HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 Glenshire Water System Agenda Item
AMMER
TRUCKEE r : .NNER
Public Utility District 1,
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Peter Holzmeister
Date: August 10, 2001
Glenshlire water system
a) A workshop is scheduled to discuss the Due Diligence Report prepared by Harold
Morgan of Navigant Consulting. A copy of the report is attached for your review.
Harold will attend the meeting, will make a brief presentation, answer questions and
participate is a general discussion.
b) The Board talked about the need to perform a CEQA review of the Glenshire project.
I have asked Keith Knibb to provide a proposal to perform that work. He is out of the
office until Monday, August 13. 1 will receive his proposal as soon as possible and
present it at the Board meeting on Wednesday evening.
c) If the Board is comfortable with the Due Diligence Report, at the conclusion of the
workshop you may want to consider authorizing me to begin negotiating the terms of
the acquisition of the Glenshire water system.
BOOK -EDMONSTON
�,
hla�t 1ganz
July 27,2001
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 (in bold italics text), 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 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 diligence study. During
this time, we conducted a visual 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
225 W. Broadway, Suite 400, Glendale,CA 91 2 04-1 3 3 1 • tel: 818-244-0117 • fax: 818-242-0480
Mr. PeterL. Holzmeiste:
July 27,2001
Page 2
maintenance records. Unless you request otherwise, well production facilities will
not be included in view of the district providing alternative water supplies.
GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The Glenshire Mutual Water Company (MWC) water system is located within the
eastern portion of the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, California. The MWC
provides potable water service to some 1361 service connections. The service area
covers an area of approximately 10.40 square miles. The 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 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 MWC
service area. In addition, there is a high potential for development of lands that are
adjacent to the 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 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 MWC staff, the maintenance program appears to have been
responsive (to crisis) rather than planned and methodical preventative maintenance.
In some instances, 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
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Paae 3
pieces of equipment. There were also no logs for the daily, weekly, monthly or
annual maintenance performed on the wells and booster pump station. However,
there were some 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 MWC.
However, these as-built drawings have not been maintained and updated to reflect
improvements or modifications to the water system, the construction of the sewer
collection system in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the construction of other
utilities and improvements within the rights-of-way occupied by the water system
facilities.
SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DESIGNS
The construction of the water distribution system has been principally by contractors
hired by developers. It appears the MWC in most cases had input in establishing the
criteria for design and construction. There was extensive documentation that indicates
that the MWC frequently used its consultants to review developer prepared plans and
provide construction inspection services.
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
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 wells and the accuracy of these meters is unknown.
However, it should be noted that 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 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 27,2001
Page d
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 2
Total 23 ',...
Within the last five years, the number of reported leaks per year shows an increasing
trend. 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 quantify 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
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 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 MWC has conducted
cross connection surveys to identify 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 that 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.
vir. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 5
Water quality data was obtained both from the California Department of Health
Services (DHS) 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 DHS 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 [mcg/1] for lead and 1,300 mcg/l for copper for
the 90`h percentile monitoring data results.) Lead results at this percentile were
non-detectable and for copper were at a level of 73 mcg/l. 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
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
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 27,2001
Pace 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
DHS 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/l. 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/1). Radon results have been reported as high as 1,100
pCi/l. 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/1.
♦ 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. 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 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 DES'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 27, 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. v
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
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
recent annual inspection report for the 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 27,2001
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
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 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 during
times of bacteriological positive test results for selected wells. Most of the color
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. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 9
Table 2
Glenshire Mutual Water Company
Customer Complaints or System Problems Reported to the
State Department of Health Services a
TYPE 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Taste and Odor 0 1 3 23� 10e 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 1 4 12 1
Water Outages 2 0 0 7 0 0
Leaks 15` 19 11 8` 14 15
Illnesses (Waterborne) 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
f Note indicates mercury in water. Checked plumbing,nothing detected.
Based on B-Fs 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 flowrequirements 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 diumal 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 MWC uses 25 percent of the
maximum day demand as the criteria for sizing the amount of required operational
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Paae 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 storage credit is
equal to the sum of the total daily well production capacity less the capacity of the
largest producing well. For the subject system, the 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 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
No. 20 would be retained in service after 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).
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Paae 11
Table 3
Calculated Storage Capacity Required Use of Wells Except Well No. 20 is Discontinued
Volume
Storage Capacity Factor (gallons) Remarks!Assumptions
Maximum Day Demand 1,798,000 Based on Year 2000 System Demands
Operational Storage Capacity 449,500 50 percent of Maximum Day Demand
Emergency Storage Capacity 3,596,000 Two Times Maximum Day Demand
Fire Flow Storage(Pressure Zone 1) 180,000 1500 gpm fire flow for 2-hour duration
Fire 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 (806,400
Required Storage Capacity 3,599,100 Calculated Storage Less Credit for Well 20
Say i 3,600,000 Minimum Recommended Storage Capacity
The 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 PUD 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 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 allowed only for temporary or emergency flow conditions.
Table 4 presents a summary of flow capacities of different size pipelines at varying
flow velocities.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27,2001
Page 12
Table 4
Flow Capacities of Different Size Pipelines at Varying Flow Velocities
Velocity
Diameter 3 cfs 5 cfs 7.5 cfs
(inches) Flow Rate (gpm)
2 29 49 73
2.5 46 76 115
3 66 Ito 165
4 117 195 293
6 264 440 660
8 469 782 1,173
10 733 1,222 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
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 and system pressure
deficiencies. These deficiencies are summarized in Table 5.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 13
Table 5
Summary of System Deficiencies Noted in Water System Master Plan Report
Pipeline Location From-To Location Pipeline Deficiency Noted
Diameter
Edinburgh Drive Regency Circle to 6-inch Insufficient capacity to deliver 1,000
Courtney Avenue gpm fire flow at end of Edinburgh
Drive.
Cavalier Drive Entire Area In Unit#3 6-inch Insufficient pipeline capacity to deliver
within immediate 1,000 gpm fire flow at the intersection
vicinity of Cavalier of Cavalier Drive and Royal Way.
Drive 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 1,000
Pipeline in Easement The Strand to Royal gpm fire flow plus maximum day
between Unit #7 and Crest. Located south of demand flows to Unit#3.
Unit#3 and parallel to Chatham
Reach.
Portions of Unit #2 Between Doschester various High water pressures were noted. In
and Unit#4 Lane and northern some areas under certain water delivery
portion of Somerset conditions,pressures approach 150 psi.
Drive Need to change pressure zone
configuration.
WATER DEMANDS
The 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 6.
Table 6
Water Demand Data(Year 2000)
Gallons Per #of Service Gallons Per
Water Use Factor Day Connections Minute
Average Day Demand 745,000 1,361 517
Maximum Day Demand 1,798,000 1,361 L249
1. Data obtained from Gienshire MWC Water System Master 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 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:
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 14
"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
convening 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 a meter testing program (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
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, system leakage
or other forms of unaccounted-for-water.
SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY
The current 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 7.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27,2001
Page 15
Table 7
Summary of Groundwater Production Wells
Pressure Well Year Capacity Capacity
Zone I.D.# Built Age ( m) ( d) Remarks
1 lA 1972 29 60 86,400
16 1996 5 156 224,640
20 1997 4 560 806,400 Lareest Producer
2 9 1973 28 79 113,760
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 8 67 96,480
17 1997 4 88 126,720
18 1998 3 190 273,600
19 1998 3 98 141,120
Total 12 NIA NIA 1,988 2,862,720
A comparison of the key water demand factors to the groundwater production
capacities is presented in Table 8. 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 8. As shown on this table, the
production capacity of the 12 wells is sufficient to meet the water demands of the
system.
Table 8
Comparison of Water Demand To Water Supply Ca acit
Demand/Supply Factor 20 RPM
Average Day Demand 745,000 517
aximum Day Demand 1,798,000 1,249
Total Groundwater Well Production Capacity 2,862,720 1,988
Maximum Production Without Largest Producer 2,056.320 1,428
However, MWC has been noticing increasing levels of arsenic in water produced
from several wells. Currently, all the wells that feed directly into Pressure Zone 2
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 16
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.
MWC and 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 MWC
system. As such, the scope of this evaluation excluded evaluation of all groundwater
production wells except for Well No. 20.
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
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 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 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, 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 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 wells and the
removal of the above ground facilities. The estimated cost associated with the
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 17
abandonment and destruction of each well and removal of the above ground facilities
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 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 9 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 the Master Plan Report. For
example, the report indicated that there is extensive existing ductile iron pipelines in the
system. However, 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 27,2001
Pale 18
Table 9
Summary of Existin Pi eiines in the Glenshire MWC Distribution S stem
Pi a Diameter(inches)
Year T e 10 8 6 4 Total % of Total
1971 AC 3,123 7,050 21,828 0 31001 27.49%
_ 1972 AC 1,769 4,500 1 17,096 0 23,365 20.07%
1973 AC 1,759 4,370 5,179 320 11,628 9M%
1984 AC 0 0 11,521 0 11,521 9.90%
ubtotal AC 6,651 15,920 55.624 1 320 78.515 67.46%
1972 PVC 0 1,620 0 0 1,620 1.39%
1991 PVC 0 0 378 0 378 0.32%
1991 PVC 543 0 0 0 543 0.47%
1992 PVC 1,700 0 4,871 0 6,571 5.65%
1993 PVC 0 4,981 0 0 4,981 4.28%
1994 PVC 1,913 0 0 0 1913, 1.64%
1995 PVC 3,050 0 0 0 3,050 2.62%
1997 PVC 0 1,615 0 0 1,615 1.39%
1997 PVC 0 0 320 0 320 0.27%
1998 PVC 0 570 648 0 1,218 1.05%
2000 PVC 0 1,067 0 0 1,067 0.92%
2001 PVC 0 1,902 0 0 1,902 1,63%
ubtotal VC 7,206 111,7551 6,217 0 25,178 21.63%
1972 STL 2.981 2,175 6.079 0 11,235 9.65%
1991 STL 1,464 0 0 0 1,464 126%
ubtotal STL 4,445 2,175 1 6,079 0 12,699 10.91%
OTAL PIPE .f.} 18 02 29,850 67,920 320 I16,392 100%
OTAL PIPE(miles) 3.47 5,65 12.86 0.06 22.04 122%
ercent of Total 15.72% 25.W70 ".35%J 0.27% 100M 100%
The condition of the buried pipelines could not be adequately assessed: 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 MWC staff, and DHS records, most pipelines are
probably in good condition. The only possible exception to this is the older steel
pipelines which comprise approximately 10 percent 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 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 make a conscious effort to inspect the
pipelines in conjunction with future maintenance, repair and replacement activities.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 19
SERVICE CONNECTIONS
As noted before, there are currently approximately 1361 service connections that are
served by the MWC water distribution system. Of these, only approximately 350
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 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 serious 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.
PRESSURE ZONES AND SERVICE PRESSURES
The 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. 2 is sustained by two water storage
tanks (Somerset Tank Nos. 1 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. 1 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.
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
Nit. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 20
within the two pressure zones where service pressures exceed 80 psi. Although not
verified, 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 PUD is brought in at a sufficiently high
enough head and if integrated at the appropriate MWC water system locations.
BOOSTER DUMPING PLANT
The MWC water system has only one booster pump station. This booster pump
station is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Donnington Lane and
Royal Way. This booster pump station is used to convey water from Pressure Zone 2
to Pressure Zone 1. 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 centrifugal pumps. One unit is a 20 horsepower unit with a rated capacity
of 230 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 cover 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.
Access is difficult and poses a risk to maintenance personnel and a potential liability
to 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
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 21
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 have 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 needs 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
is set in the closed position. There are other instances where two of three pipelines
feeding an area have PRVs 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
currently used to convey water from Pressure Zone 1 (HGL=6,315 feet) to Pressure
Zone 2 (HGL=6,135 feet). The problem with this is that most of the water that is
transferred from Pressure Zone 1 to Pressure Zone 2 is water that was pumped from
Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 1 through the booster pump station located at the
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 22
corner of Donnington Lane and Royal Way. According to the Water System Master
Plan Report, approximately 67 percent of the water pumped from Pressure Zone 2 to
Pressure Zone 1 is recirculated back to Pressure Zone 2 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 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 an active valve exercise 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, 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, 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.
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 27, 2001
Page 23
STORAGE CAPACITY
There are four above-ground water storage tanks in the 1v1WC water distribution
system. Two of these tanks are located within Pressure Zone No. 2 (Somerset Tank
Nos. 1 and 2) at an elevation of 6,139 feet. The other two tanks are located within
Pressure Zone No. 1 (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 10.
Table 10
Existin Water Storage Tanks
Pressure Tank ElevaBio Year Capacity Type of
Zone ID Feet) Bui18 Agi ction Foundation Type
The Strand Tanks:
Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel
2 1 6,139 1975 26 420,000 Steel Welded Retainer Ring on Exterior Perimeter
2 6,139 1993 8 318,000 Steel Bolted Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel
Retainer Ring on Exterior Perimeter
Total Capacity-Pressure Zone 1 738,000
Somerset Tanks:
1 6,315 1989 12 280,000 Steel Welded Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel
1 Retainer Ring on Exterior Perimeter
2 6,315 1991 10 210,000 Steel Bolted Sand/Gravel Blanket With Steel
Retainer Ring on Exterior Perimeter
Total Capacity-Pressure Zone 2 490,90
Total System Capacity 1228,000
(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 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 27,2001
Page 24
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. 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 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
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 makes it difficult for the water
and moisture that collects under the tank to drain. 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.
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 of 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 27. 2001
Page 25
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.
In June 2000, the MWC submitted an application to the CDA for a new CUP that will
allow MWC to replace the existing 420,000 gallon tank (Tank No. 1) with a new 1.2
million gallon tank. This application was subsequently put on hold by MWC due to a
finding by the CDA which asserts that the construction of Tank No. 2 at this same site
was not in compliance with the CUP issued for that tank in 1993. Apparently, Tank
No. 2 was not located on the site consistent with the setback dimensions required by
the CUP. Additionally, the CDA asserts that MWC did not comply with the
requirements for construction of an earthen berm and landscaping per the CUP issued
for Tank No. 2. Because of these circumstance, the CAD has indicated that MWC
will need to mitigate these conditions or apply for a variance prior to the their
consideration of the more recent CUP application.
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 and possibly the two Somerset tanks, is needed to
determine the structural integrity of the 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, 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 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 CUP issued by the CDA.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 26
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
comprised by this condition and could be exacerbated during a significant seismic
event.
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 many 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 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. A 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. The resulting impact is the
ivlr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27,2001
Page 27
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.
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 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 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 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 Sandel-Every
and Sierra Controls, Inc. The telemetry system can also be used to control the on/off
status of the wells and booster pump station. The central control and monitoring
station is via a Personal Computer (desktop) located at the MWC administrative
offices. The electronic signals to and from the wells, tanks and booster pump station
are transmitted via radio. MWC has been issued a 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 MWC telemetry system with
that of the PUD system will require additional software, hardware and a means of
transmitting the signals from the existing MWC system to the PUD system.
However, because the number of active wells in the 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 PUD.
This would allow for direct transmission of the signals from each MWC facility to the
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 28
PUD SCADA system and the intermittent step of providing a temporary link could be
eliminated.
SYSTEM INTEGRATION WITH PUD SUPPLY
The integration of the proposed water supply into the MWC system will require
careful planning. If done properly, several of the existing MWC 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 associated with the
needed reconfiguration of the pressure zones 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 MWC system, the disturbance of sediment and oxidation in steel
pipelines by differences in the water chemistry of the new water supply, and the
efficiency and ability to convey the new water supply through the MWC 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.
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.
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
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27,2001
Page 29
♦ 1997 Chlorine Trailer, AZMFG, License # 1FZ4789, with Chlorine Metering
Pump
♦ 1995 Carrier Trailer, License# 1EG5269
♦ 1995 Stand-by Generator set- XQ225, Caterpillar 3306 Engine, License
#SE477675
♦ 2000 Savin 9922 Paper Copier(BVN206)
♦ Panasonic Integrated telephone system (model No. KX-T3281W)
♦ BP 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
♦ Two wood computer desks
♦ Two wood file catalogue cases
♦ Computer hardware, software and computer fumiture 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
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 30
assessment parcel numbers, water system facilities, zoning and status according to the
county in the mid-1980s.
Facility and assessment No. Zonin Status
Well 113 (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 1A (lot 28) "RA-Y"Residential The parcel was not created as
AP#40-120-28 agricultural a building site and we would
not approve a residential
building permit (1985)
Vacant "RI" 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
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
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 pCi/1 and arsenic levels have reached 96 mcg/l.
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
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 31
zoning versus improvements. If the PUD acquires this site, a verification needs to
be made that no zoning violation exists.
♦ 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 known 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
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 with no apparent resolution. This is based upon
our research of the Board minutes for many months. Mark Thomas was also
queried on this issue and he had no recall of Board discussion of resolution of this
issue since he became General Manager. 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 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 by 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
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27,2001
Page 32
operations. Specifically needed are site easements for Well No. 20, and the Somerset
and The Strand tanks. The following are observations regarding easements for these
and other facilities.
♦ 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.
♦ There 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 rights-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
MWC.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27, 2001
Page 33
♦ 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
understand that DHS will be requiring an abbreviated transfer request for these
two systems in lieu of a very detailed application which is frequently 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 valve (PRV)
station site. Review of relevant documents does not track perfectly.
♦ It is not known if system PRVs are in utility easements or public rights-of-way.
However, it is believed all of them may be located within public road rights-of-
way. Therefore, these facilities may need encroachment permits or easements.
♦ Wells 16 and 17 need encroachment permits (if acquired).
Mr, Peter L. Holzmeister
July 27,2001
Page 34
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.
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
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 cross connection control files.
♦ Customer service and payment files.
♦ State DHS files and records including all water quality tests.
♦ All records and manuals for all personal property to be acquired.
♦ System financial records including original costs and depreciation schedules.
♦ Facility original construction records.
♦ Cambridge Settlement records.
♦ Motor vehicle records.
Mr. Peter L. Holzmeister
July 2?, 2001
Page 35
B-E remains available to assist the PUD in responding to questions relating to t e
transfer. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Harold V. Morgan Ruben Z N
Executive Principal Engineer Principal Engineer
JATruckee-DonnerUenshire Report.doc