinfectant by-products (DBPs). Utilities are required to comply
with the SWTR, as well as the IESWTR. The compliance deadline for most requirements is
December 16, 200l.
The IESWTR amends the existing SWTR to include an MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium, a
2-log Cryptosporidium removal requirement for filtration systems, more stringent filter effluent
turbidity requirements, disinfection benchmarking provisions, and requirements for sanitary
surveys.
Systems that use conventional treatment or direct filtration are assumed to meet the 2-log
Cryptosporidium removal requirement if they comply with the IESWTR turbidity requirements
and the existing provisions of the SWTR.
A system's combined filter effluent turbidity is required to be less than 0.3 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU) in at least 95 percent of samples taken each month, at no time exceeding 1
NTU. Utilities must also conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter in
the plant. A report must be filed monthly if any individual filter exceeds 1.0 NTU for two
consecutive measurements made 15 minutes apart, or if an individual filter exceeds 0.5 NTU
after the first 4 hours of a filter run. Repeated violations of these turbidity requirements may
result in a performance evaluation of the filter by the State or a third party.
Systems that have running annual average total trihalomethane (TTHM) or haloacetric acids
(HAA5) concentrations greater than 80 percent of the MCLs for those compounds (64
micrograms per liter [/lg/L] TTHMs or 48 /lg/L HAA5) are required to produce a disinfection
profile. This requirement is intended to ensure that disinfection is not compromised by changes
implemented to control DBPs. The disinfection profile is developed by compiling daily Giardia
lamblia log inactivations over a 12-month period. For utilities using ozone or chloramines, daily
virus log inactivations must also be compiled. Systems required to conduct disinfection profiles
are required to consult with the State if significant changes in disinfection practice are proposed.
Disinfection profiles, if required, must begin in March 1999 and must be completed before
March 2001.
Sanitary surveys, conducted by the State, are also required under the IESWTR. The IESWTR
will be replaced by a long-term surface water treatment rule (LTSWTR). A Stage 1 LTSWTR is
expected by November 2000, followed by a Stage 2 LTSWTR in early 2002.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAMDELlVERABLES\TM2.1.DOC
14
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Impact to AUD: AUD is already meeting the filter effluent turbidity standards and does not exceed the
threshold HAA or THM values to require disinfection profiling (see Table 6). Current practice is to
backwash the filter once the effluent turbidity reaches 0.1 NTU. However, increased filter effluent
turbidity monitoring and reporting will be required. In addition, disinfection profiling may be required if
THM and HAA values increase in the future.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Stage I of the D /DBP Rule was finalized in December 1998 and a brief summary is provided in
Table 3. This rule establishes MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHMs and 0.060 mg/L for the haloacetic
acids known as HAA5. The MCL for bromate is 0.010 mg/L. Compliance for these DBPs is
based on an annual average. The MCL for chlorite is set at 1.0 mg/L, and compliance is based
on a monthly average. Large surface water systems (greater than 10,000 customers) must
comply with the D /DBP Rule by December 2001. Smaller systems and ground water systems
have until December 2003. An extension of up to 36 months can be allowed beyond the
compliance dates if the utility has construction underway of needed capital improvements to
bring the water into compliance.
TABLE 3
Summary of D/DBP Rule Limits
Final Stage 1 MCLs
Final Stage 1 Maximum Residual
Disinfectant Levels
Proposed Stage 2 MCLs
TTHMs: 40 ~g/L
HAA5: 30 ~g/L
TTHMs: 80 ~g/L
HAA5: 60 ~g/L
Bromate: 1 0 ~g/L
Chlorite: 1.0 mglL
CI2 =
CI02 =
DIDBP = Disinfectant/Disinfectant Byproduct
HAA5 = haloacetric acids
MCL = maximum contaminant level
mg/L = milligrams per liter
TTHMs = total trihale methanes
~g/L - micrograms per liter
Free Chlorine: 4.0 mglL as CI2
Chloramine: 4.0 mg/L as CI2
Chlorine Dioxide: 0.8 mglL as CI02
The D/DBP rule also contains maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs). Chlorine and
chloramine are limited to 4.0 mg/L as Ch, based on annual averages collected from
bacteriological sample sites in the utility system. Chlorine dioxide is limited to 0.8 mg/L as
Cl02, based on daily samples discharged at the water treatment plant (WTP).
In addition to the specific DBPs discussed above, the D /DBP rule attempts to reduce general
DBP formation by requiring specific levels of total organic carbon (TOe) removal via
coagulation (termed enhanced coagulation). Enhanced coagulation is required for all
conventional surface water treatment plants to achieve the TOC percentages listed in Table 4
unless anyone of the sets of criteria listed below is met:
· Source water TOC is < 2.0 mg/L or specific ultraviolet absorbance (SUVA) < 2.0 L/mg-m; or
P:\152572\All FilES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABlES\TM2-1.DOC
15
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
· Treated water TOC, prior to the point of continuous disinfection, is <2 mg/L or SUVA
< 2.0 L/mg-m; or
· Source water TOC is < 4 mg/L, alkalinity is > 60 mg/L as CaCOy and finished water
TTHM/HAA5 levels are no more than 40 Ilg/L/30 Ilg/L, respectively; or
· Finished water TTHM/HAA5Ievels are no more than 40/30 Ilg/L, respectively, and system
uses only chlorine for disinfection.
If any of these exceptions are exceeded, the utility must practice enhanced coagulation and
achieve TOC removals indicated in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Required TOC Removal Efficiencies by Enhanced Coagulation
Influent Alkalinity (mg/L as CaC03)
Source Water TOC (mg/L) o to 60 > 60 to 120 > 120
o to 2.0 No Action No Action No Action
>2.0 to 4.0 35.0% 25.0% 15.0%
>4.0 to 8.0 45.0% 35.0% 25.0%
>8.0 50.0% 40.0% 30.0%
Impact to AUD: The average raw water TOe value for the Highland Avenue WTP is _ mg/L. The
average finished water TOe value is _ mg/L. This equates to a _ percent reduction in TOe at the
Highland Avenue WTP. Table 5 shows TTHM and HAAS concentrations in the finished water for
AUD's Highland Avenue plant averaged over the time period September 1997 to December 1998.
TABLE 5
TTHM, HAAS, and TOC Concentrations at AUD's Highland Avenue WTP
Concentration
Finished Water Concentrations (llg/L)
Highland Avenue WTP
HAA5
48.1
36.9
2.2
TOC
29.0
23.6
1.8
Minimum
Maximum
Average
llglL = micrograms per liter
TOC = Total Organic Carbon
CaC03 =
TTHM
12.6
12.2
1.4
As stated above, the annual averages of TTHM and HAA5 under Stage I of the D /DBP Rille
must be 80 J,tg/L and 60 J,tg/L, respectively. Based on the average values from the above table, the
finished water from the Highland Avenue plant meets the Stage I requirements. However, the exceptions
listed above for avoiding enhanced coagulation are not met. Therefore, AUD must practice enhanced
. coagulation and achieve a 35 percent TOe reduction. As shown by the TOe data, th~ AUD's existing
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLES\TM2.1,DOC
16
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
plant is presently practicing enhanced coagulation by achieving _ percent TOe removal, and no
enhancements or modifications are required. The monitoring requirements for DBPs will be as follows:
· TTHM and HAA5 data collected quarterly
· Four samples collected per quarter from areas influenced by each WTP
· 25 percent of samples must be collected from locations that reflect maximum residence time
in distribution system
Total Coliform Rule
The Total Coliform Rule was promulgated on June 29,1989. Total coliforms include both fecal
coliforms and E. coli. The MCLG for total coliforms has been set at zero. Compliance with the
MCL is based on the presence or absence of total coliforms in a sample, rather than on an
estimate of coliform density as was previously regulated. The MCL for systems analyzing at
least 40 samples per month is that no more than 5.0 percent of the monthly samples may have a
positive total coliform result.
Monthly monitoring requirements are based on the population served. A system must collect a
set of repeat samples for each positive total coliform result and have it analyzed for total
coliforms. Table 6 gives the total coliform sampling requirements according to population
served.
TABLE 6
Total Coliform Sampling Requirements
Minimum No. of Routine
Population Served Samples Per Month
41,001 to 50,000 50
50,001 to 59,000 60
59,001 to 70,000 70
70,001 to 83,000 80
83,001 to 96,000 90
96,001 to 130,000 100
130,001 to 220,000 120
220,001 to 320,000 150
Impact to AUD: Although the AUD has always been in compliance with the total coliform rule, it will
need to continue its current practices of maintaining the distribution system by providing an adequate
disinfectant residual and flushing low flow areas frequently. The AUD should also continue collecting
samples and monitoring for potential signs of microbiological activity or corrosion in all areas of the
distribution system, especially dead-ends and other areas where water has a greater potential to become
stagnant.
Lead and Copper Rule
On June 7, 1991, the EP A published MCLGs and national primary drinking water regulations
for lead and copper. This regulation required lead and copper to be monitored at consumers'
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2-1.DOC
17
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
taps every 6 months. One monitoring period is equivalent to 6 months, and two monitoring
periods are required per calendar year (i.e., January to June and July to December).
Water samples at the customer's tap are required to be taken at high-risk locations, which are
defined as homes with:
· Lead solder installed after 1982
· Lead service lines
· Lead interior piping
In order for a water system to comply with the Lead and Copper Rule, the samples at the
customer's tap must not exceed the following action levels:
· Lead - A concentration of 0.015 mg/L detected in the 90th percentile of all samples
· Copper - A concentration of 1.3 mg/L detected in the 90th percentile of all samples
Impact to AUD: The AUD currently implements a corrosion control program by feeding a phosphate
based corrosion inhibitor (i.e., ) to produce a phosphate residual of _ mg/L. The AUD
has continuously been in compliance with the lead and copper action levels. If future testing shows
results higher than the prescribed action levels, then the requirement of lead and copper compliance would
be mandated.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The final MCLGs, MCLs, and monitoring requirements for several volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were promulgated on June 19, 1987. Several additional VOCs appear on the list of 83
contaminants for which EP A is required to establish MCLGs and MCLs. For those VOCs that
are not regulated, systems are still required to monitor for them.
Table 7 gives the MCLGs and MCLs for regulated VOCs. EP A has determined that packed
tower aeration (PTA) and granular activated carbon (GAC) are best available technologies
(BATs) for VOCs. Initially, all systems must monitor each source at least once within four
years. Repeat monitoring is at the State's discretion.
TABLE 7
VOCs: Final MCLGs and MCLs (in mg/L)
Chemical Final MCLG
Benzene 0
Carbon Tetrachloride 0
1,2-Dichloroethane 0
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007
para-Dichlorobenzene 0.075
1.1,1- Trichloroethane 0.20
T rich loroethylene 0
Vinyl Chloride 0
Final Federal MCL Final GA MCL
0.005 0.005
0.005 0.005
0.005 0.005
0.007 0.007
0.075 0.075
0.20 0.20
0.005 0.005
0.002 0.002
Notes:
MCL = maximum contaminant level
MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal
P:\1525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2.1,DOC
18
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
mglL = milligram per Liter
Impact to AUD: It is not anticipated that VOCs will have an impact at AUD. VOCs do not typically
occur in surface waters unless the intake is immediately downstream of some source of contamination.
For the AUD, continued watershed protection should be strengthened to prevent industrial or commercial
users of VOCs to be located in watershed.
Synthetic Organic and Inorganic Chemicals
The initial list of 83 contaminants that the EP A is required to regulate contains many synthetic
organic chemicals (SOCs) and inorganic chemicals (IOCs). EP A identifies the regulation of
groups of SOCs and IOCs by phases. The Phase II Rule was promulgated in two notices
published on January 30, 1991 and July 1, 1991. The Phase V Rule was promulgated on
July 17, 1992. The Phase VIb Rule was proposed in February 1995.
Tables 8 and 9 provide final MCLGs and MCLs for the Phase II and Phase V Rules, respectively.
These final rules also include monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements for
the SOCs. Monitoring requirements are quarterly for 1 year for VOCs and quarterly once every
3 years for pesticides. As part of the Phase II rule, EP A established requirements for monitoring
of unregulated contaminants. Monitoring of the 30 contaminants is required unless a
vulnerability assessment determines the system is not vulnerable.
Impact on AUD: It is anticipated that the Phase II and Phase V synthetic organic and inorganic
regulations will not have a significant impact at the AUD. These contaminants do not occur at
concentrations of concern in most surface waters that are not subject to contamination. Some monitoring
will be required. As noted previously, strict watershed protection is recommended to prevent these
contaminants from being introduced into the watershed and to maintain the quality of AUD's source
water.
Arsenic
The EPA was under a court-ordered deadline to propose arsenic regulations by November 1992.
The EP A requested an extension of this deadline pending further studies of occurrence and
health effects. The proposed arsenic regulation is anticipated by January 2000 as a result of the
1996 SDW AA. It is expected that a new MCL will be between 0.5 to 20 Ilg/L, although EP A
may establish a "first step" MCL of 10 to 20 Ilg/L with further adjustments to be made as new
research becomes available.
Impact to AUD: It is not anticipated that the arsenic regulations will have an impact on AUD. Arsenic
is not expected to occur in the surface water at concentrations of concern.
Sulfate
The Sulfate Rule was originally proposed on December 20,1994. The rule includes both an
MCLG and MCL equal to 500 mg/L. Sulfate's health effect (diarrhea) is acute, relatively
short-term, and affects only a small portion of the population. Therefore, the EP A proposed
two alternative approaches for regulation. The first option defines a combination of public
education, public notification, and provision of alternative water for targeted populations. The
second option is central treatment utilizing best available technology (ion exchange, reverse
osmosis, and electrodialysis). As a result of the 1996 SDW AA, a decision on whether or not to
regulate sulfate will be made by August 2001. If the decision is to regulate, the proposal
deadline is August 2003.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2-1,DOC
19
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
. TABLE 8
Final MCLGs and MCLs for Phase II Compounds (in mg/L unless stated otherwise)
Contaminant MCLG Federal MCL GA MCL
Volatile Organics
o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.6 0.6
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 0.07 0.07
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 0.1 0.1
1,2,-Dichloropropane 0 0.005 0.005
Ethylbenzene 0.7 0.7 0.7
Monochlorobenzene 0.1 0.1 0.1
Styrene 0.1 0.1 0.1
Tetrachloroethylene 0 0.005 0.005
Toluene 1 1 1
Xylenes (Total) 10 10 10
Pesticides/PCBs
Alachlor 0 0.002 0.002
Aldicarb 0.001 0.003a Deferred
Aldicarb sulfone 0.001 0.002a Deferred
Aldicarb sulfoxide 0.001 0.004a Deferred
Atrazine 0.003 0.003 0.003
. Carbofuran 0.04 0.04 0.04
Chlordane 0 0.002 0.002
2,4-D 0.07 0.07 0.07
Dibromochloropropane 0 0.0002 0.0002
Ethylene dibromide 0 0.00005 0.00005
Heptachlor 0 0.0004 0.0004
Heptachlor epoxide 0 0.0002 0.0002
Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
Methoxychlor 0.04 0.04 0.04
PCBs 0 0.0005 0.0005
Pentachlorophenol 0 0.001 0.001
Toxaphene 0 0.005 0.003
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 0.05 0.05
Treatment Techniques
Acrylamide 0 0.005% dosed at 1 mglL 0.005% dosed at 1 mglL
Epichlorohydrin 0 0.01 % dosed at 20 mglL 0.01 % dosed at 20 mg/L
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-1,DQC
20
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
Final MCLGs and MCLs for Phase II Compounds (in mg/L unless stated otherwise)
Contaminant
MCLG
Federal MCL
GA MCL
Inorganic Chemicals
Asbestos 7 MFLb 7 MFLb 0.05 mglL
Barium 2 2 2
Cadmium 0.005 0.005 0.005
Chromium 0.1 0.1 0.1
Mercury 0.002 0.002 0.002
Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 10 10 10
Nitrite 1 1 1
Total Nitrate/Nitrite 10 10 10
Selenium 0.05 0.05 0.05
almplementation of MCL for Aldicarb and its derivatives has been stayed by EPA pending consideration of a
petition by the manufacturer. EPA has completed a revised risk assessment and new health advisories for
reproposal along with the rescheduling required by the 1996 SDW M.
bMFL = million fibers (longer than 10 J.lm) per liter
MCL = maximum contaminant level
MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal
PCBs =
mglL = micrograms per Liter
.
TABLE 9
Final MCLGs and MCLs for Phase V Compounds (in mg/L)
Contaminant MCLG Federal MCL GA MCL
Pesticides
Dalapon 0.2 0.2 0.2
Dinoseb 0.007 0.007 0.007
Diquat 0.02 0.02 0.02
Endothall 0.1 0.1 0.1
Endrin 0.002 0.002 0.002
Glyphosate 0.7 0.7 0.7
Oxamyl (vydate) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Picloram 0.5 0.5 0.5
Simazine 0.004 0.004 0.004
Volatile Organic Compounds
Dichloromethane 0 0.005 0.005
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 0.07 0.07
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.003 0.005 0.005
Other Organic Contaminants
Benzo(a)pyrene 0 0.0002 0.0002
Di( ethylhexyl)adipate 0.5 0.5 0.5
Di (ethylhexyl)phthalate 0 0.006 0.006
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2-1,DQC
21
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
.
TABLE 9
Final MCLGs and MCLs for Phase V Compounds (in mg/L)
Contaminant
MCLG
o
0.05
o
Federal MCL GA MCL
0.001 0.001
0.05 0.05
5 x 10-8 3 X 10-8
0.006 0.006
0.001 0.004
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.002 0.002
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Inorganic Chemicals
Antimony
Beryllium
Cyanide
Nickel
Thallium
MCL = maximum contaminant level
MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal
mglL = microgram per liter
0.006
o
0.2
0.1
0.0005
.
EP A is working to simplify some of the monitoring requirements of the IESWTR for the
L T1ESWTR while keeping the same basic standards. The Filter Backwash Rule has become a
major concern, as there are not many data on which to base this regulation, with the potential
for significant compliance costs even for the first step of equalization prior to recycling any filter
backwash water. EPA is now in the process of gathering information to help support its final
rulemaking decisions.
Impact to AUD: The AUD currently discharge filter backwash water directly to Turknett Pond. No
plans are envisioned at this time to alter this practice. Therefore, this rule should not impact AUD's
operations.
Risk Management Plans (RMPs)
The EP A has set a deadline of June 21, 1999 for all utilities that store hazardous chemicals,
including chlorine gas, above a specified threshold limit to prepare a risk management plan.
The regulation outlines requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of
catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. The threshold level
for chlorine is 2,500 pounds. The RMP must contain extensive evaluations of buildings and
equipment to protect the safety of workers around chlorine facilities and to develop an
emergency response plan if a leak occurs. Key information developed will be submitted to the
EP A and posted on the internet for public access.
Impact to AUD: The AUD has prepared an RMP for the Highland Avenue WTP. Any future
improvements to the chlorine facilities should be designed with the appropriate safeguards for minimizing
the impact of a chlorine gas release, which may include enclosing the chlorine storage facility and
providing a chlorine scrubber or possibly switching from chlorine gas to a hypochlorite solution. In
addition, the AUD is improving the existing safety program that provides guidance to operators on
correct chlorine operations and maintenance procedures and the emergency response plan to be used if
there is a leak.
.
Residuals Management
The State of Georgia currently disallows the direct discharge of water treatment residuals to a
receiving stream. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-1.DOC
22
.
.
.
WATER SYSTEM REGULATORY COMPLIANCE REVIEW
required which specifies an acceptable pH and total suspended solids concentration for the
discharge of decant water produced from the sludge. As a result of this discharge permit, it is
necessary for utilities to develop alternative means of disposing water treatment residuals, such
as transfer to landfills, land application, soil amendment, or other applications.
The AUD currently discharges sludge from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant to Turknett
Pond, and the settled water from this holding pond discharges to ?_' No other treatment for
these sludges is provided.
Impact to AUD: A EPD has stated that, as long as the NPDES permit limitations are being met, AUD
may continue to discharge sludge to Turknett Pond (along with filter backwash water). The pond is
currently scheduled for dredging. Assuming that this practice continues to provide acceptable discharge
to ----' no additional treatment of the water plant sludges are required.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM2-1,OQC
23
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2.2
CH2MHILL
Wastewater Treatment Regulatory Review
DATE:
January 2000
Contents
.
Introduction .... ........ ........ ........ .......... ....... ..... ..... ...... ............ ......... .......... ... ..... ................ ....... ........1
Watershed Management.................. .................... ......................... ...... ..... ...... ................. ....... ......1
TMDL Development......................... ....... ................... ........ ......... ............. ........ ............. ....... ........ 2
NPDES Permitting and Nutrient Management ... .......... ........ ............. ........ ......... ................. .... 2
Onsite Septage Systems ....... ... ... ............ ....... ..... ........ .......... .... ............... ........ ..... ................ ......... 3
Regionalism....................................................................................................................................4
Residuals Management and 503 Regulations ...........................................................................5
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan............................................................ 5
Storm water Management Plans ......... ....... ............... ............... ............ ........ ..... ..................... .....6
Air Permitting................... .......................... ..... ............ .............................. .......... ..... ........... .......... 6
Introduction
This technical memorandum (TM) reviews wastewater-related regulatory issues that
potentially affect the Augusta Utilities Department (AUD). Project staff will use this
information when contemplating system improvements and recommendations for capital
improvements.
AUD operates a public utility system serving Richmond County. Many of the activities of
AUD are influenced by regulatory requirements. This analysis has been prepared to
summarize wastewater environmental regulatory issues that may ultimately need to be
addressed as part of the utility system operation and management. This list cannot be
considered as exhaustive due to fact that regulatory purvey is often based on policies of
enforcement as opposed to definitive enumerated stipulations, so there may be regulatory
issues that may emerge as a result of changes in the regulatory agencies' perspectives on
applicability and enforcement.
.
Watershed Management
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) has formulated a policy to
mandate watershed assessments for non-point pollution sources and water supply
protection. Watershed assessments include both collecting new water quality information
and compiling existing data. This information is then used to evaluate predicted pollutant
loadings from various land use models. The goal is to formulate a management plan to
minimize pollution as the watershed develops. Since GAEPD does not have direct
authority over land use, the strategy has been to couple watershed management goals to
NPDES permits for total pollutant loading. In other words, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance conditions will be written to include both
regulatory compliance of wastewater treatment operations and watershed management
plan implementation benchmarks. In addition to the need for watershed planning for
P:\152572\All FilES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM2-2,DOC
JUNE 24, 1999
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REGULATORY REVIEW
.
wastewater utility expansion, there is also a need for watershed planning for water supply
source protection.
Currently, AUD is conducting a watershed assessment for the areas of the County in the
Ocmulgee River Basin and is initiating an assessment for the areas of the County in the Flint
River Basin.
Impact to AUD: The next cycle ofNPDES permit renewal will likely have watershed management
implementation benchmarks as conditions. As part of the Watershed Management Plan, some best
management practice (BMP) engineered solutions will be constructed; however the plan may also
include controlling development densities and modifying development ordinances. It will be
necessary for the AUD to partner with the local governments to modify development plans and
ordinances to be consistent with the Watershed Management Plan, and to agree to fund BMP
improvements.
.
TMDL Development
The Clean Water Act (CW A) provides for a trigger mechanism for requiring development
of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) when a waterbody does not meet water quality
standards. When setting a TMDL, the regulatory agency must consider the uses of the
waterbody, water quality standards, various pollutant sources, and the ability of the
waterbody to assimilate pollutants. Even though the trigger mechanism existed, the
regulatory agencies across the country chose not to implement the development of TMDLs
until a series of citizen lawsuits resulted in court rulings that TMDLs should be prepared for
streams not in compliance with water quality standards. Georgia is one of several states
with court mandated TMDL deadlines.
Impact to AUD: The Flint River is listed as a stream segment that is not supporting designated
uses and will need to have TMDLs and an action plan prepared to address the non-compliance.
Although AUD does not currently discharge wastewater to the Flint River basin, the fact that the
river does not meet water quality standards may preclude any consideration for a stream discharge.
The future action plan may also compel the County and AUD to invest in additional sewerage
improvements to eliminate on-site septage systems (where feasible) and non-point sources of
pollution.
.
NPDES Permitting and Nutrient Management
The NPDES is a federal program for regulating the discharge of pollutants to the waters of
the United States. In Georgia, the GAEPD has been delegated the authority to administer
the program. The NPDES permitting system in Georgia will most probably experience
differences in the administration and enforcement of the program and in the nature of the
permit compliance conditions.
The administrative and enforcement difference in the future is that GAEPD has adopted a
"zero tolerance" policy for permit violations. Zero tolerance means that when permit
violations occur, GAEPD will impose penalties or issue Consent Orders specifying
responses that the permittee would need to accomplish. Therefore, maintaining permit
conditions will become increasingly important. The AUD facilities were not designed with
a "zero tolerance" perspective, and therefore do not have the level of redundancy that
would be included in a facility designed today. Although operational excursions and
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLEs\TM2-2,DOC
2 JUNE 24, 1999
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REGULATORY REVIEW
.
facility bypasses are expected to be infrequent, it will be an operational burden to expect
100 percent compliance without enhanced facility upgrades.
Permit compliance conditions will relate to two items. One will be a watershed-related
issue, as the GAEPD has announced its intention to incorporate benchmark achievements
into the watershed management plan with regard to the use of treatment capacity. The
other involves coupling water source permits for potable water to wastewater discharges
for a total water consumptive retainage.
The first item is that as part of the GAEPD permitting process, the Watershed Management
Plan will have quantifiable implementation benchmarks such as numbers of acres of
protected property per million gallons of water treated, or detention basins cleaned, or
some other clearly defined objective. Then, the NPDES conditions will be coupled to the
watershed management plan implementation benchmarks. As an example, the treatment
capacity that can be used will be dependent on the quantifiable implementation of the
Watershed Management Plan.
The second issue is consumptive use of water. Currently, water source permits allow
withdrawal of water, while NPDES and Land Application System (LAS) wastewater
permits cover the release of water. River basin water resources management presumes
water supply withdrawal and release of wastewaters. However, there is some water lost by
a community through consumptive uses for landscape irrigation, septic tank usage, and
other uses that have not been accounted for in traditional plans. As a result of interstate
discussions on water resources, GAEPD has made the decision to mandate maximum water
consumption retention by a community to minimize the amount of water lost to the
resource. The actual form that the permits will take has not been established, but GAEPD
expects to be working on the implementation strategy and policy in the next year.
Impact to AUD: The AUD's infrastructure should be evaluated for modifications that would
prevent overflows and bypasses, retain pollutants, or upgrade treatment capabilities to enhance the
ability to achieve 100 percent compliance with permit conditions. Also, permit conditions may
change to restrict the consumptive retention of water, which may result in the need to investigate the
elimination of onsite septage systems where feasible, and to revise to the water pricing structure to
discourage landscape irrigation. There will also need to be the need for the AUD to better coordinate
with the County development ordinances and controls to be consistent with the eventual Watershed
Management Plan implementation. This may potentially result in the ability of the AUD to have
greater influence over zoning and planning.
.
.
Onsite Septage Systems
Although other configurations exist, onsite septage systems predominantly consist of a
septic tank and a leach (or drain) field for distribution. The design of septage systems is
regulated by the Georgia Department of Health (Georgia Code Chapter 290-5-26), while the
minimum lot requirement and local ordinance on required connection to a central sewerage
collection system is established by the local jurisdiction. Even though the use of septage
systems affects water quality, the GAEPD has no regulatory role in the use or design of
septage systems.
Soil surveys have found that approximately two-thirds of all soil varieties in Georgia are
unfavorable in some measure for a conventional septic tank-drain field configuration. Yet,
P:\152572\ALl FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM2-2,DOC
3 JUNE 24, 1999
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REGULATORY REVIEW
.
the locations that cannot obtain permits for installation of septage systems are significantly
smaller than suggested by soil scientist ratings of favorable soil varieties. With the
increasing emphasis on minimizing water consumption and water quality issues in
watershed management, it will be necessary to evaluate policies related to septage systems.
This can include working with the Georgia Department of Health in establishing policies to
encourage alternate onsite septage systems such as mound systems in place of leach fields,
consideration of pressure or vacuum sewer systems for lower density collection systems,
and other alternative approaches to enhanced management of onsite systems. One
consideration may be for the AUD to assume the responsibility for maintenance of on-site
systems with a monthly sewerage fee assessed to the property owner.
Impact to AUD: Onsite septage systems will require increased controls to achieve watershed
management plan objectives, and the AUD may need to prepare for an expanded role in the future.
Regionalism
Regionalism is the set of forces that will cause the Clean Water Act Amendments (CW AA)
to work outside the bounds of its traditional service area. There are several developments
related to regionalism that may influence how AUD conducts business or delivers services.
These can be classified as being either interstate, State of Georgia, or metropolitan Atlanta in
orientation.
.
On an interstate level, the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in cooperation with the
U.s. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), have agreed to enter into a water compact for shared
water resource allocations. Although the terms of the compact are still in negotiation, they
will ultimately influence water resource management and regulatory permitting in the
region. One of the important issues is the previously mentioned GAEPD decision to couple
water source withdrawals to wastewater discharges in order to mandate a lower
consumptive water use by communities.
The State of Georgia has been increasing the requirements for governments and authorities
to cooperate in recent years, and the outlook is for this trend to continue. Certainly, all
governments have had to address interjurisdictional services in response to House Bill (HB)
489 and the Governor's Growth Strategies Commission. In the past, the State has mandated
compliance with the need to address interjurisdictional issues by withholding State money
and permitting, and this continues to be a powerful tool. It is anticipated that the Georgia
Legislature will possibly enact requirements for more regional management ,of water
resources and potentially for utility systems. Some preliminary discussions have suggested
that regional utility authorities, or river basin programs, could be implemented. This could
potentially have significant implications for AUD if it would need to operate under the
umbrella of a larger administrative entity, as has been discussed by some proposals. Other
proposals have been more limited, with the intent to have a more regional perspective in
the operation of the regulatory authority of the Georgia GAEPD, or in terms of better
interjurisdictional planning. The 1999 authorization of the Allatoona Lake Authority is an
example of a minimalist approach to regional cooperation, but it also signals that the
Georgia Legislature is willing to change the statutory authority and accountability.
Whatever the ultimate organization, it is likely to change the way AUD conducts business.
The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) has traditionally provided regional coordination
on utility management in the metropolitan Atlanta area. This has been more oriented
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLES\TM2-2,DOC
4 JUNE 24, 1999
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REGULATORY REVIEW
.
toward emergency services support, such as inter-jurisdictional water connections for
outages, or resource sharing such as maintenance or operational supports. ARC has also
provided coordinated planning with respect to regional water resources issues. New or
expanded facilities serving expanded inter-juri,sdictional areas is an emerging trend. This
may involve increasing quantities of wholesale water or sewerage sales.
Impact to AUD: AUD needs to track potential legislation changes in water resources management
and regional utility control.
.
Residuals Management and 503 Regulations
The u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) mandates that wastewater residuals must
be managed with respect to the 503 regulations. These regulations have required 503
permits since 1993, along with annual documentation of compliance with the regulatory
requirements. The 503 regulations identify different classes of sludges and mandate
minimum practices of treatment, handling, and disposal for each class of sludge.
[[delete???? do global searches on Clayton. Casey, Shoal, Northeast, etc. The final
composted sludge at the Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and the pelletized
sludge at W.B. Casey WRF are Class A sludges, while the Shoal Creek WRF produces a
Class B sludge.
The AUD has viewed the State-issued NPDES and LAS permits as 503 permits, and has
been submitting annual documentation on compliance to the GAEPD. However, actual
administration of the 503 program has been an EP A function with a separate application
procedure and documentation requirements. To be in compliance with the 503 regulations,
the AUD would need to have separate 503 permits for the Northeast, W.B. Casey, and Shoal
Creek WRFs issued by the EP A, and to submit to the EP A the annual self-monitoring
documentation demonstrating compliance with the 503 regulations. The annual report is to
be submitted to the EP A annually in February.
Impact to AUD: The AUD should verify that the proper permits have been acquired from the EP A,
and that compliance monitoring documentation has been submitted annually.
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
The EP A, through 40 CFR Part 112, mandates that a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) must be prepared for any facility or location where one of
several threshold oil-based material storage triggers are exceeded: any tank of 660-gallon
capacity or greater; 1,320-gallons total onsite storage; or a 20,000-gallon underground tank
of petroleum-based product. An SPCCP provides documentation on oil-based products
and specifies reporting and documentation of BMPs. The SPCCP must be updated every
three years, or sooner if a change in material handling practices occurs at the facility. AUD
does not have an SPCCP for any of its facilities.
Impact to AUD: It is likely that at least one operational center for the AUD exceeds a trigger for
preparing an SPCCP. It is advisable that AUD conduct a formal inspection of all system facilities
and document the tanks and quantities of oil-based products stored onsite. This review will provide
important legal protection if no SPCCP is required, or it would identify those locations that need an
SPCCP.
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLES\TM2-2,DOC
5 JUNE 24, 1999
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REGULATORY REVIEW
.
Storm Water Management Plans
As part of the NPDES Permit program, the EP A mandates that certain industrial activities
require obtaining an NPDES permit for storm water. Because wastewater treatment
facilities house chemicals, they must also obtain a storm water permit. Georgia GAEPD has
issued a general storm water permit that can be used by any location wishing to conform to
the permit conditions, as opposed to applying for a site-specific permit. An important
aspect of the permit requirements is that the applicant must prepare a Storm water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which identifies BMPs for that facility and the required
documentation of compliance. During the original round of storm water issuance, AUD
complied with the general conditions for its storm water permitting.
In 1998, the GAEPD issued a new general permit, GAROOOOOO, and mandated that any
entity with an intent to use that general permit would have to update its plans and conform
to the new requirements of the permit. To our knowledge, AUD has not updated the
original SWPPP to conform to the new permit requirements.
Impact to AUD: The AUD should update and modify all SWPPPs to conform to the additional
conditions in the 1998 storm water permit, and identify new locations which might be subject to a
storm water plan.
.
Air Permitting
The pelletizing facility air permit (issued in 1984) was valid for using sewage sludge or
wood chips firing an incinerator to provide the heat (via flue gas) for the pelletizing drum
dryers. The permit contains emission limits for particulate matter only and an operational
restriction on the incinerator. The 1984 permit also has a condition that whenever a
modification occurs to the source, written notification to the GAEPD is required. The
facility has made changes in the way it heats the dryers. Natural gas and fuel oil No.2 have
replaced sewage sludge and wood waste as the fuel for the dryers. Sludge pellets and
wood chips produce particulate matter as the emission pollutant of concern, whereas
natural gas and fuel oil produce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) as pollutants of concern. This change in fuel use has the effect of shifting the facility
from producing particulate matter, which is not a pollutant of concern in the Atlanta non-
attainment area, to NOx and VOC, which are pollutants of concern in the non-attainment
area. A Construction Permit and an Operating Permit modification should have been
acquired prior to this change; however, notification to the Georgia EPD was not given.
Therefore the facility is currently operating under a permit that is no longer valid. There
have been other modifications since 1984, and the facility is currently proposing to increase
system throughput by enhancements to the system and equipment upgrades to eliminate
process bottlenecks. All of these actions require permit notification, as does any
modification to the system.
The facility needs to update the Operating Permit. A Construction Permit application needs
to be prepared and submitted to the GAEPD Air Division for the proposed throughput
increase and this application can include all modifications that have occurred since 1984.
This will generate a new Operating Permit with new operating conditions and permit
limitations.
.
Impact to AUD: Because of the immediacy of the proposed throughput increase, AUD should
immediately update their current air Operating Permit for the W.B. Casey WRF. Approval needs to
P:\152572\ALl FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLEs\TM2-2,DOC
6 JUNE 24, 1999
WASTEWATER TREATMENT REGULATORY REVIEW
.
be obtained from the Georgia EPD Air Protection Branch before any construction can begin.
Updating the permit to incorporate past modifications and include the proposed throughput increase
will require an evaluation of the facility's emission sources both current and proposed, performing
air emission calculations, and preparing and submitting the Air Construction permit to the State.
There will probably be a 30-day public comment period before issuance of the final Construction
Permit.
At the current surface water intake location the Savannah River has a contributory area of
over 7,000 square miles, and Georgia EPD has identified at least 35 other water utilities that
draw surface water from that area. Although conducting a SWAP for the entire drainage
area is not feasible, AUD is prepared to lead a coordinated effort to complete a
comprehensive SWAP within the high priority area of our source watershed. AUD will be
looking for technical and financial assistance from the participating utilities, as well as the
Water Resources Branch.
.
As this planned SWAP is a regional effort, which includes numerous smaller water utilities
in Georgia and South Carolina, AUD requests financial support from your department to
ensure that the resulting study will meet the specific needs of each stakeholder. AUD is
currently researching the technical needs of such a project, as well as the regional
coordination and planning needs and would like to know the level of support we may be
able to receive from the State in this effort. With this information, AUD can finalize our
approach and solicit participation from the other water utilities. AUD will then propose
our approach to your department for review and comment.
Obviously, AUD has no enforcement powers for protection measures outside Augusta and
Richmond County and expects the State will be heavily involved in the next step in the
process - the Source Water Protection Program (SWPP). The specific needs of the SWPP
cannot be determined until the potential water quality threats are identified in the SWAP.
.
P:\ 152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANIDEUVERABLES\TM2-2,DOC
7 JUNE 24, 1999
.
.
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.1
CH2MHILL
Regional Water Business Opportunities
DATE:
July 26, 1999
Contents
Introduction ........ .......... ............... ............... ....... ....... .... ...... ....... ........................ ... .......... .... ....... .... 1
Surrounding Counties............... ........ ............................................. .............. ............. ........ ........... 2
Introduction
In addition to providing water and wastewater service within Richmond County, the
Augusta Utilities Department (AUD) may have an opportunity to sell wholesale water or
wastewater treatment to other counties in the growing Augusta-Aiken MSA. The utility
currently provides wastewater service to a small area of the rapidly-growing Columbia
County. This County also has a connection to AUD's water system for emergency use.
While projecting the amount of water and wastewater treatment that surrounding counties
might wish to purchase from the Department would be extremely difficult, the utility
should be aware of the level of new demand that the MSA could experience over the study
period.
Combined, the other four counties in the Augusta-Aiken MSA (Aiken and Edgefield
Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and McDuffie Counties in Georgia) had an
average annual growth in population of approximately 2.4 percent from 1980 to 1998. If this
high level of population growth were sustained through 2020, the population in those four
counties would increase from roughly 265,300 in 1998 to 421,000 in 2020. This increase of
approximately 155,700 persons would place significant demands on the existing water and
wastewater treatment plants in those counties. Assuming a per capita (residential and
commercial) water usage of 150 gpd 1, an additional 23.4 mgd of treated water would be
needed in the surrounding MSA counties. Any growth in industrial usage would further
increase this figure.
While there is a very close relationship between population growth and treated water
demands, the same cannot be said for wastewater service. A very significant factor in
determining the potential for AUD to sell wastewater treatment to surrounding counties
will be the desire for these local governments to shift from relying on septic tanks to using
wastewater treatment. It is expected that as concerns about groundwater quality increase,
there will be a growing interest in shifting away from septic tanks in favor of wastewater
treatment.
Since population density varies widely within the region, the analysis of water business
opportunities in the region should consider each area separately. In order to project the
1 This level was chosen because it is between the projected 2020 per capita residential and commercial consumption for the
Augusta Utilities Department.
P:\152572IALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-1.DOC
.
.
.
REGIONAL WATER BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
potential growth for any specific adjacent area, it is essential to incorporate the existing
growth management plans for each planning segment.
Surrounding Counties
The information on water production in the surrounding counties was obtained from
existing sources, ranging from regional planning documents to internet websites. No
attempt was made to verify statistics or projections. The information summarized below is
provided only for reference in viewing possible regional growth impacts.
Columbia County
Information on Public Water Facilities for the County was obtained from the Columbia
County - Growth Management Plan (1994 rev). The County's primary water source, the
Point Comfort Road WTP was constructed in 1972, with an initial capacity of 2 mgd. The
plant draws water from the Steven's Creek Dam Impoundment on the Savannah River and
produces potable water through a process of coagulation, filtration, and desinfection. The
Point Comfort plant's current production capacity is 20.6 mgd with an ultimate capacity of
24.75 mgd. A second water treatment plant was constructed in 1990 near Clark's Hill Lake
and the Thurmond Dam. This plant's current production capacity is 2.0 mgd at standard
filtration rate. Two high service pumps are installed with pumping capacity of 5 mgd,
although constraints are limiting the system to 2 mgd. The County also has the ability
purchase water from the City of Augusta through 4 connectors. Additional information was
obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development Centers website
(www.csrardc.org).
Statistical Summary (1990)
· Total Population: 66,031.
· Water: Columbia County Plant Capacity: 12 mgd. Consumption: 6 mgd.
Modern plants are also located in the cities of Harlem and Grovetown.
· Sewage: Plant Capacity: 3,550,000 gal! day. Plant load: 2,400,000 gal! day. The
city of Harlem also maintains a plant, and Columbia county maintains more
than one plant.
McDuffie County
Information obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development
Centers web site (www.csrardc.org).
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TMHDOC
2
.
.
.
REGIONAL WATER BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Statistical Summary (1990)
. Total Population: 20,119.
· Water: Plant Capacity: 4 mgd. Consumption: 1.3 mgd average and 1.85 mgd
maximum. Elevated storage capacity: 1,200,000 gal. Ground storage capacity:
200,000 gal.
· Sewage: Plant Capacity: 2.5 mgd. Plant Load: 768,000 gal! day.
Warren County
Information obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development
Centers website (www.csrardc.org).
Statistical Summary (1990)
· Total Population: 6,078.
· Water: Plant Capacity: 850,000 gal! day. Consumption: 350,000 gal! day
average and 850,000 gal! day maximum. Elevated storage capacity: 675,000
gal. Ground storage capacity: 180,000 gal.
· Sewage: Plant Capacity: 425,000 gal! day. Plant Load: 300,000 gal! day.
Glasscock County
Information obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development
Centers website (www.csrardc.org).
Statistical Summary (1990)
· Total Population: 2,357.
· Water: Plant Capacity: 216,000 gal! day. Consumption: 80,000 gal! day
average and 162,000 gal! day maximum. Elevated storage capacity: 175,000
gal.
· Sewage: Plant Capacity: 120,000 gal! day. Plant Load: 90,000 gal! day.
Jefferson County
Information obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development
Centers website (www.csrardc.org).
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-1.DOC
3
.
.
.
REGIONAL WATER BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Statistical Summary (1990)
· Total Population: 17,408.
· Water: Plant Capacity: 2,000,000 gal! day. Consumption: 800,000 gal! day
average and 2,000,000 gal! day maximum. Elevated storage capacity: 375,000
gal. Ground storage capacity: 750,000 gal.
· Sewage: Plant Capacity: 575,000 gal! day. Plant Load: 280,000 gal! day.
Burke County
Information obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development
Centers website (www.csrardc.org).
Statistical Summary (1990)
. Total Population: 20,579.
· Water: Plant Capacity: 3 mgd. Consumption: 1mgd average. Storage capacity:
625,000 gal. elevated and 400,000 gal. ground. Daily flow: 268 cu ft/sec
average and 108.3 cu ft/sec minimum.
· Sewage: Plant capacity: 2 mgd. Plant load: 630,000 gal! day.
Lincoln County
Information obtained from the Central Savannah River Area - Regional Development
Centers website (www.csrardc.org).
Statistical Summary (1990)
· Total Population: 7,442.
· Water: Plant Capacity: 660,000 gal! day. Consumption: 300,000 gal! day
average and 525,000 gal! day maximum. Elevated storage capacity: 300,000
gal.
· Sewage: Plant Capacity: 300,000 gal! day. Plant Load: 100,000 gal! day.
Aiken County
Information obtained from the USA Counties - Aiken County, South Carolina Summary
Report.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-1,DOC
4
.
.
.
REGIONAL WATER BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Statistical Summary (1990)
. Total Population: 120991.
North Augusta's potable water supply is pumped from the Savannah River. The City's
water treatment capacity is currently 8 mgd. The City's water treatment plant is scheduled
to be expanded to a 14 mgd facility beginning in 1999. The City's water distribution system
provides potable water within a service area of approximately 24 square miles. The present
distribution system consists of 110 miles of water mains, five elevated and two ground tanks
with a capacity of 2,650,000 gallons and three pump stations.
The City also maintains 110 miles of sewer mains and a number of lift stations, which collect
sewage and pipe it to the Aiken County Public Service Authority sewer treatment plant
located at Horse Creek.
Edgefield County
Information obtained from the USA Counties - Edgefield County, South Carolina Summary
Report.
Statistical Summary (1990)
· Total Population: 18360.
P:\152572\All FilES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABlES\TM4-1.DOC
5
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.2
CH2MHILL
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant Evaluation
DATE:
December 18, 1999
Contents
.
Introduction ........ ...... .......... ....... ................. .... ......... ..... .......... ..... .......... ........ ..... ...... ....... .....1
Raw Water Pumping :... .... ........ ..... ............... .......... ............... ....... ....... .......... ........ ........... ............ 7
Raw Water Transmission....... ............ .......... ................. ........ ................. ....... ..................... ........10
Raw Water Reservoirs .......... ........... ........... .... ............. ....... ........ ............ ..... ....................... ........11
On-Site Raw Water Piping...... ................. ................. ......... ........... ....... ....... ....... .......... .......... ....11
Pre-Flash Mixing and Flow Splitting.... ................. ....... ....... ... ..... ............ ................... ............ ..12
Flocculationcula tion .......... ..... ....... ............. .............. ............... ....... ..... ....................... ... ............ ..17
Sedimenta tionimentation Basins..... ........... .... ....... .......... ...... ............ .................. ... ........ ... .... ....19
Filtration ..... .... ......... ............ ......... ..... ......... ...... ....... .......... ... ............... ................ ..... ............... .... 22
Post Flash Mixing .... ............... ................ .......... ....... ........ ........ ............... ......... .... ....... ................. 25
Finished Water Storage ..... ....... .... ............. ...... ....... ...... .......... ..... ..... ................................. ......... 26
Chemical Feed Systems ........................... ............................... ..... ..... .............. ................. ........... 27
High Service Pumping........... ..... ......... ................... ........... ........ ..... ............ ..... ......... ......... ......... 30
Miscellaneous Improvements....................................................................................................31
Introduction
The Highland Avenue Filtration Plant was evaluated for its capacity to process 45, 60, and
80 million gallons per day (mgd). Recommended improvements for this facility are listed
below and described in this Technical Memorandum (TM).
.
Raw Water Pump Station
1. Raw water pumping units (turbine and pump) 2 and 3 need to be rehabilitated or
replaced. Depending on the ultimate capacity of the Highland Avenue facility,
investigations should be made to determine the feasibility of replacing these tWo units
with higher capacity units. (This will depend on the footprints of the existing units, as
well as the piping that supplies water from the canal to the turbine and pump.) If the
additional capacity cannot be provided in the existing space, the pumping facility may
need to be expanded.
2. The Augusta Utilities Department (AUD) has expressed concerns about the safety of the
water supply from the canaL As a first response, the AUD should investigate the
possibility of utilizing the plant's existing powdered activated carbon system to handle
any contamination that may occur. If this system is determined to be insufficient, then amraw water pumping station which can draw water from the river will be required.
Depending on the intended treatment capacity for the Highland A venue Filtration Plant,
this new raw water pumping station may be designed to allow withdrawal from either
the canal or from the Savannah River.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
3. A number of doors and windows at the pump station are damaged or missing. From a
security standpoint, these doors and windows should be replaced.
4. Most of the valves (isolation as well as check valves) are very old and either need
rehabilitation or replacement.
5. The intake screens for units 2 and 3 should be replaced with mechanically-cleaned
screens.
Raw Water Supply Pipeline
1. No modifications are required for the raw water pipeline. The capacities of the existing
pipes supplying the Highland A venue Filtration Plant are sufficient regardless of the
ultimate capacity of the facility.
Raw Water Reservoirs
1. The reservoirs should be periodically cleaned to remove sediment that has settled in the
bottom of the reservoirs.
2. A security fence should be constructed around the reservoirs, both from the standpoint
of protecting the water quality as well as for providing safety for the general public.
.
Pre-Flash Mixing and Flow Splitting
1. The existing rapid mix basin is acceptable in size for the current rated capacity of the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant of 45 mgd. However, increases in capacity to 60 mgd
or greater may result in overflow of the basin. A new rapid mix basin is recommended if
the plant capacity is expanded.
2. Additional mixing intensity is desirable to increase the velocity gradient in the basin;
however, it is not mandatory. As a minimum, a spare mixer should be provided.
3. The existing raw water flow meter upstream of the rapid mix basin, although acceptable
for measuring the desired flow range, will result in an excessively high pressure loss
across the meter if the plant capacity is increased.
4. The flow control valve upstream of the mixing basin should be modified to allow for
remote control.
5. The piping runs from the rapid mix basin to the individual flocculation/ sedimentation
basins are of concern in terms of both piping size and length.
6. The inability to evenly balance flow between the seven sedimentation basins needs to be
addressed. Use of manual isolation valves to split the flow to the sedimentation basins is
neither precise nor repeatable.
7. Concrete repairs are needed to the rapid mix basin.
Flocculation
1. Concrete repairs are needed at multiple locations on the flocculation basins.
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
2
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
2. Remove the bulk alum tank from above the first two flocculation basins. (The current
design drawings show the addition of a second bulk alum tank to be installed on top of
these basins. It is recommended that a change order be given to the contractor to change
the location of this new tank before its delivery to the site.)
3. Install multi-stage flocculators in all basins that do not currently have this feature.
4. As existing flocculators need to be replaced, consider replacement with vertical staged
flocculators. Although the vertical units are more expensive, they eliminate the need to
shut down a flocculation basin when repair is needed on a drive unit. They would also
eliminate the need for the penetration drive shaft through the sidewall of the basin
which is leaking badly in all of the existing units.
.
Sedimentation Basins
1. Flow needs to be evenly split among the seven basins without causing significant
turbulence and breakup of flocculation particles that may have been formed. As noted
above in the section on rapid mixing, one approach to this would be to construct a new
rapid mix basin to serve sedimentation basins 4 through 7, with an overflow weir
splitting device used to accomplish the desired flow split.
2. More frequent cleaning of the basins, or the addition of mechanical sludge removal
mechanisms, may be necessary if the plant capacity is expanded.
3. The addition of plate settlers to the sedimentation basins would alleviate any concern
regarding detention times in the basins at the higher flows, although the addition of
these settlers would also require certain structural modifications to the basins (such as
removal of the last baffle wall before the overflow weirs and addition of support beams
and/or columns for the plate settlers). The addition of these settlers would also
necessitate more frequent cleaning of the basins. If plate settlers are not added and the
plant capacity is expanded, additional flocculation/ sedimentation basins may be
required.
4. Sludge disposal may need to be addressed. Turknett Pond is full of sludge and needs to
be dredged. However, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) has
verbally indicated that the water treatment plant (WTP) will be allowed to continue to
discharge sludge directly to Turknett Pond, as long as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not violated.
5. Handrails should be checked, especially for basin 5.
6. Weir overflow rates are at the maximum for certain sedimentation basins, even at the
current plant capacity. Expansion of the plant capacity will require additional weir
lengths.
7. The impact of the various baffle walls on the performance of the basins should be
evaluated over the entire range of flows, especially for basins 1, 2, and 3. Velocities
through the baffle openings should be determined as a basis for evaluating their
effectiveness for dampening denSity currents. In addition, the velocities in the inlet
flumes and the entrances to the sedimentation basins should also be evaluated.
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
3
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
8. A tracer study should be performed for the sedimentation basins to determine if short-
circuiting is an issue. If it is, modifications to the baffle walls and/ or the axial partial
walls may be required.
9. Concrete repair should be undertaken in numerous locations.
10. Weirs should be confirmed to be level.
Filtration
1. A filter uprating study may be required if the plant capacity is to be increased. As noted
below, the filters have a limited media depth. If an uprating study is unsuccessful
because of the limited media depth, additional filters will be required to increase the
plant capacity.
2. The filter inlet gates and backwash discharge gates should be replaced with actuated
valves.
.
3. The actuators on all the filter gallery valves should be individually inspected and those
which are not performing well should be repaired or replaced. As a worst case
condition, all of the valve actuators, and possibly the valves themselves, should be
replaced.
4. To alleviate surface currents in the filters, the filter inlets may need to be enlarged or
some type of baffling device could be installed immediately downstream of each filter
inlet to dissipate the velocity.
5. Each filter should be topped off with media as required to bring the depth back up to the
original design standards. If the last charging of filters with new media has been longer
than several years ago, the entire media bed should be replaced. (The RTW draft report
states that the media is 16 years old.)
6. The existing Leopold underdrains may need to be replaced with low profile underdrains
that do not require a gravel support layer as a means of providing additional media
depth in the filter beds, especially if the filters are uprated.
7. The filter troughs should either be replaced with new fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP)
troughs or, at the very least, their top surfaces should be reworked to provide level,
sharp weirs.
8. The surface sweeps and nozzles should all be confirmed to be working properly and
made level.
9. The existing backwash pump should be replaced with two pumps, each of similar
capacity to the existing pump. The pump may need to be relocated to minimize suction
lift problems from the finished water clearwells.
10. Instrumentation should be calibrated and signals from the instruments to the individual
filter consoles should be checked.
.
11. The filter effluent meters and rate-of-flow controllers should be calibrated and verified
to be operating properly.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT.DOC
4
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
12. Modifications to the filter control system should be made so that the filter statuses can
be remotely monitored and the backwashes can be controlled either manually from the
operations room or automatically by a plant control system.
13. Roof drains which are currently routed through the filter influent flume should be
relocated.
Post Flash Mixing
1. It is recommended that diffusers which span the channel width be provided for the
remaining post-treatment chemicals except lime, or that the injection points be extended
to approximately the one-third point of the channel (a diffuser for the lime system
would probably plug up, although this might not be an issue once the plant switches
over to liquid lime). For lime, the injection system can be left as a simple termination of
the chemical pipe, although it should be extended to approximately the one-third point
of the channel.
Finished Water Storage
1. A disinfection concentration x time (CT) study may be required by the GAEPD for the
system to uprate the plant to 60 mgd.
2. A thorough inspection should be made of all exposed clearwell walls and any leaks that
are found should be repaired to minimize the possibility of contaminating the finished
water.
.
Chemical Feed Systems
1. All chemical piping should be color-coded and/ or labeled, including directional arrows.
2. A new containment area, preferably at grade, should be constructed for the alum tanks.
The existing alum tank should be relocated to this new containment. The AUD should
delay installation of the second tank until the new containment area is constructed.
3. Because of safety concerns, the chlorine storage area should be enclosed and a scrubbing
system should be added; as an alternative, the AUD could switch to a hypochlorite feed
system.
4. A finished water flow meter should be added for flow-pacing of post-treatment
chemicals (flow pacing is currently based on the raw water flow meter).
5. Along with flow pacing of the other chemical feed systems which is currently under
construction, flow pacing modules should be added to the chlorinators, with feedback
loop control based on chlorine residual for the post-chlorinator.
6. Redundant phosphate feed pumps should be provided and they should be automated
for flow pacing. True containment for the phosphate system should be constructed.
.
High Service Pumping
1. The Fort Gordon pump station (in the generator building) should be completely
replaced with a new facility. In addition, it would be desirable to modify the yard piping
so that these pumps can draw water from multiple clearwells.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
5
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
2. A detailed hydraulic analysis should also be performed of the discharge pipeline for the
proper sizing of the Fort Gordon pumps. It is likely that the discharge pressure for the
new pumps will need to be greater than the design pressure of the existing pumps. It
may be necessary to either replace the 18-inch discharge pipe or parallel it with a second
pipe in order to carry the desired flow.
3. The high service pumps in the filter gallery should be entirely replaced, preferably in a
similar manner as the auxiliary pump station. They may be able to be replaced using the
two empty positions in the auxiliary pump station.
.
Miscellaneous Improvements
1. The plant control system should be completely replaced to allow better and more
efficient control of the treatment plant.
2. Because much of the operations area is easily accessible from the main entrance, this
door should be kept locked. Other entrances from Central Avenue into the filter
building, as well as gates that provide access to the flocculation/sedimentation basins,
should also be kept locked.
3. Another approach which would dramatically improve security to the site, as well as
increase the level of safety to the operators, would be to close off Central Avenue.
However, it is recognized that this is a very unlikely occurrence.
4. Fencing on the west end of the plant, adjacent to the in-line skating park, should be
improved to protect sedimentation basin 7 from debris thrown over the existing fence.
5. A thorough investigation needs to be made of all valves to insure that they are still
operable, that their actuators are not leaking or causing potential contamination
problems, that their seats and disks still seal properly, etc.
6. A thorough survey should be performed of the yard piping to determine what pipes
may no longer be in service, where valves are located, etc.
Water demand projections for the Richmond County water system for the design year of
2020 are for an average day demand of 50 mgd and a maximum day demand of 80 mgd. The
existing Highland Avenue Filtration Plant currently has a rated capacity of 45 mgd. The new
well fields that are currently being developed are intended by the GAEPD to be used only
for meeting peak demands. Based on this scenario, three options were evaluated for meeting
the anticipated water demands:
1. Alternative 1: Expand the capacity of the existing Highland Avenue Filtration Plant to
80 mgd to meet 100 percent of the anticipated max day demand for year 2020.
2. Alternative 2: Keep the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant at its current capacity of
45 mgd, and meet the additional anticipated demand by constructing a new WTP with a
capacity of 35 mgd.
3. Alternative 3: Expand the capacity of the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant to 60 mgd,
and construct a new 20-mgd WTP to meet the additional demand.
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT.DOC
6
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
The existing Highland Avenue Filtration Plant, although producing a good quality water, is
in need of significant improvements. Although some of these improvements may be
delayed, certain improvements should be undertaken as soon as possible even if the facility
remains at its current 45-mgd capacity. However, to expand the plant's capacity to 60 or 80
mgd will require a considerable capital investment in the very near future. The discussion
which follows will address those improvements which are necessary to increase the plant's
capacity versus those that are needed to keep the plant operating at an acceptable level at its
current capacity. Specific recommendations are highlighted in italics.
Raw Water Pumping
The existing raw water pumping station consists of the equipment listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Existing Equipment at the Raw Water Pump Station
Pump No.
Flow Capacity
(mgd)
Turbine Flow (cfs) Installed Capacity Comments
NO.1
NO.2
20
9
550 1,650 hp Good condition
250 750 hp Poor condition;
needs rehab
No.3
9
250 750 hp Fair condition;
needs rehab
.
NO.4
No.5
30
20(17if
withdrawing water
directly from the
river)
814
2,500 hp
2,000 hp
Good condition
o (Diesel-driven)
Good condition
.
According to the 1998 report, Augusta Richmond County Master Plan Reference Document-
Augusta Canal Power Utilization and Raw Water Pumping Engineering Study, Unit 2 is not
currently in use, Unit 3 is used infrequently, and Unit 5 serves as a backup. Units 1, 2, and 3
are two-stage centrifugal pumps; Unit 4 is a single-stage centrifugal pump; and Unit 5 is a
vertical turbine pump. Units 4 and 5 are in the same building, and the discharge from the
turbine drive for Unit 4 is directly in front of the suction from the river to Unit 5. It was
reported that there can be significant vibration problems with Unit 5. These vibrations are
likely the result of the turbulence in the water at the suction to Unit 5 which occurs when
the turbine for Unit 4 is in operation.
If all four of the existing duty pumps were in good condition, the total capacity of the raw
water pumping station (including Unit 5 operating from the canal) would be 88 mgd.
However, basing the pump station's capacity only on the four duty pumps, the capacity can
be considered to be 68 mgd. The firm capacity is 55 or 58 mgd, depending on whether the
standby unit is drawing water from the canal or from the river (firm capacity refers to the
largest duty pump [Unit 4 - 30 mgd] being out of service and the backup diesel-driven
pump taking its place).
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4.2 DRAFT.DOC
7
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
The following analysis assumes that the capacity of Unit 5 serving as a back-up is 20 mgd
rather than 17 mgd. Using Unit 5 as a river-based pump rather than a canal-based pump
would imply a problem with the canal water supply rather than a problem with one of the
base pumps.
Increasing the capacity of the WTP to 80 mgd (Alternative 1) would require additional raw
water pumping capacity. Units 2 and 3 need to be rehabilitated or replaced. They are both
two-stage units with relatively low capacities (the pumps were originally designed to
provide 9 mgd each, although they are reported to be currently producing as low as 7 mgd
each). If these two units were replaced with higher capacity pumps of 15-mgd capacity each,
then the total pumping capacity of the station could be increased to 80 mgd to meet the
expanded capacity of the WTP. (With these two units each replaced with a 15-mgd unit, the
firm capacity of the pump station would be 67 mgd. Although this firm capacity of raw
water flow would not meet the maximum day capacity through the expanded 80-mgd WTP,
the short fall could likely be made up by the on-site raw water reservoirs. To provide firm
capacity at 80 mgd, units 2 and 3 would each need to be replaced by a 20-mgd unit. This
would increase the total base-load pumping capacity to 90 mgd.) Replacing both Units 2 and
3 with a single-stage pump will require less space than the current arrangement for the two-
stage pumps, so that the existing footprint might be able to accommodate the higher
capacity pump. However, the capacities of the pumps may be limited by the supply piping
from the canal to the turbine and/ or to the pump. No design drawings were available for
these pumps during this study. Therefore, a more detailed evaluation would be required
before this option can be determined to be valid or not.
Alternatives 2 and 3 (keeping the WTP at its current rated capacity of 45 mgd or expanding
the WTP to 60 mgd, respectively) would require essentially no modification to the raw
water pumping station, other than replacing existing Units 2 and 3. The current base-unit
and firm capacities of the pumping station of 68 and 58 mgd, respectively, are more than
sufficient to meet the current capacity of the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant
(Alternative 2), and would almost meet the capacity if the plant is expanded up to 60 mgd
(Alternative 3). As noted above, Units 2 and 3 are in need of rehabilitation or replacement. If
they were replaced with slightly larger pumps with capacities of 10 mgd each, then the firm
capacity of the raw water supply would match the expanded capacity of the Highland
Avenue Filtration Plant. (Again, a more detailed evaluation would be required to determine
if the existing footprint and supply piping are sufficient to replace Units 2 and 3 with higher
capacity units.) These proposed modifications are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Modifications Required to Units 2 and 3 at the Raw Water Pump Station"
.
To Provide WTPs Rated
Capacity with Base-Load
Pumps
To Provide Firm Capacity
for WTPs Rated Capacity
Alt. 1 - Expand Highland
WTP to 80 mgd
Replace Units 2 & 3 with
Higher Capacity Units of
15 mgd, each
Replace Units 2 & 3 with
Higher Capacity Units of
20 mgd, each
Alt. 2 - Maintain Current
Capacity of 45 mgd
Replace Units 2 & 3 with
Same Size Units of 9
mgd, each
Replace Units 2 & 3 with
Same Size Units of 9
mgd, each
Alt. 3 - Expand
Highland WTP to 60 mgd
Replace Units 2 & 3 with
Same Size Units of 9
mgd, each
Replace Units 2 & 3 with
Higher Capacity Units of
10 mgd, each
.
"Assumes that the existing footprints and supply pipes to the turbines and pumps are sufficiently sized for larger
units.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
8
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
Flexibility to Withdraw Directly from the Savannah River
The canal utilization report noted the concern that the canal might be periodically out of
operation due to contamination. Therefore, recommendations in the report included the
provision of withdrawing water from both the canal and directly from the Savannah River.
The extent to which the AUD might wish to develop this flexibility depends on the desired
level of redundancy. Expansion of the existing raw water pumping station to be able to
withdraw additional capacity directly from the Savannah River would require significant
capital investment. A more common approach to addressing a scenario such as this would
be to utilize the existing powdered activated carbon (PAC) system at the WTP. Using a PAC
system is a typical response from surface water treatment facilities which do not have the
luxury of being able to draw raw water from more than one source. As a backup, granular
activated carbon (GAC) could be installed in the filters in place of anthracite. This solution
would be significantly less costly than the modifications proposed for the raw water
pumping station in the canal utilization report.
However, if the AUD is still interested in pursuing additional raw water withdrawal
capacity directly from the Savannah River for the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant, the
degree of expansion would be based on the intended capacity of the WTP. The canal
utilization report was based on the assumption that the Highland A venue Filtration Plant
would ultimately be expanded to 90 mgd. Because the projected distribution flows have
been revised downward and the 90-mgd scenario is no longer being considered, the analysis
below has been prepared based on the three current alternatives. As noted previously, the
existing diesel-driven unit no. 5 has the capability to withdraw 17 mgd of water directly
from the river. A new raw water withdrawal location would be required for the new WTP
as described in both Alternatives 2 and 3, and this pump station would likely withdraw
water directly from the river rather than from the canal (depending on the final location of
the proposed new WTP). An alternative analysis is provided in Table 3.
.
TABLE 3
Analysis of River-Withdrawal Capacity
All. 1 - Expand
Highiand to 80
mgd
Highland WTP
Alt. 2 - Leave Highland at Alt. 3 - Expand Highland
45 mgd and Construct to 60 mgd and Construct
New 35-mgd WTP New 20-mgd WTP
Highland New WTP Highland New WTP
WTP WTP
68 mgd 68 mgd
17 mgd 35 mgd 17 mgd 20 mgd
52 mgd 37 mgd
62 mgd 47 mgd
Withdrawal from Canal 68 mgd
Withdrawal from River 17 mgd
Total from River 17 mgd
Total Raw Water Capacity if 27 mgd
Canal is Off-Line (incl. 10 mgd
from new well field)
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
As can be seen from the table above, assuming no modifications at the existing raw water
pump station, each alternative carries with it a different degree of raw water capacity
assuming the canal is temporarily unavailable. The worst case is for Alternative 1, for which
only 27 mgd of raw water supply would be available. To meet the average day demand of
50 mgd for year 2020, the existing raw water pumping station would need to have an
additional 23-mgd of withdrawal capacity from the river.
For Alternative 2, the combined available water supply from the river and ground water
sources would be 62 mgd, i.e., 12 mgd in excess of the average day demand of 50 mgd for
year 2020. For Alternative 3, the combined available water supply from the river and
ground water sources would be 47 mgd, or 3 mgd short of the average day demand for year
2020.
.
General Improvements to the Raw Water Pumping Station
In addition to consideration of capacity expansion and flexibility for river withdrawal at the
raw water pump station, the following improvements should be addressed at this station:
1. A number of doors and windows at the pump station are damaged or missing. From a
security standpoint, these doors and windows should be replaced.
2. Most of the valves (isolation as well as check valves) are very old and either need
rehabilitation or replacement.
3. The intake screens for the intakes to units 2 and 3 require manual cleaning, whereas the
screens for the remainder of the units are mechanically cleaned. The intake screens for
Units 2 and 3 should be modified to be mechanically cleaned.
Raw Water Transmission
Transmission of raw water from the existing pump station to the raw water reservoirs at the
Highland Avenue facility currently consists of 30- and 36-inch ductile iron (Dr) pipes. A new
60-inch Dr pipe is currently nearing completion. (An existing 42-inch concrete pipe is
currently not in service). The three existing pipelines will have the capacities listed in
Table 4 for a typical velocity range of 5 to 8 feet per second (fps) for pumped flow.
TABLE 4
Capacity Analysis of the Raw Water Pipelines
30-inch pipeline
36-inch pipeline
60-inch pipeline
Total carrying capacity
Firm carrying capacity (with the 60-
inch out of service)
Velocity = 5 Ips
15.86 mgd
22.84 mgd
63.45 mgd
102.15 mgd
38.70 mgd
Velocity = 8 Ips
25.38 mgd
36.5 mgd
101.52 mgd
163.40 mgd
61.88 mgd
.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
10
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
Based on these capacities, it is recommended that no additions be made to the existing raw
water transmission mains. The existing 42-inch concrete pipeline is not included in the
above analysis. It has encountered major problems in recent years and does not warrant
repair or slip-lining based on the capacities of the remaining pipes, regardless of which
water treatment plant scenario is selected.
-
For Alternatives 2 and 3, a new transmission main will be required to the new WTP. For a
new 35-mgd WTP (Alternative 2), a single 36- or 42-inch pipeline or dua130-inch lines
would be required. For a new 20-mgd WTP, the raw water pipeline would likely be either a
single 30-inch pipe or dual 20-inch pipes. Although a single, larger diameter pipe would
have a lower capital cost for each alternative, dual pipes could provide redundancy in case
one line was out of service, and construction of the dual lines could be staged based on plant
flows rather than both being constructed at the same time.
Raw Water Reservoirs
.
There are two existing raw water reservoirs at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant, with a
total storage capacity of 124 million gallons. Although there are no specific criteria required
for sizing raw water reservoirs, they serve the purpose of providing pre-settling of
suspended matter from the raw water as well as providing storage during times of low river
or canal flows. Assuming a worst case scenario of the canal being out of service and the
existing pump no. 5 withdrawing raw water directly from the Savannah River at a rate of
17 mgd, the total reservoir storage capacity at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant would
provide just over four days of raw water supply if the plant were operating at its currently
rated capacity of 45 mgd. However, it is our understanding that the reservoirs cannot be
lowered by more than _ without compromising the flow through the plant.
Although it is not known what condition these reservoirs are in, no additional capacity is
recommended for the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant regardless of which of the three
WTP alternatives is selected. However, the reservoirs should periodically be cleaned to
remove sediment that has settled in the bottom of the reservoirs. In addition, it is
recommended that a security fence be constructed around the reservoirs, both from the
standpoint of protecting the water quality as well as for providing safety for the general
public. Although this has been previously tried with significant protestation from the
public, it is nevertheless recommended.
Selection of either Alternatives 2 or 3 will require that a new water treatment plant is
constructed. It is recommended that a new raw water reservoir(s) be included in the design
of the new facility if space permits. The new WTP would most likely be withdrawing water
directly from the Savannah River, and the raw water quality could be highly variable,
especially with respect to turbidity. A raw water reservoir would act to dampen the
variability of the raw water quality, allowing the treatment processes to be more tightly
designed rather than being designed around a broad range of water qualities.
.
On-Site Raw Water Piping
The main raw water supply pipe is a 42-inch pipe which is connected to both raw water
reservoirs. In addition, a 30-inch raw water pipe from the west basin is routed around the
south side of the WTP and reconnects with the 42-inch line near the pre-flash mix basin.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DElIVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DOC
11
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLAt'IT EVALUATION
.
This 30-inch line was originally intended to serve as a washwater recycle line back to the
reservoir, although the WTP is not currently using washwater recycle.
At the currently rated plant capacity of 45 mgd, the velocity in the 42-inch pipe would be
about 7.2 fps if it is the only pipe in service. With both pipes in service and assuming that
the flow splits proportionately between the 42- and 30-inch pipes, the velocities will be
approximately 4.8 fps in both pipes (the actual split of flow between the two pipes will
depend on the head losses in the individual pipes). Expansion of the Highland Avenue
Filtration Plant to 60 mgd would result in these velocities for both pipes in operation
increasing to about 6.4 fps. Velocities in gravity piping are typically designed for about 2 to
5 fps to minimize head losses. The 25-foot static head difference between the reservoir and
the sedimentation basins will provide the driving head for this flow. However, if the level of
the reservoirs is drawn down, this would impact the rate of water which could flow through
these pipes. As shown in Table 5, expansion of the WTP to 80 mgd would have an even
more significant impact on the flow through these raw water pipes than described here.
TABLE 5
Velocities in On-Site Raw Water Piping
Plant flow split proportionately between the 30-
inch and 42-inch pipes
All flow through the 42-
inch pipe
42-inch pipe
7.24 fps
9.65 fps
12.87 fps
Plant Flow 30-inch pipe 42-inch pipe
45 mgd 4.79 fps 4.79 fps
. 60 mgd 6.39 fps 6.39 fps
80 mgd 8.52 fps 8.52 fps
Based on this analysis, as well as a recommendation to add a second rapid mix basin (see
below), it is recommended that both the 30- and 42-inch pipes be used to transfer raw water
from the reservoirs to the rapid mix basins. If the WTP is expanded and depending on the
level to which the raw water reservoirs can be drawn down, the 30-inch pipe may need to be
replaced with a larger pipe or a second pipe could be installed to parallel the 30-inch line.
Recommendations for modifications to the existing layout of these two pipes through the
plant site are described below.
.
Pre-Flash Mixing and Flow Splitting
Current construction plans for the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant call for the installation
of a new raw water meter (a 42-inch venturi meter with a 30-inch throat and a beta of 0.7).
This meter should be sufficient to measure the desired range of flows. However, the
differential pressure (dp) across the meter may be unacceptably high at the higher flow
rates. For example, assuming that the upstream head on this meter is about 20 feet, a 40-
mgd flow will result in a dp of 25 inches. At 60 mgd, the dp across the meter will be 56
inches and at 80 mgd, the dp will be about 100 inches. At the current rated capacity of the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant of 45 mgd, this meter should be sufficient. However, if the
plant capacity is expanded, the hydraulics of this meter should be reevaluated.
A 42-inch control valve is used to manually control the desired flow rate. As seen from the
table above, the velocity through a 42-inch valve will be fairly high at the upper end of the
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM4-2 DRAFT,DQC
12
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
flow range. No information was available regarding the valve's Cv. Design drawings from
1984 indicate that this valve was replaced at that time. The current drawings indicate that
the gear box is to be replaced and the electric operator is to be serviced, but the valve is not
being automated. As currently configured, this valve must be manually adjusted to change
the plant flow. It is recommended that this valve be converted for remote control to simplify
operations.
Pre-treatment chemicals are added just downstream of the venturi meter and control valve.
These chemicals include chlorine, lime and alum. (Polymer, when added, is injected
upstream of the flow meter.)
The pre-flash mix basin was modified as part of the 1984 improvements. The theoretical
detention time of the basin is about 80 seconds at the plant's current rated capacity of
45 mgd (about 60 seconds at 60 mgd and 45 seconds at 80 mgd). This basin is essentially
separated into two compartments, each with a 15 hp mixer. Evaluating the two
compartments separately, the velocity gradient (G) values are 376 S-l for the first
compartment and 420 S-l for the second compartment. If the entire basin is considered as a
single volume with a total of 30 hp of mixing intensity, the calculated G value is 396 S-l. The
EPD Minimum Standards for Public Water Systems recommends that the mix time not exceed
30 seconds, and that the velocity gradient should be at least 300 S-l. By comparison, the
A WW A manual, Water Treatment Plant Design, recommends detention times of 10 to 60
seconds and G values of 600 to 1000 S-l. The intent is to provide rapid and homogenous
dispersion of the coagulant chemicals throughout the process flow to destabilize the
colloidal particles. The existing mixing intensity is at the low end of the desirable range.
However, while it might be desirable to provide a greater mixing intensity to the rapid mix
basin, the existing mixing regime appears to be achieving adequate mixing for the
coagulation chemicals. Therefore, no specific modifications are recommended to the existing
basin and mixer at the current rated capacity other than providing a spare mixer unit.
The hydraulic profile shown in the 1984 drawings for 45 mgd indicates that the water
elevation in the rapid mix basin ranges from 446.2 to 447.8 at 45 mgd. A hydraulic analysis
was performed to determine the manner in which the process flow splits itself when flowing
from the rapid mix basin to the various flocculation/ sedimentation basins. Based on this
hydraulic analysis, the water surface at the discharge of the rapid mix basin is calculated to
be 446.0, agreeing well with the 1984 design drawings. The current analysis assumes that the
isolation valves to each of the flocculation basins is fully open. In reality, these valves are at
least partially throttled, since this is the method used by the plant operators to balance flow
through the basins. (The results of the current analysis indicate that the flow is not balanced
through the basins if the valves are fully open.) No attempt has been made to analyze the
flow through the rapid mix basin, but its configuration would likely cause a considerable
head loss. Therefore, the 1.6 feet of head loss shown in the 1984 drawings is assumed to be
correct. The top of the basin is at 450.44, Le., the water surface (assuming a smooth water
surface, which will not be the case) is about 2.6 feet below the top of the basin. '
The hydraulic analysis was also performed at 60 and 80 mgd. It should be noted that two
operators reported that during a 60-mgd test, the rapid mix basin overflowed. The 60-mgd
test referenced by the RTW report did not indicate any overflow at the rapid mix basin.
However, this particular test was a simulated test, i.e., only a portion of the WTP was tested
at an elevated flow so that the full 60 mgd was not actually processed through the water
.
.
P:II52572IALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT,DOC
13
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
plant. Therefore, this second test would not have yielded the same results as a full-scale
60 mgd test, and no overflow was seen at the rapid mix basin. At 60 mgd, the hydraulic
analysis predicts that the water surface elevation at the discharge from the rapid mix basin
will increase to about 446.6 feet. Assuming that the loss through the rapid mix basin is a
function of the velocity head, then the increase from 45 to 60 mgd would result in an
increase in the head loss of 78 percent. Based on the hydraulic profile from the 1984
drawings that indicate 1.6 feet of loss through the rapid mix at 45 mgd, the loss through the
rapid mix basin at 60 mgd would be about 2.8 feet. Therefore, the water surface elevation at
the front end of the basin could be as high as about 449.6 feet. With the top of the basin at
450.44, this would indicate that the rapid mix basin should still have about ten inches of
freeboard and should not overflow at 60 mgd. However, with this small freeboard, there
could easily be some water splashing out of the basin.
A further analysis of the hydraulics of the rapid mix basin at 80 mgd (Alternative 1) predicts
a water surface elevation of at the entrance to the rapid mix basin of about 452.7 feet. This
flow rate would definitely result in an overflow of the basin.
Flow exits the rapid mix basin through two pipes:
1. A 36-inch pipe routes flow to sedimentation basins 4 and 5, which then tees into two 30-
inch pipes just before the flocculation basins.
2. A 54-inch pipe exits the rapid mix basin carrying the combined flows for sedimentation
basins 1,2,3,6, and 7. This 54-inch tees into two 42-inch branches, with the first 42-inch
branch going the short distance to basins 1, 2 and 3, and subsequently reducing in size to
36" and then to 30". The second 42-inch branch goes to basins 6 and 7, and tees into two
30-inch branches just upstream of the flocculation basins.
The following analysis of velocities through the piping from the rapid mix basin to the
sedimentation basins is for Alternatives 2 and 3 only (45 and 60 mgd, respectively), since it
was shown above that the existing rapid mix basin will overflow at 80 mgd. Assuming the
flows to the sedimentation basins are split based on the hydraulic analysis with the isolation
valves all assumed to be fully open, the following velocities in the individual pipes were
calculated as listed in Table 6.
.
The A WW A manual, Water Treatment Plant Design, recommends that velocities in piping
between a rapid mix basin and the flocculation basins should be between 1.5 and 3.0 fps. As
can be seen above, much of the piping at 45 mgd is within the recommended range.
However, at 60 mgd, much of the piping would be undersized.
Of additional concern is the length of piping from the rapid mix to sedimentation basins 6
and 7. This pipeline is approximately 450 feet long, with a theoretical residence time of
almost 3 minutes at 45 mgd (the residence time is reduced to about 2.25 minutes at 60 mgd.
Although most of the pipeline is a straight stretch, there could be a considerable amount of
turbulence at the tee near the rapid mix basin.
.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT,DOC
14
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
. TABLE 6
Analysis of Pipeline Velocities from the Rapid Mix Basin to the Flocculation/Sedimentation Basins
45 mgd 60 mgd
To Sed Basins To Sed To Sed To Sed To Sed To Sed
1,2, & 3 Basins 6 & 7 Basins 4 & 5 Basins 1, 2, & 3 Basins 6 & 7 Basins 4 & 5
54-inch Q 26.6 39.4
pipe (mgd)
V (fps) 2.88 3.83
42-inch Q 13.82 15.77 18.3 21.10
pipe (mgd)
V (fps) 2.22 2.54 2.94 3.39
36-inch Q 13.82 15.4 18.3 20.67
pipe (mgd)
V (fps) 3.06 3.37 4.00 4.52
30-inch Q 13.82 7.88 7.70 18.3 10.55 10.33
pipe (mgd)
V (fps) 4.36 2.49 2.42 5.76 3.33 3.26
.
Also of concern is that the isolation valve to each flocculation basin is being throttled to
provide the desired flow splitting. There is a single 36-inch valve for basins 1, 2 and 3, and a
30-inch valve for each of basins 4 through 7. Operators throttle each valve based on the
number of turns of the valve from its last setting or by visually observing the overflow of
the discharge weirs in the sedimentation basins. It is not known to what degree the valves
are being throttled, but the shear forces created by flow through a partially closed valve
could be tearing flocculation particles that may have formed in transit between the rapid
mix and the flocculation basins.
In summary, the following issues were noted regarding the rapid mix basin at the Highland
Avenue Filtration Plant:
· The existing rapid mix basin is acceptable in size for the current rated capacity of the
Highland Avenue WTP of 45 mgd. However, increases in capacity to 60 mgd or greater
may result in overflow of the basin.
· Additional mixing intensity is desirable to increase the velocity gradient in the basin.
However, it is not mandatory. As a minimum, a spare mixer should be provided.
· The existing venturi meter upstream of the rapid mix basin, although acceptable for
measuring the desired flow range, will probably result in an excessively high pressure
loss across the meter if the plant capacity is increased.
· The flow control valve upstream of the mixing basin should be modified to allow for
remote control.
.
· The piping runs from the rapid mix basin to the individual flocculation/ sedimentation
basins are of concern in terms of both piping size and length.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
15
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
· The inability to evenly balance flow between the seven sedimentation basins needs to be
addressed. Use of manual isolation valves to split the flow to the sedimentation basins is
neither precise nor repeatable.
· Concrete repairs to be basin are needed.
Selection of Alternative 1, in which the Highland Avenue facility would be expanded in
capacity to 80 mgd, would necessitate significant modifications or replacement of the rapid
mix basin and the piping to the flocculation/ sedimentation basins to avoid overflowing the
mix basin. For Alternative 2 (maintaining the WTP at 45 mgd), the improvements could
probably be limited to providing remote control of the upstream flow control valve and
automating the isolation valves at each flocculation/sedimentation basin. However, these
improvements could be postponed to some point in the future. For Alternative 3, in which
the WTP would be expanded to 60 mgd, all the major modifications listed above, or total
replacement of the rapid mix basin, are recommended.
One possibility would be to continue using the existing rapid mix basin, but limit its use to
sedimentation basins 1, 2 and 3. A new rapid mix basin would be constructed for basins 4
through 7 and a splitter box would be used to divide the flow among the four basins. The
plant already has a control valve upstream of the existing rapid mix basin, although it
should be modified for remote control as described above. In combination with a new
automated control valve upstream of the new rapid mix basin, the flow could be divided
proportionately for sedimentation basins 1 through 3 and basins 4 through 7. Overflow
weirs could be incorporated into the rapid mix basin to distribute the flow among basins 4
through 7 so that the existing isolation valves could be left fully open. The new rapid mix
basin could be constructed along the roadway between the two pairs of sedimentation
basins (4,5 and 6, 7). The existing 30-inch raw water line, which is routed from the west
reservoir, passes through this area. This 30-inch pipe is interconnected with the larger 42-
inch pipe which currently provides flow to the existing rapid mix basin. Therefore, this 30-
inch pipe would probably suffice to deliver raw water to the new rapid mix basin
(depending on the ultimate capacity of the WTP), assuming that flow to the basin is from
both directions (Le., that flow is coming both directly from the west reservoir as well as from
the 42-inch pipe). A disadvantage to this proposal is that there would need to be two
chemical injection points, as well as a separate raw water flow meter and control valve for
the new rapid mix basin. However, this second flow meter and control valve would
alleviate concerns about the ability of the existing meter and valve to handle the entire plant
flow.
.
.
Another option for initial mixing of the coagulation chemicals would be to use in-line static
mixers rather than a rapid mix basin. This would be significantly less expensive than
constructing a new rapid mix basin. A flow-splitting structure would still be recommended
for splitting the flow among the flocculation/sedimentation basins rather than throttling the
isolation valves as is currently practiced. In addition, potential clogging of a static mixer by
floating debris would need to be addressed. At this time, screening at the intake structure is
poor and a considerable amount of debris is pulled in along with the raw water supply. This
could result in clogging the static mixer unless the screening at the canal intake were
improved. Improvements to the screening at the intake should be considered regardless of
the mixing system.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
16
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
Flocculation
Flocculation at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant is provided through six flocculation
basins - the effluents from the first two are combined and split among sedimentation basins
1,2 and 3. Each of the remaining four sedimentation basins has its own flocculation basin.
For flocculation basins 1 and 2, the flow first enters a baffled box that at one time served as
the original rapid mix basin for the entire plant.
Each flocculation basin uses a paddle wheel flocculator with a single horizontal shaft
parallel to the direction of flow (the rotation is perpendicular to the direction of flow).
Significant leaking was observed around the penetration of the horizontal shaft through the
basin wall in all cases. Staged flocculation is currently provided only for basins 6 and 7,
although the current construction at the plant includes this modification for flocculation
basins 3 and 4. The remaining two basins have single-stage flocculation.
The effluents from flocculation basins 1 and 2 are combined into a single flume, which then
flows into an inlet flume for the first three sedimentation basins. There are directional vanes
in the flume to minimize turbulence at the turn. No dimensions on the flume were available,
so the flow velocity could not be calculated. However, the flow appeared to be smooth and
gentle.
Flow from each of the remaining four flocculation basins is directly to its dedicated
sedimentation basin. However, because of the layout of the basins, flow exits each
flocculation basin through two gates into a distribution channel, and from the channel into
the sedimentation basin.
.
At 45 mgd, the evaluation of the flocculation basins is provided in Table 7.
TABLE 7
Analysis of Flocculation Basins at 45 mgd
Flocculation Length (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Volume Flow Flow-thru Detention
Basin No. (ft3) (mgd) Vel. Time
(fpm)*** (min)#
112 16 16* 28672 6.91 2.51 44.68
2 112 16 16* 28672 6.91 2.51 44.68
3 69.5 18 18.1 ** 22640 7.71 2.20 31.65
4 69.5 18 18.1 ** 22640 7.71 2.20 31.65
5 78 20 20 31200 7.88 1.83 42.63
6 78 20 20 31200 7.88 1.83 42.63
* Assumed depth of 16 feet to match basin width
Assumed depth based on water surface elevation of 445.2 from 1984 drawings.
*** GAEPD Minimum Standards for Public Water Systems stipulates a flow-thru velocity of 0.5 to 1.5 fpm
# GAEPD Minimum Standards for Public Water Systems stipulates a detention time of at least 30 minutes
.
Based on the assumed flow splitting described in the spreadsheet, Table 8 was prepared
based on 60 mgd.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT. DOC
17
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
. TABLE 8
Analysis of Flocculation Basins at 60 mgd
Flocculation Length (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Volume Flow Flow-thru Detention
Basin No. (ft3) (mgd) Vel. Time
(fpm)*** (min)#
112 16 16* 28672 9.14 3.32 33.77
2 112 16 16* 28672 9.14 3.32 33.77
3 69.5 18 18.1 ** 22640 10.33 2.94 23.61
4 69.5 18 18.1 ** 22640 10.33 2.94 23.61
5 78 20 20 31200 10.55 2.45 31.86
6 78 20 20 31200 10.55 2.45 31.86
* Assumed depth of 16 feet to match basin width
Assumed depth based on water surface elevation of 445.2 from 1984 drawings
*** GAEPD Minimum Standards for Public Water Svstems stipulates a flow-thru velocity of 0.5 to 1.5 fpm
# GAEPD Minimum Standards for Public Water Systems stipulates a detention time of at least 30 minutes
.
As shown in the tables above, the flocculation basins are satisfactory based on detention
time for the 45 mgd, although their flow-through velocities are in excess of the GAEPD
Standards. However, at 60 mgd, the detention times may be below the GAEPD
requirements (the actual detention times will depend on how the flow is actually split
among the basins). Expansion of this WTP to 80 mgd as indicated for Alternative 1 would
further exacerbate this issue.
The following repairs should be undertaken with respect to the flocculation basins,
regardless of which alternative is selected. The construction of additional flocculation basins
would depend on the extent to which the plant capacity is increased along with
modifications and/ or additions to the existing sedimentation basins:
1. Concrete repairs where needed.
2. Remove the bulk alum tank from above the first two flocculation basins. (The current
design drawings show the addition of a second bulk alum tank to be installed on top of
these basins. It is recommended that a change order be given to the contractor to change
the location of this new tank before its delivery to the site.)
3. Install multi-stage flocculators in all basins that do not currently have this.
4. As existing flocculators need to be replaced, consider replacement with vertical staged
flocculators. Although the vertical units are more expensive, they eliminate the need to
shut down a flocculation basin when repair is needed on a drive unit. They would also
eliminate the need for the drive shaft penetration through the sidewall which is leaking
so badly in all of the existing units.
.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT.DOC
18
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
Sedimentation Basins
Flow into sedimentation basins 1, 2 and 3 is through a series of 12 inlets for each basin. Each
inlet is about 1 inch by 4 inches. There is a baffle wall with 6-inch by 6-inch openings a short
distance downstream of the inlet. A second baffle wall, apparently with smaller but more
numerous openings than the first baffle wall, is located further into the basin. These first
three basins also include three walls which extend out into the basin in the direction of flow
for a portion of the basin length to minimize short-circuiting. These partial walls act to
increase the effective length/width ratio of the basins.
It was reported that, during low plant flows, the second baffle wall tends to cause the
flocculation to break up. This problem only occurs at the lower plant flows, not at higher
flows. The probable cause to this is that at lower flows, the flocculation has had more time to
form by the time it reaches this baffle wall. The flocculation is probably being sheared apart
by the increased velocity and turbulence associated with travel through the openings in the
baffle wall, and the flocculation likely cannot re-form once it has been torn apart. At higher
flows, the flocculation has not yet had a chance to fully form, and therefore this problem
isn't observed. The baffle wall was probably added to help alleviate short-circuiting, so the
question is which is the bigger problem: the short-circuiting or the flocculation
destabilization. Before any modifications are made to the sedimentation basins for short-
circuiting, it is recommended that a tracer study should be performed to determine if there
is a problem. If short-circuiting is found to be a problem, one possible solution would be to
further extend the walls which project out into the basin in the direction of flow. This will, in
effect, increase the length to width ratio of the basin. If it is decided to keep the existing
baffle wall, consideration should be given to increasing the size and/ or number of the
openings in the wall to reduce the velocity through the openings, thereby reducing the shear
forces. However, without performing a more formal analysis of this baffle wall, no specific
recommendation can be made at this point regarding the modifications to this wall.
There is a third baffle wall just before the overflow weirs. This wall is intended to further
minimize short-circuiting by forcing the water to continue to flow horizontally through the
basin, thereby minimizing density currents. The concern is that this baffle wall may result in
solids being carried along with the clarified water by maintaining velocity profiles near the
surface of the settled solids. If this were a mechanically cleaned basin in which the solids
were removed with greater frequency, this would not be as large a concern. However, these
basins are cleaned only once every three months. A fairly deep sludge blanket can
accumulate in this period, so that by the end of the operational period, the effective depth of
the basin has been significantly decreased, the flow-through velocity has increased
correspondingly, and solids may be scoured from the top of the sludge blanket. If the plant
is uprated to 60 mgd or greater, the accumulation of sludge will be even more rapid, which
will exacerbate this problem.
Based on the flow split as determined in the hydraulic analysis for a plant flow of 45 mgd,
basins 1,2 and 3 have a flow-through velocity of 0.46 feet per minute (fpm), a detention time
in excess of 6 hours, and a weir overflow rate of about 12,000 gallons per day per linear foot
(gpd/ ft). (The GAEPD Minimum Standards for Public Water Systems is for four hours
detention time and 0.5 fpm flow-through velocity, with a weir overflow rate of less than
20,000 gpd/ft.) At 60 mgd, the flow-through velocity, detention time, and weir overflow
rate would be 0.61 fpm, 4.5 hours, and 16,000 gpd/ft, respectively. At 80 mgd, these values
.
.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT.DOC
19
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
would be 0.82 fpm velocity, 3.38 hours detention, and 21,333 gpd/ft, respectively. These
velocity and detention values are based on the sludge blanket not accumulating beyond the
elevation of the bottom cones. However, since these basins are drained and cleaned only on
a quarterly basis, the detention volume may be significantly deceased during this cycle. This
may result in a flow-through velocity and detention time beyond the acceptable values.
Settled water from these first three basins enters a separate settled water flume from the
remainder of the plant. The two settled water flumes combine in the filter influent flume.
Sedimentation basins 4, 5, 6 and 7 each receives flow from its respective flocculation basin.
The inlet flume is 90 degrees to the axis of the sedimentation basins. Influent into the basin
is through a series of ten openings in the bottom of the respective inlet flume. There is a
baffle wall about 18 feet downstream of the inlet, and another just before the overflow weirs.
Under normal operation at 45 mgd, detention time in basins 4 and 5 is only 226 minutes and
flow-through velocity is 0.8 fpm (as noted above, the GAEPD Minimum Standards for
Public Water Systems is for four hours detention time and 0.5 fpm flow-through velocity).
Again, this is based on the sludge blanket being confined to the bottom cones. Outlet weirs
are the same as for the first three basins; however, because of the greater flow to these two
basins, the weir overflow rate is significantly higher at a value of 20,4000 gpd/ft. (slightly in
excess of the GAEPD Minimum Standards for a maximum weir overflow rate of 20,000
gpd/ft.)
.
The inlet to basins 6 and 7 is similar to basins 4 and 5, except that there are 26 openings in
the floor of each inlet flume. A wall projects about 20 feet out into the settling zone in the
direction of flow. Basin 6 has an inlet baffle wall, but basin 7 does not. These two basins are
about 10 feet wider and slightly longer than basins 4 and 5 and, as such, have a slower flow-
through velocity (0.73 fpm) and a slightly longer-detention time (267 minutes) at 45 mgd.
The weir length in each of these two basins is significantly greater than in basins 4 and 5, so
even though the flows are comparable, the weir overflow rate is significantly lower in these
last two basins (about 14,500 gpd/ft vs. the GAEPD Minimum Standards of 20,000 gpd/ft or
less) .
There appeared to be significant carryover of fine flocculation particles in these two basins.
However, this occurrence was observed during early afternoon hours and may have been
merely a visual distortion because of the bright sunlight. It should be confirmed by
collecting samples of the overflows from each basin.
The effluent from basins 4, 5, 6 and 7 combines in a single settled water flume, which flows
to the filter influent flume.
A summary of the flow-through velocities, detention times, and weir overflow rates for the
sedimentation basins is presented in Table 9 for both the current rated flow of 45 mgd as
well as the potential expansion to 60 or 80 mgd.
.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT.DOC
20
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
. TABLE 9
Analysis of Sedimentation Basins
45 mgd 60 mgd 80 mgd
Basin Flo-thru Detention Weir Flow- Detention Weir Flow- Detention Weir
Numbers Velocity Time Overflow thru Time Overflow thru Time Overflow
(fpm) (hours) Rate Velocity (hours) Rate Velocity (hours) Rate
(gpdf) (fpm) (gpdf) (fpm) (gpdf)
1,2, & 3 0.46 6.4 12,000 0.61 4.5 16,000 0.82 3.38 21,300
4&5 0.80 3.77 20,400 1.07 2.83 27,200 1.42 2.12 36,300
6&7 0.73 4.45 14,500 0.97 3.34 19,300 1.30 2.50 25,800
GAEPD Minimum Standards
Flow-through velocity: not greater than 0.5 fpm
Detention time: not less than 4.0 hours
Weir overflow rate: not greater than 20,000 gpd/ft.
.
In summary, the following items should be addressed for the sedimentation basins:
1. The biggest single issue is finding a way to split the flow evenly among the seven basins
without causing significant turbulence and breakup of flocculation particles which
might have been formed. As noted above in the section on rapid mixing, one approach
to this would be to construct a new rapid mix basin to serve sedimentation basins 4
through 7, with an overflow weir splitting device used to accomplish the desired flow
split.
2. The basins have a minimum depth of 13 feet, plus additional depth for the storage of
sludge. Channels were noted in some of the sludge blankets, and basin no. 5 was very
full. More frequent cleaning of the basins, or the addition of mechanical sludge removal
mechanisms, could help performance.
3. The addition of plate settlers to the sedimentation basins would alleviate any concern
regarding detention times in the basins at the higher flows, although the addition of
these settlers would also require certain structural modifications to the basins (such as
removal of the last baffle wall before the overflow weirs and addition of support beams
and/ or columns for the plate settlers). The addition of these settlers would also
necessitate more frequent cleaning of the basins.
4. Sludge disposal may need to be addressed. Turknett Pond is full of sludge and needs to
be dredged. However, EPD has verbally indicated that the WTP will be allowed to
continue to discharge sludge directly to Turknett Pond, as long as the NPDES permit is
not violated.
.
5. Handrails should be checked, especially for basin 5.
6. Weir overflow rates are at the maximum for basins 4 and 5 at 45 mgd based on the
assumed flow split among the basins. If the flow could be split proportionately to the
basins based on weir length, the overall weir loading rate at 60 mgd would be 20,067
gpd/ ft, Le., slightly over the GAEPD Minimum Standards. Otherwise, additional weir
lengths should be provided in basins 1 through 5.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT. DOC
21
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
7. The impact of the various baffle walls on the performance of the basins should be
evaluated over the entire range of flows, especially for basins 1,2, and 3. Velocities
through the baffle openings should be determined as a basis for evaluating their
effectiveness for dampening density currents. In addition, the velocities in the inlet
flumes and the entrances to the sedimentation basins should also be evaluated.
8. A tracer study should be performed for the sedimentation basins to determine if short-
circuiting is an issue. If it is, modifications to the baffle walls and/ or the axial partial
walls may be required.
9. Concrete repair should be undertaken in numerous locations.
10. Weirs should be confirmed to be level.
Filtration
.
From the sedimentation basins, settled water flows through two separate channels (one
from sedimentation basins 1 through 3; the second from sedimentation basins 4 through 7)
to the filter influent flume.
The Highland A venue Filtration Plant includes ten dual-media, two-celled filters, each with
a surface area of approximately 1050 ft2. At the current rated capacity of 45 mgd, the
filtration rate is 3.0 gpm/ ft2 with all filters in service (3.3 gpm/ ft2 with one filter out of
service). To increase the WTP capacity to 60 mgd and 80 mgd without adding new filters,
the filtration rate would be increased to 4.0 and 5.33 gpm/ ft2 , respectively, with all filters in
service (4.4 and 5.87 gpm/ft2- respectively, with one filter off-line).
Each filter is designed to include Leopold underdrains, 8 inches of gravel, 9 inches of sand,
and 20 inches of anthracite. However, operators report that the level of media in the filters is
low due to media loss during backwashing. Backwash troughs are cast-in-place concrete.
Rotary surface wash arms with nozzles are included for additional cleaning of the expanded
media during backwashing. Filter effluent piping includes a rate-of-flow controller for each
filter, although it was reported that these controllers are not currently being used. If this is
correct, and with the filters all operating at the same water level, this would imply that the
filters are operating in declining rate mode. (A declining rate mode is one where the cleanest
filter passes the highest flow of water. As the filter gets dirty and head loss increases, the
flow through the filter decreases until such time that the filter is backwashed. Under this
scenario, one would expect to find that each filter is operating at a different filtration rate,
with the cleanest filter having the highest rate. This assumption that the filters are operating
in declining rate mode needs to be confirmed. Observation of the filtration rates during one
site visit indicated that six of the filters were operating within 100 gpm of each other [1850 to
1950 gpm], with two of the filters operating at a rate about 25 percent greater [2420 and
2550 gpm]; the control consoles for the remaining two filters did not indicate what their flow
rates were.)
The filters are currently short of media, and there are a number of other recommended
improvements listed below for the filters. However, because of the high quality of the raw
water and the fact that influent turbidity to the filters is low, they appear to operating well.
The filters can be backwashed based on head loss, breakthrough of turbidity, or filter run
.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT.DOC
22
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
time, and it was reported that the filter run time is most frequently the controlling
parameter. If the plant capacity is increased beyond 45 mgd, an uprating study of the filters
will likely be required (based on submittal of operating performance data and an onsite
plant evaluation by the GAEPD, the requirements for an in-depth pilot study may be
reduced or waived by the GAEPD). Because of the low influent turbidity to the filters, the
filters may be able to operate successfully at the higher rate. However, it may become
necessary to backwash the filters more frequently than is currently performed.
To perform the uprating study, it will be necessary to isolate one or more of the filters to be
operated at the higher rate. There are two possibilities to accomplish this:
1. The filter influent flume includes a butterfly valve which can isolate filters 7 through 10
from filters 1 through 6. If this valve were to be used to separate the two groups of
filters, filters 1 through 6 would receive flow from sedimentation basins 1 through 3, and
filters 7 through 10 would receive flow from sedimentation basins 1 through 6. The
drawback to using this valve to isolate the two groups of filters is that the flow to the
individual sedimentation basins cannot be controlled or measured at this time.
.
2. Each filter effluent includes a flow meter and a rate-of-flow controller. As noted above, it
was reported that these rate-of-flow controllers are not currently utilized. However, if
these rate-of-flow controllers can be made to operate properly, then one or more of the
filters could be reset to operate at the desired uprated filtration rate of 4 gpm/ ftz while
the remaining filters would be operated based on a reduced flow rate. Each of the filter
effluents is already equipped with turbidity meters and particle counters to allow
monitoring of the filtered water quality.
A number of issues were noted which should be addressed with respect to the filters. These
are described below, along with recommendations. However, if the uprating study is
successful, many of these items can be postponed. -
1. The influent into the filters is through a gate, as well as the discharge of washwater from
the filter. It was reported that these gates often cannot be properly operated. Operators
sometimes have to force a slide plate in front of the filter inlet to isolate the filter. It is
recommended that all these filter inlet gates and backwash discharge gates be replaced
with actuated valves.
.
2. The actuators on most of the filter gallery valves are very old. As a minimum, the
actuators should be individually inspected and those which are not performing well
should be repaired or replaced. As a worst case condition, all of the valve actuators, and
possibly the valves themselves, should be replaced.
3. Surface currents were noted in most of the filters, with No.6 appearing to be the worst.
The cause of these currents could not be determined, although it is suspected that the
velocity through the filter inlet is too high. This sizing of the filter inlet should be further
evaluated, especially if the plant capacity is expanded and the filters have to be uprated.
If the size of the inlet is determined to be the cause of the surface currents, the inlets may
need to be enlarged or some type of baffling device could be installed immediately
downstream of each filter inlet to dissipate the velocity.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
23
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
4. Most of the filters are short of media. Each filter should be topped off with media as
required to bring the depth back up to the original design standards. If the last charging
of filters with new media has been longer than several years ago (the RTW draft report
says the media is 16 years old), the entire media bed should be replaced. As noted
above, the filter media design originally called for 9 inches of sand and 20 inches of
anthracite. Current requirements by GAEPD for filtration media call for a minimum of
24 inches of sand, with not more than 20 inches of anthracite for a conventional dual
media filter. If the entire filter media bed is to be replaced, this should be done prior to
the uprating study for those filters which are to be tested. To install these media depths
may require modifications to the existing underdrains as described below.
5. It was noted from the 1984 design drawings that there is insufficient depth in the filter
media beds for proper expansion of the media during backwash. Under optimal
conditions, there should be sufficient depth in a filter bed to allow a 30 to 50 percent
expansion of the bed, preferably with the top of the expanded bed at least 1 foot below
the underside of the backwash troughs. However, the current installation does not allow
for the desired clearances. Critical elevations associated with the existing filters are as
follows:
.
Bottom of the filter box: 437.6
Top of media: 441.56
Top of expanded media (30 percent expansion): 442.29
Underside of backwash troughs: 441.92 to 442.16 (the bottom slopes)
Top of backwash troughs: 443.85
.
It was reported that the filters are currently being backwashed at a rate of 15 gpm/ ft2
(this is at the low end of the acceptable backwash rates; 20 to 22 gpm/fF is more
desirable). As can be seen, even with only a 30 percent expansion, the top of the
expanded media is higher than the underside of the backwash troughs. This condition
will result in excessive media loss. Several possibilities exist to try and improve this
condition. The existing Leopold underdrains could be replaced with low profile underdrains
which do not require a gravel support layer. This would save approximately 10 inches. The
existing concrete backwash troughs can be replaced with FRP troughs, although this
would likely gain only a couple of inches. The troughs could perhaps be raised slightly,
although this would impact the hydraulics upstream of the filters. However, if
replacement of the media is based on the GAEPD Minimum Standards, the media depth
would likely increase from 29 inches to about 36 inches (assuming 24 inches of sand and
12 inches of anthracite), so that most of the vertical clearances gained with the
modifications described above would be lost to the increase in the media depth.
6. The backwash troughs are not level. The toughs are poured concrete. Their crests are not
sharply defined, and there is definite erosion of the top of the troughs. Overflow of the
weirs is not equal over the length of the weirs. During the high backwash rate, the
troughs are almost (not quite) submerged. It is recommended that the filter troughs
either be replaced with new FRP troughs or, at the very least, their surfaces should be
reworked to provide level, sharp weirs.
7. The surface sweeps appear to be at varying elevations. Although the sweep arms
themselves are in the media bed and are therefore not visible, the surface water supply
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
24
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
piping is supported from the tops of the backwash troughs. In some of the filters, a
portion of the surface water supply header is submerged, as if the pipe is sagging in the
middle. Assuming that the individual arms to each sweep are the same length, then the
sweep arms would also be at varying elevations. The surface sweeps and nozzles should
all be confirmed to be working properly and made level.
8. As described previously, the filters are backwashed at a rate up to 15 gpm/fF, which is
at the low end of the recommended high rate backwash (20 to 22 gpm/fF is more
desirable). If the desired clearance is not available, the only remedy would be to raise the
backwash troughs, although this could have an impact on the overall plant hydraulics.
(Note: the RTW first draft recommended replacing the existing backwash pump with a
much higher capacity pump so that both filter cells could be backwashed
simultaneously. While this would save operator time, it would necessitate upsizing all
the backwash piping in the filter gallery. If this were a new facility, the backwash design
might be approached in the manner recommended in the RTW report. However, the
cost of this modification is not warranted for this existing plant.) The existing backwash
pump is very old, and there is no apparent backup in case the pump is out of service. It
is recommended that the existing backwash pump be replaced with two pumps, each of
similar capacity to the existing pump. The pump is currently located in the filter gallery,
drawing suction from the finished water clearwells. Because of this arrangement, the
pump can be limited by suction lift is the clearwells are drawn down too far. Therefore,
it is recommended that the backwash pumps be relocated to a below ground pump
station.
.
9. Instrumentation should be calibrated, and signals from the instruments to the individual
filter consoles should be checked. Several signals at the filter consoles were noted as not
being available. Loss of head was reported as a negative on three of the filter consoles.
10. It is recommended that all the filters be operated in a constant rate mode. The filter
effluent meters and rate-of-flow controllers should be calibrated and verified to be
operating properly.
11. Backwashes are currently performed in a manual mode. It is recommended that
modifications to the filter control system be made so that the filter statuses can be
remotely monitored, and the backwashes can be controlled either manually from the
operations room or automatically by a plant control system.
12. Through a portion of the filter influent flume, roof drains from the filter building are
routed through the flume. (At the north end of the filter influent flume, the last four roof
drain pipes are routed across the flume and discharge at grade.) Although this has been
previously pointed out to the state and they have never required it to be modified, the
roof drains through the filter influent flume should be corrected.
.
Post Flash Mixing
The post flash mixer basin is a two-compartment basin, with each compartment having a
pitched blade turbine mixer. Post-treatment chemicals (fluoride, lime, phosphate, and
chlorine solution) are added as the filtered water enters the basin in the transition piece
from a 60-inch pipe to a 6-inch by 4-inch rectangular opening. All chemicals, except chlorine
solution, appear from the drawings to be injected through a simple termination of the
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
25
HIGHLAND AVENUE RLTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
chemical pipe at the edge of the sidewall. Only chlorine solution is added using a diffuser
which spans the opening into the basin. It is recommended that diffusers which span the
channel width be provided for the remaining chemicals except lime, or that the injection
points be relocate to approximately the one-third point of the channel (a diffuser for the lime
system would probably plug up, although this might not be an issue once the plant switches
over to liquid lime). For lime, the injection system can be left as a simple termination of the
chemical pipe, although it should also be relocated to approximately the one-third point of
the channel.
.
Each compartment of the mixing basin includes a pitched blade turbine mixer. Side baffles
project a short distance into each chamber from the two sidewalls to help break up
vortexing. The compartments are separated by a partial wall (the wall is full height in the
middle, and partial height from the floor upwards at the two outer sides, acting like an
overflow baffle wall). Discharge from the second chamber is under a baffle wall, which is
then followed by an overflow baffle wall.
With the exception of injecting all the chemicals either closer to the middle of the inlet
stream or by diffuser across the inlet cross-section (as is being done for chlorine), there are
no specific recommended modifications to this basin. There are no specific GAEPD-required
design criteria associated with post mixing, since flocculation formation is not a goal. The
only intent is to thoroughly and quickly mix the post-treatment chemicals with the process
water. Therefore, an in-line static or mechanical mixer would have sufficed for mixing these
chemicals into the process flow. However, the basin can accomplish the same task.
From an operational consideration, it is recommended that a flow meter be added to the
finished water piping upstream of this basin for pacing these post-treatment chemicals.
Flow-pacing capabilities are currently being added to these chemical feed systems.
However, the flow pacing signal is based on the raw water flowrate. Any changes made to
the influent flow might not be reflected in the treated water for some time.
Finished Water Storage
There are five finished water storage tanks at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant, with a
total storage capacity of 15.45 MG:
. No.1 -1.25 MG
. No.2-3.0MG
. No.3-5.0MG
. No.4-1.6MG
. No.5-4.6MG
.
Basin 2 is currently being modified to add baffling for disinfection concentration x time
(CT). The current modifications will result in all treated water being directed through
Basin 2. Two additional30-inch influent pipes are being added from the post flash mix basin
into this clearwell. From Basin2, several pipes connect this basin with the four remaining
finished water basins. There is no specific flow regime for the finished water through these
basins - the remaining four basins basically just ride up and down with demand. Flow to the
lower pressure zones in the distribution system is by gravity. Suction to the high service
pumps in the main building is from Basin 2; suction to the pumps in the generator building
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT.DOC
26
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
appears to be only from Basin 1; and suction to the auxiliary pump station is from Basins 2,
3, and 4. A CT study, including a possible tracer study, may be required by the GAEPD for
the system to uprate the plant to 60 mgd.
The concern with the layout of these five basins is that there may be dead zones in some or
all of the basins except Basin 2. With Basin 2 being the only basin which will be baffled,
there could be areas in the remaining basins where the disinfectant residual cannot be
properly maintained. A tracer study through the finished water clearwells could help
determine if dead spaces are an issue. There are no specific reports of zero residual in either
the clearwells or in the distribution system, so this may be a non-issue. If there is a problem,
the only way to remedy it would be to add baffles to the remaining basins and open/ close
valves to force the flow through the basins to be series flow. However, this could also
impact the discharge of water to the gravity distribution system. If baffling were required,
and assuming that sufficient CT is provided through Basin 2, the baffling through the
remaining basins would not need to be as detailed as for Basin 2.
It has been noted that there are some areas with leakage on certain clearwells. Some of these
are slated for repair as part of the current construction project. A thorough inspection
should be made of all exposed clearwell walls and any identified leaks should be repaired to
minimize the possibility of contaminating the finished water.
.
Chemical Feed Systems
General recommendation: The chemical piping should be color-coded and/or labeled,
including directional arrows. It is very difficult to follow the chemical piping as it is
currently laid out.
.
Alum
There is currently a single bulk alum tank with a capacity of 12,150 gallons. Plans are to add
a second, slightly larger tank of 12,800 gallons as part of the current construction project.
The existing tank is mounted on top of flocculation basin 2, with no containment. The
second tank is slated to also be installed on top of this basin. The total storage volume will
be 24,950 gallons. Based on an average alum feed rate of 15 mg/L, this total storage should
provide about 20 days of coagulant at 60 mgd.
A new containment area, preferably at grade, should be constructed for the alum tanks. The
existing alum tank should be relocated to this new containment. The ADD should delay
installation of the second tank until the new containment area is constructed. A possibility
might be to locate this containment area in place of the existing lime silos. Because the dry
lime system is being replaced with a liquid lime system, the alum containment area could
replace the lime silos. (A dry lime system is being maintained as a back-up to the new liquid
lime system; however, the utility has indicated that the intent is to use bag lime for the dry
system if it is ever needed. If this is correct, the dry lime silos can be removed or
demolished).
Existing alum feed equipment is located on the second floor of the filter building. The
current construction plans call for two new alum metering pumps to be provided at grade
(in the area of the existing washwater recovery pump). Each pump is sized for a maximum
capacity of 64 gph. Assuming a typical 50 percent alum solution (5.4 pounds of alum per
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT.DOC
27
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
gallon), each pump can provide an alum dose of 16.5 mg/L at the expanded plant flow of 60
mgd. Therefore, assuming that the alum dosage is fairly constant, this new equipment
should be satisfactory for expansion of the WTP to 60 mgd. However, expansion of capacity
beyond 60 mgd will likely require larger alum feed pumps.
Lime Feed System
The current construction calls for the installation of a new liquid lime feed system. The new
lime slurry system is to be installed across Central A venue from the plant, adjacent to the
post flash mix basin. The drawings for the current construction also show the demolition of
two existing lime hoppers and lime feeders, and the installation of a new lime hopper and
feeder. The new dry lime system is to serve only as a backup to the liquid feed system.
The new liquid feed system will include two bulk tanks and three lime slurry feed pumps.
No information was available from the construction drawings regarding the capacities of
the pumps, so it could not be determined what WTP flows these pumps are sized to handle.
As noted above, it is recommended that the existing dry lime silos be removed or
demolished. This would provide a space to which the bulk alum tanks could be relocated. In
addition, with the removal of the lime silos, the blowers in the generator building which are
used to blow dry lime over to the hoppers in the filter building, could also be eliminated.
.
Fluoride Feed System
The current construction drawings show demolition of the existing bulk liquid tank, day
tank, and two feed pumps. A new bulk liquid fluoride tank (4500 gallons) will be installed,
along with two need feed pumps and control panel. (The existing tank to be demolished is
mounted on top of a small building. The new tank will be constructed next to the building,
and the new feed pumps are being installed inside the building.) The two new feed pumps
are each sized at 14 gallons per hour (gph). Based on the typical fluoride feed rate of 1.0
mg/L and assuming that the chemical used is a 30 percent solution of H2SiF6, each pump is
sufficient to meet about 100 mgd of plant flow.
The drawings also show a dry fluoride feed system in the filter building, including a new
weigh scale, new day tank, new hopper extension, and refurbishing an existing feeder. This
dry system is intended only as a backup to the liquid feed system.
.
Chlorine Feed System
There are five chlorine containers on-line and five in standby. The containers are in an
outdoor, covered storage area. The major concern with this layout is containment and
treatment of a potential chlorine leak. There is a small cylinder heater for the chlorine
containers, so the minimum chlorine withdrawal rate per container is about 380 ppd. For
five containers on-line, this is equivalent to a daily feed capacity of 1900 ppd. At 45 and 60
mgd, this corresponds to a maximum chlorine dosage of about 5.0 and 3.8 mg/L,
respectively. Recent Monthly Water Production Reports indicate that the typical chlorine
dosage is 3.5 mg/L, so the current feed system appears to be adequate for either Alternative
2 or 3. If the plant is expanded beyond 60 mgd, additional capacity will be required.
However, because of safety concerns, it is recommended that the chlorine storage area
should be enclosed and a scrubbing system should be added, or that the AUD should switch
to a hypochlorite feed system as described below.
P:II52572IALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
28
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
The chlorinators are located across Central Avenue from the chlorine storage building on
the first floor of the filter building. Since this room is accessible from Central Avenue,
security to this chlorinator room should be improved. Another option would be to relocate
the chlorinators to the same facility as the chlorine containers. Although not mandatory, this
relocation would minimize the length of chlorine gas piping. There are 3 chlorinators - one
for pre-chlorination, one for post-chlorination, and one which serves as a standby for the
other two. Each chlorinator has a 2000-ppd rotometer. There are three eductors, each
dedicated to one of the chlorinators. The existing units appear to be rather old, although
there was no indication that they are not operating properly. Chlorine feed rates must
currently be manually adjusted. It is recommended that, along with flow pacing of the other
chemical feed systems which is currently under construction, flow pacing modules should
be added to the chlorinators, with feedback loop control based on chlorine residual for the
post-chlorinator.
As noted above, an alternative to enclosing the chlorine storage area and installing a
scrubbing system would be to switch to a hypochlorite feed system. In terms of costs, a
chlorine system is typically the least expensive. However, many utilities are converting to
hypochlorite because of safety considerations. Hypochlorite can either be directly purchased
as a 10 to 12 percent solution, or it can be generated on site as a 1 to 2 percent solution.
Although a feed system utilizing purchased hypochlorite has the least capital cost, its
operating costs are significantly higher than either chlorine or on-site hypochlorite
generation, so that it has a considerably higher present worth. On-site hypochlorite
generation has a much higher capital cost than for a purchased hypochlorite feed system,
but its operating costs are considerably less.
.
Polymer Feed System
Currently, polymer is added only when turbidity levels are high. The current system
consists of a small polymer drum (about 55 gallons) located outdoors adjacent to the raw
water meter pit, with a metering pump drawing directly from the drum. The current
construction plans call for a 3800-gallon polymer tank, a polymer blending unit, and two
polymer feed pumps rated for 0.1 to 4.5 gph. Assuming that one pump is for redundancy,
even pumping at the maximum rate of 4.5 gph means that the polymer tank has a capacity
of 35 days. However, it is uncertain what the sizing criteria for the bulk tank was. Typically,
a tanker truck's capacity is 4,000 gallons. In addition, it is desirable to provide surplus
capacity (typically, 20 percent or more) so that deliveries do not have to be tightly timed.
Based on this criteria, a more desirable size for the bulk tank would be 4,800 gallons. For
coagulant aids, shelf life is not typically a concern. If a filter aid polymer is to be used, the
dosages are typically low enough to warrant feeding the polymer directly from a 55-gallon
drum.
.
PAC Feed System
PAC is added very infrequently on an as-needed basis when there is a taste and odor
problem. There is a PAC feed hopper on the third floor of the filter building (it is shown as
being used for both alum and PAC). The current drawings show the existing alum day tank
and feed pumps to remain, and they are in the vicinity of this feed hopper, so the
assumption is that the day tank and pumps will be reserved for the PAC system. As noted
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT. DOC
29
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
previously, the PAC system could be utilized in case there is ever an issue with the water
quality of the canal rather than providing for both canal and river withdrawal capabilities.
Phosphate Feed System
The phosphate feed system consists of a bulk tank buried in the front yard of the filter
building, a transfer pump, 2-day tanks, and a single metering pump. Containment is limited
to that provided by a series of concrete blocks laid end-to-end.
Redundant phosphate feed pumps should be provided and they should be automated for
flow pacing. Real containment should be constructed.
.
High Service Pumping
There are three sets of high service pumps: the generator building pumps, the filter gallery
pumps, and the auxiliary pumps.
The four pumps in the generator building (also referred to as the Fort Gordon pumps)
discharge to the high pressure zone (630). These pumps are very old and in bad condition.
Access to the pumps is also extremely poor - they are centrifugal pumps ~d are two levels
below grade to be able to draw suction from the buried clearwell. A single pipe from
Clearwell No.1 provides suction for these pumps. The space inside the pump station is very
cramped. One pump is totally out of service. The discharge from this pump station is to an
18-inch header, which would normally be capable of carrying a flow of 4000 to 7000 gpm at
a reasonable velocity of 5 to 8 fps for pumped flows (the corresponding head loss would be
about 0.4 to 1.25 feet per 100 feet). The pumps are rated at 2000,2000,1200, and 1200 gpm,
so the 18-inch pipe should be sufficient to carry the flow. However, the discharge pressure
of each of the pumps at the rated flow is listed as about 300 feet, and the static difference
between the pumps and the target pressure zone is about 200 feet. Therefore, there is only
about 100 feet of pressure available for the dynamic head requirements. Based on a
maximum flow of 6000 gpm, the corresponding head loss for new pipe would be about 0.93
feet per 100 feet of length. The 18-inch pipe is old, and the unit head loss could be
considerably higher. Even if the pipe were new, it would be limited to about two miles in
length before the available head is consumed.
Based on this preliminary analysis, the four pumps appear to be inadequate for the intended
service. In addition, the four pumps are old and in poor shape, as is the electrical
equipment. Therefore, it is recommended that this pump station be completely replaced
with a new facility. In addition, it would be desirable to modify the yard piping so that these
pumps can draw water from multiple clearwells. One possibility would be to locate a new
below-ground pumping station across Central Avenue from the WTP, on the north side of
the Central Avenue Administration Building. Relocating this pump station would also
allow demolition of the existing pump station, which would simplify the yard piping in
terms of supplying raw water to a new pre-flash mix basin (as described earlier in this
report). A detailed hydraulic analysis should also be performed of the pipeline for the
proper sizing of these pumps. It is likely that the discharge pressure for the new pumps will
need to be greater than the design pressure of the existing pumps. It may also be necessary
to either replace the 18-inch discharge pipe, or parallel it with a second pipe in order to
carry the necessary flow.
.
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2 DRAFT. DOC
30
HIGHLAND AVENUE FILTRATION PLANT EVALUATION
.
The four pumps in the filter gallery pump to the 564 pressure zone. All four of these pumps
are indicated as being older than 50 years. Replacement parts are difficult to obtain. One
pump is diesel driven. Suction to the pumps is provided from Clearwell 2 via a flume
constructed below the filter gallery. This requires a priming system to allow the pumps to
pull the suction lift. This layout also restricts operation of the finished water clearwells - if
the water level in the clearwells is allowed to drop too low, these high service pumps
become limited by net positive suction head (NPSH) requirements. It is recommended that
these high service pumps in the filter gallery be entirely replaced, preferably in a similar
manner as the auxiliary pump station.
The auxiliary pump station has two pumps, one of which is connected to a diesel generator.
Suction to this pump station is provided from three of the clearwells. This pump station has
the best layout with respect to available suction head to the pumps, clearance and
accessibility to the pumps for maintenance purposes, and ability to draw water from
multiple clearwells. The discharge from this pump station is interconnected with the
discharge from the high service pumps in the filter gallery. This pump station was
constructed in 1985 and the pumps appear to be in good condition. Space exists for two
additional pumps. It is recommended that the two additional pumps be installed to replace
at least a portion, if not all, of the load handled by the filter gallery pumps. If additional
pumping capacity is required, the utility should consider expanding this pump station or
constructing a similar below-ground pumping station.
.
Miscellaneous Improvements
In addition to the specific operational improvements described above, other issues need to
be addressed. One major issue is plant security. The WTP has limited staff, and there is no
receptionist at the main entrance. Because much of the operations area is easily accessible
from the main entrance, it is recommended that this door be kept locked. Other entrances
from Central Avenue into the filter building, as well as gates that provide access to the
flocculation/ sedimentation basins, should also be kept locked. Although this is
inconvenient for the operators, it will help security.
Another approach which would dramatically improve security to the site, as well as
increase the level of safety to the operators, would be to close off Central Avenue. However,
it is recognized that this is a very unlikely occurrence.
Fencing on the west end of the plant, adjacent to the in-line skating park, should also be
improved. At the present, it is possible for objects to be thrown over the fence into
sedimentation basin 7.
.
There are a number of very old valves throughout the plant, especially buried in the yard. A
thorough investigation needs to be made of all valves to insure that they are still operable,
that their actuators are not leaking or causing potential contamination problems, that their
seats and disks still seal properly, etc.
As the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant has been expanded over the years, the yard piping
has become very complicated. In some cases, certain pipes may have been abandoned in
place. This complicates future construction, as well as adds to confusion regarding which
pipelines and valves are still operational. It is recommended that a thorough survey be
P:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2 DRAFT. DOC
31
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.2A
CH2MHILL
Water Treatment Alternative Evaluation - Draft
DATE:
December 18,1999
Contents
Introduction .. ... ..... ... ... ... ... .... .... ............... ............ ............... ....... ..... ...... ..... ....... ........ .......... ...... ... ..1
Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 3
Initial Process . Screening ............................................................................................................... 3
Development of Treatment Configurations .............................................................................. 3
Treatment Screening Based on Process Testing ........................................................................ 6
Fatal Flaw Review......................................................................................................................... 6
Cost and Benefits Evaluation..... ............................................................. ..................................... 9
Preferred Treatment Alternative............... ............................................................................... .11
Additional Considerations.......... ............................................................................................... 12
Attachment A Criteria, Weights, and Scoring
.
Introduction
Selection of the most appropriate water treatment technologies included the evaluation of
over 20 treatment configurations and evaluation criteria. The evaluation process consisted
of a sequence of evaluations and decisions that is summarized in Figure 1. Treatment
configurations and the type of raw water diversion were considered.
The evaluation process concluded with the development of two types of raw water
diversions and two basic technologies. The raw water diversion options include diverting
raw water with a conventional surface water diversion or diverting the river water with a
subsurface extraction process similar to an infiltration gallery or vertical wells.
Treatment options include conventional treatment and membrane processes. The
conventional process will include enhanced coagulation for organics and turbidity removal,
followed by ozone for disinfection and taste and odor control, followed by granular
activated carbon (GAC) filtration for final removal of particles (e.g., pathogens), organics,
and taste and odor. The membrane process includes enhanced coagulation and powdered
activated carbon addition for organics reduction and taste and odor control followed by the
micro-filtration for particle and pathogen removal. Each of these processes are followed by
a residual disinfectant. Initially the disinfectant will be free chlorine.
The bench scale test results have demonstrated that continued use of a free chlorine residual
should be acceptable to comply with future regulations as well. However, based on
economics, operational considerations, and environmental acceptability, a conversion to
chloramines may be the residual disinfectant of choice in the future. This can be decided
once the regulations have been promulgated. The preferred approach with chlorine is
compatible with a change to chloramines if desired in the future.
.
P:\I52572\ALL ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PlAMDEUVERABlEs\TM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
.
Develop Goals
and Objectives
Develop
Conceptual
Treatment
Processes
Use Goals and
Objectives to
Develop
Evaluation Criteria
Screen
Conceptual
Treatment
Processes
.
Develop
Specific
Treatment
Processes
Develop Cost
Estimates for
Treatment
Processes
Score Treatment
Processes Against
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate Cost and
Benefit of
Alternatives
Figure 1. Evaluation Process and Sequence of Evaluations
.
P:\1525n\ALL ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Develop Shortlist
of Conceptual
Treatment
Processes
Conduct Multi-
Attribute analysis
of Alternatives and
Benefits
Select Preferred
Treatment
Alternative( s)
2
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
Goals and Objectives
Treatment facility goals and objectives were established as a first step in the evaluation
process. Table 1 presents criteria and goals developed as a basis for the treatment facility
evaluation. These criteria were used throughout the evaluation process to compare and
rank one alternative against another. The major criteria were weighted during a workshop
with City of Augusta staff. The weightings are:
. Water Quality 40
. Operability 30
. Environmental 20
. Flexibility 10
- ~
The sub criteria that provide a definition for each of these criteria are presented in Table 1. A
complete list of criteria as well as scoring for each of the alternatives against these criteria is
included in Attachment A.
.
Evaluation Assumptions
All of the treatment alternatives must be capable of meeting all current water quality
regulations and have the capability to comply with the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule
(DBPR) and the long term enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). These rules are
to be met while using chlorine as the distribution system disinfectant. Table 2 presents the
water quality criteria.
Using chlorine as the distribution system disinfectant is considered highly desirable since
the current groundwater system is using chlorine. The only other viable alternative is
chloramine as the residual disinfectant. Use of chloramine would require the conversion of
most if not all chlorine systems located at wells and reservoirs to chloramine systems. This
requires the addition of ammonia at each of these locations.
Initial Process Screening
To begin, a thorough list of treatment approaches and processes was developed and
screened according to the known ability of each alternative to achieve the desired water
quality. Table 3 presents these technologies.
This initial screening leaves convention treatment technologies (Le., coagulation,
clarification, ozone, GAC, filtration) and membrane technologies (e.g., micro/ultra-
filtration, nano-filtration).
.
Development of Treatment Configurations
Treatment configurations were developed based on conventional and membrane
technologies that passed the initial screening. Table 4 presents the 21 treatment
configurations developed from these conventional technologies and membrane
technologies. This list of treatment configurations presents a full range of alternative
treatment processes with the potential to meet the water quality objectives. Ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection and chloramines are discussed below.
P:\1525721ALl ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
3
.
.
.
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
TABLE 1
Criteria and Goals for Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives
Category
Water Quality
Operability
Environmental
Flexibility
Criteria
Goal and Measure
Disinfection Byproducts
Pathogens
Finished water stability
Taste and odor
Minimize
Minimize
Provide biological and corrosion stability
Minimize
ASR Compatibility
Meet Future Regulations
Produce water acceptable for ASR
Maximize capabilities to meet future regulations
Long-term process reliability Over 20 to 50 year period provide proven reliability of basic
processes (assuming normal maintenance)
Maintenance complexity
Operating safety
Unattended operation
Minimize
Maximize
Operations can be accomplished with minimal operator
attention (e.g., best would be approximately 1 shift per day
for 5 days)
Noise
Traffic
Minimize
Minimize
Public safety
Maximize, provide facilities that do not expose public to
hazards
Water recovery (backwash) Maximize
Residuals Minimize
Footprint Minimize
Visual Impact Minimize
Chemical usage Minimize
Water rights Maximize
Construction Impacts Minimize
Constructibility Minimize construction complexity, e.g., proven
constructibility
Compatible with Conjunctive Maximize
Treat changing water quality Maximize
Expansion capability Maximize
Treat diu mal fluctuations Maximize, provide the capability to treat rapid changes in
water quality and flow
Treat seasonal fluctuations Maximize, provide capability to shut down the treatment
facilities for extended period of time, e.g., 2 months
P:\1525721ALL ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELNERABLESlTh14-2A TREATh1ENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
4
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
TABLE 2
Water Quality Criteria
Disinfection Byproducts
THMs
HAAs
Bromate
Chlorite
Pathogens
Giardia
40 J,.lg/L
30 J,.lg/L
5 J,.lg/L
1 mg/L
> 3 log
> 3 log
>410g
>410g
Crypto
Virus
Bacteria
Finished water stability
Biological regrowth Reduce TOC and minimize AOC
Corrosion Meet lead and copper rule limits
Taste and odor (TON) - non-objectionable
.
ASR Compatibility
Growth
Particles and plugging
Groundwater chemistry
Meet Future Regulations
Pathogens
Disinfection byproducts
Inorganics
Reduce TOC and minimize growth in aquifer
Produce less than 0.1 NTU water
Prevent dissolution or precipitation in aquifer
Improved removal and disinfection
Lower byproducts and TOC to prevent regrowth
Reduce inorganics concentrations (e.g., As > 5J,.lg/L)
TABLE 3
Initial Technology Screening
Treatment Processes
Comments
Pre-coat Filtration
Slow Sand Filtration
Conventional Technologies
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Nanofiltration
UV disinfection
This technology is not acceptable for large treatment plants due to
cost and scale-up issues
This technology is not acceptable due to land requirements and
marginal treatment capabilities for organics and turbid waters
Acceptable (conventional technologies include processes such as
clarification, filtration, chlorination, chlorine dioxide, ozone)
Acceptable based on preliminary screening
Acceptable based on preliminary screening
New technology conditionally acceptable, discussed separately in
process evaluations
.
P:l1525721ALl ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT. DOC
5
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
Treatment Screening Based on Process Testing
To further evaluate the treatment alternatives, a series of bench scale tests were conducted
to determine the capabilities of each of the alternatives. The results of this testing is
presented in a separate report prepared by the Applied Sciences Laboratory, CH2M HILL,
Corvallis, Oregon. The treatment evaluations developed information on treatment
capabilities and requirements. Capabilities include parameters such as total organic
compound (TOC) removal and disinfectant byproduct (DBP) reduction. Treatment
requirements include parameters such as required coagulant dose and GAC bed life.
Fatal Flaw Review
.
The process testing identified fatal flaws in a number of the treatment alternatives being
considered. The fatal flaws include: 1) the inability to meet the regulatory requirements of
the DBPR, 2) the inability to meet the regulatory requirements of the SWTR, and 3)
inadequate pretreatment associated with the bank filtration option and nano-filtration.
The DBPR could not be achieved by bank filtration alternatives with chlorine only, direct
filtration, and direct filtration with chlorine dioxide. The SWTR could not be met by the
bank filtration and the ozone with biologically activated carbon (BAC) or GAC only. The
bank filtration alternative that is designated as ozone and direct filtration will have GAC as
the filter media. As a result it can be referred to as direct filtration BAC as well as direct
filtration or simply BAC. The coagulation system that allows for particle removal in the
filter is the essential process addition to meet the SWTR.
The bank filtration and nano-filtration failed due to the inability of the bank filtration to
provide a water that can be applied to a nano-filter, Le., the filters would fail due to solids
plugging.
The surface water diversion alternative of conventional treatment fails due to unacceptable
water quality. This alternative will not comply with the DBPR rule.
This review reduces the 21 treatment alternatives to 13.
Environmental Considerations
Figure 2 presents the evaluation of environmental considerations for the 13 remaining
alternatives.
.
P:lI525721ALl ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAOOELlVERABLESlTM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
6
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
TABLE 4
Treatment Altematives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Conventional Treatment (Con v) Ozone (03)/Biologically
Activated Carbon (BAC)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Microfiltration (MF) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Microfiltration (MF)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Coagulation & Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)
Microfiltration (MF)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Chlorine Dioxide (CI02) Conventional Treatment (Conv)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Microfiltration (MF) Nanofiltration (NF)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Conventional Treatment (Conv) Ozone (03)/Biologically
Activated Carbon (BAC) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Conventional Treatment (Conv) Granular Activated Carbon
(GAC)
Surface Water Diversion (SW) Conventional Treatment (Conv)
Bank Filtration (BF) Coagulation Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Microfiltration (MF)
Bank Filtration (BF) Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Microfiltration (MF)
Bank Filtration (BF) Microfiltration (MF) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
Bank Filtration (BF) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
Bank Filtration (BF) Nanofiltration (NF)
Bank Filtration (BF) Conventional Treatment (Conv) Ozone (03)/Biologically Activated Carbon
(BAC)
Bank Filtration (BF) Conventional Treatment (Conv)
Bank Filtration (BF) Ozone (03) Direct Filtration
Bank Filtration (BF) Chlorine Dioxide (CI02) Direct Filtration
Bank Filtration (BF) Direct Filtration
Bank Filtration (BF) Ozone (03)/Biologically Activated Carbon (BAC)
Bank Filtration (BF) CI2
P:11525721ALL FILES IN 1438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT. DOC
7
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
0.7
l:lI Constructibility
C/) III Construction Impacts
Q) 0.6
.:::
t5 iii Chemical Usage
Q)
:0 0.5
0 IiilVisuallmpact
Cl
C III Water Recovery
:a5 0.4
Q) o Public Safety
:2:
oS I!:IWater Rights
C/) 0.3
~ o Noise
0
c..>
(J) 0.2 iii Compat Conj Use
Q)
>
~ o Foot Print
Qi 0.1
!:I: III Traffic
o Residuals
0
.
\(>-"?-U rA"?-U ..$ ..$ *' '5r'U '5r'U ..$ ..$ rA"?-U (.>-,,?-U ()o~ ./<~
~ /,'" U U _.f5. 0 0 U U /,'" ~ <:)....'
Orlj -~ q,"f q,"f _,~. ...u o~ q,"f q,"f -~ Orlj ~ (!>
o~ 0~~' #' ~O; ~' riJ.<Q' _,() ~O; ~ ~~. o~ v ~O
_, () uO O~' uO ~ () <0
~' 0~ o~ ~ <0
~()
o
Alternative Treatment Processes
Figure 2. Water Treatment Plant Assessment Environmental Components
As shown, the surface water diversion alternative that includes conventional treatment with
ozone, biological activated carbon, and granular activated carbon has the least capability to
meet the environmental objectives. Due to its very poor environmental benefit score, it was
eliminated as a viable alternative.
In addition the nanofiltration alternative is eliminated due to residual concerns and water
recovery. Nano-filtration has a 15 percent water wastage rate. This water cannot be
recycled short of constructing a conventional treatment plant for the recycle and producing
the same amount of solid residuals as treating the entire flow by conventional treatment.
This 15 percent wasted water (up to 15 million gallons per day [mgd]) would have to be
routed to the wastewater plant, which is also a significant negative for the process. Based
on these drawbacks, the nano-filtration alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
This review reduces the 13 treatment alternatives to 11.
.
P:1152572IALL FILES IN 1438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4.2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT. DOC
8
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
Cost and Benefits Evaluation
Figure 3 presents the remaining 11 alternatives and their relative benefit scores for all of the
evaluation criteria.
0.7
0.6
0.5
(fl
~
0 0.4
U
CI)
Q)
.:::
1ii 0.3
Q)
a::
0.2
0.1
0
.
~ ~ $ $ ~ ~ $ $ ~ ~ ~
S:-' 0 (j (j .~ 0 (j (j 0 _~ (jo
~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~
o~ # # uO'/)oO; ~O ~(j0 0'/)00; ~ ~ o~
~u ~\ v co f.<u f.<.u
co ~~ <Q <Q
Alternative Treatment Processes
OTreat Diurnal Fluctuations
. Expansion Capability
o Traffic
o Public Safety
o Water Recovery
o Residuals
o Foot Print
o Visual Impact
o Chemical Usage
III Water Rights
II Construction Impacts
. Constructibility
11II Maint Complexity
.Ops Safety
IJ Pathogens
o FW Stability
IiH&O
l:J ASR Compatibility
o Noise
. Treat Seasonal Fluctuations
o Com pat Conj Use
. Unattended Ops
III Long-term Reliability
o Meet Future Regs
. Treat Changing WQ
[] DBPs
Figure 3. Eleven Treatment Alternatives and Benefit Scores
Figure 4 presents the unit costs for each of the alternatives. It is evident that the cost for the
GAC without coagulation alternatives are the most expensive and do not provide greater
value than some of the other treatment alternatives. These two alternatives were eliminated
from further consideration.
The difference between the alternative of surface water, powdered activated carbon (PAC),
and microfiltration (SW PAC MF) and that of surface water, coagulation, PAC, and micro-
filtration (SW COAG PAC MF) is the coagulation process. Coagulation can be used to
reduce toxic organic compounds (TOC) and so reduce the need for PAC, Le., reduce
operating costs as indicated. Construction costs will remain approximately the same. When
comparing these alternatives the following is apparent:
· Coagulation reduces the environmental benefits
· Coagulation slightly improves the water quality benefits
· Coagulation operating costs are significantly less
.
P:11525721ALL FILES IN 1438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT. DOC
9
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
The only difference between the two treatment trains is coagulation and there is a reversal
in costs and benefits. By selecting the alternative with coagulation; the City will be able to
operate with or with out coagulation and derive either the environmental benefits (Le., no
coagulation) or cost and water quality benefits (Le., with coagulation).
8
7
6
co 5
0>
--
~
Ul 4
-
Ul
0
() 3
-
c
:J 2
~ Construction
Unit Cost,
$/gpd
~ Present
Value Unit
Cost, $/gpd
.
o
v v _~ _~ .....v _~ _~ v .....v ^..), /:~
-8;1:f 01:f v""'- v ""'- 0' v"'" v ""'- 01:f ~, . 0"" ....
0":>\ .$ ~1:f ~1:f 0<:0-..), ~1:f ~1:f .$ o~ ~ () o,,:>Q~
~. ,.~ ,.~ rlr~ ~\() rlr~ ~ ~ ()o~ ~
VO -oJ -oJ VO ~~ VO v
~ ~ ~ ~
Treament Alternatives
Figure 4. Capital and Operating Costs for 12 Alternatives
The bank filtration, PAC, micro-filtration (BF PAC MF) alternative and the bank filtration,
coagulation, PAC, micro-filtration (BF COAG PAC MF) alternative can be assessed in the
same manner. The only difference is the coagulation process. The differences in benefits
and costs are approximately the same as that for the surface water alternatives listed above.
For the same reasons, it is reasonable to select the alternative with coagulation and eliminate
the alternative without coagulation.
~ Present
Value O&M
Unit Cost,
$/gpd
The surface water, conventional, GAC (SW, CONY, GAC) alternative has less benefits and
costs more than the two remaining surface water alternatives, Le., surface water,
conventional, ozone, BAC (SW CONY 03 BAC) and surface water, coagulation, PAC,
micro-filtration (SW COAG PAC MF).
Finally, the bank filtration with micro-filtration approaches do not need clarification to
operate or derive the benefits associated with these alternatives. As a result, it is reasonable
to eliminate the two bank filtration alternatives with conventional clarification due to high
costs and no significant increase in benefits.
.
P:11525721ALL FILES IN 1438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
10
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
Preferred Treatment Alternative
Figure 5 presents the remaining 4 alternative treatment processes and their relative benefit
scores. The membrane alternatives for the surface water and the bank filtration alternatives
are basically the same from a process perspective. Also, the conventional treatment
alternatives are approximately the same; only varying by the clarification step required for a
surface water diversion.
0.6
SW Conv 03lSAC
SW Coag PAC MF
SF 03 Dir Filt (BAC)
SF Coag PAC MF
Cl Treat Diumal Fluctuations
. Expansion Capability
o Traffic
o Public Safety
o Water Recovery
o Residuals
o Foot Print
o Visual Impact
o Chemical Usage
DWater Rights
. Construction Impacts
. Constructibility
. Maint Complexity
.Ops Safety
III Pathogens
o FW Stability
IIT&O
.ASR Compatibility
o Noise
.Treat Seasonal Fluctuations
o Com pat Conj Use
o Unattended Ops
. Long-term Reliability
o Meet Future Regs
.Treat Changing WQ
o DBPs
0.5
0.4
II)
Gl
is
u
~ 0.3
.::
'IV
CD
a:
0.2
e
0.1
o
Alternative Treatment Processes
Figure 5. Preferred Treatment Alternatives
Based on this analysis, two basic treatment alternatives will be brought forward as preferred
alternatives:
1. Conventional Process - Enhanced coagulation followed by clarification (for the surface
water option), followed by ozone and BAC filtration.
2. Membrane Process - Enhanced coagulation followed by PAC addition, followed by
micro-filtration.
Additional process evaluations will be required prior to selection of the treatment process.
This will include piloting of the membrane process. Piloting is required to verify operating
and maintenance criteria.
.
For the environmental documentation, it will be necessary to assume that the conventional
process will be selected. This is necessary to assure that the more significant environmental
impacts (e.g., traffic, site size, and residuals) are taken into account. If a membrane process
P:\152572IALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT. DOC
11
WATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
.
is determined to be acceptable and cost effective, this will improve upon the environmental
impacts. However, this cannot be determined until after the pilot verification.
Additional Considerations
The use of ozone can be very beneficial to the water quality. It is one of the most effective
disinfectants for a wide range of pathogens, it removes many taste and odor compounds, it
improves particle removal, and improves organics removal such as TOC and synthetic
organics. However, one of the byproducts of ozone is bromate. Bromate is regulated by the
DBPR at 10 micrograms per liter (J..I.g/L). This will most probably be lowered to 5 J..I.g/L.
These very low levels require a thorough evaluation of the byproduct production to assure
that these levels will not be exceeded.
Bank filtration has a risk associated with the unknown long-term operability of the system.
Operability can be compromised if the aquifer plugs due to silts and biological growth
resulting from extracting large quantities of water from the river through the river bank.
This issue must be carefully considered as the diversion and treatment plant are developed.
As shown by the benefits above, bank filtration can greatly add to the treatment efficiency
and lower operating costs. The benefits and lower cost are well worth a thorough
evaluation of this approach.
Membrane scale-up and longevity are always a question for waters that have not been
treated previously with membranes. The only way to determine these operating
. characteristics is to pilot the membrane process.
The treated water's compatibility with groundwater favors the micro-filtration approaches.
Micro-filtration should remove more particles than a conventional technology. It may be
possible to reduce the regrowth potential as well.
Micro and ultra filtration equipment are currently proprietary and will require a well
planned process for purchasing the preferred equipment. Piloting will be required to
assure that a membrane system will perform as anticipated. The acquisition technique will
have to be carefully structured. Approaches to acquisition include evaluated bid pre-
purchase, negotiated price, assignment to the contractor, and more.
Piloting is required for micro-filtration but not necessarily for conventional treatment. The
necessity for membrane piloting was presented above. It is not necessary to pilot
conventional treatment but it may be desirable. Piloting would be undertaken to assess
design criteria not its water quality improvement capabilities. If the process is not piloted,
standard design criteria will be used. This will be somewhat conservative and will result in
a additional construction costs. For the size of plant being considered, this could amount to
millions of dollars. The decision to proceed with piloting should be made based on
discussions with the State Department of Health and the anticipated cost with and without
piloting. This should be a relatively simple determination.
UV disinfection is an evolving technology that should be considered as this project
develops. Although not currently accepted for surface-water treatment, it has the potential
for being very cost effective for a wide range of treatment considerations. Future piloting
and process development should consider this technology.
.
P:lI525721ALL ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM4-2A TREATMENT SELECTION DRAFT.DOC
12
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4.3
CH2MHILL
Distribution System Improvements
DATE:
January 31,1999
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Computer Model........................................................................................................................... 6
Overall System Operation............................................................................................................ 6
System Population and Demand Projections ............................................................................ 8
Demand Allocation and Sources of Supply............................................................................... 9
Modeling Needs .......................................................................... ............................................. ..... 9
Overall Recommendations..................................................................................................... ....14
.
Introduction-
The Augusta Utilities Department (AUD) supplies finished water to the City of Augusta and
neighboring parts of Richmond County. Currently, the following three sources are used to
meet AUD water demands: Highland Avenue Surface Water Treatment Plant (Highland
Avenue Filtration Plant) and two Ground Water Treatment Plant and Pump Stations (GW Plant
No.1 and GW Plant No.2). The AUD is in the process of conshucting two additional
ground water plants in the southern part of the distribution system. The two new plants will
allow the AUD to retire the existing GW Plant No.1 and GW Plant No.2.
The distribution system is equipped with several storage tanks and booster pumping
stations. Summaries of distribution system storage and pumping facilities for the surface
and ground water plants are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Major treatment and storage
facilities are presented on Figure 1.
TABLE 1
Surface Water Storage and Pumping Facilities
Location
Elevation
System
Gallons
Clearwell1 433 1,250,000
Clearwell1 433 3,000,000
Clearwell1 433 5,000,000
Clearwell 1 433 1 ,600,000
Clearwell 1 433 4,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Clearwells 433 All 15,450,000
Berkman's Road 418 420 500,000
Reservoir Tank 564 564 500,000
Augusta State (350,000 gal., inactive) 557 0
Walton Way Extension 501 500 750,000
Belair Road 630 630 1,000,000
Total Storage 33,650,000
.
ATIJP:\15257:!\AU ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM4-3.DOC
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
. Location From To Head (ft)
gpm
Summary of Surface Water System Pumping
Central Avenue Booster Station 433 420 66 3,000
- -------------
Aux. High Service Pumps 433 564 173 8,100
Aux. High Service Pumps - Future 433 564 0
Aux. High Service Pumps - Future 433 564 0
Aux. High Service Pumps - Diesel 433 564 173 8,100
High Service Pumps - Diesel 433 564 160 2,000
High Service Pumps 433 564 160 5,600
High Service Pumps - Backup 433 564 160 2,000
High Service Pumps 433 564 160 3,500
Fort Gordon Pumps - Diesel 433 630 310 1,200
Fort Gordon Pumps 433 630 300 2,000
Fort Gordon Pumps 433 630 300 2,000
Fort Gordon Pumps - Backup 433 630 300 1,200
Wrightsboro Road Booster 630 630 110 2,000
Wrightsboro Road Booster (Inactive) 630 630 110 2,000
Total Pumping
. TABLE 2
Ground Water Storage and Pumping Facilities
Location Elevation System Gallons
Summary of Ground Water System Storage
WTP No. 1 Clearwell 162 All 500,000
WTP No.2 Clearwell 128 All 1,000,000
Faircrest Avenue 436 417 5,000,000
Faircrest Avenue 417 417 500,000
Windsor Spring Road 417 417 500,000
Richmond Hill Road 417 417 500,000
Golden Camp Road 417 417 250,000
Morgan Road 417 417 2,000,000
Brown's Road (inactive) 417 417 1,000,000
Pine Hill 457 521 300,000
Pine Hill 521 521 150,000
Wallie Drive 457 457 300,000
Highway 56 457 417 500,000
Tobacco Road 598 598 500,000
Fairington Drive 598 598 250,000
Georgetown 598 598 500,000
Lumpkin Road 598 598 250,000
Waynesboro Road 521 521 500,000
Rose Hill (inactive) 412 2,000,000
Greenland Road (inactive) 598 598 500,000
. Total
ATlJP:\1525721ALL RLES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM4-3.DOC
2
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
. Location From To Head (ft) Gpm
Summary of Ground Water System Pumping
WTP No. 1 - Pump 1 162 417 310 1 ,40()
WTP NO.1 - Pump 2 162 417 310 1 ,400
WTP No. 1 - Pump 3 162 417 310 1 ,400
WTP No.1 - Pump 4 162 417 310 1 ,400
WTP No. 1 - Pump 5 162 417 310 1 ,400
WTP NO.2 - Pump 1 128 417 352 1,800
WTP NO.2 - Pump 2 128 417 352 1,800
WTP NO.2 - Pump 3 128 417 352 1,800
WTP NO.2 - Pump 4 128 417 352 1,800
WTP NO.2 - Pump 5 128 417 352 1,800
Highway 56 Booster (inactive) 417 457 153 1 ,400
Highway 56 Booster (inactive) 417 457 153 1 ,400
Brown's Road Booster (inactive) 417 417 124 1 ,400
Brown's Road Booster (inactive) 417 417 124 1,400
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Faircrest Booster Station 417 598 285 1,050
Richmond Hill Booster Station 417 598 280 1,060
Richmond Hill Booster Station 417 598 280 1,060
. Richmond Hill Booster Station 417 598 280 1,060
Norton Road Booster Station 417 417 59 1,360
Norton Road Booster Station 417 417 59 1,360
Norton Road Booster Station 417 417 52 2,350
Golden Camp Booster - Vertical 417 598 285 1,050
Golden Camp Booster Station 417 598 236 1,100
Golden Camp Booster Station (spare) 417 598 700
Golden Camp Booster Station (spare) 417 598 700
An overall system wide plan entitled "Comprehensive Water System Study" (Study) was
completed for the ADD in 1998. The Study provided overall demand projections,
production and distribution system facilities review and recommendation to the Highland
Avenue Filtration Plant and distribution system. The Study incorporated the following
assumptions:
1. 2020 maximum day demand of 90 mgd
2. Current maximum day demand of 69 mgd based on the assumption that actual
maximum demand is higher than the actual value of 58 mgd due to the potential
increase in demand if adequate pressure was available in the high elevation areas.
3. Distribution system modeling is based on 90 mgd provided from the Highland Avenue
Filtration plant.
.
ATtJP:\1525721AU ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM4-3.DOC
3
.
.
.
'C'
B
-~
~ <:
'5 ~
!2e.
~ ~
.. ..
ii: ii:
..c;
.a
::lz _ ~
g.O II .g
:I:~~~~ <:
1!Oal~a~
"CIS! <:~ b
~ j ~ .g~fb~.i!l
~~ s: Q~:I:~~8
CI .....".....1([]
...t::.."....
If::::::.::::::
"Q
<:
J
Z 1IIIIiiI. !!!![
-
I I
~ ~
..... :88
e:e~
::s=....
C)(.)c:
.- ea ea
11..u._
>.0-
o..s
D.c.o
::lea
~:!:
.m
ea
:::
l-
e
'iij"
:!:
Cl
c:
:;:l
c.o
.)(
W
..
.!!
:i
....
...
...
:l
Je
11
rot
:z::
U
..
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
.
5. Maximum day demands can be met with GW No.1 out of service assuming that the
recommended capital improvements are done
6. Meet average day demand with GW No.1 and No.2 are out of service assuming that the
recommended capital improvements are implemented.
Computer Model
Existing computer model used to simulate existing and future conditions was based on the
combination of the City and the County distribution systems. Field testing to determine the
"C" factors were done for each system individually. Demand distribution is based on
population (current and projected) within each traffic zones. Demand projections were
based on current maximum day of 69 mgd, which is significantly higher than the actual
number of 58 mgd. The higher estimate used for current and future maximum day demands
can potentially result in significant impact on the recommendations to the distribution
system
Overall System Operation
Finished water from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant flows by gravity and is pumped
using the High Service (564 ft) and Fort Gordon Pump Stations (PS) (630 ft). Gravity flow is
used to supply the 417 gradient (Intermediate) and the 310 ft gradients (Low). High Service
PS is used to the northern part of the system. Fort Gordon PS is used to supply the western
part of the system.
. Finished water is pumped from GW Plant No.1 and No.2 into the intermediate pressure
gradient (417-feet). Distribution system pump stations located at various locations are used
to feed isolated higher pressure gradient.
Water levels in the finished water clearwells at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant and
system pressure requirement at the 417-foot gradient limits gravity flow to the area adjacent
of the Faircrest tanks. Areas not served from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant are
supplied from GW Plant No. 1. Faircrest tanks consist of a one 1 MG tank and one 4 MG
tank. Re-pumping is required to refill the 4 MG Faircrest Tank since it was built at an
elevation that is 20 feet higher than the 1 MG (417 ft).
In addition to the gradients listed above, the distribution system contains several pressure
gradients that are fed using individual wells, booster pump stations or pressure reducing
valves. Discussion with operation personnel indicated that the high number of pressure
gradients requires extensive operation of isolation valves, pump stations, and tanks. Some
of the existing pressure gradients consist of small areas with limited volume of storage. In
addition, difference in operating pressure of some pressure gradients is relatively small. A
summary of pressure gradients is presented in Table 3.
.
ATUP:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
6
.
.
.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE 3
Pressure Gradient Summary
System
Elevation (ft)
Water Source
Surface Water Plant Pressure Gradient
Super High
High
Adjusted High
Intermediate
Fort Gordon PS
630
564
500
433
310
High Service and Auxiliary HS PS
PRY from the High System
Gravity for the Plant's Clearwell
PRVs from the Intermediate System
Low
Ground Water Plant Pressure Gradient
High
Pine Hill High
Pine Hill
Water Plant
BPS from 417 feet
BPS from 457 at Brown Road
Pine Hill Wells 1, 2, and 3
GW Plants No. 1 and No.2
598
521
457
437/417
Additional operational issues based on review of system operations and discussions with
ADD personnel indicated the following:
· Limited transmission main capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant.
· Low pressure north of the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant.
. Low pressure and storage capacity in the Tobacco Road area.
· Water quality concerns at well fields No.1 and No.2 that may require deactivation. It is
anticipated that even if the well fields are retired, portions of the treatment facilities at
those sites will be used as re-pumping stations.
· Highland Avenue Filtration Plant gravity flow is limited by the water level needed to fill
the Golden Camp Tank.
. The 2 MG Morgan Tank bleeds off Tobacco Road Since limited pressure and storage for
the Tobacco Road area is a primary concern for the ADD, the Morgan Tank alternate
sources to refill the Morgan Tank should be evaluated.
· Improve equalization storage in the distribution System to compensate for the potential
loss of the GW Plant No.1.
· Brown Road tank elevation is too low and the tank is locked out of the system.
· Storage at Tobacco Road area is not adequate limited and supply lines capacity to meet
high demands is limited. Most of the Tobacco Road area is supplied off the Faircrest PS.
The ADD is planning to improve storage shortage and limited supply capacity by
completing the proposed 20-inch and pumped storage facility.
ATVP:11525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
7
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
.
System Population and Demand Projections
Review of system pumping rates indicated a current maximum day demand of 57.7 mgd.
Current hydraulic capacity of the Highland A venue Filtration Plant limits its delivery to an
estimated 45 mgd.
The ADD's service area population is expected to increase from the 1998 level of 191,329 to
242,150 by 2020. In addition, many areas of the City are seeing new development as a result
of a shifting population. This growing, shifting population will require the ADD to expand
the service to new areas and to increase water production and wastewater treatment. Water
production needs are projected to increase from 57.7 mgd (maximum day) to between 74.6
mgd and 77.0 mgd (maximum day), depending upon level of conservation achieved1 as
shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Water Projections (1998-2020)
1998 2000 2010 2020
Total Population 191,329 204,439 222,497 242,150
Per capita Water Usage, gpd (commercial and residential) 151 151 153 154
Industrial Usage, mgd 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.7
Annual Avg. Water Usage, mgd 39.2 41.2 44.5 48.1
. Max. Day Water Usage, mgd 57.7 61.1 71.2 77
The shift of population within Augusta from developed areas, which have the infrastructure
in place to support the water and wastewater demands of the population, to undeveloped
areas, which were previously not served by the ADD, presents many challenges to the water
and wastewater utilities. The two population distribution scenarios prepared for the Master
Plan are designed to present the utility with a range of potential growth patterns. While
growth is affected by factors that the ADD cannot directly control, such as growth in
adjacent counties and the health of the MSA's economy, the pattern of population
distribution that ultimately occurs will be heavily influenced by the vision of the local
government.
The probable trend will be the continuation of current trends projection, with increasing
development of the less-developed Neighborhood Planning Areas (NP A) of BelAir,
Meadowbrook, and South Richmond. With this scenario, infi1l and redevelopment of the
area within the former city limits of Augusta would not occur. Several Census tracts are
projected to continue to experience a declining population. Growth rates vary across Census
tracts, based on the share of population growth (persons) attracted to that location from
1990 to 1998.
.
1 Fort Gordon is not included in the study area for the Master Plan. Water and wastewater demands at Fort Gordon are met by
on-base facilities and not included in the estimate of demands.
A TUP:\ 1525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM4-3.DOC
8
.
.
.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Distribution system improvements associated with improving system pressure in
the Tobacco Road area
Determine improvements needed to implement various proposed future plant
locations
Long Term Needs (2005-2010)
Determine the impact of removing GW Plant No.2 and feasibility if using it as a re-
pumping center.
Impact of an additional surface water Plant (capacity will depend on the final Plant
modified capacity)
Finalize improvements associated with selected additional plant
Improvements needed to meet future demands
. Long Term Needs (2010-2020)
Impact of an additional surface water Plant (capacity will depend on the final Plant
modified capacity)
Impact of removing GW Plants No.3 and No.4 from service, and the feasibility of
using the ground water plants during peak or emergency condition
Improvements needed to meet future demands
Overall Recommendations
. .
System improvements will be discussed based on short and long term needs. The short term
recommendations are aimed at solving current pressure and storage problems. Long term
improvements are aimed at maintaining adequate supply to meet future demands,
modifications to the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant and potential additional sources of
supply.
Water Supply by 2005
Based on recent water samples results and ground water level, the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GAEPD), has indicated that the ADD should consider removing GW
Plant No.1 from service. The GAEPD has indicated similar concerns about GW Plant No.2.
In order to ensure adequate supply capacity, the short term improvements will be based on
the anticipated sources of supply that will be available by 2005 listed in Table 5. A detailed
evaluation and recommended improvements to the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant is
presented in a separate memorandum.
TABLE 5
Water Supply 2005
Capacity
Water Supply 2005 mgd
Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant** 60
Groundwater Treatment Plant No.3 5
Groundwater Treatment Plant No.4 5
Total Rated Capacity 70
GWTP No.1 well field deactivated. Use as re-pump of additional supply from Highland WTP
GWTP No.2 well field will be used as supplemental supply
** Increase capacity from 45 mgd to 60 mgd
In
Service by
2005
2000
2001
ATlJP:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
14
.
.
.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
If the GAEPD requires the ADD to remove GW Plant No.1 from service, additional supply
capacity will have to be provided from the Plant to the 417-foot gradient and to refill the
Faircrest and Golden Camp tanks. Adequacy of the existing piping capacity from the
Highland A venue Filtration Plant to supplement the loss of GW Plant No.1 is not known.
Limited supply capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant can potentially reduce
the useable volume of the existing clearwells at the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant or will
require the ADD to lower the operating water levels in the existing elevated tanks which
will lower the system pressure. If the ADD chooses to use GW Plant No.1 as are-pumping
station, piping modifications to the GW Plant No.1, and the addition of pressure sustaining
valve on the suction piping to minimize reduction in system pressure will be required. The
supply capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant and the impact of taking the GW
Plant No.1 out of service can not be determined till further modeling is completed.
The ADD has already identified several distribution system improvements that are needed
to maintain adequate system pressure, improve reliability and operating conditions. A
detailed list of system improvements is presented in the CIP. Near future major system
improvements should be finalized based on detailed hydraulic analysis. However, the
following list of recommendations to improve current pressure and operational difficulties
can be presented based on discussions with the AUD, review of previous studies, and
review of the existing system facilities. A summary of the proposed improvements is
presented on Figure 6.
1. Install2D-inch main and storage facility along Tobacco Road to improve pressure and
storage in the Tobacco Road area (Estimated Cost = $3.6 M) - Currently Under
construction
2. Provide additional supply capacity to the Tobacco Road area from the Faircrest Storage
and Pump Station (Estimated Cost = $0.8 M)
3. Improve hydraulic capacity from Highland Avenue Filtration Plant to the 417 ft service
area -Complete South Connector (Estimated Cost = $3.3 M). Connector final route
should be based on computer modeling, reliability and the recommended location of the
future water treatment plant.
4. Improve supply capacity to the west part of system (Estimated Cost = $1.02 M).
5. The ADD previous plans to add a 16 -inch along Doug Bernard Parkway should be re-
evaluated to improve hydraulic capacity from the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant
(Estimated Cost = 1.2 M).
6. Evaluate the feasibility of retro-fitting the existing 18 inch raw water line to finished
water in order to improve the supply capacity to the 417 foot service area north of the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant. Evaluation should include at a minimum the overall
condition, age, and pressure rating of the existing lines (Estimated Cost = $0.1 M).
7. Modify existing piping of the Golden Camp tank to allow refilling the tank off the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant. (O&M cost)
8. Improve supply distribution from Ground Water Plant No.3 (Estimated Cost =
$0.325 M).
ATUP:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
15
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
.
9. Improve supply distribution from Ground Water Plant No.4 (Estimated Cost =
$1.58 M).
.
10. Combine areas south of Tobacco Road into one 521-foot pressure gradient. A review of
the existing pressure gradients in the southern part of the System indicated that the
457-foot and 521-foot service areas can be combined into the 521-foot gradient with little
modifications to the system. Elimination of one pressure gradient will allow
streamlining the operation of the almost the entire area south of Tobacco Road into one
pressure gradient. This would simplify the operation of GW Plant No.2 and the
proposed GW Plants No.3 and No.4. Some of the existing storage tanks can be either
retired due to small volume (Pine Hill 0.3 MG @ 457 feet) and negligible impact on the
system or can be retrofitted with booster pump stations (Rose Hill 2 MG @ 417 feet,
Brown Road Tank 1 MG @417 feet, and Hwy 57 @ 457 feet). The proposed pressure
gradient is outlined in Figure 6.
11. The ADD is currently planning on adding a pumped storage facility for the Tobacco
Road area. The pumped storage will ensure adequate storage capacity to pump to the
Tobacco Road during high demands. In addition, to the pumped storage it is
recommended that additional elevated storage be provided at the Tobacco Road The use
of elevated storage will provide the required equalization volume and fire protection for
the Tobacco Road area by gravity. Final storage volume and location can be determined
based on computer modeling.
12. Implement needed distribution system improvements based on the results of additional
computer modeling.
In order to plan adequately to meet future demands and to allow construction of anticipated
additional sources of supply for 2005 - 2010, all preliminary studies, permitting and
investigations will be completed prior to 2005.
Water Supply by 2005 . 2010
In order to meet projected water demands and to allow for future removal of GW plants,
and to supplement the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant capacity, several alternatives for
additional sources of supply were reviewed with the ADD and will summarized below. The
final capacity of the additional source will be a function of how the GAEPD will allow the
ADD to utilize GW Plants No.3 and No.4. The recommended capacity is based on
assuming that the ADD will be allowed to utilized GW Plants No.3 and No.4 only. GW
Plants No.1 and No.2 are assumed to be used for re-pumping stations.
TABLE 6
Water Supply 2010
.
Capacity
Water Supply 2010 Mgd
Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant 60
New Surface Water Intake 10**
New Water Treatment Plant 10**
Groundwater Treatment Plant NO.3 5
Groundwater Treatment Plant No.4 5
Total Rated Capacity 80 $22,000,000
GWTP No.2 well field deactivated. Pumping system used as re-pumping station of new WTP.
** Modular system increased in capacity based upon need.
Est. Cost
Expansion
In
Service by
In service
2008
2008
In service
In service
$7,000,000
$15,000,000
ATVP:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
17
.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Development of a new plant will require selection of optimum raw water source and
location and treatment plant location. In addition, source water assessment, permitting and
watershed assessment studies will be required.
Potential locations of additional treatment capacity will be discussed based on alternate
locations for the raw water supply and alternate locations for the treatment facility. Four
alternate sources of supply were developed based on review of available information and
discussions with ADD personnel. The following is a summary of the potential raw water
supplies:
Alternative I: Evaluate the feasibility of developing river raw water source using river bank
infiltration (vertical wells or Ranney wells east of Tobacco Road).
Alternative II: Construct a raw water intake and pump station off the Savannah River.
Since, the GAEPD indicated concerns with poor quality of the river downstream of Augusta.
Locating the intake upstream of Augusta will significantly increase the length of the
pumped raw water lines to the proposed Plant. The river front at Augusta is already
developed area with limited access.
Alternative III: Locate the raw water intake just upstream of Interstate 20 on the
Savannah River.
Alternative IV: Evaluate the feasibility of constructing an intake on the Canal similar to the
existing intake. This will allow the ADD to utilize turbines to drive raw water pumps to the
proposed Plant.
. Benefits and concerns for Alternatives I through IV are listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6
Alternatives Benefits and Concerns
Alternative Benefits Concerns
Alternative 1- River . Reduces/eliminates impact of current . Ground water allocation
Bank Infiltration and future water quality regulations . GW contamination
. Consistent raw water quality . Well head protection
. Lower treatment cost . Adequate capacity
. Proximity to two potential locations of . GAEPD permitting
future treatment plants
Alternative II - River . Adequate safe yield . Feasibility due to lack of river front
Intake at Augusta . Separate source from the Canal space
. Contamination due to upstream
discharge
. Cost of raw water pipeline
Alternative 111- River . Upstream of development and Industry . Length of raw water line and
Intake Upstream of . Adequate yield impact on cost
Interstate 20 . Withdrawal permit not an issue . Proximity to potential future plant
. Potential tie in to neighboring counties locations
Alternative IV- Canal . Potential expansion of the existing . Same source of supply for both
Intake station plant
. Potential use of the existing raw water . Adequate safe yield
lines . Length and feasibility of raw water
. Extensive knowledge in treatment of line to future plant
. the raw water source
ATUP:\1525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM4-3.DOC
18
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
.
Potential locations of the future plant are determined based on anticipated need to meet
future demands, supplement the loss of the existing ground water facilities and based on
distribution system facilities. Once the raw water source is selected, raw water will be
pumped to the proposed treatment plant. The following is a list of recommended locations'
of the proposed treatment plant:
Alternative 1: Locate the proposed plant to the south of Tobacco Road area to supplement
areas currently supplied by the GW Plant No.2 and the proposed GW Plants No.3 and No.
4.
Alternative 2: The proposed plant would be located north of Tobacco Road This will allow
the use of the of finished water mains to supplement the Highland Avenue Filtration Plant.
This alternative would be considered if the ADD chooses to implement Alternatives IV or II
listed above.
Alternative 3: Fort Gordon and Bobby Jones Expressway Vicinity.
Alternative 4: Alternative 4 - Adjacent to Intake Alternative III.
Benefits and concerns for Alternatives 1 through 4 are listed in Table 7.
TABLE 7
Alternatives Benefits and Concerns
Alternative Benefits Concerns
. Alternative 1 - . Allows new Plant to supplement potential . Space availability
Tobacco Road in the loss of GW No. 1 and No.2 . Transmission main to deliver
Vicinity of GW Plant . Supplements flow from the Highland Plant flow to system
NO.2 . Can feed directly into a separate pressure
gradient for Tobacco Road Area
. Will allow AUD to direct more flow to the
northern part of the system from the
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant
. Proximity to two intake alternatives
. Can be used to supplements the areas to be
served by GW No.3 and No.4.
Alternative 2 - East of . Allows new Plant to supplement system . Space availability
GW No.1 demands north of GW Plant No.2 . Transmission main to the
. Supplements flow from the Highland Plant system
. Will allow AUD to direct more flow to the . Transmission main to deliver
northem high elevation areas from the flow to system
Highland Avenue Filtration Plant
. Proximity to two intake altematives
Alternative 3- Fort . Supplements flow from the Highland Plant . Limited to one intake option
Gordon and Bobby . Proximity to the Tobacco Road area . Length of raw water piping
Jones Expressway . Transmission main to deliver
Vicinity flow to system
Alternative 4 - . Proximity to Alternative III intake location . Length of raw water line
Adjacent to Intake . Proximity to neighboring county for potential . Growth in the southern
Alternative No. III portion of the system
. Does not supplement existing
. ground water plants supply
. . Transmission main to deliver
flow to system
ATUP:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
19
.
.
.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Water Supply by 2010-2020
Year 2020 improvements are aimed at meeting 2020 maximum day demands and will be a
function of the improvements implemented by 2010. If the ADD completed a new treatment
plant by 2010, it is anticipated that major component of 2020 improvements will consist of
expanding the proposed plant capacity to 20 mgd, and any distribution system
improvements that are needed to meet system demands. Water Supply 2020 sources are
listed in Table 8.
TABLE 8
Water Supply 2020
Water Supply 2020
Capacity
mgd
60
Est. Cost In
Expansion Service by
In service
$2,000,000 2020
$10,000,000 2020
To be
Determined
$17,000,000
Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant
New Surface Water Intake
20*
New Water Treatment Plant
20*
Distribution System Improvements
Total Rated Capacity
80
GWTP Nos. 3 & 4 will be used as supplemental supply vs. primary supply. This will eliminate reliance on
groundwater supply.
* Modular system increased in capacity based upon projected needs
ATUP:II525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM4-3.DOC
20
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
:.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5.1
CH2MHILL
James B. Messerly WWTP Evaluation
DATE:
January 21, 2000
Contents
Facility Overview..... ........ ...... ...... ... ......... ......:..... ..... ..... ... ........... .... ....... ......................................1
Project Background....................................................................................................................... 2
Condition Assessment.. ...... ................ ......................... ..... ... ........ ................... ............... ..... ..... .....8
Process / Capacity Assessment............................................................ ....................................... 17
Recommended Improvements.................................................................................................. 34
Appendices
A Site Photos
.
Facility Overview
The James B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (J. B. Messerly WWTP) is located in
south central Augusta. This facility, also known as the Butler Creek Wastewater Treatment
Facility, has two separate treatment trains, the North Plant and the South Plant. The North
Plant, constructed in 1976, was originally designed to provide only primary treatment.
Later, an oxidation ditch was constructed to provide secondary treatment capacity of
approximately 17.8 million gallons per day (mgd). In 1984, the South Plant was constructed
with a design capacity of about 28.4 mgd. Flow equalization basins were added in 1995. In
1997, the first stage of a wetlands system was constructed to provide additional ammonia-
nitrogen removal. Effluent flows from the wetlands to the Savannah River. .
The J. B. Messerly WWTP employs a single headworks facility with screening, grit removal
and influent lift pumping. The North and South Plants each employ the following
additional unit processes/facilities:
. Primary sedimentation
. Flow Equalization
. Primary sludge pumping
· Activated sludge with fine bubble aeration
· Aeration blowers
· Secondary clarification
. Return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS) pumping
· Chlorine disinfection
.
The North and South Plants send primary sludge and thickened WAS to a common
anaerobic digestion system. A gravity belt thickener is utilized to increase WAS total solids
concentration to about 5 percent prior to anaerobic digestion. The digested sludge is land
applied as a Class B biosolid to several farms near Hephzibah and McBean. This practice has
been employed for more than 16 years.
P:II43875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESllM5-1.DOC
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
,.
The J. B. Messerly WWTP receives domestic wastewater from the surrounding community
as well as a significant load from several major industrial contributors. The J. B. Messerly
WWTP was originally rated, based on "normal strength" wastewater, to have a treatment
capacity of 46 mgd. The influent strength of the wastewater has increased over the years as
result of additional industrial contribution and reduction in collection system infiltration
and inflow.
Project Background
Description of Existing Facilities
The J. B. Messerly WWTP presently has a permitted capacity of 46.1 mgd. The design flow
split is 62 percent to the South Plant with the remaining 38 percent flowing to the North
Plant. Table 1 presents a design data summary of major treatment processes.
TABLE 1
Design Data Summary for Major Treatment Processes
Design Data
.'
Component
Preliminary Treatment
Mechanical Bar Screens
Number
Bar Clear Spacing
Width, each
Vortex Grit Chambers
Number
Diameter, each
Capacity, each
Grit Pump Type
Existing Influent Lift Pumps
Number
Type
North Plant
South Plant
Combined
2
%-inch
7ft
3
20 ft
50 mgd
Turbo-Lift
.
Capacity, each
Capacity, firm
Capacity, total
New Influent Lift Pumps
Number
Type
Capacity, each
Capacity, firm
Capacity, total
Primary Treatment
Primary Clarifiers
Number
Dimensions, each
Surface Area, each
Surface Area, total
Sidewater Depth
Primary Sludge Pumps
4
Dry Pit
Centrifugal
20 mgd
60 mgd
80 mgd
8
Submersible
10 mgd
70 mgd
80 mgd
4
40' x 200'
8,000 tt
32,000 tt
10'
4
40' x 200'
8,000 tt
32,000 tt
10'
8
64,000 tt
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
2
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
,. TABLE 1
Design Data Summary for Major Treatment Processes
Design Data
Component North Plant South Plant Combined
Number 2 2 4
Type Duplex-Plunger Duplex-Plunger
Capacity, each 250 gpm 250 gpm 1 ,000 gpm
Primary Scum Pumps
Number 2 2 4
Type Rotary Lobe Rotary Lobe
Capacity 90 gpm 90 gpm 360 gpm
Secondary Treatment
Aeration Basins
Number 3 4 7
Basin Dimensions 126' x 309' 60' x 200'
Sidewater Depth 12 ft, max. 20 ft
Basin Volume, each 2.17 MG 1.80 MG
Plant Volume, Total 6.51 MG 7.20 MG 13.71 MG
Aeration Diffuser Type Ceramic Fine Bubble Ceramic Fine Bubble
Aeration Blowers
Number 4 4 8
Type Single Stage Single Stage
Centrifugal Centrifugal
. Capacity, each 9,900 scfm 7,350 scfm
Capacity, total 39,600 scfm 29,400 scfm 69,000 scfm
Secondary Clarifiers
Number 2 2 4
Type Center Feed Center Feed
Diameter, each 160 ft 185 ft
Surface Area, each 21,100 if 26,900 if 95,800 ft2
Surface Area, total 42,000 ft2 53,800 if
Sidewater Depth 12' 14'
RAS Pumps
Number 4 4 8
Type Centrifugal Centrifugal
Capacity, each 4,100 gpm 9,400 gpm
Capacity, total 16,400 gpm 37,600 gpm 54,000 gpm
WAS Pumps
Number 2 2 4
Type Centrifugal Centrifugal
Capacity, each 530 gpm 530 gpm
Capacity, total 1 ,060 gpm 1,060 gpm 2,120 gpm
Disinfection
Chlorinators
Number 3
Capacity, each 4,000 Ibs/day
Capacity, total 12,000 Ibs/day
Chlorine Storage
. Service Units(ton cylinders) 3 3 6
Standby Units 3 3 6
Total Units 6 6 12
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
3
.
.
.
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
TABLE 1
Design Data Summary for Major Treatment Processes
Design Data
Component
Flow Equalization
Combined
North Plant
South Plant
Equalization Basins
Number
Diameter, each
Sidewater Depth
Volume, each
Aeration Diffuser Type
Equalization Blowers
Number
Type
Capacity, each
Capacity, total
Solids Handling
Sludge Thickening
Number
Type
Belt Width
Hydraulic Capacity
3
200 ft
21 ft
5.0MG
Coarse Bubble
2
Positive Displacement
1
Gravity Belt
2.0M
500 gpm
Anaerobic Digesters
Number - Primary
Number - Secondary
Volume, each
Volume, total
Cover Type
Mixing System
Sludge Dewatering
Number
Type
Notes:
MG
gpm
scfm
ft2
RAS
WAS
4
2
1.7 MG
10.2 MG
Floating
Gas Recirculation
2
Centrifuge
million gallons
gallons per minute
standard cubic foot per minute
square feet
return activated sludge
waste activated sludge
Figure 1 presents the process flow diagram for the North and South Plants.
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
4
.
Z ==
0 0.<(
oi=
OZ<( ~ffi
f-:5~ 0
(IJ
0... >:
0... 3:~ ~ I
<( '"
,...>0 "
i u:
15
W..J3: 0
0
en 0:0:0 "
~ ~
0 ::).W ..J ..J
e"enu. a:
w
(IJ
-enen Vl
U.w w
::;
en ==f3 ~
W U'l
<.!l '"
::::l .0 ~
u. Cl!o a.
0:
f- ""')0:
Z
W a.
u
0
0...
.en
W 0
en
>-a: Uen
~~ -a:
Ou. alW
Z- Of-
Oa: a: en
u:5 Ww
<(<.!l
WU Z-
en <(0
....J
....J
<(
u.
f-
::::l
o
r
W
....J
0...
en
<(
a:
Z
Qz
~1i)
a:<(
Wal
<( 0
0...
W
0...
I en_
0...
>-a:
a:~
<(!!: ::::l
:Ea: en u.
0::5 0 f-
al
o...u <.!l
r
c:
a:
W
1=
~~
enal
Z
<i:
:E
c:
z
a: 0
>-f- <.!l ~~
a:Z
<(W 0_
~~ ....J....J
u.<(
;;<( ::::l
. ....JW U 0
Wa: W
g:f- en
~
a:
\
z
o
i=
<(
:>
W
a:
al
al
<(
W
<.!l
W 0
~ W 3w
W a: <.!l en<.!l
a: f- 0 f-oo
::::l f-....J ::::la: ZW::::l
en zw~ f-f- W....JW Wf-....J
lli6w~<.!la: z~~ <.!lenf-en3<(en
a:-<.!l<(ow a:w::::lW 00<(<.!lu.~0
o...~oz3z 03....J::::la:::::lW~zfubw
~....J3fficn~ au.~i~~~~z>-<(~
ogeno...ouc~~wu.>->->enwa:w~
....J O::::lW-a: >->-w....Ja:i=<(w<(f-f-
~wwcna:~<.!l@a:a:f-o<(u~~oenu
enzf-a:w <(<(zo...:E<( ~z<(<(
lliO:lliw~~ ~:E:E:5 a:z~eno~w
ug<.!l~~W a:a:o... o...a:~ ~o~
O~owwal 0...0... ::::l enW<(
g:u ~o~ ~ ~~
~ 0:> a: ~
~ <( ~
<( a: ~
<.!l f-
Q
Z
W
Cl
W
..J
~
W
a:
f-
en
~
o
....J
U.
en en
u. wocnen~UW<(<(
o...enen::::l~f-a:~C:~....Jo...o...~a:encn~~
....J"Oen>al<.!lo:: 0... ~
<(~ 00<.!l
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EV ALUATlON
.
Permit Requirements
The J. B. Messerly WWTP discharges under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit GA0037621, issued in 1996. Table 2 presents the plant's permit
information. It is anticipated that a new NPDES permit will be issued in January 2001,
when the treatment wetlands become operational. It is also anticipated that the new permit
will decrease the allowable monthly average for ammonia as N down to 1.0 milligrams per
liter (mg/L.)
TABLE 2
Effluent Limitations
Discharge limitations mg/L (kg/day) unless otherwise specified
Parameter
Monthly Average Weekly Average
174,488 (46.1) 218,016 (57.6)
10(1,747) 15 (2,184)
20 (3,494) 30 (4,367)
1.5 (262) 2.25 (328)
200/100 mL 400/100 mL
. 0.023 .
0.023
Flow - m3/day (mgd)
BOD (5-day)
Total Suspended Solids
Ammonia as N
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Total Residual Chlorine
pH
.
Dissolved Oxygen
Cyanide, Total
0.0063- (1.1)
0.0063- (1.1)
* **
~3/d
ml
mg/I
kg/day
These are daily maximum limitations.
cubic meters per day
milliliters
milligrams per liter
kilograms per day
Wastewater Flows and Loads
Historical wastewater data were presented in the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation for
the Augusta-Richmond Utility Department Butler Creek Facility (Rothberg, Tamburini and
Winsor, 1998) report and are used in this document as the basis for evaluation of current
conditions. Table 3 lists data from that report.
Wastewater flow projections through the year 2020 were presented in the TM Augusta-
Richmond County Population Distribution and Water and Wastewater Flow Projections
(CH2M HILL, 1999). Projected wastewater flows for the J. B. Messerly WWTP are
summarized in Table 4.
.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM5-1.DOC
6
.
.
.
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
TABLE 3
Historical Wastewater Characteristics
Parameters
Average Daily Values
Maximum Month Values
BOD
Influent Wastewater, mg/L
Primary Effluent, mg/L
Secondary Effluent, mg/L
TSS
Influent Wastewater, mg/L
Primary Effluent, mg/L
Secondary Effluent, mg/L
NH3
Influent Wastewater, mg/L
Secondary Effluent, mg/L
Notes:
mg/L
BOD
TSS
million gallons per liter
biochemical oxygen demand
total suspended solids
TABLE 4
Projected Wastewater Flows
322
208
13
425
258
23
302
131
16
480
158
23
18
4
22
9
Year
2000
2010
2020
Annual Average (mgd)
32.7
36.6
38.9
Maximum Month (mgd)
39.2
44.0
46.7
Maximum Day (mgd)
51.4
57.7
61.3
Notes:
1) Maximum day flows estimated from original design maximum month: maximum day peaking factor and are not
based on flow projections. The annual average and maximum month flow values are based on flow projections
as indicated in the text.
mgd million gallons per day
Future biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and ammonia
loads are projected by applying the concentrations provided in Table 3 to the projected
flows shown in Table 4. These loads are shown in Table 5.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
7
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 5
Projected Raw Wastewater Loads for J. B. Messerly WWTP
Annual Average Maximum Month Maximum Day
Parameters (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
BOD for Year
2000 87,800 116,000 174,000
2010 98,300 130,000 195,000
2020 104,500 138,000 207,000
TSS for Year
2000 82,400 131,000 196,000
2010 92,200 147,000 220,000
2020 98,000 156,000 234,000
NH3forYear
2000 4,910 6,000 9,000
2010 5,490 6,710 10,100
2020 5,840 7,140 10,700
Notes:
Maximum daily loads are estimated based on the original design maximum month: maximum day peaking factor
of 1.5.
.
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
TSS total suspended solids
Ibslday pounds per day
Current Projects
The Augusta Utilities Department (ADD) has initiated or recently has completed several
J. B. Messerly WWTP improvement projects. These projects include:
. New Influent Lift Pump Station
. North Plant Aeration Piping and Diffuser Replacement
. North Plant Secondary Clarifier Launder Modification
. Chlorination System Modifications
. Digester Rehabilitation and Modifications
Condition Assessment
Section 3 provides an assessment of the physical condition of the various major treatment
components at the J. B. Messerly WWTP along with recommendations for repair and/ or
replacement. This assessment is based on a plant inspection conducted November S, 1999.
The assessment of each unit process or facility includes the following:
. Description of the device or facility and its use or purpose
· Installation date
.
· Recommended useful life for that type of device or facility
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
8
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
. Condition assessment with estimate of remaining useful life and recommendation for
repair or replacement
A brief chronology of the development of the J. B. Messerly WWTP is as follows:
· 1968 - The North Plant is constructed to provide primary treatment.
. 1976 - Oxidation ditches and final clarifiers are added to the North Plant to provide
secondary treatment at a capacity of 17.8 mgd.
. 1984 - The South Plant is constructed and capacity increases to 46.1 mgd.
. 1994 - Gravity belt thickening of waste activated sludge prior to digestion is added and
replaces the dissolved air flotation system.
· 1995 - Three 5 MG flow equalization basins are added.
. 1997 - The first stage of a wetland system is constructed to provide additional ammonia-
nitrogen removal.
.
Preliminary Treatment '
The major components of the preliminary treatment system include two mechanical bar
screens, three vortex-type grit removal basins with grit pumps and classifiers, and the
influent lift pump station.
Mechanical Bar Screens
The mechanical bar screens remove larger debris from the influent wastewater and are
important in protecting downstream equipment like the influent lift pumps. The bar screens
were installed as part of the 1981 headworks construction. Useful life for a mechanical bar
screen in a moderately corrosive outdoors environment is estimated at 20 to 25 years.
Therefore, these bar screens should have 2 to 7 years of useful life remaining. The major
structural elements of the bar screens should meet the estimate of remaining useful life, but
other components should be addressed as identified below.
Condition Assessment
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the mechanical bar screens.
1. The screens are generally in good repair with normal corrosion and wear evident.
2. The I-inch bar rack should be replaced with a lh-inch bar rack in order to remove more
material that otherwise must be conveyed and treated downstream. The smaller bar rack
may remove up to 50 percent more material than the I-inch bar rack.
3. The drives should be replaced with submersible motors. Currently, the screens must be
shut down at high flows to avoid damaging the drives. Infilco Degremont (the screen
manufacturer) now provides sealed, waterproof drives on its screens and should
evaluate drive capability if finer screen is added (sufficient power to move greater
volume of screenings). The existing drives should be replaced with water proof drives.
Figure 1 in Appendix A shows a screen drive.
4. The screenings conveyor is worn and should be replaced (see Appendix A, Figure 2)
with a higher capacity unit.
.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
9
JAMES B. MESSERLY wwrP EV ALUAllON
.
Grit Removal Basins and Associated Equipment
The screened wastewater flows by gravity to the three grit removal basins. Grit is removed
through the use of a vortex action that separates the lighter organic particles from the
heavier grit. The grit settles to the bottom of the basin where it is removed by a pump. A
vacuum system is used to prime the grit pumps. This pump conveys the grit to a classifier
that washes organics out of the grit and deposits the washed grit on a conveyor. The
conveyor deposits the grit in a dumpster. Grit removal protects downstream eqUipment
from erosion (particularly pumps and other rotating equipment) and maintains basin
)
capacities. Ineffective grit removal results in grit settling out in the primary clarifiers,
aeration basins and ultimately in the anaerobic digesters and reduces the basin volume
available for treatment.
.
The grit removal basins and associated equipment were installed as a part of the 1981
headworks construction. Useful life for the concrete basins is about 50 years (hydrogen
sulfide attack will shorten that life considerably); and 10 to 15 years for mechanical
equipment like the grit basin drives, vacuum system and pumps, classifiers, conveyors, and
piping. The mechanical components of the grit removal system have exceeded their useful
life and should be replaced.
Condition Assessment
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the grit removal system.
1. Access is a problem; the basins sit down in a pit with one stairway as access. An
additional access point should be added. Stair railings (see Appendix A, Figure 3) are
corroded and the two-rung design does not meet current safety requirements. New stair
railings should be installed.
2. The basin drives and pumps are severely corroded (See Appendix A, Figure 4). At the
time of our visit, grit basin No.1 was out of service from mechanical problems. Two
vacuum systems were originally installed but one has been removed, leaving one system
to operate the three grit removal pumps. Original air scour of grit basin does not work;
plant staff have connected water lines to try and dislodge grit so it can be removed by
the pumps. Plant staff report that the pumps are not effective in removing grit to the
classifiers. The basin drives (and internals) should be evaluated in more detail and the
current pumps should be replaced. A new air scour system has been installed and has
improved grit removal.
3. The grit piping from the basins to the classifiers should be replaced and rerouted. The
piping is corroded and its routing overloads one of the classifiers.
4. The classifiers have screws that move the grit as it is washed. These screws are worn and
no longer move grit effectively. One of the classifiers is missing its lower shaft bearing
and a hole has worn through in its place; this allows the grit slurry to pass directly to the
overflow and back to the plant (see Appendix A, Figure 5).
5. A number of the control gate handles are severely corroded (one was corroded away).
The corroded gate hardware should be replaced.
6. The control system has deteriorated and should also be replaced.
.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
10
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
Existing Influent Lift Pump Station
The existing influent pump station has been in operation since the plant started up in 1968.
The pump station has four pumps, each with a capacity of about 14,000 gpm. The pumps are
dry pit horizontal centrifugal-type. The expected life for this type of pump is about 15 years
depending upon environmental conditions and the material pumped. These pumps have
exceeded their useful life. A new influent pump station is under construction and will
replace the existing pump station. It is the intent of the City that, after the new pump station
comes on line, the old pump station be rehabilitated and used as a backup facility. Before
this can happen, a number of actions must be taken as identified below.
Condition Assessment
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the existing influent lift pumps.
1. Two of the pumps are leaking from the shaft seal area (see Appendix A, Figure 6). The
leakage is substantial and has lasted long enough for biological slime to grow on the
pump support bases and floor. The pumps, bases, and adjacent piping and fittings show
considerable corrosion. The pumps should be analyzed in detail to determine the extent
of repairs necessary to return them to good working order.
2. The sump pump is not functional and the raw wastewater collects on the floor of the
pump station. The sump pump should be repaired or replaced and brought back in
service.
.
3. The new pump station will pump into the same discharge line as the old pump station.
The old pumps are isolated on their discharge side by gate valves mounted horizontally
in the vertical discharge line of each pump. Grit will accumulate on the closed face of the
gate valves and prevent their opening.
4. There is a lot of corrosion throughout the old influent pump station. All doors, handrail
(all handrail is two rail-type), valves, and other metal components are corroded. Most of
the metal components in the pump station, including lighting and HV AC, should be
replaced.
Primary Treatment
The primary treatment system includes the primary clarifiers, the primary sludge pumps
and the scum pumps. Both North and South Plants have primary treatment systems. The
primary clarifiers remove settleable solids from the screened and degritted wastewater. The
solids collect on the bottom of the basins and are conveyed to the sludge hopper at the
upstream end of the basin by chain-and-flight collectors. The collectors consist of fiberglass
flights that traverse the width of the basin and are connected on each end to the drive chain
that pulls them along the bottom of the basin. The chain-and-flights return to the
downstream end of the basin as a part of a loop and pull floating material to the scum
collectors. The primary sludge pumps pump the collected solids to the anaerobic digesters.
The scum pumps pump the scum to a straining device (Rotostrainer) located at the
headworks.
.
The South Plant primary treatment system was originally installed in 1968 and the North
Plant system in 1981. Expected useful life for these types of equipment: 25 to 30 years for the
clarifier equipment (drives, chain-and-flight, and cross collector), 15 to 20 years for the
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
11
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EV ALUATlON
.
,
primary sludge pumps, and 10 to 15 years for the scum pumps. All of the equipment at the
South Plant primary clarifiers is at the end, or has exceeded, its expected useful life. The
equipment at the North Plant is also approaching the end of its useful life.
Condition Assessment - North Plant
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the primary treatment system at the
North Plant.
.
1. Two of the primary clarifiers were out of service with much of the chain piled on the
upper walkways. The wear shoes are worn out. The drive mechanisms are corroded and
need to be replaced or refurbished (see Appendix A, Figure 7).
2. The scum removal system is not functioning (see Appendix A, Figure 8) and should be
replaced with an entirely new automated system. The scum pumps (Appendix A,
Figure 9) have exceeded their useful life, have become maintenance problems, and
should be replaced.
3. The primary sludge pumps have exceeded their useful life and should be replaced.
Figure 10 (Appendix A) shows the motor control center (MCC) located in the Primary
Sludge Pumping Station No.2 and the sludge that has been splashed onto it.
4. Figure 11 (Appendix A) shows the primary sludge valve box and the standing water
that accumulates under the pneumatic valves. There was an air leak at the valves on the
day the photo was taken. The valve box needs to have positive drainage added to
prevent the accumulation of rain water and the air leak needs to be repaired.
Condition Assessment - South Plant
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the primary treatment system at the
South Plant.
1. Primary Clarifier No.5 was out of service and liquid from Primary Clarifier No.6 was
leaking into the empty clarifier through a construction joint. It was evident that this leak
had been in place for some time (see Appendix A, Figure 12). There are indications of
leaking walls at several points around the perimeter of the primary clarifiers.
2. While the primary clarifier mechanisms at the South Plant have not deteriorated to the
extent of the North Plant mechanisms, they are nearing the end of their useful lives and
consideration should be given to their replacement.
.
Secondary Treatment
The secondary treatment system includes the aeration basins, aeration blower systems,
RAS/WAS pumping, and secondary clarification. As discussed previously, both North and
South Plants have secondary treatment systems.
The North Plant secondary treatment system was originally installed in 1976 as an oxidation
ditch. The secondary clarifiers and WAS Pumping Station No.1 also date from 1976. The
diffused aeration system, aeration blowers, and RAS Pumping Station No.1 were added in
1984. The South Plant secondary treatment system was constructed in 1981. Useful life for
the secondary treatment system components is estimated in Table 6.
P:II43875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
12
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 6
Secondary Treatment System Estimated Useful Life
Component
Year Installed
Estimated
Useful Life
(Years)
Estimated Remaining
Useful Life
(Years)
Ceramic Diffusers
North Plant
South Plant
1984
1981
15
15
4-5
o
Aeration Blowers
North Plant
South Plant
RASNV AS Pumps
North Plant
South Plant
1984
1981
15 - 20
15 - 20
4-5
2
1984/1976
1981
10-15
10 -15
0/0
o
Secondary Clarifiers
(mechanisms and
auxiliary systems)
North Plant
South Plant
1976
1981
20 - 25
20 - 25
1
1 - 6
....:'
Condition Assessment - North Plant
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the secondary treatment system at
the North Plant.
1. Primary effluent is split among three aeration basins. The flow to each basin is not
measured. Flow measurement should be added.
.
2. At the time of the evaluation, Aeration Basin No.3 was out of service with much of the
basin aeration piping disconnected (see Appendix A, Figure 13). In addition, broken
aeration headers were visible in Aeration Basin No.2 (see Appendix A, Figure 14). The
diffused aeration system in the North Plant needs to either be replaced or repaired.
3. The blower building is not properly ventilated and as a result, the blowers don't cool
and trip out on high temperature during the summer. The blower building also has poor
lighting and insufficient louver area for air inlet to the blowers. The building needs new
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HV AC), new lighting and new louvers.
4. At the time of the evaluation, Blower No.8 was dismantled (see Appendix A, Figure 15).
Also, there was no grease in the blower suction control valves, and all control functions
are manual. The blowers are approaching the end of their useful life and their condition
indicates they should be replaced. Automatic controls should be installed to operate the
blowers. The new controls could be phased in as capacity needs dictate.
5. Despite their age, the RAS pumps looked to be in good condition. The pump building
needs a second entrance. The RAS pumps are constant speed; two variable frequency
drives (VFDs) should be added so that RAS flow to the aeration basins can be more
closely matched to process needs. The RAS pump suction lines need to be modified so
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
13
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
that pumps can be dedicated to specific clarifiers. The pumps now draw from a common
header and it is not possible to control withdrawals from a specific clarifier.
6. Plant staff report problems with operating the WAS pumps. It appears that the pumps
have difficulty meeting their flow requirements when high RAS flows are required. The
flow meter on the WAS discharge piping was disconnected at the time of the evaluation
(see Appendix A, Figure 16). The WAS pumps have exceeded their useful life, and also
because of capacity problems, should be replaced. The flow meter should be repaired.
7. Flow split from the aeration basins to the secondary clarifiers is accomplished by yard
valves. No flow metering is provided. Consideration should be given to providing weirs
to accomplish the flow split.
8. The final clarifier weirs and scum box have settled. This results in uneven flow over the
effluent weirs and flow constantly enters the scum box (see Appendix A, Figure 17). A
piece of the decking was missing from the center island adjacent to the drive (see
Appendix A, Figure 18). The sludge control weirs are very difficult for plant staff to
operate making it difficult to positively control sludge removal from the clarifier.
Consideration should be given to replacing the secondary clarifier mechanisms with
"tow-bro" type mechanisms.
Condition Assessment -South Plant
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the secondary treatment system at
the South Plant.
.
1. The South Plant has four parallel aeration basins fed by a common influent channel. The
channel should be analyzed for proper flow distribution and modifications made as
needed. MISS samples could also be taken from each basin to determine how well the
flow splits are occurring.
2. At the time of the evaluation, one of the aeration basins was dewatered (see
Appendix A, Figure 19 showing the dismantled air lines) and another was holding plant
effluent. Also, surface surges were evident on the two basins in service indicating that
diffusers had come loose or broken (see Appendix A, Figure 20). The aeration system in
all four basins needs to be inspected for loose or broken diffusers and broken or
dismantled pipe needs to be repaired or replaced. More efficient diffusers are available
and should be considered for replacement.
3. The blowers and blower building have the same problems as the North Plant.
Insufficient ventilation causes the blowers to shut down on high temperature in the
summer, insufficient louver area for inlet air, lack of automation, and one blower was
down for maintenance. Better ventilation and more louvre area should be added to the
building and the blowers should be replaced with modern units with automatic
controls.
.
4. The RAS and WAS pumps show signs of age; corrosion, evidence of spills, and leaking
seal boxes. Flow metering does not work and VFDs should be added to both sets of
pumps. Leakage was also evident from the discharge knife gate valves. The pumps and
valves need rehabilitation and flow meters and VFDs should be added.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TMS-1.DOC
14
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
5. Flow is distributed to these clarifiers by means of yard valves as well. The valves should
be replaced with a more positive weir splitting arrangement.
6. The final clarifier weirs are not level and an elaborate series of dams and cutoffs have ..'
been installed to manage the clarifier effluent flow. The effluent weirs are in poor
condition and the gear boxes should be replaced. Consideration should be given to
replacing the final clarifier mechanisms as a whole with a newer, more efficient
mechanism.
1.
. 2.
3.
4.
Disinfection
Secondary effluent is disinfected by a chlorine gas solution injected into a mixing box.
Chlorine gas is stored on an outdoors deck. The chlorine facility was constructed in 1981
and included the cylinder scales, evaporators, chlorinators, injector water booster pumps,
and the mix box mixers. All of this equipment has an estimated useful life of 10 to 15 years.
The system was modified at a later date; the evaporators were removed and the system is
pressurized from the ton cylinders to the injectors. Depending on the age of some of the
replacement components, the chlorination system as a whole has probably exceeded its
useful life.
Condition Assessment
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the chlorination system.
There is lack of safety equipment in the chlorination room.
The ton cylinders should be enclosed and an emergency scrubber should be provided.
The mix box mixer should be evaluated against a Water Champ.
Given the age of the system and need for additional safety features, consideration
should be given to replacing the chlorination system with either a sodium hypochlorite
or an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. A package hypochlorite system could be
provided for chlorinating plant water, RAS and secondary clarifier weirs.
Flow Equalization
The flow equalization basins were added in 1995 and appear in good condition. The.
aeration equipment should have a useful life of 10-15 years and so should have a number of
years of service remaining.
.
Solids Handling
Solids handling consists of the gravity belt thickener and associated pumps, anaerobic
digesters and associated equipment, and the dewatering centrifuges. Three digesters were
constructed by 1981 and the other three in 1984. A gravity belt thickener was added in 1994
to replace the dissolved air flotation thickeners. Much of the solids handling equipment has
either been upgraded or is in the process of being upgraded.
Condition Assessment
The following comments summarize the evaluation of the solids handling facilities.
1. WAS from both plants is pumped to the gravity belt thickener (GB1), thickened from
less than 1 percent to about 5 percent solids, and pumped to two of the primary
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
15
JAMES B. MESSERLY WNTP EVALUATION
.
digesters. While the GBT is relatively new, it can be process limiting since it is the only
thickening device. One or two additional GBTs should be added to provide sufficient
redundancy.
2. The anaerobic digesters are set up to operate as four primary digesters and two
secondary digesters. Thickened WAS is pumped to two of the primary digesters while
primary sludge is pumped to the other two. The ultimate plan is to blend the sludges up
stream of the GBTs and digest the sludges together. The digested sludge would then be
transferred to the two secondary digesters for storage, and dewatered for land
application.
3. Modifications and upgrades that have been identified include: replace and upgrade the
control system, scrub digester gas and bum to heat sludge, rebuild heaters and upgrade
controls, replace recirculation and transfer pumps, replace digester mixing system,
upgrade piping and valve, and rebuild centrifuges and upgrade backdrives to deliver
high solids output.
Miscellaneous Systems and Facilities
The following plant systems and facilities were also identified as needing modification,
upgrade, or replacement.
1. Doors: Most of the plant doors need to be replaced due to corrosion.
2. Handrail: Problem handrail has been previously identified in a few locations but
generally needs to be replaced throughout the plant due to corrosion. Figure 21
(Appendix A) shows the corroded handrail at the secondary influent flow meter vault.
3. Electrical Distribution: Many MCCs are located in exterior cabinets and are severely
corroded (see Appendix A, Figures 22 and 23). The MCCs should be replaced and
located in buildings.
4. Flow Splits and Measurement: Lack of proper flow splitting and measurement have
been identified at several of the unit processes. Plant staff have added numerous
ultrasonic flow meters to get a better picture of plant operations, but a flow distribution
and measurement plan should be developed for the facility.
5. Plant Air System: Needs to be upgraded.
6. Plant Control System: The facility needs an updated plant control system to allow
monitoring and remote control of plant processes. Figures 24 and 25 (Appendix A) show
the existing system. A control system by Honeywell has been purchased for system
automation.
.
7. Laboratory: The fume hoods and walk-in incubator needs replacement.
e.
Summary
The following list is a summary of the repair and/ or replacement recommendations in
approximate order of importance.
1. Solids Handling: The solids handling system needs to be upgraded so that the solids can
be removed from the site. Repairs and upgrades are already underway.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELIVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
16
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
2. Secondary Treatment: The secondary clarifier mechanisms at both facilities should be
replaced. The aeration systems at both plants, especially the blowers, needs to be
upgraded to allow maximum treatment capacity from existing basin volumes. In
addition, the diffused air systems at both plants need to be repaired and upgraded and
VFDs should be added to the RAS and WAS pumps.
3. Primary Treatment: The primary clarifier mechanisms and scum removal systems
should be replaced at both plants. In addition, wall seams should be checked for leaks
and repaired. The primary sludge and scum pumps should be replaced.
4. Disinfection: Replacement of the disinfection system is more a matter of safety than
necessarily capacity or condition. The gas chlorine system should be replaced by either a
sodium hypochlorite or a UV disinfection system.
5. Preliminary Treatment: Improvements should be made to the bar screens, screenings
conveyor and grit removal system.
6. Miscellaneous Facilities: These should be implemented (especially moving the MCCs
and adding plant-wide controls) as schedule and budget allow.
.
Process/Capacity Assessment
This section provides an assessment of the treatment capacities of the various unit processes
at the J. B. Messerly WWTP. Data from Section 2 - Project Background are used as the basis
of the capacity assessment. Raw influent wastewater flow and strength are used to evaluate
the preliminary and primary treatment systems, while primary effluent is used as the basis
for the secondary treatment assessment. Recommended design criteria and sources are
provided as part of the assessment for each unit process.
Design drawings (Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Patchen, Mingledorff & Associates,
1982) give the facility design flow as 46.1 mgd and the maximum hydraulic capacity as
60.5 mgd.
Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary treatment includes screening, grit removal, and influent pumping. Raw
wastewater enters the facility through a 72-inch diameter line and flows through a pair of 7-
foot wide mechanical bar screens. Screenings are conveyed to a dumpster.
The screened flow passes to three 20-foot diameter vortex-type grit removal basins. Grit is
removed from each basin by a vacuum pumping system and pumped to one of three
cyclone/ classifiers. The washed grit is deposited on a conveyor which subsequently drops it
into a dumpster. The design criteria for these devices were developed from manufacturer's
literature and CH2M HILL historical data. The preliminary treatment design criteria are
summarized in Table 7.
.,
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
17
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 7
Preliminary Treatment Design Criteria
Component
Screening
Design Criteria
Minimum Approach
Velocity
Maximum Approach
Velocity
Maximum Velocity
Through Bars
Minimum Inlet Channel
Velocity
Maximum Inlet Channel
Velocity
Pipeline Velocity
Grit Removal
Grit Pumping
Influent Uft Pumping
Criteria Value (fps) Reliability Requirement
1 - 2 (use 1.5) Two screens provide
treatment at peak hydraulic
3 flow, one screen is
redundant at design flow.
4.5
1.5 Treat maximum flow with all
units in service. Pass
3.5 maximum flow with one unit
out of service.
6.5 Pump the maximum
hydraulic grit volume from
each grit basin.
Pump the maximum flow
with one unit out of service
Note:
fps feet per second
The 1982 Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion drawings lists the following capacities for the
preliminary treatment components:
. Bar Screens: 2 screens @ 60.5 mgd, maximum each screen
· Grit Removal: 3 basins @ 30 mgd design capacity and 50 mgd maximum, each basin
. Lift Pumps: 4 pumps @ 60.5 mgd maximum
Based on the hydraulic profile and dimensions provided in the 1982 drawings, and
assuming clean screens, the maximum approach velocity of one screen with maximum flow
is about 3.1 feet per second (fps) and the maximum velocity through the screen is 4.7 fps. No
information is available on minimum flows. These values are generally consistent with
recommended design criteria. New screens are commonly provided with lh.-inch or smaller
openings (as compared to the existing %-inch bar rack). The smaller bar spacing could result
in removal of up to 50 percent more material that otherwise passes downstream.
The existing grit removal basins are Smith & Loveless Pista Grit Model 50 units. Smith &
Loveless lists the design capacity of a 20-foot diameter unit (Model 50) as 50 mgd. The
maximum inlet channel velocity with three basins in service is about 2 fps and with two
basins in service is about 3 fps. The design criteria value, applied to the existing channel
dimensions, corresponds to a capacity of about 33 mgd per basin. These values are
consistent with recommended sizing of Pista Grit units.
Standard design practice calls for grit piping in the range of 4- to 6-inch diameter. The
J. B. Messerly WWTP system employs 4-inch piping.
The existing influent pump station has a firm capacity of 60 mgd which is consistent with
the recommended design criteria. A new pumping station is currently under construction
and the existing pumping station will be upgraded and used for backup service.
.
.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
18
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
Primary Treatment
Primary Clarification
Screened and degritted raw wastewater is lifted up to the main splitter box where flow is .
directed to the North and South plants. Design criteria from standard reference sources are
summarized in Table 8.
TABLE 8
Primary Clarifier Design Criteria
Recommendation/Remarks
Overflow Rates (gpd/ft2):
800 - 1,200 @ Average Flow
2,000 - 3,000 @ Maximum Flow
Hydraulic Residence Time (hrs): 1.5 - 2.5
Reference
Suspended Solids Removal
EPA Process Design Manual
(1975)
Wastewater Engineering
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
(Third Edition, 1991)
Notes:
gpdlft2 gallon per day per square foot
hrs hours
.
If the projected year 2020 maximum month flow of 46.7 mgd is applied and the design flow
split is realized, then 29.0 mgd flows to the South Plant and 17.7 mgd to the North Plant.
Both plants ~ave sufficient design capacity for the projected 2020 flow condition. If the
original design flow to peak flow ratio (41.6:60.5) is maintained through year 2020, and
interior flow splits are also maintained then the resulting overflow rates for each plant with
all primary sedimentation tanks in service will be 1,316 gallons per day per square foot
(gpd/ff2) for the South Plant and 806 gpd/ft2 for the North Plant. Tables 9 and 10
summarize hydraulic retention time and overflow rates for the North and South Plants,
respectively, at current flows and projected year 2020 flows.
TABLE 9
North Plant Primary Clarifier Operating Data
Flow Condition
(mgd)
Hydraulic Retention
Time with all Clarifiers
in Service (hrs)
Overflow Rate with all
Clarifiers in Service
(gpdlft2)
Overflow Rate with one
Clarifier Out of Service
(gpdlff)
Current
"Design" = 12.8
"Peak" = 16.9
Projected
Design = 17.8
Peak = 23.3
4.5
3.0
400
594
533
792
3.2
2.5
553
728
738
970
.
Notes:
1) Flow condition based on flow split of 62 percent to South Plant and 38 percent to North Plant
2) Values based on nominal process flows.
gfdltf gallon per day per square foot
hrs hours
mgd million gallons per day
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM5-1.DOC
19
JAMES B. MESSERLY wwrP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 10
South Plant Primary Clarifier Operating Data
Hydraulic Retention Overflow Rate with all Overflow Rate with one
Flow Condition Time with all Clarifiers Clarifiers in Service Clarifier Out of Service
(mgd) in Service (hrs) (gpdM) (gpcl/fe)
Current
"Design" = 21.0 2.7 656 875
"Peak" = 27.5 1.9 969 1,292
Projected 906
Design = 28.9 2.0 1,188 1,208
Peak = 38.0 1.5 1,583
Notes:
1) Flow condition based on flow split of 62 percent to South Plant and 38 percent to North Plant
2) Values based on nominal process flows.
gfdltf gallon per day per square foot
hrs hours
mgd million gallons per day
.
Another aspect of primary clarifier performance is BOD and TSS removal efficiency.
Generalized curves are available in the literature that estimate BOD and TSS removal as a
function of overflow rate (WPCF, 1959; EPA, 1978; Steel and McGhee, 1979) and hydraulic
detention time (Qasim, 1985). These curves are based on average daily plant flow data from
numerous plants and don't necessarily take into account diurnal flow peaks or unique plant
operating features. The curves do allow a relative comparison of how BOD or TSS removal
efficiency may be affected by increasing flow (as converted to hydraulic residence time or
overflow rate). Tables 11 and 12 present comparisons of predicted BOD and TSS removal
rates at current flows and projected year 2020 flows for the North and South Plants,
respectively.
TABLE 11
Predicted North Plant Primary Clarifier BOD and TSS Removal
Removal as a Function of Overflow Rate Removal as a Function of Detention
Flow Condition (Percent) Time (Percent)
(mgd) BOD TSS BOD TSS
Current
Design = 12.8 37 69 45 70
Peak = 16.9 35 66 40 67
Projected
Design = 17.7 36 67 40 68
Peak = 23.3 34 64 37 64
.
Notes:
1) Removal rates assume all units in service.
2) Flow conditions based on flow split of 62 percent to South Plant and 38 percent to North Plant.
3) Values based on nominal process flows.
mgd million gallons per day
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
TSS total suspended solids
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
20
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 12
Predicted South Plant Primary Clarifier BOD and TSS Removal
Removal as a Function of Overflow Rate Removal as a Function of Detention
Flow Condition (Percent) Time (Percent)
(mgd)
BOD TSS BOD TSS
Current
Design" = 21.0 34 66 39 65
"Peak" = 27.5 32 58 31 60
Projected
Design = 29.0 35 59 32 60
Peak = 38.0 31 54 30 54
Notes:
1) Removal rates assume all units in service.
2) Flow conditions based on flow split of 62 percent to South Plant and 38 percent to North Plant.
3) Values based on nominal process flows.
mgd million gallons per day
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
TSS total suspended solids
.
Current removal efficiencies for the primary clarifiers are about 35 percent for BOD and
60 percent for 1SS. The information presented in the tables above, while over predicting
removal efficiencies, does not indicate that substantial reductions in removal efficiencies
will occur at the projected year 2020 flows with the existing primary clarifier surface area.
Primary Sludge Pumps
Estimated primary sludge production values for the North and South plants are
summarized in Table 13.
TABLE 13
Primary Sludge Production
Primary Sludge Production - North Primary Sludge Production - South
Flow Condition Plant Plant
(mgd) Ibs/day Ibs/day gpd (gpm)
gpd (gpm)
Current
"Design" = 33.8 22,400 67,100 (47) 36,500 109,000 (76)
"Peak" = 44.4 33,600 101,000 (70) 54,800 164,000 (114)
Projected
Design = 46.7 35,600 107,000 (74) 58,000 174,000 (121)
Peak = 61.3 53,400 160,000 (111) 87,000 261,000 (181)
.
Notes:
1) Production rates assume all units in service and 24 hrl7 day operation.
2) This table assumes TSS removal of 60 percent.
3) Primary sludge concentration assumed to be 4 percent TSS.
mgd million gallons per day
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
TSS total suspended solids
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
21
.
.
.
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
Both the North and South Primary Sludge Pumping Stations have 2 to 250 gpm capacity
duplex plunger-type pumps. Pump capacity is compared to primary sludge flow rates as a
function of hours of operation per day in Table 14. Table 14 shows that at projected flows,
the North Plant pumps will need to operate about 7 to 11 hrs/ day (18 to 27 min/hr) while
the South Plant pumps must operate about 12 to 17 hrs/ day (29 to 42 min/hr). These
numbers are based on 24 hr / day and 7 day/week operation. If the pumps were operated
5 days/week, sludge production flow rates would increase about 40 percent on a gpm basis.
TABLE 14
Primary Sludge Pump Operation
Hours of Operation per Day - North Hours of Operation per Day - South
Flow Condition Plant Plant
(mgd)
One Pump Two Pumps One Pump Two Pumps
Current
"Design" = 33.8 4.5 2.3 7.3 3.6
"Peak" = 44.4 6.7 3.4 10.9 5.5
Projected
Design = 46.7 7.1 3.6 11.6 5.8
Peak = 61.3 10.7 5.3 17.4 8.7
Notes:
mgd million gallons per day
Available primary sludge pumping capacity is sufficient to handle the projected year 2020
primary sludge production.
Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment consists of the aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, aeration blowers,
and RAS and WAS pumping. The secondary treatment portion of the North Plant includes
three aeration basins (all three are converted oxidation ditches) with fine bubble diffusers, a
blower building, two final clarifiers, and the RAS/W AS pumping station. The secondary
portion of the South Plant includes four rectangular aeration basins with fine bubble
diffusers, a blower building, two final clarifiers, and a RAS /W AS pumping station.
Secondary treatment design criteria against which the existing facilities will be evaluated are
available from various texts and are summarized in Table 15.
P:\ 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM5-1.DOC
22
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 15
Secondary Treatment Design Criteria
Component
Design Criteria
Criteria Value
General
Minimum Water Temperature
Maximum Water Temperature
pH Range
Available Alkalinity
Effluent Ammonia Concentration
SRT
Average Dissolved Oxygen
Concentration
MLSS Concentration Range
Effluent TSS Concentration
Hydraulic Overflow Rate
Aeration Basin
Secondary Clarification
Solids Loading Rate
RASIW AS Concentration
Aeration System
Oxygen Requirements:
BOD
NHa-N
Return Sludge (RAS) Rate
Sludge Pumping
150 C (590 F)
280 C (820 F)
7.0- 7.6
200 mg/L as CaCOa
1.0 mg/L at design condition
5 - 10 days at design condition
2.0 mg/L
2,000 - 4,000 mg/L
20 mg/L at design condition
< 500 gpd/tf at design flow
< 1 ,200 gpd/tf at peak flow
< 20 Ibs/day/tf at design load
< 50 Ibs/day/tf at peak load
8,000 mg/L, minimum
1.1 Ib oxygen/lb BOD removed
4.6 Ib oxygen/lb NHa converted
Provide firm capacity of 100% of
influent design flow
.
Notes:
OC
of
RAS
WAS
TSS
SRT
MLSS
degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
return activated sludge
waste activated sludge
total suspended solids
solids retention time
mixed liquor suspended solids
Aeration Basins
Treatment capacities for the North and South Plant aeration basins for current and projected
flows are presented in Table 16. While treatment capacities are shown as related to influent
flow, it should be noted that actual treatment capacity is really based on pounds of BOD,
TSS, and ammonia that are actually treated. Using flow as a rating value provides a more
easily comparable parameter since it is usually the identifier used when discussing
treatment capacity. The following specific criteria were applied in addition to those listed
above:
· Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) was held to 3,000 mg/L for calculation of
additional basin volume.
· Solids Retention Time (SRT) was set at 7.5 days for the minimum temperature of
15 degrees Celsius (oC) in order to provide an adequate safety factor on nitrification.
· Sludge Volume Index (SVI) was set at 200 mL/ g.
· Effluent ammonia was equal to or less than 1 mg/L.
.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\lM5-1.DOC
23
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
· Flow splits remain at 62 percent to the South and 38 percent to the North Plant.
TABLE 16
Aeration Basin Treatment Capacity
Projected Required Additional
Current Maximum Maximum Month Aeration Basin Aeration Basin
Month Flow Flow Treatment Capacity Volume
Facility (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (MG)
North Plant 12.8 17.8 15.5 2.5
South Plant 21.0 28.9 17.0 8.1
Total 33.8 46.7 32.5 10.6
Notes:
MG
mgd
million gallons
million gallons per day
.
Table 16 shows that the North aeration basin has about 2.7 mgd of capacity remaining while
the South aeration basins have exceeded their capacity. The table also indicates that an
additional 10.6 MG of aeration basin volume should be added.
The values presented in Table 16 assume that the aeration basins are not limited by specific
mechanical problems such as improper flow splits, poor aeration system distribution, dilute
RAS concentration, or improper RAS flow rate. The secondary treatment system must '
function as a unified system with all components operating properly to maximize the
capacity of the existing components.
Secondary Clarifiers
The North Plant has two secondary clarifiers, each 165-feet in diameter with a total surface
area of about 42,000 square feet. The South Plant also has two secondary clarifiers, each
185-feet in diameter with a total surface area of about 53,800 square feet. Final clarifiers are
generally evaluated on their ability to clarify (separate the biological floc from the water)
and also their ability to thicken the solids that settle to the bottom. Thickening is necessary
to ensure a recycled sludge (RAS) concentration that will allow the necessary MLSS
concentration to be maintained in the aeration basin. The hydraulic overflow rate (HOR)
represents the clarification capability while the solids loading rate (SLR) represents the
thickening component. The more conservative of these two values represents the treatment
capacity for a specific application. Typical secondary clarifier design criteria are presented in
Table 17.
.
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELIVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
24
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
. TABLE 17
Summary of Secondary Clarifier Design Criteria
Recommendation/Remarks
HOR (gpdlff)
400 - 800 @ Average Flow
1 ,000 - 1 ,200 @ Maximum Flow
SLR (Ibs/daynr)
20 - 30 @ Average Flow
< 50 @ Maximum Flow
Side Water Depth (ft)
12 -15
HOR (gpdlff)
400 - 700 @ Average Flow
1,000 - 1,600 @ Maximum Flow
Side Water Depth (ft)
13 - 14 for diameters of 70 - 140 ft
Notes:
HOR hydraulic overflow rate
gpd/ff gallons per day per square foot
. ft feet
Source
Suspended Solids Removal
EPA Process Design Manual
(1975)
Wastewater Engineering
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
(Third Edition, 1991)
Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
WEF Manual of Practice No.8
(1991)
Secondary clarifier operating data and treatment capacity for current and projected year
2020 flows are presented in Tables 18 and 19 for the North and South Plants, respectively.
These tables show that the North clarifiers have sufficient surface area to meet the design
criteria for the projected flows. The South clarifiers are very close to meeting the design
criteria at the projected flows. The condition assessment portion of this master plan
recommends replacing the mechanisms on both sets of clarifiers. The new mechanisms, and
other enhancements such as mid-radius baffling, wall baffles (the North Plant secondary
clarifiers have wall baffles), energy dissipating inlet, properly sized flocculation well, and
high capacity scum removal should significantly improve performance.
.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
25
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
. TABLE 18
North Plant Secondary Clarifier Operating Data
HOR with all HOR with One SLR with all SLR with One
Clarifiers in Clarifier Out of Clarifiers in Clarifier Out of
Flow Condition Service Service Service Service
(mgd) (gpdlft2) (gpdlft2) (lbs/daym2) (lbs/daym2)
Current
"Design" = 12.8 320 640 13 25
"Peak" = 16.9 470 950 19 38
Projected
Design = 17.8 418 836 17 34
Peak = 23.3 548 1,096 21 42
Notes:
1) Based on HOR and SLR criteria presented in Table 13, North Plant secondary clarifier capacity is 21 mgd with
all units in service.
2) SLR values based on RAS flow of 60 percent of secondary influent flow and an MLSS concentration of 3,000
mglL.
gpdlW
ft
HOR
SLR
gallons per day per square foot
feet
hydraulic overflow rate
solids loading rate
. TABLE 19
South Plant Secondary Clarifier Operating Data
HOR with all HOR with One SLR with all SLR with One
Clarifiers in Clarifier Out of Clarifiers in Clarifier Out of
Flow Condition Service Service Service Service
(mgd) (gpdlff) (gpdlff) (lbsldayM) (lbs/dayM)
Current
"Design" = 21.0 390 780 16 31
"Peak" = 27.5 640 1,280 26 51
Projected
Design = 28.9 540 1,080 20 40
Peak = 38.0 710 1 ,420 24 48
Notes:
1) Based on HOR and SLR criteria presented in Table 13, South Plant secondary clarifier
capacity is 28.9 mgd with all units in service.
2) SLR values based on RAS flow of 60 percent of secondary influent flow and an MLSS concentration of 3,000
mg/L.
gpdlW gallons per day per square foot
Ibs/day/W pounds per day per square foot
HOR hydraulic overflow rate
SLR solids loading rate
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
RAS reduced activated sludge
.
RASIW AS Pumping
RAS and WAS pumping capacities are summarized in Table 20.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM5-1.DOC
26
.
.
.'
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWfP EV ALUA nON
TABLE 20
RAS and WAS Pumping Capacity Summary
Required RAS Required WAS Pumping Firm Pumping Capacity
Pumping Capacity Capacity Available
Facility (gpm) (gpm) (gpm)
Current Projected Current Projected RAS WAS
North Plant 8,900 12,400 210 300 12,300 530
South Plant 14,600 20,100 340 470 28,200 530
Notes:
1) Capacities shown represent firm maximum month condition.
2) Capacities based on underflow concentration of 8,000 mg/L and SRT of 7.8 days.
3) WAS pumping capacity based on 24 hour, 7 day operation.
gpm gallons per minute
Table 20 shows that the existing RAS and WAS pumping systems have adequate firm
capacity through the year 2020 projected maximum month condition. Both RAS and WAS
pumping systems use constant speed pumps. Adding variable frequency drives to both
pumping systems will improve their ability to match process requirements and reduce the
number of starts and stops.
Aeration System
Oxygen demands, aeration requirements and available aeration system capacities are
presented in Table 21. The following specific criteria were used in addition to those listed in
Table 15:
Both plants:
· Alpha = 0.60
· Beta = 0.95
. Theta = 1.024 (temperature correction factor)
North Plant:
. SOTE = 13 percent (estimated composite value for flat and sloped bottoms)
. Number of diffusers = 20,700 (7 inch or 0.27 ft2 each)
. Floor Area = 23,960 ft2 each basin, 71,880 ft2 total (vertical projection)
South Plant:
. SOTE = 34 percent
. Number of diffusers = 13,056 (7 inch or 0.27 ft2 each)
. Floor Area = 12,000 ft2 each basin, 48,000 ft2 total
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
27
.
.
.
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
TABLE 21
Aeration System Capacity Summary
Oxygen Demand Aeration Requirement
(Ibs/day) (scfm )/( scfm/diffuser)
Facility Current Projected Current Projected
North
Design 43,100 60,000 29,500/1.4 41,000/2.0
Maximum 61,700 85,000 42,100/2.0 58,000/2.8
South
Design 54,500 75,000 16,000/1.2 22,000/1.7
Maximum 74,500 103,000 20,300/1.6 28,000/2.1
Aeration
Capacity Available
(scfm)
Firm
Total
29,700
39,600
22,050
29,400
Notes:
1) Design value represents maximum month condition and maximum condition represents maximum day
condition.
2) Air requirements based on maintaining a residual DO of 2 mg/L at 280 C.
Ibslday pounds per day
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
DO dissolved oxygen
mg/L milligrams per liter
oC degrees Celsius
One diffuser manufacturer defines diffuser density as the ratio of total basin floor area (or
projected area) to total diffuser area. Using this criteria, a value less than about 5 means the
diffuser density is too great and close spacing is a problem. A value greater than 20 means
the diffuser density is too low to provide good mixing. The optimum value is considered to
be in the range of 8 to 10. The current diffuser density ratio of the North Plant is 12.9 and
13.6 for the South Plant. These are acceptable values that demonstrate there is room to add
diffusers if necessary.
The ceramic diffusers in service at the North Plant were designed to provide 1.5
scfm/ diffuser for the diffusers on the flat floor and 0.75 scfm/ diffuser for the diffusers on
the sloped side walls. The South Plant ceramic diffusers were designed to operate at
2.0 scfm/ diffuser. From Table 21 it appears that in order to maintain the original diffuser air
flow rate, about 5,200 diffusers should be added to the North Plant aeration basin. Adding
this number of diffusers drops the diffuser density ratio from about 12.9 to 10.3, which is
acceptable. The South Plant aeration basin has sufficient diffusers for the projected
condition.
Table 21 also shows that both plants need additional aeration capacity. The North Plant
needs to add about 11,300 scfm to maintain firm capacity and 18,400 scfm to meet maximum
say demands. The South Plant is very close to capacity.
P:II43875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM!>-1.DOC
28
.
.
.
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
Disinfection
Gaseous chlorine (in solution) is used to disinfect plant effluent. The chlorine solution is
applied at a mix box and the effluent pipeline serves as the contact chamber. Design criteri~
for chlorine systems from standard references are summarized in Table 22.
TABLE 22
Summary of Chlorination Design Criteria
Recommendation/Remarks
Reference
Design Chlorine Dose
2 - 15 mg/L
50 - 75 Ibs/MG
Handbook of Chlorination
George Clifford White
(Second Edition, 1986)
Mixing Energy (velocity gradient, lIsec)
500 - 1 ,000
Municipal Wastewater Disinfection
EPA Design Manual
(1986)
Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination
Water Environment Research Foundation
(1995)
Mixing Time (seconds)
<3
Notes:
mg/L milligrams per liter
Ibs/mg pounds per million gallons
Chlorine demand and mixing values for current and projected flows are summarized in
Table 23.
TABLE 23
Chlorination System Operations Summary
Flow Condition
(mgd)
Ton Cylinder Storage
(days)
4.3
3.3
Mix Box Detention Time
(seconds)
66
50
Chlorine Requirement
(Ibs/day)/(Ibslhr)
Current
"Design" = 33.7
"Peak" = 44.2
Projected
Design = 46.7
Peak = 61.3
2,810/117
3,690/154
3,890/162
5,110/213
3.1
2.3
48
36
Notes:
1) Chlorine requirement based on a design dose of 10 mglL.
2) Velocity gradient in mix box is 505/second based on 40 hp applied and 3,456 ft3 volume.
3) Maximum cylinder withdrawal rate at 200F is about 160 Ibs/hr and about 400 Ibs/hr above 500 F.
mgd million gallons per day
Ibs/day pounds per day
Ibs/hr pounds per hour
ft3 cubic feet
OF degrees Fahrenheit
The J. B. Messerly WWTP chlorination system has three 4,000 Ibs/ day chlorinators, keeps
six ton cylinders on line and has an additional six on standby. These appear to have
sufficient chlorination capacity and the mix box, while larger than necessary, has sufficient
P:II43875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
29
JAMES B. MESSERLY WNTP EV ALUATlON
.
mixing power. The facility does appear limited in terms of cylinder storage. At current flows
and a 5 mg/L dosage, they need to replace all of the cylinders every 8 to 9 days.
While capacity does not appear to be an issue with the chlorination system, safety is an
issue. The ton cylinder area is not contained and consideration should be given to replacing
the chlorination system with either a sodium hypochloride or an ultraviolet light
disinfection system.
Flow Equalization
The flow equalization system consists of three 5-MG basins and was added in 1995. The
intent was to utilize this system for dealing with industrial impacts by enabling flow and
load equalizations. The system has not been used extensively and is more often used to store
effluent. It has been used at times to equalize high flows or as temporary storage when plant
problems required storage.
The flow equalization basins should be maintained and used for equalization as originally
intended. The digested sludge supernatant (or centrate) represents a high strength ammonia
stream that can deliver a significant mass of ammonia-nitrogen to the secondary process.
This can be a significant slug load depending on the periodic nature of the dewatering
process. One way to reduce the negative impact of this side stream is to use one of the
equalization basins to provide load equalization. The other two basins should be maintained
and used for influent flow equalization.
.
Solids Handling
The solids handling system includes a gravity belt thickener applied to WAS, six anaerobic
digesters, and two centrifuges. Primary sludge is pumped by plunger (piston)-type pumps
directly to the digesters. Plant data indicates that primary sludge is typically in the range of
3 to 5 percent solids. W AS is pumped from the secondary clarifiers to a single two-meter
GBT. The GBT thickens the WAS from about 0.8 percent to about 5 percent. The thickened
WAS is then pumped to the digesters. The original design intent for the digesters was that
four were used as primary digesters (two receiving primary sludge and two receiving
WAS). The digested sludge was thickened by centrifuge and conveyed to the remaining two
digesters, which serve as holding tanks prior to hauling and land application. Future plans
include combining the primary and waste activated sludge streams following thickening of
the WAS and pumping the combined sludge to four primary digesters. The remaining two
digesters would continue to be used as secondary or storage digesters but the centrifuges
are to be used to dewater sludge prior to land application.
Estimates of primary sludge and WAS production for current and projected year 2020 flow
cases are summarized in Table 24, sludge flow projections are summarized in Table 25.
.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELIVERABLES\TM5-1.DOC
30
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
TABLE 24
Sludge Production Summary
Flow Condition North Plant South Plant Total Sludge Production
(mgd) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Primary WAS Primary WAS Primary WAS
Current
"Average" 15,900 15,000 25,900 24,500 41 ,800 39,500
"Design" 22,400 20,200 36,500 33,000 58,900 53,200
Projected
Average 22,600 21,100 36,700 34,400 59,300 55,500
Design 35,600 29,100 58,000 46,700 93,600 75,800
Notes:
1) Values shown are TSS.
2) Current "Average" and "Design" flows are 27.7 mgd and 33.7 mgd, respectively.
3) Projected Average and Design flows are 38.9 mgd and 46.7 mgd, respectively.
mgd million gallons per day
Ibs/day pounds per day
WAS waste activated sludge
TABLE 25
. Sludge Flow Summary
North Plant South Plant Total Sludge Flow
Flow (gaVday) (gaVday) (gaVday)
Condition
(mgd) Primary WAS Primary WAS Primary WAS
Current
"Average" 47,700 225,000 77 ,600 367,000 125,300 592,000
"Design" 67,100 302,000 109,000 494,000 176,100 796,000
Projected
Average 67,800 316,000 110,000 516,000 177 ,800 832,000
Design 107,000 436,000 174,000 700,000 281,000 1 ,136,000
Notes:
1) Values shown are based on primary sludge at 4 percent and WAS at 0.8 percent solids.
2) Current "Average" and "Design" flows are 27.7 mgd and 33.7 mgd, respectively.
3) Projected Average and Design flows are 38.9 mgd and 46.7 mgd, respectively.
mgd million gallons per day
Ibs/day pounds per day
W AS waste activated sludge
..
Gravity Belt Thickener
The solids handling system uses a 2-meter GBT originally rated at 600 gpm and 2,250
Ibs/hr. Operations staff have successfully operated the GBT at hydraulic loading rates of up
to 500 gpm, which equates to a capacity of about 33 mgd. Rothberg, Tamburini, and Winsor,
in their 1998 report Comprehensive Performance Evaluation for the Butler Creek Facility, rated the
GBT at 36,000 Ibs/ day or about 25.6 mgd.
P:II43875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
31
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
Anaerobic Digesters
Anaerobic digesters can be evaluated based on either SRT or volatile solids loading rate.
Design criteria from standard reference sources are summarized in Table 26.
TABLE 26
Summary of Anaerobic Digester Design Criteria
Recommendation/Remarks
Reference
Solids Retention Time (days)
15-20
Design Temperature eC)
35-38
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
EPA Process Design Manual
(1979)
Wastewater Engineering
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
(Third Edition, 1991)
Wastewater Residuals Stabilization
Water Environment Federation /MOP FD-9
(1995)
Volatile Suspended Solids Loading (lbsIft3/day)
0.10 - 0.40
Notes:
Ibslft3/day
oC
pounds per cubic feet per day
degrees Celsius
.
Required digester volume, number of primary digesters, and volatile suspended solids
(VSS) loading rate are presented in Table 27. In addition to the values provided above, the
following specific criteria were used to evaluate the anaerobic digesters:
. All solids streams are thickened to 6 percent.
. A design temperature of 350 C is specified.
. The effective volume of the digesters was estimated at 70 percent of the total volume.
TABLE 27
Anaerobic Digester Capacity Summary
Flow Condition
(mgd)
Solids Retention Time
(days)
VSS Loading Rate
(lbslft3/day)
VSS Destruction
(percent)
Current
"Average" = 27.7
"Design" = 33.8
Projected
Average = 38.9
Design = 46.7
30.6
20.6
0.10
0.15
51
49
21.9
14.7
0.14
0.20
50
48
Notes:
1) Volume per digester is 1.7 MG, total volume is 10.2 MG
2) VSS loading rate is based on four primary digesters in service.
VSS volatile suspended solids
mg million gallons
Ibs/ft3/day pounds per cubic feet per day
.
Table 27 shows that four primary digesters will meet the requirements of the projected
conditions. The digesters are currently undergoing cleaning and rehabilitation (repairs are
in progress and new mixing systems will be installed). It is also recommended that a second
GBT be installed both to meet projected solids loads and to provide redundancy for the
existing unit.
P:\143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
32
JAMES B. MESSERLY WNTP EVALUATION
Capacity Summary
Process capacities for the various major unit processes are summarized in Table 28. The
limiting processes, in order of magnitude, are WAS thickening (20.5 mgd), North Plant
aeration blowers (36.9 mgd), and South Plant aeration basin volume (39.0 mgd). The plant is
currently also capacity limited by the anaerobic digesters but these will be repaired and a new
mixing system will be installed. In addition, the thickening centrifuges are to be overhauled.
.
T ABLE28
Capacity Summary for Major Treatment Processes
Process Capacity
Component
Projected Influent Flows
Average Day Flow
Maximum Month Flow
Maximum Day Flow
Preliminary Treatment
Mechanical Bar Screens
South Plant
Remarks
North Plant
14.8 mgd
17.8 mgd
23.3 mgd
24.1 mgd
28.9 mgd
38.0 mgd
Vortex Grit Chambers
.
Influent Uft Pumping
Primary Treatment
Primary Clarifiers
Primary Sludge Pumps
Secondary Treatment
Aeration Basins
32 mgd 32 mgd
32 mgd 32 mgd
15.5 mgd 17.0 mgd
17.7 mgd 29.0 mgd
11.3 mgd 25.6 mgd
17.7 mgd 40.7 mgd
Secondary Clarifiers
Aeration System
RASNV AS Pumping System
38.9 mgd total
46.7 mgd total
61.3 mgd total
Firm capacity of 60.5 mgd
Firm capacity of 66 mgd
Firm capacity of 60.5 mgd
Sufficient capacity for
projected flows
Add 2.5 MG to South Plant
and 8.1 MG to North Plant
Clarifiers at capacity
Add 18,400 scfm to North
Plant
RASNV AS at capacity, add
VFDs
Disinfection
Chlorinators
Flow Equalization
Flow Equalization Basins
Solids Handling
Gravity Belt Thickener
Anaerobic Digesters
Chlorinators have sufficient
capacity; add storage
Adequate capacity, modify
use of basins
Capacity of 25.6 mgd. Need
to add another GBT.
Digesters at capacity with
repairs and new mixing
system
.
Notes:
mgd
GBT
RAS
WAS
VFD
mg
scfm
million gallons per day
gravity belt thickener
return activated sludge
Waste activated sludge
variable frequency drive
million gallons
standard cubic feet per minute
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
33
.
.:
.
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EV ALUATlON
Recommended Improvements
This section provides a prioritized listing of recommended improvements for the
J. B. Messerly WWTP. Implementation of these improvements will result in increased
treatment capacity from the addition of new facilities, maximize use of existing plant
components, and increase the level of reliability in meeting stringent effluent limits. This
section also includes cost estimates for the recommended plant improvements.
Prioritized List of Plant Improvements
Sections 3.0 and 4.0 provided assessments of plant condition and process capacity,
respectively. Each section ended with a summary of treatment limiting or problem areas
within the plant. This section summarizes these improvements in their recommended order
of implementation.
Solids Handling System
1. At a minimum, add a second GBT and increase thickened sludge transfer capacity. The
two thickeners should have the capacity to thicken all of the primary sludge and waste
activated sludge produced during a maximum week loading condition.
2. Repair and rehabilitate digesters. Replace valves and piping. Rebuild sludge heaters and
upgrade controls. Replace recirculation and transfer pumps. Replace gas mixing system.
Clean out accumulated grit and solids from digesters. This activity is currently
underway, therefore costs are not included.
3. Rehabilitate the centrifuges; upgrade backdrives for high solids output.
4. Reroute the GBT filtrate and centrifuge centrate to one of the equalization basins. Add a
transfer pumping station and piping. Modify equalization inlet and outlet piping to
accommodate filtrate/centrate and feed back into plant for treatment.
5. Replace digester control system.
Secondary System
1. Add additional aeration basin volume. The plant is currently at aeration basin capacity.
An additional 5 MG of aeration basin volume will provide sufficient capacity through
year 2010. At that time an additional 5.6 MG may need to be added to meet year 2020
requirements. The additional aeration basin volume will also require modifications to
the plant flow splitting scheme, yard piping (both liquid and air), and controls.
2. Upgrade existing aeration basins. Both North and South Plant aeration basins need
rehabilitation. Flow splitting needs to be replaced with a more positive means such as
weirs. The diffused aeration systems need to be either rehabilitated or replaced.
3. Replace aeration blowers. The blowers at each plant should be replaced and upgraded.
An additionalS,700 scfm of blower capacity needs to be added to match the additional
aeration basin capacity for year 2010 conditions, and 9,700 scfm of blower capacity
should be added in 2010 to meet year 2020 conditions. In addition to the blowers, the
blower control systems should be replaced, and the blower buildings should be
upgraded including new HV AC systems, lights, and air inlet louvers.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
34
JAMES B. MESSERLYWWTP EVALUATION
.
4. The secondary clarifier mechanisms should be replaced at both plants, including the
drive mechanisms and gear box, center column, flocculation well, effluent weirs and
troughs (as applicable). They should be replaced with new higher capacity components.
5. The WAS and RAS pumps have met or exceeded their useful life and should be replaced
as a part of a larger secondary system upgrade. The new pumps should be supplied
with VFDs and flow meters. The secondary clarifier RAS /W AS piping needs to be
modified so that pumps can be dedicated to specific clarifiers.
Effluent Disinfection
Replacement of the effluent disinfection system is recommended more from a safety
perspective rather than as a capacity-related issue. It is recommended that the gas
chlorination system be replaced with a liquid sodium hypochlorite disinfection system.
Primary Treatment
1. Replace primary clarifier collector drives, mechanisms, and wear shoes. Replace cross
collectors.
.
2. Replace scum collectors and scum pump stations.
3. Replace primary sludge pumps. They have exceeded their useful life and should be
replaced.
4. Repair leaking construction joints.
5. Repair primary sludge box (valves and drainage).
Electrical and Control Systems
1. Replace existing plant monitoring system with a new system that will provide positive
monitoring and remote control capability for plant staff.
2. Replace and relocate exterior MCCs into buildings.
3. Update flow measurement devices. Many existing flow measurement devices are out of
service and should be repaired or replaced. Additional flow measurement devices are
needed for flow streams that should be measured for process control but are not
currently measured. Flow meters should be tied back into the new plant control system.
4. Add specific unit process control package systems such as flow proportional control of
RAS pumps (with new VFDs), dissolved oxygen set point control of aeration blowers,
automatic primary scum removal, and automatically coordinate operation of grit
removal system components.
.
Preliminary Treatment
1. Replace drives and bar racks on mechanical bar screens. Replace screenings conveyor
with higher capacity unit.
2. Add a second access point to top of grit basins. Replace corroded gate hardware.
3. Replace grit basin mechanisms, grit pumping system and grit piping.
4. Replace grit classifiers and conveyors.
5. Rehabilitate scum strainer.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM5-1.DOC
35
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWfP EVALUATION
.
Miscellaneous Improvements
Virtually all of the plant doors and handrail need to be replaced because of corrosion.
Plant air system needs to be upgraded.
Laboratory fume hood and walk-in incubator need replacement.
Upgrade Original Influent Pumping Station
It is our understanding that the City intends to rehabilitate the original influent pumping
station so that it can serve as a backup facility to the new influent pumping station. If the
original station is to be rehabilitated, then the four pumps need to rebuilt, the valves and
sump pump need to be rehabilitated, and the HV AC, lighting, and stair rails need to be
replaced. The pumping station has severe concrete corrosion in the vicinity of the original
wet well; this area of the station should be evaluated by a structural engineer. Because of
uncertainty as to whether this cost item will become a capital project, costs are not provided.
.
Cost Opinion for Recommended Improvements
A cost opinion was prepared for the recommended improvements for use in establishing an
initial construction budget for J. B. Messerly WWTP upgrades. The cost opinions also
include, as indirect costs, engineering and construction assistance. The values presented
below are intended to represent complete project costs for the improvements and are for use
in the decision making process as well as establishing funding needs and spending
priorities.
The total project cost opinion for upgrading the J. B. Messerly WWTP over the next five
years, as defined above and including engineering and construction services, is
approximately $46 million. A summary of cost opinions for each area of improvement is
presented in Table 29.
The cost opinions were prepared using December 1999 labor and materials. The December
1999 Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) is 6127. The ENR CCI
has been published monthly since 1913 and is commonly used in the construction industry
to establish a baseline from which to project increases in future construction costs.
The cost opinions presented in Table 29 were based on an inspection of the J. B. Messerly
WWTP and generalized projections of equipment and facility needs, experience with similar
projects, and manufacturer prices for recommended equipment. This estimate has been
prepared prior to undertaking detailed engineering work, such as preparation of
specifications and detailed design drawings; all required information concerning the nature
and full scope of the project has not yet been obtained. In addition, this is primarily a
rehabilitation project which by nature is difficult to sequence (due to the extensive nature of
the improvements and the need to maintain permit compliance). Rehabilitation of an
existing facility can run into a variety of unforeseen factors that can affect project costs and
schedule. Examples of these factors include contaminated soils, piping and duct banks not
located in the same locations as indicated on drawings, concealed defects in existing
construction, need to upgrade facilities to current codes, incomplete demolition of former
structures (or abandoned in place rather than removed as shown on the record drawings).
For this reason, a substantial contingency is included to cover unforeseen costs. Examples of
these costs might include extended hours, lower than expected productivity, additional
.:
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM5-1.DOC
36
JAMES B. MESSERLY WWTP EVALUATION
.
structures to facilitate tie-ins, temporary provisions for bypass pumping, and leased solids
processing equipment.
This cost opinion also includes cost values for construction allowances. These are known.
scope activities that cannot be quantified at this stage of cost estimation and as such, are
defined through the use of allowances. These allowances have been developed as
percentages of construction cost based on numerous other projects.
This cost opinion was developed at the budget level and is estimated to be accurate to
within plus 30 percent to minus 15 percent of the estimated cost. Therefore, the estimated
cost of the project can be expected to fall with the range of about $40,000,000 to $60,000,000.
TABLE 29
Opinion of Probable Project Costs
Item/Recommended Improvement Item Cost ($)
Solids Handling System $3,327,000
Secondary Treatment System 25,984,000
Effluent Disinfection 2,438,000
Primary Treatment 2,516,000
Electrical and Control Systems 8,538,000
Preliminary Treatment 2,415,000
. Miscellaneous Improvements 609,000
Total Project Cost Opinion 45,827,000
.'
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLAMDELlVERABLESlTM5-1.DOC
37
.
.
.,
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5.2
CH2MHILL
Wastewater Conveyance System
DATE:
June 2, 2000
Introduction
This Technical Memorandum (TM) has been authorized as a task lmder the Master Plan for
"-
the Augusta Utilities Department ( AUD ) project for the Augusta-Richmond COlmty
Commission. The purpose of this task is to review existing system, operations, work, and
shldies in progress and to provide AUD with recommendations for meeting service area
needs and improving system operations and performance through the planning year 2020.
System Description
The Augusta Utilities Department (ADD) provides wastewater collection and treatment to a
service area of approximately 230 square miles and a population of more than 160,000. The
conveyance system has eight drainage basins tributary to two wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs), J. B. Messerly and Spirit Creek. The system is comprised of approximately 850
miles of gravity sewer, 28 sewage pumping stations, an unknown quantity of force mains,
an unknown number of manholes, and other appurtenances. There are approximately
48,000 residential, commercial, and industrial sewer accounts. The number of sewer
accounts by type is not available.
Construction of the original sewers began arolmd 1850 as a combined storm water and
sanitary system. A program to separate the storm water from the sanitary sewers was
begun in the 1980s and was completed recently. It is possible that some unknown
interconnections of the two systems were not discovered and still remain. ADD recently
implemented a program to verify and cause complete separation.
The City of Augusta and Richmond County consolidated in 1996. That consolidation
resulted in combining the sewer assets of both entities. The Spirit Creek wastewater plant
and interceptor were the primary sewer system components previously owned by the
county.
The AUD service area has been separated into eight drainage basins for this report. These
are shown in Figure ---. The basin boundaries are approximated and are expected to be
delineated more accurately as system mapping is completed. Other attributes of the system
can be added as the maps are complete and the information becomes available. Where the
information was available, major interceptor locations are shown. The basins are referred to
by the following names: Rock Creek, Rae's Creek, Mid City, Oates Creek, Rocky Creek,
Butler's Creek, Spirit Creek, and Little Spirit Creek
MGMfTM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
152572.MP.WW
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
.
4.
.; 5.
6.
.
Background
Studies and Reports
A number of studies, reports and other documents impacting the conveyance system have
been developed in the last few years and a listing of the ones reviewed is given below. It
would appear that much of the recent work has been in response to immediate and
compelling problems in various basins. No overall study of the conveyance system was
noted.
1.
Document Date Prepared By
Inflow and Infiltration Analysis of Rae's Creek 1993 ADS
Draina ge Basin
Engineering Study of Rae's Creek Sewerage 1990 ZEL
Rae's Creek Phase II Inflow Identification/ 1996 Byrd/Forbes
Reduction Program
Investigative Report, Little Spirit Creek 1999 James G.
Swift & Trunk Line Sanitary Sewer Associates
Design Development Report for Tames 1988 ZEL
B. Messerly WWTP Equalization Facilities
Final (Draft) Report of the Butler, Rocky & 2000 ADG
Spirit Creek Service Areas
Report Draft, Operations, Maintenance, and 1999 Rick Arbour &
Management Assessment, Wastewater Collection System Associates, Inc
Administrative Order 1998 Ga. DNR
2.
3.
7.
8.
The Administrative Order signed in December 1998.is an important directive affecting the
planning operation, and maintenance of the conveyance system. The requirements in this
order generally track the direction the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has
been leading for the past several years in what is generally known as Conveyance
Maintenance and Operation Management (CMOM). L'\)ng-term planning for sewage
conveyance systems need to anticipate the requirements stipulated in the draft CMOM
regulations.
An important need that was identified when reviewing available documents was the
absence of a systemwide hydraulic capacity management plan for the conveyance system.
An assessment of flows and a determination of the capacity of the major interceptors in each
basin are essential tools for conveyance system planning and effective management. Sizing
of lines, staging of rehabilitation and reinforcement, upgrade and planning of pump
MGMfTM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
2
152572.MP.WW
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
.
stations, management of sewer system overflows, expansion of conveyance system,
expansion and upgrade of treatment facilities are all best addressed by such a plan.
Operation and Maintenance
AUD contracted with Rick Arbour and Associate, Inc., to make an assessment of its
wastewater collection system. That report has been completed and is included as part of the
Master Plan by reference. Certain recommendations by Arbour concerning operation and
maintenance of the system are reflected in this document.
Expansions and Extensions
AUD has expressed the desire to plan for system growth. The growth is characterized in
three ways; expansion, extensions and pockets. Expansion is defined as providing sewer
service to basins not currently having access to sewer systems. Little Spirit Creek is an
example of an area proposed for expansion. Extensions are defined as existing lines being
extended beyond their current point of terminus to unsewered areas. Pockets are areas that
were not served when sewers were first built in a neighborhood and are now an unsewered
area surrounded by sewered areas.
The proposed areas for sewer expansion, extensions, and service to pockets is shown in
Figure-xx. Before these new sewers are designed and constructed, they should be
incorporated into the sewer capacity management planning for their respective basin.
.
Findings
Rock Creek Basin
No physical inspections, rain-induced infiltration and inflow (III) flow determinations,
dynamic sewer modeling, or other similar studies were reported for this basin. Staff did not
report the basin to be affected by significant known problems. This basin has two pocket
areas. Flow monitoring should be done to determine base sewer flow, groundwater
infiltration, and rain-induced I/I. A sewer capacity assessment should be done for this
basin based on measured flows, anticipated growth, and dynamic modeling.
.
Rae's Creek Basin
Significant study has been done in this basin. Work includes the 1990 ZEL report that made
a hydraulic analysis of portions of the interceptor. No dynamic sewer modeling was done
and the study did not use flow monitoring to estimate rain-induced effects and other sewer
flows. The report concluded that significant reinforcement was necessary because lines
were, at that time, at or beyond capacity. Some of the recommended work has been done
and some is planned. Two III-related studies have been conducted, one by ADS in 1993
and the other by Byrd/Forbes in 1996. System problems are noted in both reports. A sewer
capacity assessment should be done for the basin that is based on measured and dynamic
modeling. Seven pocket areas and an expansion of service in the upper reaches of the
service area are proposed.
MGMfTM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
3
152572.MP.WW
.
.
.
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
Mid-City Basin
The 1990 ZEL report included a portion of the mid-city interceptor line. No flow monitoring
or other studies were reported. A major project to reinforce the capacity of the major basin
interceptor is currently being planned by ZEL. No dynamic modeling of the primary
interceptors in this basin was reported. No growth areas were identified in this basin.
Oates Creek Basin
No studies or reports concerning assessment of capacity based on flow monitoring results
and dynamic modeling were noted for this basin. No significant problems were reported by
the staff. Two pocket sewer areas were identified in this basin.
Rocky Creek Basin
A sewer capacity assessment based on flow monitoring data and dynamic modeling was
completed in March 2000 by ADG. Recommendations were made to upgrade the
interceptor to correct capacity problems and to rehabilitate portions of the system for
stmctural defects and I/I reduction. ADG recommended final design and construction of
the interceptor sewer line reinforcement not be accomplished until impact of proposed
extensions, expansions and other potential sewer additions could be properly considered.
There is a large pocket area in the upper reaches of the Rocky Creek basin.
Butler Creek Basin
A sewer capacity assessment based on flow monitoring data and dynamic modeling was
completed in March 2000 by ADG. Recommendations were made to upgrade the primary
interceptor sewer to correct capacity problems and to rehabilitate portions of the system for
structural defects and III reduction. ADG recommended that final design and construction
of the needed line reinforcement be accomplished once the effect of proposed extensions,
expansions, and other potential sewer additions could be properly considered. Two pocket
areas and a large expansion area in the basin's upper reaches were identified.
Spirit Creek Basin
A sewer capacity assessment based on flow monitoring data and dynamic modeling was
completed in March 2000 by ADG. Recommendations were made to upgrade the
interceptor to correct capacity problems and to rehabilitate portions of the system for
structural defects and III reduction. ADG recommended that final design and construction
of the interceptor sewer line reinforcement not be accomplished until the effect of proposed
extensions, expansions, and other potential sewer additions could be properly considered.
~,
There are seven pocket areas identified in this basin.
Little Spirit Creek Basin
This basin is currently not served by sewers. An engineering report investigating the
possibility of constructing trunk line s'ewers for the basin was made by James G. Swift and
Associate, Inc., in 1999. Construction of these sewers would represent system expansion.
The flows from this basin are tributary to the Little Spirit wastewater plant.
MGM/TM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
152572.MP.WW
4
.
.
.
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
The flow monitoring at the most downstream station in the Spirit Creek interceptor
measured an average base flow greater than 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and a rain-
influenced flow of more than 14.0 mgd. The proposed trunk line from Little Spirit Creek,
would be tributary to the Spirit Creek interceptor a little down stream from this
downstream flow monitoring point. Information provided shows the plant designed for
3.0 mgd. The Little Spirit Creek Trunk Line Sanitary Sewer report projects the potential for
12.0 mgd to be added to this plant from the collection system area proposed to be served.
The only near-term flows discussed are from schools in the Hephzibah area. Until the
situation at the WWTP is better lmderstood, it is difficult to make any recommendations
concerning the proposed new sewer expansion into Little Spirit Creek.
Main Interceptor
The portion of interceptor from the confluence of the Gwinnett St. and Mid-city interceptors
to the Messerly WWTP is known as the Main Interceptor. The Main Interceptor receives
flows from the Mid-City, Oates, and Rocky Creek basins. The effects on flows to the Main
Interceptor caused by the removal of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and by the
improvements proposed in the Rae's Creek basin are unknown. A capacity assessment of
the Main Interceptor needs to be done.
Pump Stations
The Arbour report notes that no studies have been made to evaluate the condition, capacity,
and adequacy of ADD'S 28 pump stations. Other deficiencies related to the pump stations
were reported by Arbour, and a comprehensive study of all stations was recommended.
System Expansions, Extensions, and Pocket Areas
Table xx summarizes the proposed growth areas identified by staff and gives a preliminary
planning budget for those proposed in the 5-year planning period.
Mapping
Accurate system maps are needed for all aspects of system management, but are not
available. A contract is pending to develop such maps for future use.
Recommendations
1. Establish long term goals for the system. These goals provide the framework and give
direction to the allocation of resources, capital improvement programs, staffing
decisions, operation and maintenance budgets, regulatory compliance, and the level of
service provided to the system's rate payers. Long-term goals should include the
following:
a. A conveyance system that is compliant with the proposed EP A regulations
known as CMOM.
These regulations establish the level of operation and maintenance expected of
conveyance system owners, ~s well direct the management of sewer system
overflows. A program that is compliant with these regulations is responsible in the
MGMfTM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
152572.MP.WW
.
.
.
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
protection of public health and the environment, reflects good stewardship in the
use of public resources, and places the owner in a strong defensible position within
the regulatory framework.
b. A conveyance system infrastructure that will contain without bypass or
surcharge those flows attendant to the design rain event.
It is recognized that old systems are affected by rain-induced III. To meet this goal,
the sewer flows related to a design rain event need to be estimated, a plan for III
reduction implemented, and needed conveyance system reinforcement identified
. and constructed.
c. The ability to manage any flows that exceed system capacity.
There will periodically be rains that exceed the design rain event and cause the
conveyance system to overflow even after it has been upgraded. Managing these
overflows will be necessary for pubic health and environmental reasons.
2. Establish goals for the next 5 years. These are short-term goals that represent
movement toward meeting the long-term objectives listed above. These goals should
direct and prioritize the allocation of the resources currently available.
Recommendations for the next 5 years include the following:
a. Coristruction and use of physical facilities that are adequate to support the
personnel, equipment, and materials needed to operate and maintain the conveyance
system. The facilities should be designed and constructed in collaboration with an
architect experienced in the design of similar buildings.
b. The clearing of the rights-of-way, surveying, and provision of access along all major
out fall lines. This step will facilitate maintenance and cleaning of these lines and
enable meaningful flow monitoring and subsequent computer modeling. These
activities are the first step in achieving the long-term capacity management goals.
Meaningful flow monitoring and modeling will allow better analysis and
recommendations for line sizing and pump station upgrade.
c. Have construction complete or scheduled for completion for the various sewer
extensions, expansions, and sewer pocket ar~as that have been identified by staff. In
some drainage basins, the outfall lines have been scheduled for an upgrade to
increase capacity. Expansions and extensions that are tributary to these out fall lines
should be scheduled for construction completion after the improvements are
complete. The schedule presented in Figure xx reflects such coordination.
.".
d. Implement the recommendations for III rehabilitation made in the reports prepared
by Byrd/Forbes and ADG in 1996 and 2000, respectively. AUD engaged each of
these companies to study portions of the collection system and to make
recommendations of rehabilitation work to reduce III. This work can be done while
AUD is implementing flow monitoring and other work over the next 5 years, and
will allow system recalibration, as described in paragraph i below.
e. Complete the sewer system maps currently under contract as soon as feasible.
Accurate and complete sewer system maps are an important component of system
MGMfTM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
152572.MP.WW
.
.
.
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
management. The maps are needed for the flow monitoring analysis and system
modeling that are part of system capacity analysis.
Put in place and develop effective use of a computerized maintenance management
(CMM) system. Such a system will give AUD a tool to achieve its other goals more
efficiently and effectively. Information management needs will become increasingly
more essential to AUD's success. The CMM used in conjunction with the geographic
information system (GIS) will help to meet these needs.
g. Staff and equip crews to have the full-time responsibility of sewer system
rehabilitation. The reduction of UI is a long-term program, and AUD can make
system repairs such as manhole rehabilitation and point repairs more cost-effectively
with its own crews. Larger work and more specialized work can be subcontracted.
f.
h. Complete flow monitoring of each basin over the 5-year period. Flow monitoring
data that can be used to correlate rain duration and intensity with subsequent rain-
induced flows in the sewer system are needed for sewer capacity analysis. Some
basins within the system have not been flow monitored, and the quality of flow
monitoring results in other basins was affected by under capacity sewer lines,
blockages, overflows, and other flow restrictions. More accurate and representative
information is needed so that good decisions can be made regarding the investment
of resources for capacity upgrades.
1. Complete system recalibration toward the end of the 5-year period. The
recalibration should be based on modeling of the conveyance system on a
systemwide basis. The results of this work will be a plan to achieve the long-term
sewer capacity goals for all major outfalls and would coordinate both the collection
and treatment systems. Currently, it is not feasible to develop an opinion of how to
accommodate wet weather flows in the Mid-City interceptor, the Main interceptor,
and the Messerly WWTP because of the lack of good flow monitoring data, as
described previously. Also, the planned upgrade of upstream interceptor lines will
allow more flow to reach these downstream facilities, and these flows are unknown.
The result of the CSO work as it relates to UI reduction is not known. For these
reasons, it is recommended that the identified interceptor reinforcements be made,
flow monitoring subsequently be updated, and comprehensive system modeling be
completed so that a systemwide capacity management plan can be developed and
adopted as part of recalibration. Recalibration would result in a roadmap for
meeting the long-term goals that are part of this plan.
3. Planning Activities
a. Determine the design storm event on which the long-term sewer system capacity
goals will be based. Engage a consultant familiar with the EP A CMOM regulations
to assist in deciding the appropriate duration, intensity, and antecedent conditions
for the selected design storm. The consultant should complete and document the
technical analysis necessary to meet the selected criteria.
b. Adopt a standard methodology for sewer system analysis and reporting. A uniform
way of collecting flow monitoring data, performing sewer system modeling,
analyzing data, and executing other conveyance system analysis is needed. Should
MGM/TM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
152572.MP.WW
.
.
.
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
AUD decide to contract with different vendors at different times for the sewer
capacity analysis in the several basins, then the standard methodology will provide
comparable results. The methodology should be gauged to withstand close
regulatory scrutiny.
c. Develop a hydraulic management plan for the entire conveyance system. Include in
the plan the capacity needed at each WWTP to manage flows expected for the design
rain event. The hydraulic management plan will best be completed after: 1) the
recommended and ongoing interceptor upgrade is complete; 2) the flow monitoring
of areas not previously monitored is complete; 3) post-flow monitoring of basins
where interceptor upgrades are made is complete; 4) systems maps are updated; and
5) the main interceptor line have been cleared and surveyed. It should be
anticipated that the completion of all the listed items will be toward the end of the
first 5-year planning period.
d. Implement the proposed CMM system as soon as feasible.
4. Operation and Maintenance
a. Build on or expand the work by Arbour to make decisions for meeting staffing and
equipment needs. Strive to provide a level of service that is comparable to other
systems of similar size.
b. Have a firm that specializes in risk management perform an audit of ADD's sewer
program.
c. Commit to a long-term, in-house sewer system UI reduction program. Using in-
house forces will allow repairs to be made more cost-effectively than using an
outside contractor. Include smoke testing to locate sources and equipment and
crews to make repairs. One three-person smoke test crew, two manhole repair
crews, and two line/lateral repair crews should be considered. Implement an
aggressive program of identification, notification, and repair of leaks on private
property in conjunction with the smoke testing. Consult with other systems to help
learn how successful programs have been implemented. Evaluate and adopt
rehabilitation and repair methodologies for manholes,laterals, and collection lines
that are best for ADD's system. These methodologies can be used by ADD's crews
and specified in contract documents prepared for bid. Information about funding
for sewer rehabilitation is limited. A rule of thumb for funding and one that has
been reported is one dollar per foot of sewer main per year investment for a system
that is in poor condition. This formula equates to $4,500,000 per year for ADD, and
this amount is recommended to work toward fox planning purposes.
d. Have the rights-of-way and access cleared along the main interceptors in each of the
eight drainage basins. Have each of the interceptors surveyed. Have this work done
as soon as feasible so that the flow monitoring physical inspection can be
accomplished in a timely manner. Make this work part of the Comprehensive
Improvements Plan (CIP) and have it done by an outside contractor. Budget
$1.40 per foot of line to clear the ROW. Keep the lines cleared by annual herbicide
application. Budget $0.15 per foot for annual maintenance.
MGMfTM5-2 WW CONVEY ANCE
152572.MPWW
8
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
. e. Implement the recommendations for the pump stations made in the Arbour report.
The installation of a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system
should have high priority. Any capacity upgrade should be coordinated with the
capacity management plan that is recommended.
5. Rae's Creek Basin
a. Complete the repair and rehabilitation for III reduction recommended in the
Byrd/Forbes Report dated October 10,1996.
b. Complete the constmction of the Rae's Creek outfall upgrade recommended in
ZEL's 1990 report. After completion of the outfall upgrade, flow monitor the basin
to have the information needed to complete the hydraulic management plan and to
estimate the contribution from this basin to the Messerly WWTP, Mid-City
Interceptor, and Main Interceptor.
c. Proceed with service expansions, extensions, and pockets. Time these improvements
to come online after the interceptor upgrade.
5. Rock Creek Basin
Flow monitor the system to develop information needed for developing the systemwide
hydraulic management plan and to get an opinion of the wet weather I dry weather flow
contribution to the Messerly WWTP and downstream interceptors.
. 6. Mid-city Basin
Flow monitor the system to develop information needed in the systemwide hydraulic
management plan and to get an opinion of the wet weather / dry weather contribution to
the Messerly WWTP and downstream interceptors. Also, this work will help assess the
results of the CSO separation. Survey and map the main out fall lines as part of the
work.
.
7. Oates Creek Basin
Flow monitor the system to develop information needed for the systemwide hydraulic
management plan and to get an opinion of the wet weather / dry weather contribution to
the Messerly WWTP and Main Interceptor from this basin.
8. Rocky Creek Basin
a. Complete the hydraulic management plan by authorizing consultant to: 1) evaluate
the hydraulic capacity of the interceptor based on selected design rain event; 2) add a
flow component for future growth; and 3) summarize the expected flows from the
design rain event and for dry weather.
b. Proceed with the upgrade of the interceptor to accommodate flows for the design
storm event and future growth, if recommended by ADG.
c. Proceed with the rehabilitation for III reduction recommended by ADG.
d. Proceed with extensions, expansions, and pockets for basin timed so sewage is
added after the interceptor is upgraded.
MGM/TM5-2 WW CONVEYANCE
152572.MP.WW
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
.
e. Flow monitor after the interceptor upgrade and III rehabilitation are complete to
verify the expected flows and to complete hydraulic management plan.
8. Butler Creek Basin
a. Complete the hydraulic management plan by authorizing the consultant to do the
following: 1) evaluate hydraulic capacity of interceptor based on selected design
rain event; 2) add a flow component for future growth; and 3) summarize the
expected flows from the design rain event and for dry weather.
b. Proceed with the upgrade of interceptor to accommodate flows for the design storm
event and future growth, if recommended by ADG.
c. Proceed with the rehabilitation for III reduction recommended by ADG.
d. Proceed with extensions, expansions, and pockets for basin timed so sewage is
added after the interceptor is upgraded.
e. Flow monitor after the interceptor upgrade and I/I rehabilitation is complete to
verify the expected flows and to complete the hydraulic management plan.
9. Spirit Creek Basin
Complete the hydraulic management plan by authorizing the consultant to do the
following: 1) evaluate the hydraulic capacity ofinterceptor based on selected design
rain event; 2) add a flow component for future growth; and 3) summarize the
expected flows from the design rain event and for dry weather.
Proceed with the upgrade of interceptor to accommodate flows for the design storm
event and future growth, if recommended by ADG.
Proceed with the rehabilitation for I/I reduction recommended by ADG.
Proceed with extensions, expansions, and pockets for basin timed so sewage is
added after interceptor upgraded.
Flow monitor after the interceptor upgrade and III rehabilitation are complete to
verify the expected flows and to complete the hydraulic management plan.
10. Main Interceptor
Complete the assessment and recommendations for the Main Interceptor and Messerly
WWTP when the systemwide modeling and hydraulic management plan are developed
toward the end of the first 5 years of the program. "Rae's Creek, Rock Creek, Oates
Creek, Mid-City, and Rocky Creek are all tributary to the Main Interceptor. The
elimination of the CSO system primarily in the Mid-City area has removed overflows
from the system, and the result of these changes has not been evaluated. Also, the
upstream capacity of lines is being increased in Rae's Creek, Mid-City, and Rocky Creek
basins. These improvements should result in more flow reaching the Main Interceptor.
After all of these improvements are complete, the Main Line Interceptor should be flow
monitored and a plan for managing wet weather flows developed.
a.
.
b.
c.
d.
e.
.:
MGMfTM5-2 WIN CONVEYANCE
10
152572.MP.WIN
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 7.1
CH2MHILL
Needs Assessment for Computerized Maintenance
Management System (CMMS)
DATE:
September 1999
Contents
Introduction ...... ........... ........ ......... ...... .... ........ ... ..... ............... ... ....... ......... .......... ..................... ......1
Data Gathering Process ......... ..... '" ..... .......... .............. ......... .......... ...... ....... ...... .................. ...... .... 2
Current Maintenance Management Environment ........... .......... ..... ..... ........... .........................4
Maintenance Management Needs ............................................................................................18
Where to Go From Here .............. .......... ........ ....... ................ ........ ............ ......................... ........ .19
Process Diagrams........................................................................................................................ 23
Introduction
.
The Augusta Utilities Department (Utilities Department) is exploring the potential use of
information systems to facilitate the management of their water distribution system, sewer
collection system, water filter plant, ground water plant, and pump station. CH2M HILL
has been retained to assist in identifying the information systems that can meet the Utilities
Department's needs.
The objective of this technical memorandum is to assess the Utilities Department's CMMS
needs, the contents of which will be used to prepare the necessary document(s) to be used
by the Utilities Department to select qualified systems.
The memorandum is divided into five sections. The first section, Introduction, describes the
general approach to identifying the appropriate computerized maintenance management
system (CMMS). The second section, Data Gathering Process, describes the activities that
took place to gather data pertinent to assessing the Utilities Department's need for a CMMS.
The third section, Current Maintenance Management Environment, describes the current
environment under which maintenance activities are being performed based on
CH2M HILL's observations as well as a general description of the information technology
infrastructure that is being employed for these maintenance activities. The fourth section,
Maintenance Management Needs, describes the specific business requirements that
computerized maintenance management system software tools must satisfy to meet the
Utilities Department's CMMS needs. The fifth section, Where to Go From Here, describes
how to proceed with the Alternatives Selection task of the project.
Attachment A contains a glossary of terms used throughout the technical memorandum.
CH2M HILL is assisting the Utilities Department in identifying the need for a computerized
maintenance management system (CMMS) in an effort to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency by which to provide higher quality services to Augusta-Richmond County
.
P:11525721ALL ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1 CMMS NEEDS ASSMT.DOC
.
.
..
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
residents. The Utilities Department is responsible for maintaining the water distribution
system, the sewer collection system, and the water production facilities. These water and
wastewater assets will be referred to as the infrastructure throughout the technical
memorandum. OMI has recently taken control of the operations and maintenance of the
wastewater treatment facilities. The County's Public Works Department maintains the storm
water, street, traffic, and sign infrastructure and does not use a CMMS.
The goals of the effort for identifying the need of a CMMS are:
. To identify a better means of managing the maintenance of the infrastructure including
predictive and corrective maintenance
. To identify a better means of managing infrastructure maintenance information to assist
managers with their fiscal planning activities
. To identify a better means of bridging the islands of information specific to maintenance
management of the infrastructure
. To encourage further consolidation of County and City segregated activities
The general approach that will be taken to attain these goals consists of three tasks.
1. Needs Assessment - The purpose of this task is to identify where the Utilities
Department is with regards to infrastructure maintenance management and where the
Utilities Department wants to be. The task consists of three components: Data Gathering
Process, Current Maintenance Management Environment, and Maintenance
Management Needs. The information gathered during this task will be used extensively
in subsequent tasks. This technical memorandum presents the assessment of needs.
2. Alternatives Selection - The purpose of this task is to qualify and identify the CMMS
that best suits the Utilities Department's needs. This document, Technical Memorandum
on the Needs Assessment for a CMMS, will be used extensively to prepare the necessary
documents for the alternatives selection.
3. Implementation Plan - The purpose of this task is to develop a comprehensive
implementation plan for deploying the CMMS that is selected as part of the Alternatives
Selection task. The implementation plan will include an implementation schedule and
budget and will consider the information contained in this TM.
Data Gathering Process
The CH2M HILL team (Maria Delgado, Cal Leckington, and Larry Scott) spent a week
acquainting themselves with the Utilities Department's structure and operations as they
may relate to computerized maintenance management systems. The activities that took
place are summarized in Table 1. Additional informal discussions were held with Tom
Wiedmeier, Utilities Department Assistant Director; Max Hicks, Utilities Department
Director; Tameka Allen, Information Technology Department Financial Manager; and Rick
Arbour, consultant on the sewer system.
Specific documents that were collected as part of the data gathering process are listed in the
table below (Table 2).
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1.DOC
2
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
.
Table 1. Tours and Personnel Interviews
.
Activity Utilities Department Attendee(s)
Tuesday,June15,1999
Toured the maintenance group's main operations Brian Richards, Construction and Maintenance
center at Orchard Road and briefly discussed the Superintendent
group's operational procedures.
Toured the Filter Plant and briefly discussed the Brantley Kuglar, Water Superintendent
group's operational procedures.
Wednesday, June 16, 1999
Interviewed management staff about their needs Randy Blount, Assistant Filter Plant
for a computerized maintenance management Superintendent
system. Leon Burckhalter, Filter Plant Superintendent
Lonnie Kelley, Pump Station Superintendent
Brantley Kuglar, Water Superintendent
Debar?? Sanders, Ground Water
Superintendent
Interviewed pump station staff about their needs for Robert, Assistant Pump Station Superintendent
a tool to facilitate maintenance management of the Terry, Pump Station Operator
pump station.
Toured the pump station facility.
Interviewed ground water operators about their Harold, Ground Water Operator
needs for a tool to facilitate maintenance
management of the ground water plants and wells. Allen, Ground Water Operator
.. Jeff Reese, Ground Water Operator
Toured well #1 and one of the ground water plants.
Interviewed filter plant staff about their needs for a Tommy, Filter Plant Staff
tool to facilitate maintenance management of the Allen, Filter Plant Staff
plant.
Mike, Filter Plant Staff
Thursday, June 17,1999
Interviewed management staff about their needs Robin McMillon, Engineering Services Manager
for a computerized maintenance management Brian Richards, Construction and Maintenance
system. Superintendent
Interviewed supervisors about their needs for a tool Chris?, Construction and Maintenance
to facilitate maintenance management of the Supervisor
sanitary and water systems. Frankie?, Construction and Maintenance
Supervisor
Interviewed customer service staff about their Glenda Buchanan
potential need for an information system to Gwen Elam
facilitate customer service requests.
Susan Pogue
.
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1.DOC
3
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
.
Table 2. Documents Collected
.
Title Purpose
Utilities Department Paper organization chart depicting the
Department's organizational structure
Utilities Department Foreman's Work Order 4-copy paper form used by Customer Service
and Maintenance staff to track field work
Utilities Department Daily Work Assignments Paper log sheet used by the Maintenance
Daily Activity Log, Radio Communication dispatcher to track the whereabouts of field
crews
Richmond County Water and Sewerage Telephone Paper log sheet used by the Maintenance
Message and Complaint Form dispatcher to track customer service requests
Utilities Department In-House Requisition Paper form used by all staff in the Department
to request approval for purchasing items
Raw Water Pumping Station Service Sheet Paper log used by the Pump Station
maintenance staff to document the servicing of
the Pump Station major equipment.
Preventive Maintenance Checklist Paper forms for major equipment at the Filter
Plant used by the Filter Plant maintenance staff
to document equipment inventory and log
preventive maintenance activities
Augusta Water Filter Plant Work Request Paper form used by Filter Plant staff to
document the need to service Filter Plant
equipment
Augusta Water Filter Plant Work Order Paper form used to document the work
performed on Filter Plant equipment
Current Maintenance Management Environment
Table 3 lists general information about the Utilities Department's infrastructure.
The Utilities Department has two offices for operations. The office on Peach Orchard Road
houses the primary Customer Service Center, Engineering, Construction and Maintenance
(including one of the two warehouses), and administration staff. This office used to be the
County's Utilities Department office prior to the merger with the City of Augusta in 1996.
The second office located on Central Avenue, across the street from the surface water
treatment plant (Filter Plant), is the hub for the Filter Plant, Pump Stations, and
Groundwater staff and houses the second warehouse. This office used to be the City of
Augusta's Public Works office prior to merging with Richmond County.
.
P:11438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1.DOC
4
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
Maintenance Management Practices for the Water Distribution and Sewer Systems
The Construction and Maintenance, Engineering, and Customer Service divisions utilize a
paper work order process to plan and track field activities. Although staff at Peach Orchar.d
Road and staff at Central A venue both use the same process the paper histories that are
Table 3. Infrastructure Profile
Characteristic Quantity
Service Area 230 square miles
County Population 195,000
Line locator work orders 25 to 30 direct calls
200 request from 800 number
Sewer Collection System
Gravity Sewers 850 miles
Force-mains Unknown
Manholes and other structures Unknown
Pumps 28
Service Connections Unknown
Backups per month 30 to 50
Work orders per day 4 to 5
Water Distribution System
Water mains Unknown
Service Connections 61,180
Water main breaks per month Unknown
Work orders per day 1 0 to 15
Water Facilities
Raw Water Pump Stations 1 (50 MGD)
Surface Water Treatment Plants 1 (45 MGD)
Surface Water Storage Tanks 5
Surface Water Pump Stations 4
Groundwater Treatment Plants 2 (16 MGD, cumulative)
Groundwater Storage Tanks 13
Groundwater Booster Pump Stations 4
Work orders per month Unknown
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM7.1.DOC
5
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
generated are stored in their respective locations. The types of fieldwork performed based
on work orders include: large meter repairs, taps, sewer backups, locators, small meter
replacements, service cut-offs, hydrant repairs and replacements, easement maintenance,
water main breaks, grease cleaning, valve maintenance, and small engineering projects. The
six primary business functions that make-up the work order process are:
1. Handling a Customer Service Request (Figure 1) - The various staff that are able to
handle a customer service request include the Customer Service Division at Peach
Orchard, the customer service person at Central Avenue, the Customer Service
Department in downtown, and the Dispatch Center at Peach Orchard.
2. Dispatching a Field Crew (Figure 2) - The Dispatch Centers at Peach Orchard and
Central Ave are responsible for dispatching their respective crews as needed.
3. Completing a City Work Order (Figure 3) - The Dispatch Centers at Peach Orchard and
Central Avenue are responsible for coordinating the use of field crews from Peach
Orchard and Central Avenue to complete work orders within the City limits.
4. Completing a County Work Order (Figure 4) - The Dispatch Centers at Peach Orchard
and Central Avenue are responsible for coordinating the use of field crews from Peach
Orchard and Central Avenue to complete work orders outside of the City limits and
within the County limits.
5. Closing a City Work Order (Figure 5) - The Dispatch Center, Customer Service Division,
and warehouse at Peach Orchard work together on closing City work orders.
6. Closing a County Work Order (Figure 6) - The Dispatch Center, Customer Service
person, and warehouse at Central Avenue work together on closing County work
orders.
The following six figures (functional process diagrams, FPD) illustrate the work order
process functions. Attachment B provides guidelines for reading the FPDs.
Other activities performed by Utilities Department that may need to be considered for the
deployment of a CMMS are:
. The Construction and Maintenance division manager uses a county paper map mounted
on a wall and colored pushpins to track customer complaints. Based on field crew
availability, the map is used to identify problem areas that require preventive
maintenance.
. Each of the two warehouses inventories trucks for parts and materials that were taken
but never allocated to work orders.
. Field crews are responsible for locating sewer and water lines. The Peach Orchard
Dispatcher coordinates these requests. Since the Utilities Department started using the
800 number service, requests have increased from 25 to 30 per day to as much as 200 per
day. Some of the requests do not pertain to locating water and sewer lines but the
Utilities Department is responsible for addressing every request that is submitted. The
tax maps are used to document lines that are located and later manually transferred to
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESlTM7.1.DOCr
6
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
.
the maintenance maps. Since the as-builts that exist are not necessarily current the field
crews spend time locating the lines and are more comfortable using only the tax maps,
which they estimate to be 80% accurate.
The County has a standard paper requisition process with which the Utilities
Department complies.
The dispatchers obtain information from the Public Works Department's Streets division
to coordinate fieldwork with street paving activities.
.
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM7.1.DOC
$ co
::;;
. 1: ~
~g ~ Oi
en E.8
>- '" ... ... c: ~ ~~ ~ ~
en E '" ~"-
!z -o~"E ~.9 ~~UO
UJ (;;&0 *"2: ~ ~ ~ .9.!:
::;; -g~8~8 &... III
UJ
(!) c1l~ u ~"~
<
z ~Q~
< ~~
::;; '"
UJ '" ~~
u >- ~ "
z ~og ~VJ g.
< ~a o~
z
UJ ...o~ E '" ~ ij)
!z ~i::Q)~ O)e~ ~~
<<: =og!I.l ~~~
::;; ~~;::('CJ", QiE ~1:
0 "'~~E'E > '" o~~
UJ <0 C1J.f;O =U "'" 0
N -8.9 "~~
f:C J:~~ c: ~~Q)
UJ U... -",'" & g
I- L1:.9 :;j~ " ~"~ ... ~
=>
0- o-l:c:~ J:O g~ ~ ~.s
::;; ii:~ ~lll ::> ... ~ .S
0 u " ~~
U ,... 8 ~fJ) ~ ~ ,,-
a: ~ ~ c: 0
It 0" C:._ -e .,-
"'~~...o J:
!z ld-l: ~'E -l:S
UJ ~&O~ ~ ~
::;;
en u .8., -~ ~
en "'"'"
UJ c:u ::> 0 ~~
en o~~ U'"
~ _0
ii:~ l:! 2l ~ 6.V);S "'~~ ~o
en 80~"~ &~
0 ::>c:c:-e g~~ ~o5i
UJ In.~t:~(I) ~~~~o
UJ Pi 'It ~8-
z ~j~~~ Nc:ge~
.82l 8 c: ll.
9~~~ J;o&~ !j"2: .~~ 0
u::E I-
(ije~u o '" j~ '"
~e~ ~rJ) "'c -
&U Oi o ., '""
E ~ ... 0
~~ ~~ 0
::><( 1-0 -
u- ....
=e rn
<oB~ Q.I
. ... oou ::l
~ M::_ 0'"
-c:o ~: 5: Q.I
~~~ o.~ ~
0; C: .9'~ ~
::> '" Q.I
g g~~ ~'" ,,~c1l~
- ~ f_Ul ~ o 0"" e v
....
~o~ ....0;~"E t:
iCE E ~'E lSg<3
.- e ='" Q.I
& .8., '" ::> rJ)
"'"'" I-U
::> 0 ""
U'"
_0 Q.I
~ :g~-5 e
c N~i
::> 0
8 ~1ii ....
rn
o '" ::l
~ .~ U
0",
:aiOO rn
l- e
Q.I
....
rn
l'l >.
c: rJ)
., '"
c: 0 Q.I u
'" c: 0
"E ., V
c: I:: q
.~ '"
"E lU ,...:
.~ >. ::;;
Q.I t::
'" ~ 8' i: ;> en
~ 0 UJ
~ ..., c: I:: -'
0 '" CD
'.ij t~ 0; c: 0 0 <
::> 0 0; U a:
0; 0 ct ::> UJ
E '" C: E 0 >
,g u'" e .5 E lU :::;
",0'" e UJ
0; 0-'" 8':: 05 ~- '" ... ~8' CO ~
~'" .-~~ "'~ '" '" gi !!l~ I::
0::> ::> S
-~ ~ c ::> 0'0 ll!..., ....
0'0; 0 ~ ~2~ - 0-
e ::> "'" ~"'- "l:l
'" ",u ~ Co ~ia a:
> '" " v ~~ I:: ~
"~ c: "~ ]j > "U
0 .~ $ lU en
"'" g> g>.5 <
a: ll. a: a:- ::r: ::;;
..J a: ..J ~
~ \t)
N
~ \t)
ifl
. HO.lVdSIO 301^l:l3S l:l3VlO.lSnO 301^l:l3S l:l3VlO.LSnO 301^l:l3S l:l3VlO.lSnO ::l ~
Ol:lVHOl:lO HOV3d 3^V lVl:l.lN30 NMO.lNMOO Ol:lVHOl:lO HOV3d CO
....
\.L.( Ii:
Cil
"
(/)
>-
(/)
tz
UJ
:::;;:
UJ
~
Z
<
:::;;:
UJ
U
Z
<
Z
UJ
tz
<(
:::;;:
o
UJ
N
CE
UJ
!3
c..
:::;;:
8
a:
~
tz
UJ
:::;;:
(/)
(/)
UJ
~
<
(/)
o
UJ
UJ
Z
(;
'"
...
o
o
.,E
.<:: .,
-.<::
0-
lU ~
1:::::
8""
(!;g~
....o~
:.00
Ill_
~~
.<:: ~
-<.>
~:E
:J~
'"
~
.
l5 ~
.- '" ~
~~.,
:;;5=
~~~
~U~
-"'~8
1;~~
olU-o
- > .,
""-0
. oe; g ~
o "
o
"
.
l:lOSIAl:l3dnS
M3l:l0 0131:l
Ol:lVHOl:lO HOV3d
~fJJ ~
""Ql
~ oS .....
~.!: -E
~~Q5~
C\lQ)~o.;;
.<::o:@
;-l:"
~:@ ~
0.. 0
o
"
o
"
it ....
c., -E
:~ 0 <DO
~~~~
~~~;;~
C\I ~ ~ .~~(J)
~:g~~
;gg~
:!l.3' ~
."'~ ~
fa ~ 0 ~
~~~~
~~;s~i
"'~~~]!
'S: CI) Q.
., -l:.!: E
a::@ 8
.VI -l:
"....~ '<
Ol -E;:" 0
(;~O"~
"'~~8--E
Qj~EO
G .g
e
E
c3~Q)
-"<'>
lU e-"
~~ ~.~
Ol-'"
.~ ~ ~
-0<
0;
o
'"
.,
>.
'f" it
'- <<I Q)
~~~
m:ScCii
~~~':
Q)O:C
.<::-lU
;.3'~
:!l lU
.3'.91
c~
:~ ~
~ ro ~
g~~~
~~~
~-8
~B
:::>
~f.1) Q) .....
1ij.<::{';
E - "
Q)'SO
0)~Q5t:~
g.,~:@Ql
;t:~
l;l:@ 8-
0:
'"
~
it
~
<.>
-0
Q;
0:
.,
-=
.<::
<.>
.,,0;
~~
g
o
'5
l!l
.,
-=
5]
:::>
HO.LVdSIO
Ol:lVHOl:lO HOV3d
_.9~
~'E~
o<<lcn
-..c: .-
to ctI U (I)
o 0. '- (I)
M.~O co
'O.ccn
= 0 Q)
lU III "
o.,e-
0.. ~
E
.,
-=
.?:-
:g
"
g
.,
>
<
_0;
NE
.,
o
0;
.<::
<.>
0;
Q.
'"
'5
0;
o
it ....
~ ~ -E
.~ 0 0)0
~l?-=-l:
"'~~~~
o co''::; a~
Mc;~'~~
.s::.'- as QJ:
;.9s~
:!l.3' &
og
~,,~~
~s.,QQ)
C\I~~g5
g~~~~
~-E1;j.91
.,o.!: E
.~ 8
a:
.VI -l:
"....~'<
~-E;:..rB
-eo"
g ~ ~ 8-~
Qj~EO
(!) ,g
o
"
HO.LVdSIO
3AV1Vl:lJ.N30
'"
.,
>.
'"
~
.<::
~
lU
Q.
:6 ~
O)~~
g:c]!
lU-
~ .,
.,.<::
-=-
.,
'"
:::>
E
.,
-=
(;
'"
M
o
o
.?:-
E
"
g
!i
<
_0;
M~
.,
o
0;
.<::
<.>
0;
Q.
'"
'5
0;
o
., E
.<:: .,
-.<::
0-
lU ~
c;:
8""
....o~
0-'
~.2 f
-00
lU_
~ it
~f
-<.>
m:2
:J~
'"
.,
>.
VI
~
l5 ~
o;8~
g ~ .,
:;;g-=
~~~
~U~
...."'~8
.6~.9
g~-g
.,.,~
> 0
.,,-
o "
o
"
l:lOSIAl:l3dnS
M3l:l0 0131:l
3AV1Vl:lJ.N30
-
N
o
o
-
~
QJ
10<
U
~
-
QJ
...
~
f/}
e
QJ
....
f/}
>-
rJ)
QJ
V
=
IU
>-
QJ
:>
=
o
U
IU
bO
=
...
..c::
v
....
IU
C.
f/}
...
o
t'i
~
So
...
~
u
o
q
....:
:::;;:
!:::
(/)
UJ
...J
In
~
UJ
>
:::;
UJ
~
5
c..
a:
UJ
ti;
<
:::;;:
'"
~
r5
~
a.:
Cil ~
:::;;:
. ~~ .<::
ti; u Ol
E ., lU " 0
>- c3~ ""-J
(/) o..lUQ)
tz ~ g-! .,.,'"
.<:: "'''
UJ - " 0
.9-g~ 00-<:
:::;;: -.<::Q)
UJ ~2!:5 ~~~~
<.?
< -l: C\I.~ ~ ~ ""B~
z :@ ., ., .,
< ~~~ ~~;
:::;;: Q) =: > '"
v5_(f)O~5
UJ ~-gfij~~~ " lU E1S<<i
u ,,3: "~,,
z - 0 0.
< "E-e"" 4l~ &!. "
z Ul~O(33: a:<(
UJ ~
tz ~
<( ~ "
:::;;: 'u "
0
0 u
UJ
N
CE .... it
UJ o-e f~
!3 ~O tD () ~ 0
c.. o~5:2:E
:::;;: M~~;~S ...
0 0
U ~ 'a..V) &i ~ ~ 0 '"
a: .,
~ :g fij;~.~ >.
tz ~~~[~ g
UJ I- ~ g.(I)
:::;;: -l: ~ g
(/) ca~
(/) :@"
UJ .<::~ 0.-
(/) ~(I) ~ -l:~
(/) ~.,
< [:5"0 c: ., :@g.
~.~~-g ., .,
(/) .!!l 'E ~ .... E " '" <Il
0 N~~ N ~(I) ~
UJ ~S~Q-g ~~~O
UJ -~ ~-l: ~ _U't: u:~ ~ ~
Z .s: 08- EO
:::>~:@::J ~-e ~"
~-5 ~O &~
lU lU LL
a:" :::> .,
0.. >
a
Q)~~
o~~O
--J~~ -
. ~~ Cf')
0
0 0
-
<b 10<
0 QJ
0 ~
10<
0
'" ~
0
'"
... 0
0
0 g~ ~
.<::.,lU
u '" '"
lU " '" .e-
o (!; ~ig~
-y .... ...
,.... Q) .... c.c U
'" '" ~;~~s
0 8
0 ;'E-;;'~ f/}
> ., " e
25~~ QJ
00. ....
f/}
>-
~ %~ ~.2:" rJ)
-~}g~ QJ
"ititSs N.~a'~o v
= u
~.~~ o~f~ IU s
=0 :g(3-~ >-
l'l ~ ~ '" N~~~ QJ ....:
Q)"O= :> :::;;:
.~ e:.o ~ - 0 .,
~~~ 0'<:: ~ = !:::
i~c (/)
0 UJ
a:o 253:~ U ...J
" " In
0(1) ~ IU ~
~!S.,s UJ
0 oo.g:5C/J bO >
:::;
" N"O ~ ~~ = UJ
!!~...,JQ) .,t:l ~
~(I) ~ ~ ~ QJ 5
- c..
~p C. a:
'> EO e UJ
Q)~i: ti;
a:~:@ 0 <
U :::;;:
(f') ~
l(l
~ '"
. I
l:l3HO.LVdSIO M3~O 0131:l ~
3^V1V~J.N30 3^V lVl:l.LN30 bO
...
~ a.:
Cil :::
--
ti;
>-
(/)
tz
UJ
:::;;:
UJ
~ 0
z Q) ~1Il :: (ij ~
<
:::;;: ~-5~~~Q)5
UJ ~-g~O~~~
u
z cJl5-l:Q) :.
< ~:@-= 3:
z
UJ
tz
<(
:::;;:
0
UJ ~~sj..Q
N
CE
UJ 0.0"011. 0
!3 8 ~ ~ ~.!!!
c.. (')~~CI)~~ 2:~
:::;;: ~.a.~ a g-~~ 0
8 :g E ~ o..(I)..c M
a: ~~~g.~ 0
0 ~~o~o 0
u..
tz
UJ
:::;;:
(/) g
(/)
UJ -l: .... ~
(/) Q) ~fJ) ;s "0 1ii~ -E .~
(/) :@"
< -=c:-eQ) jH 02:
(/) ~S~o$ ..CI)~ -l:l'l.
0 lUQ)" c: Q) :@cil
UJ ~! ~-l:" .~= ~ ., Q)
UJ :::>~:@:(l 0l0Q) .... E " Ol it
z ~g~.g N~13 ,.....fI) Q)
"'c:~
.~ ~ l'l. ~.... ~~
"
~-e em
.- " -l'j0
'OQ) ~u:
..VI ~ 120 0. "
:::> Q)'<::
Q)c:-e >-
~~.,o ~ -
S! h ~ Ul ~
..J&~ Q) 0
'u >- 0
. -
-~ 10<
~ ~ QJ
~ Q) ~
~-=l 10<
.~ "0 0 0
~';~o 0
" ,;, ~
-u't: 8
c: ~ Q) 10<
.- 0 0. 0
.2.r::
"u ~
lU lU
a:Q)
Ol 0.. .e-
o
'" ~~
M u J!! =
0 lU o.lU ::l
0 ~"C.s~.!!! C\I~~
N ~i 0
f'.~~m~~ U
~-2:1C::'s! 8
0 '" ;o~~~ f/}
S! > ~- e
'" '" i5 ~g.
0 0 QJ
0 0 ....
f/}
>-
~ g.~ rJ)
QJ
iStiS v
~.~~ = u
= 0 IU S
B~Q) ~(3-2:- >-
......Q):s~ '" ",Q)l)llJl QJ ....:
~.~ e :c Q) ~2~ :> :::;;:
~:d >. !:::
-Q) =
a:~ .~ ~ ~ (/)
0 UJ
U ...J
o -= " " In
oen ~ IU ~
i~~s UJ
0 oo.g-~ bO >
:::;
" N ~ e g>.:g = UJ
_~-JQ) ... ~
~ ~ ....
QJ 5
-
it~~ C. c..
a:
e UJ
~.~ ~o \Q
"'Q)~-l: 0
a:~:@ U :::;;:
'"
.,;. r-
'"
'"
~ '"
. (ii
l:l3HO.LVdSIO M3l:l0 0131:l ::l r-
~
Ol:lVHOl:lO HOV3d O~VHOl:lO HOV3d bO ~
...
~ c..
Cil
:::;;:
"
(/)
>-
(/)
tz
UJ
:::;;:
UJ
<.?
<
z
<
:::;;:
UJ
U
Z
<
Z
UJ
tz
<(
:::;;:
o
UJ
N
CE
UJ
!3
c-
:::;;:
o
u
a:
~
tz
UJ
:::;;:
(/)
(/)
UJ
(/)
(/)
<
(/)
o
UJ
UJ
Z
~
~~~
~.,:@-=~"
-:5 Q)-o{J:
~5~~;~~
M-[.~ ~ ~U-e
CO g. ~ Q) Q) Q
cii<.>o-e-=
u:. o.!:
r
c:
-l: >: .<:: ~!!lt -l: ~1l
o a.. '- ~ lU:;; .,:@OQl
1?~~~~'E E~Q):5 ~....
~ _.VI" 0 _ lU C;~~5o~~-~
-oC:-(i)CU.t:
N~~e8Be (')u:.O-=>..,EO
.<:: '~g.E,g
en Q)..... .- 0 o~_o~....~
a-Eg~ ~:@ ~ ~~:@
u:.o Ul
r
it -l:.!:,,~
g~~~~lt
~:-E~-g~~
"'9>'~lU~0
'- a. .... ~
gj8~-E"o
I- ~o-=~
r
c: .,8'
.,.-
S5 ~-'
(!;.,o;.,.g~
N!~= ~~
:::>.2 ~~
.E .s
r
Q).5 .(1) t
-sg C:"E
M Q)'';:: Q) COo
~~~=~~
:3-.2 ~:@
.!:
i
" .VI
~C1)~C:""
lU -= ~-E
C\J~o.geo
~ 9:0 8.~ ~
0m~Q)~
8" ~~
c: it ~ r
-l: 0 ~ .2
o al <.> - 0-5
o ....
~",:!2 ~-e Q) -l: gj -l: '<
-~~~ 00.. :@qrB
Ol ~ ~.Q~ 80rE ~1ii'E
N-. ",-l:- c. e~i
r-- e'a~ g I---- C?_(I} CD (0 - 'i'.'" - -e
0"~1 ~fij~~ o.x:c:....
~ - a ",.!I~-E~o
a;~.g '9.VI ~ E,go 0.." ~-l:
....fija. e ~ &0 :@
~.:: [ gj E ~ ~
o.-E ~ I-e "0
~ c:_
:::>o~ .,
Ul
l:JOSIAl:l3dnS M3l:l0 0131:l 3SnOH3l:lVM 301Al:l3S l:l3VolO.LSnO
Ol:JVHOl:lO HOV3d Ol:lVHOl:lO HOV3d Ol:JVHOl:lO HOV3d
.
.
~
-
lI'l
0
0
-
10<
QJ
~
10<
0
~
0
~
~
...
U
fIl
e
QJ
....
f/}
>-
rJ) u
0
QJ q
V ....:
= :::;;:
IU !:::
>- (/)
QJ UJ
...J
:> In
= ~
0 UJ
>
U :::;
UJ
IU 0
Z
bO 5
= c-
... a:
f/} UJ
0 l-
(/)
- <
U :::;;:
a.r) ~
'"
~ .,.,
!
::s
bO
...
~ a.:
.-
>-
(/)
>-
(/)
>-
z
UJ
:::;;:
UJ
<.?
<
z
<
:::;;:
UJ
U
Z
<
Z
UJ
tz
<(
:::;;:
o
UJ
N
CE
UJ
!3
c-
:::;;:
8
a:
~
tz
UJ
:::;;:
(/)
(/)
UJ
~
<
(/)
o
UJ
UJ
Z
~
~~~
~l?:@-=~'!!
- Q>"Ott
~5~.~:;~~
M !.~ ~ ~ G 'E
~8~~5o
u: o.!:
r
c:
-l: >: 0; ~~t -l:~~
Q):@ 8~~ lU:O Q):@OQl
E~Q)= ~....
~;~~~~~~ o~-e;O~E'E
C\A~Ee88< (')~o'j' ~~ eO
(/) ~ ~ g'~ ~~>:8~:og
U:o c1l ~~ 8 ~~~
i
it -l:.!: CD,!!
g~~~~'t
~;'-a~~e~
"'O>.~lU~O
~ a. .... 1::
gj 8 U Q):@
I- u:o=
i
Q) .!: ,,8'
v;gQ)~~
l'ill~=~~
:::>.9 ~!\!
.!: .s
i
Q)"s (I) t
M;.gQ)~~
l'ill~-=~-l:
:::>.E ~:@
.!:
r
" .VI
~Q)~C:""
<II -= ~-E
~S.E.g~Q
'" <1" ~u: -l:
(i)m~Q)~
8" ~~
- i
c: it .E ~ ~
-l: 0 ~
0" <.> '0.... o~
~5:31 dQ) -l:]g -l: '<
~<t) ~ ~ :@~ :@qrB
'" ~g~ 80",
N~i::(ij a. 0:)'"
~-- - E'- -- -- g~tU ~~.V)'::o-e
o~~" ~ .&.~ g ~~~~~Q
- 0 ~ -0lQ)
8 ~.~ ~ E !g ii:~~~-l:
~JJ.g ~ 0
1ii';: ~ ~ III ~~ ~ :@
<II E
'8.-E~ ~~ 'n
:::>o~ u: c1lg
-
l:lOSIAl:l3dnS M3l:l0 Ol31:l 3SnOH3l:lVM 301Al:l3S l:l3VlO.LSnO
3AV lVl:l.LN30 3AV lltl:l.LN30 3AV lV~.LN30
.
.
~
-
\0
0
0
-
10<
QJ
"E
0
~
10<
0
~
.e-
=
=
0
U
CIl
e
QJ
....
f/}
>-
rJ) u
QJ S
v ....:
= :::;;:
IU !:::
>- (/)
QJ UJ
...J
:> In
= ~
0 UJ
>
U :::;
UJ
IU ~
bO 5
= c-
... a:
f/} UJ
0 ti;
- <
U :::;;:
..0 ~
'"
fil
~ iii
= ......
bO ~
...
~ a.:
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
.
Maintenance Management Practices for the Water Facilities
Based on our observations of the maintenance procedures being employed at the water
facilities we believe that the Utilities Department would benefit more significantly from
employing best maintenance management practices before undertaking the deployment of a
CMMS for the water facilities. For this reason we have decided to defer discussion of the
pertinent activities to the section titled "Where to Go From Here".
.
Surface Water Treatment
The one surface water treatment plant (Filter Plant) operated and maintained by the Utilities
Department has three corrective maintenance staff. The staff uses paper work order forms to
document corrective maintenance on equipment (Figure 7).
There exist equipment records but only the corrective maintenance staff are familiar with
the system used to file them. The primary use of the equipment records is to record
preventive maintenance and thus the filing system is primarily based on the next preventive
maintenance date. The availability of the staff to perform scheduled preventive maintenance
is dependant on the density and importance of corrective maintenance to be performed.
Certain attribute information, if available, about the equipment is recorded on the
equipment record.
There is an area in the Filter Plant where spare parts are kept. Although the spare parts are
primarily for work performed within the Filter Plant staff from other facilities sometimes
use the Filter Plant spare parts for their facilities. A paper log sheet at spare parts area is
used by staff to track the inventory of spare parts. A general issue staff have with being able
to obtain spare parts is that they have difficulties with spare parts becoming obsolete
because suppliers going out of business.
Pump Stations
The staff responsible for managing and maintaining the pump stations have a standard
process they use for documenting maintenance activities (Figure 8). Maintenance staff
typically used to conduct preventive maintenance activities and contractors are typically
used for most corrective maintenance activities.
Groundwater Treatment
The operations staff for the two groundwater treatment plants and four wells are also
responsible for performing the maintenance activities on these facilities as well as laboratory
duties. The staff are also called upon to do water meter shut-offs and tum-ons.
This division has yet to define and implement a formal process for documenting
maintenance activities. In addition, due to the multi-tasking responsibilities that staff have
maintenance activities are commonly bundled with other activities making it cumbersome
for staff to document maintenance activities.
.
The high level of corrective maintenance on equipment that staff perform coupled with the
limited availability of spare parts deters them from being able to plan and performing
corrective maintenance.
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.l.OOC
14
4
l-
(/)
>-
(/)
tz
UJ
:::;;:
UJ
<.?
<
Z
<
:::;;:
UJ
U
Z
<
Z
UJ
tz
<(
:::;;:
o
UJ
N
CE
UJ
!3
c..
:::;;:
8
a:
~
tz
UJ
:::;;:
(/)
(/)
UJ
(/)
(/)
<
(/)
o
UJ
UJ
Z
.
Q)
::~~-
v.~u:~~
~~~l:Q)
~~~Cl:
J:
tO~~t)
",'SIl:~!!l
~~$!t:
i:i:~~Cl:
o
c:
'"
Q)
>.
.
~ .2
~ U-g~
>. ~~al
8 :::E
0-.000..
c: I-
Ul
:l:lV.LS .LNVld l:l3.L ll:l
.!l5't:
It)iff~G3
~~~t:a
~~~
ca~~~
(!;g'E~-E
C\JE~fijO
lJ..s:a::
~~~-
",~il::@~
~.9l.sl:Q)
~~~Cl:
o
l!l
C:Q)
8 ~.~
"C == ca
C:lU.<::
<II > <.>
.?;-lUQ)
._ c: E
ElU
Q)
:!2
~~l..
:g~"E
ti~~o
N.<::ll.:-l:
- .... 0
~*~
lJ..s:
.s 1: .-=
-g~:@~
<O:~t:u
OQ)-,9!g
C\..~ ~ ~ t
a:e.'le-e
&:il: 0
lU
.st:~
_~~-e
oc:...o
No>" -l:
.(;):\:; 0
:2ll.:~
(N031)
OINVH03~ 30NVN3J.NIV~
3^I.L03l:ll:l00 OV31
a>",,-t
.~$!~'E
:g~~~0
C'?"OQ)$!~
~-=il::@
....
" ....
G:-e
N~~
g~:@
lU_
e: e:
~a:
~
Q)'(i3
.<::0.
-Q)
Q) ~
0]1 ~
'" 0. c:
E Q)
02'
O~
Q)
t:.s~ ...
~15~-E
'd'lD-o!!O
gSgG:.:c
~O$}~
~i~
Q)5t~
=a1~o
C')S:e...~
giU~
Ot:Q)C
O~-=~
OINVH03~
30NVN3.LNIV~ 3^I.L03l:ll:l00
-
~
o
o
-
....
=
IU
-
~
10<
QJ
....
-
...
~
QJ
..c::
....
....
IU
QJ
V
=
IU
=
QJ
....
=
...
IU
~
QJ
:>
...
....
v
t
o
U
bO
=
.~
,E
10<
QJ
~
~
QJ
10<
=
bO
...
~
~
u
S
....:
:::;;:
!:::
(/)
UJ
...J
In
~
UJ
>
:::;
UJ
~
5
c..
a:
UJ
ti;
<
:::;;:
!;5
~
~
;
a.:
Cil
.
(/)
>-
(/)
;-
z
UJ
:::;;:
UJ
<.?
<
Z
<
:::;;:
UJ
U
Z
<
Z
UJ
tz
<(
:::;;:
o
UJ
N
CE
UJ
!3
C-
:::;;:
8
a:
~
tz
UJ
:::;;:
(/)
(/)
UJ
(/)
(/)
<
(/)
o
UJ
UJ
Z
~ 0
.,-
.~ c:
~~~~
N 'g'5"iJ
lUe-
I ~
.a ..c::: C5
CD .~ j ~
~"E~~
8n
"
!i
5. ~.~
It) o..:;,:t::
o <<l O.!!2
N ~ J;: 5-
.~.s; ~
.,
a:
.
m . ~ ~
5~'E 5.
~~~ ~
(!;-.2'- 0
",.,,,:;:-
= .~~ ~
"gi".:JE<.
UlQ) a: .9 "C
I c:
lU
ffi m.~
g56~
C\I ~ J,: 5-
~S~
'"
~
.
:l:lV.LS
NOI.LV.LS
dV'lnd
J.N30N3J.N1l:l3dnS
SNOI.LV.LS dV'lnd
"c:
:g~
~~
mlU8
OC:c:
"'''''''
oc:
lUJ!l
- c:
(H
o
c:
-l!: ....
~~~
~.,~
~1?~c'3
C\I-0-
3!-~
'C 11)::)
:;:!!:2'
~a::
., ~
= ::>
EO.
o .,
~.<;;
~~t\1
g-E
lU e: ::>
~g~~
(')~.~~
.s~i3
~ "
~ ~
@~
'=1:
s Q)'~
o~~~
M;~ 5-
if ~
l!l
"
"
bj
"
.~
~
e:
~~
"'Ol
Iii
~
ct
.,
=
.91
u::
.,
.,.<;;
.<;;-
_0
E-
o.!1.!G
':::Cb<'a
c: Cb E
g~5
lU,,-"
r-- E'~ e:
g..Q ~.g
.S CI) b5
~.~ ~
Cii5 :J
iii(/)o.
c: Q.
l!l E
I-ct
~
::::Jc:.!G
~~,gE
MJ:5;:,
-(/)0
.91 -.,
u::
{q
~
a::
"'~
o'(ij
"'0
.,
=
.91
u::
cS~
.2 VI E
1ii1::"
E 8..!i
~~.~
~';~1ij
"'.<;;"'Cil
:: 0 Q.
~.s~
egc;
.....:::=
lAl:ll:l3.1.l
>ll:l310 SNOI.LV.LS dV'lnd
.,
=1::
Iii 8.
~~~
.... " '"
"C~
fijO
I
"
~1::
08.
!~
.... ~ >.
~~B
~~
;~
~ .-
~C:Q1
... .Q en
.,-.c:
~~~~
~~ ~.~
fijct~
I
Q,lc:Q.i
=~~
~ji3~
.. ~ ~.~
8ct~
c:
l? .~- ~1::
~;~ ~8.
....'E~ .,"
,. .E.<;;a::
,. .,-
0.
Q.Q)Q)c:...
~'~~,g~
~~c'J.gi3~
.... = ~ - Q.-l:
_:-~Eo
~b5bjct~
:l:lV.LS
30NVN3.LNIVV'l SNOI.LV.LS dV'lnd
~
-
QO
0
0
-
rIl
=
0
...
....
IU
....
rJ)
c.
e
~
~
QJ
..c::
....
....
IU
QJ
V u
= 0
IU q
= ....:
QJ ~
....
= (/)
UJ
... ...J
IU In
~ ~
UJ
>
bO :::;
= UJ
0
... Z
S 5
C-
O a:
- UJ
;-
10< (/)
QJ <
~ :::;;:
ex) 1ii
f?J
QJ ~
10<
~ fll
bO ~
...
~ C-
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure
Table 4 lists the standard operating environment used by the County. The Information
Services (IS) Department employs various application developers, application managers,. .
and database.
Table 4. Standard Operating Environment
Operating Environment
Standard
LAN/WAN Operating System
Computer Brand
Computer Hardware Configuration
Groupware
E-mail
Calendaring and Scheduling
Workflow Management
Web Browser
Desktop Office Productivity Tool
Client Operating System (OS)
Relational Database Management System
(RDBMS)
Microsoft Office 97
Windows 95
None, but Informix is becoming the de facto
system; the County also uses Oracle and
Microsoft Access
The staff responsible for maintaining the conveyance infrastructure utilize networked
computers to perform their day to day activities, with the exclusion of field crews.
The Filter Plant staff have one computer that is not on the network. The staff do not use the
computer to track or manage maintenance activities.
The Groundwater Superintendent has a computer that is not on the network and that she
uses for tasks other than tracking and managing maintenance activities. All other
Groundwater staff do not use computers.
The Pumping Stations clerk has a computer that is not on the network and that she uses for
tasks other than tracking and managing maintenance activities. All other Pumping Stations
staff do not use computers.
GIS
There is a project underway to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) for the
County. ESRI's ArcView and ArcInfo NT software are the tools being used for this project.
Approximately 40 percent of the GIS coverages have been developed and 75 to 80 percent of
the sewer lines and nodes have been developed. However, a standard numbering
convention for sewer lines and nodes has yet to be defined. Attribute information about the
sewer lines and nodes is also not being captured in the GIS at this time. The Utilities
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1.DOC
17
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
Department has one resident engineer that is working with the GIS Department to develop
the utility coverages.
Maintenance Management Needs
Table 5 lists the computerized maintenance management needs observed by CH2M HILL.
Table 5. CMMS Needs
Water Distribution and Sewer Systems
Need Reason
The Peach Orchard Dispatcher must have a better Sewer backups and water main breaks are the activities
means of coordinating sewer backups and water that drive the most work orders.
main breaks.
The field crew coordinators (dispatchers and All scheduling and prioritization is being done manually.
managers) must be able to easily prioritize and Field crews sometimes find themselves having to run
schedule work orders and service requests. from one side of town to another side of town to conduct
fieldwork.
All field crews should be experienced in performing Only some field crews are cross-trained sometime
the work needed. causing a lack of available and experience staff for
specific work orders.
The Utilities Department should provide an easier The turnover of field staff is high. Constantly training new
means of training new field crew staff. field staff puts a strain on the ability for field crews to be
able to complete work orders in a timely fashion since all
training is on-the-job training.
Customer Service staff must be able to follow-up on Currently, customers are not notified when a work order
a customer complaint with the customer. that was generated by their request for service is closed.
Some customers are sometimes notified when the
customer requests it and the service request is a critical
one.
Field crews and dispatchers must have reliable Existing infrastructure maps are typically outdated and
maps to facilitate work order planning and not often updated. A GIS, however, is currently being
completion. developed for the County.
Field crews vehicles are not equipped with maps.
Field crews must have attribute information of the The attribute information is not currently available to the
infrastructlJre they are performing work on. field crews.
Utilities Department staff must use standard Utilities Department staff is unable to easily identify or
numbering schemes for identifying infrastructure. track history of infrastructure.
Managers must have the ability to compare The mangers do not currently have this capability.
corrective against preventive maintenance.
The Director would like to have a better means of The Director would like to improve the current asset
doing asset management. management process.
Water Facilities
Need Reason
P:\ 143875\ 152572 MASTER PLANIOELlVERABLES\TM7.1.DOC
18
.
.
.
Filter Plant maintenance staff must have the ability
to easily retrieve contractor information.
Staff must be trained on how to use computers.
Groundwater staff must have a maintenance
program in place.
The Pump Stations clerk must be able to use her
computer for documenting and reporting on
maintenance activities.
Where to Go From Here
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
Filter Plant maintenance staff have to rely on one
person's knowledge of the system and his availability
when equipment needs to be ordered.
Most staff do not use computers.
Staff are constantly fighting fires and are responsible for
both the operations and maintenance of the facilities.
They do not have the available time and resources to
plan, document, and manage maintenance activities.
The Pump Stations clerk does not utilize her computer
for documenting and reporting on maintenance activities.
CMMS for Water Distribution and Sewer Systems
The Utilities Department, and specifically the staff who provided information during the
data gathering activities (see Table 1), should review this technical memorandum for
accuracy. Inaccurate information or clarifications should be brought to my attention by e-
mail (mdelgado@ch2m.com), by telephone (510-251-2888 extension 2124), or by FAX (510-
893-8205). It is imperative that erroneous information be identified and clarified, as the
information will be referenced extensively in ensuing activities.
The next step is to spend the next month identifying the CMMS that best meets the Utilities
Department needs. CH2M HILL is currently researching available CMMS' that could
potential meet the Utilities Department needs. At the conclusion of the research
CH2M HILL will identify three CMMS vendors for the Utilities Department to select from.
In preparation for the selection of a CMMS the Utilities Department will need to formulate a
CMMS steering committee. To ensure that key County groups have input into and
representation in the selection process and to promote endorsement of the selected CMMS
and its use, the committee should consist of five to six County staff including:
. One Utilities Department manager
. One staff from the Engineering division
. One staff from the Information Services Department
. One staff from the Customer Service division of the Utilities Department
. Two or three staff from the Construction and Maintenance division of the Utilities
Department (one staff from Peach Orchard and one from Central Avenue, at least one of
which should be a manager)
CMMS for Water Facilities
Based on our observations of the maintenance procedures being employed at the water
facilities and the specific needs identified we believe that the Utilities Department would
benefit the most from employing three separate CMMS one for the Filter Plant, one for the
Groundwater Facilities, and one for the Pump Stations. The implementation of them should
be done in a phased approach (Figure 9) to ensure proper use and application of them.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM7.1.DOC
19
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
T ask Name
Phase 1
S el ect a C Ivtv1S for the P um pStati ons
,
~I!mm~
. . . .
. . . .
. ..
. ..
I 11III i
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. ..
. .,
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
I
I
I R e1i ne Best Mai ntenance Managem ent
P racticesfor the FilterP lant
I D e1i ne Best Mai ntenance Managem ent
P racti ces for the GroundV\!:lter F aci I iti es
I ImplementBest Maintenance
Managem ent P racti ces for the
Iphase 2
I I m pi em enlthe Fi Iter P I antC Ivtv1S
Implemenlthe P umpStationsCIvtv1S
~ I
~:m::II:m::::I:ln:ii:'1III
~
Implemenlthe GroundV\!:lter Facilities
CIvtv1S
Figure 9. Implementation Schedule for CMMS' at the Water Facilities
Based on our observations, the Pump Stations staff are using the most comprehensive
maintenance process of the three. For this reason, a CMMS should be selected and
implemented for the Pump Stations first. While this task is being done, best maintenance
management practices should be refined for the Filter Plant and should be defined and
deployed for the groundwater facilities.
As part of the best maintenance management practices, two computers and two printers
should be acquired at a minimum and the appropriate training in the use of them should be
provided. One computer and one printer should be allocated to the maintenance staff at the
Filter Plant and the second computer and printer to staff of the groundwater facilities. The
computers must be configured to meet the minimum requirements defined by the vendor of
the selected Pump Stations CMMS. Specific issues that should be resolved by the
employment of the best management practices include:
· The facilities typically lack well-documented, readily available standard operational
procedures, including health and safety guidelines
· The staff turn-over is high due to competitive salaries by nearby utility organizations
increasing the cost of training staff and leaving the water facilities understaffed by a
work force of generally less qualified workers
. The understaffing of facilities coupled with "fire-fighting" maintenance activities
impacts the efficiency by which facilities can be properly maintained and the ability for
staff to work normal eight-hour shifts
· The proper network infrastructure is not in place to support a CMMS and there is no
apparent plan to network the remote facilities
· The learning curve for staff to learn how to use computers would be steep and the
procurement of the systems has not been planned.
P:1152572\ALL FILES IN 1438751152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1 CMMS NEEDS ASSMT.DOC
20
.
.
.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
· The requisition process, purchasing budgets, and management of purchases for the
facilities limits the available spare parts and materials needed to properly maintain the
facilities
· There is a lack of performance metrics by which to base the performance, effectiveness,
and efficiency of maintenance activities
· The need for vehicle turnovers is commonly overlooked due to fire-fighting activities
and financial constraints
. Basic preventive maintenance, including that based on health and safety, are sometimes
disregarded due to understaffing and limited budgets.
. There is a lack of a standard training policy and training budget
. There is a large amount of "institutional knowledge" (Le. knowledge that is commonly
known by a hand-full of staff) that needs to be documented
. There is minimal support from the Information Services department to provide proper
computer and communications equipment to the facilities
CH2M HILL is currently researching available CMMS' that could potential meet the needs
of the facilities and in particular the Pump Stations. We will work closely with Pump
Stations staff, other Utilities staff, and IT staff to recommend an appropriate CMMS within
the next month.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLES\TM7.1.DOC
21
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
. Attachment A
Glossary of Terms ,..'
Term Description
BMP Best Management Practices
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
FPD Functional Process Diagram
IS Information Services
IT Information Technologies
OS Operating System
RDBMS Relational Database Management System
.
.
P:1143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDELlVERABLESITM7.1.DOC 22
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMMS)
.
Attachment B
How to Read the Functional Process Diagrams
The functional process diagrams, FPD's, contained in this document are not representative
of all major business process functions at the Utilities Department. The diagrams that are
presented are of processes that CH2M HILL has identified as processes that could
potentially be impacted by a CMMS. The diagramming technique used for these processes
illustrates the Utilities Department's staff responsible for specific activities, descriptions of
the activities performed, activity decisions, and time constrains (where necessary). See the
figure below for tips on how to read the FPD's contained in this document.
~gj
wS!?
::;;>
I-a:
a:w
<0..
0..:::>
wOO
o
Person responsible
for activities 101,
102,103, and 104
103
Generate
reports to
balance
totals
104
Generate
Pay
Checks
-,w
<>
!zt=1-
w<z
::;;a:~
li:!!iS!?
o:~~
wo<
0<
Decision to be
made by the
Departmental
Supervisor
Unique identifier for
this specific activity
.
yes
Arrow represents
dependency of
activity 201 on
activity 302
303
Complete
Labor Staff
Time Sheets
Activities that are
the responsibility of
the Departmental
Office Employee
10 aoom. on the
timescale (may
not be to scale)
of activities
payweek
Wednesday 8 a.m.
Sp.m.
Figure 10. Sample Functional Process Diagram
.
P:\143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DELlVERABLES\TM7.1.DOC
23
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 7.2
CH2MHILL
.
Implementation of Computerized Maintenance
Management System (CMMS)
DATE:
February 7, 2000
Contents
Introduction. ..... ......... ...... ......... ..... ......... ..... ....... ....... ... ...... ..... ... ...... ... ....... ..................... ... ........ ...1
Findings............................................................................................................................ .............. 1
Alternatives Selection................................................................................................................... 5
Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................... 6
.
Introduction
CH2M HILL worked with the Augusta Utilities Department (AUD) in identifying the need
for a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS), and requirements to be met
by the CMMS, defining organizational challenges for implementing the CMMS, evaluating
alternative software products, and creating a reasonable CMMS implementation plan. The
objective is to develop a tool for improving the management of predictive and corrective
maintenance activities and provide managers with better information to assist with their
planning activities.
Findings
Needs Assessment
Accompanied by AUD staff, CH2M HILL toured various AUD facilities and offices and
reviewed relevant documents to understand the current business practices being employed.
The purpose of these activities was to help identify the need and requirements for a CMMS.
The primary business functions focused on included: 1) handling service requests, 2)
opening, completing and closing maintenance work orders for the facilities, wastewater
collection system, and water collection system, and 3) inventorying and inspecting
infrastructure assets.
Additionally, CH2M HILL worked with AUD staff to identify the information technology
(IT) environments that would be impacted by the CMMS. The financial accounting system,
Geographic Information System (GIS), warehouse system, database capabilities, software
environment, hardware environment, and telecommunications environment were
considered.
Our findings on the general needs to be met by the CMMS included:
. Giving staff the ability to improve on the tracking of service requests and work orders
.
C:IWINN1\PROFILESITCARTER2\DESKTOPlTM7COLOR.DOC
Discretely inventory facility, water distribution, and sewer collection assets including vJ-4 ~ ~1
attribute information such as size, length, material, age, warranty, model numbers, ~\ /
manufacturer, etc. (Assets to inventory include force mains, valves, gravity sewer mains, 0
manholes, pump stations, plant equipment, and well facilities.)
Inventory hydrants and keep histories on their inspections and schedule routing
maintenance
.
· Being able to provide maintenance staff sufficient information to complete field work
more effectively and efficiently
· Allowing for comprehensive inventorying of assets such that each asset, its
characteristics, and related work histories can be tracked and analyzed at various levels
of detail
· Giving staff the ability to better plan, schedule, and report on preventive and corrective
maintenance activities
~~~-nts
---___ . ;2..-/
As a result of identifying the needs for a CMMS a list of requirements to be met by the
CMMS were formulated. These include the ability to:
.
.
.
Schedule routine inspections of right-of-ways and to capture inspection information
including electronic images
.
Schedule routine inspections of valves and document inspection information including ~o'?
electronic images
.
.
Schedule and track inspection events (including smoke testing, visual inspections, and
CCTV) on an asset level for the water and sewer conveyance systems. (This must
include the ability to track asset conditions such as root, alignment, and corrosion
problems. )
.
Track maintenance activities and histories for pump stations and equipment
Generate preventive and corrective maintenance work orders for all assets
Schedule and track mechanical and hydraulic preventive maintenance cleanings
Track work orders base on predictive and reactive (corrective and emergency
maintenance
.
.
.
.
· Track labor, parts, materials, and services costs per work order
· Create a map of valves to be closed for repair work on a main
· Create a work order from an inspection record
· Create multiple work orders from a customer complaint
· Associate one work order to multiple customer complaints
· Determine the availability of parts and materials
C:\WINNl\PROFILES\TCARTER2\DESKTOP\TM7COLOR.DOC
vJt?
/ . c.t
d~~/)
i2/rJ r/,'1
Y"-o/ I
",/"";
ov~"Jt/\
scR
)of
c,oP
$OP
2
.
· Track parts and materials at each warehouse location (including rolling warehouses)
· Calculate the annual linear footage of gravity sewer inspections
· Calculate the annual linear footage of gravity sewer mechanically cleaned
· Calculate the number of manholes visually inspected each year
· Calculate the number of sewage overflows per mile of gravity sewers
· Calculate the percent of overtime labor hours
· Generate a report listing problems encountered on equipment and the work orders
generated during the prior month for that equipment
· Calculate the total annual labor hours expended for unscheduled cleaning
· Calculate the number of customer complaints based on type of complaint and location
within the County using the GIS
· Calculate the cost of the collection systems, the replacement cost, and the annual cost to
maintain them
.
· Calculate work order costs on a per project basis (such as for spot repairs, rehab projects,
and capital improvement projects)
· Integrate with the GIS to facilitate scheduling and generating work orders
· Integrate with the GIS to facilitate analysis of maintenance activities
· Integrate with the Financial Accounting System to retrieve customer information records
· Integrate with the GIS to generate a map of customer complaints
· Multiple staff to access the CMMS simultaneously
· Run the CMMS on a database platform that the County IT Deparbnent can support
Challenges
The challenges and recommended improvements that relate directly to ADD's ability to
successfully implement and use the CMMS include:
· There is a need for best maintenance management practices need to be implemented at
the plant and well facilities.
- Recommended Improvement - Formulate guidelines for managing documents including
manufacturer O&M's, supplier information, and warranties.
- Recommended Improvement - Develop a training policy and budget for maintenance
staff including new staff. The policy should include procedures for verifying that
staff is following the policy including the monitoring of health and safety
procedures.
.
C:\WINNl\PROFILES\TCARTER2\DESKTOP\TM7COLOR.DOC
3
.
- Recommended Improvement - Formulate guidelines for properly staffing facilities
including maximum hours per shift and number of staff assigned to each facility.
- Recommended Improvement - Identify convenient stock room locations, allocate
budgets to each, furbish with appropriate parts and materials, and define procedures
for using the parts and materials.
- Recommended Improvement - Define and implement a comprehensive vehicle
maintenance program.
- Recommended Improvement - Define performance measures, the staff responsible for
reporting on them, and protocol for reporting on them.
· A conference room is needed at Peach Orchard for group discussions and meetings
without disruptions.
- Recommended Improvement - Identify office space that is appropriate for group
meetings.
· A training program is needed for field staff responsible for the conveyance systems.
- Recommended Improvement - Develop a program that introduces field staff to
maintenance practices and monitors their use of the maintenance practices.
. A unique numbering system and performance measures for conveyance systems in the
GIS need to be developed.
. - Recommended Improvements - GIS staff should include this task as part of developing
the GIS coverages for the AUD. The unique identification of the assets will be key to
integrating the GIS with the CMMS.
- Recommended Improvements - Define performance measures, the staff responsible for
reporting on them, and protocol for reporting on them.
· An IT vision, goals, and strategy need to be developed.
- Recommended Improvements - Create a network logical diagram that illustrates
telecommunications infrastructure (including backbone and to desktops) and server,
computer, and peripheral software and hardware configurations at all locations.
- Recommended Improvement - Create and update, on a yearly basis, a plan for IT needs
including staff training, computer upgrades, software needs, and information system
needs.
- Recommended Improvement - Define and implement a process for evaluating,
procuring, and implementing information systems.
. The County's "Integrated Fund Accounting System", QBIC ill, has some maintenance
management capabilities, but most are not to the level necessary to meet the AUD's
CMMS needs and requirements.
.
C:\WINmV'ROFILES\TCARTER2\DESKTOP\lM7COLOR.DOC
4
.
Recommended Improvement - The AUD needs to identify the County's objectives for
using this product to determine if the CMMS should integrate with the QBIC system
or if the CMMS should replace it.
.
Alternatives Selection
CH2M HILL researched a multitude of CMMS software packages and screened them
against the ADD's needs and requirements. A select few packages were compared and
contrasted and the results presented to ADD management staff to identify three vendors
that would be invited to demonstrate their products. The management staff determined that
the demonstration effort should focus on products designed for the management of
conveyance systems since only a limited number of products with this focus are available.
The decision on which product to use to manage maintenance activities at the facilities
would be postponed until the software product for the conveyance assets was selected.
RJN, George Butler and Associates, and Gannett Fleming were invited to demonstrate their
conveyance CMMS products (Cassworks, Master Series, and GFMAN respectively) to a
selection panel comprised of ADD staff. Additionally, County IT staff was invited to attend
the demonstrations as observers to keep them apprised of the products being evaluated. A
weighted, scoring process that considered the overall demonstration, the vendor's
implementation approach, a demonstration script, and a question and answer session was
used to evaluate the demonstrations. Based on this process the vendors scored out of a
possible 100 points as follows: RJN received an average score of 69, Gannett Fleming'
received 61, and George Butler received 75. Table 1 summarizes the overall pro's and con's
of each vendor and their product.
TABLE 1. VENDOR AND PRODUCT COMPARISONS
Vendor/Product Pro's Con's
Gannette Fleming/ The local office appeared to be available The product may need to be customized
GFMAN to provide face-to-face support as for AUD. However, AUD is not in a
needed position to support a customized product.
The product appeared to have extensive The product is in Microsoft Access. This
engineering capabilities platform may not be appropriate for the
multi-user environment AUD requires.
The demonstration team followed the
demonstration instructions well. The references provided are for
organizations smaller than AUD. Thus,
The CMMS appears user-friendly. AUD could not be assured that the
vendor has the necessary experience to
rollout their product at an organization
comparable in size to AUD.
The ability to create maps with work
orders did not appear to be intuitivene
enough.
George Butler/ The GIS interface appeared very intuitive The implementation plan was not very
Master Series including the ability to generate work detailed.
. orders with an attached map. The warehouse module cannot track
C:\WINN1\PROFILES\TCARTER2\DESKTOP\TM7COLOR.DOC
5
.
TABLE 1. VENDOR AND PRODUCT COMPARISONS
Vendor/Product
Con's
Pro's
RJN/Cassworks
The customer service module appeared allocated parts on a per warehouse level.
comprehensive.
The inspection modules appeared
comprehensive.
The product seemed intuitive and
extremely user-friendly.
The securities built into the system
appeared comprehensive and intuitive.
The implementation plan was
comprehensive addressing organization
as well as software, hardware, and data
issues.
The vendor deviated from the
demonstration instructions.
The product appeared to be
comprehensive.
The vendor was unable to demonstrate
the use of AUD GIS coverages within the
product.
The GIS interface did not appear to be
very intuitive.
.
Based on the numerous evaluation activities that took place, it appears that George Butler
and Associate's Master Series suite of CMMS modules best meet AUDs needs.
George Butler is expected to release its first version of their facilities module in March.
Based on this delivery schedule it is recommended that AUD include this module as part of
the CMMS implementation plan. However, since most remote facilities are not on the
County network and the fact that there is no apparent immediate plan to connect them to
the County network each may require its own standalone versions.
Implementation Plan
Successful implementation of the CMMS hinges on two things: 1) proper management of
the implementation activities and 2) the commitment from staff. With this in mind, the
organization chart below illustrates the recommended structure of the CMMS
Implementation Team. This organization chart in Figure 1 is intended to promote
communication between management, technical, and operations staff and the software
vendor so that AUD and other County staff develop a sense of ownership of the CMMS.
.
C:IWINm\PROALESITCARTER2\DESKTOPlTM7COLOR.DOC
6
C:\WINN1\PROFILES\TCARTER2\DESKTOP\TM7COLOR.DOC
7
.
Advisory
Committee
PROJECT
MANAGER
Vendor Project
Manager
Technical
Team
Data Conversion
Team
Business
Function
Redesign Team
Training Team
.
Figure 1. Implementation Team Organization
· Project Manager - The AUD should assign a management staff to the project manager
role and expect that person to contribute, on average, 50 percent of their time to the
project. This person will be responsible for communicating to the advisory committee
the progress of the implementation. The project manager will also manage the CMMS
vendor contract, including payment schedules and milestones, to ensure tasks are being
completed per the scope of work.
· Advisory Committee - The Advisory Committee should be comprised of at least four
management staff: one from senior management, two from operations, and one from
engineering. This group should meet on a 2-week basis for the first two months of the
project and on a monthly basis for the duration of the implementation and should expect
to commit 2 to 4 hours per meeting. Responsibilities of the committee include:
- Developing and promoting governance of the CMMS
- Making executive decisions to resolve personnel, management, cost, schedule, and
technical issues as they arise
- Providing the guidance and oversight to ensure successful completion of the project
· Vendor Project Manager - Developing a strong relationship with the vendor will be
critical to the success of the project. To nurture the relationship the vendor should
identify a qualified integrator of the CMMS software package as the Vendor Project
Mariager. This person will work closely with project team. members in a supervisory
capacity. Because the AUD does not have the depth of knowledge of the CMMS
software package or CMMS experience, the Vendor Project Manager should provide
routine guidance to the Project Manager.
. Technical Team - The Technical Team will deal with the information technology aspects
of the project. This will include software, hardware, and peripheral procurement,
implementation, and administration. The team should be comprised of at least one
vendor staff, a County GIS analyst, and one to two County IT staff.
The GIS analyst will work with the vendor staff member to understand the technique
used to integrate the GIS with the CMMS. Both the GIS analyst and the IT staff will be
.
C:IWINNlIPROALESlTCARTER2\DESKTOPITM7COLOR.DOC
8
.
involved in the data conversion effort to ensure that any relevant data being collected
comply with the County's GIS data standards. This will minimize redundant data
conversion efforts and could potentially expedite tasks already planned as part of the
GIS project.
The County IT staff will act in a supporting role to the vendor staff member throughout
the project. A member of the IT staff will become the designated CMMS administrator
and application support person once the project is complete.
Activities the Technical Team will be involved in include:
.
- Gathering and documenting network information
- Enhancing the network infrastructure to support the CMMS
- Installing and testing software, hardware, and peripherals
- Implementing backup and recovery procedures
- Implementing software support procedures
- Configuring and administering the client-server database
. Data Conversion Team - The Data Conversion Team should be comprised of one
vendor staff member, one management staff member, and at least one support staff
member. The vendor staff will work with the management staff to verify the
prioritization of data to be converted and QA/QC the effort. The support staff member
will assist in physically collecting the data to be converted and will assist in data entry
tasks. The vendor staff member should provide basic guidance in converting the data
and may decide to involve the Technology Team in data massaging, systems integration,
and data migration. Based on staff availability, the vendor staff and management staff
may need to retain, with the approval of the Advisory Committee, the services of a
contractor to provide data conversion services.
. Business Function Redesign Team - The Business Function Redesign Team will be
responsible for holding workshops with management, operations, and support staff to
identify, discuss, and document the impacts to the current methods for conducting day-
to-day activities. The team will consist of one vendor staff and one management staff.
The vendor staff will facilitate the workshops and the management staff will use their
knowledge of the AUD's business functions to ensure that major impacts are identified
and discussed. The team will also be responsible for overseeing the implementation of
the redesigned business functions and refining them as needed.
. Training Team - The training team will consist of at least one vendor staff member and
one IT staff member. The IT staff member will assist in preparing the County computer
training room. The vendor staff member will be responsible for preparing all training
materials and conducting the training sessions.
.
C:\WINNl\PROFILES\TCARTER2\DESKTOP\1M7COLOR.DOC
9
.
Schedule and Resources
The recommended 17-month implementation approach is described in the Gantt Chart
provided in Figures 2 through 5 . This phased approach prioritizes the rollout of the CMMS
based on types of assets and is comprise of the following tasks:
· Phase 1, Wastewater Assets - This task includes activities to obtain the necessary
hardware and software, software training, application setup, data preparation and
deployment activities that will enable the ADD to make use of CMMS wastewater
maintenance management modules.
. Phase 2, Water Assets - This task is similar to Phase 1 but concentrates on making use of
the CMMS water maintenance management modules. The integration of the GIS with
the CMMS is included within this task due to the fact that water GIS coverages have
already been developed.
. Phase 3, Pump Station - This task consists of implementing a standalone version of the
CMMS facilities modules at the main Pump Station.
. Phase 4, Other Facilities - This task consists of implementing a standalone version of
CMMS facilities modules at the Filter Plant and a separate one at the Groundwater
Treahnent Plant.
The level of effort required from each ADD team member will vary from task to task.
However, the two staff that will need to dedicate the most time to the project is the project
manager and CMMS administrator, a staff person from the IT department. Each will need to
dedicate approximately 20 percent of his/her time for the duration of the project. Each will
also need to assume the responsibility of maintaining the system. The CMMS administrator
will be responsible for technical tasks such as database backups and restores, software
upgrades, management of the licenses, training, etc. The project manager will be responsible
for monitoring the successful use of the system by the AUD.
The estimated cost of the implementation is summarized in Table 2 and is projected through
the 2003 fiscal year to include maintenance and administration costs.
.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF COSTS
Cost FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03
Phase 1 - Wastewater Assets
System Set-up $49,600
Populate System $22,980
Deploy Wastewater Modules $17,720
Total $90,300 $90,300
Phase 2 - Water Assets
. Integrate GIS $9,800
. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF COSTS
Cost FYOO FY01 FY02 FY03
System Set-up $33,280
Populate System $11,540
Deploy Wastewater Modules $12,470
Total $67,090 $67,090
Phase 3 - Pump Station
System Set-up $10,940
Populate System $1,700
Deploy Facilities Modules $6,6400
Total $19,280 $19,280
Phase 4 - Other Facilities
System Set-up $19,120
Populate System $1,700
Deploy Facilities Modules $13,280
Total $34,100 $34,100
. Project Management $31,616 $13,545 $18,071
Maintenance/Administration
SW Annual Contract $26,475 $4,275 $6,900 $6,900 $8,400
SW Upgrades $3,000 $3,000
Additional Licenses $10,000 $10,000
Training $15,000 $5,000 $10,000
Conferences $15,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Customization/Support $90,000 $30,000 $60,000
Total $159,475 $4,275 $11 ,900 $46,900 $96,400
TOTAL $401,861 $108,120 $150,441 $46,900 $96,400
.
C:\WINN1\PROFILES\TCARTER2IDESKTOP\TM7COLOR.DOC
10
....... .......... ......................................................................................................................................................................
00 I I
'E
QJ
00 :c I
Q) e:
'3 e:
"U
~ 0
I ~ V 00 .!!
~ I E Q) 00
t.Il l iD Ol 00 :;,
Q) .g 00 '3 e:
Qj ~ CI 0 0 00 " u
e: 1D "U ...J e:
t.Il Q) 100 E 00 Q) ti 0 eI) 0
'ti 'e: 00 ... .s:: e: 0
~ "E Q) ,g ~ 0 e: ~ J: a::
QJ 0 Q) 0 ~
QJ 'S:: E (I) ti ~ CJ 0
s: .00 l.L.. Ol
:c QJ 0 ~ ~ j ~ en <5
"- 00 e: 'ti ::2: Q) 00
Q) Q) Q) l a. u
1i 1i Ol 0 ~ "E 0.. 00 9;! "-
l5 (I) e: ti 00 Q) .,... :::;;:
'ti 'ti V e: E
Ol 'c 0 Q) 0 .!: E E eI) ~
~ E E e: 00 0 .B 'ti j
.~ 't:: i:: ~ Q) 00 Q) "U rn 0
"U "U .c 0 J Q) ..>:: ~ QJ "0 ~ E j "ii as ~
- e: e: .~ I- a. "U 0 s: l'ii .s:: In Q) u:: J:
t.Il i QJ QJ ~ Q) 0 0 e: e: j (I) (/)
~ I- er: V :c ~ ~ *' ~ a.. UJ
~ ~ Ol tl 0
:s: 00 0 :.:J '00 :; c;j
~ ~ e: :J Q) Q) Q) 00 C ~ (I) 9 ~ en a:
en 0 0 E "liS ~ "liS "liS e: ~ ~ ~ Q) 'ti "U UJ
, e e "U I~ "U e: :2:
Q) Ii "U e: ~ ~ ~ e c c Q) Q) "0 0 b:
E ... 0.. 0.. c{ W V i V V I- W W er: I- er: V :2: <
i u
QJ Q) 0 !:::
Z t.Il I (/)
Q. Cl UJ
..>:: ~ I ...J
00 ..c I N u::
QJ Q. 0
I- eI) a:
c..
... ~
:;,
Q It) (D r-- ro ro Ol en z
. 3:
i.L ..
u
.
9
e:
QJ
~
0
D
0
Q)
0
0
p
>
0
z
0
D
tl
0
0
D
a.
Q)
(I)
0
D
Ol
~
c{
. 0
P
'3
~
0
p
e:
~
~
::
.
D
01
:J
<::(
....
9
"5
~
....
9
c:
:J
~
....
9
>-
05
~
D
l:i
<::(
D
~
~
. 9
.n
III
l1...
9
c:
05
~
.
..1......................................................................
................1.......................................
tl
Ql
III
~
(/)
III
"5
'U
o
~
<<l
!!
~
'E
05
I
(/)
c:
o
'00
(/)
III (ij
~ "tl
c: c:
... 'c 'U
.! g.'~:ii
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ II ~ ~
! ~ c I~ I
01
c:
'c
.~
I-
~
,(/)
::J
'U
c:
W
'.i i (/)
o (/) III
13 <::( ~
2 J (5 ~ .s:::.1Il
5 III 1>> 0
0. 'U S: (I)
& 8 2:' ~
III III 0 a..
1iS Jl 1iS c ~
!!li!!!l!c
U i U c: w
Q"
(/)
c:
o
13
rl 3
j ~
IIi !
i ! ~ i
I
Cl
(/)
c:
o
~
01
iil
!l!
c:
I~
ts
:J
'U
c:
o
U
Qf;l N
(') v
(') (')
~
\0
(')
oS!
~
't:I
Q)
.r:.
(.)
en
N
Q)
Ul
ca
.r:.
c..
en
:!:
:!:
o
M
Q)
...
~
C'l
i.i:
u
o
o
a::
o
a
u
r--
:::;;:
is:
o
!;;::
(/)
UJ
o
c;;
a:
UJ
b:
<
u
$
UJ
...J
u:::
o
a:
c..
~
z
;:;
cj
D
li5
::a:
. 9
..Q
Q)
I.L.
9
c
eu
~
I I
I I
I
lil
Q)
"3
"U .!!
~ lil
~ lil C lil j
Q) 0 '0 u
~ c 0
lil :;::; t5 0 Q) 0
"E c lil C tl .c a:
'0 Q)
C eu 0 .<:: ::J 01 Co) 0
Cl I '00 eu eu ~ I.L. t5 en c5
lil I.L. C C lil lil U
;; Q)
(ij Q) (ij 01 0 I~ "3 j lil ~ C") .....
(l;J (I) c t5 Q) :::;;:
- 1;5 01 1;5 'c "U C E .s Q) ~
CIl .s c .s lil is S2. Q) '00
.~ t:: '9 ..c Q) "U tIl 0
C. "U 'c "U 0 J Q) t; 0 ~ ::J E j, Q) ca ~
E c .~ C I- S2. "U UJ (I) I~ Q) u: .c (/)
t eu eu ti3 Q) 0 ~ ::a: ;: j, (I) a. UJ
::l ~ I- ~ cr: u I.~ -S tl 0
lil 0 0- .~ ~
Q, ::J C ::J :J Q) Q) c I~ (I) 9 ::J en
(I) 0 E 0 II .~ II ti3 lIII 11;5 "U UJ
12 12 "U ~ ~ ~ C II. (5 C :a: Ii:
i "U c Ii ~ I~ 0
Q) M 0- ~ 0- UJ U U .s UJ cr: u :a: <
E u
eu Ql i 0 !:::
z I~ i (/)
(oil (I) 1= UJ
-'" (l;J I ...J
lil ~ u::
eu .c I 0
a:
I- Q, I Q) c..
10. ~
(D t-- co 0) 0 N j z
. Q (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) -.t ~ -.t ;:.:; en ~
ii: ..
u
.
~
D
01
::J
~
..-
9
"3
~
..-
9
c
::J
~
9
l>-
eu
::a:
D
...
S2.
~
(f.l
(l)
"5
"tl
0
~ .!!
~ (f.l
(l) I c (f.l :;,
~ 0 " u
13 c Q) 0
l5S (f.l 0 0
"E (l) I~ c 13 J: a:
;; ~ 'S:: :J Ol CJ 0
I ~ II l.L. 'f5 fJ) 8
c 1: (f.l
.- Ol 0 (l) i I~ ~ ~ r--
U "ii c 13 E "5 :::;;:
Il:l (;) 'c "tl C E E Q) li:
u.. E (f.l 0 a. (l)
'r:! "t: '5 .r:. (f.l i (l) "tl en 0
.... "tl 0 J (l) 0- 0 II :J I E I~ Gi C'O t;;;
In
ell t c I- a. "tl w Ul (l) Ul u: J: (/)
~ (l) 0 c UJ
.c ~ Qj a:: u ~ ~ ~ Ol ~ 'S tl D- o
- (f.l 0 a.. 'u '(1) N
0 :J ::J (l) (l) 1: Qj Ul 9 :J fJ) a:
f./l 0 15 ~ 15 (ll (l) (;) - "tl UJ
, l2 "tl ~ ~ ~ 1: LL. "tl C ~ Ii:
!i c ~ (l) (l) "'5 0
(l) oo:l' a.. w U i u E w I a:: I- a:: u ~ <
E u
1 t-
~ ell I 0 w
Z til If./l Q. Cl UJ
-'" Il:l --'
(f.l I an u:
~ .c r 0
c.. I a:
I- Q) c..
~ F==
:;, Z
N t-- co Ol 0 III z
Q ID q- C) ;;
. III III III III (D (D (D
u:: cj
.
.
:!
D
tl
o
D
a.
(l)
Ul
D om
Ol
:J
.c{
9
"5
--,
9
c
:J
--,
9
>-
~
~
D
a
.c{
..-
D
tfi
~
.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 7.3
CH2MHILL
Operating Strategy Recommendations
DATE:
February 7, 2000
Contents
In.trod uction ..................................................................;............................................................ .... 1
Main Task A - Operations and Maintenance Manuals/Standard Operating
Procedures. ...... ....... ....... ...... ...... ............... ............... .... ........ ....... ............. .... ........... ............. ...... .... 1
Main Task B - Technical/Engineering/Operations Evaluations ...........................................2
Main Task C - Business Plan .......................................................................................................3
.'
Introduction
The purpose of this project is to develop organizational improvements in Augusta Utilities
Department (AUD) and to provide for overall enhancement of the department; and in addition,
to provide assistance in direct response to a letter dated November 15, 1999, from the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection (GAEPD) regarding a
Sanitary Survey conducted in August and September 1999. The approach taken combines a
significant level of involvement and participation from AUD personnel along with direct
involvement from members of the consultant staff. This approach is outlined with a proposed
budget presented as an attachment to this technical memorandum (TM).
Main Task A - Operations and Maintenance Manuals/Standard Operating Procedures
Task 1 This task consist of preliminary information gathering, holding a initial meetings
with Department Staff, evaluation of all current Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) Manual components, and the planning for the overall organization and
administration for project execution of task A.
This task includes the conducting of interviews with a cross section of treatment
division personnel, the initial tours of Treatment Facilities in order to gain a full
understanding of the current operations and to observe facilities and equipment,
the gathering of additional information and data, and a TM to document Task 2.
Task 2
Task 3
This task is similar to Task 2, but addresses the Systems Division personnel. It
includes interview with a cross section of the System Division personnel, the
initial tours of system components in order to understand the current operations
and equipment, the gathering of additional information and data, and a TM to
document Task 3.
Task 4
Task 4 includes the interviews of management staff and staff involved in system
monitoring activities, gathering of additional information and data and a TM to
document Task 4.
.~
P:\152572\All FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAN\DEUVERABLES\TM7.3 OPERATING STRATEGY. DOC
Main Task B - TechnicaVEngineering/Operations Evaluations
Task 1 This task consist of preliminary information gathering for matters related to the
technical, engineering, and operations evaluations aspects of this project, holding
a initial meetings with Department Staff, and the overall planning for the
organization and administration for project execution of task B. This task will be
coordinated with a similar task for Main Task A.
Task 2 will include detailed inspection tours of all treatment facilities, evaluate
ability of the facilities to meet applicable standards, and to document the
findings in a TM.
.
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Task 8
Task 9
Task 10
e.
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
e
Task 5 consist of solicitation and compilation of manufacturers literature for
equipment that it is determined a necessary to support the existing material and
the needs of the organization, and the organization of existing drawings/maps.
Task 6 is the drafting of a preliminary outline of the O&M Manual and the
review of those draft documents with staff, a resulting editing of the O&M
outline, based on staff input, and the review draft documents with State Agency
to assure that the expectations of the state are being met with this aspect of the
project.
This task provides for the first draft of the complete O&M Manual, the
transmittal of the draft to Staff, the response to comments of staff and a
workshop to review the draft document and to solicit additional information
prior to finalizing the document.
Task 8 is the preparation of the revised draft of the final O&M Manual and the
review of this draft with the GAEPD.
This task produces the final Operations and Maintenance Manual and provides
10 copies of the manual to the AUD.
Final endorsement workshop (i-day) to review the O&M Manual with the staff
and to answer any final questions for this aspect of the project.
This task will be similar to Task 2, but will involve the inspections tours of
Distribution and Storage facilities, evaluate the ability of the components of the
physical system to meet delivery needs throughout system, and to document
findings in a TM.
Task 4 is the development of a list of projects for infrastructure replacement
based on the findings in previous tasks, the development of a list of projects for
upgrade/improvements, and to document the findings in a draft TM.
Task 5 is a follow-up to previous task and consist of a workshop with staff to
prioritize issues identified in Task 4, to develop a schedule for the prioritized
projects, to identify resources needed for implementation of the prioritized
projects list, and to document these efforts and finalize TM from Task 4.
P:1152572\ALL ALES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLAt-lIDEUVERABLESITM7.3 OPERATING STRATEGY.DOC
2
Task 6
.
Task 7
Task 8
Task 9
Task 10
Task 6 involves the interview of a cross section of staff associated with the AUD
treatment facilities, to assess the operations of treatment facilities, to develop
recommendations to enhanced operations, and to document findings in TM.
This task provides for the review of compliance records of plants, to develop
recommendations related to compliance, and to document findings in TM.
Task 8 is to review results of compliance inspection by GAEPD, to conduct a
workshop with staff to address specifics of the inspection, to develop a schedule
for resolution of issues raised by the State, and to document the results in a draft
letter to the State, with the final letter to be ultimately written and signed by the
AUD Director.
This task is to identify critical facilities and equipment, whose failure would
result in a water shortage or water quality problem, and to document findings in
TM.
This task is the writing of the final report for Main Task B, and providing ten
copies of the report to the AUD.
Task 1
Main Task C - Business Plan
.
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
.
This task consist of preliminary information gathering and customization of the
information to use as a resource for workshop aspect of this task, conducting a
Visioning/Workplanning Workshop (I-day), to write-up results of the
Workshop, and the planning for the overall administration and execution of
Task C.
Task 2 is the conducting of interviews of departmental personnel and the
gathering of additional information and data in preparation for the execution of a
Business Plan for the AUD.
This task develops an outline of a proposed Business Plan and the review of the
draft outline with staff, the editing of the Business Plan Outline, the review of the
draft documents with the GAEPD to assure the acceptability of them to the state,
and the finalization of the outline.
Task 4 is working with the AUD staff to develop a detailed description of
organization, a comprehensive Organization Chart of the AUD, to develop a
description of all physical facilities and real estate, with input from Task B, and
to draft the organization components of Business Plan.
This task is preparing the first draft of an Emergency Plan outline, reviewing the
draft with AUD staff, drafting a detailed Emergency Plan, conducting a detailed
review of the plan with AUD staff, and editing and preparing the final draft of
Emergency Plan.
Task 6 is a review of current customer service processes, drafting an outline of
existing and recommended customer service processes, review of the outline of
customer services with staff, and editing and preparing a final draft of Customer
Service Plan.
P:\152572\ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLES\TM7.3 OPERATING STRATEGY.DOC
3
.
Task 7
Task 8
Task 9
Task 10
.
.
This task provides for the incorporation of the 5-year Capital Plan into Business
Plan, the evaluation of budget documents for inclusion in plan, the incorporation
of all existing budget documents into Plan, and the evaluate budget/ financial
controls and reports.
Task 8 is the compilation of all previous tasks under Main Task C into a final
Business Plan document, a Business Planning review workshop with Staff, and a
review of the Business Plan with State Agency.
Write-up the final recommendations of the Operations Assistance Project
including the three Main Tasks and the Business Plan.
Final endorsement workshop (i-day) to be coordinated with Main Task B.
P:\1525721ALL FILES IN 143875\152572 MASTER PLANlDEUVERABLES\TM7.3 OPERATING STRATEGY. DOC
4