Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Update and discussion on the performance criteria and weights used in the Integrated Evaluation CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 16, 2007 AGENDA TITLE : Update and discussion on the Performance Criteria and Weights used in the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements PREPARING DEPARTMENT: Robert E. Williams – Director of Public Work for Utilities Anne Noble – Utilities Project Manager Bob Harberg – Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator Bret Linenfelser – Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Randy Crittenden – Water Treatment Coordinator Carol Ellinghouse – Water Resources Coordinator BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Complete attached evaluation criteria survey. FISCAL IMPACT: The 2007-2012 CIP includes $250,000 in 2007 to evaluate, $500,000 in 2008 to design and $25,000,000 to construct a pipeline from Carter Lake to the BRWTP and/or provide long term treatment facility improvements. Also included in the six-year CIP is funding to evaluate, design and construct ($100,000 in 2007, $300,000 in 2008 and $3,000,000 in 2009) mid-term treatment plant improvements. In 2007, $250,000 was also budgeted to provide source water protection improvements along the Boulder Feeder Canal. PURPOSE: This memorandum provides a list of questions and draft responses generated from the March 19, 2007 Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) meeting. Also provided is a survey which lists the criteria and weighting used to analyze the proposed alternatives for the evaluation of the Integrated Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) and Source Water Protection long-term improvements. The survey is being provided to solicit input from WRAB members on the criteria and weighting factors. This provides the opportunity for WRAB members to select and weight the criteria by marking up the attached survey. WRAB members may choose to add or eliminate criteria for purposes of their evaluation. NEXT STEPS: AGENDA ITEM # Page 1 Staff will respond to WRAB questions and comments regarding the material provided, as well as any further questions on the draft report presented at the March 19, 2007 WRAB meeting. Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers (B&V) will score the proposed alternatives in the draft report, including two new alternatives that evaluate the use of membrane technology, using the previously identified criteria and weighting and again with any changes to criteria provided by WRAB members. A final report, along with the peer review, is anticipated to be presented to the WRAB at st the May 21 meeting. A final recommendation on the selected alternative will be requested from WRAB at that time. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: List of Questions and Response from the March 19, 2007 meeting Attachment B: Alternative Analysis Criteria and Weighting Survey Attachment C: Resume for outside consultant performing peer review AGENDA ITEM # Page 2 Questions and Answers Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements April 9, 2007 1. How has Carter Lake water quality changed over time and will changes in Lake Granby water quality affect Carter Lake quality? Also, why is Horsetooth Reservoir in a more degraded state than Carter when both lakes have the same water source? Staff Response: Carter Lake Water Quality Currently, Carter Lake is considered to have excellent water quality due to low concentrations of various constituents, primarily phytoplankton, phosphorus, turbidity, bacteria and total dissolved solids. In addition, Carter Lake maintains an adequate level of dissolved oxygen in its bottom waters, even during critical seasonal periods, and does not go anoxic. Historic United States Geological Survey data (1996 through 2005) does not indicate water quality degradation is occurring at Carter Lake. Water quality appears to be stable due to the lake’s source water and/or operation of the reservoir storage (see Table 1). The data indicates that the quality of Carter Lake water should remain stable, assumingthe source of water (Lake Granby, Lake Estes, etc.) and reservoir operations do not change substantially. The primary source of Carter Lake water is Lake Estes, which receives water from various sources, including western slope water (Lake Granby). A historical annual average breakdown of Lake Estes source water is listed below: 126,673 ac-ft of Big Thompson River runoff from Rocky Mountain National Park (east slope) (1957-2006). Approximately 34% of the total annual flow into Lake Estes. 231,421 ac-ft of upper Colorado River water, mainly runoff from Rocky Mountain National Park--228,000 ac-ft delivered through the Adams Tunnel (west slope) . (1957-2006). Approximately 62% of the total annual flow into Lake Estes 13,675 ac-ft from Windy Gap Reservoir at the Colorado River and Fraser River confluence (west slope) (1988-2006). Approximately 4 % of the annual flow into Lake Estes. Source: (Personal Communication Dennis Miller NCWCD 3/26/07). Lake Granby Water Quality Lake Granby exhibits greater degradation than Carter Lake. Lake Granby typically goes anoxic from August through October, with some manganese release from the sediments. Chlorophyll a can be elevated with levels of approximately 10 ug/L. Total phosphorus within the epilimnion normally is in the 10 to 20 ug/L range. Total dissolved solids are low. Page 1 Although Lake Granby water ends up in Carter Lake there are many opportunities for Lake Granby water to improve through biological processes, dilution and settling as it travels to Carter Lake. Lake Granby water travels through the Adams Tunnel into Mary’s Lake, Lake Estes, Pinewood Reservoir and Flatiron Reservoir before arriving at Carter Lake. Although Lake Granby water quality may further degrade over time due to increased land use activity around the reservoir in the future, it is expected that waterin Carter Lake will be of better quality than in Lake Granby due to the process by which the water is transferred. It is expected that Carter Lake quality will continue to be an excellent water supply for many decades. Comparison of Carter Lake and HorsetoothReservoir Water Quality and Source Water Carter Lake and Horsetooth Reservoir were first filled in 1949 and 1952, respectively. Being constructed at approximately the same time, and having the same western slope source of water, along with some similar morphometric characteristics (see table below) and other similarities, one might expect water quality to be similar in both reservoirs. However this is not the case because of several key differences between the reservoirs. Morphometric Characteristics of Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake HorsetoothCarter Maximum surface54365759 elevation (ft) Storage capacity156,700112,200 (ac-ft) Maximum length 6.72.8 (mi) Surface area 21431144 (acres) Maximum width 0.91.0 (mi) Maximum depth 213180 (ft) Other similarities between Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake include: Hydrology: Both have hydraulic residence times of slightly more than 1 year (Jassby and Goldman 1999). Annual elevation ranges are also similar (Horsetooth Reservoir is 46 feet and Carter Lake is 52 feet). Nutrients: Most of the time both reservoirs are phosphorus limited. Major ions (specific conductance, total dissolved solids): All are low and of similar concentration. Page 2 A key difference between the reservoirs is that Horsetooth Reservoir periodically exhibits excessive production of phytoplankton (Jassby and Goldman 1999) and goes anoxic with iron and manganese releases from the sediments in the fall. Carter Lake does not. Horsetooth Reservoir was recently placed on Colorado’s 303 (d) list (list of impaired waters) due to low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the metalimnion (middle layer) just below the sharp temperature transition of the thermocline. Low DO levels are primarily due to organic material decomposition which consumes oxygen in the hypolimnion. Organic material can originate within the reservoir, or outside the reservoir, with lake sources primarily from phytoplankton die off. External sources could be from wastewater effluent, agricultural runoff, septic systems, spring runoff organic carbon, or storm runoff. Jassby and Goldman 1999 concluded that naturally occurring organic matter (NOM) loading in Horsetooth Reservoir from upstream sources is a potentially significant contributor to DO depletion in Horsetooth Reservoir. Historically, Carter Lake has not exhibited low dissolved oxygen levels or iron and manganese releases from sediments. It is city staff opinion that the differences in quality between Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake are primarily due to how source water is delivered below Lake Estes. A summary of the delivery process is as follows: Although Carter Lake and Horsetooth Reservoir both receive water from Flatiron Reservoir, Horsetooth Reservoir also receives water from the Big Thompson River via the Dille Tunnel Diversion. During 1998 and 1999, a large portion (25%) of Horsetooth Reservoir inflow came from the Big Thompson River. In addition, Horsetooth Reservoir water, except for a small amount from the adjacent watershed, enters through the Hansen Feeder Canal, which is a 13.2 mile open canal. The Hansen Feeder Canal originates at Flatiron Reservoir and can receive water from the Big Thompson River through the Dille Tunnel. At times the Hansen Feeder Canal can carry high amounts of turbidity, E. coli and TOC into the reservoir (Jassby and Goldman 1999). The Big Thompson River and Hansen Feeder Canal are both open systems and are therefore vulnerable to sources of degradation, including septic systems in the Big Thompson River watershed below Lake Estes and above the Dille Tunnel Diversion, storm and agricultural drainage from adjacent land use along the Hansen Feeder Canal, and WWTF discharges such as the Upper Thompson Sanitation District below Lake Estes (the WWTF services approximately 4000 residences). In contrast to Horsetooth Reservoir, all of the water carried to Carter Lake below Lake Estes is contained in a pipeline and travels through two small reservoirs (Pinewood and Flatiron) before being pumped into the Carter Lake. Pinewood, Flatiron and Carter Lake all havesmall adjacent watersheds with no flowing natural tributaries. Fishery manipulations are different between Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake. Forage fish and zooplankton populations have direct influence on phytoplankton populations and water quality. The introduction of a planktivore (rainbow smelt) into Horsetooth in 1983 may have decreased zooplankton populations that feed on phytoplankton, thus increasing phytoplankton numbers. Page 3 Carter Lake inlet water is pumped in at the bottom of the lake through a submerged tunnel while water entering Horsetooth Reservoir enters at the surface from the Hansen Feeder Canal within a semi-isolated embayment. Within Carter Lake, inlet nutrients may not be as available for phytoplankton production because of the deep water intake. Phytoplankton require light, and they grow within the photic zone of a lake (zone of light penetration). Nutrients entering Carter at the bottom below the photic zone are not available to phytoplankton until lake turnover. According to Dennis Miller (NCWCD) st both Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake are filled between November 1 and May each year. Source: (Jassby and Goldman 1999): B&V Response: There will undoubtedly be seasonal and annual changes in Carter Lake water quality in response to climactic conditions. However, 35 years of historical data for Carter Lake do not indicate any long-term degradation in the overall water quality from this source. Important water quality parameters including pH, alkalinity, and hypolimnetic oxygen concentration have not shown any deteriorating trends with time (see Figures A and B). The minimum recorded hypolimnion oxygen concentration in Carter Lake is approximately 3 mg/L,indicating that fully anoxic conditions associated with taste and odor and soluble iron or manganese issues do not occur in Carter Lake. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and dissolved sulfate have shown a slight decreasing trend based on historical data (Figure C), indicating improving water quality. Perhaps the best indicator of the overall water quality of a lake is its trophic status, which reflects the biological productivity in the water body.Biological productivity in a water body is frequently classified based on potential for algal growth, which if excessive may lead to rapid seasonal changes in water quality. Lakes and reservoirs are classified as oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, or hypereutrophic based increasing potential for excessive algal growth or seasonal algal “blooms”. A number of trophic status indices (TSI) have been proposed based on a single or multiple water quality parameters as measures of algal biomass, including Secchi depth (water clarity), total phosphorus level, and chlorophyll a. Historical trends for Secchi depth, total phosphorus, and chlorophylla in Carter Lake have not shown any tendency toward lower water quality, as shown in Figures D through F. Of these parameters, chlorophyll a is the most direct indication of algal biomass. Carter Lake would be classified as oligotrophic based on chlorophyll a content, with a low potential for water quality degradation due to algal blooms (Figure G). Carter Lake has a well-protected and limited watershed with minimal potential for future water quality degradation due to point or non-point contaminant sources. Two dams form Carter Lake in a natural depression in topography, resulting in a very small watershed, as shown in Figure H. The lake is surrounded by steep forested terrain and has no natural tributaries. Much of the surrounding land resides in protected forests, parks, and recreational areas. Lands bordering Carter Lake are also not suitable for large scale agricultural concerns, and natural topography is not amenable to large scale industrial operations. Carter Lake has a capacity of 112,230 ac-ft providing a large dilution volume for any contaminant introduced directly or from surface runoff. Page 4 Long-term water quality degradation due to concentration of point or non-point contaminant inputs is mitigated by seasonal water use, with greater than 50 % annual turnover in the lake being typical. The Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project supplies water to Carter Lake through a series of reservoirs, lakes, tunnels, and conduits. As such, the water quality in Carter Lake is to a large extent dependent on water quality in upstreamwaterbodies including Flatiron Reservoir (760 ac- ft), Pinewood Reservoir (2181 ac-ft), Lake Estes (3,068 ac-ft), Mary’s Lake (927 ac-ft), Grand Lake/Shadow Mountain Reservoir (17,354 ac-ft), and ultimately Lake Granby (539,800 ac-ft). Flatiron and Pinewood Reservoirs have similartopographic features as Carter Lake and are located in undeveloped areas. Lake Estes has natural inflow from the Big Thompson River watershed in Rocky Mountain National Park and CBT inflow from Mary’s Lake. Mary’s Lake has no measurable natural inflow and receives CBT water from Grand Lake via the Alva B. Adams Tunnel. Grand Lake is surrounded by Rocky Mountain National Park on three sides and Shadow Mountain Reservoir on the fourth. Some CBT water collected on the West Slope is pumped to Grand Lake through Shadow Mountain Reservoir. Because of the native topography and protected status of much of the land surrounding the CBT lakes and reservoirs that ultimately supplyCarter Lake, B&V believes that municipal, agricultural, or industrial development on the scale necessary to substantially degrade water quality in these watersheds is not likely during the 30-year planning horizon of our study. Although development will undoubtedly continuein selected locations adjacent to CBT facilities, most notably Estes Park and Grand Lake, natural topography will tend to limit this growth and any potential adverse impactit might have on CBT water quality. The operational practices used by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to manage the water supply in the CBT system also tend to mitigate any impacts of seasonal water quality fluctuations in upstream reservoirs and lakes on water quality degradation in Carter Lake. The vast majority of CBT water transferred to Carter Lake in any water year occurs during the winter and early spring, when water quality is not affected by temperature stratification, algal blooms, or hypolimnetic oxygen depletion in the upstream lakes and reservoirs. Furthermore, the large storage volumes and detention times of the CBT supply system to Carter Lake provide the opportunity for substantial natural attenuation of micropollutants that could potentially enter from intentional or unintentional sources. The WRAB expressed particular concern regarding potential future contamination of CBT water by pathogenic protozoa such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium. B&V believes that there is a low probability that pathogenic protozoa concentrations in CBT water delivered to Carter Lake will increase substantially during the 30-year planning horizon of our study. Protozoa such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium do not reproduce outside of an animal host, and therefore do not independently multiply in natural waters. Contamination of natural waters by Giardia and Cryptosporidium occurs through input of human fecal matter in inadequately treated municipal and domestic wastewater, or animal fecal matterfrom wildlife or domestic livestock. There are currently 4 municipal wastewater treatment facilities permitted by USEPA located in the CBT watershed area, which serve a combined population of approximately 20,000 people. B&V is unaware of any water quality monitoring data that would suggest that these facilities are Page 5 currently releasing discharges to the CBT system that result in Cryptosporidium concentrations above natural background levels. Based on topography and protected surrounding land uses B&V believes that it is unlikely that a concentrated animal feeding operation of sufficient magnitude to negatively impact CBT water quality will be located in the CBT watershed. Based on the size of the CBT system, we also believe thatthere is a negligible possibility of substantial and widespread Cryptosporidiumcontamination of CBT water from wildlife fecal matter. 2. Will there be any change in future drinking water standards? B&V Response: The regulatory environment surrounding drinking water regulations has continuously evolved over the past 30 years, and will likely continue to do so in the future. The most recent regulations that impact surface water treatmentare the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) and Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), promulgated on January 4, 2006 and January 5, 2006, respectively. Collectively, these regulations balance the risk/risk tradeoff between health concerns related to exposure to pathogenic microorganisms, particularly Cryptosporidium, and disinfection byproducts formed in chlorinated drinking water. These regulations will be progressively implemented over the next 5 to 7 years. Based on the regulatory effort required to assess public risk, toxicity or infectivity and regulatory policy of minimizing treatment costs associated with emerging drinking water contaminants, B&V believes thatsignificant additional drinking water standards related to pathogens, particulates, and disinfection byproducts are unlikely to be promulgated until after implementation and initial compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR are complete. B&V believes that the most likely area in which new drinking water standards could be promulgated during the next 10 years will be organic micro-pollutants. Over the past 5 years, there has been growing recognition and concern regarding the health effects of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs), and personal care products (PCPs) that enter drinking water supplies through municipal wastewater discharges and non-point sources. Research into the occurrence, fate, and health effects of a wide range of potential EDCs, PhACs, and PCPs is ongoing. USEPA has promulgated an unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR) to evaluate the occurrence of organic micropollutants in drinking water supplies. In addition, USEPA has developed a repeating 5-year process to evaluate the need to regulate specific micropollutants identified in Candidate Contaminant Lists (CCLs). Of 60 contaminants (50 chemicals and 10 microbes) identified in CCL1 (March, 1998), 20 were classified as priorities for regulatory determination; however, 12 of these were found to have insufficient information to support a regulatory determination. None of the remaining 8 contaminants were recommended for regulation in the final determinations announced in March, 2003. CCL2, promulgated in February, 2005, identifies 9 microbes and 42 chemicals that are scheduled for regulatory determination in 2010. Although USEPA has the authority to promulgate new drinking water standards at any time, B&V believesit is unlikely that additional regulations will be promulgated for any of these contaminants before the regulatory determinations of CCL2 are finalized. Page 6 3. Will there be a need for improvements to the Boulder Reservoir WTP during the planning period? B&V Response: B&V believes that the current facilities of the BRWTF can, in general, be expected to give reliable service for the 30-year planning period covered by this study, without major replacement or refurbishment of basic treatment processes. There may well be improvements to ancillary systems such as instrumentation and controls, operational data logging and processing, and residuals dewatering that would enhance the operational efficiency of the facilities. However, ancillary improvements of these kinds are to a large extent independent of the fundamental treatment process additions considered in this study. BRWTF was originally commissioned in 1971 to serve as a seasonal peaking plant with a nominal treatment capacity of 8 million gallons a day. During the early 1990’s, it became desirable to operate the facility on a year-round basis to eliminate staffing and maintenance problems and to maximize use of the City's raw water resources. During 1993, a masonry building was constructed to cover the existing flocculator-clarifier, and a cover was installed over the backwash recovery basin to facilitate winter operations. In 1995, the existing filter building was modified to house new chemical feed and storage equipment, and two new filters were installed. The new chemical feed and storage equipment was designed for system redundancy and increased storage capacity. The existing chemical building was converted to administrative and laboratory space. During 2001, the chlorine gas disinfection system was convertedto a Mixed Oxidant System (MIOX) in order to eliminate the use of chlorine gas. In 2003, City staff developed a comprehensive facility plan for BRWTF that included near-term, mid-term, and long-term improvements. Near-term improvements completed in 2005 included replacing the existing flocculator/clarifier with two Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) pre-treatment units, installing baffling in the clearwell, providing increased pumping capacity from the treatment plant, and providing on site residuals treatment lagoons. Mid-term improvements under consideration include filter backwash water recovery and pre-oxidation with chlorine dioxide. Long-term improvements are the focus of this study. The possibility of a need for complete replacement of the BRWTF with a new facility was suggested by WRAB at the March 19, 2007 board meeting as an alternative to continued investment in the current BRWTF. An evaluation of this concept is not included in the scope of our current study which focuses on updating and maximizing use of existing assets. Based on the considerable recent improvements to BRWTF, B&V would assess the effective age of current facilities as on the order of 10 years or less, rather than the 35 year age of the facilities originally constructed. Complete replacement of BRWTF would undoubtedly be more costly than any of the long-term improvement alternatives proposed in our draft final report, and based on the satisfactory performance of current facilities, B&V believes is unwarranted. Page 7 4. Why was ultra filtration not evaluated as a long term treatment alternative, and what is the practicality and cost of retrofitting the existing filters with "immersed membrane" technology? B&V Response: Consistent with the scope developed at project inception, each of the potential treatment process technologies listed in the Predesign Report(MWH, 2003), as well as those listed in the LT2ESWTR, was initially screened for its ability to address the water quality goals provided by City staff. Within the context of a multi-barrier water delivery approach, these internal water quality goals (see B&V draft final report Appendix) included consideration of pathogens, disinfection by-products, organic micro-pollutants, manganese,taste and odor, and TDS and sulfate. These finished water quality goals exceed minimum state and federal drinking water quality standards in some respects, which influenced initial process screening. Because many of the City’s water quality goals deal with controlof dissolved constituents, low pressure membrane technologies were not considered for study after the initial screening because they primarily address particulate contaminants. High pressure membrane technologies such as reverse osmosis that could potentially address dissolved contaminant control were also not considered further due to the extremely high cost and regulatory hurdles associated with membrane concentrate (brine) disposal. Because substantial interest in low pressure membrane technologies was expressed by the WRAB at the March 19, 2007 board meeting, B&V has developed and evaluated two additional alternatives that would utilize submerged ultrafiltration membrane technology retrofitted into the existing BRWTF filter boxes, as shown in Figures I and J. Alternative 1D has seasonal source water supply from Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir, whereas alternative 2D uses Boulder Reservoir year-round for source water supply. The non-economic performance of alternatives 1D and 2D was evaluated using the decision criteria and relative weights provided in the B&V draft final report, as shown in Figure K. The performance of these alternatives was similar to other treatment oriented alternatives, largely due to their inability to address control of dissolved constituents. Capital, annual O&M, and life cycle costs for alternatives 1D and 2D are given in Figures L, M, and N. 5. How were the criteria, weighting and scoring determined? B&V Response: Decision model criteria development, relative weights, and alternative ranking were performed as described in Chapters 4 and 6 of the B&V draft project report. A set of preliminary decision model performance criteria was presented to City staff by Black & Veatch in a workshop held on August 16, 2006. Over the next several months, an ad hoc committee (BRWTF Multi-BarrierProject Working Group) representing drinking water quality, water resources, operations, and engineering project management functions refined the preliminary decision model performance criteria through a series of scheduled meetings and informal communications. Based on the collective expertise and experience of the Project Page 8 Working Group members, the set of decision modelperformance criteria ultimately chosen was reviewed and finalized in a workshop held on December 14, 2006. The same ad hoc committee (BRWTF Multi-Barrier Project Working Group) representing drinking water quality, water resources, operations, and engineering project management functions held a series of informal meetings and communications to develop a preliminary set of performance criteria weights based on the collective expertise and experience of the committee members. These preliminary criteria weights were formalized based on the dialog of a workshop held on December 14, 2006 between working group members and Black & Veatch. The working group developed a preliminary set of guidelines for scoring alternatives against each criterion, as listed in Appendix 2 of the B&Vdraft report. Minor changes discussed in a workshop held January 18, 2007 with the project Working Group and Black & Veatch were incorporated with the preliminary guidelines to formalize the multi-barrier water delivery scoring process. Worksheets used during BRWTF multi-barrier water delivery alternative scoring are given in draft report Appendix 2. B&V established the relative performance of each water delivery alternative for each decision criterion by assigning scores between 1 and 10, with the highest value for the alternative(s) that best satisfied the intent of the criterion. It is important to note that assigning a score of 10 to an alternative for any given criterion does not imply that the alternativesatisfies the criterion perfectly, but rather that it most closely satisfies the intent of the criterion. Remaining alternatives were assigned lower scores basedon their ability to satisfy the given criterion relative to the alternative that best satisfies that criterion. The general approach taken in ranking BRWTF water delivery alternatives against each criterion was that, wherever possible, prevention of contamination during raw water delivery to BRWTF is a superior strategy to subsequent treatment at BRWTF. This strategy is in keeping with the century-old paradigm of using the highest quality source water available as a drinking water supply. Although innovations in drinking water treatmentincluding advanced oxidation processes, membrane filtration, UV disinfection, and solid-phase adsorption processes have dramatically improved the capability to treat compromised source waters in recent years, drinking water treatment is still an imprecisescience that has distinct limitations. Thus, preventing contamination of drinking water supplies through source water protection will continue to be a prudent recursor to subsequent treatmentfor the foreseeable future. 6. What are Boulder’s drinking water quality goals for TDS and sulfate and how do they compare to secondary drinking water standards? What is the need and basis for Boulder’s TDS and sulfate goals? Staff Response: Boulder’s internally proposed goals for finished water are less than 5 mg/L for sulfate and less than 125 mg/L for total dissolved solids (TDS). Secondary regulations for sulfate and TDS are 250 mg/L and 500 mg/L, respectively. The intent behind the city’s lower internal goals for sulfate and TDS is to minimize the unpredictable variability of quality in the mixing zone between the Betasso and Boulder Reservoir water treatment plants (WTPs) and have the quality Page 9 of water from the two WTPs be as close as possible. After further reviewing Betasso WTP finished water data, it is recommended that the city’s internal goals be changed to less than 20 mg/L for sulfate and less than 100 mg/L for TDS. Source water from Boulder Reservoir sources can contain as high as 175 mg/L sulfate and 330 mg/L TDS (see Table 2 - city of Boulder source water program data 1997-2005). Since sulfate and TDS are not removed with conventional treatment processes at the Boulder Reservoir WTP, these source water constituents can carry though into the drinking water. Betasso WTP, on the other hand, has very low sulfate and TDS entering the plant fromBarker Reservoir and Lakewood Reservoir sources. Sulfate and TDS leaving the Betasso WTP is increased slightly from the addition of alum coagulant and lime, respectively. Sulfate in the Betasso finished water ranges from 5 to 18 mg/L and TDS is typically 75 mg/L. Customers in the mixing zone between the areas served by the two WTPs can get high sulfate and TDS one day and low the next based . on the source of finished water These customers can taste the difference in water quality and have called to complain when changes in water quality (due to sulfate and/or TDS) occur. Customer dissatisfaction with Boulder’s drinking water is increased when these water quality changes are detected. Certain pharmaceutical industries, laboratories and manufacturing businesses that further process Boulder’s drinking water need to treat finished water from the Boulder Reservoir WTP even further to remove TDS. If internal TDS goals are achieved, a cost savings to these businesses could occur and may attract other businesses to Boulder. In addition to consumer confidence and business cost savings, achieving low internal TDS goals would create equity in water service and quality for the city’s water customers. Customers would be paying the same water rates for the same quality of water regardless of where one lived in Boulder. This issue came up with the City of Broomfield a number of years ago, when poor quality water in Great Western Reservoir was still Broomfield’s main water supply and part of the city received higher quality treated water from Denver. Broomfield decided to mix the two water qualities in the finished water tank before releasing it to the customers so everyone received the same quality water for the price. This approach to equity would be infeasible for Boulder due to the configuration of the city’s water system. 7. Why has the Town of Erie chosen not to participate in the pipeline, but rather take water out of the Boulder Supply Canal? Staff Response: The Town of Erie participated in the initial project feasibility analysis conducted by NCWCD. This analysis resulted in preliminary cost projections for each pipeline project participant. Erie determined that the cost for its participation exceeded its presently-available funds and that it would have to go ahead with a project to run a pipeline only up to the Boulder Supply Canal. The Erie Town Manager noted that they were aware of the water quality concerns with the Boulder Feeder Canal and believed that they might have to take steps in the future to deal with the quality problem, but could only finance a much shorter pipeline at this time. 8. The cost for the GAC alternative may be unrealistically high and should be evaluated. Page 10 Staff Response: Staff has received a proposal from Susumu Kawamura for an independent review of B&V’s report. Dr. Kawamura has over 40 years of experience in the design and evaluation of water treatment plants. Attached is his resume.Dr. Kawamura will be focusing his effort on reviewing the proposed alternatives including an additional alternative that B&V is currently developing that incorporates membrane technology. He will evaluate the cost and proposed scoring of each alternative. B&V Response: B&V has reviewed the cost estimate for granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment proposed as part of treatment option 1C, and believes that the value presented in our draft final report is consistent with current market conditions for this process and its intended purpose at BRWTF. As applied in alternative 1C, GAC treatment would consist of post filtration contact with an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 15 min. to provide substantial TOC reduction for control of disinfection by-products. The cost of facilities required by this EBCT is proportionally greater than that of smaller facilities required to provide an EBCT of 5 min.often used for targeted contaminant removal. We have also considered the economy of scale associated with GAC treatment for the desired 16 mgd firm capacity at BRWTF. Although lower unit costs may be associated with higher capacity facilities, we believe that our estimate for post-filtration GAC treatment is consistent with current market conditions. 9. The cost for the Carter Lake pipeline is based on Jan. 2006 information whereas the other costs are 2007. Can all costs be reviewedand updated to be on the same baseline? B&V Response: The preliminary cost opinion for Boulder’s share of a Carter Lake Pipeline as detailed in the Southern Water Supply Project II: Feasibility Study (Integra; January, 2006) was $20,148,000. This cost opinion assumed that the Town of Erie was not participating in the CLP project, and that steel pipe would be used. B&V has evaluated the probable inflation of this previous cost opinion based on increases in labor, equipment, and materials through February, 2007 using the most recently available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Engineering News Record information. Based on our evaluation we estimate that the Integra cost opinion of January, 2006 should be increased due to inflation by slightly less than 5 percent, resulting in an updated cost in February, 2007 of $21,057,000. 10. Can the “Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant Source Water Protection and Treatment Improvements” report be integrated with the Source Water Plan? Staff Response: The purpose of the Source Water Plan is to review the current status of the system, tabulate all known existing information on the city’s raw water supplies, identify current issues of concern, and make recommendations for future studies and actions. The Source Water Plan will not generate new data or complete any new studies,but will make recommendations on what data or Page 11 studies should be completed. If the Boulder Reservoir evaluation study is not completed before issuance of the Source Water Plan, the Plan would likely recommend that it be completed, but the Plan would not serve as a vehicle to do so. It is staff’s opinion that the NCWCD water system is by far the least protected and most vulnerable of the city’s three water systems.The North Boulder Creek water system is fully protected through land ownership and conveyance to the Betasso WTP through the Silver Lake and Lakewood pipelines. Water quality in the Barker water system is secured through the large volume of Barker Reservoir and almost continuous piping to the Betasso WTP. For these reasons, it is concluded that further investments in the city’s source water systems should be prioritized for the NCWCD water system. It is unlikely that the Source Water Plan will change this conclusion. 11. What is the hydroelectric potential of the project? Staff Response: Preliminary design of the Carter Lake Pipeline shows that there will be about 200 psi of head available at the outlet of the pipeline at the Boulder Reservoir Plant. This is sufficient head both to require pressure reduction and to drive a turbinein parallel with a PRV. As the purchaser of its portion of the Carter Lake Pipeline capacity, Boulder would own the right to the hydro potential at the Boulder Reservoir Plant. NCWCD has been notified that Boulder is interested in a pipeline outlet design that allows for development of the hydro potential. Actual installation of a turbine would be a separate city project apart from the construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. The potential output of a hydro plant at this location would depend on the pattern of water use, including factors such the minimum flow rate, mean sustained flow rate and maximum flow rate. Prior to proceeding with installation of a hydro plant, the city would complete a feasibility study to determine if the revenue from power generation can offset the costs of the construction of a turbine/generator within a reasonable payback period. 12. Should additional evaluations of various pipeline capacities for the Carter Lake Pipeline be considered in the context of delivering more water through the Boulder Reservoir WTP and thereby making more water available for instream flow in Boulder Creek? Staff Response: This question has two aspects—what drives the sizing of Boulder Reservoir facilities and what is the need for more instream flow in Boulder Creek. Boulder’s proposed capacity in the Carter Lake Pipeline project was set at 25 cfs to complement the maximum sustained operational capacity of 16 MGD (25 cfs) for the Boulder Reservoir Treatment Plant and the expected future capacity of treated water pumping facilities for moving water from the Boulder Reservoir WTP into the city water system. This treatment capacity level was selected to meet the city’s buildout water supply needs, both for redundancy of capacity for meeting essential indoor water demands and for maximizing yield of the city’s water supplies. If more than 25 cfs (16 MGD) is needed for short periods of time to operate Boulder Reservoir Plant at its proposed emergency maximum load of 20 MGD instead of the daily operational maximum of 16 MGD, then additional water Page 12 can be drawn from Boulder Reservoir and mixed in for supplementing Carter Lake Pipeline deliveries. If current plans for buildout capacities of water system components were altered to deliver more water through the Boulder Reservoir side of the water system than has previously been expected, it would be a major restructuring of the underlying operational scheme that has driven water system design for decades. This would have far-reaching consequences and involve major expense. This could be studied further as a general proposal to modify the underlying operational structure of the water system, but its wide-ranging ramifications are large enough that they should be evaluated within a study solely devoted to this purpose rather than through the Boulder Reservoir study. Key factors that drive the operational scheme of the city water system are the availability of exchange potential on Boulder Creek and the need to always maintain a water supply for Betasso Water Treatment Plant to assure that the highestpressure zone (Zone 3) in the city’s treated water distribution network is always supplied.Although the city has emergency capabilities to deliver essential water demands to Zone 3 from Boulder Reservoir via pump stations, it is important that delivery of water into Betasso be maintained for normal water uses. This is one of the reasons that healthy reserves are kept in the city’s upper Boulder Creek reservoirs. Another reason that the storage reserves are carefully maintained on the upper end of the system is because that is where the majority of the water treatment capacity is located. Betasso has a capacity of about 46 MGD and Boulder Reservoir plant now has a treatment capacity of 16 MGD, although the capacity of the pumping station that lifts the Boulder Reservoir treated water into the city is presently limited to 13.5 MGD. On peak use days during the summer, all of Boulder’s treatment capacity is required to meet demands. Although the majority of Boulder’s treatment capacity is at the upper end of the system at Betasso, about half of the city’s water supplies are available at the Boulder Reservoir side of the system. The city’s exchange water right is used for the purpose of moving water from the lower end of the city’s raw water system to the upper end for running through Betasso. The exchange potential on Boulder Creek varies from year to year and season to season based on the call for water by other water right owners, but has proven to be a reliable way to move thousands of acre-feet of water up Boulder Canyon without benefit of a pipeline. In this manner, Boulder is able to make greater use of its CBT water supplies without large and unwarranted capital expenditures for new pipelines and pumping stations at Boulder Reservoir Plant and operational expenses for additional power and treatmentchemicals to run more water through Boulder Reservoir Plant. Modifying the basic operational scheme of the city water system, which places primary reliance on Betasso, at this point would require additional treatment capacity at Boulder Reservoir plant while at the same time abandoning existing treatment capacity at Betasso. This would be a difficult fiscal position to justify. Information was previously provided to WRAB on the question of the amount of instream flow supplementation needed for Boulder Creek. As a part of designing the Boulder Creek instream flow program in conjunction with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, extensive studies were undertaken to establish the appropriate amount of water to be supplied by Boulder for Page 13 instream flow maintenance. The two periods of greatest stress to stream species were determined to be low flow periods in late summers and winter and the high flow periods in the spring. Based on these studies, the present instream flow program and amount of water provided by the city addresses low flow needs and maximizes the amount of fish habitat that can be maintained unless the natural peak flows during spring runoff are reduced in some manner. Sediment transport studies were also done and showed that no additional streamflow is needed for channel maintenance purposes either. Therefore, the currently proposed capacity for Boulder’s participation in the Carter Lake Pipeline is appropriate for the sizing of the city’s other facilities, the existing water system operational scheme, and expected capacity needs at buildout of the city. Any proposal that would radically modify the long-held constructs for the operation and design of the city’s water system would have enormous financial implications. Data shows that providing additional instream flows would not provide any additional stream benefit, and so it does not appear that increasing operations at the Boulder Reservoir WTP for this purpose could be justified. 13. Does the city of Boulder own water or storage in Carter Lake or in Boulder Reservoir? Staff Response: Carter Lake and all of its storage space is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is operated by NCWCD as a part of the CBT system. Boulder does not own any of this reservoir storage, but has access to the storage benefits through ownership of about 7.5% of the units in the CBT Project. Boulder can call for delivery of its CBT water up to the limits of the annual quota set for CBT units in any year. Delivery of the full quota amount can be made to Boulder at any point within the CBT system, including from Carter Lake if the facilities are available. Boulder owns the Boulder Reservoir land, facilities, and an amount of storage space within the reservoir that varies by season under a contract between the city and NCWCD. Ownership of Boulder Reservoir is within the city’s Utility Enterprise Fund. The recreational facilities are operated by the city Parks and Recreation Department. The remainder of the reservoir storage space is owned by NCWCD for the benefit of CBT water users. NCWCD operates the dams and associated reservoir facilities under contractual agreement with the city. Boulder’s storage space is divided into long-term storage for drought protection and short-term seasonal storage. The long-term storage pool carries over from year to year. The short-term storage space becomes available to the city in the winter season when the Boulder Feeder Canal is off. This storage is used to feed the Boulder Reservoir WTP throughout the winter. It would become a backup winter supply if the Carter Lake Pipeline is built and would be used to supplement pipeline deliveries or to keep the treatment plant operating at times the pipeline is out of service. 14. What will be evaluated and included in the CEAP, and what is the schedule for the CEAP? Staff Response: Page 14 The current alternatives analysis will serve as the basis for the city's Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). The CEAP will be consistent with current city guidelines which include a goals and impacts assessment. The goals assessment will include a description of the primary city goals and benefits of the project in promoting sustainability and the long term viability of the economy, environment and social structures with future generations in mind. The impacts assessment will consider both short and long-term impacts of the proposed project and project alternatives. The on-going Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) permitting process will be used to inform the impacts assessment concerning the Carter Lake pipeline. It is anticipated that work on the CEAP will begin in June 2007 and be completed in early 2008. 15. Who will own the facilites (pipeline, hydroelectric, etc)? Staff Response: Title to the pipeline facilities will be held by a special Subdistrict of NCWCD that is created specifically for this project. This Subdistrict will consist of all of the pipeline project participants. Each participant will own its portion of the pipeline capacity and will be able to sell or lease this capacity to others. Boulder will own the hydroelectric potential associated with its pipeline capacity and water deliveries. Any hydro plant that is installed would be built as a separate city project with full ownership by the city. Page 15 3 )OCakalinity (mg/L as ClA .) (s.uHp L) (mg/OD TDS, Sulfate (mg/L) pth (m)eSecchi D total L)g/ (P L)g/ (alyhproloCh L)g/ (alyhproloCh Primary MCLSecondary MCL Primary MCLSecondary MCL Decision Score Capital Cost in 2007 ($M) nual O&M Cost in 2007 ($M)An Net Present Value ($M) City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft Criteria and Weighting Survey Table 1 Finished Water Quality Criteria for BRWTF Multi-Barrier Water Delivery Alternatives CriteriaCommentsStaffWeight Proposed (0 to 10) WRAB Weight Pathogens What are the recent trends in microbial water quality in BFC, Boulder Reservoir, and Carter Lake? How likely are acute pathogenic contamination events in 10 these raw water sources? Are barriers sufficient to prevent pathogens from passing through BRWTF at levels that could jeopardize public health? Disinfection Which DBPs will be formed and at what levels? Can Byproducts source water as well as treatment controls be used to 7 minimize DBP formation? Organic How significant is the potential risk of organic Micro-contamination during source water conveyance or 6 Pollutantsstorage? To what extent can treatment processes mitigate acute or chronic organic contamination? Inorganic How significant is the potential risk of inorganic Micro-contamination during source water conveyance or 4 Pollutantsstorage? To what extent can treatment processes mitigate acute or chronic organic contamination? Manganese What is the extent and duration of seasonal manganese mobilization? Can source water or 6 treatment controls be used to limit manganese levels? Taste and What is the extent and duration of seasonal taste and Odorodor episodes associated with algal blooms or manganese mobilization? Can source water as well 6 as treatment controls be used to minimize objectionable tastes and odors? Inorganic What is the potential for inorganic contamination Contaminants during source water conveyance or storage? Can 6 source water as well as treatment controls be used to mitigate inorganic contamination? BRWTF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH DECISION CRITERIA1 City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft Table 2 Source Water Conveyance Criteria for BRWTF Water Delivery Alternatives CriteriaCommentsStaffWeight Proposed (0 to 10) WRAB Weight Source Water What is the extent of seasonal and short-term source Qualitywater quality fluctuation to BRWTF? Do these 6 Consistency fluctuations impact treatment at BRWTF and for how long? Water Rights What is the availability of raw water for direct use? Is Yieldthe ability to manage stored reservoir water throughout the year and during droughts maximized? 10 Can water rights yield be increased through enhanced water management or capacity of facilities? PortfolioHow many options are available for delivering raw Flexibilitywater to BRWTF? How difficult is it to switch water sources in response to changing conditions? Are 8 there seasonal limitations on use of raw water sources? Availability of What is the expected reliability of infrastructure for raw Raw Water water delivery to BRWTF? What are the capacity Deliverylimitations of these delivery methods? Are their 9 Facilitiesrestrictions on the use of water delivery infrastructure due to external factors that affect operations or water quality? BRWTF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH DECISION CRITERIA2 City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft . Table 3 Water Treatment and Operations Criteria for BRWTF Water Delivery Alternatives CriteriaCommentsStaffWeight Proposed (0 to 10) WRAB Weight Worker What types and amounts of treatment or cleaning Safetychemicals that staff will be exposed to? What are the durations of these exposures? Will staff be exposed 10 to high voltage electrical shock hazards? Are physically intensive maintenance procedures such as cleaning intake grates required? ProcessWhat is the maturity and robustness of treatment Flexibilitytechnologies? Is the number of treatment process 6 technologies required to provide required contaminant barriers minimized? ProcessIs raw water delivered with consistent quality and Reliabilityflow? Can consistent year-round treatment be 9 provided with minimal process failure? ProcessAre multiple barriers provided for contaminant 9 Redundancy categories of concern? Is back-up capability provided for critical treatment operations? Maintenance Can all maintenance be performed by City staff or will an outside contractor be required? Will routine 3 replacement of consumable items such as lamps or membranes be required? StaffingWhat are the levels of staffing and supervision required? What levels of expertise and certification 3 are required? Residuals What are the quantities and characteristics of Processing residuals produced by new treatment processes? Will 5 residuals disposal require special environmental permitting? BRWTF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH DECISION CRITERIA3 City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft Table 4 Risk Criteria for BRWTF Water Delivery Alternatives CriteriaCommentsStaffWeight Proposed (0 to 10) WRAB Weight AcuteWhat is the potential for acute or “slug-loading” of Contamination contaminants that could disrupt or disable water delivery from BRWTF either temporarily or long term? 10 Is there potential for undetected breakthrough of these contaminants? Chronic What is the risk associated with non-point Contamination contaminant sources in BRWTF raw water supplies that could pose a threat to public health? Are these 10 contaminants difficult to remove or inactivate through treatment? Adaptability to What is the risk to public health associated with Change potential near- and long-term source water quality 8 degradation? What is the potential for future regulatory non-compliance? Infrastructure What is the likelihood that damage to infrastructure Vulnerabilitycould impede purveyance or treatment of the potable 2 water supply? Consumable Are there consumables such as process specific Delivery/Usage chemicals, membranes, or lamps that would impede treatment or public health protection if delivery was 1 interrupted? To what extent are alternate sources of these critical treatment consumables available? BRWTF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH DECISION CRITERIA4 City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft Table 5 Environmental and Public Acceptance Criteria for BRWTF Water Delivery Alternatives CriteriaCommentsStaffWeight Proposed (0 to 10) WRAB Weight Adjacent Are there critical wildlife habitats, archeologically Land Use sensitive, or historically significant lands adjacent to Compatibilityconveyance structures? What impact might adjacent 8 agricultural, industrial, commercial, recreational, and residential tracts have on conveyance? Finished How uniform is finished water quality across the Water distribution system? Does finished water from 3 Uniformity BRWTF meet City water quality goals? Construction What are the land area footprint and associated restoration requirements? Will extensive underground 1 excavation and associated materials handling be required? Consumer What is the level of consumer confidence with finished 8 Confidence water delivered from BRWTF? PermittingAre there sensitive environmental or public acceptance issues that would make required 1 permitting difficult? What measures are available to mitigate these concerns? EnergyWhat are the operational energy requirements and Requirements what are their secondary environmental effects? Is 5 there potential for renewable energy generation? BRWTF MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH DECISION CRITERIA5 RESUME Susumu Kawamura, Ph.D., P.E. President KAWAMURA WATER ENGINEERING, Inc. 8912 Duarte Road, San Gabriel, CA 91775, U.S.A. Tel: (626) 286-4423, Fax: (626) 287-6320, E-mail: skawamura@aol.com California Corporation No.: 2202597 Federal Tax Identification No.: 95-4830396 EDUCATION B.C. Equivalent, Civil Engineering, Kobe Technical College (Kobe, Japan) M.S., Sanitary Engineering, The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) Ph.D., (Doctor of Engineering), Kyoto University (Kyoto, Japan) SUMMARY Since the beginning of his civil and sanitary engineering career in 1950, Dr. Kawamura has amassed a professional experience encompassing all facet of Environmental Engineering, including planning, studies, design, value engineering, construction management, and plant operation for domestic (USA.) and overseas water facilities. His particular focus has been the design of new water treatment and water supply systems as well as modification and expansion of existing water treatment plants allover the world. He has been involved in over 100 projects and he is the author of more than 80 technical publications, as well as three books. He is a registered professional engineer in five states in the United States (Arizona, California, Nevada, Ohio, and Utah) as well as Japan and he is a certified water treatment plant operator– grade 5 (highest) of State of California. He taught the graduate courses at University of Southern California for 15 years stating 1980. EXPERIENCE Kawamura Water Engineering, Inc., San Gabriel, California This firm was established as a C-Corporation in late 2000. Since then Dr. Kawamura has served as a technical advisor, technical expert or as a member of the Peer Review Committee for several major domestic projects: treatment process optimization emphasizing importance of pretreatment including DAF and filtration processes for United Water Services - Haworth Water Treatment Plant (180mgd)- New Jersey, and treatment processes evaluations and recommendations emphasis on filtration system for the Lake DeForest Water Treatment Plant (15mgd), New York; Jefferson Water Treatment Plant (70mgd) in Lorado, Texas, and Chattahoochee Water Treatment Plant (65 mgd), Atlanta, Georgia; evaluation for the City of Napa - James Canyon Water Treatment Plant (15mgd), California; filter 1 evaluation and modifications for the B.E. Payne Water Treatment Plant (60mgd) for Louisville Water Company, Kentucky; treatment process upgrade and plant expansion for Sweetwater Authority - Purdue Water Treatment Plant (25mgd), California; plant evaluation and expansion for the city of San Diego - Otay Filtration Plant (25mgd) , California; plant evaluation and pretreatment optimization for the Water Facility Authority - Agua de Lejos Water TreatmentPlant (88mgd), California; evaluation and technical review of the pre-design work forthe Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy- Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (120mgd), Utah; 120 filters modifications/upgrading and application of variance to the State on new filtration rate for 6gpm/sf for the City of Chicago - South District Filtration Plant (500mgd) , Illinois; review of reports in regard to sludge handling and disposal issues associated with DBPs and arsenic control strategies at Skinner Water Treatment Plant (650mgd) and Diemer Filtration Plant (400mgd), chemical usage optimization study for all water treatment plants of MWD (2,500 mgd), value engineering for filter wash waste reclamation plant No.3 of Diemer Plant and Module 1 and 2 rehabilitations of Mills Plant (328 mgd) for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Other Value Engineering involved were for new Winnipeg Water Works (125mgd)in Manitoba, Canada evaluation and for modifications of Baldwin (165mgd),Morgan (150mgd) and Notingham (100mgd) water treatment plants of Cleveland city of Ohio. More recently, recommendations for 26 filters at A.M. Smith Water Treatment Facility (600 mgd) with Dr. J.L. Cleasby of Iowa State University, project review and recommendations for pilot plants and two 20,000 gallons per day demonstration scale testing facilities complete with laboratory and other supporting equipment at River Mountain Water Treatment Facility (300mgd) and A.M. Smith plant for Southern Nevada Water Authority, Nevada Design reviews and recommendations for the water jet diffusion flash mixer system for coagulants include the system for Skinner Filtration Plant Module 1 to 7 (630mgd) and Jensen Filtration Plant (800mgd) of MWD of Southern California; Aqueduct Filtration Plant (600mgd) of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and P.J. Holton Water Purification Plant (140mgd) of city of Providence, Rhode Island. Investigations and recommendations for water treatment processes as the expert include Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant (25mgd) in Tampa, Florida; Point Lisas Desalination Plant (33mgd) in Trinidad forWater and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago; Colored Water Treatment Facility (6mgd) of Mesa Consolidated water District in California. Utilization of recent high rate clarification processes such as Actiflo and High Rate DAF process followed by membrane filtration process is a recent water treatment scheme. Kawamura has been actively involved this type of water treatment scheme including Waterman Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd) of city of Fairfield, California and Del Valle Water Treatment Plant (40 mgd) of Zone 7 Water Agency in California. Major overseas projects include: filter evaluation and recommendations for the East Bank (180mgd), West Bank (88 mgd), and North Pine (66mgd) Water Works for City of 2 Brisbane, Australia; treatment process upgrade and expansion of the Alto da Boa Vista Water Treatment Plant (400mgd) in Sao Paulo, Brazil (400mgd) for SABESP; treatment process evaluations and recommendationsfor Chen-Chin (120mgd), Kao-Tan (65mgd), and Wen-Kung (11mgd) Water Treatment Plants for the City of Kaoshiung, Taiwan. Involvement in major proposals of Design-Build projects are: Lake Pleasant Water Treatment Plant (80mgd), Phoenix, Arizona and Lawrence Water Treatment Plant (12mgd), Massachusetts with Earth Tech; Capilano-Seymore Water Treatment Plant (500mgd) of the Great Vancouver Water Authority of British Columbia, Canada with Earth Tech; expansion of the Corbalis Water Treatment Plant (350mgd), Virginia, with Greeley & Hansen; Columbia Water Treatment Plant (12mgd), Idaho with Montgomery Watson Harza; engineering design support service as well as on-call process engineering and plant engineering services projects for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California with Montgomery Watson Harza; and evaluation and preliminary design of enhanced coagulation facilities at Los Angeles Aqueduct Filtration Plant (600mgd), California with Montgomery Watson Harza Montgomery Watson, Inc., Pasadena, California Montgomery Watson, Inc. is an international environmental engineering firm of over 6,000 employees. Employed for thirty-two (32) years, Dr. Kawamura became a Senior Vice President and Corporate Technical Director prior to his retirement at the end of the year 2000. In late 1970, the City of Los Angeles selected Montgomery to establish a proper water treatment process for their new Aqueduct Filtration Plant (600mgd) through a comprehensive pilot study. The filters of the plant, with a coarse size (E.S.=1.5–2.0mm), deep (6ft) and a high rate (14gpm/sf) anthracite mono-media bed, was the result of pilot study which was originally recommended by Kawamura due to his knowledge and experience on the two-stage filtration pilot study in 1950s. He served as technical director on several large projects during the final fifteen (15) years, including a new Frederick Griffith Water Treatment Plant (126mgd) of Fairfax County Water Authority in Virginia; a new ozonation facility study for the 275mgd Linnwood Water Purification Plant located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; design of a 220 mgd addition to the Henry Mills filtration Plant for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; a 100mgd addition to each of the two water filtration plants for the city of Sacramento, California; evaluation and modification of John Preston (165mgd) and Alexander Orr (260mgd) Water Softening Plants of Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department in Florida; evaluation and modification of the 350 mgd East Water Treatment Plant for City of Houston, Texas; plant modification and expansion of the East Side Water Treatment Plant (440mgd) and Backman Water Treatment Plant (125mgd) of Dallas, Texas; evaluation and recommendations for three major filtration plants (710mgd total) for Denver Water Department in Denver, Colorado; design of the Taiacupeba Water Treatment Plant (350mgd) for SABESP of Sao Palo, Brazil; and design of the Wonju Water Treatment Plant (60 mgd) for the Korea Water Resources Corporation. Kawamura was also the project engineer for the design of eight water treatment plants ranging in size from 1 mgd to 750 mgd and project manager for twenty- 3 two (22) other water treatment plants.In January 1995, he has made a two-week volunteer work as well as the assessment of damages of entire water purveying systems of the Metropolitan Kobe, Japan just after a magnitude 7.0 earthquake destroyed most lifeline system of the region. Since the early 1990s, he has also been selected as an Independent Technical Advisor and Project Reviewer for several large projects: Reviewed the modification schemes and pilot study of the South District Water Purification Plant (500mgd) of Chicago, Illinois; evaluated the new Walnut Hill Water Treatment Plant (450mgd) for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority; evaluated and counseled on the large scale pilot study and pre-design of Croton Water Treatment Plant (300mgd) of New York City; and made evaluations and recommendations for modification and expansion of the Los Barros Water Treatment plant (600mgd) of Mexico City. Burgess and Niple Consulting Engineers, Columbus, Ohio Assistant principal engineer for three years from 1965 with this firm. His responsibilities included the design of two lime softening plants and a small conventional wastewater treatment plant. Hanshin Water Supply Authority, Kobe, Japan Assistant chief engineer for this water purveyor (wholesaler), he served on various projects from 1950 to 1964 including the design and construction of 40mgd and 150mgd water treatment plants. He also managed operations of these plants for a total of four years after plant constructions were completed. He was actively engaged in pilot studies of water treatment unit processes including flash mixing, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration as well as a hydraulic scale model studies on grit chamber, flocculation and sedimentation tanks. AWARDS Honored by the Hanshin Water Works Authority for outstanding contribution to the development of the new water treatment process technology (1958). Recipient of the Yuko Prize bestowed by the Japan Water Works Association for the best technical article published in the Journal of JWWA in the year 1958 (1959). Recipient of the William J. Carroll Award for outstanding contribution to the water profession (1990). ORGANIZATIONS American Academy of Environmental Engineers American Water Works Association Australian Water Supply Association International Water Supply Association 4 PUBLICATONS “Evaluation of Existing Grit Chamber Performance based on the Sieve Analysis of Settled Grit across the Tank”, Kansai Region Water Conference ( March, 1951). "Experience in Troubles on Rapid Sand Filter Beds including Wheeler Bottom” Japan Water Works Association Proceedings of Second Annual Conference (May, 1951) "A Study on Horizontal Flow Settling Tank by a Hydraulic Scale Model, "JWWA, Proc. of 3rd Annual Conference (May 1952). "A Study of Grit Chambers by a Hydraulic Scale Model, " Jour. JWWA, No.222, 11 (1953). "A Pilot Studies of Flocculation Tank," JWWA, Proc. of 4th Annual Conference (July 1953). "A Study of Water Purification Mechanism Based on Chemical Analysis of Water and Sludge in the Treatment Process of Amagasaki Water Treatment Plant," I & II, Jour. JWWA, No.239 and No.242 (1954). "A Pilot Study on Two-Stage Filtration for Conventional Rapid Sand Filter," JWWA Proc. of 5th Annual Conference (October 1954). "A Study on Filter Washing Efficiency of Conventional Filters with a Fixed Nozzle type Surface Washing Device," JWWA Proc. of 6th Annual Conference (May 1955). "An Effect of Carbon Dioxide and Bicarbonates on Floc Formation," JWWA Proc. of 6th Annual Conference (May 1955). "Studies on the Purification of Highly Turbid Waters by Chemical Flocculation," JWWA Proc. of 8th Annual Conference (May 1957). "Effects of Filter Wash Waste Recycling on Alum Floc Formation," JWWA Proc. of 8th Annual Conference (May 1957). "Theories on Flocculation Mechanism and Application of the Theories to Flocculation Tank Design," Jour. JWWA, No.284, 8 (1958) "Relation between the Quality of Settled Water and the Efficiency of Conventional Rapid th Sand Filter at Kabutoyama Water Treatment Plant” JWWA Proc. Of 9 Annual Conference (Aug. 1958) "Effects of Filter Washing Waste Recycling on both Alum Floc Formation and Cost of Plant Operation," Jour. JWWA, No.288, 28 (1958). 5 "Comprehensive Studies on the Purification of Highly Turbid Waters by Chemical Flocculation," Parts I & II, Jour. JWWA, No.292, 26, 13 (1959). "Degree of Pollution of Yodo River (Source of Water) by Sewage and Industrial Waste," JWWA Proc. of 10th Annual Conference (May 1959). "Effectiveness of Various Coagulant Aids on Alum Floc Formation for Low Turbidity Waters," Parts I, II, & III, Jour. JWWA No.299, 6, No.302, 10, and No.303, 34 (1959). "A Guide for Selection of Chemical Feeders and selection of Chemical Storage Facilities," JWWA Proc. of 13th Annual Conference (May 1962). "Some Common Toxic Metals in Wastewater and Their Effects on Wastewater Treatment," Jour. JWWA, No.339,78 (1962). "The Fundamentals of Alum Flocculation as Applied to Water Purification," Parts I-IV Mizushori Gijutsu (Jour.of Water Treatment Technique) Vol.3, No.11 & 12, Vol.4, No. 1 & 2 (1962-1963). "An Experimental Study on both Filter Bed and Underdrain System," JWWA Proc.of 14th Annual Conference (May 1963). "Fundamentals of Chemistry on Water and Wastewater for Plant Operators," Mizushori Gijutsu, Vol.5, No.2-8 (1964). "Break-Point Chlorination Treatment on Yodo River Water Which is Heavily Polluted by Sewage," Jour.JWWA, No.364, 28 (1965). "Coagulant Dosage Control by Colloid Titration Technique," Proc.of 21st Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Series 119 (May 1966). "Applying Colloid Titration Techniques to Coagulant Dosage Control," Water and Sewage Works, Vol.112, 384 (1966). "Coagulant Dosage Control by an Applied Colloid Titration Technique," Jour. JWWA, No.340, 22 (1966). "Coagulant Dosage Control," Industrial Water Engineering, p.21 (April 1967). "Some Experiences on the Streaming Current Detector," Jour. JWWA, No.340, 22 (1966). "Removal of Color by Coagulation," Parts I & II, Water and Sewage Works, Vol.130 & 131 (August & September 1967). 6 "Application of Colloid Titration Technique to Flocculation Control” Jour. AWWA, Vol. 59, No.8, 1003 (1967) "Recent Water Treatment Practices in the United States," Jour. JWWA, No.440 (May 1971). "Coagulation Considerations," Jour.AWWA, Vol.65, p.418 (June 1973). "Design and Operation of High Rate Filters," Parts I, II, & III, Jour. AWWA, Vol.67 (October, November, & December 1975). "Considerations on Improving Flocculation," Jour. AWWA, Vol.68, p.328 (June 1976). "Use of Polymers for Water and Wastewater Treatment," Engrg. Foundation Conference (October 1977) and also Physical Separation (1981), Engrg. Foundation, p.19. "Removal of Organic and Inorganic Matter by Coagulation," - Effective Use of Polymers - International Water Supply Association 12th Congress (October 1978). "Water Treatment Practices in Overseas," - USA, Australia, and Brazil. (In Japanese) Jour. Water Utilization and Research (November 1978, January & February 1979). "A Suggested Method on the Coagulation Control for Highly Turbid Water," Jour. JWWA, No.552 (September 1980). "Design of Water Treatment Plants for Developing Countries," Int. Water Supply Association - Low Cost Technology Conference in Berlin, Germany (March 1981). "Hydraulic Scale-Model Simulation of the Sedimentation Process," Jour. AWWA, Vol.73, 1, No.7, p.372 (July 1981). "Water Treatment Plant Design," International Water Supply Association - Wasser Berlin 1981 (Conference April 1981). "Pilot Studies of Mixing and Settling," AWWA Seminar Proceedings - Design of Pilot Plant Studies (No.20164), AWWA (1982). Appiah Amirtharajah, Kawamura, Susumu, "System Design for Polymer Use," Paper presented at AWWA Annual Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada (June 1983). Ramaley, Brian L., & Kawamura, Susumu, "State Project Water in Southern California: Treatment Considerations and Cost Implications," Paper presented at the 1983 Fall, California-Nevada AWWA Section Conference, Anaheim, California (October 1983). "Environmental Consulting Engineers in USA - Their Role at Present and Foreseeable Future," Jour. Sewage Works (Japan) Vol.8, No.13, p.57 (November 1985) 7 "Two-Stage Filtration," Jour. AWWA 77:12:42 (December 1985). James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. Water Treatment : Principles and Design,1985, A Staring Committee member and also a writer Kawamura, S. & Lang, J., "Re-evaluation of Launders in Rectangular Sedimentation Basins," Jour. WPCF, 58:12:1124 (December 1986). "Recent Advances in Water Treatment Processes," Public Works, p.63 (January 1987). "Appropriate Water Treatment Technology in Developing Countries," International Conference on Water Management in 2000 for the Developing Countries, Singapore, p.WT64 (December 8, 1987) "Improving Water Supply in Thailand," Jour. AWWA 80:6:59 (June 1988). Lang, J.S., Kawamura, S., & Lange, A.L., "Improvements in Flash Mixer Design," AWWA Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, p.861-878 (June 1988). "Sludge Handling and Disposal Practice in the U.S.A.," Written for the Bilateral Water Quality/Supply Issues Conference sponsored by ASCE and USES (USSR) in Moscow (June 1989). Kawamura, S., et. al, "More and Better Water for Thirsty Sao Paulo, Brazil," Jour. AWWA, 81:10:32 (October 1989). Kawamura, S. & Trussell, R.R., "Today's Water Treatment Processes in the U.S.A.," ISWA, Water Nagoya 1989 Conference, Japan (November 1989). Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1991). Kawamura, S. & Trussell, R.R., "Main Features of Large Water Treatment Plants in Japan," Jour. AWWA, 83:6:51 (June 1991). "Effectiveness of Natural Polyelectrolytes in Water Treatment," Jour. AWWA 83:10:88 (October 1991). Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities (In Japanese), Japan Water Works Association (1993) “Current Trend of Water Treatment Process Design in USA,” Jour. Jap.WWA, No.62:12:58 (Dec.1993). “Effectiveness of Chitosan for Water Treatment,” Presented at the Asia-Pacific Chitin and Chitosan Symposium at University of Kebangsaan, Malaysia (May 1994). 8 Kawamura S., & Wilczak, A. “Testing of Filter Performance at a Surface Water Treatment Plant”, Municipal & Rural Water Supply & Water Quality, Pozoan, Poland (Aug.1994). Wilczac, A..,Kawamura, S. et al. “Filter Performance Using Trough-less Design at Sacramento’s E.A.Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant.” Presented at California-Nevada AWWA Fall Conf., San Diego, Calif. ( Oct. 1994). “Current Water Treatment Practice in the United States” presented at Annual Conference of Water Industry Association of Japan ( March, 1995) “ Improving Existing Filter Performance by Filter Media Evaluation and Pretreatment Optimization”, Presented at AWWA Annual Convention, Anaheim, Calif. ( June, 1995). “Proper Design of Water Treatment Plant” A Seminar for Japanese Water Industries (1995) Integrated Design of Water treatment Facilities ( In Koeran), Korea Book Co.(1996) “Optimization of Basic Water Treatment Processes- Design and Operation: Coagulation and Flocculation,” AQUA Journal of IWSA, Vol.45, No.1, pp.34-47 (1996). “Optimization of Basic Water Treatment Processes – Design and Operation: Sedimentation and Filtration,” AQUA Journal of IWSA, Vol.45.No3, pp. 130-142 (1996). “Kobe Aftermath Reveals Damage Prevention Measures for Future Quakes,” Water & Wastewater, Vol.11, 3, pp.30-40 ( June 1996). “Kobe Earthquake- Engineering lessons Learned,” Public Works, pp. 45-48,(July,1996). Bragetta, A., Demarco, J., Metz, D., Jacangelo, J., Kawamura, S., “Use of Filter Coring to Evaluate Filter Condition and Backwash Efficiency,” AWWA’s WQTC Conf. in Boston, ( Nov. 1996). “Recent Water Treatment Technology of United States” Proceedings of Japan Water Research Center, Tokyo, Japan ( May,1997). Kawamura, S., Najim,I., Gramith, K., “Modifying a Backwash Trough to Reduce Media Loss,” Jour. AWWA, 89:12:47 (Dec.1997). “Current Granular Media Filter Design and Operation in USA”, Presented at Annual Convention of Japan Water and Wastewater Industry Association, (November 19,1998). “Water Disinfection” Public Works, pp. 40-43 (Jan.1999) 9 “Design and Operational Issues of High Rate Filters,” Jour. AWWA, 91:12:77 (Dec.1999) Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities – Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, NY, ( Aug.,2000). “Initial (Flash) Mixing by Water Jet Diffusion,” AQUA Journal of IWSA, Vol.49,No.6, pp.307-319 ( Dec.2000). “ Design & Operation of Filters with Granular Media,” International Conference on Advances in Rapid Granular Filtration in Water Treatment”, Presented at Imperial College of London, April 2001, pp. 149-159 of Conference Proceedings. “Historical Overview of Water TreatmentTechnology and Management”, Presented at the Joint Symposium by Korean Society of Water and Wastewater and Korean Society of Water Quality (November 14, 2002). “ Water Treatment Related Issues of Today”, Presented at Water Treatment Engineering Society of Japan, (November 18, 2002). Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities ( In Korean), KSWW (2003) “Overview of Pretreatment Processes and Objectives”, CA-Nev-AWWA2004 Spring Conference. April, 2004 , Las Vegas, NV. “Pratctical Design issues for filters”, CA-NV AWWA Annual Fall Conference. October 13, 2004, Sacramento, CA. “Descriptions of New Wonju Water Treatment Plant” ( in Japanese). Presented to Japan Water Works Association, September, 2004 10