20210714FLS to Staff 21.pdf

Rates & Regulatory Affairs
FLS-W-21-01
Falls Water Company Application for Approval of Three Capital Projects
Data Request Response
Request No.: FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21

REQUEST NO. 21: Please provide the rationale for determining the placement and
size for the 2.0 million-gallon (MG) storage tank adjacent to Well #9 identified as
"Alternative 1 with Storage Tank". Please provide the analysis and any workpapers in
electronic format with formulas intact.
Response:
Ryan Christensen with S&A Engineering prepared the response to Request No. 21.
Placement of the tank was determined based on the following factors:
1. Falls Water Company already owned property adjacent to Well 9 based on
recommendations set forth in a previous Capital Facility planning document.

2. Tanks can be used more efficiently adjacent to sources. Being adjacent to the
source allows pumping directly to the tank rather than pumping to full system
head and then wasting energy, to discharge in the tank, before pumping back
to system head. Moreover, pumping directly to the tank allows for sand to be
captured without exposure to the system pipes.

3. The location is central within Falls Water Company’s network and there is
significant transmission capacity already present in the area.
Sizing of the Tank was based on findings from the previous 2006 capital facilities plan
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1 (Exhibit 11) along with an updated review of
data during preparation of the 2019 capital facilities plan. The amount of equalization
storage that can be used from the storage tank is constrained by the pumping capacity
of Wells #5 and #9 and FWC’s diurnal demand curve. To evaluate how these factors will
interact and determine how much equalization storage could be utilized, tank operation
was simulated using the future system model. It was found that 1.4 MG of equalization
storage could be used. An additional 0.5 MG was set aside as fire/emergency storage
with an additional 0.1 MG for operational storage. The 0.5 MG set aside for
fire/emergency storage correlates to about 3000 gpm for 3 hours. The operational
storage is included to provide a small safety factor to account for sensitivity of water
level sensors control the pump start and stop functions.

IPUC DR 21
ATTACHMENT 1
FALLS WATER CO., INC.

2006 Planning Study Excerpts

(11 PAGES)

FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
1 of 11
6.5 Water Supply
This section is devoted to all aspects of water supply. It first addresses storage and
booster pumps, then wells, then miscellaneous items with associated estimates of
probable cost.
6.5.1 Storage and Booster Pumping
Table 5-3 shows the expected design requirements of water storage tanks, booster
systems and wells and their expected locations. The locations set aside for
booster pump stations and tanks include the Central Wellhouse, and a new site
near Well No. 5 that will boost the water from new Well No. 9 and Well No 5.
This site has been named the Well No, 9, North Tank and Booster Pump Station
site. An additional summer well to be named Well No. 10 is planned to be drilled
on the existing undeveloped well site in the northeast comer of Cloverdale
Estates. The locations of new and planned supply points are shown on Figure 6-
1.
With these improvements we expect that Falls Water Company will be able to
support a peak demand of approximately 18,000 gpm in 2025. The well capacity
shown should meet or exceed expected maximum day flows (11,200 gpm) which
occur in the summertime in 2025.
The storage requirements were determined by calculating the equalization storage
on the maximum day of the year and allocating a portion of the storage to two
tanks based upon the well capacity and the planned booster pump capacity of
each. The result showed a minimum storage tank requirement of 4,000,000
gallons in 2025. Accounting for dead storage and using standard tank sizes,
actual recommended storage may exceed 4,000,000 gallons. Appendix B.l
contains the storage tank and booster pump size calculations.
The storage tank and booster pump stations in the system will accomplish three
things: 1) eliminate the need for well capacity to keep pace with peak hour flows.
Well capacity will then only have to match maximum day flows; 2) The use of
storage tanks and booster pump stations will also reduce the instantaneous water
right needs from peak hour flows to maximum day flows; 3) Lastly, storage tanks
will provide adequate chlorine contact time.
A system of this size serving so many customers should have the capabilities to
disinfect the water should the need arise. With the eventual advent of the EPA
Ground Water Rule (See Appendix A.5), the need to construct water storage in
the system grows greater. With storage, chlorine disinfection can occur properly
by assuring the chlorine has had adequate contact time with the raw water.
The addition of storage tanks also lessen the need for sand separators since what
sand is pumped will settle out in the tank. The sand can then be periodically
vacuumed out and discarded.
02196 Falls Water/ Ammon/ Ucon/ Regional 76 October 2006
Water Planning Study Schiess and Associates
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
2 of 11
Each new and/or improved water supply point is now discussed in detail.
6.5.2 Well No. 9 and North Tank & Booster Pump Station
This project consists of installing a new well, tank and booster station in the north
part of the system to serve Summit Park and the planned subdivisions of Red
Rock Estates and Calico Sky and additional future yet un-named subdivisions.
These three subdivisions combined have created a problem similar to that at
Caribou Meadows and North Springs. The water system is becoming so spread
out on the north end that Well No. 5 along with contributions from surrounding
wells further south cannot provide the necessary flow and pressure for these
subdivisions.
In an effort to plan home construction in this area, we ran several water model
scenarios in this area. The data and conclusions of these water models are given
in Appendix B.l in the form of three letters dated May 3, June 25, and July 19,
2004. The addition of these planned subdivisions to the north end of the system
have necessitated that this new well be a high priority. The costs of this well and
future storage tank and booster station are given in Table 6-7.
02196 Falls Water/ Ammon/ Ucon/ Regional 77 October 2006
Water Planning Study Schiess and Associates
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
3 of 11
1 Item No.Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
im 1 New well, 20" dia. Casing,
approximately 350 feet deep on
booster station and tank site
lump sum 1 $230,000 $230,000
2 Site piping Including well
flowmeter, valves, fittings, pump
to waste, etc.
lump sum 1 $60,000 $60,000
3 Property for booster station and
tank
lump sum 1 $60,000 $60,000
4 Transmission pipeline from well
5 to the tank
lineal feet 500 $50 $25,000
5 2,000,000 gallon water storage
tank
lump sum 1 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
6 Well/booster pump building square feet 3,000 $150 $450,000
7 Pumps & controls Including 300
hp well pump & (3) 125 hp
booster pumps w/VFD's In cans
lump sum 1 $140,000 $140,000
1"^
8 Emergency generator, transfer
switch & diesel tank to operate
all pumps
lump sum 1 $150,000 $150,000
9 On-slte chlorinatlon system lump sum 1 $175,000 $175,000
10 Pump & motor control
adjustments on existing turbine
pump on Well No.5 to pump Into
the tank
lump sum 1 $8,000 $8,000
pm
11 Electrical Improvements In Well
No.5 building to comply with
codes
lump sum 1 $10,000 $10,000
m
12 Replace emergency generator
at Well No.5 with a 100 KW
generator equipped with an auto
transfer switch & new fuel tank
lump sum 1 $45,000 $45,000
mm 13 Fencing lineal foot 1050 $15 $15,750
Total estimated probable construction cost
Total estimated probable construction cost (rounded)
Enqineering, administration, legal, & financing @ 20% of construction
$2,568,750
$2,568,800
$513,800
mm ITotai Estimated Probable Pro|ect Cost EEiaBSl
Table 6-7. New Well No. 9 and North Storage Tank & Booster Station
6.5.3 Central Wellhouse, Storage Tank & Booster Station
The central wellhouse comprises Well No.2, well No.4, and Well No.6. These
wells currently pump directly to the system. These wells are centrally located in
the water system. There are water distribution pipes leaving the site in every
direction that can distribute water to the outer reaches of the system.
This project consists of demolishing all current structures on the central well site
with the exception of the wells and constructing a new central wellhouse, tank,
and booster station. With a tank and booster station, supply flows from this
location can increase 50 percent or even higher. The booster pump station
02196 Falls Water/ Ammon/ Ucon/ Regional 78 October 2006
Water Planning Study Schiess and Associates
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
4 of 11
Falls Water Company
Water Storage Tank Design
-max. day
factor fiour to hour 0.98041589 supply diurnal/supply
curve for up for fluctuation corrected rate above below
time max dav FWC aal/hr aai/hr oal/dav oal/dav oal/dav
12:00 AM 0.9 1.889764 487,672 478,122 670,920 -192,798
1:00 AM 0.6 1.259843 325,115 318,748 670,920 -352,172
2:00 AM 0.8 1.67979 433,487 424,997 670,920 -245,923
3:00 AM 1.1 2.309711 596,044 584,371 670,920 -86,549
4:00 AM 1.45 3.044619 785,694 770,307 670,920 99,387
5:00 AM 1.8 3.779528 975,345 956,244 670,920 285,324
-6:00 AM 1.905 4 1,032,240 1,012,024 670,920 341,104
7:00 AM 1.8 3.779528 975,345 956,244 670,920 285,324
8:00 AM 1.55 3.254593 839,880 823,432 670,920 152,512
9:00 AM 1.25 2.624672 677,323 664,058 670,920 -6,862
10:00 AM 1 2.099738 541,858 531,246 670,920 -139,674
11:00 AM 0.85 1.784777 460,580 451,559 670,920 -219,361
12:00 PM 0.8 1.67979 433,487 424,997 670,920 -245,923
1:00 PM 0.8 1.67979 433,487 424,997 670,920 -245,923
2:00 PM 0.85 1.784777 460,580 451,559 670,920 -219,361
3:00 PM 0.95 1.994751 514,765 504,684 670,920 -166,236
4:00 PM 1.1 2.309711 596,044 584,371 670,920 -86,549
5:00 PM 1.3 2.729659 704,416 690,620 670,920 19,700
6:00 PM 1.55 3.254593 839,880 823,432 670,920 152,512
7:00 PM 1.8 3.779528 975,345 956,244 670,920 285,324
8:00 PM 1.905 4 1,032,240 1,012,024 670,920 341,104
""9:00 PM 1.8 3.779528 975,345 956,244 670,920 285,324
10:00 PM 1.45 3.044619 785,694 770,307 670,920 99,387
11:00 PM 1 2.099738 541.858 531.246 670.920 -139.674
Pi.Totals =16,423,724 16,102,080 16,102,080 2,347,0031 -2,347,003
Prepared by Schiess Associates 9/26/2006
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
5 of 11
Falls Water Company
Water Storage Tank Design (cont)
Falls Water Company
Water Storage Tank Design (cont)
Local Storage Data For Comparison To Falls Water Plan
Idaho Falls Storage Capacity
Idaho Fails Population (2002)
Ratio of storage/population
St Anthony Storage Capacity
St Anthony Population (2002)
Ratio of storage/population
Rexburg Storage Capacity
Rexburg Population (2002)
Ratio of storage/population
St. Anthony & Rexburg promote metering, Idaho Falls does not.
Idaho Falls uses their storage almost exclusively for chlorine contact time
Rexburg will soon be adding another storage tank and booster station
Eaualization Storaae 2,347,003 gallon
Actual amount of recommended equalizing storage based a percentage of max day flow 15%
NDWC recommended equalizing storage based on a percentage of max day flow =22%
Emergency Storage (assume 1 well of 7 is down) &335,286 gallon
Rre flow storage (2 hr fire at 1500 gpm)180.000 aallon
Total required useable storage in water system s 2,862,289 gallon
Peak flow In system =17,203 gpm
Max day flow in system =11,182 gpm
Ratio of peak flow to max day flow 1.54
Storage Allocation
Tank at Central Well House
Required booster pump capacity at 80 psi s 6,000 gpm
Percent of contribution of booster pumps =35 percent
Effective storage volume required (equalization, emergency & fire flow) =998,299 gallon
Well capacity =3,100 gpm
Ratio of booster pump capacity to well pump capacity s 1.94
'Design or future well capacity =4,000 gpm
Ratio of booster pump capacity to well pump capacity with increased well capacity =1.50
Assume a 2.000.000 aallon tank Is built
Dead storage (assume 20%) =400,000 gallon
Operational storage (assume 20% of tank) =400,000 gallon
Effective storage =998,299 gallon
Total required volume of storage tank =1,798,299 gallon
Design tank size =2,000,000 gallon
Required booster pump horsepower =369 Hp
Use (3) 125 hp booster pump/motors 375 Hp
North Tank & Booster Pumo Station
Required booster pump capacity at 80 psi =7,000 gpm
Contribution of tx>oster pumps to peak flow requirement =41 percent
Effective storage volume required (equalization, emergency & fire flow) =1,164,682 gallon
Estimated future well capacity =4,500 gpm
Ratio of booster pump capacity to well pump capacity =1.56
Assume a 2.000.000 aallon tank Is built
Dead storage (assume 20%) =400,000 gallon
Operational storage (assume 20% of tank) =400,000 gallon
Effective storage s 1,164,682
Total required volume of storage tank s 1,964,682 gallon
Design tank size =2,000,000 gallon
Required booster pump horsepower =430 Hp
Use (3) 150 hp booster pump/motors 450 Hp
Total Storage Volume =4,000,000 gallons
FWC 2025 design population =17,203 people
Ratio of storage/population 233 gal/person
r
r
r
Too high
Okay with additional well capacity
5,500,000 gallons
51,096 people
108 gal/person
1,500,000 gallons
3,400 people
441 gal/person
4,750,000 gallons
17,558 people
271 gal/person
r
r
r!
P
r
r
Prepared by Schiess Associates 9/26/2006
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
6 of 11
r Falls Water Company
Water Audit Estimate
Year 2003
Total gallons pumped
Metered Customer Data
Total gallons sold to metered residential
Total gallons sold to metered commercial
Total number of metered residential customers with working meters
Total gallons sold per metered residential customer
Estimated gallons sold to 65 metered residential customers
with broken meters
Adjusted total gallons sold to metered customers
Estimate of Known Losses
Estimated losses to prevent freeze-up of waste lines at
well #'s 1, 5, 8,6, and 2 during 5 winter months
SCADA reported losses due to pressure relief in the summertime
Total estimated wasted water
Percent of accounted for losses
928,791,000 gal/yr
457,313,000 gal/yr
25,173,000 gal/yr
1,476
309,833 gal/yr
849 gal/day
20,139,123 gal/yr
502,625,123 gal/yr
10,800,000 gal/yr
4.658.100 gal/yr
15,458,100 gal/yr
1.7%
Unmetered Customer Estimated Data and Estimated Unaccounted for Water
Total number of unmetered residential customers
(Method 1
623
Total gallons used by unmetered residential customers 193,025,745 gal/yr
based on the use patterns of metered residential
customers.
Total gallons used by metered residential, metered 695,650,867 gal/yr
mm commercial and estimated unmetered residential
Estimate of known wasted water from above 15,458,100 gal/yr
Gallons of unaccounted for water 217,682,033 gal/yr
Percent of unaccounted for water 23.4%
(Method 2 - Floor)
Estimate if unmetered customers used 2 times metered avg.619,665 gal/yr
Total unmetered use for the year 386,051,489 gal/yr
Total gallons used by metered residential, metered 888,676,612 gal/yr
mm commercial and estimated unmetered residential
Estimate of known wasted water from above 15,458,100 gal/yr
Gallons of unaccounted for water 24,656,288 gal/yr
Percent of unaccounted for water 2.7%
Prepared by Schiess Associates 6/1/2004
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
7 of 11
: WELL1 ; WELL 2
r
WELL 3
1
WELL 4 ! WELL 5 1 WELL 6 WELL 7 WELLS WASTE
COMPUTER! MONT j
WASTE TOTAL i
START 545 62.531,700 80,937,700 1 996,217,000 i 56,692,700 | 0 12,886,600 15,725,000 60,335,700 6,345,759 !
END 545 62.573.900 80,937,700 ! 996,217,000 . 99,662,500 | 0 12,886,600 15,725,000 61,714,800 7,413,134 !
TOTAL 0 42.200 0 :0 1 42,969,800 ; 0 0 0 i 1,379,100 1,067,375 1 43,012,000 Jan
FEBRUARY 545 64,843.100 : 80,937,700 996,217,000 j 127.277.700; 0 12,886,600 15,725,000 i 62,514,800 j 8,052,008 :
TOTAL 0 2,269,200 1 0 = 0 n 27.615.200 0 0 0 800,000 638,874 29,884,400 Feb
MARCH 545 69,387,100 80,937,700 i 996,217,000 127,277,700 15,671,800 12,886,600 15,725,000 62,731,100 8,162,097
TOTAL 0 ; 4,544,000 0 0 0 15,671,800 0 0 216,300 110,089 20,215,800 Mar
APRIL : 547 1 70,349,100 80,939,900 998,216,000 144,822,100 39,377,400 12,887,300 15,726,300 63,141,000 8,521,208
TOTAL j 721,106 ; 962,000 2,200 1,999,000 17,544,400 23,705,600 700 1,300 409,900 359,111 44,936,306 Apr
MAY ! 567 1 88,747,200 80,939,900 1,007,519,000 174,504,000 51,035,500 12,887,300 27,056,100 63,385,100 8,660,737
TOTAL 6,378,514 j 18,398,100 0 9,303,000 29,681,900 11,658,100 0 11,329,800 244,100 139,529 86,749,414 May
JUNE 582 ! 99,133,700 80,939,900 1,056,705,000 182,795,800 55,753,600 12,887,300 69,771,500 63,775,300 8,742,309
TOTAL 5,095,988 i 10,386,500 0 49,186,000 8,291,800 4,718,100 0 42,715,400 390,200 81,572 120,393,768 Jun
JULY 609 ! 108,622,000 88,148,100 1,125,389,000 214,654,600 79,280,100 28,456,600 112,734,300 64,221,700 8,752,310
TOTAL 8,789,152 : 9,488,300 i 7,208,200 68,684.000 31,858,800 23,526,500 15,569,300 42,962,800 446,400 10,001 208,087,052 !Jul
AUGUST 612 ; 112,611,700 99,242,000 ' 1,186,865,000 273,657,000 99,618,900 38,467,900 112,754,200: 64,746,900
TOTAL 845,907 ; 3,989,700 11,093,900 1 61,476,000 = 59,002,400 20,338,800 10,011,300 19,900 i 525,200 ! 166,777,907 iAug
SEPTEMBER 641 123,430,400^108,787,200: 1,187,171,000 297,235,700 117,489,400 38,467,900 112,768,900 64,993,800
TOTAL 9,387,413 10,818,700 9,545,200 : 306,000 23,578,700 17,870,500 0 14,700 246,900 71,521,213 Sep
OCTOBER i 641 | 129,631,400 111,914,100 1,189,179,000 342,300,700 132,562,700 38,467,900 112,768,900
TOTAL 0 i 6,201,000 3,126,900 2,008,000 45,065,000 15,073,300 0 0 71,474,200 Oct
NOVEMBER 641 134,544,300 111,914,100 1,189,179,000 342,300,700 161,749,700 38,467,900 112,768,900
TOTAL 0 4,912,900 0 0 0 29,187,000 0 0 34,099,900 Nov
DECEMBER ! 641 139,411,700 111,914,100 1,189,179,000 342,300,700 188,521,500 38,467,900 112,768,900
TOTAL 0 4,867,400 0 0 0 26,771,800 0 0 31,639,200 Dec
i i 928,791,159
GRAND TOTAL 31,218,059 : 76,880,000 ! 30,976,400 i 192,962,000 i 285,608,000 188,521,500 25,581,300 97.043,900 4,658,100 2,406,551 928,791,159;
...... , 1 i j i i ;
COMBINED TOTAL 928,791,159: . ;
ajcifcr-
f/t k»*^
Zo<^Z
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
8 of 11
Date: May 5,2004
Fax Message
Idaho Surveying and Rating Bureau,The
P.O. Box 6430 Boise, Idaho 83707-6430*
208.343.5483 fax [phone]yy
Pages including this page
To; Chris Park
From: Doug Young
RE: Falls Water
Message:
Chris here is the infonnation on the building that we do have information on.
Cloverdale School is sprinkfcred so just sprinkler demand and outside hose demand 780 gpm.
Smith RV Storage 1523 N 25*'* East 4000 gpm.
Majestic Auto Body Sprinklered 350 gpm
LDS Churches Self insured no info
8 plexes no info.
Doug Young
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
9 of 11
Falls Water Company Generator Analysis
Existing Future Design
Flow Capacity Capacity
Generator (existing limitations) aom gpm
Well 5 Generator' 750 0
Future Well 9 Generator na 2900
Future Well 10 Generator na 0
Future Well Generator for Wells 2,4,6&7 na 3100
Totals 750 6000
Required Flow Capacity (average daily flow) 1792 4301
'This is the only existing generator in the system.
I ,,
0"^ ^
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
10 of 11
m /
r 1 Exhibit B - EngineeTOpinion of Probabie Project Cost
Item No.
Construct
lism
on Costs
Unit Quantitv Unit Cost Total Cost
1 New well, 20" dia. Casing, approximately 350 feet
deep on future booster station and tank site
lump sum 1 $223,050 $223,050
2 Building piping Including flowmeter, valves, air
relief, transducer, pressure guage, prelube line,
future chlorlnatlon Injection port & visible piping
lump sum 1 $25,000 $25,000
3 Site piping Including pipe, valves, fittings, pump to
waste, hookup to existing system, etc.
lump sum 1 $15,000 $15,000
4 Well building expandable for a booster pump
station and chlorlnatlon.
square feet 720 $160 $115,200
5 300 Hp deep well pump, column, VFD & controls lump sum 1 $55,000 $55,000
6 Emergency generator (sized to also operate future
booster pumps), transfer switch & diesel tank
lump sum 1 $135,000 $135,000
7 Fencing lineal foot 1050 $15 $15,750
Total estimated probable construction cost $584,000
Soft Costs
8 Water right purchase acre-ft 1500 $500 $750,000
9 Property for booster station, tank & well tump sum 1 $60,000 $60,000
10 Engineering, administration & financing @ 25% of construction $146,000
i 11 Contingency $10,000
Total Estimated Probable Project Cost 1 $1,550,000
Project Budget
1 DEC loan $1,200,000
2 Local Cash $350,000
m Total estimated cost $1,550,000
FWC Out of Pocket Costs
*IDWR drilling permit fees
^Electrical costs that must be paid directly to Utah Power to get power to the site
*Other utility costs that must be paid to get services to the site
*Legal services associated with the project
•Advertisement costs
Not Included In Schiess Contract
•Extensive acquisition assistance for water rights or property
•Extensive PUC coordination such as for trips to Boise and etc.
•Future SCADA hookup^tarting from a termination panel
04192 Falls Water Company
Well No. 9 and Well House Professional Services Contract
FLS-W-21-01 IPUC DR 21 Attachment 1
11 of 11