Category Archives: Wastewater

Is the ASCE Infrastructure Report Card Really a Good Idea?

Posted on by
1

Wastewater Basin

As a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), I regularly receive information and notices proclaiming their annual "grading" of our nation's infrastructure. There is even a website to promote this effort: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/. My opinion on this might not be popular with my colleagues, but frankly I have never thought this report was valid or a good idea. Finally after reading a LinkedIn thread about how engineers get no respect and a related link criticizing the annual report card, I decided to share my thoughts, as an engineer, on this public relations effort.

First of all, imagine going to the Infrastructure Report Card website as an average citizen – not an engineer. On the site there is a listing of all the different categories of infrastructure we are responsible for designing, building, and maintaining such as water, wastewater, dams, bridges, roads, parks, etc. Not one of them has a grade above a C and the average is a D. Now imagine going to the medical association's website and seeing a listing of items for which they are responsible such as cancer, common cold, fractures, etc. and a related listing of grades. How would you feel about the medical profession if they gave themselves all C and D grades for those? Because on the face of it, that is how it looks to someone who is not involved in the industry – engineers are grading themselves for the work they do and the infrastructure for which they are responsible, and can't manage to get above a D average! Then we wonder why we get no respect!

Now, I realize those responsible for setting up this effort would respond by explaining that no, it's not a grade on our efforts, but a wake up call that government is not giving us enough funds to adequately build and maintain the infrastructure. Because that's what this is really all about, trying to convince legislators they need to funnel more money into infrastructure. But I don't think it's working, and it should be no surprise why not. If I was funding work by a group and the reports kept coming back every year that the work was underperforming, I would start asking some questions such as why is your work failing, what progress is being made with the funds, and what else can be done besides throwing more money at it? 

As an engineer, I am well aware of the need for funding, but as one who has worked in a severely economically depressed city for many years, I also realize that part of my job as an engineer is to figure out how to get the most from the money we have and explain to the elected officials the trade-offs for the different funding levels. Because that is what engineers are supposed to do best – analyze a problem, figure out solutions, attach dollars to them, and let elected officials decide which level of service they want. Then we build the best system we can with the money we receive.

In the last city where I worked, I would have graded our infrastructure efforts as an A because by working together, we were often able to figure out ways to get things done at a very acceptable level with very few dollars. If you drive through that community today, just about every road is in great shape while the neighboring community, whose coffers were always filled with millions more tax dollars than ours, has a proliferation of crumbling roads. This shows that while money is an important component, a successful system also requires people in government working together and making the right choices for the public good with patience and understanding of the goals and the ability to implement creative solutions.

And my past employer is far from unique – the fact is that many cities have systems that are well managed and maintained. I can't imagine anyone traveling across the U.S. coming to any conclusion other than the infrastructure in our country is very good. The true measure of success is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of us make it to work each day without even thinking of the roads we drive on, the water we use to get ready for work, the wastewater system that disposes of all the water we use, the stormwater systems that prevent any rain from keeping us from traveling safely, etc. So the real question is, how are we really measuring this grade?

I get the impression ASCE determines this grade by assuming a life for our assets and assigning a replacement cost then comparing that to funding levels. And because these levels don't match the replacement costs, we must be failing. The flaw in this is that just because something like a water main is more than 50 years old does not mean it is at the verge of imminent failure. But according to ASCE, if politicians don't give us money to rip it out at year 51, that main drops to a D. I've worked in cities where mains were 120 years old and were still delivering water to homes and businesses with no breaks or signs of failure. That's not a D, and it is irresponsible as an engineer to lead people to believe that it should be replaced strictly based on its age. Yesterday an engineer with a national consulting firm told me that in their experience they've noticed the older a main gets, the less chance it actually has of failing. And based on my experience, I agree. We also heard from that engineer and another at a different national firm, that most water main failures are occuring in mains built in the first few years after World War II because there was a decrease in the quality of materials at that time. And I can't understand how anyone can assign a life to PVC water main pipe since we don't have enough experience with it yet to really know how long it will last. Based on all this, it appears age is definitely not the only factor in determining the need for replacement.

So while it is a good idea to have some report of the state of our infrastructure, let's not fabricate the data just to get more business for our profession. And let's not use a grading system that leads people to believe we are all failures at the job with which the public has entrusted us. Instead we should choose to use an accurate and reasonable method of identifying and assessing our assets and reporting the actual projected costs to keep up with the management and maintenance of our system. Because no engineer I know really believes the Infrastructure Report Card is an accurate reflection of our nation's public works systems, it's not achieving the purpose for which ASCE has developed it, and most of us are not too happy that an organization representing our profession is falsely leading people to believe we are failures at our jobs.

Share

A Day in the Life of a Civil Engineer – Day 52

Posted on by

Day 52

Although I worked in the office for a few hours today mainly on correspondence and checking with our inspector and engineers to find out the status of some projects, most of my day was spent at our APWA Public Works Camp. This event is our second unconference session that we've hosted, and both have been a great success! Next year another branch is going to host one, and there's been some discussions of expanding it out. We had about 24 people attend and offer some great information and knowledge about many different aspects of public works. I tried to capture the highlights of the discussion using the Cover It Live tool. So if you want to read over the log, pop on over to the Public Works Camp Site!

Share

A Day in the Life of a Civil Engineer – Days 39 to 43

Posted on by

Day 39 through 43

Day 39—Monday, Sept. 26

On Monday I attended our staff development meeting. We discussed several of the projects that are either under review or construction. We also talked about the challenge of helping people understand and follow through our development process which is as follows: during the concept stage, our staff meets with the applicant and discusses the project and explains the steps necessary to move through the process. Then once we receive a submittal, all departments prepare a review and our development department sends out a comprehensive review letter. This submittal-review process then repeats until the plans have been approved. Then permits can be issued and construction can begin. If a special use or zoning change is required, then there is a planning commission meeting, recommendation, and subsequent council consideration prior to permits being issued and final approval of the plans.

So we are trying to come up with a solution that will readily convey the process and provide guidance throughout. We have a few ideas, but will continue the discussion over more meetings.

ARRA Project Close-out

I’ve been working on closing out last year’s federal ARRA project for some time now. It is always amazing to me that design can take a couple months, construction can be completed in a month or two, but finalizing the close-out documents can take a year or more. This can happen for many reasons, but in this case, it’s been because I’ve been waiting for certifications for materials used on the job. And I need this information because I cannot determine the final quantities used on the job or send in pay requests for items unless the contractor provides proof that the material meets the specification. Finally for one of our items, we had to just delete it because the subcontractor simply would not provide the documentation. The general contractor and I even tried to get it from the supplier of the material, but they also would not provide the information.

So today I went through all my material documentation and made sure it met the requirements and that I had all the forms filled out correctly and signed. I also checked all the quantities and created what is known as a balancing authorization. This is necessary to prepare and submit for approval at the end of the job because we can only pay for the actual amount of an item that has been approved. For example, if the project was bid out at 700 tons of asphalt, but we actually used 750 tons, I would need to first send in an authorization asking to add 50 tons of asphalt to the project before I could pay the contractor the full 750 tons. Until I received approval for that extra 50 tons, I could only submit a pay request for 700 tons. And in reverse, if we only used 650 tons, I could pay for the whole amount, but at the end of the job, I would need to deduct 50 tons from the project so the final amounts equaled exactly what was actually used.

 

Day 40—Tuesday, Sept. 27

On Tuesday, we had a meeting about a few developments that still have outstanding letters of credit. The reason we are looking into the status of these projects is because they’ve been out there for some time, and there are still some public improvements that need to be made. It seems like many cities are dealing with this because of the economy and housing crisis. People stopped building in subdivisions that were not yet completed and the developer never finished the improvements. But the people who did build don’t want to wait for the economy to turn around to get the road finished, the trees planted, and their sidewalks placed. So cities are moving forward to complete those improvements, particularly in cases where a letter of credit was filed that can help pay for them.

After lunch, our intern and I drove up to IDOT to drop off the documents I had prepared yesterday. We like to do this because some paperwork is too important to just put in the mail. It was nice because I was able to meet some of the people I have been working with only over the phone, and our intern was able to see the process and meet some of the people we work with.

 

Day 41—Wednesday, Sept. 28

This morning we had our bi-weekly staff meeting. Everyone shared the status of their projects as usual. We have one culvert lining project out to bid and have already started getting ready for next year’s road project. Then during the lunch hour, the group of us who were traveling to Prairie State left to drive down south. This trip took up the remainder of our day.

 

Day 42—Thursday, Sept. 29

Prairie State

Prairie State Power Plant

On Thursday, we toured the Prairie State Power Plant and Lively Grove Mine. Our city is one of eight partners making up the ownership of this facility. So our staff regularly attends meetings, and a group of staff and elected officials take an annual trip to see the progress of construction of the plant. This was my first year to go on the annual trip, and it was particularly interesting because the plant is nearly complete. The first coal was fired last week in the first unit, and the operators expect to feed into the grid for the first time next week. There is another unit that is currently under construction and has a completion date of mid 2012.

Our day started with a quick update on the facility. Then several of us were taken down into the mine in groups of six. This was the first time I had ever been in a coal mine. The Lively Grove Mine is about 250 to 275 feet deep with tunnels laid out in a grid pattern and measuring 18 feet wide by about 7 feet tall. I wish I could have taken pictures to share with everyone the experience, but they were strict about no photography allowed. Before we could go in the mine, we were outfitted with safety equipment and taught how to use an oxygen container in case something happened while we were down there. I even wore a hard hat with a little miner light on it.

We drove down into the mine in a small open metal vehicle down a steep slope. Once at the bottom we followed a main corridor excavated out of the coal and now lined with lime dust. Eventually we stopped and got out to walk. Our guide took us to where a machine was cutting out the coal and conveying it to a vehicle. This vehicle when full would then take the load of coal, up to 10 tons, to the main conveyor and discharge it onto the belt. Then it would return to be loaded again.

We also watched a crew installing the metal mesh and supports for the roof of the tunnel. They showed us the metal rods and “glue sticks” they would push up into the roof to create a header. Then a wire mesh would be anchored over these. While the ceiling of the tunnel seemed to be made of rock, the floor appeared to be clay covered in lime and coal dust.

One of the interesting things I eventually figured out was to look at something, I would need to turn my head directly towards it. This was because the only light came from the lights on our hats. And I noticed when you talked to someone, you had to make sure you were not focusing the light on their face.

I also couldn’t help thinking while down there about my ancestors, many of whom worked in coal mines in Kentucky and in England. The safety precautions now are so much more intense than they were back then. We had ventilation, gas detection, oxygen, lights, power, wireless GPS, and many more features they did not have in the early 1900s.

After the mine tour, we were taken through the actual plant. Here power is generated from turbines turned by steam. The steam is created by burning the coal taken from the mine. They told us this is the largest coal-fired power plant that has been built in the U.S. in the last 30 years. It had to be built to meet strict air quality regulations—$1 billion was spent just on the air quality treatment and components.

The plant also uses 25 million gallons of treated water a day for their operation. They have an onsite pond and treatment facility to produce high quality water. When finished the power plant will produce 1600 MW of power for the grid and 150 MW for its own operation.

 

Day 43—Friday, Sept. 30, 2011

On Friday, I worked to catch up on emails and other issues that had come up while I was gone. Most of my day was spent working with other staff to resolve the review of a development. They owners of this project had considered changing the design of some of the infrastructure, but since they already had their plans approved, they decided not to go ahead with the change. It would have required them to re-submit and wait for another review. We also had a conference call with the owner/developer and explained they could not begin construction on any work requiring an IEPA permit until it was approved and a copy sent to us.

Smith and Richardson Tour

A few of us also were fortunate to be able to tour another manufacturing business in our city—Smith and Richardson. This company has been in Geneva for many years and moved to their current location in the 1940s. They make all different kinds of parts for many different industries. An interesting issue brought up during our tour is that our country does not seem to be training people to work in these types of industries. This company has job openings for skilled labor, but they have difficulty finding people who can work that type of job. This is something we have been hearing at several of our tours. Because U.S. schools are so focused on pushing kids to go to college, few end up pursuing careers in manufacturing or other trades. So these industries have job openings, but there is no one to fill the jobs.

Retirement Lunch

Today was also the last day for one of our co-workers who worked at the wastewater plant. So during lunch the people at the plant arranged to cook food, and we were all invited to eat down at the plant. Only a bunch of public works people would gladly show up to eat lunch on the lawn of a wastewater plant next to the clarifiers and think nothing of it.

Share

Got Sewer Gas Smell?

Posted on by

Flow from a sewerOne of the most common complaints we received at the city where I used to work was sewer odors in homes or businesses. The callers always assumed it had to be caused by the city sewers, and therefore, they always requested that we flush our lines to solve the problem. So the city had adopted the practice of responding to these calls by flushing the sewer in front of the home or business of the caller. It always frustrated me because of course our sewers smelled and flushing them was not going to permanently solve the person's problem. But unfortunately it was difficult to get people to accept the fact that if they have a sewer smell it's most likely due to a problem with their plumbing. 

Finding the real solution to the problem

Occasionally some people would call back after we cleaned our sewer because of course the problem did not go away. So because at this point they were more willing to accept that it might be a problem in their own building, we were able to work with them to help discover the source of their problem. In most cases it was either a vent that had developed cracks or holes or was blocked. In one case we found the sewer for the business had broken underground in front of the building. We realized this because we had gone into the basement of the neighboring business and saw sewage seeping in and running down one of their walls. If you're interested in other causes of sewer odors, there's a great write-up by the askthebuilder site: Sewer Gas Smell. The post also discusses methods of finding and solving the problem. One additional tip I didn't see on that site was to put a small amount of vegetable oil in floor drains that are infrequently used (just enough to cover the water surface because normally putting oil in sewers is a very bad idea). This helps prevent the water from evaporating.

When cleaning the city sewer does help

Although cleaning city sewers does not help eliminate sewer odors in a home or business, it can help minimize odors that are experienced along a street in communities with combined sewers. These sewers convey both sewage and rain water so the inlets and catch basins along the street are directly connected to the city's sanitary sewers. And because of this, sewer gas is sometimes vented out of the sewer through these basins. Where I worked, the city still had some areas with combined sewers. And at some of these locations, the smell along the street seemed to get worse during times of low flow or no rain. So we found we could minimize the smell by flushing water into the sewer. However, we had at least one area with high sewer flows that would continually vent through the basins. Finally in this location we had to replace the basins with ones that had traps to prevent the smell from leaving the sewer.

So if you're experiencing sewer gas odors in your home, it's best to follow the advice found on the askthebuilder site and call a plumber rather than the city. However if you have no smell in your home, but notice an odor out along the road, particularly near an inlet, then it's best to call the city or utility company.

Share

Revving up the Street Sweeper

Posted on by

The other day I commented about the reviews written about a street sweeping game. The post ended up on GovLoop where Denise Petet added some great insights on how the game might be made more fun and engaging. She suggested adding more interesting cars, having pedestrians interact with the sweeper, and even allowing the sweeper to temporarily turn into a race car for a few turns around a track. And today having listened to the following TED talk about how video games are developed to keep us engaged, I feel she is on to something.

In the video, the concept of randomness and the percentages developers set up in the game for allowing discovery of quest items seem to suggest Denise's ideas will work. I know when I play World of Warcraft it does seem like my behavior is as described in the video. At first I don't mind searching, but as I near my goal, I am happy to realize finding the items seems so much easier. I always wondered if I was just lucky or imagining it, but now I know it's all part of the grand scheme of things! Denise's suggestions could be combined with discovery quests so that perhaps within the game is another game where the driver must log so many sightings of a certain type of car or potholes, or broken inlets, or other similar features that show up based on specific percentages.
 
So the lesson seems to be that as we develop games for learning, we need to try to keep in mind this simulated randomness. And because many of the tasks or concepts we develop training for might be perceived as "boring" by some, it will be important to think of the details related to the task that might be taken for granted and develop them as interesting and engaging features that show up at random. In our sweeper example, perhaps they could have added billboards that change each time the sweeper passes by. Or as the commenter suggested, allow the user to temporarily enter a different reality where perhaps the sweeper turns into a race vehicle for a limited time – I think Donkey Kong uses a similar idea when it temporarily takes you out of the regular game for a quick mini-game. I can just imagine a sweeper all decked-out and revved up racing around a track then transforming back to its traditional mild-mannered public works vehicle.
Share

Setting Sustainable Water Rates

Posted on by

Water Distribution

Raising water or sewer rates is never a popular move, and in this economy many have tried to avoid it as if they are fleeing from a zombie apocalypse. But for many utilities expenditures are exceeding revenues, and there's sometimes little choice other than a rate increase. You can only cut so much from a budget before negatively impacting service levels and quality. But is this an unavoidable consequence of a bad economy? And can rates be set to sustain a utility even during times like these? Let's explore the history of rate structure, how it has impacted us today, and some solutions for going forward.

History of Water Rate Structures

In the U.S., there have been basically three types of structures or a mixture of two of the three:

  1. Uniform rates
  2. Increasing rates based on usage
  3. Decreasing rates based on usage

Some utitlities also applied a fixed fee in addition to the rate, but often this was not a significant amount. Water systems also created categories of users sometimes applying different rates to different users. Of the three structures listed above, number three was usually the more popular. After all, water was everywhere! And this was particularly true for cities with a large manufacturing base dependent on water for their process. It was almost as if utilities were begging people to consume water.

Based on stories I've heard from the "old timers," back then the water fund was never out of money. And they could always depend on it to carry the other funds. So what happened?

Water Rates & Water Funds Today

Our country has over the last couple decades transformed their view of water as an unlimited supply. Yes, water never really goes away, but it can become increasingly contaminated or placed into a state that costs significantly more to collect and improve its quality. So our view of water has changed to that of a valuable resource and commodity. And to encourage customers to conserve water, many utilities have changed rates to increase as water usage increases. At the same time, water regulations have significantly increased and only show signs of becoming even more stringent. The net result of all this is people using less water (yay! our conservation methods worked) causing a decrease in revenue (boo! we didn't see that coming!?) and the cost to collect, treat, and deliver water has skyrocketed causing an increase in expenditures. Then on top of that we had the recession with people cutting back even more on water just to save money or leaving behind vacant homes that generate no revenue for utilities.

Of course as they say hindsight is better than foresight. But it's surprising to me how many want to cling to the old ways going forward. Even as revenue is dropping and funds are bleeding, they continue to propose the old water structure of a decreasing rate based on increased usage. And many times with no fixed rate or a very small rate attached. This is simply not sustainable.

Implementing Sustainable Solutions

So what does work? This post cannot begin to offer the right answer for every situation. A good water rate study needs to be customized for each utility. But in general, a good beginning is to look at costs. Fixed costs that are truly independent of water usage need to be separated from costs that fluctuate with water usage. For example, if your water utility has two trucks, it has two trucks. If you normally pump 2 MGD and you change to pumping 1 MGD, you don't get rid of one truck if you still need two for checking your fixed system. Variable costs will include such things as chemicals and electricity.

In addition to costs, you need to look at your users. If you have categories of users such as residential, commercial, and industrial, these need to be analyzed as a group breaking each into usage blocks that make sense. It's also important to get a handle on the amount of usage expected throughout the year, particularly if seasonal temperatures fluctuate.

As you develop a good idea of water consumption in your system, you can start to explore which rate structure works best for your community. The community's philosophy on water consumption must also be taken into account. For some, a single rate independent of usage might best address the philosophy and the usage patterns. Because of water conservation efforts, some communities might choose to assess higher rates for increased usage. I can't imagine too many sticking with the less cost for more usage because this becomes a type of subsidy if source and treatment costs are high enough.

For many, it makes sense to meet variable costs with these rates and then add on a fixed fee that will pay the fixed costs. Doing anything other than this requires the rate to cover some of the fixed costs and puts the risk back on the utility because now the utility is dependent on water usage to be high enough to bring in extra money for fixed costs. It's also common to address low income populations or customers with minimum usage by offering a flat rate for the lowest tier of usage.

Although all that might sound straight forward enough, the real challenge occurs near the end of the analysis when you figure out what you really should be charging. Few utilities could probably implement the structure they really need immediately. One piece of advice is to set a target structure and then create a transition plan to get there. And whether you need to transition or not, it's best to create a long term ordinance establishing regular rate increases every year or every other year. This spreads the transition over a long time period and it allows for regular increases but offers elected officials the opportunity to amend an increase for specific years if possible.

Below is a guidance document from the EPA that can be used to assist in conducting a water rate study. And you can also find some good resources through AWWA publications.

 

Guide Small Systems Final Rate Setting Guide

 

Share