cc/bsd 2025 AR 09/23 raceway basin and buena creek pump station improvements and fog abatement — Vista City Council, September 23, 2025 (part 3 of 6)

09/23/2025
C5 Page 285 of 1112

Raceway Basin Pump Station
• FOG cleaned once a week.
• PS is visited daily by operators.
• FOG mat broken by water jet and flushing using water accumulated in the overflow basin. • Cleaning the FOG mat, about 30 minutes, 1 person.
• Two grinders in the influent channel.
• Original grinders are Moyno.
• One grinder is recently replaced with Franklin Mille. • Grinders operate 24/7.
• Air sampling done through the drain of the carbon adsorber or from the wetwell hatch • No ragging issue for RBPS.
• Observation: No physical space inside pump room to add any panel or equipment. • Strong odor of rubber/ industrial -like. Important to understand type of FOG at both locations, specifically at RBPS. Previously had issues with large amounts of coffee beans being discharged to lift station.
• Bypass of the PS appears to be straightforward.

Raceway & Buena Creek PS Improvement Study and OA Services Site Visit March 11, 2021

Page 2 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 286 of 1112

Fats, Oils, and Grease Mitigation Recommendation Technical Memorandum I.)R Raceway Basin and Buena Creek Pump Stations Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Appendix B. Equipment Product Sheets
09/23/2025
C5 Page 287 of 1112

Fats, Oils, and Grease Mitigation Recommendation Technical Memorandum Raceway Basin and Buena Creek Pump Stations Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services This page is intentionally blank.
09/23/2025
C5 Page 288 of 1112

!IANUE
R�
Date
Odor & Corrosion Control System
FOG Control System
EnviroPrep (EP)
Wet Well Application
April 6, 2021
Presented to
Presented by
Clint Freeman
D&H Water Systems
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (925) 550-8696
Anue Water Technologies
6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13
Alpharetta, GA 30005
760-727-2683
Copy
Proposal Reference: 20217 Rev 00
**This quote is preliminary and budgetary **
Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 289 ofg111210

ANUE
R�
Odor & Corrosion Control System
FOG Treatment System: EP (2 EPs + Grinder Pump + Control Panel) Recommended for treatment of site: Raceway Wet WeII
A
u

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
WeII Cleaning System: EP (2)
• Two 1.5" composite rotating head assembly.
• 30' high pressure discharge hose, stainless steel chain, cam lock connectors and fittings • Two 316 SS wall mount bracket
• Two 316 SS feed mast
Pump Panel (1)
• Raintight, Outdoor Mounting NEMA enclosure
• ON/OFF timer with reverse start and smart relay
• HOA switch
• High Float shut off
• Fault alarm indicator
• Seal leak/high pressure sensor
• Single point electrical connection
• Total system electrical: 480 VAC, 3 phase, 60 Hz, -15 A • Dimensions: 16" H x 12" W x 6" D
Wet WeII Grinder Pump (1)
• 7.5 HP, 480V, 3ph
• 50' power cord
Notes/ Special Instructions:
• Optimum/Minimum position above high float: 4'/1'
Warranty
See detailed Limited Warranty Statement below.

Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 290 (4,111210

0ANUEwR �
Odor & Corrosion Control System
FOG Treatment System: EP (5 EPs + 3 Grinder Pumps + 2 Control Panels) Recommended for treatment of site: Buena Creek Wet WeII

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
WeII Cleaning System: EP (5)
• Five 1.5" composite rotating head assemblies with wall mount brackets and feed masts. • Three 30' high pressure discharge hoses, stainless steel chains, cam lock connectors and fittings.

Pump Panels (2)
• Raintight, Outdoor Mounting NEMA enclosures- one duplex and one simplex. • ON/OFF timer with reverse start and smart relay
• HOA switch
• High Float shut off
• Fault alarm indicator
• Seal leak/high pressure sensor
• Single point electrical connection
• Duplex system electrical (approx.): 480 VAC, 3 phase, 60 Hz, -30 A • Dimension: 24" H x 20" W x 8" D
• Simplex system electrical: 480 VAC, 3 phase, 60 Hz, --11 A • Dimension: 16" H x 12" W x 6" D
Wet WeII Grinder Pumps (3)
• Two 7.5 HP, 480V, 3ph and one 5HP, 480V, 3ph submersible grinder pumps. • 50' power cord
Notes/ Special Instructions:
• Optimum/Minimum position above high float: 4'/1'
Warranty
See detailed Limited Warranty Statement below.

EnviroPrep (EP) well washer kit for Raceway Wet WeII:

US$27,810
EnviroPrep (EP) well washer kit for Buena Creek Wet WeII:

US$69,850
Installation Supervision with Anue Rep on -site:

US$7,500
Shipping (FOB Alpharetta, GA):

TBD
Applicable Taxes, not included:

TBD
Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 291 o4g1 ilr210

!IANUE
R�
Odor & Corrosion Control System
General Process Description of EP
Anue Water Technologies EP Series is a mechanical wastewater conditioning system for lift stations, stormwater vaults, clarifiers, and sludge pits. Its mechanical action keeps these wells and vaults free of surface build-up and can eliminate the need for repetitive clean -out. The EP systems function by recycling wastewater through the systems and returning it into the well. This dynamic process creates surface agitation to break down, prevent build-up, increase dissolved oxygen levels, homogenize solids, and clean the wet well. The system operates by the hydraulic force of the returning wastewater fluent. No external power or water source is needed.

Users realize immediate and ongoing savings as clean -out cycles are reduced. <Surface agitation breaks up and
prevents organic and bio-
organic matter build up
Agitation
Oxygenation
• Increases Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
J
Dedicated Pump/
• Recycling. wastewater
homoginizes solids
• Smaller solids result in higher
surface area
• Higher surface are and oxygen
concentration promote
significant increase in aerobic
activity
Homogenization
Recirculation
Cleaning
• Chamber cleaning is automated.
• The well remains free of FOG
and biofilm.
• The well and equipment
surfaces are kept free of sulfide
producing slime layers.

Dedicated pump recirculates
wastewater providing independent
control of the operating cycles.

Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 292 ofg14lr2to

!IANUE
W R �
Application Overview
Odor & Corrosion Control System
The system quoted above is based on the following application specific parameters and may need to be revised based on pilot testing data.:

Wet well Name:

Raceway Wet WeII
Wet WeII Dimensions:
20'6" x 9'6"
Wet Well depth:

T
Wet WeII Name:

Buena Creek Wet WeII
Wet WeII Dimensions:
49' x 11'5"
Wet Well depth:
22'
Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 293 c fgW WI0

!IANUE
R�
Terms & Conditions of Sale
Odor & Corrosion Control System
Acceptance: Anue Water Technologies (AWT) reserves the right not to accept any orders that do not meet the Terms and Conditions of Sale requirements herein.

Conformance: AWT accepts no variances, exceptions or changes to these terms and conditions, unless expressly agreed to in writing by AWT and before receipt of order. Herein's terms and conditions take precedence over all other terms and conditions, including those in a Purchase Order or final agreement.

Orders: Unless otherwise stated in the quotation, all orders will be placed with AWT using the Contact Information below.

Credit: All Purchase Order acceptances and subsequent sales are subject to suitable credit standing at the sole discretion of AWT.

Payments: 25% of "Total including applicable taxes" due with PO. 25% due upon users receipt of the submittal package.
50% due upon shipment of the system (not to exceed 30 days past readiness to ship notification).

Late payments will be charged 1.5% per month on all overdue balances.

Delivery: Twelve to sixteen (12-16) weeks from Approval of AWT submittal drawings by the customer, unless otherwise stated herein.

NOTE: AWT will make all reasonable efforts to accelerate delivery when requested.

AWT will be held harmless for a change in delivery date unless expressly agreed to in writing by the purchaser and AWT before placing the order.

Shipping: Shipments are FOB Alpharetta GA. The choice of carrier and method is at the discretion of AWT.

Taxes: All appropriate sales taxes are the purchasers sole responsibility and are paid by the purchaser.

Cancellation: All systems built to order. Cancellations for PURCHASES will be accepted based on the following time limits and cancellation fees based on a twelve (12) week delivery • Up to two (2) weeks from Order Acceptance from AWT: No Charge • Three (1) through five (5) weeks: 30% of list price
• Six (6) weeks + 100% of list price
Receipt Inspection:

Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 294 ofg16lr2to

!IANUE
R�
Odor & Corrosion Control System
The purchaser's responsibility is to inspect and report any evidence of damage that may have occurred in shipment to the shipper. Additionally, notify AWT within this five (5) day period should shipping damage have occurred.

Any damage or malfunctions must be reported to AWT within one (1) day upon the initial commissioning and start-up of the system and after installation.

Returns: All Returns to AWT, whether under warranty, service contract, or otherwise, require a Return Material Authorization (RMA) number. No returns are accepted without an RMA under any circumstance. To request an RMA, refer to the Contact Information below.

All returns are subject to disposition by AWT. Before a return, approval is at the sole discretion of AWT. Where applicable, warranty or service contract remedies apply. For non -warranty or service contract return requests, AWT reserves the right to perform remedies or repairs at the user site, a third -party location, or another site.

In all cases, the purchaser will pay the shipping and must be insured at its full value and forwarded to the specified Anue location.

All items will be inspected upon receipt and, in the sole judgment of AWT, adjustments to any credit due applied for damages up to the product's full value.

Warranty: AWT warrants that products will be free from defects in material and workmanship for twelve (12) months from the date of the signed acceptance of completed installation or fifteen (15) months from the original purchase date, whichever occurs first) any such product shall prove to be defective; it shall be repaired or replaced at AWT's option, subject to the terms and conditions set forth. ANY REPAIR OR

REPLACEMENT WILL BE WARRANTED ONLY FOR THE BALANCE OF THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY PERIOD. The invoice/shipment date determines warranty eligibility. SEE Warranty document for full warranty information.

AWT warranty does not extend to used products or products or services not manufactured or provided by AWT; however, AWT will provide to Buyer the benefits of any supplier's warranty.

AWT warranty does not extend to any product found to have been subjected to abnormal operating conditions, the use of unapproved parts to the extent such parts found to be the cause of the failure or failure to follow the installation, operation, and maintenance instructions provided by AWT.

Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 295 ofg1 flr210

!IANUE
R�
Odor & Corrosion Control System
2021 ANUE WATER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED WARRANTY
Limitations of Remedies and Limitation of other Warranties Anue Water Technologies (AWT) warrants to the original purchaser ("Purchaser") of its products that they are free from defects in material or quality.

The warranty period begins and activates at the original purchase date (invoice/shipment).

This Limited Warranty covers the system as outlined below. Suppose (within twelve (12) months from the date of the signed acceptance of completed installation / fifteen (15) months from original purchase date, whichever occurs first) any such product shall prove to be defective. In that case, it shall be repaired or replaced at AWT's option, subject to the terms and conditions set forth. ANY REPAIR OR

REPLACEMENT WILL BE WARRANTED ONLY FOR THE BALANCE OF THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY PERIOD. The invoice/shipment date determines warranty eligibility.

The obligation of AWT is expressly limited to repairing or replacing, at the sole option of AWT, any part returned to it during the warranty period, which AWT determines to be defective in material or quality.

The obligation of AWT shall not include any transportation charges, costs of removal or installation, labor charges, or any direct, indirect, consequential, or delay damages.

Exclusions:

All parts purchased for installation specific to the application are per the Original Equipment Manufacturer. All consumable items including but not limited to filters, sensors, and others.

The above warranty and remedies are subject to the following terms and conditions for all systems, kits, and parts.

Conditions for Voiding the Warranty

1. If, in the opinion of AWT, the failure of the part or product resulting from abuse, neglect, improper maintenance, or accident.

2. If the system or any parts fail due to improper installation AND the installers were not certified by AWT.

3. Modifications to any product or part without the prior written consent of AWT.

4. If the use of any system is other than the intended use as determined by AWT.

5. Introduction of foreign materials to any AWT system, other than those expressly and solely determined by AWT, is strictly forbidden, nullifying and voiding the warranty. The use of ANY material without the express, written approval of AWT is forbidden.

6. The warranty is void unless the product or part is installed correctly and maintained within its rated capacity or part with installations properly engineered and following the practices, methods, and instructions approved or provided by AWT.

7. If all required replacement parts or products are AWT or AWT authorized replacement parts and otherwise identical to the original equipment components. AWT does not warrant replacement parts or products not of AWT origins.

Indemnification as consideration for this warranty, the original customer and subsequent purchaser agree to indemnify and hold AWT harmless from and against all and any loss, liability, damages, or expenses for injury to persons or property, including without limitation, the original customer's and subsequent purchaser's employees and property, due to their acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of their agents, and employees in the installation, transportation, maintenance, use and operation of said equipment
Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 296 ofgl $lao

!IANUE
R�
Odor & Corrosion Control System
This warranty shall not apply to acts of God, nor shall it apply to products which, in the sole judgment of AWT has been subject to negligence, abuse, accident, misapplication, tampering, alteration; nor due to improper installation, operation, maintenance or storage; nor to other than the typical application, use or service, including but not limited to, operational failures caused by corrosion, rust or other foreign materials in the system, or operation over recommended maximums.

Requests for service under this warranty shall be made through written communication to AWT within 24 hours after discovering any alleged defect. Provide the serial number and brief description of the issue from the actual part. AWT will need to know how quickly the repair needs and if a replacement is needed or sent to the customer before repair. Damage to equipment due to delayed response or failure to communicate within a 24 period may result in the warranty's immediate voiding. AWT will take corrective action as reasonably possible. No requests for service under this warranty will be accepted if received more than 30 days after the term of the warranty. This warranty sets forth AWT's sole obligation and the purchaser's exclusive remedy for defective products.

AWT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONTINGENT DAMAGES WHATSOEVER. THE FOREGOING WARRANTIES ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER EXPRESS WARRANTIES. IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

PURPOSE, SHALL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE DURATION OF THE APPLICABLE EXPRESS WARRANTIES PROVIDED HEREIN. AWT RESERVES THE RIGHT, AT ITS DISCRETION, TO REVISE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AT ANY TIME AND WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE.

Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages or limitations on how long an implied warranty lasts, so the above limitations or exclusions may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state.

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT SUPERSEDE ALL PRIOR ORAL OR

WRITTEN QUOTATIONS, PROPOSALS AND COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER RELATED TO THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES IDENTIFIED HEREIN.

A Service Agreement may be purchased to cover other on -site service calls and follow-on maintenance at an additional fee.

If no additional Service Agreement is in place, On -Site Service Calls can be performed by an AWT Certified Technician and charged on a time and material basis. AWT will need a Purchase Order in advance to cover; travel accommodation, labor, materials and payment for service render at completion.

Call AWT's Customer Service for a specific quote for your system and site at 1-760-727-2683 or [email protected].

Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 297 ofg14lr210

IANUER �
Acceptance
Odor & Corrosion Control System
Both undersigned parties agree that the representation, terms, and conditions of this proposal are acceptable. Further, both parties acknowledged that this represents the entire agreement causing this agreement to become effective as of the designated effective date indicated herein.

The customer will forward a valid Purchase Order along with a signed copy of this agreement within five (5) business days.

Supplier (Company Name):

By:

Sign:

Title:

Date:

User (Municipality/Company Name):

By:

Sign:

Date:

Anue Water Technologies
Anue Water Technologies, Inc., 6845 Shiloh Rd E, Ste D13, Alpharetta, GA 30005 Phone: (760) 727-2683
09/23/2025
C5 Page 2984 161210

xylem
May 4, 2021
HDR Water/Wastewater Staff Engineer
3230 El Camino Real, Suite 200
CA 92602
Quote # 2021 -LAB -0296
Project Name: Vista Buena
Job Name:

Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.

Flygt Products
11161 Harrel Street
Mira Loma, CA 91752
Tel (951) 332-3668
Fax (951) 332-3679
4640 Portacleanse
Qty Part Number
3 4640.492-0470
3 14-58 79 34
1 14-69 00 09A
3 14-58 72 08
60 14-48 71 13
3 14-40 71 29
3 14-40 70 97
Description
Flygt Model SR -4640 Submersible Mixer, Stainless steel (ASTM 316L), equipped with a 460 Volt / 3 phase / 60 Hz 4 HP 855 RPM motor, Prop 5°, 50 Ft. length of SUBCAB 4G2,5+2x1,5 submersible cable, C/W FLS leakage detector Mixer is also available in 304SS (lower price)
STAND,PORTA-CLEANSE 4630/40 SS
START UP,FLYGT,NO TAX 1-TP MODELS: 3000,7000,8000
KIT,CHAIN FITTING 3067-3127+ 316SS
CHAIN,3/16" 316L
MINI-CASII/FUS 120/24VAC,24VDC
SOCKET,11 PIN OCTAL DIN MOUNT
4640 Portacleanse Price USD $ 47,903.60
Freight Charge $ 1,866.00
Total Price $ 49,769.60
Terms & Conditions
This order is subject to the Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale — Xylem Americas effective on the date the order is accepted which terms are available at htto:// www.xyleminc.com/en-us/Paces/terms-conditions-of-sale.asox and incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the agreement between the parties.

Purchase Orders: Please make purchase orders out to: Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.

Freight Terms: 3 DAP - Delivered At Place 08 - Jobsite (per IncoTerms 2020) See Freight Payment (Delivery Terms) below.

Taxes: State, local and other applicable taxes are not included in this quotation.

Back Charges: Buyer shall not make purchases nor shall Buyer incur any labor that would result in a back charge to Seller without prior written consent of an authorized employee of Seller.

Shortages: Xylem will not be responsible for apparent shipment shortages or damages incurred in shipment that are not reported within two weeks from delivery to the jobsite. Damages should be noted on the receiving slip and the truck driver advised of the damages. Please contact our office as soon as possible to report damages or shortages so that replacement items can be shipped and the appropriate claims made.

Page 1 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
a xylem brand
C5

Page 299 of 1112 ends

Terms of Delivery: PP/Add Order Position
Terms of Payment: 90% N30 after invoice date; 10% NTE 90 days after initial invoice date.

Xylem's payment shall not be dependent upon Purchaser being paid by any third party unless Owner denies payment due to reasons solely attributable to items related to the equipment being provided by FLYGT.

Validity: This Quote is valid for ninety (90) days.

Schedule: Submittals will be supplied 1-2 weeks after order acceptance.

Schedule: Delivery lead times are approximately 10 weeks after receipt of submittal approval and order acceptance.

Start Up: One (1) day Start Up / Owner Training is included.

Warranty: Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.offers a commercial warranty to the original end purchaser against defects in workmanship and material.

Changes: This Quotation is based on the current design criteria provided to Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. Revisions may result in price changes.

Exclusions: This Quote includes only the items listed specified above.

Sincerely,
02tV
Alan Dahlqvist
Direct Sales Representative
Cell: 951/553-1493
[email protected]

Page 2 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
a xylem brand
C5

Page 300 of 1112 ends

xylem
May 4, 2021
HDR Water/Wastewater Staff Engineer
3230 El Camino Real, Suite 200
CA 92602
Quote # 2021 -LAB -0297
Project Name: Vista Raceway
Job Name:

Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.

Flygt Products
11161 Harrel Street
Mira Loma, CA 91752
Tel (951) 332-3668
Fax (951) 332-3679
4640 Portacleanse
Qty Part Number
1 4640.492-0470
1 14-58 79 34
1 14-69 00 09A
1 14-58 72 08
20 14-48 71 13
1 14-40 71 29
1 14-40 70 97
Description
Flygt Model SR -4640 Submersible Mixer, Stainless steel (ASTM 316L), equipped with a 460 Volt / 3 phase / 60 Hz 4 HP 855 RPM motor, Prop 5°, 50 Ft. length of SUBCAB 4G2,5+2x1,5 submersible cable, C/W FLS leakage detector Mixer is also available in 304SS (lower price)
STAND,PORTA-CLEANSE 4630/40 SS
START UP,FLYGT,NO TAX 1-TP MODELS: 3000,7000,8000
KIT,CHAIN FITTING 3067-3127+ 316SS
CHAIN,3/16" 316L
MINI-CASII/FUS 120/24VAC,24VDC
SOCKET,11 PIN OCTAL DIN MOUNT
4640 Portacleanse Price USD $ 16,891.20
Freight Charge $ 654.00
Total Price $ 17,545.20
Terms & Conditions
This order is subject to the Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale — Xylem Americas effective on the date the order is accepted which terms are available at htto:// www.xyleminc.com/en-us/Paces/terms-conditions-of-sale.asox and incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the agreement between the parties.

Purchase Orders: Please make purchase orders out to: Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.

Freight Terms: 3 DAP - Delivered At Place 08 - Jobsite (per IncoTerms 2020) See Freight Payment (Delivery Terms) below.

Taxes: State, local and other applicable taxes are not included in this quotation.

Back Charges: Buyer shall not make purchases nor shall Buyer incur any labor that would result in a back charge to Seller without prior written consent of an authorized employee of Seller.

Page 1 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
a xylem brand
C5

Page 301 of 1112 ends

Terms of Delivery: PP/Add Order Position
Terms of Payment: 90% N30 after invoice date; 10% NTE 90 days after initial invoice date.

Validity: This Quote is valid for ninety (90) days.

Schedule: Submittals will be supplied 1-2 weeks after order acceptance.

Schedule: Delivery lead times are approximately 10 weeks after receipt of submittal approval and order acceptance.

Start Up: One (1) day Start Up / Owner Training is included.

Warranty: Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.offers a commercial warranty to the original end purchaser against defects in workmanship and material.

Changes: This Quotation is based on the current design criteria provided to Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. Revisions may result in price changes.

Exclusions: This Quote includes only the items listed specified above.

Sincerely,
02tV
Alan Dahlqvist
Direct Sales Representative
Cell: 951/553-1493
[email protected]

Page 2 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
a xylem brand
C5

Page 302 of 1112 ends

Product Application Guide for Adding Bioaugmentation Product to Lift Stations, Drains & Wetwells Lift stations commonly end up with build-ups of grease that can create a ring around the lift station; collection build-up on pumps, chains, floats, sidewalls, etc. This can cause mechanical problems, cause plugging, interrupt service and cause terrible odors. Operators know what that means: jetting the lines, pumping & hauling off the grease at high costs, or even digging up and replacing a wet well and/or feeder lines at extremely high capital costs.

Grease is one waste that the sewer system cannot handle and therefore needs to be kept out of the system, but most often is not. An additional concern is that since the government raised the temperature required by restaurants and food establishments from 180° F to ^210° F, grease traps are not working as designed and grease that used to be trapped onsite is now washing through the lines until the temperature of the water cools down and then hardens later on. This usually happens somewhere in the lines or in the lift station.

Biological additives are a safe, natural, environmental friendly way to help assist in the cleaning up of a lift station, but they are not miracle workers. There is a limit to what they can do, how they do it and when they will work. Bacteria can naturally degrade the fats, oils and grease, as well as any other organic materials that enter a lift station of pipe. They actually consume these as a food source, as opposed to traditional methods of surfactants, enzymes or chemicals that may have eliminated the grease in the lift station, but just transferred them down the pipe and eventually into the wastewater treatment plant and can cause upset conditions. Biological products cannot in a realistic time degrade some of the solids such as plastics, floatables, etc. that wind up in the lift station. Some of these eventually build up and must be mechanically removed.

Bacteria such as MicroBlockTM Solid block, MicroClear 207TM, & MicroSolv L100TM not only clean the lift stations if properly applied, they can help clean up the lines and can lighten the load at the treatment plant and reduce solids or help with BOD and TSS loading. Again, it is all in the program addition; conditions such as flow, temperature and loading that impact whether a program will impact just the lift station, the pipes or the plant. At Environmental Leverage, Inc., we have 3 different types of products for wet wells, manholes and lift stations.

Liquid Bioaugmentation Products: We have liquids MicroSolv L100TM or MicroClear 1XFHCTM that we recommend when there is an extremely high level of grease built up to get started or for applications where an automatic pump is desired for slow periodic or continual feeding. Typical dosing rates for Grease Traps: For 20 cubic ft. or less - 4-5 oz. of product daily should be added by pouring in the sink or pipe closest to the grease trap.

This should be done during night shift cleanup, weekends or during downtime when trap is used the least. After adding, wash down with a cup of warm water. For extreme build ups of grease, add 1 cup of fertilizer high in N and P once a week to help with the biodegradation. For grease traps larger than 20 cubic feet, add 8-10 oz. daily and follow the same procedure.
1 8iy ple. verage Inc. • 630-906-9791 • 812 Dogwoc . Suite A, North Aurora, IL 605 agerggntia evfrfge2om

Envnmentat
Turning LWblliuea Iwo Leverage
Drain Lines and collection systems:
2" 4 oz. 2 times/ week
4" 8 oz. 2 times/ week
6" 12 oz. 2 times/ week
8" 16 oz. 2 times/ week
Add the product a minimum of twice a week to max of four times a week depending upon the flow and loading.

Add product by pouring directly into the drain or collection system. Add 1-2 cups of fertilizer high in N and P once a week depending upon the size of the pipe to speed up biodegradation.

Product
2 Pound Brick
5 Pound Brick
10 Pound Brick
Bioaugmentation Blocks for lift stations and wet wells:

MiCrOBIOCkTM is a solid, bacterial laden, brick for use in degrading organic waste grease traps. The safe, naturally occurring bacteria are present in high numbers to handle difficult organic problems. The unique brick will gradually dissolve over a 35-120 day period which allows for continuous treatment and degradation of waste. The naturally occurring bacteria contained in the block will reduce odor, sludge, fats, oils and grease buildup.

DOSAGE RATE GUIDELINES,
Size of system
15-25 Gal. Trap
50-150 Gal Trap
250-500 Gal Trap
Typical application rate
35-60 Days
45-75 Days
60-90 Days
Flow rate
flows less than 50,000 gpd
flows 50,000-100,000 gpd
flows >100,000 gpd
Application: MicroBlockTM gives round the clock waste degradation treatment with a simple, easy to use system. Simply suspend the MicroBlockTM into the treatment area, hanging the block %z the way into the grease trap below the water line. The brick will dissolve over a 35-120 day period, depending on size and flow rates in a typical grease trap providing optimal efficiency and treatment. Try to place in the opposite side of the incoming flow. For a lift station suspend the block below the liquid line and raise the float so the level will be above the grease ledge problem. Hang the block in the lowest flow rate in the lift station so it's not in the fast flow influent.

Dry Bioaugmentation products:

MicroClear-20771 is a high potency, bacteria -laden, powdered formulation, for use in degrading many types of waste. MicroClear-207TM contains a specially formulated, proprietary blend of microorganisms, micro/macronutrients, and surface tension suppressants/penetrants. Because of the diversity of the microorganism systems incorporated into this product it is specifically developed for use in municipal or food processing uses for which there requires a particular high impact on fats, oil and grease. The safe, naturally occurring bacteria are present in high numbers to handle difficult organic problems and are very economical. "MicroClear-207Tm" is packaged in one Ib. water soluble bags, 25 lbs. per pail.
2 ©Environmental Leverage Inc. • 630-906-9791 • 812 Dogwood Dr. Suite A, North Aurora, IL 60542 • EnvironmentalLeverage.com 09/23/2025
C5 Page 304 of 1112

i�
tai7t
n..,.me w.nw.i. be. Leverage

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS - SEWERS AND LIFT STATIONS
Flow Rate
Up to 25,000gpd
Up to 50,000gpd
Up to 100,000gpd
Up to 250,000gpd
Initial Dosage Maintenance**
1lb. per week %: lb. per week
1lb. 2x week 1 lb. per week
1lb. every other day 1 lb. 2x week
1lb. per day 1 lb. 3x week
Add the 1-Ib. water soluble bag directly into the water in the lift station.

Make sure it lands in the water, & not on the surface of a grease ledge or solid build up. If needed, raise the float 1-2 inches above a grease ledge so that any of the bioaugmentation products can have easy access to the grease.

Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
pH
Ammonia Residual
Ortho-phosphate Residual
"How Critical are the Critical 5 plus one"
Ok, so what exactly are the "Critical 5 plus one"?
I have never heard of that. There are 5 critical measurements that should be monitored and controlled if possible to effectively increase biological degradation efficiently; Temperature, D.O., Ammonia, Ortho-phosphate and pH are the five critical variables regardless of any application for biological activity.

Acceptable environmental parameters for biological activity including:

Acceptable Optimum
>0.5 mg/I 1.0 - 2.0 mg/I
50 - 95° F 77 - 95 ° F

6.0 - 9.0 7.0 - 7.5

1.0-3.0 mg/I 2.0-3.0 mg/I

0.5-2.0mg/I 1.0-2.0mg/I
Typically in lift stations if flow is high enough, there is sufficient DO. pH is usually in the neutral range.

Temperature is relatively normal, since hot water from many areas slowly cools down in the pipes and most pipes are underground to prevent freezing, so temps do not get too cold. Usually the main thing lacking in lift stations, especially where high grease is found is sufficient N and P.

We recommend purchasing a bag of fertilizer at your local hardware store, high in N and P values, and adding 1-2 cups to your application 1-2 times a week regardless of which type of biological product you are using. You would be amazed at how such a small thing can make a large difference.

How do I know if the product is working? The correct dosing and application will impact different variables and determine the impact on all three places. In the past, bacterial vendors or sanitary workers worried only about the lift station. Cleaning up the grease and quickly was the only concern. High levels of bacteria were added to the lift station. This may have cleaned up the lift station, but it just moved the grease down the pipes, clogged up the lines and caused high foaming at the treatment plant. Newer more conservative methods are now used to successfully dose a biological program in a lift station. 3 ©Environmental Leverage Inc. • 630-906-9791 • 812 Dogwood Dr. Suite A, North Aurora, IL 60542 • EnvironmentalLeverage.com 09/23/2025
C5 Page 305 of 1112

MELtnv nmentat
,,..,.lag ..bmc. — Leverage
Slower is better, although many people are anxious and say the product is not working.

What are signs that the product is working- Foaming in the lift station- white foam at first shows the bugs are in a high growth phase, as the foam turns to a light brown, they are getting a little older.

Are there signs of the grease softening?
Are there visible signs of cracks in what was once a solid surface? Make sure the biological product is in the water and not just sitting on top of the grease shelf. The product cannot jump out of the water-soluble bag. It needs some access to the water in order to move around, below and above the grease. Try adjusting the water levels in
the lift station and move the float a bit higher.

If there is a grease ledge, this is very important, since the water level must be a bit higher for a short period of time to allow the bacteria access to this grease and not just during high flows.

Spaces between the grease, white coloring of the water, some softening and foaming show the product is starting to work. More free space in the lift station, cleaner lines and floats show the product is doing a good job and on the way to a cleaner lift station.

These round solids have been called "Floating Turtles"- Hard solid formations that float around in the lift station. These can interfere with the pumps and can clog the pipes. Sometimes using a liquid product to spray on these can help reduce their size and shrink them faster. Raising or lowering the float will not impact situations with turtles.

Cracks starting to form in thick hardened grease indicate the biological program is working. Application of product is improper here, pink product all over the top of the grease and not really in contact with the water.

White milky water indicating bacteria is starting to work, cracks are starting to form in the grease; it is starting to soften and a little foaming is present Photographs above show various grease buildup.
4 ©Environmental Leverage Inc. • 630-906-9791 • 812 Dogwood Dr. Suite A, North Aurora, IL 60542 • EnvironmentalLeverage.com 09/23/2025
C5 Page 306 of 1112

i�
litEnv nmental
,,..,.lee . be. Leverage
Case Histories: Grease Control & Lift -station Maintenance Lift stations are notorious for filling up with debris, solids and tons of grease. The grease can become hard, form a shelf or ledge, or if too much, almost create a solid layer. By using bacterial products to clean the grease, a long term solution is established for the lift station. The bacteria also benefit the pipes downstream as well as the wastewater treatment plant.

The bacteria actually consume the grease as a food source and permanently remove the grease. Low maintenance dosages can then be used to keep the grease from building up and causing future problems.

This is a 5 Million Gallon a Day lift station that was filled with years of grease build-up.

This is how it looked
before bacterial product
(bioaugmentation)
was introduced.

There were thick solids
built up in the corner
Here is how it looks now
after using
Environmental Leverage's
bacterial products to
remove the grease.

Except for a little bit of solids in the upper left corner, most of the grease and solids build-up are gone. Here is the upper right corner- clean and free flowing water as opposed to the above picture prior to addition of our biological products. The grease ledge is gone, the solids and chucks of grease are dissolved and there is circulation of water and better mixing.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Please see our additional troubleshooting newsletters;
September 06' Collection systems newsletter, I need to get rid of grease in my lift stations 10-07 Grease and Septicity Newsletter, January 05 Grease seminar newsletter.

Reach our friendly staff @ 630-906-9791
[email protected]
www.EnvironmentalLeverage.com
5 ©Environmental Leverage Inc. • 630-906-9791 • 812 Dogwood Dr. Suite A, North Aurora, IL 60542 • EnvironmentalLeverage.com 09/23/2025
C5 Page 307 of 1112

nvironmental
everage H.

Turning Liabilities Into Leverage!
Degrades
(FOG)
Fats, Oils & Grease
Starches
Protein
IVlalodors
Animal Fat
Organics
Triglycerides
Foaming
Surfactants
Soaps
Reduces BOD
Environmental Leverage° Inc.
812 Dogwood Dr. Suite A
North Aurora, IL 60542
adnin ate, nvironrnentalLeverage. cam
630-906-9791 fax 630-906-9792
www.ErwironmentalLeveracje.com
09/23/2025
MicroBlockTM
For Bioaugmentation & FOG Control
Product Bulletin
--Environmental tal Leverage has Lab Analysis Servic' a Available -- MicroBlockTM is a solid, bacterial laden, slow release block for use in degrading organics. The safe, naturally occurring bacteria are present in high numbers to handle difficult organic problems. The unique block will gradually dissolve over a 30-90 day period which allows for continuous treatment and degradation of waste. The naturally occurring bacteria contained in the block will reduce odor, sludge, fats, oils and grease buildup.

Biological products offer a more efficient alternative to chemicals. They actually degrade the grease and organics at the source. The MicroBlockTM is suspended below the water level and provides slow, continuous release for the bacteria.

Application Sewer, Lift Stations & Vt t falls for FOG Control

DOSAGE RATE GUIDELINES
2 - lb. IVicroBlockTM
5 - lb. IVicroBlockTM
10 - lb. IVicroBlockTM
Product Advantages
35-60 Days flows less than 50,000 gpd
45-75 Days flows 50,000-100,000 gpd
60-90 Days flows >100,000 gpd
*Allows for 24 hour continuous treatment of waste,
not just periodic dosage
* Greatly reduces labor time needed for dosage
maintenance
* Reduces hydrogen sulfide & sludge buildup
* Fasy to sp
* Significantly reduces malodors
* Cost effective & reduces the need for pump -outs and
dredging
* Breaks down fat & grease buildup (FOG)
* Dirrinates need for metering pump - no initial or
maintenance cost
* Eliminates need for personnel to dose other types of
treatments daily or weekly
* Automates septic and grease trap maintenance
program
Packaging of Product
2 Ib. / 4 per Case
5 lb./ 4 per Case
10 lb. /4 per Case
C5
Applications of Use

LIFT STATIONS

WET WELLS

SUMP PITS

DIGESTERS

SLUDGE TANKS

SEWER MAINS

LATERALS

GREASE TRAPS

AERATION SBR'S
LAGOON\'S

TRICKLING FILTERS

DRAIN LINES

Page 308 of 1112 ends

Environmental
everage
TurningLiobitities Into Le -reneger
2 lb. MicroBlock
Start taking the
Grease & Scum
out of your system
Today!
Degrades
(FOGS
Fats, Oils &Grease
Starches
Protein
Malodors
Animal Fat
Organics
Triglycerides
Foaming
Surfactants
Soaps
Reduces BOD
Environmental Leverage° Inc.
812 Dogwood Dr. Suite A
North Aurora, IL 60542
[email protected]
nvironrrentalLeverage.com
630-906-9791 fax 630-906-9792
www.Enviroug f com
MicroBlockTM
For Bioaugmentation & FOG Control
Product Bulletin
Environmental Leverage has Lab Analysis Service Available MicroBlockTM gives round the clock waste degradation treatment with a simple, easy to use system. Simply suspend the MicroBlockTM into the treatment area, hanging the MicroBlockTM '/2 the way into the lift station liquid, wet well, grease trap or pre-treatment site. The block will dissolve over a 30-90 day period, depending on size and flow rates in a typical lift stations or wet wells, providing optimal efficiency and treatment.

Typical Properties of Product
Appearance medium green
Fragrance mild -earthy
Form block
pH 7.8-8.5
Shelf -Life 2 years/u.o.c.

Flash Point none
Performance Properties
Effective pH range 5.2 - 9.5
Effective Temperature Ran 40 - 120°F
Storage & Handling
Storage Store in a cool, dry place. Do Not Freeze
Container Keep box closed & blocks in plastic bag. Seal end of bag to keep blocks away from air flow.

Handling Wash hands thoroughly with warm, soapy water
Bacterial Count
MicroBlockTM 4 Billion CFU's per gram
Block Contents include 4 strains of Bacillus & Nutrient Package *Ask about the impact of supplementing N and P.

C5 Page 309 of 1112

1 PROPOSAL
DATE: April 7, 2021
PHI PROJECT: 21-031
SUBJECT: City of Vista, CA — Buena & Raceway Pump Stations ENGINEER: HDR Engineers
MANUFACTURER: Pulsed Hydraulics Inc.

REPRESENTATIVE: JBI Water & Wastewater
PHI would be pleased to provide the following equipment to meet the mixing requirements of the Large Bubble Mixing System for City of Vista, CA. Pulsed Hydraulics Inc. will supply a standard product that will meet the functional intent of removing grease and reducing odors.

SCOPE:

The PHI variable speed mixing system is a patented method of mixing pump stations via injection of compressed air by pneumatic / electric valves through specifically spaced bubble forming plates anchored to the bottom of the pump stations. A factory programmed controller operates the injection process.

Compressed air is injected as a very short duration pulse or burst in order to form a large bubble air mass, which, as it rises to the surface, forms a powerful and thorough mixing action.

Each injection valve is connected to bubble forming plates with one -inch diameter piping made of suitable material for the liquid being mixed and for the air pressure utilized. Three mixing systems will be supplied for this project. One for each lift station: Buena Pump Stations 1 & 2, and Raceway Pump Station.

EQUIPMENT:

A. Bubble Forming Plates (referred to as BFPs) — The project will include seven (7), 8 -inch diameter 316 stainless steel BFPs.

A BFP consists of two disks separated approximately 3/8 inch apart by internal spacers.

Air is injected through a 1 -inch NPT threaded nipple in the top disk to the space between the disks where it is forced laterally to form the mixing air mass. Three 3/8 -inch diameter, equally spaced pre -drilled holes are used for anchoring the BFP to the tank bottom. A 09/23/20215 Oro Beach Drive, Oroville, WA 98844 7jc+15800-641-1726 Email: info@pyty jgbcagn.) 0 of 1112

2 2
drawing of a BFP accompanies this proposal. BFPs can be leveled by using threaded bolts with leveling nuts.

B. PHI Mixing Valve Enclosures (referred to as MVEs) — PHI will supply three (3) model PHI 350SST-HT MVE's.

1. The MVE is made of 304 SST and is NEMA 4X rated

2. The MVE will have injection valves which are solenoid controlled and pilot air assisted. The valve body and manifold base will be made of anodized aluminum.

Seals will be Nitrile/Buna-N. The valve will be a positive sealing poppet valve designed to be self -compensating for wear and non -tubed service. The valve will be supplied by Ross Controls.

3. The controller is a PLC by Maple Systems.

4. A 7 -inch color touchscreen OIT shall be mounted on the MVE door. The OIT shall allow operators to change pulse frequency, pulse duration (open / close cycle timing), valve pulse order, valve operation mode (intermittent, continuous or off). A NEMA 4X door will protect the display from the elements when the MVE is mounted outdoors.

5. An air filter with a 50 -micron element and an auto -drain feature is provided to remove particulates and water to protect the regulator and injection valve.

6. A manually adjustable pressure regulator with gauge provides constant pressure for proper air flow to the injection valves. It also allows for adjustment to different air pressures. Pressure to this regulator cannot exceed 175 PSIG nor be less than 30 PSIG. Excessive pressure will damage the regulator seal. Under pressure will not allow the valve to pulse correctly.

7. An electric heater (50 W) is provided when MVEs are located outdoors in cold climates.

8. Components are pre -piped with 304/316 stainless steel pipe and fittings and are factory tested for leaks and function. Quick disconnect unions are provided for servicing of components.

9. Each PHI MVE will require a 110 Vac @ 20 -amp electrical service.

C. Spare Parts —

1. Three (3) Valve Solenoid Kits — Part No. 1467B7916

2. Six (6) Valve Seal Kits — Part No. CP16NA-SK

3. Four (4) Valve Silicon Grease Kits (Pact of 5) — Part No. G661

4. Three (3) Metalworks filter elements, 50 micron — Part No. 9210157

5. One (1) Air Pressure Sensor — Part No. F4200100PT
D. Compressed Air System —

1. A Kaeser SK -15 (15 HP) rotary screw compressor for mixing Buena Pump Station 1 &2

2. A Kaeser SM-7.5 (7.5 HP) rotary screw compressor for mixing Raceway Pump Station

3. Both compressors are complete with dryer and receiver

4. Tank (see attached specification sheets).
09/23/20215 Oro Beach Drive, Oroville, WA 98844 7jc+15800-641-1726 Email: info@pyty jgbc&m.) 1 of 1112

3 3
EQUIPMENT SUMMARY:

Buena Pump Station #1:

1. One (1) PHi 350-2 (2 -valves)

2. Two Bubble Forming Plates
Buena Pump Station #2:

1. One (1) PHi 350-3 (3 -valves)

2. Three Bubble Forming Plates

3. One Kaeser SK -15 Compressor
Raceway Pump Station:

1. One (1) PHi 350-2 (2 -valves)

2. Two Bubble Forming Plates

3. One Kaeser SM-7.5 Compressor
NOT INCLUDED:

1. Receiving, unloading and installation of equipment.

2. Electrical wire or conduit.

3. Piping from compressor(s) to PHI 355 Enclosure.

4. Piping from PHI 355 Enclosure to bubble forming plates.

5. Installation of all compressors and associated equipment.

6. Installation and anchoring of forming plates.

7. All parts required to install the systems that are not listed as PHI supply.

SERVICE:

1. Start-up, training and fine tuning: Two (2) days.

SUBMITTALS:

Two (2) weeks after order acceptance.

FABRICATION / DELIVERY:

1. Plates — One (1) week

2. Panels — Six (6) weeks after approval
FREIGHT:

Included in price.

PRICE: $107,700
TERMS:
20 % with return of approved drawings or order acceptance by PHI (if submittals are not required)
75% net 45 days from ship date
5 % after installation and acceptance of equipment
CONDITION OF SALE:

1. All prices quoted shall be valid for 60 days from the date of this proposal. 09/23/20215 Oro Beach Drive, Oroville, WA 98844 7jc+15800-641-1726 Email: info@pyty jgbc&m.) 2 of 1112

4 4

2. The prices are based on the equipment being release for shipment by the 3rd quarter of 2021.

3. Prices on orders received after the above deadline or specifying later shipping dates shall be subject to review and possible adjustment in line with the then existing economic conditions

4. An interest charge of 1 '/2% per month will be added to past due accounts.

5. Other conditions of sale shall apply as noted in the attached Terms & Conditions.

WARRANTY:

PHI Systems Inc. (PHI) warrants material and workmanship in equipment and assigns to the purchaser any express warranty granted by the suppliers of components used in the manufacture of the products. PHI's warranty shall be for a period of eighteen (18) months after the date of shipment to the original purchaser or one (1) years after start-up by the original purchaser, whichever date occurs first, during which time nonconforming products shall be repaired or replaced at PHI's option. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL

OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING DESIGN, COURSE OF

DEALING, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND PHI

SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR LOSS OF USE, REVENUE, OR PROFIT, OR INJURY, OR FOR ANY OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES.

Submitted by:

Kris Drewry
09/23/20215 Oro Beach Drive, Oroville, WA 98844 7jc+15800-641-1726 Email: info@ppyAbcin 3 of 1112

Zl l l .o 1lC abed
SZOZ/EZ/60
Pul

APPLICATI ON DR AWING
To PHi Mixer
m%6
MANHOLE 1
ABOVE
S-0'
WET W EIdi
ELEV - 301.
rir
sa
To PHi Mixer
N_n
...II S/1fl
EL -315.00

1.0 . CONC
TYP
T.O . CONC 17-1

PERIMETER OF LANDING
rEL_305 .00
MAMIOLE i
ABOVE
I
•1SAFETY CHAIN

PER TY P
WP
r
WET
ELEV �
10" \ P
S�ELL `-•
:: a
NOTES
CM • RECOMMEND 15 HP ROTARY SCREW COMPRESSOR
• COMPRESSOR PACKAGE TO INCLUDE DRYER, AND NECESSARY FILTERS • ADJUST REGULATOR IN PHI ENCLOSURES TO PROVIDE 45-50 PSI TO BUBBLE

FORMING PLATES
• BALL VALVES NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO ISOLATE PHI CONTROLLERS FROM

AIR SOURCE
• 3 -PHASE 208/230/460 FOR COMPRESSOR
• PHI SYSTEM REQUIRES 110/VAC/15 AMP CIRCUIT
• 1" STAINLESS STEEL PIPING RECOMMENDED
• 1" PIPING RATED @175 PSI AND SUITABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT • ALL AIR PIPING FROM THE PHI SYSTEM TO THE BUBBLE FORMING PLATES

MUST BE LEAK FREE FOR PROPER OPERATION
• MOUNT BUBBLE FORMING PLATES WITHIN 1' OF INDICATED LOCATIONS BUT NO CLOSER THAN 2' FROM PUMP INTAKE WITHOUT AIR DEFLECTOR • MIXER CAN BE OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY OR INCREMENTALLY WITH

INSTALLED TIMER
Title: City of Vista, CA
Buena Pump Station
Author: PHI/DMD
Date: 4/6/21
Sheet: 1 of 1
PHi Project #: 21-031

NOT TO SCALE

2166.o 9ICabed
Pul

APPLICATI ON DR AWING
SZOZ/EZ/60
NOTES
CP • RECOMMEND 7.5 HP ROTARY SCREW COMPRESSOR
• COMPRESSOR PACKAGE TO INCLUDE DRYER, AND NECESSARY FILTERS • ADJUST REGULATOR IN PHI ENCLOSURES TO PROVIDE 45-50 PSI TO BUBBLE

FORMING PLATES
• BALL VALVES NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO ISOLATE PHI CONTROLLERS FROM

AIR SOURCE
• 3 -PHASE 208/230/460 FOR COMPRESSOR
• PHI SYSTEM REQUIRES 110N AC/15 AMP CIRCUIT
• 1" STAINLESS STEEL PIPING RECOMMENDED
• 1" PIPING RATED @175 PSI AND SUITABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT • ALL AIR PIPING FROM THE PHI SYSTEM TO THE BUBBLE FORMING PLATES

INSTALLED TIMER
To PHi Mixer
•
J
•
•

•
•
•
•
�U,
it
U1 �
u
�i
r-9
4f
-ier- :J--i F-= -4....,----
:
.'74:

ACCESS HATCH
8lP-_
‘ Z /I I% /1 I\ " '
`,r� 1 I 44r�: II ��i� '

I IN CEILING

ABOVE ITYP)
t-
�EtP
II
—3'
r
;• . — : '-0• ' :: 4'-0• . s..
•""' •:n" I i •.•••
I WET •
WELL r
+ -
L_�_J
L__L—_J
L_ _
FF El 2a100�
y _
+�
II
Ci2£1
C/20
01712E)
h•
Title: City of Vista, CA
Raceway Pump Station
Author: PHI/DMD
Date: 4/7/21
Sheet: 1 of 1
PHi Project #: 21-031

NOT TO SCALE

7 PH PHi-350 Series
Hydro -Pulse Mixer
Description: The PHI -350 mixer is unique in that it utilizes large air bub- bles which are sequentially injected in a liquid to create powerful mixing currents. The system is contained in an 30" x 24" x 8" NEMA-4X enclosure that consists of three major components."
1) An electro-pneumatic valve which has a high CV valve, allowing it to open and close in milliseconds, which creates a well -formed bubble. 2) A pressure regulator/air filter, with auto -drain, which controls the pres- sure of the mixing air (typically set at 50 psi)
3) HMI (Human Machine Interface) with 7 -inch programmable touchscreen sets pulse duration and frequency. Also provides timer for off/ on mixing schedule.

Bubble Forming Plate: The only equipment in-
stalled in the vessel is the forming plate and pip-
ing. The forming plate is an 8 -inch disk consisting
of two 3/16" plates (either stainless steel or PVC,
depending on the product being mixed), which are
separated by 3/16 of an inch and connected to a 1 -
inch NPT pipe. Piping is run from the enclosure
and connected to the forming plate. The electro-
pneumatic valve delivers the compressed air
through the piping to the forming plates where it
exits between the two plates, creating a large bub-
ble mass. The mixing is created by the bubble ris-
ing to the top of the vessel, forcing a wave action
to the sides of the vessel, then down the walls of
the vessel and back to towards the middle.

Smaller vessels can be mixed by a single valve
and forming plate, where a larger vessel may take
a number of valves controlling air to an array of
plates in the vessel.

Applications: The PHi-350 is used in wastewater treatment plants to mix sludge holding tanks, aerobic digesters, lift stations, chemical tanks, polishing basins, anoxic basins and aeration basins to enhance oxygen transfer, as well as any other liquid vessel that requires mixing.

The PHi-350 system is NSF -61 approved and used to mix potable water tanks of any size or shape. Complete mixing is accomplished in minutes.

Energy Savings: The PHi-350 uses substantially less energy than mechanical mixers.

Visit our Website at www.phiwater.com , email [email protected], call us at (800) 641-1726, or write us at 15 Oro Beach Dr., Oroville, WA 98844.

PH
09/23/2025
C5 Page 316 of 1112

8 PHi-350 Series
Hydro -Pulse Mixer
Pneumatic
Valve
Pulsed Air
Output
1" (25 mm)
female NPT
HMI with 7" (178
mm)
Touchscreen
On/Off Switch [_.

Circuit Breaker
Options
POWER: 110VAC @ 60HZ consumption www.phiwater.com , email [email protected], call us at (800) 641-1726, or write us at 15 Oro Beach Dr., Oroville, WA 98844.

PH
0169/18
09/23/2025
C5 Page 317 of 1112

CO \`
W
N 0
Cl
01 °
z.n s •
rn)
< 3
\`

0. '''';'4)
O 37 2.
" a,
" (,
-jl
-L

MATERIALS LIST
I I
�0 _
I
Kii
r
ITEM
QTY

DESCRIPTION

MATERIAL

THICKNESS

REVISION
DATE
1 1

TOP PLATE
316 STAINLESS STEEL
3/16"
.0
2 1
BD 1 OM PLATE
316 STAINLESS STEEL
3/16"
-
3 3
SPACER
316 STAINLESS STEEL
3/16"
SPACER
4 1
1 NPT PIPE
NIPPLE
316 STAINLESS STEEL
SCH 40
—
�'/ ScaleiNOne
r, P
,vP

5 1

FORMING

PLATE ASSY
-
-
—
,w
,xgE SE oua� Pu,a
0 /
,m
o ,a"
T
W u ..
ca ,wiH°
DI
TOP R"Tc Lacat
TO BOTTOM u
, , How
ry
r
/
rI
�•m
,w

` u ""re
ui
a nta,

E ATON PL ATE OEM,
41 TO P PLA E LESS

CENTER HOLE
NOTES

1. ALL TOLERANCES SHALL on tl- 0000'.
2 ASSEMBLY:

INSERT& WELD ALL SPACERS TO THE TOPE BOTTOM PLATES
- CENTER THE NIPPLE OVER THE CENTER HOLE& WELD TO THETOP PLATE

3. GRIND ALL SURFACES S EDGES TO REMOVE SUERS PIPE
�Nrvona

NIPPLE
N H AT

QTOP PLATE
1 O BOTTOM PLATE

O PIPE NIPPLE
None:
2 Stale Kane
4 Scale: N one .
/
V1
— O TOP PLATE
` O BOTTOM PL ATE Soo&

OJ TEASER TOP
\
Oa PIPE
—

N IPPLE
\
,O N OM PIA
I W E's
C NO
lw
L
I
i
l
a,F suggaces�
) -

O TOP PLA TE
/ O. 1rEE,APTPPLE
N
��w %� e• ta:
1 ! l
CO

O BOTTOM PLATE
o SPACER LI .
0 —I'

PLATE ASSEMBLY
5O FORMING
scale: None
O
pulsed fhydradics Inc.

Bellevue, WA
info@phnirater .c oni
T 425 785 3192
F :425,6432505
li 2005 CpY ght Puled Hydraulics, .

All rights resolved.

All dra wnand written InIcrmalionppe ng
h erein shall not h edupli cated, disclosed or
otherwise d otl eb t d Wnhut theprior
written aanse nl of Pulsed Hydraulics. Inc .

Shop
Drawing
For
Forming
Plate
Asse mbly
8" DOUBLE FORMING
PLATE
316 STAINLESS STEEL
MARK DEw4IPTION

REVISIONS
DATE
BY
osotJ
Dale
PLAN,

DETAILS, NOTES &

MATERIALS
DFP-8SS

SHOP DRAWING
Sheol of

10 KAESER

COMPRESSORS
SM AirCenterTM Simplex - Standard Configuration
Compressor Model: SM 7.5
Discharge Pressure: 125 psig
Max. Operating Pressure: 150 psig
Capacity: 32 cfm
Drive Motor: 7.5 hp
Drive Motor Efficiency: 89.5 %
Standard Controller: Sigma Control Basic
Electrical Requirement: 208-230/460V/3ph/60Hz
Cooling Method: Air-cooled
Air Receiver Size: 71 gal

SCOPE OF SUPPLY
SM 7.5 AirCenter Simplex compressor package is designed for the performance specified herein. The Kaeser rotary screw compressor includes the following standard features and accessories:

Compressor
Single -stage, fluid -injected rotary screw compressor with the power -saving Sigma Profile airend Electric Motor/Drive
• High efficiency, EPAct-compliant TEFC drive motor with thermal overload protection, minimum 1.15 service factor, 150% minimum pull-up torque and Class F insulation Automatic tensioning device for belt drive
Starter
• Magnetic wye-delta reduced voltage starter housed in a NEMA 12 control panel Protective Devices
• Built-in protective devices include safety pressure relief valve(s), emergency stop button, fluid level sight glasses and door interlock switch
Air/Coolant System
• 4 -micron air intake filter with cleanable and replaceable element • ASME fluid separator tank with 3 -stage separation ensures minimal fluid carry-over of 1-3 ppm (by weight) • Filter mat on fluid and air coolers simplifies cooler maintenance Enclosure
• Soundproofed enclosure features lined panels and a durable powder -coated finish. Compressor is mounted on solid base frame with a solid steel floor and anti -vibration mounts. Additional vibration isolation of airend, motor and separator tank is standard
Single removable panel provides access to all maintenance components, including two windows to view fluid level and belt tension
Sigma Control Basic
• Sigma Control Basic PLC -based control system with monitoring of emergency stop, motor overload, direction of rotation, airend discharge temperature, refrigerated dryer, analog inputs, cabinet temperature, service hours, back pressure, and minimum starting temperature Sigma Control Basic ensures economic operation by means of the optimized dual control system. This allows the unit to run either fully loaded or unloaded and reduce power requirements during idle. Idle period timer shuts the compressor down if air is not required for a preset time Refrigerated Dryer
• Built-in refrigerated air dryer provides pressure dew point as low as 38°F with minimum pressure drop • Air-to-air and air -to -refrigerant heat exchangers are constructed of stainless steel plates that provide a low pressure drop. Dryer uses CFC-free R -134a refrigerant
• A multistage, stainless steel separator filters out large amounts of water and contaminants in the air stream Simplex Features and Options
• ASME receiver tank with safety relief valve, pressure gauge, and manual drain valve • Optional Clean Air Treatment Package
• Includes Eco-Drain and KOR coalescing oil removal filter Warranty
• Twenty-four (24) hour emergency parts guarantee (standard units only - see price list) • Standard twelve (12) month warranty on compressor package for materials and workmanship • Standard twenty-four (24) month limited warranty on airend, motor, and starters • Optional sixty (60) month limited warranty on Sigma Control Basic controller, airend and motor All specifications subject to change without notice.

Scope O9123/2025
Product_M-Travis/C5-030283-USA-SM AirCenter Simplex with Integral I[
$t brd3319atiorruoti-31212st 2008

11 KAESER

COMPRESSORS

DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS
Compressed air auhlet fPT 314 4Odischarge
View X
Z
-.

Ir isUange
„.„II

1. z3
r 11
cfi�
l w1 Hi 1
_
.c.,.�s�v
g
.0 -s
� I _
63'4
1 4
n3 ar
'13:3'4
��
I n4ate
-�
drain
.—

47114
APFnaeT
2112 )Coaling air
2 Condensate drain
aldlel
die. 5/8
•
—
�
ICI
Cooling air inlet J
1 !'
Air discharge
8 +- '
S
-
.}555•y�y��11
X11
®
el
e" e;o
•
Ai urge
Eill
��
®
p
S°
LJI`
Cooling air inlet
m
Air arschrrge )
fi
zg -r
S3
_ — k0.

H1
—
,
Air discharge
2 1aa
_
. - C 5318
■ 24718
.14
1318�i1r
II .
1318
313)4
9848
(381121
314
Il 23 318
_4llt
I
24 3)4
CG Centre of
g t
301!1 ©
gravity
position marginally dependent on design
illi
a
'�
I
a�'°^
rase
All dimension¢ are in inches)
,rte , .

AirCenter SFC 8 O
KAESEFt
rnahemou»rp
m
KOMPRE$SOREN
oan
m
Ari11V'[tea
err'
Aircenter SM 7.5/10/15
R Pier
PI
Aaw14"amrrr in passages one doorways
,9.oeRWT
sinuEmt, r.
mtlN^tWmrmnfiler
no
Gating hosnot been rimer a
ncr,ri
Ersch.lir
T10774.00use
07 SM AirCenter Simplex

MONITORING FUNCTIONS
1 - Safety shutdown (emergency stop)/access door open
2 — Motor overload
3 — Incorrect direction of rotation
4—Airend discharge temperature too high
5 — Refrigerated dryer
6 — Analog input(s) defective
7 — Maximum cabinet temperature exceeded
8 — Reserved for future use
S - Service hour limit exceeded
p — Back pressure exists
T — Below minimum starting temperature
i — Safety inspection activated
All specifications subject to change without notice.

Technical Specifications / Drawings Product_M-Travis/QEM/F-030283-USA-SM AirCenter Simplex with Integral Dryer - Standard Configuration Quote -3/22 August 2008 09/23/2025 C5 Page 320 of 1112

12 KAESER

COMPRESSORS
SK AirCenterTM
Compressor Model: SK 15
Dryer Model: Integral
Discharge Pressure*: 125 psig
Capacity: 71 cfm
Drive Motor: 15 hp
Drive Motor Efficiency: 91 %
Standard Controller: Sigma Control Basic
Electrical Requirement: 208-230/460V/3ph/60Hz
Cooling Method: Air-cooled
Air Receiver Size: 92.5 gal

SCOPE OF SUPPLY
SK 15 AirCenter compressor package is designed for the performance specified herein. The Kaeser rotary screw compressor includes the following standard features and accessories:

Compressor
• Single -stage, fluid -injected rotary screw compressors with the power -saving Sigma Profile airend Electric Motor/Drive
• Energy efficient TEFC drive motor with thermal overload protection, 150% minimum pull-up torque and Class F insulation Automatic tensioning device for belt drive
Starter
• Magnetic wye-delta reduced voltage starter housed in a NEMA 12 control panel Protective Devices
• Built-in protective devices include safety pressure reliefvalve(s), emergency stop button, fluid level and belt tension sight glasses and door interlock switch
Air/Coolant System
• 1 -micron air intake filter with cleanable and replaceable element • ASME fluid separator tank with 3 -stage separation ensures minimal fluid carry-over of 1-3 ppm (by weight) • Filter mat on fluid and air coolers simplifies cooler maintenance Enclosure
Soundproof enclosure features lined panels and a durable powder -coated finish. Compressor is mounted on solid base frame with a solid steel floor and anti -vibration mounts. Additional vibration isolation of airend, motor and separator tank is standard
Single removable panel provides access to all maintenance components, including two windows to view fluid level and belt tension (T model has additional window for testing drain) Sigma Control Basic
• Sigma Control Basic PLC -based control system with monitoring of emergency stop, motor overload, direction of rotation, airend discharge temperature, refrigerated dryer, analog inputs, cabinet temperature, service hours, back pressure, and minimum starting temperature Sigma Control Basic ensures economic operation by means of the optimized dual control system. This allows the unit to run either fully loaded or unloaded and reduce power requirements during idle. Idle period timer shuts the compressor down if air is not required for a preset time Refrigerated Dryer
• Built-in refrigerated air dryer provides pressure dew point as low as 38°F with minimum pressure drop Air-to-air and air -to -refrigerant heat exchangers are constructed of stainless steel plates that provide a low pressure drop. Dryer uses CFC-free R -134a refrigerant
A multistage, stainless steel separator filters out large amounts of water and contaminants in the air stream Features and Options
• ASME receiver tank with safety relief valve, pressure gauge, and manual drain valve • Optional Sigma Control 2TM. The control system will monitor critical compressor and control functions and shut the compressor down in the event of motor overload, high airend temperature, incorrect rotation or loss of drive.

Optional Clean Air Treatment Package
Warranty
• Twenty-four (24) hour emergency parts guarantee (standard units only - see price list) • Standard twelve (12) month warranty on compressor package for materials and workmanship • Standard twenty-four (24) month limited warranty on airend, motor, and starters • Optional sixty (60) month limited warranty on Sigma Control Basic controller, airend and motor Package set-up can vary depending on the configuration of the machine All specifications subject to change without notice.
scopeof®9/23/2025 C5
Watkins-Producpaty e0232. KAerGfte1Q1te1w} eb 2017

OZOZ/2Z/60
C1
liOutlet: cooling air
4 2 3/4 ►
39 1/4
Center of gravity
Po sitio n marginally depe ndent on de sign
Transport opening 2 machine width + 3,9 inch
20 7/8
Inlet:
cooling air
Inlet:
cooling air
90°
03 N
M
30 1/4
e
co
co
13 3/4 °D1
►� r--
tp
25 3/8
z
03 LC)
tin
W1 Y
ID NPT 3/4
Outlet: c ompressed air
W1
137/8
39 7/8
Outlet: compressed air
l_
Outlet compressed air
Outl et: compress ed air
Connection:
cond ensat e drain
Electrical connecti on
ID : I nternal thr ead
Inl et:
cooling air
ID NPT 1
Outlet: compressed air
dai. 5/8
C onnection:
condensate drain
Dimensions shown in inches
Change number
Praiecnon
.>e
S cale
1:15
Date
Name
Dra wn
Edited
Released
15 .052014

05.062014

26.06.2014
ROEnLiTZ1
ROEDLITZl
SCHUST4
KAESER

KOMPRESSOREN
prepared for ext. heat recov.

Ma chine mountings
Air cooling
KAESER FILTER KEA 1 ECO-DRAIN

KAESER FILTER KE / ECO-DRAIN
Document TZM
10274201 USE 00
Original
A2
H1
K1
F7
Fl
Document TZ0
10274201 D 00
status
R ele ased
Design ation
SK.2 AIRC K1
Dimension and co nnealon mm.
s

Ivy vane.

ENVIRONMENTAL

BUDGET & SIZING
CUSTOMER: City of Vista
SITE NAME: CA, Vista - Raceway PS
DATE: April 20, 2021
RECOMMENDATIONS:

SCOPE:

Number of Units:

Number of Nozzles:
1 2
1 2
200 ft
200 ft
100 ft
2 1
1 1
1 NANO
HV 500 Nozzle - Flexible Install
Oxidant Tubing
Water Tubing

2.5" Zipper Cable Sheath
IOM Manuals
Installation Kit - NANO - Multiple Nozzles
Modem
Communications - 1 Yr
Remote Monitoring - 1 Yr
OPTIONS:

Semi -Annual Maintenance & Extended Warranty Program - $10,995 annually BUDGET PRICING:
91,698 USD, Freight Included. Taxes extra
Pricing includes:
-1 Technician, 1 trip for 2 days for installation inspection, startup and operator training - 2 semi-annual visits to perform maintenance starting 6 months after startup WARRANTY - 18 months from ship date or 12 months from start up whichever comes first

SHIPMENT
Submittals 2 to 4 weeks after receipt of written purchase order Shipment 4 to 6 weeks after receipt submittal approval or waiver NOTES
Contractor is responsible for piping (materials and labor) from the VapexTM unit to the nozzle assembly Payment Terms: 15% upon release to production, 80% upon equipment delivery, 5% upon unit startup Prior to issuing Vapex Purchase Order, Vapex must provide a formal Quotation.

This is a preliminary budget. Above Pricing valid for 30 days 09/23/2025
2971-B Oxbow Circle
Cocoa, FL 32926
(407) 9057250

Page 323 of 1112 ends

Nor vane.

ENVIRONMENTAL

BUDGET & SIZING
CUSTOMER: City of Vista
SITE NAME: CA, Vista - Sharowridge PS
DATE: April 20, 2021
RECOMMENDATIONS:

SCOPE:

Number of Units:

Number of Nozzles:
1 2
1 2
200 ft
200 ft
100 ft
2 1
1 1
1 NANO
HV 500 Nozzle - Flexible Install
Oxidant Tubing
Water Tubing

2.5" Zipper Cable Sheath
IOM Manuals
Installation Kit - NANO - Multiple Nozzles
Modem
Communications - 1 Yr
Remote Monitoring - 1 Yr
OPTIONS:

This is a preliminary budget. Above Pricing valid for 30 days 09/23/2025
2971-B Oxbow Circle
Cocoa, FL 32926
(407) 9057250

Page 324 of 1112 ends

l bw:inchecl 'Reliability
Vaughan®
�� Chopper®
Rockwell Solutions
Attn: Kent Rockwell
Project: City of Vista
Quote Number:45437
Dated:04/02/21

Page 1 of 6 ends

DUE TO CONTINUED PRICING INSTABILITIES IN MOTORS, METALS AND CASTINGS ALL PRICING BEYOND 60 DAYS MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ORDER.

ITEM
QTY
UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
BUENA SHADOWRIDGE Pump Performance: 800 GPM
1 1 EA Vaughan Model S4TC-103
Portable Vaughan Conditioning Chopper Pump consisting of:

Casing, cast ductile iron with 4" ANSI CL 125 discharge flange.

Impeller, Cutter Bar, Cutter Nut Upper Cutter, cast steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Mechanical Seal, cartridge type with ductile iron gland, Viton O -rings, silicon carbide faces, and integral stainless steel sleeve as manufactured by Vaughan.

Elastomers, Buna N
Bearings, oil bath lubricated with minimum 100,000 -hour L-10 bearing life.

Bearing Housing, cast ductile iron with piloted motor mount.

Automatic Oil Level Monitor, PVC plastic reservoir with 120V switch and relay and 25 ft. of hose.

Shaft, heat treated steel
Drive, 10 HP, 1200 RPM, 230V OR 460V, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 1.15 SF, Explosion Proof (Class 1, Group C & D) 15 minute in air continuous duty submersible motor with tandem mechanical seals, moisture sensors, internal thermostats, and 50 feet of power and control cable, manufactured byABB/Baldor.

High Velocity Mixing Nozzle, fabricated mild steel.
4" 22.5 Degree Nozzle Assembly, mounted to 4" ANSI 150# slip-on flange.

Pump Finish: Solvent wash and coat with Tnemec Perma-Shield PL Series 431 epoxy. (Except Motor).

Lifting Eye with Portable Stand, fabricated steel.

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $16,115 $16,115
BUENA SHADOWRIDGE Pump Performance: 1225 GPM
2 1 EA Vaughan Model S6UC-113
Portable Vaughan Conditioning Chopper Pump consisting of:

Casing, cast ductile iron with 6" ANSI CL 125 discharge flange.

Impeller, Cutter Bar, Cutter Nut Upper Cutter, cast steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Mechanical Seal, cartridge type with ductile iron gland, Viton O -rings, silicon carbide faces, and integral stainless steel sleeve as manufactured by Vaughan.

Submittals:

Production Time:

FOB:

Terms:

Expiration:

Submittal time is 4 - 6 weeks after receipt of order.

Estimated 8 -10 weeks after receipt of approved submittals, released to production and executed purchase order. Estimated ship dates are subject to change dependent on motor availability.

Vaughan Co. will arrange shipment upon the receipt of approved factory tests, if applicable.

Montesano, Washington via best way.

Contingent on credit approval.

Quotation valid for 60 days.

JC
"First and Only Chopper Pump - Worldwide"
09/23/2 an Co., Inc. 1 364 M f t@e- hlopp rpdmps con kttp://www hopperpumps. om/ter agei OL0 Ol 9�61151�2

l bw:inchecl 'Reliability
Vaughan®
�� Chopper®
Rockwell Solutions
Attn: Kent Rockwell
Project: City of Vista
Quote Number:45437
Dated:04/02/21

Page 2 ends

DUE TO CONTINUED PRICING INSTABILITIES IN MOTORS, METALS AND CASTINGS ALL PRICING BEYOND 60 DAYS MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ORDER.

ITEM
QTY
UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
Elastomers, Buna N
Bearings, oil bath lubricated with minimum 100,000 -hour L-10 bearing life.

Bearing Housing, cast ductile iron with piloted motor mount.

Automatic Oil Level Monitor, PVC plastic reservoir with 120V switch and relay and 25 ft. of hose.

Shaft, heat treated steel
Drive, 20 HP, 1200 RPM, 230V OR 460V, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 1.15 SF, Explosion Proof (Class 1, Group C & D) 15 minute in air continuous duty submersible motor with tandem mechanical seals, moisture sensors, internal thermostats, and 50 feet of power and control cable, manufactured byABB/Baldor.

High Velocity Mixing Nozzle, fabricated mild steel.
6" 22.5 Degree Nozzle Assembly, mounted to 6" ANSI 150# slip-on flange.

Pump Finish: Solvent wash and coat with Tnemec Perma-Shield PL Series 431 epoxy. (Except Motor).

Lifting Eye with Portable Stand, fabricated steel.

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $22,410 $22,410
BUENA SHADOWRIDGE Pump Performance: 550 GPM
3 1 EA Vaughan Model S4SC-095
Portable Vaughan Conditioning Chopper Pump consisting of:

Casing, cast ductile iron with 4" ANSI CL 125 discharge flange.

Impeller, Cutter Bar, Cutter Nut Upper Cutter, cast steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Mechanical Seal, cartridge type with ductile iron gland, Viton O -rings, silicon carbide faces, and integral stainless steel sleeve as manufactured by Vaughan.

Elastomers, Buna N
Bearings, oil bath lubricated with minimum 100,000 -hour L-10 bearing life.

Bearing Housing, cast ductile iron with piloted motor mount.

Automatic Oil Level Monitor, PVC plastic reservoir with 120V switch and relay and 25 ft. of hose.

Shaft, heat treated steel
Drive, 7.5 HP, 1200 RPM, 230V OR 460V, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 1.15 SF, Explosion Proof (Class 1, Group C & D) 15 minute in air continuous duty submersible motor with Submittals:

Production Time:

FOB:

Terms:

Expiration:

Submittal time is 4 - 6 weeks after receipt of order.

Estimated 8 -10 weeks after receipt of approved submittals, released to production and executed purchase order. Estimated ship dates are subject to change dependent on motor availability.

Vaughan Co. will arrange shipment upon the receipt of approved factory tests, if applicable.

Montesano, Washington via best way.

Contingent on credit approval.

Quotation valid for 60 days.

JC
"First and Only Chopper Pump - Worldwide"
09/23/2 an Co., Inc. 1 364 M f t@e- hlopp rpdmps con kttp://www hopperpumps. om6ter agei OLO Ol 9�61151�2

l bw:inchecl 'Reliability
Vaughan®
�� Chopper®
Rockwell Solutions
Attn: Kent Rockwell
Project: City of Vista
Quote Number:45437
Dated:04/02/21

Page 3 ends

DUE TO CONTINUED PRICING INSTABILITIES IN MOTORS, METALS AND CASTINGS ALL PRICING BEYOND 60 DAYS MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ORDER.

ITEM
QTY
UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
tandem mechanical seals, moisture sensors, internal thermostats, and 50 feet of power and control cable, manufactured byABB/Baldor.

High Velocity Mixing Nozzle, fabricated mild steel.
4" 22.5 Degree Nozzle Assembly, mounted to 4" ANSI 150# slip-on flange.

Pump Finish: Solvent wash and coat with Tnemec Perma-Shield PL Series 431 epoxy. (Except Motor).

Lifting Eye with Portable Stand, fabricated steel.

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $15,455 $15,455
4 3 EA Vaughan VPMR:

Pump Monitor Relay for mounting in customer control panel to supply seal leakage and over temperature alarms for submersible motor.

TOTAL LIST PRICE:
$500
FREIGHT:

Freight not included. Freight quote available upon request Freight quotes are for informational purposes only and is not a guarantee of the final shipping charge.

Shipping charges are not finalized until the equipment leaves Vaughan's warehouse.

Partial shipments are subject to additional freight charges Application: Lift Station Conditioning
Industry: Municipal
$1,500
$TBD
Jason Chase - Vaughan Co. Inc.

Submittals:

Production Time:

FOB:

Terms:

Expiration:

Submittal time is 4 - 6 weeks after receipt of order.

Estimated 8 -10 weeks after receipt of approved submittals, released to production and executed purchase order. Estimated ship dates are subject to change dependent on motor availability.

Vaughan Co. will arrange shipment upon the receipt of approved factory tests, if applicable.

Montesano, Washington via best way.

Contingent on credit approval.

Quotation valid for 60 days.

JC
"First and Only Chopper Pump - Worldwide"
O9/23/21:1 an Co., Inc. 1 364 M f t@e- hlopp rpdmps con kttp\//www hopperpumps. om/ter agei Ol 9�61151�2

1Grnmtetied Reliability
Vaughane
PRODUCT WARRANTY, TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR SALES MADE BY VAUGHAN CO., INC.

1. GENERAL: The Terms & Conditions herein established by Vaughan Co., Inc ("us", "ve", "our") as may be amended by us from time to time ("Terms and Conditions") apply to all dealings with our potential and actual customers ("you" and `your"), whether made by you or us, for any solicitation, submission, inquiry, offer, request or arrangement (a "Communication") or sale by us with respect to goods we sell ("Product(s)'). Written authorization is only valid if executed by an authorized officer of Vaughan Co.

2. SCOPE OF SUPPLY: Scope of supply will be limited to accepted quotation or approved submittals, if required.

3. ACCEPTANCE OF ORDERS: No Communication is binding on us unless written autborization is obtained by an authorized officer of Vaughan Co. Any sample provided by us is not part of an Accepted Order.

4. SUBMITTALS: Drawings and submittals for approval will typically be supplied four to six (4-6) weeks from the receipt of the order in pdf format.

Vaughan will not be responsible for damages, fees or charges for any additional submittal reviews that were not the fault of Vaughan.

5. PRODUCTION TIME: Vaughan's production time will begin after complete submittal approval, release to production, execution of the purchase order and receipt of progress payments, if applicable. Production time excludes time to approve test results.

6. NO CANCELLATION: Accepted Orders cannot be cancelled or modified, in whole or in part, without our prior written consent, which consent may be withheld or subject to conditions and reasonable charges we may impose. Any custom ordered parts cannot be cancelled without full payment.

7. DEFAULT: If Buyer defaults on the contract, Vaughan shall have the right to be cancel the contract in part or whole. Buyer shall be responsible for reasonable termination charges up to the total agreement value. The termination charge is at Vaughan's discretion dependent upon the percentage of theAgreement price reflecting the percentage of the work fabricated prior to the default plus actual direct costs resulting from default, including cancellation charges directly associated with costs for items that are in production at time of cancellation.

8. PRICE INCREASE: Price of Product(s) is subject to increase if equipment is not released to production within six months from the date Vaughan receives the initial purchase order from you.

Customers located in states where Vaughan is registered for sales tax sales must pay sales tax on all orders delivered or picked up within said state unless Vaughan Co. has in its possession an accurate and current resale or exemption certificate or other acceptable alternate document on file for your company and/or project. If you have a certificate on file with Vaughan Co., please indicate on the purchase order if tax is to be applied or not at the time of the order. Our failure to charge or collect Applicable Taxes when due shall not relieve you of your obligation for its payment. Regardless of any other payment terms, all Applicable Taxes are due net 30 days from the invoice date.

10. PAYMENT TERMS: Terms of sale will be shown on each invoice or purchase order, and it is agreed that invoices will be paid in full when due.

Standard payment terms for projects covered by a project payment bond that extends coverage to Vaughan Co. are as follows:
10% upon submittal approval;
10% prior to shipment of equipment;
75% net 30 from shipment of equipment;
5% due at the earlier of startup or 120 days from shipment of equipment.

However, Vaughan may at their discretion alter these percentages on a case by case basis. Projects that are not covered by aproject payment bond, orpayment bonds that do not extend coverage to Vaughan Co., must be 100% prepaid in advance of shipment. Payment is not subject to hold -backs or contingent upon the Buyer receiving payment from the Owner. If payment in full on any invoice is not received when due, or if your credit worthiness is deemed unsatisfactory by us at any time, we may take, without incurring any liability, one or more of the following actions: (a) impose a service charge at the rate that is the lesser of (i) 1.5%per month or (ii) the maximum rate allowed by applicable law, on any amount past due commencing from the date of such invoice, (b) modify or accelerate payments terms, (c) withhold delivery of Product(s) under any Accepted Order not yet shipped and/or delay, recall or reclaim shipments of Product(s) en route to you or delivered until arrangements satisfactory to us are made to secure payment for any outstanding invoice and for all open Accepted Orders and/or (d) file a lien or bond claim for any unpaid labor or material.

11. RETAINAGE: Retainage, if applicable, is limited to 5% of the total Accepted Order price less any applicable taxes and is due at the earlier of start-up or 10 days upon owner's acceptance, however, retainage shall not exceed 120 days from the shipment of equipment.

12. FREIGHT: Unless otherwise stated in the purchase order or quote, freight for a single shipment is included. Additional freight cost for split -shipments will be the responsibility of the Buyer. Buyer is responsible for providing complete shipping information and requirements including, but not limited to residential delivery, lift gates, limited access, advance notice, construction/jobsite, etc.

Failure to provide accurate information may result in additional shipping fees.

Those fees are the responsibility of the Buyer and will be billed accordingly

13. DATE OF SHIPMENT: Shipment dates are approximate and subject to change based upon Product(s) availability, production schedules, and other prevailing conditions. Shipment date is contingent upon the receipt of approved submittals, execution of purchase order, receipt of progress payments and approved factory tests, if applicable. You must accept delivery after approval of submittals, production time and factory test approval or issue us a change to the Accepted Order that must be accepted by us in writing.. If Vaughan does not receive approval to ship equipment within 30 days from the submission of factory tests, Buyer will pay Vaughan $100 per day for storage of equipment.

14. LONG TERM STORAGE: We will hold Product(s) in long term storage contingent upon payment of full purchase order price less retainage. Long term storage duration, fees, and any other considerations will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

15. YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCT(S): You are responsible to promptly inspect Product(s) delivered and notify us within five (5) calendar days following receipt of the Product(s) for which a claim is filed of any shortages, visible material defects or non-conformance of the Product(s) with the Accepted Order. If the equipment is damaged during transport that was arranged by Vaughan, Vaughan will file the claim with the freight carrier. Any damages will be limited to the amounts recovered by Vaughan from the freight carrier.

16. RETURNS: Product(s) may not be retumed for any reason without authorization by us. Please refer to the "Returned Goods Authorization Policy" for further information on retums.

17. WARRANTY: Vaughan Company, Inc. (Vaughan Co.) warrants to the original purchaser/end user (Purchaser) all pumps and pump parts manufactured by Vaughan Co. to be free from defects in workmanship or material for a period of one (1) year from date of startup or eighteen (18) months from the date of shipment from Vaughan Co., whichever occurs sooner. Startup data must be submitted to Vaughan Co. within 30 days of startup. If Purchaser fails to submit startup data within 30 days of startup, then Vaughan, in its sole discretion, may elect to void this warranty at any time. Purchaser must contact Vaughan Co. prior to commencing any repair attempts, or. removing pump or parts from service. If Purchaser fails to contact Vaughan Co. prior to commencing any repair attempts or removing pumps or parts from service, then Vaughan, in its sole discretion, may elect to void this warranty at any time. If during said warranty period, any pump or pump parts manufactured by Vaughan Co. prove to be defective in workmanship or material under normal use and service, and if such pump or pump parts are returned to Vaughan Co.'s factory at Montesano, WA, or to a Vaughan authorized Service Facility, as directed by Vaughan Co., transportation charges prepaid, and if the pump or pump parts are found to be defective in workmanship or material, they will be replaced or repaired by Vaughan Co. free of charge. Products repaired or replaced from the Vaughan Co. factory or a Vaughan authorized Service Facility under this warranty will be retumed freight prepaid. Vaughan Co. shall not be responsible for the cost of pump or part removal and/or re -installation.

All warranty claims must be submitted in writing to Vaughan Co. not later than thirty (30) days after warranty breach occurrence. The original warranty length shall not be extended with respect to pumps or parts repaired or replaced by Vaughan Co. under this Warranty. This Warranty is voided as to pumps or parts repaired/replaced by other than Vaughan Co. or its duly authorized representatives. Vaughan Co. shall not be liable for consequential damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, claims for property damage, personal injury, attomeys' fees, lost profits, loss of use, liability of Purchaser to customers, loss of goodwill, interest on money withheld by customers, damages related to third party claims, travel expenses, rented equipment, third party Vaughan Co., Inc. 1364 Monte-Elma Road I Montesano, WA. USA 98563I Phone 360-249-40421 Fax360-249-6155 [email protected] I http://www.chopperpumps.com/terms/ 09/23/2025
C5 Page 328 of 1112

1Grnmtetied Reliability
Vaughane
PRODUCT WARRANTY, TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR SALES MADE BY VAUGHAN CO., INC. contractor's fees, or unauthorized repair service or parts. The Purchaser, by acceptance of delivery, assumes all liability for the consequences of the use or misuse of Vaughan Co. products by the Purchaser, its employees or others.

Equipment and accessories purchased by Vaughan Co. from outside sources which are incorporated into any Vaughan pump or any pump part are warranted only to the extent of and by the original manufacturer's warranty or guarantee, if any, which warranty, if appropriate, will be assigned by Vaughan Co. to the Purchaser. It is Purchaser's responsibility to consult the applicable product documentation for specific warranty information. Specific product documentation is available upon request. Any warranty shall be void if the total contract amount is not paid in full. Vaughan Co. neither assumes, nor authorizes any person or company to assume for it, any other obligation in connection with the sale of its equipment with the exception of a valid Vaughan "Performance Guarantee" or "Extended Warranty," if applicable. Any other enlargement or modification of this warranty by a representative or other selling agent shall not be legally binding on Vaughan Co. Warranty eligibility determination is at Vaughan Co.'s sole discretion. Warranty Limitations: This warranty shall not apply to any pump or pump part which has been subjected to or been damaged by any of the following non-exclusive list of causes; Misuse, abuse, accident, negligence, operated in the dashed portion of the published pump curves, used in a manner contrary to Vaughan's printed instructions, defective power supply, improper electrical protection, faulty installation, maintenance, or repair, wear caused by pumping abrasive or corrosive fluids or by cavitation, dissatisfaction due to buyer's remorse, damages incurred during transportation, damages incurred during installation or maintenance. TIIIS IS VAUGHANCO.'SSOLE

WARRANTY AND IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WHICH ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED

INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR ALL WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

18. FORCE MAJEURE: Vaughan shall have no liability in respect of failure to deliver or perform or delay in delivering or performing any obligations due to causes such as fire, earthquakes, flooding or other natural disasters, failure of our supplier to deliver on time, war, acts or threats of terrorism, strikes and any other circumstance outside the reasonable control of Vaughan.

19. DAMAGES: Vaughan is not responsible for any damages due to delays, special, indirect, consequential or punitive damages.

20. BACK CHARGES: You shall not charge Vaughan back charges without first receiving written approval from an authorized officer of Vaughan Co.

21. COLLECTION CHARGES: You shall pay all costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attomeys' fees and administrative charges, we incur in endeavoring to protect our rights arising out of your failure to perform your obligations to us, including without limitation any attempt to collect any amount you owe us.

22. CONFIDENTIALITY: Buyer shall take reasonable efforts to maintain as confidential, such items marked or identified as such by Vaughan. Such confidential information shall not include information which may have been provided to Vaughan in connection with this Agreement. All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data, software and other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Vaughan, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Vaughan's property. Vaughan grants Buyer and Owner a non-exclusive, non- transferable license to use any such material solely for Buyer's use of the work.

Buyer shall not disclose any such material to third parties without Vaughan's prior written consent

23. EAR COMPLIANCE: If Product(s) are exported by us, we provide the following statement: "these commodities, technology or software were exported from the United States in accordance with the export Administration Regulations. Diversion contrary to U.S. law is prohibited."

24. GOVERNING LAW: The transactions between you and us are made in Washington State, shall be governed by the laws of Washington State, and you agree to submit exclusively to jurisdiction and venue of such state with respect to any dispute arising out of any transaction between you and us. YOU AND

WE KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE

THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR
PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF ANY SUCH DISPUTE.

25. DISPUTES: Any claim or dispute between Vaughan and Buyer, arising out of or relating to either's obligations to the other under this Contract, shall, if possible, be resolved by negotiation between Vaughan's and Buyer's designated representatives. Vaughan and Buyer each commit to seeking resolution of such matters in an amicable, professional and expeditious manner so as to avoid unnecessary losses, delays and disruptions to the Work. If a matter cannot be resolved by the parties' designated on -site representatives, the following dispute resolution procedure shall apply:
i. No later than thirty (30) days after the designated representatives fail to reach agreement, representatives from executive management of Seller and Contractor shall attempt to resolve the matter.
ii. If resolution cannot be reached by the parties' executive managers, no later than thirty (30) days after the executive managers fail to reach agreement, the parties shall submit the dispute to non -binding mediation. The parties shall select a mediator that is mutually acceptable. The location of the mediation shall be in County wherein the project is located.
iii. If resolution cannot be reached by the parties through mediation, within thirty (30) days after the mediation has concluded, either party may file a demand for arbitration. Such arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") in accordance with its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.

26. NO RIGHT OF SET-OFF: Each Accepted Order constitutes a separate and distinct contract when accepted by us and you may not withhold payment for an invoice or offset same, in whole or in part, against sums you claim are due you by us with respect to another Accepted Order, invoice or for any other cause or reason whatsoever.

27. INDEMNITY CLAUSE: Any indemnification shall not include claims of, or damages resulting from the negligence, gross negligence, or willful, wanton or intentional misconduct of the parties indemnified hereunder. To the extent that conditions, acts, activities or conduct involve the contributory negligence or misconduct of you or other third parties, liability will be apportioned between the parties according to comparative fault.

28. OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE: Our rights hereunder are in addition to and not in lieu of any other rights and remedies available to us at law or in equity.

29. NOTICES: All notices of claims or disputes given by either you or us with respect to any Communication, Accepted Order or these Terms & Conditions shall be in writing and sent by (a) first class mail with a copy by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage pre -paid, or (b) ovemight delivery service, charges prepaid, and address as follows: (i) if intended for us, to our address to which a Communications was sent or an Accepted Order was placed, and (ii) if to you, at your address last known to us. Notice will be effective the first business day after notice is sent.

30. NO OTHER TERMS ACCEPTED: No terms or conditions, other than these Terms and Conditions, shall apply to any Accepted Order and no agreement or understanding in any way adding to or otherwise modifying these Terms and Conditions shall be binding on us unless set forth in writing and signed by an officer of Vaughan Co. Vaughan Co. is only bound to the terms of the contract/agreement/purchase order between Vaughan and Buyer. The Buyer's Prime Contract with an Owner shall not affect the contract between Vaughan and Buyer unless specifically accepted in writing by an authorized officer of Vaughan Co.

31. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in counterpart, and may be executed by way of facsimile, email or electronic signature, and if so, shall be considered an original.

32. MISCELLANEOUS: No waiver of any rights or remedies shall be binding on us unless set forth in a written waiver signed by us. We do not give up any of our rights or remedies if we fail or delay in seeking a remedy or if we accept a payment while there is a breach by you. Any such waiver, delay or failure by us on one occasion shall not be deemed a waiver by us of any future default by you or of any future right or remedy available to us. The Section, Paragraph and other heading in these Terns & Conditions are for convenience of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning of any provision contained in these Terms and Conditions. The invalidity of enforceability of any provision in these Terms and conditions shall in no way effect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.

Vaughan Co., Inc. 1364 Monte-Elma Road I Montesano, WA. USA 98563I Phone 360-249-4042 I Fax 360-249-6155 [email protected] I http://www.chopperpumps.com/terms/ 09/23/2025
C5 Page 329 of 1112

Unmatched Reliability
augha
VAUGHAN CO., INC. PRODUCT WARRANTY
Vaughan Company, Inc. (Vaughan Co.) warrants to the originalpurchaser/enduser (Purchaser) a ll pumps andpump parts manufactured by Vaughan Co. to be free from defects in workmanship or material for a period ofone (1) year from date of startup or eighteen (1 8) m onths from the date of shipment from VaughanCo., whichever occurs sooner. Startup data mustbe submitted to Vaughan Co. within 30 days of startup. If Purchaser fails to submit startup data within 30 days of startup, then Vaughan, in its sole discretion, may elect to void this warranty at anytime. Purchaser must contact Vaughan Co. prior to commencing any repair attempts, or. removing pump orparts from service. If Purchaser fails to contact Vaughan Co. prior to commencing any repair attempts or removing pumps or parts from service, then Vaughan, in its sole discretion, may elect to void this warranty at any time.

If during said warranty period, any pump orpump parts manufactured by Vaughan Co. prove to be defective in workmanship or m a terial under normal use and service, and if such pump orpump parts are returned to Vaughan Co.'s factory at Montesano, WA, or to a Vaughan authorized Service Facility, as directed by Vaughan Co., transportation charges prepaid, and if the pump orpump parts are found to be defective in workmanship or material, they will be replaced orrepaired by Vaughan Co. free of charge. Products repaired or replaced from the Vaughan Co. factory or a Vaughan authorized Service Facility under this warrantywill be returned freight prepaid Vaughan Co. shall not be responsible for the cost of pump or p art rem oval and/or re -installation.

Vaughan Co. shallnot be liable for consequential damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, claims for property damage, personal injury, attorneys' fees, lost profits, loss of use, liability of Purchaser to customers, loss of goodwill, interest on money withheld by customers, damages related to third party claims, travel expenses, rented equipment, third party contractor's fee s, or unauthorized repair service orparts. The Purchaser, by acceptance of delivery, assumes all liability for the consequences of the use or misuse of Vaughan Co. products bythe Purchaser, its employees or others.

Any warranty shall be void if the total contract amount is not paid in full.

Vaughan Co. neither assumes, nor authorizes anyperson or company to assume for it, any other obligation in connectionwith the sale of its equipment with the exception ofa valid Vaughan "Performance Guarantee" or "Extended Warranty," if applicable. Any oth er enlargement or modification of this warranty by a representative or other selling agent shall not be legally binding on Vaughan Co.

Warranty eligibility determination is at Vaughan Co.'s sole discretion.

Warranty Lim itations:

This warranty shall not apply to any pump orpump part which has been subjected to or been damaged by any ofthe following non- exclusive list of causes:
• Misuse • Improper electricalprotection
• Abuse • Faulty installation, maintenance, or repair
• Accident • Wear causedby pumping abrasive or
• Negligence corrosive fluids orby cavitation
• Operated in the dashedportion of the • Dissatisfaction due to buyer's remorse published pump curves • Damages incurred during transportation • Used in a manner contrary to Vaughan's • Damages incurred during installation or printed instructions maintenance
• Defective power supply
THIS IS VAUGHAN CO.'S SOLE WARRANTY AND IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES,

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WHICHARE HEREBY EXCLUDED INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FORA PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

VPAe7139/23/2O25

VAUGHAN C PER PUMPS

Page 330 of 1 ends

Production Time:
"" 1 lnnnrtc lied 'Reliability
4ughan®
Chopper®
Rockwell Solutions
Attn: Kent Rockwell
Project: City of Vista
Quote Number: Q45435
Dated:04/02/21

Page 1 of 6 ends

DUE TO CONTINUED PRICING INSTABILITIES IN MOTORS, METALS AND CASTINGS ALL PRICING BEYOND 60 DAYS MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ORDER.

ITEM
QTY
UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
BUENA SHADOWRIDGE Pump Performance: 2037 GPM @ 155 FT. TDH 1 3 EA Vaughan Model PE8P-139
Vertical Dry Pit Pedestal Chopper Pump consisting of:

Casing and Backplate, cast ductile iron, with 8" ANSI CL 125 discharge flange Impeller, Upper Cutter and External Cutter, cast steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Cutter Bar, alloy steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Shaft, heat treated steel.

Bearings, oil bath lubricated with minimum 100,000 hour L-10 bearing life.

Bearing Housing, cast ductile iron.

Flushless Mechanical Seal, cartridge type with stainless steel housing, integral stainless steel shaft sleeve, and silicon carbide faces.

Elastomers, Buna N
Pedestal Base with Inlet Flange, 8" 90° steel elbow with cleanout, drain and ANSI CL 150 inlet flange pedestal mounted on a fabricated steel base plate.

Coupling, elastomeric type by TB Woods.

Motor Mount, fabricated steel, piloted for self -aligning mounting of a C -face flange mounted motor.

Pump Finish: Solvent wash and coat with Tnemec Perma-Shield PL Series 431 epoxy. (Except Motor)
TOTAL UST PRICE: $24,500 $73,500
2 3 EA Electric Motor:

DRIVE, 150 HP, 1800 RPM, 230/460/3/60, 1.15 SF, C -face, TEFC, flange mounted premium efficient electric motor.

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $11,290 $33,870
BUENA SHADOWRIDGE Pump Performance: 3600 GPM @ 100 FT. TDH 3 2 EA Vaughan Model PE8P-141
Vertical Dry Pit Pedestal Chopper Pump consisting of:

Casing and Backplate, cast ductile iron, with 8" ANSI CL 125 discharge flange Impeller, Upper Cutter and External Cutter, cast steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Cutter Bar, alloy steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Shaft, heat treated steel.

Submittals: Submittal time is 4 - 6 weeks after receipt of order.

Estimated 14 to 16 weeks after receipt of approved submittals, release to production and executed purchase order. Estimated ship dates are subject to change dependent on motor availability.

Vaughan Co. will arrange shipment upon the receipt of approved factory tests, if applicable.

FOB: Montesano, Washington via best way.

Terms: Contingent on credit approval.

Expiration: Quotation valid for 60 days.

JC
"Solids Handling Specialists"
09/23/2 an Co., Inc. 1 364 M f t@e- hlopp rpumps con Altp://www hoppe pumps. om6 en sages OO I 0 9�61151�2

Production Time:
i 1 lnnnrtelied Relinhility
4ughaii®
Chopper®
Rockwell Solutions
Attn: Kent Rockwell
Project: City of Vista
Quote Number: Q45435
Dated:04/02/21

Page 2 ends

DUE TO CONTINUED PRICING INSTABILITIES IN MOTORS, METALS AND CASTINGS ALL PRICING BEYOND 60 DAYS MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ORDER.

ITEM
QTY
UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
Bearings, oil bath lubricated with minimum 100,000 hour L-10 bearing life.

Bearing Housing, cast ductile iron.

Flushless Mechanical Seal, cartridge type with stainless steel housing, integral stainless steel shaft sleeve, and silicon carbide faces.

Elastomers, Buna N
Pedestal Base with Inlet Flange, 8" 90° steel elbow with cleanout, drain and ANSI CL 150 inlet flange pedestal mounted on a fabricated steel base plate.

Coupling, elastomerictype by TB Woods.

Motor Mount, fabricated steel, piloted for self -aligning mounting of a C -face flange mounted motor.

Pump Finish: Solvent wash and coat with Tnemec Perma-Shield PL Series 431 epoxy. (Except Motor)
TOTAL LIST PRICE: $24,500 $49,000
4 2 EA Electric Motor:

DRIVE, 200 HP, 1800 RPM, 230/460/3/60, 1.15 SF, C -face, TEFC, flange mounted premium efficient electric motor.

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $13,070 $26,140
RACEWAY Pump Performance: 650 GPM @ 158 FT. TDH
5 3 EA Vaughan Model S4V-132
Submersible Chopper Pump consisting of:

Casing and Backplate cast ductile iron with 4" ANSI CL 125 discharge flange.

Impeller, Cutter Bar, Cutter Nut Upper Cutter, cast steel, heat treated to minimum Rockwell C60.

Mechanical Seal, cartridge type with ductile iron gland, Viton O -rings, silicon carbide faces, and integral stainless steel sleeve as manufactured by Vaughan.

Elastomers, Buna N
Bearings, oil bath lubricated with minimum 100,000 -hour L-10 bearing life.

Bearing Housing, cast ductile iron with piloted motor mount.

Automatic Oil Level Monitor, PVC plastic reservoir with 120V switch and relay and 25 ft. of hose.

Shaft, heat treated steel
Drive, 60 HP, 1800 RPM, 230V OR 460V, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 1.15 SF, Explosion Proof (Class 1, Group C & D) 15 minute in air continuous duty submersible motor with Submittals: Submittal time is 4 - 6 weeks after receipt of order.

Estimated 14 to 16 weeks after receipt of approved submittals, release to production and executed purchase order. Estimated ship dates are subject to change dependent on motor availability.

Vaughan Co. will arrange shipment upon the receipt of approved factory tests, if applicable.

FOB: Montesano, Washington via best way.

Terms: Contingent on credit approval.

Expiration: Quotation valid for 60 days.

JC
"Solids Handling Specialists"
O9/23/21:1 an Co., Inc. 1 364 M f t@e- hlopp rpdmps con Altp\//www hopperpumps. om/ter agel Ol 9�61151�2

Production Time:
i 1 lnnnrtefied 'Relinhility
4ughaii®
Chopper®
Rockwell Solutions
Attn: Kent Rockwell
Project: City of Vista
Quote Number: Q45435
Dated:04/02/21

Page 3 ends

DUE TO CONTINUED PRICING INSTABILITIES IN MOTORS, METALS AND CASTINGS ALL PRICING BEYOND 60 DAYS MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ORDER.

ITEM
QTY
UNIT

DESCRIPTION

UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
tandem mechanical seals, moisture sensors, internal thermostats, and 25 feet of power and control cable, manufactured byABB/Baldor.

Pump Finish: Solvent wash and coat with Tnemec Perma-Shield PL Series 431 epoxy. (Except Motor).

TOTAL LIST PRICE:
6 3 EA Standard Guide Rail System consisting of:
4" Base Elbow, cast ductile iron.
4" Guide Bracket, cast ductile iron.
(1) Intermediate Stiffener Brackets, 316 stainless steel located every 10 feet.

Top Mounting Bracket and Chain Holder Bracket, 316 stainless steel.

NOTE: Customer to provide 2" Sch. 40 pipe rails.
$31,070 $93,210
TOTAL LIST PRICE: $2,175 $6,525
7 3 EA Vaughan VPMR:

Pump Monitor Relay for mounting in customer control panel to supply seal leakage and over temperature alarms for submersible motor.

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $500
Freight Options:

Freight not included. Freight quote available upon request Freight quotes are for informational purposes only and is not a guarantee of the final shipping charge.

Shipping charges are not finalized until the equipment leaves Vaughan's warehouse.

Partial shipments are subject to additional freight charges Application: LIFT STATION
Industry: MUNICIPAL
$1500
$TBD
Jason Chase - Vaughan Co., Inc.

Submittals: Submittal time is 4 - 6 weeks after receipt of order.

Estimated 14 to 16 weeks after receipt of approved submittals, release to production and executed purchase order. Estimated ship dates are subject to change dependent on motor availability.

Vaughan Co. will arrange shipment upon the receipt of approved factory tests, if applicable.

FOB: Montesano, Washington via best way.

Terms: Contingent on credit approval.

Expiration: Quotation valid for 60 days.

JC
"Solids Handling Specialists"
O9/23/21:1 an Co., Inc. 1 364 M f t@e- hlopp opumps co> kttp\//www hoppe pumps. om/ter agei 0T 91 11512

Llnmatclied'Reliability
Laughan®
PRODUCT WARRANTY, TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR SALES MADE BY VAUGHAN CO., INC.

1. GENERAL: The Terms & Conditions herein established by Vaughan Co., Inc. ("us", "we", "our") as may be amended by us from time to time ("Terms and Conditions") apply to all dealings with our potential and actual customers ("you" and "your"), whether made by you or us, for any solicitation, submission, inquiry, offer, request or arrangement (a "Communication") or sale by us with respect to goods we sell (`Product(s)"). Written authorization is only valid if executed by an authorized officer of Vaughan Co.

2. SCOPE OF SUPPLY: Scope of supply will be limited to accepted quotation or approved submittals, ifrequired.

3. ACCEPTANCE OF ORDERS: No Communication is binding on us unless written authorization is obtained by an authorized officer of Vaughan Co. Any sample provided by us is not part of an Accepted Order.

4. SUBMITTALS: Drawings and submittals for approval will typically be supplied four to six (4-6) weeks from the receipt of the order in pdf format.

Vaughan will not be responsible for damages, fees or charges for any additional submittal reviews that were not the fault of Vaughan.

5. PRODUCTION TIME: Vaughan's production time will begin after complete submittal approval, release to production, execution of the purchase order and receipt of progress payments, if applicable.

Production time excludes time to approve test results.

7. DEFAULT: If Buyer defaults on the contract, Vaughan shall have the right to be cancel the contract in part or whole. Buyer shall be responsible for reasonable termination charges up to the total agreement value. The termination charge is at Vaughan's discretion dependent upon the percentage of the Agreement price reflecting the percentage of the work fabricated prior to the default plus actual direct costs resulting from default, including cancellation charges directly associated with costs for items that are in production at time of cancellation.

8. PRICE INCREASE: Price of Product(s) is subject to increase if equipment is not released to production within six months from the date Vaughan receives the initial purchase order from you.

9. TAXES: All prices are subject to all applicable sales and use taxes and any other taxes now or hereafter imposed and/or levied by any governmental authority with respect to the sale of the Product(s) ("Applicable Taxes"). Customers located in states where Vaughan is registered for sales tax sales must pay sales tax on all orders delivered or picked up within said state unless Vaughan Co. has in its possession an accurate and current resale or exemption certificate or other acceptabl e alternate document on file for your company and/or project. If you have a certificate on file with Vaughan Co., please indicate on the purchase order if tax is to be applied or not at the time of the order. Our failure to charge or collect Applicable Taxes when due shall not relieve you of your obligation for its payment. Regardless of any other payment terms, all Applicable Taxes are due net 30 days from the invoice date.

10. PAYMENT TERMS: Terms of sale will be shown on each invoice or purchase order, and it is agreed that invoices will be paid in full when due Standard payment terms for projects covered by a project payment bond that extends coverage to Vaughan Co. are as follows:
10% upon submittal approval;
10% prior to shipment of equipment;
75% net 30 from shipment of equipment;
5% due at the earlier of startup or 120 days from shipment of equipment.

If payment in full on any invoice is not received when due, or if your credit worthiness is deemed unsatisfactory by us at any time, we may take, without incurring any liability, one or more of the following actions: (a) impose a service charge at therate that is the lesser of (i) 1.5% per month or (ii) the maximum rate allowed by applicable law, on any amount past due commencing from the date of such invoice, (b) modify or accelerate payments terms, (c) withhold delivery ofProduct(s) under any Accepted Order not yet shipped and/or delay, recall or reclaim shipments of Product(s) en route to you or delivered until arrangements satisfactory to us are made to secure payment for any outstanding invoice and for all open Accepted Orders and/or (d) file a lien or bond claim for any unpaid labor or material.

12. FREIGHT: Unless otherwise stated in the purchase order or quote freight for a single shipment is included. Additional freight cost for split - shipments will be the responsibility of the Buyer. Buyer is responsible for providing complete shipping information and requirements including but not limited to residential delivery, lift gates, limited access, advance notice, construction!jobsite, etc. Failure to provide accurate information may result in additional shipping fees. Those fees are the responsibility of the Buyer and will be billed accordingly

13. DATE OF SHIPMENT: Shipment dates are approximate and subject to change based upon Product(s) availability, production schedules, and other prevailing conditions. Shipment date is contingent upon the receipt of approved submittals, execution of purchase order, receipt of progress payments and approved factory tests, if applicable. You must accept delivery after approval of submittals, production time and factory test approval or issue us a change to the Accepted Order that must be arrPpted by us in writing.. If Vaughan does not receive approval to ship equipment within 30 days from the submission of factory tests, Buyer will pay Vaughan $100 per day for storage of equipment.

15. YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCT(S): You are responsible to promptly inspect Product(s) delivered and notify us within five (5) calendar days following receipt of the Product(s) for which aclaim is filed of any shortages, visible material defects or non-conformance of the Product(s) with the Accepted Order. If the equipment is damaged during transport that was arranged by Vaughan, Vaughan will file the claim with the freight carrier. Any damages will be limited to the amounts recovered by Vaughan from the freight can-ier.

16. RETURNS: Product(s) may not be returned for any reason without authorization by us. Please refer to the "Returned Goods Authorization Policy" for further information on returns.

Llnmatclied'Reliability
Laughan®
PRODUCT WARRANTY, TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR SALES MADE BY VAUGHAN CO., INC. of Purchaser to customers, loss of goodwill, interest on money withheld by customers, damages related to third party claims, travel expenses, rented equipment, third party contractor's fees, or unauthorized repair service or parts. The Purchaser, by acceptance of delivery, assumes all liability for the consequences of the use or misuse of Vaughan Co. products by the Purchaser, its employees or others. Equipment and accessories purchased by Vaughan Co. from outside sources which are incorporated into any Vaughan pump or any pump part are warranted only to the extent of and by the original manufacturer's warranty or guarantee, if any, which warranty, if appropriate, will be assigned by Vaughan Co. to the Purchaser. It is Purchaser's responsibility to consult the applicable product documentation for specific warranty information. Specific product documentation is available upon request. Any warranty shall be void if the total contract amount is not paid in full. Vaughan Co. neither assumes, nor authorizes any person or company to assume for it, any other obligation in connection with the sale of its equipment with the exception of a valid Vaughan "Performance Guarantee" or "Extended Warranty," if applicable. Any other enlargement or modification of this warranty by a representative or other selling agent shall not be legally binding on Vaughan Co. Warranty eligibility determination is at Vaughan Co.'s sole discretion. Warranty Limitations: This warranty shall not apply to any pump or pump part which has been subjected to or been damaged by any of the following non-exclusive list of causes; Misuse, abuse, accident, negligence, operated in the dashed portion of the published pump curves, used in a manner contrary to Vaughan's printed instructions, defective power supply, improper electrical protection, faulty installation, maintenance, or repair, wear caused by pumping abrasive or corrosive fluids or by cavitation, dissatisfaction due to buyer's remorse, damages incurred during transportation, damages incurred during installation or maintenance. THIS IS VAUGHANCO.'S SOLE WARRANTYANDIS

IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, WHICH ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED INCLUDING IN

PARTICULAR ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

19. DAMAGES: Vaughan is not responsible for any damages due to delays, special, indirect, consequential or punitive damages.

20. BACK CHARGES: You shall not charge Vaughan back charges without first receiving written approval from an authorized officer of Vaughan Co.

22. CONFIDENTIALITY: Buyer shall take reasonable efforts to maintain as confidential, such items marked or identified as such by Vaughan.

Such confidential information shall not include information which may have been provided to Vaughan in connection with this Agreement. All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data, software and other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Vaughan, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Vaughan's property. Vaughan grants Buyer and Owner a non-exclusive, non -transferable license to use any such material solely for Buyer's use of the work. Buyer shall not disclose any such material to third parties without Vaughan's prior written consent

INTENTIONALLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN

ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF ANY SUCH
DISPUTE.

25. DISPUTES: Any claim or dispute between Vaughan and Buyer, arising out of or relating to either's obligations to the other under this Contract, shall, if possible, be resolved by negotiation between Vaughan's and Buyer's designated representatives. Vaughan and Buyer each commit to seeking resolution of such matters in an amicable, professional and expeditious manner so as to avoid unnecessary losses, delays and disruptions to the Work. If a matter cannot be resolved by the parties' designated on -site representatives, the following dispute resolution procedure shall apply:
i. No later than thirty (30) days after the designated representatives fail to reach agreement, representatives from executive management of Seller and Contractor shall attempt to resolve the matter.
ii. If resolution cannot be reached by the parties' executive managers, no later than thirty (30) days after the executive managers fail to reach agreement, the parties shall submit the dispute to non -binding mediation. The parties shall select a mediator that is mutually acceptable. The location of the mediation shall be in County wherein the project is located. iii. If resolution cannot be reached by the parties through mediation, within thirty (30) days after the mediation has concluded, either party may file a demand for arbitration. Such arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") in accordance with its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules.

Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.

To the extent that conditions, acts, activities or conduct involve the contributory negligence or misconduct of you or other third parties, liability will be apportioned between the parties according to comparative fault.

28. OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE: Our rights hereunder are in addition to and not in lieu of any other rights and remedies available to us at law or in equity.

29. NOTICES: All notices of claims or disputes given by either you or us with respect to any Communication, Accepted Order or these Terms & Conditions shall be in writing and sent by (a) first class mail with a copy by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage pre -paid, or (b) overnight delivery service, charges prepaid, and address as follows: (i) if intended for us, to our address to which a Communications was sent or an Accepted Order was placed, and (ii) if to you, at your address last known to us. Notice will be effective the first business day after notice is sent.

31. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in counterpart, and may be executed by way of facsimile, email or electronic signature, and if so, shall be considered an original.

32. MISCELLANEOUS: No waiver of any rights or remedies shall be binding on us unless set forth in a written waiver signed by us. We do not give up any of our rights or remedies if we fail or delay in seeking a remedy or if we accept a payment while there is a breach by you. Any such waiver, delay or failure by us on one occasion shall not be deemed a waiver by us of any future default by you or of any future right or remedy available to us. The Section, Paragraph and other heading in these Terns & Conditions are for convenience of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning of any provision contained in these Terms and Conditions. The invalidity of enforceability of any provision in these Teens and conditions shall in no way effect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.
09/23/2025
C5 Page 335 of 1112

Unmatched Reliability
augha
VAUGHAN CO., INC. PRODUCT WARRANTY
Vaughan Company, Inc. (Vaughan Co.) warrants to the originalpurchaser/enduser (Purchaser) a ll pumps andpump parts manufactured by Vaughan Co. to be free from defects in workmanship or material for a period ofone (1) year from date of startup or eighteen (1 8) months from the date of shipment from Vaughan Co., whichever occurs sooner. Startup data mustbe submitted to Vaughan Co. within 3 0 days of startup. If Purchaser fails to submit startup data within 30 days of startup, then Vaughan, in its sole discretion, may elect to void this warranty at anytime. Purchaser must contact Vaughan Co. prior to commencing any rep airattempts, or. removing pump orparts from service. If Purchaser fails to contact Vaughan Co. prior to commencing any repair attempts o r removing pumps or parts from service, then Vaughan, in its sole discretion, may elect to void this warrantyat any time.

If during said warranty period, any pump orpump parts manufactured by Vaughan Co. prove to be defective in workmanship or m a terial under no rmal use and service, and if such pump orpump parts are returned to Vaughan Co.'s factory at Montesano, WA, or to a Vaughan authorized Service Facility, as directed by Vaughan Co., transportation charges prepaid, and if the pump orpump parts are found to be defective in workmanship or material, they will be replaced orrepaired by Vaughan Co. free of charge. Pro ducts repaired or replaced from the Vaughan Co. factory or a Vaughan authorized Service Facility under this warrantywill be returned freigh t prepaid Vaughan Co. shall not be responsible for the cost of pump or p art rem oval and/or re -installation.

Vaughan Co. shall not be liable for consequential damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, claims forp roperty damage, personal injury, attorneys' fees, lost profits, loss of use, liability of Purchaser to customers, loss of goodwill, interest on money withheld by customers, damages related to third party claims, travel expenses, rented equipment, third party contractor's fees, or unauthorized repair service orparts. The Purchaser, by acceptance of delivery, assumes all liability for the consequences o f the use or misuse of Vaughan Co. products by the Purchaser, its employees or others.

Any warranty shall be void if the total contract amount is not paid in full.

Vaughan Co. neither assumes, nor authorizes any person or company to assume for it, any other obligation in connection with the sale of its equipment with the exception ofa valid Vaughan "Performance Guarantee" or "Extended Warranty," if applicable. Any other enlargement ormodification of this warranty by a representative or other selling agent shall not be legally binding on Vaughan Co.

Warranty eligibility determination is at Vaughan Co.'s sole discretion.

Warranty Lim itations:

This warranty shall not apply to any pump orpump part which has been subj ectedto or been damaged by any of the following no n - exclusive list of causes:
• Misuse • Improper electricalprotection
• Abuse • Faulty installation, maintenance, or repair
• Accident • Wear causedby pumping abrasive or
• Negligence corrosive fluids orby cavitation
• Operated in the dashedportion of the • Dissatisfaction due to buyer's remorse published pump curves • Damages incurred during transportation • Used in a manner contrary to Vaughan's • Damages incurred during installation or printed instructions maintenance
• Defective power supply
THIS IS VAUGHAN CO.'S SOLE WARRANTY AND IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES,

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WHICHARE HEREB YEXCLUDED INCL UDINGINPARTICULAR ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FORA PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

VPAD7-G9/23/2025

VAUGHAN C PER PUMPS

Page 336 ends

Fats, Oils, and Grease Mitigation Recommendation Technical Memorandum Raceway Basin and Buena Creek Pump Stations Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services OR
Appendix C. Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation
Criteria Technical Memorandum
09/23/2025
C5 Page 337 of 1112

Memo
Date: Friday, March 26, 2021
Project: Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services To: Michael Hilker, City of Vista PM
From: Mandira Sudame, HDR
Subject: Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
1 Introduction
The Raceway Pump Station (RBPS) is owned by the City of Vista (City), and the Buena Creek Pump Station (BCPS) is owned by the Buena Sanitation District and managed by the City. Both pump stations are operated and maintained by Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA). These two pump stations convey wastewater for treatment at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) in Carlsbad. The RBPS and BCPS are experiencing high levels of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG), scum build up in the wet wells, and rags including other solids clogging pumps (ragging)which is creating operation and maintenance issues. Staff regularly uses low pressure water hoses to break -down the FOG mat and force it back into solution so it can be readily pass through the pumps and ultimately removed and beneficially utilized at EWPCF.

The City retained HDR to provide a comprehensive assessment of available FOG abatement technologies that could be utilized to alleviate FOG accumulation in the wet wells of these two pump stations. The goal is to reduce costs associated with manually dispersing the FOG mats in the wet wells, reduce use of potable water, reduce labor hours, increase employee safety, and reduce or eliminate the frequency of pump clogging..
2 FOG Mitigation Technologies
Several technologies are available and have been successfully used at other wastewater collection and treatment facilities to alleviate the FOG problem. HDR is considering the following technologies for both RBPS and BCPS. Vendors for each technology are shown in parantheses. • Mixing Technologies
o Mechanical Mixing (WILO EMU, Flygt, Anue Jet System)
o Bubble Mixing (Enviromex, Pulsed Hydraulics Inc.)
• Advanced Oxidation Methods (Vapex)
• Biological Additives (MicroBlock)
• Chopper Pumps (Vaughn)
09/23/2025
C5 Page 339 of 14X2

FYR
Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
The FOG mitigation technologies differ significantly in their installation, operation requirements and cost. They also differ in their energy use, impact on downstream treatment, required modification to the wet well, maintenance frequency, flexibility of operation and level of interference with the odor control system.

HDR is conducting an initial screening of technologies by talking to vendors, compiling information and interviewing listed references. The criteria listed below will be used as the basis for gathering information from vendors.

Based on the collected information, HDR will conduct a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) forthe shortlisted technologies.

This memorandum summarizes the evaluation criteria, scoring and weighting requirements for the CBA.
3 Evaluation Criteria
To evaluate these technologies on an equal basis, HDR developed a set of criteria relevant to the FOG abatement technologies under consideration. Each criterion is scored on a scale of 0 to 5 with 5 being the best score. The evaluation scores will be tabulated in spreadsheet. A weighting factor will then be applied to each score. The weighting factors range from 1 to 10 and are applied to criterion based on the impact and importance of the criterion on the evaluation. The criterion weight is multiplied by the corresponding criterion score to arrive at the final score for each criterion. The scores are then added together to arrive at the total score for each technology. The technologies will be ranked based on highest to lowest score.

HDR developed eleven criteria to evaluate the FOG technologies. The criteria are listed and discussed with their scoring values in the following sections. The specific details of the scoring associated with some criterion will be determined after receiving the technology information. Capital cost criterion is an example of this where costs forthe technologies will be received and then the technologies will be scored 0 to 5 based on how the costs for the technologies compare to each other.

3.1 Performance Track Record
The performance track record refers to the actual number and frequency of unscheduled outages and nature of equipment failures at various installations and overall satisfaction of the users.

Unscheduled outages, more than one (1) per year, would lead to a lower score.

We are requesting each technology vendor to provide a minimum of five similar installations for FOG abatement. A minimum of five reference installations in Southern California will get scored at 5. If the technology has less than 5 installation in the United States it will receive score of zero. For each technology considered, telephone interviews will be conducted with plant operator/staff at installation sites. Criteria scoring will be determined based on the input received.
x912312025
C5 Page 340 of 1112

Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Fi1J � Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
Table 3-1 Performance Track Record Scoring
Performance Track Record
Exceeds Criteria
Meets Criteria
Score
5 Minimally meets Criteria 2
Not Acceptable
o

3.2 Constructability
This criterion refers to the amount of construction changes that need to be done within the wet well to implement the technology. More intrusive changes to the wet well equates to higher construction costs and more process interruptions. Also, any flow bypass requirements will be considered.

Table 3-2 Constructability Scoring
Constructability
No modifications
Minor modifications
Major modifications
Structural modifications
Score
5 1
o

3.3 Ease of Operation
Ease of operation criteria considers the amount of time the operators will need to learn the proposed system and the simplicity of its use. This criterion also includes the duration and frequency of operation for each technology.

Table 3-3 Ease of Operation Scoring
Ease of Operation
Very easy
Moderate
Cumbersome
Difficult
Score
5 8
1 09/23/2025
C5 Page 341 of 1442

Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria

3.4 Maintenance Frequency
The frequency of maintenance criteria reflects the amount of time the operators will need to attend to the FOG mitigation system installation such as adding chemicals, replacing filters or doing routine maintenance. As shown in Table 3-4, the more frequent the maintenance, the lower the score.

Table 3-4 Maintenance Frequency Scoring
Maintenance Frequency
Quarterly
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Score
5 3
1 o

3.5 Potable Water Use
This is a sustainability criterion that rewards the technology that limits the use of potable water.

Table 3-5 Potable Water Use Scoring
Potable Water Use
No
Limited
Medium
High

3.6 Impact on Odor Control System
Score
5 3
1 o
Both the RBPS and BCPS utilizes an odor control system connected to each pump station's wet well. Any increase in volume or concentration of the odors will negatively impact the odor control system and consequently the permit. The technologies will be evaluated and scored base on their impact on the odor control system. The criterion includes consideration for impacts on permit, insurance and additional staff training. Table 3-6 shows that no impact to the existing odor control system will score high and the score decreases as the impacts grow. x912312025
C5 Page 342 of 1112

Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
Table 3-6 Impact on Odor Control System Scoring
Impact on
Odor Control
None
Low
Moderate
High
Score
5 0

3.7 Impact on Downstream Treatment
The downstream treatment processes may be sensitive to additions/changes in the chemistry of the wastewater at either or both of the pump stations. Due to the distance of the pump stations from the EWPCF, we think the impact will be negligible. However, we are including this criterion to evaluate whether technology requires chemical additions or will change the chemistry of the wastewater that may cause a detrimental impact on treatment.

Table 3-7 Impact on Downstream Treatment Scoring
Impact on Downstream
Treatment
Score
No
Low
Medium
High
5 3
1 o

3.8 Impact on Existing Equipment
The RBPS wet well consists of submersible pumps, pipes, pump guides and sluice gates. Both RBPS and BCPS wet wells contain electrical, signal cables, level sensors and grinders. The BCPS wet well also contains access doors, and walkways. The FOG technology selected may impact the performance or condition of these existing equipment. This criterion helps evaluate the potential impact of the technology on the existing wet well equipment.

Table 3-8 Impact on Existing Equipment Scoring
Impact on Existing
Equipment
Score
None
Low
Moderate
High
09/23/2025
C5 Page 343 of 141€2

Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria

3.9 Capital Cost
An important factor in evaluating any treatment technology is the initial purchase (capital) cost.

The capital cost includes the following items:
• Equipment cost
• Cost to upgrade electrical and instrumentation at the pump stations • Installation cost
• Engineering and construction management (20% of Installation cost) • Contingency (30%)
This evaluation criteria score is inversely proportional to the capital cost associated with the technology. We will define the dollar values for each capital cost ranking of low, moderate and high after we have received the equipment costs. The capital cost of each technology will be ranked against each other and scored using the ranking shown in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9 Capital Cost Scoring
Capital Cost
Score
Low
5 Moderate
High
1 Very High
o

3.10 Operational & Maintenance Cost
The ongoing operational and maintenance (O&M) evaluation criteria scoring is inversely proportional to the O&M cost. The O&M cost includes:
• Energy cost
• Chemical cost
• Spare parts, availability and lead time
• Labor
• Vendor support, availability and response
One year of O&M costs will be estimated for each technology and ranked against each other and scored using the scores shown in Error! Reference source not found.Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 Operation & Maintenance Cost Scoring
Operation & Maintenance
Cost
Score
Low
5 p X2312025
C5 Page 344 of 1112

Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
Moderate 3
High 1
Very High
0 3.11 Supplementary Benefits
This criteria aids in scoring the FOG mitigation technology that provides supplementary or secondary benefits upon its use such as reduction in odor, enhance biological activity, or reduced solids settling. This criterion provides additional credit for such supplementary benefits.

Table 3.11 Supplementary Benefits Scoring
Supplementary Benefits
Significant
Partial
Minimal
None

3.12 Weighting Factors
Score
5 1
0 The weighting factors are used to distinguish between more and less important evaluation criteria.

The weight is multiplied by the corresponding criteria score to arrive at the final score for each criterion. The scores are then added together to arrive at the total score for each technology. As a starting point, Table 3-12 summarizes the proposed weights for the FOG mitigation technologies evaluation criteria. These will be refined through discussion with staff. 2 3
4 5
6 Table 3-12 Weighting Factors
Performance Track Record
Constructability
Ease of Operation
Weight
7 10
5 Maintenance Frequency 10
Potable Water Use
Impact on Odor Control
7 Impact on Downstream Treatment
6 10
10 09/23/2025
C5 Page 345 of 1412

FYR
Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
8 9
Impact on Existing Equipment
Capital Cost
7 10
10 Operation & Maintenance Cost
7 11
Supplementary Benefits
4 Cost Benefit Analysis
3 The FOG mitigation technologies will be scored based on the evaluation criteria and weighed to arrive at the overall score for each technology. The data will be entered into a spreadsheet and the technologies will be ranked in a descending order. An example spreadsheet for the evaluation matrix is presented in the Table 4-1.

The CBA will also identify the O&M present worth cost and capital cost to evaluate the alternatives.

The following assumptions will be used in the analysis
• Interest rate 5%
• Escalation rate 3%
• Mechanical equipment life span is 20 years
• Energy cost is $0.285/kWh for BCPS and $0.353/kWh for RBPS • Labor cost $110/hour including benefit
The present worth total O&M cost will be calculated and adjusted to present worth by multiplying the annual O&M cost by the present worth factor (P/Ax Factor). The total present worth cost is the sum of the present worth O&M total cost and total capital cost. The present worth weight adjusted will be calculated by dividing the present worth total cost by the overall weighted score to adjust for cost based on performance.
p X2312025
C5 Page 346 of 1112

SZOZ/EZ/60
ZI.11. JO LVE abed
Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
Table 4-1 FOG Mitigation Techn ol ogies E valuati on Matrix FY
Technology
Type
CriteriaSc oring
Performance Track
O
U
O
tY
Constructability
Ease of Operati on
Maintenance
U
_
cu
m
O-
2 u_
Potable Water Use
0 O
O • O
U O
sou

0. E
wo
C
.— =
X y
W
= o O-
U Cr
a w
E
+-a
0 U
To
co
U
Maintenance
H
0 U
Weighting Factor 7 10 5 10 6 10 10 7 10 7 3
Overall
Score
1 Anue
Enviroprep
Mechanical
Mixer
Flygt -
2 Adaptive
Mixer
Mechanical
Mixer
3 WILO - EMU
4 Phi Mixer -
Large Bubble
5 Mechanical
Mixer
Bubble
Mixer
Enviro Mix
BioMix - Bubble
Small Mixer
Bubbles
6 Vapex
7 MicroBlock
Chemical
Additive
Biological
Additive

Page 9 ends

Enter Client Here I Raceway & Buena Creek Pump Station Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Cost Benefit Analysis Evaluation Criteria
SZOZ/EZ/60
This Page Was Intentionally Left Bla nk
ZI.11. 40 817E abed

Page 10 ends

FOG Mitigation. Technologies for Wetwells at Buena Creek LS 1 2
6 3
4 5
7 1
2 8
4 6
7 9
Technology
Type
Weighting Factor
Anue Enviroprep
Flygt
Microblock
PHi
Vapex
Vaughan
No Action
Surface
Agitator
Mechanical
Mixer
Biological
Additive
Bubble
Mixer
Chemical
Additive
Chopper
Pump
Manual
Criteria Scoring
Reference Track
0 a)
cc
7 Constructability
10 C
0 O
N i
a
w a.

O
Maintenance
u
C
ai
7 a'
a)
LL
5 10
6 L
0 O
C
0 u
(v
a
E
O
C
0 v
C
f0
a
E
Downstream
10 2 1 5 5 5 5
2 2 2 2 5 5
0 5 2 1 5 5
3 2 5 4 5 4
4 2 4 3 2 5
3 2 3 3 5 5
0 5 0 1 0 3
FOG Mitigation Technologies for Wetwells at Raceway LS
Technology
Type
Weighting Factor
Anue Enviroprep
Flygt
Microblock
PHi
Vapex
Vaughan
No Action
Surface
Agitator
Mechanical
Mixer
Biological
Additive
Bubble
Mixer
Chemical
Additive
Chopper
Pump
Manual
10 5
3 7
5 C
O OA
u ►+
a A'
E W
V
C
al
E
a
a•
W
7 2
3 3
I'
2 i
0 v
05 O
10 II
L
(13
C
a
E
CU
a
a
a
C
aJ
m
3 aJ
O
v
0 u
1 1 3 53.8
3 3 3 55
5 1 3 53.4
3 3 3 64.2
1 1 4 42.6
5 1 2 43.4
Criteria Scoring
Reference Track
0 a)
cc
7 i
C
`- O
0 ar m
III L
• CIJ
W a
O
10 5
u
C
al
Cr
ai
LL
10 6
O
-a
O
a
0 u • 0
(C v
a
E
10 2 1 5 5 5 5
2 2
2 1
5 5
0 5 2 1 5 5
3 2 5 4 5I 4
4 1 4 3 2 5
3 2 3 3 5 5
0 5 0 1 0 3
C
0 (13
a.

E
Downstream
reatment
10 5
3 5
5 O • C a/
u E
(a u a
a X
E W a
— W
7 2
3 3
5 1
771
2 10
O&M Cost
Supp ementary
v
C
C)
m
3 f0
> 0
O in
1 1 3 53.8
4 3 3 55
5 1 3 53.4
3 3 3 64.2
1 1 4 39.2
4 1 3 58.6
5 1 2 43.4
09/23/2025
C5 Page 349 of 1112

Fats, Oils, and Grease Mitigation Recommendation Technical Memorandum I.)� Raceway Basin and Buena Creek Pump Stations Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Appendix D. References Surveys
09/23/2025
C5 Page 351 of 1112

SZ0Z/£Z/60
Z L 1, 1, 40 £S£ abed
City of Vista
Raceway and Buena Creek PS Study and OA Services
Equipment Request Log
Type of System
Website
Manufacturer/ Representative
Con tact
References
Anue Envir o-Prep
Recycle wastewater
https://an uewater.com/envir o-prep/
D&H Water Systems
Clint Freeman
[lint@DANDH WATERSYSTE MS.COM
Brian Doane
[email protected] M
Bob Negley
bnegley@anuewater .com
Emalled 5/3
Carlsbad MWD,
jesse.castaneda@ carlsbadca. gov
Town of King
ID Bennett
336-480-4055 calle d again 5/14. emaile d
Block of bacteria dos e Large bubble mixer Chemical additive (oxidant) https://www . envir onmentallev era
ge.com/microblock .htrn
Environmental Leverage Inc.:
https://www.phiwater .com/
https://www . vapex .com/
101 Water
N/A
Tracy Finnegan
[email protected]
Manufacturer keeping clients
confidential. Provided case studies
In lieu
tarnvictor@jbiwater .com
[email protected]
Emalled 5/3
Jennifer Gonzalez
[email protected] Followed up
Wendy Chen LBWD
called and voicemail
lose De Silva in Bristol RI (401) 253-
8877. called again 5/14
Ed Waggoner Superintendent CAWD
831-624-1249. call ed again 5/14
Recei ved feedback
Aqua America, Michelle Buffenbarger
(260 312-5676)
Thomas Modifica Jr. TomM @vapex.com
Emailed
mhamam oto@svcw .org
[email protected]
received feedback
amares @pechanga .com
sd oua ngpannha@city ofsantacr uz.c om
mi [email protected]
Chopper pump/ recycle wastewater
http://www.chopperpumps.com/applications/
Rockwell Solutions
[email protected]
Emailed 5/11
* Jeff Stocker— Field Servic es Sup eri nte ndent— Leu cadia Wastewater District: 760-753-0155, ext. 3008
[email protected]
* Jesse Soto —Mechanical S ervices Supervisor— Eastern
Municipal Water District: 951-300-7108
s otoj@emwd. org
called and voicemail
* Kenny Sanatar - Maintenance - Santa Margarita Water
District: 949-254-1929 called again 5/14
Receiv ed
* Robert Rodriguez — City of San Diego — Pump Station
Supervisor: 619-980-0775 called again 5/14 and sent
email
Dominic Brunozzi - Mai ntenance S upervis or - Oli venhai n Wastewat er District: 760-415-5781 called again 5/14
M echanical propeller
Flo -systems
[email protected]
emaneo
Douglas Loar Loar, Douglas
cdo uglas.loar@ve olia.c om >
Project Manager/Interim Maintenance Manager
(IBWC) cell +1 951 616 4450
City of San Diego -
Smith, D ennis L. [email protected] ov
San Marcos Twin Oaks Plant
Paul Muirhead, Jacobs, Maintenance Manager I BIAF
760.525.6456 Paul .Muirhead @jacobs.com
Rick Beath, Wastewater System Supervisor
Valley Center Municipal Water District
760-419-7387 , Rick Beath
Ryan Hughes
Padre Dam MWD
619-258-4689, rhughes@padre .org
Electrical and Instrumentation Maintenance
Sched uler
Riverside Water Quality Control Plant, 951-351-6088
Office, Herrera, Angel AHerrera @riv ersid eca.go v
Received
Ace Ariaz with City of Ren o, N evada is the c ontact
that I have. inr > Fnn >nnor>rinn

Martinez, Ulises
From:

Sent:

Subject:

Attachments:

Hello!
Martinez, Ulises
Friday, May 21, 2021 10:25 AM
Flygt Reference Check
FOG_Technology_Reference_Survey.docx
My name is Ulises Martinez, I'm with HDR and I'm assisting the City of Vista in California on a Fat, Oil, and Grease (FOG) mitigation study for a couple of their sewer lift stations. We are studying the various FOG mitigation technologies including the Flygt System. Your contact was provided as a reference. As part of this study, we are conducting independent surveys of their system. Could you provide feedback on their system by completing the attached survey? We will keep your information and responses confidential so candid feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I would be happy to set up a call if you would prefer to discuss the survey questions. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Ulises M. Martinez
Water EIT
HDR
D 714.730.2486
hdrinc.com/follow-us
09/23/2025
1 C5 Page 354 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date:

Name of Contact:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Name of Facility:

Location of Facility:

Type of Facility:
5"4'^ov L i f L 5fa 60 ie c.�,
77,5f- 561)-65,0
'c e o . J fl1
R
6O tr 704)441
r71= 5i
I COs (/ �1Qv I I

1. What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? ❑ Anue Surface Mixer
❑ Pneumatic Ejectors
High Pressure Water Jets
PHi Large Bubble Mixer
Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
Vapex
MicroBlock
WILO — EMU
Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
Flygt - Mixer
Others, Specify:

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

4. How many units installed?
Specify: { }'rv" Z:1

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
74 6 ,; f f 5/k .1-zo EL —
09/23/2025

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 355 of 1112 ends

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? g
Good
Acceptable
Working with minor issues
Working with major issues
Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑ Yes
No
If YES describe:

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
O
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
As needed
Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
< 1 hr/week
❑ 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
®. Others, Specify:
� - A)

10. An ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe.

II) 1 11 CVMQI i4ctr''�+

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? Dfr\ _O5 fe Id.
`dime

1. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue.

Excellent
O V. Good
O Acceptable with minor issues
❑ Not at all
09/23/2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

C5
4 s

Page 356 of 1112 ends

2. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
Z. No
If YES describe:

3. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑ Yes
No

4. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.

J 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 El 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑ 9 ,( 10

12. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
IR Yes
No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

13. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
' Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why? T

6. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
.la Yes
❑ No
If YES, Specify vendors and models:
far p
09/23/2025
/lbw e

Page 3 of 2 ends

C5
in& v Wat

Page 357 of 1112 ends

7. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
Comments:
we, ave At 1:4e COPithy ito....V.s<
1i X -e K S /_'1 U/t //.s 4/e ?lave Ce vz cry -74'c /<..):ki I
hc�...0 e 5 a U G1 U5 1 41 60 k /.�s /c-ei

11.O1 Fv + $ 301'5 0O0 l

0.CA 106,ies Ir •
09/23/2025

Page 4 of 2 ends

Page 358 of 1112 ends

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date: 05/13/2021
Name of Contact: Michelle Buffenbarger
Title: Field Operations Supervisor II
Phone Number: 260-312-5676
Email Address: [email protected]
Name of Facility: Inverness Hills Lift Station
Location of Facility: Hadley Road
Type of Facility: Large Wastewater Lift Station

1. What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? ❑ Anue Surface Mixer
❑ Pneumatic Ejectors
❑ High Pressure Water Jets
❑X PHi Large Bubble Mixer
❑ Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
❑ Vapex
❑ MicroBlock
❑ WILO — EMU
❑ Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
❑ Flygt - Mixer
❑X Others, Specify: Protein Matrix Chemical

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?
The date that I show this being installed was 2015 (I am not the original installer).

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

The equipment is installed within a temperature control utility shed, which also houses an air compressor and protein matrix chemical and its pumping equipment. The piping starts at the utility shed and then is piped into the wet well of the lift station. All is not visible to the public.

4. How many units installed?
Specify: We have two stainless steel Large Bubble Mixers installed at the bottom of the wet well. The wet well houses 4 25HP ABS pumps and the lift station a large and

Page 1 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 359 of 1112

rectangular. It is the last lift station that collects multiple basins before reaching the WWTP.

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
The equipment is simple and easy to maintain. We had no experience in this equipment when it first arrived. The maintenance booklet is simple, comprehendible and has great diagrams to assist in doing part replacements. Ordering from the company is easy as well.

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? ❑X Good
❑ Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES describe:

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
❑X Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ As needed
❑ Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
❑X < 1 hr/week
❑ 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
❑ Others, Specify:

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe.

We had to replace, for the first time since installation, a STC Bowl Assembly with Auto Drain and a STC 25 Micron Filter Element. The cost for these items were $180.00. My employee spent less than an hour replacing those items.

Page 2 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 360 of 1112

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? We have not had an frequent maintenance issues to deal with. We do have an air compressor person come in quarterly to do basic PM work on the unit. As long as that is scheduled appropriately then the bubbler unit works great.

How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. ❑X Excellent
❑ V. Good
❑ Acceptable with minor issues
❑ Not at all

12. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES describe:

13. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑X Yes
❑ No

14. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

15. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑ 9 ❑X 10

16. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

17. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑X Yes

Page 3 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 361 of 1112

❑ No
If NO, Why?

18. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If YES, Specify vendors and models Prior to my coming in as the Supervisor to this department, another supervisor was in place. He started his adventure with Protein Matrix who then recommended Phl as the vendor they wanted to work with. Rob did a trial run with the two companies before he permanently installed the two systems. It is the two systems combined, that works to eliminate FOG within our wet wells. I do not believe one system alone takes care of the issue. The bubbler disperses that large bubble to cover more bottom to surface mixing, which keep the solids suspended where the Protein Matrix chemical breaks down and destroys the structure of FOG so that it is passed through the pumps and down through the system. The FOG structure is destroyed and is no longer able to restructure itself back into solid FOG and therefore, does not create potential blockage downstream.

19. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
If you are interested in seeing before and after pictures I will be glad to submit those to you as well.

Comments:

Page 4 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 362 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date:

Name of Contact:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Name of Facility:

Location of Facility:

Type of Facility:
5/12/2021
Aurelio Mares
Facilities manager
951-775-7921
[email protected]
Pechanga resort and casino
Temecula Ca
Operation

1. What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? ❑ AnueSurface Mixer
❑ Pneumatic Ejectors
❑ High Pressure Water Jets
❑ PHi Large Bubble Mixer
❑ Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
❑X Vapex
❑ MicroBlock
❑ WILO — EMU
❑ Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
❑ Flygt - Mixer
❑ Others, Specify:

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?
year2010

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train. (3) 18,000gal Grease interceptors
3 interceptors @ 18,000gal

4. How many units installed?
Specify: 1 Vapex services the three interceptor

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
09/23/2025

Page 1 of 4 ends

C5 Page 363 of 1112

basicfilter change out and cleaning fog heads to the interceptors

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? ❑ Good
❑x Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑ Yes
❑ No
If YES describe: we have changed out 1 compressor and 3 fog heads ozone canister

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
❑X Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ As needed
❑ Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
❑ < 1 hr/week
❑X 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
❑ Others, Specify:

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe. the equipment is basic once you send sometime with the unit

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? basic service attention

Page 2 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 364 of 1112

12. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. ❑ Excellent
❑ V. Good
❑X Acceptable with minor issues
❑ Not at all

13. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If YES describe: the ozone fog is corrosive

14. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑ Yes
❑X No

15. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
6 ❑ 7 ❑X 8
9 ❑ 10

17. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

18. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

Page 3 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 365 of 1112

19. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
0 Yes
❑ No
If YES, Specify vendors and models: I don't rememberthe others

20. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
it work well for what we need
Comments:

Page 4 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 366 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date: 5/15/2021
Name of Contact: Sang Douangpannha
Title: Senior Wastewater Operator
Phone Number: (831)420-6043
Email Address: [email protected]
Name of Facility:

Location of Facility: 110 California St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Type of Facility: Wastewater: trickling filter/secondary clarifier City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?
1/15/2014, 6/24/2015, 4/22/2020

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

Headworks 'pre -grit, county influent), primary sedimentation tank effluent channel, solids dewatering building, secondary treatment (trickling filter exhaust, mix -liquor channel, RSS/TFE channels)

4. How many units installed? 8 Units
Specify: 1500 model (County influent channel), V1500 4 units 'SDB, PSS 1&2, PSS3&4, PSS 5&6), PLC 3500 2 units Secondaries #1, Secondaries #2), Milli Unit (PG RS

Page 1 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 367 of 1112

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
Startu
3, maintenance, operation, and troubleshooting

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? ❑X Good
❑ Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑X Yes
❑ No
If YES describe: rotameters to ad'ust carrier water flow will seize depending on water hardness PM involving running CLR through system helps', exhaust fan replaced, replaced compressors, touchpad on new Milli -unit was unresponsive and was replaced

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
❑D Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ As needed
❑ Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
❑ < 1 hr/week
❑X 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
❑ Others, Specify:

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe. mineral build -u a at nozzle head can impede oxidant flow (weekly PM is to clean nozzle head , water bowl (condensation trap) float valve has been replaced with a timed solenoid due to over purging if debris present, installation height may effect ease in maintenance ;some units installed on stand to elevate height)

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? Nozzle head cleaning (weekly)

Page 2 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 368 of 1112

12. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. ❑ Excellent
❑ V. Good
D Acceptable with minor issues (installed for H2S reduction) ❑ Not at all

13. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
• Yes
❑ No
If YES describe: Can be corrosive to none stainless steel ecuipmentfittings, on secondary side the units are in -line with carbon media odor reduction towers and the fluid may affect downstream media

14. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
D Yes
❑ No

15. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑X 9 ❑ 10

17. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

18. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

Page 3 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 369 of 1112

19. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
❑ Yes
0 No
If YES, Specify vendors and models:

20. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
Comments:

Page 4 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 370 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date: 5/17/2021
Name of Contact:

Title:

Phone Number: 619 428-7316
Email Address:

Robert Rodriguez
Senior Plant Technician I/C and Electrical Supervisor
Name of Facility:

Location of Facility:

Type of Facility: Water Reclamation
[email protected]
South Bay Water Reclamation Plant/Grove Ave P.S
& Otay River P.S.
2411 Dairy Mart Road

1. What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? ❑ AnueSurface Mixer
❑ Pneumatic Ejectors
❑ High Pressure Water Jets
❑ PHi Large Bubble Mixer
❑ Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
❑ Vapex
❑ MicroBlock
❑ WILO — EMU
❑X Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
❑ Flygt - Mixer
❑ Others, Specify:

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?
Vaughan pumps were installed over 10 years ago at the Otay river pump station and Grove avenue Pump station is undergoing the upgrade to Vaughan all because of clogging issues.

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

Otay River Pump Station, Grove Avenue Pump Station and various sections of the facility

4. How many units installed?
Specify: (5) submersibles at Otay River (2) 40hp & (3) 200hp Grove avenue undergoing replacement. (2) out of the (5) replaced. (1) submersible and (1) same design at wet well level running a 300 hp motor

Page 1 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 371 of 1112

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
Working with Vaughan over25 years

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? D Good
❑ Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? D Yes
❑ No
If YES describe:

Problem with the installation, nothing Vaughan had done and a VFD problem, again not Vaughan

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
❑ Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
• As needed
❑ Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
❑ < 1 hr/week
❑ 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
D Others, Specify: on the rare occasion that it gets clogged. Once pump is cleared it goes right back in service

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe.

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? None, they have only been in service 20+ years, I'II need to get back to you on this.

Page 2 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 372 of 1112

12. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. ❑X Excellent
❑ V. Good
❑ Acceptable with minor issues
❑ Not at all

13. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES describe:

14. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑X Yes
❑ No

15. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑ 9 ❑X 10

17. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

18. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

19. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?

Page 3 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 373 of 1112

LXJ Yes
❑ No
If YES, Specify vendors and models: __none of the other vendors had the same chopping capabilities

20. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
Comments:

Depending on the severity of the pumping problems a conditioning pump keeps the wet wells clear of any build up. we no longer need to clean out the wet wells with the conditioning pumps installed

Page 4 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 374 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date: 5/26/2021
Name of Contact:

Title:

Phone Number: 760-415-5781
Email Address:

Name of Facility:

Location of Facility: 4S Ranch, San Diego, CA
Type of Facility: Sewer pump station
Dominic Brunozzi
Pump/Motor Tech II
[email protected]
Fire House Sewer Pump Station

1. What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? ❑ Anue Surface Mixer
❑ Pneumatic Ejectors
❑ High Pressure Water Jets
❑ PHi Large Bubble Mixer
❑ Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
❑ Vapex
❑ MicroBlock
❑ WILO — EMU
❑X Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
❑ Flygt - Mixer
❑ Others, Specify:

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?
March 2017

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

Sewer Pump Station

4. How many units installed?
Specify: One

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?

Page 1 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 375 of 1112

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? ❑ Good
❑ Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑ Yes
O No
If YES describe:

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
❑ Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ As needed
Others, Specify: Annual Inspection. No mechanical issues have arisen.

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
❑ < 1 hr/week
❑ 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
O Others, Specify: Weekly inspection of wet well determines equipment effectiveness.

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe.

None

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? Annual inspection requires removal of pump.

12. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. 0 Excellent
V. Good

Page 2 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 376 of 1112

❑ Acceptable with minor issues
Not at all

13. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
❑Z No
If YES describe:

14. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑ Yes
• No

15. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
Z Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑ 9 ❑X 10

17. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

18. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

19. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
❑X
Yes
No

Page 3 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 377 of 1112

If YES, Specify vendors and models: In -line pump suction grinders, wet well inlet grinders, bubbler mixers, grinder pumps, vertical auger.

20. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
In the past, the pump station required FOG & Rags to be pumped by on outside vendor on a quarterly schedule to prevent excessive buildup and pump clogging. Since installation of conditioning pump, wet well required no pumping for FOG & Rags removal.

Comments:

Page 4 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 378 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date:

Name of Contact:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Name of Facility:

Location of Facility:

Type of Facility:
5/3/2021
Jennifer Gonzalez
Engineering Manager
831-883-6172
'[email protected]
Monterey One Water- Castroville Pump Station
Watsonville Road, Castroville CA 95012
Wastewater Pump Station

1. What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? ❑ AnueSurface Mixer
❑ Pneumatic Ejectors
❑ High Pressure Water Jets
❑X PHi Large Bubble Mixer
❑ Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
❑ Vapex
❑ MicroBlock
❑ WILO — EMU
❑ Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
❑ Flygt - Mixer
❑ Others, Specify:

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?
Summer 2018

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

In Wet Well of Castroville pump station_

4. How many units installed?
Specify: ___lair compressor, 8 large bubble plate units

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
Very easy to operate and maintain. We have been able to optimize the system for energy savings. Changes are easy to make and show quick results.

Page 1 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 379 of 1112

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? • Good
❑ Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑ Yes
D No
If YES describe:

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
❑ Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ As needed
❑ Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
• <1hr/week
❑ 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
❑ Others, Specify:

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe.

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? ___Checking that the compressor timing is optimized.

12. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. • Excellent
❑ V. Good
❑ Acceptable with minor issues

Page 2 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 380 of 1112

❑ Not at all

13. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES describe:

14. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑ Yes
❑X No

15. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑ 9 ❑X 10

17. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify maker and model:

18. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑X Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

19. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
❑ Yes
❑X No
If YES, Specify vendors and models:

Page 3 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 381 of 1112

20. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
Comments:

Page 4 of 4 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 382 of 1112

FOG EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SURVEY
Date:

Name of Contact:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Name of Facility:

Location of Facility:

Type of Facility:

1. %r/I,kw" a
Ad al/Arlie,,, dim V//%
-64 _Of G 5dY/�� )J7P C�
J/!°,4rt7 - . az ([% -,_)(1 /drr f :

What type of FOG technology you currently have at your facility? Anue Surface Mixer
Pneumatic Ejectors
High Pressure Water Jets
PHi Large Bubble Mixer
Enviromix Biomix -Small Bubble
Vapex
MicroBlock
WILO — EMU
Vaughn - Chopper Pumps
Flygt - Mixer
Others, Specify:

2. Date equipment installed at your facility?

1.. /

3. Location the equipment installed within the treatment train.

4. How many units installed?
Specify:

5. What is your working experience with the equipment?
e -e-(1) iii(9f) l) f./�� 07//4,-/ !;// J O O

Page 1 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 383 of 1112

6. How do you rate the current condition of the equipment installed at your facility? Good
❑ Acceptable
❑ Working with minor issues
❑ Working with major issues
❑ Not working

7. Any mechanical or electrical issues with the equipment since installation? ❑ Yes
iJ No
If YES describe:

8. How often you do attend to the equipment?
❑ Daily
J1 Weekly
❑ Monthly
❑ Quarterly
❑ As needed
❑ Others, Specify:

9. In your estimate, how many hours per week spent by your staff attending to or maintaining the equipment?
< 1 hr/week
❑ 2-4 hr/week
❑ 4-6 hr/week
❑ 6-8 hr/week
❑ Others, Specify:

10. Any ongoing maintenance issues or operational difficulties? Describe.

11. What is the most frequent maintenance issue or item on the equipment? t104b1 tdi1 e
t

1. How effective the installed equipment in solving your FOG issue. ❑ Excellent
❑ V. Good
❑ Acceptable with minor issues
❑ Not at all

Page 2 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 384 of 1112

2. Did you see any negative impact of the equipment on other treatment processes downstream since installation?
❑ Yes
kr No
If YES describe:

3. In the past three years, have you contacted the manufacturer or area representative for support or concerns regarding the equipment?
❑ Yes
Kf No

4. Are you satisfied with the level of support you received from the manufacturer/representative?
jf Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why?

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, how would you rate the equipment performance at your facility.
❑ 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 5
❑ 6 ❑ 7
8 ❑ 9 ;IV 10

12. Do you have another type of FOG equipment at your facility, or you have experience with other type in the past?
❑ Yes �}
El No Jy
If YES, Specify maker and model.

13. Do you recommend the FOG equipment you currently have at your facility for raw sewage/pump station application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If NO, Why? I6"�

6. Before purchasing the FOG equipment currently installed; did you investigate other vendors?
❑ Yes
❑ No
If YES, Specify vendors and models:

Page 3 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 385 of 1112

7. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?
Comments:

Page 4 of 2 ends

09/23/2025
C5 Page 386 of 1112

Fats, Oils, and Grease Mitigation Recommendation Technical Memorandum I.)R Raceway Basin and Buena Creek Pump Stations Improvement Study and Owner's Advisor Services Appendix E. Engineer's Probable Construction
Cost Opinion
09/23/2025
C5 Page 387 of 1112

SZOZ/CZ/60
()
01 Z L L L 40 688 06ed
City of Vista
FOG Mitigation St udy
FOG Mitigation Technology Alternatives C ost Comparison Buena Creek Pump Station
,
20 Year Life -Cycle Cost
$
770,717
$
407,534
$
427,118
$
758,267
$
605,286
$ 452,567
$ 707,923
Total Capital Cost
$
317,932
$
5,877
$
285,731
$
394,654
$
171,786
$ 202,865
$ -
Energy Consumption Cost
$
346,373
$
-
$
84,393
$
179,266
$
337,573
$ 202,544
$ -
Routine Maintenance C ost
$
106,412
$
401,657
$
56,994
$
184,347
$
95,927
$ 47,158
$ 707,923
Equipment Cost
$
78,000
$
2,200
$
70,100
$
91,698
$
39,525
$ 49,770
Annual Energy Cost
$
17,319
$
-
$
4,220
$
8,963
$
16,879
$ 10,127
$ -
An nual O&M Co st
$
5,321
$
20,083
$
2,850
$
9,217
$
4,796
$ 2,358
$ 35,396
Raceway Pump Station
I �.
`3-
=
Fb"gt I
N'oAction
20 Year Life -Cycle Cost
$
360,110
$
266,717
$ 274,746
$
780,151
$
239,092
$
177,771
$ 366,785
Total Capital Cost
$
143,925
$
3,345
$ 165,488
$
373,766
$
65,033
$
71,514
$ -
Energy Consumption Cost
$
165,594
$
-
$ 52,265
$
222,039
$
104,529
$
83,623
$ -
Routine Maintenance Co st
$
50,591
$
263,372
$ 56,994
$
184,347
$
69,530
$
22,634
$ 366,785
Equipment Cost
$
35,310
$
400
$ 40,600
$
91,698
$
15,955
$
17,545
Annual Energy Cost
$
8,280
$
-
$ 2,613
$
11,102
$
5,226
$
4,181
$ -
Annual O&M Cost
$
2,530
$
13,169
$ 2,850
$
9,217
$
3,476
$
1,132
$ 18,339

SZOZ/CZ/60
Z L L L 40 06C abed
0 0
0 0
0 v'8
x
9 7
6 N
0 N 5
Net Present Va
4 3
2 1
Buena Creek PS - FOG Technologies Life Cycle Cost Analysis —Anue—Microblock —PHi —Vapex
Flygt Action
—Vaughan --No
•-
•°
•
••
••
•••
•
•
0 2
4 6
8 10
Year
12 14
16 18
20 SZOZ/EZ/60
ZI.11. J.o 1.6E e6ed
Net Present Va
0 0
0 0
0 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
Raceway Basin PS - FOG Technologies Life Cycle Cost Analysis Action
—Anue
Vapex
--No
—Microblock
—PHi
Flygt
—Vaughan
•
•
• ••

••
•
•
•
0 2
4 6
8 10
Year
12 14
16 18
20 BCPS
N
w
N. )
O
N
(JI
0 cil
ZI.11. J.o ME 36ed
A nue
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
S 317,932
$ 18,617
$
6,280
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Cost Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Year
3 Year
4 Year
5 Year
6 Y ear
7 Year
8 Year
9 Year
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 317,932 $ 317,932
$ 346,373 $ -
$ 106,412 $ -
$ -
$ 19,548
$ 6,468
$ -
$ 20,525
$ 6,662
$ -
$ 21,552
$ 6,862
$ -
$ 22,629
$ 7,068
$ -
$ 23,761
$ 7,280
$ -
$ 24,949
$ 7,499
$ -
$ 26,196
$ 7,724
$ -
$ 27,506
$ 7,955
$ -
$ 28,881
$ 8,194
$ -
$ 30,325
$ 36,662
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 770,717
$ 26,016
$ 342,476
$ 27,188
$ 366,673
$ 28,414
$ 390,530
$ 29,697
$ 414,053
$ 31,041
$ 437,249
$ 32,447
$ 460,123
$ 33,920
$ 482,681
$ 35,461
$ 504,930
$ 37,075
$ 526,875
$ 66,987
$ 564,280
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 31,842
$ 8,693
$ -
$ 33,434
$ 8,954
$ -
$ 35,105
$ 9,222
$ -
$ 36,861
$ 9,499
$ -
$ 38,704
$ 9,784
$ -
$ 40,639
$ 10,078
$ -
$ 42,671
$ 10,380
$ -
$ 44,804
$ 10,691
$ -
$ 47,045
$ 11,012
$ -
$ 77,619
-
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 40,535
$ 585,634
$ 42,387
$ 606,699
$ 44,328
$ 627,481
$ 46,360
$ 647,986
$ 48,488
$ 668,219
$ 50,716
$ 688,183
$ 53,051
$ 707,884
$ 55,496
$ 727,327
$ 58,057
$ 746,515
$ 77,619
$ 770,717

BCPS
Nico
w
N. )
O
Ni
CTI
ZI.11. Jo C6E abed
Microblock
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 5,877
$ -
$
26,780
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 5,877 $ 5,877
$ - $ -
$ 401,657 $ -
$ -
$ -
$ 27,583
$ -
$ -
$ 28,411
$ -
$ -
$ 29,263
$ -
$ -
$ 30,141
$ -
$ -
$ 31,045
$ -
$ -
$ 31,977
$ -
$ -
$ 32,936
$ -
$ -
$ 33,924
$ -
$ -
$ 34,942
$ -
$ -
$ 35,990
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 407,534
$ 27,583
$ 31,899
$ 28,411
$ 57,185
$ 29,263
$ 81,755
$ 30,141
$ 105,629
$ 31,045
$ 128,828
$ 31,977
$ 151,371
$ 32,936
$ 173,275
$ 33,924
$ 194,559
$ 34,942
$ 215,241
$ 35,990
$ 235,338
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ 37,070
$ -
$ -
$ 38,182
$ -
$ -
$ 39,327
$ -
$ -
$ 40,507
$ -
$ -
$ 41,722
$ -
$ -
$ 42,974
$ -
$ -
$ 44,263
$ -
$ -
$ 45,591
$ -
$ -
$ 46,959
$ -
$ -
$ 48,368
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 37,070
$ 254,866
$ 38,182
$ 273,841
$ 39,327
$ 292,279
$ 40,507
$ 310,196
$ 41,722
$ 327,605
$ 42,974
$ 344,522
$ 44,263
$ 360,959
$ 45,591
$ 376,932
$ 46,959
$ 392,453
$ 48,368
$ 407,534

O
co
w PHi
N
O
Ni
CJ'
BCPS
ZI.11. 40 i76E abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 285,731
$ 4,654
$
3,800
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 285,731 $ 285,731
$ 84,393 $ -
$ 56,994 $ -
$ -
$ 4,887
$ 3,914
$ -
$ 5,131
$ 4,031
$ -
$ 5,388
$ 4,152
$ -
$ 5,657
$ 4,277
$ -
$ 5,940
$ 4,405
$ -
$ 6,237
$ 4,537
$ -
$ 6,549
$ 4,674
$ -
$ 6,877
$ 4,814
$ -
$ 7,220
$ 4,958
$ -
$ 7,581
$ 5,107
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 427,118
$ 8,801
$ 294,034
$ 9,163
$ 302,189
$ 9,540
$ 310,199
$ 9,934
$ 318,068
$ 10,345
$ 325,799
$ 10,775
$ 333,394
$ 11,223
$ 340,858
$ 11,690
$ 348,193
$ 12,178
$ 355,401
$ 12,688
$ 362,486
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Ene rgy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 7,960
$ 5,260
$ -
$ 8,358
$ 5,418
$ -
$ 8,776
$ 5,580
$ -
$ 9,215
$ 5,748
$ -
$ 9,676
$ 5,920
$ -
$ 10,160
$ 6,098
$ -
$ 10,668
$ 6,281
$ -
$ 11,201
$ 6,469
$ -
$ 11,761
$ 6,663
$ -
$ 12,349
$ 6,863
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 13,220
$ 369,450
$ 13,776
$ 376,297
$ 14,357
$ 383,028
$ 14,963
$ 389,646
$ 15,596
$ 396,154
$ 16,258
$ 402,553
$ 16,949
$ 408,848
$ 17,670
$ 415,038
$ 18,424
$ 421,128
$ 19,212
$ 427,118

BCPS
N
w Vapex
N
O
Ni
(JI
ZI.11. JO 56E abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 394,654
$ 9,887
$
4,260
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 394,654 $ 394,654
$ 179,266 $ -
$ 184,347 $ -
$ -
$ 10,381
$ 4,388
$ -
$ 10,900
$ 4,519
$ -
$ 11,445
$ 4,655
$ -
$ 12,017
$ 4,795
$ -
$ 12,618
$ 4,939
$ -
$ 13,249
$ 5,087
$ -
$ 13,911
$ 5,239
$ -
$ 14,607
$ 5,396
$ -
$ 15,337
$ 5,558
$ -
$ 16,104
$ 128,960
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 758,267
$ 14,769
$ 408,587
$ 15,419
$ 422,310
$ 16,100
$ 435,828
$ 16,812
$ 449,144
$ 17,557
$ 462,264
$ 18,336
$ 475,189
$ 19,151
$ 487,926
$ 20,003
$ 500,476
$ 20,896
$ 512,844
$ 145,064
$ 593,847
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Ene rgy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 16,909
$ 5,897
$ -
$ 17,755
$ 6,074
$ -
$ 18,643
$ 6,256
$ -
$ 19,575
$ 6,444
$ -
$ 20,553
$ 6,637
$ -
$ 21,581
$ 6,836
$ -
$ 22,660
$ 7,041
$ -
$ 23,793
$ 7,252
$ -
$ 24,983
$ 7,470
$ -
$ 26,232
$ 173,311
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 22,806
$ 605,861
$ 23,829
$ 617,703
$ 24,898
$ 629,376
$ 26,018
$ 640,884
$ 27,190
$ 652,230
$ 28,417
$ 663,416
$ 29,701
$ 674,446
$ 31,045
$ 685,323
$ 32,453
$ 696,049
$ 199,543
$ 758,267

BCPS
N
w Vaughan
N
O
Ni
(JI
ZI.11. 40 96C abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 171,786
$ 18,617
$
5,520
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 171,786 $ 171,786
$ 337,573 $ -
$ 95,927 $ -
$ -
$ 19,548
$ 5,686
$ -
$ 20,525
$ 5,856
$ -
$ 21,552
$ 6,032
$ -
$ 22,629
$ 6,213
$ -
$ 23,761
$ 6,399
$ -
$ 24,949
$ 6,591
$ -
$ 26,196
$ 6,789
$ -
$ 27,506
$ 6,993
$ -
$ 28,881
$ 7,202
$ -
$ 30,325
$ 20,858
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 605,286
$ 25,234
$ 195,591
$ 26,382
$ 219,071
$ 27,584
$ 242,230
$ 28,842
$ 265,076
$ 30,160
$ 287,613
$ 31,540
$ 309,848
$ 32,985
$ 331,785
$ 34,499
$ 353,429
$ 36,084
$ 374,787
$ 51,183
$ 403,368
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Ene rgy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 31,842
$ 7,641
$ -
$ 33,434
$ 7,870
$ -
$ 35,105
$ 8,106
$ -
$ 36,861
$ 8,349
$ -
$ 38,704
$ 8,600
$ -
$ 40,639
$ 8,858
$ -
$ 42,671
$ 9,124
$ -
$ 44,804
$ 9,397
$ -
$ 47,045
$ 9,679
$ -
$ 49,397
$ 28,031
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 39,483
$ 424,167
$ 41,304
$ 444,693
$ 43,212
$ 464,953
$ 45,210
$ 484,949
$ 47,304
$ 504,687
$ 49,497
$ 524,172
$ 51,795
$ 543,406
$ 54,202
$ 562,396
$ 56,724
$ 581,144
$ 77,428
$ 605,286

0 CD
w Flygt
N
0 Ni
CTI
ZI.11. Jo L6E abed
BOPS
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 202,865
$ 11,170
$
880
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
M ainte nance
$ 202,865 $ 202,865
$ 202,544 $ -
$ -
$ 11,729
$ 906
$ -
$ 12,315
$ 934
$ -
$ 12,931
$ 962
$ -
$ 13,578
$ 990
$ -
$ 14,256
$ 14,931
$ -
$ 14,969
$ 1,051
$ -
$ 15,718
$ 1,082
$ -
$ 16,504
$ 1,115
$ -
$ 17,329
$ 1,148
$ -
$ 18,195
$ 17,310
$ 47,158 $ -
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 452,567
$ 12,635
$ 214,785
$ 13,249
$ 226,577
$ 13,893
$ 238,241
$ 14,568
$ 249,780
$ 29,188
$ 271,591
$ 16,020
$ 282,885
$ 16,800
$ 294,058
$ 17,618
$ 305,112
$ 18,477
$ 316,048
$ 35,505
$ 335,874
Cost Catego ry
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Y ear
14 Year
15 Year
16 Y ear
17 Year
18 Year
19 Ye ar
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 19,105
$ 1,218
$ -
$ 20,060
$ 1,255
$ -
$ 21,063
$ 1,292
$ -
$ 22,116
$ 1,331
$ -
$ 23,222
$ 20,067
$ -
$ 24,383
$ 1,412
$ -
$ 25,603
$ 1,455
$ -
$ 26,883
$ 1,498
$ -
$ 28,227
$ 1,543
$ -
$ 29,638
$ 23,263
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 20,323
$ 346,580
$ 21,315
$ 357,173
$ 22,356
$ 367,654
$ 23,447
$ 378,025
$ 43,289
$ 396,088
$ 25,795
$ 406,242
$ 27,057
$ 416,290
$ 28,381
$ 426,233
$ 29,770
$ 436,072
$ 52,901
$ 452,567

BCPS
N No Action
w
N
O
Ni
(J'
ZI.11. 40 868 abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Costs ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual Mai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ -
$ -
$
47,200
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
Year
Year
Y ear
Y ear
Year
Year
Y ear
Year
Year
Ye ar
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Capital Cost
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Energy
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Maintenance
$ 707,923 $ -
$ 48,616
$ 50,074
$ 51,577
$ 53,124
$ 54,718
$ 56,359
$ 58,050
$ 59,792
$ 61,585
$ 63,433
Annual Costs
$ 48,616
$ 50,074
$ 51,577
$ 53,124
$ 54,718
$ 56,359
$ 58,050
$ 59,792
$ 61,585
$ 63,433
Total Present Worth
$ 707,923
$ 45,864
$ 90,430
$ 133,735
$ 175,814
$ 216,703
$ 256,434
$ 295,040
$ 332,554
$ 369,006
$ 404,427
Cost Category
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
Capital Cost
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Ene rgy
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Maintenance
$ 65,336
$ 67,296
$ 69,315
$ 71,394
$ 73,536
$ 75,742
$ 78,014
$ 80,355
$ 82,765
$ 85,248
Annual Costs
$ 65,336
$ 67,296
$ 69,315
$ 71,394
$ 73,536
$ 75,742
$ 78,014
$ 80,355
$ 82,765
$ 85,248
Total Present Worth
$ 438,845
$ 472,289
$ 504,787
$ 536,364
$ 567,048
$ 596,864
$ 625,836
$ 653,988
$ 681,343
$ 707,923

RBPS
w A nue
C)
cr
ZI.11. JO 66C abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
S 143,925
$ 8,647
$
2,760
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Cost Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Year
3 Year
4 Year
5 Year
6 Y ear
7 Year
8 Year
9 Year
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 143,925 $ 143,925
$ 165,594 $ -
$ 50,591 $ -
$ -
$ 9,080
$ 2,843
$ -
$ 9,534
$ 2,928
$ -
$ 10,010
$ 3,016
$ -
$ 10,511
$ 3,106
$ -
$ 11,036
$ 3,200
$ -
$ 11,588
$ 3,296
$ -
$ 12,167
$ 3,394
$ -
$ 12,776
$ 3,496
$ -
$ 13,415
$ 3,601
$ -
$ 14,085
$ 13,117
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 360,110
$ 11,922
$ 155,173
$ 12,462
$ 166,264
$ 13,026
$ 177,201
$ 13,617
$ 187,987
$ 14,236
$ 198,624
$ 14,884
$ 209,117
$ 15,562
$ 219,466
$ 16,272
$ 229,676
$ 17,016
$ 239,747
$ 27,202
$ 254,937
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 14,790
$ 3,820
$ -
$ 15,529
$ 3,935
$ -
$ 16,306
$ 4,053
$ -
$ 17,121
$ 4,175
$ -
$ 17,977
$ 4,300
$ -
$ 18,876
$ 4,429
$ -
$ 19,819
$ 4,562
$ -
$ 20,810
$ 4,699
$ -
$ 21,851
$ 4,840
$ -
$ 51,166
$ 17,628
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 18,610
$ 264,740
$ 19,464
$ 274,413
$ 20,359
$ 283,958
$ 21,296
$ 293,377
$ 22,277
$ 302,673
$ 23,305
$ 311,847
$ 24,381
$ 320,901
$ 25,509
$ 329,838
$ 26,691
$ 338,660
$ 68,793
$ 360,110

RBPS
co
N
w
N
O
Ni
CJ'
ZI.11. Jo 0017 abed
Microblock
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 3,345
$ -
$
17,560
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 3,345 $ 3,345
$ - $ -
$ 263,372 $ -
$ -
$ -
$ 18,087
$ -
$ -
$ 18,629
$ -
$ -
$ 19,188
$ -
$ -
$ 19,764
$ -
$ -
$ 20,357
$ -
$ -
$ 20,968
$ -
$ -
$ 21,597
$ -
$ -
$ 22,244
$ -
$ -
$ 22,912
$ -
$ -
$ 23,599
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 266,717
$ 18,087
$ 20,408
$ 18,629
$ 36,988
$ 19,188
$ 53,099
$ 19,764
$ 68,754
$ 20,357
$ 83,966
$ 20,968
$ 98,747
$ 21,597
$ 113,110
$ 22,244
$ 127,067
$ 22,912
$ 140,628
$ 23,599
$ 153,806
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ 24,307
$ -
$ -
$ 25,036
$ -
$ -
$ 25,787
$ -
$ -
$ 26,561
$ -
$ -
$ 27,358
$ -
$ -
$ 28,179
$ -
$ -
$ 29,024
$ -
$ -
$ 29,895
$ -
$ -
$ 30,792
$ -
$ -
$ 31,715
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 24,307
$ 166,611
$ 25,036
$ 179,053
$ 25,787
$ 191,143
$ 26,561
$ 202,891
$ 27,358
$ 214,307
$ 28,179
$ 225,399
$ 29,024
$ 236,177
$ 29,895
$ 246,651
$ 30,792
$ 256,828
$ 31,715
$ 266,717

O
co
w PHi
N
O
Ni
CJ'
RBPS
ZL L L J.o L0j7 abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 165,488
$ 2,882
$
3,800
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 165,488 $ 165,488
$ 52,265 $ -
$ 56,994 $ -
$ -
$ 3,027
$ 3,914
$ -
$ 3,178
$ 4,031
$ -
$ 3,337
$ 4,152
$ -
$ 3,504
$ 4,277
$ -
$ 3,679
$ 4,405
$ -
$ 3,863
$ 4,537
$ -
$ 4,056
$ 4,674
$ -
$ 4,259
$ 4,814
$ -
$ 4,472
$ 4,958
$ -
$ 4,695
$ 5,107
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 274,746
$ 6,941
$ 172,035
$ 7,209
$ 178,452
$ 7,489
$ 184,740
$ 7,780
$ 190,902
$ 8,084
$ 196,943
$ 8,400
$ 202,865
$ 8,729
$ 208,670
$ 9,072
$ 214,363
$ 9,430
$ 219,944
$ 9,802
$ 225,417
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Ene rgy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 4,930
$ 5,260
$ -
$ 5,176
$ 5,418
$ -
$ 5,435
$ 5,580
$ -
$ 5,707
$ 5,748
$ -
$ 5,992
$ 5,920
$ -
$ 6,292
$ 6,098
$ -
$ 6,606
$ 6,281
$ -
$ 6,937
$ 6,469
$ -
$ 7,284
$ 6,663
$ -
$ 7,648
$ 6,863
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 10,190
$ 230,785
$ 10,594
$ 236,050
$ 11,016
$ 241,215
$ 11,455
$ 246,281
$ 11,913
$ 251,252
$ 12,390
$ 256,129
$ 12,887
$ 260,915
$ 13,406
$ 265,612
$ 13,947
$ 270,222
$ 14,511
$ 274,746

RBPS
N
w Vapex
N
O
Ni
(JI
Z W. Ho Z0i7 o6ed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 373,766
$ 12,245
$
4,260
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 373,766 $ 373,766
$ 222,039 $ -
$ 184,347 $ -
$ -
$ 12,858
$ 4,388
$ -
$ 13,501
$ 4,519
$ -
$ 14,176
$ 4,655
$ -
$ 14,884
$ 4,795
$ -
$ 15,629
$ 4,939
$ -
$ 16,410
$ 5,087
$ -
$ 17,231
$ 5,239
$ -
$ 18,092
$ 5,396
$ -
$ 18,997
$ 5,558
$ -
$ 19,947
$ 128,960
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 780,151
$ 17,246
$ 390,035
$ 18,020
$ 406,073
$ 18,831
$ 421,883
$ 19,679
$ 437,471
$ 20,567
$ 452,840
$ 21,497
$ 467,994
$ 22,470
$ 482,938
$ 23,489
$ 497,675
$ 24,555
$ 512,209
$ 148,906
$ 595,358
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Ene rgy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 20,944
$ 5,897
$ -
$ 21,991
$ 6,074
$ -
$ 23,091
$ 6,256
$ -
$ 24,245
$ 6,444
$ -
$ 25,457
$ 6,637
$ -
$ 26,730
$ 6,836
$ -
$ 28,067
$ 7,041
$ -
$ 29,470
$ 7,252
$ -
$ 30,944
$ 7,470
$ -
$ 32,491
$ 173,311
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 26,841
$ 609,497
$ 28,065
$ 623,444
$ 29,347
$ 637,203
$ 30,689
$ 650,777
$ 32,094
$ 664,168
$ 33,566
$ 677,382
$ 35,108
$ 690,420
$ 36,722
$ 703,285
$ 38,414
$ 715,981
$ 205,802
$ 780,151

RBPS
N
w Vaughan
N
O
Ni
(J'
Z 1. 1. 1. 40 E0V abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 65,033
$ 5,765
$
3,760
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 65,033 $ 65,033
$ 104,529 $ -
$ 69,530 $ -
$ -
$ 6,053
$ 3,873
$ -
$ 6,356
$ 3,989
$ -
$ 6,673
$ 4,109
$ -
$ 7,007
$ 4,232
$ -
$ 7,357
$ 4,359
$ -
$ 7,725
$ 4,490
$ -
$ 8,112
$ 4,624
$ -
$ 8,517
$ 4,763
$ -
$ 8,943
$ 4,906
$ -
$ 9,390
$ 18,492
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 239,092
$ 9,926
$ 74,397
$ 10,345
$ 83,604
$ 10,782
$ 92,657
$ 11,239
$ 101,559
$ 11,716
$ 110,314
$ 12,215
$ 118,926
$ 12,736
$ 127,396
$ 13,280
$ 135,728
$ 13,849
$ 143,925
$ 27,883
$ 159,495
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 9,860
$ 5,205
$ -
$ 10,353
$ 5,361
$ -
$ 10,870
$ 5,522
$ -
$ 11,414
$ 5,687
$ -
$ 11,985
$ 5,858
$ -
$ 12,584
$ 6,034
$ -
$ 13,213
$ 6,215
$ -
$ 13,874
$ 6,401
$ -
$ 14,567
$ 6,593
$ -
$ 15,296
$ 24,852
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 15,064
$ 167,430
$ 15,714
$ 175,240
$ 16,392
$ 182,925
$ 17,101
$ 190,489
$ 17,843
$ 197,934
$ 18,617
$ 205,262
$ 19,428
$ 212,477
$ 20,275
$ 219,580
$ 21,161
$ 226,574
$ 40,148
$ 239,092

O
CD
w Flygt
N
O
Ni
CJ'
ZLLLHo170Vabed
RBPS
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ 71,514
$ 4,612
$
880
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ 71,514 $ 71,514
$ 83,623 $ -
$ 22,634 $ -
$ -
$ 4,842
$ 906
$ -
$ 5,085
$ 934
$ -
$ 5,339
$ 962
$ -
$ 5,606
$ 990
$ -
$ 5,886
$ 5,657
$ -
$ 6,180
$ 1,051
$ -
$ 6,489
$ 1,082
$ -
$ 6,814
$ 1,115
$ -
$ 7,154
$ 1,148
$ -
$ 7,512
$ 5,820
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 177,771
$ 5,749
$ 76,938
$ 6,018
$ 82,294
$ 6,300
$ 87,584
$ 6,596
$ 92,809
$ 11,543
$ 101,434
$ 7,231
$ 106,532
$ 7,572
$ 111,567
$ 7,929
$ 116,542
$ 8,303
$ 121,456
$ 13,332
$ 128,901
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ 7,888
$ 1,218
$ -
$ 8,282
$ 1,255
$ -
$ 8,696
$ 1,292
$ -
$ 9,131
$ 1,331
$ -
$ 9,588
$ 6,008
$ -
$ 10,067
$ 1,412
$ -
$ 10,570
$ 1,455
$ -
$ 11,099
$ 1,498
$ -
$ 11,654
$ 1,543
$ -
$ 12,237
$ 6,226
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 9,106
$ 133,698
$ 9,537
$ 138,437
$ 9,989
$ 143,120
$ 10,462
$ 147,748
$ 15,596
$ 154,255
$ 11,479
$ 158,774
$ 12,025
$ 163,240
$ 12,597
$ 167,653
$ 13,197
$ 172,015
$ 18,463
$ 177,771

RBPS
N
w No Action
N)
0 Ni
(JI
Z L L L 40 5017 abed
20 -Year Life -Cycle Cost
Estimate
Rates
Discount Rate
Capital Inflation Rate (MR)
Energy Inflation Rate
Non -Energy Inflation Rate
6%
3%
5%
3%
Capital Co sts ($/year in
2021 dollars)
A nnual Energy Co sts ($/year
in 2021 dollars)
Annual M ai ntenance C osts
($/year in 2021 dollars)
$ -
$ -
$
24,455
Year by Year Life Cycle Cost Table
Co st Category
NPV Year
0 Year
1 Year
2 Y ear
3 Y ear
4 Year
5 Year
6 Year
7 Year
8 Year
9 Ye ar
10 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ 366,785 $ -
$ -
$ -
$ 25,189
$ -
$ -
$ 25,944
$ -
$ -
$ 26,723
$ -
$ -
$ 27,524
$ -
$ -
$ 28,350
$ -
$ -
$ 29,201
$ -
$ -
$ 30,077
$ -
$ -
$ 30,979
$ -
$ -
$ 31,908
$ -
$ -
$ 32,865
Annual Costs
Total Present Worth
$ 366,785
$ 25,189
$ 23,763
$ 25,944
$ 46,853
$ 26,723
$ 69,290
$ 27,524
$ 91,092
$ 28,350
$ 112,277
$ 29,201
$ 132,862
$ 30,077
$ 152,865
$ 30,979
$ 172,301
$ 31,908
$ 191,188
$ 32,865
$ 209,539
Cost Category
Year
11 Year
12 Year
13 Year
14 Year
15 Year
16 Year
17 Year
18 Year
19 Year
20 Capital Cost
Energy
Maintenance
$ -
$ -
$ 33,851
$ -
$ -
$ 34,867
$ -
$ -
$ 35,913
$ -
$ -
$ 36,990
$ -
$ -
$ 38,100
$ -
$ -
$ 39,243
$ -
$ -
$ 40,420
$ -
$ -
$ 41,633
$ -
$ -
$ 42,882
$ -
$ -
$ 44,168
Annual Costs
Total Pre sent Worth
$ 33,851
$ 227,372
$ 34,867
$ 244,700
$ 35,913
$ 261,537
$ 36,990
$ 277,898
$ 38,100
$ 293,796
$ 39,243
$ 309,244
$ 40,420
$ 324,254
$ 41,633
$ 338,840
$ 42,882
$ 353,013
$ 44,168
$ 366,785

Energy and Maintenance Annual Cost
BCPS
$ 0.285 $/KW -HR
8760 HR/yr
BCPS
RBPS

0.353 $/KW -HR
8760 HR/yr
Anue Enviro-
Prep
MicroBlock
PHi
Vapex
Vaughan
No Action
Flygt
No. Units Operating
3 0
1 1
2 0
3 kW/Unit

5.0 0

11.19 3.96

11.1855
0 2.9828
Total kW

14.9 0

11.19 3.96

22.371
0 8.9484
Annual Energy Costs
$ 18,617
$ -
$ 4,654
$ 9,887
$ 18,617
$ -
$ 11,170
Typ. Annual Equipment and
Materials Maintenance Cost
$ 1,000
$ 3,900
$ 2,920
$ 2,500
$ 2,000
$ 1,440
$ -
Typ. Annual Labor Maintenance
Cost
$ 5,280
$ 22,880
$ 880
$ 1,760
$ 3,520
$ 45,760
$ 880
Total Typ. Annual Maintenance
Cost
$ 6,280
$ 26,780
$ 3,800
$ 4,260
$ 5,520
$ 47,200
$ 880
RBPS
Anue Enviro-
Prep
MicroBlock
PHi
Vapex
Vaughan
No Action
Flygt
No. Units Operating
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 kW/Unit

5.6 0

5.59 3.96

5.59275
0 2.9828
Total kW

5.6 0

5.59 3.96

5.59275
0 2.9828
Annual Energy Costs
$ 8,647
$ -
$ 2,882
$ 12,245
$ 5,765
$ -
$ 4,612
Typ. Annual Equipment and
Materials Maintenance Cost
$ 1,000
$ 400
$ 2,920
$ 2,500
$ 2,000
$ 1,575
$ -
Typ. Annual Labor Maintenance
Cost
$ 1,760
$ 17,160
$ 880
$ 1,760
$ 1,760
$ 22,880
$ 880
Total Typ. Annual Maintenance
Cost
$ 2,760
$ 17,560
$ 3,800
$ 4,260
$ 3,760
$ 24,455
$ 880
09/23/2025
C5 Page 406 of 1112

City of Vista
FOG Mitigation Study
BCPS
Anue
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
5 EP Heads with 3 pumps at BC
LS
78,000
$ 78,000
A Total
$ 78,000
$ 78,000
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Constructior
Modifications
Vendor
package
Total
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
-
$ -
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ -
$
-
$ 78,000
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 7,800
E. Demolition

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 780
F. 18C (SCADA)

8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 6,240
G. Site Electrical

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 11,700
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
-
$ -
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnicai
requirements)

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
-
$ -
K. Field General Conditions

7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$
$• 5,460
L. Mobilization and Demobilization

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$
- -
$ 3,900
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$
-
$ 113,880
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$
- _
$ 22,776
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$
$• 136,656
R. Sales Tax

8.3%

8.25%

8.3%
$ -
$
-
$ 11,274
S. General Contractor OH and Profit

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 11,834
T. Bonds. and Insurance

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$
-
$• 2,396.47
U. Construction Price Today
$ -
$
-
$ 162,161
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$
-
$ 5,676
W. Market adjustment factor

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 8,108
X. Location adjustment factor

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
-
$
Y. Construction Bid Price
$ -
$
-
$ 175,945
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%
300%

30.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 52,783
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$
-
$ 228,728
AB. Engineering Design Services

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 22,873
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$.
-
$ 9,149
AD. Construction Administration (CA)

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 9,149
AE. Construction Inspection (CI)

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 16,011
AF. Legal and Fiscal

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 4,575
AG. Owner Administration

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$
-
$ 27,447
$ 78,000
7,800
780
$ 6,240
$ 11,700
$ 5,460
$ 3,900
$ 113,880
$ 22,776
$ 136,656
$ 11,274
$ 11,834
$ 2.396
$ 162,161
5,676
$ 8,108
$ 175,945
$ 52,783
$ 228,728
$ 22,873
$ 9,149
$ 9,149
$ 16,011
4,575
$ 27,447
$
$ 317,932
$ 317,932
Microblock
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
101bs
Storage Shed
LS
LS
1,000
0 1 $ 1,000
2,200
$ 2,200
A Total
1,000
2,200
$ 3,200
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Constructior
Modifications
Vendor
package
Total
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures 25.0%

25.0'%,

0.0%
$ 250
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ 1,250
$ -
$ 2,200
D. Site work 10.0%

10.0%

0.0%
$ 125
$. -
$
E. Demolition 1.0%

1.0%

0.0%
$ 13
5 -
$
F. l&C (SCADA) 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
G. Site Electrical 0.0%

15.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnlcal
requirements) 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
$
K. Field General Conditions 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
L. Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

0.0%
$ 63
$. -
$
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ 1,450
$ -
$ 2,200
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized 20.0%

20.0%

0.0%
$ 290
$ -
$
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ 1,740.00
$ -
$ 2,200
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.3 %

8.3%
$ 144
$. -
$ 182
S. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

8.0%

0.0%
$ 151T.

Bonds and Insurance 1.5%
1B%

0.0%
$ 30.51
$ -
$ -
U. Construction Price Today
$ 2,065
$ -
$ 2,382
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction 3.5%

3.5%

0.0%
$ 72
$ -
$ -
W.Marketadjustmentfactor 5.0%

5.0%

0.0%
$ 103
$ -
$ -
X.Locationadjustmentfactor 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
Y. Construction Bid Price 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ 2,240
$ -
$. 2,382
Z. Construction Contingency 30.0%

30.0%

0.0%
$ 672
$ -
$ -
AA. Construction Budget Price I
$ 2,912
$
$ 2,382
AB. Engineering Design Services 0.0%

10.0 %

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction 0.0%

4.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
AD. Construction Administration (CA) 4.0%

4.0%

0.0%
$ 40
$ -
$ -
AE. Construction Inspection (CI) 7.0%

7.0%

0.0%
$ 70
$ -
$ -
AF. Legal and Fiscal 2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
$ 20
$ -
$ 48
AG. Owner Administration 12.0%

12.0%

12.0%
$ 120
$ -
$ 286
250
$ 3,450
125
13 63
$ 3,650
290
$ 3,940
325
151
31 $ 4,446
72 103
$ 4,622
672
5,294
40 70
68 406
3,162
$
2,715
$ 5,877
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C.0.08)
(C13.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M*0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R)'0.08)
((P+R+S)*0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U*0.035)
(U*0)
(U*0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA*0.08)
(AA*0.04)
(AA'0.04)
(AA'0.07)
(AA'0.02)
fAA^0.121
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.08)
(C.0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M*0.2)
(M+N)
(P'0.07)
((P+R)'0.08)
((P+R+S)'0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U*0.035)
(U*0)
(U'0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA'0.08)
(AA'0.04)
(AA'0.04)
(AA'0.07)
(AA'0.02)
rAA�n 1 �r
09/23/2025
C5 Page 407 of 1112

City of Vista
FOG Mitigation Study
BCPS
PHi
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
(1) 350-2 valve, (2) forming plates and (1)
350-3, (3) forming plates, SK -15 Compressor
LS
$ -
0 $ 70,100
Total
$ 70,100
A Total
$
$ 70,100
$ 70,100
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction
Modifications
Vendor
package
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal
IJI
$ -
$
$ 70,100
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
.

10.0%
$ -
$ -.
$ 7,010
E. Demolition

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 701
F. l&C (SCADA)

8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,608
G. Site Electrical

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,515
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements)

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
K.FieldGeneralConditions

7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,907
L. Mobilization and Demobilization

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,505
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 102,346
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$• 20,469
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 122,815
R. Sales Tax

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 10.132
S. General Contractor OH and Profit

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,636
T. Bonds and Insurance

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ Z,153.75
U. Construction Price Today
$ -
$ -
$ 145,737
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,101
W. Market adjustment factor

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,287
X. Location adjustment factor

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price
$ -
$ -
$ 158,125
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 47,437
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 205,562
AB. Engineering Design Services

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$
$ 20,556
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 8,222
AD. Construction Administration (CA)

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 8,222
AE. Construction Inspection (CI)

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 14,389
AF. Legal and Fiscal

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,111
AG. Owner Administration

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 24,667
Total
$ 70,100
$ 7,010
701
5,608
$ 10,515
$ 4,907
$ 3,505
$ 102,346
$ 20,469
$ 122,815
$ 10,132
$ 10,636
$ 2,154
$ 145,737
$ 5,101
$ 7,287
$ 158,125
$ 47,437
$ 205,562
$ 20,556
$ 8.222
$ 8,222
$ 14,389
$ 4,111
$ 24,667
$ 285,731
$ 285,731
Vapex
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
1 NANO
2 HV 500 Nozzle - Flexible Install
2000 Oxidant Tubing
2000 Water Tubing
1005 2.5" Zipper Cable Sheath
2 IOM Manuals
1 Installation Kit - NANO - Multiple Nozzles
1 Modem
LS
$ -
0 $ -
$ 91,698
Protect cable and equipment.

LF
5 65
120
$ 7,740
Total
$ 91,698
A Total
$ 7,740
$ 91,698
$ 99,438
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Constructior
Modifications
Vendor
package
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures 25.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ -
$ 7,740
$ 91,698
D. Site work 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ 774
$ 9,170
E. Demolition 1.0%

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ 77
$ 917
F. 18C (SCADA) 8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,336
G. Site Electrical 15.0%

0.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 13,755
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping 5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements) 7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions 7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 6,419
L. Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ 387
$ 4,585
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ 8,978
$ 133,879
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized 20.0%

0.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 26,776
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ 8,978.40
$ 160,655
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ 741
$ 13,254
S. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ 778
$ 13,913
T. Bonds and Insurance 1.5%

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ 157.45
$ 2,817.32
U. Construction Price Today
$ -
$ 10,654
$ 190,639
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction 3.5%

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ 373
$ 6,672
W. Market adjustment factor 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ 533
$ 9,532
X. Location adjustment factor 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price
$ -
$ 11,560
$ 206.843
Z. Construction Contingency 30.0%

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ 3,468
$ 62,053
AA. Construction Budget Price 1
$ -
$ 15,028
$ 268,896
AB. Engineering Design Services 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ 1,503
$ 26,890
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ 601
$ 10,756
AD. Construction Administration (CA) 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ 601
$ 10,756
AE. Construction Inspection (CI) 7.0%

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ 1,052
$ 18,823
AF. Legal and Fiscal 2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ 301
$ 5,378
AG. Owner Administration 12.0%

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ 1,803
$ 32,268
Total
$ 99,438
$ 9,944
994
$ 7,336
$ 13,755
$ 6,419
$ 4,972
$ 142,857
$ 26,776
$ 169,633
$ 13,995
$ 14,690
$ 2,975
$ 201,293
$ 7,045
$ 10,065
$ 218,403
$ 65.521
$ 283,924
$ 28,392
$ 11,357
$ 11,357
$ 19,875
$ 5,678
$ 34,071
Ulell
$ 20,888
$ 373,766
$ 394,654
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C"0.15)
(C'0.01)
(C"0.08)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C'0.07)
(C'0.07)
(C'0.05(
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M*0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R)'0.08)
((P+R+S('0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U"0.035)
(U'S)
(U'0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA'0.08)
(AA*0.04)
(AA'0.04)
(AA"0.07)
(AA"0.02)
(AA'0.12)
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C'0.01)
(C'0.08)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C'0.07)
)C`0.57)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M'0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R('0.08).
((P+R+S('0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U*0.035)
(U'0)
(U'0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA'0.08)
(AA"0.04)
(AA"0.04)
(AA'0.07)
(AA'0.02)
(AA"0.12)
09/23/2025
C5 Page 408 of 1112

City of Vista
FOG Mitigation Study
BCPS
Vaughan
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
Conditioning pumps
LS
0 39,525
$ 39,525
A Total
�$
$ 39,525
$ 39,525
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Constructior
Modifications
Vendor
package
Total
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

25.0%
0,0%
$ -
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ -
$ -
$ 39,525
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ 774
$ 3,953
E. Demolition

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ 77
$ 395
F. l&C (SCADA)

8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,162
G. Site Electrical

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ 1,161
$ 5,929
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements)

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions

7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,767
L. Mobilization and Demobilization

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ 387
$ 1,976
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ 2,399
$ 57,707
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ 480
$ 11,541
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ 2,879.28
$ 69,248
R. Sales Tax

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ 238
$ 5,713
S. General Contractor OH and Profit

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ 249
$. 5,997
T. Bonds and Insurance

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ 50.49
$ 1,214.36
U. Construction Price Today

3.5%
$ -
$ 3,417
$ 82,172
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ 120
$ 2,876
W. Market adjustment factor

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ 171
$ 4,109
X. Location adjustment factor

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price

30.0%
$ -
$ 3,707
$ 89,157
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ 1,112
$ 26,747
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ 4,819
$ 115,904
AB. Engineering Design Services

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ 1,503
$ 11,590
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ 601
$ 4,636
AD. Construction Administration (CA)

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ 601
$ 4,636
AE. Construction Inspection (CI)

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ 1,052
$ 8,113
AF. Legal and Fiscal

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ 301
$ 2,318
AG. Owner Administration

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ 1,803
$ 13,908
$ 39,525
$ 4,727
473
$ 3,162
$ 7,090
$ 2,767
$ 2,363
$ 60,106
$ 12,021
$ 72,127
$ 5,950
$ 6,246
1,265
$ 85,589
2,996
$ 4,279
$ 92,864
$ 27,859
$ 120,723
$ 13,093
$ 5,237
5,237
$ 9,165
$ 2,619
$ 15,712
10,680
$ 161,106
$ 171,786
Flygt
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
Submersible Mixer
LS
0 49,770
$ 49,770
A Total
$ 49,770
$ 49,770
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Constructior
Modifications
Vendor
package
Total
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ -
$ -
$ 49,770
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,977
E. Demolition

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -.
$ 498
F. MC (SCADA)

8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,982
G. Site Electrical

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,466
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements)

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
$
K. Field General Conditions

7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,484
L. Mobilization and Demobilization

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,489
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 72,664
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 14,533
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 87,197
R. Sales Tax

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,194
S. General Contractor OH and Profit

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,551
T. Bonds and Insurance

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,529.13
U. Construction Price Today

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 103,471
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,621
W. Market adjustment factor

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$. 5,174
X. Location adjustment factor

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 112,266
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 33,680
M. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 145,946
AB. Engineering Design Services

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 14,595
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,838
AD. Construction Administration (CA)

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,838
AE. Construction Inspection (CI)

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,216
AF. Legal and Fiscal

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,919
AG. Owner Administration

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 17,514
$ 49,770
$ 4,977
$ 498
3,982
7,466
$ 3,484
$ 2,489
$ 72,664
$ 14,533
$ 87,197
$ 7,194
$ 7.551
1,529
$ 103,471
$ 3,621
$ 5.174
$ 112,266
$ 33,680
$ 145,946
$ 14;595
5,838
$ 5,838
$ 10,216
$ 2,919
$ 17,514
LAJbl
$ 202,865
$ 202,865
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C^0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M'0.2)
(M+N)
(P'0.07)
((P+R)'0.08)
((Pngnoy0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U*0.035)
(U'0)
(U'0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y'0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA*0.08)
(AA'0.04)
(AA'0.04)
(AA"0.07)
(AA*0.02)
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C"0.01)
(C*0.08)
(C^0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
)C'0.57)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M'0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R)'0:0B)
((P+R+S)'0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U-0.035)
(U*0)
(U'0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y'0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA'0.08)
(AA'0.04)
(AA'0.04(
(AA'0.07)
(AA^0.02)
09/23/2025
C5 Page 409 of 1112

City of Vista
FOG Mitigation Study
RBPS
Anue
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
5 EP Heads with 3 pumps at BC
LS
35,310
$ 35,310
A Total
$ 35,310
$ 35,310
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction
Modifications
Vendor
package
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures 25.0%

25.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ -
$ -
$ 35,310
D. Site work 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,531
E. Demolition 1.0%

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 353
F. I&C (SCADA) 8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,825
G. Site Electrical 15.0%

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,297
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping 5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$J.

Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements) 7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
5 -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions 7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,472
L. Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,766
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 51,553
$ 10,311
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized 20.0%

20.0%

20.0%
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 61,863
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,104
S. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,357
T. Bonds and Insurance 1.5%

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,084.86
U. Construction Price Today

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 73,409
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,569
W. Market adjustment factor 5.0%
5,0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,670
X. Location adjustment factor 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$Y.

Construction Bid Price
$ -
$ -
$ 79,649
Z. Construction Contingency 30.0%

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 23,895
AA, Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 103,543
AB. Engineering Design Services 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,354
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,142
AD. Construction Administration (CA) 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,142
AE. Construction Inspection (CI) 7.0%

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,248
AF. Legal and Fiscal 2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,071
AG. Owner Administration 12.0%

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 12.425
Total
$ 35,310
$ 3,531
$ 353
$ 2,825
5,297
$ 2,472
$ 1,766
$ 51,553
$ 61,863
$ 5,104
5,357
1,085
$ 73,409
2,569
$ 3,670
$ 79,649
$ 23,895
$ 103,543
$ 10,354
$ 4,142
$ 4,142
7,248
2,071
$ 12,425
$ 143,925
$ 143,925
Microblock
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
1016s
Storage Shed
LS
LS
$
1,000
0 1 $ 1.000
$ 400
A Total
Total
400
1,000
$ 400
$ 1,400
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction

Modifications
Vendor
package

25.0%
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0 %

0.0%
$ 250C.

Unit Process Subtotal
$ 1,250
$ -
$ 400
D. Site work 10.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ 125
$ -
$
E. Demolition 1.0%

10.0%

0.0%
$ 13
$ -
$
F. I&C (SCADA) 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$
• G. Site Electrical 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$H.

Large Piping and Specialty piping 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements) 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$L.

Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

0.0%
$ 63M.

Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)

20.0%
$ 1,450
$ -
$ 400
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

20.0%

0.0%
$ 290
$ -
$
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ 1,740.00
$ -
$ 400
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.25%

8.3%
$ 144
$ -
$ 33
S. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

10.0%

0.0%
$ 151
$ -
$
T. Bonds and Insurance 1.5%

1.5%

0.0%
$ 30.51
$ -
$
U. Construction Price Today
$ 2,065
$ -
$ 433
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction 3,5%
3,5%

0.0%
$ 72
$ -
$
W. Market adjustment factor

5.0%
56%

0.0%
$ 103
$ -
$
X. Location adjustment factor

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price 0.0%
$ 2.240
$ -
$ 433
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%

5.0%

0.0%
$ 672M.

Construction Budget Price
$ 2,912
$ -
$ 433
AB. Engineering Design Services

0.0%

10.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction

0.0%

4.0%

0.0%
$AD.

Construction Administration (CA)

4.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
AE. Construction Inspection (CI)

7.0%

0.0% -
AF.LegalandFiscal

2.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
AG. Owner Administration

12.0%

0.0%
$
2,912
$ 433
Total
$ 250
1,650
$ 125
$ 13
63 $ 1,858
$ 290
2,140
177
$ 151
$ 31
$ 2,498
$ 72
103
2,673
672
3,345
$ 3,345
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.05).
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M*0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R)*0.08)
((P+R+S)*0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U*0.035)
(U*0)
(UT)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA*0.08)
(AA*0.04)
(AA'0.04)
(AA*0.07).
(AA*0.02)
(AA*0.12)
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.08).
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.07)
(C"0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M*0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R)*0.08)
((P+R+5)'0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U*0.035)
(U*0)
(U*0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0,05)
(Y+Z)
(AA*0.08)
(AA*0.04)
(AA*0.04)
(AA*0.07)
(AA*0.02)
1AA'0.121
09/23/2025
C5 Page 410 of 1112

City of Vista
FOG Mitigation Study
RBPS
PHi
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
350-2 with 2 plates and 7.5 Kaeser SM-7.5
LS
$ 40,600
$ 40,600
A Total
$ 40,600
$ 40,600
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction

Modifications
Vendor
package

25.0%
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

0.0%C.

Unit Process Subtotal

10.0%.
$ -
$ -
$ 40,600
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,060
E. Demolition 1.0%

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 406
F. AC (SCADA) 8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,248
G. Site Electrical 15.0%

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 6,090
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping 5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements) 7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions 7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,842
L. Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,030
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 59,276
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized 20.0%

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 11,855
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 71,131
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,868
S-. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 6,160
T. Bonds and Insurance 1.5%

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,247.39
U. Construction Price Today
$ -
$ -
$ 8.4,407
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction 3.5%

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,954
W. Market adjustment factor 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,220
X. Location adjustment factor 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price
$ -
$ -
$ 91,581
Z. Construction Contingency 30.0%

30.0°/

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 27,474
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 119,056
AB. Engineering Design Services 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 11,906
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,762
AD. Construction Administration (CA) 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,762
AE. Construction Inspection (CI) 7.0%.

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 8,334.

AF. Legal and Fiscal 2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,381
AG. Owner Administration 12.0%

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 14,287
Total
$ 40,600

4.060
$ 406
$ 3,248
$ 6,090
$ 2,842
2,030
$ 59,276
$ 11,855
$ 71,131
$ 5,068
$ 6,160
$ 1,247
$ 84,407
2,954
$ 4,220
$ 91,581
$ 27,474
$ 119,056
$ 11,906
$ 4,762
4,762
$ 8,334
2,381
$ 14,287
I Ural r.tr i.oar
$
$ 165.488
$ 165,488
Vapex
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
1 NANO
2 HV 500 Nozzle - Flexible Install
200ft Oxidant Tubing
200ft Water Tubing
1009 2.5" Zipper Cable Sheath
210M Manuals
1 Installation Kit - NANO - Multiple Nozzles
1 Modem
LS
$ -
0 $ -
$ 91,698
Protect cable and equipment
LF
65 60
3,870
$ 91,698
A Total
$
$ 91,698
$ 91,698
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction

Modifications
Vendor
package

25.0%
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 91,698
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 9,170
E. Demolition 1.0%

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 917
F. 18C (SCADA) 8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 7,336
G. Site Electrical 15.0%

0.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 13,755
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping 5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements) 7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions 7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 6.419
L. Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,585
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 133,879
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

0.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 26,776
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 160,655
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 13,254
S. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 13,913
T. Bonds and Insurance t.5%

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,817.32
U. Construction Price Today

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 190,639
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 6,672
W. Market adjustment factor 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 9,532
X. Location adjustment factor 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 206,843
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 62,053
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 268,896
AB. Engineering Design Services 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 26,890
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,756
AD. Construction Administration (CA) 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,756
AE. Construction Inspection (CI) 7.0%

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 18,823
AF. Legal and Fiscal 2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,378
AG. Owner Administration 12.0%

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 32,268
$ 373,766
Total
$ 91,698
$ 9,170
$ 917
$ 7,336
$ 13,755
6,419
4,565
$ 133,879
$ 26,776
$ 180,655
$ 13,254
$ 13,913
$ 2,817
$ 190,639
$ 6,672
9,532
$ 206,843
$ 62,053
$ 268,896
$ 26,890
$ 10,756
$ 10,756
$ 18,823
5,378
$ 32,268
$ 373,766
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C'0.15)
(C'0.01)
(C"0.08)
(C'0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C"0.07)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M"0.2)
(M+N)
(P"0.07)
((P+R)"0.08)
((P+R+S)'0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U'0.035(
(U'0)
(U'0)
(U*V*W*x)
(Y"0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA'0.08)
(M'5.04(
(AA"0.04)
(AA'0.07)
(AA'0.02)
Source
Proposal

0.25 (AnB)
(00.15)
(C"0.01)
(C'0.08)
(C'S 56)
(C"0.05)
(C'0.07)
(C'0.07)
(C'0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M'0.2)
(M -FN)
(P'0.07)
((P+R)"0.08)
((P+R+S)'0915)
(P+R+S+T)
(U'0.035)
(U'0)
(Uro)
(U+V+W+X)
(V'0.05)
(Y+Z)
(M'0.08)
(AA'0.04)
(M'0.04)
(M*0.57)
(AA'0.02)
(AA'0.t2)
09/23/2025
C5 Page 411 of 1112

City of Vista
FOG Mitigation Study
RBPS
Vaughan
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
Conditioning pump
LS
0 $
5,955
$ 15,955
A Total
$
$ 15,955
$ 15,955
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction

Modifications
Vendor
package

25.0%
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
C. Unit Process Subtotal

10.0%.
$ -
$ -
$ 15,955
0, Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,596
E. Demolition 1.0%

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 160
F. AC (SCADA) 8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,276
G. Site Electrical 15.0%

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,393
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping 5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements) 7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
K. Field General Conditions 7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,117
L. Mobilization and Demobilization 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 798
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 23,294
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized 20.0%

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,659
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 27,953
R. Sales Tax 8.3%

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,306
S-. General Contractor OH and Profit 8.0%

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,421
T. Bonds and Insurance 1.5%

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 490.20
U. Construction Price Today
$ -
$ -
$ 33,170
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction 3.5%

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,161
W. Market adjustment factor 5.0%

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,659
X. Location adjustment factor 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price
$ -
$ -
$ 35,990
Z. Construction Contingency 30.0%

30.0°/

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 10,797
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 46,787
AB. Engineering Design Services 10.0%

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 4,679
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,871
AD. Construction Administration (CA) 4.0%

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,871
AE. Construction Inspection (CI) 7.0%

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,275
AF. Legal and Fiscal 2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 936
AG. Owner Administration 12.0%

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,614
Total
$ 15,955
1,596
160
$ 1,276
$ 2,393
1,117
$ 798
$ 23,294
4,659
$ 27,953
$ 2,306
$ 2,421
$ 490
$ 33,170
1,161
$ 1,659
$ 35,990
$ 10,797
$ 46,787
$ 4,679
$ 1,871
1,871
$ 3,275
936
$ 5,614
IUiai i.tr i.oai
$
$ 65,033
$ 65,033
Flygt
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity
New
Construction
Modifications
Vendor
Package
Total
Submersible Mixer
LS
0 7,545
$ 17,545
A Total
$
$ 17,545
$ 17,545
New
Construction
Markups
Modification
Markups
Vendor
Package
Markup
New Construction
Modifications
Vendor
package
B. Miscellaneous and Unidentified Site
Structures

25.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
C. Unit Process Subtotal
$ -
$ -
$ 17,545
D. Site work

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,755
E. Demolition

1.0%

1.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 175
F. l&C (SCADA)

8.0%

0.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,404
G. Site Electrical

15.0%

15.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,632
H. Large Piping and Specialty piping

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
J. Soil Conditions (Geotechnical
requirements)

7.0%

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
K. Field General Conditions

7.0%

0.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,228
L Mobilization and Demobilization

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 877
M. Construction Subtotal (excluding
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 25,616
N. Miscellaneous Elements not Itemized

20.0%

20.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,123
P. Construction Subtotal (including
miscellaneous items)
$ -
$ -
$ 30,739
R. Sales Tax

8.3%

8.3%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,536
S. General Contractor OH and Profit

8.0%

8.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,662
T. Bonds and Insurance.

1.5%

1.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 539.05
U. Construction Price Today
$ -
$ -
$ 36,476
V. Projection to Mid -point of Construction

3.5%

3.5%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,277
W. Market adjustment factor

5.0%

5.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1.824
X. Location adjustment factor

0.0%

0.0%
$ -
$ -
$
Y. Construction Bid Price

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 39,576
Z. Construction Contingency

30.0%

30.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 11,873
AA. Construction Budget Price
$ -
$ -
$ 51,449
AB. Engineering Design Services

10.0%

10.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 5,145
AC. Engineering Services During
Construction

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,058
AD. construction Administration (CA)

4.0%

4.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 2,058
AE. Construction Inspection (CI)

7.0%.

7.0%

7.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 3,601
AF. Legal and Fiscal

2.0%

2.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,029
AG. Owner Administration

12.0%

12.0%
$ -
$ -
$ 6.174
Total
$ 17,545
$ 1,755
$ 175
1,404
$ 2,632
$ 1,228
$ 877
$ 25,616
$ 5,123
$ 30,739
2,536
$ 2,662
539
$ 36,476
$ 1,277
$ 1,824
$ 39,576
$ 11,873
$ 51,449
$ 5,145
$ 2,058
2,058
3,601
$ 1,029
6,174
$ 71,514
$ 71,514
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C"0.08)
(00.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C*0.07)
)C%.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M`0.2)
(M+N)
(P"0.07)
((P+R)*0.08)
((P+R+S)'0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U"0.035)
(U"0)
(U"0)
(U+V+WoX)
(Y"0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA'O.08)
(AA'0.04)
(AA"0.04)
(AA"0.07)
(AA'0.02)
(AA'0.12)
Source
Proposal

0.25 (A+B)
(C*0.15)
(C*0.01)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.08)
(C*0.05)
(C*0.07)
(C`0.07)
(C*0.05)
(C+D+E+F+G+H+J+K+L)
(M'0.2)
(M+N)
(P*0.07)
((P+R)'0.08)
((P+R+S)"0.015)
(P+R+S+T)
(U"0.035)
(UT)
(U'0)
(U+V+W+X)
(Y*0.05)
(Y+Z)
(AA"0.08)
(AA'0.04),
(AA'0.04)
(AA'0.07)
(66 0.02)
(AA'0.12)
09/23/2025
C5 Page 412 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA
FINAL
Pump Station Rehabilitation Study
August 2016
Engineers...Working Wonders With Water•
09/23/2025
C5 Page 413 of 1112

09/23/2025
C5 Page 414 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA

C A L I F O R N I A
City of Vista
Final Report

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY
09/23/2025
C5 Page 415 of 1112

09/23/2025
C5 Page 416 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY' CITY OF VISTA
Contents
Chapter 1: Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Pump Station Condition Assessment

1.3 CIP Project Prioritized List

1.4 CIP Consolidated Projects
Chapter 2: Introduction and Background

2.1 Background

2.2 Previous Reports

2.3 Purpose

2.4 Buena Vista Pump Station

2.4.1 Buena Vista Pump Station Hydraulic Evaluation

2.5 Raceway Pump Station

2.5.1 Raceway Pump Station Hydraulic Evaluation

2.6 Buena Creek Pump Station

2.6.1 Buena Creek Pump Station Hydraulic Evaluation

2.7 Cost Estimates

2.7.1 Basis of Cost Estimates

2.7.2 Project Cost Factors
Chapter 3: Facility Condition Assessment

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Methodology

3.1.1 Preparation

3.2.1 Condition Assessments

3.3 Buena Vista Pump Station Condition Assessment Findings

3.3.1 Sewage Grinder and Barscreen

3.3.2 Sewage Pumps and Motors

3.3.3 Surge Tanks

3.3.4 Valves
2-J.
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-7
2-9
2-11
2-13
2-15
2-15
2-16
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-5
c '..a.",
09/23/202, „document
property r e.Er:onUnknowndocumentI.,' yname.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 I i

Page 417 of 1112 ends

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.3.5 Seal Water System

3.3.6 Potable Water

3.3.7 Site Items

3.3.8 Building

3.3.9 Wet Well

3.3.10 Flow Meters and Meter Vaults

3.3.11 Variable Frequency Drives

3.3.12 Control Centers and Panels

3.3.13 Emergency Generators

3.3.14 V & A Engineers, Inc. Condition Assessment

3.4 Raceway Pump Station

3.4.1 Sewage Grinder and Barscreen

3.4.2 Sewage Pumps

3.4.3 Site Items

3.4.4 Building

3.4.5 Emergency Overflow Storage Pond

3.4.6 Odor Control Unit

3.4.7 Wet Well

3.4.8 Flow Meter and Meter Vault

3.4.9 Variable Frequency Drives

3.4.10 Control Centers and Panels

3.4.11 Emergency Generator

3.4.12 V & A Engineers, Inc. Condition Assessment

3.5 Buena Creek Pump Station Condition Assessment Findings

3.5.1 Sewage Grinders

3.5.2 Sewage Pumps and Motors

3.5.3 Surge Tank

3.5.4 Pump Station Piping & Valves

3.5.5 Site Items

3.5.6 Building

3.5.7 Emergency Overflow Storage Basin

3.5.8 Odor Control Bio-Filter Unit
3-6
3-6
3-7
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-9
3-10
3-10
3-11
3-13
3-13
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-15
3-16
3-16
3-17
3-17
3-17
3-18
3-18
3-19
3-19
3-20
3-20
3-22
3-23
3-23
3-24
3-25
ii I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 418 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA

3.5.9 Wet Well

3.5.10 Flow Meters and Gas Analyzer

3.5.11 Variable Frequency Drives

3.5.12 Control Centers and Panels

3.5.13 Crane

3.5.14 Emergency Generator

3.5.15 V & A Engineers, Inc. Condition Assessment

3.6 Risk Assessment

3.6.1 Original Useful Life

3.6.2 Remaining and Evaluated Remaining Useful Life Estimates

3.6.3 Vulnerability Assessment

3.6.4 Criticality Assessment

3.6.5 Risk Assessment
Chapter 4: Capital Improvement Projects

4.1 Studies and Assessments

4.1.1 SCADA Communication Improvement Study

4.1.2 SCADA Master Plan

4.1.3 Security Features Study

4.1.4 ATS and Generator Testing Improvements Study

4.1.5 Assessment of Original Forcemain over Creek

4.1.6 Pressure Surge Analysis

4.1.7 Recommended Study and Assessments Summary

4.2 Buena Vista Pump Station

4.2.1 Building Items and Site Work

4.2.2 VFD and PLC Replacement

4.2.3 Pump Rehabilitation

4.2.4 Forcemain Valve Replacement and Automation

4.2.5 Grinder Improvements

4.2.6 Backflow Preventer

4.2.7 Vapor Phase Odor Control

4.2.8 Wet Well Rehabilitation

4.2.9 Level Monitoring System Upgrade
3-25
3-26
3-26
3-26
3-27
3-27
3-27
3-29
3-29
3-30
3-30
3-30
3-31
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-7
4-7
4-7
4-8
4-12
4-13
4-18
4-18
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I iii
C5 Page 419 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

4.2.10 Exhaust Fan Replacement

4.2.11 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life

4.2.12 V & A Recommendations

4.2.13 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary

4.3 Raceway Pump Station

4.3.1 Building and Site Items

4.3.2 Sewage Grinder Improvements

4.3.3 PLC Replacement

4.3.4 Emergency Overflow Storage Pond

4.3.5 Odor Control Unit

4.3.6 Replace Plug at RPS/Carlsbad Interconnect

4.3.7 Wet Well Scum Prevention

4.3.8 Exhaust Fan Replacement

4.3.9 Pressure Surge Improvements

4.3.10 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life

4.3.11 V & A Recommendations

4.3.12 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary

4.4 Buena Creek Pump Station

4.4.1 Building Items and Site Work

4.4.2 VFD and PLC Replacement

4.4.3 Redundant Forcemain

4.4.4 Valve Replacement

4.4.5 Wet Well Liner Replacement and Sluice Gate Repair

4.4.6 Odor Control

4.4.7 Wet Well Scum Prevention

4.4.8 Automation of Gates

4.4.9 Exhaust Fan Replacement

4.4.10 Pump Selection Programming

4.4.11 Pressure Surge Improvements

4.4.12 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life

4.4.13 V & A Recommendations

4.4.14 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
4-19
4-19
4-21
4-23
4-24
4-24
4-25
4-26
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-28
4-29
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-33
4-33
4-34
4-35
4-43
4-44
4-45
4-46
4-46
4-47
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-51
4-53
iv I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
ccur'''l..l
C5 Page 420 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA
Chapter 5: Project PHasing

5.1 Introduction

5.2 CIP Project Ranking

5.3 CIP Consolidated Projects

5.4 Implementation Schedule

5.5 Business Case Evaluation

5.5.1 Grinder Replacement at Buena Vista Pump Station

5.5.2 Consolidated Rehabilitation Items

5.5.3 Redundant Forcemain at Buena Creek Pump Station

5.5.4 Vapor Phase Odor Control at Buena Vista Pump Station Appendices
5-1
5-1
5-9
5-9
5-10
5-10
5-12
5-13
5-15
Appendix A CIP Prioritization Comparison Tables
Appendix B Buena Vista Pump Station: Condition Assessment Forms Appendix C Raceway Pump Station: Condition Assessment Forms Appendix D Buena Creek Pump Station: Condition Assessment Forms Appendix E V&A Consulting Engineers Pump station Condition Assessments Draft Report Appendix F Flow Science Incorporated: Buena Creek Lift Station and Force Main Potential Pressure Surge Issues and Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo Appendix G Buena Vista Pump Station: Cost Estimate Worksheets Appendix H Raceway Pump Station: Cost Estimate Worksheets Appendix I Buena Creek Pump Station: Cost Estimate Worksheets Appendix J Raceway Pump Station: Grinder Investigation Letter Report Appendix K Raceway Pump Station: Deragger II Technical Memo Appendix L Buena Creek Pump Station: Redundant Forcemain Non -Cost Evaluation 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I v
C5 Page 421 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY
Tables
Table 1.1 Study and Assessments CIP Summary
Table 1.2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 1.3 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 1.4 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 1.5 Prioritized Project List
Table 1.6 Consolidated Projects
Table 2.1 Existing and Future Flow Rates
Table 2.2 Buena Vista Pump Station Design Criteria
Table 2.3 BVPS: Velocity in Forcemains
Table 2.4 Raceway Pump Station Design Criteria
Table 2.5 RPS: Velocity through Forcemain
Table 2.6 Buena Creek Pump Station Design Criteria
Table 2.7 BCPS: Velocity through Forcemain
Table 2.8 Project Cost Factors
Table 3.1 City of Vista and Encina Water Authority Staff Table 3.2 Carollo Condition Assessment Team Members
Table 3.3 Asset Condition Ranking Scale
Table 3.4 Original Useful Life
Table 3.5 Condition Fractions
Table 3.6 Criticality Matrix
Table 3.7 Buena Vista Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation
1-2
1-2
1-5
1-6
1-8
1-10
2-2
2-3
2-7
2-7
2-11
2-11
2-15
2-16
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-29
3-30
3-31
3-32
Table 3.8 Raceway Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation 3-33
Table 3.9 Buena Creek Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation
Table 4.1 SCADA Communication Improvement Study Cost Estimate Table 4.2 Security Features Study Cost Estimate
Table 4.3 ATS and Generator Testing Study Cost Estimate Table 4.4 Forcemain Creek Section Assessment Cost Estimate Table 4.5 Pressure Surge Analysis Cost Estimate
Table 4.6 Recommended Study and Assessments CIP Summary 3-34
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-4
vi I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 422 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA
Table 4.7 Building Items and Site Work Cost Estimate
Table 4.8 VFD and PLC Cost Estimate
Table 4.9 Pump Rehabilitation Cost Estimate
Table 4.10 Forcemain Plug Valve Replacement Cost Estimate Table 4.11 Option 1- Grinder Improvements Cost Estimate Table 4.12 Option 6 - Shelf -spare Communitor Cost Estimate Table 4.13 Backflow Preventer Cost Estimate
Table 4.14 Design Criteria for Biological + Carbon Two -Stage Scrubber Table 4.15 Design Criteria for Biological Two -Stage Scrubber Table 4.16 Installation Cost Comparison
Table 4.17 Estimated Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs Table 4.18 Odor Control Unit Cost Estimate
Table 4.19 Wet Well Rehabilitation Cost Estimate
Table 4.20 Level Monitoring System Cost Estimate
Table 4.21 Exhaust Fan Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.22 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life Cost Estimate Table 4.23 V & A Buena Vista Project Cost Estimate
Table 4.24 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 4.25 Building and Site Item Cost Estimate
Table 4.26 Sewage Grinder Improvement
Table 4.27 PLC Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.28 Overflow Storage Pond Rehabilitation Cost Estimate Table 4.29 Odor Control Unit Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.30 Interconnect Plug Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.31 Wet Well Sprayer Cost Estimate
Table 4.32 Exhaust Fan Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.33 Pressure Surge Improvements Cost Estimate
Table 4.34 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life Cost Estimate Table 4.35 V & A Raceway Project Cost Estimate
Table 4.36 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 4.37 Building and Site Work Cost Estimate
Table 4.38 VFD and PLC Replacement Cost Estimate
4-6
4-7
4-7
4-8
4-12
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-19
4-20
4-23
4-23
4-25
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-27
4-28
4-29
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-32
4-34
4-34
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I vii
C5 Page 423 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY
Table 4.39 Non -cost Evaluation Criteria Ranking
Table 4.40 Non -Cost Evaluation Final Scores
Table 4.41 Redundant Forcemain Cost Estimate
Table 4.42 Valve Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.43 Wet Well Liner and Sluice Gate Construction Cost Estimate Table 4.44 Odor Control Unit Rehabilitation Cost Estimate Table 4.45 Wet Well Sprayer Cost Estimate
Table 4.46 Automation of Gates Cost Estimate
Table 4.47 Exhaust Fan Replacement Cost Estimate
Table 4.48 Pump Selection Programming Cost Estimate
Table 4.49 Pressure Surge Improvements Cost Estimate
Table 4.50 BCPS: Flow Conditions
Table 4.51 BCPS: Pump Configuration
Table 4.52 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life Cost Estimate Table 4.53 V & A Buena Creek Project Cost Estimate
Table 4.54 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 5.1 Study and Assessments CIP Summary
Table 5.2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 5.3 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 5.4 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 5.5 Weighting of Categories for Prioritization of CIP Table 5.6 Prioritized Project List
Table 5.7 Consolidated Projects
Table 5.8 Consolidated Project Components
4-37
4-42
4-43
4-44
4-44
4-46
4-46
4-47
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-50
4-50
4-51
4-53
4-53
5-1
5-2
5-4
5-5
5-7
5-7
5-9
5-12
viii I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C CJ•`''114l
C5 Page 424 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA
Figures
Figure 2.1 City of Vista Pump Station Vicinity Map
Figure 2.2 Buena Vista Pump Station Site Plan
Figure 2.3 BVPS: Average Daily Flows by Month
Figure 2.4 BVPS: Hourly Flows by Month
Figure 2.5 BVPS: 2010 Average Flow by Month
Figure 2.6 BVPS: Forcemain System and Pump Curves
Figure 2.7 Raceway Pump Station Site Plan
Figure 2.8 RPS: Average Daily Flow by Month
Figure 2.9 RPS: Hourly Flow by Month
Figure 2.10 RPS: 2010 Average Flow by Month
Figure 2.11 RPS: Forcemain System and Pump Curves
Figure 2.12 Buena Creek Pump Station Site Plan
Figure 2.13 BCPS: Average Daily Flow by Month
Figure 2.14 BCPS: Hourly Flow by Month
Figure 2.15 BCPS: 2010 Average Flow by Month
Figure 2.16 BCPS: Forcemain System and Pump Curves
Figure 3.1 Communitor and Barscreen
Figure 3.2 Sewage Pump Motor No. 2
Figure 3.3 Surge Tanks
Figure 3.4 Check Valve at Pump No. 1
Figure 3.5 Seal Water Components
Figure 3.6 Hydropneumatic Tank
Figure 3.7 Chain Link Fence
Figure 3.8 Flood Containment Door
Figure 3.9 Wet Well
Figure 3.10 Flow Meter and Vault
Figure 3.11 Generator No. 2
Figure 3.12 Grinder and Barscreen Channel
Figure 3.13 Discharge Valve Pump No. 3
Figure 3.14 Fence
Figure 3.15 Pressure Transmitter Gauge
2-1
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-8
2-9
2-9
2-10
2-10
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-15
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-9
3-10
3-13
3-14
3-14
3-14
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I ix
C5 Page 425 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY
Figure 3.16 Louvered Doors and Building
Figure 3.17 Overflow Storage Pond
Figure 3.18 Odor Control Unit
Figure 3.19 Wet Well
Figure 3.20 Sluice Gates
Figure 3.21 Flow Meter and Vault
Figure 3.22 Motor Control Center
Figure 3.23 Programmable Logic Control
Figure 3.24 Emergency Generator
Figure 3.25 Channel Monster Sewage Grinders
Figure 3.26 Sewage Pumps and Motors
Figure 3.27 Surge Tank
Figure 3.28 Motor Operated Valve
Figure 3.29 Check Valve
Figure 3.30 Fence and Asphalt
Figure 3.31 GE Cabinet Lacks Access
Figure 3.32 Leak Visible on Concrete Wall
Figure 3.33 Emergency Storage Vault
Figure 3.34 Odor Control Unit
Figure 3.35 Wet Well
Figure 3.36 Encina Forcemain 14" Flow Meter
Figure 3.37 Gas Analyzer
Figure 3.38 Programmable Logic Controller
Figure 3.39 Motor Control Center
Figure 3.40 Emergency Generator
Figure 4.1 Existing Surge Tank Access
Figure 4.2 Grinder Vault, Aerial View
Figure 4.3 BVPS Grinder Vault Plan View
Figure 4.4 Grinder Vault, Section View
Figure 4.5 Odalog Sensor Data
Figure 4.6 Alternative 1: Bio+Carbon Scrubber
Figure 4.7 Alternative 2: Two -stage (both Biological) Scrubber 3-15
3-15
3-16
3-16
3-16
3-17
3-17
3-18
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-20
3-22
3-22
3-23
3-23
3-24
3-24
3-25
3-25
3-26
3-26
3-26
3-26
3-27
4-5
4-10
4-11
4-11
4-13
4-14
4-15
x I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 426 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA
Figure 4.8 Corroded Light Fixture
Figure 4.9 Existing Excess Effluent Alignment System and Pump Curves Figure 4.10 Existing Pipelines
Figure 4.11 Alternative 1- South Melrose/Faraday/Orion Route Figure 4.12 Alternative 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route Figure 4.13 Alternative 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route Figure 4.14 Alternative 4 - South Melrose/Faraday/EI Fuerte/Palomar Airport Road Route Figure 4.15 Alternative 5 - Excess Effluent Alignment Route Figure 4.16 Odalog Sensor Data
Figure 4.17 Odor Control Unit with Corrosion
Figure 4.18 Slide Gates to be Automated in Wet Well
Figure 5.1 Communitor and Barscreen
4-24
4-35
4-36
4-38
4-39
4-40
4-41
4-42
4-45
4-45
4-46
5-10
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I xi
C5 Page 427 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY
-This Page Left Blank Intentionally-
xii I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 428 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA
Abbreviations
AACE American Association of Cost Engineers
AHPS Agua Hedionda Pump Station
APCD Air Pollution Control District
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ATS Auto Transfer Switches
AWWA American Water Works Association
BCPS Buena Creek Pump Station
BSD Buena Sanitation District
BVPS Buena Vista Pump Station
CCI Construction Cost Index
CCTV closed-circuit television
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Vista
ea each
ENR Engineering News Record
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EvRUL evaluated remaining useful life
EWA Encina Water Authority
EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility
fps force per second
FRP fiber -reinforced plastic
ft foot (feet)
gpm gallons per minute
hp horse power
IIMM International Infrastructure Management Manual
kW kilowatt
MCCs Motor Control Centers
mgd million gallons per day
O&M operations and maintenance
OUL Original Useful Life
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I xiii
C5 Page 429 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY
PLC programmable logic controller
R -CAMP® Remote Facilities Comprehensive Asset Management Plan RMC RMC Water and Environment
RPS Raceway Pump Station
RUL Remaining Useful Life
SWRF Shadowridge Water Reclamation Facility
UPS uninterruptible power supply
VFD variable frequency drive
xiv AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C c R'"''1
C5 Page 430 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 1 I CITY OF VISTA Chapter 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this Pump Station Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation Report is to give the City of Vista (City) a planning document that identifies and prioritizes potential improvements to three of the four pump stations conveying flow from the City to the Encina Wastewater Authority's (EWA) Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) in Carlsbad. These pump stations are the Buena Vista Pump Station (BVPS), the Raceway Pump Station (RPS), and the Buena Creek Pump Station (BCPS). EWA operates and maintains the pump stations for the owners, which are the City of Vista, the City of Carlsbad, and the Buena Sanitation District (BSD).

For this preliminary design report, projects were identified based on a comprehensive condition assessment of the installed assets, interviews with City and EWA staff about known deficiencies, and a review of the overall pump station operation and reliability under current and future conditions. The recommended projects were reviewed for cost and were prioritized according to the City's goals and standards.

1.2 Pump Station Condition Assessment
Over three days, a multi -discipline team of mechanical, structural, and electrical engineers, assisted by EWA staff, conducted condition assessments of each pump station. The assessments involved visually inspecting the installed assets and known deficiencies identified by staff. After each assessment was completed, a meeting was held to discuss the operations and maintenance history and needed improvements with the City and EWA.

For each pump station, an asset inventory list was created to document the assets at each pump station. Throughout the condition assessments, and per a review of record drawings, this list was updated with new assets.

The asset list was used to track asset condition, condition rankings, remaining useful life estimates, criticality, vulnerability, and overall risk. Risk scores are calculated as the product of criticality and vulnerability, where vulnerability is the likelihood of failure, and criticality is the consequence of failure. Vulnerability is a function of the asset condition and remaining useful life, whereas criticality is a weighted score, with each asset graded according to health and safety, economics, environmental, and community effects.

From the list, high -risk assets were identified for rehab or replacement and were grouped into larger Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects for additional evaluation and project cost estimating. Tables 1.1 through 1.4 provide a list of CIP projects, organized by pump station, with studies and assessments grouped together. The tables include project scope, major drivers, and the estimated project cost.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 I 1-1
09/23/2025
C5 Page 431 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 1 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 1.1 Study and Assessments CIP Summary
Project
No.

Project Project Components
Driver
Cost
SCADA
1 Communication
Improvements Study
• Perform master
planning study
• BVPS, RPS, and BCPS
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvement
$75,000
2 Security Features
Study
• Perform master
planning study
• BVPS, RPS, and BCPS
• Add allowance for
Improvements
• Master planning study
• BVPS and RPS
• Site Improvements
• Safety
• Community
• Risk
$350,000
ATS and Generator
3 Testing Improvements
Study
• Testing
Improvement
$60,000
BVPS Assessment of
4 Original Forcemain
over Creek
5 Pressure Surge
Analysis
• Assess forcemain
segment
• Identify rehabilitation
needs
• Complete pressure
surge analysis for BCPS
and RPS
• Recommend mitigation
measures for each site
• Condition
$50,000
• Risk
Total Estimated Costs
$20,000
$555,000
Table 1.2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
Project
No.

Project
Project Components
Driver
Cost
6 Building and Site Items
• Replace flood containment door
• Replace wet well lighting
• Demo seal water system
• Demo and replace tile roof
• Install membrane on barrel roof
• Replace exterior floodlights
• Make initial repairs and apply
paint/coating
• Replace service entrance switchgear
• Replace fence with 8' candy cane -style
security fence Meter vault crack
injection
• Perform meter vault infiltration
remediation
• Asphalt overly
• Surge tank access platform
• Condition
• Safety
• Risk
$753,000
1-2 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c cap-�,■ .

C5 Page 432 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 1 I CITY OF VISTA Table L2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary (Cont.)
Project
No.
7 Project
VFD and PLC
Replacement
Project Components
• Replace PLC
• Replace VFD's for Pump
Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5
• Rebuild Pump Nos. 4 and • Condition
5 • Risk
Driver
• Condition
• Risk
Cost
$1,122,000*
8 Pump Rehabilitation
$50,000
Forcemain Plug Valve
9 Replacement and
Automation
• Replace all forcemain plug
valves (eight 14" suction
and discharge valves,
three 20" header valves,
three 24" buried valves)
• Automate three 24"
buried forcemain plug
valves and 20" plug valve
of forcemain B header
• Condition
• Risk
$242,000
10 Grinder Improvements
- Option 1
• Construct new concrete
grinder vault with
aluminum hatches, access
stairs, slide gates, FRP
grating
• Dual channel grinders,
each capable of handling
design flow
• Bypass pumping
• Obtain shelf -spare
communitor for backup
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvements
• Reduced Labor
$2,312,000
11 Grinder Improvements
- Option 6
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvements
$51,000
12 Backflow Preventer
• Demo hydropneumatic
tank system
• Install backflow preventer
• Install two -stage
biological scrubber
contained in a single
tower
• Reduced Labor
• Condition
$70,000
13 Vapor Phase Odor
Control
• Installation of new
receptor
$545,000
14 Wet Well
Rehabilitation
• Surface preparation and • Condition
concrete repair in wet well • Risk
• Install new coating
• Bypass pumping
$901,000
Project is scheduled for completion in 2016. Cost Estimate is not included in the pump station Total Estimated Cost. Cost is Total Estimated Construction Cost and does not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work and CIP identification were completed concurrently. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 I 1-3
C5 Page 433 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 1 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 1.2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary (Cont.)
Project
Project
No.

Project Components
Driver
Cost
15 Level Monitoring
System Upgrade
• Demo existing bubbler
system
• Install pressure transducer
level monitoring system
• Install wall -mounted
centrifugal exhaust fan,
rated 3600 CFM, with
thermostat and 1 hp fan
motor in electrical room
• Install roof -mounted
centrifugal supply fan
rated 3600 CFM, with 1 hp
fan motor in electrical
• Process
Improvements
• Risk
$29,000
16 Exhaust Fan
Replacement
room
• Energy efficiency
• Improved work
environment
$29,000
17 Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
• Replace flow meters A
and B
• Replace flow transmitters
A and B
• Replace gas analyzer
• Replace dry -pit sewage
pumps 1, 2, 4, and 5
• Replace corroded header
spool
• Repair grout pads under
pump bases
• Replace corroded
components in meter
vaults
• Coat meter vault
equipment/piping with
material suitable for
marine environment
• Repair drain piping and
ducting in bathrooms
• Condition
$719,000
18 V&A
Recommendations
• Condition
$48,000
Total Estimated Costs
$5,749,000
1-4 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 434 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 1 I CITY OF VISTA Table 1.3 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
Project No.

Project
Project Components
Driver
Cost
19 Building and Site Items
• Replace louvered doors with
hollow metal doors with solid
panels
• Install concrete berm along
south side of compound
• Initial repair and application of
paint/coating
• Replace floodlight on roof
• Install MCC surge protection
device
• Connect light fixtures to
photoelectric sensor
• Replace fence with 8' candy
cane -style security fence
• Demo existing grinder and bar
screen
• Install dual channel grinders
with overflow bar racks
• Divert flow to El Fuerte pump
station instead of bypass
pumping
• Condition
• Safety
• Risk
$97,000
20 Sewage Grinder
Improvements
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvements
• Reduced labor
$161,000*
21 PLC Replacement
• Replace PLC
• Condition
$88,000*
22 Emergency Overflow
Storage Pond
• Replace concrete curb and
handrail around perimeter
• Replace 18" emergency
overflow flap gate
• Install epoxy/polyurethane
coating to entire surface of
pond
• Condition
• Risk
$187,000
23 Odor Control Unit
• Replace odor control unit
• Condition
$29,000
24 Plug at RPS/Carlsbad
Interconnect
• Replace existing plug with 10"
full port plug valve
• Condition
• Risk
$44,000
25 Exhaust Fan Replacement
• Install centrifugal exhaust fan
rated 600 CFM
• Install 0.5 hp fan motor
• Energy
efficiency
• Improved work
environment
$11,000
26 Pressure Surge
Improvements
• Install 1,000 gallon surge tank
• Install vacuum relief valves
• Risk
$521,000
27 Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
• Replace submersible Pump
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 with Vaughan
chopper pumps
• Condition
$170,000
28 V & A Recommendations
• Replace corroded conduits on
electrical box
• Condition
$10,000
Total Estimated Costs
$1,069,000
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 I 1-5
C5 Page 435 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 1 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 1.4 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
Project
No. Project Project Components
Driver Cost
29 Building and Site
Items
• Install concrete berm
between compound and
creek
• Install access stairs and
erosion control on slope for
access to SDG&E meter
cabinet
• Crack injection to remediate
an active leak in the pump
room
• Initial repair and application
of paint/coating
• Replace return pump control
panel pilot lights
• Asphalt repair and overlay
• Replace fence with 8' candy -
cane style security fence
• Replace PLC • Condition
• Replace VFD's for Pump Nos. • Risk
1, 2, 4, and 5
• Condition
• Safety
• Risk
$195,000
30 VFD and PLC
Replacement
$1,038,000*

31. Redundant
Forcemain
• Install 24" HDPE redundant
forcemain along the
alignment of the existing
excess effluent line
• Risk
$7,992,000
32 Valve
Replacement
• Replace all forcemain plug
valves (three 8", seventeen
12", three 14", one 24" plug
valves), including motor -
operated valves at pumps 2
and 3
• Replace the 12" flanged
check valve at pumps 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5
• Surface preparation and
concrete repair in wet well
• Install new coating
• Bypass pumping
• Replace stop logs
• Replace seal on sluice gate
• Replace seals on slide gates
• Paint and patch fiberglass
housing
• Replace blower control panel
pilot lights
• Condition
$233,000
Wet Well Liner
33 Replacement and
Gate Repairs
• Condition
• Risk
$525,000*
Odor Control
34 Unit
Rehabilitation
• Condition
$6,000
1-6 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
CCa''i'"
C5 Page 436 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 1 I CITY OF VISTA Table 1.4 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary (Cont.)
Project
No.
35 Project
Automation of
Gates
Project Components
Driver
• Install motor -operated gate • Operations
actuators to the sluice gate Improvements
that divides wet well and
both slide gates upstream of
the grinders
Cost
$85,000
36 Exhaust Fan
Replacement
• Install centrifugal exhaust • Energy efficiency
fan rated 2250 CFM, with L5 • Improved work
hp fan motor in pump room environment
• Install centrifugal roof supply
fan rated 7000 CFM, with 3
hp fan motor on roof
• Programming to allow to
select pump sequence in any
order
$30,000
37 Pump Selection
Programming
• Operations
Improvements
$100,000
38 Pressure Surge
Improvements
• Install 1,000 gallon surge
tank
• Install vacuum relief valves
• Risk
$812,000
Assets Nearing
39 End of Useful
Life
• Replace 8" Shadowridge flow • Condition
meter
• Replace 14" Encina flow
meter
• Replace gas analyzer
• Rehabilitate sewage pumps
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
$118,000
40 V & A Projects
• Cathodic Protection
• Risk
$1,866,000
Total Estimated Costs
$11,437,000

1.3 CIP Project Prioritized List
The CIP Projects were prioritized using a "triple bottom line" approach that considered the financial, environmental, and social impacts of a project. This approach helped evaluate and weight each project. Each of the three categories had the following goals:
• Financial (30 percent): Implement cost effective projects and solutions. Maximize economic benefits for customers through cost-effective operations. • Environmental (40 percent): Meet or exceed permit limits and minimize reportable offenses. Improve habitat and minimize impacts to the local and global environment. • Social (30 percent): Maintain a high standard of work safety and protection and maximize community benefits through improved aesthetics and recreational uses.

The criteria ranking weights were determined after discussing with the City how each criterion factors into the City's and EWA's goals. Table 1.5 shows the prioritized project list of projects. In the list, each project's score is presented according to the "triple bottom line" comparison and 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 I 1-7
C5 Page 437 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 1 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY the project cost. The Total Prioritized Project Costs does not include projects identified later in the study.

Appendix A provides the "triple bottom line" comparison tables. Section 5 provides additional justification and evaluation of the top -rated projects.

Table 1.5 Prioritized Project List
Potential Project
Pump
Station
Ranking Category and Weight
Social
30%
Environmental
40%
Financial
30%
Total
Rank
Project Cost
Grinder Replacement BVPS 3.9

4.8 3.9 12.6 $2,312,000
Grinder Improvements
RPS 3.0

4.0 3.0 10.0 $161,000*
VFD/PLC Replacement BCPS 1.8 4.4 3.0 9.2 $1,038,000*
Redundant FM
BCPS 0.9 4.4 3.0 8.3 $7,992,000
Valve Replacement
BVPS 2.4 3.2 2.7 8.3 $242,000
Building Items and Site
Work
BVPS 0.6 3.6 3.9 8.1 $693,000
FM Plug Valve
Replacement &
Automation
BCPS 2.4

2.8 2.7

7.9 $233,000
Vapor Phase Odor Control BVPS 3.3
Building and Site
Improvements BCPS 2.7
Building and Site
Improvements

2.8 1.5

7.6 $545,000

3.6 1.2

7.5 $80,000
RPS 2.7 3.6 1.2 7.5 $36,000
Rehab Pump Nos. 4 & 5 BVPS 1.2 3.2

3.0 7.4 $50,000
Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
BVPS 1.5 4.0 L8 7.3 $719,000
PLC Replacement
RPS 1.8 2.8 2.7 7.3 $88,000*
VFD/PLC Replacement BVPS 1.5 2.4 3.0 6.8 $1,122,000*
Asphalt, Overlay BVPS 3.0 2.0 1.8 6.8 $60,000
Wet Well Liner
Replacement and Gate BCPS 0.3 3.5 2.7 6.6 $525,000*
Repairs
Wet Well Rehabilitation BVPS 1.5

3.6 1.2

6.3 $901,000
Level Monitor Upgrades BVPS 2.1

2.4 L8

6.3 $29,000
Overflow Storage Pond RPS 1.2 2.8 2.1 6.1 $187,000
Replace Floating Plug at
RPS/Carlsbad
Interconnect
RPS 0.6 2.8 2.7 6.1 $44,000
1-8 AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 438 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 1 I CITY OF VISTA Table 1.5 Prioritized Project List (Cont.)
Ranking Category and Weight
Pump
Potential Project Station
Social
30%
Environmental
40%
Financial
30%
Total
Rank
Project Cost
Backflow Preventer
BVPS 0.9

2.4 2.1

5.4 $70,000
Fence
BCPS 2.1

1.6 1.5 5.2
$66,000
Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
BCPS 0.6 2.4 1.8 4.8 $118,000
Odor Control Unit
RPS 0.9 2.4 0.6 3.9 $29,000
Fence
RPS 2.1 0.4 1.2 3.7 $61,000
Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
RPS 0.0 2.0 1.5 3.5 $170,000
V&A Recommendations BCPS 0.6 1.6 0.9 3.1 $1,866,000
Automation of Gates
BCPS 1.5 1.2 0.3 3.0 $85,000
Exhaust Fan
Replacement
BCPS 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 $30,000
Asphalt, Overlay
BCPS 1.2 0.8 0.9 2.9 $49,000
Odor Control Unit Repair BCPS 0.9

0.8 0.9

2.6 $6,000
V&A Recommendations RPS 0.3 1.6 0.6 2.5 $10,000
Exhaust Fan
Replacement
RPS 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 $11,000
Exhaust Fan
Replacement
BVPS 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 $29,000
Total Prioritized Project Costs $19,657,000

1.4 CIP Consolidated Projects
During a workshop to discuss the CIP and its organization, the City decided to consolidate projects with similar scopes and group them with four large projects. As part of this decision, the three largest projects would make up their own CIP, and the smaller non -critical items would be consolidated into one large CIP.

For the current project, projects scheduled for completion in 2016, recommended studies, and assessments are kept separate. The resulting four CIP projects are:
• Buena Vista Grinder Replacement.
• Buena Creek Redundant Forcemain.
• Buena Vista Vapor Phase Odor Control.
• Consolidated Rehabilitation Items, including all remaining items that do not require pump station shutdown or bypass pumping.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 I 1-9
C5 Page 439 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 1 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY 1 Of these projects, the Buena Vista Vapor Phase Odor Control project was deemed most urgent if the plans for a resort constructed adjacent to the pump station proceeds. This resort would be a new odor receptor, requiring adequate odor control. Installing a redundant forcemain for the BCPS is also critical because of the risk associated with pipeline failure.

The remaining items are primarily smaller cost items that do not require pump station shutdown or bypass pumping. Thus, these projects are grouped together. Table 1.6 provides the list of consolidated projects, including cost.

Table 1.6 Consolidated Projects
Project
Pump
Station
Highest Rank of
included Projects
Project Cost
Current Project:

VFD/PLC Replacement;
Grinder Improvements
(RPS); Wet Well Rehab
All sites
10 $2,934,000
BVPS
2 Grinder Replacement
1L6 $2,312,000
3 Consolidated
Rehabilitation Items
All sites

8.3 $7,406,000
4 Redundant Forcemain BCPS 8.3 $7,992,000
5 Vapor Phase Odor BVPS 6.5 $545,000
Control
6 Studies and
Assessments
All sites $555,000
Total Estimated Costs $21,744,000
1-10 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 440 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA Chapter 2

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1 Background
The City and BSD convey raw wastewater for treatment at the EWA EWPCF in Carlsbad. The Agua Hedionda Pump Station (AHPS) and BVPS convey flow from both the City of Vista and the City of Carlsbad. The RPS conveys flow from the City of Vista, and BCPS from the BSD. The EWA operates and maintains each station for the City and the EWA.

This study addresses only BVPS, RPS, and BCPS. Figure 2.1 shows the location of the three pump stations and the EWPCF.

City of Carlsbad
Pacific
Ocean
r'
Buena Vista Pump Station
Agua Hedionda Pump Station
CriSrdsf
heat,
1 City of Vista
Buena Creek Pump Station
Raceway Pump Station
(aka
San
Marcos
/-, +\
f _- -
City of San Marcos r
Figure 2.1 City of Vista Pump Station Vicinity Map
c
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 2-1
C5 Page 441 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

2.2 Previous Reports
In January of 2008, Dudek prepared the Sewer Master Plan Update forthe City and BSD. The report updated the 2001 Sewer Master Plan and addressed newly adopted State regulations.

The report methodology included modeling to determine future flow conditions, which were used in the hydraulic evaluation of this Pump Station Rehabilitation Study. Existing flow conditions were compiled from flow data from April 2012 to March 2015, provided by the EWA.

Table 2.1 provides the flow rates used for evaluation of existing and future conditions.

Table 2.1 Existing and Future Flow Rates
Pump Station
Existing Conditions
Future Conditions
Average
Daily Flow
(mgd)
Peak Day
Flow (mgd)
Average
Hourly Flow
(mgd)
Peak Hour
Flow (mgd)
Average
Flow (mgd)
Peak
Flow
(mgd)
Buena Vista 5.06

6.11 4.96

9.02 7.90

12.12 Raceway 0.34

0.49 0.32

0.90 0.91

1.42 Buena Creek

2.13 2.60

2.06 4.42

3.82 5.78
In 2012, RMC Water and Environment (RMC) prepared the Encina Remote Facilities Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (R -CAMP®) for the EWA. The report provided a planning document for the 2014 fiscal year, covering replacement and rehabilitation needs at the BVPS, RPS, and BCPS. The R -CAMP® was reviewed to ensure that recommended projects and assets recommended for assessment or replacement were evaluated for inclusion in future projects.

2.3 Purpose
This Report has the following purposes:
• To provide a comprehensive condition assessment of each pump station, including specialty testing, evaluation of hydraulics and surge potential, environmental assessment, geotechnical review, survey and mapping of each pump station and the South Melrose corridor, and odor control assessment.
• To provide a grinder assessment forthe RPS.
• To recommend projects fora CIP.
• To evaluate alternatives for a redundant forcemain for the BCPS. • To design electrical improvements forthe immediate replacement of the variable frequency drives (VFD) at the BVPS and BCPS, and the programmable logic controllers (PLC) at BVPS, RPS, and BCPS. The PLC's and VFD's require immediate replacement as they are no longer supported by the manufacturers, making replacement parts unavailable.

Repair and replacement projects will be grouped together in the CIP so the pump stations can continue to operate. Additional CIP projects will be identified through a review of safety and operational issues and potential plant optimization projects. An implementation schedule will be 2-2 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
cc
C5 Page 442 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA developed based on each project's importance and necessity in meeting the City, BSD, and EWA's needs.

2.4 Buena Vista Pump Station
The City of Vista owns approximately 90 percent of the BVPS, and the City of Carlsbad owns approximately 10 percent. In 1994, the facility was rebuilt to provide its current design capacity of 23.1 million gallons per day (mgd). Table 2.2 shows the design criteria for the BVPS.

Table 2.2 Buena Vista Pump Station Design Criteria
Component
Pumps
Criteria
Type
Unit
Value
Non -Clog, Dry -Pit
Centrifugal
Number
each
4 Capacity gpm each
6,000
Total Pump Station
Capacity
mgd 23.1
Total Pump Station
Capacity with one pump mgd 17.3
out of service
Motor
Variable frequency
Drive
Surge Tank
Number
ea 2
Size
gallons 10,000
Bar Screen
Number
ea 1
Bar Spacing
in 2
Communitor Number
ea 1
Wet Well Capacity
gallons 8,000
At the BVPS, influent flow enters the wet well through a 30 -inch PVC pipeline. Upon its arrival, an automated bar rack directs large debris into a communitor for shredding and returns it to the waste stream. Flow exits the pump station through a 24 -inch PVC forcemain that connects to a gravity line leading to the EWPCF. In 2011, a second 24 -inch PVC forcemain was constructed for redundancy. Figure 2.2 shows the site plan of the existing facility.

For an average daily flow of 5.1 mgd, two of the station's four vertical dry -pit pumps operate in parallel to maintain a wet well level of 60 inches. Each of the four pumps operates in a lead 1, lead 2, lag, or standby configuration. For each pump, a PLC controls the dedicated VFD by responding to changes in flow.

During a power failure, two emergency standby generators keep the pump station operational.

Each generator can run three pumps at any speed. A berm surrounding the pump station provides approximately one million gallons of emergency storage. An air -gap tank and system 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 1 2-3
C5 Page 443 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY pressurization pumps supply potable water used for seal water and sanitation needs. For ventilation, exhaust fans are present in the wet well and dry well.

Figure 2.2 Buena Vista Pump Station Site Plan
Pump
Station
Buitlding

2.4.1 Buena Vista Pump Station Hydraulic Evaluation
EWA provided flow measurement data for the BVPS for a hydraulic evaluation of the pump station to identify potential issues from pump operations and capacity and high or low velocities through the forcemain. Data included average daily flow from April 1, 2012, through April 26, 2012, and September 1, 2012, through March 31, 2015. Also included were hourly flow measurements from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015. The missing values from April 27, 2012, to August 30, 2012, are likely from instrumentation failure. Weather Underground provided the precipitation data.

Figure 2.3 presents historical flow data from April 2012 to April 2015. During this period, the average daily flow was 5.06 mgd, with a peak day flow of 6.11 mgd.

A general trend of increased flow occurred during months of increased precipitation. However, the peak day flow occurred in March of 2013, whereas the heaviest month of precipitation was in December of 2014. This discrepancy shows that precipitation is not the only factor affecting sewer flows.
2-4 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C Cam'""'
C5 Page 444 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA rn
E

5.o
o
>, 4.5
ri
o 4.0

3.5 6.5

6.o

5.5 3.o
Monthly Average Daily Flow
Average Daily Flow

4.o

3.5 3.o

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.o

0.5 o.o
L n
Precipitation, inches
Precipitation
Monthly Maximum Flow
Monthly Minimum Flow
Peak Day Flow
Figure 2.3 BVPS: Average Daily Flows by Month
Figure 2.4 shows flow measurement data collected hourly from April 2014 to March 2015. As the figure shows, the monthly maximum hourly flows are higher than the monthly average daily flows, with a peak of 9 mgd.

Hourly Flow, mgd

10.o

9.o

8.o

7.o

6.o

5.o

4.o

3.o

2.0 1.o
o.o
.4- -A- N • , H rl r1 rl
c = ZT > u
w U O a) a a,

Q IA O Z - LL

4.o

3.5 3.o

2.5 2.o

1.5 1.o

0.5 o.o
Precipitation
Monthly Minimum Hourly Flow
Peak Hour Flow
Monthly Average Hourly Flow
Average Flow
Monthly Maximum Hourly Flow
Precipitation, inches
Figure 2.4 BVPS: Hourly Flows by Month
To evaluate wet weather flow conditions, flow measurement data, collected in 15 -minute intervals, were collected from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010. The region typically experiences minimal precipitation, but 2010 was a particularly wet year.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 2-5
C5 Page 445 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 2.5 presents the average monthly flow. While the average flow is similar to that seen from 2012 to 2015, precipitation in the region increased the monthly maximum flow, with a peak flow of 13 mgd corresponding to the month of heaviest precipitation in December. 14 12
O 10
E
.(U
8 6
4 2
0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
Precipitation
Maximum Flow
Monthly Minimum Flow
Average Flow
Monthly Average Flow
Monthly Maximum Flow
14 12
2 0
Figure 2.5 BVPS: 2010 Average Flow by Month
A hydraulic analysis was performed on the forcemain and pumps at the BVPS to determine the system curve. Figure 2.6 shows the system and pump curves. According to the analysis, a single pump can handle the average hourly flow and peak hour flow demands, and three pumps can handle the design capacity. With four pumps installed, the pump station demands can be met with one pump out of service.
300
250
200
150
100
50 0
0 5,000
10,000
Flow, gpm
System Curve
3 Pumps at l00%
— — — — - Design Capacity
. Pump at 74%
15,000
i Pump at 83%
— — — — - Average Hourly Flow ----- Peak Hour Flow
Figure 2.6 BVPS: Forcemain System and Pump Curves
2-6 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 446 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA The velocity through the forcemain must be high enough to prevent solids deposition in the pipeline but low enough to prevent excessive noise, vibration, and wear and tear of the system.

The ideal velocity in sewage piping ranges from 2 to 10 force per second (fps).

Table 2.3 presents flow velocities in the 24 -inch diameter forcemains leaving the pump station at the average hourly and peak hour flow for existing and future conditions. At these flow rates, solids deposition is minimized, and damage to the pipeline is not expected.

Table 2.3 BVPS: Velocity in Forcemains
Flow Condition
Existing Conditions
Flow (mgd)
Velocity (fps)
Future Conditions
Flow (mgd)
Velocity (fps)
Average Hourly

4.96 2.42

7.90 3.89
Peak Hour

9.02 4.44

12.12 5.97

2.5 Raceway Pump Station
The City of Vista owns the RPS. In 2007, the facility was replaced with the existing facility, which has a design flow of 1.9 mgd. The current average daily wastewater influent flow is approximately 0.5 mgd. Table 2.4 shows the design criteria for the RPS.

Table 2.4 Raceway Pump Station Design Criteria
Component Criteria
Unit Value
Pumps
Type
Number
Capacity
Total Pump Station
Capacity
each
gpm each
Vertical Solids -Handling
Submersible
3 650
mgd 1.9
Total Pump Station
Capacity with one pump mgd 1.3
out of service
Motor
Variable frequency
Drive
Surge Tank
Number ea
Size gallons
0 N/A
Bar Screen
Number
ea 1
Bar Spacing
in 2.25
Communitor Number
ea 1
Wet Well Capacity
gallons 5,400
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 2-7
C5 Page 447 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Influent enters the pump station through a 12 -inch PVC gravity main. Upon arrival, the flow either passes through a channel grinder or is diverted to a bar screen during increased flow or for grinder failure/removal. The grinder and bar screen help to remove debris from the wastewater to prevent it from entering the wet well and damaging downstream equipment.

Effluent leaves the pump station through an 8 -inch PVC forcemain, which connects to the BSD's forcemain to the EWPCF. Figure 2.7 shows the site plan of the existing pump station.

For approximately one year, the channel grinder has been out of service. Initially, the grinder was removed for maintenance. Once removed, issues with the manufacturer caused delays that have prevented its return to service, leaving the bar screen as the only method of debris removal.

One of three submersible pumps handles influent flow at the RPS. Each pump operates in a lead, lag, or standby configuration to adjust to variations in flow. A PLC controls a dedicated VFD to operate the pumps to maintain a wet well level setpoint of 60 inches.

The operating volume of the wet well is approximately 5,400 gallons. An overflow storage pond provides 156,000 gallons of emergency storage on -site. During power failure, the pump station has one standby generator to ensure continuity. A carbon scrubber provides vapor phase odor control to minimize impact to neighboring businesses, even though sulfide levels at the inlet are typically zero.

Figure 2.7 Raceway Pump Station Site Plan
Pump Discharge
Piping and Valves
Pump
Station
Building
Grinder Vault
Emergency
Overflow
Storage Pond
Wet Well
Meter
Vault
Odor Control Unit
Carlsbad Sewer
Manhole
Entrance
Gate
Influent Diversion
Manhole
Emergency
Generator
2-8 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c "'•
C5 Page 448 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA LL
• 04
o • 0.3
2 2.5.1 Raceway Pump Station Hydraulic Evaluation
EWA provided the existing sewer flow data as daily averages of the hourly flow measurements collected from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015. Figure 2.8 presents the data in relation to the monthly precipitation. As observed in the data for the BPS, the peak flow occurs separately from the peak precipitation month.

0.55 0.50

0.45 E 0.40

0.35 o
u 0.30
T
ro 0.25
o

0.20 0.15
o.10
m
C
ro
m
H
T
H • H • H H chi
01 > • C Q V
Q Z -, in o
D
H
o

4.o

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.o

0.5 o.o
H
Precipitation
Monthly Maximum Flow
Monthly Average Flow
Average Daily Flow
Monthly Minimum Flow
Peak Day Flow
Precipitation, inches
Figure 2.8 RPS: Average Daily Flow by Month
Figure 2.9 provides hourly flow data. The data show a correlation between the peak hour flow and high precipitation events. The peak hour flow of 0.90 mgd is notably higher than the peak day flow, demonstrating wide fluctuations in flow throughout the day.

1.o
o.9
o.8
• 0.7
o.6
o 0.5

0.2 o.1
o.o
• LI to
N • H • H H H ▪ H H H • H N H
�O 7 cu U O N Q1
Q g Q in O Z o w

4.o

3.5 3.o

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 o.o
Precipitation
Monthly Minimum Hourly Flow
Peak Hour Flow
Monthly Average Hourly Flow
Average Flow
Monthly Maximum Hourly Flow
Precipitation, inches
Figure 2.9 RPS: Hourly Flow by Month
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 2-9
C5 Page 449 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY To evaluate wet weather flow conditions, the EWA provided flow measurement data, collected in two -minute intervals, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010.

Figure 2.10 shows the average flows measured during a wet year. As the figure shows, the average flow is similar to that in 2012 to 2015 data, but the monthly maximum flow exceeds design capacity in most months. The RPS was able to handle these short duration peaks with no adverse effects noted.

2.5 2.0

0.5 0.0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
7 6
5 t
u
47-1
0 3 r0
0 U
2 a
1 0
Precipitation
Monthly Average Flow
Design Capacity
Average Flow
Monthly Minimum Flow
Maximum Flow
Monthly Maximum Flow
Figure 2.10 RPS: 2010 Average Flow by Month
Figure 2.11 presents the system and pump curves for the RPS. A single pump can meet average and peak hourly flow demands, while three pumps are required to meet the design capacity. 250
200
,t 150
2 O
F- 100 '
50 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Flow, mpg
System Curve
3 Pumps at 96%
— — - Design Capacity
iPump at57/o 1Pumpat73%
-- — —- Average Hourly Flow ----- Peak Hour Flow
Figure 2.11 RPS: Forcemain System and Pump Curves
2-10 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C Cad o"1..01
C5 Page 450 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA The 8 -inch PVC forcemain exits the pump station and connects to the 24 -inch diameter BSD forcemain about 1,700 feet downstream, adding to the flow from the BCPS.

Table 2.5 shows the velocities through the forcemain under existing and future conditions. At the average hourly flow rate, solids deposition is a concern. However, peak flows throughout the day likely move the depositied solids along the pipeline.

Table 2.5 RPS: Velocity through Forcemain
Flow Condition
Existing Conditions
Flow (mgd)
Velocity (fps)
Future Conditions
Flow (mgd)
Velocity (fps)
Average Hourly

0.32 L43

0.91 4.03
Peak Hour

0.90 3.98

1.42 6.29

2.6 Buena Creek Pump Station
The BSD owns the BCPS, which was built in 2002. The pump station has a design capacity of

8.8 mgd and an average daily flow of 2.1 mgd. Table 2.6 shows the design criteria for the BCPS.

Table 2.6 Buena Creek Pump Station Design Criteria
Component Criteria
Unit Value
Pumps
Type
Non -Clog, Dry -Pit
Centrifugal
Number
each
5 Capacity gpm each
1@1,736; 1@3,600;
3@2,037
Total Pump Station
Capacity
Total Pump Station
mgd 8.8
Capacity with one pump mgd 7.0
out of service
Motor
Variable frequency
Drive
Surge Tank
Number
ea 1
Size
gallons 1,000
Bar Screen
Number
ea 0
Bar Spacing
in N/A
Communitor Number
ea 2
Wet Well Capacity
gallons 25,750
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 2-11
C5 Page 451 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Influent enters the pump station through dual 24 -inch pipelines. Before entering the wet well, influent passes through parallel channel grinders. Effluent leaves the pump station through a 24 -inch ductile iron pipeline that connects to an 18 -inch PVC forcemain. This forcemain ultimately joins BSD's forcemain to the EWPCF. Figure 2.12 shows the site plan of the existing facility.

Entrance Gate
Emergency
Overflow
Storage Vault
—� -� Pump
Station
Building
Emergency
Generator
Odor Control Unit
Figure 2.12 Buena Creek Pump Station Site Plan
The wet well is divided into two sections, which can be isolated by a slide gate for maintenance without impeding operations. A PLC monitors the wet well level using level sensors and controls the dedicated pump VFDs to maintain a level setpoint of 60 inches. Under normal conditions, two of the five dry -pit pumps operate in parallel to handle flows, with additional pumps available during pump failure or high flow conditions.

The pump station currently directs all flow to the EWPCF through the Encina forcemain.

However, it can convey flow to the Shadowridge Water Reclamation Facility (SWRF). Although the SWRF was shut down in 2003, flows can be sent there for emergency storage or maintenance.

A valve at Pump No. 1 allows flow to be manually diverted to either the EWPCF or to the SWRF.

Pump Nos. 2 and 3 then send flow to either facility using motorized discharge valve actuators.

Pump Nos. 4 and 5 pump flow to the EWPCF and are the most frequently used pumps. 2-12 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c c "'■
C5 Page 452 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA The abandoned SWRF pump vault provides emergency storage. The vault is made of unlined concrete and has a capacity of 50,000 gallons. Additional overflow storage is provided by topography that directs flow away from the adjacent creek and into a natural depression.

An emergency standby generator supplies power to the pump station during a commercial power failure. A biofilterthat removes hydrogen sulfide from the wet well exhaust provides vapor phase odor control. A surge protection system protects the Encina forcemain against water hammer.

2.6.1 Buena Creek Pump Station Hydraulic Evaluation
The BCPS receives all flow from the BSD. Figure 2.13 presents the daily flow measurement data from April 2012 to March 2015. The peak day flows correspond to the months experiencing higher precipitation, showing that rain events affect the BCPS flow.

4.0 2.7

2.5 E

2.3 o

2.1 1.9
ci
U
o
C
ro
M
'i
T
ro
M
7 7
o
z
ri
2 c -I
7 ci
v
l/1
l -I
0 - 3.5

3.0 - �.5

2.0 1.5

1.0 0.5
Precipitation
Monthly Minimum Daily Flow
Average Daily Flow
- Monthly Average Daily Flow
Monthly Maximum Daily Flow
Peak Day Flow
Precipitation, inches
Figure 2.13 BCPS: Average Daily Flow by Month
Figure 2.14 shows that the peak hour flow is much higher than the peak day flow. This correlates with the trend of increased flow with increased precipitation.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 12-13
C5 Page 453 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY 2 5.0

4.5 4.0
cm 3.5
E
- 3.0
O 2.5
• 2.0
O �.5

1.0 0.5

0.0 • - H • -
C Q) d 4 > V C
: Vl 0 0
Z Q ro
, N
LL
71 cCD
Precipitation
Monthly Minimum Hourly Flow
Peak Hour Flow
Monthly Average Hourly Flow
Average Flow
Monthly Maximum Hourly Flow

4.00 3.50

3.00 2.50

2.00 1.50

1.00 0.50

0.00 Precipitation, inches
Figure 2.14 BCPS: Hourly Flow by Month
To evaluate wet weather flow conditions, the EWA provided flow measurement data, collected every two minutes from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010.

Figure 2.15 shows the same trend of increased flow with increased rain events. The maximum monthly flow and highest rain event occurred in December 2010, with flows above design capacity. The BCPS was able to handle the short-term high flow with no adverse effects noted.

Daily Flow, mgd

10.0 9.0

8.o

7.o

6.o

5.o

4.0 3.0

2.0 1.0

0.0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 0
Precipitation
Monthly Average Flow
Design Capacity
Average Flow Maximum Flow
Monthly Minimum Flow Monthly Maximum Flow
Precipitation, inches
Figure 2.15 BCPS: 2010 Average Flow by Month
2-14 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 454 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 2 I CITY OF VISTA Figure 2.16 provides the system and pump curves for the BCPS. Four pumps can handle the design capacity, leaving one pump out of service.

Average Hourly
Peak Hour
230
210
190
170
$ 150
130
110
90 70
50 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Flow, gpm
System Curve
4 Pumps at 96%
— — — — - Design Capacity
i Pump at go% 2 Pumps at go%
— — — — - Average Hourly Flow ----- Peak Hour Flow
Figure 2.16 BCPS: Forcemain System and Pump Curves
Table 2.7 presents the velocity through the 24 -inch diameter PVC forcemain under existing and future conditions. At average flow rates, the velocity is below 2 fps, creating conditions suitable for solids deposition. Peak hour flows are within the optimal range but are still fairly low for flushing built up solids.

Table 2.7 BCPS: Velocity through Forcemain
Existing Conditions
Future Conditions
Flow (mgd) Velocity (fps) Flow (mgd)
Velocity (fps)

2.06 1.01

3.82 1.88

4.42 2.18

5.78 2.85

2.7 Cost Estimates

2.7.1 Basis of Cost Estimates
The cost estimates used to budget CIP projects are provided as a "budget estimate" as defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE). This means that the expected accuracy range is accepted as somewhere between -20 to +30 percent of the actual cost. For each estimate, an estimating contingency was applied to capture items too detailed to be practical for a budget estimate.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 2-15
C5 Page 455 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 2 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY The following methods were used to develop cost estimates for projects:
• Pricing information from manufacturers.
• Analysis and review of cost curves projecting industry trends. • Scaling of closely related project costs.
• Estimates of major construction costs such as demolition, piping, and earthwork, with appropriate contingencies based on the applied level of detail.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were not applied to each estimate. Instead, they were applied, where appropriate, to project alternatives in which O&M costs were significantly different.

For estimates that considered historical data, an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) of 11,628 was used. This CCI represents a factor for the typical construction cost in Los Angeles as of October 2015.

2.7.2 Project Cost Factors
Project cost factors have been developed to account for certain unknowns in cost estimating and to develop overall replacement costs and CIP project costs. Replacement and/or rehabilitation costs have been developed for projects identified during the course of the condition assessment.

Table 2.8 provides the cost factors.

Table 2.8 Project Cost Factors
Applied Contingency for CIP
Cost Factors Project Costs
Construction and Estimating Contingency
30%
Contractor Overhead and Profit
15%
Sales Tax
4%
Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Costs
20%
2-16 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c Car"■�,�.

C5 Page 456 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA Chapter 3

FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT

3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the condition assessments performed at the BVPS, the RPS, and the BCPS. For each pump station, asset condition was reviewed and the asset risk assessed. The basis for the assessment and a review of critical assets are also provided.

3.2 Methodology

3.1.1 Preparation
Before visiting the site, the inspection team was given record drawings and previous planning and design reports. The existing asset list, available through the R -CAMP® Report, was compared with these documents. Assets not on the list were identified and added, and the list was used to produce condition assessment forms for the team.

In addition to the asset list, specific forms were prepared for each engineering discipline (process/mechanical, structural, and electrical/instrumentation). The forms included common questions specific to each engineering discipline that identified potential issues with the each asset's condition. The completed forms are located in Appendices B, C, and D and are separated by pump station.

Before each site visit, a meeting was held between the Carollo inspection team and City and EWA staff to discuss known issues and relevant system information for identifying critical needs.

With the help of EWA staff, the Carollo inspection team answered questions, provided asset maintenance and replacement history, and provided additional information. Table 3.1 lists City and EWA staff, and Table 3.2 lists Carollo team members.

Table 3.1 City of Vista and Encina Water Authority Staff Agency
Staff Member Role
City of Vista
Elmer Alex, P.E.

Principal Engineer
Alfred Pedroza, P.E.

Senior Engineer
Encina Water Authority Dave Ummel
Systems Manager
Octavio Navarrete
Operations Manager
James Mattern
Supervisor
John Fetu
Maintenance Manager
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 13-1
C5 Page 457 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 3.2 Carollo Condition Assessment Team Members
Team Member
Title
Jeff Weishaar, P.E.

Project Manager
Troy Hedlund, P.E.

Electrical/Instrumentation
Juan Loera, P.E.

Mechanical
Rajnikanth Gedhada, P.E., S.E., LEED AP Structural
Sejal Mehta, E.I.T.

Staff Engineer
Alan Mlakar, P.E.

Staff Engineer
Risa Guysi, E.I.T. Staff Engineer

3.2.1 Condition Assessments
Condition assessments took place over three days in July 2015. Specific dates are noted later in the chapter.

At each pump station, inspecting team members reviewed and evaluated each asset respective to their disciplines. Team members then took notes and photos and scored asset conditions on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "Pristine; as if brand new" and 5 meaning "unserviceable; replacement needed."
Table 3.3 shows the Asset Condition Ranking Scale. The scale uses an industry standard derived from the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM). In the table, the "Percent Requiring Rehabilitation" value reflects the percentage of an asset's worth that needs to be spent to bring it to a pristine, like -new condition.

Table 3.3 Asset Condition Ranking Scale
Ranking
Name
Descriptionm
Percent Requiring
Rehabilitation(1X2)
1 Very
Good
Pristine, brand new
0%
2 Good
Performing well, routine
maintenance only
0-10%
3 Fair Requires increased maintenance
11-20%
4 Poor
Rehabilitation or replacement
needed
21-50%
5 Very
Poor
Unserviceable (replacement needed) >50%
Notes:
(1) Adapted from the International Infrastructure Management Manual. (2) Percent of the value of the asset needed to return the asset to a condition one. 3-2 I AUGUST2016 i FINAL
09/23/2025
C c Rri"14
C5 Page 458 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.3 Buena Vista Pump Station Condition Assessment Findings The condition assessment at the BVPS occurred on July 22, 2015.

3.3.1 Sewage Grinder and Barscreen

3.3.1.1 Description
At the BVPS, solids are handled by an automated
barscreen and comminutor, Figure 3.1. A rake collects
and drops solids collected on the barscreen into a
comminutor, which grinds the debris into smaller pieces before returning them to the waste stream. Piping is
installed to send flush water into the comminutor with
the solids to ensure that the ground solids are flushed into the wet well but flush water usage was discontinued since the manufacturer stated it was needed only if there were issues with rags directed to the comminutor.

The comminutor was installed in 1996 and was
rehabilitated in 2008. Every 12 to 18 months, it is
removed for service. The comminutor control panel and
hydraulic unit were installed in 1996. The barscreen and associated hydraulic unit and control panel were
installed in 1996 and were rehabilitated in 2004.

Figure 3.1 Communitor and Barscreen

3.3.1.2 Findings
Neither the comminutor nor the barscreen has external controls through SCADA at the EWPCF.

The proprietary PLC system for the comminutor displays only ON/OFF or FAIL ALARM. Encina staff requested that signals be installed from the comminutor to the PLC to provide additional information and warnings and a means of remote operation for the grinder.

Grinding and screening were identified as weak areas within the pump station for several reasons. One, there is no redundancy for the comminutor or barscreen. Two, if a grinder fails or needs to be removed, the barscreen requires manual cleaning and does not adequately protect equipment downstream. Three, pump failures have resulted from rags not being properly ground up through the comminutor.

The comminutor control panel and hydraulic unit were in good condition. Only minor scratches were observed on the control panel's surface.

Although the barscreen was operational during the site visit, it was partially submerged and could not be thoroughly inspected while the pump station was operated. Neither the inspection team nor operations staff found defects in the visible portions of the barscreen.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 1 3-3
C5 Page 459 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.3.2 Sewage Pumps and Motors

3.3.2.1 Description
The BVPS has four Yeoman's Chicago 300 -hp vertical dry -pit centrifugal sewage pumps, Figure 3.2. A motor support curb exists for a fifth pump if needed for future flow conditions. The pumps were installed as original equipment in 1995 and were
rehabilitated between 2007 and 2008.

The sewage pump motors were installed in 1996 and were
rehabilitated between 2003 and 2004. Motor No. 1 was the only exception. It was rehabilitated in 2007.

Under normal operation, two pumps operate concurrently to maintain the wet well level setpoint. If these two pumps cannot maintain the level set point, the standby pump will come on-line.

The opposing pumps run at the same time.

3.3.2.2 Findings
During the visit, Pumps No. 2 and 5 were operational. Although both pumps appeared to be in good working condition, Pump No. 5 was noisier and had more vibration than Pump No. 2. Inspectors noted popping sounds in the volute/impeller area on the pump, indicating the impeller may need to be replaced.

Figure 3.2 Sewage Pump Motor No. 2
Corrosion was observed on the base supports of Pump No. 1 and Pump No. 4. Leakage and corrosion were also noted at the intake elbow of Pump No. 4. As a result, recoating the pump and supports is recommended and included in the project described in Section 4.2.1.

Pump No. 1 was not running during the assessment. Although support equipment was noted as functional, excessive corrosion was observed on the base support. Conversely, Pump No. 2 was in good condition, with all support equipment functional and no signs of leakage or corrosion.

For Pump No. 2, some vibration and noise were noted. As such, a complete structural analysis, described in Section 4.2.12, is recommended to provide a clearer picture of its condition.

For Pumps No. 1 and No. 2, no evidence of excessive corrosion or leaks was noted. Paint and support equipment were functional and in good condition.

The motors showed no signs of corrosion or damage. The contacts were clean and well maintained, and replacement parts are available for maintenance. 3-4 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 460 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.3.3 Surge Tanks

3.3.3.1 Description
On each of the two forcemains, two surge tanks protect the forcemains, other structures, and equipment from water hammer, Figure 3.3. Water hammer occurs during sudden changes in the flow velocity from pump power failure, valves operating too quickly, or pipeline rupture. Damage can range from minor, such as loosening pipe joints, to catastrophic.

The surge tanks operate by maintaining a set water
level with pressurized air above it. If a surge event
causes water from the forcemain to enter the tank
and the water level to increase, a solenoid valve
opens to increase the tank pressure, which forces the
water to drain. If the water level is low, a different
solenoid valve opens to relieve the tank pressure and
let water return to the level setpoint. A compressor
re -pressurizes the tanks if the internal pressure falls below a specified level.

3.3.3.2 Findings
Figure 3.3 Surge Tanks
The two surge tanks at BVPS are inspected annually and were in good condition during the condition assessment. The original surge tank and control panel were installed in 2001 and were in good condition. The newer surge tank and control panel were installed in 2013 during the second forcemain installation. These were also in good condition, with no reported or observed issues.

No leakage or corrosion was evident on the tanks or support equipment, and the paint was intact. However, for maintenance, the tanks are accessed from a rolling staircase, which may not be safe for operators.

3.3.4 Valves

3.3.4.1 Description
The forcemain valves were installed in 1995 as original equipment. Each pump has two 14 -inch eccentric plug valves, with one on the suction side of the each pump and one on the discharge side. Each plug valve is operated manually by a hand wheel or, if elevated, a chain wheel.

On the discharge header inside the building, three 20 -inch isolation eccentric plug valves allow flow to be directed to either forcemain. These plug valves are manually operated with chain wheels.

3.3.4.2 Findings
The two 16 -inch restrained mechanical plug valves that allow flow into the surge tanks were in good condition, with no evidence of leakage or corrosion. The 24 -inch buried plug valves were not assessed because they could not be accessed. However, maintenance and operation staff assumed that their condition is similar to the visible valves.

Conversely, the forcemain isolation, discharge, and header plug valves within the pump station building were corroded and showed evidence of leakage at connections. These plug valves need significant maintenance or replacement.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 13-5
C5 Page 461 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 3.5 Seal Water Components
The cushioned swing, spring -loaded 14 -inch check valves at each sewage pump had minor corrosion at the packing, Figure 3.4. Furthermore, the check valve at Pump No. 1 showed signs of minor leakage at the swing arm and minor corrosion on the valve top. The check valve at Pump No. 5 was noted as having excessive noise and vibration, which may be from the pump itself and not from the valve. The structural analysis recommended and described in Section 4.2.12 will provide additional information needed to identify the source Three of the four check valves on Pump Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were installed vertically, making maintenance difficult. The hoist in the pump room may help with valve removal and maintenance. The paint and supports were in good condition, with no signs of corrosion.

3.3.5 Seal Water System

3.3.5.1 Description
Installed in 1996, the seal water system, Figure 3.5, supplies water to lubricate the pump seals and flush impurities.

Figure 3.4 Check Valve at
Pump No. 1

3.3.5.2 Findings
While most components are functional and in good
condition, the system became obsolete after self -flushing mechanical seals were installed. The two alternating
pumps showed no sign of corrosion. However, leakage was observed even though the pumps are not in use. The
control valve had excessive corrosion.

3.3.6 Potable Water

3.3.6.1 Description
Installed in 1996, the potable water system consists of an air gap tank, Figure 3.6, a hydropneumatic tank, and an air compressor. Potable water is fed into the air gap tank, where water is drawn for sanitation and equipment washdown. The hydropneumatic tank contains water and pressurized air, supplied by the air compressor.

The hydropneumatic and air gap tanks serve to provide a supply of potable water at specified pressures without the potable water pump having to cycle on every time there is demand. When the seal water was in use, the system
provided water for the seal water pump

3.3.6.2 Findings
The potable water system was in good condition. Minor
corrosion was evident on the pressure switch and gauge, conduit fittings, and the solenoid valve flange bolts of the hydropneumatic tank. Similarly, the air gap tank had minor corrosion on the conduit but was in good condition overall. The anchorage should be checked for seismic.

Figure 3.6 Hydropneumatic Tank
3-6 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 462 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA The pressure gauge on the potable water tank was corroded on the outside with rust visible through the gauge's face. However, function does not seem to be impaired. Corrosion was noted on much of the support equipment and fittings.

3.3.7 Site Items

3.3.7.1 Description
A berm surrounding the pump station provides emergency storage. The building and the berm area provide a capacity of approximately 1 million gallons in case of a spill. Once the overflow conditions have been remedied, a drain installed in the southwest corner of the site will divert excess flow back into the wet well.

3.3.7.2 Findings
The pump station compound is located in a remote location, making it attractive to vagrants.

Vandals had breached the fence and damaged the air gap tank, and trash was observed immediately outside the fence.

The site has limited means to prevent these incidents. It has no external means of monitoring or alarms indicating a site breach, and the security cameras on -site record locally for forensics purposes only.

Figure 3.7 Chain Link Fence
The site is enclosed by a 6 -foot tall chain -link fence topped with barbed wire, Figure 3.7. While in good condition, the fence was too short in some areas and could be overcome in other areas because of nearby trees or raised elevation outside of the pump station. The asphalt, including the driveway and area surrounding the pump station building, showed significant cracks and deterioration.

Buried piping could not be accessed, but staff reported no issues. The exterior lighting appeared to be in good
condition, with deterioration noted in the enclosures. The three 250 -watt floodlights that illuminate the pump station compound were too small to provide adequate lighting, and staff mentioned that replacement lamps are hard to find.

3.3.8 Building

3.3.8.1 Description
The pump station building was erected in 1995, and the roll -up door to the generator room was installed in 1995. The chain hoist in the generator room has been on -site since 1996.

3.3.8.2 Findings
The pump station building was in good condition. The assessment team did not observe concrete spalling, visible rebar, or excessive corrosion to structures or members. There was no indication of structural deformities or foundation settling.

A minor shrinkage crack was noted in the basement wall, and a larger crack was observed lining up with the concrete joint in the perpendicular wall. However, neither seems to be a structural issue. Random cracks in the plaster on the exterior building walls were non-structural in nature.

Due to pump station operations during the inspection, it was not possible to inspect the wet well. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 1 3-7
C5 Page 463 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY The flood containment door was in poor condition and was visibly deformed around the edges, Figure 3.8. Corrosion along the edges made it difficult to open, which raises concerns about whether it would seal properly to contain a spill in the motor level of the pump station.

Some of the wood beams in the roof covering the generator room had minor cracks. Intake fans pull in moisture -laden air, exposing part of the wood framing to moisture. As a result, mold was observed on a few pieces of wood. However, the wood had not deteriorated and was free from defects. Its support equipment was functional, and the paint was intact. The crane is used sparingly.

In the concrete roof slab, maintenance staff reported leaks. Both the wet well and dry well fans were corroded, and white residue was found on the concrete roof's ceiling, indicating possible roof leakage. Because of leakage at the floor level, the expansion joint between the concrete structure and concrete masonry units on the roof were likely compromised. The expansion joint behind the stair stringer on the roof was broken. Water is probably leaking through this broken joint to the floor below.

Figure 3.8 Flood Containment
Door
Lighting fixtures in the electrical, generator, pump, and motor rooms, as well as above the stairwell, were in good working condition with no issues noted. The center fixture above the stairwell has had burned -out bulbs, but this does not indicate that the fixture is damaged. One light in the pump room on the south wall had a burned out bulb. The lighting control panel was in good condition, with minor corrosion on the exterior of the panel board but very little corrosion on the transformer.

EWA staff noted that the exhaust fans seem to provide excessive ventilation. EWA staff and the assessment team did not, however, note excessive ventilation in other areas of the pump station.

3.3.9 Wet Well

3.3.9.1 Description
The wet well was constructed in 1995. The wet well control panel was installed in 1996 and refurbished in 2004.

At the wet well, two ultrasonic level controls, with a bubbler control system as backup, provide level control. The bubbler system converts a pressure signal into an input signal to the PLC. The bubbler control panel is located in the motor room and has redundant, alternating compressors that share a receiver. The bubbler system was installed as original equipment in 1995 and was refurbished in 2005.

For both the wet and dry wells, a gas/oxygen detector monitors the wet and dry well atmospheres to ensure worker safety in case entry is needed. This detector was installed in 1996 and was rehabilitated in 2008.

The sluice gate at the entrance of the wet well was installed as original equipment in 1995. It was not evaluated since it is completely submerged; operations staff did not report issues. 3-8 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 464 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA Figure 3.9 Wet Well

3.3.9.2 Findings
Although the wet well was in good condition, multiple cracks were found on the wet well's roof, Figure 3.9 If left unrepaired, the cracks could lead to rebar corrosion. At the time of the assessment, no corrosion to structures or members, structural deformities, or signs of settling were noted. The PVC liner seemed to be intact with no signs of damage.

Because the wet well is difficult to assess thoroughly while the pump station is operational, the condition assessment was based on operator input and the site visit. There were no signs of corrosion on the wet well control panel. The bubbler control panel was also in good condition with no noted issues or signs of corrosion. The wet well exhaust ventilation stack had no noted issues. The equipment showed no signs of corrosion or damage. However, the light fixtures were severely corroded.

3.3.10 Flow Meters and Meter Vaults

3.3.10.1 Description
The Krohne 24 -inch electromagnetic flow meters
were installed in 2013, Figure 3.10. The meter vaults
were constructed in 2013.

3.3.10.2 Findings
The electromagnetic flow meters were in good
condition and were operating well. Minor corrosion
was noted along the flange of the pipe connected to
the flow meter.

Figure 3.10 Flow Meter and Vault
No major cracks, visible deformities, or evidence of settling was found in the meter vaults. Both meter vaults had proper sumps in place.

A sump pump in each vault provided adequate drainage, but neither vault had a flood detection device. The sumps showed signs of groundwater infiltration between the concrete joints, which could cause the structure and members to corrode. Corrosion was visible along the aluminum beam near the vault hatch.

3.3.11 Variable Frequency Drives

3.3.11.1 Description
Because process demands vary, VFDs control the motor speed and pump speed based on flow conditions. The PLC sends a speed control signal to VFDs, which operate the pump motors accordingly. This ability to adjust motor speed based on real-time flow conditions reduces power consumption without affecting operations.

3.3.11.2 Findings
The Allen-Bradley VFDs on all four pumps were installed in 1995 and were rehabilitated in 2009.

While they were in good condition, with no signs of corrosion or damage, they have become obsolete and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. Thus, they will be replaced under this project's design scope.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 13-9
C5 Page 465 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Furthermore, there is no VFD bypass feature allowing the pumps to operate at a constant speed if a VFD fails. Replacement will include adding a new bypass feature.

3.3.12 Control Centers and Panels

3.3.12.1 Description
A PLC is a computer that interprets input from sensors and switches throughout the pump station and then sends outputs signals to power valves, VFDs, and other equipment. As noted in the previous section, the PLC also sends signals to the VFDs to control the pump speed.

In addition to the PLC, the facility has an Allen-Bradley pump control panel, which is original equipment installed in 1995. The facility also has Allen-Bradley Motor Control Centers (MCCs).

MCC -1 and MCC -2 were installed in 1995. MCC -1 supplies power to Pumps No. 1 and No. 2, the power control transformer, and pump station auxiliary equipment. MCC -2 supplies power to Pumps No. 4 and No. 5.

The main tie breaker connects the MCCs for operation during power failure, when only one generator is available. The service entrance switchgear is a combination of electrical switches, fuses, and circuit breakers that meter and distribute incoming power.

3.3.12.2 Findings
The Allen-Bradley pump control panel showed no signs of corrosion or damage. The two Allen- Bradley 5/30 Processors on the panel are obsolete and are scheduled for replacement under the current project.

Minor corrosion was noted on MCC -1. On both breakers, minor scratches and spots that do not interfere with functionality were observed. The main tie breaker was in good condition and showed no signs of damage or corrosion. The assessment team noted that the service entrance switchgear was severely corroded.

3.3.13 Emergency Generators

3.3.13.1 Description
Two 750 kilowatt (kW) emergency generators were installed in 1996, Figure 3.11. These generators provide power during a commercial power failure to maintain pump station
operations. Each generator can run three pumps
simultaneously.

An automatic transfer switch system switches to generator power. The three Asco Auto Transfer Switches (ATS) were installed in 1994.

Figure 3.11 Generator No. 2
ATS-1 is powered by Generator No. 1, and ATS-2 is powered by Generator No. 2. The third ATS is powered by whichever generator is started and has an energized load first and powers the priority Toad MCC -1. A tie -breaker switch can be manually activated to interconnect the two MCC sections if the generator supplying the priority load fails. 3-10 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 466 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.3.13.2 Findings
The two emergency generators were in good condition with no signs of damage or corrosion evident.

The contacts in the ATS were clean and well maintained, with no signs of corrosion. The switches had minor scratches and spots that do not interfere with functionality.

Encina personnel expressed concerns that the required monthly ATS and generator testing caused equipment and VFD failures. The VFD failure delayed the pumps coming back online, which flooded the wet well. This flooding has damaged wall -mounted electrical components, primarily light switches, in the wet well.

3.3.14 V & A Engineers, Inc. Condition Assessment

3.3.14.1 Description
On September 9- 11, 2015, and January 12, 2016, V & A Consulting Engineers, Inc. visited the pump stations to conduct specialized testing of concrete and metal surfaces. V & A performed visual evaluations and non-destructive testing on concrete surfaces and structures, piping, motors, and pumps at the BVPS, the RPS, and the BCPS.

For the visual evaluations, V & A rated the condition of the surfaces based on the qualitative, objective criteria of the VANDA Metal and Concrete Condition Indices. They also used ultrasonic thickness testing to determine the pipe wall thickness. To perform this testing, they used a gauge that determines the thickness from sound waves at a specific location.

V & A performed ultrasonic thickness testing on the discharge riser, suction wall spool, and suction reducer for Pump Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. They tested the header between Pump Nos. 1 and 2, downstream of Pump Nos. 1 and 2, and the spool upstream of the northwest forcemain penetration.

V & A also assessed the exposed ductile iron piping. Using a handheld pit depth gauge, they took depth measurements where pitting was visible. They also performed a vibration analysis on the motors and pumps at the BVPS and the BCPS using a four -channel data recorder and analyzer that monitors motor and vibration speeds.

V & A contracted with Reed Electric performed vibration testing on all four pumps and motors at the pump station while running at speeds near 65 percent and 100 percent. During testing, the pump station was operational. Because of the limitations to a live station, data were collected at only the lower speed for some test points.

Using the Wenner Four -Electrode Method, V & A performed in -situ soil resistivity testing to determine how current travels in the soil. This testing indicates how corrosive the soil is to metal components. Typically, soils with low resistivity have higher corrosive properties.

V& A collected soil samples along the excess effluent line for corrosivity analysis, including pH and ion concentrations. For additional details on testing methods and equipment, refer to the full report in Appendix E.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 13-11
C5 Page 467 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.3.14.2 Findings
The dry well at the BVPS showed groundwater infiltration through the exterior walls. However, the concrete surfaces seemed to be in good condition with minor defects. Some areas of groundwater infiltration had staining, which indicates corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The edges of the grout pads under the pump bases also showed some deterioration.

Repairs from previous leaks seemed to be successful, with no additional leakage observed in those locations.

Coatings on metal equipment and piping were intact. However, at lower elevations, small chips were visible in the coating. Coating failures can lead to corrosion.

Corrosion was observed around check valve lever shafts and some covers, threaded tap on 20 -inch discharge header from Pump Nos. 1 and 2 and the suction flange on Pump No. 4. The bathroom drain plumbing was also corroded and showed signs of leakage.

Ventilation ducting flange at the blower was missing bolts and nuts and is out of alignment by approximately one half inch.

Built in 2013, the meter vaults were in overall good condition with some issues. Both showed moderate to extensive groundwater infiltration, and the floors of both vaults were wet. The stains were rust colored and were noted at various elevations within the vaults. Because of the water's proximity to the creek and lagoon, the water is likely brackish and can promote corrosion of steel within concrete.

Coating on the 24 -inch ductile iron forcemain was peeling, and corrosion was noted at the pipe penetration. This corrosion was likely associated with the groundwater infiltration in the vaults.

The assessment team did not see the waterstop ring with mechanical seals, which is indicated on the drawings. This ring would help seal the gap between the pipe and the sleeve. However, the team did note that the pipe appeared to be embedded directly into the concrete.

The flow meters were in good condition, but the copper grounding cables showed oxidation and corrosion at the cable connectors. The hold-down rods for the pipe supports did not have a rubber pad between the coated pipe surface and the rods for galvanic and vibration protection.

Although the pipe support saddles in both vaults were galvanized, they showed corrosion. This corrosion, as well as the spalling and corrosion on the concrete supports for the plug valves, was likely from standing water in the vaults. The concrete might not have enough depth of cover for the reinforcing steel.

The sump pump is functional. However, signs of corrosion were seen on the fittings and the outlet the sump pump plugs into.

Ultrasonic thickness testing revealed that wall thickness at all but one test location was within manufacturing tolerances. The 20 -inch header pipe spool on the discharge header from Pump Nos. 1 and 2 showed a significant loss of 0.167 inches, which is 37 percent of its nominal thickness, and shows signs of localized external corrosion. 3-12 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 468 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA The spool has a threaded tap that showed signs of heavy corrosion. The tap may be leaking, or its installation may have caused damage to the spools coating and lining. The results of the thickness testing are in Table 4-1 in the full report, which is in Appendix E.

According to vibration testing, most vibration levels met ISO and Hydraulic Institute Standards, with highest readings found in the perpendicular direction on pumps and motors. Pump and Motor No. 1 showed the lowest reading, and Pump and Motor No. 2 showed a high peak at 65 percent speed. Motor No. 4 had unusual running speed harmonics in the upper bearing and had overall high readings. Motor and Pump No. 5 showed some high frequency peaks indicating loose bearings, and the pump upper bearing showed signs of cavitation noise not observed in other pumps.

Because neither hydraulic noise nor VFD issues were noted, some of the higher frequency peaks may be due to residual resonance issues. The stiffening beams attached to the pumps are likely meant to reduce vibration and for seismic considerations.

3.4 Raceway Pump Station
The condition assessment at the RPS occurred on July 23, 2015.

3.4.1 Sewage Grinder and Barscreen

3.4.1.1 Description
A Moyno channel grinder is on one side of an
approximately 4 -foot square channel, Figure 3.12.

The channel is divided by a concrete wall and a

2.47 -foot tall weir to divert flow to the barscreen
during increased flow or grinder failure/removal.

3.4.1.2 Findings
The Moyno grinder has been removed from service
for at least a year, leaving only the barscreen to
prevent debris from entering the wet well. The
barscreen lets wipes and other debris travel through
the pump station intact, which poses a risk to
downstream equipment and requires labor-intensive manual cleaning. This debris also clogs the pumps and forcemain, requiring operators to back flush the system. The current configuration provides no redundancy and is inadequate for the pump station's needs.

Figure 3.12 Grinder and Barscreen Channel

3.4.2 Sewage Pumps

3.4.2.1 Description
The RPS has three 75 -hp Fairbanks Morse submersible solids -handling sewage pumps, which are VFD driven. Each pump has a capacity of 650 gpm. All three pumps are original equipment from the pump station rebuild in 2007.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-13
C5 Page 469 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 3.13 Discharge Valve Pump No. 3

3.4.2.2 Findings
Although the submerged pumps cannot be inspected while the pump station is operational, the visible portions of the discharge piping and support equipment were in good condition and showed signs of only minor corrosion on the flanges. Each pump is pulled yearly for inspection, and one pump is rebuilt annually on a
rotating basis.

Without a sewage grinder in service, ragging
of the pumps has increased. Pump discharge
valves were in good condition and showed
no sign of leakage, Figure 3.13. The valves
are exercised weekly and had no known
issues except minor corrosion. All support
equipment was present and in good
condition.

3.4.3 Site Items
The RPS is isolated in a canyon and has experienced at least three site breaches. In two cases, a hole was cut in the chain -link fence. The method of entry for the other breach is unknown.

During the breaches, the generator radiator was damaged when trespassers tried to steal the aluminum. With no external monitoring or alarms, the site breaches went undiscovered until personnel went on -site for routine purposes. Although mock security cameras had been installed, they were stolen at some point.

The 8 -foot chain -link perimeter fence is in good condition but lacks additional security features, such as razor wire at the top, to deter trespassers, Figure 3.14.

On the southern perimeter, the fence ends at the building wall. The building roof overhangs the fence, providing an easy means of access to trespassers.

Trees in close proximity to the fence also allow access over the fence. The access gate at the north end of the site is secured only with a padlock.

Exterior lighting is adequate for the facility, but two pole lights are not connected to the existing photoelectric sensor and are not activated automatically when it gets dark. One fixture on top of the building needs to be replaced, but all others are in good condition with no signs of corrosion or other defects on the fixtures or supports.

Figure 3.15 Pressure Transmitter Gauge
Figure 3.14 Fence
The asphalt along the access road and within the pump
station compound is in good condition. The
assessment team did not note any significant cracks or
deterioration.

The Rosemount pressure transmitter gauge is located
on the pump discharge manifold, Figure 3.15. Minor
corrosion was noted on the manifold valves, but other
supports were in good condition. Critical indications
and alarms were functional. No parts were missing. If
3-14 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C CJ•`''n'+"
C5 Page 470 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA parts are missing in the future, the equipment is currently supported by the manufacturer and replacement parts are available.

3.4.4 Building
Dust and debris entering the building has caused damage to electrical components. Fluffy, cotton -like material has been found within the electrical panels and are thought to have caused at least one VFD failure.

The louvered doors on the building do not provide an
adequate barrier and need to be replaced with solid
doors, Figure 3.16. The 1200 CFM exhaust fan has minor
corrosion but is in good condition. Neither operators nor the assessment team noted excessive ventilation.

Because the joists on the wood roof were not pressure
treated, the plywood flaked from moisture -caused
shrinkage due to environmental exposure. Joists on the
building exterior walls have been painted for protection but are susceptible to deterioration in the future.

Double fluorescent lamp fixtures provide interior lighting. These fixtures were functional, in good condition, and provided adequate light. Emergency lights and all light switches were also functional. No corrosion was observed.

Figure 3.16 Louvered Doors and Building

3.4.5 Emergency Overflow Storage Pond

3.4.5.1 Description
The emergency overflow storage pond onsite was designed for approximately 150,000 gallons of sewage overflow if pumping operations are interrupted due to power outage, equipment failure, or peak flows caused by system infiltration or storm events, Figure 3.17.

Figure 3.17 Overflow Storage Pond

3.4.5.2 Findings
During inspection, water was present in the basin,
most likely from groundwater infiltration. Large
cracks were visible in the concrete basin.

The emergency overflow flap gate that directs flow
from the wet well to the overflow basin had moderate
surficial corrosion and did not close or seal properly.

As a result, flow from the basin backed into the wet
well.

The overflow return plug valve that allows flow from
the basin back into the wet well was stuck in the closed position, preventing the pond from being drained back into the wet well. The curb around the perimeter of the overflow storage pond had significant cracks on the handrail posts.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 13-15
C5 Page 471 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.4.6 Odor Control Unit

3.4.6.1 Description
Odor is a normal byproduct of sewage conveyance. To
control odor at the RPS, an odor control scrubber system is used, Figure 3.18. It consists of a small fan and two
prepackaged carbon towers.

3.4.6.2 Findings
The odor control scrubber system needs significant
maintenance. The carbon bed has not been replaced since Figure 3.18 Odor Control Unit it was installed in 2002. The PVC piping was brittle and cracking, and the supports and bolts were rusting.

The alarms and critical indications were functional, and the unit is currently supported by the manufacturer, with replacement parts available as maintenance requires. The 0.68 -hp radial fume exhaust fan showed no signs of corrosion.

3.4.7 Wet Well

3.4.7.1 Description
The wet well was constructed in 2007, Figure 3.19. Two sluice gates allow influent to enter the wet well from the grinder channel and the barscreen side. The wet well level setpoint is maintained through communication with a Siemens HydroRanger 200 ultrasonic level transmitter.

3.4.7.2 Findings
Because much of the wet well was submerged during the site visit, the condition assessment was based observations of the unsubmerged portions of the wet well and operator input. From these observations, the wet well appeared to be in good condition, with no defects or bubbling in the PVC liner.

Operators stated the sluice gates, Figure 3.20, seal well were in good condition but were difficult to open and tended to stick since they are exercised only annually.

Figure 3.19 Wet Well
Figure 3.20 Sluice Gates
Scum build-up in the wet well is a problem, and
operators have to remove to it with a high-pressure
hose. Maintenance personnel expressed a desire for
a better way to homogenize grease and scum build-
up, perhaps through a chopper pump or a spray -
down system designed for wet well use.

The transmitter was in good condition and fully
functional. However, it wasn't operating during the
site visit from high levels of foam in the wet well. No corrosion was observed.
3-16 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 472 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.4.8 Flow Meter and Meter Vault

3.4.8.1 Description
A gravity drain to the wet well provides drainage from the meter vault. The transmitter for the Sparling TigerMag EP electromagnetic flow meter is located in the electrical room.

3.4.8.2 Findings
The meter vault was in good condition, Figure 3.21. The flow meter and supports were also in good condition, with no signs of corrosion.

Critical indications and alarms were functional. The
flowmeter is currently supported by the manufacturer.

3.4.9 Variable Frequency Drives

3.4.9.1 Description
Figure 3.21 Flow Meter and Vault
At the RPS are three Allen-Bradley Powerflex Variable Frequency Drives, one for each submersible pump motor. All VFDs were installed as original equipment in 2007.

3.4.9.2 Findings
The VFDs were in good condition but showed signs of dust and debris infiltration in the housings.

According to operations staff, the dirty environment in the electrical room had caused VFD failure. Because of the failure, some of the VFDs had to be replaced and others repaired. The units are currently supported by the manufacturer, meaning replacement parts are available for maintenance.

Minor ultraviolet light degradation was noted on the FRP cable termination box of each VFD.

The VFDs showed no signs of corrosion.

3.4.10 Control Centers and Panels

3.4.10.1 Description
The Allen-Bradley CenterLine MCC,
Figure 3.22, was installed at the pump station
in 2005, before the site was rehabilitated. The
Allen-Bradley PLC was installed as original
equipment in 2007.

Figure 3.22 Motor Control Center
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-17
C5 Page 473 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 3.23 Programmable Logic Control

3.4.10.2 Findings
The MCC was in good condition. The contacts were
clean and well maintained, and there were no signs of
corrosion. Replacement parts are available if needed.

Although no equipment or parts were missing, staff
noted that the MCC did not have a surge protection
device.

EWA personnel voiced concerns regarding the PLC's
functionality. The FlexLogix PLC, Figure 3.23, does not allow for a redundant processor and had failed every
few months. These failures required the PLC to be
reset for EWA personnel to develop a method to
prevent data loss.

The inside of the housings for the PLC and MCC,
including the ventilation fans, were dirty from dust
and debris infiltrating the electrical room. The PLC is scheduled for replacement under the current project.

3.4.11 Emergency Generator

3.4.11.1 Description
The Kohler Power Systems emergency standby generator was installed in 2007, Figure 3.24. The GE Zenith Controls automatic transfer switch was installed in 2007. A 400 gallon fuel tank provides a 24 -hour supply of fuel on -site.

3.4.11.2 Findings
The emergency generator was in good condition, with
140 hours of runtime remaining on the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) annual permit. No issues or
defects with the generator were observed. No corrosion
was noted on the generator or associated supports.

Replacement parts are readily available. EWA staff
noted that the required monthly generator testing has
disrupted pump operations and caused VFD shutdown.

Figure 3.24 Emergency Generator
The automatic transfer switch and supports were in good condition, with no visible corrosion.

The critical indication and alarms were functional, and the contacts were clean and well maintained. All equipment was present and parts were available for maintenance.

3.4.12 V & A Engineers, Inc. Condition Assessment

3.4.12.1 Description
V & A Engineers performed a condition assessment of the RPS on Septemberll, 2015, using visual assessment and ultrasonic thickness testing. Ultrasonic thickness testing was performed at the discharge ground penetration, discharge horizontal spool, and discharge elbow of each pump and on the discharge header.
3-18 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 474 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.4.12.2 Findings
The exterior surface of the exposed piping was in good condition, with no signs of corrosion. The coating was intact, except for a coating failure noted on the flange near the Pump No. 3 discharge pipe. The failure caused moderate corrosion, rated VANDA Level 3. In addition, the electrical box and conduits near the pump piping had corrosion staining and cracks in the coating. The concrete was damaged at the base of the electrical box support.

The concrete storage reservoir exhibited significant infiltration/exfiltration at cracks and joints in the concrete. The concrete surfaces within the basin were in good condition, rated VANDA Level 1. However, the concrete curb surrounding the reservoir was cracked and damaged by spalling where the guardrail connects. The post was not coated with coal tar and a PVC sleeve to isolate it from the concrete, which caused large cracks.

Most of locations in which ultrasonic thickness testing was performed had wall thickness loss within manufacturing tolerances. Three locations showed losses outside the tolerance, with losses from 18 percent to 21 percent. However, these values represent minor variance from the manufacturing tolerances of 0.028 inches or less and were likely manufactured thicker than Class 53, as required by AWWA C115. The pipes and fittings were in good condition, rated VANDA Level 1.

3.5 Buena Creek Pump Station Condition Assessment Findings The condition assessment at the BCPS took place on July 28, 2015.

3.5.1 Sewage Grinders

3.5.1.1 Description
Solids are handled by two JWC Channel Monster Sewage Grinders running in parallel, with a spare grinder on the shelf for backup, Figure 3.25. The grinders were both installed in 2002 and were rehabilitated between 2006 and 2008. An Ingersoll-Rand air compressor provides pressurized air to the grinder hydraulic units.
1tip '�ridi
iJIb11l111 S' -.

Ill IlliAA‘s
ititiNgtiPhN,+
Figure 3.25 Channel Monster Sewage
Grinders

3.5.1.2 Findings
The system performed well, and all accessory equipment was functional. The only concern reported was occasional damage at the base of the grinders from grit and rocks. If one or both grinders fail, flow will bypass the grinders over a weir to enter the wet well.

Because the sewage grinders are partially submerged,
assessment was based on operations and maintenance staff input and inspection of the equipment above the water elevation. All components and support equipment were present and functional, and replacement parts are available for maintenance.

Each channel grinder had its own hydraulic unit, which were both in good condition. Supports were in good condition, and no corrosion was noted.

The compressor was in good condition, with no sign of excessive corrosion on the compressor or supports.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 3-19
C5 Page 475 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.5.2 Sewage Pumps and Motors

3.5.2.1 Description
The pump station has five Cornell solids -handling sewage pumps that were installed in 2002 and were rehabilitated in 2007, Figure 3.26. The sewage pumps are powered by
Lincoln motors, installed in 2002.

Operator preference is to run Pump Nos. 4 and 5, which
are inspected and rebuilt annually. The remaining three pumps are inspected annually and maintained as needed.

Due to the configuration, Pumps Nos. 2 and 3 air lock if they have been off-line, with air getting caught on the suction side.

Figure 3.26 Sewage Pumps and Motors

3.5.2.2 Findings
The pumps were in good working condition, with only minor corrosion on the suction side of the diaphragm seal. They did not have excessive corrosion, leaks, vibration, or noise. Support equipment is present and in good condition. The paint was intact, but it did have minor chips and defects. The City and EWA staff expressed concerns that the current configuration is oversized for current flow conditions.

The contacts in the sewage pump were clean and well maintained, and all critical indications and alarms were functional. The motor supports were in good condition, with no missing parts.

3.5.3 Surge Tank

3.5.3.1 Description
The surge protection system was installed in 2002, Figure 3.27.

The compressor located in the motor room provides pressurized air.

3.5.3.2 Findings
The compressor was fully functional and in good condition. The tank and supports were also in good condition, with only minor corrosion on the valves. The tank and supports are inspected annually.

No sign of leakage was observed, and the paint was intact. Staff has reported concerns that the surge tank may be inadequately sized for the pump station.

Flow Science Incorporated performed a screening -level surge evaluation. This evaluation was done for three reasons: to determine potential pressure surge issues at the BCPS, to determine whether the existing surge tank is adequately sized, and to determine measures to mitigate pressure surge issues at the pump station and along the forcemain. Appendix F presents the full technical memorandum discussing this evaluation.

Figure 3.27 Surge Tank
3-20 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 476 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA In the evaluation, Flow Science determined that sources of pressure surges from both the BCPS and the RPS exist because the forcemain from the RPS connects to the BSD forcemain between BCPS and the gravity outfall. Pump power failure and startup, opening and closing of control and isolation valves, or a pipeline rupture could cause a pressure surge and water hammer.

The Buena Outfall has a system high point approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the pump station, with an elevation of 433 feet. The location is at SA 24+14, and the pipeline is equipped with a 3 -inch vacuum relief/air inlet valve. The pipeline is not fully pressurized from this high point to the gravity outfall, and open channel flow is predicted for this segment. However, pressure surges upstream will not likely affect the non -pressurized portion of the forcemain.

The forcemain between the pump station and the system high point is expected to be fully pressurized. Along this segment, the 8 -inch RPS forcemain connects to the Encina forcemain approximately 7,000 feet downstream of BCPS.

To determine the impact of a pressure surge, several scenarios were evaluated. These scenarios are explained below.

The first scenario examined the effects of pump power failure and startup at the BCPS. Under this scenario, water hammer created by pump power failure would cause a significant pressure downsurge wave that, without surge protection, would propagate into the forcemain. The vapor pressure would likely cause extremely high localized pressure that could damage the forcemain between the pump station and high point. The vacuum pressures could cause the pipe to collapse.

The existing 1,000 gallon tank and 12 -inch connection line are adequately sized to reduce the velocity in the forcemain and lessen the severity of a surge event. At the design flow of 8.8 mgd, the velocity in the 18 -inch segment of forcemain is almost 8 ft/sec and the pressure surge wave is approximately 1,300 fps. Based on this analysis, the surge tank volume is likely sufficient to provide protection.

The second scenario considered pump power failure and startup at the RPS. Under this scenario, due to the low flow rate at the RPS, a pressure surge event would not propagate into the BSD forcemain and affect BCPS. The surge could damage the RPS forcemain.

The third scenario assessed the impact of valve operations on surge potential. Opening a valve too quickly causes pipeline pressure upstream to drop, which can propagate upstream from the valve. Closing a valve too quickly causes a pressure increase on the upstream side of the valve, converting kinetic energy to pressure energy. This increased pressure causes a situation similar to pump power failure. Both conditions contribute to water hammer.

The fourth scenario considered the pressure downsurge wave created by a rupture along the forcemain. Under this scenario, the HGL would lower to the rupture site's elevation, propagating a pressure downsurge wave in both directions along the forcemain. The vacuum pressures in the forcemain could cause pipe collapse.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-21
C5 Page 477 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.5.3.3 Mitigation Measure
Steps can be taken during routine operation and maintenance to decrease the risk of surge pressure issues. Starting the BCPS pumps one at a time, and using the VFDs to slowly increase the speed, will reduce the potential of a pressure surge. To prevent damage to the RPS forcemain in the event of a pump power failure and startup, mitigation measures include installing vacuum relief valves or a small surge tank at Raceway. The same startup procedures as those recommended for the BCPS should be followed.

Adjusting the rate of valve motion to an appropriate speed can control the water hammer. The use of motor -operated valves helps prevent rapid valve motion. To prevent a pipe collapse which could result from a pressure downsurge wave due to pipeline rupture, vacuum relief valves should be installed along the forcemain to allow air into the pipeline. The air will increase the minimum pipeline pressures.

3.5.4 Pump Station Piping & Valves
Pump station effluent leaves the pump station
through the BSD's Encina forcemain. A second
forcemain then conveys flow to the abandoned
Shadowridge facility that is functional but not in
use. The forcemain lacks redundancy, and in the
case of pipeline failure, has no suitable backup to
handle flows. Pump Nos. 2 and 3 each have two
motor operated plug valves used to divert flow
to Shadowridge or Encina, as conditions dictate,
Figure 3.28.

Figure 3.28 Motor Operated Valve
Operators reported that every forcemain valve leaked and needed to be replaced. The 24 -inch forcemain plug valve had no signs of corrosion, but leakage was apparent.

Figure 3.29 Check Valve
Staff indicated that the valves for Pumps No. 2 and 3
have reached the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced. Upon activation, the emergency shut off check valves close too slowly and need to be rehabilitated or replaced, Figure 3.29. Overall, every valve appears to be approaching the end of its useful life.
3-22 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
Gir" '.

C5 Page 478 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.5.5 Site Items

3.5.5.1 Description
The BCPS is in a remote location with heavy foot
traffic along the pedestrian path between the
compound and the nearby creek. The security
cameras at the
BCPS record
locally for
forensics
purposes but do
not stream video
Figure 3.31 GE Cabinet Lacks
Access
Figure 3.30 Fence and Asphalt
for external monitoring. No external monitoring or alarms are present to trigger if the fence or building is breached. The site is enclosed by a 6 -foot chain -link fence topped with barbed wire, Figure 3.30. The GE cabinet located on the slope at the southeast corner of the pump station houses an SDG&E meter, Figure 3.31.

3.5.5.2 Findings
The existing fence and gates were in good condition but did not deter trespassers. The asphalt needs to be repaired because of extensive cracking.

The creek that runs along the north side of the pump station has no physical barrier to protect it from spills. Rather than flow toward the natural depression outside the fence line, flow can overflow at the adjacent manholes into the creek west of the pump station.

The GE cabinet housing had minor corrosion on the exterior but was otherwise in good condition. The cabinet can be accessed through a chain -link walking gate from outside the site.

However, access from within the site is challenging since the cabinet is at the top of an unimproved slope that shows signs of erosion.

3.5.6 Building

3.5.6.1 Description
The building's motor room has with seven 8 -foot long, and one 4 foot long, wet location fluorescent light fixtures and two dual lamp emergency fixtures. The pump room has eight wall - mounted 8 -foot long wet location fluorescent light fixtures.

The inlet vault is supplied by an 1800 CFM centrifugal roof supply fan with a 1 hp motor. The vault is exhausted through the bio-filter odor control units associated radial flume exhauster, rated at 2000 CFM. The pump station main building is supplied by a roof -mounted centrifugal fan rated at 5000 CFM with a 3 -hp motor through a supply air duct from the roof to the pump room.
rc
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-23
C5 Page 479 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY The pump room and motor room have separate exhaust fans on the roof. Each room is exhausted by an identical roof -mounted centrifugal exhaust fan rated 5000 CFM with a 1.5 hp motor.

3.5.6.2 Findings
Although the building was structurally sound, there were existing leaks and evidence of past leaks inside the pump room. Groundwater cascaded steadily down the west wall penetration near the mechanical duct, and pump station staff and condition assessment inspectors could not determine the source, Figure 3.32. Signs of past leaks that were resolved were evident at the bottom of the north wall adjacent to the wet well and at the bottom of the east and south walls. An area near the stairs on the south wall had been successfully patched with plaster concrete during the first year of construction. Small hairline cracks on the walls appeared to be minor, non-structural cracks. There was also a crack in the overhead slab at the southwest corner of the pump room.

Interior and exterior lighting were adequate for the pump station, with no reported or observed issues. On the west side of the building are two dual head motion -sensor floodlights, which Encina maintenance staff had scheduled for replacement. The four light fixtures on the east side of the building, which are wall -mounted low-pressure sodium lamps, were in good condition.

Corrosion was not noted on the fixtures or supports.

EWA staff noted that exhaust fans over -ventilate the facility. The rest room has a small exhaust fan, rated at 150 CFM that discharges through a vent to the roof and sufficiently ventilates the room. All supply and exhaust fans accessible for assessments were in good condition, with only minor surface defects and minimal corrosion noted.

Figure 3.32 Leak Visible on Concrete
Wall

3.5.7 Emergency Overflow Storage Basin

3.5.7.1 Description
The abandoned Shadowridge pump vault provides
emergency overflow storage, Figure 3.33. The
unlined concrete vault has a capacity of
50,000 gallons and contains a small sump pump to
return water to the wet well. If needed, a natural
depression to the west of the site can be used for
additional storage.

Figure 3.33 Emergency Storage Vault

3.5.7.2 Findings
The vault and associated equipment were in good condition with no reported or visible issues.

The concrete showed no spalling or visible rebar, and no excessive corrosion was noted. No major cracks, settling, deformation, or leakage was evident.

The return pump was in good condition with no observed or reported issues. The pump panel was also in good condition. However, the pilot lights on the pump control panel need to be replaced. Corrosion was not observed, and the supports were in good condition. 3-24 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 480 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.5.8 Odor Control Bio-Filter Unit

3.5.8.1 Description
The unit houses bark material that was installed in 2008 and has never been replaced. The exhaust fan pulls air from the wet well and pump room for treatment in the biofilter.

Figure 3.34 Odor Control Unit

3.5.9 Wet Well

3.5.8.2 Findings
The biofilter odor control unit functions properly, but the housing requires significant maintenance, Figure 3.34. The fiberglass showed surficial cracks, and minor corrosion was on the base. The fans and ducting were in good condition.

The exhaust fan was in good condition with no evident issues. The odor control blower control panel was also in good condition.

However, the pilot lights need to be replaced. Although the panel and supports were not excessively corroded, parts are available for maintenance if needed.

3.5.9.1 Description
Flow enters the pump station from two influent
pipelines and travels through the channel grinders
into the wet well, Figure 3.35. The wet well is divided into two sections that can be isolated with a slide gate in the dividing wall. The existing slide gates and sluice gate are manually operated. This division makes
maintenance easier, since cleaning or repairs can
happen while the pump station is operational. Pump
Nos. 1 and 2 pull flow from the west wet well, and the
remaining pumps pull from the east wet well. The
lighting in the wet well was upgraded in CIP 8259.

Wet well level is controlled by data relayed from one of four level sensors. Each wet well has one pressure transducer sensor and one ultrasonic sensor for redundancy. One is the designated primary sensor in each wet well, with the second sensors serving as backup in case of failure.

3.5.9.2 Findings
The wet well requires significant rehabilitation. The entire wet well could not be observed, since the pump station was operational at the time of the site visit. Although concrete was not visible during inspection, the PVC liner is known to be failing and will be replaced as part of this project during station bypass with the VFD/PLC replacement.

The stainless steel slide gates at the entrance to the wet well appeared to be in good condition.

However, staff reported damage to the seals. The sluice gate that divides the wet well was also damaged, preventing the two sides of the wet well from being isolated for bypass pumping for work and maintenance. The seals, stop logs, and liner are scheduled for as part of this project during station bypass with the VFD/PLC replacement.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-25
C5 Page 481 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 3.39 Motor
Control Center
Figure 3.37 Gas Analyzer
Operators expressed concerns with grease building up in the far ends of the wet well, requiring them to pump down the level and use a firehose to break it up. The two dry well sump pumps were both in good condition with only minor defects observed and no operational issues noted.

3.5.10 Flow Meters and Gas Analyzer
The 14 -inch flow meter on the Encina forcemain was installed in 2002 and was in good condition during the assessment, with no sign of excessive corrosion, Figure 3.36. The Shadowridge forcemain flow meter was in good condition, even though the facility is not in use.

Critical indications and alarms were functional. Supports were in good condition, and there were no signs of excessive corrosion.

Encina staff expressed a preference to have the flow meter displays moved from their current location inside the PLC cabinet so the PLC
can be locked.

Figure 3.36 Encina Forcemain 14" Flow Meter
The gas analyzer, Figure 3.37, provides data for
conditions in the wet well and pump room using a
three-way valve to switch between the samples. The
gas analyzers were upgraded in CIP 8259 and were in
good condition during the assessment, with no
observed or reported issues.

3.5.11 Variable Frequency Drives
The Allen-Bradley VFDs for all five pumps were installed in 2002 and are obsolete. The VFDs will be replaced in 2016 for this project.

3.5.12 Control Centers and Panels
The Allen-Bradley Programmable Logic controller was installed in 2002 but is now obsolete and scheduled for replacement in 2016 for a current project, Figure 3.38. Encina personnel expressed a desire for installing a hard -wired data link between the PLC and
flow meter so the flow meter display can be
moved from the PLC cabinet.

The Allen-Bradley Centerline motor control
panel was installed in 2002 and was in good
condition during the assessment, Figure 3.39.

The supports were in good condition and no issues were noted with the functionality of alarms.

Figure 3.38
Controller
Programmable Logic
3-26 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C cap'--■ '
C5 Page 482 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA

3.5.13 Crane
The Wallace Products A -frame 2 ton crane has a 10 -foot span to fit across the hatches in the floor of the motor room. The attached Coffey hoist enables staff to pull sewage pumps from the pump room to the motor room for maintenance.

The crane is located in the motor room and was in good condition. The paint had minor defects and surface scratches but no signs of corrosion.

3.5.14 Emergency Generator

3.5.14.1 Description
The 500 -kW Kohler Power Systems Emergency
Generator was installed in 2002, Figure 3.40.

The generator serves as backup power to the
pump station during commercial power failure.

The generator can run three pumps at maximum
speed.

The Allen-Bradley ATS was installed in 2002 and
was refurbished in 2007. The ATS switches
power automatically during a commercial power failure.

Figure 3.40 Emergency Generator

3.5.14.2 Findings
The generator was in good condition. Minor corrosion was noted on exhaust silencers, but it did not affect operations. The supports were in good condition, and parts are available for maintenance. Alarms and critical indications were functional, and contacts were clean and well maintained.

No issues were noted by the EWA staff or the assessment team. No components had excessive corrosion. The switch is currently supported by the manufacturer.

3.5.15 V & A Engineers, Inc. Condition Assessment
V & A evaluated the BCPS on September 10, 2015, using visual assessment, ultrasonic thickness testing, and vibration testing. On January 12, 2016, V & A performed in -situ soil resistivity analysis, soil sampling at the pump station and along the downstream pipelines, and corrosivity testing of the soil along the excess effluent and forcemain pipelines. In -situ soil resistivity testing included an investigation into foreign utilities and soil sample analysis. Visual assessment of the dry well and concrete surfaces was also performed.

The dry well and concrete surfaces were in good condition with minor cracks noted. Some cracks showed evidence of groundwater leakage, mostly on the south wall. However, they did not have the staining indicating corrosion on the reinforcing steel.

The pump room had an active leak on the west wall from behind a ventilation duct. Neither the discharge piping nor the pump system was the source. The source may be the potable water supply line to the bathroom upstairs.

A 1 -inch copper pipe that extends from the floor to the ceiling near the active leak was corroded at the tee fitting. Minor corrosion staining and coating failure were observed on Pump No. 3 support pedestal, Pump No. 4 discharge piping support, and the flange bolt on Pump No. 3. The FINAL I AUGUST 2016 13-27
C5 Page 483 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY majority of the coating on metal piping and equipment was intact, with minor chips and delamination observed. None of the chips or delamination had resulted in corrosion.

Suction piping for Pump Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 had stains from prior leaks on the wall at the pipe penetration. There were no active leaks. All but one of the five galvanized pump discharge pipe support brackets provided only minimal support because they were loose. The fourth support from the west wall rattled during operation, damaging the coating.

The motors and pumps were mounted in an inverted pendulum arrangement that appeared to be a significant issue in terms of seismic loading. The large heavy motors were supported only by the discharge and suction flanges. In an earthquake, a large moment could result at the pump flanges, causing the motor to tip over if the mounting points aren't strong enough to resist the moment. Although seismic and structural issues were not included in the condition assessment, V & A did note this this issue.

V & A took ultrasonic thickness measurements at the following locations: the upstream and downstream suction for each pump, the discharge of Pump Nos. 4 and 5, the lower header between them, a surge tank riser, upstream and downstream of the Shadowridge flow meter, the Encina flow meter bypass, the Encina forcemain along the west wall, and the lower headers between Pump Nos. 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and the lower header west of Pump 1. All but four locations were within manufacturing tolerances. Locations outside of the tolerances had a maximum of 19 percent wall thickness loss, representing a variance of 0.014 inches.

Reed Electric attempted vibration testing on all five motors and pumps. However, Pump No. 3 was not operational due to either VFD or electrical issues. Testing occurred while pumps were running between 78 and 87 percent, because of system control limitations and high cavitation vibration observed at lower loads.

The vibration levels were high on most test locations, with many exceeding ISO and Hydraulic Institute standards for operating levels. High readings occurred primarily in the in -line direction of the pumps and motors, with the highest reading in the pumps' lower bearing area. Reed Electric speculated that the severity of the vibration was from the stiffness of the pipe and the pump supports, since no excessive hydraulic noise or VFD issues were present.

In -situ soil resistivity testing was performed along the excess effluent and forcemain alignments.

Most of the tested soils have moderate to high corrosion, with some areas of very high corrosivity. These readings mean that metal pipes and fittings in this soil environment will likely corrode. The complete list of results is available in the full report in Appendix E.

The foreign utility investigation found a pipeline on Faraday Avenue that is cathodically protected with a galvanic system. The 16 -inch concrete mortar -lined, tape -wrapped pipeline is part of the Olivenhain Water District. The current output is low and the galvanic system is not considered an interference risk.

Soil samples were obtained from three locations along the excess effluent line, one near the pump station along the creek, one near the middle of the alignment at a point near the RPS, and one close to the gravity outfall at El Camino Real. The laboratory results showed that all three samples were from high to moderately corrosive soil environments. The location nearest the 3-28 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 484 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA gravity outfall had higher chloride concentrations and is designated the most corrosive of the sites tested.

3.6 Risk Assessment
Capital improvement planning for rehabilitation and replacement activities is based on lowering the risk exposure of the City's pump stations. The magnitude of the City's risk from each asset at is estimated and quantified from the product of two metrics: vulnerability and criticality.

Vulnerability, defined as the possibility of failure, is based on asset condition and performance.

Criticality is as the consequence of failure.

Because of the pump station condition assessments, and considering asset criticalities, Carollo and the City collaborated to make risk determinations. The resulting risk scores, according to each asset, are automatically calculated in Carollo's asset list. The following sections describe the variables used to assess risk and the approach used to determine final scoring.

3.6.1 Original Useful Life
The Original Useful Life (OUL) of an asset represents the amount of time it is estimated to function properly under standard maintenance before becoming unserviceable. The estimated lives of each asset were based on technical experience and industry trends and were subject to City review to account for possible trending equipment deficiencies throughout the plant.

Table 3.4 shows the OULs used in the risk assessment. The OULs were used in conjunction with the condition scores to produce an evaluated remaining useful life for each component, resulting in a projected replacement year and vulnerability rating for each component.

Table 3.4 Original Useful Life
Cate s ory
Chemical Equipment
Original Useful Life
15 Civil/Site work
50 Electrical
30 HVAC
15 Instrumentation
10 Mechanical
20 Pump - Wastewater
15 Structural - Concrete
50 Structural - Fiberglass
25 Structural - Plastic
10 Structural - Steel
25 Valve
15 FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-29
C5 Page 485 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

3.6.2 Remaining and Evaluated Remaining Useful Life Estimates The Remaining Useful Life Estimate (RUL) is a straight line calculation of the years remaining based on the installation date, original useful life, and the current year. A separate estimate, called the evaluated remaining useful life (EvRUL) is calculated for each component based on the OUL and the condition scores. The EvRUL ignores the original installation date of the asset, and is calculated according to the following:

EvRUL = Condition Fraction x Original Useful Life
The Condition Fraction is based on the condition score, as shown in Table 3.5. For example, if a pump installed in 2000 has an OUL of 20 years and was given a condition score of "3," it would have a straight RUL 4 years as opposed to a calculated EvRUL of 12 years. The EvRUL is typically a more representative estimate of the true remaining useful life of an asset, as it is based on the current observed condition of the asset, and recognizes that most assets will outlive their original useful life with proper maintenance.

Table 3.5 Condition Fractions
Condition Ratin.
1 Condition Fraction
1 2

0.8 3

0.6 4

0.4 5

0.1 3.6.3 Vulnerability Assessment
An asset's vulnerability is ten times the inverse of the evaluated RUL. The inverse is multiplied by ten to bring the vulnerability rating to a ten -point scale to match the same ten -point scale used in the criticality assessment.

3.6.4 Criticality Assessment
An asset's criticality is necessary for evaluating the consequence of asset failure throughout the facility. Four criticality categories were selected for the pump station assets. Table 3.6 presents the criticality matrix used to rate each asset.
3-30 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 486 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA Table 3.6 Criticality Matrix
Criticalit Rankin. Scale
Criticality Category
Weight
Health and Safety of
Public and Employees
20%
Financial Impact 15%
Description
No injuries or adverse health effects
No lost -time injuries or medical attention
Lost -time injury or medical attention
Potential for loss of life
1 4
7 10
Absorbed within budget line item ( $150,000)
7 10
100% compliance with permits & no impact on
environment
1 Violation but no enforcement action &/or minor impact on environment
4 Violation with minor enforcement action &/or moderate impact on environment
7 Enforcement action with fines &/or major impact on
environment
10 No impacts on service delivery; Redundant asset available or service restored in 24 hours
10 Based on the criticality assessment, assets of most critical importance are the sewage pumps and motors, emergency generators, and the wet wells at all locations. Additional critical assets include surge tanks, VFDs, MCCs, sewage grinders, and forcemain valves.

3.6.5 Risk Assessment
The risk of asset failure considers the criticality, condition, and remaining life of each asset. The risk can help prioritize the need for asset rehabilitation or replacement. Risk is calculated as:

Risk = Vulnerability x Criticality
The resulting risk assessment produced a list of priority assets that should be considered for replacement. These assets are used to create capital improvement projects. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-31
C5 Page 487 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Assets are grouped together by pump station to form larger projects that can then be compared to other CIP projects to determine budgeting and implementation needs. These assets are shown in Table 3.7, Table 3.8, and Table 3.9 and listed according to assessed risk. CIP projects, which include additional assets not listed in the following tables, are identified in Section 4 and ranked in Section 5.

Table 3.7 Buena Vista Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation 2015
Assessed Replacement
Component Name Condition Risk Cost Project Comments
Flood Containment
Door
Corrosion may prevent
5 22.25 $19,000 Replace door from sealing to
contain a spill.

Sewage Pump No. 5
Rehabilitation due to
3 7.28 $25,000 Rehab excessive noise noted
during site visit.

Wet Well Lights
5 6.67 $17,000 Replace
Replacing fixtures due to
corrosion.

Grinder Improvements
Inadequate for pump
station needs. Replace
3 3.78 $2,312,000 Replace with dual redundant
channel grinders in new
concrete channel.

Forcemain Plug Valves
Corrosion and leakage
3 3.78 $190,000 Replace on all forcemain plug
valves.

Sewage Pumps
2 5.46 $560,000 Replace
Replacement in 5-10
years
Fence
Fence inadequate to
deter site breaches.
4 2.42 $81,000 Replace Replace with 8 -ft candy
cane style security fence
and gates.

Asphalt
Resurface existing
3 2.28 $60,000 Rehab asphalt to remediate
cracks and deterioration.

Hydropneumatic Tank
Age and Condition.
3 1.97 $70,000 Remove Replace with backflow
preventer.
3-32 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 488 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 3 I CITY OF VISTA Table 3.7 Buena Vista Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation (Cont.) Component Name
Condition
Assessed
Risk
2015
Replacement
Cost
Comments
Wet Well
Age and Condition. Repair
cracks and defects in
2 1.41 $638,000 Rehab concrete. Replace wet well
coating. Requires bypass
pumping.

Meter Vaults A & B
Joint repair to remediate
3 1.13 $9,000 Rehab groundwater infiltration in
vaults.

Roof 2 0.89 $40,000 Rehab
Age and Condition. Replace
tile roof, install membrane
roof over concrete barrel
roof.

TOTAL
$4,021,000
Table 3.8 Raceway Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation Component
Name
Condition
2015
Assessed Replacement
Risk Cost
Project
Comments
Sewage Pumps
2 5.46 $170 000 Replace Replace near end of useful life, approx. 9 years
Overflow Flap
Gate
4 4.42 $15,000 Replace
Emergency overflow flap gate
not sealing properly, allowing
backflow from storage pond to
wet well. Replace gate.

Odor Control Unit 3 2.21 $29,000 Replace
Age and condition. Replace
with new odor control unit.

Overflow Storage
Pond
Groundwater infiltration.

Apply epoxy/polyurethane
4 1.70 $187,000 Rehab coating. Replace concrete curb
and handrail, and overflow
return plug valve.

Fence
3 1.45 $62,000 Replace
Fence inadequate to deter site
breaches. Replace with 8 ft
candy -cane style security
fence and gates.

TOTAL $463,000
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 13-33
C5 Page 489 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 3 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 3.9 Buena Creek Pump Station Priority Assets to Consider for Replacement or Rehabilitation Component Name
Condition
Assessed
Risk
2015
Replacement
Cost
Project
Comments
Motor -operated
Discharge Valves /
Forcemain Plug
Valves
5/5

22.67/

17.67 $233,000 Replace
Replace due to leakage and
corrosion.

Asphalt
Resurface existing asphalt to
5 13.67 $49,000 Rehab remediate cracks and
deterioration.

Wet Well
Wet well liner, seals on slide
gates and sluice gate, and
4 5.65 $560,000 Rehab stop logs scheduled for
replacement in 2016 as part
of current project.

Sewage Pumps
2 5.46 $46,500 Rehab
Rehab all pumps within 5
years
Odor Control Unit
Rehab to prevent further
3 2.65 $6,000 Rehab deterioration. Patch and
paint the fiberglass housing.

Fence
3 4.45 $66,000 Replace
Fence inadequate to deter
site breaches. Replace with 8
ft candy -cane style security
fence and gates.

Pressure Surge
Improvements
Replace existing surge tank
$740,000 Replace with larger tank install air
relief valves.

TOTAL $1,700,500
3-34 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 490 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Chapter 4

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
This section develops the scope and cost for potential projects included in the CIP. Projects were identified based on the condition assessment results and on discussions with City personnel.

Project alternatives are evaluated where needed.

Project cost estimates were determined according to the presented scope. The cost estimate worksheets are presented in Appendices G, H, and I, separated by pump station.

4.1 Studies and Assessments

4.1.1 SCADA Communication Improvement Study
Each station has limited signals at the EWPCF control room where operations are monitored.

Most signals are monitor or alarm only and cannot adjust pump station operations. By upgrading the SCADA communications, additional control functions could be implemented at the EWPCF.

Incorporating video streaming would allow cameras to be installed at each site to increase security. A larger bandwidth will be required for video surveillance monitoring.

4.1.2 SCADA Master Plan
To identify the needs of and the best approach to improving SCADA communication between the EWA and the pump stations, a Pump Station SCADA Master Plan is recommended. The study should include a needs assessment and a risk assessment and should make specific recommendations for installing security equipment as identified in the Security Features Study described in the next section. Potential security equipment could include building perimeter security fencing, securing lighting with motion sensors, adding motion sensing surveillance cameras, and adding intrusion switches on doors and entrance gates.

The study should also address how the security equipment will be monitored, such as whether it should be monitored by the process control system and returned to the EWA SCADA system, or whether it should be a stand-alone security monitoring system. If a stand-alone security monitoring system is preferred, a decision will need to be made on whether to have EWA personnel monitor the system or to involve a third -party security company for monitor and alarm. If security cameras are included, the study should address the system architecture, such as the camera type and video data storage locations.

Additionally, depending on the amount of information needed for remote monitoring, and especially if video transmission to EWA is desired, the study will need to address the communication bandwidth required for each site. It will also need to identify options for upgrades, such as installing fiber optic cable to each site, using a third -party cellular service, or using spread spectrum radio transmission. The current existing communication links to the remote sites do not sufficiently transmit large amounts of surveillance video data.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-1
C5 Page 491 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY The study cost estimate is provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 SCADA Communication Improvement Study Cost Estimate Item Cost Estimate
SCADA Study
$75,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$75,000

4.1.3 Security Features Study
A Security Master Plan is recommended to fully document the security needs at each site. To address any identified issues, the study should include a needs assessment and risk assessment, as well as a summary of best practices and site -specific recommendations for physical, electronic, and operational security improvements. The study should also make recommendations based on risk to maximize the value of the improvements.

Although there are no published guidelines for security at wastewater treatment facilities and pump stations, "best practices" are available from several sources. These sources include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and American Water Works Association (AWWA). These sources should be utilized to create a security plan for the three pump stations.

Fencing improvements recommended for each site are addressed in subsequent project descriptions. However, they represent only a first step toward the necessary overall security enhancements.

In addition to fence improvements, a surveillance video monitoring system that encompasses buildings, perimeters, and all other critical assets, access point monitoring and alarms, and perimeter and gate alarms should be investigated.

Alarms and surveillance monitoring should display on the EWA SCADA for remote monitoring and response. To enhance safety and security at the pump stations, an intrusion response plan and operation policies and procedures supporting security are needed.

Table 4.2 provides the cost estimate for the security features.

Table 4.2 Security Features Study Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Security Features Study
$50,000
Allowance for Improvements
$300,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$350,000

4.1.4 ATS and Generator Testing Improvements Study
Scheduling VFD replacement at the BVPS may resolve the damage caused by monthly ATS and generator testing. Regardless, further investigation into the best resolution is recommended for the RPS where VFD replacement is not scheduled. If VFD replacement does not resolve the issue at the BVPS, further investigation is warranted there as well. 4-2 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 492 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Items to investigate include programming, standard operating procedures, and equipment failures. Solutions to explore include incorporating a larger uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and/or programming the VFD to reduce the delay of pumps coming back online. Table 4.3 provides the cost estimate for these studies.

Table 4.3 ATS and Generator Testing Study Cost Estimate Item
Cost Estimate
BVPS Generator Testing Assessment
$30,000
RPS Generator Testing Assessment
$30,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$60,000

4.1.5 Assessment of Original Forcemain over Creek
The R -CAMP® Report recommended assessing the BVPS discharge forcemain to determine whether repairs or maintenance are required to ensure full redundancy of the forcemain. That recommendation is carried forward in this report. Table 4.4 provides the project cost estimate forforcemain assessment.

Table 4.4 Forcemain Creek Section Assessment Cost Estimate Item Cost Estimate
Forcemain Assessment
$50,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$50, 000

4.1.6 Pressure Surge Analysis
The screening -level surge evaluation performed by Flow Science determined possible mitigation steps for preventing pressure surge issues at the BCPS. This surge level evaluation provided recommendations for reducing the risk of damage caused by water hammer during a pressure surge. According to the evaluation, a pressure surge event at the pump station would not propagate into the Encina forcemain and would not affect the other facilities. This is due to the low flow rate at the RPS. The surge could, however, damage the RPS forcemain and structures, and the site may not be equipped to handle a surge event.

Operational measures recommended for reducing the risk of a pressure surge include starting the pumps one at a time, using the VFDs to slowly increase the speed, and using motor operated valves to control the speed activating the valves.

Possible mitigation measures at the BCPS include installing a 4 inch vacuum relief valve on the vertical inflection point of the BSD forcemain at STA 29+74, which has an elevation of 393 feet.

To ensure the valve is operational at all times, the valve should have controlled venting, full redundancy, and a maintenance program. This location does have a 3 -inch combination air valve, which may be sufficient to mitigate water hammer in the line.

Another way to protect the pipeline from rupturing along the forcemain is to install vacuum relief valves along the forcemain between the BCPS and the vertical inflection point. These valves would let air into the pipeline to increase the minimum pipeline pressures. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-3
C5 Page 493 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Other mitigation measures involve installing new or additional vacuum relief valves or a small surge tank at the RPS. However, without a pressure surge analysis, specific recommendations for equipment cannot be made.

Thus, a pressure surge analysis is recommended forthe BCPS and the RPS to determine whether pressures resulting from pump power failure require mitigation and, if so, the appropriate measures to take. The evaluation should include scenarios for simultaneous sudden power loss and pump station startup for high and low level wet well conditions under each pump station's design flow. The results would include recommended surge protection measures including, but not limited to, new or larger pressurized surge tanks or vacuum relief valves.

Table 4.5 provides the evaluation cost estimate for this analysis. For planning purposes, the anticipated recommendations for pressure surge improvements are included with the CIP for BCPS and RPS.

Table 4.5 Pressure Surge Analysis Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Pressure Surge Analysis
$20,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$20,000

4.1.7 Recommended Study and Assessments Summary
Table 4.6 provides a summary of the Studies and Assessment project costs.

Table 4.6 Recommended Study and Assessments CIP Summary Item
Cost Estimate
SCADA Study
$75,000
Security Features Study and Improvements
$350,000
BVPS and RPS Generator Testing Assessment
$60,000
Forcemain Assessment
$50,000
Pressure Surge Analysis
$20,000
Total Estimated Project Costs $555,000

4.2 Buena Vista Pump Station

4.2.1 Building Items and Site Work
Replacing the 8 -foot tall chain -link fence and gates with an 8 -foot tall candy cane -style security fence is recommended. The project would include demolishing and replacing approximately 500 linear feet of perimeter fence with one traffic and one walk gate.

The steel rolling gate that secures the vehicle access platform is 7 feet 4 inches tall. This gate abuts a parapet wall with an imbedded handrail only 4 feet tall, which allows for easy access to the site. Installing 8 -feet tall candy cane style security fencing along the existing masonry wall that continues to Jefferson Street will make intruder access to the pump station more difficult and may reduce site breaches. Approximately 100 linear feet of fencing will be required. 4-4 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 494 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Approximately 18,000 square feet of asphalt in the pump station compound and along the access road requires resurfacing with a 3 -inch asphalt layer and tack coat. The asphalt around the two existing manholes within the compound shall be applied to be at grade level of the manholes.

After the rehabilitation project, implementing a program to repair and reseal the asphalt every five years is recommended. This will improve the life and appearance of the compound and access road while reducing the need for larger capital projects for replacement.

Staff reported concerns about placing emergency equipment in the current site plan and asked that options for a staging area be explored. The berm located south of the pump station, which creates a containment barrier during a spill, was mentioned as a possible location.

Based on investigations of property boundaries, the southern boundary appears to follow the fence line from the west and then the outer edge of the asphalt driveway to the north. Because this path would lead the berm outside of the property line, the southern boundary is not a suitable location.

Instead, the most suitable location for staging is the pump station compound. At the compound, space along the access road can be used as long as using it does not impede EWA and emergency personnel and vehicles from accessing the site.

The roof must be rehabilitated to protect the building and equipment from corrosion and damage. The leaks have caused corrosion to wet and dry well fans and will cause more damage if not resolved.

The tile roof is approximately 1,400 square feet and should be demolished and replaced. To prevent leaks into the building, the membrane roof that covers the concrete barrel roof should be installed. The barrel roof is approximately 1,600 square feet. Installing a new membrane roof is required for the entire surface.

Figure 4.1 Existing Surge Tank Access
Installing a platform to enable easy access to the
surge tanks for maintenance is recommended to
promote operator safety, Figure 4.1. An H-shaped
aluminum platform will fit between the surge tanks
to facilitate staff access to the hatches on each end of the tanks and valves on top of the tank. Aluminum
stairs and an aluminum handrail will be built for
access and to protect the stairs and the elevated
perimeters of the platform.

To ensure that a spill in the motor room is contained,
the flood containment door should be replaced. Removing the seal water system is also recommended, since installing self -flushing mechanical seals renders it obsolete. Removal is recommended because spending resources on maintenance is unnecessary, and removing it frees up floor space.

The light fixtures in the wet well are severely corroded and will also need to be replaced to provide adequate lighting for operator safety. Replacement fixtures will be rated for Class I Division 2 installation in the wet well.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-5
C5 Page 495 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY To remediate groundwater infiltration in both meter vaults between the concrete joints and the aluminum cap, track injection is recommended. More than one application might be required.

The switchgear at the service entrance is severely corroded and is recommended for replacement.

Replacing the three exterior 250 watt floodlights with 1000 watt floodlights, connected to the photoelectric sensor for automatic operation based on available daylight, is recommended for better lighting. Although interior lighting is sufficient, the 4 -foot bulbs in the middle fixture above the stairwell need to be replaced. The bulb also needs to be replaced in one of the fixtures along the south wall in the pump room. Including bulb replacement as part of normal site maintenance is recommended and is not thus included in the CIP cost estimate.

The metal equipment and piping at the pump station need to be painted and coated to prevent corrosion and deterioration of equipment surfaces and connections. An initial project to repair chips and recoat or repaint the metal equipment and piping is recommended. The surface should be prepared after this project but before installing an epoxy or polyurethane coating system. A program involving annual touch-up applications should also be implemented to keep all coatings and paint intact.

Table 4.7 provides the project cost estimate.

Table 4.7 Building Items and Site Work Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Flood Containment Door
$10,000
Wet Well Lighting (Class I Div. 2)
$9,000
Seal Water System Demolition
$1,000
Tile Roof - Demolition and Replacement
$10,000
Membrane Roof
$12,000
Floodlights
$3,000
Painting and Coating, Initial Repair and
Application
$10,000
Service Entrance Switchgear $205,000
Fence
$44,000
Meter Vault - Crack Injection $5,000
Asphalt $32,000
Surge Tank Access Platform $63,000
Subtotal $404,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $223,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $627,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $126,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $753,000
4-6 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 496 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA

4.2.2 VFD and PLC Replacement
The VFDs and PLC are obsolete and are scheduled for replacement as part of the current project.

Construction is expected to be completed in 2016. Table 4.8 provides the estimated construction costs for this replacement.

Table 4.8 VFD and PLC Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
General Conditions & Mob/De-mob (10%)
$112,000
Site Construction
$440,000
Electrical
$472,000
Instrumentation and Control
$98,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $1,122,000

4.2.3 Pump Rehabilitation
Under normal operations, excessive noise was noted at both the impeller region of Pump No. 5 and at the 14 -inch check valve. Furthermore, the valve has corrosion, indicating a leak, and is recommended for replacement. V & A's vibration analysis performed in the condition assessment confirmed that the motor and pump exhibit vibration and noise outside of normal operational levels and thus require rehabilitation or replacement. V & A's vibration testing also recommended that Pump No. 4 be rehabilitated. Section 4.2.14 discusses the results of this testing.

Pump No. 5 should be inspected to determine if a rebuild is appropriate. Rebuilding No. 5 can extend its useful life by about 10 years. However, since all pumps are recommended to be replaced within the next 5 to 10 years because of their age, rehabilitating Pump No. 5 is recommended instead of replacing it. This will ensure that the pump operates efficiently until replacement. If issues are discovered during rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is deemed less cost-effective, the pump should be replaced instead.

Table 4.9 provides the project cost estimate.

Table 4.9 Pump Rehabilitation Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Rehabilitation of Pump Nos. 4 and 5
$50,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$50,000

4.2.4 Forcemain Valve Replacement and Automation
All valves are recommended for replacement because of leakage and corrosion at the forcemain plug valves.

Accessing the 24 -inch buried valves during replacement would require additional costs and asphalt repair. The 20 -inch plug valve on Forcemain B inside the pump station building and three 'The Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work is being completed concurrently with this report. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-7
C5 Page 497 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY buried 24 -inch plug valves on the forcemain exterior to the building are recommended to be automated for increased flexibility in isolating flow.

Pump station maintenance staff reported that the current vertical installation of some of the check valves make access difficult. Three of the four discharge check valves are vertically aligned, but further investigation into whether they can be installed in a horizontal position is required.

While some space is available to reposition pipes and valves, these changes' effects on resonance and on the positioning of the dampening arms must be considered. Further investigation is required to determine whether the check valves can be repositioned and would need to be included in pump replacement design.

Table 4.10 provides the project cost estimate for the valve replacement.

Table 4.10 Forcemain Plug Valve Replacement Cost Estimate Item
Cost Estimate
Plug Valves
$87,000
Valve Actuators for Automation
$28,000
Additional Crew Labor
$15,000
Subtotal
$130,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$72,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$202,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $40,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $242,000

4.2.5 Grinder Improvements
Because pump failure is typically caused by ragging, improvements to maintain pump station operations are recommended. Investigations into replacing the current configuration will determine whether a single channel grinder will fit into the existing channel or whether a new channel is also required.

Several options for improving the sewage grinding configuration were explored. Three options of these options involve constructing a new concrete vault housing a single or double grinder channel between the existing manhole and influent entrance to the wet well. These options are as follows:
• Option 1: construct a channel that houses dual channel grinders with overflow racks, each able to handle the design flow of 23.1 mgd. Each channel could be isolated with slide gates for maintenance. This option provides needed redundancy and overflow protection.
• Option 2: use two channel grinders, each able to handle half the design flow (13.8 mgd each), with a third unit on the shelf.
• Option 3: Install a new grinder where the existing barscreen and grinder are. The grinder channel would be approximately 40 inches wide and would have to accommodate one 4-8 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 498 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA grinder that can handle the design flow. One spare grinder would be on the shelf for redundancy.

The DM36 can handle a maximum flow of 24.3 mgd and a minimum average flow of 2.8 mgd.

Although it is suited for the pump station's conditions, it is 47 inches wide. Because of this width, installation would require removing or replacing large portions of the wet well, making it a less desirable alternative. The largest available unit that will fit in the existing space has a capacity of

16.6 mgd. While this capacity is above peak flows, it does not meet the design flow.

In addition to the three options described above, Option 4 investigated whether one or two inline grinders might fit the application. The highest capacity inline unit Franklin Miller manufactures handles a maximum flow of 13.2 mgd. Because of this capacity, two grinders would be required to meet design flow criteria.

The shredders require 6 FPS for the solids to push through the screen. Because the installation is for a gravity -fed influent line, this condition is not satisfied. As a result, the inline grinders would have to be installed vertically, making this option impractical.

Option 5 investigated the potential of chopper pumps to provide redundancy to the system.

Chopper pumps are not intended for large debris that sometimes enters the wet well so their installation would not allow the elimination of the existing barscreen and grinder. The largest chopper pumps are able to meet the design criteria of the pump station while operating near the end of the pump curve. Chopper pumps are not recommended as they would not be able to turn down enough to meet the average flow conditions of the pump station.

Option 6 looked at obtaining a second communitor to serve as a shelf -spare as backup to the existing communitor at the BVPS, which would provide redundancy that is currently lacking.

Procuring a duplicate JWC Macho Monster would allow maintenance staff to have a grinder ready to replace one that is removed for service or maintenance, rather than resorting to manual rag removal during this time. The grinder has a capacity of 2.1 mgd which is adequate to grind the debris removed from the influent by the bar screen. Because the same model communitor is available, no modifications would be required to the existing configuration. The JWC Macho Monster is still being manufactured and could be purchased as part of a potential future project or addressed as an operations and maintenance issue.

Of these options, Option 1 is recommended as the most efficient way to provide redundancy for the pump station's sewage grinding. A new concrete vault will be constructed between the influent manhole to the east of the pump station and the wet well. Figure 4.2 shows this configuration.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 1 4-9
C5 Page 499 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 4.2 Grinder Vault, Aerial View
Generator
Room
Wet Well
Pump
Station
Building
Entrance Gate
Existing MViariho e
Grinder Vault

4.2.5.1 Option 1 - Grinder Vault
For this option, influent would enter the vault, and a bulkhead wall would separate flow into two channels, each housing a channel grinder with a capacity of 24.3 mgd. This configuration would provide full redundancy.

For maintenance, stainless -steel slide gates with handwheel operators upstream and downstream of the grinders allow for flow isolation. The open channels are covered by fiber - reinforced plastic (FRP) grating, level with the top of the channels and bulkhead wall, to provide a safe surface for staff. The vault can be accessed through an aluminum hatch that opens to an aluminum landing and flight of stairs with a handrail. Additional hatches will be located in the asphalt to access the grinders for removal.

Installing the concrete vault and grinders requires complete bypass of the pump station for approximately two months. However, this project will also reduce maintenance needs and staff exposure to hazards from screenings removal, wet well entry, and lifting from cleaning the bar screen.

Figure 4.3 shows the grinder vault plan view. Figure 4.4 shows the section view. 4-10 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C c'r"'hl
C5 Page 500 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 l CITY OF VISTA Pump
Station
Building
How into
Wet We
30 -inch Qucele
Iron Pipe
Figure 4.3 BVPS Grinder Vault Plan View
Aluminum Stairs and Landing
231tSIn
r�
Legend
0 Channel Grinders
Sane Gates
30 -inch Ductile
eon Pipe
Flour Into
Wet Well
EL 2.6 tt
EL -3.52 ft.

Figure 4.4 Grinder Vault, Section View
Aluminum Hal -
Aluminum Stirs and Landing
Slide Gates
2311 5 In
30 -etch
Ductile Iron
Pipe
Manhole
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-11
C5 Page 501 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.11 provides the project cost estimate for Option 1.

Table 4.11 Option 1- Grinder Improvements Cost Estimate Item
Cost Estimate
Demolition
$10,000
Channel Grinders
$200,000
Excavation and Site Work
$60,000
Bypass Pumping
$823,000
Aluminum Stairs, with Railing and Supports
$8,000
Aluminum Hatches
$25,000
Concrete, FRP Grating, Slide Gates $113,000
Subtotal $1,239,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $688,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $1,927,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $385,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $2,312,000
If the implementation of this project is not expected to occur for several years, it is recommended to proceed with Option 6 in the interim to ensure continued performance of the pump station.

Table 4.12 provides the project cost estimate for Option 6.

Table 4.12 Option 6 - Shelf -spare Communitor Cost Estimate Item
Cost Estimate
JWC Macho Monster
$43,000
Subtotal
$43,000
Sales Tax (8%)
$3,000
Administration Fees
$5,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$51,000

4.2.6 Backflow Preventer
The hydropneumatic tank and the air gap tank are nearing the ends of their useful lives and are recommended to be replaced with a backflow preventer. A double check valve configuration will provide appropriate protection, use space more efficiently, and decrease maintenance requirements.
4-12 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 502 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.13 provides the project cost estimate on the backflow preventer.

Table 4.13 Backflow Preventer Cost Estimate
Item Cost Estimate
Demolition
$15,000
Backflow Preventer
$10,000
Yard Work
$10,000
Pipe Modifications
$3,000
Subtotal $38,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $20,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $58,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $12,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $70,000

4.2.7 Vapor Phase Odor Control
At this time, neither vapor nor liquid phase odor control is recommended. Figure 4.5 shows the Odalog sensor results from December 2015. The hydrogen sulfide levels are near zero or below detection levels. If the need for odor control arises from encroaching construction, a vapor phase odor control system would be sufficient. Scrubbing the entire station is not necessary because the wet well is physically separated from the other rooms in the pump station.

Figure 4.5 Odalog Sensor Data
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-13
C5 Page 503 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY If odor control is required, two alternatives can be considered to meet pump station conditions based on the wet well volume of 1100 CFM and twelve ACH, as specified for the minimum ventilation rate for a Class I Division 1 locations in NFPA 820. These alternatives are described below.

4.2.7.1 Alternative 1- Two -stage Biological and Carbon Scrubber This alternative is a two -stage process. The first stage is a biological scrubber, and the second stage is a carbon scrubber.

The system includes two vessels with a footprint of about 16 by 27 feet and an overall height of 16 feet. The first vessel uses a nutrient feed to maintain a bacteria population that forms on an appropriate media. The second vessel contains carbon, which will need to be periodically replaced. Error! Reference source not found. depicts the two -stage biological and carbon scrubber. Table 4.14 presents the design criteria and removal efficiency of this alternative.

Rioscrubber Vessel
Electrical control Panel
Foul Air from Wet Well
Recirculation Pump
'•N'aier Cajttral Panel
Nutrient Supply
Exhaust Scrubbed Air
Figure 4.6 Alternative 1: Bio+Carbon Scrubber
Table 4.14 Design Criteria for Biological + Carbon Two -Stage Scrubber Average
Vessel Media Flow DP, H2S Average
Scrubber # of Vessel Height, Depth, Rate, EBRT, in. Removal Odor Stage/Type Vessels Diameter ft ft CFM sec w.c. Efficiency Removal 1- Biological 1 8 15 6 1,100 16.4 3-5 >98% >90%
2 - Carbon

1. 6 7.5 3 1,100 4.6 4-7 >99.5% >90%
4-14 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 504 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA

4.2.7.2 Alternative 2 - Two -stage Biological Scrubber
This alternative is also a two -stage process as well, but both stages are biological and occur in the same vessel. The system has a footprint of 20 by 18.5 feet but is taller, with a height of 28 feet.

Figure 4.7 illustrates the two -stage biological scrubber. Table 4.15 presents the design criteria and removal efficiency of this alternative.

Figure 4.7 Alternative 2: Two -stage (both Biological) Scrubber Table 4.15 Design Criteria for Biological Two -Stage Scrubber Scrubber
Stage/Type
# of
Vessels
Vessel
Diameter
Vessel
Height,
ft
Media Flow
Depth, Rate,
ft CFM
15 Average
H2S
Removal
Efficiency
Average
Odor
Removal
1- Biological
2 - Biological

3.5 1 10 25 1,100 4-7 >99% >90%
9 39
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-15
C5 Page 505 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

4.2.7.3 Alternative Analysis
Table 4.16 summarizes the estimated installation cost for each alternative.

Table 4.16 Installation Cost Comparison
Item Description
Alternative 1: Bio +
Carbon
Alternative 2:

Bio Only
Two -Stage Scrubber
$310,000
$292,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$172,000
$162,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$96,000
$91,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $578,000 $545,000
Installation cost is similar in both alternatives. The higher cost of Alternative 1 is offset by the increased cost of media for Alternative 2. This increased cost is because biological scrubber media costs approximately ten times as much as carbon scrubber media.

Costs aside, both alternatives effectively remove 99 percent of H2S present and approximately 90 percent of odors. Both would meet the needs of the pump station.

To further analyze each alternative, operations and maintenance requirements were investigated. According to the analysis, both systems require makeup water, nutrient addition, electricity, media, and labor. These requirements are explained below. • The makeup water must be non -chlorinated to be compatible with biological processes. • Electrical costs are based on a supply of 480 V 3 -phase electricity to power the fans and pumps.
• Chemicals are fed continuously into the system to provide necessary nutrients for biological growth.
• Labor costs are based on one operator spending one hour maintaining the system twice weekly. Typical maintenance involves ensuring that all components function properly and replenish nutrients.
• Media for the biological scrubbers does not require regular replacement and is expected to provide a substrate for biological growth throughout the system's lifetime.

Alternative 1 would need the carbon media changed out about every two years, which poses an additional cost for the media and the labor required for installation. Because media are replaced every two years, the estimated annual cost for carbon replacement is based on half the total cost of replacing the entire 2,200 pounds of carbon media. This cost includes labor.

Table 4.17 provides the estimated annual operating and maintenance expenses for each alternative.
4-16 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C c'r"'hl
C5 Page 506 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.17 Estimated Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs O&M Item
Unit Cost
Alternative 1
Cost per
year
Alternative 2
Basis
Cost per
year
Makeup
Water
$2.30/748 gal

0.75 gpm $1,600

1.2 gpm $2,000
Electricity $0.15/Kwh
Fan: 1100 CFM @
12" we; BHP 5.5
Pump: 25 gpm ®
80 ft head; BHP

2.5 $7,800
Fan: 1100 CFM
Qa6"wc;BHP 2.7
Pump: 40 gpm ®
80 ft head; BHP

2.9 $5,400
Nutrients
$24/gal <0.015 gal/hr $3,150 <0.04 gal/hr $3,850
Labor
$50/hr/operator 2 hr/wk $5,200 2 hr/wk $5,200
Carbon
Replacement
Carbon:
$2.50/1 b
Labor: $0.70/lb
2,200 Ibs every
2 years
$3,520
Total Estimated Annual
O&M Costs
$21,270 $16,450
Two locations were proposed for the system: the southeast corner of the yard and the northeast corner. The southeast corner is the most likely location for equipment staging and is also near the underground influent pipeline, making it a less suitable location for the odor control equipment. The northeast corner is sheltered by trees, which would help reduce the visibility of the vessels.

4.2.7.4 Recommendation
If the proposed resort is constructed adjacent to the pump station, the recommendation is to provide odor control by installing the two -stage biological scrubber described for Alternative 2.

The best location for the unit would be in the compound's northeast corner where trees help obscure the tower.

Table 4.18 provides the cost estimate for this project.

Table 4.18 Odor Control Unit Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Two -stage Biological Scrubber
$292,000
Subtotal
$292,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$162,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$454,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$91,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $545,000
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-17
C5 Page 507 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

4.2.8 Wet WeII Rehabilitation
If the wet well cannot be accessed for a thorough inspection, rehabilitation is recommended in five to ten years. This recommendation is due to the age and condition of the wet well's visible portions of the wet well. The assessment team noted that the roof has multiple cracks which may be responsible for leaks in the room and should be fixed to prevent rebar corrosion.

The entire surface area of approximately 3,000 square feet must be prepared for concrete repair and coating by sandblasting to remove the existing coating and any dirt or debris. An assumption was made that half of the total surface area will require concrete repair before the new coating can be installed. The process is estimated to take three weeks, during which bypass pumping must be utilized to enable access to the wet well while maintaining operations.

The project cost estimate is provided in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19 Wet WeII Rehabilitation Cost Estimate
Item
Surface Preparation
Cost Estimate
$54,000
Concrete Repair
$30,000
Wet WeII Coating
Bypass Pumping Mobilization/Demobilization
$75,000
$55,000
Bypass Pumping Operations
$268,000
Subtotal $483,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $268,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $751,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $150,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $901,000

4.2.9 Level Monitoring System Upgrade
Either the existing ultrasonic control system or pneumatic bubbler system can provide a pressure signal to the PLC, which sends an output for pump speed control to the VFD's. The bubbler system technology is outdated, requires more maintenance, and is more complicated than the newer pressure transducer level monitoring technology. The bubbler control system is recommended for replacement with a pressure transducer level monitoring system.

Installing a pressure transducer level monitoring system will reduce maintenance requirements and transition the monitoring method to a more modern technology. Two compressors (one duty and one backup), a backup compressed air system, and additional monitoring and controls are required as accessory equipment to the bubbler.
4-18 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C sari-,.,,.,
C5 Page 508 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.20 provides the project cost estimate for the replacement.

Table 4.20 Level Monitoring System Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Demolition
$5,000
Pressure Transducer Level Monitor System
$10,000
Subtotal
$15,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$9,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$24,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$5,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $29,000

4.2.10 Exhaust Fan Replacement
Chapter 9 of NFPA 820 deals specifically with the ventilation of enclosed wastewater pumping and process -related areas, not including space used for administrative or other purposes. NFPA 820 designates 12 ACH in Class I Division 2 locations and less than 12 ACH for Class I Division 1 locations. The standard also requires that mechanically ventilated spaces are equipped with both supply and exhaust fans.

The exhaust fan that ventilates the electrical room is recommended for replacement. Assuming the supply fan assuming is rated similarly to the exhaust fan, it is also recommended for replacement. The replacement fan should be rated for approximately 3,600 CFM under normal operations, with a 1 -hp motor. A thermostat is also recommended to decrease ventilation in wet weather if needed.

Table 4.21 provides the project cost estimate for the exhaust fan replacement.

Table 4.21 Exhaust Fan Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Exhaust and Supply Fans, 3600 CFM (2)
Cost Estimate
$12,000
Fan Motors, 1 hp (2)
$2,000
Thermostat
$1,000
Subtotal
$15,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$9,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$24,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$5,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $29,000

4.2.11 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life
The R -CAMP® methodology and report recommended a condition assessment on critical assets based only on installation date and equipment age. Instead of focusing only on equipment nearing the end of its useful life, Carollo performed a thorough condition assessment of all major assets at each pump station.

Although both methods have merit, Carollo's approach increases the likelihood of identifying areas needing improvement and of discovering potential issues before operations are impaired.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-19
C5 Page 509 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Furthermore, instead of assessing only an asset's age, Carollo's method considers an asset's current condition and whether the asset has been rehabilitated to extend its useful life.

Based on Carollo's evaluation, assets expected to need replacement within the next five to ten years, based on age and original useful life, were identified. The assets are described below. • The 24 -inch magnetic flow meters on Forcemains A and B were installed in 2013 and have an OUL of ten years. These flow meters measure the flow directed to EWPCF for treatment. The flow transmitters were installed with the flow meters and are expected to reach the ends of their useful lives at the same time as the flow meters. Both the meters and the transmitters for each forcemain should be scheduled for replacement in 2023 to ensure that discharge flows are properly monitored. • The gas analyzer that monitors the wet and dry wells was installed in 1996. Although it was refurbished in 2008, it should be considered for replacement. The analyzer has exceeded its OUL of ten years by double, even though the assessment team rated its condition as very good, and staff safety depends on accurate gas and oxygen readings from the analyzer.

Although the pumps four 300 -hp dry -pit centrifugal pumps were properly maintained to provide for 20 years of operation, their OUL of 15 years has been exceeded. Based solely on the pumps' installation date, they would have been listed for replacement five years ago.

Based on the condition assessment, the evRULis 9 years for Pump No. 5 and 12 years for the other three pumps. If replacement is based on the evRUL, the pumps would be around 30 years old at the time of decommission. At that age, continued performance at the current level cannot be expected. Over the next ten years, their performance will decrease while maintenance issues increase.

Given this information, the recommended approach is to replace the pumps within the next five to ten years before performance is adversely affected. The cost estimate for replacement includes an adder for electrical to account for costs associated with installation and integration with existing instrumentation.

Table 4.22 provides the project cost estimate for these assets.

Table 4.22 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life Cost Estimate Item
Flow Meters, A and B
Cost Estimate
$40,000
Flow Transmitters, A and B
$10,000
Gas Analyzer
$5,000
Pumps (4)
$300,000
Adder for Electrical (10%)
$30,000
Subtotal $385,000
Contingencies, Contractor 0H&P, Taxes $214,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $599,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $120,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $719,000
4-20 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c cppri-n,,„
C5 Page 510 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA

4.2.12 V & A Recommendations
The condition assessment performed by V & A Consulting Engineers, Inc. identified additional projects.

While the interior concrete surfaces of the dry well are in good condition (VANDA Level 1), continued monitoring for signs of increasing infiltration and corrosion staining is recommended.

Further evaluation of the concrete and steel at locations of staining should also be considered to determine corrosion stimulants and corrosion potential, concrete characteristics, reinforcing steel placement and condition, and the extent of any damage.

In addition, repairing the grout pads under the pump bases is recommended to prevent further deterioration along the edges. To prevent more corrosion, the coating on metal equipment and piping should also be repaired. This project, which would include an initial plan to repair and recoat all metal equipment and piping, followed by an annual maintenance program, is recommended previously in this chapter. Before applying a 100 percent solids epoxy or polyurethane coating system, surfaces need to be prepared appropriately.

The meter vaults show moderate to extensive groundwater infiltration and are recommended for further testing similar to the dry well. This testing will gather more information about the condition of the concrete and steel components.

Replacing the corroded electrical components within the vaults with corrosion -resistant materials is recommended. These components include the meter ground cables, connectors, and cam -lock fittings for the sump pump.

In addition, because the water infiltrating the vaults is assumed to be brackish, all materials and coatings used in the vaults should be suitable for a marine environment to prevent damage.

Because groundwater infiltration might also be damaging buried ductile iron piping, construction details should be reviewed to determine whether the buried pipe has appropriate corrosion protection. Further evaluations should be considered to determine the condition of the buried pipe and the soil corrosivity of the area.

Replacing the corroded drain piping and the band clamps for the coupling is recommended. The ventilation ducting connectors and any missing hardware in the bathroom are recommended for repair, and the flange alignment should be corrected.

A complete structural analysis is recommended to identify mitigation steps for vibration issues.

The analysis would begin with setting up a model in the analysis program that identifies major components and test points, with detailed dimensional and structural information.

Instrumentation would be set up similar to the initial vibration testing but with more data channels and a more controlled test sequence for data collection. The data would then be merged into the model, and the areas of structural concern would be defined.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-21
C5 Page 511 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY This analysis would provide recommendations for structural support and stiffening modifications, as well as addressing any seismic issues noted. These modifications can be temporarily installed (often using saddle supports or hydraulic jacks) before additional vibration data is collected to ensure that vibration is reduced before implementing permanent modifications.

Vibration testing identified minor- to moderate -severity issues that are recommended for addressing in the next planned station outage or when operations can be modified to isolate areas requiring work. Recommendations for addressing these issues are as follows:
• Frequent monitoring of the dampening arms on dampeners on the motors and pumps is recommended to ensure that the arms' stiffness doesn't change significantly. • The dampening arm and pipe supports at Pump No. 2 should be inspected to ensure that the high peaks seen during analysis are not from rigidity loss. • Disassembling and inspecting the upper bearings on Motor No. 4 is recommended. As warranted, these bearings are recommended for rehabilitation and replacement. • Rehabilitating Motor and Pump Nos. 4 and 5 was recommended in a previously described CIP, Section 4.2.3. This rehabilitation will resolve the vibrational issues likely caused by loose bearings and cavitation in the upper bearing. Pump replacement is recommended if rehabilitation is less cost-effective than replacement.

All four of the pumps are recommended for replacement within five to ten years. However, replacement could be moved up to remediate the vibration problems. To prevent resonance issues from the current configuration, the structural analysis should be performed while installing new pumps. The structural analysis should ensure that the pump replacement complies with the current code.

In the next three to five years, an evaluation is recommended for the pump station to calculate the minimum required pipe thickness based on pressure, loading, and other criteria. These results should be compared to the measured thicknesses in the V & A report to determine how much additional wall loss can be tolerated before the pipe's integrity is impaired.

Addressing piping issues is recommended to decrease corrosion and maintain pipe integrity in the dry well. Because of significant wall loss and corrosion around the threaded tap, the 20 -inch header pipe spool on the discharge header from Pump Nos. 1 and 2 is recommended for replacement. When the station is shut down for the spool replacement or other work, further evaluation of the forcemain header should be considered.

A method such as closed-circuit television (CCTV) would provide additional information on the lining condition and corrosion issues inside the pipe. Since the data indicated that isolating areas of corrosion is possible, a contingency plan fora pipe leak or failure should be in place to limit the impact of such an event.
4-22 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C car--,.,,.,
C5 Page 512 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.23 provides the project cost estimate for V & A's recommendations.

Table 4.23 V & A Buena Vista Project Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Header Spool Replacement
$2,000
Repair Grout Pads
$2,000
Replace Corroded Components Meter Vault
$10,000
Coating - Marine Environment
$10,000
Bathroom Repairs
$1,000
Subtotal $25,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $15,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$40,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$8,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$48,000

4.2.13 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 4.24 provides a summary of projects underway and CIP projects recommended for BVPS.

Table 4.24 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
CIP Recommendations
Item
Cost Estimate
Building Items and Site Work
$753,000
Rehabilitation of Pump Nos. 4 and 5
$50,000
Forcemain Plug Valve Replacement
$242,000
Grinder Improvements - Option 1
$2,312,000
Shelf -spare communitor - Option 6
$51,000
Backflow Preventer
$70,000
Vapor Phase Odor Control
$545,000
Wet Well Rehabilitation
$901,000
Level Monitoring System
$29,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement
$29,000
Assets Nearing End of Useful Life
$719,000
V & A Buena Vista Project
$48,000
Total for CIP Recommendations
$5,749,000
Projects Underway
Item �
Cost Estimate
VFD/PLC Replacement
$1,122,000
Total for Projects Underway
$1,122,000
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-23
C5 Page 513 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

4.3 Raceway Pump Station

4.3.1 Building and Site Items
For increased security, replacing the existing fence and gates with candy -cane style security fencing is recommended. The back gate is currently secured only with a padlock, and the new gate should have a chain with a lock.

The existing louvered doors allow plant material and dirt to infiltrate, which damages equipment. To prevent additional damage, replacing the louvered doors with hollow metal doors is recommended.

To prevent groundwater infiltration, installing a concrete berm over the creek is recommended to protect the creek during overflows. The berm would be triangular in shape, with a 3 foot base, and would be 1 foot tall. The additional height will direct flow away from the creek and toward the natural depression to the west side of the property for temporary storage.

Connecting the two exterior pole fixtures not on the photoelectric sensor to the sensor is recommended for automatic operation based on daylight. Because the light fixture on top of the building is corroded, Figure 4.8, it is also recommended for replacement.

Figure 4.8 Corroded Light Fixture
The MCC does not have a surge
protection device installed. Installing
a protective device is recommended.

To prevent corrosion and
deterioration of equipment surfaces
and connections, an initial project to
repair chips and recoat or repaint the
metal equipment and piping is
recommended. The surfaces should
be prepared before installing a
100 percent solids epoxy or
polyurethane coating system.

In addition to these repairs,
implementing a program of annual touch-up applications is recommended to keep all coatings and paint intact. The cost for annual touch-up and maintenance is estimated to be approximately $3,000 per pump station.
4-24 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 514 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.25 provides the project cost estimate for the building and site items.

Table 4.25 Building and Site Item Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Double Hollow Metal Doors
$4,000
Concrete Berm
$2,000
Painting and Coating, Initial Repair and Application
$10,000
Roof Floodlight
$1,000
MCC Surge Protection
$1,000
Photoelectric Sensor Connections
$1,000
Fence
$33,000
Subtotal $52,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $29,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $81,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $16,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $97,000

4.3.2 Sewage Grinder Improvements
Installing dual Franklin Miller TaskMaster channel grinders, with overflow bar racks, is recommended to prevent damage on downstream equipment due to excess debris. EWA personnel request the new design allows for a barscreen to be dropped into place if one grinder needs to be pulled for service. Installation is scheduled as part of the current project and is expected to be completed in 2016. The letter report highlighting Carollo's investigation into installation of new grinders at the RWPS is presented in Appendix J.

The installation of deragging equipment was investigated and information collected on Clearwater Controls Deragger II. The technical memo regarding the Deragger II is located in Appendix K. Given the lack of long-term evaluation of this product, the issues regarding integration into the VFD's, and that ragging at RWPS is primarily resolved with the use of grinders, it is not recommended to install the device at the RPS.

Table 4.26 provides the estimated construction cost estimate for the dual redundant channel grinders. Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates have been provided to the City separately since the design work is being completed concurrently with this report.

Table 4.26 Sewage Grinder Improvement
Item
Cost Estimate
General Conditions & Mob/De-mob (10%)
$16,000
Equipment
$135,000
Electrical
$10,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost2
$161,000
2 The Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work is being completed concurrently with this report.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-25
C5 Page 515 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

4.3.3 PLC Replacement
PLC replacement has been added to the scope of the current project and is expected to be completed in 2016. Replacing the PLC will add redundancy, ensure accurate measurement, and ensure that data is not lost.

Table 4.27 provides the estimated construction cost for PLC replacement. Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates have been provided to the City separately since the design work is being completed concurrently with this report.

Table 4.27 PLC Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
General Conditions & Mob/De-mob (10%)
$8,000
Instrumentation and Control
$80,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs3
$88,000

4.3.4 Emergency Overflow Storage Pond
The emergency overflow storage pond requires significant rehabilitation to resolve groundwater infiltration issues. Groundwater infiltration must be remediated by crack injection or by applying shotcrete or an epoxy/polyurethane coating to the pond's interior surface, which is approximately 2,200 square feet.

At first, crack injection costs less at about $10,000. However, while crack injection preserves the basin's storage capacity, it could take months and multiple applications to confirm that all routes of infiltration have been effectively blocked. Because this process will take longer to finish, it is not desirable.

Coating the entire surface of the overflow storage pond would be a conservative approach to dealing with groundwater infiltration. Although this method costs more, it is usually a one-time expense and a single application, which addresses the issue quickly.

Applying an epoxy/polyurethane coating is recommended to preserve the basin's volume. The reduction in capacity is negligible, and the coating costs are similar to shotcrete's. Shotcrete should not be considered, since applying shotcrete to a thickness of 4 inches reduces the storage volume of the overflow pond by about 5,500 gallons.

Additional recommendations are to demolish the curb around the perimeter of the overflow storage pond and build a new one and to recast the handrail using an appropriate insertion material to prevent cracking. Approximately 245 linear feet of concrete curb and handrail is to be replaced.

Closer inspection of the 18 -inch overflow flap gate is needed to determine if the gasket is missing or is damaged, and if rehabilitation or replacement is needed to ensure a proper seal if 3 The Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work is being completed concurrently with this report. 4-26 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C cppri-11,„
C5 Page 516 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA the basin is full. However, this inspection is difficult. As a conservative recommendation, replacing the flap gate is recommended over rehabilitation.

Replacing the 12 -inch buried plug valve is recommended. The City and Encina have decided to address this a maintenance issue and not part of a potential future project.

Table 4.28 provides the project cost estimate to rehabilitate the overflow storage pond.

Table 4.28 Overflow Storage Pond Rehabilitation Cost Estimate Item
Curb Demolition
Cost Estimate
$2,000
Concrete Curb
$2,000
Aluminum Handrail
$11,000
18" Emergency Overflow Flap Gate
$8,000
Epoxy/Polyurethane Coating
$77,000
Subtotal $100,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $56,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $156,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $31,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $187,000

4.3.5 Odor Control Unit
The odor control unit requires significant maintenance/rehabilitation. Due to age and condition, replacing the entire unit with a similar unit is recommended. A properly working odor control system will reduce odors at the plant and the surrounding areas and promote worker safety and comfort.

Table 4.29 provides the project cost estimate to replace the odor control unit.

Table 4.29 Odor Control Unit Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Demolition
Cost Estimate
$3,000
Odor Control Unit
$8,000
Electrical, Instrumentation, & Control
$4,000
Subtotal
$15,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$9,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$24,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$5,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $29,000
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-27
C5 Page 517 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

4.3.6 Replace Plug at RPS/Carlsbad Interconnect
Replacing the plug between the RPS and the City of Carlsbad with a valve is recommended to prevent the plug from failing and to make access to the plug easier. To access the plug, excavation, backfill, and repair of the asphalt will be required. The plug will be replaced with a 10 -inch full port plug valve and will require 10 -inch couplings on each side.

To divert flow to the El Fuerte Pump Station, a sewer plug will be required. As a result, this project should occur at the same time as other work requiring flow diversion.

Before work begins, the adjacent storm drain will need to be removed. The drain will need to be replaced upon completion.

Table 4.30 provides the project cost estimate for the plug replacement.

Table 4.30 Interconnect Plug Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Excavation, Backfill, Asphalt Repair
Cost Estimate
$3,000
Full Port 10" Plug Valve
$4,000
10" Couplings
$2,000
Sewer Plugs
$5,000
Storm Drain Removal and Replacement
$10,000
Subtotal $24,000
Contingencies, Contractor 0H&P, Taxes $13,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $37,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $7,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $44,000

4.3.7 Wet Well Scum Prevention
To reduce scum buildup in the wet well, the system should be back flushed about once a month to remove clogs form the pumps and surrounding piping. Operators have developed a "backyard engineered" solution of closing the appropriate forcemain valve to isolate two pumps, then opening the valve to allow flow from the unclogged pump to flow backwards through the clogged pump/pipe, forcing the clog back into the wet well. Though a better solution for clearing the clogs may be explored, the grinder improvements would likely alleviate the problem.

Another way to reduce buildup in the wet well is to install a wastewater conditioning and cleaning system by Anue Water Technologies. This wet well sprayer is a newer technology, and, as such, has not been thoroughly tested. Although promising, this technology needs further evaluation before a recommendation can be made. Furthermore, it is not suitable for the influent channel, and no other technology for that application was found. 4-28 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c cppri-n,,„
C5 Page 518 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.31 provides the project cost estimate for the sprayer technology if it's deemed suitable.

However, this project is not included in the Consolidated Rehabilitation Items CIP.

Table 4.31 Wet Well Sprayer Cost Estimate
Item
Anue Sprayer
Cost Estimate
$44,000
Subtotal
$44,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$25,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$69,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$14,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $83,000

4.3.8 Exhaust Fan Replacement
Installing a centrifugal exhaust fan, rated for 600 CFM, with a 0.5 hp fan motor is recommended to meet the NFPA 820 standard at approximately 12.7 ACH.

Table 4.32 provides the project cost estimate for the exhaust fan replacement.

Table 4.32 Exhaust Fan Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Exhaust Fan, 600 CFM
Cost Estimate
$5,000
Fan Motor, 0.5 hp
$1,000
Subtotal
$6,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$3,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$9,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$2,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $11,000

4.3.9 Pressure Surge Improvements
There is currently no pressure surge protection at RPS. The low flow at the pump station makes it unlikely that a pressure surge originating at the RPS would propagate into the BSD forcemain but a surge event originating at the RPS could damage the 8 -inch forcemain between the RPS and the BSD forcemain. A complete pressure surge analysis is recommended for the RPS which may result in mitigation measures such as a surge protection system and/or air relief valves. For planning purposes, an assumption was made that a 1,000 gallon surge tank will be recommended as well as two air relief valves along the 1,700 foot forcemain.

The proposed surge control system includes a 1,000 gallon hydropneumatic surge tank with automatic level controls, air compressor, and control panels. The tank is approximately 10 feet in length and 5 feet in diameter and would be supported by steel legs or saddles. The level sensors and transmitter can be either a single capacitance probe of a differential pressure transmitter.

The air compressor system includes its own control panel and requires an estimated 2 hp for the 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-29
C5 Page 519 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY motor. The system also comes with the necessary safety and solenoid valves as well as check valves and a pressure gauge for air flow control.

The vacuum relief /air inlet valves will allow air into the forcemain and decrease the potential for vapor pressure conditions which could damage the forcemain and pump station equipment. It is assumed that valves will be recommended at both vertical inflection points, STA 3 +70 at an elevation of 301 feet, and STA 8 +68.57 at an elevation of 297.5 feet. The 4 -inch combination vacuum relief air inlet valves should be duplicated for redundancy and should be accompanied by a detailed and sustained maintenance program to ensure it is in good working order.

Table 4.33 provides the project cost estimate for surge protection improvements.

Table 433 Pressure Surge Improvements Cost Estimate
Item Cost Estimate
Surge Control System (with 1,000 gallon tank)4
$70,000
Site preparation (earthwork, foundation, piping)
$73,000
Electrical (25%)
$36,000
Vacuum Relief Valves (2)
$100,000
Subtotal $279,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $155,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $434,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $87,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $521,000

4.3.10 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life
The following assets need to be replaced in the next five to ten years because of age and original useful life. Section 4.1.13 describes the method for determining which assets need replacement. • All VFDs, fencing, the channel grinder, automatic transfer switch, and pumps #2 and #3 as requiring condition assessment by 2018 based on the equipment's installation year.

The VFDs will be replaced as part of the current project. The channel grinder will be replaced with dual channel grinders under the same project and scheduled to be completed in 2016.
• The fencing has been included in the Building and Site Items CIP, with a recommendation to replace the existing chain -link fence with an 8 -foot candy cane style security fencing to reduce site intrusion.

The ATS was installed in 2007, and given an original useful life of 10 years in the RCAMP, but the methodology used for Carollo's condition assessment assigns an OUL of 30 years, pushing its RUL to 21 years. Based on the results of the condition assessment and subsequent evaluation, the evRUL is 30 years and the associated risk is very low. The ATS is not recommended for rehabilitation or replacement at this time.

The Surge Control System includes a 1,000 gallon surge tank, air compressor with control panel, level sensor and control panel, associated valves and couplings/connectors. 4-30 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 520 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA With six years remaining of the OUL, and an evRUL of 12 years on pumps and 2 and 3 of the three 75 -hp submersible pumps, they could be rehabilitated within the next five years to prolong their useful lives. As with any rehabilitation, maintenance costs increase overtime and performance would decrease.

Because of maintenance costs and performance issues, and due to extreme ragging at Raceway from the upstream customers, replacing all three pumps with chopper pumps is recommended near the evRUL in nine years. The added capacity for dealing with solids and ragging would provide more protection if a grinder fails or is removed for maintenance.

Table 4.34 provides the project cost estimate for the assets nearing the end of their useful lives.

Table 4.34 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life Cost Estimate Item Cost Estimate
Vaughan Chopper Pumps (3)
$75,000
Electrical, Instrumentation, & Control
$20,000
Subtotal
$95,000
Contingencies, Contractor 0H&P, Taxes
$47,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$142,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$28,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $170,000

4.3.11 V & A Recommendations
V & A's evaluation identified additional projects.

Because the concrete overflow storage reservoir is in good condition aside from the cracks and joints in the concrete, V & A recommended sealing the points of infiltration within the reservoir to remediate infiltration. Recoating the entire surface of the pond was recommended previously for another project.

The concrete at the base of the guardrail surrounding the reservoir is spalled due to the lack of insulation between the concrete and aluminum. The report also recommends installing grout or sealant at the base of the guardrail around the reservoir. The grout or sealant will drain water from the post holes. The CIP covering improvements to the pump station include replacing the curb and handrail because the existing cracks are large.

To prevent further deterioration on the electrical equipment, recoating and replacing the corroded conduits is recommended. The flange near Pump 3 is also recommended for recoating or replacement because of coating failure.

The recoating is included in a project with an initial repair and recoating project followed by an annual maintenance program. Surfaces should be prepared appropriately before applying a 100 percent solids epoxy or polyurethane coating system.

Replacing the conduits at the electrical box also requires replacing the motor cable between the pump and the electrical box, replacing the conduit housing, and installing a sealing compound that seals the fitting and hardens around the cables inside. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-31
C5 Page 521 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.35 provides the project cost estimate for the Raceway project.

Table 4.35 V & A Raceway Project Cost Estimate
Item Cost Estimate
Conduit Replacement
$5,000
Subtotal
$5,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$3,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$8,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$2,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$10,000

4.3.12 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 4.36 summarizes the projects underway and CIP projects recommended for RPS.

Table 4.36 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
CIP Recommendations
Item
Cost Estimate
Building and Site Items
$97,000
Emergency Overflow Storage Pond
$187,000
Odor Control Unit
$29,000
Plug Replacement
$44,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement
$11,000
Pressure Surge Improvements
$521,000
Assets Nearing End of Useful Life
$170,000
V&A Recommendations
$10,000
Total CIP Recommendations
$1,069,000
Projects Underway
Item
Cost Estimate
Sewage Grinder Improvements
$161,000
PLC Replacement
$88,000
Total Projects Underway
$249,000
4-32 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 522 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA

4.4 Buena Creek Pump Station

4.4.1 Building Items and Site Work
Approximately 14,000 square feet of asphalt area in the pump station compound and access road is recommended for resurfacing with a 3 -inch thick asphalt layer and tack coat. The asphalt around the seven manholes at the pump station shall be applied so they are at grade level of the manholes. As previously discussed, it is recommended that EWA implement a maintenance program after rehabilitation to improve the asphalt's life and appearance.

Installing a 3 -foot wide by 1 -foot tall earth berm between the creek and the pump station fence would direct the flow to the desired area would protect the creek. The berm should be approximately 200 feet long.

The 6 -foot chain -link fence with barbed wire should be replaced with an 8 -foot fence to make illegal access more difficult. City of Vista Ordinance 2003-3, Section 18.02.300F precludes the use of barbed or razor wire security fencing within the city limits, but candy -cane style security fencing is acceptable. Thus, the existing fence and gates are recommended for replacement with candy -cane style security fence and gates. The estimate includes approximately 460 linear feet of perimeter fencing, one traffic gate, and two walk gates.

Installing concrete stairs is recommended to facilitate access to the SDG&E meter on the east side of the pump station. Erosion control will also be necessary to protect the slope from further deterioration.

EWA staff requested recommendations for an existing area to stage emergency equipment or for adding a staging area to the site plan. This would facilitate response during an emergency.

The 18 -inch and 21 -inch influent flow can be captured from multiple.

To remediate groundwater infiltration in the pump station's west all, hydrophilic or hydrophobic crack injection is recommended. Although the estimate is for a single application, multiple applications may be required to resolve the leak.

Replacing the pilot lights on the pump return control panel is recommended.

An initial project to repair chips and recoat or repaint the metal equipment and piping at the pump station is recommended. The surfaces should be prepared before installing a 100 percent solids epoxy or polyurethane coating system. Implementing a program involving annual touch- up applications is also recommended to keep all coatings and paint intact. The cost for annual touch-up and maintenance is estimated to be approximately $3,000 per pump station.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-33
C5 Page 523 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.37 provides the project cost estimate for building and site work.

Table 4.37 Building and Site Work Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Berm
$2,000
Access Stairs to SDG&E Meter Cabinet
$28,000
Erosion Control
$1,000
Crack Injection in Pump Room
$1,000
Painting and Coating, Initial Repair and
Application
$10,000
Pump Return Control Panel Pilot Lights
$1,000
Asphalt
$26,000
Fence
$35,000
Subtotal $104,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $59,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $162,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $32,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $195,000

4.4.2 VFD and PLC Replacement
The PLC and VFD Nos. 1-5 are obsolete and are scheduled for replacement during the current project. Integrating a true data connection into the PLC replacement is recommended to expedite the reporting requirements and eliminate discrepancies between data and SCADA. The flow meter displays should also be relocated outside of the new PLC cabinet to give operators access and the cabinet can remain locked.

Table 4.38 provides the project cost estimate for VFD and PLC replacement. The Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided to the client separately as the design work is being completed concurrently with this report.

Table 4.38 VFD and PLC Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
General Conditions & Mob/De-mob (10%)
Cost Estimate
$107,000
Site Construction
$532,000
Electrical
$306,000
Instrumentation and Control
$93,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs5 $1,038,000
5 Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work is being completed concurrently with this report. 4-34 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 524 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA

4.4.3 Redundant Forcemain
The existing excess effluent line is unsuitable for repurposing as a redundant forcemain. The existing alignment can handle the current average flow of 2.1 mgd (1430 gpm), but it barely meets the design constraint of a maximum of 155 feet of total dynamic head. With all five pumps running at 100 percent, the excess effluent pipeline cannot handle the current peak flow of

4.4 mgd, let alone the predicted future flow or design flow. Figure 4.9 shows the system curve and pump curves for the existing excess effluent pipeline.

Figure 4.9 Existing Excess Effluent Alignment System and Pump Curves System Curve — 2 Pumps at 9696 — 5 Pumps at 100% ---=Current Average Flow ----Current Peak Flaw The issues begin with a segment of pipe from the pump room through an exterior wall that is 8 inches in diameter, resulting in very high flow velocities. If this alignment is repurposed for use as a forcemain, the pipe would need to be modified from within the pump station building to the point of expansion to a diameter of 14 inches.

As an alternative, pipe bursting was explored as a way to install a new pipeline in place of the current excess effluent alignment downstream of the pump station. However, this process unsuitable, since upsizing from 14 to 24 or 30 inches exceeds the typical rule of thumb of a maximum increase of 125 to 130 percent of the original pipe size.

Furthermore, the increased pipe size would likely displace a considerable amount of soil. Given the pipeline's shallow depth, soil would likely be displaced upward, displacing other utilities and alignments in the area.

The abandoned forcemain was also brought up as a possible alternative alignment. However, the current condition and the reasons it was originally abandoned are not known and would require further investigation. Furthermore, sections of the alignment are asbestos concrete pipe and would require replacement or CIPP for repurposing.

Figure 4.10 shows the locations of existing pipelines near the BCPS, the BSD forcemain, and the BSD gravity outfall.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-35
C5 Page 525 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Sewn Gmitr Noting, mm Eturn Man
oa.f_ _ - --uss Effluent
--12'w 16' .3fuceU MSI\
- 1 t'AW fn noting IPump^W.Y.m
c C -r='.... i'"'
Figure 4.10 Existing Pipelines
Ultimately, five alternative alignments were identified, including the route the existing excess effluent alignment follows. All alignments begin at the pump station and terminate at the BSD gravity outfall located northeast of the intersection of EI Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road.

A hydraulic analysis was performed on each alignment. The hydraulic analysis was done to ensure that appropriate velocities were maintained along the forcemain and to determine the required pipe diameter. For this evaluation, an assumption was made that minor losses along the reach would be similar to the existing forcemain.

According to the hydraulic analysis, each alternative can handle up to the pump station design flow of 8.8 mgd while maintaining a velocity consistent with preventing deposition. Three of the alternative alignments terminate in a 30 -inch pipe, while the other two meet design criteria with a 24 -inch pipe. None of the alternatives investigated include provisions for connection to the RPS.

Currently, backup for the Raceway forcemain is provided by the ability to divert flow to the City of Carlsbad's EI Fuerte Pump Station. If a connection from the RPS to the new forcemain is desired, all but one alternative would enable a new parallel forcemain to be installed next to the existing Raceway line and connect to the BSD forcemain in the same location as the existing connection.

In addition to the hydraulic analysis, a non -cost evaluation was performed. This evaluation was based on community disruption, construction impact, permitting and environmental concerns, easement acquisition and right-of-way issues, utilities, and hydraulics. Each category was weighted according to its impact on construction.
4-36 I AUGUST 2016 FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 526 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.39 ranks each criteria from a score of 1 to 5, with one being least desirable and 5 being most favorable. Ranking weight and individual scores can be tailored to suit the City's needs and preferences. The non -cost evaluation is located in Appendix L.

Table 4.39 Non -cost Evaluation Criteria Ranking
Criteria
Ranking Weight
Community Disruption
25%
Construction Impact
25%
Permitting/Environmental
10%
Easement Acquisition/ROW
10%
Utilities
10%
Hydraulics
20%

4.4.3.1 Alternative 1- South Melrose/Faraday/Orion Route Alternative 1 was ranked third of the five alternatives. Its final score may increase, since the City's desire to stay out of canyons could change criteria scores.

The proposed route for Alternative 1 follows portions of the existing excess effluent and abandoned forcemain lines, exiting the pump station adjacent to the creek heading west. The alignment consists of approximately 16,500 feet of 30 inch diameter HDPE and follows South Melrose Drive south to Faraday Avenue, where it continues west. At the intersection of Faraday and Orion Road, the alignment turns to the south, following Orion until it nears El Camino Real.

There, it follows an easement that parallels the road and ties into the existing gravity outfall.

Faraday and Orion are both low volume roads, but South Melrose Drive is a high volume road.

Most of the pipeline does follow existing roads, which reduces the impact of construction to the area. However, it necessitates traffic control along most of the alignment.

This alternative avoids green spaces and canyons, which the City prefers. The only exception is the reach leaving the pump station toward South Melrose. Most of the alignment follows the alignment of existing pipelines.

There are potential utility conflicts along the route and numerous utilities located at the intersection of South Melrose and Faraday. Thus, encroachment permits are expected to be required. Furthermore, Orion is privately owned, creating an issue with easement acquisition of right-of-way not associated with the other alternatives.

Figure 4.11 shows the route for Alternative 1.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-37
C5 Page 527 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY N .-. :IF 1
,` I.
t if
t V:.%, rs,....,s
;, = 1
,# 0� Al
►r
e 44
At.. Is: :i ' l +.
y f it • �"��"»*, 1)�AI ,L � .._ r`
P„pS1 / r• 2.*..,4.l �,r r7 c: .7 NO � � � di �' '`icy i:7 rim` ill yu0. log
.
11N. 'Ill rota Aft.. it
Lag..

Sewer Gravity Pipelix: -- Sewer Force M 11— Aaemanve 1 -16,500 Feel — 1T aM 1855 - - Eace85 EmuBra
— i4' 1a r6' Anaa arrad Man
— 1S arM Greaser IN Puma $lppn
C
ep
Figure 4.11 Alternative 1 - South Melrose/Faraday/Orion Route

4.4.3.2 Alternative 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route Alternative 2 ranks second among the five alternatives.

Alternative 2 is the shortest reach at approximately 14,900 feet of 24 inch HDPE pipe. The alignment exits the pump station and follows the same route west to South Melrose Road as Alternative 1, except it runs from Faraday directly along the path of the existing BSD forcemain to the gravity outfall rather than continuing onto privately owned Orion.

The majority of the alignment follows existing roads and pipelines and lies within the right-of- way, although traffic control will be required. Pipeline within green spaces and canyons is minimized, with the segment near the pump station and the segment from Faraday to the gravity outfall being the only sections not following an existing road.

Utility conflicts are similar to Alternative 1, with numerous utilities at the intersection of South Melrose and Faraday. This alignment meets hydraulic requirements with a smaller diameter pipe than three of the other alignments and the shortest length, reducing material and construction costs.

Figure 4.12 shows the alignment for Alternative 2.
4-38 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
I c"'11"
C5 Page 528 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA .a•
Sewer Gravity Pipelines -- St.wsr Form M n — Altenunive 2 -14 9%Feel — 10' end Less - - Excess Effluent
— 18' 10 16" Abaadm W WIni
Wand Gnegtn Pump $than
t - 3;7 f
t � • to.;,
a!+r • tf. em • ��
i MIN
at WO, ivari
L; '
010
f• yY ■
ito
c i'?IF"!!'a
Figure 4.12 Alternative 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route

4.4.3.3 Alternative 3 - South Melrose/Palomar Airport Road Route Alternative 3 ranks fourth among the alternatives.

Alternative 3 consists of approximately 16,900 feet of 30 -inch HDPE. As it leaves the pump station, the alignment follows the previously described alternatives but continues on South Melrose to the intersection at Palomar Airport Road. There, it heads west and connects to the gravity outfall along the easement adjacent to El Camino Real.

The construction impact is low, since the pipeline lies within the right-of-way of an existing road.

However, almost the entire alignment is in high -volume roads, necessitating traffic control and representing a significant disruption along busy Palomar Airport Road. Thus, a short-term easement may be required in addition to encroachment permitting.

The intersection at South Melrose and Faraday has numerous utilities, and additional conflicts are expected along Palomar Airport Road. The alignment requires a creek crossing along South Melrose. This crossing creates additional issues not addressed in this evaluation but in need of more investigation if this alternative is considered.

Although the tie-in of a redundant forcemain coming from Raceway has not been investigated, Alternative 3 would require such a forcemain to be routed east rather than parallel to the current forcemain, which exits the pump station to the north.

This alignment has the second longest reach of the alternatives, as well as the larger pipe diameter. This reach and diameter increase material and construction costs.

Figure 4.13 shows the alignment for Alternative 3.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-39
C5 Page 529 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY 114-3
titi
Le44,
' �� pomarA a
•. S' •. 4";. 11
Mai,
lR4'4�� ly H°r
Sewed Gravity Pipeline. Sewer F.rc. Men— Altermltiv. 3:Te BOa Feet — 1 a- end L - - Farces& ErRuerh
— 17 is PP Atimetined MEM
— 13- mei Gamer l Pump SUE.
c Garw �i�
Figure 4.13 Alternative 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route

4.4.3.4 Alternative 4 - South Melrose/Faraday/EI Fuerte/Palomar Airport Road Route Alternative 4 is the lowest ranking of the alternatives, primarily due to community disruption and construction impact and costs.

Alternative 4 is the longest of the investigated alignments at 19,300 feet of 30 inch HDPE. Thus, the material and construction costs for this alternative are expected to be the highest.

The alignment exits the pump station to the west following the same route as the others, then continues along the path of the existing forcemain down South Melrose and west on Faraday.

The alignment turns to the south, following EI Fuerte Street to Palomar Airport Road, where it turns west, connecting to the gravity outfall along the easement adjacent to EI Camino Real.

All but the segment of pipeline form the pump station to South Melrose lie within the right-of- way on existing roads. Although this reduces construction impact, it necessitates traffic control, since nearly the entire route lies in high volume roads.

Community disruption and construction impact would be significant with a construction project of this size occurring on such busy roads. The alignment avoids green spaces and canyons, but short term easement and encroachment permitting are expected.

There are potential utility conflicts at intersections and along Palomar Airport Road and EI Fuerte, along with known numerous utility conflicts at Faraday and South Melrose.

Figure 4.14 shows the alignment for Alternative 4.
4-40 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 530 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA ',send
Fewer Gravity Pipelines -- Sever Fare 61en — Alterneew4 -19.30.7 Feel — I O' end Less - - Excess Effluent
- 12-10 I6" Abendm W SARI
Wand Gnealn Pump Uiliae
c cAP-"'r
:i
v.1r�
ate.

Figure 4.14 Alternative 4 - South Melrose/Faraday/EI Fuerte/Palomar Airport Road Route

4.4.3.5 Alternative 5 - Excess Effluent Alignment Route This alternative is the highest ranked because of its low community disruption and construction impact and its minimized utility conflicts.

As previously mentioned, the existing excess effluent line is not suitable for repurposing as a redundant forcemain, but the pipeline's location was evaluated as an alternative for a new redundant forcemain.

The alignment exits the pump station to the west toward South Melrose Drive then south. From there, it heads west on Faraday to where the RPS forcemain connects to the BSD forcemain. At this point, the alignment follows the RPS forcemain south, then turns west through the green space over to El Fuerte where it heads north to Faraday.

The alignment consists of approximately 16,200 feet of 24 -inch HDPE. The smaller diameter pipe and the second shortest reach of evaluated alignments contribute to lower material and construction costs.

The segment along Faraday is partially in the road and partially in the green space to the north of the road, until it again cuts south through the green space and canyons to the gravity outfall.

This alternative requires the least amount of traffic control, since about half of the reach is in green space, avoiding high volume roads as much as possible and minimizing community disruption.

No major permitting issues are expected, but the green space is an environmentally sensitive area and precautions must be taken to minimize disruption. The existing excess effluent line would need to be demolished to make room for a new pipeline to be installed. However, space for the new pipe is available, which resolves utility conflicts, and no new easements are required.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 i 4-41
C5 Page 531 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Figure 4.15 shows the alignment for Alternative 5.

Bswer Ertevity Rlpellnea - - Sewer f, rce Man
— 10' end Less •bsndcno6 Mein
— 12 r0 19" Pump 51eDan m. ..ar.
— 18' end G•esler — 'alternative 5. E5V.dse E..nt 16.200 Feet _
Figure 4.15 Alternative 5 - Excess Effluent Alignment Route To summarize:
• Alternative 5 is the highest scoring alignment, with the second shortest reach at 16,000.

This alternative follows the route of the existing excess effluent line, but potential utility conflicts do exist.
• Alternative 2 is ranked second. The majority of this alternative follows the alignment of the existing forcemain. However, this Alternative scored lower in the community disruption category, since the majority is along roads and would require traffic control. • Alternatives 3 and 4 scored low primarily because numerous utility conflicts are likely along Palomar Airport Road.
• The final score of Alternative 1 may increase, since the City's desire to stay out of canyons could change criteria scores.

Table 4.40 presents the final score for each alignment.

Table 4.40 Non -Cost Evaluation Final Scores
Alternative
Final Score
1- South Melrose/Faraday/Orion Route

3.00 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route

3.35 3 - South Melrose/Palomar Airport Road Route

2.35 4 - South Melrose/Faraday/El Fuerte/Palomar
Airport Road Route

1.80 5 - Excess Effluent Alignment Route

3.90 4-42 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 532 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA While the existing effluent line is not suitable for repurposing as a redundant forcemain primarily due to hydraulics, Alternative 5 presents the most favorable site for installing a new forcemain.

The alignment is longer than Alignment 2, at 16,200 feet compared to 14,900 feet, so it will be slightly more expensive. However, its primary advantage is the space.

The new pipeline can be installed where the current excess effluent line is located, shown in Figure 4.15. Alternatively, if it is determined adequate space and minimal conflicts exist along Faraday, that route could be utilized.

Table 4.41 provides the project cost estimate for Alternative 5 Redundant Forcemain.

Table 4.41 Redundant Forcemain Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
24 -inch HDPE Forcemain
$4,284,000
Subtotal
$4,284,000
Contingencies, Contractor 0H&P, Taxes
$2,376,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$6,660,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$1,332,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $7,992,000

4.4.4 Valve Replacement
Because of corrosion and leakage, the forcemain plug valves and the isolation and discharge valves should be replaced. Two replacement isolation valves are on hand for installation at Pumps No. 4 and 5.

The Motor Operated Valves at Pumps No. 2 and 3 also need to be replaced. Six plug valves are not currently installed with the seating side of the valve on the seated side of the system. New plug valves will be installed according to the manufacturer's recommendation.

Plug valve replacement includes three 8 -inch plug valves, seventeen 12 -inch plug valves, three 14 -inch plug valves, one 24 -inch plug valve, including the motor -operated valves.

The emergency shut-off check valves at each pump discharge side are recommended for replacement because of leaking and potential problems with the hydraulic dampers that cause the valve to close too slowly when activated.

In the current configuration, Pump Nos. 2 and 3 tend to air -lock on the suction side during start- up after having been offline. Possible contributors to the problem include leaking gaskets and expansion joints on the suction piping. It is recommended that the gaskets and expansion joints along the suction piping for Pump Nos. 2 and 3 are replaced along with the valves.

The structural analysis that is recommended in a subsequent section should include an investigation into, and mitigation measures for, preventing air -locking of the pumps if the problem persists following gasket and joint replacement.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-43
C5 Page 533 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.42 provides the project cost estimate for valve replacement.

Table 4.42 Valve Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Plug Valves, 8 -inch
$5,000
Plug Valves, 12 -inch
$43,000
Plug Valves, 14 -inch
$12,000
Plug Valves, 24 -inch
$11,000
Motor Operated Valves, 12 -inch
$16,000
Check Valves, 12 -inch
$38,000
Gasket and Expansion Joints
$20,000
Subtotal $125,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $69,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $194,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $39,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $233,000

4.4.5 Wet Well Liner Replacement and Sluice Gate Repair The sluice gate that divides the wet well requires new seals. The two slide gates upstream of the sewage grinders at the entrance to the wet well also need new seals. The stop logs at the entrance to the wet well should be replaced as well. Gate repairs and stop log and liner replacement are scheduled for the current project.

The entire surface area of the wet well, approximately 5,000 square feet, must be prepared for concrete repair and coating by sandblasting to remove the existing coating and any dirt or debris. An assumption was made that half the surface area will require concrete repair before the new coating can be installed.

The process is estimated to take 14 days, during which bypass pumping is required to access the wet well while maintaining operations. It is recommended to perform all work requiring bypass pumping concurrently.

Table 4.43 provides the project cost estimate for replacement of the wet well liner and repairs of the gate seals and stop logs. The Total Estimated Construction Costs do not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided to the client separately as the design work is being completed concurrently with this report.

Table 4.43 Wet Well Liner and Sluice Gate Construction Cost Estimate Item
Cost Estimate
General Conditions & Mob/De-mob (10%)
$48,000
Wet Well Liner (Div. 06 - Wood and Plastics)
$421,000
Equipment
$56,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$525,000
4-44 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 534 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA

4.4.6 Odor Control
To determine whether chemical injection might be appropriate for liquid phase odor control, Odalog sensors were placed in the wet well from January 5, 2016 to record sulfide levels. The sensors were collected on January 13, 2016.

Results show an average sulfide concentration in the wet well of less than 1 ppm, which agrees with pump station odor logs showing near zero sulfide at the inlet of the existing odor control unit. The results of the analysis can be found in Figure 4.16. 25 20
E
15 ro
o • 10
V
✓ 1
N
5 1\i
1111111111111 III I III II

II II II
11111111
III
11111111111 11111
��III II II II�
1/6/16 1/7/16 1/8/16 1/8/16 1/9/16 1/1 o/16 1/11/16 1/12/16 H2S Concentration -Temperature,°F
6o
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 L,LF
42 Temperature,°F
Figure 4.16 Odalog Sensor Data
Figure 4.17 Odor Control Unit with Corrosion
Liquid phase odor control is not recommended. To prevent further deterioration from exposure to the elements, the odor control unit is recommended for patching and painting the fiberglass housing, Figure 4.17. The pilot lights on the odor control panel are also recommended for replacement.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-45
C5 Page 535 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.44 provides the cost estimate for the odor control unit rehabilitation project.

Table 4.44 Odor Control Unit Rehabilitation Cost Estimate Item Cost Estimate
Patch and Paint Fiberglass
$5,000
Blower Control Panel Pilot Lights
Total Estimated Project Cost
$1,000
$6,000

4.4.7 Wet Well Scum Prevention
Staff reported similar scum build-up issues in the wet well as those at RPS. The wet well sprayer system by Anue Water Technologies might be suited to this application, but as previously stated, it is a newer technology, and has not been thoroughly tested. The pump station would require the installation of a sprayer in each wet well. While promising, it needs further evaluation before a recommendation can be made. Typical installation costs are included in the estimate.

The project cost estimate should the sprayer technology prove suitable for a future project is provided in Table 4.45. This project is not included in the Consolidated Rehabilitation Items CIP.

Table 4.45 Wet Well Sprayer Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Wet Well Sprayers
$103,000
Subtotal
$103,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$57,000
$160,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$32,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $192,000

4.4.8 Automation of Gates
Installing motor operators on the slide gate and two slide gates in the wet well is recommended, Figure 4.18. These gates will facilitate operation and allow the gates to be periodically exercised for maintenance purposes. The three gates in the wet well are recommended for automation as well.

The wet well is a Class I Division 1 space and requires that electrical components are appropriate for use in a hazardous area without venting.

Adding actuators to the existing 4 feet by 4 feet sluice gate that divides the wet well and the slide gates ahead of the grinders is recommended to add the flexibility of isolating flow remotely.

The project cost estimate includes all programming and installation required. The estimate assumes that all gates are in excellent condition, since the component of the actuator that engages the nut on the gate stem illiI 7.1+1 1tt;ttt
111111111 �11111"►1�
7�llllll �,1'�111111�A ,P'""' '11"T"\\,
Figure 4.18 Slide Gates to be
Automated in Wet Well
4-46 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 536 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA is machined to specification for each gate. If the actuator does not fit precisely, age and deterioration of the stem of handwheel-operated gates can cause failure.

Table 4.46 provides the project cost estimate for the automation of wet well gates.

Table 4.46 Automation of Gates Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Sluice Gate Actuator
$15,000
Slide Gate Actuators (2)
$30,000
Subtotal
$45,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$26,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$71,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$14,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $85,000

4.4.9 Exhaust Fan Replacement
The existing supply fan feeds both the pump and motor rooms and is undersized at 5000 CFM, providing only 9 air changes per hour, below the NFPA 820 standard. To meet the 12 ACH standard, replacing the existing supply fan is recommended. The fan should be replaced with a centrifugal roof supply fan rated for 7000 CFM, with a 3 hp fan motor.

Table 4.47 provides the project cost estimate for fan replacement.

Table 4.47 Exhaust Fan Replacement Cost Estimate
Item
Pump Room Exhaust Fan, 1200 CFM
Cost Estimate
$5,500
Fan Motor, 1.5 hp
$1,500
Roof Supply Fan, 7000 CFM
$7,000
Fan Motor, 3 hp
$2,000
Subtotal $16,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $9,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $25,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $5,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $30,000

4.4.10 Pump Selection Programming
Currently, the pumps are programmed to automatically be designated as lead, lag or standby.

The EWA operations staff has requested new programming to allow them to choose the pump sequence in any order. This would provide the operators with increased flexibility to adjust operating sequence to meet current conditions and for maintenance procedures.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-47
C5 Page 537 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.48 provides the project cost estimate for the pump selection programming.

Table 4.48 Pump Selection Programming Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Programming
$100,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$100,000

4.4.11 Pressure Surge Improvements
The screening -level surge evaluation determined that the existing surge tank at the BCPS is likely sufficient to provide protection against a pressure downsurge wave that could be caused by pump failure, uncontrolled valve speed, or a pipeline rupture. A pressure surge analysis is recommended to determine specific mitigation measures for the BCPS. For planning purposes, it is assumed that a larger surge protection system will be recommended to adequately protect the BCPS from surge events.

The existing surge tank has a capacity of 1,000 gallons. For planning purposes, an assumption was made that a 5,000 gallon tank will be recommended following the pressure surge analysis.

The surge control system includes a 5,000 gallon hydropneumatic surge tank with automatic level controls, air compressor, and control panels. The tank is approximately 19 feet long and 7 feet in diameter and would be supported by steel saddles in a horizontal position. The level sensors and transmitter can be either a single capacitance probe of a differential pressure transmitter. The air compressor system includes its own control panel and requires an estimated 5 hp for the motor. The system also comes with the necessary safety and solenoid valves as well as check valves and a pressure gauge for air flow control.

The addition of vacuum relief valves along the pressurized portion of the BSD forcemain will allow air into the forcemain and increase the minimum pipeline pressures to decrease the potential for vapor pressure conditions resulting from a pipeline rupture. The initial surge evaluation recommended that a vacuum relief valve be installed at the vertical inflection point along the BSD forcemain at STA 29+74, at an elevation of 393 feet, to prevent negative pressures. The 4 -inch combination vacuum relief air inlet valve should be duplicated for redundancy and should be accompanied by a detailed and sustained maintenance program to ensure it remains in good working order. It is expected that additional valves will be recommended in the complete analysis. For planning purposes, an assumption was made that four valves will be recommended for installation along the forcemain between the BCPS and the gravity outfall, including the vertical inflection point. 4-48 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 538 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.49 provides the project cost estimate for surge protection improvements.

Table 4.49 Pressure Surge Improvements Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Surge Control System (5,000 gallon tank)6
$95,000
Site preparation (earthwork, foundation, piping)
$93,000
Electrical (25%)
$47,000
Vacuum Relief Valves (4)
$200,000
Subtotal $435,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $242,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $677,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $135,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $812,000

4.4.12 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life
The following assets are expected to need replacement in the next five to ten years based on age and original useful life. Section 4.1.13 describes the method for determining the assets included.

Replacing Shadowridge 8 -inch flanged flow meter is recommended to maintain flexibility to divert flow to SWRF during an emergency. Though the Encina Forcemain 14 -inch flanged flow meter is in good condition, it has exceeded its original useful life. To ensure it functions properly, it is recommended for replacement.

Because staff safety depends on accurate gas and oxygen readings provided by the gas analyzer monitoring both wet and dry wells, the analyzer is recommended for replacement.

Rehabilitating the five 125 -hp dry pit centrifugal pumps can extend their lives by approximately ten years. Thus, rehabilitation of all pumps within the next five years is recommended to keep them in optimal operating condition.

The City and the EWA expressed concerns that the pump station pump configuration is oversized for current flow conditions.

Table 4.50 presents flow data provided by the EWA for current conditions and the future flow from the 2008 Sewer Master Plan Update. The current average flow is a quarter of the design capacity, and the current peak is half of the design capacity. 6 The Surge Control System includes a 5,000 gallon surge tank, air compressor with control panel, level sensor and control panel, associated valves and couplings/connectors.

FINAL I AUGUST 2016 14-49
C5 Page 539 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 4.50 BCPS: Flow Conditions
Flow Condition
mgd
Current Average

2.1 Current Peak

4.4 Future Peak

5.8 Design

8.8 Table 4.51 presents the capacity and valving information for each pump as well as its destination of discharge.

Table 4.51 BCPS: Pump Configuration
Pump No.

Capacity
gpm
mgd
Diversion Valve
Type
Discharge
Destination
1 1,736

2.50 Manual
SWRF or EWPCF
2 3,600

5.18 3
4 5
2,037

2.93 Motor -Operated
Motor -Operated
SWRF or EWPCF
SWRF or EWPCF
EWPCF
EWPCF
Any of the five pumps can meet the current average flow demands and would require one pump for standby. Pump Nos. 3, 4, and 5 combined meet the pump station's design capacity and maintain flexibility to divert flow to either the SWRF or the EWPCF. However, a fourth pump would be needed for standby to handle spikes that might occur during wet weather, such as in 2010 when a peak of 9.31 mgd was recorded.

Retiring one pump could also be considered. However, if the seals and valves are not exercised as a part of routine maintenance, the components will deteriorate. Thus, a more conservative approach is recommended to preserve the existing pumps' functionality.

The existing pumps have an EvRUL of twelve years, with rehabilitation recommended within the next five years. As the need for pump rehabilitation arises, the extra pump could be cannibalized for spare parts to keep the other pumps in optimal operating condition and extend the time before replacement is needed.

When the pumps require replacement, flow conditions need to be evaluated to determine whether all five pumps require replacement. Under current flow conditions, a configuration of one lead, two lag, and one standby pump would meet the needs of the pump station while maintaining flexibility to meet the design capacity and unusual short -duration peaks and to divert flow to either the SWRF or EWPCF. This configuration would also reduce the costs of asset replacement.

In case modifying the configuration is required, an evaluation of seismic vulnerability is recommended while the pumps are being rehabilitated or replaced.

Table 4.52 provides the project cost estimate for the assets nearing the ends of their useful lives. 4-50 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 540 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.52 Assets Nearing End of Useful Life Cost Estimate Item
Flow Meter, Shadowridge FM 8 -inch flanged
Cost Estimate
$10,000
Flow Meter, Encina FM 14 -inch flanged
$15,000
Gas Analyzer
$5,000
Pump Rehabilitation (5)
$25,000
Adder for EI&C
$8,000
Subtotal $63,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes $35,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $98,000
Engineering and Administration Fees $20,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $118,000

4.4.13 V & A Recommendations
V & A's report provided additional recommendations for each pump station.

The corrosive soil environment, evidence of past infiltration, and the active leak in the pump room warrant further evaluation of the concrete and steel where staining is present. Evaluation to determine corrosion stimulants and corrosion potential, concrete characteristics, the placement and condition of reinforcing steel, and the extent of any damage that may be present should be considered.

Existing points of infiltration are recommended to be sealed at the construction joints, preferably after performing additional testing of the concrete. This will identify the appropriate remediation approach.

Crack injection to remediate infiltration was recommended in a previously described project. To prevent corrosion, repairing, and reapplying the coating to all metal equipment and piping is recommended. The recoating is included as part of the Building and Site Items project, with an initial repair and recoating project followed by an annual maintenance program. Surfaces need to be prepared appropriately before applying a 100 percent solids epoxy or polyurethane coating system.

Evaluating the seismic vulnerability of the motors and pumps' inverted pendulum arrangement of is recommended to determine whether the arrangement creates an issue with respect to seismic loading.

The evaluation should examine whether suction and discharge flanges are strong enough to resist the forces that could result in those locations in an earthquake. Such a failure at the flanges could cause the dry well to flood. In a similar case, where a large pump motor broke free from the pump flange, the problem was remediated by installing a structural steel cage to prevent the motor form tipping over.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 14-51
C5 Page 541 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Reed Electric's vibration analysis recommended additional testing when the pump station has a planned outage. This testing should include Pump No. 3, which was not completed because of electrical issues.

High vibration levels observed in most test locations, specifically the high and extremely high vibration levels on Pumps No. 2 and No. 1, respectively, warrant detailed analysis and correction.

Inspecting the stiffness of pump supports for rigidity is recommended, as is a full structural mode shape analysis to identify resonance issues related to structure and to determine appropriate remediation measures.

A complete structural analysis is recommended to identify the seismic vulnerability of the pump and motor configuration and mitigation steps for seismic and vibration issues. As previously described, the analysis would begin with creating a model of the system and performing more in-depth testing. The analyses should recommend structural support and stiffening modifications (often saddle supports or hydraulic jacks), which can be temporarily installed.

Additional vibration data collection would follow the analyses to ensure the measures reduce vibration.

The pumps are recommended for rehabilitation within five years. Furthermore, performing a structural shape mode analysis is recommended before the pumps are reinstalled. This will identify resonance issues the current configuration presents and enable mitigation measures to be taken. The structural analysis should ensure that the pump replacement complies with the current code.

Because the existing excess effluent and forcemain pipelines are in a moderately to highly corrosive soil environment, cathodic protection should be considered if the pipelines are to remain in service for the next 20 years. The excess effluent and abandoned sections of forcemain are not in service, and there are no plans to return them to service. Thus, cathodic protection is unnecessary along those alignments. Cathodic protection is also recommended for all metallic items, including ductile iron pipe and fittings and isolated metallic fittings located on PVC pipelines. A site -specific analysis is recommended to inventory all metallic items, to cross- reference the locations against measured soil data, and to design appropriate cathodic protection measures for each location.

It is recommended that new pipelines designed for installation within the region sampled are made of materials that will resist corrosion, such as plastic. The redundant forcemain proposed in a previously described project will be constructed of high -density polyethylene (HDPE) to resist corrosion.
4-52 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 542 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 4 I CITY OF VISTA Table 4.53 provides the project cost estimate for this work.

Table 4.53 V & A Buena Creek Project Cost Estimate
Item
Cost Estimate
Cathodic Protection
$1,000,000
Subtotal
$1,000,000
Contingencies, Contractor OH&P, Taxes
$555,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs
$1,555,000
Engineering and Administration Fees
$311,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,866,000

4.4.14 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
Table 4.54 summarizes the projects underway and CIP projects recommended for BCPS.

Table 4.54 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
CIP Recommendations
Item
Cost Estimate
Building Items and Site Work
$195,000
Redundant Forcemain
$7,992,000
Valve Replacement
$233,000
Odor Control Unit Rehabilitation
$6,000
Automation of Gates
$85,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement
$30,000
Pump Selection Programming
$100,000
Pressure Surge Improvements
$812,000
Assets Nearing End of Useful Life
$118,000
V & A Recommendations
$1,866,000
Total CIP Recommendations
$11,437,000
Projects Underway
Item
Cost Estimate
VFD and PLC Replacement
$1,038,000
Wet Well Liner Replacement and Gate Repairs
$525,000
Total Projects Underway
$1,563,000
09/23/2025
FINAL ' AUGUST2016 14-53
C5 Page 543 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 4 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY -This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
4 -54 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 544 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA Chapter 5

PROJECT PHASING

5.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an approach to ranking the CIP projects recommended in Chapter 4 and includes a detailed list of each project and its cost estimate.

5.2 CIP Project Ranking
Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 summarize the individual CIP projects identified in Chapter 4 for each pump station. The tables identify the major project components and drivers and include the estimated project cost. Project numbers were assigned arbitrarily for tracking purposes.

Table 5.1 Study and Assessments CIP Summary
Project
No.

Project
Project Components
Driver
Cost
($1,000)
1 SCADA
Communication
Improvements
Study
• Master planning study
• BVPS, RPS, and BCPS
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvement
$75
2 Security Features
Study
• Master planning study
• BVPS, RPS, and BCPS
• Allowance for
Improvements
• Site Improvements
• Safety
• Community
• Risk
$350
3 ATS and Generator
Testing
Improvements
Study
• Master planning study
• BVPS and RPS
• Testing Improvement $60
4 BVPS Assessment
of Original
Forcemain over
Creek
• Assess forcemain
segment
• Identify rehabilitation
needs
• Condition
$50
5 Pressure Surge
Analysis
• Pressure surge analysis
for BCPS and RPS
• Recommend mitigation
measures for each site
• Risk
$20
Total Estimated Costs $555,000
To compare and evaluate projects for scheduling and budgeting needs, a ranking system was developed using a "triple bottom line" approach. Similar to criticality ratings, this approach compares the financial, environmental, and social aspects among the CIP projects to achieve the goals of EWA and this project. These three categories and their goals are described below:
• Financial: Implement cost effective projects and solutions. Maximize economic benefits for customers through cost-effective operations.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 15-1
C5 Page 545 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY • Environmental: Meet or exceed permit limits and minimize reportable offenses. Improve the local habitat and minimize impacts to the local and global environment. • Social: Maintain a high standard of worker safety and protection and maximize community benefits through improved aesthetics and recreational uses.

In meeting these goals, projects that rank highest in all categories can be implemented based on a weighted scale. The EWA, the City of Vista, and Carollo have discussed the weighting of each category to ensure that each aligns with EWA and the City's goals of staff safety and consistent and reliable wastewater treatment.

Table 5.2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary
6 Pro ect
Building and Site
Items
Project Com • onents
• Replace flood containment
door
• Replace wet well lighting
• Demo seal water system
• Demo and replace tile roof
• Install membrane on barrel
roof
• Replace exterior floodlights
• Initial repair and application
of paint/coating
• Replace service entrance
switchgear
• Replace fence with 8' candy
cane -style security fence
• Meter vault crack injection
• Meter vault infiltration
remediation
• Asphalt overly
• Surge tank access platform
• Replace PLC • Condition
• Replace VFD's for Pump Nos. • Risk
1, 2, 4, and 5
Driver
• Condition
• Safety
• Risk
Cost
($1,000)
$753
7 VFD and PLC
Replacement
$1,122,000*
8 Pump Rehabilitation
• Rebuild Pump Nos. 4 and 5
• Condition
• Risk
$50,000
• Replace all forcemain plug
valves (eight 14" suction and
discharge valves, three 20"
Forcemain Plug header valves, three 24"
9 Valve Replacement buried valves)
and Automation • Automate three 24" buried
forcemain plug valves and 20"
plug valve of forcemain B
header
• Condition
• Risk
$242,000
Project is scheduled for completion in 2016. Cost Estimate is not included in the pump station Total Estimated Cost. Cost is Total Estimated Construction Cost and does not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work and CIP identification were completed concurrently. 5-2 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 546 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA Table 5.2 Buena Vista Pump Station CIP Summary (Cont.)
Project
No.

Project
Project Components
Driver
Cost ($1,000)
Grinder
10 Improvements -
Option 1
• Construct new concrete grinder
vault with aluminum hatches,
access stairs, slide gates, FRP
grating
• Dual channel grinders, each capable
of handling design flow
• Bypass pumping
• Obtain shelf -spare communitor for
backup
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvements $2,312,000
Reduced Labor
Grinder
11 Improvements -
Option 6
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvements
$51,000
12 Backflow
Preventer
• Demo hydropneumatic tank system • Reduced Labor
• Install backflow preventer • Condition
• Install two -stage biological scrubber • Installation of contained in a single tower new receptor
• Surface preparation and concrete
repair in wet well
• Install new coating
• Bypass pumping
• Demo existing bubbler system
• Install pressure transducer level
monitoring system
• Install wall -mounted centrifugal
exhaust fan, rated 3600 CFM, with
thermostat and 1 hp fan motor in
electrical room
• Install roof -mounted centrifugal
supply fan rated 3600 CFM, with 1
hp fan motor in electrical room
$70,000
13 Vapor Phase
Odor Control
$545,000
14 Wet Well
Rehabilitation
• Condition
• Risk
$901,000
15 Level Monitoring
System Upgrade
• Process
Improvements $29,000
• Risk
16 Exhaust Fan
Replacement
• Energy
efficiency
• Improved work
environment
$29,000
Assets Nearing
17 End of Useful
Life
• Replace flow meters A and B
• Replace flow transmitters A and B
• Replace gas analyzer
• Replace dry -pit sewage pumps 1, 2,
4, and 5
• Condition
$719,000
V&A
18 Recommendatio
ns
• Replace corroded header spool
• Repair grout pads under pump
bases
• Replace corroded components in
meter vaults
• Coat meter vault equipment/piping
with material suitable for marine
environment
• Repair drain piping and ducting in
bathrooms
• Condition
$48,000
Total Estimated Costs $5,749,000
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 1 5-3
C5 Page 547 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 5.3 Raceway Pump Station CIP Summary
Project
No.

Project
Project Com .onents
Driver
Cost
($1,000)
19 Building and Site
Items
• Replace louvered doors with hollow
metal doors with solid panels
• Install concrete berm along south
side of compound
• Initial repair and application of
paint/coating
• Replace floodlight on roof
• Install MCC surge protection device
• Connect light fixtures to
photoelectric sensor
• Replace fence with 8' candy cane -
style security fence
• Demo existing grinder and bar screen
• Install dual channel grinders with
overflow bar racks
• Divert flow to El Fuerte pump station
instead of bypass pumping
• Condition
• Safety
• Risk
$97,000
20 Sewage Grinder
Improvements
• Condition
• Risk
• Operations
Improvements
• Reduced labor
$161,000*
21 PLC Replacement •
Replace PLC
• Condition
$88,000*
Emergency
22 Overflow Storage
Pond
• Replace concrete curb and handrail
around perimeter
• Replace 18" emergency overflow flap
gate
• Install epoxy/polyurethane coating to
entire surface of pond
• Condition
• Risk
•
$187,000
23 Odor Control Unit • Replace odor control unit
• Condition
$29,000
Plug at
24 RPS/Carlsbad
Interconnect
• Replace existing plug with 10" full
port plug valve
• Condition
• Risk
$44,000
25 Exhaust Fan
Replacement
• Install centrifugal exhaust fan rated
600 CFM
• Install 0.5 hp fan motor
• Energy efficiency
• Improved work
environment
$11,000
26 Pressure Surge
Improvements
• Install 1,000 gallon surge tank
• Install vacuum relief valves
• Risk
$521,000
Assets Nearing End • Replace submersible Pump Nos. 1, 2, • Condition 27 of Useful Life and 3 with Vaughan chopper pumps
$170,000
28 V&A
Recommendations
• Replace corroded conduits on
electrical box
• Condition
$10,000
Total Estimated Costs $1,069,000
Project is scheduled for completion in 2016. Cost Estimate is not included in the pump station Total Estimated Cost. Cost is Total Estimated Construction Cost and does not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work and CIP identification were completed concurrently. 5-4 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 548 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA Table 5.4 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary
Project
No.

Project
Project Components
Driver
Cost
($1,000)
29 Building and Site Items
• Install concrete berm between
compound and creek
• Install access stairs and erosion
control on slope for access to
SDG&E meter cabinet
• Crack injection to remediate an
active leak in the pump room
• Initial repair and application of
paint/coating
• Replace return pump control
panel pilot lights
• Asphalt repair and overlay
• Replace fence with 8' candy -
cane style security fence
• Condition
• Safety
• Risk
$195,000
30 VFD and PLC
Replacement
• Replace PLC
• Replace VFD's for Pump Nos.
1, 2, 4, and 5
• Condition
• Risk
$1,038,000`
31 Redundant Forcemain
• Install 24" HDPE redundant
forcemain along the alignment
of the existing excess effluent
line
• Risk
$7,992,000
32 Valve Replacement
• Replace all forcemain plug
valves (three 8", seventeen 12",
three 14", one 24" plug valves),
including motor -operated
valves at pumps 2 and 3
• Replace the 12" flanged check
valve at pumps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
• Condition
$233,000
31 Odor Control Unit
Rehabilitation
• Paint and patch fiberglass
housing
• Replace blower control panel
pilot lights
• Condition
$6
32 Automation of Gates
• Install motor -operated gate • Operations
actuators to the sluice gate Improvements
that divides wet well and both
slide gates upstream of the
grinders
$85
* Project is scheduled for completion in 2016. Cost Estimate is not included in the pump station Total Estimated Cost. Cost is Total Estimated Construction Cost and does not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work and CIP identification were completed concurrently. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 15-5
C5 Page 549 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 5.4 Buena Creek Pump Station CIP Summary (Cont.)
Project
No.

Project
Project Components
Driver
Cost
($1,000)
Wet Well Liner
33 Replacement and
Gate Repairs
• Surface preparation and concrete
repair in wet well
• Install new coating
• Bypass pumping
• Replace stop logs
• Replace seal on sluice gate
• Replace seals on slide gates
• Condition
• Risk
$525,000*
34 Odor Control Unit
Rehabilitation
• Paint and patch fiberglass housing
• Replace blower control panel pilot
lights
• Condition
$6,000
35 Automation of Gates
• Install motor -operated gate
actuators to the sluice gate that • Operations
divides wet well and both slide Improvements
gates upstream of the grinders
$85,000
36 Exhaust Fan
Replacement
• Install centrifugal exhaust fan
rated 2250 CFM, with 1.5 hp fan
motor in pump room
• Install centrifugal roof supply fan
rated 7000 CFM, with 3 hp fan
motor on roof
• Energy efficiency
• Improved work
environment
$30,000
37 Pump Selection
Programming
• Programming to allow to select • Operations
pump sequence in any order Improvements
$100,000
38 Pressure Surge
Improvements
• Install 1,000 gallon surge tank
• Install vacuum relief valves
• Risk
$812,000
39 Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
• Replace 8" Shadowridge flow
meter
• Replace 14" Encina flow meter
• Replace gas analyzer
• Rehabilitate sewage pumps 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5
• Condition
$118,000
40 V & A Projects
• Cathodic Protection
• Risk
$1,866,000
Total Estimated Costs $11,437,000
Project is scheduled for completion in 2016. Cost Estimate is not included in the pump station Total Estimated Cost. Cost is Total Estimated Construction Cost and does not include engineering design costs. Design cost estimates are provided separately as the design work and CIP identification were completed concurrently. 5-6 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 550 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA The "triple bottom line" approach was reviewed and discussed with the City. The City then gave feedback on the importance of each project for each category. Table 5.5 presents the weighting used for the prioritization of each category.

Table 5.5 Weighting of Categories for Prioritization of CIP Category
Weight
Financial
30%
Environmental
40%
Social
30%
Tota I
100%
Table 5.6 provides the results of the assessment for all pump stations. Appendix A contains detailed comparison sheets. The Total Prioritized Project Costs does not include projects identified later in the study.

Table 5.6 Prioritized Project List
Potential Project
Pump
Station 30%
Social
Ranking Category and Weight
Environmental
40%
Financial
Total
30% Rank Project Cost
Grinder Replacement
BVPS

3.9 4.8 3.9 12.6 $2,312,000
Grinder Improvements
RPS 3.0

4.0 3.0 10.0 $161,000
VFD/PLC Replacement BCPS 1.8 4.4 3.0 9.2 $1,038,000
Redundant FM
BCPS 0.9 4.4 3.0 8.3 $7,992,000
Valve Replacement
BVPS 2.4 3.2 2.7 8.3 $242,000
Building Items and Site
Work
BVPS 0.6 3.6 3.9 8.1 $693,000
FM Plug Valve
Replacement &
Automation
BCPS 2.4 2.8 2.7 7.9 $233,000
Vapor Phase Odor Control BVPS 3.3

2.8 1.5

7.6 $545,000
Building and Site
Improvements
BCPS 2.7 3.6 1.2 7.5 $80,000
Building and Site
Improvements
RPS 2.7 3.6 1.2 7.5 $36,000
Rehab Pump Nos. 4 & 5 BVPS 1.2 3.2 3.0 7.4 $50,000
Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
BVPS 1.5 4.0 1.8 7.3 $719,000
PLC Replacement
RPS L8 2.8 2.7 7.3 $88,000
VFD/PLC Replacement BVPS 1.5 2.4 3.0 6.8 $1,122,000
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 1 5-7
C5 Page 551 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY Table 5.6 Prioritized Project List (Cont.)
Ranking Category and Weight
Pump
Potential Project Station
Social
30%
Environmental
40%
Financial
Total
30% Rank
Project Cost
Asphalt, Overlay
BVPS 3.0

2.0 1.8

6.8 $60,000
Wet Well Liner
Replacement and Gate BCPS 0.3
Repairs

3.5 2.7 6.6 $525,000
Wet Well Rehabilitation BVPS L5 3.6 1.2 6.3 $901,000
Level Monitor Upgrades BVPS 2.1 2.4 L8 6.3 $29,000
Overflow Storage Pond RPS 1.2 2.8 2.1 6.1 $187,000
Replace Floating Plug at
RPS/Carlsbad
Interconnect
RPS 0.6 2.8 2.7 6.1 $44,000
Backflow Preventer
BVPS 0.9 2.4 2.1 5.4 $70,000
Fence
BCPS 2.1 1.6 1.5 5.2 $66,000
Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
BCPS 0.6 2.4 1.8 4.8 $118,000
Odor Control Unit
RPS 0.9 2.4 0.6 3.9 $29,000
Fence
RPS 2.1 0.4 1.2 3.7 $61,000
Assets Nearing End of
Useful Life
RPS 0.0 2.0 1.5 3.5 $170,000
V&A Recommendations BCPS 0.6 1.6 0.9 3.1 $1,866,000
Automation of Gates
BCPS 1.5 1.2 0.3 3.0 $85,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement BCPS 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 $30,000
Asphalt, Overlay
BCPS L2 0.8 0.9 2.9 $49,000
Odor Control Unit Repair BCPS 0.9

0.8 0.9

2.6 $6,000
V&A Recommendations RPS 0.3 L6 0.6 2.5 $10,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement RPS 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 $11,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement BVPS L8

0.0 0.0

1.8 $29,000
Total Prioritized Project Costs $19,657,000
5-8 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C5 Page 552 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA

5.3 CIP Consolidated Projects
The individual CIP projects were prioritized according to the criteria previously described. In a workshop with the City to discuss CIP projects and the best ways to organize them, a decision was made to consolidate projects with similar scopes by grouping them into four large projects.

The three largest projects make up their own CIP, and the smaller non -critical items are consolidated into one CIP. Projects scheduled for completion in 2016 during the current project, as well as recommended studies and assessments, are grouped separately.

The resulting four CIP projects are:
• Buena Vista Grinder Replacement.
• Buena Creek Redundant Forcemain.
• Buena Vista Vapor Phase Odor Control.
• Consolidated Rehabilitation Items (includes all remaining items).

Table 5.7 provides the list of consolidated projects, including their costs.

Table 5.7 Consolidated Projects
Project ID
1 Project
Current Project:

VFD/PLC Replacement;
Grinder Improvements
(RPS); Wet Well Rehab
Pump
Station
Highest Rank of
included Projects
All sites 10
Project Cost
$2,934,000
BVPS
2 Grinder Replacement

11.6 $2,312,000
3 Consolidated
Rehabilitation Items
All sites

8.3 $7,406,000
4 Redundant Forcemain BCPS 8.3 $7,992,000
5 Vapor Phase Odor
Control
BVPS 6.5 $545,000
6 Studies and
Assessments
All sites $555,000
Total Estimated Costs $21,744,000

5.4 Implementation Schedule
The results of the "triple bottom line" approach and discussions with the City also led to a decision incorporate these projects into the Asset Management Plan currently underway, as well as the agreement between the City and EWA regarding items that can be addressed as Operations and Maintenance tasks. Projects should be scheduled to minimize site disruption. 09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST2016 15-9
C5 Page 553 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

5.5 Business Case Evaluation
Business case evaluations are provided in subsequent sections for the CIP projects identified above.

5.5.1 Grinder Replacement at Buena Vista Pump Station

5.5.1.1 Background
The JWC grinder provides minimal protection for downstream equipment and needs to be cleaned manually. To maintain efficient pump station operations, improvements are needed.

5.5.1.2 Project Need and Drivers
This project is driven by the need to effectively convey raw sewage, including debris and solids, through the Buena Vista Pump Station without clogging the pumps or damaging equipment. The current configuration, Figure 5.1, is inadequate to meet the pump station's current needs, lacks redundancy, and provides no means of control through SCADA at EWA.

Improvements to the grinding and screening process at BVPS will reduce maintenance needs and staff exposure to hazards currently present from screenings removal, wet well entry, and the lifting associated with cleaning the bar screen. Improvements will also provide additional protection from pump clogging and equipment damage from debris.

5.5.1.3 Recommendations
Installing a new concrete vault to house redundant channel grinders is recommended as the most efficient way to improve the pump station's sewage grinding capability. A new concrete vault will be constructed between the influent manhole to the east of the pump station and the wet well.

The distance from the manhole and the building is approximately 23.5 feet, which the proposed channel would occupy approximately 18 feet of. A width of approximately 16 feet is required to accommodate the two grinders, separated by a bulkhead wall and access stairs from grade to the working surface.

Influent would enter the grinder channel from the 30 -inch influent pipeline downstream of the manhole and would be diverted by the bulkhead wall into two channels. Each channel would house a channel grinder with a capacity of at least 23.1 mgd, meeting the design criteria and providing full redundancy.

A DM -T36 Dimminutor by Franklin Miller is recommended for the channel grinder. This is an open channel comminutorthat uses multiple stainless bi-directional rotary cutters to reduce debris to fine particulate. The DM -T36 can handle a maximum flow of 24.3 mgd and a minimum of 2.8 mgd. It is designed for high flow and low headloss under full or occasional submergence.

The exact dimensions of the vault and channels will be designed to accommodate the 47 -inch wide dimminutors.
(Figure 5.1 Communitor and
Barscreen
5-10 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
cCas'"�[.

C5 Page 554 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA Channel frames secure the grinders and facilitate removal for service. Stainless steel slide gates with handwheel operators will be installed both upstream and downstream of the grinders so flow can be isolated for maintenance as needed.

The new concrete vault will be approximately 14 feet below grade to align with the invert elevation of the pipe. The open channels in the vault will be covered by FRP grating level with the top of the channels and bulkhead wall to provide a safe working surface for staff. The vault will be accessed through an aluminum hatch that opens to an aluminum landing and flight of stairs.

To access the grinders for removal, additional hatches are located in the asphalt.

Installing the concrete vault and grinders requires complete bypass of the pump station for the duration of the work. Work is estimated to take two months.

If the concrete vault and grinder installation is not

5.5.1.4 Alternatives
When looking into replacing the current configuration, the project team investigated whether the existing grinder channel could be repurposed and whether single or dual grinders could meet the pump station design flow. The first three options require a new concrete vault to be constructed between the existing manhole and the influent entrance to the wet well.

The alternatives and the primary reason for rejecting each are listed below. • Option 1 - Concrete vault housing redundant channel grinders able to handle design capacity. This project is recommended.
• Option 2 - Concrete vault housing dual channel grinders, each able to handle one half of design capacity, with a spare on the shelf: This option does not allow individual channels to be isolated for maintenance at design capacity and presents increased risk associated with removing and replacing a single grinder.
• Option 3 - Install a single channel grinder, with a spare on the shelf for redundancy, in where the existing grinder is located. This option requires significant modification to the wet well to accommodate a grinder that meets design capacity. • Option 4 - Install dual inline grinders on the influent pipeline, with a spare on the shelf for redundancy. Each grinder should be able to handle one half of design capacity. This option would require the inline grinders to be installed vertically to meet the minimum flow velocity needed to push solids through the screen, making it impractical on the gravity -fed pipeline.
• Option 5 - Install chopper pumps to provide redundancy to the system. This option does not allow the elimination of the existing barscreen and grinder as chopper pumps are not intended for large debris.
• Option 6 - Obtain a shelf -spare communitor of the same model as the existing unit. This option provides redundancy by providing a backup unit in case the existing communitor is removed for service or maintenance. This option is recommended as an interim measure to ensure continued performance of the pump station until Option 1 is implemented.

5.5.1.5 Justification
Installing a grinder vault with dual sewage grinders would protect critical assets downstream by removing debris from the influent that can clog pumps or physically damage equipment. It FINAL I AUGUST2016 15-11
C5 Page 555 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY would also provide the redundancy, which the current configuration lacks. A proactive approach to improving the grinding and screening at Buena Vista ensures the longevity of critical assets.

5.5.1.6 Project Cost
The project cost for Option 1 is estimated at $2,312,000.

5.5.2 Consolidated Rehabilitation Items

5.5.2.1 Background
The BVPS, RPS, and BCPS are critical facilities for conveying sewage from the City to the EWPCF for treatment. Maintaining and rehabilitating these facilities enables them to perform properly throughout their useful lives by preventing major equipment failure, loss of conveyance, and long-term difficulty in reestablishing operations.

5.5.2.2 Project Need and Drivers
The project needs and drivers for the Consolidated Rehabilitation Items include increasing operational flexibility, addressing safety and risk issues, reducing labor associated through maintenance, and restoring the pump stations to like -new condition by replacing or rehabilitating aging and damaged assets.

Table 5.8 lists the recommended projects, grouped by pump station.

Table 5.8 Consolidated Project Components
Pump Station
Buena Vista
Raceway
Project Component
Building Items and Site Work
Cost Estimate
$753,000
Rehab Pump Nos.4 & 5
$50,000
Forcemain Plug Valve Replacement $242,000
Grinder Improvements - Option 6 $51,000
Backflow Preventer $70,000
Wet Well Rehabilitation $901,000
Level Monitor Upgrades $29,000
Fan Replacement $29,000
Assets Near End of Useful Life $719,000
V&A Recommendations $48,000
Building and Site Work $97,000
Overflow Storage Pond $187,000
Odor Control Unit $29,000
Replace Floating Plug at
RPS/Carlsbad Interconnect
$44,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement $11,000
Pressure Surge Improvements $521,000
Assets Nearing End of Useful Life $170,000
V&A Recommendations $10,000
Total Cost Estimate
$2,892,000
$1,069,000
5-12 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
cCa1"l
C5 Page 556 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA Table 5.8 Consolidated Project Components (Cont.)
Pump
Station
Project Component
Building Items and Site Work
Cost Estimate
$195,000
Valve Replacement
$233,000
Odor Control Unit Repair
$6,000
Automation of Gates
$85,000
Buena Creek Exhaust Fan Replacement
Total Cost Estimate
$30,000 $3,445,000
Pump Selection Programming $100,000
Pressure Surge Improvements $812,000
Assets Nearing End of Useful Life $118,000
V & A Recommendations $1,866,000
Total Consolidated Rehabilitation Items Cost Estimate $7,406,000

5.5.2.3 Alternatives
No alternatives were evaluated for the purpose of this report.

5.5.2.4 Justification
These consolidated projects are justified because addressing the issues can prevent the need for larger projects or asset replacement from failures that will affect pump station operations. A proactive approach to asset maintenance and rehabilitation will decrease asset deterioration and maintenance costs while increasing asset longevity.

5.5.2.5 Project Cost
The project cost is estimated at $7,406,000.

5.5.3 Redundant Forcemain at Buena Creek Pump Station

5.5.3.1 Background
The BCPS effluent is carried to the BSD Encina forcemain by a single forcemain composed primarily of 18 -inch diameter PVC pipe. At approximately 7,500 feet downstream of the pump station, the forcemain connects to the BSD 24 -inch diameter PVC forcemain, which continues for about 8,400 feet to the gravity outfall near El Camino Real. Effluent is conveyed form the outfall to the EWPCF for treatment.

5.5.3.2 Project Need and Drivers
The forcemain is a critical asset and lacks redundancy, with no suitable backup to handle flows during failure. Since the forcemain must remain inactive, the ability to assess and maintain the pipeline is limited.

Adding a redundant forcemain would allow the interior of the forcemain to be visually assessed by CCTV or other means to identify issues before pipeline failure occurs. The redundant forcemain also improves flexibility for maintenance activities and provides a ways to handle increased flows that may occur.
09/23/2025
FINAL I AUGUST 2016 15-13
C5 Page 557 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTER 5 I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY

5.5.3.3 Recommendations
Alternative 5 follows the alignment of the existing excess effluent line, which was deemed not suitable for repurposing as a redundant forcemain because it does not meet the pump station's hydraulic requirement. The alignment consists of approximately 16,200 feet of 24 inch diameter HDPE. The smaller diameter pipe and the second shortest reach of evaluated alignments contribute to lower material and construction costs.

This alternative requires the least amount of traffic control, since about half of the reach is in green space, avoiding high volume roads as much as possible and minimizing community disruption. Although the existing excess effluent line would need to be demolished to make room for a new pipeline, space is available for it. This space minimizes utility conflicts, and no new easements are required.

According to the non -cost evaluation performed, this alternative is the highest ranked due to low community disruption and construction impact and minimized utility conflicts. If the City determines that utility conflicts are minimal and traffic control along Faraday is preferable to working in canyons and green spaces, Alternative 2 would be the second route recommended.

5.5.3.4 Alternatives
Six potential alignments were evaluated, including repurposing the existing excess effluent line.

The alternatives and the reasoning behind their rankings are described below. • Existing Excess Effluent Pipeline: The existing excess effluent line does not meet hydraulic criteria. Modifications to the dry well and replacement of asbestos concrete pipe are required to make this option feasible.
• Alternative 1 - South Melrose/Faraday/Orion Route: This alternative follows a high volume road and would require traffic control along the majority of the alignment.

Utility conflicts and encroachment permitting is expected. • Alternative 2 - South Melrose/Faraday/Canyon Route: This alternative ranks second and might be considered if the City's desire to avoid canyons and green spaces supersedes other criteria. This alignment represents the shortest of the routes considered.

Community disruption was the main factor in the lower ranking. • Alternative 3 - South Melrose/Palomar Airport Road Route: This alternative follows a high volume road and would require traffic control along the majority of the alignment.

Utility conflicts are expected.
• Alternative 4 - South Melrose/Faraday/EI Fuerte/Palomar Airport Road Route: This alternative ranked lowest in all but one category. This alignment is the longest of the alternatives investigated, requires the larger pipe diameter, utility conflicts and encroachment permitting is expected, and it is located in a high volume road, necessitating traffic control along the majority of the alignment. • Alternative 5 - Excess Effluent Alignment Route: This alternative is the highest ranking, primarily due to the shortest length and smaller diameter pipe, avoidance of utility conflicts and high volume roads, and lack of major permitting expected. 5-14 I AUGUST 2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
C
C5 Page 558 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CHAPTER 5 I CITY OF VISTA

5.5.3.5 Justification
Fines incurred from a spill can range from $1 to $10 per gallon. The average flow from BCPS is approximately 1,430 gpm. The fees associated with an uncontained spill could range from $2 million to more than $20 million dollars per day. At the lowest fine level, four days' worth of fines would cover the estimated cost of the new forcemain.

5.5.3.6 Project Cost
The project cost is estimated at $7,992,000.

5.5.4 Vapor Phase Odor Control at Buena Vista Pump Station

5.5.4.1 Background
Odor control is planned for the forcemain leaving the pump station, but the BVPS has no odor control measures in place. The wet well exhausts to the atmosphere through a stack, with no vapor or liquid odor control provided before release.

5.5.4.2 Project Need and Drivers
No odor receptors are close enough to the pump station to warrant odor control. In addition, developers are planning to construct a resort hotel adjacent to the pump station on the east side.

Thus, this project will be driven by the need to install new receptors near the pump station.

5.5.4.3 Recommendations
For the recommended vapor phase odor control project, a two -stage biological scrubber system will be installed, including a single bioscrubber vessel, an exhaust fan, control panels for the electrical components and water recirculation system, and nutrient supply.

5.5.4.4 Alternatives
A two -stage biological and carbon scrubber alternative was evaluated. The system includes two scrubber vessels, one bioscrubber vessel housing biological media that bacteria can grow on, and one carbon adsorbervessel that houses carbon media. The biological stage requires a nutrient supply and pump to feed the bacteria. Additional components include electrical and water control panels, a recirculation pump, and an exhaust fan.

5.5.4.5 Justification
This project will keep nuisance odors from disturbing clientele and staff if the resort is constructed, reducing complaints.

5.5.4.6 Project Cost
The project cost is estimated at $545,000.

FINAL I AUGUST2016 15-15
C5 Page 559 of 1112

CITY OF VISTA I CHAPTERS I PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY -This Page Left Blank Intentionally -
5 -16 I AUGUST2016 I FINAL
09/23/2025
c
C5 Page 560 of 1112

PUMP STATION REHABILITATION STUDY I CITY OF VISTA
Appendix A

CIP PRIORITIZATION COMPARISON TABLES
FINAL I AUGUST2016
09/23/2025
C5 Page 561 of 1112

09/23/2025
C5 Page 562 of 1112

9Z0Z/£Z/60
Z L L L 40 £9S abed
Client: City of Vista
Pr oject: Pump Station R ehabilitation
Description: Buena Vista Pump Station
Weight
30%
40%
30%
Potential Project/ Pr ocess
Area
Social
En vironmental
Financial
Total
Cost
Grinder Replacement
3 .9
4 .8
3 .9
12 .6
$2,312,000
VFD/PLD Replacement
1 .8
4 .4
3 9.2
$605,000
Building Items and Site Work
0 .6
3 .6
3 .9

8.1 $505,000
FM Plug Valve Replacement &
Automation
2 .4
2 .8
2 .7

7.9 $242,000
Vapor Phase Odor Control
3 .3
2 .8
1 .5

7.6 $545,000
Rehab Pump 4 & 5

1.2 3 .2
3 7.4
$50,000
Assets nearing end of Useful Life

1. 5
4 1 .8

7.3 $719,000
Asphalt, Overlay
3 2
1 .8

6.8 $60,000
Surge Tank Platform

4. 2
0 .8
1 .5

6.5 $118,000
Wet Well Rehabilitation

1. 5

3.6 1 .2

6.3 $638,000
Level Monitor Upgrades

2. 1

2.4 1 .8

6.3 $29,000
Fence

2. 7

1. 2
2 .4

6.3 $70,000
Backflow Preventer

0. 9

2. 4
2 .1

5.4 $70,000
V&A Recommendations

0. 6

1. 6

0.9 3.1
$48,000
Fan Replacement

1. 8
0 0

1.8 $29,000
TOTAL
$6,040,000

9Z0Z/£Z/60
Z L I, I, 40 1799 abed
Client: City of Vista
Project: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Description: Bu ena Vista Pump Station

SO CIAL
Potential Project/
Proce ss A rea
Vap or Phase
Odor Control
F ence
R ehab
Pump 5
Asphalt,
Overlay
Building
Items and
Site Work
Surge Tank
Platform
Backflow
Preventer
FM Plug Valve
Repl acem ent
Grinder
R epl acem ent
Wet Well
Reh abilitation
Assets near
end of
Useful Life
Level
Monitor
Upgrades
V&A
Recommendat
ions

VFD/PLD
Replace-ment
Fan
Replacement
Vapor Phase O dor
Contro l
x
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 0
1 1
1 0
Fence
o
x
1 o
1 a
1 1
a
1 1
1 1
1 0
Re hab Pump 4& 5
o
o
x
o
o
o
1 o
o
o
1 o
1 1
0 Asphalt, Overlay
o
1 1
x
1 a
1 1
a
1 1
1 1
1 o
Building Items and
Site Work
o
0 1
o
x
o
1 0
0 0
O
0 0
0 0
Surge Tank
Pla tform

1 1
1 1
x
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 Backflow
Preventer
o
0 0
0 0
0 x
o
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 FM Valve
Repla ce/Automate
o
0 1
0 1
a
1 x
o
1 1
1 1
0 Grinder
Replacement
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
x
1 1
1 1
1 Wet Well
Rehabilitation
0 0
1 0
1 a
1 o
a
x
o
0 1
0 Assets near end of
Use ful Life
o
a
o
0 1
0 0
0 o
1 x
o
1 1
1 Level Monitor
Upgrades
o
0 1
0 1
a
o
o
a
1 1
x
1 1
1 V&A
Recommendations
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
x
o
1 VFD/PLD
Repla cement
o
0 0
0 1
a
1 1
a
1 0
0 1
x
Fan Replacement
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 fY
X
Note:

1. Pro jects are scored by starting with the project listed in the vertical column. It is then compared o each project listed along th e h orizontal top axis . tf the project is deemed more critical than the project listed along the top, it is given a score of 1. If th e pr oj ect listed along thetop is considered more critical for the given ranking cate gory, then the project is given a score of O. The project score is then the sum of l's and Us running horizontally across the page. The sum is then multiplied by the category weight to dete rmine the proj ect's score in that category

9Z0Z/£Z/60
Z L I, I, 40 999 abed
Client: City of Vista
Project: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Description: Bu en a Vista Pump Station

ENVIRONMENT AL
Pote ntia l Project/
Pro cess Area
Vapor Phase
Odor Control
Fence
Rehab
Pump 5
Asphalt,
Overlay
Building
Items and
Site Work
Surge Tank
Platform
Backflow
Preventer
r'"' r iU9
Valve
Replacemen
Grinder
Replac emen
t
Wet Well
R ehabilitatio
n
""'
nearing end
of Useful
Level
Monitor
Upgrades
V&A
R ecommendat
ons

VFD/PLD
Replace-ment
F an
Replacement
Vapor Phase O dor
Co ntro l
x
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
Fence
a:
x
o
o
a,
o
o
i
a
1 o
o
o
o
1 Rehab Pump 5
1 1
x
1 c
1 1
1 o
o
o
o
1 o
1 Asphalt, O verlay
o
1 o
x
a
o
t
1 a
o
0 0
1 o
1 Building Items and
Site Work
o
1 0
1 x
t
1 t
a
1 0
1 1
0 1
Surge Tank
Pla tform
a
a
o
o
a
x
t
o
a
o
0 0
0 0
Backflow
Prev enter
1 1
0 o
a
o
x
a
o
1 0
1 1
0 1
FM Plug Valve
Replacement
a
o
o,
o
0 1
t
x
a
1 1
1 1
0 Grinder
Replacement
o
1 1
0 1
1 1
x
1 1
1 1
1 Wet W ell
Rehabilitation

0 1
0 a
o
o
x
1 Assets nearing
end of Useful Life

1 1
1 1
1 0
0 o
x
0 Level Monitor
Upgrades
o
1 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 o
x
1 0
1 V&A
Re commendations
o
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
o
x
1 1

VFD/PLD
Repla cement
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 0
1 1
o
x
Fan Replacement
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o
X
No te :

1. Projects are scored by starting w ith the project listed in the vertical column. It is then compared to each project listed along the horizontal top axis. If the project is deemed more critical than the project listed along the t op, it is given a score of 1. If the project listed along the top is considered more critical for the given ranking category, then the project is given a score of O. The project score is then the sum of 1's and O's running horizontally across the page. The sum is then multiplied by the category weight to determine the project's score in that category

9Z0Z/£Z/60
n
U7
Z L I, I, 40 999 abed
Client: City of Vista
Project: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Description: Bu ena Vista Pump Station

FINANCIAL
Potential Pro ject/
Pro cess Area
Vapor Phase
Odor Control
Fence
Rehab
Pump 5
Asphalt,
Overlay
Building
Items and
Site Work
Surge Tank
Platform
Backflow
Preventer
FM Plug Valve
Repl acem ent
Grinder
R epl acem ent
Wet W ell
R eh abilitation
Assets
nearing end
of Useful
Life
Level
Monitor
Upgrades
V&A
Rec ommendat
i ons

VFD/PLD
Replac e-ment
Fan
Replacement
Vapor Phase Odor
Control
x
o
0 1
0 0
0 0
o
t
0 0
Fence
1:
x
O
1 a
1 1
0 a.
1 1
1 0
0 1
Reha b Pump 5
1 x
1 0
1 11
0 l
0 l
0 Asphalt, Overlay
o
0 o
x
o
1 0
0 0
1 0
Building Items and
Site Work
1 1
1 1
x
1 1
1 a
1 1
1 1
1 Surge Tank
Pla tform
0 0
0 o
x
o
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 Backflow
Prev enter
1 0
0 a
1 x
o
a
1 0
1 0
FM Plug Valve
Replacement
1 1
o
1 o
1 1
x
o
1 t
o
1 o
Grinder
Replacement
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
x
1 1
1 1
1 1
Wet Well
Rehabilitatio n
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
x
o
1 1
1 Assets nearing
e nd of Useful Life
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 o
o
1 x
1 1
1 1
Level Mo nitor
Upgrade s
o
o
1 o
o
1 1
1 o
o
o
x
t
o
V&A
Reco mmendations
l
1 o
o
o
o
0 o
o
o
o
o
x
o

VFD/PLD
Replacement
1 1
1 1
o
1 i
1 o
o
o
1 1
x
Fan Replacement
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o
x
Note,

1. Pro jects are scored by starting with the project listed in thevertical column. It is then compared to e ach project liste d along the ho rizontal top axis . If the project is deemed more critical than the project listed along the top, it is given a score of 1. If th e pr oj ect listed along the top is considered more critical for the given ranking cate gory, then the project is given a score of O. The project score is then the sum of l's and O's running h orizontally across the page. The sum is then multiplied by the category weight to dete rmine the project's score in that category

9Z0Z/£Z/60
Z L I, I, 40 L9S abed
Client: City of Vista
Project: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Description: Buena Creek Pump Station
Weight
30%
40%
30 %
Po tential Project/ Pr ocess
A rea
S ocial
E nvir onmental
Fina ncial
T otal
C ost
Redundant FM

0.9 4.4
3 8.3
$7,992,000
Valve Replacement
2 .4
3 .2
2 .7
8 .3
$233,000
Building and Site
Improvements

2.7 3.6

1.2 7.5
$80,000
Wet Well Sprayer
2 .7
2 .4
2 .1
7 .2
$192,000
VFD/PLC Replacment

1.5 2.4
3 6.9
$930,000
Wet Well Liner Replacement
and Gate Repairs

0. 3
3 .6
2 .7
6 .6
$560,000
Fence

2. 1
1 .6

1.5 5.2
$66,000
Assets Near End of Use ful
Life

0. 6
2 .4
1 .8
4 .8
$118,000
Automation of Gates

1.5 1.2

0.3 3
$85,000
Exhaust Fan Replacement
3 0
0 3
$30,000
Asphalt, Overlay

1.2 0.8

0.9 2.9
$49,000
Odor Control Unit Repair

0. 9

0. 8
0 .9
2 .6
$6,000
TOTAL
$10,341,000

9Z0Z/£Z/60
ncri
Z L I, I, 40 999 abed
Client: City of Vista
Proj ect: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Descriptio n: Bue na Creek Pump Station
SOCIAL
Potential Project/
Pro cess Area
Asphalt,
Overlay
Fence
Od or Control
Unit R epair
Valve
Replac ement
Building and
Site
Improvements
Wet Well
Sprayer

VFD/PLC
Replacment
Redundant FM
Automation of
Gates
Wet Well Liner
Replac ement and
Gate Repairs
Exhaust Fan
Replacement
Ass ets Near End
of Useful Lif e
Asphalt, Overlay
X
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
1 0
1 Fence
1 X
1 0
o
0 1
1 1
1 o
1 Odor Control Unit
Repair
1 0
X
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 Valve Replacement
1 1
1 X
1 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
Building and Site
Improvements
1 i
1 0
x
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 Wet Well Sprayer
1 1
1 0
0 X
1 1
1 1
1 1
VFD/PLC Replacmen t
0 0
1 1
0 0
X
1 0
1 0
1 Redundant FM
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 X
1 0
0 0
Automation of Gates
0 0
1 1
0 0
1 0
X
1 0
1 Wet Well Liner
Replacement and Gate
Repairs
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0,
X
0 0
Exhaus t Fan Re placeme nt
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
X
1 Assets Nea r End of Use ful
Life
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
D
X
Note :

1. Projects are s co red by starting with the project listed in the ve rtica l column. It is the n co mpared to ea ch project listed al ong the horizontal t op axis . If the project is deemed mor e critical th an the project listed al ong the top, it is given a score of 1. If the project listed along the top is considered more critic al for the giv en ranking category, th en the pr oject is gi ven a score of O. The project scor e is then the sum of 1's and 0's r unning horizontally across the p age. Th e s um is then multiplie d by the category w eight to d et ermin e th e project's score in th at category

9Z0Z/£Z/60
ncri
Z L I, I, 40 699 abed
Client: City of Vista
Proj ect: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Descriptio n: Bue na Creek Pump Station

ENVIRONMENTAL
Po tential Project/
Pro cess Area
Asphalt,
Overlay
Fence
Od or Contr ol
Unit Repair
V alve
Replacement
Building and
Site
Improvements
Wet Well
Sprayer

VFD/PLC
Replacment
Redundant FM
Automati on of
Gates
Wet Well Liner
R eplac ement and
Gate R ep airs
E xh aust Fan
Replacem ent
Assets N ear End
of Us ef ul Life
Asphalt, Overla y
X
0 o
0 0
o
o
o
1 o
1 o
Fence
1 X
1 0
0 0
0'
0 1
0 1
0 Odor Control Unit
Repair
1 0
X
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 V alve Replacement
1 1
1 X
1 1
0 0
1 0
1 1
Building a nd Site
Improv ements
1 1
1 0
X
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 Wet We ll Sprayer
1 1
1 O
0 X
1 o
1 o
1 0
VFD /PLC Replacment
1 1
'1
1 0
0 X
0 0
0 1
1 Redundant FM
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 X
1 1
1 1
Auto mation of Gates
0 0
1 0.
0 0
1 0
X
0 1
0 Wet Well Liner
Replacement and Gate
Repairs
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 0
1 X
1 1
Exhaust Fan Replaceme nt
Q
0 0
O

0. 0
0 0
0 0
X
0 Assets Nea r End of Use fu l
Life
1 1
1 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
1 X
Note:

1. Pro jects a re scored by sta rting with the project listed in the vertical column. It is then compared to each project listed along the horiz ont al top axis. If the project is d eemed m ore critic al th an the pr oject listed along the top, it is given a sco re of 1. if the pro ject liste d along the to p is considere d more critical for the given ranking category, then the proj ect is given a score of O. The pr oject sc ore is th en the sum of 1's and O's running horiz ontally across the page. The sum is then multiplied by the categ ory weight to d et ermine the projects score in that category

SZ0Z/£Z/60
C)cri
Z L I, I, 40 0LS abed
Client: City of Vista
Proj ect: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Descriptio n: Bue na Creek Pump Station

FINANCIAL
Potentia l Project/
Pro cess Area
Asphalt,
Overlay
Fence
Odor Control
Unit Repair
Valve
Replacement
Building and
Site
Improvements
Wet Well
Sprayer

VFD/PLC
Replacment
Redundant FM
Automation of
Gates
Wet Well Liner
Replacement and
Gate Repairs
Exhaust Fan
Replacement
Assets Near End
of Useful Life
Asphalt, Overlay
X
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 Fence
1 X
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
Odor Control Unit
Repair
0 0
X
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 Valve Re place me nt
1 1
1 X
1 1
0 1
1 0
1 1
Bu ilding a nd Site
Improv ements
1 0
0 0
X
0 0
0 1
0 1
1 Wet We ll Sprayer
1 1
1 0
1 X
o
0 1
1 1
o
VFO/PLC Replacment
1 1I
1 1
1 1.

X
0 1
1 1
1 Re dundant FM
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 X
1 1
1 1
Au tomation of Gates
Q
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 X
0 1
0 Wet Well Line r
Replacement and G ate
Repairs
1 1
1 1
1 9
0 0
1 X
1 1
Exhaust Fan Replaceme nt
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
X
0 Assets Near End of Useful
Life
1 1
1 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
1 X
Note:
1 Pro jects are scored by s tarting with the pro ject listed in the vertical column. It is then co mpared to each pr oje ct list ed al ong the horiz ontal top axis . If the project is deemed mor e critical than the pr oject listed along the top, it is gi ven a P
sco re of 1. If the pro jec t listed along the to p is considered more critical for the given ranking category, the n th e proj ect is gi ven a score of O. The pr oje ct sc ore isth en the sum of 1's and O's r unning horiz ontally acr oss the page. The sum is the n multiplie d by the category w eight to det ermin e th e pr oj ect's score in th at category

SZ0Z/£Z/60
Z L 1, 4 4o ILS abed
Client: City of Vista
Project: Pump Station Rehabilitation
Description: Raceway Pump Station
Weight
30 %
40 %
30%
Potential Project/ Process
Area
S ocial
En vir onmental
Financial
T otal
C ost
Grinder Improvements
3 4
3 10
$174,000
PLC Replacement

1.8 2.8

2.7 7.3
$60,000
Overflow Storage Pond
1 .2
2 .8
2 .1
6 .1
$216,000
Replace Floating Plug at
RPS/Carlsbad Interconnect

0.6 2.8

2.7 6.1
$44,000
Building and Site
Improvements

1. 5
1 .6
2 .4
5 .5
$36,000
Wet Well Sprayer

2.7 1.6

0.6 4.9
$83,000
Odor Control Unit
Maintenance

Vista City CouncilSeptember 23, 2025

Vista City Council
September 23, 2025