Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 Glenshire Water System Agenda Item ## 6 I I III Public Utility DONNER Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Peter Holzmeister Date: July 27, 2001 Report on Glenshire water system Attached for your review is a draft copy of the Due Diligence Study Report on the Glenshire Water System prepared by Harold Morgan and Rubin Zubia of Navigant Consulting. We received this report late on Thursday, August 26, so we have not yet had time to review it thoroughly. We have read it through once quickly and it appears to be quite detailed. Ed, Neil and I will spend time with it before the Board meeting and will be ready to discuss it with you at that time. My quick reading of the report suggests that it contains the information to allow us to work out the details of a transfer of the Glenshire water system to TDPUD. Recommendation I recommend that the Board authorize the General Manager to work with the appropriate representative of Glenshire Mutual Water Company to prepare a document detailing the terms of transfer of the Glenshire water system to TDPUD for presentation to the TDPUD and Glenshire Mutual Water Company Boards of Directors. July 26, 2001 Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister General Manager Truckee Donner Public Utilities District P. O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160 Subject: Due Diligence Study Report on the Glenshire Water System Dear Mr. Holzmeister: In accordance with the letter agreement between the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District(PUD) and this firm, dated May 24, 2001, the following is a report on the Due Diligence Study on the Glenshire water system owned by the Glenshire mutual Water Company (MWC). For your ease of reference,the agreement Scope of Work, Items 1 through 10, are individually repeated followed by a discussion of documents reviewed in response to the item scope together with our analysis and findings. 1. Conduct a system survey (tour) of the water system to observe the above ground system facilities comprising the water utility plant and interview operations personnel. This will require that an operation staff member or individual familiar with r , the system and its operation and maintenance be available to accompany us on the system tour. As you know, we traveled to Truckee on June 25, 26 and 27 in order to perform the field review and produce documents associated with the due diligent study. During this time, we conducted a system survey of the water system to observe above ground facilities, selected real estate assets, and MWC personal property, such as vehicles and office equipment. This system survey and operations personnel interview was conducted with Mr. Mark Thomas, the current General Manager of the MWC. The observations made during the site visit and information gained during the personnel interviews are presented under the discussions responding to the individual scope items below. 2. Review the water system construction and O&M records and interview a representative from any local consultant utilized by the mutual water company. Specifically review and obtain copies as needed of system distribution maps, facility as-built plans and specifications, standard design details, pump and tank reservoir maintenance logs, water leak records, and other system related operation and maintenance records. Unless you request otherwise, well production facilities will not be included in view of the district providing alternative water supplies. ' Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 2 GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The Glenshire Mutual Water Company (Glenshire MWC) is located within the eastern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California. Glenshire MWC provides potable water service to some 1361 service connections. The service area covers an area of approximately 10.40 square miles. The Glenshire MWC water system consists of some 12 wells, four water storage tanks, approximately 22 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, one booster pump station, 10 pressure reducing stations and related water system appurtenances. The water distribution system has been constructed in various phases generally coinciding with the construction of new housing developments within the service area. A review of system records indicates that the older portions of the water system were constructed in the early 1970s. Growth has occurred gradually during this 30- year period. Currently, the existing service area is approximately 88 percent built- out. There are approximately 1,548 total outstanding shares in the Glenshire MWC. Since each share generally coincides with one lot with rights to water service, this means that there are approximately 187 remaining undeveloped lots within the established Glenshire MWC service area. In addition, there is a high potential for development of lands that are adjacent to the Glenshire MWC service area that could also be incorporated into the service area in the future. The additional lands that could potentially be annexed or incorporated into the service area were not evaluated as part of this study. REVIEW OF EXISTING RECORDS Records reviewed included as part of this assessment included Water Master Plan Reports (1992 and 2001), O&M records, administrative files, as-built drawings, cross connection control program files, DHS regulatory files, property files and various other planning documents. The O&M records were spotty, incomplete and some cases non-existent. This brings to question the adequacy of historical system maintenance. However, from discussions with Glenshire MWC staff, the maintenance program appears to have been responsive (to crisis) rather than planned and methodical preventative maintenance. In some instances, Glenshire MWC staff acknowledged that some types of maintenance were not performed which was substantiated by the lack of records. For example, there were no records of a valve exercise program, air release valve and blow-off valve maintenance program, watermain flushing program, or meter testing and repair programs. The leak records were incomplete and in most cases lacked sufficient information to determine the nature of the leaks and repair methods that were applied. The maintenance and repair records for the pressure reducing valves were spotty, incomplete and lacked sufficient detail to track the history and performance of these pieces of equipment. There were also no logs for the daily, weekly, monthly or annual maintenance performed on the wells and booster Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 3 pump station. However, there were records of repairs or equipment replacement for the wells and booster pump station suggesting that attention was give to these facilities only when a failure occurred. As built plans for the facilities were available and generally represented the units of construction as built by the developers prior to being dedicated to the Glenshire MWC. However, these as-built drawings have not been maintained and updated to reflect improvements or modifications to the water system, the construction of sewer collection system constructed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the construction of other utilities and improvements within the rights-of-way occupied by the waters system facilities. SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DESIGNS The construction of the water distribution system has been principally by contractors hired by developers. It appears the Glenshire MWC in most cases had input in establishing the criteria for design and construction. There was extensive documentation noted that suggests that the MWC frequently used its consultants to review developer prepared plans and provide construction inspection services. x �v=a While there appears to be no established standard specifications or design standards, the various as-built plans reviewed do appear to have had some degree of conformity with respect to the details and general construction requirements. In most cases, the materials and standards appear to have conformed to AWWA standards. The water pipelines, valves and appurtenances used in the construction of the water system appear to be principally 125 and 150 pressure class. UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER �g The amount of unaccounted-for-water in the water distribution system could not be determined due to the large number of unmetered service connections. Water is metered only at the production and wells and the accuracy of these meters is unknown. However, it should be noted that Glenshire MWC retained the services of Utility Services Association, a Seattle based leak detection company, to conduct a leak detection survey in May 1995. This survey determined the existence of a _ _M significant number of leaks. A summary of the results from the 1995 leak detection survey is presented in Table 1. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26. 1-001 Page 4 Table 1 Summary of Leaks Detected in 1995 Leak Detection Survey Leak Type Number of Leaks Main Line(Watermains) 1 Valves 1 Service Line 19 ! Service Connection Z Total 23 Within the last five years, the number of reported leaks per years appears to be increasing. In 1998, 1999 and 2000, the number of reported leaks were 9, 10 and 15, respectively. Most of these leaks have reportedly been service line leaks. Nevertheless, in a small system like this, these leaks, along with fire hydrant testing, construction water, line flushing, and other unmetered uses could represent a large portion of the water produced. The goal of the system operators should be to develop the ability to quantity the amount of unaccounted-for-water in the system. This cannot be accomplished without the installation of meters at all points of use and the implementation of a meter testing program. CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM Glenshire MWC adopted a cross connection control program through an ordinance on January 15, 1991. MWC staff indicated that approximately five existing service connections are equipped with approved backflow prevention devices. The company requires that these devices be tested on an annual basis. However, while the company noted that it has an active cross-connection control program, it is not clear whether the program is adequate. For example, there is no evidence that Glenshire MWC conducted a cross connection survey on properties that were already being served prior to the adoption of the cross connection control ordinance. Further, there is no evidence that Glenshire MWC has conducted cross connection surveys to identify t: new cross connections since the adoption of the ordinance. The reason this is brought up is that there exist numerous horse properties within the service area, numerous properties where the onsite point of use is significantly higher than the watermain that serves the property, and extensive landscaping has been added to properties that did not have it before. These types of developments and conditions need to be evaluated on a routine basis to assure that cross connections are prevented. 3. Review water quality monitoring data for the system for the last three years to determine compliance with current anticipated future water quality standards. Again, emphasis would not be on the source of supply. However, other water quality concerns such as lead and copper, and bacteriological levels could be an ongoing concern for the district. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 5 Water quality data was obtained both from the state Department of Health Services DOHS files and from the MWC's files. Data obtained generally included all monitoring data produced from about 1995 to date and included water quality reports to the consumers developed by the MWC and approved by the DOHS for years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Generally, with the exception of arsenic concentrations in selected production wells, the water quality delivered to the Glenshire service area consumers is of a very high quality. Specific findings are as follows: ♦ Lead and copper test results for August 2000 indicate results way below action levels. (15 micrograms per liter [mcgll] for lead and 1,300 megJl for copper for the 90' percentile monitoring data results.) Lead results at this percentile were non-detectable and for copper were at a level of 73 mcg%1. Previous sampling round test results for lead and copper also were well within standards. ♦ Most of the monthly monitoring results indicate the absence of bacteriological contamination. However, the MWC has had a recurring problem with positive total coliforms concentrations in Well No. 16. A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan application prepared in October 1999 indicated that Well No. 16 failed microbiological testing 12 times in the last three years. The application further notes that after thousands of dollars in testing the MWC was unable to determine whether the problem was due to a bad casing or something wrong in the sanitary seal. The only fecal coliform positive samples (indicating potential warm blooded animal or human contamination from fecal material) were detected in October and September 1997. ♦ Bacteriological positive test results have been infrequent for MWC system production wells and distribution sampling points. However, four positive 7 samples were detected in March 1998 (all total coliform positive test results and no positive fecal coliform test results). These results also included a positive coliform test for Well No. 20, a production facility scheduled to remain in standby operating condition following the acquisition of the system by the PUD. These positive coliform test results were taken in response to one prior positive test result occurring during routine sampling. Follow-up second round repeat �1 sampling for all sites were negative. Customer notifications required by state regulation were distributed once in each of the years 1997, 1998 and 2000. Notices in 1997 and 1998 both indicated that following positive test results, chlorination was applied to the distribution system followed by repeat sampling which showed negative presence of coliform bacteria. In the October 2000 notice, required based on a single positive total coliform test result (but negative for fecal coliform bacteria) the explanation given for the positive result was maintenance on an air relief valve. Following chlorination, test results again were all negative, ♦ Well No. 20 (scheduled for retention for possible future use by the PUD) test results were reviewed and indicated a very high water quality. Arsenic Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 6 concentrations, a problem constituent found in most of MWC's wells, was non-detectable in Well No. 20 based on 1997 test results. Other constituents based on testing done in the late 1990s all indicated water quality which meets DOHS drinking water standards. ♦ If the PUD has the need to develop additional wells in the future in the Glenshire area, several constituents are of concern. As the PUD is well aware, arsenic concentrations for many of the wells currently existing are close to or in excess of the state standard of 50 mcg/1 (with a new significantly lower standard pending). Past results have been variable for the various well facilities that have reached a level of 97 mcg/1. Another constituent of concern is radon concentrations with many test results for several wells in excess of the recently proposed standard of 300 Picocuries per liter (pCi/I). Radon results have been reported as high as 1,100 pCi/I. Finally, iron concentrations in several of the wells have exceeded the secondary standard of 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/1) with results as high as 2.1 mg/l. ♦ Monitoring data for the various wells also indicated single test results of tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethane (1,1,1), aluminum and trihalomethanes. However, none of these results are considered significant in view of their single occurrences. ♦ The PUD should be aware that water quality problems frequently occur when a different source water is brought into a system which has stabilized for many years with another source. For example, dramatic effects occurred in the City of Tucson water system when Colorado River water was introduced for the first time. Suspension of the new source had to be permanently suspended (the City is now planning only ground water recharge with Colorado River supplies). Although we do not anticipate dramatic effects from a new source used in the s Glenshire system we recommend, if possible, that source replacement be performed in incremental steps over several days (or longer) to monitor potential water quality changes particularly color, turbidity, taste and related parameters). 4. Contact and interview Department of Health Services (DHS) staff in Sacramento to ascertain history of DHS inspections, citations issued (if any), and general - acceptability and results of system regulation. A review of the DHS regulatory files would also be conducted. On June 13, Harold Morgan made a trip to the offices of the State Department of Health Services in Sacramento to review the files of the MWC and interview regulatory personnel. Mr. Jess Morehouse, District Engineer for the regional office of DHS's Office of Drinking Water, prior to the field visit discussed briefly the background of the Glenshire system and its regulatory problems. He indicated that arsenic was a primary drinking water quality concern, and in years passed, occasional occurrences of bacteriological detections in selective wells. Mr. Morehouse believed Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 7 that any problems of concern to the Department were discussed in the regulatory records which were being made available for my review and copying. Finally, Mr. Morehouse referred me to Mr. Daryl Noel who had recently been given the responsibility for regulatory oversight on behalf of the Department. As Mr. Noel was not available for personal interview during the field visit, I later contacted him by telephone to receive additional information on regulatory concerns for the system. Mr. Noel informed me that in addition to the widely known problem of arsenic existing in many of Glenshire well sources, recent shifting of water production from wells with high arsenic concentrations to those sources with lower or no concentrations of arsenic had caused excessive drawdowns in the aquifers. Consequently, there was a significant concern on behalf of the DHS regarding future water supplies to this system without water quality treatment in order to bring the other wells back into production (or reduce the amount of water required for blending), or in the absence of an interconnection with the PUD. We also briefly discussed the requirements for a permit transference from the MWC to the PUD of the Glenshire system. He noted that the PUD would only be required to submit one request for transference of both the Donner Lake Water Company system and the Glenshire MWC system in order to facilitate the paperwork. It was the DHS's intention not to be an obstacle in transferring both of the systems to the PUD in view ,, of the significant problems associated with the current owners, and therefore, the DHS did not see a significant problem with submitting the required information to have the water system permits transferred even at a significantly delayed time from the date of transference of both systems. All of the files produced by DHS were reviewed by B-E extending back to at least 1990. Concerns related to water quality are discussed above in Item No. 3. The most - � r recent annual inspection report for the Glenshire MWC system (DHS system No. 29- 036) was conducted on September 23, 1999, by Alex Custodio. A field inspection memorandum was prepared dated October 6, 1999, and contains the following items to note. ♦ Storage available at 1.238 million gallons is almost twice the 500,000 gallons required. At maximum planned build-out of 1,450 service connections, the required maximum day demand will be 1,600 gallons per minute and a required storage volume will be very near the volume now available. ♦ The distribution system, composed of asbestos cement pipe, and dipped and wrapped welded steel pipe from six to 10 inches in diameter, is reported to be in good condition. (However, this observation on system condition may be simply a carryover statement from earlier inspection reports. A similar statement is made in the annual inspection report for 1979 and periodically for inspections made in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1995). Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 8 ♦ There is no program for exercising valves at this time (this concern was also expressed in several prior annual inspection reports). ♦ There is no routine flushing program. (Hydrant flushing would also provide an opportunity to conduct some hydrant maintenance.) ♦ The system is adequately managed and operated. ♦ Seven additional well sources have been added since the last DHS inspection; the source volume does not meet recommended water works standards and additional source capacity will be required for the system to reach maximum development. ♦ Only two minor defects were noted: (1) the concrete vault (pit) wells are not sealed properly. The joints of the boxes should be caulked to prevent groundwater to seep in; and (2) the concrete vault containing a large PRV valve Al on Waterloo Circle and the valve itself was submerged. This condition was noted during the last DHS inspection. The pit walls were later raised to prevent the - - flooding conditions, but this has not improved the situation and the pit remains flooded. The MWC manager believes the valve has little or no function and that its removal would not affect the operation of the system. - The annual reports to the state DHS by the company were also reviewed for the 1990s. The table below presents customer complaints or system problems reported to the DHS from 1995 through 2000. Overall, complaints or problems do not appear to be excessively high in comparison to many other systems B-E has reviewed. Most of the taste and odor problems recorded were attributed to chlorination applied during1 times of bacteriological positive test results for selected wells. Most of the color .a problems noted appear to be attributed to system flushing (although there were other reasons occasionally given). Noteworthy were the number of leaks reported not only '- for the period shown on the table, but also for annual reports reviewed from the late 1980s. Including leaks attributed to onsite customer facilities, leaks since 1990 have varied to as high as 48 annually. Many of the leak problems according to the General Manager can be attributed to service line problems which are noted in other places of this report. Mr. Peter L. Hoizmeister July 26, 2001 Page 9 Table 2 Glenshire Mutual Water Company Customer Complaints or System Problems Reported to the State Department of Health Services TYPE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000_,. Taste and Odor 0 1 3 2 3 e 100 5 Color 2 6 24 3 6 5 Turbidity 0 0 2 12 NR NR Worms and other Larger organisms 0 0 0 0 NR NR Pressure(High or Low) 5 4 8 4 12 1 Water Outages 2 0 0 7 0 0 Leaks 150 19 11 8` 14 15 Illnesses(Waterbome) 0 0 0 0 0 NR - - -- Other 1 2 7 5 NR 1 TOTAL 25 32 55 57 42 27 a Written or verbal comments received and reported to the State DOHS in System Annual Reports. NR:Not Reported b Attributed to customer regulators. c Not including leaks on customer's property. d Contractor caused many during gas expansion project. e Mainly due to chlorination in response to positive bacteria tests t Note indicates mercury in water. Checked plumbing,nothing detected. Based on B-E's interviews with state DHS regulatory personnel and a review of documents contained in the files of the state DHS, there does not appear to be any significant outstanding regulatory problems associated with this system. 5. Conduct a general review of the adequacy of the transmission and distribution system and storage capacity to meet and supply the flow requirements of the water system. ADEQUACY OF STORAGE CAPACITY The required storage capacity in a water distribution system is typically determined by three factors, 1) operational storage requirements, 2) fire flow storage requirements, and 3) emergency storage requirements. Operational storage is used to balance the diurnal water supply production with the system demands. Operational storage capacity is used to compensate for differences between instantaneous production capacity and system demands. This volume usually represents a fraction of the maximum day demand of the system. The Glenshire MWC uses 25 percent of the maximum day demand as the criteria for sizing the amount of required operation Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 10 storage capacity in the system. The fire flow requirement is normally a function of the maximum fire flows required in the system or this case, in each pressure zone. For the subject system, the maximum fire flow rate is 1,500 gallons per minute for a two-hour duration. This calculates to approximately 180,000 gallons per pressure zone. The last and the most difficult component to calculate is the emergency storage requirement. The emergency storage capacity represents a backup supply that can be used during emergency conditions and/or temporary loss of production capacity. The amount of required emergency storage capacity for most water systems usually ranges between one to three times the system's maximum day demand. In water systems that have groundwater production capacity, the system is given storage capacity credit for the groundwater production capacity. Usually the sum of the total daily well production capacity less the capacity of the largest producing well. For the subject system, the Glenshire MWC use uses 50 percent of the maximum day demand as the criteria for sizing the amount of required emergency storage capacity in the system. Since the total well production capacity less the capacity of the largest producing well (Well No. 20) is approximately 2,056,320 gallons and 50 percent of the maximum day demand equals to approximately 899,000 gallons, the above „ criteria should provide approximately 2,955,320 gallons (2,056,320 plus 899,000 gallons) of emergency storage capacity. This represents approximately 1.64 times the maximum day demand volume (2,955,320 divided by 1,798,000), a reasonable amount. . However, the Truckee-Donner PUD has indicated that it will consider discontinuing the use of all but one well (Well No. 20), if and when, it acquires the system. Under these conditions, the amount of emergency storage capacity would increase since the credit given for the groundwater production capacity would be significantly reduced or eliminated. Table 3 presents the calculated amount of storage required assuming that all but Well r No. 20 would be retained in service after Trucke-Donner PUD acquires the system. This calculation also uses a 2.0 factor for calculation of the required emergency storage capacity (i.e. Two Times Maximum Day Demand). Table 3 Calculated Storage Capacity Required Use of Wells Except Well No.20 is Discontinued Volume Storage Capacity Factor (gallons) Remarks J Assumptions aximum Day Demand 1,798,00 ased on Year 2000 System Demands perational Storage Capacity 449,50(150 percent of Maximum Day Demand mergency Storage Capacity 3,596,00 wo Times Maximum Day Demand ire Flow Storage(Pressure Zone 1) 180,00 1500 gpm fire flow for 2-hour duration ire Flow Storage(Pressure Zone 2) 180.000 1501 gpm fire flow for 2-hour duration Calculated Required Storage Capacity 4,405,500 Operational+Fire Flow+Emergency Credit for Well No.20 Production Capacity (806.40 Required Storage Capacity 1599,100 Calculated Storage Less Credit for Well 20 Say 3,600,00q Minimum Recommended Storage Capacity Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26.2001 Page 11 The Glenshire MWC water system currently has four water storage tanks with a combined capacity of 1,228,000 gallons. The calculated required system storage capacity was 3,600,000 gallons (based on the above noted assumptions). This means that Truckee-Donner will need to construct a minimum of about 2,400,000 gallons of additional storage capacity. This does not include any additional storage capacity that may be needed to replace existing storage capacity. At a unit cost of approximately $0.50 per gallon, the additional storage capacity could cost as much as $1,200,000. This does not include additional costs that may be incurred for land acquisition, engineering and design, transmission pipelines, site preparation and site improvements. These costs could easily add up to between $250,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the reservoir site(s) selected. FLOW CAPACITY The Glenshire MWC water system pipelines vary in diameter between 4 to 10-inches. The flow carrying capacities of these pipelines is a function of the condition of the interior pipe surfaces, velocity of the flows in the pipeline and system pressure. Typical design velocities for pipelines range between to 3 to 10 feet per second. The upper range (5 to 10 cfs) is typically only allowed for temporary or emergency flow conditions. Table 4 presents a summary of flow capacities of different size pipelines at varying flow velocities. Table 4 Flow Capacities of Different Size Pipelines at Varying Flow Velocities J Velocity Ai ; Diameter 3 efs 5 cfs 7.5 cfs (inches) Flow Rate(gpm) 2 29 49 73 2.5 46 76 115 3 66 I10 165 4 117 195 293 6 264 440 660 'ryp 8 469 782 1,173 10 733 L222 1.833 12 1,056 1,759 2.639 In April 2001, Lumos and Associates modeled the distribution system and conducted extensive hydraulic analyses. The modeling results, findings and recommendation were presented in the Water System Master Plan Report. A maximum day demand, plus fire flow condition was selected to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of the system. Fire flows of 1000 gpm and 1500 gpm were analyzed for residential and commercial properties, respectively. The minimum desired residual pressure was 20 psi. Lumos Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 12 reported that their analysis concluded that the water distribution system was adequate to meet the maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions under most scenarios modeled. However, they did note some pipeline capacity deficiencies. These deficiencies included the following: Pipeline Location From—To Location Pipeline ; Deficiency Noted Diamet er Edinburgh Drive Regency Circle to 6-inch Insufficient capacity to deliver Courtney Avenue 1,000 gpm fire flow at end of Edinburgh Drive. Cavalier Drive Entire Area In Unit #3 6-inch Insufficient pipeline capacity to within immediate deliver 1,000 gpm fire flow at vicinity of Cavalier the intersection of Cavalier Drive Drive and Royal Way. This area of Unit #3 is high in ground elevation relative to the hydraulic gradeline of Pressure Zone 2. The headlosses incurred under high demand and fire flow conditions in the pipelines that serve this area limits the flows that can be delivered to the area. Transmission Pipeline extends from 6-inch Insufficient capacity to deliver Pipeline in The Strand to Royal 1,000 gpm fire flow plus Easement between Crest. Located south maximum day demand flows to Unit #7 and Unit of and parallel to Unit 93. 43 Chatham Reach. Portions of Unit Between Doschester various High water pressures were #2 and Unit 44 Lane and northern noted. In some areas under portion of Somerset certain water delivery Drive conditions, pressures approach 150 psi. Need to change pressure zone configuration. WATER DEMANDS The Glenshire MWC Water System Master Plan, prepared by Lumos and Associates, dated April 27, 200,1 contained an analysis of the water system demands. Two key water use factors, average day and maximum day, were obtained from the Master Plan Report and are presented in Table 5. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 13 Table 5 Water Demand Data Year 2000 #of Service Gallons Gallons Connectio Per Water Use Factor Per Day ns Minute Average Day Demand 745,000 1,361 517 Maximum Day Demand 1,798,000 1,361 1,249 I Data obtained from Glenshire MWC Water System Muter Plan,April 27,2001 The year 2000 annual water demands, the highest to date, totaled 835 acre-feet. The average annual water demand per service connection is 0.61 acre-feet per year. Although these water demand factors are not considered high, both Glenshire MWC staff and the 2001 Water System Master Plan Report expressed concern that the system demands show an increasing trend. Both the MWC staff and the Master Plan Report attribute the increase in demands to: ALa "The pattern of water use in the winter months indicates that customers are using more water for indoor purposes, such as drinking water, cooking, bathing, etc. The winter month usage may be slightly biased by the number of customers that are converting from seasonal occupation to year-round occupation. " Intuitively, the above statement sounds appropriate. However, the actual increase in water use cannot be quantified or qualified without the installation of water meters at all service connections and the implementation of meter testing programs (testing of all production and consumption meters). Since both consumption and production are measured by the production meters and these meters have never been tested or v calibrated, its is entirely plausible that all or a portion of this increase in demands can be attributed to deterioration in the accuracy of the production meters. SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY The current Glenshire MWC water supply is entirely from groundwater produced from the underlying groundwater basin. There are 12 production wells located throughout the water system. Three wells pump directly into Pressure Zone 1 and the other nine wells pump directly into Pressure Zone 2. The capacities of the wells are summarized in Table 6. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 14 Table 6 Summary of Groundwater Production Wells Pressure ( well Year Capacity p y � Capacity Zone t L.D.# Built Age ( m) a d) Remarks i 1 IA 1972 29 60 86,400 16 1996 5 156 224,640 20 1997 4 560 806.400 Largest Producer I 2 9 1973 28 79 111760 10 1973 28 240 345,600 11 1973 28 262 377,280 12 1992 9 163 234,720 14 1992 9 25 36,000 Lowest Producer 15 1993 1 8 67 96,480 ..� 17 1997 4 88 126.720 18 1998 3 190 273,600 19 1998 3 98 141,120 Total 12 N/A N/A 1,988 2.862.720 -< A comparison of the key water demand factors to the groundwater production capacities is presented in Table 7. Additionally, the Insurance Services Offices (ISO), the agency that rates water systems for insurance companies, requires that the groundwater production capacity be able to meet the water system demands without the largest producer. The maximum system production capacity without the largest producer (Well No. 20) is also presented in Table 7. As shown on this table, the production capacity of the 12 wells is sufficient to meet the water demands of the system. Table 7 Comparison of Water Demand To Water Supply Capacitv Demand/Supply Demand/Supply Factor gpd 9Pm vera e Day Demand 745,000 517 Maximum Day Demand 1.798.000 1,249 otal Groundwater Well Production Capacity 2,862,720 1,988 Iaximum Production Without Largest Producer 2.056320 1 1,428 However, Glenshire MWC has been noticing increasing levels of arsenic in water produced from several wells. Currently, all the wells that feed directly into Pressure Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 15 Zone 2 produce water with arsenic levels that exceed 0.01 mg/l, the proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Arsenic. Once the new MCL is adopted, arsenic removal or reduction in the form of treatment or blending will be needed to bring the water produced from these wells into compliance. Without treatment or blending,the wells will have to be removed from production. At that point, there will be insufficient well capacity to meet the system demands. Glenshire MWC and Truckee-Donner PUD have tentatively agreed to provide an alternative water supply from outside the service area. The preliminary plan is to discontinue the use of all but one well (Well No. 20) for use in meeting the potable water demands of the Glenshire MWC system. As such, the scope of this evaluation excluded evaluation of all groundwater production wells. However, since Well No. 20 will remain in service, the condition of the above ground components that make up this well were considered in this evaluation. The existing Well No. 20 is located in a utility easement located adjacent to Somerset Drive. The well consists of an electric-driven 150 horsepower submersible pump and motor x assembly with a design capacity of approximately 560 gpm. However, operation records indicate that the capacity of the well has decreased substantially due to declining groundwater levels. The electrical and control equipment is enclosed in a NEMA Type 1 panel that sits on a concrete pad located adjacent to the well. The combination four and six inch diameter discharge piping includes a four-inch diameter pump control valve and a four-inch diameter turbine meter. Each of these ' pieces of equipment is enclosed in separate utility vaults. All of this equipment appears to be in fairly new and good condition. The Glenshire MWC has provided auxiliary power to the well in the form of a portable 50 kVA diesel driven generator. The generator is a trailer-mounted unit. Although Glenshire MWC has provided semi-permanent connections to the Generator, it is unknown if the connections comply with the current electrical codes and whether the system actually provides a reliable backup power supply. The generator controls have not been automated to start the generator immediately upon a power failure. The generator has to be started by hand. Other concerns with respect to the system include the lack of chlorination equipment and/or provisions for the same, lack of security (at a minimum, the need to provide fencing around the well and generator equipment), and the lack of site lighting (needed to perform maintenance during night-time conditions). Although the other wells were not evaluated, it needs to be noted that there are several wells that have been inactivated, abandoned and destroyed. Currently there is at least one abandoned well that needs to be destroyed consistent with the local County and State requirements. Additionally, with the alternative water supply proposed to be provided by Truckee-Donner PUD, there will be an additional nine to ten wells that will need to be destroyed. The reason for noting this is that there will be a significant cost associated with the abandonment and destruction of each of these Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 16 wells and the removal of the above ground facilities. The estimated cost associated with the abandonment and destruction of each well is approximately $10,000 to $20,000. 6. Provide an assessment of the physical condition of the water system as presented in operation and maintenance records, discussions with the local fire department, interview of operation personnel, observations made during the water system tour and files reviews, and interviews with consultants familiar with the system. TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION PIPELINES The pipelines that form the water distribution system are comprised mostly of asbestos cement(AC) pipe,cement mortar lined and dipped and wrapped welded steel(STL) pipe, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Diameters range from four to 10 inches and the ages vary from one to 30 years. The Glenshire MWC Water System Master Plan prepared by Lumos and Associates in April 2001 suggests that there are approximately 22 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines in the distribution system. Table 8 presents a summary of the quantities, sizes and types of pipelines that form the pipe network of the existing water distributions system. It should be noted that the information that was used to prepare this summary came from the 2001 Water System Master Plan. There were some discrepancies with respect to the quantities and types of materials listed in this Master Plan. For example, the report indicated that there is extensive existing ductile iron pipelines in the system. However, Glenshire MWC staff indicated that ductile iron pipe has never been used in the distribution system. They further noted that the ductile iron pipes listed in the 2001 Water System Master Plan are probably AC pipe. The summary presented in Table 8 reflects this. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 17 Table 8 Summary of Existing Pipelines in the Glenshire MWC Distribution System Pi ie Diameter inches i Year Type 10 8 6 4 Total % of Total 1971 AC 3.123 7.650 21.828 ` 0 32,001 27.49% - 1972 AC 1,769 4,500 17,096 1 0 23,365 20.07% 1973 AC 1.759 4,370 5.179 i 320 11,628 9.99% 1984 AC 0 0 11,521 0 11,521 990% Subtotal AC 6,651 15,920 55,624 320 78,515 1 67.46% 1972 PVC 0 1,620 0 - 0 1,620 1.39% 1991 PVC 0 0 378 0 378 0.32% j 1991 PVC 543 0 0 0 543 0.47% - 1992 PVC 1,700 0 4,871 0 6571 5.65% 1993 PVC 0 4.981 0 0 4,981 4.28% 1994 PVC 1,913 0 0 0 1.913 1.64% _ 1995 PVC 3,050 0 ' 0 0 3,050 2.62% 1997 PVC 0 1,615 1 0 0 1.615 1.39% 1997 PVC 0 0tj6217 320 0 320 027% 1998 PVC 0 57048NO 1,218 1.05% 2000 PVC 0 1,067 0 1,067 0.92% 2001 PVC 0 L902 0 1,902 1.63% ubtotal VC 7,206 11,155 25,178 1 21.63% 1972 STL 2,981 1 2,175 6,079 0 11,235 9.65% 1991 STL 1,464 0 0 0 1,464 1.26% Subtotal STL 4,445 2.175 6.079 0 12,b99 10.91% TOTAL PIPE IS M8 302 29,850 67,920 320 116.392 100% TOTAL PIPE miles 3.47 %. 12.86 0.06 22.04 100% Percent of Total 15.72% 25.65% 58.35% 0.27°/ 100.00% ]00% The condition of the buried pipelines could not be adequately assessed. Glenshire MWC does not maintain detailed records of pipeline failures, coupons from taps, or samples of the sections of pipelines repaired or replaced. However, pipeline leaks and failures appear to occur infrequently. Further, the age of the non-metallic pipelines is, in most cases, less than half of the expected service lives of these pipelines. Based on this information, the opinion of the Glenshire MWC staff, and DOHS records, most pipelines appear to be in good condition. The only possible exception to this is the older steel pipelines which comprise approximately 10 percent -ZL, of the pipeline system. As noted before, the steel pipelines consist of cement mortar lined and dipped and wrapped welded steel pipe. Usually the longevity of this type of pipeline is influenced by the integrity of the coating system, type and quality of trench backfill and pipe bedding that was installed, and the corrosivity of the native soils. From a review of the records and discussion with Glenshire MWC staff, it appears that poor pipe bedding and trench backfill has resulted in extensive leaks in service lines and some steel pipelines. As such, the frequency of additional leaks and failures associated with the older steel pipelines may be expected to increase in the future. It may be prudent to begin monitoring these pipelines more closely and to Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 18 make a conscious effort to inspect the pipelines in conjunction with future maintenance, repair and replacement activities. SERVICE CONNECTIONS As noted before, there are currently approximately 1361 service connections that are served by the Glenshire MWC water distribution system. Of these, only approximately 50 service connections are metered. Most of the service lines that were installed prior to the mid-1980s were constructed using galvanized steel pipe. This constitutes upwards of 50 percent of the existing service lines. The average service lives for galvanized steel service lines is approximately 30 years. Since the -" age of over 50 percent of the existing galvanized steel service lines are approaching the end of the expected service life, more frequent failures can be expected. In recent years, the water system has been averaging some 10 service line failures per year. In most case, the Glenshire MWC installed clamps or similar repairs rather than complete replacement. As such, the frequency and number of service lines failures can be expected to accelerate. Therefore, serious consideration should be given towards the implementation of a systematic service line replacement program. The PUD should also give serous consideration to installation of meters at all service connections. If water demands continue to increase and begin to outpace the development of new water supplies or in the case of a long-term drought, it may become necessary to implement voluntary or mandatory cutbacks. The individual residents cannot be held accountable if their water use is not measured. Further, any water conservation program will be made less effective and perhaps hampered by the lack of meters at all points of use. �Ys PRESSURE ZONES AND SERVICE PRESSURES The Glenshire MWC water system is divided in to two main pressure zones (Pressure Zone Nos. 1 and 2) and various minor pressure zones that are interconnected to the two main pressure zones by pressure reducing stations. The hydraulic gradeline of Pressure Zone No. 1 is sustained by two water storage tanks (Somerset Tank Nos. I and 2) located at elevation 6139 feet. Well Nos. IA, 16 and 20 pump directly into Pressure Zone 1. In addition to the two wells, a booster pump station is used to convey water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 1. The hydraulic gradeline of Pressure Zone No. 2 is sustained by a second pair of water storage tanks (The Strand Tank Nos. 1 and 2) located at elevation 6315 feet. The remainder 9 of the system's 12 groundwater production wells pump directly into Pressure Zone 2. In addition, pressure reducing valves between Pressure Zone Nos. 1 and 2 allow water to circulate back from Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 19 The Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code requires the water utility to deliver water to the customer's service connection at service pressures between 40 to 80 psi. If service pressures exceed 80 psi, then pressure control devices must be installed at the customer's connection. There are several areas within the two pressure zones where service pressures exceed 80 psi. Although not verified, Glenshire MWC staff indicate that all of the homes with high service pressures are equipped with pressure control devices. In some parts of the distribution system, the system pressures approach or exceed 150 psi under certain water system conditions. There are two concerns with respect to the excessive high pressures. First, the water pipelines, valves and appurtenances installed in the system are mostly 125 and 150 pressure class. Continued operation of these facilities under pressure conditions that exceed the design pressures may result in premature wear and tear or under worst case conditions, total failure. The other problem with excessive system pressure conditions is the liability associated with the potential damage to customer properties that could result from damage to the pressure control devices at the customer connections. The only way to resolve these types of problems is to reconfigure the pressure zones. However, this will require the possible relocation of the booster pump station and pressure reducing stations, and the possible installation of new valves, pipelines and maybe even one or more new booster pump stations. The number, type and size of these required facilities could be minimized if the new water supply to be provided by Truckee-Donner PUD is brought in at a sufficiently high enough head and if integrated at the appropriate Glenshire MWC system locations. BOOSTER PUMPING PLANT The Glenshire MWC water system has only one booster pump station. This booster pump station is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Donnington Lane and Royal Way. There are two pumping units that pump in a parallel configuration. The pumps are located in a concrete vault located adjacent to the paved roadway of Royal Way. The two pumping units are electric driven horizontal end suction K centrifugal pumps. One unit is a 20 horsepower unit with a rated capacity of 285 gpm. The second unit is also a 20 horsepower unit with a rated capacity of 225 gpm. The suction and discharge manifold, pump booster units and isolation valves are located below ground in a concrete vault. The concrete vault is a prefabricated unit with a removable galvanized steel top with spring assisted access hatches. The electrical and control equipment is located above ground in a NEMA 1 type panel that is located adjacent to the concrete vault. The panel sits on a concrete pad and appears to be situated outside the public right-of-way. Several problems were noted with the subject booster pump station. The configuration of the suction and discharge manifolds and booster pumps appears to have been modified several times and what remains is haphazardly arranged. The pumps and piping are stacked with little to no clearance between the two units. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 20 Access is difficult and poses a risk to maintenance personnel and a potential liability- to Glenshire MWC. The ability to perform maintenance during emergency conditions is limited by the existing configuration. Another concern is the concrete vault itself. The removable vault cover is improperly secured to the vault and appears to have been displaced by snow moving equipment. Also, the vault top is not water proof and the vault floor is bare earth. The dirt floor exhibits signs of erosion and the erosion has caused the vault to settle. The potential for flooding and additional settlement of the vault appears to be high. Lastly, the booster pumping units appear to be inappropriately sized for the current application. According to records reviewed, each of the two booster pumping units has a design capacity of approximately 225 gpm at about 212 feet of total dynamic head. However, production records indicate that the combined pumping capacity of the two units is only approximately 285 gpm. Possible reasons for the pumping differences include inappropriate pump sizing, inadequate pipe carrying capacity on the suction or discharge side of the pump station, closed valves in the system or a combination of any of the above. The 2001 Water System Master Plan recommended relocation of this facility. However, in consideration that the system pressure zones have to be reconfigured and the pending integration of the system with the new PUD source of supply, the need for, size and appropriate location of one or more booster pump stations need to be evaluated once more information is available with respect to the new source of supply. PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES The water system maps indicate that there are ten pressure reducing stations (PRVs) within the system. Most of the PRVs consist of a main pressure reducing valve and either a smaller pressure reducing valve or a bypass. The pressure reducing valves are located below ground in utility vaults. The size and configuration of the pressure reducing valves and utility vaults vary by location. In some cases, the original configuration has been modified and/or the smaller valve or bypass have been removed. It should also be noted that not all of the valves appear to be in operation. Examples of this include the two PRVs located in Berkshire Circle. The PRV located on the west end of Berkshire Circle has been defeated and operates in the wide-open position. The PRV located on the east end of Berkshire Circle has been isolated and 21 is set in closed position. There are other instances where two of three pipelines feeding an area have pressure reducing stations but the third line does not, nor does it appear to be isolated by a normally closed valve. One of the difficulties in trying to make sense of the pressure zones and how they need to be configured results from an inadequacy in the system mapping. The system map needs to be overlayed on a topographic map, the pressure reducing stations and pressure zones have to be graphically identified, and both ground and pressure contours have to be shown. Such a simple but lacking tool could be most useful in the pressure zone evaluation and the needed pressure zone reconfiguration process. Another condition that needs to be noted relates to the pressure reducing station that is located on Donnington Lane (east of Eton Place). This pressure reducing station is Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 21 currently used to convey water from Pressure Zone 2 (HGL=6,315 feet) to Pressure Zone I (HGL=6,135 feet). The problem with this is that most of the water that is transferred from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 1 is water that was pumped from Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 through the booster pump station located at the corner of Donnington Lane and Royal Way. According to the Water System Master Plan Report, approximately 67 percent t of the water pumped from Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 is recirculated back to Pressure Zone I through this pressure reducing station. This means that the system is being operated in a very inefficient manner and perhaps indicative that pipe layout or pressure zone modifications are needed. At a minimum, consideration should be given to augmenting the hydraulic controls of the subject pressure reducing valve with electronic controls. This would " enable the valve to be maintained mostly in a closed position and allowed to open only during downstream peak demand or emergency flow conditions. OTHER SYSTEM VALVES Water system valves discussed in this section include mainline valves, air/vacuum —_ release valves, blow-off valves and fire hydrants. The existing mainline valves consist mostly of gate valves. The gate valves were installed coincident with the adjoining pipelines. As such, these valves vary in age with the older of these being approximately 30 years. The system valves do not appear to have received adequate maintenance. There were no records or evidence of a valve maintenance program. Since the average service life of buried gate valves is typically 30 years, it is most likely that a good portion of the older valves are inoperable or close to the end of their service lives. Both the air release valves and the blow off valves have been constructed below ground in utility vaults. All or most are located with public rights-of-way outside the paved roadways. There are no records of a routine maintenance program for these appurtenances. However, Glenshire MWC staff did indicate that during the previous year they did attempt to locate the air release valves and blow off valves. It was reported that a great number of the air release valves and blow off valves that are shown on the as-built drawings and the system map could not be located. In most cases, the air release valves that were located required various degrees of maintenance or replacement. However, Glenshire MWC staff could not produce a ^� record indicating which valves were located, which were not located, which ones required maintenance and the type of maintenance that was done. Glenshire MWC needs to locate the missing air release valves and blow off valves and make sure that they are operable. However, the priority needs to be given to assuring that all of the air release valves in the system are found and in an operable condition. Air release valves serve multiple purposes with the two most important being the release of trapped air in high points of the system and in the control of transient pressures (surges). Trapped air in the system can result in the reduction of flow capacity of pipelines. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 22 STORAGE CAPACITY There are four above-ground water storage tanks in the Glenshire MWC water distribution system. Two of these tanks are located within Pressure Zone No. 1 (Somerset Tank Nos. 1 and 2) at an elevation of 6,139 feet. The other two tanks are located within Pressure Zone No. 2 (The Strand Tank Nos. 1 and 2) at an elevation of 6,315 feet. A summary of key information of these four tanks is presented in Table 9. Table 9 Existing Water Storage Tanks Pressure Tank Elevation Year Capacity Type of Zone ID feet Built A e (gal Construction Foundation T e he Strand Tanks: Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel Retainer 1 1 6,139 1975 26 420,000 Steel Welded in-on Exterior Perimeter Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel Retaine r 2 6,139 1993 8 318,000 Steel Bolted in-on Exterior Perimeter Total Capacity-Pressure Zone 1 738,000 Somerset Tanks: Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel Retainer 2 1 6,315 1989 12 280,000 Steel Welded Ring on Exterior Perimeter Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel Retainer _ 2 6,315 1991 10 210,000 Steel Bolted Ring on Exterior Perimeter otal Ca acit -Pressure Zone 2 490,000 otal System Capacity 1,228,000 Both Pressure Zones The Strand Tank Nos. 1 and 2 ~ The approach and service road to this tank site is The Strand (Road). The site consists of a 0.65 acre easement that is part of a 21 acre parcel owned by a private party. The site is located within Juniper Hills, a subdivision that is not served by or is not within the service area of Glenshire MWC. The area occupied by the tank and the immediately surrounding area is zoned for residential development. The construction of the two tanks at this site was facilitated by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued by the County of Nevada Community Development Agency (CDA). Tank No. 1 consist of a 420,000 gallon above ground cylindrically shaped steel welded tank. The steel shell measures approximately 55-feet in diameter and 24-feet high. The tank was constructed in 1975. The tank does not have a concrete footing ring nor is the tank anchored to the foundation system. Rather, the tank sits on a gravel/sand blanket. A 12-inch deep perimeter steel band was installed to Contain the gravel/sand blanket. However, the soils adjacent to the tank have sustained significant erosion and the steel band has uplifted and moved out of place. As a Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 23 result, the gravel/sand blanket along the edge of the bottom of the tank has also begun to erode. The structural support properties of the gravel/sand blanket have possibly been comprised by this condition and could be exacerbated during a significant seismic event. Glenshire MWC records indicate that the interior and exterior surfaces of the tank were recoated in 1996. Prior to this work, the tank had been inspected and the inspection showed the interior coating system to be heavily compromised resulting in extensive evidence of corrosion of the steel plates. The tank has not been inspected since 1996. Therefore, the existing condition of the interior tank coating system is unknown. In consideration of the condition of the interior coating system of the other tanks, it is recommended that the MWC or PUD make immediate provisions to have the interior coating of this tank inspected. The exterior coating system of the tank appears to be in good condition with some minor rust spotting. The tank is not equipped with cathodic protection. Consideration should also be given to retaining the services of a corrosion engineer to evaluate the tank for the possible installation of a cathodic protection system. Tank No. 2 consists of a 318,000 gallon above ground cylindrically shaped steel bolted tank. The tank shell measures approximately 48-feet in diameter and 24-feet high. The tank was constructed in 1993. The tank does not have a concrete footing ring nor is the tank anchored to the foundation system. Rather, the tank sits on a gravel/sand blanket. A 12-inch deep perimeter steel band was installed to contain the Y gravel/sand blanket. However, erosion has caused the soils adjacent to the tank to pile up around the tank bottom. As such, the gravel/sand blanket and tank floor are mostly below the existing finished surface of the site. This condition will typically cause runoff from the site to collect under the tank and make it difficult for the water and moisture that collects under the tank to drain away. The resulting impact is the N potential premature rusting and corrosion of the underside of the floor panels of the tank. This condition can be readily corrected by grading the site so that the bottom of the tank is slightly higher(say 6 to 12 inches) above the finished surface of the site. Glenshire MWC retained the services of a tank inspection company to inspect this tank in 1998. The inspection and results of this inspection were documented in a video recording. The tank inspection video showed minor blistering on the interior coating system on the wall and floor panels. The video also showed that the galvanized steel washers, and possibly the nuts and bolts on some of the floor panel seams and on the bottom support system of the center column, were exhibiting extensive signs of corrosion. This should give great concern because corrosion of the galvanized steel washers (and possibly the nuts and bolts) could lead to loosening of the floor panels, leakage and in a worst case scenario, could compromise the structural integrity of the tank. According to MWC records, no corrective action has been taken to mitigate this problem. Immediate action is needed to correct this problem that will worsen if left uncorrected. The exterior coating system of the tank appears to be in good condition. The tank is Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 24 not equipped with cathodic protection. As such, consideration should be given to retaining the services of a corrosion engineer to evaluate the tank for the possible installation of a cathodic protection system. A geotechnical investigation was performed by Stantec Consulting, Inc. as part of the preliminary engineering work for the proposed 1.2 million gallon replacement tank for Tank No. 1. The findings of this study were reported in a document entitled — "Geotechnical Investigation — Glenshire Water Tank, Glenshire, CA" and dated October 2000. The investigation determined that this site is within Seismic Zone 3, an area with a potential for earthquake damage. The report also noted that there are several active faults within a 10-mile area of the site with the closest fault traces - being located approximately one mile west of the site. Further, the geotechnical evaluation determined that the native soils were inadequate for foundation grade soils and recommended the use of shallow, spread foundations for the proposed 1.2 MG tank. The recommended foundation system for this tank is substantially different than the native soils foundation system that appears to have been used for the two existing tanks. Additionally, its is unknown if the design of these two existing tanks considered the above noted seismic criteria. As such, a full seismic and structural analysis of these two tanks is needed to determine the structural integrity of all four existing tanks. Somerset Tank Nos. 1 and 2 The approach and service road to this tank site is supposed to be from Somerset Drive. However, Glenshire MWC staff noted that the Somerset access was obstructed during the site visit. There are three utility/access road easements leading to the property. The site was accessed by way of The Strand during the site visit. The site does not front either Somerset Drive or The Strand. The site consists of a 2.07 acre easement that is part of a 20 acre parcel owned by a private party. This - larger parcel, which actually fronts The Strand, is also located within Juniper Hills, a subdivision that is not served by and is not within the service area of Glenshire MWC. The area occupied by the tank and the immediately surrounding area is zoned u for residential development. The construction of the two tanks at this site was facilitated by a CUP issued by the CDA. Tank No. 1 consist of a 280,000 gallon above ground cylindrically shaped steel welded tank. The steel shell measures approximately 45.5-feet in diameter and 24- feet high. The tank was constructed in 1989. The tank does not have a concrete footing ring nor is the tank anchored to the foundation system. Rather, the tank sits on a gravel/sand blanket. An approximately 12-inch deep perimeter steel band was installed to contain the gravel/sand blanket. However, the soils adjacent to the tank have eroded and the steel band has uplifted and moved out of place. As a result, the gravel/sand blanket along the edge of the bottom of the tank has also begun to erode. The structural support properties of the gravel/sand blanket have possibly been Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 2� comprised by this condition and could be exacerbated during a significant seismic event. Glenshire MWC retained the services of a tank inspection company to inspect this tank in 1998. The inspection and results of this inspection were documented in a video recording. The interior tank inspection video showed that there was extensive rust spotting and signs of corrosion throughout the floor panels and seams. The wall panels also exhibited signs of corrosion. There is one panel that has an area measuring about 4 feet by 4 feet where the coating system appears to be failing more than in other areas. This area has lost of rust nodules and some evidence of pitting. In some areas where the interior surfaces were spot painted before, the spot painting is failing and the steel is showing evidence of corrosion. The coating system on the interior steel beams and girders has begun to delaminate and there is extensive corrosion on these members. The dollar plate on top of the center column also shows extensive signs of corrosion. Lastly, the inlet/outlet pipe is also exhibiting signs of corrosion. According to Glenshire MWC records, no action to correct or mitigate the corrosion problem of the interior tank surfaces as noted above has been taken to date. As such, this tank needs to be scheduled for recoating of the interior steel surfaces immediately. As structural engineer also needs to be consulted and asked to evaluate the level of corrosion that has taken place already and its potential effect on the structural integrity of the tank. The exterior coating system of the tank appears to be in good condition with some minor rust spotting. The tank is not equipped with cathodic protection. Consideration should also be given to retaining the services of a corrosion engineer to evaluate the tank for the possible installation of a cathodic protection system. Tank No. 2 consist of a 212,000 gallon above ground cylindrically shaped steel bolted tank. The tank shell measures approximately 38-feet in diameter and 24-feet high. The tank was constructed in 1991. The tank does not have a concrete footing ring nor is the tank anchored to the foundation system. Rather, the tank sits on a gravel/sand blanket. An approximately 12-inch deep perimeter steel band was installed to contain "? the gravel/sand blanket. However, erosion has caused the soils adjacent to the tank to pile up around the tank bottom. As such, the gravel/sand blanket and tank floor are mostly below the existing finished surface of the site. This condition will typically -- cause runoff from the site to collect under the tank and make it difficult for the water and moisture that collects under the tank to drain away. The resulting impact is the potential premature rusting and corrosion of the underside of the floor panels of the tank. This condition can be readily corrected by grading the site so that the bottom of the tank is slightly higher(say 6 to 12 inches) above the finished surface of the site. Glenshire MWC retained the services of a tank inspection company to inspect this tank in July 2000. The inspection and results of this inspection were documented in a video recording. The tank inspection video showed that the interior coating system and roof, wall and floor steel plates were in generally good condition. However, the Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 26 video showed indications of some blistering of the coating on the center column and its support structure (beams). Additionally, there was corrosion noted on the galvanized steel washers, nuts and bolts at the bottom of the column support structure. Rust and corrosion were also noted on the inlet/outlet pipe and orifice that penetrates the tank floor. Lastly, there was also evidence of rust and corrosion on the dollar plate and top of the center column. According to Glenshire MWC records, no action to correct or mitigate the corrosion problem in the interior tank surfaces as noted above have been taken to date. Immediate action is needed to correct this problem. The exterior coating system of the tank appears to be in good condition. The tank is not equipped with cathodic protection. As such, consideration should be given to retaining the services of a corrosion engineer to evaluate the tank for the possible installation of a cathodic protection system. Assuming that the soil conditions and potential for seismic activity at this site are similar to those noted for the other tank site (The Strand), a full seismic and structural analysis of these two tanks to determine their structural integrity is also recommended. TELEMETRY SYSTEM The Glenshire MWC has a telemetry system that is used to monitor the status and alarms from the wells, tanks and booster pump station. The system was designed by Sandei-Every and Sierra Controls, Inc. The telemetry system can also be used to � w control the on/off status of the wells and booster pump station. The central control and monitoring station is via Personal Computer (desktop) located at the Glenshire MWC administrative offices. The electronic signals to and from the wells, tanks and booster pump station are transmitted via radio. Glenshire MWC has been issued ai radio station license by the Federal Communications Commission. The software that is used for the SCADA functions is proprietary software developed by Sierra Controls. This software is cumbersome and inflexible. Any expansion or changes to the programming or its functions is typically done only by Sierra Controls. The integration of the Glenshire MWC system with that of the Truckee-Donner PUD system will require additional software, hardware and a means of transmitting the signals from the existing Glenshire MWC system to the Truckee-Donner PUD i system. However, because the number of active wells in the Glenshire MWC system are proposed to be reduced, it may be more cost effective to replace the telemetry equipment that will remain in service with telemetry equipment that is compatible with that used by Truckee-Donner PUD. This would allow for direct transmission of the signals from each facility to the Truckee-Donner PUD system and the intermittent step of provide a temporary link could be eliminated. SYSTEM INTEGRATION WITH TRUCKEE-DONNER PUD SUPPLY The integration of the proposed water supply into the Glenshire MWC system will require careful planning. If done properly, several of the existing Glenshire MWC Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26,2001 Page 27 system problems discussed above could be resolved. By the same token, other new problems could be created. One example of a problem that can be solve is the pressure problem. If the source supply is brought in at a sufficiently high enough head and if integrated into the system at strategic locations, the improvements and costs of associated with reconfiguration of the pressure zone could be minimized. The potential impacts of the new supply will also need to be considered. These potential impacts could include the introduction of surges (transient pressures) from the new supply pipeline into the system, the disturbance of sediment and oxidation in steel pipelines by the differences in the water chemistry of the new water supply, and the efficiency and ability to convey the new water supply through the pipe network and into the tanks. 7. Review the quantities, sizes, types of materials and ages to the extent such information exists on the assets proposed to be conveyed to the District. This would also include real estate assets. Responses to this scope task have already been discussed in summary in the above scope items for pipelines, storage tanks, system valves, service lines, and the booster station. Not included in the above discussion but a part of the water system inventory are 194 fire hydrants, telemetry system and real estate assets (discussed below). A detailed inventory list of water system facilities by number, age, size, length and material is presented in Appendix A to the recently completed 2001 Water System Master Plan. _ s In addition to the water system facilities, there are a number of MWC vehicles, office equipment, tools, materials for system repairs, and miscellaneous support equipment. Ys Included in the major items are the following: ♦ 1987 Caterpillar Loader-Backhoe Model 416, License # 3HARD935 (purchased used) ♦ 1986 Chevrolet Pickup, License # 2T67082 ♦ 1989 Toyota Pickup, License# 3W68282 (purchased used, 1997, 214,500 miles) ♦ 1999 Ford Pickup, License # 6A13517 ♦ 1977 Ford Dump Truck, License# 4T36537 ♦ 1997 Chlorine Trailer, AZMFG, License # IFZ4789, with Chlorine Metering Pump ♦ 1995 Carrier Trailer, License# 1EG5269 ♦ 1995 Stand-by Generator set- XQ225, Caterpillar 3306 Engine, License # SE477675 Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 28 ♦ 2000 Savin 9922 Paper Copier (BVN206) ♦ Panasonic Integrated telephone system (model No. KX-T3281 W) ♦ HP DeskJet 840C series printer ♦ 2000 Gateway Personal Computer with 17-inch monitor ♦ Panasonic Impact Dot Matrix printer (model No. KX-PZ624) ♦ SW85 Swinter Portable Electronic Typewriter ♦ Pitney Bowes model E200 mailing machine (may be leased) ♦ Seven Fire King Filing Cabinets ♦ One metal file desk and two metal office desks with metal chairs T ♦ Two wood computer desks ♦ Two wood file catalogue cases ♦ Computer hardware, software and computer furniture for billing system (itemized invoice inventory attached) ♦ Miscellaneous small tools, portable equipment and materials and supplies for system maintenance Most of the above listed personal property appeared to be in good serviceable condition, although several of the vehicles were nearing the end of their service lives. The PUD will need to transfer vehicle ownership registration for any vehicles it acquires. Also a transfer of the radio license for the telemetry system will be required. Real estate assets owned by the MWC in fee are discussed below. Easements are discussed in scope item 8. According to a letter from the County Planning Department dated November 15, 1985, and information provided by Mark Thomas, the following lists real estate fee assets believed to be owned by MWC together with assessment parcel numbers, water system facilities, zoning and status according to the county in the mid-1980s. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 29 Facility and assessment No. Zonin Status Well 1B (destroyed "OS" Open Space The parcel was not created as AP # 40-110-07 a building site, and current zoning (1985) would not allow building. Well lA (lot 28) "RA-X" Residential The parcel was not created as AP # 40-120-28 agricultural a building site and we would not approve a residentialZF building permit(1985) Vacant "Rl" Single-Family The parcel was not created as � �` AP # 40-150-39 Residential a building site and we would not approve a residential building permit (1985). Well 11 (3.5 Acres) "OS" Open Space The current zoning of the AP #49-011-29 property would not allow building (1985). Wells 9 and 10 Water Co. "OS" Open Space The parcel is occupied by the Building(5 Acres) water company's operation s AP #49-011-31 and maintenance facility. The zoning, however, would not allow any additional building. Well 12 (.075 Acres) "RA" Residential The original parcel was split AP # 49-011-33 Agricultural into three parcels of which r this is the remainder. It appears to B-E that none of these parcels are of strategic importance to the PUD, although there may be value to water system operations by acquisition of the five acre maintenance building site. Also, if backup wells in addition to well No. 20 are desired by the PUD, well Nos. 10 and 11, located on the maintenance building site, together produce in excess of 500 gpm. However, both wells have shown radon on at least one occasion in excess of 1,000 pCi11 and arsenic levels have reached 96 mcg/l. u, Therefore, blending or treatment would be necessary. Presumably, a title insurance company would issue a policy to the PUD on any of these parcels. However, there are several concerns with the MWC building site as follows: ♦ The zoning for this parcel is Open Space. No building permit was located in the MWC's property files for the office building which is a potential contradiction in zoning versus improvements. If the PUD acquires this site, a verification needs to be made that no zoning violation exists. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 30 ♦ The office building property was reportedly used to perform vehicle maintenance in addition to water utility vehicles. Also, adjacent landowners in the late 1990s through legal counsel demanded cleanup and removal of trash, and other stored items. Finally, it is know that underground fuel storage tanks were removed (or abandoned on site). All of this leads to questions of potential environmental liability (outside of title insurance coverage). If the PUD acquires this parcel, an environment assessment of the property needs to be performed. ♦ Associated with the demand of an adjacent landowner (San Francisco Fly Casting Club) to cleanup the site, an allegation was made of encroachment and incorrect boundary location (copy of letter dated September 14, 1998, attached). The Glenshire MWC Board minutes discussed the issue for several sessions ending with the decision to request the claimant to conduct an additional survey at their expense. Discussion on the issue ceased upon our research of the Board minutes for many months until Mark Thomas became General Manager. He has no recall of subsequent Board discussion. If the PUD acquires the property, we recommend a survey be performed to clarify this issue (also an area of potential dispute not covered by title insurance). ♦ In summary, unless needed by the PUD in system operations, we recommend the PUD not take title to the real estate assets owned by the Glenshire MWC. It appears that there is at least some potential liability in reviewing these assets, but little or no benefit (unless needed for system operations). The PUD could, of course, assist the MWC in well abandonment and other asset disposition even if it doesn't acquire title to these assets. 8. Review the record of easements, encroachment permits, contract obligations, will serve commitments, debts and other obligations that may impact the District should the Mutual be acquired by the TDPUD. Property files and financial records were reviewed of the MWC, plus an interview with Mark Thomas, General Manager, in order to obtain an understanding of the status of these various issues in this item of due diligence investigation. The following lists are findings on this scope item. B-E attempted to verify the status of water system easements through review of MWC property files and discussions with Mark Thomas. However, after this review, many questions remain. For example, easements granted Martis Valley investors in 1999 for well sites 14 and 15 were never recorded. Accordingly, as with the real estate assets discussed above, it is recommended the PUD receive transfer of easements for only those facilities (or access to) considered essential for system operations. Specifically needed are site easements for Well No. 20, and the Somerset and Strand tanks. The following are observations regarding easements for these and other facilities. Mr.Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 31 ♦ There appears to be a recorded easement for Tanks Nos. 1 and 2 (Somerset tanks) plus access roads (Document No. 8102, recorded May 21, 1973, in Book 645, on Page 270, Official Records of Nevada County, California). ♦ There appears to be a valid recorded easement for Tanks Nos. 3 and 4 (Strand tanks) located along The Strand (Document No. 8102, recorded May 21, 1973, in Book 645, on page 270, Official Records of Nevada County, California). ♦ One of The Strand tanks (No. 2) is sited with only a setback less than required by the County. We understand that the PUD is aware of this situation and may not be required to satisfy County requirements. ♦ Appears to be a valid recorded easement for well No. 20 (per parcel map of a re- subdivision of lots 10, 12 and 33 of Juniper Hill filed for record June 24, 1973 in Book 8 of parcel maps at page 92 of Nevada County records). ♦ Records were not available to verify the transfer of water distribution pipelines from the developer to the MWC (with the exception of Unit No. 1). Some system transfers were only documented by draft, unexecuted or unrecorded forms of deeds or agreements. Therefore, although there is no reason to believe the MWC doesn't own all distribution facilities and these are located in recorded parcel map easements or public right of way, B-E could not verify the status of distribution system ownership. It is recommended the PUD work with Mark Thomas, a title company, and if necessary, a local surveyor to verify distribution system ownership. ♦ We could identify no significant debt obligations which the PUD would become liable for upon transfer of the assets from the MWC. This finding is supported by the most current financial statements for the MWC and an interview with Mr. Thomas. Most of the short-term ongoing liabilities (such as, utility service contracts) are in the name of the MWC and would not transfer automatically to the PUD upon the ownership change. However, there may be some small short- term service agreements (such as the provision of internet service attached to one of the office computers) which are associated with personal property transferring to the PUD and potentially could become an obligation upon transfer. It appears that the general manager has attempted to identify short-term obligations and service agreements to either cancel them or notify vendors of the ownership change. ♦ The general manager represents that there are no law suits pending before the Glenshire MWC. ♦ The DHS has informed us that an application for the transfer of the water supply permit from the MWD to the PUC will be facilitated by combining the transfer requests for both the Glenshire system and the Donner Lake system. We also Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 32 understand that DHS will be requiring an abbreviated transfer request for these two systems in lieu of a very detailed application which frequently is requested in cases of system transfers. ♦ Will serve commitments by the MWC are currently limited. One outstanding will serve letter was issued to David Woodhead (parcel No. 48-190-19). No other will serve commitments are believed to be outstanding other than the agreements with Cambridge and Tahoe Boca discussed below. ♦ There is an outstanding service commitment to the owners of the Cambridge Estates for service to 38 lots which were issued shares. For the next 25 lots, the developer will need to secure a source of supply and construct the associated system infrastructure. ♦ An informal will serve letter was given to the developer of an area known as Tahoe Boca in the mid-1980s. It is believed this commitment was for a five-year period and thus, is no longer enforceable for water service. We understand the PUD may be discussing this issue with the developer. ♦ It is believed there are currently on the order of 350 undeveloped parcels that have shares for water service within the MWC service area which ultimately may apply for water service (following the payment of the appropriate connection fees). ♦ There are a number of homeowners (less than 10) on larger lots who have expressed to the MWC their interest in splitting their property for an ultimate sale of the split parcel for additional residential development. This practice, if approved by the County,would result in additional future demands on the system. ♦ It is believed the current booster plant site may not have the appropriate encroachment permit. This site was originally a pressure reducing value (PRV) station site. Review of relevant documents does not track perfectly. ♦ It is not known if system PRVs are in utility rights of way. However, it is believed all of them may be outside of road rights of way. Therefore, these facilities may need encroachment permits or easements. a ♦ Wells 16 and 17 need encroachment permits (if acquired). 9. Provide a written letter report on the due diligence investigation reporting on the results of the various reviews together with conclusions on the condition and adequacy of the system. This letter, through the above discussion, reports on the results of b-E's research and due diligence investigation together with conclusions on system condition and adequacy. Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister July 26, 2001 Page 33 10. Provide advice to the District on the terms and conditions that should be satisfied by the Mutual Water Company as part of the transfer of ownership. This task would cover such items as records to be conveyed to the District, transference of easements and permits, satisfaction of contract and debt obligations, and other pertinent matters that may come to the attention of the consultant in the process of the scope of services. Model contracts have been provided to the PUD for legal reference in preparing a sales or transfer agreement. Recommendations on real estate and easement transference are discussed above. All records currently in the possession of the MWC located at the 41 s maintenance and general office building should be transferred to the PUD. These include, (but are not limited to)the following: ♦ System maps, as-built drawings, engineering reports, facility maintenance records and operating manuals. ♦ Back flow prevention and crass connection control files. ♦ Customer service and payment files. A ♦ State OHS files and records including all water quality tests. ♦ All personal property to be acquired records and manuals. ♦ System financial records including original costs and depreciation schedules. ♦ Facility original construction records. ♦ Cambridge Settlement records. ♦ Motor vehicle records. B-E remains available to assist the PUD in responding to questions relating to the ;x transfer. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Harold V. Morgan Ruben Zubia Executive Principal Engineer Principal Engineer P\Truckee-Donner\Glenshire Report.doc