WWTFSP App.F10 Energy Management

Appendix F10: Energy Management
Version 2.0
July 2010
Prepared by:
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Registration No. F-882
Dallas Water Utilities

Energy Management
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
Historical Energy Data.............................................................................................6

2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
CWWTP Energy Consumption History ......................................................................... 6

SWWTP Energy Consumption History ....................................................................... 10
Significance of SWWTP and CWWTP Historical Energy Data................................... 12
Energy Audit...........................................................................................................13
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3
City of Dallas Energy Management Plan ...................................................................... 3
Summary of Recommendations.................................................................................... 4
CWWTP Audit Results ................................................................................................ 13

SWWTP Audit Results ................................................................................................ 21
Review of Existing Motor Controls .............................................................................. 28
Recommendations Resulting From Audit ................................................................... 30
Standard Energy Management Practices ............................................................31

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
VFDs ...........................................................................................................................31
Premium Efficiency Motors ......................................................................................... 31
Power Factors ............................................................................................................. 32
Automation .................................................................................................................. 32
Cogeneration and Co-Digestion.................................................................................. 32
5.0
Energy Management Plan .....................................................................................35
6.0
Environmental Management System....................................................................36
7.0
Summary of Recommendations ...........................................................................38

7.1
7.2
7.3
Recommended Studies and Plans.............................................................................. 38

CWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations ................................... 39
SWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations ................................... 39
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................40
Appendix B
References..................................................................................................41
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 2 of 42
Section 1.0
Energy Management
Executive Summary
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In association with the Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan
(WWTFSP) (Ref. 75), the Team reviewed DWU's energy management practices and performed an
energy audit of the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWWTP) and Southside Wastewater Treatment
Plant (SWWTP). The Team conducted the energy audit from November of 2009 through January of
2010. The purpose of the energy audit was to identify all equipment within the two facilities with an
operating horsepower (hp) of 100 or more and determine the criticality of the equipment.
During this energy audit, the Team also identified key energy management practices that can potentially
reduce the overall energy usage at the wastewater facilities. Table 1-1 depicts an evaluation of the
2009 -2010 data of energy usage.
Table 1-1: Summary of 2009 Data Evaluation
1.1
Facility
Average Daily Flow

million gallons per day (mgd)
Average Consumed per Month

kilowatt hours (kWh)
CWWTP
112.1 mgd
4,775,017 kWh
SWWTP
72.1 mgd
4,514,612 kWh
Introduction
The Team's review of DWU energy practices in January of 2010 encompassed the following:
Historical data evaluation for SWWTP and CWWTP
Energy audit of all equipment over 100 hp
Criticality ratings of equipment
Discovery of highest energy consumption equipment
Identification of energy management strategies
Outline of an Energy Management Plan
Review of environmental management systems
1.2
City of Dallas Energy Management Plan
In 2008 the City of Dallas studied energy consumption across the city. All city departments were advised
to meet the recommended guidelines for energy reduction practices. In addition, the City of Dallas
identified a five percent per year energy reduction goal. The City of Dallas Comprehensive Energy Action
Master Plan (Ref. 195) reported that DWU is the largest consumer of electricity in the entire City of
Dallas, consuming over 50 percent of the Citys 2006 energy budget of $94 million dollars. This equates
to over 450,000,000 kWhs of energy consumed. Therefore, based on the City's goals, DWU should
continue to study energy management practices across all wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and
identify projects that will aid DWU in meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Energy Action Master Plan
(Ref. 195).
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 3 of 42
Section 1.0
Energy Management
Executive Summary
1.3
Summary of Recommendations
The Team identified a road map to reach energy savings goals through completing the energy
management survey. The most important step toward energy savings is DWU completing an Energy
Management Plan (EMP).
Section 5.0 provides a complete review of an EMP. The EMP would include minimally the following
items:
A base line report of energy consumption
Detailed analysis of various energy management practices
List of improvements
Schedule
Budget
As part of the Energy Management Plan, the Team also recommends the development of specific
projects to complement the existing DWU Environmental Management System (EMS). The EMS specific
projects would provide an overall systematic approach to incorporating energy management ideals, and
includes not only those projects or items related directly to electrical consumption reduction, but also the
following:
Water conservation
Energy efficiency as it relates to building inhabitants and comfort
Construction waste management practices
Stormwater management
The two plans set a standard for future practices of general operations and maintenance of the facility,
construction practices, and design of new facilities. In the short term, the Team recommends several
immediate changes to reduce the existing energy consumption at both facilities.
1.3.1
CWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations
The following changes can be studied and implemented quickly and easily at CWWTP to save on monthly
energy use:
Automate and use dissolved oxygen (DO) control at the aeration basins.
Evaluate mixing requirements within the aeration basins.
Automate influent dry weather pumping to shave peaks during high energy peak times.
Provide variable frequency drives (VFDs) to critical equipment to allow flow pacing, such as the
influent pumps at White Rock Raw Sewage Pump Station.
Upgrade worn motors with premium efficiency motors.
Monitor power consumption.
Evaluate alternative to replace the effluent pumps as the primary source for increasing DO in the
effluent.
Use VFDs and premium motors along with automated control strategies at the new influent pump
station.
Evaluate further application of power factor correction capacitors (PFCCS) on fixed-speed motors.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 4 of 42
Section 1.0
Energy Management
Executive Summary
1.3.2
SWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations
The following list provides the most cost effective ways to reduce energy consumption at SWWTP:
Use existing automation as intended (raw sewage pumps).
Calibrate and rehabilitate DO meters at the aeration basins.
Evaluate grit removal efficiency.
Replace aerated grit with vortex units.
Provide power factor correction capacitors to large equipment.
Provide VFDs to critical equipment to allow flow pacing.
Complete sidestream automation.
Evaluate application of PFCCs on fixed-speed motors.
DWU has proved that energy reduction at the wastewater facilities is possible (Ref. 198). Increased
planning and well timed upgrades will continue to provide consistent, "energy consumption per gallon
treated," reduction results. DWU, as the largest user of energy in the City of Dallas, has chosen to be an
innovative leader and role model in reducing energy consumption.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 5 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Historical Energy Data
2.0
HISTORICAL ENERGY DATA
The Team completed an evaluation of the historical (2009) energy consumption at the two wastewater
treatment plants. The Team analyzed the historical data and matched the flows to the energy data and
observed the electrical consumption against gallons treated. Section 2.0 provides energy consumption
history with analysis for both SWWTP and CWWTP.
2.1
CWWTP Energy Consumption History
The CWWTP data set encompassed all the monthly energy and flow values from all of 2009 through
January 2010. The data presented does not consider Cadiz Street Pump Station. Table 2-1 summarizes
statistically the data set.
Table 2-1: 2009 CWWTP Monthly Energy and Flow Data

Monthly Energy Use
(kWh)
Average Monthly
Effluent Flow
(mgd)
Energy Use/
Gallon Treated
(kWh/MG)
Minimum
4,202,049
86
1,014
Average
4,775,017
109
1,469
Maximum
5,246,912
165
1,727
Note:
MG = million gallons
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 6 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Figure 2-1 depicts the energy consumption in kWh per month increasing over the time period and also
shows the flow at CWWTP increasing during the same time period.
Figure 2-1: CWWTP Energy Consumption and Flow
Even though the energy consumption increased at CWWTP, Figure 2-2 depicts the energy consumed in
kWh per million gallons treated has decreased over the same time period. Because the increase in flows
was greater than the increase in energy consumption, the resulting trend is a decrease in energy
consumption per gallon treated.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 7 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Figure 2-2: CWWTP Energy Use per MG Treated
Table 2-2 shows the 2009 trends at CWWTP.
Table 2-2: 2009 Trends at CWWTP

Parameter
Trend
Flow
Increased
Energy Use
Increased
kWh/MG
Decreased
The data set also shows a predictable trend: the more gallons per day treated, the lower the energy
consumed per gallon treated. Figure 2-3 shows the linear relationship of economies of scale. As
expected the more flow treated the less it costs per gallon because the unit processes are already online
and operating. As the flow decreases, the same process is treating less flow, driving up the cost per
gallon.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 8 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Figure 2-3: CWWTP Energy Use per MG Treated vs. Influent Flow
2.1.1
Cadiz Street Pump Station
Table 2-3 summarizes the Cadiz Street Station data set. This data is from January of 2009 through
January of 2010.
Table 2-3: Cadiz Street 2009 Energy Data

Energy Use (kWh)
Minimum
364,298
Average
436,588
Maximum
515,280
Figure 2-4 depicts the 2009 energy consumption at the Cadiz Street Pump Station which is not included
in the CWWTP data.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 9 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Figure 2-4: Cadiz Street Pump Station Energy Usage
2.2
SWWTP Energy Consumption History
The energy data accumulated for SWWTP was recorded in monthly increments and incorporates energy
and flow data from January 2009 through December of 2009. Table 2-4 summarizes statistically the
monthly data set.
Table 2-4: 2009 SWWTP Energy Consumption

Monthly Energy
Use
(kWh)
Monthly Average
Effluent Flow
(mgd)
Energy Use/
Gallon Treated
(kWh/MG)
Minimum
4,016,182
54
1,510
Average
4,514,612
72
2,171
Maximum
5,602,260
107
2,654
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 10 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Figure 2-5 depicts the monthly electrical energy use in kWh over the time period, along with the flow to
SWWTP for the same time period.
Figure 2-5: SWWTP Energy Consumption and Flow
Figure 2-6 depicts the monthly electrical energy usage per million gallons treated (kWh/MG).
Figure 2-6: SWWTP Energy Use per MG Treated
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 11 of 42
Section 2.0
Energy Management
Table 2-5 shows the 2009 trends at SWWTP.
Table 2-5: 2009 Trends at SWWTP

Parameter
Trend
Flow
Increased
Energy Use
Increased
kWh/MG
Decreased
SWWTP's data in Figure 2-7 also shows a relationship of economies of scale.
Figure 2-7: SWWTP Energy Use per MG Treated vs. Influent Flow
2.3
Significance of SWWTP and CWWTP Historical Energy Data
Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-7 show identical trends for each facility. Note that the trends shown are
based on small snapshots of time; therefore, moving the date forward or backward can change the overall
trend.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 12 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
3.0
ENERGY AUDIT
During the large equipment (>100 hp) energy audit at CWWTP and SWWTP, the Team purposed to find
the answers to the following questions through their analysis:
Where are the larger concentrations of electrical energy being used at the Plants?
How much energy is being consumed at these areas?
What options may exist to improve on the efficiency of these loads?
This section provides the findings and analysis from the energy audit.
3.1
CWWTP Audit Results
The Team conducted a detailed analysis of electrical energy consumption at CWWTP to determine the
reasons for the change in energy usage discussed in Section 2.0.
3.1.1
Existing Electrical Service
Oncor Electric Delivery provides power to the CWWTP via four underground 13.2 kilovolt (kV) feeders.
The power companys Southerland Substation is located outside the CWWTP property line and consists
of 25 mega volt ampere (MVA), 138 kV 13.2 kV transformers. The following list contains more
information about CWWTP's electrical service:
Incoming Service: The power from the Oncor Southerland Substation is routed underground to two
separate 13.2 kV Switchgear lineups designated SS-1 and SS-2.
The power company meters are located at the Switchgears SS-1 and SS-2.
The electrical power distribution for CWWTP is divided between Switchgears SS-1 and SS-2 with
approximately half of the electrical load fed from SS-1 and the other half from SS-2. This is
accomplished by seven independent 13.2 kV loops. Each loop provides power to several Load
Control Stations (LCSs).
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 13 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
3.1.2
Electric Bill History
Table 3-1 provides a tabulation of CWWTP's monthly 2009 power bills.
Table 3-1: CWWTP 2009 Power Costs

Month
kW-Hour
Total Charge
$/kW-Hour
January
4,743,000
$346,239,000
$0.073
February
4,267,400
$325,291.39
$0.076
March
4,700,300
$370,807.37
$0.079
April
4,717,770
$350,464.39
$0.074
May
4,536,193
$321,175.72
$0.071
June
4,703,871
$337,082.15
$0.072
July
4,948,124
$364,000.71
$0.074
August
4,202,049
$313,620.19
$0.070
September
4,829,274
$332,753.66
$0.069
October
5,170,544
$363,542.15
$0.070
November
5,246,912
$378,450.41
$0.072
December
5,189,288
$388,658.48
$0.070
January
4,820,500
$361,037.62
$0.074
Average
$0.073
Table 3-1 shows an average of 7.3 cents per kW-hr. For conservative consideration, 8 cents per kW-hr is
used in calculations.
3.1.3
Electrical Load Distribution
A survey of motor nameplate data of the motors rated 100 hp and larger was completed to get a
representative understanding of where the load concentrations were located. Table 3-2 shows the hp per
motor at the CWWTP facilities.
Table 3-2: CWWTP Motor Load Concentrations

Load Center Area
Load Center A
Pump Description
Sludge Transfer Pump Station (PS) WP7501-7503
Connected hp
300
Blowers AB7601-7605
8,750
Load Center B
Activated Sludge Influent Pump (ASIP) TP70017010
3,700
Load Center D
Filter Field PS RP2401-2405
Load Center T
Tower Pump WP7301-7303
1,350
Load Center W
Raw Sewage PS RP4007-4012
2,800
Effluent Pump EP4501-4506
3,000
TP-1
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
Sludge Transfer
625
125
July 2010
Page 14 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
There are a few sets of pumps not included in the above tabulation:
Settle Sewage PS-Filter Field Pumps RP4401 RF4403

There are three pumps for which the nameplate data were not available and the human-machine
interface (HMI) programming to log pump runtimes is not yet complete.
Reuse Water Pump RP6001 RP6003

There are two 200 hp pumps and one 75 hp pump for which the HMI programming to log pump
runtimes is not yet complete.
Dallas Peak-Flow Pump RP3801 RP3802

There are two submersible pumps for which the nameplate data were not available. Since these
pumps run so infrequently, the data is negligible. The connected hp is unknown.
White Rock-Peak-Flow Pump RP3901 RP3907

There are two submersible pumps for which the nameplate data were not available. Since these
pumps run so infrequently, the data is negligible. The connected hp is unknown.
Figure 3-1 depicts the total energy consumed at CWWTP. The 38 percent "facility" represents all items
that are not 100 hp or above. This includes facility lighting, administration buildings, and all equipment
less than 100 hp.
Figure 3-1: CWWTP Energy Consumption Breakdown
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 15 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Figure 3-2 illustrates that load center A has the largest combined load center of approximately 43 percent
of the total load. Table 3-3 explains the contents of each load center.
Figure 3-2: CWWTP Load Concentration by Load Center
3.1.4
Electrical Energy Cost
To determine energy cost associated with these pumps and blowers, the Team made the following
assumptions:
Energy cost was averaged at 8 cents per kW-hr
Motor loading was assumed to be 80 percent
Accumulated runtimes are logged in the plant's HMI for each of the motors investigated. Table 3-3 shows
the annual energy costs per pump at the CWWTP.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 16 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Table 3-3: CWWTP Annual Energy Costs per Large Equipment

Load Center Area
Load Center A
Annual
Energy Cost
Pump Description
Sludge Transfer PS WP7501-7503
Blowers AB7601-7605
Percent of
Total
$400
< 0.1%
$1,437,000
56.0%
$415,500
16.2%
$500
< 0.1%
Load Center B
ASIP TP7001-7010
Load Center D
Load Center T
$123,700
4.8%
Load Center W
$373,000
14.5%
$169,600
6.6%
$48,000
1.9%
$2,567,700
100%
TP-1
Sludge Transfer
Total
Figure 3-3 depicts the largest energy consumption for equipment greater than 100 hp. The blowers
consume the most energy, accounting for approximately 57 percent of the total annual energy cost of all
large equipment (>100 hp), as shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: CWWTP Large Equipment Breakdown
Figure 3-3 depicts the raw pumps as 15 percent of the annual large equipment energy consumption. This
data does not include Cadiz Street Pump Station. It is expected that when Cadiz is removed from service
and the new Influent Pump Station (IPS) is constructed at CWWTP, the percentage allocated by the raw
influent pumps will increase significantly. With an average monthly consumption of 436,600 kWh, Cadiz
Street consumes more power than the monthly average of the raw sewage pumps (388,602 kWh).
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 17 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
The effluent pumps represent 7 percent of the total because the pumps are currently used to bring the
effluent DO up to permit standards. Potential alternatives exist to reduce energy consumed by the
effluent pumps by using other methods to add DO to the effluent.
The blowers are used to provide mixing within the aeration basins and not just DO. Evaluation of the
mixing requirements in the aeration basins could prove to be a worthy investment to reduce the load of
the blowers. This will also allow CWWTP to move back to DO control.
Table 3-4 describes each pump station's control method.
Table 3-4: Control Method per Equipment

Load Center Area
Load Center A
Load Center B
Pump Description
Drive Method
Direct Drives
Blowers AB7601-7605
Inlet Guide Vanes
ASIP
Eddy Current Clutch and

Direct Drives
TP7001-7010
Load Center D
Two-Speed Drives
Load Center T
Direct Drives
Load Center W
Raw Sewage PS

Direct Drives
RP4007-4012
Effluent Pump

Direct Drives
EP4501-4506
TP-1
Sludge Transfer
Magna Drive
Peak Flow
Dallas Peak-Flow Pump
Direct Drives
RP3801 RP3802
White Rock Peak-Flow Pump RP3901
RP3907
Direct Drives
Power Factor Correction Capacitors

PFCCs can be applied to fixed-speed motors to correct the power factor. These are generally fixed
kilovolt-ampere reactive (kVAR) ratings and are switched on and off along with the motor itself. Table 3-5
shows the motors that have PFCCs applied.
Table 3-5: Motors with PFCCs Applied

Load Center Area
Load Centers A
Pump Description
PFCC
No
Blowers AB7601-7605
Yes
Load Centers B
ASIP TP7001-7010
No
Load Centers D
No
Load Centers T
Yes
Load Centers W
Yes
No
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 18 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Load Center Area
Pump Description
PFCC
TP-1
Sludge Transfer
No
Peak Flow
Dallas Peak-Flow Pump RP3801 RP3802
No
White Rock Peak-Flow Pump RP3901 RP3907
No
The Team recommends evaluating application of PFCCs to fixed-speed motors that do not currently have
them installed.
3.1.5
Criticality Ratings
The energy audit identified equipment locations and sizes and also identified the runtime and relative use.
WWTPs commonly keep redundant equipment or extra equipment for use in peak-flow conditions. The
Team identified criticality ratings to determine what equipment is necessary during normal (average flow)
operations or peak flow if the equipment is peak-flow related. The rating criteria are as follows:
Critical: Continuous operation required.
Necessary: No health, environmental, or safety impacts, if not used, and can be off with acceptable
operating losses.
Deferrable: Can be taken out of service for a given period of time with little or no operational impact.
The following table presents each process area or equipment service type and the associated number of
critical, necessary, or deferrable units.
Table 3-6: Critical Rating Analysis per Process and/or Equipment for CWWTP
Unit
Equipment Numbers
Number of
Critical
Number of
Necessary
Number of
Deferrable
ASIPS
TP7001-TP7010
Effluent Pumps
EP4501-EP4506
Reuse Water Pumps
RP6001-RP6003
Tower Pumps
WP7301-WP7303
AB Blowers
AB7601-Ab7605
Sludge Transfer Pumps
WP7501-WP7503
White Rock Peak-Flow Pumps
RP3901-RP3907
Sludge Transfer Pump
TP-1
Raw Sewage Pumps
RP4007-RP4012
Filter Field Pumps
RP2401-RP2405
Dallas Peak-Flow Pumps
RP3801-RP3802
3.1.6
Recommendations for Further Evaluation at CWWTP
The Team recommends the following areas be evaluated further for energy conservation opportunities:
Automate and use DO control at the aeration basins.
Evaluate mixing requirements within the aeration basins.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 19 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Provide VFDs to critical equipment to allow flow pacing such as the influent pumps at White Rock
Raw Sewage Pump Station.
Evaluate alternatives to replace the effluent pumps as the primary source for increasing DO in the
effluent.
station.
Apply PFCCs on fixed-speed motors.
Automatic-Blower Control
Currently, two blowers continuously operate as identified in Table 3-6. The inlet guide vanes are
manually adjusted to maintain a desired amperage set point of approximately 80 percent of nameplate
rating. Since these two motors account for a large percentage of the electric load, any improvement in
this area would have the greatest impact on the power bill. Improvement options may include the
following:
Automatic control based on downstream analytical instrument readings
Variable frequency drives
DO control to pace the blowers to the plant flow, thus greatly decreasing the energy consumed
Power-Consumption Monitoring
Currently, there are several pump stations that have electronic motor protective relays installed on the
motor starters. However, none of these are monitored. Gathering actual information on power
consumption removes the ambiguity of the assumptions made in this analysis; therefore, the Team
recommends the blowers are monitored for power consumption data. Table 3-7 shows which motors
have installed relays.
Table 3-7: Motors with Installed Relays

Load Centers
Load Centers A
Pump Description
Motor Relay
Sludge Transfer Pumps WP7501-7503
No
Blowers AB7601-7605
No
Load Centers B
ASIP TP7001-7010
Yes
Load Centers D
Filter Field Pumps RP2401-2405
No
Load Centers T
Yes
Load Centers W
Raw Sewage Pumps RP4007-4012
Yes
No
TP-1
Sludge Transfer
No
Peak Flow
Dallas Peak-Flow Pumps RP3801 RP3802
No
White Rock Peak-Flow Pumps RP3901 RP3907
No
Furthermore, the Team recommends the Plant pursue an extensive power monitoring system so a
comprehensive understanding of the energy consumption information can be gathered to facilitate more
meaningful evaluations in the future.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 20 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
3.2
SWWTP Audit Results
The Team conducted a similar analysis of electrical energy consumption at SWWTP.
3.2.1
Existing Electrical Service
SWWTP is serviced by two incoming Oncor electrical service feeders. On the west side of the facility are
two overhead lines from the TXU substation feed two 20MVA-110 KV/13.8 KV power transformers feed
the Plant's substation A/B. The east side of the facility's electrical equipment is owned by DWU. It
consists of a 69 KV Brazos Substation with one 20MVA-69KV/13.8 KV power transformer, which feeds
substation C/D.
3.2.2
Electrical Usage History
Table 3-8 provides a tabulation of SWWTP's monthly 2009 power bills.
Table 3-8: 2009 SWWTP Power Bills

Month
kW-Hr
Total Charge
$/kW-Hour
January
4,016,182
$307,882
$0.077
February
4,069,693
$313,949
$0.077
March
4,538,457
$355,346
$0.078
April
4,293,109
$318,678
$0.074
May
4,509,702
$310,624
$0.069
June
4,346,988
$308,788
$0.071
July
4,042,152
$289,014
$0.071
August
4,866,287
$344,601
$0.071
September
4,255,373
$297,373
$0.070
October
4,506,165
$325,435
$0.072
November
5,128,975
$388,232
$0.076
December
5,602,260
$421,719
$0.075
Average
$0.073
Table 3-8 shows an average of 7.3 cents per kW-hr. For conservative consideration, 8 cents per kW-hr is
used in the energy cost calculations.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 21 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
3.2.3
Electrical-Load Distribution
The Team completed a survey of motor nameplate data of the motors rated 100 hp and larger to get a
representative understanding of where the load concentrations were located, shown in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9: Load Concentration Locations

Service
Equipment Numbers
Connected hp
Raw Sewage Pumps
RP6021-RP6025
5,400
Diffused Air Blowers
AB7201-AB7204
400
Peak-Flow Pumps
RP6027-RP6028
800
Thickened Solids Pumps
SP9008-SP9009, SP900C
600
Rotamix Pumps
SP8038-SP8045
800
Aeration Basin Blowers
AB7201-AB7204
8,000
Non Potable Water Pumps
WP6505-WP6509, WP6511
1,050
Backwash Pumps
BP6501-BP6504
1,300
Surface Wash Water Pumps
WP6501-WP6502
Effluent Pumps
EP6801-EP6803, EP6806-EP6809
1,950
Sidestream & Scour Blowers
AB6506-AB6507, AB5803-AB5805
2,550
Stormwater Pumps
SP7101-SP7104
1,540
200
Out of the entire electrical load at the facility, the equipment listed in Table 3-9 represent 78 percent of the
total load. Figure 3-4 shows the breakdown of SWWTP energy use.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 22 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Figure 3-4: Average SWWTP Energy Breakdown
Figure 3-5 illustrates a closer look at the load associated with large equipment using 78 percent of the
energy as shown in the Figure 3-4. The other 22 percent is attributed to the smaller equipment (<100 hp)
and auxiliary facility appurtenances such as site lighting and buildings.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 23 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Figure 3-5: SWWTP >100 hp Energy Use
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 24 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
The blowers consume 47 percent of the large load electricity, or 37 percent of the entire SWWTP. Figure
3-6 shows the energy consumption per type of blower.
Figure 3-6: Blower Energy Consumption
Figure 3-6 shows the aeration basin (AB) blowers are one of the largest single energy consumers onsite.
The AB blowers represent 26 percent of the facility load or each blower represents almost 7 percent. The
sidestream and air scour blowers are a significant load as well. This load is expected to decrease when
the sidestream project is completed and the DO control is automated.
3.2.4
Electrical Energy Cost
To determine energy cost associated with these pumps, the Team made following assumptions:
Energy cost was averaged at 8 cents per kW-hr
Run times were estimated based on operator input.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 25 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Table 3-10: SWWTP Annual Energy Cost per Motor

Service
Equipment Numbers
Annual
Energy Cost
Percent of
Total
Raw Sewage Pumps
RP6021-RP6025
$1,173,000
36.9%
AB7201-AB7204
$104,000
3.3%
Peak-Flow Pumps
RP6027-RP6028
$8,000
0.3%
SP9008-SP9009, SP900C
$157,000
4.9%
Rotamix Pumps
SP8038-SP8045
$105,000
3.3%
AB7201-AB7204
$1,045,000
32.8%
WP6505-WP6509, WP6511
$210,000
6.6%
Backwash Pumps
BP6501-BP6504
$18,000
0.6%
Effluent Pumps
EP6801-EP6803, EP6806-EP6809
$15,000
0.5%
Sidestream & Scour Blowers
AB6506-AB6507, AB5803-AB5805
$343,000
10.8%
Stormwater Pumps
SP7101-SP7104
$4,000
0.1%
$3,182,000
100%
Total
Table 3-10 shows the majority of the electricity consumption is from the raw sewage pumps and aeration
basin blowers. The combined blower load is the largest cost in the plant. The raw sewage pumps
combined with blower are over half of the total yearly electric bill.
3.2.5
Critical Ratings
Table 3-11 presents each equipment service type, equipment number, and the number of units that are
identified as critical, necessary or deferrable units. See Section 3.1.5 for definitions of these criteria.
Table 3-11: Critical Rating Analysis per Process and/or Equipment for SWWTP
Service
Equipment Numbers
Number of
Critical
Number of
Necessary
Number of
Deferrable
Raw Sewage Pumps
RP6021-RP6025
AB7201-AB7204
Peak-Flow Pumps
RP6027-RP6028
SP9008-SP9009, SP900C
Rotamix Pumps
SP8038-SP8045
AB7201-AB7204
WP6505-WP6509, WP6511
Backwash Pumps
BP6501-BP6504
Surface Washwater Pumps
WP6501-WP6502
Effluent Pumps
EP6801-EP6803, EP6806EP6809
Sidestream & Scour

Blowers
AB6506-AB6507, AB5803AB5805
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 26 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
Service
Stormwater Pumps
3.2.6
Equipment Numbers
Number of
Critical
Number of
Necessary
Number of
Deferrable
SP7101-SP7104
Recommendations for SWWTP
The Team recommends further evaluation of the following areas for energy conservation opportunities:
Use existing automation as intended at IPSC (raw sewage pumps). To use the automation, further
work may be necessary to enable flow pacing of downstream processes such as chlorine dosage
automatically. When identifying automation schemes, it is also important to evaluate how the
schemes will operate the equipment during peak energy cost hours.
Evaluate grit efficiency removal.
Automatic-Blower Control
Since blowers are one of the largest consumers of electricity, they are also the vehicle to get the most
energy reduction success. Currently the aeration basin is set up for DO control. After investigating the
HMI screens, the Team determined that the instrumentation needs further monitoring and calibration.
The DO control is operational; however, meter readouts appeared to be incorrect. The Team
recommends a continuous schedule of servicing and calibration of the DO meters in the aeration basins
for improved performance.
The aerated grit chambers should have a life-cycle cost analysis completed to determine energy
efficiency versus vortex or tray units. If the aerated grit where to be taken out of service and replaced by
vortex chambers, SWWTP will see a great reduction in blower use, resulting in a 2.5 percent reduction in
overall energy load among large equipment. This will yield an annual energy savings of almost $100,000.
PFCCs will correct power factors of the fixed-speed motors. These are generally fixed kVAR ratings and
are switched on and off along with the motor itself. There are no known PFCCs installed at SWWTP.
The Team recommends further analysis of adding PFCCs to fixed-speed motors at SWWTP.
Automated Control of Raw Sewage Pumps
The raw sewage pumps are second in energy costs to the blowers. The pump station at SWWTP is
usually operated in manual mode, even though an automated system is available. The supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system does include a complex and well-designed method of
automatically controlling the pumps. Within SCADA, there exists the option to select one of four
automatic modes, as listed in the DWU SWWTP Standard Operating Procedure Guidelines, Area 1
Preliminary Treatment, Volume 1 (Ref. 201). These modes include the following:
Remote manual dry weather

The operator selects which pumps will be the lead/lag pumps for the pumping sequence.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 27 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
VFD-dominated dry weather flow

Two VFD-driven pumps serve as the lead pump and first lag pump, each operating at half to full
capacity. The three constant-speed pumps serve as the remaining lag pumps. The third VFD-driven
pump serves as a standby.
Constant-speed dominated
The lead pump is a VFD-driven pump during low flows to maintain a wetwell level of 350.5 ft. A
constant-speed pump serves as the first lag pump. Once the constant-speed pump starts, the lead
pump shuts down. A VFD-driven pump then modulates to maintain the level.
Wet weather
When wet weather is expected, the operator selects this mode of operation. During this mode, the
wetwell is immediately pumped down to a low level, which is maintained. As influent flow increases,
more pumps are brought online.
On multiple occasions, the Team has observed that only manual mode is used, rather than the computer
automatic modes. One reason for this is that downstream process units such as the chlorine dosage, is
not paced to flow and cannot be controlled automatically. Further plant automation may be required to
use all IPS automation schemes. Using the automatic mode, such as the VFD-dominated dry weather
flow mode, could potentially provide cost savings.
3.3
Review of Existing Motor Controls
Currently, DWU uses a variety of methods for controlling large motors. The following section provides the
methods of controlling large motors and a description of each method:
Variable-Speed Drives
Eddy current clutch drives

This type of drive consists of a fixed-speed motor and an eddy current clutch. The clutch contains a
fixed-speed rotor and an adjustable-speed rotor separated by a small air gap. A direct current in a
field coil produces a magnetic field that determines the torque transmitted from the input rotor to the
output rotor. The controller provides speed regulation by varying clutch current, only allowing the
clutch to transmit enough torque to operate at the desired speed.
Eddy current drives are generally less efficient than other types of drives for the following reasons:
The motor develops the torque required by the load and operates at full speed.
The output shaft transmits the same torque to the load but turns at a slower speed.
Since power is proportional to torque multiplied by speed, the input power is proportional to motor
speed times operating torque, while the output power is output speed times operating torque.
Power proportional to the difference in speed times operating torque is dissipated as heat in the
clutch.
Magna drives
This type of drive is very similar to an eddy current clutch drive except that a permanent magnet is
used in conjunction with a variable air gap. Varying the air gap determines the speed of the driven
load.
Two-speed drives
This type of drive is very similar to direct, fixed-speed drive except that the motor can be selected to
run at two distinct speeds. This is not an automatic-speed control, but rather the motor operates at
either one speed or the other. The motor has a different hp rating at each rated speed.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 28 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
VFDs
VFDs are modern solid-state electronically controlled machines that take sinusoidal incoming 60 hertz
power and then vary the output power waveform to the motor. By varying the effective frequency of
the output power, the speed of the load is controlled. A VFD is generally more energy efficient than
either eddy current clutch drives or magna drives.
Constant-Speed Drives
Direct
This type of drive is the most basic and relatively simple. The motor runs at a fixed speed.
Controlling the amount of "work" is accomplished by starting and stopping the motor. As a significant
portion of the monthly electric cost is associated with kW demand (which is proportional to the
amount of hp running at any one time), it is more expensive to run a 100 hp motor for one hour (hr)
and then leave it off for one hour than to run a 50 hp motor for two hours (even though both consume
the same amount of energy).
Inlet guide vanes

The blowers rely on inlet guide vanes to vary the amount of air passed. Generally this control method
is less efficient as energy is lost across the guide vanes.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 29 of 42
Section 3.0
Energy Management
Energy Audit
3.4
Recommendations Resulting From Audit
The Team identified two categories of equipment in which high energy use is attributed:
blowers/aeration and pumping.
Table 3-12 identifies typical energy saving measures for blowers and pumps. Section 4.0 provides
additional details regarding the energy savings measures with the greatest effect.
Table 3-12: Typical Energy Saving Measures

Equipment/Process
Blowers/Aeration
Typical Energy Saving Measures
Improve Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
Reduce Pressure Required
Evaluate and upgrade poor P.F. with capacitors
Optimize Operation Sequence
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
Evaluate entire system, including piping layout, for potential

fixes
Power Factors
Evaluate loads during peak times and shift
Overall Efficiency
Replace standard efficiency motors with premium motors
Manage Load
Add where not currently used
Premium Motors
If possible, through level or flow control
VFDs
To ensure flow pacing
Automate Control
Meters need a cleaning, repair, and replacement program
Improve Automation Meters
Pumping
Add where not currently used
Calibrate Dissolved Oxygen Control
Replace older motors on blowers
VFDs
Possible through reduction in system piping and layout
Premium Motors
Possible through cleaning and rehabilitation of diffusers and

upgrades to current technology
Do not allow pumps to work against each other
July 2010
Page 30 of 42
Section 4.0
Energy Management
Standard Energy Management Practices
4.0
STANDARD ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
A standard energy plan includes a systematic approach to upgrading equipment. The addition of VFDs,
premium motors in place of standard-efficiency motors, automation of equipment, and the addition of
capacitors to correct power factors are the most significant additions that can be made to reduce energy
consumption.
4.1
VFDs
VFDs provide the ability to optimize control of a pump or process by matching motor speed to the flow.
This action allows the pumps to meet fluctuating demands over time, thus substantially saving energy.
Another benefit of VFDs is the ability to provide a soft start, which reduces the starting torque and load
on the motor. The soft start reduces mechanical and electrical wear and stress, thereby extending the
useful life of the motor. VFDs also allow operators to fine-tune the operations process, resulting in the
opportunity to reduce costs for equipment maintenance, while minimizing energy use.
VFDs can be used in many applications, including influent pumping automation, chemical addition, and
aeration. Depending on the application and effluent characteristics, the efficiency of VFDs can vary
significantly. In some situations the use of VFDs can vastly reduce maintenance and energy costs,
resulting in significantly reduced asset life cycle costs. A VFD controlling a pump motor that usually runs
less than full speed can substantially reduce energy consumption over a motor running at constant speed
for the same period. For example:
A 25 hp motor running 23 hours per day
two hours at 100 percent speed
eight hours at 75 percent
eight hours at 67 percent
five hours at 50 percent
VFDs can reduce energy use by 45 percent
However, in other cases, the capital costs of the VFD can outweigh the long-term energy, chemical, and
labor cost savings. For example: Austin, Texas evaluated the use of VFDs for two 60-hp washwater
return pumps to control flow back to the head of the new Water Treatment Plant No. 4. Although a main
objective of this project was to reduce overall energy use in compliance with the Citys sustainability
initiatives, it was determined that the capital costs associated with adding the VFDs was significantly
higher than the energy savings over the 20-year life of the VFDs.
The benefits of using VFDs in the proper application can be considerable: reduced energy costs, reduced
maintenance costs, and a longer motor lifespan are just a few. Additionally, many electrical utilities also
offer financial incentives for reducing installation costs of VFDs. However, because of the variability in
energy efficiency improvements with differing applications, the Team recommends that DWU further
investigates the particular application and associated life cycle costs (capital, operations, maintenance,
and disposal costs) of the VFDs prior to project implementation.
4.2
Premium Efficiency Motors
Motors are given a high-efficiency rating as classified by National Electric Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) when they have been manufactured with more copper in the windings, smaller laminations in the
stator, reduced load cooling fans, and better tolerances in bearings and shafts. High-efficiency motors
tend to be 2 percent to 10 percent more efficient than their standard built counterparts. Other benefits
include less vibration, lower overall heat, and longer bearing life.
Due to the expense of purchasing a new motor, DWU should consider premium efficiency motors in the
following circumstances:
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 31 of 42
Section 4.0
Energy Management
When replacing a non-functioning existing motor
Any new installation
A replacement for a motor that needs new windings
A replacement of a high run time standard motor (on a case-by-case basis),
4.3
Power Factors
A power factor is a ratio of actual or real power to apparent power and is based on how current and
voltage cycle in a phase. A motor not running at full load can result in excessive current flow and is
denoted with a low power factor. The power factor is a number ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, with a higher
numerical value an indication of a more efficient operation. The actual power is what is being consumed
to perform real work, while the apparent power is a product of the voltage and current within the circuit. A
higher power factor can result in energy savings provided by the power delivery company.
Correcting power factors through replacement of motors or through power-factor correction capacitors
shall be evaluated and implemented on all low power factor equipment.
4.4
Automation
Automation of certain equipment can provide substantial energy savings due to the equipment and motor
speed paced to the flow. SWWTP is currently outfitted with a high level of automation but is not routinely
using it in daily operations. CWWTP has the opportunity for large energy savings with the inclusion of
automation schemes.
The Team recommends SWWTP should reevaluate the use of existing automation schemes. The Team
also recommends CWWTP identify automation opportunities when the plant wide SCADA System is
updated.
Typical automation at WWTPs includes the following:
DO Control on aeration basins
Solids retention control on digesters
Sludge blanket depth automation pumping
VFDs
Pumping controls (level, flow)
4.5
Cogeneration and Co-Digestion
In mid 2010, DWU will open up the pipelines from the anaerobic digestion complex at SWWTP and start
the flow of digester gas to the new cogeneration facility. In return, the cogeneration facility will provide
DWU with hot water and a reduced energy rate. Table 4-1 provides the energy savings from the
cogeneration facility.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 32 of 42
Section 4.0
Energy Management
Table 4-1: Cogeneration Energy Savings

2009 Average
Gas Production
Average Digested Sludge Gas Production, cubic feet per day (cf/day)
1,040,000
Energy Content
Calorific Content of Digester Gas, British Thermal Unit (BTU) /cf
Increase in Energy, BTU/day
600
624,000,000
80
Recoverable Fraction of Energy, %

Increase in Recoverable Energy , BTU/day
499,200,000
Increase in Recoverable Energy, kWh/day
146,300
44
Recovered Energy available as Electrical, %

Increase in Recoverable Electrical Energy, kWh/year
23,362,000
2.7
Increase in Recoverable Electrical Energy, MW

Value of Energy
Power Rate paid to Oncor Corp., $/kWh
$0.080
Power Rate paid to Ameresco, $/kWh
$0.060
$1,068,000
Savings to DWU due to Biogas, $/year
Table 4-1 shows the cogeneration facility energy savings of $1 million (M) dollars per year. This reduces
the average SWWTP energy consumption from a yearly bill of $4 M to a yearly cost of $3 M, which is a 25
percent reduction in overall cost.
The cogeneration facility will provide almost 44 percent of the electricity consumed at SWWTP, as
displayed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Energy Consumed and Recovered Through Cogeneration

Average Monthly Energy
Consumption (kWh/Month)
Average Recoverable Energy from

Cogeneration (kWh/Month)
Amount Provided by
Cogeneration
4,463,000
1,946,833
43.6%
Cogeneration by itself will provide excellent benefits. In WWTFSP Technical Memorandum (TM), CoDigestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141), the Team identified that co-digestion or the addition of outside high
energy waste streams directly into the anaerobic digesters at SWWTP could boost gas production
significantly. The addition of restaurant grease-trap wastes to the digesters can result in increases in
biogas production due to the high energy content of grease. Adding a grease receiving station at
SWWTP is a relatively low cost capital improvement with a short pay back period, as identified In the
WWTFSP TM, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study (Ref. 141). Table 4-3 shows how the addition of grease
could boost the energy recovered at the cogeneration facility.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 33 of 42
Section 4.0
Energy Management
Table 4-3: Co-Digestion Energy Savings Potential

City of Dallas
Grease Average
Metroplex Potential
Average Month
Grease Gas Production

Grease Addition Per Day, gpd
31,500
75,000
206,835
492,464
600
600
124,100,920
295,478,381
4,645,000
11,066,000
0.5
1.3
Power Rate paid to Oncor Corp., $/kWh
$0.080
$0.080
Power Rate paid to Ameresco, $/kWh
$0.060
$0.060
$212,000
$506,000
Gas Production From Grease, cf/day

Energy Content
Calorific Content of Digester Gas, BTU/cf
Increase in Energy, BTU/day
Increase in Recoverable Electrical Energy, kWh/year
Increase in Recoverable Electrical Energy, MW
Value of Energy Increase
Savings to DWU due to Additional Biogas, $/year
The addition of 31,500 to 75,000 gallons per day of grease can result in an additional $212,000 to
$501,000 savings per year in reduced energy costs. Furthermore, the addition of co-digestion at SWWTP
would allow the Cogeneration Facility to produce over half of all of the electricity required onsite.
In conclusion, Carollo recommends the further investigation of co-digestion to augment the benefits of the
cogeneration facility.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 34 of 42
Section 5.0
Energy Management
Energy Management Plan
5.0
ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Carollo recommends that DWU create and develop energy management plans for each facility. Previous
energy studies, completed by DWU engineering staff at CWWTP in 2005, concluded that a systematic
approach to upgrading equipment can reduce power consumption. (Ref. 198)
Creating an Energy Management Plan facilitates a systematic approach. An Energy Management Plan
can outline upgrades that need to be made in order to reduce electrical consumption. To develop an
EMP, the following should be evaluated:
Potential for energy reduction
Availability of funding
Project cost
Current need for upgraded equipment or process
Regulatory requirements
The beginning of any Energy Management Plan should include a detailed baseline study. Carollo
recommends that DWU embark upon an energy baseline study to determine the base energy load for
which to judge all future projects, expansions, and rehabilitations. A baseline report would facilitate
efficiencies as it is incorporated into the initiatives already begun both in house and by consultants into a
standardized approach. This baseline report should include the following:
Overall facility history and capacities
Utility rate information
Standardization of operational procedures
Comparison of energy use to the billing structures to determine possible savings through better use of
off-peak loading
System improvements and their costs
Constructability
Computations of payback periods for recommended changes
Identification of funding needs as well as funding opportunities
The Team recommends the following standard energy management practices included in a DWU Energy
Management Plan:
Variable frequency controllers for all critical equipment, as identified in the previous criticality sections
Peak electrical shaving and load shedding
Aeration controls
Solids handling/hauling
Operational considerations
Renewable fuel sources
Cogeneration
Lighting controls
Power management software and SCADA
Heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) and other non-process related improvements
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 35 of 42
Section 6.0
Energy Management
Environmental Management System
6.0
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
An Energy Management Plan should be all encompassing and spotlight a single facility. DWU already
has an existing Environmental Management System (EMS) in place. The EMS should be synergistic with
the suggested EMP and should identify energy conservation techniques outside of strict reduction in
energy consumption. An EMS is defined as a set of management processes and procedures that allow
an organization to analyze, control, and reduce the environmental effect of its activities, products, and
services, and operate with greater efficiency and control. Some benefits of implementing a combined
EMP/EMS include the following:
Improved resource management

Short and long-term cost savings can be attained through implementing water, energy, and natural
resource conservation techniques.
Economic and financial benefits and incentives

These may include increased bond ratings, tax reductions, and reduced insurance premiums, all of
which can result in significant savings, on the order of millions of dollars.
Improved operational efficiency and effectiveness

The establishment of systematic processes produces operational efficiency improvements.
Improved environmental awareness and competency with improved social stewardship and
responsibility
Included in an EMS are the standards, policies, and procedures which define strategic conservation and
cost savings opportunities. The following list provides a brief description of some of the techniques
associated with EMS:
Energy efficiency improvements
Plant trees around buildings to provide shade during hot weather months
Install VFDs and energy efficient equipment as applicable
Modify building roofs to include green roofs or install other roofing materials with a solar reflective
index of 29 or higher
Water conservation techniques
Construct rainwater harvesting systems for on-site irrigation
Landscape with native plants that have low water requirements
Reduce potable water use through high efficiency fixtures, dry fixtures, occupant sensors, and
reuse of gray water and stormwater for non-potable applications
Reduce impervious cover
Promote soil infiltration
Green power
Modify electrical purchasing contract in which a specific percentage of energy is provided from green
energy sources such as solar, wind, fuel cell, etc.
Construction waste management

During construction, divert 50 percent (by weight) or more of non-hazardous construction and
demolition debris away from landfills through reuse and recycling efforts.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 36 of 42
Section 6.0
Energy Management
Natural resource management

Use regional building materials to reduce transportation costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
DWU currently has an EMS. The team recommends that the EMS principles stated above and included
in the existing DWU EMS are worked into the Energy Management Plan.
These sustainability and other cost savings techniques should be further evaluated for inclusion in the
DWU's upcoming capital improvement projects.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 37 of 42
Section 7.0
Energy Management
7.0
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The survey of energy management items completed by the Team has identified a road map to further
reach energy savings goals. The roadmap is identified in this section.
7.1
Recommended Studies and Plans
This TM outlines one new Energy Management Plan and recommends modifications to the existing
Environmental Management System.
7.1.1
To improve overall energy consumption at DWU, the key activity is the development and implementation
of an Energy Management Plan. As discussed in Section 5.0, the Energy Management Plan would
include at the very least:
Overall facility history and capacities
Utility rate information
Standardization of operational procedures
Comparison of energy use to the billing structures to determine possible savings through better use of
off-peak loading
System improvements and their costs
Constructability
Computations of payback periods for recommended changes
Identification of funding needs as well as funding opportunities
7.1.2
As part of the Energy Management Plan, the Team also recommends the incorporation of the existing
DWU Environmental Management System, discussed in Section 6.0. The EMS would provide an overall
systematic approach to incorporating energy management ideals, and includes not only those projects or
items related directly to electrical consumption reduction, but also:
Improved efficiency and effectiveness
Resource management paradigm shift
Water conservation
Energy efficiency as it relates to building inhabitants and comfort
Construction waste management practices
Natural resource management
The two plans set a standard for future practices of general operations and maintenance of the facility,
construction practices, and design of new facilities. In the short term, the Team recommends several
immediate changes to reduce the existing energy consumption at both facilities.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 38 of 42
Section 7.0
Energy Management
7.2
CWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations
The following changes can be studied and implemented quickly and easily at CWWTP to save on monthly
energy use:
Automate and use DO control at the aeration basins.
Evaluate mixing requirements within aeration basins.
Monitor power consumption.
Provide VFDs to critical equipment to allow flow pacing, such as the influent pumps at White Rock
Raw Sewage Pump Station.
Evaluate alternative to replace the effluent pumps as the primary source for increasing DO in the
effluent.
station.
Evaluate further application of PFCCs on fixed-speed motors.
In addition, the Team recommends the Plant pursue a more extensive power monitor system so
additional energy consumption information can be gathered in order to facilitate more meaningful
evaluations in the future.
7.3
SWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations
The following list provides the most cost effective ways to reduce energy consumption at SWWTP:
Use existing automation as intended (raw sewage pumps at IPSC).
Replace aerated grit with vortex units.
DWU has proved that energy reduction at the wastewater facilities is possible. Increased planning and
well timed upgrades will continue to provide consistent energy consumption reduction results. DWU, as
the largest user of energy in the City of Dallas, has proven to be an innovative leader and role model in
reducing energy consumption.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 39 of 42
Appendix A
Energy Management
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym or Term
Definition
ASIPS
Activated Sludge Influent Pump
BTU
British Thermal Unit
cf
Cubic Feet
CWWTP
Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DWU
EMS
EMP
HMI
Human Man Interface
hp
Horsepower
hr (s)
Hour/Hours
HVAC
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
IPSC
Influent Pump Station C
kV
Kilovolt
kVAR
Kilovolt-Ampere Reactive
kWh
Kilowatt-hour
kWh/MG
Kilowatt-hours (Electrical Energy) Used per Million Gallons Treated
LCSs
Load Control Stations
Million
MG
Million Gallons
mgd
Million Gallons per Day
MVA
Mega Volt Ampere
NA
Not Applicable
NEMA
National Electric Manufacturers Association
PFCCs
PS
Pump Station
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SWWTP
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Team
The Team includes Carollo Engineers, Dallas Water Utilities

personnel, and various sub-consultants.
VFDs
Variable Frequency Drives
WWTFSP
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan
WWTPs
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 40 of 42
Appendix B
Energy Management
References
Appendix B References
Reference
Number
Reference Information
75
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan. (WWTFSP).

Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
141
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical

Memorandum, Co-Digestion Feasibility Study. Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July
2010.
195
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA VFD pdf. Environmental Management

Systems. Retrieved February 2010 from www.epa.gov/EMS/ .
196
Parksons Brinckerhoff. Comprehensive Energy Action Master Plan. City of Dallas,

Texas, December 2008.
198
Regina Stencil. Electrical Consumption and Cost Study, Central Wastewater

Treatment Plant. Dallas Water Utilities, April 2005.
201
Carollo Engineers, Inc. DWU SWWTP Standard Operating Procedure Guidelines,

Volume 1, Area 1 Preliminary Treatment. Carollo Engineers, Dallas: Carollo
Engineers, Inc., 2010.
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 41 of 42

Energy Management
Record of Change
Record of Change
Version 1.0
Date: April 2010
Location in Document
Description of Change
Version 2.0
Date: July 2010
Global Changes
Made editorial changes to be consistent with other TMs
Updated Footers
Date and version update
Table 4-1
Updated some values with current data
Table 4-2
Updated some values with current data
Figures
Updated figures for clarity and consistency
Section 4.0
Added clarifying text.
Appendix B
Added a reference
Record of Change
Updated to include Version 2.0
WWTFSP_App.F10-2.0
July 2010
Page 42 of 42

WWTFSP App.F10 Energy Management

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WWTFSP App.F10 Energy Management

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appendix F10: Energy Management

Dallas Water Utilities

Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

Historical Energy Data.............................................................................................6

CWWTP Energy Consumption History ......................................................................... 6

CWWTP Audit Results ................................................................................................ 13

Standard Energy Management Practices ............................................................31

Energy Management Plan .....................................................................................35

Environmental Management System....................................................................36

Summary of Recommendations ...........................................................................38

Recommended Studies and Plans.............................................................................. 38

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................40

Dallas Water Utilities

Table 1-1: Summary of 2009 Data Evaluation

Average Daily Flow

Average Consumed per Month

Historical data evaluation for SWWTP and CWWTP

Energy audit of all equipment over 100 hp

Criticality ratings of equipment

Discovery of highest energy consumption equipment

Identification of energy management strategies

Outline of an Energy Management Plan

Review of environmental management systems

City of Dallas Energy Management Plan

Dallas Water Utilities

A base line report of energy consumption

Detailed analysis of various energy management practices

Energy efficiency as it relates to building inhabitants and comfort

Construction waste management practices

CWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations

Evaluate mixing requirements within the aeration basins.

Upgrade worn motors with premium efficiency motors.

Monitor power consumption.

Dallas Water Utilities

SWWTP Energy Reduction Improvement Recommendations

Use existing automation as intended (raw sewage pumps).

Calibrate and rehabilitate DO meters at the aeration basins.

Evaluate grit removal efficiency.

Replace aerated grit with vortex units.

Provide power factor correction capacitors to large equipment.

Provide VFDs to critical equipment to allow flow pacing.

Upgrade worn motors with premium efficiency motors.

Complete sidestream automation.

Evaluate application of PFCCs on fixed-speed motors.

Dallas Water Utilities

Historical Energy Data

HISTORICAL ENERGY DATA

CWWTP Energy Consumption History

Table 2-1: 2009 CWWTP Monthly Energy and Flow Data

Dallas Water Utilities

Historical Energy Data

Figure 2-1: CWWTP Energy Consumption and Flow

Dallas Water Utilities

Historical Energy Data

Figure 2-2: CWWTP Energy Use per MG Treated

Table 2-2 shows the 2009 trends at CWWTP.

Table 2-2: 2009 Trends at CWWTP

Dallas Water Utilities

Historical Energy Data

Cadiz Street Pump Station

Table 2-3: Cadiz Street 2009 Energy Data

Dallas Water Utilities

Historical Energy Data