HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-10; Municipal Water District; 1010-01; Line & Cover Maerkle Reservoir FacilitiesCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL
ATG. 10/10/93
IEPT.
THE DESIGN TO LINE & COVER THE MAERKLE
CMWD 1 RESERVOIR FACILITIES (AKA SQUIRES RESERVOIR) CITY ATTY ___
CITY MGR. -
IECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is requesting the Commission agree to proceed with the design to line and cover the
Maerkle Reservoir Facilities (aka Squires Reservoir).
lTEM EXPLANATION:
The Commission has requested alternatives to the lining and covering of the District's 600 a.f.
open reservoir be considered. Specifically, the Commission has requested the evaluation of
providing treatment facilities at the site combined with the request to the Department of Health
Services, Office of Drinking Water, for a waiver or exemption from the requirement to cover the
reservoir.
As a result of our letter of request (see attached) to Ms. Toby Roy, District Engineer of the
Department of Health Services, a field investigation was conducted by her and her staff. The
results of that field investigation are outlined in her letter to CMWD, dated September 8,1993.
(see attached)
The consultant, John Powell and Associates will be at the Commission meeting to review and
explain the requirements as stated in Ms. Roy's letter. However, you will note that presently,
the District is precluded from using the reservoir without full notification to the public that the
water does not meet full federal and state requirements. In addition, CMWD must provide a
plan of operations to the Department of Health Services by December 1,1993. As a result, staff
will be requesting some specific recommendations from the Commission in order to comply with
the new deadline.
1. Exhilit "A" - Letter from CMWD, dated August 4, 1993, to Department of Health
Services, Ms. Toby Roy.
2. Exhibit "B - Letter from Department of Health Services, dated September 8, 1993, to
Robert Greaney, General Manager, Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
3. Exhibit "C" - Letter from John Powell & Associates Re: Additional Investigation for a
Reinforced Concrete Liner
4. Exhibit "D" - Letter from John Powell & Associates Re: Additional Investigation Water
Treatment Facility
Carls bad
Municipal Water District
5950 El Camino Real. Carlsbad. CA 92008
Engineering: (619) 438-3367
Administration: (6 19) 438-2722
Fax: (619) 431-1601
August 4, 1993
Ms. Toby Roy, District Engineer
Department of Health Services
Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management
1350 Front Street, Room 2050
San Diego, California 92101
Subject : Maerkle Reservoir Lining and Covering, CMWD Project No. 90-109
Dear Toby:
The Carlsbad Water Commission, at their July 28, 1993 meeting, asked staff to ask for an
exemption from covering the District's 200 million gallon treated water reservoir due to
economical reasons. All the water going into the reservoir is treated MWD water with no
direct drainage going into the reservoir other than rain water on the embankments below
the brow ditch. The reservoir will be used as operational storage which will allow for a
certain amount of turn over.
It has been brought to the Commission's attention that other agencies such as Los Angeles
have asked to receive an exemption. There has been a standing recommendation by the
state that our District cover the existing reservoir for health reasons, and the District has
been working in the direction to comply with your recommendation. The staff has
completed a preliminary design with a cost estimate of approximately 7 million dollars. The
design recommended by the Engineer was to use a three inch asphalt liner and a 3 ply
Hypalon with a thickness of 45 mils. The cover is planned to be a "Burke" design with
paired floats and sand tubes used to define the folds in the cover. Our Commission asked
if the asphalt liner would create any odor or health problems. The Commission also asked
if we could install pressure filters in lieu of covering the reservoir. It was their feeling that
this method would be less expensive than the cover. Would this meet Title 22 requirements,
and if not, would the District be allowed an exemption for this type of treatment?
EXHIBIT "A"
Page two Ms. Toby Roy, District Engineer
August 4,1993
The Commission is asking first if there could be an exemption. If not, is asphalt acceptable
and will it not create a health, taste and odor problem? Can a pressure filter be installed
as an acceptable alternative to the cover? Could you please give us a response to these
questions? If you have any questions, please give me a call at (619) 438-3367 ext. 126.
Sincerely,
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Bob Coates, P.E.
District Engineer
BC:sjs
CMWD 90-109
.. .
SAN DIEQO. CA 92101
September 8, 1993 (619) 52S4lse
FAX (619) 525-4363
Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008,
Subject: Maerkle Reservoir and 10 MG Maerkle Tank
Dear Mr. Greaney:
This is in response to your letter dated August 4, 1993
requesting an exemption to covering Maerkle Reservoir. On August
5, 1993, Steve Williams, an engineer with this Department, and I
conducted a field visit to the reservoir with you, Bob Coates and
Kurt Musser. The purpose of the field visit was to determine if
this is an open reservoir subject to the requirements of the
California Waterworks Standards or a surface water source subject
to the requirements of the Surface Water Filtration and Disinfection Treatment Regulations (SWTR).
Maerkle reservoir has a capacity of about 200 million gallons and is an uncovered unlined reservoir, subject to surface runoff. Although some of the runoff is diverted around the reservoir, there is still some area around the reservoir which drains directly into the reservoir, therefore, the requirements of the SWTR apply. We regret that due to a lack of staff in the San Diego District Office we had not conducted this field survey sooner to give you more time to comply with the SWTR.
Current Federal regulations allow for filtration avoidance for sources which are not subject to significant sewage hazards and have low turbidity and coliform levels. California's regulations are being revised to include filtration avoidance criteria. A copy of the proposed criteria is enclosed for your information.
The following criteria must be met:
1. Fecal coliform concentrations must be less than or equal to
20 MPN/100 ml or total coliform must be less than 100 MPN/100 ml in at least 90% of samples collected during a a six month period based on five samples collected per week.
We have reviewed the Maerkle Reservoir raw water bacteriological data from 07/02/91 to 08/03/93. The fecal coliform results indicate that you may be able to meet this requirement. If you wish to pursue filtration avoidance you must begin collecting five samples per week (one per day) from the effluent of Maerkle Reservoir prior to chlorination for total and fecal coliform analysis.
EXHIBIT "B"
.. *
. * -' Mr. .Robert Greaney September 8, 1993 Page 2
2. Turbidity out of the reservoir cannot exceed 5 NTU. tv saglgles must be collected at least once every fo\ar
d on th e en closed Monthly S ummarv of
Turbiditv Monitorinu Form.
hours and renorte
3. The watershed must be protected. Your r eservoir clwly peets this criteria.
4. You must demonstrate that you can provide a minimum of 3
logs Giardia inactivation and 4 logs virus inactivation.
The attached calculations indicate that the ability to meet
Giardia and virus inactivation reauirements at the 10 MG Maerkle Tank are inadeauate usina chloramines.
If the District wishes to apply for avoidance please submit a letter to this Department which includes data supporting your position. If the District decides to use the reservoir before a decision has been made regarding filtration avoidance or before the problem has been corrected, you will be required to notify the public in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 17, Section 64666
(c) of the SWTR.
In either case, you must submit an Operations Plan by December 1,
1993, outlining how you will operate the Maerkle Reservoir and
Tank in order to provide the required 3 log Giardia and 4 log
virus inactivation. The Operations Plan requirements are attached. As a minimum, you must install a low disinfectant
residual alarm and a high turbidity alarm, both capable of
shutting off flow to the distribution system. A minimum of a
Grade I1 operator is required to operate the Maerkle Reservoir and Tank disinfection system. The operator should be directly responsible for setting disinfectant dosage rates, controlling flows and insuring log inactivation (CT) and turbidity
requirements are verified and met on a daily basis.
The following two options are acceptable to this Department for
correcting this deficiency:
1. Cover the reservoir as proposed, or
2. Install filtration which complies with the SWTR. The following filtration technologies are approved by this
Department: conventional, direct, diatomaceous earth, or
slow sand filtration. For conventional and direct filtration, pressure filters are acceptable, but both require a flocculation process. In line filtration is not an approved technology. There are also some alternative filtration technologies available for which pilot studies have been conducted, which may also be applicable to your situation.
You also inquired if the proposed porous asphalt liner would
cause any odor or health problems. The Department has made inquiries of Metropolitan Water District. They have not had any
. ,. i’ Mr. .Robert Greaney
September 8, 1993
Page 3
problems with organic chemicals leaching from the asphalt liners
they have installed. We recommend that you contact them regarding the material specifications used. We will require a five day soaking period followed by an organic chemical analysis (EPA Test Method 524.2), a semi-organic chemical analysis (EPA Test Method 525.1) and a bacteriological test prior to placing the proposed asphalt lined reservoir into service.
If you have any questions regarding this issue please contact Steve Williams or me at (619) 525-4159.
Sincerely,
Toby J. Roy, P.E.
District Engineer
Enclosures
cc: San Diego County Environmental Health Services
c ".
Operations Plan Requirements
As a minimum, a description of the following items should be
included in your operations plan
1.
2.
3;
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Name, grades, operator certification number and phone numbers (home and work) of all plant operations personnel.
Raw water monitoring schedule
Frequency of grab sample monitoring and the points in the treatment process where the samples are to be taken. A schedule for the following grab sample monitoring should be included.
a. turbidity
b. pH c. temperature d. chlorine residual
d. coliform bacteria e. plate counts f. other
A plan for monitoring disinfectant contact time and determining log inactivation of viruses and Giardia.
A plan for monitoring the distribution system for chlorine residual and plate counts.
A summary of the continuous monitoring, alarms and automatic shutdown capabilities.
Increased monitoring that may be provided as an alternative
reliability feature.
Standardization procedures for all monitoring equipment.
Methods for determining appropriate chemical dosages
including jar test procedures.
Procedures for adjustment of chemical dosages and methods of accurately monitoring chemical feed equipment.
Points of application and concentrations of all chemicals fed on a regular basis.
Additional chemical feed capability.
Page 1 of 2
13.
14.
15 .
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Start-up and shut-down procedures.
A summary of the flow variations through the plant and hours
the plant is operated. This should include the proposed maximum flow through the plant and address the maximum filtration rates.
Frequency of backwash, criteria for length of filter runs,
and filter backwash procedures.
A description of the treatment and, detention time provided
for solids removal for recycled backwash water.
Dates, frequency and procedures for filter media inspection
and replacement.
A summary of the operating records maintained.
A description of how and when each unit process is operated.
This should include any special action taken to compensate for design deficiencies.
Preventative maintenance program.
A summary of the supply of chemicals available for use.
Names and addresses of chemical and equipment suppliers whose products are used regularly.
Frequency and dates of clearwell cleaning activities.
Emergency response plan for treatment plant and watershed emergencies.
Emergency plan for disinfection failure.
Page 2 of 2
0 6/0 4/ 9 1
CT Calmlations for Ilaorklo Tank (10 BIG)
BeptembOr 1993
Tho follow-tions have been mado:
8.0 pH (applies only to free chlorine) Water temperature 15 C
Due to superior baffling conditions in the tank the Department will
use a factor of 0.7 for contact time through the tank.
Given: Tank Volume 10 MG
From Master Plan:
Peak Hourly Flow = 1.84 x Existing Peak Day Demand
Existinu Peak Dav Demand = 5,400.4 gpm* = 12.03 cfs*
1.84* x 5,400.4 gpm = 9,936.7 cmm
1.84* x 12.03 cfs = 22.1 cfs
(* Taken from page 18 and 25 of system Water Master Plan)
For 3 log Giardia inactivation using chloramines:
Assumed: 1.5 ppm combined residual at tank outlet.
10 MG/9,936.7 gpm = 1006.4 min. x 0.7 x 1.5 ppm = 1056.7 min.-mcr/l
1056.7 provided/1,500 required** = 0.70
Tank Dr ovides only 70 Dercent of rewired CT for Giardia
inactivation.
For 4 log virus inactivation using chloramines:
1056.7 provided/994 required** = 3.06
The tank Provides 106 Dercent of reauired CT for virus inactivation.
(+* Required values 1,500 and 994 taken from Table E-12 and E-13
respectively of DHS Staff Guidance Manual)
From the assumptions listed above and the information available it appears that the Xaerkle Tank cannot provide the minimum 3 log Giardia and 4 log virus inactivation using chloramines.
1
- ..
. :
Following is the percentage of CT provided if free chlorine was used through the tank:
J488~1~ed: 1.5 ppm free chlorine residual at tank outlet.
3 log Giardia: 1056.7 available/l08 required*** = 9-78
4 log virus: 1056.7 available/4 required*** = 264*18
(*** Required values 108 and 4 taken from Table E-4 and E-7
respectively of DHS Staff Guidance Manual)
Free chlorine would provide 978 percent of the required 3 log
Giardia inactivation and 26,418 percent of the required CT for 4
log virus inactivation.
Possible Options include:
1. Provide a higher combined residual at the tank outlet and reduce and control peak flows out of the tank.
2. Study pipeline flows to and from tank in order to provide additional contact time.
3. Go to free chlorine through the tank and then switch back to chloramines after sufficient contact time is provided.
4. Construct additional contact facilities.
L090893. DOC/ JSW/S1
2
..
..
“ABLE E-7
Temperature tC1
0.5
5
LO
15
20
25
Notes :
CT VALUES FOR INACTI?1ATION OF VIRUSES 9Y FREE CHLORIXE (1,21
I
too rnactivation
2 .o 3 .O 4.0
pH pH pH
10 - 6-9 - 16 - 6-9 - 10 - 6-9 -
6 4s 9 66 12 90
4 30 6 44 8 60
3 22 4 33 6 4s
2 1s 3 22 4 30
1 11 2 16 3 22
1 7 1 11 2 15
1. Dim adapted from Sobsay (19881 for faactlvation of Hepatinu A
Vha (HAW at pH - 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and tmperahua - 5 C.
values krclud. a safety factor of 3, CT
2. CT values adjusted to other temperatures by doubling t3 far each
IO C drop fn temperature,
..
.
I
i
! !
TABLE €012
CT VALUES FOR INACTIVATION OF GIARDIA CYSTS BY CHLORAMINE OH 6-9
temuerature IC1
Inact ivation L s 10 15 20 -25,
0.5 log 63 5 365 310 250 185 125
1 log 1,270 735 615 500 3 70 250
1.5 log 1,900 1 , 100 930 750 550 375
2 log 2,535 1,470 1,230 1,000 73 5 500
2.5 log 3,170 1,830 1,540 1 , 250 915 625
3 log 3,800 2,200 1,850 1,500 1,100 7 50
1,243 as7 643 428 321 214 2 log
'3 log 2,063 1,323 1,067 712 534 356
4 ICU 2,883 1,988 1 , 491 994 746 497
1. Octa from Sobsey (19881 for inactivation of Hepacitus A Virus (HAW
for pH - 8.0 and temperature - 5 C, and assumed to apply for pHs in
tire range of 6.0 to 10.0.
2. CT values adjusted to other temperatures by doubling CT for each
10 C drop in temperature.
3, This table of CT values applies for systems using combined chlorine
where chlorine is added prior to ammonia in the treatment sequence.
CT values in this table should not be used for estimating the
adequacy of disinfection in systems applying preformed chloramines
or amonid ahead of chlorine,
I
i
I- ..
..
Proposed Regulations: DRAFT July
Do not Cite or Quote
water meeting the performance requirements of Sections 64653 and
64654. This demonstration shall be a presentation and analysis of
the latest 12 months of operating data, special studies conducted
to test the performance of the plant under adverse water quality
conditions or other means. The supplier shall submit the required
report within 15 months of being notified by the Department
pursuant to Section 64650(b) that their plant does not consist of
the approved technologies.
(d) No variances from the requirements in Sections 64652 are
permitted.
Section 64 652.5. Criteria for Avoiding Filtration
(a) A public water system that uses an approved surface
water source shall meet all of the requirements of this section to
avoid the necessity of providing filtration. Within 18 months of
the failure of a system using surface water or a ground water
source under the direct influence of surface water to meet any one
of the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section
the system shall have installed filtration and meet the criteria
for filtered systems specified in Sections 64653, 64658, 64659,
64660, and 64661.
(b) Source water aualitv
(1) The fecal coliform concentration shall be equal to
or less than 20/100 ml, or the total coliform concentration shall
be equal to or less than 100/100 ml, in representative samples of
the unfiltered approved surface water in at least 90 percent of
the measurements made for the six previous months that the system
served unfiltered approved surface water to the public on an
ongoing basis. If a system measures both fecal and total
coliforms, the fecal coliform criterion, but not the total
coliform criterion, in this paragraph shall be met. [The supplier
shall sample for fecal or total coliforms pursuant to this
subsection at the following minimum frequency each week:
System size (persons served) < 500
501 -3,300
3,301 -1 0,000
20,000-25,000
> 25,000
Sampl es/weekl
1
2
3
- -
7
Proposed Regulations: DRAFT July 14, 1993
Do not Cite or Quote
ishall be taken on separate days.
Also, one fecal or total coliform density measurement
shall be made every day the turbidity of the unfiltered approved
surface water exceeds 1 NTU (these samples count towards the
weekly coliform sampling requirement) unless the Department
determines that the system, for logistical reasons outside the
system's control, cannot have the sample analyzed within 30 hours
of collection. I*
(2) The turbidity level cannot exceed 5 NTU in
representative samples of the unfiltered approved surface water unless: (A) the Department determines that any such event was
caused by circumstances that were unusual and unpredictable; and
(B) as a result of any such event, there have not been more than
two events in the past 12 months the system served unfiltered
approved surface water to the public, or more than five events in
the.past 120 months the system served unfiltered approved surface
water to the public, in which the turbidity level exceeded 5 NTU.
An "event" is a series of consecutive days during which at least
one turbidity measurement each day exceeds 5 NTU. I Turbi di ty measurements pursuant to this subsection shall be performed every
four hours (or more frequently). A public water system may substitute continuous turbidity monitoring for grab sample
monitoring if it validates the continuous measurement for accuracy
on a regular basis using a protocol approved by the Department.]*
(3) Samples of unfiltered approved surface water taken
pursuant to Section 64652.5(b) (1) and (b) (2) shall be collected:
(A) downstream of all surface water and groundwater
under the influence of surface water contributions to the source;
(B) upstream of any constructed and/or operated
facilities, other than intake facilities, which reduce turbidity
and/or coliform densities: and
(C) upstream of the first or only p oint of
disinfectant application.
I (4) Unfiltered approved surface water quality
information collected pursuant to this subsection shall be
8
Proposed Regulations: DRAFT July 14, 1993
Do not Cite or Quote
reported to the Department in conformance with the requirements of
CFR Section 141.75(a) (1).1*
(c) Source protection
(1) The supplier shall maintain a watershed control
program which minimizes the potential for contamination by Giardia
lamblia cysts and viruses in the source water. The adequacy of a
program to limit potential contamination by Giardia lamblia cysts
and viruses shall be based on: the comprehensiveness of the
watershed review; the effectiveness of the supplier's program to
monitor and control detrimental activities occurring in the
watershed; and the extent to which the water system has maximized
land ownership and/or controlled land use within the watershed.
At a minimum, the watershed control program shall:
(A) characterize the watershed hydrology and land
ownership;
(B) identify watershed characteristics and activities which may have an adverse effect on source water
aual i t v;
(C) monitor the occurrence of activities which
may have an adverse effect on source water quality. The supplier
shall demonstrate through ownership and/or written agreements with
landowners within the watershed that it can control all human
activities which may have an adverse impact on the microbiological
quality of the source water. The supplier shall submit an annual report to the Department that identifies any special concerns
about the watershed and how they are being handled; describes
activities in the watershed that affect water qu ality; and Droiects what adverse activities are exDected to occur in the * a future and describes how the public water system expects to
address them; and
[(D) monitor for the presence of Giardia cysts in
the unfiltered approved surface water whenever agricultural
grazing, water oriented recreation, or point source domestic
wastewater discharges occur on the watershed. At a minimum the monitoring shall measure the Giardia cyst concentration monthly at a point immediately p rior to the first or only p oint of
disinfectant appl i ca ti on. The monitoring results shall be
included in an annual report to the Department. This monitoring
9
Proposed Regulations: DRAFT July 14, 1993
Do not Cite or Quote
requirement may be waived after one year for suppliers serving fewer than 500 persons when the monitoring results indicate a mean
Giardia cyst concentration of 1 cyst per 100 litres or less.]*
[The supplier shall provide to the Department a report, by September 30th of each year, which summarizes its compliance with
all the watershed control program requirements. I*
(2) The supplier shall be subject to an annual on-site
inspection to assess the watershed control prouram and
disinfection treatment process. Either the Department or a party
approved by the Department shall conduct the on-site inspection.
The inspection shall be conducted by competent individuals such as
sanitary and civil engineers, environmental health specialists, or
technicians who have experience and knowledge about the operation
and maintenance of a public water system, and who have a sound
understanding of public health principles and waterborne diseases.
A report of the on-site inspection summarizing all findings shall
be prepared every year. [If the inspection is conducted by the supplier the report shall be submitted to the Department by
September 30G of each year.]* The on-site inspection shall
indicate to the DeDartment satisfaction that the watershed control
program and disinfection treatment process are adequately designed
and maintained. The on-site inspection shall include:
(A) a review of the effectiveness of the watershed
control Droaram:
(B) a review of the physical condition of the
source intake and how well it is protected;
(C) a review of the supplier's equipment
maintenance program to ensure there is low probability for failure
of the disinfection process;
(D) an inspection of the disinfection equipment
for Dhvsical deterioration;
IE) a review of oDeratina Drocedures;
IF) a review of data records to ensure that all ., required tests are being conducted and recorded and disinfection is effectively practiced; and
10
Proposed Regulations: DRAFT July 14, 1993
Do not Cite or Quote .
(G) identification of any improvements which are
needed in the equipment, system maintenance and operation, or data
collection.
(3) The supplier shall not have been identified as a
source of a waterborne disease outbreak, or if it has been so
identified, the system shall have been modified sufficiently to
prevent another such occurrence, ,as determined by the Department.
(4) The supplier shall comply with the total coliform
maximum contaminant level (MCL) specified in Title 22 CCR Section
64426.1 at least 11 months of the 12 previous months that the
system served water to the public, on an ongoing basis, unless the Department determines that failure to meet this requirement was
not caused by the unfiltered approved surface water.
(5) The supplier shall comply with the requirements for trihalomethanes specified in Title 22 CCR Section 64439 unless the
Department determines that failure to meet this requirement was
not caused by a deficiency in treatment of the unfiltered approved surface water.
(d) Special disinfection requirements
unpredi c tab1 e. I * *
11
Proposed Regulations: DRAFT July 14, 1993
Do not Cite or Quote
(2) The disinfection system shall have either (1)
redundant components, including an auxiliary power supply with
automatic start-up and alarm to ensure that disinfectant
application is maintained continuously while water is being
delivered to the distribution system, or (2) automatic shut-off of delivery of water to the distribution system whenever there is
less than 0.2 mg/l of residual disinfectant concentration in the
water.
(31 The suKmlier shall meet the reauirements of Section
64654(b) (1) at all times the system serves unfiltered approved
surface water to the Dublic unless the State determines that anv
such failure was caused by circumstances that were unusual and
unpredictable.
(4) The supplier shall meet the requirements of Section
64654(b) (2) on an ongoing basis unless the State determines that failure to meet these requirements was not caused by a deficiency
in treatment of the unfiltered approved surface water.
(e) Special operation requirements
Whenever the monitoring of the quality of the u,nfiltered approved
surface water indicates the turbidity exceeds 5 NTU, the total coliform level exceeds 100/100mL, or the fecal coliform level A
exceeds 20/100 mL the source shall be removed from service until
the monitoring program produces two weeks of continuous results
below these levels and Giardia cyst monitoring, consisting of at least one test, indicates a concentration of 1 cvst Der 100 litres
or less.
* move out of a, b, c ** clarify - specific to log reduction
Section 64653. Filtration
(a) All approved surface water utilized by a supplier shall
be treated using one of the following filtration technologies
unless an alternative process has been approved by the Department
pursuant to Section 64653 (f), (g) and (h):
(1) Conventional filtration treatment
[2) Direct filtratior, treatment
12
.-..
MONTHL I( SUMMARY OF TURBIDITY h0NITORING
System Name: System No.:
* If a continuous monitoring turbidimeter is used, determine the discrete turbidity value
for the same times during each four hour period.
Total No. of samples: No. of readings < 0.5 NTU:
Total No. Readings
% Readings <0.5 NTU = No. Readings C0.5 NTU X 100 = %
Meets Standard (i.e. More than 95% of readings are <0.5 NTU) (Y/N)?
Average percent reduction during the month=
Ave Raw NTU - Ave Effluent NTU X 100 = %
Average Raw NTU
Meets Standard (i.e Reduction is greater than 80%) (Y/N)?
Incidents of turbidity greater than 1.0 NTU: r
Date of Incident
Value
Dura tion
~ ~~ Total No. incidents where turbidity is > 1.0 NTU: , > 5.0 NTU:
' Meets Standards (i.e. NTU is not > 1.0 for more than eight consecutive hours) (Y/N):
*..1 .
.Afte; placing the filter L-C~ into service after any interL,ption
the filter effluent comply with the following criteria:
Incidents of chlorine residuals less than 0.2 ppm at the plant effluent: r Date of Incident
Duration
, Date Dept. Notified
a. < 2.0 NTU after all events (Y/N)?
b. < 1.0 NTU after 908.of events (Y/N)?
C. < 0.5 NTU after four hours (Y/N)?
DISINFECTION PROCESS DATA
Disinfectant residual type: free chlorine
combined chlorine
other
Type of Complaint Number
Taste/Odor
Color
Turbidity
Suspended Solids
Other (Describe)
(e. g. backwashing),
Corrective Actions Taken
c
did
Meets Standard (i.e. V > 95%) (Y/N)?
Reports of Gastrointestinal Illness (Attach additional sheets if necessary):
Person Reporting Date I Corrective Actions Taken I I
Explain any failure of the performance standards or operating criteria (turbidity or
disinfection) and corrective action taken or planned (attach extra sheets if needed): -
Signature: Date
BPB\NRBID. DX\6-93
John - Powell & Associates, Inc. ____ ___
PO\VELL
~ Consultlng Civil Engineers
November 3, 1993 c\t.mmy\82.0 12Wtrltr
Mr. Bob Coates, District Engineer
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJEC'E MAERK-WE RESERVOIR - ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
FORA REXNJWRCXD C0NCR;ETE LINER
Dear Mr. Coates:
At your request, we have performed additional investigations for the Maerkle
Reservoir Project to assist you in responding to the question raised by the
Commission regarding the construction of a concrete reservoir liner in lieu of the
other alternatives presented in the predesign report. In addition, we have provided
information from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
regarding water quality issues associated with an asphalt reservoir liner.
RESERVOIR LINING
The predesign report for the covering and lining of Maerkle reservoir recommended
lining the reservoir with 3 inches of porous asphalt. Porous asphalt has been used
by MWD for the lining of its treated water reservoirs for over ten years. In addition,
as requested, a reinforced concrete liner has also been studied for the lining of
Maerkle Reservoir. Each of these lining systems is discussed below.
Reinforced concrete has been used extensively for lining treated water
reservoirs for many years. Concrete is typically used where there is a need to
provide a relatively water-tight impermeable layer and where a fairly solid
foundation is present. Concrete liners are typically constructed in thicknesses
ranging from 4 to 6 inches. For consideration at Maerkle Reservoir, we have
preliminarily selected a reinforced concrete liner that would consist of 6-inches
of concrete reinforced with steel reinforcing bars.
Many types of reservoirs have used concrete liners, including circular
conventionally reinforced concrete, circular prestressed concrete, rectangular
conventionally reinforced concrete and basin type reservoirs. Concrete lined
reservoirs typically fall in the size range of 500,000 to 50 million gallon
capacities; however, larger capacity concrete lined reservoirs have been
constructed. The capacity of Maerkle Reservoir is approximately 200 million
gallons.
I
175 Calle Magdalena. Suite 101, Encinitas. CA 92024 1 161 9) 753-1 120
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 2 of 4
State Division of Safety of Dams staff has stated that a concrete-lined reservoir
would require an underdrain system to keep the soil under the liner relatively
dry. The underdrain system serves to relieve hydraulic pressures which may
develop beneath the concrete liner due to minor liner leakage or the presence
of groundwater. The underdrain system would consist of a 6-inch thickness of
drain rock and a network system of perforated PVC piping to collect leakage.
Because of the size and configuration of Maerkle Reservoir, the underdrain
would be large, somewhat complex and costly. In addition, a costly discharge
pipe would have to be bored or tunneled through the dam to discharge water
collected in the underdrain system.
Concrete is also a somewhat brittle material and, as a result, is subject to
shrinkage and cracking after it is placed. Therefore, the concrete liner must
be designed and constructed to accommodate shrinkage and drying and
potential cracking. Concrete liners are typically placed in squares 20 to 30 feet
in dimension. A complex and somewhat costly series of waterstops and joint
sealants are needed to join the concrete sections to make a watertight liner.
The expected life of a concrete liner is in the range of 20 to 40 years.
A preliminary opinion of construction cost for an 800,000 square foot concrete
liner is as follows:
Formwork $ 230,000
Reinforcing Steel 346,000
Finishing, Sealants & Misc. 378,000
Drain Rock 375,000
Underdrain System 240,000
Concrete 800,000 ft.2 1,19 1,000
Total $2,760,000
A porous asphalt liner would consist of a 3-inch thick layer of porous asphaltic
concrete. This type of liner has been used extensively by MWD for large basin
type reservoirs with floating covers. MWD has had this type of liner installed
in its Mills Filtration plant for over ten years. In addition, MWD recently
installed one at its Skinner Filtration Plant and is planning an additional
reservoir at Mills and at its Jenson Filtration Plant. MWD reportedly has not
experienced water quality problems with this type of liner.
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 3 of 4
Based on available District information, it appears that the natural subgrade
at Maerkle Reservoir does not leak appreciably, an impermeable membrane
liner is not absolutely necessary. The liner is needed only to provide a smooth
surface for the cover to lie on and to facilitate cleaning. A porous asphalt liner
would provide these needed features.
The advantages of this type of lining system include:
1. Since the liner is porous, no underdrain system is required.
2. The clay core of the dam will not dry out.
3. Existing subsurface conditions remain unchanged.
4. Concerns about correctly placing a watertight flexible impermeable liner
(such as hypalon sheeting) or rigid concrete are eliminated.
Porous asphalt linings are typically placed with conventional asphaltic concrete
paving machines. Local asphalt contractors have stated that asphalt Linings
can be placed on reservoir bottoms and side slopes 3: 1 and flatter. On the side
slopes, the paving machines can be moved on the slopes with cable systems,
known as "yo-yoing".
Based on recent experience at MWD, the expected life of a porous asphalt liner
is in the range of 20 to 30 years. The estimated cost of the porous asphalt
liner is as follows:
Placement of Porous $760,000
Asphalt Liner 800,000 ft2
From this preliminary cost analysis it can be seen that a reinforced concrete
liner is about $2,000,000 more costly than a porous asphalt liner.
ASPHALT LINER WAm QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
CMWD staff has initiated some investigations regarding the potential for water
quality problems resulting from the proposed use of a porous asphalt liner at Maerkle
Reservoir. In their September 8, 1993 letter, the Department of Health Services,
Office of Drinking Water reports that they have identified no history of contamination
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 4 of 4
from organic chemicals leaching from asphalt liners at other installations. The DHS
also stated that if an asphalt liner is constructed, DHS will require testing of the
water for organic chemical leaching.
We have contacted the Water Quality Division of the Metropolitan Water District
regarding this issue. As previously stated, MWD owns and operates a number of
large reservoirs utilizing porous asphalt liners. The results of their tests for chemical
leaching are attached in Appendix A. After several years of operation, MWD has
found no problems with water quality resulting &om the porous asphalt liners.
In conclusion, I hope that the additional information presented in this discussion of
porous asphalt versus reinforced concrete liners will assist the District in evaluation
of the alternatives for Maerkle Reservoir. At your request, we will be happy to
conduct further investigations or answer additional questions you may have. Please
feel fiee to call if we can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
1
Project Manager
cc: Bob Greaney, General Manager
John Powell, John Powell & Associates, Inc.
a.
Le-
-.-. ....-. ..-. .__.._.. ___._..._ _-__. _^... ...._--. _.. _-*..... .....-.. -...- .-.. .- ............. . ...... ........ . ............. . . ... ...
........ ..... ... -- ...... .___ .... ..._..._. . ..__.__._.'...........__.__-r._ . __e_-- ,____-- . ._-... L--
........ ... .. . ......... .. ..._. ............................ . ~ -_.__ .. ... ._.-- --- .... -
...... ..... ..... .._ . ._ . . ..... .. _.__ ......... ........ ... fQ Ahh-d.. ,- . . __
. ...._.-_.-.. ............ - ....... ..__.. ....................
U~I 11 '93 13:21 WHTER QUHLITY LOB
*I
P. 14/24
...... ,33y
...
.. ..... - ..... . ~ .. ...-_ ~ ...... - . .., .-... .. I . .. - .
......... -. ... -. ...... .-_-... -.- .. .- ................ ....... .........
..... ..... ...... .... -. ................. .......
. 4'11
581
....... ....... ........ ..
..........
...
.... - ......
*
Volatile Organic Compound Results
using USEPA Method 602
Transcribed by: 'm?
Checked by: &
I I i I I
*
Luene
jylberr zene
>-Xylene
lylene
-. - .......
t I
John Powell S Associates, Inc. PO\VELL
Consultina Civil Enaineers
November 3, 1993 c\tammy\82.012\filtr2.ltr
Mr. Bob Coates, District Engineer
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECR MAEXKJX RESEXVOXR - ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION
WATER"REX"TFACXLI'I'Y
Dear Mr. Coates:
At your request, we have performed an investigation of the preliminary sizing, layout
and cost estimate for the construction of a water treatment facility, which could be
constructed in lieu of lining and covering of Maerkle Reservoir. The following is a
summary of that investigation.
As an alternative to constructing a liner and cover for the Maerkle Reservoir, the
District has expressed interest in possibly constructing a water treatment facility.
In their September 8, 1993 letter, the Department of Health Services, Office of
Drinking Water, confirmed that as an open reservoir, water contained in the Maerkle
Reservoir would be subject to the full requirements of the Surface Water Filtration
and Disinfection Treatment Regulations (SWTR). The SWTR is a comprehensive set
of regulations encompassing both State and Federal mandates which govern the
treatment of surface waters.
In accordance with the District's September 13, 1993 memo, the following
assumptions have been made for evaluation of a water treatment option.
1. Treatment plant capacity = 20 mgd.
2. Pressure filters should be considered.
3. The estimated cost for power supply to the site is $150,000.
4. The estimated land value is $200,000 per acre.
5. Operation and maintenance costs should be considered.
6. Capital recovery costs should be included over the life expectancy of the
facility.
- 175 Calle Magdalena. Suite 101. Encinitas. CA 92024 / [SI91 753-1120
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 2 of 6
7. All facilities should be in full compliance with the SWTR.
8. Conventional filters should also be considered if, due to the facility size,
they would be cost competitive with pressure filters.
The accompanying drawings, Figure 1 - Preliminary Flow Schematic for
Maerkle Reservoir WTP, and Figure 2 - Preliminary Site Plan for Maerkle
Reservoir w") illustrate a preliminary concept for a 20 mgd water treatment
plant located on District property adjacent to the north side of the Maerkle
Reservoir. Due to the limitations of the study, it should be remembered that
these facilities are very preliminary in nature and would be subject to change
upon detailed investigations. Nevertheless, it is our opinion, that the facilities
illustrated and described below represent a reasonable description of the
facilities which would be needed for compliance with State and Federal
regulations.
In general, the process would include multi-barrier treatment consisting of
coagulatiodflocculation, filtration and disinfection. Water from Maerkle
Reservoir would be pumped to the treatment facility which would be located
on the higher ground east of the existing 10 MG reservoir. Chemicals would
initially be added to the raw water at a flash mix structure from which the
water would be distributed to a three stage flocculation mixing basin with a
30 minute detention time. Following flocculation, the conditioned water would
then be conveyed to a filtration facility which would include a number of
parallel filters. After leaving the filters, the flow would be metered and
conveyed to the existing chlorine contact chamber at the 10 MG reservoir.
After sufficient disinfection contact time, the free chlorine would be quenched
with ammonia to form chloramines prior to release into the clearwell and on
to the distribution system.
Two types of filtration systems were considered, including pressure filters and
conventional gravity filters. Preliminary calculations suggest that four
conventional concrete gravity filters would be required, operating at a
maximum of 6 gallons per minute per square foot of filter area. The filters
would include dual media and filter to waste piping along with facilities for
individual filter performance monitoring.
Title 22 of the State Drinking Water Regulations places stringent requirements
on the use of pressure filters, limiting the maximum filtration rate to 3 gallons
per minute per square foot for dual media filters. As a result, in order to
satisfy the 20 million gallon per day plant flow capacity, twentyone, 10-foot
diameter by 30-foot long steel, horizontal filter pressures would be required.
Due to their large size, it is most likely that the filters would have to be
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 3 of 6
compartmentalized to assure adequate backwashing. As a result, in excess of
40 separate backwash systems would be required. The large number of filters,
extensive piping and backwash facilities, and large land area requirements
make pressure filters a costly alternative for a treatment plant of this size.
A filter backwash system would be provided for cleaning of the filters using
plant product water. Typically, 5 percent of plant throughput is used for filter
backwash. For this facility, it is envisioned that a filter washwater tank
(approximately 262,500 gallon capacity) would be provided which would serve
as a forebay for filter backwash pumps. Waste washwater would be discharged
from the filters to an equalization basin where the high rate backwash flows
could be reduced to a low rate discharge to the backwash recovery system. It
is assumed that the backwash recovery system would utilize a circular clarifier
to remove sludge from the waste washwater. Clarified washwater could then
be returned to Maerkle Reservoir while the sludge would be disposed of in
sludge drying beds or trucked to an appropriate sewer facility. Sludge drying
beds, if provided, would include 6 facilities with a total drying area of
approximately 5,000 square feet.
A chemical system would be required to support the treatment process and, at
a minimum, would include the following chemicals;
0 Chlorine - disinfection;
0 Ammonia - chloramination;
0 Alum - coagulant;
0 Spare chemical facility.
0 Caustic Soda - pH adjustment;
Polyelectrolytes - coagulant aide; and
Chemicals would be stored in approximate 10 foot diameter storage tanks
located in a small tank farm. A chemical feed building would be provided
which would house control equipment, feed pumps, mixing facilities, etc.
Separate containment areas would be provided for chlorine and ammonia, with
high hazard leak control facilities provided. Chemicals would be distributed
at numerous locations throughout the treatment process as illustrated in the
preliminary flow schematic.
The SWTR requires extensive monitoring of the performance of each stage of
the treatment process. The accompanying flow schematic illustrates typical
sample points where samples of the process water would be collected and
pumped to a laboratory for testing and monitoring. Samples and performance
monitoring of each individual filter are required which would further increase
the cost of the pressure filter alternative.
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 4 of 6
A number of additional facilities would be required in support of the treatment
process. An operations building would be needed which would include the
telemetry and control facilities, personnel and maintenance operations.
Additionally, emergency power generation facilities would be required for
critical elements of the plant. Site work would include access road, parking
and storage facilities.
The accompanying Table 1 provides a list of major facilities which would be
included in the treatment plant, along with preliminary sizing.
The accompanying Tables 2 and 3 provide preliminary cost opinions for the two
treatment options, one using conventional filters and a second using pressure
filters. As can be seen, the cost of the pressure filter alternative has been
shown somewhat higher than the option utilizing conventional gravity filters.
In addition, Tables 4 and 5 illustrates projected costs for maintenance and
operation (O&M) as well as capital replacement and calculates net present
worth. As a comparison, Table 6 shows the projected costs for the O&M and
replacement of the covering and lining option, including net present worth.
The basic assumptions utilized for developing these costs include:
O&M Costs equal 5% of Capital Costs for treatment and 4% for
covering and lining; An inflation rate of 3%;
A planning period and facility life of 30 years;
A discount rate of 6%; An interest rate of 4%;
Evaporations savings for the covering option are estimated at
$400/ac-ft. with a 42-inch annual evaporation rate;
Estimated life expectancy of the treatment options are 30 years;
Estimated life expectancy of the covering option is 15 years; and
Estimated life expectancy of the liner is 30 years.
.
As these tables show over a 30 year period, the net present worth of the
covering and lining option is about $25,000,000 to $27,000,000 less (more
favorable) than the treatment alternatives.
Other Water "mttment Plant Cmsideratiopls
There are a number of other issues which should be considered when
evaluating the alternative of constructing a water treatment plant. Several of
these issues are briefly discussed below.
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 5 of 6
RePulatorv Unknowns: At the present time, a number of key Federal drinking
water regulations are under development. Over the past several years, key
regulations have been hotly debated, creating significant uncertainty as to how
stringent the Federal requirements will ultimately become. It can be safely
stated, though, that as ever increasing analytical techniques have allowed
increased detection of contaminants, a greater degree of water treatment
complexity has been required. The result has been a significant increase in the
required complexity of treatment facilities and associated costs.
Disinfection Bv-Products: The use of chlorine or other strong oxidants as a
drinking water disinfectant has been very effective at reducing water-borne
pathogens. On the other hand, during recent years, significant concern has
arisen regarding the potential adverse health effects associated with
disinfection by-products. The by-products result from the chemical reaction
between chlorine, or other disinfectants, and natural organic matter occurring
in the raw water. The first such disinfection by-product group to be regulated
has been trihalomethanes (THM's), but a host of other by-products have also
been identified for future regulation. These stringent regulations will likely
require significant changes in water treatment processes to either reduce the
disinfection by-products or remove the by-products from the finish water.
Either case will likely result in significant increases in the required treatment
complexity and cost.
Ozone: Numerous Southern California treatment facilities are considering the
use of ozone as a disinfectant. Ozone is a highly effective disinfectant which
may serve as a replacement for chlorine in an effort to reduce the formation
of disinfection by-products. Ozone facilities, if required at the Maerkle facility,
are very complex and require highly trained personnel to operate and
maintain. In addition, the use of ozone is a very costly undertaking which has
not been included in the previous cost estimates.
CMWD Staffing: Should CMWD decide to construct a water treatment facility,
it will be necessary to develop a stafig plan to effectively support the
treatment plant. State regulations establish minimum requirements for
staffing. The cost for staff has not been considered in the previous estimates.
Monitoring and ReDorting: Comdiance: In addition to requiring extensive
treatment facilities, State regulations require comprehensive monitoring of the
performance of the treatment plant and resulting water quality. Testing and
monitoring of various elements of the plants are required on hourly, daily, and
weekly basis. Compliance and reporting regulations will require significant
staff effort.
Mr. Bob Coates
November 3, 1993
Page 6 of 6
Sludge DisDosal: The disposal of treatment plant sludge is also a significant
issue. Filter backwash sludge would have to either be trucked offkite to a
sewage treatment plant (where it is difficult to treat) or dried onsite and the
residue trucked to a landfill. Either option would be costly and the long-term
viability of either option is in question, considering the ever-increasing
stringency in waste disposal regulations.
In conclusion, I hope that the information presented in this preliminary investigation
will assist the District in evaluation of the alternatives for Maerkle Reservoir. At
your request, we will be happy to conduct further investigations or answer additional
questions you may have. Please feel free to call if we can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
hn M. Powell
resident
JMP/tf
cc: Bob Greaney, General Manager
Marc Weinberger, Project Manager
Table 1
FACILITIES SIZING FOR
MAERKIX RESERVOIR WATER TREAm FACILI[TY
FLOW RATE: Average Day 10 MGD (I)
Max. Day 20 MGD (I)
('1 Per CMWD
FLASH MIX BASIN: 15' x 15' w/ Turbine Mixer
FLOCCULATION
BASINS: 3 Stage at 10 min. each
30 min. detention time
Total Area = 4,500 k2
9 Flocc. Compartments at 20' x 25'
Verticle Mixers
FILTERS:
Pressure Filters: Max. Filtration Rate 3.0 gpm/ft2
Filter Size (each) 8' x 30' or 10' x 30' Number of Filters 22 or 18
(Allows 2 filters out of service for backwash)
Bldg. area req'd. 160'x 160' Backwash Pumps 2 @ 7,500 gpm @ 125 hP
Conventional Gravity
Filters: Max. Filtration Rate 6.0 gpm/ft2
Filter Size (each)
Number of filters 4
Bldg. Area Req'd.
Backwash pumps 2
26' x 30'
62' x 80'
CHEMICAL FACILITIES:
Chemicals Req'd.: Chlorine
Ammonia
Caustic Soda
Alum
Polyelectrolyte
Spare
Ozone (possibly)
Table 1
Page 2 of 2
Chemical Feed
Building: Size: 30'x60'
(Allows separate containment w/ scrubbers for chlorine)
Chemical Storage: 6 tanks Q 10' diameter
Tank farm area 30' x 45'
(includes spill containment structures)
Metering Vault: Size 20' x 15'
Washwater Storage Tank: Volume 262,500 Gal.
Size 24' water depth, 43 feet diameter
Waste Washwater
Equalization Basin:
Volume 75,000 Gal.
Size 35' x 50' x 20 depth
Backwash Recovery
Clarifier: Detention Time 60 min.
Volume 75,000 Gal.
Size 30' diameter x 15' depth
Sludge Drying Beds: Cycledyr. 10
Size Number 6
20' x 40' x 1.5'
Combined Operations Building, Laboratory, Storage, Telemetry, Controls
Size 3,700 ft2
60' x 60'
JMP/tf
82.012/I'ABLE.1
Table 2
MAERKLE RESERVOIR
DIRECT FILTRATION TREATMENT PLANT
CONVENTIONAL GRAVITY FILTERS
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST
Site Preparation
Process and Yard Piping
Raw Water Piping
Rapid Mix Basin
Flocculation Basins
Filters
Chemical and Chlorine Feed
Washwater Recovery System
Sludge Handling
Operations & Control Building
Laboratory & Sampling System
Electrical and Instrumentation
Electrical Power to Site
Land Costs
Unidentified Construction Items- 20%
Subtotal
Design, EIR and Admin.- 2Ooh
Subtotal
Contingencies- 15%
Total
$800,000
$800,000
$500,000
$200,000
$2,750,000
$3,000,000
$950,000
$500,000
$400,000
$500,000
$400,000
$1,900,000
$1 50,000
$1,000,000
$2,770,000
$16,620,000
$3,324,000
$1 9,944,000
$2,991,600
$22,940,000
MRW John Powell & Associates, Inc. 1011 8/93
Table 3
MAERKLE RESERVOIR
DIRECT FILTRATION TREATMENT PLANT
PRESSURE FILTERS
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST
Site Preparation
Process and Yard Piping
Raw Water Piping
Rapid Mix Basin
Flocculation Basins
Pressure Filters
Chemical and Chlorine Feed
Washwater Recovery System
Sludge Handling
Operations & Control Building
Laboratory & Sampling System
Electrical and Instrumentation
Electrical Power to Site
Land Costs
Unidentified Construction Items- 20%
Subtotal
Design, EIR and Admin.- 20%
Subtotal
Contingencies- 15%
Total
$800,000
$800,000
$500,000
$200,000
$2,750,000
$3,500,000
$950,000
$500,000
$400,000
$500,000
$400,000
$1,900,000
$1 50,000
$1,000,000
$2,870,000
$1 7,220,000
$3,444,000
$20,664,000
$3,099,600
$23,760,000
MRW John Powell & Associates, Inc. 1011 8/93
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0 & M Costs
Table 4
PRESENTWORTHOFO&MAND
REPLACEMENT COSTS
CONVENTIONAL GRAVITY FILTERS
$1 ,147,000
$1 ,181,410
$1,216,852
$1,253,358
$1,290,959
$1,329,687
$1,369,578
$1,410,665
$1,452,985
$1,496,575
$1,541,472
$1,587,716
$1,635,348
$1,684,408
$1,734,940
$1,786,989
$1,840,598
$1,895,816
$1,952,691
$2,011,271
$2,071,610
$2,133,758
$2,197,771
$2,263,704
$2,331,615
$2,401,563
$2,473,610
$2,547,818
$2,624,253
$2,702,981
Replacement
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
$992,805
Net Present Worth of 0 & M and Replacement Costs=
Total
$2,139,805
$2,174,215
$2,209,657
$2,246.1 63
$2,283,764
$2,322,492
$2,362,383
$2,403,470
$2,445,790
$2,489,380
$2,534,277
$2,580,521
$2,628,153
$2,677,213
$2,727,745
$2,779,794
$2,833,403
$2,888,621
$2,945,496
$3,004,076
$3,064,414
$33 26,563
$3,190,576
$3,256,509
$3,324,420
$3,394,368
$3,466,415
$3,540,623
$3,617,058
$3,695,786
Note: Calculations based on a discount rate of 6% , an inflation rate of 3%
and an interest rate of 4%.
Present Worth
$2,139,805
$2,051,146
$1,966,587
$1,885,922
$1,808,955
$1,735,501
$1,665,387
$1,598,445
$1,534,519
$1,473,460
$1,415,127
$1,359,386
$1,306,111
$1,255,182
$1,206,484
$1 ,159,911
$1 ,115,359
$1,072,731
$1,031,936
$992,886
$955,499
$91 9,695
$885,401
$852,545
$821,060
$790,883
$761,953
$734,212
$707,606
$682,082
$37,890,000
MRW John Powell 8, Associates, Inc. 10/18/93
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0 & M Costs
$1,188,000
$1,223,640
$1,260,349
$1,298,160
$1,337,104
$1,377.21 8
$1,418,534
$1,461,090
$1,504,923
$1,550,071
$1,596,573
$1,644,470
$1,693,804
$1,744,618
$1,796,957
$1,850,865
$1,906,391
$1,963,583
$2,022,490
$2,083,165
$2,145,660
$2,210,030
$2,276,33 1
$2,344,621
$2,414,959
$2,487,408
$2,562,030
$2,638,891
$2,718,058
$2,799,600
Table 5
PRESENT WORTH OF 0 EL M AND
REPLACEMENT COSTS
PRESSURE FILTERS
Rep lacement
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
$1,028,293
Net Present Worth of 0 8 M and Replacement Costs=
Total
$2,216,293
$2,251,933
$2,288,642
$2,326,453
$2,365,398
$2,405,511
$2,446,827
$2,489,383
$2,533,216
$2,578,364
$2,624,866
$2,672,763
$2,722,097
$2,772,911
$2,825,250
$2,879,158
$2,934,684
$2,991,876
$3,050,784
$3,111,458
$3,173,953
$3,238,323
$3,304,624
$3,372,914
$3,443,253
$3,515,701
$3,590,324
$3,667,184
$3,746,351
$3,827,893
Note: Calculations based on a discount rate of 6% , an inflation rate of 3%
and an interest rate of 4%.
Present Worth
$2,216,293
$2,124,465
$2,036,884
$1,953,335
$1,873,616
$1,797,538
$1,724,917
$1,655,582
$1,589,371
$1,526,129
$1,465,711
$1,407,978
$1,352,799
$1,300,049
$1,249,611
$1,201,372
$1,155,228
$1,111,076
$1,068,823
$1,028,377
$989,654
$952,570
$91 7,050
$883,020
$850,410
$819,154
$789,189
$760,457
$732,899
$706,463
$39,240,000
MRW John Powell & Associates, Inc. 10/18/93
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0 6 M Costs
$31 7,200
$326.7 1 6
$3363 7
$346,613
$357,011
$367,722
$378,753
$390,116
$401,819
$41 3,874
$426,290
$439,079
$452,251
$465,819
$479,793
$494,187
$509,013
$524,283
$540,012
$556,212
$572,898
$590,085
$607,788
$626,022
$644,802
$664,146
$684,071
$704,593
$725,731
$747,503
Table 6
PRESENT WORTH OF 0 8 M AND
REPLACEMENT COSTS
LINING AND COVERING OF THE RESERVOIR
Evapration Savings
($22,400)
($23,296)
($24,228)
($25,197)
($26,205)
($27,253)
($28,343)
($29,477)
($30,656)
($31,882)
($33,157)
($34,484)
($35,863)
($37,298)
($38,790)
($40,341)
($41,955)
($43,633)
($45,378)
($47,193)
($49,081)
($51,044)
($53,086)
($55,210)
($57,418)
($59,715)
($62,103)
($64,587)
($67,171 )
($69,858)
Replacement
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$44 0 , 357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
$440,357
Net Present Worth of 0 8 M and Replacement Costs=
Note: Calculations based on a discount rate of 6% , an inflation rate of 3Oh
Total
$735,157
$743,777
$752,647
$761,773
$771,164
$780,826
$790,767
$800,996
$81 1,521
$822,349
$833,490
$844,952
$856,745
$868,878
$881,361
$894,203
$907,415
$921,007
$934,990
$949,376
$964,174
$979,398
$995,059
$1,011,169
$1,027,741
$1,044,789
$1,062,324
$1,080,362
$1,098,917
$1,118,002
and an interest rate of 4%. Floating cover life is estimated at 15 years.
Present Worth
$735,157
$701,676
$669,853
$639,599
$61 0,834
$583,478
$557,460
$532,708
$5093 58
$486,747
$465,416
$4453 10
$425,776
$407,364
$389,827
$373,120
$357,201
$342,029
$327,568
$31 3,781
$300,634
$288,095
$276,134
$264,72 1
$253,830
$243,434
$233,510
$224,033
$214,981
$206,335
$1 2,380,000
MRW John Powell & Associates, Inc. 1 1 /3/93
IL I I
P
w IC
Y
f I
;sj C c 3
c-) 0 &q0
Ihi N i II -- I FW
./-----
I- <.
I 1 '-
!
I
I
\
\,
\
j
j
I
I
I i! I
\
\
\
\
/
\
'\
\
Comprehensive SDWA reauthorization bill due this week from Sens. Max Baucus, DMont., and John Chafee, R-R.I. Bipartisan measure expected to embody many changes recentty recom- mended by €PA but steer clear of main goal of regulated commu- nity: adding relative risk reduction factor into standard-setting equa- tion. BaucusKhafee bill expected to be lead legislation on SDWA in continued absence of measure from Rep. Henry Waxman, D- Calif., but with Baucus and Chafee focused for now on CWA re- authorization, don‘t look for SDWA to get much attention until next year. Water-supplier-led coalition representing broad base of regu- lated community ready with its version of SDWA revision. Legis- lation also likely to show up this
W& No word, though, on who will carry the measure, expected to
of €he Clean Water, Fisheries and Wildlife subcommittee, opened recant hearing on wetlands regu- lation by reaffirming CWA reauthorization timetable for get- ting bill out of full committee this fall.
EPA elemtion, meanwhile, still stuck in House with prospect of being weighted down with raft of amendments. House Govern- ment Operations Chair Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., now seeking support for preventing floor amendment to his elevation bill that would require cost-benefit analysis of EPA regs along lines of Johnston amendment in Senate version. Committee member Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has vowed to keep a choke hold on the bill (labeled H.R 2601 butstill with- out text) if attempt is made to add such a provision.
Drinking water forum takes utilities to task on trust
Recent national media splash in Washington, D.C., highlighted
drinking water concerns with one clear message: don’t trust your local utility.
Forum sponsored by National Consumers League was stage for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to warn that SDWA reauthorization outlook is bleak as long as water
suppliers press for change to stan- dard-setting process. He blamed lack of SDWA consensus on “sys-
tems (that are) launching an assault
very few cops on the beat.. . and the word has spread among systems.”
His remarks mirror comments in fall issue of The Amicus Journal,
NRDC’s quarterly magazine, which focused on water quality problems and touted Olson’s forthcoming re-
port Think Before You Drink. Report to provide “basic information” on
drinking water systems, data on water suppliers who have ex- ceeded contaminant levels and in-
formation on health risks and posslble action for consumers.
funded mandates.”’ Waxman added it is “the height of irrespon-
slbility for those whose duty it is to supply safe drinking water to work against all of this legislation. ” Expect more on unfunded man- dates when US Conference of May- ors stages national media protest 013.27.
Waxman emphasized that
SDWA reauthorization (consensus or no) was rapidly being pushed
from his radar screen by upcoming health care reform effort.
As a counterpoint, EPA ground- water/drinking water chief Jim Elder said he continues to be hope- ful. “Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act has a damn
good chance, maybe this year, maybe early next year, “ provided Congress sticks with the Clinton
administration proposal (which avoids standard-setting revision). Concern over standard setting
echoed in remarks from Natural Re- sources Defense Council attorney Erik Olson, who said, “If water sys-
tems insist on taking on standard setting, it’s just going to stop the (reauthorization) process. ” Olson said if systems keep in-
sisting on cost-benefit analyses for regs, “We’ll die on our swords be- fore we let that happen.” Olson also took drrnking water utilities to task for widespread non- compliance, saying, “There are
“Don ’t let (utilities)
tell you you will not understand the results;
you have a right to see them. ’I
--Erik Olson
Preview of report found in “Sur-
vlval Kn for Water Drinkers,” an ar- ticle written by Olson for journal‘s
“Something in the Water” cover story. Olson’s four tips:
W Find out where your drinlung water comes from (including asking for copies of watershedwellhead protection plans).
W Fmd out what contaminants
are in your dnnking water. This in- cludes asking water suppliers for
copies of puDlic notices for past vi-
olations and monitoring results. A key: “Don’t let them tell you you
will not understand the results; you have a right to see them.“ Olson also recommends contact-
ing state drinking water programs to verify data provided by systems (although he warns that states tend to downplay water system prob
lems). Push Congress for stronger
SDWA and CWA. Get involved in local efforts to
protect drinking water.