wastewater collection system infrastructure condition update

Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Condition Update

Planning Committee

May 12, 2015

• Background

• Condition Assessment Findings

– Gravity Interceptors

– Force Mains

– Pump Stations

• Phased Capital Improvement Program

• Next Steps

Agenda

2

Background Key Infrastructure Elements

• 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

• 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

• Pump Stations – 15

– Capacity range: 0.5 to 66 million gallons per day (MGD)

Background Wastewater Collection System

4

Alameda Interceptor

South Interceptor

North Interceptor

Prioritize Capital Improvements

Background Condition Assessment Approach

Conduct Visual Inspections

Collect Field Data

Conduct Risk Assessment

Review Past Findings

Assess Condition

Rating Condition A Good B Fair C Poor D Severe

Closed-circuit television (CCTV)

and entry inspections

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)

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

North South AlamedaN

umbe

r of M

iles

Planned (After FY21)Planned (FY15-21)Rehab CompletedGood/Fair Condition

Condition Assessment Findings Gravity Interceptors (cont’d)

7

• 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)

– 3rd Street Interceptor Rehabilitation Project (start in FY17)

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

Condition Assessment Findings Force Mains (8 miles)

• Installation Dates

– Pre-1969 (34%); 1970-95 (37%); Post-2000 (29%)

• District performed first system-wide inspections from 2012-2014

• 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

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

Condition Assessment Findings Pump Stations (cont’d)

11

Con

sequ

ence

of F

ailu

re

Serious

H

G C

Moderate

B, F, N, R

A, L, M

Minor D, E, Q J, K

Very Unlikely

Unlikely Likely

Likelihood of Failure

•Specific improvements recommended for Pump Stations A, C, L, and M based on risk assessment findings

Pump Station

Location Last Rehab

Effort A North Interceptor 1987

C Alameda Interceptor 1998

L South Interceptor 1956

M Alameda Interceptor 1988

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)

12 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

Plan

ned

Cash

Flo

w ($

M) Interceptors Force Mains Pump Stations

Next Steps

• Complete rehabilitation of key wastewater collection system infrastructure elements – Wood Street Interceptor – Alameda Interceptor – 3rd Street Interceptor

• As part of WW asset management, continue to implement appropriate preventive maintenance activities to ensure long-term reliability

13

Food Waste Update

Planning Committee

May 12, 2015

Outline

• Background

•Waste Management Negotiations

• Preprocessing

•Overall Food Waste Project Considerations

•Next Steps 2

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

Status of WM Subcontract Negotiations

•Numerous negotiation meetings held in recent weeks

• A number of issues have been resolved, but several are outstanding

4

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Food Waste Project Overview

12

Food Scraps from Routes

Pre-processing Digestion

Slurry

Dewatering/Drying

Organic Compost Biogas

Digestate

Renewable CNG

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

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

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

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

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

Panoramic Hill Water System Improvements

May 12, 2015

Presentation Outline

1. Project location, need, and scope2. Progress including community outreach 3. Next steps

Panoramic Hill

Claremont Canyon Regional PreserveClaremont Canyon Regional Preserve

Panoramic Hill

Panoramic Hill

BerkeleyBerkeley OaklandOakland University ReservoirUniversity Reservoir

University Pumping PlantUniversity Pumping Plant

Hayward Fault ZoneHayward

Fault Zone

University Reservoir

Pipeline ReplacementsPanoramic Hill

Benefits Fire Flow Reliability Preserve Lower Orchard Lane

Pipeline Replacements Clark Kerr Campus

University Pumping Plant

EBMUD University

Pumping Plant

EBMUD University

Pumping Plant

Panoramic WayPanoramic Way

Arden PathArden Path


Benefits Reliability Access Water quality

Arden Path

Schedule

Construction Challenges

Challenge Strategy

Access to homesWork in public staircasesphased to maximize access

TrafficEntrance road open until 9 am, between noon to 1pm, and after 4 pm

Noise Best management practices

Phasing with City projectsRegular coordination meetings

Emergency servicesStage emergency responders above the work when the entrance road is closed

Construction updatesChangeable message boards and Panoramic Hill email list

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. 2016

Regular updates on District’s project website during construction

Next Steps

1. Award Reservoir Construction Contract (June 9)

2. Second Public Meeting (February 2016)

3. Pipeline Construction (Spring 2016 – Fall 2017)


Thank you


Thank you

wastewater collection system infrastructure condition update

Documents