HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111107Teton Springs to Staff 1-9 with attachments.pdf1
RESPONSE TO IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PRODUCTION REQUEST TO TETON SPRINGS WATER
Prepared by:
Jon Pinardi, Teton Springs Water and Sewer Company, Manager
Rick Nansen, Teton Water Inc. President, Contract Operator
Bob Ablondi, Rendezvous Engineering, Idaho P.E. 5994
November 3, 2011
REQUEST NO. 1: In reference to Well No. 1, please respond to the following questions:
a. How old is the pumping system (years)?
Well No. 1 was originally drilled in the spring of 2000 as an exploratory well and
the first supply well for the Teton Springs development. It was initially designed
as an alluvial gravel well, targeting the shallower sand and gravel deposits
common to this area of the Teton Valley. However, the upper zone of gravels
(which were logged to a depth of about 450 feet) did not yield significant water
production (< 20 gpm) and resulted in the drilling of a much deeper (800 ft)
bedrock well to provide the necessary supply. The final completed well tapped a
deeper and more substantial water source that involved an unnamed fractured
volcanic rock formation which although capable of flows in excess of 500 gpm,
has resulted in the discharge fine sediments when pumped at rates higher than
about 250 gpm. This deeper formation also produces warm water (95-98F+/-) and
exerts an artesian pressure that resulted in a static water level of about 2 feet
(below ground surface) at the time of completion.
The sediment is inherent to the fractured bedrock formation that supplies water to
this well and has over time accelerated the normal rate of wear and tear to the
submersible pump. A temporary pump was first installed in the well in 2000 to
supply water during the initial development and construction phase. A permanent
submersible pump and control building was constructed in early 2004 as the main
water system for the development was completed. However, the initial three
phase power service provided by the local power cooperative had loss of phase
and unbalanced voltage problems which caused a premature motor failure in late
2004. A new motor was installed in late 2004. New power lines were installed in
the Victor, Idaho area which eventually reduced electrical issues due to phase
failure and imbalance.
As the well use increased in 2004 and 2005 with the growth of the Teton Springs
Development, there were additional sediment problems that resulted in a major
rehabilitation of Well No. 1 in late 2005 and early 2006. This included re-
development of the well with compressed air for about 4 full days to flush out
sediments that had accumulated in the bottom of the well over time. In addition,
a steel perforated liner was installed in the bottom 320 feet of the well. A new
2
pump end was also installed at this time. It is this same pump end and motor that
was recently replaced in 2011. Following this rehabilitation work, the well
continued to produce fine sediment for the first 3 to 4 minutes of operation during
each start-up. Although this situation has improved over time, fine sediment and
coloration is still observed during the first few minutes of operation when pumped
at a high rate.
Although less than ideal, the well has produced good quality water in substantial
quantities over time and continues to serve as the major potable water source for
the development.
b. Please provide an assessment of why the pump/motor failed.
The following is a summary of the observed flows in Teton Springs Well No. 1
which led to the concerns about the well and the scheduling of maintenance work
that took place this past summer:
Early 2007 approximately 325 gpm on average
Early 2008 approximately 235 gpm on average
Early 2009 approximately 235 gpm on average
Mid 2009 approximately 235 gpm on average
Early 2010 approximately 200 gpm on average
Mid 2010 approximately 235 gpm on average
Late 2010 approximately 145 gpm on average
Early 2011 approximately 180 gpm on average
Although pump failure due to age/demand/usage is normal, it is believed that the
warm water associated with this formation (97 degrees) reduced the life
expectancy by increasing the temperature of the motor windings and accelerating
the natural breakdown of the motor insulation. In addition, as previously
described, this well was subject to sediment issues which caused additional wear
and tear on the pump end impellers, bearings and related parts.
It is also believed that the failure was caused by the breakdown of the plastic
electrical tape, commonly used by well drillers to attach the power wire to the
drop pipe. As the tape (more specifically, the adhesive) was broken down by the
long term exposure to warm water, it “sluffed off” and caused blockage of the
pump intake screen. This did not occur rapidly, but over time. This could not be
determined until the pump was pulled and visual inspection made. This condition
with the tape blocking the intake screen also helps explain the erratic flow rates
observed since 2007.
Over time, pump capacity was observed to diminish. This was not steady or
regular as noted in pump logs. After all of the “above ground” tests were
conducted, it was determined that there were some electrical issues. Upon
resolution of these items, there was no improvement in the well production. It was
3
therefore concluded that the pump/motor required an actual physical/visual
inspection.
When the pump/motor assembly was pulled from the well, there was some tape
collected on the intake screen of the pump. This did not represent a complete
blockage. When pulled apart, the pump’s physical rotation did not respond well
when operated (bearing failure, obvious physical abnormalities in the volute and
shaft). The motor had similar issues and the amperage draw exceeded
manufacturer’s specifications. It appeared that the system had been operating
under severe intake restrictions at times. As the pump/motor was pulled from the
well, it was noted that the tape was missing or falling off at various points.
While there may not have been enough tape on the intake screen to explain
pumping performance at that particular moment, it most likely was an important
factor.
After the installation of the new components, delivery was 500+ gpm on startup
and maintained approximately 350 gpm on continued operations. It was felt that
the well was repaired and operations could resume to normal, as such, Andrews
departed the site.
Unfortunately, within 24 hours, production diminished quickly upon pump
cycling and continued operation. As the pump came on, production was 350 gpm,
however, after twenty minutes, it dropped to 175 gpm and after 40 minutes to 130
gpm. The cause of diminished production was unknown, however, we felt that
either the tape issue was larger than originally suspected or there was possibly a
problem with the new pump or motor or a problem with the actual well or its
capacity. We contacted Andrews immediately to schedule a return as quickly as
possible to re-pull the system and determine the problem.
When the new pump/motor was pulled again, the problem was confirmed.
Significant remaining tape in the well had created a blockage on the intake screen
sufficient to reduce capacities. It was determined that, most likely, the amount of
tape on the screen determined flow capacity at any given time. In addition, some
of the tape on the screen became perforated and allowed flow changes depending
on number of holes and actual blockage. It was believed that when the pump
would cycle off, some or all of the tape would fall off. When the pump cycled on,
the tape was picked up and accumulated on the screen creating the inconsistent
production patterns noted over time.
Now faced with the dilemma of an unknown amount of tape in the well, it was
decided to use compressed air to air lift the tape material out of the well casing,
similar to the process used in well drilling and development. A significant amount
of tape was expelled. It was then determined that this procedure should be
performed again in the future as pumping rates indicated or capacity diminished.
The new power wire was attached to the drop pipe with stainless steel strapping to
prevent a repeat occurrence.
4
c. Please explain why the Company replaced both the pump and the motor
(Andrew Well Drilling Invoice No. Q11-0605). Did both of them fail?
As stated previously, physical and electrical assessment of both components was
performed. The problem with the pump end was quite obvious as rotation was not
satisfactory. The motor was also replaced due to the lack of smooth rotation and
excessive amperage draw. Also given the age of the equipment (6 to 7 years old),
the cost to mobilize a service rig and pull the submersible pump and the
importance of this well to the operation of the system, the safest most prudent
decision was to install all new equipment.
d. Please explain whether the size and capacity of the pumping unit replaced
(gpm for the pump and hp for the motor) are of the same specification
compared to the size and capacity of the pumping unit recently installed. If
not, please explain the reason(s) why they are different.
The pump was replaced as originally specified in design. Availability and time
constraints were the determining factor of choice as to brand. However,
the same Goulds 7CLC 40 hp pump and submersible motor, as was first installed
in the well in 2004, was reinstalled in 2011. See attached pump curve.
e. Please explain why the Company installed a new check valve. (Andrew Well
Drilling Invoice No. Q11-0605).
A new check valve was installed due to the nature of repairs. Failure was noted
during basic field tests. Whether obstructions in the past had created failure or
some present obstruction existed, we believed it had been compromised and
should be replaced. The costs of pulling the system again were also a factor.
Given the age of the check valve (originally installed in 2004) and potential cost
and impacts to pull the submersible pump in the event of a check valve failure, it
is common practice to replace this relatively inexpensive component as a
preventative maintenance measure when the opportunity arises.
As a note, we requested from Andrews to have as many components on-site as
possible for use during the repair period. Not all of the parts requested to be on-
site were used. Due to our rural setting and the timely availability of parts, this is
a prudent, normal and necessary practice to avoid extending the time-frame of
repairs. Adequate potable water supply and fire protection were of utmost
importance and the repair window was small. The electrical cable was also
replaced as inspection noted chafing had occurred due to the loss of the tape and
the insulator had been compromised. While we may have attained more
operational time from the older components that were replaced, the failure of any
one of them in the near term would have caused loss of well operation.
5
f. Please provide a copy of the pump curves for the new and the replaced
pumping units.
Attached is a pump curve for Well No. 1, Goulds 7 CLC 40 hp. The same model
pump as was originally used in 2004 was reinstalled in 2011
REQUEST NO. 2: In reference to Well No. 2, please respond to the following question.
a. How old is the pumping system (years).
Well No. 2 was originally drilled in late 2001 and early 2002 as a second
exploratory well and backup supply for the development. A well site was selected
in the southeast corner of the project based upon the recommendations of
knowledgeable geologists to increase the potential for a cold water well and to
avoid some of the quality issues that occurred with the first Teton Springs well.
The well drilling targeted fracture zones within the local underlying Madison
Limestone bedrock. The well construction was not finally completed until late
2003 when the final surface grout seal was installed.
Well No. 2 was drilled to a total depth of 1140 feet and encountered limestone
from about 360 feet to the total depth of the well. However throughout the
drilling, only small quantities of water were observed as the encountered bedrock
was not highly fractured. The drilling took place over several months as work
took place in the winter and was prolonged due to the depth of the well. The well
was completed with a six inch steel liner through the entire depth from surface to
about 1050 feet. The bottom 90 feet (1050 to 1140) had collapsed or filled with
material at the time the liner was installed. The steel liner was perforated from
985 to 1045.
When the well was pump tested, it was apparent that it was able to produce water
at a higher rate (~ 150 gpm) during the first few hours of the test, mostly due to
storage in the well casing and surrounding aquifer. However as the well was
pumped for a longer time period, the production rate diminished (to ~75 gpm) as
the water level in the well drew down at a slow but steady rate. Because the well
was so deep and the static water was at about 40 feet (below ground surface) there
was large drawdown depth available, providing the opportunity to utilize the
available storage.
Well No. 2 was connected to the main distribution system at about the same time
that Well No.1 was completed in early 2004. At this time a 150 gpm pump
(Goulds 20 hp 5CHC) was installed to provide maximum capacity for short
durations. It was also the intention to use this well as a backup to Well # 1.
However, after gaining additional experience relative to the performance of this
well and the aquifer, it was determined the discharge valve on the well pump
piping had to be throttled to reduce the maximum pump output to about 75 to 80
gpm. A dedicated sounding tube was installed in this well in order to monitor the
drawdown in the well during operation. The same motor and pump equipment
remained in the well until recently replaced in 2011.
6
Although production is limited by conditions within the aquifer, Well No. 2 does
produce good quality cold water and is helpful in blending with the warm water
from Well No 1.
b. Please provide an assessment of why the pump/motor failed.
The main cause of failure was the long term exposure to over pumping conditions
where the well drew down the water level and caused the well pump to cavitate
and pump air. The shock of the air pumping affected both the motor with sudden
increases and decreases in motor amperage and pump end with mechanical shock
caused by rapid changes in pressure.
While the original inspection/replacement of #1 was occurring, Well #2 was the
only source of water causing it to draw down further over time . As repairs
(previously mentioned) were being performed, we were operating at very high
demand levels in the subdivision. This required Well # 2 to operate continuously,
24 hours per day, for several days. When determined that Well #1 had to be
pulled again, there was no option other than continued use of Well #2.
We believe that during the required continuous operation of Well #2, the aquifer
was drawn down beyond its sustainable capacity. As the water level dropped to the
level of the pump intake, cavitation occurred, causing both pump and motor to fail.
No indication was noted during operation, other than the inability to start pump #2
after it had “kicked” off. Although the motor was protected by a Motor Savor unit
which is designed to sense a change in amperage, the repeated drawdown and shut
off of the pump and motor increased wear and tear over time. It was determined
that the Motor Saver circuit was functioning properly and a physical/visual
inspection of the pump and motor would be required. Said inspection revealed
failure of both motor and pump.
The long term use and observation of Well #2 had determined that a smaller
capacity pump/motor would be a better fit for actual well conditions. When it was
noted that Well #2 had failed, the opportunity arose to replace pump with a smaller
unit that would better fit the longer term production rate. Due to the size change,
both a new pump and motor was installed. All other components including power
wiring, electrical controls and piping remained the same.
c. Please explain why the Company replaced both the pump and the motor
(Andrew Well Drilling Invoice No. C-5045). Did both of them fail?
As stated, the pump was changed to meet the actual aquifer conditions. Soundings
were performed and well depths were noted and demonstrated that the wells was
not to be able to support the 20 hp pump. The 7.5 hp design would maintain
maximum sustainable flows without causing drawdown concerns as had occurred
with the 20 hp system. In summation; the previous 150 gpm flows @ Well #2 were
too much for the present aquifer. The current 70-90 gpm by the 7.5 hp system was
7
performed while noting drawdown @ peak usage. This level is sustainable with
this pumping rate.
d. Please explain whether the size and capacity of the pumping unit replaced
(gpm for the pump and hp for the motor) are of the same specification
compared to the size and capacity of the pumping unit installed. If not, please
explain the reason(s) why they are different.
The sizing was reduced to meet actual current aquifer capacity of Well # 2. As
previously discussed, this well had a history of lower production rates when it was
required to operate for sustained time periods. Also, given that this well generated
water from deep bedrock sources, the potential to enhance flow from this well was
limited. The smaller capacity pump will also enable this well to operate at a more
efficient and productive level when pumped on a sustained basis.
e. Please explain why the Company installed a new check valve. (Andrew Well
Drilling Invoice No. C-5045).
As previously mentioned, if there was any doubt about a component, it was most
prudent to replace rather than request another service call to pull the pump. Field
tests showed seepage during testing. Also given the depth of the pump setting and
age of the equipment, the replacement of the check valve was done as a
preventative maintenance action.
f. Please provide a copy of the pump curves for the new and the replaced
pumping units.
Attached are both the original pump curve (20 hp, Goulds 5CHC) and
replacement pump curve (7.5 hp, Goulds 5RWAL).
REQUEST NO. 3: The Company indicated that the pumps failed in July and August 2011.
Application, page 2. It is Staff’s understanding that both pumping units were
installed approximately at the same time when the water system was
developed. Please provide an explanation or your theory as to why both
systems failed almost at the same time.
For clarification, both pumping units were not installed at the same time as
explained above.
As explained in Request #1, because of the steadily declining output of Well #1
over time and dramatic reduction seen in late 2010, we planned to have the
pump/motors pulled for a review of the problem and corrective action taken as
necessary. We believed that the reduced production of this well not only put our
customers supply at risk during high demand periods or if another problem
8
occurred, but also put undo hardship on well #2. We planned for this work to be
done in the spring of 2011 before summer demand occurred. Due to vendor
availability, however, we could not schedule the work until late June to July. This
did not give us cause for concern as all other systems were operating normally.
In planning for the initial work on #1 to be completed, we verified well #2 was
operating normally and we had a full 500,000 reservoir, therefore, we anticipated
no problems.
At the time well #1 was offline for the initial repairs, the reservoir was drawn
down from 25 feet to 14 feet. Had the initial repairs gone as planned, #1 would
have come back on line at full capacity and, with #2, replenished the reservoir and
all systems would have been normal. However, when #1 failed to operate at
capacity, the combined output of both wells was able to maintain only about 18
feet in the reservoir. Although not ideal, we believed this was an adequate
reservoir level provided we could identify and repair the problem with well #1
relatively soon.
We were in communication with Andrews Well Drilling and Rendezvous
Engineering about scheduling their return to do a drawdown test on well #1 and/or
to pull the new pump and motor to determine the production problem.
At this precise time, while awaiting the return to assess well #1, well #2 ceased
operating. Regular pump re-start protocols were ineffective and we immediately
moved into emergency operations due to the already partially depleted reservoir
and inability of well #1 to re-fill the reservoir or keep up with demand.
We immediately contacted Pump-Tech to assess well #2. It was our hope that it
was something in the motor-saver circuit, electrical or control panels. Upon their
arrival and testing, it was determined that everything “above-ground” was
operating normally, that the problem was in the well with the pump and/or motor.
As mentioned, we had been in communication with Andrews and they were trying
to arrange to get their equipment back to Teton Springs as quickly as possible.
With this new development, not only did we need to pull #1 again, we needed to
pull #2. Andrews agreed to return immediately and we went about emergency
repairs to avoid a loss of water service and/or fire suppression service to all of the
customers of the utility.
As indicated in both Request #1 and Request #2, the reason for the failures were
different. It is our belief that there is no direct correlation between the failure of
the 2 wells, it was a coincidence and happened at the worst possible time. The
heavy demand and fact that Well # 2 had to operate on a more continuous basis
while Well # 1 was either compromised or taken out of service for repairs was,
however, one factor interconnecting the timing of the failures. The timing gave us
no other options than to enact immediate repairs with known vendors (Andrews
9
Well Drilling, Pump-Tech, Rendezvous Engineering, Teton Water Inc.) who had
serviced our system since the time of their original installations.
REQUEST NO. 4: Please provide any design information concerning the selection and
sizing of the horsepower requirements for both the original pumping units in
Well Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e. flow rate, discharge pressure, pumping water depth,
etc.).
Each of the well pumps was selected using available drawdown information
(developed during the drilling of the wells) and a WaterCAD computer model of
the entire distribution system for Teton Springs. In both cases, the quantity of flow
was determined by the expected yield of the well with efforts focused on
maximizing production for the growing development. The pump discharge head
was determined by the 1) piping within the distribution system, 2) tank elevation
and 3) well pumping level. The piping and tank elevation were well established by
the need to provide minimum fire flows and desired system pressures as
determined by the elevation of the above ground storage tank. The pumping levels
were however variable and changed with the rate of flow, length of pump
operation and time of the year. In addition, water levels in Well No.2, because of
its very low specific capacity (output in gpm per foot of drawdown), are also
believed to be affected by annual precipitation trends. The following table
summarizes the main design criteria for the two wells both in the original design
and for the recent 2011 pump installation.
1
10
1. Pumping level varies with the rate of pumping and duration of pump run.
REQUEST NO. 5: Please provide any information concerning frequency of pump cycling
in Well Nos. 1 and 2.
The two wells operate with a radio telemetry system which monitors the pump
operation at both well sites and the nominal 500,000 gallon storage tank level
using a submersible transducer. This above ground welded steel tank has a
maximum inside water level of 23.5 feet (overflow elevation) and an inside
diameter of 60.0 feet which equates to a water volume of about 21,130 gallons per
foot (allowing for internal supports and piping) and maximum total water volume
of 496,555 gallons . The wells are currently programmed come at a level of about
20.5 feet (measured from the bottom) and turn off at a level of about 22.0 feet
Based upon these settings there is minimum of about gallons between the pump on
and off levels and minimum of about 31,695 gallons between the start and stop
levels. The current maximum summer time daily use is in the range of about
230,000 gpd. The peak hour demand is estimated to be about 2.0 the maximum day
flow or about or about 320 gpm. At this estimated peak hour flow rate the
minimum cycle time (time to fill and time to empty) between pump starts would be
approximately 726 minutes or 12.1 hours. Over a 24 hour period, this would result
in about 2 pump starts per day. During off season conditions, water use drops to
less than 50,000 gpd and estimated peak hour flows to about 70 gpm resulting in a
cycle time between pump start and stop of about 562 minutes or 9.4 hours.
REQUEST NO. 6: Please provide any information concerning changes in the pumping
conditions (i.e. pumping water levels, operating or discharge pressures, etc.)
for Well Nos. 1 and 2 from the time they were put into service until their
failure.
There were no known changes in the pumping or operating conditions for Well
No. 1. This pump failure was caused by the accelerated wear and tear caused by
the warm water conditions associated with the fine sediment generated by the
fractured rock formation water source. Although there were no changes made to
well No. 2, the static water level appears to have dropped over time as use of the
well has increased.
REQUEST NO. 7: Please provide an explanation and documentation
(competitive bid documents, selection process, work contracts, etc.) showing
that cost control efforts have been applied in repairing the pump/motor units
for Well Nos. 1 and 2.
Regarding bids and proposals, in our rural setting and given our history of
operations, we are aware of the resources within our area. Our chief operator,
Teton Water Inc., is also a chief operator of multiple other systems in our area and
11
thus, their operation, maintenance and budgets. He considered the following in
advising Teton Springs Water & Sewer on actions relative to these repairs:
Health and Safety
Our remote location
The depth of the wells and requirement for large equipment
Available Regional contractors/suppliers and parts
Engineer availability and expertise
Manager’s notification and approval
Water supply was finite and being depleted at a time of high demand
Response times of all contacted and their immediate availability
Cost discipline
Customer service
Both Teton Water Inc., and Rendezvous Engineering work with many entities in
our area and possess a sizeable pool of resources with which they regularly
communicate on different projects. If someone knows of a new contractor or
supplier to enter our area, it is readily known to them. They procure pricing, on a
regular basis, for materials and labor and assure that their clients get the best value
for their investment.
Andrews was chosen for a variety of reasons. They had drilled the original well
and knew of its issues and history. They had also provided the submersible pump
and motor and had performed past rehabilitation work and would be prepared to
respond to any unforeseen issues.
Further, Andrews was the only company that responded in a timely manner and
their proposed time, rate schedule and availability was acceptable. In fact, no
other vendor responded to Teton Water Inc.’s RFQ within the first 48 hours and
further responses were indicative of no interest or no staff or equipment
availability. No written requests were made as a result, nor was one made with
Andrews other than the work proposal.
Regarding pricing, while Andrews was securing material and supplies pricing,
Teton Water was doing the same throughout the Rocky Mountain Region (Salt
Lake City, Denver, Missoula, Casper, Billings, etc.) When Andrews prices were
quoted, Teton Water compared them with those they had procured and gave
management the results. In all cases, Andrews was within a 5% margin of the
pricing Teton Water had solicited and was lower on most due to their buying
power with their suppliers.
Throughout the entire process, Teton Water Inc. was regularly on-site and in
communication with those vendors who knew our systems well; Rendezvous
Engineering, Andrews, Pump-Tech and the Teton Springs Water & Sewer
Company owner representative, Jon Pinardi. All activities were discussed between
12
the appropriate parties and final decisions were made to ensure that water service
was not lost to the customers of the utility.
For the record, had we not pursued the sequence of events to enact the repairs
during the emergency operation period, it is highly probably that our water supply
would have been depleted and water service to the customers negatively affected.
We were confident that, at peak capacity, well #2 could not replenish the reservoir
nor could it keep up with expected continued demand. Had we not re-pulled #1
immediately after repairing #2, it is highly probable that within 12-24 hours, the
remaining water in the reservoir would be depleted and our water supply would be
severely curtailed to the customers. Every effort was enacted to minimize threats
to public health, safety and fire concerns while also minimizing current and future
costs and obtaining the best value for ongoing operation of the system. During this
emergency period, pursuing new vendors and/or a competitive bid process would
have been disastrous.
REQUEST NO. 8: In reference to Invoice No. 228 from Teton Water, Inc. dated
8/18/2011, please provide a more detailed explanation of the various tasks
included in the invoice such as Operations September, Well repair ops, Well
No. 2 monitoring ops and flushing. Please provide justification as to why the
costs of these tasks were included as part of the emergency work and not part
of the regular operating expenses for the Company.
The following information was prepared by Mr. Rick Nansen, President of Teton
Water, Inc in response to questions about invoice No. 228:
I, Rick Nansen, am a sub-contractor and supply the requirements of the contract.
As President of Teton Water, Inc., I was to facilitate the completion of required
repairs and maintain ongoing operations.
Operations September- $1000 – Basic retainer for month of August
including (15 hours @ $70/hour) of basic operation of systems, reporting and
testing as required. This is my base contracted fee with Teton Springs. First 15
hours were used rapidly in assessment, response, site management and acquisition
of resources. Five days (approximately three hours per day). This was used then
the following occurred.
Well repair ops- 9 hours @ $70/hour. Specific hours towards well #1.
Three days ( three hours per day X three days) Round the clock monitoring of
SCADA included but not billed.
Well monitoring #2 11 hours (approximately 1.5 hours per day for 7 days)
pump, record and assess drawdown. Required for analysis and assessment of
operation and production of Well #2. (It was noted during the sixth day that well
#2 had failed and repairs were required). Information was vital to the final
decision for downsizing pump size.
13
Flushing 27 hours (4 days @ approximately 7 hours per day). Due to the
required flushing of well #1 (tape), the aquifer was rather “stirred up”. This well
historically produces sediments when operating close to max capacity. The
flushing of the well exacerbated this. This remedy created an exceptionally large
amount of sedimentation. The system was then methodically flushed for 4 days
after the aforementioned event. This was done zone by zone to assure water
quality and minimize any sediment, taste and odor complaints. Much of this was
done after completion of all repairs, though some was done in close proximity of
well #1, when it was intermittently put back on line.
These reported hours occurred and accrued over a ten day stretch. While not listed
day specific, I was very conservative in my billing practice, as Teton Springs has
been client for many years. I was on site throughout this time slot for 12-16 hours
per day, making the best possible use of resources, including my own. While
being on site and performing my duties for some 140 hours+, for 12 days, I billed
only 62, less than half my normal rate. I performed all the aforementioned duties
during the times I was not on the phone (management, engineers, contractors,
suppliers, customers, etc.) or assisting others in the completion of repairs. I also
went door to door and notified customers throughout the affected areas, both
before and after repairs were made.
REQUEST NO. 9: In reference to Invoice No. 8762 from Rendezvous Engineering dated
8/31/2011, please provide a more detailed explanation of the various tasks
included in the invoice such as drawing for the proposed Well No. 3 and
discussions with Mr. Bob Ablondi on various issues. Please provide
justification as to why the costs of these tasks were included as part of the
emergency work and not part of the regular operating expense for the
Company.
For clarification, you will note that the $85.00 charge on invoice #8762
referencing well #3 is not included in this application for assessment. Below is
Mr. Ablondi’s description of the work performed within that amount relative to
the repairs to wells #1 and #2 during the time in question:
A total of 5.5 hours was spent by Idaho registered engineer, Robert T. Ablondi,
(P. E. 5994) discussing well pump options and equipment with the Roger
Buchanan with Andrew Well Drilling Services and Rick Nansen, system operator;
reviewing pump curves and equipment; and, inputting updated information into
the WaterCAD computer model to analyze various pump options and
performance within the overall system. This work was done to verify that the
proper well pump equipment was utilized and to assist where possible in
determining the cause and factors affecting the failure of the well pumps.
5
MODEL: 5CHC
SIZE: 541⁄64" Bowl
RPM: 3450
0 50 150 250 GPM0
50
100
FEET
200
400
600
1000
00
CAPACITY
800
1200
TO
TA
L
DY
N
A
M
I
C
H
E
A
D
100
0 20 m3/h4010 30 50
20
40
60
% EFF
80
150
200
250
300
325
METERS
1100
900
700
500
300
100
25 75 125 175
3525155
200 225
45 55
25 FT
5 GPM5CHC050
5CHC040
5CHC030
5CHC025
5CHC020
5CHC015
5CHC010
5CHC007
5CHC005
EFF%
Model 5CHC 150 GPM
Recommended operating range
Alternate pump selection is available– – – – –
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS
HP Stages W.E. Order W.E. W.E.
Number Length Wt. (lbs.)
5 2 05CHC00544CTB 20.2 57
05CHC00564CTB 22.8 62
7.5 3 05CHC00744CTB 25.2 70
05CHC00764CTB 27.5 75
10 4 05CHC01064CTB 32.1 88
15 6 05CHC01564CTB 41.4 114
20 8 05CHC02064CTB 50.7 140
25 10 05CHC02564CTB 59.9 166
30 12 05CHC03064CTB 69.2 192
40 16 05CHC04064CTB 87.7 244
50 19 05CHC05064CTB 101.6 283
(All dimensions in inches and weights in lbs. Do not use for construction purposes.)
PLEASE NOTE:
•Order motors separately.
•For intermediate horsepower pumps consult factory.
•Solid line is recommended operating range. The dotted
line (– – – –) signifies an alternate pump selection is available.
•Please specify all options changes in W.E. order number.
MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
Part Name Material
Shaft ASTM A582 TYPE 416
Coupling ASTM A582 S41600 CD
Suction Adapter Ductile Iron ASTM A536
Discharge Bowl ASTM A48 CL 30B
Bronze Bearings ASTM B584
Discharge Bowl Bearing ASTM B584
Taperlocks ASTM A108 GR 101B
Bowl ASTM A48 CL 30B
Upthrust Collar Polyethylene
Impeller ASTM B584
Fasteners SAEJ429 GR 8
Cable Guard ASTM A240 S 30400
Suction Strainer ASTM A240 S 30400
................................................................................................................................................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
541⁄64"
Effective
diameter
with cable
guard
4" NPT DISCHARGE
CONNECTION
W.E.
53⁄8"
(6" MTR.)
33⁄4"
(4" MTR.)
GOULDS PUMPS
TurbineModel 5RWAL 90 GPM
lt
t
a5o
f
o
ii
ii:.
1 200
1 100
1 000
900
B00
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
110
100
90
80
70
50
50
4A
30
20
10
0
s
l.,co
I:=
ul
4030za10 50 60 7A
Flow (GPM)
80 90 100 110 1ZA
Recommended operating range
Alternate pump selection is available
Model: 5RWAL
O. D.:5.54'
RPM:3450-"t${w{ti.{*S't
.
*ffi
i;ffi;frg::;
DTMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS
HP Stages W.E. Order
Number
W.E.
[enoth
WE.
wt. flbs.)
5 4 c0sRWL005A44B 25.3 75
c05RWL005A64B 27.4 83
7.5 6 CO5RWLOO7A44B 33.3 100
c05RWL007A64B 35.4 108
10 8 c05RWL01 0A648 43.4 112
15 '10 c05RWL015A64B 51.4 156
l5 12 c0sRWL01 58648 59.4 179
20 15 c05RWL020A64B 71.4 216
20 18 c05RWL020B64B 83.4 252
(All dimensions in inches and weights in lbs. Do not use fol construction purposes.)
t NOTES:
Y 1. All dimensions in inches and weights in lbs.
2. Solid line is recommended operating range.
3. For intermediate horsepower pumps consult factory.
4. Please specify all options changes in W.E. order number'
4' NPT DISCHARGE
CONNECTION
MATERIATS OF CONSTRUCTION
541/eq"
Effective
diameter
with cable
guard
3%',
(4" MTR.)
Part Name Material
;haft ASTM A582 S41 600
Souplinq ASTM A582 S4l 600
Suction Adaoter ASTM A536 Gr. 60-40-18
Suction Bearinq ASTM 8584 C89835
lmpeller ASTM A744 CFSM
Taperlock ASTM A108 Gr. 1018
lntermediate Bowl ASTM A49 Ct. 308
lntermediate Bowl Bearint ASTM Bs84 C89835 (Std.)
lntermediate Bowl Bearint Rubber (ootional)
UDthrust Collar Polvethvlene
Discharoe Bowl ASTM A48 Cr.30B
Discharqe Bowl Bearinq ASTM 8584 C89835
Fasteners SAE J429 Gr. 8
Cable Guard ASTM A240 530400
Suction Strainer ASTM A240 530400
14
Model 7CLC 350 GPM
MODEL: 7CLC
SIZE: 71⁄2"
RPM: 3450
0 50 GPM0
50
100
FEET
200
400
600
1000
00
CAPACITY
800
TO
TA
L
DY
N
A
M
I
C
H
E
A
D
100 150
0 m3/hr20
20
40
60
% EFF
80
150
200
250
300
METERS 1200
350
100
300
500
700
900
1100
200
40 100
50 FT
10 GPM
250 300 350 400 450
100
60 80
30
50
70
90
10
EFF%
7CLC040
7CLC030
7CLC020
7CLC010
7CLC050
7CLC060
7CLC075
7CLC100
Recommended operating range
Alternate pump selection is available– – – – –
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS
HP Stages W.E. Order W.E. W.E.
Number Length Wt. (lbs.)
10 1 07CLC01066ATS 22.9 75
20 2 07CLC02066ATS 29.3 103
30 3 07CLC03066ATS 35.6 131
40 4 07CLC04066ATS 42.0 159
50 5 07CLC05066ATS 48.4 187
60 6 07CLC06066ATS 54.8 215
75 7 07CLC07586ATS 62.8 255
100 9 07CLC10086ATS 75.6 311
(All dimensions in inches and weights in lbs. Do not use for construction purposes.)
PLEASE NOTE:
•Order motors separately.
•For intermediate horsepower pumps consult factory.
•Solid line is recommended operating range. The dotted
line (– – – –) signifies an alternate pump selection is available.
•Please specify all options changes in W.E. order number.
MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
Part Name Material
Shaft ASTM A582 TYPE 416
Coupling ASTM A582 S41600 CD
Suction Adapter Ductile Iron ASTM A536
Discharge Bowl ASTM A48 CL 30B
Rubber Bearings RUBBER
Optional Bronze Bearings ASTM B584
Discharge Bowl Bearing ASTM B584
Taperlocks ASTM A108 GR 101B
Bowl ASTM A48 CL 30B
Upthrust Collar Polyethylene
Impeller ASTM B584
Fasteners SAEJ429 GR 8
Cable Guard ASTM A240 S 30400
Suction Strainer ASTM A240 S 30400
................................................................................................................................................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
71⁄2"
Effective
diameter
with cable
guard
6" NPT DISCHARGE
CONNECTION
W.E.
53⁄8"
(6" MTR.)
71⁄2"
(8" MTR.)