• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Surface Water Conversion - City of Sugar Land
 

Surface Water Conversion - City of Sugar Land

on

  • 1,362 views

SuEllen Staggs, City of Sugar Land

SuEllen Staggs, City of Sugar Land

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,362
Views on SlideShare
1,329
Embed Views
33

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

1 Embed 33

http://www.setawwa.org 33

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Surface Water Conversion - City of Sugar Land Surface Water Conversion - City of Sugar Land Presentation Transcript

    • Surface Water Conversion and CMARSuEllen Staggs - Director of Utilities
    • Presentation OutlineBackgroundSurface Water Treatment PlantWater Quality Process DecisionsProject Delivery – CMARNext Steps
    • Project BackgroundFort Bend Subsidence District Regulationin 2002- 30% conversion by 2013 (Phase I)- 60% conversion by 2025 (Phase II)Road Map - GRP approved 200718 Participants
    • GRP Implementation Strategy4 Strategies 1. Surface Water Conversion 2. Conservation 3. Water Reuse • Obtained TCEQ 210 for reuse at the 3 Wastewater plants in 2008 4. Non–potable surface water use • GRP assumes 2 MGD • 4 projects complete – 500,000 gpd • 3.0 billion gallons banked by 2013 over a year of conversion
    • Surface WaterTreatment Plant
    • SWTP Implementation StrategySurface Water Plant Size 9 MGD operational in 2013 Expand to 22 MGD in 2025 MF/UF Membrane Filtration (RO provision 2025)Build base load plant - 9 mgd 365 days yearOver convert dense areas – minimizetransmission linesSurface water delivered to groundwaterplants for distribution and blending tominimize changes in tastePeak water demands met from groundwater
    • Surface Water PlantSurface Water Plant
    • Full-scale Plant Location Gannoway Lake Bu rn d ey oa Ro ad s sR Vo
    • Membrane Treatment Plant
    • TransmissionLines Take points are City’s water plants Phase I – 2013 Solid Lines Phase II - 2025 Dashed Lines
    • SWTP - Complex ProjectIntegration of Ground and Surface WaterSupplies - QualityBalance Water Demands to Meet MinimumConversion Requirements - QuantityWinter water demand is only 9 mgd • How to exercise all GW plants and turn water over in tanksComplex Instrumentation and SCADASystems Needed to Achieve Objectives
    • Water QualityProcess Decisions
    • Dynamic Source Water Quality High customer expectations Taste test completed in 2009 Goal - customers cannot tell the difference The new SWTP will treat raw water from Oyster Creek that receives water from the Brazos RiverGroundwater Oyster Creek Water
    • Water Quality GoalsMeet and exceed all regulatoryrequirements Bromate < 5 µg/L THMs/HAAs < 64/48 µg/L for LRAAs Cryptosporidium 4-log removalAesthetic quality goals MIB/geosmin < 5 ng/L (most); < 10 ng/L (peak) Chloride < 180 mg/L (most); < 250 mg/L (peak)
    • Finished Water Quality Goals Water Quality Parameter Regulation GoalsTurbidity < 0.3 NTU in 95% of time <= 0.05 NTU in 95% of timeGiardia 2 log removal 4 log removalCryptosporidium Based -Raw Water Quality 4 log removalViruses Inactivation > 1 ratio >1 ratioChloramine Residual 0.5 mg/L - 4.0 mg/L 2.5 mg/L - 4.0 mg/LTOC Removal 25% - 45% > 45%Total (TTHM) < 80 mg/L < 64 mg/LTotal (HAA5) < 60 mg/L < 48 mg/LColor (color units) < 15 color units < 5 true color unitsTaste and Odor < 3 TON < 3 TON Geosmin/MIB < 10 ng/L 7.0 - 7.9 as dictated by thepH > 7.0 corrosion control strategyFluoride < 4 mg/L 0.8 mg/LChloride <300 mg/L < 200 mg/LManganese < 0.05 mg/L < 0.015 mg/L
    • Process Selection Accounted for Source Water Challenges Oyster Creek Treatment Plant Customer Tap Dynamics of source water, treatment, distribution system, and future regulations were considered in process selection
    • Microbial QualityMicrobial risk factors of source water Wastewater effluents Agricultural runoff Livestock influence Storm water discharges Parameter Units Average Maximum Heterotrophic MPN/ mL 670 740 Plate Counts Total Coliforms MPN/100 mL 2,420 2,420 Microbial Quality - Coliforms, Fecal Coliforms MPN/100 mL 180 689 Pathogens Giardia cysts/L 0.15 0.35* Cryptosporidium oocysts/L 0.27 0.4* *Data from the monitoring location ten miles upstream of Sugar Land Intake Location
    • Aesthetic Quality 300 30 MIB Geosmin Geosmin (ng/L) 250MIB (ng/L) 200 20 Aesthetic Quality 150 - Taste and Odor Compounds 100 10 50 0 0 800 5/15/07 6/14/07 7/14/07 8/13/07 9/12/07 10/12/07 11/11/07 12/11/07 1/10/08 2/9/08 3/10/08 700 Brazosport Water Authority 600 Brazos River Authority-US290 @ Hempstead Gulf Coast Water Authority 500 Chloride (mg/L) Upstream Location 400 Aesthetic Quality State SMCL 300 - Chloride, TDS 200 100 0 Aug-89 Aug-90 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jun-93 Jun-94 May-95 May-96 Mar-99 Mar-00 Feb-01 Feb-02 Nov-06 Nov-07 Sep-87 Sep-88 Jul-91 Jul-92 Apr-97 Apr-98 Dec-04 Dec-05
    • Alternatives for T&O RemovalAlternative 1 – Two-stage GAC Lead/lag GACAlternative 2 – Ozone followed by GACAlternative 3 – Single-stage GAC • PAC was considered and eliminated during process short listing phase
    • T&O Process Selection Life Cycle Assessment
    • Single-stage GAC Benefits and Drawbacks Benefits DrawbacksSimple to operate Increased GACSmaller footprint replacement frequencyLow operations/maintenanceMultiple barriers withineach contactor(biological + adsorption)Removes EDCs/PPCPs
    • Single-stage GAC Biological Contactor • Single Stage of GAC is Bio/Filtered Adsorption operated year-round Water Contactor • GAC replacement is staggered Adsorption Contactor To Disinfection Chamber
    • Key Conclusions
    • SWTP - Key Design Elements Chloramines Fluoride Chlorine dioxide PACl Caustic Chlorine dioxide Corrosion InhibitorFromOyster ToCreek Distribution PRE - RAPID PLATE MF/UF DISINFECT - CLEAR System SEDIMENTA - GAC ION BASIN TION BASIN MIX CLARI- MEMBRANE -WELL CONTACTORS FIER FILTRATION RO PUMP STATION INDEX Brine Liquid Streams Disposal Solid Streams Backwash Future Option Clarifier • Source Water -Brazos River GRAVITY THICKNER through Oyster Creek • Capacity: Initial - 9 MGD Centrifuge • Ultimate - 22 MGD To Off-site Solids Disposal
    • Project DeliveryConstruction Manager at Risk
    • CMAR Project DeliveryTraditional Method: > Design-Bid-Build (DBB)Alternative Method: > Construction Manager At Risk (CMAR)Primary Reasons for Choosing CMAR Benefits of early contractor involvement Project has a high level of technical complexity Project is governed by schedule constraints Preconstruction Service – Constructability Value Engineering Occurs Through Design Process Not After
    • Why CMAR?Define Goals & Desires: Well functioned, long lasting, & lowest lifecycle cost plant Value engineering during design constructability Operable facility tested Selected a builder during design Open book accounting Owner can provide input in vendor & subcontractor selection Select subs and vendors based on bids and City approval
    • CMAR SelectionOne Step Selection Process Highlights: - Included 1st year contract operation - Include CMAR Agreement in RFP - Structured the design contract to allow for the CMAR process
    • Sugar Land’s CMAR ContractThree distinct phases that are authorized separately CMAR Contract 3/10 – 3/14 1. Pre Construction services - VE 2. Construction Phase Services • CMAR becomes general contractor 3. First Year Operations
    • SWTP ConstructionCMAR GMP Process Two GMPS •Site work - March 2011 •The rest of plant – April 2011 Prequalify venders & subcontractors •Pre-bid meeting on 1/26/11 Obtain bids from pre-qualified vendors andsubs based on 100% design •Anticipate ~20 bid packages Merge and QC bids, obtain City approval Develop construction schedule & cash flow Develop CMAR Agreement Amendments
    • SWTP Contract OperationScope of Work• One year 24 hours per day full O&M services• Update O&M manual• Manage equipment & construction warranties• Develop O&M costs• Operation optimizationCity staff will operate after the first year
    • Is It Working?25 VE & Operational Cost Saving Ideas$20 Million in Capital Savings withoutModifying the Original Treatment ProcessCollaborative Owner-Designer-CMARRelationshipDesign Engineer Working HarderCMAR Detailed Budget TrackingAbility to Obtain Competitive Quotes forMultiple, Smaller PackagesLeveraging Current Market Conditions toObtain Most Competitive Pricing
    • Surface Water Capital Improvement ProjectsSurface Water Plant $69,000,000Transmission Lines $19,700,000Groundwater plant upgrades $8,800,000CIP Construction Estimate $97,500,000 Challenging site constraints Expandability - Some components sized for 2025 expansion or ease of expansion
    • Raw Water Intake DesignDam Safety
    • Financial CapacityCity determined that Certificates ofObligation with pledge of GRP fees morecost effective than revenue bonds Lower cost of borrowing No bond coverage required No debt service reserve requirementAnticipated GRP rate in 2013 ~$1.50 per 1,000 gallons of water produced
    • SWTP - Project MilestonesProcess Pilot Study: November 2008Preliminary Engineering: June 2009Final Design: February 2011CMAR: March 2010 - March 2014 GMP Package #1: March 2011 GMP Package #2 : April 2011Construction: March 2011 – March 2013Plant Operational: March 2013CMAR firm to operate plant first yearCity Staff operations beginning 2014
    • Plan for Sugar Lands FutureWater Today