Vendor Faire CLEAN WATER PROGRAM€¦ · • WWTP Immediate Action Projects • Collection System...

Vendor FaireCLEAN WATER PROGRAM

April 24, 2015

Presented byCity of San Mateo, CA

Welcome!

2

Agenda

Safety Moment

Program Goals for Vendor Interaction

Program Overview

Communication Approaches

Procurement Approaches

Vendor Opportunities

Breakout Sessions With Report Backs

3

Safety Moment

Precautions— Stay hydrated by drinking water and decreasing your intake of caffeine.

— Acclimate yourself by slowly increasing your outdoor activities.

— Limit outdoor activities to early morning or late evening, if possible.

— Minimize direct sun exposure.

— Take regular breaks in a cool, shaded area.

— Do not work alone in the heat.

4

Signs of Heat Stress: Headache, lightheadedness, weakness, profuse sweating, muscle cramps, nausea, and vomiting.

Program Goals for Vendor Interactions

Develop strong partnerships with vendors

Make partnership as easy as possible

Achieve these goals by

—Providing information about opportunities

—Developing and implementing Program standards and tools

—Being as transparent as possible

—Clear communication of expectations

5

Partnerships

Program Overview

Combined Capital Improvement Projects for both the wastewater collection and treatment systems facilities

Regulatory Compliance Drivers—2009 Cease & Desist Order (CDO) – eliminates SSOs—2013 NPDES Permit – reduces blending

6

Program GoalsReplace aging infrastructure & facilities

Meet current and future regulations requirements

Build wet weather collection system & WWTP capacity assurance

Align with City’s Sustainability Goals

—Water reuse potential

—Resource recovery

—Sustainable materials

7

System Overview

Collection System —Approximately 250 miles of sanitary sewer pipeline

—25 pump stations

8

San Mateo’s Collection System Area

System Overview

Wastewater Treatment Plant—Provides secondary and advanced secondary treatment

—15.7 mgd average dry weather flow capacity

—60 mgd peak effluent discharge flow capacity

9

San Mateo’s WWTP

Clean Water Program CIP Totaling Near $900M

10

Program Implementation

2014

• Integrated Master Plan Final Draft

• PMO established

2015

• Program EIR

• Public Outreach

• Public Website

• WWTP Immediate Action Projects

• Collection System Projects

• Engineering Studies

• WWTP Headworks and Primaries RFQ

2016

• Complete Program EIR

• New and ongoing WWTPand Collection System Projects

• WWTP Secondary Treatment Projects

11

Communication ApproachPublic Website—Target June 2015—Basic Program information—Vendor feedback on content during breakouts

Program Portal—Selected vendor communication through the Portal—Project coordination and document sharing—Paperless work space

12

Contact Information

Website: www.CleanWaterProgramSanMateo.org

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (650) 727‐6870

13

Procurement Approach

Consistent with the City Municipal Code 3.60 Purchasing

San Mateo is a Charter City, therefore in addition to bid price, the City may consider other criteria when awarding contracts

Mixed approach for Procurements—Traditional (design‐bid‐build)

—Master Service Agreements (MSAs)

—Qualification based selection

—Prequalification of contractors

—Alternative delivery

14

Professional Services ProcurementPossible Approaches

—Project Specific RFQ/RFP

—Master Service Agreements/On‐Call

—Prequalification

—Alternative Project Delivery

Qualification Based Selection

Evaluation and scoring criteria will be included in the RFP/RFQ

15

Construction Contract Procurement

Possible Approaches—Design‐Bid‐Build

—Design Build/CMAR

—Prequalification

—On‐Call Services

Projects funded through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) will necessitate additional requirements

—DBE goals

—Federal Davis‐Bacon requirements

16

Equipment/Materials Procurement

Possible Approaches

—Traditional (procure through prime contractor)

—Pre‐purchase and assign to selected contractor

—Master Purchase Agreement

Potential equipment and material standardization

17

City Expectations for VendorsProvide high quality work

Meet scope and schedule

Work within budget

Minimize change orders

Perform work safely

Clear and timely communications

Act in a professional manner

18

Be respectful of the Public – they are our customers

Key Professional Services Opportunities Through 2015

Pump Station and Force Main Condition Assessment RFP

42nd Avenue Pump Station Design RFP

WWTP Headworks and Primaries Design RFQ

19

Key Construction Opportunities Through 2015

WWTP Process Control System

WWTP Solids Improvements

WWTP Secondary Clarifiers

Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation

CCTV Sanitary Sewers

20

Opportunities After 2015

Currently refining the Program CIP

Evaluation includes project sequencing, scheduling, and cash flow

Information about opportunities after 2015 will be issued after evaluation is finalized

21

Breakout

Consultants – Council Chambers

Contractors and Equipment/Material Vendors –Conference Room C

22

Report Back

Consultants

Contractors and Equipment/Material Vendors

23

Thank You

Contact Information:

Website: www.CleanWaterProgramSanMateo.org

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (650) 727‐6870

24

Vendor Faire Attendees

First Name Last Name Company Email Address Phone Number

Tony Amiri ABB, Inc. [email protected] 209‐988‐4446

Bruce Ryan AECOM [email protected] 650‐776‐8013

Greg Ow AECOM [email protected] 415‐281‐2618

Lock Kwan AECOM [email protected] 650‐245‐2729

Brian Danley Anchor Engineering, Inc. [email protected] 925‐385‐0950 x14

Peter Wijsman ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Peter.Wijsman@arcadis‐us.com 415‐244‐2118

David Hahn Avalon Construction [email protected] 415‐822‐0822

Erich Heidemeyer Battery Systems of SF [email protected] 415‐648‐7650

Janine O'Flaherty BKF Engineers [email protected] 650‐482‐6336

Yousara Tilden BKF Engineers [email protected] 650‐482‐6402

Sanjay Reddy Black & Veatch Corp. [email protected] 925‐949‐5905

Aren Hansen Brown & Caldwell [email protected] 925‐210‐2522

Trulee Karahashi Careful Clean services@careful‐clean.com 650‐216‐9922

Rick Chan Carollo Engineers [email protected] 925‐932‐1710

Zaheer Shaikh Carollo Engineers [email protected] 925‐395‐1928

William Walker CD & Power [email protected] 925‐766‐0719

Arrind Akela CDM Smith [email protected] 925‐296‐8078

Hala Titus CDM Smith [email protected] 925‐296‐8055

Shannon Burson CSC Communication Supply

Corporation

[email protected] 858‐349‐6226

Dave Bishop CSG Consultants [email protected] 650‐522‐2515

Hatem Ahmed CSG Consultants [email protected] 650‐522‐2511

Surlene Grant Envirocom Communications

Strategies, Inc.


Nicole Hanna EPS Nicolas & Bechwati [email protected] 650‐444‐2002

Matthew Zucca Erler and Kalinowski, Inc. [email protected] 650‐292‐9100

Nelson Schlater Erler and Kalinowski, Inc. [email protected] 415‐305‐8246

Lance Phillips Frank Olsen [email protected] 925‐518‐7670

Justin Lai Freyer & Laureta, Inc. [email protected] 650‐344‐9901

Hon Cheong Lee Freyer & Laureta, Inc. [email protected] 650‐344‐9901

Bill Promes George T. Hall Company [email protected] 510‐919‐6047

Nate Jones GSE Construction Co., Inc. [email protected] 925‐525‐2320

Renee Crawford Hatch Mott MacDonald [email protected] 408‐572‐8800

Tracie Sakakihara Hatch Mott MacDonald [email protected] 408‐572‐8797

Allan Briggs Hazen & Sawyer [email protected] 413‐658‐7071

Marc Solomon Hazen & Sawyer [email protected] 415‐432‐4390

Kevin Calderwood HDR, Inc. [email protected] 916‐817‐4979

Linc To HDR, Inc. [email protected] 925‐974‐2540

Curtis Lam Hydroscience Engineers [email protected] 510‐540‐7100 x12

San Mateo Clean Water ProgramApril 24, 2015

Page 1 of 3




Bill Bonney Insituform Technologies [email protected] 425‐357‐7809

Peter Varma Intraline, Inc. [email protected] 570‐780‐9800

Liz Crum J.P. Morgan [email protected] 415‐315‐6710

Rob Kahl Jacobs Associates [email protected]

Craig Lichty Kennedy Jenks [email protected] 415‐350‐7806

Phil Dupuis Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. [email protected] 925‐348‐2254

Bruce Daseking McGuire Hester [email protected] 510‐632‐7676

Keith Johnson McMillen Jacobs Associates [email protected] 415‐249‐8223

Michael Skowronek Michael Baker International [email protected] 510‐879‐0958

Nora Li Minority Business Development

Agency, SF Center

[email protected] 415‐704‐7415 x311

Peter Brennan MNS Engineers, Inc. [email protected] 805‐722‐4765

Mark Rincon MNS Engineers, Inc. [email protected] 805‐727‐8539

Willy Nowotny MNS Engineers, Inc. [email protected] 408‐483‐8102

Ed Moore Monterey Mechanical [email protected] 510‐774‐5376

Billy Wong MWH [email protected] 925‐899‐1013

Andre Tolme MWH [email protected] 925‐360‐0646

Corey Maxfield MWH [email protected]

Dianna Sorby NetXperts, Inc. [email protected] 916‐316‐5446

George Tabet No Violation, Inc. [email protected] 650‐438‐3100

Dennis Wann O'Dell Engineering [email protected] 209‐571‐1765 x121

Romena Jonas Pari & Gershon, Inc [email protected] 408‐966‐7184

Jeremy McVey PCL Construction, Inc. [email protected] 480‐797‐7219

Bob Agness Presidio [email protected] 925‐575‐0217

Mike Schratz Presidio Systems, Inc. mike.schratz@presidio‐inc.com 925‐456‐8400

Garrett Rehs Rain for Rent [email protected] 925‐303‐8979

Cathy Conley RICOH USA, Inc. Cathy.Conley@ricoh‐usa.com 408‐546‐2638

Dave Richardson RMC Water & Environment [email protected] 925‐627‐4138

Joe Fuata Sanact Refinery Services [email protected] 510‐483‐2324

Julie Thorme SANDIS [email protected] 510‐410‐4850

Suzanne Sarro Sarro Associates, Inc. [email protected] 408‐891‐0443

Adam Alexander SDI Insulation aalexander@sdi‐insulation.com 650‐922‐6032

Tom DiCandia SDI Insulation tdicandia@sdi‐insulation.com 650‐576‐3455

Nicholas Haddad Seecom [email protected] 650‐245‐4554

Ben Shick Shaaf and Wheeler [email protected] 707‐566‐4491

Dan Howell Skanska, Inc. [email protected] 206‐494‐5421

Steve Agor Skanska, Inc. [email protected] 951‐368‐6484

Michael Griffiths Statewide [email protected] 408‐993‐9770

Robert Gonzalez Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc. [email protected] 650‐726‐7119

Page 2 of 3




Mike Harlan T&T Valve & Instrument mharlan@tt‐valve.com 925‐719‐7931

Peter Strong T&T Valve & Instrument [email protected] 925‐963‐3341

Clay Kuzma The Covello Group, Inc. [email protected] 707‐344‐8203

Mimi Mehaouchi The Covello Group, Inc. [email protected] 925‐933‐2300 x126

John May Towill, Inc. [email protected] 510‐857‐7143

David Metzger Underwater Resrouces [email protected] 510‐957‐5097

Ken Sinclair Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc. [email protected] 510‐446‐8301

Rany Chek Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc. [email protected] 510‐446‐8301 x510

Greg Chung West Yost Asscociates [email protected] 650‐862‐3517

John Bergen West Yost Asscociates [email protected] 925‐699‐5008

Lani Good West Yost Asscociates [email protected] 925‐949‐5822

Jeff Peterson Wilsey Ham [email protected] 650‐286‐8415

Justin Semion WRA, Inc. semion@wra‐ca.com 415‐497‐5664

Maria Pia Allende WRE Water Resources

Engineering, Inc.


Andrew Sekioka Wreco [email protected] 510‐836‐5188 x302

Page 3 of 3

Additional Vendors Expressing Interest


Jeannie Kwan CMD Group [email protected] 770‐209‐3396

Ronda Borden Mountain Cascade, Inc. [email protected] 925‐373‐8370

Don Wible Nor Cal Pipeline Services [email protected]

Kianoush Harirsaz Rajappan & Meyer [email protected] 510‐569‐5251

Taruna Arora Schaaf and Wheeler [email protected] 408‐246‐4848 x231


Page 1 of 1

20-YEAR MASTER PLAN

City of San MateoEstero Muncipal Improvement District

I ntegrated Wastewater

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 42035

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1

INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN AND CIP DRIVERS 3

Aging Infrastructure 3

Service Area and Flow Capacity 3

Regulations 4

Policy Decisions 5

EXISTING FACILITIES EVALUATION 5

Collection and Conveyance 5

Wastewater Treatment 7

FUTURE NEEDS AND PROJECT TRIGGERS 8

Address Reliability and Replacement Needs 8

Manage Peak Flows and Reduce the Risk of SSOs 8

Address the Requirement to Eliminate Blending 9

Improve Treated Water Quality 9

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CIP 9 Project Costs 9

CIP Project Prioritization 10

Project Descriptions 13

Implementation 16

NEXT STEPS 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Glossary of Terms

CIP Capital Improvement Program

I/I Inflow and Infiltration

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

EMID Estero Municipal Improvement District

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow

mgd million gallons per day

CDO Cease and Desist Order

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Permit)

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 1

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City of San Mateo (City) collects, conveys, and treats wastewater for the citizens of San Mateo as well as serving the surrounding communities, including: a portion of the County of San Mateo, the Town of Hillsborough (Hillsborough), Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (CSCSD), and Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID). The City’s collection system includes approximately 234 miles of sanitary sewer and 26 pump stations, while EMID’s system includes approximately 66 miles of sanitary sewer and approximately 49 pump stations. The City and EMID jointly own the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), and the City operates the plant as the administering agency of the JPA. The City and EMID are co-permit holders for the WWTP’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and, as such, are responsible for providing efficient and reliable wastewater services to the communities. As with most wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area, the City’s collection system and jointly owned WWTP are aging facilities that need improvements to continue to meet current and future flows and permit requirements.

The WWTP serves 143,000 people from many different communities in San Mateo County.

Integrated Wastewater

CITY OF SAN MATEO/ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

20-YEAR MASTER PLAN

SAN MATEO

WWTP

FOSTER CITY

CSCSD

HILLSBOROUGH(South Portion)

LEGEND

Service Area Boundary

WWTPContributor Boundaries

In March 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued the City, Hillsborough, and CSCSD (collectively referred to as “Agencies”) a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) mandating elimination of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in their respective and collective collection systems, as well as requiring specific corrective actions to upgrade sewer capacity. EMID was not named in the CDO, as they do not have significant SSOs in their collection system. In 2013, the WWTP was issued a new NPDES permit, with special provisions requiring a more integrated view of the collection system and WWTP including the development of WWTP and Collection System Master Plans and Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs), and a Wet Weather Improvement Program. This Integrated Wastewater Master Plan was developed in response

2 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 20-YEAR MASTER PLAN

to those requirements and is a comprehensive document, including a CIP, that addresses the needs over the next 20 years for the City’s collection system and the WWTP to deal with wet and dry weather flows. The City embarked on this plan recognizing that a coordinated system-wide wastewater effort and complementary spending plan was needed, because the collection system, wet weather storage, and WWTP are related systems that should not be evaluated individually. Potential alternatives aimed at reducing collection system SSOs, may affect WWTP and storage facility requirements and/or provide a means to optimize these facilities.

As a result of the CDO, the integrated master plan focuses on the City’s sewer collection system, and does

not address EMID’s system. Costs for collection system improvements will be proportionally shared by upstream contributing agencies and the City, and will not be allocated to EMID. However, costs of the WWTP improvements will be shared by the City, upstream contributors, and EMID. The City has developed this 20-Year Integrated Wastewater Master Plan and CIP considering the following key elements:

• Providing adequate capacity to convey and treat the projected flows in the system.

• Resolving existing condition and treatment concerns.

• Meeting current regulatory requirements regarding blending, SSOs and infiltration and inflow (I/I) reduction.

• Meeting anticipated future regulatory requirements.

• Meeting the City’s sustainability objectives including more efficient use of energy and recycled water.

• Space planning for current and future needs considering the limitations of the WWTP site.

• Balancing improvements between collection/conveyance, treatment, and storage to find the most efficient method to handle wet weather flows.

Alternatives that could meet all of these criteria were developed and evaluated using both economic and non-economic criteria. A coordinated CIP, including the collection system and WWTP programs, with cash flow

Detroit Drive Site

LEGEND

Bayfront Parcels

WWTP Site

Dale Avenue Parcel

Due to the largely built out WWTP site, use of adjacent parcels are being considered for future facility needs.

CITY OF SAN MATEO/ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT | OCTOBER 2014


requirements was developed to reflect the expenditures needed to continue efficient operation of the wastewater system for the next 20 years. This will assist the City and EMID in developing future budgets and making financial decisions.

INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN AND CIP DRIVERSThere are several project drivers affecting the development of this master plan, the resulting CIP projects, and the prioritization of the projects. The drivers fall within several categories:

• Aging infrastructure requiring repair or replacement.

• Capacity to deal with dry and wet weather flows generated from the Service Area.

• Regulatory requirements (current and future).

• Policy decisions regarding space planning and sustainability initiatives including recycled water and green energy.

Aging InfrastructureThe City was incorporated in 1894 and, as a result of being a historic city, has infrastructure including parts of the wastewater collection and treatment system that have been in existence for nearly 100 years. Due to the age of assets in the collection system and at the WWTP, there are numerous projects that are needed in both the near-term and long-term to rehabilitate or replace facilities that are failing and/or are at the end of their useful life.

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035P

roje

cted

Was

tew

ater

Flo

w, m

gd0

20

40

60

80

100

Projected Wet Weather Flow

Permitted Dry WeatherCapacity = 15.7 mgd

Projected Dry Weather Flow

Outfall Capacity

Dry weather flows are projected to increase slowly over the next 20 years. Wet weather flows to the plant are projected to be 98 mgd in 2035 for a 5 year, 6 hour storm once collection system bottlenecks are alleviated.

Service Area and Flow Capacity The current population within the entire WWTP service area is estimated to be approximately 143,100 based on the 2010 census. Assuming the population continues to grow at a similar rate as the past five years, the population is expected to increase by 16 percent over the 20-year planning horizon, which equates to a population of 166,400 by the year 2035. The WWTP has a permitted capacity of 15.7 million gallons per day (mgd) for average dry weather flow (ADWF). The current ADWF is approximately 11 mgd. Future dry weather flows to the WWTP were projected using a per capita method. This method assumes that flows and loads will increase proportionally to the increase in population anticipated with future growth. Using this method, the 2035 ADWF was estimated to be 13.9 mgd. The influent loadings are expected to increase similarly. Therefore, expansion of permitted capacity for dry conditions is not anticipated to be needed over the 20-year planning period.

CITY OF SAN MATEO/ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT | AUGUST 2013


While future dry weather flows do not trigger any new projects, there are many projects associated with providing additional capacity for wet weather flow events. The permitted peak wet weather flow (PWWF) for the WWTP is 40 mgd based on secondary treatment capacity. When flows exceed 40 mgd, primary and secondary effluent are for discharge up to 60 mgd, which is the outfall capacity limitation. Since the flows to the WWTP are pumped, flows are limited to 60 mgd PWWF to match plant capacity, which has historically caused backups in the

Many of the mechanical and electrical assets at the WWTP will need to be replaced within the 20-year planning horizon. This primary clarifier mechanism failed recently, resulting in loss of capacity during emergency repair.



collection systems during peak wet weather events, resulting in SSOs. Determining actual peak flows in the system would require that bottlenecks in the collection system and pump stations be alleviated. The City has recently invested in updating their collection system model to be able to better estimate peak flows, reflect recent improvements and to project flows through 2035. Based on the 2014 model the PWWF that would be conveyed to the plant in 2035 (if adequate conveyance was in place) are projected to be 98 mgd. Projects identified to deal with the projected wet weather flow include pump station capacity projects, upsizing of pipelines and relief lines in the collection system, as well as increased capacity at the WWTP to deal with high wet weather flows now and in the future.

Regulations The City is facing numerous requirements from both current regulations and anticipated future regulations. The 2009 CDO issued jointly to the City, Hillsborough, and CSCSD mandates elimination of waste discharges and requires specific actions be taken to correct conditions which cause SSOs. In response, the City and

its partners have been working on implementing a CIP, which includes rehabilitation projects aimed at preventing SSOs.

The 2013 WWTP NPDES Permit requires the development of Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Master Plans, a Wet Weather Improvement Program that establishes measurable goals to reduce I/I and minimize blending during wet weather. The permit also requires development of CIP, an implementation schedule to reduce I/I for Discharger-owned collection system improvements, and an increase of the Plant’s secondary treatment capacity of 60 mgd to reduce blending volumes and number of blending events. This provision for secondary treatment capacity to 60 mgd (the actual permitted outfall capacity), effectively requires the WWTP to eliminate blending.

The 20-Year Integrated Wastewater Master Plan includes alternatives to meet the current and anticipated regulatory requirements. For the collection system this includes consideration of both in-system storage and storage at the WWTP, upsizing pipelines, and rehabilitating areas with high I/I. At the WWTP,

Meeting current and future regulatory requirements is a critical element of the master plan and CIP.

Anticipated Timing of Critical Regulations

2010

Liqu

ids

Trea

tmen

t

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Elimination of Blending Total Nitrogen <10 mg/L* Total Phosphorus <2 mg/L*

*Final concentrations are estimated. Will be determined by future NPDES permits.



LEGEND

City’s Collection SystemOverview by Age

Less than 20 years20 to 40 years40 to 60 years60 to 80 yearsOlder than 80 yearsPipe Age Unknown

0.7% 2.8%

17%

26.3%

45.8%

17.8%6.6%

current and future regulations require considering facilities to eliminate blending (increased secondary treatment capacity), storage to reduce peak flows through the treatment plant, and process improvements to address nutrient removal. Nutrient loading into the San Francisco Bay has become a concern in the scientific community. While research is currently being conducted into the causes and effects of nutrient loading on the Bay, the RWQCB has already started regulating nutrients through the adoption of the Nutrient Watershed Permit, effective July 1, 2014, for dischargers to the San Francisco Bay. The permit includes requirements to evaluate options for treatment optimization and treatment upgrades (new facilities) for both nitrogen and phosphorus removal. The master plan includes CIP projects to address these requirements.

Policy Decisions The City has made several policy decisions that affect the Integrated Wastewater Master Plan and CIP including the proposal to move the City’s Corporation Yard to the Detroit Drive site adjacent to the WWTP for improved worker conditions and efficiency. The City has identified energy and recycled water as priorities for better resource use. These priorities are reflected in the Integrated Wastewater Master Plan through evaluation of alternative energy production and efficiency measures as well as implementation of treatment facilities to produce recycled water suitable for offsetting non-potable uses. The recommended CIP includes projects reflecting these policy directions.

More than 17.8% of the City’s collection system is beyond its useful life, and 45.8% of system is reaching the end of its useful life.

EXISTING FACILITIES EVALUATIONThe existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities were inspected and assessed as a key component of this master plan. This effort included review of past reports and condition data, site inspections, review of operating data to assess performance and development of capacity ratings. A summary of the major findings are presented for each of the collection and treatment systems.

Collection and ConveyanceThe City’s wastewater collection and conveyance system consists of over 234 miles of gravity sewers and force mains, over 5,700 manholes and 26 pump stations. The collection system largely consists of vitrified clay pipes with 72 percent of the system being over 60 years old. The City has invested in establishing a condition assessment program consisting of closed circuit

television (CCTV) cameras that inspect the interior of the pipes. Data collected by the CCTV program is used to identify repair needs. The City has completed inspection of the entire system and is on a 5-year cycle to CCTV 20 percent of the system each year. Unfortunately, results of this program show that over 12 percent of the system was given a condition rating of poor or very poor. It is recommended that the City budget additional funds in the annual rehabilitation program for rehabilitation and repair of the aging system.

As discussed earlier, in 2009 the City was issued a CDO mandating correction of conditions causing SSOs. In response to the requirements of the CDO, the City developed a sequence of projects (a CIP) that were summarized in a 2009 report titled Draft Wet Weather Capacity Analysis and Alternatives Evaluation. These projects were based on the best information



US Hwy 101

State Rte 92

el Camino Real

S Delaware St

Stat

e R

te 9

2

S Delaw

are St

Pacific Blvd

Saratoga Dr

Fiesta Dr

Texa

s W

ay

Dub

lin W

ay

S Norfolk St

State Rte 92J Arthur Younger FwyState Rte 92

0 2,5001,250Feet O

SSO Locations by Year2004 and 2005

2006 and 2007

2008 and 2009

2010 and 2011

2012

2013

City of San Mateo Limits

The city has experienced historical wet weather overflows (SSOs) in many parts of the city.



available at the time regarding projects needed to reduce the occurrence of SSOs. Sources for the project list included priorities from the 2005 collection system model, as well as commitments from previous permit requirements (projects identified due to past spills). In addition, the project prioritization in the 2009 CDO was based on financial constraints of rate increases not exceeding 9 percent per year.

The City has conducted many studies of the collection system over the past 10 years. The collection system model was originally developed in 2005 and has been updated over the years, most recently in 2014 to account for improvement projects implemented in the system and more recent population projections. The collection system model is used to determine capacity limitations in the system. As a result of these studies and the recent model updates, the recommended CIP projects have been modified. Changes since development of the 2009 CIP and report include: 1) updated collection system model in 2014, 2) higher wet weather flows projected from the model (98 mgd) exceeding WWTP capacity, 3) provisions of the 2013 NPDES permit requiring elimination of blending, and 4) increased benefits of in-system storage shown in recent model runs. The recommended CIP includes in-system storage to reduce peak flows conveyed to the WWTP and reprioritized collection system improvements to address priorities for reliability and SSO reduction.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

InfluentJunction

Box

PrimaryClarifiers

AerationBasins

SecondaryClarifiers

EffluentFilters

ChlorineContact Basins

EffluentPump

Stations

Est

imat

ed P

WW

F C

apac

ity, m

gd

LEGENDHydraulic CapacityProcess Capacity

SecondaryTreatment

GravityThickeners

DAFT AnaerobicDigesters

Centrifuges0

5

10

15

20

25

Est

imat

ed A

DW

F C

apac

ity, m

gd

The process and hydraulic capacities at the WWTP were evaluated for both dry weather (ADWF) and peak wet weather (PWWF) conditions.

Wastewater Treatment The project team conducted a thorough assessment of the existing WWTP facilities, which included the following major efforts:

• Review of five years of daily operating data at the WWTP to assess unit process performance.

• One week of intensive wastewater sampling at the WWTP to calibrate a dynamic process model.

• Assessment of capacity of the unit processes.

• Development of a hydraulic model to assess hydraulic capacity.



• Visual inspections of the WWTP facilities to assess condition and estimate the remaining useful life of the WWTP’s assets.

During the five-year review period, the WWTP final effluent was in full compliance with all discharge requirements included in the NPDES discharge permit. The plant process capacity assessment shows that growth and dry weather flows are not the controlling factor in recommending CIP projects as the ADWF permitted capacity of the WWTP is not projected to be exceeded in the planning horizon. With the exception of the centrifuges, all of the unit processes at the WWTP have adequate ADWF capacity. The CIP includes the addition of a third centrifuge scheduled to come online in 2033. The capacities of individual unit processes are shown to the right for those facilities controlled or sized based on ADWF.

A hydraulic capacity assessment for each major unit process was also completed. Hydraulic bottlenecks and recommendations for alleviating them are provided in the master plan. The major finding from the hydraulic assessment indicates that the two oldest primary clarifier effluent weirs become submerged at flows greater than 20 mgd.

Findings from the condition assessment indicate that there are many assets that are more than 30 years old. Given their age, many of these assets are recommended for replacement within the 20-year planning horizon. The condition, remaining useful life, and capacity considerations were all used to identify CIP projects to increase plant reliability for continued permit compliance.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

21-35

Age

of I

nfra

stru

ctur

e (Y

ears

)

% of Major Infrastructure

36+

0-20

Approximately 60% of the wastewater treatment facilities are over 35 years old.

FUTURE NEEDS AND PROJECT TRIGGERSThe evaluation of the projected flows, future regulations and WWTP capacity and condition led to identification of the following project triggers.

Address Reliability and Replacement Needs Much of the existing infrastructure in both the City’s collection system and at the jointly owned WWTP is approaching or beyond its anticipated useful service life. The CIP has numerous projects addressing the need to repair or replace aging infrastructure. There are also several immediate projects that are needed to provide adequate capacity, maintain compliance, and provide a safe working environment until the near and long term recommended CIP improvements are brought on-line.

Manage Peak Flows and Reduce the Risk of SSOsTo reduce the risk of SSOs, the collection system will need to convey higher flows to the WWTP, which will need to treat a much higher PWWF than the current capacity. As described above, the projected PWWF for the year 2035 is 98 mgd. However, the capacity of the effluent outfall and treatment facilities is hydraulically limited to 60 mgd. Facilities both in the collection system and at the WWTP will need to be upsized and storage will be needed to manage the projected peak wet flows. The recommended CIP includes storage both in the collection system and at the WWTP to reduce SSOs and prevent exceeding the outfall capacity.



Address the Requirement to Eliminate BlendingThe 2013 NPDES permit outlines provisions that the City/EMID must meet to reduce blending of primary effluent with secondary effluent during wet weather. This requirement dictates the need to expand secondary treatment to 60 mgd to match the outfall capacity, which will in effect eliminate blending.

Improve Treated Water QualityNitrogen and phosphorus are a natural part of our environment, but too much of these nutrients in water bodies (such as the San Francisco Bay) can cause degradation of aquatic and marine habitat. As part of this Integrated Master Plan, alternatives were considered to address future implementation of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction. When nutrient reduction is required and discharge limits take effect, improvements to the secondary and tertiary treatment systems will be required. Low phosphorus limits may even require moving to resource recovery process where phosphorus is removed from the solids stream and formed into pellets that can be used as fertilizer. Studies on the health of the Bay related to nutrients and the impact of discharges is on going. Future regulatory requirements for WWTP discharges to the Bay are considered likely for total nitrogen and considered possible for total phosphorous.

Other future water quality improvements include future implementation of recycled water facilities that would offset potable water use in the community with a reliable, drought proof supply of recycled water.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CIPThe project triggers addressed in the previous section were used to identify CIP projects and alternatives. The Integrated Wastewater Master Plan recommends specific alternatives and an accompanying CIP to address the anticipated wastewater system needs through 2035.

Project CostsThe recommended CIP is a significant increase in annual spending over current expenditures. In addition, several projects need to get started immediately in order to be able to meet reliability needs, regulatory deadlines, and wet weather capacity in the near term. A significant number of projects need to be implemented within the first 10 years of the program.

LEGEND

Program ManagementCollection System ProjectsAdmin ProjectsWWTP Projects39%

13%

8%

40%

The 20-year CIP is dominated equally by infrastructure replacement and rehabilitation needs in both the WWTP and Collection System.



The total cost of the 5-year CIP (2015 to 2019) is approximately $300 million and the total cost of the 20-year CIP is approximately $900 million. Note that project costs were developed at a planning level, which is a Class 5 estimate as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering. This is intended to be a conservative estimate based on the information available at the time the estimates were prepared. Project costs include construction costs and allowances for contingency, engineering, design, permitting, construction administration, and program management. Costs are in August 2014 dollars, which reflect a San Francisco Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index of 10898. Costs were then escalated to the assumed mid-point of construction using an escalation rate of 4 percent. Based on preliminary estimates developed for short-term bond financing, in Spring of 2014, it was estimated that rates may need to be increased up to 15% to pay for the needed improvements. These preliminary estimates will be revised in 2015 in a financial plan and rate study based on the final recommended CIP program and implementation schedule. The financial plan will also address cost allocations between the City, EMID, and the other contributing agencies.

CIP Project PrioritizationThe Integrated Wastewater Master Plan CIP is made up of many different types of projects ranging from annual projects (annual rehabilitation, condition assessments, studies and preventative programs), periodic projects (updated modeling, special studies), immediate projects (needed to address failing infrastructure), and larger discrete projects that have been prioritized into the CIP. The discrete projects were prioritized using the following philosophy:

• Rehabilitate/Replace failing infrastructure as highest priority.

• Manage flows in the collection system and at the WWTP.

• Provide reliability (capacity and permit compliance).

• Reduce SSOs and reduce I/I as soon as possible.

The major CIP projects were scheduled following this order of priority as much as possible. In the interest of evening out the cash flow, smaller projects were fit into the program to fill in the spending gaps. This provides a more balanced cash flow that takes into account rate increase tolerance, City resources and the need for infrastructure renewal.

Collection System Projects: The collection system projects consist of several large projects including rehabilitation of Dale Avenue Pump Station (PS), a new in-system storage basin and focused subbasin rehabilitation to reduce I/I. In addition, there are numerous relief lines, pipeline improvements and pump station reliability/capacity projects.



The recommended collection system improvements includes relief lines, pump station improvements, I/I focused rehabilitation and in-system storage.

[Ú

[Ú

[Ú [Ú

[Ú[Ú

[Ú

[Ú

SNT-5 SNT-3

SNT-4

SNT-X2

SNT-X4

SNT-X3

SNT-7

SNT-X1

SNT-X6

SNT-X5

SST-6SST-7

SST-X5

SST-14

KINGRIDGE SEWER

SST-X3

SST-9 SST-5

SST-X1SST-12

SST-13

SST-3

DELAW

AR

E MA

INLIN

E

SAT-2LPS-X

1LPS-4DAX-1

LPS-6

WWTP

LPS-7SST-10

SST-11

DALE FORCE MAIN

SAT-1

SST-X4

SBX-1(S-031)

SAT-3

CY-01

LPS-5

SST-X2

SNT-1

State Rte 92

S Delaware St

el Camino Real

State Rte 92US Hwy 101

LPS-X2 (Kelly/Kehoe)

LPS 8 (Los Prados #2)

LPS-X4 (Los Prados #3)

SST-15 (Santa Clara PS)

LPS X-3 (Los Prados #1)

SST-17 (41st/Pacific PS)

SST-16 (38th/El Camino PS)

SBX-2(S-032) SBX-1

(C-4)

SBX-2(C-2)

DAX-2(Dale Ave PS)

O0 3,0001,500Feet

[Ú Pump Station Projects

Storage Project

I/I Focused Rehabilitation Projects

WWTP

Relief Sewers

Force Main

Rehabilitation Project

City of San Mateo Limits



WWTP Projects: The improvements for the WWTP include replacement of the failing influent junction box and primary clarifiers, construction of a headworks with grit and screening (does not currently exist), improvements to the secondary treatment facilities to meet permit requirements to eliminate blending, construction of flow equalization to match the outfall and treatment capacity of 60 mgd, and improving reliability through rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. The master plan recommends the new headworks and primary clarifiers be sited at the Detroit Drive Site adjacent to the WWTP for easier construction and for plant reliability during construction.

Administration and Corp Yard Projects: The existing administration and laboratory buildings at the WWTP are inadequately sized for the plant staff and laboratory functions required. The new administration and laboratory are proposed to be located at the Detroit Drive site. The City has also proposed relocating the Corporation Yard (Corp Yard) to Detroit Drive adjacent to the WWTP. For the purposes of this CIP and planning document, it is assumed that the Corp Yard and WWTP administration/lab facilities would be co-located on the Detroit Drive site along with other WWTP projects. If the City should decide to locate the Corp Yard elsewhere, the project costs and layouts shown in this CIP would need to be revised.

LEGEND OF IMPROVEMENTS/SITE ALLOCATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Headworks facility with screens and grit removal

Primary sedimentation basins

Odor control facilities

Space identified for administration/ laboratory facilities

Space identified for 4.0 MG flow EQ storage

Space identified for potential future corporation yard facilities

Space reserved for future WWTP facilities and recycled water/tertiarytreatment facilities

City-owned property dedicated to parks/recreation and identified as potential storage site

Retrofit existing aeration basins with anoxic selectors and MLR pumping

New secondary clarifier

New stormwater pump station

New chemical feed facility

New site waste pump station

3

1 2

4

6

7

8

5

9

12

10

11

13

LEGEND

Detroit Drive SiteBayfront ParcelsWWTP SiteNew Process AreaDale Avenue Parcel

Recommended WWTP improvements include new headworks, primary clarifiers and equalization basins as well as improvements to the existing secondary and tertiary facilities.



Peak WetFlow in 2035

= 80 mgd

In-SystemStorage(4.2 MG)

Dale AvePS

EMID(Lift Station

No. 59)

Headworks(80 mgd)

PrimaryClarifiers(80 mgd)

SecondaryProcess

(Limit to 60 mgd)

SOOutfall

(60 mgd)

SFBay

Storage forWet Flows >60 mgd

Wastewaterfrom

City/UpstreamContributing

Agencies

Recommended improvements include in-system storage (for wet flows), new preliminary (headworks) and primary treatment and providing storage on-site. In addition, improvements to the secondary process will increase its capacity to 60 mgd eliminating blending and matching outfall capacity.

Project DescriptionsDescriptions for the key projects in the integrated CIP are provided below. These projects are organized in the implementation sequence proposed for the Recommended In-System Storage Alternative. It is assumed that many of the new facilities will have shared use of the Detroit Drive Site.

Dale Avenue Pump Station and Force Main: The Dale Avenue PS was identified in the 2009 Study as having a capacity between 60 and 67 mgd. A firm capacity of 67 mgd needs to be provided at the Dale Avenue PS for the Recommended Alternative. This requires that the existing pump station be rehabilitated to ensure reliable capacity is provided. This project has high priority to convey wastewater to the plant and not create a backup in the collection system.

New Headworks Facility: While the WWTP does not have a headworks facility, influent flow is pumped from the collection system to the Influent Junction Box (IJB), which provides for influent flow measurement and

functions as a flow split structure to the primary clarifiers. The IJB’s current capacity is 60 mgd, which is insufficient to treat the projected wet flows to the WWTP. Built in 1992, the existing IJB is severely corroded and near the end of its useful life. A headworks is required for reliability and to increase the capacity of the preliminary treatment facilities. The addition of screening and grit removal facilities are recommended in the new headworks, as is typical in most facilities, to improve downstream operations by eliminating materials that can clog pumps and wear out equipment.

Primary Clarifier Replacement: The current wet weather capacity of the primary clarifiers is 60 mgd, which is insufficient to treat the projected flows to the WWTP. In addition, the existing clarifiers have been failing and are nearing the end of their remaining useful life. It is recommended that these unit processes be completely replaced. Implementation of this project is urgent for reliability and capacity reasons and has therefore been assigned an early start.



In-System Storage: The In-system Storage project consists of constructing storage to equalize flows upstream of Dale Avenue PS. The proposed location is at Bay Meadows beneath the City park. The proposed size is 4.2 million gallons (MG). The storage capacity has been modeled to be sufficient to keep flows at the Dale Avenue PS to 67 mgd, thus not triggering the need for a new pump station. The project will also include conveyance from the collection system to the storage, a pump station to return flows to the collection system and an odor control system.

Secondary Treatment Capacity: The Secondary Treatment Capacity project is required to meet the current NPDES permit requirements to bring the capacity of the secondary facilities up

to 60 mgd by November 2019. These upgrades must be brought on-line no later than June 2020. A number of improvements to the secondary treatment process must be made to increase the capacity from 40 mgd to 60 mgd, including aeration basin modifications and a new secondary clarifier.

Flow Equalization Storage: Since the outfall and treatment facilities are limited to 60 mgd, flow equalization is needed at the WWTP to hold the excess wet flows. The Flow Equalization Storage Project includes the construction of new below-ground storage facilities to store primary effluent. The project also includes all other appurtenant facilities such as pumping, odor control, and cleaning features. The new storage basin is to

After a rigorous siting analysis, the Bay Meadows Park was identified as the recommended location for in-system storage due to the potential benefits to reducing SSOs and for improved system wet weather management

E 25th Ave

E 25

th A

ve

Bay MeadowsPark

S Delaware St



be located adjacent to the WWTP on the Detroit Drive site. It is assumed that this storage will be co-located and coupled with the Administrative and Corp Yard facilities to take advantage of synergies, such as providing employee parking on top of the covered storage area.

Administration/Laboratory and Corp Yard: The existing administration and laboratory buildings at the WWTP are inadequately sized and located in the middle of the WWTP, creating a problem with laying out new facilities on a limited site. The new administration and laboratory are proposed to be located at the Detroit Drive site. The City’s proposed relocation of the Corp Yard to the Detroit Drive site would be co-located with the Admin/lab facilities and the Flow Equalization.

The existing admin and lab facilities are inadequately sized and located in the middle of the plant, limiting the ability for process area expansion.

Subbasin Focused Rehab: The CDO and NPDES permit both require programs be implemented to reduce I/I in the system. The current estimated flow to the WWTP does not take into account reduction in I/I as there is currently not enough information available to determine the impact of subbasin rehabilitation on system flows. This assumption, implements a conservative approach to estimating projected WWTP flows until additional data can be collected to confirm the I/I in the system. Upon collection of additional data, the WWTP flow projections, and potentially facility requirements, maybe adjusted. Several studies are included in the recommended CIP to determine the exact subbasins to be rehabilitated for I/I reduction, the costs of the projects, and the anticipated benefits associated with the projects. Until the studies are completed, two locations have been tentatively identified for potential

subbasin rehabilitation: 1) Shoreview-Los Prados area east of Highway 101, and 2) San Mateo Village west of Highway 101. These areas may benefit from a focused I/I reduction effort.

Nutrient Removal Facilities: In addition to the current permit requirements, it is very likely that there will be a future NPDES discharge limit for total nitrogen (TN) and potentially a limit for total phosphorus (TP). In order to meet the anticipated limits secondary and tertiary process improvements will be required. In addition, chemical addition facilities will be required and phosphorus harvesting/recovery facilities may also be needed depending on the final limits adopted.

Tertiary Treatment: In addition to needing improved filtration facilities to meet nutrient removal requirements in the future, the City is currently evaluating the potential for a recycled water program within the service area. Implementing recycled water to offset non-potable uses has been identified as a priority by the City’s Sustainability Commission. The exact size and timing of new recycled water facilities is uncertain pending the outcome of the on-going study. However, the CIP includes the costs to implement treatment facilities to produce up to three (3) mgd of recycled water to match the preliminary market assessments of up to 2 mgd of demand in the City and 1 mgd of demand in EMID’s service area.



Implementation As the City moves forward with implementation of the CIP, there are a few important considerations to note:

• The CIP includes annual projects, including programs such as the annual City Wide sanitary sewer rehabilitation program, biennial pump station upgrade program, sanitary sewer flow monitoring and hydraulic modeling program, the CCTV program, and root foaming program, that will be on-going and are assumed to occur every year in the CIP planning

The recommended program and CIP cash flow was developed with the goal of meeting regulatory deadlines as well as evening out expenditures over the program.

0

10

20

30

40

$ pe

r m

illio

n

50

60

70

80

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

LEGEND

Program ManagementCollection System ProjectsAdmin ProjectsWWTP Projects

period. As part of the analysis, it was identified that the City needs to increase its existing annual rehabilitation budget to fully implement the above programs on an annual basis.

• Several projects were identified to address anticipated regulations that may take effect during the planning period. If the adoption of these regulations is delayed, or does not occur during the planning horizon, their implementation could be delayed.

• As the City begins to implement specific projects, the next phase of analysis or design will provide more accurate and up-to-date information for decision-making and budgeting.

• The need and timing for all future projects, especially those planned later in the CIP, should be updated as new information is available.



NEXT STEPSImplementation of the program will require environmental review, financing and public outreach. Key elements to be addressed include:

CEQA/Environmental Review:

• Determine approach and appropriate level of environmental review for overall plan and individual projects.

• Proceed with CEQA for projects to be implemented in the near term.

Funding and Financing:

• Consider pursuing State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans and other financing/funding options to help pay for the recommended improvements.

• Develop a financial plan to determine rate impacts as a result of the recommended improvements.

• Develop cost share estimates for each of the affected agencies as appropriate for the collection system and WWTP improvements.

Public Outreach and Relations:

• Begin discussing impacts, benefits and costs of the recommended program with the public and affected stakeholders.

• Address public concern over construction and nuisance impacts.



2035

City of San Mateo Citywide Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Study

Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers

May 6, 2010

San Mateo Citywide Pump Station Study - i - Schaaf & Wheeler May 6, 2010

Table of Contents Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1 RWQCB Cease and Desist Order............................................................................... 4

Pump Station and Force Main Criteria..................................................................... 5 Pump Station Evaluation............................................................................................. 5

Pump Station Inflow (PDWF and PWWF) ............................................................... 5 Pumping Capacity.................................................................................................... 7 High Level Gravity Bypass..................................................................................... 11 Time to Overflow.................................................................................................... 11 Force Main ............................................................................................................. 13 Bypass Pumping Connection................................................................................. 14 Backup Power Supply............................................................................................ 15 Pump Station Controls ........................................................................................... 20 Pump Station Communications and Alarms .......................................................... 20 Transient Voltage Surge Suppression ................................................................... 21 Flood Protection..................................................................................................... 21 Pump Station Overall Condition............................................................................. 22

Pump Station Improvements and Rehabilitation Ranking ........................................ 22 Cost Estimates.......................................................................................................... 25 Summary................................................................................................................... 27 List of Figures Figure 1: Pump Station Location Map...................................................................2 Figure 2: Pump Station System Diagram..............................................................3 Figure 3: Pump Station Backup Power Supply Map ...........................................18 Figure 4: Pump Stations to be Serviced with Portable Backup Generators ........19 List of Tables Table 1: Pump Station Capacity and Peak Inflows................................................... 10 Table 2: Estimated Time to Overflow (PDWF).......................................................... 12 Table 3: Force main evaluation summary................................................................. 14 Table 4: Summary of Recommended Pump Station Backup Power Supply ............ 17 Table 5: Summary of Improvements Necessary to meet the CDO Requirements ... 23 Table 6: Pump Station Improvement Priority Ranking.............................................. 24 Table 7: Estimate of Probable Construction Costs for Improvements...................... 26 Appendices A – Pump Station Improvement Priority Ranking and Inventory Tables B – Individual Pump Station Reports C – Regional Water Quality Control Board Cease and Desist Order No. R2-2009-0020

San Mateo Citywide Pump Station Study - 1 - Schaaf & Wheeler May 6, 2010

Overview A Cease and Desist Order (CDO) was issued to the City of San Mateo, Town of Hillsborough, and Crystal Springs County Sanitation District by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), requiring them to “cease and desist discharging waste from their respective sanitary sewer systems in violation of requirements in Regional Water Board Order nos.01-071 and R2-2007-0075 (NPDES Permit No. CA 0037541), Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, and/or State Water Board Order No. 2006-0003 DWQ.” The purpose of the CDO is to resolve the causes of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in order to reduce sewage discharges to storm drains, surface waters, and groundwaters of the State and United States. A copy of the CDO is included as Appendix C. Section III, Part C of the CDO requires the City to “certify to the Regional Water Board that each pump station for which it is responsible is equipped for peak wet weather flows and continuous operation in the event of electrical failure, mechanical failure, or power outage.” The City of San Mateo (City) engaged Schaaf & Wheeler to evaluate twenty four (24) of the City’s sanitary sewer pump stations in relation to the requirements of the CDO, and to identify the necessary improvements so that each station can be certified to the RWQCB. The City is currently preparing a wet weather capacity analysis and alternatives evaluation for the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Dale Avenue pump station. Therefore; the Dale Avenue pump station is not included as part of this study. This report describes the criteria used to evaluate each station, summarizes the CDO and its requirements, itemizes necessary renovations to meet the requirements of the CDO, and provides an estimate of probable construction costs for the renovations. The location of each pump station evaluated is shown in Figure 1. A pump station system diagram is shown in Figure 2.


Figure 1: Pump Station Location Map


Figure 2: Pump Station System Diagram


RWQCB Cease and Desist Order Following is the pump station and force main reliability certification section of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Cease and Desist Order (CDO) received by the City of San Mateo, CA (CDO No. R2-2009-0020).

III.C. Pump Station and Force Main Reliability Certification 1. By May 15, 2010, the City of San Mateo and Town of Hillsborough shall each submit to the Regional Water Board a report describing the pump stations within its collection system, including the number of primary and redundant pumps, pumping capacity, emergency generators, alarm systems, and the estimated time to overflow in the event of station failure during peak dry weather flow. (Note: The District does not own, operate, or maintain any pump stations or force mains.) 2. By May 15, 2010, the City of San Mateo and Town of Hillsborough shall each certify to the Regional Water Board that each pump station for which it is responsible is equipped for peak wet weather flows and continuous operation in the event of electrical failure, mechanical failure, or power outage. 3. If an agency is unable to certify that a pump station is adequately equipped, the agency by May 15, 2010, shall submit a plan, including a schedule and financial plan, for completing all repairs, renovations, and upgrades on each pump station and force main to ensure adequate capacity for peak wet weather flows and to ensure continuous operation. 4. The City of San Mateo and Town of Hillsborough shall each submit an annual report to the Regional Water Board documenting pump station and force main renovations, and upgrades during the previous year and describing projects to be completed in the coming annual cycle.

This report provides the City with a description of each pump station as required in Section III, Part C.1 of the CDO, and necessary pump station and force main renovations and upgrades as required in Section III, Part C.2 of the CDO. Recommended pump station improvement priorities and estimates of probable construction costs are also provided to aide the City in preparation of a schedule and financial plan as required in Section III, Part C.3.


Pump Station and Force Main Criteria The pump stations and force mains were evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Each station and force main should be capable of handing the PWWF

without overflow. 2. Each pump station should have an automatic alarm and communication

system that notifies the City of an electrical or mechanical failure. 3. Each station should have backup or redundant equipment (pumps and

power supply). a. Existing stations that have one pump and no high-level bypass shall

either: i. Be replaced with a duplex pump station ii. Be certified by the City that they can respond to an alarm and

replace a failed pump or connect to a portable backup generator before a sanitary sewer overflow occurs (based on a continuous peak dry weather inflow).

b. Stations that do not have adequate room for a permanent backup generator, or if the City decides not to install permanent backup generators:

i. The City shall have a plan in place to ensure the pump stations with the greatest flows continue operation in the event of a Citywide power outage (respond to alarm with portable generator before overflow), while minimizing the potential for overflow at smaller stations.

4. Pump station force mains shall be capable of conveying the PWWF while maintaining a maximum flow velocity of 10 feet per second under normal operating conditions. a. The City shall have a plan for bypass pumping at each station if

necessary. Methods of bypass pumping may require the addition of a bypass pumping connection to the force main and the use of portable pumps.

Pump Station Evaluation The following sections describe the pump station assessment performed for each of the 24 pump stations. Basis of the current condition of each station is limited to visual inspection, pump test data, and information provided by the City. A comprehensive pump station inventory table is included in Appendix A. Pump Station Inflow (PDWF and PWWF) The Peak Dry Weather Flows (PDWF) and Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) for each pump station were either calculated or obtained from a number of sources. All of the flows are based on the existing land use and existing


collection systems. In the future, as properties are developed and the City’s sewer system is modified, the pump station inflow rates should be recalculated and compared to the pump station capacities. Sources of Flow Information Three sources were used to determine PWDF and PWWF for the pump stations: City of San Mateo: City-Wide Sewer System Study by MWH dated June 2005 (City-wide Study), Basis of Design for Mariner’s Island #2 Sanitary Pump Station Rehabilitation by Schaaf & Wheeler dated November 23, 2004 (Mariner’s Island Study), and the DRAFT: Wastewater Treatment Plant and Dale Avenue Pump Station Wet Weather Capacity Analysis and Alternatives Evaluation by Brown and Caldwell dated July 7, 2009 (Wet Weather Study). Each source focuses on different sub-systems of the City (the City-wide Study excludes the Los Prados and Mariner’s Islands sub-systems), so there was very little overlap of data. PDWF and PWWF from Sources The City-wide Study included data for four pump stations: 38th Ave., 41st Ave., Mongini, and Santa Clara. The operation of the 38th Ave. and 41st Ave pump stations has not changed and no significant development has take place in the areas they serve since the City-wide Study was completed; therefore, the data is still current. No significant development has taken place in the areas the Santa Clara and Mongini pump stations serve since the City-wide Study was completed. The City-wide Study included flows from the Bay Meadows Phase 1 development which has recently been constructed; therefore, the inflow from areas that flow directly to the pump stations still applies. However, the operation of the Santa Clara pump station has changed. As discussed in the City-wide Study, the Santa Clara pump station force main can either be diverted to the trunk sewer in Delaware Street which flows to the Dale pump station, or it can go to Saratoga Drive which flows to the Mongini pump station. The Mongini pump station reached capacity once the Bay Meadows Phase 1 development was completed. The City indicated that the valves are set to divert the flows to the Delaware Street trunk sewer under normal operating conditions. The City-wide Study inflows to the Mongini pump station were modified to reflect this condition. The flow rates for the Mariner’s Island pump stations, with the exception of pump stations #5 and #6, were taken from the Mariner’s Island Study. The flow to pump stations #5 and #6 were looked at in more detail during a study of pump station #5 and were revised in a memo by Schaaf & Wheeler sent to the City in October 2009. No significant development has occurred since these documents


were completed so the flows are assumed to be accurate for current system operation. The flow to the Flint & Norfolk pump station was taken from the rehabilitation design documents prepared by RMC. Calculated PDWF and PWWF As the sources only contained data for 11 pump stations, the PDWF and PWWF were calculated for the remaining 14 pump stations. The City provided GIS data for the sewer pipes, manholes, laterals, and pump stations. This data was used to delineate sewer sheds for each pump station. The City also provided land use data in GIS, which was then merged with the sewer shed delineations to determine the acreage of each type of land use for each sewer shed. Once the acreages were calculated, the unit flows from Table 5 of the City-wide Study were used to determine the base flow for the sewer shed. The PDWF was calculated by multiplying the base flow by a peaking factor pulled from Figure 3-6 of the Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction ASDE MOE NO. 60. Groundwater infiltration (GWI) and rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow (RDI/I) were added to the PDWF to determine the PWWF. The GWI rates used to calculate the PWWF for all sewer sheds except the Los Prados pump stations, Kehoe/Kelly, and Kehoe/Scott were pulled from the City-wide Study using Figure 3 and Table 6. A GWI rate of 300 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) was used for Los Prados pump stations, Kehoe/ Scott, and Kehoe/Kelly, which is the rate used in Mariner’s Island Study. The manhole depths and groundwater conditions for the areas these pump station serve are similar to the Mariner’s Island area. An RDI/I rate of 2,600 gpd/ac, taken from the Mariner’s Island Study, was used for all sewer sheds. As discussed in the Study, there is a correlation between the RDI/I and GWI rates, and this rate is valid for the range of GWI rates used. Pumping Capacity Pump drawdown test were performed on 23 of the 24 stations. The Flint & Norfolk pump station was not tested since it is currently planned for a full rehabilitation in 2010. Pumping capacity for Flint & Norfolk is based on the preliminary design capacity provided by the City. The drawdown tests were performed by recording the time it takes each pump to draw down the wet-well a measured distance, the resulting discharge rate was then calculated. The pump station inflow was calculated by recording the time it


takes the wet-well to fill up immediately after the drawdown. The resulting pump capacity was then calculated by adding the inflow rate to the calculated discharge of the wet-well. Drawdown tests were performed on all pumps, and multiple pumps were tested simultaneously at stations with more than two pumps to determine the station’s firm capacity. Several of the City’s pump stations have gravity lines feeding the wet-well below the pump station operating water surface elevations. The pipes on these stations act as operating volume, making it difficult to obtain accurate volume measurements for the drawdown tests. Therefore, the resulting calculated discharge rates are approximate. Efforts were made to accurately measure the pumped volume during drawdown tests, such as monitoring the water level in upstream manholes. A summary of the measured pump capacities is shown in Table 1 and compared to the pump stations’ peak inflows. Estimates of PDWF and PWWF are from various sources as described in the previous section. The pump station “firm capacity” is the capacity of the pump station with the largest pump out of service. In order to provide sufficient pumping reliability, the pump station firm capacity shall be equal to or greater than the PWWF. A few stations require a significant increase in firm capacity to meet the PWWF. The existing operational volumes were reviewed to determine if additional wet-well volume would be required with the increase in station capacity. The operational volume at six of the twenty four pump stations studied may not allow for proper cycling of pumps sized large enough to meet the PWWF; therefore, it may be necessary to construct a new wet-well, add volume to the existing wet-well, or convert the wet-well/dry-well into one large wet-well. Other potential alternatives to constructing a new wet-well may include the use of Variable frequency drives (VFD’s) or several smaller pumps. A detailed analysis of these alternatives should be completed during design of the improvements to determine if they are feasible. VFD’s allow for the operation of pumps at speeds lower than their standard operating speed by changing the frequency of the electrical current supplied to the pump motor. Operating pumps at lower speed results in a lower pumping rate which, in turn, reduces the required size of the wet-well. However, VFD applications are generally recommended when the pump discharges to a long force main and as a result, the friction headloss is the dominant form of headloss


for the system. On systems that are friction headloss driven, a VFD allows the pump to vary its capacity (dependent on station inflow) while still operating at or near the best efficiency of the pump. When a VFD is installed on a system that is mostly static head, the pump is forced to operate over a wide range of efficiencies and generally only operates at the best efficiency for one specific flow rate. For pump stations with limited space for additional wet-well storage and are hydraulic-friction dependent, VFD’s should be considered during rehabilitation design. Another way to decrease required wet-well storage is to increase the number of pumps, thereby decreasing the individual capacity of each pump. Since required wet-well volume is proportional to pump capacity, required volume decreases as pump capacity decreases. Additionally, increasing the number of pumps generally results in an increase in wet-well storage. During design, additional pumps should be considered along with the wet-well sizing ramifications that are associated with more (yet smaller) pumps.


Table 1: Pump Station Capacity and Peak Inflows

Pump Station Pump #

Pump Capacity

(gpm)Station Firm

Capacity (gpm) PDWF (gpm) PWWF (gpm)

Insufficient Capacity

(Firm<PWWF)1 2352 2221 4342 3521 2662 3751 4042 5041 3982 4401 962 78

7 FLINT & NORFOLK - - 2083* 417 20831 882 751 972 1531 1502 1261 4802 4601 3272 2371 842 911 1412 1031 13732 15023 1156

1 & 2 22951 & 3 2161

1 2482 4311 11862 1502

1 & 2 13241 2512 2331 1842 1221 10142 11513 1228

1 & 2 13501 352 591 7302 7433 891

1 & 2 10882 & 3 1160

1 302 411 2092 314

* Firm Capacity based on preliminary pump station design flows provided by the City

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

22 SANTA CLARA

TOYON

WOODBRIDGE24

23

MONGINI20

PARKWOOD21

MARINERS ISLAND #518

19 MARINERS ISLAND #6





10

11

12

13

LAURIE MEADOWS

LOS PRADOS #1

LOS PRADOS #2

LOS PRADOS #3

KEHOE/KELLY8

KEHOE/SCOTT9

ARROYO5

CHATHAM EAST6

41ST AVE3

4 42ND AVE

2ND/QUEBEC1

2 38TH

30 17 27

209 116 200

312035

30559031088

255200122

1350 1250 2083

1186 522 805

233 377 522

881 1886

248 135 246

266

352

222

2161

75

78

398

404

237

460

126

97

8832103

84

347231

15898

403242

804552

11849

8645

194 272

3315

347 1250

271158

28 52

903764


High Level Gravity Bypass High level gravity bypass pipes are possible in stations where receiving and discharge manholes are in close proximity, and the upstream gravity system has an overflow release elevation higher than the pump station receiving manhole’s invert. A high level gravity bypass pipe is used to divert flows around the pump station, should the pump station go out of service. The use of the high level bypass pipes will cause the upstream gravity system to surcharge, but as long as overflows do not occur, the pipe can be used to provide redundancy at a pump station. Two of the City’s pump stations, Los Prados #3 and Laurie Meadows, have high level gravity bypass pipes. The use of these high level bypass pipes does not cause overflows; therefore, these stations do not require additional redundancy. A high level bypass pipe could be added to Los Prados #2 to eliminate the need for redundant power supply. The effectiveness of a new high level bypass pipe at this station should be confirmed when reliability improvements are being designed. The Mongini pump station has a high level bypass pipe in Delaware Street; however, the use of the pipe will cause overflows in the upstream gravity system. Time to Overflow The estimated time to overflow was calculated for each pump station by determining how long it would take for an overflow to occur at the manhole with the lowest rim elevation once the water surface elevation in the wet-well had reached the high level float alarm elevation. It was assumed that no pumps were running, and the PDWF rate was used as a constant inflow rate (as required by the CDO). The City provided GIS data was used for manhole rim and invert, pipe length and pipe diameter data. The GIS manhole data is not complete; therefore, assumptions were made for some of the rim and invert elevations. A number of manholes with missing data are located between manholes that have data, so rim and invert elevations were interpolated in these cases. For areas where a large amount manhole data was missing, or a manhole at the end of a system was missing data, the City standard minimum pipe slopes were assumed and used to calculate invert elevations, and rim elevations were estimated by using either nearby manhole rim elevations or San Mateo County LiDAR 2 foot contour data.


The storage volume in the system between the lowest manhole rim elevations and the high level float alarm elevation was determined by calculating the volume of the manholes and pipes between these elevations. The total storage volume was then divided by the PDWF rate in order to calculate the time to overflow. A summary of the estimated time to overflow for each station is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimated Time to Overflow (PDWF)

PS # Pump Station

Time to Overflow

(hrs)

1 2ND/QUEBEC 4.62 38TH AVE 0.23 41ST AVE 2.14 42ND AVE 0.65 ARROYO 1.36 CHATHAM EAST 6.57 FLINT & NORFOLK 3.78 KEHOE/KELLY 3.59 KEHOE/SCOTT 3.6

10 LAURIE MEADOWS N/A11 LOS PRADOS #1 1.112 LOS PRADOS #2 N/A13 LOS PRADOS #3 4.614 MARINERS ISLAND #1 5.215 MARINERS ISLAND #2 1.616 MARINERS ISLAND #3 3.517 MARINERS ISLAND #4 0.818 MARINERS ISLAND #5 0.419 MARINERS ISLAND #6 0.720 MONGINI 1.921 PARKWOOD 2.922 SANTA CLARA 2.123 TOYON 2.024 WOODBRIDGE 7.3


Force Main The pump station force mains were evaluated on their ability to convey the PWWF while maintaining a maximum flow velocity of 10 ft/s during normal operation. The friction head loss was also calculated for each force main to determine if any stations have unnecessarily high head loss. The force main sizes were obtained from the City’s basemap. The force main within several pump stations do not match the basemap information. It is assumed that the force main size transitions outside of the pump station structure to the diameter indicated on the City’s basemap. Force main design standards recommend maintaining a minimum flow velocity of 2 ft/s under normal operation to prevent solids from settling. The minimum force main diameter for small pumping stations is 4 inches; therefore, it is not possible to maintain a flow velocity of 2 ft/s at small pump stations. Several of the City’s smaller pump stations do not maintain a velocity greater than 2 ft/s under normal operation. City staff indicated that they do not encounter problems with the force mains clogging. We recommend routinely flushing the force mains that have velocities less than 2 ft/s to keep them free of sediment. This can be accomplished by manually turning on multiple pumps or opening check valves within the pump station so the force mains will back flow. The City’s force mains were constructed between 14 to 52 years ago, and have an average age of 37 years. The City has not experienced any known issues with their force mains. The force mains appear to be in good condition where visible (wet-well and dry-well). During pump station rehabilitation, the City should evaluate the existing force mains and determine if they should be replaced or rehabilitated. A summary of the force main evaluation is shown in Table 3. All of the pump station force mains have adequate capacity for the PWWF, and there are no known problems with the force mains.


Table 3: Force main evaluation summary

PS # Pump Station

Force Main

Diameter (inches)

Force Main Length from Basemap (ft)

PWWF (gpm)

Station Firm

Capacity (gpm)

Velocity1

(ft/s)

Friction Head

Loss (ft)

Has Bypass Pumping

Connection

Needs Bypass

Pumping Connection

1 2ND/QUEBEC 6 51 52 222 2.5 0

2 38TH 8 780 903 352 5.8 8 X

3 41ST AVE 12 2283 1250 266 3.5 6 X

4 42ND AVE 8 254 271 404 2.6 1 X

5 ARROYO 8 296 272 398 2.5 1 X

6 CHATHAM EAST 8 119 33 78 0.5 0

7 FLINT & NORFOLK 20 2083 2083* 2.1 X X

8 KEHOE/KELLY 6 160 118 75 1.3 0 X

9 KEHOE/SCOTT 6 602 86 97 1.1 0 X

10 LAURIE MEADOWS 10 44 403 126 1.6 0

11 LOS PRADOS #1 8 478 804 460 5.1 4 X

12 LOS PRADOS #2 8 55 347 237 2.2 0

13 LOS PRADOS #3 8 40 158 84 1.0 0

14 MARINERS ISLAND #1 8 2880 88 103 0.7 1 X






20 MONGINI 10 711 2083 1350 8.5 12 X

21 PARKWOOD 4 957 31 35 0.9 1 X

22 SANTA CLARA 14 & 10 1067 3055 1088 4.2 37 X

23 TOYON 4 531 27 30 0.8 0 X

24 WOODBRIDGE 8 181 200 209 1.3 0 X

1. The flow velocity was calculated by using the larger of the PWWF and the firm capacity.

* The Flint & Norfolk capacity and force main size is based on preliminary design data provided by the City Bypass Pumping Connection The City shall have a plan to perform bypass pumping at each pump station. Bypass pumping may require the addition of a bypass pumping connection unless the discharge manhole is relatively close and a flexible hose can easily be routed from the wet-well or upstream manhole to the discharge manhole without causing access issues with roads or sidewalks. A bypass pumping connection will enable the use of temporary pumps should the station have a fire or failure of the panel and electrical system. A bypass pumping connection is also useful during routine maintenance so the wet well can be completely drained. The pumping connection shall include an isolation valve so that work can be


performed on the force main and valves within the pump station. The City currently has a number of portable trash pumps that can be used for bypass pumping. We recommend the City have a plan in place to perform bypass pumping in the event of a pump station failure. This may require purchasing additional larger portable pumps or obtaining a rental agreement to provide portable pumps on an as needed basis. Backup Power Supply Backup power is required for pump stations so that they can operate continuously in the event of a power outage. Backup power can be provided with a permanent on-site emergency generator with an automatic transfer switch (ATS), or with a portable backup generator. Each of the City’s pump stations that do not have a permanent backup generator have a generator point of connection (i.e. a receptacle) where a portable generator can be connected. If a portable generator is used, the operator must respond to the station and connect the generator before a sanitary sewer overflow occurs. The amount of time the operator has to respond was estimated in the “time to overflow” section of this report. In general, addition of a new generator and ATS will require adequate space for the generator and a location for the ATS. Required generator space not only includes the actual area of the generator and fuel tank but also working clearances and clear space for ventilation. Furthermore, since many of these stations are located within residential areas a substantially sized sound enclosure will be necessary to provide adequate sound attenuation. The location of the ATS could either be within the switchgear or located within the generator enclosure. Locating the ATS within the generator enclosure will require a larger enclosure and may still require the replacement of the switchgear for code compliance. As such, it is reccommended that the stations where a generator and ATS are to be installed, also have the switchgear replaced. This will ensure code compliance while minimizing additional space requirements of the generator. The pump station sites were visually inspected to determine if there is adequate open space (not necessarily within the easement) to add permanent generators. The existing pump station easements were not researched for this assessment; therefore, the ability to locate permanent backup generators needs to be assessed during the design of the pump station reliability improvements.


It may be possible to increase the pump station storage volume at stations with a low time to overflow and inadequate space for a permanent generator. The additional storage should be sized to increase the time to overflow to a manageable level. This may not be feasible for stations with higher inflow rates due to the size requirements of the storage facility. The City’s operations and maintenance staff are on-call 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. City staff can generally respond to an alarm with a portable backup generator within approximately 1-hour. This assumes only one power failure alarm occurs; therefore, the response time may be much greater if several stations lose power at the same time. To provide sufficient time to service several stations we recommend a minimum 2-hour time to overflow for all stations that will not have permanent backup power. Table 4 and Figure 3 show our recommendations for providing backup power. Stations with inadequate space for a backup generator, relatively low inflow rates, and adequate times to overflow will be serviced with portable generators.


Table 4: Summary of Recommended Pump Station Backup Power Supply

PS # Pump Station

Time to Overflow (hours)

Has High Level

Overflow Pipe

Add High Level

Overflow Pipe

Has Backup

Generator

Add Backup

Generator

Add Generator or Increase Storage Volume (2-hr time

to overflow)

Service w/ Existing Portable

Generator Connection

1 2ND/QUEBEC 4.6 X

2 38TH AVE 0.2 X

3 41ST AVE 2.1 X

4 42ND AVE 0.6 X

5 ARROYO 1.3 X

6 CHATHAM EAST 6.5 X

7 FLINT & NORFOLK 3.7 X

8 KEHOE/KELLY 3.5 X

9 KEHOE/SCOTT 3.6 X

10 LAURIE MEADOWS 2.1 X

11 LOS PRADOS #1 1.1 X



14 MARINERS ISLAND #1 5.2 X






20 MONGINI 1.9 X

21 PARKWOOD 2.9 X

22 SANTA CLARA 2.1 X

23 TOYON 2.0 X

24 WOODBRIDGE 7.3 X


Figure 3: Pump Station Backup Power Supply Map

The City should have an emergency response plan in place to operate the pump stations without backup power in the event of a widespread power outage. The City currently has three 100-kW portable backup generators and is ordering a 150-kW portable generator with the construction of the Flint & Norfolk pump station. The portable generators are also used to operate the storm drain pump


stations during power outages; this should be considered when developing an emergency response plan. The City may need to acquire additional portable generators. To reduce the number of portable generators and on-call staff, the City may choose to add more permanent backup generators. The pump stations proposed to be serviced with portable backup generators are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Pump Stations to be Serviced with Portable Backup Generators


Pump Station Controls Each pump station shall have a combination of automatic and mechanical devices that start/stop the pumps according to the water level in the station’s wet-well. Automatic controls would ideally be supplied with an uninterruptible power source; however, it is not required from a reliability standpoint. A typical automatic control is a PLC with an ultrasonic transmitter/receiver or similar which measures tank levels on a continuous basis. The mechanical system shall be used as a redundant system in the case of an automatic device failure. A typical mechanical system is a series of relays and float switches; a high water float switch to start all pumps and to send a high water alarm, and a second float switch to shut pumps off at the indicated low water level and send a low water alarm. The 24 pump stations assessed are not currently capable of operating automatically in the event of a pump controller failure. To remedy this, a secondary controller should be installed and should be independent of the primary controller. It is recommended that this controller be a basic pump control circuit that starts all available station pumps when the high level float is tripped and stops all pump when the low level float is tripped. Pump Station Communications and Alarms Each pump station shall have an automatic alarm and communication system that coordinates with the City’s on-call staff. The system shall have a backup power source to ensure continuous operation in the event of a power failure. At a minimum, each station shall have the following alarms:

• Pump Failure (for each pump) • Power Failure • High Water (wet-well) • Low Water (wet-well) • Dry-pit flooding alarm (where applicable) • Communications Failure

A Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is typically used to collect and send alarm data, and a RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) or a telephone connection is typically used to convey the information. Information and control signals are sent and received between supervisory locations and controlled points on a continuous basis.


Each of the City’s 24 pump stations that were assessed are equipped with an RTU, fed by utility power with a battery backup. The batteries are tested 4 times per year and replaced bi-annually. If the RTU fails, or power is interuppted, a communication failure alarm is reported to the supervisory location. Second, all pump stations are equipped with power failure alarms, pump failure alarms and dry-pit flooding alarms (where applicable). In addition to the mentioned requirements, we recommend the City develop a standardized system where all electrical components are interchangeable, with their components provided by the same manufacturer. With the standardized system the City would be able to keep a minimum replacement parts inventory on hand for emergency repairs. Using a standard set-up, components could be cannibalized from any pump station under dire circumstances. Furthermore, a standard system is the easiest to maintain since each station is essentially the same. Transient Voltage Surge Suppression A Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor (TVSS) is designed to suppress high frequency voltage surges which may damage sensitive electronic equipment specifically (in the case of the lift stations) microprocessor based controls and electronic motor drives. Typically, TVSS units are highly recommended in lightning-prone areas, in pumping stations equipped with any electronic gear such as variable frequency drives (VFD’s), or any area where voltage surges may be a more frequent occurrence (e.g. a heavy industrial area or a factory). The City’s sanitary sewer pump stations do not fit the aforementioned conditions. However; any area served by a public utility is subject to voltage surges at one time or another and the frequencies of the surges are not predictable and may vary. The cost to install TVSS protection as part of new electrical panels is minimal compared to the over all cost of damaged equipment; therefore, we recommend including TVSS in the pump stations allotted for replacement of the electrical panels. Installation of TVSS on existing panels that do no have VFD’s is not required. Flood Protection In order for pump stations to operate continuously the electrical equipment must be above the expected flood level. To eliminate sanitary sewer overflows the pump station wet-well hatch, and the lids to the upstream gravity manhole must also be located above the expected flood level. The FEMA 100-year floodplain was analyzed in relation to the pump station locations and elevations.


The majority of the eastern edge of the City is currently within the FEMA floodplain (Zone A and Zone AE) along with most of the pump stations; however, the City is planning construction of a Bayfront Levee system that will remove a large portion of the City from the floodplain. The resulting floodplain from the levees planned for construction in 2010 will remove all but two of the twenty four pump stations from the floodplain. Chatham East and 2nd/Quebec pump stations are north of San Mateo Creek and will not be removed from the floodplain with the first phase of levees. The City plans to construct levees north of San Mateo Creek in the future, which will remove these stations from the floodplain. Pump Station Overall Condition Pump stations with equipment in poor condition can be a potential reliability issue, especially for key operating equipment such as the electrical components. Each of the 24 pump stations evaluated were visually inspected to identify equipment that may pose a reliability threat. The City maintains their pump stations on a continuous basis and replaces items that become obsolete or as their condition degrades. We did not identify any items that would threaten the reliability of the pump stations due to their condition. The dry-well at Mariner’s Island pump station #5 has severe corrosion issues which need to be remedied in the near future. The City is currently under contract with a design consultant to evaluate the condition and design the rehabilitation or replacement of the station. The remaining 23 pump stations inspected are in serviceable condition and appear to be in adequate condition for continued use. Pump Station Improvements and Rehabilitation Ranking Each pump station was evaluated based on the criteria set forth within this report and the improvements necessary to meet the requirements of the CDO were identified. A summary of the required improvements is shown in Table 5. The pump stations and the required improvements are discussed in further detail within the individual pump station reports included in Appendix B.


Table 5: Summary of Improvements Necessary to meet the CDO Requirements

PS # Pump Station

No Improvements

Required

Increase Pumping Capacity

May Need Larger Wet-

well

Add Bypass Pumping

Connection

Add Backup Pump

Controls

Add High Level

Overflow Pipe

Add Backup

Generator

Add Generator or Increase Storage

Volume(2-hrs)

1 2ND/QUEBEC X

2 38TH AVE X X X X X

3 41ST AVE X X X X X

4 42ND AVE X X X

5 ARROYO X X X

6 CHATHAM EAST X

7 FLINT & NORFOLK* X

8 KEHOE/KELLY X X X

9 KEHOE/SCOTT X X

10 LAURIE MEADOWS X

11 LOS PRADOS #1 X X X X X

12 LOS PRADOS #2 X X X

13 LOS PRADOS #3 X

14 MARINERS ISLAND #1 X X

15 MARINERS ISLAND #2 X

16 MARINERS ISLAND #3 X X

17 MARINERS ISLAND #4 X X X

18 MARINERS ISLAND #5 X X X X X

19 MARINERS ISLAND #6 X X X X

20 MONGINI X X X X

21 PARKWOOD X X

22 SANTA CLARA X X X X X

23 TOYON X X

24 WOODBRIDGE X X

* Assumes pump station design will include all required redundant items The pump station improvements have been prioritized so the City can prepare an improvement schedule and financing plan. The recommended improvement priorities are based on the risk for sanitary sewer overflows. The following items were considered in the order of importance: pump station firm capacity in relation to inflow, presence of automatic alarms and communication system, estimated time to overflow, pump station condition, necessity of backup power, presence of a secondary level control system, necessity of a bypass pumping connection, and distance to waters of the State and U.S. A table summarizing the ranking system is included in Appendix A. The improvement priorities are summarized in Table 6.


Table 6: Pump Station Improvement Priority Ranking Improvement

Priority Ranking PS # Pump Station

Reliability Deficiency Score

(59 Possible)1 3 41ST AVE 532 2 38TH 523 18 MARINERS ISLAND #5 474 19 MARINERS ISLAND #6 475 11 LOS PRADOS #1 456 22 SANTA CLARA 387 20 MONGINI 308 12 LOS PRADOS #2 279 8 KEHOE/KELLY 2110 4 42ND AVE 1711 5 ARROYO 1712 17 MARINERS ISLAND #4 1713 21 PARKWOOD 814 23 TOYON 815 14 MARINERS ISLAND #1 716 9 KEHOE/SCOTT 617 16 MARINERS ISLAND #3 618 24 WOODBRIDGE 519 15 MARINERS ISLAND #2 420 1 2ND/QUEBEC 321 6 CHATHAM EAST 3- 13 LOS PRADOS #3 0**- 10 LAURIE MEADOWS 0**- 7 FLINT & NORFOLK* 0

* Assumes pump station design will include all required redundant items

** Has high level gravity bypass pipe and therefore does not require reliability improvements


Cost Estimates Improvement cost estimates for each station have been created to provide expected improvement costs to be used for a long term budgetary analysis. The estimates are a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide and is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler and its subconsultants make no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances. It is important to keep in mind that numerous uncertainties could alter the future costs and replacement methods. This study projects future improvements, when available technology and relevant regulations are unknown at this time. The rehabilitation costs may increase if electrical service needs to be upgraded, if additional easements are needed, or if the station needs to be relocated due to limited space. The improvements and costs are the minimum improvements necessary to meet the requirements of the CDO. During design there may be additional recommended improvements to extend the service life of the pump station. This could greatly affect the cost of the pump station upgrades. All costs include materials and labor and the cost index used at the time of this estimate is the April 2010 San Francisco Construction Cost Index (index value = 8676.68). A 55% contingency is added to the total to account for construction contingencies, engineering design, construction management, permitting and other soft costs. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix B - individual pump station reports, and a summary of the total costs is given in Table 7. Improvement alternatives have been provided for some stations to either place a permanent backup generator or increase the time to overflow by increasing the pump station storage capacity as discussed in the individual pump station reports. The larger of the two alternative costs are included in Table 7. It was assumed that all improvements at each station will be performed under one contract. If the projects are broken into separate contracts the total costs are likely to increase.


Table 7: Estimate of Probable Construction Costs for Improvements

PS # Pump Station Improvement Cost1 2ND/QUEBEC $16,0002 38TH AVE $1,395,0003 41ST AVE $1,360,0004 42ND AVE $310,0005 ARROYO $170,0006 CHATHAM EAST $16,0007 FLINT & NORFOLK -8 KEHOE/KELLY $120,0009 KEHOE/SCOTT $28,000

10 LAURIE MEADOWS $011 LOS PRADOS #1 $1,090,00012 LOS PRADOS #2 $54,00013 LOS PRADOS #3 $014 MARINERS ISLAND #1 $31,00015 MARINERS ISLAND #2 $16,00016 MARINERS ISLAND #3 $31,00017 MARINERS ISLAND #4 $730,00018 MARINERS ISLAND #5 $1,090,00019 MARINERS ISLAND #6 $310,00020 MONGINI $1,400,00021 PARKWOOD $28,00022 SANTA CLARA $1,690,00023 TOYON $28,00024 WOODBRIDGE $30,000

$9,900,000TOTAL

- Improvement alternatives are provided for some stations as discussed within the individual pump station reports. The larger of the two alternative costs are included in this table.

- The estimated costs within this table have not been escalated to the projected year of improvement.


Summary Schaaf & Wheeler evaluated 24 of the City of San Mateo’s sanitary sewer pump stations for their ability to convey the peak wet weather flows and operate continuously in the event of electrical failure, mechanical failure, or power outage as required by the RWQCB CDO. Two of the City’s pump stations, Laurie Meadows and Los Prados #3, currently meet the requirements of the CDO and can be certified to the RWQCB for reliability. The Flint & Norfolk can be certified once the planned pump station improvements are constructed. The remaining 21 pump stations require various levels of improvements before they can be certified. Once the improvements outlined within this report are implemented the City can certify the remaining pump stations for reliability. The recommended improvements within this report are provided as a guideline for the City’s use while developing a plan for upgrading the pump stations. The City may choose to perform different improvements that meet the same objective. Detailed descriptions of each pump station along with the recommended improvements and associated costs are included in Appendix B.

Date post:	19-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Vendor Faire CLEAN WATER PROGRAM€¦ · • WWTP Immediate Action Projects • Collection System...

Documents