Critical Infrastructure: Replacing Lead Pipes in Madison. Tom Heikkinen, General Manager Madison Water Utility

Transcription

1 Critical Infrastructure: Replacing Lead Pipes in Madison Tom Heikkinen, General Manager Madison Water Utility

2

3 Our Agenda A bit of history Madison s Lead Service Line Replacement Program Closing thoughts

4 Lead as a pipe material A BIT OF HISTORY

5 Water 1.0 (300 BC)

6

7 An artist s rendering of the same period Hot air balloon?

8 Madison Water Utility In The Beginning 1870s: Water from Madison s private wells and lakes was unfit to drink Need for fire protection 1881: Council votes to establish a public waterworks 1882: Waterworks is installed.

9

10 Service records Lead service lines were installed until Copper services have been installed since 1928.

11

12 Madison s Service Area in 1928

13 Background, Process, Outcome MADISON S LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

14 Today: At a Glance Population served: 250,000 Customer accounts: 68,000 (metered) Production wells: 22 Annual pumpage (2014): 10 billion gallons Average daily pumpage: 28 million gal/day Miles of water main: 830 Employees: 125 Annual revenue: $36 million

15

16 Photograph by Joe DeMaio

17 EPA Lead & Copper Rule SDWA Amendments (1986) LCR (1991)

18 Potential Sources of Lead Lead service lines Lead pipes Lead solder Brass fittings Fixtures Manganese scales

19 Lead Services Replaced or Cutoff Madison s Experience with Lead

20 1992 Lead and Copper Rule 16 ppb 90th percentile lead level exceeded the EPA Action Level of 15 ppb. Requirements triggered: To conduct corrosion control studies. Sampling Results To recommend treatment to achieve optimal corrosion control

21 1994 Phase I of Corrosion Control Studies Standard treatments tested are ineffective in controlling lead corrosion. Utility recommends lead service replacement in lieu of chemical treatment. State requests additional studies and analyses. Madison Pipe Loop Studies

22 1997 Phase II of Corrosion Control Studies Ineffectiveness of previously tested chemical treatments is confirmed. High lead levels are directly correlated with lead service lines. State requests testing of phosphoric acid (Orthophosphate).

23 1998 Results of Orthophosphate Study Orthophosphate would significantly reduce lead concentrations in Madison s water system. Study could not confirm that Orthophosphate would minimize copper levels. Lead service replacement would reduce lead levels more than Orthophosphate.

24 1998 Results of Orthophosphate Study Orthophosphate would have detrimental effects on sewage treatment operations. Orthophosphate would have detrimental effects on surface water quality and area lakes. Water Utility again recommends lead service replacement in lieu of chemical treatment for achieving optimal corrosion control.

25 Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District

26 2001 Estimate of Lead Services Remaining 11,000 Lead services installed before ,000 Utility lead services replaced since ,000 Utility lead services in use. 3,000 Customer lead services replaced since ,000 Customer lead services in use.

27 Madison s Dilemma Lead Service Replacement Less expensive in the long-term. No detrimental side effects. Represents a permanent solution to the problem. Chemical Treatment (per LCR) Long-term treatment costs. Noncompliance with federal, state and local environmental rules and initiatives. Local opposition/public outcry over impact on area lakes.

28 But Lead service line replacement did not appear to be a viable option under the Lead Copper Rule!

29 WDNR Conditions for Approval of Lead Service Line Replacement in Lieu of Chemical Treatment Must provide public health protection equivalent to chemical treatment Must provide health risk reduction comparable to 2-3 year implementation for chemical treatment Must be mandatory for both utility-owned and customer-owned portion of service line Must be completed within 10 years Must be enforceable through the adoption of City ordinance.

30 The Money Issue! Who should pay for lead service replacement on private property?

31 The arguments about who pays The property owner It s essentially an improvement to private property. As such, it should not be subsidized by all ratepayers. The Utility It s the Utility s responsibility to comply with the Rule. The Utility is mandating replacement of functional service lines (not all of which cause high lead levels). Service replacement is a substitute compliance for chemical treatment, which all ratepayers would pay for.

32 Funding Opportunities Lead Service Surcharge Sewer Utility Funds State Revolving Loan Fund Other Sources???

33

34 Lead Service Replacement Ordinance Extensive neighborhood meetings, public hearings, and media coverage led up to the vote by Madison s Common Council The Common Council narrowly approves a lead service replacement ordinance.

35 The ordinance in a nutshell All Utility services must be replaced within 10 years. All customer services must be replaced within 10 years. Utility will reimburse half the customer s cost of replacement not to exceed $1,000.

36 One Week Later...

37

38 Antenna Revenue, $1000 Cellular Antenna Revenue

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 Identifying service material Copper Lead Galvanized Steel

47

48

49

50

51

52 Project Budget, $ Millions Project Budget % % % % 0.4 5% % Lead Service Replacement Budget % Capital Budget

53 Program Costs Utility-side ( ): 4,749 replacements at a total cost of $11.0 million 1,388 service removals (cut-offs), total cost $874,000 Unit costs replacement [$2,315], cut-off [$629] Customer-side ( ): 5,637 reimbursements at a total cost of $3.78 million Average reimbursement $670 $0 direct cost to rate payers 53

54 LEAD SERVICE REPLACEMENT COST Lead Service Replacements (Utility Side) Misc Service Removals (Cut offs) Work Order Number Total Unit Work Order Total Unit Year Number Done Cost Cost Number Lead Other Total Cost Cost $406,276 $1, $26,536 $ $341,633 $1, $46,066 $ $445,960 $1, $18,465 $ $459,946 $1, $33,268 $ $679,842 $1, $30,716 $ $601,995 $1, $41,674 $ $1,128,827 $1, $40,736 $ $1,266,050 $2, $71,025 $ $1,304,975 $2, $114,760 $ $1,399,144 $2, $72,206 $ $1,452,498 $2, $144,187 $ $1,042,781 $2, $93,995 $ $273,267 $5, $72,929 $1, $79,501 $6, $41,352 $1, $32,003 $6, $7,216 $7, $49,907 $4, $14,353 $1, $29,196 $1, $4,180 $1,045 $10,993,80 Total 4,749 1 $2,315 1, ,388 $873,663 $629 In 2004 we removed 534 lead services, 9 copper services and installed 547 new replacement services. In 2011 we removed 19 lead Services and installed 5 new replacement services

55 Programs Costs Year Replacements Cutoffs Reimbursements Total Cost 1995 $406,276 $17, $423, $341,633 $33, $374, $445,960 $16, $462, $459,946 $24, $484, $679,842 $26, $706, $601,995 $35,114 $21,257 $658, $1,128,827 $31,411 $826,609 $1,986, $1,266,050 $62,401 $476,743 $1,805, $1,304,975 $105,246 $420,253 $1,830, $1,399,144 $66,430 $500,232 $1,965, $1,452,498 $135,019 $509,327 $2,096, $1,042,781 $91,625 $279,236 $1,413, $273,267 $60,516 $202,143 $535, $79,501 $27,568 $165,160 $272, $32, $160,134 $192, $49,907 $8,833 $102,999 $161, $29, $113,219 $142,415 TOTAL $10,993,801 $742,481 $3,777,311 $15,513,593

56 Number of Samples 2010 Study Lead Results Study 1992 Results Samples Minimum Mean Median th Maximum >40 Total Lead, µg/l <5 ppb 2 26 >5 ppb 29 4 >15 ppb 9 1

57 Number of Samples Number of Samples Recent Results 2010 Water Quality Study 2011 & 2014 Monitoring Study 1992 Results >40 Total Lead, µg/l >40 Total Lead, µg/l 90 th percentile lead was <5 ppb during all monitoring periods

58

59

60 A Recent Issue Customer reports elevated blood lead level MWU inspects and finds premise plumbing issues

61 Acknowledgements David Denig-Chakroff, GM Joe Grande, Water Quality Manager Amy Barrilleaux, Public Information Officer Amy Deming, Outreach Specialist

62 Flint, MI The Future of Water CLOSING THOUGHTS

63 Highly Recommended With the turn of a tap, clean water flows out.it all seems so simple and obvious. And yet, as David Sedlak explains, such conveniences are really a marvel of engineering, built on centuries of trial and (often) error.sedlak s efforts to engage the public on this oft neglected subject is welcome. Kate Galbraith, San Francisco Chronicle The urban water crises [Sedlak] presents historical and present day not only run up against prevailing technological possibilities; they also have engaged political debates as to how we run and pay for our cities. Jeffery Atik, Los Angeles Review of Books