Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lum indicated LAVWMA staff had commissioned a study by Carollo Engineers. <br />Carollo Engineers concluded a 36~ pipe was the most appropriate size; however, LAVWMA <br />staff made no recommendation to the LAVWMA Board as to the size. Many factors influence <br />the size of the pipe. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if DSRSD would participate in this. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated DSRSD had to participate, because it was a replacement project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet referred to his discussion with Livermore and the Livermore representatives <br />had indicated that anything over 24" would be considered an expansion project and would <br />require a unanimous vote. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed this 6000 feet of pipe failed because of pressure and asked if the 36" <br />pipe would relieve that pressure, so the failure would not happen gain. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated his understanding is that the alelamination of the protective coating <br />on the interior of the pipe was not due to pressure, it was due to problems with the coating <br />itself. The engineers do not believe the problem occurred due to the velocity within the pipe <br />or the pressure and they feel comfortable with a 24" pipe for replacement. In addition, it is a <br />different kind of pipe. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that if the problem was not due to pressure in this particular portion, then <br />the entire pipeline is ready to fail. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum agreed the twelve mile downhill section is at risk. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt the current rate payers have to pay 100% of the repair costs and if we <br />could just get an agreement (with EBDA) we could be spending money for the new pipe instead <br />of paying money twice. If two pipes of equal size are approved, that would mean we have to <br />redo the entire existing pipe plus the cost of a new pipe. Is that within the $200 million for the <br />entire project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated the $200 million was an estimate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet did not agree with that. He felt there were savings for the maintenance of <br />the pipe over the long run by a redundant system. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr did not believe a 24~ pipe was large enough for the buildout of the general <br />plan. It is not redundant, it is insufficient. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated staff was looking at the option of a 24" or a 30" pipe. There are <br />advantages to a two pipe system because there is limited ability to work on the pipe when <br /> <br />06/04/96 -16- <br /> <br /> <br />