DOMESTIC WATER POLICY COMMITTEE MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1231 Eleventh Street, Modesto, California January 8, :30 a.m.

Transcription

1 Dave Cogdill, Chairman, City of Modesto John Mensinger, Vice-Chairman, MID Bill Zoslocki, Councilmember, City of Modesto Nick Blom, Board Member, MID DOMESTIC WATER POLICY COMMITTEE MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1231 Eleventh Street, Modesto, California January 8, :30 a.m. AGENDA ITEMS THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO COMMENT ON ANY ITEM, WHICH IS LISTED ON THE AGENDA AT THE TIME THAT ITEM IS BEING DISCUSSED. ANY PERSON WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OR UPON THE CONSENT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR. Item No. Tab No. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 4. PAT RYAN DOMESTIC WATER PROJECT UPDATE PAT RYAN WATER YEAR ALLOCATION AND DELIVERIES TO THE CITY CHRIS DAVENPORT GREG DIAS MODESTO REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE TWO EXPANSION REPAIR PROJECT UPDATE Auburn Constructors, Inc.: Repair Contract Western Summit Constructors, Inc.: Repair Contract K.G. Walters Construction Co., Inc.: Terminal Reservoir Bypass Project GREG DIAS CONCUR TO REVISE PROCEDURES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE DOMESTIC WATER PROJECT POLICY COMMITTEE TO REFLECT NEW DATE AND TIME GREG DIAS CONCUR AS TO THE APPROACH FOR MEMBRANE PROCUREMENT SUBMITTALS AND TESTING 9. GREG DIAS PROPOSED FUTURE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS 10. ADJOURNMENT February 5, 2015, MID BOARD ROOM 8:30 A.M. 9:30 A.M. March 5, 2015, MID BOARD ROOM 8:30 A.M. 9:30 A.M.

2

3 MRWTP EXPANSION PROJECTS UPDATE DOMESTIC WATER POLICY COMMITTEE January 08,

4 Expansion Projects MRWTP Expansion Projects Repair Project Stage 2 Filter Basin Reconstruction, Design Defective Work Terminal Reservoir Project Ball Valve Replacement and Bypass Installation Phase 2 Expansion Complete Original Contract Work, Cure Defective Work 2

5 Expansion Projects MRWTP Expansion Projects Other Activities Membrane Module Order Tentative Delivery Date May 18, 2015 Quality Control Process 3

6 Repair Project Stage 2 MRWTP Repair Project Stage 2 Contractor Auburn Constructors, Inc. Work Filter Basin Reconstruction Design Deficiency Corrective Work CCO 4

7 Repair Project Stage 2 Construction Contract Cost Status Auburn Constructors, Inc. Original Contract Amount - $ 5,827, Change Orders - $ 3,855, Current Contract Amount - $ 9,683, Payments thru November $7,575, (Amount In Retention $367,421.53) Balance to Finish - $ 2,104, % Complete based on payments through 11/30/14-78%

8 Repair Project Stage 2 Construction Contract Schedule Status Auburn Constructors, Inc. Notice to Proceed - April 30, 2013 Contract Time Days Contract Substantial Completion Date - February 10, 2015 % Complete Contract Time through 12/31/14 94% Projected Building Turn over Date* - January 5,

9 Repair Project Stage 2 7 PROJECT STATUS Field Work Concrete Work Completed Mechanical Work Finish Re-Installing All Phase 2 Mechanical and Electrical Solids Handling System Piping Upcoming Work Remainder of Design Deficiency Correction CCOs Install Clearwell 1 & 2 Isolation Bulkhead

10 Repair Project Stage 2 PROJECT STATUS Field Work 8

11 Repair Project Stage 2 PROJECT STATUS Field Work Video December Progress 9

12 Phase 2 Expansion MRWTP Phase 2 Expansion Project Contractor Western Summit Constructors, Inc. (WSCI) Work Defective Work Corrections Complete Testing, Start-up, Training and Commissioning 10

13 Phase 2 Expansion PROJECT STATUS Field Work Defective Work Stainless Steel Pipe Exterior Finish - Completed Neutralization Basin re-coating - Completed Roofing Repairs 2015 Contract Work WSCI Coordination Weekly Conference Calls Equipment Checkout February to May 2015 Testing, Startup, Training* - June to August *After building hand back from Auburn

14 TR Ball Valve & Bypass MRWTP Terminal Reservoir Contractor KG Walters Construction Work Replace 2-30 Ball Valves Install 48 WS Bypass Pipeline 12

15 TR Ball Valve & Bypass Construction Contract Cost Status KG Walters Construction Original Contract Amount - $ 2,423, Change Orders - $ 74, Current Contract Amount - $ 2,497, Payments thru November $ 1,120, Held in Retention ($31,781.22) Balance to Finish - $ 1,385, % Complete based on payments through 11/30/14-45%

16 TR Ball Valve & Bypass Construction Contract Schedule Status KG Walters Construction Notice to Proceed May 20, 2014 Contract Time 330 Days Contract Substantial Completion Date - April 15, 2015 Milestone 1 February 15, 2015 Notice of Potential Delay Los Angeles Port Labor Issues 14 % Complete Contract Time through 12/31/14 68%

17 TR Ball Valve & Bypass PROJECT STATUS Field Work Pipeline Installation Valve Vault Piping and Valves Testing Electrical Work Install and Wire up VFD and Pump Motor #4 Testing 15

18 TR Ball Valve & Bypass PROJECT STATUS Field Work 16

19 TR Coating Project MRWTP Terminal Reservoir Coating Contractor Crosno Construction Work Recoat Interior and Exterior of Tank #1 17

20 TR Coating Project PROJECT STATUS Field Work 18

21 Expansion Projects Questions? 19

22 Tab No. 3 PROCEDURES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE DOMESTIC WATER PROJECT POLICY COMMITTEE 1. Regular Meeting. The Policy Committee of the Modesto Domestic Water Project (hereinafter referred to as Committee) shall hold regular meetings at least twice each year, and at times when a meeting is called by the Project Manager at the office of the Modesto Irrigation District, located at 1231 l1th Street, Modesto, California. Said regular meetings shall be held at 1:00 p.m. 8:30 a.m. on the first Thursday of each month, when necessary. The time and place of regular meetings may be changed by vote of the Policy Committee entered upon its minutes. 2. Adjournment of Meetings. The Committee may adjourn any meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment, and from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting the Secretary of the Committee may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place and shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in Section 3 below for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. 3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be ordered by the Chair, or by a majority of the.0 members of the Committee, specifying in writing the business to be transacted. Any order calling for a special meeting shall be entered in the minutes of the Committee. The Secretary shall give three days' notice of any special meeting to any member of the Committee not joining in the order calling the special meeting by written notice to the member at the member's address as disclosed by the Committee records. Such written notice may be waived by any Member by filing a written waiver of notice with the Secretary. Additionally, such written notice is waived as to any Member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes. At least 24 hours before the time of such special meeting, the Secretary shall provide written notice of the special meeting to the Committee Members. The Secretary shall also give notice to any other parties as may be required by law. Only the business specified in the notice may be considered at such special meeting. 4. Effective Date of Committee Membership. Appointed officials of the Modesto Irrigation District and the City of Modesto shall take office effective upon appointment by their governing body Membership and Officers. At its first organizational meeting in January, the Committee shall elect a Chair, and may elect a Vice-Chair from among their members and shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the Committee. Unless otherwise specifically provided by the Committee, the Project Manager shall automatically serve as Secretary. Each of the foregoing officers shall hold office at the pleasure of the Committee. The duty of the Vice- President shall be to preside at any meeting, or portion thereof, at which the President is not present. The Policy Committee shall consist of two Modesto City Council members and two members of the Modesto Irrigation District Board of Directors. Each agency may, at its

23 Tab No. 3 discretion, appoint one alternate to serve in the absence of each standing members. Each member of the Policy Committee shall serve at the pleasure of the agency selecting that member. 6. Quorum; Voting. A. Three Committee members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. B. All Committee actions requiring a vote, shall be supported by three affirmative votes C. The Secretary shall record each vote, which shall be entered into the minutes of the Committee. 7. Agendas. At least three (3) business days preceding each regular meeting, the Secretary shall distribute an agenda for the forthcoming meeting by , facsimile copy, hard copy or by U.S.P.S. Said agenda shall be prepared by the Secretary and shall be accompanied by as much explanatory relating to the items on the agenda as is reasonably possible. An agenda for each special meeting shall be mailed as early in advance of the special meeting as is reasonably possible and shall be accompanied by such explanatory material as is necessary to advise the board of the nature of the matter or matters coming before the Committee at the special meeting. 8. Records. The Secretary of the Committee shall keep, and make available to the public, accurate minutes of all proceedings of the Committee. Minutes shall not be read at Committee meetings but shall be included with the agenda and considered for approval without being read aloud at Committee meetings. 9. Conduct of Business. All meetings of the Committee, and the preparation, distribution and posting of all agendas, shall comply in all respects with the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section of the Government Code), as such, the Act may be amended from time to time. All meetings shall be open to the public, provided, however, that closed sessions may be held as permitted under the Brown Act. 10. Flexibility. The foregoing policies, procedures, and requirements are intended to be consistent with the Amended and Restated Treatment and Delivery Agreement (ARTDA) applied flexibly to meet the need of the Committee and it is intended by the Members that they shall be revised from time to time as is necessary and appropriate to further meet the needs of the Committee.

24 Tab No. 4 Project Name: PROJECT MEMORANDUM Modesto Regional WTP Phase Two Expansion Date: 12/12/2014 Client: Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Project Number: 8600A.20 Prepared By: Reviewed By: Subject: Distribution: Dan Hugaboom Scott Weddle Membrane Procurement Submittals and Testing Greg Dias, Pat Ryan This memorandum is intended to address two questions posed by Modesto Irrigation District (MID) related to its 2013 membrane module purchase (S10N): 1. To summarize the status of information requests to Evoqua regarding the S10N modules. 2. To summarize industry norms for ultrafiltration module factory testing and shipping. Item 1: Summary of Information Requests On February 20, 2014 Carollo Engineers (Carollo) provided MID an recommending five UF module-related submittals from Evoqua. Carollo s recommendation was that these submittals be submitted within 60 days of acceptance of the purchase agreement. A list of those recommended submittals, as well as a summary of Evoqua s responses, is provided below. The only missing submittal is the O&M manual update (Item 3). 1. Product data sheets for the current membrane module design. Status: This was received by from Andrew Schwarzer from Evoqua on 6/10/14 by Verify that Evoqua has reviewed the original design documentation, and that the submitted module design is compatible with the Siemens supplied equipment currently at the jobsite. Status: Evoqua provide a letter, dated August 26, 2014, summarizing the process impacts. Per that letter, impacts are limited to LRV calculations and flux (increase). This letter is provided as Appendix A. 3. Update the Functional Design Specification (FDS), membrane system design criteria, sizing projections, O&M manuals and any other submittals that are impacted by the change in membrane module. In response to this request, Evoqua has indicated that the Air Hold Test and Membrane Conditioning sections of the O&M manual will be updated. This update has not been received. Evoqua has not indicated that any changes to the FDS are required, due to the limited nature of the process impacts. 4. Submit direct integrity test related calculations per Specification (in the Appendix C Procurement Documents) for the current membrane module design per the USEPA Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual. This information was received in the June 30, from Evoqua. pw://carollo/documents/client/ca/mid/8600a20/commissioning and Startup/Startup Plans/DRAFT_MID Rev.docx 1

25 Tab No Submit warranty documentation for the current membrane module design. Warranty documentation is included in Amendment 5 of the procurement agreement between Evoqua and MID. 6. Submit results of the Non-Destructive Performance Test (NDPT) and quality control release value (QCRV) for the shipped modules. An acceptable alternative is to supply a data sheet for each module that certifies that it has passed the Quality Control Release Value (QCRV) for the manufacturer s Non-Destructive Performance Test (NDPT). Evoqua indicated in the June 30, that individual test results (PASS/FAIL) will be provided in the packing slip for each individual module. The supporting documentation was also provided on 6/30/14 Item 2: Industry Norms for Ultrafiltration Module Factory Testing (Six membrane element manufacturers were interviewed for the information contained in this memorandum in order to determine what is the industry norm. Data contributed by manufacturers is presented here anonymously, with the exception of Evoqua.) The minimum testing requirement for modules used in drinking water plants is described in the US EPA Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (MFGM). The MFGM specifies testing requirements that are specifically related to the pathogen removal capabilities. The MFGM requires a factory Non-Destructive Performance Test (NDPT) and to assess the pathogen removal capabilities of individual elements. This test is in place of challenge tests on each module. These tests are usually air pressure or airflow based tests (pressure decay tests, bubble point tests or diffusive air flow tests).ndpt generates a test result that must meet a passing criteria called a Quality Control Release Value. The QCRV is based on the results of a membrane microbial challenge study that provides a correlation between rejection of pathogens rejection performance an NDPT result. Specific text from the MFGM described the purpose of the test is found in Chapter 3, page 3-5. Verifying Characteristic Removal Efficiency for Untested Modules Because the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) does not require that every membrane module be subject to challenge testing, a non-destructive performance test (NDPT) (e.g., bubble point test, diffusive airflow test, pressure or vacuum decay test, etc.) must be applied to each production membrane module that did not undergo challenge testing in order to verify Cryptosporidium removal efficiency. A quality control release value (QCRV) must be established for the NDPT that is directly related to the removal efficiency of the membrane filtration process as demonstrated during challenge testing. Membrane modules that do not meet the established QCRV are not eligible for the removal credit demonstrated during challenge testing (40 CFR (b)(2)(vii). The CDPH Letter of Conditional Acceptance (dated October 30, 2013) for the N series membrane documents the basis for the QCRV. A copy of that letter is provided in Appendix B. Other Quality Tests and Checks Performed by Module Manufacturers There are a number of other tests performed by manufacturers to check the quality of finished membrane elements. These vary by manufacturer: Dimensional checks. pw://carollo/documents/client/ca/mid/8600a20/commissioning and Startup/Startup Plans/DRAFT_MID Rev.docx 2

26 Tab No. 4 Element flow (permeability) tests To evaluate pore formation and as an indicator of field performance. Bubble tests To check for maximum pore size. Visual inspection To detect defects/discoloration. Some suppliers (including Evoqua) do not perform flow tests on individual modules. Their position is that basins of modules are evaluated for conformance with process guaranties, and that individual module testing adds cost and has little value. Evoqua indicated that flow tests are done at a statistically significant percentage of modules at the factory. Factory Test Data Reporting The minimum reported QCRV data is a statement that an individual membrane module PASSED the NDPT. This is the only data that is standard from suppliers. Additional details of the NDPT include the actual measured value, and repairs made at the factory to pass the test are often collected, but not released to the end user. This data may be made available if specifically requested. Witnessing Factory NDPT Of the six suppliers interviewed for this memorandum, five (including Evoqua) indicated that they have had customers witness factory testing. In most cases, this was done for projects of mgd capacity (one supplier indicated it was fairly common for projects over 20 mgd). Modesto Regional Water Plant Phase 2 Requirements The specifications and procurement documents for Phase 2 were reviewed to identify Evoqua s contractual obligations for membrane module testing. An excerpt from Section (Membrane Filtration System) is included below. It should be noted that Evoqua s standard practice includes several proprietary steps in the manufacturing of fiber and potting before the element is completed. The finished elements undergo a NDPT that meets the requirements of the MFGM. This test is described in the third party challenge testing report previously submitted to MID (Section 4.1). No other standard tests are performed on individual modules. pw://carollo/documents/client/ca/mid/8600a20/commissioning and Startup/Startup Plans/DRAFT_MID Rev.docx 3

27 Tab No. 4 Risk Avoidance, Factory to Site Membrane modules are subject damage from freezing, overheating, and impact. All major membrane element manufacturers take steps to prevent damage to factory-tested modules during shipping, handling and storage. Packaging Due to the largely proprietary nature of UF membranes, packaging procedures vary by manufacturer. All manufacturers take precautions to prevent and detect physical damage from shock, drying fibers (on site rewetting is extremely difficult for UF membranes), over heating, and freezing. Some manufacturers (including Evoqua) use shock sensors on each crate of modules. Key steps manufacturers take include: Package membranes in protective materials. Use an anti-freezing solution module (UF and MF). Use a wetting agent, commonly glycerin (UF). Use shock-detection devices on crates. Use temperature loggers or indicators. Note that if temperature data loggers are used, the data will not be reported to the end user unless specifically requested. Shipping Shipping procedures vary by manufacturer. Shipping is done in vans or in containers. Precautions are taken to avoid freezing membranes, including provisions for climate controlled ground shipping and climate sensitive routing as seasons require. Phase 2 Contract Requirements Per supplementary conditions (SC -7) of the Membrane Procurement document, Evoqua must provide a delivery plan as part of the Project Manual. On-Site Handling On Site Storage All manufacturers require membrane modules to be stored within a vendor specific temperature range. Testing Individual Modules On-Site There is no standard for on-site testing individual modules prior to loading on module racks. Membrane permeability and integrity are measured as a complete basin on site, rather than individually testing modules. While individual element testing can be done on a project specific basis, remedies for failing on site tests would need to be defined by contract. There is no basis for on-site testing individual modules at MID. pw://carollo/documents/client/ca/mid/8600a20/commissioning and Startup/Startup Plans/DRAFT_MID Rev.docx 4

28 Tab No. 4 Performance Testing Performance testing of installed modules is universally expected in the municipal market for MF/UF projects. This is considered by most suppliers to be the most robust stage of testing, eliminating the need for individual membrane elements tests. Conclusions Evoqua s factory testing and reporting procedures are somewhat less rigorous and complete than some of their competitors. However, to this point we note that Evoqua s procedures are within the industry standard of practice, and there is every reason to expect that the procedures in place will result in delivery of quality product to MID, in compliance with the contractual requirements. There is no contractual basis for MID to require more testing or more detailed reporting. However, as recommended below we believe that the information requested in a submittal from Evoqua will provide the basis to determine the results of factory performance and QC testing, and provide MID with better certainty of the product quality of the membranes delivered to the jobsite. MID has a robust performance guaranty from Evoqua that will remedy product quality issues, should there be reason to do so. It is our opinion that there are sufficient elements in place to mitigate MID s risk related to product quality, and there is no driver, need, or benefit for additional procedures, excepting a factory visit during membrane manufacturing as noted below. Recommendations Request the delivery plan from Evoqua as required in the Membrane Procurement documents. Request a cohesive package/submittal from Evoqua for all the membrane-related information requests referenced in Item 1. MID should conduct a factory tour to witness membrane manufacturing, factory testing, and QC procedures. A factory witness test of this type by the Owner (and/or Owner s representative) is common for specialty equipment such as membranes because the Owner has the singular vested interest in the product quality as the ultimate end user (i.e. they are arguably in the best position to protect their best interests based on first hand knowledge gained via the visit). More specifically in this case, the witness visit provides the MID the opportunity confirm first hand the type, frequency and rigor of the factory testing and QC procedures, and the methods to document compliance with the contract requirements. Although a factory witness test by MID should not change the testing and QC procedures by Evoqua, it is a prudent exercise for both parties to concurrently participate in the testing/qc process, and provide a basis for both parties to confirm that the product has been manufactured and tested in full compliance with the contractual requirements in advance of shipment to the jobsite. pw://carollo/documents/client/ca/mid/8600a20/commissioning and Startup/Startup Plans/DRAFT_MID Rev.docx 5

29 Tab No. 4 Regarding the factory witness test, we recommend that MID consider having a lowpressure membrane specialist in attendance to support the MID team. It is our experience that this additional technical bench support adds value related to witnessing/verifying specifics of the manufacturing, testing procedures, and QC documentation beyond that which can be obtained by MID staff. pw://carollo/documents/client/ca/mid/8600a20/commissioning and Startup/Startup Plans/DRAFT_MID Rev.docx 6