Project Report - San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Transcription

Final Report
CS-199 Planning Support Services for
Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS)
Project Report
Prepared for
SFPUC
February 2014
Prepared by
A Joint Venture
300 California St, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104
This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering
practice. AECOM/AGS JV is making estimations/projections/recommendations based upon
limited information that has been made available to them from SFPUC and through industry
standard methodologies and techniques. Such estimations/projections/recommendations are
subject to many factors that are beyond the control of AECOM/AGS JV; and thus,
AECOM/AGS JV makes no representations or warranties, either expressed or implied, with
respect to such estimations/projections/recommendations and disclaim any responsibility for
deviations from the data presented in this report with respect to the outcome of future events.
CS-199 AWSS Facilities Preliminary Options Study
I
Task 11 Project Report
Contents
Table of Contents
Contents............................................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ix
1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Scope of Work ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3
Outline of Project Report .............................................................................................. 2
1.4
Methodology to Evaluate Program Alternatives ........................................................ 2
1.4.1 Needs Assessment and Project Definition ...................................................... 5
1.4.2 Development of Program Alternatives ........................................................... 5
1.4.3 Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................................ 6
1.4.4 Preferred Program Alternative ........................................................................ 6
2.0 Needs Assessment and Project Definition ............................................................................. 7
2.1
AWSS Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 7
2.2
Facility Descriptions ................................................................................................... 11
2.3
AWSS Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................... 15
2.4
Review of Existing Information ................................................................................. 16
2.5
Condition of Existing Assets ...................................................................................... 16
2.6
Needs Definition ......................................................................................................... 17
2.7
2.6.1 LOS Criteria and Performance Goals ............................................................ 17
System Deficiencies ..................................................................................................... 22
2.8
Project Identification ................................................................................................... 27
2.9
Project Analyses .......................................................................................................... 29
2.10
Project Performance/Sizing Criteria ......................................................................... 29
2.10.1 Pipe Fragility ................................................................................................... 30
2.10.2 Non Earthquake Hydraulic Model Results .................................................. 32
2.10.3 Post-Earthquake Hydraulic Model Results .................................................. 32
2.10.4 Project Configuration ..................................................................................... 32
3.0 Program Alternatives............................................................................................................. 35
3.1
Development and Description of Program Alternatives ......................................... 35
3.2
Non-Construction Alternatives.................................................................................. 42
II
3.3
Data Gaps .................................................................................................................... 43
4.0 Alternatives Evaluation and Scoring .................................................................................... 44
4.1
Evaluation Process ...................................................................................................... 44
4.2
Criteria for Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................... 45
4.3
Cost .............................................................................................................................. 46
4.4
Operations and Maintenance ..................................................................................... 49
4.5
Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 50
4.6
Water Supply Delivery Reliability ............................................................................. 51
4.7
Fire Fighting ................................................................................................................ 55
4.8
Insurance Premiums Benefits..................................................................................... 59
4.9
Environmental/Community Impacts........................................................................ 59
5.0 Preferred Program Alternative ............................................................................................. 62
5.1
Scoring and Ranking of Preferred Program Alternative .......................................... 62
5.2
Review and Recommendations.................................................................................. 63
5.3
Environmental Review ............................................................................................... 64
5.4
Funding and Staging................................................................................................... 66
5.5
Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 68
5.6
5.5.1 Schedule Constraints ...................................................................................... 68
5.5.2 Schedule .......................................................................................................... 70
Project Considerations ................................................................................................ 72
6.0 Operational Strategy .............................................................................................................. 73
6.1
Current Operational Strategy ..................................................................................... 73
6.2
6.1.1 Normal Operations ......................................................................................... 73
6.1.2 System Roles, Responsibilities, Staffing, and Training ................................ 73
6.1.3 CDD Staffing ................................................................................................... 73
6.1.4 Normal Valve Settings ................................................................................... 75
Operational Changes Considered .............................................................................. 80
6.3
Evaluation of Operational Changes........................................................................... 80
6.4
PWSS Assumptions..................................................................................................... 82
6.5
Recommended Operational Strategy......................................................................... 86
7.0 Non-Construction Recommendations .................................................................................. 87
8.0 Additional Assessment of Risk and Use of Potable or Co-Benefit System ........................ 90
9.0 AWSS Program Justification ................................................................................................. 95
10.0 Supplemental Condition Assessments ................................................................................. 98
10.1
Task 13.2 Materials Testing ........................................................................................ 98
III
10.2
Task 13.4 Pump Station 2 Alternatives .................................................................... 100
11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 102
References...................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix A: Project Data Sheets................................................................................................. 106
Appendix B: Cost Information..................................................................................................... 107
B.1 Project Cost Estimates ................................................................................................... 107
B.2 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs ..................................................................... 107
B.3 Program Alternative Capital Costs............................................................................... 107
B.4 Life Cycle Costs .............................................................................................................. 107
B.5 Updated Potable Co-Benefits Costs .............................................................................. 107
Appendix C: Program Alternative Schedules ............................................................................ 108
Appendix D: Insurance ................................................................................................................ 109
Appendix E: Evaluation Scoring ................................................................................................. 110
IV
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Evaluation Methodology Schematic ................................................................................ 4
Figure 2-1. Existing Auxiliary Water Supply System ........................................................................ 9
Figure 2-2. Loma Prieta Marina Breaks............................................................................................. 10
Figure 2-3. AWSS Pressure Schematic .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 2-4. Fire Response Areas ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 2-5. Existing System Delivery Reliability by FRA ................................................................ 21
Figure 2-6. Gatebook vs. AECOM/AGS Infirm Zones ................................................................... 31
Figure 3-1. Step vs. Ramp Function of Pipeline vs. Cisterns ........................................................... 37
Figure 3-2. Alternative A.................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3-3. Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-4. Alternative C .................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4-1. Alternative A Delivery Reliability by FRA .................................................................... 52
Figure 4-2. Alternative B Delivery Reliability by FRA..................................................................... 53
Figure 4-3. Alternative C Delivery Reliability by FRA .................................................................... 54
Figure 4-4. Probability of Fire Engine Need Exceeding Availability .............................................. 57
Figure 5-1. Preferred Alternative Planning Level Schedule ............................................................ 71
Figure 6-1. Recommended AWSS Pipe With Buffers ...................................................................... 83
Figure 6-2. Distribution of PWSS Needed (Alternatives A and B) ................................................. 84
Figure 6-3. Distribution of PWSS Needed (Alt. C) ........................................................................... 85
Figure 8-1. Reliability Scores with Potable Water Contribution ..................................................... 91
Figure 8-2. Potable Co-Benefits System ............................................................................................ 93
Figure 9-1. Loss vs. Reliability Correlation....................................................................................... 96
Figure 10-1. Photograph of Unnotched Broken Samples ................................................................ 99
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Non-Construction Recommendations............................................................................. x
Table ES-2. Recommended Future Projects ....................................................................................... xi
Table 2-1. Analysis and Modeling Tools........................................................................................... 18
Table 2-2. System Deficiencies ........................................................................................................... 22
Table 2-3. List of Potential Projects – Needs Identification ............................................................. 27
Table 2-4. Selection of Improvement Projects................................................................................... 33
Table 3-1. Alternative Program Prioritization .................................................................................. 35
Table 3-2. Potential Water Volume Loss and Tank Duration.......................................................... 36
Table 3-3. Program Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 38
Table 3-4. Deficiencies Addressed by Non-Construction Alternatives .......................................... 42
Table 4-1. Scoring of Pair-Wise Comparisons .................................................................................. 45
Table 4-2. Capital Cost Assumptions ................................................................................................ 47
Table 4-3. Life Cycle Cost Assumptions ........................................................................................... 48
Table 4-4. Cost Comparison of Original Program Alternatives including all Projects.................. 48
Table 4-5. Number of New Facilities Requiring Maintenance ........................................................ 49
Table 4-6. Comparison of Serviceability and Citywide Delivery Reliability ................................. 55
Table 4-7. Deployment Time and Resources by Water Source ....................................................... 56
Table 4-8. Firefighting Resources and Deployment Time Comparison by Alternative ................ 58
V
Table 4-9. Summary of Insurance Impacts (MMI Engineering) ...................................................... 59
Table 4-10. Summary of Environmental Effects ............................................................................... 61
Table 5-1. Evaluation Criteria Weighting ......................................................................................... 62
Table 5-2. Alternative Scoring ........................................................................................................... 63
Table 5-3. Evaluation Ranking of Alternatives................................................................................. 63
Table 5-4. Independent Utility Criteria ............................................................................................. 65
Table 5-5. Independent Utility of AWSS Projects............................................................................. 65
Table 5-6. Potential Funding .............................................................................................................. 67
Table 6-1. Closed Division Gate Valve Locations ............................................................................ 76
Table 6-2. Seismic Isolation Valve Locations and Status (pre-earthquake).................................... 77
Table 6-3. Seismic Isolation Valve Status (post-earthquake) ........................................................... 79
Table 6-4. Hydraulic Analysis of Operational Changes (No pipe breaks or leaks) ....................... 81
Table 6-5. GIRAFFE Comparison of Infirm Zone Isolation ............................................................. 82
Table 6-6. Summary of PWSS Needs................................................................................................. 84
Table 7-1. Non-Construction Recommendations ............................................................................. 88
Table 8-1. Comparing Reliability with Mw7.8 Event vs. All Events .............................................. 90
Table 9-1. Predicted Loss from Fire Following Earthquake ............................................................ 95
Table 9-2. Property Loss vs. Business Interruption Costs ............................................................... 97
Table 9-3. Benefits and Costs of Improved AWSS ........................................................................... 97
Table 10-1. Cast Iron Material Testing Results ................................................................................. 99
Table 11-1. Recommended Projects Post 2010 Bond ...................................................................... 104
VI
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AECOM/AGS JV
AECOM/AGS a Joint Venture
AHP
Analytical Hierarchy Process
ATC
Applied Technology Council
AWSS
Auxiliary Water Supply System
CAPSS
Community Action Plan Seismic Safety
CCSF
City and County of San Francisco
CDD
SFPUC City Distribution Division
CI
Cast Iron
CIP
Capital Improvement Program
CS-199
AWSS Engineering Services Contract CS-199
ESER
Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response
FRA
Fire Response Area
GIRAFFE
Graphical Iterative Response Analysis for Flow Following Earthquakes
GIS
Geographic Information System
GPM
Gallons per minute
LOS
Level of Service
MCCGV
Motorized Closed Control Gate Valve
MG
Million Gallons
MOCGV
Motorized Open Control Gate Valve
Mw
Moment Magnitude
MWSS
Municipal Water Supply System
NCEER
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
NPV
Net Present Value
VII
OCGV
Open Control Gate Valve
psi
Pounds per square inch
PWSS
Portable Water Supply System
SCADA
System Control and Data Acquisition
SF
San Francisco
SFDPW
San Francisco Department of Public Works
SFFD
San Francisco Fire Department
SFPUC
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SoMa
South of Market
TAP
Technical Advisory Panel
TM
Technical Memorandum
USGS
United States Geological Services
WSIP
Water System Improvement Program
VIII
Executive Summary
This Project Report summarizes the work performed by AECOM/AGS under the agreement
CS-199 Planning Support Services for the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS). A critical
goal of this study is to identify the actions that, if implemented, will maximize the likelihood
that the AWSS will effectively provide required firefighting capabilities after a major
earthquake. This will be achieved through planning and development of a comprehensive longterm capital improvement strategy for repair, retrofitting, improvement, and expansion of the
firefighting pipelines, cisterns, and tunnels.
This Project Report summarizes the work performed for CS-199. The purpose of this report is to
document the recommendations from tasks defined in the CS-199 Request for Proposals and
subsequent task orders and summarize the preferred Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
herein referred to as the preferred alternative or recommended projects. This technical
memorandum incorporates responses to inputs from the AWSS Technical Advisory panel and
SFPUC staff.
Absent a specific regulatory requirement for AWSS performance, this study included a
condition assessment, identified system needs, recommended Level of Service (LOS) Criteria,
developed projects and three alternative programs to upgrade the system to meet the LOS
criteria, performed an alternatives analysis and selected a preferred alternative to recommend
to SFPUC for implementation.
Hydraulic and reliability modeling were performed to determine the existing AWSS water
supply reliability. In the context of this study, reliability is defined as the percentage of the
water demand met by AWSS high pressure system and other sources. The specific demands
utilized for this study are those based on median ground motions following a Mw 7.8
earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Under these conditions, the existing system is 47% reliable
to provide probable fire following earthquake demands. The projects recommended for
implementation with portions of the ESER 2010 bond funds will increase the citywide reliability
to 68%. The recommended AWSS and Potable Co-Benefits system will extend the emergency
fire fighting water system to all areas of the City and improve the citywide reliability to 94%.
The planning level net present value (NPV) cost not including pipe replacement for the
recommended alternative is $137 million, which assumes cost sharing with water revenues.
Projects would need to be funded by future bonds, water revenues or other sources. These
projects represent an investment in the AWSS and potable system to extend the benefits beyond
the existing system to the balance of San Francisco. The CIP includes a variety of project types
IX
addressing the needs and deficiencies developed in the condition assessment and reliability
modeling
This planning study identified certain deficiencies that are related to operations and
maintenance or long term programs. These recommendations are listed in Table ES-1 and relate
to emergency preparedness, training, and maintenance. Items 11 through 14 have been
incorporated into a recommended pipeline testing program funded by the ESER 2010 Bond.
Table ES-1. Non-Construction Recommendations
AWSS Emergency pipeline repair, readiness and response
program
1
2
3
Priority
Maintenance
Confirm that all AWSS assets are entered into CDD's asset management
high
system and Preventative Maintenance requirements are established
Perform Regular maintenance and testing
high
medium
4
Establish leak detection program and a pipeline leak database to
monitor potential areas of concern
Check, flush and repair all suction connections regularly
5
Establish pipeline flushing program for AWSS
low
6
Establish a cistern inspection, filling and testing program
low
7
Operational readiness
Establish regular coordination meetings with SFFD
high
8
Train SFPUC personnel on system (communications, operational
low
strategies, emergency response requirements
high
9
Develop a system outage policy and procedures for planned outages
high
10
Prepare an emergency Response program and conduct training
exercise
high
CIP Planning
11
Establish testing program for AWSS pipelines
high
12
Establish program to replace hydrant laterals
high
13
Establish program to locate and mitigate AWSS crossings of pile
14
supported utilities and other utility interferences
high
Establish regular pipeline replacement program
medium
X
Additional hydraulic, reliability, and risk assessments were performed to determine the
sensitivities of the reliability scores to the following:
1. The annual risk of all potential earthquake events
2. The availability and use of potable water from the potable water system
3. The construction of a potable co-benefit system which provides daily benefit to the
potable water system but will also function as a high pressure fire system when
necessary
4. Possible abandonment of existing AWSS pipe in the infirm and non-infirm zones
Based on the additional analyses, the following recommendations are made:
The projects recommended for funding using the ESER 2010 Bond funds should
continue into planning, design and construction.
Projects which strengthen the existing AWSS should proceed with planning and
potential funding.
SFPUC should engage in a similar planning effort to assess the reliability of the existing
potable water distribution downstream of the Water System Improvement Program
(WSIP) hardened facilities and recommend potential areas of improvement.
Once the potable system is assessed, SFPUC can determine the most appropriate
methodology to achieve the LOS goals throughout the City.
Table ES-2 lists the recommended future projects.
Table ES-2. Recommended Future Projects
Facilities
Reliability Upgrades
University Mound Pipeline and
Pipe
Pump Station
Connections
Silver Extension Pipeline
and Water
AWSS
Twin Peaks Pipeline
Supply
Reliability Upgrades at Facilities
Cisterns
27 New
Sunset Main Replacement
Richmond Main Replacement
Potable Cobenefits
Hydrants Installed on WSIPstrengthened pipes
Total Cost
Net Present Value
$114 million
$23 million*
$137 million
Notes:
*- Assumes 75% water revenues/bonds and 25% general obligation bond cost share (associated water
revenues/bonds cost = $69 million)
XI
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
SFPUC has retained AECOM/AGS a Joint Venture (AECOM/AGS JV) under agreement CS-199
Planning Support Services for the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) dated October 2011
to assist in planning and alternative analysis for the AWSS pipelines, control system, seawater
intake tunnels, and cisterns. The objective for AECOM/AGS JV is to review existing
configurations, analyze system hydraulics, and make recommendations on pipelines, control
systems, seawater intake tunnels, and cisterns to optimize benefits from repairs and
improvements to the AWSS, given the potential for seismic activity in the area. A critical goal of
this work is to maximize the likelihood that the AWSS will effectively provide required
firefighting capabilities after a major seismic event.
This Project Report summarizes the work performed for CS-199. The purpose of this report is to
document the recommendations and summarize the preferred Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), herein referred to as the preferred alternative or recommended projects. This project
report incorporates responses to inputs from the AWSS Technical Advisory panel and SFPUC
staff.
1.2 Scope of Work
The Task 11 Scope of Work is as follows:
Fully develop the preferred alternative and produce a project report
containing a Capital Improvement Plan for funding and construction of
recommended system repairs and improvements. Document all project
features, including program goals and service levels, and specific criteria such
as capacity, size, location, alignment, materials, etc. Perform and document
supporting technical studies, such as refinement of hydraulic analysis,
geotechnical and control system analyses, environmental considerations,
reliability probabilities, and legal or right-of-way issues. Prepare a planninglevel Operating Strategy for operation and maintenance of the new and
repaired AWSS.
Deliverable: (This) Project Report.
1
1.3 Outline of Project Report
This project report consists of the following sections.
Section 2 includes the needs assessment and project definition
Section 3 includes development and description of the project alternatives
Section 4 describes the alternatives evaluation and scoring
Section 5 is a discussion of the preferred CIP including discussion of the projects,
schedule estimate of probable construction costs, and evaluation considerations
Section 6 includes a discussion of operational strategies of the existing system and the
options considered, and the recommendations for future operations
Section 7 includes non-construction recommendations
Section 8 includes additional assessments of reliability score sensitivities
Section 9 includes a discussion of justification for the capital program
Section 10 includes supplemental condition assessments
Section 11 provides conclusions and recommendations
1.4 Methodology to Evaluate Program Alternatives
Figure 1-1 shows the relationship between the primary analytical tasks in the project that relate
to the alternatives development, analysis and selection of the Preferred Alternative. These tasks
include:
Task 2: Existing Performance, Operations and Needs Assessment (Condition and Needs
Assessment). This task included evaluation of the existing condition of the system and
provided information to analyze performance of the existing system.
Task 3: Performance Goals and Evaluation Criteria. Task 3 identified and selected LOS
Criteria the overall analytical approach for the study.
Task 4: Geotechnical. Task 4 identified and evaluated the geologic, seismologic, and
geotechnical hazards for the AWSS pipelines, tunnels, and cisterns, and provides
mitigation methods.
Task 5: Testing Methods. Task 5 provided detailed recommendations for pipeline testing
methods to be performed by others. The testing is to determine the existing condition of
installed pipes, joints, and appurtenances as it concerns serviceability, working pressure,
flow capacity and characteristics, remaining life expectancy, corrosion, and related
items. These methods include non-destructive testing and destructive testing, the latter
being used only when required by physical constraints or when yielding justifiably
superior information.
Task 6: SCADA. Task 6 assessed the existing SCADA systems for AWSS and
recommended software and hardware upgrades, changes in system architecture and
modifications to extend the control to currently uncontrolled facilities.
2
Task 7: Seawater Intake Tunnels. Task 7 documented the assessment of the Seawater
intake tunnels for Pump Stations 1 and 2 and recommends modifications to increase the
tunnel reliability.
Task 8: Modeling. Task 8 included the quantitative and qualitative analysis of system
performance and evaluation of all of the data required to assess LOS Criteria and
Program Alternative considerations due to a seismic event.
Task 9: Alternatives (Development and) Analysis. This task included the identification
and evaluation of projects that form Programs that achieve LOS performance goals. The
analysis in this task provided the information for decision-makers to select the LOS
performance goals and the associated program of improvements.
Task 9.1: Additional Alternatives Analysis. This task included the assessment of risk to
events other than the Mw 7.8 event on the San Andreas Fault, assessed the sensitivity of
the analysis to the availability of potable water and looked at several alternatives to the
preferred alternative by use of potable or mixed systems.
Task 10: Insurance. Task 10 assessed the impact of the existing and proposed AWSS on
the Fire Insurance market in the City of San Francisco.
Task 12: Supplemental Geotechnical. This task included supplemental geotechnical
investigation and analysis on specific topics necessary to support the study.
Task 13: Condition Assessment. This task included supplemental assessments including
materials testing and assessments of potential site alternatives.
Task 14: Operations and Maintenance. This task included coordination of operations
strategies with SCADA improvements.
3
Figure 1-1. Evaluation Methodology Schematic
Task 2: Existing Condition and Needs Assessment
Collect & Review
Existing Data
Interviews
(SFFD, CDD, SFDPW)
Task 4, 6, 7, 12, and 13
Document
Existing Systems
Existing Condition
Assessment
Identify System
Deficiencies and
Improvement Needs
Task 3: Performance Goals & Evaluation Criteria
Projects of Interest
Identify Criteria
Categories and
Evaluation Criteria
Select LOS Criteria
Stakeholder
Input
Identify Evaluation
Methodology
Task 8: Modeling
Analytical Tool Assessment
(How can we model these?)
Define Modeling Needs and
Develop Modeling Tools
Fire Model
Water Supply Model
Fire Ignition
and Spread
GIRAFFE Model
Seismic Damage
Fire Growth
and Demand
Other Water Sources
System Performance
Modeling for
LOS Criteria
Task 9: Alternatives Development & Analysis
CIP Development
Workshop
Analyze Baseline
Performance
(Existing System)
Prioritize Projects
Identify High Risk
Areas
Identify Performance Gaps
and Additional Projects
Cost
Estimating
Project Alternative
Considerations
4
Analyze System
Performance
Develop Incremental
Improvement Program
Alternatives (P1-P7)
Calculate and Refine
Program Packages
Stakeholder
Input
Selection of Preferred
Program Alternative
and Associated
Performance Goals
Program Budgets,
Phasing, & Schedule
Project Definitions
and Functional Objectives
The preferred alternative was developed and selected in accordance with the methodology
described in the following SFPUC Infrastructure Division Procedures:
PD 2.01 Needs and Alternatives Identification
PD 2.02 Alternatives Analysis and Evaluation
The methodology consists of five steps and is summarized in the following sections.
1.4.1 Needs Assessment and Project Definition
A need is a recognized gap between apparent current conditions and that which is required or
desirable. The need may arise from operational problems, regulatory requirements, new
legislation, the age or perceived reliability of an existing piece of equipment or process,
security/safety requirements, and/or increased demand.
The needs assessment phase (Step 1) was completed prior to this Task, and is associated with
Tasks 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of this contract. The process and findings from Step 1 are summarized in
Section 2.0 of this report, and include the following:
a. Information collection and review, including reference documents, drawings, previous
studies, and other available data;
b. Preliminary condition assessment of applicable facilities and assets ;
c. Definition of the needs, including potential LOS criteria, performance goals, and
deficiencies;
d. Performance analysis of the existing system with respect to the LOS criteria and
identification of potential system performance gaps;
e. A discussion of ideas and potential solutions;
f. Development of preliminary projects which address identified deficiencies;
g. A preliminary screening of potential projects;
h. Development of project performance goals/sizing criteria; and
i. Analyses of potential projects included in the alternatives to collect information to be
used in the evaluations, including siting and construction issues, permitting
requirements, operational considerations, environmental issues, and other issues
associated with the alternatives. For each project, estimate construction cost and
duration, and identify potential cost and schedule risks.
1.4.2 Development of Program Alternatives
The development of Program Alternatives (Step 3) is summarized in Section 3.0 of this report,
and includes the following:
a. Develop up to seven repair, improvement, and expansion alternatives for the AWSS.
5
b. Lead the project team in ranking the alternatives based on scoring of individual
attributes for each of the alternatives.
c. Select the top three alternatives from these rankings.
d. Formulate and refine the three Program Alternatives from the list of potential projects
that meet the selected LOS performance goal and other objectives recommended by the
Steering Committee.
e. Perform system reliability and hydraulic analyses to confirm that each of the potential
Program Alternatives meets the LOS performance goal.
f. Confirm program evaluation criteria as set out in Section 4 of the SFPUC PM Procedures
PD 2.02 Alternatives Analysis and Evaluation, as refined and presented in Section 4.2.
g. Identify deficiencies which are not appropriately addressed by capital projects, and
develop non-project alternatives to address the deficiencies.
h. Confirm LOS performance goals, program evaluation criteria, and the three Program
Alternatives with SFPUC staff.
1.4.3 Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives
The analysis and evaluation of Program Alternatives (Step 4) is summarized in Section 4.0 of
this report, and include the following:
a. Select and confirm evaluation criteria to be used to rank the Program Alternatives.
b. Evaluate the three Program Alternatives based on selected evaluation criteria using an
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
c. Prepare draft scoring and ranking of Program Alternatives.
d. Present and discuss each Program Alternative with the SFPUC Steering Committee.
Present draft scoring. Refine scoring and ranking with Steering Committee input.
e. If required, receive Steering Committee comments, refine analysis.
f. Confirm selection of a Preferred Program Alternative.
1.4.4 Preferred Program Alternative
Development of the Preferred Program Alternative (i.e., preferred alternative) included the
following actions:
a. Address any remaining project planning level project assumptions and unknowns.
b. Develop program schedule.
c. Assess independent utility of each project contained in the Preferred Program
Alternative, for development of environmental permitting strategy.
d. Present Preferred Program Alternative to the SFPUC.
Following the presentation of the preferred alternative, further work was completed based on
comments from SFPUC. This project report summarizes the latest recommendations and
conclusions and supersedes the task technical memoranda.
6
2.0
Needs Assessment and Project Definition
2.1 AWSS Background and Purpose
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake is considered to be one of the most severe earthquakes in
recent history. Approximately 80 percent of San Francisco’s (City’s) total loss was caused by the
fires following the earthquake (ATC, 2005). Separate major fires broke out at several locations to
become a large conflagration, engulfing the northeast quadrant of the City.
The earthquake and resulting fires caused approximately 3,000 deaths and destroyed nearly
28,000 buildings. The total estimated property loss was approximately $524 million in 1906
dollars (Scawthorn et al., 2006). The National Fire Protection Association has estimated the fire
losses to be $7.8 billion in 2006 dollars (NFPA, 2007). The domestic water system was severely
damaged, sustaining more than 300 breaks on water mains and 23,000 breaks on service
connections. There was insufficient water available to combat the numerous fires that had
transpired due to the earthquake. Roughly 50 fire events occurred throughout the city, mostly
in the downtown area. When the fire was finally extinguished several days later, almost all of
the downtown was destroyed. The fires caused by the 1906 earthquake accounted for 85% of the
damage to residents and businesses (NCEER-94).
The “Auxiliary Water System for Fire Protection” study by Marsden Manson was conducted in
1908 to evaluate the need for a dedicated water system for firefighting in the City. The 1906
earthquake highlighted the fragility of the domestic system and the necessity of an improved
system. After the 1906 earthquake and resultant fires, the price of fire insurance became a severe
handicap to businesses. Further protection for residents and businesses from conflagration was
necessary; otherwise, the future growth of the city would be hindered. San Francisco has
proven to be more susceptible to fire loss than any other large American city with many factors
contributing to the City’s vulnerability. Some of the most important issues include: the large
number of buildings constructed of wood, the many streets too steep to permit firefighting
equipment, dry summer months, high winds during summer evenings, and the existing
vulnerability of the domestic water system (Marsden, 1908). Due to these factors and the high
seismic risk in the San Francisco Bay Area, City leaders approved the construction of an
independent fire protection system, known as the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS). The
AWSS was implemented to be used as the secondary defense against fires in the event the
Municipal Water Supply System (MWSS) fails.
The AWSS is a water supply system consisting of pipelines, cisterns, reservoir, storage tanks,
and saltwater pump stations. Studies showed the most effective system would be to have mains
approximately 5 feet below the surface and sufficient pressure to replace the use of portable
steam pumping engines or fire engines. The system was intended to be ready for instant use
7
and allow the fire department to reach the fires and apply water more quickly. Additionally, the
AWSS was designed to function in the event of a major earthquake. It was built with restrained
pipeline joints as well as fewer branches than the domestic system and no service connections,
thus making it less vulnerable. Planned with a normal main size of 10 to 12-inches and gate
valves strategically placed within the system, breaks can be isolated to maintain the integrity of
the system. This is especially important in the filled-in areas where breaks and ruptures are
more likely in the event of an earthquake. Due to concern for rapid deterioration associated
with salt water use in pipes, it was determined to use fresh water in most cases. In extreme
cases where additional water is needed, sea water can be drawn from the bay with fire boats or
pump stations and used to charge the system (Marsden, 1908).
Construction of the AWSS was completed in 1913 (SFFD, 1996) at a cost of 5.2 million dollars.
The original AWSS construction provided additional level of fire protection to the highly
developed northeast portion of the City, including downtown. The original construction
included 72 miles of distribution pipe concentrated in the densely populated northeast
quadrant of the City, 889 hydrants, and the major above ground components of the system
including Twin Peaks Reservoir, Ashbury & Jones St tanks, and both Pump Stations 1 and 2.
The area where the AWSS was installed is considered the “Protected Area.” Because the
pressure from Twin Peaks Reservoir was greater than what was deemed necessary, the
protected area was separated into two zones. The Lower Zone includes everything less than 150
feet in elevation and covers approximately six square miles. That zone is fed by the Jones St
Tank and included the congested value district. The Upper Zone includes everything with an
elevation greater than 150 feet. That zone is approximately 2.25 square miles and is supplied by
the Ashbury Tank. Each zone is supplied water under pressure up to 150 psi from their
respective reservoirs. When necessary, during emergencies, the lower zone may be connected
with the reservoir in the upper zone or Twin Peaks to provide a necessary increase in pressure.
The AWSS has been expanded and improved through several bond measures performed in the
1930s, the 1970s, and the 1980s. The latest system configuration can be seen in Figure 2-1. The
importance of maintaining and expanding the AWSS can be tied to the risk of fire losses in the
City. During day-to-day firefighting operations, the AWSS supplements the domestic system.
Following an earthquake, however, the AWSS may become the primary water supply for
firefighting. It permits rapid concentration of powerful streams without the use of
pumpers in the areas served.
8
Figure 2-1. Existing Auxiliary Water Supply System
Source: SFPDW GIS
9
The performance of the AWSS remains untested in response to an earthquake of the same
magnitude as the 1906. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was the largest earthquake in northern
California since the construction of the AWSS in 1913. The 1906 earthquake had a magnitude of
7.8 which is significantly higher than the 6.9 magnitude of Loma Prieta. Even so, the damage
done by the Loma Prieta earthquake was still quite significant and give an indication of the
level of damage that a seismic event of Mw 7 or greater may induce.
Figure 2-2. Loma Prieta Marina Breaks
10
Following the earthquake, approximately 69 main breaks and 54 service connection breaks were
documented on the MWSS in the Marina District. Additional repairs that were not documented
may have also occurred. The repairs were spread throughout the area bounded by Marina
Boulevard and Chestnut Street to the north and south and by Buchanan and Baker Streets to the
east and west (USGS, 1992). The breaks in the system impaired water pressure and flow to the
MWSS hydrants. Refer to Figure 2-2 for the locations of the Marina breaks.
The AWSS suffered damage due to liquefaction and lateral earth spread. There was one 12-inch
main break in the South of Market (SOMA) area at 7th St. and Natoma St., and four fire hydrant
breaks, with three located in SOMA and one in the Foot of Market area. In addition, two leaks
were discovered in the Marina District and on Folsom St. in the Mission District.
The events of the Loma Prieta earthquake illustrate several points regarding the need for the
AWSS following a major earthquake in the future:
MWSS pipes will sustain damage in certain areas of the City, which will impair the
ability to deliver water for firefighting.
Due to the design features of the AWSS, it is likely to be more serviceable after an
earthquake. However, it may still sustain some damage after an earthquake.
Multiple redundancies in fire water supply systems are necessary. In the Loma Prieta
earthquake, the third line of defense, the Portable Water Supply System (PWSS), and
fireboat, were successful in suppressing the fire in the Marina District.
As expected, all AWSS damage was concentrated in the infirm areas. Damage in these
areas could not be isolated due to loss of power to the isolation valves. While the
majority of the AWSS network remained intact, specific portions of the system became
inoperable as a result of the breaks.
Crews needed to be deployed to manually operate valves to isolate breaks.
2.2 Facility Descriptions
San Francisco possesses three major water supply systems used to deliver water throughout the
City and fight fires: the MWSS, the AWSS, and the PWSS.
The MWSS distribution network system serves as the primary water supply system within the
City and County of San Francisco (CCSF). This system is typical of other large cities and is used
to deliver potable water to customers and to the extensive network of low pressure fire
hydrants. City Distribution Division (CDD) is responsible for supplying water to approximately
180,000 service connections and operating and maintaining 13 reservoirs, 20 pumping stations,
a network of approximately 1,300 miles of pipeline and hydrants, and 12,000 water valves.
The second water supply system is the AWSS which is an additional source of water for
combating fires. It is utilized by the SFFD and operated and maintained by CDD. The AWSS
11
delivers water under high pressure solely for firefighting, is independent from the MWSS, and
is capable of delivering water at significantly higher pressures than the MWSS.
The AWSS consists of high pressure water mains and hydrants, a storage reservoir, tanks,
emergency saltwater pump stations, fireboats and cisterns. The AWSS is an independent system
owned and operated by SFPUC and utilized by the SFFD exclusively for firefighting. In regards
to terminology, the AWSS is defined, using standard SFFD conventions, as a combination of the
following major facility components:
High Pressure System: This consists of Twin Peaks Reservoir, Ashbury Tank, Jones
Street Tank, the high pressure pipeline network including hydrants and branches,
Pump Station 1, Pump Station 2, the fireboat manifolds, and the suction connections
located at the perimeter of the Bay and Embarcadero, suction line running west on
Fulton Street from lakes in Golden Gate Park, and other appurtenances (not including
cisterns or fireboats).
Cisterns: The collection of underground cisterns located throughout the City.
Fireboats: SFFD’s two fireboats – the “Guardian” and the “Phoenix”.
Water stored in one reservoir (Twin Peaks Reservoir) and two tanks (Ashbury and Jones Street
tanks) and is supplied at a high pressure - up to approximately 325 psi - via hydrants with
black, red, or blue tops. The color of the hydrant’s top represents the location of the hydrant in
one of the three distribution zones of the AWSS, as shown in Figure 2-3. The pump stations and
fire boats supply saltwater from San Francisco Bay. Where available, the AWSS is an additional
source of water for combating fires. Figure 2-1 shows the two pump stations, two water storage
tanks, one reservoir, 154 functional cisterns, and approximately 135 miles of pipes in the AWSS.
Not shown on the map, but also part of the AWSS, are the suction connections which allow
drafting directly from San Francisco Bay and the inlet manifolds which allow fireboats to charge
the pipe system.
The AWSS has four water supply sources:
1. The primary water storage supply for the existing AWSS is provided by the Twin Peaks
Reservoir. Ashbury Tank and Jones Street Tank regulate the pressure throughout the
system. Each tank is at a different elevation, the highest (Twin Peaks) being 758 feet
above sea level creating a distribution system that is supplied by gravity capable of
pressures up to 325 psi depending on the elevation of the hydrants within the
distribution system and the division and bypass valve positions. The following items
may be used to supply San Francisco Bay water when this primary storage is exhausted
or becomes unavailable.
2. Two saltwater pump stations located on the San Francisco Bay side can pump bay water
directly into the distribution system and AWSS storage tanks.
12
3. Two fireboats, normally berthed at Pier 22 ½, can supply bay water to the City’s
waterfront, to the AWSS via five manifolds located along the bay and to PWSS hoses.
4. Approximately 154 functional underground cisterns located throughout the city can also
be used as an emergency water source for combating fires. Cisterns are not connected to
the piping system as they are standalone components and water must be pumped from
them using engine pumpers.
5. 35 suction connections along the bay allow engine pumpers to draw by suction from the
bay.
6. A suction line with low pressure hydrants along Fulton St. draws from lakes in Golden
Gate Park.
The AWSS is divided into three zones, Twin Peaks (black-top hydrants), the Upper Zone (redtop hydrants), and the Lower Zone (blue-top hydrants). The Twin Peaks Zone currently
includes any area west of Twin Peaks and greater than 300 ft in elevation. The Upper and
Lower Zones are isolated by a series of gate valves. The Upper Zone consists of the AWSS
components at city areas located above 150-ft elevation. The Lower Zone consists of the AWSS
components at city areas located below 150-ft elevation. Under normal operations, Jones Street
Tank serves the lower zone and Ashbury Tank serves the upper zone and Twin Peaks Reservoir
serves the Twin Peaks Zone. The zones can all be opened to serve as one zone at the highest
pressure when needed.
13
Figure 2-3. AWSS Pressure Schematic
The AWSS pipeline and hydrant system is used solely for firefighting. City ordinance dictates
that no municipal department, other than the Fire Department, is permitted to use the AWSS.
Automatic sprinkler systems are not allowed to be connected to the system.
The cost of installing AWSS pipe is significantly higher than that for typical domestic water
pipe. Previous studies (Metcalf & Eddy, 2009) have estimated that each mile of AWSS costs $19
million to install vs. approximately $3.7 million for domestic water pipe. There are several
factors that contribute to the higher cost. Pipe fittings and hydrants are specially cast, making
them costly to procure. There is a single foundry that produces these components. For example,
an AWSS hydrant costs approximately $18,000 vs. $3,000 for a standard domestic hydrant. A 45degree bend costs approximately $5,100 vs. $2,800 for the same component of the domestic
water system. The pipe joints for domestic water pipes use special restrained gasketed joints
which may be pushed on in the field. Thrust blocks are required at some points. Due to the
higher operating pressures AWSS pipes use these similar types of joints with the joints
restrained against pull-out using stainless steel tie rods. The use of tie rods increases the cost of
both material and installation for AWSS pipe.
14
Although it is not a major water supply system, the PWSS also provides firefighting support.
This system is considered as equipment rather than as part of AWSS and the SFFD can use it as
another line of defense. The PWSS is an above ground portable system consisting of large
diameter hoses, pressure reducing valves, and portable hydrants. The PWSS can be used to
draft water from alternative water sources and transport water over long distances when the
MWSS and AWSS pipelines are not available.
Section 2 of the Task 2 TM describes the AWSS and all facilities in greater detail.
2.3 AWSS Operations and Maintenance
The AWSS is generally used for day-to-day “greater alarm” incidents and some working fires
occurring within the AWSS service area. The AWSS is typically able to serve an area that
extends approximately 1,000 feet to either side of the pipelines. However this distance varies
due to variables such as location of fire, topography of the area, type of fire (high rise vs. low
rise), pressure required, pressure within the AWSS pipeline system and whether an engine
pumper is used. The SFFD utilizes the AWSS frequently for greater alarm fires because of the
higher capacity and pressures and at the same time gaining experience operating the system.
The need for the AWSS following an earthquake is dependent on many factors including the
likelihood and severity of fires following a large earthquake and the anticipated immediate and
continued ability of the MWSS mains to provide water following an earthquake. The condition
of the MWSS distribution system following an earthquake has not been evaluated in this study.
The SFFD utilizes the AWSS during firefighting events. CDD is responsible for the maintenance,
repair, and proper operation of the system. During firefighting events, both agencies coordinate
to enable the proper operation of the system to respond to the dynamic needs of the fire.
During normal operations, the three AWSS zones (Twin Peaks, upper zone, and lower zone)
operate independently to provide water supply for firefighting. The upper and lower zones of
the AWSS are normally supplied with fresh water by gravity from the Jones St and Ashbury
Tanks. The fresh water supply stored in Twin Peaks Reservoir at high elevation provides
supply for the Twin Peaks zone and is also available to increase pressures in the entire system
and fill the storage tanks as required. The reservoir and tanks are all connected, via air gap, to
the MWSS to maintain the operating storage height.
AWSS maintenance is performed on an as needed basis. Previously, when the AWSS was
owned and operated exclusively by the SFFD, there was one assigned plumber to each of the 10
fire department districts. Each plumber would be responsible for their respective facilities. CDD
has 40 MWSS plumbers capable of working on the AWSS. There currently is no specific
15
preventative maintenance program. Fire hydrants, leaking pipe segments, pump stations, and
tanks are serviced, repaired, installed, replaced, and painted on a monthly request basis and as
required.
2.4 Review of Existing Information
Collection and collation of existing information were performed in Tasks 2 and 5, as required
for the needs assessment phase, and is summarized in the respective TMs associated with each
task. In particular, the condition of existing assets (Section 2.2) was assessed by reviewing and
summarizing previous inspection records, repair records and physical inspection and testing
records. No detailed technical evaluations were performed in Task 2. Refer to Appendix A of
the Task 2 TM for a listing of information reviewed and Appendix F of the Task 2 TM for a
summary of the AWSS Geographic Information System (GIS) information collected.
2.5 Condition of Existing Assets
Information about the condition of the existing AWSS assets was developed as part of Task 2
and is presented in detail in Section 5.0 of the Task 2 TM. Knowledge of the condition of the
existing AWSS is based on limited available information and is not well documented. Pipeline
testing and analysis of testing results is required to better understand the condition,
vulnerabilities, and deterioration rate of the AWSS. In the Task 5 TM, detailed
recommendations are provided for pipeline testing and implementation of a condition
assessment program. Due to the time required to perform initial testing and implement a
condition assessment program, the intent is that the CIP be developed based on available
information, while in parallel, the condition assessment program is developed and
implemented. Testing should be conducted over the next several years and on an ongoing
periodic basis thereafter, and will allow identification of deficiencies not yet known, confirm the
overall condition of the system, and allow refinement of a pipeline replacement program.
As data are collected and interpreted, a pipeline rehabilitation and replacement program should
be implemented by the SFPUC to replace, rehabilitate, or upgrade existing AWSS pipelines and
other assets. Such a program is recommended in the recommended program. It is also possible
that findings from future condition assessment activities will identify additional capital
expenditures required to replace aged facilities as they reach the end of their useful service life.
Initial replacement priorities should include the cast iron pipelines in infirm areas and utility
crossings.
As the pipelines are replaced or rehabilitated, portions of the system in the heavily gridded and
infirm areas may be abandoned. Modeling indicates that between 26-39% of the system in the
heavily gridded area could be abandoned without a loss in reliability. During project planning
reliability and hydraulic modeling should be performed to confirm any abandonment or
skeletonizing of the system.
16
2.6 Needs Definition
The goal of the AWSS CIP is to maximize the likelihood that the AWSS will effectively provide
required firefighting capabilities after a major seismic event. A major earthquake is defined as
an earthquake with a moment magnitude Mw7.8 on the San Andreas Fault, Mw7.1 on the
Hayward Fault, or Mw6.8 on the Calaveras Fault.
The objective of the alternatives analysis phase is to develop a Preferred Program Alternative,
which optimizes benefits from repairs and improvements to the AWSS, given the potential for
seismic activity in the area.
The developed Program Alternatives address the need as defined by the selected LOS
performance goals described below in Section 2.6.1, and address system deficiencies identified
under Task 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and listed below in Section 2.6.2.
2.6.1 LOS Criteria and Performance Goals
LOS criteria are the metrics by which performance of the AWSS and the benefits of the
improvement program (Program) are measured. LOS performance goals are the quantitative
and qualitative targets for each criterion to be achieved by the program. These targets were
selected by decision makers based on analysis of the benefits that can be achieved by the
projects in the Program and their respective costs. Together, the LOS criteria and performance
goals form the guiding principles for developing the program of improvements to the AWSS.
The selection and development process for the selection of the LOS criteria and performance
goals is detailed in the Task 3 TM. The AWSS is not bound by regulatory requirements to meet
certain criteria. Instead, SFPUC must establish the LOS criteria and performance goals. These
goals were set once the existing condition of the system was evaluated.
LOS criteria are measured using modeling tools such as hydraulic modeling, reliability
modeling, and geotechnical analyses tools, listed below in Table 2-1.
17
Table 2-1. Analysis and Modeling Tools
Modeling Tools Needed to Measure Criteria
Criteria
Category
Evaluation Criteria
Water
Delivery
Reliability
Water Supply
Reliability
Geographic
Coverage
Distribution of Water
Delivery Capability
Hydraulic
Model
Reliability
Model
Water
Supply
Models
Fire
Ignition
Model
Fire
Spread
Model
Given the input provided by Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), SFPUC Technical Steering
Committee, SFPUC Management Oversight Committee, and SFPUC staff, and with
considerations regarding project constraints, it was recommended that the LOS criteria
should be water delivery reliability. It was also recommended that the LOS criteria address
geographic distribution of water availability. Geographic areas were defined and LOS targets
for water delivery reliability were attributed to individual sub-areas as well as the City as a
whole.
The Task 8 TM describes the modeling performed using hydraulic and reliability modeling
tools in detail. The following is a brief outline of the methodology utilized to evaluate the LOS
criteria for water delivery reliability and geographic coverage:
a. Delineate sub-neighborhood Fire Response Areas (FRA, 46 in total) based on SFFD
engine response areas, and modified in the downtown area to capture the density of
AWSS. The delineation of FRAs is shown below in Figure 2-4.
b. Determine a set number of ignitions derived from a Monte Carlo analysis of possible
number of ignitions given the peak ground accelerations from a Mw7.8 San Andreas
earthquake.
c. Determine the most probable locations of the set number of ignitions.
d. Estimate the representative fire demand and location for each FRA.
e. Perform reliability modeling, incorporating Monte Carlo analyses of system damage, to
determine system reliability (total water available divided by total demands) based on
ability of AWSS to meet estimated fire demands.
f. Estimate system (citywide average FRA) and individual FRA performance in terms of
water delivery reliability.
18
Figure 2-4. Fire Response Areas
Hydraulic analyses of the system were performed using the Graphical Iterative Response
Analysis for Flow Following Earthquakes (GIRAFFE) program. GIRAFFE computes a
probabilistic delivery reliability accounting for multiple iterations capturing the range of
possible damage scenarios. Input to GIRAFFE included facility fragilities developed for AWSS
and other pipe systems as well as fire demands developed with fire ignition and spread models.
GIRAFFE was developed by T. O’Rourke and colleagues at Cornell University to simulate
hydraulic networks under damaged states and was used as the primary engine in the reliability
19
modeling. GIRAFFE uses the open source EPANET1 model as the hydraulic engine and is
capable of performing both deterministic and Monte Carlo simulations of pipe damage.
Input to GIRAFFE includes the system model and projected pipe repair rates. These repair rates
were calculated and compared using various methods found in the literature. A detailed
analysis for the fragility rates is included in the Task 8 TM and summarized below in Section
2.9.1.
Seismic assumptions governing the analysis are based on the design earthquake presented in
the scope of work, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Two sources of
geotechnical data were utilized in the fragility analysis for comparison:
United States Geological Survey (USGS) information
Project-specific AECOM/AGS developed data, compiled by AGS Consulting
Engineers
The development of probable fire demands is described in detail in the Task 8 Modeling TM.
They have been developed for each FRA using the average of the 60 minute post fire demand
for the 1000 demand sets provided by Charles Scawthorn using a Monte Carlo analysis of fire
ignitions and fire growth following a 7.8 magnitude event on the San Andreas Fault.
There are two methods of quantifying reliability, as summarized below:
“Connectivity” - The percentage of areas satisfied (i.e., number of nodes satisfied /
divided by the total number of nodes in the City)
“Serviceability” - The percentage of the demand satisfied (i.e., water supplied /demand
requested)
It should be noted that although the true definition of connectivity is any amount of water that
reaches a particular modeled node, due to the limitations of the computational tools in this
study, a node is satisfied only if the full demand is met. Post processing was performed for the
final alternative programs to calculate the serviceability (henceforth referred to as “reliability”)
for each FRA for each of the 15 GIRAFFE Monte Carlo runs.
The reliability of the existing AWSS in achieving the LOS objectives was evaluated utilizing the
GIRAFFE tool, alternative water supply modules and post processing, with results shown in
Figure 2-2. GIRAFFE reliability modeling indicates that the existing system has a citywide
average FRA reliability score of 47% with seven FRAs scoring less than 10%. It should be
pointed out that the existing AWSS high pressure system currently does not extend into nine of
1
EPANET (Version 2.0) [Software]. (2008)
20
the 46 FRAs at this time. These FRAs are served by the MWSS, alternative water sources such as
suction connections, and accessible major water bodies (e.g., Lake Merced).
Figure 2-5. Existing System Delivery Reliability by FRA
Based on input from SFPUC and others, the following are the recommended LOS
performance objectives:
AWSS will reliably provide water to supply the “probable fire demands” after a magnitude 7.8
San Andreas earthquake”
• AWSS will be 50% reliable in supplying probable demands for each area
• AWSS will be 90% reliable in supplying probable demands Citywide
21
2.7 System Deficiencies
During the course of the data collection efforts associated with Tasks 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, including
performing interviews with SFFD, SFPUC, and SFDPW staff, as well as performing hydraulic
and reliability modeling in Task 8, the following items were identified as deficiencies in the
AWSS. These deficiencies were a primary consideration in the identification and scoping of
individual projects (Section 2.8) and the selection of projects to comprise the Program
Alternatives (Section 3.1). The full list of deficiencies is shown in Table 2-2. Deficiencies to be
addressed by the Program Alternatives, developed in the Task 9 TM, are marked with an
asterisk and those addressed by non-construction alternatives (refer to Table 3-4) are denoted
by the (†) symbol.
Table 2-2. System Deficiencies
Deficiency
ID
Description
Physical Deficiencies
D1*,†
Leaks are observable in the Fort Mason pipelines. Some of these pipelines are attached to
the piers suspended above the bay and are difficult to access.
D2*
It is reported that there are areas of the high pressure system which do not conform to the
San Francisco Department of Public Works Standard specifications. These areas should be
removed and reinstalled; this included the elimination of lead joints. An example of this
an AWSS hydrant lead installed at Folsom & 15th Street.
D3*
There is suspected pipeline leakage underneath the pier and structural concerns about the
pier supporting the fireboat manifold at Pier 33 ½. Damage due to earthquake shaking
might affect fireboat operations.
D4
The Pump Station 1 seawater intake tunnel has a section that is mostly full of sediment as
of December 2012, which limits its functionality.
D5*
Pump Station 1 seawater intake tunnel has damage to the lining, has some cracking and
damaged concrete and has potential failure modes due to potential lateral ground
movement. Further geotechnical field work and analysis is being performed under Task
12. Recommendations for repairs and structural mitigation are discussed in the Task 7
TM.
D6*
One of the fireboat docks at Pier 22 ½ is severely deteriorated. This may present safety
and seismic reliability issues because AWSS piping is attached to the docks.
D7*
Areas in the high pressure piping system experience water quality issues (i.e., discolored
water containing sediment). These issues may possibly indicate the presence of internal
pipeline corrosion or the stagnation of AWSS water. In other systems this issue has been
mitigated by uni-directional flushing. Currently the locations and the underlying reasons
for these issues have not been identified.
22
Deficiency
ID
Description
D8*
There are many areas of the AWSS pipeline where non-stainless steel restrained tie-rods
were installed at joints. These materials are prone to corrosion and could fail during
seismic events. The specific locations are unknown although locations could generally be
identified by the age of the pipeline.
D9*
The original cast iron pipelines were installed without internal mortar lining. Current
AWSS design standards specify internal concrete mortar lining to protect the internal
condition of the pipelines. Specific locations of pipes without internal concrete mortar
lining are currently unknown; however age of pipelines may be used as a basis (for
example pipelines installed before 1945 are likely to have no internal lining).
D10*,†
There is no established repair and replacement plan to identify, and repair or replace the
system’s most deteriorated pipelines. Seismic reliability and operations considerations
should be considered to prioritize repairs. The condition and useful life of buried
pipelines are dependent on site-specific conditions and can be highly variable. The
amount of AWSS pipeline that needs replacement and the time frame is best determined
through a comprehensive condition assessment and replacement program.
D11†
A database of detailed information is necessary when repairs are made to the AWSS.
Information collection should include a description of the damage, likely cause or causes
of damage, type of repair, and two or more photographs of damaged section of pipeline.
Identification of patterns of pipe failure will assist SFPUC to prioritize pipe replacement.
D12*
There are reported to be approximately 98 locations where portions of the AWSS pipelines
are constructed through sewer mains, in environments prone to severe corrosion. A
program to identify the location and design mitigation measures should be developed.
D13*
SFPUC has begun a cistern repair project to address leaking cisterns. Continued attention
to older cisterns, including the brick ones is necessary.
D14*
Many of the system pressure transducers date from 1994. There is difficulty calibrating the
older transducers.
D15*
Approximately 250’ of rubber AWSS hose at 4th & Channel Street connecting the north
and south side of 4th Street Bridge was removed during prior construction activities and
never replaced. In order to provide more supply to the southern side of the bridge and
improve localized system redundancy, it is important to reinstall this hose.
Operational Deficiencies
D16†
System training should be provided for CDD gatemen and supervisors. Operational
strategies for non-fire and fire situations for AWSS is different that for the MWSS system.
D17†
No succession plan has been developed for the senior CDD operations staff. This is
especially important to maintain continuity of information for contingency purposes.
D18†
There are currently 3 PWSS hose tenders dedicated to San Francisco however there are no
dedicated permanent storage locations for them. Recommendations for the quantity of
hose tenders, storage and required staffing were addressed during Phase 9 (Alternatives
Analysis).
23
Deficiency
ID
Description
D19†
There are no staff dedicated PWSS hose tenders. PWSS equipment (including hose
tenders) responsibilities are assigned to Fire Engine companies on a rotating basis;
however these responsibilities are in addition to normal responsibilities. Therefore, when
the PWSS system is used, additional staff and equipment would need to be deployed to
operate it.
D20*
Pump Stations 1 and 2 are not currently connected to the SCADA system and do not have
remote monitoring or control capabilities. Recommendations have been made in the Task
6 SCADA TM to address this issue.
D21†
There are no strict protocols for mandatory start up and operation of the pump stations
and fireboats during seismic events or large conflagrations. It may prove helpful to
formalize protocols based on specific triggers as opposed to initiating operation when
requested.
D22*
Five motorized valves do not have backup to radio (three at Twin Peaks Reservoir, Ocean
Ave. at 280 East and Ocean Ave. at 280 West). Completion of the site at Bay and Van Ness
will bring the number operational valves to 32. Implementing these improvements will
add operational flexibility to the system.
D23*
The Wonderware InTouch V7.0 program used for SCADA operations is obsolete and
requires update. The Task 6 SCADA TM has recommendation for the SCADA system
integration and upgrade.
D24†
Historical records from the Loma Prieta event indicate that during large seismic scenarios,
communications lags may affect response times. It is unclear whether these issues have
been addressed by recent upgrades in communications equipment and systems.
D25†
There is no written process regarding the limit of facilities allowed to be out of service at
any time. A system outage policy and procedure should be developed.
D26†
There is no existing emergency pipeline repair, readiness and response program. This
program would increase the capability of CDD to quickly restore AWSS pipelines to
service after an earthquake. The program may be modeled after similar programs
developed by the SFPUC for the City’s MWSS. The program may include the
development of emergency pipe break response procedures, the stockpile of pipe and
fittings, and establishing emergency access to equipment and resources to quickly repair
affected pipes.
D27†
There are no automated leak detection and isolation capabilities along AWSS pipelines.
D28
The Jones Street Tank 8” fill line may not fill the tank as quickly as needed. Upsizing the
line would facilitate faster filling.
D29*
Jones Street Tank bypass valves are manually operated and cannot be operated from
remote locations.
Maintenance Deficiencies
D30*,†
Check, inspect, and back flush suction connections to ensure that their screens are clear of
obstructions and are operational. The routine cleaning of suction connections is not
currently performed.
24
Deficiency
ID
Description
D31†
No routine system pipeline flushing is currently performed. A regular flushing program
should be established.
D32
No routine pump station operations are currently performed. A regular testing program
should be reestablished.
D33†
Long lead times are required to acquire AWSS components due to the sole source
manufacturer for pipes (Olympic Foundry). Stockpiling components is necessary for
ready repairs.
D34
Confirm that the proactive asset management program used for MWSS has been applied
to the AWSS program. This includes utilization of a common repository of system
information to be used in developing systems goals and performing maintenance and
R&R activities.
D35†
There is no current routine for system valve exercising and maintenance. This should be
included in the asset management preventative maintenance tasks.
D36†
There are no established protocols for routine cistern inspection, testing, and filling.
D37†
There is currently no established protocol for coordination between SFPUC and SFFD
staff related to AWSS. It is noted, however, that development of a MOU between the two
departments is underway.
D38†
Currently, no proactive leak detection or forensics/testing program (i.e. stress strain
curves for various aged pipe) is employed for the AWSS pipeline system. The methods to
be considered are written in the Task 5 TM.
D39†
Detailed pipeline leak records do not exist and should be maintained in a GIS format to
assist with ongoing assessment of pipeline condition, identifying corrosion hot-spots and
estimating actual AWSS-specific pipeline life expectancy.
D40†
Some of the below grade motorized valve battery bank vaults experience flooding. At
Eddy St. & Larkin St., an above ground enclosure cabinet should be installed or provide a
discharge pumping system to eliminate the possible flooding which damages the
motorized valve batteries.
D41*
Several fireboat manifolds and pipelines may be susceptible to seismically induced
failures. This is because they are located on piers along the waterfront – many of which
are in questionable condition. In addition, the existing geologic conditions and future
seismic performance of the piers may create interaction action issues with the fireboat
manifold piping and cause significant damage and potentially complete failure of these
facilities. According to SFPUC staff, only two of the 5 fireboat manifolds are currently
installed in solid ground foundations - Islais Creek and Fisherman’s Wharf. Further
analyses and consideration towards relocating these facilities may possibly improve
seismic reliability of these facilities.
D42*,†
Failure of infirm area hydrants at elbows and branches were significant problems during
the Loma Prieta earthquake. Some failures were caused by shear failures of the cast iron
elbow below the hydrant.
25
Deficiency
ID
Description
D43*
There are many areas where the AWSS pipelines cross over, under, or through other
utilities. These crossings present seismic vulnerabilities, particularly in the infirm areas. In
the areas where AWSS pipes cross pile-supported sewers, the AWSS pipes will either
settle over time or due to seismically induced conditions. In these locations, construction
of flexible joints is a possible mitigation method. Identification of these locations and
development of a mitigation program is recommended.
D44*
There are still many existing cast iron pipelines located within infirm areas. These cast
iron pipelines are more prone to seismically induced failures than ductile iron pipelines.
SFPUC should develop a program for pipeline replacement in the infirm zones.
D45*
Pipeline replacement should be considered where the pipelines cross infirm zone
transitions and where old cast iron pipelines with lead joints were originally installed.
Replacing these joints with new ductile iron gasketed or flexible joints would allow
greater deflections and improve seismic reliability.
D46*
Reliability upgrades are needed at several facilities that were not included as part of the
2010 bond projects were identified in SFPUC’s Condition Evaluation Reports and are
described in the Task 2 TM.
Hydraulic Deficiencies
D47*
Areas of the highest zone (Twin Peaks zone) have insufficient pressure using the Twin
Peaks Reservoir. The relative lack of pressure due to the high elevations in the zone and
the lack of a gridded system with multiple pipes to reach these demands are identified as
a system need.
D48*
Areas of Laurel Heights, Cole Valley, Noe Valley, and Castro Street have low pressures.
The relative lack of pressure is due to the higher elevations and the lack of a gridded
system to reach this demand. This is identified as a system need.
D49*
Three infirm zones are not seismically isolated immediately after an earthquake by
seismically-induced control valves. This is identified as a system need.
D50*
The areas south of Islais Creek are isolated following an earthquake. The lack of a gridded
system, backboning or separate supply feeding this areas south of the infirm zones is
identified as a system need.
D51*
Of the 46 fire response areas identified in the Task 8 modeling process, only 37 can
currently be connected to the high pressure pipe system. The others are not currently
served by pipelines. This is identified as a system need.
D52*
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station 1 and Pump
Station 2. The total supply capacity is less than that needed to meet the system demands
as modeled in Task 8. These supplies were installed when the system was first
constructed and focus on the northeast quadrant of the City. This is identified as a system
need.
D53*
A long-term pipeline replacement plan should be developed based on ongoing inspection,
testing and analysis. The 77 miles of original pipeline construction should be addressed
within the next 50 years.
26
2.8 Project Identification
The needs assessment phase identified 47 projects (Table 2-3) which appeared feasible,
provided significant benefit to the AWSS, and addressed the deficiencies identified above in
Section 2.7. These projects could also be combined to produce Program Alternatives that could
meet the LOS performance objectives identified in Section 2.6.1.
Table 2-3. List of Potential Projects – Needs Identification
AWSS Project
ID
Project Name
Deficiency ID
1
Motorization and Addition of Seismic Switches on
Gate Valves
D49
2
4th Street Bridge Connection
D15
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
4
Twin Peaks Outlet Connection
D47
5
Jones St Tank Bypass Valves
D29
6
Repair Suction Connections
D30
7
SCADA Improvements
8
Fireboat Manifold Rehabilitation & Replacement
9
Pipeline Investigations and Repairs
D2, D7, D8, D9, D10,
D12, D14, D43
10
Sutro Connection and Pump Station
D47, D52
11
12
Cistern Repair and Construct 30 New Cisterns, Phase 1
13
Construct 30 New Cisterns, Phase 2
D51, D52
14
D51, D52
15
D51, D52
16
D51, D52
17
D51, D52
18
D51, D52
19
Balboa Tank and Booster PS
D52
20
Alemany Extension Pipeline
D51
21
D51
22
Geneva Extension Pipeline
D51
23
Lake Merced Pump Station
D52
24
Sunset Extension Pipeline
D51
25
Sunset Extension Rezoning Pipeline
D51
26
Richmond Extension Pipeline
D51
D4,D5,D42
D20, D22, D23
D1, D3, D6, D41
D46
27
D13, D51, D52
AWSS Project
ID
Project Name
Deficiency ID
27
University Mound Reservoir
D52
28
Sunset Reservoir Connection and Pump Station
D52
29
New Bay Suction Connections
D52
30
Pipeline Replacement Program, Phase 1
D12, D42, D43, D53
31
D53
*32
West Side Storage Tank
D52
*33
CDD Reservoir Suction Connections
D52
*34
GG Park south side suction line
D47
*35
Pump Station 2 Capacity Upgrade
D52
*36
Southside Storage
D52
*37
Cole Valley Connector Pipeline
D48
*38
Twin Peaks Connector Pipeline
D47
*39
Twin Peaks Extension Pipeline
D51
*40
24th Street Pipeline Upgrade
D48
*41
Castro Street Pipeline Upgrade
D48
*42
Stanford Heights Reservoir
D52
*43
Laurel Heights Connector Pipeline
D48
*44
Infirm Zone Pipe Replacement Phase 1
D45, D50
*45
D44, D50
*46
D44, D50
*47
D44, D50
Pipeline Investigations and Repairs (AWSS Project ID 9) has a budget of $4 million to perform
initial testing as recommended in the Task 5 TM. Two phases of a Pipeline Replacement
Program have also been included as capital projects (AWSS Project IDs 30 and 31). Originally a
replacement rate of 1.5 miles per year was assumed, consistent with the preliminary objective to
replace all original 1913 construction cast iron pipelines within 50 years. Following further
analysis in Task 9.1 the replacement rate for budgeting purposes has been changed to 0.5 miles
per year. Replacement rates should be adjusted as the results of testing activities are received
and interpreted.
Further study can consider strategic abandonment of some of the older and smaller diameter
cast iron pipelines in areas where the AWSS pipe and hydrant density is high and modeling
indicates that excess capacity is available. Decisions regarding pipe replacement vs.
abandonment can be made during project level planning, based on the results of hydraulic
and/or reliability modeling.
28
From the list of projects developed during the needs identification phase, 16 projects (AWSS
Project ID #s 32 to 47, denoted by an “*”) were not selected for inclusion in any of the three
Program Alternatives (identified in Section 4.0), and were not carried forward for further
evaluation. Projects were generally omitted because their costs and impacts did not compare
favorably to those of other projects. Details for each of the 31 projects carried into the Program
Alternatives are discussed in Section 3 and Appendix A.
2.9 Project Analyses
Analysis of the potential projects was performed as part of the initial screening to collect
information to be used in the evaluations, including consideration of siting and construction
issues, permitting requirements, operational considerations, as well as potential environmental,
geotechnical, and right-of-way issues. For right-of-way issues, it was generally assumed that
areas located in the street from curb to curb were owned by CCSF, except for where projects
cross Caltrans State Highway corridors.
For each project, construction cost and duration was estimated, along with any potential cost
and schedule risks. Findings for each project are presented in the project datasheets included in
Appendix A.
2.10 Project Performance/Sizing Criteria
Sensitivity analyses of key hydraulic modeling assumptions were performed to understand
how changes to inputs may affect the results of the hydraulic analysis. Parameters evaluated
include:
Break and Leak assumptions
Number of Monte Carlo damage scenarios
Operation of infirm zones following earthquake
Fireboat pumping
Location of demands
Dispersed vs. Concentrated Demands
Ability to meet partial demands
Results of the sensitivity analyses are documented in the Task 8 TM.
FRAs were proposed in the development of the LOS criteria to allow review of water supply
reliability performance at a more detailed level throughout the City. It was proposed that each
FRA be scored and that those scores be combined using a non-weighted average to generate a
city-wide score.
29
Modules were developed to analyze the reliability and benefits of the cisterns, suction
connections, and alternative water sources in existing and future conditions.
2.10.1 Pipe Fragility
Following analysis of multiple pipe fragility estimation methodologies and review of this work
with TAP members it was decided to utilize a combination of two methods for the AWSS. The
mixed method consisted of:
Infirm areas: TAP recommended rate of 3 repairs per kilometer
Non-infirm areas: Utilize the Jeon (2002) 12-inch Cast Iron and Ductile Iron
fragility curves vs. peak ground velocity methodology
Historical gatebook data for liquefaction-susceptible areas was considered for infirm areas. The
infirm zones are shown in Figure 2-6.
30
Figure 2-6. Gatebook vs. AECOM/AGS Infirm Zones
The mixed method chosen for the AWSS pipeline fragility analysis yields the following
calculated results:
Infirm Areas: 115 Repairs
Non-Infirm Areas: 20 Repairs
Total: 135 Repairs
These values represent the theoretical average number of repairs based on the
estimated repair rates and the pipe lengths but may not be representative of each
modeled damage scenario as those are dependent on random generation.
31
2.10.2 Non Earthquake Hydraulic Model Results
Non-earthquake runs were performed for both the MWSS and AWSS to review their ability to
provide 1,500 gpm at set residual pressures. This analysis was performed using the SynerGEE
fire flow testing module. The MWSS was capable of providing 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual at
69% of the hydrants, and the AWSS was capable of providing 1,500 gpm at 100 psi at 80% of the
hydrants with the three separate zones and 99% of the hydrants when operating as one zone.
2.10.3 Post-Earthquake Hydraulic Model Results
Figure 2-5 on page 21 shows the reliability scores by FRA based on modeling using the average
demands for the HPS and the full stochastic set of demands for the cisterns, alternate water
sources, and suction connections. Scores above 100% were capped at 100%. The Citywide
reliability score is 47%, assuming equal weighting across all FRAs. As can be seen in the figure,
the vast majority of the northeastern quadrant of the city is highly reliable, as it reflects the
original design and intent of the AWSS.
2.10.4 Project Configuration
Projects were configured using the hydraulic and reliability modeling tools developed and
described in the Task 3 and Task 8 TMs. The existing AWSS high pressure system modeling
results were used to understand areas of concern and issues with the existing system. The
system was reviewed first using the separate pressure zones, and then reviewed using a single
pressure zone.
The hydraulic model, SynerGEE, was used to identify areas of low or negative pressure with the
demands applied to an unbroken system. With the separated zones, projects were added which
provided supply or transmission capability to increase pressures to 20 psi minimum. The
impacts of each individual project were assessed using SynerGEE. As projects were added to
meet demands and reduce negative pressures, the impact with single and combined pressure
zones was noted.
Once a package of projects was developed that met all demands in an unbroken pipe system,
these projects were used as inputs to the reliability model, GIRAFFE. GIRAFFE produced a
random application of breaks and leaks so the results from GIRAFFE are different from the
results of the unbroken hydraulic model. Analysis of the various failure locations (GIRAFFE
was run 15 times, which was sufficient for convergence, for each project package) would
indicate whether a demand node could be met in any situation with a given set of projects.
32
Additional project selection and prioritization was done primarily in SynerGEE, with GIRAFFE
used to confirm the selection. The project selection was performed in three rounds, as described
below:
Round 1: Primary objective to increase City-wide reliability in the current system by adding
capacity and redundancy;
Round 2: Primary objective to increase City-wide reliability to the western and southern
parts of the city by adding additional pipe capacity and water sources; and
Round 3: Primary objective to increase individual FRA reliabilities with focus on the
southern and western portions of the city.
Table 2-4 lists some of the major projects associated with each round. For the prioritization
process, each group of projects was included into the hydraulic model and projects were
removed one at a time to determine the project with the most impact to the demand nodes (i.e.,
not meeting the requested demand at 20 psi). The project with the highest impact was selected
and in the next round, the projects were all evaluated again in this single elimination process
but with the highest impact project removed. This process was done successively such that
projects removed first were those with the highest impact to the hydraulic network and those
remaining were of lowest priority.
Pumps and pipes were sized using iterative methods with the hydraulic model to find the
minimum capacities and diameters necessary to meet the demand set. In general, new pipes
were assumed to be 20 inches in diameter or less. The pump capacities and pressures were
developed iteratively using the SynerGEE model. The hydraulic and reliability models were
utilized to provide an instantaneous ability to meet the demands. Storage tank capacity was
calculated using a spreadsheet tool developed for this project with the assumption that the 60
minute demands could be maintained for a minimum of 6 hours without refill. 24 hour
simulations were also performed to confirm the ability of the system to maintain flows for
greater than 6 hours.
Table 2-4. Selection of Improvement Projects
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Pump Station 1
Sunset Loop
Summit Reservoir
Lake Honda Pump Station
Sutro Reservoir
All Division Gates Open
Richmond Extension
Stanford Heights Reservoir
West Side Storage Tank
South Side Storage
Sunset Reservoir
Pipe Upsize (Upper Zone)
Geneva Extension
Balboa Tank
Laurel Heights Connector
Alemany Extension
Doubling Pump Station 2 Capacity
Silver Extension
Twin Peaks Connector
33
A shift in the scoring focus (i.e., from overall citywide reliability to minimum FRA reliabilities)
changed the project prioritization, as seen in Round 3. Some of the projects identified in Rounds
1 and 2 were no longer advantageous to achieve the objective of raising FRA scores equitably.
34
3.0
Program Alternatives
An “alternative” is one of several ways of satisfying the needs identified in Section 2.0. This
section describes the process used to develop three Program Alternatives from the list of
projects developed in Section 2.10, and describes each alternative in detail as required for the
alternatives analysis phase.
3.1 Development and Description of Program Alternatives
Table 3-1 shows the prioritization of the major pipeline, storage, and supply projects for the
three Program Alternatives that were a result of the hydraulic benefit analysis in SynerGEE
described in Section 2.10. Following development of the projects and preliminary project
packages, GIRAFFE runs were performed to determine citywide and FRA scores. These
preliminary packages were presented to TAP, Technical Steering, and the Management
Oversight Committee. Preliminary LOS objectives were recommended and modifications to the
LOS and packages were made based on input from SFPUC. Additional cisterns were added to
FRAs to meet the goal of 50% minimum reliability per FRA.
Table 3-1. Alternative Program Prioritization
Alternative A
Alternative B
Balboa Tank and Pump
Station
University Mound Pump
Station and Silver Loop
Alemany Loop
Silver Extension
Sunset Loop and Sunset
Reservoir Pump Station
Geneva Loop
Sutro Reservoir Pump Station
Richmond Extension
Sunset Loop
Alemany Loop
Richmond Extension
Geneva Loop
Alternative C
All Cistern Alternative
Sutro Reservoir Pump
Station and Connection to
AWSS
In some cases, multiple projects were identified that could each meet a specific goal. For
example, new supply was identified as a need for the Twin Peaks zone. Several projects were
identified which can meet that goal. One project was selected for the Program Alternatives
analysis (the Sutro Reservoir Connection); however, future project level alternative analysis and
environmental review should evaluate all of the identified potential projects which can achieve
35
the same goal. These decisions should be revisited during project alternative analysis phases,
and are discussed in Section 5.3 of this TM.
During project development, input from SFPUC indicated that use of existing Water System
Improvement Program (WSIP) hardened storage and transmission facilities would be
acceptable and preferable. Additional projects were developed to utilize existing storage
facilities using air gapped booster pump stations located on SFPUC owned land. In addition,
the consultant team was made aware of existing SFPUC property adjacent to AWSS pipelines at
the former Balboa reservoir location. A project was developed to utilize this site for a tank and
booster pump station for south side supply.
In developing storage projects, the volume of water lost in the first 60 minutes of an earthquake
event (due to AWSS losses only) was calculated by taking each of the 15 Monte Carlo GIRAFFE
runs damaged systems and finding the flow out of the tanks without any additional demand for
firefighting. This would then be the volume of water lost just from leaks and/or breaks. The
flows were then averaged and subtracted from the total tank volume. The tank duration was
then the remaining volume divided by the average of the 15 damage scenario flows with the
firefighting demands for each water source. The numbers in Table 3-2 assume that no refilling is
occurring.
Alternative B capitalizes on the large capacity of Sunset and University Mound tanks.
Discussions with CDD have indicated that they would reserve some portion of the total volume
for domestic water supply. It would be possible to make the proposed Balboa Tank larger to
increase the available storage duration for Alternative A.
Table 3-2. Potential Water Volume Loss and Tank Duration
Source
Total
Volume
(MG)
Twin Peaks
Reservoir
2010 Bond
Alternative A
Alternative B
Storage
Avg. Volume
Lost in First
Hour (gal)
Storage
Duration
(hours)
Avg. Volume
Lost in First
Hour (gal)
Duration
(hours)
Avg. Volume
Lost in First
Hour (gal)
Storage
Duration
(hours)
10.5
1,443,288
4.4
964,564
6.5
1,039,712
6.5
Ashbury Tank
0.5
0
-
0
-
0
-
Jones Tank
0.75
107,061
2.4
0
5.2
0
3.4
Sutro Reservoir
31.4
509,083
30.9
365,332
39.9
204,632
39.6
Balboa Tank
10
489,964
8.1
Sunset Reservoir
176.7
303,212
212.4
University
Mound Reservoir
140.9
463,918
147.2
36
24 hour GIRAFFE simulations were performed which confirmed the stability of the storage at
the 60 minute flows.
Once the recommended LOS objectives were reviewed and additional projects developed,
revised Program Alternatives were formulated. The hydraulic model was used to develop the
Program Alternatives and GIRAFFE scenarios were run to confirm which sets of projects would
meet the LOS objectives. Iterative GIRAFFE runs were completed to finalize the Program
Alternatives.
Three Program Alternatives were developed that could each achieve the LOS goals with
different projects. Each was formulated with a different strategy. To meet each FRA demand
with 50% reliability, either new pipe (and supply) or new cisterns were required. New pipe
would increase the reliability score to greater than 50%. Cisterns can be added one by one to get
to the target reliability in each FRA. For each cistern added, there is an increase in reliability. For
pipeline extensions, the whole pipe needs to be installed to meet a system demand. The new
pipeline would likely exceed the 50% target reliability. Figure 3-1 shows this concept.
Figure 3-1. Step vs. Ramp Function of Pipeline vs. Cisterns
120
% Reliability
100
80
60
Pipeline Extensions
Cistern Additions
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Incremental Project Additions
Alternatives A and B include added storage, pumping, and pipeline extensions to serve the
balance of the City. Alternative A uses a new tank and booster pump station located at the
former Balboa reservoir site to serve the southern portion of the City. Alternative B uses existing
MWSS storage through air gaps and booster pumps at University Mound and Sunset Reservoir
instead of the Balboa project. In addition to pipeline alternatives with various water sources, a
“no new pipeline” alternative was developed to address feedback from the SFPUC that
37
minimizing O&M costs was desirable. Calculations of O&M costs shown in Appendix B2
actually indicate that the all cisterns alternative has higher O&M costs due to the regular filling
and inspection requirements. The full Program Alternatives are shown in Table 3-3. Each
Program Alternative was assessed to confirm its viability in meeting the system LOS objectives.
Table 3-3. Program Alternatives
Alternative
Project
#
Project Name
1
Motorization of Seismic Switches on Gate Valves
2
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
4
5
6
7
SCADA Improvements
8
9
10
11
12
Cistern Repair and Construct 90 New Cisterns, Ph. 1-3
13
Construct 270 New Cisterns, Phases 4-6
14
15
16
17
18
19
Sunset Extension
20
Sunset Extension Rezoning
21
Richmond Extension
22
University Mound PS
23
Sunset Reservoir
24
25
Pipeline Replacement Program Phase 1
26
A
38
B
C
Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3, and Figure 3-4 below show the project locations for the three Program
Alternatives.
Figure 3-2. Alternative A
39
Figure 3-3. Alternative B
40
Figure 3-4. Alternative C
41
3.2 Non-Construction Alternatives
The list of deficiencies (Table 2-2) developed for the needs assessment phase included some
needs which are not appropriately addressed by capital improvements, including such items as
organization of data, training, O&M activities, etc. These deficiencies should be addressed
through non-construction alternatives which are performed outside of the CIP.
Recommendations listed below in Table 3-4 are developed in detail in Section 7.
Table 3-4. Deficiencies Addressed by Non-Construction Alternatives
Non-Construction Recommendations
Deficiencies
Addressed
Establish a pipeline leak database to monitor potential hot spots
D39
Establish a Cistern inspection, filling, and testing program
D36
Train SFPUC personnel on system
D16, D17
Develop a system outage policy and procedures for planned
outages
D16, D21, D25
Confirm that all AWSS assets are entered into CDD's asset
management system and Preventative Maintenance requirements
are established
D11, D34, D35, D37, D40
Identify Regular pump maintenance and testing requirements
D32
Provide staff to coordinate system needs and upgrades with SFFD
D16, D18, D19
Prepare emergency pipeline repair, readiness and response
program similar to MWSS program
D10, D16, D21, D24, D26
Establish flushing program for AWSS
D31
Establish leak detection program for AWSS
D1, D27, D38
Check and back flush all suction connections regularly, repair or
replace as needed
D30
D42
Establish regular pipeline replacement fund/projects
D33
Ongoing maintenance is required in order to avoid deterioration of the existing AWSS assets
and to maintain the current reliability of the existing system. These recommendations are
organized into new programs and detailed in Section 7.
42
3.3 Data Gaps
The following summarizes the information data gaps that should be closed for subsequent
project phases and to facilitate fully developing AWSS assessment recommendations:
1. Comprehensive detailed maps which identify the various corrosion conditions areas of
the City and how they specifically relate to AWSS facilities and pipelines
2. Information to assess the site-specific condition of the AWSS pipelines. There have been
no pipeline conditions assessments since V&A’s 1988 (see the Task 5 TM) to assess
existing areas of current leakage, condition, corrosion rates to date, typical remaining
useful lifespans, etc.
3. Comprehensive historical leak and break repair data records
4. Current pipeline system leak detection records
5. The locations and condition of old non-stainless steel tie rods
6. Condition and reliability assessment of docks, seawalls, and effects on AWSS facilities
7. Locations of known water quality/sediment issues in pipe network
8. Locations of pipes without suitable internal concrete mortar lining
9. Identification of AWSS utility pipe crossings such as through sewers, ducts, etc.
10. Condition assessment of suction connections
11. Comprehensive AWSS maintenance records and procedures
12. Comprehensive AWSS operations procedures and records
13. Assessments of SFPUC staffing needs
14. Clarification of AWSS GIS existing and missing information records
43
4.0
Alternatives Evaluation and Scoring
The Alternatives Analysis step develops the potential alternatives listed above in Table 3-3 in
sufficient detail such that they can be compared and ranked in an evaluation process, and
described in any required environmental review. Any issues associated with an alternative
should be identified with possible mitigations. Information related to the selected project
criteria is identified and quantified, for the purpose of differentiating the benefits, impacts, and
issues between the alternatives, and confirming viability in design and construction.
4.1 Evaluation Process
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used for the evaluation of alternatives and the selection
of a Preferred Program Alternative. AHP is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing
complex decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps decision makers
find one that best suits their goal and their understanding of the problem. It provides a
comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and
quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating
alternative solutions.
The decision process analyzes each evaluation criteria independently. The decision makers
systematically evaluate the various elements by comparing them to one another two at a time,
with respect to their impact on the criteria. In making the comparisons, the decision makers use
the available data and quantitative analysis but also their judgments about the elements'
relative meaning and importance. It is the essence of the AHP that human judgments, and not
just the underlying information, can be used in performing the evaluations.
The AHP converts these comparisons to numerical values that can be processed and compared
over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority may be assigned to each
criterion, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another
in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision
making techniques.
A prioritization matrix approach was employed. This method compares each alternative to
every other alternative and ranks them with respect to a particular criterion. The result of this
evaluation work is the Alternative Ranking Matrix. The ranking matrices for this study are
included in Appendix E.
In comparing criteria and alternatives, the following scores for pair-wise comparisons are used.
44
Table 4-1. Scoring of Pair-Wise Comparisons
Results of Comparison
Score for A
Score for
B
Alternative A is extremely preferable to
Alternative B
10
1/10
Alternative A is significantly preferable
to Alternative B
5
1/5
Alternative A is about equally
preferable to Alternative B
1
1
Alternative A is significantly less
1/5
5
Alternative A is extremely less
1/10
10
4.2 Criteria for Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives
The evaluation criteria are a reflection of organizational policy governing the selection of the
proposed solution from a number of alternatives that satisfy or address the same problem.
Ideally, evaluation criteria should:
Differentiate meaningfully between solutions without bias;
Apply to all organizational operations;
Relate to the organizational goals;
Reflect qualities that are important to the success of the projects;
Reflect characteristics that can be measured or assessed;
Be independent; and
Be understood.
The evaluation process performed under Task 3 to develop LOS Criteria and Performance
Objectives also identified considerations for project alternatives analysis. Specifically, while not
suitable as LOS Criteria, three of the potential objectives following were identified as criteria for
project alternatives analysis (Nos. 1-3 below). To this list, four additional criteria have been
added (Nos. 4-7).
1. Cost (Capital, Annual Operations and Maintenance, and Life Cycle)
45
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Operations and Maintenance
Schedule
Water Supply Delivery Reliability
Fire Fighting (Resources and Deployment Time)
Insurance Premiums Benefits
Environmental/Community Impacts
These considerations were quantified and compared for each Program Alternative. The project
information was aggregated to evaluate and compare the Program Alternatives, and used in the
AHP to select a Preferred Program Alternative.
For this planning study some of the criteria commonly used by the SFPUC were not used
because they were considered equivalent between the three alternatives, or not applicable.
Water quality, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and flooding issues were not considered
relevant to the analysis. Differences in hydraulics are addressed through delivery reliability and
firefighting criteria. Geotechnical issues were considered on a project by project development
basis and are generally equivalent between the three alternatives. Legal and right of way issues
were considered equivalent between the three alternatives.
4.3 Cost
This section presents analyses to estimate and compare the costs of each alternative of the
following types: capital cost, annual operating cost, and life cycle cost (net present value). Each
cost type was evaluated at the project level as documented in Appendix B; with the individual
project costs summed based on which projects are included in which Program Alternative.
Assumptions made in developing cost information were as follows:
Construction Costs
Construction cost opinions were based on project descriptions found in Appendix A. Estimates
prepared by the cost estimator did not include construction contingency, design contingency,
design effort contingency or soft costs. These have been added based on the percentages shown
in Table 4-2 below, which were received from SFPUC and are equivalent to those percentages
used in other projects for the 2010 ESER Bond.
Capital Cost
Planning level construction cost opinions were created for each project. To calculate capital
costs, markups were applied based on the estimating assumptions listed in Table 4-2.
46
Table 4-2. Capital Cost Assumptions
Description
Markup
Soft Cost (% of Construction Cost)
25%
Design Effort Contingency (% of Soft Cost)
10%
Design Contingency (% of Construction Cost)
30%
Construction Contingency (% of Construction Cost +
Design Contingency)
10%
Annual Operations and Maintenance
Annual operating costs for the potential projects were developed from discussions with CDD
pipeline and facility maintenance superintendents, utilizing the following labor rates:
Gateman for valve operations: $ 89.30 per hour plus $20 per hour for additional cost for
vehicle.
Plumber (for hydrant flushing): $ 79.17 per hour plus $20 per hour for additional cost
for vehicle.
Estimates of annual O&M Costs for each potential project are included in Appendix B.2.
Life Cycle Cost (Net Present Value)
Net present value calculations were performed for each Program Alternative by incorporating
capital cost expenditures by year escalated out to the year the expenditures occurred as
indicated in the respective program schedules (Section 4.5). Annual O&M costs for each project
were included once construction was completed and the facility was in service. All future
expenses were then discounted back to the present value. Assumptions utilized for the life cycle
costs are listed below in Table 4-3.
47
Table 4-3. Life Cycle Cost Assumptions
Value
Escalation Rate
Discount Rate
3.1%
4.7%
Source
Notes
ENR Construction Cost Index,
average from 1990 to 2011
For comparison, 2011 year
was 3.0%
General Obligation Bond Sales
Based on Yield of 2011
Revenue bond sale with
2041 maturity
Comparison of soft cost, construction cost, capital cost, annual O&M cost, and life cycle costs
(net present value of new assets only) are presented below in Table 4-4.
Existing assets were not included in the annual O&M and life cycle cost calculations because the
O&M cost would not change between the three alternatives. All three alternatives include the
same amount of rehabilitation and replacement of existing pipelines, and rely equally on the
existing AWSS.
Based on the costs presented in Table 4-4, Program Alternative pairwise comparisons for cost
are as follows:
Alternative A is worse than Alternative B
Alternative A is significantly lower cost than Alternative C
Alternative B is significantly lower cost than Alternative C
Table 4-4. Cost Comparison of Original Program Alternatives including all Projects
Alternative A
(Ranking)
Alternative B
(Ranking)
Alternative C
(Ranking)
Soft Cost
$116,667,000 (2)
$110,548,000(1)
$161,861,000 (3)
Construction Cost
$606,667,000 (2)
$574,849,000 (1)
$841,676,000 (3)
Program Capital Cost
$723,333,000 (2)
$685,397,000 (1)
$1,003,537,000 (3)
Annual Operations and
Maintenance Cost (New Assets)
$260,000 (1)
$262,000 (2)
$378,000 (3)
Net Present Value (New Assets)
$515,665,000 (2)
$483,772,000 (1)
$661,017,000 (3)
Costs shown in Table 4-4 represent the full suite of projects identified for each Program
Alternative including pipe replacement. These costs do not include potential cost sharing with
the potable system, which the preferred program includes. In comparison, the preferred
program estimated costs total $137 million without pipe replacement.
48
4.4 Operations and Maintenance
This section presents operating changes, risks, and other issues related to the changes proposed
to the AWSS under each alternative. The operations and maintenance criterion considers only
benefits and impacts to system operators (SFPUC) and does not consider fire response, which is
addressed in Section 4.6. It does consider the challenges the system operators would have in
operating and maintaining the new facilities on an ongoing basis.
As a starting point, the simplest way to compare O&M costs is to quantify the number of new
facilities and other assets which would be constructed under each Alternative (pumps, valves,
SCADA equipment, pipelines, high pressure hydrants, cisterns, etc.). This information is
presented in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5. Number of New Facilities Requiring Maintenance
New Facilities
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Pump Station at New Site(Ea.)
1
0
0
Pump Station at Existing Site (Ea.)
3
4
0
New SCADA Sites (Ea.)
32
32
22
New Motorized Actuator (Ea.)
23
23
13
New Gate Valve (Ea.)
12
12
2
New Tank/Reservoir (Ea.)
1
0
0
New Pipeline (miles)
20.9
21.4
0.1
New Suction Connection (Ea.)
0
0
10
New Cistern (Ea.)
97
85
371
Estimated Total Annual O&M
Hours Associated with New
Facilities
2348
2290
3500
FTE Equivalent (1760 hrs/FTE)
1.33
1.3
1.98
Also developed and presented is an estimate of the total additional annual O&M hours required
to support the new facilities which would be constructed under each alternative. This does not
include maintenance on existing facilities, which would be the same under each alternative. The
estimates include such activities as cistern refilling, pump exercising, pipeline and hydrant
49
flushing, and other activities required to maintain the new assets properly on an ongoing basis.
Annual labor hour estimates attributed to each project are included in Appendix B.2.
All three alternatives represent an expansion of the AWSS introducing additional maintenance
requirements and operator duties compared with the existing AWSS. The primary differences
are that Alternative A includes a new facility at a new site (the Balboa Tank and Pump Station)
whereas Alternative B includes an additional pump station upgrade at two existing sites, and
slightly more pipeline. Under Alternative C all expansion of the AWSS is in the form of cisterns.
Although pipelines and pump stations require increased O&M activities to service the new
assets as reflected in Table 4-5, it is notable that the cisterns also have significant O&M
requirements, in the form of periodic (once every 10 years) draining, cleaning, and inspection,
and more frequently visiting (twice a year for each) cisterns to check and fill as needed.
Although not time consuming for one cistern, expanding the number of cisterns dramatically in
the case of Alternative C would be a significant demand on CDD resources comparable with the
pipelines and pump stations proposed under the other alternatives.
Based on the information presented in Table 4-5 and the discussion above, Program Alternative
pairwise comparisons for the operation and maintenance criterion are as follows:
Alternative A is about the same as Alternative B
Alternative A is significantly better than Alternative C
Alternative B is significantly better than Alternative C
4.5 Schedule
Preliminary phase durations have been estimated for each project based on three phases:
planning (including environmental and permitting), design, and construction. Based on the
estimated project durations, planning level program schedules were developed for each
alternative considering schedule constraints as identified in the Task 3 TM, including:
Available capital for construction expenditures
Available staff and management time
Operation constraints (minimize portions of system out of service)
Construction impact minimization
Other project impacts
Planning level schedules for each Program Alternative are presented in Appendix C. The
developed schedules show Alternatives A and B each completed by 2034, and Alternative C
completed by 2046.
50
Individual project work durations and relevant assumptions which drive the estimated
durations are included in Appendix C. Of note regarding Alternative C is the long duration to
construct the cistern projects, based on the limited ability to construct a large number of cisterns
simultaneously. SFPUC experience under the 2010 ESER bond may better inform the design and
construction durations as well as the number of cisterns which can be constructed
simultaneously. The schedule assumed that latter phases of cistern construction achieved a
higher number of simultaneous cistern projects (going from 30-40 in 1000 work days to 90 in
1000 work days).
Based on the information presented above, primarily the estimated duration to construct each
Program Alternative, pairwise comparisons for the schedule criterion are as follows:
4.6 Water Supply Delivery Reliability
This section presents Program Alternative evaluations on the basis of the LOS criteria of water
delivery reliability and geographic coverage. Delivery reliability is evaluated at the program
level only using the modeling process described in Section 2.6. Although all three Program
Alternatives were developed and configured specifically to meet the two selected LOS
objectives of a minimum of 50% reliability in each FRA and a minimum citywide reliability of
90%, they are not equal under both objectives. Specifically the 50% minimum by FRA generally
governed the selection of projects, with all three Alternatives exceeding the 90% citywide goal
as well as being much greater than 50% for many of the FRAs. The Program Alternatives can
therefore be compared by their ability to exceed the minimum objectives, which translates to
superior post-earthquake performance.
The figures below present reliability scores by FRA for each alternative. Table 4-6 shows the
citywide reliability scores (the average of the FRA reliability scores) for each alternative.
51
Figure 4-1. Alternative A Delivery Reliability by FRA
52
Figure 4-2. Alternative B Delivery Reliability by FRA
53
Figure 4-3. Alternative C Delivery Reliability by FRA
54
Table 4-6. Comparison of Serviceability and Citywide Delivery Reliability
Criteria
Citywide Average
Reliability
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
90%
92%
86%
Based on the information presented in Table 4-6 above, pairwise comparisons for delivery
reliability are as follows:
Alternative B is slightly better than Alternative A
4.7 Fire Fighting
The firefighting criterion considers SFFD support required for each alternative, in terms of
staffing and equipment, and the department’s ability to leverage the AWSS improvements to
fight fires.
The SFFD fights fires using various available sources of water, including AWSS hydrants,
suction connections, cisterns, MWSS hydrants, and the PWSS. Setup and equipment
requirements as well as deployment time are not the same for each source. In many situations,
multiple water source options will be available to meet a given fire demand. Given alternatives,
the SFFD will select the source with the lowest equipment needs and deployment time,
associated with the quickest response and lowest demand on SFFD equipment and staff
resources. Where multiple sources are required to meet the entire fire demand, demands may
be met using more than one source brought online at different times.
The SFFD has provided feedback that during a regional emergency they have the ability to
request significant staff assistance by recalling all active staff to duty. Thus the SFFD’s
capabilities are not generally limited by the availability of qualified fire fighters. By contrast, the
number of fire engines available at a given time is limited by the number of engines in the City
which are not being serviced or maintained, or already out on other calls at the time the
emergency occurs. The Fire Department has provided input that the number of fire engines
required is the critical parameter for evaluating the ability of the Department to respond to a
particular emergency scenario. In the case of a major earthquake SFFD is not expecting to
receive assistance from adjacent cities through mutual aid.
The different sources of water have different equipment requirements. The high pressure pipe
system can be utilized by firefighters with a Gleason valve and hose with appliances. Gleason
valves can be delivered to the site along with firefighters as needed. No engine is required as
55
long as system pressures are sufficient (60 psi or higher). Other sources require an engine to
pressurize the water for use by firefighters.
The approach for comparing resource needs between the alternatives is to identify the new
sources of water to fight fires which would be available under each alternative under the
various system damage scenarios, then to calculate the number of engines required in order to
fight the fires throughout the City. When the number of resources needed exceeds that
available, it means the SFFD would not be able to respond to the emergency in an appropriate
fashion, or alternately that additional resources should be obtained in advance in order to
support the need, specifically increasing the number of fire engines in San Francisco and
increased fire department staffing levels to support those engines.
Deployment time is another useful metric for evaluating fire response. It is defined as the delay
between fire response being initiated by the SFFD and the fire demand being met. Deployment
time includes the time to mobilize and deploy needed resources to the fire, equipment setup,
ending when the needed water is applied to the fire. Deployment time is calculated as an
average for each FRA and citywide based on hydraulic modeling results, using the best
available source or sources to meet demand.
Table 4-7 below lists deployment time and equipment requirements applicable to each source.
This table was developed with SFFD input, and reflects approximate average response and
setup times. Times listed are used for comparative purposes only, and do not represent actual
targeted response times applicable to each source.
Table 4-7. Deployment Time and Resources by Water Source
No.
Source
Deployment
Time
(minutes)
SFFD Resources Required
1
AWSS
20
Gleason Valve, up to 3 per hydrant
2
Cistern
30
Fire Engine
3
Bay Suction
30
Fire Engine
4
PWSS
60
Minimal pumping capacity available on PWSS
trailer but can use fireboat or engine to supply
water
Equipment needs were calculated for all of the evaluated fire response scenarios and a
probability distribution plot generated, shown below in Figure 4-4. The figure indicates a higher
probability of needing more than the maximum available number of fire engines (20%) with
56
Alternative C compared with A (2.2%) or B (2.1%). Up to 10 additional engines may be available
if all relief engines were utilized. In some cases, fire engines may be available from neighboring
cities, but assistance cannot be assumed because of the regional nature of a large earthquake,
with other concurrent emergencies likely.
Probability that Needed Engines will exceed x using
1000 demand sets
Figure 4-4. Probability of Fire Engine Need Exceeding Availability
100%
Alternative A
Alternative B
80%
Alternative C
45 engines
(max on duty)
60%
Alternative C
requires 10 to 23
more engines than
A or B
55 engines
(w/ Relief)
40%
20%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of Engines (x)
57
80
90
100
110
120
Table 4-8. Firefighting Resources and Deployment Time Comparison by Alternative
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
% from High Pressure System
62%
65%
31%
% from Cisterns
35%
33%
65%
% from Suction Connections
1%
1%
2%
% from Alternate Water
2%
2%
2%
Average Deployment Time (minutes)
24.1
23.6
25.9
Statistics
# of Fire Engines
Mean
23.8
22.8
35.1
Required
Max
65
60
95
45 (max
available)
2.2%
2.1%
19.7%
55 (including
relief)
0.4%
0.4%
7.9%
Probability of
inadequate Fire
Equipment
In evaluating fire response and deployment time, the municipal drinking water storage (tanks
and reservoirs located in the City) was assumed available, but not the low pressure hydrants
fed by the potable water system. The WSIP has spent considerable energy and funds in
hardening storage and transmission facilities, but the potable distribution has not yet been
upgraded. Additionally, the goal of the WSIP is to supply water within 24 hours after fire for
delivery, compared to the use of the 60 minute demand for the AWSS use fighting fire following
earthquake.
Section 8.0 describes additional analyses performed to review the sensitivity of the results to the
assumption of potable water availability.
Based on the information presented above, Program Alternative pairwise comparisons for
firefighting are as follows:
58
4.8 Insurance Premiums Benefits
The Program Alternatives were evaluated based on their potential to reduce fire insurance rates.
Because Alternatives A and B extend pipelines to areas such as Richmond and Sunset and
Alternative C would install cisterns in those areas, there would be a benefit to the insurance in
those areas since they are not currently served by the AWSS.
Based on the reliability discussed in Section 4.6, Table 4-9 provides the estimated values of fire
premium for relative comparison purposes only. These are not absolute values of fire
premiums, only notional (relative or theoretical) to permit relative comparison of the
Alternatives A, B, and C. The results indicate that the Alternative B offers the most reduction in
fire premium, with a notional fire premium of 1.8%. Alternative A results in a notional fire
premium of 2%, almost as good as Alternative B. Alternative C results in a 6% notional fire
premium.
Table 4-9. Summary of Insurance Impacts (MMI Engineering)
Existing
2010
Alternative
A
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
Citywide Reliability
47%
68%
90%
92%
86%
Premium
32%
19%
3.9%
3.1%
5.5%
Reinsurance Premium
3.3%
1.90%
0.15%
0.104%
0.105%
Savings versus no HPS
7.0%
9.7%
13.1%
13.3%
12.8%
Based on the information presented in Table 4-9, Program Alternative pairwise comparisons for
insurance premiums benefits are as follows:
4.9 Environmental/Community Impacts
Environmental and Community effects are evaluated at the project level. Those individual
project effects are summed into estimated impacts for the Program Alternatives.
Preliminary scoring is based on the following general considerations which are used to
quantitatively compare them:
Construction footprint (square footage);
59
Land ownership;
Land use type (park, street, etc. also by % where more than one);
Potential project interferences with known or possible archaeological zones of
concern;
Potential project interferences with known or possible environmental sensitivities;
Construction schedule as it relates to environmental and community impacts; and
Duration of impacts and whether temporary or permanent.
Environmental impacts include noise, air pollution, habitat disturbance, water quality, water
pollution from construction and temporary/permanent impacts. Other Project features are
described in the Project Data Sheets in Appendix A. Issues of particular concern are discussed
below.
Construction
Utility and other agency coordination is a consideration for all the Alternatives, with greater
interferences for Alternatives A and B compared with C. Most facilities are located in land
owned by the City and County of San Francisco, managed either by the Department of Public
Works (as in the case of city streets), or the SFPUC. Some potential pipeline alignments run
across or along street corridors owned by Caltrans. The Sunset Pipeline Extension runs along
Sloat Blvd. (State Hwy. 35) and 19th Ave. (State Hwy. 1), both of which are managed by
Caltrans. The Alemany, Geneva, and Silver Pipeline Extensions would run along streets which
cross under (but do not directly conflict with) State Highways 101 and 280.
Although on land owned by the SFPUC, the Balboa Reservoir project would require
coordination with City College and mitigation of potential impacts to the College’s activities.
Permitting
Some streets within CCSF are also State Highways requiring coordination with Caltrans. Some
projects are located along the waterfront or in some cases in the Bay, requiring coordination and
permitting for potential work in SF Bay.
Community
Community effects include temporary or permanent disturbances in the functioning, lifestyle,
and safety of residents living in proximity to the projects. Quantifications include the number of
impacted residents, duration of the impacts (if not permanent), and traffic flow.
60
Table 4-10. Summary of Environmental Effects
Program Construction Duration (years)
Project Footprint - new disturbance (sq.
ft)
Volume of soil to be disposed (CY)
Cumulative Impacts (acre-year)
Habitat (# of species disturbed)
Habitat (sq. footage of disturbance)
LF of pipe to be installed in City streets
(common projects and Alt C includes
pipe replacement projects)
Common
Projects
Alt A
Alt B
Alt C
20
20
32
5,852,500
5,709,500
6,000,500
4,626,500
665,550
934
-
544,348
922
-
801,220
952
-
465,467
831
-
515,180
518,880
406,580
406,580
A Constraints and Opportunities Analysis of the potential projects by SFPUC Environmental
staff indicates that potential constraints may be reduced by using Expanded Project
Opportunity Areas for projects where there is flexibility in the final location or alignment. The
potential environmental consequences and avoidance/mitigation recommendations prepared
in this analysis will carry forward into the planning phase of the projects.
Based on the information presented in Table 4-10, Program Alternative pairwise comparisons
for Environmental/Community Impacts are as follows:
Alternative A is better than Alternative C
61
5.0
Preferred Program Alternative
5.1 Scoring and Ranking of Preferred Program Alternative
The Program Alternatives were compared using a pair-wise comparison method on seven
different criteria. These evaluation criteria can be weighted. For this alternatives analysis, each
criterion was weighted equally. This can be adjusted based on feedback from the SFPUC
Steering Committee or other stakeholders.
Table 5-1. Evaluation Criteria Weighting
Evaluation Criteria
Criterion
Weight
Cost
1
1
Schedule
1
Delivery Reliability
1
Firefighting Capability
1
Insurance Premiums
1
Environmental / Community
Impacts
1
The following tables summarize the results of the evaluations and the reasoning behind their
ranking. Table 5-2 shows the Program Alternatives score by each evaluation criteria using the
pair-wise scoring system. Table 5-3 shows the ranking of the three Program Alternatives.
62
Table 5-2. Alternative Scoring
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative
A
B
C
40.2%
59.1%
0.8%
49.5%
49.5%
0.9%
Cost
40.2%
59.1%
0.8%
Schedule
48.4%
48.4%
3.2%
25.4%
73.2%
1.5%
Insurance Premiums
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
Environmental / Community Impacts
40.2%
59.1%
0.8%
40%
55%
6%
Cumulative Score
Table 5-3. Evaluation Ranking of Alternatives
Ranking
Alternative
Evaluation Criteria
1
2
3
B
A
C
A/B tie
Cost
B
Schedule
C
A
A/B tie
B
Insurance Premiums
C
C
A
C
A/B/C tie
Final Ranking
B
A
C
B
A
C
Based on the rankings above, Alternative B is the Preferred Program Alternative.
5.2 Review and Recommendations
AWSS needs have been identified, a LOS recommended and a program recommended that
would bring AWSS to the recommended LOS in the most effective manner. These were
presented to the following for review. Based on this review further analysis was performed as is
described in Section 8.0.
Technical Advisory Panel (consisting of Thomas Dennis O’Rourke, Thomas R. Biggs
Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering at the Sibley College of Engineering at
Cornell University and Charles Scawthorn, Principal at SPA Risk LLC)
Technical Steering Committee (consisting of technical supervisory staff from City
departments)
63
Steering Committee which was renamed Management Oversight Committee in
September 2013 (consisting of the SFPUC General Manager, SFFD Chief, Department of
Public Works Manager and deputies)
For certain projects included in the Preferred Program Alternative, assumptions were made
regarding the size, configuration, and location of the project. During the project level
alternatives analyses, these assumptions should be verified, the project optimized, and other
project level alternatives considered which fulfill the same objectives as the configuration which
was assumed for this analysis.
5.3 Environmental Review
Prior to approval of an alternative for implementation, environmental reviews for meeting local,
state and federal environmental policy will be completed. For review of the Preferred Program
Alternative, project-specific environmental reviews should be performed, addressing impacts
related to biological species, cultural resources, water quality, hazardous materials, noise, visual
issues, traffic, and air quality.
The environmental review process requires that projects be evaluated together if they 1) are
dependent upon one another to meet stated project objectives, or 2) together have consequences
that are growth inducing, or 3) have other cumulative environmental impacts. Compared with
other water infrastructure projects, expansion of the AWSS is not growth inducing in the sense
that it does not lead to or encourage installation of new water services, increased water
consumption, or encourage population increases. All of the potential projects are critical to the
public safety by providing water to fight fires following a seismic event or other regional fire.
Criteria proposed for the evaluation of independent utility of AWSS projects are directly related
to the purpose of the projects and their connectivity in terms of function or purpose. In order to
be considered independent, a project must satisfy the criteria shown in Table 5-4.
64
Table 5-4. Independent Utility Criteria
No.
Criteria
1
Be a maintenance upgrade, replacement, or repair
2
Not change overall system operations
3
Be necessary even without a CIP
4
Be connected to other projects physically or operationally
5
Not drive outcomes or decisions on other projects or elements of the system
Table 5-5 below assesses the independent utility of projects that would be constructed as part of
the Preferred Program Alternative.
Table 5-5. Independent Utility of AWSS Projects
Project
ID
Project Name
1
Motorization and Addition
of Seismic Switches on Gate
Valves
2
4th Street Bridge
Connection
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
4
Independent
Utility Criteria
Independent
Utility
Dependent
Projects
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
Twin Peaks Outlet
Connection
Yes
NA
5
Jones St Tank Bypass
Valves
Yes
NA
6
Yes
NA
7
SCADA Improvements
Yes
NA
8
Fireboat Manifold
Rehabilitation &
Replacement
NA
Yes
NA
9
Pipeline Investigations &
Repairs
NA
Yes
NA
10
Sutro Connection and PS
Yes
NA
11
Reliability Upgrades at
Facilities
Yes
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
65
5
Project
ID
Project Name
12
Cistern Repair & Construct
30 New Cisterns, Ph. 1
13
Pipeline Replacement
Program, Phase 1
14
Independent
Utility Criteria
Independent
Utility
Dependent
Projects
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
15
University Mound
Reservoir
Yes
14
16
Yes
NA
17
Pipeline
Yes
16
18
Construct 30 New Cisterns,
Phase 2
Yes
NA
19
Yes
16
20
Sunset Reservoir
Connection and PS
Yes
16
21
Pipeline Replacement
Program, Phase 2
Yes
NA
22
Construct 25 New Cisterns,
Phase 3
Yes
NA
23
Richmond Extension
Pipeline
Yes
16
24
Alemany Extension
Pipeline
Yes
NA
25
Yes
24
1
2
3
4
NA
NA
5
Projects listed above as dependent should be evaluated together with the other projects listed as
dependent during the project alternatives analysis and environmental review phases.
5.4 Funding and Staging
Table 5-6. presents potential funding requirements for bond sales consistent with the proposed
program schedule for the Preferred Program Alternative. The list has been compiled using the
planning level schedules, but suggested size and timing do not bind the SFPUC to the project
choices, project sequences, or scopes.
66
Table 5-6. Potential Funding
Project
ID
Priority
Construction
Start Date
Project Cost
($M)
1
1
Motorization and Addition of
Seismic Switches on Gate
Valves
1/29/2015
$1,083,000
2
2
1/29/2015
$3,996,000
3
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
3/8/2016
$529,000
4
4
11/2/2017
$5,541,000
5
5
2/16/2018
$2,302,000
6
6
SCADA Improvements
10/15/2019
$2,643,000
7
7
Fireboat Manifold
Rehabilitation & Replacement
10/15/2019
$290,000
8
8
Pipeline Investigations and
Repairs
12/1/2015
$5,115,000
26
9
4/18/16
$13,853,000
10
10
Reliability Upgrades at
Facilities
6/10/2021
$17,050,000
11
11
Cistern Repair and Construct
27 New Cisterns
6/10/2021
$52,003,000
30
12
Pipeline
Replacement/Abandonment
Program, Phase 1
7/27/2017
$48,500,000
20
13
12/29/2021
$42,199,000
27
15
7/19/2022
$17,178,000
23
16
2/6/2023
$43,350,000
24
17
Pipeline
8/25/2023
$3,197,000
22
19
3/14/2024
$31,244,000
28
20
Sunset Reservoir Connection
and PS
10/2/2024
$16,198,000
25
23
1/25/2028
$44,074,000
19
24
8/14/2028
$21,457,000
12
18
Construct 30 New Cisterns
12/7/2026
$51,150,000
21
25
3/2/2029
$32,190,000
31
21
Pipeline
Replacement/Abandonment
Program, Phase 2
11/23/2026
$48,500,000
14
22
Construct 25 New Cisterns
10/7/2030
$42,625,000
Project Name
67
Bond
Issue
ESER 2010
Bond
Future
Bonds or
Other
Sources
5.5 Schedule
The sections below describe the development of the capital improvement project schedule for
the preferred program.
5.5.1 Schedule Constraints
Project delivery constraints include the following:
Available capital for construction expenditures
Available staff and management time
Operational constraints (minimize portions of system out of service)
Construction effects minimization
Other project effects
5.5.1.1 Capital Funds
The AWSS is not supported by utility rates but by general funds through property tax
payments. Any future construction is expected to be funded by taxpayer approved bonds.
SFPUC and SFDPW are currently administering the 2010 Earthquake Safety and Emergency
Response (ESER) Bond. This Bond funds a total of $412.3 million dollars of which $104 million
covers various AWSS facilities divided as shown below:
$34 million for AWSS core facilities
$32 million for pipes
$36 million for cisterns
$2 million for administration
The expectation is that future projects will continue to be funded in this manner. The City
manages the total bonded amount and works with the Departments to manage general
obligation funding schedules and potential proposals to voters. SFPUC and SFFD will need to
continue to project capital needs and provide project information to be included in future bond
issues. It is currently envisioned that future bonds elections will be held in 2014 and
approximately 2021. These dates have been used as assumptions in the development of the
program schedule.
5.5.1.2 Staff and Management Time
While the 2010 ESER Bond funds some management and design time, each project also requires
review and assistance by staff in SFPUC, SFFD, and SFDPW. Spreading the work out over time
allows staff to continue their existing workload and also be available to assist with the capital
project development.
68
5.5.1.3 Operational Constraints
The AWSS provides a vital resource to SFFD in times of emergency. Whether for fighting a
greater alarm fire or fighting the catastrophic fires following an earthquake, the timing of the
need is unknown. The system must be able to provide at least a minimum level of service at all
times. Construction projects must be phased to allow a minimum level of supply and pressure
to be maintained for SFFD use at all times.
The non-project recommendations include developing a standard protocol for system
shutdowns. There should be a minimum amount of system storage in service at all times, as
well as a minimum of system pumping capacity available at all times. These standards need to
be developed based on reliability information as well as operational strategies. Construction
outages for connections to the existing system need to be phased to conform to the standard
protocol.
Appropriate project phasing provides systematic system upgrades with a logical progression of
projects. Hydraulic modeling of the existing system has identified concerns with the amount of
storage and supply for the existing system. Adding new sections of pipe serving new potential
demands should be concurrent with the supply or storage projects that will feed demands in
those areas.
5.5.1.4 Construction
Construction in the City may be mitigated in a number of ways. Typical downtown
construction hours are limited to avoid peak traffic hours or night work is required. The length
of open trench at any time or the number of crews can be limited. Hours can also be limited to
mitigate noise to neighbors. Most of these projects will likely require mitigation for construction
impacts.
Phasing and grouping projects will allow the planned minimization of impacts. Projects also
need to be coordinated with other City agencies as well as non-public utilities. SFPUC will
coordinate with these agencies during the planning and design process to make sure that
paving and utility projects are coordinated. This coordination may require some delays or
acceleration in projects when possible to minimize impact or additional costs.
5.5.1.5 Other Project Considerations
Project phasing and scheduling can also be affected by other major construction projects. San
Francisco has a number of major public infrastructure projects ongoing at any time, in addition
to major private projects. Recently, AWSS has been affected by the Transbay Terminal and
Central Subway construction projects and Mission Creek development. The Transbay Terminal
and Central Subway projects required utility relocation for the major underground structures.
Portions of the AWSS south of Market were disconnected during this construction. The Mission
Creek Development has connected new pipelines into the system which also required
69
shutdowns of portions of the system during the construction of the connections. Future projects
include Hunters Point, Pier 70, and Candlestick Park developments.
5.5.2 Schedule
Figure 5-1 shows the draft schedule for the preferred CIP. This schedule was proposed to
SFPUC for review by SFPUC, SFFD, and SFDPW staff.
70
Figure 5-1. Preferred Alternative Planning Level Schedule
71
5.6 Project Considerations
Considerations
Alternative B Ranking
Resource Location
Cost (Capital, Annual
Operations and Maintenance,
and Life Cycle)
Program Capital Cost of
$391,922,974 (including pipe
replacement estimated costs) is the
lowest of the three alternative programs
2290 hours estimated to operate and
maintain new AWSS facilities
Annual Operations and Maintenance
Cost for New Assets is $249,136 which is
slightly lower than Alternative A’s cost
of $254,794.
The developed schedules show
Alternatives A and B each completed by
2045, and Alternative C completed by
2046.
Alternative B citywide reliability score is
92%
Schedule
Water Supply Delivery
Reliability
Fire Fighting (Resources and
Deployment Time)
Insurance Premiums Benefits
Environmental/Community
Impacts
Right of Way/Legal
Number of Fire Engines Required is
least at 23 mean and 60 maximum
Average deployment time is least at 23.6
minutes
Alternatives A and B have higher
reliability and better firefighting
resources requirements, therefore should
have better fire insurance benefits.
Project environmental review required
some projects may require permits for
work in SF Bay
The intent is that all projects be located
in public Right of Way
See Appendix B
See Appendix B
See Appendix C
See Section 4.6
See Task 9 TM
See Appendix E
See Appendix D
72
6.0 Operational Strategy
6.1 Current Operational Strategy
6.1.1 Normal Operations
The AWSS is generally used for day-to-day “greater alarm” incidents and some working fires
occurring within the AWSS service area. The AWSS is typically able to serve an area that
extends approximately 1,000 feet to either side of the pipelines. However this distance varies
due to location of fire, topography of the area, type of fire (high rise vs. low rise), pressure
required, pressure within the AWSS pipeline, and whether an engine pumper is used, etc. The
SFFD utilizes the AWSS frequently for greater alarm fires for training and experience with the
system.
6.1.2
System Roles, Responsibilities, Staffing, and Training
The SFFD utilizes the AWSS during firefighting events, as described above. CDD is responsible
for the maintenance, repair, and proper operation of the system. During firefighting events,
both agencies coordinate to enable the proper operation of the system to respond to the
dynamic needs of conflagrations.
6.1.3 CDD Staffing
CDD is staffed with 1 Superintendent, 5 General Foremen, and 13 Gatemen. The Gatemen, who
are tasked with operating both the MWSS and AWSS valves and reservoirs, are the only
personnel authorized to operate MWSS and AWSS valves with the exception of hydrant valves
in certain cases described below. The Gate Room is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and
always has at least one person on the weekends, day shift, swing shifts, and graveyard shifts.
During normal operating hours there are 10 or 11 Gatemen on duty. The General Foremen as
well as the Superintendent are on standby from 4pm to 8am daily as well as 24 hours a day on
weekends and can be reached through their respective mobile devices and receive the same
updates as the Fire Chief.
SFFD procedures prohibit the operation of CDD distribution valves by SFFD staff unless under
the direction of CDD personnel or in the case of damaged hydrants. SFFD staff operates MWSS
hydrant valves when they are called to an incident involving a broken hydrant to shutoff the
hydrant valve, retrieves the hydrant and notifies CDD of the broken hydrant.
Proper valve operation protocols must be followed to limit the risk of pipeline, water quality
issues, storage, and private property damage caused by transient pressures or “water hammer”
73
- caused by quick opening and closing of valves. Also, certain valves are left strategically
opened and closed, during both normal and emergency scenarios, to allow the proper zoning of
system pressures.
There is a requirement that an "Ames Valve" is attached to every low pressure hydrant while
combating a fire to prohibit possible cross connections. SFPUC’s Water Quality Division
ensures that the SFFD is compliant with this regulation and is subject to fines if not compliant.
Personnel from CDD respond to second and greater alarm fires. They are available to operate
MWSS valves as may be necessary to provide a greater supply from other MWSS pressure
zones. As necessary, they also operate AWSS valves to provide adequate pressure and supply
from other AWSS zones. CDD staff also operate the pump stations, Twin Peaks Reservoir, and
tanks supporting the AWSS performance. CDD emergency crews also isolate flow to broken
mains as needed. Personnel from the Water Quality Division respond to second and greater
alarms of fire to investigate "cross connections" that are a possible source of potable water
contamination.
Pump Station 1 and 2, Jones Street Tank, Ashbury Tank and Twin Peaks Reservoir staffing is
subject to operational changes. For purposes of checking daily readings and security, the three
storage facilities are monitored by the SCADA system and 24-hour video surveillance. CDD
staff is deployed to these locations as required to provide regular and emergency operational
support, and perform maintenance activities.
During second alarm or greater fires, the CDD General Foreman and on duty gateman respond
to the fire with an additional gateman called for support during the greater alarm, responding
to either Jones Street tank or Ashbury tank or Twin Peaks reservoir. Once the General Foreman
reaches the incident, he immediately becomes the SFWD Incident Commander and is
responsible for the operation of non-hydrant valving. The SFWD Incident Commander reports
to the SFFD Incident Commander.
When an earthquake occurs, the following protocols are followed according to CDD staff:
High magnitude (CDD staff indicate approximately Magnitude 5.5) earthquake – all
Gatemen are required to report and perform pre-assigned roles (AWSS needs to be
included in these roles).
Higher earthquake (CDD staff indicate approximately Magnitude 6.0) – All supervisors
respond to perform pre-assigned tasks in addition to all of the Gatemen mentioned
above.
Severe earthquake (CDD staff indicate approximately Magnitude 6.5 and greater) – All
CDD staff are required to respond. CDD Response is determined by the on-call
Supervisor.
74
The CDD Superintendent, all General Foremen, and all Gateman are notified by the Department
of Emergency Management Communications Center for all greater alarm fires. The on-call
Supervisor (either a Superintendent or General Foreman) can then deploy Gate room Personnel
to either Jones St. Tank or Ashbury Tank depending on the location of the fire.
6.1.4 Normal Valve Settings
For the AWSS Post-Earthquake Fire Response simulations using the computer program
GIRAFFE, the model was configured to simulate systems operations solely utilizing the Twin
Peaks Reservoir pressure gradient. This assumes that following an earthquake SFPUC has
operated valves at Jones Street and Ashbury Street tanks to allow the entire system to be
operated off of the Twin Peaks pressure gradient to maximize delivery.
Division Gates
Division gate valves are currently normally closed as shown in Table 6-1.
75
Table 6-1. Closed Division Gate Valve Locations
Closed Division Gate Valve Location
Seventeenth St. / Collingwood St.
Golden Gate Ave. / Octavia St.
Franklin St. / Ellis St.
Sutter St. / Polk St.
Powell St. / Bush St.
California St. / Stockton St.
Washington St. / Stockton St.
Van Ness Ave. / Bay St.
Powell St. / Sacramento St.
Scott St. / Green St.
Laguna St. / Green St.
Lombard St. / Gough St.
Franklin St. / Grove St.
Church St. / Twenty-sixth St.
Irving St. / 15th Ave.
Irving St. / 7th Ave.
Ocean Ave. / 280 N
Ocean Ave. / 280 S
Mission St. / Fair Ave.
Infirm Area Isolation Valves
Nine zones within the city have been identified as infirm in previous studies. These are areas
that may be subject to liquefaction and this categorization was developed based on performance
during previous earthquakes. This liquefaction may cause damage to the AWSS piping during
an earthquake. The current strategy, developed during the 1980s, is to provide automatic
isolation of these areas following an earthquake. This is done by providing one normally open
motorized valve with a seismic switch that triggers closing following a Mw6.8 earthquake.
Other normally closed non-motorized valves and motorized valves provide isolation to each
zone. The normally closed motorized valves can be opened following an earthquake if the
pressure transducers upstream and downstream of the valve indicate no pressure differential.
The current normal infirm area isolation valve status is currently as shown in Table 6-2.
76
Table 6-2. Seismic Isolation Valve Locations and Status (pre-earthquake)
Infirm Area
Inflow Valve Seismic
Type
Switch?
MOCGV
Yes
Location
S.E. Brannan
Street/2nd Street
OCGV
No
Sacramento/Kearny
SynerGEE
ID
Status
27958
Open
32461
Open
Alternate Inflow
Valve Type
Location
N.W. Second
MCCGV
Street/Mission Street
S.E. Market
Street/New
Montgomery Street
MCCGV
Kearny Street/Jackson
MCCGV
Street
1,2
3
4,5
6
MOCGV
Yes
10
MCCGV
N.E. Harrison
Street/20th Street
23120
Closed
MCCGV
N.W. Evans
Avenue/Napoleon
Street
21630
Closed
MCCGV
S.E. Larkin
Street/Eddy Street
28514
Closed
S.E. Beach
Street/Baker Street
34512
Closed
24015
Open
No
Bayshore Blvd/Cesar
Chaves St.
Yes
N.E. Larkin
Street/Market Street
MOCGV
Yes
N.W. Fillmore
Street/Cervantes
34401
Open
MCCGV
MOCGV
Yes
S.W. Powell
Street/Chestnut Street 34518
Open
MCCGV
Open
MCCGV
Legend:
MOCGV:
OCGV:
MCCGV:
N.W. Leavenworth
Street/Bay Street
34758
N.E. Kearny
Street/Francisco Street 34806
77
Closed
Closed
17th Street/Dolores
Street
26834
33216
26140
No
MOCGV
Closed
N.E. 4th
Street/Channel
Open
Open
30352
MCCGV
25596
21768
Closed
Closed
Yes
OCGV
30111
MCCGV
Open
MOCGV
Status
S.E. 6th Street/Market
Street (bypass)
28130
N.E. Fifth
Street/Brannan Street 26497
MCCGV
26411
Yes
OCGV
9
Open
S.E. 5th
Street/Brannan Street
S.W. 7th
MOCGV
7
8
Street
28124
SynerGEE
ID
Closed
Closed
Closed
For post-earthquake analyses, infirm area isolation valve status were programmed and
simulated based on the premise that the infirm area inflow valves with seismic switches have
activated and closed and all motorized closed control gate valves along the perimeter of the
infirm areas have been opened (Table 6-3). Recognizing that the decision to operate infirm area
motorized close control valves following an earthquake is a manual decision taking into account
damage in the infirm area, sensitivity analyses was performed to determine if the closed control
valve status affects results.
Bypass Gate Valves
The existing condition assumes that the bypass gate valves at Ashbury and Jones St. Tanks are
closed, keeping the three pressure zones separated. Operation of these gates currently requires
dispatching a gateman to the tank to open the gates. The Ashbury tank gate valves have been
motorized and have the ability to be controlled remotely, but this is not currently included in
the operations due to the risk of tank overflow if the bypass valves are opened before the tank
discharge valves are closed.
Pump Stations
The pump stations are not normally operating; however they could be operated once staff is
dispatched to their locations.
Reservoir and Tanks
The Twin Peaks Reservoir (East and West sides), Ashbury Tank and Jones Street Tank are
normally kept full. Jones and Ashbury are automatically filled with potable water using altitude
valves and air gaps. Twin Peaks is also filled with potable water but done manually.
78
Table 6-3. Seismic Isolation Valve Status (post-earthquake)
Infirm Area
Inflow Valve Seismic
Type
Switch?
MOCGV
Yes
Location
S.E. Brannan
Street/2nd Street
OCGV
No
Sacramento/Kearny
SynerGEE
ID
Status
27958
Closed
32461
Open
Alternate Inflow
Valve Type
Location
N.W. Second
MCCGV
Street/Mission Street
S.E. Market
Street/New
Montgomery Street
MCCGV
1,2
MCCGV
3
4,5
6
MOCGV
Yes
10
Open
MCCGV
N.E. Harrison
Street/20th Street
23120
Open
MCCGV
N.W. Evans
Avenue/Napoleon
Street
21630
Open
MCCGV
S.E. Larkin
Street/Eddy Street
28514
Open
S.E. Beach
Street/Baker Street
34512
Open
No
No
Bayshore Blvd/Cesar
Chaves St.
Yes
N.E. Larkin
Street/Market Street
MOCGV
Yes
N.W. Fillmore
Street/Cervantes
34401
Closed
MCCGV
MOCGV
Yes
S.W. Powell
Street/Chestnut Street 34518
Closed
MCCGV
OCGV
MOCGV
24015
Open
21768
26834
Open
Closed
MCCGV
Legend:
MOCGV:
OCGV:
MCCGV:
Open
26140
17th Street/Dolores
Street
Closed
Open
MCCGV
Yes
25596
30352
Kearny Street/Jackson
Street
33216
N.E. 4th
Street/Channel
MOCGV
Closed
Open
MCCGV
Yes
26411
30111
Street (bypass)
28130
N.E. Fifth
Street/Brannan Street 26497
MCCGV
MOCGV
OCGV
9
Closed
S.E. 5th
S.W. 7th
7
8
Street
28124
N.W. Leavenworth
Street/Bay Street
34758
N.E. Kearny
Street/Francisco Street 34806
79
SynerGE
E ID
Status
Open
Open
Open
Open
6.2 Operational Changes Considered
Investigation of the existing operating conditions for modeling identified issues that were
addressed during the modeling and project development and included issues related to the
seismic switches, tanks bypass gates, and division gates.
The operational changes considered included:
Adding three new seismic switches to existing valves to be able to isolate three infirm
zones not yet isolated.
Operation as one pressure zone versus three pressure zones by either:
o Automating and opening all division gates, or
o Automating and opening bypass valves at Jones Street and Ashbury Tanks
Isolating the AWSS along Market St. into a “North” and “South” zone
Shifting the boundaries of the AWSS pressure zones
Adding SCADA, new equipment and remote controls to allow remote startup and
operation of Pump Stations 1 and 2
Adding SCADA, new equipment and remote controls to allow remote bypass of Jones
Street and Ashbury Tanks
6.3 Evaluation of Operational Changes
Hydraulic and reliability modeling tools were used to evaluate the effect of potential
operational changes on system performance. Table 6-4 shows the relative scores for the
operational changes using the SynerGEE hydraulic model, which were evaluated based on the
existing system and its ability to meet the demands at the 3rd quintile (refer to Task 8 TM for
description of the demand set and model). The evaluation criteria (i.e., percent of nodes met) are
the nodes whose demands are met at a 20 psi minimum delivery pressure.
80
Table 6-4. Hydraulic Analysis of Operational Changes (No pipe breaks or leaks)
Case
Base
All Infirm Zones
Isolated
One pressure zone:
Bypass valves
Percent of Nodes
Meeting 20 psi
delivery
minimum
Description
57
57
Existing condition
Adding three new seismic switches to isolate
three infirm zones not yet isolated
Operation as one pressure zone versus three
pressure zones by automating and opening
bypass valves at Jones Street and Ashbury
Tanks
Operation as one pressure zone versus three
pressure zones by automating and opening all
division gates
Isolating the AWSS along Market St. into a
“North” and “South” zone
Shifting the boundaries of the AWSS pressure
zones
63
One pressure zone:
Division Gates
57
North/South Division
54
Rezoning
57
As can be seen in Table 6-4, the only operational change that shows a purely hydraulic benefit is
automating and opening the bypass valves at Jones and Ashbury tanks, which allow the head at
Twin Peaks to govern the system. Changing the system into north and south zones did not
benefit the system.
In this evaluation, the rezoning done involved relocating one of the division gate valves along
Irving St. such that the pipe along Parnassus Ave. would be included in the Twin Peaks zone.
This was done because of the relatively high elevations at that location. However, as the system
exists now, there is no hydraulic benefit to this change.
Another change that does not show any hydraulic benefit but is crucial to the reliability of the
system is the complete isolation of all the infirm zones. Due to the pipe damage expected in the
infirm zones, isolating them would minimize the draining of the system. The reliability scores
were not calculated for this analysis; connectivity (the number of nodes where the demand was
met) was used as a proxy for reliability. Table 6-5 shows an increase in the connectivity of the
system when the infirm zones are completely isolated when considering breaks and leaks,
which are modeled in the GIRAFFE program (refer to Task 8 TM for a description of this
modeling).
81
Table 6-5. GIRAFFE Comparison of Infirm Zone Isolation
Case
Connectivity (%)
Infirm zones as is (3 not isolated)
33
Infirm zones all isolated
35
Infirm zones all open
24
Note:
These values are a result of an evaluation on the existing
system where the infirm zone repair rate was set to 3
repairs/km of pipe
6.4 PWSS Assumptions
SFFD currently has 4 PWSS units, with one of the four dedicated to Treasure Island. While these
units are not classified as capital improvements, they are important to the analysis and fire
department response and flexibility. Assumptions made in the modeling analysis generally
assumed that the circle of influence of a cistern or suction connection was limited to the length
of fire hose available on one fire engine, meaning that PWSS was not used for these locations.
The fire demands were connected to the high pressure water system using the closest possible
existing high pressure hydrant. Following modeling an assessment was performed to determine
the number of times this hydrant location was in excess of 707 feet from the projected demand
location, whereby the 707 feet represents the Manhattan distance from a hydrant. The
Manhattan distance reflects the fact that the 1000 feet of hose from a fire engine normally cannot
cross through blocks and must be routed in the streets, around corners. If the approximate
distance from the source to the location of demand assuming rectangular blocks exceeds 707
feet it is assumed that one fire engine’s hose would not be sufficient. This would indicate the
use of PWSS or relay engines. This assessment is discussed in Section 2.10.5 and with the results
summarized below.
To determine the need for the PWSS in firefighting after a Mw7.8 earthquake on the San
Andreas fault, a preliminary analysis was done on the preferred alternative (Alternative B)
using the full stochastic set of fire ignitions. First, GIS analysis of the existing and proposed
AWSS pipe was performed to determine the city blocks that fell beyond 707 feet but within
3,734 feet of the pipes, which are the Manhattan distances of 1000 feet and 1 mile. The
Manhattan distance generally takes into account the need for the hose to transverse city blocks
such that the effective distance is less by a factor of the square root of 2. An example using the
Alternative B HPS is shown in Figure 6-1.
82
Figure 6-1. Recommended AWSS Pipe With Buffers
83
Table 6-6. Summary of PWSS Needs
Average Number of Ignitions outside Pipe system
21
Average Number of PWSS Needed– Alternatives A and B
5
Minimum Number of PWSS Needed – Alternatives A and B
0
Maximum Number of PWSS Needed – Alternatives A and B
14
Average Number of PWSS Needed – Alternative C
4
Minimum Number of PWSS Needed – Alternative C
0
Maximum Number of PWSS Needed– Alternative C
14
Figure 6-2. Distribution of PWSS Needed (Alternatives A and B)
Frequency out (number out of 1000)
Number of PWSS Needed - Alternatives A and
B
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
No. of PWSS Hose Tenders
84
Figure 6-3. Distribution of PWSS Needed (Alt. C)
Number of PWSS Needed - Alternative C
Frequency (number out of 1000)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
No. of PWSS Hose Tenders
Table 6-6 summarizes the number of PWSS hose tenders needed in Alternatives A and B, where
significant new HPS is proposed, and Alternative C, where no new HPS is proposed. Figure 6-2
and Figure 6-3 show the distribution of PWSS needed over the 1000 ignition simulations. It
should be noted that this exercise did not consider the inaccessibility of the infirm zone pipe
and the possibility that additional PWSS would be needed to reach inside the infirm zones. In
addition, the number of PWSS hose tenders required to effectively fight a fire may be more than
one.
In the case of the 1989 Marina fire, 3 PWSS hose tenders were used to effectively extinguish the
fire. Therefore, if using this as an approximation of PWSS use for a single large fire, the average
number of PWSS hose tenders needed for both alternatives B and C would be 15 and 12,
respectively. Furthermore, PWSS could be used to extend to larger distances for cisterns and to
be filled from the fireboats.
This analysis assumed more PWSS units than are currently available. Additional PWSS units
would be a prudent investment for SFFD/SFPUC.
85
6.5 Recommended Operational Strategy
Based on modeling, it is recommended that SFPUC:
1. Isolate the remaining three infirm zones as soon as possible.
2. Automate the bypass gates at the Jones Street and Ashbury tanks to allow remote
operation.
Other recommendations include the need to remotely startup and control the pumps at Pump
Stations 1 and 2. The system as modeled using the 60 minute demands uses the full existing
capacity of the pump stations. Existing practice is to respond the appropriate staff to the
stations to operate them. Emergency response plans need to be developed that will prioritize
the staff response to all of the CDD operated facilities. Modifying the stations to allow remote
startup and control, similar to other CDD facilities, will reduce the potential wait for additional
reliable water supply.
Rezoning is only recommended as the expansion to the western part of the city occurs. It is
recommended that the outer Sunset and Richmond extensions be operated at the “upper zone”
and isolated from the higher “Twin Peaks Zone”. This will require some pipeline valve changes
and short sections of new piping. In general, the zones remain the same.
86
7.0
Non-Construction Recommendations
This planning study identified certain deficiencies (listed in Task 2 TM) that are not addressed
in any projects included in the programs. These are not capital projects but instead relate to
emergency preparedness, training, and maintenance. Table 7-1 below lists the recommendations
with priorities and implementation recommendations.
87
Table 7-1. Non-Construction Recommendations
AWSS Emergency pipeline repair, readiness and response program
Maintenance
Priority
Ease of
Implementation Ongoing
implementation
Cost
Cost
Confirm that all AWSS assets are entered into CDD's asset
management system and PM's are established
high
easy
medium
low
Perform Regular maintenance and testing
high
medium
medium
medium
Check, flush and repair all suction connections regularly
low
medium
medium
low
M4
Establish pipeline flushing program for AWSS
low
easy
low
low
M5
Establish leak detection program and a pipeline leak database to
monitor potential hot spots
medium
easy
low
low
low
easy
low
med
M1
M2
M3
Establish a cistern inspection, filling and testing program
M6
Operational Readiness
O1
Establish regular coordination meetings with SFFD
high
easy
none
low
O2
Train SFPUC personnel on system (communications, operational
strategies, emergency response requirements
high
easy
low
low
O3
Develop a system outage policy and procedures for planned outages
high
easy
low
low
O4
Prepare an emergency response program and conduct training
exercise
high
medium
medium
low
88
CIP Planning
P1
P2
P3
Establish testing program for AWSS pipelines
high
medium
medium
low
high
medium
medium
high
Establish regular pipeline replacement program
med
medium
medium
high
Establish program to locate and mitigate AWSS crossings of pile
supported utilities and other utility interferences
high
medium
medium
medium
P4
89
8.0 Additional Assessment of Risk and Use of
Potable or Co-Benefit System
Evaluation of the Preferred Alternative and the relative program costs and time frame led to
discussions about the sensitivity of the analysis to total seismic risk and the availability of
potable water to meet the fire demands. In addition, suggestions were made relative to sharing
costs with planned potable system reliability improvements to reduce construction costs. In,
Task 9.1, the AECOM/AGS JV performed additional hydraulic, reliability and risk assessments
in support of the questions raised following the recommendation of the preferred alternative.
Task 9.1 included a number of assessments which are documented in the Task 9.1 Technical
Memorandum and summarized in this section of the project report. The additional analyses
performed in Task 9.1 included reviewing the recommended program regarding the sensitivity
of the reliability scores to:
1. The annual risk of all foreseeable potential earthquake events
2. The availability and use of potable water from the potable water system
3. The potential benefit of construction of a potable co-benefit system which provides daily
benefit to the potable water system but will also function as a high pressure fire system
when necessary
4. Abandonment of existing AWSS pipe in the infirm and non-infirm zones
In addition, O&M costs for the existing AWSS were calculated using the same assumptions as
defined in the Task 9 TM. Pipe replacement at various rates programs was also assessed.
Results indicate that:
1. The effective reliability of the Existing, 2010 Bond and Preferred Alternatives increase
when incorporating the annual probability of different earthquake magnitudes in the
city. Table 8-1 summarizes the reliability scores based on the risk of all earthquake
events on the San Andreas Fault.
Table 8-1. Comparing Reliability with Mw7.8 Event vs. All Events
Mw 7.8
Effective (All San
Andreas events)
Existing
2010 Bond
Preferred Alternative
47
68
92
69
83
99
90
2. The reliability scores are sensitive to the availability of water from the potable water
system. Data post-processing assumed additions of potable water supply to the 2010
bond scores shows that as more potable water is available the reliability scores increase.
This is shown in Figure 8-1. For the purposes of this study, the contribution from the
potable system was assumed to be citywide and distributed equally among the FRAs.
The reliability of the potable system to provide the water, and the cost of any
improvements to the potable system to increase that reliability was not determined in
these analyses. Experience from the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake indicates that the
potable system had significant numbers of service connection failures in areas of high
ground motion/deformation.
Reliability Score, %
Figure 8-1. Reliability Scores with Potable Water Contribution
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Alternative B (no potable)
2010 (potable 50,000 gpm)
2010 Bond (no potable)
Existing (no potable)
1
2
3
4
Quintile Demand
5
3. With contributions from the potable system, projects can be removed from the Preferred
Alternative. At a reasonable level of potable water contribution (20,000 gpm citywide)
one of the recommended AWSS supply projects (Lake Merced, Sunset or University
Mound) can be removed. Removal of a second supply project would cause significant
impact to individual FRA reliability and is not recommended.
4. A potable co-benefits system was developed and analyzed that would serve the dual
purpose of potable water distribution during normal operation and high pressure flows
for firefighting after a major seismic event. This system would be separate from the
AWSS. Such a system would be constructed in lieu of expanding the AWSS to areas
currently not served by the AWSS. The full system would include some improvements
91
to the AWSS (common projects), two separate potable co-benefit pipe replacement
programs connected to Sunset Reservoir (Sunset Main Replacement and Richmond
Main Replacement), and new cisterns that are also common to the three Program
Alternatives. Hydrants will also be installed on the existing WSIP-strengthened
transmission mains that feed the 5 major terminal reservoirs. The citywide reliability
index score from the Potable Co-Benefits System exceeds that of the Preferred
Alternative (94% for the Potable Co-Benefits vs. 92% for the Preferred Alternative). An
opinion of probable costs for the Potable Co-Benefits System was also developed.
92
Figure 8-2. Potable Co-Benefits System
93
5. The calculated annual cost of O&M for the existing AWSS is $1.69 million. This is
compared to maintenance costs alone for the several years where such costs are
available.
6. The sensitivity of fire demands located within or outside infirm zones was tested, along
with the impact of abandoning all infirm zone pipe. These analyses showed that there is
not a significant difference in citywide reliability index scores.
a. Abandonment of the infirm zone piping does not have a large effect for this
analysis because most of the infirm zones are assumed to be hydraulically
isolated following a major seismic event using seismically controlled motorized
valves.
b. The sensitivity analysis of fire demand placement was only applicable to those
FRAs whose demands could have been placed within an infirm zone. These
were largely in FRAs on the east side of the city with demands of smaller
magnitudes. Although the individual FRA may have been impacted by the
placement of the demand node, the overall Citywide average is not significantly
affected.
c. An analysis of three areas outside the infirm zone was performed. It was
determined that some amount of pipe (26-39%) could be removed in FRAs that
are heavily gridded and whose pipe belong primarily to one pressure zone
without major detriment to the reliability index score. Pipe abandonment is FRA
specific and needs to be analyzed for SFFD operational needs and preferences.
7. Options for pipe replacement programs at various rates were reviewed. A pipe
condition assessment and testing program will inform SFPUC as to the relative needs for
pipe replacement. Until this data is available, a replacement rate of 0.5 miles per year has
been selected for budgeting purposes.
The following are recommendations based on the results of the additional analyses:
The projects recommended for funding using the ESER 2010 Bond funds should
continue into planning, design and construction.
Projects which strengthen the existing AWSS should proceed with planning and
potential funding.
SFPUC should engage in a similar planning effort to assess the reliability of the existing
potable water distribution downstream of the Water System Improvement Program
(WSIP) hardened facilities and recommend potential areas of improvement.
Once the potable system is assessed, SFPUC can determine the most appropriate
methodology to achieve the LOS goals throughout the City.
94
9.0
AWSS Program Justification
Previous work gives us some potential ways to justify AWSS program investments. Looking at
predicted loss due to fire following earthquake, Table 9-1 summarizes previous studies loss
calculations.
Table 9-1. Predicted Loss from Fire Following Earthquake
Study Author
Year
Estimated $ loss Billion
% of Total
Building Value
Scawthorn
1987
$21.5
8.6
Scawthorn
1992
$10
4
Grossi and MuirWood
2006
$3
Not stated
Scawthorn
2010 (CAPSS)
$7.6
3.7
Scawthorn
2012 (White Paper)
$7.55
3.7
The 2012 white paper (Scawthorn) documented the predicted loss with and without the AWSS
HPS. The values for loss and the corresponding reliability values calculated for the existing
AWSS with and without the HPS are shown in Figure 9-1.
95
Figure 9-1. Loss vs. Reliability Correlation
100
94% with
Recommended
Projects
90
Percent Citywide Reliability
80
68% with ESER
2010 Projects
70
60
50
47% With AWSS
40
30
30% Without
High Pressure
System
20
10
0
4
5
6
7
8
Fire Following Earthquake Loss in Billion Dollars
9
10
Discussions with Dr. Scawthorn indicate that use of a power relationship would be the most
appropriate trendline to connect the two calculated points and predict other points. As shown
in Figure 9-1, raising the citywide reliability from 47% to 94% could reduce the potential
property loss by $2 billion dollars.
The indirect costs such as business interruption, loss of travel and tourism, costs to relocate
following a catastrophe can be twice or more the direct costs such as loss due to fire following
earthquake. Data from previous disasters are shown in Table 9-2.
96
Table 9-2. Property Loss vs. Business Interruption Costs
Disaster
Property Damage ($
billions)
Business Interruption
Costs ($ billions)
Hurricane Katrina
$100
> $100
September 11th WTC Attack
$25
$40 to 100
Hypothetical 8.2 EQ on
$100
$67
Southern San Andreas
Source: Improving Catastrophe Modeling for Business Interruption Insurance Needs, Rose and
Huyck (2012)
Another justification of the maintenance and expansion of the AWSS include the potential
reduction of insurance premiums in San Francisco due to the AWSS. Work by Dr. Scawthorn
has indicated that insurance rates are 6 to 8% lower with the AWSS than without. This benefit
has been estimated to be approximately $32 to 45 million per year. Dr. Scawthorn has estimated
the net present value of the insurance savings due to the high pressure system to be $1 to 1.5
billion dollars. The Task 10 TM on Insurance estimates that the improvements recommended in
the preferred program would increase the reduction in insurance premiums to approximately
13.3%.
Table 9-3 shows estimated annual benefits and costs for the recommended system per $100,000
assessed value. Realizing the insurance premium savings would require an investment by the
City in addressing the insurance industry and regulators to document the benefits and changes
to the AWSS.
Table 9-3. Benefits and Costs of Improved AWSS
Benefits
Costs
1.
Annualized Values
Annual per $100,000 Assessed Value
Insurance Premium
Savings 1
Reduction in Property loss
Reduction in Indirect Loss
$20.31 to $28.56
Property Tax from Bonds
$6.35
$6.35
Total: $33.01 to $41.26
$33.90
Insurance Premium Savings would only be received by the insuree and only through
efforts at lobbying and regulatory interaction.
Investment in the AWSS to increase reliability and robustness is justified by the reduction in
risk, direct and indirect losses, and savings in fire insurance premium costs as described above.
97
10.0 Supplemental Condition Assessments
As part of Task 13, two additional assessments were made on pipe material testing and
alternative Pump Station 2 locations. These assessments are described in the sections below.
10.1 Task 13.2 Materials Testing
Concerns have been raised by SFPUC and TAP members about the strength and brittleness of
the cast iron pipe especially following the damage caused by the Loma Prieta earthquake in
1989. Task 13.2 was developed as an optional condition assessment task to examine available
pipe samples to inform further pipe analysis and recommendations. The full description of the
task is available in the Task 13.2 TM.
The existing AWSS pipe samples tested provide a limited data set. Four different standard tests
were performed on eight existing available samples from AWSS pipe removed from the system.
Because they were available samples, there was no way to choose representative ages, areas, or
pipe sizes or to gather a larger number of samples to increase the level of comfort statistically.
The four tests included thickness measurement, graphite distribution rating, tensile strength
and the Charpy impact test. Additional samples were obtained from a current construction site
and unnotched Charpy tests were performed.
The thickness measurement results show values which are less than and greater than the stated
standard thickness and show relatively low coefficient of variation in terms of consistent
thickness around the pipe perimeter. Comparing with the design calculations most probably
used at the time of design indicates that the pipe thickness was designed for the higher
pressures of the AWSS.
The graphite form, type, and size indicate typical cast iron of a variety of manufacturing
processes. With the limited samples there did not appear to be any correlation between age and
material characteristics. Two samples were of Flake type A which is the “strongest”
distribution. All of the samples had relatively large (size 2 or 3) graphite size distributions.
“The flakes of graphite have good damping characteristics and good
machinability (because the graphite acts as a chip-breaker and lubricates the
cutting tools. In applications involving wear, the graphite is beneficial because it
helps retain lubricants. However, the flakes of graphite also are stress
concentrators, leading to poor toughness. The recommended applied tensile
stress is therefore only a quarter of its actual ultimate tensile strength.” (Miguel
Angel Yescas-Gonzalez and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia)
98
The existing AWSS pipe was tested and shows strength comparable to historically reported data
for cast iron pipe. Table 10-1 shows a summary of the testing results. There was no lateral
expansion, no unbroken specimens and the fracture surfaces were examined and appear to be
0% shear (ductile) or 100% brittle fractures. Figure 10-1 shows some of the fracture faces.
Figure 10-1. Photograph of Unnotched Broken Samples
Table 10-1. Cast Iron Material Testing Results
Test
Tensile Strength
Sample
Result
18.4 ksi
Charpy
Notched
½ ft-lb, all
temperatures
3 ft-lb, at 70 degrees F
Unnotched
Comparison
DI pipe is 60 ksi
minimum
DI pipe is 7 ft-lb at 70
degrees F
99
The test results indicate that:
The pipe was originally cast with thicknesses greater than required
Has internal pressure capacity sufficient for design conditions based on the likely
original design equations
The pipe microstructure is varied
The tensile strength is comparable to other pit cast iron samples
The pipe breaks at low impact energy with brittle fractures
These tests indicate that the cast iron pipe is of relatively low tensile strength and is brittle as
would be expected of pipe of this type. Pipe testing for leakage and corrosion to identify
priority areas for pipeline replacement/abandonment programs is recommended. Addressing
the potential weakness of the pipe system will increase the likelihood of the AWSS to meet
likely demands following a major earthquake.
10.2 Task 13.4 Pump Station 2 Alternatives
The purpose of Task 13.4 was to provide additional information for the analysis of potential
Pump Station 2 renovation options, specifically, alternatives that might be cost effective
compared to renovation of the existing Pump Station 2. A full description of this task is
available in the Task 13.4 TM.
This task assessed potential sites in the north (in the proximity of the existing Pump Station 2)
and in the south (on Islais Creek and in the Hunter’s Point area) for replacement of the existing
Pump Station 2 with the following:
Hydraulic and reliability benefit to the existing and future AWSS
Opinion of probable costs
Environmental and permitting issues
Schedule
The proposed north site is adjacent to the existing Pump Station 2. Four proposed south sites
underwent a geotechnical review and with input from SFPUC, two preferred south sites were
selected for the assessment. General results from this study are as follows:
In both the 2010 Bond and Preferred Alternative system configurations, a pump station
at south site #B results in a lower reliability index score.
Our opinion of probable construction costs for a new pump with the same capacity as
the existing Pump Station 2 at the north and the two potential south sites are $ 13.8,
$35.9, and $32.4 million, respectively. In all instances, the construction cost of a new
100
pump station at either south site would be higher than a new pump station at the north
site. The construction cost at south site B is slightly lower than that at the south site A.
The construction cost at south site B is slightly lower than that at the south site A.
Doubling the size of the pump station and removing a supply project from the preferred
alternative can reduce the project cost opinion to as little as $9.6 million but with a
reliability reduction from 92 to 77.
The three pump station alternatives at the north site provide the lowest cost per increase
in reliability index score.
Construction of a new pump station involves multiple permitting and environmental
issues that may adversely affect the construction schedule. The total estimated time to
construct a new pump station is six and a half years, but with the following uncertainties
and constraints:
o CEQA and/or NEPA review
o Permitting
o Site negotiation and acquisition
101
11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Through the development of LOS criteria and goals, modeling of the AWSS, and alternatives
analysis, a recommended program has been selected and recommended to the SFPUC.
Following are the recommended citywide and sub-citywide area levels of service objectives
based on input from SFPUC and others:
“AWSS will reliably provide water to supply the “probable fire demands” after a magnitude
7.8 San Andreas earthquake”
• Each area will have a minimum of 50% reliable water supply to meet probable fire
demands
• The Citywide average will be a minimum of 90% reliable water supply to meet
probable fire demands
This study divided the City into areas based on those defined by the San Francisco Fire
Department (SFFD) for initial alarm response and were called Fire Response Areas (FRAs).
Probable fire demands were developed for each FRA using 1000 sets of fire demands generated
by Charles Scawthorn, PhD using a Monte Carlo analysis of fire ignitions and fire growth using
the ground motions from the design earthquake. The fire ignitions were generated using
methods similar to those used for the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) study
(ATC 2010). These water demands were aggregated into the “likely fire demands” for each
FRA.
These demands were then used in the reliability modeling tool GIRAFFE, developed at Cornell
University by Professor Thomas D. O’Rourke and his students for studies of Los Angeles’ water
supply system reliability (O’Rourke 2010). GIRAFFE performs internal Monte Carlo analysis to
damage pipes in the system for multiple scenarios. GIRAFFE uses the open source EPANET
(EPANET 2008) model as the hydraulic engine and is capable of performing both deterministic
and Monte Carlo simulations of pipe damage. The complete GIRAFFE model consists of five
modules: system definition, seismic damage, earthquake demand simulation, hydraulic
network analysis, and results compilation.
Currently, nine of the FRAs have no AWSS high pressure system. These FRAs are served by the
City’s regular water supply system hydrants, cisterns and alternative water sources. Because
this was an analysis of the AWSS, it was assumed that there was no contribution from the
regular water system anywhere in the City. Options which include contributions of the regular
water system are described later.
102
The Citywide average score for the existing AWSS is 47% with seven FRAs scoring less than
10%. The study included other tasks to assess the condition and needs of the AWSS and
identified deficiencies in the existing system. The tasks included:
•
•
•
•
•
Testing existing cast iron pipeline material
Assessing the controls systems
Recommending pipeline assessment and testing methods
Evaluating the impact of the AWSS on insurance costs in San Francisco
Assessing the intake tunnels for the two salt water pump stations
The needs assessment identified 47 projects which appeared feasible, provided significant
benefit to the AWSS, and addressed the deficiencies identified in the condition assessment and
hydraulic modeling
These projects include repairs to the intake tunnel to Pump Station 1. The tunnel to Pump
Station 2 was evaluated and found to be in good condition. The evaluation of the controls
systems recommended upgrading the systems to be compatible with SFPUC’s other water
operations controls.
Providing motorized valves at the tanks to allow remote connection of all pipeline zones was
also recommended. Pipeline testing and assessment is recommended and planned using a
portion of the ESER 2010 bond. Pipeline replacement rates should be determined as the results
of testing activities are received and interpreted.
From the list of projects developed during the needs identification phase, three alternatives
were developed that achieve the LOS objectives with different strategies. To meet each FRA
demand with 50% reliability, either new pipe (and supply) or new cisterns were required.
Various alternatives were considered including extension of the AWSS. Because SFPUC is
committed to improving the regular water supply system reliability as well; options which
included the use of a strengthened potable water system were developed. Common to these
alternatives are a set of future projects that will enhance the current AWSS reliability. Details of
the various alternatives are described in this report and associated Technical Memoranda.
Ultimately a Potable Co-Benefit system that could serve as a regular main, post-earthquake fire
supply and post-earthquake emergency water supply was developed. This would leverage
existing potable water infrastructure as well as the planned potable water main replacements.
The potable co-benefits system would construct new pipelines which would normally serve as
regular system feeder mains, but be capable of being isolated from the regular system to serve
as a backbone supply for higher pressure fire supply and emergency supply lines following an
earthquake. In addition, hydrants can be added to WSIP hardened transmission mains to
operate at their standard operating pressure.
Projects have been recommended for planning, design and construction using the available
ESER 2010 Bond funds. Additional projects to strengthen the existing AWSS should proceed
103
with planning and potential funding. Table 11-1 shows the recommended future projects.
Additional study should be performed to determine the reliability of the potable water system,
assess potential improvements and coordinate those improvements with AWSS or potable cobenefit solutions to provide water supply to fight fires following a major earthquake event.
Table 11-1. Recommended Projects Post 2010 Bond
Facilities
AWSS
Pipe
Connections
and Water
Supply
Cisterns
Potable Cobenefits
Net Present
Value
Reliability Upgrades
University Mound Pipeline and Pump
Station
Twin Peaks Pipeline
27 New
Sunset Main Replacement
Richmond Main Replacement
Hydrants Installed on WSIP-strengthened
pipes
Total Cost
$114 million
$23 million*
$137 million
Notes:
*- Assumes 75% water revenues/bonds and 25% general obligation bond cost share (associated water
revenues/bonds cost = $69 million)
104
References
1. Applied Technology Council (2005). “San Francisco’s Earthquake Risk Report on Potential
Earthquake Impacts in San Francisco”,
Obtained from website:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/1906quake/atc-report.pdf
2. CDD interview, SFPUC/CDD: Katie Miller, Bill Gunn, AECOM/AGS: Anne Symonds,
Jason Chen, Aaron Lee, Courtney Hicks, Ahmed Nisar, Alok Jha
3. Connick, HDH and Ransom, TW (1908). “Report on an Auxiliary Water Supply System for
Fire Protection”.
4. Jeon, S. (2002). “Earthquake Performance of Pipelines and Residential Buildings and
Rehabilitation with Cast-in-Place Pipe Lining Systems.” Ph.D Dissertation, Cornell
University.
5. Markov, I., Grigoriu, M., O’Rourke T. (1994). “An Evaluation of Seismic Serviceability of
Water Supply Networks with Application to the San Francisco Auxiliary Water Supply
System”, Technical Report NCEER-94-0001.
6. Manson, M (1908). “Reports on an Auxiliary Water Supply System for San Francisco”.
7. Metcalf & Eddy (2009). “Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) Study”. City Planning
Committee, City and County of San Francisco.
8. National Fire Protection Agency (2007).”25 Largest Fire Losses in U.S. History (in 2006
dollars)”.
http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=954&itemID=23352&URL=Research%20
&%20Reports/Fire%20statistics/Deadliest/large-loss%20fires
9. Rose, A. and Huyck, C. (2012). “Improving Catastrophe Modeling for Business Interruption
Insurance Needs”. CREATE Homeland Security Center, University of Southern California.
10. Scawthorn, C., O’Rourke, T.D., Blackburn, F.T. (2006). “The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake
and Fire – Enduring Lessons for Fire Protection and Water Supply”, Earthquake Spectra,
Volume 22, No. S2, pages S135 – S158.
11. Scawthorn, C. (2012). “Reliablity Methods: A Report Prepared for the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission.”
12. Miguel Angel Yescas-Gonzalez and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, Phase Transformations &
Complex Properties Research Group, University of Cambridge.
105
Appendix A: Project Data Sheets
Appendix A Project Data Sheets
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
1
Motorization and Addition of Seismic Switches on Gate Valves
Deficiency ID
Need
D49
Three pipelines crossing into infirm zones are currently not seismically isolated immediately
after an earthquake by seismic motion-activated control valves. Pipelines located within and
at the interface of the infirm zones are expected to experience breaks/failures during future
earthquakes. Automated and immediate valve isolation of the infirm zones following an
earthquake would allow the SFPUC to examine these areas for leaks/breaks before
restoring service to them.
Project
Objective/Benefit
The infirm zones are already for the most part isolated from the rest of the system by
motorized valves. This project would add motorization to the 3 gate valves that are not yet
motorized, allowing automatic isolation of pipelines located in the infirm zones in the
immediate aftermath of an earthquake. This would preserve firefighting water storage in the
aftermath of an earthquake by isolating pipelines located in the infirm zones for which water
loss would be expected as a result of leaks or breaks.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
There are currently 7 existing seismic gate valves in the AWSS which were designed to
close automatically following a seismic event. This project assumes the 7 existing valves
would operate as intended, working with the 3 new valves to automally isolate the infirm
zones following a seismic event.
There are existing manually operated gate valves which would need to be retrofitted with a
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria motorized operator, battery vault, and instrumentation. Alternately a new valves could be
located along the pipeline just outside of the infirm zone.
- 1x 16"
- 1x 14"
- 1x 12"
At each location, add additional below grade vault, sidewalk pedestal, Monopole w/
antenna. Assume 5' deep vault. Alternately could move actuator, batteries, etc. above
grade to minimize soil disturbance when the site conditions allow.
Utililze existing standard design. Trickle charged batteries. 800 mhz radio with VSAT
backup.
Sites are: Kearny & Sacramento, 17th and Dolores, Ceasar Chavez and Vermont
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$174,625
$908,050
$1,082,675
$8,945
Facilities
PS at New Site (Ea.)
PS at Exist. Site (Ea.)
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
Actuator for GV (Ea.)
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
3
3
1 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
1
Assumptions
40'x40' square, each vault. 20' deep.
Construction Duration
(years)
Project Footprint new disturbance (sf)
Volume of soil to be
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.1
4,800
4,622
0
0.1
CCSF - DPW (Street)
Streets subjected to
significant duration
closures
Street intersections at
Kearny & Sacramento
17th and Dolores
Ceasar Chavez and Vermont
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
Construction in two street intersections to install new below ground vaults at Kearny &
Sacramento and17th just East of Dolores. 3rd Vault installed along Vermont to the South of
Ceasar Chavez may be in Street or in dirt area to side of road.
Possible conflict with nearby archaeological site at Vermont St. Could be avoided by
placing vault above ground.
2 of 62
INDIAN A
ILLINOIS
TENNESSEE
MICHIGAN
MARYL AND
O
80 N
IOWA I-2
N
TEXAS
D
FF
I-280 SOUTHBOUND
OI S
SO
MISSOURI
WISCONSIN
RO
TRE
PO
SAN BRUNO
RHODE ISLAND
ARKANSAS
KAN SAS
OR
TH B
OU
N
NC
FRA
I-2 80
TEXAS
SAN BRUNO
DE HARO
CONNECTICUT
UTAH
YORK
BARTLETT
LILAC
VIRGIL
LUCKY
FLORIDA
TREAT
ALABAMA
HAMPSH IRE
BRYAN T
TREAT
SHOTWELL
CAPP
LEXINGTON
ALABAMA
HOFF
OAKWOOD
CHURCH
AMES
FAIR OAKS
DOLORES
CHATTANOOGA
I-2 8
0N
A
RY
03RD
TH
06
S
EN
W
O
VERMONT
I-280 N OFF
H
I-280 S ON
TH
T
07
TE
KA
RE
DO
CAROLINA
TE R
05
TH
H
H
H
JULIAN
ABBEY
ALBION
LANDERS
RAMONA
2
POND
NOE
ISLAIS
ADAM
06
N
TO
T
09
H
T
11
T
10
TH
VAL ENCIA
TRE A
T
H
C
T
NG
LA
E
T
08
C
RA
G
12
M
A
D
N
02
T
RI
E
RI
R
HA
SS
A
LI
O
M
JU
IE
IN
N
AT
O
GUY
I-8
0
EA
S
TB
O
FR
H
TH
05
TH
SK
LA
FRANKL
PEARL
NAN
BUCHA
AM
ED
04
18TH
SHARON
SAN CHEZ
SAN JOSE
UN
D
Ba
y
Br
idg
e
DRUMM
DAVI S
FRONT
Y
BATTER
E
SANSOM
OMERY
MONTG
KEARNY
GRANT
ON
STOCKT
L
POWEL
STONE
T
04
OF F
T AR
80 W
N
E IAR P E
AI A L
M
EU S
BE T
T
ST
N 01S
O
EM
Exist Valves
MASON
TAYLOR
JONES
WOR
LEAVEN
LARKIN
POLK
HYDE
GOUGH
LAGUNA
R
STEIN E
P
NA
AB
MIR
MARIN
MARIN
MARIN
(
!
TUL ARE
N
EO
OL
MULLEN
PRECITA
4,000
EL Feet
SAN CHEZ
27TH
1,000
RE
WETMO
OCTAVIA
E
CLIPPER
±
0
INCA
R
WEBSTE
FILLMOR
25TH
JERSEY
DUNCAN
2,000
CESAR CHAVEZ
26TH
25TH
24TH
ELIZABETH
22ND
21ST
26TH
23RD
22ND
HILL
MARIPOSA
24TH
23RD
23RD
22ND
21ST
LIBERTY
17TH
20TH
20TH
IN
W
IR
N
UN
19TH
16TH
ADAIR
DIVISION
HBOUND
19TH
18TH
ALAMEDA
14TH
15TH
15TH
15TH
TH
12
Infirm Shutoff Valves
NAN
BUCHA
ORBEN
OAK
LILY
PAGE
HAIGHT
HWY 101 SO
UT
L
NE
N
A
H
C
G
N
KI Y
R
R
BE
DUBOCE
S
S
JE
T
KE
AR
M
FELL
AWSS Pipes
N
O
RY
R
BE
L
NE
N
A
H
C
LINDEN
S
TI
O
PLUM
WALLER
TUR K
IE
NA
IN
M
GROVE
HAYES
FULTON
O
LS
FO
AM
H
TE
N
IE
A
A
M
O
AT
E
ST
N
SO
N
VE
GATE
GOLDEN
TER
MCAL LIS
JE
EDDY
N
SO N
RI E O
SH
AR
EL
H I-80
W
AN
N
N
ND
A
T
SE
R
N
B
N
YA
W
BR
TO
IVY
MYRTLE
PA
ZA M
GEARY
SS
ELLIS
OLI VE
LL
OFARRE
IE
N
AN
MAID EN
M
D
AR A
W
N
HO NTI
E
M
LE
C
D
W
O
UN
D
BO
T
ES
W
R
0
BE
I-8
TA
POST
S
IL
SI
IS
M
BUSH
SUTTER
AUSTI N
AUSTI N
FERN
FERN
Legend
N
JACKSO
GTON
WASHIN
CLAY
ENTO
SAC RAM
NIA
R
FO
CALI
PINE
PACIFIC
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
2
Deficiency ID
Need
D15
The rubber AWSS hose piping at 4th & Channel Street connecting the north and south side
of 4th Street Bridge was removed during prior construction activities and never replaced.
(Description and details from Task 2 TM)
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would restore the 4th street connection by running a hose across the channel
along the bottom of the Bay. This would provide more supply to the southern side of the
bridge and improve localized system redundancy between Mission Bay and South
Beach/SOMA.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Connections on either side of 4th street bridge must be in good condition
Install ~ 500 LF of 12 inch diameter hose connecting to the pipelines on either side of the
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria 4th St. Bridge, and running in a trench at the bottom of the Bay.
The bottom would be dredged and the hose buried, protected from boat anchors, and
weighted to prevent buoyant lift.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$257,813
$1,340,625
$1,598,438
$417
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
750
3 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
2
Assumptions
10' wide 5' deep trench in bay sediment
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
0.5
7,500
1,806
0
0.1
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
San Francisco Bay
Community
Some constructon traffic impacts across 4th Street. Pedestrian impacts associated with
staging of work and connection to AWSS on either side of bridge.
Bay sediment disturbance, approximately 7500 sf.
4 of 62
Legend
M
O
UX
L
B
E
Existing Valves
TO
SE
N
W
G
N
KI
ND
R
BE
AWSS Pipes
RY
L
NE
N
A
CH
4th Street Bridge
(not currently connected)
TERRY A FRANCOIS
TH
05
TH
04
R
BE
RY
L
NE
AN
CH
ION
MISS
M
NA
UN
ED
4
01
N
UN
05
T
06
H
±
S
EN
80
NO
TH
R
BO
D
TH
UN
07
200
400
2
1
W
O
I-2
0
01
03RD
M
NA
UN
ED
AM
ED
800 Feet
K
RO C
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
Deficiency ID
Need
D4,D5
Analyses and inspections indicate that Pump Station No. 1 seawater intake tunnel has
damage to the lining and concrete, has some cracking and has potential failure modes due
to potential lateral ground movement. Further geotechnical field work and analysis is being
performed under Task 12. Recommendations for repairs and structural mitigation are
discussed in the Task 7 TM.
Project
Objective/Benefit
The existing seawater intake tunnel to Pump Station No.1 requires several upgrades for
reliable operation. This project would improve the reliability of the tunnel by repairing areas
in it as well as installing structural support at the area under the seawall footing and piping
for continuity at the CSO structure connections.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
The seawater intake tunnel at Pump Station No. 1 has a section that is currently full of silt
which limits its functionality. Completion of this project requires that sediment removal is
complete prior to project.
The Pump Station No. 1 tunnel repair includes reinforcing the tunnel under the seawall footing as well
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria as placing 3 foot diameter HDPE pipes upstream and downstream of the connection of the tunnel to the
CSO box. Strengthening of the tunnel section that lies beneath the footing and for a short distance on
either side is recommended by either installing ribs at 1-2 ft spacing, or a heavy HDPE sleeve inside the
tunnel to transmit water even if the reinforced concrete tunnel wall is damaged. The necessary length of
tunnel, wall thickness and diameter are to be determined in a subsequent phase of the study. The
design criteria of the sleeve would not include strengthening the tunnel. The sleeve needs only be able
to resist the collapse of the footing and to continue transmitting water.
At the connection to the CSO box, remediation is recommended, potentially through installation of an
inner sleeve, possibly of heavy wall HDPE, centered on the interface between CSO box and
tunnel and extending at least 5 feet into the tunnel on the Bay side and 25 feet into the CSO box on the
land side. The diameter of the sleeve should be 30-33 inches so that it can be accommodated within
the 36 inch diameter CSO box conduit. Detailed design of the sleeve and placement are deferred to a
later stage of the project
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$305,253
$1,587,314
$1,892,567
$0
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
5 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
2.2
0
0
0
0.0
Existing SFPUC Facility
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
San Francisco Bay - Tunnel Intake
Community
Construction staging along waterfront.
Marine construction - work will occur in flooded seawater intake tunnel. No sediment
impacts anticipated associated with this project.
6 of 62
D
UN
TB
O
D
UN
O
EA
ST
B
P
TR
I-8
0
LO
O
AN
SB
AY
M
I-8 0
Y
R
IN
O
OFF
I-80 W
CO
N
I-8 0 E ON
O
M
E
W
TO
EN
NS
D
BO
F
OF
80
N
I-2
RY
D
G
N
I-280 S ON
KI
2,000 Feet
C
EL
NN
A
H
EL
N
N
HA
C
COIS
UN
1,000
R
BE
TH
04
RT
TH
07
TH
500
TH
05
BE
08
±
O
HB
RT
NO
AN
IL
G
TE
KA
0
80
I-2
DM
AR
OFF
N
TO
NG
LA
E
I-8 0
TERRY A FRAN
E
RY
VE
XO
U
BL
TH
06
ET
RI
R
HA
0
E
C
IN
R
BE
S
RI
R
O
I-8
N
RE
L
ER
O
R
G
M
N
PS1 Tunnel
SK
LU
M
AK
O
T
N
YA
R
B
SH
EL
W
H
C
H
UT
SH
EL
W
N
LO
EE
FR
ER
M
D
O
FE B O
E
D
AN
N
A
CL
W
R
BE
TA
T
RI
0
E
O
I-8
FF
O
AN
ZO
RA
LA
C
TH
05
LM
FA
N
U
Y
AR
Y
LE
ST
RY
LM
IL
AN
BR
THE EMBA
RCADER
EX
I
R
AR
H
N
SO
FF
WO
S
ES
E
RN
O
AP
-L
PU
LA
M
IP
SH
ER
AH
AL
R
PE
I-8
0
R
O
AL
A
A
N
AM
TI
H
EN
TE
EM
CL
W
EA
N
LS
A
Z
RI
ES
SP
AI
M
NT
W
DO
TH
AN
N
IN
M
E
AL
BE
D
N
02
PL
S
IE
FO
U
G
W
HA
KA
S
JE
O
EM
FR
Y
D
NT
U
H
D
AR
N
DE
ER
R
03
W
O
H
AWSS Pipes
AL
M
M
O
G
NT
N
T
AR
EU
ST
NT
FRO
O
M
SO
ST
01
EW
E
NI
AN
ON
STOCKT
S
N
VE
E
T
IM ION
E L SS
I
M
A
N
IN
M
A
M
TO
A
N
Y
N
N
MAID EN
GEARY
Y
BATTER
T
KE
N
O
AR
M
NS
E
EV
ST
POST
Legend
Existing Valves
O
TH
AN
CAMPTON
Y
HARDIE
SUTTER
N
ME
SANSO
OMERY
MONTG
BUSH
HARLA
CENTUR
KEARNY
GRA NT
PINE
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
4
Twin Peaks Reservoir Outlet Connection
Deficiency ID
Need
D47
Currently the AWSS can only be directly served from the 20 inch Twin Peaks Tunnel line. In
the event of an outage or failure of this line no water can be delivered into the AWSS from
Twin Peaks directly. It can then only be fed by opening division gates from a lower zone.
Project
Objective/Benefit
The AWSS is fed from a tee off the west discharge piping. The west basin can be isolated
while feeding the AWSS by using the sluice gate + new balancing valve. This project would
install a connection between the existing 20 inch discharge lines from Twin Peaks Reservoir
after they exit the tunnels and before the tee which heads west to feed the Twin Peaks
Zone. This connection would allow either 20 inch discharge line to feed the Twin Peaks
zone.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Assuming that the connection would be a manual valve and pipe in street down hill from the
tunnel ends.
Install a short distance (~20 LF) of 20 inch pipe plus a 20 inch gate valve. Tee connections
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria into existing pipelines.
Match outlet size from Twin Peaks West.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$101,750
$529,100
$630,850
$437
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
2
20
7 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
4
Twin Peaks Reservoir Outlet Connection
Assumptions
buried valves, 20' x 20' square
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
0.5
400
193
20
0.0
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Intersection of Twin Peaks Blvd. and Raccoon
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
Construction in residential area street intersection off Twin Peaks Blvd.
None anticipated
8 of 62
SH
RA
DE
R
Legend
Existing Valves
BEL GRAVE
UN
NA
M
S
TWIN PEAK
DON
CLARE N
ET
T
CO
RB
BIGLER
CLAYTON
AWSS Pipes
ED
10
8
PE
M
NE
BE
RT
O
O
YS T
GR A
WN
CRO
N
New Valve and
Connecting Pipe
MOUNTAIN SPRING
LL
VI
G
LE
NB
R
O
O
K
A
RA
CC
SAINT GERMAIN
OO
N
BURNETT NORTH
PALO ALTO
MA
RV
IE
W
BURN
E
VI
0FAR
W
100
±
200
TW
400 Feet
IN
PE
AK
S
E TT
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
5
Deficiency ID
Need
D29
Currently CDD staff must travel to the Jones St Tank to operate the manual tank discharge
and bypass valves to introduce the upper zone into the lower zone. The 2010 bond funds
project as currently designed will upgrade the tank discharge gates, but not the bypass
valves.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project will allow quick response to increase system pressures in the lower zone by
allowing remote operation of the tank and bypass gates.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Assume that Emergency valves No. 15 and 16 are motorized and can be closed so that
Valves 5 through 14 and be motorized and fully opened when needed. The bypass gates will
need to be motorized as well and all connected to SCADA for remote control and
monitoring. Assume that a maximum of two valves would be operated at a time.
Install motorized actuators and SCADA control to all 10 existing gate valves, including power
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria supply and SCADA backup communications such that two gates at a time would be slowly
opened. There are five 12 inch gate valves for each of the two existing bypass gates.
Confirm existing emergency generator has sufficent capacity for backup power.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$412,500
$2,145,000
$2,557,500
$6,172
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
10
10
9 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
5
Assumptions
Assumes work is contained entirely within existing facility
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
0.7
0
0
0
0.0
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Within existing SFPUC Facility
Community
All contruction is located inside existing SFPUC Facility.
Minor traffic impacts possible associated with construction activities.
None anticipated
10 of 62
WA LL
N
JACKSO
MARC Y
Legend
Existing Valves
AWSS Pipes
MASON
GTO
WASHIN
N
TRUETT
PRIEST
REED
MALVINA
T
PLEASAN
Jones Street Tank
Valve House
EWER
AN
TAYLOR
JONES
GOLDEN
HYDE
L
KIMBAL
CUSHM
ENTO
SAC RAM
LEROY
TROY
LE
SPR OU
CLAY
CALIFO
RNIA
ACORN
HELEN
WORTH
LEAVEN
PINE
D
MULFOR
BUSH
0
125
±
250
SUTTER
500 Feet
HOBART
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
6
Deficiency ID
Need
D30
The 35 suction connections which allow fire engines to pump water from San Francisco bay
are of unknown condition and operability. These connections allow fire engines to pump
seawater to fight fires along the waterfront, or alternately to pump water from the Bay into
the AWSS. Some of them are located on the bay bottom and may be filled with silt or
marine organisms.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project includes inspection, evaluation of condition, and repair, replacement, or
relocation of each suction connection as appropriate. This would improve the reliability of
the seawater source pumped from the Bay by fire trucks to fight fires along the waterfront, or
alternately to pump water from the Bay into the AWSS. The project would evaluate the
condition, expected operability, and seismic performance of each suction connection
individually. Alternatives applicable to each individual suction include repair, replacement,
relocation, or abandonment.
In some cases the suction intakes may be buried in sediment and cannot be drawn from or
flushed. Dredging of Bay bottom is not included in this project.
Some fittings may have been removed by vandals.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Inspect and evaluate the condition of each of the 35 existing suction connections. As
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria appropriate based on findings, perform repairs, replace, or relocate each suction connection
as appropriate. Consider pressure requirements, fitting connections to fire trucks. Consider
long term operability of each siphon given sedimentation. Consider replacement with HDPE
or other alternate material which may have, but superior performance in a marine
environment.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$371,250
$1,930,500
$2,301,750
$0
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
11 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
6
Assumptions
Assume 10 of the 35 suction connections must be replaced, requires drilling into Bay from
waterfront. Assume 20'x20' required for staging of repairs ot the others
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.3
14,000
1,204
0
1.1
Varies - SF Port and other
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Commerical, industrial, recreational along waterfront
Community
Varies by site. Possible visual and recreational impacts associated with construction
staging.
35 different sites located along waterfront. No impacts anticipated for inspection and repair.
If any siphons need to be replaced or relocated then impacts to Bay are possible associated
with installation of seawater suction. Minimal excavation.
12 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
7
SCADA Improvements
Deficiency ID
Need
D20,D22,D23
Some critical AWSS facilities cannot be remotely operated, which could limit operational
response in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake. Other automated controls are either
obsolete or in need of backup communications systems. Specific needs are documented in
the Task 6 SCADA TM.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would upgrade and expand SCADA remote operation capabilities of AWSS
facilities, including remote operation of Pump Station No.1 and No. 2, gate valves and
incorporation of the AWSS SCADA system into the CDD SCADA system. Controls,
software and hardware will be consistent and allow better operation during emergencies.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
See Task 6 SCADA TM
1. Upgrade Pump Stations No. 1 and No. 2 to add primary and backup SCADA connection
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria and provide remote monitoring and control capabilities.
2. Upgrade five motorized valves to provide backup communications to radio (three at Twin
Peaks Reservoir, Ocean Ave. at 280 East and Ocean Ave. at 280 West). Motorized
actuators are already installed, need to install remote monitoring and control capabilities.
3. Add automation to the Bay and Van Ness gate valves, bringing the number of
automated valves to 32 from 30. Complete automation including remote monitoring and
control capabilities.
4. Upgrade obsolete Wonderware and replace hardware as necessary for all facilities. 5.
Integrate emergency operation locations with potable water system operations.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$426,250
$2,216,500
$2,642,750
$1,967
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
9
13 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
7
SCADA Improvements
Assumptions
Assumes work is contained entirely within existing facility
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.1
0
0
0
0.0
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Within existing SFPUC facilities
Community
All contruction is located inside existing SFPUC Facility.
Minor traffic impacts possible associaetd with construction activities.
None anticipated. Project is above ground
14 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
8
Deficiency ID
Need
D3,D6,D41
Three of the five existing fireboat manifolds which allow fire boats to pump water from the
bay into the AWSS are located on docks of of unknown condition and operability, and may
be susceptible to seismically induced failures. In addition, the existing geologic conditions
and future seismic performance of the piers may create interaction issues with the fireboat
manifold piping and cause significant damage and potentially complete failure of these
facilities.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would evaluate the condition of and repair, replace, or relocate as appropriate of
three of the five existing fireboat manifolds. The objective is to improve the reliability of the
seawater water source pumped by fireboats into the AWSS.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
SFPUC staff believe that only two of the 5 fireboat manifolds are currently installed in solid ground
foundations - Islais Creek and Fisherman’s Wharf.
Facilities may be designated historic structures, requiring abandonment in place and new construction,
rather than replacement.
Assume relocation of manifold located on Pier 33 1/2. Assume Pier 22 1/2 is seismically upgraded by
another project. Assume Fort Mason AWSS pipeline must be relocated to a new alignment on the Pier
Inspect and evaluate the condition and seismic vulnerability of each of the five existing
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria fireboat manifolds. As appropriate based on findings, perform repairs, replace, or relocate
each fireboat manifold. Any facilities judged to be located on seismically unsafe piers
should be relocated.
Manifolds could be relocated off the Piers, but need to consider bathymetry, access, etc.
Pier 22 1/2 is being rehabilitated by the Fire Department and can be considered seismically
retrofitted for the purpose of this project.
Fort Mason - assume relocation of ~1200 LF of Pipe, recoating and flushing of manifold
Fisherman's Wharf assume recoating and flushing only
Islais Creek assume recoating and flushing only
Pier 22 1/2 assume recoating and flushing only
Pier 33 1/2 assume abandonment in place of existing pipe and manifold, construction of new
manifold.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$110,000
$572,000
$682,000
$0
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
15 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
8
Assumptions
Assume relocation of manifolds and connector pipelines is required at Fort Mason and Pier
33 1/2. All facilities are above ground.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
0.9
49,200
0
0
1.0
Varies - SF Port and other
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Commerical, industrial, recreational along waterfront
Community
staging. Potential impacts to commercial and recreational uses at Fort Mason and site near
Pier 33 1/2.
None anticipated for 3 of the 5 sites. Fort Mason and Pier 33 1/2 require installation of new
pipeline along or underneath pier, accessed from water. Pier 33 1/2 and Fort Mason
manifolds could be considered historical structures.
16 of 62
R
CO
PFEIFFE
FRANCIS
T
NU
T
ES
CH
D
LOMBAR
ICH
E
GRE NW
M
EN
DE
LL
MS
RE
VE
TH
O
M
HM
ER
RE
AS
IN
GA
LL
S
D
UN
TB
O
EA
S
I-8
0
O
LS
LP
S
N
RA
NK
I
A ESTA
TI V
RO L
L
TON
KEITH
CAS
LLE
SA
O
SC
ND
CAR
WILL IA
DS
ON
FA
IR
FA
X
CA
RG
EV
AN
S
WIL
L
E
GA
L
N
NO
I-2 8
0
OO
D
THOR
N
H
E
NEW
HAL L
KE
IT
H
TO
LA
ND
BY
SE
L
ES
OA
KD
E
AL
B
E
RI
E
BL
DG
B
EV
RO
IE
TO
PA
W
PE
LO
KA
U
BAY V IE
W
N
ISLAIS
BU
RK
HU
O
IS
R
AR
26TH
LA
NE
UND
OUT
H BO
BARNE
V ELD
UP
TO
N
BRE
BA
WST
YS
ER
H
OR
LO O
HWY
MIS E
1 01
S
HOLLA
DAY
BANKS
NEVADA
GATES
ANDOVER
ANDERSON
W
SO
N
M
S
HA
RB
OA
KD
A
OR
KI
SK
A
LE
INDIA
BRADFORD
SP
EC
T
EL
S IE
ION
PR
O
E
JO S
MI
SS
SAN
KI
RK
DA
VI
D
O
LS
LA
AG
NO
N
IN
N
R
T
EA
AR S P A I N
M LE
EU
A
BE
GA
LV
EZ
FO
03RD
ON
OL E
E
ILLINOIS
MARIN
JE
I
SS
TENNESSEE
ELM IRA
RD
OU
A
GIR
GE
N
IMA
SILL
TON
FE L
HB
RT
EM
D
AL
UN
BO
TH
R
O
0N
Y
I-28
EEN
SW
R
E SILVE
HAL
NO
CAMBRID
100
0200
400 Feet
HELENA
FT
ER
01
±
I-280 SOU THBOUND
SH
A
Y1
HW
CRESCENT
Y
AN
SUTTER
POST MAIDEN
GEARY
CESAR CHAVEZ
EL
T
KE
N
AR
O
M
SI
S
I
M
INDIAN A
PARK
P
NA
AP
PA
R
BU
S
26TH
KAN SAS
EUGENIA
JONES
WORTH
LEAVEN
HYDE
POLK
A
FLORID
BERNAL HEIGHTS
POWHATTAN
YORK
ALABAMA
AP
PL
ET
ON
NORWI CH
RIPLEY
LARKIN
IN
GOUGH
CO
RT
LA
ND
SHOTWELL
28TH
CHE
FOLSOM
CO
SO
PIO
FRANKL
OCTAV IA
CAPP
VAL ENCIA
OSAGE
PRECITA
AWSS Pipes
GREEN
ST
E
PIERCE
27TH
25TH
ENTO
SAC RAM
NIA
R
O
IF
CAL
PINE
BUSH
ALTA
K
HALLEC
CLAY
GTON
WASHIN
WILMOT
26TH
TAYLOR
LAGUNA
NAN
BUCHA
R
FIL LMO
R
STEIN E
PACIFIC
N
JACKSO
M
L
POWEL
A
OCTAVI
UNION
E
GRE N
GLOVER
VALLEJO
CLAY
JURI
MASON
FIL BERT
OL
U
Exist Valves
IN
C
FireboatManifold
HA
W
GR
ES
IF
FI
TH
FI
TC
H
LIA
PH
E
IS CO
FRA NC
CO
FRANCIS
UT
CHESTN
MAGNO
N
MOULTO
Y
LE
X
PI
Legend
BAY
NT
BEA CH
POINT
NORTH
QU
I
EL
L
CD
OW
M
PE
ES S
VAN N
A
PO
MARIN
ST
DRUMM
01
DAVI S
O DAVI S
ER
D
AD FRONT
N
RC
Y
02
BATTER
BA
E
EM
E
SAN SOM
TH
TRINITY
OMERY
MONTG
SPR ING
KEARNY
Y
QUIN C
ES
GRANT
VARENN
KEARNY
N
STOCKTO
JOICE
GRANT
STONE
RE
WETM O
TONQUIN
ON
JEFFERS
BEACH
POINT
NORTH
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
9
Deficiency ID
Need
D2,D7,D8,D9,D10,D12,D14,D43
The condition of much of the AWSS is unknown. Additional data is required to prioritize
pipeline replacement and confirm risk of failure.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would conduct testing to assess the condition of the AWSS, establish remaining
service, and prioritize ethe pipeline replacement program
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$1,100,000
$5,720,000
$6,820,000
$0
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
17 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
9
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.4
0
0
0
0.0
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
18 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
10
Deficiency ID
Need
D28, D46
CER's prepared by SFPUC as part of the 2010 bond projects have identified facility needs
which were not included in the 2010 bond and are not being addressed in the ongoing
projects. Other issues need to be addressed provide reliable operations.
Project
Objective/Benefit
Increase reliability at the five facilities by doing the future work identified in the 2012 CER
reports.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
CER's identified issues but planning work beyond that has not been performed.
Perform repairs and other improvements at the following existing facilities: Twin Peaks
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria Reservoir, Ashbury Tank, Jones Street Tank, Pump Station No 1, Pump Station No 2.
Suggested repairs will be developed in more detail in SFPUC Conceptual Engineering
Reports associated with each listed facility (omitting items to be performed by other AWSS
projects).
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$2,750,000
$14,300,000
$17,050,000
$5,270
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
19 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
10
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
2.2
0
0
0
0.0
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Within existing SFPUC facilities
Community
All contruction is located inside existing SFPUC Facilities.
Minor traffic impacts possible associated with construction activities.
None anticipated. Project is above ground.
20 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
11
Cistern Repair and Construct 27 New Cisterns, Ph. 1
Deficiency ID
Need
D13,D51,D52
1. System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station No. 1 and
Pump Station No. 2 and focuses on the northeast quadrant of the City. Additional supply is
required to meet fire demands.
2. There are a number of fire response areas which the AWSS presently cannot serve.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would:
1. Install 27 cisterns where needed to provide firefighting capabilities
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Reliance on Cisterns requires Fire Engines for pumping.
Install 27 cisterns at locations adjacent to areas of highest fire demand, as indicated on map
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria in Task 11 TM.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$8,250,000
$42,900,000
$51,150,000
$26,181
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
33
21 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
11
Assumptions
33 Cisterns, 25' square, 30' deep
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
165,000
40,431
0
14.5
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
33 intersections througout CCSF.
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
Varies by site. Traffic and other impacts associated with construction.
Different sites located on street intersections. No impacts anticipated for inspection and
repair. New cisterns will have contruction and traffic impacts. Utilities may need to be
relocated. Disposal of spoils. Archaeological impacts are possible associated with the many
excavations in different locations throughout the City.
22 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
12
Deficiency ID
Need
D13,D51,D52
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would:
1. Install 19 cisterns where needed to provide firefighting capabilities
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install 19 cisterns in locations adjacent to areas of highest fire demand, as indicated on map
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$4,125,000
$21,450,000
$25,575,000
$36,495
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
46
23 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
12
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
230,000
56,359
20.2
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
24 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
13
Deficiency ID
Need
D51,D52
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install 33 cisterns where needed to provide firefighting capabilities.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$9,075,000
$47,190,000
$56,265,000
$26,181
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
33
25 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
13
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
165,000
40,431
14.5
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
26 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
14
Deficiency ID
Need
D51,D52
Project
Objective/Benefit
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$8,250,000
$42,900,000
$51,150,000
$23,801
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
30
27 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
14
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
150,000
36,756
13.2
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
28 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
15
Deficiency ID
Need
D51,D52
Project
Objective/Benefit
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$24,750,000
$128,700,000
$153,450,000
$71,402
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
90
29 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
15
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
450,000
110,267
0
39.5
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
30 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
16
Deficiency ID
Need
D51,D52
Project
Objective/Benefit
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$24,750,000
$128,700,000
$153,450,000
$71,402
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
90
31 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
16
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
450,000
110,267
39.6
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
32 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
17
Deficiency ID
Need
D51,D52
Project
Objective/Benefit
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$24,750,000
$128,700,000
$153,450,000
$71,402
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
90
33 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
17
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
3.8
450,000
110,267
39.6
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street
Community
34 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
18
Deficiency ID
Need
D52
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station No.1 and Pump
Station No. 2 and focuses on the northeast quadrant of the City. Additional supply to the
upper zone is required to meet fire demands.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install a new tank and booster pump station located at the Balboa
Reservoir site to serve as an additional supply source for the upper zone.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Could fill tank with new line from crosstown transmission main with air gap, or adjacent
AWSS.
Install a new underground tank situated under City College parking lot (north of Ocean Ave.)Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria Include booster pump station, 16,500 gpm at 152 psi - Approximately 1450 LF of 20 inch
pipe.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$6,001,875
$31,209,750
$37,211,625
$6,952
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
1
1
1450
35 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
18
Assumptions
Assume 5' wide trench, 5' deep, 2' native backfill. Assume 300'x300'x25' excavation for
tank.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
2.8
120,000
109,583
0
7.6
CCSF - SFPUC
closures
None
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Parking Lot (City College)
Community
Traffic impacts associated with construction activities are anticipated, including trucking of
excavation spoils and disposal offsite.
Disposal of excavation spoils, other construction impacts. Entire site is an existing parking
lot. Trenching and soil excavation will disturb soil.
36 of 62
TIC
RE
T
LAKEVIEW
RID
G
E
MO
UN
T
NA
HU
A
DE
LA
NO
SA
N
JO
S
GE
NE
VA
E
TH BOU
N
HOLLOWAY
I-280 NO
R
0 87
THBOUND
RG
TH
EDGAR
CLOUD
I-2 80 SOU
TA
RA
LO
UI S
BU
R
BRUCE
HO
W
WI
LL
IA
HAROLD
UNNA
M ED
CA
IN
E
ES
GET
Z
DE MONTFORT
D
I-2 8
0
N
OFF
NO
I-28
0S
AR
C
EAST
WEST
O
SCIENCE
PHELAN
ATE
EDNA
FLOOD
Balboa Tank
NIA
G
VE
RN
ON
TE
M
RO
O
YU
CA
EE
MA
J
RG
A
OD
FO
E
MINERVA
LEE
WESTWOOD
HOM EWOOD
NO
RT
HG
EDNA
FOERSTER
GENNESSEE
RIDGEWOOD
EDNA
MANGELS
N
AW
SH
MONTANA
IT
MM
SU
800 Feet
MA
THRIFT
JO
SI
AH
GRAFTON
PLYMOUTH
GRANADA
WO
TH
OU
D
BRIGHTON
FAX ON
A DO
KEYSTONE
O
PLYMOUTH
GRANAD A
MIRAMAR
CAPITOL
FAXON
DOR
S
MO
O
CI T
NTE
CCSF PARKING LOT
FAXON
JULES
AD
HE
EA
ST
W
O
OOD
MINERVA
O
M
EL
HAZELW
PI
ZA
RR
O
D
±
T
VALDEZ
200 400
40
OO
HW
RT
NO
0
D
IN
SA
COLON
KENWO
O
ED 0
A
UEN
BA B
YER
ON
TE
RE
Y
DA
RI
EN
UP
LA
ND
IP E
FEL
M
N
SA
ASHTON
D
OO
YW
MA
NO
BA
UR
ORIZABA
UNN
AM
MELROSE
JOOST
HEARST
STAPLES
JUDSON
JUDSON
WILDWOOD
MARSTON
HAVELOCK
OCEAN
AR
A
A
G
M
RO
E
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
19
Deficiency ID
Need
D51
There are a number of fire response areas which the AWSS presently cannot serve. Some
of these are located along Alemany Blvd.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would Install a pipeline loop to provide AWSS water to customers located in
southern San Francisco.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install 13,500 LF of 16" pipe.
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria Install hydrants and laterals to serve fire demands located along pipeline.
Install automated gate valves at connection points into AWSS.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$3,460,875
$17,996,550
$21,457,425
$23,556
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
2
2
2
13500
37 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
19
Assumptions
Assume 5' wide trench, 5' deep, 2' native backfill.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
closures
2.9
135,000
11,250
13,500
9.0
CCSF - DPW (Street)
Crosses under State Hwy. 280. (Caltrans)
Victoria St., Alemany Blvd.
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Street - residential and commercial
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~10 blocks of residential
zoned streets, ~17 blocks along Alemany Blvd
Disposal of excavation spoils, other construction impacts
38 of 62
BADEN
CONGO
41
D0
UN
NA
ME
SO
ON
DA
BA GA
LH
I
ON
E ID
A
IOR
JUN
Y
AN
M
E
AL
ON
LO
ND
PA
RI
S
BO
N
L
EL
I
N
TO
NG
ICK
N
S W BYR O
UN
R
B
ER
V
NO
HA
SS
CRO
MO
PO
RSE
ES
E
ON
LIS
M
RO
SE
GO
DE
LA
N
O
A
G
TA
YN
DD
EZ
EN
OT
80
THBOUND
I-2 80 SOU
NA
HU
A
JU
AN
NA
PL
CAPITOL
DETROIT
EDNA
FOERSTER
WEST
I-2
PHELAN
BRIGHTON
SU
MM
IT
LEE
J
MA OSI
RG AH
HAROLD
MA
AR
WI
JE
ET
LL
ST
IAR
CA
IC
SA
HO
IN
E
N
WT
L
OU
JO
H
ISB
SE
TA
U
RG
RA
PLYMOUTH
MIRAMAR
FAXON
JULES
RH
IN
E
VICTORIA
HEAD
RAMSEL L
SE
NE
CA
DE
LA
NO
DORADO
FAX ON
KEY STO
NE
ASHTON
ORIZABA
HEAD
BRIGHT
VERNON
ARCH
DE
LO
NG
KEMPTON
FF
ION
FF
AT
E
M
LA
KE ANO
R
WO
OD
ES
TG
W
ARCH
ALV
ISO
BYXBEE
RALSTON
SAINT CHARLES
S
O
CHESTER
80
I-2
S
MIS
A
I
A
N
TA AR
ES IAG
N
LI
EB
IG
ON
EID
R
A
G
S
YU AR
A
C
SE
R
VE
OLI
1,600 Feet
RI
CE
G
W
O
IL
E
SO
TH
N
E
ON
N
O
UR
H
E
RA
RA
U
LA E
NC
RE
N
80
I-2
PAL METTO
BE
PL
ER
O
M
SAGAMORE
RU
E
NE
D
TA
NE
SA
N
SA
N
AW
SH
SADOWA
CO
HAVELOCK
OCEAN
U
AY
C
R
LA
CU
D
R
CI
UN
BO
H
RT
NO
T IS
CUR
E
POP
N
ISO
ALL
D
C OR
G
CO N
BER
TE N
TINE GUT
RE N
FLO
A
AW A
T T SA L
O
TE
O
FO
E
E
PL
LE
C
G
IP
O
H
D
NA
W
O
HE
RH
OO
Alemany Loop
W
LA
±
400 800
BROAD
MINERVA
M
TH
LOBOS
0 87
GE
NE
VA
RID
GE
MONTANA
RANDOLPH
HAVELOCK
UNNA
M ED
D
OO
THRIFT
MINERVA
AR
MARSTON
HOLLOWAY
LAKEVIEW
SHIELDS
19
0
S
0
I-2 8
JUDSON
CLOUD
GRAFTON
GARFIELD
BR
OT
STAPLES
JUDSON
DE MONTFORT
WAY
WA LK
BO
RIC
A
CO
RO
NA
DE
SO
TO
VIC
TO
RIA
PICO
SARGENT
FLOOD
WILDWOOD
W
TH
OU
JOOST
HEARST
SCIENCE
A
CAD
MON
URBA N
O
OD
GRANAD A
SAN BENITO
TO
S
AP
WO
KEN
M
RO
O
CIT
TE
ON
COL ON
PI
ZA
R
GENNESSEE
ND
OOD
ELW
H AZ
PALOMA
ENA
D
UPLA
MANGELS
Z
VAL DE
NT
ER
EY
OO
YW
MA
DARIEN
O
BU
YER BA
M
LA
RI
S
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
20
Deficiency ID
Need
D51
The pipelines to the south lack a looped or gridded backup system. One failure and large
areas would be out of service. This is identified as a system need. In particular the Mission
Street - Ocean Avenue loop and Hunters Point and Mission Bay area
would greatly benefit from a connecting pipeline.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install a pipeline in the vicinity of Silver Ave. crossing under Highway 101
to interconnect the Hunters Point area pipelines to the Alemany area pipelines.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install 21,500 feet of 20 inch Pipe.
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$6,806,250
$35,392,500
$42,198,750
$36,545
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
2
2
2
21500
39 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
20
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
closures
4.1
215,000
17,917
21,500
20.3
CCSF - DPW (Street)
Crosses under State Hwy. 101 (Caltrans)
Silver St., Bayshore Blvd.
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~45 blocks of residential and
commercial zoned streets.
40 of 62
NY D
(
!
D
OU
N
OU
TH
B
IN
RA
NK
NA
NE
W
HA
LL
BRID
GEV
IE W
THOR
NTON
MI
TE
KE
IT
H
MENDELL
03R
D
RT
LATO
VEN U
S
LP
S
LE
PH
E
I-2
SE
LB
Y
S
L
BEL
NI
NG
INAS
JE
N
WH
EAT
P
CAM
RO
LD
QU
IN
T
UP
TO
N
TO
LA
ND
80
S
UND
S OU
THB
O
BAR NE
V ELD
D
TLA
N
RU
WI
LD
E
VIS
ITA
CIO
N
ALE
SAL
LE
D
WAR
JA
ME
CO KE STO
W
NT Y
N
ME E
AD
E
LO
IS
BAY
VIE
W PA
RK
BLA
NKE
N
LAT
HRO
P
ALANA
(
!
(
!
PAU
L
KE
03
I
RD TH
MIL
L
SUN
EN
Y
JE
R
WILL IA
MS
YO
RO L
L
SE
EGB
E
A
RA RLE
TA
YM
ON
D
TAL
BER
T
CO
DEL
TA
ELL
IOT
VEL
AS
RE
Y
HAH
N
SAW
YE R
GA
LOE
RR
HR
IS O
N
TO
S
BLYTH
DALE
SA
N
UE
PA
RQ
LE
OA
KD
A
TUN
NEL
BRADFORD
NEVADA
BANKS
GATES
ANDERSON
BRE
WS
TER
BA
YS
HO
LOO
RE
HWY
MIS
101
WOOL
ANDOVER
DE
2,000 Feet
HOLLADA PER ALTA
Y
TIF
FA
NY
CO
LE
RID
PR
OS
G
PE E
CT
EL
S IE
EL
S IE
YS
GL
AD
GT
ON
AR
LIN
N
M
IS
SI
O
NA
PL
ES
VIE
NN
M
A
MU OSC
OW
NI
CH
IN
A
PR
A
AT
HE
NS
RG
NB
U
ED
I
GU
E
ID
LO
ND
ON
L IS
BO
N
LA G
R AN
OHLON
E
DIAM
OND
PA
RI
S
MA
DR
CH
ICA
GO
500 1,000
R
A
D OV
O
YL
NA
COR
±
BROOKDA
Y
LEL
AND
EV
AN
S
ER
ST
HE
RO
LP
H
GE N
EVA
TE D
D
KAN SAS
E
ITA
LY
AM
AZ
ON
AN
K
MAN
S ELL
M
B
S
SEL
AN
C
ON
BAC
D
LAN
WAY
N
RE
P
VE QU ALO
RE E S
AD U
A
S
BRU
FR
PE
RS
IA
CO
C AR
EY
OLS
WO
GHT
DWI
Y
L EO
PO
KA
IA
PE
OT
TO
SC
I-280
ILLE
01 TO
ERV
1
WAT
HWY
NO
A RD
BRU
ND
GIR
SAN
A
F SH
EL L E
VER MONT
N
LO
S
AVA
R OW
BUR
JOHN
N
TON
FEL
S
ROW
BUR
MARIN
U
BO
TH
RU
SS
I
PE
RU
NE
W
ELM IRA
ZI L
IMA
SILL
E
DG E
YAL
B RI
CAM
ORD
OXF
D
VA R
HAR
BIER
GAM
N
I SO
MAD
BR
A
E
HAL
Silver Extension
SILVER
R
NO
TRUMBULL
NEY
TI
NG
L
TH EY
ER
ES
A
I-280 S OFF
Y
ALEMAN
LS
SSE
BR U
GEN
T TIN
GOE
ET
O IN
E RS
OWD
B
SOM
UTH
N
T MO
I LTO
BY
DAR
HAM
COL
N
BY
DOI
COL
BOW
I TY
E RS
UNIV
ON
CE T
PRIN RST
E
AMH
U GA
CAY
01
N
BENTON
F
OF
1S
0
Y1
ND
H W H BOU
T
OR
0N
Y
I-28
EEN
SW
CESAR CHAVEZ
L
ARE
APP
CHARTER OAK
NO
BENTON
MURRAY
JARBOE
BLAIR
26TH
NA
Y1
HW
SE
JO
N
SA
ROUSSEAU
0
I-2 8
0
EUGENIA
HIGHLAND
IS
Y
SE
EM
B
ER
SU X
N
E
RICHLAND
RR
CH
COLLEG
EY
E
CRESCENT
E
N
SU
S
RIPLEY
WY 101
I-2 80 TO H
ON
EY
H IR
HAMP S
YORK
AC
BE
IS O
ADD
LA
ID
L
ST
CO ON
RT
LA
ND
A
ALT
MULLEN
MONTCALM
TS
BERNAL HEIGH
POWHATTAN
KIN
G
A
FLORID
30TH
ALABAMA
DAY
TREAT
28TH
VAL LEY
29TH
DAY
CO
SO
R
PE
PRECITA
MANCHESTER
FA
IR
FOLSOM
27TH
DUNCAN
SHOTWELL
26TH
CAPP
25TH
VAL ENCIA
NOE
CASTR O
SAN CHEZ
CLIPPER
CHURCH
JERSEY
OSAGE
24TH
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
21
Deficiency ID
Need
D51
There are a number of fire response areas which the AWSS presently cannot serve. Some
of these are located along Geneva Ave.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install a pipeline loop to provide AWSS water to customers located in
Southern San Francisco. The pipeline would run approximately along Geneva Ave, south of
McLaren Park and connect to the existing AWSS in the vicinity of 3rd St. and at
Orondaga/Alemany.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Description,
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$5,192,000
$26,998,400
$32,190,400
$25,901
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
2
2
2
20200
41 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
21
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
closures
3.9
202,000
16,833
20,200
18.2
CCSF - DPW (Street)
Crosses under State Hwy. 101 (Caltrans)
Geveva St., San Bruno Ave.
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
42 of 62
S
SAN
TO
TER
CIE
LIT
O
CAR
MIL
L
TLA
ND
DEL
TA
ELL
IOT
RE
Y
HAH
N
SAW
LOE YE R
HR
LL O
AP
O
P BE
CAM
A
RA RLE
TA
YM
ON
D
IO N
E
NEVADA
GATES
BANKS
ANDERSON
DE
K
WI
LD
E
LL
BAY S H
OR
M
MU OSC
NI
O
CH W
IN
A
LA G
R AN
PR
A
D
WAR
LO
IS
TUN
NEL
NA
RG
VIE
N
BU
ED
IN
EN
S
AT
H
PA
RI
S
ID
NA
PL
ES
D LE
B AC
ISO
N
RU
N
M
IS
SI
O
DIAM
OND
LIPP
ARD
LO
ND
ON
L IS
BO
N
GU
E
BADEN
A
OT
SE
GO
CA
YU
G
MA
DR
ROBINSON
VEL
ASC
O
GA
RR
NY D
AL E
D
OU N
VIS
ITA
C
SUN
EN
Y
PAU
L
T HB
SOU
LEL
AND
T
101
Geneva Extension
TE D
DY
A
TI
CH
ICA
GO
O
SC
ELL
KA
PE
MAN
S
TO
AN
K
IA
S
SEL
2,000 Feet
Y
L
HWY
R
E
O
YL
NA
A
D OV
E
AK
±
500 1,000
DR
T
AT
W
BA
LTI
MO
R
F SH
EL L E
GE N
EVA
COR
H
JOHN
Y
LSE
WOO
T
IGH
DW
S
BRU
TI S
CUR
E
POP
N
ISO
ALL
0
MU
NIC
N
LO
S
AVA
ROW
BUR
ON
BAC
D
LAN
WAY
CA
RR
OL
EG
BE
R
D
CE
PE
RS
TON
FEL
S
ROW
BUR
AR
GIR
A
SI
AN
LLIM
O
ZI L
ITA
LY
AM
AZ
ON
RO
LP
H
E
HAL
N
BRU
SAN
A
EC
FR
AN
PE
RU
Y
EEN
SW
IRA
ND
OU
SILVER
H
RT
RE
VE
RE
ELM
SS
I
ALEMANY
NO
B
TH
N
SE
KE
NN
Y
TRUMBULL
NEY
0
I-2 8
HELENA
SE
CA
D
UN
BO
R
NO
01
STILL
JUSTIN
I-280 N OFF
TOMPKINS
LS
S SE
EN
BRU
G
T TIN
N
GOE
ET
DO I
E RS
BOW
SOM
UTH
N
T MO
I LTO
BY
DAR
HAM
COL
BY
N
D OI
COL
BOW
ITY
E RS
UNIV
ON
CE T
PRIN RST
E
AMH
RU
MURRAY
E
GE
YAL
BRID
C AM
ORD
OXF
D
VAR
HAR
BIER
GA M
N
IS O
MAD
LE
O
CRESCENT
BENTON
E
AL
BR
A
RICHLAND
COLLEG
E
IR
M
AD
JU
AN
PARK
Y1
HW
UND
O
THB
SOU
0
8
I-2
TH
ER
ES
SA
CO A
NT
A
T
TE
RO
R
SA
CO
AR
SA
N
N
SA
S
JO
Y
ER
EN
ANDOVER
CH
GO
JOOST
IS
SAD
ELK
SURREY
M
BE
SS
EX
ELM IRA
CON
SU
LAT
HR
OP
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
22
Deficiency ID
Need
D52
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station No. 1 and Pump
Upper Zone is required to meet fire demands.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would develop an additional supply of water to the AWSS upper zone.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Assume that construction of the Sunset loop. Assume that an air gapped connection to
MWSS would not result in a larger pump station or much increased cost.
Install additional pumping capacity at Lake Merced Pump Station to lift water from the lake
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria into the AWSS, and optionally also an air gapped capability to lift from the MWSS. Evaluate
reliability benefits, costs, other issues for optional connection to MWSS.
Pump sizing is 15,000 gpm at 200 psi.
Install approximately 7200 LF of 20 inch pipe to connect to the Sunset loop.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$5,039,375
$26,204,750
$31,244,125
$17,409
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
1
7200
43 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
22
Assumptions
Assume 5' wide trench, 5' deep, 2' native backfill. Assume pump station improvements are
within existing site.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.7
72,000
6,000
7,200
2.7
CCSF - SFPUC (pump station) and DPW (Pipeline in Street)
Crosses State Hwy. 35 (Caltrans)
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Within existing SFPUC facilities, street - residential and commercial
Disposal of excavation spoils associated with connector pipeline, other construction
impacts. Pump station construction would be within existing SFPUC facility footprint. No
impacts to Lake Merced anticipated, as existing suction intake would be utilized and water
would only be drawn from the lake during a regional emergency associated with loss of
Hetch Hetchy supply.
44 of 62
GARCES
GONZAL EZ
R
CA
LV
A
SER RANO
HIGUERA
JUA N
I
EL
CR
ES
PI
FUENTE
C
R
ES
PI
ARE LLA
NO
PINTO
JOSEPHA
BROTHERHOOD
BU
GR
IJA
TAPIA
TAPIA
HOLLOWAY
BAU T
ISTA
DENSLOWE
19TH
NG
DI
RIVAS
NT
ARBALLO
MORNINGSIDE
SUNSET
21ST
22ND
23RD
24TH
26TH
FOREST VIEW
SYLVAN
MIDDLEFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
20TH
39TH
34TH
VALE
PALOS
LAKESHORE
EVERGLADE
HAVENSIDE
OCEAN
MEL BA
FO
1,000 Feet
CLEARFIELD
Lake Merced
Pump Station
ARBALLO
N
LAKE MERCED
GTO
250 500
GELLERT
SLOAT
ESCONDIDO
25TH
TIN
VIDAL
HUN
LAKESHORE
R
0
UIR
±
35TH
E
ST
R
HA
36TH
A
NC
LA
JO H
NM
37TH
YORBA
EUCALYPTUS
BUCKINGHAM
WINSTON
ST
AT
E
STA
TE
CAR
DIAZ
FO
NT
DEN
AS
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
23
Deficiency ID
Need
D51
There are a number of fire response areas which the AWSS presently cannot serve. Many
of these are located in the Sunset District.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install a pipeline loop to provide AWSS water for firefighting to customers
located in the Sunset District which the AWSS presently does not serve.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install 22,000 feet of 20 inch Pipe. Install new valving to separate Upper Zone from Twin
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria Peaks Zone.
Install hydrants and laterals to serve fire demands located along pipeline.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$6,991,875
$36,357,750
$43,349,625
$37,335
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
2
2
2
22000
45 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
23
Assumptions
10' wide trench, 5' deep
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
4.2
220,000
18,333
22,000
21.2
CCSF - DPW (Street)
19th Ave. and Sloat Blvd. Are State Hwys (Caltrans)
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
commercial zoned streets. Pipeline will cross 19th, as well as be placed along Sloat for ~3/4
miles. Permits will be required from Caltrans for construction.
46 of 62
NG
DI
R
HA
STA
TE
FO
NT
1,600 Feet
TAPIA
BA
N
O
N
MON
CAD
A
PAL OM
A
ES
TE
RO
SAN
BE N
ITO
OC
EA
SAN LEANDRO
PO
RT
O
LA
CRE
S TL
AKE
SAN FERNANDO
SAN RAFAEL
TA
S
FUNSTON
FOR
EST
SID
MA
E
DR
ONE
15TH
ULLOA
UR
LA
GU
NI
20TH
JUNIPERO SERRA
BUCKINGHAM
LUNAD O
EUCALYPTUS
JUNIPERO SERRA
BROADMOOR
22ND
21ST
23RD
25TH
37TH
28TH
26TH
27TH
17TH
18TH
34TH
35TH
36TH
29TH
30TH
31ST
15TH
12TH
FUNSTON
RIVERA
ICA
ST
AT
E
23RD
PARAISO
38TH
QUIN TARA
BO
R
WINSTON
STONECREST
D
RCE
E ME
24TH
26TH
VALE
SLOAT
FOREST VIEW
SYLVAN
MIDDLEFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EVERGLADE
HAVENSIDE
SUNSET
B
39TH
40TH
41ST
RIVERA
STRATFORD
MORNINGSIDE
GELLERT
E
CL
U
N
Sunset Extension
19TH
DENSLOW
E
TR
Y
LAKESHORE
CO
UN
41ST
32ND
14TH
16TH
ANGLO
PACHECO
SANTA ANA
400 800
12TH
SK
YL
I
PACHECO
20TH
21ST
23RD
24TH
25TH
26TH
27TH
38TH
39TH
40TH
CEDRO
11TH
N
STO
FUN
TARAVAL
25TH
0
±
CLEARFIELD
LAK
BA
YOR
ESCONDIDO
22ND
YORBA
ORTEGA
IO
D
RA
QUIN TARA
33RD
42ND
NORI EGA
ROC
KRID
GE
SANTIAGO
ESC O
LTA
VICENTE
WAWONA
DARIEN
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
24
Deficiency ID
Need
D51
A connection between 19th Ave. and San Fernando Way would improve system hydraulics
and redundancy in Western San Francisco, which lacks a looped or gridded backup system.
The Sunset should be on a lower pressure zone than Twin Peaks, requiring isolation by gate
valves.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install a pipeline to improve service and redundancy to customers located
in the Sunset District. Installed with Sunset loop.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install ~1500 LF of 20 inch pipe along Ocean avenue from 19th Ave. to San Fernando Way.
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$515,625
$2,681,250
$3,196,875
$1,251
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
1500
47 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
24
Assumptions
Assume 5' wide trench, 5' deep, 2' native backfill. .
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.1
15,000
1,250
1,500
0.4
CCSF - DPW (Street)
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~7 blocks of residential zoned
streets. Pipeline will cross 19th Ave and will require permits from Caltrans for construction.
48 of 62
O
ICA
O
A
HE
D
KEYSTONE
OD
SAN FELIPE
AT E
LA
GU
SA
N
JA
C
22ND
BEACHMONT
NI
TA
S
W
O
O
D
AC
R
E
20TH
21ST
23RD
24TH
IN
TE
RE
Y
LD
WE S
TG
APTOS
DARIEN
TO
WE
S
SAN BUENAVENTURA
SANTA CLARA
SAN BENITO
TP
OR
TA
L
MAYWOOD
BU
EN
A
ASHTON
A
AD
TR
EN
LEGION
ING
LE
SID
E
R
T
MONCADA
MA
NO
PI
NE
HU
RS
ID E
A
A
UPL
AN D
N
LA
KE
WO
FA
IRF
IE
URBAN
A
IN G
LES
JUNIPERO SERR
JUNIPERO SERR
BROADM OO
R
STONECRE
ST
CEDRO
TO
RI
SO
TO
A
ITOS
CERR
DE
CO
RO
NA
BO
R
LUNAD O
JUNIPERO SERR
ES
TE
R
AL
V IS
O
I CE
LLO
RD
19TH
BUCKINGHAM
VIC
MO
NT
STRATF
O
DENSLOW
E
800 Feet
OC
EA
N
23RD
24TH
17TH
18TH
20TH
21ST
PO
RT
OL
15TH
YE
RB
A
PAULA
SANTA
WYTON
M
O
LMO
HOLLOWAY
H
ND
LY
ST
UR
MERC EDES
H
TE
RR
AC
E
SE
SAN AN
WINSTON
SAN TA ANA
±
Sunset Rezoning
SAN LEANDRO
200 400
SLOAT
SAN FERNANDO
EUCALYPTUS
SAN RAFAEL
MELBA
25TH
0
TLA
KE
16TH
CR
ES
22ND
WAWONA
14
T
TA
SAN
A
A
NI C
MO
MA
LO
PA
KEN W
O OD
PICO
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
25
Deficiency ID
Need
D51
There are a number of fire response areas which the AWSS presently cannot serve. Many
of these are located in the Sunset and Richmond Districts.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install a pipeline loop to provide AWSS water to customers located in the
Sunset and Richmond Districts, crossing through Golden Gate Park. It would connect to the
AWSS proposed Sunset Loop, to 19th Ave. in the Sunset, and to 12th. Ave in the
Richmond, crossing Golden Gate Park along Chain of Lakes Dr.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install 22,400 feet of 20 inch Pipe. Assumed route is along Anza St., 32nd Ave., and
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria California St.
Install hydrants and laterals to serve fire demands located along pipeline.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$7,108,750
$36,965,500
$44,074,250
$25,321
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
2
2
2
22400
49 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
25
Assumptions
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
4.3
224,000
18,667
22,400
21.9
CCSF - DPW (Street)
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~48 blocks of primarily
residential zoned streets. Cross Golden Gate Park along Chain of Lakes Drive will have
recreational impacts. Pipeline will cross 19th Ave and will require permits from Caltrans for
construction.
50 of 62
ON
GI
LE
MCLAREN
PARK PRESIDIO
31ST
FULTON
ESIDIO BY
PARK PR
CROSSOVE
R
K
NF
R
OVE
E
ENN
DY
MIDDLE WEST
SV
AN
TR
STOW LA
KE
SE
ER
11TH
14TH
LO
MI
TA
18TH
15TH
16TH
28TH
29TH
HA
ORT
EG
A
PACHECO
12TH
PACHECO
17TH
19TH
20TH
21ST
22ND
25TH
26TH
27TH
23RD
24TH
32ND
31ST
37TH
36TH
38TH
39TH
40TH
42ND
44TH
43RD
45TH
46TH
41ST
30TH
NORI EGA
ORTEGA
2,000 Feet
AL
O
N
STO
FUN
47TH
MORAGA
N
E
LIN
LAW
TO
A
EG
RI
NO
±
500
1,000
CO
PACHE
KIRKHAM
R
LU
PINO
0
33RD
JUDAH
12TH
14TH
FUNSTON
15TH
LINCOLN
IRVING
34TH
35TH
PASS
JOH
K
LOO
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
SUNSET
12TH
14TH
22ND
FORT MILEY 3
VETERAN
S
FUNSTON
16TH
15TH
18TH
CABRILLO
KE
S
BE
ND
17TH
19TH
31ST
IN
S
25TH
27TH
33RD
35TH
BALBOA
Richmond
Extension
MC
CL
A
24TH
26TH
32ND
ANZA
SPRECKELS LAKE
LA
20TH
30TH
GEARY
34TH
37TH
36TH
39TH
38TH
41ST
40TH
42ND
44TH
43RD
46TH
45TH
O
F
21ST
23RD
R
NO
CLEMENT
ANZA
C
HA
IN
11TH
HO
SHORE VIEW
POINT LO
BOS
CALIFORNIA
28TH
29TH
OF
SEA VIEW
LAKE
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
26
Deficiency ID
Need
D52
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station No. 1 and Pump
Twin Peaks Zone is required to meet fire demands.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would develop an additional supply of water to the AWSS Twin Peaks Zone.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
The preferred project is a connection from Sutro Reservoir into AWSS, including an air gap
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria into a wet well, a new pump station and pipeline to connection into AWSS on Clarendon
Ave.
- ~300 LF of 20 inch pipe.
Install a new pump station located adjacent to the existing MWSS pump station, 10,000 gpm
at 87 psi. Confirm sizing using hydraulic model.
Subsequent planning can consider alternatives including a direct connection from Summit
Reservoir to the AWSS (piping down La Avanzada Ave or other route), or a Lake Honda
Pump Station.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$2,234,375
$11,618,750
$13,853,125
$10,151
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
1
300
51 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
26
Assumptions
Pump station is in landscaped area owned by CCSF. Need to confirm no environmental
impacts. Assume 5' wide trench, 5' deep, 2' native backfill.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.7
23,000
250
300
0.9
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~1 block of residential zoned
street.
impacts. Pump station construction would be adjacent to existing SFPUC facility, likely
would require removal and modification of landscaping.
52 of 62
W
CRE
S TL
INE
PARKRID
GE
GLADEVIEW
EA
KS
V
CITY
IEW
MID
C
C
RES
T
LONGVIEW
ROC
KAW
AY
UL
L
O
A
RA
SY
DN
EY
TA
NI
UN
UA
N
J
AM EV
FOWLER
ED ELY
03 N
9
Y
SS
L
HI L
GE
D
800 EFeet
Z
ID
O
A
RC
I
SQ
VA
HERNAN
DE
Z
UE
GA
C
ER
M
WOODSIDE
ETA
IS E
UO
RQ
TU
BAL C
ED
S
RE
TE
±
G0
RA 200 400
NV
I LL
E
A
TOL
PO R
E
HN
UG
HA
OS
ITA
DOR
ANTE
S
N
EY
A
W
L
E
L
D
E
AG
SUNV
IEW
A
AD
AS
TE
N
STARVIEW
DELLBROOK
A
ELA
LO
TE
C
MAR
CO
PACH E
SO
AZ
PL
KNOLLVIEW
ES
OLYMPIA
Sutro Reservoir
PANORAMA
AR
A
ND
N
A
TU R
VILLA
CLAYTON
I EW
RV
A
M
NP
S
IE
NV
EE
GR
D
ALTON
LOPEZ
C
W
W
IE
RV
I
LA
HO
LI
VEN
M
IE
RV
FA
LOR I
GLENVIEW
NA
GU
LA
OO
OO
N
PAL O ALTO
TW
I
JO H
OD
AS
HW
CC
SKYVIE
W
AQUA
VISTA
BE
HR
NS T
O NE
FO
O
IRW
BLA
E
FO RE
ST KN
OL L
K
OA K PA
R
MONT
WOODH
AVEN
GLE
NHA
VEN
RA
SAINT GERMAIN
R
P HE
ISTO
CHR
CRES T
WARREN
K
LA
ST
RE
ON
O
ND
TR LARE
U
C
S
MOUNTAIN SPRING
H
LA A
VAN
ZA D
A
06TH
07TH
LEY
K
OA
P
OL
AD
WN
CRO
LOCKS
A
MORAG
BEL GRAVE
CE
LAWTON
T
RS
HU
COLE
N
STANYA
05TH
UPP
ER
SER
VI
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
27
Deficiency ID
Need
D52
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station No.1 and Pump
Station No. 2 and focuses on the northeast quadrant of the City. Additional supply is
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install an air gapped booster pump station located at the existing
Alemany Pump Station site to pump potable water stored at University Mound Reservoir
into the AWSS lower zone.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install a connection and pump station to deliver water from University Mound Reservoir into
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria the AWSS (approximate location of piping down Bacon from Hamilton St. until San Bruno
Ave.)
Tie into proposed Silver extension- ~2100' of 20 inch Pipe
Install a new booster pump station at University Mound, likely at existing Alemany Pump
Station site. Pump to 492' from 172'. 140 psi @10,000 gpm
Subsequent planning can consider alternatives including a tank in McLaren Park, or Balboa
Reservoir.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$2,770,625
$14,407,250
$17,177,875
$12,744
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
1
2100
53 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
27
Assumptions
Pump station portion is within University Mound site.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.7
21,000
1,750
2,100
0.8
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~8 block of residential zoned
street.
54 of 62
KE
IT
H
OP
N
10
HWY
SPA
RTA
NO
1 01
HWY
S
SEL
R
CRA
NE
WA
RE
RE
SHO
D
BAY
OUN
TH B
S OU
101
HWY
S
BR U
E
YOK
HOL
H
BIS
H
O
N
T
MOU
DO I
BOW
SALINA
S
KE
Y
T
DAR
LEY
JOHN F SHEL
BY
COL
ALD
E
I-280
N
BRU
D
BY
COL
MIL
L
O
101 T
HWY
ON
1 01 S
SAN
AR
GIR
N
WAY
ORD
PH
E
LP
S
TA
VES
HWY
EN
E
O
CET
DEL
TA
QU
IN
T
M
AD
D
UX
A
TI
IRA
ELM
ND
TING
N
YOK
HOL
I LTO
HA M
Y
LSE
WOO
PRIN
E
YAL
E
QU
IN
O
SC
D
AR
DY
LE
OAK
S
SEL
T
T
GOE
RS E
E
Y OK
HOL
E
SOM
S
BR U
U
BO
RTH
NO
01
TON
UT H
DOIN
BOW
TMO
DAR
BY
COL
N
T
DG E
F
1 S OF
ERV
IN
T
ELM IRA
CHARTER
Y1
HW
ELD
NEV
BAR
S
BO YL
DO IN
BO W
M UIR
DUNS
Y
COLB
ITY
E RS
UNIV
O
CET
PRIN
ERS
AMH
B RI
CAM
AN
KE
NY
DE
WIL
IT
VIS
AD
ST E
OLM
GHT
DWI
EG
BE
R
T
E
YAL
TIO
GA
800 Feet ION
AC
ON
BAC
ES S
±
200 400
0
S
ROW
BUR
KN
HAR
E
WIL
D
ND
LA
WAY
D
WAR
MAN
SEL
L
N
TO
FEL
NE
LA
D
TE A
S
OLM
Y
EEN
SW
PAU
L
University Mound
ND
LA
WAY
N
IMA
SILL
D
ON
RNT
T HO
BA
NC
RO
CA
FT
RR
OL
L
TULANE
ER
SILV
ALEMANY
EN
GAV
FOLSOM
GATES
RT H
SW O
ELL
E
HAL
TH BOUND
I-2 80 NOR
RIC
R
KA
S
I
LA
IS
Y
AN
ND
EM
AL
OU
101
HB
T
WY
H
U
O
SO
0T
80
I-28
I-2
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
28
Sunset Reservoir Connection and PS
Deficiency ID
Need
D52
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump Station 1 and Pump
Station 2 and focuses on the northeast quadrant of the City. Additional supply to the Upper
Zone is required to meet fire demands.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would install an air gapped booster pump station located at the existing Sunset
Reservoir to pump potable water stored in Sunset Reservoir into the AWSS Upper Zone.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install ~1600 LF of 20" pipe. to connect Sunset Reservoir into the AWSS (piping down 28th
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria Ave. from Pacheco to Noriega)Sunset booster pump to 586' (from 355'), 100 psi @ 10,000 gpm
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$2,612,500
$13,585,000
$16,197,500
$12,351
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
1
1600
55 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
28
Assumptions
Pump station portion is within Sunset Reservoir site.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
1.7
16,000
1,333
1,600
0.6
closures
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along ~2 blocks of residential zoned
streets.
56 of 62
W
CRE
S TL
INE
PARKRID
GE
GLADEVIEW
EA
KS
V
CITY
IEW
MID
C
C
RES
T
LONGVIEW
ROC
KAW
AY
UL
L
O
A
RA
SY
DN
EY
TA
NI
UN
UA
N
J
AM EV
FOWLER
ED ELY
03 N
9
Y
SS
L
HI L
GE
D
800 EFeet
Z
ID
O
A
RC
I
SQ
VA
HERNAN
DE
Z
UE
GA
C
ER
M
WOODSIDE
ETA
IS E
UO
RQ
TU
BAL C
ED
S
RE
TE
±
G0
RA 200 400
NV
I LL
E
A
TOL
PO R
E
HN
UG
HA
OS
ITA
DOR
ANTE
S
N
EY
A
W
L
E
L
D
E
AG
SUNV
IEW
A
AD
AS
TE
N
STARVIEW
DELLBROOK
A
ELA
LO
TE
C
MAR
CO
PACH E
SO
AZ
PL
KNOLLVIEW
ES
OLYMPIA
Sutro Reservoir
PANORAMA
AR
A
ND
N
A
TU R
VILLA
CLAYTON
I EW
RV
A
M
NP
S
IE
NV
EE
GR
D
ALTON
LOPEZ
C
W
W
IE
RV
I
LA
HO
LI
VEN
M
IE
RV
FA
LOR I
GLENVIEW
NA
GU
LA
OO
OO
N
PAL O ALTO
TW
I
JO H
OD
AS
HW
CC
SKYVIE
W
AQUA
VISTA
BE
HR
NS T
O NE
FO
O
IRW
BLA
E
FO RE
ST KN
OL L
K
OA K PA
R
MONT
WOODH
AVEN
GLE
NHA
VEN
RA
SAINT GERMAIN
R
P HE
ISTO
CHR
CRES T
WARREN
K
LA
ST
RE
ON
O
ND
TR LARE
U
C
S
MOUNTAIN SPRING
H
LA A
VAN
ZA D
A
06TH
07TH
LEY
K
OA
P
OL
AD
WN
CRO
LOCKS
A
MORAG
BEL GRAVE
CE
LAWTON
T
RS
HU
COLE
N
STANYA
05TH
UPP
ER
SER
VI
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
29
Deficiency ID
Need
D52
System supply is limited to the existing reservoir and tanks, Pump
Station 1 and Pump Station 2 and focuses on the northeast quadrant of
the City. Additional supply is required to meet fire demands.
Project
Objective/Benefit
This project would add 10 new suction connections along the bay in locations not currently
served by the 35 existing suction connections to provide additional firefighting supplies as a
supplemental source. Water could be used by fire engines to fight fires locally or pumped
into AWSS.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Install 10 new suction connections located along the waterfront in locations not served by
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria the existing suction connections. See map for preliminary locations
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$660,000
$3,432,000
$4,092,000
$43,720
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
10
57 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
29
Assumptions
Assume 20'x20' construction footprint for each suction manifold. Microtunnel 50' to get to
bay.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
2.2
4,000
53
0
0.2
CCSF - Port
closures
Waterfront - Recreational, Commercial, Industrial
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Waterfront - recreational, commercial, Industrial
Community
staging.
Disposal of excavation spoils, other construction impacts. Impacts to Bay are possible
associated with installation of seawater suction.
58 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
30
Deficiency ID
Need
D12, D42, D53
A long-term pipeline replacement plan should be developed based on ongoing
inspection, testing and analysis. The 77 miles of original pipeline
construction should be addressed within the next 50 years.
Project
Objective/Benefit
Replace the existing AWSS pipeline and appurtenant structures based on the findings of
ongoing inspection, testing, and analysis. Assume a replacement rate of 1.5 miles per year,
associated with replacing the entire system over a 50 year period.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Initial priorities should include the 98 locations where portions of the AWSS pipelines are
constructed through sewer mains, and pipeline sections in the infirm areas (in particular,
infirm area hydrants at elbows and branches were significant problems during the Loma
Prieta earthquake.)
Condition assessment program has not yet been initiated. Replacement priorities and rate
will be confirmed based on program findings.
Consider pipeline replacement with same diameter ductile iron, or alternately slip lining
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria rehabilitation. For areas of high AWSS pipe density consider backboning of system by
abandoning some lines through areas that are adequately served by nearby upgraded
pipelines.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$24,750,000
$128,700,000
$153,450,000
$0
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
59 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
30
Assumptions
Assume replace pipelines with new, similar impacts to new pipeline.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
8.4
1,953,600
162,800
195,360
378.1
CCSF - DPW (Street)
closures
Varies, commercial and residential streets with existing AWSS pipelines.
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along residential and commercial
zoned streets.
Disposal of excavation spoils, other construction impacts. Most trenching would be to
remove and replace existng pipelines. Some disturbances of adjacent soils likely.
60 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
31
Deficiency ID
Need
D53
A long-term pipeline replacement plan should be developed based on ongoing
inspection, testing and analysis. The 77 miles of original pipeline
construction should be addressed within the next 50 years.
Project
Objective/Benefit
Replace the existing AWSS pipeline and appurtenant structures based on the findings of
ongoing inspection, testing, and analysis. Assume a replacement rate of 1.5 miles per year,
associated with replacing the entire system over a 50 year period.
Assumptions and
Unknowns
Condition assessment program has not yet been initiated. Replacement prioorities and rate
will be based on program finidngs.
Consider pipeline replacement with same diameter ductile iron, or alternately slip lining
Description,
Design/Sizing Criteria rehabilitation. For areas of high AWSS pipe density consider backboning of system by
abandoning some lines through areas that are adequately served by nearby upgraded
pipelines.
Costs (2012$)
Soft Costs
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$24,750,000
$128,700,000
$153,450,000
$0
Facilities
New SCADA (Ea.)
New Motorized
New Tank/ Reservoir
(Ea.)
New Pipeline (LF)
New Suction
Connection (Ea.)
New Cistern (Ea.)
61 of 62
AWSS Project ID
Project Name
Impacts
31
Assumptions
Assume replace pipelines with new, similar impacts to new pipeline.
(years)
disposed (CY)
LF of pipe to be
installed in City
streets
Cumulative Impacts
(acre-year)
Right of Way
8.4
2,112,000
176,000
211,200
408.5
CCSF - DPW (Street)
closures
Varies, commercial and residential streets with existing AWSS pipelines.
Land Use Types
Permitting
Geotechnical
Environmental
Community
Lane closures during construction, other traffic impacts along residential and commercial
zoned streets.
Disposal of excavation spoils, other construction impacts. Most trenching would be to
remove and replace existng pipelines. Some disturbances of adjacent soils likely.
62 of 62
Appendix B: Cost Information
B.1 Project Cost Estimates
B.2 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
B.3 Program Alternative Capital Costs
B.4 Life Cycle Costs
Task 11
B.1 Project Cost Estimates
Appendix B.1 Project Cost Estimates
Description, Design/Sizing Criteria
CS-199 AWSS Projects for cost estimating
CM West Worksheet #1
10/20/2012
Project
Project Name
Quantity
Unit
ID
1
16"New Automated Gate Valve,Battery, Vault
1
EA
1
EA
1
EA
Traffic control
3
SITES
Unit Price
$200,000
$185,000
$175,000
$25,000
Ballpark $
(ACS)
Subtotals
$200,000
$185,000
$175,000
$75,000
$635,000
2
12" Hose - furnish & install underwater
750
LF
$1,250
$937,500
$937,500
3
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
36" HDPE sleeve inside tunnel
Repair at Seawall
Concrete repairs in tunnel
30
1
1100
LF
LS
LF
$6,667
$580,000
$300
$200,010
$580,000
$330,000
$1,110,010
4
20" pipe
20" Automated Gate Valve,Battery, Vault
20" Tee connection
Traffic control
20
1
2
1
LF
EA
EA
SITE
$1,000
$225,000
$50,000
$25,000
$20,000
$225,000
$100,000
$25,000
$370,000
5
SCADA Control to existing gate valves
Two sets of 5x12" gate valves per bypass gates
10
10
EA
EA
$75,000
$75,000
$750,000
$750,000
$1,500,000
6
Replace Suction connection assembly
Rehabilitate Suction connection assembly in
place
10
EA
$85,000
$850,000
25
EA
$20,000
$500,000
$1,350,000
7
SCADA Improvements
New SCADA Control systems - 5 plants
SCADA Control at backup communications
systems
SCADA Control at Valve stations
SCADA changes at Operations center
Upgrade Wonderware & hardware
5
EA
$120,000
$600,000
3
EA
$80,000
$240,000
2
1
1
EA
LS
LS
$80,000
$520,000
$30,000
$160,000
$520,000
$30,000
$1,550,000
8
Relocate Fireboat Manifold Assembly
Minor servicing of Fireboat Manifold Assembly
3
2
EA
EA
$50,000
$10,000
$150,000
$20,000
$170,000
9
10
Perform repairs & improve existing facilities
Twin Peaks Reservoir
Ashbury Tank
Jones Street Tank
Pump Station #1
Pump Station #2
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
5
1
1
1
1
1
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$4,500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$10,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$4,500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$10,000,000
1 of 4
Project
Project Name
Quantity
ID
11
Install New Cisterns
30
Cost Breakdown for 1 New Cistern:
Traffic control
Remove existing pavement and concrete
Install permanent shoring system
Relocate existing utility allowance
Dewatering allowance
Excavate & dispose class 3 hazmat material
Construct Concrete Cistern
Reinforcement
Copper waterstop
Brass steps
Manholes
Balast block ring
Concrete under balast blocks
Backfill
Waterproof Coating inside new Cistern
New pavement and site concrete sections
New pavement striping / final clean-up
Repair and line existing Cisterns
Unit
EA
Unit Price
Ballpark $
(ACS)
$1,000,000
$30,000,000
1
1,300
3,200
1
1
660
146
21,000
100
19
2
300
4
116
2,780
1,300
1
SITE
SF
SF
LS
LS
CY
CY
LB
LF
EA
EA
BLKS.
CY
CY
SF
SF
LS
$50,000
$15
$40
$125,000
$25,000
$150
$2,500
$1
$100
$500
$10,000
$40
$2,500
$150
$10
$35
$7,110
$50,000
$19,500
$128,000
$125,000
$25,000
$99,000
$365,000
$29,190
$10,000
$9,500
$20,000
$12,000
$10,000
$17,400
$27,800
$45,500
$7,110
0
EA
$50,000
$0
Subtotals
$30,000,000
12
15
Repair and line existing Cisterns
0
EA
EA
$1,000,000
$50,000
$15,000,000
$0
$15,000,000
13
33
EA
$1,000,000
$33,000,000
$33,000,000
14
30
EA
$1,000,000
$30,000,000
$30,000,000
15
90
EA
$1,000,000
$90,000,000
$90,000,000
16
90
EA
$1,000,000
$90,000,000
$90,000,000
17
90
EA
$1,000,000
$90,000,000
$90,000,000
18
Install underground tank under parking lot
Install booster pump station
20" pipe
20" Standard Gate Valve Assembly
High Pressure Fire Hydrant Assembly to 20"line
1
1
1450
1
1
3
LS
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,450,000
$75,000
$225,000
$75,000
$21,825,000
2 of 4
Project
Project Name
ID
19
16" pipe
Quantity
Unit
13500
13
2
27
LF
EA
EA
EA
Unit Price
$800
$65,000
$200,000
$20,000
Ballpark $
(ACS)
Subtotals
$10,800,000
$845,000
$400,000
$540,000
$12,585,000
20
20" pipe
21500
21
3
43
LF
EA
EA
EA
$1,000
$75,000
$200,000
$25,000
$21,500,000
$1,575,000
$600,000
$1,075,000
$24,750,000
21
16" pipe
20200
20
3
41
LF
EA
EA
EA
$800
$65,000
$200,000
$20,000
$16,160,000
$1,300,000
$600,000
$820,000
$18,880,000
22
Install additional pump capacity to lift water
20" pipe
1
7200
7
1
15
LS
LF
EA
EA
EA
$10,000,000
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$10,000,000
$7,200,000
$525,000
$225,000
$375,000
$18,325,000
23
20" pipe
22000
22
3
44
LF
EA
EA
EA
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$22,000,000
$1,650,000
$675,000
$1,100,000
$25,425,000
24
20" pipe
1500
1
1
3
LF
EA
EA
EA
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$1,500,000
$75,000
$225,000
$75,000
$1,875,000
25
20" pipe
22400
22
3
45
LF
EA
EA
EA
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$22,400,000
$1,650,000
$675,000
$1,125,000
$25,850,000
3 of 4
Project
Project Name
ID
26
New Pump Station
20" pipe
Quantity
Unit
1
300
1
1
1
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
Unit Price
$7,500,000
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
Ballpark $
(ACS)
Subtotals
$7,500,000
$300,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$8,125,000
27
New Pump Station
20" pipe
1
2100
1
1
7
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
$7,500,000
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$7,500,000
$2,100,000
$75,000
$225,000
$175,000
$10,075,000
28
New Booster Pump
20" pipe
1
1600
1
1
4
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
$7,500,000
$1,000
$75,000
$225,000
$25,000
$7,500,000
$1,600,000
$75,000
$225,000
$100,000
$9,500,000
29
Suction connection assembly
10
EA
$240,000
$2,400,000
$2,400,000
30
Year 1 to 10 - 8" to 20" pipe
Yr.1 to10 - '8" to 20" Standard Gate Valve
Assembly
Yr.1 to10 - Automated Gate V,Battery, Vault
Year 1 to 10 - HP Fire Hydrant Assembly
79200
LF
$1,000
$79,200,000
80
EA
$65,000
$5,200,000
12
160
EA
EA
$200,000
$20,000
$2,400,000
$3,200,000
$90,000,000
31
Year 11 to 20 - 6" to 20" pipe
Yr.11 to20 - '6" to 20" Standard Gate Valve
Assembly
Yr.11 to20 - Automated Gate V,Battery, Vault
Year 11 to 20 - HP Fire Hydrant Assembly
79200
LF
$1,000
$79,200,000
80
EA
$65,000
$5,200,000
12
160
EA
EA
$200,000
$20,000
$2,400,000
$3,200,000
$90,000,000
4 of 4
B.2 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
NBA ENGINEERING INC.
San Francisco ♦ Oakland ♦ Los Angeles
Assumptions and Exclusions:
 There is no gas fired equipment in this project that requires additional maintenance.
 Electrical data energy usage given to NBA by SFPUC July 1, 2012 to July 31, 2012 was used for
similar facilities to calculate the energy usage for the added facilities. Assumptions have been
made to use $ 600 per month per year for each new pump station and $15 per month for each
motorized valve.
 Energy usage for each new pump station includes pumps, fans and lights.
 The hourly rate that was used for calculations are based on information that was given by Bill
Teahan of SFPUC as follows:
 Gateman for valve operations $ 89.30 per hour plus $20 per hour for additional cost for
vehicle.
 Plumber (for hydrant flushing) $ 79.17 per hour plus $ 20 per hour for additional cost for
the vehicle.
 Assume one hydrant per 500 ft. of new pipes. No hydrant will be provided for the pipe
replacements.
 Each hydrant requires 2 man hours per year, for flushing and another two man hours per year for
each valve.
 Maximum h.p. for each pump at each pump station is 1,000 h.p. There is also one standby at each
station.
 Assumed cost of flushing pipe line is about $0.35 per LF per year plus $20.00 per hour for truck
per Bill Teahan.
 No cost was included for getting permit that is required for some of these sites since there is a full
time staff on board to take care of this matter.
 No cost for any software maintenance is required since there is a full time IT staff on board.
 The cistern maintenance will happen 4 times a year, 4 man hours (2 people 2 hours each) manual
drain and fill. No SCADA, automatic fill and back flow preventer is not included in this figure.
 For new bay suction connection maintenance including back flush, taking off caps and grease
them and traffic control use 40 man hours per site per year per Bill Teahan.
 Diesel generator needs to be certified each year per bay area air quality management district.
 There will be routine maintenance every other month for 4 hours per year each one person for
diesel fuel line vacuum and generator exercising maintenance per Richard Yee of SFPUC.
 Assume 1 hour per pump per every three months (4 hours/year) for each pump in each pump
station for maintenance and exercising per Richard Yee of PUC.
 Assume 20 hours per vault per year for below grade vault maintenance.
 For project no. 5 since it is one site with 10 valves and 10 SCADA use 12 man hours per year for
all the valves and SCADA connections.
 Use 2 man hours per motorized valve per year and 2 man hours per SCADA per year
maintenance. So for motorized valve, use 4 man hours per year and for manual valve use 2 man
hours per year.
 No painting cost for hydrants is included in the above fee.
 Assume every time you have SCADA you have battery. The maintenance for the battery is 2 man
hours per year.
 The maintenance for the project no. 9 due to reliability upgrades is as follows:
 2 new electrically actuated valves on each 4 fore bays sluice gate for Twin Peaks and J
Jones Reservoirs that connects the new 16 inch new bypass fill line to provide filling
897 Hyde Street San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone (415) 202-9840 Facsimile (415) 202-9838
www.nbaeng.com
-1-
NBA ENGINEERING INC.
San Francisco ♦ Oakland ♦ Los Angeles
capability at each reservoir fore bay. Also remote SCADA control shall be provided for
each. Use 2 man hours per valve and 2 man hours per SCADA.
 Maintenance for new Jones St. tank transfer switch for backup power will be 2 hours per
year.
No added maintenance cost for redesigning the electric redistribution for Jones Reservoir.
No additional backup power is required for pump station 1 & 2 of project no. 9.
897 Hyde Street San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone (415) 202-9840 Facsimile (415) 202-9838
www.nbaeng.com
-2-
AWSS
Projec Project Name
t ID
1
There are existing manually operated gate valves which
would need to be retrofitted with a motorized operator,
battery vault, and instrumentation. Alternately new valves
could be located along the pipeline just outside of the
Motorization and infirm zone.
Addition of
At each location, add additional below grade vault,
Seismic Switches sidewalk pedestal, Monopole w/ antenna. Assume 5' deep
on Gate Valves
vault. Alternately could move actuator, batteries, etc.
above grade to minimize soil disturbance when the site
conditions allow.
Utililze existing standard design. Trickle charged batteries.
800 mhz radio with VSAT backup.
2
4th Street Hose
3
PS1 Tunnel
Upgrade
4
5
6
3
New
Gate
Valve
(Ea.)
New
Tank/
Reservoir
(Ea.)
New
New
Suction
New
Pipeline Connection Cistern
(LF)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
3
Install ~ 750 LF of 12 inch diameter hose connecting to the
pipelines on either side of the 4th St. Bridge, and running in
a trench at the bottom of the Bay.
The bottom would be dredged and the hose buried,
protected from boat anchors, and weighted to prevent
buoyant lift.
750
The Pump Station 1 tunnel repair includes reinforcing the
tunnel under the seawall footing as well as placing 3 foot
diameter HDPE pipes upstream and downstream of the
connection of the tunnel to the CSO box.
Twin Peaks Outlet Install a short distance (~20 LF) of 20 inch pipe plus a 20
Connection
inch gate valve. Tee connections into existing pipelines.
Match outlet size from Twin Peaks West.
Install motorized actuators and SCADA control to all 10
existing gate valves, including power supply and SCADA
backup communications such that two gates at a time
Jones St Tank
would be slowly opened. There are two sets of 5 x 12" gate
Bypass Valves
valves each for the existing bypass gates. Confirm existing
emergency generator has sufficent capacity for backup
power.
Repair Suction
Connections
Pump
Pump
New
Station at Station at New Motorized
New Site Existing SCADA Actuator
(Ea.)
Site (Ea.)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
O&M
Hours/
year
O & M Cost/
Year
72
$
2
$
0
2
10
10
Inspect and evaluate the condition of each of the 35
existing suction connections. As appropriate based on
findings, perform repairs, replace, or relocate each suction
connection as appropriate. Consider pressure requirements,
fitting connections to fire trucks. Consider long term
operability of each siphon given sedimentation. Consider
replacement with HDPE or other alternate material which
may have, but superior performance in a marine
environment.
20
Page 1 of 4
$
$
40
$
-
0
$
8,945.40
$
0
437.20 $
4,372.00
Total
540.00 $
416.94 $
0
4
0
8,405.40
Enery Cost /
Year
416.94
0
-
$
437.20
1,800.00 $
6,172.00
0
0
AWSS
Projec Project Name
t ID
7
SCADA
Improvements
1. Upgrade Pump Stations No. 1 and No.2 to add primary
and backup SCADA connection and provide remote
monitoring and control capabilities.
2. Upgrade five motorized valves to provide backup
communications to radio (three at Twin Peaks Reservoir,
Ocean Ave. at 280 East and Ocean Ave. at 280 West).
Motorized actuators are already installed, need to install
remote monitoring and control capabilities.
3. Add automation to the Bay and Van Ness gate valves,
bringing the number of automated valves to 32 from 30.
Complete automation including remote monitoring and
control capabilities.
4. Upgrade obsolete Wonderware and replace hardware as
necessary for all facilities.
Pump
Pump
New
(Ea.)
Site (Ea.)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
9
New
Gate
Valve
(Ea.)
New
Tank/
Reservoir
(Ea.)
New
New
Suction
New
(LF)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
O&M
Hours/
year
18
O & M Cost/
Year
$
Enery Cost /
Year
1,967.40
0
Total
$
1,967.40
Inspect and evaluate the condition and seismic
vulnerability of each of the five existing fireboat manifolds.
As appropriate based on findings, perform repairs, replace,
or relocate each fireboat manifold. Any facilities judged to
be located on seismically unsafe piers should be relocated.
8
Manifolds could be relocated off the Piers, but need to
consider bathymetry, access, etc.
Fireboat Manifold
Pier 22 1/2 is being rehabilitated by the Fire Department
Rehabilitation &
and can be considered seismically retrofitted for the
Replacement
purpose of this project.
0
0
0
0
Fort Mason - assume relocation of ~1200 LF of Pipe,
recoating and flushing of manifold
Fisherman's Wharf assume recoating and flushing only
Islais Creek assume recoating and flushing only
Pier 22 1/2 assume recoating and flushing only
Pier 33 1/2 assume abandonment in place of existing pipe
and manifold, construction of new manifold.
9
Reliability
Upgrades at
Facilities
Perform repairs and other improvements at the following
existing facilities: Twin Peaks Reservoir, Ashbury Tank, Jones
Street Tank, Pump Station No 1, Pump Station No 2.
Suggested repairs are listed as future work
recommendations in the Task 2 TM, and will be developed
in more detail in SFPUC Conceptual Engineering Reports
associated with each listed facility (omitting items to be
performed by other AWSS projects). Repairs include
seismic anchorage, concrete repair, backup power,
installation of flexible joints, electical and security upgrades.
12
Page 2 of 4
$
4,550.00
$
720.00 $
5,270.00
AWSS
Projec Project Name
t ID
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Pump
Pump
New
(Ea.)
Site (Ea.)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
New
Gate
Valve
(Ea.)
New
Tank/
Reservoir
(Ea.)
New
New
Suction
New
(LF)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
Install 90 cisterns in locations adjacent to areas of highest
fire demand, as indicated on map in Task 11 TM.
Reinforced concrete meeting standards for design
earthquake so shall have higher reliability than older
Cistern Expansion
cisterns.
and Repair Phase
1
Inspect all of the older brick cisterns to confirm repair
scope. 10 existing cisterns have already been identified as
likely candidates for repair, identified in a map in the Task
11 TM map.
Install 351 additional cisterns in locations adjacent to areas
Cistern Expansion of highest fire demand, as indicated on map in Task 11 TM.
Reinforced concrete meeting standards for design
Phase 2
earthquake so shall have higher reliability than older
cisterns.
Install a new underground tank situated under City College
parking lot (north of Ocean Ave.)- Include booster pump
station, 16,500 gpm at 152 psi (2,200 hp)- Approximately
1450 LF of 20 inch pipe.
Install hydrants and laterals to serve fire demands located
Alemany
along pipeline.
Extension
Install automated gate valves at connection points into
Pipeline
AWSS.
Install 21,500 feet of 20 inch Pipe.
Silver Extension
along pipeline.
Pipeline
AWSS.
Geneva Extension
along pipeline.
Pipeline
AWSS.
Install additional pumping capacity at Lake Merced Pump
Station to lift water from the lake into the AWSS, and
optionally also an air gapped capability to lift from the
MWSS. Evaluate reliability benefits, costs, other issues for
Lake Merced
optional connection to MWSS.
Pump Station
Pump sizing is 15,000 gpm at 200 psi (2,600 hp).
Install approximately 7200 LF of 20 inch pipe to connect to
the Sunset loop.
Install 22,000 feet of 20 inch Pipe. Install new valving to
separate Upper Zone from Twin Peaks Zone.
Sunset Extension Install hydrants and laterals to serve fire demands located
along pipeline.
Pipeline
AWSS.
Balboa Tank and
Booster PS
1
1
O&M
Hours/
year
O & M Cost/
Year
Enery Cost /
Year
90
1440
$ 142,804.80
0
$
142,804.80
351
5616
$ 556,938.72
0
$
556,938.72
0
$
6,952.40
1450
48
$
6,952.40
Total
2
2
2
13500
174
$
23,196.18
$
360.00 $
23,556.18
2
2
2
21500
270
$
36,184.82
$
360.00 $
36,544.82
2
2
2
20200
252
$
25,541.18
$
360.00 $
25,901.18
7200
96
$
10,209.16
$
7,200.00 $
17,409.16
22000
276
$
36,975.36
$
360.00 $
37,335.36
1500
12
$
1,250.82
1
2
2
Sunset Extension Install ~1500 LF of 20 inch pipe along Ocean avenue from
Rezoning Pipeline 19th Ave. to San Fernando Way.
Page 3 of 4
2
0
$
1,250.82
AWSS
Projec Project Name
t ID
19
Install 22,400 feet of 20 inch Pipe. Assumed route is along
Anza St., 32nd Ave., and California St.
along pipeline.
AWSS.
The preferred project is a connection from Sutro Reservoir
into AWSS, including an air gap into a wet well, a new pump
station and pipeline to connection into AWSS on Clarendon
Ave.
- ~300 LF of 20 inch pipe.
Sutro Connection Install a new pump station located adjacent to the existing
MWSS pump station, 10,000 gpm at 87 psi (800 hp).
and PS
Confirm sizing using hydraulic model.
Subsequent planning can consider alternatives including a
direct connection from Summit Reservoir to the AWSS
(piping down La Avanzada Ave or other route), or a Lake
Honda Pump Station.
Pump
Pump
New
(Ea.)
Site (Ea.)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
Richmond
Extension
Pipeline
O&M
Hours/
year
O & M Cost/
Year
Enery Cost /
Year
Total
$
24,960.56
$
360.00 $
25,320.56
1
300
36
$
2,951.10
$
7,200.00 $
10,151.10
21
Install a connection and pump station to deliver water from
University Mound Reservoir into the AWSS (approximate
location of piping down Bacon from Hamilton St. until San
Bruno Ave.)
University Mound Tie into proposed Silver extension- ~2100' of 20 inch Pipe
Install a new booster pump station at University Mound,
Reservoir
likely at existing Alemany Pump Station site. Pump to 492'
from 172'. 10,000 gpm @ 140 psi (1,300 hp)
Subsequent planning can consider alternatives including a
tank in McLaren Park, or Balboa Reservoir.
1
2100
44
$
5,544.20
$
7,200.00 $
12,744.20
22
Install ~1600 LF of 20" pipe. to connect Sunset Reservoir
Sunset Reservoir into the AWSS (piping down 28th Ave. from Pacheco to
Connection and Noriega)Sunset booster pump to 586' (from 355'), 10,000 gpm @
PS
100 psi (900 hp)
1
1600
42
$
5,150.60
$
7,200.00 $
12,350.60
23
West Side
Storage Tank
17500
140
$
14,862.90
0
$
14,862.90
400
$
43,720.00
0
$
43,720.00
$
991,051.74
Install a 750,000 gallon water storage tank, and all
appurtenances (not including land),
Install 17,500 LF of 16 inch pipe. Tank must connect to new
AWSS pipelines proposed for area as well as existng AWSS.
2
New
New
Suction
New
(LF)
(Ea.)
(Ea.)
276
24
2
New
Tank/
Reservoir
(Ea.)
22400
20
2
New
Gate
Valve
(Ea.)
1
New Bay Suction Install 10 new suction connections located along the
Connections
waterfront in locations not served by the existing suction
connections. See map for preliminary locations
10
TOTAL
9,270.00 $ 957,391.74 $ 33,660.00
Page 4 of 4
B.3 Program Alternative Capital Costs
Alternative A Project Cost Input
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
29
17
18
19
20
12
21
22
23
30
13
24
25
28
14
15
16
26
27
Project Name
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Cistern Repair and Construct 90 +/- New Cisterns, Phase 1
Construct 90 +/- New Cisterns, Phase 2
Estimating Assumptions
Annual Inflation Rate
Design Cost, % of Construction
Design effort contingency
Years of inflation
Design contingency
Construction contingency
Soft Cost
$158,750
$234,250
$277,503
$0
$375,000
$337,500
$387,500
$100,000
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$6,750,000
$6,600,000
$5,456,250
$3,146,250
$6,187,500
$4,720,000
$4,750,000
$4,581,250
$6,356,250
$468,750
$6,600,000
$0
$6,462,500
$2,031,250
$214,285
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3%
25%
10%
2
30%
10%
Design Effort
Contingency
$15,875
$23,425
$27,750
$0
$37,500
$33,750
$38,750
$10,000
$100,000
$250,000
$675,000
$660,000
$545,625
$314,625
$618,750
$472,000
$475,000
$458,125
$635,625
$46,875
$660,000
$0
$646,250
$203,125
$21,429
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal - Soft
Costs
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$6,001,875
$3,460,875
$6,806,250
$5,192,000
$5,225,000
$5,039,375
$6,991,875
$515,625
$7,260,000
$0
$7,108,750
$2,234,375
$235,714
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$76,664,266
Construction
Cost
$635,000
$937,000
$1,110,010
$0
$1,500,000
$1,350,000
$1,550,000
$400,000
$4,000,000
$10,000,000
$27,000,000
$26,400,000
$21,825,000
$12,585,000
$24,750,000
$18,880,000
$19,000,000
$18,325,000
$25,425,000
$1,875,000
$26,400,000
$0
$25,850,000
$8,125,000
$857,140
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$278,779,150
Design
Contingency
$190,500
$281,100
$333,003
$0
$450,000
$405,000
$465,000
$120,000
$1,200,000
$3,000,000
$8,100,000
$7,920,000
$6,547,500
$3,775,500
$7,425,000
$5,664,000
$5,700,000
$5,497,500
$7,627,500
$562,500
$7,920,000
$0
$7,755,000
$2,437,500
$257,142
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$825,500
$1,218,100
$1,443,013
$0
$1,950,000
$1,755,000
$2,015,000
$520,000
$5,200,000
$13,000,000
$35,100,000
$34,320,000
$28,372,500
$16,360,500
$32,175,000
$24,544,000
$24,700,000
$23,822,500
$33,052,500
$2,437,500
$34,320,000
$0
$33,605,000
$10,562,500
$1,114,282
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Construction Cost w/o
Inflation
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$31,209,750
$17,996,550
$35,392,500
$26,998,400
$27,170,000
$26,204,750
$36,357,750
$2,681,250
$37,752,000
$0
$36,965,500
$11,618,750
$1,225,710
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$398,654,185
O&M Cost
$8,945
$417
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$43,720
A
B
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
24
13
25
17
18
15
16
20
22
23
21
15
16
13
17
18
19
14
19
$298,514
14
Alternative B Project Cost Input
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
29
19
26
22
23
12
21
27
30
25
13
24
18
20
28
14
15
16
17
Project Name
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Soft Cost
$158,750
$234,250
$277,503
$0
$375,000
$337,500
$387,500
$100,000
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$6,750,000
$6,600,000
$6,187,500
$2,518,750
$6,356,250
$468,750
$3,750,000
$4,581,250
$2,375,000
$6,600,000
$2,031,250
$0
$6,462,500
$3,146,250
$4,720,000
$600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Design Effort
Contingency
$15,875
$23,425
$27,750
$0
$37,500
$33,750
$38,750
$10,000
$100,000
$250,000
$675,000
$660,000
$618,750
$251,875
$635,625
$46,875
$375,000
$458,125
$237,500
$660,000
$203,125
$0
$646,250
$314,625
$472,000
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal - Soft
Costs
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$6,806,250
$2,770,625
$6,991,875
$515,625
$4,125,000
$5,039,375
$2,612,500
$7,260,000
$2,234,375
$0
$7,108,750
$3,460,875
$5,192,000
$660,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$75,369,803
Construction
Cost
$635,000
$937,000
$1,110,010
$0
$1,500,000
$1,350,000
$1,550,000
$400,000
$4,000,000
$10,000,000
$27,000,000
$26,400,000
$24,750,000
$10,075,000
$25,425,000
$1,875,000
$15,000,000
$18,325,000
$9,500,000
$26,400,000
$8,125,000
$25,850,000
$12,585,000
$18,880,000
$2,400,000
$274,072,010
Design
Contingency
$190,500
$281,100
$333,003
$0
$450,000
$405,000
$465,000
$120,000
$1,200,000
$3,000,000
$8,100,000
$7,920,000
$7,425,000
$3,022,500
$7,627,500
$562,500
$4,500,000
$5,497,500
$2,850,000
$7,920,000
$2,437,500
$0
$7,755,000
$3,775,500
$5,664,000
$720,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$825,500
$1,218,100
$1,443,013
$0
$1,950,000
$1,755,000
$2,015,000
$520,000
$5,200,000
$13,000,000
$35,100,000
$34,320,000
$32,175,000
$13,097,500
$33,052,500
$2,437,500
$19,500,000
$23,822,500
$12,350,000
$34,320,000
$10,562,500
$0
$33,605,000
$16,360,500
$24,544,000
$3,120,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Inflation
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$35,392,500
$14,407,250
$36,357,750
$2,681,250
$21,450,000
$26,204,750
$13,585,000
$37,752,000
$11,618,750
$0
$36,965,500
$17,996,550
$26,998,400
$3,432,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$391,922,974
O&M Cost
$8,945
$417
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
A
B
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
19
20
17
18
21
24
22
23
14
16
14
15
16
13
17
18
19
13
$249,136
Alternative C Project Cost Input
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
29
28
12
30
13
14
15
16
19
26
22
23
21
27
25
24
18
20
17
Project Name
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Soft Cost
$158,750
$234,250
$277,503
$0
$375,000
$337,500
$387,500
$100,000
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$6,750,000
$6,600,000
$214,285
$7,500,000
$6,600,000
$7,500,000
$29,250,000
$29,250,000
$29,250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Design Effort
Contingency
$15,875
$23,425
$27,750
$0
$37,500
$33,750
$38,750
$10,000
$100,000
$250,000
$675,000
$660,000
$21,429
$750,000
$660,000
$750,000
$2,925,000
$2,925,000
$2,925,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal - Soft
Costs
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$235,714
$8,250,000
$7,260,000
$8,250,000
$32,175,000
$32,175,000
$32,175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$141,113,266
Construction
Cost
$635,000
$937,000
$1,110,010
$0
$1,500,000
$1,350,000
$1,550,000
$400,000
$4,000,000
$10,000,000
$27,000,000
$26,400,000
$857,140
$30,000,000
$26,400,000
$30,000,000
$117,000,000
$117,000,000
$117,000,000
$513,139,150
Design
Contingency
$190,500
$281,100
$333,003
$0
$450,000
$405,000
$465,000
$120,000
$1,200,000
$3,000,000
$8,100,000
$7,920,000
$257,142
$9,000,000
$7,920,000
$9,000,000
$35,100,000
$35,100,000
$35,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal
$825,500
$1,218,100
$1,443,013
$0
$1,950,000
$1,755,000
$2,015,000
$520,000
$5,200,000
$13,000,000
$35,100,000
$34,320,000
$1,114,282
$39,000,000
$34,320,000
$39,000,000
$152,100,000
$152,100,000
$152,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Inflation
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$1,225,710
$42,900,000
$37,752,000
$42,900,000
$167,310,000
$167,310,000
$167,310,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$733,788,985
O&M Cost
$8,945
$417
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$92,823
A
B
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
17
21
22
17
20
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
15
13
14
15
16
18
19
21
23
24
25
19
20
18
24
23
14
16
13
$416,363
B.4 Life Cycle Costs
ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COSTS
AWSS CIP
Alternative A
Pipeline
Output Sheet
Alternative A - Pipeline
Soft Cost
$133,039,159
Total
Project Capital Cost
Construction
$691,803,627
$824,842,786
Annual Operating Cost (New Asset)
Net Present Value (new asset)
$279,032
$727,365,526
Assumptions added in NPV Calculation:
NPV Discount rate = 4.0%
Construction Escalation = 3%
Soft Cost Escalation = 3%
Pipeline Maintenance cost = 0.5% per annum of Mechanical/Electrical estimate
Pump Station Maintenance Cost = 1.5% per annum of Mechanical/Electrical estimate
Alternative A Project Escalation
Soft Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
Number of Months
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
7/2/2014
1/20/2015
7/1/2014
8/10/2015
9/15/2016
4/5/2017
10/24/2017
7/16/2020
5/14/2018
11/30/2018
6/20/2019
8/1/2024
1/12/2026
1/8/2020
7/28/2020
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
8/6/2015
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
2/25/2016
9/14/2016
2/24/2016
11/29/2018
5/11/2018
11/29/2018
6/19/2019
3/11/2022
1/7/2020
7/27/2020
2/12/2021
3/27/2026
9/7/2027
9/2/2021
3/23/2022
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$6,001,875
$3,460,875
$6,806,250
$5,192,000
$5,225,000
$5,039,375
$6,991,875
$515,625
$7,260,000
$0
$7,108,750
$2,234,375
20
20
33
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
11/2/2012
9/7/2027
$76,428,553
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
8/7/2015
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
2/26/2016
9/15/2016
2/25/2016
11/30/2018
5/14/2018
11/30/2018
6/20/2019
3/14/2022
1/8/2020
7/28/2020
2/15/2021
3/30/2026
9/8/2027
9/3/2021
3/24/2022
8/6/2015
1/16/2015
10/20/2017
1/16/2015
3/25/2015
10/20/2017
8/6/2015
6/1/2015
8/8/2015
5/11/2018
7/15/2020
7/31/2024
9/2/2021
4/5/2021
1/13/2023
5/23/2023
1/9/2026
9/2/2021
10/8/2024
3/7/2022
9/1/2034
7/8/2031
12/8/2025
11/17/2023
7/1/2014
9/1/2034
$397,428,474
Start Date
Total Budget
2012
Budget Per Month
2012
$8,731
$12,884
$9,250
$0
$20,625
$18,563
$21,313
$5,500
$55,000
$137,500
$371,250
$363,000
$150,047
$173,044
$340,313
$259,600
$261,250
$251,969
$349,594
$25,781
$363,000
$0
$355,438
$111,719
2013
$17,463
$25,768
$18,500
$0
$41,250
$37,125
$42,625
$11,000
$110,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$303,730
2014
$104,775
$154,605
$111,001
$0
$247,500
$222,750
$255,750
$66,000
$660,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,822,381
2015
$52,388
$77,303
$111,001
$0
$123,750
$111,375
$127,875
$33,000
$330,000
$825,000
$0
$2,178,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,969,691
2016
$0
$0
$64,751
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,650,000
$4,083,750
$4,356,000
$750,234
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,904,735
2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$275,000
$3,341,250
$726,000
$1,800,563
$692,175
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,834,988
2018
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,800,563
$2,076,525
$3,062,813
$519,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,459,100
2019
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,650,516
$692,175
$3,743,438
$3,115,200
$0
$2,015,750
$349,594
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,566,672
2020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,557,600
$0
$3,023,625
$4,195,125
$154,688
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,931,038
2021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,567,500
$0
$2,447,156
$309,375
$0
$0
$4,265,250
$558,594
$0
$9,147,875
2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,135,000
$0
$0
$51,563
$0
$0
$2,843,500
$1,340,625
$0
$7,370,688
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$522,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$335,156
$0
$857,656
2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Construction Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Number of Months
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$31,209,750
$17,996,550
$35,392,500
$26,998,400
$27,170,000
$26,204,750
$36,357,750
$2,681,250
$37,752,000
$0
$36,965,500
$11,618,750
Budget Per Month
13
7
26
7
9
40
13
11
13
26
46
101
33
35
50
47
46
20
50
13
101
46
51
20
2012
$69,850
$191,416
$61,051
$0
$238,333
$48,263
$170,500
$52,000
$440,000
$550,000
$839,348
$373,782
$945,750
$514,187
$707,850
$574,434
$590,652
$1,310,238
$727,155
$206,250
$373,782
$0
$724,814
$580,938
2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2015
$419,100
$1,148,494
$0
$0
$1,430,000
$289,575
$1,023,000
$312,000
$2,640,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,262,169
2016
$488,950
$191,416
$305,253
$0
$715,000
$579,150
$1,193,500
$260,000
$3,080,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,813,268
2017
$0
$0
$732,607
$0
$0
$579,150
$0
$0
$0
$5,500,000
$3,357,391
$3,737,822
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,906,970
2018
$0
$0
$549,455
$0
$0
$482,625
$0
$0
$0
$6,600,000
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,189,640
2019
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,200,000
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$945,750
$4,113,497
$707,850
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,524,657
2020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$11,349,000
$6,170,246
$8,494,200
$3,446,604
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$44,017,610
2021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,036,087
$4,485,386
$11,349,000
$6,170,246
$8,494,200
$6,893,209
$0
$15,722,850
$3,635,775
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$61,786,752
2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$7,566,000
$1,542,561
$8,494,200
$6,893,209
$0
$10,481,900
$8,725,860
$2,268,750
$0
$0
$2,899,255
$0
$0
$53,357,121
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$8,494,200
$6,893,209
$5,906,522
$0
$8,725,860
$412,500
$0
$0
$8,697,765
$5,228,438
$0
$48,843,879
2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$707,850
$2,872,170
$7,087,826
$0
$8,725,860
$0
$0
$0
$8,697,765
$6,390,313
$0
$38,967,170
O&M Cost
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Project Name
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
8/7/2015
1/17/2015
10/21/2017
1/17/2015
3/26/2015
10/21/2017
8/7/2015
6/2/2015
8/9/2015
5/12/2018
7/16/2020
8/1/2024
9/3/2021
4/6/2021
1/14/2023
5/24/2023
1/10/2026
9/3/2021
10/9/2024
3/8/2022
9/2/2034
7/9/2031
12/9/2025
11/18/2023
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$254,794
2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2015
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,342
$18
$0
$0
$1,420
$0
$1,175
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,956
2016
2017
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,501
2018
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,501
2019
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$1,891
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,392
2020
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,771
2021
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$12,846
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,617
2022
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$4,666
$6,131
$0
$0
$0
$11,685
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$69,055
2023
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$0
$0
$0
$17,409
$0
$226
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$94,715
2024
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$1,302
$10,148
$0
$17,409
$0
$1,251
$0
$0
$0
$8,927
$0
$116,116
2025
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$0
$17,409
$28,845
$1,251
$0
$0
$0
$10,151
$0
$197,182
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$0
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$23,725
$10,151
$0
$229,397
2026
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$587
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$231,580
Alternative A Project Escalation
Soft Cost
2024
2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,951,625
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,951,625
2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,083,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,083,900
2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,770,975
$4,950,000
$0
$0
$0
$9,720,975
2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,300,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,300,000
2029
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2030
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2032
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$174,625
$644,531
$85,253
$101,750
$893,750
$371,250
$426,250
$46,750
$2,750,000
$2,750,000
$8,387,500
$24,750,000
$6,001,875
$3,460,875
$6,806,250
$5,192,000
$8,250,000
$5,039,375
$6,991,875
$515,625
$31,806,500
$8,250,000
$7,108,750
$2,234,375
$0
$133,039,159
Construction Cost
2024
2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,919,802
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,191,304
$0
$6,544,395
$0
$0
$0
$8,697,765
$0
$0
$35,353,266
2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,972,951
$0
$0
$19,164,255
2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,738,061
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,738,061
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$3,730,435
$0
$0
$0
$23,381,183
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$30,842,053
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$30,842,053
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$30,842,053
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$5,595,652
$0
$0
$0
$25,246,401
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,650,749
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,100,499
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,100,499
2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Total
O&M Cost
2027
2028
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$255,231
2029
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$255,231
2030
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$255,231
2031
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$0
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$255,231
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$12,324
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$267,555
2032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
2033
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
2034
2035
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
2036
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
2037
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$8,945
$417
$0
$437
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$6,952
$23,556
$36,545
$25,901
$23,801
$17,409
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$23,801
$25,321
$10,151
$0
$279,032
$282,637
$12,945
$0
$13,566
$192,752
$0
$62,152
$0
$0
$149,451
$631,672
$0
$178,466
$595,031
$841,837
$605,871
$476,607
$446,910
$850,215
$30,250
$0
$369,339
$555,466
$242,400
$0
$6,537,570
2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$908,050
$3,351,563
$443,314
$529,100
$4,647,500
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$243,100
$14,300,000
$14,300,000
$43,615,000
$128,700,000
$31,209,750
$17,996,550
$35,392,500
$26,998,400
$42,900,000
$26,204,750
$36,357,750
$2,681,250
$165,393,800
$42,900,000
$36,965,500
$11,618,750
$0
$691,803,627
Input Sheet
Opex Start Month
1
Project Start Year
2012
NPV Discount Rate
4.0%
Construction Escalation
Soft Cost Escalation
3%
3.0%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Project Costs ($0,000)
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$303,730
$0
$1,822,381
$0
$3,969,691
$7,262,169
$10,904,735
$6,813,268
$6,834,988
$13,906,970
$7,459,100
$22,189,640
$11,566,672
$22,524,657
$8,931,038
$44,017,610
$9,147,875
$61,786,752
$7,370,688
$53,357,121
$857,656
$48,843,879
$0
$38,967,170
$1,815,000
$24,946,461
$4,356,000
$15,060,777
$1,089,000
$3,364,040
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$2,990,257
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Totals
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$76,428,553
$397,428,474
$473,857,027
O&M Cost
$0
$0
$0
$7,956
$17,501
$17,501
$19,392
$22,771
$35,617
$69,055
$94,715
$116,116
$197,182
$229,397
$231,580
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
$254,794
NPV
Year No.
Year
Project Costs (Data from page 5)
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
O&M
Total
1
2012
$303,730
$303,730
2
2013
$1,877,052
$1,877,052
3
2014
$4,211,445
$7,704,435
4
2015
$11,915,898
$7,445,042
$8,694
$19,369,634
5
2016
$7,692,839
$15,652,417
$19,698
$23,364,953
6
2017
$8,647,141
$25,723,874
$20,288
$34,391,304
7
2018
$13,811,211
$26,895,619
$23,156
$40,729,985
8
2019
$10,984,050
$54,136,108
$28,005
$65,148,163
9
2020
$11,588,254
$78,269,609
$45,119
$89,902,982
10
2021
$9,617,075
$69,618,941
$90,101
$79,326,117
11
2022
$1,152,618
$65,642,088
$127,289
$66,921,996
12
2023
$53,939,676
$160,732
$54,100,408
13
2024
$2,587,756
$35,567,688
$281,135
$38,436,579
14
2025
$6,396,933
$22,117,259
$336,878
$28,851,070
15
2026
$1,647,210
$5,088,412
$350,285
$7,085,907
16
2027
$6,988,085
$396,961
$7,385,046
17
2028
$7,197,728
$408,870
$7,606,598
18
2029
$7,413,660
$421,136
$7,834,796
19
2030
$7,636,070
$433,770
$8,069,839
20
2031
$7,865,152
$446,783
$8,311,935
21
2032
$8,101,106
$460,186
$8,561,293
22
2033
$8,344,139
$473,992
$8,818,131
23
2034
$5,729,642
$488,212
$6,217,854
24
2035
$502,858
$502,858
25
2036
$517,944
$517,944
26
2037
$533,482
$533,482
$11,915,881
27
2038
$549,487
$549,487
28
2039
$565,971
$565,971
29
2040
$582,950
$582,950
30
2041
$600,439
$600,439
31
2042
$618,452
$618,452
32
2043
$637,005
$637,005
33
2044
$656,116
$656,116
34
35
2045
2046
$675,799
$696,073
$675,799
$696,073
36
2047
$716,955
$716,955
37
2048
$738,464
$738,464
38
2049
$760,618
$760,618
39
2050
$783,436
$783,436
40
2051
$806,939
$806,939
41
2052
$831,148
$831,148
42
2053
$856,082
$856,082
43
2054
$881,765
$881,765
44
2055
$908,217
$908,217
45
2056
$935,464
$935,464
46
2057
$963,528
$963,528
47
2058
$992,434
$992,434
48
2059
$1,022,207
$1,022,207
49
50
2060
2061
$1,052,873
$1,084,459
$1,052,873
$1,084,459
$25,492,453
$645,002,419
Totals
$92,433,214
$527,076,752
$427,231,407
NPV Discounted @
1 of 1
4.00%
AWSS CIP
Alternative B
Hybrid
Output Sheet
Alternative B - Hybrid
Soft Cost
$74,709,803
Total
Construction
$388,490,974
$463,200,777
$249,136
$422,241,004
Alternative B Project Escalation
Soft Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
Number of Months
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
5/23/2013
12/11/2013
7/2/2014
7/1/2014
1/19/2015
8/7/2015
2/25/2016
6/7/2019
9/14/2016
4/4/2017
8/2/2024
10/23/2017
12/3/2024
5/11/2018
11/29/2018
6/19/2019
11/2/2012
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
8/6/2015
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
1/16/2015
8/6/2015
2/25/2016
2/24/2016
9/13/2016
4/3/2017
10/20/2017
2/1/2021
5/10/2018
11/28/2018
3/30/2026
6/18/2019
7/29/2026
1/6/2020
7/24/2020
2/11/2021
7/29/2026
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$6,806,250
$2,770,625
$6,991,875
$515,625
$4,125,000
$5,039,375
$2,612,500
$7,260,000
$2,234,375
$0
$7,108,750
$3,460,875
$5,192,000
$74,709,803
20
20
33
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
Number of Months
Budget Per Month
2012
$8,731
$12,884
$9,250
$0
$20,625
$18,563
$21,313
$5,500
$55,000
$137,500
$371,250
$363,000
$340,313
$138,531
$349,594
$25,781
$206,250
$251,969
$130,625
$363,000
$111,719
$0
$355,438
$173,044
$259,600
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
$17,463
$25,768
$18,500
$0
$41,250
$37,125
$42,625
$11,000
$110,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$303,730
2013
2014
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$104,775
$154,605
$111,001
$0
$247,500
$222,750
$255,750
$66,000
$660,000
$962,500
$371,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,156,131
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$52,388
$77,303
$111,001
$0
$123,750
$111,375
$127,875
$33,000
$330,000
$1,650,000
$4,455,000
$2,178,000
$2,041,875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,291,566
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$0
$0
$64,751
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,500
$2,598,750
$4,356,000
$4,083,750
$1,662,375
$1,747,969
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,651,094
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$726,000
$680,625
$1,108,250
$4,195,125
$257,813
$0
$1,007,875
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,975,688
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,048,781
$257,813
$0
$3,023,625
$1,175,625
$0
$223,438
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,729,281
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,007,875
$1,436,875
$0
$1,340,625
$0
$2,843,500
$173,044
$0
$6,801,919
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,443,750
$0
$0
$0
$670,313
$0
$4,265,250
$2,076,525
$1,817,200
$10,273,038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,475,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,211,306
$3,115,200
$6,801,506
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$206,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$259,600
$465,850
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,815,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,815,000
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,356,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,356,000
Construction Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
8/7/2015
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
1/19/2015
8/7/2015
2/26/2016
2/25/2016
9/14/2016
4/4/2017
10/23/2017
2/2/2021
5/11/2018
11/29/2018
3/31/2026
6/19/2019
7/30/2026
1/7/2020
7/27/2020
2/12/2021
7/1/2014
8/6/2015
1/16/2015
10/20/2017
1/16/2015
3/25/2015
10/20/2017
8/6/2015
6/1/2015
8/8/2015
4/3/2017
6/6/2019
8/1/2024
4/9/2020
5/10/2018
6/15/2021
11/12/2018
12/2/2024
1/6/2020
7/24/2020
9/4/2034
2/11/2021
5/29/2030
4/10/2024
6/19/2023
1/15/2025
9/4/2034
Start Date
Total Budget
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$35,392,500
$14,407,250
$36,357,750
$2,681,250
$21,450,000
$26,204,750
$13,585,000
$37,752,000
$11,618,750
$0
$36,965,500
$17,996,550
$26,998,400
$388,490,974
Budget Per Month
13
7
26
7
9
40
13
11
13
26
46
101
50
20
50
13
46
20
20
101
20
46
51
35
47
2012
$69,850
$191,416
$61,051
$0
$238,333
$48,263
$170,500
$52,000
$440,000
$550,000
$839,348
$373,782
$707,850
$720,363
$727,155
$206,250
$466,304
$1,310,238
$679,250
$373,782
$580,938
$0
$724,814
$514,187
$574,434
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2013
2014
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$419,100
$1,148,494
$0
$0
$1,430,000
$289,575
$1,023,000
$312,000
$2,640,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,262,169
2015
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$488,950
$191,416
$305,253
$0
$715,000
$579,150
$1,193,500
$260,000
$3,080,000
$6,050,000
$4,196,739
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,060,008
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$0
$0
$732,607
$0
$0
$579,150
$0
$0
$0
$6,600,000
$10,072,174
$3,737,822
$7,786,350
$2,881,450
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,389,552
$0
$0
$549,455
$0
$0
$482,625
$0
$0
$0
$1,650,000
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$8,494,200
$8,644,350
$6,544,395
$618,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$41,541,335
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$8,494,200
$2,881,450
$8,725,860
$2,062,500
$0
$10,481,900
$679,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,882,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,196,739
$4,485,386
$8,494,200
$0
$8,725,860
$0
$0
$15,722,850
$8,151,000
$0
$3,485,625
$0
$0
$0
$0
$53,261,660
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$2,123,550
$0
$8,725,860
$0
$0
$0
$4,754,750
$0
$6,971,250
$0
$8,697,765
$2,570,936
$0
$38,329,497
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$3,635,775
$0
$5,129,348
$0
$0
$0
$1,161,875
$0
$8,697,765
$6,170,246
$6,318,774
$35,599,169
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,595,652
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,697,765
$6,170,246
$6,893,209
$31,842,257
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,595,652
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,697,765
$3,085,123
$6,893,209
$28,757,134
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,616,475
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,129,348
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,174,441
$0
$6,893,209
$16,813,473
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M Cost
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Project Name
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
8/7/2015
1/17/2015
10/21/2017
1/17/2015
3/26/2015
10/21/2017
8/7/2015
6/2/2015
8/9/2015
4/4/2017
6/7/2019
8/2/2024
4/10/2020
5/11/2018
6/16/2021
11/13/2018
12/3/2024
1/7/2020
7/25/2020
9/5/2034
2/12/2021
5/30/2030
4/11/2024
6/20/2023
1/16/2025
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2012
2013
2014
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2015
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$5,342
$18
$0
$0
$1,420
$0
$1,175
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,956
2016
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,501
2017
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$1,343
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,844
2018
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$0
$0
$0
$4,539
$0
$1,083
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,393
2019
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$10,238
$0
$0
$12,744
$0
$1,251
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,004
2020
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$10,012
$12,744
$0
$1,251
$0
$286
$6,971
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$77,836
2021
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$16,980
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$1,168
$0
$0
$0
$0
$145,020
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$0
$0
$0
$174,358
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$0
$10,971
$0
$185,329
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$7,007
$23,556
$0
$204,921
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$1,064
$224,299
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
Alternative B Project Escalation
Soft Cost
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,089,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,089,000
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2045
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$6,806,250
$2,770,625
$6,991,875
$515,625
$4,125,000
$5,039,375
$2,612,500
$7,260,000
$2,234,375
$0
$7,108,750
$3,460,875
$5,192,000
$74,709,803
Construction Cost
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,364,040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,364,040
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,990,257
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,990,257
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M Cost
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2044
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2045
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$36,545
$12,744
$37,335
$1,251
$0
$17,409
$12,351
$0
$10,151
$0
$25,321
$23,556
$25,901
$249,136
Total
$282,637
$12,945
$0
$0
$192,752
$0
$62,152
$0
$0
$154,173
$652,865
$0
$960,182
$361,371
$950,355
$36,111
$0
$452,920
$328,097
$0
$254,943
$0
$564,069
$552,759
$544,985
$6,363,317
2045
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$35,392,500
$14,407,250
$36,357,750
$2,681,250
$21,450,000
$26,204,750
$13,585,000
$37,752,000
$11,618,750
$0
$36,965,500
$17,996,550
$26,998,400
$388,490,974
Input Sheet
Opex Start Month
1
Project Start Year
2012
NPV Discount Rate
4.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$303,730
$0
$3,156,131
$0
$11,291,566
$7,262,169
$14,651,094
$17,060,008
$7,975,688
$32,389,552
$5,729,281
$41,541,335
$6,801,919
$47,882,720
$10,273,038
$53,261,660
$6,801,506
$38,329,497
$465,850
$35,599,169
$0
$31,842,257
$0
$28,757,134
$1,815,000
$16,813,473
$4,356,000
$0
$1,089,000
$3,364,040
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$2,990,257
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M Cost
$0
$0
$0
$7,956
$17,501
$18,844
$28,393
$47,004
$77,836
$145,020
$174,358
$185,329
$204,921
$224,299
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
$249,136
Totals
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$74,709,803
$388,490,974
$463,200,777
$6,363,317
NPV
Year No.
Year
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
O&M
Total
1
2012
$303,730
$303,730
2
2013
$3,250,815
$3,250,815
3
2014
$11,979,222
$7,704,435
4
2015
$16,009,646
$18,641,931
$8,694
$34,660,271
5
2016
$8,976,707
$36,454,726
$19,698
$45,451,131
6
2017
$6,641,807
$48,157,793
$21,845
$54,821,445
7
2018
$8,121,847
$57,174,472
$33,903
$65,330,221
8
2019
$12,634,540
$65,505,124
$57,809
$78,197,473
9
2020
$8,615,945
$48,554,659
$98,601
$57,269,205
10
2021
$607,829
$46,448,841
$189,218
$47,245,887
11
2022
$42,793,331
$234,323
$43,027,654
12
2023
$39,806,599
$256,539
$40,063,139
13
2024
$2,587,756
$23,971,992
$292,168
$26,851,916
14
2025
$6,396,933
$329,391
$6,726,324
15
2026
$1,647,210
$5,088,412
$376,841
$7,112,463
16
2027
$6,988,085
$388,146
$7,376,231
17
2028
$7,197,728
$399,790
$7,597,518
18
2029
$7,413,660
$411,784
$7,825,444
19
2030
$7,636,070
$424,137
$8,060,207
20
2031
$7,865,152
$436,861
$8,302,013
21
2032
$8,101,106
$449,967
$8,551,074
22
2033
$8,344,139
$463,466
$8,807,606
23
2034
$5,729,642
$477,370
$6,207,013
24
2035
$491,691
$491,691
25
2036
$506,442
$506,442
26
2037
$521,635
$521,635
27
2038
$537,285
$537,285
28
2039
$553,403
$553,403
29
2040
$570,005
$570,005
30
2041
$587,105
$587,105
31
2042
$604,718
$604,718
32
2043
$622,860
$622,860
33
2044
$641,546
$641,546
34
35
2045
2046
$660,792
$680,616
$660,792
$680,616
36
2047
$701,034
$701,034
37
2048
$722,065
$722,065
38
2049
$743,727
$743,727
39
2050
$766,039
$766,039
40
2051
$789,020
$789,020
41
2052
$812,691
$812,691
42
2053
$837,072
$837,072
43
2054
$862,184
$862,184
44
2055
$888,049
$888,049
45
2056
$914,691
$914,691
46
2057
$942,132
$942,132
47
2058
$970,396
$970,396
48
2059
$999,507
$999,507
49
50
2060
2061
$1,029,493
$1,060,377
$1,029,493
$1,060,377
$25,387,129
$612,739,014
$7,401,402
4.00%
$422,241,004
Totals
$87,773,987
$68,513,879
$499,577,899
$346,325,722
NPV Discounted @
$19,683,658
AWSS CIP
Alternative C
Cisterns
Output Sheet
Alternative C - Cisterns
Soft Cost
$150,622,373
Total
Construction
$693,780,071
$844,402,445
$404,665
$675,954,088
Alternative C Project Escalation
Soft Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
5/23/2013
12/11/2013
7/2/2014
5/23/2013
6/7/2019
8/2/2024
12/3/2024
5/30/2030
11/26/2035
5/22/2041
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
8/6/2015
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
1/16/2015
8/6/2015
2/25/2016
9/13/2016
2/1/2021
3/30/2026
7/29/2026
1/23/2032
7/21/2037
1/15/2043
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,750,000
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$235,714
$8,250,000
$7,260,000
$8,250,000
$32,175,000
$32,175,000
$32,175,000
11/2/2012
1/15/2043
$141,113,266
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
8/7/2015
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
1/19/2015
8/7/2015
2/26/2016
9/14/2016
2/2/2021
3/31/2026
7/30/2026
1/26/2032
7/22/2037
1/16/2043
8/6/2015
1/16/2015
10/20/2017
1/16/2015
3/25/2015
10/20/2017
8/6/2015
6/1/2015
8/8/2015
4/3/2017
6/6/2019
8/1/2024
11/28/2018
12/2/2024
9/4/2034
5/29/2030
11/23/2035
5/21/2041
11/15/2046
7/1/2014
11/15/2046
$733,788,985
Start Date
Total Budget
2012
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
Number of Months
Budget Per Month
20
20
33
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
2012
$8,731
$12,884
$9,250
$0
$20,625
$18,563
$21,313
$5,500
$55,000
$137,500
$371,250
$363,000
$5,893
$412,500
$363,000
$412,500
$1,608,750
$1,608,750
$1,608,750
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,887,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,887,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,950,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,950,000
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
$17,463
$25,768
$18,500
$0
$41,250
$37,125
$42,625
$11,000
$110,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$303,730
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$104,775
$154,605
$111,001
$0
$247,500
$222,750
$255,750
$66,000
$660,000
$962,500
$371,250
$0
$41,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,197,381
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$52,388
$77,303
$111,001
$0
$123,750
$111,375
$127,875
$33,000
$330,000
$1,650,000
$4,455,000
$2,178,000
$70,714
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,320,405
$0
$0
$64,751
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,598,750
$4,356,000
$70,714
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,090,215
2012
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
2013
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
2014
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$419,100
$1,148,494
$0
$0
$1,430,000
$289,575
$1,023,000
$312,000
$2,640,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,262,169
2015
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$488,950
$191,416
$305,253
$0
$715,000
$579,150
$1,193,500
$260,000
$3,080,000
$6,050,000
$4,196,739
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,060,008
2017
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$1,343
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,844
2018
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$0
$0
$39,767
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$62,538
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$726,000
$47,143
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$773,143
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2016
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
2017
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
2018
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
2019
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
2020
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
$0
$0
$732,607
$0
$0
$579,150
$0
$0
$0
$6,600,000
$10,072,174
$3,737,822
$141,428
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$21,863,180
$0
$0
$549,455
$0
$0
$482,625
$0
$0
$0
$1,650,000
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$565,712
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,805,352
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,072,174
$4,485,386
$518,570
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,076,130
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,196,739
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,682,125
2019
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$10,238
$0
$43,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$76,729
2020
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$90,292
2021
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$90,292
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$90,292
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$412,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$412,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,815,000
$412,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,227,500
$0
$0
2021
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$10,258,696
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$14,744,082
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,616,475
$0
$10,258,696
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,875,171
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$90,292
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$21,975
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$112,267
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,093
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,093
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,093
Construction Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Number of Months
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$1,225,710
$42,900,000
$37,752,000
$42,900,000
$167,310,000
$167,310,000
$167,310,000
Budget Per Month
13
7
26
7
9
40
13
11
13
26
46
101
26
46
101
46
46
46
46
$69,850
$191,416
$61,051
$0
$238,333
$48,263
$170,500
$52,000
$440,000
$550,000
$839,348
$373,782
$47,143
$932,609
$373,782
$932,609
$3,637,174
$3,637,174
$3,637,174
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
8/7/2015
1/17/2015
10/21/2017
1/17/2015
3/26/2015
10/21/2017
8/7/2015
6/2/2015
8/9/2015
4/4/2017
6/7/2019
8/2/2024
11/29/2018
12/3/2024
9/5/2034
5/30/2030
11/24/2035
5/22/2041
11/16/2046
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$92,823
$416,363
2013
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2014
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2015
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$5,342
$18
$0
$0
$1,420
$0
$1,175
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,956
2016
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,501
Alternative C Project Escalation
Soft Cost
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,356,000
$4,950,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,306,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,089,000
$2,887,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,976,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,261,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,261,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,305,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,305,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,608,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,608,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,608,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,608,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,305,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,305,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,261,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,261,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,261,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,261,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,305,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,305,000
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,364,040
$4,663,043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,027,083
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$11,191,304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$4,663,043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,148,430
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,093
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$9,716
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$123,809
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,894
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,894
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,894
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$40,008,913
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$44,494,299
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,485,386
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$48,131,473
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,990,257
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$46,636,344
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,008,913
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,008,913
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$137,894
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$83,159
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$221,053
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$230,717
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$230,717
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$230,717
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,185,870
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,185,870
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,185,870
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,185,870
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$230,717
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$35,858
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$266,575
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$323,540
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$323,540
2044
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$323,540
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
2044
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
2045
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,008,913
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,008,913
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,008,913
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,008,913
2045
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$323,540
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$92,823
$81,125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$404,665
$174,625
$257,675
$305,253
$0
$412,500
$371,250
$426,250
$110,000
$1,100,000
$2,612,500
$7,425,000
$7,260,000
$229,821
$8,250,000
$7,260,000
$8,250,000
$32,175,000
$32,175,000
$30,566,250
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$139,361,123
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Construction Cost
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M Cost
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,093
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$8,945
$417
$0
$0
$6,172
$0
$1,967
$0
$0
$5,270
$23,801
$0
$43,720
$23,801
$0
$23,801
$92,823
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$230,717
Total
$282,637
$12,945
$0
$0
$192,752
$0
$62,152
$0
$0
$154,173
$652,865
$0
$1,263,927
$545,597
$0
$390,532
$1,104,212
$499,973
$81,125
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,242,891
Total
$908,050
$1,339,910
$1,587,314
$0
$2,145,000
$1,930,500
$2,216,500
$572,000
$5,720,000
$14,300,000
$38,610,000
$37,752,000
$1,225,710
$42,900,000
$37,752,000
$42,900,000
$167,310,000
$167,310,000
$167,310,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$733,788,985
x
x
x
x
x
x
Input Sheet
Opex Start Month
1
Project Start Year
2012
NPV Discount Rate
4.0%
3%
3.0%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$303,730
$0
$3,197,381
$0
$9,320,405
$7,262,169
$7,090,215
$17,060,008
$773,143
$21,863,180
$0
$17,805,352
$0
$15,076,130
$2,887,500
$8,682,125
$4,950,000
$4,485,386
$412,500
$14,744,082
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$15,676,690
$2,227,500
$12,875,171
$9,306,000
$0
$3,976,500
$8,027,083
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$15,676,690
$0
$15,676,690
$11,261,250
$9,148,430
$19,305,000
$4,485,386
$1,608,750
$44,494,299
$0
$48,131,473
$0
$46,636,344
$1,608,750
$40,008,913
$19,305,000
$0
$11,261,250
$18,185,870
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$43,646,087
$11,261,250
$18,185,870
$11,261,250
$0
$19,305,000
$0
$0
$40,008,913
$0
$43,646,087
$0
$43,646,087
Totals
Soft Cost
$150,622,373
Construction Cost
$693,780,071
$844,402,445
O&M Cost
$0
$0
$0
$7,956
$17,501
$18,844
$62,538
$76,729
$90,292
$90,292
$90,292
$90,292
$112,267
$114,093
$114,093
$114,093
$114,093
$114,093
$123,809
$137,894
$137,894
$137,894
$137,894
$221,053
$230,717
$230,717
$230,717
$230,717
$230,717
$266,575
$323,540
$323,540
$323,540
$323,540
$404,665
NPV
Year No.
Year
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
O&M
Total
1
2012
$303,730
$303,730
2
2013
$3,293,302
$3,293,302
3
2014
$9,888,018
$7,704,435
4
2015
$7,747,669
$18,641,931
$8,694
$26,398,294
5
2016
$870,179
$24,607,202
$19,698
$25,497,079
6
2017
$20,641,283
$21,845
$20,663,129
7
2018
$18,001,687
$74,674
$18,076,361
8
2019
$3,551,261
$10,677,919
$94,367
$14,323,546
9
2020
$6,270,512
$5,681,953
$114,379
$12,066,844
10
2021
$538,219
$19,237,683
$117,811
$19,893,712
11
2022
$21,068,161
$121,345
$21,189,506
12
2023
$21,700,206
$124,985
$21,825,191
13
2024
$3,175,882
$18,356,915
$160,066
$21,692,864
14
2025
$13,666,175
$167,549
$13,833,724
15
2026
$6,014,813
$12,141,683
$172,576
$18,329,072
16
2027
$24,423,773
$177,753
$24,601,526
17
2028
$25,156,486
$183,086
$25,339,572
18
2029
$25,911,181
$188,578
$26,099,759
19
2030
$19,171,524
$15,574,589
$210,777
$34,956,890
20
2031
$33,851,434
$7,865,152
$241,798
$41,958,384
21
2032
$2,905,581
$80,361,654
$249,052
$83,516,287
22
2033
$89,538,718
$256,523
$89,795,242
23
2034
$89,360,058
$264,219
$89,624,278
24
2035
$3,175,007
$78,961,051
$436,268
$82,572,326
25
2036
$39,243,090
26
2037
$23,578,557
27
28
29
$17,592,453
$469,000
$39,712,090
$38,077,172
$483,070
$62,138,799
2038
$94,126,770
$497,562
$94,624,332
2039
$96,950,573
$512,489
$97,463,062
2040
$99,859,090
$527,864
$100,386,954
30
2041
$26,537,873
$628,201
$70,022,267
31
2042
$27,334,010
$785,316
$28,119,326
32
2043
$48,264,051
$808,876
$49,072,927
33
2044
$103,026,262
$833,142
$103,859,404
34
35
2045
2046
$115,764,054
$119,236,976
$858,137
$1,105,506
$116,622,191
$120,342,482
36
2047
$1,138,671
$1,138,671
37
2048
$1,172,831
$1,172,831
38
2049
$1,208,016
$1,208,016
39
2050
$1,244,257
$1,244,257
40
2051
$1,281,584
$1,281,584
41
2052
$1,320,032
$1,320,032
42
2053
$1,359,633
$1,359,633
43
2054
$1,400,422
$1,400,422
44
2055
$1,442,434
$1,442,434
45
2056
$1,485,707
$1,485,707
46
2057
$1,530,279
$1,530,279
47
2058
$1,576,187
$1,576,187
48
2059
$1,623,473
$1,623,473
49
50
2060
2061
$1,672,177
$1,722,342
$1,672,177
$1,722,342
$32,093,249
$1,656,984,949
Totals
$279,380,888
$42,856,193
$1,345,510,812
$675,954,088
NPV Discounted @
4.00%
B.5 Updated Potable Co-Benefits Costs
AWSS CIP
Potable Co-Benefit
Capital Only
1 of 1
Output Sheet
Potable Co-Benefit - Capital Only
Soft Cost
$19,394,546
Total
Construction
$100,851,640
$120,246,186
$0
$91,420,418
1 of 1
NPV
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
Year No.
Year
1
2012
2
2013
3
2014
$1,551,566
$1,551,566
4
2015
$7,560,805
$7,560,805
$7,560,805
5
2016
$10,119,500
$7,495,386
$17,614,886
$17,614,886
6
2017
$2,343,814
$25,443,350
$27,787,164
$27,787,164
7
2018
$28,642,787
$28,642,787
$28,642,787
8
2019
$28,170,666
$28,170,666
$28,170,666
9
2020
$23,235,514
$23,235,514
$23,235,514
10
2021
$9,145,008
$9,145,008
$9,145,008
11
2022
12
2023
13
2024
14
2025
15
2026
16
2027
17
2028
18
2029
19
2030
20
2031
21
2032
22
2033
23
2034
24
2035
25
2036
26
2037
27
2038
28
2039
29
2040
30
2041
31
2042
32
2043
33
2044
34
35
2045
2046
36
2047
37
2048
38
2049
39
2050
40
2051
41
2052
42
2053
43
2054
44
2055
45
2056
46
2057
47
2058
48
2059
49
50
2060
2061
$122,132,711
$143,708,396
Totals
$21,575,684
$18,071,153
30 yrs
$91,420,418
NPV Discounted @
1 of 1
O&M
Total
$109,491,571
4.00%
$1,551,566
Input Sheet
Opex Start Month
Project Start Year
2012
NPV Discount Rate
4.0%
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,462,500
$0
$6,919,207
$0
$8,991,044
$6,659,553
$2,021,794
$21,947,657
$0
$23,987,883
$0
$22,905,330
$0
$18,342,330
$0
$7,008,887
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1
3%
3.0%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
O&M Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Totals
Soft Cost
Construction Cost
$19,394,546
$100,851,640
$120,246,186
1 of 1
$0
Potable Co-Benefit Project Cost Input
Project Name
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
29
19
26
22
23
12
21
27
30
25
13
24
18
20
28
14
15
16
17
4th Street Hose
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Soft Cost
$0
$0
$0
$4,431,818
$946,288
$12,253,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Estimating Assumptions
Annual Inflation Rate
3%
Design Cost, % of Construction
25%
Design effort contingency
10%
Design Effort
Contingency
$0
$0
$0
$443,182
$94,629
$1,225,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal - Soft
Costs
$0
$0
$0
$4,875,000
$1,040,917
$13,478,629
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,394,546
Construction
Cost
$17,727,273
$3,785,152
$49,013,198
2010
common
Design
Contingency
$0
$0
$0
$5,318,182
$1,135,545
$14,703,959
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,045,455
$4,920,697
$63,717,158
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$70,525,622
$10,000,000
$17,632,000
$2,493,000
2
$10,000,000
Design contingency
30%
$35,250,000
Construction contingency
10%
$10,000,000
Years of inflation
Subtotal
$20,264,000
$81,811,000
$187,449,616
Inflation
$0
$0
$0
$25,350,000
$5,412,767
$70,088,873
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,851,640
O&M Cost
Potable Co-Benefit Project Escalation
Soft Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4th Street Hose
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
11/2/2012
5/23/2013
12/11/2013
7/2/2014
7/1/2014
1/19/2015
8/7/2015
2/25/2016
6/7/2019
9/14/2016
4/4/2017
8/2/2024
10/23/2017
12/3/2024
5/11/2018
11/29/2018
6/19/2019
11/2/2012
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
8/6/2015
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
6/30/2014
1/16/2015
8/6/2015
2/25/2016
2/24/2016
9/13/2016
4/3/2017
10/20/2017
2/1/2021
5/10/2018
11/28/2018
3/30/2026
6/18/2019
7/29/2026
1/6/2020
7/24/2020
2/11/2021
7/29/2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,875,000
$1,040,917
$13,478,629
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,394,546
Start Date
End Date
Total Budget
Number of
Months
20
20
33
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Budget Per
Month
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$243,750
$52,046
$673,931
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2012
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2013
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2014
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,462,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,462,500
2015
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,925,000
$624,550
$3,369,657
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,919,207
2016
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$487,500
$416,367
$8,087,178
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,991,044
2017
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,021,794
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,021,794
2018
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2019
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2020
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2021
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Construction Cost
Project Name
Project ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4th Street Hose
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
8/7/2015
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
7/1/2014
1/19/2015
8/7/2015
2/26/2016
2/25/2016
9/14/2016
4/4/2017
10/23/2017
2/2/2021
5/11/2018
11/29/2018
3/31/2026
6/19/2019
7/30/2026
1/7/2020
7/27/2020
2/12/2021
7/1/2014
8/6/2015
1/16/2015
10/20/2017
1/16/2015
3/25/2015
10/20/2017
8/6/2015
6/1/2015
8/8/2015
4/3/2017
6/6/2019
8/1/2024
4/9/2020
5/10/2018
6/15/2021
11/12/2018
12/2/2024
1/6/2020
7/24/2020
9/4/2034
2/11/2021
5/29/2030
4/10/2024
6/19/2023
1/15/2025
9/4/2034
Start Date
Total Budget
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,350,000
$5,412,767
$70,088,873
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,851,640
Number of
Months
13
7
26
7
9
40
13
11
13
26
46
101
50
20
50
13
46
20
20
101
20
46
51
35
47
Budget Per
Month
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$507,000
$270,638
$1,401,777
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2012
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2013
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2014
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2015
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2016
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,577,000
$1,082,553
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,659,553
2017
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,084,000
$3,247,660
$12,615,997
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$21,947,657
2018
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,084,000
$1,082,553
$16,821,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,987,883
2019
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,084,000
$0
$16,821,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,905,330
2020
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,521,000
$0
$16,821,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,342,330
2021
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,008,887
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,008,887
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
O&M Cost
Project ID
Project Name
2012
2013
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4th Street Hose
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
SCADA Improvements
8/7/2015
1/17/2015
10/21/2017
1/17/2015
3/26/2015
10/21/2017
8/7/2015
6/2/2015
8/9/2015
4/4/2017
6/7/2019
8/2/2024
4/10/2020
5/11/2018
6/16/2021
11/13/2018
12/3/2024
1/7/2020
7/25/2020
9/5/2034
2/12/2021
5/30/2030
4/11/2024
6/20/2023
1/16/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1/1/2013
12/31/2013
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2014
1/1/2014
12/31/2014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2015
1/1/2015
12/31/2015
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2016
1/1/2016
12/31/2016
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2017
1/1/2017
12/31/2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2018
1/1/2018
12/31/2018
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2019
1/1/2019
12/31/2019
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2020
1/1/2020
12/31/2020
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2021
1/1/2021
12/31/2021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2022
1/1/2022
12/31/2022
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2023
1/1/2023
12/31/2023
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2024
1/1/2024
12/31/2024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2025
1/1/2025
12/31/2025
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2026
1/1/2026
12/31/2026
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2027
1/1/2027
12/31/2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2028
1/1/2028
12/31/2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2029
1/1/2029
12/31/2029
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2030
1/1/2030
12/31/2030
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2031
1/1/2031
12/31/2031
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2032
1/1/2032
12/31/2032
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2033
1/1/2033
12/31/2033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2034
1/1/2034
12/31/2034
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2035
1/1/2035
12/31/2035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2036
1/1/2036
12/31/2036
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2037
1/1/2037
12/31/2037
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2038
1/1/2038
12/31/2038
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2039
1/1/2039
12/31/2039
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2040
1/1/2040
12/31/2040
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2041
1/1/2041
12/31/2041
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2042
1/1/2042
12/31/2042
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2045
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2043
1/1/2043
12/31/2043
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
2045
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2044
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2045
1/1/2044
12/31/2044
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1/1/2045
12/31/2045
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2046
1/1/2046
12/31/2046
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,875,000
$1,040,917
$13,478,629
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,394,546
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,350,000
$5,412,767
$70,088,873
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,851,640
Potable Co-benefit pipe information
Alignment 2
Sunset Pipe System
Diameter (in)
Length (ft)
20 13099.64
24 7055.44
30 11114.08
36 9215.724
54 19056.62
60 5821.875
Connection points
Total
Miles
2.480992
1.336258
2.104939
1.745402
3.609209
1.102628
Revised 1 6 14
$/mile
$ Million
5.2
5.2
5.2
7
8
9
10
65363.38 12.37943
Diameter (in)
Length (ft)
36 1456.815
42 2217.051
48 2807.361
60 6535.388
Connection Points
Total
0.275912
0.419896
0.531697
1.237763
13016.62 2.465268
Sunset Pipe System
Diameter (in)
Length (ft)
20 13099.64
24 7055.44
30 11114.08
36 9215.724
54
60
Connection points
12.90116
6.948539
10.94568
12.21782
28.87367
9.92365
5000000
81.81052 $
University Mound Pipe System
$
7
7
8
9
6
81,810,516
5000000
86,810,516
Total
Miles
20.2641 $
20,264,099
3000000
23,264,099
$/mile
$ Million
40484.88 7.667591
5.2
5.2
5.2
7
8
9
10
12.90116
6.948539
10.94568
12.21782
0
0
5000000
200 0.037879
$
7 0.265152
7
0
8
0
9
0
6 3000000
19
6
25
1000000
43,013,198
5000000
49,013,198
3
3
7
13
520000
0.265152 $
$
Plus 20 cisterns
Miles
20
43.0132 $
University Mound Pipe System
Total
# hydrants
$/mile
$ Million
FRA 29
2.480992
1.336258
2.104939
1.745402
0
0
Diameter (in)
Length (ft)
36
200 0.037879
42
0
48
0
60
0
Connection Points
1.931384
2.939272
4.253577
11.13987
3000000
$
Plus 20 cisterns
Revised 1 7 14
265,152
3000000
3,785,152
18,000 3.409091
Connection points
Total
18000 3.409091
5.2 17.72727
10
5000000
17.72727 $ 17,727,273
Appendix C: Program Alternative Schedules
Task 11
Appendix C Program Alternative Schedules
Assumptions
Schedule Notes
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Description
Predicated on sufficient planning resources available.
Predicated on no unforeseen encumbrances to the planning process.
Predicated on sufficient design resources available.
Predicated on no unforeseen encumbrances to the design process.
Predicated on the use of qualified contractors experienced in this type of work.
Predicated on standard materials procured domestically.
Predicated on obtaining ACOE permit.
Predicated on obtaining SF Port permit.
Predicated on work being coordinated within access windows around fish spawn.
Predicated on compatibility of communication hardware and software
Predicated on the ability to complete 15 cisterns per calendar year.
Predicated on 8-10 mg storage capacity.
Predicated on obtaining SFMTA (DPT) special traffic permits.
Predicated on obtaining DPW Excavation permit.
Predicated on obtaining Caltrans Encroachment permit.
Predicated on obtaining SFMTA (Muni) permission to bore under fixed guideway.
Predicated on obtaining Caltrans permission to bore under freeway.
Predicated on street surfacing exclusion from pavement moratorium.
Predicated on ability to test and accept portions of pipeline to intermediate blind
flanges/dead men.
Predicated on sufficient power voltage and phasing available in time to test equipment.
6 of 6
ID
Task Name
1
Alternative A
Duration
2
720 valves
days
Motorization & addition of seismic switches on three gate
1 day
Start
Mon 6/3/13
Finish
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 3/7/16
3
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
4
Design
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
5
Construction
288 days
Thu 1/29/15
Mon 3/7/16
576 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 8/18/15
6
7
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
8
Design
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
144 days
Thu 1/29/15
Tue 8/18/15
1296 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 5/22/18
Thu 7/10/14
9
10
Construction
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
11
Planning
288 days
Tue 6/4/13
12
Design
432 days
Fri 7/11/14
Mon 3/7/16
13
Construction
576 days
Tue 3/8/16
Tue 5/22/18
Tue 5/22/18
576 days
Tue 3/8/16
15
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
Fri 9/23/16
16
Design
288 days
Mon 9/26/16
Wed 11/1/17
14
17
18
Construction
Jones St. Tank Bypass Valves
144 days
Thu 11/2/17
Tue 5/22/18
624 days
Tue 3/8/16
Fri 7/27/18
19
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
Fri 9/23/16
20
Design
288 days
Mon 9/26/16
Wed 11/1/17
192 days
Thu 11/2/17
Fri 7/27/18
1296 days
Tue 3/8/16
Tue 2/23/21
21
22
Construction
Repair suction connections
23
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
Fri 9/23/16
24
Design
288 days
Mon 9/26/16
Wed 11/1/17
25
Construction
864 days
Thu 11/2/17
Tue 2/23/21
26
SCADA improvements
720 days
Thu 11/2/17
Wed 8/5/20
Tue 5/22/18
27
Planning
144 days
Thu 11/2/17
28
Design
288 days
Wed 5/23/18
Fri 6/28/19
29
Construction
288 days
Mon 7/1/19
Wed 8/5/20
30
FB Manifold R&R
672 days
Thu 11/2/17
Fri 5/29/20
31
Planning
144 days
Thu 11/2/17
Tue 5/22/18
32
Design
288 days
Wed 5/23/18
Fri 6/28/19
33
Construction
240 days
Mon 7/1/19
Fri 5/29/20
797 days
Tue 6/4/13
Wed 6/22/16
34
Pipe Testing
35
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
36
Design
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
Construction
365 days
Thu 1/29/15
Wed 6/22/16
1488 days
Tue 6/4/13
Thu 2/14/19
Tue 4/15/14
37
38
39
Planning
226 days
Tue 6/4/13
40
Design
523 days
Wed 4/16/14
Fri 4/15/16
41
Construction
739 days
Mon 4/18/16
Thu 2/14/19
42
2014 Bond
43
1 day?
Mon 6/1/15
Mon 6/1/15
1008 days
Tue 6/2/15
Thu 4/11/19
44
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/2/15
Fri 12/18/15
45
Design
288 days
Mon 12/21/15
Wed 1/25/17
Construction
46
47
576 days
Thu 1/26/17
Thu 4/11/19
Cistern Repair and Construct 33 New Cisterns, Ph. 1 1432 days
Mon 12/21/15
Tue 6/15/21
48
Planning
144 days
Mon 12/21/15
Thu 7/7/16
49
Design
288 days
Fri 7/8/16
Tue 8/15/17
50
Construction
51
2021 Bond
52
1000 days
Wed 8/16/17
Tue 6/15/21
1 day?
Wed 6/16/21
Wed 6/16/21
2632 days
Thu 6/17/21
Fri 7/18/31
53
Planning
144 days
Thu 6/17/21
Tue 1/4/22
54
Design
288 days
Wed 1/5/22
Fri 2/10/23
55
Construction
2200 days
Mon 2/13/23
Fri 7/18/31
1584 days
Thu 6/17/21
Tue 7/13/27
56
Project: Alternative A Schedule extended
Date: Wed 1/30/13
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 204
1H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H
Mon 6/3/13
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 1
Deadline
ID
Task Name
Duration
57
Planning
288 days
58
Design
59
Construction
Start
Finish
Thu 6/17/21
Mon 7/25/22
576 days
Tue 7/26/22
Tue 10/8/24
720 days
Wed 10/9/24
Tue 7/13/27
1 day?
Thu 6/1/28
Thu 6/1/28
60
2027 Bond
61
Alemany Extension
1188 days
Fri 6/2/28
Tue 12/21/32
62
Planning
144 days
Fri 6/2/28
Wed 12/20/28
63
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/28
Mon 1/28/30
64
Construction
756 days
Tue 1/29/30
Tue 12/21/32
65
Silver Extension
1508 days
Thu 12/21/28
Mon 10/2/34
66
Planning
144 days
Thu 12/21/28
Tue 7/10/29
67
Design
288 days
Wed 7/11/29
Fri 8/16/30
68
Construction
1076 days
Mon 8/19/30
Mon 10/2/34
1456 days
Wed 7/11/29
Wed 2/7/35
144 days
Wed 7/11/29
Mon 1/28/30
69
Geneva Extension
70
Planning
71
Design
72
Construction
73
Construct 33 new Cisterns, Phase 2
74
Planning
75
Design
76
Construction
77
2033 Bond
78
288 days
Tue 1/29/30
Thu 3/6/31
1024 days
Fri 3/7/31
Wed 2/7/35
1432 days
Wed 7/11/29
Thu 1/4/35
144 days
Wed 7/11/29
Mon 1/28/30
Thu 3/6/31
288 days
Tue 1/29/30
1000 days
Fri 3/7/31
Thu 1/4/35
1 day?
Thu 6/1/34
Thu 6/1/34
864 days
Fri 6/2/34
Wed 9/23/37
79
Planning
144 days
Fri 6/2/34
Wed 12/20/34
80
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/34
Mon 1/28/36
81
Construction
432 days
Tue 1/29/36
Wed 9/23/37
82
Sunset Extension
1528 days
Thu 12/21/34
Mon 10/29/40
83
Planning
144 days
Thu 12/21/34
Tue 7/10/35
84
Design
288 days
Wed 7/11/35
Fri 8/15/36
85
Construction
1096 days
Mon 8/18/36
Mon 10/29/40
86
Sunset Rezoning
708 days
Wed 7/11/35
Fri 3/26/38
87
Planning
144 days
Wed 7/11/35
Mon 1/28/36
88
Design
288 days
Tue 1/29/36
Thu 3/5/37
89
Construction
276 days
Fri 3/6/37
Fri 3/26/38
90
2039 Bond
91
1 day?
Fri 6/1/40
Fri 6/1/40
2500 days
Mon 6/4/40
Fri 12/31/49
92
Planning
144 days
Mon 6/4/40
Thu 12/20/40
93
Design
288 days
Fri 12/21/40
Tue 1/28/42
94
Construction
2068 days
Wed 1/29/42
Fri 12/31/49
1 day?
Fri 6/1/46
Fri 6/1/46
935 days
Mon 6/4/46
Fri 12/31/49
Mon 6/4/46
Thu 12/20/46
95
2045 Bond
96
Richmond Extension
97
Planning
144 days
98
Design
288 days
Fri 12/21/46
Tue 1/28/48
99
Construction
503 days
Wed 1/29/48
Fri 12/31/49
Project: Alternative A Schedule extended
Date: Wed 1/30/13
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 204
1H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 2
Deadline
Assumptions
Alternative A
valves
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
SCADA improvements
Planning
Design
Construction
FB Manifold R&R
Planning
Design
Construction
Pipe Testing
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2014 Bond
WDs
Notes
144 days
288 days
288 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days
288 days
144 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,7,9
288 days
432 days
576 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,13,14,18
144 days
288 days
144 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18
144 days
288 days
192 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,7,8,9
144 days
288 days
864 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,7,8,9
144 days
288 days
288 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days
288 days
240 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,7,8,9
144 days
288 days
365 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
226 days
523 days
739 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,19,20
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2021 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2027 Bond
Alemany Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
Silver Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
Geneva Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
Construct 33 new Cisterns, Phase 2
Planning
Design
Construction
2033 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Sunset Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
Sunset Rezoning
Planning
Design
Construction
2039 Bond
144 days
288 days
576 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days
288 days
1000 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days
288 days
2200 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
288 days
576 days
720 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,12,13,14,18,20
144 days
288 days
756 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days
288 days
1076 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days
288 days
1024 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days
288 days
1000 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days
288 days
432 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,19,20
144 days
288 days
1096 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,19
144 days
288 days
276 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,16,18,19
Planning
Design
Construction
2045 Bond
Richmond Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
144 days
288 days
2068 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days
288 days
503 days
1,2
3,4
5,6,10,13,14,18,19
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
2011
2014
H1
1
Alternative B
2
Motorization & addition of seismic switches on
three gate valves
3
4
5
6
7
8
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
1 day
Mon 6/3/13
Mon 6/3/13
720 days
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 3/7/16
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
288 days
Thu 1/29/15
Mon 3/7/16
576 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 8/18/15
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
144 days
Thu 1/29/15
Tue 8/18/15
1296 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 5/22/18
11
Planning
288 days
Tue 6/4/13
Thu 7/10/14
12
Design
432 days
Fri 7/11/14
Mon 3/7/16
576 days
Tue 3/8/16
Tue 5/22/18
624 days
Tue 3/8/16
9
10
13
14
Construction
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
Construction
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
Fri 9/23/16
16
Design
288 days
Mon 9/26/16
Wed 11/1/17
17
Construction
192 days
Thu 11/2/17
Fri 7/27/18
1372 days
Tue 3/8/16
Wed 6/9/21
220 days
Tue 3/8/16
Mon 1/9/17
288 days
Tue 1/10/17
19
20
Planning
Design
Fri 2/16/18
Wed 6/9/21
Fri 2/16/18
Thu 11/19/20
Planning
144 days
Fri 2/16/18
Wed 9/5/18
24
Design
288 days
Thu 9/6/18
Mon 10/14/19
25
Construction
288 days
Tue 10/15/19
Thu 11/19/20
672 days
Fri 2/16/18
Mon 9/14/20
21
26
27
28
29
30
Construction
SCADA improvements
FB Manifold R&R
144 days
Planning
Design
Construction
Pipe Investigation and Repair
Fri 2/16/18
Thu 9/6/18
240 days
Tue 10/15/19
Mon 9/14/20
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 6/12/17
31
Planning
250 days
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 5/19/14
Design
400 days
Tue 5/20/14
Mon 11/30/15
Construction
400 days
Tue 12/1/15
Mon 6/12/17
Tue 6/4/13
Thu 2/14/19
35
Planning
226 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 4/15/14
36
Design
523 days
Wed 4/16/14
37
Construction
739 days
Mon 4/18/16
Thu 2/14/19
1 day?
Mon 6/1/15
Mon 6/1/15
Tue 5/19/20
38
2014 Bond
39
1488 days
1296 days
Tue 6/2/15
Planning
288 days
Tue 6/2/15
41
Design
432 days
Fri 7/8/16
Mon 3/5/18
42
Construction
576 days
Tue 3/6/18
Tue 5/19/20
1432 days
Fri 7/8/16
Mon 1/3/22
43
44
45
46
144 days
Planning
288 days
Design
Construction
47
2021 Bond
48
49
50
51
52
Planning
Design
Construction
Silver Extension
53
Planning
54
Design
55
Construction
56
2027 Bond
57
University Mound Connection and PS
Fri 7/8/16
Thu 1/26/17
Mon 1/3/22
Wed 6/1/22
2548 days
Thu 6/2/22
Mon 3/8/32
260 days
Thu 6/2/22
W ed 5/31/23
288 days
Thu 6/1/23
2000 days
Tue 7/9/24
1508 days
Thu 6/2/22
Mon 3/13/28
144 days
Thu 6/2/22
Tue 12/20/22
Mon 7/8/24
288 days
Wed 12/21/22
1076 days
Mon 1/29/24
Mon 3/13/28
1 day?
Thu 6/1/28
Thu 6/1/28
Mon 3/8/32
Fri 1/26/24
Fri 6/2/28
Wed 9/24/31
Planning
144 days
Fri 6/2/28
Wed 12/20/28
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/28
Mon 1/28/30
60
Construction
432 days
Tue 1/29/30
Wed 9/24/31
61
Sunset Extension
1528 days
Thu 12/21/28
Mon 10/30/34
144 days
Thu 12/21/28
62
Design
64
Construction
65
66
67
68
Wed 7/11/29
Fri 8/16/30
Mon 8/19/30
Mon 10/30/34
708 days
Wed 7/11/29
Fri 3/26/32
144 days
Wed 7/11/29
Mon 1/28/30
Design
288 days
Construction
276 days
Fri 3/7/31
Fri 3/26/32
1 day?
Thu 6/1/34
Thu 6/1/34
864 days
Fri 6/2/34
Wed 9/23/37
Fri 6/2/34
Wed 12/20/34
69
2033 Bond
70
71
Tue 7/10/29
288 days
1096 days
Planning
Sunset Rezoning
144 days
Planning
Thu 3/6/31
Thu 12/21/34
Mon 1/28/36
432 days
Tue 1/29/36
Wed 9/23/37
864 days
Thu 12/21/34
Tue 4/13/38
75
Planning
144 days
Thu 12/21/34
Tue 7/10/35
76
Design
288 days
Wed 7/11/35
77
Construction
432 days
Mon 8/18/36
72
73
74
288 days
Tue 1/29/30
Design
Construction
Sunset Connection and PS
78
2039 Bond
79
80
Planning
81
Design
82
Construction
83
2045 Bond
84
Richmond Extension
Fri 8/15/36
Tue 4/13/38
1 day?
Fri 6/1/40
Fri 6/1/40
2432 days
Mon 6/4/40
Tue 9/28/49
144 days
Mon 6/4/40
Thu 12/20/40
288 days
Fri 12/21/40
Tue 1/28/42
2000 days
Wed 1/29/42
Tue 9/28/49
1 day?
Fri 6/1/46
Fri 6/1/46
935 days
Mon 6/4/46
Fri 12/31/49
85
Planning
144 days
Mon 6/4/46
Thu 12/20/46
86
Design
288 days
Fri 12/21/46
87
Construction
503 days
Wed 1/29/48
Fri 12/31/49
88
Alemany Extension
791 days
Fri 12/21/46
Fri 12/31/49
Fri 12/21/46
Wed 7/10/47
Thu 7/11/47
Mon 8/17/48
89
90
144 days
Planning
288 days
Design
Tue 1/28/48
91
Construction
359 days
Tue 8/18/48
Fri 12/31/49
92
Geneva Extension
647 days
Thu 7/11/47
Fri 12/31/49
93
Planning
144 days
Thu 7/11/47
94
Design
288 days
Wed 1/29/48
Fri 3/5/49
95
Construction
215 days
Mon 3/8/49
Fri 12/31/49
Project: Alternative B Schedule extended
Date: Wed 11/6/13
H2
Mon 3/5/18
W ed 6/1/22
58
63
2026
H1
Wed 1/25/17
Tue 3/6/18
1 day?
59
Planning
H2
Thu 7/7/16
1000 days
864 days
2023
H1
Fri 4/15/16
40
Cistern Construct 27 New Cisterns
H2
Mon 10/14/19
33
2020
H1
Wed 9/5/18
288 days
1050 days
32
34
H2
Thu 2/15/18
864 days
720 days
23
22
2017
H1
Fri 7/27/18
15
18
H2
Tue 1/28/48
Task
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Inactive Milestone
Manual Task
Manual Summary Rollup
Start-only
Progress
Split
Summary
External Tasks
Inactive Task
Inactive Summary
Duration-only
Manual Summary
Finish-only
Deadline
Page 1
2029
H1
H2
H1
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
2032
H2
1
Alternative B
2
Motorization & addition of seismic switches on
three gate valves
3
4
5
6
7
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
1 day
Mon 6/3/13
Mon 6/3/13
720 days
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 3/7/16
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
288 days
Thu 1/29/15
Mon 3/7/16
576 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 8/18/15
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
Fri 12/20/13
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
Wed 1/28/15
144 days
Thu 1/29/15
Tue 8/18/15
1296 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 5/22/18
11
Planning
288 days
Tue 6/4/13
Thu 7/10/14
12
Design
432 days
Fri 7/11/14
Mon 3/7/16
Construction
576 days
Tue 3/8/16
Tue 5/22/18
624 days
Tue 3/8/16
8
9
10
13
14
Design
Construction
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
Fri 9/23/16
16
Design
288 days
Mon 9/26/16
Wed 11/1/17
Construction
192 days
Thu 11/2/17
Fri 7/27/18
1372 days
Tue 3/8/16
Wed 6/9/21
220 days
Tue 3/8/16
Mon 1/9/17
288 days
Tue 1/10/17
19
20
Planning
Design
Fri 2/16/18
Wed 6/9/21
Fri 2/16/18
Thu 11/19/20
Planning
144 days
Fri 2/16/18
Wed 9/5/18
24
Design
288 days
Thu 9/6/18
Mon 10/14/19
25
Construction
288 days
Tue 10/15/19
Thu 11/19/20
672 days
Fri 2/16/18
Mon 9/14/20
21
26
27
28
29
30
Construction
SCADA improvements
FB Manifold R&R
144 days
Planning
Design
Construction
Fri 2/16/18
Thu 9/6/18
240 days
Tue 10/15/19
Mon 9/14/20
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 6/12/17
31
Planning
250 days
Tue 6/4/13
Mon 5/19/14
Design
400 days
Tue 5/20/14
Mon 11/30/15
Construction
400 days
Tue 12/1/15
Mon 6/12/17
Tue 6/4/13
Thu 2/14/19
35
Planning
226 days
Tue 6/4/13
Tue 4/15/14
36
Design
523 days
Wed 4/16/14
37
Construction
739 days
Mon 4/18/16
Thu 2/14/19
1 day?
Mon 6/1/15
Mon 6/1/15
Tue 5/19/20
38
2014 Bond
39
1488 days
1296 days
Tue 6/2/15
Planning
288 days
Tue 6/2/15
41
Design
432 days
Fri 7/8/16
Mon 3/5/18
42
Construction
576 days
Tue 3/6/18
Tue 5/19/20
1432 days
Fri 7/8/16
Mon 1/3/22
43
44
45
46
144 days
Planning
288 days
Design
Construction
47
2021 Bond
48
49
50
51
52
Planning
Design
Construction
Silver Extension
53
Planning
54
Design
55
Construction
56
2027 Bond
57
Fri 7/8/16
Thu 1/26/17
Mon 1/3/22
W ed 6/1/22
2548 days
Thu 6/2/22
Mon 3/8/32
260 days
Thu 6/2/22
Wed 5/31/23
288 days
Thu 6/1/23
2000 days
Tue 7/9/24
1508 days
Thu 6/2/22
Mon 3/13/28
144 days
Thu 6/2/22
Tue 12/20/22
288 days
Wed 12/21/22
1076 days
Mon 1/29/24
Mon 3/13/28
1 day?
Thu 6/1/28
Thu 6/1/28
Mon 7/8/24
Mon 3/8/32
Fri 1/26/24
Fri 6/2/28
Wed 9/24/31
Planning
144 days
Fri 6/2/28
Wed 12/20/28
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/28
60
Construction
432 days
Tue 1/29/30
Wed 9/24/31
61
Sunset Extension
1528 days
Thu 12/21/28
Mon 10/30/34
144 days
Thu 12/21/28
62
Design
64
Construction
65
66
67
68
Mon 1/28/30
Tue 7/10/29
288 days
Wed 7/11/29
Fri 8/16/30
1096 days
Mon 8/19/30
Mon 10/30/34
708 days
Wed 7/11/29
Fri 3/26/32
Planning
144 days
Wed 7/11/29
Mon 1/28/30
Design
288 days
Construction
276 days
Fri 3/7/31
Fri 3/26/32
1 day?
Thu 6/1/34
Thu 6/1/34
Sunset Rezoning
69
2033 Bond
70
864 days
Tue 1/29/30
Thu 3/6/31
Fri 6/2/34
Wed 9/23/37
71
Planning
144 days
Fri 6/2/34
Wed 12/20/34
72
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/34
Mon 1/28/36
73
Construction
432 days
Tue 1/29/36
Wed 9/23/37
864 days
Thu 12/21/34
Tue 4/13/38
75
Planning
144 days
Thu 12/21/34
Tue 7/10/35
76
Design
288 days
Wed 7/11/35
77
Construction
432 days
Mon 8/18/36
74
78
2039 Bond
79
80
Planning
81
Design
82
Construction
83
2045 Bond
84
Richmond Extension
Fri 8/15/36
Tue 4/13/38
1 day?
Fri 6/1/40
Fri 6/1/40
2432 days
Mon 6/4/40
Tue 9/28/49
Mon 6/4/40
Thu 12/20/40
288 days
Fri 12/21/40
Tue 1/28/42
2000 days
144 days
W ed 1/29/42
Tue 9/28/49
1 day?
Fri 6/1/46
Fri 6/1/46
935 days
Mon 6/4/46
Fri 12/31/49
85
Planning
144 days
Mon 6/4/46
Thu 12/20/46
86
Design
288 days
Fri 12/21/46
87
Construction
503 days
Wed 1/29/48
Fri 12/31/49
88
Alemany Extension
791 days
Fri 12/21/46
Fri 12/31/49
144 days
Fri 12/21/46
Wed 7/10/47
Thu 7/11/47
Mon 8/17/48
89
90
Planning
288 days
Design
Tue 1/28/48
359 days
Tue 8/18/48
Fri 12/31/49
647 days
Thu 7/11/47
Fri 12/31/49
93
Planning
144 days
Thu 7/11/47
Tue 1/28/48
94
Design
288 days
Wed 1/29/48
Fri 3/5/49
95
Construction
215 days
Mon 3/8/49
Fri 12/31/49
91
Construction
92
Geneva Extension
Project: Alternative B Schedule extended
Date: W ed 11/6/13
Task
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Inactive Milestone
Manual Task
Start-only
Progress
Split
Summary
External Tasks
Inactive Task
Inactive Summary
Duration-only
Manual Summary
Finish-only
Deadline
Page 2
2047
H1
Mon 3/5/18
Wed 6/1/22
58
63
H2
Wed 1/25/17
Tue 3/6/18
1 day?
59
Planning
2044
H1
Thu 7/7/16
1000 days
864 days
H2
Fri 4/15/16
40
2041
H1
Mon 10/14/19
33
H2
Wed 9/5/18
288 days
1050 days
32
34
2038
H1
Thu 2/15/18
864 days
720 days
23
22
H2
Fri 7/27/18
15
17
18
2035
H1
H2
H1
H2
Assumptions
Alternative B
Motorization & addition of seismic switches on three
gate valves
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
SCADA improvements
Planning
Design
Construction
FB Manifold R&R
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2014 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
WDs
Notes
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
288 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
144 days 5,6,7,9
288 days 1,2
432 days 3,4
576 days 5,6,13,14,18
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
192 days 5,6,10,13,14,18
220 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
864 days 5,6,7,8,9
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
288 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
240 days 5,6,7,8,9
250 days 1,2
400 days 3,4
400 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
226 days 1,2
523 days 3,4
739 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,19,20
288 days 1,2
432 days 3,4
576 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,20
Planning
Design
Construction
2021 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Silver Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
2027 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Sunset Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
Sunset Rezoning
Planning
Design
Construction
2033 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2039 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
2045 Bond
Richmond Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1000 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
260 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
2000 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1076 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
432 days 5,6,10,12,13,14,18,19,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1096 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
276 days 5,6,10,13,14,16,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
432 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,19,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
432 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,19,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
2000 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
503 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,19
Alemany Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
Geneva Extension
Planning
Design
Construction
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
359 days 5,6,10,13,14,16,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
215 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
CS-199 AWSS Alternative C Schedule
ID
Task Name
Duration
2013
2014
H1
1
Alternative C
2
Tue
Motorization & addition of seismic switches 720
on days
three gate valv
es 6/4/13
3
4
5
6
1 day
Planning
Design
Construction
Tue 6/4/13
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
288 days
Thu 1/29/15
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
8
Design
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
9
Construction
144 days
Thu 1/29/15
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
1296 days
Tue 6/4/13
11
Planning
288 days
Tue 6/4/13
12
Design
432 days
13
Construction
576 days
Tue 3/8/16
576 days
Tue 3/8/16
14
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
16
Design
288 days
Mo n 9/26/16
17
Construction
144 days
Thu 11/2/17
624 days
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
20
Design
288 days
Mo n 9/26/16
21
Construction
192 days
Thu 11/2/17
1296 days
Planning
144 days
Tue 3/8/16
24
Design
288 days
Mo n 9/26/16
25
Construction
864 days
Thu 11/2/17
SCADA improvements
720 days
Planning
144 days
Thu 11/2/17
28
Design
288 days
We d 5/23/18
29
Construction
288 days
Mon 7/1/19
672 days
Thu 1 1/2/17
144 days
Thu 11/2/17
288 days
We d 5/23/18
240 days
Mon 7/1/19
31
32
33
34
FB Manifold R&R
Planning
Design
Construction
Pipe Inv estigation and Repair
720 days
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/4/13
36
Design
288 days
Mon 12/23/13
37
Construction
288 days
Thu 1/29/15
1488 days
Planning
226 days
Tue 6/4/13
40
Design
523 days
Wed 4/16/14
41
Construction
739 days
Mon 4/18/16
1 day?
Mon 6/1/15
2014 Bond
43
1008 days
Planning
144 days
Tue 6/2/15
45
Design
288 days
Mon 12/21/15
46
Construction
576 days
Thu 1/26/17
Cistern Construct 46 New Cisterns, Ph. 1 1432 days
Mon 12/21/15
48
Planning
144 days
49
Design
288 days
50
Construction
1 day?
Wed 6/1/22
52
Pipeline Replacement Program Phase 1 2632 days
Thu 6/2/22
55
56
Planning
Design
Construction
144 days
Thu 6/2/22
288 days
W ed 12/21/22
2200 days
Mon 1/29/24
1440 days
Thu 6/2/22
57
Planning
288 days
58
Design
576 days
Tue 7/11/23
59
Construction
576 days
W ed 9/24/25
60
2027 Bond
61
Construct 33 New Cisterns Phase 2
1 day?
1432 days
Fri 6/2/28
288 days
Thu 12/21/28
64
Construction
1000 days
Tue 1/29/30
Pipeline Replacement Program Phase 2 2632 days
1 day?
144 days
Fri 6/2/34
68
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/34
69
Construction
2200 days
Tue 1/29/36
1432 days
Planning
144 days
Fri 6/2/34
72
Design
288 days
Thu 12/21/34
73
Construction
1000 days
Tue 1/29/36
2039 Bond
75
Construct 123 New Cisterns Ph. 4
76
77
78
Planning
Design
Construction
79
2045 Bond
80
81
82
83
1 day?
Fri 6/1/40
1432 days
Mon 6/4/40
144 days
Mon 6/4/40
288 days
Fri 12/21/40
1000 days
W ed 1/29/42
1 day?
Fri 6/1/46
935 days
Mon 6/4/46
Planning
144 days
Mon 6/4/46
Design
288 days
Fri 12/21/46
Construction
503 days
W ed 1/29/48
84
2051 Bond
0 days?
85
Construct 123 New Cisterns, Ph 6
154 days
86
Planning
87
Design
88
Construction
Project: Alternative C Schedule extende
Date: Wed 11/6/13
H2
H1
H2
H1
H2
H1
H2
H1
H2
H1
Fri 6/2/34
71
74
H1
Fri 6/2/34
Planning
H2
Thu 6/1/34
67
70
H1
Fri 6/2/28
144 days
Design
2033 Bond
H2
2027
Thu 6/1/28
Planning
63
66
H1
2026
Thu 6/2/22
62
65
H2
2025
Fri 7/8/16
W ed 8/16/17
2021 Bond
54
H1
2024
Mon 12/21/15
1000 days
51
53
H2
2023
Tue 6/2/15
44
47
H1
2022
Tue 6/4/13
39
42
H2
2021
Tue 6/4/13
35
38
H1
2020
Thu 1 1/2/17
27
30
H2
2019
Tue 3/8/16
23
26
H1
2018
Tue 3/8/16
19
22
H2
2017
Fri 7/11/14
15
18
H1
2016
Tue 6/4/13
7
10
H2
2015
Mon 6/3/13
144 days
576 days
Wed 11/6/13
Start
Tue 6/1/49
Tue 6/1/49
144 days
Tue 6/1/49
10 days
Mon 12/20/49
0 days
Fri 12/31/49
Task
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Inactive Milestone
Split
Summary
External Tasks
Inactive Task
Inactive Summary
Page 1
Manual Task
Start-only
Progress
Duration-only
Manual Summary
Finish-only
Deadline
H2
2028
H1
H2
2029
H1
H2
2030
H1
H2
H1
H2
CS-199 AW SS Alternative C Schedule
2031
H2
2032
H1
H2
2033
H1
H2
2034
H1
H2
2035
H1
H2
2036
H1
H2
2037
H1
H2
2038
H1
H2
2039
H1
H2
2040
H1
H2
Wed 11/6/13
2041
H1
H2
2042
H1
H2
2043
H1
H2
2044
H1
H2
2045
H1
H2
2046
H1
H2
2047
H1
H2
2048
H1
H2
2049
H1
H2
H1
H2
6/1
Project: Alternative C Schedule extende
Date: Wed 11/6/13
Task
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Inactive Milestone
Split
Summary
External Tasks
Inactive Task
Inactive Summary
Page 2
Manual Task
Start-only
Progress
Duration-only
Manual Summary
Finish-only
Deadline
Assumptions
Alternative C
valves
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
PS1 Tunnel upgrade
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
SCADA improvements
Planning
Design
Construction
FB Manifold R&R
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2014 Bond
WDs
Notes
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
288 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
144 days 5,6,7,9
288 days 1,2
432 days 3,4
576 days 5,6,13,14,18
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
144 days 5,6,13,14,18
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
192 days 5,6,10,13,14,18
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
864 days 5,6,7,8,9
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
288 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
240 days 5,6,7,8,9
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
288 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
226 days 1,2
523 days 3,4
739 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,19,20
Planning
Design
Construction
Cistern Construct 46 New Cisterns, Ph. 1
Planning
Design
Construction
2021 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2027 Bond
Construct 33 New Cisterns Phase 2
Planning
Design
Construction
2033 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
Planning
Design
Construction
2039 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
2045 Bond
Planning
Design
Construction
2051 Bond
Construct 123 New Cisterns, Ph 6
Planning
Design
Construction
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
576 days 5,6,10,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1000 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
2200 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
288 days 1,2
576 days 3,4
576 days 5,6,7,8,9
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1000 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
2200 days 5,6,10,13,14,15,17,18,19
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1000 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
1000 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
288 days 3,4
503 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
144 days 1,2
10 days 3,4
0 days 5,6,10,11,13,14,18,20
Appendix D: Insurance
Task 11
Assessing Planning Level Impact on
Fire Premiums from AWSS
Improvements
Submitted by
MMI Engineering
Oakland, California
Updated: February 19, 2013
Assessing Planning Level Impact on Fire Premiums from AWSS Improvements
Contents
Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 4
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
FRA 36 as an Example of Methodology .............................................................................................. 11
Overall Results .................................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Work Cited .................................................................................................................................................. 20
Prepared by MMI Engineering
February 19, 2013
Page 2
List of Figures
Figure 1: The cumulative annual rate of occurrence for earthquakes from Type A faults in California (San
Andreas Fault affecting San Francisco is a Type A fault). ............................................................................. 6
Figure 2: Comparison of Base+2010 reliability to Base case reliability (the dots are reliability values for
the 46 FRAs, and the line is a 45-degree line for reference). ....................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Comparison of Base+2010+A reliability to Base+2010 reliability to assess change in reliability .. 9
Figure 4: Comparison of Base+2010+B reliability to Base+2010 reliability to assess change in reliability .. 9
Figure 5: Comparison of Base+2010+C reliability versus Base+2010 reliability to assess change in
reliability ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6 : Base case reliabilities with FRA 36 circled. Figure provided by AECOM. .................................... 11
Figure 7: Estimated trends for reliability by earthquake magnitude for FRA 36 that are pegged to the
reliability values for M7.8 developed by AECOM. ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Probability Mass Functions (PMFs) for each case of FRA 36 ....................................................... 13
Figure 9: Estimated trends for reliability by earthquake magnitude for the entire city that are based on
the population weighted average reliability values for M7.8 developed by AECOM. ............................... 14
Figure 10: Premium percent versus percent savings for city wide premiums ........................................... 16
Figure 11: Reliability Percentage for each FRA (provided by AECOM) ....................................................... 17
Figure 12: Premium Percentages based on Expected Loss for each FRA ................................................... 18
Figure 13: Percentage savings versus no HPS for each FRA ....................................................................... 19
List of Tables
Table 1: Reliability Values by FRA for each of the four cases provided by AECOM ...................................... 7
Table 2: Provided Reliability values for FRA 36 for a 7.8 M earthquake .................................................... 11
Table 3: Estimated premium values for relative comparisons of different cases for FRA 36..................... 13
Table 4: Citywide Premiums and Reliabilities averaged by population of each FRA .................................. 15
Table 5: Population weighted citywide reliability, premiums and savings for entire city .......................... 20
February 19, 2013
Page 3
Introduction and Background
AECOM provided MMI with planning levels results on the AWSS for the following cases:
•
•
•
•
•
Base Case: With current infrastructure on ground in San Francisco
2010 Bond Improvements, referred to as “2010” case in this document
Alternative A: Proposed improvement alternative beyond 2010 Bond improvements
Alternative B: Another proposed alternative
Alternative C: A third proposed alternative
Brief descriptions of each alternative were provided in presentation slides and exhibits by AECOM.
From the above cases, the following cases were articulated by MMI as indicative of options of the final
state of AWSS infrastructure in the city of San Francisco.
•
•
•
•
•
Base Case
Base Case + 2010 Improvements
Base case + 2010 improvements + Alternative A
Base case + 2010 improvements + Alternative B
Base case + 2010 improvements + Alternative C
Neighborhood specific reliability percentages are provided for 46 different zones (referred to as fire
response areas, FRAs) in San Francisco for each of the above case. Reliability being defined as percent of
imposed water demand that is met by AWSS infrastructure, from fires resulting due to a median ground
motion for a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas fault.
The objective for MMI is to gage whether any planning level assessment can be made on impact of
above cases (referred to as Base Case, 2010, A, B, and C in the remainder of the document) on fire
premiums in a relative sense. Meaning exact absolute values of fire insurance premiums are not sought
in this task, rather a relative comparison of specifically alternatives A, B, and C is sought on fire
premiums. Indicative values of savings in fire premiums for each case is also provided based on use of
data provided for the Base Case in (Scawthorn, November 2012).
Methodology
MMI developed a methodology to estimate the fire premium for the purpose of conducting a relative
comparison of impact on fire premium of the different cases to be analyzed. What is available from fire
simulations is the reliability (see definition in previous section) of the AWSS for M7.8 earthquake on the
San Andreas fault for 46 FRAs in the city of San Francisco.
Fire premiums are influenced not just by a M7.8 earthquake but by the entire spectrum of possible
earthquakes and also from non-earthquake fires. The steps in the methodology devised are:
February 19, 2013
Page 4
•
•
•
•
•
First, utilize the earthquake magnitude recurrence relationship for the city of San Francisco,
which gives the annual frequency of earthquakes of different magnitudes. From this we develop
annual probabilities of different earthquakes assuming a Poisson occurrence of earthquakes.
Next, we develop reliability values of the AWSS system for a wide range of earthquakes pegging
the M7.8 reliability values to those provided by AECOM for the four cases for each of the FRAs.
This extrapolation is with the simple intent of modeling higher resulting reliabilities in smaller
earthquakes 1.
Then for each earthquake, for each case and for each FRA a beta distribution of loss risk is
developed assuming the average loss risk is [1-Reliability] and the COV is assumed to be 50%.
This coefficient of variation (COV, ratio of standard deviation to the mean value) is assumed to
model in a simple fashion the uncertainty in fire loss given a reliability value (meaning given a
reliability value in an FRA, the actual fire loss still could have a range of loss values).
Then the probability mass function of loss risk for each earthquake is convolved with the annual
probabilities of different earthquakes to obtain mean values and standard deviation of fire loss
risk for each case of each FRA.
Finally, we combine the mean and 75% of standard deviation to develop a notional fire premium
to conduct the relative comparison. The value of 75% is arbitrary and is utilized to include the
uncertainty in loss risk around the mean, and the same value of 75% is used in all cases
compared.
The above simplifying assumptions provided a planning level assessment of the impact of the AWSS on
fire insurance premiums. All assumptions made can be improved upon in future studies. The estimated
trends of reliability for magnitudes other than M7.8 are largely subjective and can also be improved by
detailed analysis of the infrastructure, and also by inclusion of non-earthquake fires.
1
The approach adopted was to fit a lognormal distribution with parameters of the distribution tuned so as to
replicate the reliability values for M7.8 earthquake for each FRA (see Figure 7, for example).
February 19, 2013
Page 5
Results
Figure 1 shows the earthquake magnitude recurrence relationship, which is the annual rate of
occurrence for earthquake greater than or equal to a given magnitude. For example, the average rate of
earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater is about 0.1 per year.
1
Cumulative Rate (per year)
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7
7.25
7.5
7.75
8
8.25
8.5
Magnitude
Figure 1: The cumulative annual rate of occurrence for earthquakes from Type A faults in California (San Andreas Fault
2
affecting San Francisco is a Type A fault) .
AECOM provided the following reliability values for M7.8 San Andreas earthquake for this study. The
population weighted averages are found using the population of each FRA. Note that a population
weighting is used here as a proxy for building density across FRAs in the city; this has been done in order
to reflect the loss of property value to fire in a very simple manner. One could use an arithmetic average
(referred to as “cumulative” average in the Table 1) for simplicity. The population weighted averages are
generally similar to the cumulative average. These FRAs are plotted for comparison purposes in Figure
11.
2
These are cumulative earthquake occurrence rates for Fault Type A taken from Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 2053–2107, August 2009, doi: 10.1785/0120080049. Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) by E. H. Field, T. E. Dawson, K. R. Felzer, A. D. Frankel, V. Gupta,
T. H. Jordan, T. Parsons, M. D. Petersen, R. S. Stein, R. J. Weldon II, and C. J. Wills. The data from this reference is
also used by (Scawthorn, November 2012).
February 19, 2013
Page 6
Table 1: Reliability Values by FRA for each of the four cases provided by AECOM
Reliability
FRA
Pop Weighted
Cumulative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Base Case Base+2010 Base+2010+A Base+2010+B Base+2010+C
0.420
0.474
0.035
0.035
0.249
0.116
0.285
0.137
0.013
0.224
0.067
0.258
0.200
0.158
0.033
0.211
0.527
0.222
0.159
0.055
0.053
0.443
0.305
0.996
0.933
0.552
0.988
1.000
0.810
1.000
0.658
0.340
0.570
0.437
1.000
0.202
0.362
0.662
0.367
1.000
1.000
0.931
0.977
1.000
0.251
0.239
0.753
1.000
0.623
0.678
0.044
0.035
0.470
0.192
0.738
0.155
0.093
0.174
0.095
0.804
0.205
0.384
0.260
0.626
0.765
0.754
0.344
0.082
0.103
1.000
0.781
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.893
1.000
0.818
1.000
1.000
0.443
1.000
0.942
0.427
0.810
0.758
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.978
1.000
0.886
0.896
0.631
0.585
0.813
0.945
0.817
0.930
0.817
0.640
0.530
0.829
1.000
1.000
0.721
0.847
0.948
0.767
0.526
0.835
0.856
1.000
0.887
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.906
1.000
0.772
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.956
1.000
0.908
0.758
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
February 19, 2013
0.912
0.918
0.714
0.527
0.848
0.992
0.836
0.955
0.893
0.794
0.515
0.876
1.000
1.000
0.698
0.853
0.995
0.814
0.553
0.882
0.903
1.000
0.928
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.953
1.000
0.921
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.758
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.841
0.859
0.524
0.553
0.924
0.593
1.000
0.612
0.525
0.584
0.505
1.000
0.586
0.824
0.709
0.987
0.815
1.000
0.596
0.521
0.563
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.893
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.700
1.000
0.942
0.669
1.000
0.869
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Page 7
It is also informative to look at changes in reliability across different cases by pair-wise comparisons of
reliability as in the Figures below. These comparisons have been made to understand how the fire
premium results can be anticipated to change by each FRA (and for entire city) for the different
improvement packages, since the reliability values form the basis of fire premium results. These figure
show that for most FRAs the reliability value increases owing to improvements made; however, there
appear to some FRAs for which the reliability may decreases owing to improvements made city-wide;
this is likely due to rerouting of water.
120
Base+2010 Reliability (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Base Case Reliability (%)
Figure 2: Comparison of Base+2010 reliability to Base case reliability (the dots are reliability values for the 46 FRAs, and the
line is a 45-degree line for reference).
February 19, 2013
Page 8
Base+2010+A Reliability (%)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 3: Comparison of Base+2010+A reliability to Base+2010 reliability to assess change in reliability
Base+2010+B Reliability (%)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 4: Comparison of Base+2010+B reliability to Base+2010 reliability to assess change in reliability
February 19, 2013
Page 9
Base+2010+C Reliability (%)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 5: Comparison of Base+2010+C reliability versus Base+2010 reliability to assess change in reliability
February 19, 2013
Page 10
FRA 36 as an Example of Methodology
To better convey the methodology, the intermediate and final results of FRA 36 are provided before the
city wide and overall results are presented. FRA 36 is located in downtown San Francisco. It can be seen
in Figure 6 below (FRA 36 has a reliability number of 20% for base case, and the location of FRA 36 is
shown using black circle in figure below) which shows the reliability values for all FRAs for the base case.
Figure 6 : Base case reliabilities with FRA 36 circled. Figure provided by AECOM.
Reliabilities for all four cases were estimated for a range of earthquakes based on the provided values
for the 7.8 M earthquake (see Section Methodology for approach adopted for this estimation). The 7.8
M reliabilities are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Provided Reliability values for FRA 36 for a 7.8 M earthquake
Base Case
0.202
Base + 2010
0.942
Base + 2010 +A
0.956
February 19, 2013
Base + 2010 + B
1.000
Base + 2010 + C
0.942
Page 11
For FRA 36 the extrapolated reliabilities for a range of earthquakes are shown in the figure below. This
figure indicates that case 2010 and case C have the same reliabilities. This is true for FRA 36, but not true
for all the FRAs. For an overall reliability by earthquake magnitude plot see Figure 9, this figure shows
each case has its own set of citywide reliabilities.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Base Case
Reliability
0.6
Base+2010
0.5
Base+2010+A
Base+2010+B
0.4
Base+2010+C
0.3
M7.8
0.2
0.1
0.0
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
Magnitude
Figure 7: Estimated trends for reliability by earthquake magnitude for FRA 36 that are pegged to the reliability values for
M7.8 developed by AECOM.
Recall from the Methodology section that we combine the earthquake magnitude cumulative rates (or
the annual probability of occurrence of each earthquake magnitude) with reliability values to develop a
fire loss risk probability distribution.
For each case for FRA 36 a Beta probability distribution for loss is calculated, these distributions are
based on mean and standard deviation of loss risk for each earthquake, and on the annual occurrence
probability of different earthquake magnitudes (from Figure 1). The reason for selecting a Beta
distribution (vs. other probability distribution types, e.g. Normal or Lognormal) is that this distribution
permits specification of minimum (0%) and maximum (100% of value) loss values for an FRA. The
probability mass functions (PMFs) of fire loss value of FRA 36 can be seen for each of the five cases in
Figure 8. The x-axis represents the fraction of value of lost to fire in a given FRA, and the y-axis the
probability of loss of a given value.
Note that case 2010, A, B and C are all very close and overlap on the figure. Figure 8 clearly shows that
as the reliability increases in value (as in Cases 2010, A, B, and C), the loss distribution shifts to the left
February 19, 2013
Page 12
(to lower loss values) compared to the base case which has a lower reliability value compared to 2010,
A, B or C.
Figure 8: Probability Mass Functions (PMFs) for each case of FRA 36
The expected value of loss is then calculated for each case based on the PMF (mathematically the
expected value is the probability weighted sum of the loss risk values). These values for FRA 36 are
provided in Table 3 for relative comparison purposes only. The Premium value is based on the expected
loss (E [Loss]) plus 75% of the standard deviation (Sig [Loss]). Again, as noted in the Methodology
section, 75% is somewhat arbitrary and has been used to reflect what is done typically in the insurance
industry to account for year to year variability of loss in the fire premium calculation.
Note that this is not an absolute value of a fire premium, only notional to permit relative comparison of
the Alternatives A, B, and C being proposed.
Table 3: Estimated premium values for relative comparisons of different cases for FRA 36.
Premium
Sig [ Loss ]
E [ Loss ]
38%
23%
21%
2.0%
2.3%
0.33%
1.8%
2.1%
0.24%
0.18%
0.24%
0.0021%
2.0%
2.3%
0.33%
The calculations done for FRA 36 were done for each FRA in the city. These premium results were then
combined across all FRAs, and analyzed to find quantitative comparisons between the four cases.
February 19, 2013
Page 13
Overall Results
Figure 9 shows the city wide estimate trend assumed for a range of earthquakes that are based on the
population weighted reliability values 3 for M7.8 (see for Table 1 city-wide reliability value). The intent is
to capture the possible increase in reliability with decreasing earthquake magnitude. The figure shown is
for the entire city reliability values, but during analysis these were created for each FRA.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Base Case
Reliability
0.6
Base+2010
0.5
Base+2010+A
Base+2010+B
0.4
Base+2010+C
0.3
M7.8
0.2
0.1
0.0
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
Magnitude
Figure 9: Estimated trends for reliability by earthquake magnitude for the entire city that are based on the population
weighted average reliability values for M7.8 developed by AECOM.
Figure 11 provides the reliability percentages per FRA per case. Average values for two cases are
indicated in the figure to gage the spread of results across FRAs compared to the city-wide (population
weighted) average.
Figure 12 provides the calculated premiums for each FRA. As a quick check between Figure 11 and
Figure 12, it can be seen that as reliability approaches 100%, the premium approaches zero. A weighted
average was applied to the premiums of each FRA by population of each FRA compared to the entire
city. These values are shown in Table 4. This table also provides estimates of reinsurance premiums.
These premiums are based on the assumption that only loss percentages over 80% are covered by a
3
Note that as mentioned earlier, a simple arithmetic average instead of a populated weighted average would yield
similar results. Here the population-weighted average is adopted for account for the varying population across the
FRAs covering the city.
February 19, 2013
Page 14
reinsurance policy. As an example, in Figure 8, the area under the entire Base Case (red, dash-dot) curve
is the mean loss used to calculate fire premium, while the area under the same Base Case curve above
loss risk values of 0.8 is the mean loss for reinsurance premium calculation.
Table 4: Citywide Premiums and Reliabilities averaged by population of each FRA
Reliability
Premium
Reinsurance Premium
42%
32%
3.3%
62%
19%
1.9%
89%
3.9%
0.15%
91%
3.1%
0.104%
84%
5.5%
0.105%
The premium and reinsurance calculations follow similar trends. Both results indicate that the
Alternative B offers the most reduction in fire premium, with a notional fire premium of 3.1%.
Alternative A results in a notional fire premium of 3.9%, which is almost as good as Alternative B. Finally,
Alternative C results in 5.5% notional fire premium. This appears to follow the relative trend among the
city wide populated-weighted reliability values of 89%, 91%, and 84% for Alternative A, B, and C,
respectively, with the most reliable alternative (i.e., B) resulting in the least fire premium, while
Alternative C with highest notional premium due to the smallest reliability value of the three
alternatives A, B, and C.
The final piece of results to discuss is the amount of savings in terms of the premiums described in
“Insurance Aspects: A report prepared for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission” (Scawthorn,
November 2012). In this report it states “the AWSS HPS can be thought of as reducing San Francisco’s
insurance premiums by about 6-8%.” To equilibrate those numbers to the premiums found in this paper,
the citywide premium savings for the Base Case was set to 7%. From there all the other savings
percentages were calculated based on their percent difference from the citywide Base Case. These
conversions can be seen in Figure 10. As the calculated premiums go down, the percent savings go up.
February 19, 2013
Page 15
% Premium (Population Weighted)
35%
% Savings versus no HPS
31.7%
30%
25%
19.3%
20%
15%
10%
13.1%
13.3%
12.8%
9.7%
7.0%
3.9%
5%
5.5%
3.1%
0%
Base Case
Base + 2010
Base + 2010 + A
Base + 2010 + B
Base + 2010 + C
Figure 10: Premium percent versus percent savings for city wide premiums
This same procedure can be used on individual FRAs, which is shown in Figure 13. Based on the
calculation method, the maximum savings possible is 14%. The savings are expected to plateau as
premiums go down; updates to the AWSS system will never produce 100% savings on insurance. The
14% value seen in these calculations is based on the initial savings value of 7%. Note that this is an
approximate analysis for use in planning and further detailed analysis can be performed.
February 19, 2013
Page 16
(Base Case) Average
(Base + 2010 + B) Average
(Base Case)
(Base + 2010)
(Base + 2010 + A)
(Base + 2010 + B)
(Base + 2010 + C)
100%
90%
80%
Reliability Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FRA by number
Figure 11: Reliability Percentage for each FRA (provided by AECOM)
February 19, 2013
Page 17
40
45
50
(Base Case) Average
(Base + 2010 + B) Average
(Base Case)
(Base + 2010)
(Base + 2010 + A)
(Base + 2010 + B)
(Base + 2010 + C)
100%
90%
80%
Premium Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FRA by number
Figure 12: Premium Percentages based on Expected Loss for each FRA
February 19, 2013
Page 18
40
45
50
(Base + 2010)
(Base Case)
(Base + 2010 + A)
(Base + 2010 + B)
(Base + 2010 + C)
15%
Percentage Savings versus no HPS
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FRA by number
Figure 13: Percentage savings versus no HPS for each FRA
February 19, 2013
Page 19
40
45
50
Conclusion
Table 5 summarizes the key results of this study for the entire city; the results include AWSS reliability
for the five cases analyzed, the notional fire premium, the estimated reinsurance premium, and finally
the fire premium savings for the five cases. Comparison of the notional fire premiums indicates that
Alternative B results in the least premium, followed by Alternative A with marginally higher premium.
This is followed by Alternative C, with the highest resulting premium of the three, due largely to
Alternative C having the least reliability of the three alternatives (A, B, and C). Alternative B results in a
13.3% savings versus not having a HPS at all.
Table 5: Population weighted citywide reliability, premiums and savings for entire city
Reliability
Premium
Reinsurance Premium
42%
32%
3.3%
62%
19%
1.9%
89%
3.9%
0.15%
91%
3.1%
0.104%
84%
5.5%
0.105%
Savings versus no HPS
7.0%
9.7%
13.1%
13.3%
12.8%
Work Cited
Scawthorn, C. (November 2012). Insurance Aspects: A Report prepared for the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission. San Francisco.
E. H. Field, T. E. Dawson, K. R. Felzer, A. D. Frankel, V. Gupta, T. H. Jordan, T. Parsons, M. D. Petersen, R.
S. Stein, R. J. Weldon II, and C. J. Wills. August 2009. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 2053–2107 doi: 10.1785/0120080049. Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2).
February 19, 2013
Page 20
Appendix E: Evaluation Scoring
Task 11
Auxiliary Water Supply System Capital Improvement Program
Alternatives Analysis Pairwise Comparisons
Evaluation Criteria:
Capital & Life Cycle Cost
Pairwise Comparisons:
How to Score:
Comparing Alternative 1 (Row) to Alternative 2
(Column)
SCORE
1 is significantly better than 2
10
1 is better than 2
5
1 is about the same as 2
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1 is significantly worse than 2
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
5.00
C
0.10
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
0.20
10.00
10.20
40.16%
10.00
15.00
59.06%
0.20
0.79%
25.40
100.00%
0.10
Total
1 of 8
Cost
Operations & Maintenance
How to Score:
(Column)
SCORE
10
1 is better than 2
5
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
5.00
C
0.20
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
0.20
5.00
5.20
25.37%
10.00
15.00
73.17%
0.30
1.46%
20.50
100.00%
0.10
Total
2 of 8
Schedule
How to Score:
(Column)
SCORE
10
1 is better than 2
5
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
1.00
C
0.10
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
1.00
10.00
11.00
49.55%
10.00
11.00
49.55%
0.20
0.90%
22.20
100.00%
0.10
Total
3 of 8
Schedule
How to Score:
(Column)
SCORE
10
1 is better than 2
5
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
5.00
C
0.10
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
0.20
10.00
10.20
40.16%
10.00
15.00
59.06%
0.20
0.79%
25.40
100.00%
0.10
Total
4 of 8
How to Score:
(Column)
SCORE
10
1 is better than 2
5
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
1.00
C
0.10
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
1.00
10.00
11.00
49.55%
10.00
11.00
49.55%
0.20
0.90%
22.20
100.00%
0.10
Total
5 of 8
Insurance Premiums
How to Score:
(Column)
SCORE
10
1 is better than 2
5
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
5.00
C
0.10
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
0.20
10.00
10.20
40.16%
10.00
15.00
59.06%
0.20
0.79%
25.40
100.00%
0.10
Total
6 of 8
Insurance Premiums
How to Score:
(Column)
SCORE
10
1 is better than 2
5
1
1 is worse than 2
1/5
1/10
Scoring Matrix:
A
A
B
5.00
C
0.20
B
C
TOTAL
% OF
TOTAL
0.20
5.00
5.20
25.37%
10.00
15.00
73.17%
0.30
1.46%
20.50
100.00%
0.10
Total
7 of 8
Environmental Impacts
Weighting of Evaluation Criteria
Criterion
Weight
Ranked
Alternative
Score
Capital & Life Cycle Cost
1.00
1. Alternative B
60%
Operations & Maintenance
1.00
2. Alternative A
39%
Schedule
1.00
3. Alternative C
1%
1.00
1.00
Insurance Premiums
1.00
1.00
Evaluation Criteria
Total
7.00
Weighted Cumulative Scores
Evaluation Criteira
Alternative
Capital & Life
Cycle Cost
Operations &
Maintenance
Delivery
Reliability
Firefighting
Capability
Insurance
Premiums
Environmental /
Community
Impacts
Score
Schedule
A
40%
25%
50%
40%
50%
40%
25%
39%
B
59%
73%
50%
59%
50%
59%
73%
60%
C
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
8 of 8
Cumulative Scores

Project Report - San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Transcription

Similar documents

Empalme Gas Pipeline Branch

Agenda Item 5 - SFPUC AWSS Presentation

Samalayuca – Sasabe Gas Pipeline

S. Ellis - Community Advisory Boards

flyer - Centennial Classic Arms

pETROSANTANdER (uSA) INC.

Company Name Cleansing And Normalization

Ojinaga – El Encino Gas Pipeline

DOLPHIN AMP MASTER 4000/3000 DUAL PERFORMANCE