1. Addressing Red Water in the Munger Place Area of Dallas Presented to Pipeline Program Design Group June 18, 2014 By RPS and Criado Associates, Inc.

2. Conditions Precedent 1. Established historic neighborhood, Munger Place 2. Cast iron pipelines up to 90 years old 3. Last 3-4 years, complaints of red water emerged 4. DWU has systematically begun assigning replacements of old cast iron pipelines in area 5. February 2014, DWU assigned design of major pipeline along Munger Boulevard to RPS 6. RPS hired Criado Associates, forming RPS Team

6. Features of Red Water Problems 1. Complex physical, chemical, biological interaction that does not respond to a single action in all systems 2. Three common characteristics -Prevalence of red water increases with pipe age -Stagnation time increases red water -Exposed iron pipe surface predictably is linear with red water generation

7. Table 1. Exposure Area of Typical Pipe Sizes to Corrosion

9. Table 2. DWU Assigned Project for Munger Place Service Area to RPS Team.

12. Table 4. Total Pipe and Exposed Iron Pipe Surface Remaining in Munger Place Area Nominal Pipe Size (in) Total Pipe Length (ft) Percent of Total Length (%) Approx. Total Square Footage of Exposure to Water (ft 2 ) Percent of Total Exposed Area (%) ≤ 36,1252.93050.3 413,2706.41,6671.4 6112,63553.929,23325.0 831,55015.111,5659.9 1016,5007.99,3958.0 122,7001.32,1341.8 166,6003.29,3268.0 187,9003.814,14012.1 205,1752.511,4669.8 243,2501.610,3598.9 302,5001.213,04611.1 366200.34,3753.7 Total208,825100.0117,010100.0

13. Process for Decisions on Pipelines Recommended to be Replaced 1. Consider locations of alternatives relative to complaints area 2. Perform standard DWU design field review for all potentially affected pipelines 3. Use system model to confirm no major changes to system pressures or changes in direction of flow 4. Utilize size for targeting better iron water reduced interface

16. Recommended Improvements and Cast Iron Exposure Reduction

18. Table 6. Comparison of Open Cut to BOTOC

19. Improvement Options and Cost Comparison

21. Recommended Improvements and Methods

22. Procurement Options Traditional –Complete design –Advertisement –Council award Schedule = X months Buyboard –Pre-established specifications –Complete design –Application for purchasing through buyboard –Council award Schedule = (X- 1)months

23. Conclusions 1. Munger Place red water can be substantially reduced with this project 2. In most cases, BOTOC will result in lower costs and less community disruption 3. Caveat is that wastewater pipelines do not require replacement, though comparable costs for trenchless wastewater replacement will be less expensive than open cut

24. Questions

25. Table 8. Cost Estimate for Munger Blvd. & Henderson Ave. (Open Cut)

26. Table 9. Cost Estimate for Munger Blvd. & Henderson Ave. (BOTOC)

27. Table 10. Cost Estimate for I-30 Crossing & Beeman Ave. (Open Cut)

28. Table 11. Cost Estimate for I-30 Crossing & Beeman Ave. (BOTOC)

29. Table 12. Cost Estimate for Live Oak St. & Sycamore St. (Open Cut)

30. Table 13. Cost Estimate for Live Oak St. & Sycamore St. (BOTOC)

31. Table 14. Cost Estimate for Fitzhugh Ave. (Open Cut)

32. Table 15. Cost Estimate for Fitzhugh Ave. (BOTOC)

33. Table 16. Cost Estimate for Columbia Ave. (Open Cut)

34. Table 17. Cost Estimate for Columbia Ave. (BOTOC)

35. Title 35

36. Title 36