DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TED L. BIDDY, P.E. 1 P.L.S.
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ON BEHALF OF THE
CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DOCKET NO. 950495-WS
Revised 5/3/96
1
Q.
WHAT IS YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS?
2
A.
My name is Ted L. Biddy. My business address is Baskerville-Donovan, Inc.
(BDI), 2878 Remington Green Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32308.
3
4
Q.
BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?
5
A.
I am Vice-president of Baskerville-Donovan, Inc. and Regional Manager of the
6
7
Q.
WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND WORK
EXPERIENCE?
8
9
.
Tallahassee Office.
A.
I graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a B.S. degree in Civil
10
Engineering in 1963, I am a registered professional engineer and land surveyor in
11
Florida, Georgia and Mississippi and several other states. Before joining BDI in
12
1991, I had operated my own civil engineering firm for 21 years. My areas of
13
expertise include civil engineering, structural engineering, sanitary engineering,
14
soils and foundation engineering and precise surveying. During my career, I have
I5
designed and supervised the master planning, design and construction of thousands
16
of residential, commercial and industrial properties. My work has included: water
17
and wastewater design; roadway design; parking lot design; stormwater facilities
18
design; structural design; land surveys; and environmental permitting.
19
I have served as principal and chief designer for numerous utility projects.
20
Among my major water and wastewater facilities designs have been a 2,000 acre
21
development in Lake County, FL; a 1,200 acre development in Ocean Springs, MS;
22
a 4 mile water distribution system for Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. and a 320
1
lot subdivision in Leon County, FL.
1
2
Q.
WHAT ARE YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS?
3
A.
I am a member of the Florida Engineering Society, National Society of Professional
Engineers, and Florida Society of hofessional Land Surveyors.
4
5
Q.
SERVICE COMMISSION (FPSC)?
6
7
A.
Q.
HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE A STATE OR FEDERAL
COURT AS AN ENGINEERING EXPERT WITNESS?
10
11
Yes. I have testified in the St. George Island Utilities, Ltd. case in Docket No.
940109-WU.
8
9
HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC
A.
Yes, I have had numerous court appearances as an expert witness for cases
12
involving roadways, utilities, drainage, stormwater, water and wastewater facilities
13
designs.
14
Q.
HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY RATE FILMG DOCUMENTS FILED WITH
15
THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGARDING USED
16
AND USEFUL ANALYSIS AND OTHER ENGINEERING ISSUES?
17
A.
Yes, I have reviewed the FPSC staff final recommendations on engineering issues
18
for Docket No. 920733-WS and No. 900718-WU. Docket No. 920733-WS was
19
filed by the General Development Utilities, Inc. for its Silver Springs Shores
20
Division which has lime softening treatment facilities. Dofket No. 900718-W
21
was filedby Gulf Utility Company for its reverse osmosis plant expansion.
22
Q.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
2
1
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to provide comments on methods of used and
2
useful analysis used by Southern States Utilities, Inc. (SSU) for this rate increase
3
filing.
4
Q-
WERE THE MATERIALS YOU ARE SPONSORING PREPARED BY YOU
5
OR BY PERSONS UNDER YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISION AND
6
CONTROL?
7
A.
Yes, they were.
8
Q.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE MARGIN RESERVE PROPOSED BY SSU
FOR USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS?
9
10
A.
No, I do not think margin reserve used by SSU in this rate filing is appropriate.
11
Besides the testimony provided by Witness Mr. Larkin, 1have some comments to
12
add especially on 3 years and 5 years of margin reserve for water and wastewater
13
treatment facilities, respectively. Chapter 62-600.405,Florida Adminisfmtive Code
14
(F.A.C.) requires all wastewater utilities to submit capacity analysis reports (CAR)
15
to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) at different
16
conditions. The five year time frame mentioned in the rules is mainly used as the
17
interval for submitting a CAR. We should not translate that five year time frame
18
as the actual time required for new plant expansions. The rule is simply trying to
19
mandate wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) owners to prepare plans for possible
20
future expansion. The five year submittal will be reduced to annual upaate when
21
the permitted capacity will be equaled or exceeded within the next 10 years. The
22
utilities may have to expand Wwrp quickly, it depends on how soon the flow is
3
1
anticipated to reach the permitted capacity.
If the wastewater flow is not
2
anticipated to reach the permitted capacity within 10 years, on the other hand, the
3
utilities are only required to submit a CAR every 5 years and nothing else.
4
FDEP has no similar rules on water treatment facilities. The need for plant
5
expansion again is dependent upon when the future flow will reach existing
6
capacities. Sometimes it does not take a long time to increase capacity for water
7
treatment, such as adding a new well and filters. Therefore, the 3-year and 5-year
8
margin reserves requested by SSU are not justified or mandated by regulation.
9
In addition, a well planned phased development and plant expansion can
. ..
10
reduce and eventually eliminate the need of margin reserve. This is feasible and
11
can be done. The construction permit DC432-219274 of Marion Oaks WWTP is
12
a good example in this filing. In that permit, the 0.2 MGD Type I extended aeration
13
sewage treatment plant was permitted to expand in four phases to a 1.O MGD plant.
14
Actually, the utility should have new customers or developers to pay for new plant
15
expansion through contribution or prepaid CIAC (:contribution in aid of
16
construction) and other ways. Collection of these prepaid fees from future
17
customers should render a margin reserve allowance, paid by c m n t customers, to
18
be unnecessary.
19
Under Florida conditions of tightening environmental regdation, increasing
20
water costs and water conservation concern, it is reasonable to believethat the
21
water consumption and wastewater generation of existing customers will not
22
increase. Therefore, the margin .reserve requested by SSU is solely for new
4
..
1
customers. If the PSC allows margin reserve in the used and useful calculations,
2
then it will penalize existing customers by burdening them to pay extra cost for new
3
customers. Allowing margin reserve will M e r increase water and wastewater
4
rates to existing customers. High utility rates reduce the financial ability for
5
customers and will hinder future development. Therefore, the PSC should
6
eliminate margin reserve allowance in used and useful analysis. The utility should
7
recover the costs of plant addition ffom new customers or developers through other
8
measures.
9
Q.
DO
YOU
HAVE
ANY
COMMENTS ON
THE
FIRE
FLOW
10
REQUIREMENT SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, INC, (SSU) APPLIED
11
IN USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS?
12
A.
Fire flow capacity should be included in used and useful calculation only if fire
13
flow provision was proven by sufficient fire flow test records. SSU did not provide
14
this information in the original filing, therefore, no fire flow was applied in my used
15
and useful calculation. However, OPC has request SSU to provide the fire flow test
16
information. Revised used and useful calculation will be submitted if SSU does
17
provide adequate information.
18
19
mnse to OPC Document Reauest No. 298. SSU Drovided fire flow
ec
' t ' e
w
w c w
20
included in the revised Exhibit TLB-3 of used and useful calculations. Exh ibit
21
ILB-3.1 summarizes fire flow records and adiustrnents of fire flow allowance.
22
Many components of a water distribution system dictate the delivery of fire
5
REVISED 5/3/96
1
flow. They include high service pumps, distribution storage tanks (elevated or
2
ground) and water mains. Because of economic concerns, for many systems fire
3
flows are provided partially by high service pumps and partially by storage. See
4
Exhibit TLB-I excerpted from AWWA M31 Manual for examples.
5
No fire flow should be applied to high service pumps, finished water storage
6
or water supply wells without confirming the fire fighting capability of each
I
system. Installing a fire hydrant in the distribution system does not guarantee the
8
required fire flow. As mentioned above SSU was asked to prove the fire flow
9
capability by providing fire flow test records. However, that information was not
IO
available at the time of preparing this testimony.
Therefore, no fire flow
11
requirement requested by SSU was included in my used and useful calculations in
12
Exhibit TLB-3. When fire flow test documentation becomes available, the used
13
and useful schedules may be revised and provided to the Commission.
14
If a system is not designed or proved to provide required fire flow, it is
15
dangerous and unfair to assume the fire flow requirement in used and usefid
16
analysis. Residents and business owners are paying higher property insurance
17
premiums because of inadequate fire fighting provision. It is not cost effective to
18
use source of supply to meet instantaneous demands, such as peak hourly flows and
19
fire flows. Normally a small water system without storage tanks does not have the
20
capability for fire fighting.
21
In addition, AWWA Manual M3 1 Page 33 states "Generally, water system
22
components are out of service for short periods of time, so the probability of a
6
1
component being out of service when a fue occurs is low. ....Fortunately, fues that
2
severely stress a distribution system occur only a few times a year in large systems
3
and only once every few years in small systems. Therefore, the probability of a
4
major fire occurring while more than one water system component is out of service
5
is so low that the utility should not be expected to meet required fire flow at such
6
times.”
7
Q-
SSU
.
REQUESTED
A
12.5%
8
UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER
9
REQUEST?
10
A.
COMPANY-WIDE
LEVEL
OF
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS
No. A company-wide unaccounted for water percentage can not represent actual
11
unaccounted for water level of each system. Some systems with high levels of
12
unaccounted for water, like Oak Forest, St. Johns Highlands, and Stone Mountain,
13
are averaged out by large numbers of low unaccounted for water systems.
14
Therefore, the company-wide approach provides a shelter to high unaccounted for
15
water systems and does not encourage operation improvement. PSC should
16
evaluate the level of unaccounted for water on an individual basis. To achieve low
17
levels of unaccounted for water, PSC should allow no more than 10% for each
18
water system. Proper adjustments have been made in Exhibit TLB-3water system
19
used and useful calculations, to account for excess unaccounted for water.
20
Q.
21
22
DO YOU RECOMMEND THAT A SINGLE MAXlMUM DAY.FLOW
SHOULD BE USED IN USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS?
A.
NO, the single maximum day flows should not be used in used and useful
7
1
calculations in this filing. The single maximum day flows may include undetected
2
or unrecorded leaks, flushing and unusual usage, in addition to the PSC allowed
3
unaccounted for water. Normally, a water main leaks for days before detection and
4
that amount of water loss is hard to keep track of. Main breaks and line flushing
5
have similar situations because good records are hard to keep.
6
When engineers review historic flow data and evaluate for maximum daily
7
demands, any unusual and excessive uses of water should be excluded as provided
8
by AWWA M3 1, Distribution System Requirementfor Fire Protection, on Page 16.
9
In this filing, SSU did not exclude any unusual and excessive water use for the
10
single maximum day flows. Therefore, an average of the five highest maximum
11
daily flows in the maximum month is justified and should be used for all used and
12
useful and engineering issues. This has been the policy historically used by the
13
Commission.
14
Q.
IS IT JUSTIFIED TO USE THE PERMITTED CAPACITIES IN
15
OPERATION PERMITS INSTEAD OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR
16
USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS?
17
A.
Normally the operation permit has the same capacity as construction permit for
18
each treatment facility. However, sometimes the same treatment facility has less
19
pemit capacity in its operation permit than construction permit. For example, a
20
one MGD contact stabilization type sewage treatment plant could be a t i d at 0.5
21
MGD for operating in extended aeration treatment. The Beacon Hills WWTp
22
provides an actual example. According to FDEP permit number D016-213087,
8
1
that facility is permitted as a 0.836 MGD extended aeration WWTP, which can also
2
be operated as a 1.78 MGD contact stabilization WWTP. I have adjusted the used
3
and useful calculation for the Beacon Hill wastewater treatment plant to reflect its
4
1.78 MGD capacity in Exhibit TLB-4. Adjustments would be appropriate for the
5
other systems if their plant capacities are similarly understated.
6
Therefore, construction permit capacities should be used unless the
7
operation permit has permanently changed the original permit capacities. This
8
question will not be an issue when SSU applies for permit renewals in the future.
9
According to the FPDES Demit deleeation from EPA, FDEP will combine the
construction and operation permits into one permit application.
10
11
Q.
IS IT REASONABLE TO USE "FIRM RELIABLE CAPACITIES!' TO
12
CALCULATE USED AND USEFUL PERCENTAGES FOR SUPPLY
13
WELLS, HIGH SERVICE PUMPS AND WATER TREATMENT
14
FACILITIES?
15
A.
No, it is not justified to use firm reliable capacity on more than one component.
16
The firm reliable capacity is the total capacity of supply wells, high service pumps,
17
filters, or other treatment plant facilities without the largest unit in operation. That
18
largest unit is assumed to be out of service for routine maintenance or emergency
19
repair.
20
Most of the time, facilities are scheduled in advance to be out of &vice for
21
maintenance or repair. It is very unlikely that two facility components will be
22
scheduled for service at the same time. The chance of having two facility
9
REVISED 5/3/96
breakdowns, simultaneously, is slim. Therefore, it is not economically justified to
1
calculate used and useful percentages for supply wells, water treatment facilities
and high service pumps all with "firm reliable capacity.'' Adjustments have been
made in my used and useful calculations in Exhibit TLB-3,based on the above
discussion.
5
6
Q.
AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS PROPOSED BY SSU?
7
8
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON WATER SUPPLY WELL USED
A.
SSU used so called "firm reliable capacity'' in calculating used and useful
9
percentage for water supply wells. The firm reliable capacity excludes the largest
10
well capacity by assuming it to be out of service. When there are more than ten
11
wells, the largest two wells are assumed to be out of service. The combined
12
capacity of remaining supply wells is the "firm reliable capacity.'' If a system has
13
only supply wells and no storage facilities or high service pumps, then the well
14
pumps also serve as high service pumping facilities. For this type water system, the
15
"firm reliable capacity" proposed by SSU is acceptable.
1
16
However, when storage or high service pumping facilities are available, the
17
"firm reliable capacity" method is not applicable. According to Section 3.2.1,l
18
Source capacity of Recommended Standards For Wafer Work:
19
"The total developed groundwater source capacity shall equal or exceed the
20
design maximum day demand and equal or exceed the design average day'demand
21
with the largest producing well out of service."
22
This design criteria should be used to calculate used and useful percentage
10
1
for supply wells. For the above reason, the "firmreliable capacity" method should
2
not be applied to supply wells where the water system is also equipped with storage
3
and high service pumping facilities. Adjustments have been made according to the
4
above principles in Exhibit TLB-3.
5
Q.
CALCULATIONS OF THE FINISHED WATER STORAGE?
6
7
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING USED AND USEFUL
A.
The peak hour domestic demands calculations proposed by SSU is unjustified
8
without document support and clear explanation. SSU .assumed the peak hour
9
demand is two times of the maximum day demand and the peak hour demand is
10
four hours long. AWWA M32, Distribution Network Analysis for Water Utilities,
11
suggests a peak factor range of 1.3 to 2.0 for peak-hour demand to maximum-day
12
demand. I believe 1.3 should be used because it is the minimum requirement.
13
In MFRs Volume VI Book 1 of 2 Pages 14 and 15, "maximum day gallons
14
pumped was used instead of "maximum day gallons pumped24 hours.'' The time
15
unit was omitted and an abnormal large storage for domestic peak hour demand will
16
be erroneously calculated. Though SSU did not make mistakes in this calculation,
17
it is better to clarify that the "maximum day gallons pumped means "maximum
18
day gallons pumped within 24 hours" in the record. Normally to compute the
19
required peak hour storage, a mass diagram or hydrograph indicating the hourly rate
20
of consumption is required.
21
SSU requested an 8-hour emergency storage for large water systems,
22
including: Amelia Island, Burnt Store, Citrus Springs, Deltona Lakes, Lehigh,
11
Marco Shores, Marco Island, and Sugar Mill Country Club. Emergency storage is
not a design criteria in the Recommended Standardr for Water Works. Just as
AWWA M32 stated, the amount of emergency storage is an owner option to be
included within a particular water system. It depends on an assessment of risk and
5
the desired degree of system dependability. Emergency storage is seldom included
6
in designs because of costs. SSU was unable to confirm the emergency storage in
7
the original plant design. Therefore, no emergency storage was applied in my used
8
and useful calculations.
9
SSU also requested ten percent of the total finished water storage to be
10
"dead storage" because of floor suction and vortexing effect. These concerns are
11
not true for all storage facilities, especially for elevated tanks. For ground storage
12
facilities, as-built drawings should be able to reveal the minimum operating level.
13
It is not justified to assume 10% of the storage capacity is dead storage for every
14
single storage tank. In addition, SSU has used more than 10% dead storage in the
15
used and useful calculations for most of the systems. Further, SSU provides no
16
supporting explanation to justify dead storage allowance for each storage tank.
17
When designing storage tanks and high service pumps, engineers have to
18
check the available net positive suction head (NPSH)and ensure that it is greater
19
than the net required positive suction head to avoid cavitation problems. Therefore,
20
the vortex situation is rare because high service pumps are always placedat a low
21
grade to obtain the maximum NPSH. Full storage tank capacity was applied in my
22
used and useful calculations, per Exhibit TLB-2 and Exhibit TLB-3.
12
1
Q.
2
3
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO ADD ABOUT THE PROPOSED
HIGH SERVICE PUMPS USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS?
A.
High service pumps are normally designed to handle maximum daily flows. Any
demands beyond maximum daily flows should be met by distribution storage tanks
(AWWA M32 P.41). Distribution storage means elevated storage tank or a ground
storage tank with booster pumps in the distribution system. Distribution storage is
a part of the finished water storage. Finished water storage usually means ground
.
8
storage tanks that store finished water to be supplied to high service pumps which
9
push the finished water to the distribution system. However, many water systems
IO
have elevated storage tanks in addition to the ground storage tanks to meet the
11
system demands. According to SSU witness Mr. Bliss, Keystone Heights and
12
Lehigh are the only two water systems in this rate filing that have elevated storage
13
tanks. It is not cost effective to use high service pumps to handle peak hourly flows
14
and fire flows. If fire flows are provided by distribution storage, no fire flow
15
should be included in high service pump used and useful calculations. However,
16
SSU was unable to confirm whether fire flow is provided by elevated storage tanks
17
in Keystone Heights and Lehigh. For that reason fire flow demands will be applied
18
to high service pumps only when fire flow provision is properly proven.
19
A water system with no elevated distribution storage facilities is less cost
20
effective because both high service pumps and on site finished water stdrage need
21
to meet extra peak hourly demands above maximum daily flows or fire flows.
22
Without the capability of replenishing elevated storage, high service pumps need
13
1
to operate in a higher and wider range of pumping head Therefore, the capital
2
costs are higher and less cost effective to operate, compared to water systems with
3
elevated storage tanks. During the peak demands, the elevated tank will first
4
provide water to the system and high service pumps will provide the remaining
5
excess water demands. For that reason a smaller high service pump can be used.
6
Examples in Exhibit TLB-1 clearly address these situations.
7
When distribution storage is not available, but the system is designed to
8
provide fire flows, engineers will size up high service pumps for fire flow
9
provision. However, the design flows used should be maximum day demands
10
(average 5 maximum days of maximum month) plus fire flows or peak hourly
11
demands, which ever is greater. This design criteria is used in AWWA M31
12
because the chance of having a fire outbreak during peak hourly demands is very
13
slim. Therefore, designing high service pumps to meet fire flows, plus peak hourly
14
flows, is not economicallyjustified. Adjustments have been made in my used and
15
useful calculations in Exhibit TLB-3. See Exhibit TLB-2 for calculation key
16
SUmmary.
17
Q.
FACILITY LANDS, HYDRO TANKS, AND AUXILtARY POWER?
18
19
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE 100% USED AND USEFUL REQUEST ON
A.
No, PSC should not grant 100% used and useful on facility lands, auxiliary power
20
and hydro tanks without individual analysis. Every system has differeht sizes of
21
facility lands, auxiliary power, and hydro tanks. The current demands and
22
available capacities are also unique between systems. These factors all dictate the
14
.
1
facility usage. Therefore, a used and useful calculation is really required for every
2
facility land, auxiliary power, and hydro tank. Adjustments should be made to the
3
used and useful percentages because all facility land, auxiliary power, and hydro
4
tank are part of the system, and they are designed to serve the whole system. The
5
higher the existing demand, the higher the used and useful percentage.
6
From the response to OPC Interrogatory No. 341, SSU stated that 50 water
1
and 11 wastewater systems have auxiliary power equipment. Unfortunately SSU
8
cannot specify what facilities are supported by each auxiliary power equipment.
9
Therefore, OPC has to assume that auxiliary power has the same used and useful
10
percentage as supply wells or wastewater treatment plants. Adjustments to
11
auxiliary power have been made in Exhibit TLB-3 and Exhibit TLB-4. See Exhibit
12
TLB-2 for calculation key and rationale summary. Marco Shores water system has
13
no supply wells, and the used and useful percentage of high service pumps was
14
used for auxiliary power equipment.
15
Q.
IS
IT APPROPRIATE
TO
USE
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
IN
16
CALCULATING THE USED AND USEFUL PERCENTAGES OF WATER
17
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS?
18
A.
No, it is not appropriate to use hydraulic analysis modeling to calculate the used
19
and useful percentage for water transmission and distribution system. The
20
hydraulic analysis method indeed is a reliable design tool for desigliing water
21
transmission and distribution systems. However, it does not follow that hydraulic
22
analysis is also appropriate and applicable for the used and useful analysis in
15
1
economic regulations.
2
The used and useful analysis for a water transmission and distribution
3
system is not a flow measurement or flow projection technique. Used and useful
4
analysis is about allocating construction costs fairly to both existing and future
5
customers. Hydraulic analysis modeling proposed by SSU unfairly shifts the
6
majority of the cost burden to existing customers, especially in new or sparsely
7
developed areas. For example, in the same subdivision customers in densely
8
developed areas will have to pay for water mains which are less used in newly or
9
sparsely developed areas. The reason is that the distribution system will supply
10
water to high demands from densely developed areas through looped water mains
11
in sparsely developed areas. 7'he fire flow provision also makes the water mains
12
in sparsely developed areas highly used and useful. It is the responsibility of
13
developers and utility owners to prevent scattered development. Utility owners
14
should bear the risk and costs of acquiring systems serving sparse developments.
15
Sunny Hills is a good example of the above conditions. The example belo'w
16
illustrates the unfair used and useful determination because the flow measurement
17
technique utilized in a hydraulic analysis tends to inflate used and useful percentage
18
for sparsely developed systems.
. .
19
Assume a water distribution system is designed to serve 1,000 single family
20
homes with a 750 gpm fire flow provision, and assume that the systenl currently
21
serves only 100 homes with 350 gallons per home average daily consumption.
22
Using peaking factors of 2 for max@un daily flows from average daily flows and
16
.
1
1.3 for peak hourly flows &om maximum daily flows, the existing 100 homes will
2
be required to pay for 58.84% of the total water mains laid for 1,000 homes. See
3
the following calculation.
4
5
Used and useful % = K100 x 350 x 2 x 1.3/1440)
+ 7501
= 58.84%
[(IO00 x 350 x 2 x 1.3/1440) + 7501
6
This example clearly demonstrates that the hydraulic analysis .method
7
unfairly allocates cost sharing between existing customers and future customers.
8
In the filing, SSU has requested a 28.09% used and useful on the Sunny Hills Well
9
5 transmission and distribution system. In that subdivision, only four customers are
10
connected to the system with a 491 lot capacity. Due to the inclusion of fire flow,
11
those customers who represent less than one percent of the system, are responsible
12
for 28.09% of the water mains cost. An economic regulatory agency like PSC
13
should not accept such a disparity created by hydraulic analysis methods. If PSC
14
accepts hydraulic analysis for used and useful calculations, future development will
15
be intimidated by highly inflated rates.
16
Hydraulic analysis modeling is too complicated and time consuming to
17
apply to water transmission and distribution used and useful analysis. Any change
18
in high service pumps, distribution storage, customer demands and water main size
19
will increase or decrease water flows in water pipes. For example, by using a larger
20
size high service pump for build out conditions, more water will pass thtough the
21
same water main. Therefore, a change in the system operating parameters will
22
create a different hydraulic analysis result. The build out flows presented by SSU
17
1
in the MFRs are not the ultimate capacities of the water mains, and they are subject
2
to change. For examples, a lot of "dry" water mains in the original "Deltona"
3
systems are not connected to existing distribution systems. Once the "dry" mains
4
are connected, the build out flow of each main will be changed. If PSC accepts the
5
use of hydraulic analysis, there will be numerous sets of used and useful
6
percentages, and it can unduly complicate the used and useful analysis.
7
Consequently customers will be paying more than their fair share on the water
8
transmission and distribution system.
9
In addition, to validate the hydraulic analysis computer model for an
10
existing distribution system, detailed calibrations are required, which includes
11
comparing system pressures with computer output and checking roughness
12
coefficient of water mains. A slight change on the roughness coefficient can affect
13
the results significantly. Calibrating a hydraulic model basically is a trial and error
14
process until the model prediction is close to field measurements. Trying to adopt
15
hydraulic modeling for used and useful analysis is not appropriate because of
16
complexity and time consumption. It is economically unfeasible for most utilities
17
to perform hydraulic modeling for rate increase filings. Due to numerous variables,
18
the enormous staff time required to verify hydraulic computer models is an
19
unnecessary burden for PSC.
20
On the other hand, the "lot count" method allocates the water main costs
21
evenly to all customers, after engineers have properly designed the whole system.
22
The lot count method assigns a fair share of the total construction cost to every
18
1
customer. The lot count method does not fail to recognize water main cost to
2
accommodate fire flow and looped lines, because it allocates the total cost through
3
used and useful percentages. Existing customers do not get a free ride because the
4
construction costs of fire flow accommodation and looped lines are included in the
5
total cost.
6
Water transmission and distribution systems are designed for all existing
7
and future customers. The hydraulic analysis method clearly tilts the burden to
8
existing customers. The lot count method tends to give an equal cost share to all
9
customers. Therefore, the lot count method will not discourage future development,
10
as opposed to the way hydraulic modeling will probably discourage future
11
development. For some instances, however, the lot count method still favors future
12
customers. For example, without future development, engineers would design a
13
smaller size system for existing customers. However, most of the time water
14
transmission and distribution mains are oversized for existing customers to
15
accommodate future phases of development. Lot count method does not reduce the
16
used and useful percentage for existing customers for the over sized mains.
17
Therefore, existing customers are carrying extra costs for laying larger sizes of
18
water mains that will be connected for future development. The burden on future
19
customers are therefore less than existing customers.
20
"Fill-in-lots" should not be a problem in the lot count method: 'When a
21
system is reaching built out, fill-in lots probably will be sold at appreciated values
22
and increase the used and useful percentages. A mass development without proper
19
1
phasing creates sparse development and scatters customers. Low used and useful
2
percentages of the water transmission and distribution are apparent and
3
unavoidable. Developers and utility owners should bear the risk for not preventing
4
sparse development from happening. Existing customers should not pay for the
5
consequence of low used and useful percentage on a water distribution system.
6
SSU should recover the cost of unused water mains by collecting contributions
7
from new customers. Adjustments have been made to appropriate systems in the
8
Exhibit TLB-3.
9
Q.
SHOULD RATE BASE INCLUDE WATER MAINS LAID IN THE
10
GROUND BUT NOT CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING DISTRIBUTION
11
SYSTEM?
12
A.
Any water mains constructed in place but which do not connect to the existing
13
system should be considered non-used and useful. Apparently those "dry" mains
14
are reserved for future customers. Any investment in these "dry" water mains
15
should be removed from rate base. When SSU provides the dollar investments in
16
these "dry" water mains, these amounts should be removed from rate base.
17
Accordine to the Late Filed DeDosition Exhibit No. 8 of Mr. Bliss. the
18
followincr dollar amounts should be removed from the rate base of each svstem:
19
$9 13.386 .25 from Citrus SDrine: $204.309.60 from Marion Oaks:$45.144.00 from
20
Pine Ridge: and $686.71 1.20 from Sunnv Hills.
21
22
Q.
SHOULD EXCESS INFLOW AND INFILTRATION BE INCLUDED IN
ENGINEERING SCHEDULE .F-2(S) GALLONS OF WASTEWATER
20
REVISED 5/3/96
TREATED?
1
2
A.
No. The amount of wastewater treated should not include any excessive inflow and
3
infiltration. Engineering Schedules F-2(S) filed by SSU did not show the inflow
4
and infiltration amount. The inflow/iiltration information should be presented to
5
show the condition of collection system. Many guideline criteria are available and
6
can be used for infiltration allowance on gravity sewers. In the Recommended
7
Stundurdsfor Wastewater Facilities, 200 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile
8
per day is the recommended guideline and that criteria is generally used by the
9
FDEP staff.
10
Any excessive inflow and infiltration should be excluded from the amount
11
of wastewater treated. The used and useful analysis should be adjusted accordingly.
12
From the response to OPC Document Request No. 279, SSU indicated that eight
13
out of the forty WWTP have excess inflow and infiltration, as shown by Appendix
14
DR 279-A. The excess amounts were excluded from the used and useful
15
calculations in Exhibit TLB-4.
16
Q.
DO YOU AGREE THAT THE NEW RAW WATER SUPPLY SITE OF
17
MARC0
18
EVALUATION?
19
A.
ISLAND
IS
100% USED
AND
USEFUL
WITHOUT
No. An evaluation of total water supply capacity should be conducted before
20
claiming 100% used and useful on the raw water supply site. Currently, It does not
21
seem feasible that this facility will be put into service for the projected test year
22
1996 because no facilities have been constructed on the site. In addition, witness
21
..
..
1
Mr. Terrero mentioned that SSU does not yet have the easement and right of way
2
to connect the new water supply site and Marco Island. Therefore, the cost of 160
3
acres new water supply site should be eliminated from the rate base in this filing.
4
Q-
ALL EFFLUENT REUSE FACILITIES WITHOUT EVALUATION?
5
6
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE 100% USED AND USEFUL REQUEST FOR
A.
No. Though effluent reuse is encouraged by environmental regulatory agencies
7
and the utilities are allowed to recover the costs through rate shuctures, it does not
8
automatically mean all effluent reuse facilities are 100% used and useful. Existing
9
customers
should not pay for extra reuse capacity, just as existing customers should
.:
10
not pay for excess capacities of wastewater treatment plants and percolation ponds.
11
In addition, the effluent reuse customers also are paying costs for using the treated
12
effluent. SSU should perform used and useful calculations on all systems that have
13
reuse facilities: Amelia Island, Deltona Lakes, Florida Central Commerce Park,
14
Lehigh, Marco Island, Point OWoods, and University Shores. It is unjustified to
15
ask existing customers to pay for future customers. Currently no specific used and
16
useful calculations have been made due to lack of effluent reuse flow data. Under
17
this circumstance, the used and useful percentage of reuse facilities was assumed
18
the same percentage as used for percolation ponds.
:.
19
Some systems have W o or more effluent disposal measures other than
20
reuse. For example, Marco Island wastewater system has golf course imgation,
21
percolation ponds, and deep injection well for its effluent disposal. Used and useful
22
calculations may be revised when relevant information is provided by SSU.
22
1
Q.
2
3
DO YOU AGREE THAT AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE
DEEP INJECTION WELL ON MARC0 ISLAND?
A.
Yes. The used and useful percentage of the deep injection well on Marco Island
4
depends on the flow data that will be provided by SSU in the near future. Proper
5
adjustment may be made and filed to the Commission when necessary information
6
is provided.
7
According to the Late Filed Deposition Exhibits No. 4. 5. and 6 of Mr.
8
Tererro and Resuonse to OPC Document Request No. 289. the deeD iniection well
9
on
Marco Island is 37.24% used and useful. See Exhibit TLB-4 for the revised
10
'bit TLB-4.1 for effluent disoosal calculation
psed and useful wrcentapes. and Exh~
11
SUmmarV.
12
Q.
13
14
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THE
BURNT STORE WATER SYSTEM?
A.
Yes. I believe the capacity of the Burnt Store reverse osmosis water plant should
15
be 380 gallons per minute (gpm) instead of 333 gpm. The SSU response to Staff
16
Interrogatory No. 91 indicated that there are two membrane skids in service. Each
17
skid is rated for 167 gpm. However, this pure product water (1 67 gpm) is blended
18
with ten percent (10%) of the 223 gpm feed water. Therefore, the whole plant
19
output capacity should be as follows:
20
Total Capacity = 2 x [167 gpm + (1 0% x 223 gprn)] = 378.6gp1-h
21
However, at his deposition SSU witness Mr. Terrero confirmed that he considered
22
each skid to have a capacity of 190 gpm, resulting in a total capacity of 380 gpm
23
REVISED 5/3/96
1
for Burnt Store's xverse osmosis water plant. Proper adjustment has been made in
2
my used and useful calculation in Exhibit TLB-3.
3
Q.
TESTIMONY?
4
5
DID YOU PREPARE ANY USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS IN THIS
A.
Yes, I have recalculated the used and useful percentages for all water and
6
wastewater systems, according to my positions on the above issues. However,
7
some information was not provided by SSU,and I had to make many assumptions
8
in the calculations. For example, fire flow provision was not included because no
9
confirnation is available. Auxiliary power is normally designed to operate supply
10
wells in water systems. In wastewater systems, auxiliary power is usually designed
11
to operate the wastewater treatment plant.
12
All numbers filed by SSU were used, and assumed to be genuine and
13
correct. The calculated used and useful percentages of water and wastewater
14
systems are presented in Exhibit TLB-3 and Exhibit TLB-4, respectively. A
15
summary of calculation key and rationale is also included in Exhibit TLB-2.
16
However, these used and useful numbers are subject to change pending further
17
responses to discovery.
18
Q.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR PREFILED TESTIMONY?
19
A
Yes, that concludes my testimony filed on February 12, 1996.
24
EXHIBIT TLB-1
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS EXAMPLE
.
26
FIRE PROTECTION
EXHIBIT TLB-1
PAGE 1 of 6
PUMPING FOR DISTRIBUTION STORAGE
The two types of distribution storage-ground and elevated-have, in turn. two types
of pumping systems. One is a direct pumping system, in which the instantaneous system demand is met by pumping with no elevated storage provided. The second type is
an indirect system in which the pumping station lifts water to a reservoir or elevated
storage tank, which floats on the system and provides system pressure by gravity.
Direct Pumping
The direct pumping system is Quiterare todav.but some systems still exist. Variablespeed pumping units operated off of direct system pressure are also in use in some
communities. B d r o p n e u m a t i c tanks a t the pumping station provide some storage.
These tanks permit the pumping-station pumps to s t a r t and stop, based on a variable
system pressure preset by controls operating off of the tank.
Indirect Pumping
In an indirect system, the pumping station is not associated with the demands of the
major load center. I t is operated from the water level difference in the reservoir or
elevated storage tank, enabling the prescribed water.level.in the tank to be maintained. The majority of systems have a n elevated storage tank or a reservoir on high
ground floating on the system. This arrangement permits the Dumuine station to
operate a t a uniform rate, with the storage either making up or absorbing the difference between station discharge and system demand.
ANALYSIS OF STORAGE
Two variations of distribution storage design affect the operation and reliability of a
system's fire suppression capabilities. These two variations involve placement of the
storage between the supply point and the major load center or beyond the major load
center. An analysis of the following storage designs will be made in the remainder of
this chapter:
* system A-pumping
siation to major center of demand (load) with no elevated
storage tank;
* system B-pumping
station to major center of demand with a n elevated storage
tank between the supply and demand; and
system C-pumping station to major center of demand with an elevated storage
tank beyond the demand. '
-
Model System
The model system used in the analysis has the following characteristics:
Population = 27,000
Water demand rates
Average day-27,000 x 150 gpcd
= 4.0 mgd
M a x i m u m d a y 4 . 0 x 1.5
= 6.0 mgd
Maximum hour-6.0 x 1.5
= 9.0 mgd
= 7.2 mgd
Fire flow = 5000 gpm
Maximum 10-h rate
Maximum day and fire flow-6.0 + 7.2
= 13.2 mgd
Minimum pressure at major load center
= 50 psi
EXHIBIT TL
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STORAGE
dAGE
System pipelines are all expressed a s equivalent lengths of 24-in. pipe with a C factor
of 120. Hydraulic gradient is the slope of the line joining the elevations to which
water would rise in pipes freely vented and under atmospheric pressure.
System A-No
Storage
If no storage is provided in system A (Figure 3-11 a t a given demand rate, the pumping station hydraulic gradient must be sufficient to overcome system losses a t a
demand rate and maintain a minimum of 115 ft a t the major load center. Thus, the
pumping heads required to maintain 115 ft plus the head loss in 40,000 ft of
equivalent pipe for the various conditions are a s follows:
Demand Rates
Average day, 4.0 mgd--115 + (0.67 x 40)
Maximum day, 6.0 mgd--115 + (1.42 x 40)
Maximum hour, 9.0 mgd--115 + (3.0 x 40)
Maximum day and fire, 13.2 mgd-115 + (6.1 x 4 0 )
Figure 3-1 System A-hydraulic
Sradient with no storage.
Pumping H e a d R e q u i r e d
= 142 R
= 172ft
= 235 ft
= 359 ft
Of
28
EXHIBIT TLB-1
PAGE 3 of 6
FIRE PROTECTION
System &Storage
Ahead of Load Center
If, a s shown in Figure 3-2, a 1.75-mil gal storage tank is located 145 ft above the
datum plane and a t a distance of 35,000 ft from the pump station (5000 ft ahead of
the major load center), the pumping head of a given pumping rate must be sufficient
to pump against a head a t the storage tank and overcome system losses a t the pumping rate.
Average day. A t the average-day demand, the required pumping rate (no
water taken from storage) is 4 mgd. The pumping head required is equal to the
hydraulic gradient a t the tank plus the head loss in 35,000 ft of equivalent pipe a t
4 mgd, or 145 + (0.67 x 35) = 169 ft. The hydraulic gradient a t the load center is
the hydraulic gradient a t the tank minus the head loss in 5000 f t of equivalent pipe,
or 145 - (0.67 x 5) = 142 It.
M a x i m u m day. At the maximum-day demand, the required p u m p n g rate is
6 mgd (no water taken from storage). The pumping head required is equal to the
hydraulic gradient a t the tank plus the head loss in 35,000 ft of equivalent pipe a t
6 mgd, or 145 + (1.42 x 35) = 195 it. The hydraulic gradient a t the load center is
the hydraulic gradient a t the tank minus the head loss in 5000 R of equivalent pipe
a t 6 mgd, or 145 - (1.42 x 5) = 138 ft.
M a x i m V . h o u r . At the maximum-hour demand, the flow in the 5000 ft of pipe
between the tank and the load center must be 9 mgd. The hydraulic gradient a t the
load center is the hydraulic gradient a t the tank minus the losses in 5000 R of
equivalent pipe a t 9 mgd, or 145 - (3 x 5) = 130 ft. The pumping head required is
equal to the hydraulic gradient a t the tank plus the head loss in 35,000 f t of
equivalent pipe a t the chosen pumping rate. If 3 mgd is to be supplied from the tank.
center
Figure 3-2 System &hydraulic grad: .Its with storage between pump station and load center.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STORAGE
2gpAGE
EXPIBIT of
TLi
storage and the remaining 6 mgd is to~.besupplied from pumping, t h e pumping head
required is 145 + (1.42 x 35) = 195.ft (Figure 3-2).
M a x i m u m d a y plus f i r e flow. At the maximum-day demand plus the fire
demand, the flow in the 5000 ft of pipe between the tank and the load center must be
13.2 mgd. The hydraulic gradient a t the load center is the hydraulic gradient a t the
tank minus the head loss of 5000 ft of equivalent pipe a t 13.2 mgd, or 145 - (6.1 X
5) = 115 ft. If it is decided to supply 4.2 mgd from storage and pump the remaining
9 mgd, the pumping head required is equal to the hydraulic gradient at the t a n k plus
the head loss in 35,000 ft of equivalent pipe a t 9 mgd, or 145 + (3 x 35) = 250 ft.
D e m a n d Rates
Average day, 4.0 mgd-no water from storage
Maximum day, 6.0mgd-no water from storage
Maximum hour, 9.0 mgd-6.0 mgd from pumps
+ 3.0 mgd from storage
Maximum day plus fire flow, 13.2 mgd-9.0 mgd
from pumps + 4.2 mgd tank
System C-Storage
Pumping Head R e q u i r e d
= 169 ft
= 195 R
= 195 R
= 250
ft
Beyond Load Center
In the arrangement shown in Figure 3-3, 1.75 mi1,gal of storage is provided 5000 f t
beyond the load center (45,000 ft from the pump station) a t a n elevation of 119 ft
above the datum plane. When no water is being taken from storage a t a f$ven
demand rate, the pumping head must be sufficient to pump against the head a t the
tank and overcome losses between the pump station and the load center a t that
demand rate. When part of the demand is being supplied from storage, however, the
pumping head need only be sufficient to pump against the head a t the load center and
overcome losses in the pipeline between the pump station and t h e load center.
Average day. At the average-day demand, the required pumping rate is 4 mgd
(no water taken from storage). The pumping head required is equal to the hydraulic
gradient a t the tank plus the head loss in 40,000 f t of equivalent pipe, or 119 +
(0.67 x 40) = 146 ft. The hydraulic gradient a t the load center is thus identical to
t h a t a t t h e tank (119 ft).
Maximum day. At the maximum-day demand, the required pumping rate is
6 mgd (no water taken from storage). The pumping head required is equal to the
hydraulic gradient a t the tank plus the head loss in 40,000 ft of equivalent pipe a t
6 mgd, or 119 + (1.42 x 40) = 176 R. The hydraulic gradient a t the load center is
identical to that a t the tank (119 ft).
M a x i m u m hour. If, a t the maximum-hour demand (9 mgd), it is decided to
supply 3 mgd from storage and the remaining 6 mgd from pumping, the hydraulic
gradient a t the load center is the hydraulic gradient a t the tank minus the head loss
in the 5000 f t of pipe between the tank and load center a t the storage discharge rate
of 3 mgd, or 119 - (0.4 x 5) = 117 ft. The pumping head required is equnl to the
hydraulic gradient a t the load center plus the head loss in 40,000 It of equivalent pipe
a t 6 mgd. 117 + (1.42 x 40) = 174 ft.
M a x i m u m d a y plus fire flow. In order to maintain a head of 115 ft.at the load
center, the flow in t h e 5000 ft of pipe between the load center a n d the tank cannot
exceed that at which t h e head loss is 4 R, which is 4.2 mgd. Thus the remainder of the
demand (9 mgd) must be supplied from pumping. The pumping head required is equal
to the hydraulic gradient a t the load center (115 ft) plus the head loss in 40,000 R of
equivalent pipe, or 115 + (3 x 40) = 235 R.
~
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM STORAGE
EXHIBIT TL.
31 PAGE 6 O f
Comparison of System B With System C
In comparing storage located between the source and the load center with storage
located beyond the load center, t h e examples illustrate that a n increase in height is
necessary if the storage is between the source and the load center. TO secure
approximately equivalent pressure results, the flow line of storage in the first
instance must be 26 R (145 ft - 119 ft) higher than if the storage feeds back to the
load center from a point beyond.
Pumping heads are substantially lower under all rates of flow and pressure is
more uniformly regulated, if t h e storage is located beyond the load center. The area
served is substantially greater and the pressures a r e better regulated by storage
located beyond the load center than by storage located between the pumping station
and the load center. The additional height of 26 R for the storage tank and the
additional pumping head under all rates of flow make system B more costly- when
considering initial capital cost and substantially higher operating costs for electricar
power.
Recommended Design
.
System C, using a-1.75-mil gal elevated storage tank beyond the major load center, is
the recommended design, because it provides the necessary water demand flows a t
reasonable pressures. This system is also the most cost-effective design for capital
costs and operating costs.
The design chosen is based on replenishing, within the 24 h during which a
major fire occurs, all water taken from storage for fire fighting. The maximum
.required pumping head would be reduced from 235 R to 182 R if all water used for
fire fighting (7.2 mgd) was provided by storage, and the pumps would only have to
operate a t 6 mgd. If the system was so designed, however, the tank would have to be
raised 6 R in order to maintain 115 ft of head at the load center, and the fire storage
would have to be increased to 3 mil gal. Fire.storagewould then amount to 50 percent
of the maximum day and 75 percent of the average day, and that much storage might
not be economically justified. On the other hand, if the storage is not provided, a n
additional 3 mgd of pumping capacity is required and the production nnd supply
works must also be capable of increased output, unless finished-water storage is
provided ahead of the pump station. Therefore, an economic and engineering study
should generally be made to determine the most eflicient way to provide the required
capacity.
References
1. Wafer Disfribufion Operator Training
Handbook. AWWA. Denver, Colo.
(!976).
2. COTE. A.E. &
LINVILLE.
J.L., eds. Fire
Protection Handbook. National Fire
Protection Association. Quincy, Mans.
(16th ed.. 1986).
3. F m , G.M. ET AL. Wafer and Wasrewofer Engineering. John Wiley nnd
Sons. Inc.. New York (1966).
4. STEEL.
E.W. & MCCIIEE.T.G.' Wnrur
Supply arid Scwera#e. McCmw-Hill
Book Co.. New York (1979).
EXHIBIT TLB-2
KEY AND RATIONALE
FOR
OPC USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
EXHIBIT TLB-2, Page 1 of 6
KEY AND RATIONALE FOR OPC USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
1.
- s
A.
Small System (without high service pumps):
Used & Useful % = PHFlReliable Capacity (w/o f r e flow provision)
= (MDF
+ FF)/Reliable Capacity (w/ fire flow provision)
Rationale ---- Well pumps function as high service pumps.
Therefore,
according to "10 States Standards", at least two pumping units
shall be provided. With any pump out of service, the remaining
pump or pumps shall be capable of providing the maximum daily
pumping demand of the system. It is not economically justified
to use PHF+FF as design flow. A peaking factor of 1.3 is
applied to MDF where PHF is used in the calculations.
B.
Large System (with high service pumps and storage):
Used & Useful Yo = MDF/Total Capacity or ADFlReliable Capacity,
Whichever is greater.
Rationale ---- ADF/Reliable Capacity is used because the percentage is
generally greater than MDFnotal Capacity. Reliable capacity
should be applied once to high service pumps, not to other
facilities also. The chance of having a well and a high service
pump breakdown or to be out of service simultaneously is very
slim. "10 States Standards" states that "the total developed
groundwater source capacity shall equal or exceed the design
maximum day demand and equal or exceed the design'average
day demand with the largest producing well out of service."
Notes: 1.
PHF
=
Peak Hourly Flow; MDF
=
Avg. 5 Max Day Flows in Max
Month; ADF =Annual Avg. Day Flow; FF = Fire Flow. However,
REVISED 5/3/96
EXHIBIT TLB-2, Page 2 of 6
flow Drovisions were allowed onlv for those svstems that had verified
fire flows.
2.
Water flow was adjusted for excess unaccounted for water.
3.
No margin reserve was included in OPC's calculations.
11. HIGH SERVICE PUMP
Used & Useful % = (MDF + FF)/Reliable Capacity
or PHF/Reliable Capacity (no fire protection)
Rationale ---- It is not economically justified to use PHF + FF as design flow, per
AWWA M31 (p.16). Reliable capacity should be used per "10 States
. .
.
Standards." No fire flow was applied at this time. It may be included
pending future discovery response. For systems with elevated storage
tanks like Keystone Heights and Lehigh, the peak hour demands are
provided by elevated tanks.
111.
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Used & Useful % = MDFRotal Capacity
Rationale ---- The chance is very small to have a high service pump and a part qf
treatment facilities to be out of service at the same time.
VI.
m I S H E D WATER STORAGE
Used & Useful YO= (1R ADF + FF)Rotal Capacity (with fire flow
provision)
or ADFRotal Capacity (without fire flow protection)
Rationale ---- AWWA M32 suggests that equalization storage is about 20 to 25
percent of the average day demand. Fire storage shall be included if
fire flow is provided. Emergency storage is an owner option.
---- "10 States Standard requires fire flow storage where fire protection
REVISED 5/3/96
EXHIBIT TLB-2, Page 3 of 6
is provided.
The minimum storage capacity for systems not
providing fire protection shall be equal to the average daily
consumption (ADF). This requirement may be reduced when the
source and treatment facilities have sufficient capacity with stand by
power to supplement peak demands of the system. Emergency
____
storage is not mentioned in this reference.
SSU uses a peaking factor of 2 and 4 hours of peak durition to
calculate peak hour storage or equalization storage. This is a pure
empirical method. SSU also requests 8 hours of ADF as emergency
storage for some water systems, but no detail explanation was
____
provided.
OPC believes fire storage should be included where fire protection is
provided. Fire flow storage was not included because SSU has not
confirmed the provision of fire protection
Fire flow is assumed
stored in ground storage tanks and delivered through high service
Pumps.
When the system is furnishing fire flow, a half day ADF
storage is used. That is more than adequate for peak hour demand
storage compared with 20 to 25% ADF mentioned in the AWWA
M32. The volume of a half day ADF is also close to SSU's empirical
method calculated. The excess storage can be considered as a
provision for emergency storage. The one day ADF storage criteria
used in "10 States Standards" was reduced to one half day because
MDF design flow is used for supply wells, treatment plant and high
service pumps. Fire storage will be included if it is confimied.
No emergency storage was included because it is not yet
confirmed by the original design or other supporting documents.
Total capacity is used because SSU used more than 10% for dead
storage without confirmation. Dead storage is not applicable to
..
EXHIBIT TLB-2, Page 4 of 6
elevated storage tanks.
K
V.
Used & Useful % = 1
1
)
Hydro Tank Capacity
Rationale ---- Hydropneumatic tanks are usually used in very small water systems
with groundwater supply wells as " 10 States Standards" stated. When
serving more than 150 units, ground or elevated storage should be
provided.
The sizing criteria is ten times the capacity of the largest well
pump. The information filed is not clear on some supply wells
especially for large systems because two wells were assumed out of
service. However, the largest well capacity is still assumed to be the
difference between total capacity and reliable capacity of supply
wells.
VI.
A.
AUXILIARY P O WR
Water System:
Used & Useful % = (In MDF)/(lR Total Capacity) = MDF I Total
Capacity
Rationale ---- This a FDEP requirement per Chapter 62-555.320, F.A.C. SSU
cannot provide proper capacity information of auxiliary power,
therefore, the used and useful percentage of supply wells was used
because the cost of auxiliary power is booked under the Source of
Supply as Power Generation Equipment.
B.
Wastewater System:
Used & Useful YO= ADF of Max. Monthflotal Capacity
Rationale ---- FDEP has no specific requirement. Since SSU cannot provide proper
EXHIBIT TLB-2, Page 5 of 6
capacity information to specific equipments, the same used and useful percentage of
WWTP was used for auxiliary power.
VII.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Used & Useful % = ADF of Max. MonthiTotal Capacity
Rationale ---- Though the capacity permitted is annual ADF, OPC agrees to use"
ADF of the maximum month because that is the PSC policy.
Note:
VIII.
Wastewater flow was adiusted for excess infiltration.
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL AND EFFLUENT REUSE FACILITY
Used & Useful YO= ADF of Max. MonthiTotal Capacity
Rationale ---- Same as WWTP.
Note: Since no effluent reuse data was yet provided, the same used and useful
percentage also was used for effluent reuse facilities for the following
systems: Amelia Island, Deltona Lakes, Florida Central Commerce Park,
Lehigh, Marco Island, Point OWoods, and University Shores.
IX.
WATER DISTFUBUTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATF.R COLLECTION
SYSTEM
Used & Useful % = Lots ConnectedITotal Lots Available
Rationale ---- See direct testimony.
X.
FLOWS AN D LOTS PROJECTIONS OF 1996
A. Water System:
MDF of 1996 = (ERCs of 1996ERCs of 1994) x Avg. 5 Max. Day of 1994
REVISED 5/3/96
EXHIBIT TLB-2, Page 6 of 6
B. Wastewater System:
ADF of Max. Month in 1996 = (ERCs of 1996ERCs of 1994) x ADF of
Max. Month in 1994
C. Water Distribution and Wastewater Collection Systems
Connected Lots of 1996
=
(ERCs of 1996ERCs of 1994) x Connected Lots
of 1994
.
EXHIBIT TLB-3
OPC USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
OF
WATER SYSTEMS
2,110,842
1.933.972
1.727.071
1.2%.n7
, T I
2f.N
lo.m
41 ~ S U P P L V A N WYU
D
NG:
12 &lupphw*h:
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
1
5.w
2.945
WA
NIA
2 . a
WA
5.675
WA
WA
4.000
WA
WA
2.4W
1.xx)
sm
WA
1.95O
1.450
NIA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
1m.mu
lm.m
1W.aW
WA
NIA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
150.000
1.m.000
280,953
2O.W
70.00%
NIA
WA
WA
WA
12.500
Loox
m
WA
WA
WA
WA
15.m
40.00%
81
1m.m
1mom
jm m
wu
wu
WA
WA
WA
3.m
s1.m
WA
25.000
WA
imam
WA
8 . M
1m
1m.m
WA
imam
135000
mnn
75 mu
1mWUr.
15.000
ll.UU
m
im mu
lWMU
U USED AND USEFUL CALCULATONS
w.r
E B C m m
1.m
1.1.924
72
73
74
1995
1995 5
3-
181
160
916
941
%1
mu
wl
E B C E B C
63
64
%
2.n~
2.660
vmr
m
ss
M
w
sm
1%
i.mi
m
2.799
3.0711
1%
153
1.m
3.401
3.536
3.642
103
2.m
69
70
71
2.449
1%
3.749
110
2.027
2 . 1 ~
2.315
161
157
1.m
I.043
n
92
94
107
mu
wu
E E m
5a3
581
597
651
724
767
793
1120
e7
%
109
118
126
137
142
147
mu
m
&?5
€53
569
679
692
707
714
721
REVISE0 yy96
EXHIBIT
nu
P**
2611
1 ,934MAX DAV FOR YEAR .GPO1
2 1AVG U U 6 Om IN MAX YONT* (GPDI
3 1WAVGMAX5OAYSINMAXUOM*lGPDl
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
4520
O m 0
21.7oY
NIA
1 W m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NJA
N
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
m.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
23W
212W
1517%
~
urn
tmm
1 W m
3 7 m
<WW%
7.m.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
mmu
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
8.m
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
i w m
1m.m
NIA
25.W
1OO.mX
55.00%
1.1192
1.764
76
y6
1.840
324
11,667
100.00%
1U2Y
2 1 m
74
91
83.62%
1m.m
1m.m
~ 7 1 %
1m.m
tm.m
1m.m
1m.m
i w m
A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2yi
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
0
1WDoy
iwmu
i W m
MIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
17.m
Y).m
3.m
UJ7%
7o.m
i w m
~ w . m 1m.m
23.327
U.M
lLuX
05
73.73%
1m.m
n
3.w
.).MU
@.M t m m
-.am i m m
NIA
7.m
*67%
247
247
247
27.672
1-
imm
5s
59
59
23.W
124
124
124
n
5.m
1m.m i m m
*m.m% i w m
NIA
M opCc*orw.aUMLUUhlIYI
61 U 6 U P r O m r W
62 SSURN+mludUiU(Xl
i w m
I
WA
NIA
54 NMbwdLIx.
m
250
NIA
1MO.Lu5
64.12%
up
2 4
m
250
1m.m
twmx
Nm
3.m
W.wX
4 . m
57.66%
iwm
i w m
%MU
i w m
in
174
175
21d
8270%
1 w . m
1m.m
Q
ma
E
333
u6
19%
19% 5
trn
68wef
K
E
K
1.719
1.810
228
1.064
340
1.W
348
1,-
348
up
3u
2.021
2.w
2078
mM
E
65
K
W"
E
K
136
65
133
ea
130
70
72
74
75
76
130
.
131
131
13,
131
E
wu
K E
K
23.~4
n.651
n
n
n
24.301
24.8%
25.614
25.w
3,279
75
75
75
75
75
n.1~0
Val#
Val#
E
K
ll3
331
uo
xu
331
331
331
331
w*r
E
t
K
1M
170
170
173
175
178
in
178
mtr
E
K
1110
180
181
1M
162
182
182
183
wma
a
c
119
121
123
125
124
127
128
128
REVISED YYOB
....
..
OK USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
ma-T
Plmt.
fd Cm
L.*
No
950.95WS
c m w y soumm S B I IJmD..
-*NO
Jst*hlbV.rErdM
Rqc(.dPI
FPSC U
1%
iM1R6
n h [XI,
FPSC W n l t o r m
[XI
1 199. MAX OAV FOR Y€AR (GPO)
AVG MAX 5 DAIS IN MAX M W W (GPD)
3 199. AVG UU5 DAYS IN MAX MONTH (GPO)
58.703
41.680
41.680
26.751
26.751
2 1-
4 1~ANNUUAVGD*KYFLOWlGPDl
0
BS.1M
50.427
37.1120
14.603
10.952
0
a
7.5%
1.55
lorn
4.363
wyd
4.363 I n n m t s
0
0
17.65
9.3%
ram
9.35
7.w
6.525
5.m
2.271
2.019
0
0
9.6%
9.8%
99.500
134.731
93.m
30.119
34.1193
0
0
1 0 0 . ~ 100.00%
1W.m
S
S
S
5a
Mo
L12%
lm.m
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
im.w%
NIA
NIA
NIA
1007%
imwn
lyyl
853
500
NIA
WA
NIA
l.m
8.65%
1WW%
1WwY
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
im.m
NIA
WA
a
1m.m
3.m
378398%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
m.OOO
NIA
NIA
0
tm.m% i m . m immu
1m.m ~ m . m 1 m . m
WA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
WA
NJA
NIA
NIA
NIA
0
1W.op1
WA
WA
WA
L
iw.wn
1m.m
240
120
37.16%
6360%
95855
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
NI&
NIA
WA
NIA
NJA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
0
98%
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
20.043
0
,lo
0
S
140
iwm
40.403
49,403
XU3
S
Joq
0
L
La
50.m
9115
m
1222.h
0
4 . 3 ~
L
1m.m
23.078
23.078
4.3%
Mo
0
5.903
%.%a
%.%a
0
7.6%
7.6%
S
1m.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
50.m
NIA
NIA
WA
23.033
m . 7 ~
U.5R
NIA
NIA
18,003
U.1W
1Mm*
%MU
NIA
NIA
1 W W
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
im.m
imm
NIA
NIA
13.m
18.92%
lm.m
4.W
3.m
NIA
NIA
NIL.
immn
NIA
1m.m
imam
im.mu
imm
?mmn
mr
WLr
mu
mr
NIA
10.033
lo.m
15.m
imm
1m.m
1m.m
w.u
warn
EEc
EEc
.
2
6
1%
1%
18
24
33
37
1%
40
1%
0
12.903
olrm*r
9,lW Purch.wd
9.lW
Fmm
im
lm.m
133
0
0
136%
3.1%
3.15
133
133
133
69.m
62.297
57W7
Y1a5-5
28.280
45000
1o.mn
im.m% tm.wu
1mm tmm
wd"
w
a
r
NIA
mu
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
sm
83.13%
NIA
NIA
6,m
tW.ooU
5.m
t0.m
tmm%
immx
3.000
YI7X
~0.m 7590%
E E c E f s E E c E f s E B c E f g F d 173
x
112
90
91
96
98
1m.
105
107
21
20
21
21
m
XI
m
20
118
116
6
6
117
II
119
119
119
II
II
9
120
im
9
9
38
66
%
108
62
62
110
139
61
61
146
158
61
62
61
tn
172
173
1 76
176
176
176
..
..
..
136.190
116.250
110,590
61.537
1o1.m
54.626
40.101
0
1t8U
21 7%
0
0
22.3%
low
tom
(0.0%
0
w.mn
76.380
mm
656.W
m1.r
n 9 . 1 ~ ~~wmu.((
6
PM
F m
e,
~
%,laLumrrmw
*.UL
.
4 F-~
Bnrmf
c-ol
0
1.3%
1.3%
24 5%
10.0%
5 2%
5~2%
11.8%
lo.m
S
S
S
L
S
c
S
325
150
a5.14%
43.20%
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
325
75
yo
160
13.35%
5630%
5630%
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
1.230
680
WA.
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
41.91%
1m.m
tm m
imm
33.93%
im MU
Im m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
3.m
NIA
NIA
61.33%
87.93%
mmn
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NiA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NJA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
60.42%
NIA
NIA
im.m%
imwu
5.m
10,003
18.00%
NIA
WA
nmu
Nm
55.00%
7I30X
NIA
1WMU
m
113
113
113
287
85.197,
61.-
135
u.7a
1W.m
991
979
w4
1.613
59.12%
Sa.-
%.us
iw.m
-a%. r m m
3.m
lW.00%
60.00%
im.m% i m . m
imm 1mm
imMu
2u
xl
241
243
249
257
241
ne
3.W
73.3%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
33.93%
4710%
7091%
UMWllDI*
UN".ItSM
1m.W-h
52
53 USED AND USEFUL CUCULAllONS
W*.,T""unUa
LOhbibda s
34 &h.duh F - 7 m
3
7 5 m
NIP.
30.m
27.450
NIA
NI&
NIA
55.m
~ m m
NIA
44.m
UA
NIA
im.wy
NIA
im.m%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
lMMU
NIA
NIA
1O.m
NIA
NIA
m
95
e5
95
125
78.00%
1m.m
rm.m
113
112
52
52
113
52
53
u.07~ sS.11~
1 W m
70.m
1m.m
7o.m
166
1m.m
1 M . m
1m.m
n.9m
U.m
4
mt.r
rmr
www
E G E G E G E G r e c
rmw
91
111
n
116
91
116
112
95
%
114
96
96
115
115
%
115
51
52
51
51
5 2
52
52
52
2%
241
242
243
243
.
245
245
24s
252
2m
2 s
239
247
ns
2n
162
265
267
9
~
61
61
61
'
68
89.71%
1WWU
rm"
wmr
fBc
rmr
umr
235
240
2 u
(12
113
113
112
113
113
113
*13
1.148
1.140
1.152
1.167
61
1.173
1.l79
61
EG
242
243
217
218
219
EG
<.in3
1.187
rec
60
59
60
61
61
6,
REVISED YMB
-Y"rE-
1u11196
Rq.d.d1.
FPSC Unlmrm [XI, FPSC NDFUnlfDm 1x1
1 1% MAX DAY FOR YEAR IGPD)
2 19N AVO MAX 5 DAVS IN MAX MWTH (GPO)
3 3 9 9 4 AVG W 5 DAYS IN W MONTH (GPO)
4 3 9 N ANNUALAVG DULVFLoWIc(PDI
1c5.010
131.(80
91.514
49.350
36.01
4,.m
w.1w
31.603 PUOU.M
31.603
F m
17.940 Orurn0
i7.w~tii.canrn.
12.m
7.8220
7,620
2.251
2.251
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3a1.m
255.124
252.54
142.564
i 4 t . i ~
479.966
rm.173
1.058.m
972.926
5
0
.
m 403.171
S%.m
01.295
24.503 .135.W
1u.064 553.753
24.011
6
6
.
m
Idwc.2
116.639
115,603
73.370
72.592
51.229
0
0
0
0
9.1%
9.1%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
5.1%
5.1%
0.6%
06%
s 8%
14 7 u
9.8%
100%
L
2w
L
S
NIA
L
S
25
S
470
L
603
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
4w
27M
1W.0OY
NIA
NIA
1S.S5%
1,503
18.67%
1w
320
1M
0
57.07%
1w.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
15.m
i3.m
111
82
PB
1m
iwmu
US%
lmmu
NIA
NIA
101
112
120
7.7%
iix
2 9%
2 6%
L
L
NIA
1 Y a
m
.
12m
.
.
1W.w*
70.88%
NIA
WA
1CQOOU
1WCG?4
1WWX
1WMX
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
IUA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
r5.m
m.m
1.m,m
50.m
NIA
NIA
WA
13.m
567.123
9a),W
4
S
.
m
12
12
12
23
5a.im
1WWU
1WWU
3s5
252
247
518
518
518
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
25.000
n.m
61
84
67
67
73
s17fx
1WWU
1mW
84
84
282
279
2w
65
67
67
67
67
4.3%
4.3%
rwcm
1W.WU
€6
0
0
1 W W
NIA
65
0
0
NIA
NIA
54
14
0
0
0
NM
II.m
3n
89
0
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
4m
m.m
357.260
357.260
232.151
232.1~
89
u 3 l y
9707-
84
65
65
8 4
84
84
84
sa.=
302
1WWU
1W0OY
273
275
27n
. 2 0
281
282
253
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
391
393
413
SLUU
1WmY
XQWU
%
2 a
390
391
393
391
195
3n5
YY
a.18n
75mX
75WU
242
243
243
2 u
247
248
249
m
%.WU
am%
1WW.Y
YY
7070%
lWW%
410
405
an
432
432
U2
432
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
27W
2491
2901
12x2
639
nom
639
639
1167
7 3 m
3440%
65Ioy
.uII%
2.316
2.412
2.52s
2644
2,757
28-4
2.871
652M(
734
730
730
1%
734
734
734
REVISED 53%
OPC USED AND USEFUL U L C U U I n O N S
-1W u h F d0
mtn T-t
-996
I1994WDAYFORVEARiGPD)
2 1 S U AVG YAX 5 QAYS IN UAX YONTH (GPO1
3 199.AVGU5DAYSINUMONTHlGPDl
4 1998 ANNUAL AVG DULY FLOWIGPDI
5 1994ANNUALAVGD*ILY FLOWiGPDl
1yl.m
17.54
17.54
11.245
11.246
0
i i ~ . w 7~wbuse0
11l.Ka
F m
46.m Bmvd
45,658 Coum,
0
0
0
6.0%
7wFaOWPluMsumm
8 uNccumlml0lml.r L m ( 1x1
9 UnrsanUa l0lW N b # d i%l
n.ox
10
11 W C E DF SUPPLY AND PUYPlNG,
12 Ylpplywl.'
14
15
16
17
~nrim-~iopmi
R.4D*C8MaYlPpml
O P C ~ W W 6 U . * u l ( % )
U6UPurlUcxr
SSU R-W
U 6 U Wl
69.1194
18.415
17.025
71.773
11.654
4.433
4&WJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42%
9.8%
9.8%
12.4%
100%
I2.W
2.4%
2.4%
10.0%
4 2%
4.453
100%
83.1W
61,324
78.4~
39.071
37.676
0
0
174%
lO0%
793,WO
820.~99
67o.m
426.95
348,803
0
0
3?%
37%
S
L
S
5
S
s
eca
180
130
275
1150
0
0
100.mX
lW.W%
100.00%
26805
100
C7.uX
1W.m
100.001
6680%
1m
0
IW.00%
7W.m
NIA
120
lm.m
4.m
U.U%
1mm
lm.m
~~~
U.53%
1w.m
1mm
0
100.00%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
lo.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
u.00%
4.20%
1m.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
w
19.78%
NIP.
w m
NIA
1WWU
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
15.m
~~
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NtA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
Nm
18.c.m
16.Xx)
49.92%
n.M%
1W.m
5,WO
5a.w~
m.m
MOO%
30W%
tm.m% 1m.m
558
135
213
743
3.628
21.3~~
103
137
1.181
M U
EEG
140
140
143
145
191
195
1%
147
20'
203
46
46
149
im
xy
46
151
206
1.213
lWWU
YJW
6.30%
40.w
nax
w.s%
n.ux
urn
67.M
1m.m
6000%
1mmX
swam
1m.q
4
19
ea
34
.
18.c.m
i7.m
ate
u)
U
5.033
=.om
132
in3
€E8
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
137
31.
287
m u r
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
51
80
87
73
m.z% i m m
M
96
96
103
105
106
NIA
59
59
59
37
1.161
I M . ~
NIA
lMW%
1 . m
1mm
1.m
u.6m
NIA
NIA
NIA
l a w %
96
y1.70%
51.211~
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
SOU
io6
%.am
NIA
NIA
NIA
imm
8OOmY
Y
tm.m
1m.m
NIA
NIA
WA
~ m . m tmm
49
141
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
101
191
1oo.w~
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
206
42
85.71~
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
H*
3.m
5a.m
lWW%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
5M
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
145
141
H
36
~~~
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
36
1995
12.990
10.574
10.574
1 5 ~ 2
151.m
s
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
19955
1998
1IU.BW
lz.wm
41.7w
35.218
32.560
1996
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
73
74
146.m
174.771
19%
s
NIA
72
wma
%.l%
0
.5
46
1996
ea
im
100.00%
1mm
.5
.5
1996
S
NIA
61 U h U P . r O l b l % I
15%
425
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
59 Nunt.r.rD(LO1.
€4 OPC Cakuhma U M 6 W 1%)
1996
15%
m.m
6FmzsxwuoEAccwLolGu-~
13
1996
1,193
1,195
1.202
1.20.
1.20.
60
59
UI
59
59
1
a
130
123
135
136
1.205
1.206
59
59
139
140
w.m
1m.m
eyI
l.lW
1.252
1.415
1.574
1.653
1.732
REVISED yys6
..
.
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
99.W
132.oW
129.365
12O.Xa
U.M
77.22
y l . ~
52.699
71.w
0
25.816
1996
1996
1996
1996
P4.a- I4
FPSC U r n [XI.FPSC NohLlndmn 1x1
1 199. MAX DAY FOR YEAR (GPO1
2 1AYG MAX 5 DAYS IN MAX MONTH IGPDI
3 199. AVG MAX 5 DAYS IN YUMONTH (GPO)
4 im ANNUAL AYG DULY FLOW icw)
5 l ~ * N N U U A V G o U L Y F L o W l G P O I ,,.
6REESmRIOE*tCEP70D[)'
7!%7€RowpR-cGml.
.~.
6u.rran(.dum.1~~~1~)
~
s UM
I-
*ma
~ - 4 1%)
124,ooO
112.067
103.914
g0.7M
51.873
49.314
101,593
0
0
0
0
~
11.6n
10.W
0.6%
9 . 6 ~
L
M,W
B1.W
62.74C
1o.m
27.m
111.m
74.a
9.799
1u.m
112.W
45.728
2
2
.
m
5
0
.
m
31.224
U.372
0
1ro.m
u.m4
0.076
5.225
23.715
23,715
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.4%
io.^
10.W
10.0%
2 4n
0
16.2%
114.W
116.8SB
57.w
Y.321
0
0
62%
8 zn
S
S
L
L
S
4ca
e3
135
215
065
S
L
2 4n
147,003
m
5277%
imm
1mm
0
t00.m
1m.m
immx
n
0
65
100.00%
a5.56.h
100.00%
1m.m
25.70%
61.55%
lm.m
1M.m
tm.m
unmhbb
5277%
tm mu
rm CGn
W
2x1
28.UY
200
0
NIA
NIA
im.m
tm.m
im 00%
lm.m
lWW%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1m.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
lo.m
5 m
a.m
1200%
a5.m
41 mu
NIA
NIA
1 ~ 7 ~ 4
32 24%
u 91x
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
mom
imwn
immn
im m
170
167
169
215
257
172
166
169
535
J2(Wh
32.m
32.72%
181
155
150
X
345
114
Inmu
341
39
415
86.43%
7%78%
w%
7 9 . u ~ goan
we-
ma
a163c E F & a 171
c
319
171
173
1 s
1 s
1s
167
212
213
218
223
167
169
169
341
170
257
171
174
342
Y2
39
sz
.
1M
182
405
187
1M
117n
U.7W
47.75~
m
e
3
EK
1.1
*46
1a
151
155
150
160
161
NIA
WA
13.W
n.o~u
4"
92.m
1m.m
NIA
3.m
75.00%
war
160
4
5
.
m
4266%
m
M7
m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
3M
15.m
1m.m
217
169
NIA
NIA
NIA
+am mm
EK
WA
NIA
NIA
7.m
wH.r
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
(00.00%
1m.m
NIA
NIA
25.m
22.m
7 c m
1m.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
67 y)yI
immy
15
22
104
101
33s
150
10.
11s
us
129
7%
1%
131
124
ntix
nasn
anin
naw
15.00%
1mm
4400%
W . m
89923%
1m.m
411u
V u n n u r w u m r
E E
E K E K E g
0
6
15
16
15
10.
10.
10.
U9
343
113
1xl
123
347
124
Iy)
22
1M
10.
101
124
129
24
10.
26
101
357
359
355
tY)
131
..
1 lsDIM*XDAYFORYWR(GPOl
2 1AVO YAX 5 DAYS IN YAX YONTH IGPDl
3 1 0 0 1 A V G U * X 5 M Y S 1NWHONTHIGPOI
4 1
m ANNUAL AVG DULY FLOW (GPO1
5 1pSrANNWAVGoULYFLWIGPDl
0FRE8xIRIoEIccEpTmo
7 F W F L O W F U W W W @ Q W ..
8 ulyDrmM(o1vmnLnaw
sulyDrmMIo1wumini
202.m
,95.1(~
193.m
93.150
92.014
0.900
4.047
4.047
2,412
2.412
0
-.
0
0
0
3.6n
3.6~
2 in
2.1~.
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
15.m
0
7.3~
7.3%
47.81%
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
l.m
15.m
uxx
i w mu
imm
U.M
0
5
m
1m.m
1m.m
115
2
2
2
1.205
1.222
1.m
3
1.540
114
114
160
7~13%
70 my
mwn
72
73
74
19%
1905 5
1ns
07.7W
m . 7 ~
59.200
24.~6
23.460
0
0
42.m
24.-
n.mo
Xx).m
~ . i f i
%.go7
13.974
13.481
M.020
158.m
0.241
7.211
111.409
1C64S
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.1%
??.in
own
sa 8 n
4 . 1 ~
10.0%
l0.W
100%
140
NIA
1M
70
8.86%
NIA
31 15%
WA
WA
60
27.93%
1WOm
l W m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
58.87%
0
3.460
2,745
imwx
NA
I
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
U.33%
1.857.2W
15.700
1 . 6 0 9 . ~ ~ 8.727
0.727
1.796.7M
5.m
878.3~
5.m
LIu.156
0
D
WA
NIA
n.70~
50m
room%
M.W%
1m.m
26
26
26
U
49.m~
UIODU
5
0
m
NIA
&A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
to.sl%
NIA
1 w m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
t4,m
1wm
2.2%
1.203
9.51%
rmwx
NIA
403554
mom
uom
11.16~
1m.m
73 3ML
1 W W
15.m
lWO0Y
117
05
B
8
,w
7
7
619
n
n.n%
25
7l4U
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
1m.m
now
NIA
i w w
3s
1m.m
04
118
YI ann
2.m
1o.m
3yI
im.wn
122
S5.a
1m.m
l w . m
3,-
3181%
48.1wh
48 10%
8.oo.1
rm MU
116
6.0%
6 on
'
mwx
1.m
1m.wy
1WOm
11.
0
0
7.7~
71%
3.m
n.oo.1
r9.m
5.m
1m.m
i w . m
1.OU.134
m.m
16.m
12.m
5.m
1.m
Io.oo.1
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
2.06MJ
2.7~69
2.479.ux1
1,107,7€a
1a.m
WA
iwmu
MOM
10.m
67 owi
1 w m
601
2,032
2.333
2.m
0,252
S7.S7%
06 gox
6351%
nrOx
33 3%
856
31.89%
ma
W!"
m,r
WW
rmn
WU
w r
mUf
M U
Em
Em
E&
Em
E&
E&
Em
Em
154
150
161
156
162
162
163
164
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1.w
27
E&
1m
26
6
6
7
7
1
7
0
0
591
624
635
856
642
3.929
1.503
1.502
1.472
1.w
1.561
1,574
1.586
19
79
81
03
02
84
84
05
25
24
26
26
26
26
111
113
113
114
116
117
111
4.254
4%
4,ea
666
4.928
5.297
5,421
672
5.59
em
R M S E D yy96
'I
O K USED AND USEFUL U L C U U l K m S
-scmdulo F I P M
mn1-1Rnt
i
I996
1996
19%
1s.m
8.m
8.m
3.m
3.m
311.m
26s.m
289400
.
~~
159.5%
159.592
0
01
01
0
4m
4m
4m
4 on
L
S
1M.m
157.m
118.740
98.981
74,839
270.11101
2m1
54n
5.n
,
I
I
W.U
19%
1996
1,m.m
65.6M
s.m
1.775.m
45.7%
40.102 -P
1.%9.L)60
u.m
38.940
1.071.474
17.395
I
Syl.149
26.111
24.824
16.891
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133n
3 6n
2.9%
1996
1996
187.700
1U.257
151.911)
%..I2
%.a
(om
S
L
3 6n
0
6.9%
69%
z.sn
19%
19%
wm-
urn
%ma
F-
35 420
C-h
16 249
15 968
0
m
12.m
0
2m
10 m
2oU
S
L
S
S
310
296
.NIA
180
, L
im
110
NIA
0
4 w n
10.M
NIA
1W.om;
U M
29.80%
immn
Immu
%.mu
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
wn
100
UN".IUD*
4 1 . 1 ~ ~
1m
m
82XU
1m mu
immu
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
.
4
4
us
5.377
LOC*
am
491
DIIU
NIA
n.0.y
NIA
619
604
so7
4
614
..
4
6m
4
6m
602
4
4
M2
4
NIA
im
NIA
NIA
NIA
18.57%
NIA
55 8 7 n
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
. NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
137
129
107
1Y
106
106
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
14
523
3.m
(a
4%
11
13
40
5s
3.336
5s
3.574
135
139
223
130
132
E,%
671
n.un
man
man
EK
544
w
NIA
NIA
IUA
NIA
NIA
5.1m
TL51n
imoon
im.mu
w.ln
2ERG
.m
2.951
=74 .
545
3.233
3.54
3,748
n9
78
549
550
4.013
4,160
82
ya
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1.mn
immu
1m.mu
39
42
%
67
tmmn
NIA
NIA
w 4 m r w r w u w
E R G =
7.m
3.m
30.99%
7 2 m
WA
NIA
NIA
43s
43s
11.m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
3.400
NIA
2603
NIAl1(.12.*1
NIA
immn
NIA
9969%
ya
mu
544
ns
4.267
u
.
61.10~
s.1335
w.v
E&
123
129
133
1%
135
139
141
142
NIA
249
WA
NIA
NIA
105
167
~5 3 . ~ 4 U w n
im.m
-mu
n.mu
NIA
rmpa
1W.wn
1m.m
lmmu
w
e
t
WYI
m
ERG
E&
E&
117
rm
121
127
129
129
105
105
106
1 s
1%
107
136
137
1-
129
129
130
132
1%
06
137
1%
1M
I
. I
.
OPC USED AND USEFUL CALCUUnONS
w-1-1
Nnt .Sd!duh F d FM
I
I
2
!-I
Woo(.nr
19%
1.479.m
1.4e3.718
1.398.OXl
19%
8.120
8.1155
7.792
91,187
0.Ka
3.114
9,982
W.25e
0
2,740
0
9.m5
0
0
?a6%
S.94
S.94
0
5.m
15%
19%
l--q
5.m
19%
1M.W
2.7U.m
2.769.W
2.610.4%l
1.~115.265
1,711,032
121.m
(IIyI.133
100%
19%
19%
13 5%
100%
1996
229.W
98.603
132.115%
so.yo
126.W
39,711
37.219
39.163
37.162
0
0
0
0
172%
100%
126%
100%
s
S
L
S
S
s
S
25
0
im
4.700
2.200
NIA
2W
1m.m
1Oo.mn
1m.m
55.m
8
3
.
m
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
-50
375
31.15%
NIA
mu
1 W W
1m.m
9214%
NIA
NIA
3.100
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
74m
44m
U0W.I
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
L
3.m
1.m
44.04%
4830%
100
som
2.m
3
G
m
.
1mmu
1mmu
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
4
5
5
m
409.m
m..Iy
1mmu
immu
lo.m
lOo.m*
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NU
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
3.m
W . W
NIA
1M.m
3.311
2 s
218
225
219
WA
60 1%
1WOU
m
NIA
NIA
25
22
1.172
1.1-
24
im.mn
U.Qy
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1.1%
NIA
NIA
NIA
1.m.m
1.085.4m
U.3WyI
NIA
..
NIA
NIA
NIA
,
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
17.10%
NiA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
7.515
7.085
7.287
6.725
1W.o.mx
mom
NIA
1m.m
51.25%
2.940
3.168
7.171
U.ll%
NIA
4&lpx
U.U%
-.nu
NIA
m
mr
E,%
E,%
E,%
1.m
17
18
2.m15
3.087 o
3.3%5
3,450 8
34790
3,746 2
38321
2025
216 5
m
24
24
25
tun
1,470
e.m
d&B8%
NIA
1W.W
NIA
m7 m
m
1.427
NIA
NIA
uim
€E
21
NIA
WA
159
151
19
250
wor
,a
NIA
NIA
>:.
52
1.w
1
NIA
NIA
NIA
E,%
1.244
1.277
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
5.3 93%
NIA
NIA
NIA
1m.m I
NIA
1Wmu
NIA
NIA
50.mn
NIA
im
w.ux
83 2%
NIA
NIA
NIA
..
NIA
NIA
imw
WA
NIA
NIA
1.m7
tm.m
I
NIA
75 mu
1.m mu
9
8
.
m
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
imm
1mm
0
n
517
~
__
7.075 0
7.27~13
7.3958
7.5475 9
39180
mo
n5
2263
1m 5
241.3
107 5
2% 3
112 0
1153
117.
1195
269 6
276 4
2832
wor
€E
1390
141 0
1
u5
tu 5
1600
153 3
166 0
160 7
R M S E D yM6
y4.W 1 , 7 1 1 , m 11.671.mO NWMN
317.003 1.727.€45 10.439.240 R.buul
m
.
6
0
0 1.€61.m9,024,600
Fmm
oB.945 1.371.878 6.uM.319 nm0M.l
91.378 T.319.M 8.lBB.U9 WNn
~
~
1 1sOIHUOAVFOR~lGPOl
2 tm AVG Y U 5 VAYS IN Y U YONTH (GPO1
3 tsOIAMjHU5OAISINU*XYOUTUlGPOl
4 1ANNUAL AVG DULV fLOW (GPO)
5 1FYANNU/U AVG M l L Y FLOWIGPOI
~.
8
~
7 FREFLowPRoyLpDN(ERI)
,..
8 -u
tw w m L& (xi
O U r U m a n M f W W ~ I U l
."aQ!mGwFHI
im.on
tosn
1o.oz
lo.m
4.m
8.6%
4.0%
8.8%
S
L
L
~7.780
06,041
n.nc
5.0%224,7w
52.534
210.m
49.~0
21e.m
37.453
24,453
%.M
23.053
0
0
133.344
lU.Y
0
0
15.5~
1o.m
19.8%
tom
0
0
~
497n
lo.m
I"
11
PPLV AN0 PuMPING:
12 .upphlw
1
.
:
13
14
15
16
17
ToUlCaFadYlrnl
R.lbbCg.unIrn1
OPC l3wht.d U M 6 UulUlIYI
U6UPvOldUIU)
SSU RwUI1.d U 6 U 1%)
S
L
S
S
NIA
WA
40
160
1.1w
0
n.oon
WA
~0o.w.
WA
WA
NIA
90
Y.YU
NIA
1wm
1wm
1wm
Mo
NIA
NIA
220
28.65%
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1.736
1.736
WA
NIA
66.m
6.944
6.944
100.00%
7824%
7624%
loOOm
lWm*
NIA
15.m
1O.m
45.-
NIA
1mm
lWmU
9)
5.m
5.577
.
87
90
252
Y.NIA
37.73~
1w.m
5.M1
7.70
74.un
NIA
n.17n
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NI4
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
,mom
1mDm
6.m
5.71~
5.-
216
m1
rm.mn
a,
65
70
87
x4
210
~mwu
WA
1m.m
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
l.m
5.m
w.op* 1w.w*
NIA
WA
14.014
43.41%
NIA
NIA
twm
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
u.eP*
350
sznn
WA
im.m
1%
122
126
la,
7zo.n
WA
7 4 . 0 ~
NIA
lm.m
323
m
m
yo
n.00%
WA
%.m
n m N w l u m w a h m 9 r m r m t r
E K E B C m m
e70
0 6
909
02.3
0.128.0
8 . a5
8,471 5
8.6680
8.891.5
9.C636
9.1587
9.2536
12.915.5
13.795.0
14.195
14.1360
13.9830
14.4736
14me
14,708.1
1%.3
xY.3
211 5
2196
.me
rY.0
m.6
2424
EBC
24.5
28.0
m
m
1220
1257
1275
lrl.4
3230
US
485
658
71.1
76 3
81.5
3230
3230
323.0
W
EXHIBIT TLB-3.1
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW TESTS RECORDS
OF
SSU WATER SYSTEMS
AND
OPC FIRE FLOW ALLOWANCE
I
180,wO
no.1w
1l0,wo
no.wo
*Po0
2.158
2,168
1.m
2.w0
1.123
18O.W
l.m
3
16
17
GPMalllcw
.
18
19 Ylnlmum:
HWmlNumkr
20
21
D a s M F W
u rMeoroay
23
24
25
26
21
SutrPreuuce
RnidWlR.uura
PRnPICwn
GPM~W
1.062
1.788
.
-an
Elvd.
lRM5
M
32
10
Ma
531
moo0
1.189
lM.W
2.m
2
1.m
2
1.w
3.805
1.135
1.8M
yloyl Cypre 6 Her
11m2
21:OS
52
20
10
uo
nla
Nil
50
14
Ma
630
458
uo
571
1.123
2.168
1.189
2.150
270.000
2.m
2 25
141.~~4
1,182
1,182
z40.m
mm
21o.m
2.m
2
2.m
2
4Mo
4
44-46
2.374
4.032
2,wO
1.972
38
M
52
.m
1.135
1.730
1.210
1
2.2w
Camrll FYI.
MYg5
izims
,va
Na
50
56
40
32
w*
950
670
2.1w
263
16
635
3.524
n1.m
1,214
3214
1Caom
3 0 Tgemil Cl.
1 1 ~ ~ 1 77 n i m
12:W
13.25
55
74
9
54
8
44-46
475
1.102
420
2.397
28
.~
2¶ *".rap.:
30
31
2,150
1.182
1.972
3.214
.
.
..
.
.
:.
1
. , .
-
._.
. .
. .
_ . -
EXHIBIT TLB-4
OPC USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
OF
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
'.
Opc
USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
W u S r Tn.tm.nl
Plan1
Sch.dub f4 (SI
Docxet No.05o(sWs
w
y
: SMkan sut, w*. 1°C.
16%
S b l e d u k Y a r E M l d : 12~31196
19%
1996
19%
16%
19%
16%
1996
19%
T M W
w e d 1x1
L”c FPSC U n m [XI
6 Nohunlmm [i
1
bY
AltDmrnte
NO.
1 PERMITED PLANT CAPACITY (GPO1
1 7 . m sphpr
1.780.m
844464
17.m
12.m
NIA
NIA
1.780.wO
7W.323
811.480
12.003
NIA
848.550
9
5
O
m
.
9M.m
2 EFFLUENT OISPOSM CAPACITI (GPO1
3 1994 AVG DAILY FLOW OF UAX MONTH (GPO1
4 1996 AVO DAILY FLOW Of yu( MONTH (GPO)
5 R-r
m 0% Dos. Rewert NO. 279
8 EXCESS ImlvwlMnmOn (%I. by EPA 0ua.lirer
7 EXCESS INFLOWIINFILTRATION(GPO1
307,392
0
64.37%
94.30%
70.59%
6980%
70.59%
10.59%
89.80%
WA
94.W
1W.00%
70.59%
NIA
38.4%
15.m
15.m
8.194
6.072
25O.wO
2
E
4
m
.
135.w
1S3.394
1w.m
lw.m
64.m 2w.m
61.m 2w.m
42.226
43.186
a.323
49.055
134,033
135.366
0
0
76.65%
71.00% 1 W . a
71.00% 1W.W%
51.60%
89.51%
U.W%
71.00%
7l.W%
76.85%
1W.W
lW.W%
67.68%
51.80%
69.51%
135
134
132
155
135
6n4
680
677
9.63%
87.10%
e . 2 ~ m.sn
87.UX
25.9%
0
2.122
0
0
W&
47.67%
40.48%
01.38%
U.19%
NIA
WA
62.-
39.60%
48.WH
lW.00%
5462%
85.97%
47.67%
89.80%
lW.W%
40.48%
61.35%
39.BOX
48.00%
Y.82%
85.97%
8
9P
T D E W SA L
10 T n R m m t Plant:
11 OPC C a b b l e d Used 6 U x t v l (%I
12 U 6 U P u D r & r ( % l
13 SSU RqUeSlM U 6 U 1%)
14 Ernwntois-l:
15 OPC m
h
M
l Used 6 UIChrl(%l
16
17
lWW%
64.37%
U6UPuDda(%l
SSU R q e M U 6 U (%I
NIA
87.68%
16 RM.fr((ltlr:
,.
..
19
OPC W P I M Used 6 Uretul 1%)
m ssu R
21
~ U ~ u
M6 u (%I
-
~
2 2 Auxlllay P o l r
UMMhMD
47.07%
100.00%
CIpUtl (GPO). M( PmndM
OPC Caku!Med Used 6 Useful (%I
SSU R W e d U 6 U 1%)
23
24
25
26
27 USEDANDUSEFULCALCULATIONS
wu-le,
cC4Wtlon sy.1.m
28 SCMdUI. f d ( S )
29
3
0
W
AT N
D
S YSTEM PUMPING P UN T
31 COnlycW LOO In 1996 WO Y.R.
1.150
111
163
3,085
45
418
32 Cwmcled L o u il 1994 w/ M.R.
1.363
111
163
2.917
45
385
33 C m n W L o u ill994 w b M.R.
1.273
2.467
111
195
163
168
2.w
45
62
371
4.347
Sn.7ln
M.OZ%
86.70%
9 3 . 7 ~
9 3 . 7 ~
s.su iw.00~
17.09%
e1.m
34 ~ w n w d ~ o u
35
Used 6 Useful (%I
35 u ~ I J P r D d a l % l
37 SSU R q U M e d U 6 U (%I
w o n 1w.m
3.178
1w.m
72.S%
n.mum
10.10~
07.00~
134
1s
155
1.m
iw.m
63.09%
2n.m
m . 3 ~
s.rra
0z.m
38
39
ERC CALCULATIONS (W SSUI
C o r n M n d 5slnd”k Of f- 8 L 10 (SI
sm
sm
sm
smr
ERG
ERG
EBC
EaC
ERG
45.0
45.0
45.0
342.0
127.0
687.0
379 0
3SSO
1%.0
‘251.0
247.0
248.0
896.0
45.0
-0
697.0
3.229.0
3.307.0
45.0
5y.O
zsLI.0
2540
45.0
575.0
3.103.0
45.0
6000
3.4W.O
45.0
825 0
sm
sm
sm
ypsr
EBC
EBC
EBC
1990
1.382.0
1.571.0
1.707.0
1,783.0
1.9350
2.071.0
2.137.0
2.203.0
116.0
113.0
113.0
112.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
111.0
175.0
2.450.0
175.0
2.524.0
1n.o
175.0
z.m.0
2.nm.o
180.0
1991
1992
1993
tau4
19%
1ooS.S
199s
1m.o
1M.O
rbo.0
5.*cr
131.0
131.0
132.0
134.0
134.0
135.0
693.0
2650
7W.O
m7.0
m.0
m.0
268 0
711.0
REVISED y)196
.
'
._
-
Ope USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
W..uwaPr
Tnmn."l
SsMdul. F d (SI
Hollday
Pk"1
H.Y."
m
e
t NO. 9 5 0 . 9 ~ ~ 6
Compmr souman sums Vtllillw..
IX.
19%
sawumYurEnded: i m m 6
1.2W.W
1.W.W
1,132,710
.
1.207.742
JRFATMENT P U N T A
N
R
E
P
1%)
OPC C . W W U S 4 6 U w h r l I W l
SSU Reqwned U 6 U 1x1
21
22. Audllary P-r:
23
24
-(GPO).
not PVM
OPC C . * u W Used 6 UMUI 1%)
25
26
SSU R q ~ s t o . 5U 6 U 1%)
25.W
25.W
17,467
17.467
25.W
95.WCWRy
95.W Wllin
56.267 10 T-1
71.514
25.W
18.700
18.7W.
0
19%
19%
19%
25.W
25.W
1M.h
lM.W
M.W
M.W
16.613
16.755
172,964
145.848
18,129
-18,523
0
16.1%
27.847
0
0
0
1oo.wx
69.87%
75.28%
NIA
74.10%
95.00%
80.W%
80.w%
U.W%
WA
47.00%
1W.W%
WA
74.80%
69.87%
LIO.W%
8OMW
75.28%
NIA
74.60%
4403%
1W.m-h
WA
U!A
47.W%
lW.W%
86.27%
95.00%
16 U 6 U P W O I d t r O % l
17
SSU Requesled U 6 U 1%)
18 hmhdllo..:"
19
19%
0
€'
12
UhUPwOIda(%)
13
SSU Rquesled U 6 U 1%)
14 Ernu.ntms-i:
OPC C . r U W Uxd 6 UVhrl(%l
15
H)
19%
I
R-~xw m OPC Dos.R o q M No. 279
EXCESS lfiantW&MiOn ($41. by EPApuddheS
EXCESS INFLDWIINFILTRATIONIGPD)
10 Tnabmnl Plane
11
OPC CaWbted Used 6 UreM
19%
wrth
MaM
4 1996 AVG DAILY FLOW OF MAX MONTH IGPDI
5
6
7
6
9
19%
Itamnn.
Prnieao.5 [XI
Lns FPSC Unllorm [XI
6 NonYniTm lx I
NO.
1 PERMIHED PLANT CAPAClTV (GPO)
2 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPACITY (GPDI
3 19% AVG DAILY FLDW OF MAX MONTH (GPO)
lW.W%
65.70%
37.05%
67.0'2%
65.00%
68.61%
01.23%
37.05%
lW.W%
1oO.W%
65.70%
6570%
6570%
75.28%
1W.W%
n.2rh
lW.W%
--i
74.EW
6 7 . 0 ~ . 97.23%
65.W% l W . W %
W.61% 1W.WU
Unavribble
1Oo.wx
u m v a iIaaK
97.23%
lW.W%
1W.wx
27 USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
w u u I . u r COlkUO" sy.1.m
28 Sshdul. F-7lSl
29
- 0 3
P
I
31 Conn.cW Lorn In 1Wo M.R.
32 C m d LOU k 1991 wl M.R.
33 Cmnnected L a s k 19% ulo M.R.
Y NmLwdLot.
35 C.kaWed Used 6 UsehA 1%)
36 U 6 U P W ~ ( % l
37 SSU Rq-o.5
U 6 U 1%)
4.659
4.619
141
141
56
4.595
141
t u
U
5.000
03.18%
97.9'2%
78.18%
1W.W%
lW.W%
lW.W%
U.W%
84.26%
lW.W%
71
235
233
230
97
io0
97.25%
lWW%
94
94
94
118
117
117
166
54.61%
61.40%
135
67.41%
1W.OoH
1W.WU
61.4oK
413
96.6IX
1 W . M
lW.W% l W . W %
smw3
.f
s.rra
smr
smr
EK
ERG
EK
E R G . ERG
62.0
W.0
92.0
95.0
95.0
97.0
97.0
114.0
395.0'
353.0
221.0
227.0
115.0
lry.0
395.0
397.0
229.0
229 0
230.0
590.0
398.0
399.0
zU.0
106
102
51
399
398
397
3 5
61.04%
61.-
61.62%
3
39
ERC CALCULATIONS IbY 5501
CanUNd Sch.duh 01 F. 6 i10 IS1
IlL!
ERG
s.rra
EK
s.rm
EK
1990
1991
4.860.0
4.852.0
142.0
142.0
1yl.o
1992
4.895.0
1m.o
1460
1993
4,W.O
13.0
150.0
lS94
5.025.0
141.0
155.0
97.0
94.0
96.0
1995
1995.5
5.051.0
181.0
189.0
102.0
96.0
117.0
117.0
5.0730
141.0
141.0
lYS6
5.095.0
141.0
197.0
104.0
106.0
96.0
96.0
118.0
118.0
smr
a6.0
115.0
116.0
smr
Ty.0
235.0
0% USE0 AN0 USEFUL CALCULATIONS
wasmvmw Tnnrm.m P i m i
-
Sshdul. F d (9)
D0d.lNa 95019E-Ws
compury: sovhan sutes Inmie..
M.dUUY.uEndej: 1 m 1 m
1°C.
19%
19%
1986
1x1
1996
1996
1996
15.m
5B.m
15.m
13,194
5
B
.
m
20.226
23.622
1%
1996
rnnn me
We FPSC Unikm [I]6 Non-Undorm [x 1
NO
19%
I"-".
Cny ol
1 PERMITED PLANT CAPACITY (GPO)
1lO.wO
2 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPACITY IGPD)
3 199*AVGOAlLYFLOWOFUAXMONTH(GPDt
4 1W6 AVO DAILY FLOW OF YU YONTH (GPD)
5 Response 10 OPC Dos. R q ~ s No.
l 275
6 EXCESS Infiar(l(U).8 y EPA ~ u k i e ~ h e i
11o.ooo
62.m
2W.wO AWmontc
2w.m Spflnp..nd
2O.WO
20.m
170.729 SmlandC
8.710
5o.m 130,WO
50.m 1 3 0 . m
25.233 147.142
8.710
27.5M
148.175
15.1%
0
0
0
0
1W.WX
6z.m
lW.0046
lOO.W%
40.73%
28.00%
lWW%
28.60%
64.M9 172.210 WlWS
7 EXCESS INFLOWIINFILTRATION(GPD)
0
0
58.5~.
as.io%
81.WX
90.36%
NIA
WA
WA
U.55X
55.10%
66.00%
94.24%
nw%
4 5 m
77.W4
63.83%
58.52%
66.80%
M.lO%
81.W%
NIA
NJA
43.55%
u.w~i w . w % 1 w . w ~
n.w%
45:wx
1W.W%
90.36%
NJA
n.Mm
63.83%
85.m
Y.000
29.129
29.129
0
0
8
9 I E E A I W NT P U N T AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL:
10 Trn.tm."t
PI."t:
OPC Calsubted U M 6 Useful
12 U 6 U P a O l d o r ( % l
13
SSU Rquesled U 6 U (Ut
14 Eftlu.nl D1sposa.l:
15
OPC C.*uu1M Uud 6 Useful
11
16
17
(%I
(%I
U6UPerOrder(%)
SSU Rqmaled U 6 U ~ l U l
18 R.UUF.slutlr: ... . ,.
.
19 OPC C.lsuu1.d U M 6 Useful 1%)
20 SSU R q u e s l e d U 6 U 1%)
24
25
26
OPC C.Wu1ed U M 6 U&l
SSU R q ~ s l e u
d 6 U (%)
51.534
2427%
49.w%
49.W%
40.73%
a6.67~
0s.m 2 8 . w ~ 28.60% i w . w %
1 w . m iw.w%
51.53% i w w s
..
40.73%
1w 00%
(XI
27 USED AND USEfULCALCUUTlONS
w ~ l p ~ . ucoli.suon
r
system
28 Ssh.duI. f-I(S)
29
30-NANOS
YSTEM PUMPING PLANT.
31 C o n n w LoD In 1996 *lo Y.R.
32 C m m a e d LOU h 1994 wl M R
33 CmneaedLOUm1994wloMR
34 NumOerdLUs
35 C a l s u M U u d 6 v.atUll%)
24 U L U P n * ( U )
37
SSU R q u g t . d U 6 U (%I
nux
a3.00~
50.2Ox
L15.82K
85.WU
85.WU
29
28
28
Y
u.7ax
1 W . m
lW.0046
411
100
3%
w
1.336
1.323
1.320
1.810
26
M
M
46
75.00%
107
103
1.026
1.024
98
137
1.023
1.189
35
33
30
35
78.10~ 8 s . m
n.38w
160
152
110
110
137
191
110
185
u.nx
w.4on
06.WU
w.4096 1 w . m
5946%
1W.W% IW.W%
1 w . m lw.m
1W.WU
87.OOU
1W.MK
85-
38
39
ERC CALCUUTIONS (by SSU)
Cab1n.d S s h d u k d f- 8.10 IS)
sna
seuw
%wr
seuw
snra
sna
snnr
Snrsr
m
EG
EG
ERG
ERG
ERG
ERG
ERG
ERG.
1-
274.0
MI.0
2M.O
33.0
33.0
&.O
1991
46.0
89.0
2M.O
2940
Y.0
Y.0
45.0
95.0
1,019.0
1,013.0
1.015.0
28.0
300
1992
1.335.0
1.m.o
1.yo.o
45.0
46.0
90.0
B.0
1.023.0
1,023.0
1.024.0
1.025.0
1.028.0
1993
1994
1%
1995 5
1-
314.0
317.0
1,361.0
1390.0
322.0
1.3930
1.4M.O
326.0
1.407.0
3.0
Y.0
460
lM.O
350
46.0
105.0
U.0
46.0
107.0
330
330
340
im o
121 0
1% 0
137 0
1370
37 0
152 0
MO
156 0
1600
39 0
5m
EG
153 0
151 0
149 0
146 0
151 0
151 0
151 0
151 0
REVISE0 5386
.
*
.
.
,
. .
.
.
. .
.
.. . .
._
. . r
,..
~
'.
OPC USED AND USEFUL uLcuunoNs
W"W*I
Tmannrnl PI."I
OChdYI. F.6 (9)
Dos*eI NO.350(S5W
capnv:sarthm st*rr umie,.
1°C.
sc(ndubY.uEnd.d: 1231196
19%
1996
1996
19%
1996
1996
1998
1.145.mO
1.145.000
1.m.226
36.m
56.m
3531
1.130.a4
56.808
0
0
98.71%
1W.WX
1%
Rqafsd1x1
L k . FPSC U
l
m 1x1 6 Norrunm [x 1
NO.
1 PERMITTED PUNT CAPACTTY (GPDI
2 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPACllV (GPD)
3 1AVG DAILY FLOW OF MAX MONTH (GPO1
4 1mAVGMlLYfL~oF~uWoNTH(GPO)
5 Rem OPC Doc. R-SI
NO. 279
6 EXCESS I d b w f l n n m (%I. by €PA guld*Ms
7 EXCESS INFLOWflNFILTRATIDN (GPDI
8
9-puNTAN
10 TnmnmtPbnt:
11 OPC c.kuhba U.sd 6 Useful (%)
12 U 6 U P e r O l d e r ( % l
13 SSU R q u M U 6 U (%I
14 E f l l u n l W - I :
15
16
DPC W s U w U u d 6 Uaeful (%I
U6UPerOmer(%I
R4w.W
.
17 SSU
U P U (%)~.
_"_
18,
.,
~. .
..
19 OPC C & J W Used 6 U v l u l ( % )
R.uu~=unwA
20
12.m
12.m
7.290
7.290
5
0
.
m
5
0
.
m
33.806
13.5w
270,033
270.m
1w,m
167.886
4w.m
50.m
250.m
uyI.m
261.194
50.m
29,419
m.MS
29.Ed3
15o.000
W.9U
3.710
63.4%
W.5%
1u3.890
0
22.701
0
0
0
80.75%
13.00%
M.75%
27.02%
62.18%
73.41%
5D.17%
74.m
79.68%
78.00%
78.W%
y1.2W
90.46%
51.00%
M.02%
1.48%
51.00%
56.76%
60.15%
13.00%
27.02%
74.m
62.18%
78.m
58.71%
3&20*
59.17%
51.00%
6375%
79.66%
78.W%
72.36%
w.o2.*
9310%
e6w%
100oou
1WM)%
2.47%
51.00%
BO.73%
lW.OO%
9310%
94.63%
rwww
WW%
lWW%
98.73%
1W.C.W
SSU R m u M U 6 U (%I
U-obMe
Uwaihbm
73.41%
59.17%
lw.m
26
26
35
a
u
34
52
M.38%
4S.W%
50.m 9
4
.
m
5
0
.
m 9
4
.
m
33
lw.m
642
650
2.551
177
11
2.u2
10
812
€61
2.289
176
176
50.
36
S7.08%
W . ~ W
99.m
9
3.332
3.m
RI
87
107
84.11%
81.m
8.252
30.91%
35.12%
18.82%
3.125
4.275
82.81%
2 1 . 1 ~
%?.MU
36.m
36.m
1 m . m
1 W . m
72.87.12%
69
W.M%
smr
E R G . Eec
smr
smr
smr
smr
smr
ERG
ERG
ERG
s.mr
ERG
Smr
ERG
17.0
55.0
576.0
3.W.O
176.0
56.0
2.5450
600
27.0
M.0
BO.0
m.0
4.ms.o
1n.0
5.0
2.71u.O
83 0
619.0
1711.0
67.0
623.0
177.0
78.0
179.0
179.0
n.0
2.9p6.0
3.199.0
3.371.0
3,Ml.O
MO
S.0
65.0
W.0
4.422.0
4.719.0
4.m.o
5.116.0
67.0
By.0
6600
5.241.0
179.0
5.3660
1w.0
M.0
89.0
25.0
24.0
26.0
26.0
a.0
26.0
67.0
629.0
W.0
ERG
W.0
3.m.0
850
87 0
89 0
09 0
3.610.0
900
R M S E D 53%
EXHIBIT TLW
~we5rne
DPCUSEDANDUSEfULCALCUUTK)NS
19%
5
m
.
m
5oo.m
466.226
482.889
I
0
!
=.1%
.
o
0
0
1.557.136
n.58sx
19 71%
n14
NIA
e
9
m
NIA
WA
8800%
lWW%
2447%
lW.W%
1W.W%
119 71%
NIA
lWW%
l W m
78W%
W.%
lW.W%
1 w . m
19 71%
NIA
NIA
NIA
e
9
m
89 71%
NIA
NIA
NIA
7800%
llW%-[
8103%
NIA
lWW%
1WWX
Exn m
22 A~xllbyP-l:
CaW(GPD).rWWed
23
24
OPC c.blhl.d uud 6 Useful (%I
SSU R e w U l d U 6 U (U)
25
. 1
UnwahM IJwmihM
unW.ihM
89.71%
88.00%
22.9+%
1w.m
lm.m
1wm
26
27 USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
w"-Pr
Col*ctM"
28 OskduH F.7(S)
-
.
sI.trm
29
3
31
Con-
Lob In tm Wo Y.R
32 ConnmdLmh1934rrl U R
33 CaQedLurn1994woMR
34 NvmbnOfLOU
35 c a r u M uud 6 Useful ( W )
26 U 6 U P r D d a p * l
37 SSU R q u W U 6 Up*)
1.155
1.125
7.437
7.220
1.115
7.010
1.189
*7.1sx
1W.W%
1m.m
6.725
lW.W
NIA
1W.W%
3,414
3.251
2.w
7.285
46.87%
WA
49.10%
166
152
126
228
4.436
1.976
4,342
1.970
4,257
1.W
5.270
1,224
M.17%
72.WA
NIA
1W.W%
WA
mol%
88.31%
1W.m
36
39
ERC CALCULATIONS (by SSU)
m b l n d S c M d ol f- 1 10 (SI
SenN
smr
snnr
xu
EBC
E6.C
ERG
1
m
2.825.8
w.0
1991
1)06.0
1.210.0
3.1n.s
129.5
1992
13p.o
3.4445
1993
18U
19%
19955
1.279.0
3.571.0
132.0
135.5
6.uo5
6.6u.O
8.7770
6.rn.8
3,611.8
137.3
7.W.3
5.109.0
1,356.0
7.010.0
7.M.3
3.915.6
1652
7234.5
5.125.3
1.3n.o
7.327.8
4.014.1
1726
7.312.4
5.1331
1
m
1,391.0
7.w.9
4,112.3
180.4
7.390.4
5.141.6
l.w.o
s m S e n N s . r a
EEG.
EEG
5.ou.5
SM.3
5.356.3
5.237.3
REUSED Yygg
.
- .
.
2
...
.
.
EXHIBIT ne-4
Plpe6Ol6
OPC USEOANDUSEFUL CALCULATKHIS
was-,
rma+m.m P1.m
Scbduk F-S (SI
Dam M.syyocws
c r m p n y : zovmrn st.fn m.
1°C.
sctnQU*Y.uEndedd: 1 m 1 m
19%
1998
19%
m.m
m.m
5
0
.
m
99.m
uI.m
87.200
92.489
35.033
43.616
99.m
78.452
78.452
0
0
R
o
w el
Lke FPSC Unilmn 1x1 6 NOhUni(0rm lx I
M.
1 P E R M W D P U N T CAPACITY (GPO)
2 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPACITY (GPD)
3 19W AVO DAILY FLOW OF MAX MONTH (GPO1
4 1803 AVG DAILY FLOW OF MAX YONTH (GW1
5 Respoose m OPC Dos. R.qrmt No.279
6 EXCESS m ~ n f l b . PI.
ti
EPA pumms
av
7 EXCESS INFLOWnNFlLTRITlDN (GPDI
0
8
T DISWSU;
9
10 m.+m.nt
Pl.nt
11 OPC c&ll!aed
..
uud 6 U.hl (K)
12
U6UPerOld.r(%1
13
SSU R q Y e . 1 W U 6 U 1%)
14 .zmwmWpsal:
15 OPC C a b ! 4 e d U M 6 Wl ( W )
16
1W.OOX
NIA
17.23%
NIA
79.24%
NIA
lW.W%
1W.WH
79.24%
iw.oox
NIA
U 6 U P a W ( % )
8r.23~
NIA
7924%
NIA
lW.W%
lW.W%
79.24%
130
274
250
323
323
323
3s U 6 U p n O l d a P l
126
122
130
72.WX
NIA
NIA
NIA
37
7 4 . m ~ m.21w
05.oOu
17
SSU R q M M lJ6 U 1%) ~.
18.R.uUf.cl_=.. ---i--r
-,
19 DPC W S U W U M 6 USdulIW)
20
._
SSU R q u m U 6 U (X)
21,
!
Y2 Auxlllary po*..r:
23
24
C.ouny(GP0). W l W
OPC cllprmed uud 6 Useful (%I
25
26
SSU R-ated
U 6 U (%I
n USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
W..mntW
co(w.stlon
28 Schdul. F-T(S)
sw*m
29
30 C D L L E C T l O N U S Y S T E M P l N G P
31 C o n m o d Lop In 1eH *lo M.R.
32 Connested L a h l 9 W W U.R.
u conn.ctcd Lms h 1 9 M vi0 M.R.
34 NumQWdLOU
35 WSUUW U u d 6 Useful (K)
SSURawnldULUIW)
W
ZM
334
82.07%
yo
a5.oOx
3a
39
ERC ULcuunOWj (4
SUI
CablndSc~u~olf-36lO(Sl
sm
Ilr
ERG
sm
ERG
1990
126.5
1991
1y.0
1992
1W.5
207.5
1993
19%
122.0
M.0
323.0
1995
125.7
249.0
1995.5
127.5
261.9
323.0
m.0
1996
129.4
273.9
323.0
REVISED yM6
,
.
I
-
i
;
-'
EXHIBITTLE4.1
Page 1 of 1
......__...._..__.
--.---
OPC USED AND USEFUL CALCULATIONS
....,.
"
Marco Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant
' Effluent Disposal Measures
Docket No. 950495-WS
Company: Southern States Utilities, Inc.
Schedule Year Ended: 12/31/96
Projected [XI
Line FPSC Uniform [ ] & Non-Uniform [x ]
No.
1 PERMITTED PLANT CAPACITY (GPD)
2 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPAClTY (GPD)
3 1994/HISTORICAVG DAILY FLOW OF MAX MONTH (GPD)
4 1996 AVG DAILY FLOW OF MAX MONTH (GPD)
5
6
7 EFFLUFNT DISPOSAL
8 Information Source:
9 Late-Filed Deposition Exhibit Nos. 4,5 & 6 of Mr. Terrero:
10 FDEP Permit: UCll-179323. (DR 289-D)
11 Deposition of Mr. Terrero
12
13
14 Effluent Disposal:
15 OPC Calculated Used & Useful (Oh)
16 U & U Per Order ("A)
17 SSU Requested U
.,,
18 .. Reuse
Facilities<:
.
....
. . .- ....
19 OPC Calculated Used & Useful (%)
20 SSU Requested U & U (%)
21
22 ERC CALCULATIONS (by SSU)
23 Combined Schedule of F- 8 EL 10 (S)
24
Yea
25
26
1990
27
1991
28
1992
29
1993
30
1994
31
1995
32
1995.5
33
1996
34
1996.5
35
1997
36
1997.5
37
1998
38
1999
39
2000
I
1
.
_
1
_
1
.
.
.
.
.
.......
......
Mar-94
May-93
May-94
3,500,000
9,900,000
3,663,065
3,686,438
3,500,000
3,500,000
801,968
801,968
'3,500,000
1,000,006
632,258
636,292
37.24%
NIA
100.00%
22.91%
N/A
100.00%
. ~ .%
Project No. 31401.01
63.63%
100.00%
Sewer
E&
5.044.5
5,228.3
5,356.3
5.287.3
5.109.0
5.125.3
5,133.4
5.141.6
5,149.7
5,157.9
5,166.1
5,174.3
5,190.8
5,207.3
Sewer
'.
Sewer
E
E x
5.044.5
5,228.3
5.356.3
5.287.3
5.109.0
5,125.3
5.133.4
5,141.6
5,149.7
5,157.9
5,166.1
5.174.3
5,190.8
5,207.3
5.044.5
5.228.3
5.356.3
5.287.3
5,109.0
5.125.3
5333.4
5,141.6
5,149.7
5,157.9
5.166.1
5,174.3
5.190.8
5,207.3
5/3/96