City of Madison
Legislative File ID   08949
Type:   Resolution    Status:   Passed
Enactment Date:   2/26/2008    Enactment No.:   RES-08-00203
Title:  
A resolution authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchard Order/Contract to ATEC Systems Associates, Inc. for Contract No. 101512 , Procurement of Pressure Filtration Equipment for the Madison Water Utility. (17th AD).
Controlling Body:   WATER UTILITY BOARD
Introduced:   1/24/2008    Version:   1
Final Action:   2/26/2008    Contact:   wfitch@cityofmadison.com
Name:  
A resolution authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchard Order/Contract to ATEC Systems Associates, Inc. for Contract No. 101512 , Procurement of Pressure Filtration Equipment for the Madison Water Utility.
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   WATER UTILITY BOARD
Sponsors:  
Lauren Cnare, Michael Schumacher
Attachments:  
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
1/24/2008Water UtilityThis Resolution was Referred for Introduction
Notes: Water Utility Board
1/29/2008WATER UTILITY BOARD 
Notes:
2/5/2008COMMON COUNCILThis Resolution was Refer to the WATER UTILITY BOARD
Notes:
2/12/2008WATER UTILITY BOARDA motion was made by Schumacher, seconded by Onken, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: Resolution approved with the modification of filtration capacity from 2,200 gpm (gallons per minute) to 1,100 gpm and a reduced price of $196,750 from $301,000. Larry said the board wanted to put a filter in place at Unit Well 29. Al Larson and his staff and consultants prepared a proposal and the goal is to first get bids on the type of the equipment we are going to use, and from there design a building to house it. The bids came in quite good. The filters will cost $301,000; we had three bids. We are going to design it at 22 gallons per minute. At the same time, the Utility had contracted with Montgomery and MIT to do a testing of the well at 29 in conjunction with the Sycamore Landfill. We’re reviewing the bids for the filter system and test well results came in with a recommendation that the well be operated in a fashion that only averaged 1100 gallons a minute for over the entire year. This is one-half of the capacity for the well. Larry asked Nancy Zolidis from Montgomery Associates walk them through that portion. Nancy presented a brief summary and recommendations. Individuals who helped with this project are Ken Bradbury from Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey who provided input and suggestions.; Joe Demorrett from the Health Department monitored the Sycamore Landfill and reviewed the data, and Janet Batista and people from the Water Utility assisted with the project. A pumping test was conducted at 29 where it was pumped for 21 days at an average rate of 2,050 gpm. Water levels were monitored at selected wells at Sycamore Landfill, which is 1500 feet west of 29, for one week prior, during and after pumping. Water level data collected were analyzed and compared to groundwater monitoring results. A capture zone analysis evaluated the impacts of long term continuous pumping on groundwater flow beneath the landfill. UW 29 is open only to the lower aquifer so it is cased in the Eau Claire shale. It appears there is only about five feet of Eau Claire shale at this site. Nancy said the project objectives included assessing the potential of UW2 29 to capture beneath the landfill, and providing the Water Utility with recommendations on management strategies for UW 29. Nancy said activities performed were review of Sycamore Landfill monitoring well data, well construction reports, geology and cross-sections of the contaminant plume., selection of wells to be included in the monitoring network and install transducers and data loggers, collection of water level data for 1 week prior to pumping, 21 days during and 1 week after pumping, preparation of graphs of pre-pumping water levels, drawdown and post-pumping water levels and correct data for changes in barometric pressure. and groundwater flow modeling and capture zone analysis. George asked Nancy if the Sycamore Landfill groundwater is above the aquitard, and Nancy replied yes. The plume of contaminated groundwater at Sycamore is at an elevation of about 810’ whereas the lower aquifer is an elevation of 600’, so it’s quite a bit above the lower aquifer. There are no deep wells at the landfill so this part of the uncertainty. The Water Utility operated UW 29 and monitored the pumping rates and water levels before, during and after the pumping test. Based on these data, average pumping rate was calculated to be 2,050 gpm during the test. Drawdown in the well was calculated as the difference between the static and dynamic water levels to be about 121’ at the end of the test. Nancy pointed out a diagram that showed the monitoring network at Sycamore Landfill. The model was run for various values of vertical hydraulic conductivity for the Eau Claire shale to evaluate the increased leakiness of the confining layer on the simulated drawdown. The results are shown in the table and indicate that a value of approximately 0.005 is appropriate for the value of vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Eau Claire shale. She said Well 23A is the closest well to UW 29, approximately 1100 feet from the well. All of these wells are in the shallow upper aquifer above the Eau Claire shale. Conclusions, based on results of the study, are: 1. Results of November 2007 groundwater level monitoring at Sycamore Landfill well favorably agree with the less intensive groundwater level monitoring conducted during the manganese treatment pilot study in January and February 2007. 2. The Eau Claire shale-confining layer identified at UW 29 is likely present throughout the vicinity of the well and limits flow between the upper and lower bedrock aquifers. Declines in groundwater levels at the Sycamore Landfill monitoring wells would likely be much greater than those observed if the Eau Claire shale were absent. 3. Continuous pumping at UW 29 may have the following effects on groundwater from the vicinity of the landfill: A. At 1100 gpm - would probably not capture groundwater from the vicinity of the Sycamore Landfill; B. At 1700 gpm - may capture groundwater within a period of 20 years; and C. At 2300 gpm - may capture groundwater within a period of 15 years. Preliminary Recommendations: Based on the conclusions of the study, Montgomery Associates recommends the following: 1. If impacts from the landfill are to be avoided, the long-term 30 year operational strategy for UW 29 should consider pumping at an average yearly rate of 1,100 gpm. Since this is an average rate, the well could be pumped at a higher rate periodically or for specific intervals during the year. 2. The operational strategy should consider all of the area municipal wells and other high capacity wells that may influence the groundwater flow system beneath the landfill. Pumping scenarios should be evaluated to reduce potential of impacting water supply in the future. 3. The Water Utility should work with City Engineering to develop a monitoring and analysis program for Sycamore Landfill. 4. Provide additional monitoring point between landfill and UW 29, a Sentry Well should be installed in the lower aquifer to monitor groundwater between UW 29 and Sycamore Landfill in a possible migration pathway from the landfill to the unit well. George asked what the fiscal impact would be by reducing capacity by 50%. Larry said the first fiscal impact is what it means for the future and other wells that we have. They looked at a number of variables and whether it would work. Their belief going into it was that we can successfully operate the well at the 1100 gpm average over the year. What if we just operated at 1100 gallons all of the time. They went through numerous looks at various alternatives, looking at the peak value of 68 million gallons per day for 2025 and then taking off two wells, assuming that they were down for maintenance. We got a level of comfort that we could keep the Felland Road reservoir in service and operational during the peak summer days operating at 1100 gpm. If we really had an emergency, we could bump that well up. The model was quite helpful with this and the entire fire suppression equipment. Larry said he thinks that is the consensus, that we can operate with this at 1100 gpm. Al said there are three wells in the master plan that we need to site and construct to make this work. Those are included in your analysis. There’s a well planned for Femrite Drive and we hope to drill it this year. Well 45 was discussed, replacement for Well 3, that the group is working to site. We own property at Hoepfker Road designated as Well 35. Al said we still have to add wells, even with the filter at 29, in order to make it work with the population today. Larry said the master plan asks for the projected population of 2025. The reason for the wells is we’re assuming during the worst-case scenario we’re losing wells if they’re down for mechanical failure or repair. Michael asked what the average pumping is with other wells. Al said in 2007, Well 11 behind Woodmans, 1100 gallons per minute is equal to 550 million gallons a year. The well behind Woodmans produced 850 million gallons per year. Fifteen, on E. Washington, not far from East Towne, produced 828 million gallons. Eight, a seasonal well, produced 296 million gallons. Seven, on Sherman Avenue, produced 509 million gallons, so essentially what we’re talking about, 550 million from Well 29 would be pretty much the same as what seven was in 2007. Larry said we invited Ken Quinn, Ken Bradbury from the WI Geological & Natural History Survey, Joe Demorett, hydro geologist with the City, and Janet Batisto, retired hydro geologist. They agreed with the consultant’s recommendations and they also determined that the analysis was really conservative. By putting in those wells, we should be able to measure what happens in the future and see if, at some time, we can move this thing up. Our ability to measure and our technology is going to increase as we go forward. We start off in a conservative fashion and see how it develops. The purpose of this well is to serve the new service area and that big reservoir. The other issue that he would like to bring to the Board’s attention is that when he talked to the hydro geologist is that the City of Madison Water Utility has a pretty simple doctrine with regards to pumping-it’s either on or it’s off, and when it’s on, it’s maximum and when it’s off, it’s zero. There is some pretty good rational for operating our wells longer at lower pumping rates, one is for energy and the second is we don’t have issues like the Sycamore Landfill or the Mineral Point Landfill for Well 16. If we would actually change that doctrine of pumping where we would treat these wells a little easier, it may prove advantageous from the standpoint of the quality of the water as well as our power costs. George asked if there is some intervention that can be done in relationship to the Sycamore plume, which would prevent it from causing problems. Jon asked if it would be the same, running 1100 gallons full time, as running it 2200 gallons for six months out of the year. Nancy said yes. Jon said, with four hydro geologists in the room, one being Ken Bradbury who is independent, and the other is from our science advisory group, Janet Batista, and Ken Quinn and Joe Demmorett, they all agreed that your recommendation of 1100 with the provision we put in a monitoring well, is a prudent way to move ahead. Nancy said both she and Ken worked on it, and he was expressing her opinions. George said we have to do a substantial reduction in pumpage this fall. Could this issue of the Sycamore Landfill been rejected in advance. Jon said from his Board perspective, they had consultants tell them that the Sycamore Landfill would not bother us, so this is new data. Nancy said last year when we ran the model, we took advantage of the pilot testing that was done at Well 29 to monitor two wells at Sycamore Landfill to see if there was a response, and there was. We ran the model to look at basic conditions over a long period of time. What we saw was reasonable. We saw a drop of 3 to 4 feet over a long period of time versus in the range of one foot during that pumping scenario. We didn’t have control over the pumping rate and no control over the time period. What we came back with was let’s define our pumping test information so we can actually run a transient model over 21 days, which was what the pumping test was for. So we could work at a higher level of information. Michael asked if we are moving in the right direction, if we’re getting better at our modeling and data collection, so each time you know the impact of the quality of water in the well you are looking at. Nancy said that is true, the more information we have the better input we can give to the model. It’s because we have Well 29 there and can pump and monitor it, it gives us enough data to look at. We have more information now but the model still has some uncertainty. We really don’t know how thick the Eau Claire shale is; as far as she knows, that has not been looked at. Modeling is a tool in looking at potential impact. Jon said we’re talking about a purchase agreement for ATEC Systems for procurement of pressure filtration equipment for the Utility. Their bid for $301,000 is to treat at 2200 gallons per minute, so that is why we are discussing this. It looks like we are going to settle for 1100 or something more than that. Larry said he recommends on page one, 1100 gallons per minute. Put in a space for 2200 gallons per minute. He asked the total cost based on the estimates, and Al went through and updated the estimates to the lowest price for the filter. It came in considerably less than the estimate. We discussed this with the filter provider. The question is, do we buy 1100 gallons per minute filters, or do we buy 1650 gallons per minute filters, or do we buy 2200. Larry said their recommendation is that we buy 1100 and you can add to that. Our second recommendation is that we design the building to house the filters and a tank for the backwash at 2200 gallons per minute in anticipation that we are going to get there. This would indicate that our cost would drop from $1,784,000 to $1,429,000-that is an estimate. If we went with the smaller facility, 1100 gallons forever, we would drop it down to $1.252 million. The recommendation is that we proceed with a design for 2200 and the full backwash and then add the filters as we need them. The other thing is, if we have a real issue with needing more water, we can bump up those variable speed pumps. We can bump this up to 1650 and we’ll have to backwash more. Larry said the recommendation on the front page is we go with the 1100-gallon per minute but will put in the space for 2200 and then we’ll have the backwash, and we’ll still have to go through building design and approvals, etc. Al said the budget line is $2.4 million. Jon said what we’re deciding on tonight and he thinks he’s hearing that we could change and substitute $196,000 and approve that tonight instead of the $301,000, and do the 1100. Michael Schumacher made a motion that we substitute the $301,000 with $196,750 to purchase filtration for 1100 gallons per minute. Jon said we’re deciding if we are going to buy $301,000 or $196,000 worth of filtration equipment. Warren Onken seconded; unanimously passed. Larry thanked Al and Doug DeMaster for all of the information they pulled together in a short period of time.
2/26/2008COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Verveer, seconded by Ald. Bruer, to Adopt. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
Approvals
ApproverDateApproval Status
Eric Knepp1/28/2008Approved

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.