South Interceptor 3 rd Street Rehabilitation Phase 2

Transcription

1 South Interceptor 3 rd Street Rehabilitation Phase 2 Planning Committee September 11, 2018

2 Agenda Background Project Scope Rehabilitation Method Schedule Potential Impacts and Mitigation Community Outreach Next Steps 2

3 Background Wood St. 3 rd St. Phase 1 3 rd Street Phase 2 Project Site 3

4 Background South Interceptor is the District s largest sewer pipe Constructed in 1952, with no redundancy 30 in. to 105 in. diameter Conveys 60% of flow to the Main Wastewater Treatment Plant 1997 assessment recommended repair program due to corrosion: Concrete with exposed aggregate and spalls Corroded rebar 4

5 Project Scope Slipline approximately 4,700 lineal feet of existing 105 in. diameter sewer along 3 rd Street Includes five temporary jacking pits for new pipe Rehabilitate five existing manhole structures District will lease Caltrans property for staging area and storage of pipes 5

6 Rehabilitation Method Sliplining benefits: Trenchless construction Does not require extensive mannedentry into pipe Lowest cost and shortest schedule Provides entirely new pipe versus partial rehabilitation (e.g. crown lining) Reduced sediment and debris buildup No disruptions to plant and collection system operations Minimal reduction in interceptor flow and storage capacity Success with District s previous sliplining project Alameda Interceptor Rehabilitation,

7 Rehabilitation Method Grout 96 Diameter 105 Diameter Alameda Interceptor Rehabilitation,

8 Project Schedule 2020 April to October 2019 April to October Jacking Pit Interceptor Sliplining 8

9 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Odors Odors are expected from the jacking pits, but will be mitigated by: Injecting sodium hypochlorite upstream to oxidize odorous compounds (method was recently adopted by City of L.A.) Ventilating sewer headspace through carbon filters 9

10 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Traffic Partial road closures during: Traffic control setup Mobilization Pit excavation and backfill Full road closures during: Pipe installation, for approximately two weeks at a time for each jacking pit Joint Outfall D 54 Sliplining Rehabilitation Los Angeles County Sanitation District,

11 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Traffic Traffic will be rerouted onto 5 th and 6 th Streets through Mandela Parkway, Adeline Street, and Market Street District staff has been attending Oakland Utility Coordination Meetings to discuss traffic impacts and address concerns 11

12 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Safety Extensive manned-entry not required (unlike other rehabilitation methods) Construction limited to dryweather season (April through October) Contractor will coordinate closely with District staff to ensure conditions are safe before working 12

13 Community Outreach District has been engaged in community outreach efforts since the project s planning stage Community Outreach Plan was developed with District s Community Affairs team, which will include: Stakeholder meetings Door-to-door meetings Notification mailers 13

14 Next Steps Construction contract will be presented to Board for consideration on September 11, 2018 Includes Caltrans property lease agreement for construction staging Continue community outreach efforts Door-to-door meetings starting November 2018 Notification mailers in February 2019 and February 2020 Two year construction dry weather seasons: April through October 2019 April through October

15 Questions 15

16 Copper Laterals Cathodic Protection Project Planning Committee September 11, 2018

17 Agenda Project Background Solution Next Steps

18 Background Typical Service Lateral

19 Service Laterals in the District Service Material Type Number of Services Copper (coated and uncoated) 353,086 Cast Iron 123 Galvanized Steel 2275 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 1,901 Polyethylene (PE) 8 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 0 Polybutylene 14,200 Steel 1,180 Total Services in the District 372,873

20 Copper Services Copper is a reliable material Relatively inexpensive Easy to install Ductile yet durable Performs well in earthquakes If properly protected from corrosion it can last in excess of 100 years

21 Examples of Unprotected/Failed Service ~160,000 unprotected copper services Copper is vulnerable to corrosion when connected to non-metallic water mains (PVC, AC) and in corrosive soils Service pictured is less than 25 years old

22 Copper Service Being Replaced The cost to replace one service is approximately $10,000 The District replaces 400 to 700 services a year

23 Solution - Anode and Insulating Coupling Install Anode Install Insulating Coupling Cost ~$600

24 Next Steps Award project to Alisto Engineering Group for $3.2 M Contractor and District forces will install approximately 10,000 anodes and conduct leak detection surveys. District forces will install insulating meter couplings. Leaking services will be replaced by District Forces.

25 Next Steps Collect Data on most efficient way to do the work Develop a program to improve the remaining unprotected services over the next five to ten years. Project duration October 2018 to October 2019

26 Semi-Annual Regulatory Compliance Update Planning Committee September 11, 2018

27 Agenda Environmental Compliance Main WWTP Settlement Agreement Orinda WTP Compliance Environmental Issues Strategic Plan Key Performance Indicators Key Upcoming Activities 2

28 Environmental Compliance Water Quality and Environmental Protection Goal: Zero NPDES and Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Notice of Violations (NOV) Actual: Zero NPDES and WDR NOVs Air Permit Compliance NOV for NOx emissions from flare NOV for torn vapor hose at gas dispenser 3

29 Main WWTP Settlement Agreement Five Sanitary Sewer Overflows and four Wet Weather Facility Violations Occurred December 2014 February 2017 $134,000 settlement with EPA and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board 4

30 Orinda WTP Compliance 230,000 gallon chlorinated water discharge in September 2017 Root cause investigation identified several improvements Presented findings to Regional Water Quality Control Board in January and May 2018 Entering settlement discussions 5

31 Other Environmental Issues Glen Echo Creek Restoration activities and three years of monitoring complete Final report submitted July 2018 Poison Lake Remediation work is complete Surface water monitoring continues 6

32 Strategic Plan KPI Workforce Planning and Development Goal: Lost Time Injury Rate (LTIR) 3.0 Actual: LTIR District Lost Time Injury Rate Jul

33 Key Upcoming Activities Enhanced Compliance Action Settlement for three breaks in 2015/2016 $382,095 suspended pending completion of Enhanced Compliance Action Install leak detection loggers at pipelines near creeks to detect main breaks 975 loggers deployed 19 leaks identified and repaired Next quarterly report due September 30,

34 Key Upcoming Activities Integrated Pest Management Completed three days of training for employees Developed data tracking tools to account for IPM practices Designed an IPM outreach brochure Update to the Board in January

35 Questions 10

36 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Compliance Update Planning Committee September 11, 2018

37 Agenda Introduction Background on SGMA Basin Reprioritization Process Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Update Next Steps 2

38 Background on SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act - Requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) in 127 high- and medium-priority basins - Authorizes management tools for local agencies - Creates State backstop - Defines time frame for accomplishing goals 3

39 The East Bay Plain Classified in 2014 as a Medium Priority Basin - Requires implementation of a GSP by January 2022 EBMUD and City of Hayward are the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for their portions of the Basin DWR awarded EBMUD a $1 million grant for GSP development Outreach to stakeholders - Cities, Counties, Regional Board, private pumpers, environmental NGOs 4

40 Basin Prioritization Following the 2016 Basin boundary modification process, DWR was required to reassess basin prioritizations On May 18, 2018, DWR released draft reprioritizations, which recommended changing the East Bay Plain from medium to very low priority - SGMA encourages, but does not require, GSPs for very low priority basins - DWR indicated EBMUD could keep $1 million grant regardless of prioritization 5

41 Basin Prioritization Staff s review of DWR s methodology and data found several inaccuracies DWR assumed zero groundwater pumping in the basin; most published reports estimate pumping at around 3,000-3,400 acre-feet/year DWR encouraged EBMUD and Hayward to provide relevant information through the public comment process In August 2018, EBMUD and Hayward submitted a joint comment letter that provided more accurate basin information 6

42 GSP Preparation EBMUD is proceeding with GSP preparation - Ensure sustainable management of a local water supply resources (Strategic Plan goal for Long-Term Water Supply) - Basin prioritization could change again in the future - $1 million in grant funding available now - EBMUD has made a commitment to stakeholders - All neighboring basins are preparing GSPs or have submitted alternative plans - EBMUD s partner, City of Hayward, has determined to move forward 7

43 Next Steps October Board consideration of a consultant contract for GSP development November Final DWR prioritizations Active coordination will continue with stakeholders including cities, counties, private pumpers, environmental NGOS, Regional Board, and DWR Develop a GSP for the East Bay Plain with completion by January 2022, as required by grant agreement 8

44 Questions & Comments 9

45 Water Loss Audit Planning Committee September 11, 2018

46 California Senate Bill 555 What does SB 555 require? 1. Annual water audits 2. Validated water audits 3. Post audits online 4. Establish water loss standards 2

47 SB 555 Timeline SB 555 Signed Oct 2015 Validated Water Audits Submitted Stakeholder Meetings SWRCB Develops Water Loss Standards for Utilities January 1, 2019 July 1,

48 Water Audits AWWA standard Inputs and outputs Data validity vs accuracy Performance indicators Non-revenue water Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Comparing results between utilities 4

49 California Water Audits for

50 Water Loss Audit Committee Committee formed October 2017 Purpose to address accuracy of data used in water audit Evaluated each component of the water audit 6

51 District Water Audit for

52 Non-Revenue Water 8

53 Infrastructure Leakage Index 9

54 Efforts to Reduce Real Losses Pipeline replacement Leak detection Acoustic loggers Satellite leak detection Pressure monitoring Speed & quality of repairs Satellite Imaging 10

55 Next Steps 1. Complete third-party verification of audit 2. Submit audit by Oct Prioritize subcommittee recommendations 4. Include funds for water audit-related projects in FY20-21 CIP 5. Complete leakage component analysis & water loss master plan 11

56 Questions