Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared By: Earth Tech Canada Inc. 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2
July 2008 93489 Project:
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539
AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2
May 2009
Region of Waterloo
May 2009
Mr Jorge Cavalcante Manager Engineering & Planning Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street 7th Floor Water Services Division Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3
Dear Mr Cavalcante: Re: Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan Final Report We are pleased to provide our report of the Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan. This report outlines the existing water distribution system within the urban boundaries of the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. It characterizes some of the constraints and opportunities within the existing system and provides an outline for upgrades to the water distribution system to meet the demands of the Region of Waterloo through to 2031.
Sincerely, AECOM
Signature Page
Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:
Executive Summary
Overview The Region of Waterloo (ROW) initiated this study to review the existing water distribution system within the urban boundaries of the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The intent of the study was to review the existing infrastructure, identify opportunities and constraints within the system and to provide a framework for future growth within the Tri-City urban boundaries. Section 1 of this report provides an introduction to the study. It outlines the objectives of the study, describes the current Water Distribution Master Plan and provides a description of background information used to support this document. Section 2 provides a description of the methodology used to complete this study. The section introduces the project team and organization structure. This study is being completed under the Guidance of the Master Plan requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment Process as amended in 2007. As such, public involvement into the project was very important. Outlined within this section are:
Project Steering Committee; Project Agency and stakeholder contact list; Notices of Project Commencement and Study completion; Project Workshops held; and Public Information Centres including dates and locations
In 2003 the Region developed a Long Term Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) to plan for and guide future population and employment growth in the ROW. The RGMS concluded that over the next several decades it is realistic to anticipate that the Region will grow to approximately 700,000 by 2041. Subsequently, the Province of Ontario identified the Region as a Future Growth Area in the Places to Grow Act, passed in June 2005, and designated the downtowns of Kitchener and Waterloo as Priority Urban Centres and Downtown Cambridge as an Emerging Urban Centre. Places to Grow indicates that the population of the ROW will be 729,000 by 2031. The RGMS helps to ensure that Smart Growth principles are realized in the Region. As part of this, the RGMS recommended the Water Distribution Master Plan be updated to provide a plan for water distribution services to meet the needs of customers in a safe, efficient, cost effective and fiscally responsible manner. As a result the ROW initiated this study to determine and evaluate water distribution and servicing strategies to meet the long term needs of residents and business until 2026. The study was to be completed as a Master Plan under the Environmental Assessment Act in accordance with Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MEA) requirements. The objectives of the Master Plan are as follows: 1. Determination of the future demand requirements on the Regions Water supply and distribution systems. 2. Identification of future demand requirements. 3. Determination of the feasibility of upgrading or expanding the Regions water distribution system to meet the capacity requirements determined above.
Final Report
4. 5.
6.
Identification and evaluation of a range of alternatives to meet the water distribution needs of the Region as a whole. Provide sufficient and meaningful public and agency consultation at appropriate stages of Master Plan development being completed to fulfill Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements, so that the preferred strategy can have the support of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), other agencies and local municipalities. Determination of a preferred approach to providing water distribution upgrades or expansions of existing Regional water distribution facilities, and any new Regional water distribution or facilities required.
The updated Water Distribution Master Plan provides an overall plan for the upgrade and expansion of facilities to ensure adequate water distribution capacity for the Region until 2026. Public Consultation Based on the work presented, and comments received from the public, agencies, and other stakeholders throughout the project and at three Public Information Centres (PICs) held in June 2008, the preferred water distribution strategy until the year 2026 was completed. The following is a chronology of the opportunities for public involvement during the WWTMP Update: June 2005: Notice of Commencement Advertisements were placed in local newspapers informing the public of the commencement of the Water Distribution Master Plan. In addition, the local area municipalities, potential concerned area municipalities, neighbouring municipalities, provincial agencies, federal agencies, First Nations and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) were notified by letter.
Steering Committee Meetings The scope of work of the Steering Committee was to comment on and give directions to the Project Team on the development of the Water Distribution Plan update. It consisted of the project consultant, assigned Regional Councilors, and representatives of the Regions Water Services, Planning and Finances, the local area municipalities, GRCA, and MOE. A total of seven Steering Committee meetings were held throughout the project. June, 2008: Notice of Public Information Centres Advertisements were placed in local newspapers informing the general public of the PICs.
June 17, 24 and 25, 2007: Public Information Centres The PICs were held in the Cambridge Centre Mall (Cambridge), Conestoga Mall (Waterloo), and Regions Administration Headquarters (Kitchener) to request input from interested parties on the Master Plan. Spring, 2009: Notice of Completion Following Council approval April 2009, advertisements were placed in the local newspapers informing the general public of the 30 day review period for the Final Report. All comments received became part of the Update project file.
Final Report
ii
Section 3 establishes current water demand for the Tri-City area. The first step in determining water demand was to identify current and proposed population between the years 2003 and 2026. The total equivalent population of the Tri-City was in 2026 was determined to be 936,490 people year. The year 2003 was selected to be used as the basis of water demand since it represents a typical demand year for the Region Waterloo. To determine water demand, the 2003 population for both residential and employment lands were provide by the Region. In addition to the population and water demand information, a review was conducted of the water demand by landuse to determine current and future patterns of use. Through the review, it was identified that the residential areas placed the largest water demand on the system accounting for almost 70% of the total water demand. A listing of the top 50 water users was identified to determine how the major water users affected the overall water distribution system. Based on the sensitivity analysis conducted, it was noted that the top 50 users were not sensitive to the Residential Zonal consumption rate. However, it was also noted that the top 50 users were very sensitive to the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Zonal consumption rates. As a result of this analysis a common Residential consumption rate was identified for Residential users while a distinct consumption rate was applied to each municipality to better describe consumption characteristics. Finally, the amount of Unaccounted For Water (UFW) was reviewed to determine the current overall water demand requirements. With the base information collected and analysed, projection of present and future trends in water demand were identified. Using projected populations and per capita consumption, the total average day and total maximum day and total maximum week demands were determined The total average demand ranged from 35.7mgd to 46.3 mgd from 2003 through 2026. Similarly the total maximum day demand ranged from 48.2 mgd to 62.5mgd and the total maximum week demand ranged from 44.6mgd to 57.9mgd for the time period from 2003 through to 2026 respectively. ICI Diurnal patterns were developed for each of the pressure zones, where applicable. A common residential diurnal pattern was identified for residential usage (based on Kitchener Zone 5). Finally Peaking factors for maximum day and maximum week usage were identified. For the purposes of this study, the following factors were used: Maximum Day Demand factor 1.44 Maximum Week Demand factor 1.25 Section 4 of this report describes the existing water distribution system. The distribution system is made up of Region watermains, dual purpose watermains and local municipality owned watermains. It operates using 14 separate existing pressure zones: Cambridge Zones 1, 1A, 2E, 2W and 3 Kitchener Zones 2, 4, 5 and future 6 Waterloo Zones 4, 4B, 4C, 5, 6, 7
Final Report
iii
The water distribution system operates with a number of elevated storage tanks and at grade reservoirs. The storage vessel capacities are identified in Table 4.3 of Section with actual operating levels noted in Table 4.4. Each of the storage tanks and reservoirs constraints and opportunities were identified. The Regulatory and Policy Framework of this report is identified in Section 5. Section 6 is an update of the Water Distribution Master Plan. The Regions hydraulic model H2OMAP was used assess the water distribution system behaviour and capability for different design year scenarios. The following conditions were modeled: Maximum Week Demand 48 Hour Extended Period Simulations; and Fire Flow conditions. In assessing the fire flow events, two fire events based of Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) were assigned to one critical consumer r node in the distribution system and one local residential area in any location within the Region simultaneously. This approach asses the water transfer capability in the event of two simultaneous fire events in lieu of a major fire in each zone simultaneously (which is considered unrealistic). Together with Regional staff, 39 predefined critical water consumers were identified across the Region. A review of the pressure zone boundaries was completed to determine high and low pressure areas within the distribution system. The evaluation criteria used to identify the hydraulic performance of the system falls under three categories: maintaining minimum system pressures, limiting maximum system pressures and observing pipeline velocities or headloss gradients. The following pressure zone boundaries were identified: Expansion of the Cambridge Zone 1A pressure zone into Cambridge Zone 1; Modification of the Cambridge Zone 1 operating strategy i.e. new TWL; Expansion of Kitchener Zone 2E into Breslau South (East Side); Modifications to the Kitchener Zone 2W with possible inter-connection with Kitchener Zone 2E with Kitchener Zone 2W (detailed review undertaken by others); Modification to the Kitchener Zone 4 system (i.e. new elevated reservoir); Modifications to the Waterloo Zone 4/5 pressure zone including incorporation of sub zones 4B and 4C to Zone 5; amd Detailed analysis is incorporated into Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F) A detailed storage analysis was completed. The evaluation used three different approaches: MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Criteria; Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal); and Integrated System Approach. The storage analysis indicated that there is sufficient storage within the Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System. In order to determine key infrastructure that will cause a major impact if taken out of service, a criticality assessment was completed. Critical infrastructure was identified as: Infrastructure when taken out of service would result in zone pressure below 140kpa and/ or not sustain fire pressure; and Infrastructure that is a lone or single point of supply into a zone or subzone.
Final Report
iv
The following infrastructure was considered critical Manitou PRV; River Road MTV; New Dundee PRV; MV2; University Tank inlet; and University Tank outlet. The impacts and solutions for critical infrastructure is listed on Table 6.9 The hydraulic model was used to identify upgrades or modifications to the water distribution system to meet current demands and demands up to 2026. Table 6.11 outlines a number of modifications that were identified. Each of the modifications has been costed to provide a preliminary estimate of the work to be completed. It is expected that the total medication costs will be in the range of $65,000,000 to $80,000,000. In addition to the costs for the modifications Table 6.11 outlines the Class EA schedule that would be required for each project modification. Estimated capital costs in 2009 dollars are also summarized for each of the recommendations outlined for capital works budgeting purposes. Budgetary estimates for the mid to long-term recommendations are preliminary in nature and are subject to Class EA and Preliminary Design recommendations to confirm the estimated costs provided and relative timing shown. The Master Plan should be revisited every five years to update population projections and water demand requirements (incorporating the success of water conservation and I/I reduction), to review regulatory status and to include advances in water technologies. Following the main body of this report are Appendices A through G. Each of these appendices were developed as a Technical Memorandum to discuss and provide details for the summaries in this Executive Summary and in the main body of this report. Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Tech Memo 1 Tech Memo 2 Tech Memo 3 Tech Memo 4 Tech Memo 5 Tech Memo 6 Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projections Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization Storage Analysis and Projection Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure Evaluation Methodology Criteria Water Servicing Alternatives Public Consultation
Final Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 Changes from a Planning Perspective .....................................................................................1 Objectives of the Water Distribution Master Plan Update ........................................................1 Current Water Distribution Master Plan....................................................................................2 Related Studies ........................................................................................................................2
2.
2.2
2.3
3.
Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 16 Water Demand Forecast...................................................................................................... 16 Residential and ICI Diurnal Patterns.................................................................................... 20
3.4.1 3.4.2 Residential Diurnal Pattern.....................................................................................................20 ICI Diurnal Pattern ..................................................................................................................20 Impact of Water Efficiency on Demand ..................................................................................24 Impact of Outdoor Water Use Restrictions on Demand .........................................................25
3.5
3.6
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 25
4.
WATER DISTRIBUTION....................................................................................... 27
4.1 4.2 4.3 Description of Existing Water Distribution System............................................................... 27 Existing System Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis ............................................................ 40 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 43
5. 6.
FRAMEWORK................................................. 44
Final Report
Table of Contents
6.1 6.2 Updated Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 45
6.1.1 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.2.7 6.2.8 Infrastructure and System Evaluation Criteria........................................................................45 Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis............................................................................................46 Fire Flow Analysis...................................................................................................................47 Summary Modeling Results....................................................................................................53 Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization .........................................................57 Storage Capacity Evaluation ..................................................................................................82 Criticality Analysis...................................................................................................................84 Eastside and Future Servicing Areas .....................................................................................88 Lake Based Water Supply System .........................................................................................91
Estimated Costs................................................................................................................... 94 Future Updates .................................................................................................................. 103 Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 103
Final Report
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 - Organization of Master Plan ..................................................................................................................3 Figure 2.2 - Master Planning Process ........................................................................................................................6 Figure 3.1 - Water Demand Projection Process.......................................................................................................17 Figure 3.2 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Kit Zone 5) ...............................................................................20 Figure 3.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM 1 + CAM3)....................................................................................................21 Figure 3.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM2E).................................................................................................................21 Figure 3.5 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM2W)................................................................................................................22 Figure 3.6 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (KIT2 + KIT2A) .......................................................................................................22 Figure 3.7 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (KIT2B + KIT4 + BreslauN + BreslauS) .................................................................23 Figure 3.8 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (WAT5 + WAT4 + KIT4A + Market) .......................................................................23 Figure 4.1 - Pressure Zones.....................................................................................................................................28 Figure 4.2 - Existing Water Supply System..............................................................................................................29 Figure 4.3 - Ownership of Watermains ....................................................................................................................35 Figure 4.4 - Future Water Supply System (New KIT4 Storage Facility)...................................................................36 Figure 4.5 - Future Water Supply System (New CAM1 Storage Facility) ................................................................37 Figure 4.6 - Definition of Elevated Storage .............................................................................................................40 Figure 6.1 Fire Flow Locations ..............................................................................................................................51 Figure 6.2 - Future Cambridge Pressure Zone 1A Boundary ................................................................................59 Figure 6.3 Location Options for New Cambridge Storage Facility ........................................................................60 Figure 6.4 - Potential Option No. 1 for new CAM1 Storage Facility.........................................................................61 Figure 6.5 - Potential Option No.2 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................61 Figure 6.6 - Potential Option No.3 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................62 Figure 6.7 - Potential Option No.4 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................62 Figure 6.8 - Potential Option No.5 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................63 Figure 6.9 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 1......................................................................................................63 Figure 6.10 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 2....................................................................................................64 Figure 6.11 New Zone 1 Turnbull Pumping Station (located adjacent to Turnbull Reservoir)..............................66 Figure 6.12 Areas within Cambridge Zone 1 Low and High Pressure Issues.......................................................67 Figure 6.13 Areas at Location 1 with Low and High Pressure Issues...................................................................68 Figure 6.14 Areas within Location 2 with Low and High Pressure Issues ............................................................69 Figure 6.15 Areas within Location 3 with Low and High Pressure Issues ............................................................70 Figure 6.16 -Potential Watermain Connection for System Integration.....................................................................72 Figure 6.17 - Kitchener Zone 2W Change in Pressure ...........................................................................................73 Figure 6.18 -Change in Zone 2E Storage Level (Freeport Tank).............................................................................73 Figure 6.19 - Change in Flow at Manitou PRV.........................................................................................................74 Figure 6.20 -Change in Flow at River Road PRV ....................................................................................................74 Figure 6.21 Existing Waterloo Pressure Boundary Zone 5 ..................................................................................76
Final Report
Table of Contents
Figure 6.22- Future Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5 ...............................................................................................77 Figure 6.23 - System Pressure Differences in Cambridge Zone 1A ........................................................................78 Figure 6.24 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4C .............................................................78 Figure 6.25 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4 ................................................................79 Figure 6.26 - Potential Location No.1 for KIT4 Storage ...........................................................................................80 Figure 6.27 - Potential Location No.2 for KIT4 Storage ...........................................................................................81 Figure 6.28 - System Pressure Comparison - St. George ET vs. New KIT4 Tank ..................................................81 Figure 6.29 - Storage Evaluations Methodology ......................................................................................................83 Figure 6.30 - Eastside Servicing Area Location .......................................................................................................89 Figure 6.31 - Infrastructure Requirements 1 for Eastside Servicing Areas..............................................................90 Figure 6.32 - Infrastructure Requirements 2 for Eastside Servicing Area................................................................90 Figure 6.33 - Preferred Ultimate Supply Strategy ....................................................................................................92 Figure 6.34 - Lake Based Supply Option 1 ..............................................................................................................93 Figure 6.35 Recommended Upgrades for Cambridge ........................................................................................100 Figure 6.36 Recommended Upgrades for Kitchener...........................................................................................101 Figure 6.37 Recommended Upgrades for Waterloo ...........................................................................................102
Final Report
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Steering Committee Members .................................................................................................................4 Table 2.2 - List of Agency and Stakeholder Contacts ................................................................................................8 Table 2.3 Project Discussion Meetings ...................................................................................................................9 Table 2.4 Master Plan Update Municipality Workshops..........................................................................................12 Table 3.1- Existing Population 2003 ........................................................................................................................13 Table 3.2 - Total Projected Equivalent Population*..................................................................................................14 Table 3.3 - 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse ...................................................................................................14 Table 3.4 - Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked by Landuse ............................................15 Table 3.5 - UFW in Each City (2003) .......................................................................................................................16 Table 3.6 - Average Residential and ICI Water Per Capita Consumption Rate.......................................................17 Table 3.7 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s)...........................................................................................................18 Table 3.8 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s) ........................................................................................................19 Table 3.9 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s)......................................................................................................19 Table 3.10 - Max Day/Max Week Demand (L/s) (2003)...........................................................................................24 Table 3.11 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration ...............................................25 Table 3.12 - Recommended ICI Consumption Rate by Zone ..................................................................................26 Table 4.1 - Water Supply Information.......................................................................................................................30 Table 4.2 - Hydraulic Modeling Results - Water Facility Outputs Summary ............................................................33 Table 4.3 - Existing Storage Facility Information......................................................................................................38 Table 4.4 - Actual Operating Levels in Existing Water Systems ..............................................................................39 Table 4.5 - Summary of Pressure Issues and Possible Mitigation...........................................................................41 Table 5.1 - List of Legislation, Regulations and Policy Initiatives.............................................................................44 Table 6.1 - Water Distribution Master Plan Scenarios Maximum Week ...............................................................46 Table 6.2 - Fire Flow Locations ................................................................................................................................48 Table 6.3 - Hydraulic Results for Potential High/Low Pressure Problems ...............................................................53 Table 6.4 - Summary of Watermain Deficiencies .....................................................................................................56 Table 6.5 - Summary of Technical Feasibility for CAM1 Storage ............................................................................71 Table 6.6 - Summary of Infrastructure Requirements ..............................................................................................82 Table 6.7 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Integrated Supply System .............................................83 Table 6.8 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System..........................84 Table 6.9 - Criticality Analysis Results for Watermains............................................................................................85 Table 6.10 - Criticality Analysis Results for Booster Pumping Stations ...................................................................86 Table 6.11 - Cost Estimate Summary ......................................................................................................................94
Final Report
Table of Contents
Appendices
A B C D E F G Technical Memo 1 Technical Memo 2 Technical Memo 3 Technical Memo 4 Technical Memo 5 Technical Memo 6 Public Consultation Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projection Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization Storage Analysis and Projections Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure Evaluation Methodology Criteria Water Servicing Alternatives
Final Report
1.
1.1
Introduction
Background
The Region of Waterloo (The Region) awarded the Tri-City Water Master Plan Study to AECOM (formerly Earth Tech Canada Inc.). The Master Plan is intended to provide a framework to ensure that the Tri-City area has sufficient water distribution infrastructure to meet the demands until 2026. The basis for the framework was established through a review of the existing water distribution system in the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, and an assessment of the current and future needs of the population based on the Regions Long Term Growth Management Strategy, the Province of Ontarios 2005 Places to Grow Act and the Regional Official Plan (ROPP). The following sections outline the information reviewed during the project and the desired objectives from each stage of investigation.
1.1.1
As part of the deliverables for the project, AECOM provided recommendations for required infrastructure upgrades to the existing water distribution system based on the current supply system. However, since the inception of this project, a fundamental development occurred that necessitated a revision in focus for the project. This change in focus was initiated by the development of the Province of Ontarios Places to Grow strategy. The Places to Grow plan outlined areas in Ontario that were expected to expand over the next 40 years. The plan outlined expected population growth patterns and clearly identified the Region of Waterloo as a prime growth area within the province. This anticipated population and demand growth necessitated a review of the water distribution system based not only on the existing well based system but also on the short term and longer term impacts of switching to a lake based system.
1.1.2
The primary objective of the Master Plan Update was to rationalize the Region of Waterloos water distribution system configuration/requirements in conjunction with the various options associated with the Long Term Water Supply Strategy (LTWSS). A phased water distribution plan was proposed to achieve this objective. As stated above, due to the information provided in Places to Grow, the proposed plan needed to ensure that the system upgrades met the demands of future population scenarios while coinciding with the future lake based water supply system. Although the Regions hydraulic water model (H2OMAP) served as a basis for the project, a high level conceptual review of the water distribution system based on the Long Term Water Supply Strategy (LTWSS) was also provided as part of this study. To complete the Master Plan Update, AECOM provided the findings as a series of Technical Memoranda that addressed each concern individually. A total of six memoranda were produced and are included in Appendices A through F of this report. This Final Master Plan report serves as a summary of the Technical Memoranda and provides broad longrange plans for The Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This report outlines required projects, implementation plans and development scenarios.
Final Report
Page 1 of 103
1.1.3
The existing and proposed infrastructure was reviewed for the traditional/conventional water distribution analyses which are typically demand side driven, i.e. maximum day, maximum week, peak hour, minimum hour, fire flow, etc. However, in order to determine the true robustness of a distribution system, emergency planning and facility outage planning principles need to be adopted and these issues were studied in this project. Emergency planning focuses on modeling a variety of unplanned and undesired facility outages. The purpose of this part of the distribution master plan is to determine the criticality of water distribution elements. These elements have been identified and recommendations are formulated in Section 6 (of this report) to reinforce these facilities. Additional facilities and systems modifications have been identified to compensate for taking a facility out of service. Technical Memoranda have been prepared to fully detail these requirements and are located in Appendices A through F. Section 4 of this report discusses the status of the existing water distribution infrastructure. This is supported by Technical Memorandum No. 4(Appendix D) and 6 (Appendix F), the latter for detailed analysis of existing and future infrastructure improvements.
1.1.4
Related Studies
To begin the project, AECOM met with Regional and local Municipal Administrative, Operations and Planning staff to identify, review and catalogue all available background information. Additional required information was gathered and reviewed. This information included but was not limited to: Operating records Maintenance records Oral histories As-recorded drawings Operating and maintenance manuals SCADA information Agency policies and codes Municipal records (as cited in attached Bibliography). As well, the Region of Waterloos Tri-City Hydraulic Model (H2OMAP) was reviewed and suggestions for refinements were recommended.
Final Report
Page 2 of 103
2.
2.1
UPDATE METHODOLOGY
Project Organization
The Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan was conducted by AECOM and the Region of Waterloo. The overall project organization is outlined in Figure 2.1 below.
2.1.1
The project team was made up of individuals who were responsible for day-to-day activities involved in the project. The project team included: Jorge Cavalcante Edvin Yohanna Joe Gemin Duncaun McLeod Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo (prior Reg Russwurm, Samuel Ziemann) AECOM AECOM
Final Report
Page 3 of 103
2.1.2
Steering Committee
A Steering Committee was established at the project initiation to provide guidance to the Project Team and the Consulting Team. The Steering Committee was comprised of the following: Designated Regional politicians with a direct interest in the project; Representatives from the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the Township of Woolwich; and Staff from the Region of Waterloo Steering Committee Members (Table 2.1) were involved in several meetings during the course of the project. Further detail of these proceedings can be found in Section 6 of this report. Table 2.1 - Steering Committee Members Edvin Yohanna Jorge Cavalcante John Holowackyj Lane Stevens John Melfi Nancy Kodousek Jim Robinson John Lubczynski Jo-Anne Ing Jim Wideman Phil Antoniuow Bill Garibaldi Dan Ditaranto Cam Rapp Mayor Carl Zehr Nancy Corbett Rod Kruger Joe Gemin Devan Thomas/Benny Wan Karl Grueneis Duncaun McLeod Engineering & Planning Engineering & Planning Engineering & Planning Water Operations Water Operations Director of Water Services Water Resources Community Planning Design and Construction Regional Councillor Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo City of Cambridge City of Waterloo City of Waterloo City of Waterloo City of Kitchener City of Kitchener Township of Woolwich AECOM AECOM AECOM AECOM
Regional Councillor
2.2
2.2.1
The Master Plan process included consultation with the public, agencies and stakeholders through the issuance of a Notice of Commencement, the development and regular updating of a contact list and one Public Information Centre (PIC) (per City) to present findings and receive comments. A process map of the Master Plan is provided in Figure 2.2.
Final Report
Page 4 of 103
The public and agency consultation program was multi-faceted and involved the following: Steering Committee Meetings; Public and Agency Notifications; Project Mailing List; An Internal Project Workshop; and Public Information Centres (PICs) for each City. Further details on the public and agency consultation program are provided in following Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.4. Additional materials on the public and agency consultation program are included in Appendix G.
Final Report
Page 5 of 103
Final Report
Page 6 of 103
2.2.2
Notice of Commencement A Notice of Commencement was issued June 17, 2005. The Notice of Commencement was advertised in local newspapers, on the Region of Waterloo website and by direct mail out to stakeholders. The Notice of Commencement included Steering Committee Member contact information so that members of the public who had questions or wanted more information on the project could participate in the Master Plan. Federal, provincial and municipal agencies, along with stakeholders, were also notified of the project by letter. An example of the Notice of Commencement Letter is included in Appendix G. Table 2.2 outlines agencies and stakeholders who were notified throughout the project. There were no responses from the Public regarding the Notice of Commencement. There were no responses from the Agencies regarding the Notice of Commencement. Notice of Public Information Centres The Public Information Centres (PICs) were advertised in advance on the Region of Waterloos website, as well as twice in local newspapers and posted on the Region of Waterloo website. A Notice of PICs was also sent to those on the project mailing list, which consisted of those agencies and stakeholders listed in Table 2.2. Notice of Completion A Notice of Completion, including the compilation of the Water Distribution Master Plan and the availability of the draft report for public review and comment, was published in the following newspapers:
A Notice of Completion was also mailed to all those on the project mailing list. The Notice of Completion was advertised in advance on the Region of Waterloos website, as well as twice in local newspapers.
Final Report
Page 7 of 103
Table 2.2 - List of Agency and Stakeholder Contacts Ministry of the Environment Grand River Conservation Authority Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Culture Ministry of Transportation Fisheries and Oceans Canada Region of Waterloo City of Cambridge City of Kitchener City of Waterloo Township of North Dumfries Township of Wellesley Township of Wilmot Township of Woolwich County of Brant County of Oxford County of Perth County of Wellington Kitchener Utilities Union Gas Limited Cambridge-North Dumfries Hydro Waterloo-North Hydro Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Hydro One Networks Rogers Cable TV Bell Canada Six Nations of the Grand River Territory Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation University of Waterloo Wilfred Laurier University Conestoga College Waterloo Public Interest Research Group Friends of the Grand River Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee City of Waterloo Environmental Advisory Committee Kitchener Environmental Advisory Committee Canadian Water Resources Association Waterloo Federation of Agriculture Greater KW Chamber of Commerce Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Kitchener Downtown Business Association Waterloo Region Home Builders Association
Federal/Provincial
Municipal
Utilities
First Nations
Institutions
Environmental Groups
Agricultural Group
Business Groups
Final Report
Page 8 of 103
2.2.3
A total of 17 Project Discussion meetings were held with interested stakeholders such as the Steering Committee, Operations and Maintenance staff, local municipal Engineering and Planning staff and other interested parties. The meetings occurred as follows: Table 2.3 Project Discussion Meetings Meeting Date January 07, 2005 Meeting No. 1 (Steering Committee) January 31, 2005 (additional meeting) (Project Team) March 30, 2005 Meeting No. 2 (Steering Committee) April 25, 2005 (Project Team) May 31, 2005 Meeting No. 3 (Steering Committee) June 16, 2005 (EA Subcommittee Meeting) October 3, 2005 (Operations Subcommittee Meeting) October 5, 2005 (EA Subcommittee Meeting) May 5, 2006 Meeting No. 4 (Steering Committee) May 30, 2006 City of Cambridge October 16, 2007 (Project Team) November 29, 2007 Findings Workshop (Steering Committee) December 07, 2007 City of Waterloo Operations Purpose of Meeting Review Draft Report Review results of zone boundary comparison Review status of deliverables Discuss format of an Evaluation Workshop
Discuss delivery of population projections Review revised Workplan Schedule Evaluation of Workshop agenda and timing Provide internal update and co-ordinate the staff efforts on this project Review Project Work completed to date Discuss EA Process Review Project work since last meeting Review Revised Steering Committee List Revised Purpose Statement Review Technical Memoranda #1, #2 & #4 Technical Memorandum #5- Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure Review Tech Memoranda #1, #2 & #4 Technical Memorandum #1-Landuse Population, Demand Analysis and Projection Review Places to Grow Information Review Population Forecasts Discuss City of Cambridge Personnel issues with water distribution system Provide a strategy for future work on the project Identification of Concerns
Discuss the operation of the water distribution system issues with City of Waterloo Personnel Continued
Final Report
Page 9 of 103
Continuation December 14, 2007 City of Kitchener Operations December 18, 2007 City of Cambridge Operations May 15, 2008 Meeting No. 5 (Project Team) May 23, 2008 (Project Team) Discuss the operation of the water distribution system issues with City of Kitchener Personnel Discuss the operation of the water distribution system issues with City of Cambridge Personnel Review boards for PIC Review Project Schedule Review Technical Memorandum #6 Review boards for PIC
2.2.4
PICs were held at the following locations to provide an opportunity for the public to review the results of the work completed to date and to provide comments on the Master Plan. City of Cambridge Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Time: 5:00-8:00 PM Location: Cambridge Place Mall City of Kitchener Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Time: 5:00-8:00 PM Location: Region of Waterloo Headquarters 150 Frederick Street City of Waterloo Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 Time: 5:00-8:00 PM Location: Conestoga Mall A copy of the notification for the PICs is provided in Appendix G. Agencies and stakeholders on the project mailing list were also sent a letter notifying them of the PIC. Steering Committee members were available to provide information, answer questions and discuss comments. Sign-in sheets were provided at all three PICs. Original copies of the sign-in sheets are in the AECOM file copy. They have not been included in this report to safeguard privacy. Following the PIC, only one comment sheet was received from the public. A copy of all of the display board materials is included in Appendix G. The display boards were used to provide the general public with some of the pertinent findings of the Master Plan study. The details described on the display boards at the PIC were derived from the study results and recommendations (see Appendix F for more detailed study information).
Final Report
Page 10 of 103
2.3
The project was organized around six Technical Memoranda, individual meetings with each of the three municipalities (Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo) and Public Information Centres within each of the municipalities. The six Technical Memoranda* summarized the following topics: Technical Memo 1 Technical Memo 2 Technical Memo 3 Technical Memo 4 Technical Memo 5 Technical Memo 6 Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projection (Appendix A) Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization (Appendix B) Storage Analysis and Projections (Appendix C) Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure (Appendix D) Evaluation Methodology Criteria (Appendix E) Water Servicing Alternatives (Appendix F)
* Copies of all the Technical Memoranda are provided in Appendices A through F. Prior to meeting with the individual municipalities, the project team prepared the background work on the existing water distribution system (Technical Memoranda 1-4). Subsequent to stakeholders meeting and public consultation the final two (Technical Memoranda 5-6) were prepared.
2.3.1
Three internal project workshops were individually held with the staff from the three municipalities; City of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. The workshops were facilitated by the consulting teams and Regional staff from the Transportation and Environmental services departments participated. These meeting were held in the Cities of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge on December 7, 14 and 18, 2007 respectively (See Table 2.4).
Final Report
Page 11 of 103
Table 2.4 Master Plan Update Municipality Workshops Date Municipality Purpose of Workshops Discussed and presented key assumptions in the Water Distribution Master Plan, including demand scenarios (average max, week, fire etc) population forecasts and allocations Reviewed preliminary results of existing and future hydraulic modeling including, pressure issues, water quality and servicing problems Discussed current pressure issues and proposed revisitation through hydraulic modeling Identified and reviewed criticality and infrastructure assessment Discussed reassessment of Zone 1 either by sporting or rearranging zone Also involved enlargement of Zone 1A Discussed and presented key assumptions in the Water Distribution Master Plan including demand scenarios (average max, week, fire etc) population forecasts and allocations Reviewed preliminary results of existing and future hydraulic modeling including pressure issues, water quality and servicing problems Discussed current pressure issues and proposed revisitation through hydraulic modeling Identified and reviewed criticality and infrastructure assessment Reviewed criticality of mains Bridgeport, Zone 3 PRV settings (Deer Ridge, Manitou) Decommissioning of St. George and new tank or direct pressure system Discussed and presented key assumptions in the Water Distribution Master Plan including demand scenarios (average max, week, fire etc) population forecasts and allocations Reviewed preliminary results of existing and future hydraulic modeling including pressure issues, water quality and servicing problems Discussed current pressure issues and proposed revisitation through hydraulic modeling Identified and reviewed criticality and infrastructure assessment Reviewed incorporation of Zone 4B, 4C and part of University Research Park from existing Zone 4 to Zone 5 Reviewed pipe, decommissioning fluoridation and impending Zone 6 amalgamation
2008 Cambridge
2008
Kitchener
2008
Waterloo
Final Report
Page 12 of 103
3.
WATER DEMAND
A review of existing water demand data was conducted based on 2003 billing records received from the Region of Waterloo. The 2003 demand data was selected since it best represents a typical demand year for the Region of Waterloo. It is noted that for this study the total demand at St. Jacobs Market, Breslau North and Breslau South was estimated since no billing information was available for those areas. The following information was found: The total average water demand for 2003 was approximately 132.3 ML/d or 1531.3L/s; and Overall, approximately 69% of the total billed authorized consumption is residential and the remaining 31% is attributed to Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) consumption for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The baseline or existing information on the Tri-City water users has been supplied by the Region and the three local cities including demand data, water billing information and GIS data. A more detailed analysis of landuse, population, demand analysis and projections can be found in Technical Memorandum #1 (included in Appendix A of this report). Technical Memorandum #1 provides information on existing unaccounted for water (UFW), identified the top 50 water users, prepared diurnal patterns based on land use on a zone by zone basis (residential and ICI basis) and summarized existing water use for the Tri-City area.
3.1
3.1.1
An interpolation method was applied to estimate the 2003 population for both residential and employment population since data for 2001 and 2006 was provided. Both residential population and equivalent population were provided by the Region. Table 3.1 presents a summary of population data in each city for 2003. Table 3.1- Existing Population 2003 3 City Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries* Wilmot** St. Jacob Elmira Total * Included Lloyd Brown Subdivision ** Included Mannheim and Shingletown
3
Residential Population 117,704 202,860 104,769 108 700 1,436 8,024 435,601
Final Report
Page 13 of 103
Projected population information was provided by the Region in May 2006. Table 3.2 details the projected residential equivalent and employment equivalent populations to the year 2026 by the Municipality. Table 3.2 - Total Projected Equivalent Population*4 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total 2003 182,465 296,839 164,944 115 799 16,326 661,488 2006 196,290 314,192 180,986 115 804 17,510 709,897 2011 212,947 339,300 195,152 115 808 19,560 767,882 2016 227,536 365,676 207,621 115 813 21,614 823,375 2021 240,479 394,658 218,399 115 821 24,630 879,102 2026 255,431 422,132 230,670 115 827 27,315 936,490
3.1.2
The 2003 Water Billing Records for the three cities were reviewed. It was determined that residential users comprised the majority of the water demand as outlined in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 - 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse5 Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total (Source: 2003 Water Billing Records) However, further examination was completed to identify the top 50 water billing records in order to determine any significant and/or special water users. This analysis determined that the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sectors comprised the majority of the Top 50 billing record group. Table 3.4 details the Top 50 User percentage distribution.
4 5
Total Demand (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s
Table 3.2 from page #22 of Technical Memorandum#1 Table 3.3 from page #3 of Technical Memorandum #1
Final Report
Page 14 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.4 - Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked by Landuse6 Top 50 Billing Land Use Records Demand (L/s) Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total 2.1 162.0 38.6 0 18.7 221.4 L/s Total Demand per landuse in RMOW (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s Percent Distribution per Landuse (%) 1.9% 64.3% 39.3% 0.0% 1.8% 14.5%
The influence of the top 50 customer demands was evaluated and the methodology used to determine the approximate population for each top 50 billing account is provided below: Scenario 184 of the Regions Planning Department population data set was used as the baseline population and population distribution. An equivalent population from the PLUM (Population Land Use Model) zone was assigned to each Top 50 Users based on their shared geography The Zonal populations in Scenario 184 and the final population data set were compared. Adjustment factors were calculated based on population growth and distribution The adjustment factor for each zone was applied to each Top 50 User and the equivalent population for each user was adjusted to match the final population data set For each PLUM zone that contains one or more Top 50 billing records, a specific consumption rate was calculated based on the total water consumption and total population associated with that particular PLUM zone Water consumption and population data associated with these PLUM zones (i.e. the zones where the Top 50 billing records are located) are then subtracted from the total water consumption and total population of that particular pressure zone Water consumption and population data sets for the remaining PLUM zones are obtained and the consumption rate for the remaining PLUM zones was calculated The impacts of the Top 50 User on the residential and ICI consumption rates were evaluated. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how the Top 50 water users affected the water distribution system. The detailed results were presented in Technical Memorandum #1 (Appendix A). According to the sensitivity results, the Top 50 Users were not sensitive to the zonal residential consumption rate. Conversely, the Top 50 Users were very sensitive to the zonal ICI consumption rate. As a result of the analysis, a common residential consumption rate was applied for the municipalities consumption rates. Conversely, a distinct ICI consumption rate for each zone was applied for each municipality to better describe the consumption characteristics.
Final Report
Page 15 of 103
3.2
Definitions
Average daily water demand, maximum weekly water demand, and total annual water use projections were used as part of this report. The consumption data presented in this report is based on the per capita demands shown in Table 3.5. A maximum week factor of 1.25 was used in this Master Plan (See Technical Memorandum # 1 for details). Unaccounted for Water (UFW) is the amount of water in the distribution system which is not billed due to leakage, inaccurate system flow meters, illegal water taking, water system maintenance, and fire fighting. UFW was calculated by pressure zone through the use of SCADA records and water billing data. (Note: SCADA limitations required the combination of some zones. Details of the zone changes are presented in Technical Memorandum #2-Appendix B). A summary of UFW by city is presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 - UFW in Each City (2003)7 Total Demand Based Municipality on SCADA Record (L/s) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Total 588.0 819.5 404.0 1832.0 Total Demand Based on Billing Record (L/s) 482.4 681.6 370.6 1531.3 UFW (L/s) 105.6 158.4 34.2 300.7 %UFW per Municipality 18% 19% 8% 16%
3.3
In order to estimate future water use projections, two types of information are required: population data and water consumption data. Both were reviewed and the findings were listed above in Section 3.1.1 and Section 3.1.2. It should be noted that, in addition to billing information, the following was reviewed: GIS data including Land Use, Parcel Fabric for spatial allocation of demands Population projections approved by the Regions Planning Department Diurnal Water Demand Patterns developed by AECOM in conjunction with the RMOW Figure 3.1 illustrates how the generation of the water demand projections were accomplished.
Final Report
Page 16 of 103
Following the process outlined in the above diagram, water consumption rates were calculated for both residential and ICI users for each zone using the water consumption data as provided in the 2003 billing records, the UFW calculated information and the 2003 population data (as noted in Table 3.1 above). Detailed water consumption rate calculations were done and included in Technical Memorandum #1Appendix A. Table 3.6 illustrates the results of the detailed water consumption calculation rates Table 3.6 - Average Residential and ICI Water Per Capita Consumption Rate8 Residential City Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 204.7 227.7 214.7 218.0 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 280.8 178.6 156.9 203.1
*to be applied to equivalent employment populations (ICI) Therefore, with the different consumption rates for residential and ICI water users, it is useful to review the average consumption rates of other municipalities outside of the Region of Waterloo before determining the rate that will be utilized in projecting future water demand in the system. AECOMs National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative collects relevant information for more than 35 Canadian cities and regional organizations, including the Region of Waterloo who has been a participant in this project over the last several years. Average day water consumption from participating
8
Final Report
Page 17 of 103
municipalities/cities was reviewed to compare the average water consumption rate determined in this study. From the data provided by the Region of Waterloo (1994-2004) it was determined that the summer population was lower than the winter population, due to the absence of students who lived outside of the Region of Waterloo however, the water consumption rates were acutely higher during summer months. Therefore, the summer population data (higher consumption rates) was used to calculate the total per capita consumption to ensure that a conservative scenario would be utilized. It should be noted that there was a noticeable decline in the overall water consumption rate over the past ten year period. Part of the decline may be attributed to the water efficiency program initiated in the Tri-Cities (further discussion of water efficiency program in Section 3.5.1 of this report). Detailed analysis and all data used can be found in Technical Memorandum #1 in Appendix A. Using projected populations (Table 3.2) and per capita consumption (Table 3.6), AECOM projected Total Average Day Demand, Total Maximum Day Demand and Total Maximum Week Demand (Tables 3.7 to 3.9 respectively). Table 3.7 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s)9 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MGD
)(4)
Final Report
Page 18 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.8 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s)10 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 2003 793 1,096 582 1 3 63 2,537 48.2 2006 805 1,097 605 1 3 63 2,8572 48.9 2011 863 1,174 645 1 3 69 2,754 52.3 2016 913 1,257 680 1 3 76 2,930 55.7 2021 975 1,349 711 1 3 87 3,107 59.1 2026 1,007 1,435 747 1 3 97 3,289 62.5
Table 3.9 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s)11 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 2003 734 1,014 539 1 3 58 2,349 44.6 2006 745 1,016 560 1 3 58 2,382 45.3 2011 799 1,087 597 1 3 64 2,550 48.5 2016 846 1,164 630 1 3 70 2,713 51.6 2021 886 1,249 658 1 3 81 2,877 54.7 2026 933 1,328 691 1 3 90 3,045 57.9
Municipality of Wilmot includes Mannheim and Shingletown Municipality of Woolwich includes Elmira and St. Jacob Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 have been updated based on a residential per capita consumption of 209 l/cap/day as detailed in the conclusions of this report Includes water efficiency saving of 1.64 MGD
10 11
Table 3.8 from page #23 of Technical Memorandum #1 Table 3.9 from page #23 of Technical Memorandum #1
Final Report
Page 19 of 103
3.4
A key aspect of the demand analysis portion of the project was the development of diurnal patterns for each pressure zone that were utilized in the hydraulic model.
3.4.1
As noted previously, the water consumption rate for the residential sector did not vary greatly from pressure zone to pressure zone. A common diurnal pattern was developed to illustrate the residential usage throughout the Tri-City study area. Kitchener Zone 5 (+Waterloo Zone 5A) was used to develop a common residential diurnal pattern because the residential demand accounted for over 90% of the total. Fig. 3.2 below illustrates the Residential Diurnal Pattern (based on Kit Zone 5). Detailed information on the residential diurnal pattern is noted in Technical Memorandum 1 (Appendix A). Figure 3.2 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Kit Zone 5)12
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Avg Day
Max Day
3.4.2
The ICI Diurnal Patterns for each pressure zone were calculated for different demand conditions: average day, maximum week and maximum day demand. Since 95% of the water demand for zones Cam 1A, KIT 5, Wat 4B, Wat 4C and Wat 6 is from residential demands, no ICI diurnal patterns were generated for these zones. Figures 3.3 to 3.9 illustrate the various ICI diurnal patterns
12
Final Report
Page 20 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Figure 3.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM 1 + CAM3)13
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
2.50
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
13
Final Report
Page 21 of 103
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
Final Report
Page 22 of 103
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
Using these overall diurnal patterns (blending residential and ICI), AECOM developed segregated diurnal patterns for each land use type by considering the land use and point source users in each zone. By establishing these segregated patterns, more accurate overall diurnal patterns for service areas having different proportions of residential versus ICI demands can be readily generated for the hydraulic model.
Final Report
Page 23 of 103
3.5
Using the Region of Waterloo Population data, water demand on a zone by zone basis was developed.
Cam1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam3 CAM Kit 2W & Kit 4 Kit 2E Kit 5 KIT Wat 4 & Wat 5 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 WAT Overall RMOW
1.44 1.25
3.5.1
Water efficiency can be improved by implementing water conservation programs on a year round basis. Such programs have resulted in a decrease in the average daily per capita water demands. The Regions Water Efficiency Master Plan Update 2006 was reviewed, interpreted and incorporated to the future water demand estimation. However, in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the target water savings to the projected water demands, the savings in water consumption were regarded in three scenarios: Effective Water Efficiency Program (100% saved), Average Water Efficiency Program (50% saved) and No Participation (0% saved). Table 3.12 details the altered demands when the efficiency programs are taken into account.
14
Final Report
Page 24 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.11 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration15
Design Year Unit ML/d 2006 164.6 2011 170.3 2016 179.3 2021 190.7 2026 202.3 Note: Low Demand Projection MGD Average Water Efficiency Program (50% of target saving achieved). ML/d No Participation** MGD * ** 36.2 38.8 41.2 43.7 46.3 164.6 176.3 187.5 198.9 210.5 High Demand Projection MGD 36.2 38.1 40.3 42.8 45.4 ML/d 36.2 164.6 37.5 173.3 39.5 183.4 41.9 194.8 44.5 206.4 Med Demand Projection
3% average day demand adjustment factor was excluded from the Low Demand Projection Demand incorporates the estimated savings of 1.21MGD that is already considered to have been achieved through efficiency projects but assumes that no savings would be made in the 2007-2015 water efficiency programs (worst case scenario)
3.5.2
Outdoor water use restrictions have been implemented by the Region (in the past) on a seasonal basis to reduce water use during high demand periods. In 2005 the Region implemented a once a week lawn watering restriction. It is now a permanent mandate. These restrictions serve to decrease the maximum week demands. It was noted that if no participation in the water efficiency program occurred implementation of seasonal outdoor water restrictions would reduce the estimated maximum week factor from 1.28 to 1.25.
3.6
Summary
ICI Consumption Rate ICI consumption rates vary by zone as they largely depend on the type of ICI activities that exist. As a result, ICI consumption rates on a zone by zone basis were recommended and the ICI consumption rates for each zone are summarized below. For a detailed breakdown of ICI consumption rates please refer to Technical Memorandum #1-Appendix C found in Appendix A.
15
Final Report
Page 25 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.12 - Recommended ICI Consumption Rate by Zone16 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d)
Zone The City of Cambridge Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 The City of Kitchener Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N * Breslau S * Kit 5 WIL 5A * Kit 6** The City of Waterloo Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 * Market *
347 84 220 255 195 112 383 200 183 90 177 177 133 177 59 166 65 10 198 59 59 157
* Due to insufficient data, these zones used the Citys average consumption Rate ** Recommended by the Region
Residential Consumption Rate The recommended daily residential consumption rate is 225 /cap/day Maximum Day Peaking Factor The recommended max day peaking factor is 1.44 Maximum Week Peaking Factor The recommended max week peaking factor is 1.25
16
Final Report
Page 26 of 103
4.
4.1
WATER DISTRIBUTION
Description of Existing Water Distribution System
The Regions water supply and distribution system is complex and highly integrated. The water supply is comprised of groundwater, surface water and aquifer storage and recovery from the Mannheim (surface) water treatment plant. The distribution system comprises a number of Regional (transmission), dual purpose and local municipality distribution mains operating within fourteen existing pressure zones as follows: Cambridge: Kitchener: Waterloo: Zones 1, 1A, 2E, 2W, 3 Zones 2, 2A, 2B, 4, 5 (future 6) Zones 4, 4B, 4C, 5, 6, 7
Technical Memoranda #1, 2, 3 and 4 (Appendices A, B, C and D) describe system demand and supplies in considerable detail. These technical memoranda also describe system operation and pressure zone boundary issues and possible solutions. Refer to Figure 4.1 for pressure zone delineation and Figure 4.2 for the Existing Water Supply System. Population projections and population allocation were provided by the Region. These residential and ICI demands were reviewed in detail in Technical Memorandum #1 (included in Appendix A). Residential per capita consumption of 225 L/cap/day was recommended through review of historical information available from Regional records and as noted in Section 3 of this report. This is a testimony to the excellent demand management strategy undertaken by the Region since the last Water Distribution Master Plan. In the 1992 WDMP these values ranged from 211 Lpcd (Kitchener) to 234 Lpcd (low density residential).
Final Report
Page 27 of 103
Figure 4.1
Existing
17
Final Report
Page 28 of 103
18
18
Final Report
Page 29 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the existing supply capacity at each zone and details each pumping station and direct input well supply. Table 4.1 - Water Supply Information19 PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID CB-21 CB-22 CB-23 CB-24 CB-37 CB-38 CB-16 CB-17 CB-28 CB-27 CB-27 CB-28 CB-29 CB-30 CB-31 CB-32 CB-8 CB-9 CB-10 Total Capacity (L/s) 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 120 120 120 120 840(1)(4) 22 82 82 82 268 152 151 151 303(1) CB-34 CB-35 CB-36 KB-10 KB-11 KB-12 KB-5 KB-6 KB-1 KB-2 70 70 182 140(1) 80 50 80 95 95 130 130 Booster Booster Fire Booster Booster Booster Duty Duty Duty Standby Type Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby 268 Duty Standby Fire H3 H4 H5 G5 TOTAL P16 G4 P_H3 P_H4 P_H5 P_G5 P_P16 P_G4 19 24 23 50 116 22.7 22 DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Total Total Modeling Well ID Capacity Capacity Pump ID (L/s) (L/s) G9 P6 G6 P9 P15 P_G9 P_P6 P_G6 P_P9 P_P15 38 23 22 30 19
Middleton (2) Shades Mill (5) Cam 1 Rahmans Pinebush WTP (3) Turnbull WTP (6) TOTAL
TOTAL
132
972
Cam 1A
Cam 2E
Cam2W
419 22.7
Cam 3
KB28 P_K36
22 53 27
162 2719
Final Report
Page 30 of 103
PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID KB-3 KB-4 Mannheim (8) KB-19 KB-20 KB-21 KB-15 KB-16 KB-17 KB-18 WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-13 WB-14 WB15 WB-6 WB-7 WB-8 WB-16 WB-17 WB18 WB19 Total Capacity (L/s) 70 85 608 608 608 2,639 94 250 250 250 844 100 100 100 300 300 15 600(1) 29 53 77 159 15 15 15 114 45 279(11) 105 54 105 189 264(1) Type Duty Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Booster Booster Standby Duty Standby Duty Standby Standby Recirc.
DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Total Total Modeling Well ID Capacity Capacity Pump ID (L/s) (L/s)
TOTAL Mannheim (8) TOTAL William St. (12) Wat 4 Laurel TOTAL Northfield Dr. TOTAL Lakeshore West TOTAL Erb Street Reservoir Rummelhardt Pumping Station TOTAL
TOTAL K18
P_K18
80 60
Kit 5
TOTAL
60
904
600 Duty Duty Standby 159 Duty Duty Duty Fire 45 NA Duty Duty Standby Fire W10 P_W10 36 315
Wat 4B
Wat 4C
Wat 5
Wat 6
264
Final Report
Page 31 of 103
(1)The total available pumping capacity in each zone excluded Fire Pumps, Standby Pumps and Recirculation Pumps, etc. (2) Middleton PS was supplied by Middleton Well System (G1, G1A, G2, G3 and G14) with a total supply capacity of 40.5ML/d (467L/s) (3) Pinebush Treatment Plant was supplied by Pinebush Well System (P11, P11 and P17) with a total supply capacity of 10.4ML/d (120L/s) (4) Excludes Rahmans (5) Shaes Mill Treatment Plant was supplied by Shades Mill Well System (G7, G8, G38 and G39) with a total supply capacity of 13ML/d (150L/s) (6) Turnbull Treatment Plant was supplied by Turnbull Well System (G16, G17 and G18) with a total supply capacity of 10.4Ml/d (120L/s) (7) Greenbrook Water Treatment Plant was supplied by Greenbrook Well System (K1, K2, K4B, K5A and K8) with a total supply capacity of 12.3ML/d (142L/s) (8) Mannheim Treatment plant was supplied by Mannheim Well System (K21, K25, K29), (K22A, K23, K24, K26), (K91, K92, K93, K94) with a total supply capacity of 72.6ML/d (840L/s) (9) Parkway Treatment Plant was supplied by Parkway Well System (K31, K32 and K33) with a total capacity of 13.7ML/d (159L/s) (10) Strange Street P.S. was supplied by Strange Street Well System (K10A, K11, K13) with a total capacity of 9.03ML/d (104.5L/s) (11) Erb Street Reservoir was supplied by Erb Street Well System (W6A, W6B, W7, W8) with a total capacity of 24.11ML/d (279L/s) (12) William Street PS was supplied by William Street Well system (W1B, W1B, W2, W3) with a total capacity of 16.8ML/d (195L/s)
Final Report
Page 32 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 4.2 - Hydraulic Modeling Results - Water Facility Outputs Summary20 Design Data Design Design Head Capacity (L/s) (m) Hydraulic Modeling Results 2006 Average Flow (L/s) Middleton Shades Mill Rahman South Cambridge Turnbull St. Andrew Parkway Strange St. Greenbrook Grand Mannheim (Z4) Mannheim (Z5) Mannheim (Z6) William St. Laurel Northfield Dr.
1
2011 Average Flow (L/s) 73.2 70.4 21.7 58 46 46.8 72.9 78.5 65.1 5 40.7 59.4 65.3 26.2 53 60.1 79 13.5 40.5 50 112 121.9 63.2 222.4 56.5 129.4 36.1 118.4 26.4 122.1 70 177.3 324 691.2 323.1 128.9 151.3 0 38.9 6.4 71.1 68.7 15.8 57.9 46 47 74.1 78.7 65.8 45 5.3 40.1 44.63 67.3 27.4 54.4 61.3 Max Head (m)
2016 Average Flow (L/s) 237.4 57.1 128.5 41 128.1 36.8 126.1 70 199.7 327 709.4 335.3 141 153.4 0 70.4 70.3 14.7 57.6 46.1 78.6 73.8 78.7 65.5 45 5.2 39.4 44.03 67.3 27.5 Max Head (m)
2021 Average Flow (L/s) 239.2 56.6 124 44.2 138.7 30.9 153.1 70 205.5 331 722.8 345.4 138.1 183.3 0 71.8 70.4 15.8 57.9 46.4 47.5 74.9 78.7 65.8 45 5.2 40.9 44.03 67 27.9 Max Head (m)
2026 Average Flow (L/s) 252.7 57.7 129.8 54 147.1 42.8 166 70 244.6 333.1 739.2 352.4 140.7 188.5 0 73 70.4 19.7 57.9 47.2 46.6 76 78.7 66.1 45 5.2 40.9 42.93 67.8 28.2 Max Head (m)
Water Facility
Zone
Cam1 Cam1 Cam1 Cam1A Cam2E Cam3 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit5 Kit6 Wat4 Wat4 Wat4B Wat4C Wat6 Cam 2W to Cam 2E Kit2E to Cam1 Kit 4 to Kit 2E Kit 4 to Kit 2W Kit 4 to Wat 4 Kit 4 Kit2E 2
450 150 168 268 303 140 210 190 415 Future 1824 844 301.5 300 300 159 45 264 381 365 Future
74 55 11 50 55 45 76 65 105 21 23 48 67 16 20 24 40
211.6 58.8 102.5 30.2 112.9 28.7 112.5 37.5 206.1 622.1 304.7 61.1 134.1 0 39.6 6 56.4 38.9 50 85.8 113.5 79 7.6 7.4
Lakeshore West1 Rummelhardt Briadean MTV New Dundee PRV River Road PRV Manitou PRV MV2 St. George ET* Freeport ET**
1
Inactive 40.5 50 119.1 130.2 59 12.7 21.05 39.9 50 126.8 134.7 59.9 -19.5 38.3 50 132.8 136.9 64.4 -
Zones Wat 4B and Wat4C have been incorporated into Wat 5 2 Rummelhardt PS was inactivated due to the activation of Zone 6 Elevated Tank 3 Zone 6 Elevated Tank was activated * Net flow from all floating storages (e.g. St. George Elevated Tank, Freeport Elevated Tank) was approximately zero since the water level at the end of the simulation was almost identical to the initial tank level. * Assumed to be decommissioned prior 2011 Design Year ** positive and negative flow represents the total net accumulated flow at the storage over a 48 hr extended period simulation (2days)
20
Final Report
Page 33 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN The complexity and integration/interconnectivity of the Integrated Urban System (IUS) is demonstrated in Figure 4.2. In many cases, some facilities supply more than one pressure zone (i.e. Mannheim). Further, many zones are interconnected to each other through Pressure Reducing Valves (PRVs) and or motorized Throttle Valve (MTVs), allowing supply from one zone to satisfy demand to an adjacent zone (e.g. Kitchener Zone 4 to interconnect to Kitchener Zone 2 and is interconnected with Cambridge 2E by River Road PRV. Kitchener Zone 2 is further interconnected to Cambridge Zone 1 by New Dundee Road PRV.). Transmission/Distribution System Information As noted above, there are three categorizations of watermains within the three major municipalities. Regional watermains are described as trunk watermains wholly owned and operated by the Region of Waterloo. Dual watermains are characterized as larger watermains that are used by the Region of Waterloo as distribution mains and also used by the local municipality (Cambridge, Kitchener or Waterloo) for local water supply. Local watermains are owned and operated by the local municipalities for water supply within the municipality. The existing hydraulic model contains all of Regional and Dual watermains and only local watermains needed to complete hydraulic connectivity. Figure 4.3 illustrates the three categories for watermains in the hydraulic model. Storage The existing storage facilities are documented in Technical Memorandum #3. The current design maximum and emergency operating levels for each storage facility are documented in Table 4.3. SCADA records for each facility were reviewed in order to identify the actual maximum and minimum operating levels and the actual lowest operation level. It is noted that the total storage that is being used in normal operation is not equal to the total theoretical useable storage. Figure 4.6 demonstrates the terminology such as useable storage and total design capacity as well as operating levels.
Final Report
Page 34 of 103
Current as of
21
Final Report
Page 35 of 103
Figure 4.4 - Future Water Supply System (New KIT4 Storage Facility)
Final Report
Page 36 of 103
Figure 4.5 - Future Water Supply System (New CAM1 Storage Facility)
Final Report
Page 37 of 103
Zone
Storage Facility
Emergency Low Elevation (m) 325.50 320.47 326.80 266.60 322.50 304.40 333.50 335.20 357.07 353.15 306.90 369.10 328.40 320.60 322.20 361.87 317.98 319.74 319.74 319.74 402.00 402.00 378.32 379.10
Maximum Operating Elevation (m) 337.40 329.10 327.90 269.95 326.14 311.15 359.50 347.10 365.70 365.15 310.20 380.90 333.70 321.70 325.10 380.50 321.80 321.80 321.80 321.80 404.80 404.80 384.36 383.90
Comments
St. Andrew Shantz Hill Cam 1 Rahman Middleton Turnbull Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A South Cambridge Pinebush Edward St Inverness Freeport Parkway St. George Kit 4 Strange St Greenbrook (old) Greenbrook (new) Laurel William St #1 Wat 4 William St #2 William St #3 William St #4 Wat 5 Kit 4 / 5 & Wat 4/5
1
320.87 317.45 323.85 264.80 321.26 304.40 325.43 323.00 353.68 352.67 303.89 364.24 326.60 319.07 320.69 356.35 316.84 318.50 318.97 318.84 400.51 400.51 377.76 377.46
Elevated Tank (not in use) 4,000 59% 64% 75% 100% 76% 4,500 14,812 1,624 7,011 27,022 Ground Level Reservoir Two Cells Ground Level Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Stand Pipe Stand Pipe (not in use) 1,624 7,011 13,300(2) 1,988 3,900 1,100 9,100
(2) (2) (2)
38,980
2,273 7,291 14,269 2,824 4,200 2,421 9,969 27,418 315 686 1,146
(1) (1) (1)
Elevated Tank Elevated Tank Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Elevated Tank
33,683
29,388
Ground Level Reservoir One Treated Water Cell In-ground Reservoir In-ground Reservoir Ground Level Reservoir In-ground Reservoir (not in use)
27,418
29,665
29,318
(2)
1,900
In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Three Cells In-ground Reservoir
8,900(2) 8,700
(2)
46,718 36,088
Currently not in use and excluded from the calculation of the total storage capacity. Current Operating Usable Storage (greater than the values provided in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information)
22
Final Report
Page 38 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 4.4 - Actual Operating Levels in Existing Water Systems23
Zone
Storage Facility
SCADA Maximum Operating Elevation (m) 334.50 329.00 269.95 326.00 358.60 358.60 364.50
SCADA Minimum Operating Elevation (m) 330.00 327.50 266.60 325.60 357.20 357.20 363.70
SCADA Lowest Operating Elevation (m) 330.00 327.50 264.80 325.60 357.20 357.20 363.70
Normal Operating Storage (ML) 2.2 4 0.9 7.6 1.6 3.8 0.7
% of Total Design Storage Capacity 50% 59% 18% 33% 36% 19% 31%
St. Andrew Rahman Middleton Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A Turnbull South Cambridge Pinebush Inverness
363.40 310.20 380.00 333.70 321.70 325.10 380.00 St 321.80 404.70 404.70 384.15 384.15
363.00 306.90 378.00 328.40 320.60 322.20 376.00 319.74 403.80 403.80 381.56 381.56
360.00 303.89 375.00 326.60 319.07 320.69 372.00 318.84 403.00 403.00 381.56 381.56
6.5 13.3 1.3 3.9 1.1 6.4 8.9 1.9 8.9 8.7 18.5 18.4
89% 93% 46% 93% 45% 91% 32% 85% 96% 95% 36% 34%
Kit 4
Wat 4
William #4
23
Final Report
Page 39 of 103
4.2
A detailed review of the existing pressure zones was undertaken in Technical Memorandum #2 (included in Appendix B). Operating records and existing reservoir levels were used to evaluate operational pressures. Expected high and low pressures are documented, as well as target hydraulic gradelines for each pressure zone were also documented. Table 4.5 provides the HGL for each pressure zone within the IUS. Based on topographic plots and the existing HGL pressure, issues not meeting Regional criteria (< 240 kPa and > 700 kPa) were plotted. These can be seen on Figures 2 to 18 in Technical Memorandum #2.
24
Final Report
Page 40 of 103
Zone
Cambridge
Comments
Based on an approximate HGL of 334m (St. Andrews and Turnbull/Rahmans) most significant area of pressure issues exists around Clyde Road and the Landfill Site (ground elevation 319 m ) Pressures at or below 140-150 kPa High pressure areas next to Grand River (may need level PRVs) requires local booster station if developed Based on an HGL of 345.2m Ground elevation approx 318 to 320m (2 areas of concern both vacant and residential) Raise operating range of South Cambridge station Based on Pinebush at 359m Ground areas around 287 drive pressures slightly greater than 700 kPa Possible level PRVs could be installed Based on Freeport at 365m Ground area around 287 drives pressures greater than 780 kPa which would require PRV Low pressure area around Highway 24/Hespler Rd if developed may require local booster station Based on Inverness at 366m Areas with elevation around 288 (residential area) have pressures greater than 800 kPa. This will require localized PRVs or a pressure managed area Parkwood Area/Blenheim Rd affected by G4 operation (pressures greater than 785 kPa) may require pressure reduction from G4 Based on Freeport HGL at 365m No pressure issues Based on HGL at 346m (current Deeridge PRV setting) Based on HGL at 365m (current setting of Manitou PRV) Four residential areas (Doon South/New Dundee Rd) with elevations around 287m exhibit high pressures exceeding 765kPa One low pressure area in vicinity of radio antenna tower with ground elevation around 337m. Localized booster is solution Localized PRV should be considered Based on St. George HGL at 381m 3 high pressure residential areas, two industrial, one municipal park exhibit high pressures with elevations greater than 304m (pressures greater than 750 kPa. Localized PRVs or pressure managed area recommended) 2 minor low pressure areas, one ski facility no action required Based on HGL from Falconbridge PRV set at 357m No pressure issues found
1A
2E
2W
Kitchener 2 2A
2B
4A
Final Report
Page 41 of 103
Waterloo
Based on HGL of 407.4m which is the design operating point of the Manheim Zone 5 pumping station 4 high pressure areas, three in residential or potential residential areas. The latter two areas could be potentially serviced through Zone 4. Other areas need to consider PRVs 2 low pressure areas which will be eventually serviced through Zone 6
4B
4C
Based on HGL of 381m from Laurel Reservoir Low Pressure areas exhibited in area near University Still within acceptable pressure limits. Consider transferring University part of area into Zone 5 Based on HGL of 401m delivered through Northfield Drive pumping station No pressure issues however, consideration should be given to connecting this zone to pressure district 5 Based on HGL of 405m through Lakeshore Pumping Station Nor Pressure issues however consideration should be given to connecting this zone to pressure district 5 Based on HGL of 405m from Erb Street Reservoir No pressure issues however opportunities exist to incorporate Zones 4B and 4C and a small portion of Zone 4 (near University Area) Based on HGL of 428m which is the design operating point of the Rummelhart Pumping Station 4 high pressure issues were analyzed all in residential areas with pressures over 700 kPa Further analyses warranted solution would be to provide localized/individual PRVs or connect area to Zone 5 Based on HGL of 440m which is the design point for the Zone 7 pumping station No pressure issues were determined
As part of this assignment, the Region of Waterloo requested that a review of a number of facilities be completed. The facilities included: William Street Facility St. George Tower Shantz Hill Elevated Tank Kress Hill Booster Station Edward Street Standpipe
Final Report
Page 42 of 103
The following is a summary review of the five facilities. Appendix D includes full details of the facility review.
Both the Edward Street Standpipe and Shantz Hill Elevated Tank serve no useful purpose for the current and future water distribution system and should be decommissioned Three of the original William Street Reservoirs (No. 1 , 2 , 3) should be decommissioned, suction piping modifications and/or booster pump relocation in order to draw directly from Reservoir No. 4 (constructed in 1950s) should be immediately undertaken Kress Hill Booster Station should be converted to a pressure reducing station to provide backup to the New Dundee PRV. The booster pump should be decommissioned. St. George tower should be decommissioned and replaced with a new tower, most likely on the East side of Zone 4. Refer to Section 7.2 of this report for further discussion.
4.3
Summary
In summary, there are few pressure problems given the complexity and interconnectivity of the Regional water distribution network and the rolling topography in each pressure zone. Detailed hydraulic analysis using the Regions updated computer model was undertaken and is discussed in Section 6.1 and 6.2. A further complicating issue in the IUS system is the one way delivery of water from Kitchener to Waterloo (and to St. Jacobs and Elmira) due to the need to fluoridate all water supplied to the City of Waterloo. The IUS system would be more flexible and less costly to operate if water supply would flow to and from Waterloo. Although this is a public decision, the decommissioning of fluoridation should be explored in the future. If the decision is to cease fluoridation, all current metering systems would need to be converted to bi-directional in order to properly capture billing information to each local municipality.
Final Report
Page 43 of 103
5.
5.1
The Water Supply Strategy Update Final Report provided a list of regulatory and policy initiatives that were identified as potentially having an impact on the Water Supply Strategy Update. This table was reviewed and modified to identify the regulatory and policy initiatives that were identified as potentially having an impact on the Tri-City Water Distribution System. These identified policies are provided in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 - List of Legislation, Regulations and Policy Initiatives Category Legislation, Regulation and Policy Initiatives Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Places to Grow Act, 2005 Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe, 2006 Planning Act, 1990 Planning and Conservation Land Statue Law Amendment Act Bill 51 (Royal Assent, October 19, 2006) Conservation Lands Act, 1990 Greenbelt Act, 2005 Greenbelt Plan, 2005 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agency, Boundary Water Treaty, U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Great Lakes Charter25 Ontario Water Resources Act Clean Water Act-Bill 43 (October 2006) Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, 2002 Watertight (Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal Expert Panel) Ontario Environmental Assessment Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Fisheries Act Species at Risk Act Navigable Waters Protection Act National Energy Board Act Draft Guidelines for Ministries on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples Related to Aboriginal Rights and Treaties Public Transportation and Highways Improvement Act
Planning
Water
Environmental
Other
25
The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (2002) is being updated by the governments of Canada and Ontario in 2007. A draft document has been produced that indicates that the purpose of the Agreement is to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem in order to assist in achieving the vision of a healthy, prosperous and sustainable basin Ecosystem for present and future generations.
Final Report
Page 44 of 103
6.
6.1.1
The Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge were consulted through a series of workshops to determine their current criteria for watermain replacement and review current operational issues and discussion on proposed system improvements. All three cities used similar criteria the first being break history. If a section of watermain has a history of breaks in a short distance, the watermain may be replaced locally as a maintenance decision. The second and more important criterion is the economical value of replacement cost. The watermain replacement programs are part of a matrix decision process for the reconstruction of a street. The decision for replacement takes place when it has been decided to completely reconstruct the roadway. At that time, the additional cost to replace the watermain is part of the overall project, thereby reducing unit costs for watermain replacement. For future replacement decisions, age and pipe material should be added as criterion.
Final Report
Page 45 of 103
Scenarios were developed using the Regional hydraulic (H2OMAP) model to assess the water distribution system behaviour and capability for different design years. All scenarios were evaluated using a 48hr extended period simulation under maximum week and maximum week plus fire condition as outlined in Technical Memorandum #6. Population projections were prepared by Regional Planning staff and distributed throughout the distribution system. New growth within the Tri-City was accounted for in the hydraulic model. Further, all new distribution system modifications were also incorporated since the last model update. New growth outside the Tri-City i.e. St. Jacobs and Elmira were modeled with the existing demand and analyzed as a single demand. Previous studies (Elmira West Side Project) undertaken in the Elmira-St. Jacobs distribution system were analyzed. This area of the IUS and as such only the updated demand was used in order to correctly analyze its effect on the Kitchener/Waterloo distribution systems. The most significant new development that was evaluated is the area east of the Grand River (East Side) from Breslau in the north to the City of Cambridge city boundary. Table 6.1 summarized the system maximum week demand requirements under the six demand year conditions. Table 6.1 - Water Distribution Master Plan Scenarios Maximum Week26 Projected System Demand (L/s) 2,382 2,550 2,713 2,877 3,045 3,045 (ML/d) 205.8 220.3 234.4 248.6 263.1 263.1 (MIGD) 45.3 48.5 51.6 54.7 57.9 57.9
Scenarios Year 2006 Year 2011 Year 2016 Year 2021 Year 2026 Ultimate
The Regions hydraulic modeling was used to determine if the existing and future distribution system had limitations or significant deficiencies. The hydraulic model was also used to review system performance including zone pressures, pipe velocity/headloss gradient, storage facility operations. The following conditions were analyzed under the criteria discussed in Section 6.2.4. These conditions offer the most stress to the water distribution and, as such, if the system meets the Regions operating criteria under these conditions, then under less severe conditions the system should respond meeting the acceptance parameters outlined in Section 6.2.4.
26
Final Report
Page 46 of 103
Modeled Conditions were: Maximum week demand 48 hour extended period simulation Fire flow conditions (refer to Section 6.2.2 ) As discussed previously in this report, the following features were considered: Existing and planned infrastructure and water facilities No water backfeed from Waterloo to Kitchener Limiting of water transfer to a maximum of 50 L/s through the New Dundee PRV from Kitchener to Cambridge Inactivation of the following water facilities Kress Hill PS (although through a criticality analysis the facility was analyzed as backfeed from Zone 2 (Kit) to Zone 1 through the existing PRV located at the Kress Hill Pumping Station) Shantz Hill Elevated Tank Edward Street Tank St. George Elevated Tank (although the system was reviewed for a new storage vessel on the east side of Zone 4 as well as a direct pressure system i. without an elevated tank) As a further stress condition, modeling was undertaken to identify watermains that will cause significant inputs in the distribution system when the watermain is out of service. The criticality analysis is described in Section 6.2.4. Hydraulic analysis discovered eleven watermain sections which did not comply with the performance and design criteria outlined in Section 6.2.1. One of these violations is covered under the conversion of the St. Andrews Tank as a suction side vessel only for Zone 3. Table 6.4 summarizes the watermain deficiencies. Pressure Zone boundary adjustments are warranted and discussed in Section 6.2.2. It is clear that the system as designed and upgraded has and will service the Region well into the next two decades. This is in part due to the design parameters used in the 1960s and 70s where average day per capita demand allowances was 450 L/c/d and the maximum day factors were 1.8 to 2. The current proposed per capita values are less than 50 percent of the criteria used in the 1960s and similarly the maximum week demand factor is 33 to 40 percent or less. The reduction in these key system input parameters is significant to have yield a functional distribution system 50 to 60 years into the future and hence not requiring significant modifications.
6.2.2
As described in Technical Memorandum #3 (Appendix C), the integrated system approach was used to analyze system storage. In this analysis two fire events based on Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) were assigned to one critical water consumer or node in the distribution system and one local residential area in any location within the Region simultaneously. This approach assesses the water transfer capability in the event of two simultaneous fire events in lieu of a major fire in each zone simultaneously (which was considered unrealistic). Together with Regional staff, 39 predefined critical water consumers were identified across the Region. Table 6.2 describes the municipality, street, consumer pressure zone and fire flow used for each of the zones. Figure 6.1 maps the location of the fire flow locations used for this study.
Final Report
Page 47 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 6.2 - Fire Flow Locations27
Street Name City of Cambridge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Industrial Rd. / Eagle St. N. Concession Rd. / Dunbar Rd. Myers Rd. / Christopher Dr. Dundas St. N. / Main St. Franklin Blvd. / Clyde Rd. Fountain St. N. / Cherry Blossom Rd. Franklin Blvd. / Pinebush Rd. Queen St. E. / Guelph Ave. Blair Rd. / Bismark Dr. Cedar St. / Grand Ridge Dr. Myers Rd. and Gatehouse Dr.
Development Type
Pressure Zone
Note
Industrial Industrial (Hospital) Institutional (School) Commercial (Shopping Mall) Industrial Industrial (Toyota Manufacturing Plant) Industrial (Industrial Park) Commercial (Downtown) Institutional (School) Institutional (School) Institutional (School) Institutional Institutional (Conestoga College) Industrial (Hospital) Industrial (Hospital) Industrial (Hospital) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Shopping Mall)
CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM2W CAM2E CAM2E CAM3 CAM3 CAM 1a
333 67 / 150 250 367 333 271 233 367 250 250 250
1 2 3 4 1 10 5 4 3 3 3
City of Kitchener Homer Watson Blvd. & Manitou Dr. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Homer Watson Blvd. & Doon Valley Dr. King St. / Union St. Queens Blvd. / Westmount Rd. E. School & Arena King St. E. / Morrison Rd. Weber St. E & King St. E Fairway Rd. S. & Courtland Ave. E
3 3 2 2 2 3 4
27
Final Report
Page 48 of 103
Street Name 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Huron Rd. & Strasburg Rd. Victoria St. N. & Lackner Blvd. Ottawa St. N. & Lackner Blvd. Fisher-Hallman Rd. & Ottawa St. S. Falconridge Dr. & Hawkswood Dr. Vacant Site Fisher-Hallman Rd. & Ottawa St. S. Bleams Rd. & Fisher-Hallman Rd. Fisher-Hallman Rd. & Forest Hill Dr. Huron Rd. & Fisher-Hallman Trussler Rd. & Highview Dr. Fountain St. N. & Townsend Dr.
Development Type Institutional (High School) Commercial (Business Park) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Commercial Plaza) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Commercial Plaza) Commercial (Business Park) Institutional (High School) Commercial Institutional (Elementary School) Commercial (Mixed Residential and Commercial) Industrial (Airport)
Pressure Zone KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4a KIT5 KIT5 KIT5 KIT5 KIT6 Breslau N.
Fire Flow (L/s) 250 267 250 367 250 367 267 250 367 250 367 / 200 333/ 200
Note 3 6 3 7 3 7 6 3 7 3 7
30
Fountain St. N.
Breslau S.
City of Waterloo University Ave. & Albert St. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Columbia & Albert St. Bridge St. E & University Ave E. University Ave. & Fisher-Hallman Laurelwood Dr. & Beaver Creek Road Columbia & Westmount Erb St. W (West of roundabout)
Institutional (University) Institutional (University) Industrial (Food Factory) Institutional (High School) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Business Park) Commercial (Small Shopping Mall)
3 3 8 3
4/4a
Final Report
Page 49 of 103
Note
Market
Final Report
Page 50 of 103
28
Final Report
Page 51 of 103
Results of the fire flow analyses are documented in Technical Memorandum # 3 ( Section 4.3.1 of Appendix C). Nine low pressure areas were identified throughout the entire distribution system during the modelled fire scenario. These locations are: Cam 1 Blair Rd & Esther Ave: 150MM diameter dead end insufficient to sustain residential fire. Consider reconnection to watermain on St. George N (City). Cam 1 - Dundas St N/Main St: 150mm diameter pipe insufficient to assist in ponding fire flows. Replace this section with 300mm pipe on Dundas St N between Main St and MacLaren Ave. (City) Cam 2E - Lewis St & Hungerford Rd: 150mm diameter pipe insufficient to assist in simultaneous major and minor fire event. Replace 150mm water main with 300mm (City). Cam 3 - North Cambridge: Single 200mm watermain services North Cam 3 insufficient pressure under residential fire. Install new 450mm watermain between Kent St and Bismark Dr part on easement. Prior to the installation of this main The Region should consider the impact this main may have on water quality. Kit 2W - Tilt Rd & Appleby Dr: Supply of area through single 300mm insufficient pressure during simultaneous residential and major fire. Install new 300mm watermain on Tilt Dr. The Region is investigating under separate study detailed upgrade to Zone 2W. Wat 4 - Farmers Market Area: Supply of area through a single 300mm insufficient pressure during simultaneous residential and major fire. Install 500mm watermain from Weber St to Scott St. The fire flow allotment of 367 L/s was assumed due to the limited knowledge of the construction of the facilities in the area that need protection. Accordingly, a more modest value of 150 l/s to 200 l/s should be considered in the interim until more detailed analysis is undertaken. Furthermore, easements and EA considerations for the routing of a new main for this area need to be considered. Wat 6 - Erb St west of Ira Needles Blvd: Insufficient pressure if 367 L/s assumed. Previous Westside study allowed for 180 L/s (if new University Tank in use). The fire demands of 367 L/s was assumed based on the very limited knowledge of the facility. The previously undertaken West Side Study recommended a 180 l/s fire flow. Adopt 180 L/s for this Zone or keep fire pump at Zone 6 Rummelhart pumping station. Kit 4a - Falconbridge Dr/Hawkswood Dr Area: Insufficient pressure when proposed school fire at 250 L/s and residential fire analyzed. Adopt 220 L/s for the major fire or replace existing 200mm watermains with 300mm will satisfy fire issues in this area. Kit 4 - Breslau North: This area is an extension of Kitchener Zone 4 and currently is serviced through a single main extending from Victoria Street. Once the village is fully serviced, fire demand conditions will increase. A high fire flow allocation was considered due to the uncertainty of the commercial facility construction in this area. In the interim moderate fire flow conditions in the order of 150 L/s to 200 L/s should be considered. Insufficient pressure under simultaneous major and residential fire. In order to deal with larger fire forces in the future consideration should be given to the relocation existing Breslau S. PRV to eastside of Grand River and install 300mm watermain from relocated PRV through existing village to connect to existing 200mm on Victoria. The limited number of issues resulting from the fire flow analyses demonstrates that the integrated system approach is sound. Only minor system improvements are warranted to ensure a minimum operating pressure of 140 kPa at the fire node. Most of these Improvements are required to various city/ municipality owned mains.
Final Report
Page 52 of 103
6.2.3
Section 4 of this report described the pressure issues of concern within the existing system zone boundary. Detailed analyses are provided in Technical Memorandum #2 (included in Appendix B). The existing and future system, under existing and future demand conditions were analyzed under dynamic conditions using the hydraulic model. Table 6.3 summarizes the results for areas within pressure zones with water pressure issues and provides alternatives and solutions to low, high and deficient areas/zones. The most significant difference to the pressure zones is the impending implementation of the Kitchener Zone 6 pressure district and the separation of higher ground elevations from Zone 5 to Zone 6. Modeling runs also included the rearrangement of the Waterloo Zone 6 being supplied through the proposed Zone 6 Elevated Tank in lieu of the Rummelhardt pumping station. Section 6.2.4 outlines other significant zone boundary modifications. Table 6.3 - Hydraulic Results for Potential High/Low Pressure Problems29 Area Descriptions Low pressure concerns in the south side of South Cambridge PS High pressure concerns in the area adjacent to Moffat Creek Potential high pressure problem Commercial development on McGovern Dr. Potential high pressure problem Medium Industrial Users; Just north of Hwy 401 in Zone 2W Potential high pressure problem Parkwood Area / Blenheim Road Hydraulic Results The discharge total head of the station is about 364m. No low pressure problems were observed. 66psi 85psi Considered acceptable Alternatives
Cambridge Zone 1A
Cambridge Zone 1A
90 psi 105psi
Cambridge Zone 3
Install localized PRV to reduce pressure for individual customer if required Turning off Well G4
29
Final Report
Page 53 of 103
Area
Descriptions
Hydraulic Results
Kitchener Zone 2W
Alternatives would reduce pressures by 10 psi Modify the existing well pump for G4 to reduce discharge head by 10psi Could consider pressure management in lower elevations (modifying the existing PRV will cause lower pressures in the higher elevations)
Kitchener Zone 2W
Potential high pressure problem Homer Watson Blvd / Conestoga College Blvd Potential high pressure problem Potential high pressure problem Subdivision located in the westside of Morrison Road Potential high pressure problem Near K34TP on Biehn Dr Potential high pressure problem North of Zone 6; Creekside Dr. / Erbsville Rd. Potential high pressure problem Erbsville Rd. / Columbia Forest Blvd.
90 120 psi
Install localized PRV for individual customer if required Consider pressure management in localized areas with high pressure Install localized PRV for individual customer if required
95 125 psi
Waterloo Zone 6
Waterloo Zone 6
Final Report
Page 54 of 103
Area
Waterloo Zone 6
Waterloo Zone 6
Descriptions Potential high pressure problem South of Columbia St. W; Clair Creek Blvd. / Bushwood Crt. Potential high pressure problem Amberwood Dr.
Hydraulic Results 88 96 psi Slightly high but within acceptable pressure range 82 90 psi Within acceptable pressure range
Alternatives
Where localized zonal water pressure issued occurred, low pressure issues were resolved once zone boundary modifications and minor pipe changes were added. Due to the undulating topography encountered in many of the pressure districts localized high pressure issues are noted. Predominately these issues can be reduced by either individual PRVs or pressure management with small area PRVs. Figure 4.15 to 4.19 in Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F) graphically illustrate the few areas which require some mitigative measures. Analyses were undertaken using the hydraulic model to identify critical infrastructure and its impact on the distribution system if taken out of service. The integration of proposed infrastructure to the IUS based on hydraulic modeling is illustrated in Figure 4.4 and 4.5 in Section 6. These show the major storage additions to Cambridge Zone 1 and Kitchener Zone 4 as well as servicing to the East Side limits.
Final Report
Page 55 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 6.4 - Summary of Watermain Deficiencies30
Infrastructure Information
Municipality
Descriptions
Diameter (mm)
Length (m)
Material
C-Factor
Scenario
Cambridge Zone 1
400
1,481
Cast Iron
1960
100
172
1.38
6.1
2006
Cambridge Zone 1
150
127
Cast Iron
1940
90
15.7
0.80
1.5
11.8
2006
Cambridge Zone 1
250
17
Ductile Iron
1990
120
305
6.2
6.2
364.7
2006
Cambridge Zone 1
300/400mm on Pinebush Rd., from Rahman PS to Industrial Rd 300mm on Eagle St. N., from Industrial Rd. to Providence Dr. 300mm on Industrial Rd., from Eagle St. N. to Lang's Dr. 450mm on Ottawa St. S., from Mannheim PS to David Bergey Dr.
300/400
1875
Cast Iron
1960
100/130
118
1.67
5.6
3.0
2006
Cambridge Zone 1
300
663
Cast Iron
1960
100
59
0.8
2.6
3.9
2021
Cambridge Zone 1
300
777
Cast Iron
1960
100
60
0.8
3.1
4.0
2006
Kitchener Zone 5
450
1270
Asbestos Cement
1960
140
306
1.9
8.6
6.8
2016
Kitchener Zone 5
300mm on Westheight Dr., from MacGarry Dr. to Driftwood Dr. & on Driftwood Dr., from Westheight Dr. the west of Parkland Cres.,
300
1500
Ductile Iron
1970
120
91
1.29
8.6
5.7
2006
30
Final Report
Page 56 of 100
6.2.4
Technical Memorandum #2 (included in Appendix B) summarized the findings following a review of pressure zone boundaries. Operation records (SCADA information), existing reservoir levels (SCADA information) and existing pumping facilities (RMOW- Water Resources information) were used to evaluate operational pressures and determine whether system pressures were within prescribed limits (i.e. 350-560 kPa) under normal operating conditions. To summarize, the evaluation criteria used to identify potential limitations the hydraulic performance falls under three categories: maintaining minimum system pressures, limiting maximum system pressures and observing normal pipeline velocity or headloss gradient. These are: 1. Minimum System Pressure a) Under maximum week demand ~ 350 kPa (~50psi) b) Under Peak Hour Demand ~ 275 kPa (~40psi) c) Under Maximum Week plus fire flow ~140 kPa (~20psi) 2. Maximum System Pressure d) Under Maximum Week Demand static pressures below ~700kPa (~100psi) 3. Pipe Line Characteristics e) Maximum velocity ~1.5 m/s (under maximum week demand, velocities may be higher under fire flow conditions) f) Maximum headloss gradient ~2.5m/km (for mains 300mm diameter or larger) The existing and proposed water system in conjunction with topographical information (elevations) were reviewed to rationalize appropriate pressure zone boundaries that minimized the number of pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and pumping stations. From that basis, target hydraulic grade lines were established for each pressure zone. The results of this initial analysis are detailed in Technical Memoranda #2 & #3. Detailed computer modeling was undertaken to confirm existing system constraints as well as identifying areas of high and low pressure based on the evaluation criteria established above. In conjunction with the workshops undertaken with the three municipalities modifications to the existing pressure zone boundaries were modeled and improvements were identified. The following major pressure zone boundary modifications are proposed:
Expansion of the Cambridge Zone 1A pressure zone into Cambridge Zone 1 Modification of the Cambridge Zone 1 operating strategy i.e. new TWL Expansion of Kitchener Zone 2E into Breslau South (East Side) Modifications to the Kitchener Zone 2W with possible inter-connection with Kitchener Zone 2E with Kitchener Zone 2W (detailed review undertaken by others) Modification to the Kitchener Zone 4 system (i.e. new elevated reservoir) Modifications to the Waterloo Zone 4/5 pressure zone including incorporation of sub zones 4B and 4C to Zone 5 Detailed analysis is incorporated into Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F)
Minor system modifications and pressure zone changes are elaborated and discussed in Section 4 of this report and Technical Memorandum # 4 (included in Appendix D). Table 6.3 also demonstrates some of these minor pressure zone deficiencies.
Final Report
Page 57 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Expansion of Cambridge Zone 1A In reviewing servicing reports for the South Cambridge area located in pressure Zone 1 particularly those bounded east of Franklin Blvd between Clyde Road and Main St, significant pockets of pressures below 350 kPa would exist when operating at TWL or below 330m. By relocating much of the south east portion of the above noted area to Zone 1A pressures improved by nearly 140 kPa. Reference to Figure 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 identify the realigned pressure zones. A more detailed analysis of the South Cambridge Pumping Station and watermains will need to be undertaken. The analysis is required due to the changes in the development in the South Cambridge area affected by this new development concept. Modification of Cambridge Zone 1 The control of the Top Water Level (TWL) within Cambridge Zone 1 is completed through previous amalgamation of the old Preston and Galt Systems. Three floating storage reservoirs are responding to system demands. These include Turnbull (326m), Rahman (328m) and St. Andrews (339m). Theoretically there is a 13m differential between St. Andrews in the southwest of the zone and Turnbull/Rahmans in the northeast. System operators balance the TWL. This typically results in operating the St. Andrews tank 5 to 8m below the TWL and operating the in ground reservoirs within 0.5 to 1m of overflow levels. Clearly a new storage vessel with an appropriate TWL and location would improve the hydraulics of the Cambridge Zone 1 pressure district and provide consistent operating pressures. Figure 6.1 shows the delineation of pressures within the existing Zone 1A pressure zone. At an operating level above 330m there are areas in the north west bounded by the Kitchener Zone 2 pressure zone and the south east near the Cambridge landfill site (east of Franklin Blvd) that are below acceptable pressures (<350 kPa). Further areas in the southwest nest to the Grand River will exhibit pressures above 650 kPa.
Final Report
Page 58 of 103
31
31
Final Report
Page 59 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN It is proposed that the new elevated storage facility have a TWL in the range of 334 to 336m. The location of this storage facility for Zone 1 should ideally be located in Zone 1 however this would require a ground elevation in the order of 290m to limit the effective construction height to a constructible level in the order of 50m. The elevations that seem to agree with this requirement are to be found in Cambridge Zone 2E. Location analysis identified five (5) possible locations (refer to Figure 6.3). These locations were identified, modeled and are shown in Figures 7.3 to 7.7. The five locations reviewed are: Option 1: Pinebush Rd east of Franklin Blvd (Figure 6.4) Option 2: Townline Rd at CanAmera Parkway (Figure 6.5) Option 3: North of Saginaw Parkway (Figure 6.6) Option 4: At the existing reservoir and Treatment Plant (Figure 6.7) Option 5: Between Clyde Rd and Avenue Rd (near Cambridge landfill site) (Figure 6.8) Model runs were used to confirm reservoir operability with the existing Zone 1 facilities (existing pumping stations). Figure 6.9 and 6.10 demonstrate full cycling for locations 1 and 2 (for sites 3 to 5 refer to Appendix F) in an extended (48 hr) period simulation. The hydraulic functionality of the new tank was tested based on the use of an elevated tank with a useable volume of 8.5ML. This would displace the potential loss of the Rahman (4000m3) and St. Andrews (2797m3) theoretical storage capacity. The existing Rahman and Turnbull reservoirs which currently act as floating storage are proposed to act as pumped storage while the proposed tank will act as new floating storage. Accordingly to access the storage capacity of the Rahman and Turnbull reservoirs, the existing Rahmans pumping station will need to be utilized and a new Zone 1 Turnbull station will need to be constructed. Figure 6.3 Location Options for New Cambridge Storage Facility32
Location 1 CAM2E
Location 2
Location 4
Location 3
CAM1
Location 5
32
Final Report
Page 60 of 103
Figure 6.4 - Potential Option No. 1 for new CAM1 Storage Facility33
Figure 6.5 - Potential Option No.2 for new CAM1 Storage Facility
33
Final Report
Page 61 of 103
Figure 6.6 - Potential Option No.3 for new CAM1 Storage Facility
Figure 6.7 - Potential Option No.4 for new CAM1 Storage Facility
Final Report
Page 62 of 103
Figure 6.8 - Potential Option No.5 for new CAM1 Storage Facility
% Full (%)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
34
Final Report
Page 63 of 103
% Full (%) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Final Report
Page 64 of 103
Figure 6.12 and 6.13 show areas within Zone 1 that would have low and high pressure issues (i.e. below 345 kpa(35m) and above 685 kpa (70m)). These are: Low pressure in the southeast in the vicinity of the landfill site Low pressure in the north between Shantz Hill Rd and Fountain St adjacent to Highway 401 High pressure along the Grand River These areas are similar to those experienced in the current operating system pressure issue and require some localized mitigation in high pressure areas (i.e. individual PRVs) in the low areas in turn the central business district Zone 1 Pump Station Modification Impacts The higher operating level eliminates the need for throttling the discharge pressure from the Shades Mill Pumping Station. The current pumps are reduced to 26 from 28m via a throttling valve. New Turnbull Zone 1 Station One way to utilize the existing Turnbull storage station and Wells G16, 17 and 18 with the proposed storage tank is to construct a new Zone 1 pumping facility next to the existing Turnbull reservoir. This station would provide access to the existing Turnbull storage volume and the well supplies from the Turnbull WTP. This new station as well as the Rahmans, Pinebush, Shades Mills and Middleton pumping stations will be operated from level in the new reservoir with pressure at each of the respective stations as back-up. The new Turnbull Zone 1 Pumping Station would serve to accommodate normal and peak hour demands as the new tank level decreases. As a preliminary guide to station sizing Figure 6.10 shows a four unit facility with three units installed immediately on building the facility. The station would be interconnected to the Turnbull reservoir. A split interconnected pump well is proposed with ultimately two vertical turbine pumps in each well. Rating of each pump would be in the order of 100 to 120 L/s which could be used for fire flow back-up in the event that the new Zone 1 reservoir is taken out of service. See Figure 6.11 below. The new Zone 1 Turnbull pumping station as well as other Zone 1 pumping stations control programs will need to be modified for control by the level in the new Zone 1 elevated tank. The new Zone 1 Turnbull station should also be equipped with a stand-by power unit for system back-up under power failure. Consideration should be given to variable speed operation for energy optimization and flow control. Control of flow into the reservoir is also recommended in order to supplement the reservoir in the event that the supply to the Turnbull WTP is insufficient to maintain level. Accordingly, a new control valve on the inlet to the station is recommended. This operation would be in periods of low demand where water from other Zone 1 sources can be used to fill the Turnbull Reservoir. Under the Environmental Assessment Act a Schedule B EA undertaking will be necessary for the new reservoir and pumping station. This Master Plan undertook the hydraulic analysis of a number of reservoir locations. A more detailed analysis is required to confirm the optimum location and size of the
Final Report
Page 65 of 103
new reservoir. Furthermore this detailed analysis will be required for routing and sizing the feeder mains to this new reservoir and for the sizing of the pumping units at the Zone 1 Turnbull facility.
RELIEF VALVE
PG
AI
PIT
M
FUTURE
TO CAM ZONE 1
Figure 6.11 New Zone 1 Turnbull Pumping Station (located adjacent to Turnbull Reservoir)
Final Report
Page 66 of 103
Cambridge Zone 1
1
Legend
Elevation Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m
< 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m
> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa
3 2
Min. elevation to be serviced: 265m To maintain Pressure between 35m 70m (343kPa 686kPa): Max. HGL to be maintained: 335m Max. elevation could be serviced: 300m
Figure 6.12 Areas within Cambridge Zone 1 Low and High Pressure Issues
Final Report
Page 67 of 103
Location 1
Legend
Elevation < 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m 300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel Pressure Zone Boundary Road Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m
> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa
Figure 6.13 Areas at Location 1 with Low and High Pressure Issues
Final Report
Page 68 of 103
Location 2
Legend
Elevation < 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m 300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel Pressure Zone Boundary Road Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m
> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa
Figure 6.14 Areas within Location 2 with Low and High Pressure Issues
Final Report
Page 69 of 103
Location 3
Legend
Elevation < 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m 300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel Pressure Zone Boundary Road Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m
> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa
Figure 6.15 Areas within Location 3 with Low and High Pressure Issues
Final Report
Page 70 of 103
Ultimate Supply System Considerations The new storage facility in Cambridge Zone 1 could serve an immediate and possible long term purpose. Immediately and near term a new tank would provide a single floating storage and control the operation of the five pumping stations (Middleton, Shades Mill, Rahmans, Turnbull and Pinebush). If the Region were to consider the location of this storage facility for a future lake based supply then this storage location may be the start of a terminal storage complex to serve the needs of Cambridge system (Zone 1, 1A, 2 and 3). Supply of Lake Erie based water would require substantially greater energy if supplied from Mannheim (Kitchener) to Cambridge rather than directly to Cambridge. Table 6.5 outlines the transmission lines needed to service the five sites outlined in the investigation. Additional analysis should be conducted for evaluating the feasibility of each storage location. Table 6.5 summarized the technical feasibility of each storage option. Table 6.5 - Summary of Technical Feasibility for CAM1 Storage35
Ease of Option Hydraulic Considerations 5 5 4 4 4 Implementation including land availability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 4 2 3 2 2 1 4 5 3 Costs
Note: 5 most desirable to 1 least desirable Expansion of Kitchener Zones into Breslau South (East Side) Section 6.2.7 of this report discusses the expansion of pressure zones into the Breslau South (East Side). This is accomplished by providing service through pressure reduction directly from Kitchener Zone 4 through the Ottawa Street connection and future extension of Fairway Road or through Kitchener 2E from the extension of this main on Fountain Street. This would provide a TWL of 365 from the Freeport Tank. Future water supplies in this area could serve demands in the new and existing commercial and residential areas. Modifications to Kitchener Zone 2W A detailed review of this area is being undertaken by others. Under this Master Plan consideration has been given to connecting Kitchener 2E with Kitchener 2W by a new watermain as shown on Figure 6.16.
35
Final Report
Page 71 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Kitchener 2W is supplied through the Manitou PRV and existing wells K34 and new well K36. This area provides flow to Zone 1 Cambridge through the New Dundee PRV. Under high demand conditions and/or in the event of a loss of the Manitou PR this zone will encounter low pressures. Stable or moderated pressures can be achieved through connection of Kitchener zone 2E. This is from the effect of the Freeport Tank. It is noted that pressures difference of 40 kPa exists between Zone 2E and 2W. A PRV could alleviate this difference. Hydraulic analysis indicates that the interconnection could be accomplished using a 300mm main between King Street and Maple Grove Road and Homer Watson Boulevard. However, more detailed analysis is required to confirm system control since the new combined zones would be controlled from the Freeport Tank. This zone is also being affected through the expansion of the East Side leads and system integration and control issues will need to be reviewed in greater detail than undertaken in this Master Plan. Kitchener Zone 2 Water System Integration The existing Kitchener Zone 2 is separated into 2 sub-zones, Zone 2 West and Zone 2 East, by Grand River. According to the information provided, the design hydraulic grade line (HGL) for these zones is differed by 3.0m; HGL for Zone 2W and Zone 2 East is 361m (controlled by Manitou PRV) and 365m (controlled by TWL of Freeport Elevated Tank), respectively. Since Kitchener Zone 2 West is currently supplied by a single water supply point at Manitou PRV without any storage facilities in this zone, the opportunity of integrating Zone 2W and Zone 2E was investigated so that Freeport elevated tank can provide pressure moderation under peak hour demand and increase the system supply redundancy. Figure 6.16 shows the potential connecting watermain for integrating Zone 2W and Zone 2E and Figures 6.17 to 6.20 demonstrate the potential changes in system hydraulics when two zones are integrated.
Final Report
Page 72 of 103
120
369.4
110 359.4 100 Pressure (Psi) 349.4 90 Existing Max With Zone Integration Max 339.4 Existing Min With Zone Integration Min HGL (m)
80
70 329.4 60
50 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (hr) 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
319.4
70
60
50 % Level
20
10
0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (hr) 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Final Report
Page 73 of 103
Manitou PRV
140
120
Flow (L/s)
60
40
400
350
300
Flow (L/s)
250
200 Existing Average Flow = 165L/s 150 Average Flow under integration = 136L/s 100
50
Final Report
Page 74 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN According to the hydraulic modelling results, the integration of Kitchener Zone 2 West and Kitchener Zone 2 East will not cause significant impacts to the system in terms of pressure, tank level and flow transfer via each supply PRVs. As a result, this system integration strategy is considered as a feasible servicing option. However, the hydraulic modelling results have also shown that the potential high pressure could occur in the existing Zone 2West system and system pressure will be increased after the zone integration; field test in the existing Kitchener Zone 2 West system is strongly recommended prior to the zone integration. Waterloo Zone 4/5 Boundary Rationalization Figures 6.21 and 6.22 present the differences in system pressure when parts of Zone 4 and subpressure zones 4B and 4C are included in Zone 5. The major impacts are inactivating (decommissioning) the existing Northfield Booster (Zone 4B) and the Lakeshore Booster (Zone C). System modeling demonstrated minimal impact to the Zone 5 system when Zone 4B and 4C are connected. Indeed operations and maintenance cost savings could be realized once these facilities are decommissioned. An area from Columbia St (in the south), Bearinger Rd (in the west), Westmount Rd N, Benjamin (in the north), Expressway/Parkside/Hagey Blvd (to the east) was connected to the Zone 5 system (taken from the Zone 4 system). Modeling confirmed a 210 kPa system pressure improvement in the area. Figure 6.23 demonstrates that no significant dead ends were created. Detailed analysis of piping interconnections should be undertaken prior to any changes. Communications with the affected customers should be considered prior to this undertaking. Figures 6.24 and 6.25 demonstrate pressure changes in the affected areas.
Final Report
Page 75 of 103
36
Final Report
Page 76 of 103
37
37
Final Report
Page 77 of 103
700
600
500 With Cambridge Zone 1A Boundary Changes Average Pressure Gain = 288kPa Pressure (kPa) 400
300
200
100
0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60
500
490 Without Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes Average Pressure Reduction = 49kPa 470
480
Pressure (kPa)
460
450
440
430
420
410
38
Final Report
Page 78 of 103
600
500 With Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes 400 Average Pressure Gain = 248kPa Pressure (kPa)
300
Figure 6.25 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4 Kitchener Zone 4 Modifications Although technically not a considered Zone boundary modification, the consideration of a new elevated tank to replace the aging St. George storage facility is sufficient to warrant discussion in this section. Technical Memorandum #4 recommended that the St. George Elevated Tank be decommissioned due to its age and that it hydraulically limits the Kitchener Zone 4 pressure gradeline. This gradeline limitation (reduction) would be more pronounced once the lands east of the Grand River (in Woolwich) are developed. There are plans to decommission the St. George tank and operate this significant pressure district as a closed zone (i.e. direct pumping from booster pumps). Operating this zone as a direct pumping district could be challenging as it is one of the largest demand and geographical zones in the Region. Furthermore, controlling five pumping stations (Manheim, Greenbrook, Parkway, Strange Street and future Grand Reservoir PS) would require a complex control algorithm for marshalling the numerous pumping units under constantly changing demand conditions. An ideal system configuration is provided by facilities/pumping stations and storage supplying water from opposite ends. Since much of the sources are provided from the south and west and parts of the pressure district, it would be prudent to provide a water facility such as a storage tank on the east. This facility would also assist in providing a slightly higher gradeline through out the central portions of the zone aiding in greater water transfer capability to Waterloo and poised to aid in the servicing of the East Side lands. This will slightly raise the pressure across Zone 4 in the west and central areas of the Zone by 62 kPa. This may be similar to Zone 4 operation when the Greenbrook facility is in operation. This station has the ability to raise the pressure locally due to encountering less friction from long delivery lines from other booster stations.
Final Report
Page 79 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Figures 6.26 and 6.27 are two possible locations for Kitchener Zone 4 storage. Further hydraulic analysis should be conducted for evaluating the feasibility of storage locations once this approach is adopted. Indeed a Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule B) needs to be undertaken. Appendix B of Technical Memorandum #6 presents the possible locations with elevations above 330m which could satisfy the location of a new storage facility. The ideal location for a new tank located on the east side of the zone is adjacent to the future Grand Reservoir and Pumping Station. However, there is limited area with suitably high ground elevation on the east side of the zone (east of the Grand River). Other areas exist on the east side of the Grand River and in the Central Business District. The areas analyzed in the hydraulic analysis would satisfy the requirements of this zone. Alternative areas should be considered during the Environmental Assessment. Figure 6.28 demonstrates a system pressure improvement. An extended series simulation of pressures shows a 35 to 40 kPa pressure increase using the same top water level as the St. George Tank but in a location on the east side. Table 6.6 summarizes the infrastructure required for two locations reviewed in this analysis. Although the Kitchener-Waterloo portion of the IUS does not warrant additional storage (as explained in Technical Memorandum #3) a new facility with a large surface area would greatly assist in moderating system pressures. A strict replacement of the St. George Tank (2824m3) would limit the surface area. Hydraulic analysis was undertaken with a tank operating over a 10m range and a nominal capacity of 8.5mL. This vessel would control the four existing pumping stations (Greenbrook, Storage, Parkway and Zone 4 Mannheim) and a future pumping station (Grand).
39
Final Report
Page 80 of 103
60
50
30
20
10
0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60
Figure 6.28 - System Pressure Comparison - St. George ET vs. New KIT4 Tank40
40
Final Report
Page 81 of 103
Table 6.6 - Summary of Infrastructure Requirements41 Option 1. 2. 1-2 1-2* Descriptions 600mm WM on Ebydale Dr, from the new storage location to Lackner Blvd. 600mm WM on Keewatin Ave., from the new storage location to Heritage Dr. New Elevated Storage Cost Decommission St. George Talk Total Length 220 m 700 m Costs $0.4M $1.1M $4.0 4.5M $1.0 M
6.2.5
Detailed storage analysis was conducted and documented in Technical Memorandum #3. different approaches were evaluated as follows: MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) Integrated System Approach
Figure 6.29 shows the schematic to describe the general evaluations methodology that was used. Due to the level of interconnections in the Regional distribution system and the ability of sharing existing storage facilities among many pressure zones the Integrated Approach is recommended.
41
Final Report
Page 82 of 103
General Storage Evaluation Methodology A. Fire Storage + B. Equalization Storage + C. Emergency Storage
MOE
A1 Zonal Basic
Major Fire In Every Zone Simultaneously
FUS
MOE
B1 25% of Max Week Demand
Alternate
B2 15% of Max Week Demand
MOE
C1 25% (A + B)
A2 System Basis
One Major Fire In Downtown plus One Residential Fire In Peripheral Area
A3 Zonal Basis
Major Fire In Every Zone Simultaneously
1. 2. 3.
Figure 6.29 - Storage Evaluations Methodology Table 6.7 and 6.8 summarize the storage evaluation results for the Cambridge and Kitchener Waterloo Integrated Supply System. This review considers only the traditional components of storage (equalization, emergency and fire demands). Other factors such as water quality and operational flexibility need to be incorporated into the storage volume. Table 6.7 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Integrated Supply System42 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS / Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Theoretical Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) ML = Million Litres 2006 7.80 4.20 9.01 21.0 65.3 48.0 27.0 2011 7.80 4.35 9.58 21.7 65.3 48.0 26.3 2016 7.80 4.47 10.09 22.4 65.3 48.0 25.6 2021 7.80 4.58 10.53 22.9 65.3 48.0 25.1 2026 7.80 4.72 11.06 23.6 65.3 48.0 24.4
42
Final Report
Page 83 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 6.8 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System43 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Theoretical Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 8.79 7.65 21.82 38.3 76.7 66.4 28.2 2011 8.79 8.06 23.43 40.3 89.1 76.6 36.3 2016 8.79 8.46 25.04 42.3 89.1 76.6 34.3 2021 8.79 8.88 26.73 44.4 89.1 76.6 32.2 2026 8.79 9.29 28.37 46.4 89.1 76.6 30.2
There is sufficient storage capacity in both the Cambridge and Kitchener Waterloo Integrated Supply systems. The integrated approach offers the most realistic approach if only two fire events, a major and minor (residential) event are considered to occur at the same time. Operations staff is unaware of simultaneous fire events occurring at any time and/or to the extent simulated in the hydraulic modeling discussed in this section.
6.2.6
Criticality Analysis
In order to identify key infrastructure that will cause a significant impact when taken out of service, the hydraulic model was used to perform criticality assessment. The technical steering committee identified critical infrastructure when taken out of service would: result in system (zone) pressures below 140 kPa and/or not sustain a fire flow or in itself is the lone single point of supply into a zone or subzone (subdivision) Table 6.9 summarizes the critical infrastructure (control valves and water mains) identified under normal operating conditions.
43
Final Report
Page 84 of 103
Table 6.9 - Criticality Analysis Results for Watermains44 Critical Watermains Manitou PRV (Figure 7.1) Descriptions Hydraulic Impacts Alternatives
Transfer flow from KIT4 to KIT2W and CAM1 Transfer flow from KIT 4 to KIT2E / CAM2W / CAM2E
Kitchener Z2W will be totally out of supply Freeport tank depleted to 28% Insufficient pressure
Install PRV for 2nd supply connection from Z4 to Z2W Install new watermain on Fountain Street to connect Breslau South to CAM2W Operate Kress Hill PS Install new PRV in the Kress Hill PS to transfer flow from CAM2W to CAM1 under emergency conditions Close Erb St. MTV (transfer flow from WAT5 to WAT4)
MV2
Insufficient pressure occurred in the Northwest area of CAM1 (near Kress Hill PS) Insufficient pressure Erb St. Reservoir level dropped below 20% in 2 days University Tank depleted in 19hrs
University Tank Outlet (WAT6) Only source of supply to WAT6
Install by-pass through the pump station to transfer water from Wat 5 to Wat 6 Install by-pass pipe or additional watermain to transfer flow from Kit 5 to Wat 6 Install bypass around tank Install by-pass pipe or additional watermain to transfer flow from KIT6 to WAT6 Install bypass around tank Install new watermain to connect the subdivision to the existing 300mm on Shirley Ave. (N of Victoria St. N.) Install parallel pipe on Bridge St. E. (River
Kitchener Zone 4 450mm to Bridge St. East Only one watermain to the subdivision located east of Bridge St. E.
44
Final Report
Page 85 of 103
Critical Watermains
Descriptions
Hydraulic Impacts
Alternatives
Install new watermain on Fountain St. and relocate the existing PRV to Breslau South for providing additional supply from KIT4
Loss or out of service for key storage elements was also evaluated under maximum day continuous key single storage facilities such as Freeport, Laurel, St. George & Pinebush tanks. The hydraulic model indicates that each zone operated within Regional prescribed operating pressures with the exception of the Waterloo Zone 4 system. The single reservoir zones would act as closed systems i.e. direct pressure until the storage vessel is placed back into service. Under maximum day conditions, some areas around the Laurel tank would experience pressures less than 140 kPa if the facility was out of service. In this event the existing pump back-up system would need to be operated to alleviate these low pressure issues. Criticality analysis was also undertaken for the booster stations under maximum week demand conditions. Table 6.10 indicates the level of redundancy under a significant demand condition. Table 6.10 - Criticality Analysis Results for Booster Pumping Stations45 PS Name Middleton Cam 1 Zone Pump ID CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24 SMTP Rahmans SCAM Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1A CB37 CB38 CB16 CB17 CB29 CB30 CB31 CB32 Turnbull Cam 2E CB8 Capacity 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 22 82 82 82 152 ON ON OFF OFF ON ON ON OFF ON ON OFF OFF ON Status
45
Final Report
Page 86 of 103
PS Name
Zone CB9
Pump ID
Capacity 151 151 70 70 182 50 50 105 105 80 50 80 130 130 70 85 95 95 608 608 608 94 250 250 250 95 90 90 90 100 100 100 300 300 20 20 ON OFF OFF ON OFF OFF OFF ON ON ON OFF ON OFF ON ON OFF ON OFF
Status
Kit 4
Parkway
(2)
Kit 4
Greenbrook(2)
Kit 4
Strange St Mannheim
(2)
Kit 4 Kit 4
OFF(1) OFF(1) OFF(1) OFF OFF OFF ON OFF ON ON OFF ON ON OFF OFF OFF ON OFF
Mannheim
Kit 5
Mannheim
Kit 6
William
Wat 4
Wat 4 Wat 7
Gravity Feed from Mannheim Reservoir (reservoir level at ~ 383m). With the proposed elevated tank in the eastside of KIT4, operation of one booster pump from Mannheim Z4 would be required 2 The operation of this pump is controlled by the level of the new elevated tank
Final Report
Page 87 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN The loss of a large pump during a maximum week demand condition has a consequence on the following facilities Shades Mill Pumping station (both pumps are operating hence no firm capacity alternatively proposed pumping units at the Turnbull Zone 1 station could be operated) Proposed size of the smaller pumping units at Grand Pumping Station should be sized to provide backup in the event of the loss of one of the major pumps e.g. GR1 and GR2 should require the capacity of either GR3 or GR4 Replacement of the small pumping unit (KB11) with equal size to KB 10 or 12 or install a new unit (i.e. four pumps) William St. requires two boosters operational. Upgrade of the station section piping is necessary to provide a sustainable flow of 200 L/s Again the robustness of the existing system IUS is demonstrated through the minor upgrades identified in this assessment.
6.2.7
Growth allocations were provided by the Regions Planning Department. The growth projections take into account the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) and the Provinces Places to Grow Act. These initiatives require future growth be diverted to existing urbanized areas.
Final Report
Page 88 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Figure 6.30 - Eastside Servicing Area Location46 The total area within the RGMS defined Eastside servicing area boundary is approximately 4,000 ha. Figure 6.30 illustrates the location of the Eastside servicing areas and the existing water distribution infrastructure represented in the Hydraulic model. The projected water demands up to 2026 are in the order of 40 L/s. However, based on FUS fire rating the International Airport would warrant a fire flow supply of 362 L/s. Accordingly, growth projecteions have been accounted for in the hydraulic model. The Regions RGMS has recommended new employment lands to be developed east of the Grand River mainly in the Township of Woolwich and in the North of Cambridge. The existing serviced area on the East Side lands is serviced by pressure reducing from Kitchener Zone 4 in Breslau North and through Kitchener Pressure Zone 2 in North Cambridge area. The southerly area pressure is moderated from the Freeport Elevated Tank. Once development of this area commences and converges, additional supplies will be required. Since at this time there are no sources located in this area demand in the east side needs to be met through supply from Kitchener Zone 4 and Zone 2. The existing Ottawa St. connection can effectively deliver 143 L/s with a headloss gradient of 2m/km. Accordingly, connection to the infrastructure to the South in Kitchener Zone 2E and a third service connection will be warranted as demand increases. Once the East Side area is connected most likely through an extension of a transmission main on Fountain St pressure control will be necessary. Pressure regulation/sustaining will become very erratic through PRVs discharging into a developing area. Accordingly, it is proposed that all PRVs be converted or installed as MTV/Flow Control Valves. This tank should control the following existing pressure regulating valves future supplies: Existing River Road pressure reducing/regulating valves Existing Ottawa Street N Regulating valve Future Fairway Rd extension regulating valve Future water supplies (most likely PI6) The PRV regulation system should include a similar arrangement to the River Road regulation facility (i.e. small control valve for normal demands with a larger control valve for fire flows). These control elements will need to be outfitted with stand along and remote terminal units accepting control signals through a stand alone controller from the Freeport Tank and from Mannheim central. In amalgamation of eastside infrastructure elements a control algorithm will need to be developed in order to regulate pressure through this new development area. Proposed infrastructure is illustrated in Figure 6.31 and 6.32.
46
Final Report
Page 89 of 103
Figure 6.32 - Infrastructure Requirements 2 for Eastside Servicing Area48 Fire flow analysis indicates that a simultaneous major and minor (residential type) fire in this expanded Zone 2E can be delivered while still maintaining 140 kPa system pressure.
47 48
Figure6.31 from page #64 from Technical Memorandum #6 Figure 6.32 from page #65 from Technical Memorandum #6
Final Report
Page 90 of 103
As part of future master water distribution upgrades, it is recommended that further infrastructure evaluation be undertaken to determine the location and optimal sizing of transmission and distribution mains. For the purpose of this master plan the integration of the two existing small pressure zones through interconnection of the Fountain Street Main and integration of the pressure regulating and control valves is a key starting point. Flow metering should be implemented at these control points and at current municipal boundaries to determine use and billing. A ringmain concept for the area should be developed and installed/located along key major roads. As the proposed road network is not developed it would be prudent to consider the new major water infrastructure being installed with the sanitary sewer collection system.
6.2.8
This Water Distribution Master Plan projects water demands to 2026. However, the Regions Updated Water Supply strategy extends these projections to 2041 in keeping with the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. The former study confirms that in due course the construction of a Great Lakes displacement pipeline will be a required measure to meet the future demands. This significant supply measure is contemplated by 2033/34 or earlier (2029) if water efficiency measures and water restrictions are not maintained. Accordingly, it is plausible that the manner of delivering water to the existing and future pressure zones analyzed in this update could be impacted by a lake based water supply scheme. Accordingly, it is prudent to consider these impacts and contemplate possible delivery options so that minimal infrastructure changes are necessary. Historically the existing Mannheim facility has been analyzed as a key location for terminal storage and supply of lake water to the Region of Waterloo primarily supplying the City of Kitchener and Waterloo. Pending future separate studies by the Region the ultimate servicing scheme for the Cambridge area remains conceptual. In previous studies terminal storage for the Cambridge area was from an area south and west of the city in the Cherry Hill area in the Township of North Dumfries. The hydraulic model was utilized to examine at a high level two water servicing options for the City of Cambridge: Service from Mannheim TS via existing water distribution system New transmission to Cambridge
The following assumptions were made during the undertaking of the 48 hour extended period simulation: Sufficient infrastructure is in place to deliver water from the Lake either in a one TS (Mannheim only) or two TS (Mannheim and Cambridge)system Two 900mm diameter transmission mains are required to deliver water to Zone 4 Kitchener (central core) and to Waterloo Zone 4 All well supply sources are inactivated or partially maintained off for emergency supply only
Final Report
Page 91 of 103
IMP1: 900mm from Mannheim to Wat 4 IMP2: 900mm from Mannheim to Kit 4
IMP1 IMP2
Lake-Based Supply
Figure 6.33 - Preferred Ultimate Supply Strategy49
Option 1 Mannheim Terminal Storage (TS) Supply to Cambridge This option supplies and transmits water from the Mannheim TS to the existing water distribution system. This would significantly change the hydraulics in the City of Cambridge. The bulk of the water supply to Cambridge would be a pipeline from the Mannheim TS through a manifold of PRVs located near the New Dundee PRV and from there a pipeline to other terminal reservoirs at Turnbull and South Cambridge. This would require over 50 km of pipeline much within urbanized areas in the City of Cambridge. From these terminal reservoirs redistribution would remain essentially intact. As a specific note, energy loss would be substantial since terminal storage at Mannheim is 385 m and ground storage in Zone 1 is substantially lower (325m or lower).
49
Final Report
Page 92 of 103
IMP1: 900mm from Gravity Main to Turnbull IMP2: 900mm from Gravity Main to S. Cambridge GRAVITY MAIN: 1050mm from Mannheim to Cam 1
Figure 6.34 - Lake Based Supply Option 150 Option 2 Lake Based Supply directly to Cambridge Terminal Storage In order to avoid the significant changes proposed in Option 1 it is appropriate to consider the direct supply of lake based water to existing and enlarged reservoirs for use as terminal storage or control terminal storage and distribution/connection to existing water facilities such as the Turnbull, Middleton or new Zone 1 reservoir. It is envisioned that the existing major storage facilities with expansion would be used as pumped supply to the existing pressure zones during the day and augmented by a feed from Cambridge Terminal Storage. In this option, Cambridge Terminal Storage could be fed through a PRV off the supply to the Mannheim Terminal Storage or as a re-pump from Cambridge TS to Mannheim TS. The latter may be more desirable since any excess at the Cambridge TS can be shared between all three municipalities in the event of a pipeline out of service issue. Figure 6.34 schematically presents the new transmission system under a lake based supply scheme. Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F) provides further description on Option 2. High level hydraulic modeling was undertaken to provide conceptual routing and interconnectivity to the existing distribution system. A more detailed analysis is required to confirm infrastructure requirements and location when more details for the Great Lake supply are available. Critical infrastructure location should then be reviewed and it will be necessary to consider routes and siting of infrastructure in nonurbanized areas. The availability of uncongested utility corridors and lands suited for terminal storage are limited at this time and in the future it is doubtful that there would be relief to this congestion.
50
Final Report
Page 93 of 103
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN At a conceptual/high level, the provision of lake supply through terminal storage in Cambridge offers the following benefits: Less improvement works through urbanized areas and existing water distribution systems Least impact to existing hydraulics and pressure zones Effective balancing of storage Higher level of water supply security of the pipeline is out of service
Table 6.11 - Cost Estimate Summary Proj. No. 1 2 Project Description Decommission Shantz Reservoir Decommission Edward St. Reservoir Upgrade 300m of 300mm to 400mm on Industrial Rd from Eagle St. N to Langs Dr Pinebush Tank recircuiting pump/emergency storage reuse pump New Zone 4 to Zone 2W PRV station for backup of existing PRV Cost Est. $1.0M $500,000 EA Schedule A,A+ A Rationale SI RI Prop. Date 2010 2010
Cambridge
$900,000
SI
2010
$300,000
2012
$500,000
2012
Final Report
Page 94 of 103
Proj. No.
Project Description Modify Zone2W controls to incorporate Freeport Tower to control existing River Rd, Fairway Rd and Ottawa St PRVs and proposed wells in area Decommission Kress Hill Booster Pumps and modify PRV for transfers of Cam 2W to Cam1 Provide backup to New Dundee PRV upgrade Kress Hill from booster station to PRV Shades Mill Pumping unit upgrade or incorporate into item 14 New Storage Tank for Zone 1 New 600mm diameter WM on Franklin & Eagle St OR 2.5 km New 400mm diameter WM on Franklin, Eagle & CanAmera Parkway OR New 400 mm diameter WM through existing park to Saginaw Parkway OR 400mm diameter connect to existing 600mm at Turnbull Reservoir Site OR New 400m diameter WM from Franklin Blvd to site between Avenue Rd & Clyde Rd Inactivation of 400mm diameter WM from Turnbull Reservoir to Cam1 system (dedicate storage for pumped storage for Zone1 and Zone 2E
Cost Est.
EA Schedule
Rationale
Prop. Date
$100,000
ES
2012
$500,000
2013
$250,000
2013
$250,000
2013
Cambridge
10
$4.5M
SI
2018
11 a
$3.8M
SI
2018
$6.7M
SI
2018
$1.5M
SI
2018
$250,000
SI
2018
$2.0M
SI
2018
12
$200,000
SI
2018
Final Report
Page 95 of 103
Proj. No.
Project Description Install new 450mm WM from Kent St to Bismark Dr (Cambridge) New Zone 1 PS (for reallocation of Turnbull as pumped storage for Zone1) Extend 300mm diameter Fountain St main into Breslau S area and flowmeter (at Cambridge Woolwich boundary) New Control Valve and check valve on inlet to St. Andrew Reservoir Upgrade 1.5km of 400mm WM on Franklin Blvd to min. 500mm Upgrade 1.9km of 300/400mm to 500 mm equivalent on Pinebush Rd from Rahmans PS to Industrial Rd Upgrade 700m of 300mm to 500mm equivalent on Eagle St N from Industrial Rd to Providence Rd Expansion of Cambridge Zone 1A pressure zone into Zone 1 (allowance) Decommission St. George Tank Relocate existing PRV on Ottawa St. to east side of Grand River and new 450mm diameter main for backup to Breslau N. and flow meter Install/upgrade small booster pump of Parkway PS
Cost Est.
EA Schedule
Rationale
13
$900,000
14
$5.0M
SI
2020
15
$750,000
ES
2020
Cambridge
16
$300,000
SI
2020
17
$1.5M
SI
2021
18
$1.6M
SI
2021
19
$800,000
SI
2021
20
$500,000
ZB
As required 2010
$1.0M
A or A+
SI
Kitchener
$500,000
ES
2012
$150,000
2012
Final Report
Page 96 of 103
Proj. No.
Project Description Modify pumping at William St (or refer to Tech Memorandum #4) for station upgrade Lancaster St main replicate existing main or connect to existing main at Shirley Ave/Victoria St N New 300mm WM from Apple Ridge Dr/Hilt Dr to Doon Village Rd (allowance investigation by others) Duplicate Manitou PRV (smaller or could be incorporated into Cambridge Item #20) New storage tank for Zone 4 600mm diameter WM on Ebydale Rd from Lackner to new tank OR 600mm diameter on Keewatin for storage tank to Heritage Dr Install new PRV and extend 600mm diameter main on Fairway Rd. across Grand River and connect to Fountain St. main complete with flow meter ( 2.2 km) Modifications to Kitchener Pressure Zone 2 (allowance) Upgrade 1500m of 300mm to 400mm on Westheight Dr. from MacGarry Dr to Driftwood Dr and on Driftwood Dr from Westheights Dr to west of Parkland Cres Interconnection of Zone 2E & Zone 2W complete with
Cost Est.
EA Schedule
Rationale
Prop. Date
$200,000
A/B
2012
$900,000
A+/B
2012
$1.0M
A/B
2013
$400,000
2013
$4.5M
SI
2014
Kitchener
9a
$500,000
SI
2014
9b
10
$1.0M
A+
ES
2015
11
$500,000
TBA
By others
12
$1.8M
SI
2015
13
$2.0M
ZB/C
2015
Final Report
Page 97 of 103
Proj. No.
Project Description river crossing Duplicate River Rd MTV (integrate Ottawa St/Fairway Rd and Front St main) Modifications to Kitchener Pressure Zone 2 (allowance) New 500mm WM to Farmers Market area Baffling of the William St. Reservoir cell 4 for improvement to CT Install new 300mm WM diameter from Bridge St E 450mm diameter WM on Bridge St. W Add bypass piping around proposed University Tank Decommission William St. Reservoir Decommission Zone 6 pumps (after installation of University Avenue Elevated Tank) Decommission Zone 4B Booster Station and relief valve chambers and connect existing Zone 4B to Zone 5 Decommission Zone 4C Booster Station and relief valve chambers and connect to Zone 5 Reconfiguration of existing northeast portion Zone 4W into Zone 5W i.e. incorporation of Zone 4B and 4C (minor dead end & valving improvements) Implementation of localized individual PRVs and pressure management areas as required
Cost Est.
EA Schedule
Rationale
Prop. Date
Kitchener
14
$700,000
2020
15
$500,000
TBA
By others
$750,000
2011
$600,000
SI
2012
3a 3b 4 5
A A A A
C C C RI
Waterloo
$500,000
RI
2015
$500,000
A,A+
ZB
2016
$500,000
A,A+
ZB
2016
$500,000
ZB
2016
Others
$0.5-1.0M (allowance)
ZB
20112015
Final Report
Page 98 of 103
Proj. No. 2
Project Description 300m WM to Breslau N area New transmission mains in East Side Servicing Area (allowance) Breslau North backup from Ottawa St PRV/Fountain St extension
EA Schedule A+
Rationale C
3 Others
$5-10M
ES
2015 to 2020
A+/B
Studies 1 Update Tri-City Master Plan (on a 5-10 year cycle) Calibrate Tri-City model (hydraulically and water quality) $1.0M Update after10 yrs start as C A 2015 and 2020
$500,000
2012
Incorporate all distribution pipe in 3 model and complete water quality modeling Undertake energy optimization analysis and incorporate 4 forecasting program into SCADA system Undertake conceptual level 5 hydraulic analysis for Lake based system Total Studies Costs Total Works Costs TOTAL COSTS ZB = Zone Boundary ES = East Side C = Criticality F = Fire SI = System Improvements RI = Redundant Infrastructure
$500,000
2013
$300,000
2012
$300,000
As part of future EA
Final Report
Page 99 of 103
Final Report
Final Report
Final Report
Use for water quality modeling in the future During the workshops undertaken with the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo the City attendees expressed interest of a total pipe model may assist their utility in system troubleshooting and development application review (especially in areas of redevelopment).
In the undertaking of this study minimal allowance has been provided for aging infrastructure. Clearly this should be reviewed for future studies. Indeed consideration should be given to a system recalibration in order to confirm and therefore rely on the converging capacity of existing transmission and distribution mains.
Final Report
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539
AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2
May 2009
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1. 2. Section 1: Existing Landuse and Demand Data Analysis ........................... 2 Section 2: Top 50 Water Billing Records Analysis (2003)........................... 5
2.1 2.2 2.3 Top 50 Water Billing Records by Landuse ..................................................................... 5 Top 50 Water Billing Records by City............................................................................. 6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6
3. 4. 5.
Unaccounted for Water (UFW) Estimation.................................................. 12 Residential and ICI Diurnal Pattern Computation ...................................... 13
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Residential Diurnal Pattern Calculation ........................................................................ 13 ICI Diurnal Pattern Calculation ..................................................................................... 15 Max Day and Max Week Peaking Factors ................................................................... 19 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 20
6.
7. 8.
Technical Memorandum # 1
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 2003 Demand Summary per City ...................................................................................................3 Figure 3.1 - Tri-City 10 Years Water Consumption Rate..................................................................................10 Figure 5.1 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Zone Kit 5) .......................................................................14 Figure 5.2 ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 1 + Cam 3) ...........................................................................................16 Figure 5.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 2E) ........................................................................................................16 Figure 5.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 2W) .......................................................................................................17 Figure 5.5 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Kit 2 + Kit 2A ) ...............................................................................................17 Figure 5.6 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S ) .......................................................18 Figure 5.7 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Wat 5 + Wat 4 +Kit 4A + Market ) .................................................................18 Figure 6.1 - Projected Average Day Demand Comparisons ............................................................................26
List of Tables
Table 1.1 - 2003 Demand Summary ..................................................................................................................2 Table 1.2 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse ............................................................................................3 Table 2.1 Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By Land Use (Year 2003) ...............5 Table 2.2 - Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By City (Year 2003) ............................................................6 Table 3.1 Existing Population 2003 .................................................................................................................7 Table 3.2 Average Residential and ICI Water Consumption Rate ..................................................................8 Table 3.3 - Historical Water Consumption for Tri-City........................................................................................9 Table 4.1 - UFW in Each City (2003)................................................................................................................12 Table 5.1 Percentage of Residential Demand per Zone ...............................................................................13 Table 5.2 - Maximum Day and Maximum Week Peaking Factors (2003)........................................................19 Table 5.3 - Maximum Day Demand Factor for Tri-City (Provided by the Region)............................................19 Table 6.1 - Total Projected Equivalent Population ...........................................................................................22 Table 6.2 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s)...................................................................................................22 Table 6.3 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s) (3) .............................................................................................23 Table 6.4 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s)..............................................................................................23 Table 6.5 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration..........................................25
Appendices
A. B. C. D. E. Meter Billing Records Analysis Per City Top 50 Water Billing Records Water Consumption Rate Calculation Unaccounted For Water (UFW) Diurnal Pattern
Technical Memorandum # 1
ii
Introduction
The principal reason for conducting this master plan is to determine required improvements for the existing water distribution infrastructure, as well as new distribution infrastructure required for Regional growth. The objective is to determine how the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW) will provide the water requirements of its growing community. The next task in this study is to determine future water requirements based on the analysis of existing landuse, water consumption, and population projections. This Technical Memo summarizes the work we have completed, namely: Section 1: Existing Landuse and Demand Data Analysis Section 2: Top 50 Water Billing Records Analysis Section 3: Demand Consumption Rate Analysis Section 4: Unaccounted For Water (UFW) Estimation Section 5: Residential and ICI Diurnal Pattern Computation. Section 6: Conclusions Section 7: Recommendations Zone names and corresponding locations within the Tri-City system are presented in Figure 1 as a reference point before going into any detailed discussions in the sections to follow.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 1 of 29
1.
This section analyzes existing landuse and demand information on a zone and municipality basis. Water billing information collected from RMOW to complete this analysis was reviewed. A list of the sources of billing data is presented in Appendix A. All existing water demand data is based on 2003 billing records received from the Region of Waterloo; which was originally provided by the City. The 2003 demand data was selected for this study since it best represents a typical demand year for the Region of Waterloo. Figure 1.1 summarizes the 2003 water demand data by City. For the purpose of this study, external water demand from adjacent systems such as Mannheim, Shingletown, Elmira and St. Jacobs is excluded from the demand consumption analysis. However, the projected water demand for these municipalities will be estimated based on the information provided by the Region. In addition, the water demand analysis for Wilmot 5A (WIL5A) is included since this zone is interconnected with Kit 5. The total demand at St Jacobs Market, Breslau North and Breslau South included in Table 1.1 was estimated by the Region since no billing records were available for these areas. In terms of total consumption, Kitchener has the highest percentage of water use at 44.5 %, followed by Cambridge at 31.5 %, and Waterloo at 24 %.
Table 1.1 - 2003 Demand Summary Total Demand (L/s) 482.3 681.5 367.3 1531.1 L/s Total Demand (%) 31.5 44.5 24.0 100 %
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 2 of 29
The 2003 billing records also contained landuse type for each billing account. Table 1.2 summarizes the demand consumption characteristic by landuse throughout the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Table 1.2 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total (Source: 2003 Water Billing Records) Total Demand (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s Total Demand (%) 7.3% 16.5% 6.4% 0.3% 69.5% 100.0%
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 3 of 29
A detailed demand analysis for each of the zones in Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge is compiled in Appendix A. Summary The following is a list of key conclusions based on the 2003 demand data: The total water demand is approximately 132.3 ML/d or 1531.3 L/s; and Overall, approximately 69 % of the total billed authorized consumption is residential and the remaining 31% is attributed to ICI consumption (i.e., Industrial, Commercial and Institutional) for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 4 of 29
2.
This section identifies the top 50 water billing records for 2003 to determine significant and/or special water users. They will be analyzed separately in Section 3, when determining water consumption (L/cap/day) in each zone. The water billing information collected from RMOW was reviewed to complete the top 50 water meter billing analysis. The sources for the billing data are presented in Appendix A.
2.1
Table 2.1 presents the total water demand for the 50 largest water billing records for year 2003 for different landuse type. The major records represent industrial, institutional, residential, and commercial water billing records. Details of the top 50 water billing records are presented in Appendix B. Table 2.1 Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By Land Use (Year 2003) Top 50 Billing Land Use Records Demand (L/s) Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total 2.1 162.0 38.6 0 18.7 221.4 L/s Total Demand per landuse in RMOW (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s Percent Distribution per Landuse (%) 1.9% 64.3% 39.3% 0.0% 1.8% 14.5%
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 5 of 29
2.2
Table 2.2 presents the 50 top water billing records in each City in year 2003.
Table 2.2 - Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By City (Year 2003) Top 50 Billing Ranking City Records Demand (L/s) 1 2 3 Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 98.3 86.7 36.4 221.4 482.3 681.5 367.3 1531.1 Total Demand per City (L/s) Percent Distribution per City (%) 20.4% 12.7% 9.9% 14.5%
Figure 2.1 shows the location of the top 50 billing records based on 2003 data. Each red node in the figure below represents a Top 50 billing record and the annotation corresponds to their ranking.
2.3
Summary
The following is a list of key conclusions based on the 2003 data: The top 50 water billing records are comprised of mainly industrial companies (~64.0% of total industrial demand in RMOW); Approximately 2 % of the top 50 water records are residential users; and The top 50 water billing records consume 221.4 L/s representing about 15 % of the total water consumption (1531.3 L/s).
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 6 of 29
3.
In this section, average demand per capita consumption rate (L/cap/day) in 2003 for each city is presented. This information is important in estimating future water use projections. There are two types of information required in this analysis: population data and water consumption data. Both of these data sets need to be classified based on its land use type, i.e., Residential and Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI). The population and water consumption data collected from RMOW was reviewed to complete this task. The source of the data is presented in Appendix C. An interpolation method was applied to estimate the 2003 population for both residential and employment population since data for 2001 and 2006 was provided. Both residential population and equivalent employment population are provided by the Region. Table 3.1 presents a summary of population data in each city for year 2003. Table 3.1 Existing Population 2003 Equivalent Employment Population 64,761 93,979 60,175 7 98 1,864 5,003 225,887
City Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries* Wilmot** St. Jacob Elmira
Residential Population 117,704 202,860 104,769 108 700 1,436 8,024 435,601
Utilizing the water consumption data as provided in the 2003 billing records and the 2003 population data, water consumption rates for both residential and ICI users for each zone can be calculated and the results are presented in the Table 3.2. A detailed water consumption rate calculation by Zone is presented in Appendix C.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 7 of 29
Table 3.2 Average Residential and ICI Water Consumption Rate Residential City Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 204.7 227.7 214.7 218.0 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 280.8 178.6 156.9 203.1
3.1
The influence of the top 50 customer demands has been evaluated and the methodology used to determine the approximate population for each top 50 billing account is provided below in bullet point format. Used the previous population data set from the Regions Planning Department (Scenario 184) and assigned the equivalent population from the PLUM zone to each Top 50 User based on their shared geography. Compared the Zonal populations in Scenario 184 and the final population data set and calculated the adjustment factors. Applied the adjustment factor for each zone to each Top 50 User and adjusted the equivalent population for each user to match the final population data set. For each PLUM zone that contains one or more Top 50 billing records, a specific consumption rate was calculated based on the total water consumption and total population associated with that particular PLUM zone. Water consumption and population data associated with these PLUM zones (i.e., the ones where the Top 50 billing records are located) are then subtracted from the total water consumption and total population of that particular pressure zone. Water consumption and population data sets for the remaining PLUM zones are obtained and the consumption rate for the remaining PLUM zones was calculated. The impacts of the Top 50 User to the residential and ICI consumption rates were evaluated and the detailed results are presented in Appendix C Tables C.6 and C.7. In addition, Appendix C also presents the compiled water consumption rate for each PLUM that has one or more Top 50 billing records and the adjustment factor in each zone. According to the sensitivity results, the Top 50 User was not sensitive to the zonal residential consumption rate. Conversely, the Top 50 User was very sensitive to the zonal ICI consumption rate. As a result, it is appropriate to apply a common residential consumption rate for the municipalities and
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 8 of 29
apply a distinct ICI consumption rate for each zone in each municipality to better describe the consumption characteristic. With different consumption rates for residential and ICI water users, it is useful to review the average consumption rates of other municipalities before determining the rate that will be utilized in projecting future water demand in the system. AECOMs National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative collects relevant information for more than 35 Canadian cities and regional organizations, including the Region of Waterloo who has been a participant in this project over the last several years. Average day water consumption from participating municipalities/cities was reviewed to compare the average water consumption rate determined in this study. From the data provided by the Region of Waterloo, Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1 present total water consumptions (RES + ICI) for the past 10 years. According to the Regions historical population, the summer population is lower but with a higher per capita consumption than the winter population, and therefore the summer population was utilized to calculate the total per capita consumption for a conservative scenario (higher consumption rate). Table 3.3 - Historical Water Consumption for Tri-City Average Water Consumption in Tri-City (ML/d) 143 147 143 141 148 157 152 161 161 156 155 157 151 Total Summer Population 362,625 364,580 368,490 374,520 380,180 386,470 395,860 402,890 411,550 420,438 431,036 412,355 390785 Total per Capita Consumption During Summer (L/cap/d) 394 403 388 376 389 406 384 400 391 371 360 381 388
Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004 5-year Average 10-year Average
* Design average consumption for Residential and ICI was evaluated in Technical Memo 2 for this year
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 9 of 29
The average per capita consumption for the past 5 years was 381 L/cap/d and it was approximately 3% higher than the consumption rate in 2003, however the trend from 2001 has been downwards. Water consumption records were also reviewed for other municipalities/cities. According to the review, the per capita average day consumption very much depends on the landuse type. In general the total per capita consumption ranged from 318 to 833 L/cap/d. In Table 3.2, it has been shown that the calculated average residential consumption rate in Tri-City is approximately 218 L/ca/day. A design consumption rate of 218 L/ca/day was lower than all other municipalities that were reviewed. This low water consumption rate and the declination of the water consumption rate presented in Figure 3.1 above could be associated with the water efficiency program in Tri-City and also the proactive water recycling program that the larger industrial users have implemented. In addition, 218 L/ca/day did not include the unaccounted for water (UFW). If UFW is applied, the design consumption rate will be closer to other municipalities design rates. Summary The following is a section summary: The city by city residential consumption rate in the Tri-City area ranges from 205L/cap/day to 228 L/cap/day, with an average of 218 L/cap/day; which is lower than the MOE recommended residential consumption rate (MOE suggests 270-450 L/cap/day). In the Tri-City area, the city by city ICI consumption rates range from 157 L/cap/day to 281 L/cap/day, with an average of 203 L/cap/day.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 10 of 29
It has been shown that the top 50 water billing records give a significant contribution in determining the consumption rate, mainly for ICI consumption. Therefore, these high billing records should be considered seriously when calculating future water projection in the system. The residential and ICI consumption rates should be increased by 3% in order to coincide with the consumption rates to the 5 year average water consumption rate (e.g. 218L/cap/day * 1.03 = 225 L/cap/day for Residential consumption rate).
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 11 of 29
4.
This section presents the methodology used in estimating the UFW by pressure zone. UFW is the amount of water in the distribution system which is not billed due to leakage, inaccurate system flow meters, illegal water taking, water system maintenance, and fire fighting. SCADA records and water billing data that was provided by the Region was utilized to complete the analysis. The source of data is presented in Appendix D. In the subsequent calculation of UFW, due to limitations in the SCADA data, some zones are combined. The combined zones are presented in Appendix D. In addition, SCADA records for Kit 2B and Kit 4 are combined because these zones were connected (as per 2003 condition) with a non metered boundary connection. A meter has been installed in the system since 2003 to record flows into Kit 2B. The same condition applied to Wat 4 and Wat 5. The City of Cambridge, Zones Cam 1 and Cam 3 were analyzed together since interconnecting bypass lines between these zones were opened during winter season. Given the above, the overall average UFW in each city was calculated and is presented in Table 4.1, while a more detailed calculation for each zone is presented in Appendix D. Table 4.1 - UFW in Each City (2003) Total Demand Based Municipality on SCADA Record (L/s) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Total 588.0 819.5 404.0 1832.0 Total Demand Based on Billing Record (L/s) 482.4 681.6 370.6 1531.3 UFW (L/s) 105.6 158.4 34.2 300.7 %UFW per Municipality 18% 19% 8% 16%
It should be noted that the UFW percentage shown in this table includes Unbilled Authorized Water Consumption, for instance: hydrant flushing, fire fighting, and so on. Therefore, the actual water losses are likely to be less than the UFW listed in Table 4.1. It should be noted that City of Kitchener has the highest UFW of 19%. As per additional data provided by the City of Cambridge shown in Table D.3, Appendix D, UFW in 2003 is approximately 16%. It should be noted that from these records, water loss ranged between 10 and 26% over the last several years. Also, in these records, the UFW for the City of Cambridge for the previous 5 years averaged 18%. Summary The following is a list of key conclusions: The UFW ranges from 8% to 19 % for the different cities in the system. The average UFW (which includes unbilled authorized consumption) in Tri-City is 16%
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 12 of 29
5.
Two different baseline demand patterns have been created based on land use classification (Residential and ICI). The SCADA record, provided by the Region, for each zone was used to complete this task.
5.1
One unique residential diurnal pattern has been calculated for the entire Tri-City water distribution system. This approach is based on the assumption that residential diurnal patterns typically follow the same pattern from one area to the other especially when property types are similar. A comparison of the diurnal pattern for each zone that is predominantly residential development is presented in Appendix E Figure E1. There are several zones with residential demand of more than 90% of its total demand. These zones are: Kit 5 (+ WIL 5A), Cam 1A, Wat 4B, Wat 4C and Wat 6. These zones produced similar diurnal patterns, nevertheless since Kit 5 (+ WIL 5A) has the largest population and the water consumption is predominantly generated by residential landuse, this zone was chosen to generate the residential pattern for the entire system. The percentage of residential demand per zone is calculated based on the Meter Billing Record Databases utilized in Section 3, is shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Percentage of Residential Demand per Zone % Residential Water demand 63% 99% 63% 0.3% 50% 69% 93% 66% 97% 99.9% 96%
Zone Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Wat 5+ Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 13 of 29
The following method was used to determine the residential diurnal pattern: Step 1. Using SCADA records to calculate the hourly water consumption for the entire one (1) year record period available; Step 2. Based on the hourly water consumption from Step 1, the average water consumption for the each timestep is calculated using the following equation.
i =365
AVG Demand t = n =
Demand
i =0
t =i
Step 3. Determine the hourly demand multiplier by applying the following equation
Demand Multiplier =
Residential diurnal pattern was calculated for three different water consumption conditions: average day, maximum week, and maximum day demand. Figure 5.1 presents the result.
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00
Avg Day
Max Day
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 14 of 29
Note: The Maximum Day Demand occurred on June 23rd, 2003 According to the weather information from Environment Canada, the maximum temperature in June 23rd, 2003 was 30oC. The Maximum Week Demand occurred from June 30th, 2003 to July 6th, 2003 According to the weather information from Environment Canada, the average temperature in that week was 29.4oC. The maximum week demand consistently occurred in the week of July 30th, 2003 for the other Zones except CAM 2W and WAT6. Appendix E presents the details of water consumption patterns for the other zones.
5.2
A separate ICI diurnal pattern was calculated for each zone. In calculating the ICI diurnal pattern, the same method as explained in the previous section was applied to calculate the hourly average water demand (Step 1 and Step 2) for each zone in terms of TOTAL water usage (i.e., residential plus ICI). In order to have ICI water usage only, the residential demand was then subtracted from the hourly TOTAL demand by considering the residential diurnal pattern developed earlier and the percentage of residential water consumption in that particular zone (summarized in Table 5.1). Having established the hourly ICI water demand, the ICI demand multiplier was then calculated in accordance with Step 3s equation. In summary, in order to determine the ICI diurnal pattern, the residential diurnal pattern together with the percentage allocation of Residential versus ICI water usage in each zone was required. The percentage of residential demands in each zone has been presented in Table 5.1. The ICI diurnal pattern was also calculated for several different demand conditions: average day, maximum week, and maximum day demand. The SCADA Data provided by the Region did not include records for all of the zones in the Tri-City. Several zones in the system are combined in the same manner as the ones that were described earlier in Section 3 and Section 4. In addition, since more than 95% of the water demand in Cam 1A, Wat 4B, Wat 4C and Wat 6 is residential, no ICI diurnal pattern was generated for these zones based on the existing data. The results of the ICI pattern calculations for these zones for average day, maximum week, and maximum day demand are presented in the following figures. A complete peaking factor at each time step in each zone is compiled in Appendix E.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 15 of 29
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 P eaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00
21:00
22:00
22:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
2.50
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 23:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 16 of 29
23:00
1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Ave 9:00
MaxDay
MaxW eek
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 17 of 29
MaxDay
MaxW eek
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Ave
MaxDay
MaxW eek
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 18 of 29
5.3
Maximum day and maximum week demand peaking factors were calculated as part of this section. Table 5.2 summarizes the peaking factors for each city, where a detailed zone calculation is compiled in Appendix E.5. Table 5.2 - Maximum Day and Maximum Week Peaking Factors (2003) Max Day Peaking Factor 1.42 1.38 1.42 1.40* Max Week Peaking Factor 1.26 1.24 1.26 1.25*
*this excludes Elmira and St. Jacob Based on the data provided by the Region, the maximum day peaking factor for the past 10 years for the Tri-City area (including Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo, Elmira and St. Jacob) was calculated to be 1.35, which is slightly lower than the figure of 1.44 calculated for this report. The historical maximum day demand factor for the Tri-City is presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 - Maximum Day Demand Factor for Tri-City (Provided by the Region) YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 10 Years Average 5 Years Average KITCHENER 1.58 1.50 1.33 1.25 1.74 1.64 1.19 1.49 1.45 1.37 1.21 1.45 WATERLOO 1.31 1.54 1.60 1.27 1.54 1.45 1.18 1.54 1.43 1.43 1.25 1.43 CAMBRIDGE 1.25 1.56 1.29 1.36 1.56 1.46 1.21 1.34 1.42 1.41 1.21 1.38 ELMIRA 1.59 1.90 2.62 1.35 2.06 2.41 1.53 2.27 1.86 1.64 1.44 1.92 ST.JACOBS 1.86 2.11 1.94 1.77 1.58 1.59 2.01 1.71 1.81 1.54 1.58 1.79 TOTAL 1.31 1.39 1.23 1.25 1.50 1.42 1.18 1.45 1.43 1.37 1.19 1.35
1.34
1.36
1.32
1.75
1.73
1.32
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 19 of 29
As a part of the National Benchmarking project completed by AECOM, maximum day demand factors were also collected for other cities or municipalities. According to the review, in general, maximum day peaking factor ranges from 1.25 to 1.73.
5.4
Summary
In this section, one residential pattern and various ICI diurnal patterns have been developed. The residential diurnal pattern shows a common water usage pattern with two peaks occurring, one in the early morning and the other in mid evening. ICI patterns have been generated for several pressure zones. For the zones with low ICI water consumption (due to high percentage of residential water usage), the residential diurnal pattern is assumed to be the total diurnal pattern. Finally, it is important to consider multiple pattern types in running a hydraulic simulation to closely resemble the real water distribution system. It is proposed that the following factors are recommended for this study:
1.40 1.25
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 20 of 29
6.
The projected population was provided by the Region in May 2006. Based on the per capita consumptions for both residential and ICI development, unaccounted for water and peaking factors, the future water demands were determined. As the Region has conducted a water efficiency exercise and is about to commence an updated program of efficiency initiatives, water savings were incorporated into the future water demand calculations. The sensitivity of the degree of saving achievable (high/medium/low) will be reviewed in Task #6 to identify the effect on water infrastructure upgrades.
6.1
The following tables summarize the projected population for each zone and the calculated future demand for each zone to 2026 in 5 year intervals. The details of the projected population and future demands for both residential and employment are presented in Appendix F. Based on the original scope of this study, the water consumption characteristics (e.g. rates, diurnal pattern, etc.) for the Municipalities of North Dumfries, Wilmot and Woolwich were not evaluated. As a result, the projected water demands for these municipalities were evaluated based on the following information that provided by the Region: Average residential consumption of 250 L/cap/day was applied to St. Jacob and Elmira; this consumption rate was obtained from the Pre-design Report for Elmira and St. Jacob Westside Storage, which were produced by AECOM in 1996. Average ICI Consumption of 146 L/cap/day was applied; this consumption rate was estimated based on the information obtained from the Pre-design Report for Elmira and St. Jacob Westside Storage, which was produced by AECOM in 1996. The average consumption rates for North Dumfries and Wilmot (Mannheim & Shingletown) are estimated based on the meter records that were provided by the Region and the total population (residential + employment). These rates were evaluated based on the meter records; which already included UFW, billing record error, etc. The equivalent consumption rates are: North Dumfries = 278 L/ca/day Mannheim = 203 L/ca/day Shingletown = 248 L/ca/day
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 21 of 29
Table 6.1 - Total Projected Equivalent Population Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total 2003 182,465 296,839 164,944 115 799 16,326 661,488 2006 196,290 314,192 180,986 115 804 17,510 709,897 2011 212,947 339,300 195,152 115 808 19,560 767,882 2016 227,536 365,676 207,621 115 813 21,614 823,375 2021 240,479 394,658 218,399 115 821 24,630 879,102 2026 255,431 422,132 230,670 115 827 27,315 936,490
Table 6.2 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s) Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MGD)(4) 2003 587 812 431 0 2 46 1,879 35.7 2006 596 812 488 0 2 47 1,906 36.2 2011 639 869 478 0 2 51 2,040 38.8 2016 677 931 504 0 2 56 2,170 41.2 2021 709 999 527 0 2 64 2,302 43.7 2026 746 1,063 553 0 2 72 2,436 46.3
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 22 of 29
Table 6.4 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s) Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 2003 734 1,014 539 1 3 58 2,349 44.6 2006 745 1,016 560 1 3 58 2,382 45.3 2011 799 1,087 597 1 3 64 2,550 48.5 2016 846 1,164 630 1 3 70 2,713 51.6 2021 886 1,249 658 1 3 81 2,877 54.7 2026 933 1,328 691 1 3 90 3,045 57.9
Municipality of Wilmot includes Mannheim and Shingletown Municipality of Woolwich includes Elmira and St. Jacob Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 have been updated based on a residential per capita consumption of 209 l/cap/day as detailed in the conclusions of this report Includes water efficiency saving of 1.64 MGD
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 23 of 29
6.2
The Regions Water Efficiency Master Plan Update 2006 has been reviewed and the following key points can be made: The estimated water savings to 2005 through water efficiency initiatives was 1.64 MGD (7.45ML/d). This figure was derived by subtracting the 2003 saving of 0.88MGD (i.e. already saved figure) from the 2005 total water savings figure of 2.52 MGD The target accumulative water savings over 9 years (2007 to 2015) through water efficiency initiatives is approximately 1.8 MGD (8.1ML/d) The above summary was interpreted as follows and was incorporated to the future water demand estimation: The estimated water savings of 1.64 MGD through efficiency initiatives would be applied the 2006 design year which in turn would be projected through future design years (i.e. the saving will not be lost). The target water savings of 0.2 MGD per year (1.8MGD over 9 years) would be applied to each design year. By comparing the estimated actual water savings and target water savings to the total projected average day demand, the percentage water savings for each design year were calculated as follows: Design Year Existing Water Efficiency Savings L/s (MGD) Target Water (1) Savings (1.8MGD initiative) L/s (MGD) Total Projected Saving
(1)
0.0
L/s (MGD)
In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the target water savings to the projected water demands, the target water savings were altered and the definitions of the alteration are as follows:
Effective Water Efficiency Program (100% saved) apply the above noted percentage target water savings to the projected average day demand calculation. Average Water Efficiency Program (50% saved) multiply the above noted percentage target water savings by 50% and apply it to the projected average day demand calculation No Participation (0% saved) Do not apply the percentage target water savings to the projected average day demand calculation.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 24 of 29
The future water demands were calculated with the above noted alterations and Table 6.5 summarizes the results. Figure 6.1 graphically presents the difference in system demand when considering each water efficiency level of saving. Appendix F presents the detailed water demand projection results. Table 6.5 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration Design Year Effective Water Efficiency Program* MGD Average Water Efficiency Program (50% of target saving achieved). ML/d No Participation** MGD 36.2 38.8 41.2 43.7 46.3 164.6 176.3 187.5 198.9 210.5 High Demand Projection MGD 36.2 38.1 40.3 42.8 45.4 ML/d 36.2 164.6 37.5 173.3 39.5 183.4 41.9 194.8 44.5 206.4 Med Demand Projection Unit ML/d 2006 164.6 2011 170.3 2016 179.3 2021 190.7 2026 202.3 Note: Low Demand Projection
* 3% average day demand adjustment factor was excluded from the Low Demand Projection ** Demand incorporates the estimated savings of 1.264MGD that is already considered to have been achieved through was efficiency projects but assumes that no savings would be made in the 2007-2015 water efficiency program (worst case scenario)
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 25 of 29
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 26 of 29
7.
Conclusions
Utilizing all available data, water consumption behavior in Tri-City has been characterized and the following points conclude the observations from Technical Memo 1: Based on the Meter Billing Record, City of Kitchener has the largest water demand (45%) followed by City of Cambridge (31%) and City of Waterloo (24%). According to the 2003 billing records (billed authorized consumption records), residential users contribute around 69% (1064 L/s) of the total water demand in the system. The analysis for the Top 50 billing records in the system reveals that Top 50 billing records contribute approximately 15% (221.4L/s) of the total water consumption in 2003 (1531 L/s). Industrial activities are responsible for 64.3% of the Top 50 billing records water consumption in 2003. Detailed and auditable calculations have undertaken that establish a Tri-City residential per capita consumption of 218 l/cap/day as summarized in table 3.2 (detailed analysis is provided in Appendix 2 tables C2 and C3) The analysis removed figures considered anomalies from the calculations such as excessively high or low per capita consumptions for individual zones. However, following direction from the Region, a residential per capita consumption of 209 l/cap/day is to be adopted and this was derived by dividing the total residential consumption (see table C2) by the total population (excluding St Jacobs, Elmira and North Dumfries, see table 3.1) ICI consumption rate in each City range from 156.9 L/cap/d to 280.8 L/cap/d, with an average consumption rate in Tri-City of 203.1 L/cap/d. As expected, ICI consumption rates vary quite considerably depending on the predominant ICI activities in that particular zone. The Top 50 billing records play a significant role in determining the zonal consumption rates, mainly affecting the ICI consumption rates. Therefore, these high water users should be assessed carefully when calculating future water demand projection. One unique residential diurnal pattern has been generated for the entire system based on the assumption that residential diurnal patterns typically do not differ much from one area to the other. Distinct ICI diurnal patterns were developed for several zones in the system, as they vary largely depending on the predominant ICI activities in that particular zone. The maximum day peaking factor for each zone in the system ranged from 1.3 to 2.8 with an average of 1.4. The highest max day peaking factor was encountered in Cam 2W, a small zone where more than 99% of its users are ICI.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 27 of 29
8.
Recommendations
Based on the results from this study, the following is recommended for the Region: Average Residential Consumption Rate = 209 l/cap/day ICI consumption rates will be varied by zone as they largely depend on the type of ICI activities that exist. As a result, ICI consumption rates in a zone by zone basis are recommended and the ICI consumption rates for each zone are summarized below. The details of the ICI consumption rates are presented in Appendix C, Table C.3. Zone The City of Cambridge Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 The City of Kitchener Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N * Breslau S * Kit 5 WIL 5A * Kit 6** The City of Waterloo Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 * 166 65 10 198 59 59 112 383 200 183 90 177 177 133 177 59 347 84 220 255 195 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d)
Market * 157 * Due to insufficient data, these zones used the Citys average ICI Consumption Rate ** Recommended by the Region
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 28 of 29
It is understood that water efficiency plans have been in progress and further funding has been made available to enable continued savings. UFW has been amended for future design years to incorporate these projected savings. Where a water efficiency program has not been planned (2015 onwards) it is assumed a proactive leakage and asset management program would maintain volumetric UFW at 300 L/s for future years. The maximum day peaking factor that should be used is 1.44 as this number is consistent with the 5yr average maximum day peaking factor in Tri-City. A maximum week demand factor of 1.25 is recommended Diurnal patterns as per Figure 5.1 and 5.2 to 5.7 are recommended for Residential and ICI demand, respectively.
Technical Memorandum # 1
Page 29 of 29
Bibliography Section 1
Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb
Section 2 Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb Section 3 Population Database:
Emp61_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) NetPop61_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) Sc184Emp_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) Sc184Pop_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) zone_pres2003_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) Water Consumption Database: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb
Raw SCADA data record for each zone, for example: DOCS_ADMIN-#117094-v1-CAM_1__RAW_2003_SCADA_10MIN_DATA.XLS
Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb
Section 5 Raw SCADA data record for each zone, for example: DOCS_ADMIN-#117094-v1-CAM_1__RAW_2003_SCADA_10MIN_DATA.XLS
Appendix A: Meter Billing Record Analysis Per City Source of Billing Data: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb
1. City of Kitchener Table A.1a 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse in the City of Kitchener Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total Total Demand (L/s) 55.9 84.4 40.7 1.7 498.8 681.5 Total Demand (%) 8.2% 12.4% 6.0% 0.3% 73.2% 100.0%
Table A.1b 2003 Demand Summary per Zone in the City of Kitchener Zone Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Total Demand (L/s) 5.9 37.9 531.4 106.3 681.5 Demand (%) 0.9% 5.6% 78.0% 15.6% 100.0%
Page 1 of 3
2. City of Waterloo Table A.2a 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse in the City of Waterloo Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total Total Demand (L/s) 30.1 33.6 41.0 0.7 261.8 367.3 Total Demand (%) 8.2% 9.2% 11.2% 0.2% 71.2% 100 %
Table A.2b 2003 Demand Summary per Zone in the City of Waterloo Zone ID Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market WAT4B WAT4C WAT5 WAT6 Total Total Demand (L/s) 252.2 28.1 3.5 50.7 32.9 367.3 Total Demand (%) 68.7% 7.7% 0.9% 13.8% 9.0% 100.0%
Page 2 of 3
3. City of Cambridge
Table A.3a 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse in the City of Cambridge Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total Total Demand (L/s) 25.3 134.0 16.6 2.8 303.7 482.3 L/s Total Demand (%) 5.2% 27.8% 3.4% 0.6% 63.0% 100.0%
Table A.3b 2003 Demand Summary per Zone in the City of Cambridge Zone ID Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Total Total Demand (L/s) 287.8 10.4 156.1 28.0 482.3 L/s Total Demand (%) 59.7% 2.2% 32.4% 5.8% 100.0%
Page 3 of 3
Appendix B: Top 50 Water Billing Records Table B.4 - Top 50 Billing Records Ranked by Demand (Year 2003) ID TOP3 TOP5 TOP10 TOP11 TOP12 TOP14 TOP23 TOP31 TOP36 TOP48 TOTAL TOP19 TOP24 TOP28 TOP33 TOP34 TOP35 TOP40 TOTAL TOP2 TOTAL TOP15 TOTAL TOP1 TOP6 TOP7 TOP8 TOP13 TOP16 TOP17 TOP18 TOP20 TOP22 TOP25 TOP27 TOP30 TOP32 TOP39 TOP42 TOP43 TOP44 TOP45 AVG_DEMAND 21.31 15.39 5.01 4.19 3.83 3.6 2.25 2.07 1.96 1.47 61.08 3.04 2.19 2.12 2.03 2.03 2 1.69 15.1 22.12 22.12 3.48 3.48 23.03 7.98 7.27 5.87 3.72 3.45 3.23 3.12 2.59 2.3 2.17 2.12 2.09 2.04 1.72 1.54 1.54 1.52 1.51 ZONEID CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2W KIT2B KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 LANDUSE Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Institutional Industrial Industrial Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Industrial Commercial Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Residential Residential
Page 1 of 3
ID TOP46 TOP47 TOTAL TOP50 TOTAL TOP4 TOP9 TOP21 TOP26 TOP29 TOP37 TOP38 TOP41 TOP49 TOTAL TOP3 TOP5 TOP10 TOP11 TOP12 TOP14 TOP23 TOP31 TOP36 TOP48 TOTAL TOP19 TOP24 TOP28 TOP33 TOP34 TOP35 TOP40 TOTAL TOP2 TOTAL TOP15 TOTAL TOP1 TOP6 TOP7 TOP8 TOP13 TOP16 TOP17
AVG_DEMAND 1.51 1.49 81.81 1.45 1.45 18.02 5.06 2.31 2.12 2.1 1.85 1.82 1.64 1.45 36.37 21.31 15.39 5.01 4.19 3.83 3.6 2.25 2.07 1.96 1.47 61.08 3.04 2.19 2.12 2.03 2.03 2 1.69 15.1 22.12 22.12 3.48 3.48 23.03 7.98 7.27 5.87 3.72 3.45 3.23
ZONEID KIT4 KIT4 KIT5 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2W KIT2B KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4
LANDUSE Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Institutional Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Institutional Industrial Industrial
Page 2 of 3
ID TOP18 TOP20 TOP22 TOP25 TOP27 TOP30 TOP32 TOP39 TOP42 TOP43 TOP44 TOP45 TOP46 TOP47 TOTAL TOP50 TOTAL TOP4 TOP9 TOP21 TOP26 TOP29 TOP37 TOP38 TOP41 TOP49 TOTAL
AVG_DEMAND 3.12 2.59 2.3 2.17 2.12 2.09 2.04 1.72 1.54 1.54 1.52 1.51 1.51 1.49 81.81 1.45 1.45 18.02 5.06 2.31 2.12 2.1 1.85 1.82 1.64 1.45 36.37
ZONEID KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT5 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4
LANDUSE Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Industrial Commercial Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Residential Residential Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Institutional Residential Residential Industrial
Page 3 of 3
Water Consumption Database: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb (All of these meter billing record databases have been compiled and analyzed in Section 1)
Page 1 of 7
1. No consideration was taken with regards to the Top 50s water billing records Table C.1 Existing Population 2003
Zone
Residential Population
Equivalent Employment Population 28,274 768 24,976 9,488 1,255 64,761 2,248 82 2,568 80,298 36 200 837 5,513 25 2,172 93,975 53,021 1,311 122 2,657 2,004 152 907 60,174
Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Summary Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N Breslau S Kit 5 WIL 5A Kit 6 Kitchener Summary Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Market Waterloo Summary
62,378 5,431 37,735 906 11,254 117,704 821 748 13,469 136,471 349 111 595 35,778 352 14,169 202,863 61,276 10,853 1,397 19,063 12,088 74 18 104,769
Page 2 of 7
Zone
Residential Demand (L/s) 143.91 9.64 92.42 0.07 27.56 273.60 0.76 1.91 31.92 360.58 1.06 N/A N/A 96.88 0.90 494.02 150.38 27.12 3.44 47.68 31.52 N/A N/A
ICI Demand (L/s) 113.54 0.75 63.64 27.99 2.84 208.74 2.91 0.36 5.94 169.80 0.04 N/A N/A 8.50 0.00 187.56 101.76 0.99 0.01 3.03 1.36 N/A N/A
Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Summary Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N Breslau S Kit 5 WIL 5A Kitchener Summary Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Market
257.45 10.39 156.05 28.06 30.39 482.34 3.67 2.28 37.87 530.38 1.10 N/A N/A 105.38 0.90 681.58 252.14 28.11 3.45 50.71 32.88 N/A N/A 367.29
260.14 107.15 Waterloo Summary * Billing Records for Breslau N, Breslau S, WAT7 and Market are not available
Page 3 of 7
Zone
Residential Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 199.3 153.4 211.6 6.9 211.5 200.8 204.7 79.7 221.1 204.8 228.3 263.4
Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Cambridge without Highlighted Zone(s) (2) Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N Breslau S Kit 5 WIL 5A Kitchener Kitchener without Highlighted Zone(s)(2) Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7
(1) (1) (1) (1)
346.9 84.0 220.1 254.9 195.3 278.5 280.8 111.9 382.7 200.0 182.7 90.3 N/A N/A 133.2 0.0 178.5 178.6 165.8 65.3 9.8 98.4 58.6 N/A N/A 156.6 156.9 203.1
N/A N/A 233.9 222.0 227.1 227.7 212.0 215.9 212.5 216.1 225.3 N/A N/A 214.7 214.7 218.0
Market
Page 4 of 7
Note: 1. The per capita consumption for Residential and ICI for Breslau N, Breslau S, Wat7 and Market can not be evaluated since billing records for these zones are not available. 2. The highlighted per capita consumptions are not included in the calculation due to the calculated per capita consumption for these zones are unreasonable. The unreasonable per capita
consumption may be attributed to a number of users within a zone utilizing private water services. 3. Table 7 shows insignificant impacts in per capita consumptions when the highlighted zones are being excluded.
2. Consumption Rate of the Top 50 Billing Records Table C.4 Top 50 Residential Billing Records Consumption Rate
Zone
PLUM Zone ID
Top 50 Billing Records Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 2236 302 383 431 294 270 309 226 280 157 760 204
Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 5 Kit 5 Wat 4 Wat 4
132 149 1240 1405 1468 1509 1526 Remaining Plum Zone 1531 Remaining Plum Zone 506 Remaining Plum Zone
Page 5 of 7
Zone
PLUM Zone ID
Top 50 Billing Records Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 3324 253 2163 1988 1535 6176 3960 29 288 521 1128 375 294 493 110 394 99 1.8 364 17 307 155 333 389 520 2316 185 171 902 180
Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 2W Cam 3 Cam 3 Kit 2B Kit 2B Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4
253 259 509 602 608 1194 1202 Remaining Plum Zone 453 490 496 587 1377 1560 Remaining Plum Zone 203 Remaining Plum Zone 259 Remaining Plum Zone 159 168 Remaining Plum Zone 68 83 97 113 122 133 147 148
Page 6 of 7
Zone
PLUM Zone ID
Top 50 Billing Records Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 585 447 285 97 88 2986 1115 1829 802 83
Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Wat 4 Wat 4 Wat 4 Wat 4 Wat 4
159 503 539 1291 Remaining Plum Zone 21 26 41 450 Remaining Plum Zone
Table C.6 Residential Consumption Rate Comparison (2003) Overall City Consumption Rate Including Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 204.7 227.7 214.7 218 204.7 223.2 209.7 214.4 0% -2% -2% -2% Rate Excluding Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Difference (%)
Table C.7 ICI Consumption Rate Comparison (2003) Overall City Consumption Rate Including Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 280.8 178.6 156.9 203.2 123.0 104.2 83.4 102.9 -56% -42% -47% -49% Rate Excluding Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Difference (%)
Page 7 of 7
Appendix D: Unaccounted For Water (UFW) Source of Data: Total Water Produced: Raw SCADA data record for each zone, for example: DOCS_ADMIN-#117094-v1-CAM_1__RAW_2003_SCADA_10MIN_DATA.XLS Total Water Billed: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb
Table D.1 Combined Zones in the Tri-City System Combined Zones Cam 1 & Cam 3 Kit2 & Kit 2A Kit 4 & Breslau North & Breslau South Kit5 & WIL 5A Wat 4 & Kit 4A & Market
Page 1 of 4
Table D.2 Unaccounted For Water at Each Zone (2003) Total Demand Based Zone on SCADA Record (L/s) Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Sub-Total Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Sub-Total Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market + Wat 5 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 Wat 7 Sub-Total Total 371.54 10.30 177.83 28.33 588.0 7.15 677.54 134.81 819.5 336.9 29.59 3.16 35.2 NA 404.8 1832 Total Demand Based on Billing Record (L/s) 287.8 10.4 156.1 28.1 482.3 5.9 569.3 106.3 681.6 306.1 28.1 3.5 32.9 NA 370.6 1531.3 UFW (L/s) 83.74 0 21.73 0.23 105.7 1.39 125.17 31.90 158.4 30.73 1.5 -0.3* 2.33 NA 34.2 331.7
* This negative UFW may be attributed to an error in one of the data source: SCADA record and/or Billing record. Again since this is a relatively small zone, with subsequently small demand, there might be a high sensitivity in the data recording process.
Page 2 of 4
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table D.3 UFW History in the City of Cambridge
Page 3 of 4
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table D.4 UFW History in the City of Cambridge (Contd) Residential Consumption
General Service C i
Water Purchase
Water Loss
Page 4 of 4
Page 1 of 7
Table E.1 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Kit 5 SCADA Record) Time Period 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 PEAKING FACTOR Max Week Max Day 0.65 0.66 0.55 0.58 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.79 1.03 1.14 1.21 1.21 1.15 1.06 1.04 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.19 1.38 1.48 1.48 1.18 0.88 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.69 0.74 0.96 1.24 1.21 1.11 1.06 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.02 1.09 1.19 1.38 1.43 1.43 1.19 0.87
Avg Day 0.62 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.64 0.91 1.27 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.19 1.14 1.09 1.04 1.04 1.10 1.17 1.27 1.29 1.23 1.15 1.00 0.81
Page 2 of 7
Table E.2 - ICI Diurnal Pattern for Selected Zones PEAKING FACTOR Time Period Ave Day 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 0.91 0.96 0.94 0.99 0.91 1.00 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.19 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.05 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.00 0.93 0.87 0.82 0.79 0.80 Cam 1 + Cam 3 Max Week 0.79 0.69 0.41 0.40 0.68 0.35 0.69 0.93 0.94 1.16 1.02 1.33 1.09 1.13 0.95 0.97 0.89 1.00 1.53 1.75 1.68 1.82 1.06 0.73 Max Day 0.70 0.73 0.62 0.53 0.67 0.70 0.65 1.23 1.32 1.29 1.23 1.21 1.32 1.08 1.06 1.25 1.01 1.10 1.19 1.36 1.35 1.24 0.74 0.44 Ave Day 0.55 0.58 0.67 0.66 0.59 0.75 1.00 1.20 1.24 1.32 1.39 1.36 1.31 1.27 1.24 1.21 1.13 1.12 1.12 1.09 1.01 0.90 0.72 0.55 Cam 2E Max Week 0.40 0.31 0.28 0.50 0.48 0.39 0.68 0.98 1.00 1.14 1.19 1.21 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.93 1.08 1.20 1.50 1.70 2.20 2.16 1.41 0.66 Max Day 0.50 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.67 0.55 0.62 0.89 1.08 1.25 1.32 1.23 1.23 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.10 1.13 1.30 1.61 1.61 1.42 0.72 0.44
Page 3 of 7
Table E.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern for Selected Zones PEAKING FACTOR Time Period Ave Day 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 0.98 1.05 1.04 1.01 0.89 0.81 0.75 0.83 1.02 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.33 1.09 0.99 1.02 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.92 Cam 2W Max Week 0.92 0.69 1.01 0.81 0.81 0.67 1.01 0.83 0.78 0.88 1.24 1.33 1.28 0.89 1.17 0.85 0.93 1.61 1.24 1.17 0.77 1.23 0.93 0.94 Max Day 0.93 0.87 1.30 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.75 0.59 0.63 0.84 1.23 1.21 1.32 1.29 1.36 1.16 1.20 1.08 0.97 0.80 0.81 1.23 0.90 0.66 Ave Day 0.58 0.53 0.82 1.09 1.02 1.12 0.76 0.88 0.91 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.16 1.14 1.07 1.01 1.07 1.18 1.38 1.41 1.26 0.99 0.61 Kit 2 + Kit 2A Max Week 0.44 0.34 0.55 0.58 0.70 0.76 0.90 1.05 0.97 0.79 1.58 1.37 1.16 0.95 1.35 1.07 1.03 1.05 1.21 1.59 1.11 1.50 1.13 0.83 Max Day 0.39 0.23 0.79 0.93 1.01 0.79 0.71 0.49 0.78 0.42 0.51 0.95 1.03 1.18 1.72 1.79 1.75 1.85 1.41 1.15 0.67 0.97 1.13 1.35
Page 4 of 7
Table E.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern for Selected Zones Time Period 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 PEAKING FACTOR Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Wat 5 + Wat 4 + Kit 4A + Market Ave Day Max Week Max Day Ave Day Max Week Max Day 0.73 0.58 0.60 0.75 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.36 0.52 0.65 0.48 0.58 0.61 0.38 0.57 0.60 0.47 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.61 0.53 0.39 0.61 0.62 0.56 0.67 0.53 0.52 0.59 0.74 0.63 0.74 0.52 0.68 0.71 0.88 0.79 0.88 0.63 0.58 0.65 0.95 1.26 1.21 1.16 0.97 1.11 1.22 1.23 1.33 1.40 1.41 1.28 1.35 1.27 1.38 1.47 1.29 1.24 1.38 1.25 1.37 1.48 1.45 1.51 1.36 1.23 1.26 1.45 1.40 1.30 1.37 1.17 1.35 1.41 1.04 1.21 1.33 1.31 1.22 1.38 1.07 1.20 1.31 1.16 1.19 1.31 0.97 1.18 1.25 1.07 1.17 1.22 1.02 1.05 1.15 1.08 1.11 1.07 0.68 1.06 1.14 1.22 1.06 1.20 0.90 0.96 1.06 1.30 1.08 1.00 1.05 1.09 0.97 1.29 1.14 0.91 1.61 1.22 0.94 1.45 1.18 0.88 1.91 1.44 0.85 1.21 0.93 0.85 1.57 1.09 0.80 0.89 0.71 0.83 1.19 0.94 0.76 0.81 0.72 0.78 0.76 0.78
Page 5 of 7
Table E.5 - Maximum Day and Maximum Week Peaking Factors (2003) Average Day Demand (L/s) 391.8 10.9 187.5 29.9 620.03 7.3 Max Day Demand (L/s) 501.5 22 269.3 84.6 877.4 16.3 Max Day Peaking Factor 1.3 2.0 1.4 2.8* 1.4 2.2 Max Week Demand (L/s) 399.5 19.4 239.5 48.8 707.2 14.7 Max Week Peaking Factor 1.02 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.1 2.0
City
Cambridge
Kitchener
Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Sub-Total Wat 5+ Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market
694.5
907.7
1.3
826.6
1.2
Waterloo
Total
* Max day peaking factor for this zone is too high and this problem may be attributed to the small size of the system as well as to the high ICI consumption (more than 99%) in the zone.
Page 6 of 7
Table E.6: Max Day and Max Week Demand (L/s) Zone AVG Day Demand (L/s) 347.52 10.86 187.52 29.54 43.57 619.01 694.47 7.33 138.18 701.8 336.02 29.59 3.16 35.21 403.98 1724.79 MAX Day Demand (L/s) 501.54 21.96 269.32 84.64 78.26 955.72 907.71 16.25 237.16 923.96 463.52 43.65 5.91 62 575.08 2454.76 MAX Week Demand (L/s) 399.54 19.36 239.54 48.8 74.56 781.8 826.59 14.67 202.39 841.26 411.37 38.75 5.13 51.81 507.06 2130.12 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 14-Sep-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 Week of MAX Day Demand Factor 1.44 2.02 1.44 2.87 1.80 1.54 1.31 2.22 1.72 1.38 1.38 1.48 1.87 1.76 1.42 1.42 MAX Week Demand Factor 1.15 1.78 1.28 1.65 1.71 1.26 1.19 2.00 1.46 1.24 1.22 1.31 1.62 1.47 1.26 1.24
Cam1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam3 CAM Kit 2W & Kit 4 Kit 2E Kit 5 KIT Wat 4 & Wat 5 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 WAT Overall RMOW
Page 7 of 7
Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539
AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2
May 2009
Table of Contents
1. Summary of Existing Facilities in Each Zone............................................... 1
1.1 1.2 Pumping Capacity .......................................................................................................... 1 Reservoirs ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.
3.
Conclusions................................................................................................... 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
List of Figures
Figure 1 Water Supply Schematic ...................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Zone 1 Cambridge............................................................................................................................11 Figure 3 Zone 1A Cambridge .........................................................................................................................13 Figure 4 Zone2E Cambridge .........................................................................................................................14 Figure 5A - Zone 2W Cambridge (Supplied by Kit2) ........................................................................................16 Figure 5B - Zone 2W Cambridge (Supplied by Pinebush Reservoir).16 Figure 6 Zone 3 Cambridge...........................................................................................................................19 Figure 7 Zone 2A Kitchener...........................................................................................................................20 Figure 8 Zone 2E Kitchener...........................................................................................................................22 Figure 9 Zone 2W Kitchener..........................................................................................................................23 Figure 10 Zone 4 Kitchener ...........................................................................................................................25 Figure 11 Zone 4A Kitchener.........................................................................................................................28 Figure 12 Zone 5 Kitchener ...........................................................................................................................29 Figure 13 Zone 4 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................31 Figure 14 Zone 4B Waterloo..........................................................................................................................32 Figure 15 Zone 4C Waterloo .........................................................................................................................34 Figure 16 Zone 5 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................35 Figure 17 Zone 6 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................36 Figure 18 Zone 7 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................38
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Existing Pump Capacity in Each Zone ............................................................................................3 Table 1.2 - Wells Supply.....................................................................................................................................6 Table 1.3 Existing Reservoir Capacity per Zone .............................................................................................7 Table 2.1 Existing Design Hydraulic Grade for Each Zone .............................................................................9
Technical Memorandum # 2
ii
Introduction
This Technical Memorandum (#2) summarizes the findings following a review of pressure zone boundaries to establish whether system pressures are generally within prescribed limits (i.e. 350-560 kPa) under normal operating conditions. Operational records and existing reservoir levels were used to evaluate operational pressures. This Memorandum also provides information on where high and low pressures are expected (confirmed by local operational staff where possible) and where rationalization is likely to be required to minimize the number of pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and pumping stations. Target hydraulic grade lines for each pressure zone have been established on this basis. Pressure problems identified together with potential solutions was analyzed and evaluated as part of Task #6 and reported in Technical Memorandum #6: Determination and Analysis of Infrastructure Upgrade Alternatives.
1.
The Tri-City water distribution system, which includes Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo, is a relatively complex system with numerous pumping stations, reservoirs, and wells supplying the system demand. Therefore, it was considered important to develop a thorough schematic of the interconnected water distribution system. In order to develop this system schematic, Technical Information System (TIS) zone by zone figures received from the Region and the system layout in the Model were both utilized. The schematic developed is provided as Figure 1. In addition to the schematic of the system, a list of key assets on a zone by zone basis were established and relevant information associated with pump and storage capacities were obtained utilizing the following sources of information: Regions hydraulic model dated April 25, 2005 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information MOEs Certificate of Approval dated November 30, 2004
1.1
Pumping Capacity
Table 1.1 presents the total supply capacity for each zone. This number is obtained by combining the total pump capacity with the total well capacity (the ones that are supplying the zones demand directly). The wells that are not supplying the system directly but supply storage facilities are listed in Table 1.2.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 1 of 39
Local Elmira Birdland PS (Elmira) Elmira W West Side Elevated Tank 422.7m (Elmira) Local WAT 7 W6a, W6b, W7, W8 Local WAT 6 Rummelhardt PS 427m (WAT 6) Local WAT 5 Erb St. Control Valve W10 William St. PS 391m (WAT 4) St. Jacobs RES 348.9m (WAT 4) St. Jacob PS (Elmira) Local WAT 4C Laurel RES 380.5m (WAT 4) Lakeshore PS Laurel PS 372.2m 380m (WAT 4C) (WAT 4) Northfield Dr. PS 375m (WAT 4B) PRV Falconridge Local KIT 4A Local Breslau North Local KIT 4A PRV Hawkswood Strange St. PS 395.5m (KIT 4) Strange St. RES 333.7m (KIT 4) Local Breslau South
Legend
M
Pumping Station
Well
Flow Monitor Mannheim Victoriaburg Breslau North Breslau South Elmira St. Jacobs
Local WAT 4B
Woolwich Stockyard
CV
Zone ID
Grand Hill PS (KIT 4) K13, K10A, K11 Grand Hill RES 360m (KIT 4) & UV Station Local KIT 4 K70, K71, K72, K73, K74, K75, K80, K81, K82 River Rd. PRV Freeport RES 365.2m (KIT 2) Local CAM 2E Local KIT 2 Local CAM 2W Pinebush RES 359.5m (CAM 2E) H3 H5 G5 H4
Deerridge PRV
Briardene Valve
Local KIT 5
Greenbrook PS 424m (KIT 4) Greenbrook RES 325.1m (KIT 4) K1, K2, K4, K5A, K8
P16
Parkway PS 383m (KIT 4) Parkway RES 310.2m (KIT 4) Manitou Dr. PRV Kress Hill PS 346m (CAM 2W) Rahman PS 349.6m (CAM 1) Rahman RES 327.9m (CAM 1) PBTP PS 323.2m (CAM 1) P11,P10,P17 Shantz RES 329.1m (CAM 1) (currently decommissioned) Middleton PS 340.5m (CAM 1) Middleton RES 269.95m (CAM 1) G1, G1A, G2, G3, G14, G15 St. Andrews PS 368m (CAM 3) G4 Local (CAM 3) St. Andrews RES 337.4m (CAM 1) Llyod Brown & North Dumfries Inverness RES 365.7m (CAM 3) S. Cambridge RES 311.2m (CAM 1) G9 Local (CAM 1A) S. Cambridge PS 358.5m (CAM 1A) Shades Mill Treatment Plant 350.8m (CAM 1) Shades Mill RES 294.5m (CAM 1) G7, G8, G37, G38 PBTP RES 323.2m (CAM 1) P6 P9, P15 Turnbull PS 377.17m (CAM 2E) Turnbull RES 326.1 m (CAM 1) Turnbull TP G16, G17, G18
G6
K50, K51
Mannheim Z5B K26, K22, K23, K24 K91, K92, K93, K94, K21, K25, K29 Local KIT 5 Stonehenge PS (KIT 5B) Local Stonehenge
K31, K32, MTV Bleam K33 Dundee Rd. PRV PRV Bleam K34WTP PS 405.3m (KIT 4) K34WTP RES 302.9m (KIT 4) K36 K34 Local KIT 2B (Kit 2W)
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 2 of 39
Table 1.1 Existing Pump Capacity in Each Zone PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID CB-21 CB-22 CB-23 Middleton (2) Shades Mill (5) Cam 1 Rahmans Pinebush WTP (3) Turnbull WTP (6) TOTAL CB-29 CB-30 Cam 1A South Cambridge TOTAL CB-8 Cam 2E Turnbull Pumping Station TOTAL Cam2W TOTAL CB-34 Cam 3 CB-35 St. Andrew TOTAL Kit 4 Parkway (9) Strange (10) St. KB-10 KB-11 KB-12 KB-5 KB-6 KB-1 KB-2 CB-36 70 70 182 140(1) 80 50 80 95 95 130 130 Booster Booster Booster Duty Duty Duty Standby Booster Booster Fire TOTAL K34 K36 KB28 P_K36 22 53 27 162 2719 CB-9 CB-10 CB-31 CB-32 CB-24 CB-37 CB-38 CB-16 CB-17 CB-28 CB-27 CB-27 CB-28 Total Capacity (L/s) 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 120 120 120 120 840(1)(4) 22 82 82 82 268 152 151 151 303(1) Duty Standby Fire H3 H4 H5 G5 TOTAL P16 G4 P_P16 P_G4 P_H3 P_H4 P_H5 P_G5 19 24 23 50 116 22.7 22 419 22.7 Duty Duty Duty Standby 268 Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby TOTAL 132 972 G9 P6 G6 P9 P15 P_G9 P_P6 P_G6 P_P9 P_P15 38 23 22 30 19 Type DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID Modeling Pump ID Total Capacity (L/s) Total Capacity (L/s)
Greenbrook (7)
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 3 of 39
PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID KB-3 KB-4 Mannheim (8) KB-19 KB-20 KB-21 TOTAL KB-15 Kit 5 Mannheim (8) TOTAL William St. (12) Wat 4 Laurel TOTAL WB-6 Wat 4B Northfield Dr. TOTAL WB-16 Wat 4C Lakeshore West TOTAL Wat 5 Erb Street Reservoir Rummelhardt Pumping Station TOTAL NA WB-9 WB-10 WB-11 WB-12 WB-17 WB18 WB19 WB-7 WB-8 WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-13 WB-14 WB15 KB-16 KB-17 KB-18 Total Capacity (L/s) 70 85 608 608 608 2,639 94 250 250 250 844 100 100 100 300 300 15 600(1) 29 53 77 159 15 15 15 114 45 279(11) 105 54 105 189 264(1) NA Duty Duty Standby Fire Duty Duty Duty Fire Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Standby Standby Recirc. Duty Booster Booster Standby Duty Duty Duty Duty Standby Type
DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID Modeling Pump ID Total Capacity (L/s) Total Capacity (L/s)
80 60
TOTAL
60
904
600
159
Wat 6
264
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 4 of 39
(1)The total available pumping capacity in each zone excluded Fire Pumps, Standby Pumps and Recirculation Pumps, etc. (2) Middleton PS was supplied by Middleton Well System (G1, G1A, G2, G3 and G14) with a total supply capacity of 40.5ML/d (467L/s) (3) Pinebush Treatment Plant was supplied by Pinebush Well System (P11, P11 and P17) with a total supply capacity of 10.4ML/d (120L/s) (4) Excludes Rahmans (5) Shaes Mill Treatment Plant was supplied by Shades Mill Well System (G7, G8, G38 and G39) with a total supply capacity of 13ML/d (150L/s) (6) Turnbull Treatment Plant was supplied by Turnbull Well System (G16, G17 and G18) with a total supply capacity of 10.4Ml/d (120L/s) (7) Greenbrook Water Treatment Plant was supplied by Greenbrook Well System (K1, K2, K4B, K5A and K8) with a total supply capacity of 12.3ML/d (142L/s) (8) Mannheim Treatment plant was supplied by Mannheim Well System (K21, K25, K29), (K22A, K23, K24, K26), (K91, K92, K93, K94) with a total supply capacity of 72.6ML/d (840L/s) (9) Parkway Treatment Plant was supplied by Parkway Well System (K31, K32 and K33) with a total capacity of 13.7ML/d (159L/s) (10) Strange Street P.S. was supplied by Strange Street Well System (K10A, K11, K13) with a total capacity of 9.03ML/d (104.5L/s) (11) Erb Street Reservoir was supplied by Erb Street Well System (W6A, W6B, W7, W8) with a total capacity of 24.11ML/d (279L/s) (12) William Street PS was supplied by William Street Well system (W1B, W1B, W2, W3) with a total capacity of 16.8ML/d (195L/s)
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 5 of 39
Table 1.2 - Wells Supply Total Capacity (L/s) 467 207 66 120 23 22.7 30 19 150 120 142 70 60
Well ID G1, G1A, G2, G3, G14 G4, G5, G6, G9, G15 H3, H4, H5 P10, P11, P17 P6 P16 P9 P15 G7, G8, G38, G39 G16, G17, G18 K1, K2, K4B, K5A, K8 K36 (1) K34 K18 (1) K21(2), K25(2), K29(2), K22A(2), K23(2), K24(2), K26(2), K91, K92, K93, K94 K50, K51 K31, K32, K33 K10A, K11, K13 W6A, W6B, W7, W8 W10
Supply To Middleton Res Cambridge Distribution System Cambridge Distribution System Pinebush WTP Cambridge Distribution System Cambridge Distribution System Rahman Res Shades Mills WTP Turnbull WTP Greenbrook WTP Kitchener Distribution System Kitchener Distribution System Kitchener Waterloo and
Zone Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 2E Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 2W Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 5
531
Kitchener Distribution System Parkway Res Strange St. Res Erb St. Res Waterloo System Distribution
195
Wat 4
(1) Total capacity for K18 + K36 restricted to 37.9 L/s (2) These wells have a total restricted capacity of 531 L/s per calendar year, 631 L/s for 90days per calendar year, and 721 L/s for an additional 30 days per calendar year.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 6 of 39
1.2
Reservoirs
In addition to pumping stations and wells, the reservoirs are also important facilities in providing stability and durability of supply, they help minimize transient and peak demand effects in the water supply system and provide certain levels of protection under emergency conditions; e.g. fire event. Table 1.3 summarizes the capacities of the existing storage facilities in each zone along with the total zone capacities. Table 1.3 Existing Reservoir Capacity per Zone
Zone
Reservoir
Capacity per Regions Water Resources Information (m3) 4,382 2,270(1) 6,800 5,000 22,800 4,500 19,500(2) 3,306(1) (3) 2,273 7,000 14,270 2,824 4,200 12,390 27,418 4,300 18,000
Total Capacity(m3)
Cam 1
43,482
Kit 4
Wat 4 Wat 5
(1)
Pinebush Edward St Inverness Freeport Parkway St. George Strange St Greenbrook Laurel William St Erb St
33,684
31,718 18,000
(2) (3)
Shantz Hill Reservoir and Edward Street Reservoir are currently not in operation and is excluded from the Total Capacity figure Restricted Operating Capacity = 7,000m3 Edward Street Reservoir is currently Off Line
Detailed analyses was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic implications and operational considerations of each storage facility to the system in Technical Memorandum #3; and the physical conditions of each storage facility were evaluated in Technical Memorandum#4.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 7 of 39
2.
Pressure zone boundaries for the Tri-City water distribution system established by the Region were reviewed as part of this task. Hydraulic grade lines were established and system pressures evaluated utilizing the information detailed below: Operational Records (SCADA Information) Existing water levels of the reservoir/storage (SCADA information) Existing pumping facilities (Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information).
2.1
System Pressures
The Region/ MOE guidelines for operating pressures in distribution are as follows: Normal Operating Pressures demand) Minimum Operating pressures Maximum Operating Pressures (under average day and 350-550 kPa (50-80 psi) Maximum day (under peak demand) (Max day plus fire flow) 275 kPa 140 kPa 700kPa (40 psi) (20 psi) (100 psi)
Pressures outside of the range 50-80psi are acceptable to the limits described above but, are not desirable.
2.2
Having reviewed the above noted information, the design hydraulic grade line (HGL) for each zone and the elevation ranges that will meet the pressure constraints of 40 100 psi for each zone boundary were determined. The minimum operating pressure of 40 psi is approximately 28m available head and the maximum operating pressure of 100 psi is approximately 70m available head. These values were subtracted from the target HGLs to determine the elevation ranges. (For this task it has been assumed that there is little headloss across the system, therefore detailed analysis of system headlosses were undertaken as part of Technical Memorandum #6). The results are summarized in Table 2.1.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 8 of 39
Table 2.1 Existing Design Hydraulic Grade for Each Zone Optimum Operating Elevations in Zone (m) Zone HGL (m) Sources Lowest (100psi) 250.0 288.2 289.5 295.2 289.5 295.7 295.2 276.1 295.0 310.9 287.0 338.4 352.5 330.5 334.5 335.0 358.0 370.0 Highest (40psi) 306.0 330.2 331.5 337.2 331.5 337.7 337.2 318.1 337.0 352.9 329.0 380.4 310.5 372.5 376.5 377.0 400.0 412.0 Figure #
Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 2W Cam 3 Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Kit 5 Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7
334.0 345.2 359.5 365.2 359.5 365.7 365.2 346.1 365.0 380.9 357.0 407.4 380.5 400.5 404.5 405.0 428.0 440.0
based on Current Operating Strategy (Turnbull TWL < HGL < St. Andrew TWL) based on S. Cam RES TWL (311.2m) + S. Cam PS Design Operating Head (34m) based on Pinebush RES TWL based on Kitchener Zone 2E (Kit 2) HGL (Freeport Res. TWL) based on Pinebush RES TWL based on Inverness RES TWL based on Freeport RES TWL based on PRV_Deerridge Setting based on PRV_Manitou based on St. George Elevated Tank TWL based on PRV_Falconridge Setting based on Mannheim RES + Mannheim Z5 PS Design Operating Head (23m) based on Laurel RES TWL based on WAT 4 HGL + Northfield PS Design Operating Head (20m) based on Wat 4 HGL + Lakeshore PS Design Operating Head (24m) based on Erb RES Based on Rummelhart Z6 Pumping Station Provided by the Region - PS operating point 430 kPa
Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5A Fig. 5B Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18
2.3
With the information above, a topographic analysis for each zone was performed for the delineation of pressure zone boundaries. Figures 2 to 19 present the topographic plots for each zone. Based on the elevation ranges for each HGL, the figures identify the areas that meet the acceptable pressure range (40 100 psi) as well as those which have lower (<40 psi) or higher (>100 psi) pressure than the prescribed limit. Each topographic plot identifies where potential pressure problems may exist in the zone. The land use type for the potential pressure problem areas were established using the Regions land use map for 2004 (LU_MAP_2004_D_Region.shp) and aerial photos.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 9 of 39
For each Zone, preliminary solutions to mitigate any pressure problems were identified. The hydraulic analyses were performed in Task #6 Determine and Analyze Infrastructure Upgrade Alternatives to validate any solution in addition to confirming whether the available model predicts potential pressure problems in the system. If any potential pressure problem areas are confirmed by the hydraulic model, operational improvements (reduce pump head by throttling down the duty pump or installing PRV, etc.) or pressure boundary realignment were considered, assessed and proposed.
2.3.1
Cambridge Zone 1
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 1: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 2 It is understood that based on information received at a meeting with the City of Cambridge, the current operating hydraulic grade line in Cambridge Zone 1 varies between the top water level of St. Andrew Reservoir (337.4m) and the top water level of Turnbull Reservoir (326.1m), with an approximate hydraulic grade line of around 334m being applied in Cambridge Zone 1 in order to manage the pressure in the zone. Based on the topographic plot, two potential pressure problem areas were identified and the locations are shown in Figure 2. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential low pressure problem. It is an existing landfill site. Three buildings are located within this area with the highest ground elevation of 319m. The static pressure for these buildings is 15m (334319m) or 21psi. A low pressure problem on Clyde Road was confirmed by the Citys staff. Even though this area is serviced by St. Andrew Reservoir, the static pressure will be still lower than 40psi (337.4m-319m = 18.4m ~ 26psi). As a result a local booster station on Clyde Road. to provide additional pressure to these buildings may need to be considered to mitigate the low pressure problem. Area 2: Potential low pressure problem To mitigate low pressure problem, promotion of this area to Zone 1A should be considered. Since the top water levels for St. Andrew Reservoir and Turnbull Reservoir differ by 11.3m, it would be difficult to maintain the balance of both storage top water levels. Based on discussions with the City of Cambridge, AECOM investigated the opportunity to separate Zone 1 into 2 separate zones; one potentially operated by St. Andrew Reservoir and the other by Turnbull Reservoir. A detailed hydraulic analysis was undertaken in Task #6 in order to investigate the feasibility of this operational change. Technical Memorandum #6 has addressed the potential for separating Zone 1 as well as providing a new reservoir and not using St. Andrew or Turnbull to control the HGL in Zone 1.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 10 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 11 of 39
2.3.2
Cambridge Zone 1A
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 1A: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 3. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 345.2m; the sum of the top water level of the South Cambridge Reservoir (311.2m) and the design operating head of the South Cambridge Pumping Station (34m). Based on the topographic plot, two potential pressure problem Areas were identified and the locations are shown in Figure 3. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential low pressure problem. The land use is vacant residential. The ground level is approximately 320m. Static pressures are around 25.2m (345.2 320m) or 36psi. City staff members are aware of the poor pressure problems. Provision of a local pumping station may mitigate the low pressure problem or possibly raise the pump operating pressure. Area 2: Potential low pressure problem. The land use is residential. Ground elevation is around 318m. Static pressures are around 27.2m 3(45.2318m) or 39psi. City staff are aware of the poor pressure problems. Provision of a local pumping station or raising the zone operating pressure may mitigate the low pressure problem. City of Cambridge staff reported that the area adjacent to Moffat Creek may have high pressure problems due to its low elevation. The topographic survey results did not confirm this and therefore this issue was further investigated in Task #6.
2.3.3
Cambridge Zone 2E
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 2E: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 4. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 359m; which is the top water level of Pinebush Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, one potential pressure problem Area was identified and the location is shown in Figure 4. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. Existing commercial users. The lowest elevation in the area is around 287m. Static pressure is around 72m (359287m) or 102psi. System pressure to this area might be lower than 102psi due to the headloss in the distribution system. However, hydraulic analysis was performed in Task #6 to validate the topographic analysis results.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 12 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 13 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 14 of 39
A pressure reducing valve could be installed to mitigate the potential high pressure problems.
2.3.4
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 2W: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 5A. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 365m; which is the hydraulic grade line of Kitchener Zone 2 (top water level of Freeport Reservoir). Based on the topographic plot, one potential pressure problem Area was identified and the location is shown in Figure 5A. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem Based on an aerial photo, the existing development in the area is considered to be a medium industrial user (e.g. storage) The elevation in the area is around 287m The static pressure is around 78m (365287m) or 111psi To mitigate high pressure problems, installation of a pressure reducing valve would be an option.
2.3.5
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 2W: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 5B. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 359.5m; which is also the top water level of Pinebush Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, one potential pressure problem Area was identified and the location is shown in Figure 5B. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. Based on an aerial photo, the existing development in the area is considered to be a medium industrial user (e.g. storage). The elevation in the area is around 287m. The static pressure is around 72.5m (359.5287m) or 103psi. System pressures in this area may be lower than 103psi due to the possible headloss across the distribution system. However, hydraulic analyses was performed in Task #6 to validate the topographic analysis results. To mitigate high pressure problems, installation of a pressure reducing valve would be an option.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 15 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 16 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 17 of 39
2.3.6
Cambridge Zone 3
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 3: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 6. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 366m; which is based on the top water level of Inverness Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, two potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 6. Summary details are provided below Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. The existing land use is residential. The elevation in the areas is around 288m. Static pressures are around 78m (366288m) or 111psi. City staff confirmed that high pressures (~114psi) have been observed in this area. Two alternatives could be considered to mitigate high pressure problems: 1. Reconfigure the zonal boundary to include part of the area in Cambridge Zone 1 (Cam 1) where static pressures of around 46m (334-288m) or 65psi are to be expected. It should be noted that analyses would be required to investigate the impact of reconfiguration on pressures around Westcliff Way. 2. Consider the possibility of introducing a pressure managed area. Options were investigated as part of Task #6. Area 2: Potential high pressure problem. A recreational park (Victoria Park) is located in this area and will not be developed. City of Cambridge staff identified the Parkwood Area/Blenheim Road area as experiencing high pressures (as high as 114psi). However, the topographic review indicated that static pressures are around 90psi. It is thought that the high pressure problem might be attributable to the G4 well operation. It may be possible to reduce the operating head, however a detailed investigation was undertaken in Task #6 in order to assess the potential problem and propose a solution.
2.3.7
Kitchener Zone 2
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 2: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 7. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 361m; which is the top water level of Freeport Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 18 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 19 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 20 of 39
2.3.8
Kitchener Zone 2A
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 2A: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 8. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 346m; which is equivalent to the current PRV setting on the Derridge PRV. Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.
2.3.9
Kitchener Zone 2W
The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 2W: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 9. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 361m; which is equivalent to the current setting of the Manitou PRV. Based on the topographic plot, five potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 9. Summary details are provided below. Area 1 & Area 2: Potential high pressure problem. Existing land use is residential. Elevations in the area are around 287m Static pressure is around 74m (361287m) or 105psi. To mitigate high pressure problem, a localized PRV could be considered. Area 3: Potential high pressure problem. Based on an aerial photo and a land use map, the land use can be described as residential condominium but also includes a post secondary school. Elevations are around 293m. Static pressures are around 68m (361293m) or 97psi. Headloss is not taken into account in this assessment; however the effect of headloss on pressures in this area was assessed as part of Task #6. A localized PRV could be considered to mitigate any high pressure problem. Area 4: Potential low pressure problem. Following a review of an aerial photo and the Regions land use map, it was established that this area includes an antenna tower, detached residential properties and municipal parks. City staff members have indicated that poor pressures have been observed in this area. Ground elevation for the residential area is around 333m.
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 21 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 22 of 39
Technical Memorandum # 2
Page 23 of 39