MasterPlan FinalReport Submitted

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Distribution System Master Plan

Project Number 31144-000
July 2010

Distribution System Master Plan i
H&S Project No. 31144-000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report for the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (District) documents the
Distribution System Master Plan and Water Audit. The purpose of this project
was to study past and current water use in the District and predict future
demands. Using the Districts hydraulic model, we identified current and future
deficiencies and recommended improvements.
The purpose of the water audit was to quantify water losses in the distribution
system. The water audit results showed that the non-revenue water was 32
percent by volume of the total water supplied for the 2007-2008 fiscal year.
Average and maximum day demands in 2008 were 5.13 million gallons per day
(mgd) and 8.08 mgd, respectively. Projected average and maximum day
demands for the year 2030 including new wholesale customers, were 6.9 mgd
and 10.9 mgd, respectively. The design capacity of the existing water treatment
plant (12 mgd) is sufficient to meet the projected demands; however, restrictions
that currently limit the plant to 10 mgd will need to be eliminated.
Our evaluation showed system storage was adequate for existing and future
demands, but firm pump capacity was deficient. We recommend a new 4,400
gpm or 6.3 mgd pump that is efficient in the range of 235 to 255 feet of total
dynamic head.
The Districts hydraulic model was used for assessing existing hydraulic
conditions and for simulating the future conditions. Deficiencies were identified
and the model was used to study alternatives to correct existing problems and
meet future demands.
We further assessed the condition of the distribution system by conducting field
tests and interviews with District staff. Master meter tests revealed that the
master meter at the WTP was under-registering by 7.0 to 9.2 percent which is
approximately 139 million gallons annually. Hydraulic grade line tests showed
several locations where closed valves are likely. C-factors tests showed that the
unlined cast iron pipes in the system have lost about 70 percent of their original
Distribution System Master Plan ii
capacity due to tuberculation. We used these tests and fire flow tests to update
the model to give more accurate hydraulic results. The model then was used to
estimate available fire flows throughout the entire distribution system. Many
areas were shown to have inadequate fire protection. Using the model and the
Districts mapping records, as well as pipe replacement, pipe repair, and valve
status records, we prioritized pipes in need of rehabilitation and recommended
new pipes to provide adequate fire flows. The annual budget required to
rehabilitate all the unlined cast iron pipes within the next twenty years is
approximately $375,000. Pipe rehabilitation is critical for the District as a means
to improve water quality and hydraulic capacity. Restoring or improving hydraulic
capacity improves fire protection. Pipe rehabilitation is also an important step
toward water conservation as it can greatly reduce water losses by decreasing
leakage and the number of main breaks. Decreasing main breaks reduces the
risk to public safety.
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District plans to begin selling water to the Town of
Weldon in the near future. Using the hydraulic model, we evaluated pressures,
available fire flows, and water quality assuming three possible meter locations.
Based on this analysis, we recommend supplying the Town of Weldon from the
12-inch water line at the intersection of Country Club Road and US 158.
This report also recommends operational and capital improvements to the
distribution system for improved pressures and water age with the proposed
Weldon connection. Operational improvements can improve water quality.
A capital improvement plan (CIP) was created to prioritize new pipes for fire
protection as well as new transmission mains to improve hydraulic performance.
The first phase of proposed improvements total approximately $1.6 million. To
supply the Town of Weldon with 2 mgd, the next phase of improvements total
$1.07 million. The third phase of improvements to supply projected growth by the
year 2030 total $0.5 million.

Distribution System Master Plan iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF TABLES ............................................................................................. ix
1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Scope of Work Water System Master Plan ........................................ 1-1
1.2 Scope of Work - Water Audit ................................................................ 1-3
1.3 Background Information ........................................................................ 1-3
1.3.1 Tanks and Pump Stations .............................................................. 1-4
1.3.2 Existing Model Update ................................................................... 1-6
1.4 Purpose ................................................................................................ 1-7
2 Water Requirements ................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Population Projections .......................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Historical Population Records ........................................................ 2-1
2.1.2 District Meter Count........................................................................ 2-1
2.1.3 County Population Projections ....................................................... 2-3
2.1.4 District Population Projections ........................................................ 2-6
2.2 Water Demands .................................................................................... 2-7
2.2.1 Historical Water Production ............................................................ 2-7
2.2.2 Needed Fire Flows ......................................................................... 2-9
2.2.3 Historical Water Billing ................................................................... 2-9
2.2.3.1 Historical Industrial Billing Records ........................................ 2-11
2.2.3.2 Historical Wholesale Billing Records ..................................... 2-12
2.2.3.3 Historical Domestic Demand.................................................. 2-14
2.2.4 Conservation Measures ............................................................... 2-15
2.2.5 Recent Water Use ........................................................................ 2-16
2.3 Demand Projections and Water Requirements ................................... 2-17
2.3.1 Assumptions for Projections ......................................................... 2-17
2.3.2 Water Requirements Summary .................................................... 2-20
3 Storage and Pump Evaluation .................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Storage Requirements .......................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Elevated Storage ............................................................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Emergency Storage........................................................................ 3-3
3.2 Pumping Evaluation .............................................................................. 3-3
3.2.1 WTP Pump Recommendations ...................................................... 3-4
3.2.2 Becker Pump Station ...................................................................... 3-4
4 Hydraulic Modeling ..................................................................................... 4-1
Distribution System Master Plan iv
4.1 Modeling Scenarios .............................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Design Criteria ...................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Pressure ......................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Head Loss and Velocities ............................................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Fire Flows ....................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Tank and Pump Performance ........................................................ 4-4
5 Condition Assessment ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Field Tests ............................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Master Meter Test .......................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Hydraulic Gradient Tests ................................................................ 5-4
5.1.3 C-Factor Tests ............................................................................. 5-10
5.1.4 Fire Flow Tests ............................................................................. 5-14
5.1.4.1 Fire Flow Test Number 5 ....................................................... 5-17
5.1.4.2 Fire Flow Test Number 10 ..................................................... 5-17
5.2 Other Methods of Condition Assessment ........................................... 5-20
5.2.1 Pipe Age and Material .................................................................. 5-20
5.2.2 Main Breaks: Replacement and Repairs ...................................... 5-22
5.2.3 Valve Status ................................................................................. 5-22
5.2.4 Available Fire Flows ..................................................................... 5-26
5.2.5 Pressure ....................................................................................... 5-26
6 Analysis and Recommendations ................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Town of Weldon Connection 2010 .............................................. 6-1
6.1.1.1 Recommended Weldon Connection ........................................ 6-4
6.1.2 Hydraulics with Future Demands ................................................... 6-5
6.1.2.1 Recommendations to Improve Tank Performance................... 6-7
6.1.2.2 Recommendations to Improve Fire Flows ............................. 6-11
7 Water Quality Analysis ................................................................................ 7-1
8 Infrastructure Renewal ................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 Likelihood of Failure .............................................................................. 8-2
8.1.1 Scoring Likelihood of Failure .......................................................... 8-2
8.2 Consequence of Failure ........................................................................ 8-3
8.2.1 Scoring Consequences .................................................................. 8-4
8.3 Available Fire Flow ............................................................................... 8-5
8.4 Risk ....................................................................................................... 8-5
8.5 Prioritization and Rehabilitation ............................................................ 8-7
9 Capital Improvement and RehabilitaTion Plans .......................................... 9-1
Distribution System Master Plan v
9.1 Capital Improvement Plan ..................................................................... 9-1
9.1.1 Right of Way and Permitting Issues ............................................... 9-7
9.1.2 Funding Opportunities .................................................................... 9-8
9.1.2.1 North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center .............. 9-9
9.1.2.2 NCDENR Public Water Supply Section ................................... 9-9
9.1.2.3 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development Center ............................................................................. 9-10
9.1.2.4 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund ........... 9-11
9.1.2.5 Funding References .............................................................. 9-11
9.2 Rehabilitation Plan .............................................................................. 9-12
Appendix A Water Audit .................................................................................... a
Appendix B Water Audit Grading Matrix ............................................................ g
Appendix C Manufacturers Pump Curves ......................................................... o
Distribution System Master Plan vi
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Water Distribution System .......... 1-5
Figure 2-1: Historical County Populations .......................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2: Historical Meter Count ..................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-3: Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Population Densities ........................... 2-4
Figure 2-4: Population Growth between 2000 and 2007 (from TAZ Data) ......... 2-5
Figure 2-5: District Average Day Demand and Maximum Day Demand 1998
to 2009 ......................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-6: Estimated Needed Fire Flows Based on Zoning ............................ 2-10
Figure 2-7: Historical Water Billed and Produced by RRSD ............................ 2-11
Figure 2-8: Historical Industrial Water Usage .................................................. 2-12
Figure 2-9: Historical Wholesale Water Sold and Contractual Agreement
Ranges ....................................................................................................... 2-13
Figure 2-10: Recent Per Capita Demand ......................................................... 2-14
Figure 2-11: Percentage of Domestic, Wholesale, and Industrial Water
Produced in 2009 ....................................................................................... 2-16
Figure 2-12: Anticipated Population Growth Areas for Residential and
Commercial Customers in RRSD ............................................................... 2-18
Figure 2-13: Areas for Industrial Growth .......................................................... 2-19
Figure 2-14: Water Requirements and WTP Capacity ..................................... 2-21
Figure 5-1: Velocity Profile for 20-inch Pipe ....................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-2: Hydraulic Grade Line Test 1, WTP to Rapids Tank ......................... 5-5
Figure 5-3: Hydraulic Grade Line Test 2, WTP to Becker Farm Tank ................ 5-6
Figure 5-4: HGL 1-A and 1-B, Calibration Results ............................................. 5-8
Figure 5-5: Pipes with Possible Closed Valves near 11
th
Street Ball Park ......... 5-9
Figure 5-6: HGL 2, Calibration Results .............................................................. 5-9
Figure 5-7: Hydraulic Grade Line, WTP to Craige Street ................................. 5-12
Figure 5-8: Gaston Road 12-Inch Pipe Fittings Removed in 2008 ................... 5-13
Figure 5-9: Fire Flow Test Locations ................................................................ 5-15
Figure 5-10: Fire Flow Test 5 Results - Pipes with Possible Closed Valve ...... 5-18
Figure 5-11: Fire Flow Test Number 12 ........................................................... 5-19
Figure 5-12: Estimated Pipe Installation Dates ................................................ 5-21
Figure 5-13: Pipes Repaired since 2002 .......................................................... 5-23
Figure 5-14: Pipes Replaced since 2002 ......................................................... 5-24
Figure 5-15: Broken, Leaking, or Hard to Turn Valves October 2009 ........... 5-25
Figure 5-16: Available Fire Flows with Existing System ................................... 5-27
Figure 5-17: Deficient Fire Flows with Existing System ................................... 5-28
Figure 6-1: Possible Town of Weldon Connections ........................................... 6-3
Distribution System Master Plan vii
Figure 6-2: Pipes with Diameters 12-inch and Larger in Main Pressure Zone ... 6-6
Figure 6-3: Tank Levels Under Varying Supplies to Weldon .............................. 6-7
Figure 6-4: 2030 Peak Hour Pressures without Improvements .......................... 6-8
Figure 6-5: Average Daily Tank Levels with Tank Connection Alternatives ....... 6-9
Figure 6-6: Proposed Route for Improvements to Tank Hydraulic
Connections................................................................................................ 6-10
Figure 6-7: Deficient Fire Flow on Jackson Street Between 5
th
and 6
th

Streets ........................................................................................................ 6-12
Figure 6-8: Deficient Fire Flows on 8
th
and 9
th
Streets ..................................... 6-13
Figure 6-9: Deficient Fire Flow at Industrial Area at Monroe Street ................. 6-15
Figure 6-10: Fire Flow Improvement near Recommended Weldon
Connection ................................................................................................. 6-17
Figure 6-11: Fire Flow Improvements near I-95 Interchange ........................... 6-18
Figure 6-12: Hales Branch Subdivision Deficient Fire Flows ........................... 6-20
Figure 6-13: West End Deficient Fire Flows and Recommended
Improvements ............................................................................................. 6-22
Figure 6-14: Fire Flow Improvements - Ransome Street Area ......................... 6-24
Figure 6-15: Fire Flow Improvement Virginia Ave ......................................... 6-25
Figure 6-16: Fire Flow Improvements Mitchell Street .................................... 6-26
Figure 6-17: Fire Flow Improvements Town of Gaston ................................. 6-28
Figure 7-1: Existing System Modeled Tank Water Levels with Current
Operations .................................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-2: Existing System Tank Water Age Improvements ............................. 7-3
Figure 7-3: Existing System Tank Levels with Proposed Operational
Improvements ............................................................................................... 7-5
Figure 7-4: Existing System Average Water Age ............................................... 7-7
Figure 7-5: Existing System Average Water Age Using Becker Tank Pump
Station with Current Operations .................................................................... 7-8
Figure 7-6: Existing System Average Water Age Using Proposed
Operations .................................................................................................. 7-10
Operations with Becker Pump Station ........................................................ 7-11
Figure 7-8: Tank Water Age Improvements Due to Weldon Connection ......... 7-12
Figure 7-9: 2010 System Water Age with Supply to Weldon (Using Current
Operations without Becker Tank Pump Station) ......................................... 7-13
Figure 7-10: 2010 System Water Age with Supply to Weldon Using Proposed
Operations (without Becker Tank Pump Station) ........................................ 7-14
Figure 8-1: Bi-Directional Distribution Matrix of Overall Risk ............................. 8-5
Figure 8-2: Pipe Failure Risk ............................................................................. 8-6
Figure 8-3: Deficient Fire Flow Comparison after Rehabilitation ........................ 8-8
Distribution System Master Plan viii
Figure 9-1: Capital Improvements ...................................................................... 9-6
Figure A-1: M36 Water Balance Terms ................................................................. a
Figure A-2: RRSD Water Audit Reporting Worksheet ........................................... b
Figure A-3: July 2007 June 2008 RRSD Water Balance .................................... c
Figure A-4: Water Loss Control Planning Guide Water Audit Data Validity
Score ............................................................................................................... e
Figure A-5: Water Loss Control Planning Guide General Guidelines for Setting
a Target ILI ....................................................................................................... f
Distribution System Master Plan ix
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Existing Water Distribution System Pumps ....................................... 1-4
Table 1-2: Existing Water Distribution System Tanks ........................................ 1-6
Table 2-1: County Population Projections .......................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2: Projected RRSD Populations ............................................................ 2-6
Table 2-3: District ADD, MDD, and Peaking Factors 1998 to 2008 ................... 2-8
Table 2-4: Projected Populations and Water Demands ................................... 2-21
Table 3-1: Water Distribution System Storage Evaluation ................................. 3-2
Table 3-2: Pump Capacity Evaluation ................................................................ 3-4
Table 4-1: Needed Fire Flows for One- and Two-family Residences
.............. 4-3
Table 5-1: Master Meter Test ............................................................................. 5-3
Table 5-2: Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL), Calibration Results ............................. 5-7
Table 5-3: Summary of Loss of Head Tests ..................................................... 5-11
Table 5-4: Fire Flow Test Results .................................................................... 5-16
Table 5-5: Model Calibration with Fire Flow Test Results ................................ 5-16
Table 8-1: Likelihood of Failure Weighting ......................................................... 8-3
Table 8-2: Consequence of Failure Weighting ................................................... 8-4
Table 9-1: Recommended Immediate Improvements (Phase 1) to Provide
Adequate Fire Flow ...................................................................................... 9-2
Table 9-2: Recommended Phase 2 Improvements
(to Supply Town of Weldon) ......................................................................... 9-5
Table 9-3: Recommended Phase 3 Improvements
(to Supply 2030 Demands) ........................................................................... 9-5
Table 9-4: Rehabilitation Plan .......................................................................... 9-14

Distribution System Master Plan 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the Distribution System Master Plan and Water Audit for
the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (District). The scope of work was outlined in
a professional services agreement dated July 1, 2009. The tasks included in the
project scope are summarized below. The water audit results are presented in
the appendices of this report.
1.1 Scope of Work Water System Master Plan
1) Assess the Condition of the Existing Distribution System
a) Gather information and review previous studies and reports
b) Review existing hydraulic model
c) Conduct five C-factor tests on mains near the WTP and unlined cast iron
pipes
d) Conduct hydraulic gradient tests to investigate system operation
e) Conduct five to ten fire flow tests to document fire flow deficiencies
f) Review geo-coded water main repair records provided by the District
g) Investigate recent main breaks and recommend operational changes if
needed
h) Interview District staff about fire flow concerns and the condition of the
existing system
2) Prioritize Infrastructure Renewal
a) Establish scoring system for prioritization using CapPlan software
b) Predict velocities and pressures for existing conditions
c) Predict fire flows with and without reconditioning
d) Provide maps and cost tables showing prioritization results
e) Present prioritization to the District and respond to review comments
3) Estimate Water Requirements
a) Project population and water demands
b) Evaluate impacts of conservation
c) Meet with District staff to review projections and fire flow requirements
d) Prepare a technical memo on demand projections
4) Evaluate Storage and Pump Capacities
a) Calculate storage needs and compare with existing tank capacities
b) Determine pump requirements and compare with existing pump capacity
c) Recommend additional storage and pump capacity if needed
5) Model Critical Conditions
a) Add new 12-inch pipe to Gaston and new booster pump station at Becker
Village Tank
b) Review model calibration
c) Evaluate existing conditions
d) Model supply to Weldon
e) Identify improvements for deficient fire flows
f) Model future conditions to check for deficiencies
g) Evaluate alternatives for improvements
h) Run extended period simulations to check pump and tank performance
6) Model Water Quality
a) Develop water age predictions
b) Investigate methods of decreasing water age
c) Evaluate water quality impacts of proposed improvements
7) Develop Capital Improvement Plan
a) Present preliminary recommendations to the District and respond to
review comments
b) Prioritize proposed improvements
c) Organize construction projects and estimate costs
d) Suggest funding opportunities
e) Explore right of way and permit issues
8) Prepare Final Report
a) Write draft report
b) QA/QC and technical review
c) Respond to District review comments and submit final report
d) Deliver hydraulic model to the District as an EPANET data file
1.2 Scope of Work - Water Audit
1) Test water plants master meter
2) Analyze production records and billing records
3) Prepare audit as described in AWWA Manual M36 using AWWA software
4) QA/QC and technical review
5) Present the water audit results to the District
1.3 Background Information
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (RRSD or the District) is located along
Interstate 95 in eastern North Carolina about five miles south of the Virginia
border. The District comprises an area of approximately 15.6 square miles. The
Districts water distribution system includes roughly 120 miles of pipe (6-inch
diameter and larger), that supply more than 9,000 water customers. It includes
parts of both Halifax County and Northampton County, all of the City of Roanoke
Rapids and Town of Gaston, and parts of the Town of Weldon.
Raw water is taken from Roanoke Rapids Lake which is an impoundment on the
Roanoke River. Water flows by gravity (or is pumped under certain hydraulic
conditions) to the water treatment plant (WTP) located west of NC Hwy 48 on the
north side of the City of Roanoke Rapids.
The water distribution system was originally built by Rosemary Manufacturing
Company to supply the needs of its cloth and paper mills. RRSD was formed in
1931 and in 1933 took over part of the water distribution system and expanded it.
This included the construction of the 11
th
Street elevated tank. A second elevated
tank was built on Rapids Street in 1951 and, according to a 1963 RRSD water
distribution system study, the distribution system was greatly expanded to the
east, south, and west in 1957. The District expanded to the north in 1977 when a
12-inch transmission main was installed to supply the Town of Gaston. Further
growth in the 1970s and 1980s included construction of the Becker Farm Tank
in 1987.
Figure 1-1 shows the existing RRSD water distribution system with city and
county boundaries.
1.3.1 Tanks and Pump Stations
The District has four pumps at the WTP as summarized in Table 1-1. A second
pump station located at the Becker Farm Tank was under construction at the
start of this project and is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
The District has two ground storage tanks used as clearwells at the WTP and
four elevated storage tanks located throughout the distribution system as shown
in Figure 1-1 and detailed in Table 1-2. Two additional tanks, the Roanoke-Davie
tank and the I-95 tank are owned by Halifax County. However, these tanks are
directly connected to RRSD pipes and directly influence the Districts operations.

Table 1-1: Existing Water Distribution System Pumps
Pump
No.
Pump
Name
Pump
Type
WTP
Location
Rated
Capacity
(gpm)
Rated
Capacity
(mgd)
TDH
(ft)
Power
(hp)
1
Paco
Pump
Horizontal
Split Case
Inside
Finished
Water Pump
Station
3,000 4.3 250 250
2
Fairbanks
Morse
Pump
Horizontal
Split Case
Inside
Finished
Water Pump
Station
2,200 3.2 320 250
3
Fairbanks
Morse
400
Vertical
Turbine
Outside
Finished
Water Pump
Station
4,400 6.3 273 400
4
Diesel
Pump
Vertical
Turbine
Diesel
Engine
Pump
Station
3,000 4.3 200 630
Note: Another vertical turbine pump (10 mgd, 310 TDH, 700 hp) was removed from service in
June, 2009.
Manufacturers pump curves for pumps 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Appendix C.


Figure 1-1: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Water Distribution System
Table 1-2: Existing Water Distribution System Tanks
Tank Name Capacity (mg)
Overflow
Elevation (ft)
Head Range
(ft)
Elevated
Gaston 0.20 302 20
Rapids Street 0.50 330 34.5
11th Street 0.50 330 40
Becker 0.50 320 37
Roanoke / Davie* 0.50 325 30
I-95* 0.25 325 26.5
Ground
Rectangular WTP Clearwell 1.25 97 12
Circular WTP Clearwell 2.00 97 12
Notes: * Owned by Halifax County, but directly connected to RRSD system

1.3.2 Existing Model Update
The existing model was provided by RRSD. The model was updated and
calibrated in 2007 by Highfill Infrastructure Engineering in a report titled Water
Distribution System Model Update and Calibration.
We updated the model by adjusting C-factors, pipe configurations, and minor
losses at the WTP. We also added details showing the placement of pumps and
pipes at the plant. Using aerial photographs and a yard drawing of the WTP, we
arranged the pumps and piping to more clearly represent the system.
Additionally, the 2007 model had very large minor losses for the piping at the
WTP. We updated the minor losses for these pipes to reflect the actual valves
and fittings shown on plant drawings.
The Districts model did not include pipes with diameters smaller than 6 inches,
as pipes that are smaller than 6-inches are often not included in hydraulic models
to save computer memory and calculation time. In most cases, system hydraulics
are not significantly affected by omitting small-diameter piping, however; to better
calibrate the model, we added some small-diameter pipes (more than 3 miles)
where needed for this project.
The total system demands in the model were also updated based on 2008 billing
and production records. Domestic demand allocation, which is the placement of
each individual residential and commercial demand based on detailed billing
records, however, was not changed from the existing model.
1.4 Purpose
In this report, we have studied elements regarding the past and current public
health, water use, water quality, and fire protection in the District and have made
predictions about future water demands. Using the Districts hydraulic model, we
identified current and future deficiencies in these elements associated with the
distribution system and recommended corrective improvements.
The purpose of the recommended improvements is to improve water
conservation, water quality, and hydraulic capacity with the ultimate goal of
protecting public health, safety, and the environment.

2 WATER REQUIREMENTS
This chapter discusses Task 3 of the Water System Master Plan. The goal of
Task 3 was to estimate future water requirements by projecting future population
and water demands. The impacts of conservation were also evaluated. A
meeting with the District was held on September 17, 2009 to review preliminary
projections and discuss fire flow requirements. Final projections were included in
a January 21, 2010 technical memo and are summarized in this chapter.
2.1 Population Projections
As shown in Figure 1-1, the District falls within two North Carolina counties.
Northampton County includes the Town of Gaston in the northern part of the
District. The rest of the District is in Halifax County.
2.1.1 Historical Population Records
Determining the population of the District based on census data is complicated
because it falls in two counties and includes all or part of three municipalities
(City of Roanoke Rapids, Town of Gaston, and Town of Weldon as shown in
Figure 1-1).
Historical county populations were relatively unchanged between 1980 and 2008,
as shown in Figure 2-1.
2.1.2 District Meter Count
To obtain a more clear view of the population inside the District boundary, we
reviewed water meter records.
Meter records were examined to identify the trend over the last ten years as
shown in Figure 2-2. The total population of Roanoke Rapids and Gaston, which
cover much of the Districts area, is shown in comparison. These population
estimates were provided by the state demographer.
A linear regression of the meter data shows a trend of 49 new meters per year.
This corresponds to supplying about 120 additional people per year assuming
2.42 people per meter based on the average household size in the City of
Roanoke Rapids from the 2000 census.

Figure 2-1: Historical County Populations

Figure 2-2: Historical Meter Count

-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
C
o
u
n
t
y

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Year
Northampton Halifax
2.1.3 County Population Projections
Projecting the population supplied by the District is also difficult because it falls
within several political and planning boundaries. The state demographer makes
County population projections starting from the last census (2000) as shown in
Table 2-1. Projections for Halifax and Northampton Counties both decrease by a
small percentage over the next twenty years.
Table 2-1: County Population Projections
Populations
Halifax County Northampton County
Census 2000 57,374 22,086
2010 Projection 55,053 21,045
2020 Projection 54,232 20,885
2000 to 2020 % Decrease 5.5% 5.4%
Annual % Decrease 0.3% 0.3%
Current municipal populations are estimated by the state demographer, but
municipal projections are not made. Some areas in North Carolina have
projections for Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). TAZ data near the District is
available through the Upper Coastal Plain Council of Governments. However, it
only provides year 2000 and current population estimates. Population projections
for the area are not currently available.
TAZ data shows the location of existing population in the District more precisely,
as shown by the population densities in Figure 2-3. TAZ data also includes
population estimates which allow us to note the population growth between 2000
and 2007 as shown in Figure 2-4.


Figure 2-3: Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Population Densities


Figure 2-4: Population Growth between 2000 and 2007 (from TAZ Data)

2.1.4 District Population Projections
Even though the state demographer predicts County populations will decrease,
and municipal populations have declined by approximately 400 people in the past
seven years, the number of water meters in the District has increased over the
same time period (Figure 2-2). This implies that the population supplied by the
District is increasing because the District service area has grown, or people are
moving into areas of the District not within city limits. Part of the increase in the
number of meters could be new meters used for irrigation, but the TAZ
population estimates show an overall increase in population inside the District
service area between 2000 and 2007 (Figure 2-4).
Because of the population growth observed in the TAZ estimates, it is reasonable
to assume that the increase in water meters denotes an increase in housing and
growth in population. The meter trend corresponds to population growth of
approximately 120 people per year, which is the basis for Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Projected RRSD Populations
Year Population Projection
2008 19,290
2010 19,530
2020 20,710
2030 21,900

2.2 Water Demands
Water demands were examined in detail and our projections are discussed
below. We considered several benchmark demand conditions, including average
day, maximum day, peak hour, and maximum day plus fire flow.
Average day demand (ADD) is the total amount of water produced in a year
divided by the number of days in a year. Average day demand is the best basis
for analyzing trends and projecting future demand. Groundwater withdrawals and
reliable yields from reservoirs are compared to ADD.
Maximum day demand (MDD) is the highest daily demand in a year. This is the
critical requirement for water treatment plants. Maximum daily demand can be
determined by examining historical daily production records at the WTP. For
each year, the day with the highest water produced is the MDD.
Peak hour demand is the highest hourly rate of demand on the maximum day.
This requirement can be supplied by both the production sources and storage
tanks. Peak hour demand is typically the critical requirement for large distribution
systems. For RRSD, we used a peak hour factor of 1.3, based on the diurnal
curve in the model. This curve was developed from SCADA records in a 2007
study.
Maximum day plus fire flow is typically the largest requirement for small
distribution systems. Fire flows are added to the maximum day demand because
of the low probability of a fire occurring during the peak hour of the maximum
day. Storage tanks are the most reliable sources for fire flows.
2.2.1 Historical Water Production
Historical production records are shown in Figure 2-5 and listed in Table 2-3.
ADD increased from 2004 to 2007 but decreased in 2008. MDD exceeded 8 mgd
in 2008, the highest production since 2001.

Figure 2-5: District Average Day Demand and Maximum Day Demand 1998
to 2009
Table 2-3: District ADD, MDD, and Peaking Factors 1998 to 2008
Year ADD MDD MDD/ADD
1998 4.58 8.40 1.83
1999 4.65 7.59 1.63
2000 5.15 8.49 1.65
2001 4.58 9.19 2.01
2002 4.63 7.59 1.64
2003 4.40 6.30 1.43
2004 4.10 6.15 1.50
2005 5.08 6.88 1.36
2006 5.34 7.81 1.46
2007 5.53 7.66 1.38
2008 5.13 8.08 1.57
2009 5.18 7.11 1.37

1.83
1.63
1.65
2.01
1.64
1.43
1.50
1.36
1.46
1.38
1.57
1.37
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
W
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
d
)
Year
ADD MDD MDD/ADD
Figure 2-5 also shows the ratio of MDD to ADD for each year. This ratio was
especially high in 2001 due to usage by a textile mill. The mill, however, went out
of business in early 2004, so such large peaks are not expected in the future.
Since 2004, the largest ratio of MDD to ADD was 1.57 in 2008. This ratio was
used to estimate future maximum day demands for domestic and wholesale
customers.
2.2.2 Needed Fire Flows
The water system master plan involves designing pipes and storage tanks to
deliver fire flows. To do this, we estimated needed fire flows throughout the
District. Zoning data from Halifax County, Northampton County, City of Roanoke
Rapids, and Town of Weldon identified the type of land use in an area, and
needed fire flows were estimated based on this information, as shown in Figure
2-6. We assumed 3,500 gpm for industrial zones, 2,500 gpm for commercial
zones, 1,500 for multi-family residential zones, 1,000 gpm for single-family
residential zones, and 750 for agricultural residential zones. These fire flows are
recommended by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
2.2.3 Historical Water Billing
Water billing records have remained relatively constant over the last few years as
shown in Figure 2-7. Production records are shown for comparison. The
prominent decline in water billing starting in about 2000 was due to large
industrial customers curtailing their water use. Water billed has remained steady
since 2003. These steady demands show that population growth was
compensated by conservation. However, also important to note is the difference
between water produced and water billed starting in 2005. This is likely due to
water loss in the system such as leaks or other unbillable water use.


Figure 2-6: Estimated Needed Fire Flows Based on Zoning


Figure 2-7: Historical Water Billed and Produced by RRSD
2.2.3.1 Historical Industrial Billing Records
Roanoke Rapids has historically been home to paper and textile mills. Two large
textile mills closed, one in 1997 and another in 2004. There has been a general
decline in the textile industry in North Carolina in recent years. Free trade
regulations and price competition from developing countries has triggered a
steady relocation of the textile industry from the Carolinas to overseas
production. However, the District still has three major industrial users (one textile,
one paper, and one power supply industry). The historical water consumption of
each large industrial user is shown in Figure 2-8. A steep drop in water used by
two of the industries occurred in 1997.
Industrial maximum day demands were based on the historical billing records
shown in Figure 2-8.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
J
a
n
-
9
7
J
a
n
-
9
8
J
a
n
-
9
9
J
a
n
-
0
0
J
a
n
-
0
1
J
a
n
-
0
2
J
a
n
-
0
3
J
a
n
-
0
4
J
a
n
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
J
a
n
-
0
8
J
a
n
-
0
9
J
a
n
-
1
0
J
a
n
-
1
1
U
s
a
g
e

/

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
d
)
U
s
a
g
e

/

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
1
0
0
0

g
a
l
l
o
n
s

p
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
)
Month-Year
Water Produced Water Billed

Figure 2-8: Historical Industrial Water Usage
2.2.3.2 Historical Wholesale Billing Records
The District sells water wholesale to Northampton and Halifax Counties. Water
sold since 1990 is shown in Figure 2-9. Water sold wholesale is also commonly
called exported water because it is used in another distribution system.
The District has maintained purchase agreement contracts with Northampton and
Halifax Counties since 1986 and 1981, respectively. Contract limits are shown
on Figure 2-9. Northampton Countys purchase agreement was amended in
2002. Since that time, the average annual volume sold has more than doubled.
The average amount of water purchased by both counties has continued to
slowly increase as shown in Figure 2-9.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
J
a
n
-
9
0
J
u
n
-
9
1
O
c
t
-
9
2
M
a
r
-
9
4
J
u
l
-
9
5
D
e
c
-
9
6
A
p
r
-
9
8
A
u
g
-
9
9
J
a
n
-
0
1
M
a
y
-
0
2
O
c
t
-
0
3
F
e
b
-
0
5
J
u
l
-
0
6
N
o
v
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
9
A
u
g
-
1
0
D
e
c
-
1
1
U
s
a
g
e

(
m
g
d
)
Month-Year
Dominion Co-Gen
Halifax Linen
Kapstone Paper

Figure 2-9: Historical Wholesale Water Sold and Contractual Agreement Ranges
Current Contract Min
Current Contract Max
Current Contract Min
Current Contract Max
Original Contract Range
Original Contract Range
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
J
a
n
-
9
0
J
a
n
-
9
1
J
a
n
-
9
2
J
a
n
-
9
3
J
a
n
-
9
4
J
a
n
-
9
5
J
a
n
-
9
6
J
a
n
-
9
7
J
a
n
-
9
8
J
a
n
-
9
9
J
a
n
-
0
0
J
a
n
-
0
1
J
a
n
-
0
2
J
a
n
-
0
3
J
a
n
-
0
4
J
a
n
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
J
a
n
-
0
8
J
a
n
-
0
9
J
a
n
-
1
0
J
a
n
-
1
1
J
a
n
-
1
2
U
s
a
g
e

(
m
g
d
)
Month-Year
Historical Wholesale Demand
Halifax County
Northampton County
2.2.3.3 Historical Domestic Demand
We analyzed domestic demand by determining per capita water use. We
calculated per capita use by dividing total domestic use by the population
supplied. We determined the total domestic use from historical billing records.
We estimated the population supplied by multiplying the number of meters by the
Census 2000 official estimate of 2.42 persons per household for the City of
Roanoke Rapids. The calculated gallons per capita per day (gpcd) are shown in
Figure 2-10 for years 2003 to 2008. The per capita demand decreased
significantly in 2004 because of conservation, which is discussed in the next
section. Since 2004, annual per capita demand has averaged 82 gpcd.
The per capita demand shown in the chart includes small commercial users such
as restaurants, car washes, etc. but not non-revenue water.

Figure 2-10: Recent Per Capita Demand

93
83
82
80
85
79
70
75
80
85
90
95
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
G
a
l
l
o
n
s

P
e
r

C
a
p
i
t
a

P
e
r

D
a
y
Year
2.2.4 Conservation Measures
House Bill 1215 was ratified by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2002.
The Bill contains a number of provisions related to water conservation and water
supply planning, motivated by North Carolinas experience with the extreme
drought of 2002 and a heightened awareness to focus more attention on
assuring adequate water supply for future needs.
House Bill 1215 dealt with two types of water conservation. The first type was
conservation necessary on a short-term basis during droughts or other
emergency situations. The second type was year-round water use efficiency. The
bill directed the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to
pursue voluntary measures and incentives that increase long-range water use
efficiency.
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District responded by adopting a set of Water Shortage
Regulations in 2003 that addressed both conservation measures necessary on a
short-term basis during droughts and year-round water use efficiency guidelines
for its customers.
Conservation is evident from per capita demand trend. Figure 2-10 shows a clear
decrease in per capita demand between 2003 and 2004.
As Figure 2-10 shows, per capital demand has stabilized since 2004 varying from
85 to 79 gpd. This report assumes conservation will continue in the future.

2.2.5 Recent Water Use
The percentage of water produced for each type of consumption is shown in
Figure 2-11 for 2009.

Figure 2-11: Percentage of Domestic, Wholesale, and Industrial Water
Produced in 2009

Domestic
(Residential and
Commercial
Customers)
29%
Dominion Co-Gen
(Industrial)
3%
Halifax Linen
(Industrial)
2%
Kapstone Paper
(Industrial)
5%
Halifax County
(Wholesale)
31%
Northampton
County (Wholesale)
7%
Unmetered
23%
2009
2.3 Demand Projections and Water Requirements
After examining historical production and billing trends as described above, this
section describes demand projections and future water requirements.
2.3.1 Assumptions for Projections
In order to project water use, we made assumptions based on our study of
historical trends. Assumptions for projections are summarized below.
a) Domestic water use of 85 gallons per person per day
b) Population increase of approximately 120 people per year based on meter
trend
c) Domestic growth areas are shown in Figure 2-12, based on discussions with
District staff
d) Halifax County maximum day demand for the design year is equal to their
current contractual maximum.
e) Northampton County maximum day demand increases to 0.75 mgd by design
year
f) The Town of Weldon will receive a maximum of 2.0 mgd by 2010 and will
increase its supply from the District by 10% by the design year
g) For domestic, industrial, and wholesale demand, a maximum day peaking
factor of 1.57 was used
h) Industrial consumption will increase by 10 percent by the design year for each
of the three existing industrial customers
i) Water demand for new industries will increase the total industrial demand by
10 percent by the design year
j) Industrial growth will occur in areas outside Roanoke Rapids city limits, but
inside the District boundary as shown in Figure 2-13. This was based on
discussions with District staff
k) Peak hour demand multiplier is 1.3 for domestic, wholesale, and industrial
water users based on diurnal measurements made for the Districts Initial
Distribution System Evaluation in 2007
l) Design fire flow is 3,500 gpm, which is equivalent to 5.04 mgd

Figure 2-12: Anticipated Population Growth Areas for Residential and
Commercial Customers in RRSD


Figure 2-13: Areas for Industrial Growth

2.3.2 Water Requirements Summary
A summary of projected water requirements is shown in Table 2-4.
A water audit (Appendix A) was part of the Water Distribution System Master
Plan. Because the water audit revealed a notable amount of non-revenue water,
a percentage for water loss was added to estimate total system demands. For
future years, we assumed that the percent of water loss would decrease over
time as infrastructure is renewed or repaired.
Maximum day plus fire was the critical (largest) design flow for RRSD (15.9 mgd
in 2030). Maximum day demands by 2030, 10.9 mgd, do not exceed the water
treatment plants rated capacity of 12.5 mgd. However, District staff indicates that
the plant cannot currently achieve the rated capacity and estimate a maximum
treatment rate of 10 mgd.
The limitations on plant capacity need to be addressed before the maximum day
supply to the Town of Weldon can begin as shown in Figure 2-14. Figure 2-14
shows historical and predicted average and maximum day demands compared to
plant capacity.

Table 2-4: Projected Populations and Water Demands
Water Requirement 2010 2020 2030
Population Supplied 19,530 20,710 21,900
Domestic Consumption (mgd) 1.66 1.76 1.86
Industrial Use (mgd) 0.55 0.60 0.65
Wholesale Demand (mgd) 3.10 3.44 3.78
Non-Revenue Water (%) 20% 15% 10%
Non-Revenue Water (mgd) 1.06 0.87 0.63
Total Average Day Demand (mgd) 6.37 6.67 6.92
Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 10.0 10.5 10.9
Maximum Day Plus Fire (mgd) 15.0 15.5 15.9
Peak Hour Demand (mgd) 13.0 13.7 14.2
Note: See Section 3.1 for water requirement assumptions

Figure 2-14: Water Requirements and WTP Capacity

WTP Rated
Capacity
Average Day
Historical
Maximum Day
Historical
WTP Existing
Estimated Capacity
Predicted
Average Day
Predicted
Maximum Day
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
W
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
d
)
Year
Begin to Export
Water to Town
of Weldon
3 STORAGE AND PUMP EVALUATION
Two important components of RRSDs water distribution system are storage and
pumping. The storage and pumping capacities must be adequate for existing and
future water requirements. Storage and pumping capacities were evaluated for
existing and future conditions as described in this chapter.
3.1 Storage Requirements
Storage serves three purposes in a water system: it supplements production
during fires, equalizes demand on a daily basis, and supplies the system during
emergencies (for a limited period of time).
3.1.1 Elevated Storage
Fire storage provides fire flows while the WTP supplies maximum day demand.
For the worse case, we assumed a fire flow of 3,500 gpm for which the American
Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends a design duration of 3 hours.
Assuming a 3,500 gpm fire flow for 3 hours, the corresponding volume is 0.63
million gallons for the fire storage requirement.
Equalizing storage allows water to be pumped at a constant rate. Storage
depletes when demand is above average and fills when below average. The
amount of storage required depends on how much the demand varies. The
variation in demand over a 24-hour period is called the diurnal curve. A diurnal
curve was previously calculated from tank level data in a 2007 report titled
Water Distribution System Model Update and Calibration by Highfill
Infrastructure Engineering. This diurnal curve was examined, and the calculated
equalizing requirement was 8 percent of the total water used in a day. The
equalizing requirement is therefore 0.85 mg currently, 0.90 mg for 2020 and 0.94
mg for 2030 as shown in Table 3-1.
Equalizing storage and fire storage are usually combined to evaluate elevated
storage. The elevated storage requirement was compared with existing elevated
storage capacity to determine if more storage is needed.
Table 3-1: Water Distribution System Storage Evaluation

Units 2008 2010 2020 2030
Equalizing Storage
Percent from diurnal curve 8% 8% 8% 8%
Maximum Day mgd 8.08 10.03 10.51 10.90
Storage Needed mg 0.64 0.79 0.83 0.86
Fire Storage
Design Fire Flow gpm 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Duration hrs 3 3 3 3
Emergency Storage
Percent to Meet State Regulations 50% 50% 50% 50%
Average Day mgd 5.13 6.37 6.67 6.92
Total Storage Requirement
Elevated Storage mg 1.27 1.42 1.46 1.49
Emergency Storage mg 2.57 3.18 3.34 3.46
Existing Storage Capacity
Gaston mg 0.15*
Rapids Street mg 0.50
11th Street mg 0.50
Becker mg 0.50
Rectangular WTP clearwell mg 1.25 (0)
Circular WTP clearwell mg 2.00
Roanoke / Davie mg 0.50
I-95 mg 0.25
Total mg 5.65 (4.4)
Elevated Storage Summary
Required (Fire plus Equalizing) mg 1.27 1.42 1.46 1.49
Existing Capacity mg 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65
Surplus Storage mg 0.38 0.23 0.19 0.16
Emergency Storage Summary

Required (by State) mg 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.5
Existing Capacity mg 5.65 5.65 5.65 (4.4) 5.65 (4.4)
Surplus Storage mg 3.08 2.47 2.31 (1.1) 2.19 (0.9)
Notes:
WTP clearwells and County-owned tanks were not relied upon for equalizing or fire storage,
but could be used in an emergency. The District is considering removing the rectangular
WTP clearwell from operation due to its aging condition. Surplus emergency storage
would be 0.9 mg by 2030 in this case, as shown above in parentheses.
* Gaston tank rated at 200,000 gallons but operating capacity closer to 0.15 mg

As shown in Table 3-1, there is sufficient elevated storage both now and for 2030
(surplus of 0.16 mg and 2.19 mg, respectively).
3.1.2 Emergency Storage
Emergency storage supplies water when the normal sources are interrupted.
Emergency storage requirements are typically compared to the total elevated
and ground storage available in a system.
According to the Rules of Governing Public Water System published by the North
Carolina Department of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
combined elevated and ground storage of finished water shall be a minimum of
one-half a days supply of the average annual daily demand. This would be 3.18
mg for 2010 and 3.46 mg for 2030 as shown in Table 3-1.
Existing elevated and ground storage is 5.65 mg in total, or 4.4 mg if the
rectangular clearwell is taken out of service. In either case, there is sufficient
emergency storage currently and for 2030 projected demands. Therefore, RRSD
meets the current and the future requirements for emergency storage.
3.2 Pumping Evaluation
The firm capacity of the pumps at the water plant must meet maximum day
demands. Table 3-2 appears to show the existing pumps are adequate for
current and future conditions. Firm capacity is defined as the rated capacity with
the largest pump out of service (the Fairbanks Morse 400 hp pump in this case).
All pumps need to be taken offline occasionally for repairs and/or maintenance,
which means the remaining pumps in service must have enough capacity to
meet demand.
However, the diesel pump is not intended for regular use but as an emergency
pump, should power be lost at the WTP. Excluding the diesel pump, the firm
capacity is only 7.5 mgd, which is deficient.

Table 3-2: Pump Capacity Evaluation
million gallons per day (mgd) 2008 2010 2020 2030
Maximum Day Demand 8.08 10.03 10.51 10.90
Total Pump Capacity 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Firm Pump Capacity 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1
Pump Capacity Deficit - - - -
*Firm Pump Capacity No Diesel 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
*Pump Capacity Deficit No Diesel 0.60 2.5 3.0 3.4
*Assumes: Diesel pump (No. 4) is for emergency and short-term use only. Both inside pump
station pumps cannot be operating at the same time.

3.2.1 WTP Pump Recommendations
We recommend a new pump with the same rated flow as Pump 3 (4,400 gpm or
6.34 mgd). The required head of a new pump was estimated by running the
model under various demand conditions. Based on these results, we recommend
a pump that is efficient in the range of 235 to 255 feet of total dynamic head.
We also recommend testing Pump 2 (inside Fairbanks Morse) to determine the
wire-to-water efficiency for evaluating its replacement. This pump is nearly 60
years old and was designed for a TDH nearly 100 feet higher than existing
conditions. This pump may be operating at low efficiencies. Measuring its
efficiency would allow calculation of the time it would take to recover replacement
costs through reduced power costs.

3.2.2 Becker Pump Station
There is a new duplex pump station (completed November 2009) at the Becker
Tank. The pumps were originally designed to pump 1,050 gpm at 70 TDH, but
during factory testing each was able to pump 1,400 gpm. However; variable
frequency drives (VFDs) will automatically limit flow to 1,200 gpm.
There are two main purposes for the Becker Pump station. The main goal is to
pull water out of the Becker Tank, because this tank is 10 feet lower than the
Rapids Street and 11
th
Street Tanks, and the altitude valve closes to prevent
overflows. Consequently, the Becker Farms tank historically has gone for weeks
with little change in water level (little tank turnover). Inadequate tank turnover can
cause water quality problems. The second objective of this pump station is to
help deliver water south to Halifax County if demands rise with a new industrial
park currently under development.
District staff controls the pump station at the WTP, at the operator's discretion,
with flow rate as an adjustable parameter. VFDs are programmed to allow pumps
to run between 350 and 1200 gpm. There will be an automatic shut-off when the
tank level drops to half full, thus maintaining a reserve for fire protection. The
altitude valve on Becker tank can be controlled remotely enabling the operators
to postpone filling the tank until system demands have dropped.

4 HYDRAULIC MODELING
The hydraulic model was used for condition assessment by showing existing
hydraulic conditions, and for examining the future conditions. Deficiencies were
identified and the model was used to design improvements by studying
alternatives to correct existing problems and meet future demands. This chapter
explains the way in which the model was used and the criteria for assessing
modeling results. Results and recommendations are presented in the following
chapters.
4.1 Modeling Scenarios
First, we modeled existing conditions for average day, maximum day, and peak
hour demands to identify existing problems. Future demand scenario pressure
problems and fire flow deficiencies were identified and alternatives were tested in
the model to find the most efficient improvements that met design criteria. Peak
hourly demands were used to evaluate system pressures because these
demands represent the worst-case condition, with respect to pressure, that
customers would experience. Maximum day demand plus fire demands could
result in lower pressures, but fires are less common and the locations that would
experience low pressure are highly dependent on the location and size of the fire.
Average day conditions were used to examine water age as a surrogate for water
quality. Average day demand conditions were used to evaluate water age
because these demands represent the worst-case condition for water quality as
velocities are lower and therefore water age higher.
This hydraulic model used two types of simulations. The first type, steady state,
analyzed one moment in time. Steady state simulations were used to help size
pipes and pumps. The second type, extended period simulations, evaluate pump
and tank performance over time as well as water age.

4.2 Design Criteria
We compared the models predicted performance with design criteria for :
1. Pressures at the nodes
2. Head losses and velocities in the pipes
3. Fire flows
4. Tank and pump performance
4.2.1 Pressure
There are generally three design criteria for pressures: maximum pressure,
minimum pressure during peak hour, and minimum pressure during a fire flow.
Generally, maximum pressures should be no greater than 150 psi which is the
nominal pressure rating of some distribution system piping and fittings. Some
utilities require pressure-reducing valves on the service lines to individual
customers when pressures exceed 80 psi.
The minimum pressure during peak hour refers to minimum pressure at
customers taps during the highest demand. This value is typically in the range of
30-50 psi and ensures that there is adequate pressure to second story fixtures.
The minimum pressure during fire flows, as recommended by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), is 20 psi. This pressure is the minimum pressure
anywhere in the distribution system. The value of 20 psi is used because it
prevents backflow or groundwater contamination and provides head for
overcoming the friction losses in the hydrant branch, hydrant, and suction hoses
to the pumper truck during a fire.
4.2.2 Head Loss and Velocities
In general, a distribution system is considered to be deficient if the following
conditions are predicted:
1. Velocities greater than 5 ft/sec
2. Head losses greater than 5 ft/1,000 ft (about 10 psi per mile)
When designing larger pipes (16-inch or greater) the goal is to keep head losses
less than 2 ft/1,000 feet (about 5 psi per mile).
Head losses and velocities exceeding the criteria can indicate excessive loss of
energy, which might require additional pumping. They are not absolute limits,
because even though the operating costs can be substantial over the life of the
pipe, it must be compared to the capital cost of new pipes to correct the deficient
piping. It is important to note that as velocity increases, pipe head losses
increase exponentially. As velocities approach 10 ft/sec, the potential exists for
other problems, such as water hammer, to emerge.
4.2.3 Fire Flows
Table 4-1 summarizes needed fire flows for one-and two-family residences as
recommended in the AWWA Manual of Practice on Distribution System
Requirements for Fire Protection.

Table 4-1: Needed Fire Flows for One- and Two-family Residences

Distance Between Buildings (ft) Needed Fire Flow (gpm)
More than 100 500
31-100 750
11-30 1,000
Less than 11 1,400

At 20 psi
In the model, nodes on pipes with diameters less than 6 inches were not
considered for fire flow analysis because fire hydrants are only allowed on
pipelines that are 6-inches or larger, according to the Rules Governing Public
Water Systems by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
4.2.4 Tank and Pump Performance
Elevated storage tanks supply water for short periods of peak demand and
should remain at least half full to maintain a reserve for fire protection or other
emergencies.
Tanks by themselves do not produce water to supply a distribution system
because the net flow over 24 hours is zero. The 24-hour average demand must
be supplied by the WTP and purchased supplies. WTP capacity plus purchased
water must be equal to or greater than the maximum day demand of a water
distribution system.
Pump operations must ensure that the tanks cycle (fill and empty) enough to
prevent excessive water age and thus ensure good water quality. General criteria
for pump operations is to allow the tank levels to drop as much as possible while
still providing adequate fire flow and emergency storage. The larger the range in
water level for each tank, the lower water age will be.

5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The condition of the distribution system was assessed in three ways. The first
was by performing field tests. The second was by examining RRSD records and
interviewing District staff to deduce the age and condition of the pipes. The third
was running the hydraulic model under existing demands and operations to
determine pressures and available fire flows system-wide.
5.1 Field Tests
Field tests help show the general condition of the existing piping system. These
tests serve three purposes:
1. Produce input data needed for the hydraulic model
2. Obtain information for calibrating the model
3. Check for unusual conditions such as closed valves or mapping errors
Four types of tests were performed for this master plan. They included a master
meter test, hydraulic gradient tests, C-factor or loss of head tests, and fire flow
tests. These tests were used to further validate the model, which was last
calibrated in 2007, and check for any unusual conditions as discussed below.
5.1.1 Master Meter Test
A meter test compares master meter registration to flow rates measured by
another instrument. Our meter tests compare meter registration to pitot tube
measurements of the flow in a pipe, rather than simply checking electronic
calibration of a transducer. Many meters, including the Districts master meter at
the WTP, have a primary device (a Venturi tube in this case), and a secondary
element, such as a differential pressure transducer, which converts the physical
output to an electronic signal. An inaccurate primary device causes meter error
even if the secondary element is calibrated correctly.
The master meter test was conducted on September 15, 2009. It compared the
meter totalizer for the 20-inch pipe leaving the WTP to pitometer flow
measurements. Pitometers are pitot tubes that are inserted into a pipe through a
corporation tap which the District installed prior to testing. Flowing water
produced a differential pressure between the upstream and downstream orifices
of the pitot tube. Water velocities were calculated from the measured differential
pressures. The average velocity was determined by conducting a velocity profile
along the vertical diameter of the 20-inch pipe, as shown by Figure 5-1. The
profile has a typical bullet shape for velocities within a pipe. The inside diameter
was measured with a pipe caliper. The area of the pipe was calculated from the
diameter, and the flow rate was determined by multiplying the area of the pipe by
the average velocity.

Figure 5-1: Velocity Profile for 20-inch Pipe

Table 5-1 shows the results of the meter test. The 20-inch meter was tested for
five different flow rates. The different flow rates were achieved by running
various pump combinations.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

B
o
t
t
o
m

-
i
n
c
h
e
s
Velocity - feet per second
Average Maximum Minimum
Table 5-1: Master Meter Test
Description Results
Location Roanoke Rapids WTP
Name BIF Series 41969
Meter Size 20 X 13.318
Multiplier 1,000,000

Gauging Point Data
Pipe Size - inches 20
Inside Diameter - inches 20.250
Velocity Factor 0.706

Test Date - 2009 September 15
Test Number: 1
2 3 4 5
Totalizer Registration- gal 0.062 0.078 0.145 0.087 0.117*
Elapsed Time - minutes 29.71 29.97 30.43 16.05 19.86
Pump(s) In Use:
No. 1: PACO X X X
No. 2: Inside FM X
No. 3: Outside 400 HP X X X

Pitometer Flow - mgd 2.87 4.03 7.44 8.57 9.35
Master Meter Flow - mgd 3.01 3.75 6.86 7.81 8.48

Totalizer Error
4.6% -7.0% -7.8% -8.9% -9.2%

Notes: * Control valve to Gaston closed during test.

Negative sign indicates meter is under-registering flow
Flow outside design range of meter. Test disregarded.

The lowest flow showed the meter was over-registering. This flow was outside
the design range of the meter, so the result was disregarded. The next four flow
rates consistently indicated the meter was under-registering between 7.0% and
9.2%. This is a significant inaccuracy.
We recommend contacting the master meter manufacturer or supplier to adjust
the primary and/or secondary metering element to agree with measured flows.
We also recommend that all system master meters have their primary devices
tested annually to verify their performance.
Remaining field tests and the water audit (Appendix A) accounted for the under-
registering meter when flow rates were used in calculations.
5.1.2 Hydraulic Gradient Tests
Hydraulic gradient is the change in hydraulic grade line (HGL) with distance.
The HGL is the ground elevation plus water pressure expressed in feet.
Hydraulic gradient tests consist of simultaneous flow and pressure
measurements along trunk mains between the water plant and tanks. Plotting
measured HGLs versus distance shows where head loss occurs along
important trunk mains. Comparing measured HGLs and flows with model
predictions is a method of calibrating the model.
Two hydraulic gradient tests were performed for this study. Test 1 traced the
hydraulic gradient from the WTP to Rapids Street Tank. The test also
measured HGLs at two sites along the 20-inch pipe in Henry Street. The test
was conducted for two conditions: with a large flow from the water plant
(HGL 1-A) and with a fire hydrant flowing at 11
th
Street (HGL 1-B) as shown in
Figure 5-2. Test 2 traced the hydraulic gradient from the WTP to Becker Farm
Tank with large flow from the water plant as shown in Figure 5-3.
The Table 5-2 shows the results from the HGL field tests compared to the
model results. The locations of the measurements are shown in Figure 5-2
and Figure 5-3 for reference.
To match the model to the measurements for HGL 1, we had to assume
several valves were closed as shown in Figure 5-4. For HGL 1-A, the model
calibration indicates that a 12-inch valve is closed on 8
th
Street between
Wilson Street and Rapids Street Tank. Valve status records indicate a broken
valve in that area. Due to the age of the system, valves that are broken in the
closed position are not surprising. We recommend locating the closed valve
and repairing or replacing it as soon as possible to improve fire flow
availability.

Figure 5-2: Hydraulic Grade Line Test 1, WTP to Rapids Tank


Figure 5-3: Hydraulic Grade Line Test 2, WTP to Becker Farm Tank

Table 5-2: Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL), Calibration Results

Location Distance (ft)
Measured
HGL (ft)
Calibrated
Model HGL (ft)
HGL 1-A

WTP - 350 352
Henry Street & 1st Street 3,500 345 345
Franklin Street & 5th Street 6,400 340 340
Bolling Road & Wilson Street 8,300 340 340
Rapids Street Tank 10,500 327 327

HGL 1-B

WTP - 335 333
Henry Street & 1st Street 3,500 330 330
Henry Street & 8th Street 8,800 325 327

HGL 2

WTP - 354 353
311 Carolina Street 5,300 339 339
Carolina Street & 8
th
Street 8,200 335 335
11th Street Tank 10,800 322 322
Kelly Street & Long Circle 15,600 313 312
Old Farm Road 20,900 306 306
Becker Farm Tank 22,100 305 305
Notes
The Gaston control valve was open during all HGL tests.

Pumps 1 and 3 operating. Measured = 8.49 mgd, model = 8.37 mgd (1.4 % difference).
Pump 3 operating, hydrant flow on 11

th
Street was 460 gpm (measured and model)
Pumps 1 and 3 operating. Measured = 8.68 mgd, model = 8.57mgd (1.3% difference).

For HGL 1-B, the model calibration indicates that two valves are closed near
the location of the flowing hydrant on 11
th
Street (near the ball park). Figure
5-5 shows the most likely locations of these closed valves. Again, we
recommend locating the closed valves and repairing or replacing them as
soon as possible to improve fire flow availability.
For HGL 2, only minor modifications to the models roughness coefficients
and elevations were made to calibrate the predicted HGLs with the field
measurements. Results are shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-6. Notable is the
steep loss in head between 8
th
Street and 11
th
Street. This loss is due to a
restriction in the system as water flows through 16-inch pipes until it reaches
10
th
Street where the pipe sizes reduce to 8-inches until reaching the 11
th

Street Tank.

Figure 5-4: HGL 1-A and 1-B, Calibration Results

W
T
P
H
e
n
r
y

&

1
s
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

&

5
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
l
l
i
n
g

R
d

&

W
i
l
s
o
n

S
t
R
a
p
i
d
s

T
a
n
k
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500
H
G
L

-
f
e
e
t
Distance from WTP - feet
(A) HGL 1-A
Measured
Calibrated Model with 12-inch Valve Closed on 8th Street
Model with all valves open
W
T
P
H
e
n
r
y

S
t
.

&

1
s
t

S
t
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t

&

5
t
h

S
t
H
e
n
g
r
y

S
t

&

8
t
h

S
t
1
1
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t
300
310
320
330
340
350
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500
H
G
L

-
f
e
e
t
Distance from WTP - feet
(B) HGL 1-B
Measured
Calibrated Model (Valves Closed)
Model with valves open

Figure 5-5: Pipes with Possible Closed Valves near 11
th
Street Ball Park

Figure 5-6: HGL 2, Calibration Results

W
T
P
1
1
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

T
a
n
k
K
e
l
l
y

S
t

&

L
o
n
g

C
i
r
c
l
e
B
e
c
k
e
r

F
a
r
m

T
a
n
k
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
H
G
L

-
f
e
e
t
Distance - feet
Calibrated Model Measured
District staff notes that the Roanoke Rapids Fire Department, approximately ten
years ago, had inadequate fire flow in the area during a fire at the Heilig-Meyers
Furniture Store, likely due to the hydraulic constriction.
5.1.3 C-Factor Tests
C-factor tests, also called loss of head tests, determine the friction coefficient C
in the Hazen-Williams equation. This equation relates head loss to the flow in a
pipe with the coefficient, a smoothness indicator. A typical coefficient of a new
pipe is 140. Computer models need accurate C-factor data to simulate hydraulic
performance.
Each test consisted of measuring flow, head loss and pipe length, and calculating
the coefficient for a known pipe diameter. Flow was measured using a hydrant
pitot blade or a meter at the water plant. Head loss was measured using digital
pressure gauges connected to hydrants on the upstream and downstream ends
of the test section. The length of the test section was measured using a
measuring wheel or scaled from the hydraulic model
Table 5-3 shows the results of the loss of head tests. Not surprisingly for an
unlined pipe installed before 1935, the C factor along Roanoke Avenue was low
(43) indicating the interior of the pipe is tuberculated and head losses are high.
The pipe segments tested along 2
nd
Street and 10
th
Street were installed around
1947 based on available maps of the distribution system and hydrant dates.
Lined pipe did not become predominant for most water distribution systems until
after World War II. Although these pipes were installed around 1947, shortly after
World War II ended, the results of the C-factor test make it clear that the two test
segments were unlined cast iron based on their low C-factors (Table 5-3). The
low C-factor indicates significant tuberculation and high head losses. We
assumed other pipes installed in 1947 were also unlined.
We attempted to conduct a C-factor test on one of the pipes near the WTP. This
was not possible because the valves in the yard of the WTP were inoperable.
Therefore, the test was cancelled.

Table 5-3: Summary of Loss of Head Tests
Location
Size
(inches)
Pipe Age
(yrs)
Material Lining
Date
Installed
C-
Factor
Roanoke
Avenue
Jackson to
Middle of 10th
and 11
th
St.
8 75 Cast Iron none <1935 43
2nd
Street
Harvey Circle to
White Ave
6 63 Cast Iron none 1947 37
10th
Street
Jefferson St. to
Marshall St.
6 63 Cast Iron none 1947 47
Gaston

Road
WTP to Craige
Street
12 33
Ductile
Iron
cement 1977 -
WTP
Yard 20 45
Ductile
Iron
cement 1965 -
Notes:

Gaston Road test discussed below. WTP test cancelled due to inoperable valves.

A C-factor test was attempted on Gaston Road from the WTP to Craige Street.
However, the test produced unexpected results as illustrated in Figure 5-7.
First, the downstream end for the test was a hydrant on Craig Street. This
location was chosen because of the accessibility of the hydrant. However, we
subsequently discovered that a check valve was located just south of Gardner
Drive. The measured head loss was produced not only by the pipe but also by
the check valve. Thus the results of the test are questionable.
Figure 5-7 shows a hydraulic grade line during the C-factor test along with model
results. The measurements indicate a very large head loss between the Gaston
meter and the bridge on Gaston Road (16 feet). The flow meter at the plant
showed the flow to Gaston at the time of the test was 0.38 mgd. The model,
however, shows a much larger flow (> 900 gpm) when two pumps are running at
the WTP. An inaccuracy in the Gaston meter is possible, or there may be a
partially closed valve or other restriction in this section of pipe. The C-factor
calculated between the Gaston meter and the bridge was less than 44. For a
lined pipe installed in the late 1970s, this is unexpected.


Figure 5-7: Hydraulic Grade Line, WTP to Craige Street

This pipe is most likely lined ductile iron and a C-factor of at least 120 was
expected. A photograph of 45-degree bend removed in 2008 confirms that the
interior of the pipe is fairly smooth as shown in Figure 5-8. Figure 5-8, however,
also shows an expansion coupling from the same pipeline removed in the same
year. The coupling was highly tuberculated indicating the C factor could be much
lower. The pipe condition was inconsistent from these photographs. We
recommend investigating this section of pipe by installing taps for pressure and
flow measurements.

G
a
s
t
o
n

M
e
t
e
r
S
o
u
t
h

S
i
d
e

o
f

B
r
i
d
g
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t

o
n

C
r
a
i
g
e
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
H
e
a
d

(
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

+

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

i
n

f
e
e
t
)
Distrance from Gaston Meter (ft)
Model
Measured (+)
Measured
Measured (-)
Calculated C-factor
ranges from 13 to 44
Calculated C-factor ranges
from 33 to 113
Assumed C-factor of 120

Figure 5-8: Gaston Road 12-Inch Pipe Fittings Removed in 2008

45-Degree Bend
Expansion Coupling
5.1.4 Fire Flow Tests
Fire flow tests show the strengths and weaknesses of the system at particular
test locations and the test measurements can be used to calibrate models.
Figure 5-9 shows the location of fire flow tests we performed for the District.
A fire flow test consists of measuring the static pressure with the hydrants closed,
then opening a nearby hydrant and measuring the residual pressure and the flow
rate.
Table 5-4 summarizes the fire flow test results. The table shows the location of
the test, and static and residual pressures of the test hydrant. The table also
shows the flow during the test and the available flow at 20 psi, which is the
lowest acceptable pressure in a water system.
Estimated needed fire flows, which depend on land use (types and sizes of
buildings) are shown in Figure 2-6 and are also included in Table 5-4. Only one
location was deficient because the needed flow exceeded the available flow.
Improvements to reinforce these areas are discussed in a later chapter.
The fire flow tests were also used for further model calibration as shown in Table
5-5. Minor model adjustments were made to elevations and C-factors in most
cases. All fire flow tests were within 3 psi of model predictions except for one.
Fire flow tests which indicated unexpected conditions are discussed in detail
below.


Figure 5-9: Fire Flow Test Locations

Table 5-4: Fire Flow Test Results
Test
No
Test Hydrant Location Pressure (psi)
Test
Flow
20-psi
Flow
Needed
Flow
Closed Open gpm gpm gpm

1
11
th
St. & Cedar St.
62 60 1,230 6,400 1,000
2
Branch Ln. & Carver St.
58 25 1,060 1,100 750
3
Robison Dr. & Jeffrey Cir.
61 56 750 2,300 1,000
4
Lake Pointe Dr. & Landfall Ct.
60 42 1,060 1,600 1,000
5
5th St. & Oakwood Ave.
64 56 390 1,000 1,000
6
4th St. & Washington St.
82 76 900 3,200 1,000
7
Bay St. & Craige St.
75 60 1,380 2,800 1,000
8
Broughton St. & Huey St.
60 44 950 1,600 1,000
9
Holly Rd. & Arbutus East Dr.
92 54 1,110 1,600 1,000
10
Hunting Ridge Rd. & Harvest Rd.
89 70 1,110 2,200 1,000
11
Carolina Crossroads Highway
72 40 1,290 1,700
2,500
12
Daniel St. & Brook St.
74 34 1,010 1,200 1,000
Notes:
Deficient fire flow at 20 psi.

Table 5-5: Model Calibration with Fire Flow Test Results
No. Location
Test
Flow
(gpm)
Static
Pressure (psi)
Model
Error
(psi)
Residual
Pressure (psi)
Model
Error
(psi))
Actual Model Actual Model
1 11
th
St. & Cedar St. 1,230 62 62 0 60 60 0
2 Branch Ln. & Carver St. 1,060 58 57 -1 25 24 -1
3 Robison Dr. & Jeffrey Cir. 750 61 60 -1 56 54 -2
4 Lake Pointe Dr. & Landfall Ct. 1,060 60 59 -1 42 40 -2
5 5th St. & Oakwood Ave. 390 64 65 1 56 55 -1
6 4th St. & Washington St. 900 82 83 1 76 78 2
7 Bay St. & Craige St. 1,380 75 77 2 60 59 -1
8 Broughton St. & Huey St. 950 60 61 1 44 43 -1
9 Holly Rd. & Arbutus East Dr. 1,110 92 89 -3 54 56 2
10 Hunting Ridge Rd. & Harvest Rd. 1,110 88 86 -2 70 70 0
11 Carolina Crossroads Highway 1,290 72 72 0 40 43 3
12 Daniel St. & Brook St. 1,010 74 72 -2 34 19 -15

5.1.4.1 Fire Flow Test Number 5
Initially, the predicted residual pressure for Test 5 did not match the
measurement. We assumed the pipes in this area were installed around 1957
(and therefore lined) because old reports indicate the distribution system
expanded west significantly in 1957 when lined pipes were in predominate use.
Checking the hydrant dates, hydrants on 5
th
Street in this area were dated 1956,
so it is reasonable to assume the pipes in the area are lined. Also, hydrants were
dated 1976 on the north end of Oakwood Avenue showing the neighborhood was
expanded.
However, because the pipes are lined, their C factors were assumed to be 100
which is relatively low for lined pipe. Despite the low C factor, to match the test
results, we had to assume that a valve is closed in the area. The most likely
locations are shown in Figure 5-10. We recommend exercising valves in the area
to determine if any are closed.
The model could not match the residual pressure for Test 10 without assuming a
closed valve on Hunting Ridge Road. The predicted residual pressure was 7 psi
higher than the measurement without assuming all valves were open. We
recommend checking the valves in this area.
The model could not match residual pressure in Test 11 unless it assumed that
water cannot flow into RRSD from the I-95 tank. District staff could not confirm a
check valve along I-95, but Halifax County staff indicated that all their master
meters have back-flow preventers. In this case, the back-flow preventer at the
NC 125 meter acts as a check valve. This means water can flow from RRSD to
Halifax County toward the I-95 tank, but not in the opposite direction. We added
a check valve to the model to obtain the results shown in Table 4-5. A
recommendation to improve available fire flow at this location is provided in
section 6.1.2.2.

Figure 5-10: Fire Flow Test 5 Results - Pipes with Possible Closed Valve
The model was unable to match the measured residual pressures for Test 12 as
shown in Figure 5-11. We assumed the pipes in the area were installed around
1957 during the District expansion because they do not appear on the 1935 map
of the system, but they do appear on the maps from a 1963 distribution system
study. Hydrants in the area were dated 1956 (or later on the outskirts of the
neighborhood), which confirmed our age assumption and that the pipes were
lined.
The measured residual pressure was far higher than the predicted residual
pressure. This means the model calculates too much head loss. Even when all
1976 Hydrant Date
1956 Hydrant Date
the pipes in the area are given C factors of 120 or 140 (which is higher than
would be expected for lined pipe installed in 1957), the residual pressure in the
model is still 15 psi lower than measured.
One possible reason for this discrepancy is pipe diameters that are larger than
records indicate. Another possibility is an additional pipeline connected to the
area that was not indicated in mapping records, perhaps off Hinson Street. A
third possible explanation is a cross connection between RRSD and Halifax
County piping. County pipes run parallel with RRSD pipes along Highway 158
(Littleton Road) through the Hales Branch Subdivision. We recommend
confirming that the two systems are isolated at this location.

Figure 5-11: Fire Flow Test Number 12

5.2 Other Methods of Condition Assessment
We also assessed the conditions of the distribution system by examining RRSD
records and interviewing District staff to deduce the age and condition of the
pipes. Additionally, the model was used to assess fire flow and pressure
deficiencies.
5.2.1 Pipe Age and Material
We determined the age of pipes installed since 1963 by interviewing District staff
who provided the year of installation from construction drawings. Pipes installed
after 1963 were assumed to be lined ductile iron if larger than 8-inch and PVC for
8-inch and smaller pipes, because District specifications require pipes larger than
8 inches to be ductile iron.
Pipe installation dates before 1963 were not readily available. Therefore, two
distribution system maps were used to estimate installation dates. The first was a
map of the original system dated 1935. Pipe installed before 1945 were typically
unlined cast iron with lead joints, so we assumed all pipes shown on the 1935
map were unlined cast iron. The other available map was from a 1963 Pitometer
study. Pipes in the 1963 map that were not on the 1935 map could be lined or
unlined cast iron. We checked fire hydrant dates in these areas for a more
precise installation date estimate. Based on field testing (Table 5-3), assumed
any pipes installed between 1935 and 1950 were unlined cast iron. Those
installed between 1951 and 1963 were assumed to be lined cast iron. Figure
5-12 shows the estimated pipe installation dates.
Galvanized iron pipe or GIP has not been commonly installed in water
distribution systems for many years. According to District staff, older pipes less
than 6 inches in diameter are typically GIP at RRSD. However, because the
Districts model contained very few pipes smaller than 6 inches, these pipes
could not be included in our analysis. We recommend replacing all GIP still in
service.

Figure 5-12: Estimated Pipe Installation Dates

5.2.2 Main Breaks: Replacement and Repairs
The District provided geospatial records of pipes repaired and replaced since
2002. Figure 5-13 shows the pipes repaired and Figure 5-14 shows those
replaced since that time.
Staff indicates that in most instances, repaired pipes were either laterally split
from excessive pressure or deteriorated pipe wall thickness, or radial cracks from
temperature change. Some repair clamps were used to fix leaking joints, but
primarily, repairs shown in Figure 5-13 were main breaks.
5.2.3 Valve Status
The District currently has a valve rehabilitation project that includes physically
examining all distribution system valves and documenting their status. Those
given a status of broken, leaking, or hard to turn are shown below in Figure 5-15.
The valve rehabilitation project is ongoing, and not all valves had been checked
yet. Nonetheless, Figure 5-15 shows that most valves in poor condition are
located in older sections of the distribution system.


Figure 5-13: Pipes Repaired since 2002


Figure 5-14: Pipes Replaced since 2002


Figure 5-15: Broken, Leaking, or Hard to Turn Valves October 2009

5.2.4 Available Fire Flows
Flow available to fight fires is highly dependent on the condition of pipes. If a pipe
is tuberculated, for example, it is the hydraulic equivalent of a smaller diameter
pipe and reduces the available flow at a certain pressure. We used the hydraulic
model to calculate available fire flows at 20 psi assuming the worst-case
condition, maximum day demands with tanks roughly half full, as shown in Figure
5-16. Figure 5-17 shows deficient fire flows, which are those that are less than
the estimated needed fire flows (Figure 2-6).
5.2.5 Pressure
The model showed no pressures lower than 40 psi under existing peak hour
demand conditions. The model checked the worst-case condition of peak hour
demand on the maximum day of the year with tanks approximately half full.


Figure 5-16: Available Fire Flows with Existing System


Figure 5-17: Deficient Fire Flows with Existing System

6 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A description of the existing system was presented above in the condition
assessment. This chapter will focus on the cause of the hydraulic problems
determined from modeling existing and future conditions and recommend
improvements.
Two design years were considered for future conditions: 2010 and 2030. We
used 2010 to represent the year when RRSD will start exporting water to the
Town of Weldon (although this may happen in a later year depending on the
circumstances). For 2010 we have assumed minimal increase in existing
domestic demand at the same locations. A small increase in industrial demand at
the same locations was also assumed as shown in Table 2-4. For wholesale
demand (or water exported), we assumed the same average volume of water to
Halifax and Northampton Counties, but we also added demand from the Town of
Weldon.
6.1.1 Town of Weldon Connection 2010
There were three points considered for connections to the Town of Weldon,
which we assumed will begin purchasing water soon. The Town of Weldon is
considering a ground storage tank at the selected connection point to help
maintain reliability. Each Weldon connection option is shown in Figure 6-1 and
described below:
Option 1 Connection on US 158: The Town of Weldon has a 12-inch
water line at the intersection of Country Club Road and US 158. The
District would connect to the Town of Weldon at this location. District staff
indicates that siting a ground storage tank would be relatively expensive in
this area due to existing development and terrain.
Option 2 Connection at Wallace Fork Road: The Town of Weldon has an
existing 8-inch water line at the intersection of County Road (SR 1600)
and Wallace Fork Road. District staff indicates it is probably the best site
for a ground storage tank if required by Weldon. The District currently has
an existing 8-inch water line in Wallace Fork Road that can be used for
this connection.
Option 3 Connection through Northampton County: The third option for
connecting to Weldon uses the existing piping owned and operated by
Northampton County and existing piping through Garysburg. Water would
be supplied to Weldon via the Northampton County system through a new
12-inch RRSD pipeline connecting the 16-inch water pipe at the
intersection of Carolina Street and 3
rd
Street to Northamptons system
near the intersection of NC 46 and I-95. This new RRSD transmission
main is intended to provide redundancy between RRSD, Northampton
County, and Gaston. From I-95 water would travel through 12-inch
Northampton County piping eastward through the town of Garysburg
piping (various diameters) and south through an existing 8-inch water line
in US 301 between Weldon and Garysburg.


Figure 6-1: Possible Town of Weldon Connections

6.1.1.1 Recommended Weldon Connection
In Option 2, the model shows the 8-inch water line in Wallace Fork Road would
have very high head loss when supplying 2 mgd to Weldon. Even if a larger
parallel pipe was installed in Wallace Fork Road (approximately 4,500 feet), there
still would be approximately 38 feet of head loss along the existing I-95 piping
from US 158 (Allsbrook Highway) to the northern end of Carolina Crossroads
Highway. Pressures also drops below 40 psi during peak hour demands in the
Carolina Crossroads commercial area with a connection at this location, and
therefore it is not recommended.
The pressures for Option 3, supplying Weldon through Northampton County,
would depend on the hydraulics of the Northampton and Garysburg water
distribution systems. Northampton and Garysburg hydraulic models were not
available for this project. Therefore, we simplified the system and assumed the
piping would act like an express transmission main from RRSD to Town of
Weldon. Under these conditions on a maximum day, pressures between I-95 and
the Town of Weldon drop below 20 psi due to head loss over the relatively long
distances, and therefore this option is not recommended.
We recommend Option 1, connecting to the Town of Weldon on US 158. It is the
most direct connection, and the other two options create hydraulic problems that
would be more costly to remedy than Option 1. Option 1 hydraulics are discussed
below. All future modeling scenarios discussed hereafter will assume water is
supplied to Weldon on US 158. Connecting to this point would require
approximately 3,000 feet of 12-inch pipe extending from Becker Drive, just east
of I-95, crossing the District boundary into Town of Weldon via Fairground Lane.

6.1.2 Hydraulics with Future Demands
Under maximum day demands, the Becker Tank drains quickly due to the
proximity of the tank to the Weldon connection and the weak links between the
Becker Tank and the 11
th
Street Tank. Figure 6-2 shows the lack of large
diameter pipes between tanks. Figure 6-3 shows how the main zone tank levels
would react to various flows to Weldon with the connection on US 158. The low
(and empty) levels in Becker Tank would result in low system pressures in the
areas around the tank. The only way to prevent low system pressures and
maintain water levels in the Becker Tank would be to over-pressurize the rest of
the system using the WTP pumps. Such a change in pressures would likely
result in many water main breaks and tank water quality problems and is not
recommended.
With less than 2 mgd supplied to Weldon, the connection problem between tanks
is not as problematic, shown in Figure 6-3. Therefore, some flow to Weldon can
be provided without improvements. Improvements to obtain the desired
maximum day supply to Weldon are discussed below.
Demands are expected to increase in the next 20 years as projected in Chapter
2. Increased demands will change the hydraulics of the system. For an initial
2030 analysis, we assumed that system rehabilitation will be complete by 2030
for GIP and unlined cast iron pipe.
As in 2010 (or the year RRSD starts supply to Weldon), Becker Tank levels float
much lower than the other tanks in the main zone and an adequate water level
cannot be maintained. Therefore, without improvements, pressures remain below
design criteria as shown in Figure 6-4.


Figure 6-2: Pipes with Diameters 12-inch and Larger in Main Pressure Zone


Figure 6-3: Tank Levels Under Varying Supplies to Weldon
6.1.2.1 Recommendations to Improve Tank Performance
The hydraulic connection between the tanks of the main zone (Rapids, 11
th

Street, and Becker) is not strong as shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3. This
causes significant head losses and prevents the tanks from floating together.
Therefore, strengthening the connection between tanks is recommended.
As illustrated in Figure 6-5 for maximum day demand in 2030 with the
recommended improvements, the tanks will float together and will prevent Becker
Tank levels from dropping quickly as it helps to supply Weldon. Figure 6-5 also
shows how well the tanks float together depends on the diameter of pipes
chosen. We recommend that 16-inch pipe be used between all tanks from this
analysis. A proposed route is shown in Figure 6-6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
Rapids 11th Street Becker
H
e
a
d

(
f
t
)
Tank Name
Tank Range 2 mgd Exported to Weldon 1 mgd Exported to Weldon 0.5 mgd Exported to Weldon

Figure 6-4: 2030 Peak Hour Pressures without Improvements


Figure 6-5: Average Daily Tank Levels with Tank Connection Alternatives
We also recommend that the pipes between 11
th
Street Tank and Becker Tank
be installed before Weldon demand reaches the maximum. The need for this
improvement is shown in Figure 6-3. The pipeline between Rapids and 11
th

Street tanks is not as crucial to the hydraulics of the Weldon supply and can be
installed later as system demands increase (causing more pumping and
therefore more head loss to remedy between Rapids and 11
th
Street tanks).
Recommended phases are summarized with cost estimates in Chapter 9.
Additionally, such improvements will help to reduce the number of deficient fire
flows.
If the District does not supply water to Weldon, strengthening the connection
between tanks is still recommended. The connection will improve water quality by
allowing the Rapids and 11
th
Street Tank levels to cycle lower without
compromising fire protection supplied by Becker Tank. Phasing of the tank
connections will depend on District demands, similar to increasing Weldon
demands as shown in Figure 6-3.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
Rapids 11th Street Becker
H
e
a
d

(
f
t
)
Tank Name
Tank Range
Existing Infrastructure (with rehabilitation)
12 inch transmission mains
16 inch transmission mains

Figure 6-6: Proposed Route for Improvements to Tank Hydraulic
Connections

6.1.2.2 Recommendations to Improve Fire Flows
Many deficient fire flows are remedied after pipes are rehabilitated. Infrastructure
renewal is discussed in detail in Chapter 8. Each area in the model that still had
deficient fire flow after rehabilitation (either cleaning and lining or replacement
with same diameter pipe) was examined to determine the needed improvements
to provide adequate fire flow. The recommended improvements are discussed
below.
The following deficient fire flows are connectivity problems. Electronic mapping
records received from the District show that the pipes at certain intersections are
not physically connected. It is possible that the pipes in the real world are actually
connected and the electronic records are inaccurate. This should be checked in
the field before proceeding.
Assuming mapping records are accurate and that C-factors for unlined pipe have
been restored to 120 (as outlined in the infrastructure renewal plan in Chapter 8),
we recommend the following connectivity improvements to improve available fire
flows as described below.
Jackson Street: As shown in Figure 6-7, there are two locations off
Jackson Street between 5
th
Street and 6
th
Street that require 2,500 gpm.
Electronic mapping records indicate that the 8-inch pipe in 5
th
Street is not
connected to the 6-inch pipe in Jackson Street. Without a connection,
head loss is too great to provide 2,500 gpm at 20 psi. Making the
connection provides 2,600 gpm at the hydrant on Jackson Street. The
hydrant off of the dead-end 6-inch pipe, however, will only be able to
provide 1,900 gpm without further improvements. An 8-inch pipe along 6
th

Street between Jackson Street and Roanoke Ave (Figure 6-7) is
recommended to provide 2,600 gpm to the dead-end hydrant.
8
th
and 9
th
Streets: There was also a deficient fire flow on the 6-inch pipe
between Jackson Street and Roanoke Avenue near 8
th
Street and at the
intersection of 9
th
Street (Figure 6-8). By connecting this 6-inch pipe to the
6-inch pipe in 8
th
Street, there is adequate fire flow at both locations.

Figure 6-7: Deficient Fire Flow on Jackson Street Between 5
th
and 6
th

Streets


Figure 6-8: Deficient Fire Flows on 8
th
and 9
th
Streets

Monroe Street: There is industrial zoning, assumed to require 3,500
gpm, off Monroe Street between 10
th
and 11
th
Streets. Fire flows were
deficient in this area as shown in Figure 5-17. Further investigation
showed several 6-inch pipes surrounding an industrial building. The
pipes were added to the model but some locations around the building
were still less than 3,500 gpm. Electronic mapping records show that 6-
inch pipes in 10
th
Street are not connected to the 6-inch pipe in the alley
between Jackson and Madison Streets. Records also show the 6-inch
piping on Henry Street is not connected to the 20-inch transmission
main it parallels and crosses as shown in
Figure 6-9. By connecting pipes at these two points, 3,500 gpm
becomes available on the west side of the industrial building. The
connection at Henry Street also improves available fire flows in the
surrounding area by utilizing the hydraulic capacity of the 20-inch
transmission main. The available fire flow at the south end of the alley,
however, is only 2,000 gpm after these improvements. Fire flows of
3,500 gpm will be available on the east side near Madison Street after
the District installs the 16-inch pipe shown Figure 6-6 and
Figure 6-9.

District staff indicates the industrial buildings shown in
Figure 6-9 on Monroe Street are currently being demolished. When an
industrial user requiring 3,500 gpm fire flow will occupy this property is
unknown. Therefore, the proposed 16-inch pipe could be deferred until
either the area is redeveloped, or before Weldon demands reach 2 mgd
(Figure 6-3). The connection at 10
th
Street and the alley between Jackson
and Madison Streets could also be deferred. Available fire flow at the
south end of the alley is approximately 1,500 gpm without the connection
(assuming unlined cast iron pipes are rehabilitated), which may be
adequate for the existing customers in that area since industrial demands
are no longer present.


Figure 6-9: Deficient Fire Flow at Industrial Area at Monroe Street

Becker Drive: On the east end of Becker Drive the needed fire flow is
3,500 gpm near the hydrant at the end of a 6-inch pipe (represented by
the yellow circle in Figure 6-10). This is near the proposed 12-inch pipe to
Weldon. We recommend the proposed 12-inch pipe to Weldon cross
Becker Drive near the hydrant and connect to the existing 6-inch line near
the hydrant as shown in Figure 6-10. This connection will enable 3,500
gpm of flow to the hydrant.
I-95 Interchange: As shown in Figure 6-11, the 6-inch pipe in Allsbrook
Highway (US 158) should be connected to the 12-inch pipe in Premiere
Boulevard to provide adequate fire flows near the I-95 interchange. Other
deficient fire flows in this area can be improved with an 8-inch connection
to Mullen Drive and a 12-inch connection to the I-95 access road as
shown in Figure 6-11.


Figure 6-10: Fire Flow Improvement near Recommended Weldon
Connection


Figure 6-11: Fire Flow Improvements near I-95 Interchange

Other recommendations to improve fire flows do not involve connecting existing
water lines and are described below:
Hales Branch Subdivision: The model shows a significant amount of head
loss in the 8-inch pipe in the southern end of Roanoke Avenue (which is
likely lined, based on mapping records). This head loss creates deficient fire
flows, especially at the west end of US 158. Installing approximately 3,700
feet of 12-inch pipe in Roanoke Ave from 14
th
Street to US 158 provides
adequate fire flow at most of the deficient locations as shown in Figure 6-12.
However, three locations still have deficient fire flows after this
improvement. Therefore, we recommend installing a connection to Halifax
County on US 158 with a pressure reducing valve which would allow flow
from Davie tank if RRSDs pressure drops below a certain level. Details on
the existing county meter on Rosemary Street were not obtained for this
study. The objective of the recommended valve is to remain closed under
normal operations, and open automatically when pressure in the District
drops due to fire or other emergency. If the existing meter is able to operate
in this way, a new pressure reducing valve may not be needed. For capital
improvement planning (Chapter 9), we assumed a new valve.

Figure 6-12: Hales Branch Subdivision Deficient Fire Flows

Proposed Halifax County
connection with PRV to
improve available flows.
West End: On the west end of 10
th
Street, the needed fire flow is 3,500 gpm
due to industrial zoning and an existing lumber yard. The existing pipeline is
6-inch. To provide adequate fire flow, we recommend 1,900 feet of 12-inch
pipe along 10
th
Street from Zoo Road to Bishop Road, and 780 feet of 8-
inch pipe from Bishop Road to Wedgewood Drive as shown in Figure 6-13.
For deficient fire flows off Bolling Road, we recommend connecting the 20-
inch pipe to the 6-inch parallel pipe at the location shown in Figure 6-13.
There may already be such a connection on Morgan Road. Visual
inspection of the area showed two valves on the west end of Morgan Road
indicating the piping may already be connected. However, mapping records
show it is not connected, so this location should be verified. We also
recommend a 6-inch pipe in an easement between Landfall Court and Blue
Water Court for improved fire flow (Figure 6-13).


Figure 6-13: West End Deficient Fire Flows and Recommended
Improvements

Ransome Street: There is an industrial fire flow on the south end of
Ransome Street where we assumed a fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm.
A connection to Hinson Street would improve fire flows, but not enough to
achieve 3,500 gpm because a significant amount of head loss occurs in
10
th
Street west of the railroad (6-inch). We recommend taking advantage
of the 20-inch pipe in Bolling Road as shown in Figure 6-14 by installing a
parallel 8-inch main along Ransome Street. The connection at Bolling
Road and Ashton Street should connect the 20-inch pipeline to the
proposed 8-inch main. An additional 8-inch pipe should be installed along
10
th
Street from Ransome Street to Craig Street in order to provide the full
3,500 gpm. The 8-inch piping totals approximately 3,400 feet. To provide
1,000 gpm at Woodlawn Street, we also recommend a new 8-in pipe from
10
th
Street crossing the railroad to the existing 6-inch pipe in Hinson
Street, connecting where it passes Oakland Street (340 feet). District staff
anticipates the railroad tracks at this crossing would not create significant
installation problems.
Virginia Ave: Fire flows on Virginia Avenue are deficient but can be
remedied by installing approximately 350 feet of 6-inch pipe connecting
the existing dead ends as shown in Figure 6-15.


Figure 6-14: Fire Flow Improvements - Ransome Street Area


Figure 6-15: Fire Flow Improvement Virginia Ave

Mitchell Street: The model shows deficient fire flows for a commercial area
located south of Mitchell Street along Allsbrook Highway as shown in
Figure 6-16. The area is supplied by 6-inch pipes that are too small to
supply the needed fire flow. We recommend installing a 12-inch pipe in
Thanos Drive (600 feet) from Old Farm Road to the existing 6-inch pipe as
shown in Figure 6-16. This improvement will provide approximately 2,200
gpm in the commercial area located south of Mitchell Street along
Allsbrook Highway.
M Ma an nn ni in ng g
E El le em me en nt ta ar ry y
S Sc ch ho oo ol l

Figure 6-16: Fire Flow Improvements Mitchell Street

To achieve 2,500 gpm, connecting the two 12-inch mains in Old Farm
Road across Allsbrook Highway would be necessary. Construction across
Allsbrook Highway may be logistically difficult, and therefore we did not
include this possible improvement in the capital improvement plan. We
recommend the District first assess the needed fire flow of this specific
commercial area to determine if 2,200 gpm will be sufficient for the
facilities on the premises.
Carolina Crossroads Parkway: The distance from Becker Tank to Carolina
Crossroads Parkway is over 1 mile. The needed fire flows in the area are
2,500 gpm because it is commercially zoned. Even though the pipe
diameter between Premier Boulevard and Carolina Crossroads Parkway is
16-inches, head losses between Becker Tank and Carolina Crossroads
are high and fire flows are deficient in the area. Parallel piping to the
Carolina Crossroads area would be relatively costly and may create water
quality problems due to low existing demand. We recommend a pressure
reducing valve (PRV) at the Highway 125 meter such that water can flow
from the I-95 tank back to RRSD when pressures drop during a fire. The
PRV should be set to open at a pressure approximately 10 psi less than
the normal pressure in the RRSD system so that the valve remains closed
for normal operation.
Town of Gaston: Two locations on the ends of the Gaston distribution
system have deficient fire flows as shown in Figure 6-17. Both locations
are at wholesale points to Northampton County, one at the north end of
Old Emporia Road and one on the west end of NC 46. Needed fire flows
are 750 to 1,000 gpm at these locations, respectively, but the system is
still not able to provide adequate flow due to head loss. Assuming these
locations can not receive fire flow from the Northampton County system,
approximately 3,000 feet of 10-inch pipe and 3,400 feet of 8-inch pipe are
required to provide adequate fire flow as shown in Figure 6-17.

Figure 6-17: Fire Flow Improvements Town of Gaston
7 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Water age is a major factor in water quality deterioration within the distribution
system. Water age, which reflects travel time through a distribution system, is a
general indicator of water quality. As water age increases, water quality
deteriorates due to disinfectant decay and production of disinfection byproducts
(DBPs), which are health hazards. In RRSD, current pump and tank operations
are a problem with respect to water age and thus water quality. Water can reside
in elevated storage tanks for many days. The water age in tanks (and
surrounding areas) can be greatly improved by modifying operations.
The District installed solar-powered tank mixers in all four RRSD elevated tanks
which are scheduled to go online summer of 2010. Tank mixers minimize tank
stratification due to temperature and inlet/outlet configuration. Mixers help make
the tanks closer to a complete mix system and can improve water quality by
decreasing sediment accumulation in the tanks. The hydraulic model assumes all
tanks are complete mix.
Under current operations, when the water level in the I-95 (Halifax County) tank
drops, the WTP pumping rate is increased, according to WTP staff. On an
average day the operators switch from a small pump to the larger pump when the
tank level drops 5 feet. On high-demand days, a small pump and the large pump
operate together when the tank level drops 5 feet. As shown in Figure 7-1, this
keeps the RRSD tanks near full and increases water age. Becker Farm Tank is
especially impacted by these operating methods because its overflow elevation is
10 feet lower than the 11
th
Street and Rapids Street tanks.
Gaston tank levels fluctuate due to opening and closing the Gaston control valve
at the WTP. The water level cycles only in the top twenty percent of the tank
(Figure 7-1). However, because the volume of the tank is small, the water age is
just 55 hours.

Figure 7-1: Existing System Modeled Tank Water Levels with Current
Operations

270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM
H
e
a
d

(
f
e
e
t
)
Time of Day
Current Operations
RAPIDS TANK 11TH-STREET TANK
BECKER TANK GASTON TANK
ROANOKE-DAVIE TANK I-95 TANK
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM
H
e
a
d

(
f
e
e
t
)
Time of Day
Current Operations with Becker Tank PS
Providing adequate turnover in the tanks by adjusting tank level set points on the
WTP pumps will help tank water age significantly as shown in Figure 7-2. The
proposed operations are:
Pump 3 (400 hp) turns on when 11
th
Street tank level drops below 22 feet
Pump 3 turns off and Pump 1 (Paco) turns on when 11
th
Street tank level
reaches 39 feet
Gaston control valve opens when Gaston tank level drops below 10 feet
Gaston control valve closes when Gaston tank level reaches 19 feet

Figure 7-2: Existing System Tank Water Age Improvements

7.0
3.1
28.8
4.5
2.3
9.9
6.4
3.6
3.5
3.6
2.3
10.9
2.5
2.2
4.8
1.5
1.1
8.5
2.5
2.1
3.6
1.4
1.0
8.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
RAPIDS TANK 11TH-STREET
TANK
BECKER TANK ROANOKE-
DAVIE TANK
GASTON TANK I-95 TANK
W
A
T
E
R

A
G
E

(
D
A
Y
S
)
CURRENT OPERATI ONS
CURRENT OPERATI ONS
WI TH BECKER TANK PS
PROPOSED OPERATI ONS
PROPOSED OPERATI ONS
WI TH BECKER PS
The new Becker Tank pump station was also added to the model to show further
improvements in water age with existing and proposed controls (Figure 7-2) as
well as improvements in tank turnover (Figure 7-3). Recommended controls
using the new pump station are the same as above, with the following additional
controls:
Becker Tank Pump turns on when Becker Tank level reaches 36 feet
Becker Tank Pump turns off when Becker Tank level falls below 18 feet
Bypass on Becker Tank Pump Station should be open when Becker Tank
Pump is off to allow tank to withdraw and fill with the distribution systems
hydraulic gradient


Figure 7-3: Existing System Tank Levels with Proposed Operational
Improvements

270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM
H
e
a
d

(
f
e
e
t
)
Time of Day
Proposed Operations
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM 12:00
PM
6:00 PM 12:00
AM
6:00 AM
H
e
a
d

(
f
e
e
t
)
Time of Day
Proposed Operations with Use of Becker Tank Pump Station
Water age predictions from the last 48 hours of a 30 day extended-period
simulation are shown in Figure 7-4 for the distribution system as it operated in
late 2009. Average day demand represents the worst-case condition, as this is
when velocities are low and travel times are high. The orange and red pipes in
Figure 7-4 are considered high water age and are the most likely locations for
water quality problems. Some of these areas are near tanks; others have high
water age due to low water demand at dead ends. Large pipe diameters (12-in
and 16-in) and low demand in the pipes along I-95 cause the high water age in
the southern part of the system. Meter records for Halifax County on Highway
125 show a relatively small demand. This demand, however, may increase in the
future from an anticipated industrial park near I-95 in Halifax County.
In early 2010, the Becker Tank Pump Station came online and operators typically
use the VFD to pump down the Becker Tank about 10 feet using a flow of
approximately 700 gpm. Without any additional improvements, Figure 7-5 shows
the water age of the distribution system. In comparison to not using the Becker
Tank Pump Station (Figure 7-4), water age improves along the 12-inch pipe
directly off the Becker Tank, but the water age of the surrounding area actually
increases. This occurs because the area was receiving water almost directly
from the WTP before the Becker Tank Pump Station came online (the tank
remained near full). Using the pump station distributes the water from the tank to
surrounding areas, increasing the average water age of those areas. Keeping the
tank full, however, is not recommended. The water age maps shown in this
chapter are under average day demands. During maximum day demands, or
during a fire, the high water age resulting from the lack of turnover in the Becker
Tank is a significant water quality problem. Also, the pump station has only
localized effects and does not affect water age anywhere else in the system.
Problems with water age are also prevalent near the Rapids and 11
th
Street
tanks due to lack of tank turnover as shown in Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5.

Figure 7-4: Existing System Average Water Age


Figure 7-5: Existing System Average Water Age Using Becker Tank Pump
Station with Current Operations

However, when the proposed controls are used, as outlined above (Figures 7-2
and 7-3), water age improves in the Rapids and 11
th
Street tank areas as shown
in Figure 7-6. Water age in the Becker Tank area also improves slightly. Using
the Becker Tank Pump Station in addition to the proposed operations marginally
improves system water age as shown in Figure 7-7.
The advantage of the relatively large supply to Weldon near the Becker Tank is
the significant improvement to water age in the tanks and the distribution system,
even with existing operational controls as shown in Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9.
This is due to the Weldon demand drawing the water out of Becker Tank and
through the system. Without changing the control strategy, however, water age
near the Rapids Tank is still a problem as are system pressures as discussed in
the previous chapter. Therefore, the proposed operations above (page 7-1) are
recommended with or without supply to Weldon and with or without using the
Becker Tank Pump Station.
System water age for the near future (with Weldon connection) and proposed
operations (without using Becker Tank Pump Station) is shown in Figure 7-10.


Operations


Operations with Becker Pump Station


Figure 7-8: Tank Water Age Improvements Due to Weldon Connection

7.0
3.1
28.8
4.5
2.3
9.9
9.0
3.5
2.6
6.2
2.8
5.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
RAPIDS TANK 11TH-STREET
TANK
BECKER TANK ROANOKE-
DAVEY TANK
GASTON TANK I-95 TANK
W
A
T
E
R

A
G
E

(
D
A
Y
S
)
CURRENT OPERATIONS
CURRENT OPERATIONS WITH WELDON
CONNECTION
(Becker Tank Pump Station not in use)

Figure 7-9: 2010 System Water Age with Supply to Weldon (Using Current
Operations without Becker Tank Pump Station)


Figure 7-10: 2010 System Water Age with Supply to Weldon Using
Proposed Operations (without Becker Tank Pump Station)

8 INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL
More than half of the water mains in RRSD are more than 50 years old and about
a quarter are more than 75 years old. Aging infrastructure can cause a variety of
problems in a distribution system. Leaks become more numerous over time as
pipe systems deteriorate. As described in the water audit (Appendix A), leaks can
account for a significant portion of non-metered and unbillable water, making
water losses a financial problem. Breaks can not only result in lost water, but loss
of service and possible public safety concerns. Older pipes also tend to be more
tuberculated, causing more head loss and water quality problems in the
distribution system. Water quality becomes a problem because biofilms
frequently attach to tuberculated pipe walls.
Because such a large portion of the distribution system is unlined cast iron,
RRSD needed a method by which to prioritize renewal efforts. Prioritizing for the
renewal of aging water distribution networks is a challenging task because it
involves making many decisions about which pipes to renew and when. This
process requires integrating all relevant available information about each pipe.
We established a scoring system for prioritization using InfoWater CapPlan
software (MWH Soft, Version 2.0). Creating a pipe renewal plan with this
software involves four general steps:
1. Estimate Consequence of Failure (COF): Use available information to
estimate the relative consequences of failure for each pipe.
2. Estimate Likelihood of Failure (LOF): Use available information to estimate
the relative likelihood that each pipe would fail.
3. Estimate Risk: Use consequence and likelihood of failure estimates to
estimate the overall level of risk for each pipe and prioritize rehabilitations
based on this overall risk level.
4. Produce Pipe Rehabilitation Plan: Use the prioritized list along with
rehabilitation unit cost information and budget information to create a pipe
rehabilitation plan complete with phased implementation, schedule, and
budget information.
Essentially, the first three steps involve estimating the risk of each pipe. The
pipes with highest risk are assigned the highest priority for repair or replacement
in the forth step. The prioritization along with its components and justification are
described in greater detail below. Cost estimates and schedules for infrastructure
renewal are provided in the next chapter.
8.1 Likelihood of Failure
We estimated the likelihood of failure for each pipe relative to all the other pipes
in the network. The definitions or parameters used for this task are:
1. Failure History Data: Two sets of data were used to indicate the failure
history of each pipe. One was the number of repairs for each pipe, and the
other is the status of valves on each pipe. Pipes with a larger number of
repairs and more valves in poor condition were considered higher risks
with respect to failure history.
2. Pipe Attributes: The two pipe attributes used to indicate the risk of a pipe
were year of installation (or age), and pipe material. The pipe age was
used to estimate the pipe material and the type of joints.
3. Hydraulics: Hydraulic conditions indicate potential for failure. If pressures
are high, the risk of leaks is greater. We used the hydraulic model to
predict pressures that helped estimate the relative likelihood of failure for
each pipe.
8.1.1 Scoring Likelihood of Failure
After creating all the Likelihood of Failure (LOF) definitions, a score (from 0 to 20)
was given to each pipe for each definition. Unlined cast iron pipe, for example,
was given the highest score of 20 for pipe material, whereas ductile iron was
given a score of zero. Each parameter was then weighted on a scale of 1 to 10.
Highest priority parameters were given the highest weight as shown in Table 8-1.
An adjusted score was calculated for each pipe by adding all the individual
parameter scores according to the following equation:
Adjusted Score = Weight * (Parameter Score) ^ Exponent

Table 8-1: Likelihood of Failure Weighting
Parameter Description Weight
Pipe Attributes Pipe Material

10
Pipe Attributes Installation Year
10
Failure History Data Number of Previous Repairs
9
Failure History Data
Valve Status
8
Hydraulics
Maximum Pressure
7
Pipe material was given an exponent of 2 to ensure that unlined cast-iron pipes would be the
highest priority for rehabilitation. All other parameters were given exponents of 1.

8.2 Consequence of Failure
We analyzed the consequence of failure for each pipe relative to all the other
pipes in the network. The definitions or parameters used for this task are:
1. Critical Facilities: Some facilities served by a utility are considered high
priority for maintaining continuous water supply. They are therefore
categorized with a special consequence of failure. Critical facilities
identified in RRSD were schools, hospitals, natural gas and power
facilities, state-owned facilities, and critical manufacturing customers.
2. Isolation: The isolation consequence investigates hydraulic impacts on the
entire system when a pipe has an outage. Isolation analysis determines
how much of the network would have to be shut off in order to repair the
outage to the pipe. This is done by tracing the network in all directions
from the subject pipe until valves are found that would isolate the subject
pipe. Using an isolation parameter is useful because only a small number
of customers may be directly affected if some water mains break.
However, other pipes cause numerous customers to be affected, and thus
the subject pipe would receive a higher risk score.
3. Population Density: We assumed the consequence of failure of a pipe that
serves a large population could be more significant than a pipe that served
relatively few people. Population density was obtained from TAZ data for
RRSD.
4. Hydraulics: Flow (as calculated by the hydraulic model) was part of the
hydraulics used to assign a score for consequence of failure to each pipe.
Pipes with high flow rates are carrying water from one part of the system
to another, not just the local area. Using flow instead of velocity helped
reduce the risk of over-weighting smaller pipes that may be overloaded
but do not transport much water.
8.2.1 Scoring Consequences
A score (from 0 to 20) was given to each consequence definition. Pipes
associated with a high population density, for example, were given the highest
score of 20, whereas low density areas were given a score of 1. Each parameter
was then weighted on a scale of 1 to 10. Highest priority parameters were given
the highest weight as shown in Table 8-2. An adjusted score was calculated for
each pipe by adding all the individual parameter scores according to the following
equation:
Adjusted Score = Weight * (Parameter Score) ^ Exponent
All consequence of failure scores were given exponents of 1.
Table 8-2: Consequence of Failure Weighting
Parameter Description Weight
Critical Facility Hospitals, schools, etc. 10
Isolation Amount of demand affected 8
Hydraulics Flow 7
Population Density People per square mile 6
8.3 Available Fire Flow
Another important consideration for an infrastructure renewal plan is to improve
fire flows. Pipes that would eliminate an existing fire flow deficiency if restored by
cleaning and lining would be a top priority for rehabilitation. Pipes in areas where
fire flows would be deficient even after cleaning and lining would be candidates
for replacement with larger pipes. A weight of 20 was given to each pipe with
deficient fire flows to indicate highest priority for those pipes.
8.4 Risk
The CapPlan software estimates the overall risk level of each pipe using the
consequence and likelihood scores that were generated for each pipe and
applying a bi-directional distribution risk assessment method.
The bi-direction distribution method classifies the range of scores into low,
medium, and high risk levels for both consequence and likelihood of failure. For
RRSD, scores in the lowest ten percent of the score range were classified as
Low. Scores in the ten to sixty percent range were classified as Medium, and
scores in the top forty percent of the range were classified as High. A matrix
was defined for overall risk assessment as shown in Figure 8-1.
The overall relative risk of each pipe in the distribution system is shown in Figure
8-2.

Scores
Likelihood of Failure
Low
Likelihood of Failure
Medium
Likelihood of Failure -
High
Consequence
High
Medium High Extreme
Consequence
Medium
Low Medium High
Consequence
Low
Negligible Low Medium
Figure 8-1: Bi-Directional Distribution Matrix of Overall Risk


Figure 8-2: Pipe Failure Risk

8.5 Prioritization and Rehabilitation
Pipes with the highest risk score were given the highest priority for rehabilitation.
Whether a pipe should be cleaned and lined, replaced, or otherwise repaired
depends on several factors:
Joint type: Lead and leadite joints were commonly used in pipes installed
before 1956. These types of joints sometimes cause leakage even if a
pipe has been cleaned and lined. While information on the type of joints
used in the District was not available, it is reasonable to assume that joints
on the oldest pipes in the system could be problematic with respect to
leaks. District staff, however, does not observe a chronic leak problem at
joints in the system. Staff notes that most leaks occur primarily by pipe
breaks (both lateral and radial).
Available Fire Flow: If a pipe is located in an area with a deficient fire flow
and has a low roughness coefficient, two solutions are possible. The pipe
could be rehabilitated (cleaned and lined or replaced with a new pipe of
the same diameter), which could improve the available fire flow by
decreasing head loss. However, if rehabilitation does not improve the
available fire flow, it shows that the pipe diameter is not sufficient and the
pipe should be replaced with a larger diameter pipe. Alternatively, some
locations can be improved without cleaning, lining, or replacing pipes.
Some fire flows can be improved by installing new connecting water pipes
to improve looping and optimize usage of existing larger mains.
Figure 8-3 shows the results of fire flow improvements if all unlined pipes
were to be cleaned and lined or replaced with new same-diameter pipe
(C=120). Approximately half of all the deficient fire flow locations (Figure
5-17) are improved by rehabilitation, and those that are not are addressed
in detail in Chapter 6.

Figure 8-3: Deficient Fire Flow Comparison after Rehabilitation

Site Restrictions: Replacing pipes in most cases requires a trench to be
dug and new laterals (or service lines from each residence) to be
connected. Logistically, with respect to construction, this can be difficult at
some locations. Downtown areas with busy streets, for example, are
typically problematic due to congestion of other utilities, pedestrians and
traffic. Cleaning and lining avoids many site constraints; however,
temporary service to each residence must be installed above-ground while
the pipes are cleaned and lined. Above-ground temporary connections
may be a problem at some locations.
Cost: The unit cost estimate for cleaning and lining is about $6.50 per inch
of diameter per linear foot (inch-foot) of pipe. This is an average based on
recent cleaning and epoxy lining projects in North Carolina and includes
labor and other relevant expenses. Average replacement costs are
approximately $5.80 per inch-foot for PVC and $7.25 for ductile iron.
These costs also include labor and other relevant expenses. According to
District staff, recent repairs, on average, cost approximately $600 per
break or more depending on the local conditions. On a unit cost basis,
there is little cost difference between replacing pipes or cleaning and
lining. On an annual basis, repairing pipes that leak or break may be less
expensive in the short term. However, as pipes continue to age, more and
more repairs will be necessary and therefore consume more of the annual
budget. Other costs that are difficult to quantify with respect to pipe breaks
include water loss (unbilled water), public safety, and District staff
exposure to hazardous conditions. An additional consideration is water
qualityrepairing breaks does not improve water quality, but cleaning and
lining or replacing a tuberculated pipe greatly improves water quality.
A detailed rehabilitation plan is outlined in the following chapter. The order of
rehabilitation is based on the pipe prioritization as described above. The District,
however, should consult with local contractors when starting the rehabilitation
plan. There could be cost savings based on specific site conditions for
rehabilitating certain pipes as part of one project in a localized area, even if those
pipes are not high on the priority list.
9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PLANS
There are two types of plans for proposed improvements. The first involves
capital improvements. These include the installation of new pipes and pumps to
meet future demands and the design criteria as outlined in Chapter 4.2. The
second type of plan includes rehabilitation or infrastructure renewal. As
discussed in Chapter 8.5, rehabilitation includes cleaning and lining, or
replacement of pipes that have high risk. The plans are detailed below and cost
estimates are provided for each component.
9.1 Capital Improvement Plan
Capital improvements are scheduled by phase. The exact dates of the phasing
depend on the time and volume of water sold to Weldon as discussed in Chapter
6. The first improvements should be made immediately, or as soon as possible,
to provide adequate fire flows. Immediate improvements are summarized in
Table 9-1. Two additional phases of future improvements are recommended.
Phase 2 improvements are recommended to supply the Town of Weldon while
still providing adequate pressure to RRSD customers. The date when some of
these improvements are needed depends on the amount of water supplied to
Weldon as shown in Figure 6-3.
Phase 3 improvements are recommended to further improve the system and
supply growth areas. As RRSD demands increase in the future and the Town of
Weldon purchases a growing maximum day demand, a strong connection
between the tanks in RRSDs main pressure zone will be required. The date by
which these improvements are needed depends on when the system approaches
2030 demands as described in Chapter 2.3.
A map showing the locations of all capital improvements is shown in Figure 9-1.
Figure 9-1 also includes CIP priority numbers (from Table 9-1).

Table 9-1: Recommended Immediate Improvements (Phase 1) to Provide Adequate Fire Flow
CIP
Priority
Location
Improvement Description
(Details in Section 6.1.2.2)
Diam
(in)
Length
(ft)
Cost
Estimate
NCDOT ROW
Encroachment
1 Jackson Street Connection between existing pipes at 5th Street 8 - $10,000 Yes
2 Jackson Street
Pipe along 6th Street between Jackson Street and
Roanoke Ave
8 400 $23,200 Yes
3 Monroe Street
Connection between existing pipes at 10th Street
between Madison Street and Jackson Street
6 - $10,000 Yes
4 Monroe Street
Monroe Street between Madison Street and 10
th

Street (May be deferred, see discussion Section
6.1.1.1. Included cost in Phase 3 improvements)
16 785 - Yes
5 Monroe Street
Connection between existing pipes at Henry
Street (20-in and 6-in)
6 - $10,000 No
6
8th and 9th
Streets
Connection between existing pipes at 8th Street 6 - $10,000 No
7
Hales Branch
Subdivision
Parallel pipe on Roanoke Avenue between 14
th
St.
and Hwy 158 (Littleton Road)
12 3700 $321,900
Yes
Early coordination and
permitting for open
water crossing likely
warranted
8
Hales Branch
Subdivision
Install pressure reducing valve (west end Hwy
158, Halifax County connection)
- - $2,500 Yes
9 Virginia Avenue
Connection between existing 6-inch pipes in
Virginia Avenue
6 350 $12,180 No
10
Ransome Street
Area
Ashton Street parallel pipe from 20-in on Bolling
Road to Hurley Street.
8 860 $39,904
Yes
ROW at Bolling Road
tie-in
CIP
Priority
Location
Diam
(in)
Length
(ft)
Cost
Estimate
NCDOT ROW
Encroachment
11
Ransome Street
Area
Hurley St. and Ransome St. parallel pipe between
Ashton St. and 10th St.
8 1900 $88,160 No
12
Ransome Street
Area
10th St. parallel pipe between Ransome St. and
Craig St.
8 550 $25,520 Yes
13
Ransome Street
Area
8-inch pipe crossing railroad from 10th Street to
Hinson Street with connection at Oakland Street
8 340 $15,800 No
14 West End Parallel pipe on 10th Street, Zoo Rd to Bishop Rd 12 1900 $165,300 Yes
15 West End
Parallel pipe on 10th Street, Bishop Road to
Wedgewood Drive
8 780 $36,192 Yes
16 West End
Connection between existing pipes at Bolling
Road and Morgan Road (either side)
6 - $10,000 Yes
17 West End
Pipe between Landfall Court and Blue Water
Court
6 525 $18,270 No
18 Becker Drive
New Weldon transmission main with connection
to existing 6-inch pipe (Section 6.1.1.1)
12 2900 $252,300
Yes
May involve restricted
access highway right of
way
19
I-95 Interchange
Exit 173
Connection between existing pipes at US 158 (12-
inch) and Premier Boulevard (6-inch)
12 - $10,000 Yes
20
I-95 Interchange
Exit 173
Pipe connection east end Strickland St. - Mullen
Drive to Premier Blvd
8 150 $6,960
Yes
Private easements are
likely required
21
I-95 Interchange
Exit 173
Pipe connection - Premier Blvd to I-95 South
ramp 6-inch on south end
12 120 $10,440
Yes
Private easements are
likely required
CIP
Priority
Location
Diam
(in)
Length
(ft)
Cost
Estimate
NCDOT ROW
Encroachment
22
Mitchell Street
Area
Pipe along Thanos Drive between Old Farm Road
and 6-inch commercial loop
12 600 $52,200
Yes
ROW at Old Farm Road
tie-in
23
Carolina
Crossroads Area
Install pressure reducing valve near Halifax
County meter
- - $2,500 Yes
24 Town of Gaston
Pipe along Old Emporia Road from Garysburg
Road north
8 3400 $197,200 Yes
25 Town of Gaston
Parallel pipe along NC 46 from Gardener Drive
west
10 3000 $217,500 Yes

Total: $1,549,000

Table 9-2: Recommended Phase 2 Improvements (to Supply Town of Weldon)
Location Improvement Description
Diam
(in)
Length
(ft)
Cost
Estimate
11th Street Tank to Marshall Street
16 450 $52,200
Marshall Street 11th Street to 13th Street
16 1300 $150,800
13th Street Marshall Street to Georgia Ave
16 2550 $295,800
Georgia Ave 13th Street to Railroad Easement and east along Railroad Easement until 10th St.
16 2660 $308,600
Railroad Easement 10th Street to Becker Tank
16 1390 $161,300
11th Street Tank Area
Connect 16-inch main that parallels Marshall Street to 6-inch pipes at the
intersection 10
th
Street and Marshall Street
16 210 $24,400
11th Street Tank Area Parallel existing 6-inch in Marshall Street between 10th and 11th Streets
16 700 $81,200
Total: 9,260 $1,074,300
Note: Improvement details described in Section 6.1.2.1

Table 9-3: Recommended Phase 3 Improvements (to Supply 2030 Demands)
Location Improvement Description Diam (in) Length (ft) Cost Estimate
11th Street Marshall Street to Jefferson Street 16 1090 $126,500
11th Street Jefferson Street to Roanoke Ave 16 1130 $131,100
11th Street Roanoke Ave to Jackson Street 16 360 $41,800
11th Street Jackson Street to Madison Street 16 370
$43,000
Monroe Street Madison Street to 10th Street 16 785 $91,100
10th Street Alley east of Madison Street to Henry Street 16 350 $40,600
Total: 4,085 $474,100
Note: This cost estimate includes recommended pipe that may be installed before other Phase 3 improvements depending on redevelopment near Monroe Street (see Table 9-1). Improvement
details described in Section 6.1.2.1

Figure 9-1: Capital Improvements
The costs referenced in Table 9-1, Table 9-2, and Table 9-3 represent our
estimate of approximate capital improvement costs with a 25% contingency
included. Costs listed also include 20% for engineering and administrative
services. Significant cost savings can be realized by the District by grouping as
many projects as possible together for construction bids and taking advantage of
the current bid climate in a depressed economic environment. Actual bid prices
could reach as low as 75% of the indicated costs given these factors.
New pipes will also be required to provide service within new developments.
Costs for these new pipes can be paid by developers with connection fees and,
therefore, are not included in the CIP for purposes of master planning.
9.1.1 Right of Way and Permitting Issues
The recommended improvements will each require approval by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Public Water
Supply Section. Other approvals relating to erosion and sedimentation control
permits, wetland encroachment, and other environmental concerns may be
required, but will be project specific. The goal of this discussion is to address the
permitting issues related to right of way permits and approvals. The assumption
is generally that the improvements are contained within a city or state maintained
roadway, as the level of information included in a master planning effort does not
typically address the need for easements from private entities. To the extent a
recommendation clearly requires a special encroachment or easement outside of
public road right of ways, we have included notes in Table 9-1. Finally, the need
for an environmental assessment is not know at this time. That determination will
be a function of how the project is funded, and the extent of the improvements
that are combined into a single project.
The tank connection improvements between the Becker, 11th Street, and Rapids
tanks (Figure 6-6, Table 9-2, and Table 9-3) will involve encroachment on city
streets, and crossings of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
roadways at 10th Street and Roanoke Avenue. Depending upon the final route
of the section of pipe between the Becker tank and Georgia Avenue,
encroachment on railroad property or private property will occur. Longitudinal
encroachments on railroad properties can be costly and time consuming, so this
decision will warrant significant consideration. A route outside the railroad right
of way will impact private properties and the specific route will likely introduce
other constructability concerns resulting from existing development and a pond
adjacent to the railroad corridor.
The immediate improvements for fire flows are listed in Table 9-1 with a column
to indicate whether it will encroach on NCDOT right of ways. Approvals and
traffic control coordination with NCDOT are warranted for these improvements.
Construction in paved roadway sections of NCDOT encroachments should be
addressed and considered early in the design process.
9.1.2 Funding Opportunities
In North Carolina there are a number of funding alternatives for water system
improvements. These funding opportunities are generally pursued through a
competitive process where a number of factors dictate the success of the
funding. The availability of funding through the established entities is generally a
limiting factor.
The majority of recommended capital improvements in this master plan involve
improving public health through improved water quality and elimination of
deficient fire flows. The vulnerability resulting from the current conditions and the
resulting effects of the improvements, when compared to other competing
projects, will be a key driver in the success of the funding assistance pursuit.
The entities that have historically provided funding assistance to communities in
North Carolina for water system improvements are the following:
North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center
NCDENR Public Water Supply Section
United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Center
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of funding entities, but rather a brief
summary of the more common potential opportunities.
9.1.2.1 North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center
The North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center (Rural Center)
identifies three types of funding programs that are applicable to water and sewer
system improvements. They are North Carolina Economic Infrastructure
Program (EIP), Supplemental Grants Program, and the Planning Grants
Program. The EIP is a program that facilitates funding for projects required to
improve economic conditions and specifically job growth. The funding amount is
a function of jobs created. We have previously been involved in a project with
this type of funding which consisted of installing an improvement to increase fire
flows, allowing the construction of a large retail store bringing new jobs to an
area. Part of the process is to demonstrate specific job creation, and then follow-
up with documentation of the success of the job.
The Supplemental Grants Program through the Rural Center is a program that
assists local governments with improving water and sewer systems. The focus
of this funding is typically directed at systems that have a critical public health or
environmental need.
The Planning Grants Program is directed to planning efforts. Guidance
documents provide by the Rural Center indicate that this source of funding is
typically directed toward local governments in violation of public health and
environmental rules.
9.1.2.2 NCDENR Public Water Supply Section
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Public Water Supply Section offers several different types of funding
products for water system improvements. They include the North Carolina
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program, High Unit Cost (HUC)
Grant Program, Emergency Loan (EL) Program, and State (low-interest)
Revolving Loan (SRL) Program.
The DWSRF Program and the SRL Program are similar in that they are low
interest loans. They each consider the threat to public health when eligibility and
priorities are considered. The DWSRF is partially federally funded, so those
loans are subject to federal guidelines for environmental review and
disadvantaged business enterprise outreach. Those same efforts are required in
accordance with state requirements for the SRL loans.
HUC grants are intended to fund drinking water capital projects that protect
public health. Like most programs, the threat to public health is an important
criterion. However, the ability of the customers to pay the necessary water rates
resulting from the project is a key criterion. Eligible project costs are those that
would cause the applicant's water (or water and sewer) rate to exceed the HUC
threshold. The state establishes the HUC as 0.75 percent of median household
income (MHI) for homes with public water, and 1.5 percent of MHI for homes with
both public water and public sewer. The HUC funds are state money, thus the
grant projects are subject to state regulations regarding environmental review
and outreach for disadvantaged business enterprises.
The Emergency Loan program is, as stated, for emergencies. An Emergency
Loan is available to an applicant in the event the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources certifies that either a serious public health
hazard or a drought emergency related to the water supply system is present or
imminent in a community. Emergency Loans are also subject to the same rules
that govern the HUC grant and SRL programs. However, emergency loans are
exempt from application deadlines. It is not expected that the Emergency Loan
program would be applicable to recommendations in this Water Distribution
Master Plan.
9.1.2.3 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Center
Eligibility for funding via the USDA Rural Development Center is a function of
service area population. Therefore, typical applicants are public bodies (city,
township, county or special district), with a service area population below 10,000.
Given the population served by the District system, we expect that this type of
funding would not be applicable.
9.1.2.4 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) receives an appropriation
from the General Assembly in order to issue grants to local governments and
other approved entities to help finance projects that specifically address water
pollution problems. The funds are allocated by a CWMTF Board of Trustees.
The criteria for funding is that the projects enhance or restore degraded waters,
protect unpolluted waters, and/or contribute toward a network of riparian buffers
and greenways for environmental, educational, and recreational benefits.
Consequently, it is not anticipated that the recommended improvements would
fall into the categories for which funding via the CWMTF would be applied.
9.1.2.5 Funding References
North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center,
http://www.ncruralcenter.org/grants/water.htm
NCDENR Public Water Supply Section,
http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/srf/index.htm
United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Center,
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nc/wwd.htm
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund,
http://www.cwmtf.net/welcome.html

9.2 Rehabilitation Plan
The rehabilitation plan is presented on a yearly basis. We have scheduled the
plan such that pipes requiring rehabilitation to eliminate existing fire flow
deficiencies take the highest priority. These pipes should be rehabilitated as soon
as possible. The next highest priority are unlined, cast-iron pipes. These pipes
have lead joints, are tuberculated and cause both hydraulic and water quality
problems. They are generally more than 60 years old and have reached the end
of their useful lives. Pipe rehabilitation is critical for the District as a means to
improve water quality and hydraulic capacity. Restoring or improving hydraulic
capacity improves fire protection. Pipe rehabilitation is also an important step
toward water conservation as it can greatly reduce water losses by decreasing
leakage and the number of main breaks. Decreasing main breaks reduces the
risk to public safety.
The District currently has an annual budget and a rehabilitation plan for removing
and replacing galvanized iron pipes (GIP). We recommend continuing this plan
until all GIP is replaced. Most of these pipes were not included in the model
because their diameters are less than 6 inches.
Another rehabilitation-related recommendation is a valve maintenance program.
District staff currently reports that many valves in the distribution system cannot
be turned. As pipes are rehabilitated, the valves will be replaced. To prevent
hard-to-turn valves in the future, the valves can be exercised as a form of
preventative maintenance. We recommended following the guidelines for
operation and maintenance of valves as described in the American Water Works
Association Manual of Water Supply Practices M44: Distribution Valves:
Selection, Installation, Field Testing, and Maintenance.
District staff indicates that a unidirectional flushing (UDF) program has been
started in the system. However, due to faulty valves, staff cannot effectively
execute the recommended flushing loops. UDF will generally improve water age
and water quality in the distribution system. As described in Chapter 8, valve
status was used to prioritize rehabilitation, but specific water age or water quality
improvements resulting from UDF were not incorporated. The UDF program
details were not provided for water quality analysis as part of this project. We
recommend the District consider UDF program execution for possible
rehabilitation priority revisions. We also recommend the District incorporate their
UDF program into a master plan update and into their hydraulic model. The
hydraulic model can give quantitative water age improvements and help optimize
UDF flow rates and locations in the system.
The following table shows the pipes recommended for rehabilitation, either by
cleaning and lining or replacement with the same diameter, with schedule based
on risk prioritization (Chapter 8.4). The unit cost (per inch diameter per linear
foot) assumed in this table was $6.50 as discussed in Chapter 8. We recommend
the District obtain cost estimates from contractors for both cleaning and lining
and replacement because costs for each method of rehabilitation are similar.
Based on cost estimates and site conditions, the District should determine the
method of rehabilitation on a case-by-case basis.
The annual budget required to rehabilitate all the unlined cast iron pipes
(medium, high and extreme risk, Figure 8-2) within the next twenty years is
approximately $375,000 (in 2010 dollars). We recommend the District adjust the
rehabilitation schedule depending on available funding as well as other public
works projects that may affect public health and safety.

Table 9-4: Rehabilitation Plan
Year Pipe Location From - To
Size
(in)
Length (ft) Cost ($)*
2011 Washington St Hamilton St to Jefferson St 6 900 $35,200
2011 8th St 8th St to first hydrant south of Charlotte St 6 160 $6,300
2011 7th St Cedar St to Vance St 6 370 $14,500
2011 Between Roanoke Ave and Hamilton St (alley) 7th St to 9th St 6 1320 $51,600
2011 Cedar St 7th St to 8th St 6 650 $25,400
2011 8th St Roanoke Ave to Hamilton St 6 380 $14,900
2011 9th St Section west of Jefferson St 6 360 $14,100
2011 10th St west of Jefferson St to Marshall St 6 1240 $48,500
2011 Between Hamilton St and Washington St (alley) 9th St to 10th St 6 650 $25,400
2011 Marshall St 8th St to 10th St 6 1320 $51,600
2011 Jackson St 6th St to 7th St 6 720 $28,100
2012 Between Williams St and Marshall St (alley) 12th St to 13th St 6 660 $25,800
2012 Between Cedar St and Vance St (alley) 10th St to 11th St 6 660 $25,800
2012 13th Street
Alley west of Williams St to alley east of Williams
St
6 360 $14,100
2012 Between Washington St and Jefferson St (alley) Section south of 14th Street 6 830 $32,400
2012 Jackson St 2nd St to 3rd St 6 650 $25,400
2012 Between Madison St and Jackson St (alley) 8th St to 9th St 6 630 $24,600
2012 11th Street Alley west of Vance St to alley east of Vance St 6 360 $14,100
2012 6th St Franklin St to Monroe St 6 720 $28,100
2013 7th Street
Alley west of Madison St to alley east of Madison
St
6 360 $14,100
2013 Jackson St 3rd St to 4th St 6 660 $25,800
2013 11th St Alley west of Cedar St to alley east of Cedar St 6 360 $14,100
2013 Vance St Vincent Rd to north end 6 610 $23,800
2013 15th St East of and parallel to Jefferson St. 6 170 $6,600
2013 15th St
Alley west of Charlotte St to alley east of Charlotte
St
6 370 $14,500
2013 Between Vance St and Franklin St (alley) 10th St to 11th St 6 670 $26,200
2013 Between Hamilton St and Roanoke Ave (alley) 9th St to 10th St 6 650 $25,400
2013 7th St Jackson St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2013 11th St Franklin St west to alley 6 140 $5,500
2013 6th St West of Jackson St 6 180 $7,000
2014 Vincent Rd Vance St to Preston St 6 500 $19,500
2014 Preston St Vincent Rd to Cedar St 6 440 $17,200
2014 Shell Dr Vincent Rd loop 6 1130 $44,200
2014 Rapids St 3rd St to 4th St 6 630 $24,600
2014 2nd St Williams St to alley west of Charlotte St 6 530 $20,700
2014 5th St Alley east of Williams St to west end 6 360 $14,100
Size
(in)
2014 Cedar St Entire length 6 590 $23,100
2014 2nd St Harvey Cir to Kemp Ave 6 1370 $53,600
2014 Rapids St 4th St to 5th St 6 690 $27,000
2014 Between Jackson St and Roanoke Ave (alley) 10th St to 11th St 6 660 $25,800
2014 12th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2014 Vincent Rd Vance St to Preston St 6 420 $16,400
2014 Vincent Rd / Preston St Vance St to Cedar St 6 360 $14,100
2014 11th St Henry St to alley between Henry St and Franklin St 6 160 $6,300
2015 Between Henry St and Monroe St (alley) 10th St to 11th St 6 860 $33,600
2015 8th St
Dead end north of 8th St between Jackson St and
Roanoke Ave
6 120 $4,700
2015 Henry St Henry St to alley between Henry St and Franklin St 6 50 $2,000
2015 Monroe St Henry St to east end 6 180 $7,000
2015 11th St Henry St to east end 6 210 $8,200
2015 11th St Madison St to Jackson St 6 360 $14,100
2015 5th St Hamilton St to Washington St 8 660 $34,400
2015 Between Washington St and Jefferson St (alley) 8th St to 9th St 8 660 $34,400
2015 Gaston Rd Kapstone off of Gaston Rd (6-inch) 6 1790 $70,000
2015 Roanoke Ave 12th St to 13th St 8 660 $34,400
2015 Vance St 2nd St to 3rd St 6 630 $24,600
2016 2nd St Vance St to Henry St 8 630 $32,800
2016 2nd St Vance St to Harvey Circle 8 700 $36,500
2016 12th St Roanoke Ave east to alley 6 220 $8,600
2016 Between Charlotte St and Williams St (alley) 7th St to 8th St 6 670 $26,200
2016 8th St Marshall St west to alley 6 160 $6,300
2016 Between Jefferson St and Charlotte St (alley) 1st St to 2nd St 6 680 $26,600
2016 8th St Charlotte St east to alley 6 160 $6,300
2016 8th St Charlotte St to west of Jefferson St (alley) 6 370 $14,500
2016 8th St Charlotte St to west of Jefferson St (alley) 6 190 $7,400
2016 8th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2016 8th St Vance St to Cedar St 6 360 $14,100
2016 1st St
Alley west of Jefferson St to alley east of Jefferson
St
8 350 $18,200
2017 Roanoke Ave 1st St to Jackson St 12 1320 $103,200
2017 5th St Washington St east to alley 8 170 $8,900
2017 3rd St Vance St east to alley 6 190 $7,400
2017 Gaston Rd North of Jackson St 12 200 $15,600
2017 12th St
Alley west of Washington St to alley east of
Washington St
6 360 $14,100
2017 Gaston Rd Connector (6-in to 12-in) 12 120 $9,400
2017 Gaston Rd
Kapstone connection, 12-inch pipe from WTP to
Gaston Rd
12 790 $61,800
2017 5th St Hamilton St west to alley 8 160 $8,300
2017 Hamilton St 4th St to 5th St 6 690 $27,000
2017 12th St
Alley west of Hamilton St to alley east of Hamilton
St
6 340 $13,300
Size
(in)
2018 Cedar St 3rd St to 4th St 6 620 $24,200
2018 Henry St 1st St to 2nd St 8 660 $34,400
2018 1st St Hamilton St to Roanoke Ave 8 170 $8,900
2018 1st St Hamilton St to Roanoke Ave 8 210 $10,900
2018 Roanoke Canal Trail Jackson St to Roanoke Ave 6 970 $37,900
2018 1st St Hamilton St east to alley 8 200 $10,400
2019 2nd St Taylor St to Henry St 8 170 $8,900
2019 Roanoke Ave 1st St to 2nd St 10 670 $43,600
2019 Monroe St 1st St to 2nd St 6 660 $25,800
2019 3rd St Taylor St to Henry St 6 170 $6,600
2019 Monroe St 3rd St to 4th St 6 640 $25,000
2019 3rd St Alley west of Franklin St to Henry St 6 460 $18,000
2019 1st St
Washington St
8 360 $18,800
2019 2nd St Madison St east to alley 10 160 $10,400
2020 Madison St 4th St to 5th St 6 650 $25,400
2020 Monroe St 4th St to 5th St 6 650 $25,400
2020 Madison St 3rd St to 4th St 6 660 $25,800
2020 Monroe St 2nd St to 3rd St 6 660 $25,800
2020 Madison St 2nd St to 3rd St 6 650 $25,400
2020 Taylor St 2nd St to 3rd St 6 660 $25,800
2020 2nd St Monroe St to Madison St 6 360 $14,100
2020 Madison St 1st St to 2nd St 6 660 $25,800
2020 Taylor St 3rd St to 4th St 6 640 $25,000
2020 Between Jefferson St and Charlotte St (alley) 11th St to 12th St 6 650 $25,400
2020 WTP Yard WTP Yard to Jackson St 12 600 $46,900
2020 WTP Yard WTP Yard to Jackson St 12 80 $6,300
2020 11th Street Tank Tank to 11th St 12 260 $20,300
2020 Jackson St 16-inch main connection to Preston St 12 680 $53,200
2021 Between Hamilton St and Washington St (alley) 1st St to 2nd St 6 670 $26,200
2021 Preston St Connect 20-inch to 6-inch mains in Henry St 6 30 $1,200
2021 9th St Alley west of Franklin St to alley east of Franklin St 6 360 $14,100
2021 3rd St Monroe St to Taylor St 6 280 $10,900
2021 4th St Madison St to Monroe St 8 370 $19,300
2021 4th St Monroe St to Taylor St 8 280 $14,600
2021 5th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2021 9th St Vance St east to alley 6 200 $7,800
2021 Jackson St 1st St to 2nd St 10 660 $43,000
2021 9th St Henry St west to alley 6 190 $7,400
2021 2nd St Connect 20-inch to 8-inch mains in Henry St 8 30 $1,600
2021 2nd St Monroe St to Taylor St 6 290 $11,300
2021 2nd St Jackson St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2021 Between Vance St and Franklin St (alley) 3rd St to 5th St 6 1290 $50,400
Size
(in)
2022 Between Franklin St and Henry St (alley) 8th St to 9th St 6 660 $25,800
2022 Madison St Preston St to 1st St 6 660 $25,800
2022 Jackson St Preston St to 1st St 10 640 $41,700
2022 Hamilton St Western portion of loop 6 820 $32,100
2022 14th St
St
8 390 $20,300
2022 14th St Alley west of Hamilton St to Roanoke Ave 8 200 $10,400
2022 Between Hamilton St and Washington St Eastern portion of loop 6 820 $32,100
2022 Henry St Preston St to 1st St 6 660 $25,800
2022 1st St Madison St to Monroe St 8 360 $18,800
2022 1st St Connect 20-inch to 8-inch mains in Henry St 8 30 $1,600
2022 Preston St Henry St (6-inch) to Franklin St 6 260 $10,200
2023 11th St
Tank connection to alley between Jefferson St and
Charlotte St
12 450 $35,200
2023 1st St Jackson St to Madison St 8 360 $18,800
2023 Between Franklin St and Henry St 9th St to 10th St 6 660 $25,800
2023 1st St Roanoke Ave west to alley 8 170 $8,900
2023 6th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2023 7th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2023 9th St Vance St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2024 Between Hamilton St and Washington St (alley) 3rd St to 4th St 6 640 $25,000
2024 Between Madison St and Jackson St (alley) 2nd St to dead end 8 440 $22,900
2024 7th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2024 Preston St Jackson St to Madison St 6 340 $13,300
2024 Rapids St 10th St to 11th St 10 660 $43,000
2024 Roanoke Ave 2nd St to 3rd St 10 650 $42,300
2024 9th St Henry St east to alley 6 170 $6,600
2024 12th St Alley west of Jackson St to alley east of Jackson St 6 360 $14,100
2024 Roanoke Ave 3rd St to 4th St 10 660 $43,000
2024 8th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2024 5th St Henry St to Monroe St 6 490 $19,200
2024 Between Roanoke Ave and Hamilton St (alley) 1st St to 2nd St 6 670 $26,200
2025 Between Jackson St and Roanoke Ave (alley) 1st St to 4th St 6 2150 $84,000
2025 2nd St Roanoke Ave to Jackson St 6 360 $14,100
Size
(in)
2025 Preston St Monroe St to Madison St 6 380 $14,900
2025 Preston St Henry St (20-inch) east to alley 6 160 $6,300
2025 Vance St Preston St to 1st St 6 670 $26,200
2025 5th St Jackson St to Roanoke Ave 8 410 $21,400
2025 Monroe St
Preston St to 12-inch main in alley east of Henry
St
6 880 $34,400
2025 1st St Henry St (20-inch) to Monroe St 8 460 $24,000
2025 Franklin St Preston St to 1st St 6 670 $26,200
2025 1st St Vance St to Frankline St 6 360 $14,100
2025 Monroe St Preston St to 1st St 4 660 $17,200
2025 Preston St Monroe St west to alley 6 270 $10,600
2026 11th St
St
12 360 $28,100
2026 1st St Henry St (8-inch) to Franklin St 8 260 $13,600
2026 7th St Franklin St east to alley 6 200 $7,800
2026 Marshall St
5th St to 6th St (through Recreation Center
property)
6 660 $25,800
2026 14th St
St
6 350 $13,700
2026 14th St
Washington St
8 370 $19,300
2026 Between Hamilton St and Washington St (alley) 2nd St to 3rd St 6 660 $25,800
2026 3rd St
St
6 360 $14,100
2026 3rd St
Alley east of Hamilton St to alley west of
Washington St
6 360 $14,100
2026 Franklin St 6th St to 7th St 6 660 $25,800
2026 12th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2026 Vance St 5th St to 6th St 6 700 $27,400
2026 10th St Alley west of Cedar St to alley east of Cedar St 6 360 $14,100
2026 10th St Alley east of Cedar St to alley east of Vance St 6 360 $14,100
2026 9th St Rapids St east to alley 6 180 $7,000
2027 11th St Tank connection to Marshall St 8 430 $22,400
2027 9th St Alley west of Monroe St to alley east of Monroe St 6 360 $14,100
2027 Between Monroe St and Madison St (alley) 7th St to 8th St 6 660 $25,800
2027 Between Washington St and Jefferson St (alley) 3rd St to 4th St 8 640 $33,400
2027 10th St Roanoke Ave west to alley 8 180 $9,400
2027 5th St Madison St to Jackson St 8 700 $36,500
2027 14th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2027 14th St
St
6 370 $14,500
2027 5th St Henry St to Franklin St 6 330 $12,900
2027 Franklin St 5th St to 6th St 6 700 $27,400
Size
(in)
2027 13th St
St
6 370 $14,500
2027 15th St
St
6 390 $15,200
2028 13th St
St
6 350 $13,700
2028 Preston St Franklin St to Vance St 6 360 $14,100
2028 10th St Jackson St east to alley 8 190 $9,900
2028 Between Rapids St and Cedar St (alley) 9th St to 10th St 6 660 $25,800
2028 Between Washington St and Jefferson St (alley) 1st St to 2nd St 8 670 $34,900
2028 Between Cedar St and Vance St (alley) 9th St to 10th St 6 660 $25,800
2028 Between Rapids St and Cedar St (alley) 10th St to 11th St 6 660 $25,800
2028 1st St Roanoke Ave east to alley 6 660 $25,800
2028 3rd St Charlotte St to Marshall St 6 720 $28,100
2028 Between Washington St and Jefferson St (alley) 2nd St to 3rd St 8 660 $34,400
2028 5th St Marshall St to Carolina St 6 380 $14,900
2028 9th St Cedar St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2028 9th St Cedar St east to alley 6 190 $7,400
2028 Marshall St 3rd St to 4th St 6 670 $26,200
2028 Between Roanoke Ave and Hamilton St (alley) 3rd St to 4th St 6 640 $25,000
2028 5th St Cedar St to Rapids St 6 400 $15,600
2028 Marshall St 15th St to Allsbrook Hwy 6 420 $16,400
2029 10th St
Washington St
6 360 $14,100
2029 5th St Cedar St to Vance St 6 380 $14,900
2029 10th St
St
6 340 $13,300
2029 10th St Henry St east to alley 6 170 $6,600
2029 10th St Monroe St east to alley 6 170 $6,600
2029 Between Jefferson St and Charlotte St (alley) 2nd St to 3rd St 6 650 $25,400
2029 5th St Kemp Ave to Rapids St 6 480 $18,800
2029 WTP Yard Yard piping connecting to east 12-inch (Kapstone) 12 70 $5,500
2029 5th St Rapids St to Rapids St 6 190 $7,400
2029 4th St Hamilton St east to alley 6 190 $7,400
2029 4th St Hamilton St west to alley 6 160 $6,300
2029 10th St
St
6 350 $13,700
2029 4th St Washington St east to alley 6 190 $7,400
2029 3rd St Charlotte St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2029 Cedar St 4th St to 5th St 6 660 $25,800
2029 4th St
St
6 360 $14,100
2029 4th St Washington St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2029 Charlotte St 3rd St to 4th St 6 670 $26,200
2029 Between Jefferson St and Charlotte St (alley) 3rd St to 4th St 6 670 $26,200
2029 4th St Charlotte St east to alley 6 190 $7,400
2029 4th St Charlotte St west to alley 6 170 $6,600
2029 3rd St
St
6 360 $14,100
Size
(in)
2030 2nd St Roanoke Ave east to alley 6 210 $8,200
2030 11th St Franklin St east to alley 6 220 $8,600
2030 8th St Roanoke Ave west to alley 6 370 $14,500
2030 8th St Jackson St east to alley 6 170 $6,600
2030 5th St Monroe St to Madison St 8 360 $18,800
2030 10th St Monroe St west to alley 6 180 $7,000
2030 10th St Alley west of Franklin St to alley east of Franklin St 6 360 $14,100
2030 1st St Jackson St east to alley 8 180 $9,400
* All costs are shown in 2010 dollars
Distribution System Water Audit a
APPENDIX A WATER AUDIT
The water audit process allows utilities to quantify consumption and losses that
occur in the distribution system and the management processes of the water
utility. The data used for RRSDs water audit were from billing, production,
mapping, and financial records from July 2007 through June 2008.
We used water audit standards and software provided by the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) Water Audits and Loss Control Programs Manual of
Water Supply Practices M36 (Third Edition). The basic water balance breakdown
from M36 is shown in Figure A-1. By using this standard approach, terminology is
consistent between utilities as well as year to year within a single utility. In
addition to reliably tracking water consumption and losses, this method gives
water utilities an effective means to economically control apparent and real
losses.
Specific data and management information was obtained from District staff and
the water audit worksheets were completed as shown in the following screen
capture from the reporting worksheet (Figure A-2).

Figure A-1: M36 Water Balance Terms
Distribution System Water Audit b

Figure A-2: RRSD Water Audit Reporting Worksheet

Distribution System Water Audit c
Non-revenue water as percent by volume of water supplied is relatively high for
the District (almost 32%). This indicates a significant amount of real losses such
as leaks and overflows. The annual volumes for each portion of the water
balance (Figure A-1) are summarized in Figure A-3 for the year analyzed for
RRSD.

Figure A-3: July 2007 June 2008 RRSD Water Balance
Certain data was not available from the District (such as volume estimates for
unbilled water consumption). In such cases, an estimate was made based on
discussions with District staff and recommendations from M36 and an
appropriate grade was given for the estimate based on specific grading criteria
within the software.
The software requires that the user grade the validity of each input data from
which a composite score (0-100 scale) is calculated, thereby providing a good
assessment of the degree of confidence in the data. The Districts score for this
set of data was 75 out of 100. The software makes automatic recommendations
for auditing improvements based on the grading system. A summary of RRSDs
recommended improvements as generated by the software is shown in Appendix
B and summarized in Figure A-4.
Distribution System Water Audit d
Once data was entered into the reporting worksheet, the performance indicators
are automatically calculated. The AWWA Water Loss Control Committee
provided the table shown in Figure A-5 to assist water utilities in gauging an
approximate Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) that is appropriate for their water
system and local conditions. The ILI for the District was 6.4 which is relatively
high as shown in Figure A-5. The lower the amount of leakage and real losses
that exist in the system, the lower the ILI value will be. This table offers an
approximate guideline for leakage reduction target-setting.
We recommend the District do an annual water audit and start an ongoing
infrastructure renewal plan as discussed in Chapter 8 to minimize real losses in
the distribution system and improve record keeping and management practices.
We also recommend the suggestions provided by M36 to improve the validity of
the Districts water audit on an annual basis. An electronic copy of the water audit
conducted for this project will be provided to RRSD for this purpose.
Distribution System Water Audit e

Figure A-4: Water Loss Control Planning Guide Water Audit Data Validity Score

Distribution System Water Audit f

Figure A-5: Water Loss Control Planning Guide General Guidelines for Setting a Target ILI
Distribution System Water Audit g
APPENDIX B WATER AUDIT GRADING MATRIX
In the Reporting Worksheet, grades were assigned to each component of the
audit to describe the confidence and accuracy of the input data. The grading
assigned to each audit component and the corresponding recommended
improvements and actions are highlighted in yellow. Audit accuracy is likely to be
improved by prioritizing those items shown in red.
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Volume from own sources:
Select this grading
only if the water
utility
purchases/imports
all of its water
resources (i.e. has
no sources of its
own)
Less than 25% of water
production sources are
metered, remaining sources
are estimated. No regular
meter accuracy testing.
25% - 50% of water production
sources are metered; other
sources estimated. No regular
Conditions
between
2 and 4
50% - 75% of water production
sources are metered, other
sources estimated. Occasional
meter accuracy testing
Conditions
between
4 and 6
At least 75% of water production
sources are metered, or at least
90% of the source flow is derived
from metered sources. Meter
accuracy testing and/or electronic
calibration conducted annually.
Less than 25% of tested meters
are found outside of +/- 6%
accuracy.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
100% of water supply sources are
metered, meter accuracy testing
and electronic calibration
conducted annually, less than
10% of meters are found outside
of +/- 6% accuracy
Conditions
between
8 and 10
100% of water production sources
are metered, meter accuracy
testing and electronic calibration
conducted semi-annually, with
less than 10% found outside of +/-
3% accuracy.
Improvements to attain higher
data grading for "Volume from
own Sources" component:
to qualify for 2:
Organize efforts to begin to
collect data for determining
volume from own sources
to maintain 10:
Standardize meter accuracy test
frequency to semi-annual, or more
frequent, for all meters. Repair or
replace meters outside of +/- 3%
accuracy. Continually
investigate/pilot improving
metering technology.
Master meter error
adjustment:
Select n/a only if
the water utility fails
to have meters on
its sources of
supply, either its
own source, and/or
imported
(purchased) water
sources
Inventory information on
meters and paper records of
measured volumes in crude
condition; data error cannot be
determined
No automatic datalogging of
production volumes; daily
readings are scribed on paper
records. Tank/storage elevation
changes are not employed in
calculating "Volume from own
sources" component. Data is
adjusted only when grossly
evident data error occurs.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Production meter data is logged
automatically in electronic format
and reviewed at least on a
monthly basis. "Volume from own
sources" tabulations include
estimate of daily changes in
tanks/storage facilities. Meter
data is adjusted when gross data
errors occur, or occasional meter
testing deems this necessary.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Hourly production meter data
logged automatically & reviewed
on at least a weekly basis. Data
adjusted to correct gross error
from equipment malfunction and
error confirmed by meter accuracy
testing. Tank/storage facility
elevation changes are
automatically used in calculating a
balanced "Volume from own
sources" component.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Continuous production meter data
logged automatically & reviewed
daily. Data adjusted to correct
gross error from equipment
malfunction & results of meter
accuracy testing. Tank/storage
facility elevation changes are
automatically used in "Volume
from own sources" tabulations.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Computerized system (SCADA or
similar) automatically balances
flows from all sources and
storages; results reviewed daily.
Mass balance technique
compares production meter data
to raw (untreated) water and
treatment volumes to detect
anomalies. Regular calibrations
between SCADA and sources
meters ensures minimal data
transfer error.
data grading for "Master meter
error adjustment" component:
to qualify for 2:
Develop plan to restructure
recordkeeping system to
capture all flow data; set
procedure to review data daily
to detect input errors
to maintain 10:
Monitor meter innovations for
development of more accurate
and less expensive flowmeters.
Continue to replace or repair
meters as they perform outside of
desired accuracy limits.
Water Imported:
Select n/a if the
water utility's supply
is exclusively from
its own water
resources (no bulk
purchased/
imported water)
Less than 25% of imported
water sources are metered,
remaining sources are
estimated. No regular meter
accuracy testing.
25% - 50% of imported water
Conditions
between
2 and 4
50% - 75% of imported water
Conditions
between
4 and 6
At least 75% of imported water
sources are metered, meter
accuracy.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
100% of imported water sources
testing and/or electronic
calibration conducted annually,
less than 10% of meters are found
outside of +/- 6% accuracy
Conditions
between
8 and 10
100% of imported water sources
calibration conducted semi-
annually, with less than 10%
found outside of +/- 3% accuracy.
data grading for "Water
Imported Volume" component:
to qualify for 2:
Review bulk water purchase
agreements with partner
suppliers; confirm
requirements for use and
maintenance of accurate
metering. Identify needs for
new or replacement meters
with goal to meter all imported
water sources.
to maintain 10:
AWWA WLCC Free Water Audit Software: Grading Matrix
In the Reporting Worksheet, grades were assigned to each component of the audit to describe the confidence and accuracy of the input data. The grading assigned to each audit component and
the corresponding recommended improvements and actions are highlighted in yellow. Audit accuracy is likely to be improved by prioritizing those items shown in red
Grading
to qualify for 6:
Review hourly production meter data for gross
error on, at least, a weekly basis. Begin to
install instrumentation on tanks/storage facilities
to record elevation changes. Use daily net
storage change to balance flows in calculating
"Water Supplied" volume.
to qualify for 8:
Complete installation of elevation
instrumentation on all tanks/storage facilities.
Continue to use daily net storage change in
calculating balanced "Volume from own
sources" component. Adjust production meter
data for gross error and inaccuracy confirmed
by testing.
to qualify for 10:
Maintain annual meter accuracy testing for all
meters. Repair or replace meters outside of +/-
6% accuracy. Investigate new meter
technology; pilot one or more replacements
with innovative meters in attempt to improve
meter accuracy.
to qualify for 4:
Locate all water production sources on maps
and in field, launch meter accuracy testing for
existing meters, begin to install meters on
unmetered water production sources and
replace any obsolete/defective meters
to qualify for 6:
Formalize annual meter accuracy testing for all
source meters. Complete installation of meters
on unmetered water production sources and
complete replacement of all obsolete/defective
meters.
to qualify for 8:
Conduct annual meter accuracy testing on all
meters. Complete project to install new, or
replace defective existing, meters so that entire
production meter population is metered. Repair
or replace meters outside of +/- 6% accuracy.
to qualify for 10:
Link all production and tank/storage facility
elevation change data to a Supervisory Control
& Data Acquisition (SCADA) System, or similar
computerized monitoring/control system, and
establish automatic flow balancing algorithm
and regularly calibrate between SCADA and
source meters.
To qualify for 4:
Locate all imported water sources on maps and
in field, launch meter accuracy testing for
unmetered imported water interconnections and
replace obsolete/defective meters
to qualify for 6:
imported water meters. Continue installation of
meters on unmetered exported water
interconnections and replacement of
obsolete/defective meters.
to qualify for 8:
Complete project to install new, or replace
defective, meters on all imported water
interconnections. Maintain annual meter
accuracy testing for all imported water meters.
Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 6%
accuracy.
to qualify for 10:
meter accuracy.
to qualify for 4:
Install automatic datalogging equipment on
production meters. Identify tanks/storage
facilities and include estimated daily volume of
water added to, or subtracted from, "Water
Supplied" volume based upon changes in
storage
Back to Instructions
Copyright 2009, American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.
WASv 4.0
Back to Instructions
Copyright 2009, American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved.
WASv 4.0
Water Audit Grading Matrix
h Appendix B
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grading
Water Exported:
Select n/a if the
water utility sells no
bulk water to
neighboring water
utilities (no
exported water
sales)
Less than 25% of exported
water sources are metered,
remaining sources are
estimated. No regular meter
accuracy testing.
25% - 50% of exported water
Conditions
between
2 and 4
50% - 75% of exported water
Conditions
between
4 and 6
At least 75% of exported water
sources are metered, meter
accuracy.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
100% of exported water sources
calibration conducted annually,
less than 10% of meters are found
outside of +/- 6% accuracy
Conditions
between
8 and 10
100% of exported water sources
calibration conducted semi-
annually, with less than 10%
found outside of +/- 3% accuracy.
data grading for "Water
Exported Volume" component:
to qualify for 2:
Review bulk water sales
agreements with partner
suppliers; confirm
requirements for use & upkeep
of accurate metering. Identify
needs to install new, or replace
defective meters as needed.
to maintain 10:
Billed metered:
Select n/a only if
the customer
population is not
metered, and is
billed for water
service on a flat or
fixed rate basis
Less than 50% of customers
with volume-based billings
from meter readings; flat or
fixed rate billed for the majority
of the customer population
At least 50% of customers with
volume-based billing from meter
reads; flat or fixed rate billed for
remainder. Manual meter reading
used, less than 50% read success
rate, failed reads are estimated.
Limited customer meter records,
no regular meter testing or
replacement. Billing data
maintained on paper records, with
no auditing.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
reads; flat or fixed rate billed for
remainder. Manual meter reading
used, at least 50% meter read
success rate, failed reads are
estimated. Purchase records
verify age of customer meters;
only very limited meter accuracy
testing is conducted. Customer
meters replaced only upon
complete failure. Computerized
billing records, but only periodic
internal auditing conducted.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
reads; remaining accounts are
estimated. Manual customer
meter reading gives at least 80%
customer meter reading success
rate, failed reads are estimated.
Good customer meter records,
limited meter accuracy testing,
regular replacement of oldest
meters. Computerized billing
records with routine auditing of
global statistics.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
reads. At least 90% customer
meter read success rate; or
minimum 80% read success rate
with planning and budgeting for
trials of Automatic Metering
Reading (AMR) in one or more
pilot areas. Good customer meter
records. Regular meter accuracy
testing guides replacement of
statistically significant number of
meters each year. Routine
auditing of computerized billing
records for global and detailed
statistics; verified periodically by
third party.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
reads. At least 95% customer
meter reading success rate; or
minimum 80% meter reading
success rate, with Automatic
Meter Reading (AMR) trials
underway. Statistically significant
customer meter testing and
replacement program in place.
Computerized billing with routine,
detailed auditing, including field
investigation of representative
sample of accounts. Annual audit
verification by third party.
data grading for "Billed
Metered Consumption"
component:
If n/a is selected
because the
customer meter
population is
unmetered,
consider
establishing a new
policy to meter the
customer
population and
employ water rates
based upon
metered volumes.
to qualify for 2:
Conduct investigations or trials
of customer meters to select
appropriate meter models.
Budget funding for meter
installations. Investigate
volume based water rate
structures.
to maintain 10:
Regular internal and third party
auditing, and meter accuracy
testing ensures that accurate
customer meter readings are
obtained and entered as the basis
for volume based billing. Stay
abreast of improvements in
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
(AMI) and information
management. Plan and budget
for justified upgrades in metering,
meter reading and billing data
management.
Billed unmetered:
Select n/a if it is the
policy of the water
utility to meter all
customer
connections and it
has been confirmed
by detailed auditing
that all customers
do indeed have a
water meter; i.e. no
unmetered
accounts exist
Water utility policy does not
require customer metering; flat
or fixed fee billed. No data
collected on customer
consumption. Only estimates
available are derived from data
estimation methods using
average fixture count multiplied
by number of connections, or
similar approach.
Water utility policy does not
require customer metering; flat or
fixed fee billed. Some metered
accounts exist in parts of the
system (pilot areas or District
Metered Areas) with consumption
recorded on portable dataloggers.
Data from these sample meters
are used to infer consumption for
the total customer population.
Site specific estimation methods
are used for unusual
buildings/water uses.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Water utility policy does require
metering and volume based billing
but lacks written procedures and
employs casual oversight,
resulting in up to 20% of billed
accounts believed to be
unmetered. A rough estimate of
the annual consumption for all
unmetered accounts is included in
the annual water audit, with no
inspection of individual unmetered
accounts.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Water utility policy does require
but exemption exist for a portion
of accounts such as municipal
buildings. As many as 15% of
billed accounts are unmetered
due to this exemption or meter
installation difficulties. Only a
group estimate of annual
consumption for all unmetered
accounts is included in the annual
water audit, with no inspection of
individual unmetered accounts.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Water utility policy requires
for all customer accounts.
Metering is prevalent in the
service area with less than 5% of
billed accounts unmetered and
existing because meter installation
is hindered by unusual
circumstances. The goal is to
minimize the number of
unmetered accounts. Reliable
estimates of consumption are
obtained for unmetered accounts
via site specific estimation
methods.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Water utility policy requires
for all customer accounts. Less
than 2% of billed accounts are
unmetered and exist because
meter installation is hindered by
unusual circumstances. The goal
exists to minimize the number of
unmetered accounts to the extent
that is economical. Reliable
estimates of consumption are
obtained at these accounts via
site specific estimation methods.
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
To qualify for 4:
Locate all exported water sources on maps and
in field, launch meter accuracy testing for
unmetered exported water interconnections and
replace obsolete/defective meters
to qualify for 6:
exported water meters. Continue installation of
meters on unmetered exported water
interconnections and replacement of
obsolete/defective meters.
to qualify for 8:
Complete project to install new, or replace
defective, meters on all exported water
interconnections. Maintain annual meter
accuracy testing for all imported water meters.
Repair or replace meters outside of +/- 6%
accuracy.
to qualify for 10:
meter accuracy.
to qualify for 4:
Purchase and install meters on unmetered
accounts. Implement policies to improve meter
reading success. Catalog meter information
during meter read visits to identify age/model of
existing meters. Test a minimal number of
meters for accuracy. Install computerized
billing system.
to qualify for 6:
accounts. Eliminate flat fee billing and
establish appropriate water rate structure based
upon measured consumption. Continue to
achieve verifiable success in removing manual
meter reading barriers. Expand meter accuracy
testing. Launch regular meter replacement
program. Conduct routine audit of global
statistics.
to qualify for 8:
accounts. Assess cost-effectiveness of
Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) system for
portion or entire system; or achieve ongoing
improvements in manual meter reading success
rate. Refine meter accuracy testing program.
Set meter replacement goals based upon
accuracy test results. Refine routine auditing
procedures based upon third party guidance.
to qualify for 10:
accounts. Launch Automatic Meter Reading
(AMR) system trials if manual meter reading
success rate of at least 95% is not achieved
within a five-year program. Continue meter
accuracy testing program. Conduct planning
and budgeting for large scale meter
replacement based upon meter life cycle
analysis using cumulative flow target. Continue
routine auditing and require annual third party
review.
i Appendix B
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grading
data grading for "Billed
Unmetered Consumption"
component:
to qualify for 2:
Investigate a new water utility
policy to require metering of
the customer population, and a
reduction of unmetered
accounts. Conduct pilot
metering project by installing
water meters in small sample
of customer accounts and
datalogging the water
consumption.
to maintain 10:
Continue to refine estimation
methods for unmetered
consumption and explore means
to establish metering, for as many
billed unmetered accounts as is
economically feasible.
Unbilled metered:
select n/a if all
billing-exempt
consumption is
unmetered.
Billing practices exempt certain
accounts, such as municipal
buildings, but written policies
do not exist; and a reliable
count of unbilled metered
accounts is unavailable. Meter
upkeep and meter reading on
these accounts is rare and not
considered a priority. Due to
poor recordkeeping and lack of
auditing, water consumption
for all such accounts is purely
guesstimated.
Billing practices exempt certain
buildings, but only scattered,
dated written directives exist to
justify this practice. A reliable
count of unbilled metered
accounts is unavailable. Sporadic
meter replacement and meter
reading occurs on an as-needed
basis. The total annual water
consumption for all unbilled,
metered accounts is estimated
based upon approximating the
number of accounts and assigning
consumption from actively billed
accounts of same meter size.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Dated written procedures permit
billing exemption for specific
properties, but are unclear
regarding certain other types of
accounts. Meter reading is given
low priority and is sporadic.
Consumption is quantified from
meter readings where available.
The total number of unbilled,
unmetered accounts must be
estimated along with consumption
volumes.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Written policies regarding billing
exemptions exist but adherence in
practice is questionable. Metering
and meter reading for municipal
buildings is reliable but sporadic
for other unbilled metered
accounts. Periodic auditing of
such accounts is conducted.
Water consumption is quantified
directly from meter readings
where available, but the majority
of the consumption is estimated.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Written policy identifies the types
of accounts granted a billing
exemption. Customer meter
management and meter reading
are considered secondary
priorities, but meter reading is
conducted at least annually to
obtain consumption volumes for
the annual water audit. High level
auditing of billing records ensures
that a reliable census of such
accounts exists.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Clearly written policy identifies the
types of accounts given a billing
exemption, with emphasis on
keeping such accounts to a
minimum. Customer meter
management and meter reading
for these accounts is given proper
priority and is reliably conducted.
Regular auditing confirms this.
Total water consumption for these
accounts is taken from reliable
readings from accurate meters.
data grading for "Unbilled
metered Consumption"
component:
to qualify for 2:
Reassess the water utility's
policy allowing certain
accounts to be granted a billing
exemption. Draft an outline of
a new written policy for billing
exemptions, with clear
justification as to why any
accounts should be exempt
from billing, and with the
intention to keep the number of
such accounts to a minimum.
to maintain 10:
Reassess philosophy in allowing
any water uses to go "unbilled". It
is possible to meter and bill all
accounts, even if the fee charged
for water consumption is
discounted or waived. Metering
and billing all accounts ensures
that water consumption is tracked
and water waste from plumbing
leaks is detected and minimized.
Unbilled unmetered:
Extent of unbilled, unmetered
consumption is unknown due
to unclear policies and poor
recordkeeping. Total
consumption is quantified
based upon a purely subjective
estimate.
Clear extent of unbilled,
unmetered consumption is
unknown, but a number of events
are randomly documented each
year, confirming existence of such
consumption, but without
sufficient documentation to
quantify an accurate estimate of
the annual volume consumed.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Extent of unbilled, unmetered
consumption is partially known,
and procedures exist to document
certain events such as
miscellaneous fire hydrant uses.
Formulae is used to quantify the
consumption from such events
(time running x typical flowrate x
number of events).
Default
value of
1.25% of
system
input
volume is
employed
Coherent policies exist for some
forms of unbilled, unmetered
consumption but others await
closer evaluation. Reasonable
recordkeeping for the managed
uses exists and allows for annual
volumes to be quantified by
inference, but unsupervised uses
are guesstimated.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Clear policies and good
recordkeeping exist for some uses
(ex: unmetered fire connections
registering consumption), but
other uses (ex: miscellaneous
uses of fire hydrants) have limited
oversight. Total consumption is a
mix of well quantified use such as
from formulae (time x typical flow)
or temporary meters, and
relatively subjective estimates of
less regulated use.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Clear policies exist to identify
permitted use of water in unbilled,
unmetered fashion, with the
intention of minimizing this type of
consumption. Good records
document each occurrence and
consumption is quantified via
formulae (time x typical flow) or
use of temporary meters.
to qualify for 4:
Review historic written directives and policy
documents allowing certain accounts to be
billing-exempt. Draft an outline of a written
policy for billing exemptions, identify criteria that
grants an exemption, with a goal of keeping this
number of accounts to a minimum.
to qualify for 6:
Draft a new written policy regarding billing
exemptions based upon consensus criteria
allowing this occurrence. Assign resources to
audit meter records and billing records to obtain
census of unbilled metered accounts.
to qualify for 8:
Communicate billing exemption policy
throughout the organization and implement
procedures that ensure proper account
management. Conduct inspections of accounts
confirmed in unbilled metered status and verify
that accurate meters exist and are scheduled
for routine meter readings.
to qualify for 10:
Ensure that meter management (meter
accuracy testing, meter replacement) and meter
reading activities are accorded the same priority
as billed accounts. Establish ongoing annual
auditing process to ensure that water
consumption is reliably collected and provided
to the annual water audit process.
to qualify for 4:
Implement a new water utility policy requiring
customer metering. Expand pilot metering
study to include several different meter types,
which will provide data for economic
assessment of full scale metering options.
Assess sites with access difficulties to devise
means to obtain water consumption volumes.
to qualify for 6:
Budget for staff resources to review billing
records to identify unmetered properties.
Specify metering needs and funding
requirements to install sufficient meters to
significant reduce the number of unmetered
accounts
to qualify for 8:
Install customer meters on a full scale basis.
Refine metering policy and procedures to
ensure that all accounts, including municipal
properties, are designated for meters.
Implement procedures to obtain reliable
consumption estimate for unmetered accounts
awaiting meter installation.
to qualify for 10:
Continue customer meter installation
throughout the service area, with a goal to
minimize unmetered accounts. Sustain the
effort to investigate accounts with access
difficulties to devise means to install water
meters or otherwise measure water
consumption.
j Appendix B
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grading
data grading for "Unbilled
Unmetered Consumption"
component:
to qualify for 5:
Utilize accepted default value
of 1.25% of system input
volume as an expedient means
to gain a reasonable
quantification of this use.
to qualify for 2:
Establish a policy regarding
what water uses should be
allowed as unbilled and
unmetered. Consider tracking
a small sample of one such
use (ex: fire hydrant flushings).
to qualify for 5:
Utilize accepted default value of
1.25% of system input volume as
expedient means to gain a
reasonable quantification of all
such use. This is particularly
appropriate for water utilities who
are in the early stages of the
water auditing process.
to qualify for
6 or greater:
Finalize
policy and
do field
checks.
Proceed if
top-down
audit exists
and/or a
great
volume of
such use is
suspected.
to maintain 10:
Continue to refine policy and
procedures with intention of
reducing the number of allowable
uses of water in unbilled and
unmetered fashion. Any uses that
can feasibly become billed and
metered should be converted
eventually.
Unauthorized consumption:
Extent of unauthorized
consumption is unknown due
to unclear policies and poor
recordkeeping. Total
unauthorized consumption is
guesstimated.
Unauthorized consumption is a
known occurrence, but its extent
is a mystery. There are no
requirements to document
observed events, but periodic field
reports capture some of these
occurrences. Total unauthorized
consumption is approximated
from this limited data.
conditions
between 2
and 4
Procedures exist to document
some unauthorized consumption
such as observed unauthorized
fire hydrant openings. Use
formulae to quantify this
consumption (time running x
typical flowrate x number of
events).
Default
value of
0.25% of
system
input
volume is
employed
Coherent policies exist for some
forms of unauthorized
consumption but others await
closer evaluation. Reasonable
surveillance and recordkeeping
exist for occurrences that fall
under the policy. Volumes
quantified by inference from these
records. Unsupervised uses are
guesstimated.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Clear policies and good
recordkeeping exist for certain
events (ex: tampering with water
meters); other occurrences have
limited oversight. Total
consumption is a combination of
volumes from formulae (time x
typical flow) and subjective
estimates of unconfirmed
consumption.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Clear policies exist to identify all
known unauthorized uses of
water. Staff and procedures exist
to provide enforcement of policies
and detect violations. Each
occurrence is quantified via
formulae (time x typical flow) or
similar methods.
data grading for "Unauthorized
Consumption" component:
to qualify for 5:
Use accepted default of 0.25%
of system input volume.
to qualify for 2:
Review utility policy regarding
what water uses are
considered unauthorized, and
consider tracking a small
sample of one such
occurrence (ex: unauthorized
fire hydrant openings)
to qualify for 5:
Utilize accepted default value of
0.25% of system input volume as
expedient means to gain a
reasonable quantification of all
such use. This is particularly
appropriate for water utilities who
are in the early stages of the
water auditing process.
to qualify for
6 or greater:
Finalize
policy and
do field
checks.
Proceed if
top-down
audit exists
and/or a
great
volume of
such use is
suspected.
to maintain 10:
Continue to refine policy and
procedures to eliminate any
loopholes that allow or tacitly
encourage unauthorized
consumption. Continue to be
vigilant in documentation and
enforcement efforts.
Customer metering
inaccuracies:
select n/a only if the
customer
population is
unmetered
Customer meters exist, but
with unorganized paper
records on meters; no meter
accuracy testing or meter
replacement program.
Workflow is driven chaotically
by customer complaints with
no proactive management.
Loss volume due to aggregate
meter inaccuracy is
guesstimated.
Poor recordkeeping and meter
oversight is recognized by water
utility management who has
allotted staff and funding
resources to organize improved
recordkeeping and start meter
accuracy testing. Existing paper
records gathered and organized
to provide cursory disposition of
meter population.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Reliable recordkeeping exists;
meter information is improving as
meters are replaced. Meter
accuracy testing is conducted
annually for a small number of
meters. Limited number of oldest
meters replaced each year.
Inaccuracy volume is largely an
estimate, but refined based upon
limited testing data.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
A reliable electronic
recordkeeping system for meters
exists. Population includes a mix
of new high performing meters
and dated meters with suspect
accuracy. Routine, but limited,
meter accuracy testing and meter
replacement occur. Inaccuracy
volume is quantified using a mix
of reliable and less certain data.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Ongoing meter replacement and
accuracy testing result in highly
accurate customer meter
population. Testing is conducted
on samples of meters at varying
lifespans to determine optimum
replacement time for various
types of meters.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Good records of number, type and
size of customer meters; ongoing
meter replacement occurs.
Regular meter accuracy testing
gives reliable measure of
composite inaccuracy volume for
the system. New metering
technology is embraced to keep
overall accuracy improving.
data grading for "Customer
meter inaccuracy volume"
component:
If n/a is selected
because the
customer meter
population is
unmetered,
consider
establishing a new
policy to meter the
customer
population and
employ water rates
based upon
metered volumes.
to qualify for 2:
Gather available meter
purchase records. Conduct
testing on a small number of
meters believed to be the most
inaccurate. Review staffing
needs of metering group and
budget for necessary
resources to better organize
meter management.
to maintain 10:
Increase the number of meters
tested and replaced as justified by
meter accuracy test data.
Continually monitor development
of new technology in Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to
grasp opportunities for greater
accuracy in metering and
customer consumption data.
to qualify for 5:
Utilize accepted default value of 1.25% of
system input volume as an expedient means to
gain a reasonable quantification of this use.
to qualify for 4:
Evaluate the documentation of events that have
been observed. Meet with user groups (ex: for
fire hydrants - fire departments, contractors to
ascertain their need for water from fire
hydrants).
to qualify for 8:
Assess water utility policy and procedures to
ensure that fire hydrant permits are issued for
use by persons outside of the utility. Create
written procedures for use and documentation
of fire hydrants by water utility personnel.
to qualify for 10:
Refine written procedures to ensure that all
uses of unbilled, unmetered water are overseen
by a structured permitting process managed by
water utility personnel. Reassess policy to
determine if some of these uses have value in
being converted to billed and/or metered status.
to qualify for 5:
Use accepted default of 0.25% of system input
volume
to qualify for 4:
Review utility policy regarding what water uses
are considered unauthorized, and consider
tracking a small sample of one such occurrence
(ex: unauthorized fire hydrant openings)
to quality for 8:
Assess water utility policies to ensure that all
known occurrences of unauthorized
consumption are outlawed, and that appropriate
penalties are prescribed. Create written
procedures for use and documentation of
various occurrences of unauthorized
consumption as they are uncovered.
to qualify for 10:
Refine written procedures and assign staff to
seek out likely occurrences of unauthorized
consumption. Explore new locking devices,
monitors and other technologies designed to
detect and thwart unauthorized consumption.
APPARENT LOSSES
to qualify for 4:
Implement a reliable record keeping system for
customer meter histories, preferably using
electronic methods typically linked to, or part of,
the Customer Billing System or Customer
Information System. Expand meter accuracy
testing to a larger group of meters.
to qualify for 6:
Standardize procedures for meter
recordkeeping with the electronic information
system. Accelerate meter accuracy testing and
meter replacements guided by testing results.
to qualify for 8:
Expand annual meter accuracy testing to
evaluate a statistically significant number of
meter makes/models. Expand meter
replacement program to replace statistically
significant number of poor performing meters
each year.
to qualify for 10:
Continue efforts to manage meter population
with reliable recordkeeping, meter testing and
replacement. Evaluate new meter types and
install one or more types in 5-10 customer
accounts each year in order to pilot improving
k Appendix B
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grading
Systematic Data Handling
Error:
select n/a only if the
customer
population is billed
a flat or fixed rate
charge that is not
based upon
measured volumes
of water
consumption
(unmetered
population)
Vague policy for permitting
(creating new customer
accounts) and billing. Billing
data maintained on paper
records which are in disarray.
No audits conducted to confirm
billing data handling efficiency.
Unknown number of customers
escape routine billing due to
lack of billing process
oversight.
Policy for permitting and billing
exists but needs refinement.
Billing data maintained on paper
records or insufficiently capable
electronic database. Only
periodic unstructured auditing
work conducted to confirm billing
data handling efficiency. Volume
of unbilled water due to billing
lapses is a guess.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Policy and procedures for
permitting and billing exist but
needs refinement. Computerized
billing system exists, but is dated
or lacks needed functionality.
Periodic, limited internal audits
conducted and confirm with
approximate accuracy the
consumption volumes lost to
billing lapses.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Policy for permitting and billing is
adequate and reviewed
periodically. Computerized billing
system in use with basic reporting
available. Any effect of billing
adjustments on measured
consumption volumes is well
understood. Internal checks of
billing data error conducted
annually. Reasonably accurate
quantification of consumption
volume lost to billing lapses is
obtained.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Permitting and billing policy
reviewed at least biannually.
Computerized billing system
includes an array of reports to
confirm billing data and system
functionality. Annual internal
checks conducted with periodic
third party audit. Accountability
checks flag billing lapses.
Consumption lost to billing lapses
is well quantified and reducing
year-by-year.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Sound policy exists for permitting
of all customer billing accounts.
Robust computerized billing
system gives high functionality
and reporting capabilities.
Assessment of policy and data
handling errors conducted
internally and audited by third
party annually, ensuring
consumption lost to billing lapses
is minimized and detected as it
occurs.
data grading for "Systematic
Data Handling Error volume"
component:
to qualify for 2:
Draft written policy for
permitting and billing.
Investigate and budget for
computerized customer billing
system. Conduct initial audit of
billing records by flow-charting
the basic business processes
of the customer account/billing
function.
to maintain 10:
Stay abreast of customer
information management
developments and innovations.
Monitor developments of
Advanced Metering Infrastructure
(AMI) and integrate technology to
ensure that customer endpoint
information is well-monitored and
errors/lapses are at an economic
minimum.
Length of mains:
Poorly assembled and
maintained paper as-built
records of existing water main
installations makes accurate
determination of system pipe
length impossible. Length of
mains is guesstimated.
Paper records in poor condition
(no annual tracking of installations
& abandonments). Poor
procedures to ensure that new
water mains installed by
developers are accurately
documented.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Sound policy and procedures for
permitting and documenting new
water main installations, but gaps
in management result in a
uncertain degree of error in
tabulation of mains length.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Sound policy and procedures exist
for permitting and commissioning
new water mains. Highly accurate
paper records with regular field
validation; or electronic records
and asset management system in
good condition. Includes system
backup.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Sound policy and procedures exist
for permitting and commissioning
new water mains. Electronic
recordkeeping and asset
management system are used to
store and manage data.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Sound policy exists for managing
water mains extensions and
replacements. Geographic
Information System (GIS) data
and asset management database
agree and random field validation
proves truth of databases.
data grading for "Length of
Water Mains" component:
to qualify for 2:
Assign personnel to inventory
current as-built records and
compare with customer billing
system records and highway
plans. Assemble policy
documents regarding
permitting and documentation
of water main installations by
the utility and building
developers; identify gaps in
procedure that result in poor
documentation.
to maintain 10:
Continue with standardization and
random field validation to improve
knowledge of system.
Number of active AND inactive
service connections:
Vague permitting (of new
service connections) policy and
poor paper recordkeeping of
customer connections/billings
result in suspect determination
of the number of service
connections, which may be 10-
15% in error from actual count.
General permitting policy exists
but paper records, procedural
gaps, and weak oversight result in
questionable total for number of
connections, which may vary 5-
10% of actual count.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Permitting policy and procedures
exist, but with some gaps in
performance and oversight.
Computerized information
management system is being
brought online to replace dated
paper recordkeeping system.
Reasonably accurate tracking of
service connection installations &
abandonments; but count can be
up to 5% in error from actual total.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
are adequate and reviewed
periodically. Computerized
information management system
is in use with annual installations
& abandonments totaled. Very
limited field verifications and
audits. Error in count of number
of service connections is believed
to be no more that 3%.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
reviewed at least biannually. Well-
managed computerized
information management system
and routine, periodic field checks
and internal system audits allows
counts of connections that is no
more than 2% in error.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Sound permitting policy and well
managed and audited procedures
ensure reliable management of
service connection population.
Computerized information
management system and
Geographic Information System
(GIS) information agree; field
validation proves truth of
databases. Count of connections
believed to be in error by less than
1%.
data grading for "Number of
Active and Inactive customer
service connections"
component:
to qualify for 2:
Draft new policy and
procedures for permitting and
billing. Research and collect
paper records of installations &
abandonments for several
years prior to audit year.
to maintain 10:
to qualify for 4:
Complete inventory of paper records of water
main installations & abandonments for a
number of years prior to audit year. Review
policy and procedures for commissioning and
documenting new water main installation and
abandonments.
to qualify for 6:
Finalize updates/improvements to policy and
procedures for permitting/commissioning new
main installations. Confirm inventory of records
for five years prior to audit year; correct any
errors or omissions.
to qualify for 8:
Launch random field checks of limited number
of locations. Convert to electronic databases
with backup as justified.
to qualify for 10:
Link Geographic Information System (GIS) and
asset management databases, conduct field
verification of data.
SYSTEM DATA
to qualify for 4:
Finalize written policy for permitting and billing.
Implement a computerized customer billing
system. Conduct initial audit of billing records
as part of this process.
to qualify for 6:
Refine permitting and billing procedures and
ensure consistency with the utility policy
regarding billing, and minimize opportunity for
missed billings. Upgrade or replace customer
billing system for needed functionality - ensure
that billing adjustments don't corrupt the value
of consumption volumes. Procedurize internal
annual audit process.
to qualify for 8:
Formalize regular review of permitting and
billing practices. Enhance reporting capability
of computerized billing system. Formalize
regular auditing process to reveal scope of data
handling error.
to qualify for 10:
Close policy/procedure loopholes that allow
some customer accounts to go unbilled, or data
handling errors to exist. Ensure that internal
and third party audits are conducted annually.
to qualify for 4:
Refine policy and procedures for permitting and
billing. Research computerized recordkeeping
system (Customer Information System or
Customer Billing System) to improve
documentation format for service connections.
to qualify for 6:
Refine procedures to ensure consistency with
permitting policy to establish new service
connections or decommission existing
connections. Improve process to include all
totals for at least five years prior to audit year.
to qualify for 8:
Formalize regular review of permitting policy
and procedures. Launch random field checks
of limited number of locations. Develop reports
and auditing mechanisms for computerized
information management system.
to qualify for 10:
Close any procedural loopholes that allow
installations to go undocumented. Link
computerized information management system
with Geographic Information System (GIS) and
formalize field inspection and information
system auditing processes. Documentation of
new or decommissioned service connections
encounters several levels of checks and
balances.
l Appendix B
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grading
Vague policy exists to define
the delineation of water utility
ownership and customer
ownership of the service
connection piping. Curbstops
are perceived as the
breakpoint but these have not
been well-maintained or
documented. Most are buried
or obscured. Their location
varies widely from site-to-site,
and estimating this distance is
arbitrary due to the unknown
location of many curbstops.
Policy requires that the curbstop
serves as the delineation point
between water utility ownership
and customer ownership of the
service connection piping. The
piping from the water main to the
curbstop is the property of the
water utility; and the piping from
the curbstop to the customer
building is owned by the
customer. Most curbstops are
installed as required but are not
well-documented. Their location
varies widely from site-to-site, and
an estimate of this distance is
based upon the findings of a small
group of locations measured in
the field.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Good policy requires that the
curbstop serves as the delineation
point between water utility
ownership and customer
ownership of the service
connection piping. Curbstops are
generally installed as needed and
are reasonably documented.
Their location varies widely from
site-to-site, and an estimate of this
distance is hindered by the
availability of paper records.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Clear policy exists to define
utility/customer responsibility for
service connection piping.
Accurate, well-maintained paper
or basic electronic recordkeeping
system exists. Periodic field
checks confirm piping lengths for
a sample of customer properties.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Clearly worded policy
standardizes the location of
curbstops and meters, which are
inspected upon installation.
Accurate and well maintained
electronic records exist with
periodic field checks to confirm
locations of service lines,
curbstops and customer meter
pits. An accurate number of
customer properties from the
customer billing system allows for
reliable averaging of this length.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
data grading for "Average
Length of Customer Service
Line" component:
to qualify for 2:
Research and collect paper
records of service line
installations. Inspect several
sites in the field using pipe
locators to locate curbstops.
Obtain the length of this small
sample of connections in this
manner.
to maintain 10:
Average operating pressure:
Available records are poorly
assembled and maintained
paper records of supply pump
characteristics and water
distribution system operating
conditions. Average pressure
is guesstimated based upon
this information and ground
elevations from crude
topographical maps. Widely
varying distribution system
pressures due to undulating
terrain, high system head loss
and weak/erratic pressure
controls further compromise
the validity of the average
pressure calculation.
Limited telemetry monitoring of
scattered sites provides some
static pressure data, which is
recorded in handwritten logbooks.
Pressure data is gathered at
individual sites only when low
pressure complaints arise.
Average pressure is determined
by averaging relatively crude data,
and is affected by significant
variation in ground elevations,
system head loss and gaps in
pressure controls at points in the
distribution system.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Effective pressure controls
separate different pressure zones;
moderate pressure variation
across the system, occasional
open boundary valves are
discovered that breech pressure
zones. Basic telemetry monitoring
of the distribution system logs
pressure data electronically.
Pressure data gathered by
gauges or dataloggers at fire
hydrants or buildings when low
pressure complaints arise, and
during fire flow tests and system
flushing. Reliable topographical
data exists. Average pressure is
calculated using this mix of data.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Reliable pressure controls
separate distinct pressure zones;
only very occasional open
boundary valves are encountered
that breech pressure zones. Well-
covered telemetry monitoring of
the distribution system logs
extensive pressure data
electronically. Pressure gathered
by gauges/dataloggers at fire
hydrants and buildings when low
pressure complaints arise, and
during fire flow tests and system
flushing. Average pressure is
determined by using this mix of
reliable data.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Well-managed, discrete pressure
zones exist with generally
predictable pressure fluctuations.
A current full-scale SCADA
System exists to monitor the water
distribution system and collect
data, including real time pressure
readings at representative sites
across the system. The average
system pressure is determined
from reliable SCADA System
data.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Well-managed pressure
districts/zones, SCADA System
and hydraulic model exist to give
very precise pressure data across
the water distribution system.
Average system pressure is
reliably calculated from extensive,
reliable, and cross-checked data.
data grading for "Average
Operating Pressure"
component:
to qualify for 2:
Employ pressure gauging
and/or datalogging equipment
to obtain pressure
measurements from fire
hydrants. Locate accurate
topographical maps of service
area in order to confirm ground
elevations. Research pump
data sheets to find pump
pressure/flow characteristics
to maintain 10:
Continue to refine the hydraulic
model of the distribution system
and consider linking it with
SCADA System for real-time
pressure data calibration, and
averaging.
to qualify for 4:
Formalize a procedure to use pressure
gauging/datalogging equipment to gather
pressure data during various system events
such as low pressure complaints, or operational
testing. Gather pump pressure and flow data at
different flow regimes. Identify faulty pressure
controls (pressure reducing valves, altitude
valves, partially open boundary valves) and plan
to properly configure pressure zones. Make all
pressure data from these efforts available to
generate system-wide average pressure.
to qualify for 6:
Expand the use of pressure
gauging/datalogging equipment to gather
scattered pressure data at a representative set
of sites, based upon pressure zones or areas.
Utilize pump pressure and flow data to
determine supply head entering each pressure
zone or district. Correct any faulty pressure
controls (pressure reducing valves, altitude
valves, partially open boundary valves) to
ensure properly configured pressure zones.
Use expanded pressure dataset from these
activities to generate system-wide average
pressure.
to qualify for 8:
Install a Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) System to monitor system
parameters and control operations. Set regular
calibration schedule for instrumentation to
insure data accuracy. Obtain accurate
topographical data and utilize pressure data
gathered from field surveys to provide
extensive, reliable data for pressure averaging.
to qualify for 10:
Obtain average pressure data from hydraulic
model of the distribution system that has been
calibrated via field measurements in the water
distribution system and confirmed in
comparisons with SCADA System data.
to qualify for 4:
Formalize and communicate policy delineating
utility/customer responsibilities for service
connection piping. Assess accuracy of paper
records by field inspection of a small sample of
service connections using pipe locators as
needed. Research the potential migration to a
computerized information management system
to store service connection data.
to qualify for 6:
Establish coherent procedures to ensure that
policy for curbstop, meter installation and
documentation is followed. Gain consensus
within the water utility for the establishment of a
computerized information management system.
to qualify for 8:
Implement an electronic means of
recordkeeping, typically via a customer
information system or customer billing system.
Standardize the process to conduct field checks
of limited number of locations.
to qualify for 10:
Link customer information management system
and Geographic Information System (GIS),
standardize process for field verification of data.
Average length of customer
service line:
If customer water
meters are located
outside of the
customer building
and adjacent to the
curbstop or
boundary
separating
utility/customer
responsibility for
the service
connection piping
(typically in a meter
box or meter pit),
then enter a value
of zero in the
Reporting
Worksheet with a
grading of 10.
Either of two conditions can be
met to obtain a grading of 10:
a) The customer water meter is
located outside of the customer
building adjacent to the curbstop
or boundary separating
utility/customer responsibility for
the service connection piping. In
this case enter a value of zero in
the Reporting Worksheet with a
grading of 10.
b). Customer water meters are
located inside customer buildings,
or the properties are unmetered.
In either case the distance is
highly reliable since data is drawn
from a Geographic Information
System (GIS) and confirmed by
routine field checks.
Gradings 1-9 apply if customer properties are unmetered, if customer meters exist and are located inside the customer building premises, or if the water utility owns and is responsible for the entire service connection
piping from the water main to the customer building. In any of these cases the average distance between the curbstop or boundary separating utility/customer responsibility for service connection piping, and the typical first
point of use (ex: faucet) or the customer meter must be quantified. Gradings of 1-9 are used to grade the validity of the means to quantify this value.
(See the "Service Connection Diagram" worksheet)
m Appendix B
n/a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grading
Total annual cost of operating
water system:
Incomplete paper records and
lack of documentation on
many operating functions
making calculation of water
system operating costs a pure
guesstimate
Reasonably maintained, but
incomplete, paper or electronic
accounting provides data to
estimate the major portion of
water system operating costs.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Electronic, industry-standard cost
accounting system in place. Gaps
in data known to exist, periodic
internal reviews conducted but not
a structured audit.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Reliable electronic, industry-
standard cost accounting system
in place, with all pertinent water
system operating costs tracked.
Data audited periodically by utility
personnel, not a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA).
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Data audited at least annually by
utility personnel, and periodically
by third-party CPA.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Data audited annually by utility
personnel and by third-party CPA.
data grading for "Total Annual
Cost of Operating the Water
System" component:
to qualify for 2:
Gather available records,
institute new procedures to
regularly collect and audit
basic cost data of most
important operations functions.
to maintain 10:
Maintain program, stay abreast of
expenses subject to erratic cost
changes and budget/track costs
proactively
Customer retail unit cost
(applied to Apparent Losses):
Antiquated, cumbersome water
rate structure is use, with
periodic historic amendments
that were poorly documented
and implemented; resulting in
classes of customers being
billed inconsistent charges.
The actual composite billing
rate likely differs significantly
from the published water rate
structure, but a lack of auditing
leaves the degree of error
indeterminate.
Dated, cumbersome water rate
structure, not always employed
consistently in actual billing
operations. The actual composite
billing rate is known to differ from
the published water rate structure,
and a reasonably accurate
estimate of the degree of error is
determined, allowing a composite
billing rate to be quantified.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Straight-forward water rate
structure in use, but not updated
in several years. Billing
operations reliably employ the
rate structure. The composite
billing rate is derived from a single
customer class such as residential
customer accounts, neglecting the
effect of different rates from
varying customer classes.
Customer
population
unmetered.
Fixed fee
charged;
single
composite
number
derived
from
multiple
customer
classes.
Clearly written, up-to-date water
rate structure is in force and is
applied reliably in billing
operations. Composite customer
rate is determined using a
weighted average residential rate
using volumes of water in each
rate block.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
Effective water rate structure is in
force and is applied reliably in
billing operations. Composite
customer rate is determined using
a weighted average composite
consumption rate, including
residential, commercial, industrial
and any other customer classes
within the water rate structure.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Third party reviewed weighted
average composite consumption
rate (includes residential,
commercial, industrial, etc.)
data grading for "Customer
Retail Unit Cost" component:
to qualify for 2:
Formalize the process to
implement water rates,
including a secure
documentation procedure.
Create a current, formal water
rate document and gain
approval from all stakeholders.
to qualify for 6:
Evaluate volume of water used in
each usage block by residential
users. Multiply volumes by full
rate structure.
Meter
customers
and charge
rates based
upon water
volumes
to maintain 10:
Keep water rate structure current
in addressing the water utility's
revenue needs. Update the
calculation of the customer unit
rate as new rate components,
customer classes, or other
components are modified.
Variable production cost
(applied to Real Losses):
If the water utility
purchases/imports
its entire water
supply, then enter
the unit purchase
cost of the bulk
water supply in the
Reporting
Worksheet with a
grading of 10
Incomplete paper records and
lack of documentation on
primary operating functions
(electric power and treatment
costs most importantly) makes
calculation of variable
production costs a pure
guesstimate
Reasonably maintained, but
incomplete, paper or electronic
accounting provides data to
roughly estimate the basic
operations costs (pumping power
costs and treatment costs) and
calculate a unit variable
production cost.
Conditions
between
2 and 4
Electronic, industry-standard cost
accounting system in place.
Electric power and treatment
costs are reliably tracked and
allow accurate calculation of unit
variable production costs based
on these two inputs only. All costs
are audited internally on a
periodic basis.
Conditions
between
4 and 6
Pertinent additional costs beyond
power and treatment (ex: liability,
residuals management, etc.) are
included in the unit variable
production cost. Data audited at
least annually by utility personnel.
Conditions
between
6 and 8
in place, with all pertinent variable
production costs tracked. Data
audited at least annually by utility
personnel, and periodically by
third-party.
Conditions
between
8 and 10
Either of two conditions can be
met to obtain a grading of 10:
1) Third party CPA audit of all
primary and secondary cost
components on an annual basis.
or:
2) Water supply is entirely
purchased as bulk imported
water, and unit purchase cost
serves as the variable production
cost.
data grading for "Variable
Production Cost" component:
to qualify for 2:
Gather available records,
institute new procedures to
regularly collect and audit
basic cost data and most
important operations functions.
to maintain 10:
Maintain program, stay abreast of
expenses subject to erratic cost
changes and budget/track costs
proactively
to qualify for 4:
Implement an electronic cost accounting
system, structured according to accounting
standards for water utilities
to qualify for 6:
Formalize process for regular internal audits of
production costs. Assess whether additional
costs (liability, residuals management, etc.)
should be included to calculate a more accurate
variable production cost.
to qualify for 8:
Formalize the accounting process to include
primary cost components (power, treatment) as
well as secondary components (liability,
residuals management, etc.) Conduct periodic
third-party audits.
to qualify for 10:
Standardize the process to conduct a third-party
financial audit by a CPA on an annual basis.
to qualify for 4:
Implement an electronic cost accounting
system, structured according to accounting
standards for water utilities
to qualify for 6:
Establish process for periodic internal audit of
water system operating costs; identify cost data
gaps and institute procedures for tracking these
outstanding costs.
to qualify for 8:
Standardize the process to conduct routine
financial audit on an annual basis.
to qualify for 10:
Standardize the process to conduct a third-party
financial audit by a CPA on an annual basis.
to qualify for 4:
Review the water rate structure and
update/formalize as needed. Assess billing
operations to ensure that actual billing
operations incorporate the established water
rate structure.
to qualify for 8:
Evaluate volume of water used in each usage
block by all classifications of users. Multiply
volumes by full rate structure.
to qualify for 10:
Conduct a periodic third-party audit of water
used in each usage block by all classifications
of users. Multiply volumes by full rate structure.
COST DATA
n Appendix B
Distribution System Water Audit o
APPENDIX C MANUFACTURERS PUMP CURVES

Distribution System Water Audit p
Pump 1: Inside Paco Pump

Pump 2: Inside Fairbanks Morse Pump

U.S. GALLONS PER MINUTE

18
16.75

MasterPlan FinalReport Submitted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MasterPlan FinalReport Submitted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District

Distribution System Master Plan

4.6% -7.0% -7.8% -8.9% -9.2%

Flow outside design range of meter. Test disregarded.

Pump 3 operating, hydrant flow on 11

Deficient fire flow at 20 psi.

You might also like