Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Condition Update

Transcription

1 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Condition Update Planning Committee May 12, 2015

2 Agenda Background Condition Assessment Findings Gravity Interceptors Force Mains Pump Stations Phased Capital Improvement Program Next Steps 2

3 Background Key Infrastructure Elements Pump Stations 15 Capacity range: 0.5 to 66 million gallons per day (MGD) Pressurized Force Mains 8 miles Discharge lines from pump stations that feed into gravity interceptor system Pipe size range: 8 to 48 inches (75% is 18 to 24 inches) Predominantly ductile iron pipe Gravity Sewer Interceptors 29 miles Pipe size range: 12 to 108 inches, constructed in 1950s 330 manholes, five emergency overflow structures Reinforced concrete pipes and structures are vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide-related corrosion damage 3

4 Background Wastewater Collection System North Interceptor South Interceptor Alameda Interceptor 4

5 Background Condition Assessment Approach Review Past Findings Conduct Visual Inspections Collect Field Data Closed-circuit television (CCTV) and entry inspections Assess Condition Conduct Risk Assessment Prioritize Capital Improvements Rating A B C D Condition Good Fair Poor Severe

6 Condition Assessment Findings Gravity Interceptors (29 miles) Majority of interceptor system is in fair-to-good condition A/B (Good/Fair): 25.7 miles C (Poor): 2.4 miles D (Severe): 0.9 miles Interceptor Rehabilitation Concrete/rebar/joint repair Protective barrier installation (to prevent future corrosion) Number of Miles Planned (After FY21) Planned (FY15-21) Rehab Completed Good/Fair Condition North South Alameda 6

7 Condition Assessment Findings Gravity Interceptors (cont d) District rehabbed 2.6 miles of interceptor since 2000 An additional 3.4 miles will be rehabilitated based on the condition assessment findings by 2020 Key Projects Wood Street Interceptor Rehabilitation Project (in progress) Alameda Interceptor Rehabilitation Project (in progress) 3 rd Street Interceptor Rehabilitation Project (start in FY17) 7

8 Condition Assessment Findings Gravity Interceptors (cont d) Wood Street Rehab Largest Interceptor Cast-in-place pipe Construction Constraints Rehab methods Night work and operation impacts Community impacts 8

9 Condition Assessment Findings Force Mains (8 miles) Installation Dates Pre-1969 (34%); (37%); Post-2000 (29%) District performed first system-wide inspections from All force mains were found to be in fair-to-good condition Recommended Improvements Rehabilitation to improve interior condition, valves, and corrosion prevention systems Evaluate hydraulic flow improvements Improve access to allow future inspection 9

10 Condition Assessment Findings Pump Stations (15) Overall, pump stations are in good condition with only one pump station found to have capacity issues Most Common Issues Inadequate ventilation Excessive equipment corrosion Limited access to equipment Electrical maintenance requirements 10

11 Condition Assessment Findings Pump Stations (cont d) Specific improvements recommended for Pump Stations A, C, L, and M based on risk assessment findings Consequence of Failure Serious H G C Moderate B, F, N, R A, L, M Minor D, E, Q J, K Pump Last Rehab Location Station Effort A North Interceptor 1987 C Alameda Interceptor 1998 L South Interceptor 1956 M Alameda Interceptor 1988 Very Unlikely Likely Unlikely Likelihood of Failure 11

12 Phased Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Proposed FY16-20 CIP Interceptor Rehabilitation ($48 million, 25% of CIP) Force Main Improvements ($2.4 million) Pump Station Rehabilitation ($8.4 million) Planned Cash Flow ($M) Interceptors Force Mains Pump Stations FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 12

13 Next Steps Complete rehabilitation of key wastewater collection system infrastructure elements Wood Street Interceptor Alameda Interceptor 3 rd Street Interceptor As part of WW asset management, continue to implement appropriate preventive maintenance activities to ensure long-term reliability 13

14

15 Food Waste Update Planning Committee May 12, 2015

16 Outline Background Waste Management Negotiations Preprocessing Overall Food Waste Project Considerations Next Steps 2

17 Background In September 2014, Oakland City Council awarded its Mixed Materials and Organics franchise to Waste Management (WM) and directed commercial organics to the District District will be a subcontractor to WM District will be contractually responsible for commercial food scraps beginning July 1, 2015 For a 1-year start-up period, District will divert material to compost operation(s) District to begin processing food scraps on site by July 1, 2016 Oakland food scraps provide base load for larger preprocessing facility 3

18 Status of WM Subcontract Negotiations Numerous negotiation meetings held in recent weeks A number of issues have been resolved, but several are outstanding 4

19 Status of WM Negotiations Key Issues Resolved: Scope of Material Distance Limitation for Alternate Facilities Agreement on Approach: Conflict with Stopwaste Letter Outstanding: Disposal Facility Quality 5

20 Status of WM Negotiations Scope of Material WM and District have agreed that WM will deliver Food Scraps, which is a subset of commercial organic materials District wants opportunity to review which customers materials will be directed to our facility and which will not WM has agreed to periodic District review of customer lists 6

21 Status of WM Negotiations Alternate Facility Distance Draft WM subcontract requires Alternate Facilities (for first year or back-up) to be within 15 air miles of District facility District has identified four facilities within 15 miles City considering whether to support language allowing limited exceptions 7

22 Status of WM Negotiations Stopwaste Letter In June 2014, District staff exchanged letters with the Executive Director of Stopwaste regarding compliance of our program with the County s ordinance Letter is incorporated by reference in the WM- City Contract, and District is required to adhere to commitments District committed to rejecting loads with >10% contamination, but we do not have that right in the contract District will meet Stopwaste objectives through other controls in contract WM and District have jointly requested that City remove the reference to letter 8

23 Status of WM Negotiations Disposal Facility WM had contended that residuals from preprocessing must be collected by WM and disposed of at their landfill at Altamont District believes we have flexibility Most recent District proposal: Disposal at Altamont, collection services at EBMUD discretion Discounted tip fee Linkage to quality of incoming material 9

24 Status of WM Negotiations Quality of Incoming Material Quality of as-collected material is a key factor in cost of preprocessing Prime contract defines contamination as >10% non-organics Draft subcontract has process for WM to develop remedial plan if contamination is a problem District proposal: District to supplement outreach/education EBMUD pays discounted disposal fee for residuals resulting from excess contamination 10

25 Status of WM Negotiations Quality of Preprocessed Material City-WM contract allows WM to deliver pre-processed organic material to District in the event that quantities exceed 50 tons on a given day Defines pre-processing as size reduction, but District also requires contaminant removal Current discussions around a contaminant specification 11

26 Food Waste Project Overview Pre-processing Digestion Slurry Food Scraps from Routes Biogas Organic Compost Digestate Renewable CNG Dewatering/Drying 12

27 Preprocessing Status of Negotiations District received two proposals in response to RFP and is negotiating with both companies for elements of their proposals: Harvest Power Commercial Organics, including Oakland food scraps Recology Urban Organics derived from San Francisco mixed solid waste 13

28 Preprocessing Harvest Power Contracting Model Working with Harvest Power to develop an innovative partnership contracting model Joint funding by District and Harvest Harvest to design, build, and operate Each party to take on certain risks Scope to include preprocessing as well as product management Digestate Energy 14

29 Overall Food Waste Project Considerations Aggressive Schedule Preprocessing facilities must be constructed by July 1, 2016 Ramp up of other organics shortly thereafter Facilities to handle additional dewatering and energy management are also required Interim Processing District takes responsibility for Oakland material July 1, 2015 Negotiations with potential alternate facilities are underway 15

30 Overall Food Waste Project Considerations (cont.) Permitting District will likely require Solid Waste Facility Permit for dedicated digestion Infrastructure Staff is working on planning and design of utilities and interface with preprocessing contractors Proposed CIP includes approx. $14 M for Food Waste Project, including dedicated dewatering Project Economics Iterative process as negotiations continue 16

31 Next Steps Finalize negotiations with WM and City Continue negotiations with preprocessing contractors Detailed update to Sustainability Committee on May 26 Contracts to Board for consideration Target June 17

32

33 Panoramic Hill Water System Improvements May 12, 2015

34 Presentation Outline 1. Project location, need, and scope 2. Progress including community outreach 3. Next steps

35 Panoramic Hill Berkeley University Pumping Plant Oakland University Reservoir Hayward Fault Zone Panoramic Hill Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve

36 University Reservoir

37 Pipeline Replacements Panoramic Hill Benefits Fire Flow Reliability Preserve Lower Orchard Lane

38 Pipeline Replacements Clark Kerr Campus

39 University Pumping Plant EBMUD University Pumping Plant Arden Path Panoramic Way

40 University Pumping Plant

41 University Pumping Plant Benefits Reliability Access Water quality

42 Arden Path

43 Schedule

44 Construction Challenges Challenge Strategy Access to homes Work in public staircases phased to maximize access Traffic Entrance road open until 9 am, between noon to 1pm, and after 4 pm Noise Best management practices Phasing with City projects Regular coordination meetings Emergency services Stage emergency responders above the work when the entrance road is closed Construction updates Changeable message boards and Panoramic Hill list

45 Community Outreach Multiple meetings with cities of Berkeley and Oakland including Fire Departments First community meeting held April 23, 2014 Ongoing coordination meetings with cities of Berkeley and Oakland Residents to be notified prior to reservoir work 2nd community meeting planned for Feb Regular updates on District s project website during construction

46 Next Steps 1. Award Reservoir Construction Contract (June 9) 2. Second Public Meeting (February 2016) 3. Pipeline Construction (Spring 2016 Fall 2017)

47 Panoramic Hill Water System Improvements Thank you

48