WATER CONSERVATION GRANT PROJECT

Transcription

1 WATER CONSERVATION GRANT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER 10-22/WCG PREPARED BY: Lunenburg Water District PREPARED FOR: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1

2 WATER CONSERVATION GRANT PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER 10-22/WCG PREPARED BY: Francis McNamara PREPARED FOR: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Richard K. Sullivan Jr., Secretary DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Kenneth L. Kimmell, Commissioner Beth Card, Assistant Commissioner DIVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES Steven J. McCurdy, Director This project has been financed partially with federal funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) under a Water Conservation Competitive Grant. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA or of MassDEP, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

3 Water Conservation Grant Project Project Summary The goal of the project was for water conservation by finding and fixing unknown leaks within the water system and also assist in the cost for the replacement of toilets, which are the most typical cause of leaks inside residential homes that go un noticed. Successes of the Project Over the course of the project by acquiring the leak detection equipment and putting in a very aggressive program, numerous unknown leaks were found and repaired. We have used outside independent leak detection companies that have done good jobs in the past, but with the leak detection under our control we could re evaluate questionable areas for longer periods of time and more accurately pin point the leaks. Our yearly pumping levels are the lowest since In conjunction to the lower water levels we saw a decrease in electrical costs of more than $20,000 comparing 2011 to Charts below represents water leaks that we found and repaired and a chart comparing yearly pumpage to house services, which is showing a substantial decline. Location Date Found Date Repaired Estimated Leak Rate (gpm) Leak Rate (gal/year) Cost ($/year) % of Production Cost 146 Lancaster Ave. 8/1/11 8/9/11 3 1,576,800 $ % 506 Mass Ave. 8/4/11 8/11/11 2 1,051,200 $ % 1272 Mass Ave. 8/10/11 8/18/11 3 1,576,800 $ % 30 Clifton Rd. 9/6/11 9/14/ ,768,000 $ % 171 Electric Ave 9/10/11 11/17/11 2 1,051,200 $ % Total 40 21,024,000 $12, % TABLE: SURVEY LEAK SUMMARY 1The average yearly cost for water production was $600 per million gallons. 2The average water production cost between was $563 G a l l o n s Yearly Pumpage versus Service Connections Year Total Pumped Services S e r v i c e s

4 No difficulties were found on the leak detection program. It was an in house program using our staff. Once scheduling of personnel was established, the program ran smooth, and steady. There was the learning curve required at the beginning that took some time, but the equipment supplier was very helpful in assisting. Link to equipment supplier is The Water District personnel surveyed 45 miles of water mains, which is the entire water system. Lessons Learned I would have a designated people doing the leak detection program. This type of program requires a special talent to be acquired with the equipment. In time they could determine what a true leak looked like and what was interference that looked like a leak. We are just in the beginning phases of doing another full system survey for leaks and will have 2 people dedicated to the program. Benefit of having equipment on hand and available at all times. On bonus side of acquiring the leak detection equipment was a water main leak that we had, but couldn t find for days. We found water bubbling up on the side of the road on a side street, and figured we finally found it. We began digging in that spot, and shortly after beginning to dig we had a call from a residence quite a distance away and uphill stating they had water in their basement. This had never had water in their basement before. They had no idea of our crew down the road digging for what we thought was a leak. This call caused the cease of digging and we started investigating the area with leak detection equipment that we had acquired. The equipment showed the leak directly in his front yard. The home owner disagreed with what the equipment saying, because there was absolute no visible sign of a broken water main. We dug where the equipment said to dig and found the leak. This equipment saved us an incredible amount of time by pinpointing the location and saving an enormous amount of water. Our pumping rate was double what it typically was during that time of year and it ran for days. Toilet Replacement Rebate The District s goal is to promote water conservation through a rebate program for 67 WaterSense labeled toilets purchased and installed after the effective date of the official Notice to Proceed letter. The District verified installation of each device and provided additional water conservation outreach when communicating with these customers. Only toilets meeting the Uniform North American Requirements for toilet performance are eligible for rebates. Rebate goals for this project are: 1.6 gallons per flush or better toilets replacing older 3.5 gallons per flush toilets to be rebated at $150 each from April 11, 2011 through June Methods: The toilet rebate program was delivered by direct mail to every Water District customer and they were also notified by stuffers in the bills. Individuals seeking rebates submit an application form and a receipt proving purchase and installation to the Water District. Staff would also discuss other potential conservation measures with the resident. Rebates were returned by check when approved by the Board of Water Commissioners. Results: A total of 48 toilets were replaced under this grant project, gallons per flush models. While we are unable to determine the flow rate of the older toilets replaced, we are conservatively categorizing them at 3.5 gal/flush for purposes of estimating savings. Toilets that were pre 1980 vintage use five to seven gallons per flush. Each new toilet saves approximately 10,000 gallons per year. According to the Town Hall the population of the Town of Lunenburg is 10,086 and the number of households was 3,535,

5 yielding a population of 2.85 per household people (2000 census, 2010 data not yet available). On average each of person uses their home toilet (i.e. excluding offsite use) 5.05 times per day (Estimates of water savings reported below are based primarily on water usage data as reported in the Residential End Uses of Water study published by the Water Research Foundation in Total estimated annual water savings is 628,000 gallons a year. At the current rate to pump and treat ($.56 per 1,000 gallons) the value of this volume of water is $ In practice, the savings will likely be higher because some of the toilets being replaced may use more than 3.5 gallons per flush. Number of Toilets Replaced Existing Flow Rate (gal) New Toilet Flow Rate (gal) Daily Household Use (5.05 uses per person 2.85 people per household Daily Household Savings (column 2 minus column 3 times 5.05 times 2.85) Household Savings (daily savings times 365 days) Total Savings (column 1 times column 6) gpd 25.5 gpd 9, ,740 Dollars Saved Percent of Production Totals 446,740 $ % Thirty out of the 48 water customers receiving rebates during the grant period reported learning about the program through one of these items (bill stuffer and mailing) that was mailed to them, 9 stated they learned about it from their neighbors, and 8 said they heard about the rebate program from their plumber. Toilet Replacement Issues The toilet program went fairly smooth also. We required the inspection of all toilets before they were replaced and an inspection after to confirm it was a low flow toilet. Many calls came in that wanted the rebate for toilets for ones that they had recently replaced, but they were before the program was implemented. A few calls came through that had leaky toilets, but upon inspection they were found to already have a low flow toilet, so the rebate wouldn t apply to them. Not all toilets replaced were leaking, but were installed for the purpose of saving water. I believe this was the most common reason for the replacement to take place. Toilet Replacement On the toilet rebate program we saw many residences take advantage of the program. Our typical high water bills are associated with toilets that are leaking, and are unknown to the resident. It was convenient to have the program of $150 rebate available to offer to the customers to assist with the financial costs of upgrading the toilet to the newer style low flow toilets. We had the authority to give rebates for 67 toilets. We had interest from 85 residents who took applications, but only 48 went through the entire process to acquire the rebate. Future programs that may be beneficial to the water suppliers and residents may be a rebate program that ties to other appliances. A lot of progress has been made for the conserving of water, especially in washing machines, and maybe some progress on dishwashers also. The toilets are likely the biggest issue, because it can go unnoticed while leaking, but other items will always benefit to some degree.