CONDITION ASSESSMENTOF THE
CENTRAL INTERTIE PIPELINEEngineering & Operations Board Meeting
February 16, 2016
1
PROJECT FACILITY
CIP- Central Intertie Pipeline
54-inch cement mortar lined and coated welded steel pipeline
Constructed throughout 1990s (4 contracts)
2
OSO PARKWAY
INTERSTATE 5
ANTONIO PKWY
MARGUERITE PKWY
CIP
PROJECT HISTORY
Previous Studies:
2012 CH2M Hill Corrosion Assessment
2014 Current Interruption Study
Evaluation of available technologies
Current Study: 2015/2016 Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Condition Assessment
Why MFL?
3
GOALS, SCOPE & CHALLENGES
Goals True condition assessment Strategic repairs Establish “baseline”
Scope Dewatering Appurtenance removal Pipe ovality inspection MFL inspection Engineering analyses Welded steel patch repairs Commissioning CIP
Challenges
4
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
5
PIPELINE PREPARATION: APPURTENANCE REMOVAL
6
MFL TOOL BUILD
MFL INSPECTION
MFL DATA ANALYSIS
Raw Data (Location)
Trace Plot (Depth)
Contour Plot (Area)
Grout Plug
Girth Weld
Spiral Weld
9
VISIBLE DEFECTS
10
MARKING DEFECTS AND REMOVING MORTAR
11
ULTRASONIC THICKNESS TESTING
12
WELDED STEEL PATCH REPAIR
13
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Multiple engineering analyses performed
A number of “anomalies” identified
31 repairs (i.e. steel patches) performed
Worthwhile investment in critical District asset
Uncertainty has been eliminated
True 2015 “baseline” has been established
Despite repairs, action is still required Repairs to pipeline appurtenances
Installation of active cathodic protection (CP) system
Establishment of future assessment schedule for CIP
Evaluation of CP program for other District assets
14
BAKER WATER TREATMENT PLANTPROJECT UPDATE
1
February 16, 2016
BAKER WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT
▪ Capacity 43.5 cfs (28.1 mgd)
▪ IRWD acts as lead agency
▪ Raw Water through Baker Pipeline
▪ Independent of Diemer WTP
▪ Alternative Source includes Irvine Lake Water
▪ Two Project Components:
▪ Baker Plant
▪ Raw Water Conveyance
▪ Construction in progress
2
Diemer
Plant
Santiago
Lateral
Lower
Feeder
AMP
Baker
Pipeline
Baker
Plant Site
Lake
Mathews
2
Baker WTP Chlorine Dioxide System
Forebay
Feedwater Pump Station
Treatment Building
Membrane and UV Process
Chemical Building
Dewatering Building
Disposal Equalization Basin
Backwash Treatment System
Product Water Pump Station
Electrical / Power / Utilities 3
Major Project Components
RWCF– Flow Control Facility
– Raw Water Pump Station
– TCWD Pump Station
– OC-33 Meter Replacement
– Pipeline Tie-ins
Project Overview – thru Dec 2015
Project Info:Contractor:
Contract Duration:
Notice of Award:
Notice to Proceed:
Revised Contract Completion:
Original Contract Amount:
Approved Change Orders:
Revised Contract Amount:
Invoiced to Date:
Percent to Date:
WTPPCL Construction
820 days
Jan 6, 2014
Feb 5, 2014
Apr 8, 2016
$77,520,613
$198,063
$77,718,676
$61,799,824
79.5%
RWCFPacific Hydrotech
455 days
Jan 6, 2014
Jan 22, 2014
Apr 6, 2016
$4,995,744
$195,024
$5,190,768
$4,886,052
94.1%
$57.86M
$0 M
$10 M
$20 M
$30 M
$40 M
$50 M
$60 M
$70 M
$80 M
Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16 Apr-16
Baker Water Treatment PlantPCL Construction Cost
PCL Projected Cash Flow Actual
PCL Cumulative Expenditures
$62 M
3 mth
6
DN Tanks coring pipe penetrations
Advancing PWPS and discharge pipe
Advancing main process areas: Forebay, Treatment, CT Basin, Chemical Storage, Dewatering
Advancing Flow Control Facility and TCWD PS
Product Water Pump Station
Chemical Building
Flow Control Facility
Trabuco Canyon Pump Station
MF Feed PS and Forebay
Treatment Building
Dewatering, CT Basin & Thickeners
2 MG
16 MG
SITE OVERVIEW
7
TCWD PUMP INSTALLATION
8
TCWD PUMP STATION
9
MF FEED PUMP STATION AND FOREBAY
10
MF FEED PUMP STATION
11
TREATMENT BUILDING
12
TREATMENT BUILDING – INTERIOR
13
TREATMENT BLDG. – MEMBRANE RACKS
14
PRODUCT WATER PUMP STATION
15
PWPS – GENERATOR BUILDING
16
CHEMICAL BUILDING
17
DEWATERING BLDG. AND TRUCK LOADING AREA
18
AERIAL – FLOWN OCTOBER 2015
19
Questions?
PLANT 3A CREEK MITIGATION PLAN
February 16, 2016
3A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Secondary and advance treatment capacity
Constructed in 1986
Capacity owned by MNWD and SMWD
To O
so P
arkw
ay
To C
row
n V
alle
y P
arkw
ayLa Paz Creek
ISSUE
La Paz Creek Flooding of Plant 3A
Historical
Recent – September 2015
FLOOD EXTENTS
Text text
Location
PROTECTION PLAN
Short term
Long term permanent solution
SHORT TERM
California Fish and Wildlife permit
Caltrans permit
Potentially clear the creek – 5 year obligation to mitigate
Cost : up to $200,000 for 5 years
PERMANENT SOLUTION
Assess flooding extents
Identify best permanent solution
Seek grant funding such as FEMA
UPCOMING ACTIONS
Continue to work with permitting agencies on short term solution
If vegetation removal limits agreed upon by California Fish and Wildlife, hire removal firm and monitors
Initiate evaluation of permanent solution
Top Related