Page 1 of 2 Calleguas MWD Engineering & Construction Committee Agenda April 27, 2015

CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE

www.calleguas.com

April 27, 2015

NOTICE AND CALL OF A MEETING OF THE CALLEGUAS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE

An Engineering & Construction Committee Meeting of Calleguas Municipal Water District is hereby called and notice of said meeting is hereby given for 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 27, 2015 at Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2100 Olsen Road, Thousand Oaks, California. The Calleguas Municipal Water District’s Engineering & Construction Committee meeting is noticed as a meeting of the Board of Directors for the purpose of compliance with the Brown Act. Members of the Board who are not assigned to the Engineering & Construction Committee may attend only as observers and cannot participate as members of the Board, whether or not a quorum of the Board is present. In order to preserve the function of the committee as advisory to the Board, members of the Board who are not assigned to the Engineering & Construction Committee will not vote on matters before the Engineering & Construction Committee.

A G E N D A A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Steve Blois, Chair Andres Santamaria, Committee Member B. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Opportunity for members of the public to address the committee on matters within the committee’s jurisdiction (as required by Government Code Section 54954.3(a)). Please limit comments to three minutes.

C. COMMITTEE ITEMS

1. Discussion regarding CCNB/CCSB Broken Back Prevention and Rehabilitation Preliminary Design Report

2. Discussion regarding the capital improvement program (CIP) schedule, staffing, and financing

3. Discussion regarding findings of the Santa Susana Tunnel inspection

D. OTHER COMMITTEE ITEMS

Page 2 of 2 Calleguas MWD Engineering & Construction Committee Agenda April 27, 2015

E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS F. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: At the discretion of the committee, all items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the committee. This committee reviews items and makes a recommendation for final action to the full Board of Directors. Final action will be taken by the Board of Directors. Agendas for the meeting of the Board of Directors may be obtained from the Clerk of the Board. This committee will not take any action that is binding on the Board, even when a quorum of the Board is present. Writings relating to open session agenda items distributed to Directors less than 72 hours prior to a meeting are available for public inspection at Calleguas’ Administrative Office Building. Requests for a disability related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to attend or participate in a meeting should be made to the Clerk of the Board in advance of the meeting to ensure availability of the requested service or accommodation.

E N G I N E E R I N G & C O N S T R U C T I O N C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G

A P R I L 2 7 , 2 0 1 5

CCNB/CCSB Broken Back Prevention and Rehabilitation

Overview

Broken Back Failures Potential Locations of Concern Potential Rehabilitation Approaches Prioritization of Sites Recommended Next Steps

Broken Back Failures

Caused when PCCP experiences high stress at the transition from concrete encasement or steel casing to granular backfill.

With the rigidity of the encasement/casing and relatively soft backfill outside, stress concentrates on the pipe at the transition point where the encasement/casing ends, tearing the pipe can.

Potential for multiple failures during a seismic event.

Broken Back Failures

Year Material Dia. Line Location Type of Failure

1997 PCCP 66” CCNB Madera and Royal Wire Breaks

2004 PCCP 48” Calleguas Conduit Fitzgerald and Appleton Broken Back

2005 PCCP 78” CCNB Madera and Strathearn Steel Liner/Wire Breaks

2007 PCCP 51” Calleguas Conduit Railroad Tracks and Yosemite

Broken Back

2007 PCCP 51” Calleguas Conduit Railroad Tracks West of Stearns

Joint

2010 PCCP 78” CCNB Near West Portal Broken Back

Potential Locations of Concern

Legend78” CCNB

66” CCNB

51” Calleguas Conduit

48” Calleguas Conduit

West Portal

250 cfs

80 cfs

Potential Locations of Concern

Conditions meriting concern: PCCP is installed at the transition of concrete encasement or

steel casing and granular backfill.AND The pipeline has not already been repaired as a result of a

failure.

Nearly 100 locations of potential concern were identified, most of which would need to be addressed at both ends of the encasement/casing.

Potential Rehabilitation Approaches

1. Installation of cement-sand slurry2. Carbon fiber reinforcement3. Steel liners

Installation of Cement-Sand Slurry

Placement of cement-sand slurry at the transition area and approximately 10-15 feet beyond would provide a more gradual transition from the end of the encasement/casing to the granular backfill.

Although stiff, the lower strength of the cement-sand slurry would offer some flexibility as compared to the encasement/casing and reduce the stress on the pipe.

This is how we construct new encasements and casings.

Installation of Sand-Cement Slurry

Installation of Sand-Cement Slurry

Advantages: Least costly (approximately $250,000 per location for both

ends). It is possible to perform the work without taking the pipeline

out of service (although the pipe must be properly supported).

Disadvantages: Ground movement (settlement or heave) that completely

undermines the cement-sand slurry would negate the benefit of the slurry.

Construction must be performed by open excavation often near obstructions that limit surface accessibility (such as near creeks/watercourses, within roads, and near railroad tracks) and in shallow groundwater conditions.

Not feasible at all locations due to lack of surface accessibility.

Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

Carbon fiber reinforcement involves the placement of layers of carbon fiber cloth saturated in epoxy longitudinally and transversely inside the pipe.

Carbon fiber can be installed through manholes (exposed or buried).

Calleguas has effectively used this approach to address wire breaks in PCCP.

Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

Provides for withstanding the existing external and internal forces on a pipe without assistance from the host pipe.

Considers the pipe to be a cantilevered beam with the encasement/casing on the fixed end resisting a load (settlement or heave) 20 feet away that would cause a deflection of ½ inch or 1 inch (depending on pipe size).

Assumes groundwater is present.

Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

Although some agencies have concerns about delamination or the structural sufficiency of carbon fiber, Calleguas and P&I have investigated those issues and remain confident that it is an appropriate and reliable approach for this application.

Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

Advantages: All work can be performed by entering through manholes

(most of which are exposed at ground surface). In some locations, it is the only feasible approach due to lack

of surface accessibility.

Disadvantages: Highest cost (approximately $500,000 per location for both

ends). Pipeline must be taken out of service to perform the work.

Steel Liners

Steel liners can be installed, but access must be accomplished by excavating and removing a segment of PCCP.

Similar to carbon fiber, the reinforcement would be placed through the transition area to provide increased resistance to stress generated by differential movement at the transition point.

Because the steel cylinder is flexible, if the host PCCP fails, the steel cylinder will resist the added stress or deflect to relieve stress.

Steel Liners

Advantages: Less costly than carbon fiber (approximately $400,000 per

location for both ends). Some flexibility in location of excavations.

Disadvantages: More costly than cement-sand slurry. Pipeline must be taken out of service to perform the work. Excavation is required and shallow groundwater may be an

issue. Larger work area required than either cement-sand slurry or

carbon fiber.

Selection of Preferred Rehabilitation Approach

In order to use cement-sand slurry, there must be: Sufficient available surface accessibility for excavation at exact

location.

In order to use carbon fiber, there must be: Enough information to determine the location of the end of

encasement/casing. Sufficient proximity to manholes for access and ventilation. Flat to moderate pipe slope between the access point and the

rehabilitation location.

In order to use steel liners, there must be: Enough information to determine the location of the end of

encasement/casing. Sufficient available surface accessibility for excavation nearby.

Prioritization of Sites

Do not address manhole encasements unless adjacent to a railroad track.

Do not address CCSB unless adjacent to a railroad track. Prioritization for timing of the work: Longer encasements/casings have priority over shorter

encasements/casings. Encasements constructed across soft bottom channels have priority

over encasements installed for other reasons. Soft bottom crossings which have not had any hardscape

improvements since construction have priority over those which have had a road constructed over, have had the channel armored, or have been realigned/improved (RCB).

These priorities only apply to the phasing of slurry sites; phasing of steel liner and carbon fiber rehabilitation will ultimately be driven by shutdown schedules.

Prioritization of Sites

Once these criteria have been applied, 25 priority sites remain with a total estimated cost of approximately $11 million: CCNB – 15 Sites

5 carbon fiber reinforcement 10 cement-sand slurry

CCSB – 10 Sites 5 carbon fiber reinforcement 2 cement-sand slurry 3 steel liner

Note: It is possible that some slurry sites could have to change methods if the City finds that the proposed traffic control poses an unacceptable burden on traveling public.

Recommended Next Steps

Move forward with all three types of rehabilitation projects on parallel tracks. Cement-Sand Slurry:

Initiate design for first phase of cement-slurry installation (3 highest priority sites).

After completion of rehabilitation at first few sites, perform design for the remainder of sites (could be one or two more phases).

Carbon Fiber and Steel Liner (together due to shutdown requirements): Initiate design for first phase of carbon fiber and steel liners based

on which pipelines will be shut down in winter 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 (depending on staffing).

In subsequent years, perform additional phases of fiber rehabilitation as CCNB/CCSB shutdowns allow.

Questions and Discussion

Calleguas Municipal Water DistrictCapital Improvement Program

Projected Schedule ‐ Current Staffing

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CCNB/CCSB Blow Off Investigation/ Rehabilitation High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NAAnode Well Replacement Low 4 4 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 2 2017Broken Back Rehabilitation (Slurry, Ph1) Low 4 8 8 12 12 12 12 2 2018Broken Back Rehabilitation (Slurry, Ph2) Low 4 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 2 2020Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 1) Medium 4 8 12 12 2 2017Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 2) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2018Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 3) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2019Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 4) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2020Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 5) Medium 4 8 8 12 2021OSR and LPF Improvements Low 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 12 2022Mesa Feeder Anchor Walls Low laterProgrammable Logic Controller (PLC) Replacement Low 6 6 6 6 6 12 2024Emergency Repairs and Other Rehab/Replacement High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NA

Wellfield Standby Generators Low 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2019Miscellaneous Wellfield Improvements Low 12 12 12 2 2 2016Sulfuric Acid Improvements Low 12 2 2015Grandsen Pump Station, Phase 2  Low 18 18 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 4 4 4 2019Wellfield Treatment Plant  Low 2 2025Conejo Pump Station Rehabilitation Medium 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2023

PHWA Discharge Station Low 4 4 2015SMP Control Tank Low 12 2 2015SMP 2B Low 12 12 12 12 12 2 2016SMP 2D Low 12 12 12 12 12 2 2016SMP 2E Medium 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2020SMP 3 Medium 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2024SMP 4 Medium 4 4 4 4 8 8 2025SMP Discharge Stations High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NAEmergency Pipe Procurement (PVC/HDPE) Low 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 2021

LVMWD Interconnection Low 4 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 2 2 2019Desalter Turn‐Ins High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NALow Water Quality Turn‐Ins High 4 4 8 8 8 2022

East Portal ARIG Low 2 8 8 2 2016Springville ARIG Medium 2 2 8 8 2 2016

Security Cameras (non‐LBWFP) Low later108 96 102 94 88 76 82 90 86 87 91 101 87 91 97 92 74 78 94 94 70 74 88 89 average

Notes:

Color code: blue ‐ preliminary design (4 hr/week default)green ‐ design (8 hr/week default)orange ‐ construction (12 hr/week default)purple ‐ post‐construction (2 hr/week default)red ‐ other

2017 2018

Numbers are estimated hours per week. Total "available" project hours are 86 hrs/week with 3 PMs.

Hydro

Miscellaneous

Level of Uncertainty

2019 2020

Infrastructure Reliability, Rehabilitation, and Replacement

Lake Bard and Wellfield

Salinity Management Pipeline

Interconnections

Project2015 Year of 

Completion2016

Calleguas Municipal Water DistrictCapital Improvement Program

Projected Schedule ‐ Additional Project Manager

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CCNB/CCSB Blow Off Investigation/ Rehabilitation High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NAAnode Well Replacement Low 4 4 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 2 2017Broken Back Rehabilitation (Slurry, Ph1) Low 4 8 8 12 12 12 12 2 2017Broken Back Rehabilitation (Slurry, Ph2) Low 4 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 2 2019Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 1) Medium 4 8 12 12 2 2016Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 2) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2017Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 3) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2018Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 4) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2019Broken Back Rehabilitation (Shutdown, Ph 5) Medium 4 8 8 12 12 2 2020OSR and LPF Improvements Low 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2018Mesa Feeder Anchor Walls Low 4 4 8 8 12 12 12 2 2020Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) Replacement Low 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 2021Emergency Repairs and Other Rehab/Replacement High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 10 NA

Wellfield Standby Generators Low 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2019Miscellaneous Wellfield Improvements Low 12 12 12 2 2 2016Sulfuric Acid Improvements Low 12 2 2015Grandsen Pump Station, Phase 2  Low 18 18 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 4 4 4 2019Wellfield Treatment Plant  Low 2 4 4 4 2023Conejo Pump Station Rehabilitation Medium 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2023

PHWA Discharge Station Low 4 4 2015SMP Control Tank Low 12 2 2015SMP 2B Low 12 12 12 12 12 2 2016SMP 2D Low 12 12 12 12 12 2 2016SMP 2E Medium 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2019SMP 3 Medium 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2019SMP 4 Medium 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2020SMP Discharge Stations High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NAEmergency Pipe Procurement (PVC/HDPE) Low 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 2021

LVMWD Interconnection Low 4 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 2 2 2019Desalter Turn‐Ins High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NALow Water Quality Turn‐Ins High 4 4 8 8 8 12 12 2021

East Portal ARIG Low 2 8 8 2 2016Springville ARIG Medium 2 2 8 8 2 2016

Security Cameras (non‐LBWFP) Low 4 4 8 8 8 2023116 112 130 138 134 112 114 130 120 115 123 143 135 127 133 114 88 74 90 90 86 84 79 112 average

Notes:

Color code: blue ‐ preliminary design (4 hr/week default)green ‐ design (8 hr/week default)orange ‐ construction (12 hr/week default)purple ‐ post‐construction (2 hr/week default)red ‐ other

Lake Bard and Wellfield

ProjectLevel of 

Uncertainty2015 2016 2017 Year of 

Completion2018 2019 2020

Infrastructure Reliability, Rehabilitation, and Replacement

Salinity Management Pipeline

Interconnections

Hydro

Miscellaneous

Numbers are estimated hours per week. Total "available" project hours are 112 hrs/week with 4 PMs.

REB CCR FB KEM Eng TotalProject 32 32 16 6 86Developers 0 0 16 4 20MoE1 0 0 0 22 22Overhead2 8 8 8 8 32Total 40 40 40 40 160

1 MoE time for project‐related PM support and review, plus non‐project‐related, admin, and misc tasks.2Weekly estimate based on annual allowance for holidays (10 days), vacation (18 days), sick (12 days), and training (10 days).

REB CCR FB PM4 KEM Eng TotalProject 32 32 16 32 0 112Developers 0 0 16 0 4 20MoE1 0 0 0 0 28 28Overhead2 8 8 8 8 8 40Total 40 40 40 40 40 200

1 MoE time for project‐related PM support and review, plus non‐project‐related, admin, and misc tasks.2Weekly estimate based on annual allowance for holidays (10 days), vacation (18 days), sick (12 days), and training (10 days).

Available Resources with Current Staffing

Available Resources with Additional PM

2015 PERLITER TUNNEL INSPECTIONEngineering & Construction Committee Meeting April 27, 2015

Santa Susana Tunnel

7,260 feet of 96-inch Tunnel

Issues of Concern and Analysis

Rusted beam “Stalactites” Cracks Visible rust Water leaking into tunnel

Rusted Beam

Rusted Beam

Replace beam during next shutdown opportunity (work expected to be <$35K)

Stalactites

Stalactites

Stalactites

Laboratory Analysis: Primary Components: Calcium, Strontium, Silicon,

Sodium, and Barium Lesser Components: Aluminum, Arsenic, Iron, Magnesium,

Silver, Titanium, and Zinc

Verdict: Naturally occurring ore migrating from outside the tunnel and being deposited similar to a stalactite in a cavern.

Cracks

Visible Rust

Visible Rust

Water Leaking into Tunnel

Conclusions and Recommendations

No structural issues are believed to be present. Cracking and leaks could be addressed with some

combination of grouting and/or weko seals, but the cost and effort does not seem warranted by the observed conditions.

Recommend inspecting tunnel again in 2020 (5 years), which is sooner than recommended by EWSP (10 years).

Questions and Discussion