Through discussions with citizens and seeing the comments posted on social media, I’ve noticed some diverse perceptions of the situation at the sewage treatment plant.
The purpose of this report is to provide an explanation so that everyone has a clear understanding.
Our facility is in compliance with state and federal regulations and is in good operating condition. The discussions in council focus primarily on two topics — (1) creating a redundancy (i.e., back-up system) to keep the plant running if there ever is a failure, and (2) expanding for future growth of our community. Requirements for redundancy and expansion for future growth are regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
This is a several-year process and the first engineering evaluation was presented to the city council at the October 28, 2014, meeting. The preliminary project schedule shown in the engineering evaluation is:
Begin engineering design and permit amendment process: January 1, 2015
Complete design and advertise for bids: October 1, 2016
Begin construction: December 1, 2016
Complete construction: July 1, 2018
Redundancy
The lack of redundancy in the current system is the most pressing concern.
When the current sewage treatment facility was built, state regulations only required that it be equipped with one clarifier. By definition, “A clarifier is generally used to remove solid particulates or suspended solids from liquid for clarification and (or) thickening.” If a facility is built today, the TCEQ requires that the facility have a minimum of two clarifiers so that if one fails, the facility can remain in operation.
The engineering evaluation states that the current clarifier was installed in 1985. If it fails, the city would need to rent another clarifier and connected it to our system until the failed clarifier is either repaired or replaced. Between the time that the clarifier fails and the substitute clarifier is installed, the facility would not be able to properly treat the sewage coming into the plant.
There are several options for proactive action to prevent downtime at the facility. For example, if a second clarifier is purchased and installed in parallel with the current clarifier, the current clarifier could then be overhauled without shutting down the facility.
Expansion
According to the TCEQ, the current facility is permitted for a daily average flow (DAF) of 0.975 million gallons day (MGD). We are currently well under that authorized amount. During July 2014, the DAF was 0.503 MGD, or roughly 51.6% of the permitted DAF.
By TCEQ regulations, planning for the expansion is required when a facility reaches three consecutive months of the actual DAF being 75% or more of the permitted DAF and construction is required to start when actual DAF reaches 90% or more of the permitted DAF for three consecutive months. This is commonly called the “75/90 Rule”.
Based on the engineering evaluation presented at the October 28, 2014, city council meeting, the average DAF from January 2011 to July 2014 is shown in the following table. Rainfall also impacts the DAF in a facility and months with high rainfall are indicated in the table.
| Month | DAF in MGD | % of Permitted DAF |
| Jan 2011 | 0.549323* | 56.3 |
| Feb 2011 | 0.567321 | 58.2 |
| Mar 2011 | 0.528290 | 54.2 |
| Apr 2011 | 0.517667 | 53.1 |
| May 2011 | 0.532226 | 54.6 |
| Jun 2011 | 0.495100 | 50.8 |
| Jul 2011 | 0.484742 | 49.7 |
| Aug 2011 | 0.479774 | 49.2 |
| Sep 2011 | 0.486600 | 49.9 |
| Oct 2011 | 0.504484 | 51.7 |
| Nov 2011 | 0.500067 | 51.3 |
| Dec 2011 | 0.527613 | 54.1 |
| Average for 2011 | 0.514159 | 52.7 |
| Jan 2012 | 0.588871* | 60.4 |
| Feb 2012 | 0.728517* | 74.7 |
| Mar 2012 | 0.725645* | 74.4 |
| Apr 2012 | 0.509133 | 52.2 |
| May 2012 | 0.515903 | 52.9 |
| Jun 2012 | 0.500433 | 51.3 |
| Jul 2012 | 0.676161** | 69.3 |
| Aug 2012 | 0.537258* | 55.1 |
| Sep 2012 | 0.572100* | 58.7 |
| Oct 2012 | 0.537645 | 55.1 |
| Nov 2012 | 0.515433 | 52.9 |
| Dec 2012 | 0.515871 | 52.9 |
| Average for 2012 | 0.576661 | 59.1 |
| Jan 2013 | 0.588871* | 60.4 |
| Feb 2013 | 0.530143 | 54.4 |
| Mar 2013 | 0.513065 | 52.6 |
| Apr 2013 | 0.555567 | 57.0 |
| May 2013 | 0.545000 | 55.9 |
| Jun 2013 | 0.491367 | 50.4 |
| Jul 2013 | 0.503587 | 51.6 |
| Aug 2013 | 0.486806 | 49.9 |
| Sep 2013 | 0.537000* | 55.1 |
| Oct 2013 | 0.768774** | 78.8 |
| Nov 2013 | 0.812367* | 83.3 |
| Dec 2013 | 0.566323 | 58.1 |
| Average for 2013 | 0.575008 | 59.0 |
| Jan 2014 | 0.617256 | 63.3 |
| Feb 2014 | 0.577286 | 59.2 |
| Mar 2014 | 0.727613* | 74.6 |
| Apr 2014 | 0.540967 | 55.5 |
| May 2014 | 0.679484** | 69.7 |
| Jun 2014 | 0.547970 | 56.2 |
| Jul 2014 | 0.503030 | 51.6 |
| Average for first seven months of 2014 | 0.599087 | 61.4 |
| * = total rainfall for month exceeded 5 inches** = total rainfall for month exceeded 10 inches | ||
A recent amendment to the 75/90 Rule allows for annual averaging of the DAF if a facility’s permitted DAF is 1.0 MGD or more. Since our facility is permitted for 0.975 MGD, we are still subject to the more stringent monthly averaging.
The engineering evaluation uses 100 gallons per day as the daily average per person. Using this daily average per person, and based on the average DAF for the first seven months of 2014, our current facility can handle an equivalent of 3,759 more people. That quantity of 3,759 does not take into account new businesses that will open during the future years. The amount of wastewater produced by a business will vary by the type of business. Using the TCEQ’s 75/90 Rule, an increase equivalent to 1,322 people will result in mandatory planning and an increase equivalent to 2,784 people will result in mandatory expansion.
Funding
This is going to cost a great deal of money. According to the engineering evaluation, it could cost up to $10.8 million. Fortunately we are not in a rush for the expansion and have the time to look at multiple options. Our available options include taking out a bond, completing the project in phases, setting aside funds and saving them for future work, or financing the project through energy savings.
Taking out a bond. According to a tax rate impact analysis presented to the council at the November 12, 2014, meeting, taking out a bond would result in a property tax increase of $0.1020-$0.1420 per $100 of assessed value. For a homestead with a $150,000 taxable value, that would mean a tax increase of $153-$213 per year.
Completing the project in phases. This would result in less money needed up front, but could result in higher cost in the overall project. There is no guarantee what construction costs will be in the future — they could go up or down. The first phase would be the addition of the second clarifier. Expansion could wait until it is actually needed and could be done in several smaller phases or one big phase.
Setting aside funds and saving them for future work. This would save the cost of finance charges, but could result in delays in accomplishing the project. Due to the time requirements for saving enough funds for the entire project, this option would work best if combined with the option of completing the project in phases.
Financing the project through energy savings. Many people are not familiar with this option, which could be financed through an energy provider. A comparison is done between the energy costs of traditional technology and energy efficient technology. Payments are made to the energy provider based on the energy usage of the old technology, but the difference between the actual energy usage and the payment made is applied to financing. Additional research is needed to determine the advantages of this method. It could possibly result in less financial impact on the individual taxpayer.
Summary
As you can see, this will be a detailed process over a period of years. Some aspects (such as addition of the second clarifier) need to be done as quickly as possible, while other aspects do not have an immediate need. I will encourage the council to give detailed thought to the overall process and be good financial stewards of our citizens’ tax dollars.
Mark A. Stolarski
Mayor, City of Sealy
