SuEllen Staggs, City of Sugar Land

1. Surface Water Conversion
and CMAR
SuEllen Staggs - Director of Utilities

2. Presentation Outline
Background
Surface Water Treatment Plant
Water Quality Process Decisions
Project Delivery – CMAR
Next Steps

3. Project Background
Fort Bend Subsidence District Regulation
in 2002
- 30% conversion by 2013 (Phase I)
- 60% conversion by 2025 (Phase II)
Road Map - GRP approved 2007
18 Participants

4. GRP Implementation Strategy
4 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

5. Surface Water
Treatment Plant

6. SWTP Implementation Strategy
Surface 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 year
Over convert dense areas – minimize
transmission lines
Surface water delivered to groundwater
plants for distribution and blending to
minimize changes in taste
Peak water demands met from groundwater

7. Surface Water Plant
Surface Water Plant

8. Full-scale Plant Location
Gannoway Lake
Bu
rn d
ey oa
Ro
ad s sR
Vo

9. Membrane Treatment Plant

10. Transmission
Lines
Take points
are City’s
water plants
Phase I – 2013
Solid Lines
Phase II - 2025
Dashed Lines

11. SWTP - Complex Project
Integration of Ground and Surface Water
Supplies - Quality
Balance Water Demands to Meet Minimum
Conversion Requirements - Quantity
Winter water demand is only 9 mgd
• How to exercise all GW plants and turn
water over in tanks
Complex Instrumentation and SCADA
Systems Needed to Achieve Objectives

12. Water Quality
Process Decisions

13. 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 River
Groundwater Oyster Creek Water

14. Water Quality Goals
Meet and exceed all regulatory
requirements
Bromate < 5 µg/L
THMs/HAAs < 64/48 µg/L for LRAAs
Cryptosporidium 4-log removal
Aesthetic quality goals
MIB/geosmin < 5 ng/L (most); < 10 ng/L (peak)
Chloride < 180 mg/L (most); < 250 mg/L (peak)

15. Finished Water Quality Goals
Water Quality
Parameter Regulation Goals
Turbidity < 0.3 NTU in 95% of time <= 0.05 NTU in 95% of time
Giardia 2 log removal 4 log removal
Cryptosporidium Based -Raw Water Quality 4 log removal
Viruses Inactivation > 1 ratio >1 ratio
Chloramine Residual 0.5 mg/L - 4.0 mg/L 2.5 mg/L - 4.0 mg/L
TOC Removal 25% - 45% > 45%
Total (TTHM) < 80 mg/L < 64 mg/L
Total (HAA5) < 60 mg/L < 48 mg/L
Color (color units) < 15 color units < 5 true color units
Taste and Odor < 3 TON < 3 TON
Geosmin/MIB < 10 ng/L
7.0 - 7.9 as dictated by the
pH > 7.0 corrosion control strategy
Fluoride < 4 mg/L 0.8 mg/L
Chloride <300 mg/L < 200 mg/L
Manganese < 0.05 mg/L < 0.015 mg/L

16. 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

17. Microbial Quality
Microbial 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

18. Aesthetic Quality
300 30
MIB Geosmin
Geosmin (ng/L)
250
MIB (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

19. Alternatives for T&O Removal
Alternative 1 – Two-stage GAC
Lead/lag GAC
Alternative 2 – Ozone followed by GAC
Alternative 3 – Single-stage GAC
• PAC was considered and eliminated
during process short listing phase

20. T&O Process Selection
Life
Cycle
Assessment

21. Single-stage GAC
Benefits and Drawbacks
Benefits Drawbacks
Simple to operate Increased GAC
Smaller footprint replacement frequency
Low operations/
maintenance
Multiple barriers within
each contactor
(biological + adsorption)
Removes EDCs/PPCPs

22. 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

23. Key Conclusions

24. SWTP - Key Design Elements
Chloramines
Fluoride
Chlorine dioxide
PACl Caustic
Chlorine dioxide Corrosion Inhibitor
From
Oyster To
Creek 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

25. Project Delivery
Construction Manager at Risk

26. CMAR Project Delivery
Traditional 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

27. 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

28. CMAR Selection
One Step Selection Process
Highlights:
- Included 1st year contract operation
- Include CMAR Agreement in RFP
- Structured the design contract to
allow for the CMAR process

29. Sugar Land’s CMAR Contract
Three 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

30. SWTP Construction
CMAR 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 and
subs based on 100% design
•Anticipate ~20 bid packages
Merge and QC bids, obtain City approval
Develop construction schedule & cash flow
Develop CMAR Agreement Amendments

31. SWTP Contract Operation
Scope 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 optimization
City staff will operate after the first year

32. Is It Working?
25 VE & Operational Cost Saving Ideas
$20 Million in Capital Savings without
Modifying the Original Treatment Process
Collaborative Owner-Designer-CMAR
Relationship
Design Engineer Working Harder
CMAR Detailed Budget Tracking
Ability to Obtain Competitive Quotes for
Multiple, Smaller Packages
Leveraging Current Market Conditions to
Obtain Most Competitive Pricing

33. Surface Water Capital
Improvement Projects
Surface Water Plant $69,000,000
Transmission Lines $19,700,000
Groundwater plant upgrades $8,800,000
CIP Construction Estimate $97,500,000
Challenging site constraints
Expandability - Some components sized for 2025
expansion or ease of expansion

34. Raw Water Intake Design
Dam Safety

35. Financial Capacity
City determined that Certificates of
Obligation with pledge of GRP fees more
cost effective than revenue bonds
Lower cost of borrowing
No bond coverage required
No debt service reserve requirement
Anticipated GRP rate in 2013
~$1.50 per 1,000 gallons of water produced

36. SWTP - Project Milestones
Process Pilot Study: November 2008
Preliminary Engineering: June 2009
Final Design: February 2011
CMAR: March 2010 - March 2014
GMP Package #1: March 2011
GMP Package #2 : April 2011
Construction: March 2011 – March 2013
Plant Operational: March 2013
CMAR firm to operate plant first year
City Staff operations beginning 2014

37. Plan for Sugar Land's Future
Water Today