The URL can be used to link to this page

2012 Joint Facilities Master Plan NIL riot. s y' a:l.tv4� 7riF'o�Iglinar.dDlFfi��Ot�i�'�! L•1_�i a 1- 1�� uk' 1 � bilo e�: With WaterEngine _ --- - Infrastructure "GINII 61 via Coffol Allom March-'2 12 �aa►GA rIp z � A t:r. 19g3 San Dieguito Water District JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant Q�pFESS/pNy 0-NN � MFyF l 03/07/2012 Z3 z fi `U N1 845 F� p. 06/30/12 s� CMS qTF OF CA1 Prepared for SANTE FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT & SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT March 2012 WQTS C co rollO Engineers...Working Wonders With Water® Infrastructure ■x.1.1 e■ins so Iae.i iax ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS `RVJUA r, x � Fsi.192 Mike Bardin, General Manager Bill Hunter, Engineering Services Manager Karen Falk, Engineering Project Manager Cor Shaffer, Operations Manager Rocky Hughes, Safety Officer Elijah Standing Warrior, Operations Supervisor Tim Bailey, Lab Manager David Harris, Maintenance Supervisor San Dieguito Water District Bill O'Donnell, Interim General Manager Engineers...working wonders With Water Jeff Thornbury Jim Meyerhofer Bryant Bench Michael Bundy Troy Hedlund Vincent Hart Issam Najm, PhD., Water Quality &Treatment Solutions Jim Ashcraft, Infrastructure Engineering Corporation Robert Weber, Infrastructure Engineering Corporation CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................. ES-1 PURPOSE OF THE JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN ..............................................................................ES-2 KEY COST AND PROCESS PERFORMANCE BASELINES......................................................................... ES-2 Base Case Cost Determination........................................................................................................ ES-2 Future Demands And Supply Availability.......................................................................................... ES-3 KeyEvaluation Criteria..................................................................................................................... ES-3 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS............................................................................ES-4 RECOMMENDED 10 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE JOINT FACILITIES........... ES-4 ASSOCIATED COST OF WATER INCREASE ............................................................................................ ES-11 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................1-1 PASTSTUDIES.................................................................................................................................................1-2 JOINT FACILITIES............................................................................................................................................1-2 RawWater System.............................................................................................................................. 1-2 HydroelectricFacility........................................................................................................................... 1-2 TreatmentPlant................................................................................................................................... 1-3 SolidsHandling ................................................................................................................................... 1-3 ChemicalSystems............................................................................................................................... 1-4 FUTURE DEMANDS AND SUPPLY AVAILABILITY.........................................................................................1-4 DESIGN CRITERIA OF THE JOINT FACILITIES..............................................................................................1-7 BASE CASE COST DETERMINATION...........................................................................................................1-15 CUSTOMIZED WFP PLANT PERFORMANCE AND COST MODEL .............................................................1-18 Base Case Cost Determination Summary......................................................................................... 1-18 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY &TREATMENT CHALLENGES OVERVIEW OF THE BADGER WATER FILTRATION PLANT.........................................................................2-1 WATER USE PATTERN....................................................................................................................................2-2 CURRENT WATER QUALITY CHALLENGES..................................................................................................2-3 Challenging Water Quality Parameters with Primary Regulatory Limits..............................................2-3 Challenging Water Quality Parameters with Secondary Regulatory Limits......................................... 2-8 Other Nuisance Constituents in Lake Hodges Water........................................................................2-13 POTENTIAL CHANGES IN RAW WATER QUALITY......................................................................................2-13 POTENTIAL CHANGES IN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS......................................................................2-15 CURRENT PERFORMANCE OF WFP ...........................................................................................................2-16 Disinfection By-Products Control.......................................................................................................2-16 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................3-1 PLANT PROCESS EVALUATION.....................................................................................................................3-1 COAGULATION (FLASH MIX)..........................................................................................................................3-2 Recommendations-Coagulation........................................................................................................3-2 March 2012 i CONTENTS FLOCCULATION...............................................................................................................................................3-2 Recommendations- Flocculation........................................................................................................3-3 SEDIMENTATION.............................................................................................................................................3-4 BasinImprovements............................................................................................................................3-6 Construct New Flocculation/Sedimentation Basin...............................................................................3-6 Install Tube Settlers in Existing Basins................................................................................................3-6 Other Recommended Improvements..................................................................................................3-7 Recommendations-Sedimentation ....................................................................................................3-7 FILTRATION......................................................................................................................................................3-7 Physical Features of Existing Filters....................................................................................................3-9 FilterPerformance.............................................................................................................................3-10 Potential Filter Improvements............................................................................................................3-15 Estimated Project Cost of Filter Improvements.................................................................................3-18 Recommendations- Filtration............................................................................................................3-19 DISINFECTION ...............................................................................................................................................3-19 Future Disinfection Considerations....................................................................................................3-23 Recommendations-Disinfection.......................................................................................................3-23 SOLIDS HANDLING........................................................................................................................................3-23 Current Facilities and Operations......................................................................................................3-27 Capital Improvement Options............................................................................................................3-29 Summary-Solids Handling...............................................................................................................3-36 Recommendations-Solids Handling ................................................................................................3-37 OTHER POTENTIAL PROCESS MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AND TREATED WATER QUALITY...........................................................................................................3-38 Incorporating Ozone with or without UV............................................................................................3-42 Ozone Design Criteria and Estimated Project Costs.........................................................................3-44 Recommendations-Other Potential Process Modifications to Improve Performance and TreatedWater Quality..................................................................................................................3-45 UTILITYWATER.............................................................................................................................................3-45 Recommendations- Utility Water......................................................................................................3-46 CHEMICAL HANDLING...................................................................................................................................3-46 Replace Chlorine Dioxide System.....................................................................................................3-47 UpgradePACL Tank.........................................................................................................................3-47 UpgradeChlorinator..........................................................................................................................3-47 SpareChemical Tank........................................................................................................................3-48 New Anionic Polymer Feed Location.................................................................................................3-48 Recommendations-Chemical Handling ...........................................................................................3-48 HEALTH AND SAFETY...................................................................................................................................3-49 SodiumChlorite Tank........................................................................................................................3-49 GasDetectors...................................................................................................................................3-49 SplashShields...................................................................................................................................3-49 ValveAccess.....................................................................................................................................3-49 Handrailon SDR Dam.......................................................................................................................3-50 Recommendations- Health and Safety.............................................................................................3-50 HYDRAULIC EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................3-50 HydraulicControl Points....................................................................................................................3-51 PlantInlet..........................................................................................................................................3-51 PretreatmentBasin............................................................................................................................3-51 Overflows..........................................................................................................................................3-51 Filters.................................................................................................................................................3-52 FWPiping..........................................................................................................................................3-52 ii March 2012 CONTENTS SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................4-1 OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................................................4-1 LAKEHODGES.................................................................................................................................................4-2 PIPELINE FROM LAKE HODGES TO CIELO PUMP STATION.......................................................................4-2 CIELO PUMP STATION....................................................................................................................................4-2 Recommendations-Cielo Pump Station.............................................................................................4-3 PIPELINE FROM CIELO PUMP STATION TO WFP ........................................................................................4-4 PIPELINE FROM CIELO PUMP STATION TO SAN DIEGUITO RESERVOIR.................................................4-4 Recommendations- Pipeline Between CPS and SDR........................................................................4-5 SAN DIEGUITO RESERVOIR...........................................................................................................................4-6 Rolesand Challenges.........................................................................................................................4-6 Operational and Emergency Storage..................................................................................................4-6 Pretreatment of Water from Lake Hodges...........................................................................................4-7 Quagga Mussel Control Measures......................................................................................................4-8 Receiver of Residual Streams from WFP..........................................................................................4-10 Other Potential SDR Enhancement Projects.....................................................................................4-10 Recommendations-San Dieguito Reservoir.....................................................................................4-11 SAN DIEGUITO PUMP STATION...................................................................................................................4-12 Capacity............................................................................................................................................4-12 Potential Pump Station Locations......................................................................................................4-14 Location 1: Pump Station Downstream of Dam.................................................................................4-14 Location 2: Pump Station Upstream of Dam.....................................................................................4-15 Recommendations-San Dieguito Pump Station ..............................................................................4-17 PIPELINE FROM SAN DIEGUITO PUMP STATION TO WFP........................................................................4-17 Recommendations-Pipeline from San Dieguito Pump Station to WFP............................................4-19 15-INCH DRAIN LINE FROM WFP TO SDR...................................................................................................4-19 Recommendations- 15-inch Drain Line form WFP to SDR...............................................................4-19 54-INCH TREATED WATER LINE..................................................................................................................4-19 Recommendations-54-inch Treated Water Line..............................................................................4-19 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................5-1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................5-1 CieloPump Station..............................................................................................................................5-1 SanDieguito Pump Station .................................................................................................................5-2 CWAFlow Control Facility...................................................................................................................5-2 Badger Water Filtration Plant..............................................................................................................5-2 SDG&E Service Connections..............................................................................................................5-2 FAULT CURRENT AND ARC FLASH...............................................................................................................5-3 SanDieguito Pump Station .................................................................................................................5-4 CieloPump Station..............................................................................................................................5-4 Badger Water Filtration Plant............................................................................................................5-10 STAND-BY POWER........................................................................................................................................5-14 CieloPump Station............................................................................................................................5-14 SanDieguito Pump Station ...............................................................................................................5-14 CWA Flow Control Facility.................................................................................................................5-14 Badger Water Filtration Plant............................................................................................................5-14 March 2012 iii CONTENTS ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES.........................................................................................................5-15 Premium Efficiency Motors................................................................................................................5-15 VariableSpeed Drives.......................................................................................................................5-15 Energy Efficient Lighting Practices....................................................................................................5-15 Smart Motor Control Centers.............................................................................................................5-15 SDG&E REBATES AND INCENTIVES...........................................................................................................5-16 Rebates.............................................................................................................................................5-16 CustomIncentives.............................................................................................................................5-16 Interest-Free Financing .....................................................................................................................5-16 Benchmarking ...................................................................................................................................5-17 Audits................................................................................................................................................5-17 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER GENERATION........................................................................................5-17 POWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................................5-20 Overview of Existing Facilities...........................................................................................................5-20 Proposed Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvements............................................................5-20 High Voltage Substation Economic Feasibility Analysis....................................................................5-27 WFP Low Voltage Equipment Replacement WFP.............................................................................5-27 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................5-29 PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION.............................................................................................5-30 Recommended Process Control System Improvements...................................................................5-31 SCADA System Maintenance and Supervision.................................................................................5-33 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY..........................................................................................................6-1 EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM...................................................................................................................6-2 EXISTING CONTROLS.....................................................................................................................................6-2 EXISTING HYDRAULICS..................................................................................................................................6-3 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS.............................................................................................................6-3 Evaluation of the R.E. Badger Hydro Turbine Facility.........................................................................6-4 Badger Water Filtration Plant Hydro Field Service..............................................................................6-4 Maintenance Testing of Protective Relays..........................................................................................6-4 EXISTING SDG&E GENERATION INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT........................................................6-4 Assembly Bill 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan .................................................................................6-5 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................................................................6-5 CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ...........................................................................................................6-6 ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY...............................................................................6-7 BaseCondition....................................................................................................................................6-7 Alternative 1 - Upgrade Existing Turbines to Operate at Higher Pressure..........................................6-7 Alternative 2- Upgrade Existing Turbines to Improve Safety and Reliability.......................................6-8 Alternative 3-Replace Existing Turbines............................................................................................6-8 Alternative 4—Replace the Entire Hydroelectric Facility.....................................................................6-8 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................6-9 NPVAnalysis.......................................................................................................................................6-9 Sensitivity Analysis for Alternative No. 4...........................................................................................6-10 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................6-10 iv March 2012 CONTENTS SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................7-1 MECHANICAL RELIABILITY EVALUATION.....................................................................................................7-1 SiteReview.........................................................................................................................................7-1 Facilities and Equipment Not Covered in this Memorandum...............................................................7-1 Reviewof Reports...............................................................................................................................7-2 Observations.......................................................................................................................................7-2 Conclusions and Recommendations- Mechanical Reliability .............................................................7-3 SEISMIC EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................7-4 SiteReview.........................................................................................................................................7-4 Review of Design Drawings and Reports............................................................................................7-4 Calculations.........................................................................................................................................7-4 Seismic Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................................7-5 WashwaterTank..................................................................................................................................7-6 Conclusions and Recommendations-Seismic Evaluation................................................................7-14 SECTION 8: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS..........................................................................................................8-1 RECOMMENDED 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE JOINT FACILITIES..............8-2 ASSOCIATED COST OF WATER INCREASE .................................................................................................8-6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Base Case Model Summaries APPENDIX B: Hydraulic Model Analysis for WFP APPENDIX C: WFP Arc Flash Study APPENDIX D: Net Present Value Calculations for Solar Photovoltaic Options APPENDIX E: Net Present Value Calculations for Substation Options APPENDIX F: Hydroelectric Facility for Net Present Value and Payback Calculations APPENDIX G: Hydroelectric Facility Energy Production Calculations APPENDIX H: Notable Structural Deficiencies APPENDIX I: Wash Water Tank Design Drawing APPENDIX J: Joint Facilities Master Plan Project Rankings March 2012 v CONTENTS -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- vi March 2012 TABLES Table ES.1 FY 2012 Water Supply Cost............................................................................................... ES-2 Table ES.2 Base Case Treatment Costs.............................................................................................. ES-3 Table ES.3 Summary of Potential Joint Facilities Projects................................................................... ES-5 Table ESA Prioritization Rating Factor Descriptions............................................................................ ES-7 Table ES.5 Recommended 10-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Joint Facilities.................. ES-9 Table ES.6 Comparison of Increased Costs to Treat Raw Water Supplies to 100 Percent Treated CWA Water Costs............................................................................................... ES-12 Table 1.1 Design Criteria of the Raw Water System............................................................................. 1-7 Table 1.2 Design Criteria of the Badger WFP....................................................................................... 1-9 Table 1.3 FY 2012 Water Supply Cost................................................................................................1-15 Table 1.4 Characterization of the Three Source Waters for the WFP'................................................ 1-16 Table 1.5 Raw Water Quality and Chemical Treatment Strategies Used for the Individual BaseCase Conditions......................................................................................................... 1-17 Table 1.6 Treatment Cost Category Description.................................................................................1-18 Table 1.7 Base Case Treatment Costs...............................................................................................1-19 Table 2.1 Potential Positive Impacts of the Water Transfer Project on Treatment Challenges atthe WFP..........................................................................................................................2-15 Table 3.1 Operational Parameters of the WFP Flocculation Basins.....................................................3-3 Table 3.2 Operational Parameters of the WFP Sedimentation Basins..................................................3-4 Table 3.3 Project Cost Estimate for a New Flocculation/Sedimentation Basin .....................................3-6 Table 3.4 Existing Filter Design and Operating Criteria at the WFP.....................................................3-8 Table 3.5 Summary Results for Potential Filter Operational Changes................................................3-17 Table 3.6 Estimated Project Costs to Implement Potential Filter Improvements................................3-18 Table 3.7 Giardia Disinfection (1.5 log removal)CT Evaluation for Summer Condition (Flow=40 mgd; Water Temperature=20°C; pH =7.5).....................................................3-21 Table 3.8 Giardia Disinfection (1.5 log removal)CT Evaluation for Winter Condition (Flow=40 mgd; Water Temperature=20°C; pH =7.5).....................................................3-22 Table 3.9 2009 Monthly Historical Solids Production Estimates.........................................................3-25 Table 3.10 2010 Monthly Historical Solids Production Estimates.........................................................3-26 Table 3.11 Estimated Project Cost for Lagoon Option..........................................................................3-34 March 2012 vii TABLES Table 3.12 Estimated Project Cost for Mechanical Dewatering Improvements.....................................3-35 Table 3.13 Estimated Annual Operating Cost for WFP Solids Handling...............................................3-36 Table 3.14 Effluent WFP Water Quality Characteristics(2009—2010) ................................................3-41 Table 3.15 Preliminary Ozone Design Criteria for Lake Hodges and CWA Source Waters..................3-44 Table 3.16 Estimated Project Cost for Ozone System..........................................................................3-44 Table 3.17 Estimated Project 0&M Costs for Ozone System...............................................................3-45 Table 3.18 Estimated Project Costs for Chemical Handling System Improvements.............................3-48 Table 3.19 Project Cost Estimates for Health and Safety Improvements..............................................3-50 Table 4.1 Project Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements to CPS.......................................4-3 Table 4.2 Conveyance Capacity for Parallel Pipeline Alternatives from CPS to SDR...........................4-5 Table 4.3 Project Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements to SDR.....................................4-11 Table 4.4 Comparison of Alternative Locations for a New San Dieguito Pump Station ......................4-16 Table 5.1 Cielo Pump Station Arc Flash Results—Present Settings....................................................5-6 Table 5.2 Cielo Pump Station Arc Flash Results—Proposed Settings.................................................5-8 Table 5.3 Calculated Fault Current for Electrical Equipment at the WFP...........................................5-11 Table 5.4 Economic Feasibility Analysis of Potential Solar Photovoltaic Locations on the WFP Site Location ...................................................................................................5-19 Table 5.5 Comparison of the Four Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvement.........................5-26 Table 5.6 Project Cost Estimates for Four Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvements...........5-27 Table 5.7 Economic Feasibility Analysis of a High Voltage Substation...............................................5-28 Table 5.8 WFP Low Voltage Equipment Replacement Cost...............................................................5-28 Table 6.1 Characteristics of the Existing Hydroelectric Facility.............................................................6-1 Table 6.2 Results of the Net Present Value Analysis of Five Alternatives to Upgrade or Replace the Hydroelectric Facility.........................................................................................6-9 Table 6.3 Hydroelectric Facility Alternative No. 4 Net Present Value Sensitivity Analysis..................6-12 Table 7.1 Deficiencies Noted During the Mechanical Assessment.......................................................7-3 Table 7.2 Standards Referenced for Seismic Evaluation......................................................................7-5 Table 7.3 Seismic Evaluation Parameters............................................................................................7-5 Table 7.4 Assumed Material Property Values for the Washwater Tank................................................7-6 Table 7.5 Estimated Demand and Available Counter Balancing Weights for Tank StabilityAnalysis.................................................................................................................7-10 viii March 2012 TABLES Table 7.6 Estimated Project Costs for Five Potential Mitigation Concepts for the WashwaterTank.................................................................................................................7-12 Table 7.7 Summary of Risk Levels Associated with Development of Foundation Anchorage............7-13 Table 7.8 Other Notable Structural Deficiencies, Recommended Fixes, and Estimated Costs..........7-15 Table 8.1 Summary of Potential Joint Facilities Projects......................................................................8-3 Table 8.2 Evaluation Categories...........................................................................................................8-5 Table 8.3 Prioritization Rating Factor Descriptions and Example.........................................................8-7 Table 8.4 Ranking Summary for Recommended Capital Improvements Projects for the JointFacilities........................................................................................................................8-9 Table 8.5 Recommended 10-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Joint Facilities...................8-11 Table 8.6 Comparison of Increased Costs to Treat Raw Water Supplies to 100 Percent TreatedCWA Water Costs....................................................................................................8-6 March 2012 ix TABLES -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- x March 2012 FIGURES Figure ES.1 Schematic of the Existing Joint Facilities........................................................................... ES-1 Figure 1.1 Schematic of the Existing Joint Facilities.............................................................................. 1-1 Figure 1.2 Schematic of Existing Raw Water Delivery Facilities............................................................ 1-3 Figure 1.3 Process Flow Diagram of the Badger WFP...........................................................................1-5 Figure 1.4 Historical Total Raw Water Influent Flow Rates.................................................................... 1-6 Figure 1.5 Historical Raw Water Flow Rates by Source.........................................................................1-6 Figure 1.6 WFP Cost Model for 5,700 AF/yr Alternative (see Appendix A for additional information on the cost model)............................................................................................ 1-21 Figure 2.1 Current Treatment Scheme at the WFP................................................................................2-1 Figure 2.2 Monthly Average and Maximum Daily Flow thru the WFP (2007—2010).............................2-2 Figure 2.3 Percent Local Water Supply in WFP Influent(2007—2010).................................................2-3 Figure 2.4 Coliform Bacterial Counts in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2007—2010).............2-4 Figure 2.5 Frequency Distribution of Coliform Bacterial Counts in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2007—2010)..................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2.6 SFID System-wide Running Annual Average of TTHM and HAA5 Levels Measured at Stage 1 D/DBP Monitoring Sites Between 2006 to 2010 (Results for SDWD are reportedto be similar)...........................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2.7 SFID Locational Running Annual Average of THM Levels Measured at Stage 1 D/DBP Monitoring Sites between 2006 to 2010 (Results for SDWD are reported to be similar).......2-6 Figure 2.8 TOC Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, CWA, and WFP Influent(2006—2010).........................2-7 Figure 2.9 Comparison of TTHM Levels between Maximum Stage 1 D/DBP Location and Maximum Stage 2 D/DBP Location for SFID between December 2008 through June 2009 (Similar results experienced by SDWD)..............................................................2-8 Figure 2.10 Manganese Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters(2008—2010)........................2-9 Figure 2.11 Frequency Distribution of Manganese Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2008-2010) ........................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2.12 MIB Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2006—2010)..................................2-11 Figure 2.13 Occurrence Frequency of MIB in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters(2006—2010)....2-11 Figure 2.14 TDS Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters(2005—2010).................................2-12 Figure 2.15 Occurrence Frequency of TDS in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters(2006—2010)...2-13 Figure 2.16 Percent Blend of State Water Project(SWP) Water into Lake Skinner(2000—2011)........2-14 March 2012 xi FIGURES Figure 2.17 TOC Removal through the WFP (2006—2010)..................................................................2-17 Figure 2.18 TOC Removal through the WFP during Four Months in 2009.............................................2-17 Figure 2.19 THM Levels Measured at Plant Influent and Effluent during the same Four-Month period in 2009 Presented in Figure 2.18.............................................................................2-18 Figure 2.20 MIB Concentrations in the Influent and Effluent of the WFP (2006—2010)........................2-19 Figure 3.1 Raw and Settled Water Turbidity Data Frequency Curves (2007 to 2010)............................3-5 Figure 3.2 Raw and Settled Water Turbidity Profiles from 2007 to 2010................................................3-5 Figure 3.3 Physical Features and Dimensions of Existing Filter Box...................................................3-10 Figure 3.4 Turbidity Profiles for Settled and Filtered Water(2007—2010 Daily Values)......................3-12 Figure 3.5 Turbidity Frequency Curves for Filtration (Filter No. 5) and Settled Water..........................3-12 Figure 3.6 Filtrate Turbidity Profile for Filter No. 5(Jan 10-11, 2010)..................................................3-13 Figure 3.7 Filter Efficiency vs. UFRV at WFP.......................................................................................3-13 Figure 3.8 Frequency Curves of UFRV Values for Filter No. 5(2007—2010).....................................3-14 Figure 3.9 Potential Filter Box Improvements......................................................................................3-16 Figure 3.10 Filter UFRV and Production Efficiency Potential.................................................................3-16 Figure 3.11 Identification and Location of Existing Solids Handling Facilities........................................3-28 Figure 3.12 Solids Handling Diagram Using ActifloTM Option for FWW Clarification..............................3-32 Figure 3.13 Solids Handling Diagram Using Lagoon Option for FWW Clarification...............................3-33 Figure 3.14 Revised Treatment Scheme for the WFP............................................................................3-40 Figure 3.15 Current and Potential Operating Range for WFP Effluent pH Value...................................3-42 Figure 3.16 Alternative Treatment Options for the WFP........................................................................3-43 Figure 3.17 Plant Process Hydraulic Grade Line at 40 mgd ..................................................................3-53 Figure 4.1 Schematic of Existing Raw Water Delivery Facilities............................................................4-1 Figure 4.2 San Dieguito Reservoir Flow and Mass Balance..................................................................4-7 Figure 4.3 Historical SDPS Flow Rates................................................................................................4-13 Figure 4.4 Possible Future Flow Rate Conditions................................................................................4-13 Figure 4.5 Potential Locations for the New SDPS................................................................................4-14 Figure 4.6 Possible Future Alignment of a New Pipeline from SDR to WFP........................................4-18 Figure 5.1 Sample Arc Flash Warning Label..........................................................................................5-5 Figure 5.2 Sample Arc Flash and Shock Hazard Warning...................................................................5-12 Figure 5.3 Sample Hazard/Risk Category Labels................................................................................5-13 xii March 2012 FIGURES Figure 5.4 Five Potential Areas to Install Solar Photovoltaic Equipment..............................................5-18 Figure 5.5 Preliminary One Line Diagram for Concept 1 —Basic Design.............................................5-22 Figure 5.6 Preliminary One Line Diagram for Concept 2—Combined Power System.........................5-23 Figure 5.7 Preliminary One Line Diagram for Concept 3—Combined Power System with RedundantServices............................................................................................................5-24 Figure 5.8 Preliminary One Line Diagram for Concept 4—Maximum Redundancy and Reliability......5-25 Figure 7.1 Ammonia Chemical Dosing Panel Designed and Manufactured by WFP Staff.....................7-2 Figure 7.2 Minimum Required Tank Shell Thickness as a Function of Tank Height..............................7-8 Figure 7.3 Free-Body Diagram of the Overturning Moment and Resisting Forces Caused By Seismic Loading on the Tank...........................................................................................7-9 March 2012 xiii FIGURES -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- AV March 2012 ABBREVIATIONS AF acre-feet AF/yr acre-feet per year AL action level AMMP Asset Management Master Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CDPH California Department of Public Health CFD Cumulative Frequency Distribution CFS cubic feet per second CIP Capital Improvement Program C102 chlorine dioxide CMLC cement mortar lined and coated CPS Cielo Pump Station CRW Colorado River Water CSI California Solar Initiative CT contact time cu ft cubic feet cy cubic yard CWA San Diego County Water Authority °C degrees Celsius D/DBP Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products DBPs Disinfection By-Products DO dissolved oxygen DODS Division of Dam Safety DWR California Department of Water Resources EC enhanced coagulation EEBR Energy Efficiency Business Rebates ESB Energy Savings Bid Program ft feet/foot ft/min feet per minute ft2 square feet FTW filter-to-waste FWW filter waste washwater gal gallon(s) gal/day gallons per day gal/ft2/run gallons per square foot per run gpm gallons per minute gpm/ft2 gallons per minute per square feet March 2012 xv ABBREVIATIONS HAAs haloacetic acids HDPE high-density polyethylene hp horsepower hrs hours hrs/day hours per day HPU hydraulic power unit HRT hydraulic retention time I&C Instrumentation &Control JFMP Joint Facilities Master Plan kV kilovolt kVA kilovolt-ampere kW kilowatt kWhr kilowatt hour Ib/yr pounds per year LED light emitting diodes LID low impact development LRAA locational running annual average LSI Langelier Saturation Index LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Mn02 manganese dioxide MCL maximum contaminant level Ng/L micrograms per liter Mgal milligals MG million gallons mg/L million gallons per liter mgd million gallons per day MIB 2-methylisoborneol min minute(s) mL milliliter mm millimeter NDMA nitroso-di-methyl amine NEC National Electrical Code NF nanofiltration ng/L nanograms per liter NMS Network Management System No. number NOM natural organic matter NPV Net Present Value NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units 0&M Operation and Maintenance OBF On-Bill Financing Option OMWD Olivenhain Municipal Water District OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration xvi March 2012 ABBREVIATIONS PACL polyaluminum chloride ppd pounds per day PPE personal protective equipment PRF Prioritization Rating Factors PLC Programmable Logic Controller psi pounds per square inch psf pounds per square foot PV photovoltaic RAA running annual average RO reverse osmosis rpm revolutions per minute RTW rinse-to-waste sec-' 1/seconds SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SDG&E San Diego Gas&Electric SDPS San Diguito Pump Station SDR San Dieguito Reservoir SDWD San Dieguito Water District SFID Santa Fe Irrigation District SDW sludge decant water SL sludge SWP State Water Project SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule T&0 taste and odor TDS total dissolved solids THMs trihalomethanes TOC total organic carbon TSS total suspended solids TTHMs total trihalomethanes UV ultraviolet UBWV unit backwash volume UFRV unit filter run volume USPR unit solids production rate UMWP Urban Water Management Plan VFDs variable frequency drives WFP R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant March 2012 xvii ABBREVIATIONS -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- xviii March 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND In order to serve current and projected potable water demands, the Santa Fe Irrigation District (SFID) and the San Dieguito Water District (SDWD) rely on three water supplies. These supplies include imported raw water, local raw surface water, and imported treated water. The term "Joint Facilities" refers to the infrastructure and treatment facilities jointly owned by SFID and SDWD (SFID/SDWD) that are required to convey and treat raw water supplies, and store and transmit treated water to the SFID/SDWD's separate potable water distribution systems. A critical component of the Joint Facilities is the 40 million gallons per day (mgd) R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant (WFP). Typically, over 95 percent of the potable water supply for SFID/SDWD is derived from raw water treated at the WFP. The San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) second aqueduct pipeline 5 is lo cated immediately adjacent to the WFP a nd provides the source of raw imported water to the WFP. Prior to treatment at the WFP, imported raw water from the high-pressure aqueduct pipeline is conveyed through the SFID/SDWD's hydroelectric facility to generate electricity. Generated power not used by the WFP is sold to San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). The local raw water supply is derived from surface water captured in Lake Hodges from the surrounding San Pasqual Valley. Raw water from Lake Hodges can be pumped directly to the WFP. However, due to dynamic water quality fluctuations, raw water from Lake Hodges is typically conveyed to the San Dieguito Reservoir (SDR) for pre-conditioning prior to conveyance to the WFP. Therefore, though there is one basic raw water supply in the area, Lake Hodges and SDR provide two distinct local raw water "sources" to the WFP. The source water quality of Lake Hodges and the SDR may vary based upon the time of year and other factors. Figure ES-1 provides a schematic of the existing Joint Facilities. q KNWH WW �` Rpy9ed a'w'E eL Ta aria�rt RIN►IAM orm slot G9echanical , 6ewatvnng Q AcIft oA1R801d! - I SOPS 1 Pansy P,.k M i 11 S WF�9 oft(9 Fan Fan � � � c: Oslrine q0 GOMM n 0 s_ 1r ❑ �� Lis�� SM ONVO Rmuft Ss1pl�Ib Rssnrt Figure ES.1 Schematic of the Existing Joint Facilities March 2012 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF THE JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN In the past, SFID/SDWD has completed various studies considering multiple aspects of the Joint Facilities. The most recent was the 2009 Asset Management Master Plan (AMMP). The AMMP formed the basis of SFID/SDWD's 10 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based upon a general assessment of the Joint Facilities. The AMMP recommended that a more detailed evaluation of the Joint Facilities be conducted in order to better define required improvements. As a result, this Joint Facilities Master Plan (JFMP)was commissioned with the following goals: 1. Reassess the capabilities of existing facilities to achieve current and projected process performance and physical integrity requirement. 2. Define specific capital projects that ac hieve SFID/SDWD's needs at t he lowest possible capital and operating costs. 3. Prioritize projects and update the 10 year Joint Facilities Cl P. KEY COST AND PROCESS PERFORMANCE BASELINES Baselines established for base case costs, water supplies and demands, and evaluation criteria are presented. Base Case Cost Determination In order to provide a benchmark that helps define the value added by each proposed Joint Facility Improvement, the JFMP estimated the baseline cost for treating raw water at the WFP under current conditions. Since the cost and quality of the raw water supply (imported vs. local) varies significantly, the cost of treating raw water varies widely depending upon the assumed volume and raw water supply source. Table ES.1 presents the current supply cost for imported and local raw water supplies. Table ES.1 FY 2012 Water Supply Cost Supply Cost per Acre Foot Raw Water Supply Option ($/AF) Local Raw Water $52 Imported Raw Water 1,2 $699 Notes 1. Cost includes transportation fee. 2. Cost does not include the imported supply fixed cost of$187/AF. The quality and consistency of the I ocal raw water supply is lower than imported raw water and is more challenging to treat. However, due to the relatively low supply cost, the overall cost of treated local water has historically been lower than the cost of treated imported raw water. The cost fo r imported treated water has historically been the highest treated water supply option. Table ES.2 provides a breakdown of the estimated base case raw water treatment cost assuming a 30 percent local raw water supply to 70 percent imported raw water supply blend scenario. Though higher percentages of local water have been utilized in the past 3 years, the 30 percent local assumption is consistent with long-term historic trends and reflects anticipated future demands and Ioc al water supply availability as discussed in the following paragraphs. Costs in Table ES.2 only reflect operations and maintenance (0&M) costs, Capital costs are not included in the unit costs. All costs are in 2012 dollars. March 2012 ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES.2 Base Case Treatment Costs Treatment Cost Category Units 5,700 AF/ r of Local Water',2 Percent Local Water % 30 Water Supply Costa $/AF 506 Imported Supply Fixed Costa $/AF 187 Power $/AF 70 Hydroelectric Revenue $/AF (19) Chemical $/AF 30 Residuals Management" $/AF 12 Labor $/AF 95 Maintenance3 $/AF 72 TOTAL $/AF 953 Notes 1. Average annual demand of 19,124 AF/yr was used per the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. 2. Equates to a 30/70 split of local/imported raw water supply blend. 3. Cost calculated based on FY 2012 from information provided by SFID/SDWD. 4. Assumes plant staff manages solids with existing drying beds and contract mechanical dewatering. Solids in excess of the drying bed capacity are discharged to SDR. Future Demands And Supply Availability SFID and SDWD recently completed Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) that defined future potable demand projections for 2030. The combined SFID/SDWD demand was estimated at 19,124 acre-feet per year (AF/yr). Per an agreement with the City of San Diego, SFID/SDWD have property rights to local surface water equivalent to approximately 5,700 AF/yr(based upon historic precipitation data per the existing agreement). In order to establish base costs, and evaluate potential future improvements, the JFMP utilizes the demands projected in the UWMP and the estimated available local water supply volume of 5,700 AF/yr identified in the existing agreement. This percentage of local supply results in a 30/70 ratio, which is similar to long-term historic usage. It is as sumed that the percentage of imported treated water used will be minimal. A m aximum day demand of 30 mgd was also assumed based upon historic and projected trends. Key Evaluation Criteria The JFMP evaluated each component of the joint facilities considering the following key criteria: • Achieve current and projected regulatory 0 Elimination of solids discharge to SDR requirements • Annual demand of 19,124 AF/yr • Provide safe work environment • Maximum day demand of 30 mgd • Provide realiable facilities Annual local raw water availability of • Enhance economic performance where 5,700 AF/yr possible March 2012 ES-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS The evaluation identified 28 projects required to meet near and/or long term Joint Facility needs. Total capital cost estimates were established for each project. In addition, operation and maintenance costs were identified for each project in order to determine the impact of each project on the estimated base cost of treated water (presented as dollars per acre feet[$/AF] of treated water). Table ES.3 provides a summary of identified potential projects, a brief project description, estimated total capital cost, associated cost per acre-foot to implement, and anticipated project benefits. Based upon a prioritization process discussed in the next section, the first 21 projects were selected for inclusion in the recommended 10-year CIP. The majority of the projects are recommended to replace aging infrastructure, improve health and safety, and minimize the discharge of solids to the SDR. The existing facilities have sufficient hydraulic capacity. With regards to process performance, a key finding was that with relatively minor process modifications, the existing facilities could achieve existing and projected regulatory requirements as long as the v olume of local water treated was limited to approximately 5,700 AF/yr. However, due to challenges associated with lower quality local supplies, it was determined that the addition of substantial ozone treatment facilities would be required to assure reliable treatability at larger volumes. If local water supplies were consistently available up to 8,600 AF/yr then the addition of ozone would be cost effective. RECOMMENDED 10 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE JOINT FACILITIES A project prioritization process was established to help define the relative importance of each project and develop an implementation program that spreads the projects over the ten-year planning horizon. This process included the development of evaluation categories and category weighting factors as shown in Table ES.4. Based on project rankings and an assessment of project need, a recommended 10 Year Joint Facilities CIP was prepared as shown on Table ES.5. In addition to project ranking, several factors were key in determining project priorities within the CIP. These factors include impact of the project on health and safety, regulatory compliance, financial benefits, and end of useful life determination (for equipment needing replacement). Impact of these drivers is evidenced when reviewing the recommended CIP. In the first four yea rs, 14 projects totaling about $19.1 million dollars are recommended for implementation. Four of these 14 projects total $8.8 million dollars and address health and safety: new San Dieguito Pump Station (SDPS); electrical distribution improvements; clearwell seismic improvements; and the washwater tank. Three projects totaling $2.65 million address siltation, mounding, and inlet flow at S DR. Two other projects totaling $4.75 million provide long-term financial benefits to th e Joint Facilities: the new 30-inch parallel pipeline from Cielo Pump Station to SDR and a new high voltage substation at WFP. One project totaling $0.4 million improves plant process control. The remaining recommended projects within the first four years total about $2.5 million and address regulatory compliance issues and initiation of the hydroelectric project. March 2012 ES-4 CO co o w �a - �n O U m t A N O C C E E lIJ 2i Q E .m -- N Q E E Zi w O N N O Q Q O N N t U U 'EP°- N -NO m m 0 0 Q m N CD `o d O Gam' 2 0 O M-O 2t, 0 .Q umi �'N N �6 0 N N Q Q -O N '� 2i m N N 76 (6 N .d m N a0 � a N > �- O m U EP U N O N 0 o w N t(6 m p d E—FD O N 'i,E N o' N o o m E o 0 0 0 N 'N . 0 m 0 m Eo w w. m m w w m m MO o m o � o :o ° m o 0M o " ° _o o . 0 0 - o tp � L -F E mL .M o 0 0 o a O N N O N ° a m m o O U O O O O N- N N 0 O O N 0 O E Q E U 6 N O D ''° N N p � C N C t5 C� a �m� w 4 - 0 c U- Z! N - - r W d O b� V V CO N m V N V CO V W m W V c0 V 0 M. OM O V m co V iIJ ° O N CO O V iIJ c0 M W V CO M m N V M O cy UO EA EH EA EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EA EH EA I EA EH EH� EA 69 69 w a" O U A C . '- a;� 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 0 0 v "O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O ° O O O° co O 0 0 0 O O O CJ M d N O iIJ O O O iIJ O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O OO O O O I O O N M V iIJ O O M iIJ O M CO M O iIJ O iIJ n N O N W M iIJ O CD W EH EH EH EH EH EH I� CO (V EA V EA N O CO iIJ iIJ Lo CD 69 U i � � EA � EA EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH 6�9 � EA EH EH EH EH 6�9 .N W - N N H H H p a E N N O co 00 � � � E _0- O O N N U U O 0 -' - .L- co N O a m °o >O.0 N '� '� ° 0 oU = o°=aEi > L `o o > -o �_ o °-E W 0 a .0 0 0 o m 0 -O °o-O 3 -°o CO E m 0 - w o ° a 0 ` d �d o-voi ° mm5 �. .o � � v E o m �.� `o d � > m °U o a�i -moo o 'O o 0 N E d o N N L o t3 d> o> o o 0 t o .N ui U o E N � m t N E t x o o co 0 N N °-- o c6 o EP N 0 °-o a t 0 o N U .� .o.� o-o a o -m`o o -`no o m Ala -� E o m m � o-o �_ o o '� ° a 0 0 ° 'x °-. o m �' o U N E m ° m 0 m 0.�.�m o0 0 -° aUi t O .n t w m .X .o-'' N W a0 'o m L , aa� a�n n - . N a-oi o aoi a°i aoi r 'w -° '� a voi U N N U N 2i (6 N d U d d N N U 6 O Q N —N O N O N 0 0 O N N t a O N N o d N ' � U d' G d'w — GI O 0 N J _ O w_ p E N 6 [If .m Li N O O O N -=0 C0 '� d d (D w > .o > a E -o ° O w, � o m 75 E O` '0 w O N U LL N CO ~ O E O N ° od a - o w o � 00 0 L pm N O.0 0= j N � N o :OE d � 0 o 4 � W. � � o. E ° CO a � E z ° 3 > w o pim m U i ~ ° x ° m °E E Cl CO ii E a U _ n a 5 o ° E °U CO� V m iF >W w cy N ON N ( ( ( 0 0 p K K z co 0 U K co co 0 > w A W O z.O N M V iIJ CO I� W O V iIJ (p I� W O N N N N N N N N w a U A � � � W U Z) t (6 - - Q L A N E O O 6 w Q O O_ O 0 O N O O O N Q fl-E Q N Q Q Q= E E D E -O E " E E O 0.- O N O O 0 O O o Q t t 0 t m t mw w t m m O d d N d 0 d d d d d 0 O O 0 p +fit E O N N D (6 .> E= U O N O O > O O N Lo 0 U U 0 E C_ Q Q O O E 0 Q O m 0 E E a� O 0 n °- E m. O O t'� d N N'"' N O_ U m m m o 1 E o C Q O m O-O N E O O O E.N 0 0_0 O O E 0 .E to m N m ° N O 0 y t °U L y O t24 O O C C >.E >.� S >.U >.N >.E �p m O (6 U m ` E O�U m O LL E o E m E E o_ E E.�t E o CL .E api api t a 0 `o O.UO-0000 00 0OO EO O U a m `o U i O 6 O A - O U 'L-' O N O -O 0 U O m 0 O E N N >O 0 O U m in °- an d Q 2i .�- t U c 0 0 O 6 E o - f5 0 E CL N > � 00 m ` N 0 N O O_ 8 E2 N.E E U N -, N .-- N ° N -0 m 0 E o t.s� �t o E� m Q N O O p p L D E `o N N N E -O y..-- -O N L N 0 O 0._ N ° v °—� ° .o o o ° a a� 0 o o --m� > U o o m °° E o E E t � aEi 3 m 75 m ° u>i o U° ° 0 m a O o O w m m E u>i ° Y .a. t E m 0 t-o o m ,F- E " 3 ami m ° t o >o u>i E ami E°w E 2 a� N rte- O.O E (6 N N U w 0 O_m 0 (6 N o- 0 (6 m N O N U Q t` w � m Q -6 0 -�-O �6 O C .0 N N - 0 N � OO E m >O L O E O OO m - N ° °U O N 2i 0 Q O 0 m OU 0 o 2 E r a� a� m 2 E E o ° oQ o w m a m - =o op 2 w a o a m a o `o U T � O= d O) d O O d N 0 0 0 .� O U'N N N ": U m U N O O > w o EO -o E¢ �.0 o w0 m o U 0 m — _C5 o°w o E oU w o co a o 0 n o .0 O -o s Q. O L ~ Ir� CO W �� O- [If — CO) w w !O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O iIJ_ O_ � V cV EH EH V (A EH EH EH I� CO (V (A V (A Q EH EH EH EH EH EH I EH EH EH EH EH EH EH y� W � EA � EA bO9 W � EA EH EH EH EA b9 } O O W (A EH b9 O O N IA } V ON W r fO W (A EA EA b9 O O 0 H C r O W NEFJ (A MbA L}i NEFJ (A EH EH � EA b�9 u'1 W 0 O O O O O O 00 O O u'1 N M Q L}i NEFJ V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � W � EA EH EH EH EH EH EH EA EA EH EH b�9 L}i � EA � EA EA bO9 d O W U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d N M V O O � iIJ O iIJ iIJ O O M CO M O � iIJ O iIJ � �p EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH y� O � E ~ A m O d E N N N O O o o c E U E `o w aL t o p d U cl) N Ir O o A 0 N - m O N d L N U -°o o E ° 2 " o E m o m iL E2 U a o o -o ° o E -o m D o a '- E m a FD ° m o ° m O m E - E a t o -o -O. m m cn w U c co o m a� w E o - .°- E o m m in E N c° m m La a m E m J o U o u5 [If o C�_7 E D in m E o ~ E a U m _ 0 N vi a o d °� - m ¢ °� o . o ~ w d o d (o 0 L M LL (� �i d 'O 2i w6 U N 2i K N d' N N m N 0 N 0 D U D N N D M ) N N N D O � U � c (� c) K K Z K Z Z Z co H EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Individual projects are represented in the CIP with a design phase (preliminary and final) and a construction phase (bidding and construction). Design is generally shown as approximately 10 percent of the overall project cost. Some smaller projects are shown in the CIP to occur in one year because it was determined that the project could realistically be completed in this time period, such as the SDR Pretreatment Enhancements. The potential capital projects not included in the 10-year recommended CIP are listed below. Rationale for their exclusion follows. • Pre-ozonation • Ozone Pilot Testing • Construct New Third Floc/Sed Basin • Filter Improvements • LIV Disinfection • Reline/Rehabilitate Old 54-inch Treated Water Line • SDR Volume Enhancement through Dredging or Outlet Elevation Modifications Pre-ozonation and its ancillary ozone pilot study were not included because ozone becomes cost effective if the annual local water supply could be consistently increased from 5,700 to 8,6 00 AF/yr. A third flo c/sed basin becomes necessary when maximum day production reliably increases over 30 mgd. Maximum day demands have been slowly declining over the last several years, and it is not anticipated that production will exceed 30 mgd in the next ten years. Improvements to the filters and the old 54-inch treated water line are based on the end of their useful life. It is not anticipated that these components will need to be replaced in the next ten years. Installation of LIV disinfection is based on potential future regulations for enhanced disinfection not achievable with the current treatment scheme. This is not anticipated to occur in the next ten years. SDR volume enhancement, i.e., increasing the current storage capacity of SDR, is not necessary for pre-conditioning of Lake Hodges water at projected flows during the planning horizon. Similar to a third floc/sed basin, this project should be revisited if m aximum day demands begin to reliably increase above 30 mgd. ASSOCIATED COST OF WATER INCREASE Table ES.6 shows the cost impact of the recommended 10-year CIP with respect to the current cost to treat raw water supplies at the WFP. The costs shown in Table ES.6 are all based on 2012 values. Costs for the raw water supplies result from adding the base case 0&M cost per AF with a unit cost for the recommended Joint Facilities CIP that includes both amortized capital and 0&M costs. March 2012 ES-11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For comparison purposes, Table ES.6 also includes an estimated cost assuming an all imported treated water supply scenario. The cost of imported treated water is based upon 2012 values with no projected increases. If the Districts were to rel y totally on imported treated water, storage facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate regularly scheduled annual maintenance on the im ported treated water system. A minimum of 10 days of treated water storage is required to accommodate system maintenance. Therefore, in addition to the purchase price of imported treated water, the amortized capital ($135 million for 30 years at 5%) to construct a 180 million gallon (MG)storage facility must be added to the purchase cost of imported treated water. Table ES.6 Comparison of Increased Costs to Treat Raw Water Supplies to 100 Percent Treated CWA Water Costs' Estimated Cost of Water per AFz($/AF) Raw Water Supplies' 100%Treated CWA Base Case 0&M Cost per AF (per Table ES.2) 953 1,185 Estimated Capital Improvement Costs per AF Treated Water Storage" 0 458 Recommended Joint Facilities 10-year CIP5 188 0 Estimated Total Cost per AF (0&M plus amortized project cost) 1,141 1,643 Notes 1. Based on average annual demand of 19,124 AF/yr. 2. All costs based on 2012 dollars. 3. Assumes 30 percent local water on an annual basis. 4. Includes the cost for a 180 million gallon storage facility($135 million amortized for 30 years at 5%). 5. As shown in Table ES.3, unit costs for each capital project included both amortized capital and 0&M costs.Amortization terms for all projects were 20 years at 5%. March 2012 ES-12 BACKGROUND AND Section 1 BASE CASE CONDITIONS BACKGROUND In order to serve current and projected potable water demands, the Santa Fe Irrigation District (SFID) and the San Dieguito Water District (SDWD) rely on three water supplies. These supplies include imported raw water, local raw surface water, and imported treated water. The term "Joint Facilities" refers to the infrastructure and treatment facilities jointly owned by SFID and SDWD (SFID/SDWD) that are required to convey and treat raw water supplies, and store and transmit treated water to the SFID/SDWD's separate potable water distribution systems. A critical component of the Joint Facilities is the 40 million gallons per day (mgd) R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant (WFP). Typically, over 95 percent of the potable water supply for SFID/SDWD is derived from raw water treated at the WFP. The San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) second aqueduct pipeline 5 is lo cated immediately adjacent to the WFP a nd provides the source of raw imported water to the WFP. Prior to treatment at the WFP, imported raw water from the high pressure aqueduct pipeline is conveyed through the SFID/SDWD's hydroelectric facility to generate electricity. Generated power not used by the WFP is sold to San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). The local raw water supply is derived from surface water captured in Lake Hodges from the surrounding San Pasqual Valley. Raw water from Lake Hodges can be pumped directly to the WFP. However, due to dynamic water quality fluctuations, raw water from Lake Hodges is typically conveyed to the San Dieguito Reservoir (SDR) for pre-conditioning prior to conveyance to the WFP. Therefore, though there is one basic raw water supply in the area, Lake Hodges and SDR provide two distinct local raw water "sources" to the WFP. The source water quality of Lake Hodges and the SDR may vary based upon the time of year and other factors. Figure 1-1 provides a schematic of the existing Joint Facilities. CK� 4 PAM KC 4 G6 NNUM "M Mk FDAW&do SL Flm ,bo 1.9AChTniCT RNNYAM orw 53M 1 N�tr L+e�terirg Aelllo 8ys1ln �Aed Sdds - enPe WWMWN Re wv pods M Igoe Win o Qdpe 01"aw(4) -------------------- .. -- ................................................................ - ( � sow CK. Y 1 - U Q L"f10t amMa W, psng SOM Figure 1.1 Schematic of the Existing Joint Facilities March 2012 1-1 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS PAST STUDIES In the past, SFID/SDWD has commissioned studies to identify improvements to the raw water supply system and the WFP. These studies include the following: 1. 1999 San Dieguito Reservoir Rehabilitation Study (1999 SDR Study) 2. 2003 R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant Master Plan Final Report(2003 Master Plan) 3. 2006 Final Report on the Blue Ribbon Panel R.E. Badger Process Study (2006 Report) 4. 2009 Asset Management Master Plan (2009 AMMP) 5. 2009 Mass-Balance and 1-D Water Quality Modeling of S an Dieguito Reservoir: Development of Management Strategies(Anderson, M.A., 2009a). 6. 2009 Review of Available Water Quality Data for San Dieguito Reservoir and Lake Hodges Inflow (Anderson, M.A., 2009b). 7. 2011 Bathymetry and Basin Characteristics of San Dieguito Reservoir(Anderson, M.A., 2011). Each of the above studies has made recommendations for improvements to the raw water system or the WFP. Many of these recommendations have been or are i n the process of completion. The most recent master plan (2009 AMMP) primarily focused on the treated water distribution system. The 2009 AMMP recommended a separate master plan be completed for the WFP. As a result, SFID/SDWD commissioned Carollo Engineers to prepare a JFM P for the WFP and its associated raw water facilities. This master plan is being undertaken to provide a 10-year road map for SFID/SDWD with respect to the Joint Facilities. JOINT FACILITIES A general description of the Joint Facilities follows. Raw Water System Raw water entering the WFP primarily comes from SDR via the SDPS and an inter-tie from the CWA system. Water from SDR consists primarily of water from Lake Hodges with a small portion coming from the local watershed. Water is transferred from Lake Hodges to SDR through a 36-inch steel pipeline that reduces to an 18-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline. The CPS can be used to increase flows from Lake Hodges to SDR. The primary purpose of the CPS is to provide water from Lake Hodges directly to the WFP; however, it is infrequently used this way because water from Lake Hodges is more difficult to treat with out first flowing through SDR for pre-conditioning. A schematic of the raw water system is shown in Figure 1.2. Hydroelectric Facility Raw water from CWA is a t a high pressure that must be reduced before entering the WFP. Th is needed pressure reduction is accomplished using a hydroelectric facility that was constructed in 1985. The hydroelectric facility consists of two turbines, each having different flow capacities and has a total flow capacity of 67 cfs. The maximum power output from the turbine generators is 1,485 kW. The hydroelectric facility is connected to the SDG&E power grid and includes bi-directional revenue meter. More detailed information on the hydroelectric facility can be found in Section 6. 1-2 March 2012 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS CWA Trfed WeN C. r 30' CWA Raw Water i4' R.E.Badge To Distribution System Filtration Plant Hydroelechic Turbines N r Flows of 4 to 7 MGD i 3fi 300 with addllarr ot i 15'Drain Line PUS chlorine dbdde. i L ?21 � Q i 0 i i 33P Y p �Va��i Lake Fkrdpes San DiegurtD k IWO Pump Station San Dlleiplto [per [apprwL 18 MOD] Reservoir Figure 1.2 Schematic of Existing Raw Water Delivery Facilities Treatment Plant The WFP uses conventional treatment processes (coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration) to treat raw water entering the plant. Water flowing into the plant enters the flocculation influent channel where it splits and flows into two flocculation/sedimentation basins. Each flocculation basin is baffled creating a serpentine style flow. Each basin contains four vertical flocculators. From the flocculation basins, water flows through the sedimentation basins to the basin effluent weir and into the basin effluent channel. Settled water from the sedimentation basins flows through a filter influent channel and over influent flow splitting weirs to one of six dual media, constant level filters. Water from the filters flows to a 13 million gallon (MG)clearwell. CWA treated water can be combined with the WFP treated water upstream or do wnstream of the cl earwell. A schematic of the plant is shown in Figure 1.3. Solids Handling Settled solids from the sedimentation basins can either be pumped or flow by gravity to o ne of four sludge drying beds. Decant from the drying beds flows to SDR. Because the current drying beds are undersized relative to the amount of solids produced at the WFP, a majority of the solids entering the drying beds is carried through into the decant water and subsequently flows to SDR. Dried solids from the drying beds are trucked to a local landfill. The WFP does have a gravity thickener and a centrifuge that can be used for dewatering solids. This equipment has historically been problematic and is not currently operational. Filter backwash water is sent to one of two filter washwater recovery basins. Water and solids in these basins are transferred directly to the SDR. A high-rate clarification process (Actifl0TM) is available to treat the filter washwater. This eq uipment has not been operational for several years. When operating, discharge from ActifloTM can either be sent to SDR or recycled into the plant influent raw water line. Solids from ActifloTM can be sent to the gravity thickener. A schematic of the solids handling system is included in the process flow diagram shown in Figure 1.3. March 2012 1-3 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Chemical Systems The following chemical systems are located at the WFP: 1. Gaseous Chlorine 2. Chlorine Dioxide (generated onsite using chlorine gas and sodium chlorite) 3. Sodium Chlorite 4. Aqueous Ammonia 5. Liquid Polyaluminum Chloride (PACL) 6. Cationic Polymer 7. Anionic Polymer(not presently used) 8. Caustic Soda 9. Dewatering Polymer System (not presently used) 10. ActifloTM Polymer System (not presently used) Gaseous chlorine is used at WFP for disinfection and also to produce chlorine dioxide (using sodium chlorite) and chloramines (with aqueous ammonia). Plant staff uses free chlorine and chloramines to meet the required credits for Giardia and virus inactivation. Free chlorine can be injected upstream of flash mix, to settled water, to filter influent, and downstream of the filters. Chlorine dioxide can be injected in the SDPS force main, the CPS force main, upstream of flash mixing, backwash header, and filter backwash recovery system. Ammonia can be added at flash mixing and downstream of the filters. PACL is the primary coagulant at the WFP. In addition, cationic polymer can be used to aid coagulation and anionic polymer can be used to aid flocculation. PACL can be injected at flash mixing, upstream of the filters, and upstream of the backwash recovery system. Cationic polymer can be added in flash mixing (primary location), first stage flocculation and upstream of the filters as a filter aid. Anionic polymer can be added in the first or second stage of flocculation, upstream of the filters, and as a dewatering aid. Caustic soda can be added at the WFP to adjust the pH. There are two injection points: upstream or downstream of the filters. Polymers can also be added to the solids flow upstream of the centrifuge to assist in dewatering and in the ActifloTM system to assist in particle agglomeration. The ActifloTM polymer system is a dry polymer while all other polymer systems at the WFP are liquid. All of the chemicals listed above are continually used at the WFP except for anionic polymer, which has not been used consistently in the last several years. FUTURE DEMANDS AND SUPPLY AVAILABILITY SFID and SDWD recently completed Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) that defined future potable demand projections for 2030. The combined SFID/SDWD demand was estimated at 19,124 acre-feet per year (AF/yr). Per an agreement with the City of San Diego, SFID/SDWD have property rights to local surface water equivalent to approximately 5,700 AF/yr(based upon historic precipitation data per the existing agreement). 1-4 March 2012 SECTION tBACKGROUND AND BA SECASE CONDITIONS aAo hXlali;\t\ ftl0 } t; 4iddns e7 %k k A4 } . ) ) }k 4 > > 2 f • � 22 . � § fe 7 () 5 > > w f - / } ®! ) 5 . - �, e 7 ;, § )& � 0 0 {7 AIDd® 2)W > - . E «f� ■- \ \& -0 c o = / n 6\ _ c 0 k ). \ 'AlOd'00 45 § ■! Al w A aS () m� � March 2012 ]$ SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Historical plant influent flows at the WFP are shown in Figure 1.4. As shown, influent flows have decreased over the past four years. Plant staff has indicated that flow reductions are a result of conservation efforts that have taken place. Figure 1.5 separates flows into the three different water sources that feed the plant. This figure shows that water is not frequently pumped directly from Lake Hodges to the WFP. In add ition, there has been an increasing trend of using local water sources from 2007 (37 percent local)to 2010 (64 percent local). 45 40 35 30 Ownsm air 11 PWO) 10 t a 15 • 46 -*At 10 • • 5 + 0 Jan-07 Apr-07 JW-07 Oct-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 JuM Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 JuM 00-09 Jar}10 Apr-10 JW-10 Oct-10 Figure 1.4 Historical Total Raw Water Influent Flow Rates 85 San Oi OW Reserra'r 3D ■ ■ ++ u Lake Hodges ! ■ ■ C GWA 25 ■ ■ • AF * ■ Ares 20 ■ ■ f■■�■i ( 15 • • • • 5 • M ■ Q -v E Jan-07 Apr-07 JW-Q7 Oct-07 Jan-09 Apr-08 JLd-N Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 A"9 Oet-09 Jan-10 AW-10 AA-10 Oct-10 Figure 1.5 Historical Raw Water Flow Rates by Source 1-6 March 2012 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS DESIGN CRITERIA OF THE JOINT FACILITIES Design criteria for t he Joint Facilities are summarized in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Table 1.1 defines the design criteria for the raw water facility and Table 1.2 defines the design criteria for the WFP. This design criteria is based on information listed in plant design drawings and supplemented by discussions with staff. Table 1.1 Design Criteria of the Raw Water System Description Units Capacity Demands Total AF/yr 19,124 Local AF/yr 5,700 Raw Water Pipelines Lake Hodges to CPS Type: Steel Size in 36 CPS to WFP Turnout Type: Steel Size in 36 WFP Turnout to WFP Type: Steel Size in 36 WFP Turnout to SDR Type: HDPE Size in 18 SDPS to WFP Type: Steel Size in 30 CWA Raw Water Type: Steel Size in 54 Drain Line from WFP to SDR Type: Asbestos Cement Size in 15 Cielo Pump Station Type: Can Style Vertical Turbine Number of Pumps No. 3 Flow gpm 4,167 Total Discharge Head ft 318 Motor Size hp 450 March 2012 1-7 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.1 Design Criteria of the Raw Water System (continued) Description Units Capacity Number of Pumps No. 1 Flow gpm 2,083 Total Discharge Head ft 318 Motor Size hp 250 San Dieguito Pump Station Type: Can Style Vertical Turbine Number of Pumps No. 4 Flow gpm 4,200 Total Discharge Head ft 358 Motor Size hp 500 Number of Pumps No. 1 Flow gpm 2,430 Total Discharge Head ft 358 Motor Size hp 250 Hydroelectric Facility Type: Francis Turbines Number of Turbines No. 2 Turbine 1 Flow cfs 27 Rated Net Head ft 315 Efficiency % 91.5 Output kW 657 Nominal Rated Speed rpm 1200 Generator Voltage kV 4.16 Generator Power Output kW 600 Generator Apparent Power kVA 800 Generator Current Amperes 111 Minimum Power Factor % 75 Turbine 2 Flow cfs 40 Rated Net Head ft 315 Efficiency % 91.5 Output kW 969 Nominal Rated Speed rpm 1200 Generator Voltage kV 4.16 Generator Power Output kW 885 Generator Apparent Power kVA 1180 Generator Current Amperes 164 Minimum Power Factor % 75 1-8 March 2012 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.2 Design Criteria of the Badger WFP Description Units Capacity Plant Capacity Design Flow mgd 40 Minimum Flow mgd 5 Average Flow mgd 20 Plant Influent Meters CWA 30-inch Venturi Meter(Treated Water)Capacity CFS 42 mgd 27 SFID 54-inch Venturi Meter(Untreated Water)Capacity CFS 83 mgd 54 Flash Mixing Type: Pump Diffusion Number No. 1 Mixing Energy, (Maximum G) sec-' 750 Pump Capacity gpm 940 Pump Horsepower hp 15 Flocculation Basins Type: Serpentine Flow with Vertical Shaft Flocculators Number of Basins No. 2 Number of Compartments per Basin No. 8 Compartment Width ft 20 Compartment Length ft 20 Average Water Depth ft 10.5 Compartment Volume cu ft 4,200 gal 31,400 Total Volume cu ft 67,200 gal 502,400 Flocculation Time Design Flow min 18.1 Average Flow min 36.2 Mixing Energy G (Variable) sec-' 10 to 60 Vertical Shaft Flocculators No. 16 Flocculator Power(each) hp 1 March 2012 1-9 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.2 WFP Design Criteria (continued) Description Units Capacity Sedimentation Basins Type: Rectangular with Travelling Bridge and Cross Collector Sludge Collection Number of Basins No. 2 Basin Width ft 40 Basin Length ft 220 Length to Width Ratio - 5.5:1 Basin Surface Area(each) ft2 8,800 Total Basin Surface Area ft2 17,600 Average Water Depth ft 10.5 Basin Volume cu ft 92,400 gal 691,600 Total Volume cu ft 184,800 gal 1,383,200 Detention Time at Design Flow min 50 Surface Loading Rate Design Flow gpm/ft2 1.6 Average Flow gpm/ft2 0.8 Average Horizontal Velocity Design Flow ft/min 4.4 Average Flow ft/min 2.2 Filters Type: Dual Media Constant Level with Influent Flow Splitting Number of Filters(2 Bays per Filter) No. 6 Filter Bay Length ft 40 Filter Bay Width ft 16 Media Area per Filter sq ft 1,280 Filtration Rate at Design Flow All Filters in Service gpm/ft2 3.6 One Filter Out of Service gpm/ft2 4.3 Filter Media Anthracite Coal Depth (L) in 21 Effective Size (D) mm 0.85-1.10 Uniformity Coefficient Dim. <1.5 Specific Gravity Dim. 1.6-1.7 L/D Ratio Dim. 485-630 1-10 March 2012 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.2 WFP Design Criteria (continued) Description Units Capacity Sand Depth (L) in 10 Effective Size (D) mm 0.43-0.50 Uniformity Coefficient Dim. <1.5 Specific Gravity Dim. >2.60 L/D Ratio Dim. 510-590 Total L/D Ratio Dim. 995-1,220 Gravel Depth (Total of 5 Layers) in 18 Filter Backwash Underdrain Type: Concrete Teepee Design Backwash Rate at 20°C gpm/ft2 17.2 in/min 28 gpm 22,000 Filter Surface Wash Type: Fixed Grid Maximum Surface Wash Rate gpm/ft2 4.8 in/min 7.7 gpm 6,100 Volume to Washwater Basins per Backwash Filter Drawdown gal 27,000 Backwash (17.2 gpm/sq ft for 7 min) gal 154,000 Surface Wash (4.8 gpm/sq ft for 4 min) gal 25,000 Total Surface Water gal 206,000 Backwash Storage Tank Capacity gal 1,000,000 Diameter ft 46 Height ft 80 Washwater Basins Type: Reinforced Concrete Lined Number No. 2 Volume per Basin gal 228,500 Total Volume gal 457,000 March 2012 1-11 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.2 WFP Design Criteria (continued) Description Units Capacity Waste Washwater Treatment System Type: Actiflo® Capacity mgd 4.0 Coagulation Tank Number No. 2 Volume gal 2,000 Mixer Number No. 2 Motor Size Hp 1.0 Injection Tank Number No. 2 Volume gal 2,700 Mixer Number No. 2 Motor Size Hp 1.5 Maturation Tank Number No. 2 Volume gal 7,700 Mixer Number No. 1 Motor Size Hp 2.0 Settling Tank Number No. 2 Volume gal 7,800 Sand Pumps Type: Centrifugal, Slurry Number of Pumps No. 3 Flow gpm 55 Total Discharge Head ft 70 Motor Size hp 7.5 Hydrocyclones Number No. 2 Capacity gpm 55 1-12 March 2012 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.2 WFP Design Criteria (continued) Description Units Capacity Pump Station Type: Can Style Vertical Turbine Number of Pumps No. 2 Flow gpm 2,800 Total Discharge Head ft 97 Motor Size hp 100 Coagulant System Coagulant Tank Number No. 1 Volume gal 2,500 Metering Pumps Type: Diaphragm Number No. 2 Polymer System Type: Dry Polymer Aging Tank Number No. 1 Metering Pumps Type: Diaphragm Number No. 3 Sludge Thickener Type: Circular, Gravity Type Diameter ft 68 Water Depth ft 11 Surface Area ftz 3,630 Capacity gpm 1,815 Loading Rate gpm/ftz 0.5 Treated Water Clearwell Type: Buried Reinforced Concrete Length ft 250 Width ft 330 Height Minimum ft 15 Maximum ft 24 Volume gal 13,000,000 March 2012 1-13 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.2 WFP Design Criteria (continued) Description Units Capacity Sludge Drying Beds Type: Concrete Lined, Rectangular, Sloped Sides Number No. 4 Width (approx.) ft 50 Length (approx.) ft 200 Bottom Surface Area ftz 10,000 Total Surface Area ftz 40,000 Chlorine One Ton Cylinders No. 24 Total Weight lbs. 52,000 Liquid Polyaluminum Chloride (PACL) Bulk Tanks No. 3 Volume per Tank gal 13,300 Caustic Soda (Sodium Hydroxide) Bulk Tanks No. 2 Volume per Tank gal 14,000 Aqua Ammonia Bulk Tanks No. 1 Volume per Tank gal 10,000 Cationic Polymer(Bulk Solution) Bulk Tanks No. 1 Volume per Tank gal 7,000 Anionic Polymer(Bulk Solution) Totes No. 2 Volume per Tote gal 250 Chlorine Dioxide Number of Generators No. 1 Capacity PPD 500 Sodium Chlorite Bulk Tanks No. 1 Volume per Tank gal 7,000 1-14 March 2012 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS BASE CASE COST DETERMINATION In order to provide a benchmark that helps define the value added by each proposed Joint Facility Capital Improvement Project (see Section 8), the JFMP estimated the baseline cost for treating raw water at the WFP under current conditions. Because the cost and quality of the ra w water supply (imported vs. I ocal) varies significantly, the cost of treating raw water varies widely depending upon the assumed volume and raw water supply source. In order to establish base costs, and evaluate potential future improvements, the JFMP utilizes the demands projected in the UWMP and the estimated available local water supply volume of 5,700 AF/yr identified in the existing agreement. This percentage of local supply results in a 30/70 ratio, which is similar to long-term historic usage. It is assumed that the percentage of imported treated water used will be minimal. A maximum day demand of 30 mgd was also assumed based upon historic and projected trends. Table 1.3 presents the current supply cost for imported and local raw water supplies. Table 1.3 FY 2012 Water Supply Cost Raw Water Supply Option Supply Cost per Acre Foot($/AF) Local Raw Water $52 Imported Raw Water',2 $699 Notes 1. Cost includes transportation fee. 2. Cost does not include the imported supply fixed cost of$187/AF. The quality and consistency of the I ocal raw water supply is lower than imported raw water and is more challenging to treat. However, due to the relatively low supply cost, the overall cost of treated local water has historically been lower than the cost of treated imported raw water. The cost fo r imported treated water has historically been the highest treated water supply option. Table 1.4 compares water qualities from I ocal and imported raw water. As sho wn, imported CWA water i s typically lower in alkalinity, TDS, TOC, and manganese, making it"Better"water quality for treatment. The base case conditions with raw water quality and chemical treatment strategies are shown in Table 1.5. For all conditions except the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 average conditions, WFP staff assisted in developing the typical chemical dosages for treatment. Chemical dosages for calendar years 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 were calculated by averaging the daily average doses for the given time period. Treatment costs for base case conditions includes all components associated with operating the treatment plant. Treatment cost categories include water purchase, power, chemicals, labor (including benefits), administration, maintenance, residuals management, and revenue from the hydroelectric facility. Costs for labor, administration, and maintenance were supplied by SFID/SDWD storage. Cost categories are defined in Table 1.6. Table 1.7 provides a breakdown of the estimated base case raw water treatment cost assuming a 30 percent local raw water supply to 70 percent imported raw water supply blend scenario. Though higher percentages of local water have been utilized in the past 3 years, the 30 percent local assumption is consistent with long-term historic trends and reflects anticipated future demands and Ioc al water supply availability as discussed in the following paragraphs. For comparison, Table 1.7 also presents costs assuming treatment of 100 percent March 2012 1-15 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS imported raw supplies, the cost to purchase 100 percent imported treated supplies, as well as actual cost data from calendar years 2007-08 and 2009-10. All costs are in 2012 dollars. Table 1.4 Characterization of the Three Source Waters for the WFP1 Constituent Minimum Maximum Average CWA Raw Water Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)6 91 136 - TDS (mg/L)6 405 987 - TOC (mg/L)3 2.0 7.5 2.9 Manganese (mg/L)4 0.006 0.20 0.027 pH4 7.2 8.5 8.1 Turbidity (NTU) - -- Temperature (°C) - -- Dissolved Oxygen" - -- Lake Hodges Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)5 105 234 190 TDS (mg/L)5 690 1,011 870 TOC (mg/L)3 8.3 22.0 11.9 Manganese (mg/L)4 0 5.0 0.21 pH4 7.6 8.9 8.3 Turbidity (NTU)2 1.2 5.4 3.3 Temperature (°C)4 12.8 27.9 19.8 Dissolved Oxygen4 0.3 12.9 5.6 San Dieguito Reservoir Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)2 139 200 185 TDS (mg/L)2 780 1,038 890 TOC (mg/L)3 7.9 19.0 11.0 Manganese (mg/L)4 0.045 0.32 0.1 pH4 7.5 9.0 8.3 Turbidity (NTU)2 0.66 7.4 2.8 Temperature (,,C)4 11.7 27.9 20.3 Dissolved Oxygen4 7.5 9.0 8.3 Notes 1. Note that the water quality data presented in these tables are from various time periods and years.As such,a direct comparison between these data is not reliable. Raw water quality in Lake Hodges and,subsequently, SDR is heavily influenced by annual and seasonal climatic conditions. 2. June 2009-December 2010 Data 3. 2002-2010 Data 4. March 2008-February 2011 Data 5. March 2005-December 2010 Data 6. Values supplied by SFID. 1-16 March 2012 SECTION tBACKGROUND AND BA SECASE CONDITIONS _ 7 a9 9C**4 Co a C-,j # o ® a Co - c o o c o a o % % w a y w a k CN _ 7 a 7 9 7 � a m o # o c ¥ o E m » 6 a a w % a w a § � 0 k U = $ z % cc $ k / k / 7 0 0 2 2 m c # 7 0 Co CD o o o S o ' ' ' ' 6 A a q a 2 U CD § C k $ . / m Cu k � k E d U o 0 2 / $ ■ 9 o c e y 2 a a c = V) 0 6 / 6 0 2 / % , , , , , Cu \ = 0 - w 8 # 2 / \R 7 \ \ E _ ee / � ° � \ \ \ E �$ m ¥ ® 0 9 o a o m a ® o # c o o ( « a a » a g a a a % 6 a a q 6 a ¥ ¥ \ § E \ a _ 2 Cu 2 Ln _ U -0 # q C, \ 2 ( / Cu Cz > 2 \ } \ % ƒ y , 7 m 9 � / ° E / $ _ e e e e 2 e 6 w a � ® 2 CO o �fc % 0 CU - - LL- 5 - mm = � cc _0 J ° a % ■ CO ( p C 0 0 0 CU cc ƒ = r- -5; � 0 E � / \ \ � �\ \ m ± _ g > = Cu = CZ = y y y 2a- ± -0 % tee > e 2 ° f � _ _ » 5 = C 7 w ± / 2 / § / / / ƒ -9 3 /a G \ R ( n \ C) C) � k o + E \ - § k 3 CO \ \f 9 / ° 7 § 2 dU + tw w w U U 4 U U k ® ® ® � ® ¥ 2 L) k Q wwawaa March 2012 t2 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS Table 1.6 Treatment Cost Category Description Category 0&M Cost Breakdown Description Water Purchase FY 2012 water purchase costs for imported raw, imported treatment and local water sources. Imported Supply Fixed Cost Other water charges for FY 2012 based on information supplied by SFID/SDWD. Power Power costs estimated for the pump station, backwash pumps, base plant energy costs, plant electrical unit cost(from plant staffs current model), and solids management electrical costs(estimated for ActifloTm and the centrifuge; these costs are zero since the processes are not being used). Hydroelectric Revenue Calculated hydroelectric facility revenue based on the CWA raw water used and an energy purchase rate of$0.10/kWhr. Chemical Calculated plant chemical cost based on dosage rates. Residuals Management Costs to perform contract solids management(6 times per year) and haul the manageable quantity of solids(based on the 500,000 Ib/yr capacity of the sludge drying beds plus an extra 15%due to contract solids management for a total of 575,000 Ib/yr)to the landfill. Remaining residuals are assumed discharged to SDR. Labor Labor costs tabulated for FY 2012 based on information supplied by SFID/SDWD. Maintenance Maintenance costs for the plant tabulated for FY 2012 based on information supplied by SFID/SDWD. Storage Costs to construct a 180 MG storage facility. Cost of$135 million is based on information supplied by SFID/SDWD. CUSTOMIZED WFP PLANT PERFORMANCE AND COST MODEL To develop base case costs as we II as costs for of her treatment scenarios, a mo del was c onstructed that incorporates various costs incurred at the plant (both fixed and non-fixed). In the model, pump electrical costs are calculated based on pumping rate and current unit electrical rates. Appendix A includes a summary of model assumptions, model inputs, and model outputs for each of the base case conditions. Output of the model provides both tabular and graphical outputs as shown in Table 1.6 and Figure 1.6. A detailed breakdown of the model output is shown in Appendix A. Base Case Cost Determination Summary Outputs of the model for each of the base case conditions are presented in Table 1.7. As shown, treatment costs vary widely based on both the source of the water, water quality, and chemical treatment strategies. Model results reveal the following: 1. Local water is the least expensive treated water because of the low raw water costs. 2. Treated imported water is the most expensive treated water. 3. Treatment of local water sources produces more residuals than imported water. 1-18 March 2012 SECTION tBACKGROUND AND BA SECASE CONDITIONS � 7 _ 2 3 6 ? » 2 2 7 % , 2 o o m C m / ¢ \ CD a Cu \ 7 ( % 3 ? J S ? 2 3 3 ' E 7 # m Cu Cm \ C 2 V .2 q « / 0 L)w \ a ° 0 O , , , , , 7 $ Cc cc 0 C/) k / \ / \ Cu 2 ƒ c ? k Co q » 9 R ' / E \ Cu a 2 70-.2 @ 8 % ƒ Cu 3: \ \ � � ® E k � ) Cu o\ N § C/) -0 ¢ J G Co k F 2 G 2 9 R ' G ° % 6 % / r E � o \ 2 \\ / \ 2 / 2 � ® E % § ¥ 0) ) m \ 2 \ &± - _ ® _ ¥ % ® � 7 / $ § - = 2 = Cu = = 2 % _ § $ LL � � � � � � � � ® \ / � � � � � � � � 3 ( k / \ \ % �® o = $ �\ '\\ \ \ / f < 0 TO- Cu k / .E ® 29 ® ® = ¥ U - C14 ƒ $ k 2 \ Li- } \/ � v t o / \ 0 / / / $ a 2 \ ± k k � ( 7 \ / 22 m % E 9 % % 2257 / n ƒ a g V) !, $ ƒ e / § 2 \ \ \ § 3 ® = � k Cu U) ) CU U)2 @ &/ = § C) (D » 7 ® 7 @ k me3 � a:R 2 ) / % % / / / f 2 \ & G G @ G 2 \ £ _ 0- ± 4 _ = e � - / < 000 � < � _ cc # ƒ d ƒ waaRa March 2012 tg SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND BASE CASE CONDITIONS -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- 1-20 March 2012 R n nma W w x »»» »» 0 E E v s�o c £ o � b E U F - sn�,nw - u 21J 1/aw tl a T c g`� a �o � � ❑9 Y a moo a E o E E - E r• w E O sC9 E E u _ 3� 6 - zn Vaw awnloa rcl l/aw o- f �usnrJ llBw [: a ' L01]7/8w�' ❑ �J n ° �(t' !1111 ll ❑»»»»»» lJtld l/8w E � $ a o % f f f N awAl°d'W 7/Bw °E60 L N G 1 � $ = g g S g g g O P ° y � ❑�9i�sQi 9i 9i e i i n E O _ O d E ° o E E E E `p �awFpa'le•J lfBw '� � o 0 0 0 o o � WI• € _. C O O � � E E 17Vd 1/8w 0 ewowwyl/8w£' O V U a LL O Q ZI71/8w �3 O "' a Op_ °L o c m 3 d JVa� E Z q 2 E ZE d � E 0 3 o G Ill z o n E o o E E E E E E O Cf)m •-3 E »»»»».�....» d oo Ll Ll ry d E D S S E o V =O d K - U LL Y U Q [0 z O y H U � w m O ii � IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY Section 2 & TREATMENT CHALLENGES As part of th e JFMP,wat er quality challenges facing the WFP were e valuated with w ater treatment modifications identified that could be implemented at the plant to mitigate these challenges. This section presents the outcome of this evaluation. OVERVIEW OF THE BADGER WATER FILTRATION PLANT The WFP treats water from two primary supplies: 1) Imported water from Lake Skinner purchased through the CWA, and 2) local water stored in Lake Hodges and SDR. These two water supplies vary greatly in quality to the extent that their blend ratio tends to dictate the treatment practice at WFP. Specifically, compared to CWA water, the local water supply has three challenging water quality characteristics. The first is the presence of elevated levels of tot al organic carbon (TOC) resulting in formation of elevated levels of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs). The second is the presence of elevated levels of manganese, which could cause discoloration of drinking water. The third is prevalence of TO chemicals, primarily Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB), which impart an objectionable TO i n drinking water. These three water quality challenges very much define the treatment needs at the WFP. A more detailed discussion of these challenges is presented later in this section. WFP is a 40 mgd conventional water treatment plant. Figure 2.1 shows a schematic process flow diagram of the main water treatment processes employed at the plant, as well as the types of treatment chemicals added. Local water is pumped to the plant through the SDPS, which draws water from SDR, or through the CPS, which draws water directly from Lake Hodges. In this mode, chlorine dioxide is added directly to Lake Hodges water before it either goes to SDR or is treated at WFP. After water fro m SDR blends with CWA water, SFI D/SDWD adds chlorine dioxide (CI02), to the raw water as a preoxidant. The primary purpose of CI02 addition is to oxidize dissolved manganese to form manganese dioxide (Mn02(s)), which is removed through sedimentation and filtration. The plant also adds PACL to meet its TOC removal requirements. SFID/SDWD relies on multiple disinfectants and short chlorine contact time to control formation of DBPs, primarily trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids(HAAs). Current Treatment Scheme 0 o x.o e 4 E m'- U� p as �o... SDPS& s E Cielo PS CWA Chlorine Dioxide Flash Flocculation Sedimentation Media Filters Clearwell Oxidation Mix Figure 2.1 Current Treatment Scheme at the WFP March 2012 2-1 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES WATER USE PATTERN Figure 2.2 shows a profile of the maximum and average daily flows for each month of the year between January 2007 and November 2010. The data show that the maximum daily demand has decreased over the last four years. In 2007 and 2008, the maximum daily flow was recorded at 32 mgd. However, in 2009, the maximum daily demand decreased to 27 mgd, and then to 24 mgd in 2010. This is predominantly due to water conservation measures implemented by SFID/SDWD during the last several years. With the wet 2011 winter and spring seasons, the maximum day demand in 2011 is expected to be even lower than 24 mgd. 50 f Monthly Maximum Day Design Capacity=40 MGD --o-- Monthly Average Day 40 35 Max Day= 32 MGD 30 Max Day= 27MGD Flowlrate, 25 Max Day=24 MGD MOD 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 2.2 Monthly Average and Maximum Daily Flow thru the WFP(2007—2010) Daily flow variation is common at the WFP because of the lack of storage in the distribution system. As a result, the distribution system depends on the cl earwell for storage. This requires plant staff to frequently change plant flows to react to the distribution system diurnal patterns. The change in plant flow rate can be as large as 14 mgd from morning until evening. With the increase in the cost of imported water supply (i.e., CWA wate r), SFID/SDWD has made a concerted effort to maximize the use of its local water supply. Figure 2.3 shows a profile of the percent local water supply (i.e., SDR and Lake Hodges) treated through the WFP from 2007 through 2010. In 2007, the local water supply represented approximately one third of the water treated through the plant. By 2010, this proportion doubled to approximately 2/3rd of the water treated. It is also noted that the vast majority of the local supply used is drawn from SDR and not Lake Hodges. During the last three years, Lake Hodges water represented only a small fraction of the local supply used with the exception of February 2008. SFID/SDWD desires to cc ntinue maximizing the use of its lo cal water supply to the exte nt possible. This decision has a significant impact on 2-2 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES future planning for treatment modifications at the WFP because of the water quality challenges experienced when treating SDR or Lake Hodges water. ❑ Percent Local Supply 90% ❑ Percent Lake Hodges 60% 75% 70 70 67% 65% % 60% FJG�Iv Pell of 52% WFP Inflow,"It % 47% 47% 40% 33% 30% 28% 20% 10 r. r. r- I- 'Ci � Figure 2.3 Percent Local Water Supply in WFP Influent(2007-2010) CURRENT WATER QUALITY CHALLENGES Primary and secondary regulatory limits as well as customer acceptance of the treated water encompass the water quality challenges facing SFID/SDWD. All are discussed in the following sections. Challenging Water Quality Parameters with Primary Regulatory Limits The operation of the WFP must meet a number of rules and regulations, and must produce water that complies with a number of water quality standards. Of most importance are the parameters that have primary regulatory limits because their purpose is the protection of public health. The WFP currently complies with all existing drinking water quality standards. The purpose of the analysis presented herein is to identify regulatory requirements that pose a challenge to SFI D/SDWD as it looks into the future. The two p rimary regulatory requirements that stand out are those for disinfection and DBPs. The discussion will begin with disinfection requirements, specifically how the WFP is currently meeting these requirements, and whether compliance could be more challenged as the plant makes any modifications to comply with the DBP regulatory requirements. The discussion will then sh ift to the curr ent status of cc mpliance with the DBP reg ulations and the projected compliance with the upcoming modification to these regulations. March 2012 2-3 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES Disinfection As a conventional filtration plant, the pretreatment and filtration processes are credited with 2.5 log Giardia removal. The remaining disinfection credit is ach ieved by chemical disinfection. At the W FP, SFID/SDWD utilizes the disinfection credit achieved with chlorine in the plant raw water line, as short as that may be, and with chloramine through the entire treatment plant and clearwell. For most surface water plants, the total Giardia inactivation requirement is 3.0 logs. However, for the WFP, the requirement is increased to 4.0 logs due to the poor bacterial quality of the local water supply. Figure 2.4 shows a plot of the coliform bacterial counts in all three water sources. While the coliform levels in CWA water seldom exceed 1,000 counts/100mL, the coliform counts in Lake Hodges water or SDR water are almost always above 1,000 counts/100mL, and many times above 10,000 counts/100mL. Figure 2.5 shows a frequency distribution plot of the coliform counts in the three water sources measured over the last four years. The plot shows that 80 percent to 90 percent of water samples collected from SDR and Lake Hodges contained more than 1,000 coliform bacteria per 100 mL of water, and approximately 20 percent of the samples contained more than 10,000 coliforms/100mL. Due to these elevated coliform levels, CDPH set a high 4.0-log Giardia removal/inactivation goal for the WFP. With 2.5-log credit given to physical removal through the treatment plant, the disinfection process must still achieve 1.5-log inactivation of Giardia cysts. The Giardia and virus inactivation requirements are currently met with a combination of the short chlorine contact time in the raw water pipeline, and chloramine through the entire plant from the flash mix through the clearwell and a section of the 54-inch distribution piping. In addition, SFID/SDWD is currently installing baffles in the clearwell to improve its hydraulic efficiency and increase its Tjo/HRT ratio. This will provide for a higher inactivation credit through the clearwell. Colionii ncte�ial Count,Oil 00 m 1,000 100 10 t Lake Hodges San Dieguito CWA 1 P_ P.- r- r- c c o 0 Figure 2.4 Coliform Bacterial Counts in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2007—2010) 2-4 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES 100'�a 90% 30% 70% %Comm 60% Counts below 50% Noted Valkis 40% 30% � CWA 20% t San Dieguito 10% Hodges Outlet 096 1 10 100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1,000,000 Collfomi Bactedal Count,0100 m Figure 2.5 Frequency Distribution of Coliform Bacterial Counts in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2007—2010) Disinfection By-Products The DBPs of concern are those resulting from the reaction of chlorine with the natural organic matter (NOM) present in the WFP water sources. These are primarily total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and HAAs. Figure 2.6 presents a plot of the SFID system-wide Running Annual Average (RAA) of TTHMs and HAA5 levels measured under the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Product (D/DBP) Rule between 2006 and 2010. Similar results are reported for the SDWD s ystem. The HAA5 Iev els formed in the distribution system have been quite low. Compared to the m aximum contaminant level (MCL) of 60 micrograms per liter (Ng/L), HAA5 levels ranged from 14 to 26 Ng/L. TTHM levels have also been below the TTHM MCL of 80 Ng/L. However, the TTHM level has been increasing over the last five years such that the compliance level during the last quarter of 2010 was as high as 69 Ng/L. Figure 2.7 shows a profile of the Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) at each of the SFID Stage 1 D/DBP Rule monitoring site over the same period of 2006 to 2010. The plots also show that the levels of THMs in all the distribution system sites increased. Similar results are reported for the SDWD system. March 2012 2-5 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES 100 90 TTHM MCL=80 i rglL 80 70 NZA5 MCL=60,rglL �� 60 SFID 50 Stage I DOP TTH Compliance 40 Levels,mylL 30 20 HAA5 ° 10 0 Figure 2.6 SFID System-wide Running Annual Average of TTHM and HAA5 Levels Measured at Stage 1 DIDBP Monitoring Sites Between 2006 to 2010(Results for SDWD are reported to be similar) 100 90 70 0 SFID TTHM LRAAat 50 Stage 1 DU P 40 Sites,mg1L 30 20 10 0 o ca 0 cn c N o N Figure 2.7 SFID Locational Running Annual Average of THM Levels Measured at Stage 1 DIDBP Monitoring Sites between 2006 to 2010(Results for SDWD are reported to be similar) 2-6 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES A comparison of the water use pattern in Figure 2.3 and the TTHM levels depicted in Figures 2.6 and 2.7 shows that the increase in THM formation paralleled the increase in local water use at the plant. Figure 2.8 shows a plot of the TO C levels in the WFP's three water sources and the influent blend water between January 2006 and December 2010. While the TO C levels in SDR water and Lake Hodges water ranged from 8.8 to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), the TOC level in CWA water was substantially lower, ranging only from 2.0 to 3.5 mg/L. In general, TOC in SDR is about 9 percent lower than Lake Hodges. However, as the use of local water increased, the influent water to the treatment plant increased from a low of 5 m g/L in 2006 to approximately 7.5 mg/L in 2010. This 50 percent increase in TOC concentration entering the treatment plant explains the rise in TTHM levels measured during the same period. San Dieguito Lake Hodges 16 t REBWFP Influent CWA 14 12 TOC 10 Concentration, mpli. 6 4 Figure 2.8 TOC Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, CWA, and WFP Influent(2006—2010) With the promulgation of the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule on April 1, 2012, SFID/SDWD will need to comply with the 80 Ng/L THM MCL as an LRAA at predetermined sites, which will only have THM levels that are equal to or higher than the highest THM levels measured at the current Stage 1 D/DBP Rule monitoring sites. Using the IDSE data collected by SFID in 2008 and 2009, a comparison was made between the THM level at the Stage 1 maximum-THM monitoring site and the THM level at the Stage 2 maximum-THM site. The results, which are presented in Figure 2.9, show that the L RAA value under the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule may be 15 percent higher than that measured at the highest THM location under the current Stage 1 D/DBP Rule. A similar analysis was conducted on the THM levels measured by SDWD during the IDSE period of 2008 and 2009. The results showed that the Stage 2 D/DBP levels are also about 15 percent higher than the SDWD Stage 1 D/DBP levels. March 2012 2-7 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES 100 90 Approx imately 50 to 60%local water used during the time period. sa TTHM MCL(80 pg1L) 70 �s 60 57 Total THMs, 50 NglL 40 30 20 Stage 1 Stage 2 10 Max.TTHM Max.TTHM 5 ite Site a 503 South Sierra 645 N. Rios Dr. Figure 2.9 Comparison of TTHM Levels between Maximum Stage 1 D/DBP Location and Maximum Stage 2 D/DBP Location for SFID between December 2008 through June 2009(Similar results experienced by SDWD) Diligence and creativity by plant staff with their treatment approaches coupled with the ability to blend local and imported raw water supplies have resulted in r egulatory compliance. The a bove analysis suggests that SFID/SDWD is set to experience an increase in its THM compliance levels due to the promulgation of the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule and increased use of local water supplies. SFID/SDWD needs to implement countermeasures aimed at reducing the formation of DBPs, primarily TTHMs, in their distribution systems. Challenging Water Quality Parameters with Secondary Regulatory Limits While the earlier discussion focused on the health-based regulatory requirements, there are numerous aesthetic water quality challenges facing the WFP. The three parameters discussed herein are manganese, T&0, and total dissolved solids JDS). 2-8 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES Manganese The secondary MCL for m anganese is 0.05 mg/L. Manganese precipitation causes strong discoloration of surfaces in contact with water including fixtures, sinks, and others. In fact, experience shows that manganese levels should be below 0.03 mg/L to prevent the formation of noticeable discoloration of household fixtures. Figure 2.10 shows a profile of manganese levels in SFID/SDWD's three water sources between 2008 and 2010. Figure 2.11 shows a frequency distribution plot of the data to statistical distribution of the values. These two figures show that the manganese levels in both Lake Hodges and SDR are well above the secondary MCL, with some values higher than 10 times the MCL (0.5 mg/L). On the other hand, the manganese levels in CWA water are predominantly below the desired maximum of 0.03 mg/L. With increased reliance on local water supplies, it will be imperative that WFP includes treatment processes that reliably achieve high removals of manganese. This is currently achieved with the addition of chlorine dioxide to the raw water. 10 --o-- Hodges Outlet SecondaryMCL(0.05mg1L) San Dieguito CVVA 1 mrpill. 0.01 ❑esiredMax.Level(0.03 mglL} 0.001 Figure 2.10 Manganese Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2008—2010) March 2012 2-9 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES 100% ❑ 90% 30% LO 70% 60% Q � Poment Mn Level Below 5096 <, Hodges Outlet Noted Value 40% San Dieguito a o MA 30% � h 0] 0 20% 10% 0% 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Manganese,mrg1L Figure 2.11 Frequency Distribution of Manganese Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2008—2010) Taste-and-Odor Many naturally occurring chemicals impart objectionable T&O into drinking water supplies. The two most prominent chemicals are Geosmin and MIB, which are produced by certain types of algae. Depending on an individual person's palate, Geosmin and MIB are noticeable at levels between 5 and 10 nano-grams per liter (ng/L). Both MIB and Geosmin are commonly present in WFP's water supplies. However, the analysis presented in this section focuses on MIB because it is more prevalent than Geosmin in the three sources, and because it is more difficult to remove from water than Geosmin. Figure 2.12 shows a timeline profile of MIB levels in the three water sources from 2006 through 2010. A large spike in MIB levels was measured in the local water supplies during the summer and fall of 2008 with MIB levels reaching 750 ng/L in mid July. Figure 2.13 shows a frequency distribution plot of the MIB levels in all three source waters during the last five years. If the desired maximum treated water MIB level is set at 10 ng/L, the plots show that only 10 percent of the samples collected from CWA water were above the target level, while 25 percent of the samples collected from both Lake Hodges and SDR were above the t arget level. It i s interesting to note that there appears to be no difference in MIB levels between SDR and Lake Hodges. 2-10 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES San Diegtiito CVVA Hodges MID Concentration, o npil. 10 -- - - - - -- - -- ----- ------------- 8 CIO DesiredMax.Treated WaterLevel(10ngk) 1 0 o c T T T T Figure 2.12 MIB Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2006-2010) 100% 95%Desi to Tar of ro 10%ofOW4� 10n IL A IF 60% 25%oFLH or SD 3 10 nglL Percent MIS 50% Level below Noted Valtio % a, 30% � � CWA a. Son Dieguito 10% ¢ Hodges Outlet 0 0% 1 1 100 1 IMP ConcentrAon,ngll. Figure 2.13 Occurrence Frequency of MIB in SDR, Lake Hodges, and CWA Waters (2006-2010) March 2012 2-11 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict the timing or severity of T&0 events in a water source. This makes it virtually impossible to d evelop a design strategy that cc mpletely protects against all possible scenarios. A common approach is to use a certain percentile level of historical occurrence data to set the MIB design target levels. For example, Figure 2.13 shows that the 951h percentile MIB level in the local water supplies during the last five years was 50 ng/L. If SFID/SDWD desires to achieve target MIB treatment 95 percent of the time, then the treatment systems at the plant should be designed and operated to reduce MIB from 50 ng/L to below th e maximum desired treated water level of 10 ng/L. This represents an 80 percent reduction in MIB levels. Currently, there is not a treatment unit process at the WFP capable of achieving this performance goal. Salinity In addition to elevated levels of manganese and T&0 chemicals, the water supplies are quite high in TDS. California has a tiered secondary MCL for TDS. The r ecommended MCL is 500 mg/L, with an upper MCL of 1,000 mg/L. Elevated TDS, or salinity, levels in drinking water cause numerous aesthetic problems including objectionable taste (by some consumers), as well as staining of glassware and fixtures, and clogging of irrigation lines. Figure 2.14 shows a timeline profile of TDS in SDR, Lake Hodges, and Lake Skinner water (representing CWA water) between 2004 and 2010. Figure 2.15 shows a freq uency distribution plot of the same values. For the period evaluated, the TDS level in CWA water hovered around the recommended MCL of 500 mg/L. However, the TDS level in the local water supplies was always above the recommended MCL of 500 mg/L, and even exceeded the upper MCL of 1,000 mg/L in SDR during one month. The plot presented in Figure 2.15 essentially shows that there is no difference in TDS levels between SDR and Lake Hodges. For the WFP, any blend of the three water sources will contain TDS levels above the recommended secondary MCL of 500 mg/L, and increased reliance on local water supplies will only increase the TDS levels in the treated water from the plant. 1.400 1.200 Upper MCL(9,000mg/L) 1.000 TDS, 800 mg1L 600 400 ldqN Recort mended WCL(500 mglD 200 —o-- Lake Hodges e San Dieguito Lake Skinner(Representing CWAWater) a O O O O C:? r r 1 1 I Q LPL Z �( Figure 2.14 TDS Levels in SDR, Lake Hodges,and CWA Waters(2005-2010) 2-12 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES --0-- San Dieguito Hodges Outlet Pement TDS 0% Lake Skinner Level below 50% (Representing Noted Value CWA Water) 0% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1.200 1,400 TDS,mglL Figure 2.15 Occurrence Frequency of TDS in SDR, Lake Hodges,and CWA Waters(2006—2010) Other Nuisance Constituents in Lake Hodges Water Low dissolved oxygen (DO) and hydrogen sulfide are sometimes prevalent in Lake Hodges water. Plant staff currently manages these problematic parameters with the best available tools at their disposal -aeration within SDR, oxidation with chlorine dioxide, and dilution with imported water. These two challenging constituents illustrate the difficulty in treating Lake Hodges water directly at WFP during periods of poor water quality. POTENTIAL CHANGES IN RAW WATER QUALITY Other than its operation of SDR, SFID/SDWD has little to no control over the operation of its raw water sources. Raw CWA water is drawn from Lake Skinner, which is controlled by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Operation of Lake Hodges is controlled by San Diego County Water Authority and the City of San Diego. This section evaluates potential changes in the operation of Lake Skinner and Lake Hodges that may impact the qualities of CWA and Lake Hodges waters received at the WFP. Lake Skinner receives a blend of Colorado River Water (CRW) and State Water Project (SWP) water. The two water sources have very different qualities. SWP water typically contains higher TOC and bromide levels compared to CRW. However, CRW contains higher levels of TDS compared to SWP water. Therefore, depending on the blend ratio between SWP water and CRW in Lake Skinner, the quality of CWA may change significantly. Figure 2.16 shows a profile of the SWP water proportion in Lake Skinner over the last 10 years. Metropolitan manages the blends in its various lakes primarily based on relative availabilities of its two sources. During 2008 and 2009 when water withdrawal from the S acramento-San Joaquin Delta was reduced due to March 2012 2-13 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES legal challenges, as well as reduction in SWP allocations by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the proportion of SWP water in Lake Skinner gradually declined until it reached less than 5 percent by January 2010. However, with the wet 2010 and 2011 seasons, DWR has increased the SWP allocations to 80 percent and Metropolitan has been importing a significant amount of SWP water into all of its reservoirs, including Lake Skinner. As of April 2011, SWP water represented 40 percent of the water inflow into Lake Skinner. 100 40 60 Pei-cent SWP Watel',% 40 20 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r Figure 2.16 Percent Blend of State Water Project(SWP)Water into Lake Skinner(2000—2011) The most significant change to the operation of Lake Hodges is the upcoming power generation project in which about 900 AF of water per day will be pumped from Lake Hodges to Olivenhain Reservoir during off-peak hours, and then released from Olivenhain Reservoir back into Lake Hodges through a power plant during peak power demands. The quality of water in Olivenhain Reservoir is similar to that of CWA water. Therefore, the water transfer project will essentially blend Lake Hodges water with CWA water. This action could have advantages with respect to treatment of the local water supply. Plant staff has historically utilized blending of CWA and local water sources as an effective treatment tool. DBP compliance and management of naturally occurring problematic parameters (low dissolved oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, manganese) are partially addressed by blending with the imported supply. Potential positive impacts of the water transfer project on the treatment challenges previously discussed in this section are summarized in Table 2.1. 2-14 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES Table 2.1 Potential Positive Impacts of the Water Transfer Project on Treatment Challenges at the WFP Treatment Challenges Positives Comments Disinfection Lower coliform bacterial counts in CWA Current blending strategy has not water been enough to eliminate additional 1-log Giardia disinfection requirement Disinfection By-product Lower TOC in CWA water; water Reduced raw water TOC does not Formation transfer could lower raw water TOC always translate to significantly lower levels to the 4 to 6 mg/L range; coagulant dosages and DBPs; reduced levels of DBPs may occur; increased percentage of SWP water current blending strategy at the plant could increase brominated DBPs(and has been a component of an effective overall DBPs) compliance tool. Total Dissolved Solids Imported water TDS levels about Anticipated TDS level to continue to 50 percent lower than local supplies; in hover around and/or exceed wet years, more SWP water could recommended secondary limit of reduce imported TDS levels even lower 500 mg/L Taste and Odor CWA has historically lower MIB levels Blending not usually a reliable than local waters treatment tool for T&O control; SWP water can have elevated MIB episodes Manganese CWA has historically lower manganese Manganese in Lake Hodges an order levels than local waters; blending an of magnitude higher than CWA water; effective tool in reducing manganese blending alone will not alleviate need levels(as demonstrated by plant staff) for a reliable unit treatment process for manganese removal at WFP POTENTIAL CHANGES IN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The most immediate change in water quality regulations is the implementation of the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule on April 1, 2012. The potential impact of this regulation on the operation and performance of the WFP was discussed earlier. One important potential regulatory development is the possibility for a new future MCL for nitrosamines. These are a class of chemicals with significant public health concerns, and one of them, nitroso- di-methyl amine (NDMA), has been shown to be a by-product of chloramine use in water treatment. There is a California action level (AL) of 10 ng/L for NDMA in drinking water. There is no information on the levels of nitrosamines in WFP effluent or SFID/SDWD's distribution system. However, the high organic content of Lake Hodges and SDR, as well as the current treatment practice at WFP s uggests that t here could be significant formation of NDMA— and possibly other nitrosamines — at the WFP. Specifically, NDMA has been shown to form when chloramine is contacted with significant levels of polyDADMAC cationic polymers. The majority of the cationic polymer added for proper coagulation and flocculation is typically removed through sedimentation and filtration. For those plants that form chloramine downstream of filtration, there is a strong March 2012 2-15 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES separation between the cationic polymer and the formed chloramine. However, chloramine is formed at the flash mix of the WFP, and it is contacted with the cationic polymer through flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration. Plants utilizing chloramine contact through flocculation and sedimentation have reported NDMA formation above the AL of 10 ng/L. It is likely that the WFP may experience the same formation. The USEPA is currently considering regulating NDMA and other nitrosamines in drinking water. It is completely uncertain at this time what the MCLs will be. However, there is a good possibility that they may be set below the NDMA AL of 10 ng/ L because the 10-6 cancer risk level of NDM A is 0.7 ng/L. It wou Id be important for SFID/SDWD to evaluate the formation of NDMA and other nitrosamines at the WF P and identify mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce it. A profile of NDMA and other nitrosamine levels through the treatment plant should be performed to understand the severity of this issu e. Plant staff has already undertaken measures at the pl ant to address this potential future regulatory hurdle. These measures include future relocation of the ammonia injection point downstream of sedimentation as well as baffling the clearwell to improve its hydraulic efficiency. CURRENT PERFORMANCE OF WFP This section analyzes how the WFP meets its regulatory requirements and water quality goals with the objective of identifying potential areas for improvements. Disinfection By-Products Control Figure 2.17 shows a timeline profile of TOC removal with enhanced coagulation and filtration at the WFP. Using PACL at an average dose of 46 mg/L, approximately 30 to 35 percent TOC removal is achieved. These removals are driven by the Enhanced Coagulation (EC) requirements of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule. TOC removal is also believed to help reduce the formation of DBPs in the plant effluent and distribution system. However, a close evaluation of special data collected by SFID/SDWD shows that DBP formation at the WFP is virtually un-influenced by TOC removal with enhanced coagulation. These data, which were collected in 2009, are presented in Figures 2.18 and 2.19. Figure 2.18 shows the TOC levels in the plant influent and filtered water measured each month. The data show that enhanced coagulation removed between 27 percent and 39 percent of the TOC present in the water. However, Figure 2.19 shows the THM levels measured at the plant influent (i.e., flash mix) and the plant effluent (clearwell). These data show that, for all practical purposes, the entire amount of THMs measured at the plant effluent had formed during the short free chlorine contact time upstream of ammonia addition at the flash mix. These data suggest that the current chlorination/chloramination practice at the WFP is not taking advantage of the TOC removal achieved with enhanced coagulation and that the THM levels are formed under the highest-formation potential levels — i.e., those of the raw water quality. Unfortunately, the free chlorine contact time at the plant influent is critical to meeting the Giardia disinfection requirements, and any changes to the fr ee chlorine contact time jeopardize the ability to meet these requirements. 2-16 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES 40% Pement 30% TOC Removal ;Nt WFP 20% 10% 0 Figure 2.17 TOC Removal through the WFP (2006-2010) 1� ❑ Plant Influent 8.4 El Effluent 8.2 � 7.5 7 33 Y Remove! 6.99% 27% Removal f� Removal TOC, 5.6„ 29% Removal mg1L ............. ME/ 4 mrs 51 .9 ME,............. on ....... - MEX - - .. 1 »» ”`""` ``` ```` `` April May June July Figure 2.18 TOC Removal through the WFP during Four Months in 2009 March 2012 2-17 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES 100 ® Plant Influent 0 Clearwell Effluent 7' 55 65 62 64 65 65 58 f' Total THIN l% , / %, i% % f „ „ R r i% r % % t f ili, �� 45 ./ � % / <> / /, % i%/ 40 i / �, .:: /% l f i:: mossomi IFE �/ ff f i i i iii: :.. .% .... i �% ii ,/ / // / 1, /.,%i/ % i i i.,ii ii i,iiii ,iii/ April Id ay, June july Figure 2.19 THM Levels Measured at Plant Influent and Effluent during the same Four-Month period in 2009 Presented in Figure 2.18 T&0 Control Figure 2.20 shows a plot of the MIB levels in the influent and effluent of the WFP. While the effluent values were measured, the influent values were calculated based on source water MIB levels and blend ratio into the treatment plant. The plot shows that the effluent MIB levels are virtually the same as the estimated influent MIB levels. This is expected since the WFP includes no treatment process capable of removing MIB or Geosmin. During the high MIB event of 2008, the MIB concentration in the effluent oft he WFP reached as high as 200 ng/L, which is 20 times the desired maximum level of 10 ng/L. As these data show, this issue is exacerbated by the use of local water supplies. The frequency and intensity of T&O events would be expected to increase with an increase of local water supplies. The current treatment scheme does not incorporate a reliable and effective unit process for T&O control. As discussed previously, if SFID/SDWD decided to establish a treatment goal for T&0, a unit process, such as ozonation, will be required. Manganese The WFP relies on the use of CIO 2 and free c hlorine addition to th e raw water to ac hieve oxidation of manganese upstream of clarification and filtration. Data collected by SFID/SDWD show that this strategy is achieving good removal of manganese by the WFP. However, it is noted that the CI02 dose is limited to no more than 1.0 mg/L. Higher doses could result in the formation of chlorite, C102_, at levels exceeding its MCL of 1.0 mg/L. 2-18 March 2012 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES REBVVFP Influent(Calculate(1) REBVVFP Effluent 100 MI9 Desired Max. Treated Water Level(10ngk) Concentration n91L -- - - ------- - --- 10 p IT --------- ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑® ❑ ❑ ❑ LL 1 T T T T � Or X U Or Z Figure 2.20 MIB Concentrations in the Influent and Effluent of the WFP(2006—2010) Salinity The WFP does not utilize any treatment technologies capable of reducing TDS levels. In fact, the high chemical doses applied at the plant could increase the TDS level through the treatment train by approximately 50 mg/L. Reducing TDS levels requires the installation of either nanofiltration (NF) or reverse osmosis (RO) membranes on a part of the treated water flow. These processes are quite expensive (about $10 million per mgd of treatment capacity) to construct and operate. In addition, they generate a high-TDS brine stream that requires proper disposal. March 2012 2-19 SECTION 2: IDENTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY&TREATMENT CHALLENGES -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- 2-20 March 2012 PLANT PROCESS AND Section 3 HYDRAULIC EVALUATION BACKGROUND The WFP treats local Lake Hodges water diverted directly to the plant or through San Dieguito Reservoir and imported new water provided by CWA. Local water is of lesser quality compared to imported CWA water and exhibits the following treatment challenges: • Higher turbidity 0 Additional disinfection requirements • Higher TOC 0 High coagulant dosages and sludge • Manganese production • Algae Low dissolved oxygen levels compounds • T&0 Hydrogen sulfide Plant staff pr efers treating water from S DR rather than directly from Lake Hodges because of the la ke management program implemented at SDR. The result of this la ke management program is higher dissolved oxygen and lower sulfur (corrosive) compounds in SDR. Although treating local water is difficult, plant staff has done a great job operating the plant with the tools that are available. For the past several years, most of the plant's water production (up to 70 percent) has been obtained from the local raw water supply. The purpose of this analysis is to identify process deficiencies in the plant that hinder water treatment and to develop solutions, improvements, and capital costs for treating the raw water sources while meeting regulatory requirements. PLANT PROCESS EVALUATION Site inspections and desk-top evaluations of th e existing WFP were conducted to ass ess capacity, performance, and physical condition of the plant process facilities. The following processes and equipment were evaluated: • Coagulation (flash mix) 0 Disinfection • Flocculation 0 Solids handling • Sedimentation 0 Utility water • Filtration 0 Chemical handling March 2012 3-1 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION COAGULATION (FLASH MIX) The purpose of coagulation is to quickly and completely disperse the chemical coagulant to the raw water, thus allowing formation of a flocculated particle that can be removed via sedimentation and filtration. (PACL is the primary coagulant used at the WFP to accomplish enhanced coagulation (EC) as part of the D/DB P Rule for removal of TOC. Typic al dosages range from 15 mg/L when treating 100 percent imported water to 70 mg/L when treating 100 percent local water. The WFP uses pumped jet diffusion, which is an effective means for coagulant mixing. It is comprised of a pump and a specially tapered nozzle to create a high velocity jet of water to impart flash mixing energy to the process flow. The flash mix pump was designed to provide a mixing intensity (G-value) of 750 sec-1, which is consistent with recommended values. The current system injects chemical coagulant into the flash mix piping upstream of the high-energy discharge nozzle. Because of their precipitative properties, chemical coagulants react quickly with water and can scale on pipe walls and orifices. It is cc mmon to find significant scale and precipitate buildup clogging of the flash mix nozzles. Common practice is to apply coagulant at the nozzle discharge rather then in the flash mix piping to mitigate chemical scale and potential clogging. It is recommended that the next time the influent channel is drained plant staff inspect the flash mix injection nozzle to verify it is clear of scale from chemical addition. If it does exhibit severe scaling, it is recommended that the chemical injection points be moved to the raw water line upstream of the injection nozzle. Recommendations - Coagulation The following items represent conclusions and recommendations in defining CIP related to coagulation at the WFP: 1. Have a spare flash mix pump onsite. 2. Routinely inspect the flash mix nozzle to verify it is clear of scale from chemical addition. FLOCCULATION Flocculation basins provide gentle agitation to coagulated particles increasing the rate of particle collision and subsequently aiding the agglomeration of particles into larger settleable floc. The flocculation basins are designed with multiple compartments to promote plug flow through the system. Gentle mixing is provided in each compartment. The WFP contains two parallel flocculation basins oriented in a serpentine arrangement to promote plug flow. Each basin contains four mixing zones, each with two compartments, and each compartment containing a vertical shaft flocculator with hydrofoil blades. These flocculators are used to impart mixing energy to the water to promote particle collision. Flocculators at the WFP are operated in a tapered mode where rotational speed of the flocculator blades are decreased as water flows through flocculation basins with the first fl occulator operating at 100 percent speed and each subsequent flocculator decreasing speed by 25 percent from the 3-2 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION previous stage (100/75/50/25 percent). Both vertical shaft flocculators and tapered flocculation have been proven to be a good means for producing settleable particles. Parameters used to assess the operation of flocculation basins are flocculation time through the basins and mixing energy gradient (G-value). The recommended flocculation time for I ocal and CWA waters is 30 minutes or greater at colder water temperatures. Typical mixing intensities for tapered flocculation should range from 70 down to 10 sec-1. Table 3.1 compares these operating parameters at typical plant flow rates (15 to 30 mgd) and the listed plant design flow rate of 40 mgd. As shown, at rates at or below 30 mgd, flocculation time is in the range of 30 minutes, and produces settleable floc as demonstrated by settled water turbidity discussed below. Table 3.1 Operational Parameters of the WFP Flocculation Basins Typical Range Design Flow Recommended Parameter (15—30 mgd) (40 mgd) Range Detention Time (min) 24.1 to 48.3 18.1 25+ G-value (sec-1), tapered 60 to 10 60 to 10 70 to 10 If the desire for the plant is have a design capacity of 40 mgd, the flocculation basins will need to expanded. However, based on typical plant flows rates over the last few years, the flocculation basins and operations performance appears adequate. There are sixteen vertical shaft flocculators at the flocculation basins. Each of these was installed as part of the 1993 plant improvements. The flocculators are approaching a 20-year lifetime and should be considered for replacement. Plant staff ha s indicated that the floc culators are not currently wired to emer gency power. Because flocculation is a critical part of treatment, the flocculators should be connected to emergency power to ensure continuous operation during power outages. The project cost for replacing the flocculators and wiring them to emergency power is$1,000,000. Recommendations - Flocculation The following items represent conclusions and recommendations in defining capital improvement projects related to flocculation at the WFP: 1. Budget for routine maintenance and phased replacement of existing flocculators. 2. Wire the flocculators for emergency power. March 2012 3-3 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION SEDIMENTATION Sedimentation is the pr ocess of gra vity clarification for removal of agglomerated particles formed during flocculation. Effective sedimentation relies on proper configuration and operation of upstream coagulation and flocculation processes. Conventional sedimentation at the WFP is accomplished using long rectangular-shaped basins that take advantage of the relative density and settling velocities of the flocculated particles as water flows through the basin. The WFP contains two parallel sedimentation basins. Each basin contains a traveling bridge solids collector system. Settled water is collected at the end of the basin by finger launders over a v-notch weir. Operational parameters that govern conventional sedimentation basins are shown in Table 3.2. Hydraulic and clarification objectives are to decrease turbulence in a basin to maximize settling efficiency. Table 3.2 describes the range of sedimentation basin operational parameters typically experienced at the plant at flow rates between 15 and 30 mgd. At these rates, the hydraulic surface loading, detention time, and other parameters fall within or near recommended design values. At plant design flow, 40 mgd, basin parameters fall out of the desired or accepted range. As long as daily plant flows are 30 mgd or less, the existing floc/sed processes should perform reasonably well. Higher flows would challenge the current pre-treatment processes and lead to higher solids carryover and increased settled water turbidity. At some point, the additional solids loading would overwhelm downstream filtration resulting in shorter filter runs (less production) and eventually turbidity breakthrough due to ineffective pretreatment. Basin performance is normally acceptable with settled water turbidities less than 2 Nephelometric Turbiidty Units (NTU) 95 percent of the time (reference Figure 3.1). Higher turbidity in the range of 3 to 4 NTU can occur based upon water temperature, coagulant dose, flocculation time, and basin surface loading rates. No single parameter such as time of y ear, flow rate, or o perating criteria seen to dominate and dictate performance. Settled water turbidity data in Figure 3.2 clearly demonstrates the range of values independent of time of year and corresponding temperature and flows. Settled water turbidity can trend upward with high raw water turbidity events, but not always; especially over the past two years of operation. Table 3.2 Operational Parameters of the WFP Sedimentation Basins Typical Range Design Flow Recommended Parameter (15 to 30 mgd) (40 mgd) Range Surface Loading Rate (gpm/ftz) 0.6 to 1.2 1.6 0.75 to 1.0 Detention Time (hrs) 1.1 to 2.2 0.8 1.5 to 3.0 Horizontal Velocity (ft/min) 1.7 to 3.3 4.4 1.0 to 3.5 Weir Loading Rate (gpm/ft) 12 to 23 31 5 to 20 Reynolds Number 13,500 to 27,000 36,000 <18,000 Froude Number 3.4x10-6 to 1.4x10-5 2.410-5 >10-5 3-4 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Percent Not 50% Exceeding 40% *Raw Turbidity 30% ■Settled Turbidity 20% 10% 0% 1 N k I11 0.1 1 10 100 Average Daily Turbidity Values(NTtJ) Figure 3.1 Raw and Settled Water Turbidity Data Frequency Curves(2007 to 2010) "Avg.Raw Water Turbidity Avg.Settled Water Turbidity 14 X x X X x X X 12 - 44, x X 10 X x x X X x X X x x x 8 x x Turbidity x xX ' x � x X x (NTU) xX x x X �x x X 6 x x X XX� X} X X xX�{ x W X xX X Xx XXxX x #K 4 X Xx x X . x� N� x X x x x x X X< X x : x X �♦ x tox 2 + 0 Jan-07 May-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 May-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09 Jan-10 May-10 Sep-10 Figure 3.2 Raw and Settled Water Turbidity Profiles from 2007 to 2010 March 2012 3-5 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Basin Improvements Based on performance over the last several years, the sedimentation basins produce acceptable quality a majority of th e time. However, when flows exceed 30 mgd and approach the 40 mgd design capacity, then improvements would be recommended and warranted. Upgrade options include a new third floc/sed basin or installation of tube or plate settlers in the existing sedimentation basins. Construct New Flocculation/Sedimentation Basin The WFP was originally designed to include a third flocculation/sedimentation basin in the future and space has been preserved for s uch an expansion south of th e existing basins. Project costs to cc nstruct a third flocculation/sedimentation basin are estimated at$6.2 million as detailed in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 Project Cost Estimate for a New Flocculation/Sedimentation Basin Description Estimate General Conditions $490,000 Site Work and Excavation $230,000 Yard Piping $300,000 Reinforced Concrete $2,100,000 Miscellaneous Structural $450,000 Flocculators $430,000 Solids Collector $750,000 Miscellaneous Mechanical $630,000 Electrical/Instrumentation $820,000 Estimated Project Cost $6,200,000 Install Tube Settlers in Existing Basins Tube settler units are used for increasing settling capacity and performance of conventional sedimentation basins. Installation requires a 10 t o 12 feet water depth depending upon the profile of sl udge removal equipment used in a basin. Given depth of a tube, it is anticipated that acceptable surface loading rates across installed tube area would be 2 gallons per minute per square feet (gpm/ftz). If 75 percent of a basin area could be retrofitted with to bes, the res ultant capacity would be 20 m gd (capacity =20 m gd =0.7 5 x 8,800 ftz x 2 gpm/ftz/695 gpm/mgd). The estimated project cost to install tube settler units in both existing sedimentation basins is$3 million. This estimate assumes continued use of the traveling bridge sludge collectors. Tube installation as presented may improve turbidity removal in the sedimentation basins at 40 mgd (20 mgd per basin) but doesn't increase overall nameplate design capacity. It is al so recognized that tube settler performance is dependent upon proper coagulation and flocculation so without improving flocculation, the use 3-6 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION of tubes would not benefit capacity or quality. Installation of tube settlers in the existing basins is not beneficial given the potential project costs and minimal improvement in performance and capacity. Other Recommended Improvements The traveling bridge sludge collection assemblies in the sedimentation basins are original equipment and have been in service for over 40 years. Plant staff have maintained the equipment and recently refurbished the cross collectors. The bridges are in need of refurbishing. Because of the equipment age, the equipment requires significant maintenance and has reached the end of its useful life. The cost to replace each traveling bridge with new sludge collection equipment is$750,000. Recommendations - Sedimentation The following items represent conclusions and recommendations in defining CIPs related to sedimentation at the WFP: 1. Budget for replacement of the traveling bridge equipment at$750,000 each basin. 2. Maintain and operate existing flocculation and sedimentation basins. A new third pretreatment train is recommended when plant flows increase consistently over 30 mgd. 3. Installation of tube settler or other high-rate devices in existing sedimentation basins is not cost effective and not recommended. FILTRATION Granular media filtration is employed at t he WFP for fi nal turbidity removal to me et safe drinking water regulations. The plant has six dual media filters. Four constructed in 1968 with the original plant construction and two constructed as part of the 1993 plant modification and rehabilitation project. Table 3.4 summarizes key design and operational criteria of the existing filters. The filters have a 40 mgd nameplate capacity that yields conservative nominal and maximum filtration rates of 3.6 and 4.3 gpm/ft2, respectively. Regulatory design requirements will allow filtration rates up to 6 gpm/ft2 for dua I medias. Regardless, the existing filters seldom operate higher than 3.5 gpm/ft2 because maximum day plant production has been in the range of 30 mgd for the past several years(see Section 1). Filter media depths and sizes listed in Table 3.4 are from the original media design with 21 inches of anthracite coal over 10 inches of sand. The calculated L/d ratio is just over 1,000 based upon an average effective size for both media types. The L/d value is a ratio of media depth to its effective size and is a measure of the media's ability to capt ure and remove fi Iterable particles. Higher L/d rat ios yield higher filtrate quality. There is no regulated value for L/d. M ost filters d esigned before 1980 have media configurations with L/d r atios of 1,000. Since that time, typical L/d values have ranged from 1,200 to 1,600. It is recommended that L/d ratios of 1,200 or higher be employed to meet today's more stringent filtration requirements. Other key criteria listed in the table is described below along with discussions and evaluations of filter performance, backwash operations, hydraulic capacity, physical features and potential filter improvements. March 2012 3-7 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Table 3.4 Existing Filter Design and Operating Criteria at the WFP Description Units Value Comments Plant Flow Rate mgd 40 Normal max day is 30 mgd Type: Dual media, constant level-constant rate Number No. 6 Filter area, each ft2 1,280 Total filter area ft2 7,680 Filtration rate (at 40 mgd) All in service gpm/ft2 3.6 One out of service gpm/ft2 4.3 6 gpm/ft2 is regulatory limit Filter media Anthracite Coal Depth in. 21 Effective size mm 0.98 average per media spec Sand Depth in. 10 Effective size mm 0.47 average per media spec Total depth in. 31 Total L/d Ratio - 1,080 media combined Filter Backwash Type: Elevated tank, fixed-grid surface wash Backwash rate gpm/ft2 17.5 gpm 22,400 Surface wash rate gpm/ft2 4.8 gpm 6,100 Backwash tank volume gal 900,000 Four backwash volumes Filter Waste Washwater Volume Filter drawdown to launder gal 27,000 zero if drawdown to filtrate Surface wash (4 min) gal 25,000 Backwash (7 min) gal 157,000 Total per wash gal 209,000 Unit backwash volume (UBWV) gal/ft2/wash 163 Type: Lined, trapezodal shaped Number No. 2 Capacity, each gal 228,500 Combined capacity gal 457,000 Number backwash volumes No. 2 one volume each pond 3-8 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Physical Features of Existing Filters Figure 3.3 has been prepared to illustrate physical dimensions of the existing filter box that define the features and layout of the filters. The filter box depth is 15.50 feet from the filter floor to the structure walkway deck. Key dimensions within the box are listed and described below: • Media depth—total of 31 inches consisting of 10 inches sand and 21 inches coal. • Underdrain depth — 18 inches of graded gravel. Purpose is to support the media to keep it in the box. The`tee-pee shaped" concrete laterals collect the filtrate and distributes backwash water. • Launder(backwash trough)height—21 inches. • Water depth above launder—approximately 33 inches. Inlet water enters the filters from the upper gullet through the launders. • Distance between top of media and launder bottom — approximately 30 inches. This depth is important during fluidized backwash. If the distance is too small excessive media loss during backwash can occur. The recommended distance is between 50 and 100 percent of total media depth. Extreme distances between media and launder are also not desirable because then a longer backwash duration is required to transport solids from the bed. • Water depth above media—84 inches (7 feet). This depth is important because it represents the positive driving head that can be exhausted during filtration without concern for developing negative head and air binding conditions within the media bed. A minimum of 6 feet of positive driving head is recommended. The 7 feet depth above the media will go along way in support of current and future filter operations. • Available head for filtrat ion — 8 fe et. The t otal available head for filtration is t he 10 feet elevation difference between the water surface in the filter (El 531.50) and the downstream weir (El 521.40) in the filter control structure. Depending upon plant flow, filtration rate, and resultant clean-bed headloss, available head for so lids accumulation with in the media is 6 feet. Weir elevations and hydraulic conditions of the existing filters would support up to 8 feet of total head for filter operations, i.e., operate the filter until 8 feet of differential head is measured across filter media, underdrain, and piping. The distance between the filter floor and underdrain defines the depth of media that can be installed in the box for a given underdrain profile. The current configuration would support up to six m ore inches of filter media before imposing upon distance to bottom of launder. The surface wash distribution laterals should be located within three inches of the media to realize proper scouring of the me dia surface. Surface wash performance suffers as a result of m edia loss because of increased distance between fixed-grid laterals and top of media. Media depths for both sand and coal layers should be measured and inspected annually. Filter media should be added to the bed when losses exceed 3 inches. March 2012 3-9 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION '�5G r� 6 Q • C. :al's + f I(�'SW CSj W5 Launder 33" 84" 21" a 186" cwrFr� uu�r Surface Wash 30� a 21"Coal 10"Sand icwtR��?�rT .. 4 Underdrain 18"Gravel Support Irk//4q Figure 3.3 Physical Features and Dimensions of Existing Filter Box In general, the physical features of the existing filter box are of sufficient dimension to support proper filter operations, especially at historical and anticipated future filtration rates at this plant. Noted highlights are the 7 feet water depth above the media and the overall box depth. A limiting feature is the modest distance between trough and filter floor that may constrain media depth and height profiles of potential replacement underdrains. These constraints are further discussed in the filter improvements section below. Filter Performance Successful performance can be defined as filter operations that produce desired filtrate quality and quantity to meet drinking safe drinking water regulations and system-wide water demands. T he existing filters hav e historically accomplished these objectives as discussed below. Filtrate Quality Turbidity is the primary water quality parameter that defines regulatory compliance and filtrate quality. The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SVVTR)requires that filtered water turbidity be less than 0.3 NTU in 95 percent of the samples taken with a maximum of 1 NTU. Individual filter turbidity should be monitored every four hours. Filters at the VVFP produce excellent quality water. Figure 3.4 contains turbidity profiles of the daily values for 3-10 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION settled and filtered water. These data consist of average daily values during the time period of 2007 through 2010. Although settled turbidity ranged from below 1 to almost 4 NTU, filtrate turbidity was well below 0.10 NTU and consistently 0.05 NTU or less. The frequency curves of Figure 3.5 clearly demonstrate that filtrate turbidity is less th an 0.30 NTU 95 p ercent of th e time wit h the 95 percent value of 0.0 7 NTU. Correspondingly, the settled water turbidity is less than 2 NTU 95 percent of the time. The existing filters have produced excellent quality water. Filtrate quality can be compromised during media maturation at filter startup following backwash. Experience with granular media filtration has determined that as much as 90 p ercent of the particles that pass through a filter do so at the beginning of a run while media is maturating or re-ripening. Figure 3.6 presents a profile of turbidity values from Filter No. 5 collected at 15-minute intervals. Data was extracted from filter water quality records during a filter run conducted January 10-11, 2010. The curve of Figure 3.6 illustrates the typical profile and pattern with an initial turbidity spike at the beginning of a run with elevated values 7 to 10 times greater than the filtrate turbidity achieved after maturation. The curve exhibits no turbidity breakthrough at the end of the run. There was an excursion of about two hours near the middle of the run where the turbidity increased from 0.02 to 0.04 NTU (still very low) that most likely were caused by changes to flow rate or chemical dosages or possibly due to a disruption of sample flow to the analyzer. The filters do not have provisions for filter-to-waste (FTW) or other media-maturation measures; yet the p lant staff does a gre at job of managing backwash and other methods for bringing filters into and out of service. Options for implementing FTW and other maturation tools are discussed below. Filter Production In addition to filtrate quality, the other success metric is filter production or the ability to produce the quantity of treated water when it is needed. Of equal importance is the efficiency at which that production is obtained. The Unit Filter Run Volume (UFRV, gpm/ft2/run) is a filter operating parameter used to assess filter production efficiency. The UFRV is the volume of water filtered through one square foot of media area each filter run or cycle and is calculated as the product of average filtration rate (gpm/ft2) and the filter run time (minutes). The Unit Backwash Volume (UBWV, gpm/ft2/run) is the amount of water used to backwash and clean the filter and includes both surface wash and water backwash volumes. Filter efficiency can be calculated from the UFRV and UBWV values using the following equation: Filter Efficiency= (UFRV- UBWV)/UFRV* 100% Figure 3.7 contains a filter efficiency plot over a range of UFRVs. The curve is for a UBWV of 163 gal/ft2/run and is representative of current backwash operations. Also indicated in the figure is the calculated average filter UFRV of 6,200 gal/ft2/run with an average filter efficiency of 97 percent. If the total filter production was 30 mgd the net daily filter or plant production would be 29 million gallons; 97 percent of the total. Note the slope of the curve of Figure 3.7 a nd how the efficiency drops sharply once the UFRV value decreases to below 5,000 gal/ft2/run. Also, filter production efficiency increases with higher UFRV values but t he incremental change becomes less dramatic with increasing UFRV. Successful filter production is normally accomplished when the calculated UFRV value is 5,000 to 10,000 gal/ft2/run and higher. March 2012 3-11 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION 4.0 0.30 4 ' X XAverage Settled WaterTurbidity 3.5 Xc • ♦Average Filtered Water Turbidity 0.25 3.0 x Yx X x+ xk 0.20 2.5 xx X x x x x X#x 3€x Settled x � *X x Filtered Turbidity 2.0 x x 0.15 Turgidity � X (NTU) x XX x Xx x x x x (NTU) 1.5 X X x aK x x x x X xx xx x X X xxx xXXX X xx X 4.14 X x x x 1.0 x t 2 • ` * . + Utz* • X •• . 4.05 0.5 0.0 0.00 Jan-07 May-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 May-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09 Jan-10 May-10 Sep-10 Date Figure 3.4 Turbidity Profiles for Settled and Filtered Water(2007-2010 Daily Values) 100% 90% 80% 70% ■Settled Turbidity $0% Filtered Turbidity Percent Not 50% Exceeding 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 111111111 wo/— 0.01 (7.175 0.1 1 10 Average Daily Turbidity Values(NTU) Figure 3.5 Turbidity Frequency Curves for Filtration(Filter No. 5)and Settled Water 3-12 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION 0.16 4.14 4.12 4.14 Filter • Effluent 4.48 Turbidity ♦ (NTU) 0.06 ♦ 0.04 0.42 4.40 1911012:00 AM V9)1012.00 PM 111011012.00 AM 111011012.00 PM 111111012.00 AM 111111012.00 PM 111211012:00 AM 1112110 12.00 PM Time Figure 3.6 Filtrate Turbidity Profile for Filter No. 5(Jan 10-11, 2010) 100% 98% Typ.Operating Condition 96% Filter Efficiency 94% 92% UBWV=165 gallftllrun 94% 4 5,044 14.444 15,000 UFRV(pllft2irun) Figure 3.7 Filter Efficiency vs. IJFRV at WFP March 2012 3-13 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Figure 3.8 contains a series of frequency curves of calculated UFRV values from Filter No. 5 over the past four years (2007 to 2010). It is peculiar that 90 percent of the UFRV values fall within a rather narrow range between 6,000 and 6,500 gal/ftz/run. The UFRV is primarily impacted by solids loading and resultant bed exhaustion at terminal headloss. Consequently, most filter facilities exhibit a broad range of UFRV values. The calculated UFRV's of Figure 3.8 show very little variance because filter runs at the plant are terminated based upon a fixed volume, not terminal headloss. So when the filter has produced approximately 8 milligals (Mgal) of water, the filter is taken offline and backwashed. As a result, the filter's available headloss may have only partially been utilized depending upon solids and hydraulic loading rates. The filter run time under this operating scenario would vary entirely upon rate and would be calculated as the fixed volume divided by the filtration rate. For example, at a 3 gpm/ftz rate of filtration (5.5 mgd per filter), the run time to produce 8 Mgals of filtrate would be approximately 35 hours(8 Mgal/5.5 mgd*24 hours per day (hrs/day) =34.9 hours). 100% s■t 90% • 2010 J. s' ■2009 80% 2008 70% •2007 60% Percent Not 50% Exceeding 40% 30% 20% �t 10% 1 ._ 0% ■ 4,000 4,500 5.000 5,500 6,000 6.500 7,000 UFRV(gpmlft21run) Figure 3.8 Frequency Curves of UFRV Values for Filter No. 5(2007—2010) Most filter plants terminate filter runs based upon one of three operating parameters: terminal headloss, filtrate turbidity, or run time. Termination based upon headloss is a natural result when a filter is heavily loaded with influent solids and/or high filtration rates. At low rates and low solids, a maximum run time may be used to terminate the run. For the WFP filters, filtration is terminated based upon accumulated filtrate volume and not headloss. A review of the WFP filter operations headloss data determined that the accumulated headloss upon termination for backwash was less than 2 feet in 90 percent of the filter runs. This suggests that the filters have additional capacity in terms of operating time, headloss, and overall filter production. It also it Iustrates the 3-14 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION success of the operations staff in operating the plant and the combined performance of the pretreatment and filtration processes. Potential Filter Improvements As discussed above, current filter operations and performance meet and exceed plant production and filtrate quality needs. Consequently, major filter improvements are not currently warranted in the near term. However, given the age and the existing filter facility, this master plan update includes several future filter improvements that should be included in the filter upgrades CIP. Recently, new handrail has been installed on the filter deck to improve safety for plant operations staff when walking around the filters. Other improvements are presented and discussed below. Filter Box Improvements Potential filter box improvements include replacement of the filter underdrains, auxiliary surface wash, and media replacement. Figure 3.9 i Ilustrates the potential filter improvements for underdrain and media replacement for two different underdrain types: block lateral or nozzle with monolithic concrete floor. Preliminary evaluations indicate that either underdrain type could be installed and either type would support water backwash preceded by surface wash and/or air scour. As depicted in the figure, a total media depth of 42 inches could be configured within the existing filter box for either underdrain type. Larger media depths would be constrained without replacing and raising the launders to facilitate proper distances within the box. A 42-inch dual media design should be more than sufficient to upgrade the filters with 30 inches of anthracite coal over 12 inches of sand resulting in an L/d ratio exceeding 1,200. The upgraded media configuration would maintain high filtrate quality and increase filter production and overall operations. Filter Production Improvements In addition to the m edia improvements described above, filter production efficiency and quality can also be improved with minor changes to filter operational strategies and methods that take advantage of the existing filter head and operational capacity. For example, by changing filter operations to terminate filter run based upon headloss, time, or a higher fixed filtrate volume, the overall filter efficiency and production capacity would be increased. The changes for this approach and potential results are shown graphically in Figure 3.10. Historical filter operations place the UFRV at 6,200 and production efficiency at 97.2 percent. If changed filter operations could yield a UFRV of 12,000, the resultant efficiency would be 98.6 percent. Although relatively minor, the increased efficiency would increase the net plant production by 400,000 gallons per day (gal/day)for a 30 mgd plant flow rate. These calculations and graphic are based upon a UBWV of 163 gallons per square feet per run (gal/ft2/run). Increased production could be realized with a lower UBWV; however, this current value may already be near optimum for backwashing and cleaning the media. March 2012 3-15 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION HA PY4WAIL �F7'1TCJ��i• v.sr r 6 -� - WS Washwater Launder R ,rrrrt;:uLLLT 28"(67%) 24"(57%) !Sol 42' 42" 30"Coal 12"Sand 12"Sand Block Underdrain 14" 18" -a Block Type Nozzle Type ■�w C� Figure 3.9 Potential Filter Box Improvements 100% 96 60ro 98% Potential Condition e=i.ass 97 2% Current Condition 96% Filter Efficiency N 94% 92% — UBWV=163 gallft?frun 94% 0 5.000 10.000 15,000 UFRV(gallft2lrun) Figure 3.10 Filter UFRV and Production Efficiency Potential 3-16 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Another potential filter improvement includes installation of FTW to eli minate turbidity spikes during media ripening upon startup following backwash. Provisions for FTW would include common FTW control valve and piping (with an air-gap) to divert filtered water away from the clearwell until the media is maturated. Wasted water would gravity flow to the washwater equalization ponds and be processed with the filter waste washwater. Implementation and operation of FTW would generate an additional waste stream and volume that impacts overall filter and plant efficiency. It is estimated that FTW will increase the total UBWV, or water used to clean and maturate the media, by 150,000 gal each FTW cycle. The resultant UBWV would then increase from the 163 gpm/ft2/run base case conditions to 285 gpm/ft2/run, thereby changing the overall efficiency as a function of UFRV. The advantage of FTW is improved filtrate quality delivered to the clearwell. Table 3.5 summarizes conditions and operational differences as a result of implementing these potential filter production improvements. The base case condition highlights filter results as currently experienced at the plant. At 30 mgd plant flow rate and with five filters in service, the resultant filtration rate would be 3.3 gpm/ft2. The net plant production would be 29.2 mgd with 836,000 gal/day of water consumed for filter backwashing operations. Changes to filter operations that double the UFRV would increase the net daily production rate to 29.6 mgd and reduces backwash from 4 to 2 backwashes per day as shown in the table. The UFRV and FTW condition of the table illustrates the impact of operating FTW at the plant. Because more water is used and wasted to accomplish FTW, the net pr oduction capacity becomes 29.3 mgd similar to the base case condition. The increased UBWV negates the higher UFRV resulting in less water being produced and lower overall efficiency but for the sake of improved water quality. This analysis demonstrates that with minor changes filter operations can be initiated to overcome production lost as a result of FTW and other media maturation strategies to improve finished water quality Table 3.5 Summary Results for Potential Filter Operational Changes Operational Results per Condition Increase UFRV& Filter Parameter Units Base Case UFRV FTW Plant Flow Rate mgd 30 30 30 Number Filters No. 5 5 5 Filtration Rate gpm/ft2 3.3 3.3 3.3 UFRV gal/ft2/run 6,200 12,000 12,000 UBWV gal/ft2/run 163 163 285 Filter Efficiency % 97.2 98.6 97.6 Filter Run Time hrs 32 60 60 Net Production Rate mgd 29.2 29.6 29.3 No. BW per Day No. 4 2 2 Total Volume gal/wash 209,000 209,000 359,000 Total Daily Backwash Volume gal 836,000 417,000 718,000 March 2012 3-17 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Rinse-to-waste (RTW) is another media maturation technique to reduce or eliminate the initial turbidity spike following backwash. RTW can be accomplished as follows: • Conduct normal backwashing procedures. • At the end of the backwash, lower the rate to sub-fluidization conditions. • Rinse the media at the reduced rate until the water volume between the top of the underdrain and top of launder has been displaced. • Return filter to service. The purpose of RTW is to remove remnant turbidity and particles from the bed that were created from colliding media grains during fluidized backwash. This method can be successful at reducing or eliminating the turbidity spike upon filter start-up following backwash. If effective, RTW normally uses less water than FTW. And, RTW can usually be implemented and practiced with no capital expenditures. Estimated Project Cost of Filter Improvements Estimated project costs to implement the potential future filter improvements are summarized in Table 3.6. All cost elements are for improvements inside the filter box including underdrain and media replacement. The table lists a common cost to incorporate air scour or to replace the surface wash valves and piping as these budget- level estimates are similar. The costs do not include replacement of filter gallery piping and major valves as it is anticipated that this items would be replaced overtime as part of normal 0&M. Table 3.6 Estimated Project Costs to Implement Potential Filter Improvements Improvement Description Estimate General Demolition and Repairs $120,000 Replace Underdrains $2,250,000 Media Replacement $1,350,000 Surface Wash or Air Scour $750,000 Filter-to-Waste $525,000 Rinse-to-Waste $0 Electrical and Instrumentation &Control $300,000 Replace Launders $450,000 Estimated Project Cost $5,745,000 Notes 1. Estimate for all six filters.Total area of 7,680 ft2. 2. Underdrain costs similar for block lateral or nozzle options. 3. Air scour cost includes duty and standby blowers. 4. Media consists of 12"sand,30"coal. No gravels. 5. Filter box improvements only. No gallery or valve replacement. 6. Assume common FTW configuration with master FTW valve control. 3-18 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Recommendations - Filtration The six granular, dual media filters at the WFP currently serve SFID/SDWA well in meeting filtered water quality and production requirements. Based upon available head across the filter and operating filtration rates, there appears to be plenty of filter area and treatment capacity to meet current maximum day (30 mgd) and plant design maximum day (40 mgd) production rates. Filtrate quality is excellent; normally less than 0.05 NTU which exceeds safe drinking water regulations established at less than 0.30 NTU 95 percent of the time. There are no immediate major filter improvements needed to realize treatment objectives. However, given the age of the filter facilities (initial construction in the late 1960s), a number of potential filter improvements have been identified and evaluated for inclusion as part the filter improvement CIP. These include provisions for underdrain and media replacement, installation of new surface wash or an air scour cleaning system, and provisions for FTW. Additionally, a n umber of filter o perational improvements were discussed as part of th e overall plan to further optimize filtrate quality and production efficiency. Filter Box Improvements The dimensions and configuration of the existing filter box will support an increase in total media depth to 42 inches. Traditional filter underdrain types consisting of media retaining block laterals and nozzle system could be installed employed for underdrain replacement. A Iistin g of potential filter improvements and associated costs are listed in Table 3.6 above. Total project costs to implement all of the listed improvements amounts to$5.8 million. Filter Operational Changes The filter operational changes relate to filter rates, terminal headloss and filter run times in support of higher UFRVs and more efficient filter operations. These improvements can be implemented with little or no cost of capital investment. Suggested operational changes include: • Operating at filtration rates from 2.5 to 3.5 gpm/ft2 of the online filters. • Terminate filters based upon headloss, time, or fixed volume. • A UFRV goal is 12,000 gal/ft2/run may be possible based upon available filter head. • Evaluate efficiency of RTW to manage turbidity spikes during media maturation. DISINFECTION Three disinfectants are used at the WFP: chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide. Chlorine can be used as a disinfectant from its injection point in the 54-inch raw water line until flash mix where ammonia is added. A chloramine residual is carried through the entire plant. Although chlorine dioxide is injected upstream of the plant, it cannot be accounted for in disinfection credits because no residual is carried. March 2012 3-19 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) requires that disinfection be continuously applied so that the overall water treatment process achieves at least 3-log (99.9 percent) removal/inactivation of Giardia cysts and at least 4-log (99.99 percent) removal/inactivation of viruses. Due to elevated levels of cc liform in the I ocal raw water source, the State requires the WFP to achieve an additional 1-log removal for both Giardia cysts and viruses. In addition, based on LT2ESWTR, the WFP must meet a 2.0-log removal for Cryptosporidium. Because the WFP is a Bin 1 classification, no additional log removal is required for Cryptosporidium. The SWTR Guidance Manual allows for treatment facilities utilizing flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration processes to get credit for 2.5-log removal of Giardia cysts and 2.0-log removal of viruses. The LT2ESWTR allows conventional filtration plants credit for 2.0-log removal of Cryptosporidium. Thus, for the WFP, disinfection must achieve the remaining 1.5-log inactivation for Giardia cysts and 2.0-log inactivation for viruses. For disinfection with free chlorine and chloramines, the contact time (CT) required for Giardia exceeds that for viruses, thus Giardia CT governs compliance. The CT product is calculated by multiplying the chlorine disinfectant concentration (C, mg/L) by th e basin detention time (T, min utes) for a tr ue plug flow reactor. To account for short-circuiting, an efficiency factor (Tio/T) is used. Typical values for this factor is 0.1 for unbaffled structures, 0.3 for poorly baffled structures, 0.5 for baffled structures and structures with high length to width ratios, 0.7 for serpentine style structures, and 1.0 for pipeline flow. This factor can appropriately be obtained through tracer studies. Required CT values to meet log removal requirements vary with temperature. For free chlorine, CT values also vary with pH measured residual. CT values can be obtained from published EPA CT tables. There have been mathematical equations derived to approximate required CT values. The total CT thro ugh the WFP can b e calculated for all treatment process for w hich there is a measured disinfectant residual. Tables 3.7 and 3.8 below show CT calculations for the plant. In these tables, a CT ratio for each disinfectant(CT-achieved/CT-required) is calculated. A summation of the individual CT-ratios greater than 1.0 meets compliance. For the analysis presented in Tables 3.7 and 3.8, two cases were considered. The first was a maximum flow condition (40 mgd) which would happen in the summer time when the water temperature is greater than 20°C. The second was a maximum flow during the winter (20 mgd)when the water temperature is colder at 10°C. These conditions were selected to be conservative (higher than normal flows and lower than normal temperatures). As shown in the tables, disinfection as practiced at the plant complies with current state and EPA disinfection regulations. The CT calculations assumed a Tio/T factor of 0.1 for the reservoir. Currently, the reservoir is undergoing modifications to add baffles to promote plug flow and improved hydraulic efficiency. Upon completion of this project, it is expected that the Tio/T factor will be 0.7 which will greatly enhance disinfection CT for this facility. A Tio/T factor of 0.70 increases the disinfection capacity of the existing clearwell sufficient to satisfy all CT credit with chloramines for both summer and winter conditions as defined in the tables. 3-20 March 2012 SECTION I PLANT PROCESS AND H DRAUHC EVALUATION ƒ \ r � r = o o m ° f \ \ $ \ k 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 � Ro � § m w % •- \ o �/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ % R & � _ w 7E � bS cc ¥ \ k r Co e C14 co� o § ° r / w Q 2 \ 2 f k E ¥ k @ - k ( k 0 9 - = w r Co § E w aaa Co E f � « 2 / / ( � @ \ \ @ \ \ \ E o u- : ¥ 6 0 0 6 0 0 o a � 00 k 0 / •� 'k k 2 Co Co Co Co Co Co Q u- § Cr , 7 Cu d � E E E 2 V) « « \ ± � .[ / § / 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 2 d E \ cc « � / ( k T © 0 0 0 0 0 0 L � \ 2 & g v g 9 v - g / o o - 0 6 o \ ) � / / � / / / CO 2 \ \ / -5 lu C-) ° w i \ o = LU 0 2ck C14 CO r - •� E CL _ - 7 § � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ = o � 6 6 6 6 6 w .] § Cu ± ( c@ @ / t - 2 / q E -i / � m \ � D 3 § � � a E \ 3 ® \ Cu 7273 ¢ 3e ƒ ° \ © & March 2012 $21 SECTION I PLANT PROCESS AND H DRAUHC EVALUATION / - / = r c o - Co\ \ f \ $ 0 w 6 0 0 0 0 0 d � � ^ @ \ / C + Co Co Co Co Co Co Co o w c v R & E 2 to � \ w ( � w = w C T r 2 o § ° 2 @ a = 3 2 / kE � « ck k � = w r Co � � ° w w Co Co Co Co � f & � 7 - « .� % = 0 0 0 0 0 0 to e o � g g g o g g g o : ¥ o 0 0 6 0 0 o a 0 00 � 7 0 � k ƒ « « 9 = e •� '� @ 9 2 2 2 2 2 Co c u- § Cr , t Cu 3 R & E § k = « \ 7 Cu § / 0 0 0 0 0 0 § 2 d � E \ cc CD CD « � / ( k � © 0 0 0 0 0 0 CN � \ 2 & g v g 9 v - g / o o — 0 6 o \ ) q / E ƒ / @ \ / 3 \ / \ \ � / w � i \ o = LU 0 2ck CN Co r - •� E _ - 7 § � Co \ CC \ \ Cu = o � 6 6 6 6 6 w .] § Cu ± ( c@ @ / t - m 2 / q E / -m m \ Cu cc \ § -� a E \ 3 ® \ \ 7 2 7 Cu ¢ 3 e ƒ ° \ © & $22 March m 2 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Future Disinfection Considerations Ozone is being considered as a potential pre-oxidation process and CIP imp rovement at the plant (see later discussion in this section). If and when pre-ozonation is implemented, ozone may be used as a primary or additional disinfectant to meet disinfection requirements. Ozone is a powerful biocide for Giardia and viruses. Cryptosporidium is also inactivated with ozone but only effectively at warmer water temperature. In cold, low temperature waters(< 10°C), ozone Cryptosporidium activation requires higher residuals and contact times that are not cost effective compared to ultraviolet light(UV)disinfection. If additional removal/inactivation of Cryptosporidium is required in the future, UV disinfection would bet he recommended method of disinfection. Construction and operational costs for UV are a fraction of the costs for ozonation facilities. Project costs to install UV treatment at the WFP are estimated at $5.3 million. The facility would be positioned in the process flow between filtration and the finished water clearwell to take advantage of filtered water clarity for efficient and cost effective dispersion of UV light through the water. UV would require 3 to 4 feet of hydraulic head between the filters and clearwell. Because UV could provide primary disinfection for Giardia as well as Cryptosporidium, it is envisioned that several feet of clearwell water depth could be used to operate UV and still allow most of the clearwell volume to be converted to operational and system shortage. UV disinfection offers the following advantages: • Disinfection for future Cryptosporidium activation • Provide primary disinfection for Giardia • Eliminate need for chlorination CT credit. Chloramine would still be used for list ribution system disinfection residual. • Finished water clearwell/reservoir volume available for operational and system storage. Because UV does not inactivate viruses, the use of free chlorine or chloramine (or ozone if installed) would be needed to meet CT for virus. Recommendations - Disinfection The following items present conclusions and recommendations in defining CIPs related to disinfection at WFP. 1. UV disinfection is the most cost effective process to achieve future enhanced disinfection requirements. 2. A project cost of$5.3 million was estimated to install UV disinfection between the filters and clearwell. SOLIDS HANDLING Plant residuals or solids are generated through the coagulation and flocculation processes and removed in the sedimentation basins and downstream filtration facilities. The bu Ik of the soli ds are removed by gravity clarification within the sedimentation basins. Flocculated, particulate matter th at carries over from the clarification process is be removed by the filters. March 2012 3-23 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Plant residuals consist of sol ids already in the raw water plus th ose added through chemical addition. The amount of solids generated can be estimated by summing all solids removed from the plant. The unit solids production rate (USPR) is the amount of dry solid material produced per million gallons of water treated and can be calculated based upon the following relationship: USPR=8.34*(f*C+SS+P+ TOC+ O) Where: USPR=Unit Solids Production Rate, dry Ibs/Mgal C=Coagulant Dosage, mg/L f=Coagulant Factor SS=Raw Water Suspended Solids, mg/L P= Polymer Dosage, mg/L TOC=Total Organic Carbon Removed, mg/L 0=Other Solids Production Chemicals, mg/L The coagulant factor of the above equation relates the quantity of precipitated metal coagulant with respect to the coagulant dosage. This factor h as been developed from empirical relationships and calculated to b e approximately 0.33 to 0.44 for aluminum solids and 0.46 to 0.66 for ferric chloride usage. A coagulant factor ranging from 0.5 to 0.65 is proposed for PACL. The suspended solids value is a direct measurement of solids in the raw water. Often, suspended solids concentration is not known and turbidity data is used. When using turbidity, it is common to apply a 1:1 to 2:1 suspended solids to turbidity factor(TSS:NTU). Tables 3.9 and 3.10 contain solids production estimates for the years 2009 and 2010. The estimated annual sludge production for 2009 amounted to 2 million dry pounds. In 2010, the solids production was estimated at 1.7 million pounds. The monthly USPR estimates listed in the tables were calculated using the above equation and actual turbidity, coagulant, polymer, and TOC removal data. The average monthly USPR for both years was in the range of 330 to 340 dry pounds of solids generated for every million gallons of water treated (Ibs/Mgal). Higher USPR values occur during spring and early summer months associated with higher coagulant dosages. The tables list monthly production estimates and cumulative totals. Also shown are the projected filter waste washwater (FWW)solids and sedimentation basin solids removed from the sedimentation and filtration processes. These later estimates were calculated assuming that ov erall on a m onthly basis 75 percent of the total solids were removed through gravity clarification in the sedimentation basins and the remaining 25 percent were captured by the granular media filters. The 25 percent estimate was based upon the general performance of the existing sed basins. Average monthly production estimates are useful for sizing and operating sludge drying beds and sludge lagoons because these facilities have significant solids equalization and storage capacities. Daily production estimates are more appropriate for sizing and operating mechanical thickening and dewatering facilities where equalization is not provided. The maximum day production is estimated at 12,000 Ibs/day based upon a 30 mgd plant flow rate in conjunction with a 400 Ibs/Mgal USPR (12,000 Ibs/day = 30 mgd x 400 Ibs/Mgal). Of this maximum daily value, it is estimated that 9,000 Ibs/day would be removed through the sedimentation basins and the remaining 3,000 Ibs/day via the filters. 3-24 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 O O o N O O- 00 N N ti (00 V .0 co~ O CO r, � O O N 6) O CO O N O Q p G Lr LO m I- m I- O N m c0 I- m U) CO N CEO 000 N C'7 Lo O = U N 70 m O T 0 O ON Co CD CD Co Lo O Lo O O O O �- Cm C~7 � L(� CO CO CNO � 6) L(; o C6 .... (�O CO �2 CO O CO LL 0 Cu N O O O CD O O O_ Co 0 OD O O_ O_ N V 0 N - O CO C7 � a Q p 6) 6) C7 C7 C7 N O_ O .... N � 000 N N Co� Co~ : Lo 0-) L(� O '+� N v O O T O O O O O O O O O_ O O O L ^ 6) Lo Lo 6) 6) 6) Lo N Co O LL d C ti N 00 Co 00 00 Lo Il- 00 Co cc O O G N N Lo CO Lo Cep - � O� OHO 00 O O O O I O 000 0)j 000 (07 O N O O Lo O C'7 Co CO O O Q O ._. r� cD Lo 6) � ti co 6) Lo (O -i- 0 ~ C7 Lo 00 O Co -1- CO 00 6) O 'Z3 CV V 0 T O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O .�-- E CO (~7 LQ LQ LL cc N N cf 00, LLo Co V) r O 00 N Co � C7 Lo Co C14 Lo Lo L Lo O N 0 CS) N N N N ~ N 0 I- M CO O r- � ti � Lo O O ~ U U N 00 Lo I- m O O m � 1 CS) I- � � Z (6 Cu N m m � � � m N N N m N M Uj LL LL .... CC6 O L C06 O E C) CO N C7 N N N LQ LQ I� C? C? U 0 V) ZIN N N N N - - - N N EO cc C/D N Lu V CO 00 I- 00 - O 6) 'zl: 0(? 'zl: CO N CN N N N N N N N N LL 0 .... V cc C7 J 0 U 6) 00 6) N 00 00 Lo m 00 m m N V) (C .... G.> N Q � - M N Lo M Co O N Co L Z LCD CO C7 N N N N N N C7 Ld 0 •N ---------- _ _T Z (� � ('7 I� N 0o ('7 I- ('7 Lo O Lo i6 O O CO I- Lo O I- Lo CO C) Lo N 6) Q� C O LL C7 N � Lo CO Lo CO CO CO Lo � N L!'1 O O O (p C L2 00 6) 6) CD E CS) CS) N N N CS) r � O > O O LL Q QC() U Z D (n (v Q H March 2012 3-25 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION 0 0 CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 N O _ _ C.0 Il- 00 N V 6 N � ti 00 0) 00 00 N 0) I� c0 " N p Q O Z p 00 L() O 0) L() O O Om ONO Cn L() N m � CEO ti 000 N N N U Co 0 T O O O CD O C14 rl-O O_ LLO LO O O_ O Q � 0 0) 0) � C.0 00 Co 0�7 v L() L() c c L m— � � � 0) 00 00 Cu N O O O O O O O O O O O O C.0 Il- C7 I� Co N CD Co N N V .c O0') N CD CD 0) CD Il ('7 CD CD L() L() O Q 0 :. (D (o 000 � � � 0) LO (0 00 00 I— .O .0 N N N C�7 C07 C07 N v O T O O O O O_ O O O O O O O L ^ - O ti L() Co � Co M � ti M LL d 0) m m O ('7 Co L() N O 00 0) O G CD 0) C14 Lo C N N C7 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 CM7 - N O - N N L() 00 M N Cr) L() O 0) V N r-- 0) " CD c0 " O _- �_ � 0) CD 0) C Q O ~ L() L() � 0) 00 � ti 0) O O ~ (9 (7 � C-0 00 0) (7 L() I� .Z3 V 0 T O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O � E (0 � OCV N CEO Lo N - - � � Lo CD 0 N O N 0) O L() C.0 N N L() 00 0) L Lo (~O ti CD O 00 Lo 00 C.0 � O N O N 0 O 00 O O � 0) 0) L() 0) 0) CD ~ U U N 00 00 00 L() L() N I— ti L() M N Z C6 Cu N m -T m m m N N N m m m M Cn u- LL .... CC5 O L C06 /O E c� o c� c� rn c9 c� `/ T E — N m N N N N N N N N CSC V) .... E ° cc cf) N W V - CD O 0(? N L() L() Qq C E N N m N N N N N N N N C7 u- O .... V cc O C7 J 0 U M N I— L() 00 O Co N O CO E N L() co L() L() L() m -4 L() V) CC .... G.> N Q CCp.) 7 N C7 O C7 CD — 00 � 00 co co � L Z C c; ti ti C7 — C7 N N N L() -1: 0) 0 _ _T N T � (� N 0) C7 co co co � � O ti L() L() i6 ""� O 0) L() 0) 00 I— L() O L() I— 0) C O u- N M M L() L() CD Co Co C) ('7 N N L!1 O O _0 O O CV w _, 00 � N 0) N 00 O L() L() LCD 0_ •CC C 00 0) 0) — O C14 � Q u- E ~ ~ � N N 67 r /) _O c M w-+ C _a C >, 0 Q U > O O ii Q QJ) O Z D > Cn Cc Q H 3-26 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Current Facilities and Operations A site plan identifying the existing washwater and solids handling facilities is presented as Figure 3.11. The handling facilities and current operations are discussed below. FWW Handling Existing washwater handling facilities at the plant site consist of the following: • Two FWW equalization ponds • A two-train ActifloTM process facility • FWW recycle pump station The original intent for the ActifloTm equipment, constructed in 2002, was for treatment and clarification of FWW. Clarified washwater would be pumped and recycled to the head of the plant. Settled solids and sludge from the ActifloTM process would be pumped to the circular thickener and then dewatered via centrifugation. Currently, FWW flows by gravity from the filters to the equalization ponds where the washwater is equalized. From the ponds, FWW is trans ported by gr avity at a reduced rate to SD R. The existing ActifloTM facility has been abandoned and is no longer operated for FWW clarification. Hence, washwater and solids from the equalization ponds bypasses the ActifloTM process and flow directly to SDR. Plant staff terminated use of ActifloTM treatment for a number of reasons as listed below: • Difficult and challenging to operate • Batch treatment with frequent start/stop operation • ActifloTM treated and recycled washwater disrupts main plant treatment process performance • ActifloTm requires use of coagulant plus bridging polymer plus sand; all 0&M intensive The ActifloTM sludge also contains a significant amount of sand that escapes the sand separation process. The sand can erode and abrade mechanical dewatering equipment. Solids Handling Existing sludge handling and dewatering facilities at the site include: • Four sludge drying beds(10,000 ft2 each) • One circular solids thickener and sludge pumps • One centrifuge • Dewatering building (houses centrifuge and polymer feed system) March 2012 3-27 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION �•- 0 Am— J t]7 u7 s r — •Ps .I+tr F r,•�•� Fyn � Ate.^ 'i +tip t37 tm 4�- cc L+ m cc � N N N � 3[ 75 Co ey6 V N m co ❑J � N W - 0 J Y� C � is �ai� �.. . ccc iii 11�� N•�, 0 C cc ' LL Lu JML CL 0 � C , ► } r LLB y-1 Y M LL 3-28 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION The original plant construction enlisted two small sludge lagoons located adjacent to the equalization ponds. These lagoons were used for dewatering and drying solids but have long since been replaced and abandoned. Four larger sludge drying beds were later constructed to receive and dry settled sludge from the sedimentation basins. In 2002, the mechanical dewatering facilities consisting of the circular thickener and centrifuge building were designed and installed to process the increasing quantity of residuals produced at the plant. Operation of the mechanical dewatering equipment was short lived. The manganese and sulfides concentrated in the aged and anoxic sludge created significant corrosion problems for the centrifuge. Due to erosion and corrosion of the equipment, lack of standby units (only one thickener and one centrifuge were constructed and installed at the plant), coupled with manpower and cost requirements to operate the mechanical systems, the mechanical dewatering facilities became in-operable. The circular sludge thickener and its companion centrifuge are not in use nor functional. Currently, settled solids are diverted from the sedimentation basins directly to th e sludge drying beds for processing. Plant operations personnel have experimented with numerous methods to enhance the dewatering capability of the drying beds but these facilities are just not of sufficient size and capacity to handle and dewater all the solids generated at the plant. As a result, the drying beds process as much sludge as possible but a major portion is sent to SDR along with the FWW. For the past several years, it is estimated that approximately half of th e plant residuals have been diverted to SDR because of insufficient and ineffective dewatering capabilities at the treatment site. Diverted solids settle to the bottom of SDR consuming storage volume of this raw water reservoir. Recent studies determined that the operating volume of SDR has decreased at a rate of 10 AF/yr for the p ast 13 years. This v olume closely relates to th e amount of so lids likely diverted into the reservoir over the same time period. Capital Improvement Options A number of options for replacing and increasing solids dewatering capacity at the WFP are presented. These options are focused at methods for clarifying FWW and for increasing dewatering facilities to meet the solids handling objectives defined herein. Options for discussion include: • Use of sludge drying beds • FWW clarification using existing ActifloTM or sludge lagoons • Mechanical dewatering From these alternatives, SFID/SDWD can move forward in developing and implementing CIPs to resolve the solids handling needs. Sludge Drying Beds The use of engineered lagoons, or sludge drying beds as currently configured onsite, is a proven and simple method for handling and dewatering water plant residuals. The key success factor is sufficient surface area for drying sludge. Settled solids are blown down from the sed basins as a dilute suspension and transferred to the lagoons where the I iquid stream is clarified and decanted and the solids are gravity thickened, stored, and March 2012 3-29 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION ultimately dewatered; primarily via solar evaporation with some percolation depending upon the porosity of the bed. Dewatering or sludge drying works best in dry climates with hot summer months. Drying time is largely dependent upon the solids loading rate and resultant depth of sludge zone after all the free standing water has been decanted from the sludge. Beds are operated in multiple cycles with sludge loading rates of 4 to 5 Ibs/ft2 per cycle. This results in a relative shallow sludge layer that can be dewatered and removed in a reasonable amount of time. In this region, two to three cycles per year can be realized yielding a total annual loading rate of 10 to 12 dry pounds per square feet (Ibs/ft2) of drying bed area. Based upon these values, the annual dewatering capacity of the four existing drying beds is estimated at a pproximately 500,000 pounds of dry sl udge per year(480,000 Ibs/yr =4 0,000 ft2 x 121bs/ft2/yr). Estimated sludge production for the past several years has been in the range of 1,700,000 to 2,000,000 Ibs per year. This amount exceeds the estimated drying bed capacity by three to four times. To adequately dewater solids currently generated at the plant, 10 to 12 additional drying beds of the same size as existing would need to be constructed. Given the available land areas and existing site topography, it may be possible to configure four lagoons in the unused area south and off the hill from the existing beds and another two lagoons between the drying beds and the horseshoe bend of the access road. Capacity of six new lagoons is only half of what is needed. There is simply not enough available, useable area on the existing site to establish sufficient drying bed capacity. Given these conditions, the necessity of mechanical dewatering to process solids remains in effect. Actiflo I for FWW Treatment To take advantage of previously expended capital, SFID/SDWD desires to reinstate and utilize the ActifloTM facility for c Iarifying FWW a nd eliminating discharge of washwater solids to SDR. This o ption has been developed to meet that objective in conjunction with mechanical dewatering upgrades and expansion capacity. The approach for mechanical dewatering is presented and discussed later on. Description. This option uses the ActifloTM process for treatment and clarification of FWW generated by filter backwash operations. As depicted in the solids handling diagram of Figure 3.12, FWW flows to the e xisting equalization ponds. From the ponds, FWW would be metered at a reduced rate to the Act ifloTm basins for treatment. Clarified washwater (RWW)would then flow by gravity to SDR to be blended with raw water and eventually returned to the plant. Alternatively, RWW could be pumped directly to the head of the plant via the existing FWW pumps located in the ActifloTM settled water wetwell. However, past experience indicates poor plant performance when ActifloTM treated RWW is directly recycled. Solids removed via the ActifloTM process would be pumped through the 4-inch and 8-inch diameter sludge piping to th e sludge drying lagoons for processing. Decant or clarif ied water from th e drying beds would be collected and flow by gravity through the 8-inch decant line and onto SDR. For th is option, it is imperative that ActifloTM sludge be dewatered using the drying beds as the sand laden sludge would adversely impact mechanical dewatering equipment. Therefore, all ActifloTM sludge would be transferred to the la goons. From Tables 3.9 and 3.10, the estimated solids generated from backwash amount to approximately 500,000 dry Ibs/yr,which matches the dewatering and drying capacity of the four drying beds. 3-30 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION The ActifloTM process would treat a maximum capacity of 1,800 gpm, which corresponds to the flow rate to treat one backwash volume in a two-hour time period. This rate would allow plant operations staff to backwash one filter every two hours, which should be more than adequate to maintain filter production needs. Based upon these requirements, only one of the two ActifloTM process trains would be needed to clarify FWW and satisfy filter backwashing operations. As part of th is option, mechanical dewatering facilities would be updated and expanded as illustrated in Figure 3.12 to provide sufficient capacity to process and dewater solids generated from the pretreatment and sedimentation basins. Mechanical dewatering is discussed below. Improvement Elements. The following modifications, equipment, and updates would be needed to implement the ActifloTM Option for FWW handling: • Update and re-activate the ActifloTm basins and equipment to for use and operations. • Minor yard piping to connect the 4-inch and 8-inch sludge piping to deliver ActifloTM sludge to the existing drying beds. Costs. Project costs to implement the ActifloTm Option are relatively minimum. It is estima ted that $50,000 would be sufficient to update the ActifloTM facility by cleaning out the basins and maintaining mixers, pumps, valves, feeders, motors and electrical gear. This assumes that the existing equipment can be reused and does not require replacement or major modifications. Another $50,000 would be needed to install a short length of 4-inch piping from the thickener up the hill and connect to the 8-inch sludge pipeline that connects to the drying beds. Total project costs for this option is estimated at $100,000 (exclusive of mechanical dewatering). Annual operating costs are estimated at$30,000 per year for electric power and chemicals but exclusive of manpower for operations and maintenance. Lagoons for FWW Treatment Description. This approach employs the existing sludge drying beds to serve as lagoons for treating FWW to provide both clarification and solids dewatering functions as illustrated in the solids handling diagram of Figure 3.13. FWW would flow from the filters to the washwater equalization ponds as currently practiced. The existing ActifloTM inlet valve would be modified to modulate and maintain water level in the FWW pump station wetwell. FWW wou Id be pumped from th e wetwell at a controlled rate to the dryi ng beds. The drying beds are large enough to s erve as w ashwater recover lagoons and provide clarification at the 1,800 flow rate. And, the lagoons have sufficient area and volume to properly thicken, store and dewater the FWW solids. From Tables 3.9 and 3.10, thee stimated solids generated from backwash amount to approximately 500,000 dry Ibs/yr,which matches the dewatering and drying capacity of the four drying beds. All FWW and solids would be pumped to the lagoons via a new 14-inch diameter pipeline. A new pipeline is necessary because the existing 4-inch and 8-inch sludge lines are too small to convey the 1,800-gpm FWW rate of flow. Clarified washwater(RWW)would flow by gravity from the lagoons to SDR where it is blended with raw water and eventually returned to the plant. A new, larger diameter RWW pipeline will be needed between the lagoons and the emergency bypass connection to support gravity flow at the higher rates. March 2012 3-31 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION As part of th is option, mechanical dewatering facilities would also be updated and expanded as illustrated in Figure 3.13 to provide sufficient capacity to process and dewater solids generated from the pretreatment and sedimentation basins. Mechanical dewatering is discussed below. Floc/Sed Basins Filters P 1=4^l VV SL 5L Washwater Sludge Lagoons Equalization L Ponds SDw FWW Thickeners N VKJA Act lflo 5L w Mechanical Dewatering Units e RWW Centratel Filtrate Mechanical Dewatering SDW Legend FWW Filter Waste Washwater To San Dieguito 5L Sludge Reservoir 5DW Sludge Decant Water RWW Clarified Washwater Return Figure 3.12 Solids Handling Diagram Using Actiflo"I Option for FWW Clarification 3-32 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Floc/Sed Basins Filters Y FWW SL SL Washwater New FWW Sludge Lagoons Equalization 5Dw +L Ponds �� — Thickeners {�. t l ru a FWW SL m New 0 New FWW FWW New Mechanical Inlet(type of 4) 51MLring Units ❑F v o Centrate/Filtrate Mechanical Dewatering � New RWW ► e Legend FWW Filter Waste Washwater To San Dieguito SL Sludge Reservoir SDW 5 1 udge Deca n t Wate r RWW Clarified Washwater Return Figure 3.13 Solids Handling Diagram Using Lagoon Option for FWW Clarification March 2012 3-33 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Improvement Elements. The following piping, equipment, and modifications would be needed to implement the Lagoon Option: • Modification/renovation to FWW pump station and wetwell. • Minor yard piping between FWW equalization ponds and pump station wetwell. • New 14-inch force main between FWW pump station and drying beds(lagoons). • New 14-inch gravity pipeline between lagoons and connection to 15-inch overflow pipeline to SDR. • New FWW inlet connections to existing sludge lagoons. Costs. Project costs to implement the Lagoon Option are summarized in Table 3.11. The major cost elements include the new force main and gravity pipelines to convey the higher FWW flows to and from the lagoons. The total project or estimate for implementing the Lagoon Option for FWW clarification using the existing drying beds amounts to$960,000. Table 3.11 Estimated Project Cost for Lagoon Option Description Estimate FWW PS and wetwell modifications $45,000 Minor yard piping $30,000 New 14-inch force main (2500 ft) $420,000 New 14-inch gravity piping (2500 ft) $420,000 FWW inlet connections/valves $45,000 Estimated Project Cost $960,000 Annual electric power costs to operate the pumps are estimated at$30,000 per year. This assumes an annual daily flow of 0.60 mgd resulting from three filter b ackwashes per day. Labor for 0&M are not i ncluded in th e estimate. Mechanical Dewatering Figures 3.12 and 3.13 depict components and solids handling diagram for the sludge thickener and mechanical dewatering processes needed to accomplish solids handling at the treatment facility. These would be common for either the ActifloTM or Lagoon Options. A bri of description and operation of the mechanical dewatering component are provided below. Description. Settled solids from the sed basins would be diverted to one of two sludge thickeners. Thickened sludge would be pumped to the mechanical dewatering equipment. Dewatered sludge would be conveyed to a truck or d umpster for solids transport. Decant from the sl udge thickeners would gravity flow to th e washwater equalization ponds. Centrate or filtrate from the mechanical dewatering units would be collected and diverted with the clarified RWW flow to SDR. To preserve capital, the existing thickener would be cleaned, re-furbished, and reused in conjunction with a second new thickener. The type of mechanical dewatering equipment would 3-34 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION be determined in subsequent phases of the CIP with consideration for a belt press or centrifuge. Rehabilitation and reuse of the existing centrifuge should be considered. Capacity of the expanded mech anical dewatering facilities should be based upon maximum day sludge production. Currently maximum day estimates are 12,000 Ibs/day with the major portion (9,000 Ibs/day) being removed via sedimentation for delivery to the mechanical system. Both FWW handling options take advantage of the existing drying beds for processing washwater solids and reducing required operating capacity of the mechanical system. The solids handling schematics depict minor piping improvements that would allow diversion of s ed basin sludge to either the thickeners or the sl udge lagoons allowing for fl exibility in solids handling operations. Improvement Elements. The following piping, equipment, and modifications are proposed to implement the mechanical dewatering elements for solids handling at the site: • Rehab existing thickener/clarifier • Construct one new thickener • Sludge pumping station complete with structure, valves, piping, etc. • New mechanical dewatering equipment • Modifications and expansion to dewatering building and out-loading equipment and facilities • Minor yard piping and connections • Electrical and instrumentation/control improvements Costs. Project costs to imp Iement the mechanical dewatering elements of the sot ids handling facilities are summarized in Table 3.12. The tota I estimated project cost for up grading and expanding the mechanical dewatering facilities amounts to$5.4 million. Table 3.12 Estimated Project Cost for Mechanical Dewatering Improvements Description Estimate Rehab existing thickener $120,000 Construct new thickener $750,000 Sludge pumping station $225,000 Dewatering Equipment $2,550,000 Building/out-loading expansion $480,000 Minor yard piping improvements $150,000 Electrical and I&C $795,000 Estimated Project Cost $5,370,000 March 2012 3-35 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Annual operating costs have been estimated for mechanical dewatering of sludges generated at the plant. These costs are listed in Table 3.13 and include pumping costs to transfer FWW solids to the sludge lagoons. Annual estimates consist of labor, power, chemicals, transporting, and disposal of dewatered solids to a landfill. Assumptions used in developing the annual costs are also noted in the table. The total estimates for processing and dewatering settled sludges and FWW solids amounts to$680,000 per year. Unit costs are calculated based upon handling 2 million dry Ibs/yr (1,000 tons) and yield $680 per dry ton, $0.34 per Ibs processed and $36 per acre-ft of an nual water treated. The $/acre-ft unit cost is based upon an annual production of 19,000 acre-ft. Table 3.13 Estimated Annual Operating Cost for WFP Solids Handling Description Estimate Labor $220,000 Electrical Power $190,000 Chemicals $20,000 Sludge Transport/Hauling $50,000 Landfill Disposal $170,000 FWW Pumping $30,000 Total $680,000 Cost per dry ton $680 Cost per lb $0.34 Cost per acre-ft production $36 Notes 1. Assumes1.5 additional full-time employees. 2. Based on 2 million dry Ibs/yr; 1,000 tons. 3. Water production at 19,000 acre-ft/yr. Summary- Solids Handling Solids generated at the WFP have overrun the site. The existing drying beds do not have sufficient capacity to handle the solids loading and the mechanical dewatering equipment and facilities have failed and are not useable. As a result, approximately half of all sludge from the sedimentation basins ends up in the San Dieguito Reservoir. The ActiflOTM unit that was constructed to treat and clarify FWW has been abandoned resulting in FWW being diverted directly into SDR without treatment. Master planning objectives for the solids handling CIP call for elimination of solids disposal in SDR and upgrade and expansion capacity to the dewatering facilities to meet production requirements. A com bination of F WW clarification and implementation of m echanical dewatering is required to meet project objectives. 3-36 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION FWW Handling Two options for clarifying washwater were developed and evaluated. The ActifloTM Option would re-instate the abandoned ActifloTM facility. The Lagoon Option involves pumping of FWW through a new force main to the existing sludge lagoons. Both A lize the dry ing beds for processing and dewatering FWW solids, which represents approximately 25 percent capacity of the total estimated annual sludge production of 2 million dry Ibs/yr. The estimated project cost to implement the ActifloTM Option is$100,000 less expensive than the $960,000 capital cost fo r the L agoon Option. Annual operating costs for thes e FWW treatment options are similar, estimated at$30,000, excluding labor. Operation of the Act ifloTM process for w ashwater clarification is m uch more c hallenging that operating the pumping station required for the Lagoon Option. Previous experience at the plant in treating FWW with the high- rate ActifloTM process yielded unacceptable results by the operations staff as measured by water quality and equipment 0&M issues. Solids Handling and De watering Mechanical dewatering is required to process and dewater the amount of solids generated at the plant. The existing equipment and facilities need to be rehabilitated and expanded to provide an operable system. In addition, the upgraded mechanical dewatering facility must be designed and configured with redundant process and equipment for a reliable and functional system. The facility should be sized to handle maximum day sludge production from the sedimentation basins. The existing drying beds would be used to process and d ewater solids generated from the granular media filters. Combined, the system must handle up to 12,000 dry Ibs/day and 2 million dry Ibs/yr. Estimated project costs to update, expand, and replace elements of the mechanical dewatering facilities amount to $5.4 million. The type of dewatering equipment selected, whether belt press or centrifuge, will be determined in subsequent preliminary design phases. Recommendations - Solids Handling The following items present conclusions and recommendations in defining CIPs related to solids handling at the WFP: 1. Weighing the capital costs and operational issues associated with the ActifloTM versus the Lagoon Options for clarifying FWW, it is recommended that the CIP be configured for implementation of the Lagoon Option. The cost for this element of the CIP is$960,000. 2. Mechanical dewatering is r equired at th e site. This element of the s olids handling CIP amo unts to $5.4 million. 3. The total budget of$6,330,000 is required to implement the complete solids handling CIP. March 2012 3-37 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION 4. SFID/SDWD should move forward with predesign, final design and construction of the solids handling CIP. Predesign and design activities should give consideration for and resolution of the following design and operational details: a. Verify size of mechanical dewatering system. b. Determine and select type of dewatering equipment. c. Investigate potential to refurbish and use the existing centrifuge. d. Provide flexibility for delivery of settled sludges to the thickeners and sludge lagoons. e. Provide redundant, standby equipment for reliable operations. f. Provide means of managing sludge age and to control and minimize anoxic conditions and release of manganese and sulfides within the sludges. g. Properly size dewatering units, thickeners, pumps, etc. to satisfy range of operating requirements at the site. OTHER POTENTIAL PROCESS MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AND TREATED WATER QUALITY Based on discussion presented earlier in this section as well as in Section 2, the WFP has the following water quality limitations: 1. THM formation, while still below the MCL of 80 Ng/L, is projected to further increase when SFID/SDWD begins monitoring under the requirements of the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule. The plant can greatly benefit from measures to reduce THM formation. 2. While no data were available on NDMA formation, experience at other plants suggests that the current practice of maintaining elevated levels of chloramine through flocculation and sedimentation in the presence of poly-DADMAC cationic polymers is likely to form unacceptable levels of NDMA. 3. The WFP relies on the combination of chlorine and chloramine through the entire treatment plant to meet its disinfection requirements. With the desire to reduce THM and NDMA formation, the plant should rely less on chlorine addition to the raw water, and should evaluate delaying chloramine addition until after sedimentation or filtration. 4. While the local water supplies contain very high levels of TO ch emicals at times, the WFP h as no treatment processes capable of removing these chemicals from water. The plant can use a treatment process that can either remove or destroy TO chemicals from the water. 3-38 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Figure 3.14 contains a revised treatment scheme that will help resolve the first three deficiencies. The revised treatment scheme will be implemented after the current clearwell modification project(i.e., baffles) is completed. To address all the above deficiencies with a different approach, the WFP can benefit from a strong alternative oxidation process that is capable of oxidizing manganese and T&O chemicals, and a modified disinfection strategy that reduces THM formation and eliminates the potential for NDMA formation without compromising the plant's ability to meet its disinfection requirements. One alternative oxidant worthy of consideration is ozone. Ozone is a powerful oxidant capable of destroying MIB, Geosmin, and other T&O chemicals. Ozone is also a strong oxidant of manganese as well as iron, sulfide, and color that may be present in local water supplies. Ozone's greatest challenge when treating SFID/SDWD's water sources is the potential formation of bromate, Br03, which is a regulated disinfection by-product with an MCL of 10 Ng/L in drinking water. Bromate is formed from the reaction of ozone with bromide ions, Br-. Bromide is present in CWA water and well as SFID/SDWD's local water supply. Over the last 10 years, the bromide level in SDR water ranged from a low of 0.4 mg/L to a hi gh of 0.75 mg/L with an average of 0.57 mg/L. This is considered to be a high bromide level requiring the implementation of a bromate formation mitigation strategy. However, it is believed that the b enefits of ozone could very well outweigh the concerns over bromate formation, especially because bromate formation could be effectively controlled. Ozone application for the treatment of Lake Hodges water was evaluated by the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD). Bench-scale testing showed that an ozone dose of 8.5 mg/L is capable of achieving greater than 80 percent destruction of MIB and Geosmin, and greater than 90 percent oxidation of manganese. The water used for testing contained 0.4 mg/L bromide. At an ozone dose of 8.5 mg/L, th e bromate level formed was only 1.8 Ng/L, which is well below the MCL of 10 Ng/L. This performance needs to be confirmed with pilot- scale testing to ensure satisfactory performance under seasonal water quality changes and multiple blends of local and imported water supplies. With ozone as a preoxidant, SFID/SDWD can eliminate the use of chlorine dioxide as a preoxidant, and could eliminate the need to add free chlorine to th e raw water and maintain chloramine contact through the flocculation and sedimentation processes. This should reduce the NDMA formation potential at the treatment plant. Delaying chlorine addition until after sedimentation or filtration would also take advantage of the lower TOC levels in the settled water to result in the formation of lower THM levels in the treated water. Because of the potentially high ozone demand of the water, it is unlikely that ozone can be used to satisfy the plant's Giardia disinfection requirements. Therefore, chlorine or an alternative disinfectant would need to be added through or downstream of the filters. One option is to utilize free chlorine contact through the media filters, followed by chloramine contact through the clearwell. If chlorine contact through the filters will generate excessive THM levels, another option is to utilize UV disinfection to meet the Giardia inactivation requirements, and then use a short free chlorine contact time to m eet the virus inactivation requirements before adding ammonia to form chloramine. This approach will result in minimal THM formation while maintaining compliance with all the disinfection requirements for Giardia and virus inactivation. March 2012 3-39 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION U iJ agsnej ooneo eluowwd eiuowwy auuolgD auuolyo N �1 4) N [4 S6 'v auuoly� auuoly3 C C O D C C E n u°i cn ❑ k ❑ m m a o O L L 0 \� eluowwy G.> IDVd — lovd w x LL V N C G.> E cc G> auunl40 It y ,v— E a � o o fi o o N U ❑ co r4 Cl @ > C ey apixo10 a N apixoia v auuol4� V auuoi4� U m L Q Q L L U a U U a- LL- ❑ v 6 a ❑ °' U]U U) U 3-40 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Another modification that can be implemented at the WFP is slig ht pH suppression to reduce scaling in the distribution system. Under current treatment conditions, a caustic dose of approximately 8 mg/L is added to the filtered water to raise the pH of the water entering the clearwell and distribution system to a range of 8.0 to 8.2. Under typical water quality conditions, this is a good pH range to protect the distribution system against corrosion, including lead and copper corrosion from in-house plumbing. However, the TDS, hardness, and alkalinity of the WFP effluent are quite high resulting in a relatively high Langelier Saturation Index (LSI). Table 3.14 lists the average and range of the pertinent effluent water quality parameters during 2009 and 2010. The LSI at 25°C (LSI25) ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 with an average of 0.7. This is an unnecessarily high LSI value that may result in excessive scaling of CaCO3 in the distribution system. The LSI value at 60°C (LSIso) is even higher with a range of 0.9 to 1.5 and an average of 1.2. This high-temperature LSI reflects the water precipitation potential in residential water heaters, which are typically maintained at a temperature of 60°C. Table 3.14 Effluent WFP Water Quality Characteristics(2009—2010) Parameter Unit Average Range pH -- 8.2 8.1 to 8.5 Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 137 106 to 170 Total-Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 294 220 to 380 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 655 488 to 830 (TDS) LSI @ 25°C (LSI25) -- 0.7 0.5 to 1.1 LSI @ 60°C (LSIso) -- 1.2 0.9 to 1.5 It is our experience that an LSI25 value between—0.2 and +0.5 is sufficiently protective of a distribution system. Lowering the LSI can be achieved by reducing the caustic dose added at the plant and thus lowering the pH of the water entering the distribution system. Figure 3.15 shows a profile of the water pH in the effluent of the WFP between June 2009 and February 2010 and the pH of saturation at 2 5°C calculated based on the general effluent water quality (i.e., pH, alkali nity, calcium hardness, and TDS). The p lot shows that the c urrent pH is approximately 0.8 pH units above the saturation pH value. If the effluent pH is lowered to a range of 7.6 to 7.8, it should still maintain a slightly positive LSI25. If SFID/SDWD considers lowering th e pH of the water in the distribution system to reduce CaCO 3 scaling, it is imperative that significant monitoring be implemented in the distribution syst em and in-house plumbing to ensure that this action does not result in unintended consequences in the distribution system. In order to accommodate potential process modifications, the chemical feed system will need some upgrades to provide dedicated chemical injection points. Currently, chemicals can feed to different locations, but do so through a common system making simultaneous injection to multiply points difficult. One additional injection point desired by pl ant staff is the ca pability to add c hlorine or ch Iorine dioxide to th e backwash line. It is estimated that chemical feed system improvements will cost approximately$75,000. March 2012 3-41 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION .4 8.2 Cufte�f EffluePl PH 8 pH passible Range{or Effluent pH 7.4 PH oFSaturation at 25°C 7.0 M co a T T Figure 3.15 Current and Potential Operating Range for WFP Effluent pH Value Incorporating Ozone with or without UV Preliminary approaches for implementing ozone with or without UV disinfection at the WFP is discussed below. The two alternatives are summarized in Figure 3.16. Under both Alternative Nos. 1 and 2, ozone is used as a preoxidant in lieu of chlorine dioxide and chlorine addition to the raw water. Chlorine and ammonia addition points are shown upstream of the ozone contactor. If needed, these would be utilized at low doses (0.5 to 1.0 mg/L chlorine) to control bromate formation. However, they are not intended for disinfection or oxidation. Figure 3.15 also shows ozone to b e applied in a pi peline contactor configuration. Alternatively, a clos ed- chamber ozone contactor may be utilized. An engineering and financial analysis needs to be cc nducted to determine what type of ozone contactor is most appropriate for the WFP. Alternative No. 1 shows chlorine being added to the settled water with the goal of achieving partial disinfection with free chlorine contact through the filters before ammonia addition. The remaining disinfection requirements would need to be met with chloramine through the clearwell. Pilot scale testing of this approach would need to be implemented to determine the viability of th is approach. It is noted that mainta ining chlorine through the filters would prevent biological activity in the filters. 3-42 March 2012 SECTION I PLANT PR CES AND H DRAUHC EVALUATION � ) § ) s s _� _e _e -©- W- w- �qlqo zmc _o E R) A 2 2 7 £ £ ] 03 03 m 2 2 2 ID ID ID Co Co Co � --- � --- $ $ ) $ m @3 § @3 $ - U LL % z f z 7 k § o ` ~d u- x % ~d X / E � E k / k k ) � \ ` / § Ix ) k I w 6 cc J ^� @ ; ) k .m .m / 7 k k k $ $ 2/ \ E ©? [ E U3 § a 3 §§ r*} a /j � March 2012 $q SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION If further evaluation determines that Alternative No. 1 is impractical or undesirable, Alternative No. 2 eliminates free chlorine contact through the filters, and utilizes post-filter UV disinfection to meet the Giardia inactivation requirements. Chlorine is then added followed by ammonia addition. A short free chlorine contact time may be needed to meet the virus inactivation requirements. However, this contact time is projected to be quite short and should result in limited DBP formation. Ozone Design Criteria and Estimated Project Costs Table 3.15 contains preliminary ozone design criteria for Lake Hodges and CWA source water supplies. Table 3.15 Preliminary Ozone Design Criteria for Lake Hodges and CWA Source Waters Source Ozone Dose(mg/L) Lake Hodges 5.0 CWA 2.0 Notes 1. Lake Hodges dosage from OMWD work. 2. CWA dosage from MWD experience. The ozone generation system would consist of ozone generation equipment and building and an ozon e contactor. A s ystem sized for ty pical maximum flow rates (30 mgd) would require a 1,300 ppd system . Estimated project costs and 0&M costs for this system are presented in Tables 3.16 and 3.17. Table 3.16 Estimated Project Cost for Ozone System Description Estimates Ozone Equipment $5,700,000 Building $1,000,000 Pipeline Contactor $600,000 Yard Piping $650,000 Site Work $300,000 Electrical &Instrumentation $1,650,000 Mob/Demob $300,000 Estimated Project Cost $10,200,000 3-44 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Table 3.17 Estimated Project 0&M Costs for Ozone System Source Water 0&M Costs($/acre-ft) Lake Hodges $23.10 CWA $9.24 The existing 54-inch raw water influent pipeline could be used as an ozone contactor and would provide approximately three minutes of contact time at 30 mgd. Additional contact time could be added by constructing a parallel pipeline to the 54-inch line. In order to use the 54-inch line as a contactor, the 30-inch raw water force main from the CPS (Lake Hodges water)will need to be relocated to tie in to the 54-inch raw water line near the hydroelectric facilities. Pilot study work is needed finalize the ozone generator sizing and ozone contact time. Recommendations - Other Potential Process Modifications to Improve Performance and Treated Water Quality The following items present conclusions and recommendations in defining the CIP related to improved performance and treated water quality at WFP: 1. Curtail the practice of maintaining chloramines through the entire treatment plant. Chloramine addition should occur downstream of sedimentation, or preferably, after filtration. 2. Consider installation of a preoz onation system. Pr eozonation would pr ovide a strong alter native preoxidation process capable of oxidizing manganese, hydrogen sulfide, and T&O chemicals, while providing a modified disinfection strategy that re duces THM format ion and the potential for N DMA formation. Estimated project cost for a preozonation system is$10.2 million. 3. Conduct an ozone pil of study for a mi nimum of six months to confirm its performance c apabilities. Estimated cost for the pilot study is$500,000. UTILITY WATER The WFP supplies water to the plant through a utility water system which consists of four pumps, two 25 horsepower and two 15 horsepower, each with VFDs. The pumps feed off the plant backwash line that feeds the Backwash Water Ta nk. The pumps operate to maintain a pressure setpoint. The utility water is us ed throughout the plant as wash down water, makeup water, carrier water, potable water, etc. Much of the utility w ater system transmission lines at the plant w ere installed when the WFP w as initially constructed in the late 1960s; meaning it is just over 40 years old. The buried piping greater than two inches in diameter was constructed of asb estos cement pipe. This p ipe material typically has a Iif a range of 40 to 70 years. While this pipe still likely has life expectancy left, it is recommended that plant staff inspect portions of the piping to determine its condition to see if it should be replaced. The utility water pumps are relatively new and all appear to be in good condition. March 2012 3-45 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION A tour of the WFP and discussion with WFP staff revealed that the utility water system is overall in good shape. However, there is one deficiency that needs to be c orrected. Flow from the utility water system is c ontinually being fed to the chlorinators and the chlorine dioxide generator. When a large demand is put on the utility water system (typically from line sizes exceeding 1-inch in diameter), system pressure drops for a short period of time until another utility water pump turns on. This drop in pressure causes feed rates at the chlorinators and the chlorine dioxide generator to decrease. To combat this problem, plant staff operate the utility water pumps in manual mode when a high demand utility water connection needs to be used. This utility water deficiency can be solved by prov iding a de dicated pump and utility water line to the chlorinators and chloride dioxide generator. It is anticipated that a pump similar to the existing 15 hp pump would be adequate and a 4-inch dedicated line would be adequate. It is possible that one of the existing pumps could be used for this modification, but for this analysis, a new pump is assumed. Estimated project costs associated with these improvements amount to$70,000. Recommendations - Utility Water The following items represent conclusions and recommendations in defining CIPs related to utility water system at the WFP: 1. Provide dedicated pumping system to the chlorinators and chlorine dioxide generator. Estimated project cost is$70,000. CHEMICAL HANDLING The WFP has several chemical processes that they use on a daily basis. These include the following: • Gaseous Chlorination • Sodium Chlorite • Chlorine Dioxide Generator • Aqueous Ammonia • PACL • Cationic Polymer • Caustic Soda The gaseous chlorination system and the chlorine dioxide generator are located in the Operations Building. Storage tanks for each of the other systems are located in the Chemical Storage Area. The aqueous ammonia, PACL, and caustic soda systems are all pressurized systems with metering occurring using a flow meter and a control valve. The sodium chlorite system is used in chlorine dioxide generation. It is transferred to the chlorine dioxide generator using a centrifugal pump. Cationic polymer is conveyed to various locations in the plant using two progressive cavity pumps located in the basement of the Operations Building. 3-46 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Overall, the chemical handling system is in good shape and effectively operates to assist in treating water at the WFP. However, there are a few items that should be included in a capital improvements plan. These include the following: 1. Replacement of the chlorine dioxide generator 2. Replace the non-pressurized PACL tank 3. Upgrade the controls at each chlorinator 4. Add a spare tank to the Chemical Storage Area 5. Add capability of feeding anionic polymer to the flocculation basins Replace Chlorine Dioxide System When installed, the current c hlorine dioxide generator was meant to be a temporary unit. The c urrent system was designed for pilot studies, not for full-scale operation. As a result, the current system is limited in its capabilities, redundancy, and capacity. If the syst em were to f ail, there is no backup method for providing chlorine dioxide. As discussed throughout this report, chlorine dioxide addition is a critical unit process in the treatment of the raw water supplies. Upgrading the system would provide a robust, user-friendly system that will provide increased operator control, flexibility, redundancy, and capacity. The current system has a capacity of 500 ppd. This allows up to a 2 mg/L dose at the maximum flow rate of 30 mgd, which is adequate for the WFP. When upgraded, a redundant unit should be provided. To house the new units, an additional 450 ftz of covered space is needed. Modifications to utility water piping, chemical piping, and instrumentation will also be needed. Upgrade PACL Tank As mentioned, the PACL is operated as a pressurized system. The system utilizes three 13,300-gallon storage tanks. Only two of these tanks are pressure rated. The third tank contains two gear pumps that are used to transfer PACL to one of the other tanks. Although currently working, this setup is not ideal as it requires more operator effort in managing the system and it is recommended that this to nk be upgraded. Alternatively, a new tank could be provided and the non-pressurized tank could be used as a spare tank. Upgrade Chlorinator The WFP utilizes three chlorinators with the gaseous chlorine system. These chlorinators are all wired together such that they operate as one system. As such, automation only allows the st aff to dos e chlorine at one location. Allowing the capability to flow pace chlorine at up to three locations would help in optimizing plant performance. Currently, staff must manually make adjustments to dose at multiple locations. It is recommended that these modifications be made to the chlorination system so that plant staff can meter to multiple locations. March 2012 3-47 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Spare Chemical Tank At times, it is beneficial for the WFP to test different chemicals in optimizing operation of the plant. Currently, there are no spare chemical tanks in the Chemical Storage Area to allow staff to do this. Adding a spare chemical tank (2,000 gallons minimum) would allow plant staff thi s flexibility. This recommendation can be accommodated by providing a new sodium chlorite tank at an alternate location. The existing sodium chlorite tank could then serve as a spare tank. New Anionic Polymer Feed Location Anionic polymer is often used at conventional plants as a flocculant aid and a filter aid. Currently, WFP has the capability of dosing it upstream of the filters. Providing an additional feed point to the flocculation basins would allow plant staff to better optimize its use. It is recommended that additional polymer feed points be added such that anionic polymer can be fed either to the flocculation basins or upstream of the filters. Estimated project costs for these improvements are shown in Table 3.18. Table 3.18 Estimated Project Costs for Chemical Handling System Improvements Description Estimate New chlorine dioxide system $1,300,000 New PACL tank and appurtenances $100,000 Chlorinator upgrades $40,000 Anionic polymer feed point $20,000 Estimated Project Cost $1,460,000 Recommendations - Chemical Handling The following items r epresent conclusions and recommendations in defining the CIP related to c heroical handling system at the WFP: 1. Replace existing chlorine dioxide generator pilot unit with a full-scale system. 2. Upgrade non-pressurized PACL tank. 3. Upgrade the chlorinators to increase chlorination flexibility. 4. Provide a new anionic polymer feed location to the flocculation basins. 3-48 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION HEALTH AND SAFETY Health and Safety at a treatment facility is important and should be heavily considered because of the nature of the processes and equipment at a treatment facility. In walking throug h the facility and speaking with staff, the following safety concerns were identified. • Location of the Sodium Chlorite Tank. • More gas detectors needed. • Splash shields for chemical feed system skids. • Valve Access in busy streets. • Inadequate handrail on SDR dam. Sodium Chlorite Tank The sodium chlorite tank is located next to the PACL tanks. Since PACL is an acid, mixing of these chemicals will send off toxic chlorine gases. As a result, it is recommended that sodium chlorite be relocated to a separate area. In doing this, it makes sense to leave the existing sodium chlorite tank and add a new one in its own containment area adjacent to the existing Chemical Storage Area. Gas Detectors The pipe gallery is I ocated underground and is e nclosed. To e nsure detection of haz ardous gases, it i s recommended that both ammonia, chlorine, and sulfide gas detectors be installed in the pipe gallery. Splash Shields The chemical feed skids for caustic soda, PACL, and ammonia are located in the basement of the Operations Building. Currently these feed skids to not have splash shields to protect an operator from chemical spray in case of a leak. It is recommended that splash shields be installed at these locations. Valve Access Currently, isolating the CPS is difficult due to location of isolation valves in the busy Del Dios Highway. When plant staff needs to operate these valves, they must follow proper procedures to get clearances to work in the highway. This takes at least a day to do. Moving the two 36-inch valves on the CPS and discharge lines could be accomplished by moving them to the north side of the highway. Doing so would eliminate the risk associated with working in the highway and reduce the time needed to isolate the pump station. March 2012 3-49 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Handrail on SDR Dam The current handrail on the dam at SDR is inadequate as it provides limited fall protection. In addition, it only runs along one side of the dam. It is recommended that new handrails be installed along both sides of the dam. Estimated project costs associated with making the recommended plant safety improvements are shown in Table 3.19. Table 3.19 Project Cost Estimates for Health and Safety Improvements Description Estimate New sodium chlorite tank $75,000 Gas detectors $10,000 Chemical splash shields $5,000 CPS valve relocation $100,000 Handrail on SDR Dam $160,000 Estimated Project Cost $350,000 Recommendations - Health and Safety The following items represent conclusions and recommendations in defining the CIPs related to health and safety considerations at the WFP: 1. Replace the sodium chlorite tank and relocate it away from the PACL tank. 2. Add ammonia and chlorine gas detectors to the pipe galleries. 3. Add chemical splash shields to the chemical feed skids located in the basement of the Operations Building. 4. Move the two CPS isolation valves out of the Del Dios Highway. 5. Install new handrail on SDR dam. HYDRAULIC EVALUATION The WFP has a design capacity of 40 mgd. A hydraulic analysis was conducted to verify hydraulic capacity and to identify any flow restrictions and associated bottlenecks. Most of the information used in the analysis was obtained from the plans associated with the 1993 plant modifications. A plant hydraulic profile was prepared from the hydraulic analysis and is shown in Figure 3.16. Input and output data from the hydraulic model is provided as Appendix B of this master plan. 3-50 March 2012 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION The hydraulic analysis revealed that hydraulic capacity at the WFP is not an issue up to the design rate of 40 mgd. There are, however, a n umber of hydraulic elements throughout the plant that deserve discussion related to ex isting operation conditions and potential plant improvements. These are pr esented below. Reference Figure 3.17 for calculated HGL elevations at these locations. Hydraulic Control Points There are four hydraulic control points that establish water surfaces and hydraulic gradelines within the plant. These control points are: • V-notch weirs of sed basin launders—controls sed basin water level. • Filter inlet weirs—established water level in filter inlet channel. • Filter effluent valves—valves modulate to maintain water level in filter box. • Weir at filter control structure —maintains submergence of filter effluent valve, conduit, and downstream piping. It is recommended that the control algorithm to modulate the filter effluent valve and resultant water level be configured to optimize available headloss across the filter. Plant Inlet Flow capacity and related headlosses upstream of flash mix are driven by the CWA supply pressures and the pumping head at the SDPS and CPS. Each supply has sufficient hydraulic head to deliver water to the plant. Construction of potential future upstream processes, such as ozonation, will require additional hydraulic head to deliver the same flow. A pre-ozone contact basin, for example, located between flow measurement and flash mix might impose 3 to 4 feet of additional headloss and should be considered when modifying or replacing the SDR pumping station. Pretreatment Basin The water surface elevation in the sedimentation basin is estimated at 534.90 feet upstream of the v-notch weirs of the outlet finger launders. This level at 40 mgd is within several inches of the basin overflow weir elevation of 535.24 feet. The basin has sufficient freeboard such that the overflow weir elevation could be raised if overflow conditions become a problem. Overflows Two overflow weirs are located within the plant to relieve process flooding as follows: • Sed basin overflow—weir set at El. 535.24 feet. This weir protects the floc/sed basin, filter inlet channel, and filter box from overflow in the event filter inlet or outlet valves are closed. • Finished water overflow—protects finished water reservoir from surcharge. March 2012 3-51 SECTION 3: PLANT PROCESS AND HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Filters The filter control structure weir located downstream of the filters is positioned to maintain positive submergence of the filter effluent valves, turbidity sample locations and filtered water conduits. However, when differential head across the media, underdrain, and filter outlet piping reaches 7 to 8feet, negative head (air vacuum) conditions would occur in the lower filter gullet and in the top of the 30-inch outlet pipe (between the filter box and the backwash supply valve). Therefore, it is rec ommended that filter headloss should not be operated above 8 feet. FW Piping The 48-inch and 54-inch filter piping downstream of the FW conduits serve multiple purposes including: • Conveys FW to control structure • Provides FW to backwash supply pumps • Provides FW to utility water pumps Minimum plant flows should be limited to 6 to 8 mgd to maintain hydraulic flows and pressures within the FW pipe header down-stream of the filters. 3-52 March 2012 \ \ \ \ \§ \ ( § ( ^ � § � \ ' k - � � � \ 6j k - � § • -.; � : §,■ : � ° � � : � � © f \ \ - �! CL § _ , Section 4 RAW WATER FACILITIES BACKGROUND The raw water delivery facilities are comprised of a series of nine distinct reaches and components. Figure 4.1 illustrates each distinct delivery facility. They are listed below and a discussion for each component follows. 1. Lake Hodges 6. San Dieguito Reservoir 2. Pipeline from Lake Hodges to CPS 7. San Dieguito Pump Station 3. Cielo Pump Station 8. Pipeline from SDPS to WFP 4. Pipeline from CPS to WFP 9. 15-inch Drain Line 5. Pipeline from CPS to SDR CWATreated Water CWA 54" I 30" Raw Water R.E.Badger To Distribution System Filtration Plant 54" Hydroelectric Turbines r Flows of 4 to 7 MGD 38.. 30" with addition of Cielo Pump 0.5 mg/L 115"Drain Line SkaC+on chlorine dioxide. 1 tapprax.22 MGID) v_ i O i V 1 18" 36.. p _ �a�VeVau ❑1 Lake Hodges San Dieguito IGYa`�'tY MG�� Pump Station lPump San Dieguito (approx.18 MGD) Reservoir Figure 4.1 Schematic of Existing Raw Water Delivery Facilities OBJECTIVES Activities completed in this evaluation of the raw water delivery facilities included: 1. Review and definition of operational and hydraulic capacities of the raw water delivery facilities, including conveyance pipelines and pump stations. 2. Locating, sizing, and phasing of a new SDPS. 3. Providing possible enhancements to the raw water system to eliminate and/or mitigate the impact of Quagga Mussels infestation. 4. Determine potential SDR improvements required to accommodate multiple functions. . March 2012 4-1 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES LAKE HODGES Lake Hodges reservoir and dam are owned and operated by the City of San Diego. Lake Hodges is supplied by the local watershed and has a maximum storage capacity of approximately 30,250 AF as reported in the 2008 Lake Hodges Projects Reservoir Regulation Manual. The maximum operational volume in Lake Hodges is 315 feet. Most of the time, the reservoir operates at a level above 290 feet. The minimum operating level is 264 feet. Lake Hodges is the primary source from which SFID/SDWD receives local water supply. PIPELINE FROM LAKE HODGES TO CIELO PUMP STATION Originally, water was conveyed from Lake Hodges to SDR through aflume that was constructed in 1918. In 2003, this flume was upgraded to a 36-inch CML&C pipeline for the stretch from Lake Hodges dam to a point approximately 2,700 feet downstream of the CPS. As shown in Figure 4.1, flow in the 36-inch pipeline from Lake Hodges can be diverted through the CPS. This pipeline is less than ten years old and should be in good condition. Capacity of this pipeline segment is in excess of 30 mgd. CIELO PUMP STATION The CPS was constructed in 2003 and delivers raw water from Lake Hodges directly to the WFP. The pump station consists of four vertical turbine pumps. Three each designed for 6.0 mgd at a head of 318 feet and driven by a 450 HP motor, and one designed for 3.0 mgd at 318 feet of head driven by a 250 HP motor. The CPS was designed to pump Lake Hodges water directly to the WFP through a 36-inch CML&C steel pipeline to the WFP. However, plant staff has flexibility in its use. Plant staff can valve the raw water system such that water from CPS is pumped directly to SDR. This allows nearly a three-fold increase in flows to SDR when compared to gravity conveyance. One other way plant staff uses the CPS is to oxidize water from Lake Hodges to SDR. Plant staff can do this by injecting chlorine dioxide into the 36-inch force main and then transfer the water to SDR through an interconnection at the WFP between the 36-inch CPS force main and the 15-inch plant drain. During a visit to the CPS and conversation with the WFP staff, the following observations were made: • The existing pump station inlet and discharge valves are located within Del Dios Highway. Safety is a concern when operating these valves as on-coming traffic presents a hazard. • The buried isolation butterfly valves to each pump and the 10-inch bypass do not provide tight shut-off. • Water from Lake Hodges is of a corrosive and anoxic nature, which has caused deterioration of the vertical turbine pumps. • The Golden Anderson rotary pump control check valves are equipped with control units and hydraulically actuated cylinders. However, the water being used for the hydraulic actuation is Lake Hodges water, which contains sediment and debris. The hydraulic lines need periodic flushing on a weekly basis in keep the hydraulic actuator piping from plugging. 4-2 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES • Quagga Mussel will be introduced into Lake Hodges and SFID/SDWD wants to keep it out of SDR. • Maximum capacity reported by staff is approximately 22 mgd. • The firm capacity (largest pump out of service) is 15 mgd. Recommendations - Cielo Pump Station The following is recommended for CPS: 1. The CPS inlet and discharge valves should be relocated closer to the CPS to the side of the Del Dios Highway so that they can be operated without going into the road. 2. The buried isolation valves should be replaced with material that is more resilient to the characteristics of Lake Hodges water. This would include a 316 stainless steel valve or coating the valve with an anticorrosive and abrasion resistant coating. The stainless steel valve is likely to cost more than double a coated valve. 3. The vertical turbine pumps are in need of repair. Operation and Maintenance Staff has indicated that a substantial component of the CPS pump refurbishment has been completed as part of the Joint Facilities 0&M program and future refurbishments would also be a part of periodic 0&M improvements. As a result, pump refurbishment is not part of the CIP. 4. Replace the hydraulic actuators with electric actuators to eliminate the problem with plugging. The electric actuators should be equipped to close the valve in case there is a power outage. 5. Provide Quagga control at CPS to prevent them from getting to SDR. Further analysis of alternatives is presented later. Table 4.1 Project Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements to CPS Description Estimate Relocate valves out of highway $100,000 Replace valves on pump suction $150,000 Replace hydraulic actuators $10,000 Estimated Project Cost $260,000 Note:The listed improvements have been incorporated into the CIP as part of the 30-inch Parallel Pipeline Project. March 2012 4-3 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES PIPELINE FROM CIELO PUMP STATION TO WFP Water pumped from CPS can be directly transferred to the WFP through a 36-inch CML&C steel pipeline. This pipeline was installed in the early 2000s. Conveyance capacity of this pipeline is 36.5 mgd. At this flowrate, water velocity is 8 ft/sec. This pipeline is still relatively new and is anticipated to be in good condition. In addition to conveyance from CPS directly to the WFP, plant staff can divert a portion or all of the flow from the 36-inch force main through an interconnection with the 15-inch drain line that terminates at SDR. Plant staff utilizes this diversion as a means for injecting chlorine dioxide into SDR to precondition water from Lake Hodges before entering SDR. PIPELINE FROM CIELO PUMP STATION TO SAN DIEGUITO RESERVOIR Water can be conveyed from CPS to SDR by gravity or pumping. By gravity, it actually by-passes CPS and continues in the 36-inch pipeline for approximately 2,700 feet downstream of CPS. At that point, it is diverted into an 18-inch HDPE pipeline that flows to SDR. Gravity flow from Lake Hodges to SDR is regulated through a 6-inch sleeve valve. When pumped, discharge from Lake Hodges flows through CPS and then follows the same flow path as in gravity conditions. Hydraulic calculations were performed to determine the theoretical gravity flow capacity from Lake Hodges to SDR. The analysis assumed a Lake Hodges operating level of 295 to 305 feet and by-passing the sleeve valve. Under these conditions, maximum flow is approximately 4.3 to 4.8 mgd. If flow is sent through a 100 percent open sleeve valve, capacity is reduced to 2.5 to 3.0 mgd. Plant staff has reported a maximum flow in the range of 4 mgd. When water is conveyed from SDR to the WFP, it is at rates up to approximately 16 mgd. Because gravity conveyance from Lake Hodges cannot keep up with the amount of water pumped from SDR to the WFP, plant staff frequently runs CPS to augment flow to SDR. Though the CPS was designed to pump directly to the plant, virtually all of its usage is pumping directly to SDR instead. A hydraulic analysis was performed to estimate maximum flow that could be pumped from CPS to SDR will all four pumps in operation. A maximum flow rate of approximately 13 mgd was calculated. Plant staff has observed a maximum flow rate in the range of 12 mgd. CPS has become the primary means to convey water from Lake Hodges to SDR. According to plant staff, annual power consumption costs are approximately $400,000. These costs are consistent with costs predicted by the Base Case Model described in Section 1. An alternative to using CPS is to install a pipeline parallel to the existing 18-inch HDPE line to increase gravity conveyance to SDR. Several options for doing this are shown in Table 4.2. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the parallel line would also be made of HPDE. In addition, it was assumed the new SDPS will have a firm capacity of 15 mgd (largest pump out of service), and be expandable to 25 mgd, as presented later in this section. 4-4 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES Table 4.2 also shows a payback associated with power savings from eliminating the need to pump from Lake Hodges to SDR. Several options are presented for paralleling the 18-inch pipeline. One option is construction of a 24-inch parallel line that would closely match the initial firm capacity of a future SDPS (15 mgd; discussed later in this section). Storage in SDR would offset the remaining 1 mgd. A 18-inch parallel line is another option; however, at only 14 mgd capacity, this scenario would rely heavily on storage in SDR causing water levels to fluctuate. It has been reported that foul odors from SDR are at least partially due to low water levels revealing sediment in the shallow parts of the reservoir. Trying to maintain SDR at am ore constant year-round level would help with odor issues. Another viable option is construction of a 30-inch parallel line. This would provide an additional 18 mgd of gravity conveyance, resulting in a total gravity conveyance capacity of 22 mgd. This excess capacity accounts for any expansion of the future SDPS above its initial firm capacity of 15 mgd. Construction of a 30-inch pipeline paralleling the existing 18-inch pipeline would cost an estimated $3.9 million. Amortized over 20 years at 5 percent equates to $313,000 annually, a savings of approximately $87,000 annually if pumping from Lake Hodges to SDR were eliminated. Table 4.2 Conveyance Capacity for Parallel Pipeline Alternatives from CPS to SDR Total Conveyance Estimated Annual Project Pipeline Diameter' Ca acit z(m d) Project Cost' Amortized Cost4 Payback' 18-inch 8.7 $2,400,000 $193,000 $207,000 24-inch 14 $2,900,000 $233,000 $167,000 30-inch 22 $3,900,000 $313,000 $87,000 36-inch 29 $4,900,000 $393,000 $7,000 Notes 1. Pipeline material is HDPE. 2. Total conveyance capacity is combined gravity flow of existing 18-inch HDPE line and proposed parallel HDPE line. 3. Estimated pipeline length is 9,000 feet. 4. Based on 20 year period at 5 percent interest. 5. Calculated by subtracting amortization cost from current electrical costs($400,000). Recommendations - Pipeline Between CPS and SDR The following item represents recommendation related to the pipeline between CPS and SDR. 1. Install a new 30-inch pipeline parallel to the existing 18-inch pipeline. Total conveyance gravity capacity of the two parallel pipelines would be 22 mgd. March 2012 4-5 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES SAN DIEGUITO RESERVOIR SDR is a vital component of the local raw water delivery system. It currently operates as an intermediate step between Lake Hodges and WFP. SDR often allows extended use of Lake Hodges water, even after its water quality has deteriorated. The primary objective of this exercise of looking at SDR is to determine the highest and best use of SDR. With that in mind, the following discussion takes place. Roles and Challenges SDR provides four functions. Each function has its respective challenges. 1. Operational and emergency storage — SDR had an original volume of 1,130 AF. In 1997, the volume was down to 883 AF. In 2011, available volume is down to 755 AF. How best to maintain and manage this volume, or possibly recover previously lost volume? 2. Pretreatment of Lake Hodges water — Since the mid to late 2000's, SFID/SDWD has proactively and aggressively implemented Lake Management practices at SDR. Results have been impressive-making SDR a vital unit process in the cost effective treatment of Lake Hodges water. It has worked well at 12 mgd and may have to be enhanced and/or enlarged to continue successful performance at 15 mgd. 3. Receiver of residual streams from WFP — Filter waste washwater and portions of the settled sludge streams from the sedimentation basins have been directed to SDR over the years. Preliminary calculations project about 12 acre-ft of solids is deposited into SDR annually. Section 3 presents the most cost effective approach to eliminate solids disposal from WFP to SDR. 4. Receiver of storm water and urban runoff — Storm water and urban runoff finds its way into SDR at the northeast corner. Are there improvements that the dischargers of storm water and urban water runoff must make in order to protect health and safety and water quality in this raw water storage reservoir? Operational and Emergency Storage From the perspective of SDR as a pre-conditioning process, assuming local water supplies are limited to approximately 5,700 AFY, the active SDR volume required is estimated at 680 AF. The existing available volume is approximately 755 AF. Therefore, sufficient volume exists for the purpose of pre-conditioning activities. As solids from the WTP are discharged to the SDR, available volume is lost. Figure 4.2 contains a flow and mass balance for SDR. In summary, about 10 to 12 AF is being filled annually. This is primarily a result of residual streams from WFP. With continued discharge of solids, a time will come when the required active volume limit is reached. Two activities must take place to maintain and/or restore operational and emergency storage volumes. 1. Reduce and/or eliminate discharge of solids from WFP into SDR. A proposed plan to implement this practice is presented in Section 3. Estimated project cost to implement the proposed plan is$6.3 million. 2. Dredge SDR. 4-6 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES 15"Drain From WFP • 0.4-0.6 mgd 1,700,000 Ihs-12 AFY(solids) • 4 to 7 MGD from Lake Hodges via CPS preoxidized with Urban 0.5 mg/L chlorine dioxide Runoff To WFP 0-15 mgd San Dieguito Pump Station 5edimerri Thickness' San Dieguito 9' w Reservoir 15 — 18' Aeration(typ) — 21' Year Lake Volume(ac-ft) 181,From 1918 1,131 Lake Hodges 1997 883 10 AFY 4-12 mgd 2010 755 Water Balance(Sep 2010) Change in Water Level=350 AF�12 AF/day 4 mgd (1)Anderson,M.A.2011.Final Report:Basin Characteristics of San Dieguito Reservoir Figure 4.2 San Dieguito Reservoir Flow and Mass Balance Pretreatment of Water from Lake Hodges In the mid to late 2000's, SFID/SDWD implemented a Lake Management System for SDR. Use of Aquamats, floating islands, aeration, real time water quality monitors, and perimeter vegetation removal has transformed SDR into an active unit process in the cost effective treatment of local water. As discussed in Section 2, the following observations regarding water quantities in SDR and Lake Hodges were presented. • TOC is about 10 percent lower in SDR than Lake Hodges. • Manganese is marginally lower but more consistent in SDR. • TO causing compounds, TDS, and coliforms were comparable between the two local source waters. At the current capacity of SDR (755 AF) and the maximum flow from Lake Hodges at 12 mgd, theoretical residence time at SDR is 20 days. With proposed modifications to add a 30-inch parallel pipeline to bring total transfer capacity to 22 mgd, the residence time would be reduced to 11 days. Current lake management practices can handle 18 mgd of flow through SDR. However, the new proposed SDPS is recommended to have a firm capacity of 15 m gd expandable to 25 mgd (see later discussion). Currently, plant staff adds chlorine dioxide to flow from CPS and sends 4 to 7 mgd to SDR as part of their lake management program. With a new March 2012 4-7 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES parallel pipeline, gravity flows from Lake Hodges to SDR would have to be regulated to accommodate this practice. To allow recycling of greater volumes, the lake management system would need to be expanded to increase aeration capacity. Estimated project costs for this expansion are$150,000. Quagga Mussel Control Measures Quagga and zebra mussels are small freshwater bivalve mollusks from the Dreissenid family. CWA published its Dreissenid Mussel Response and Control Plan in December 2010. The plan was approved by California Department of Fish and Game in January 2011. Based on CWA control plan, Lake Hodges and SDR were not infested by Quagga mussels as of September 2010. Lake Hodges will be receiving water from Olivenhain reservoir through hydroelectric turbines. Studies referenced in the CWA control plan found that veligers are apparently damaged and eventually killed by turbulent forces in water. However, there is a potential for veligers to make it into Lake Hodges and subsequently travel downstream to SDR. As such, Quagga control is an important consideration in protecting both the CPS and the SDPS. Discussion on alternate treatments for Dreissenid mussel control follow. Desiccation Desiccation provides mussel kill above the water line. The approach would be to partially drain SDR for approximately one month during summer. As a result, SDR would be off line for a month. Objectionable odor might also be reported because of low water level in the reservoir. This approach is not desirable. Chlorine Dioxide Chlorine dioxide is deemed to kill adult mussels and veligers effectively in pipelines. The injection point for chlorine dioxide would be installed at the CPS to maximize protection of the raw water system. The pump station bypass would be modified to allow for chlorine dioxide to be dosed either in pumping mode to WFP or in gravity mode to SDR. Based on proximity of residential buildings, safety considerations are likely to direct using a three-chemical generation system. Chemicals stored at the CPS site would be sodium chlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and hydrochloric acid. Capital cost for the equipment is$400,000. Operations cost at 25 mgd and 1 mg/L would be around $90,000 annually. Dead mussels would end up at WFP or in SDR. Drawbacks of the treatment are to add chlorite (MCL = 1.0 mg/L) and chlorate (not regulated, public notification above 0.8 mg/L) to the raw water. It would also add a remote chemical facility that may be challenging to operate. This approach is feasible but not preferred except if beneficial to the water treatment process. Ozone Ozone is deemed to kill Dreissenid adult mussels and veligers effectively. As early as 2007, publication from Ontario Power Generation in Canada reported a 98-percent reduction in s ettlement of zebra veligers at 0.080 mg/L and clean concrete walls at 0.5 mg/L ozone dose. Other publications and workshops mention 97-percent reduction of veligers with 0.1 mg/L ozone dose. Injection point for ozone would be installed at CPS to maximize protection of the raw water system. The pump station bypass would be modified to allow for ozone to be dosed either in pumping mode to WFP or gravity mode to SDR. Estimated project cost is$2,700,000 for a redundant system. Operations cost would be around $30,000 annually. Dead mussels would end up at WFP or in SDR. The drawback of the treatment is the potential brominated DBPs formation and the lack of space 4-8 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES available eat the CPS. It would also add a remote chemical facility that may be very challenging to operate. The approach is feasible but not preferred except if beneficial to the water treatment process. Physical Removai Power plants have been using automatic strainers to protect their intake against Dreissenid mussels on the Great Lakes for decades. 25-micron automatic strainers (Amiad, Bollfilter, or equal) eliminate both veligers and adult mussels. Strainers would be installed at the CPS. Pump station bypass would be modified to allow strainers to be used in pumping mode to WFP or gravity mode to SDR. Strainer backwash wastewater and mussels could be discharged to the sewer pump station that is located at the same site. Project cost with 100 percent redundancy is $280,000. The approach would create additional head losses (around 5 pounds per square inch (psi)or about 10 feet) and reduce gravity flow to SDR. The approach is feasible but not preferred. Zequanox Zequanox is manufactured by Marrone Bio Innovations in Northern California. The product is made of 100-percent not-genetically modified dead cells. The product is delivered in dry form. Adult mussels, juveniles, and veligers see the product as a food source. They eat the dead cells and die. The product should receive EPA Section 3 approval this year. NSF approval study will be performed in 2012 either by Sligo County in Ireland or by CWA. Ontario Power generation has scheduled a full-scale testing at one of their facilities in August 2011 after jar testing and pilot testing was successful. The product is still in its development phase. Based on preliminary testing, a 6-hour contact time at 150 mg/L would generate 97-percent mortality over a 5-week period. Maintenance doses at 50 mg/L or less would be required after the initial treatment over a three- month period to achieve eradication of mussels. The approach is promising. It would not require additional effort in handling and storage of chemicals. It would not add potential environmental constraints. It would not add head losses to the conveyance system. Recommendations- Quagga Musseis Adult mussels, juveniles, and veligers have not been detected in Lake Hodges and SDR but will most likely in the future. The following actions are recommended: 1. Check with CWA on a quarterly basis for detection of veligers in Lake Hodges. 2. Maintain SDR being closed to the public. Recreational boating is the major transportation mechanism for mussels. 3. Maintain a water quality-monitoring program. Goals of the program are two-fold: a. Understand environmental conditions the reservoir would offer to the mussels; b. Establish pre-mussel water quality parameters to detect changes that would reveal the presence of mussels. For example, mussel filtration activities would decrease turbidity of the water in the reservoir and the water would become clearer. 4. Review case studies/lessons learned with the use of promising natural control measures such as Zequanox. March 2012 4-9 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES 5. Review the feasibility of remote dosing of chlorine dioxide or ozone when assessing future treatment processes at the WFP. Receiver of Residual Streams from WFP A recommended plan to eliminate future solids disposal to SDR is presented in Section 3. Cost for this plan is $6.3 million. As discussed in the recommended plan, filter waste washwater would still be diverted to SDR after treatment to remove solids. Other Potential SDR Enhancement Projects In addition to raw water from Lake Hodges, a portion of water in SDR is from storm water and urban water run- off that is primarily conveyed to SDR through the County of San Diego's storm water management system. The dischargers of storm water and urban water runoff may be required to construct improvements to avoid flooding and/or quality issues created by their discharges to a raw water storage reservoir. In addition, to avoid flooding during certain portions of the year, the water elevation in SDR must be lowered to accommodate high storm water conditions. This requirement exposes an existing sediment mound that has been created by the build-up of solids in the reservoir over several years. The exposed sediment mound causes periodic odor problems depending upon atmospheric and other conditions. Effective maintenance and management of SDR may require the implementation of improvements driven by a wide range of objectives including: • Lowering the existing sediment mound in order to avoid periodic conditions that increase the potential for odors. • Vegetation removal in order to reduce solids build-up from decaying vegetation. • Dredging for the purpose of recovering additional reservoir capacity for storage and/or treatment purposes. • Dredging channels to better control high strormwater flows through SDR and avoid potential flooding problems. • Addition of siltation/sedimentation basins to reduce deposition of solids from low flow urban runoff. • Addition of artificial wet lands in order to provide addition treatment of urban runoff if necessary. SFID and SDWD have commissioned a consulting firm to better define project descriptions and costs for these potential SDR enhancement projects. This evaluation is currently underway and the projects and associated costs included in this Joint Facilities Master Plan are based upon preliminary finding of that effort. The District's consultant will ultimately provide more detailed planning level project descriptions for each of the recommended projects including assessment of the environmental permitting requirements, capital and 0&M cost, and implementation schedules. 4-10 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES The following five preliminary projects have been identified by the Districts" SDR Consultant: • Addition of siltation basins to accommodate low flow urban water runoff. • Providing channels through dredging or other methods to better control storm water flows through SDR and avoid potential flooding problems. • Addition of natural treatment wetlands to address urban water quality impacts if required. • Lowering of the sediment mound in order to reduce periodic odor issues. • General dredging of the reservoir to recover additional storage volume. • Vegetation removal to reduce solids build up from decaying vegetation. Multiple potential projects preliminarily identified by the Districts' SDR Consultant and included in this Joint Facilities Master Plan are directly driven by storm water and urban water impacts to the SDR. Though SFID and SDWD do not believe they are responsible for the cost to implement these improvements, the Joint Facilities Master Plan is including the preliminary project descriptions and costs in order to facilitate future planning and discussions with the County of San Diego. Recommendations - San Dieguito Reservoir The following items represent recommendations in defining possible CIP projects related to SDR. Costs for each project are summarized in Table 4.3. 1. Expand the lake management aeration system to accommodate increased flows from Lake Hodges. 2. When finalized, move forward with the improvements identified in the Districts' SDR Project Development Report. Table 4.3 Project Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements to SDR Description Estimated SDR Enhancements $150,000 SDR Siltation Basins $350,000 SDR Sediment Mound Reduction $1,000,000 Inlet Channel Modifications $1,300,000 Natural Treatment Wetlands $750,000 SDR Vegetation Removal $750,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $4,300,000 March 2012 4-11 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES SAN DIEGUITO PUMP STATION The SDPS moves raw water to the WFP through a 30-inch CML&C steel line. It was originally constructed in 1964. In 1967, the pump station was enlarged and equipped with five vertical turbine pumps. These pumps are set in pressurized cans. The pump station consists of four 500 hp pumps and one 250 hp pump. According to plant staff, the maximum pumping capacity of the pump station is approximately 16.5 mgd. The SDPS force main was constructed approximately the same time as the SDPS. The SDPS is critical to operation of the WFP. The pump station is more than 44 years old and has reached the end of its operating life. The pump station does not meet current codes and requires a large amount of maintenance to keep it running. The layout of the pump station is not ideal. Hydraulically, the pump station does not meet Hydraulic Institute Standards. Rehabilitating the existing SDPS is not recommended for the following reasons: • The pump station would have to be brought up to current seismic and electrical codes. • Rehabilitation would not allow the pump station to remain online and in use. • Piping to the pump station is old and isolation valves are in operable. Replacement of the suction piping and valves may not be feasible. Construction of a new pump station is recommended. It should be built at a separate site from the existing SDPS to allow operation of SDR and SDPS during construction. Construction of a new pump station would require abandonment/removal of some of the existing yard piping. Discussion on firm capacity and preferred location of a new SDPS follows. Capacity Recent historical flows show the SDPS pumped at 12.2 mgd or less 90 percent of the time (Figure 4.3) and less than 15 mgd 99 percent of the time. Future flow volume of local water is expected to be limited to 5,700 AF annually. SFID/SDWD would prefer to utilize this volume during the winter months. Figure 4.4 shows that based on recent historical plant flows, the 5,700 AF allotments could be taken from November to April without flows from the SDPS exceeding 15 mgd. Based on this information, sizing the SDPS for a firm capacity (capacity with the largest pump out of service)of 15 mgd is adequate. Although SFID/SDWD may prefer taking all of their future local water allotment during the winter months, they would not be precluded from doing so in the other months of the year. Assuming maximum flows of 30 mgd during the summer months, plant staff could supply up to 50 percent of plant flows with local water. Provisions could be taken during construction of a new 15 mgd pump station to make it easily expandable by adding spare pump cans. 4-12 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES Equivalent Flow (AFlyr) 0 5.000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 100% sa 2.2 MGD,90% 5 MGD,99% �%o 80% 70% 60% Percent Not 50% 7 6 MGD,501/0 Exceeding 40% 30% 20% 10% 3.1 MGD 10% YIM 0% 0 5 10 15 20 Calendar Years 2047-2010 SDPS Flow Rates(MGD) Figure 4.3 Historical SDPS Flow Rates 25.0 Local Water Limited to 5,700 AFNr. 25,000 20.0 20,000 - Flow 15,000 Flow (MGD) (AFlyr) 10.0 10,000 5.0 - 5,000 0.0 0 Ae 1� O =Local Imported —2007-2010 Average Day Conditions Figure 4.4 Possible Future Flow Rate Conditions March 2012 4-13 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES Potential Pump Station Locations Three primary locations are available for the new pump station: downstream and west of the dam; upstream and northeast of the dam (Figure 4.5); or a floating pump station. Each option is described below. Table 4.4 presents pros and cons of two site locations. The location of the floating pump station is considered part of the "upstream" location. k� 's ! r +fA .. ;. Location 2 Punp Station } Existing upstream of Dam Pump Station R ;+'' FF-EL.252 ti Location 1 Pump 5tauon , Downstream of Dam F EL.211 .. } - San Dieguifa Resarvolr !' g � ✓ Figure 4.5 Potential Locations for the New SDPS Location 1: Pump Station Downstream of Dam The downstream pump station location would be located south of the existing SDPS along the existing access road. Finished floor would be at EL. 211.0. Four (three duty, one standby) 500-hp vertical turbine pumps would be installed in pressurized closed bottom cans. The pump suction pipeline would be a 36-inch diameter cement mortar lined and coated steel pipeline. It would receive water from the reservoir through two existing 24-inch pipelines that run through the dam. Existing penetrations (in lieu of new penetrations) would be used to minimize impact of construction activities on the integrity of the dam and facilitate the permitting process. The 24-inch pipelines would be lined with a NSF approved cured in-place liner to improve longevity and minimize friction losses(Insituform or equal). Each 24-inch pipeline would convey half the maximum flow, or about 7.5 mgd. The existing 24-inch inlet pipelines have their respective centerline at EL. 235.5 and EL. 211.92. Submergence required to minimize air entrainment would limit the minimum operation level to EL. 240.0 at 15 mgd. 4-14 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES It would be technically feasible to run a new suction pipeline below the dam. However, the risk of damaging the integrity of the structure during construction and the risk of tipping the dam over in case of seepage of the new suction pipeline in operation most likely makes this approach undesirable particularly to the Division of Dam Safety (DODS). Location 2: Pump Station Upstream of Dam Adjacent to SDR The upstream pump station would be located on the north ridge of the reservoir east of the dam. Finished floor would be higher than the top of the dam at EL. 252.0. Four (three duty, one standby) 500-hp vertical turbine pumps would installed on open bottom can intakes. Centerline of the 36-inch suction header would be set approximately at EL. 229.5 to allow for operation of the reservoir down to EL. 240.0 at 15 mgd and comply with requirement of the Hydraulic Institute Standard for open bottom can intakes. Based on site soil characteristics, deeper cans or concrete wet well could be considered at the subsequent stages of the design to increase usable water volume. Several questions will need to be explored further during pre-design of the new pump station. These include the number of intakes (reservoir draw points) and the configuration of the intake. At minimum, one intake will be needed; however, the addition of two or more intakes would provide the flexibility of drawing water from different elevations in SDR. Intakes for multiple draw points could be configured by constructing an intake structure in the reservoir that uses gates to control the level from which water is drawn. Another possibility is to use dedicated feed lines for each reservoir draw point. Flow into each draw point would be controlled using isolation valves. From both intake options, water would flow into a common pipeline to the new pump station. Floating Pump Station The floating pump station would include two pieces: the pumps located on a barge placed in the reservoir and an electrical/instrumentation building located on land near the reservoir. The barge and pumps would be premanufactured and shipped to the site. The building either would be a premanufactured building or constructed on-site. Electrical and piping between the barge and the shore could either be"floating" or could run across the reservoir bottom. The configuration of the pump station, including the number of pumps will need to be finalized during pre- design. One other consideration that will need to be explored further includes how the pumps on the barge will be maintained: by boat or by transporting the barge closer to shore. Review of Table 4.4 leads us to recommend that the new SDPS be built at the upstream and northeast alternate location. This location presents the following advantages. • It avoids the risk of altering a dam structure built at the beginning of the twentieth century • It offers the opportunity to increase usable water volume in SDR • It presents easier and faster permitting process • It has a similar project cost to a location downstream of the dam March 2012 4-15 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES Table 4.4 Comparison of Alternative Locations for a New San Dieguito Pump Station Criteria Downstream Upstream Comment Surveying = = Both sites are flat enough but have enough slope for surface drainage Upstream PS. It is possible that zones of fresh rock may occur at shallow depths that would require Soil Characteristics = _- blasting. A seismic refraction geophysical survey is recommended as part of preliminary design Hydraulics ++ Closed bottom can at EL. 200.0 vs. open bottom can at EL. 233.0 Protection From Flooding __ ++ Pressurized can below dam vs. open bottom can and pump floor above dam Downstream PS: full reservoir dewatering required for Intake Constructability/ dam penetration in-situ lining, and installation of Continuity of Service + elbow, standpipe, and screen near dam. Upstream PS: full reservoir dewatering not required Ease of Permitting __ ++ Upstream PS. Not working at the dam will make permitting easier and faster Potential Additional Usable Upstream PS. Wet well bottom at EL. 230.0 would Water Volume - ++ increase usable volume by 290 acre-feet Potential Redundant Intake ++ Not possible vs. No problem Pipeline Access ++ = Existing access road vs. new access road Aesthetics(Visible/noise) + Upstream PS. Highly visible site may require special architectural treatment Utilities + - Proximity of existing utilities vs. none Security = _ Closed bottom can vs. open bottom can. Partially existing intake vs. new intake. Existing access vs. Construction Cost = = none. Existing utilities nearby vs. none. Risk of impacting 1918 structure integrity vs. new separate structure Notes: = Neutral ++Significant benefit Moderate drawback + Moderate benefit Significant drawback As mentioned in Table 4.4, and based on a planning effort level, project costs are anticipated to be similar for both upstream and downstream locations. Using Pumping Station Design Third Edition by Garr M. Jones as a reference and an Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI 20 Cities) of 9080, the order of magnitude project cost estimate for a new SDPS is$4,000,000. 4-16 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES Recommendations - San Dieguito Pump Station The following recommendations are made for the SDPS: 1. Construct a new pump station upstream of the dam with an initial firm capacity of 15 mgd and expandable to 25 mgd. PIPELINE FROM SAN DIEGUITO PUMP STATION TO WFP The SDPS force main is over 40 years old and consists of approximately 8,800 feet of 30-inch CML&C steel pipe. The following observations have been made about the pipeline: • The condition is unknown, as it has not been inspected. • WFP staff has observed roots flowing into the plant, which may be an indication for degraded line condition. • The forcemain runs through a housing subdivision and plant staff have limited or no access to areas where the line was installed. • Operation of the line is imperative as it is the only means of bringing water from SDR to the WFP. • Failure of this line could result in damages to homes and plant staff may not be able to access the line to make repairs. Based on the observations above, the following recommendations are made: • An inspection of this line is needed to determine its condition. Recommendations include each of the following: - Video inspection to inspect visual condition. - Leak detection using a SmartBall®by Puretechnologies or similar technology to find leaks, which may indicate corrosion. - Electromagnetic detection to determine pipe thickness. • The line will need to be replaced or relined eventually, but the existing life of the pipeline will be determined by an inspection. • Replacement of the line should follow a different alignment. An alignment is shown in Figure 4.6 and is approximately 10,000 lineal feet. Feasibility of this alignment needs to be confirmed. March 2012 4-17 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES R€Badger WFP - � a Possible Future Alignment - ` Existing Alignment San Dieguito Pump Station San Dieguito Reservoir + " n Figure 4.6 Possible Future Alignment of a New Pipeline from SDR to WFP Sizing of a new SDPS is recommended at 15 mgd (10,400 gpm) and expandable to 25 mgd. Velocities from this flow are appropriate for the existing pipeline, even if the pipeline were to be relined. If a new line is installed in the future, it is recommended to also be 30-inches. This would provide capacity for future flow (if needed). It would also allow replacement of the forcemain to be at a different time than replacement of the SDPS as the hydraulics would be similar. Alternatively, a n ew 24-inch pipeline could also be considered. However, this alternative would require the new SDPS and forcemain to be constructed at the same time so that the pumps matched the system hydraulics. The existing line is adequately sized to handle the proposed 15 mgd flow rate. Relining of the pipeline would likely reduce the effective diameter to approximately 27-inches. At 15 mgd, this equates to a velocity of just under 6 ft/s, which is adequate. Replacement of the forcemain to handle 15 mgd could be accomplished with a 24-inch pipeline. However, for future expansion purposes, a 30-inch pipeline should be considered. Costs for relining are typically less expensive than replacement of the pipeline. However, because the SDPS forcemain is both larger diameter and high pressure, there are only a limited number of lining manufacturers and contractors that can do this work. As a result, costs vary depending upon contractor workload. It is possible that relining would be the most expensive option. As a result, costs for relining/replacing the existing forcemain is presented as the same total project cost estimate to be $4.5 million. 4-18 March 2012 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES Recommendations - Pipeline from San Dieguito Pump Station to WFP The following items represent conclusions and recommendations in defining possible CIP related to SDPS and pipeline from SDR to WFP: 1. Inspect existing 30-inch pipeline to determine condition and longevity. 2. Construct a new 30-inch pipeline or reline the existing pipeline from SDR to WFP. Timing will be based on outcome of inspection. 15-INCH DRAIN LINE FROM WFP TO SDR The 15-inch drain line was installed in the late 1960s and consists of approximately 7,300 feet of predominantly asbestos cement pipe with small amounts of cast iron and steel piping. This pipeline provides an avenue for the WFP to recycle decant from the sludge drying beds and wash water ponds to the SDR. In addition, the line serves to provide a means of recycling raw water with chlorine dioxide to SDR. The line has an estimated hydraulic capacity of almost 8.0 mgd, which is ample to meet plant needs. Condition of the 15-inch drain line is unknown. While it is over 40 years old, it could still have many years of life left. It is recommended that the line be inspected to determine its condition and remaining useful life by performing both video inspection and wall thickness measurements. If it needs to be replaced, the estimated project cost is$2,000,000. Recommendations - 15-inch Drain Line form WFP to SDR The following recommendation related to the 15-inch drain line is: 1. Inspect the condition of the 15-inch drain line, and replace or reline if necessary. 54-INCH TREATED WATER LINE Treated water from the WFP leaves the plant through a 54-inch steel pipeline. This line is original to the construction of the plant and its condition is unknown. Several years ago, a parallel 54-inch line was added for approximately one-mile downstream of the plant in order to provide reliability to the distribution system. Recommendations - 54-inch Treated Water Line The following recommendation related to the 54-inch treated water line: 1. The old 54-inch line should be inspected to determine its condition and remaining useful life. Options for rehabilitation include relining or replacement. Estimated costs for rehabilitation is$7,500,000. March 2012 4-19 SECTION 4: RAW WATER FACILITIES -This Page Left Blank Intentionally- 4-20 March 2012 Section 5 ELECTRICAL EVALUATION INTRODUCTION Work efforts related to the electrical and process control systems associated with the Joint Facilities are addressed in this section. Six primary activities were performed. 1. Present the results of Fa ult Current and Arc Flash studies that were performed for the C PS and WFP electrical systems. 2. Evaluate existing stand-by power generation capacity and necessary stand-by power equipment replacement and/or upgrades. 3. Identify potential measures to improve energy efficiency at the Joint Facilities, as well as rebates and incentives offered by SDG&E. 4. Identify improvements to t he Joint Facilities electrical systems and present conceptual alternatives for implementing improvements and associated capital costs. 5. Evaluate the feasibility of implementing solar photovoltaic technology at the WFP as a supplemental source of energy. 6. Present conclusions and recommendations of our process control system evaluation. Note that although the existing hydroelectric facility is an integral component of the WFP electrical system, it is covered separately in Section 6 of this report. BACKGROUND Relevant background information on the SDPS, CPS, and the WFP follow. Cielo Pump Station The CPS receives utility power from a single SDG&E feed. SDG&E power is transformed to 480 V at the main power transformer, which feeds the 480 V service entrance gear (MSC-2). MSC-2 feeds a transfer switch capable of transferring between utility power and standby generator. The transfer switch feeds MCC-2, which feeds large pumps and other miscellaneous loads supporting the pump station. A standby generator is not located at the facility; however, there is a generator connection panel with means to connect to a portable generator. The maximum size of a generator that could be connected based on the size of the generator connection panel is 800-kW. An 800-kW generator is not capable of running the loads for the entire pump station. Therefore, when running on standby power, CPS must be operated at reduced capacity. March 2012 5-1 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION San Dieguito Pump Station The SDPS receives power from a s ingle SDG&E utility feed. Due to its age and extensive upgrades and adjustments made to the electrical equipment, the electrical distribution system is not reliably documented. Because the SDPS is not fed from the hydroelectric facility, it cannot directly utilize power produced from the hydroelectric facility located at the WFP. The SDPS and the electrical distribution equipment that feeds the facility has reached the end of its useful life. In April of 2010, Malcolm Pirnie created Technical Memorandum No. 2 titled Badger Water Treatment Plant Major Electrical System Improvements Preliminary Design, which identified all the station electrical equipment to be in very poor condition. According to Technical Memorandum No. 2, poor condition was defined as, "Beyond useful life of 25 years and physical condition," and, "Includes a significant amount of aftermarket modifications." The ultimate recommendation of Technical Memorandum No. 2 was the complete replacement of the electrical system at the SDPS. CWA Flow Control Facility The CWA Flow Control Facility is powered from a separate SDG&E service. Badger Water Filtration Plant Currently, electrical power is provided from two sources: 1. Jointly owned hydroelectric facility that utilizes head from the imported raw water pipeline to generate power that is used by the WFP and excess power is sold to the local power Utility. 2. Local power utility (SDG&E). SDG&E provides power to the facility at 12 kV via an existing distribution line. It is transformed to 4.16 kV at the main power transformer, which feeds the 5 k V switchgear located in the hydroelectric facility. The two hydroelectric generators provide power at 4.16 kV and are also connected to the 5 kV switchgear. Power to the WFP is fed from a single distribution feeder from the common 5 kV switchgear. The single feed is tapped in an electrical manhole; one tap is routed to a 500-kVA transformer that feeds the backwash treatment facility and the solids treatment facility, while the other tap is routed to a 300-kVA transformer that feeds the main plant loads. A 150 kW standby propane gas generator can support the loads on the emergency power distribution panel `EP' through an automatic transfer switch. SDG&E Service Connections According to staff, all facilities (CPS, CDPS, CWA Flow Control Facility, WFP) are fed from different SDG&E substations. As such, an SDG&E outage at on e facility may not necessarily be experienced at the other facilities. Consequently, it is important that each of the Joint Facilities is equipped with an independent source of stand-by power, whether it be portable or permanently installed. 5-2 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION FAULT CURRENT AND ARC FLASH An arc flash safety program is requ ired to s atisfy requirements of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). The National Electric Code (NEC) requires that electrical equipment that is I ikely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized be field marked to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc flash hazards. The methods for determining arc flash severity, selecting proper personal protective equipment(PPE), and planning for safe work practices are identified by NF PA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. The governing documents associated with an Arc Flash study consist of NFPA 70E, NFPA 70 (the National Electrical Code), and CFR 29 Part 1910 (Occupational Safety& Health Act). The NEC is the prescriptive code dealing with electrical design and construction requirements. However, the NEC does not apply to the operation and maintenance of electrical systems. This function is addressed by NFPA 70E, which places responsibility of electrical safety in the workplace upon the owner. OSHA 1910.132(4)(1) also states that, "The employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of PPE." NFPA 70E represents a national consensus safety standard for electrical safety in the workplace that facilitates how to comply with the OSHA and NEC standards referenced above. The first edition of the Standard for Electrical Safety in the Wor kplace (NFPA 70E) was issued in 1979. However, the 2000 edition was the first edition that brought attention to the hazards of arc flash phenomena. Major updates to NFPA 70E including the 2004 and 2009 editions continue to further define the safety requirements related to arc flash. In a st andard interpretation letter dated July 25, 2003, OSHA's Russell Swanson stated, "Industry consensus standards, such as NFPA 70E, can be used by employers as gu ides to making the assessments and equipment selections required by the standard. Similarly, in OSHA enforcement actions, they can be used as evidence of whether the employer acted reasonably." New as well as existing equipment is required to conform to these standards. There is no grandfather clause that exempts existing equipment from being labeled. NFPA 70E identifies the levels of Shock Hazard and Arc Flash Hazard associated with working on or maintaining electrical systems, and identifies the level of PPE and the work procedures required to maintain a safe condition in the workplace. The Electrical Energized Work Practices outlined in NFPA 70E incorporates measures to help avoid or minimize the potential safety risk to employees from an arc flash or electrical shock. To minimize hazards, there are various methods that can be employed including, working on equipment that has been rendered electrically safe (de-energized, locked-out, and to gged-out), wearing pr oper PPE, and maintaining restricted access areas around electrical equipment as defined in NFPA 70E. Working on de- energized equipment is the only way to eliminate risks of electrical shock or arc flash; however, this method is not always feasible considering the critical nature of water treatment and distribution facilities. To understand and identify the level of risk associated with working on energized electrical equipment, a mathematical model of the electrical system is necessary to calculate the potent ial arc flash hazards and approach boundaries at each piece of electrical equipment. According NFPA 70E 130.3(A)(1) it is acceptable make the Arc Flash Protection boundary 4.0 feet in lieu of an incident energy analysis to determine the hazard/risk category and requirements for PPE, so long as the system is between 50 and 600 volts, and the product of clearing time and available bolted fault current does not exceed 100 kA cycles. According to NFPA 70E 130.3(6)(2), it is acceptable to select personal and other protective equipment using tables 130.7(C)(9), 130.7(C)(10), and March 2012 5-3 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION 130.7(C)(11). If a task is not in the table or the requirements of the notes referenced in the table are not met, then the table cannot be used and it is necessary to perform the task with the equipment de-energized. To meet requirements of NFPA 70E for some portions of the Joint Facilities electrical distribution system with respect to labeling, identifying the potential incident energy, approach boundaries, and selecting the level of PPE associated with specific equipment, a complete mathematical model of the facility's electrical system was developed. Components of t his study included an up-to-date, accurate, and complete electrical one-line diagram; identification all power wire sizes and lengths; determination of all system impedances; determination of all power sources; and determination of the current settings and setting options for all protective devices. After this data collection task was completed, the power distribution model was then constructed and the fault current levels at each point in the electrical system were calculated. Building upon th e fault current study and using field obtained protective device settings; a pre Iiminary protective device coordination study was conducted. Based upon calculated fault current levels, results of the protective device coordination study, and system voltage levels, a preliminary Arc Flash study and the final Shock Hazard analysis were conducted. San Dieguito Pump Station Previous work products, site visits, as well as discussions with facility staff indicate that the electrical equipment at the SDPS has exceeded its usable life and is no longer reliable. A fault current and arc-flash analysis was not performed on the SDPS electrical distribution equipment. Because the equipment has reached its usable life, it would not be responsible or safe to assume the electrical protective equipment will function according to the original design intent. As such, the safest way to protect personnel is to de-energize electrical equipment before any maintenance or repair work is performed. To safely account for this reliability issue, plant staff should only perform maintenance or repairs on SDPS electrical equipment when it is p roven to be de-energized. Furthermore, complete de-energization can only be achieved by opening the knife switches inside the SDG&E substation; opening the main 480V breaker will de-energize the majority of the facility, however if the SDG&E substation remains energized, the line side of the main 480V breaker will also be energized. It should be noted that with respect to arc flash hazard levels, the line side of the main 480V breaker is likely the most dangerous point in the S DPS power system because of its prox imity to the SDG &E system, which acts as the energy source in the event of an arc flash. Cielo Pump Station To model the CPS electrical system, a field investigation was performed to collect required electrical equipment ratings, trip settings, model numbers, etc. The as-built drawings of the pump station were also used to determine conductor sizes and lengths, as well as electrical system loading. The electrical system model requires the Utility service characteristics to determine the am ount of energy available during an arc flash condition. Carollo coordinated with Gina Samuelson from SDG&E to get this information. A few assumptions were made to complete the model. One assumption that needed to be made was how to accurately represent a portable generator that may be used in emergency situations. Based on the emergency loading shown on the As-Built Drawings, Carollo performed a generator sizing calculation in Cummins Power Suite. The sizing calculation showed that an 800 kW generator is required to meet the requirements of the 5-4 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION emergency load information. The conductors from the generator termination box to the ATS are adequately sized for an 800 kW generator. Therefore, an 800 kW generator was modeled. Other assumptions are listed in the Assumptions Section in Appendix C. The CPS arc flash study results are presented in two tables: 1. Present Settings—Results shown for the settings of all protective equipment within the facility as observed during field visits with no alterations. The arc flash results with the present settings are shown in Table 5.1. 2. Proposed Settings — Results shown with alterations made to protective equipment settings to reduce potential arc-flash hazard at equipment. To prevent nuisance tripping and coordination issues, it is important that the recommended alterations are discussed and fully understood before changes are made in the field. When changes to protective device settings are implemented, they should be implemented with a sequenced procedure that allows sufficient proving time at the new settings. The intent of the proposed settings is to provide an alternate setting that reduces the arc flash potential without causing nuisance tripping and does not have an adverse affect to the distribution system coordination. The arc flash results with the proposed settings are shown in Table 5.2. Upon agreement of the final settings, arc flash labels will be printed for each piece of equipment identified in the arc flash results table. Applicable information including the equipment tag, arc flash hazard boundary, incident energy, hazard category, and required PPE, is printed on the label. An example of the format for the label is shown in Figure 5.1. The complete arc flash analysis for the CPS has been provided in Appendix C. W NIN pa&l Arc Flash and Shock Hazard Present Appropriate PPE Required Arc Flash Hazard Boundary 4.6 ft Hazard C'ateuary Inccident Energy in cal-cm: 11.5 3 Working Distance 18 in \Iinimuni PPE Requirements lltdtilq er FR flash jacket wi FR bib overalls Shock Hazard Exposure 480 1'AC (mrnmmwn ac ruing of 4) or FR Zang-sleeve Insulating Gloves Class 00 shirt and FR pans (mimmwn arc rcffrrg of 4) Shock Hazard w hen corers removed worn over to&eated nz o-al fiber IoW-sleevcc shirt and pants Limited Approach B oundary 10.0 ft Restricted Approach Boundary 1.0 ft Prohibited Approach Boundary 0.1 ft Equipment Busl Figure 5.1 Sample Arc Flash Warning Label March 2012 5-5 SECTION E ELECTRICAL EV A U TION 2 t o 0 0 0 ® � 2 d d d d d v d d / / / / % %% Cz ƒ ƒ § § § § 2 2 2 % % % G G G \ \ \ \ Cz Cz � Co Co 0) 0) 0) 0) m m m d d \ \ \ / y / y U) U) U) U) 0 0 0 -0 c -0 c C6, Cz ƒ ƒ ƒ ± ± ± ± \ \\ \f f G G G o 0 % 0 c ° ? ° ? ° ? (D G \ E ¥ ¥ ¥ f y ƒ y ƒ 0 A .E A .E - Cl) m m m k R k R 0-.0 E - � > > > > - # - # � / / V) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - a : 7 k k k k ° ° ° ° ° e / �7 �7 ° § 2 § ƒ \ E \ E ) E ƒ \ o co ® J ® J ® J \ m \ m 2 2 2 2 » ® » ® « ® ® ® - - - - E e e � o o 75 75 75 \ §ƒ % ƒ % ƒ %m m § ± _ ± _ ± = ± = etetetm � y � y A A A > § » § » § » 0 -_® c -_® c 0 0 0 = E g E g f % f % f % f % e ./ e ./ e ./ \ \ ± ± ± � ± ° a ° a ° z ± ± ± t 2 Z5 0 U) ± _ ± _ ± _ 3 _ >' o * o * 0 2 2 % 2 % $ _ _ _ _ m 7 m 7 m - m m -0 c m c m c m @ _ E = E G = G = G = G = _ _ _ > _ > _ 2 0) CZ 0) CZ 0) CZ cn ± % ± % ± % ƒ % .E % .E $ 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 a a a 0 � 7 » 7 » E ± .g ± .g ± .g ± .g 2 7 2 7 2 C = c e c e E / e / e / e / fn7n7n � / a / a . 6y 6 � 6 � 66 2 ± / ± / ± / _ _ 3 k » k k k 4 8 4 8 4 8 » ƒ k ƒ k V) & § � V c a n w c m w m m m 9 w 2 = � LL. 7 § 0- 3 2 V \ 9 m C m 2 2 2 9 9 7 / ? 0 6 6 6 y F y 2 7 -2 ] Cz � n n ƒ > 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 � v 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 2 w w ® 2 2 % e � � 2 % / � � � ? Cl) d d U ± ® cc < < 3 < < 3 < 3 k 0 ? J J se March 2012 SECTION E ELECTRICAL EV A U f ON cc 2 t ® W v v v v v v U ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ a a a a a a ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ w w w w w w k � k � SkS ±� -6 - C-) S ± S ± -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± f f f f f f 0 ± \ ± \ ± \ ± \ ± \ ± \ c > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ .g o e o e o e o e o e o e = 1E = 1E = 1E = 1E = 1E = 1E G [ G [ G [ G [ G [ G [ § fCf) f f \ f f a 007 007 007 007 007 007 / w y % y % y % y % y % y % ƒ cA cA cA cA cA cA .g o .g o .g o .g o .g o .g o % f ® f ® f ® f ® f ® z ® @ LL LL LL LL � � o � o � o � o � o � k \ E E E E E / _ ® _ ® _ ® _ ® _ 0 = ® m 2 E o E o E o E o E o E o e EE 7 E 7 E 7 E 7 E 7 E 7 % V) \ \ \ \ \ z % 7 o y y y y y % 2 % 2 n 2 n 2 n 2 n iE n -- { E Cl) E Cl) E Cl) E Cl) E { E % > _ > _ > _ > _ > _ > 2 % .E % .E % .E % .E % .E % .E ° » 7 .- 7 .- 7 .- 7 .- 7 .- 7 - 2 § & e & e & e & e & e & e = -Cl) 2a 2a 2a 2a 2a V) m % m % m % m % m % m % _ LL CL LL CL LL CL LL CL LL CL LL 0 » V) & § � � � � 2 2 §2 q q q ® 0 § CL 2 Lo Lo cc r 2 / / / 9 2 E Lu U J \ ) / 2 @ c 00 2 # # 4 r 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 7 2 �_ % E Co E Co E Co Ln 7 ƒ ƒ 0 C� C14 a m 4 # C**4 J J J J J J w March 2012 5-7 SECTION E ELECTRICAL EV A U f ON 2 0 o 0 0 0 ® C 2 d d d d C) C) C d U / E E / ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ � � � � 7 7 7 7 / / / / CZ n n n Cm Cm w w w w ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ / » / » / » / » - -0 -0 -0 y y y y c CL k k k k � k � k � k0 c c c c ± \ ± \ ± \ ± \ 0 0 2 0 7 o / o / o / o / - k k k k = 1E _ 'E _ 'E _ E - k $ > > > f f f a f � f f f f 00 \ 00 \ 00 \ / 00 \ § ƒ 6) 6) 6) 6) y § 0 § y § G 0 § _ 2 2 2 0 C 0 C 0 R S \ R S Cm ƒ ƒ ƒ -� ƒ _0 0 y 8 y 8 �_ y 8 _ 75 75 -Fu - ° ° ° ° ° ° 0 ° ° = m = m = m = m E 00 E 00 e ® E 2 a = a = a = a = y 0 y ± = 0 c 0 0 0 0 -E c .E c .E c & .E c ± - - -0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ = m 7 \ \ \ m m m m � o � o � o % o % V ± # ± # ± # ± # ± % ± % ± % -R ± % = 7 = 7 = 7 = 7 m m m m U 2 -0 -0 -0 -0 = e = e = e % = e G = G = G = G = > _ > _ > _ _ > _ 0 c n c n c n c n % .E % .E % .E ƒ % .E 0 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 2 » 2 .- 2 » _0 2 » a .g a .g a .g a .g & e & e & e = & e . § / § / § / § / 0 5a 5a � 5a V) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m n m n m n = m n \ 2 » 2 » 2 » 2 » LL CL LL CL LL C » LL 0- L. k -0 o 2 \ o � � C.6 9 E 0 § « 0- 3 0 VE \ 9 9 C m 9 0 u = 0 0 6 6 w w w 2 7 -2 ] Cz � n n ƒ > 9 9 9 9 ? ? ? 9 9 v 6 6 6 6 6 f 6 6 6 6 .2 C) w ® N % _ -- 2 � 2 > o - a C,4 C,4 ? ? ? � m U dU ƒ cc < < 3 < < 3 < 3 k � ? J se March 2012 SECTION E ELECTRICAL EV A U TION 7 t / c d d d d d d d U ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ a a a a a a a !E !E w w w w w w w S ± S ± S ± S ±S ± S ± S ± -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c -0 c _ .E = .E = .E = .E = .E = .E = .E ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± m % m % % % % % % ± % ± % ± % ± % ± % ± % ± % c > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ .g A e o f o f o f o f o f o f - _ -E _ -E _ -E _ -E _ -E _ -Si _ E o f o f o f o f o f o f G [ § f a fn �y �y 00y 007 007 007 00 72 § w y = y = y = y % y % y % y % G = = A o = A o = A o = A o = A o = A o = Ac c c c c c ct & o = f ± f ± f ± f ± f ± f ± f ± m » § E � y � y � y � y � y � y � J 7 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° G ? E E E E E E E 4 § = y = y = y = y = y = y = y ± § R _§ R _§ R _§ R _§ R _§ R _§ R k U) J \ \ \ \ \ \ \ % & 7 o o o y � y � o o % % V \ * \ n \ n \ n \ n \ n \ n f = E = E = E = E = E = E = E % $ $ E $ E $ E $ E $ E $ E $ E % o = .E _ .E _ .E _ .E _ .E _ .E _ -- $ 7 -® 7 -® 7 -® 7 -® 7 -® 7 -® ) -® _0 ce ce ce ce ce ce ce = § § § § § § § V) m % m % m % m % m % m % m % =3 u- 0- LL 0- LL 0- LL 0- u- 0- u- 0- u- 0- » In & § � V) 2 § 2 r- q r- q r- q r- ® u- LZ 7 c 0k 2 cc 0 W 2 / 9 9 9 9 . 2 ¥ c 0 7 _0 Cz Cz � 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 7 2 � �_ e Cl) E Cl) E Cl) E Cl) 7 ƒ ƒ 0 C� C14 a m 4 # J J J J J J J w March 2012 sg SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Badger Water Filtration Plant Preliminary Arc Flash calculations were conducted for the portion of the WFP electrical system that extends from the point of interconnection with the SDG&E 12 kV system down to the primar y side of the padmount transformers for the WFP and the Backwash & Solids Handling facilities, including the 4.16 kV hydroelectric generation facility. Because of the proximity of this portion of the WFP electrical system to the SDG&E system, and the lack of significant impedance given that the equipment is close-coupled, the preliminary calculations indicate that the arc flas h hazard is greater than category 4. In add ition to the p hysical characteristics of the system, the arc flash incident energy calculation is also dependent on the clearing t ime of t he protection devices. As s uch, the arc fl ash hazard may be reduced if the cle aring times of th e protection devices are sufficiently fast. However, due to the age and physical condition of the electrical equipment and the associated protection devices, relying on the protection scheme to operate in the manner and timeframe for which it was originally intended is not prudent or safe. Consequently, it is r ecommended that all 12 kV and 4.16 kV equipment within the WFP electrical system, including the hydroelectric facility and the line side of the padmount transformers powering the WFP and the Backwash & Solids Handling facility, be treated as having an arc flash hazard level of greater than category 4. Based on this categorization, this equipment should not be maintained while energized. Furthermore, SFID Staff should practice extreme caution when working in front of this equipment. One area of particular concern is the inside of the hydroelectric building, which contains the 4.16 kV main distribution switchgear for the entire facility, because SFID staff frequently enters this building to adjust the flow rate setpoints for the plant. The most conservative approach to mitigating exposure to the arc flash hazard in the hydroelectric building would be to completely de-energize the 4.16 kV main switchgear before entering the building. This is obviously not practical because it would require a complete plant shutdown every time the plant flow rate setpoint needs to be changed. The recommended arc flash hazard mitigation approach is as follows: 1. To make plant flow rate setpoint adjustments, entering the hydroelectric building with the 4.16 kV main switchgear energized should only be considered safe if t he operator remains in front of th e generator control panel. If an arc flash were to occur, the generator control panel would act as a barrier between the operator and the arc flash. 2. If it is ne cessary for an operator to enter into any area in the hydroelectric building that has unimpeded access to the front of the 4.16 kV main switchgear, the switchgear should be completely de-energized. With respect to the low voltage (480 V and below) portions of the WFP electrical system, Article 130.3(A)(1) of NFPA 70E states that the arc flash protection boundary for voltage levels between 50 and 600 Volts can be determined without hazard analysis calculations for a system under the condition that the product of the clearing time and available bolted fault current does not exceed 100 kA-cycles. To confirm that the 480 Volt equipment at the WFP did not exc eed 100 kA-cycles, the system was modeled and bolted fault currents were calculated. Based on the calculated fault currents, the maximum clearing time was determined for all 480 Volt equipment. Table 5.3 shows calculated fault current for each piece of equipment, typical minimum over-current protection device clearing times, and the resulting kA-cycle values. Because all kA-cycle values are less than 100, hazard analysis calculations are not required for these portions of the WFP electrical system; identification of the arc flash hazards will be based on NFPA 70E Table 130.7(C)(9). 5-10 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Table 5.3 Calculated Fault Current for Electrical Equipment at the WFP Typical Minimum Fault Current-Cycles Preliminary Clearing Time at at Typical Minimum Fault Calc Instantaneous Clearing Time Equipment Desi nation (Amps) Operation (Cycles) (kA-Cycles) Main 5kV Switchgear 8040 1 8.0 MSB (Backwash &Solids Treatment 12740 3 38.2 Facilities) MCC-1 (Backwash Treatment Facility) 12740 3 38.2 MCC-2 (Solids Treatment Facility) 12740 3 38.2 Power Distribution Panel "P" 9080 3 27.2 MCC-1 M 9080 3 27.2 MCC-2M 9080 3 27.2 MCC-3M 9080 3 27.2 MCC-3MA 9080 3 27.2 MCC-3MB 9080 3 27.2 Automatic Transfer Switch 9080 3 27.2 Emergency Power Distribution Panel "EP" 9080 3 27.2 MCC-1 EM 9080 3 27.2 MCC-2EM 9080 3 27.2 MCC-3EM 9080 3 27.2 MCC-4EM 9080 3 27.2 Breaker Panel "A" (Filter Console) 9080 3 27.2 Breaker Panel "D" (Filter Console) 9080 3 27.2 PP-1 2900 3 8.7 PP-2 2900 3 8.7 Polymer Load Center 2800 3 8.4 Panel LEA 2800 3 8.4 Panel LC 2800 3 8.4 Panel ED 873 3 2.6 Station Power Panel (by 5 kV SWGR) 1550 3 4.7 March 2012 5-11 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Section 130.3(6)(2) of NFPA 70E states that the Personal Protective Equipment application can be identified by using Hazard/Risk Categories as defined in table 130.7(C)(9) in lieu of performing an incident energy analysis. A dual label method will be used to i nform plant staff of the arc flash hazard for each piece of equipment. A warning label will identify the arc flash protection boundary and shock hazard. In addition, the warning label will direct the staff member to a Hazard/Risk Category table. A second label will include the applicable portion of the Hazard/Risk Category table for the specific equipment. For example, a panelboard will include the portion of the Hazard/Risk Category table that pertains to panelboards. An exa mple of the war ning label is shown in Figure 5.2 and examples of the Hazard/Risk Category labels are shown in Figure 5.3. The complete arc flash analysis for the WFP has been provided in Appendix C. ,,, A& WARNINGI Am Atc Flash and Shock Hazar-d Present Appropri.ale PPE Required Arc Flash Lazard Bowu am 4.� $ liuci&nt Energy in cal`fimi Refer to Table H a F.91"d a ��]{ Workm' g I}istance Refer to Table Refer [o TA le Shack Hazard Exposure 48G VAS Lo-�a F.ef GIG%-es Class Refer to Table iinimmn u r RegQiremear_ nc Shocl- Hazard when coo-ver= removed Limite-d Approach Boundary Refer to Table Restricte-d Approach Boundan, Rehr to Table Prohikted Appr4•ac B-ouadary Refer to Table Egnipm,ew MC-C-1 0-12-2011 Figure 5.2 Sample Arc Flash and Shock Hazard Warning 5-12 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Tasks Performed on Energized Hazard/Risk Rubber Insulating Insulated and Equipment Category Gloves Insulating Hand Tools Panelboards or Switchboards Rated >240 V and up to 600 V(with molded case or insulated case circuit breakers)- Note 1 Perform infrared thermography and other non-contact inspections outside 1 N N the Restricted Approach Boundary CB or fused switch operation with 0 N N covers on CB or fused switch operation with 1 y N covers off Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts, including voltage 2* y y testing Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts of utilization 2* y y equipment fed directly by a branch circuit of the panelboard or switchboard General Motes(applicable to the entire table): (a)Rubber insulating gloves are gloves rased ror the maximum line-la-line vollafge upon which work will be done. (b)Insulated and insulating hand laals are laals rased and lesled ror the maximum line-la-line vollafge upon which wok will be done,and are manuracUured and lesled in accordance wlLh AST141 F 1505, StandardSpecrfcallon for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools. (c)Y=yes(required), N=no(nol required). (d)For syslems rased less than 1000 vales, the raull currents and upstream praleclive device clearing Limes are based on an 18 in.working distance. (e)For syslems rased 1 W and greater, the Hazard/Risk Categories are based on a 36 in. working distance. (f)For equipment pralecled by upstream current limiting ruses with arcing rains current in their current limiLinfg range(112 cycle raull clearing lime or less), the hazard/risk category required may be reduced by one number. Specific Motes(as referenced in the table): i.maximum or 25 kA share circuit current available, maxi•num or 0.03 sec(2 cycle) raull clearing lime. Figure 5.3 Sample Hazard/Risk Category Labels March 2012 5-13 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION STAND-BY POWER Cielo Pump Station Rather than having a permanently installed stand-by engine generator, the CPS is equipped with a connection to the electrical system that allows use of a trailer-mounted portable engine generator when there is an SDG&E outage. Although the CPS electrical service has historically been susceptible to SD G&E "brown outs," the expense of installing a permanent stand-by generator does not appear to be justified at this time. Furthermore, there is limited physical space to do so without impeding truck access around the pump station building. San Dieguito Pump Station At one time, stand-by power to the SDPS was provided by two gas turbines located adjacent to the pump station building. The g as turbines have been de-commissioned for several years, thus at present, the pump station is not equipped with stand-by power, which is a significant operational limitation for the WFP during SDG&E power outages at the pump station. Because of the criticality of this facility, it is recommended that the design of the new SDPS include stand-by power. The stand-by power capacity and generation technology (e.g., diesel, natural gas, propane, dual-rated) should be determined in the initial phases of the pump station design. However, it is anticipated that the most practical and economical generation technology will be di esel engine generation with onsite storage. With respect to generation capacity, a minimum of 50 percent of the rated pumping capacity of the facility is recommended. CWA Flow Control Facility Recently, staff installed a connection to the flow control facility electrical system for a trailer-mounted portable generator. Consequently, the expense of installing a permanent stand-by generator does not appear to be justified at this time. Badger Water Filtration Plant The WFP is currently equipped with two types of onsite power generation equipment: the hydroelectric facility and a 150kW propane engine generator. Because the hydroelectric facility is equipped with induction generators, rather than synchronous generators, the facility can only operate in parallel with the SDG&E service. Thus, if the SDG&E service for the WFP suffers an outage, the hydroelectric facility cannot produce power. Consequently, the hyrdroelectric facility, in its current configuration, is not a source of stand-by power for the WFP. Although the existing 150kW propane engine generator has provided reliable stand-by power to the WFP, it is reaching the end of its useful life. Therefore, replacement of the existing generator is recommended as part of the overall WFP electrical system upgrade. The new stand-by power capacity and generation technology (e.g., diesel, natural gas, propane, dual-rated)should be determined in the initial phases of the WFP electrical system upgrade design. However it is anticipated that the most practical and economical generation technology will be diesel engine generation with onsite storage. Additionally, a detailed electrical load analysis should be 5-14 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION conducted to determine the appropriate stand-by power capacity for the WFP based on the operational needs of the plant during an SDG&E outage. ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES There are several energy efficient technologies that should be considered in the design of improvements and/or equipment replacement at the Joint Facilities. Premium Efficiency Motors Electrical motors consume a large fraction of the electrical energy at the Joint Facilities and can provide a opportunity for energy and cost savings. In general, premium efficiency motors are manufactured with larger quantities of iron and copper, which reduces the electrical losses, thus increasing motor efficiency. Although premium efficiency motors are standard for modern installations, in older facilities, such as the SDPS and the WFP, there are often applications where replacing existing motors with new premium efficiency motors can result in energy cost savings. Depending on the motor hp, load conditions, and runtime, operating a premium efficiency motor can result in an energy cost savings in the range of 1 to 5 percent. According to staff, all existing motors greater than 5 hp have been upgraded to premium efficiency motors, thus it is unlikely that efficiency of motors could be significantly improved. Variable Speed Drives Depending on the application, use of v ariable speed drives (VFDs)over traditional throttling valves for pump flow control can equate to energy and cost savings. By controlling flow by reducing the speed of pumps using VFDs rather than running the pump at full s peed, power usage can be reduced exponentially. The ability to improve energy efficiency with VFDs is dependent on the specific flow and head conditions, and thus should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, using a VFD can result in an energy savings in the range of 20 to 30 percent. Energy Efficient Lighting Practices The use of energy efficient lighting practices can reduce power consumption at the Joint Facilities. Existing luminaries with low efficiency and ballasts with high harmonic content and poor power factor should be replaced to meet th e energy requirements set by th e California Energy Code, Title 24. U se of e nergy efficient lighting technology and methods such as high efficiency fluorescents, Light Emitting Diodes (LED), solatubes, and intelligent lighting controls should be considered in the design of new structures. Smart Motor Control Centers Understanding and reducing carbon footprint has recently become a priority in the water and wastewater industry. Next to water purchasing costs, energy costs are the largest operating expense for the Facilities. Quantifying the carbon footprint and energy usage for an operating plant typically involves a best guess and estimating approach based on a careful review of past energy bills, estimation of power usage for each process in the facility, and a comparison of that plant's processes to typical models. Installation of smart MCCs can March 2012 5-15 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION allow SFID/SDWD to continuously monitor and trend power usage and power quality, not only for a facility as a whole, but for each individual process—even down to each individual motor. By having this information readily available, operators know which processes are consuming the greatest amount of energy, or are causing the greatest power quality issues. This information would allow operators to make adjustments to each step of the process, while receiving real-time power savings and quality feedback. Implementation of digital bus technology can also help the Joi nt Facilities reduce maintenance costs. Because equipment maintenance is typic ally scheduled and performed based on averages and estimates, a pi ece of equipment may b e scheduled for replacement before it reaches its full useful life. What may be even worse is for a piece of equipment to be used beyond its useful life; creating inefficiencies in the process, down time, and upon ultimate failure—panic. Digital bus technology can improve these inefficient maintenance programs by providing information that can be used to identify failing equipment, sense and alert the operator to common maintenance issues, and track equipment performance. Ultimately, the information can be utilized to create a predictive maintenance program based on actual data rather than averages and estimates. Implementing Smart MCC technology into the new upgraded electrical distribution system at the Joint Facilities will provide plant operators with the necessary information to improve the plant's operation and efficiency, resulting in reduced plant maintenance costs, reduced energy costs, and a smaller carbon footprint. SDG&E REBATES AND INCENTIVES SDG&E offers financial incentives, design assistance, and performance audits to help optimize the benefits of energy efficiency in water treatment facilities. Rebates SDG&E offers rebates to customers for selecting energy efficient equipment and methods. Energy Efficiency Business Rebates (EEBR) offered by SDG&E to business customers for installing/implementing energy-efficient lighting and lighting practices, premium efficiency motors, network power management software, variable frequency drives on HVAC systems, and several more. SDG&E provides a comprehensive catalog of all EEBR on their webs ite. To apply for EEBRs, an application must be submitted after components are installed and operational. Custom Incentives SDG&E offers custom incentive programs including their Energy Savings Bid Program (ESB). The ESB program allows a customer to propose the incentive amount for their project. To apply for the ESB program, an application must be s ubmitted and approved. Upon installation, SDG&E will schedule a post installation inspection to validate installation. Depending on the incentive requested, a power usage monitoring and verification plan may need to be submitted to provide proof that power usage was reduced as a result of upgrades. Interest-Free Financing SDG&E offers an 0 n-Bill Financing Option (OBF)th at allows qualified commercial and taxpayer funded customers to pay for energy-efficient business improvements through their SDG&E b ill. OBF works in conjunction with rebate and incentive programs to provide an interest free financing option to customers. 5-16 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Benchmarking For SDG&E customers who participate in energy efficiency programs, it is required to perform benchmarking with the EPA' s ENERGY S TAR Portfolio Manager. The Portfolio Manager track s and assesses energy performance across the entire facility power portfolio and rates the facility's energy performance on a scale of 1 to 100 relative to similar businesses. Audits SDG&E offers technical audits and technology incentives to provide on-site facility evaluations for customers. The audits range from simple site assessments to comprehensive engineering studies designed to determine load reduction potential and energy efficiency opportunities. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER GENERATION Although operation of the existing hydroelectric generation facility significantly reduces the plant's carbon footprint, implementation of other renewable energy technologies may allow for further reduction of green house gas emissions resulting from consumption of commercial electricity. At large scale, renewable energy technologies that are most commonly implemented are hydroelectric power generation, wind turbines, solar photovoltaic (PV), and fuel cells. The WFP currently has a hydroelectric facility to take advantage of the excess head on the plant influent line from CWA. Wind turbines are not feasible due to a lack of wi nd resources at the sit e, as well as possible political and environmental obstacles. Fuel cells are typically considered renewable only if a gas supply is generated on-site, such as digester gas or landfill gas. Because the WFP does not have an onsite source of gas, a fuel cell installed there would require a commercial gas supply, which would impact not only the renewable classification of the system, but also project economics. Consequently, of large-scale renewable energy technologies available, solar PV is the only one that warrants further analysis for implementation at the WFP. To evaluate the feasibility of implementing solar PV technology, five areas on the plant site were identified as potential locations to i nstall solar PV equipment. These areas are illustrated in Figure 5.4. The s ize of these potential locations was estimated and then used as the basis for feasibility analysis presented in Table 5.4. The feasibility analysis is based on the concept of Net Present Value (NPV), which is a widely accepted method for evaluating the value of capital expenditures and investments. Mathematically, the NPV of a project or investment is equal to the sum of the cash flows associated with the project/investment over a specified period discounted to account for the time value of money. Conventionally, the decision to pursue a project/investment is governed by whether the NPV is greater than or less than zero. Projects having NPVs greater than zero suggest economic viability. As indicated in Table 5.4, the NPVs associated with solar PV systems constructed at each of the five locations, as well as the NPV associated with a system that covers all five sites, are all significantly negative. The unfavorable NPVs are primarily the result of the high capital cost associated with the technology and the relatively insignificant energy production incentive offered by the California Solar Initiative through SDG&E. March 2012 5-17 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION ti■ " Area 2 S�an,Dieguit� Area 3 7 _ r' P � C ,'� Area 5 IL Jok 2 Ly� Area 4 . Figure 5.4 Five Potential Areas to Install Solar Photovoltaic Equipment With respect to the feasibility of implementing solar photovoltaic technology at the SDPS, it was assumed that the economic evaluation would yield the same negative results as the evaluation performed for the WFP. This is a valid assumption because the economic performance of solar photovoltaic projects is primarily driven by the high capital cost associated with the technology and the relatively insignificant energy production incentives currently available, which are both completely independent of facility location. 5-18 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION O O , G N OD O O ...� O Il— N O N M Q C.0 C.0 N Co C.0 N Cu � y 0 0 O � coo Lo f n 0 O Z W cc O 't LC7 O O Ln E Cu > en en en en en air 0- > Cu 0 Cu L N 00 O C7 (.0 Ln (6 `O r- Lo Lo N co 0_ 0007 F- cc C LQ I— � O L(7 M O C) 00 LC7 C) N L G1 cp r N W 'O ? (1) E 06 0 C7 Cz :% Ln FA FA FA FA FA ER 0) p C Cu O 0 0 O O O O O O O CD CD CD CD CD CD c6 U OOj 000 007 ti N Ln N N O >' 70- U N cC V N LC7 C7 N C- 0 U V G 1 FA FA 69 69 69 ER 0) C6 N N a) E2 _ d °' Cu in E � _ Cu 0) O Lo Lo CD Lo CD C00 000 O C .E Cu E w L Cf _ C7 (D Ln C6 p a L J C 1 ti 67 N CU : Cu o- 0 r ca °--° cn N L O > > U O y 0 C a> > C -0 cc o iZ O O Y U J Q 0 cc•� C O O 0 0) 0 C) > O CD r LL� LL� LL0 O LL0 L`nn C � C 0 cc G 1 LC7 _ O (D 00 C6 `e Vf O U fZ O > C ti ~ N e.00 (�O pOp N O ' 0 LJJ �"' ti 0) M _0 ,O Cu CU C CU a) 0 N d : C6 C Q U) U E cc O C CU CU c- N L T U Cu o CU is .L0 U 6 cC cc 1 ti O ti 0) O ca 0 •w Q+ L G.1 N Y CU U N L Lo N Cu Cu- e 9--N m U O 0 O N¢ CU LD N `0 QD CU O Cu O N Cu U c- Cu -C N Cu O o `n ae -0 C a> Y o U C) Cu O f2 Q CU :3 T -0 O T C y Q ti � O ti n o z O 0 (UO - - O > cc cc C d >Q O n a i69 C)U CUs -0 C) 0 N C Y U Cp Q a> is -0 m 0oa- 0 N U Cu Cl) •Q � a)O O O O O O � U N U :3 -0 CU 43) cc LL N V O O O O O (6 - 0 C6 5 C6 U C6. fC C7 L0 (D L0 C7 � (O E 0) U " > U U N �+ LL - C in U .N >' O U c0 -0 O N N U � U 2 O U Q O C >+ N C o > c6 O iZ Ca E C -0 O — p V cc N O `O c6 0 U X L u w w Co LLo ONO 0-) `0 0- CU Cu Cu Q Q N ('7 N N Lo (CU6 0 j, i c6.9 .� N-Fu Lo v C 0 Cu N 0 N N O ti 0 u CU C6 C6 Q r CU .N Q E E E Cu Co Ln O — .— 2 - N N G.1 '� N C7 � L0 N '- N in in N i) T o Ca C6 C6 C6 C6 cc N cop � W W � W Lo e»�' cc O N N N N N O J Q Q Q Q Q Q Z CV Co V Lo C0 I- 00 March 2012 5-19 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION POWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS This section provides an overview of the configuration and condition of the existing di stribution system at the Joint Facilities. This section will further define improvements required to meet near and long term electrical power needs. Four d istribution concepts are discussed and compared to provide cost effective and reliable options for upgrading the Joint Facility's power distribution system. Overview of Existing Facilities Relevant discussion on the wFP, SDPS, and CPS follows. Badger Water Filtration Plant The majority of the wFP Electrical Equipment was installed in 1968. In 1993, electrical distribution equipment was added to support flocculation, additional chemical feed, and other miscellaneous plant process loads. In 2002, electrical distribution equipment was added to support backwash and solids treatment facilities. The 1968 equipment has reached its useful life and is generally unsafe. The 1968 MCC circuit breaker operator handles are erratic and loose and do not have a positive connection. The 1968 main and distribution circuit breakers are not true dead front design. These issues represent an operations reliability issue as well as an increased risk of shock and arc flash hazard t o plant staff. Spare parts for the 1968 and 1993 equipment are available from aftermarket suppliers. However, they are not typically stocked so lead times will likely be long and costs will be significantly higher than that of current issue replacement parts. Manufacturer support for the 1993 and 2002 equipment is available. However, support for the 1968 equipment will likely be unreliable and costly. San Dieguito Pump Station The SDPS electrical equipment is past its useful life and has had extensive upgrades and adjustments. Electrical power demand at the SDPS is nearly six times that as the demand at Badger wFP. However, due to the two-mile separation of the facilities, the SDPS is not directly powered from the hydroelectric facility. There is currently no electrical feed between the hydroelectric facility and San Dieguito as each are fed by a separate SDG&E feed. Cielo Pump Station The majority of the CPS electrical equipment was installed in 2002. Major equipment is still manufactured and replacement parts are readily available. Currently, there is no on-site standby generation at the CPS. However, there are provisions to connect a portable generator in the event of Utility power failure. Due to sizing of portable generator connection panel, the CPS would need to be operated at a reduced capacity when run from a portable generator. Proposed Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvements Four proposed concepts to improve electrical distribution for th e Joint Facilities were developed. Each is presented below. 5-20 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Concept 1—Basic Design Concept 1, shown in Figure 5.5, represents the most basic of options for upgrades to t he Joint Facilities distribution system. Separate Utility sources are provided at the two facilities, meaning that the electrical demand of the SDPS cannot be directly powered from the hydroelectric generating facility. Concept 1 replaces the WFP main switchgear and all 1968 and 1993 electrical equipment distributed throughout the f acility. It involves complete replacement of the SDPS along with the electrical distribution equipment. A standby diesel generator was sized to support the entire WFP. It is connected at the WFP 4.16 kV switchgear. The switchgear will be capable of automatic transfer upon sensing a power disruption from the Utility. A standby diesel generator was sized to run the new SDPS at approximately half capacity. The generator is connected to the 480 Volt SDPS switchgear with automatic transfer capability. Concept 2—Combined Power System Concept 2, shown in Figure 5.6, represents a consolidation of power sources for the Joint Facilities. A single Utility source feeds the main 12 kV distribution switchgear connected directly to the hydroelectric generators. The distribution switchgear feeds switchgear responsible for power distribution to the WFP loads. The 12 kV distribution switchgear feeds the SDPS switchgear via a single underground electrical feed installed alongside the pump station discharge pipeline. The SDPS can directly utilize the generation capability of the hydroelectric facility. Concept 2 replaces the WFP main switchgear and all 1968 and 1993 electrical equipment distributed throughout the facility. It i nvolves complete replacement of th e SDPS along with the electrical distribution equipment. A standby diesel generator was sized to sup port the WFP loads. It is con nected at the WFP 48 0 Volt switchgear. The switchgear will be capable of automatic transfer upon sensing a power disruption from the Utility. A standby diesel generator was sized to run the new SDPS at approximately half capacity. The generator is connected to the 480 Volt SDPS switchgear with automatic transfer capability. Concept 3—Combined Power System with Redundant Services Concept 3, shown in Figure 5.7, is similar to Concept 2, with one addition: a redundant Utility feed to the main 12 kV distribution switchgear is connected directly to the hydroelectric generators. Concept 4—Maximum Redundancy and Reliability An enhancement to Concept 3, Concept 4 provides redundant feeds to the SDPS switchgear via a dual isolated underground electrical feed installed alongside the pump station discharge pipeline. Tiebreakers were included at the 12 kV distribution switchgear, WFP switch gear, and the S DPS switchgear. Tiebreakers add additional flexibility, redundancy, and safety by a Ilowing isolation of distribution busses. Bus isolation can allow for maintenance and repair work to be done de-energized, while a portion of the plant still operates. Tiebreakers allow for isolation of faults to one side of the tie, permitting a portion of bus loads to operate when a fault is present on bus. Tiebreakers add flexibility, by allowing even loading of transformers, selective use of the hydroelectric turbines, and capability to utilize both Utility feeds concurrently. March 2012 5-21 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION O 1 I r.L, EI li I I 01 t, W 1 1 =1 I I Cl)I I I I I I I I I I I o LL 1 1 I 97 I I 1 1 I I � °a -a .22 I I Lo lu l I o v m can C7! N 1 I 2 4 , rn v , I , 19 E CD 1 7 I I O io 1 CD I 7 1 I I ro I I � cv m 1 1 I N d , I , m I I I I I a s I I o I V LLI tn i 11 I O 01 L � I O 7 I ❑ I � I cc W '0 1 cc Y 2 I I p 1 cc °o v I I 1 G> Y r I I 1 C w 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I L v cC CID n ! I E Lu I I O r I U) * > I y� 4 o s I I cv I I L!'1 L6 , I � I I � I � I I l — — _ 5-22 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � r - -- - - - _. - _ - - .. - - -I 1 1 .01 o I I �1 I X 1 1 E 1 1 I 01 W 1 1 =1 1 I c 1 I I Cl)I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ME c h I ao C"b I I I Lo ! Lu 1 I D v o 2 y e l l a) c I yr U N yL... Y I .rz ❑ _ � I I N m n -e 3 O I I 3 p a O v a N V3 I I [n j to 1 T 7 v I I � I N CD I ry N v I I v I O I I I a o I O I I ' I I I I I y I I I I O I I I � I N I I I O ❑ 1 I I U y = I I I N to 2 I I j I I I I O 1_ I I ! V I •c p T 1 1 l O CL 1 d o � cc W I I 7 0 1 O7 O to s s 1 a 4o N I I 7 I O_ CD r ! cc Z Y cv I I I E- LL, 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ui I .— - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -1 LL March 2012 5-23 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - ---- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -I cc I = I I y l 01 i Q I I i � I 1 I I 1 Q I Q W X71 1 �I '01 I yl m 1 1 j I W I I = 1 d) I 11 V7 1 Luy s I 1 1 I Lu I1 c.7 r I 1 1 I y N 1 1 I V I 1 1 1 •� I I I � c vii I G.1 I 1 1 p •�,m 1 N cc 1 1 m 1 i a 11 A L7 I ] CD Lo 1 W d l 1 p p I i C71 a p I I LL Q i c r m e Vim] 1 1 I C :> Y = 7 1 1 I N CN rn Co 1 cc I 1 11 10 I I I I 1 I I l y m I I 1 0 N -2 EL 1 1 I Q I •;g 1_ 1 1 I V .lp r 1 cc U O a I cc 7 11 7 u°'� I L Co 1 1 1 I Vii j j 1 1 1 Y Y 1 CD,F- I l y Q o v I I 1 >_ o r 1 1 ¢m O a I J I 1 1 MV: I O T ce I L I C I I I [n cv E lid '- o � ll7 I I 1 I � I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I Ln I_. ._ ... ... ._ _.. _.. ... ._ _.. � .._ - ... ... ... ... ... ... � .._ .._ _.. .._ ... ... _ ...I ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I LL 5-24 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - _.I 1 1 Q 1 m O i l CI LLI I I i l 1 I r-k ILL. I 1 O 1 p �• I I 'I I � X11 �I M I I 1 I I I W 1 1 ¢� ©1 1 1 Y v CU 1 v 11 0 cf)I y s I 1 1 o ti I I 1 M C4 I Lu O r I 11 I d I I u] QD 1 1 c h I s s Lu I pov I 1 �C71 a `o I o m _ Lu 11 p p I G.1 o �? `D c v 1 1 `D ' I 1 R aU7 t-: Y N I 1 fC 'w E -e .Y L`7 1 1 m u7 O m a N V37 11 [n d I C Y _ � cc 1 1 � I cv cry'] Ir ti 11 � I C I O I � a 1 1 I I 1 1 I O 4� I 1 I cc a 1 1 1 N a 1 1 1 Q - o 11 p o I G.1 2 1 1 j I ;g F 1 1 I U 01 CV ID c ❑ T -W a VJ IL cc W O 1 1 I iVi s s 1 Q CD 1 1 a r+ I I 1 I cc r) w v +� 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 L1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 00 I 1 I ui I .- I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -1 LL March 2012 5-25 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Comparison of the Four Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvement Table 5.5 provides a summary of advantages and disadvantages of each of the four-power distribution concepts discussed. Table 5.5 Comparison of the Four Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvement Advantages Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Capital Cost X Consolidated to one Utility bill I I X I X I X SDPS can directly utilize hydroelectric power generation X X X Minimal power export to SDG&E I I X I X Transmission level rate structure I I X I X I X Utility redundancy at the 12 kV distribution switchgear X X Redundant feeds to SDPS I I I I X Redundant feeds to the WFP loads I I I I X Ability to isolate portions of the major distribution gear using tie breaker for maintenance or repair purposes X Disadvantages Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Capital Cost X No Utility redundancy at the WFP distribution switchgear X No Utility redundancy at the 12 kV distribution switchgear X No Utility redundancy at SDPS I X No redundant feed to the SDPS I I X I X No redundant transformers feeding the WFP loads X X X No ability to isolate portions of the major distribution gear for maintenance or repair X X X Two separate Utility bills I X SDPS cannot directly utilize hydroelectric power generation X Majority of hydroelectric power gets exported to SDG&E X Distribution level rate structure X 5-26 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Project cost estimates for the four concepts are presented in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 Project Cost Estimates for Four Concepts for Electrical Distribution Improvements Concept No. Description of Concept Estimated Project Cost($) 1 Basic Design $2,100,000 2 Combined Power System $3,000,000 3 Combined Power System with Redundant Services $3,200,000 4 Maximum Redundancy and Reliability $4,800,000 High Voltage Substation Economic Feasibility Analysis Currently, SDPS and WFP connect to the SDG&E electricity grid at 12 kV. This section evaluates the economic feasibility of SFID/SDWD designing, constructing, owning, and operating a high voltage substation that would connect to the SDG&E electricity grid at a transmission level voltage, such as 69 or 115 kV. The underlying assumptions for this analysis are the following: 1. A high voltage (e.g., 69 or 115 kV) SDG&E transmission line exists in close proximity to either the WFP or SDPS. 2. SDG&E would agree to provide SFID with electric service at a transmission level voltage. 3. Taking electric service at a transmission level voltage would result in an average reduction in electricity rate of$0.02 per kWh. The analysis was conducted for each of the four electrical distribution system improvement concepts presented above. Note that with respect to installation of a high voltage substation, Concept Nos. 3 and 4 are identical. Table 5.7 summarizes results of the analysis. In addition to the economic advantages associated with owning and operating a high voltage substation as well as taking service at transmission level voltage (Concept Nos. 1 and 2), SFID/SDWD would have control over design and maintenance of the substation. The additional control would enhance reliability of the substation beyond that associated with typical SDG&E-owned facilities. WFP Low Voltage Equipment Replacement WFP In addition to the overall power system improvements identified in Conc epts Nos. 1 to 4 above, much of the existing low voltage equipment, including motor control centers, switchboards, and lighting transformers&panel boards, at the WFP are in need of replacement. The primary justification for replacement is the fact that the equipment is reaching the end of its useful life. Additionally, including replacement of this equipment in an overall electrical system upgrade project would likely result in a more cost effective project due to economies of scale in procuring the equipment. The specific pieces of equipment that are recommended for replacement and the associated estimated costs are summarized in Table 5.8. March 2012 5-27 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION Table 5.7 Economic Feasibility Analysis of a High Voltage Substation Annual Year 1 Annual Energy Energy 30-Year Net Concept 0&M Consumption1,3 Cost Present Payback' No. Capital Cost Cost' (kWh) Savings' Value' (Years) 1 $540,000 $16,200 2,836,000 $56,720 $99,892 22 2 $900,000 $27,000 5,026,000 $100,520 $283J829 19 3&4 $1,800,000 $54,000 5,026,000 $100,520 $(1,402,579) >30 Notes 1. Annual 0&M cost calculated based on 3%of capital cost. 2. Annual energy consumption for the SDPS is based on:4-500 hp pumps @ 50%load,24 hrs/day for 5 months of the year, motor efficiency=96%. 3. Annual energy consumption for the WFP is based on an average instantaneous power demand of 250 kW. 4. Energy cost savings calculated based on a$0.02/kWh reduction in the existing average SDG&E energy rate. 5. Refer to Appendix E for detailed Net Present Value and Payback calculations. Table 5.8 WFP Low Voltage Equipment Replacement Cost Equipment Replacement Cost Padmount Transformer(Backwash &Solids Treatment Facilities) $35,000 MSB (Backwash &Solids Treatment Facilities) $6,000 MCC-1 (Backwash Treatment Facility) $40,000 MCC-2 (Solids Treatment Facility) $40,000 Padmount Transformer(WFP) $32,000 Power Distribution Panel "P" $11,000 MCC-1M $48,000 MCC-2M $24,000 MCC-3M $64,000 MCC-3MA $16,000 MCC-3MB $16,000 Automatic Transfer Switch $64,000 Emergency Power Distribution Panel "EP" $5,000 MCC-1 EM $32,000 MCC-2EM $16,000 MCC-3EM $40,000 MCC-4EM $24,000 Breaker Panel "A" (Filter Console) $4,000 Breaker Panel "D" (Filter Console) $4,000 Lighting Transformers&Panelboards $50,000 TOTAL $571,000 5-28 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION ELECTRICAL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a summary of the electrical system improvement recommendations. 1. Implement Concept 1, whic h includes separate power systems f or the SDPS and WFP. The pr imary justification for not powering the S DPS from the WFP i s the fa ct that the capital cost associated with installing the connection is not justified by the benefit. This is cc mpounded by the fact that under most operating scenarios, the SDPS would not be able to operate on power produced by the hydroelectric facility. Having the WFP serve as the primary source of power for the SDPS raises concerns about reliability because of the distance between the two facilities and the fact that the electrical line would be routed through several areas that a not under the direct ownership or control of SFID/SDWD. 2. With respect to the design concept for the new SDPS electrical system, a 480 V distribution syst em supported with a standby engine generator is recommended. The size and type of the standby generator should be evaluated and determined in the initial phases of the new SDPS design. Although it may be economically advantageous to install a high voltage substation and take SDG&E service at a transmission- level voltage, it is not likely that SDG&E owns a high voltage transmission line close enough to the SDPS site for this alternative to be economical. 3. Install a high voltage substation at the WFP by connecting to the 6 9 kV power lines located east of the plant. Economic feasibility analysis suggests a payback of about 20 years. If SFID el ects to build a new high voltage substation, construction of the substation can occur independently from the WFP el ectrical system upgrade. Although technically feasible, constructing the substation independently is not as cost effective as including it in the WFP electrical system upgrade for a few reasons. a. If a high v oltage substation is not inc Iuded in th e WFP electrical system upgr ade, some new 12KV service equipment will be required initially that cannot be used after the substation is built. b. There will be additional cost associated with coordinating with SDG&E because the S DG&E interconnection will be modified twice; once for the WFP electrical system upgrade and once for the high voltage substation installation. 4. The results of the diagnostic testing that was conducted on the main plant transformer in November of 2011 indicate that the condition of the transformer is deteriorating. In order to protect the reliability of the facility, replacement of t his transformer should be expedited. As it was initially conceived, the WFP electrical system upgrade project includes replacement of the m ain plant transformer and associated primary and secondary switchgear. Thus, the current condition of the transformer substantiates the high prioritization of the WFP electrical system upgrade project. 5. In addition to the modifications to the WFP medium voltage equipment included in Concept 1, replacement of the low voltage equipment, as indicated in Table 5.8, is recommended. March 2012 5-29 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION The Joint Facilties is currently utilizing Rockwell's RSView32 SCADA-HMI application software (version 7.2) together with Microsoft Windows S erver and XP oper ating systems. The RSView32 SCADA-HMI application has approximately 5,700+tags currently configured and active. The historical database Historian is configured with Microsoft's SQL Se rver coupled with Worksmart Automation's Report Builder and Microsoft Excel application software. The database application includes custom application code in accordance with historical data management and reporting requirements. The Joint Facilities is currently utilizing Rockwell's integrated alarm system in-lieu of a Win-911 or SCADAlarm after hours alarm notification system. This alarm management system configuration appears to be serving SFID/SDWD satisfactorily. SFID/SDWD's WFP SCADA system is configured with redundant Rockwell RSView32 server nodes and a single Microsoft SQL database server. In addition, there are a number of S CADA client nodes distributed geographically throughout the plant. The core SCADA-HMI system consists of the following: • Operator Workstation No. 1 0 Laboratory • Operator Workstation No. 2 0 Chemical Metering Area (downstairs) • Maintenance Supervisor's Office 0 Cielo Pump Station (aka, Raw Water Pump Station) • Operations Office • San Dieguito Pump Station • Chief Operator's Office (Elijah's Office) • Distribution Yard • Filter Gazebo (Distribution Operations Supervisor Office) There is a Iso one additional RSView32 application running in a sta nd-alone configuration at the L arrick Reservoir facility (industrial PC running RSView32). The process control network contains the following nodes: • ICP-110 @ WFP 0 ICP-119 (Post Clearwell Analyzer) • ICP-112&ICP-111 @ WFP (Filters) 0 ICP-120 @ WFP (radio front end processor) • ICP-113 @ WFP 0 ICP-210 @ WFP • ICP-114 @ WFP 0 Master Data Concentrator Programmable (Dioxide PLC) Logic Controller(PLC)on DH+network (located @ WFP) • ICP-115 @ SDR • Actiflo®PLC on DH+network • ICP-116 (Post Clearwell Analyzer) (located @ WFP) • ICP-117 @ WFP 0 Badger PLC (phone line front end (Filter Control Weir) processor) 5-30 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION • Andritz PLC • Cielo Pump Station RTU (aka SDPS) • San Dieguito Pump Station RTU • Balour Reservoir RTU • Larrick Reservoir RTU • Encinitas Ranch Reservoir RTU • Lake Hodges Dam RTU The communication network is split into two core networks: 1) a SCADA information network, and 2) a process control network. Both networks are IP based configurations. All of the process area PI-Cs are connected to the process control network through a combination of fiber and copper and communicate via ODVA's Ethernet-IP protocol. The process control system communication network is comprised of a mixture of multiple fiber optic segments and multiple 900 MHz FHSS RF subnets as well as a 2.4 GHz link to SFID's distribution system. There are also a few legacy DH+and RIO communication links still being utilized. The legacy DH+communication segments should be upgraded to direct Ethernet-IP connections if possible. The existing process control system will require some significant maintenance and upgrades in the near future due to technological obsolescence. Major changes in operating system and application software will be t he primary force for change. In addition, the hardware (both servers and clients) is near the end of its usef ul service life and that will also provide incentive for a future upgrade. Additionally, there are several improvements identified below that should be considered in SFID/SDWD's future SCADA system planning discussions. To further define the process control improvements and develop the associated budgetary cost estimates, it is recommended that SFID/SDWD perform a detailed SCADA Master Plan. Recommended Process Control System Improvements Based on our understanding of the current system and our discussions with staff, we propose the following recommendations: 1. SCADA-HMI system server and workstation hardware and software upgrades. The hardware is nearing the end of its useful life expectancy and the operating system and SCADA-HMI application software must be addressed soon. 2. Integration of Microsoft's Terminal Services technology into the SCADA-HMI system infrastructure. 3. Network communication equipment upgrades, including managed switches. 4. Reconfigure or replace existing network server rack to provide physical space for future expansion. 5. Conduct a detailed network security evaluation to determine if modifications to the existing system are necessary to improve network security. The evaluation should also include potential methods for securely accessing the network from remote locations(e.g., outside a firewall). March 2012 5-31 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION 6. Integration of a Network Management System (NMS) into the SCADA-HMI system interface, including an OPC Gateway for direct integratio n of network diagnostic inf ormation into the SCADA system graphic screens, database, and alarm management system. 7. Integration of energy consumption data into the overall SCADA-HMI system interface, including required power monitoring components at various levels(Motor, MCC, Switchgear, Facility). 8. Integration of real-time motor current transducers and related data into SCADA-HMI system to provide a powerful analytical tool to assist operations staff with advanced diagnostics and preventative maintenance. 9. Provide consolidation and cleanup of all fiber optic communication segments into a central termination enclosure, e.g., termination of all fiber cables into a consolidated rack-mount patch panel located in the 19" equipment rack. 10. Integration of"Time Sync" functionality across the entire process control system network infrastructure, both SCADA information and process control networks(servers, clients, PLCs, and RTUs). 11. Integration of SFID/SDWD's SCADA-HMI system with the CM MS system. Provide for an appropriate exchange of information between the two systems. 12. Cleanup and resolve all SCADA-HMI system documentation conflicts and inconsistencies. 13. Expand existing SCADA- HMI system documentation to reflect current system configuration, including network communication diagrams, PLC 1/0 diagrams, and RTU configurations. 14. Integration of a document management application into the SCADA-HMI system to provide operations staff with a central repository for all SCADA related information. 15. Eliminate all legacy Allen-Bradley DH+communication network segments and related equipment. Upgrade to Ethernet communications for consistency and to avoid future issues with obsolete components and technologies. 16. Reconfigure the existing video surveillance system to increase operational functionality and utilization. 17. Provide an enhanced operational interface for I aboratory data input and integration into the SCADA-HMI and Historian systems. Also, provide a streamlined and consolidated report generation interface utilizing data from both sources(manual lab data input+SCADA-HMI system data). 18. Review and discuss integration of the AMS data with the SCADA-HMI system data. 19. Provide Ethernet communications to additional devices, including VFDs, MCCs, PQAs, etc. 20. Integration of Distribution system RTU inf ormation into the WFP SCADA-HMI system. The existing Distribution system has approximately 40+ TESCO RTUs with relatively small 1/0 point counts at each facility. This information can be integrated directly into the existing WFP RSView32 SCADA-HMI system application, further assisting SFID/SDWD with their consolidation efforts. The estimated cost for these recommendations, including the planning/design effort, is$400,000. 5-32 March 2012 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION SCADA System Maintenance and Supervision In theory, SCADA systems and automation are implemented as one of many tools available to operators to facilitate the operation of a pl ant. However, because of poor planning, implementation and/or maintenance, SCADA systems can require a disproportionate amount of attention, stealing resources from the primary task of treating water. The improvements to the SCADA system recommended herein, if planned and implemented properly, should reduce the level of supervision and maintenance effort required of staff. As such, it is not anticipated that these improvements would result in an increase in staffing requirements for the Joint Facilities. However, staff may need to be increas ed if functionality of the SCADA syst em is ex paneled (e.g., implementation of asset management and/or maintenance software) or the responsibilities of the staff are modified to included tasks that have been historically outsourced, such as SCADA and P LC software programming. March 2012 5-33 SECTION 5: ELECTRICAL EVALUATION - This Page Left Blank lntentionally- 5-34 March 2012 Section 6 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION The hydroelectric facility at the WFP is at or nearing the end of its useful life. Several components are in need of immediate repair or replacement. This section provi des an ev aluation of the exi sting hydroelectric facility, identifies potential improvements including a replacement facility, and details associated costs and incentives associated with potential improvements. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY The WFP receives water from three sources: CWA Second Aqueduct, Lake Hodges, and SDR. Water from CWA's Second Aqueduct is at a high pressure (originally 180 psi) and must be reduced to approximately 35 psi before it enters the WFP. The WFP hydroelectric facility was constructed in 1985 to produce electricity from the pressure drop and flow associated with the CWA pipeline. Pipelines for source water from Lake Hodges and San Dieguito Reservoir tie into the WFP influent downstream of the hydroelectric facility making CWA the only water source available to generate power. The facility consists of two Francis hydroelectric turbines, each with a different flow capacity. Table 6.1 presents information about each turbine. Each turbine has a bypass line and bypass valve used to control flow into the WFP when there is not enough volume, the turbine/generator is not available, or in the event of a power outage. This bypass valve is also used during startup and shutdown of the turbines as well as to supply additional flow to the WFP in excess of turbine flow capacity. The hydroelectric turbines are located in a 27 foot by 55 foot building. There is little space inside the existing building for additional equipment or turbines. Table 6.1 Characteristics of the Existing Hydroelectric Facility Design Criterion Unit Turbine No. 1 Turbine No. 2 Flow Capacity cfs 27 40 Rated Net Head ft 315 315 Turbine Efficiency % 91.5 91.5 Turbine Output kW 657 969 Turbine nominal rated speed rpm 1200 1200 Generator Voltage kV 4.16 4.16 Generator Power Output kW 600 885 Generator Apparent Power kVA 800 1180 Generator Current Amperes 111 164 Minimum Power Factor Percent 75 75 March 2012 6-1 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Interconnection to SDG&E occurs at the 12 kV service switchgear located outside of the hydroelectric generator facility. The s ervice switchgear includes a bi- directional revenue meter, a mai n circuit breaker, and a transformer to step th e 12 kV down to 4.16 kV for th e generator switchgear connection. The bi-directional revenue meter measures power and energy used by the WFP or excess power delivered to SDG&E. This equipment appears to be in good condition. There does not appear to be available space for expansion to add circuits. Protective relaying for the service equipment is located in the control panel line-up inside the hydroelectric building. Protection for the service entrance equipment includes overcurrent protection, differential protection (which encompasses the generator switchgear and generators), and several functions to detect utility power loss or power system faults, includin g over- and under-voltage and frequency, and ground overvoltage. These relays trip the 12-kV main breaker. The 5-kV switchgear inside the hydroelectric building has two contactors to connect the generators and two fused switches. One of these switches delivers power to the station power transformer for low-voltage loads in the hydroelectric building, and the other feeds power to the two pad-mounted transformers that power the WFP. This equipment appears to be 5-kV motor control equipment, and was manufactured by Ideal Electric as part of the generator system. Ideal Electric (now known as Hyundai Ideal Electr ic) still manufactures generator switchgear, but now uses a different class of circuit breaker switchgear. As such, replacement parts forth e existing equipment will be increasingly difficult to obtain. At least one of the switches in the generator switchgear was reported to be inoperable. While the overcurrent protection is provided by fuses, it is still important to ensure that disconnect switches are safely operable to allow for system maintenance and to quickly respond to and isolate problems. Additionally, replacement parts are difficult to find and replacement of the existing switches with modern technology may not be feasible due to space constraints. Most protection functions rely on power from a battery system. The battery system is critical to safety and equipment protection. The generators have brushless exciters, which require minimal maintenance. The neutral connections are grounded through resistors to limit their contribution to fault current and reduce circulating neutral currents. EXISTING CONTROLS Protection and control devices for the generators and the service switchgear are located in the generator control panel lineup. Protection is provided by numerous single-function solid-state and electro-mechanical protection relays, which were recently tested and some found to be defective. Control components are generally obsolete. Flow rate controllers are used to maintain total water delivered through each generator system at the selected rate. When a generator is in service, its associated flow is controlled by adjusting the wicket gates (turbine inlet). Otherwise, the flow controller adjusts the bypass valve to achieve the required flow. These controls use a 6-2 March 2012 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION single-loop controller, which requires an operator to convert the desired flow rate into a percentage for each generator, and en ter that value into the controller at the generator control panel. These controls are not integrated into the plant PLC-based control system, and must be adjusted locally in the hydroelectric building. Furthermore, the flow signals needed to run the facility are unreliable and wired in such a way that if power is lost at the hydro facility, the flow signal to the WFP is lost, which creates operational problems with the WFP control algorithms, including chemical flow pacing. The existing controls do not allow the generators to operate unless they are connected to the SDG&E power source. Thus, the hydroelectric facility in its current state cannot serve as a standby power source in the event of an SDG&E outage. EXISTING HYDRAULICS A flow control station constructed and owned by CWA is located upstream of the WFP hydroelectric facility. The flow control station consists of two adjustable sleeve valves. The station was originally constructed to control flow rate while the hydroelectric facility would reduce pressure. The CWA's Second Aqueduct is mad e up o f multiple pipelines: Pipeline Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Originally, the hydroelectric facility was connected to Pipeline No. 3, which carried raw water. However, after the hydroelectric facility was constructed, CWA began delivering raw water through Pipeline No. 5. This pipeline has a higher pressure, approximately 250 to 2 90 psi. The existing turbines were not designed to handle this additional pressure. The existing turbines were designed to handle a maximum differential pressure of 145 psi and an influent pressure of 184 psi. Therefore, control of the existing CWA sleeve valves in the flow control station was modified to control pressure instead of flow rate. The flow control station reduces pressure from 250 psi down to 150 psi to allow the turbines to operate at their original rated head. Operating the sleeve valve installation to reduce pressure leaves the hydroelectric turbine facility vulnerable to pressure surges. This is due to the slow opening and closing times associated with sleeve valves. Therefore, in 2010, two surge relief valves were installed to reduce surge by bypassing flow from the inlet of the turbines to the outlet of the turbines. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS Several reports and field investigations have taken place recently on the hydroelectric facility: • Evaluation of the R. E. Badger Hydro Turbine Facility, MWH, July 2009. • Badger Water Treatment Plant Hydro Field Service, Soar Technologies, January 2011. • Maintenance Testing of Protective Relays, Electrical Reliability Services (Emerson Network Power), Inc., June 4, 2011. March 2012 6-3 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION Evaluation of the R.E. Badger Hydro Turbine Facility This report focused on condition of the existing facility, required improvements for performance and safety, and alternatives for the future. The report recommended several improvements categorized as low, medium, and high priority. The report recommends abandoning the hydroelectric facility after 2017 because the estimated paybacks associated with replacement of the turbines and total replacem ent of the facility exceed the 20-year life of the equipment. Installation of a surge relief valve was implemented. The other high priority recommendations, replacement of the hydraulic power unit and synchronizer, were addressed. The medium priority improvements (updated controls) and low priority improvements (extensive maintenance of the turbine and generator) have not been implemented. Badger Water Filtration Plant Hydro Field Service The field service report recommended upgrading the synchronizers, and installing a PLC and operator interface unit at the powerhouse. The PLC would connect to the existing WFP controls and allow for remote monitoring and control of the hydroelectric facility. This would also allow the flow into the WTP to be changed remotely. Currently, the hydroelectric facility controls flow into the WFP. However, during a power outage, the turbines shut down and raw water is forced around the turbines through bypass valves and piping. The bypass valves are controlled by the hydraulic power unit (HPU). Once hydraulic pressure is used up in this HPU during a power outage, the bypass valves would not be able to control flow. Therefore, Soar recommends adding an accumulator to store hydraulic pressure power or to provide an additional power feed for the HPU to supply standby power. Other recommendations included servicing the hydroelectric turbine including all related equipment, switches, and alarms, and testing the surge relief valves during a power failure as outlined in the MWH report. Maintenance Testing of Protective Relays This field service report outlines results of recent protective relay tests and recommendations for further repairs and enhancements. Signs of aging were noted for most relays, and several were found to be defective. One differential relay (on B p hase) was found to be out of tolerance. Components that are not functioning properly and should be replaced include one differential relay (C phase), the negative sequence relay, both generator reverse power relays, and loss of fie Id relays. The reactive power meter for ge nerator 2 wa s found to b e inaccurate. EXISTING SDG&E GENERATION INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT SFID's generation interconnection agreement went into effect in 1985 and extends to 2017. It stipulates SDG&E will purchase all power generated by the hydroelectric facility at a standard rate. According to Chris Brown (SDG&E), SFID's account representative for the WFP SDG&E account, the current interconnection agreement cannot be extended past its original expiration date of June 30, 2017. At that point, SFID can either choose to cease operation of the hydroelectric facility, or enter into a new interconnection agreement with SDG&E. Chris 6-4 March 2012 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION Brown also indicated that it may be possible to terminate the current interconnection agreement before the expiration date, and enter into a new interconnection agreement. If SFID choo ses to term inate the c urrent interconnection agreement and enter into a ne w agreement with SDG&E based on the operation of the existing hydroelectric facility or the operation of a new hydroelectric facility, there are many different rate structures and tariffs available. Furthermore, SDG&E offers agreements with durations of 10, 15, and 20 years. Some examples of the SDG&E tariffs that are currently available are: • Schedule S: Standby Service. This is very similar to SFID's current agreement, in which SDG&E purchases excess energy produced by the hydroelectric facility at a standard SDG&E rate, which varies with market conditions. • Schedule WATER: Water Agency Tariff for Eligible Renewables. This is purchase contract exclusive to water and wastewater utilities that is based on a fixed purchase price for 10, 15, or 20 years. • Schedule RES-BCT: Local Government Renewable Energy Self-Generation Bill Credit Transfers. This tariff allows an SDG&E customer to use renewable energy generated at one site to offset e nergy consumed at other sites having different SDG&E accounts. Assembly Bill 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan In 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) began the implementation of the Assembly Bill (AB)32 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which defines the strategy and comprehensive actions required to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas emission reductions specified by AB 32 (2006). Among the many actions stipulated by the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan is achieving a goal of having at least 33 percent of California's energy produced by renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric facilities, by the year 2020. To meet this ambitious goal of 33 percent renewable energy, CARB is seeking to implement a cap-and-trade program that will in simple terms force polluters to pay for their emissions, which in turn creates a strong incentive to reduce emissions. Large-scale polluters, such as electric utilities including SDG&E, are among the entities that will be most affected by AB 32. The greenhouse gas emission reductions and renewable energy targets established by AB 32 ensure that SDG&E will continue to support renewable energy programs into the foreseeable future. Consequently, it is very likely that SFID can continue the practice of operating a hydroelectric facility and exporting energy to the SDG&E grid well into the future. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The existing generator switchgear is capable of handling existing plant loads and generator production. It is expected that larger generators would not exceed the switchgear ratings. There are no provisions to extend the equipment so connecting new feeder circuits, such as the SDPS, would require replacement of the switchgear. Replacement of the switchgear wo uld allow for expansion of the power system, im proved protection, and greater system reliability. New switchgear could be integrated with the service equipment, which would provide more space inside the hydroelectric building for other improvements. If the existing switchgear is not replaced, it should be inspected and serviced on a regular basis to ensure all components are safe and fully functional. March 2012 6-5 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION The service equipment is suitable for existing plant loads and generator capability, but is not expandable to add circuits at 12 kV o r 4160-volts. The transformer is su itable for existing generator capabilities, but could be marginally suitable or undersized if larger hydroelectric generators are installed. New service equipment can be designed to allow the SDPS to be powered from the WFP service, which would allow power generated by the hydroelectric generators to directly offset power used by th e pump station. Standby power generation to back up both facilities can also be incorporated into new equipment utilizing the hydroelectric turbines or separate standby engine generator sets. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5. The battery system was recently tested and found to be functioning properly. Due to the importance of the batteries in system protection and safety, a routine testing and maintenance program should be implemented. CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Defective protective relays should be repaired or replaced. If new switchgear or controls are installed, new multi-function relays should be incorporated into the new equipment, and temporary repair or replacement of defective relays should be performed to ensure proper system protection until new equipment is placed in service. The ideal location for the protective relays is in new switchgear. If the switchgear and controls are to be retained, or replacement is not expe cted for several years, replacement of the entire protective relay system with modern multi-function relays should be considered. All of the existing relays can be replaced with a few select multi-function relays. One generator protection relay would be needed for each generator, a transformer protection relay will be required for the 12 kV main breaker (and possibly an additional relay to meet SDG&E interconnection requirements), and a bus differential relay can be included or the differential protection functions can be incorporated into the other relays to allow failures to be isolated with less impact on other systems. The inaccurate VAR meter can be replaced if desired, or more sophisticated electronic metering can be installed. Replacing the generator control system should be included if n ew generators are installed. Even with th e existing generators, a new control system can offer operational benefits. A PLC-based system will be able t o integrate generator system operation with the plant control system so that generators can be automatically started when needed, and flow control set points can be entered from SCADA. Digital governors can be included to allow more effective synchronizing, and to allow the turbine generators to operate as a standby power source for the WFP in the event of an SDG&E power outage. Use of hydroelectric generators as a standby power source can be integrated into a new control system. This system would configure the governor and voltage regulator to maintain proper system frequency and volt age when the hydroelectric generators are not connected to SDG&E. This is only feasible when total flow from CWA is sufficient to generate power for all operating plant loads with a sufficient reserve to allow stable control. Load control logic can be incorporated to limit plant power loads (including pumping at the SDPS) to ensure that the standby power system is stable. The turbines would use flow required to provide the power demand, and flow through the bypass valves would be controlled to obtain the required total plant inf luent flow. This system may not be feasible if the CWA flow control station is used to maintain a fixed flow rate. Some previous reports recommended replacement of the automatic synchronizer. If the existing controls are retained, the governors can be replaced to improve synchronizing capability. Synchronizer replacement 6-6 March 2012 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION requires evaluation of the existi ng turbine controls, and will require additional work to ensure that the new synchronizer works effectively. Reasons for a new synchronizer seem to be based on problems synchronizing generator no. 1, which were determined to have been a result of damage to that unit after a pressure surge, which have since been repaired. If the con trol system is rep laced, a new synchronizer should be included. Otherwise, synchronizer replacement should only be considered if problems synchronizing the generators persist. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY Five alternatives were identified for either rehabilitating the existing hydroelectric turbines or replacing the entire hydroelectric facility. A discussion of each alternative follows. Base Condition The base condition is defined as the current state of the hydroelectric facility and the following assumptions have been made: 1. No major equipment upgrades or replacements will be implemented. 2. The existing facility is capable of operating for five more years. 3. Operation and maintenance costs associated with the base condition will be significantly higher than the other alternatives. 4. The reliability (i.e., availability) of the facility will be significantly less than the other alternatives. Alternative 1 - Upgrade Existing Turbines to Operate at Higher Pressure The original manufacturer of the tur bines, RainPower (formerly known as Sorumsand Verksted A/S)wa s contacted about the potential of modifying the existing turbines to allow them to operate at higher pressure. According to the manufacturer, this alternative is not recommended for the following reasons: 1. Safety concerns with the turbine casing and related piping because this was originally designed for a lower pressure. 2. The turbine will likely have a lower efficiency when operated at elevated pressures. This lower efficiency will yield only marginal increases in power production and will have detrimental effects on system wear and associated maintenance. 3. Operating at a higher pressure will accelerate system wear and likely shorten Iifespan. 4. Design pressure of the piping system and thrust restraint systems are unknown. Consequently, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. March 2012 6-7 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION Alternative 2 - Upgrade Existing Turbines to Improve Safety and Reliability There are several upgrades that would improve safety and reliability of the existing turbines. Upgrading the existing turbines to improve safety and reliability will extend the life of the facility 10-years. • Replace the HPU for both turbines - Check guide vanes for damage - Check clearance between wicket • Maintenance of the turbines and gates generators, including: - Check clearance between wicket - Check spiral casing for cracks gates and covers - Check main shutoff valve tightness - Inspect wicket gate bearings - Check for cavitation on wicket gates - Inspect o-ring sealing and draft tube - Measure clearances between runner - Check leakage of wicket gates and wear rings - Inspect leakage along the shaft (under a range of loads) - Measure clearance between runner and head cover wearing ring - Check dismantling joint for leakage - Check for cavitation on runner - Test generator windings Alternative 3 - Replace Existing Turbines With this alternative, the existing turbines would be replaced in kind with new turbines that would operate within the same head and flow conditions. Because head and flow conditions would not change, the maximum energy production capability of the facility would not increase. However, it is an ticipated that the actual energy production would increase because new turbines would be more efficient and reliable than the existing turbines. Furthermore, replacing the turbines would extend the life of the facility 15-years. If SFID elects to proceed with this alternative, coordination with SDG&E will be ne eded. The hydroelectric facility may be out of s ervice for a period longer than allowed in the existing generation interconnection agreement. Alternative 4 — Replace the Entire Hydroelectric Facility This alternative entails the complete replacement of the hydroelectric facility with a new facility. The new facility would be located in a new building that could be constructed adjacent to the existing hydroelectric building. This would allow the existing facility to maintain operation during construction of the new facility, which would be financially advantageous because it would allow SFID to remain in compliance with the existing SDG&E generation interconnection application as it relates to shut down duration. 6-8 March 2012 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION Assuming that the existing CWA pipeline is suitably rated, the new hydroelectric facility could be designed to operate at i nlet and differential pressures of 25 0 psi and 215 psi, respectively, which would result in a substantial increase in the system's energy production capability and help offset the project cost of then ew facility. The lifespan of this alternative is 25-years. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS To evaluate and compare economic feasibility of the fi ve alternatives described above, a Net Pr esent Value (NPV) analysis was performed. For the purpose of the NPV analysis, the base condition was defined to quantify economic feasibility of"doing nothing" and continuing operation of the hydroelectric facility in its current state. Project costs for each of the alternatives shown in Table 6.2 are representative of all recommendations made above. NPV Analysis Results of the NPV Analysis are presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Results of the Net Present Value Analysis of Five Alternatives to Upgrade or Replace the Hydroelectric Facility Estimated Annual Year 1 Energy Alternative 0&M System Production Net Present Payback0) No. Lifes an Project Cost Cost Availability (kWh) Value') (Years) Base 5 $- $70,628 75% 2,354,282 $571,428 0 1 This alternative not included in NPV analysis because it is not mechanically viable. 2 10 $ 1,600,000 $56,503 90% 2,825,138 $45,711 9.7 3 15 $5,000,000 $59,642 95% 2,982,090 $ (2,394,290) >15 4 25 $7,600,000 $57,513 98% 5,751,271 $2,171,576 19.5 Note 1. Refer to Appendix F for NPV and Payback calculations. Based on the NPV results presented in Table 6.2, all alternatives with the exception of Alternative No. 4 were eliminated from consideration for the following reasons: 1. Although the base alternative appears to have an immediate payback, because of the age, physical condition, and associated safety concerns, continuing operation of the facility without significant upgrades cannot be considered to be a reliable source of revenue. 2. Alternative No. 1 was eliminated from consideration because it is not mechanically viable. March 2012 6-9 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION 3. Alternative No. 2 was eliminated from consideration because the payback period is essentially equal to the estimated remaining life of the facility after improvements are made. This implies that the investment in improvements is not likely to be recovered over the remaining life of the facility. This risk is compounded by the fact that economic performance of the facility is largely dependent on equipment and structures that are nearly 30 years old. 4. Alternative No. 3 was e liminated from consideration because the payback period exceeds the estimated remaining life of the facility after the improvements are made. Sensitivity Analysis for Alternative No. 4 To further refine the NPV and payback calculations for Alternative No. 4, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. The sensitivity analysis consisted of five different scenarios in which the average SDG&E export rate was varied from $.07 per kWh to $0.11 per kWh, and the average annual SDG&E energy rate escalation was varied from 2.5 percent to 5.0 p ercent. For ea ch of t he five scenarios, the NPV and payback were calculated and a probability of occurrence was assigned. Expected NPV and payback values for Alternative 4 were calculated by applying the probability of occurrence values t o t he respective NPV and payback values for each scenario. Results of this analysis are presented below in Table 6.3 (see page 6-12). As shown in Table 6.3, based on the sensitivity analysis Alternative No. 4 has an expected payback period of 18.4 years, and an expected net present value of$3.53M. In simple terms, if this a Iternative is implemented, SFID can expect to recover the capital expenditure of the project in addition to 0&M costs 18.4 years after the facility is commissioned, which is more than six years before the anticipated end of useful life. Furthermore, in the 25-year Iifespan of the facility, it is expected to create $3.53M (2012 dollars) in value for SFID. Generally, accepted economic theory stipulates that any project having a net present value greater than zero should be implemented because it creates value for the owner/investor. Projects having greater net present values are obviously more lucrative. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Based on the expected NPV and payback calculations summarized in Table 6.3, it is recommended that SFID proceed with complete replacement of the existing hydroelectric facility with a new facility designed to operate at inlet and differential pressures of 250 psi and 215 psi, respectively. Prior to starting final design of the new hydroelectric facility, it is r ecommended that SFID work with SDG&E to identify t he most advantageous interconnection and power purchase terms. After these terms are identified, the NPV and payback calculations should be refined to confirm that replacement of th e hydroelectric facility is economically viable based on the actual interconnection agreement terms that will be in place when the facility is commissioned. 6-10 March 2012 SECTION 6: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR EVALUATION 2. In the interim, while the new hydr oelectric facility is being designed and cc nstructed, the following measures are recommended to enhance the safety and convenience associated with operating the existing hydroelectric facility: a. Integrate the existing flow c ontrols into the WFP SCADA/ Control system. This may requir e replacement of the existing flow controllers. In addition to improving flow control, this measure would also provide WFP staff with the ability to adjust flow setpoints remotely, as opposed to the current configuration which requires an operator to make setpoint changes manually at the flow controller in the hydroelectric building. b. Replace the existing 4.16 kV switchgear to which the hydroelectric generators are connected.Although this switchgear is not technically dedicated to the hydroelectric facility because it also distributes power to the remainder of the WFP power system, replacement is recommended because of its age, physical condition, and associated safety concerns. Refer to S ection 5 for additional information on the replacement of the existing 4.16 kV switchgear. March 2012 6-11 SECTION E HYDROELECTRIC GENERAT R EVALUATION U-) -(:13, o o ®CD .g § + � _ m § 6 CCD 2 � 2 / W a e m 6q 2 ƒ + k y § 6 q ƒ ~ 2 69 Cz .% 7 e # y 6 E a % R Q x ZIN V)u ±# k ƒ 0 ? Co Lu c a 6 o y @ c § \ q ƒ y ° ? § _ m ® m _ @ e \ cc (o \ C ? \ ƒ � % CD CD $ ? ? % � 2 % ƒ m � o c 2 a a $ g ® w y o L0 L0 � � 7 U o m § 7 6 2 w R ƒ & $ t _ & � ± k � / -- 0 cc / - f e f \ § f ¥ % 2 a ) 0 •- .g U t 0 _ 3 ƒ� 2 q ± - t = * ± % _ u f a % = 0 m@ = o y 2 n 2 15 0 C d % # k a § * 2 2 ¥ ® q � / G d G m = 3 & m � 2 y a) � $ ® _ k x @ \ 2 % \ =- > � y 9 � � _ w ± n = = 2 G t = � _ = 7 M ± § § § 2 ® _ & x ° ° © k ® » m @ © ¥ _ - 7 7 = -0 ± U 0- = t x ± - ± 7 ƒ 7 0 ± @ 7 ± \ ) / = 7 A m � @ » S / 0 2 7 = 8 2 2 4 / / 2 ° y _ ob © ° % 7 / § > $ m \ k � � O 0 e e e m o o 6 = 0 z e 7 7 t n $ 4 / 7 \ f / / f ƒ % % / [ ( -2 4 = m _ _ = n , t = _ o- _ = o > > _ 2 , 4 » m 4 4 4 m ± ¥ ¥ 4 4 m k �ƒ ƒ w w E2 March 2012 MECHANICAL RELIABILITY Section 7 AND SEISMIC EVALUATION INTRODUCTION The WFP has been in operation for over 40 years. Most of the structural components of the plant (buildings, flocculation/sedimentation basins, filters, clearwell, and washwater tank) are part of the original plant. Some of the mechanical component s (sludge collection equipment, washwater pumps , chlorination syst em, and emergency generator) are also part of the original plant. Because of the age of some of the plant components and equipment, this mechanical and seismic evaluation was completed. This section provides the findings from our mechanical and seismic vulnerability evaluations of the WFP. The mechanical reliability evaluation is an update to the 2003 Badger Water Filtration Master Plan and includes items that s hould be addressed to im prove safety, reliability, and operability. The seismic evaluation was performed to i dentify those structures and structural elements at the plant that are most susc eptible to earthquake-related damage and to provide recommendations for appropriate mitigation. MECHANICAL RELIABILITY EVALUATION Our mechanical evaluation involves a survey of plant mechanical equipment to determine the following: 1. Identify equipment in need of repair/replacement that will improve safety, reliability, and/or operability of the plant. 2. Identify equipment for which availability of spare parts and serviceability may be difficult. 3. Identify urgency for repair/replacement. Site Review Carollo staff met with members of the plant operations staff on June 9, 2011 to visually inspect equipment conditions. Observation was limited to equipment that was readily visible and currently in service. Facilities and Equipment Not Covered in this Memorandum Portions of the plant, such as the CPS and SDPS as well as the hydroelectric facility, are being covered in Section Nos. 4 and 6, respectively. The Actiflo® System, solids contact clarifier, and centrifuge were not evaluated because the equipment is no t currently operational. With the exception of the sludge removal equipment in the sedimentation basins, mechanical issues with unit process equipment (i.e., flash mix, flocculation, filtration, lagoons, etc.) are discussed in Section 3. March 2012 7-1 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION Review of Reports The following reports reviewed as part of this analysis are: • 2003 R. E. Badger Water Filtration Plant Master Plan by McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. • 2009 Asset Management Master Plan by Dexter Wilson Engineers, Inc. Observations The 2003 R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant Master Plan identified mechanical equipment deficiencies that needed to be addressed. Most of the recommended improvements have already been addressed. Others, such as the replacement of the finished water reservoir drain valves, will be completed within the next year. Two items that have not been addressed are: 1. Improvements to the Chlorine Storage Room to provide proper sealing of room during a chlorine leak. 2. Replacement of sedimentation basin sludge collection system. The chlorine dioxide storage and feed system has operated as a pilot system since its introduction at the plant. Consideration should be given to making it more permanent and operator friendly. Our mechanical analysis revealed that most of the plant mechanical equipment is in good operating condition. For instance, plant staff has done a great job of maintaining and upgrading the chemical storage and feed systems. Figure 7.1 illustrates an impressive chemical dosing panel design and manufactured by plant staff. R l MONIA Figure 7.1 Ammonia Chemical Dosing Panel Designed and Manufactured by WFP Staff 7-2 March 2012 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION Conclusions and Recommendations - Mechanical Reliability Most of the p lant's mechanical equipment is in good operating condition. Our conclusions and recommendations resulting from our mechanical assessment are presented in Table 7.1. Many of these deficiencies are small and can be taken care of by plant staff. Item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been accounted for in the CIP. Table 7.1 Deficiencies Noted During the Mechanical Assessment Estimated Project Item Item Description Cost($) 1 Chlorine Storage Room The scrubber system must maintain the storage $35,000 room at a slightly negative pressure to ensure complete capture of chlorine gases. Several inlet louvers need actuators and all pipe penetrations through the wall need to be sealed to ensure safety. New Air Monitoring equipment is needed. 2 Utility water feed to the Large demands in the utility water system impact $70,000 chlorinators utility water flow and pressure to the chlorinators. A dedicated utility water line to the chlorinators is recommended. 3 Individual flow meters for Plant staff can automatically feed chlorine to only $40,000 each chlorinator one feed point. It is recommended that individual flow meters be installed on each chlorinator to facilitate the automatic feed of chlorine to multiple points in the plant. 4 Backwash water refill The plant is still operating with the original $100,000 pumps backwash water refill pumps. These pumps are nearing the end of their useful life and should be replaced. 5 Sedimentation Basin The sludge removal equipment is original to the $1,500,000 Sludge Removal System plant. This equipment still operates well, but is approaching the end of its useful life. The equipment should be replaced in the near future. 6 Utility Water Yard Piping Condition of the piping is unknown, plant staff $100,000 reports some of it is old AC pipe and needs to be replaced. Some of the valves need to be replaced. 7 Propane Lines Plant staff has indicated the buried propane line is $5,000 corroding and needs to be replaced. 8 Secondary Containment The chlorine and chlorine dioxide lines to the $40,000 for Chemical Lines hydroelectric facility and the caustic and ammonia lines to the filter control weir all need secondary containment. March 2012 7-3 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION SEISMIC EVALUATION Our seismic evaluation involves the general assessment of existing structures and major equipment supports to help determine whether these facilities have sufficient capacity to resist seismic demand requirements set forth in current building codes and design standards. Our approach includes the following steps: 1. Site review of the structures and major equipment supports. 2. A review of original design drawings. 3. Perform calculations for select structures and structural elements. Site Review Carollo staff met with members of the plant operations staff on June 9, 2011 to visually review structures and conditions. Visual observation of all structural elements was limited to those structures located above grade and to those portions of tan ks that were not full of water. P hotographs were taken of potential deficiencies and a select number of photographs depicting relevant issues discussed in this report are presented in Appendix H. Review of Design Drawings and Reports As-built structural drawings for a majority of the structures at the site were reviewed and are listed below. • 1967 Joint Reservoir and Transmission Main Drawings, by James M. M ontgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. • 1968 Joint Filtration Plant Drawings, by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. • 1984 R.E. Badger Filtration Plant Hydroelectric Project, by International Engineering Company, Inc. • 1993 R.E. Badger Filtration Plant Modification and Rehabilitation Drawings, by Montgomery Watson, Consulting Engineers, Inc. • 1993 Geotechnical Report, by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. • 2002 R.E. Badger Filtration Plant Solids Handling and Backwash Recovery Project, by CDM. • 2010 R.E. Badger Filtration Plant Utilities Upgrade and Disinfection Project J-401 and J-402, by Malcolm Pirnie. Calculations Potential deficiencies identified in the site-walk and drawing review were checked by performing structural calculations as needed. A full structural analysis of each structure was not performed and our evaluation did not include analyses of sm aller non-structural systems, such as piping, HV AC, fire sprinklers, and other similar mechanical systems. Potential deficiencies for these systems observed during the site walk have been noted and presented herein. 7-4 March 2012 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION Seismic Evaluation Criteria The current building code and design standards relevant to particular structure types were used as a basis for checking selected structures and conditions. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the standards used in this seismic evaluation. Table 7.2 Standards Referenced for Seismic Evaluation Structure Type Relevant Standard Concrete tanks, filters, and reservoir ACI 350-06, Code Requirements for Environmental Concrete Structures Masonry buildings 2010 California Building Code Washwater Tank AWWA D100-05, Welded Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage Table 7.3 contains seismic evaluation parameters used in the seismic evaluation of structures and components. The WFP is comprised of numerous structures that have different functions. However, the purpose of the plant is to provide potable water to the public. Therefore, a number of structures are critical to this process and are considered indispensible. These structures are classified as having an"Occupancy Category" IV in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code. The occupancy category is used to establish an importance factor for a structure. Nearly all structures evaluated fall into this occupancy category and necessitate an importance factor of 1.5. Th e importance factor is a m ultiplier that increases seismic design forces required for d esign or evaluation. Building codes and standards are established to help protect life safety. Meeting minimum load requirements for these codes and standards does not ensure that a structure will remain operational or undamaged. Application of an importance factor in design helps attain a better performance level for code prescribed seismic forces. Therefore, the same standard is considered appropriate for this seismic evaluation. Throughout this evaluation, where stresses are noted as possibly exceeding allowable levels by more than 50 percent, this level of overstress suggests significant damage. Table 7.3 Seismic Evaluation Parameters Parameter Value Site Soil Class D Latitude Coordinate for Site 330 3' 7" Longitude Coordinate for Site -1170 10'24" Mapped Short-Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SS 1.06g(l) Mapped Long Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S, 0.39g(') Short-Period Site Coefficient, Fa 1.08 Long-Period Site Coefficient, Fv 1.62 Design Short-Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Sos 0.76g(l) Design Long-Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Sol 0.42g(l) Occupancy Category IV Seismic Use Group (AWWA D100-05) III Importance Factor, I 1.50 Note 1. g=vertical acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface March 2012 7-5 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION Washwater Tank The Washwater Tank is a circular welded steel tank that is located at the northeast side of the plant. The tank has a capacity of 1.0 million gallons and is regularly filled to that capacity to provide water for backwashing the filters. The tank was constructed in 1968 and is one of the original structures at the plant. The tank has a diameter of 46 feet and a height of approximately 82.5 feet. The perimeter shell is constructed with 8-foot tall radial steel plate sections that are butt-spliced together both vertically and horizontally. Access to the top is provided by a steel staircase that s pirals around the circumference of the to nk. The tank i s mechanically anchored to a concrete ringwall footing with 2- inch diameter galvanized steel anchor bolts spaced at approximately 32 inches on center. An anchor seat, fabricated with 1/2-inch and 3/4-inch steel plate, is welded to the side of the tank shell wall at the base. The concrete ringwall has a stem wall height of 2 feet and a base spread that is 16 inches thick by 4.83 feet wide. See Appendix I, Figures 1.1 and 1.2, for an elevation of tank and a detail of the ring wall footing and anchor, respectively. Grade around the tank is relatively flat and paved with asphalt. A concrete ringwall footing is located directly below the shell of the tank circumference. The bottom shell of the tank is founded on 2 inches of asphaltic concrete and compacted backfill. The roof of the structure is framed with steel and does not have any interior support columns. The 1968 Joint Filtration Plant drawings detail the appurtenances and foundation of the tank, but do not specify any material type or sizes of the tank components. It appears that the tank was a deferred submittal item that is likely detailed on a shop drawing, and was not available for review. Therefore, material of the members and the thickness of the roof, bottom, and shell are not known. For purposes of this seismic evaluation, a number of assumptions regarding material properties and original design parameters were made due to lack of information in the drawings. These assumptions are outlined in Table 7.4. The drawings do specify that the tank be designed in accordance with AWWA D100, which is and was the standard for design of welded steel tanks for water storage. Table 7.4 Assumed Material Property Values for the Washwater Tank Property Value') Material Class Type 1 Steel Shell Yield Strength, Fy 30,000 psi Steel Anchor Bolt Yield Strength, Fyb 36,000 psi Joint Efficiency 85% Concrete Footing Compressive Strength, f'c 4,000 psi Density of Water 62.4 pcf Density of Steel 490 pcf Note 1. psi=pounds per square inch pcf=pounds per cubic foot 7-6 March 2012 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION The tank was viewed from the bottom exterior during the site review. Access to the top is restricted and labeled as confined space. The exterior coating appears to be in good condition with no apparent signs of corrosion or other deterioration. The anchor bolts all appeared to be in good condition with no signs of corrosion. According to staff, the tank operates at between 62 and 78.5 feet above the base of the tank. The tank has a 16-inch diameter steel overflow pipe that is set at 1.0 foot above the operating height and extends down the exterior of the tank, supported by steel brackets. The tank has a common inlet/outlet pipe that penetrates the side of the tank about 9 inches above the bottom shell. The tank is constructed with a knuckle at the roof to wall connection that has a radius of 2.5 feet and provides a freeboard of approximately 3.5 feet above the specified operation level at the inside perimeter of the tank. Findings Calculations for the tank were performed in accordance with equations and requirements for seismic design of welded steel tanks set forth in AWWA D100-05. This is the i ndustry standard for design and evaluation of welded steel tanks used for water storage. For the c oncrete elements of the fou ndation, capacities were estimated using ACI 350-06. This is the relevant code for the design and evaluation of environmental concrete structures. Calculations for the following aspects of the tank were conducted to determine what, if a ny, deficiencies exist: • Shell hoop tension over the height of the tank. • Shell compressive stress at the bottom course. • Maximum soil bearing load with seismic overturning. • Stability of the tank against overturning. • Maximum anchor bolt load in tension and shear. Shell Hoop Tension The welded steel tank perimeter shell confines the liquid load, developing circumferential tension in the steel shell. This is known as hoop tension. While the hoop tension demand increases with depth of water, reaching a maximum at the base of the tank, the actual stress is a function of the thickness of the shell. The design drawings did not specify this information and it appears that the welded steel tank was a deferred submittal item, having been designed during construction of the WFP. Given this limitation, stresses in the shell can only be evaluated in a general way. Shell thickness can be verified by non-destructive means using an ultrasonic testing device and/or locating original erection drawings. It is likely that shell thickness varies over the height, with the thickest course at the bottom and stepping to thinner sections in the panels above. Based on calculated demands with seismic loads, shell thickness at the base should be at least 3/4-inches thick plus any corrosion allowance to avoid excessive tensile stress. A graph of hoop tensile stress is provided in Figure 7.2. It shows a plot of the minimum required shell course thickness against the height of the tank. March 2012 7-7 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 Tank 50.0 Height 40.0 (ft) 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Minimum Shell Thickness (inches) Figure 7.2 Minimum Required Tank Shell Thickness as a Function of Tank Height Shell Compression In addition to gravity loads acting on the shell of a tank at its base during an earthquake, the shell will be subjected to additional compression caused by seismic overturning forces. Once again, because the shell thicknesses were not available for this evaluation, the minimum thickness required to meet the allowable stress limit for buckling was determined. The shell thickness at the base should be at least 5/8-inch thick plus any corrosion allowance to avoid excessive buckling stress. Evaluation of the shell compression assumes that the tank does not have stability problems with the foundation, which can greatly increase compressive load demands to the tank shell. Soil Bearing The ringwall f ooting is a shallow foundation syst em that is located below the shell of the t ank. During a n earthquake, seismic forces will apply an overturning moment on the tank as a whole. Given the height of the tank and the high operating water level, the overturning moment is relatively large and is estimated to be in excess of 70,000,000 ft-lb. The primary reactions and forces that counterbalance overturning effects are soil bearing on the leading edge of the footing and the weight of the t ank and a portion of its contents on the opposite side or trailing side. Assuming that no net uplift occurs, the estimated maximum soil-bearing load on the footing exceeds 12,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil bearing noted in the 1993 Geotechnical Report prepared for the 1993 expansion indicates an allowable soil bearing pressure that varies from 2,700 psf to 13,300 psf, depending on the soil conditions below the footing. The noted allowable pressures are typically associated with structural backfill and bedrock, respectively. Upon review of the 1968 drawings, it appears that the soils near the tank were cut down. This may imply that the tank is founded on hard native soils and possibly bedrock. The 1993 geotechnical investigation did not drill any soil borings in the vicinity of the tank 7-8 March 2012 that can be used to confirm the underlying soil type. It is recommended that the geotechnical report prepared for the original construction be reviewed, if it i s available, to confirm soil conditions at the tank. Once again, this evaluation assumes that the tank does not have stability problems at the foundation, which can significantly increase the bearing load to the soil. Tank Stability As noted previously, seismic overturning forces will act on th e tank. To prev ent collapse or of herwise catastrophic failure, the tank will need to have sufficient counterbalancing forces, which are typically comprised of the w eight of the to nk and a I imited portion of th e water load over the outermost edge of the to nk. Unfortunately, the inherent flexibility and lack of strength of the bottom s hell does not allow m ost of the water weight to be mobilized for resisting overturning effects. Refer to Figure 7.3 for a simple free-body diagram of the forces and reactions involved. When the overturning moment at the base of the tank cannot be sufficiently counterbalanced by the weight of the tank and a portion of its contents along with soil bearing on the leading edge of the footing, the tank is considered to be unstable. For this evaluation, it was determined that the tank has an insufficient counterbalance weight, which will significantly increase the estimated soil bearing load on the leading edge and possibly lead to collapse of the tank th at may occur in the form of shell and base buckling. Estimated demand and available counterbalancing weights are summarized in Table 7.5. Moment Weight Available Bearing Reaction Figure 7.3 Free-Body Diagram of the Overturning Moment and Resisting Forces Caused By Seismic Loading on the Tank March 2012 7-9 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION The overturning condition summarized in Table 7.5 is the worst-case or maximum effect that occurs. In three dimensions, the overturning force on the tank shell will dissipate to zero going around the shell. Design practice does not recommend exceeding stability at any point along the footing. A preliminary-type finite element analysis on the ringwall footing was performed to take into account force distributions in three dimensions. Results suggest the net uplift is large enough to indicate that the tank foundation is unstable. Table 7.5 Estimated Demand and Available Counter Balancing Weights for Tank Stability Analysis Description Value') Weight of Tank Shell 1,600 plf Weight of Tank Roof 150 plf Weight of Footing 1,400 plf Weight of Water Above Footing 11,300 plf Weight of Backfill Above Footing 500 plf Total Available Counter Weight 14,950 plf Overturning Uplift Force 42,000 plf Ratio of Uplift to Counter Weight 2.8 Note 1. plf=pounds per lineal foot of footing Anchor Bolts The anchor bolts are estimated to have a maximum load demand of nearly 120,000 pounds under seismic loading due to overturning of the tank. The anchor bolts are 2-inch diameter and are embedded into the ringwall footing to within 4 inches of the subgrade. The end of each anchor bolt is provided with an end bearing plate that is 1-inch thick and 8 inches square. Assuming the steel used for the anchor bolts is ASTM A36 steel with a yield strength of 36,000 psi, capacity of the bolt in tension is approximately 68,000 pounds. Therefore, the bolt was found to have an excessive load demand that is about 80 percent higher than the allowable capacity. Furthermore, ability of the concr ete footing to wit hstand pullout forces is I imited to approxim ately 60,000 pounds as determined in accordance with Appendix D of ACI 350-06. The lack of anchor capacity is significant and can lead to tank failure. Based on the aspect ratio of the tank and the seismic load demands, AWWA D100-05 requires that the tank be mechanically anchored. Proposed Concepts to Address Potential Stability Concerns While the tank shell stresses could not be conclusively evaluated due to lack of information, it is clear that the tank has significant stability concerns related to anchorage of the tank and ability of the tank to remain stable during a large earthquake. To address these deficiencies, five potential mitigation concepts are examined. • Concept 1: Installation of a new underpinned footing with additional tank anchors and soil/rock anchors drilled down into existing bedrock. This retrofit will need to be applied around the entire perimeter of the tank and would require removal of the tank from service. To attempt to install rock anchors and 7-10 March 2012 underpinned footings below the existing foundation is not advisable. Installation of new anchors will likely require access to the existing footing because of the size of the loads involved. Means for providing a temporary backwash water supply will need to be secured. Such temporary service may not be available or practical and may rule-out the feasibility of this alternative. • Concept 2: Replace the existing tank foundation by constructing a new properly designed foundation complete with piles and or soil/rock anchors as required. If the existing tank is found to have materials that can meet anticipated seismic load demands with due consideration for c orrosion, the ex isting welded steel tank could be dismantled and re-built on top of a new foundation. Again, this alternative will require provision of a temporary backwash service. • Concept 3: Replace the existing tank and foundation with a new tank constructed on top of a properly designed foundation. The n ew tank and foundation can be constructed while the existing tank is i n service, thus eliminating a need for any temporary backwash service. There are different types of tanks, such as welded steel, prestressed concrete, or cast-in-place concrete, which could be evaluated to determine which type is most suitable for the site, use, reliability, and life expectancy. Sites adjacent to on the north, east, and west sides of the tank are possible locations that should be evaluated if this concept is explored further. • Concept 4: Replace the existing tank with a pumped backwash system. A new pump station would be needed to handle full backwash flows (approximately 23,000 gpm). The pump station would need to pump out of the Clearwell to provide adequate backwash volume. A cc nstant head box could be installed to protect filter underdrains from being over pressurized. • Concept 5: Reduce the operating level in the tank and supplement the necessary pressure with new pumping equipment. To be effective, reduction in the operating level will need to be proportional to the degree of maximum overstresses to get the load demands down to a level that the existing structure can reasonably tolerate. It is estimate d that the w ater level reduction will need to be approximately 50 percent, which would provide adequate pressure to b ackwash the fi Iters and adequate volume to provide storage of approximately two filter backwash volumes Of course, this alternative will reduce the available head pressure from the Washwater Tank, which could impact the utility water system. The cost presented assumes that additional storage to offset the reduced volume is not required. However, it is assumed that new pumps will need to b e provided to accommodate the head pressure reduction associated with the utility water system. This alternative should be able to be accomplished with minimal disruption to the existing backwash service. It is assumed that the backwash operation will still require a tall tank to achieve the necessary water pressure to accommodate the process. However, if pressure can be obtained in an alternative manner that is economically feasible, it is reco mmended that a ny tank replacement be reduced in h eight to av oid the excessively large seismic load demands that can be generated by a large earthquake. Mass that is significantly elevated above grade will almost always result in large load demands on the structure and its foundation. Additionally, with any retrofit or replacement concept, consideration for provision of a temporary backwash service (likely 6 months) during construction is paramount and may dictate which alternative is selected. The shell thicknesses should be verified prior to selecting a course of action to determine if any deficiencies exist. March 2012 7-11 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION Estimated project costs for each of the five concepts are presented in Table 7.6 below. The costs for temporary backwash service were estimated for assumed 6-month duration and are based on quotes from suppliers. Table 7.6 Estimated Project Costs for Five Potential Mitigation Concepts for the Washwater Tank Concept No. Concept Description Project Cost 1 Retrofit the existing tank foundation $1,500,000 2 Replace the existing tank foundation and re-build the existing steel tank $1,300,000 3 Replace the existing tank with a new tank and foundation $1,300,000 4 Pumped backwash with constant head box $2,000,000 5 Reduce the operating level by 40 percent $0 Risk A probabilistic analysis of seismic risk factors associated with the existing Washwater Tank, foundation and related structural components was performed. Findings are presented as an aid to the SFID/SDWD's planning and budgeting processes. We note, however, that it is impossible to predict the timing, location or severity of earthquakes, or to state with certainty how a particular structure will perform in a hypothetical future seismic event. The information provided here should not be considered a prediction or forecast that future seismic events will occur with the frequency or severity reflected in the assumptions underlying the analysis. Carollo Engineers expressly disclaims any such prediction, forecast or guarantee. The overturning forces acting on the welded steel backwash tank were determined in accordance with AWWA D100-05 using various seismic load input. The base analysis for establishing a means of comparison assumed the prescribed seismic load demands set forth i n AWWA D100-05, which correspond to seismic forces generated by an earthquake with lateral accelerations that have a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50 year time period. Alternatively stated, this level of seismic shaking is equivalent to an earthquake having a mean return period of 475 years. This level of shaking is consistent with the seismic design criteria associated with a life safety performance standard that nearly all building codes and structural guides establish as the minimum criteria for new design. Generally, structures have some measure of redundancy, overstrength, and/or ductility beyond the capacities determined in accordance with the structural code. This is because the performance level for the structure is intended to be at a life safety standard, which is intended to ensure that the structure does not threaten the life of occupants or adj acent personnel or f acilities. However, with stabi lity concerns, the structure will not find additional weight or ties to help offset the uplift. Beyond the estimated available resistance to uplift, the behavior/performance of the structure becomes uncertain. An analysis of the overturning forces revealed that the 475-year seismic uplift demand is approximately 77,000 Ibs for each tank anchor. In order for the anchor bolts to resist this demand without tank instability, the tank and foundation must have sufficient weight or of her passive means available to resist th e overturning forces. The total available weight is I imited to approximately 40,000 Ibs per anchor, which implies that the 7-12 March 2012 anchor loads exceed the available capacity by a factor of nearly 2.0. It was determined that the available load resistance is capable of resisting seismic forces associated with an earthquake having a r eturn period of 77 years or having accelerations that have a 48 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50 year period (12 percent probability of exceedances in a 10 year period). Furthermore, one may elect to reduce the operating level in the tank as a strategy to reduce risk. The seismic forces associated with the foundation uplift capacity for reduced operating levels down to 66 percent were "back-calculated." At this level, it was determined that the tank foundation has sufficient capacity to develop resistance to the overturning forces. The associated risk levels are summarized in Table 7.7. The "SF" in the table represents the "safety factor." This is simply the ratio of the capacity to the demand.A value greater than 1.0 implies that the capacity exceeds the demand. These risk levels represent the seismic acceleration that the foundation can resist at various liquid levels. The table reports the probability of these seismic accelerations being exceeded for 50-year and 10-year periods to assist SFID/SDWD in gauging the risk. Each probability reported is associated with a hypothetical mean return period. The probabilities for the different seismic acceleration levels were derived from relationships set forth in ASCE 41, "Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings." The risks are presented in the format of probability because one cannot reasonably predict when an earthquake will occur, where it will occur, and how big it will be. The probabilistic approach is the most prevalent way to analyze seismic risk for individual structures, because this approach considers all known sources, locations, and maximum potential magnitudes. Seeking to understand what "magnitude" earthquake a structure can survive, while it se ems tempting to speculate about, is fraught with too many unknowns that make an analysis costly and unreliable. Earthquake magnitudes are related to unique events that generate ground accelerations at a site that are highly dependent upon the epicenter of the earthquake, the de pth of the focus, the path to the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the type of earthquake, to name a few. Deterministic studies can be conducted; however, they take a particular hypothetical or historic event as the basis for determining ground acceleration. These types of studies are relatively expensive, typically involve a seismologist or qualified geologist, and are rarely conducted for individual structures. Deterministic studies are typically used to understand how a community or portfolio of buildings spread out over a region are impacted by a specific hypothetical event. Table 7.7 Summary of Risk Levels Associated with Development of Foundation Anchorage Probability of Probability of Tank Operating Safety Factor @ Return Period @ Exceedance in Exceedance in Level 475-yr Event SF = 1.0 50 Years 10 Years 100% 0.52 77 47.6% 12.1% 90% 0.67 122 33.6% 7.9% 80% 0.78 178 24.5% 5.5% 70% 0.93 374 12.5% 2.6% 66% 1.00 475 10.0% 2.1% 60% 1.15 >475 < 10% <2% March 2012 7-13 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION Although AWWA D100-05 requires that welded steel tanks used for producing water have an added importance factor that varies from 1.25 to 1.50, depending on the criticality of the structure and its function in providing potable water, the imp ortance factor used in th is risk analysis was assumed equal to 1. 00. Provision of importance factors greater than 1.00 are intended to boost the performance of a structure for any given seismic input. It can also be equivalently interpreted as having a capacity to resist larger earthquakes. Conclusions and Recommendations - Seismic Evaluation The following items r epresent our c onclusions and recommendations for consideration in defining capital improvement projects related to the seismic evaluation at the WFP: 1. Resolve the apparent stability concerns with the Washwater Tank. SFID/SDWD should resolve this item immediately. 2. SFID/SDWD should move forward making the improvements recommended in Table 7.8. 3. Seismic upgrades to the existing clearwell presented in the Malcolm Pirnie report should be addressed. 7-14 March 2012 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION a� L �_ LCD rl- 07 =3 =3 X 1E 1E 1E 't CD 00 O N N N O O O O LL LL LL LL � V G.> O L O O O O N °O O O O O w�+ V Lo rl- L6 L6 °O E 61) Ef-} KJ Co n N W C) N ztf 0 U6 0 -0 I CZ -0 -0 N O N 76 O N - C Cn O L N N -0 E O C _ z = U n V Cn > C6 m O N "� co N CC6 C6 > E Cz C6 (6 Q-o >, O O Q O Cn N p O N O cf) O U N O O C6 X N cc O O 0 O N N N 15 (10 U -° -0 Q Cz 0 CZ -0 Cn C6 N N cc � 6 N 0) Ca N N cn cn N 5 w U ° 0 C N -co `o Cz c ° Cz N "L c — ° c � -O a N c E o c is o -E o m o ca N Ua "°' ca °> vi o N CCa m -6 = -� CZ ca o o M c o ° c o x ay) U N ) L --CZ 0) ° 0-- O E5 m O N Cz cn " :3 CZ N ° a) ° o c- s E _ 00 U co C C) .0 N N a' o ° N ca -- o_ E ° "� °' N c°>n °a> in a) a. °a> E U f 0-t cn ° cz "� N 0 a> a> -0 v N o "c O U 0 °6 — °> "U) con m ° ° Q aa) Z5 0 o v a� a o N ° � o — E � `0 0 v O cn N o -a E Cz O a>> O > N E cn c _ y � — a) Ca z�° a> Ca —a>> — E 0 _0 v N °> O N N o o �Uca Ca Ca E C a a' C a Q amz o _0 E ° 0 °- o c N CCz C C6 0 C0) N .� Q 7 Q -°O U Cn "O-"7 N "� 7 -0 U cc LO O O U) Q a> O U -p C — Q m U) -p N . Ua in N N N C o : N o N E N o m e "Lo_ v � O N -0 N o - - Ca C Ua "0 N N Ca N L 'L U a) E -a z� O -a N -a 0- C) a) > _� N N Cl) ° E "L0 co co -a N C C � Cz C in Nis fl Ca o N v> C ca > "c Cl) Ca Ca Ca N " Ca o N N N U N ?> p N a—Ni o c c L W N -0 Q O ° Q "cn CZ cep CC6 N C6 N O -0 �_ C L Cn N L Cn 0 °_ N N C6 Cn C C6 z ° - ° C>a E ° 0 M " 0o a) m cNn Q� � "fa) Ca CZ - -Eo -0 O - - U N _� 5 CZ 0 0 CCz "U6 N C O m "Q 0 0 C6 E N O N CZ N"O N r- E E N 0 N a) O N Q U6 O N -0 N 2) N U D (D C Q Cz OC CC6 CCz cn C6 c°)) CZ C6 LL m U > can Q 0 U) C�6 U) N 0 OR G1 QE1 N Co Lo cc H March 2012 7-15 SECTION 7: MECHANICAL RELIABILITY AND SEISMIC EVALUATION -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- 7-16 March 2012 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND Section 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A key component of the JFMP is establishment of a practical implementation program that effectively matches the practical ability to accumulate funds with the timely implementation of the most critical projects. This section describes the process used to prioritize projects identified in the JFMP and presents the recommended 10 year CIP for the Joint Facilities. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS To accommodate a wide range of near and long term raw water and treatment system needs, the JFMP identified 28 potential projects with a total project cost of approximately $87.5 million (2012 dollars). Table 8.1 provides a summary of the identified potential projects, a brief project description, estimated total capital cost, associated cost per acre-foot to implement, and anticipated project benefits. The unit cost was calculated by annualizing the project cost for 20 years at five percent interest. In addition, a change in operating and maintenance cost was also calculated. Annualized costs were normalized to an annual water production of 19,124 AF (which include 5,700 AF from local sources). The annual production rate is consistent with the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. A project prioritization process was established to help define the relative importance of each project, and to develop an implementation program that spreads the projects over the 10-year planning horizon. The project prioritization process included the following steps: • Evaluation categories (described in Table 8.2) were developed that reflect attributes that are critical to overall system performance. • The evaluation categories were weighted to establish the relative importance of each category to overall system performance. • Priority rating factors (PRF)were developed that reflect a project's anticipated impact on each evaluation category. • Each project was scored by multiplying the project's priority rating factor by the evaluation category weighting for each category. The project's potential impact on reduced operation and maintenance cost was considered in the prioritization score. The ability to fund the capital project was included in the development of the capital improvement program described later in this section. March 2012 8-1 SECTION 8: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 8.3 provides an example calculation spreadsheet. The spreadsheet summarizes the prioritization factor weighting descriptions as they relate to each weighted evaluation criteria. A summary of the ra nking for each project is shown in Table 8.4. Detailed results of the scoring for each project are presented in Appendix J. The prioritization scoring approach provides a general indication of relative importance of a project and a method for stimulating discussion about the impact and need for various projects. A slightly higher priority score does not indicate that one project must take precedence over another. Though the prioritization scoring was an important factor in the determination of relative project importance, some subjectivity was required in the interpretation of data and the establishment of the implementation plan presented later in this chapter. RECOMMENDED 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE JOINT FACILITIES Based on project rankings and an assessment of project need, a recommended 10 Year Joint Facilities CIP was prepared as shown on Table 8.5. In addition to project ranking, several factors were key in determining project priorities within the CIP. These factors include impact of the project on health and safety, regulatory compliance, financial benefits, and end of useful life determination (for equipment needing replacement). Impact of these drivers is evidenced when reviewing the recommended CIP. In the first four yea rs, 14 pr ojects totaling about $19.1 million dollars are recommended for implementation. Four of these 14 projects total $8.8 million dollars and address health and safety: new San Dieguito Pump Station (SDPS); electrical distribution improvements; clearwell seismic improvements; and the washwater tank. Three projects totaling $2.65 million address siltation, mounding, and inlet flow at S DR. Two other projects totaling $4.75 million provide long-term financial benefits to th e Joint Facilities: the new 30-inch parallel pipeline from Cielo Pump Station to SDR and a new high voltage substation at WFP. One project totaling $0.4 million improves plant process control. The remaining recommended projects within the first four years total about $2.5 million and address regulatory compliance issues and initiation of the hydroelectric project. Individual projects are represented in the CIP with adesign phase (preliminary and final) and aconstruction phase (bidding and construction). Design is generally shown as approximately 10 percent of the overall project cost. Some smaller projects are shown in the CIP t o occur in one year because it was determined that the project could realistically be completed in this time period, such as the SDR Pretreatment Enhancements. 8-2 March 2012 . p `o Ekf CO � a ° lu c6 �n O U N Ol L a N N C E E L 2i a E .-- .��i O N n O N N O Ol p d' ° 4p CD 0 o a t o > m `o m a� a>. m m O ° a� m ° - - = ca m -o > m a� -om w� .� mm � � N`om � 3 °, mmw 'o T) .N °� m m o. m o o o m -2 O o N o o -0 of ` °o L m °� aw o m o m a° ° ° .� w w m m 2'.� '°� o o o - Oa - - - - -- °0 E N c O - o° ° a E E�co o OoU Ea'� - r w Ow m y v °. cMO rnv� v°� cCOOV�O m m y rn �v � ° oMM o v m coo V iIJ ° O N CO O V iIJ c0 M CO V CO M N V M O m UO EA EH EA EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EA EH EA EH EH EA 69 69 NFU � I 0 U C ,d a;� °o_ D_ d IA O iIJ O O O iIJ O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O W O N M V O O M iIJ 0 0 M CO M O iIJ O iIJ N O N W M iIJ O co U V V N EA EA �EA�EH�EH�I� CO (V EA V EA N O �CO iIJ iIJ � iIJ O 69 .N EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH 6�9 � EA EH EH EH EH 6�9 W p a E N N O co O O � � � 0 U a_ [� E O O N N U U O p -- - .L�-.-�° -o -o y CO N O a m °o 0.- ° o U = o L E. 00 -o .o .o - --a� o > CD CD 0 0 ° a�' .4 ° 4 mad E d m"voi -22 E �. .o � v E O N r N � c N w J-O '� O -2 U a W N W O Q Q U --O O N N (6 L N -O.- L.0 O O o E L o o . a > Q'a N w.N E a o m` N� m O 0 U O E a o °� o 0 co a o o a -ox o.° ° °" E t5 0 `o m O 0 O °' 0 o E -o o o o 0 M U ° E m m � o 00' N m m a -O 0 N 0 0 K� m O CO a a 0 a a a o o a a a o m > O -m 0 o v°o m o m o u a`� m o m m m o m t z °� z 4 a`ai °� a°- L ° a t ° ° 0 0 0- 0- .o °.0 0-0-aEi w= 0 a� a�" W U d' d d' N W d U d d' U J d' Ir - d' O d' O d' d'd' a- U d' G d'W - GI > O 0 D O 6 J ` H ct) p C H W d O ° O N '--' d CO 'F N '� N N E 'U O N 0 p ° o -° o a z Z75 E o - ° m m N J O N 0 0 cO o ' ~ o O O - ° 0 o. O E � o.o ap E 0 a EP T) m a v w d O «_ CO d z N o U E CO am m m a �° m a`i E o� a 3 a E > > W o E pm~ c°iU a U ° z ?i CO iE Cl E Q - o o CA r_ o0 � Nv °>co m > 0 -03 N O U co O M o N p i N ` N N p o N p c N o z cn w CO co CO a U Z W � O y U W O O O N M V iIJ CO I� W O N M V iIJ CO I� W U � '�z.O � N M V iIJ CO I�W� � � � � � A N N N N N N N N N SECTION 8: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 8.2 Evaluation Categories Weight Category Description This category was used to assess the relative impact a project has on Regulatory Compliance SFID/SDWD's ability to comply with mandatory regulations and/or 10 and/or Flow-Pressure performance criteria established to protect health and safety. This Objectives category includes water treatment quality objectives as well as flow and pressure objectives for the distribution system. 10 Staff Safety and Working This category was used to assess the improvement in safety and Environment working environment for staff if the project is implemented. This category relates to the replacement or rehabilitation of existing assets. There must be a high level of confidence that facilities will operate, as intended,when called upon. Reliability concerns could Reliability-Remaining stem from asset age, condition,or the ability to access the asset to 9 Useful Life, Condition, determine its status or facilitate repair or maintenance. This evaluation Accessibility category is used to assess the improvement in reliability if the project were implemented. Note that it is assumed that the critical nature of the asset is captured within the intent of other evaluation categories(such as a projects impact on regulatory and staff health and safety impacts). Operation and Redundant components for the Joint Facilities are important to minimize 8 Maintenance (0&M) service interruption and relieve the burden on customers during planned Cost Efficiency and unexpected system shutdowns. This category assesses the impact of the cost effectiveness realized Redundancy-Joint through reduction in labor, energy, chemicals, or other operation and 8 Facilities maintenance cost elements. Projects with a relatively short payback period would be considered as cost effective and would receive a higher rating. Local water offers the lowest cost supply. In addition, it lessens reliance 7 Increased Local Water on imported water. This category assesses a projects impact on our Usage ability to increase the volume of local water use(relative to current usage values). In addition to providing water that meets regulatory standards for public Water Quality health and safety, the aesthetic attributes of the water needs to meet 7 Enhancement and Taste the satisfaction of customer. This category considers a project's and Odor(T&0)Control potential impact on reduction of taste and odor complaints that periodically arise due to a variety of conditions. Ideally, the joint facilities provide the features needed to enable 6 Enhanced Operational operational flexibility, and the ability to adjust and optimize system Control performance. This category considers a project's impact on operational flexibility and control. The potential capital projects not included in the 10-year recommended CIP are listed below. Rationale for their exclusion follows. • Pre-ozonation 0 UV Disinfection • Ozone Pilot Testing 0 Reline/Rehabilitate Old 54-inch Treated • Construct New Third Floc/Sed Basin Water Line• Filter Improvements SDR Volume Enhancement through Dredging or Outlet Elevation Modifications March 2012 8-5 SECTION 8: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Pre-ozonation and its ancillary ozone pilot study were not included because ozone becomes cost effective if the annual local water supply could be consistently increased from 5,700 to 8,600 AF/yr. Athird floc/sed basin becomes necessary when maximum day production reliably increases over 30 mgd. Maximum day demands have been slowly declining over the last several years, and it is not anticipated that production will exceed 30 mgd in the next ten years. Improvements to the filters and the old 54-inch treated water line are based on the end of their useful life. It is not anticipated that these components will need to be replaced in the next ten years. Installation of UV disinfection is based on potential future regulations for enhanced disinfection not achievable with the current treatment scheme. This is not a nticipated to occur in the next ten years. SDR volume enhancement, i.e., increasing the current storage capacity of SDR, is not necessary for pre-conditioning of Lake Hodges water at projected flows during the planning horizon. Similar to a third floc/sed basin, this project should be revisited if maximum day demands begin to reliably increase above 30 mgd. ASSOCIATED COST OF WATER INCREASE Table 8.6 shows the cost impact of the recommended 10-year CIP with respect to the current cost to treat raw water supplies at the WFP. The costs shown in Table 8.6 are all based on 2012 values. Costs for the raw water supplies result from adding the base case 0&M cost per AF with a unit cost for the recommended Joint Facilities CIP that includes both amortized capital and 0&M costs. For comparison purposes, Table 8.6 also includes an estimated cost assuming an all imported treated water supply scenario. The cost of imported treated water is based upon 2012 values with no projected increases. If the Districts were to rely totally on imported treated water, storage facilities would need to be c onstructed to accommodate regularly scheduled annual maintenance on the imported treated water system. A minimum of 10 days of treated water storage is required to accommodate system maintenance. Therefore, in addition to the purchase price of imported treated water, the amortized capital ($135 million for 30 years at 5%) to construct a 180 million gallon (MG)storage facility must be added to the purchase cost of imported treated water. Table 8.6 Comparison of Increased Costs to Treat Raw Water Supplies to 100 Percent Treated CWA Water Costs' Estimated Cost of Water per AFz($/AF) Raw Water Supplies' 100%Treated CWA Base Case 0&M Cost per AF (per Table ES.2) 953 1,185 Estimated Capital Improvement Costs per AF Treated Water Storage" 0 458 Recommended Joint Facilities 10- ear CIP5 188 0 Estimated Total Cost per AF (0&M plus amortized project cost) 1,141 1,643 Notes 1. Based on average annual demand of 19,124 AF/yr. 2. All costs based on 2012 dollars. 3. Assumes 30 percent local water on an annual basis. 4. Includes the cost for a 180 million gallon storage facility($135 million amortized for 30 years at 5%). 5. As shown in Table ES.3, unit costs for each capital project included both amortized capital and 0&M costs.Amorization terms for all projects were 20 years at 5%. March 2012 8-6 U M M N � M � O O N � � w H � W > _ U O O o in o ° Q o 0 >> z0 O 0 o O O O N O O O N E E Y E E E E OO O p O Q O 0 O OO 0 O L °U d N d 0 d d d d d 0 a a Z m O m t m E E2-0 0 � o E U O .N O Q 00 W 00 00 L >.N O Z) p Q N N o a E ° Q Q �0 m ' Q O O o N E E L m O O O t O aN ° N O E E> o° o o t o M c - m m 0 m a O p t t 0 E L m L v OW `O U ° ° O N M N NLL o N N L EpE E E N Eo (6 L S Q E N E >, v v p 0 0 0 ° > m op v a m a m a m N m m 3 m m a m ' m � 'o � � 0 v O M N U N � C 0 E --° E M .^ U N 0-2 m N N OO Q m 2i N N p O M Q O _.t N O.0 !O Q -- m E— 0 0 0. ° N - N m .d� N m 0 A N N O O O N N A N E O N L 10 75 M O E N . M-O m.° O U E m E2.0 m ff O E - E v m E O O O E E U o 0 o t o m E N o m 'o a p O ` E �E° E ° a m m � ° O O` V O N > >. (�6 .-- m t _CD .-- 0 O a a-U Ea w O E O O aN i E o a W. E Wo a,i W E °� W. E iff m o_-:5 w N - E v � Um o cMi v E t 5 .�-° O -o ii�° m >. .�-° O -a° o 2 M 0 - `- ° f E F o m ° ° ° ° 0 3. � o. EP o a o ° 0 ° 0 EEo 0 0 0 0 ° > 'N 0 0 o 0 5- _E p)o E E 'o- o o� a . v N 0 0 o ` `o w O= M._ o o m a; d c v `o o N `o N o m m _ m m �� E U .`o_ S 3: «: cow.0 ° a`� 0� m o c ¢o p o> aO w O 0 N U t cro m 0 a O ` °o _ -o C3 N U y L a� w co °oUm� aNMi M A 0 d O t 0 ~ [if� co W 6 O [If - m U w CHAPTER& PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table 8.4 Ranking Summary for Recommended Capital Improvements Projects for the Joint Facilities Project Description Priority Ranking Total Project Cost New 15 MGD San Dieguito Pump Station (SDPS) 138 $4,200,000 Install Permanent Chlorine Dioxide Generation 125 $1,300,000 Electrical Distribution Improvements 121 $2,400,000 Chemical Storage and Feed Improvements 101 $305,000 High Voltage Substation 32 $600,000 New 30-inch Parallel Pipeline from Cielo Pump 128 $4,150,000 Station (CPS)to SDR SDR Pretreatment Enhancements 105 $150,000 Clearwell Seismic Improvements 93 $700,000 SDR Siltation Basins 72 $350,000 Washwater Tank 60 $1,500,000 SDR Sediment Mound Reduction 58 $1,000,000 SCADA Upgrades 74 $400,000 SDR Inlet Channel Modifications 58 $1,300,000 Replace or Upgrade Hydroelectric Facility 117 $7,600,000 Mechanical Dewatering and Filter Waste Washwater 133 $6,330,000 Improvements Reline or replace 15-inch Drain Line to SDR 75 $2,000,000 Natural Treatment Wetlands 67 $750,000 Reline Existing 30-inch SDPS Force Main to Plant or 66 $4,500,000 Construct New 30-inch Line New Flocculators 57 $1,000,000 New Sludge Collection Equipment 57 $1,500,000 SDR Vegetation Removal 7 $750,000 Pre-ozonation 82 $10,200,000 Ozone Pilot Testing 82 $500,000 Construct New Third Floc/Sed Basin 62 $6,200,000 Filter Improvements 29 $5,800,000 Ultraviolet(UV) Disinfection 54 $5,300,000 Reline/Rehabilitate Old 54-inch Treated Water Line 34 $7,500,000 SDR Volume Enhancement through Dredging or 36 $5,000,000 Outlet Elevation Modifications March 2012 8-9 SECTION 8: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -This Page Left Blank lntentionally- 8-10 March 2012 !O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O iIJ_ O_ � V cV EH EH V (A EH EH EH I� CO (V (A V (A Q EH EH EH EH EH EH I EH EH EH EH EH EH EH y� L.L � EA � EA b09 L,L � EA EH EH EH EA b9 } O O LL EH EH b9 O O N IA } V ON W r fO L.L EH EA EA b9 O O 0 c H C r O L.L NELJ (A MbA L}i NEFJ (A EH EH � EA b�9 u'1 W 0 O O O O O O 00 O O u'1 N M Q L}i NEFJ V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � L,L � EA EH EH EH EH EH EH EA EA EH EH b�9 L}i � EA � EA EA b09 d O LL_ U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d N M V O O � iIJ O iIJ iIJ O O M CO M O � iIJ O iIJ � � �p EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH y� ¢ O C7 E ~ O w � m a O z a w w O d o o a o a E U c E `o w t U U aL cl) N d p co D O a 0 d Z } N E d � O o CD ' U w o E a� O m iT � U a o E .� D I o o - E - E w a t o � -o -O. m m cn w a o ° -o .o a a o = - o v d o_ co U o m m w 'o U 75 u5 cf) a E m m m a o mJ U o CD a d Cw_7 E D in o� in °- ~ E a U z 0 m m �° o m 66 cn z0 > d a iii o m m m an d > _ v t � m ¢ a v .� .�3 3 3 U a� a� m a� o 0 0 o U o w a z - w U = z U U U U U co � I z �z z z U APPENDIX A: Base Case Model Summaries NoText 0 0 � x O o° o o O O 0 O m O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 vt vt O O 4 'i W O O I� W d O ++ 1l1 4i Q d O O O O i `i O O m W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F N J r o o o o io ti °^' o o o o ti o o oq o o o m o o w o ° o O o N N = d m m oq N m N �fl ^ N m oq d o o o O O O 6 O O N O O ri O ° O O o W W O to O y I� n N o O W N Q rj 00 d O N m O O a io io `i ti d �' m 1D o o o o 0 0 0 o o o 0 0� 0 0 n o � C F d Q U � r O m V ti ti O ti o ^ N O o o o o o O p O O .ti O O W O o O W m C vl vl vl W N O I� N Z Q 3 N � a c �W o a N u o o o m m o' o o o ti o o o o o m o 0 m o ° o _ LL O N C Z O Z e O _ Q O (7 3 cc cc o o o o 1,61ol N o m o 0 o z o a ? .� o °. o o m N o o io o m o o m o o o o o o o o °. o vi vi d ti d a vi o5 o 6 6 6 6 a d d .-i o o d d .-i o 6 05 6 o d D O Z � o 2 TIT z E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CO K C V�1 V�1 N O O j v j o E 0 0 Y Q d Y d C Y C y d C d Y d Y �� d 7 UI .- - C a+ C >Y Y O K E N N ad+ > ;O d d > J 3 > J 3 J > E J > > 3 W o n n w w J o a a 5 >>v 5 >v v = v = >>v 3 0= >>v >>v v o v Y ¢ 3 2 2 K H 2i -p ` U d `° .. W i. a; o a; -w i. -w a; a i. C u zc V 0 a (U 2 to 2 to O 2 i.� 2 to m 2 to '+O'. Vt Y in 5,u E m O o o ¢ ¢ W d d 2 2 Q O = E = s s E ¢ a a c o o n v v u � � � o v O v ¢ a O v ¢ a o X N d E O O a u OD w O m 2 ( § « § a § / S § § § § ( § ( § « § a § { S § § § § ( § ( § « § a § / S § § § § ( § ( § « § a § / S § § § § ( § G . cc / § « § a § { S § § § § ( § � z § ! ( 0 % Ga § 560000 ( § kk � \§ 3 k § � ( § « § a § « S § § § § { � cc cc ( § « § a § / S § § § § ( § 2 a ( § « § / § / S § § § § ( § ; ; ; \, j \ \ zz ) \ \ \_ E - � ` © {eG � -m2 \Lu \0 , % w <u l =— � : E EE ® ` ® ` ` § uu2 00J �� k ® 0 , > z \ ƒ > / ; \ \ \ )\ \ \ \ ) \) ) z zz2 e , _ , / \ \ > z SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Pump Input Information Name TDH (ft) Efficiency(%) Cielo Pump Station 318 75% San Dieguito Pump Station 358 75% Hydroelectric Turbines 335 80% Backwash Pumps 82 75% Washwater Recovery Pumps 88 75% Dewatering Feed Pumps 19 75% Badger Model.xlsx Pump Inputs 3 of 6 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Model Input Costs CATEGORY UNITS COST WATER COSTS1 Imported Raw $/ac-ft $ 699.00 Imported Treated $/ac-ft $ 924.00 Lake Hodges $/ac-ft $ 52.00 ELECTRICAL COSTS Pump Electrical Costz $/kwh $ 0.10 Turbine Production Costsz $/kwh $ 0.10 Base Plant Electrical Costs3 $/Day $ 125.00 Plant Electrical Costs4 $/AF $ 40.00 Misc. Plant Electrical Costs4 $/MG $ 122.76 ActifloT" Electrical Costs5 $/Day $ 70.00 Dewatering Electrical Costs5 $/Day $ 75.00 CHEMICAL COSTS 6 Chlorine $/Ib $ 0.25 Ammonia (30%) $/Ib $ 0.14 PACI $/Ib $ 0.32 Cationic Polymer(coagulant aid) $/Ib $ 0.34 Caustic(50%) $/Ib $ 0.20 Anionic Polymer $/Ib $ 0.81 Chlorine Dioxide' $/Ib $ 1.10 Sludge Aid $/Ib $ 1.75 Sodium Chlorite (31%) $/Ib $ 0.71 Polymer(Actiflo) $/Ib $ 0.80 SLUDGE DISPOSAL COSTS$ Landfilling $/ton $ 47.25 Transportation $/truck $ 260 Truck Capacity Tons 18 Solids Transported % 70% Cost/truck $/truck $ 1,110.50 Cost/ton $/ton $ 61.69 Cost/dry ton $/dry ton $ 88.13 CONTRACT SOLIDS MANAGEMENT' Frequency #/year 6 Cost/Time $ $ 33,000 Cost/Year $ $ 198,000 Daily Cost $ $ 542 Annual Solids dry tons 650 Unit Cost $/dry ton $ 304.62 Badger Model.xlsx Input Costs 4 of 6 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Model Input Costs PLANT LABOR COSTS Administration $/yr $ 366,802 Operations $/yr $ 847,456 Maintenance $/yr $ 488,010 Lab $/yr $ 117,008 Total $/yr $ 1,819,276 Daily Cost $ $ 4,984.32 Employees # 12 Cost per Employee $/day $ 415.36 PLANT MAINTENANCE Mechanical Maintenance $/yr $ 45,320 E, I&C Maintenance $/yr $ 5,408 Grounds Maintenance $/yr $ 11,124 Compliance $/yr $ 5,099 Lake Management Monitoring $/yr $ 51,191 Plant Maintenance $/yr $ 192,404 Plant Utilities $/yr $ 64,878 E, I&C Maintenance $/yr $ 135,136 Safety $/yr $ 49,028 Building&Grounds Maintenance $/yr $ 67,568 Service Contracts $/yr $ 65,261 Laboratory $/yr $ 104,030 Administrative $/yr $ 582,981 Total $/yr $ 1,379,428 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Annual Improvements $/yr $ 2,500,000 IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST SFID Capacity Reserve Charge $/yr $ 364,839 Readiness to Serve $/yr $ 460,698 Customer Service $/yr $ 379,819 Emergency Storage $/yr $ 815,205 Infrastructure Access $/yr $ 314,997 Subtotal $ 2,335,558 Badger Model.xlsx Input Costs 5 of 6 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Model Input Costs SDWD Emergency Service Charge $/yr $ 397,393 MWD Capacity Reservation $/yr $ 122,514 MWD Readiness to Serve $/yr $ 152,560 CWA Service Charge $/yr $ 204,070 Infrastructure Access Charge $/yr $ 372,000 Subtotal $ 1,248,537 Total $/yr $ 3,584,095 IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST-100%TREATED WATER SFID Capacity Reserve Charge $/yr $ 521,199 Readiness to Serve $/yr $ 658,140 Customer Service $/yr $ 542,599 Emergency Storage $/yr $ 1,164,578 Infrastructure Access $/yr $ 449,996 Subtotal $ 3,336,512 SDWD Emergency Service Charge $/yr $ 567,705 MWD Capacity Reservation $/yr $ 175,021 MWD Readiness to Serve $/yr $ 217,943 CWA Service Charge $/yr $ 291,528 Infrastructure Access Charge $/yr $ 372,000 Subtotal $ 1,624,197 Total $/yr $ 4,960,709 NOTES: 1. Based on 2012 costs(including transportation). 2. Current rate supplied by plant staff. 3. Calculated based on Costs provided by the District. 4. Cost utilized in District's current model. 5. Estimated based on equipment loads associated with the process. 6. Current chemical costs. 7. Calculated based on 1 lb.of of CI02 requiring 0.53 lbs.of CIz and 0.41 gallons of 31%Chlorite. 8. Values supplied by plant staff. 9. Based on 2011 contract costs,option assists in reducing solids going to SDR. Badger Model.xlsx Input Costs 6 of 6 Z �� 3 CL o3 oo v - E 3 0 - N x W Elrc v.0 1 1 H - - - a 3 wAloaUawo 'i, — — 3�w FL a»vd Uaw o E N = a 3 E cm c cm W E t E LU f 3 v 3 E E E � Q 3~3 niune� \ vs. +.. W - uV�w — W z v — \ .E E E E E - — of o E '� a 3 z 3 - 0 0 o , E E E _ - a Q E E u zD l/8w 0 3 awAlod ieDV21 oro �iuneD Vow o a zou Uaw oo E 1. »Va I/w o E ML_ ————— — awAlod-VI E E - l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 j n N 1 O o _ E — E of E E E E E E eweiod ieDVBwso 0 0 0 0 0 0 cln � E E J u eluOWWVI/Bw co 0 LL u a LU OzP l/BOw4 ° C zooUawso � Z a a 3 ••• 0 o a y E o 'O = E ~ _ 0 0 0 0 0 '+ "" o g of o E o E o E E C/) 3 ......... ......... .. — U a - E a E - E = a E E o"o o E n E 0 - a SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%CWA VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 17.1 $ 699.00 $ 36,685 Lake Hodges (Local) 0.0 $ 52.00 $ - CWA Treated Water 0 $ 924.00 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 699 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 187 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 0.0 $ 133.20 $ - San Dieguito Pump Station 0.0 $ 149.95 $ - Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 14 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 17.1 $ 122.76 $ 2,099 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 17.1 $ 84.19 $ (1,440) TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 15 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 4.57 $ 78 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 7.30 $ 125 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%CWA Ammonia Plant Influent 17.1 $ 0.82 $ 14 Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 17.1 $ 40.03 $ 685 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 17.1 $ 1.42 $ 24 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ 13.34 $ 228 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 22 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 0.66 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.66 $ 88.13 $ 59 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 11 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 95 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 72 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%CWA SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 36,685 $ 699 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 187 Power Costs $ 2,238 $ 43 Power Generation $ (1,440) $ (27) Chemical $ 1,154 $ 22 Solids Management $ 601 $ 11 Labor $ 4,984 $ 95 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 72 Subtotal $ 57,821 $ 1,102 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 57,821 $ 1,102 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 F- C ---. Z CL Z, 25 O 15 g z 0 oo E ——— —————— —— 0 u 3 S wE Vo U w w 81 wE go c u 0 cc�o �o w- Eo 'o El lw 6 -0 1 7F 0 m M 0 0 1 1 1 I/R.o I FL L E 0 10 'o E 0 cm cm cm 10 LU 0 -0 [E, I E E 7— A 0 1 LU 7 M 0 M —.Wwv s.o 0. M" uj o MO 0 o E E E E' E' 10 =0 I u u 0 E o wE < E E z1D I/w "'Alld I'DI/21 00 �q—D I/sw o 0 . . . . . . zoo I/sw o o E ————— — IDVd I/WO E 'o 'c 0 U0 'ar 11—AlOd-VI o . . . . . . zf 0 7— .0 0 0, . ig . . . . . 3 0 E 7 7 0 0 E E E E E E ewnind WDI/2-V E u . . . . . . E Ew I DVd I/Bw 89 O wE 6 Cj o eluowwv]/Bw 8 LU ziD I/Bw I 0 0 zoos/ow o Z 7 0 U0 0 F- C� E- cy LIM �l E Uw m m 6 0 0 m LU 0 u W ' E' �l E E- E- 0 A 1. .2 U E =0 u L) E E E LU m E cc w m w 0 6o c o Lj cj 0 E E E 0 wc E �o E 'o SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%SDR VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 0.0 $ 699.00 $ - Lake Hodges (Local) 17.1 $ 52.00 $ 2,729 CWA Treated Water 0 $ 924.00 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 52 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 187 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 17.1 $ 133.20 $ 2,278 San Dieguito Pump Station 17.1 $ 149.95 $ 2,564 Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 14 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 17.1 $ 122.76 $ 2,099 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 0.0 $ 84.19 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 135 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 17.1 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 9.14 $ 156 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 22.94 $ 392 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%SDR Ammonia Plant Influent 17.1 $ 2.14 $ 37 Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 17.1 $ 181.48 $ 3,103 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 17.1 $ 9.64 $ 165 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ 13.34 $ 228 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 78 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 2.93 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.79 $ 88.13 $ 69 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 12 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 95 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 72 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%SDR SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 2,729 $ 52 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 187 Power Costs $ 7,080 $ 135 Power Generation $ - $ - Chemical $ 4,081 $ 78 Solids Management $ 612 $ 12 Labor $ 4,984 $ 95 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 72 Subtotal $ 33,085 $ 631 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 33,085 $ 631 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 Z �� 3 ^J Li ov � vi:n in in in:n o R y Z v o_ oo m _ a v - E 3 0 = N x W w 81\ rc v M - wnioaUawo N 'i, — — 3 FL a»vd Uaw o E N = a 3 M- t o _ _ E W E t E Q f 3 v LU 3 Li E E E 7t � 1.W - - � wv Vow o. o — W _ o - - v E E E E E 3 z of o a o , E .E E _ - a Q E a u Zo l/8w 0 3 ewniod ieDV21 oro �iune� .o a zoo Vow o _� E »va Uaw o E _ awRiod-V l o E zf E — l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 O o _ E — E of E E E E E E E E uva Usw oz 0 E — J wwv Uaw E i O LL u u c LU 0 zoUaws V' 'LJ3 ry m C zoo l/8w 9 o +n+n+n+n+n +n Z a a 3 ••• o 3 o E o cy d o L Lj INo�� 'O = E W ~ _ . 0 0 0 0 "" 0 p 0 0 o n E E o E U a - E a E - E = a E E o"o° E a E o u w - E uQ — a a SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 30/70(SDR/CWA) VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 12.0 $ 699.00 $ 25,744 Lake Hodges (Local) 5.1 $ 52.00 $ 814 CWA Treated Water 0 $ 924.00 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 506 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 187 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 5.1 $ 133.20 $ 679 San Dieguito Pump Station 5.1 $ 149.95 $ 765 Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 14 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 17.1 $ 122.76 $ 2,099 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 12.0 $ 84.19 $ (1,010) TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 51 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 5.1 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 5.48 $ 94 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 15.64 $ 267 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 30/70(SDR/CWA) Ammonia Plant Influent 17.1 $ 1.46 $ 25 Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 17.1 $ 54.44 $ 931 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 17.1 $ 2.84 $ 48 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ 13.34 $ 228 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 30 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 1.11 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.79 $ 88.13 $ 69 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 12 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 95 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 72 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 30/70(SDR/CWA) SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 26,558 $ 506 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 187 Power Costs $ 3,682 $ 70 Power Generation $ (1,010) $ (19) Chemical $ 1,594 $ 30 Solids Management $ 612 $ 12 Labor $ 4,984 $ 95 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 72 Subtotal $ 50,018 $ 953 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 50,018 $ 953 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 Z �� 3 Z CL oQ Z O °z00o E 3 0 = N x v W rc a H r - - - - a 333 - Eo FL - wAloal/awo N 'I — — 3 lw a»va Uaw o E N 1 = a 3 o _ _ E W E t E Q o 'E f 3 v LU 3 E E E � uo \ 0 +.. wv Vow o. M — W _ p"o 0 - - o - o 0 z v - c E E 10 - - 3 z o o a 3 - 0 0 o , E .E E _ - a Q E W. a u zD l/8w 0 3 awAlod]eD1/2 0'0 �iuneD Vow o a zou Uaw o _� E ML o wAioddvUBw o E E - l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 j n N O E 3 3 N 0 W 3 o Dil _ E ° E E E E E E p awAlod leJVRw V'T 0 0 0 0 0 0 cln Ll E E uvd UBw Ev g E a o" — u— — J wwv,/Bw e o O LL u a LU zPl/Bw9 ,, ry C zooUaw TT Z a a 3 ••• 0 3 o a E o d o C l7 l7 l7 l7 0 Q 3 ry 3 E 'O = E ~ _ f o o E E E- 0 E a 2� 'E +n+n+n +n+n+n +n+n a U d E n E - E - a E E O p E n E O o E u G - Q a SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 2007-08 Average VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 11.4 $ 699.00 $ 24,456 Lake Hodges (Local) 7.4 $ 52.00 $ 1,181 CWA Treated Water 0.4 $ 924.00 $ 1,134 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 454 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 167 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 7.4 $ 133.20 $ 986 San Dieguito Pump Station 6.4 $ 149.95 $ 960 Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 16 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 18.8 $ 122.76 $ 2,308 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 11.4 $ 84.19 $ (960) TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 58 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 1.0 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 6.4 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 18.8 $ 10.05 $ 189 Settled Water 18.8 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 18.8 $ 11.47 $ 216 Settled Water 18.8 $ - $ - Filtered Water 18.8 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 2007-08 Average Ammonia Plant Influent 18.8 $ 0.93 $ 18 Filtered Water 18.8 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 18.8 $ 114.49 $ 2,152 Settled Water 18.8 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 18.8 $ 3.97 $ 75 Settled Water 18.8 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 18.8 $ - $ - Filtered Water 18.8 $ 13.34 $ 251 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 18.8 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 49 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 2.01 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.79 $ 88.13 $ 69 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 10 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 85 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 64 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 2007-08 Average SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 26,772 $ 454 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 167 Power Costs $ 4,394 $ 75 Power Generation $ (960) $ (16) Chemical $ 2,900 $ 49 Solids Management $ 612 $ 10 Labor $ 4,984 $ 85 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 64 Subtotal $ 52,301 $ 888 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 52,301 $ 888 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 F— C ---. Z CL z 2 15 Z Z, � 0 od, uo E --- ------ -- 0 wE Vo w w 81 wE S go c u 0 cc�o �o -w Eo o El lw 6 -0 1 7F 0 m M 0 0 1 1 1 I/R.o I FL L E 0 10 '0 0 I 1 1 K E LU E t E E E 3 0 0 LU 7 -M 7 o CO M" wv Vow o.uj c o M. 0 0 0 o 0 E 0 o E E E 0 u 0 E o E U -o 0 -V E E E u ml I E z1D Vow o 0 zolD Vow o 4---> E ' 0 IDVd]/Bl'01 7 ----- - o ar ar ar ar ar ar I—AlOd-Vl o . . . . . . 0 0 Eo 7— 0 . . . . . . ou 0 E E of E' E E E E E "'Alld I'D 1/2w OZ u m E Ew I DVd I/Bw 0 N1 E 'o u �o eiuowwv]/Bw 8 ot---> 0 LU zlD]/BwqF--> 0 0 zolD I/ow z 0 -ar-ar cw E wU 0 6 0 LU o u E E' �l E- E- - E- E- 0 0 C/) U cn -......... ......... .. - LU u E x E E E _o E E o L) wcE OE - 0 E -0 E uo C:5 cc c 0 'o w E 0 E SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 2009-10 Average VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 6.2 $ 699.00 $ 13,301 Lake Hodges (Local) 9.1 $ 52.00 $ 1,452 CWA Treated Water 0.3 $ 924.00 $ 851 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 326 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 205 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 9.1 $ 133.20 $ 1,212 San Dieguito Pump Station 8.3 $ 149.95 $ 1,245 Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 13 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 15.3 $ 122.76 $ 1,878 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 6.2 $ 84.19 $ (522) TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 83 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 0.8 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 8.3 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 15.3 $ 10.97 $ 168 Settled Water 15.3 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 15.3 $ 13.14 $ 201 Settled Water 15.3 $ - $ - Filtered Water 15.3 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 2009-10 Average Ammonia Plant Influent 15.3 $ 0.93 $ 14 Filtered Water 15.3 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 15.3 $ 132.91 $ 2,033 Settled Water 15.3 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 15.3 $ 5.67 $ 87 Settled Water 15.3 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 15.3 $ - $ - Filtered Water 15.3 $ 13.51 $ 207 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 15.3 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 57 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 1.92 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.79 $ 88.13 $ 69 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 13 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 104 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 79 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 2009-10 Average SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 15,604 $ 326 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 205 Power Costs $ 4,473 $ 93 Power Generation $ (522) $ (11) Chemical $ 2,710 $ 57 Solids Management $ 612 $ 13 Labor $ 4,984 $ 104 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 79 Subtotal $ 41,459 $ 866 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 41,459 $ 866 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 Z �� 3 CL o= UP Z � a v - E 3_ uuo , auouo N x W v E aUawo El 'I — — 3 a E »va T/sw o N = a 3 o _ _ 10 E W E t E f 3 v LU 3 E E E E � uo 10 E W - - � wv Vow o. W _ o - - o - z v E E E E E 10 - — 3 z oI o . 3 - 0 0 o , E E E _ - a Q E E u — zD Vow o 3 ewniod ie�V�w oro � �iune�Vow o a zou Vow oo _� E »va Uaw o E _ —�.�.�.�. �. wRiod dv/ow o E E — l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 j Ov 3 3 0 `� 3 `�' ' G N 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o _ E of o E E E E E ewnindie�V�w ns o 0 0 0 0 0 cln � E E l7Vd l/8w 89 O E u — — Eao J eiuowwv I/8w 8'T 0 a u LU OZol/Bw m Z 0 o cy Q 3 ry 3 E 3 — — — — —— — — — o o m 'p i E /W ~ _ 0 0 0 0 0 ,r ,r o 0 0 o 0 o E m E v A 1. .2 U U a - E a E - E = a E E o"o° E a E c. E � uQ - a a SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%Lake Hodges VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 0.0 $ 699.00 $ - Lake Hodges (Local) 17.1 $ 52.00 $ 2,729 CWA Treated Water 0 $ 924.00 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 52 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 187 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 17.1 $ 133.20 $ 2,278 San Dieguito Pump Station 0.0 $ 149.95 $ - Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 14 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 17.1 $ 122.76 $ 2,099 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 0.0 $ 84.19 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 86 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 17.1 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 9.14 $ 156 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 22.94 $ 392 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%Lake Hodges Ammonia Plant Influent 17.1 $ 2.14 $ 37 Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 17.1 $ 181.48 $ 3,103 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 17.1 $ 9.64 $ 165 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ 13.34 $ 228 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 78 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 3.00 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.79 $ 88.13 $ 69 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 12 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 95 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 72 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%Lake Hodges SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 2,729 $ 52 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 187 Power Costs $ 4,516 $ 86 Power Generation $ - $ - Chemical $ 4,081 $ 78 Solids Management $ 612 $ 12 Labor $ 4,984 $ 95 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 72 Subtotal $ 30,521 $ 582 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 30,521 $ 582 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 a a Z o N v - E 3 0 - N x W \ rc v 9 M H r - . - - - - a 333 - mT FL wAlodUawo N 'i, — — 3 a aJVa Usw o E N = E 3 o _ _ E W E t E 3 v . . o 3 ` - W - E EEo > ml QniuneJ Vew .^. 0 v ZD Vew d .2 w ° ° wd Vew 0. m W o o - ° _ «° o° MO \ E E E E E ,n o o 'E a 3 z 3 - 0 0 o , E .E E — a a E E u zD Uaw o �3 awAlod]eJVHw 0'0 0 0 �q—D I/sw a zoD Uaw 0 _� E ml IJVa Uaw o E _ awAiod-VI o E Zf E — l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 l7 Ov 3 3 0 — — — `�' ' G N 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o _ E _ E of o E E E E E ewelodie�a�w oo — o 0 0 0 0 0 Zf cln E E uvd Uaw o .E a o V — — J wwv,/Bw 00 0 LL u u a LU OZDI/8wo ZOIJI/Sw 0'0 0 ° o a E o do 'O = E ''W -_ o 0 00000 � � o V/ A u E of E EE °Q -= a- E " °- E 6 L5 a E U a E E um - a a SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%CWA Treated VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 0.0 $ 699.00 $ - Lake Hodges (Local) 0.0 $ 52.00 $ - CWA Treated Water 17.1 $ 924.00 $ 48,493 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 924 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 3,336,512.00 $ 9,141 SDWD $ 1,624,197.00 $ 4,450 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 259 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 0.0 $ 133.20 $ - San Dieguito Pump Station 0.0 $ 149.95 $ - Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ - Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 0.0 $ 122.76 $ - Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 0.0 $ 84.19 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 2 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 0.0 $ - $ - Settled Water 0.0 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 0.0 $ - $ - Settled Water 0.0 $ - $ - Filtered Water 0.0 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%CWA Treated Ammonia Plant Influent 0.0 $ - $ - Filtered Water 0.0 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 0.0 $ - $ - Settled Water 0.0 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 0.0 $ - $ - Settled Water 0.0 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 0.0 $ - $ - Filtered Water 0.0 $ - $ - Anionic Polymer Settled Water 0.0 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $0.00/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 0.00 $ - Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.00 $ 88.13 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 0 $ 415 $ - Actiflo 0 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 0 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ 135,000,000 $ 8,781,944 $ 24,060.1 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 458 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary 100%CWA Treated SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 48,493 $ 924 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 13,591 $ 259 Power Costs $ 125 $ 2 Power Generation $ - $ - Chemical $ - $ - Solids Management $ - $ - Labor $ - $ - Maintenance $ - $ - Subtotal $ 62,209 $ 1,185 Capital Improvements $ 24,060 $ 458 TOTAL COST $ 86,269 $ 1,643 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 Z �� 3 Li O c D Rx I u 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 v �I - E E 3 0 = N x W \ rc v M H r - :a - - - a 333- L L 0 m wAioaUawo N — — 3 0 0 0 E a»vd Uaw o E N ' = a 3 o _ _ 10 E W [E, E LU f 3 v 3 E E E � oV�w a r m wv Vow o. M - W _ o - - o - o 0 0 v E E E E E 0 - - 0 o a 3 z o , E .E E _ - a Q E E u Zo l/8w 0 3 a-Alod i-DI/R oro �iuneD Vow o a zoo Uaw oo E 1.»Va Uaw o E _ ————— — awAlod-VI o E MO o _ > - H O 0 v 3 3 0 o - 3 `�' ' G c 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 E - E x - a o " � � oIoEEEEE —AlOd leDI/RWOT 00000 0 MW cw E E uva Uaw oz 0 .E a o"- — — — JwwVUawE O LL u u a LU 0 zoUaws V' 'LJ3 ry m C zoo l/8w 9 o +n+n+n+n+n +n Z a a 3 ••• 0 3 o do .1o�� 'O = E ~ _ p o 0 o n E E o U a - E a E - E = a E E o"o° E n E o� uQ - a LA i a SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary Future Scenario VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST WATER PURCHASE COSTS MG $/AC-FT $ CWA Raw (Imported) 12.0 $ 699.00 $ 25,744 Lake Hodges (Local) 5.1 $ 52.00 $ 812 CWA Treated Water 0 $ 924.00 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 506 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST IMPORTED SUPPLY FIXED COST $ $ SFID $ 2,335,558.00 $ 6,399 SDWD $ 1,248,537.00 $ 3,421 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 187 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST ELECTRICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Cielo Pump Station 5.1 $ 133.20 $ 678 San Dieguito Pump Station 5.1 $ 149.95 $ 763 Backwash Pump 0 $ 34.35 $ 14 Base Energy Cost(per day) $ 125.00 $ 125 Plant Energy Costs 17.1 $ 122.76 $ 2,098 Actiflo System Cost(per day) - $ 70.00 $ - Vertical Turbine Pumps 0 $ 36.86 $ - Dewatering Cost(per day) - $ 75.00 $ - Pumping Costs 0 $ 7.96 $ - Hydroturbines 12.0 $ 84.19 $ (1,010) TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 51 VOLUME UNIT COST DAILY COST CHEMICAL COSTS MG $/MG $ Chlorine Dioxide Cielo Pipeline 0.0 $ - $ - SDPS Pipeline 5.1 $ - $ - Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 5.48 $ 94 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Chlorine Plant Inluent 17.1 $ 15.64 $ 267 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 2 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary Future Scenario Ammonia Plant Influent 17.1 $ 1.52 $ 26 Filtered Water 17.1 $ - $ - PACL Plant Influent 17.1 $ 54.44 $ 930 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - Cationic Polymer Plant Influent 17.1 $ 2.84 $ 48 Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Caustic Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Filtered Water 17.1 $ 13.34 $ 228 Anionic Polymer Settled Water 17.1 $ - $ - Sludge Aid Centrifuge 0.0 dry tons $17.50/dry ton $ - Polymer-Actiflo System Backwash Recovery System 0 $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 30 AMOUNT UNIT COST DAILY COST RESIDUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS Dry Tons $/Dry Ton $ Solids Disposal (Centrifuge) 0 $ 88.13 $ - Contract Solids Management(Drying Beds) 1.03 $ 542 Solids Disposal (Drying Beds) 0.79 $ 88.13 $ 69 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 12 FULL-TIME UNIT COST DAILY COST LABOR COSTS EMPLOYEES $/Employee/Day $ Plant 12 $ 415 $ 4,984 Actiflo 1 $ 415 $ - Mechanical Dewatering 1 $ 415 $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 95 ANNUAL COST DAILY COST MAINTENANCE COSTS $ $ Plant Maintenance - $ 1,379,428 $ 3,779.3 TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ 72 CAPITAL COST ANNUAL COST DAILY COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ $ 180 MG Storage Facility(100%Treated CWA Option) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL($/AC-FT) $ - Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 3 of 4 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Treatment Cost Summary Future Scenario SUMMARY COSTS DAILY COST COST CATEGORY $ $/AC-FT Water Purchase Costs $ 26,556 $ 506 Imported Supply Fixed Costs $ 9,819 $ 187 Power Costs $ 3,678 $ 70 Power Generation $ (1,010) $ (19) Chemical $ 1,594 $ 30 Solids Management $ 612 $ 12 Labor $ 4,984 $ 95 Maintenance $ 3,779 $ 72 Subtotal $ 50,012 $ 953 Capital Improvements $ - $ - TOTAL COST $ 50,012 $ 953 Badger Model.xlsx Treatment Costs 4 of 4 APPENDIX 8: Hydraulic Model Analysis for WFP NoText PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Plant Flow Rate(MGD) 40 Reservoir Water Level(ft) 519.5 Filter Water Level(ft) 531.6 Filter Operation Filter 1 Off Filter 2 On Filter 3 On Filter 4 On Filter 5 On Filter 6 On Number Filters in Operation 5 Flow per Filter(MGD) 8.0 Flow Filters 1-4(MGD) 24.0 Flow Filters 5-6(MGD) 16.0 Flow Split into Reservoir Flow Split 61.1 Diff HL(ft) 0.000 DOWNSTREAM CONTROL EGL = 519.50 519.50 519.50 Flow = 40.00 mgd = 61.88 cfs FLOW SPLIT INTO RESERVOIR Headloss Flow Split 61.1 Flow Into Inlet 1 24.4 0.935 Flow Into Inlet 2 15.6 0.934 INLET 2 [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK A {4} Flow 15.6 mgd = 24.1 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 36 inch Pipe Length,L 1 308 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 3.41 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 1021619 Friction factor,f 0.0139 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 143.1887 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.26 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 15.6 mgd = 24.1 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 15.56 24.07 1.00 36 ---- 3.41 ---- 0.18 0.18 1 Butterfly Valve(Open) 15.56 24.07 0.50 36 ---- 3.41 ---- 0.18 0.09 1 22.5°Bend 15.56 24.07 0.15 36 ---- 3.41 ---- 0.18 0.03 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 15.56 24.07 1.27 36 ------- 3.41 ---- 0.18 0.23 1 Reducer 15.56 24.07 0.25 54 36 1.51 3.41 0.18 0.05 1 Tee-Thru Straight Run 15.56 24.07 0.60 36 ---- 3.41 ---- 0.18 0.11 Sum= 0.68 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 1 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Total Energy Loss= 0.93 ft Upstream Condition 520.43 520.43 INLET 1 [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 24.4 mgd = 37.8 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 36 inch Pipe Length,L 22 ft Absolute Roughness,e 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 5.35 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 1604650 Friction factor,f 0.0135 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 140.1668 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.04 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 24.4 mgd = 37.8 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 24.44 37.81 1.00 36 ---- 5.35 ---- 0.44 0.44 1 Butterfly Valve(Open) 24.44 37.81 0.50 36 ---- 5.35 ---- 0.44 0.22 1 22.5°Bend 24.44 37.81 0.15 36 ---- 5.35 ---- 0.44 0.07 1 Tee-Thru Side Outlet 24.44 37.81 1.80 54 ---- 2.38 ---- 0.09 0.16 Sum= 0.89 Total Energy Loss= 0.93 ft Upstream Condition 520.43 520.43 BETWEEN RESERVOIR FLOW SPLIT AND FILTER CONTOL WEIR [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 54 inch Pipe Length,L 1 760 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 3.89 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 1750846 Friction factor,f 0.0127 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 143.2394 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.50 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 2 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 1 Mitre Bend-45°Deflection 40.00 61.88 0.32 54 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.08 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 40.00 61.88 1.27 54 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.30 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 40.00 1 61.88 0.50 54 ---- 3.89 0.24 0.12 Sum= 0.49 Total Energy Loss= 0.99 ft _ Upstream Condition 521.43 521.43 FILTER CONTROL WEIR [STRAIGHT EDGED SHARP CRESTED WEIRI Flow 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs WSE Downstream of Weir 521.43 ft Weir Crest Elevation 521.74 ft Downstream head,Hd -0.31 ft Length of Weir,L 24.00 ft WEIR IS FREE-DISCHARGING Free Discharging Weir Computation {6} Head on Weir,H 0.84 ft Upstream WSE 522.58 ft Submerged Weir Computation {7} K NA M NA Increment NA ft Upstream Head,Hut NA ft F(H1) NA F'(H1) NA Upstream Head,Hut NA ft Upstream WSE NA ft Head over Weir 0.84 ft Condition Upstream of Weir 522.58 522.58 UPSTREAM OF WEIR STRUCTURE [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK A {4} Flow 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 54 inch Pipe Length,L I 10 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 3.89 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ft'/sec Reynold's Number,R 1750846 Friction factor,f 0.0127 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 143.2394 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.01 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 40.00 61.88 1.00 54 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.24 Sum= 0.2351 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 3 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Total Energy Loss= 0.24 ft Upstream Condition 522.82 522.82 FLOW SPLIT(NEW AND OLD FILTERS) New Filters(5-6) 16.0 Old Filters(1-4) 24.0 NEW FILTERS 42"LINE DOWNSTREAM OF FILTERS 5-6 [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK A {4) Flow 16.0 mgd = 24.8 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 42 inch Pipe Length,L 1 232 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 2.57 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 900435 Friction factor,f 0.0138 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 145.1244 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.09 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 16.0 mgd = 24.8 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Tee-Thru Side Outlet 16.00 24.75 1.80 42 ---- 2.57 ---- 0.10 0.18 4 Mitre Bend-45°Deflection 16.00 24.75 0.32 42 2.57 ---- 0.10 0.13 1 Increaser 16.00 1 24.75 0.25 1 42 54 2.57 1.56 0.07 0.02 Sum= 0.33 Total Energy Loss= 0.43 ft Upstream Condition 523.25 523.25 INDIVIDUAL LINE FROM FILTER 516 rPIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4) Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 42 inch Pipe Length,L 1 43 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 1.29 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 450218 Friction factor,f 0.0148 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 147.7759 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 4 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Wye-Thru Straight Run 8.00 12.38 0.45 42 ---- 1.29 ---- 0.03 0.01 2 Mitre Bend-45°Deflection 8.00 12.38 0.32 42 ---- 1.29 ---- 0.03 0.02 1 Butterfly Valve(Open) 8.00 12.38 0.50 42 ---- 1.29 ---- 0.03 0.01 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 8.00 12.38 0.50 ---- = ---- 1.29 0.03 0.01 Sum= 0.05 Total Energy Loss= 0.06 ft ' Upstream Condition 523.31 523.31 FILTERED WATER CONDUIT(SQUARE PIPE) [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK 11 {4} Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 53 inch Use equiv.diameter per Lindeberg 10th ed.Pg 17-9 Pipe Length,L 1 61 Ift Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 0.80 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ft'/sec Reynold's Number,R 354768 Friction factor,f 0.0150 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" - 149.206 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft Condition Upstream of Pipe 523.31 523.31 24"FILTERED WATER HEADER [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 24 inch Pipe Length,L 5 ft Absolute Roughness,e 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 3.94 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 787881 Friction factor,f 0.0149 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 141.1647 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.01 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water M80 12.38 1.00 24 ---- 3.94 ---- 0.24 0.24 0 Butterfly Valve(Open) 12.38 0.50 24 ---- 3.94 ---- 0.24 0.00 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 12.38 1.27 24 ---- 3.94 ---- 0.24 0.30 0 Reducer 12.38 0.25 30 24 1 2.52 3.94 0.24 0.00 Sum= 0.55 Total Energy Loss= 0.55 ft Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 5 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Upstream Condition 523.87 523.87 FILTER-CONSTANT LEVEL HEADLOSSES 24/30"Filtered Water Header 0.50 Lower Gullet 0.01 Gullet Wall 0.01 Underdrains 0.17 Filter Media 1.35 clean bed Total 7.7 Headloss for accumulation 5.7 Condition on Filters 531.60 531.60 UPPER GULLET WALL [SUBMERGED ORIFICE(RECTANGULAR)) {2} Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Number of Ports Flow Per Port 1.3 mgd = 2.1 cfs Port Width �O6 ft Port Height ft Di scharge Coefficient,C Velocity through port,v 0.28 fps Orifice Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft - Condition Upstream of Orifice 531.60 531.60 DOWNSTREAM OF FLOW SPLITTING WEIRS [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 30 inch Pipe Length,L 6 ft Absolute Roughness,e 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 2.52 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 630305 Friction factor,f 0.0147 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 144.3469 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Tee-Thru Side Outlet 8.00 12.38 1.80 30 ---- 2.52 ---- 0.10 0.18 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 8.00 12.38 1.00 30 ---- 2.52 ---- 0.10 0.10 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 8.00 12.38 0.50 ---- = ---- 2.52 0.10 0.05 1 Butterfly Valve(Open) 8.00 12.38 0.50 1 30 ---- 2.52 ---- 0.10 0.05 Sum= 0.38 Total Energy Loss= 0.38 ft Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 6 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 M I Upstream Condition 531.98 531.98 FLOW SPLITTING WEIR-2 PER FILTER [STRAIGHT EDGED SHARP CRESTED WEIR] Flow 4.0 mgd = 6.2 cfs WSE Downstream of Weir 531.98 ft Weir Crest Elevation 532.23 ft Downstream head,Hd -0.25 ft Length of Weir,L 4.00 ft WEIR IS FREE-DISCHARGING Free Discharging Weir Computation {6} Head on Weir,H 0.60 ft Upstream WSE 532.83 ft Submerged Weir Computation {7} K NA M NA Increment NA ft Upstream Head,Hut NA ft F(H1) NA F'(H1) NA Upstream Head,Hut NA ft Upstream WSE NA ft Head over Weir 0.60 It Condition Upstream of Weir 532.83 532.83 OLD FILTERS 52"LINE DOWNSTREAM OF FILTERS 1-4 rPIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 24.0 mgd = 37.1 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 54 inch Pipe Length,L 1 128 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 2.33 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ft'/sec Reynold's Number,R 1050508 Friction factor,f 0.0132 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 146.1625 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.03 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 24.0 mgd = 37.1 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Tee-Thru Straight Run 24.00 37.13 0.60 54 ---- 2.33 ---- 0.08 0.05 0 Mitre Bend-45°Deflection 24.00 37.13 0.32 54 2.33 ---- 0.08 0.00 0 Increaser 24.00 1 37.13 0.25 1 54 1 54 2.33 2.33 0.00 0.00 Sum= 0.05 Total Energy Loss= 0.08 ft Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 7 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 ' Upstream Condition 522.91 522.91 INDIVIDUAL LINE FROM FILTER 183 [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH f COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 16.0 mgd = 24.8 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 42 inch Pipe Length,L 1 29 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 2.57 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 900435 Friction factor,f 0.0138 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 145.1244 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.01 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 16.0 mgd = 24.8 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Tee-Thru Side Outlet 16.00 24.75 1.80 42 ---- 2.57 ---- 0.10 0.18 1 Tee-Thru Straight Run 16.00 24.75 0.60 54 ---- 1.56 ---- 0.04 0.02 1 Increaser 16.00 24.75 0.25 42 54 2.57 1.56 0.07 0.02 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 16.00 24.75 1.27 42 ---- 2.57 ---- 0.10 0.13 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 16.00 24.75 0.50 ---- 42 ---- 2.57 0.10 0.05 Sum= 0.41 Total Energy Loss= 0.42 ft Upstream Condition 523.32 523.32 FILTERED WATER CONDUIT(SQUARE PIPE) rPIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH f COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 16.0 mgd = 24.8 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 53 inch Use equiv.diameter per Lindeberg 10th ed.Pg 17-9 Pipe Length,L 1 61 Ift Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 1.60 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 709536 Friction factor,f 0.0138 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 147.7135 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.01 ft Condition Upstream of Pipe 523.33 523.33 24"FILTERED WATER HEADER [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH f COLEBROOK)1 {4) Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 24 inch Pipe Length,L 5 ft Absolute Roughness,e 0.00040 ft Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 8 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Pipe velocity,v 3.94 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 787881 Friction factor,f 0.0149 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 141.1647 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.01 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water M80 12.38 1.00 24 ---- 3.94 ---- 0.24 0.24 0 Butterfly Valve(Open) 12.38 0.50 24 ---- 3.94 ---- 0.24 0.00 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 12.38 1.27 24 ---- 3.94 ---- 0.24 0.30 0 Reducer 12.38 0.25 30 24 2.52 3.94 0.24 0.00 Sum= 0.55 Total Energy Loss= 0.55 ft ' Upstream Condition 523.89 523.89 FILTER-CONSTANT LEVEL HEADLOSSES 24/30"Filtered Water Header 0.50 Lower Gullet 0.01 Gullet Wall 0.01 Underdrains 0.17 Filter Media 1.35 clean bed Total 7.7 Headloss for accumulation 5.7 Condition on Filters 531.60 531.60 UPPER GULLET WALL [SUBMERGED ORIFICE(RECTANGULAR)) {2} Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Number of Ports Flow Per Port 1.3 mgd = 2.1 cfs Port Width �O6 ft Port Height ft Di scharge Coefficient,C Velocity through port,v 0.28 fps Orifice Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft Condition Upstream of Orifice 531.60 531.60 DOWNSTREAM OF FLOW SPLITTING WEIRS [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 30 inch Pipe Length,L 6 ft Absolute Roughness,e 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 2.52 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 630305 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 9 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Friction factor,f 0.0147 Equivalent Hazen-Williams C = 144.3469 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 8.0 mgd = 12.4 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Tee-Thru Side Outlet 8.00 12.38 1.80 30 ---- 2.52 ---- 0.10 0.18 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 8.00 12.38 1.00 30 ---- 2.52 ---- 0.10 0.10 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 8.00 12.38 0.50 ---- = ---- 2.52 0.10 0.05 1 Butterfly Valve(Open) 8.00 12.38 0.50 1 30 ---- 2.52 ---- 0.10 0.05 Sum= 0.38 Total Energy Loss= 0.38 ft _ Upstream Condition 531.98 531.98 FLOW SPLITTING WEIR-2 PER FILTER [STRAIGHT EDGED SHARP CRESTED WEIRI Flow 4.0 mgd = 6.2 cfs WSE Downstream of Weir 531.98 ft Weir Crest Elevation 532.23 ft Downstream head,Hd -0.25 ft Length of Weir,L 4.00 ft WEIR IS FREE-DISCHARGING Free Discharging Weir Computation {6} Head on Weir,H 0.60 ft Upstream WSE 532.83 ft Submerged Weir Computation {7} K NA M NA Increment NA ft Upstream Head,Hut NA ft F(H1) NA F'(H1) NA Upstream Head,Hut NA ft Upstream WSE NA ft Head over Weir 0.60 It Condition Upstream of Weir 532.83 1 532.83 FILTER INFLUENT CHANNEL UPSTREAM OF FILTER INFLUENT WEIRS [CHANNEL FRICTION LOSSESI {5} Flow,Q 20.00 mgd = 30.9 cfs Channel Width 6.30 ft Total Channel Length 120.00 Downstream Invert El 528.00 Channel Slope 0.00% Manning Coeff,n 0.013 Hydr. Friction Invert Invert Depth Vel. Radius Avg. Loss Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 10 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Station Up Down (ft) (fps) (ft) Sf Sf (ft) HGL EGL 0.0 528.00 528.00 4.81 1.020 1.90 0.000 ---- ---- 532.81 532.83 24.0 528.00 528.00 4.81 1.020 1.90 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.81 532.83 48.0 528.00 528.00 4.82 1.020 1.90 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.82 532.83 72.0 528.00 528.00 4.82 1.020 1.90 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.82 532.83 96.0 528.00 528.00 4.82 1.020 1.90 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.82 532.83 120.0 528.00 528.00 4.82 1.019 1.90 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.82 532.83 TOTAL ENERGY LOSS 0.00 ft Condition at Upstream End of Channel 532.82 532.83 FILTER INFLUENT CHANNEL [CHANNEL FRICTION LOSSESI {5} Flow,Q 40.00 mgd = 61.9 cfs Channel Width 5.00 ft Total Channel Length 50.00 Downstream Invert El 528.00 Channel Slope 0.00% Manning Coeff,n 0.013 Hydr. Friction Invert Invert Depth Vel. Radius Avg. Loss Station Up Down (ft) (fps) (ft) Sf Sf (ft) HGL EGL 0.0 528.00 528.00 4.73 2.618 1.64 0.000 ---- ---- 532.73 532.83 10.0 528.00 528.00 4.73 2.616 1.64 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.73 532.84 20.0 528.00 528.00 4.73 2.615 1.64 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.73 532.84 30.0 528.00 528.00 4.74 2.613 1.64 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.74 532.84 40.0 528.00 528.00 4.74 2.612 1.64 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.74 532.84 50.0 528.00 528.00 4.74 2.610 1.64 0.000 0.000 0.00 532.74 532.85 TOTAL ENERGY LOSS 0.01 ft ' Condition at Upstream End of Channel 532.74 532.85 MINOR CHANNEL LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Width Width Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Depth Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 90 Degree Bend-Long Rad 40.00 61.88 0.30 05 4.74 2.61 ---- 0.11 0.03 1 Sudden Expansion 40.00 61.88 1.00 8.00 14.00 4.74 1.63 0.93 0.03 0.03 Sum= 0.06 Total Energy Loss= 0.06 ft Upstream Condition 532.91 532.91 SETTLED WATER PIPELINE [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)l {4} Flow 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 48 inch Pipe Length,L 1 250 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 11 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Pipe velocity,v 4.92 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 1969702 Friction factor,f 0.0128 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 141.3945 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.30 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 40.00 61.88 1.27 48 ---- 4.92 ---- 0.38 0.48 2 Mitre Bend-45°Deflection 40.00 61.88 0.32 48 ---- 4.92 ---- 0.38 0.24 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 40.00 61.88 0.50 ---- 48 ---- 4.92 0.38 0.19 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 40.00 61.88 1.00 48 ---- 4.92 ---- 0.38 0.38 Sum= 1.28 Total Energy Loss= 1.58 ft ' Upstream Condition 534.49 534.49 SETTLED WATER WEIRS [V-NOTCH WEIRI Flow 10 mgd = 15.5 cfs WSE Downstream of Weir 534.49 ft Weir Crest Elevation 534.66 ft Downstream head,Hd -0.17 ft Weir Length 150.00 ft Distance Between Notches 8.00 in Number of Notches 225 WEIR IS FREE-DISCHARGING Free Discharging Weir Computation {8} Head on Weir,H 0.24 ft Upstream WSE 534.90 ft Submerged Weir Computation {9} K NA M NA Increment NA ft Upstream Head,Hut NA ft F(H1) NA F'(H1) NA Upstream Head,Hut NA ft Upstream WSE NA ft Head over Weir 0.24 ft Condition Upstream of Weir 534.90 534.90 SEDIMENTATION BASINS [CHANNEL FRICTION LOSSESI {5} Flow,Q 20.00 mgd = 30.9 cfs Channel Width 40.00 ft Total Channel Length 240.00 Downstream Invert El 525.00 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 12 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MM13 JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Channel Slope 0.00% Manning Coeff,n 0.013 Hydr. Friction Invert Invert Depth Vel. Radius Avg. Loss Station Up Down (ft) (fps) (ft) Sf Sf (ft) HGL EGL 0.0 525.00 525.00 9.90 0.078 6.62 0.000 ---- ---- 534.90 534.90 48.0 525.00 525.00 9.90 0.078 6.62 0.000 0.000 0.00 534.90 534.90 96.0 525.00 525.00 9.90 0.078 6.62 0.000 0.000 0.00 534.90 534.90 144.0 525.00 525.00 9.90 0.078 6.62 0.000 0.000 0.00 534.90 534.90 192.0 525.00 525.00 9.90 0.078 6.62 0.000 0.000 0.00 534.90 534.90 240.0 525.00 525.00 9.90 0.078 6.62 0.000 0.000 0.00 534.90 534.90 TOTAL ENERGY LOSS 0.00 ft M Condition at Upstream End of Channel 534.90 534.90 BAFFLE WALL#2 [SUBMERGED ORIFICE(RECTANGULAR)) {2} Flow 20.0 mgd = 30.9 cfs Number of Ports 100 Flow Per Port 0.2 mgd = 0.3 cfs Port Width 0.67 ft Port Height 0.67 ft Discharge Coefficient,C 0.61 Velocity through port,v 0.70 fps Orifice Energy Loss,hL 0.02 ft Condition Upstream of Orifice 534.92 534.92 BAFFLE WALL#1 [SUBMERGED ORIFICE(RECTANGULAR)) {2} Flow 20.0 mgd = 30.9 cfs Number of Ports 80 Flow Per Port 0.3 mgd = 0.4 cfs Port Width 0.5 ft Port Height 1 0.5 ft Discharge Coefficient,C 0.61 Velocity through port,v 1.55 fps Orifice Energy Loss,hL 0.10 ft Condition Upstream of Orifice 535.02 535.02 FLOCCULATION CHANNEL [CHANNEL FRICTION LOSSESI {5} Flow,Q 20.00 mgd = 30.9 cfs Channel Width 20.00 ft Total Channel Length 100.00 Downstream Invert El 525.00 Channel Slope 0.00% Manning Coeff,n 0.013 Hydr. Friction Invert Invert Depth Vel. Radius Avg. Loss Station Up Down (ft) (fps) (ft) Sf Sf (ft) HGL EGL 0.0 525.00 525.00 10.02 0.154 5.00 0.000 ---- ---- 535.02 535.02 20.0 525.00 525.00 10.02 0.154 5.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 535.02 535.02 40.0 525.00 525.00 10.02 0.154 5.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 535.02 535.02 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 13 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 60.0 525.00 525.00 10.02 0.154 5.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 535.02 535.02 80.0 525.00 525.00 10.02 0.154 5.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 535.02 535.02 100.0 525.00 525.00 10.02 0.154 5.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 535.02 535.02 TOTAL ENERGY LOSS 0.00 ft Condition at Upstream End of Channel 535.02 535.02 MINOR CHANNEL LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 20.0 mgd = 30.9 cfs Width Width Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Depth Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 2 Turn Around Baffle 20.00 30.94 3.20 4.5 ---- 10.02 0.69 ---- 0.01 0.05 0 90 Degree Bend-Long Rad 20.00 1 30.94 0.30 4.5 10.49 0.66 ---- 0.01 0.00 Sum= 0.05 Total Energy Loss= 0.05 ft Upstream Condition 535.06 535.06 rSUBMERGED ORIFICE(RECTANGULAR)) {2} Flow 20.0 mgd = 30.9 cfs Number of Ports 0 Flow Per Port 6.7 mgd = 10.3 cfs Port Width 4.5 ft Port Height 10.49 ft Discharge Coefficient,C 0.61 Velocity through port,v 0.22 fps Orifice Energy Loss,hL 0.00 ft Condition Upstream of Orifice 535.07 535.07 FLOCCULATION BASIN INLET rPIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK 11 {4} Flow 20.0 mgd = 30.9 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 36 inch Pipe Length,L 5 ft Absolute Roughness,e 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 4.38 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ftZ/sec Reynold's Number,R 1313134 Friction factor,f 0.0136 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" - 141.581 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.01 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 20.0 mgd = 30.9 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 14 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 20.00 30.94 1.00 36 4.38 ---- 0.30 0.30 1 Entrance Loss -Flush 20.00 30.94 0.50 36 ---- 4.38 0.30 0.15 1 Butterfly Valve(Open) 20.00 30.94 0.50 1 36 ---- 4.38 ---- 0.30 0.15 Sum= 0.60 Total Energy Loss= 0.60 ft _ Upstream Condition 535.67 535.67 RAW WATER INFLUENT CHANNEL [CHANNEL FRICTION LOSSES] {5} Flow,Q 40.00 mgd = 61.9 cfs Channel Width 5.00 ft Total Channel Length 40.00 Downstream Invert El 532.00 Channel Slope 0.53% Manning Coeff,n 0.013 Hydr. Friction Invert Invert Depth Vel. Radius Avg. Loss Station Up Down (ft) (fps) (ft) Sf Sf (ft) HGL EGL 0.0 532.00 532.00 3.47 3.566 1.45 0.001 ---- ---- 535.47 535.67 8.0 532.04 532.00 3.43 3.610 1.45 0.001 0.001 0.00 535.47 535.67 16.0 532.08 532.04 3.39 3.655 1.44 0.001 0.001 0.00 535.47 535.68 24.0 532.13 532.08 3.34 3.702 1.43 0.001 0.001 0.01 535.47 535.68 32.0 532.17 532.13 3.30 3.750 1.42 0.001 0.001 0.01 535.47 535.69 40.0 532.21 532.17 3.26 3.799 1.41 0.001 0.001 0.01 535.47 535.69 TOTAL ENERGY LOSS 0.03 ft ' Condition at Upstream End of Channel 535.47 535.69 MINOR CHANNEL LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Width Width Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Depth Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 4 90 Degree Bend-Long Rad 40.00 61.88 0.30 05 ---- 3.47 3.57 ---- 0.20 0.24 Sum= 0.23691 Total Energy Loss= 0.24 ft Upstream Condition 535.93 535.93 INFLUENT PIPELINE [PIPE FRICTION LOSSES(DARCY-WEISBACH/COLEBROOK)1 {4} Flow 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Pipe Diameter,D 54 inch Pipe Length,L 1000 ft Absolute Roughness,s 0.00040 ft Pipe velocity,v 3.89 fps Kinematic Viscosity 1.000E-05 ft'/sec Reynold's Number,R 1750846 Friction factor,f 0.0127 Equivalent Hazen-Williams"C" = 143.2394 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 15 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM PROJECT: Santa Fe Irrigation District-Joint Facilities Master Plan R.E. Badger Water Filtration Plant-Hydraulic Analysis CHECKED: BY: MMB JOB#: REVISION: DATE: DATE: 3/1/2011 Friction Energy Loss,hL 0.66 ft MINOR PIPE LOSS HEADING Flow,Q 40.0 mgd = 61.9 cfs Dia Dia Vel Vel Vel Minor Flow Flow Up Down Up Down Head Loss No. Description (mgd) (cfs) K (in) (in) (fps) (fps) (ft) (ft) 1 Outlet Loss-Still Water 40.00 61.88 1.00 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.24 536.17 1 Mitre Bend-90°Deflection 40.00 61.88 1.27 g594 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.30 1 Mitre Bend-45°Deflection 40.00 61.88 0.32 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.08 2 Mitre Bend-22.5°Deflection 40.00 61.88 0.15 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.07 1 Butterfl Valve O en 40.00 61.88 0.50 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.12 0 40.00 61.88 54 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.00 0 40.00 61.88 54 ---- 3.89 ---- 0.24 0.00 Sum= 0.80 Total Energy Loss= 1.46 ft Upstream Condition 537.39 537.39 Filename:SFID Hydraulics Rev2.xls,Sheet:Calculation Sheet 1 16 of 16 8/8/2011,5:22 PM APPENDIX C: WFP Arc Flash Study NoText BADGER FAULT CURRENT CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS NoText RE Badger Fault Calculation Assumptions The following items are the assumptions that were made throughout the fault current calculation for the RE Badger Facility: • The utility acts as an infinite source of fault current (no utility impedance). • A typical impedance was used for the 12 kV to 4 kV transformer (5.5%). • A typical impedance was used for the 4.16 kV Hydroelectric generators (Xd"=19%). • There is zero impedance from the hydroelectric generators to the 5 kV SWGR (Cable was not entered). • The station power transformer was entered as a single phase (4.16-240) transformer based on field investigation opposed to the three phase transformer in the 93 drawings. An ETAP typical impedance was used. • A typical impedance was used for the 500 kVA transformer (4.8%). • A typical impedance was used for the 300 kVA transformer (4.8%). • A typical impedance was used for the 160 kW emergency generator (Xd"=19%). • Cable size and distance was not used for any connection. NoText BADGER SYSTEM ONE-LINES NoText o ( 2 k \ � ` \ � ® , § to Q , , q §: 6 ` �N 3 3 £x �o q cv Oq o �N �x > o 3 s x �o �o W �x FBI � n o w" O ao o^ w i w> � Cd N to F o N N I-� N a O/\ � ol lo lo \ )\ 2 k Q §: )� � / ° � ^ \ \ : : )\ \ Q % q � 6 2 „ � k m §7 � / O � (\ ¥ ƒ U \\ \ ¥ \m ; / : \ � \ ^ to \ Q G q � 6 BADGER FAULT CALCULATION ONE-LINES NoText ® c ( J \\ � \ J, Cd ¥ \ J .q / U \ ƒ � \ � ° \ O „ ® § : \ to ° \ Q , q , : ® � 4\ j/ , � O\\ } w cli ® ¥ / U ® \ / � ¥ / (\ $ , \ ) 2 � ! : 3 \ §J ƒ \ to Q \ q � 6 \ )\ \ / � O/\ : 2 \\ \\ : §\ (\ : \ :a Cd om om : U . t ! * � : _ ƒ ` ¥ ^ \ )\ \ Q \ q � 6 J , � / ¥ / / : U } t � � §7 / O ¥ ƒ U \\ \ ¥ \m ; { \ � \ ^ to \ Q 6 q � 6 NFPA70E ARC Flash Tables NoText Hazard/Risk Rubber Insulating Insulated and Tasks Performed on Energized Equipment Insulating Hand Category Gloves Tools Panelboards or Other Equipment Rated 240 V and Below- Note 1 Perform infrared thermography and other non-contact inspections outside the 0 N N restricted approach boundary Circuit breaker(CB) or fused switch 0 N N operation with cover on CB or fused switch operation with covers off 0 N N Work on energized electrical conductors and 1 Y Y circuit parts, including voltage testing Remove/install CBs or fused switches 1 Y Y Removal of bolted covers (to expose bare, energized electrical conductors and circuit 1 N N parts) Opening hinged covers (to expose bare, energized electrical conductors and circuit 0 N N parts) Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts of utilization equipment fed 1 Y Y directly by a branch circuit of the panelboard General Notes(applicable to the entire table): (a) Rubber insulating gloves are gloves rated for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which work will be done. (b) Insulated and insulating hand tools are tools rated and tested for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which wok will be done, and are manufactured and tested in accordance with ASTM F 1505, Standard Specification for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools. (c)Y=yes (required), N=no (not required). (d) For systems rated less than 1000 volts,the fault currents and upstream protective device clearing times are based on an 18 in. working distance. (e) For systems rated 1 kV and greater,the Hazard/Risk Categories are based on a 36 in. working distance. (f) For equipment protected by upstream current limiting fuses with arcing fault current in their current limiting range (1/2 cycle fault clearing time or less), the hazard/risk category required may be reduced by one number. Specific Notes(as referenced in the table): 1. Maximum of 25 kA short circuit current available; maximum of 0.03 sec(2 cycle)fault clearing time. Tasks Performed on Energized Equipment Hazard/Risk Rubber Insulating Insulated and Category Gloves Insulating Hand Panelboards or Switchboards Rated >240 V and up to 600 V(with molded case or insulated case circuit breakers)- Note 1 Perform infrared thermography and other non-contact inspections outside the 1 N N Restriced Approach Boundary CB or fused switch operation with covers on 0 N N CB or fused switch operation with covers off 1 Y N Work on energized electrical conductors and 2* Y Y circuit parts, including voltage testing Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts of utilization equipment fed 2* Y Y directly by a branch circuit of the panelboard or switchboard General Notes(applicable to the entire table): (a) Rubber insulating gloves are gloves rated for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which work will be done. (b) Insulated and insulating hand tools are tools rated and tested for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which wok will be done, and are manufactured and tested in accordance with ASTM F 1505, Standard Specification for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools. (c)Y=yes (required), N=no (not required). (d) For systems rated less than 1000 volts,the fault currents and upstream protective device clearing times are based on an 18 in. working distance. (e) For systems rated 1 kV and greater,the Hazard/Risk Categories are based on a 36 in. working distance. (f) For equipment protected by upstream current limiting fuses with arcing fault current in their current limiting range (1/2 cycle fault clearing time or less), the hazard/risk category required may be reduced by one number. Specific Notes(as referenced in the table): 1. Maximum of 25 kA short circuit current available; maximum of 0.03 sec(2 cycle)fault clearing time. Tasks Performed on Energized Equipment Hazard/Risk Rubber Insulating Insulated and Category Gloves Insulating Hand 600 V Class Motor Control Centers(MCCs)- Note 2 (except as indicated) Perform infrared thermography and other non-contract inspections outside the 1 N N restriced approach boundary CB or fused switch or starter operation with 0 N N enclosure doors closed Reading a panel meter while operating a 0 N N meter switch CB or fused switch or starter operation with 1 N N enclosure doors open Work on energized electrical conductors and 2* Y Y circuit parts, including voltage testing Work on control circuits with energized 0 Y Y electrical conductors and circuit parts 120 V Work on control circuits with energized 2* Y Y electrical conductors and circuit parts>120 Insertion or removal of individual starter 4 Y N "buckets" from MCC- Note 3 Application of safety grounds, after voltage 2* Y N Removal of bolted covers (to expose bare, 4 N N energized electrical conductors and circuit Opening hinged covers (to expose bare, 1 N N energized electrical conductors and circuit Work on energized electrical conductors and 2* Y Y circuit parts of utilizzation equipment fed General Notes(applicable to the entire table): (a) Rubber insulating gloves are gloves rated for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which work will be done. (b) Insulated and insulating hand tools are tools rated and tested for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which wok will be done, and are manufactured and tested in accordance with ASTM F 1505, Standard Specification for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools. (c)Y=yes (required), N=no (not required). (d) For systems rated less than 1000 volts,the fault currents and upstream protective device clearing times are based on an 18 in. working distance. (e) For systems rated 1 kV and greater,the Hazard/Risk Categories are based on a 36 in. working distance. (f) For equipment protected by upstream current limiting fuses with arcing fault current in their current limiting range (1/2 cycle fault clearing time or less), the hazard/risk category required may be reduced by one number. Specific Notes(as referenced in the table): 2. Maximum of 65 kA short circuit current available; maximum of 0.03 sec(2 cycle)fault clearing time. 3. Maximum of 42 kA short circuit current available; maximum of 0.33 sec(20 cycle)fault clearing time. Tasks Performed on Energized Equipment Hazard/Risk Rubber Insulated and Category Insulating Insulating Hand 600 V Class Swtichgear(with power circuit breakers or fused switches)- Note 4 Perform infrared thermography and other non-compact 2 N N inspections outside the restricted approach boundary CB or fused switch operation with enclosure doors closed 0 N N Reading a panel meter while operating a meter switch 0 N N CB or fused switch operation with enclosure doors open 1 N N Work on energized electrical conductors and circuit parts, 2* Y Y including voltage testing Work on control circuits with energized electrical conductors 0 Y Y and circuit parts 120 V or below, exposed Work on control circuits with energized electrical conductors 2* Y Y and circuit parts> 120 V, exposed Insertion or removal (racking) of CBs from cubicals, doors 4 N N open or closed Application of safety grounds, after voltage test 2* Y N Removal of bolted covers (to expose bare, energized 4 N N electrical conductors and circuit parts) Opening hinged covers (to expose bare, energized electrical 2 N N conductors and circuit parts) General Notes(applicable to the entire table): (a) Rubber insulating gloves are gloves rated for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which work will be done. (b) Insulated and insulating hand tools are tools rated and tested for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which wok will be done, and are manufactured and tested in accordance with ASTM F 1505, Standard Specification for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools. (c)Y=yes (required), N=no (not required). (d) For systems rated less than 1000 volts,the fault currents and upstream protective device clearing times are based on an 18 in. working distance. (e) For systems rated 1 kV and greater,the Hazard/Risk Categories are based on a 36 in. working distance. (f) For equipment protected by upstream current limiting fuses with arcing fault current in their current limiting range (1/2 cycle fault clearing time or less), the hazard/risk category required may be reduced by one number. Specific Notes(as referenced in the table): 4. Maximum of 35 kA short circuit current available; maximum of up to 0.5 sec(30 cycle)fault clearing time. Tasks Performed on Energized Equipment Hazard/Risk Rubber Insulating Insulated and Category Gloves Insulating Hand Other 600 V Class(277 V through 600 V, nominal) Equipment- Note 2(except as indicated) Lighting or small power transformers (600 V, maximum) Removal of bolted covers (to expose bare, 2* N N energized electrical conductors and circuit parts) Opening hinged covers (to expose bare, 1 N N energized electrical conductors and circuit parts) Work on energized electrical conductors and 2* Y Y circuit parts, including voltage testing Application of safety grounds, after voltage test 2* Y N Revenue meters (kW-hour, at primary voltage and current) Insertion or removal 2* Y N Cable trough or tray cover removal or installation 1 N N Miscellaneous equipment cover removal or 1 N N installation Work on energized electrical conductors and 2* Y Y circuit parts, including voltage testing Application of safety grounds, after voltage test 2* Y N Insertion or removal of plug-in devices into or 2* Y N from busways General Notes(applicable to the entire table): (a) Rubber insulating gloves are gloves rated for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which work will be done. (b) Insulated and insulating hand tools are tools rated and tested for the maximum line-to-line voltage upon which wok will be done, and are manufactured and tested in accordance with ASTM F 1505, Standard Specification for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools. (c)Y=yes (required), N=no (not required). (d) For systems rated less than 1000 volts, the fault currents and upstream protective device clearing times are based on an 18 in. working distance. (e) For systems rated 1 kV and greater,the Hazard/Risk Categories are based on a 36 in. working distance. (f) For equipment protected by upstream current limiting fuses with arcing fault current in their current limiting range (1/2 cycle fault clearing time or less), the hazard/risk category required may be reduced by one number. Specific Notes(as referenced in the table): 2. Maximum of 65 kA short circuit current available; maximum of 0.03 sec (2 cycle)fault clearing time. i AWA NIN Arc Flash and Shock Hazard Present Appropriate PPE Required Arc Flash Hazard Boundary 4.0 ft Incident Energy in cal/cm2 Refer to Table Hazard Category Working Distance Refer to Table Refer to Table Shock Hazard Exposure 480 VAC Insulating Gloves Class Refer to Table Minimum PPE Requirements Refer to Table Shock Hazard when covers removed Limited Approach Boundary Refer to Table Restricted Approach Boundary Refer to Table Prohibited Approach Boundary Refer to Table Equipment MCC-1 07-12-2011 CIELO FAULT CURRENT CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS NoText Cielo Pump Station ETap Model Assumptions 1. General: a. As-built drawings were used to acquire the cable lengths for major feeders. The cable lengths are always rounded down to achieve the worst-case scenario b. All transformers of 250 WA and below or 208V and below were used as point load in the model. NFPA does not require Arc Flash studies on system of 200 volts or less powered by transformers of 250KVA and smaller. c. 2 Second maximum fault clearing time. 2. Circuit Breakers: a. All information used was based on collected field data. Updated data is located on ProjectWise. 3. Point Loads: a. Load was entered as the Full Load rating of transformer 4. Motors: a. Used typical current provided by ETap based on motor HP b. 1800 RPM 5. RVSS's: a. Since all of the RVSS's have by-pass contactors, the RVSS starters were not modeled. This is a valid assumption because in a fault condition, the bypass contactor will not restrict the fault current contribution of the motor. 6. Separate Enclosures: a. 480V Cabinets and Panels are included in the Arc Flash calculation. This includes external RVSS's, Power Panels, Disconnects, etc. 7. Cable: a. NEC cable with Rubber 2 insulation b. 75 degree C c. 600 V 8. Running Conditions a. The arc flash labels are based on the worst case of two separate scenarios. i. Power provided by SDG&E ii. Power provided by an standard 800 kW portable generator. iii. Each of the above options at 70% of the available arcing fault current from the utility. 1. SDG&E could not offer a minimum fault current, so a recommendation of 70% from a separate utility was utilized. 1 pwWCarollo/Documents/Error!Unknown document property name.Error!Unknown document property name./Error!Unknown document property name.Error!Unknown document property name.(Error!Unknown document property name.Error!Unknown document property name.) NoText CIELO ORIGINAL DEVICE SETTINGS NoText Project: ETAP Page: 1 Location: 7.1.00 Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Base Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings Fuse: Cooper MFR: Cooper Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: Bay-O-Net(High Ampere) kV: 15.500 LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Speed: Other Int.kA: 2.500 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) Size: C05 Cont.Amp: 125.000 MFR: S&C Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SM-4 kV: 17.000 LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Speed: Standard Int.kA: 12.500 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) Size: 150E Cont.Amp: 150.000 MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SELA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 30 Cont.Amp: 30.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SE Sensor: 20 Rating Plug: 20.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MAX CB: ACP-2 CB MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SELA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 30 Cont.Amp: 30.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SE Sensor: 30 Rating Plug: 30.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MAX Project: ETAP Page: 2 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Base Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 400 Rating Plug: 400.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MIN MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MIN Project: ETAP Page: 3 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Base Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MIN MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SELA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 30 Cont.Amp: 30.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SE Sensor: 25 Rating Plug: 25.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MAX MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SS 2500 Rating: 100 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 2500 Cont.Amp: 2500.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Power+(ICCB) Sensor: 2500(LIG) Rating Plug: 2500.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup 1.000 LTBand 1 INST Inst.Pickup 5.000 Project: ETAP Page: 4 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Base Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: Siemens Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SITI'D6 Rating: 100 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 2500 Cont.Amp: 2500.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: Siemens Model: STD w/ETU Sensor: 2500 Rating Plug: 2500.00 Phase Setting Ground Setting Long-Time LT Pickup 1 Ground Pickup 0.38 LT Band 8 Ground Band 0.5 I^xt=IN Short-Time ST Pickup 2.5 ST Band 0.1 I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 5 MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 400 Rating Plug: 400.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MAX Project: ETAP Page: 5 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Base Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 4 MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 5 Project: ETAP Page: 6 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Base Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 400 Rating Plug: 400.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup MAX CIELO REVISED DEVICE SETTINGS NoText Project: ETAP Page: 1 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Revision 1 Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings CB: MCC-2 MAIN MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SS 2500 Rating: 100 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 2500 Cont.Amp: 2500.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Power+(ICCB) Sensor: 2500(LIG) Rating Plug: 2500.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup 1.000 LTBand 1 INST Inst.Pickup 2.500 MFR: Siemens Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SHI'D6 Rating: 100 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 2500 Cont.Amp: 2500.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: Siemens Model: STD w/ETU Sensor: 2500 Rating Plug: 2500.00 Phase Setting Ground Setting Long-Time LT Pickup 1 Ground Pickup 0.38 LT Band 8 Ground Band 0.5 I^xt=IN Short-Time ST Pickup 2.5 ST Band 0.1 I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 3 MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 400 Rating Plug: 400.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 5 Project: ETAP Page: 2 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Revision 1 Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 4 MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 4 Project: ETAP Page: 3 Location: T LOC Date: 05-16-2011 Contract: Revision: Revision 1 Engineer: Filename: CieloPS Protective Device Settings MFR: General Electric Tag#: 3-Phase kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Model: SKLA Rating: 65 kA, 0.48 kV LG kA: 0.00 Asym.(Calc.) Size: 800 Cont.Amp: 800.000 Base kV: 0.000 (Calc.) LV Solid State Trip Device MFR: General Electric Model: Spectra RMS SK Sensor: 600 Rating Plug: 600.00 Phase Setting Long-Time LT Pickup Fixed LTBand Fixed Short-Time ST Pickup Fixed ST Band Fixed I^xt=IN INST Inst.Pickup 4 NoText CIELO ORIGINAL TIME CURRENT CURVE NoText x 0 N C) H O N N O Imo" P� Q Q1 O O U N 11'4 U U Seconds Y N N Q Y Q Y n 0 N� -O Z Q W J O U at U U ° O O N.�O u) US u.� _ .....:::::::::... U U co (n(n(n ....::::::::::::�:::.... oc) ........::::::::::::::::........... .-. o oc)....................... : N U 1 = o v Y JI Y w Z N N O O c c 0 0 u u _ Y Y a o E � Ea o o a Z_ Z_ U n N N a U Y U - U J) N U u) a ° a p �Q E Qz< rNi a p v m°Q °S n Q X fl-II `m-2 m S a x w N (n m-O -O v -O C7 U N UI E UI N I �- L- N-O N-O o-O U a Q Q Q !Z Q "°Wii�ii1 iD iO� ' �E Q E Qz< Q o Lu a l l all Q>d. d Q o U (6 d j U d ° N W m p v N 0 E dm dm O�(n U v m O H H I-I- w N p N 000 N v d C7 LLJJ(n(n- HINOQ Q NN II Q co� II II ° Q U W a II N a II a II c,4 11 � U w 11 =�� = U O U d N O O.�? (6 U N d v E U yam E Eamdm - c G (D Cn J J C LL J J Cn Cn C C _ a�U W N Y N m N spuooes x 0 N C) H O N N O Imo" P� Q Q1 O O U N 11'4 U U Seconds Y Y Y Y Y O U z v Z a O QQ— O ox °o o N W I�O ) D K LL II p F-- Q II p a u) a 00 N dm W N O N E -2 - O _ Y u)LL 00 o Y 6 O E a 0 o a - Z Z �j N N a U) U U a O O a X o o x F Ew o w I Q Q Q Q 3 0 U_ w a o U W N Y N m N spuooas x H a � a o � N o � i � a Seconds Y O O O s N d X Y E Y C -6 .:. O2 M C O tb Z Cn CO cn G),- C V L t} ad UZ ... x mOC) ... ..... J O O X 7 O m 2 Y °a J N U) dtl7 rL ii 0 � a o_ 06 06 ,I: It 0 0 n u N a o E n F d o 0 0 o Z � � Z iv N m N o- Y E w U n N N o Q (� U a O m Q co u E Q �+ a U Ea x Z to m'o 4 o it oo °'d-4 °o X w Q L� m� x v °:_°- u~i......... ro oo �xN d°LD oo N a �a'� xLL x n 0, oU Ju> w Q u ii a u- a cA U) m d 3 taco arr a 1 . Z a..o,- cv° Z o u uo - u m �� n tj C) N U 'M U M CL Y U N a rr a lr W a it m o N Ei-'a oo aY�- c N mu -o @ h H h h G N p y Z N N 95 U <? p_ O v rod d 0LLJJ'n(0 �INom¢ U NN'- d ch E Ed¢]d0] yam 5 -�c(na"i OD n�J E:. o 2JiJ W tl m spuo0as x H a � a o � N o � i � a Seconds Y O O s Y Y Y Y pr 0 `O O O S O 11 11 N 0 N y d n K LL o o 6 4 a a 0 v v O o n u Y N a o E E a 0 o a ° Z Z_ v CJ N N a U U ° 2 a O O ° O O U X X wi Q- 1I O E E _U E .� g 2JiJ W LL m spu009S \ \ e � - - �— - - : § Seconds ° \ \ fa ) a \ (±® 2 :. t » } ... { , C. ` j § § E \ ƒ ƒ % k ( G @ § } 3 3 2 ° z E ` \ \ ° E « \} — o_ : \ e ){E <-I \ ®— ` t y, = [ ° \ {)% \If \ ( ƒ <- ! 2r < \ - _� [ %/ ® k`t ( ; / - ~ ° - ® % yJ% }- �_ _ < ! _ _ \\� woitLL & a77 ;\ , � § ƒ\\ \ CE Ca K !- ® ) Eiim0- / ; ;/)/ & 3:tEE%\ /(/< } ±Jet22fk ))stf }\\\\ , , %u a 0 N 0 H 0 N �! N U H O I � N a I U U Seconds Y ugoi togs Y Y Y Y J O o= �Omi7 — 41 UD ovs Kii o o O O Q. M O GD a 4 E a 0 N N a U U ° a O O ° O O m U x o ® x h w i E @ LL d � o LL gin t�wi� .- N spumes x H N 0 o o i U N LL Seconds Y N N a Q � v � 0� U Uv� Z- w � �S 06 m o �p UIUU� a ` o °omL�o J U U m U 11 0 I 0< 00 Y 1 Y o0 CN U O O 9xvm II II 'r'Oma Y lLl Y m Z v O O � 06 c c 0 0 u u v Y Y E o E � E E a O o a 0 Z_ Z_ U rn N N a a U Y Q U U) in N o. p a O 12 E aZQ N Q moQ Q II o a QZQ x X m a 7t, N Q O I I O d E p W w D d oo nm a v N a 6�,n Z d°L ,n Q E Q x o L L I a l B l 0 Q > 2! n LL Q N _o LLl O la II la D 10 U N.0 M, O U 'E a / a m v N 0 Q U LL J J 0 0— (D U) d E a�O CO,W N Y N m N spuooas x H N a � o � o i U N LL Seconds Y Y Y Y Y O 0N U O O ZVg > > = N O N O m 2 Y Y N N ONKii � o � O O c c 0 0 u u Y Y a o E ui a 0 o a Z Z v N N N a U) U U a O O U 'a X o o x F wi N N Q Q Q N Q D U_ v m a�o U W N Y N m N spuooas CIELO REVISED TIME CURRENT CURVE NoText x 0 N C) H O N N O Imo" P� Q Q1 O O U N 11'4 U U Seconds Y N N Q Y Q Y [n........... n 0 N� -p � Z� m a 0 V-O w O U m E U U O J O O N.�O u) US�.� _ .....:::::::::... U UmOU cn UUU� ....::::::::::::-:::.... O U o 1 o Z '^ N inO�a Y JI Y w Z w � D N N O O c c 0 0 u u _ Y Y a o E � Ea o o a Z Z_ U rn N N a U Y U U U N U U a in fl- o a o i Q E Q z °-rNi a o v mo< co :I E Q a 1G aco rn xn L n o n � x a QII �_o -oo mo �- w L- O-O'- U O- Q E Sao ii .ALL`i l' im o� L ova Q °o a E LL z E W 10_I I O.� N Z O d Q Q O II a0 ¢ U (D 0 v H O N^O 0 U m �� md ��U d°C7 o� woo coy v Eamdm o�� `n 3[I w N HH I--I-- N p NZ Z .0 00- N d C7 LL J J(n(n Q Q N N II Q u) II II O Q U W O. N a II a II U O U d N O O o (6 U N d v E U yam E Eo- - c � G C 7 u)J J C LL J J u)u)C C _ L U W N Y N m N spuooas x 0 N C) H O N N O Imo" P� Q Q1 O O U N 11'4 U U Seconds Y Y Y Y Y Q Q 63 K Y E E Y V R U O_a O QQZ O vz v, 11 o O r'JI o N o o O� N W Im O ) D K LL II O p I-- Q II p a co a co N dm W N O N E -2 - O _ Y J)LL 00 o Y 6 O E a 0 o a - Z Z �j N N a U) U U a O O a X o o x F Ew o w I Q Q Q Q 3 0 U_ w a o U W N Y N m N spuooes x H a � a o � N o � i � a Seconds Y O O O s v d X Y E Y O� M C O tb z Cn CO cn G3,- C O d r r X r t} UmOCO) O N Y Y W 4 .....::......... r .............. ... ' V o L 2 Y °a J N UD dtl7 rL ii 0 a � 06 06 't It 0 0 n u N a o E n F d o 0 0 d Z � � Z iv N m N o Y a w U n N N o Q (� U a �Q E QZ O m Q co u Q E W a 11 ^ Ez E ¢ Q- 01 o v� au m E o �° x i xv �'o j �'' r° a< C Ju n Q 41 Qp 11 u- 11 iz a w v d Cy1, u7 M L�•N tV uo au all Q u Z o, u u o u m II o 'a n > u cN Mvvvo@a r U wall ao En_mam oo�� tV @ u -o @I-F-I-to-G N a M N q) a5 U <3 and o and E Ea mam yam WOE 2i 00— E:. o 2JiJ W ti m spu00as Seconds pr 0 Cl) CD G 11 11 2 >0 O x ry 0 0- 06 C) C) 0 E E a 0 CJ (N 6 C) w U) 2 0 C) X x wi E E < < 2 t E 2 SPU009S a 0 N 0 H 0 N �! N u H 0 O O u N a U U Seconds Y u®4i O W a Y Q s' Y L r S> uj ` L Y L 06 U O G ,0 (n CO CO CO� a CO U t.1m4U -� o¢c .......... rt .. •- rF. N U`o ® O a6O�a 11 11 b q'I p �" N ..w N V' OD Dv5 CL Ii O O ly a — o a d CO 0 0 u u E E 9L E a 0 0 z z {V N a 0 (1 m f.3 m a C/) E (Q 4 a n N v o 0 C) N a E �U E a E z N {V h h a d x Of, E Q_ a. oN a s Un N E ° x 4 moo � i�Q u> 00 .ona qZE y =a Q w E oo° < ° m�° ~ ° oa`t E LL E n If o M a'2 a w m �<v 00 C7oo fl a u� c x m x vs °0Cn a n 5 x3 �m'So,vU s c � � Q i °v QZ W0 it ILL ¢� } U) a if N v CEamam o�( v E E'amam CJ marry Q in If Cl)U)G (}(n J J - _ N E O GO N a�t�wiz .- N spumas a 0 N 0 H 0 N �! N u H 0 O O u N a U U Seconds Y ugoi togs Y Y Y Y J O o u ='!i° 11 11 0.5 — 41 UD o z K ii o o O O Q. M O GD a 4 E a 0 0 a ° N N a C) U ° a O O ° O O m U x q x w i Q @ LL E E d � o LL rid .- N spumas x H N a � o � o i U N LL Seconds Y N N a Y E Y Q � v � 0 - U Uv�w E!z� �S 06 m o �p V) U) ) o 0 o U O A 1 O .......... O U c .............................. p v Z'� w O O o x �nO1 m II II a Y lLl Y m Z v O O c c 0 0 u u v Y Y a o E 0 E E a O O 0 n N U N 0 a U E U v U Y Q U U) N a p O E a E z in N Q in U o a O v �QE Q— °- m ow °- a v11 w E X m Q co II E Sri o a E z E m a Q a O p N x 0 L LQ N Q O—,, 8 Q N a E O x W 0- all E U) o�-o -o"rcoi j� w m N x 0(D CO �-o.� _ co< d—�n Q a.X .X N V OO L d M J N Q n L v LL X w II N O(n DOS N Z O_ LLl a 11 13 1a 11 a Q �. (n a 1 1a LLl O 1a 11 1a 0 m "O O�j > U 111-O O O N 10 U .�? an d 1 U N N N.0 N.�? M-d 0.2 -d / Eamam o�u5 EEamam U v I N 0 Q u)L L J J U)U)— :5 (D(n d E a�O U W N Y N m N spuooes x H N a � o � o i U N LL Seconds Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y oN U O_a O O oz N ` > > o in x w o Y Y N N ONKii � o � O O c c 0 0 u u Y Y a o E ui a 0 o a Z Z v N N N a U) U U a O O U 'a X o o x F wi N N Q Q Q N Q D U_ v m a�o U W N Y N m N spuooas CIELO ORIGINAL ARCH FLASH RESULTS NoText oO O O O Rt Rt �t +, +, +, +, M +, +, +, +, +, U U U U U U U U U U U U = U 0bi0 0bi0 0bi0 0bi0 N N N •L •L •L •L LL LL LL LL LL s s s s L L L � � � •3 •3 •3 •3 •3 L L L L L O O O O O O O O O O O O f6 f6 f6 f6 C C C 00 00 00 00 m m m 00 00 00 00 00 C •C C • C • C • C C NO O O O O 6 6 6 6 } } } } L L L O O O O O VI VI VI VI > O > O > O -d U L U L U L U L U L bio C U C U C O O O O O C C C C +� +� +, L +� +� +� +� f6 m m m f6 f6 f6 CL CL CL CL L L L L L L L L L O O O O O O tw tw tw tw O L O L O L O O O O O O O O N C� 'O C� -O C� CL C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ > > > > C: E C: E C: E .N L L L L L O O O O i t].a i 00 i 00 i 00 > > > > > s L s L s L s L4� E O O O O O O C y a) y a) y a) y a) C C C C C C 3 C L C L C L C L C L m m E m E " a) " a) " a) " a) " a) a s s s o > o > o > o > o >> > > 1 > 1 CL E CL CL w� a� a� a) 0 3 ° 3 ° 3 ° 3 ° 3 ° a) — a) — a) — a) — c E c E c E t�.a 00 00 00 L N L L � L 4- L 4- L 4- L 4- L C C m C m C -a O O O O O O O O O O Yd O C O C O C O C N N N N t o t o 00 00 00 d L .0 L .0 L ,0 L ,0 Cc.O to = to C 00 C 00 C 00 C 00 C 00 to U U U U s s s N i6 O (6 O (6 O (6 O (6 O 4 "" } }� �} }� 0 C L W L W L W L W L W a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.1 O 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U O O O O Op U 00 U 00 U (L6 Q (L6 Q (L6 Q (L6 Q E C — C — C ••6 E ••6 E ••6 E ••6 ••6 +, +, +1 +, +1 E L L L L L .� C .� C w = U U U U U c c c c � CL � CL � CL E m E m E m E m E m -a ° -a ° E E E_ E E_ E E_ E E_ E E m E m E m E = E = E = E = E = -- E -- E -- E -- E -- E +, +, +, 4, N f6 N f6 N m i •C: i •C: i •C: i •C: i •C: c c c c > o o s E s E s E s E s E 0 0 0 0 000 000 000 > + > + > + > + > Ln W tin tin tinsss a) C a) c a) c a) C a) C c c c C +1 +1 +1 a) m a) m a) m a) nz 2 m O O O N CL N CL N CL N CL N CL C C C C C 41 41 41 O O O O O C C C C O O O — — — — — Z Z Z Z Q Q Q LL LL LL LL LL O T Ln U r- 00 �o r- �o �o �o 00 I- 00 I- 00 tM O O O O c I ci c I c I c I O a o m N R ar ip u M M N M N N N r O O O O M M M rn W U 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 m w w w > z Z Z J cn E cn E cn Ln N > > > N N O CL CL 0 U U U V U N U U N Ln U U N c-I ci N N M Q Q 0. Q Q E Q 2 2 2 CL CL CL CL CL e e e / / / / A A LL LL LL 3 3 3 / f / f / f o o o & e & e & e _ ,E _ / / / / / / E y E y E y \ 2 \ 2 \ 2 [ E E E E E E f t 'E t 'E t 'E e \ o 76 0 -�6 o 76 o E G E G E G R \ \ \ 0 = = � % 0 0 0 0 0 0 / \ \ \ •~ \ % \ % \ 0 / ° \ y \ \y E \ \ \ E E E 6 = u = u = e .§ .§ .§ / _ E _ E = E § = E = E = > t '� t '� t '� � E ƒ ƒ ƒ E ( : ( : ( : k k k CL C: C: C: 0 0 0 G G G » I » @ m g m \ e e e % k k k k 0 0 0 0 ƒ E $ E / / 1 / j @ ? ? rlj 0-1 CL cL I e CIELO REVISED ARCH FLASH RESULTS NoText cO O O O - r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I m +(1)+ ca ca ca ca ca ca m U m m m m _ U U U U U U U n U U U U U a) a) a) L 00 L 00 L L 00 L 00 L 00 L 00 N N N N O O O O O O O bo q0 q0 q0 to to to to q0 to to C C: C C: C C: C C: C C: C C: C N O O +, O +, O +, O + + + , O , O , 4 L 4 L 4 L 4 L 4 L 4 L 4 L f6 f6 f6 f6 O U O U O U O U O U O U O U VI VI VI VI U L U L U L U L U L U L U L C C C CL a a a E E E E E �' E �' E �' E aco aco aco aco :E :E :E :E :E :E :E O > O > O > O > L E L E L E L L E L E L E L E O O O O i ha i 0.0 i 0.0 i 0.0 > > > Q- > > > > S L S L S L S L O O O .N_ O O O O a) +' a) +' a) +' a) +' O > O > O > L O > O > O > O > o a>i a�i a>i a�i a>i a�i a>i 3 ° 3 ° 3° 3 3 °3 ° 3 ° 3 ° Q. 00 U- 00 LL. 00 LL. L 00 LL 00 LL 00 LL 00 LL L h.O 00 CO 00 L L L O v C C C C O p O p O p `- O p O p O p O p O C O C O C O C to to W W W W -� to C 00 C 00 C 00 C 00 4 4� 4� 4. 4 W U U U U m O m O M O N m O m O m O m O a a) a) a) a) a O O a O O L L L L L L L L Q L Q L Q L Q m m m C: m m m m 00 00 00 00 E L E L E L E L E L E L E L E �_ E �_ E �_ E �_ E �_ E �_ E ms ms ms ms E E = E Ln E E E E -- E -- E -- E "' -- E -- E — E — E }, }, }, }, L C L C L C L C L C L C L C E ,s„ Es„ E ,s„ E ,s„ E ,s„ E ,s„ E O O O O N a) Ln a) �n a) �n a) Ln a) Ln ao ao ao ao a) c c c c c c c c c c c a) nz a) nz a) nz a) nz a) nz a) nz a) nz a+ a+ a+ 4_ Q Q Q Q Q a) a) a) a) tiA tiA tiA = tiA = tiA = tiA = ao = E E E E c U- � LL. � LL. c LL. c LL. c LL. � U- O s O s O s O s O s O s O -r- 0 O O o '3 3 3 3 3 3 3 z z z z O R N R 00 l0 I� N N N � 00 r- 00 I� O � a o m N i0E (�j M M N M c I ci ci l0 Ln l0 Ln O O O O O N N N M ~ W U 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O m w w Lu > Z Z Z } J N N Q N N Q 4 N r-4 N � N N N 0_ d N N U U N c-I c-I N N Q Q <l< 0. Q 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ e e e e / / / / / A A / f / f o o o o 6 to & e 6 to 6 to _ .E _ .E _ .E _ .E / / / / / / / / E y E y E y E y - - - - \ 2 \ 2 \ 2 \ 2 5 E E E E E E E E E t 'E t 'E [ _ •§ _ •§ _ •§ _ •§ / ( £ ( 3 ( £ ( £ / o o o o _ _ _ _ a § § § § \ 00 E 00 E 00 E 00 U- 4- \ \ \ $% % % % E } }} } \% \ % \ % \ % 2 y \ y \ y \ y \ a E E E E ( \ E \ E E\ k E / E '� E '� E '� E e E - E - E E / t 'E t 'E t 'E t '( / ƒ E ƒ � ƒ � ƒ � ( : ( ( c ( _ E _ E _ E = E =E =/ = 2 3 2 j 2 3 2 3 E k U k E k E k I r": I » w e w w \ \g m g m e e e e z e k k k k k 0 0 0 0 0 ƒ $ E $ E / > m > m + + 1 / @ ? 0-1 CL I C L e APPENDIX D: Net Present Value Calculations for Solar Photovoltaic Options NoText O Ln O OFF O M V O N E O I V W r r O� O O W r N M O O co O 0 M n O ; V O O 0 O y V O V O V O 0 V O CO Ln W CO .0 V O n O W W V .0 V O CO CO O C (O Ln co N O 00 00 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln o0 00 00 co co N M V (0 I� co O N M Ln C= O) W r r o0 00 N W V O o0 N W V O o0 N o V O O Lo r M O CO N W V O �>—,Q O N O O) o r r o0 o0 o0 o o T V V M M N N N M M M N N 0 0 0 LL a ��L E C O U O() O to Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O Lo o0 ;T V co N (0 O V Lo O) co W co N (0 O V I � Lo O) co mo O CO r O O CO r r CO (0 Ln V V CO N N O O) O) CO CO I (0 CO Ln V V O O O W CO V V Ln T co N O O) co r (0 Lo V M N co O) co r (0 Lo V M N O C= o0 O o M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) M co co co co co co co co co CO Q D O) 0 0 0 0 V V V V V V M M M M M M M M W M M M M M M M M M M a LL N 'I)L C f/) o O() to Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O co N r V Lo r y O o0 O N V I� N O N O V o0 W co r co V co Lo O O O co co O o0 o CO O) Ln V co Lo CO Lo Co CO M Ln r V N V N CO Ln N O V O Co Co V V Lo V I� �_ Ln O) V O) Ln r V O) r- O) Ln Ln Lo (0 I O) N Lo O) M L 0 M V W O) N M 0 CO W O M 0 CO cO N V 0 W O N 0 � O) N O) V V Ln Ln Ln o o o o0 CO o0 o0 o0 o0 M I� r r r co co co co co O U N M � N 75 O O LL C C Q ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl co co V O o0 co o0 O V I N O_ co r Lo co O O O O O 9 r r r r r (n N !6� C N w� ()�E C ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl fH fH ffl Ln CO r CO (0 V O) O V N Ln (0 Ln M N CO W W V O) Cl) W o0 W r V O Cl) C Ln o0 O co O o0 CO O) co O co V o N W O) o0 O) I N N O) N N O) M T N O M o0 O M_ W N r N o Ln o o0 V M N N M o W T O) V O) CO Cl) U r co O N V Ln r co O N Cl) Ln r O) Cl) Ln r O) Cl) o0 co O Cl) Ln CO V O V T Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln o0 00 00 00 00 o0 I� r r r r W co co co O) O) O) O) O O a o a.) a- 2) N C w ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O O CO (0 O) V O Ln V V (0 O) M CO Ln CO N V (0 O CO V CO V CO O co CO O) N Ln O) co o0 O V co N o0 Lo O Lo O Lo O (0 co O) LO N co LO 0 0 0 0 N N M M M V V _ Ln o0 0D I� r W W O) O) O O N N M � N N N N N N T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N C Y w w—' 06 ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl fH fH ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O o 0 0 o O O I� M O o0 M O) o0 M O) CO N O) o N O) o N co o co o W O LO 0 0 O O N O Ln Ln CO I� r W W O) O O N N M V V Ln CO CO I� W W O) O O N N M V N O LO O O O) O O O O O N O C Ln V M N O O) co co r CO Lo V M N O O) co r CO Ln V V M N O O) CO O O o0 0 0 0 0 0 o Ln CO O - _- M M M N O M W oo Ln V M N O O) CO Io 00 V Co') N O t� W r CO Ln V N 1) Ln O) N co co co M I� U r r r r CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V V V V V V V V LD N V N O O O M O O V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V a N O T O C w � ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl C O O Ln V W o0 OF V V O F M M O V V N M W V F M o0 O M Q S O Ln O o0 N O V M N N N N V O O N O M O co o0 O o0 co O V co O M V o0 O) M o r O) M Ln r O N Ln M O M Lo co V r- V r- ^, Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln CO CO CO CO CO I� r r r SS W O) O) O) O) O O o V ` C V Q L LL 06 > L^ _ N R O w o N o U W 0 !6 N (6 J R N y (t7 o E 7 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl EH EH 69 69 A� O W Lp V C d O w C ^Vf L` N 2 a) N (6 T Q O W N O >� O (D C C (6 (6 ) u) W (O L a U c6 O w Ln N a o d o .o N a°i m a� a .o � > @O N � Q t o ° C m m o m m ° Q w 2 a z� o m _ w fl- Z o a s ° E a a� (6 (_ C m 0 (n O Lf Q !6 N C O 0 0 > �S s °� > Q y <a <a <a <a <s <s c9 c9 eq eq c9 eq eq eq c9 c9 eq eq <s c9 eq eq c9 c9 eq eq c9 - <a <a <a w r Q m (D � m m /� din in LU oOww (w .E .E 2 W d (�(� N 2 N O O a a O N M V LO (O I� W O) O N M V Ln CO I� W O) O N M V Ln CO I� W O)UOm a d > > N C N C > 6 6 N d r z a a > Q > Q Co U) Q a 0 0 z z O V M p O O V M W n W M � V O O O O O n O O O W M O O O 0 W O n O M O 0 V M W O O 2 W O m O W O CO CO CO W V Cl) Cl) V W LO V (D O) 00 O) 0) co (D r I� �_ r CO O C O 0 m M N N N N N M V LO CO co O N LO O LO O N CO LO O LO CO N C= 0 co O V I� N r r r r r r r r r r W W W W O V V Lo Ln CO CO I� r W W o ��—,Q O CO V co CO M N O o co r CO LO V M N O o V M N O o co r CO LO V a w Ln Ln Ln V V V V V V M M M M co M M M M M N co co co M M N N N N N N � �L E C O 0 [) O U to Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O CO V O O CO M O W Ln M O r Ln N O CO V O) CO M E W Ln M mo O co N I� co CO Ln O N CO O V I� Lo co N CO O I� Ln co N CO O M I� p O co I� N_ O co V co CO co co Lo M O r Lo N O r V N O CO V O) CO co C= O N CO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co co co r r r r V CO CO L o l l V V V V Q O CO N CO CO N N O 0 0) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O a LL n �L C f/) o O() to Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O CO Lo E W CO N CO co N o � N V O N co I� CO co O V CO CO Lo E co N Lo N CO O O CO O O I� co O co W N CO CO N O co O r r Lo CO O N O N O co O Lo O Lo co o Lo O Lo o I— r r o Lo O N V co co Ln W N co Lo V V L O O N Ln CO 0 0) CO CO O) CO O V CO N CO Ln O O) V O V O Ln O CO N CO co to W W W W W O) N N N M M V V V Ln Ln CO CO I� N W W O) O) c.1 N N CO N N N N N N N N N C) n O O w C C Q ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl Lo O V W N N N M O O O I� Ln jp Ln Ln V V V O 9 r r r r r (n N !6� C N w� C) C ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl fH fH Go O CO O CO CO Ln CO Ln V O 0 N V CO O Ln CO O Ln r r N CO o Ln co N M V V Ln CO I� O V O I� r O V M Ln co CO CO N V N I� O O CO p M I� CO N O I� CO CO co O V co V O_ O �_ V co M O O D �_ V O I� LO U r O M r O Q O) M W N CO CO CO CO M W O I� p N N N M M M V V V Ln L 1 CO CO I� r W W O) O) O O N M M V 0 LO -O O N N N N N N N N N N O O d !6 T> O N C w ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O O M CO O V O I� Ln V V CO O) M W Ln M N V CO O CO V M V I� W O co CO O N Ln O co CO O V co N CO Lo O Lo O Lo O CO co O Ln N co LO 0 0 0 0 N N M M M V V — Ln CO CO r W W O O O O N N N N T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N C Y w w—' 06 C7 0 co ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O o 0 0 o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O Ln O Ln O Ln O o O o O o O LO O O O O O O co W O O O O co co r r CO CO Ln o V V M M N N O O O O o o r r CO CO LO � O Lp CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO I� C o r O M CO O N Ln W M CO O N Ln W V CO O N LO W O _ M O O O O O O o o CO O _ _- M � co CO M O I� LO N O r V O CO M O co LO N O r V o CO M CO LO M W N Cfl N O co co co O O U — CO CO CO CO Ln Ln Ln V V ! V M M M M N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO LO O W V O O O O Ln N O T C w � ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl C O M CO N O M M N CO Ln O Ln C O N V F CO CO O F Q S O O CO V N N M N N V V V V r V M I� � Ln O) M I� N CO CO M� CO � CO M CO� I� N W V O Ln CO W O M O I� V � W CO V M M M M V V Ln Ln CO CO W 7 L/1 N N N N N N N N N N N N o O Q L LL �. VI 06 L^ _ R O w o N o 0 W 0 !6 N J R N y (p o E 7 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl 69 69 A� O W d L V C N O w C ^Vf 2 N N (6 T Q O W N O >� O N C C (6 (6 ) u) W p /L a C) c6 O w Ln N a o li R C O N Q N (6 C N N Y R 0 a O N O O .O > > Ln 4–o Q .0 ° C m m Q w 2 a z� o m _ w fl- Z o I a ° E a a�m cC m 0 > In (o pTi CJ '°-- o m m > > > Q y Ea Ea Ea Ea Ea Ea c9 c9 eq eq c9 eq eq eq c9 c9 eq eq Ea c9 eq eq c9 c9 eq eq c9 - Ea Ea Ea w r Q m (D � m m /� din in wOoOww (w .E .E W d (�(� N 2 p O O d a O N M V LO (O I� W O O N M V Ln CO I� W O) O N M V Ln CO I� W O UOm_ a d > > N C N C j 6 6 N d r z a a > Q > Q Co U) Q a 10101 z z O O V N N O MO D O O M W Ln N N M CO I� N N M O p C _ _ O O M O O V V M O O CO M M O W n M O O M W M NT M V W O O n , 0 0 LO O n W M O V W V O (p Cp V CM LO M r (p LO N N V M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M V LO O co O N V C= M N CO O V O N O O V co N O O V co N O O V N CO O V co N O O LO O M �>—,Q O V M O o CO O Ln Ln V M M N N 0 0 0 0 co- 0 0 0 co co r r (O o o �a LL ��L E C n O O [) O U Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O Ln N O CO Ln V N O O Ln V N O O Ln V Ln � O I� (O V N � O I� CO mo O N CO Ln O O V co N Mp M co I� Lo W N O O r W Ln M co I V co N p O CO co Ln V co O V co O co O Ln co O co r co M N O co r Ln V N O M C= O r V O I� V - - - - - O O O O O O O O O O O O O co co co co co co Q o V CO CO CO Ln Ln CO CO CO CO CO (O (O (O (O (O (O (O o o N o o o o o o o o o LO a LL rS w L C to o O() to Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O O co V V Ln M V co M O V Ln Ln O Ln Co O r r O r O V CO N co M M co O O co co O co N W O co O r Ln N r V I� W O O O r co O r W W O V I� Ln O Ln N O CO V V V Ln r O co O L O N V 0 r r W r M r 0 r r O O O O O M O O M O O co W co co W O O O O O O N N N M M V >> M O O LL C C Q fH fH fH fH fH fH eq ffl ffl ffl eq fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl CO CO CO CO M w O (fl V LO 6 O 9 O O O O O (n w !6� C w w� ()�E C ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl Ln r CO Ln Ln CO O O Ln O O O O CO O N O CO N N W N r O Ln N o O M V V O N O V LO N O r Ln V V M O o O M V V o o CO W O V p O N V (O O N (O (O N M I� o V V o (O o N O �_ V N CO LO U N V (O co O O O N o co O co N (O O V CO W W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — N N N M M M V V Ln Ln LO o w o � a m T> O w C L1J ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O O CO O O V O Ln V V O O M CO Ln CO N V O O CO V CO CO O co CO M N Ln O co O O V co N O Ln O Ln O Ln O O r co M V N co LO 0 0 0 0 N N M M M V V — Ln (O (O I� r W W O O O O N N M � N N N N N N T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w C Y L11 LLl- 06 co co ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O o 0 0 0 O O Ln O S O on O (O (O (O (O N I� N N N N N CO M M M O (p M O O O O Ln W N Ln O N CO O M (O O M o O V I� V W o W N O O N (O O M co 0 0 O O O O O O O O N o O M I� O M r O M r O V I� O V I� O V I� O V I� O V I� O V I� O V I� O CO CO O O O O O � N N O - _- M O N r O N M M M W V U N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W r r r r V M O O O LO LM O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO M O o T C Lll � ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl C M N r (O M V V N Ln O (O r V (O O M W Mn (O OF F . Q V O N O O V M M M Ln W (.Do W O r Ln (O W N r V V CO W O M Ln W O M CO O N Ln W �_ Ln N Ln O M I� Ln O V O V O V O ^, t r SS W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N CO M V V Ln Ln Ln (O (O I� r W VI O p " (NO C) LL L LL 0 o N D w o N > (p o E 7 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl EH EH 69 69 A� O W d L V C w o w C ^Vf o N N (6 T Q O W N O >� O w C C (6 (6 > u) N (p L O O LU Ln N a o d o .o N a°i m m . .o > w> > � O w 2 a z� o m _ w fl- Z w o- ° E a a�m cC m 0 M w E E w s w > Q y <a <a <s c9 eg <s c9 <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a <a eq eq eq <s 06 o m w w w > Q Lin i — z ww �t .E .E 2 06 06 W d U)� . N 2 w O O d a � O N M V LO (O I� W O O N M V Ln (O I� W O O N M V Ln CO I� W O O L (6 C (6 C w _ N N N N N N N N N N M a w > > w C w C > 2 6 6 w w > zaa > Q > Q (n (nQa00z z O V O O M M O M 00 O O M O V O O O O O M O V O O I� O O O O M M O O O (O CO O 0 V 00 O O O) O W O 0) O N_ LO O) O r O LO N_ � M r Cl) O C N I� W M M (O V O) I� Lc) V M N O O O) O) O V V LO (O CO O) Cl) LO I� O C= of I� V N O O) M V (O CO O N T (O CO O M (O M LO I� O) co (O CO O N LO ��—,Q O (O V N O CO LO LO V C N O O) CO I� r O Lo V CO I� O LO Ln V M N N O a w V V V V M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � �L E C O O [) O U Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O (O CO O Lo O) co I� Ln O) M I� Lo O) co I� Lo O) co I� Lo O) M mo O O co O O V O) I� O V M O) CO (O LO co O CO N LO M N O O O O co O) LO M LO co O) I� Ln N_ O co CO V N O O co O) O CO (O V C= N V O) V O (O N N N O O O O O O) V O) O) CO CO CO CO CO I� r O co co co W W W W W co co co co W r r r r r r r r r r r Q O (O N N N N N M a L v �L C f/) o O() Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O (O CO LO O co (o N co O (O co V O) N LO O O O) N LO co CO N O) M I� O N V co CO O N CO N V co Lo r O) O O N N co (O O) V O O) O) co O) O r- r co O) N (O M_ O O) CO CO O) O M (O O LO N O) LO (O (O O) co CO co O O) CO L N O N V (O O) CO V (O O) N LO O) N LO O) N (O O) LO Ln O) V CO CO CO N I� M M M [) o V O O w C C Q ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O (O co O) LO V O co O N LO N CO LO N V V M M M (n 9 V V V V V N C N w� ()�E C ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O N (O (O N CO LO LO O O N O r r CO Ln O (D r Ln Ln O V O) CO C (O N LO (O LO (O O) O) CO (O V N N LO O (O LO I N M O) I� O M O I� o V V T LO CO LO O) LO N O O) O) O N LO O LO N O O M (O N CO U O O) O M O O) M (O O) M I2 V CO M I� O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O M O O) O) O O O N N N M 0 0 O O T> O N C w ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O O CO (O O) V O Ln V V (O O) M CO LO CO N V (O O (O V CO CO O co (O O) N LO O) co (O O V CO N (O LO O LO O LO O (O co O) LO N CO LO 0 0 0 0 N N N M M V V LO LO I� r W W O) O) O O N M � (O (O N N N N N N N T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N C Y w w—' 06 co (o ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl V O o 0 0 o O o O o O o O o O o O O O O O O O O O O co CO O O V O O O co M O) O I� V N O r o N O r o N O r V N O r N N O r o N O r Ln N O LO O (fl I� O O) O O O O O (O O o O co O) I� V N O CO LO M O) (O V N O I� Ln co CO (O V N O) I� Lo M O O N 0 0 0 0 0 LO co M O _ _- _- M M M O) (O V N O CO LO M O) (O V N O CO LO C) O) (O N N O I� LC) M O) N O O I� N M M M O) LO U (O (O LO LO LO LO LO T V V V M M M M M N N N N O O O O O) O) O O O 0 O O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) CO a V N O T O C w � ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl C V V C Ln F M W Ln M M (O F r (O F (O r Ln O N M N O W (O Q S r r O) LO O) V CO r co O V CO LO N N r N O) CO CO O V O co N O O Lo (m co CO M CO co O M O) V O (O co O) (O N (m N M M V V V LO LO (O (O I� r W W O) O O N M M W 7 M N N N N N N N C) CO Q L LL N 06 � L^ _ _ O w o N R o o o W 0 (6 N (6 J R N y (t7 o E 7 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl EH EH 69 A� O d' U C W Lp V C O w IL C ^Vf L` N 2 a) N (6 T Q O W N O >� O (D C C (6 (6 ) u) W /L a C) m O w Ln N a o li R C O N Q� a) (6 C N N Y R U C O N O O .O > > V 4–o Q .0 ° a 2 m m Q w 2 a z� o m _ w fl- Z o I a ° E a a�m cC m 0 > In (o aTi CJ '°-- o m m > > w E E s°- > . in in c <a <a <a <a <s <s c9 c9 eq eq c9 eq eq eq c9 c9 eq eq <s c9 eq eq c9 c9 eq eq c9 - <a <a <a w > Q Q w m (D � m m /� din in wOoOww (w .E .E W d (�(� N 0 0 N O O a a O N M V LO (O I� W O) O N M V LO (O I� W O) O N M V LO (O I� W jo-) O( ( _ N N N N N N N N N M a d > > N C N C > 6 6 N d r z a a Y Q > Q Co Co Q a 0 0 z z O CO M N O) N M O V LO M CO O � O N W N M O O n O N m O V CO M M V CO W M M O M M O V M O O LO O O) O CO 0 CO O O O) V O) 0 N O O N V CO M_ O) CO O C N N CO N O) O) CO O O O LO Ln LO O O O N Cl) V LO CO W O) N V C= O O) CO CO I� M O) LO I� M O) LO I� M O) LO O CO N CO V O CO N O) LO �>—,Q O M N O O) CO O O O o o V V V M M N N N V M M N N N 0 0 0 �a W N N N ��L E C O U O() U Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O co co O co (o O) N LO CO ; V CO � V O) O co CO O) N LO O) N LO CO m O Lo O Lo O) I� O O Lo V co co N O O) O) CO CO I� O Ln V V M N N O O O CO LO co CO I� O Ln V co N O O) CO CO LO V O N O O) CO (D Lo V co C= N O CO CO V N O O O O O O O O O O) O) O) O) O) LO O) O) O) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Q O M D 0 0 0 V V V V V V V V V co co co co co CO co co co co co co co co co co a W N L C M o O() Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O CO O) CO V LO CO CO N CO O) � LO � � V V O LO N V O � CO I� r Lo Lo r Co O I� r r r O M O LO M CO N Lo CO I� O M O) LO V CO I� N M O M N CO O N N co CO — LO O) Co CO M O) LO CO CO V N N O O O co LO CO — LO O) N V LO CO CO O N V LO CO O N CO LO O) V CO LO O) CO LO CO O N M V LO LO LO LO LO LO LO CO CO CO CO CO CO M r r r r W co co co O) O) N O O W C C Q ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH fH ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl CO N N N Lo M O O W O O 9 r r r r (n N C N w� ()�E C ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl LO N LO CO V N O O) O LO LO V LO CO O) M N CO CO I� r W M N W M O) CO CO C CO O LO V I� V LO O) O) N O M O N O) O) N O V V O N CO O V V O CO O M (D O N O) CO M O) O r W O) LO_ O (D M O CO U r O) O Cl) V CO O) O N V CO O) Cl) LO O) N V CO O) V CO O) N V O V V LO LO LO LO LO LO LO CO CO CO CO CO CO co co co co O) O) O) O) O O a o a.) a m T> O N C W ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O O � CO CO O) V O I� Ln V V CO O) M CO LO CO N V CO O CO V CO V I� CO O co CO O) N LO O) co CO O V CO N CO LO O LO O LO O CO co O) LO N CO LO 0 0 —0 0 N N M M M V V LO LO I� r W W O) O) O O N N M � CO CO N N N N N N T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N C Y W W- 06 co co ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O o 0 0 o O O O) CO I� O o V M N O CO I� O o V M N O O) CO I� O o V M N O CO O LO LO O O O CO N LO V V V V V V V V V V M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N O CO co O O) O O O O O CO N o CO I� O Ln V M N � O O) CO I� O Lo V M N O O) CO r- O Lo V M N O O) O O N 0 0 0 0 0 Lo O) CO O - _- _- CO co CO LO V M N O O) CO CO LO V M N O M CO I� o V M N O M CO I� O V N LO N M M M LO V U I� r r r r r r O O O CO CO CO CO CO CO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO V V V V V LO M N O O O co O O V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V a N O T O C W � ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl C Ln O N N N W O) CO O) CO V CO V O) N O) M CO i� i Ln N W V O) LO Q M W V O O M O O O O r O) V N r M M CO V M M V LO CO CO O M LO CO CO O M LO I� O) M CO CO O M LO N O M CO O) N LO CO LO CO ` C o V V Q L LL 06 > L^ _ VI R O w o N o U W W 0 (6 N (6 m J R N y (t7 o E 7 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl 69 69 A� O W Lp V C d O w C ^Vf L` N 2 a) N (6 T Q O W N O >� O (D C (D (6 (6 ) u) W L W C) C W (U6 O W Ln VI f/1 _ N a O M C D O N N � O .O Y U N Q .0 ° � m m m o 5 w 2 a z� o fl- Z o I a ° E a aim = cC m 0 N O T U Q"' ` (6 O O (6 (6 > Ln (n U Lf� � Q m N C O 0 0 > w E E °� �S s o > Q w U) U) y ua ua ua c9 eq <s c9 c9 eq eq c9 eq eq eq c9 c9 eq eq <s c9 eq eq c9 c9 eq eq c9 -1 ua ua ua w >- Q m (D � m m /� min in WOoOWw (w .E .E W d (�(� N 2 N O O a a � O N M V LO (O I� W O) O N M V LO CO I� W O) O � N M V LO CO I� W O) O L m C L6 C w _ N N N N N N N N N O) M a d > > N C N C > 6 6 N d r zaaYQ > QlnlnQa00Z z O N V N CO O V O O M M M N CO CO O r O O O M M M N O O O CO O O O O M O O O O O 0 M (D CO LO O V O M M M M O O V � CO � V LO LO Cl)M O LO O N_ Cl)M M E CO LO W r LO CO O N O C (O LO N CO N Cl) Cl) O CO W V CO Cl) O V O O V 5 LO CO O W LO O W O Cl) O LO O LO V Cl) O M O I� Q O V CO Cl) O Cl) O r Cl) O r V O CO LO O Cl) O r V CO V CO LO �a LL CO I- r CO CO LO LO LO V V V M Cl) Cl) N N N O O O M M ��L C f/) O [) O C) U Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O CO O r V O ;T O ;T O ;T O O ;T O ;T O ;T O mo O co V M O Ln co N r N O O O Ln O V M V CO CO N I� N O O O o O O O CO V N co O N V LO I� co O co V O r co O LO T O r M O N M LO (D CO C= O O N V O W O On V M N N O M CO I� CO CO LO I� M N O O M CO Io O LO C= >j LO I� CO LO V M N N N N N N N N I� O O O O O Q O V LO LO LO LO LO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V M M M M M M M M M M a LL m �L C f/) o a5 O() Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl O co O O CO N O V O N O N co N N M O O N V M CO O O O M co LO M co CO CO O V M CO O O co W V CO N co V LO LO V LO O M r- O M V LO N CO M r- W CO N co O O Ln O M O N CO M LO O N L (O I (O LO V V M O N M LO I O M (O M M CO N CO M M LO N M (O V M N N t/1 LO CO M O N CO O N M V LO co M O N M LO (O CO M M V (O CO O N V V LO LO (O CO O co V V V V V V V V V LO LO LO LO (O LO LO CO (O (O (O (O I� r �i CO N O O LL C C Q ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ua ua ua ua ua ua ua ua ua ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O M O V O N LO CO ID LO M M I� N r (D O Ln Ln O 9 V V V T V (n O N N N N N C a) w� a5 ()E C ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl eq ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl LO M N V M LO LO I� O N Ln Ln N W M W O W O V V M M O V LO N C LO CO I� r r W N M M V LO M CO N O O r (O O M LO M N LO m O M M O I� O O �_ M O V N LO N M I� o (O N LO N T - I� r M M M O_ O co O M U O M V O W O M O M M I� N r N W V CO LO M N O N V (O O CO M O N M V (O I� co M N V LO I� co O N M LO I� M M LO I� M M V V V V V V V V V LO LO LO LO LO LO (O CO (O (O (O (O I� r r r r co CO O j T> M (1) C LL ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O O O O M �-O Co O M V O I� Ln V V O M M CO LO M N V O O CO V M V I� W M co O O V CO N O Ln O Lo O Ln O O r co M LO N CO LO 0 0 0 0 N N M M M V V LO LO (O (O r W W M M O O N N N N T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) C Y L11 LLl- 06 co (n ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl O o 0 0 o O O N M M V LO LO (O I� r CO M M O N M V V LO (O (O I� CO CO M O O O Ln N O O O LO CO LO (O m W M O N M V LO (O I� co M , N M V LO (O I� W M O N M V co M O Ln M O M 0 0 0 0 LD CO M o LO I� M E M O W O N V O co O N V I— M — M LO I� M M O co O N V co N O O O O O O O Ln r N O - CO M (O M W O N M LO CO I� W M N M V LO I� W M O M V LO CO CO M O O O O Ln N M M M V U O M CO CO I� CO LO V M N O O M CO I� CO LO V M M N O M CO I� CO CO LO V W W 0 O O N O W O (O O O O O O O CO CO O LO LO LO LO LO LO �(n c6 co - 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co co co co co co co co co M M M a T M C aLll ^, � ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl W C N r W (O M Ln V M M r (O I� W N N r r (O V M M CM O M M N M M M M M V V O M O O M N M� C O M V M N V �V M n O r N O r LO C�O r N M I� O N M LO O r M O N V LO I� M O N V O co O N V I� M V O M V 7 VI V V V V V V V V LO LO LO LO LO LO CO CO CO CO CO O W W M M > 3 o M Q _ c C� M L LL � . m 0 0 0 ^, C R W w o N_ � � o �_ V O N O a5 J R y0 E 7 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl W O d u C R W f` E O M w a5 T Q O a � V� � � (D � � O W C) � 0 m o Lu Ln a) a o R C O N Q�' a) a5 C a) a) > R C) Z C O N M O .O > > a W Q � ° (r m o m m o Q LA m o (D (D, > Q - � o m m a- o 1.4 > In o �C) E � Q m � o m m > > � w E E a`) o6 s Q aa)i > in in c (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a (a w > Q Q o w m o o E E /� din in wOoOww �� .E .E o N Q Q a5 N O O a a O N M V LO (O I� W M O N M V LO (O I� W M O N co V LO +H-) O a5 C a5 C w N N N N M a d > > a C a C > a a a d r zaa > Q > QtntnQaC) C) z z APPENDIX E: Net Present Value Calculations for Substation Options NoText O O V (O 0) O (O In o0 N o0 r M N (O w 0 M_ m N V w O N m N_ M N Fz O (O N V I� 00 O (O N V O V In o0 O o0 m O w t N M O I� V V In m = O (O m r O w r (O (3 V N N V OO In O M r O d) (3 N O o0 01 N OO O O O O N (O N OO r- (O r 0) co OO V d) OO 0) O M (O O V I: O M V In V M N m C 2r V O (O N 0) In N M (O M 00 (O V d) r (O V N M V In (O I- w m m Q O lf1 In V V M M M N N N N o � E w r E := w o UU � w O O (O 0) I- 0) V O co r o0 V In O o0 00 00 0) 00 (O N V V N M I- Cl) O O V co (O d) r 0) V V I- V In 0) I- r OO OO I- (O r r (O r O (O V V O M I- (O r M O r Nt N O OO r- (O (O to to (O (O r OO O M In OO O M (O t= O 0) I- (O V CO O 0) I- (O to V N O d) 00 r (O to V M M N O d) d) 00 r 3 N Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) N N N N N N N Q 0 o � O L o m o U w O O M M o0 M O (O M o0 M d) to M O (O V V M_ M 01 00 M M to (O V O N M M OO V cr r- d) OO V C\ N M 00 N V V (O OO IZ V OO O OO M In V O In O to O V d) M r � to d) N (O d) N V I- d) M V In (O r r o0 r r (O to L O O O M M W r r (O (O to V V CO N N O 0) 0) OO I- (O to V CO N � O C 1 00 N N V V M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N O � N LL C Q Q O O ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER O O o O O o o " m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O M M 0 0 0 0 m I- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V/ OM O O N N O O 00 M O (O O co co 01 N N (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O _ Op N O d) O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U � ` > O N O U) W NV) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER M M (O 01 0 0 r 'It N M 0 r In V (O O OO o0 O M OO V N N M r- N 01 01 O M 01 I- r O to M C I3i M M (3 (O r N (O � I- N r M d) to �_ r V O I� to N d) r to V N � O_ d) d) d) d) d) O � (O (O r r V V 01 d O N M M V In N (O r w m O N M V In r OO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M O Z a v 05 LL 0 C o R 0 0 0 _ =' U N Q� N J ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER R E N U E O 0 0 O—E � T a d o CA H U � O ` o o cm 2. U N Q > O a)R N N � a n .0 O Q Q W c n m Yu) 2 m05 m o U R O Q N O O >, N C Q > N U) o w '2 U o > » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » din � U � ° m o o c v = o = = Q05 WQNm � y C) 0(4 d N O O ( a� V n 0) O M V( m O N N N N N N N M V n O r 0 05 O In (O r o0 d) O N N N N N M V d O) = = O) O) 0 > O` N N d zcn � cncn � > 0- za z O In O N M to r 0 M O M r M M M M M O N M O M V O I- (O M M M O N 00 O V N w (O w r w to O O r r N r M w m M M N (O o0 N N O (O O M N r r N O N (O N 01 r- In N r r (O r N O N d) N O V N (O o0 O O O 00 O V O N_ I� V M V o0 M M (O N O d) N d) M to to V N o0 M != 3 0 N (O m M r N O N O to r M Q O d) 00 r (O (O to to V V M M N N N N N N N o � � w r E � y o UU � y O 0) (O (O I- (O O o0 00 I- co V 0) (O N (O r Cl) N N r d) (O to r 0) N 0) N O r Cl) r 0) 0) r- M N 00 O 00 Cl) V O N O M V N V Cl) 0) 0) Cl) N V d) O M In r O V d) to 00 to V N N N M V (O o0 �_ V o0 N r N r M O r V t= O 00 to CO O r to CO O W (O V N O W (O V N M r (O V M O d) r (O to Q 30 0 r (O (O (O (O N N N N V V V V V Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) M N N N N N N N o � O L � y o as o U y O N CC M N o0 d) M V N OC 00 to d) OC to r to C\ 00 M M (3 C\ V V CC O In r o0 O � N N M M N N � O o0 (O V � 00 to � r N r N (O d) N to r o0 L O CO N O 0) 00 I- (O to V CO N O 0) 00 I- to V CO O 00 r to CO N O W (O {A U 0Oj I- r r r r (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O to to to to to to to to V V V V V V Cl) Cl) �N O LL C Q Q O O ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER O O o O O .-' .-' mw O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V/ N O M M O O O O N (O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O N O O OO � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O I� 0 co co M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O N 0 00 o y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N d) N ` > a) N O U) W NV) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER y O O_ V 0 M O M 0 M 0 M V M O O In r r M to to M to M to N M to V I� O V O 00 O M O O N 00 r d) to V (O N N (O V (O N M 00 Oc M N r r N O o0 (O to M M_ N N N N N M V (O o0 O M (O d) M r N r N o0 to N d) r (O I..V Q r r o0 d) O N M V In (O r o0 d) O N M V In r o0 O M V (O o0 d) M N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V V V V V V V In to to to to to to (O (O }� O � y U Z a o U o 05 rL 05 0a y � O y R 0 o = U R T N Y O a) r_ 0 }i R 00 a) C O N d a) 0 > Q y W U) y O 0 C Vi R 0 C a) N .0 >7 R .�. N a Q .0 0 a O O a 'm R N y O O Q O > , N C > N w '� U o > > » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » V w C) o Q 05 W Q y a) H m m �p O O W a� O N M V In (O r o0 0) O N M V In (O r o0 d) O O d N N N a) d d } O N M V In (O r 00 d) N N N N N N N N N N M 05 V v = a) = = a) a) 0 > ° Z m v Zcn } corn } } coQaZa z O In N O (O V I� N o0 to (O N O w m r M V (0 00 O M O M N (O w N N d) 00 N N N d) O d) O o0 00 (O N d) N O d) (O r O oC N 01 O I-- O r r 00 (O N N N V 00 �_ N O N V d) 00 co co r N N N O V N_ N (O O O M_ d) (O (O o0 N o0 (O (O r (O M N N O (O M N C 3 O N r Cl) O r V 00 (O V N 0) 00 I- (O (O N N N N N N (O (O r 00 01 O „�-Q O OCL r r (O (O (O N N N V V V V V M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V R o L E ° w o UU � w O N Co co V N I- N V M_ 0) (O N o0 co V 0) 00 00 00 r co to 00 00 _� V N N V O (O N (O 00 00 N O N (O d) r N N M W M N O M M r r d) r O M N O0 N r M (3 (O M O O O O N M (O O0 N (O V 01 V o0 V r O t= O N N m (O V m (O V N O 00 (O V N O o0 (O V M N V N r o0 d) Q30 0 V V M Cl) Cl) M N N N N N L C N � o R o U w N O O O M_ M d) r V N M M d) O O (O (O M O V O V V (0 O o0 In O N O M t V O_ _ (O V I� N t m (O (O w M m (O N N N V M M N M O N (3 N N r 01 O O d) r N N 00 M 00 N_ N 00 d) 01 O N N d) N O r- •LA L O (O V CO 0) I- (O V N O I- LO CO � 00 (O M 00 LO N N (O d) N N d) co (O ` n 0 V V V V Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) N N N N N N /` O L C Q a W 6%16% 6% 6% 6% 6%16% 6% 6% 6%16% ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER 6% 6% ER ER ER ER O O 0O o O O o 0 01 OM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M O 0 00 I- n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O N 00 Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LO N O V 0 co co N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O N O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^-j L6 0o c U ^Y ` > W U) L W � ER ER ER � ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER N O O M r r 0 r- M_ 0 M 0 O O V V M M O 0 O N 00 O r O r O N r V d) O 00 M N N M 00 M N V r r (O N N V N A� O O (O N O I- (O V V V V In I- 01 M (O � (O N 01 (O In V V In I-� O V 01 In N W Q V In I- M O N V (0 M O N V (0 M V (0 M V I- O M (0 M N N N N N (O (O (O (O (O r r r r r o0 00 00 00 d) d) d) O O O O N N Z ^R N 0 CL O a Q U LL 05 'a E ° L U R o w N R r _ if R E �`N U 1 N C O O 2)p Y O a 0 a � U N� T a � N fn ° E a) ° W' R N U R Q 0 C a) �N R 00 R .R. C O R fn .- p C 'Q M a Q U .2 a) (4 a) c a R CA � YaII E m � m � � a) U R N S N 0 0 �p C A > N 7 0 '� U o� R > va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va 0� U N C 0 C C Q 05 W < N N � N w (4 (4 (4 O O W 05 d N N N V N m O M V O N N N N F 0 a N M V n O r 0 O N (O r o0 d) O N N N N N M zU) U) n � > 0- za z NoText APPENDIX F: Hydroelectric Facility for Net Present Value and Payback Calculations NoText (0 I- N 00 00 I� N "r N N In 00 V C 0) C O > Q O N M V In � aLL 0 E 'E w w Ua C R o U O U o >R w U C � � R V) ER ER ER ER ER a C 0 o m m m m m d a Oo Oo Oo Oo Oo T O j N N N N N 0 Y Q O lL O O lL In L N C N o E o0 o U Q � w R E » » » » » » Vf (� >, o0 V In co 0) 0o •N x O 3 r N o0 (O N a C O W O CL•V _LL O_ O N U 3 a o � � LL N R C ova N Q z r N .� ER ER ER ER ER ER O (0 O (0 m N O In I� t o0 0 N V 00 V L6 L6 DD 00 d) d) 2 � C LA W (n LL a L N o N O N 0 M w O O o 0 0 w O M r M N W O N N O N O N O O O O O N O V M V (0 d) Z d) V O V O (0 00 00 O O O N O n d) M Cl) In d) (O O M M M 0 M M M V V Cl) I- O O r O_ 0) Cl) N N n x W O T 0) W ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER 0 N o N V co 01 (0 I- d) V A, G- O N V I- m W C N 3 0 U 0 00 r LL 05 r Y H O > 4 w v> (» (» (» (» (» C > 0 O O J R �(� R O `� C ` U R R R E C O R O '0 W U ` r r N 0) C d a CL N C R O O W N �. Q N LL N O 0 E CJ R O_ O_ O N a UO ON o QO x E cn m C 2, 2�L R 2 d 0 N N C R E C O >7 O R .Q Q C N . C Q N W a) 0) Q R 05 W W RR. W' N N U N W :B C C N W W W — C 7 > o w R w U O C7 0 0 > m G c Q R o U J C7 cl v > o o Q 05 U) U) Q n v w O o O o o U) o w Y w E Q N E a� R O N M V In d E O co C C C Q R R C R 0) d -0.8 d 0) v > � ° a aR aR > > > ° m w } = z cn Q Q Q a w Q Q Q Q a z a z O 01 00 p V M N � O _ O N 0 M r O M (O j O V 00 N to O Nt 00 I� O 0 0 3 0 0 LO M O- O V I- N V 00 CO LO 00 V O > Q O (O V N - d) r (O V N m m -0iL Ua o R > U O U o >R w U 0 � � R V) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER a s= o O o a -0 7z O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lr Lr Ln Ln Ln � O c c c c c c c c c t O 3 (O m m m m m m m m m Q O (o O C p a LL W to r C'4 0) N o E a o U Q w R » » » » » » » » » » » C7 X a o 21 oo c oo O N a) W W n O N N N N V O M V M N O (O N M V W Q N LA O (O r r M M M O O N ` Q d (0 0 3 (O N N N N /' Q o O O 0 LL R � C 0 R C Q O W Q N Q Z r N .� ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER O (O O (O m N o0 V w (O N O N r V o0 O d) r M m N V w t V 0) LO �j u) O L I- M m L6 -7 00 I- 00 00 0) 0) O O N N >1 Do) N N N N N 21 0 O W m � a U) H � V ° M_ O M O O N M O O o 0 o I� to to M W V (O I- p O p O - O O O O O O O M O N o0 O r d) (O d) }� d) m to O to O p lO 00 00 O O O I� w M d) to d) (O V M N M O (O O O M M M to 0 O N Cl) LO I� 00 O N V (O W Cl) N N (Op LO O O V Q 0) to to to to to to (O (O (O (O Z x W T N 2 � w O d) V V m O (O m r- N In d) r- N N Nt Nt In r- L G. (O W M (O M r LO I- d) CO N to to to (O (O (O (O r H Q H 05 •U R O C `Y-' N U R R R O R U C O W O O W' W' 0 0) C O O 0 U ` r r N O CL LL N O () E CJ N R Q Q 0) .0. >` y N p a w o a�i �° w E m cn .y �L R 2 d 0 N O O R .R. U N R } r .Q V 0 qS E N N Q a C C W R W W R t= N N U W :4 O_ s= N W W W - S 7 LU CL 0 0 c Q R U J C7 ° v > o Q xS U) U) Q n H L w E Q w ? O O U) w Y E Q N E - cm d E 0) (4 j j E 2- R R R d d 0) = z U') Q Q Q a w Q> Q> Q Q> a z a z O (O N 00 V & a N o0 V O (O N o0 V O �p O M r N M O M r (O M O 0) O N In 00 V r O N N o0 Nt O N w C O (0 N 00 to r V O (0 N 0) In 00 V O N In r O M to 00 Cl) (0 00 V (0 0) Q O O o0 (0 V co 0) r (0 V N O d) r to co- -0 LL In V V V V V M M M M M M N N N N Ua o R w U O U o >R w U O � � R V) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER D O O V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V a a z o O Cl) Cl) Cl) co co co co co Cl) M M (M (M (M (M O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N �C Q O O W Op 0 LL to In 2 L N O N o E 15 o U Q In ° w R `o �j � � va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va va ° _O O In M N r N V (0 (0 r r to to CO X w O N m N w It In N N (0 r O N V {n a O O d) N 00 In M N (0 O (0 N V (0 - r (C �0 O M V M N r M O (0 M O r N N O •(n w W Q N O r o0 00 d) O O N N M V V In (0 I- ` N N N N N N N N N N Q O O w LL R C C Q O LL' Q N Q Z r N .� ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER 3 O (0 O (0 0) In 00 V w (0 V o0 M r (0 N O N r V o0 O d) r M m N m w O N N 00 V N d) to N In r N O (� In O to r CO 0) L 00 In N 0) r to I� 00 00 01 01 O O N N Cl) V V LO (0 >1 � N N N N N N N N N N � O O R W � a U) H � I..V V o 0 0 0 O N N N O O o 0 o O r w (0 M O O V V N O O In (0 r m O N O O O O - O V O O O O O M n (0 (0 N V N (0 (0 M r w (0 t In V }� m m N O N O O (0 00 00 O O O N M N N N M N (0 d) N (0 r M O o0 Cl) 00 d) 0) W M n r M M N O N 0 M N 0 In O O Q p (0 (0 (0 (0 00 00 00 00 0) 0) 0) Cl) N x Z LO N W w w •y C N � V N I� .-. In N N 01 V 00 l0(O V V M r In N N M 00 (0 N N N_ M In 00 In O N N L Q d) M In r d) M 0 r O N 0 1- 0 y N (O (O (O (O (O r r r r o0 00 00 00 d) H 3 0 Q H L 05 a LL 0 � ca O C > 0 O O J R •U R O C `Y-' U V R N w aU a C R O ° C O CL 0 O 0 0 w O a.LL CJ >`O E f p n O x E O w O �L R 2 a O �O w ''- N >1 >1 O R ..R O >7 N j R w a O Q N W w I R W W Q R t= N N U u N W .2 N s= N W W W - 7 W R w U O C7 j » -1-1 » » » » » » 6%16%16% » 6%16% » 0 c Q R z w U J C7 ° w > o ° CL U) U) Q a° H L w E Q w ? w O O w w w A w Y E Q N E 01 01 01 d 0 R O N M V In (0 r 00 0) O N M V In a E w (4 j j C Q R R R a -0 a w w= > s a w w > > > U) Q z a R z z R s v O I2 V c0 LO N 0 m M O 0 CO cO Il V c0 LO N V cO O M (O Mo O CO N V c0 N LO o M O V c0 o d) N (O O (O N c0 LO Io � O N V LO (O c0 d) O N co M LO (O I� d) O � co V (O N � d) co r Lo C O O W r (O LO V CO CO N O d) W r - (O LO V co I— co co O) O O O N CO V LO (O I� co d) O O N M V LO (O O O co W r O Q O CO N co V O CO N co V O CO CO O Ln , r M O L() N CO O M I� jp -6 LL (O (O (O L Lo V V V co CO N N N - N U m E C U O O O C > O a) U 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 169169 69169,69 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl p 0 O co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co M M M co co co co co co co O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O CO CO CO CO CO d -o o co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co >.a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m w 3 o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn N L Y Q O (O M M M M M M M M M M CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co co co CO CO CO CO CO L O O � L r C O O () Q g g a) p `O U 169 69 69 69 1 69 1 69 1 69 1 69 1 69 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl w x `-O O cO r r O r N V co O cO O r m LO N O c) W N O c) N V O x O c0 (O O N M c0 c0 V I- m Lc) N M c0 V N M O V c0 w O LO (O m r r m N O_ N O) N_ O) N O V M m m V LO co A L O N V I� m M CO O LO m 0 r M co I— CO LO LO LO I— co V c0 W O t/1 O O N CO LO CO co O O N V LO I� d) O N V CO co O N V I� O .N Q d Q CO V V V V V V V V LO LO LO LO LO LO CO CO CO CO CO I— r r r r W Q LL w C� 3: I\ O w D LL m C C a C Q QZ (V C 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Efl Efl Efl Efl _3 O CO O CO O Lo co V co CO V 0 co I,- CO CO LO O CO V V N CO w O Lo r V c0 O m r co O Lo O) co O o V I� (O CO N O II- V O N V co V V m Ln V LO I— N O G Ln N N V O) r r [) LO O LO I� CO m Ln co Ln N m r Ln N m co r (O Ln Ln Ln (O I- W W m m O O N N CO V V LO (O r� W co m O N CO V LO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M (h (h co co co C_ > W au) LL N � 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 - -1-1-1- 69 69 69 co o O O Ln M O O o 0 0 (O LO N o) N O o) o) r co LO N V N co O) r M O) (O co CO (O W N O N O N O r O O O O O r O V LO N LO I— W o) O co co r O co M CO c0 O) N r CO O O I— V m O O CJ Ln W co co O O O Ln d) V N M (O N r co d) r co M N co o) W co O Lo Lo O d) N .o LO d) CO O r (O O O M M M `O V CO N O O O O O N V (O c0 O CO I� O Ln m V O LO N m CO I� Ln O Ln m O O r Q O co m O N M V LO (O r co m O M V LO II- co m (h V (O I� W LO LO N M (O O x D N N CO M CO CO CO CO CO M co co V V V V V V V V LO o o o LO Z r N N W e 1 w i m> V N c W 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69169 69 s9 69 69 s9 s9 s9 69 69 69 69 69 69 we C M co L(� CO co M M co Lo o o)O N O) V a O o V N o co I- ID co LO o c\ O) LO O) O O) o co O) O O O L(7 N O c0 I� (O (O I� co O N (O m V m (O N O m co co W d) N Ln m 2 r o) N V (O co O N LO o) V (O O) N o r O M (O O co (O A, O LO LO CO CO CO CO CO I� I� I� I� I� CO CO CO CO O) O) O) O O O O Q Q L L L o dS ca t O L � Y w o O w w O Efl 69 Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl .0 RC O — m m - 7 p U C O O N d' d' O O R O W p U t%1 o -L- "' C O LL o E 0 N m m Q Q °� Ln o 00 o in c o u, x E m N O o V o w U) � p w W — a5 (r r •� R ` d O O a) c N ` ` Cr 0 a) R c Q o 2) V y w > ° Q O c w w a) a) w O w w .� °- in x W W W w '06 06 Lu o m w a) m O (7 (7 °5 o > a) <» Ev E9 e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» c Q d w O J 06 p p (7 w LL vw E Q> � w ? (D O O O w w U) w 0 Y �! E Q (6 E (6 m m m U O N M V LO (O I� co o) o N M V LO d .X w E O- } (6 (6 (6 w a L d r O N M V LO CO I� CO O) N N N N N N a(6i aa)i w w c w .o >. 2 Z U) Q <1<1 Q W > > N Q Q Q Q d Z d Z APPENDIX G: Hydroelectric Facility Energy Production Calculations NoText V � O O W O M O V �0,1 O O O W 0 O I- m O O c 00 M 00 r 0 N f0 I- N M M V 00 M O O O 1- V 1- M M M 1- O O 00p0 N M N M 00 00 0 I- M O 0 u 0 co O N V u V M i O V 00 m m m m I- LO LI C W W C C t O t O U U O O 00 O O O O 'a CO O O O O 'a N M N M M M M M M M M M M O N M N M M M M M M M M M M O m a m a rn rn `w `w c c a w a w O W d) N M N 0 a0 IM 0 N M O C 7 0 C M 1- M u 7 d) c 0 Q 0 Q a° r a° r O U O (6 C w O O O O O O O O O O O O (6 U C O O O O O O O O O O O O c c c c c c c c c c c c w c c c c c c c c c c c c C .� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � :� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn w O O O O O O O O O O O O w O O O O O O O O O O O O Z p u) u) L2 u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) H O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O O O O O O O Q W W Q Q Q N Q Q LJ� 3 3 Q u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) LO u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) u) LO 2 cu -6 N -6 CU N N N N N N N N N N N N W r r Z W .N N H w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N O d N O J d N O N O U � a w � a w LL + N O J N O U U Q U - d O O O O O O O O O O O O w d O O O O O O O O O O O O L� O In In In In In O O 5 n n n n n n n n n n n n O w N Q -� N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q U = � _ 5 LV a a J w w W O Q O �O/ U LL w W U N a5 W I- V I- O N 1- O O O O O O O O V M W O N O O O O O 0 U O O O V N O M M V O O O O O N O O O O O V u) V O 00 O O O O O O V 0 V O 00 O dM O O M M O O 0 M M M M N � M M M N 0 LL Q L_L Q Q w N ad 5 a5 J N N w w Q N Q N N Q N U o 0 0 ° w °� M o 0 0 �° U o 0 0 ° w °� M o 0 0 z w0� O O O aMO. O � uMi, rn In V o o N wpb 00 00 o aMO. O � uuli, rn In V o O - Z II Q w O O O N M M M I m M M N N N N N O N N N N O O I� Q O ?] > -O U > -O U Q N Q LL w N Q LL w W v w v w H a > a > Q w as w as 2 c n n n t c n n n t 0 3 w E w 0 w E w 7 w w O 7 y Q w w N O > as a 3 = d o a"i o > an d `m .Q m 3 an d u o d o W x LL ¢ 2 ¢ O Z O Z � x LL ¢ ¢ O Z O Z NoText APPENDIX H: Notable Structural Deficiencies NoText r Alt- Elow 1 Figure HA The Backwash Water Tank is an 80-ft tall welded steel tank founded on a shallow concrete ringwall footing. -FT TALL SHELL COURSE (TYP) Figure H.2 The Backwash Water Tank is constructed with 8-ft tall steel shell courses. TOP OF RINGWALL FOOTING , ANCHOR BOLT (TYP) Figure H.3 The Backwash Water Tank is anchored to the concrete ringwall footing with (54) 2-inch diameter galvanized steel anchor bolts. I P k DA ED " AN DRAT = PANE NK Figure HA The small propane tank at the chemical storage area has a damaged anchor bolt that requires replacement. 1 Mis vG --,A�NCH0R AT PROPANE TAN K Figure H.5 The small propane tank at the chemical storage area is missing an anchor bolt. r i oil- 1117 r Q i f Figure H.6 The sludge collector mechanism rolls on a steel rail system. ROL r F UI V ..LLECT Figure H.7 The sludge collector mechanism does not appear to have a positive means of seismic anchorage. The wheel appears to have limited grip to the rail. Figure H.8 Conduit supported from the pipe gallery tunnel south of the Flocculation Basins lacks lateral bracing against seismic loads. f Figure H.9 Conduit and pipe hung from the ceiling of the Operations Bldg Basement lacks lateral bracing against seismic loads. ADD LATERAL i BRACING f y rFN Y 1 -b. c S' Figure H.10 Large diameter pipe at the lower basement of the Operations Bldg lacks lateral support. APPENDIX 1: Wash Water Tank Design Drawing NoText IROAO�r YEtS�T, 3�'E /%s ""� 4r MIGAt GA NO 0 MUMS EM Eli 1I1�, Figure 1.1 Tank Elevation as Detailed on the 1968 Joint Filtration Plant Drawings WRACIUS _ 4.YOU FOR2IOROD ZAP MRS Z4*.4 b 'FS C-2eZA.-AACt P4 elZ* + • 4 4 r � Figure 1.2 Section of Ringwall Footing as Detailed on the 1968 Joint Filtration Plant Drawings APPENDIX J: Joint Facilities Master Plan Project Rankings NoText m w 0 V Oi N 00 cii Ln 4uawdlnb3 uol;oalloJ 92pnlS MaN Ln LL W ci m ci N o. d C O n 00 N n V ci N ci Ln sJo4eln00ol j MaN N LL W ci m ci N o. s;uauaanoadual �° 0 0 0�0 00 N peaj pue 82eao 4S le3lwayJ LL OC m ci N N ci ci N o. H y U C O O n l0 l0 Ln n n N N UOI;eiauaE) V N N N ci ci ci N ap!xolQ aulaOlT);UaueWJOd Ile;sul LL Q = a N N m N N ci ci N LU rn V LL i O O O � M s;uauanoadul as;eMyseM N � � ci aa;l!j pue 2ulaa;eMaa le3luey3aW N � O Z a N m m N N N N � J aUll ll0U1 V N N 00 r, l0 w_ w -O£MaN pna;suoO ao Weld o;uleW Ln Qc aoaoj Sd4S 43u!-O£21-114slx3 au!Ia21 It m m ci ci Y C i N NJ � V O O N 14 U H y Sd4S 4JW Si MaN 'n J LL O a m m m N N ci N UILL y a co Z 2145 0;Sd ola!J N mm o O1 � N N � C4 O O woij aulladld lalleaed 43ul-O£MaN m ci ci N m m m Q o C7 OC �, OC +� `O LLI NO+O+ d O O 0) 00 00 I, n W LL a m H Z fa Y Y u f O E H fa 0 J C d -O C w tw O ++ C W tm U) A) f0 O C ? = ? U r N C ? V U/ C V Y bb :!2 m V �p C C — LL O C '++ •fo O C a+ V fo fo p m . f0 •O N C a+ E W W U N w V Y C O_ i 0 ? Q V LJJ JO U O O w ? C C �VI -O 7 -O 0 �' O m O U) Q O U) N D to � _ C U 0 7 0 w T -O 7 �) U/ O f0 h0 N '— C 'O V fa -O t a v) W U W O ?: m w m w 0 N i V O O 00 W 00 � sopea2da`da`dJs LL OC ci ci N N ci N a V 0 N 00 00 chi l^O spuel;aM;uaua;eaal lein;eN LL W c-I m ci ci N a d V 0 00 ci Ln suoi;eoi}ipow lauuey:);alul HaS LL OC N N N ci � a U OC °1 NV O 00 � co Q uoipnpou punoW;uawlpas Has Ln LL OC N N N ci LV d H � a Z V m N W I� n 5 Z Li sulse8 uORellis Has O +' LL ~ o a m m ci ci � a C7 oC W LLI & V NN Ol CO CO N N � 0 Ln Q of c s;uauaa3ueyu3;uOWWOMM Has k' QQ Y LL C GC N cI cI ci m m m G a W 4 y u : u ty o Has N N � ^ Ln U o;cull uleaa 43ul-5Z aoeldoU ao ouiloU LL N Q d a ci N m m Q LL Z a O Z C O O n ID m V m m N (n H p s;uauaanoadual 3ivasias llaMaealJ CA Q LL V, a m m m ci OC L V O O N N LL s;uauaanoadual uol;ngla;sla le3la43813 k' Q OLLC N m m m ci N H a Z Q i f H v ,u o E �o LL 0 J O N fu O •d C: tw V V > •� r V i = p V 0 > Y C ++ .f0 O c a+ V fo fo p o ai if6 E U E V O V f0 LU i+ W U m j= V w V Y O_ ? Q v W 0 O O V ?7 O " > c n O i/ w = O O N Q O N w o D v ai O o ao v — c o o t a V) W U W O S c w m 0 0 m d gull Ja;e/"pa;eaJl �0 °�° � m youl-bS PIO 84eU!geyaa/auila21 LL OC N N o. 0 d N O chi 00 n n Ln u01;0a}u1s1a M LL � OC c-I N ci ci ci ci o. c y ra a 0 0) r, r, io m N c S;UOWOAOadwi Ja;l1j Ln LL � � ci ci ci ci m o u1seg paS/001j PAHIMON;0nJ;suo:) LL (, W c-I ci N ci N ci a OC Nsuope01}IpOvy C 0) ^ � W M U01;en813 491 4n0 Jo 2ul2paJa Ln Wg2noay;;UOW83ueyU3 awnlon HOS W ci ci N ci a 0 O Q V leAOWOU UO1;e;a2an 2145 J n LL a c a C7 OC •� W W L Q N C V O O Q C jUej Ja;eMHSe/N N G V LL N n W m m H W 41 d O J w i (J d m 0 W N M N Q uope;sgnS 82e410n H21H 'n LL LL Z a ci m O Z H O o o r, a Q A41110e j V N m N ci N N 01J;0alaoJpAH apeJ2dn Jo 90eldaa LL W LL O i Q 0 V V ON 00 N N cN-I 00 O Z n 2ul;s814OU pue U014euozo-OJd 0f N Q o"c N ci m m N fa o. i Y Y u f O E H fa 0 0 J fa tw ++ W U) .� f0 N C tm ? = ? 0 V N ? V N C V Y UO �' f0 V �p C C: '++ •fo O c y, V fo fo p m 0 O Y Id W W 0 N f0 d' V w V Y O_ i 0 ? Q V W JO U O O w ? C YVI 'O 7 -O 0 = O O q) Q O U) 7 N _a •.— C f0 0 C 0 w T -0 D � v a) O o ao v o •— c o 06 U o o t a v) W U W 0 w NoText I Rt 1lw cpa �X .1 1 t 1 �i �carollo Engineers...Working Wonders With Water®