Richmond City Council
January 27, 2026

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 65 of 126 415
x Prepare protocols, metrics, and site selection cri teria for field demonstration of selected innovative condition assessment technologies and decision-support systems.

To meet these project objectives, a stakeholder group was established to review all task products, and a technology forum was convened to help compile and assess the current state-of-the-art and evolving technologies including any critical gaps in performance, affordability or applicability to wastewater collection systems. During the literature review for the White Paper, internal camera inspection technologies were researched and evaluated for immediate transfer to utilities at large; advanced integrity assessment technologies that apply non-contact, remote sensing approaches were also reviewed. In the main portion of the project, protocols/metrics for field demonstration of selected technologies will be developed, as will criteria for selecting demonstration sites. Finally, field demonstrations of select technologies will be conducted.

The work products resulting from the project will include:
x White paper summarizing current state of the technology. x Summary of technology forum discussions and findings. x Comprehensive inventory of condition assessment technologies. x Information transfer document on internal camera inspection technologies. x Information transfer document on advanced integrity monitoring technologies. x Quality assurance project plan for conducting field demonstrations and data analysis. x Technical memoranda summarizing each task.
x Final project report.

A draft white paper was prepared and used as a basis for discussion at the project’s Technology Forum held in Edison, NJ on September 11 and 12, 2008. It was distributed to the expert panel, stakeholders and other participants in advance of the meeting. This final white paper incorporates feedback received at the Technology Forum.

1.3 Definition of Terms
A wastewater collection system or sanitary sewer system is defined as the network of pipes and pumping systems used to convey sanitary flow to a wastewater treatment facility for treatment prior to discharge to the environment. A wastewater collection system is designed to convey only sanitary flow, whereas a combined system is designed to convey sanitary and stormwater flows.

A gravity line is a sewer pipe that is sloped to convey flow via gravitational forces. Typical design standards are based on open channel flow equations under normal flow conditions utilizing Manning’s equation. Design criteria for a gravity line genera lly take into consideration anticipated defects as a pipe remains in service. An allowable rate of inflow and infiltration expressed in terms of gallons per minute per in. diameter per mile length (gpm/in-mile) is included in hydraulic design of gravity lines. It is also typical to select a frictional coefficient that is based upon a sediment accumulation at the invert of the pipe. The minimum diameter of a gravity line (exclu ding service laterals) is typically 8 inches (in.); however, large interceptors can have diameters in excess of 12 feet (ft). Older systems may contain 6-in. gravity lines.

Service laterals are the gravity lines that convey wastewater from a building’s foundation to the sanitary line, or main, in the street. The ownership of the service lateral varies widely from area to area. It may be defined by property line limits, with the private sewer lateral extending from the house or building foundation to the property line and the municipal or public lateral located within the public right of way.

In other cases, the property owner may own the service lateral all the way to the main.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 66 of 126 416
A force main is a pressure line used to convey pumped sewage. The Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) 2004 survey indicated that force mains comprise, on average, 7.5% of a collection system. This percentage does vary considerably depending on the region and the topography.

Approximately 46% of the force mains have diameters less than 12-in. and 20% are greater than 36-in.

The most common pipe materials for force mains are cast iron and ductile iron.

Asset Management - The primary components of any asset management program include the identification, location, and condition of assets; the determination of their useful life and their valuation.

The key to asset management is to understand the types, frequency, and costs of failure. Asset management often employs a risk-based management approach that utilizes information on asset failures as part of a decision making model to manage funding and maintenance priorities. One risk model often employed is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). FMEA analyzes a system’s potential failure modes so they can be classified by severity or determination of the effect upon the system. It is widely used in manufacturing as a risk mitigation tool in various phases of product life cycle and product quality planning.

The Water Research Foundation (formerly the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF)) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) have both produced guidance documents on asset management and risk-based analysis of assets. The Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) program also outlines the framework necessary to develop an information-based strategy on managing assets. Such approaches are not unique to the wastewater industry. Developing an understanding of the risks and potential costs of system failure can aid in the decision making process.

Condition assessment is one of the core components of an asset management program. It provides the critical information needed to assess the condition and remaining useful life and long-term performance of a piping system. Condition assessment can also be used to determine the functionality of the pipes in meeting their design criteria. USEPA has defined “c ondition assessment” as the collection of data and information through the direct inspection, observation, and investigation and in-direct monitoring and reporting, and the analysis of the data and information to make a determination of the structural, operational and performance status of capital infrastructure assets (USEPA, 2007).

The type of pipe defect varies depending on the pipe material and pipe diameter, as discussed in Section

3.2. The most prevalent defects are as follows: cra cks/broken pipe, root intrusion, sediment, grease build-up, off-set joints, corrosion, manhole frame and cover leaks, and pipe sags.

Pipe failure includes collapse, which may cause extensive property damage and/or discharge of untreated sewage, severe hydraulic restrictions, and severe decrease in hydraulic capacity. Other less severe pipe conditions could also be considered “failure” depending on the performance standards set for the system.

The term inspection technologies in this white paper refers to the various methods used for detecting pipe defects, structural and operational condition, and environmental conditions that could potentially impact pipe condition. These technologies, discussed in Section 4.0, have varying abilities for detecting and quantifying specific types of pipe defects. Inspection technologies may have limited applications depending on pipe material and/or pipe diameter. A robust condition assessment method would likely include a variety of inspection technologies, based on the specific characteristics of a utility’s sewer network.

1.4 Critical Gaps in Inspection Technologies and Condition Assessment A previous research project (Thomson et al., 2004) surveyed large wastewater utility districts to determine critical gaps in condition assessment of gravity pipelines and force mains. The survey found that 100% of the 31 survey respondents relied almost exclusively on CCTV as the primary means to inspect pipes. The general limitations of current C CTV technology were the focus of the identification of critical gaps. There were also several respondents who expressed concerns with the inability to measure

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 67 of 126 417
the structural integrity of the pipe wall and the inability to measure crown corrosion of concrete pipe and internal corrosion for ferrous pipes.

1.4.1 Gravity Line Inspection
The majority of sewer pipeline inspection activities performed by utilities involve gravity pipelines. In the 2004 utility survey (Thomson et al. 2004), critical gaps for inspection technologies for gravity lines were defined as follows:
x The needs for improvements to CCTV - higher resolution cameras with better lighting; improvements in crawler technology to negotiate obstructions, grease, offset-joints; and cameras for inspection of laterals.
x Ability to monitor in surcharged (i.e., flooded) conditions. x Inability to obtain information on pipe wall thickness. x Inability to measure slope.
x Inability to locate manholes 1.
x Inability to locate soil voids above or below a pipe segment. x Inability to quantify corrosion (e.g ., internal, external).

1.4.2 Pressure Line/Force Main Inspection
Inspection of force mains is currently limited to pipelines that are taken out of service. For this reason, force mains are infrequently inspected by utilities, primarily because of the inability to take the line out of service without costly by-pass pumping. Other critical gaps in inspection of force mains include the limited number of inspection technologies suitable for use in force mains; and the inability to determine wall thickness, cracking, and pitting with currently available inspection technologies (Thomson et al. 2004).

1.4.3 Condition Assessment Protocols
Based on a survey of twenty-four Canadian sewer agencies using condition assessment protocols, Rahman and Vanier (2004) identified the lack of consistent, standard condition assessment protocols as a critical gap. The survey results showed 68% of the respondents used a protocol based on that of the National Water Research Council. The biggest gaps identified were systematic collection of data and use of formal risk assessment methods to prioritize resources for maintenance and rehabilitation activities.

Research has focused on the use of models to standardize the risk-based decision-making process.

1.5 Research Questions
The following key research questions relating to sewer inspection and condition assessment have emerged from EPA research (USEPA, 2007). These questions reflect critical gaps in our knowledge of the performance of innovative inspection technologies, our understanding of proven condition assessment techniques, and our ability to diagnose and predict infrastructure failures. x Can emerging and innovative inspection technologies be identified and demonstrated in field settings to improve our understanding of their cost-effectiveness, technical performance, and reliability?
1 Other sources indicate that manholes can be locate d via CCTV inspection. CCTV crawlers can be equipp ed with radio transponders to aid in manhole location.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 68 of 126 418
x Can advances in remote monitoring and wireless technologies be applied to reduce confined- space entry requirements for sewer system inspection and investigation? x What measurements or operational data can be used to determine and track the condition of assets over time?
x Can standard technical guidelines, uniform data requirements, and indicators be developed for condition assessment of sewers and non-sewer assets, including manholes, service laterals, and pipe joints?
x Can technical guidance be developed for establishing an overall wastewater infrastructure inspection program, including inspection prioritization, inspection frequency, inspection type (physical vs. visual, maintenance vs. structural), inspection by asset type, and inspection cost- effectiveness?
x How can a municipality determine the impact of deteriorating collection systems on their financial budgets?
x Can infrastructure failure mechanisms be better characterized to improve risk assessment models?

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 69 of 126 419

2.0 Condition Assessment
Condition assessment has gained considerable attention in recent years amongst municipalities and utility districts as a component of an asset management program. It can be used to prioritize infrastructure projects based on relative risk, thereby easing the financial burden on wastewater utilities and their customers. WERF estimates that wastewater utility purveyors spend approximately $4.2 billion annually to rehabilitate sanitary pipelines. Local and state governments are required to tabulate the value of their public assets (i.e., buildings, roads, utilities, etc.) to support the development of a unified cost accounting system, per the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Bulletin 34. This program requires detailed financial accounting of all assets, however, the level of detail to which it is implemented can vary from city to city. Condition assessment can also assist utilities in implementing USEPA’s proposed guidance for evaluating the Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) program for sanitary sewer collection systems (USEPA, 2005). The CMOM program requires a municipality that operates a sanitary sewer system to provide adequate conveyance capacity for all parts of the system and to take all feasible steps to stop and mitigate the impacts of sanitary sewer overflows.

A variety of processes have been developed for performing condition assessments, ranging from simple to complex. They generally follow a similar progression of steps: setting objectives for the condition assessment, identification of assets and available data, asset inspection, data analysis, and decision making. Specific condition assessment processes are described in the WERF publication “Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utilities” (Marlow et al., 2007) and in the National Research Council’s “Guidelines for Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Large Sewers” (McDonald and Zhao, 2001). Figure 2-1 illustrates t he steps in the condition assessment process.

Inventory database
Impact assessment
Prioritization
Frequency of
next inspection
Inspection
Rehabilitation Condition
Assessment
Decision- making on
rehabilitation actions
Source: McDonald and Zhao, 2001
Figure 2-1: Condition Assessment

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 70 of 126 420

2.1 Program Development
The development of a condition assessment program must first consider the program drivers and objectives. The drivers may include regulatory comp liance, operation and maintenance efficiency, risk management, and/or financial budgeting forecast. Often, the primary driver for wastewater utilities is investigation of sources of infiltration/inflow (I/I) that would require a system-wide condition assessment program. Other utilities are more concerned with identifying high risk pipes for which a catastrophic failure could lead to extensive service disruptions and environmental damage. A risk-based condition assessment program would focus on specific pipes that present these types of risk.

Objectives for performing the condition assessment should be explicitly stated, so that the program’s effectiveness can be evaluated. The objectives will also establish how the results of the condition assessment will be used in the decision making process, the final step of condition assessment. Key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics used to determine the utility’s progress to defined goals, would be defined at this step. Objectives for performing a condition assessment could be to understand the structural condition, performance, and/or progression of deterioration (i.e. remaining service life) of the asset.

The costs of conducting condition assessment must be documented and compared to the anticipated benefits in order to justify the program. The costs are typically easier to quantify but should include both the direct costs of inspection and the indirect costs to the utility and other parties of carrying out the inspection work and collecting and analyzing the data. The benefits are more difficult to quantify and derive mainly from the reduction in the risk of failure (likelihood times consequences of failure) and from the knowledge that allows maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to be carried out on the most cost effective schedule. More specifically, the costs of condition assessment include:
x Equipment and labor costs to conduct field inspections including excavation, traffic control, road surface restoration, monitoring equipment and data collection. x Labor costs before and after field work for planning, data analysis and reporting. x Cost of service disruptions due to inspection work.

Specific benefits of a condition assessment program may include:
x Avoided emergency repair costs.
x Avoided costs of extended service disruptions due to a catastrophic failure. x Avoided restoration costs due to environmental and property damage from a catastrophic failure.
x Avoided public health costs (i.e. injury, death, disease transmission) from catastrophic failure.
x Improved planning and prioritization of rehabilitation and replacement projects due to condition assessment information and improved estimates of service life. x Avoided costs of premature pipe replacement or rehabilitation.

Comparing the costs to benefits for gravity sewers and force mains, it has been reported (Thomson 2008) that:
x The cost of inspection of gravity sewers is typically low with respect to the value of the asset (e.g. the cost of inspection of a 12-in diameter sewer at 13-ft depth is less than 1% of the asset value) and the proportion decreases with increasing depth and diameter of sewer. x The benefits from inspection of gravity sewers are likely to exceed costs for all but small diameter sewers at shallow depths.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 71 of 126 421
x The cost of inspection of force mains is high with indirect costs often exceeding the direct costs of inspection (emptying the line, providing temporary bypass, accessing the line). x The monetary benefits of inspection may be less than the cost of inspection for smaller lines in less populated areas (fail and fix approach may be chosen) although this ratio may change in environmentally sensitive areas. The benefits increase greatly for larger diameter force mains and urban areas due to the increased risk of major consequences.

When performing condition assessment, it is essential to compile an inventory of assets and existing system data (i.e. pipe material, size, age, maintenance history, inspection records). The utility should understand the content and form of existing data, and should identify data gaps at this step. System maps and geographic information system (GIS) databases are good information resources. Inspection and testing records may include I/I studies: flow data, smoke testing, flow isolation studies, and/or dye tracer studies. Failure data from within the system or fro m research on similar conditions (e.g., soil bedding type, material, age) in utility districts can be used to define risk of failure. Data gaps identified in this step are used to plan the inspection program.

A key difficulty in developing a rational inspection, condition assessment, and asset management program is that some of the most critical elements of the sewer infrastructure are the most difficult and expensive to inspect. For example, large diameter sewers have continuous and high levels of flow that make bypassing the sewer difficult or impossible. They may contain large debris that hinder inspections unless the pipes are cleaned first, and they may not have been inspected for decades. Similar conditions exist for force mains in terms of the consequences of failure vs. the ability to inspect.

2.2 Asset Inspection
The primary purpose of an inspection is to define the current condition of an asset, in order to detect and evaluate the progression of deterioration and to make informed decisions on asset management. A well developed inspection plan will maximize the value of the program, while minimizing the cost of inspection. A detailed work plan and quality assura nce project plan should also be established at this step to outline how the proposed inspection program would meet the program objectives. The inspection plan should focus on what assets to inspect, when they should be inspected, and what technologies will be used for inspection. Ideally, an inspection would occur at a point prior to failure where an intervention could effectively renew the asset. For a buried pipeline, there is limited ability to obtain a warning indicator as to the appropriate time and location to perform an inspection. It is this unknown state that is the inherent risk in managing buried assets.

2.2.1 Selection of Assets for Inspection
It may be considered cost prohibitive to inspect every linear foot of a wastewater collection system especially when confronting the need to inspect a large system with little prior inspection history. It is for this reason that condition assessment programs generally use a planned approach to focus on high consequence/high risk pipes or to utilize statistical sampling to select assets for inspection. Decisions on which assets to inspect should be related to the objectives and KPIs defined in the program development phase of the condition assessment process. For example, if the objective or KPI is to reduce SSOs, then a utility may focus on service lateral, which are often a large source of I/I. If the objective or KPI is to reduce risk of failure of high consequence pipes, then a utility may focus on pipes with higher impact and probability of failure, and not inspect service laterals, as they are not high risk or high consequence.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 72 of 126 422

2.2.2 Prioritization of Assets
Two models for prioritizing assets for inspection are described below:
x The National Research Council’s approach (McDonald and Zhao, 2001) utilizes an “impact assessment” to prioritize assets for inspection. Impact assessment is a weighted average of six separate impact factors: location, soil support, size, depth, sewer function, and seismic factors. Impact assessment can then be directly cal culated in a uniform approach based on a weighted average.
x SCRAPS (Sewer Cataloging, Retrieval, and Prioritization System) is based on the general approach of defining risk factors based on consequence of failure and likelihood of failure (Merrill et al ., 2004). The term “Consequence of Failure” is defined as the impact of a failure in terms of repair cost, disruption to the public and economy, impairment of system operation, regulatory compliance, public health and safety, and damages to the environment.

The same terminology can also be applied to the decision making process used in applying condition assessment to asset management. The impact of a failure must be understood and quantified. If the impact can be quantified in doll ars, then it can be compared to both the cost of condition assessment and the cost of replacement and/or rehabilitation.

2.2.3 Asset Inspection
The type of inspection performed depends on the objective of the condition assessment program. The selected inspection technique needs to be consistent with the type of asset to be inspected and provide the information and data required to support decision making. Flow monitoring is usually utilized when conducting I/I studies, to evaluate hydraulic capacity and determine hydraulic restrictions. CCTV is the most commonly used method of inspecting sewers for structural defects; however, there are a variety of technologies available for this type of inspection; these technologies are discussed in-depth in Section 4.0.

A detailed work plan and quality assurance project plan should be established; these documents ideally would outline how the proposed inspection program would meet the program objectives.

2.3 Data Management
A successful condition assessment program as part of an asset management program requires that the data collected are organized, analyzed, and maintained in a database system. This important step allows a utility to develop an understanding of trends. There are three general approaches to database management that have varying degrees of cost and complexity but all of which use commercially available software:

1. Software specifically designed for condition ass essment and asset management.

2. Database software that is not specifically desig ned for condition assessment.

3. Spreadsheet software.

2.3.1 Condition Assessment/Asset Management Software
There are numerous commercially available data management programs for condition assessment that range in level of complexity and cost. The primary component is a database to store defect coding on pipe segments both spatially and over time. The commercially available systems can also incorporate additional elements such as cost accounting, develop work orders for maintenance calls, and order parts to maintain required spare parts. Another useful featu re is the incorporation of GIS functionality into the system. The GIS component highlights the geo-spatial distribution of the data, and can provide a very effective tool for the utility to plan subsequent inspections and/or rehabilitation activities. The benefit of

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 73 of 126 423
the commercially available programs is that they are designed specifically for the intended purpose.

However, the cost of system maintenance can be significant, as can licensing costs, depending upon system complexity.

Another type of commercially available software is designed to summarize the results of a CCTV inspection and the resulting defect code data. This has become standard practice in the industry. The National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) licenses software programs to be consistent using the PACP and Manhole Assessment Certification Program (MACP) rating systems, which are discussed in Section 2.4.2. The certification programs allow commercial providers to submit their pipe assessment software for evaluation and certification to ensure that their software adheres to NASSCO standards. It is important to verify the software has been approved to decrease the set-up time required to enter ranking and coding information. Pipeline inspection software is used simultaneously with pipeline inspection hardware to accurately document the status of sewer pipe, storm drains, or water pipelines. The software gives access to text data, video, and still photos all of which help the user identify the condition of the pipe and precisely complete a pipeline inspection. Defects can be quickly categorized by location, type, and severity. The software compiles this data into a searchable database which can be distributed into printed reports.

2.3.2 General Database Management Software
Utilization of commercially available database software requires a utility to design a database specific to their needs. The benefit would be the reduced initi al licensing cost of the software. Most utilities would have database software as part of their professional software packages licensed for their operating system.

Another benefit is that it may cost less to maintain than the condition assessment software described above. A drawback to this approach is the significa nt up-front work and required expertise to design a database system for the intended purpose.

2.3.3 Spreadsheet Software
Spreadsheet software is the least costly of the three systems; however, it also has the most limitations.

This type of software is readily available and likely exists at each of the utilities. A simple yet effective system can be designed to collect and store data. However, spreadsheets are a flat file system and are very limited in usefulness as the database expands. It can become overly cumbersome if multiple spread sheets are required.

2.4 Data Analysis
The data resulting from inspection may quantify the level of service and/or structural defects. It doe s not, however, provide any ability to reduce risk or define the significance of the finding. The follow-up step is to process and analyze the inspection data. There are two general analysis methods used, based on the type of inspection performed. If flow monitoring was employed as the inspection technology, an analysis of hydraulic capacity is performed, using hydraulic modeling techniques. If an inspection of structural defects utilizing CCTV or one of the other non-destructive technologies was performed, analysis is generally performed by coding defects in accordance with one of the various methods available, such as the Water Research Centre (WRc)’s system or NASCCO’s PACP and MACP programs

2.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity/Hydraulic Restrictions
Hydraulic capacity is the primary performance measure for a wastewater collection system. Flow data gathered by flow meters has been used to guide sewer system management for at least three decades.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 74 of 126 424
Advancements in technology and software have brought a new level of condition assessment information to utility managers. The purpose of this section is to discuss the use of flow data as a tool in condition assessment. A description of improvements in flow meter technology is discussed in Section 4.5.

Historically, flow data have been used in Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) as a screening tool to prioritize areas for further study. Flow data presented over a period of time are useful in demonstrating the system impacts due to rainfall or elevated groundwater. It provides the required information to calibrate a hydraulic model or conduct I/I studies. The hydraulic model can then be used as a predictive tool to project overflow and/or surcharged conditions for various design storms.

The following is a list of the most common indirect measurements that allow an operator to assess the general condition or rate of I/I:
x Average Daily Dry Weather Flow includes the average flow from a sewershed, which is composed of the wastewater production rate and base infiltration of the system. x Base Wastewater Flow is estimated on the number and type of sewer users, domestic water usage records, and predicted diurnal flow variations. It equates to the anticipated flow rate of only wastewater in the system.
x Groundwater infiltration is determined by subtracting the estimated Base Wastewater Flow from the Average Daily Dry Weather Flow.
x Capture coefficient or percentage of rainfall that enters the sewer. x Relationship between rainfall and peak flow rate.

The I/I values are valuable for planning purposes, providing a good indicator of pipe conditions upstream of a flow meter. As the sub-areas for which data are collected increase in size, flow data are less useful as a predictive tool for condition assessment. It does, however, provide the data to quantify groundwater infiltration and wet weather derived flow for the area tributary to the metering location.

The real value of flow monitoring data of sewers is developing a database on long-term historic trends in order to determine seasonal variations and impacts of wet weather. Flow data provide the direct correlation needed to determine if performance measures are being attained. Flow data are also useful as a screening tool to determine problems areas of a system that require further study by other means.

The traditional method of viewing flow data is hydrographs, which reveal information on condition upstream of flow meters. Alternatively, flow data can be viewed as scattergraphs, which provide information on hydraulic conditions downstream, or in the vicinity of, a flow meter. Scattergraphs are created by plotting flow depth versus flow velocity data. When flow meters are working correctly, a normal pipe curve is plotted unless normal open channel flow is not occurring. In these cases, the scattergraph data can be used to identify such hydraulic restrictions as silt or obstacles, bottlenecks, and negative grade pipe, as well as surcharged conditions.

2.4.2 Structural Condition
For wastewater collection systems, analysis of inspection data generally involves coding the defects based on both the type and severity of defects. Structural pipe defects and hydraulic restrictions encountered during the inspection need to be ranked by severity level based on the potential to negatively impact the system’s hydraulic capacity.

The WRc, located in the United Kingdom, developed a set of standards to rank the severity of pipe defects found in an inspection. European authorities adopted these standards as their benchmark pipe defect coding standard. In 2001, NASSCO developed a set of coding standards based on the WRc system (NAASCO, 2001). The NASSCO PACP standards have succ essfully become the industry standard for coding pipe defects. NASSCO has also developed the MACP, which is similar to PACP but applies to manholes instead of pipelines. NASSCO has training programs to certify and train inspection

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 75 of 126 425
professionals in PACP and MACP. NASSCO has begun work on developing a coding system for service laterals.

The PACP coding system categorizes defects and features into five sections: continuous defect coding, structural defect coding, operational and maintenance coding, construction features coding, and miscellaneous features coding. For each type of defect, the PACP uses a combination of capital letters to describe the type of defect and a number to rank the severity of the defect. An example is “FL” for a longitudinal fracture. Defect codes are recorded on a standardized form along with pertinent system data including defect type, continuous distance of the defect, severity, size, circumferential location (clock location), joint number, image/video reference number, and comments.

A brief description of the PACP defect coding system is described below:
x Continuous Defect Coding: Continuous defect coding is made up of two separate coding classifications. The first is called “Truly”. Trul y continuous defects are defects that run along the sewer for a minimum distance of three ft. These defects include longitudinal fractures and cracks. “Repeated” continuous defect coding defects are continuous defects that occur at regular intervals along the pipe. The se usually occur at pipe joints and include encrustation, open joints, and circumferential fractures. Continuous defect coding can be used in conjunction with other types of coding to accurately describe defects on the PACP form.
x Structural Defect Coding: Structural defect coding is made up of a number of separate coding classifications. This section uses coding to define the type of defects that are related to structural degradation of the pipe due to various reasons. The coding under structural defects are as follows: crack (C), fracture (F), broken (B), hole (H), deformed (D), collapse (X), joint (J), surface damage (S), lining failure (LF), weld failure (WF), point repair (PR), and brick work (BW). Under each of these subtitles there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example: HSV is for a hole with visible soil. x Operational and Maintenance Defect Coding: This section uses coding to define the type of defects that are related to lack of maintenance on the pipe system. Operational and maintenance defect coding is made up of a number of separate coding classifications as follows: deposits (D), roots (R), infiltration (I), obstacles (OB), and vermin (V). Under each of these subtitles there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example:

VR designates that there are vermin, specifically, rats in the pipe. x Construction Features Coding: This section uses coding to define construction features located in or around the pipe system. Construction features coding is made up of a number of separate coding classifications as follows: tap (T), intruding seal material (IS), line (L), and access point (A). Under each of these subtitles the re are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example: AMH designates that th ere is an access point in the line that is a manhole.
x Miscellaneous Features Coding: Miscellaneous features coding is made up of a number of separate subcoding classifications. This section uses coding to define miscellaneous (M) features in the pipe system. Under this subtitle there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example: MCU designates that th e camera is underwater.

The PACP uses a numerical grading system to define the severity of pipe defects. Condition grades for structural defects and operation and maintenance (O&M) defects are assigned based on the risk of further deterioration or failure. The numerical system uses numbers ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 76 of 126 426
and 5 being the worst. The severity ranking conside rs the immediate defect, risk of failure, and rate of deterioration.
x Grade 5 – Pipe segment has failed or will likely fail within the next five years. Pipe segment requires immediate attention.
x Grade 4 – Pipe segment has severe defects with the risk of failure within the next five to ten years.
x Grade 3 – Pipe segment has moderate defects. Deterioration may continue, but not for ten to twenty years.
x Grade 2 – Pipe segment has minor defects. Pipe is unlikely to fail for at least 20 years. x Grade 1 – Pipe segment has minor defects. Failure is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Pipe ratings are based on the number of occurrences for each condition grade and are calculated separately for both structural and O&M defects for each pipe segment. Each pipe segment will be assigned a segment grade based on the number of occurrences of each graded defect. The graded defect is multiplied by the number of occurrences, and this equals the segment grade. The overall pipe rating is calculated by adding all of the segment grades per pipeline. The structural defects are added separately from the O&M grades, so each pipeline receives two separate grades.

The PACP also uses a quick grading system, which is a shorthand method of expressing the number of occurrences for the 2 highest grade levels. The quick grading system uses four characters:

1. The first character is the highest severity grad e occurring along the pipe length.

2. The second character is the total number of occu rrences of the highest severity grade. If the total number exceeds 9, then alphabetic characters are used as follows: 10 to 14-A, 15-19-B, 20 to 24-C and so on.

3. The third character is the next highest severity grade occurring along the pipe length.

4. The fourth character is the total number of the second highest severity grade occurrences, which is formatted the same way as the second character.

For example, a code of 3224 would equate to two grade 3 defects and four grade 2 defects in a pipe segment. This also shows that no grade 4 or 5 defects were found. The quick grading system allows the pipe defects to be summarized in an efficient manner. As with the longhand method, structural defects are graded separately from O&M defects.

2.5 Decision Making
Decision making for condition assessment of a wastewater collection system entails understanding the possible risks and determining at what point a utility should intervene to avoid a failed condition with an unacceptable cost and/or consequence. It is important to note that condition assessment alone does not provide any benefit in risk reduction. The follow-up decision making process that leads to prioritization ranking and rehabilitation ranking followed by action to fix problems and upgrade the system is what leads to risk reduction.

The purpose of this section is to highlight and summarize the decision making process, the final step in the condition assessment process. In addition to inspection data, the utility requires supplemental data on long-term asset performance to aid in the decision making process.

Marlow et al. (2007) posed the following questions that need to be addressed to provide the required information for decision making:
x What are the consequences of asset failure?

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 77 of 126 427
x What are the costs to replace/rehabilitate the ass ets? x What alternatives exist, given the results of the condition and performance assessment (e.g., replacement, deferment, rehabilitation, non-structural maintenance)? Important definitions to consider are failed condition and service life. The American Concrete Institute defines service life as the period of time following installation during which all properties exceed minimum accepted standards when routinely maintained.
x Technical service life – period of time until an u nacceptable condition is reached. x Functional service life – period of time until the system element no longer provides functional service.
x Economic service life – period of time until it be comes economically more effective to replace or rehab than to continue to operate in its current condition.

The objective for the decision making model is to understand risk and to determine when to intervene to avoid unacceptable consequences (e.g., economic, socio-economic, environmental). However, it is not possible to have a robust decision making model without obtaining sufficient condition data to track pipe deterioration and to understand the pipe or system failure modes.

In general terms, decisions on pipe rehabilitation/replacement can be made based on one or more of the following: engineering calculations, probability of failure, and remaining life estimation. x Engineering Calculations: Inspection data are interpreted deterministically. An example would be to calculate structural condition of a pipe segment directly based on measured minimum wall thickness, actual loading conditions, and existing soil bedding. A second example of this methodology is the calculation of hydraulic capacity. Flow data can provide direct measurement of actual flow conditions; and then be interpolated using a hydraulic model to calculate hydraulic capacity of a pipe segment under current or projected conditions.

Both of these examples illustrate a direct calculation of the condition or performance of the pipe segment. If it does not meet the required desi gn conditions or performance conditions, then replacement or rehabilitation is required.
x Probability of Failure: This type of output would ideally provide a direct forecast of pipe deterioration over time. If a utility have the data to support this type of forecast, then an intervention could be implemented before an unacceptable level of service occurred. In practice, it is difficult and potentially costly to directly determine the probability of failure.

However, the American Concrete Institute (2000) did reference studies and models to predict failure rate in reinforced concrete pipe. Regressio n forecasts and models were developed to predict failure of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) based on chloride concentrations, extent of spalling and mechanical loading conditions, and sulfate concentration. Repeated data collection and analysis over time are required to obtain the decay curves based on the different paths to failure and the system or environmental conditions that exacerbate each failure mode.
x Remaining Life Estimation: Remaining life estimation is commonly used to characterize condition of buried assets. Remaining life is defined as the duration of time until an unacceptable condition exists or an asset no longer meets its primary function. Standard coding systems are used to define condition and performance. NASSCO’s PACP system, discussed in Section 2.4.2, has become the standard to follow in the United States for wastewater pipe systems.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 78 of 126 428
A variety of decision making models have been developed for sewer assets. WERF is developing a web- based model based on remaining economic life of water and wastewater pipes. T-WARP is a software program that uses fuzzy logic to analyze the possibilities of pipe failure. The European Union’s Computer-Aided Rehabilitation Program for Sewers (CARE-S) is a software program that supports efficiency in rehabilitation decisions. McDonald and Zhao (2001) propose a matrix approach for decision making based on asset condition grades and an impact assessment rating as summarized in Table 2-1.

The term impact assessment is defined by the authors as a weighted average of six separate impact factors: location, soil support, size, depth, sewer function, and seismic factors.

Table 2-1: Condition Assessment Matrix
Asset condition
grade*
Implication of asset
condition
Impact assessment Action Inspection
frequency
5 Failed or imminent failure 1 to 5 Immediate NA
4 Condition poor, high risk of
structural failure
5 Immediate NA
1 to 4 High 2 to 6 years
3 Condition poor, moderate
structural risk
4 to 5 Medium 3 yrs
1 to 3 Low 5 to 10 years
2 Fair condition, minimal
structural risk
5 Medium 5 years
1 to 4 Low 10 to 15 years
0 to 1 Good condition 5 Not required 10 years
1 to 4 15 to 25 years
* Condition grade is based on WRc coding system (Manual of Sewer Condition Assessment, WRc 2003).

NA – Not Applicable
Source: McDonald and Zhao, 2001

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 79 of 126 429

3.0 Dynamics of Wastewater Collection System Failure
In conducting condition assessment, it is important to understand the dynamics of pipe failure including the level, type, and severity of a failure mechanism. Failure modes can include sudden, catastrophic collapse of a pipe or restricted hydraulic capacity. The purpose of condition assessment is to detect pipe defects which indicate the likelihood of pipe failure, as well as to assess the collection system’s performance. This section discusses the mechanisms of pipe failure, the various types of pipe defects, and the relationship between the condition of a pipe and its performance. It is important to understand that pipe failure and defects are highly dependent upon the pipe material, diameter, and type of sewer (e.g. force main, gravity line).

3.1 Failure Mechanisms
Pipe failures can be grouped into three general categories according to the cause of failure: hydraulic restrictions (e.g. blockage), hydraulic capacity, and structural condition. The following sections provide additional details on these failure mechanisms.

3.1.1 Hydraulic Restrictions
The primary function of a wastewater collection system is to convey wastewater; therefore, hydraulic capacity and factors that limit it are of paramount concern. Hydraulic restrictions are the most prevalent condition encountered in wastewater collection systems. The characteristics of untreated wastewater are such that accumulation of sediment, grease, and rags is a constant maintenance item. There are situations in larger diameter sewers, especially combined sewers, when large items create obstructions and rapid hydraulic restrictions. This can lead to street and basement flooding.

Standards used for hydraulic design mandate minimum slopes for various pipe diameters to achieve scouring velocities that minimize debris accumulation. However, there are many external conditions that encourage debris accumulation (e.g . root intrusion, grease, pipe sags).

Blockages are easily detected by visual inspection. The direct cause of a blockage sometimes is not evident. For most conditions, the failure rate is s low over time. A standard maintenance program for cleaning and flushing sewers is typically adequate to control blockages. The types of defects that fall within the category of hydraulic restrictions are as follows: root intrusion, sediment accumulation, and grease build-up. It should be noted that off-set jo ints and pipe sags can directly impact pipe flow thereby creating low velocity conditions that are conducive to solids deposition.

3.1.2 Hydraulic Capacity
Failure due to hydraulic capacity is defined as a pipe segment not having adequate, available capacity for the designed conditions. The failure condition may be caused by excessive I/I, pipe deformation, and/or inadequate slope.

I/I have a direct impact on the capacity available to convey wastewater. The groundwater and storm water enter the collection system through direct connections or indirectly via cracks and defects. Zero I/I is not a realistic design objective. The hydraulic design of new sewers considers an anticipated level of I/I in determining pipe size.

Pipe deformation and inadequate slope directly impact the hydraulic capacity of the pipe. Flow can be calculated based on the Manning’s equation for normal flow conditions:

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 80 of 126 430
2/3 *S 1/2 Q = 1/n *A* R h
Whereas
Q = Flow 2 (volume per time).

A = Cross-sectional flow area (area).
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient.

Rh = Hydraulic radius (length).

S = Pipe slope.

The mathematical relationship of change in area due to pipe deformation or inadequate slope is self- evident. A decrease in flow area and/or pipe slope will result in a proportional decrease in flow capacity.

Failure due to hydraulic capacity is often a sign of other types of defects such as structural defects. Major sources of I/I can be cracks, broken pipes, leaks from manhole frames and covers, and off-set joints. Pipe sags and areas of inadequate pipe slope can be due to loss of pipe bedding or inadequate construction controls.

3.1.3 Structural Failure
Structural failure is caused by defects of the pipe wall and/or the soil envelope used to support the pipe.

In general, the types of defects that are associated with structural failure include cracks, misaligned or off- set joints, pipe deflection, cracked manhole frames and covers, and internal and external corrosion.

Internal corrosion is caused by hydrogen sulfide formation, and external corrosion is due to soil corrosivity.

The pipe is supported by a soil envelope that consists of the soil bedding and the cover soil. The soil bedding acts as the foundation for the pipe and distributes the vertical load around the exterior of the pipe wall. The pipe is subjected to live loads and earth loads. The goal of the bedding design is to transmit this load to the bedding and avoid point loads on the pipe. Loss of bedding can result in the pipe bridging areas of reduced bedding. This can lead to pipe deflection, pipe deformation, and longitudinal cracking.

Increased traffic load or loss of soil cover is another cause of structural failure.

The type and degree of failure differ by pipe material. Some pipe material (e.g. PCCP) is susceptible to sudden failure while others fail gradually and are easily detected by visual inspections. Typical failure modes for various types of pipe material used in sewer collection systems include:
x Ferrous Pipe (Ductile Iron, Cast Iron, Steel) - The primary failure mode for metal pipes is internal or external corrosion, which leads to breaks or holes in the pipe wall. Cast iron in particular is brittle, making these pipes prone to cracking. Large diameter steel pipes are susceptible to collapse as well as corrosion.
x Concrete Pipe (RCP, PCCP) - Corrosion is often a major factor in the structural failure of concrete pipe. RCP typically fails after the interi or surface of the pipe wall has deteriorated to such a degree that the reinforcing steel is exposed. As the reinforcing steel corrodes, it swells, beginning to break up the surrounding concrete and causing failure. PCCP has a distinctive failure mechanism as failure occurs when the pre-stressed wires break, generally as a result of corrosion or direct physical damage to the pipe. x Ceramic-based pipe (Brick, Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP)) - Brick pipes generally fail by collapse, often caused by weakened mortar. VCP fails when external loads create cracks in 2 Please note a factor of 1.49 is used when utilizing British Units.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 81 of 126 431
the material. Failure is often exacerbated by the loss of surrounding soil into the pipe after initial fracture leading to void formation and loss of soil support to the pipe. x Plastic Pipe (Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), High-density Polyethylene (HDPE)) - The primary failure mode of plastic pipe is environmental stress cracking, which occurs from stress developed in a deflected pipe or due to slow crack growth, a phenomenon that occurs when a pipe is subjected to long duration tensile stress. Leaking joints can also contribute to plastic pipe failure.

3.2 Pipe Defects
Sewer defects are generally categorized as service or structural. Structural defects include cracks, fractures, breaks, deformations, collapses, joint displacements, and open joints. Service defects include tree roots, obstructions, debris, and encrustation. Pipe defects can also be classified by whether the y are defects of the internal pipe surface, a pipe wall defect, a leak, or an alignment defect. Thomson et al. (2004) classify defects as internal pipe surface (sediment, debris, and roots), pipe wall (pipe sags and deflections, pits and voids, corrosion and metal loss, off-set joints, pipe cracks, broken pre-stressed wires, wall thickness, service connections and deteriorated insulation), leakage, and pipe support (bedding condition and voids).

The most prevalent defects in wastewater collection systems are cracks/broken pipe, root intrusion, sediment, grease build-up, off-set joints, corrosion, frame and cover leaks, and pipe sags. However, pipe defects vary with the pipe material and pipe diameter. Because gravity lines and force mains are generally constructed of different materials, they are susceptible to different types of defects.

Gravity pipes are usually constructed of VCP or PVC which are prone to grease build-up and joint misalignment/leakage. However, VCP is likely to experience cracks/breaks and root intrusion, whereas PVC is more likely to have excessive deflection, grade and/or alignment issues, and lateral connection defects.

Unlike gravity pipes, most force mains are constructed of ferrous materials (i.e., welded steel, ductile iron, or cast iron) or plastic (PVC, HDPE). Large diameter force mains have also been constructed of PCCP. While ferrous pipes tend to experience defect s similar to VCP and PVC, internal and external corrosion are the primary defects. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the most common pipe defects by pipe material from a recent utility survey (Thomson et al ., 2004).

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 82 of 126 432
Table 3-1: Most Common Pipe Defects Identified
Defect
Concrete Ferrous Ceramic Plastic
Concrete pipe
Asbestos
cement
PCCP/
CCP
Cast iron/
ductile iron
Steel
VCP
Brick
PVC
HDPE
Internal pipe surface
Root intrusion x x x x x x x x
Grease build-up x x x x x x x x
Pipe wall condition
Cracks/ broken pipe x x x
Internal corrosion x x x x
External corrosion x x x
Leakage
General x x x x x
Joint leakage x x
Leaking laterals x x
Alignment/grade
Alignment x x x
Joint misalignment x x x x
Excessive deflection x x x
Grade x x
Other 1 2 3 4
1 – Liner separation, weld failure 3 – Lateral co nnections 2 – Missing bricks, soft mortar, vertical deflection, collapse 4 – Pressure capacity (force mains only) Source: Thomson et al. (2004). Reprinted with permission from WERF.

3.3 Correlations between Assessed Conditions and Perfo rmance Measures The measure of performance for a wastewater collection system can be based on four critical areas:
service level, regulatory compliance, public health and safety, and environmental protection (Fleury and Warner, 2007). The subsections below describe how t hese performance measures can be correlated to pipe condition.
x Service Level: Wastewater utilities strive to provide continuous, efficient service for their customers. Pipe conditions that affect service level include defects or conditions that affect the available hydraulic capacity to convey current and future planned wastewater flows.

Excess hydraulic capacity in a newly constructed piping system can diminish over time due to many types of defects: corrosion, I/I, sediment accumulation, pipe deflections, and cross- connections.
x Regulatory Compliance: Wastewater utilities must comply with existing regulations. The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S., unless authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Unpermitted discharges from the sanitary sewer system constitute a violation of the CWA. Non- compliance with the SSO regulations, specifically the CMOM provisions, will result in enforcement actions including mandated O&M programs and fines. Pipe conditions that affect regulatory compliance may include defects or conditions that cause sewage overflows or back-ups.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 83 of 126 433
x Public Health and Safety: Wastewater utilities protect public health and safety by minimizing conditions where the public can be exposed to untreated sewage such as receiving waters used for drinking water sources, fishing, and/or contact recreation such as swimming.

Pipe conditions that affect protection of public health include defects or conditions that cause sewage overflows, back-ups or catastrophic pipe failure. x Environmental Protection: Pipe failure may cause extensive property damage and/or discharge of untreated sewage. Failures of large diameter pipes and force mains contribute to the formation of sinkholes that may lead to damage and/or disruption to roadways and utilities, as well as the creation of hydraulic restrictions. Pipe conditions that affect environmental protection efforts are similar to those listed above—defects or conditions that cause sewage overflows, back-ups, or catastrophic pipe failure.

Utilities use pipe condition information to assess how well they are meeting each of these performance measures and to identify and prioritize system need s. The goal is to provide the best possible service in a cost-effective manner. Utilities need to know what is an acceptable level of performance that can pro vide regulatory compliance, environmentally acceptable p erformance, and operational effectiveness at the lowest possible life cycle cost? Inspection and con dition assessment provide key information for helpi ng the utility address these questions and balance system needs and costs.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 84 of 126 434

4.0 Inspection Technologies
Inspection technologies and their use in condition assessment for wastewater collection systems are presented in this section. Each technology is brief ly described, and commercially available and emerging products utilizing the technology are discussed. Table 4-1 provides a summary of typical applications for each technology.

Table 4-1: Inspection Technology Overview
Technology Sewer type
Pipe material
Pipe diameter
Defects detected
Gravity
Force main
Lateral
Internal
condition
Pipe wall
Leakage
Pipe support
Camera
Digital cameras x Any 6-in.-
60-in. x x x
Zoom cameras x Any >6-in. x x x
Push-camera x Any 1-in.-
12-in.
x x x
Acoustic
In-line leak detectors x x Any >4-in. x
Acoustic monitoring
s
ystems
x PCCP >18-in. x
Sonar/ultrasonic x x Any >2-in. x x
Electrical/
electromagnetic
Electrical leak location x x x Non-
ferrous >3-in. x
Remote field eddy current x x x Ferrous,
PCCP >2-in. x x
Magnetic flux leakage x x x Ferrous 2-in.-
56-in. x
Laser
Laser
profiling
x x Any 4-in.-
160-in. x x
Innovative technologies
Gamma-gamma logging x x x Concrete Not yet
defined x
Ground penetrating radar x x x Any Not yet
defined x x
Infrared thermograph x x x Any Not yet
defined x x
Micro-deflection x Brick Not yet
defined x x
Impact echo/SASW x Brick/
Concrete >6-ft. x

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 85 of 126 435

4.1 Camera Inspection
CCTV inspection is a very effective method of evaluating and creating a permanent video record of underground pipe conditions. The visual inspection of sanitary sewer lines enables a CCTV operator to locate and identify specific defects that contribute to the infiltration of groundwater into the collection system and exfiltration of sewage into the substrate surrounding a pipeline. This is a well established and common industry method for pipeline assessment. In a recent survey report (Thomson et al., 2004), 100% of survey respondents from large wastewater utility districts relied on CCTV as their primary method of collection system inspections; hence, it is not surprising that the critical gaps identified in this survey parallel the limitations of CCTV inspection. CCTV provides a means to inspect a pipeline that is either too small or hazardous for direct human entry inspection. The primary disadvantages to the technology are that it only provides a view of the pipe surface above the waterline and does not provide any structural data on the pipe wall integrity or a view of the soil envelope supporting the pipe.

The technology and level of ancillary equipment used for CCTV inspection of sewer systems varies significantly based on the diameter of the line being inspected. In general, CCTV technology uses a video camera with lighting to provide a visual recording of the inside condition of a pipeline. The me ans to convey the camera through the pipeline vary in complexity from simple pushrod cameras (pushcams) to complex remote controlled robot crawlers. The level of optical control on the camera also varies in complexity. The ability to pan, tilt, and zoom has become the industry standard for sewer inspection because it allows the operator to gain a full circumferential view of the pipe.

Data obtained from CCTV inspection include:
x Evidence of sediment, debris, roots, etc.
x Evidence of pipe sags and deflections.
x Off-set joints.
x Pipe cracks.
x Leaks.
x Location and condition of service connections.

As noted above, CCTV technology does have limitations due to its ability to only provide a visual representation of the inside surface of a pipe above the waterline. Additionally, the quality of defect identification and pipe condition assessment using CCTV is highly dependent on many factors including operator interpretation, picture quality, and flow level. In terms of benefits, it is a cost-effective technology providing the broadest base level of data used in condition assessment. For example, many technologies exist (as described in later section) that provide data on the structural condition of the pipe wall, and other technologies exist that can determine the condition of the soil surrounding the pipe.

However, these technologies are unable to provide visual data on leaks, location of service laterals, and sediment and debris accumulation. It is for this reason that CCTV will remain an important inspection tool in any condition assessment program for wastewater collection systems.

The following sections present innovative technologies specific to CCTV and its use in condition assessment for wastewater collection systems. Each technology will be briefly described, noting manufacturers and/or providers of the technology and typical applications. The technologies described in this section include:
x Zoom Camera Inspection.
x Digital Scanning.
x Camera Deployment.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 86 of 126 436

4.1.1 Zoom Camera Inspection
Like traditional CCTV inspection, zoom camera inspection technology involves the generation of still imagery and/or recorded video imagery of a pipe. The key difference is that in zoom camera inspection, the camera mount is stationary. The technology does not require the camera equipment to pass though the entire length of the pipe segments being inspected. Instead, the camera is mounted either on a truck, crane, pole, or a tripod. The equipment is then lowered into a manhole to perform the inspection and the camera “zooms” down any pipe entering or exiting the manhole.

Historically, zoom cameras have been utilized to perform manhole inspection and inspect a few ft down the pipe utilizing a camera mounted on the end of a telescopic pole. This technology is commonly referred to as a down look camera. Newer zoom cameras can pan 360 degrees and zoom up to 100-ft. in 6-in. diameter pipe and up to 700-ft. for larger pipe diameters.

This technology involves setting up the zoom camera at each manhole and inspecting the manhole and pipes. Potentially, the technology could allow for the inspection of an entire section of pipe from one manhole to the next. Zoom camera inspection has som e of the same limitations as traditional CCTV pipe inspection in that it cannot inspect what is beneath the fluid being conveyed through the pipe. It is not designed to replace conventional CCTV systems, but rather to screen and prioritize pipes for further conventional CCTV work and/or cleaning pipelines. The technology does not provide the detailed visual evaluation of conventional CCTV. The primary advantage to the technology is improved production rate.

The set-up eliminates the need for cleaning prior to the inspection, as well as the inevitable down-time associated with an obstruction to a crawler mounted camera. An inspection crew can move through a service area in an expeditious manner and highlight segments requiring a more detailed inspection.

Zoom camera inspection is a very efficient, cost-effective method of performing manhole inspections, which has been its primary use. It is, however, lim ited in its ability to inspect pipe segments. Image resolution, lighting, and limitation in optical zoom are the primary disadvantages of this technology. The technologies described below attempt to overcome these limitations with improvements to lighting and zoom ability. This technology also increases the production rate of sewer inspections, as it collects data at a speed several times faster than traditional CCTV inspection. This is in part because pipes generally do not have to be flushed and cleaned prior to inspection.

Zoom camera inspection is only useful for inspecting gravity sewers because its access to the sewer is via a manhole. Force mains and/or service laterals do not have the required access points to deploy this technology. As with all camera inspection technologies, zoom camera inspection can be used with any pipe material.

Zoom camera inspection services are available from a variety of service providers. Both regional and national service providers have the ability to provide this service. It is not known if the use of the longer range cameras with increased zoom capabilities is a commonly used inspection tool in the industry.

Provided below is a description of four manufacturers of zoom cameras used for the inspection of gravity sewers.

No new zoom camera technologies under development have been specifically identified as emerging technologies. Likely, the identified manufacturers will continue product development and increase optical and digital zooming capabilities. It is also likely that the technology will be equipped with a digital inspection system as described in Section 4.1.2. Table 4-2 provides a summary description of the zoom camera technology.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 87 of 126 437
Table 4-2: Zoom Camera Inspection Summary

SUMMARY
Sewer type Gravity sewers only
Material Any
Pipe size > 6-in.

Defects detected Cracks, leaks, root intrusion, ove rall surface condition of pipe/manholes Original application Manhole inspection
Status Commercially available
Advantages High production rate, effective/efficien t at prioritizing segments requiring more detailed inspection/maintenance
Disadvantages Inability to inspect manhole to manhole for average diameter lines, potential to miss significant defects
CUES IMX - Truck Mounted Zoom Camera
The CUES-IMX truck-mounted zoom camera provides video inspection for manholes and pipelines. The CUES-IMX camera offers imaging technology with a 25:1 optical zoom that is stabilized and remotely controlled by a telescopic boom. The camera can record images from up to 300’ into the pipeline. The camera mounting fork is designed to pan the camera head 360° continuously, tilt mechanically 45° up or 90° down, and tilt optically 166°. The camera image r, optics, mechanics and electronics are housed in a damage resistant, waterproof, rugged enclosure that is 7-in. in diameter and 16-in. in length. The CUES- IMX system includes the camera, high intensity discharge lighting heads, mast system and controller.

The manufacturer indicates that the system can be mounted within an inspection van, all-terrain vehicle, or a trailer.

The system is equipped with data collection, GIS software and global positioning system (GPS) equipment. The GIS software and GPS equipment are used to create sewer maps in the field and create an asset management database for the system. Defects detected during the inspection can be stored in a database along with photos and video clips. All data is geo-referenced to the field collected GPS coordinates. This is common to the industry and the subject of further discussion in a later section.

The objective of the CUES-IMX camera system is to increase the production rate of the inspection process, as compared to traditional CCTV. The manufacturer indicates that an inspection process using zoom technology has a production rate of five to eight times higher than traditional CCTV and is a useful tool to efficiently characterize a collection system and prioritize segments for further inspection and/or cleaning. Inspections using the CUES-IMX camera prov ides mapping, inventory and condition information that can be used immediately to reduce system operation and maintenance issues by quickly identifying areas of high-risk due to blockage or structural defects. The risk of backups or overflows can be assessed and addressed rapidly.

GE Technologies - Ca-Zoom PTZ and QuickView
GE Technologies offers three truck-mounted Everest Ca-Zoom Pan-Tilt Zoom (PTZ) cameras for sewer inspection. Each camera has a different PTZ camera head. The PTZ 140 has a 300:1 zoom capability (optical 25:1, digital 12:1) and is equipped with two high-power 35-watt lights. The camera has the ability to record imagery up to 250 ft down a pipe segment with diameters between 15 in. and 60 in. The PTZ100 has 40:1 zoom capability (10:1 optical, 4:1 digital), and four 5-watt light-emitting diode (LED) lights. The PTZ270 also has a 40:1 zoom capacity, b ut has eight 5-watt LED lights.

The smaller hand-held QuickView unit is a pole mounted camera with a total zoom capability of 216:1 (18:1 optical, 12:1 digital). It has the ability to zoom to between 75 and 250 ft within pipe diameters of 6 in. to 60 in. The unit is mounted on an 18 foot telescoping pole.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 88 of 126 438
The benefits and limitations of these cameras are similar to those of the CUES-IMX camera system as described above.

CTZoom Technologies - PortaZoom
Innovative Technology Products, Inc. offers sewer inspection with the PortaZoom camera, manufactured by CTZoom Technologies. The PortaZoom is housed in a compact enclosure, just 6 in. in diameter. The camera pans more than 350° and has a 312:1 zoom capability (26:1 optical, 12:1 digital). The camera ha s full-circumference integrated lighting, including peripheral lighting to reduce shadows. The PortaZoom is operated by a computer, joystick and keyboard. The PortaZoom can be mounted to any vehicle or hand-held pole, and can zoom approximately 100 ft to 200 ft into pipes.

AquaData, Inc. - AquaZoom
AquaData Inc. also manufacturers zoom camera inspection equipment. They manufacture the AquaZoom system though it is not commercially available. The AquaZoom can be used on pipes with diameters of 6 in. or larger and can inspect pipelines for approximately 100 ft. It is normally mounted on either a truck or tripod, which is claimed to provide better stability compared to pole mounted devices. It also utilizes a built-in control center and video recording equipment to perform pipe inspections.

Aries Industries – HC3000 Zoom Pole Camera
The Aries HC3000 Zoom camera has a 432:1 zoom ratio (36:1 optical, 12:1 digital). The camera has two LED lights, and is mounted on a 6-foot to 18-foot telescoping pole. The camera can view up to 100 ft into the pipeline being inspected. The image is transmitted via radio frequency technology to a media case, which houses a radio frequency receiver and monitor. A small portable monitor is also available for viewing the images as the camera zooms down the pipe. The pole mounted device provides easy portability and rapid setup.

4.1.2 Digital Scanning
Digital scanning is a state-of-the-art technology within the camera inspection industry. Like conventional CCTV, digital cameras are transported through sewer lines using self-propelled crawlers. Unlike conventional CCTV systems, digital scanning uses one or two high-resolution digital cameras with wide- angle lenses in the front, or front and rear, section of the housing. During pipe inspections, parallel mounted lights are triggered at the same position in the pipe. The hemispherical pictures scanned are put together to form 360° spherical images. There is one specific manufacturer that utilizes a single camera with a wide angle lens to accomplish the same result.

During the scanning process, data are transmitted to a surface viewing station where it can be viewed in real-time and recorded for later evaluation. The ma jor advantage to digital scanning technology is that it is possible for the data to be assessed independently of the real-time sewer inspection. By comparison, conventional CCTV relies on a camera operator to pan, tilt, and zoom into critical areas for further review. The image, as controlled by the operator, i s stored. Therefore, if the operator does not see a defect, the camera is not stopped for further investigation.

Digital scanning develops a full digital image of the pipe segment. This allows the individual reviewing the images to control the direction of the PTZ features and to stop the image at any point to capture video clips and images. The inner pipe surface can be “unfolded” providing a view of pipe conditions, which permits computer-aided measurement of defects and objects. Digital scanning provides a more consistent and complete assessment of pipe condition. It provides a second level of quality control in the review

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 89 of 126 439
process and allows other individual(s) involved in the process to gain insight into the pipe condition (e.g., designers, rehabilitation contractors, and utility owners).

Digital scanning technology is primarily used for gravity lines in the 6-in. to 60-in. diameter range. Its applicability for use in inspecting sewer laterals is limited since laterals are typically less than 6 in. in diameter and access is generally through a small diameter clean-out. It is also limited in its ability to inspect force mains. Like conventional CCTV technol ogy, digital scanning is only able to provide useful images above the waterline; force mains would have to be taken out of service and drained before digital recording. Access to force mains also typically res tricts the use of digital and CCTV technology. Force mains are pressurized and do not have access manholes to insert CCTV equipment. Digital scanning can be used with any pipe material. Table 4-3 provides a summary description of the digital camera scanning technology.

Table 4-3: Digital Camera Scanning Inspection Summary

SUMMARY
Sewer type Gravity sewers, limited applicability fo r force mains and service laterals Material Any
Pipe size 6-in. to 60-in.

Defects detected Cracks, leaks, root intrusion, ov erall condition of pipe Original application Inspection of piping
Status Commercially available, new applications und er development Advantages Increased QA/QC control, additional proj ect personnel able to review/control data imagery, able to make digital measurements of defects, can compare data directly from one inspection to the next
Disadvantages More costly then CCTV, lower producti on rate compared to traditional CCTV, only works above waterline.

Digital scanning camera systems are available from a variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are specifically designed for the investigation of water, storm drain, and sewer pipelines.

The following are descriptions of some of the products available from several vendors.

Blackhawk-PAS - Sewer Scanning Evaluation Technology (SSET) SSET was developed in Japan in 1994, and introduced through field trials in the United States in 1997.

The third-generation SSET was refined by Blackhawk-PAS for commercial marketing. SSET uses two digital image capture devices mounted on a remotely controlled tractor. One of the cameras records a forward view of the pipeline while the other camera scans the side of the pipe to create a spiral, perpendicular view. SSET can be used in pipes rangi ng from 8-in. to 36-in. diameter, operating at a rate of approximately 13 ft per minute.

RapidView – IBAK, USA - Panoramo
The RapidView-IBAK, USA Panoramo system was developed by IBAK Helmut Hunger GmbH & Co.

KG of Kiel Germany in partnership with RapidView, LLC. The application was first developed and used in 2002. The first application in the United States was in 2007.

The Panoramo system uses two high-resolution digital photo cameras with 186° wide-angle lenses fit into the front and rear section of the housing. During pipe inspections, parallel mounted xenon flashlights are triggered at the same position in the pipe. The hemispherical pictures scanned are put together to form 360° spherical images. The Panoramo can scan 8-in. to 48-in. diameter pipes at a speed of up to 70 ft per minute in forward or reverse motion.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 90 of 126 440
During the Panoramo scanning process, the data are transmitted digitally to the inspection vehicle and are at the operator's disposal. The scans can be viewed as live pictures for orientation purposes and for locating any obstructions. In addition, the data are stored in the form of "PANORAMO films", on removable hard disks or digital video discs (DVDs).

This image scanning method makes it possible for the pipe inspection to be assessed by personnel away from the field. The reviewer has the ability to pan, tilt, or zoom in on potential defects as if in the truck with the field crew. The reviewer can stop at any position, turn a full circle, zoom, and complete the data analysis. An unfolded view of the inner pipe surface which is available simultaneously gives the reviewer a rapid view of the state of the pipe and permits computer-aided measurement of the position and size of objects. The Panoramo system works in conjunction w ith WinCan Scan Explorer Software Version 8.

Envirosight - DigiSewer
The Envirosight DigiSewer system was originally developed by DigiSewer and manufactured by IPEK (provider of crawlers and cameras to Envirosight). The DigiSewer was originally designed to be used for borehole inspection and was first used in Europe in 2003. It was officially released to the North American market in April 2007.

The DigiSewer uses one high-resolution photo cameras with 180° wide-angle fisheye lens, integrated into the front of the rover crawler. The DigiSewer can scan pipes from 6-in. to 60-in. diameter at a scan speed of 70 ft per minute. The DigiSewer can scan pipes over a length of approximately 650 ft.

Emerging Technologies
No digital scanning applications have been specifically identified as emerging technologies. Likely, the identified manufacturers will continue product development and increase optical and digital zoom capabilities. The technology is four to five years old in Europe and Asia; however it has a limited history in North America. The manufacturers and users listed above are constantly developing new ways to use these products. Our research indicates that future research will focus on enhancements to the software used for defect recognition and digital defect measurements. RapidView and Envirosight are developing manhole inspection capabilities with the use of the digital scan cameras. Envirosight is also planning to increase the scan distance to approximately 1,650 ft by fall 2008 and provide improved scanning rates.

4.1.3 Camera Deployment
In a CCTV inspection, cameras are deployed into pipelines in a variety of ways. Mobile robots called crawlers or tractors are available in a variety of sizes and configurations, thus enabling their use in a host of pipes sizes. These are typically introduced into the sewer via a manhole. Cameras can also be mounted to float rigs for inspecting large diameter pipes partially filled with water. Pushrod cameras are typically used in smaller diameter pipes (6 in. and less) such as service laterals and are typically introduced into the sewer through a cleanout.

This section describes innovations to vehicles used to carry CCTV cameras as well as technologies that can be added to the conventional camera vehicles to further assist in CCTV inspection.

A variety of innovations have been applied to the tractors or crawlers which carry CCTV cameras. These innovations include extra long range tractors/floats compared to the typical applications in use, smaller than typical tractors that can be used for some laterals, tractors that are able to dispatch smaller lateral cameras from the main line, and segmented robots that can bend around odd angles in small diameter pipes.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 91 of 126 441
Different camera tractor innovations are available from a variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are specifically designed for the investigation of water, storm drain, and sewer pipelines.

Pushcams are used almost exclusively in smaller diameter sewers such as service laterals. Tractor innovations have been broken down into four groups: small diameter tractors, long range tractors, segmented tractors, and lateral launchers - tractors that can launch lateral cameras off of the main inspection vehicle.

Pushcams
Pushrod camera, or pushcam, technology involves the inspection of pipeline via a small diameter camera mounted to a pushrod and reel setup which produces video of the pipeline. This technology is primarily designed for laterals and small diameter force main applications. Conventional pushcams use straight view cameras capable of inspecting pipes of 2-in. or greater. Advancements include pushcams capable of inspecting pipes smaller than 2-in. as well as steerable and pan/tilt pushcams.

Pushcams are typically used in an environment where it is otherwise impossible to get photographs or video footage such as a small diameter water, sewer, or drain pipes. Typically, they are used in applications where crawlers/robotic camera vehicles are unable to function due to their larger size.

Conventional pushcams systems are comprised of a camera/probe, cable/reel, and computer/recorder/controller. The probe used to advance the camera is usually a semi-rigid rod, constructed of fiberglass. The primary limitations are image quality, lighting, and ability to move past obstructions. Table 4-4 summarizes a variety of commercially available pushcams.

Table 4-4: Pushcam Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)
PIPE

DIAMETER

INSPECTION
LENGTH
NOTES
CrystalCam Push Camera
(Inuktun)
>2-in. High resolution low lux camera – highly
effective in low light environments. Can be
tractor mounted, can be used as a reverse
camera
Flexiprobe
(Pearpoint)
1-in. to 8-in. 500-ft
Hydrus
(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)
>2-in. Straight view camera only
Orion
(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)
>4-in. Pan and tilt functions
Orion L
(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)
>4-in. Pan and tilt, includes “steer stick” allowin g
device to be steered around bends or turns
Push Camera
(Insight Vision)
1-in. to 12-in. 300-ft Uses Clearview line of camer a heads, large

10.4 in. LCD monitor
Tractors/Crawlers
Tractors and crawlers are mobile robots used to deploy CCTV through a pipeline. Most are wheeled or tracked, and are tethered via a cable to a controller unit located near the point of entry to the sewer system. Conventional CCTV inspection tractors are larger vehicles that are not able to get into smaller pipes or laterals. Many of the tractors are not ste erable and can only inspect pipe runs of 300 to 500 ft.

Advancements in technologies now include lateral launchers that are able to deploy smaller diameter pushcams into laterals; small diameter tractors that can be deployed in pipes as small as 4 in. in diameter; long range tractors that can inspect pipes at great distances from the point of entry; and segmented robots that can bend around odd bends or angles in small diameter pipes. Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 summarize a selection of commercially available innovative tractor and crawler technologies.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 92 of 126 442
Table 4-5: Lateral Launcher Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)

MAINLINE LATERAL
NOTES Pipe
diameter
Inspection
length
Pipe
diameter
Inspection
length
IBAK LISY 150-M
(RapidView-IBAK, USA)
>6-in. Tungsten carbide
wheel for grip
LAMP 6-in. to 24- 2-in. to 6- >80-ft
(CUES) in. in.

Lateral Evaluation Television
System
(Aries Industries)
>8-in. 800-ft 3-in. to 6-
in.
80-ft Can ID pipe locations
with locator beacon
Lateral Inspection System (RS
Technical Services)
8-in. to 24-
in.
1,000-ft 4-in. to 8-
in.
100-ft
Table 4-6: Small Diameter Tractor Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)
PIPE

DIAMETER

INSPECTION
LENGTH
NOTES
ELK T100 Mini
(Pearpoint)
4-in. to 10-in. 500-ft
KRA 65
(RapidView – IBAK, USA)
>4-in. Steerable, electric stabilizing function
Mighty Mini Transporter
(RS Technical Services)
4-in. to 12-in. 500-ft
Rovver 100
(Environsight-IPEK)
4-in. to 12-in. 660-ft Steerable, PVC wheel with ti tanium spikes for traction
Versatrax 100
(Inuktun)
>4-in. 600-ft Tracked crawler
Xpress Silver-Bullet Crawler
(Insight Vision)
4-in. to 15-in. 600-ft 4-wheel drive crawler
Table 4-7: Long Range Tractor Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)
PIPE

DIAMETER

INSPECTION
LENGTH
NOTES
Versatrax 300 VLR
(Inuktun)
>12-in. 6,000-ft Modular construction for onsite cu stomization, optional reverse camera can be mounted on
crawler
Responder
(RedZone)
>36-in. 5,280-ft Skid steer enabled tractor, Kevlar reinforced buoyant cable, submersible to 500-ft
Segmented Robots
Electromechanica, Inc. designs custom inspection robotics and other applications on an as needed basis.

For example, the client may have a specific type of small diameter pipe system containing tees or wyes, or other angles that a typical tractor or crawler would not be able to navigate. One such development is the Internal Pipe Inspection Robot. This design use s a unique “inchworm” movement which optimizes movement within the pipe. The robot itself consists of three arm linkages that expand radially to force the different segments to grip the inside of the pipe and move it along. The multiple segments also can be useful in overcoming obstacles or looking down laterals. The robot uses pneumatic cylinders to provide force to move the robot through the pipe. The robot can be outfitted with cameras, sensors or tools to achieve many different types of jobs in pipes including pipe inspection. As stated above, this is not a commercial product, but one that must be custom ordered for the client’s specialized needs.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 93 of 126 443
Emerging Technologies
x Pushcams - The IPEK Agilios pushcam system was developed for small diameter pipes and has pan/tilt capability. It works in conjunction with the vision control unit and is battery powered.
x Autonomous Crawlers - An autonomous crawler does not require a real-time remote operator. The crawler’s behavior is programmed in a dvance of deployment. The vehicle is programmed to cue off of particular environmental landmarks. For instance, RedZone Robotics, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania based company, has designed a robot that constantly monitors the diameter of the pipe as the robot progresses through the pipe. Infrared sensors atop the vehicle sense when the distance to the roof of the pipe alters radically, which the robot then interprets as a manhole. The vehicle may be programmed to stop at the first manhole it encounters, or stop after encountering some specified number of manholes.

Autonomous crawlers are beginning to enter the marketplace. x Autonomous Floaters - Automatika, Inc. based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is developing the prototype of a neutrally buoyant, untethered pipe inspection robot called PipeEye. The robot is a 12-in. sphere designed to float in pipes greater than 24 in. in diameter. Cameras and lights will operate above the waterline, and ultrasonic transducers will operate below the waterline. The PipeEye system is derived from an oi l/gas pipeline inspection module co- developed by Automatika and Shell Oil. Currently, the system does not yet have a product status.

4.2 Acoustic Technologies
Acoustic technology in general terms uses measuring devices to detect vibrations and/or sound waves. In pipeline assessment, acoustic sensors are used to detect signals emitted by defects and are utilized by a variety of commercially available products. Acoustic technologies are used extensively for inspection of water mains; therefore, this category of inspection technology can also be used for force main inspection.

There are three distinct classifications of acoustic technologies:
x Leak detectors, which are used to detect the acoustic signals emitted by pipeline leaks. x Acoustic monitoring systems, which are used to evaluate the condition of PCCP. x Sonar, or ultrasonic, systems, which emit high frequency sound waves and measure their reflection off the pipe wall in order to detect a variety of pipe defects.

Table 4-8 summarizes these classifications of acoustic technologies.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 94 of 126 444
Table 4-8: Acoustic Technology Summary

SUMMARY IN-LINE LEAK

DETECTORS

ACOUSTIC MONITORING

SYSTEMS SONAR/ ULTRASONIC
Sewer type Force mains, gravity
sewers
Force mains Force mains, gravity sewers
Material Any PCCP Any
Pipe size >4-in. >18-in. >4-in.

Defects detected Leaks Broken pre-stressed wires Pip e wall deflections, corrosion, pits, voids, and
cracks, debris
Original application Leak detection in
pressurized water lines
Monitoring PCCP water lines Maritime use
Status Commercially available
for sewer inspection
Commercially available for
sewer inspection
Commercially available for
sewer inspection
Advantages Can detect very small
leaks.

Useful as a screening
technique prior to more
detailed inspection
Suitable for pipes of any
material and a wide range of
diameters
Disadvantages Requires minimum flow to
be carried through pipe
Only detects general distress Only inspects pipe be low the waterline

4.2.1 Leak Detectors
Leak detectors are devices used to detect the sound or vibration produced by leaks in pressurized waterlines or in sewers. These include hand-held listening devices such as listening rods, underwater microphones (also known as aqua phones, sonoscopes, water phones or hydrophones), and geophones (ground microphones); leak noise correlators; and in-line devices which collect information on leaks remotely. Listening devices and leak noise correlators are widely available, and have been used for leak detection for decades. In-line leak detectors are a more recent advancement in the use of acoustic technology for condition assessment of pipes.

The simplest forms of leak detector are mechanical listening devices. These include listening rods and aquaphones, which are both metallic rods fitted with an earpiece. These devices are operated by placing the rod in direct contact with pipes, allowing the device operator to hear leaks through the earpiece.

Geophones are another type of listening device; these are placed on soil or pavement above a pipe, allowing the operator to hear the sound from leaks as it is transmitted through the soil. Listening rod and aquaphones may also be electronic, these are similar to the mechanical devices described above but also include special elements such as noise filters, adjustable amplifiers, and sensing elements such as piezoelectric materials; leaks can be detected either by operators listening through headphones or in some cases by soundmeters that can store the sound levels emitted by leaking pipes.

Leak-noise correlators are a more complex and accurate type of leak detector, which have been used for leak detection since the 1980s. These are computer- based devices which are used to measure sound or vibration at two points on a pipe, on either side of a suspected leak. Depending on the device, the measurements are made by a vibration sensor such as an accelerometer attached to pipe contact points or an underwater microphone which is inserted into the pipe itself. Signals detected by the sensor are wirelessly transmitted to the correlator, which pinpoints the location of leaks based on the time lag between the leak signals measured from the two points.

The most complex forms of leak detectors are in-line systems, which are deployed in a pipeline and continuously monitor leakage. The rest of this section focuses on these systems. There are several

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 95 of 126 445
commercially available in-line leak detectors which utilize acoustic technologies for pipe condition assessment. Both regional and national service prov iders have the ability to evaluate wastewater systems, although the technology is far more prevalent in its use for condition assessment of water distribution systems. Provided below is a description of several of these products.

Sahara £ – Pressure Pipe Inspection Company
The Sahara system was originally developed by WRc for detecting leaks in pressurized water lines, and is a proven technology for that application. In the United States, the Sahara system has begun to be used for wastewater collection systems. A series of pilot studies using the Sahara for wastewater pipeline leak detection were conducted in the United Kingdom in 2005 and North America in 2006. The system is now available in the United States from the Pressure Pipe Inspection Company.

The Sahara system consists of a sensor head and a hydrophone, which is an electrical instrument used to detect or monitor sound under water. The sensor head is inserted into a pipe through any access point greater than three inches in diameter. As the sensor head is transported through the pipe line by product flow, acoustic signals are picked up at the surface by the hydrophone. The signal is then fed through a cable, and from there to processing equipment. The system operator is able to hear signals from the system directly as well as view the signal on a computer with spectrogram software. The system locates leaks by identifying acoustic signals; the size of leaks can be estimated based on the acoustic signal recorded by the device.

The Sahara system can be used in pipelines of any material to detect leaks as slow as approximately 0.25 gallons/hour. It can be used to inspect force mains 4-in. in diameter and larger. The system requires a minimum flow velocity of approximately 3 ft/s to ensure the device can move though the pipe.

Additionally, pressure within the pipe must be between 10 and 150 psi in order for the system to recognize leaks.

Smartball
£ - Pure Technologies
The Smartball £ leak detector was made commercially available by Pure Technologies in 2005. It is a proprietary system maintained by Pure Technologies. The technology is only used for inspections of pressure pipelines. It can be used for any pipeline material.

The Smartball £ consists of a neutrally buoyant, foam ball equipped with an instrumented aluminum inner core. The aluminum inner core contains several sens ors including an acoustic sensor, accelerometer, magnetometer, temperature gauge, and pressure gauge. The inner core also contains a microprocessor with an ultrasonic transmitter. The system is powered by a DC battery and contains a data logger. The Smartball £ can be inserted into a pipeline and travel with the water flow for more than twelve hours, collecting data on the collection system with a single deployment. The Smartball £ has a diameter of 2.6- in. and can be used on a pipe with 10-in. or greater in diameter. A minimum flow velocity of 1.64 ft/sec is required to convey the sensor.

The system can be inserted into a full or partially full pipe, and is carried along by the flow of water or wastewater. The Smartball £ is silent; therefore its acoustic sensor can detect the sound of very small leaks in the pipeline. As the Smartball £ passes through the pipe its progress can be tracked by a variety of methods, allowing for leak location to be determined within one meter of accuracy. The system can operate for up to twelve hours before it is retrieved and data downloaded.

LxSentry – LxSix Photonics, Inc.

The LxSentry pipeline monitoring system was recently introduced by LxSix, Photonics Inc. LxSentry is a highly sensitive fiber optic system designed to detect leaks in gas pipelines. Acoustical sounds are

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 96 of 126 446
classified by the proprietary Red Alert software, which is capable of distinguishing between pipeline leaks, tampering, intrusions, and machinery and vehicles operating in the pipeline vicinity. Minimal information on the details of the operation and use of this product is currently available. No information was available on the use of the technology for water and/or wastewater systems.

4.2.2 Acoustic Monitoring Systems
Acoustic monitoring systems are installed along PCCP to provide continuous monitoring of the general condition of the pipe. PCCP has been used historically for large diameter force mains, and has been subject to failure due to internal or external corrosion. The systems work by detecting the acoustic signal produced by breaking or broken prestressed wire within pipes. While the systems do not identify individual defects, they are useful as screening techniques to determine if further condition assessment should be performed. There are currently two technologies available that provide continuous acoustic monitoring of PCCP. These products are described below.

Acoustic Emission Testing (AET) – Pressure Pipe Inspection Company Acoustic Emission Testing (AET) is as an acoustic monitoring system used primarily to monitor the deterioration of PCCP water mains. It has also been used to evaluate sewage force mains. AET is based on the detection of the acoustic energy released when prestressed wire breaks or deflects. The system detects general distress in the pipeline by determining the frequency and number of wire breaks, or wire related events, over a period of time. The AET system determines the location of the wire related events based on the arrival time of the acoustic signals at a series of sensors within the pipe. Since the technique does not detect the number of broken wires, but rather general distress in a given section of pipeline, it is best used as a screening technique prior to utilizing other methods to pinpoint defects.

The AET system is made up of a series of units located along the pipeline. Each unit contains a sensor (either a hydrophone or an accelerometer) and a signal processor, a base station, and a precision timing device. The hydrophones are inserted into the pipel ine through taps at a spacing of approximately 500 to 3,000 ft; spacing is largely dependent on pipeline diameter (smaller pipes require closer spacing than larger ones). The accelerometers are surface mounte d; spacing is more flexible when this type of sensor is employed. The signal processor is a small mobile computer that is located close to the hydrophone. It monitors the signals detected by the hydrophone and transmits signals that indicate wire related events to the base station. The base station consists of a personal computer, a wireless communication module, and an internet communication module. The precision timing device, a GPS antenna and processor, provides location information on each sensor and determines the timing of acoustic events.

AET can be used to monitor active distress in PCCP 18-in. or greater in diameter. The system works while pipelines are fully operational. The technique is valuable for providing advanced warning of pipe failure, and for screening pipe networks to determine which pipes are deteriorating. However, the technique cannot detect individual defects within a pipe.

SoundPrint
£ - Pure Technologies
SoundPrint £ is a patented acoustic monitoring technology used to provide continuous, non-destructive remote monitoring of water and wastewater pipelines, storage tanks and other structures. Introduced in 1993, the original version of SoundPrint £ used hydrophones to detect breaks in prestressed wire in PCCP. The newer SoundPrint £ AFO system, introduced in 2005, uses acoustic fiber-optic cable for detecting acoustic signals.

Soundprint
£ AFO monitoring of PCCP involves the deployment of fiber-optic cable into the pipeline.

The cable is inserted into pipelines through new valves installed in manholes. Because the entire fiber-

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 97 of 126 447
optic cable acts as a sensor, up to 12,000 ft of pipeline can be monitored from a single access point. The sensor does not contain any electronics, therefore there is little to no background noise created by the device.

4.2.3 Sonar and Ultrasonic Testing
Sonar, an acronym for Sound Navigation and Ranging, was developed in 1906, and is widely used for maritime use. The first use of sonar for inspection of pipelines was carried out by WRc in 1987. Sonar testing involves very high frequency ultrasonic sound waves that reflect off the material being inspected, allowing for the detection of defects.

Sonar/ultrasonic inspections of pipelines are accomplished by passing a sonar head through the pipe being inspected. Depending on the size and flow condition s of a pipe, the sonar head is deployed into the pipeline on a raft, skid, or robotic tractor. As the sonar head moves through the pipeline, it sends out very high frequency ultrasonic signals, which are reflected by the pipe walls and then received by the sonar head. The reflection of the signals changes when th ere is a change in the material it is being reflected by, allowing for the detection of defects. The time bet ween when the signal is sent and received can be used to determine the distance between the sonar head and the pipe wall, as well as to determine the internal profile of the pipe.

Sonar inspection results in a detailed profile of the pipe wall below the water surface, which can be analyzed by a variety of methods. Sonar can detect pipe wall deflections, corrosion, pits, voids, and cracks. Sonar inspection can also detect and quanti fy debris, grease, and silt, and can distinguish between hard and soft debris; however, defects in the pipe wall can sometimes be obscured by grease and debris.

According to Thomson et al. (2004), defects greater than 1/8 inch (3 mm) can be detected. This applies to pipe wall pitting and cracks as well as debris accumulation. Sonar does not require bypass pumping or pipe cleaning. Sonar inspection can be used in area s of poor visibility where it is difficult to use CCTV inspection. It is a versatile inspection method and can be used for inspecting gravity sewers and force mains.

One drawback to sonar is that it can only be operated in air or in water, not in both simultaneously. In some cases, a sonar system is utilized with a CCTV system, so that inspection of pipes both above and below the waterline can be accomplished simultaneously. In order to overcome this limitation, research is being done into development of systems with separate transducers, one for use in air and one in water, so that inspection of partially filled pipes can be accomplished. Additionally, longitudinal cracks in pipes can be difficult to detect.

Commercial sonar pipe inspection tools typically consist of an underwater scanning transducer, a sonar processor, and a color monitor. Table 4-9 highlights a selection of sonar-based pipe inspection products.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 98 of 126 448
Table 4-9: Sonar Product Comparison
DEVICE:

VENDOR

SEWER TYPE/

PIPE SIZE

DEFECTS

DETECTED NOTES
Amtec Sonar:

Amtec Surveying, Ltd.

Force mains
>21 in.

Deformations, holes, breaks,
and pipe wall loss.

A-SIS
Aquacoustic
>12 in. Pipe size & distortion,
holes, debris, scour, erosion
Combines sonar and
CCTV
Envirosight Gravity
>4 in.

Pipe diameter, shape
capacity, corrosion, cracks,
debris
Attachment for CCTV
PipeEye:

PipeEye International
Force mains, gravity
>10 in.

Build-up, deformities, flow
restriction, water level
RVS2:

R&R Visual
>10 in. Open cracks, debris,
sediment
Sonar Profiler System
(submerged): CUES
Force mains
>12 in.

Defects, blockage, debris
Sonar Profiler System
(semi-submerged): CUES
>12 in. Defects, blockage, debris Combines sonar an d
CCTV
Sonar Sewer Profiling
Attachment: Redzone
Force mains, gravity
>36 in.

Blockages, deformations,
capacity, sediment
Attachment for the
Responder platform
Sonar Sweep Attachment
Redzone:

Force mains, gravity
>36 in.

Blockages, deformations,
capacity, sediment
Attachment for the
Responder platform
TISCIT:

Amtec Surveying, Ltd.

Gravity
>21 in.

Deformations, holes, breaks,
and pipe wall loss
Combines sonar and
CCTV
Ultrascan CD:

GE Oil & Gas
Force mains, gravity Axial cracks
Ultrascan DUO:

GE Oil & Gas
Force mains, gravity
>24 in.

Wall loss and cracks
Ultrascan WM:

GE Oil & Gas
Force mains, gravity Wall loss
Ultrasonic Inspection Robot
Inspector Systems
Force mains
12 -20 in.

Wall loss (measures wall
thickness)
Incorporates high-
resolution CCTV
Wavemaker:

Guided Ultrasonics
Force mains, gravity
>2 in.

Wall loss Uses guided waves
(Lamb wave), mounted
to outer surface of pipe.

4.3 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods
Several sewer evaluation techniques utilize electrical or electromagnetic currents. The electrical lea k location method is used to detect leaks in surcharged non-ferrous pipes. Eddy current testing (ECT) and remote field eddy current (RFEC) technology identify defects in ferrous pipes. Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inspection is widely used in the oil and gas industry to measure metal loss and detect cracks in ferrous pipelines. Table 4-10 summarizes these tech nologies.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 99 of 126 449
Table 4-10: Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods Summary

SUMMARY ELECTRICAL LEAK

LOCATION ECT/RFEC MFL
Sewer type Force main, gravity
sewers, service laterals
Force main, gravity sewers,
service laterals
Force main, gravity sewers,
service laterals
Material Non-ferrous Ferrous Ferrous
Pipe size >3-in. >2-in. 2-in. to 56-in.

Defects detected Cracks, leaks Metal loss, cracks, l eaks, broken wire, graphitization,
wall thickness
Metal loss, circumferential
and longitudinal cracks
Original application Leak potential in
geomembrane liners
Inspection of piping and
tubing including boilers, heat
exchangers, cast iron pipes,
and gas pipelines.

Petrochemical industry
Status Commercially available
for wastewater pipes
Commercially available for
wastewater pipes
Commercially available,
limited use in wastewater
applications
Advantages Available for service
laterals
Can be used on pipes of most
diameters, can be used to
locate a variety of defects.

Extensive experience with
method in the oil and gas
sector
Disadvantages Gravity pipes must be
filled prior to inspection
Limited to ferrous pipes,
typically requires post-
processing of data by vendor.

Has not been extensively
used for assessment of
sewer pipes.

4.3.1 Electrical Leak Location Method
The Electrical Leak Location Method was first developed in 1981 for the inspection of geomembrane liners. The method became commercially available in 1985, and is one of the most widely used techniques for detecting leaks in geomembrane liners. The technique involves placing an electrode on either side of the material being tested, and connecting voltage to each electrode. Because the material being tested is an electrical insulator, voltage only flows through holes in the material. The area of defects in the material has high current density, which can be detected by measuring electrical potential in the survey area. Although primarily used for geomem brane liner inspection, the technique is also applicable to pipe inspection.

As this technology relies on the pipe material being an electrical insulator, it can only be used on non- ferrous pipes. The technology is useful for inspect ing force mains, service laterals, and smaller gravity lines. While it is possible to inspect larger diame ter gravity lines, since the technology requires gravity lines to be surcharged, the time and effort required to fill larger pipes might make this inspection method infeasible.

Although there are more than twenty commercial providers of electrical leak location services for integrity monitoring of geomembrane liners, the Focused Electrode Leak Location (FELL) is the only application developed specifically for detecting leaks in pipelines. FELL, also referred to as Electro-Scan technology, and was developed in Germany by Seba Dynatronic in 1999. GRW Engineers, Inc. has introduced the FELL system in the US. The FELL system identifies leak potential in non-conductive (i.e. non-ferrous) sanitary sewer mains, gravity lines, and service laterals using electrical continuity technology. The original application, FELL-41, was designed for use in force mains. A technique has been devised to allow for the inspection of gravity sewers by this method as well. The corporation later developed FELL-21 for inspection of service laterals. As of 2004, there were three electro-scan device s located in the United States, two of which are owned by GRW Engineering in Louisville, KY.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 100 of 126 450
FELL 41– Seba Dynatronic/Metrotech
FELL, or Electro-Scan, inspection is accomplished by feeding a mobile electrode, called a sonde, through the pipe of interest. Simultaneously, a fixed surfa ce electrode, usually a metal stake, is placed in the ground. Electrical current is generated by the sonde and flows through the water within the pipe, through the pipe wall and earth surrounding the pipe, and to the surface electrode. As water, earth, and the connecting cables have a low electrical resistance and the pipe material has a high electrical resistance, very little current flows between the two electrodes. However, if a leak exists in the pipe, the electrical current passes through it easily; the larger the defect, the greater the current that flows through. The electrical current flowing between the two electrodes is measured by the sonde; this data is then transmitted to a laptop computer, which records data and displays graphically the current flowing through the pipe.

The technique only detects defects in surcharged portions of a pipe; to inspect the entire circumference of pipes that are typically not surcharged, such as gravity sewers, the pipe must first be prepared by completely filling it with water. Two techniques are used to fill pipes in preparation for FELL-41 investigation. The first involves plugging the downstream manhole and then filling the pipe with enough water that the pipe is covered at the upstream manhole; this method can be quite time-consuming and may result in back-up of service laterals. The alternat ive method involves the use of a sliding pipe plug. The sonde is attached to the upstream side of the plug, which is manually pulled a short distance down the pipe. The upstream portion of the pipe is filled so that the sonde is submerged, and then the plug and attached sonde is pulled through the pipe, so that the entire pipe wall can be assessed.

FELL-41 is suitable for inspecting force mains ranging from 6-in. to 60-in. in diameter. The system only works on non-conductive pipes and lined metallic pipes, and can only detect defects below the water line.

Although gravity sewers can be manually filled to allow for a complete inspection; the process of surcharging large diameter pipes requires extensive time and preparation. The product can be used to detect leaks caused by radial and longitudinal cracks, as well as faulty joints.

FELL 21 – Seba Dynatronic/Metrotech
The FELL-21works on the same principle as FELL-41, but is designed for use in 3-in. to 6-in. diameter service laterals. Rather than being deployed throug h the pipeline via a haul line, this device is inserted via a cleanout and moved through the pipe with a push rod. Like FELL-41, the device can only be used for the inspection of non-conductive pipes or non-ferrous pipes. FELL-21 detects leaks caused by radial and longitudinal cracks, as well as faulty joints.

4.3.2 Eddy Current Testing and Remote Field Eddy Cur rent Technology ECT and RFEC technology involve the generation of electric currents and magnetic fields to investigate the condition of ferrous material. ECT pipe inspection involves the use of an alternating current magnetic coil to induce an electric current in conductive pipes. In turn, the electric current generates small magnetic fields or eddy currents in opposition to the coil’s magnetic field, which results in a change in the impedance of the coil. As the magnetic coil transverses the pipeline, the change in impedance is measured, allowing for the identification of defects. The effectiveness of ECT for pipeline inspection is limited by an electromagnetic phenomenon termed “skin effect”. The density of eddy currents decreases exponentially with depth. This limits the detection of defects to those located on the surface of the pipe nearest the magnetic coil, because defects located deeper within the pipeline cannot be measured.

The RFEC method was developed to surmount the limitations of standard eddy current testing. This method can detect both internal and external defects in pipelines. RFEC involves the deployment of a probe consisting of multiple magnetic coils, an exciter coil and one or more detector coils, through the pipeline. As in standard eddy current testing, eddy currents are induced in the pipe wall. These direct

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 101 of 126 451
currents quickly attenuate as they flow along the pipe wall towards the detector coil that is typically located approximately two pipe-diameters apart from the exciter. A second magnetic field passes from the exciter to the outside of the pipe and flows along the outer pipe wall, then back into the interior of the pipe to reach the detector. This remote field atten uates very slowly along the outer pipe wall, and is therefore much stronger then the direct field when it reaches the detector. Pipeline defects and pipe wall thickness affect the propagation of the magnetic fields along the pipe walls, thereby altering the signal received by the detector. This allows for the identification of pipeline defects.

ECT and RFEC testing are primarily used to detect defects in ferrous pipe walls, such as pitting, corrosion, leaks and cracks. These testing methods can be used for the inspection of small-diameter pipes, in some cases as small as two inches in diameter, as well as very large diameter pipelines.

ECT/RFEC can be used in empty, full, and partially full pipelines. Devices utilizing ECT and RFEC technology can be used to inspect force mains and gravity sewers. However, since most gravity sewers are not constructed of ferrous materials, the technology has limited use for this application.

ECT and RFEC testing services for ferrous structures are available from a variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are specifically designed for the investigation of gas, water, and sewer pipelines.

The following are descriptions of some of these applications; as these technologies use the same basic principal, the summaries focus primarily on the differences between the various applications.

Broadband Electromagnetic Methodology (BEM) – Rock Solid Proprietary Limited (Pty. Ltd), Australia
BEM was originally developed by Rock Solid Pty. Ltd for use in the Australian mineral exploration industry. The technology has since been modified for use in pipeline inspection, and has been used for this purpose in both the United States and Europe. Unlike other RFEC applications, BEM is frequency independent, allowing operation of the device to be modified based on the material being investigated and site conditions. This reduces the likelihood that t he device will be affected by electromagnetic noise, which can occur with the use of other ECT/RFEC applications.

BEM has primarily been used for condition assessment of water mains. The technology can only be used on ferrous pipes, but does work through thick coatings and linings. This technology can be used to detect a variety of pipe defects including cracks and anomalies in the pipe wall. Thomson et al. (2004) conducted field demonstrations of this method, and they state it is able to detect metal loss to 0.04 inch (1mm). BEM can also be used to measure wall thickness, quantify graphitization, and locate broken wires in PCCP.

BEM pipeline inspection can either be accomplished internally or externally. Internal pipeline inspection generally requires the pipeline to be taken out of service and emptied prior to deployment of the BEM device. As an alternative, the BEM device can be wa terproofed. Internal inspection of pipelines can be accomplished in large diameter pipes by either pulling or pushing the device through the pipeline. A robotic version of the application is available for smaller pipelines (less than 36-in. in diameter). Results of pipeline inspections using BEM cannot be analyzed on-site; rather, results must be post processed.

Special software is used to create a topographic map of the pipeline which can then be analyzed to detect pipe defects.

Hydroscope – Hydroscope, Inc.

The Hydroscope was developed as a collaborative effort between Hydroscope, Canada and EPCOR Water Services (Edmonton, Canada’s privatized water utility). The application was first used in 1995 in Canada and became commercially available in the United States in 1996. However, the U.S. licensee for Hydroscope is currently in bankruptcy. Therefore, t he technology may not be available in the U.S.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 102 of 126 452
Originally developed for inspection of waterlines, the technology has since been used for the inspection of sewer mains.

The Hydroscope consists of a series of stainless steel modules embedded with circuitry, creating a flexible probe which can travel through pipelines. The probe is connected to a computer in a service vehicle by a tether and data cable. Data cannot be analyzed in t he field; rather, data are analyzed at the Hydroscope Analysis Center with a proprietary software package called HYDA or the more advanced HYREL.

Like all ECT/RFEC-based pipeline inspection applications, the Hydroscope can only be used in pipes composed of ferrous material. One advantage of the Hydroscope system is that it functions in both dry and submerged conditions. Probes are available for pipe diameters in the range of 6-in. to 15-in. The technology can detect pitting, corrosion, graphitization and wall thinning in pipes.

See Snake Tool – Russell NDE Systems, Inc.

Russell NDE System’s, Inc.’s See Snake is a small, flexible device which uses RFEC technology to detect corrosion and pitting in pipelines and to measure wall thickness and surface area. The tool can also detect areas of pipe under external stress such as movement of soil, poor support, rippling, bridging and denting.

This technology is primarily intended for inspection of pipes before purchase or after construction to ensure pipeline integrity, and after a pipeline failure to determine if there are additional defects in the vicinity of the break.

Unlike most RFEC devices, which pass signals through a data cable, signals from the See Snake are detected from above ground. This allows for tracking the tool as it passes through the pipeline. Another distinguishing feature of the See Snake is that data analysis can be performed on site during the inspection, unlike other technologies which require off-site analysis.

The See Snake is primarily used in the oil and gas industry. Currently, the tool is only available for small pipes, ranging in size from 2-in. to 8-in. in diameter. Given the small size of the device, and its ability to be pushed through pipelines by liquid, the See Snake is potentially viable for inspection of force mains.

P-Wave
£ - Pure Technologies
Pure Technologies’ P-Wave 3 system generates an electromagnetic field and detects changes induced in the field by broken wires in PCCP. Results of P-Wave inspection include an estimate of the number of broken wires, as well as their location. The techno logy allows for the evaluation of a pipe’s current condition and the identification of distressed areas. The system is available for use in sewer pipes; however, the pipe must be empty to use the product. P-Wave inspection is often followed up with the us e of an acoustic monitoring technology, such as Soundprint “, also available from Pure Technologies.

Remote Field Eddy Current/Transformer Coupling (RFEC/TC) – Pressure Pipe Inspection Company Pressure Pipe Inspection Company’s patented RFEC/TC is specifically designed for use in pre-stressed concrete pipe, including embedded Concrete Pipe, lined cylinder pipe, and bar-wrapped pipe. Rather than detecting defects such as corrosion, pitting, and leaks, this technology is primarily used to detect and quantify broken wires within the concrete pipe to determine whether pipe segments need further monitoring, repair, or replacement. In this application, the electromagnetic field generated by the exciter is amplified by the pre-stressed wires within the pipe. Signals generated by broken wires can be differentiated from those generated by intact wires.

RFEC/TC is effective for inspecting pipes 25-in. in diameter and larger. The largest pipe inspected to date is 252-in. In addition to broken wires, RFEC/TC can detect manholes, blow-offs, short pipe lengths, 3 P-Wave stands for Polar Wave

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 103 of 126 453
cylinder thickness, cylinder composition, wire pitch, diameter and wraps (Pressure Pipe Inspection Company, n.d.). RFEC/TC can be used for the investigation of both force mains and gravity sewers.

Emerging Technology
Due to the versatility of RFEC testing for the inspection of pipelines, several institutions are working on the development of new applications. The Gas Techno logy Institute is currently developing a tool for the inspection of gas pipelines of a variety of diameters, including ones with valve and bore restrictions and tight bends. The Southwest Research Institute has r ecently developed an inspection technology for 6-in. to 8-in. diameter gas pipelines that couples an RFEC system to a robotic transport tool, the Explorer II, developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Engineering Consortium. Monash University in Australia has developed a RFEC tool called TESTAU. This instrument provides an improvement to the quality of visual data over other RFEC tools.

4.3.3 Magnetic Flux Leakage Detection
MFL is a widely used inspection technique for oil and gas pipelines. The MFL technique was first developed in the 1920s and 30s for materials testing. The Tuboscope, which became commercially available in 1965, was the first tool specifically developed for pipeline inspection.

MFL detection involves the placement of one or more magnets near a pipe wall, leading to the inducement of a direct current magnetic field in the pipe wall. The strength and direction of magnetic fields are represented by flux lines. When a magnet is near a conductive pipe wall, the majority of flux lines pass through the pipe wall. However, in areas of metal loss, less flux can be carried than the intact, full wall sections of pipe. This leads to leakage of flux from pipe areas which have undergone metal loss, as well as a change in the shape of the induced magnetic field. Flux leakage is detected by sensors; computer software is then used to determine the type and size of anomalies detected by the sensor.

MFL devices consist of several systems packaged into a single tool. At a minimum, an MFL tool contains a magnetizing element, sensor, data recording, and power systems. MFL tools are usually categorized as single piece or segmented. Single piece MFL tools contain all system components in a single rigid tool while segmented tools consist of multiple pieces joined to one another with flexible connectors.

Inspection of pipelines via MFL detection involves the deployment of an MFL device through the pipeline. As the device moves through the pipeline, usually pushed by the product flowing through the pipeline, the tool detects and records changes in magnetic flux. Traditional MFL devices, also called axial MFL, produce a magnetic field oriented along the axis of the pipe. More recently, circumferential MFL has been developed whereby the magnetic field is oriented around the pipe, allowing for better detection of axial defects such as cracks, seam weld defects, and groove corrosion.

MFL inspection only works on conductive cast iron or steel pipelines. Most MFL applications are large, and therefore only suited to larger diameter pipelines; however, some commercial applications have been developed for use in smaller diameter pipelines. Although MFL is most commonly used to detect metal loss, the technique can detect a variety of pipeline anomalies, including circumferential and longitudinal cracks. Newer, advanced MFL tools are additionally capable of producing accurate measurements of pipe defects.

Given the widespread use of MFL technology in the oil and gas industry, there are a variety of commercial MFL products available. However, the technology has yet to gain acceptance in condition assessment for wastewater collection systems. The majority of MFL tools operate on the basic principles outlined in the previous section. The primary disti nction between them is whether they use axial or

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 104 of 126 454
circumferential MFL, and the applicable diameter range. Table 4-11 provides basic specifications on available MFL tools.

Table 4-11: MFL Product Comparison

DEVICE VENDOR TYPE PIPE SIZE NOTE
AES 19 Advanced Engineering
Services
Circumferential 3-in. to 12-in.

AES ECAT Advanced Engineering
Services
Axial >12-in. Works externally
Axial Flaw Detection
(AFD) Tool
Rosen Inspection Circumferential 6-in. to 56-in.

Corrosion Detection
Pig (CDP)
Rosen Inspection Axial 6-in. to 56-in.

CPIG Baker Hughes Axial 4-in. to 48-in.

LINSCAN Lin Scan Axial 6-in. to 56-in.

MagneScan GE Energy Axial 6-in. to 56-in.

MAGPIE TDW Services, Inc. Axial 4-in. to 42-in.

MFL Inspection Tool NGKS Axial 8-in. to 56-in.

Pipesurvey MFL Pipesurvey
International
Axial Bidirectional
TranScan GE Energy Circumferential 12-in. to 36-in.

VECTRA BJ Services Company Circumferential Inertial navigation Vertiline /V-Line* Baker Hughes Axial 2-in. to 36- in. Bidirectional *According to Baker Hughes, the Vertiline/V-line system is applicable for use in sewer lines.

4.4 Laser Profiling
Laser profiling generates a profile of a pipe’s interior wall. The technique involves using a laser to create a line of light around the pipe wall. For this reason, it is also called the lightline method. The laser light highlights the shape of the sewer, allowing for the detection of changes to the pipe’s shape, which may be caused by deformation, corrosion, or siltation. Laser inspection can only be used to inspect dry portions of a pipe. To assess the entire internal surface of a pipeline requires the pipe to be taken out of service.

Lasers are often used in combination with other inspection methods, most commonly CCTV and/or sonar.

Table 4-12 provides a summary description of the laser profiling technology.

Table 4-12: Laser Profiling Summary

SUMMARY
Sewer type Gravity sewers, force mains.

Material Any
Pipe size Product dependent
Defects detected Deformations, siltation, corrosion,
Original application Earlier use in large diameter t unnels and caverns Status Commercially available
Advantages Provides better data quality then CCTV a lone, can be used to create 3D models of pipelines.

Disadvantages Can only detect defects above the wat er line.

Specific examples of laser profiling technologies are presented in the following section.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 105 of 126 455
Active 3D Laser Scanning – Redzone Robotics
RedZone Robotics offers the Active 3D Laser Scanning Attachment for its Responder Robotic platform.

This attachment creates a three dimensional model of the pipe, which allows for visualization of features not visible by CCTV inspection. The attachment can be used to assess pipes ranging from 48-in. to 100- in. in diameter, and requires a minimum 24-in. diameter manhole for deployment. Inspections up to 5,500-ft. are standard while specialized configurations enable custom inspections of up to 14,000-ft.

Coolvision – Sima Environmental
Coolvision is an attachment for traditional CCTV systems. The laser system results in reports which detail pipe grade and deflection. The system allows for the detection and measurement of cracks, as well as the measurement of sediment, water depth, and service locations.

Laser Profiler – CUES
CUES offers the Laser Profiler as an attachment to the CUES CCTV system. The attachment easily snaps on to the system, and allows for the creation of reports which include measurements of sewer defects.

The attachment works by projecting a ring of light on the pipe’s surface. The light is recorded by the CCTV camera as the inspection is conducted. Software is used to analyze the laser ring and create a 3D digital profile of the pipe. This can be done either from live or recorded video. The profiler can be used to detect and measure pipe size, ovality and capacity, laterals, water levels, and off-set joints, as well as to collect survey data. The CUES laser attachment can be used to inspect pipes ranging from 6-in. to 72-in. in diameter.

Laser Profiling Tool - Envirosight
Envirosight provides a laser profiling tool which can be used with either the ROVVER or SuperVision crawlers and a CCTV camera. The device can detect corrosion, cracks, debris, pipe deformation, and incorrect installation of liner. The tool can be us ed individually, or in combination with a sonar profiler to inspect the pipe surface below the flow line. The tool can be used in pipes ranging from 4-in. to 160-in. in diameter. The tool is used with machine vision software, which uses data gathered from the CCTV video to create a variety of reports, statistical analyses, and 2D or 3D models of the pipe.

Laser Profiler – R&R Visual
R&R Visual offers the Laser Profiler for inspection of dry gravity sewers. The tool works on pipes ranging in sizes from 6-in. to 160-in. in diameter. The device allows for accurate pipeline measurement, measurement of sediment depth and volume. R&R Visua l suggests utilizing this technology to assist in soliciting accurate price quotes for pipeline cleaning in order to create cost savings for the utility owner.

The system works with R&R Visual proprietary software and Clearline software for 3D modeling.

4.5 Flow Meters
Flow meters (area-velocity meters) typically operate by direct measurement of depth and velocity. Flow is then calculated based on the continuity equation. Metering devices referred to as “depth-only” or “primary” metering devices calculate flow using weirs or flumes based on flow discharge relationship equations. These metering devices are limited for p ipe reaches that do not surcharge. Other “velocity- only” metering devices function by measuring velocity in pipe sections that continually operate under full flow conditions.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 106 of 126 456
Communication with a flow meter can be achieved in the following manners: direct connection by laptop in the field, telephone land lines, wireless digital telephone or internet technology, or radio frequency networks. This includes communication through such technologies as general packet radio service/enhanced data rates for global evolution (GPRS/EDGE); code division multiple access (CDMA); mobile digital radio technology, including CDMA-1XRTT and CDMA-EVDO (evolution data optimized). Although most meter data are collected with laptops in the field, wireless communication is becoming the most popular method for new meters. Most wireless communication uses internet technology. A major distinction between the communi cation approaches is whether each meter is assigned a fixed internet protocol (IP) address or a floating IP address. The floating IP address is the easiest and least costly to deploy, but it also allows only one-way communication from the meter to the host. Communication with a fixed IP address occurs only when initiated by the meter. Fixed IP addresses allow the user to communicate with the meter for altering set up features, changing alarm setup features and downloading new software. Many wireless carriers do not offer fixed IP addresses.

Real time communication is a very popular concept and is becoming widely used in wastewater treatment plants. Implementing real time communication in sew ers is more difficult for two reasons. Most meters operate by battery and frequent communication uses more energy than data collection does. Energy use for communication is high both for operating a modem with land lines and operating the radio frequency equipment for wireless communication. Additionally, the term “real-time” in sewers is actually “near time”, because most meter measurements are in 5-minute or 15-minute collection frequencies, as many operators prefer lower collection frequencies to achieve longer battery life. Most metering technologies relying on wireless communication operate in a one-way mode from the meter to the host. This strategy is dictated primarily by the energy cost to “stay awake” for incoming communication.

The traditional view of real time data is from a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) perspective in which data are collected at a high frequency from many “dumb” sensors and a central computer sorts and archives the data. This approach works well for process control. An operator is alerted to problems by the use of “set points”, such as a drop in dissolved oxygen level below a specified concentration. This may trigger an alarm condition requiring an operator response. Real time data in sewers have less value because there rarely are controllable processes in sewers, except for pump stations and perhaps diversion gates.

Software for collecting and reporting flow monitoring data has evolved along with improvements in communication protocols. Desk-top programs for analyzing flow data, performance monitoring, and project reporting are being replaced with web-based applications, which connect wirelessly to flow monitors. These software applications automate time-consuming tasks; making them more reliable and cost-effective than traditional software programs. Additionally, some of the programs incorporate GIS functionality, allowing users to integrate flow data with GIS models of the sewer system.

4.6 Innovative Technologies
Besides the range of commercially available technologies for evaluation of wastewater systems and other underground pipes, several other innovative technologies are currently under development. While the following technologies are not currently commercially available for condition assessment of wastewater systems, they may be feasible methods of sewer assessment in the future.

4.6.1 Gamma-Gamma Logging
Gamma-gamma logging is a technique used primarily to evaluate cast-in-place concrete pilings and for vertical borehole investigation in the mining and oil and gas industries. The technique involves the use of a gamma-gamma probe, which consists of a source of gamma radiation such as cesium-137 and one or

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 107 of 126 457
more gamma detectors. The detectors are shielded from direct radiation by a heavy metal such as lead.

The gamma-gamma probe emits photons which react to surrounding material based on density. The photons are backscattered by the surrounding material, and data are recorded as a density log. Inspection using this technique is accomplished by raising and lowering the probe within a PVC inspection tube that is inserted into the concrete piling or borehole. Results of the inspection yield information on the average bulk density of the concrete. Properly constructed structures will have a consistent density. The technique can also be used to locate voids.

To date, gamma-gamma logging has not been used in pipeline inspection. However, researchers at Karlsruhe University in Germany performed laboratory tests that indicated a gamma-gamma probe could be used to locate lateral connections and locate and measure the size of cavities in the bedding surrounding a pipe. The technology may be applicable for evaluating the overall condition of concrete pipe or for detecting voids in bedding surrounding pipes. However, significant application issues would exist in terms of training requirements and the tracking of the nuclear materials. These issues are faced by the users of nuclear density gauges for soil compaction control.

4.6.2 Ground Penetrating Radar
The U.S. military originally developed ground penetrating radar (GPR) to locate underground tunnels and mines. GPR operates on the same principle as radar. A transmitting antenna emits high-frequency radio waves into the ground. The waves travel through the ground until they reach a material which has a different conductivity and dielectric constant than the earth. The signal is reflected and recorded by a separate receiving antenna. The amount of time it takes for the electromagnetic radio waves to be reflected by subsurface materials can be analyzed to determine the position and depth of features below the earth’s surface.

There are a number of commercially available GPR systems. While some are designed to be used to locate underground utilities, none is significantly used at present for pipeline inspection. GPR systems that have been used to date in North America for internal pipe inspection could be considered more in the prototype stage than in commercial use. However, since GPR can detect underground voids, it is potentially useful for examination of pipe bedding. GPR can also potentially be used to locate leaks, since saturated soil slows radio waves, resulting in a GPR profile showing a pipe deeper then would be expected. Research into using GPR for sewer and bed ding condition inspections is ongoing. Research has already been conducted on its use for small diameter sewer lines and brick sewers.

4.6.3 Infrared Thermography
Infrared thermography (IRT) involves the use of an infrared camera to measure the temperature differential across the surface of an object. Software can then be used to create an image displaying different temperatures as different colors. This allows for the detection of the surface expression of thermal conditions beneath the surface. In this regard, it is a potential method of detecting sewer defects such as leaks and voids, both of which can result in surface temperature variations when a sufficient internal/external temperature difference exists.

Two basic methods of IRT are generally employed: passive IRT, which requires no external heat source; and active IRT, which requires the use of a heat source such as an infrared tube light. Research into the use of passive IRT to detect defects in and around subsurface pipelines has been conducted. The method has been demonstrated to be capable of detecting subsurface defects such as leaks, voids, and deteriorated insulation. Because the process is carried out from the surface, and the equipment used can scan a large area quickly, the technology can be an efficient method for detecting pipe defects. Active IRT has been proposed as a method for pipeline assessment, but has not yet been evaluated.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 108 of 126 458

4.6.4 Micro-Deflection
Micro-deflection is a nondestructive technology used to evaluate brick, concrete, and clay structures. The method involves the use of a load to create slight deformation, termed a micro-deflection, in the test material. The change in position of the structure is measured, and a graph of load versus deflection is created. Structurally sound test materials would be expected to have a consistent load versus deflection graph, while deteriorated sections of the material would have a different value on the graph.

Although not a widespread method of evaluating wastewater pipes, micro-deflection has been used to evaluate brick sewers. However, the usefulness of micro-deflection is limited, because the process can only give a general understanding of pipe condition, such as the integrity of joints, rather than identifying individual defects. In addition, plastics such as PVC and HDPE cannot be inspected using this method.

4.6.5 Impact Echo/Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) Impact Echo and SASW are two related techniques for evaluation of concrete and masonry. Both work by subjecting a pipe to an elastic impact, produced by a device such as a pneumatic hammer, which then propagates through the pipe. The waves are reflected by internal flaws, as well as the surface of the material, and the reflected waves are detected by an acoustic transducer such as a geophone located on the exterior of the pipe. The technique can locate and measure cracks, delaminations, voids, and honeycombing.

Impact Echo testing services are provided by several companies and its applicability for pipelines has been researched. The Acoustic Impact Hammer, developed by the University of Karlsruhe in Germany, uses a hammer to tap the inner surface of a pipe; laboratory trials resulted in the detection of cracks and cavities around the pipe. A German technology which uses lasers to scan the response to impacts and analyze them via SASW is available for tunnels and large pipes; however, this system requires entry into the pipe and is therefore only suitable for very large pipes.

4.6.6 Ultrasonic Testing Systems
Several new ultrasonic-based testing systems are currently under development. Researchers at King’s College in London are developing a multi-sensor system termed the Ultrasonic-Based Inspection System that can be integrated into existing CCTV inspection systems. This system automatically classifies data based on an artificial neural network, and can detect very small cracks in the millimeter range. Research into use of ultrasonic pulse velocity for the evaluation of concrete is being carried out at the University of Waterloo in Canada. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University are working to develop a sensor using No-Contact Ultrasonic technology, which would be deployed into pipelines on a wheeled carriage.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 109 of 126 459

5.0 Technology Forum Summary

5.1 Background
A technology forum was held on September 11 and 12, 2008 in Edison, New Jersey to discuss the state of the science for condition assessment of wastewater collection systems and to identify critical gaps in current knowledge. The white paper was distributed to parti cipants in advance of the meeting and served as a basis for forum discussions. The objective of the forum was to present the findings of the research and obtain direction for additional research and further evaluation during the field demonstration tasks. Figure 5-1 lists the presenters and attendees at the Technology Forum.

WERF and other research institutions expressed interest in collaboration and sharing of research findings. WERF has completed twelve research projects related to condition assessment and rehabilitation of wastewater infrastructure in the last ten years; these research reports can be found at www.werf.org. WERF’s Cond ition Assessment Protocols project, completed in 2007, provides guidance on developing and implementing a condition assessment program, and includes an inventory of condition assessment tools and techniques. On-going W ERF research includes development of decision support tools and implementation guidance for risk analysis, cost- benefit, and estimation of residual life. Virginia Tech is working on a WERF project to create the National Database for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management, with the objective of creating a web-based model that can be used by utilities to determine information requirements for asset management decisions and support the formal specification of data requirements.

5.2 General Discussion
The primary components of any asset management program include the identification, location and condition of assets; the determination of their useful life, and their valuation. Condition assessment provides the critical information needed to determine the condition of each pipe within the system and its estimated time to failure or remaining useful life. Critical gaps in the use of condition assessment as an asset management tool include lack of consistent, standard condition assessment protocols; methods for the systematic collection of data; and formal risk assessment methods to prioritize resources for maintenance and or/rehabilitation activities.

Data needs for conducting condition assessment and making asset management decisions were discussed at the Forum. It is important to define data needs so resources are spent wisely. The level of data needed for day-to-day management is different than what is needed for making decisions on major rehabilitation. Some meeting participants suggested that simple rules of thumb are adequate for making rehabilitation decisions (i.e., three or more major defects per 250-300 foot pipe segment triggers rehab or replacement). It was agreed by the participants that very detailed information is needed for CMOM. Better data including historical information are required for modeling. There is a concern that creating large databases for condition assessment data would be overwhelming to utilities. There is added value from gathering extra data. Information from a variety of inspection tools should be used to make better decisions; CCTV is only one aspect of assessment and should not be used in isolation.

Flow monitoring is an important tool in asset management. In one case, pipes were going to be replaced at tremendous cost, but flow monitoring data showed a restriction at a stream crossing was causing a backup; the restriction was fixed, and overflows were reduced dramatically at a much lower cost. Flow assessment data can be used to assess sewer condition and long-term system performance and to help calibrate models. Flow metering data is traditionally used to generate hydrographs which provide information about water upstream of the meter.

Scattergraphs (displays of paired depth and velocity readings that look like a pipe curve under normal flow conditions), can reveal both upstream and downstream conditions, and can be used as verification of other inspection data. Flow metering data may not be useful for predicting pipe failure.

The development and implementation of condition assessment programs was a topic of discussion. Most condition assessment programs are currently focused on identifying and correcting I/I problems. A question was raised as to whether condition assessment should focus on other sewer defects in the future. Some utilities focus on coding defects, but may not spend enough time on identifying and correcting problems. The condition

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 110 of 126 460
assessment program should have a system-wide focus and not be limited to one aspect of the collection system such as laterals or manholes.

An understanding of pipe failure mechanisms is needed to tailor a condition assessment program to the utility’s high priority needs and also to improve use of predictive models. The United Kingdom has developed a comprehensive database on wastewater utility assets and pipe failures that can be used to study pipe failure mechanisms. Pipe failure is dependent on many factors including the system design, installation, operation, maintenance and inspection. For example, system operating conditions (i.e. hydraulics, I/I) together with poor maintenance practices may cause accumulation of sediment and other debris, resulting in sewage blockages, overflows, increased hydrogen sulfide production and/or increased corrosion. The main cause of failure in ferrous force mains is internal corrosion whereas PCCP fails most often due to external corrosion. Rehabilitated pipe may fail at an accelerated rate depending on contractor experience, selection of rehab technology and the understanding of baseline conditions. Many failures can be traced to human error.

There are many tools and risk assessment models for decision making related to asset management, ranging from simple to complex. A question was raised as to whether utilities should use simple vs. complex tools. A one-size fits all approach does not seem appropriate. One tool that is needed is a branched decision-making tree based on defect coding that can help prioritize areas for inspection. Decision making models are used to assess the probability of failure and the consequences of failure. With accurate assessments of the probability of failure and the consequences of failure, cost-effective decisions can be made on risk mitigation. While the physical science is good, the decision sciences are lagging. Utilities often lack the input data for pipe failure prediction models.

There is a need for better decision making, and to improve on the general rules-of-thumb to make decision making more cost effective.

A number of models related to risk-based pipe performance and condition assessment were presented and discussed at the Forum:
x An on-going WERF project is developing a web-based model that can be used by utilities to determine information requirements for asset management decisions and support the formal specification of data requirements. The project is developing protocols and methods for predicting the remaining economic life of water and wastewater pipes, and developing a condition/performance index.
x Fuzzy logic can be used for modeling pipe deterioration and to help make decisions on pipe renewal.

Fuzzy mathematics provides an alternative in cases where pipe condition data are lacking. It analyzes possibilities rather than probabilities of failure. The method was applied to large water transmission mains as part of an AwwaRF project. Prototype software T-WARP is available on AwwaRF’s website (AwwaRF Project No. 2883).
x CARE-S, funded by the European Union, was designed as a proactive approach to develop methods and software that support efficient rehabilitation decisions. Failure codes developed as part of this project have been adopted by six European countries to date. CARE-S can be used for failure forecasting, assessments of hydraulic performance and environmental impacts, and selection of rehabilitation technologies.
x A simple approach for condition assessment presented at the Forum taps into the utility’s extensive knowledge of the piping network rather than a comprehensive database of pipe information. The approach uses the utility’s “beliefs” or observations about pipe condition to develop a criticality rating of likelihood and consequences of failure. The approach is user friendly and does not require expert input. It can be applied using a simple comp uter program by utilities and their consultants.

The approach was developed by a WERF-funded project, SCRAPS.

5.3 Critical Gaps Identified in State of the Science
Critical gaps in our knowledge of inspection technologies, and our ability to diagnose and predict infrastructure failures were identified at the Technology Forum and are summarized below.

1. Research is needed to further define the costs a nd benefits of pipe inspection and rehabilitation as part of a utility’s condition assessment program. Methods of determining the impact of deteriorating collection systems on municipal budgets are needed.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 111 of 126 461

2. Inspection technologies need to be identified fo r the following applications:
a. Reduce use of confined space entry during sewer system inspections and investigations. b. Affordable inspection technology that utilizes m ulti-sensor devices on a small transportable package.
c. Inspecting pipes below the waterline.
d. Inspecting force mains that are in service.
e. Inspecting laterals.

3. Data management methods and models are available but a lack of standardization makes it difficult to compare historical data collected with different inspection technologies that have proprietary data structures.

4. Research is needed to improve how asset conditio n is tracked over time. Geospatial information (with a high degree of accuracy) needs to be collected along with pipe condition data in order to link historical inspection data with an exact physical location.

5. Information transfer to practitioners was identi fied as a critical industry need. Practitioners need training on topics such as infrastructure failure mechanisms; using historical inspection data for condition assessment applications; applying the PACP coding system to characterize pipe defects; developing a condition assessment program; and preparing accurate record drawings for new and rehabilitated pipe. Practitioners need simple condi tion assessment tools (i.e. scattergraphs for analyzing flow data, decision trees, and rules of thumb).

5.4 Recommended Next Steps
Based on the Technology Forum discussions and findings, the project team has identified the following technologies for possible inclusion in the project’s field demonstrations:

1. Focused Electrode Leak Location System FELLS 41.

2. Ultra-wide band (UWB).

3. Laser (2D/3D).

4. Autonomous crawler technology.

5. Zoom Camera.

6. Digital scanning vs. CCTV.

7. Flow metering analysis as input to decision maki ng tools to prioritize need for inspection.

8. Embedded sensors to monitor deflection, corrosio n potential, and pressure.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 112 of 126 462

PROJECT TEAM
The Cadmus Group
*Katherine Martel
Ralph Jones
Chi Ho Sham
The Louis Berger Group
Lou Ragozzino
*Christopher Feeney
Samantha Hogan
ADS
Pat Stevens
Michael Bonomo
RedZone Robotics
*Scott Thayer
Brian Bannon
*John Fortin-Independent Consultant

TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS
*D. Thomas Iseley - Purdue University *Lucio Soibel man - Carnegie Mellon University Jeff Plymale – RJN Group *Raymond L. Sterling - Lou isiana Tech *Dan Murray - USEPA ORD *Tony Urquhart – MWH Global
*Roy Ramani – WERF *James Thomson - Consultant
*Duncan Rose – GHD Consulting Inc. *Annie Vanrenter ghem-Raven - NYU Polytechnic *Sunil K. Sinha - Virginia Tech *Zack Zhao - Ultral iner, Inc.

US EPA PARTICIPANTS
Steve Allbee *Dennis Lai Ari Selvakumar
Richard Field *Dan Murray Anthony Tafuri
Evelyn Huertas Michael Royer Carlos Villafañe

STAKEHOLDERS
Steve Allbee – USEPA Office of Water
*Yehuda Kleiner – NRC Canada
Troy Norris – ASCE Pipeline Division
*Roy Ramani - Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) *Rod Thornhill – National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Marty Umberg - National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Robert A. Villee – WEF Collection System Committee

ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES
Wendy Condit – Battelle
George Kurz - Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon
Robert Pennington - Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.

Lily Wang - Battelle
Dan Watts - New Jersey Institute of Technology
*Technology Forum Presenter
Figure 5-1: Technology Forum Attendees

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 113 of 126 463

6.0 References
American Concrete Institute. (2000). Service-Life Prediction: State- of-the-Art Report. American Concrete Institute: Framington Hills, MI.

American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF). (2005). Risk Management of Large-Diameter Water Transmission Mains. AwwaRF Project No. 2883. AwwaRF: Denver, CO.

Fleury, M.A. and Warner, J. (2007). Arizona’s Largest Condition Assessment. Proceedings of WEF Collection Systems Specialty Conference, May 13-16, Portland, OR.

Marlow, D., Heart, S., Burn, S., Urquhart, A., Gould, S., Anderson, M., Cook, S., Ambrose, M., Madin, B., and Fitzgerald, A. (2007). Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF): Alexandria, VA and IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.

McDonald, S.E. and Zhao, J.Q. 2001. Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Large Sewers . Report No. NRCC-44696. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada:

Ottawa, Canada
Merrill, M.S., Lukas, A., Palmer, R.N., and Hahn, M.A. (2004). Development of a Tool to Prioritize Sewer Inspections. WERF: Alexandria, VA.

National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NAASCO). (2001). Pipeline Assessment And Certificate Program (PACP),v. 3.0 . NASSCO: Owings Mills, MD.

Pressure Pipe Inspection Company, The . (n.d.). The Remote Field Eddy Current / Transformer Coupling Technology (RFEC/TC). Retrieved December 10, 2008 from http://www.ppic.com/home/download.html
Rahman, S. and Vanier, D.J. (2004). Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning. MIIP Report: An Evaluation of Condition Assessment Protocols for Sewer Management. Report No. B-5123.6, Institute for Research in Construction: Ottawa, Canada.

Thomson, J.C. (2008). The Value of Inspection. Presented at: STREAMS Task Order 59 Condition Assessment of Collection Systems Technology Forum. Sept. 11-12, 2008. Edison, NJ.

Thomson, J.C., Hayward, P., Hazelden, G. Morrison, R.S., Sangster, T ., Williams, D.S., Kopchynkski, R.K. (2004). An Examination of Innovative Methods used in the Inspection of Wastewater Systems.

WERF: Alexandria, VA and IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. Report No. USEPA-816-R-02-020, USEPA, Office of Water:

Washington, District of Columbia.

USEPA. (2005). Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems . Report No. EPA-305-B-05-002, USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Washington, District of Columbia.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 114 of 126 464
USEPA. (2007). Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21 st Century Research Plan.

Report No. EPA-ORD-NRMRL-CI-08-03-02, USEPA: Washington, District of Columbia.

Water Research Centre (WRc). (2003). Manual of Sewer Condition Assessment, 4 th edition. WRc:

Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 115 of 126 465
Appendix A
Technology Vendors
Page A-1
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 116 of 126 466
Camera Technologies
Digital Camera Inspection
Product(s) Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
DigiSewer Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.envirosight.com
Panoramo Rapidview-IBAK USA
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Tel: (800) 656-4225
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Sewer Scanning
Evaluation
Technology (SSET)
Hydromax USA, LLC
1766 Brent Drive
Newburgh, IN 47630
Tel: (812) 925-3930
Fax: (812) 925-3911
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.hydromaxusa.com
Zoom Cameras
Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
AquaZoom Aquadata, Inc.
95 5 th Avenue
Pincourt, Quebec
Canada J7V 5K8
Tel: (800) 567-9003
Fax: (514) 425-3506
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.aquadata.com
Aries HC3000 Zoom Aries Industries Tel: (800) 234-7 205 Pole Camera 550 Elizabeth St.

Waukesha, WI 53186
Fax: (262) 896-7099
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.ariesind.com
Ca-Zoom PTZ GE Sensing & Inspection
Technologies
Tel: (888) 332-3848
Fax: (866) 899-4184
Quickview 721 Visions Drive
Skaneateles, NY 13152
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.geinspectiontechnologies.com
CUES IMX Truck
Mounted Zoom
Camera
CUES IMX Corporate Office
3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805
Tel: (800) 327-7791
Fax: (407) 425-1569
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.cuesinc.com
Page A-2
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 117 of 126 467
PortaZoom CTZoom Technologies Tel: (888) 965-8987
2500 Boul. Des Enteprises #104
Terrebonne (Quebec)
Canada J6X 4J8
Fax: (450) 965-8987
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.ctzoom.com
Push Cameras
Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Insight Vision Push
Camera
Insight Vision
600 Dekora Woods Boulevard
Saukville, WI 53080
Tel: (800) 488-8177
Fax: (262) 268-9952
URL:
http://insightvisioncameras.com
CrystalCam Push
Camera
Inuktun Services Ltd.
2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C
Nanaimo, BC
Canada, V9T 3M4
Tel: (877) 468-5886
Fax: (250) 729-8080
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.inuktun.com/head-
office.htm
Flexiprobe Pearpoint/RADIODETECTION
154 Portland Road
Bridgton, ME 04000
Tel: (877) 247-3797
Fax: (207) 647-9495
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.pearpoint.com
Hydrus, Orion,
Orion L
Rapidview-IBAK USA
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Tel: (800) 656-4225
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Lateral Launchers
Product(s) Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
LAMP CUES IMX Corporate Office
3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805
Tel: (800) 327-7791
Fax: (407) 425-1569
Email:
[email protected]
URL: www.cuesinc.com
Lateral Evaluation
Television System
Aries Industries
550 Elizabeth St.

Waukesha, WI 53186
Tel: (800) 234-7205
Fax: (262) 896-7099
URL:
http://www.ariesind.com
Lateral Inspection
System
RS Technical Services
1327 Clegg St.

Petaluma, CA 94954
Tel: (800) 767-1974
Fax: (707) 778-1974
URL:
http://www.rstechserv.com
Page A-3
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 118 of 126 468
IBAK LISY 150-M Rapidview-IBAK USA Tel: (800) 656-4 225 1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Small Diameter Tractors
Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
ELKT100 Mini Pearpoint/RADIODETECTION
154 Portland Road
Bridgton, ME 04000
Tel: (877) 247-3797
Fax: (207) 647-9495
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.pearpoint.com
KRA 65 Rapidview-IBAK USA
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Tel: (800) 656-4225
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Mighty Mini
Transporter
RS Technical Services
1327 Clegg St.

Petaluma, CA 94954
Tel: (800) 767-1974
Fax: (707) 778-1974
URL:
http://www.rstechserv.com
Rovver 100 Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.envirosight.com
Versatrax 100 Inuktun Services Ltd.
2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C
Nanaimo, BC
Canada, V9T 3M4
Tel: (877) 468-5886
Fax: (250) 729-8080
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.inuktun.com/head-
office.htm
Xpress Silver-Bullet
Crawler
Insight Vision
600 Dekora Woods Boulevard
Saukville, WI 53080
Tel: (800) 488-8177
Fax: (262) 268-9952
URL:
http://insightvisioncameras.com
Long Range Tractors
Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Versatrax 300 VLR Inuktun Services Ltd.
2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C
Nanaimo, BC
Canada, V9T 3M4
Tel: (877) 468-5886
Fax: (250) 729-8080
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.inuktun.com/head-
office.htm
Page A-4
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 119 of 126 469
Responder Redzone Robotics Fax: (412) 476-8981
91 43 rd St., Ste.250 Email: through website
Pittsburgh, PA 15201 URL: http://www.redzone.com
Acoustic Technologies
In-Line Leak Detectors
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
LxSentry LxSix Photonics
520 McCaffrey St.

St-Laurent, Quebec
Canada H4T 1N1
Tel: (514) 599-5714
Fax: (514) 599-5729
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.lxsix.com
Sahara Pressure Pipe Inspection
Company
1930 West Qual Avenue, Suite
A
Phenix, AZ 85027
Tel: (866)-990-2466
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.ppic.com
Smartball Pure Technologies
Suite A, 9130 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Tel:1-800-537-2806
Fax: (443) 766-7877
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com
Acoustic Monitoring Systems
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
AET Pressure Pipe Inspection
Company
1930 West Qual Avenue, Suite
A
Phenix, AZ 85027
Tel: (866)-990-2466
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.ppic.com
Soundprint AFO Pure Technologies
Suite A, 9130 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Tel:1-800-537-2806
Fax: (443) 766-7877
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com
Sonar/Ultrasonic
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Amtec Sonar
TISCIT
Amtec Surveying Inc.
3355 Lenox Rd. Ste. 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Tel: (404) 504-7044
Fax: (404) 504-7004
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.amtecsurveying.com
Page A-5
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 120 of 126 470
A-SIS AquaCoustic Remote Tel: (888) 3749-7601
AquaCoustic Technologies, Inc.
3339 West 8 th Ave.

Vancouver, BC
V6R 1Y3 Canada
Fax: (604) 730-8771
Email:

[email protected]
URL: http://www.aquacoustic.com
Envirosight Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.envirosight.com
PipeEye PipeEye International
Unit 28 – 6275 Harrison Dr.,
Park 2000
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Tel: (888) 756-2033
Fax: (250) 753-2642
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://pipe-eye-int.com
RVS2 R&R Visual, Inc.
1828 West Olson Rd.

Rochester, In 46975
Tel: (800) 776-5653
Fax: (574)-223-7953
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.expipeinspection.com
Sonar Profiler System CUES Corporate Office Tel: (8 00) 327-7791 (submerged/semi- 3600 Rio Vista Ave. Fax: (407) 425-1569 submerged) Orlando, FL 32805 Email: [email protected] URL: www.cuesinc.com
Sonar Sewer Profiling
Attachment
Sonar Sweep
Attachment
Redzone Robotics
91 43 rd St., Ste.250
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Fax: (412) 476-8981
Email – through website
URL:
http://www.redzone.com
Ultrascan CD GE Inspection Technologies Tel: (866) 243-2638 Ultrascan DUO 50 Industrial Park Road Fax: (717) 242-2606 Ultrascan WM Lewistown, PA 17044 URL:
http://www.geinspectiontecnologies.com
Inspector Systems
Ultrasonic Inspection
Robot
Aqua Drill International Inc.
1300 FM 545 East
Dickinson, TX 77539
Tel: (281) 337-0900
Fax: (281) 337-7270
URL:
http://www.inspector-systtems.com
Wavemaker Guided Ultrasonics Ltd.
30 Saville Road
Chiswick, London
W4 5HG
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8991 3771
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8987 0558
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.guided-ultrasonics.com
Page A-6
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 121 of 126 471
Electrical and Electromagnetic Products
Electrical Leak Location Method
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
FELL-21
FELL-41
Metrotech Corporation
3251 Olcott St.

Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: (800) 446-3392
Fax: (408) 734-1415
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.fell21.com
Eddy Current and Remote Field Eddy Current
Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
BEM Rock Solid Pty, Ltd.
11 Evans Str.

Burwood Vic 3124
Australia
Tel: (+613) 9335-6122
Fax: (613) 9335-6733
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.rocksolidgroup.com.au
Hydroscope Hydroscope Canada, Inc
8170 50 St. NW Suite 260
Edmonton, AB, T6B 1E6
Tel: (780)-450-6224
Fax: (780) 450-6224
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.hydroscope.com
See Snake Tool CHECK IF VENDOR
Russel NDE Systems, Inc.
4909 75 th Avenue
Edmonton, AB, Canada T6B
2S3
Tel: (780) 468-6800
Fax: (780) 462-9378
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.russeltech.com
P-Wave Pure Technologies
Suite A, 9130 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Tel:1-800-537-2806
Fax: (443) 766-7877
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com
RFEC/TC Pressure Pipe Investigation
Company
[email protected]
http://www.ppic.com/home/index.asp
Page A-7
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 122 of 126 472
Magnetic Flux Leakage
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
AES 19

AES ECAT
Advanced Engineering
Solutions, LTD
South Nelson Road
South Nelson Industrial Estate
Cramlington, Northumberland
NE23 1WF
United Kingdom
Tel: +41 41 618 0 300
Fax: +41 41 618 0 319
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.aesengs.co.uk
Axial Flaw Detection
(AFD)
Corrosion Detection
Pig (CDP)
Rosen Inspection
Obere Spichermatt 14
6370 Stans
Switzerland
Tel: +41 41 618 0 300
Fax: +41 41 618 0 319
Email:
[email protected]
URL: www.RosenInspection.net
CPIG
Vertiline/V-line, CPIG
Baker Hughes
12645 West Airport Blvd.

Sugar Land, TX 77478
Tel: (281) 276-5400
Email:

[email protected]
URL: http://www.bakerhughesdirect.com

LINSCAN LIN SCAN
205/206
Al Zahra Shopping Complex
U.A.E.

Tel: +9716-7473600
Fax: : +9716-7473800
Email:

[email protected] ,
URL: http://www.linscan.biz
MagneScan
TranScan
GE Energy URL:
http://www.gepower.com/contact/index.ht
m
MAGPIE TDW Services, Inc
4220 World Houston Pkwy,
Ste. 100
Houston, Texas 77032
Tel: (832) 448-7221
Email:

[email protected]
URL: http://www.magpiesystems.com
MFL Inspection Tool NGKS
7, Guilyarovsky St.

Moscow, Russia 129090
Tel: + 7 495 937 86 36/26
Fax: + 7 495 937 86 35/31
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.ngksint.com
Page A-8
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 123 of 126 473
Pipesurvey MFL Pipesurvey International
Schrijnwerkersstraat 13
3334 KH Zwijndrecht
P.O. BOX 117
3330 AC Zwijndrecht
the Netherlands
Tel + 31 78 610 1428
Fax + 31 78 610 2128
Email:
[email protected]
URL:
http://www.pipesurveyinternational.com
VECTRA BJ Services Company
414 Pinckney
Houston, TX 77009
Tel: (713) 224-1105
Fax: (713) 229-0541
URL:
http://www.bjservices.com/
Laser Products
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Active 3D Laser
Scanning
Redzone Robotics
91 43 rd St., Ste.250
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Fax: (412) 476-8981
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.redzone.com
Coolvision Sima Environmental
1153 E Ogden, # 705-135
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: (630) 327-8503
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.simaenvironmental.com
Laser Profiler CUES IMX Corporate Office
3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805
Tel: (800) 327-7791
Fax: (407) 425-1569
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.cuesinc.com
Laser Profiling Tool Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.envirosight.com
Laser Profiler R&R Visual, Inc.
1828 West Olson Rd.

Rochester, In 46975
Tel: (800) 776-5653
Fax: (574)-223-7953
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.expipeinspection.com
Page A-9
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 124 of 126 474

ATTACHMENT F
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 125 of 126 475
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
( ((
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( ((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
23RD ST

CUTTING
BL
VD

SAN PABLO AVE
CAST
RO ST
CARL

SON BLVD
R
E

GATTABLVD
GAR

RARD BL
VD
M
AC
DO
NALD A
VE
S37THST
22ND ST
POT
RERO
AVE

MARKET AVE

MEADE S
T

RICHMOND PKWY

ARLINGTON BLVD

BARRETT
AVE
W
CU
TTI

NG BLVD
S 23RD ST

RUMRILL BLVD
13TH ST

MARIN A BAY PKWY

CANAL BLVD
CHURCH
LN
SAN

PABLODAMRD

HARBOUR WAY
M

CBRYDEAVE

HOFFMAN

BLVDKEARNEYST

MARINAWAYS
S 51ST ST

JULIGA WO
ODS ST
TE
W
KS
BURY
AVE

PARK PL
W
M
ACD
ONAL
D AVE

EASTSHORE BLVD
23RD ST

RICHMONDPKWY

GARRARDBLVD

CASTRO S
T
BAR
RE
TT AVE
§¨¦
80 §¨¦580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
80 Castro
Canal
Wright
Coalinga
33rd Street
23rd Street
1st Street
North Harbor
Marine
South Harbor
West Cutting
47th Street
Harbor MinorRichmond
San Pablo
El Cerrito
Unincorporated County
1 inch = 2,000 feet
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
I
MAR 2018
City Limit
Grade 5 Pipes Addressed with Projects
2012-2017 SSOs
Count
!( 1
!( 2 - 4
!( 5 - 7
!( 8 - 11
!( 12 - 13
Capacity Projects
13th & Dunn
First Street
Macdonald
Virginia
Hoffman
Cutting Carlson
Basins
1st
23rd
33rd
47th
Canal
Castro
Coalinga
Harbor Minor
Marine
North Harbor
South Harbor
West Cutting
Wright

WATER RESOURCE

RECOVERY

DEPARTMENT
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 126 of 126 476
477
478
479
Date:

VWNA Project #:

Administration
Engineering Proposed by:

Planning Morgan Mackay, Veolia Water West Operating Services Design X
Construction X Reviewed by:

Construction Rodrigo Vignau, Veolia Water West Operating Services Sanitary Sewer X
Storm Sewer Reviewed by:

Sanitary P.S. Mary Phelps, Water Resource Division Manager Storm P.S.

Wastewater Reviewed by:

City of Richmond, Finance Department - Funding Source
Other (specify below)
Approved by:

Daniel Chavarria
City of Richmond, Director of Public Works
Approval Date:

Original Line Item Approved Cost: 1,755,800.00$
Approved Markup/Margin 289,707.00$
Previously Authorized Amount: $0.00 Total Authorized Amt.: 2,045,507.00$ Scope of Services
2023-24 Grade 5 RAA Line Repl. - Phase I Veolia Markup
Bids/Estim. SUBTOTAL 16.50% TOTAL
APB General Engineering 1,690,800 1,690,800 278,982 1,969,782 40,000 40,000 6,600 46,600
Questa Engineering- testing 25,000 25,000 4,125 29,125 TOTAL 1,755,800 1,755,800 289,707 2,045,507 Attachments
Copy of APB General Engineering's bid
Scope of Work Attachment A copy
Testing proposal - Questa Engineering
TASK

AUTHORIZATION
May 29, 2024
Activity Classification
(Check applicable)
2024-25 Grade 5 RAA Line Replacement Project - Phase I
TBD
The 2023-24 Grade 5 RAA Replacement Project - Phase I replaces (24) pipelines with an approximate combined length of 7,191 lineal feet. This task authorization is submitted based on direction provided by the City of Richmond to perform the following full line replacements:

The pipe segments to be rehabilitated for this project are identified in Scope of Work Attachment A (see attached). The work will include replacement of deteriorated sewer pipe segments within the collection system using pipe bursting or open cut as discussed further below, including installing new manholes where indicated on Attachment A. For pipe replacement work, pipe bursting is the preferred method followed by open cut. The Contractor shall conduct a pre-CCTV to locate and reinstate laterals. A complete NASSCO graded post-construction CCTV survey of the entire line segment (manhole to manhole) shall be completed upon completion of the work (no later than one month after the repair or replacement) and provided to Veolia.

This project was competitively bid to be performed on a "design-build" basis, and the Contractor is responsible for engaging the services of an engineering firm to issue design drawings for lines with utility conflicts and other constructability issues and also issue the final as-built drawings. Hence, per the City's direction, no engineered drawings were provided for this pipe replacement project. T&M not to exceed fees are included for compaction testing services as well as engineering support services in this proposal. All services provided for design support by V. W. Housen & Associates and for compaction testing services by Questa Engineering shall be tracked by Veolia and billed to the City with associated markups. All unused funds and associated Veolia markup shall return to the City.

On March 20, 2024, the City posted the Request for Bids on Bids Online, and Veolia conducted a mandatory pre-bid meeting with ten (10) participants on April 3, 2024. On April 16, 2024, five (5) bids were received from qualified contractors; the apparent low bid received was from APB General Engineeri ng in the amount of $1,690,800.00. Veolia evaluated all of the bids and found them to be responsive and complete and recommend awarding the contract to APB General Engineering, who is the low bidder. Their bid is attached.

The total authorization amount of this TA is $2,045,507.00, which includes Veolia's 16.5% markup as well as NTE estimated design and testing amounts for V.W. Housen & Associates and Questa Engineering, respectively.

V.W. Housen & Associates - design
support (estim.)
480

BIDRETURNABLES

INVITATIONTOBID
2023-24GRADE5RAALINEREPLACEMENTPROJECTS

LOCATEDINRICHMOND,CA
ContractormustsubmitusingtheBidsOnlineportaltheirquotationsofthefollowingby11:00amonthe proposalduedate:April16,2024.

Addressedto:

CityClerk’sOffice
450CivicCenter
Richmond,CA94804
VeoliaWaterWestOperatingServices,Inc.
2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject
BiddingCompanyName:________________________
Date:________________________________________

1. ProposalForm

2. BidForm

3. ListofSubcontractors

4. Non-CollusionAffidavit

5. SupplementalBidForm

6. ContractorSafetyPlan–TableofContents

7. Propose alternateswithsupportingdocumentation.Pleasenote:Anyandallchangesinmaterialand equipment must be equivalent to what is specified and shall be approved by Veolia in writing 10 dayspriortothebidduedate.

8. SampleInsuranceCertificate

9. RichmondWorkforceStabilizationAgreement–AgreementtobeBound

10. BidBond
Exclusionofanyrequiredinformationmaybecauseforbidrejection.

VeoliaNA&CityofRichmond2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject–InvitationtoBid Page18 APB General Engineering
04/16/2024
481

PROPOSALFORM

INVITATIONTOBID
2023-24GRADE5RAALINEREPLACEMENTPROJECT

LOCATEDINRICHMOND,CA
To: CityofRichmondCityClerk’sOffice
450CivicCenter
Richmond,CA94804
VeoliaWaterWestOperatingServices,Inc.
2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject
SubmittedBy:
_______________________________
(LegalName)
_______________________________________________
(StreetAddress)
_______________________________________________
(City,State,andZipCode)
_______________________________________________
(Phone)
_______________________________________________
(DateofQuotation)

1. This Proposal Form along with the Supplemental BidFormshallbecompletedandsubmittedasrequired intheReturnablesectionofthisInvitationtoBid.

2. This proposal is submitted in accordance with this Invitation to Bid for the construction of the 2023-24 Grade5RAALineReplacementProjectinRichmond,CA.

3. Shipping Cost and Sales Tax – The equipment, chemicals, consumables and other supplies and services provided and used in the performance of the contract shall include all shipping costs and sales taxes imposedbyanygovernmentalbody.

4. Certified payroll and prevailingwagesarerequiredasapartofthisprojectandshallbesubmittedwithall progresspaymentsthataredueeachmonth.

5. In conformance with the current statutory requirements of California Labor Code Section 1860, et seq., theundersignedconfirmsthefollowingasitscertification:

VeoliaNA&CityofRichmond2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject–InvitationtoBid Page9 Alfred Lee (APB General Engineering)
04/16/2024
925.989.1453
2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806
482
483
484

SCOPEOFWORK
VeoliaWaterWestOperatingServices,Inc.operatesandmaintainstheCityofRichmond’sWastewater TreatmentFacility(WWTF)andtheassociatedsewercollectionsystem.Theworkwillincludepipe segment replacement of deterioratedsewer pipesegments withinthecollectionsystemusingpipe bursting, open cut, or pipe reamingas discussedfurther below. Theworkshall includemanhole installationand/orreplacementand/orfullinteriorsurface(e.g.chimney,cone,wall,bench,andchannel) rehabilitationwhentheadjacentpipelineisreplaced,andmanholeframesandcoversasnecessary. For pipereplacement work, pipeburstingisthepreferredmethod,followedbyopencutandthenpipe reaming.

ThepipesegmentstobereplacedforthisprojectareidentifiedinScopeofWorkAttachmentA. Theline segmentsidentifiedmaybemodifiedfromtime-to-timeduringtheproject. TheselectedContractorshall conductapre-CCTVofeachlinesegmenttothegreatestextentpossibletomarkandlocatethedefects priortocommencementoftheWork.AcompleteNASSCOgradedpost-constructionCCTVsurveyofthe entirelinesegment(manholetomanhole)shallbecompleteduponcompletionofthework(nolaterthan oneweekaftertherepairorreplacement)andprovidedtoVeolia. Iffollowingtherepair,thelineremains inaccessible,thecontractorshallprovideasupplementalrepaircostproposalwiththeCCTVvideofor consideration.

Theprojectscopeincludes,butisnotlimitedtothefollowing:

1. ContractingwithalocalCivilProfessionalEngineertoprovidereviewandapprovalofeachline segment installation, and preliminaryengineeringanddesignforthelineswhichhaveutility conflicts, or other constructabilityissues. TheEngineer ofRecordshallsubmitaninitialplan showingthelinesthatwillreceivepreliminaryengineeringforreviewandconcurrence,followedby 30percent designdrawings clearlyshowingall conflictingutilities,structures,andotherfield constraintsandthecontractor’sapproachtoaddressingtheseconstraintsasneededtocompletethe work.Thecontractorshallberesponsibleforaddressingallfieldconditions,whetherincludedor notincludedinthe30percentdesignpackage,andwhethershownornotshownonthesubmitted design.Theinitialplanandthe30percentdesignsshallbeapprovedinconceptbytheOwner.

Separatedesignsmaybeprovidedforindividuallinesegmentsinordertoexpeditethework.

2. Submitfinalas-builtdrawingsandanyintermediatedesignandmodificationsforallpipelines, includingthosethatdidnotreceive30percentdesign,totheOwnerforapproval.

3. Contractorshallprovideaconstructionprojectschedule,includingweeklyscheduleswithcrew informationandlocationsasreasonablyrequiredbyVeolia.

4. Contractorshallprovidebi-weeklyupdatesforprogressofpipereplacement/repairwork

5. Sheeting,shoringandbracing.

6. Trenchingwidthshallbe(PipeOD+24”MIN)or(PipeOD+36”MAX).

7. PotholingexistingutilitiesbasedonmandatoryUSAmarkings.

8. AllUSAmarkingsshallberemovedfromthepavementafterworkiscomplete.

9. Trafficcontrol,asnecessaryperCityofRichmondrequirements.

10.Pipereplacementbypipebursting,unlessinadvisableorinfeasiblewithauthorizationbyVeoliaand theCityofRichmond.

11.OpenCuttechniquespermittedonlyifpipeburstingisnotfeasibleandwithauthorizationbyVeolia andtheCityofRichmond.

12.Reconnectionand/orextensionofexistingservicelateralstonewsewermain,asnecessary.

13.Extendingsewerlateralsfromtheclosestpointofabandonedsewermainstonewsewer mains. Opencutorhand-diggingmayberequired.

14.Removalofexistingmanholesorcleanoutsandconstructionofnewmanholes,complete,asneeded.

VeoliaNA&CityofRichmond2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject–InvitationtoBid Page12 485

15. Rehabilitation of Manholes whenever the adjacent pipeline is replaced, per attached specifications.

Vacuumtestingofrehabilitatedbrickmanholesisnotrequired.

16. PostConstructioncleaningofsewerpipelinesegmentsthatwerereplaced.

17. PostreplacementNASSCOgradedCCTVoftheentirelinesegment.

18. Post construction NASSCO graded CCTV information shall be submitted no later than one week followingthelinesegmentreplacement.

19. Restoration and repair of existing pavement systems shall be T-cut, and the Contractor shall be responsible for restoring surface improvements affected by the Work and incidentalsforcompleteandusablesewersystem.

20.If the Contractor encounters defectiveprivatesewerlateralconnectingtothemainline,the Contractorshallreplaceupto6feetoftheprivatesewerlateralfromthemainline.

21.Replacestripingwiththermoplastic,trafficloops,andfirehydrantmarkers.

22. Handling and disposalofcontaminatedmaterialifauthorizedbytheProjectManagerandtheCityof Richmond.

23. Dewateringandobtainappropriatepermits,asnecessary.

24.ConstructionshallbeMondaythruFridayfrom7amto4pm.Contractor’srequestforweekend,off- hoursandholidayworkmaybeconsideredonacase-by-casebasisbyVeoliaProjectManager.

ExceptasSpecificallyNotedOtherwise,ProvideandPayFor:

1. Insuranceandbonds.

2. Labor,materials,andequipment.

3. Tools,equipment,andmachineryrequiredforconstruction.

4. Utilitiesrequiredforconstruction.

5. Temporary facilitiesincluding:trafficcontrol:dewatering;sheeting,shoring,andbracing; bypasspumping;workersanitaryfacilities,trenchplates,anddustcontrolmeasures.

6. OtherfacilitiesandservicesnecessaryforproperexecutionandcompletionoftheWork.

7. Engaging local Professional Engineer to review and approveeachlinesegmentinstallation,provide preliminary design services, oversight and support to the Contractor for engineering and design of the lines which have utilityconflicts,orotherconstructabilityissues.Thisengineershallpreparethe initial plan, 30% drawings, final as-built drawings and all other intermediate design and modificationstotheOwnerforapproval.

BaseBidLumpSum(fromScopeofWorkAttachmentA)for$ (innumbers) (inwords)
VeoliaNA&CityofRichmond2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject–InvitationtoBid Page13 1,690,800
One Million Six Hundred Ninty Thousand Eight HUndred Dollars 486

SUPPLEMENTAL BID FORM
(to be utilized if there is work added to or deleted from this project) Item Description Unit(Per) Qty UnitBid
Price
TotalBid
Price
1 Sheeting,Shoring,andBracing LS 1 $
2 OPENCUT:6”-8”PipereplacementwithPVC,upto
6’ofmainlineandupto6’depth
FT 800 $
3 OPENCUT:6”-8”PipereplacementwithPVC,and
greaterthan6’depth
FT 800 $
4 OPENCUT:10”-12”PipereplacementwithPVC,up
to6’depth
FT 800 $
5 OPENCUT:10”-12”PipereplacementwithPVC,
greaterthan6’depth
FT 800 $
6 Tie-inLateraltoMain(fusing-6x6x4Wye) EA 60 $
7 Lateralreplacementexceeding4’(including6x6x4
Wye)
FT 60 $
8 PipeBurstingfor6”-8”PipeDiameterandupto6’
depth
LF 800 $
9 PipeBurstingfor6”-8”PipeDiameterandgreater
than6’depth
LF 800 $
10 PipeBurstingfor10”-12”PipeDiameterandupto6’
depth
LF 800 $
11 PipeBurstingfor10”-12”PipeDiameterandgreater
than6’depth
LF 800 $
12 ReplacementofCleanoutwithnewManhole EA 21 $
13 CompleteInteriorSurfaceManholeRehabilitation
exceeding6’perfoot
Vertical
Foot
50 $
14 Repair &ReplaceManholeFrameandCover EA 10 $
15 PostConstructionCleaningandCCTVofentireline
fromManhole-to-Manholelinesegmentreplacedor
repaired
LF 850 $
16 Pavementrestorationwith6”minimumT-Cuton
eachsideofthetrenchand/orexcavatedwall
SF 12000 $
17 HandlingandDisposalofContaminated
Material-AsdirectedbytheConstruction
ManagerafterCityofRichmondapproval
Cubic
Yard
10 $
18 Mobilization/DemobilizationAllowance LS 1 $
19 ProvideandinstallnewManholeupto8ftdeep EA 1 $
20 ProvideandinstallnewManhole8ftto14ftdeep EA 1 $
A. Bidder’sLumpSumCostBreakdown

1. For work to be performed for a lump sum price, the Bidder shall submit a price VeoliaNA&CityofRichmond2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject–InvitationtoBid Page14 3,000
$3,000
350
15,000
$15,000
9,600
$9,600
$3,000
3,000
1,000
$10,000
5 15
$180,000
$4,250
1,800
$18,000
475
$23,750
7,500
$157,500
270
$216,000
250
225
200
200
2,500
$200,000
$150,000
$12,000
$160,000
$180,000
420
370
$280,000
$296,000
$336,000
325
$260,000
487
breakdowntotheConstructionAdministratorpriortothefirstpaymentandwithinten (10)calendardaysafterNoticetoProceed.Thepricebreakdown,asrevisedandagreed uponbytheBidderandtheConstructionAdministrator,shallbeusedforpreparing futureestimatesforprogresspaymentstotheBidder,orasthebasisforevaluatingand pricing change orders, andshall list themajor items of workwithapricefairly apportionedtoeachitem.

2. The price breakdown shall be, generally, in the same format as the Contract specifications’divisionsandsubdivisions,withmajoritemsofworklistedindividually.

Thepricebreakdownshallbebysewerpipelineitemsandshallincludeseparateitemsfor identifiableportionsofthesewerpipelinesystem(includingspecificpricesfordifferent size items within the system), and other logical divisions of work. Measurable approximatequantitiesofworkperformedbytheBidderoritssubcontractorsshallbe provided.Forquantitiesthatarethesumtotalofseveralindividualquantities,backup summariesshallbeprovidedwhichlisttheindividualdescriptionsandquantities(for instance; excavation, dewatering, pipe installation, backfill, paving, etc.). These summariesthenwillbeused1)todeterminethequantitiesofworkinplaceinsubsequent progresspaymentrequestsand2)asthebasisforevaluatingandpricingchangeorders.

3. The aboveis astatement of theintent of theContract Documents toprovidea moderate level of detail, acceptabletotheProject Manager, toallowafair and reasonableestimatetobemadeofthevalueofworkinstalled.Thedetailoftheprice breakdownmustbesufficienttoprovidetimelyprocessingofthemonthlyprogress paymentrequest.

4. ThepricebreakdownwillbesubjecttotheapprovaloftheProjectManager,andupon therequest, theBiddershallsubstantiatethepriceforanyorallitemsandprovide additionallevelofdetail,includingquantitiesofworkandsupplier’sandsubcontractor’s writtencostquotes.Thepricebreakdownshallbesufficientlydetailedtopermititsuse bytheProjectManageras1)oneofthebasesforevaluatingrequestsforpaymentsand 2)asthebasisforevaluatingandpricingchangeorders.TheProjectManagershallbethe solejudgeoftheadequacyofthepricebreakdown.

5. TheestimatedBidQuantitiesshown,withtheexceptionofLumpSumquantitieswhich willbepaidasbid,areprovidedforthesolepurposeofevaluatingbids.Thenatureofthe workissuchthatpipesize,depth,length,repairscope,andotherquantitiesshownare approximate, andpayment will bemadebasedontheunitpricebidfortheactual conditionsthatarefoundinthefield.VeoliaWaterdoesnotprovideanyassurancethat thequantitiesshownforeachbiditemwillbethequantitiesthatareactuallyencountered inthefield.

VeoliaNA&CityofRichmond2023-24Grade5RAALineReplacementProject–InvitationtoBid Page15 488
489
490
491
492

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
(A/C, No):

FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS

AUTOSAUTOS

NON-OWNED

HIRED AUTOS

SCHEDULEDALL OWNED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTH-

STATUTE
PER

LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EFF

POLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTR
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE
$AGGREGATE
$
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
$PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
$GENERAL AGGREGATE
$PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
$MED EXP (Any one person)
$EACH OCCURRENCE

DAMAGE TO RENTED
$PREMISES (Ea occurrence)

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY PRO-

JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2014/01)
© 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
4/16/2024
Calrisk Insurance Center
713 W Duarte Rd, G747
Arcadia
CA
91007
Certificate Department
877-239-8103
626-226-5550
[email protected]
APB General Engineering
2721 Kevin Road
San Pablo
CA
94806
Evanstan Insurance Company
35378
United Financial Cas Co
11770
State Compensation Insurance Fund
35076
A
✖
✖
✖
Y
Y
MKLV5PBC006365
1/8/2024
1/8/2025
1,000,000
300,000
5,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
B
✖
✖
✖
Y
Y
07580845-5
5/2/2023
5/2/2024
2,000,000
A
✖
✖
✖
2,500
Y
Y
MKLV5EUL105503
1/8/2024
1/8/2025
5,000,000
5,000,000
C
N
Y
9232354-23
5/30/2023
5/30/2024
✖
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Project:

City of Richmond 2023-24 Grade 5 RAA Line Replacement Project.

See Attached Acord 101 for Description and Additioanal Insured.

Veolia North America
601 Canal Blvd.

Richmond
CA
94804
Each Poll. Incident/Agg $1,000,000/1,000,000
10/10/2024
10/10/2023
CPLMOL119760
Y
Y
Pollution Liability
A493
EFFECTIVE DATE:

NAMED INSURED

POLICY NUMBER

NAIC CODECARRIER
AGENCY
LOC #:

AGENCY CUSTOMER ID:
of
PageADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE

ADDITIONAL REMARKS
FORM TITLE:FORM NUMBER:

THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, © 2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
ACORD 101 (2008/01)
2 3
Calrisk Insurance Center
07580845-5
United Financial Cas Co
11770
APB General Engineering
2721 Kevin Road
San Pablo, CA, 94806
5/2/2023
25 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
Veolia, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, and each of their officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives and City of Richmond, (collectively “Veolia’s Additional Insured”) are named as additional insureds with respect to the General -, Automobile -, Polution - and Excess Liability Policies.

All policies are primary and non-contributory, provide a full waiver of the insurer’s right of subrogation in favor of the named additional insureds. A thirty (30) days' written notice to Veolia applies.
494
495
496
497
498
499

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement

The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter
"Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contra ctor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms use d in the SCCO:

a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:

i. The co llection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;

ii. The aggregati on of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.

b. “Extre me Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."

Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)
APB General Engineering
16th
April
San Pablo
24 Alfred Lee
President
04/16/2024
APB General Engineering
500
ATTACHMENT A: 2023-24 RAA LINE SEGMENT REPLACEMENT LIST Sr. Line Segment Location (Approximately) Length from GIS (ft)
Scope Of Work Special
Conditions
(eg. Line
under
sidewalk,
bus lanes,
RR tracks,
utilities,
etc.)
Diameter
(in)
Lumpsum Bid Amount
($)1 F10SF405_F10MH1549 1319 MARINA WAY S 100.10 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 2 G10SF399_G10MH1595 1620 CUTTING BLVD 133.80 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 3 G11SF941_G11MH1223 2315 CUTTING BLVD 107.30 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 4 G13SF29_G13MH452 NUNN ST 624.10 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout and one intermediate Manhole 6 5 H12MH263_H12MH268 3400 NEVIN AVE 422.70 Replace with 8" Pipe. 8 6 I10SF479_I10MH2298 269 16TH ST 225.10 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 7 G9MH1325_G9MH1310 108 CUTTING BLVD 292.15 Replace with 8" Pipe. 8 8 H10SF813_G10MH1837 11TH S ST 358.39 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 9 J12MH569_J12MH2816 981 36TH ST 554.60 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install one intermediate Manhole 6 10 K11SF925_K11MH2471 1100 23RD ST 164.30 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 4 11 H9SF295_H9MH1712 750 BISSELL AVE 243.5 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 12 I12MH1065_I12MH1064 3527 BARRETT AVE 264.8 Replace with 8" Pipe. 6 13 I12SF646_I12MH1066 BARRETT AVE/37TH ST 481.4 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout and one intermediate Manhole 6 14 H11MH1168_H11MH1169 2823 CHANSLOR AVE 61.3 Replace with 8" Pipe. 6 15 J13SF160_J13SF161 671 SONOMA AVE 76.2 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 16 F8SF202_F7MH2732 407 NEVADA AVE 316.4 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 17 H13SF132_H13MH628 316 45TH ST 266.5 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout 6 18 G7MH743_F7MH745 Terrace Ave 476.4 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install one intermediate Manhole 6 19 I13MH295_J13MH723 680 Amador St 241.1 Replace with 8" Pipe. 6 20 H13MH116_H13MH119 457 Carlston St 171.9 Replace with 8" Pipe. 6 21 I12MH605_I12MH602 637 41st ST 500.4 Replace with 8" Pipe. 6 22 I12SF645_I12MH1060 3226 ROOSEVELT AVE 479.0 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout and one intermediate Manhole 6 23 G7MH2736_G7MH668 SCENIC AVE 220.3 Replace with 8" Pipe. 6 24 G7SF234_G7MH2736 SCENIC AVE 2 409.7 Replace with 8" Pipe. Install new Manhole at SF cleanout and one intermediate Manhole 6 Item #25: Mobilization & Demobilization $
Item #26: Field Verification & Design $
Item #27: Bonds & Insurance $
Item #28: Revocable Allowance for disposal of Contaminated Soil (Prior Approval by Owner) $50,000.00 Item #29: NASSCO Post Construction CCTV $
Item #30: Hardscape Restoration, Paving & Striping $
Item #31: Final As-Built Drawings & Closeout Documents $ Total Contractor Bid Amount (Amount) for items 1-31 above $ 501
502
503

818 Mendocino Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 T: 510/206.0670 E: [email protected]

SCHEDULE OF FEES
(08/01/23)

LABOR0F


Principals $210.00 – 245.00

Senior Professional 190.00 – 210.00

Professional 185.00 – 195.00

Associate Professional 130.00 – 150.00

Technical Staff/Drafting/GIS 90.00 – 110.00

Field Staff 80.00 – 100.00

Administrative Staff 80.00 – 100.00

TRAVEL TIME

Travel time is charged at regular hourly rates.

DIRECT COSTS

All reimbursable, "out-of-pocket" expenses, not included in hourly labor rates, are billed as incurred at cost plus 1 0 percent. In -house charges, company equipment rental, and field supplies will be charged as used in accordance with the Schedule of Fees.

TERMS

Terms: Due and payable upon receipt. A 1.0% per month (12% per annum) late fee will be charged on all overdue balances. Current billings represent charges accrued through the last day of the indicated billing period. Unless marked as a “Final Invoice,” subsequent charges may be pending and will be billed in the following month.

FEE CHANGES

Questa's labor rates are adjusted annually in February.

See reverse.

 Legal. In the event our services are required in connection with legal proceedings, our fees will be 200% of the above -listed labor rates, with a two hour minimum for: testimony (court or deposition).

Preparation of opinions or report letters, meetings or telep hone consultations with attorneys, preparation for testimony, and travel to and from the place of testimony, including waiting, will be billed at standard hourly rates listed above. Time away from Questa's Point Richmond office will be billed on a "portal to portal" basis.
504

SCHEDULE OF FEES
(08/01/23)

IN-HOUSE CHARGES
Reproduction Black & White
Letter, Legal, Tabloid, Oversize $ .15/.25/.50/.60
Reproduction
Letter, Legal, Tabloid, Oversize .30/.40/1.00/1.15
Plots Black & White
18 x 27, 24 x 36 2.00/2.40
Plots Color
18 x 27, 24 x 36 3.75/4.80
Tolls (at cost)
Postage (at cost)
Vehicles ($22 per day, plus mileage)
Mileage Current IRS Mileage Rate

SUPPLIES & MATERIALS
Triggs Lost Points $ 15.00 per point
Disposable Bailers 6.50 per bailer
Monitoring Well Supplies 18.50 per well
On-Site Monitoring Supplies 10.00 per visit
Brass/SS Sample Tubes 6” 9.00 per tube
Percolation Testing Materials 12.00 per test
Concrete Cylinder Molds 5.00 per cylinder
Shelly Tubes 12” 15.00 per tube

Prices may vary depending upon inventory stocks and supplier costs.

EQUIPMENT RENTALS
Nuclear Density Gauge (Day, Week) $ 100.00/400.00
Triggs Dynamic Cone Penetrometer 300.00 per day
Triggs Stork Power Hammer 200.00 per day
IR Thermometer 20.00 per day
Hand Sampling Equipment 50.00 per day
Surveying Equipment 75.00 per day
Concrete Test Kit .......................................................................................................................50.00 per day

LABORATORY FEES
Moisture Content - Oven (ASTM D 2216) $ 20.00
Moisture And Density (ASTM D 2937) 25.00
Sand Cone Tests 100.00
Wash through #200 Sieve (ASTM D 1140) 60.00
Sieve Only with #200 wash 110.00
Hydrometer 150.00
Shrinkage Limit 150.00
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) 150.00
Particle Size (ASTM D 422) 150.00
Sieve and Hydrometer 175.00
Soil Classification (ASTM 2487) 250.00
Sand Equivalent (Cal Test 217) 150.00
Caltrans Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (Cal Test 202) 250.00 Standard Proctor Compaction 4" Mold (ASTM D 698) 250.00 Standard Proctor Compaction 6" Mold (ASTM D 698) 300.00 Modified Compaction 4" Mold (ASTM D 1557) 275.00
Modified Compaction 6" Mold (ASTM D 1557) 325.00
Compaction Check Point (per point) 125.00
Concrete Cylinder Strength Testing (per set) 425.00

505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
G)veOLIA
TASK

AUTHORIZATION
I 2024-25 Grade 5 RAA Line Replacement Project - Phase I - Change Order 2 Activity Classification
(Check applicable)
Administration
Engineering
Pl anning
Design
Construction
Construction
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer
Sanitary P.S.

Storm P.S.

Wastewater
other (specify below)
Previously Authorized Amount:

Scope of Services
X
X
X
Reviewed by:

Reviewed by:

Approved by:
$2,307,990.82
Date: December 30, 2024
VWNA Project #: TBD
tion)
Approval Date: ______________ _
Original Line Item Approved Cost:

Approved Markup/Margin
Previously authorized change orders
Change Order 2
Approved Markup/Margin
Total Authorized Amt.:
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,755,800.00
289,707.00
262,483.82
206,296.00
34,038.84
2,548,326
Line segment I13MH48 - I13SF893 was scheduled to be replaced as part of 2022-23 Grade 5 RAA project back in 2023, but could not be completed as the City was not able to complete the easement process. In the last several months, Veolia received numerous service calls in relation to this line segment, to which Veolia responded by cleaning from both sides of the line, but at some point could not go go more than 10 feet as the line appears to be collapsed. Veolia held a meeting with the City on December 12 to discuss options for a permanent fix and presented a proposal to replace the line on December 16. On December 30, the City gave Veolia direction to submit a TA for this work using APB as the general contractor under the current Grade 5 RAA project.

The total authorization amount of this Change Order 1 TA is $240,335, which includes Veolia's 16.5% markup for added scope. This brings the total project amount authorization to $2,548,326.
2024-25 Grade 5 RM Line Rep!. - Phase I - CO1
Bids/Estim.

APB General Engineering
PCO 1
PCO2
V.W.Housen
Questa
J Majors & Associates
PCO3
TOTAL
Attachments
Copy of APB General Engineering Proposal
1,690,800
208,608
(2,540)
40,000
25,000
19,240
206,296
2,187,404

SUBTOTAL
1,690,800
208,608
(2,540)
40,000
25,000
19,240
206,296
2,187,404
Veolia Markup

16.50% TOTAL
278,982 1,969,782
34,420 243,028
(419) (2,959)
6,600 46,600
4,125 29, 125
3,175 22,415
34,039 240 335
360,922 2,548,326
01-02-2025
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
Date:

VWNA Project #:

Administration
Engineering
Planning
Design X
Construction X Proposed by:

Construction Chandrasekar Venkatraman, Veolia Water West Operating Services Sanitary Sewer X
Storm Sewer Reviewed by:

Sanitary P.S. Mary Phelps, Authorized City Dept. Rep. (PO verification) Storm P.S.

Wastewater Reviewed by:

City of Richmond, Finance Department
Other (specify below)
Approved by:

Robert Armijo
City of Richmond, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Approval Date:

Original Line Item Approved Cost: 1,755,800.00$
Approved Markup/Margin 289,707.00$
Previously authorized change orders 4,161,089.83$
Change Order 6 298,499.00$
Approved Markup/Margin 49,252.34$
Previously Authorized Amount: $6,206,596.83 Total Authorized Amt.: 6,554,348.17$ Scope of Services
2024-25 Grade 5 RAA Line Repl. - Phase I - CO6 Veolia Markup Veolia Markup Bids/Estim. SUBTOTAL 16.50% 9.00% TOTAL
APB General Engineering 1,690,800 1,690,800 278,982 1,969,782 208,608 208,608 34,420 243,028
Change Order 1b (2,540) (2,540) (419) (2,959) V.W.Housen 40,000 40,000 6,600 46,600
Questa 25,000 25,000 4,125 29,125
J Majors & Associates (CO 1c) 19,240 19,240 3,175 22,415 Change Order 2 206,296 206,296 34,039 240,335 Change Order 3 (@ 16.5%) see pg. 2 1,552,356 1,552,356 256,139 1,808,495 Change Order 3 (@ 9%) 25,780 25,780 2,320 28,100 Add'l ESDC, Testing and Outreach (CO3) 67,220 67,220 11,091 78,311 Change Order 4 @ 9% 673,858 673,858 60,647 734,505 Change Order 5 820,974 820,974 135,461 956,435 Add'l Costs - Testing, ESDC & Outreach 45,000 45,000 7,425 52,425 Change Order 6 290,699 290,699 47,965 338,664 Add'l Costs - Testing, ESDC & Outrea 7,800 7,800 1,287 9,087 TOTAL 5,671,091 5,671,091 820,290 62,967 6,554,348 Attachments
Change Order 1a
Copy of APB General Engineering's Proposals
TASK

AUTHORIZATION
2024-25 Grade 5 RAA Line Replacement Project - Phase I - Change Order 6 June 18, 2025
Activity Classification
(Check applicable)
RE.1660
In this TA, three (3) line segments are added per the City's request. It also includes the removal and replacement of an existing manhole.

Additionally, this TA includes two credits to the City: (1) replacing existing line segment using designer-approved 6" HDPE in lieu of 8"; and (2) replacing an existing structure with a rodding inlet in lieu of standard frame and cover. The above-mentioned costs, which have all been preapproved by the City via email, are summarized on page 2.

Further, due to the added lines, additional budget and authority for ESDC, testing and outreach have been requested.

The total additional authority requested is $347,751.34,which includes a 16.5% Veolia markup for the added scope, bringing the total project amount authorization to $6,554,348.
595

TASKAUTHORIZATION
(PAGE 2 OF 2)

2024-25 Grade 5 RAA Line Replacement Project - Phase I - Change Order 6 Date: 06/18/25 VWNA Project #: RE:1660
Scope of Services
(CONT. )
2024-25 GRADE 5 RAA LINE REPLACEMENT - CHANGE ORDER 6 REQUEST SUMMARY PCO #31 E14MH464_E14MH468 Bayview Avenue/S 59th St. $80,407.00 PCO #32 D14MH1984_E14MHJ198 Bayview Avenue/S 59th St. $139,720.00 PCO #33 6" HDPE in lieu of 8" HDPE (credit) -$8,500.00
PCO #34 Replace existing structure with a rodding inlet in lieu of standard frame and cover (credit) -$1,200.00 PCO #35 Remove/replace existing MH G7MH2736 and rerouting lateral $13,600.00 PCO #36 D14MH1984_D14SF561 Bayview Avenue/S 59th St. $66,672.00 Subtotal (added scope) $290,699.00
Veolia Markup at 16.5% $47,965.34
TOTAL $338,664.34

596
APB

GENERAL ENGINEERING
Lic. 1038184
Project: 2024-2025 RAA Line Segment Replacement Potential Change Order No.31 D
ate: May 13th, 2025
O
wner: City of Richmond/Veolia Phone: (925) 989-1453
C
ontractor: APB General Engineering Address: 2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806
Request the following change to be made to the contract:

Description of Change:
1) R
emove and replace line segment E14M464 to E14MH468, approximately 117’, with 8” H
DPE DR 17. Proposed cost includes all sheeting/shoring, one point repair, one new MH, all e
xcavations for all insertion pits, sewer lateral connections, utility potholing, traffic control, engineering/design and post CCTV. All work to follow City of Richmond Standard S
pecifications.

R
eason for Change:
1) Added pipe replacement footage as requested per City of Richmond/Veolia.

R
equested by: APB General Engineering
P
ricing Data: $80,407*
C
ontract Time: 3 Working Days
T
he Owner and the Contractor hereby agree that this change order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all time, all costs, and all impacts related to this revision. In accepting this change order, the Contractor agrees that it represents a full and equitable adjustment to the Contract and further agrees to waive all rights to file claim with respect to any difficulties arising from, or as a result of this change.

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Engineer
_______________________________
Owner
597
APB

GENERAL ENGINEERING
Lic. 1038184

Project: 2024-2025 RAA Line Segment Replacement Potential Change Order No.32

Date: June 2nd, 2025

Owner: City of Richmond/Veolia Phone: (925) 989-1453

Contractor: APB General Engineering Address: 2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806

Request the following change to be made to the contract:

Description of Change:

1) Remove and replace line segment D14MH1984 to E14MH1981, approximately 295’, with 8” HDPE DR 17. Proposed cost includes all sheeting/shoring, two new MH, all excavations for all insertion pits, sewer lateral connections, utility potholing, traffic control, engineering/design and post CCTV. All work to follow City of Richmond Standard Specifications.

Reason for Change:
1) Added pipe replacement footage as requested per City of Richmond/Veolia.

Requested by: APB General Engineering

Pricing Data: $139,720*

Contract Time: 4 Working Days

The Owner and the Contractor hereby agree that this change order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all time, all costs, and all impacts related to this revision. In accepting this change order, the Contractor agrees that it represents a full and equitable adjustment to the Contract and further agrees to waive all rights to file claim with respect to any difficulties arising from, or as a result of this change.

APPROVED:

_______________________________
Engineer
_______________________________
Owner

598
APB

GENERAL ENGINEERING
Lic. 1038184

Project: 2024-2025 RAA Line Segment Replacement Potential Change Order No.33

Date: June 2nd, 2025

Owner: City of Richmond/Veolia Phone: (925) 989-1453

Contractor: APB General Engineering Address: 2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806

Request the following change to be made to the contract:

Description of Change:

1) Replacing existing line segment with 6” HDPE in lieu of 8” HDPE.

Reason for Change:
1) RFI #018. The existing VCP line segment had a lot of root intrusions and collapsed pipe. The concern is that the roots have surrounded the old VCP pipe and would not have gotten out bursting equipment stuck.

Requested by: APB General Engineering

Pricing Data: -$8,500*

Contract Time: 0 Working Days

The Owner and the Contractor hereby agree that this change order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all time, all costs, and all impacts related to this revision. In accepting this change order, the Contractor agrees that it represents a full and equitable adjustment to the Contract and further agrees to waive all rights to file claim with respect to any difficulties arising from, or as a result of this change.

APPROVED:

_______________________________
Engineer
_______________________________
Owner

599
APB

GENERAL ENGINEERING
Lic. 1038184

Project: 2024-2025 RAA Line Segment Replacement Potential Change Order No.34

Date: June 2nd, 2025

Owner: City of Richmond/Veolia Phone: (925) 989-1453

Contractor: APB General Engineering Address: 2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806

Request the following change to be made to the contract:

Description of Change:

1) Replacing existing structure with a rodding inlet in lieu of a standard frame and cover for structure J13SF193.

Reason for Change:
1) RFI #019. Access issue as resident of 5520 Garvin Ave. was reluctant to provide access.

Requested by: APB General Engineering

Pricing Data: -$1,200*

Contract Time: 0 Working Days

The Owner and the Contractor hereby agree that this change order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all time, all costs, and all impacts related to this revision. In accepting this change order, the Contractor agrees that it represents a full and equitable adjustment to the Contract and further agrees to waive all rights to file claim with respect to any difficulties arising from, or as a result of this change.

APPROVED:

_______________________________
Engineer
_______________________________
Owner

600
APB

GENERAL ENGINEERING
Lic. 1038184
Project: 2024-2025 RAA Line Segment Replacement Potential Change Order No.35 D
ate: June 2nd, 2025
O
wner: City of Richmond/Veolia Phone: (925) 989-1453
C
ontractor: APB General Engineering Address: 2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806
Request the following change to be made to the contract:

Description of Change:
1) Rem
oving and replacing existing MH G7MH2736 and rerouting an existing sewer lateral and connecting it to the sewer main.

R
eason for Change:
1) The existing MH G7MH2736 was an old brick MH and needed to be replaced. Sewer lateral connected at the base of existing MH and since we were replacing said MH it was decided to reroute the lateral, so it connects to the sewer main. This avoids a future contractor, employed by the homeowner, to have to touch/modify a City owned/maintained structure.

Requested by: APB General Engineering
Pricing Data: $13, 600*
Contract Time: 1 Working Day
T
he Owner and the Contractor hereby agree that this change order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all time, all costs, and all impacts related to this revision. In accepting this change order, the Contractor agrees that it represents a full and equitable adjustment to the Contract and further agrees to waive all rights to file claim with respect to any difficulties arising from, or as a result of this change.

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Engineer
_______________________________
Owner
601
APB

GENERAL ENGINEERING
Lic. 1038184

Project: 2024-2025 RAA Line Segment Replacement Potential Change Order No.36

Date: June 5th, 2025

Owner: City of Richmond/Veolia Phone: (925) 989-1453

Contractor: APB General Engineering Address: 2721 Kevin Rd.

San Pablo, CA 94806

Request the following change to be made to the contract:

Description of Change:

1) Remove and replace line segment D14MH1984 to D14SF561, approximately 151’, with 8” HDPE DR 17. Proposed cost includes all sheeting/shoring, one new MH, all excavations for all insertion pits, sewer lateral connections, utility potholing, traffic control, engineering/design and post CCTV. All work to follow City of Richmond Standard Specifications.

Reason for Change:
2) Added pipe replacement footage as requested per City of Richmond/Veolia

Requested by: APB General Engineering

Pricing Data: $66,672

Contract Time: 3 Working Days

The Owner and the Contractor hereby agree that this change order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all time, all costs, and all impacts related to this revision. In accepting this change order, the Contractor agrees that it represents a full and equitable adjustment to the Contract and further agrees to waive all rights to file claim with respect to any difficulties arising from, or as a result of this change.

APPROVED:

_______________________________
Engineer
_______________________________
Owner

602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
Reso. No.

RESOLUTION NO. ____-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH VEOLIA TO INCREASE

AUTHORITY FOR ADDITIONAL TASK AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTED SERVICES TO REPAIR AND REHABILITATE GRADE 5 SANITARY SEWER PIPELINES, IN

COMPLIANCE WITH THE BAYKEEPER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,554,348.

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond entered into a settlement agreement with San Francisco Baykeeper in 2018 related to sanitary sewer overflows attributable to the condition of the City’s sanitary sewer collection system; and
WHEREAS, under the settlement agreement with San Francisco Baykeeper, the City of Richmond is required to make improvements to its sanitary sewer collection system by repairing and rehabilitating at least two (2) miles of Grade 5 sewer pipelines annually; and WHEREAS, these Grade 5 pipes have been identified through closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection; and
WHEREAS, these Grade 5 pipes have been assigned a “Risk Assessment” based on the probability of failure by a licensed engineer; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond and Veolia collectively compiled a list of these Grade 5 pipes; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, Richmond City Council adopted Resolution 87-24 for Veolia to subcontract with APB Engineering for the repair and/or rehabilitation of Grade 5 sanitary sewer lines in the Richmond Municipal Sewer District; and WHEREAS, due to issues encountered in the field, the total mileage for this project totaled less than the two (2) miles required in the Baykeeper Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, due to construction issues with procuring materials for construction of the line repair/rehabilitation, delays were incurred; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the proposals for the new lines, the cost(s) provided by APB Engineering were reasonable based on the bids that were originally submitted; and WHEREAS, due to the time constraints to have two (2) miles of linear footage repaired or replaced by June 30th annually, staff agreed to increase the amount of the contract; and WHEREAS, the Water Resource Recovery Department have issued six (6) Task Authorizations to Veolia and Veolia Water West Operating Services, Inc. managed the subcontracts with: APB Engineering, Quest Engineering (testing) and V.W. Housen & Associates (engineering during construction).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond that it does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the facts set forth in the staff report and recitals above are true and correct and constitute a valid basis for the actions authorized by this resolution.

Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Water Resource Recovery Department to issue additional Task Authorizations to Veolia for the FY 2024–25 Phase I Grade 5 Pipeline Replacement and Rehabilitation Project, increasing the total authorized project amount to $6,554,348, including applicable markups.

Section 3. The City Council further authorizes a contract amendment in the amount of $4,030,385, representing the increase over the previously authorized amount of $2,523,963.

Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 614
Reso. No.

******************
I certify that the foregoing re solution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on January 20, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on January 20, 2026.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
615

January 27, 2026

City Council

DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (Sponsor)
Mayor Eduardo Martinez (Co-sponsor)
Vice Mayor Doria Robinson (Co-sponsor)
Subject:

Consultant Engagement for Community Input on
Polluters Pay Settlement Funds
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost of the consultant is estimated to be $150,000 and may not exceed $300,000.The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 105-24 on September 24, 2024, that
expressed City Council’s intention moving forward to
spend the funds received from Chevron in a manner that
does not increase the City’s dependence upon Chevron
tax revenues, but instead facilitates development of a
resilient and just local economy that is independent of the fossil fuel industry.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 105-24 on
September 24, 2024, that expressed City Council’s
intention moving forward to spend the funds received
from Chevron in a manner that does not increase the
City’s dependence upon Chevron tax revenues, but
instead facilitates development of a resilient and just local economy that is independent of the fossil fuel industry.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond will receive approximately $550
million over the next ten years from the Polluters Pay
Settlement, presenting a significant opportunity to
address historic harms and invest in the City’s long-term economic, environmental, and community well-being.

Given the scale and impact of these funds, it is critical to engage the community in shaping how this revenue is
invested.

AGENDA
REPORT
616

January 27, 2026
In alignment with Resolution No. 105-24, the framework
recommended here includes preliminary investment
categories for Large-Scale Economic Development,
Inclusive Economic Development, Community-Visioned
Projects, Investments in Essential Services and Public
Works, and City Staffing and Consultants, along with a
process for ongoing community governance and
accountability. These categories are intended as a
starting framework to guide community discussion. The
community engagement process would provide input to
the expenditure framework to ensure it reflects the needs and priorities of the residents.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DIRECT the city manager to engage a consultant to
collaborate with City staff, City Council, and community stakeholders to conduct community engagement and
gather input on a framework for the expenditure of new
General Fund revenues generated by the Polluters Pay
Settlement, with the consultant reporting back to the City Council by May 26, 2026 - Councilmember Claudia
Jimenez (510-620-6565), Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-
620-6503), and Vice Mayor Doria Robinson (510-620-
6568). This item was continued from the January 20,
2026, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

In 2024, the City of Richmond successfully concluded negotiations with Chevron resulting in a landmark Polluters Pay Settlement that will provide $550 million in new General Fund revenue to the city over a ten-year period. This settlement represents a once in a generation opportunity to address longstanding community needs, invest in Richmond’s future, and advance environmental, economic, and social equity.

Recognizing the significance of this revenue, on September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 105-24 (Attachment 2), establishing guiding principles for the stewardship of the Polluters Pay Settlement funds. Central to this intent is advancing a Just Transition away from a fossil fuel–dependent economy toward a healthy, inclusive, and thriving economy for Richmond. The objectives include reducing the City’s dependence on Chevron by generating new tax revenue streams and supporting high- quality union jobs for Richmond residents; repairing harms to residents’ health and neighborhoods caused by Chevron’s operations, particularly in communities historically most impacted; protecting workers—especially those in affected industries and City employees—during an accelerating economic transition; and ensuring transparency and public accountability in how settlement funds are allocated and invested.

In alignment with these goals, City Council members are recommending the development of a preliminary expenditure framework organized around the following investment categories:
617

January 27, 2026

1.Large-Scale Economic Development: Investment in large-scale projects that would generate tax revenue and have the potential to create high quality union jobs with good benefits while strengthening and diversifying Richmond’s economy.

2. Inclusive Economic Development: Projects that support small to mid-sized businesses and build the skills of Richmond’s local workforce. This includes but is not limited to small business grants and job training.

3.Community Visioned Projects: Projects and programs directly proposed and developed by Richmond residents that provide direct benefits to Richmond residents and support a Just Transition. A community board would be established to develop criteria, solicit and prioritize projects, and ensure accountability and transparency in the execution of projects.

4. Investments in Essential Services & Public Works: Critical Infrastructure projects that demonstrably improve the health and quality of life of Richmond residents, along with emergency and climate resilience. This includes but is not limited to, a ‘Complete Streets' approach to pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and public transportation infrastructure, emergency fire, EMS and disaster response, flood mitigation, improvements to public parks, and make available renewable energy and efficiency upgrades.

5. City Staffing & Consultants: Increase staffing in necessary departments to execute the goals of the fund in order to strengthen, diversify and transition the City economy from fossil fuels and deliver high impact projects that improve residents' lives. As needed, seek the expertise of consultants to offer temporary and specific expertise on economic diversification, workforce development, and climate resilience.

In addition to these investment categories, City Council members emphasize that transparency, public accountability, and community governance are essential elements that must guide the use of Polluters Pay Settlement funds across all categories. This includes public involvement in shaping priorities, allocating funds particularly for community visioned projects and monitoring outcomes to ensure funds are used in alignment with Council intent and community expectations.

While these categories reflect City Council’s initial priorities, the proponents of this item recognize that meaningful community input is essential before adopting a final expenditure framework. Given the scale, duration, and transformative potential of the Polluters Pay Settlement, City Councilmembers propose directing the City Manager to follow the City’s procurement procedures to retain an experienced consultant to work closely with staff, City Council, and community-based organizations, particularly those part of the Make Polluters Pay Campaign to design and implement a robust, inclusive, and culturally competent community engagement process.

The feedback gathered through this process would inform refinement of the expenditure framework, identify specific project ideas within each category if it is possible, and establish ongoing accountability mechanisms prior to Council consideration and adoption. Initiating this process will help build public trust and ensure the Polluters Pay 618

January 27, 2026
Settlement funds are stewarded in a manner that advances a just, resilient, and inclusive future for the City of Richmond.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Request For Proposal (Draft)
Attachment 2 - Resolution No. 105-24

619

1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Background:

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-24 on August 14, 2024 withdrawing the Polluters Pay Ballot Measure in exchange for agreement by Chevron Corporation to pay the City the sum of $550 million over a period of 10 years (the Settlement Funds). On September 24th, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No.105 -24, declaring its intention to allocate Settlement Funds to projects that will improve the quality of life for the City’s residents without exacerbating the City’s economic dependence on a fossil fuel economy.

In order to meet those goals, the City Council is proposing the framework for expenditure of the additional General Fund revenue from the Polluters Pay settlement.

Expenditure Goals:
● To create a Just Transition away from a fossil fuel economy, and towards a healthy, inclusive and thriving economy for Richmond;
● To decrease the City's dependence on Chevron, generating new tax revenue streams for the City and high quality union jobs for Richmond residents ● To repair the harm posed by Chevron’s operations on residents’ health and neighborhoods, particularly frontline communities and those most affected historically
● To ensure transparency and public accountability on how the funds are spent, including public involvement in allocating funds for community-visioned ideas ● To protect workers, especially those in impacted industries, and those who work for the City during the ongoing and accelerating economic transition

Intended Expenditure Categories:
● Large-Scale Economic Development: Investment in large-scale projects that would generate tax revenue and have the potential to create high quality union jobs with good benefits while strengthening and diversifying Richmond’s economy. ● Inclusive Economic Development: Projects that support small to mid-sized businesses and build the skills of Richmond’s local workforce. This can include but not be limited to small business grants and job training. ● Community Visioned Projects: Projects and programs directly proposed and developed by Richmond residents that provide direct benefits to Richmond residents and support a Just Transition. A community board would be established to develop criteria, solicit and prioritize projects, and ensure accountability and transparency in the execution of projects.
● Investments in Essential Services & Public Works: Critical Infrastructure projects that demonstrably improves the health and quality of life of Richmond residents, along with emergency and climate resilience. This includes but is not limited to, a 620

2 ‘Complete Streets' approach to pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and public transportation infrastructure, flood mitigation, improvements to public parks, and make available renewable energy and efficiency upgrades, . ● City Staffing & Consultants: Increase staffing in necessary departments to execute the goals of the fund in order to strengthen, diversify and transition the City economy from fossil fuels and deliver high impact projects that improve residents' lives. As needed, seek the expertise of consultants to offer temporary and specific expertise on economic diversification, workforce development, and climate resilience.

Community governance & accountability:

In accordance with the Intent Resolution 105-24 text which stated that the City Council should evaluate means for expenditures from the funds or funds to be “governed in a manner that is fully transparent and democratic, implementing community-led decision making to the maximum extent allowable under the City Charter”, an important feature of the proposed framework is ensuring community governance and accountability. Community oversight through an advisory board will support equity, transparency, and community alignment.

Project Goals:
● Robust community feedback on the proposed expenditure framework including community sourced proposals for projects.
● Presentation at City Council summarizing community feedback including common themes, priorities and projects, as well as proposed amendments to the proposed expenditure framework.

Scope of Work:
● Conduct 3-5 input sessions, in accessible locations so residents from all districts can meaningfully participate including interpretation/translation as needed. ● Create an online option to submit additional feedback and ideas ● Outreach to a broad group of stakeholders including community groups and labor unions, particularly in neighborhoods impacted by environmental pollution caused by the local refinery’s pollution- frontline communities, Black and Brown, and low- income communities.
● At engagement sessions, solicit feedback on the following ○ Detail projects, ideas, questions about the following expenditure categories:
■ Large-Scale Economic Development
■ Inclusive Economic Development
■ Community Visioned Projects
■ Investments in Public Works & Infrastructure
■ City Staffing & Consultants
○ Community governance & accountability
● Return to Council by May to present following publicly:
621

3 ○ Summary community feedback and identify common themes, priorities, and project ideas
○ Proposed Framework for adoption by City Council

Qualifications of contractor:
● Experience conducting and facilitating community engagement through listening sessions, workshops, etc.
● Experience serving as a liaison between local government, non-profit organizations, community members and labor
● Experience organizing, analyzing, and summarizing qualitative data ● Experience developing community engagement materials and conducting outreach to ensure wide participation
● Ideal for consultants to have experience working with Richmond communities,

Timeline
January Release RFQ for Consultant
Consultant to present community input plan to City Council

March Community input sessions

May Presentation on findings and proposed adoption of an amended Framework by City Council

622
623
624
625

January 27, 2025

City Council

DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Cesar Zepeda

Subject:

Community Meetings to Gather Community Input on How
to Spend the Community Money; Chevron Settlement
Funds
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of implementing this directive will depend on the amount of staff time and resources required to plan,
schedule, and facilitate the community meetings, as well as any associated expenses such as venue
arrangements and outreach. These costs will need to be
absorbed within existing departmental budgets.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

September 24, 2024, agenda item P.2 Chevron
Settlement Fund Intentions. City Council gave direction to gather “input from the community, year-to-year”

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City Council gave prior direction to gather “input from the community, year-to-year”. The City should be asking for community input every year on how to spend the funds
received.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DIRECT the city manager, or their designee, to schedule and lead a minimum of six community meetings each
year, all around the City in each district, to gather input from the community on how to spend The Community
Money: Chevron settlement funds, prior to the annual
budget meeting – Councilmember Cesar Zepeda (510-
620-6593). This item was continued from the January
20, 2026, meeting.

AGENDA
REPORT
626

January 27, 2025

DISCUSSION:

In September 2024 the City Council adopted a resolution and gave direction to gather “input from the community year-to-year”. The City Manager, or their designee, should schedule and lead a minimum of six (6) community meetings each year, all around the City, in each district and every part of the community. Meetings should be open to all Richmond residents. Provide the community input to City Council prior to each budget session each year.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None
627

January 27, 2026

Fire Department
Finance Department
City Manager’s Office
DATE: January 27, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Shasa Curl, City Manager
Aaron Osorio, Fire Chief
Emily Combs, Director of Finance
Subject:

Update on Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder
Services, Fire Station Upgrades and Replacements,
Associated Five-Year Financial Forecast, and Develop
Revenue Enhancement Recommendations
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. However, implementing ALS first responder services, along with ongoing expenses and potential revenue
opportunities, will create a future ongoing financial impact for the City.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

May 27, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

In May 2025, the Richmond Fire Department (“Department”) presented the draft Advanced Life Support (ALS) First
Responder Feasibility Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group outlining key components of the study such as:

Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) scope of practice, the current EMS system in the City of Richmond and the region, various service delivery models, staffing and labor impacts, training and oversight
requirements, financial considerations, funding strategies, and proposed implementation. The Department now returns to the City Council to provide an update on the status of the ALS First Responder Services implementation, as directed by Council when it voted to pass a motion for the Department to pursue the ALS First Responder Services transition, along with key information on the overall fire station needs as well as estimated fiscal impacts.

AGENDA
REPORT
628

January 27, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE an update on the Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Services, Fire Station Upgrades and
Replacements, and associated Five-Year Financial Forecast; and DIRECT the city manager to develop revenue
enhancement and financing recommendations for City Council consideration – Fire Department/Finance Department/City Manager’s Office (Chief Aaron Osorio 510-307-8021/Emily Combs 510-890-5534/Shasa Curl 510-620-6512).

DISCUSSION:

On May 27, 2025, the Richmond Fire Department (“Department”) presented the draft Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Feasibility Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group. During the presentation, the Department discussed several key components of the study, including the scope of practice for ALS and Basic Life Support (BLS), the current regional fire-based Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system, EMS services within Richmond, and EMS call volumes in the City. The presentation also addressed the importance of ALS services and their impact on improving patient outcomes by providing faster critical care. Additionally, the Department outlined the proposed implementation, various service delivery models, staffing and training requirements, personnel actions, labor considerations, oversight, financial impacts, and funding strategies. Lastly, during the meeting, the City Council voted on a motion and directed the Department to implement the ALS First Responder Services and to return to the City Council with updates.

The presentation will provide the City Council and the Richmond community with an update on the implementation of ALS First Responder Services, including discussions with the Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services Agency (CCCEMSA) and the Contra Costa County Fire Chiefs, as well as coordination with the Richmond City Manager and Finance Department pertaining to updates to the 5-year financial forecast and associated cost implications, Human Resources Department regarding personnel specifications and recruitments, and Public Works for facilities and needs assessment.

Given the associated ongoing fiscal impacts, City staff members recommend developing revenue enhancements and financing recommendations for the City Council’s consideration, as early as quarter 2, 2026.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

The ALS First Responder Services initiative aligns with historic and current City Council policies by implementing Health in All Policies measures by improving conditions that reduce health disparities and support health equity. It also advances the City Council’s strategic goal of enhancing public safety through improved emergency response and preparedness, and strengthens the City’s internal infrastructure by upgrading fire stations that may serve as climate resilience hubs/centers. In addition, ensuring appropriate staffing levels and expertise to meet the service needs of the Richmond community.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: Attachment – PowerPoint
629
Advanced Life Support (ALS)
Program Implementation Update, Fire Station Upgrades
& Replacements, and Associated 5 Year Financial
Forecast Update
City Council Presentation
January 27, 2026
Fire Chief Aaron Osorio & Emily Combs, Director of Finance 1 DRAFT
630
Recommended Action
RECEIVE an update on the Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Services, Fire Station Upgrades and Replacements, and associated Five-Year Financial Forecast; and DIRECT the City Manager to develop revenue enhancement and financing recommendations for City Council consideration –
Fire/Finance/City Manager’s Office (Chief Aaron Osorio 510-307- 8021/Emily Combs 510-890-5534/Shasa Curl 510-620-6512). 2631
Overview

1. Review City Council Actions

2. Review of Deployment Model

3. ALS Program Implementation Progress

4. Updated Financial Estimates & 5 Year Financial Forecast

5. Recruitment Timeline

6. Next Steps

7. Questions
3632
Synergistic Policies-Health in All Policies
Established and Approved by City Council in 2014
• Framework to guide and incorporate health-centered public policy to reduce health disparities and improve health outcomes
Intervention Area 6: Quality & Accessible Health & Home Services • Many need to receive quality and affordable health care & related services Key Finding From HiAP Report 2020:
4 www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2575/health-in-all-policies
633
Synergistic Policies-City Council Goals & Priorities
Approved by City Council late Fall of 2023
• Established City-wide goals with measurable outcomes
• Outlines key initiatives and strategic objectives that guide the City's growth and improve the quality of life for all residents.

Strategic Goal Area 4 – Improve Public Safety
• 4.3 - Add and Improve Emergency Response and Preparedness Strategic Goal Area 5 – Strengthen the City’s Internal Infrastructure and Processes • 5.1 – Ensure that there is the right staffing level and experience to meet service goals of each City Department
5634
City Council Action May 27, 2025
• RECEIVED a report & presentation regarding Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Feasibility Study. DIRECTED staff to pursue next steps for implementing the recommended service models.
• Requested staff to return in six (6) months with an update. 6635
Review of Deployment Model
• Hybrid Model
• Deploy three (3) Single-Role
Paramedic Squads in FY 27/28
• Phase ALS Engine Companies with
Firefighter/ Paramedics the
following 2 years
• Transition all eight (8) Fire
Companies to ALS in FY 29/30
7636
Benefits of Hybrid Model
• Realistic expectation
• Better manage recruitment & on-boarding challenges
• Shorter implementation time
• 3 Years vs. 5 Years
• Provide higher level of service to the community sooner 8637
ALS Program Progress
 Presented program to Contra Costa County Fire Chiefs Association  Meeting held on May 14, 2025
 Fully supportive of moving to ALS
 Offered assistance with accreditation and training
 Con Fire requested RFD to consider moving dispatch centers  Discussion with ambulance provider (AMR/Con Fire):
 Meeting held in June 20025
 Offered assistance with accreditation and training
 Discussed medical equipment pass through purchasing
9638
ALS Program Progress
 Initiated discussions with Contra Costa County Health - EMS Agency  Meeting held on July 7, 2025
 Fully supportive of moving to ALS
 Reviewed California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 9 – Paramedic Service Provider Regulations
 Completed initial drafts of Classification Specifications (personnel) for:
 EMS Division Chief
 EMS Clinical Care Manager
 Single –Role Paramedic
 Firefighter Paramedic 10639
ALS Program Progress
 Completed facility evaluation at fire stations with Public Works.  Conducted with consultant firm on September 11, 2025
 Determined improvements needed to house squad vehicles and additional staff.
 Updated financial estimates:
 Staffing
 Facilities
 Apparatus
 Equipment
11640
ALS Program Progress
 Presented program to Medical Director for Contra Costa County Fire Agencies
 Meeting held on October 9, 2025
 Provided recommendations for recruitment of Clinical Care Manager
 Provided program development recommendations
 Held scoping meeting with potential consultant firm to assist with program development 12641
DRAFT ALS Personnel Cost Estimates
13 Description Start
Date
Current
Item Total
Current
Grand Total
FY
2025-26
FY
2026-27
FY
2027-28
FY
2028-29
FY
2029-30 5-Year Total
Paramedic
(19) Jul-27 $189,000 $3,591,000 — — $3,591,000 $3,698,730 $3,809,692 $11,099,422 EMS
Division
Chief (1)
Oct-26 $349,080 $349,080 — $261,812 $359,552 $370,339 $381,449 $1,373,152 EMS
Manager (1) Dec-26 $270,000 $270,000 — $135,000 $278,100 $286,443 $295,036 $994,579 Associate
Admin
Analyst (1)
May-26 $195,653 $195,653 — $205,435 $215,707 $222,178 $228,844 $872,164 Paramedic
Supplies — $319,402 $319,402 — $319,402 $69,000 $69,000 $69,000 $526,402 Tuition/
Training — $3,693,954 $3,693,954 — — — — $3,693,954 $3,693,954 Vehicles Jul-26 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $100,000 $1,800,000 — — — $1,900,000 Personnel
Cost — — — — $602,247 $4,444,359 $4,577,690 $4,715,021 $14,339,317 Total — — — $100,000 $2,721,649 $4,513,359 $4,646,690 $8,447,975 $20,459,673 642
Current Facility Upgrade Cost Estimates
14 Location Address Description
Base
Est.
(Low)
Base
Est.
(High)
Min. +10%
Contingency
Fire
Station 62 1065 7th Street Dorm Capacity,
Vehicle Storage $300,000 $400,000 $330,000 -
$440,000
Fire
Station 68 2904 Hilltop Drive Dorm Capacity,
Vehicle Storage $400,000 $500,000 $440,000 -
$550,000
Training
Tower Site
3506 Cutting
Blvd
Temporary Fire
Station $1,750,000 $2,250,000 $1,925,000 -
$2,475,000
Total — — $2,450,000 $3,150,000 $2,695,000 -
$3,465,000
643
Current Facility Replacement Cost Estimates
15 Location Address Description Rough Order of
Magnitude
Fire Station
63 5201 Valley View Road Foundation Repair &
Grading $30,051,751
Fire Station
66 4100 Clinton Avenue Station Replacement $30,402,741
Fire Station
67 1131 Cutting Blvd Station Replacement $38,003,739
Total — — $98,458,231
644
Squad Deployment Map
16645
17 ALS
Triangulation
646
Current Apparatus Cost
Estimates
18 Vehicle Vehicle Type Quantity
Base
Est.
(Low)
Base
Est.
(High)
Est. Total
Squad Ford F-550 with
Build Up 4 $375,000 $450,000 $1.5M - $1.8M
Command
Vehicle Chevy Tahoe 1 $85,000 $100,000 $85,000 -
$100,000
EMS
Equipment
Storage
Upgrades
All Heavy Fire
Apparatus
(i.e.; engines,
trucks, rescues,
spare)
15 TBD TBD TBD
Total — — — — $1.585M - $1.9M
647
19 Scenario 1
Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30
Revenues 258,553,519 266,277,163 274,258,355 282,917,155 291,382,665 Total Revenue 258,553,519 266,277,163 274,258,355 282,917,155 291,382,665 Expenditures* 258,553,519 290,976,993 302,863,313 316,982,216 328,710,511 Local 21 - Executive Management MOU 693,192 728,060 725,306 739,812 754,608 Local 21-MM MOU 1,829,878 1,890,820 1,965,276 2,004,582 2,044,673 Local 1021 - SEIU General MOU 2,298,180 2,602,536 2,718,625 2,772,998 2,828,457 Local 1021 - SEIU Part Time MOU 25,463 26,829 28,278 28,844 29,420 IAFF Local 188 - Firefighters 1,273,649 1,406,639 1,501,620 1,531,652 1,562,285 Fire - Advance Life Support 100,000 2,721,649 4,513,359 4,646,690 8,447,975 RFMA - Fire Management 99,459 104,829 110,966 113,185 115,449 RPOA - Police Officers 1,597,195 1,692,797 1,795,023 1,830,923 1,867,542 RPMA - Police Management 261,276 276,689 293,146 299,009 304,989 Total Expenditures 266,731,810 302,427,840 316,514,912 330,949,910 346,665,911 Net Deficit (-)/Surplus(+) (8,178,292) (36,150,678) (42,256,557) (48,032,756) (55,283,246) (Bond Measure Needed)
MLK Community Center & Park,
ALS Fire Station - 173,000,000 - - - CIP Shortfall 4,480,000 29,290,000 4,928,520 51,480 - Unfunded Projects Total 53,774,000 75,583,700 99,048,000 80,736,300 72,064,000 Net Deficit (-)/Surplus(+)(After Capital
Needs)** (66,432,292) (314,024,378) (146,233,077) (128,820,536) (127,347,246) Total Afforded Positions 690 645 619 594 563 **Excluded from position affordability model
*Includes expenditures for Kids First Iniative (Measures E and K) through FY 2027-28, after which charter-mandated annual contribution is not extended. 648
20 Scenario 2 - With Projected Interest Earnings at 4%
Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30
Revenues 258,553,519 266,277,163 274,258,355 282,917,155 291,382,665 Estimated Interest Earnings at 4% 2,000,000 4,080,000 6,243,200 8,492,928 10,428,645 Total Revenue 260,553,519 270,357,163 280,501,555 291,410,083 301,811,310 Expenditures* 258,553,519 290,976,993 302,863,313 316,982,216 328,710,511 Local 21 - Executive Management MOU 693,192 728,060 725,306 739,812 754,608 Local 21-MM MOU 1,829,878 1,890,820 1,965,276 2,004,582 2,044,673 Local 1021 - SEIU General MOU 2,298,180 2,602,536 2,718,625 2,772,998 2,828,457 Local 1021 - SEIU Part Time MOU 25,463 26,829 28,278 28,844 29,420 IAFF Local 188 - Firefighters 1,273,649 1,406,639 1,501,620 1,531,652 1,562,285 Fire - Advance Life Support 100,000 2,721,649 4,513,359 4,646,690 8,447,975 RFMA - Fire Management 99,459 104,829 110,966 113,185 115,449 RPOA - Police Officers 1,597,195 1,692,797 1,795,023 1,830,923 1,867,542 RPMA - Police Management 261,276 276,689 293,146 299,009 304,989 Total Expenditures 266,791,810 302,550,240 316,702,208 331,204,698 346,978,770 Net Deficit (-)/Surplus(+) (6,238,292) (32,193,078) (36,200,653) (39,794,616) (45,167,461) (Bond Measure Needed)
MLK Community Center & Park,
ALS Fire Station 173,000,000
CIP Shortfall 4,480,000 29,290,000 4,928,520 51,480 - Unfunded Projects Total 53,774,000 75,583,700 99,048,000 80,736,300 72,064,000 Net Deficit (-)/Surplus(+)(After Capital
Needs)* (64,492,292) (310,066,778) (140,177,173) (120,582,396) (117,231,461) Total Afforded Positions 698 662 645 629 606 **Excluded from position affordability model
*Includes expenditures for Kids First Iniative (Measures E and K) through FY 2027-28, after which charter-mandated annual contribution is not extended. 649
Personnel Recruitment Timeline
• (1) EMS Division Chief – FY 26/27
• (1) Clinical Care Manager – FY 26/27
• (1) Associate Administrative Analyst – FY 26/27
• (19) Single-Role Paramedics – FY 27/28:
• Two-person Paramedic squads per shift X (3) shifts = 18 Single-Role Paramedics + One (1) floater
21650
Human Resources
• Personnel Board
• Update all job specifications
• Determine pay & benefits for new positions
• Meet & Confer with all impacted bargaining units
• Unit determinations for:
• Single-Role Paramedics
• EMS Division Chief
• EMS Clinical Care Manager
• Duties and working conditions
• Work with LCW & Human Resources to update MOUs
22651
FY 25/26
• New
Agreement
with

CCCEMSA
• Meet &
Confer
• Job Specs
• Initiate
Recruitment
of EMS
Director &
EMS Analyst
• Spec &
Order
Apparatus
FY 26/27
•On-Board
EMS Director
& EMS
Analyst
•Purchase
Equipment &
Supplies
•Recruitment
of Single-Role
Paramedics
•Program
Development
FY 27/28
•Accreditation
•Operational
Role Out of
Squads
•Initiate
Paramedic
School for
Existing
Employee
Training
FY 28/29
•Purchase
Equipment &
Supplies for
ALS Engines
•Complete
Paramedic
School for
Existing
Employees
•National
Registry
•Accreditation
FY 29/30
• Operational
Role Out for
ALS Engines
Draft Implementation Timeline
23 UNANTICIPATED

DELAYS MAY

PUSH FINAL

ROLL OUT TO
FY 30/31
652
Proposed Next Steps
24 • Meet and Confer with impacted bargaining units
• Determine the need for assistance from a consultant
• Finalize classification specifications, unit designation, approval by Personnel Board
• Due to extended delivery times, order squad vehicles
• Recruitment and onboarding of EMS Division Chief
• Recruitment and onboarding of EMS Clinical Care Manager 653
Recommended Action
RECEIVE an update on the Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Services, Fire Station Upgrades and Replacements, and associated Five-Year Financial Forecast; and DIRECT the City Manager to develop revenue enhancement and financing recommendations for City Council consideration –
Fire/Finance/City Manager’s Office (Chief Aaron Osorio 510-307- 8021/Emily Combs 510-890-5534/Shasa Curl 510-620-6512). 25654
Questions?
26 655