Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, September 13, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

city's

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

and

Amazon

Fire
devices

using

free

app

called

Screenweave

and

choosing

“Glendale

TV”

from

the

menu.

Meetings
are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)
548-4013

for

program

schedules.

DVDs

the

proceedings

are

available

for

purchase

the

City
Clerk's

Office.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the

meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public
comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that

agenda

item

discussed.

you

have
any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

for

assistance,

please

contact

the

City

Clerk
at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

not
required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 1:00 PM
)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Sadeghi v. City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCV34372
b.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Glenoaks Canyon

1 TYPED 9/13/2022 5:22:43 PM
09 13 22
CC

Homeowners Association v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 22STCP0011 c.

Public Employee Appointment – Fire Chief
d.

Public Employee Appointment – Director of Community Development e.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure litigation pursuant to paragraph subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(2) of Section 54956.9:

One (1) potential case
f.

Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, John Takhtalian, Paula Adams, Aymee Martin, Jason Bradford, Carl Povilaitis and Laura Kalty. The name of the employee organization is: Glendale Management Association

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.

Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b.

Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.

Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 13, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on September 7, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 20, 2022 b.

Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation
c.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/23/2022)

1. Alex Fay, Glendale Water and Power Commission
d.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/23/2022)

1. Cole Bazemore, Sustainability Commission
e.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/23/2022)

1. Lilya Avagyan, Transportation and Parking Commission f.

Nomination Assignments for Boards & Commission Appointments

1. Arts & Culture Commission (Asatryan, Najarian, Brotman)

2. Audit Committee (Najarian, Devine, Brotman)

3. Building and Fire Board of Appeals (Kassakhian, Brotman, Asatryan, Najarian)

4. CDBG Advisory Committee (Brotman, Najarian)

5. Design Review Board (Najarian, Brotman)

6. Glendale Water and Power Commission (Brotman, Najarian)

7. Historic Preservation Commission (Najarian, Brotman, Asatryan)

8. Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission (Asatryan, Najarian, Brotman)

9. Planning Commission (Brotman, Najarian, Asatryan)

10. Commission on the Status of Women (Brotman, Najarian)

11. Transportation and Parking Commission (Brotman, Najarian)

12. Sustainability Commission (Brotman, Najarian)

4. CONSENT ITEMS
(Including Minutes)

2 TYPED 9/13/2022 5:22:43 PM
09 13 22
CC

The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a.

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of August 9, 2022 and August 16, 2022 and the Special City Council meeting of August 9, 2022 b.

Community Services and Parks, re:

Student Training & Employment Program funds
from the California Department of Rehabilitation for the Glendale Youth Alliance and Glendale Community College’s Professional Development Center

1. Motion:
a.

Accepting

Student

Training

Employment

Program

funds

from

the

California
Department

Rehabilitation

the

amount

$450,000

annually,

for

3 fiscal

years
from

July

2022

June

30,

2025,

for

$1,350,000

total,

enable

the

Verdugo
Workforce

Development

Board

distribute

those

funds

the

Glendale

Youth
Alliance and Glendale Community College’s Professional Development Center b.

Approving

the

award

STEP

grant

funds

the

Glendale

Youth

Alliance

the
amount

$216,618

annually

and

Glendale

Community

College’s
Professional

Development

Center

the

amount

$13,600

annually,

for

3 fiscal
years

from
July

2022

June

30,

2025,

approved

and

recommended

the
Verdugo Workforce Development Board
c.

Authorizing

the

City

Manager,

designee,

execute

all

agreements,
certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding c.

Public Works, re: Encouraging the Use of Beeline Transit by Designating Annual Free Fare Days

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee to make Beeline free on Transit Equity Day, Earth Day, National Bike to Work Day, California Clean Air Day, and federal and state elections to encourage transit use and provide access to polls on an annual basis, permanently

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Glendale Water and Power, re: City of Glendale Response to June 21, 2022 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from the Pipes”.

1. Resolution Approving City of Glendale Response to June 21, 2022 Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Report
b.

Public Works, re: Update on Scholl Canyon Landfill Operations and Closure.

1. Motion

Directing

Staff

regarding

the

Future

the

Scholl

Canyon

Landfill,

from

one

of
the following options:
a.

not

revise

the

City’s

Wasteshed

Ordinance

and

allow

the

Landfill

close
upon reaching capacity, currently estimated in December 2025. b.

Revise

the

City’s

Wasteshed

Ordinance

exclude

all

current

users

the
Landfill

except

for

Glendale,

which

means

the

Landfill

will

continue

operating
until approximately June 2030.

3 TYPED 9/13/2022 5:22:43 PM
09 13 22
CC

Revise

the

City’s

Wasteshed

Ordinance

exclude

the

City

Pasadena

and
continue

allowing

all

other

current

users

the

Landfill,

which

means

the

Landfill
will continue operating until approximately July 2028.
d.

Revise

the

City’s

Wasteshed

Ordinance

exclude

all

current

users

the
Landfill

except

for

Glendale

and

Pasadena,

which

means

the

Landfill

will
continue operating until approximately June 2026.

2. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Scholl Canyon Landfill operations c.

Public Works, re: Solid Waste Collection Rates and Commencement of Proposition 218 Notice and Public Hearing Process for the Purpose of Adopting New Solid Waste Collection Rates for Single-Family and Small Multi-Family Customers

1. Motion authorizing staff to commence the Proposition 218 Notice and Public Hearing Process for the purpose of adopting new solid waste collection rates for single-family and small multi-family customers

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT

4 TYPED 9/13/2022 5:22:43 PM
09 13 22
CC

5 of 249

6 of 249

7 of 249

8 of 249

9 of 249

10 of 249

11 of 249

12 of 249

13 of 249

14 of 249

15 of 249

16 of 249

17 of 249

18 of 249

19 of 249

08 09 22
CC1 4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
AUGUST 9, 2022
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:41 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Dickinson v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 21STCV08281
b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager and City Attorney c. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure litigation pursuant to paragraph subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(2) of Section 54956.9: One (1) potential case
d. Conference with real property negotiators: Property location – Real property generally located at the terminus of New York Avenue near Park Vista Drive, commonly referred to as “Mountain Oaks.” Negotiating parties: F.E. & M. Inc.

Employee’s Defined Contribution Plan Trust dated July 10, 1984. Agency negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, Michael J.

Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, John Takhtalian, Silvio Lanzas, Jason Bradford, Christine Powers and Onnig Bulanikian. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of property e. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: F.E. & M. Inc. Employee’s Defined Contribution Plan Trust dated July 10, 1984 v. City of Glendale et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. BS16989
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated on item 1a. Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:42 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call – Absent: Najarian
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, Asst. City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the August 9, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on August 2, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 16, 2022 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview.

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. Police Department, re: California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $57,622 to be used for equipment and training for the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory
20 of 249

08 09 22
CC2

1. Motion authorizing acceptance of the 2021 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to accept the Grant
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

2. Resolution 22-116 of Appropriation in the amount of $57,622 in 2021 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
b. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: Acceptance of grant funds for Public Librarian Diversity Residency Program from the California State Library

1. Motion accepting $100,000 in Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant program funds from the California State Library to enable Glendale Library, Arts & Culture (GLAC) to add two new unclassified Librarian positions under GLAC’s Public Librarian Diversity Residency Program, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

2. Resolution 22-117 appropriating $100,000 from the California State Library, Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant program and $100,000 in matching funds to be appropriated from the Library Mitigation Fee Fund Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
c. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: Acceptance of Grant Funds for Community Connections Collaborative grant from the California State Library

1. Motion accepting $71,257 in Community Connections Collaborative grant funds from the California State Library, which are being provided and administered by Califa Group, to enable the Director of Library, Arts and Culture to carry out the Community Connections Collaborative project and to add a part-time Community Resource Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
21 of 249

08 09 22
CC3
Specialist to connect the public with available social services; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

2. Resolution 22-118 appropriating $71,257 from the California State Library Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
d. Management Services, re: Audit Committee Annual Report and Internal Audit Work Plan

1. Motion to note and file Fiscal Year 2021-22 Audit Committee Annual Report for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

2. Motion to note and file Fiscal Year 2022-23 Internal Audit Work Plan for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Asatryan met with different departments and staff and thanked them for their availability. She attended Concerts in the Park and the installation for the Modes of Resistance exhibit held at the Glendale Central Library. She requested that Library and Arts and Parks and Recreations departments coordinate the marketing for the summer concerts moving forward for residents to have one place to go to see the full staff. She also requested staff look into combining cultural events like the Comfort Women’s Day already taking place with public facing live music and markets which celebrate and shed light on the diverse cultures in Glendale. Asatryan nominated Sona Tatiyants for the Commission on the Status of Women, Joseph Kaskanian for the Design Review Board, Marina Manoukian for CDBG Program, and Hagop Jack Mavyan for the Audit Committee. Asatryan asked staff for both a feasibility study as well as motion options to convert Lot 15 located on Orange between Wilson and California into a park in South Glendale which would cater to our residents in the Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
22 of 249

08 09 22
CC4
South Glendale and downtown area who currently have no nearby parks or green spaces.

Asatryan noted this would be an extremely inexpensive way of utilizing our current city asset to add a much-needed park in the area. Devine seconded. Asatryan initiatives to add youth seats to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission and the Arts and Culture Commission. Brotman recommended to also add youth seats for the Transportation and Parking Commission. Asatryan agreed. Brotman seconded. Asatryan requested that staff provide a feasibility report and for the RFP the city plans to put out for a consultant for Lot 11 Dog park to also include a reconfiguration of the community gardens area at Palmer Park for the unused space to be converted into a dog park. Kassakhian seconded.

Council Member Brotman commended the Economic Development and the GWP departments for providing rich contents in their newsletters. He asked staff to provide a report to add back a certain language omitted in 2019 Boards and Commission Code and to also revisit term limits. Asatryan seconded. Mayor Kassakhian asked to provide a report on the appointment process for the Boards and Commissions. Brotman seconded.

Council Member Devine commended staff for a successful National Night Out event and thanked them for accompanying her in distributing the organic pails in several places.

Mayor Kassakhian announced that schools start next week and reminded the public to be more patient during drop-offs and pick-ups. He wished the students good luck and a successful academic year. He attended the screening of a documentary called the “Motherland,” the Asian Hall of Fame event at the Alex Theatre, and the art exhibits at the Glendale Central Library.

Kassakhian spoke about the pension review report which was discussed at the 2pm meeting earlier and asked to have another discussion at a regular council meeting. He asked staff to create a Civic Academy Program which will give residents a chance to have a deeper knowledge of the city and its operations. Devine seconded. He asked staff to bring back the Neighborhood Town Hall Meeting. Brotman seconded. Kassakhian asked staff to provide a brief report on the fiscal impact for the city paying the ballot statements of the candidates that ran this previous election cycle. Lastly, he asked council to adjourn in memory of Dr. Don Empey, a longtime deputy superintendent of the GUSD.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Tamara Movsesyan
Oscar Ramirez
Ramela Eraghi

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Glendale Water and Power, re: Glendale Water & Power (GWP) Energy Risk Management Policy and Trading Authority Policy
Presenting:

Howard Wong, Energy Risk Management

1. Motion approving amendments to the GWP Energy Risk Management Policy Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
23 of 249

08 09 22
CC5

2. Motion approving amendments to the GWP Trading Authority Policy Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
b. City Attorney, re: Review and Reconsideration of Temporary Cap on Fees Charged by Third-Party Food Delivery Applications
Staff Comment:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney

1. Motion to Note and File

2. Resolution Repealing Resolution No 20-63 and Terminating the Emergency Public Order Imposing a Temporary Limit on Commission Fees Charged by Third-Party Delivery Applications on Businesses in Glendale

3. Motion Providing Direction to Staff
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan
c. Police Department, re: Request regarding the acceptance of grant funding from the United States Department of Homeland Security 2021 Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) Grant Program
Staff Comment:

Carl Povilaitis, Police Chief

1. Resolution 22-120 to accept grant funds in the amount of $1,454,709 and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an agreement with the City of Los Angeles for the award of funds under the FY21 UASI grant program Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman

2. Resolution 22-121 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance-Purchasing to issue a purchase order with Platinum Simulators Inc. for (1) the procurement of flight simulator equipment in an amount not to exceed $209,000 for the initial purchase; and (2) thereafter, for the life of the equipment, if the funds for the continued maintenance, support, updates, upgrades, and licensing Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
24 of 249

08 09 22
CC6
of the simulator are appropriated within the Police Department’s budget and approved by the City Council as part of the annual citywide budget process Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman

3. Resolution 22-122 to appropriate $1,454,709 from the Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) Grant Program grant revenue and $34,150 from Asset Forfeiture Public Safety
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

David Eisenberg
Claire Calderon
Elisa Dolenko
Michael Belzer
Edwin

13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to File a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the Superior Court’s denial of the City’s Motion for Summary Judgement, in the matter of Frances Dickinson v. City of Glendale, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV08281 Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan

14. ADJOURNMENT – 7:55 p.m.

Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
Najarian
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
25 of 249

08 09 22
SP CC1 4A

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
AUGUST 9, 2022
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the City Hall Council Chambers, in said City, at 2:35 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

August 2, 2022
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, August 9, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Management Services, re: Final Report and Recommendations of the Glendale Blue Ribbon Pension Review Committee
a. Motion to accept the Final Report of the Glendale Blue Ribbon Pension Review Committee
b. Motion providing further direction to staff
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. August 2, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. August 2, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. August 2, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. August 2, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. August 2, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Kassakhian called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, August 9, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on August 2, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1. Management Services, re: Final Report and Recommendations of the Glendale Blue Ribbon Pension Review Committee
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Jason Bradford, Director of Finance/CIO
John Takhtalian, Deputy City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
26 of 249

08 09 22
SP CC2
Presenting:

Jonathan Holtzman, Renne Public Law Group
Public Comments:

Herbert Molano
Mike Mohill
a. Motion to accept the Final Report of the Glendale Blue Ribbon Pension Review Committee
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
b. Motion providing further direction to staff
Adjournment – 4:41 p.m.

Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
27 of 249

1 4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
AUGUST 16, 2022
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:16 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Vardanyan, et al. v.

City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 22STCV10992 b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Direct Shopping Network, LLC v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCV49351
c. Public Employee Appointment – Fire Chief
Items 1a and 1b removed from the agenda.

City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:16 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:02 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the August 16, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on August 11, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 23, 2022 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Sona A. Tatiyants, Commission on the Status of Women c. Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Joseph Kaskanian, Design Review Board
08 16 22
CC
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
28 of 249

2 d. Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Marina Manoukian, Community Development Block Grant
e. Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Hakop Jack Mavyan, Audit

Items 4b and 4c pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of July 19, 2022 and the Organizational City Council meeting of July 12, 2022 Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
b. Public Works, re: Clean California Local Grant Program Staff Comment:

Sarkis Oganesyan, Deputy Director of PW

1. Resolution 22-123 authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) Restricted Grant Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the City of Glendale San Fernando Road Beautification Project
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
29 of 249

3 2. Resolution 22-124 authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) Restricted Grant Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the City of Glendale Permeable Alley Project
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
c. Community Development, re: Amendment to Professional Service Agreement with !melk for the Verdugo Wash Visioning Study
Najarian recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.

Staff Comment:

John Takhtalian, Deputy City Manager

1. Motion authorizing amendment to Professional Services Agreement with !melk to increase the maximum cost by $75,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $515,000
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Brotman

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Devine attended the groundbreaking of the Harrower Village housing project for seniors. She announced that the Adams Hill Art Festival will be held on August 28th, “Touch the Truck” event will be held on September 25th, and Sunrise Rotary’s Community Connection Clean-up Service Day event will be held on October 8th. She asked staff to provide a report on the revision of the historic district process and the status of the creation of brochures outlining the benefits and responsibilities of homeowners in historic districts. City Manager Roubik Golanian provided a brief update on this issue. Devine stated there is unpermitted work being done in the city by residents. She asked staff to provide recommendations to increase the penalties for these violations and prioritize these complaints. Brotman seconded.

Councilmember Brotman asked staff to look into having an annual or bi-annual event called “Bring your E-Waste” day, wherein resident bring their electronics to properly dispose them for free. He also asked staff to look into setting up a “fix-it” clinic or “repair café,” where residents bring in their small appliances to have them fixed instead of disposing them. Golanian indicated that Sustainability Officer David Jones will provide a report on this issue.

Councilmember Najarian announced that Metro is constructing a transit line that will connect Glendale directly to LAX terminals. He was absent from last Tuesday’s meeting because he was at the Dodger stadium throwing the first pitch. Najarian represented the City of Glendale and Metro Board at the game and promoted the Dodger Stadium Express, which is a free ride Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Kassakhian
None
None
Najarian (recused)
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
30 of 249

4 from Union Station to the Dodger stadium. Earlier that day, he met with the Federal Railroad Administrator from Washington DC and they talked about safety detection and increase in funding for services along the railroad corridor of the San Fernando Road from Union Station all the way to the Hollywood Burbank Airport. Najarian asked staff to look into the unpermitted work and violations caused by G Lounge Bar. City Manager Roubik Golanian provided a brief update.

Councilmember Asatryan attended the Independent Cities Conference this weekend where clean energy, public safety, water issues, and Senate Bill 9 were discussed. She asked staff to look into what the City of Lancaster is doing in terms of clean energy. Golanian stated that he will speak to the City Manager of Lancaster to see if there are any opportunities for collaboration and any best practices that we can learn from. Asatryan indicated that she supports Devine’s motion on unpermitted work. She spoke about the warehouse explosion that took place in Yerevan, Armenia where many people were injured and some lost their lives. Asatryan also addressed the war crimes committed by the Azerbaijani military in Artsakh. She asked council to adjourn in memories of the victims and asked to keep the people of Armenia and Artsakh in our thoughts.

Mayor Kassakhian had reached out to the Deputy Consulate General of Armenia in Los Angeles and had expressed his condolences and asked to convey our collective condolences to the Mayor of the City of Yerevan. Kassakhian stated that the Concert in the Park series has ended and he looks forward to next year’s events. He stated that classes have resumed and asked the public to drive safely and wished students a successful academic year. Mayor Kassakhian thanked Housing Authority Chair Brotman for his comments at the groundbreaking of the Harrower Village senior housing project. He indicated that it was a well- attended event and stated that it is very exciting to see the work that the city is doing about affordable housing regardless of what was erroneously written in an LA Times article.

Kassakhian attended the Miss Philippines USA pageant and was impressed to see young women take pride in their culture and heritage. He asked to adjourn the council meeting in memory of Shirak Khojayan.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Anita Dominguez
Ramella Enaghi
Gabriel Mattern and Nancy McLoughlin
Naiya Rothermund and Maia Vergara
Kassakhian asked the Community Services and Parks Department to put up informative signs outside of Rockhaven Sanitarium that will note the historical significance of the facility.

Devine seconded.

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Public Works, re: Glendale Beeline Participation in Metro’s Student Fareless System Initiative Pilot Program known as GoPass
Staff Comment:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW
31 of 249

5 1. Motion authorizing Glendale Beeline to accept Metro’s K-14 GoPass during Metro’s Fareless System Initiative Pilot ending June 30, 2023 Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
b. City Manager, re: Consideration of a Resolution Establishing Goals for Solar and Energy Storage Installations and Clean Energy Targets Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Presenting:

Christine Godinez, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Public Comments:

Elise Kalfayan
Karen Kwak
Alec Bartrosouf
Manuel Magpapian
Jennifer Pinkerton
Theresa Cheng
Monica Campagna
Burt Culver
Priscilla Kascha
Tommy Faavae
Julie Cane-Ritch
Paul Berolzheimer
Joanne Hedge
Jordan Balderson
Joanna Pringle
Glenn Webb
Kate Unger
David Eisenberg

1. Resolution 22-125 Establishing Goals for Solar Energy Installations by Glendale Water & Power Customers and Clean Energy Targets, establishing a City Council Subcommittee and Directing Staff to Take Actions in furtherance thereof Moved: Brotman Seconded: Asatryan
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
32 of 249

6 c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Christine Godinez, Principal Asst. City Attorney
Presenting:

Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Public Comments:

Cole Bazemore
Roland Kedikian
Jennifer Burdolet
Danielle Lemone
Nat Yonce
Courtney Smith
Jackie Eco
Paul Berolzheimer
Devon Smith
Vivian
Jackie Gish
Mike Borisov
Theresa Cheng
Kate Unger
Tom Edenger
Lisa Reynolds
Samantha Abrahimi
Rian Ellen
John Wanner
Steve Pruitt
Larry Moorehouse
Jack Walworth
Seda Karapetyan
Ben Ipekjian

1. Resolution 22-126 rejecting the sole bid received in response to Glendale Water & Power Bid Specification No. 3904, Unit 9 Separation, dispensing with further competitive bidding, and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute a contract with ARB, Inc. for the Grayson Power Plant Unit 9 Separation for an amount not to exceed $4,247,507 plus a 10% reserve for contingencies in the amount of $424,750
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
33 of 249

7 2. Resolution 22-127 authorizing the General Manager of GWP to utilize an Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of the Balance of Site work for the Grayson Repowering Project Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian

3. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wartsila North America, Inc. for Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed Engineering Services for the Grayson Repowering Project for an amount not to exceed $9,882,000 plus a 10% ($988,200) reserve for contingencies
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine

4. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 800053 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $164,000 for environmental support services for the Grayson Repowering Project
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian

5. Motion authorizing an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 8000847 with Black & Veatch to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $1,570,668 plus a 10% ($157,067) reserve for contingencies for additional owner’s engineering services for the Grayson Repowering Project
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
Asatryan
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
34 of 249

8 6. Motion authorizing an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 8000941 with Clean Power Consulting Partners to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $150,000 for project management and professional support services for the Grayson Repowering Project
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian

7. Resolution 22-128 of Appropriation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman

8. Motion to Note and File the Report

9. Motion directing staff to prepare the necessary actions and approvals for Council approval of the purchase and installation of five Wartsila engines for the Grayson Repowering Project

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

Stephen Meek
Herbert Molano
Edwin

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT – 11:08 p.m.; adjourned in memories of the victims of the explosion in Yerevan, Armenia and Shirak Khojayan
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
Mayor of the City of GlendaleCity Clerk of the City of Glendale Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
Asatryan
35 of 249

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Student Training & Employment Program funds from the California Department of Rehabilitation for the Glendale Youth Alliance and Glendale Community College’s Professional Development Center

1. Motion:
a) Accepting Student Training & Employment Program funds from the California Department of Rehabilitation in the amount of $450,000 annually, for 3 fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, for $1,350,000 in total, to enable the Verdugo Workforce Development Board to distribute those funds to the Glendale Youth Alliance and Glendale Community College’s Professional Development Center; b) Approving the award of STEP grant funds to the Glendale Youth Alliance in the amount of $216,618 annually and to Glendale Community College’s Professional Development Center in the amount of $13,600 annually, for 3 fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, as approved and recommended by the Verdugo Workforce Development Board; and
c) Authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 13, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) awarded the Verdugo Workforce Development Board (VWDB) a three-year funding of $450,000 each year from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025 for a total amount not to exceed $1,350,000 under the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Title IV Vocational Rehabilitation to design, develop, and implement projects that provide work experience and job preparation training for students with disabilities under the Student Training & Employment Program (STEP). This is the fifth consecutive year that the VWDB has received STEP grant funds to support students with disabilities with work-based learning 36 of 249

24b
3 4
9 4
opportunities.

From July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, the VWDB will award STEP grant funds to Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA) in the amount of $216,618 annually to recruit, enroll, and provide work experience for eighty (80) students with disabilities and to Glendale Community College’s (GCC) Professional Development Center (PDC) in the amount of $13,600 annually to provide job preparation, job exploration skills training, and virtual or in-person tours of the campus.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
NA

RECOMMENDATION
(1) Accept STEP funds from the California Department of Rehabilitation in the amount of $450,000 annually, for three fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, for $1,350,000 in total, to enable the VWDB to distribute those funds to the GYA and GCC’s Professional Development Center;
(2) Approve the award of STEP grant funds to GYA in the amount of $216,618 annually and to GCC’s Professional Development Center in the amount of $13,600 annually for three fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, as approved and recommended by the VWDB; and
(3) Authorize the City Manager, or their designee, to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

BACKGROUND
Since 2018, the VWDB has received STEP grant funding, previously known as Summer Training & Employment Program for Students (STEPS). STEP provides job preparation training, including job exploration, workplace readiness skills training, and work-based learning experiences through work experience, to students with disabilities. The overall goal is to support local and regional initiatives that support the transition to employment of secondary school students with disabilities.

The VWDB is the planning and policy body for the Verdugo Consortium. The Verdugo Consortium is a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) comprised of the Cities of Glendale, Burbank, and La Cañada Flintridge. The purpose of VWDB is to provide employment and training programs within the three cities and to allocate and award all Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds and general grant funds toward its goals.

Through the JPA, the City of Glendale is given responsibility for the administration of all 37 of 249

34b
3 4
9 4
Consortium activities, including acting as the recipient of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds and all other general grant funds received by the VWDB. As the administrative entity for the Verdugo Consortium, the City of Glendale and the Glendale City Council must approve all contracts and funding awards recommendations by the VWDB, which includes the STEP grant.

ANALYSIS
The STEP grant funding from the Department of Rehabilitation is $450,000 annually for three fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025 for an amount not to exceed $1,350,000 to serve approximately eighty youth with disabilities each year, ages 16 to 21, with up to 180 hours of paid work experience in placements that match the students’ interests and aptitudes. Students will also receive up to twenty hours of training provided by the PDC. Each student will attend a field trip to GCC to introduce them to the campus.

The VWDB’s youth provider, GYA, will administer the work experience component of the program and receive $216,618 each year for three fiscal years for staffing and operational expenses. GYA’s established business relationships with local employers will enable successful connection between these employers and students.

Additional funds will be dispersed to the PDC in the amount of $13,600 each year for three fiscal years to provide up to twenty hours of training required in the program. The PDC is a long-standing eligible training provider and has a demonstrated history in providing business-centered training. Training topics include: understanding employer expectations, how to search and apply for jobs; how to attain permanent employment, and training on “soft” skills necessary for employment retention.

The remaining $38,304 will be used by the VWDB to cover administrative expenses and $202,477 will be allocated for youth wages and stipends as allowed by the STEP grant funds for 3 fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
STEP is targeted for youth with disabilities between the ages of 16 to 21. The VWDB will partner with Glendale Unified School District and Burbank Unified School District along with GCC to identify and recruit approximately eighty students for enrollment into STEP.

The VWDB will conduct regular meetings and continue ongoing communications (phone and/or email) with these partner schools.
38 of 249

44b
3 4
9 4

FISCAL IMPACT
The contracts for the current year will cost $230,218 (GYA’s annual award is for $216,618and GCC-PDC’s annual award is for $13,600), which was approved as a part of the FY 2022-23 budget. The grant award from California Department of Rehabilitation is $450,000 per year for 3 fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025. The grant funds for the next two fiscal years will be appropriated as part of the FY 2023-2024 and FY 2024-2025 budget processes. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$450,000 GL: Various-2060-CSP-0020-P0000
PL: CSP00858AG
Workforce Fund – Federal
Grants

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Because no possibility exists that the activity in question (distributing State grant funding to two organizations who will provide job preparation training and job exploration skills training to students with disabilities) may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize acceptance of STEP grant funds and award to the GYA in the amount of $216,618 annually and to GCC’s Professional Development Center in the amount of $13,600 annually for three fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025; and authorize the City Manager, or their designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept, and implement the funding.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize to award the contracts as recommended herein. This would prevent services being provided under the STEP grant.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 39 of 249

54b
3 4
9 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Judith Velasco, Workforce Development Administrator
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Minutes of the meeting of the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, July 6, 2022
40 of 249

C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\MULTITENANT\TEMP\CC_09132022_MOTION_4B1.PDF MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Accepts Student Training and Employment Program (STEP) funds from the California Department of Rehabilitation in the amount of $450,000 annually, for 3 fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, for $1,350,000 in total, to enable the Verdugo Workforce Development Board to distribute a portion of those funds to the organizations listed in Section 2 below, to pay youth wages and stipends allowed by the STEP grant, and to cover the City’s administrative expenses related to the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, as more fully described in the Director of Community Services and Park’s September 13, 2022 Report to the City Council (“Report”);

2. Approves two separate awards of the STEP funds for three fiscal years from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025— as recommended by the Verdugo Workforce Development Board— for the purposes identified in the Report:

A. $216,618 annually to the Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA); and B. $13,600 annually to the Professional Development Center of Glendale Community College (PDC); and

3. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute all agreements, amendments, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
41 of 249

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
7/6/2022
8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 7/6/2022 Page 1 of 2
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ara Aslanian, Onnig Bulanikian, Lee Casady, Nick Hacopian, Mary Hamzoian, Steve Kaplan, Pamela
Marcello, Stephanie O’Keefe, Michael Ritterbrown,
Teresa Sánchez, Terry Walker
MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Astorian, Debbie Kukta, Nancy Osipo Peera, Veronica Romero, Julio Ruiz, Soua Vang

COMMUNITY &

OTHER AGENCY
REPRESENTATIVES:

None
STAFF PRESENT: Judith Velasco, Diana Montecino, MaryAnn Pranke, Melissa Younesian
CALL TO ORDER: 8:35 am by Chair Ara Aslanian via WebEx

I. Introductions
A. VWDB Chair Ara Aslanian welcomed the VWDB.

II. Minutes of April 13, 2022
A. VWDB Administration called the roll to confirm attendance. Quorum confirmed.

B. Minutes presented and reviewed. MOTION: Lee Casady 2nd: Steve Kaplan Action: APPROVED

III. Action Items
A. Approval of the recommendation for Alexis Carter to be appointed to the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, in compliance with State and Federal requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014

B. Approval of the Verdugo Workforce Development Board Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

C. Approval to accept funds from Glendale Community College for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in the amount of $500,000 to implement the California Adult Education Program and to enter into contract with Glendale Youth Alliance, Emma Sanchez, Armenian Relief Society, Foundation for California Community Colleges, Copy&Design, RxResearch, PARS Equality Center, Glendale Library Arts & Culture and Professional Development Trainers

D. Approval to accept funds from the California Department of Rehabilitation for Fiscal Years 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 in the amount of $450,000 each fiscal year in Student Training and Employment Program funds, and to enter into contract with Glendale Youth Alliance in an amount not to exceed of $216,618 for each fiscal year and to enter into contract with Glendale Community College’s Professional Development Center in an amount not to exceed $13,600 for each fiscal year

42 of 249

VERDUGO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

FULL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
7/6/2022
8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

VWDB Full Board Minutes 7/6/2022 Page 2 of 2
E. Approval to accept funds from the Los Angeles County Department of Workforce Development, Aging, and Community Services for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in the amount of $99,000 in Measure H funds and to enter into contract with Foundation for California Community Colleges in an amount not to exceed $49,000 to administer the paid work experience for clients

F. Approval to accept funds from the Los Angeles County Department of Workforce Development, Aging, and Community Services for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in the amount of $268,800 for Youth Employment Services and to enter into contract with Glendale Youth Alliance, in an amount not to exceed $244,608 to provide Youth Services

G. Approval to designate Glendale Youth Alliance as the board’s Youth Provider and to enter into contract with Glendale Youth Alliance for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in an amount not to exceed $605,631 in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding for Youth Services

H. Approval to enter into contract with Glendale Youth Alliance for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in an amount not to exceed $50,000 in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding for One-Stop Operator services

I. Approval to enter into contract with Foundation for California Community Colleges for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in an amount not to exceed $114,000 to support paid work experience for Measure H, WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker Formula and California Adult Education Programs

J. Approval to enter into contract with Copy & Design for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in an amount not to exceed $100,000 to provide outreach and communications strategies in grant programs

MOTION FOR CONSENT ITEM A-J: Motion: Nick Hacopian 2nd: Lee Casady

APPROVED

IV. Public Comments: None

V. Adjournment: 8:45 am

43 of 249

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Encouraging the Use of Beeline Transit by Designating Annual Free Fare Days

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent
Approved for September 13, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transit Equity Day (February 4th), Earth Day (April 22nd), Bike to Work Day (3rd Thursday in May), and California Clean Air Day (October 6th) are annual events observed nationally to celebrate the importance of protecting the environment. Establishing these free fare days will encourage the use of public transportation, reduce GHG emissions, and improves the health of our residents and riders. Providing free fares on federal and state election days aids Glendale residents to exercise their right to vote. Since the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board approved the above free fare days on Metro service, Glendale residents would be able to ride free on both Beeline and Metro services, reducing confusion.
44 of 249

24c
3 6
1 0

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: Offering free fares on select days that highlight environmental consciousness and on federal and state elections provides continued safe, efficient, and reliable transportation services to a greater number of residents and transit riders.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee to designate the following annual events as free fare days on Beeline Transit service: Transit Equity Day, Earth Day, Bike to Work Day, California Clean Air Day, and federal and state elections.

BACKGROUND
In the past few years, staff requested authorization for free fares on Earth day and for federal and state elections. Approval was requested for each event before implementing the free fare day. This made it difficult to adequately inform riders of the free Beeline service in a consistent and timely manner. Riders were confused when Metro was free, but Beeline was not. A policy that allows free fares for days that coincide with days approved by the Metro Board will provide seamless travel and coordination between transit agencies operating in the City of Glendale.

ANALYSIS
Reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles by riding transit or a bicycle can contribute to cleaner air by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in LA County. Encouraging public transit use on Transit Equity Day, Earth Day, Bike to Work Day, and California Clean Air Day by offering free rides on Beeline service helps highlight simple measures to combat climate change. Offering free Beeline service on federal and state election days will provide Glendale residents access to voting sites and ballot drop- off locations and encourages participation in our democracy.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The annual, permanent Beeline free fare days will increase awareness of protecting the environment and provide voters transportation to polling sites and ballot drop-off boxes.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is a reduction in projected Beeline farebox revenue, which is dependent on the date of the free fare event: $1,100 per weekday, $500 on Saturday, and $200 on Sunday. The loss of fare revenue will not significantly impact transit operations.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may elect to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to make Beeline free on Transit Equity Day, Earth Day, National Bike to Work Day, California Clean Air Day, and federal and state elections to encourage transit use and 45 of 249

34c
3 6
1 0
provide access to polls on an annual basis, permanently. This would allow Beeline service to coordinate free fare days with Metro allowing Glendale residents to ride free on both services on the same days.

Alternative 2: The City Council may elect not to authorize Annual Free Fare Days. This would detract from raising awareness for environmental issues and not provide transportation to polling sites and drop boxes on election day.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Martha D'Andrea, Transit Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
46 of 249

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to make Beeline free on Transit Equity Day, Earth Day, National Bike to Work Day, California Clean Air Day, and federal and state elections to encourage transit use and provide access to polls on an annual basis, permanently.
.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
47 of 249

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: City of Glendale Response to June 21, 2022 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from the Pipes”.

1. Resolution Approving City of Glendale Response to June 21, 2022 Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Report.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for September 13, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 21, 2022, the Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) released a Report entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from the Pipes” (Report), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. California law requires that the City of Glendale (City) formally respond to each of the findings and recommendations in the Report within ninety days of its publication. The law requires that the response by approved by the Mayor and the City Council.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: Preparing a response to the Grand Jury Report provides an opportunity for Council and the public to learn more about the successes of the City’s Water Capital Improvement Program.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed response to the Grand Jury Report so that City staff can submit the City’s response to the Report, before to the September 30, 2022 deadline.

BACKGROUND
The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury selected “water pipe networks in the Los Angeles area” as a topic to study during their 2021-2022 session. The stated focus of the Report was to assess water pipe networks in the Los Angeles area and to review the policies and procedures employed by three local water utilities – Glendale Water & Power Department (GWP), the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP), and the Whittier Water Utility, to maintain and replace the water pipe infrastructure. The Report states that the water pipe infrastructure is an area of concern, specifically citing 48 of 249

28a
3 4
9 1
a LADWP significant pipe failure in 2020 causing approximately 20 million gallons of water to gush out of a broken water main and flood large parts of the University of California, Los Angeles campus and closing Sunset Boulevard.

Glendale was selected as a “representative medium sized utility” to review as part of the study. The members of the Grand Jury met in person with City staff on November 18, 2021 for approximately two hours to discuss the condition of the City’s water mains and City’s water main maintenance practices. During the meeting, staff answered questions and presented the Grand Jury with an overview of the City’s Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program (Exhibit 3). Staff also presented a chart of the metrics used to track the frequency and duration of water main breaks and their repairs, along with photos of a typical main break and a longer duration repair (Exhibit 4).

The Report states that Glendale uses “A to F” grades to rate the condition of its pipes and the type of leaks are “slow” and “not geysers”. To clarify, GWP uses a condition assessment process that prioritizes replacements based on age, condition, status of relining, and fire flow capacity to plan replacements as part of the GWP’s Pipeline Management Program. Additionally, because of the low corrosiveness of Glendale’s soils, the City’s water system typically suffers main breaks that are visible when water surfaces through the street, instead of low volume leaks that are hard to detect. This is further verified by the water system’s low percentage of un-accounted for water.

City staff also discussed the success of the Water Division’s Asset Management Program, and the Pipeline Management Program specifically. The 2016 Water Master Plan determined that a $9 to $12 million per year Capital Improvement Program was needed to maintain and rehabilitate the City’s water system. This program added to the investments made using the 2012 Water Revenue Bonds by funding the Water CIP as a PAYGO program through the 2018 Water Cost of Service Analysis. The program has been very successful. From 2013 to 2020, Water Division staff have managed and delivered over $97 million of capital projects. Additionally, the Water Engineering Section has overseen the replacement of more than 43,000 feet of water mains with an average replacement of 1.6 miles per year between 2015 and 2020, which is nearly twice the industry average for the amount of mains that need replacement.

City staff partially disagrees with the findings and conclusions in the Report. The Report contains factual inaccuracies and misinterprets the key information which was provided to the Grand Jury when they met, in person, with GWP staff to discuss the City’s water pipes, GWP’s protocols on keeping said pipes safe, updated and functioning in the most efficient manner.

ANALYSIS
Below are a list of the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations, and the City’s proposed response to each.

Finding # 9-1: “The maintenance and installation practices of the water pipe infrastructures appear consistent throughout the industry.” 49 of 249

38a
3 4
9 1
Response to Finding # 9-1: The City agrees with this finding. There are different practices between water agencies, but in general they appear to be consistent.

Finding # 9-2: “The 2020 Sunset/UCLA pipe break may have been caused, in part, by a lack of communication between the various services using the underground right of way in the public streets.”
Response to Finding # 9-2: The City partially disagrees with this finding due to its conclusory nature regarding statements in a written report1 about a main break at another utility that did not specifically indicate that the issue was related to a “lack of communication”.

1. “LA City Council, Council File No. 20-1076 - Sunset Boulevard / UCLA / Water Main Break /August 23, 2020”, Martin L. Adams, General Manager and Chief Engineer, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.

Finding # 9-3: “PVC water mains have the lowest break rates of any pipe material.”
Response to Finding # 9-3: The City disagrees with this statement. The report referenced by the Grand Jury2 makes this conclusion across a dataset for the industry as whole. Taking this statement out of context can give the impression that PVC pipe would have a lower break rate than other pipe material in every installation, which is a false conclusion when reading the referenced report in its entirety. In fact, a follow-up area of study for the report’s authors would be a comparison of the failure rate between ductile-iron pipe and PVC pipe of the same installation vintage in non-corrosive soils in dense urban areas, and when native backfill is used instead of imported backfill material.

Further, the follow-up report should study if water agency’s practices are skewing the data. If agencies are only installing PVC mains in areas known to have less stresses from vehicle loading, or areas with fewer buried utilities, current and abandoned, then these installations would have caused the data to show a lower break rate with PVC, when in fact, PVC was specifically chosen for these applications. Additionally, if water agency specifications for pipe laying and backfill are different for PVC vs. ductile iron, there is a possibility that a more stringent pipe laying and backfill specification for PVC reduced its overall break-rate in the dataset analyzed in this report.

2. “Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study”, March 2018, Steven Folkman, Ph.D., P.E., Utah State University, Buried Structures Laboratory.

Finding # 9-4: “Japanese manufacturers have developed earthquake resilient pipes and LADWP has begun evaluation.”
50 of 249

48a
3 4
9 1
Response to finding # 9-4: The City partially disagrees with this finding. Though this finding does not apply to the City, it is important to clarify that LADWP has already studied earthquake resilient pipe materials and has an active program to install either Japanese-made or American-made earthquake resilient pipes in very specific locations and applications.1
II. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-1: Utilities and Public Works departments should create interagency practices to avoid encroachments.

Response to Recommendation # 9-1: Interagency practices to avoid damage caused by construction and maintenance activities related to underground utilities is codified in two sections of the California Code of Regulations.

The first is the California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Public Safety, Division 4 California Underground Facilities Safe Excavation Board.

The second is the California Code of Regulations, Title 1 General, Division 5 Public Work and Public Purchases, Chapter 3.1 Protection of Underground Infrastructure, Article 2 Regional Notification Center System, Section 4216.

Per California Government Code 4216:

Every operator of a subsurface installation, except the Department of Transportation, shall become a member of, participate in, and share in the costs of a regional notification center. Operators of subsurface installations who are members of, participate in, and share in, the costs of a regional notification center, including, but not limited to, to Underground Service Alert (DigAlert) - Northern or Southern California are in compliance with this Section and Section 4216.9. A regional notification center shall not charge a fee to a person for notifying the regional notification center to obtain a ticket or to renew a ticket.

GWP’s Electric and Water Divisions, as well as Public Works contract with the DigAlert - Southern California because it is the only notification center in the region to fulfill this legal requirement. DigAlert, is an independent non-profit mutual benefit corporation, working to ensure the safety of excavation workers and the general public by preventing damage to subsurface infrastructure through education, advocacy, and operation of an effective communications link between excavators and subsurface infrastructure owners/operators.

Similarly, if GWP crews need to perform an excavation, they notify DigAlert and other 51 of 249

58a
3 4
9 1
utilities must mark the excavation area if they have any underground utilities located there, before GWP crews can begin their excavations.

Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-2: Due to the corrosion proof of nature of PVC and proven low break rate, the water utilities should review their policy on this noteworthy pipe material.

Response to Recommendation # 9-2:

Due to the ability of PVC pipe to resist corrosion and the formation of bio-films that can increase corrosion inside of the pipe, GWP uses PVC pipe for most recycled water main installations.

GWP uses cement-lined ductile iron pipe for potable water main installations and replacements to help reduce breaks caused by high vehicle loading and settlement of backfill that may occur due to the high number of other underground utilities, new and abandoned, in the public right-of-way. PVC pipe is very susceptible to failures due to point-loading which can be caused by settlement of other utilities “touching the pipe” or causing uneven support of the pipe as the bedding moves. Ductile iron pipe is less susceptible to these uneven forces. Fortunately, most soils in Glendale are not corrosive. As such, exterior pipe corrosion is not a major cause of main breaks within the City.

This significantly extends the useful life of the existing mains and allows for more rehabilitation and replacement of the City’s water infrastructure at a lower cost.

Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-3: Continue evaluation of earthquake resilient pipes and expand usage of this material as indicated.

Response to Recommendation # 9-3:

The City uses earthquake resilient pipes in specific and appropriate locations. GWP’s program focuses on the applications most susceptible to damage from earthquakes and applications that would suffer the highest consequences due to failures. The most important application for earthquake resilient pipes is at the City’s above ground steel water storage tanks. The City’s tanks are designed per ASTM/AWWA standards to withstand earthquakes and minimize damage resulting from earthquakes. If a tank lifts vertically or moves horizontally in an earthquake the pipes connecting to the tank can break and can damage the tank itself by pulling out a section of the tank wall. To prevent this type of damage, GWP has upgraded and installed earthquake resilient pipe at all of its water tank connections.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
52 of 249

68a
3 4
9 1

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the proposed response to the Grand Jury Report.

Alternative 2: Direct staff to prepare an alternate Response to the Grand Jury Report; not responding to the Report, or an untimely response after September 30, 2022, may expose the City to further consequences, including but not limited to legal action against the City.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael E. De Ghetto, Chief Assistant General Manager - Water Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: June 21, 2022 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Exhibit 2: Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report
Exhibit 3: Water Division Ten-Year CIP, Glendale Water & Power Commission, December 5, 2016
Exhibit 4: Example information presented to Civil Grand Jury Exhibit 5: “LA City Council, Council File No. 20-1076 - Sunset Boulevard / UCLA / Water Main Break /August 23, 2020”, Martin L. Adams, General Manager and Chief Engineer, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.

Exhibit 6: “Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study”, March 2018, Steven Folkman, Ph.D., P.E., Utah State University, Buried Structures Laboratory.
53 of 249

RESOLUTION NO. _______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 21, 2022 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED “WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE LEAKING FROM THE PIPES” AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO

SUBMIT SAID RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL GRAND JURY

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury released a Report entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from The Pipes”; and WHEREAS, a response is required to civil grand jury reports by state statute; and WHEREAS, a draft response has been prepared for approval by the City Council and is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:

SECTION 1. That the draft response attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby approved as the City of Glendale’s official response to the June 21, 2022 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from The Pipes”.

SECTION 2. The Council does hereby direct the City Manager, or his designee, to file the response, as substantially attached, for and on behalf of the City of Glendale with the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Adopted this _____ day of _________________________, 2022.

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

54 of 249

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )

I, Suzie Abajian, PH.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the _____ day of __________________, 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk

55 of 249

1 EXHIBIT 1
City of Glendale Response to June 21, 2022 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from The Pipes”

I. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS
Finding # 9-1: “The maintenance and installation practices of the water pipe infrastructures appear consistent throughout the industry.”

Response to Finding # 9-1: The City agrees with this finding. There are different practices between water agencies, but in general they appear to be consistent.

Finding # 9-2: “The 2020 Sunset/UCLA pipe break may have been caused, in part, by a lack of communication between the various services using the underground right of way in the public streets.”

Response to Finding # 9-2: The City partially disagrees with this finding due to its conclusory nature regarding statements in a written report
1 about a main break at another utility that did not
specifically indicate that the issue was related to a “lack of communication”.

Finding # 9-3: “PVC water mains have the lowest break rates of any pipe material.” Response to Finding # 9-3: The City disagrees with this statement. The report referenced by the Grand Jury2 makes this conclusion across a dataset for the industry as whole. Taking this statement out of context can give the impression that PVC pipe would have a lower break rate than other pipe material in every installation, which is a false conclusion when reading the referenced report in its entirety. In fact, a follow-up area of study for the report’s authors would be a comparison of the failure rate between ductile-iron pipe and PVC pipe of the same installation vintage in non-corrosive soils in dense urban areas, and when native backfill is used instead of imported backfill material.

2. “Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study”, March 2018, Steven Folkman, Ph.D., P.E., Utah State University, Buried Structures Laboratory.

56 of 249

2 Finding # 9-4: “Japanese manufacturers have developed earthquake resilient pipes and LADWP has begun evaluation.”

Response to finding # 9-4: The City partially disagrees with this this finding. Though this Finding does not apply to the City, it is important to clarify that LADWP has already studied earthquake resilient pipe materials and has an active program to install either Japanese made or American made earthquake resilient pipe in very specific locations and applications.1

II. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-1: Utilities and Public Works departments should create interagency practices to avoid encroachments.

The first is the California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Public Safety, Division 4 California Underground Facilities Safe Excavation Board.

Per California Government Code 4216:

Every operator of a subsurface installation, except the Department of Transportation, shall become a member of, participate in, and share in the costs of, a regional notification center.

Operators of subsurface installations who are members of, participate in, and share in the costs of a regional notification center, including, but not limited to, to Underground Service Alert - Northern California or the Underground Service Alert - Southern California are in compliance with this Section and Section 4216.9. A regional notification center shall not charge a fee to a person for notifying the regional notification center to obtain a ticket or to renew a ticket.

GWP’s Electric and Water Divisions contract with the Underground Service Alert - Southern California because it is the only notification center in the region to fulfill this legal requirement.

The Underground Service Alert of Southern California (DigAlert), is an independent non-profit mutual benefit corporation, working to ensure the safety of excavation workers and the general public by preventing damage to subsurface infrastructure through education, advocacy, and operation of an effective communications link between excavators and subsurface infrastructure owners/operators.

Anyone excavating in the public right-of-way in Glendale must notify DigAlert by calling 811 or by using their online notification tool. This service is free of charge. Appropriate GWP staff respond to the “DigAlert ticket” that is generated, mark GWP utilities if any in the excavation zone then upload photos of the makings into the DigAlert system. Similarly, if GWP crews need to perform an excavation, they notify DigAlert and other utilities must mark the excavation area if they have any underground utilities located there, before GWP crews can begin their excavations.

57 of 249

3 Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-2: Due to the corrosion proof of nature of PVC and proven low break rate, the water utilities should review their policy on this noteworthy pipe material.

Response to Recommendation # 9-2:

Due to the ability of PVC pipe to resist corrosion and the formation of bio-films that can increase corrosion inside of the pipe, GWP uses PVC pipe for most recycled water main installations.

GWP uses cement-lined ductile iron pipe for potable water main installations and replacements to help reduce breaks caused by high vehicle loading and settlement of backfill that may occur due to the high number of other underground utilities, new and abandoned, in the public right-of- way. PVC pipe is very susceptible to failures due to point-loading which can be caused by settlement of other utilities “touching the pipe” or causing uneven support of the pipe as the bedding moves. Ductile iron pipe is less susceptible to these uneven forces. Fortunately, most soils in Glendale are not corrosive. So, exterior pipe corrosion is not a major cause of main breaks within the City.

Additionally, due to the low corrosiveness of Glendale’s soils GWP can rehabilitate existing pipes instead of replacing them. GWP’s current standards are to replace unlined six-inch, or smaller, cast iron mains with eight-inch or larger cement-line ductile iron mains, and to clean and reline cast iron mains that are eight inches and larger. This significantly extends the useful life of the existing mains and allows for more rehabilitation and replacement of the City’s water infrastructure at a lower cost.

Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-3: Continue evaluation of earthquake resilient pipes and expand usage of this material as indicated.

Response to Recommendation # 9-3:

[End of Document]
58 of 249

Eric Garcetti, Mayor
Los Angeles
Department of
Water & Power
LA Board of Commissioners
Cynthia McClain-Hill, President
Susana Reyes, Vice President
Jill Banks Barad
Mel Levine
Nicole Neeman Brady
Susan A. Rodriguez, Secretary
EE0

CUSTOMERS FIRST
Martin L. Adams, General Manager and Chief Engineer
September 14, 2020
The Honorable City Council
Office of the City Clerk
Room 395, City Hall
STOP 160
Attention: Council President Nury Martinez
Chairperson, Energy, Climate Change and Environmental Justice Committee Honorable Members:

Subject: Council File No. 20-1076 - Sunset Boulevard / UCLA / Water Main Break / August 23, 2020
This is in response to the subject referenced motion (Koretz-O’Farrell) that requests the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) report, as soon as possible, to the Los Angeles City Council (Council) regarding the Sunset Boulevard/UCLA water main break.

On August 23, the LADWP responded to a pipe break in the vicinity of 10600 West Sunset Boulevard. LADWP crews isolated the affected section of 30-inch diameter steel pipe, which was located in a parkway. Before crews could safely access the affected pipe, large trees and a masonry wall had to be removed.

Pipe repair required replacement of 28 feet of the 30-inch riveted steel pipe. LADWP is working with the Los Angeles City (LA City) Bureaus of Contract Administration, Street Services, Engineering (BOE), and Sanitation for restoration of damages in the public right-of-way, and addressing damages caused to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus, and a residential property immediately adjacent to the pipe break.

There were no water-service interruptions to customers during this pipe break. 111 N Hope Street. Los Angeles California 90012-2607 Mailing Address PO Box 51111. Los Angeles. CA 90051-5700 Telephone (213) 367-4211 lridwp.com
59 of 249

The Honorable City Council

Page 2 ends

September 14, 2020
Current Status and Cause Water Main Break
The pipe repair has been completed. All traffic lanes on Sunset Boulevard were fully reopened on September 2. Work to repair the damaged culvert is underway {pending design and permit).

External pipe corrosion was the primary factor that caused the failure. The pipe break occurred where LADWP's pipe intersected a concrete storm drain culvert. The culvert was designed and constructed around the pipe, leaving the bottom exterior surface of the affected pipe segment continuously exposed to the moist environment in the culvert.

The long-term exposure to moisture caused the corrosion that led to weakening of the pipe wall.

Prior to August 23, this 900-foot cement lined segment of pipe had reliably operated with no prior leak history.

LADWP's Water Infrastructure
With no prior leaks, this particular pipe segment was and is not scheduled for replacement. However, LADWP is working on two trunk line projects in the area of the break. The first is the replacement of 600 feet of 36-inch steel pipe along Sunset Boulevard from Udine Way to 600 feet southwest of Udine Way. This segment has had several leaks, including the leak in July 2014 that impacted the UCLA campus.

This project is currently in BOE permitting, and construction is scheduled to start in the winter of 2020. The second project is an assessment of trunk lines along Stone Canyon Road from the Lower Stone Canyon Outlet to Sunset Boulevard, and along Sunset Boulevard from Stone Canyon Road to Marymount Place. Action will be taken based on the assessment’s findings.

LADWP has a number of programs designed to minimize water main breaks and their impact on the public and property:
• Trunk Line Replacement Program (pipes 20 inches or larger) and Mainline Replacement Programs (pipes less than 20 inches): LADWP is accelerating the design and construction of pipe replacement projects. During the last five years, LADWP replaced a total of approximately 175 miles of pipe in the Los Angeles basin. Over the next 10 years, LADWP plans to replace 530 miles of pipes. To accomplish this goal, LADWP is working on contracts and is increasing its hiring of pipe construction crews.
• Corrosion Protection Anode Replacement Program: The Corrosion Protection Anode Replacement Program helps ensure infrastructure-system-wide reliability by protecting the water pipe network system from external corrosion. There are approximately 20,000 corrosion protection anodes in LADWP's service area. Goals have been set to continually replace anodes as they complete their life cycle. 60 of 249

The Honorable City Council

Page 3 ends

September 14, 2020
• Technology - Pressure Monitoring and Leak Detection: While LADWP’s average leak rate is 20 percent lower than the nation’s average rate, LADWP is using pressure monitoring and leak-detection devices to assist in optimally operating the water distribution system. Overtime, and as technology continues to evolve, these devices can assist with identifying potential problem spots in the system, decrease response times to leaks, reduce pipe breaks and loss of water, and reduce customer impacts.
• Seismic Resilient Pipe Network (SRPN): In early 2019, LADWP committed to plan for, design, construct, and maintain a SRPN, a resilient arterial pipe network capable of withstanding most damage from an earthquake. LADWP achieved, fourteen months ahead of schedule, the LA City Mayor’s goal of installing 14 miles of earthquake resistant pipe (ERP). As of July 2020, LADWP installed 18 miles of ERP.

The newly installed ERP will minimize water pipe breaks/leaks during seismic events. LADWP is also piloting variations of ERP to help reduce costs. To effectively manage the LA City’s infrastructure and reduce costs, the SRPN will be developed as new/deteriorated pipe is installed/replaced. LADWP is the first utility in the United States, to commit to developing this resilient arterial pipe network. • Asset Management (AM) Program, Condition Assessment: Components of the Los Angeles water system infrastructure are evaluated as part of the ongoing AM Program. The program systematically evaluates and prioritizes critical infrastructure for replacement, including the over 7,300 miles of the LA City’s water pipes. Pipe is assessed based on various factors including, but not limited to, leak history, age of pipe, soil corrosivity, material type, pressure, risk of service interruption and community disruptions, and coordination with other projects. Pipe with the highest risk of failure is prioritized for replacement.

LADWP’s water infrastructure program is outlined in the Water System’s Capital Improvement Program, a 10-year plan focused on maintaining or replacing existing components of the Water System, and constructing new facilities to fulfill LADWP's mission of providing reliable and high quality water to the residents of Los Angeles.

The LADWP's water infrastructure program includes an aggressive plan to replace 530 miles of pipe by 2030. Goals have been set to achieve replacement and/or rehabilitation of pipes, valves, pumps stations, meters, tanks, and other appurtenances necessary to transmit and distribute water to LA City. Prioritization is critical, and the Water System uses the AM Program for prioritization and replacement of the water pipe network serving the LA City.
61 of 249

The Honorable City Council

Page 4 ends

September 14, 2020
If you have any questions or if further information is required, please call me at (213) 367-1338, or have your staff contact Ms. Winifred Yancy, Director, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (213) 367-0025.

Sincerely
Martin L. Adams
General Manager and Chief Engineer
WY:nsh
c: Councilmember Paul Koretz, Vice-Chair Energy, Climate Change and Environmental Justice Committee
Councilmember Gilbert A. Cedillo, Member Energy, Climate Change and Environmental Justice Committee
Councilmember Paul Krekorian, Member Energy, Climate Change and Environmental Justice Committee
Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell, Member Energy, Climate Change and Environmental Justice Committee
Sharon Tso, Chief Legislative Analyst
Ms. Winifred J. Yancy
62 of 249

1 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada:

A Comprehensive Study
March 2018
An Asset Management Planning Tool for Water Utilities
Utah State University
Buried Structures Laboratory
Steven Folkman, Ph.D., P .E.

Overall Pipe Breaks Up 27% In Six Years
63 of 249

2 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Executive Summary
Evidence of Decline
The Measurement
Purpose and Highlights
The Primary Researcher
Major Findings

1.0. Introduction

1.1 Aging Water Infrastructure

2.0. The Survey

2.1 Methodology

2.2 Objectives and Goals of the Study

2.3 Survey Regions

2.4 Size of Survey Participants

2.5 Miles of Pipe vs. Population

2.6 Survey Sample Size

3.0. Pipe Materials

3.1 Pipe Age and Diameter

4.0. Delivery Pressure and Volume

5.0. Computing Water Main Failure Rates

5.1 Failure Rates for Each Pipe Material

5.2 Effects of Age

5.3 Target Replacement Break Rate

5.4 Most Common Failure Age and Mode

5.5 Pipe Cohorts and Vintage

6.0. Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods

6.1 Effect of Corrosive Soils on Break Rate

7.0. Construction Related Failures

8.0. Condition Assessment Methods

9.0. Water Loss Due to Leakage

10.0. Plans for Replacing Water Mains

11.0. Approved Pipe Materials

12.0. Preferences for Pipe Installation

13.0. Infrastructure Asset Management

13.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment

14.0. Conclusion

14.1 Significant Results From This Study

14.2 Acknowledgments

15.0. References
3 3
3 3
3 4
7 7
8 8
9 11
12 13
15 16
19 23
24 24
28 28
28 30
32 32
37 37
38 39
41 42
43 44
44 45
45 46
Executive Summary
64 of 249

3 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Executive Summary
The economic prosperity of modern cities is based on a
complex infrastructure network located both above and
below ground. A critical component to public health and economic well-being is our drinking water which is brought to the tap through an elaborate network of underground
pipe distribution systems. Since most of this infrastructure is underground, it is out of sight and often neglected. Empirical data on water main breaks helps utilities in their repair and replacement decision making processes in order to deliver clean drinking water to their customers at an affordable price. This report documents the survey results of water main breaks and operating characteristics at utilities located in the US and Canada. A similar survey was conducted by Utah
State University approximately six years ago and published in 2012 (Folkman, 2012). This 2018 report references this previous study to compare and examine changes over time and discuss the importance of water main break data in the context of water asset management planning.

Evidence of Decline
North America’s water infrastructure is in decline. The signs of distress surface daily as water mains break
creating floods and service disruptions. The loss of service is more than an inconvenience, causing significant social and economic disruptions. Economic impacts include
loss of treated water, increased maintenance budgets,
overtime hours for service personnel, traffic and business disruptions, and damage to private property. “Aging and deteriorated water mains are threats to the physical
integrity of distribution systems, causing adverse effects on flow capacity, pressure, and water quality in drinking water services” (Grigg, et al., 2017). Disruptions due to water main failures are now a common occurrence. The
overall assessment of our infrastructure is not good. In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a
USA Infrastructure Report Card and gave a D- to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure (ASCE, 2009). In a
small sign of improvement, the 2017 ASCE Infrastructure Report Card (ASCE, 2017) grade was raised to a D. In
the 1990s, a comprehensive American Water Works
Association (AWWA) study also indicated that water main replacement was inadequate (Kirmeyer et al., 1994). The AWWA has formally tracked issues and trends in the US.

The top concern in the AWWA surveys for both 2016 and
2017 is “renewal and replacement (R&R) of aging water
and wastewater infrastructure” (AWWA, 2017).

The Measurement
The most important and critical factor used to quantify the condition and occurrences of failing underground
pipe networks is water main break rates. Water main
break rates are calculated for all pipe materials used in the transport of water to create a measurement to judge pipe performance and durability. Water main break rates for each utility can vary year to year and even seasonally.

However, in aggregate, break rates produce a compelling story which can aid in asset management decision making as it relates to defining pipe criticality and costs of repairing and replacing our underground water pipes.

Purpose and Highlights
This comprehensive water main break rate study for the
USA and Canada compiles the collective experience of
308 utilities which should be used for making future pipe replacement decisions. It is the desire of the researchers and participants to offer data and analysis that utility managers, engineers and elected officials can apply to
the circumstances of their own operations to facilitate water infrastructure asset management planning and pipe replacement decision making. The objective is to reduce operating costs, service level impacts and health risks to their customers. Highlights of the water main break study include aggregate data on pipe material break rates, the analysis of age and corrosion in failure modes, related observations on pressure, delivery demands, effects of soil corrosivity, and new national metrics for pipe replacement rates and population served per mile of pipe.

The Primary Researcher
Dr. Steven Folkman is a registered Professional Engineer, a member of AWWA and a member of the Transportation
Research Board Committee on Culverts and Hydraulic
Structures, and has oversight of Utah State University’s (USU) Buried Structures Laboratory. The Buried Structures Laboratory at USU has been involved in analysis and testing of all kinds of pipe and associated structures for over 50 years. Previous directors include Dr. Reynold Watkins and Dr. Al Moser who are internationally recognized experts. Dr.

Moser and Dr. Folkman are coauthors of the widely used
text, Buried Pipe Design (McGraw Hill, 3rd Edition). Dr.

Folkman’s expertise includes structural dynamics, linear and nonlinear finite element analysis utilizing soil/structure interaction, and testing. The USU Buried Structures
Laboratory is recognized as one of two laboratories in the United States for performing large scale tests on buried pipes. It is from this expertise and background that the surveys of water main breaks were developed and analyzed to complete this comprehensive study.

Executive Summary
65 of 249

4 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Major Findings
The comprehensive nature of this study has
provided a national water infrastructure condition
assessment and review comparing pipe material
performance. Additionally, several national-level
metrics which utilities can use for asset
management benchmarking purposes are included.

1. Nearly 200,000 Miles of Pipe Condition and
Operation Surveyed
A total of 197,866 miles of pipe were reported by the 308 basic survey participants. Of those, 281 participants were able to provide water main break data covering 170,569
miles of pipe. This represents 12.9% of the total length of water mains in the USA and Canada. Equally significant, the utilities providing break data serve a total population of 52,477,346 people. This represents 14.5% of the total population of the US and Canada. The survey recorded
23,803 failures that needed repairs which is a significant basis for break data. It is one of the largest surveys conducted on water main failures and the results give an accurate representation of water main performance and operating
conditions in North America. This report can be used to update “average estimated service life” assumptions for pipe materials when considering asset management pipe
renewal and replacement decision-making.

2. Break Rates Have Increased 27% in the Past Six Y ears Between 2012 and this 2018 report, overall water main
break rates increased by 27% from 11.0 to 14.0 breaks/
(100 miles)/year. Even more concerning is that break rates of cast iron and asbestos cement pipe, which make up
41% of the installed water mains in the US and Canada,
have increased by more than 40% over a 6-year period.

3. 82% of Cast Iron Pipes are Over 50 Y ears Old and
Experiencing a 46% Increase in Break Rates
Cast iron (CI) pipes represent the largest pipe material inventory in North America. 82% of all CI pipe is over 50 years old and their break rates have increased significantly by 46% since 2012 and are expected to continue to increase. 27% of asbestos cement (AC) pipe is also over 50 years in age and AC pipe breaks have increased by 43% in that same 6-year period. CI and AC pipe together are mostly responsible for the spike in overall break rates since 2012. Utilities with large amounts of cast iron and/or asbestos cement pipes may
need to accelerate their replacement rates. CI and AC pipes are no longer manufactured and many are reaching the end of their expected lives.

4. Nationwide One Mile of Installed W ater Main
Serves 308 People
While the industry has assumed 325 people are served
for 1 mile of distribution system pipe in urban areas, this survey finds a new national metric of 308 people served per mile of pipe regardless of utility size (or 191 people/ km). The data indicates that an average utility has 607 miles of pipe and serves a population of 186,752 people.

5. 85% of W ater Main Inventory is Less Than 12” in
Diameter
67% of all water mains are 8” (200 mm) or less in diameter and the range of 10” to 12” (250 to 300 mm) sizes make up another 18% of all installed water mains.

6. Smaller Utilities Have Two Times More Main
Breaks Than Large Utilities
The survey results show that smaller utilities can have break rates more than twice as high as larger ones. This may be attributable to the fact that larger utilities are better funded which results in improved data, engineering design, installation procedures, and asset management practices.

A small or rural utility would typically have more pipe miles per customer. This can result in greater financial burdens in maintaining their water systems compared to larger or urban utilities.

7. Pipe Material Use Differs by Region
Water main pipe material usage varies significantly over geographic regions (see Figure 11). This suggests that
the selection and use of pipe materials are based on
historical preference versus comparative cost analysis or environmental conditions. The upper northwest and eastern half of the USA (Regions 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 as illustrated in Figure 1) have either cast iron or ductile iron pipe for much of the installed pipe length. Regions 3, 5, and 9 have more PVC pipe than any other material. The most common pipe
material in Region 2 is asbestos cement and it is unique in that respect.

8. A Large Data Set Provides Increased Accuracy
The water main break experiences of one utility may not represent another. Factors such as climate, pipe material, installation practices, and soil corrosivity can greatly affect failure rates. Design and installation practices are very important. Every utility should properly design and install pipe - regardless of material. Many previous studies have Major Findings
66 of 249

5 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Major Findings
been based on a small subset of large utilities. This study provides an increase in accuracy due to the extensive
participation of utilities.

9. Four Types of Pipe Materials Make Up 91% of
W ater Mains
91% of the installed water mains utilize a combination of cast iron (CI) at 28%, ductile iron (DI) at 28%, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe at 22%, and asbestos cement (AC)
at 13%. The remaining 9% of pipes used are represented
by polyethylene (HDPE), steel, molecularly oriented PVC (PVCO), concrete steel cylinder (CSC), and other materials.

10. PVC Pipe Has the Lowest Overall Failure Rate
When failure rates of cast iron, ductile iron, PVC, concrete, steel, and asbestos cement pipes were compared, PVC
had the lowest overall failure rate. This was also the case in the 2012 survey and is confirmed by other industry
sources. A lower failure rate contributes to a lower total cost of ownership and helps confirm the performance and longevity of PVC pipes. PVC is not subject to corrosion, unlike ferrous and concrete steel cylinder pipes.

11. Corrosion is a Major Cause of W ater Main
Breaks
75% of all utilities surveyed reported one or more areas with corrosive soil conditions. Utilities with a higher percentage of iron pipe may experience a higher percentage of corrosion related breaks. This would especially apply to pipe installed without an increased investment in condition assessment, pipe monitoring and corrosion control measures. Corrosive soils and other environmental risks drive up the total cost of ownership. The most common failure mode reported in
the detailed survey is a circumferential crack which is the most common failure mode of cast iron (CI) and asbestos cement (AC) pipes. Corrosion issues can be a contributor to many failure modes.

12. Cast Iron Pipe Has 20 Times More Breaks in
Highly Corrosive Soils Than in Low Corrosive Soils
Analyses of soil corrosivity completed in this study shows that a cast iron (CI) pipe in highly corrosive soil is expected to have over 20 times the break rate of a CI pipe in low corrosive soil. Traditionally, the thickness of the iron pipe wall provided the additional corrosion protection. CI pipes manufactured after World War II have significantly higher failure rates due to thinner walls. The resulting higher main breaks with iron pipes due to corrosive soils is consistent with other research and studies.

13. Newer and Thinner-W all Ductile Iron Pipe Has
10 Times More Breaks in Highly Corrosive Soils
Than in Low Corrosive Soils
Ductile iron (DI) pipe in highly corrosive soil has over 10 times the break rate than a DI pipe in low corrosive soil.

Cast iron (CI) and DI pipe corrode at about the same rate.

Corrosion is an important failure mode for CI pipe and
is the predominant failure mode for DI pipe. The many
types of corrosion can also be combined with other
environmental and operating conditions, all contributing to water main failures. Because the wall thickness of DI pipe has decreased over time, internal and external corrosion are a bigger concern for this pipe product.

14. 80% of Utilities Use Some Form of Corrosion
Protection for Ductile Iron Pipe
80% of respondents to the detailed survey indicated they utilized some form of corrosion protection for ductile iron pipe with polywrap being the predominate method.

15. The Average Age of Failing W ater Mains is
Approximately 50 Y ears Old
When asked for the typical age of a failing water main, the detailed survey participants reported an average value
of 50 years. 43% of water mains are between 20 and 50
years old and 28% of all mains are over 50 years old. In 2012 the average age of failing water mains was reported as 47 years. Based on the detailed survey, the average
expected life of installed pipe today is 84 years, up from 79 years in the 2012 study. Given the qualitative nature of these questions, the typical age of a failing water main and expected pipe life have not changed significantly over the past 6 years. While pipe life can be estimated at over 100 years, actual life is affected by soil corrosivity, installation practices, and other factors.

16. 45% of Utilities Conduct Condition Assessment
of W ater Mains
45% of utilities use some form of regular condition
assessment of their water mains. Condition assessment is considered a basic part or early step in the development of an asset management program.
67 of 249

6 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

17. Over 16% of Installed W ater Mains are Beyond
Their Useful Life
A total of 16% of installed water mains are beyond their useful lives (up from 8% reported in the 2012 study) and utilities do not have the funds to replace them. For utilities to survive this trend, and considering 28% of all mains are over 50 years old, improved asset management will
be essential. These figures correspond well with an EPA study (EPA, 2002) that shows the amount of pipe needing immediate replacement is growing rapidly.

18. The National Rate of Pipe Replacement is 125 Y ears According to the survey, an average of 0.8% of installed pipe is replaced each year. This equates to a 125-year
replacement schedule. Pipe replacement rates should be
between 1% and 1.6%, equivalent to 100-year and 60-year depreciation and/or replacement schedules, respectively.

In general, pipe replacement rates need to increase. Asset management and life cycle costing practices can help a
utility optimize its pipe renewal and replacement activities.

The report finds that on average, utilities have a 125-year replacement rate on water main pipes as the new national average.

19. Construction Related Failures are the Same for
Both Ductile Iron and PVC Pipes
The detailed survey asked utilities to report the number of failures related to construction activities and identify the pipe material that failed. The vast majority of construction related failures involved either ductile iron (DI) or PVC pipe and the number of failures for each material was essentially identical. Therefore, DI and PVC pipe have an equivalent rate of construction related failures. This points to the need to improve construction practices for underground
infrastructure regarding installation, location services and inspection.

20. Acceptance of PVC Pipe for Use in W ater
Systems Has Increased by 23% Since 2012
PVC pipe approval has increased from 60% of water
utilities allowing its use in 2012 to 74% of utilities allowing its use in 2018. The number of utilities approving of
ductile iron, concrete steel cylinder, and steel pipes for use in water systems remains essentially the same.

21. Open Cut Remains the Primary Pipe Installation
Method
Open cut pipe installation/replacement remains the primary method used. Where open cut is difficult, other installation methods are used. 62% of utilities have used directional drilling and it is highly recommended in locations where open cut replacement is difficult.

22. The Average Supply Pressure is 69 psi With the
Average Maximum at 119 psi
Pressure is an important component in pipe design and
material selection. A well-controlled system operated below design limits will lead to extended pipe life. The basic survey provided an average operating pressure of water mains as 69 psi, which is well below the pressure rating of most water mains. The reported maximum operating pressure in the
basic survey had an average value of 119 psi.

23. The Average Daily Gallons Per Day Per Person is
137 With a Peak Demand Factor of 1.8
The average daily water demand for utilities which
participated in the detailed survey was 137 gallons per day per person with a peak demand of 251 gallons per day
per person. This suggests successful water conservation efforts and “value of water” campaigns nation-wide.

24. Estimated Average W ater Loss to Leakage is 10%
A total of 200 utilities provided an estimate of their water loss due to leakage and the average reported value was
10%. This statistically significant number suggests that pressure reduction, leak detection and pipe replacement has contributed to the overall reduction of water loss in water distribution systems.

25. Most Utilities Have a Moderate to High Soil
Corrosion Risk
Using soil analysis data, corrosion index values were
computed for 281 of the cities that participated in the survey. The study found a direct correlation between soil corrosiveness and break rates of metallic pipes. A typical city has a corrosion risk rating somewhere between
moderate and high, demonstrating the importance of
corrosion mitigation for water systems.

Introduction
68 of 249

7 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Introduction

1.0 Introduction
In the United States and Canada, population growth during three main time periods – 1800s, 1900–1945, and post 1945 – led to the installation of underground water infrastructure. Pipes constructed in each of these three eras could all start to fail at nearly the same time over the next couple of decades for a number of reasons ranging from age and corrosion to inadequate design and poor installation. Additionally, the life span of the materials used has become shorter with each new investment cycle (WIN, 2002).

There are approximately 155,693 public water systems in the United States with 52,110 community water systems providing year-round water services for residents. Over 286 million Americans get their tap water from a community water system (CDC, 2017). These community water systems across the US face the inevitable cost of pipe repair and replacement while dealing with decreasing water quality and increasing water loss. It is believed that at many utilities, pipe replacement levels are inadequate to keep up with the rate of deterioration. Maintaining an obsolete system can cause severe financial hardship for cities as well as increase public health risks. Infrastructure asset management is an approach which can help utilities bring together the concepts, tools, and techniques to manage assets at an acceptable service level at the lowest life-cycle cost. Life-cycle costing and assessment analysis can help utility management select pipe materials with a long-expected life that also contributes to a low cost over the expected life of the pipe, while also considering environmental impacts and risks (see Sustainable Solutions, 2017 or Khurana, 2017).

1.1. Aging W ater Infrastructure
In 2007, the Conference of Mayors conducted a survey
of over 300 cities representing over 55 million citizens and over 186,149 miles of water distribution mains (US
Conference of Mayors, 2007). A high majority (86.2%) of cities use the number of water main breaks per unit length to evaluate drinking water pipe performance. The survey results concluded that water main breaks continue to be a major concern with 45% of cities experiencing more
than 50 breaks annually. Cities also stated that repair and replacement cycles require a long-term view: 43% of city drinking water pipe system repair and replacement
cycles extend beyond 50 years; and, 65% of city sewer
pipe system repair and replacement cycles extend beyond 200 years. Water operation and maintenance managers
recognize that older pipe systems may be constructed
with multiple materials such as concrete, cast iron, wood, and some of these pipes may be over 125 years old. Asset inventory, condition assessment and asset management
planning practices provide valuable information to enable utilities to more efficiently replace older pipes constructed with underperforming materials.

This study provides key inputs to water asset management’s life-cycle cost analysis through a comparison of break-rates of commonly used pipe materials. Also, utility operating characteristics given in this report can provide the pipeline designers and system operators with reference values to plan for system replacement and expansion.

The EPA’s Aging Water Infrastructure research program
(EPA, 2010) is working toward the goal of making our
nation’s water infrastructure sustainable by supporting research and by promoting strategic asset management.

The current efforts of the American Society of Civil
Engineers Grand Challenge (ASCE, 2017) also helps
engineers focus on improving the nation’s infrastructure report card grade. ASCE’s Grand Challenge aims to
enhance the performance and value of water infrastructure by 2025 with a focus on innovation, life cycle costing and transformational change from design to delivery.

The water industry has seen many types of academic
surveys and studies on water main replacement programs
and the benefits of asset management, condition
assessment and prioritization. However, many utilities
have not historically tracked all of the elements of water main break data. Over the past 20 years, most utilities have come to realize the importance of tracking all aspects of their infrastructure in a GIS-centric platform and have collected records on the types, sizes, and repair histories of their pipes. As this trend continues, more data and
69 of 249

8 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 analysis will be available to the industry to improve water distribution system repair and replacement decision making.

This comprehensive report based on statistically significant experiences from 308 utilities also draws from other relevant studies to be the most complete and authoritative study on water main break data based on pipe material. Many water utilities consider pipe breaks to be a crucial factor when deciding which pipes to replace. According to a Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) study, 75% of water utilities cited pipe breaks as a key criterion in pipe replacement decisions.

Other common factors noted were pipe age (45%), low flows (40%), condition or material type (30%), and need for pipe size changes (30%). In addition, pipe breaks in a water distribution system are one of three critical metrics that can be used to measure the degree of optimization in the system. The other two metrics are chlorine residual (measuring water quality integrity) and pressure management (measuring hydraulic integrity). Breaks reflect the physical condition of a distribution system (WaterRF , Asset Management, 2017).

According to another WaterRF publication, the average pipe break rate (regardless of cause) for water utilities is between 21 to 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipeline per year. An additional WaterRF study cited an average of 25 breaks per 100 miles per year. Although water utilities typically take action to manage and reduce pipe breaks through monitoring, preventing all pipe failures is impossible (WaterRF , Knowledge Portals, 2017).

2.0 The Survey

2.1. Methodology
During 2017, Utah State University conducted a survey
of utilities across the USA and Canada to obtain data on water main failures of water supply systems. The study
was comprised of two parts: a basic survey and a detailed survey. The focus of the basic survey was to examine the number of failures utilities were experiencing and how
those failures related to the pipe materials used and the age of the failing pipes. This effort focused on water supply mains (sewer and force main pipes were excluded) and
excluded pipes with diameters under 3 inches. A variety of pipe materials are used in water supply systems and over the past 100 years the materials have evolved with different manufacturing technologies. As a result, pipe performance has changed. A goal of both the basic and detailed surveys was to look at which materials were performing best at a snapshot in time and to track how pipe age affects failure rates. The focus of the detailed survey was to obtain
additional utility operational characteristics, pipe age and size, multi-year failure data, and applications of trenchless technologies.

The primary method used to distribute the surveys was
email. A subcontractor experienced at mass emailing was utilized along with multiple email lists. Initial emails were sent to personnel at water utilities during April through June of 2017. This report will refer to the survey results herein as the 2018 study to correspond with its date of publication. Participants were given links to both the basic and detailed surveys and requested to complete both, or at a minimum, complete the basic survey. Follow up phone calls were also used to encourage participation. The basic survey participants were asked for data from a previous 12-month time period and thus the results represent a time period that mostly coincides with the year 2016. A total of 308 utilities responded to the basic survey. Of those, 281 utilities were able to provide water main break data in the basic survey and 98 responded to the detailed survey. This comprehensive study covers 170,569 miles of pipe with
water main break data. An additional 27 utilities responded with partial data but are not included in the 170,569
mile total to simplify this report. The USA and Canada
The Survey
70 of 249

9 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 The Survey
were divided into nine regions and the 281 basic survey respondents were categorized according to the region
and the size of the utility based on amount of pipe. This comprehensive study documents the results from both the basic and detailed surveys and draws from other relevant industry sources.

2.2. Objectives and Goals of the Study
There were many objectives of the surveys. These
objectives include:
 Understanding the age and size distribution of pipe in water utilities
 Providing utilities with data they can use such as
typical and maximum water pressure in water mains,
FIGURE 1: REGIONS USED TO REPORT SURVEY RESULTS
Region 1
Region 2 Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
average and maximum daily demands of water, and
leakage rates
 Itemizing pipe failures over a time period with the data broken down by material type and age
 Identifying the most common pipe failure modes and
materials as identified by the utility
 Determining whether corrosive soils are present,
analyzing the influence of corrosive soils on break
rates, and identifying corrosion prevention methods
being used
 Highlighting pipe replacement plans, expected pipe
life of new pipe and condition assessment methods
 Determining which pipe materials are allowed
71 of 249

10 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 1: NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS WITH WATER MAIN BREAK DATA BY REGION FIGURE 2: LENGTH OF PIPE FROM EACH REGION THAT RESPONDED TO THE BASIC

AND DETAILED SURVEYS
Basic Survey Detailed Survey
Region Number of
Respondents
Miles of
Pipe
Population
Served
Number of
Respondents
Miles of
Pipe
Population
Served
1 18 10,395 3,790,992 9 5,361 2,142,784
2 33 28,096 13,047,139 10 14,781 7,768,396
3 14 9,676 2,611,838 6 7,237 1,729,838
4 24 11,039 1,965,740 7 5,041 960,148
5 44 28,649 5,779,390 18 23,080 3,522,330
6 64 24,220 6,922,536 21 13,312 3,896,092
7 28 20,291 5,508,899 8 8,632 1,020,243
8 35 21,064 5,584,389 9 9,345 1,996,568
9 21 17,138 7,266,423 10 11,307 4,112,900
Total 281 170,569 52,477,346 98 98,097 27,149,299
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Region
Miles of Pipe
The Survey
72 of 249

11 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 3: NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS FROM EACH REGION THAT RESPONDED

TO THE BASIC AND DETAILED SURVEYS
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Region
Number of Participants

2.3. Survey Regions
In total, 281 utilities participated in the surveys and provided failure data. To examine regional variations,
nine survey regions in the United States and Canada
were selected. The regions defined in the study are used here to indicate the wide geographical distribution of the respondents. Table 1 lists the number of respondents with failure data, the miles of pipe, and the population served in the basic and detailed surveys from each region. Figure 1 illustrates the locations of the nine different regions used in this report. Respondents were asked to report the length of water supply mains in their system but not to include sewer or force mains or lines with a diameter less than 3 inches. Figure 2 illustrates the miles of water main pipe that were reported in the basic and detailed surveys on a regional basis. A total of 170,569 miles and 98,097 miles of pipe was reported by respondents in the basic
and detailed surveys, respectively. Figure 3 illustrates the number of respondents from each region. There were 26
additional respondents to the basic survey that could not provide failure data and these are not included in the miles of pipe or populations served in Table 1. The respondents are distributed across a large survey area. The basic survey The Survey
was able to get respondents from 48 of the 50 states in the US and 7 out of 10 provinces in Canada. This study is more comprehensive than other studies to date.

Based on miles of pipe shown in Figure 2, the basic survey got the most miles of pipe from Regions 2 and 5. Figure 3 shows that the peak number of respondents came from
Region 6.

Figure 4 shows the average miles of pipe per utility for the basic survey by region. Region 2 had the highest average pipe length of 851 miles and Region 6 had the smallest
with 378 miles. Overall, based on the basic survey, an
average utility participant had 607 miles of pipe and served 186,752 people. For comparison, the 2012 survey results reported an average utility had 626 miles of pipe and
served 164,325 people, which are similar results. The 2012 survey had 188 respondents covering 117,603 miles of
pipe with failure data and thus the 2018 basic survey had a 49% increase in respondents and 45% more miles of pipe.

This increase in survey coverage increases the statistical validity of this study.
73 of 249

12 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 4: AVERAGE MILES OF PIPE FROM EACH REGION RESPONDING TO THE BASIC SURVEY FIGURE 5: AVERAGE POPULATION SERVED FROM EACH REGION RESPONDING TO THE BASIC SURVEY 1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Combined
Combined
Region
Region
Average Miles of Pipe
Average Population Served

2.4. Size of Survey Participants
Figure 5 shows the average population served per utility for each region in Figure 1. The average population served per utility for the entire basic survey was 186,752.
578
851
691
460
651
378
725
602
816
607
210,611
395,368
186,560
81,906
131,350
108,165
196,746
159,554
346,020
186,752
The Survey
74 of 249

13 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 2: GROUPING OF UTILITY SIZE
FIGURE 6: TOTAL MILES OF PIPE IN THE BASIC SURVEY IN EACH SIZE GROUP DEFINED IN TABLE 2 AND THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS (CURVE AND RIGHT AXIS) 70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 250
200
150
100
50 0
0 to 500 500 to 1500 1500 to 3000 > 3000
Utility Group Size (in miles of pipe)
Miles of Pipe in Group (bars)
Number of Respondents (curve)
38,184
205
44,582
55 54,143
60,977
27 14
Four categories of utility size were used as shown in Table 2 and each survey participant was allocated to one of the categories based on the miles of installed water mains.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of total miles of pipe from the basic survey based on these categories (bar graph)
along with the number of respondents (line graph with right axis). Respondents covered the range from very small to very large with each group from Table 2 well represented.

In terms of total length of pipe from each of the size groups in Table 2, this survey has reasonable uniform distribution of pipe length from small to large utilities.

Description Miles of Pipe Installed
Small Utility/City 0 to 500 miles
Medium Utility/City 500 to 1500 miles
Large Utility/City 1500 to 3000 miles
Very Large Utility/City Over 3000 miles

2.5. Miles of Pipe vs. Population
Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between the population served by the utilities participating in the basic survey and the number of miles of water main pipe. The trend line and equation are a best fit to the data. The slope of this line indicates that there are on average 322 people served for each mile of water main installed. Figure 7 tends to be biased by the points most distant from the origin. Figure 8 utilizes the data in Table 1 to compute average population served per mile of pipe for each region. We see that this produces an overall average of 308 people served per mile. More rural areas such as Regions 3, 4, and 5 have lower population to miles of pipe ratios as expected. Utilities that were exclusively transmission systems were excluded. This compares with a commonly used estimate of 325 people per mile (Eidinger, 2001). The 2012 survey reported this value as 264 people served per mile. Pipe breaks in utilities with a higher count of people per mile would have a greater impact on the community.

The Survey
75 of 249

14 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 7: POPULATION SERVED RELATIVE TO TOTAL MILES OF PIPE FROM THE BASIC SURVEY FIGURE 8: POPULATION SERVED PER MILE BY REGION
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0 500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Combined
Miles of Pipe
Region
Population Served
People Served Per Mile of Pipe
365
464
270
178
202
286 271 265
424
308
y=322.1x
The Survey
76 of 249

15 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018TABLE 3: SUMMARY CALCULATIONS OF THE

COVERAGE OF THE BASIC SURVEY

2.6. Survey Sample Size
The total length of water main pipe reported by the 281 basic survey participants with break data was 170,569
miles (the survey did not include sewer or force mains).

Based on an EPA report, there are approximately 880,000 miles of distribution pipe in the USA (EPA, 2007). Other EPA reports (EPA, 2002 and EPA, 2013) estimate the amount of installed water main pipe in the USA at over 1 million miles and 1.5 million miles. Using the above result of 308 people/ mile of water main and the current US population of 326.0 million, this produces an estimate of 1.06 million miles of pipe. Currently, a commonly cited value for the length of water mains in the US is 1.2 million miles (Walton, 2016).

The population of Canada is estimated at 36.7 million.

Assuming there are 308 people served per mile of pipe in Canada, then an estimate of the miles of pipe in Canada is 119,156 miles. Table 3 summarizes this data along with survey results from Table 1 to show that this survey covered approximately 14.5% of the population and 12.9% of the
miles of water mains in both the US and Canada. Thus,
survey sample size is significant and therefore can provide reliable results.

Small and rural communities may find it challenging to
renew their water infrastructure in the coming years. Small utilities have fewer people, and those people are often more spread out, requiring more pipe “miles per customer” than urban systems (AWWA, 2012). This has the effect
of increasing the financial burden of maintaining these systems.

Population Miles of
Pipe
US 326,000,0001 1,200,0003
Canada 36,700,0002 119,1564
Total 362,700,000 1,319,156
Survey Response
(with break data) 52,477,346 170,569
Survey Coverage (%) 14.5% 12.9%
1- Source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/
2- Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/ 3- Source: (Walton, 2016)
4- From: the population of Canada 36,700,000 and there are 308 people/mile of pipe.

The Survey
Overall Pipe Breaks Up 27% In Six Years
77 of 249

16 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 9: LENGTH OF PIPE SEPARATED BY MATERIAL TYPE FROM THE BASIC SURVEY TABLE 4: MATERIAL TYPES AND THEIR ABBREVIATIONS

3.0 Pipe Materials
Table 4 lists the pipe materials and their abbreviation used in this report. Many pipe products have evolved over the years of use, and most pipe products could be broken
down into subcategories based on pipe manufacturing
and surface treatments. These changes along with new
installation techniques should affect life expectancy of the pipe. Both the basic and detailed surveys were intended to be relatively simple to complete and, thus, encourage wide scale participation of the water utilities. Most utilities have limited records as to which specific pipe materials were installed decades ago and what corrosion protection measures were used. Therefore, tracking subcategories of material types was not part of this study.

Figure 9 illustrates the length of pipe reported in the basic survey broken down by pipe material. The “Other”
category in Figure 9 includes materials such as copper, fiberglass (FRP), and some galvanized steel. It is noted that galvanized steel was reported in both the steel and other categories by participants, which was unfortunate. Figure 10 illustrates the percentage of total length of water mains separated by pipe material. There is so little HDPE pipe (859 miles) and PVCO pipe (83 miles) in this survey, that these two pipe materials will be added to the of the “Other” category in the remainder of this report. If there are only Abbreviation Description
AC Asbestos Cement
CI Cast Iron
CSC Concrete Steel Cylinder
DI Ductile Iron
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PVCO Molecularly Oriented PVC
Steel Steel
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 AC CI CSC DI HDPE PVC PVCO Steel Other Unknown
Pipe Length (miles)
small amounts of a pipe material utilized, break rates can be highly inaccurate because of large scatter in the data. It is significant to consider that over 91% of the water mains are made from asbestos cement, cast iron, ductile iron, and PVC materials. This is consistent with earlier studies (Stone et al., 2002).

Pipe Materials
21,589
48,471
4,940
47,595
867
37,704
83 4,765
1,375
3,182
78 of 249

17 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Region 1
Region 2 Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
FIGURE 10: PERCENT OF TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE SEPARATED BY MATERIAL TYPE 30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
AC CI CSC DI HDPE PVC PVCO Steel Other Unknown
Percent of Total Length
Figure 11 illustrates the regional distribution of pipe material usage as a percentage of the total length in that region.

It is interesting to note the significant differences in regional pipe material utilization. Cast iron (CI) and ductile iron (DI) pipe represent approximately 86% of the water mains in Region 6 and over 75% in Regions 4, 7, and 8. PVC has a leading role in Regions 3, 5 and 9 and is slightly behind asbestos cement (AC) pipe in Region 2. AC pipe has a significant presence in Regions 2 and 5. Region 2 is unique in that it is the only region where AC pipe is the most common material.

This suggests that the selection and use of pipe materials are based on historical preference versus comparative cost analysis or environmental conditions. Since CI and AC pipes are no longer manufactured in the US and Canada, the use of these materials in water systems should be decreasing with time as they are replaced. By applying asset management best practices, life cycle cost analysis should be used to do a comparative total cost of ownership evaluation of what pipe material should replace the CI and AC pipes.

Pipe Materials
13%
28%
3%
28%

0.5%
22%

0.05%
3%

0.8% 2%
79 of 249

18 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 11: REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF LENGTH OF PIPE BY MATERIAL TYPE (BASIC SURVEY) 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 Region
% of Length of Pipe Material by Region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
9%
29%
3%
19%
3%
1%
7%
39%
2%
1%
12%
36%
3%
4%
2%
2%
13%
4%
1%
43%
3%
0%
7%
3%
43%
20%
15%
5%
0%
17%
37%
6%
3%
1%
1%
37%
43%
13%
3%
11%
25%
2%
22%
6%
33%
2%
35%
14%
5%
7%
9%
29%
2%
6%
2%
34%
4%
13%
2%
39%
47%
28%
36%
Pipe Materials
80 of 249

19 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 13: PIPE AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH MATERIAL TYPE FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY FIGURE 12: PIPE AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR ALL

MATERIAL TYPES FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY

3.1. Pipe Age and Diameter
The detailed survey asked respondents to provide the
distribution of installed pipe by age and by material type.

Four age groups were provided; 0 to 10 years, 10 to 20
years, 20 to 50 years, and over 50 years. Figure 12 shows the age distribution for all pipe materials combined and shows 28% of installed pipes are over 50 years old. Figure 13 illustrates the age distribution for each material type by length. For example, essentially all cast iron pipe is over 20 years old and 18% of it is in the 20 to 50 year category while 82% is over 50 years of age.

Figure 14 shows the age distribution as a percentage of total length of all pipe materials. For example, cast iron pipe older than 50 years is 20% of all installed pipe. For ages between 0 to 10 years, ductile iron (DI) and PVC
both have about 5% of the total installed length. The most common pipe materials installed during the last 10 years are DI and PVC.
> 50 yrs, 28%
0 to 10 yrs, 11%
10 to 20 yrs, 18%
20 to 50 yrs, 43%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Percent of Length for Each Pipe Material
Pipe Age
0 to 10 yrs 10 to 20 yrs 20 to 50 yrs > 50 yrs
4%
19%
23%
7%
26%
16%
26%
43%
12%
17%
73%
18%
50%
55%
34%
43%
27% 27%
82%
30%
37%
30%
Pipe Materials
81 of 249

20 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 14: PERCENT OF TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE BY AGE FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY FIGURE 15: PERCENT OF TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE BY AGE FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent of Total Pipe Length
% of Total Length
Pipe Age
Pipe Diameter
0 to 10 yrs
3” to 8” 10” to 12” 14” to 24” 27” to 36” 42” to 48” > 48” 10 to 20 yrs 20 to 50 yrs > 50 yrs
0%
5% 5%
0% 0.2% 1%
7%
9%
0% 0.2%
12%
5%
3%
15%
7%
1%

0.2%
5%
20%
2% 1%

0.3%
The detailed survey respondents were also asked to break down the fraction of total installed pipe length by six pipe diameter categories. Figure 15 illustrates the percentage of water main that fit into each size range. Figure 15 indicates that approximately 67% of the installed pipe is 8 inches or less in diameter. The 2012 survey found that 66% of the pipe was 8 inches or less in diameter showing good agreement. Earlier studies assumed 73% of water pipes were 10 inches or less in diameter (Stone et al., 2002). Figure 16 illustrates the diameter distribution for each material type. Figure 16 shows that large diameter transmission pipes are dominated by steel and concrete pipe materials with 18% of all concrete pipe and 14% of all steel pipe having a diameter greater than 48-inches. Figure 17 illustrates the percent of total length of all pipe materials broken down by material type and diameter. Figure 17 illustrates that cast iron pipe from 3 to 8 inches in diameter represents over 19% of the installed pipe. 67%
18%
9%
3% 1% 1%
Pipe Materials
82 of 249

21 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 16: PIPE DIAMETER DISTRIBUTION BY MATERIAL TYPE FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY > 48”
42” to 48”
27” to 36”
14” to 24”
10” to 12”
3” to 8”
Pipe Diameter
Percent of Length for Each Pipe Material
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
2%
2%

1.4%

6.6%

15.1%

76.8%

0.0%

0.01%

0.02%

3.9%

17.1%
79%

17.9%

21.5%

25.2%
33%

0.6%

1.9%

0.12%

0.53%

2.2%
12%

21.9%

63.3%

0.0%

0.04%

4.4%

22.1%

73.5%

14.2%

7.7%

15.2%

23.2%

17.8%

21.9% (Galvanized)
Pipe Materials
83 of 249

22 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 17: PERCENT OF TOTAL PIPE LENGTH BROKEN DOWN BY PIPE DIAMETER

AND MATERIAL TYPE FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY
> 48”
42” to 48”
27” to 36”
14” to 24”
10” to 12”
3” to 8”
Pipe Diameter
Percent of Total Pipe Length
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0.66%

0.0%

2.9%

13.5%

1.7%

0.0%

0.34%

3.7%

19.1%

1.6%

0.9%

1.1%

1.2%

0.0%

0.1%

3.3%

0.0%

0.1%

0.6%

6.0%

17.2%

1.0%

0.0%

0.01%

4.8%

16.0%

0.77%

0.47%

0.26%

0.5%

0.59%

0.72%
Delivery Pressure and Volume
84 of 249

23 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 19: AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM WATER DEMAND VERSUS POPULATION FIGURE 18: AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM

WATER SUPPLY PRESSURES

4.0 Delivery Pressure and Volume
The basic survey asked for the average and maximum
water supply pressures. The mean values are 69 and 119
psi. The average of the reported values is illustrated in Figure 18. In the 2012 survey, the average pressure was 77 psi which has good agreement with this survey result but also indicates a possible downward trend. It is noted that some utilities have reduced operating pressures to reduce leakage rates. Pressure control and reduction is a common methodology to both reduce water leaks and reduce water main breaks.

The detailed survey asked for the average and maximum
daily water demand. The reported values were divided by the population served and averaged. Utilities that were only transmission systems were excluded. The average
water demand is 137 gallons per day for each person.

The maximum water demand is 251 gallons per day for
each person. Water demands are related to the population served. Figure 19 plots each utility’s average and maximum demand values in units of MGD (millions of gallons per day) versus the population served in millions. Also provided are linear fit equations to the data (the dotted lines) and their equations. For example, a utility with a population of one million people would have a maximum water demand of
215 MGD and an average demand of 131 MGD.
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 Pressure (psi)
Average Maximum
500
400
300
200
100
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Population (millions)
Water Demand (MGD)
y=215x
y=131x
Delivery Pressure and Volume
69 119
85 of 249

24 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF FAILURE DATA FROM THE BASIC SURVEY OVER A 12-MONTH PERIOD

5.0 Computing Water Main Failure Rates
Both the basic and detailed surveys asked respondents
to consider a water main failure as one where leakage
was detected, and repairs were made. However, they
were requested to not report failures due to joint leakage, construction damage, or tapping of service lines because these failures are not indicative of pipe degradation and are often identified early in the first year of operation. The goal was to examine pipe longevity.

Utilities reported the number of failures over a recent 12-month period for each pipe material and the installed length of each pipe material. The failure rate was computed by dividing the total number of failures from all utilities for a particular pipe material by the total length of that pipe material.

For example, the survey reported a total of 23,803 failures of water mains during a recent 12-month period for all pipe materials. The total installed water main length from the survey was 170,569 miles (or 1705.69 hundreds of miles).

Thus, the overall failure rate is 23,803/1705.69 = 14.0 failures/(100 miles)/year. This represents a 27% increase from the 2012 survey which had a rate of 11 failures/(100 miles)/year.

This simple method for computing failure rates was used because it discourages biases toward large or small
utilities. It is noted that utilities experience widely different failure rates for the same pipe material. Indeed, this should not be surprising. Several significant variables affect the results including pipe age, soil types (corrosive or noncorrosive), different corrosion prevention techniques, different installation practices, and climate such as extreme cold and drought events.

Literature reviews indicate that between 250,000 and
300,000 breaks occur every year in the U.S., which
corresponds to a rate of 25 to 30 breaks/(100 miles)/year (Grigg, 2007; Deb et al., 2002). The AWWA Partnership for Safe Water Distribution System Optimization Program goal for a fully-optimized distribution system is 15 breaks per 100 miles of pipe annually (AWWA Partnership for Safe
Water, 2011). Pipe material performance and selection is an important component of optimizing distribution systems.

5.1. Failure Rates for Each Pipe Material
The survey measured pipe failures over a recent 12-month period and was broken down by material type. Table 5 lists the total length of pipe by material type, the number of failures (breaks) over a recent 12-month period, the break rate for each pipe material, the 2012 survey break rates, and the percent change in break rates. Figure 20 illustrates the failure rates as a function of material type. In both the 2012 and 2018 surveys, PVC was the pipe material with
the lowest break rate.

Length Failures 2018 Break Rate 2012 Break Rate % Change AC 21,589 2,240 10.4 7.1 46%
CI 48,471 16,864 34.8 24.4 43%
CSC 4,940 152 3.1 5.4 -43%
DI 47,595 2,627 5.5 4.9 13%
PVC 37,704 878 2.3 2.6 -10%
Steel 4,765 362 7.6 13.5 -44%
Other 5,506 680 12.4 21 -41%
Total 170,569 23,803 14.0 11 27%
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
86 of 249

25 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 21: EXPONENTIAL CHANGE IN BREAK RATES
FIGURE 20: BREAK RATES OF EACH PIPE MATERIAL FROM THE BASIC SURVEY 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022Break Rate
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Break Rate (breaks/(100 mi-year))
AC CI CSC DI PVC Steel Other

10.4 34.8

3.1 5.5

2.3 7.6

12.4 Comparing this 2018 survey with the 2012 survey in Table 5 shows that overall, break rates increased by 27%. The change is primarily due to failures in asbestos cement (AC) and cast iron (CI) pipes with increases of break rates by over 40%. As Figure 14 shows, AC and CI pipe represent the largest percentage of oldest pipe currently installed and thus are nearing the end of their useful lives. Many studies show that water-main failure rates generally increase exponentially over time (Kleiner, 2002). One could envision a rapid increase in break rates in the future as illustrated in Figure 21.

Certain utilities could experience the need to rapidly accelerate the rate at which they are replacing CI and AC water mains. If a break rate doubles, the economic impact is significant; one would need to double the number personnel repairing the breaks along with supplies while loss of treated water increases, and societal impacts could be devastating.

Figure 22 compares the break rates of the 2012 and 2018 surveys. Since over 90% of installed pipe consists of AC, CI, DI, and PVC, the break rates for those material types will be most accurate. From 2012 to 2018, Figure 22 shows a small decrease in break rates for PVC and a small increase for DI pipe. The overall consistency of those values demonstrates they are accurate. Again, the increase in break rates for AC and CI pipes is a very significant observation.

The amount of concrete and steel pipe in this survey is less than 6% of the total installed pipe length. When only a small amount of pipe break data is available, the accuracy of the break rates from survey data will be decreased. The 42% decrease in break rate for concrete pipe was likely due to the fact that over twice as much concrete pipe is in this 2018 survey and should be more accurate. Steel pipe also saw a large decrease in break rates. The break rate for steel pipes are largely attributed to smaller diameter galvanized steel pipes that are rapidly being replaced.

Large diameter steel pipes used in transmission lines have a very low break rate.

Computing Water Main Failure Rates
87 of 249

26 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 23: BREAK RATES BY UTILITY SIZE FROM THE BASIC SURVEY FIGURE 22: COMPARISON OF BREAK RATES OF THE 2018 AND 2012 SURVEYS 40 30
20 10
0 70
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 Break Rate (breaks/(100 mi-year))Break Rate (breaks/(100 mi-year)) AC CI CSC DI PVC Steel
< 200 mi 200-1000 mi > 1000 mi

10.4 7.1

34.8 24.4

3.1 5.4 5.5 4.9

2.3 2.6

7.6 13.5

23.7 25.3

60.8 11.6

4.3 17.2 17.4

43.2 6.9

2.6 10.7

5.6 27.4

3.8 1.9
The size of a utility can affect break rates. Three sizes of utilities are considered here based on the length of pipe; small with less than 200 miles, intermediate with 200 to 1000 miles, and large with over 1000 miles. Figure 23 illustrates the overall break rate (for all pipe materials) and then separated by the four most common pipe materials in these three utility sizes. The large utilities consistently had lower break rates than intermediate and smaller utilities. This is likely due to better funding and larger staffs for engineering design, monitoring and information gathering, installation oversight, and repair of water mains. It is very significant that small utilities consistently have break rates at least double that of a large utility.

Length of Pipe in Utility
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
88 of 249

27 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 25: BREAK RATES FROM THE US AND CANADA FOR SELECTED MATERIAL TYPES FIGURE 24: OVERALL BREAK RATES BY REGION FROM THE BASIC SURVEY Figure 24 illustrates the overall break rate broken down by region. Clearly not all regions are experiencing the same failure rate. In Table 1, the number of respondents for each region is reported. It was desired to separate US and Canadian break rate data. This is illustrated in Figure 25. Canada can have very corrosive soils (Seargeant, 2013) and this is reflected in the high break rates of cast and ductile iron pipes in Figure 25. Seargeant reported that the highly corrosive soil in Edmonton necessitated a transition from cast iron to asbestos cement pipes in 1966 and then to PVC starting in 1977. The transition to PVC has produced a dramatic reduction in water main break rates for the city. 60 50
40 30
20 10
0 25
20 15
10 5
0 Breaks/(100 mi-year)
Break Rate (breaks/(100 mi-year))
AC CI CSC DI PVC Steel

13.1 9.7

6.5 20.0

8.7 16.4

20.0 16.0

17.5 14.0

4.9 33.2

48.4 3.1 2.7

5.0 12.6

2.6 1.1

8.4 1.9

10.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Combined
Region
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
89 of 249

28 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

5.2. Effects of Age
The basic survey asked respondents to break down the
failures into the decade when they were installed. Some of the respondents did not know the age of the failed
pipes and they were not included in the results. Figure 26 illustrates the percentage of failures of each pipe
material based on the decade of installation. For example, asbestos cement (AC) pipe had 60% of the breaks from
pipe installed in the 1960’s, 28% in the 1970’s, and 12% of the breaks in pipes installed in the 1980’s. Note that the largest percentage of failures is usually not in the oldest pipes (AC being an exception), which has several possible causes. One important cause is the amount of
pipe present in a given age range. As the older pipe is replaced there is less available to fail. Also, cast iron and ductile pipe wall thickness has decreased over the years which can affect time to failure. The results in Figure 26 are also related to when a pipe material was introduced or removed from the market. AC pipe has not been installed in the USA and Canada in the past 25 years, and thus, all AC pipe failures date from the 1980’s and earlier. Little cast iron pipe has been installed since the 1980’s and that is reflected in Figure 26. Widespread ductile iron and PVC pipe production in the USA did not start until about 1970, so we should expect to see a small failure percentage for both DI and PVC installed in the 1960’s and none in the 1950’s and earlier.

Most of the failure versus age distributions in Figure 26 seem to be quasi bell-shaped (again, asbestos cement
pipe failures are an exception). It would appear the AC pipe installed in the 1960’s may be near its end of life and utilities may want to consider planning for rapid replacement of
that pipe. Cast iron pipe shows the most uniform failure distribution and does not give much guidance on which
pipe age needs replacement first.

5.3. Target Replacement Break Rate
The detailed survey asked participants if they utilized a target break rate at which pipe replacement was
implemented. Only 28% of the respondents said that
they had a specific value. The average response was a
target rate of 11 breaks/(100 miles)/year. Most respondents commented that they do not have a specific target break rate. However, break rates are a very important factor
when locations for critical services are considered and when roads are being reconstructed. Although Figure 26
provides some insight to when pipe needs to be replaced, the most appropriate metric to making this decision should come from looking at break rates at sections of pipe with a similar age and material.

5.4. Most Common Failure Age and Mode
The detailed survey asked the participants the typical pipe age of most water main failures. The average response
was 50 years with a range from 10 to 100 years. In 2012 the average age of failing water mains was reported as
47 years. Given the qualitative nature of this question, the typical age of a failing water main has not changed significantly over the past six years.

The detailed survey requested participants to select the most common failure mode from the following: corrosion, bell split, circumferential crack, longitudinal crack, leakage at joints, fatigue, or other. Figure 27 illustrates that 56% of the respondents identified a circumferential crack as the most common followed by corrosion at 28%. These are
the typical failure modes of CI and AC pipe.

An alternate approach to examine the failure modes is
by using those reported in the basic survey. Participants were asked to provide a cause of failure from the following list; circumferential crack, longitudinal crack, corrosion (internal or external), bell splitting, rock impingement, other, or unknown. Where multiple failures occurred,
multiple causes were given, and each was given equal
weight. Figure 28 illustrates the percentage of each failure mode with unknown responses ignored. Again, the top
two failure modes are circumferential cracks followed by corrosion.

Computing Water Main Failure Rates
90 of 249

29 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 26: PERCENT OF FAILURES PER DECADE OF INSTALLED PIPE MATERIAL Steel
PVC
DI
CSC
CI
AC
Pipe Material
Percent of Each Pipe Material Breaks
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
1%
2%
3%
11%
45%
20%
2%
20%
25%
18%
1%
9%
11%
10%
7%
9%
37%
28%
12%
5%
35%
25%
12%
27%
3%
23%
10%
6%
20%
60%
3%
21%
5%
8%
7%
28%
1%
9%
4%
2%
5%
12%
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
91 of 249

30 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 27: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS SELECTING A MOST COMMON FAILURE FIGURE 28: DISTRIBUTION OF FAILURE MODES FROM THE BASIC SURVEY 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
% of Respondents% of Failures
56%
37%
28%
27%
8%
22%
4%
10%
2%
5%
1% 0%
1%
Bell Split
Bell Split
FatigueLeak at Joints
Rock
Impingement
Other
Other
Longitudinal
Crack
Longitudinal
Crack
Corrosion
Corrosion
Circular Crack
Circular Crack

5.5. Pipe Cohorts and Vintage
As mentioned in section 3.0, the survey did not track the many subclasses of pipe that have been installed because many utilities do not have that information. Individual utilities should try to add to their database as much as they can about what is referred to as a pipe cohort and other details about their installation. Copeland, et al. (2015) provides a good example of data to record. A pipe cohort is a group of pipes with similar characteristics. This concept is useful in pipe management because defining different pipe cohorts can be helpful in identifying pipes that have different risk characteristics (see Figure 29).

Computing Water Main Failure Rates
92 of 249

31 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 29: TIMELINE OF PIPE TECHNOLOGY IN THE US IN THE 20TH CENTURY Pipe
Material
Steel
Steel
Pit Cast Iron
Spun Cast Iron
Spun Cast Iron
Spun Cast Iron
Spun Cast Iron
Spun Cast Iron
Ductile Iron
Ductile Iron
Asbestos Cement
Reinforced Concrete
Prestressed Concrete
PVC
Internal
Corrosion
Protection
None
Cement
None
None
Cement
None
Cement
Cement
Cement
Cement
None
None
None
None
External
Corrosion

Protection
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
PE
None
None
None
None

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010  Pipe Material Availability
 Periods of Active Installation and Widespread Use
 Extended Potential Lead Joint Leaching Periods in Iron Pipes Adapted from Figure 8.3,
Sustainable Solutions Corporation, 2017
Joint
Type
Welded
Welded
Lead
Lead
Lead
Leadite
Leadite
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Changes in pipe manufacturing, such as the introduction of new pipe-making technologies, are a major criterion when identifying pipe cohort concerns (e.g., longevity of a pipe and risk of breakage). For instance, pit cast gray iron pipe and centrifugally cast gray iron pipe of the same diameter should likely be considered in different pipe cohorts,
because the significant differences in manufacturing cause the pipes to behave differently. Other factors that can affect pipe longevity and breakage include transportation and installation methods (WaterRF , 2013).

Another pipe cohort is cast iron with leadite joints. There are at least two reasons for high failure rates associated with leadite joints: “First, leadite has a different coefficient of thermal expansion than cast iron and results in additional internal stresses that can ultimately lead to longitudinal splits in the pipe bell. Secondly, the sulfur in the leadite can facilitate pitting corrosion resulting in circumferential breaks on the spigot end of the pipe near the leadite
joint. The failure rate in the industry for leadite joint pipe is significantly higher than for lead joint pipe even though the pipe may not be as old.” (EPA, 2002, p3)
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
93 of 249

32 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 6: TYPICAL CORROSION

PREVENTION METHODS

6.0 Corrosive Soils and Corrosion
Prevention Methods
The detailed survey asked respondents if they have one
or more regions in their service area with soils that tend to be corrosive. A total of 75% of the respondents reported that they do have at least one area with corrosive soils.

This corresponds to the results found in the 2012 survey.

The survey also asked if they utilized any kind of corrosion protection methods. A total of 80% of the respondents
reported that they do utilize some kind of corrosion
protection. The respondents were also asked to describe the method(s) they used. The most common answer was
polywrap installation. Table 6 lists most of the methods mentioned ordered from most common (rank 1) to least
common (rank 5).

Water utilities often do not know the specific cause of external corrosion observed on their water mains, and
consequently, the chosen preventative measure may not
work effectively. Historically, these choices are based on data from other industries (e.g., gas and oil) and may not be suitable for the water industry. Corrosion of metallic pipes can be caused by a variety of mechanisms, each of which requires a different solution. Determining which corrosion mechanism is at work is not a simple matter, because the resulting pipe damage looks similar for all of them. The failure to properly identify corrosion sources may produce prevention systems that are ineffective or do not last. For example, it is not effective to install an anode on a main that has a bacteriological corrosion problem. Similarly, an anode bag installed to reduce corrosion caused by a stray impressed current would be quickly used up and would
provide only short-term protection. Also, polywrap does not protect a pipe from all corrosion types and may get damaged during the installation (Romer, 2005).

6.1. Effect of Corrosive Soils on Break Rate
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
provides results of soil surveys across the US. One of the aspects of the soil surveys is a “risk of corrosion” analysis that pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel.

The soil is rated as either “low,” “moderate,” or “high” based on measurements of moisture, particle size, acidity, and electrical conductivity. This is not a precise analysis and additional factors may be neglected. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable estimate of soil corrosiveness in lieu of better data. The USDA soil survey website (https://websoilsurvey. sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) allows the
user to select an area of interest (AOI) and then produces a plot coloring low risk areas in green, moderate risk areas in yellow, and high risk areas in red. An overview of soil across the US is given in Figure 30.

Soil risk can change over a distance of a few blocks. This is illustrated in Figure 31 which shows a screen capture of soil risk colors inside the boundaries of a town in California.

This town has all three regions present; low (green),
moderate (yellow), and high (red). Soil analysis data is not available in regions with a light gray color.

It was desired to relate water main break rates to soil corrosivity. Since most cities have a combination of
low, moderate, and high regions, a numerical ranking
was developed that provided an overall level of soil
corrosiveness. To do that, pictures of each area served by the utilities in the basic survey were created. Next a program was developed that counted the number of
reddish, greenish, and yellowish pixels in each photo. To provide a numerical ranking, pixels that were low risk were given a value of 1, moderate pixels were given the value 2, and high risk pixels were given the value 3. The pixel values were summed and then divided by the total number of red, yellow, and green pixels. The computed value is called a corrosion index. Cities with a corrosion index near 1 have low corrosion risk while those close to 3 have high corrosion risk. For the area in Figure 31, the computed corrosion risk was 2.1 or slightly above a moderate level.

Rank Corrosion Prevention Methods
1 Polywrap
2 Anodes or cathodic protection
3 V-bio polywrap
4 Impressed current
5 Dielectric coatings
Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods
94 of 249

33 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 30: US CORROSIVE SOILS MAP (CONUS POTENTIAL FOR STEEL CORROSION) FIGURE 31: CORROSIVE SOIL RISK PLOT
Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods
Corrosion index values were computed for
281 cities in the US. Some US cities had little
or no data for the soil inside their boundaries
preventing computation of a corrosion index.

For analysis, the corrosion index values were
broken down into seven ranges and the number
of utilities in each range is plotted in Figure

32. The average corrosion index for all the US
utilities in the basic survey was 2.4 or close to
midway between moderate and high corrosion
risk. That is, most utilities in the US have a
moderate to high soil corrosion risk which is
consistent with the detailed survey report that
showed 75% of utilities have one or more areas
with corrosive soils.

Town Boundaries
Low
No Rating
Moderate
High
Steel Corrosion Potential
 High
 Low
 Moderate
Source: Data collected from Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Geographic Database. 95 of 249

34 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 33: INDIVIDUAL UTILITY BREAK RATES FOR CAST IRON PIPE

VERSUS THEIR CORROSION INDEX
FIGURE 32: NUMBER OF UTILITIES VERSUS THEIR CORROSION INDEX 100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
Number of Respondents
5 9
18 45
59 58
86 Corrosion Index Ranges

1.0-1.29 1.3-1.59 1.6-1.89 1.9-2.19 2.2-2.49 2.5-2.79 2.8-3.0 Low Moderate High



It is reasonable to expect break rates would increase when pipe is installed in corrosive soils. To examine this, plots were made of a utility’s corrosion index versus break rate. Figure 33 illustrates this for cast iron pipe. There is a trend of higher break rates with increasing corrosion index, but the wide scatter in the data makes analysis difficult. The high break rates in Figure 33 are associated with small utilities that have a small amount of pipe. Consider a utility with 1 mile of cast iron pipe with 2 breaks during the past year. That would translate to a break rate of 200 breaks/(100 miles)/year. If that utility had no breaks the following year, the break rates drop to zero. 450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 0
Breaks/(100 mi-year)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Corrosion Index
Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods
96 of 249

35 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 34: CAST IRON PIPE BREAK RATE VERSUS CORROSION INDEX TABLE 7: BREAKDOWN OF CORROSION INDEX VALUES INTO SEVEN CATEGORIES To get a realistic estimate of break rates, we need to add the number of breaks of a pipe type from several utilities and divide by the sum of the length of that pipe type to compute break rates. The corrosion index data was broken down into the same seven categories used in Figure 32. The results are listed in Table 7. The break rates versus corrosion index data are plotted in Figure 34 for cast iron pipe and Figure 35 for ductile iron pipe. The figures also contain a regression equation fit and a correlation coefficient. Correlation coefficients close to 1.0 indicates an excellent correlation and zero indicate no correlation. Both cast and ductile iron results in reasonably good fits to the data. 70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
Breaks/(100 mi-year)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Corrosion Index
Category Corrosion
Index Range # of Utilities Average Corrosion
Index
Break Rates (breaks/(100 mi-year))
Cast Iron Ductile Iron
1 1.0 - 1.29 5 1.14 4.93 0.57
2 1.3 - 1.59 9 1.43 17.59 2.89
3 1.6 - 1.89 18 1.72 17.76 3.27
4 1.9 - 2.19 45 2.03 24.96 3.09
5 2.2 - 2.49 59 2.29 32.79 6.63
6 2.5 - 2.79 58 2.60 26.39 4.09
7 2.8 - 3.0 86 2.93 57.20 7.69
y = 23.10x - 20.69
R2 = 0.81
Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods
97 of 249

36 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 35: DUCTILE IRON PIPE BREAK RATE VERSUS CORROSION INDEX 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
Breaks/(100 mi-year)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Corrosion Index
y = 3.28x - 2.59
R2 = 0.75
Using the equations in Figure 34 with x=1 for a low corrosion risk and x=3 for a high corrosion risk, one can show that a cast iron pipe in a high corrosion soil is expected to have over 20 times the break rate of one in a low corrosion soil.

Similarly, ductile iron pipe in a high corrosion soil has over 10 times the break rate than one in a low corrosion soil. Very poor correlations were found for the other material types in this survey.

Construction Related Failures
98 of 249

37 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 36: PERCENT OF TOTAL REPORTED CONSTRUCTION RELATED FAILURES

FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY

7.0 Construction Related Failures
The detailed survey asked respondents to report failures related to construction activities. Figure 36 illustrates the percentage of total construction failure related to a particular pipe material. Ductile iron and PVC pipes have the majority of construction related failures at a nearly equal frequency. Figure 14 shows that DI and PVC are the two pipe materials that are also most commonly being installed today. This points to the need to improve construction practices for underground infrastructure regarding installation, location services and inspection. 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% of Construction Failures
CSC DI PVC Steel Other
Pipe Material

8.0 Condition Assessment Methods
The detailed survey asked if utilities utilize condition assessment methods to monitor the condition of their water mains. 45% of the respondents reported that they do use some kind of condition assessment process but normally limited this effort to larger diameter transmission system pipes. A large percentage of those reported using some visual assessment along with electromagnetic, acoustic, tapping coupons, and other means.

Construction Related Failures
0%
42%
45%
3%
9%
99 of 249

38 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 37: PERCENT WATER LOSS VERSUS UTILITY BREAK RATES

9.0 Water Loss Due to Leakage
Water loss due to leakage is reaching critical levels where in some cases 20% to 30% of water is leaking from water mains (New Jersey 101.5, 2017). The basic survey asked
what percentage of water volume input to the system is
water loss (due to leakage). A total of 201 utilities were able to provide a water loss value. The reported average leakage from the basic survey was 10% with a standard
deviation of 7.7%. It is recognized that there are multiple ways to express and account for water loss (see Taylor, 2008). Water loss can be due to unbilled authorized
consumption such as flushing water mains and fire-
fighting, unauthorized consumption, and real losses due to leakage. The term non-revenue water comprises all
of those losses. It was not anticipated that most of our respondents would have a recent detailed water audit that would provide just the water leakage amount. Thus, the
10% value may include authorized losses. For example,
a recent analysis of utilities in Indiana which had a 100% participation rate showed that non-revenue water averaged 19% to 24% of the potable water supplied. The study also noted that a significant number of the state’s water pipes are reaching the end of their useful lives (Indiana Finance Authority, 2017). More accurate audits of water utilization would be beneficial to understanding water losses and
their cause.

It was postulated that there may be a correlation between water main break rates and water losses. Figure 37 plots individual overall break rates (breaks/(100 miles)/year) versus the reported utility loss rate. A linear regression to the data yields the equation in the figure which is illustrated in the dotted line in Figure 37. This plot omits a few small utilities with failure rates greater than 100 that skew the equation fit considerably. There is considerable scatter in the data and the correlation coefficient is very small indicating essentially no correlation. However, the trend of high leakage values with increasing break rates might be inferred. Perhaps if more accurate leakage values were used, a better correlation might be obtained.

Leaks can occur from pipe damage caused by third
parties or corrosion in the pipes, as well as from joints in the distribution system. There are two ways in which water utilities can assess leakage. One way is through
conducting a system-wide water audit, which estimates
water consumption and water loss. The process enables
water utilities to develop performance indicators to assess water loss, benchmark themselves with other water utilities, and set performance metrics. Another way in which water utilities can assess leakage is through conducting leakage investigations on all or part of the water system, using technologies to find the leaks. Many of these technologies can track the sound of a leak, allowing the utility to
identify the exact point of the leakage and make needed repairs. There is also increasing use of various “smart technologies,” typically tied to newer “smart meters,” that can also aid in leak identification” (WaterRF , 2013).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent Water Loss
0 20 40 60 80
Break Rate (breaks/(100 mi-year))
y = 0.0019x + 0.0738
R2 = 0.0794
Plans for Replacing Water Mains
100 of 249

39 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018TABLE 8: QUESTIONS ABOUT REPLACEMENT OF FAILING WATER MAINS FIGURE 38: ASSESSMENT OF PIPE CONDITION WITH TIME (FROM EPA, 2002) Percentage of Pipe by Classification

10.0 Plans for Replacing Water Mains
The detailed survey respondents were asked questions
about expected pipe life and pipe replacement and the
answers are summarized in Table 8. The typical age of
failing water mains had an average response of 50 years (up from 47 years in 2012) which is well below what most manufacturers say should be expected. The average
expected life of a newly installed pipe is 84 years (up from 79 years in 2012). Given the quantitative nature of these questions, the typical age of failing water mains and expected pipe life have not changed significantly over the last six years. The basic survey asked if utilities have a pipe replacement program and 77% said they did. However,
the detailed survey asked utilities if they had a regular pipe replacement program and only 58% of the respondents
stated they did and of those that did, the average amount replaced each year was 0.8% of their total installed length.

Respondents were asked for the percentage of their water mains that are beyond their useful life but lacked funds to replace them. The average response was 16% of water
mains are beyond their useful life. In the 2012 survey the same question was asked and the response was 8.4%.

This would indicate that the backlog of needed pipe
replacement is growing.

It is of interest to compare these results with a study done by the EPA (EPA, 2002). The report classified water main pipe condition into six categories: “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” “Very Poor,” and “Life Elapsed.” The study examined data for the years 1980 and 2000 and provided
forecasted data for 2020. Figure 38 below is reproduced from the EPA report and estimates that the condition of 9% of pipes will be categorized as “Life Elapsed” and 23% as “Very Poor” by the year 2020. Of note is the projected growth in the “Very Poor” category during this period as shown in Figure 38. This is consistent with the results of this survey. The rapid rate of growth of pipes in the “Very Poor” category will make it very difficult for utilities to keep pace and replace them before they reach end of life or their “Life Elapsed” condition. An AWWA study (AWWA, 2012)
echoes this trend as illustrated in Table 9. Table 9 shows aggregate costs to cover both replacement and growth in water mains in the USA.
1980 2000 2020
Questions Average or
Response
Typical age of failing water main 50 years
Expected life of new water mains 84 years
Percentage with plan to replacing water mains 77%
Percentage regularly replacing water mains 58%
Percentage of total water main length replaced annually 0.8% Percentage of water mains beyond useful life but lack funds to replace (overall response) 16% (3%) Fair
(3%) Poor Very Poor 2% Very Poor (2%)
Life Elapsed 5% Life Elapsed (7%) Life Elapsed (9%)
Plans for Replacing Water Mains
(19%)
Good
(69%)
Excellent (17%)
Good
(11%)
Good
(18%)
Fair
(12%)
Fair
(14%)
Poor
(13%)
Poor
(23%)
Very Poor(43%)
Excellent
(33%)
Excellent
101 of 249

40 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 9: AGGREGATE NEEDS FOR INVESTMENT IN WATER MAINS THROUGH 2035 AND 2050 BY REGION OF THE UNITED STATES (AWWA, 2012)*
“ The conventional approach to water pipe replacement decision making has been to merely replace the pipe with roughly the same product regardless of price, and based on manufacturer’s recommendations.

In fact, this replacement ideology and tradition is still heavily imprinted upon the thinking of even modern engineers. Communities in the United States, a century ago, used thick cast iron pipes that are now failing. The majority of these pipes are failing for one basic reason – corrosion. Failure to recognize this systemic performance problem in metallic pipes has allowed traditional procurement practice to make suboptimal materials procurement decisions…
”
“ An important step in effectively managing assets is to create an open procurement and selection process which allows for all appropriate materials to be considered and accurately and fairly compared.

Any improvement in this area can represent a huge cost savings for rate payers considering the perpetual high cost of underground infrastructure replacement. Procurement habituation in pipe material consideration combined with a failure to take advantage of the open bidding process impedes competitive cost savings. Closed procurement processes lead to unnecessary costs, and may diminish public confidence in a local government’s ability to provide cost effective services. ”
Source: US Conference of Mayors, 2013
Table 9 represents an estimate of pipe material investment (in millions of dollars) which is needed in each region based on an AWWA report (AWWA 2012). Investment is needed in
two areas - replacement (where existing users pay for the pipe at the end of its useful life) and growth (where system expansion needs to occur due to population growth). These two drivers impact each region differently. Over the coming 40-year period, through 2050, these needs exceed $1.7
trillion. Replacement needs account for about 54% of the national total, with about 46% attributable to population growth and migration over that period.

America’s water main investment needs impact the nation’s regions in different ways. The South and West will face the steepest investment challenges but this will be paid for through growth, unlike the Northeast and other parts of the country facing population decline or only modest growth, which means it will be difficult for them to pay for the needed upgrades (AWWA, 2012).

The US Conference of Mayors 2013 report, “Municipal
Procurement: Procurement Process Improvements Yield
Cost-Effective Public Benefits,” provides expert advice on developing a business case for pipe material selection when evaluating pipe replacement strategies. It reads:
2011 - 2035 Totals 2011 - 2050 Totals
Region Replacement Growth Total Replacement Growth Total Northeast $92,218 $16,525 $108,744 $155,101 $23,200 $178,301 Midwest $146,997 $25,222 $172,219 $242,487 $36,755 $279,242 South $204,357 $302,782 $507,139 $394,219 $492,493 $886,712 West $82,866 $153,756 $236,622 $159,476 $249,794 $409,270 Total $526,438 $498,285 $1,024,724 $951,283 $802,242 $1,753,525 Approved Pipe Materials
* (2010 $M)
102 of 249

41 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 39: RESPONDENTS ALLOWING INSTALLATION OF THESE WATER MAIN MATERIALS FIGURE 40: COMPARISON WITH 2012 SURVEY FOR ALLOWED MATERIALS

11.0 Approved Pipe Materials
The detailed survey also asked respondents what water main pipe materials are currently approved for use at their utility.

Figure 39 illustrates the percentage of respondents that allow a particular pipe material to be installed. HDPE pipe at 66% allowance for use in water systems represents a high degree of acceptance for trenchless applications such as pipe bursting and directional drilling, whereas for open cut installations PVC and ductile iron pipe are the predominantly accepted materials (see Table 10). Figure 40 compares the pipe materials approved for use by utilities in the 2018 survey with the data obtained in the 2012 survey. Figure 40 shows a 23% increase in the acceptance of PVC water pipe by North American utilities since 2012. Specifically, PVC pipe approval among survey respondents increased from 60% of water utilities allowing its use in 2012 to 74% of utilities allowing its use in 2018. The number of utilities approving of ductile iron, concrete steel cylinder, and steel pipes for use in water systems remains essentially the same. 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
% Allowing This Material% Allowing This Material
CSC DI HDPE PVC PVCO Steel
DI PVC CSC Steel
Approved Pipe Materials
32%
86%
66%
74%
26%
38%
36%38%38%
60%
87%86%
74%
32%
103 of 249

42 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 10: QUESTIONS ABOUT REPLACEMENT OF FAILING WATER MAINS

12.0 Preferences for Pipe Installation
The detailed survey asked respondents about experiences with three techniques of repairing, replacing, and installing water main pipes. They were relining deteriorated pipes, replacing pipes with a pipe bursting technique, and installation of new pipes using directional drilling. Table 10 summarizes their responses. The rating scale in Table 10 is from 1 to 5 with 1 being “Not Satisfied” to 5 being “Very Satisfied.” Not many respondents have utilized pipe bursting, but an increasing number are looking at using both pipe relining and pipe bursting techniques. A majority of respondents have utilized directional drilling and are very happy with the results, but it is usually only used where open cut replacement is problematic. Open cut replacement remains the most commonly used method of pipe replacement.

Pipe Relining Pipe Bursting Directional
Drilling Open Cut
% of respondents that have used
this technique 35% 10% 62% 100%
Most common materials installed

HDPE, CIPP ,
cement lining,
epoxy

PVC, HDPE, DI HDPE, PVC, DI PVC, DI, CSC,
Steel
Average Rating 1 to 5 3.8 3.8 4.4 4.7
% of respondents that will use this
technique in the future 58% 44% 93% 100%
Comments
High cost, used
when open cut
not feasible, only
for large diameter
pipe, many not
happy with it
High cost,
useful in some
situations, need
to excavate for
service lines
Worked well
particularly for
river and street
crossings, more
expensive
Standard
installation
method
Infrastructure Asset Management
104 of 249

43 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

13.0 Infrastructure Asset Management
Infrastructure asset management is an approach which
can help utilities bring together the concepts, tools, and techniques to manage assets at an acceptable service
level at the lowest life-cycle cost. Asset management
practices applied to underground infrastructure help
utilities understand the timing and costs associated
with replacement activities. The knowledge gained from
these efforts also helps in the development of effective pipe material selection through comparative financial
analysis called “life cycle costing” as part of replacement strategies and funding plans. Understanding the longevity of a pipe improves the ability for management to make
better infrastructure investment decisions with improved affordability results for customers.

Traditionally, there has been a lack of analysis which
would combine both underground pipe performance and
affordability. Existing practices tended to ignore the effect of environmental conditions on different pipe materials.

Yet, every engineer understands how the complexity of
underground infrastructure has increased along with the array of choices. The ability to change old habits and consider new materials requires additional analysis, and improved design and installation practices. This enhanced analysis of pipe design, selection and installation sets forth the longevity and life-cycle costs critically influencing water service affordability and sustainability for the next 100-200 years.

There have been many studies on water main failure rates in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe over the last three decades. These studies mainly compared the number of
pipe breaks by general pipe type and by length. While these studies have been very helpful to the water industry, the new driver has been the need to take into consideration the reduction of repair and replacement costs and improvement of water service affordability in underground pipe decisions.

This new level of fiscal accountability and demand for
transparent utility management back to their owners and stakeholders has increased the need for additional evidence to demonstrate the improved decision-making. Dig-up
reports and pipe performance and longevity studies form the next body of evidence needed to corroborate water main break surveys and studies. The simple formula in a life cycle cost framework is essentially that “a pipe which has a long life at a low cost is the most affordable.” Engineers are to make available every alternative that can answer the simple question of longevity and cost at each relevant point within the underground network providing service. A key issue in the life cycle cost framework is the expected life of a pipe.

Accurate pipe service and performance life estimates
are critical to the effective management of underground infrastructure. This study provides accurate break data which can be used to improve life cycle costing analysis of water pipelines. Pipe break rate data is fact-based
quantitative information which can help to precisely assess the durability, performance and longevity of pipe networks.

Water main break rates are a critical decision making
metric used in infrastructure asset management repair
and replacement planning. Some of the data provided in
this study, however, such as the average age of failing water mains and average expected pipe life, is qualitative in nature, i.e., subjective since it is based on perception rather than on quantitative data like break rates. While this can be helpful to utility officials, it lacks needed precision.

A similar problem exists with the AWWA 2012 Buried No
Longer report, which provides estimated service lives of different pipe materials based on a mixture of data which includes perceptions of service life versus quantitative data; and therefore is only of limited value for use in pipe material comparisons, asset management replacement
planning, life cycle cost projections, and pipe service life estimates.

There is a large body of information on the importance of asset management and particularly as it relates to water systems. The reader is encouraged to refer to the following excellent documents that are available:
 Asset Management for Water and Wastewater Utilities https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water- infrastructure/asset-management-water-and-wastewater-utilities  What is Asset Management? https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ess-mfs-formsguidance- DWassetmngmntguide_426744_7.pdf
 Life Cycle Assessment of PVC Water and Sewer Pipe and Comparative Sustainability Analysis of Pipe Materials http://www.sustainablesolutionscorporation.com/paper-unibell.html Infrastructure Asset Management
105 of 249

44 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

13.1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis and
Life Cycle Assessment
According to Dr. Sunil Sinha, Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and Director of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management (SWIM) Center at
Virginia Tech, “In order to meet the important challenges of the 21st century, a new paradigm for the planning,
design, construction, and management of water pipeline
infrastructure is required, one that addresses the conflicting goals of diverse economic, environmental, and societal
interests.” (Sinha, 2018) The new paradigm must include life cycle costs analysis (LCCA). LCCA helps in justifying the selection process of a particular system, product or activity based on the total life cycle cost rather than the initial design and installation cost. It enables a transparent selection process. Life cycle cost analysis helps in the identification of high cost areas during the life cycle of the asset and helps in minimizing the costs. Attributing costs to each phase in an asset’s life cycle and understanding the full cost to deliver services is important for determining costs for various service levels, maintenance and renewal decision making and rate setting. For example, in a model

14.0 Conclusion
utilizing utility cost data, PVC was found to have an overall lower total cost of ownership because each cost element (initial pipe cost, installation cost, condition assessment cost, pipe repair cost, rehabilitation cost, replacement cost, indirect and recurring costs and disposal costs) for PVC pipe was lower than ductile iron pipe (Khurana, 2017).

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool used to measure the environmental impacts of different products or systems
during their life cycle. By measuring the environmental impacts throughout the life cycle, life cycle assessment provides a complete picture related to sustainability and helps in providing true environmental tradeoffs in the product selection. For example, in a 2017 study following an ISO framework, PVC was found to have a lower carbon footprint than ductile iron pipe (Sustainable Solutions, 2017).

Life cycle cost analysis provides justification from the economic point of view to make better investment decisions, whereas life cycle assessment provides justification related to sustainability issues. It is important to integrate both life cycle cost analysis and life cycle assessment to provide a holistic picture to the decision maker.

This comprehensive water main break report for 2018 surveyed a statistically significant number of utilities that have collected data on underground infrastructure. The study was focused on material usage in water mains across the USA and Canada and was successful in getting 281 participants to respond to a basic survey and 98 utilities to respond to a detailed survey. The central focus was to obtain average values for water main break rates across North America. These results were presented in Figure 20, but are repeated in Figure 41. PVC has the lowest break rate of all the pipe materials considered. Lower break rates mean lower costs and improved longevity. Compared with the 2012 survey results, break rates for asbestos cement and cast iron pipes have increased significantly and should therefore be cause for concern for policy makers and utility officials alike.

It is hoped that this study will be helpful to utility managers in comparing their experiences with the survey results and thereby make better decisions regarding possible changes in their asset management and procurement practices. Through greater understanding of the risks and issues surrounding the performance of our underground water infrastructure, utilities will be better able to manage our pipe networks and ensure their cost-effectiveness and sustainability.

Conclusion
106 of 249

45 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

14.2. Acknowledgements
This work was completed with support from Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association and the Water Finance Research Foundation.

Utah State University would like to thank the more than 300 water utilities that participated in this survey.

14.1. Significant Results From This Study
Highlights of the water main break report also include:
 Pipe failure rate data for seven commonly used pipe
materials
 Pipe break rates as a function of utility size
 Data on the distribution of pipe failures with pipe age for each material
 Data on the distribution of pipe failure modes for each material
 Analysis of the impact of soil corrosiveness on break rates
 The computation of a national corrosion index value
for utilities
 A revised correlation of people served per mile of
installed water main
FIGURE 41: BREAK RATES OF EACH PIPE MATERIAL FROM THE BASIC SURVEY 40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Break Rate (breaks/(100 mi-year))
AC CI CSC DI PVC Steel Other

10.4 34.8

3.1 5.5

2.3 7.6

12.4 Conclusion
 Average and maximum daily water demand correlations
 Current pipe material usage with a regional breakdown  Pipe age and size distribution
 Average and maximum operation pressure data
 Most common pipe failure age and modes
 Percentage of utilities that allow installation of certain pipe materials
 Data on water main replacement rates and condition
assessment
 Average water loss rate and correlation with break
rates
 Preferences about pipe replacement methods
107 of 249

46 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 ASCE, “2009 Infrastructure Report Card,” available from: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/2009/sites/default/ files/RC2009_drinkwater.pdf, last accessed 2/28/2018.

ASCE, “2017 Infrastructure Report Card,” available from: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/, last accessed 2/28/2018.

ASCE, “Grand Challenge,” available from: http://www.asce.org/grand-challenge/, last accessed 2/28/2018.

AWWA Partnership for Safe Water, “Distribution System Optimization Program (Overview),” AWWA, 2011.

AWWA, “2017 State of the Water Industry Report,” AWWA, 2017, available from: https://www.awwa.org/publications/ opflow/abstract/articleid/65762696.aspx, last accessed 2/28/2018.

AWWA, “Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge,” Denver, CO, 2012.

AWWA, “Dawn of the Replacement Era: Reinvesting in Drinking Water Infrastructure,” AWWA, Denver, CO, 2001.

Burn, S. et. al., “Long-Term Performance Prediction for PVC Pipes,” AWWARF Report 91092F , May 2006.

CDC, “Drinking Water,” https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/public/index.html, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Copeland, B., Weinle, J., and Calder, B., “Evaluation of Water Main Replacement Program Helps Greater Cincinnati Water Works Achieve Asset Management Goals,” 2015, available from: https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/oawwa.org/ resource/collection/C5F0B813-925C-4E91-865A-D564B5814256/2015%20Spring%20Newsletter.pdf, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Deb, A. K., Grablutz, F . M., Hasit, Y . J., Snyder, J. K., Loganathan, G. V., and Agbenowsi, N., “Prioritizing Water Main Replacement and Rehabilitation,” AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO, 2002.

Eidinger, J., “Replacing Seismically-Weak and Aging Water Pipes,” Proceeding of The 2nd Japan and US Workshop on Seismic Measures for Water Supply, 2001.

EPA, “The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,” EPA-816-R-02-020, 2002.

EPA, “Deteriorating Buried Infrastructure Management Challenges and Strategies,” prepared by: American Water Works Service Co., Inc., 2002.

EPA, “Distribution System Inventory, Integrity and Water Quality,” January 2007, available from: https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/637e/02c28f3ee45b3c1f138fcbcec97e3bb3e008.pdf, last accessed 2/28/2018.

EPA, “Condition Assessment of Ferrous Water Transmission and Distribution Systems,” EPA/600/R-09/05, June 2009.

EPA, “Science Matters: Aging Water Infrastructure,” April 2010, available from: https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/ epa-science-matters-newsletter-volume-1-number-1, last accessed 2/28/2018.

EPA, “Primer on Condition Curves for Water Mains,” EPA/600/R-13/080, 2013.

Folkman, S., “Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study April 2012,” available from:
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mae_facpub/171/, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Folkman, S., “Validation of the Long Life of PVC Pipes,” Proceedings of the 17th Plastic Pipes Conference PPXVII, Chicago, IL, Sep. 22, 2014.

Grigg, N. S., “Main Break Prediction, Prevention and Control,” AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO, 2007.

Grigg, N. S., and Hess, J., “Collecting Failure Data to Improve Asset Management,” Advances in Water Research, July- September 2017.

15.0 References
References
108 of 249

47 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Indiana Finance Authority, “Evaluation of Indiana’s Water Utilities: An analysis of the state’s aging infrastructure,” Nov. 2016, available from: http://www.in.gov/ifa/files/IFA-Evaluation%20of%20Indiana%27s%20Water%20Utilities%20 Report-11-18-2016.pdf, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Khurana, K., “A Framework for Holistic Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Drinking Water Pipelines,” Master of Science Thesis, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2017.

Kirmeyer, G. J., Richards, W., and Smith, C. D., “An Assessment of Water Distribution Systems and Associated Research Needs,” AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, 1994.

Kleiner, Y., and Rajani, B., “Forecasting Variations and Trends in Water-Main Breaks,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 8(4):122-131, 2002.

New Jersey 101.5, “Why NJ Utilities Lose 130 Million Gallons of Drinking Water a Day,” available from: http://nj1015. com/why-nj-utilities-lose-130-million-gallons-of-drinking-water-a-day/, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Romer, A. E., Bell G. E. C., Duranceau, S. J., and Foreman, S., “External Corrosion and Corrosion Control of Buried Water Mains,” American Water Works Association, Jan. 5, 2005.

Sinha, S., “Virginia Tech leads efforts to develop national water pipeline database,” available from: https://vtnews. vt.edu/articles/2018/02/eng-pipedwaterinfrastructuredatabase.html#.WpVTVk2fNO0.email, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Seargeant, D., “PVC Water Distribution Pipe; EPCOR’s Continuing Success,” Uni-Bell Annual Meeting, Newport Beach, CA, April 2013.

Stone, S. J., Dzuray, E., Meisegeier, D., Dahlborg, A., and Erickson, M., “Decision-Support Tools for Predicting the Performance of Water Distribution and Wastewater Collection Systems,” prepared for U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, EPA/600/R-02/029, Edison, NJ, 2002.

Sustainable Solutions Corporation, “Life Cycle Assessment of PVC Water and Sewer Pipe and Comparative Sustainability Analysis of Pipe Materials,” 2017, available from:
http://www.sustainablesolutionscorporation.com/
paper-unibell.html, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Taylor, R., “What is the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) and How Did Waitakere City Council Manage to Achieve and ILI of 1.0?” 3rd International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science, 2008, New Zealand, available from:
http://www.thesustainabilitysociety.org.nz/conference/2008/papers/Taylor.R.pdf, last accessed 2/28/2018.

US Conference of Mayors, “National City Water Survey 2007,” US Mayors Water Council, Washington, DC, 2007.

US Conference of Mayors, “Municipal Procurement: Process Improvements Yield Cost-Effective Public Benefits,” US Mayors Water Council, Washington, DC, 2013.

Walton, B., “Infographic: The Age of U.S. Drinking Water Pipes – From Civil War Era to Today,” Circle of Blue, 2016, available from: http://www.circleofblue.org/2016/world/infographic-the-age-of-u-s-drinking-water-pipes-from-civil-war- era-to-today/, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), 2002, “Water Infrastructure Now: Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the 21st Century,” available from: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Water_Infrastructure_NOW_ Recommendations_for_C.htm, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Water Research Foundation (WaterRF), “Asset Management: Breaks & Leaks,” 2017, available from: http://www. waterrf.org/knowledge/asset-management/breaks-leaks/Pages/faqs.aspx, last accessed 2/28/2018.

Water Research Foundation (WaterRF), “Knowledge Portals: Asset Management: Breaks and Leaks: FAQ’s,” 2017, available from: http://www.waterrf.org/knowledge/asset-management/FactSheets/AssetMgt-BreaksLeaks-FactSheet.pdf, last accessed 2/28/2018.

References
109 of 249

48 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 4130 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322 4130
110 of 249

EXHIBIT 1
111 of 249

112 of 249

113 of 249

114 of 249

115 of 249

116 of 249

117 of 249

118 of 249

119 of 249

120 of 249

121 of 249

122 of 249

1 EXHIBIT 2
City of Glendale Response to June 21, 2022 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Water, Water Everywhere Leaking from The Pipes” I. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS
Finding # 9-1: “The maintenance and installation practices of the water pipe infrastructures appear consistent throughout the industry.” Response to Finding # 9-1: The City agrees with this finding. There are different practices between water agencies, but in general they appear to be consistent.

1. “L
A City Council, Council File No. 20-1076 - Sunset Boulevard / UCLA / Water Main B
reak /August 23, 2020”, Martin L. Adams, General Manager and Chief Engineer, Los A
ngeles Department of Water & Power.

Fi
nding # 9-3: “PVC water mains have the lowest break rates of any pipe material.” Response to Finding # 9-3: The City disagrees with this statement. The report referenced by the Grand Jury2 makes this conclusion across a dataset for the industry as whole. Taking this statement out of context can give the impression that PVC pipe would have a lower break rate than other pipe material in every installation, which is a false conclusion when reading the referenced report in its entirety. In fact, a follow-up area of study for the report’s authors would be a comparison of the failure rate between ductile-iron pipe and PVC pipe of the same installation vintage in non-corrosive soils in dense urban areas, and when native backfill is used instead of imported backfill material.

Fur
ther, the follow-up report should study if water agency’s practices are skewing the data. If agencies are only installing PVC mains in areas known to have less stresses from vehicle loading, or areas with fewer buried utilities, current and abandoned, then these installations would have caused the data to show a lower break rate with PVC, when in fact, PVC was specifically chosen for these applications. Additionally, if water agency specifications for pipe laying and backfill are different for PVC vs. ductile iron, there is a possibility that a more stringent pipe laying and backfill specification for PVC reduced its overall break-rate in the dataset analyzed in this report.

2. “
Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study”, March 2018,
Steven Folkman, Ph.D., P.E., Utah State University, Buried Structures Laboratory. 123 of 249

2 Finding # 9-4: “Japanese manufacturers have developed earthquake resilient pipes and LADWP has begun evaluation.”

II. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-1: Utilities and Public Works departments should create interagency practices to avoid encroachments.

The first is the California Code of Regulations, Title 19 Public Safety, Division 4 California Underground Facilities Safe Excavation Board.

Per California Government Code 4216:

Every operator of a subsurface installation, except the Department of Transportation, shall become a member of, participate in, and share in the costs of, a regional notification center.

GWP’s Electric and Water Divisions contract with the Underground Service Alert - Southern California because it is the only notification center in the region to fulfill this legal requirement.

124 of 249

3 Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-2: Due to the corrosion proof of nature of PVC and proven low break rate, the water utilities should review their policy on this noteworthy pipe material.

Response to Recommendation # 9-2:

Due to the ability of PVC pipe to resist corrosion and the formation of bio-films that can increase corrosion inside of the pipe, GWP uses PVC pipe for most recycled water main installations.

GWP uses cement-lined ductile iron pipe for potable water main installations and replacements to help reduce breaks caused by high vehicle loading and settlement of backfill that may occur due to the high number of other underground utilities, new and abandoned, in the public right-of- way. PVC pipe is very susceptible to failures due to point-loading which can be caused by settlement of other utilities “touching the pipe” or causing uneven support of the pipe as the bedding moves. Ductile iron pipe is less susceptible to these uneven forces. Fortunately, most soils in Glendale are not corrosive. So, exterior pipe corrosion is not a major cause of main breaks within the City.

Grand Jury Recommendation # 9-3: Continue evaluation of earthquake resilient pipes and expand usage of this material as indicated.

Response to Recommendation # 9-3:

[End of Document]
125 of 249

Water Division 10-Year CIP
Glendale Water & Power Commission
December 5, 2016
EXHIBIT 3
126 of 249

Introduction
• The 10‐Year CIP is a recommendation of asset
replacement and rehabilitation needs over the next
10 years.
• Overview of Asset Management vs. CIP
• Master Plan Tie‐In
• High Level Budget Summary
• Breakdown by Project Category
• Funding and Implementation
127 of 249

Asset Management
• Asset Lift Cycle
– Water utilities are asset
intensive
•C I P
– Evaluate, plan, design,
construct or
rehabilitate
– Shortest portion of the
cycle
128 of 249

Water CIP
• What is a CIP?
– Capital Improvement Programs are a set of projects that cost more than typical operations and maintenance work, and are usually planned in advance.
– O&M work is usually considered to be and “expense”
instead of a “capital expenditure”. Capital items also have a longer life than an “expense” item.
– There is some overlap, i.e. a large main break requiring the installation of a section of new main could be
“capitalized”.
129 of 249

Water Master Plan
• Completed: December 2015
• Project Outcomes:
– Analysis of current system.
– Projections on future system needs.
– Assessment of current system condition.
– Recommendations on replacement needs.
– Initial prioritization of near, mid, and long term
projects.
– Roadmap for future work, and budgeting.
• Source document to develop the 10-Year CIP
130 of 249

Implementation Figure
131 of 249

Implementation Table
132 of 249

Proposed Annual Budgets
Year Proposed Budget
2017/2018 $7.3 million
2018/2019 $9.3 million
2019/2020 $9.2 million
2020/2021 $9.1 million
2021/2022 $8.9 million
2022/2023 $9.1 million
2023/2024 $12.0 million
2024/2025 $12.1 million
2025/2026 $12.6 million
2026/2027 $11.9 million
• 2017/2108 Under Current Rates
• 2018/2019 to 2022/2023 all of
Phase 1’s budget, from the Water
Master Plan, at the Option 3
spending level ($25 million) plus
the Option 3 budgets of
2021/2022 and 2022/2023 ($20
million).
• Equates to $45 million divided by
5 years, or approximately $9
million per year
• Final four years set at a rate
between Option 2 and Option 3 in
order to avoid the build-up of a
larger backlog of work
133 of 249

Budgets by Group
Major Group 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 Pipelines $2.9 mil $5.9 mil $5.0 mil $5.3 mil $5.7 mil
Facilities and
Plants $2.7 mil $1.1 mil $1.8 mil $1.3 mil $0.8 mil
Annual Programs $1.7 mil $2.3 mil $2.4 mil $2.5 mil $2.4 mil Total $7.3 mil $9.3 mil $9. 2 mil $9.1 mil $8.9 mil
Major Group 2022/2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 Pipelines $5.7 mil $7.2 mil $7.3 mil $7.4 mil $7.1 mil
Facilities and
Plants $0.8 mil $1.2 mil $1.2 mil $1.6 mil $1.2 mil
Annual Programs $2.6 mil $3.6 mil $3.6 mil $3.6 mil $3.6 mil Total $9.1 mil $12.0 mil $12.1 mil $12.6 mil $11.9 mil
134 of 249

Pipelines
• 380 Miles of pipelines total
• Vary by size, material, year of
installation, current condition
• Upgrades needed due to age and
condition, to address service level
issues like improving flow during
high demands and fires and to
provide redundancy.
• The age & condition
replacements were phased:
replace 29.7 miles of 4 inch,
replace 18.4 miles of 6 inch
installed before 1945, replace

66.7 miles of 6 inch installed
between 1945 and 1970, etc.
135 of 249

Pipeline Map
136 of 249

Pipeline Projects
Major Group 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 Pipeline
Management
Program
$1.3 mil $2.3 mil $3.9 mil $3.2 mil $4.1 mil
Fire Flow
Improvements $0.0 mil $0.9 mil $0.0 mil $0.0 mil $1.6 mil Capacity
Improvements $1.6 mil $2.7 mil $1.1 mil $2.1 mil $0.0 mil Total $2.9 mil $5.9 mil $5.0 mil $5.3 mil $5.7 mil
Major Group 2022/2023 2023/202 4 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 Pipeline
Management
Program
$4.2 mil $5.9 mil $5.4 mil $3.5 mil $4.1 mil
Fire Flow
Improvements $1.5 mil $1.3 mil $1.4 mil $2.1 mil $3.0 mil Capacity
Improvements $0.0 mil $0.0 mil $0.5 mil $1.8 mil $0.0 mil Total $5.7 mil $7.2 mil $7.3 mil $7.4 mil $7.1 mil
137 of 249

Facilities and Plants
• Potable and Recycled Systems
• 22 pressure zones
• 32 reservoirs and tanks
• 31 pump stations
• 72 pumps and motors
• 16 wells
• 6 interconnections
• 3 pressure regulating stations
• 2 treatment plants
• 5 chemical facilities
• 2 turbine-generators
• 6 dams
• Plus the SCADA system
138 of 249

Facility and Plant Projects
Major Group 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 Portable Power Back-up
Program $0.3 mil $0.4 mil $0.1 mil
Chevy Chase 1666 Tank
Removal and Pump
Upgrades
$0.1 mil $0.4 mil
Allen Tank Removal and
Pump Upgrades $0.1 mil $0.5 mil
Glorietta Well 7 $2.0 mil $0.6 mil
Glendale Heights Tank
Replacement $0.7 mil $0.1 mil
Reservoir Wood Roof
Replacement Program $0.8 mil $0.8 mil $0.8 mil
Total $2.7 mil $1.1 mil $1. 8 mil $1.3 mil $0.8 mil
Major Group 2022/2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 Chevy Oaks Recycled
Pump Station $0.2 mil
Verdugo Basin Production
Study $0.2 mil
Direct Potable Reuse
Study $0.1 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil
Grandview Solar
Generation/Battery
Storage Project
$0.1 mil $0.5 mil
Reservoir Wood Roof
Replacement Program $0.8 mil $0.9 mil $1.0 mil $0.8 mil $1.2 mil Total $0.8 mil $1.2 mil $1. 2 mil $1.6 mil $1.2 mil
139 of 249

Annual R&R
• Annual rehabilitation
and replacement (R&R)
• Spans each asset
category
• Cost drives need to
capitalize
• 34,000 service lines,
meters, endpoints
• 9,000 valves
• 3,100 fire hydrants
• Smaller budgets
140 of 249

Annual R&R Projects
Major Group 2017/2018 2018/ 2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 Service Line Replacement
Program $0.0 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil Meter & Endpoint Replacement
Program $0.0 mil $0.0 mil $0.0 mil $0.0 mil $0.35 mil
Hydrant Replacement Program $0.0 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil Valve Replacement & Installation
Program $0.0 mil $0.5 mil $0.5 mil $0.5 mil $0.3 mil
Slope & Access Road Stabilization
Program $1.0 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil Pumping Unit Efficiency Program $0.05 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.15 mil Tank Rehabilitation Program $0.3 mil $0.35 mil $0.35 mil $0.35 mil $0.35 mil System Optimization Upgrades $0.0 mil $0.5 mil $0.65 mil $0.75 mil $0.5 mil Water Quality Enhancement
Program $0.2 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil
Facility Security and Landscaping
Upgrade Program $0 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mi l $0.2 mil $0.2 mil Large Tool Replacements $0 mil $0.01 mil $0.01 mil $0.01 mil $0.01 mil Fleet Replacements $0.14 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil Total $1.7 mil $2.3 mil $2.4 mil $2. 5 mil $2.4 mil
141 of 249

Annual R&R Projects – Cont.

Major Group 2022/2023 2023/ 2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 Service Line Replacement
Program $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil Meter & Endpoint Replacement
Program $0.4 mil $0.4 mil $0.4 mil $0.4 mil $0.4 mil
Hydrant Replacement Program $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil Valve Replacement & Installation
Program $0.3 mil $0.3 mil $0.3 mil $0.3 mil $0.3 mil
Slope & Access Road Stabilization
Program $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil $0.05 mil Pumping Unit Efficiency Program $0.15 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil Tank Rehabilitation Program $0.4 mil $0.65 mil $0.65 mil $0.65 mil $0.65 mil System Optimization Upgrades $0.65 mil $1.3 mil $1.3 mil $1.3 mil $1.3 mil Water Quality Enhancement
Program $0.1 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil $0.1 mil
Facility Security and Landscaping
Upgrade Program $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil $0.2 mil Large Tool Replacements $0.01 mil $0.01 mil $0.01 mil $0.01 mil $0.01 mil Fleet Replacements $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil $0.15 mil Total $2.6 mil $3.6 mil $3.6 mil $3. 6 mil $3.6 mil
142 of 249

Implementation
• Process
– Approvals
–C O S A
– Staffing
– Delivery
• Policy
– Risk Tolerance
• Levels of Service
• Unplanned Outages
• Future Cost Control
• Policy – Cont.
– Rates
– Funding Mechanism
• Rate Implications
– PAYGO
– Bonds
– Future Generations
Charge
–C O S A
143 of 249

Q & A
144 of 249

0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GWP Water Division Unplanned Outage Metrics
Sum of No of
Services Affected
Sum of Service Hour
Interruption
Average of Outage
Duration in Hours
Values
Year
Sum of No of Services AffectedAverage of Outage Duration in HoursSum of Service Hour Interruption Outages in
Bueadry
Terrace
Difficult Repair
at Scholl
Ballfield
EXHIBIT 4
145 of 249

146 of 249

147 of 249

The Honorable City Council

Page 2 ends

The long-term exposure to moisture caused the corrosion that led to weakening of the pipe wall.

Prior to August 23, this 900-foot cement lined segment of pipe had reliably operated with no prior leak history.

The Honorable City Council

Page 3 ends

The Honorable City Council

Page 4 ends

1 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada:

A Comprehensive Study
March 2018
An Asset Management Planning Tool for Water Utilities
Utah State University
Buried Structures Laboratory
Steven Folkman, Ph.D., P .E.

Overall Pipe Breaks Up 27% In Six Years
EXHIBIT 6
152 of 249

2 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Executive Summary
Evidence of Decline
The Measurement
Purpose and Highlights
The Primary Researcher
Major Findings

1.0. Introduction

1.1 Aging Water Infrastructure

2.0. The Survey

2.1 Methodology

2.2 Objectives and Goals of the Study

2.3 Survey Regions

2.4 Size of Survey Participants

2.5 Miles of Pipe vs. Population

2.6 Survey Sample Size

3.0. Pipe Materials

3.1 Pipe Age and Diameter

4.0. Delivery Pressure and Volume

5.0. Computing Water Main Failure Rates

5.1 Failure Rates for Each Pipe Material

5.2 Effects of Age

5.3 Target Replacement Break Rate

5.4 Most Common Failure Age and Mode

5.5 Pipe Cohorts and Vintage

6.0. Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods

6.1 Effect of Corrosive Soils on Break Rate

7.0. Construction Related Failures

8.0. Condition Assessment Methods

9.0. Water Loss Due to Leakage

10.0. Plans for Replacing Water Mains

11.0. Approved Pipe Materials

12.0. Preferences for Pipe Installation

13.0. Infrastructure Asset Management

13.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment

14.0. Conclusion

14.1 Significant Results From This Study

14.2 Acknowledgments

15.0. References
3 3
3 3
3 4
7 7
8 8
9 11
12 13
15 16
19 23
24 24
28 28
28 30
32 32
37 37
38 39
41 42
43 44
44 45
45 46
Executive Summary
153 of 249

The top concern in the AWWA surveys for both 2016 and
2017 is “renewal and replacement (R&R) of aging water
and wastewater infrastructure” (AWWA, 2017).

Moser and Dr. Folkman are coauthors of the widely used
text, Buried Pipe Design (McGraw Hill, 3rd Edition). Dr.

Executive Summary
154 of 249

A small or rural utility would typically have more pipe miles per customer. This can result in greater financial burdens in maintaining their water systems compared to larger or urban utilities.

Cast iron (CI) and DI pipe corrode at about the same rate.

6 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

In general, pipe replacement rates need to increase. Asset management and life cycle costing practices can help a
utility optimize its pipe renewal and replacement activities.

The report finds that on average, utilities have a 125-year replacement rate on water main pipes as the new national average.

Introduction
157 of 249

7 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 Introduction

2.0 The Survey

11 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 3: NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS FROM EACH REGION THAT RESPONDED

TO THE BASIC AND DETAILED SURVEYS
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Region
Number of Participants

Based on miles of pipe shown in Figure 2, the basic survey got the most miles of pipe from Regions 2 and 5. Figure 3 shows that the peak number of respondents came from
Region 6.

This increase in survey coverage increases the statistical validity of this study.
162 of 249

In terms of total length of pipe from each of the size groups in Table 2, this survey has reasonable uniform distribution of pipe length from small to large utilities.

Description Miles of Pipe Installed
Small Utility/City 0 to 500 miles
Medium Utility/City 500 to 1500 miles
Large Utility/City 1500 to 3000 miles
Very Large Utility/City Over 3000 miles

The Survey
164 of 249

15 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018TABLE 3: SUMMARY CALCULATIONS OF THE

COVERAGE OF THE BASIC SURVEY

2.6. Survey Sample Size
The total length of water main pipe reported by the 281 basic survey participants with break data was 170,569
miles (the survey did not include sewer or force mains).

The population of Canada is estimated at 36.7 million.

The Survey
Overall Pipe Breaks Up 27% In Six Years
166 of 249

Pipe Materials
21,589
48,471
4,940
47,595
867
37,704
83 4,765
1,375
3,182
167 of 249

Pipe Materials
13%
28%
3%
28%

0.5%
22%

0.05%
3%

0.8% 2%
168 of 249

MATERIAL TYPES FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY

3.1. Pipe Age and Diameter
The detailed survey asked respondents to provide the
distribution of installed pipe by age and by material type.

0.2%
5%
20%
2% 1%

1.4%

6.6%

15.1%

76.8%

0.0%

0.01%

0.02%

3.9%

17.1%
79%

17.9%

21.5%

25.2%
33%

0.6%

1.9%

0.12%

0.53%

2.2%
12%

21.9%

63.3%

0.0%

0.04%

4.4%

22.1%

73.5%

14.2%

7.7%

15.2%

23.2%

17.8%

21.9% (Galvanized)
Pipe Materials
172 of 249

22 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 17: PERCENT OF TOTAL PIPE LENGTH BROKEN DOWN BY PIPE DIAMETER

AND MATERIAL TYPE FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY
> 48”
42” to 48”
27” to 36”
14” to 24”
10” to 12”
3” to 8”
Pipe Diameter
Percent of Total Pipe Length
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0.66%

0.0%

2.9%

13.5%

1.7%

0.0%

0.34%

3.7%

19.1%

1.6%

0.9%

1.1%

1.2%

0.0%

0.1%

3.3%

0.0%

0.1%

0.6%

6.0%

17.2%

1.0%

0.0%

0.01%

4.8%

16.0%

0.77%

0.47%

0.26%

0.5%

0.59%

0.72%
Delivery Pressure and Volume
173 of 249

23 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 19: AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM WATER DEMAND VERSUS POPULATION FIGURE 18: AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM

WATER SUPPLY PRESSURES

24 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF FAILURE DATA FROM THE BASIC SURVEY OVER A 12-MONTH PERIOD

Thus, the overall failure rate is 23,803/1705.69 = 14.0 failures/(100 miles)/year. This represents a 27% increase from the 2012 survey which had a rate of 11 failures/(100 miles)/year.

10.4 34.8

3.1 5.5

2.3 7.6

Large diameter steel pipes used in transmission lines have a very low break rate.

Computing Water Main Failure Rates
176 of 249

10.4 7.1

34.8 24.4

3.1 5.4 5.5 4.9

2.3 2.6

7.6 13.5

23.7 25.3

60.8 11.6

4.3 17.2 17.4

43.2 6.9

2.6 10.7

5.6 27.4

Length of Pipe in Utility
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
177 of 249

13.1 9.7

6.5 20.0

8.7 16.4

20.0 16.0

17.5 14.0

4.9 33.2

48.4 3.1 2.7

5.0 12.6

2.6 1.1

8.4 1.9

10.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Combined
Region
Computing Water Main Failure Rates
178 of 249

28 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

Computing Water Main Failure Rates
179 of 249

Computing Water Main Failure Rates
181 of 249

Protection
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
PE
None
None
None
None

32 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 6: TYPICAL CORROSION

PREVENTION METHODS

This corresponds to the results found in the 2012 survey.

Soil risk can change over a distance of a few blocks. This is illustrated in Figure 31 which shows a screen capture of soil risk colors inside the boundaries of a town in California.

This town has all three regions present; low (green),
moderate (yellow), and high (red). Soil analysis data is not available in regions with a light gray color.

Rank Corrosion Prevention Methods
1 Polywrap
2 Anodes or cathodic protection
3 V-bio polywrap
4 Impressed current
5 Dielectric coatings
Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods
183 of 249

For analysis, the corrosion index values were
broken down into seven ranges and the number
of utilities in each range is plotted in Figure

34 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 33: INDIVIDUAL UTILITY BREAK RATES FOR CAST IRON PIPE

VERSUS THEIR CORROSION INDEX
FIGURE 32: NUMBER OF UTILITIES VERSUS THEIR CORROSION INDEX 100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
Number of Respondents
5 9
18 45
59 58
86 Corrosion Index Ranges

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Corrosion Index
Corrosive Soils and Corrosion Prevention Methods
185 of 249

36 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 35: DUCTILE IRON PIPE BREAK RATE VERSUS CORROSION INDEX 9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
Breaks/(100 mi-year)

Similarly, ductile iron pipe in a high corrosion soil has over 10 times the break rate than one in a low corrosion soil. Very poor correlations were found for the other material types in this survey.

Construction Related Failures
187 of 249

37 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 36: PERCENT OF TOTAL REPORTED CONSTRUCTION RELATED FAILURES

FROM THE DETAILED SURVEY

Construction Related Failures
0%
42%
45%
3%
9%
188 of 249

38 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 FIGURE 37: PERCENT WATER LOSS VERSUS UTILITY BREAK RATES

This would indicate that the backlog of needed pipe
replacement is growing.

11.0 Approved Pipe Materials
The detailed survey also asked respondents what water main pipe materials are currently approved for use at their utility.

42 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018 TABLE 10: QUESTIONS ABOUT REPLACEMENT OF FAILING WATER MAINS

Pipe Relining Pipe Bursting Directional
Drilling Open Cut
% of respondents that have used
this technique 35% 10% 62% 100%
Most common materials installed

HDPE, CIPP ,
cement lining,
epoxy

43 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

44 Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study // March 2018

Conclusion
195 of 249