HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Staff presentation & WRAB discussion on city staff's water quality treatment goals for drinkingCITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: Oct. 17, 2005
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Water Utility Internal Goals
PREPARING DEPARTMENT: Robert E. Williams - Director of Public Work for Utilities
Chris Rudkin - Water Quality Coordinator
Randy Crittenden - Water Treatment Coordinator
PURPOSE: This memorandum provides a review of the Internal Goals and Goal Setting Process
developed and used by Water Utility staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Utility projects and programs are developed to meet objectives which are derived both from the
broad regulations governing public water systems and specific policies implemented to address
regional and local needs.
Prior to 2001, goals were articulated independently for specific needs in each of the functional
areas of the Water Utility (Water Resources, Water Treatment, Water Distribution, Water Quality
and Conservation and Engineering).
This approach kept each project focused to a few staff inembers and worked well for many years,
allowing for e~cient decision making and project implementation. However, over time the
increasing complexity of demands on the Utility required a more integrated approach. In 2001,
staff efforts led to a new process for identifying and coordinating goals among the staff groups,
and for resolving potential conflicts between goals.
BACKGROUND:
Regulations
Drinking water is regulated at the federal level under the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
and subsequent amendments. Regulations are developed on an ongoing basis to address new
(emerging) contaminants and to modify existing contaminant limits. The State of Colorado
promulgates both primary (required) and secondary (recommended) drinking water regulations
based on the federal requirements.
Local Policies
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) incorporates a wide range of drinking
water-related policies and practices. The Comp Plan addresses source water management, water
treatment and quality of finished drinking water. It is updated periodically through staff and
public input to incorporate changing expectations and needs.
The Utilities Division's Mission and Guiding Principles statement provides additional internal
goals for the Water Utility, addressing reliability of service, efficient use of fiscal and natural
resources, and protection of human and environmental health. l
l~liNA IIEM A `5 PACE `
Master Plans
Master Plans addressing operational goals and needs of the Water Utility include the Raw Water
Master Plan (1988) and Treated Water Master Plan (2000). These serve as the basis for near-
and long-term capital improvements and related programs to meet the Utility's objectives. A
Water Quality Strategic Plan is currently under development to support and highlight quality-
related aspects ofthe Utility's Master Plans.
DISCUSSION:
Historically, Master Planning has been the primary mechanism for defining utility goals. Master
Plans for both Raw Water and Treated Water have provided a process for reviewing the
background and current conditions affecting utility operations, and developing plans for future
improvements. Master Plans bring together staff and consultant expertise and provide a process
for public input and board review and adoption by City Council. This process is essential for the
development of long range capital projects and infrastructure improvements.
Day to day operations of the source water, water treatment and water distribution facilities are
managed within the larger framework provided by master plans, and at a level of detail that
master plans do not address. The water utility by its nature is dynamic, with seasonal, weekly and
daily changes requiring constant review and decision making at each level.
Source management is affected by snow and rainfall pattems and daily weather conditions in
addition to the legal and operational constraints of managing the city's water portfolio. Water
treatment is affected in turn by changing quality of raw water, which requires ongoing adjustment
of chemical feeds and other processes to optimize treatment effectiveness. For this reason source
selection can have a significant impact on treatment operations.
Treatment is also influenced by demand, which is dynamic and changes on both a daily and
seasonal basis. In addition to fluctuating demand, the distribution system itself can cause
impacts to the water treatment plants. The operation of valves and hydroelectric generation, the
need to maintain appropriate storage volumes and quality in all parts of the system and the effects
of ongoing maintenance activities change the overall patterns of water distribution on any given
day.
The Utility operates two treahnent plants, each of which can draw on more than one water
source, both having the capability to supply the city with water individually or in combination.
This gives the system an inherent flexibility which many cities do not enjoy. These multiple
options also increase the complexity of operation and the need for coordination within the
various utility work groups.
The 2001 staff goals identification was initiated to assist the planning for improvements to the
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. Operational goals and expectations for each work
group were discussed and compared. This process led to agreement that greater understanding of
overall goals and daily decision processes faced by each work group would have benefits beyond
the Reservoir Plant project and could increase the utility's effectiveness in many areas . Existing
master plans were reviewed and discussed in relation to each other and in relation to daily
decision making by the various staff groups.
AfllNDA ITEM i ~ PAGE 2-
The staff evaluation led to a general grouping of existing goals into areas of Public Health and
Safety, Reliability, Customer Expectations, Optimization and Security. Internal targets were then
developed to help meet each of the goal areas, with discussion of how decisions involving more
than one goal could be considered and resolved. This process is ongoing.
"Quantit}~' and "Qualit}~' emerged as two broad descriptors identifying different goals that could
benefit from further coordination. For example, the most efficient operarion of the raw water
system may not always provide the most desirable water for treatment, and operation of a
treatment plant at a certain volume may need to be adjusted to maintain quality levels in the
distribution system.
CONCLUSION:
A staff level goals review process has been successful in providing greater understanding of the
interrelationship of work goups within the Utility. It has led to the development of additional
internal guidelines, particulazly at the water treatment plants, to better track and modify treahnent
based on changing conditions and to maintain compliance with quality standards while
optimizing overall efficiency of the city's drinking water system.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Goal Directory
AGENDII REM i S PAGE 3__
ATTACHMENT A
Goals Directory - Summary of Drinking Water Goals
GOAL DIRECTORY
GOAL AREA ATER QUALITY GOALS ATER QUANTITY GOALS
Comply with Federal & State Regulations nsure System-wide Potable Water Delivery ~
onitor Emer in Contaminants alance Source Selection
Public Health and Safety ntegrate Source Water Protection & Treatment
m rovement Supply Suffcient Raw Water
mprove Pathogen Removal and Inactivation
einforce Distribution S stem Inte ri
rovide Consistent Water Quality nsure Reliable operation of the Water Treatment
lant
nsure Source Water Protection rovide sufficient finished water storage without
com romisin water uali
eliability Continuously improve Water Treatment
ractices ncourage conservation through Demand
ana ement Practices
rovide Consistent Finished Water Quali
aintain Consistent Distribution System Water
Qualit
Customer Expectations
eet user ex ectations
Coordinate water uality and uanti to become more efficient
atch utilit rates with user ex ectations
ducate staff and ublic
ptimization and Fiscal Responsibility
Security
~SE~'fl-, IY~M ~_ ~ PAGE / -