Final Project Summary Report Bank Street Drainage Project

Final Project Summary Report Bank Street Drainage Project City of New London New London, Connecticut RFQ No. 2015-10 Submitted to: Department of Public Works 111 Union Street New London, CT 06320 Submitted by: GEI Consultants, Inc. 455 Winding Brook Drive Glastonbury, CT 06033 860-368-5300 July 2016 Project 1504150-*-1001

__________________________ John McGrane, P.E. Project Manager

Barry Giroux, PE, LEP In-House Reviewer

Consulting

Engineers and

Scientists

F I N A L P R O J E C T S U M M A R Y R E P O R T B A N K S T R E E T D R A I N A G E P R O J E C T N E W L O N D O N , C O N N E C T I C U T J U L Y 2 0 1 6

Table of Contents

1. Background of Bank Street Flooding 1

2. Findings on Storm Drain System, Flood Control Conduit, and Pumping Station which Contribute to Flooding Problems 2

3. Description of Proposed Project Improvements 3

4. Constructability Concerns 4

5. Regulatory Authorization 5

6. Considerations for Future Improvements 6

GEI Consultants, Inc. i


Table of Contents (cont.)

Appendices

A. Base Survey Map Showing Existing Utility Locations B. Storm Water Report C. Pumping Station Inspection Findings (memo with attached email) D. Pumping Station Megger Testing Report E. Opinion of Probable Cost – Shaw’s Cover Pumping Station Diesel-Driven Pump

Replacement, and Electrically-Driven Pump Replacement F. Opinion of Probable Cost – Storm Drainage

JM/BLG /ammH:\WPROC\Project\New London, City of\New London Bank Street Costal Flood Mitigation1504150\Final Project Summary Report\Bank Street Drainage Project.docx

GEI Consultants, Inc. ii


1. Background of Bank Street Flooding

In order to begin to address long standing street flooding problems in the Bank Street area east of Howard Street, GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) was retained by the City to evaluate the existing conditions, and design improvements for the Bank Street storm drainage system and Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station. These components are interrelated and their respective performance is dependent on each other for proper functioning.

The City is protected by a hurricane barrier, two flood control conduits, and a pumping station built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) primarily intended to protect the Bank Street area from storm surges, wave action, and to accommodate interior drainage up to the 5 year storm event within the protected area. Although the hurricane barrier has provided ample protection from coastal storms, recurring street flooding problems have been experienced during localized rainfall events (absent storm surge and wave action) that could not be accommodated by the collective street drainage, interior drainage conduit, and pumping station system.

GEI and its prime sub-consultant Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. have evaluated the storm drain and flood control interior drainage systems and have provided an opinion of the highest priority improvements within the parameters of the project scope and budget. The main deliverable for the project is a set of construction plans and specifications which, once constructed, will help reduce some of the street flooding problems. The plans and specifications, under title and seal of Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. have been transmitted to the City separately from this report.

As the analysis of the storm drain and pumping station systems progressed using computerized hydraulic model, the magnitude of the flooding problems due to increased rainfall intensity and lack of adequate infrastructure became apparent. While the improvements contained on the plans will provide an improved level of storm water flow capacity, the inherent low elevation and configuration of the storm drain system, flood control conduits, and pumping station present additional challenges that are beyond the budget and scope of this project to address.

GEI Consultants, Inc. 1


2. Findings on Storm Drain System, Flood Control Conduit, and Pumping Station which Contribute to Flooding Problems

The following are relevant findings that help to explain the nature of the street flooding problems and the difficulties involved in finding permanent solutions:

• The existing surface grades of Bank Street and adjacent properties are low lying and only about 4’ above Mean Sea Level (MSL) which makes them vulnerable to flooding from either coastal storms or interior rain events.

• The Storm Drain System inverts in Bank Street are below MSL and, therefore, remain partially or completely filled with water nearly all of the time.

• The flood control conduits consist of a high level system (conveyed through a 96-inch pressure conduit) that has a drainage area of approximately 252 acres, and the low level system (conveyed through a 72-inch gravity conduit to the Shaw’s Cove pumping station) that has a drainage area of approximately 213 acres. The street flooding problems on Bank Street are primarily associated with the low level 72-inch gravity conduit and its contributing storm drain connections.

• Due to lack of elevation difference (head) between the storm drain systems and the discharge point in Shaw’s Cove, the storm drains and flood control conduits contain standing water which allows for settling of sediment which reduces capacity. The system also has very low flow velocity and, therefore, does not flush out sediment well even during high flow periods.

• The majority of streets that are up-gradient of Bank Street (e.g. Reed Street) generally do not contain any storm drain infrastructure and instead rely on gutter flow to convey storm water. This causes a major volume of overland and gutter flow to collect and reach Bank Street on the street surface, thereby, overwhelming the ability of the system to intercept or convey the flow.

• The existing conduit that runs from Blinman to Bank Street under the condominium building contains archaic stone inlet chambers, as well as a reverse pitch on the conduit, both of which diminish hydraulic capacity.

• The Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station suffers from decreased pumping capacity due to age, wear, and possible lack of capacity when compared to the original design criteria. This pumping deficiency becomes more acute when current rainfall design criteria are input to the hydraulic model.

• Changes in rainfall intensity, as well as sea level rise, may continue to exacerbate the problems noted above.



3. Description of Proposed Project Improvements

The following improvements have been incorporated into the design plans and specifications for this project:

• New storm drain system to intercept large amounts of gutter flow in Reed Street which presently collects at the low point of Blinman Street, and “bypass” the flow to the west into a new connection to the 72-inch flood control conduit in Bank Street at Howard Street.

• Improvements to the cross culvert on Bank Street opposite Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station to increase capacity.

• Larger catch basin inlets to improve intercepting ability.

• Updates to Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station automated activation system.

• Correction of miscellaneous pump station deficiencies and damage identified during inspection.

• Ability to create a future connection to the new “bypass drain” that would allow some limited connection for the upper reach of Blinman Street. Please note that due to limited capacity of the existing 72-inch low level conduit and the new bypass pipe, very limited capacity remains to allow this future connection and, therefore, any new inputs must be very limited in nature.

• Opinions of probable cost are included in Appendices E and F.



4. Constructability Concerns

Construction of the improvements will pose several constructability concerns that will need to be addressed either prior to construction, or as part of the actual construction process:

• Subsurface Utility Conflicts: New London’s streets, like those of most older cities, contain a multitude of underground utilities. Given the age and lack of records available, accurate utility location will be a critical component in constructing the new drainage system. In preparing the plans, GEI used a private firm to perform subsurface utility investigation, which included identification and “mark-out” of the known utilities in the project area. This involved review of maps and other records, and non-destructive locating technologies such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Electromagnetic (EM) Technologies. Following utility mark-out, GEI’s surveying firm, Dicesare Bentley Engineers, field located all utility mark-outs and included these on the survey base maps. GEI’s contract did not contain any test pits for further utility location purposes. Rather, we propose that an extensive test pit program be conducted by the contractor prior to construction starting. Although GEI’s utility location provided very valuable information for the project design, the exact elevation and location of buried utilities can only be determined through a series of test pits at key points along the route. We have included an extensive test pit and utility identification program in the contract plans and specifications.

Given the importance of utility location, we have included a utility location and coordination as a pay item in the construction bid. We have also included a unit price for test pits in the construction bid to help identify utility conflicts as an initial step in the construction process. There is also an allowance for utility relocation should conflicts be discovered during this process.

• Control of water within the existing 72-inch conduit and interconnecting storm drains will present a significant construction challenge since the conduit generally contains several feet of water at all times. We have written the bid specification such that the contractor will need to prepare a control of water plan for submission to the City prior to construction. This may include such things as pipe plugging and bypass pumping.

• Private property rights of access to construct improvements, as well as permanent rights to drain and maintain components of the storm drain system still need to be investigated. In particular, the area of Blinman Street north of the condominium building may need to be encroached upon to construct the new chamber shown on the plans. It is unknown what rights the City may currently have to construct or drain storm water through this property, however, we recommend that this be performed prior to construction starting.

• Maintenance & protection of traffic during construction, particularly at the Bank and Howard Street intersection, will be challenging given the depth of excavation, utility support, and traffic volume.

• Telemetry to control the pumping station via proposed float switches in the Blinman Street chamber are subject to electrical coordination and approval by Eversource prior to construction.



5. Regulatory Authorization

• GEI’s scope did not include permitting, however, it is advisable to check with the USACE since they do have regulatory authority over the flood control portion of the project. Pumping station automation and increased use of the station for routine storm water evacuation, for example, should be presented to USACE for review and comment. Also, CT DEEP should be consulted to confirm that environmental permits are not needed for the project.



6. Considerations for Future Improvements

Although not within the current budget or scope, the following improvements should be considered in a long term effort address flooding problems in a comprehensive manner, especially in light of projected sea level rise. Since elevating Bank Street and the adjacent properties is likely unfeasible, effective gravity drainage will remain a weakness, and the pumping station becomes a much more critical component. The main considerations should be:

• Increase capacity of pumps In Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station through rehabilitation. It is doubtful, however, that rehabilitation of the existing pumps will result in meeting the originally designed pumping capacity, even without considering increased rain events and storm water flows in the current hydraulic model)

• Increase capacity of Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station by replacing existing pumps with additional pumps or new higher capacity pumps

• Make further improvements in pumping station controls such as automated throttle adjustments.

• Increase the capacity of the flood control conduits and main storm drain systems that flow to Shaw’s Cove either by gravity means or through the pump station.



Appendix A

Base Survey Map Showing Existing Utility Locations

GEI Consultants, Inc.


Appendix B

Storm Water Report


F\2011\0926\A30\Drainage\Report\20160630 - Final Stormwater Memo.docx

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: John McGrane, GEI

FROM: Keith Goodrow, P.E.

DATE: June 22, 2016

RE: Bank Street and Blinman Street DrainageStormwater Report

OverviewCurrently, portions of Blinman Street and Bank Street in the City of New London experience severeflooding during storm events. These streets are located in a low-lying area of a very large watershed thathas little or no stormwater infrastructure. The little infrastructure that does exist is completelyinadequate to safely convey the large volume of runoff and is quickly overwhelmed resulting in theflooding.

To reduce the duration and frequency of the flooding, as well as lowering the flood water elevation, anew stormwater drainage system is proposed to capture stormwater gutter flow in the low-lying streetsand directly route it to the main trunk lines.

Existing ConditionsThe flooded areas of Blinman and Bank Street are low-lying areas with elevations ranging fromapproximately 4 to 7 feet above sea level and are essentially in a depression surrounded by higherelevations. While there is an existing stormwater network in-place, it is not capable of draining theseareas to the Bank Street 72-inch diameter trunk line discharging to Shaw’s Cove to the south.

Many of the flooding problems on Blinman and Bank Street are the result of a watershed with little orno stormwater infrastructure. The contributing watershed to the flooded areas begins approximately ½mile to the north at Broad & Williams Street approximately at elevation 110 (Figure 1). It consists ofapproximately 86 acres of highly developed urbanized land cover with almost no existing stormwaterinfrastructure. The lack of existing infrastructure allows the runoff to accumulate in the street gutterseventually concentrating it in the low-lying areas on Blinman Street. When the water level on Blinmanexceeds elevation 5.8 feet (+/-), the stormwater then contributes to and exacerbates the flooding onBank Street.

The existing drainage network within Blinman Street in completely inadequate to handle the largevolume of runoff it receives, resulting in flooding of the roadway and adjacent low-lying areas. Theexisting hydraulic analyses identified several deficiencies which were verified during several site visits. Asshown in the model output results (attached), the problems with the existing stormwater drainage systeminclude:

· undersized piping· pipes that have a reverse slope

Mr. John McGraneJune 22, 2016Page 2

F:\P2011\0926\A30\Drainage\Report\2016-06-22\20160630 - Final Stormwater Memo.docx

· antiquated stone culverts and poor connectivity resulting in hydraulic losses· too few catch basins to effectively collect all the gutter flow within the local streets allowing the

runoff to concentrate in the low-lying areas· many pipes within the system, including the 72-inch diameter RCP trunk line in Bank Street,

have inverts well below sea level and are inundated with water even during non-storm events· sediment laden piping which reduces the capacity of the overall system

The Bank Street drainage system is connected to the Shaw’s Cove stormwater pumping station that wasconstructed in the late 1970’s and was intended to be used for flood management. Due to the severityand frequency of the flooding issues within Blinman and Bank Street caused by stormwater runoff, thepumping station is being used for stormwater management control in an effort to minimize the extent ofthe localized flooding. This unintended use has increased the usage of the three pumps and has affectedthe condition and longevity of the pumping station and its components. The specific conditions anddeficiencies associated with the Shaw’s Cove pumping station are addressed in a separate memorandum.

Proposed ConditionsA proposed solution to alleviate some of the flooding on Blinman and Bank Street is to add a newstormwater drainage system from Reed Street to Bank Street, as well as improvements to the existingBlinman Street system.

Reed Street is another low-lying area that becomes inundated with localized gutter flow during stormevents. With only a few catch basins available to capture the large volume of runoff, Reed Street simplyconveys the excess gutter flow to Blinman Street resulting in flooding. By adding several double catchbasins in Reed Street, the majority of the gutter flow will be captured. Runoff in the both the westernand eastern gutters of Reed Street will be directed to a proposed drainage network and routed directly tothe 72-inch diameter trunk line in Bank Street. By capturing as much of the stormwater runoff aspossible in advance of Blinman Street and minimizing the gutter flow, the frequency and duration of theflooding events can be reduced.

In addition to adding the proposed drainage system, it is recommended that the existing system becleaned of sediment to increase capacity and maximize efficiency of the system.

LimitationsDue to the severity and extent of the flooding on Blinman Street and Bank Street, there are limitationsto the effectiveness of the proposed drainage improvements. The hydraulic model was analyzed for a 2-year storm with a high tide elevation of 3.5 feet. The proposed improvements will not completelyresolve the flooding or prevent the areas from future flooding, but will reduce the frequency andduration and the flood level for the 1- and 2-year storm events. For storm events greater than the 2-yearstorm, the proposed improvements will become less effective.



AssumptionsField survey was only conducted in a small concentrated area within the portions of Blinman & BankStreet that experience the most severe flooding. Our investigation determined that the watershed areacontributing to the flooded areas is approximately 86 acres. While inquiries and requests for informationwere made to the City of New London and CT DOT to determine the extent of the overall stormwaterinfrastructure, few plans were provided that could be used in our analysis. Therefore, severalassumptions based on previous drainage inspection reports, site visits, and GIS contour data were usedto model the existing and proposed conditions of the Blinman Street and Bank Street flooded areas.

Due to the high volume of traffic and the large number of utilities in the roadways, much of the surveydata was collected using ground penetrating radar (GPR). This was the only viable option to collect therequired information in safe and effective manner. Unfortunately, utilities and structures that are locatedusing GPR are less accurate then if they were field surveyed. The base map used for the hydraulicmodeling was compiled using the provided survey, sketches of individual drainage components, and acompilation of various dated construction plans provided by the City. It is highly recommended thattest pits be conducted in critical areas of Blinman Street and Bank Street to verify the accuracy of thesurvey to minimize utility conflicts.

The existing and proposed hydraulic models were analyzed assuming that the all pipes had full capacityto convey stormwater and were not affected by the amount of sediment within individual pipes.

MethodologyThe drainage analysis for the existing and proposed stormwater management systems was completedusing Bentley StormCAD (v8i) computer program. Input information for the model was derived usingthe Rational Formula. Times of concentration were calculated for the sub-watershed areas and includedbuildings, paved areas, and grassed lawn areas.

SummaryThe StormCAD output for the 2-year storm event indicates that many of the existing pipes do not havethe required capacity to safely convey the contributing runoff. Under the proposed conditions, many ofthe proposed pipes have been designed with adequate capacity for the 2-year storm. However, due toexisting constraints, not all piping could be sized appropriately. In the places where existing conditionsimpacted the design, the proposed pipes were designed to capture and convey as much stormwater aspossible.

While the addition of the proposed system doesn’t resolve all of the existing system deficiencies, manyof the existing pipes showed improvement from their current condition. The addition of the proposeddrainage network will reduce the frequency and duration of the flooding events and lower the floodwater elevation. Both the existing and proposed layout plans with output results are attached.



Modifications or additions to the Shaw’s Cove stormwater pumping station could help alleviate floodingof the Blinman Street and Bank Street areas during the 1- and 2-year frequency storm events. Acombination of pumping system improvements and the proposed drainage system improvements islikely the most effective approach to reducing the frequent and severe flooding in these low-lying areas.

MS

V

IE

W:

LA

YE

R S

TA

TE

:

PROJ. No.:

DATE:

SC

ALE

:

DA

TU

M:

VE

RT

.:

HO

RZ

.:

VE

RT

.:

HO

RZ

.:

File P

ath: J:\D

WG

\P

2011\0926\A

30\C

ivil\P

lan\20110926A

30-D

RA

-01.dw

g Layout: 11X

17-L (R

-T

BLK

) P

lotted: F

ri, D

ecem

ber 04, 2015 - 4:09 P

M U

ser: kgoodrow

Plotter: D

WG

T

O P

DF

.P

C3

C

TB

F

ile: F

O.S

TB

20110926.A30

DECEMBER 2015

CIT

Y O

F N

EW L

ON

DO

N

BA

NK

& B

LIN

MA

N S

TREE

WA

TER

SHED

AR

EA

NEW

LO

ND

ON

CO

NN

ECTI

CU

T

1" - 500'

EXISTING Stormwater Drainage System - 2-Year Storm Event

Label Start Node Stop Node

Length(Unified)

(ft)

SystemIntensity

(in/h)System

CA (acres)

SystemRational

Flow(ft³/s)

Rise(Unified)

(in)Flow(ft³/s)

Capacity(Full

Flow)(ft³/s)

Velocity(ft/s)

Invert(Start) (ft)

Invert(Stop) (ft)

Slope(Calculated)

(%)

ElevationGround

(Start) (ft)

ElevationGround

(Stop) (ft)

HydraulicGrade Line

(In) (ft)

HydraulicGrade Line(Out) (ft)

CO-10 MH-10 CB-101 99 4.86 0.90 4.41 36 4.41 17.73 0.62 -1.58 -1.65 0.071 5.16 4.50 3.88 3.88CO-101 CB-101 MH-11 215 4.11 1.24 5.14 36 5.14 39.39 0.73 -1.65 -2.40 0.349 4.50 5.43 3.88 3.87CO-102 CB-102 CB-103 197 2.56 1.41 3.65 42 3.65 61.66 0.38 -3.00 -3.74 0.376 4.48 3.86 3.86 3.86CO-103 CB-103 MH-12 94 2.06 2.16 4.48 42 4.48 52.91 0.47 -3.74 -4.00 0.277 3.86 4.36 4.36 4.36CO-104 CB-104 T-104 5 3.44 0.44 1.54 12 1.54 9.82 1.96 0.88 0.50 7.600 4.46 4.75 5.36 5.35CO-105 CB-105 T-105 9 4.86 0.41 2.03 12 2.03 9.35 2.58 -0.38 -1.00 6.889 5.51 5.50 5.25 5.22CO-11 MH-11 CB-102 156 3.06 1.24 3.83 36 3.83 41.36 0.54 -2.40 -3.00 0.385 5.43 4.48 3.87 3.86CO-12 MH-12 T-104 38 1.87 76.71 144.19 54 144.19 201.75 9.07 -5.10 -5.50 1.053 4.36 4.75 5.55 5.35CO-13 MH-13 MH-12 21 2.32 74.55 174.52 48 174.52 269.63 13.89 -1.76 -2.50 3.524 4.73 4.36 4.67 4.36CO-14 MH-14 MH-14A 245 1.78 162.87 292.00 72 292.00 265.09 10.33 -7.44 -8.40 0.392 5.20 10.00 5.08 3.91CO-14A MH-14A Pump House 30 1.77 162.87 290.53 72 290.53 289.30 10.28 -8.40 -8.54 0.467 10.00 11.00 3.91 3.77CO-14B T-14B OF-Shaw's Cove 47 1.77 179.12 318.68 78 318.68 307.89 7.54 -9.10 -9.20 0.213 15.50 0.00 3.61 3.50CO-15 MH-15 T-105 95 1.79 85.31 154.16 72 154.16 249.59 5.45 -6.87 -7.20 0.347 6.72 5.50 5.35 5.22CO-16 MH-16 MH-15 454 1.83 70.70 130.42 72 130.42 252.97 4.61 -5.25 -6.87 0.357 8.50 6.72 5.78 5.35CO-20 MH-20 MH-21 54 2.69 2.90 7.86 15 7.86 3.05 6.41 2.43 2.31 0.222 5.44 5.41 6.21 5.41CO-201 CB-201 CB-202 29 4.86 0.08 0.37 12 0.37 8.24 5.30 3.65 2.10 5.345 5.95 4.10 4.09 4.10CO-202 CB-202 MH-20 68 2.70 2.90 7.89 15 7.89 5.43 6.43 2.10 2.58 -0.706 4.10 5.44 6.46 5.44CO-203 CB-203 CB-204 16 4.86 0.08 0.39 12 0.39 3.33 2.84 4.28 4.14 0.875 6.58 6.44 5.12 5.12CO-204 CB-204 MH-22 38 4.83 0.16 0.77 12 0.77 6.46 0.99 3.94 2.69 3.289 6.44 5.48 5.12 5.10CO-205 CB-205 MH-22 15 4.86 0.13 0.62 12 0.62 1.84 0.79 2.26 2.30 -0.267 4.96 5.48 5.10 5.10CO-206 CB-206 MH-23 20 4.01 0.23 0.91 12 0.91 5.28 1.16 1.44 1.00 2.200 4.14 4.80 4.81 4.80CO-207 CB-207 MH-25 43 4.86 0.52 2.54 12 2.54 4.86 3.24 -0.07 -0.87 1.860 3.36 4.13 4.35 4.13CO-208 CB-208 MH-25 10 4.86 0.38 1.86 12 1.86 3.56 2.37 0.75 0.65 1.000 3.83 4.13 4.16 4.13CO-209 CB-209 MH-26 32 4.86 0.17 0.82 12 0.82 3.33 1.04 3.68 3.40 0.875 5.50 6.13 5.91 5.89CO-21 MH-21 MH-22 38 2.68 2.90 7.84 15 7.84 3.63 6.39 2.11 2.23 -0.316 5.41 5.48 5.66 5.10CO-210 CB-210 MH-27 14 3.44 0.13 0.45 15 0.45 11.84 0.37 3.29 2.82 3.357 6.43 6.71 6.71 6.71CO-211 CB-211 MH-28 28 4.01 0.16 0.64 12 0.64 3.56 0.81 2.02 1.74 1.000 7.08 7.14 7.15 7.14CO-212 CB-212 MH-29 14 3.44 0.51 1.75 12 1.75 3.56 2.23 4.22 4.08 1.000 6.85 7.29 7.32 7.29CO-22 MH-22 MH-23 208 2.68 3.19 8.59 24 8.59 2.22 2.74 -0.72 -0.70 -0.010 5.48 4.80 5.10 4.80CO-23 MH-23 MH-24 63 2.60 3.41 8.95 24 8.95 19.54 2.85 -0.70 -1.17 0.746 4.80 4.71 4.81 4.71CO-24 MH-24 T-208 197 2.58 3.55 9.23 24 9.23 14.23 2.94 -1.34 -2.12 0.396 4.71 4.20 5.34 5.01CO-25 MH-25 T-208 18 2.33 65.56 153.88 27.6 153.88 92.97 7.43 -2.08 -2.12 0.222 4.13 4.20 5.12 5.01CO-26 MH-26 T-208 208 2.69 5.44 14.75 24 14.75 16.60 4.70 -1.00 -2.12 0.538 6.13 4.20 5.89 5.01CO-27 MH-27 MH-26 53 2.69 5.28 14.32 15 14.32 11.84 11.67 0.48 -1.30 3.358 6.71 6.13 8.50 5.89CO-28 MH-28 MH-27 49 2.70 5.14 13.99 15 13.99 10.36 11.40 1.74 0.48 2.571 7.14 6.71 9.01 6.71CO-29 MH-29 MH-28 37 2.70 4.99 13.57 12 13.57 8.69 17.28 3.94 1.74 5.946 7.29 7.14 12.51 7.14CO-30 MH-30 CB-401 49 2.34 64.50 152.06 36 152.06 79.24 10.14 -0.64 -0.37 -0.551 4.15 5.83 6.30 5.31CO-301 CB-301 MH-31 5 2.41 1.30 3.16 6 3.16 26.52 1.58 3.00 2.50 10.000 4.01 4.13 4.14 4.13CO-302 CB-302 T-300 77 4.86 0.97 4.76 12 4.76 2.57 6.05 1.40 1.00 0.519 3.80 4.00 6.04 4.67CO-303 CB-303 T-303 7 2.41 28.49 69.22 18 69.22 33.22 39.17 -0.48 -1.18 10.000 3.72 3.80 10.55 7.51CO-304 CB-304 MH-33 7 3.44 0.53 1.84 12 1.84 7.13 2.34 2.54 2.26 4.000 5.34 5.96 5.98 5.96CO-305 CB-305 MH-34 23 2.41 3.88 9.43 8 9.43 1.79 27.01 2.68 2.98 -1.304 5.16 4.60 12.88 4.60CO-305A CB-305A T-51 13 2.41 4.32 10.49 12 10.49 6.42 13.35 2.00 1.75 1.923 5.62 5.53 15.87 15.20CO-306 CB-306 MH-34 20 2.41 3.31 8.03 12 8.03 6.52 10.23 1.38 2.05 -3.350 4.98 4.60 5.62 4.60CO-306A CB-306A T-51 10 2.41 4.32 10.49 12 10.49 7.32 13.35 2.00 1.75 2.500 5.62 5.53 15.71 15.20CO-306B CB-306B T-52 10 2.41 3.76 9.13 12 9.13 7.32 11.63 2.00 1.75 2.500 5.50 5.49 15.12 14.73CO-31 MH-31 MH-30 5 2.41 1.30 3.16 24 3.16 0.00 0.53 1.47 1.47 0.000 4.13 4.15 4.15 4.15CO-32 MH-32 T-303 30 2.34 33.74 79.66 24 79.66 13.13 15.93 -0.97 -1.18 0.700 4.18 3.80 15.24 7.51

EXISTING Stormwater Drainage System - 2-Year Storm Event


Length(Unified)

(ft)

SystemIntensity

(in/h)System

CA (acres)

SystemRational

Flow(ft³/s)

Rise(Unified)

(in)Flow(ft³/s)

Capacity(Full

Flow)(ft³/s)

Velocity(ft/s)

Invert(Start) (ft)

Invert(Stop) (ft)

Slope(Calculated)

(%)

ElevationGround

(Start) (ft)

ElevationGround

(Stop) (ft)

HydraulicGrade Line

(In) (ft)


CO-33 MH-33 T-34 38 3.43 0.53 1.83 24 1.83 39.52 0.58 0.66 -0.50 3.053 5.96 5.22 10.35 10.35CO-34 MH-34 T-34 16 2.41 7.19 17.45 12 17.45 12.11 22.21 1.35 -0.50 11.563 4.60 5.22 14.18 10.35CO-401 CB-401 MH-25 58 2.33 64.66 152.14 36 152.14 183.30 10.14 -0.37 -2.08 2.948 5.83 4.13 5.31 4.13CO-501 CB-501 MH-50 15 2.41 4.71 11.45 12 11.45 6.50 14.58 2.00 1.50 3.333 6.00 6.00 7.55 6.00CO-502 CB-502 MH-50 15 2.41 4.71 11.45 12 11.45 6.50 14.58 2.00 1.50 3.333 6.00 6.00 7.55 6.00CO-60 MH-60 MH-15 98 2.41 14.61 35.48 48 35.48 180.64 2.82 1.34 -0.21 1.582 7.73 6.72 5.41 5.35CO-601 CB-601 MH-60 22 4.86 0.12 0.57 12 0.57 5.04 0.73 3.70 3.26 2.000 7.20 7.73 5.41 5.41CO-85 MH-50 T-51 288 2.41 13.63 33.09 24 33.09 8.77 6.49 -0.25 -0.40 0.053 6.00 5.53 17.40 15.20CO-87 T-51 T-52 24 2.37 22.26 53.09 24 53.09 8.74 10.41 -0.40 -0.41 0.052 5.53 5.49 15.20 14.73CO-88 T-52 T-34 163 2.36 26.02 62.00 24 62.00 8.74 12.16 -0.41 -0.50 0.052 5.49 5.22 14.73 10.35CO-PUMP Pump House T-14B 71 1.77 179.12 319.32 78 319.32 296.40 7.56 -8.96 -9.10 0.197 11.00 15.50 3.77 3.61CO-T104 T-104 MH-14 50 1.86 77.15 144.71 54 144.71 196.64 9.10 -5.50 -6.00 1.000 4.75 5.20 5.35 5.08

PROPOSED Stormwater Drainage System - 2-Year Storm Event


Length(Unified)

(ft)

SystemIntensity

(in/h)System

CA (acres)

SystemRational

Flow(ft³/s)

Rise(Unified)

(in)Flow(ft³/s)

Capacity(Full

Flow)(ft³/s)

Velocity(ft/s)

Invert(Start) (ft)

Invert(Stop) (ft)

Slope(Calculated)

(%)

ElevationGround

(Start) (ft)

ElevationGround

(Stop) (ft)

HydraulicGrade Line

(In) (ft)


CO-10 MH-10 CB-101 99 4.86 0.90 4.41 36 4.41 17.73 0.62 -1.58 -1.65 0.071 5.16 4.50 3.88 3.88CO-101 CB-101 MH-11 215 4.11 1.24 5.14 36 5.14 39.39 0.73 -1.65 -2.40 0.349 4.50 5.43 3.88 3.87CO-102 CB-102 CB-103 196 2.56 1.41 3.65 42 3.65 61.82 0.38 -3.00 -3.74 0.378 4.48 3.86 3.86 3.86CO-103 CB-103 MH-12 95 2.06 2.16 4.48 42 4.48 52.63 0.47 -3.74 -4.00 0.274 3.86 4.36 4.36 4.36CO-104 CB-104 T-104 5 3.44 0.44 1.54 12 1.54 9.82 1.96 0.88 0.50 7.600 4.46 4.75 5.15 5.14CO-105 CB-105 T-105 9 4.86 0.41 2.03 12 2.03 9.35 2.58 -0.38 -1.00 6.889 5.51 5.50 5.47 5.44CO-11 MH-11 CB-102 156 3.06 1.24 3.83 36 3.83 41.36 0.54 -2.40 -3.00 0.385 5.43 4.48 3.87 3.86CO-12 MH-12 T-104 37 1.87 31.52 59.28 54 59.28 204.45 3.73 -5.10 -5.50 1.081 4.36 4.75 5.17 5.14CO-13 MH-13 MH-12 22 2.15 29.37 63.77 54 63.77 501.33 4.01 -2.27 -3.70 6.500 4.73 4.36 4.38 4.36CO-14 MH-14 MH-14A 245 1.78 163.29 293.57 72 293.57 265.09 10.38 -7.44 -8.40 0.392 5.20 10.00 5.09 3.92CO-14A MH-14A Pump House 30 1.78 163.29 292.10 72 292.10 289.30 10.33 -8.40 -8.54 0.467 10.00 11.00 3.92 3.77CO-15 MH-15 T-105 95 1.79 130.91 236.57 72 236.57 249.59 8.37 -6.87 -7.20 0.347 6.72 5.50 5.73 5.44CO-16 MH-16 MH-15 454 1.83 70.70 130.42 72 130.42 252.97 4.61 -5.25 -6.87 0.357 8.50 6.72 6.16 5.73CO-20 MH-20 MH-21 54 2.69 2.90 7.86 15 7.86 3.05 6.41 2.43 2.31 0.222 5.44 5.41 6.21 5.41CO-201 CB-201 CB-202 29 4.86 0.08 0.37 12 0.37 8.24 5.30 3.65 2.10 5.345 5.95 4.10 4.09 4.10CO-202 CB-202 MH-20 68 2.70 2.90 7.89 15 7.89 5.43 6.43 2.10 2.58 -0.706 4.10 5.44 6.46 5.44CO-203 CB-203 CB-204 16 4.86 0.08 0.39 12 0.39 3.33 2.84 4.28 4.14 0.875 6.58 6.44 5.12 5.12CO-204 CB-204 MH-22 38 4.83 0.16 0.77 12 0.77 6.46 0.99 3.94 2.69 3.289 6.44 5.48 5.12 5.10CO-205 CB-205 MH-22 15 4.86 0.13 0.62 12 0.62 1.84 0.79 2.26 2.30 -0.267 4.96 5.48 5.10 5.10CO-206 CB-206 MH-23 20 4.01 0.23 0.91 12 0.91 5.28 1.16 1.44 1.00 2.200 4.14 4.80 4.81 4.80CO-207 CB-207 MH-25 43 4.86 0.52 2.54 18 2.54 14.33 1.44 -0.57 -1.37 1.860 3.36 4.13 4.16 4.13CO-208 CB-208 MH-25 10 4.86 0.38 1.86 18 1.86 10.50 1.05 0.25 0.15 1.000 3.83 4.13 4.13 4.13CO-209 CB-209 MH-26 32 4.86 0.17 0.82 12 0.82 3.33 3.51 3.68 3.40 0.875 5.50 6.13 4.43 4.42CO-21 MH-21 MH-22 38 2.68 2.90 7.84 15 7.84 3.63 6.39 2.11 2.23 -0.316 5.41 5.48 5.66 5.10CO-210 CB-210 MH-27 14 3.44 0.13 0.45 15 0.45 11.84 4.65 3.29 2.82 3.357 6.43 6.71 4.43 4.43CO-211 CB-211 MH-28 28 4.01 0.16 0.64 12 0.64 3.56 0.81 2.02 1.74 1.000 7.08 7.14 6.31 6.30CO-212 CB-212 MH-29 14 3.44 0.51 1.75 12 1.75 3.56 2.23 4.22 4.08 1.000 6.85 7.29 7.32 7.29CO-22 MH-22 MH-23 208 2.68 3.19 8.59 24 8.59 2.22 2.74 -0.72 -0.70 -0.010 5.48 4.80 5.10 4.80CO-23 MH-23 MH-24 63 2.60 3.41 8.95 24 8.95 19.54 2.85 -0.70 -1.17 0.746 4.80 4.71 4.81 4.71CO-24 MH-24 T-208 197 2.58 3.55 9.23 24 9.23 14.23 2.94 -1.34 -2.12 0.396 4.71 4.20 4.75 4.42CO-25 MH-25 T-208 18 2.28 25.52 58.65 27.6 58.65 92.97 2.83 -2.08 -2.12 0.222 4.13 4.20 4.44 4.42CO-26 MH-26 T-208 208 3.08 0.30 0.92 24 0.92 16.60 0.29 -1.00 -2.12 0.538 6.13 4.20 4.42 4.42CO-27 MH-27 MH-26 53 3.43 0.13 0.45 15 0.45 11.84 0.37 0.48 -1.30 3.358 6.71 6.13 4.43 4.42CO-28 MH-28 MH-31 22 2.37 45.60 109.06 42 109.06 95.92 11.34 -4.20 -4.40 0.909 7.14 6.95 6.30 6.04CO-29 MH-29 MH-28 37 2.70 4.99 13.57 12 13.57 8.69 17.28 3.94 1.74 5.946 7.29 7.14 11.66 6.30CO-30 MH-30 MH-30A 56 2.38 40.46 97.10 42 97.10 79.53 10.09 -3.65 -4.00 0.625 8.80 7.55 7.11 6.59CO-301 CB-301 MH-40 8 2.31 24.47 56.93 36 56.93 160.82 4.22 -1.30 -1.40 1.250 4.01 4.34 4.35 4.34CO-301A CB-301A CB-301 51 2.41 1.35 3.29 24 3.29 24.54 1.05 0.70 0.10 1.176 4.70 4.01 4.02 4.01CO-302 CB-302 CB-301 81 4.86 0.44 2.16 24 2.16 15.90 0.69 0.40 0.00 0.494 3.80 4.01 4.02 4.01CO-303 CB-303 T-303 7 2.41 8.57 20.81 18 20.81 16.84 11.78 -1.00 -1.18 2.571 3.72 3.80 4.34 4.06CO-305 CB-305 CB-304 31 2.40 39.34 94.97 36 94.97 65.61 13.44 -2.20 -2.50 0.968 5.16 5.34 5.97 5.34CO-305A CB-305A CB-305B 24 2.41 13.44 32.63 24 32.63 42.45 10.38 0.50 0.00 2.083 5.10 5.30 5.60 5.30CO-305B CB-305B CB-305C 106 2.41 24.00 58.20 30 58.20 47.46 11.86 -0.50 -1.34 0.792 5.30 5.10 6.36 5.10CO-305C CB-305D CB-305 21 2.40 38.24 92.36 30 92.36 52.03 18.82 -1.50 -1.70 0.952 5.00 5.16 5.79 5.16CO-305C CB-305C CB-305D 21 2.40 31.96 77.22 30 77.22 46.54 15.73 -1.34 -1.50 0.762 5.10 5.00 5.44 5.00CO-306 CB-306 CB-305D 21 2.41 3.27 7.94 12 7.94 3.48 10.10 3.00 2.80 0.952 5.00 5.00 6.04 5.00CO-306A CB-306A CB-305A 23 2.41 6.72 16.32 15 16.32 6.02 13.30 3.20 3.00 0.870 5.62 5.10 6.57 5.10CO-306B CB-306B CB-305B 23 2.41 5.28 12.83 15 12.83 6.02 10.46 3.20 3.00 0.870 5.60 5.30 6.21 5.30

PROPOSED Stormwater Drainage System - 2-Year Storm Event


Length(Unified)

(ft)

SystemIntensity

(in/h)System

CA (acres)

SystemRational

Flow(ft³/s)

Rise(Unified)

(in)Flow(ft³/s)

Capacity(Full

Flow)(ft³/s)

Velocity(ft/s)

Invert(Start) (ft)

Invert(Stop) (ft)

Slope(Calculated)

(%)

ElevationGround

(Start) (ft)

ElevationGround

(Stop) (ft)

HydraulicGrade Line

(In) (ft)


CO-306C CB-306C CB-305C 22 2.41 3.98 9.66 12 9.66 3.40 12.30 3.00 2.80 0.909 5.10 5.10 6.72 5.10CO-30A MH-30A MH-28 32 2.38 40.46 96.88 42 96.88 79.53 10.07 -4.00 -4.20 0.625 7.55 7.14 6.59 6.30CO-31 MH-31 MH-15 26 2.37 45.60 108.97 42 108.97 88.24 11.33 -4.40 -4.60 0.769 6.95 6.72 6.04 5.73CO-32 MH-32 T-303 30 2.32 13.63 31.83 24 31.83 13.13 6.37 -0.97 -1.18 0.700 4.18 3.80 5.30 4.06CO-33 CB-304 CB-304A 57 2.39 39.62 95.56 42 95.56 72.99 9.93 -3.00 -3.30 0.526 5.34 7.50 8.01 7.50CO-33A CB-304A MH-30 66 2.39 40.46 97.36 42 97.36 73.26 10.12 -3.30 -3.65 0.530 7.50 8.80 7.73 7.11CO-40 MH-40 CB-401 48 2.31 24.47 56.89 36 56.89 80.06 3.79 -0.64 -0.37 -0.563 4.34 5.83 4.43 4.30CO-401 CB-401 MH-25 58 2.29 24.63 56.95 36 56.95 183.30 3.80 -0.37 -2.08 2.948 5.83 4.13 4.30 4.13CO-50 MH-50 T-34 475 2.41 13.63 33.09 24 33.09 8.76 6.49 -0.25 -0.50 0.053 6.00 5.22 8.81 5.18CO-501 CB-501 MH-50 15 2.41 4.71 11.45 12 11.45 6.50 14.58 2.00 1.50 3.333 6.00 6.00 7.55 6.00CO-502 CB-502 MH-50 15 2.41 4.71 11.45 12 11.45 6.50 14.58 2.00 1.50 3.333 6.00 6.00 7.55 6.00CO-60 MH-60 MH-15 98 2.41 14.61 35.48 48 35.48 180.64 2.82 1.34 -0.21 1.582 7.73 6.72 5.79 5.73

PROJ. No.:

DATE:

DA

TE

No

.D

ES

CR

IP

TIO

ND

ES

IG

NE

RR

EV

IE

WE

R

SC

AL

E:

DA

TU

M:

VE

RT

.:

HO

RZ

.:

VE

RT

.:

HO

RZ

.:

MS

V

IE

W:

LA

YE

R S

TA

TE

:

File

P

ath

: J:\D

WG

\P

20

11

\0

92

6\A

30

\C

ivil\P

la

n\2

01

10

92

6A

30

-S

to

rm

CA

D-0

1.d

wg

L

ayo

ut: S

TP

-0

1 P

lo

tte

d: F

ri, Ju

ly 0

1, 2

01

6 - 2

:3

8 P

M U

se

r: kg

oo

dro

w

Plo

tte

r: D

WG

T

O P

DF

.P

C3

C

TB

F

ile

: F

O.S

TB

20110926.A30

JUNE 2016

CIT

Y O

F N

EW L

ON

DO

N

BA

NK

& B

LIN

MA

N S

TREE

T D

RA

INA

GE

EXIS

TIN

G D

RA

INA

GE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

NEW

LO

ND

ON

CO

NN

ECTI

CU

T

1" =

4

0'

LEGEND

PROJ. No.:

DATE:

DA

TE

No

.D

ES

CR

IP

TIO

ND

ES

IG

NE

RR

EV

IE

WE

R

SC

AL

E:

DA

TU

M:

VE

RT

.:

HO

RZ

.:

VE

RT

.:

HO

RZ

.:

MS

V

IE

W:

LA

YE

R S

TA

TE

:

File

P

ath

: J:\D

WG

\P

20

11

\0

92

6\A

30

\C

ivil\P

la

n\2

01

10

92

6A

30

-S

to

rm

CA

D-0

1.d

wg

L

ayo

ut: S

TP

-0

2 P

lo

tte

d: F

ri, Ju

ly 0

1, 2

01

6 - 2

:3

8 P

M U

se

r: kg

oo

dro

w

Plo

tte

r: D

WG

T

O P

DF

.P

C3

C

TB

F

ile

: F

O.S

TB

20110926.A30

JUNE 2016

CIT

Y O

F N

EW L

ON

DO

N

BA

NK

& B

LIN

MA

N S

TREE

T D

RA

INA

GE

PRO

POSE

D D

RA

INA

GE

IMPR

OV

EMEN

TS

NEW

LO

ND

ON

CO

NN

ECTI

CU

T

1" =

4

0'

LEGEND


Appendix C

Pumping Station Inspection Findings (Memo with attached email)


F:\P2011\0926\A30\PumpingStationEvaluation\20151203-PumpInspection-SummaryMemo.docx

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: John McGrane, GEI

FROM: John Sobanik, P.E., Kurt Mailman, P.E.

DATE: December 3, 2015

RE: Shaw's Cove Stormwater Pumping StationMechanical Inspection, November 17, 2015

On November 17, 2015 Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. performed a Mechanical Inspection of the Shaw’sCove Pumping Station. This mechanical inspection included an inspection of the wet well (inletgates were closed, water removed via sump pump and debris removed) and a pump drawdowntest at the end of the inspection. The drawdown test was done by filling the wet well with aknown volume of water (inlet gates were closed during the drawdown), a tape measure &stopwatch were used for collecting operational data.

As a result of the pumping station evaluation, we recommend that Pump #3 should not beoperated until repairs to the pump bell housing and impeller interference issues are completed.Furthermore, the long-term pumping capability of Pump #1 may be compromised by thesheared grease fitting on the lower/bell bearing.

The following items were deemed important to convey to the City of New London before theformal deliverable:

1. The drawdown test pumping rates for Pump #1 and Pump #2 were found to besignificantly less than the published capacity of 31,500 gpm @ 600 rpm. The reason for theegregious disparity is not clear at this time, but is being investigated further.

a. Pump #1 – 7,900 gpm at a pump speed of approximately 465 rpm* (would beapproximately 10,193 gpm, @ design 600 rpm**)

b. Pump #2 – 5,750 gpm at a pump speed of approximately 500 rpm* (would beapproximately 6,900 gpm, @ design 600 rpm**)

c. Pump #3 – Not run due to condition of pump (see item #2). * pumps are reported to run at lower rpm due to vibration concerns** assumes centrifugal affinity laws apply to propeller type impeller - pump manufacturer to be contacted for additional information.

2. The lower bearing housing/bell end of Pump #3 was found to be missing 9 consecutivebolts out of the 16 total bolts on the flange, allowing the bell to tilt at an angle which causedthe bell to interfere with the impeller. The impeller could not be turned by hand. Thisfinding supports the operator’s comment that Pump #3 is much noisier than Pumps #1 &#2. The alignment of the lower bearing with of the shaft centerline has also beencompromised.

Mr. John McGraneDecember 3, 2015Page 2 of 5


F&O advised the operator to avoid operating Pump #3 on the day of the inspection. Werecommend that the City repair this pump before operating it further, as the risk of muchmore expensive damage to the pump can occur if it is operated further (see photo 1).

3. The grease line for the lower bearing on Pump #1 has sheared off of the lower bearinghousing (on the bell section), leaving stormwater as the only lubricant for this criticalbearing. F&O recommends removing the corroded fitting and repairing this lineimmediately to provide grease lubricant to the lower bearing (see photo 2 and 3).

4. The cause of the oil loss from the Pump #1 Reduction Gear Box was found during theinspection of the wet well. The oil cooling lines just below the main floor were found tohave leaking joints. F&O recommends repairing the oil leaks in the oil cooling supply andreturn lines.

5. It was confirmed by divers doing an inspection in 2011 that the 78 inch discharge/isolationgate to Shaw’s Cove did not to completely close. A significant amount of sediment anddebris was noted as the cause. This gate prevents high storm and high tide flood water inShaw’s Cove from coming into the low areas on Bank Street and burdens the stormwaterpump station with additional water to pump. F&O recommends that the cause or causes ofthis gate not completely closing be corrected.

We identified other items during the evaluation. Design of corrective action for thesedeficiencies will be included in the bid documents for the overall pump station upgrade.



Photo 1: Pump #3 – Missing 9 of 16 Flange Bolts on Lower Bearing/Bell Section



Photo 2: Pump #1 – Grease Line Not Connected to Lower Bearing – Corrosion FailedConnection to Housing



Photo 3: Pump #1 – Grease Line Not Connected to Lower Bearing – Corrosion Failedconnection to Housing (Pipe Nipple)




Appendix D

Pumping Station Megger Testing Report


Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Megger Testing Inspection

Summary Report

City of New London New London, Connecticut

June 2, 2015

Fuss & O’Neill

146 Hartford Road

Manchester, CT 06040

H:\TECH\Project\New London Hurricane Barrier\New Bank Street Storm Drainage\Megger Testing\Transmittal.Docx i

Table of Contents

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station

Megger Testing Inspection

Summary Report

New London, Connecticut

1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1

2 Discussion of Megger Testing ................................................... 1

3 Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Insulation Testing Results ....... 3

4 Shaw's Cove Pumping Station Equipment Observations ....... 7

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................... 9

5.1 Megger Testing ...................................................................................................... 9

5.2 Equipment Condition Issues Identified ................................................................ 9

6 Budgetary Level Opinion of Cost to Correct Condition Issues10

Tables

Table 1 Typical Insulation Resistance Readings for Pump Motors ..................................................... 2

Table 2 Typical Megger Results and Conclusions ................................................................................... 2

Table 3 Megger Testing Summary Results ............................................................................................... 4

Appendices End of Report

Exhibit A Megger Testing Plan

Attachment A Megger Testing Results Table 4

H:\TECH\Project\New London Hurricane Barrier\New Bank Street Storm Drainage\Megger Testing\Transmittal.Docx 1

1 Introduction

On May 18th, 2015, utilizing industry standard equipment and practices, Fuss & O’Neill performed “megger

testing” on the critical equipment at the Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station. The insulation resistance readings

recorded at the time of the testing did not identify any insulation related issues at the facility’s critical

conductors or motors which could negatively affect the reliability of the pumping station. There were

however, equipment condition issues observed at the time of the testing which could lead to serious failures

and have a negative impact on the reliability of the facility. Our budgetary level opinion of cost to repair and

correct these issues is in the $4,300 to $6,700 range.

The Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station, constructed in the late 1970s, evacuates interior stormwater drainage

flows during and subsequent to rainfall events which require the gravity gates discharging stormwater to the

Shaw’s Cove to be closed to prevent interior flooding from the Long Island Sound. It is part of New

London’s Flood Control System which is regulated pursuant to 33 CFR 208.10, and requires inspection in

conformance with Appendix C of the USACE Levee Owners Manual for Non-Federal Flood Works (latest

revision) which describes the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. Levee systems must maintain

“minimally acceptable” or “acceptable” status under this program to be eligible for Federal funds for repairs

required subsequent to flood events. One of the components of the inspection is annual megger testing.

Subsequent to soliciting information from operations staff, we were neither able to locate any prior testing

records nor confirm that prior megger testing had been completed for this station. As such, there is a not an

existing baseline for which to compare megger testing data at the facility.

The following sections of this report include:

Discussion of Megger Testing

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Insulation Test Results

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Riser Diagram

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Equipment Condition Observations

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Insulation Testing Conclusions and Recommendations

Budgetary Level Opinion of Cost

Megger Testing Plan

1. Attachment A - Megger Testing Results Table

See Figure 1, included within this report, for a riser diagram of the Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station which

depicts the basic configuration of the electrical distribution system and the components tested.

2 Discussion of Megger Testing

Meggers, or Megohmeters, are often used by service personnel or end users for two types of testing, Pass Fail

Testing and Trend Testing.

Pass Fail Testing

Using Megger results as a pass/fail determination has to be done with great care due to the many variables

and judgments involved. Some of the variables to consider are: length of cable, equipment type and


configuration, size and type of conductors, ambient temperature and humidity, status of the motor (new,

submerged, or previously submerged). Consideration for all these variables should be made when using a

Megger reading to evaluate the condition of an electrical distribution panel, motor, submersible motor and/or

cable.

As an example, with submersible electric motors (used on sump pumps), the cable is considered an integral

part of the motor if the pumps are installed in water or wastewater, and moisture often infiltrates into the

motor. All of these affect the megger test results. The test results of submersible motors can be substantially

different from the test results of standard electrical motors or other electrical devices installed in dry

conditions.

In addition, published guidelines typically present significant plus or minus tolerances and the unique

environment and operating conditions often make it difficult to identify a pass/fail criterion for megger

testing. Differences between published guidelines and actual measurements do not necessarily indicate a

problem.

The Submersible Wastewater Pump Association has published the following Table 1 with typical insulation

resistance readings for pump motors.

Table 1 – Typical Insulation Resistance Readings for Pump Motors

Condition of Motor Megger Results

(Megohm)

New motor out of wet well > 20.0

Old motor out of wet well > 10.0

New motor installed in wet well > 2.0

Old motor installed in wet well > 0.5

Motor which may have been damaged by lightning or may have

damaged leads but is still acceptable to operate.

> 0.02

A motor which has been damaged by lightning or has damaged cable

and still may be operational, but should be pulled for repair

> 0.01

One can see from the above table that acceptable results have a very wide range and that the conditions effect

the conclusion one might draw regarding the condition of the equipment.

For motors, NEMA standards require a minimum resistance to ground (at 40 degrees C, ambient) of 1

megohm per kV of rating plus 1 megohm. Medium size motors in good condition will generally have

megohmmeter readings in excess of 50 megohms. Low readings may indicate a significantly reduced

insulation condition caused by contamination from moisture, oil or conductive dirt, or deterioration from age

or excessive heat.

For pass/fail measurements, when evaluating existing electrical equipment that has been in service for more

than 5 years, F&O uses the following general guidelines to determine the insulation integrity of electrical

equipment, cables and motors:


Table 2 – Typical Megger Results and Conclusions

Megger Results

(Megohm)

Conclusion

> 100 Very clear indication of acceptable insulation

20 to 100 Very likely indication of acceptable insulation

10 to 20 Likely acceptable, however conditions should be

evaluated

1 to 10 Careful evaluation is needed before considering

acceptable.

0.5 to 1 Likely a problem

< 0.5 Definitely a problem

Any megger measurement below 1 megohm must be carefully evaluated in the context of the environment and

age of the equipment. The 1 megohm threshold is not a hard/fast rule, moreso a starting point.

Trend Testing

Meggers are best utilized as a trending analysis tool. To accomplish this, a test procedure should be

established and used consistently over time. After a benchmark is established, periodic measurements should

be taken. This procedure must be continued for subsequent tests to accurately determine if the rate of

insulation breakdown is occurring at an abnormal rate. This determination is “subjective” and must be based

on sound judgment and experience.

The reason why the term "subjective" is used is that often electrical equipment manufacturers and industry

standards provide vague (and sometime contradictory) information and/or general rules of thumb that do not

necessarily apply to the situation and/or conditions associated with the equipment being tested.

As mentioned above, one megger testing result for a motor means little unless it is imminently in a failure

mode. A curve recording resistance over time (such as year to year), with the motor cold and hot, may

provide a good indication of the rate of deterioration. This curve provides the information needed to decide

if the motor can be safely left in service until the next scheduled inspection time.

When comparing year-to-year megger test results, generally a 20% to 30% change from one year to the next

would indicate a possible problem.

3 Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Insulation Testing

Results

Equipment tested is typically categorized as either critical or non-critical. All equipment tested at the Shaw’s

Cove was considered Critical.

At Shaw’s Cove we classified the service entrance, the automatic transfer switch, the power feeders, the main

distribution panel (MDP), the sluice gate and grease pump motors as critical electrical components.


The testing was performed at Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station utilizing a Megger MIT 420 Insulation Tester.

The facility’s incoming lines voltage measurements averaged around 200 volts the day of testing. All

conductors and apparatus tested were first tested at 250 volts DC with the Insulation Tester. Upon

verification of acceptable insulation resistance values at this level the conductors and apparatus were

subsequently tested at 500 volts and data collected per ANSI/NETA specifications and Army Core of

Engineers requirements.


Equipment Tested

Main feed conductors from service disconnect to the transfer switch

Transfer switch Phases A, B & C ~ Line, Load & Standby current carrying components

Distribution panel feeders for 208 volt 3 phase and 110 panels and panel line side buses.

Stand by generator feed conductors

Sluice Gate #1 Phase A, B & C conductors

Sluice Gate #1 Motor windings







Pressure Gate Phase A, B & C conductors

Pressure Gate Motor windings

Grease unit #1 Pump

Grease unit #2 Pump

Grease unit #3 Pump

Three phase and single phase breakers Line and load for afore mentioned motor circuits

All breakers both panels – Line side terminals and current carrying components.

Equipment Not Tested:

Sump Pump – Was not present at time of survey

Pump Bypass Valves – Were not accessible at time of testing

110 volt single phase non-critical circuits not listed above

110 volt control, telemetry & instrumentation circuits

Three phase circuits not listed above

Testing Summary: The following Table 3 summarizes the test results:

Table 3 – Megger Testing Summary Results


Test Component Critical? Result

Service Entrance disconnect (load side through

pivots to knife blades only – line side energized)

Yes Acceptable

Transfer switch normal and standby power feeds

from service and stand by power disconnects

Yes Acceptable

208 and 110 volt distribution panel feeds (from

transfer switch) and panel buses

Yes Acceptable

Gates 1-4 & Pressure Gate power feeds and circuit

breakers

Yes Acceptable

Gates 1-4 & Pressure Gate motor windings Yes Acceptable

Pumps 1-3 Grease Pump motor windings Yes Acceptable


The test for the electrical service entrance was performed beginning at the first Main disconnect switch and

included service conductors, transfer switch through to main panel boards including line side of the circuit

breakers with the breakers in the open position.

See Figure 1 on the next page for a graphical representation Riser Diagram indicating the test locations and

results.

See Attachment A for raw test data.

Deficiencies: No insulation deficiencies were identified during testing.

Non-critical loads: None were tested at this time.

Figure 1

1. Riser Diagram – Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station


4 Shaw's Cove Pumping Station Equipment

Observations

Underground Service Entrance Conduit to Meter Box Separation

1. This separation has exposed the entrance cables to sharp edges on the meter box enclosure and the

environment.

2. In addition it is possible the settling movement is pulling the conductors out of the terminals in the

meter socket.

Separation Point


Main Service Disconnect Fuses – Poor Condition

1. The fuses are corroded and are in poor condition. This could lead to a failure and single phase

condition for the facility.


5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the results from the Megger testing and visual observations, we concluded and recommend the

following:

5.1 Megger Testing

1. No insulation deficiencies were identified at this juncture.

2. It is important that the test data from 2015 be recorded and appropriately filed for reference as a

baseline, for use as the starting point to evaluate and record changes over time (i.e. begin

Trending Analysis).

3. The test results should be tracked annually and compared to see if there are any significant

changes. A 20% to 30% change from one year to the next could indicate a possible problem

5.2 Equipment Condition Issues

Identified

1. A separated service entrance conduit exists. The City should schedule a shutdown of power to

the building, and repair the separated Service entrance conduit to the building utilizing a licensed

electrician. The electrician will need to extend the conduit fitting back into the meter box, or

install a larger meter box to correct the separation issue as this is due to settling over time. The

electrician should also install an insulating bushing to complete the work if one does not

currently exist.

2. The building’s Service Main protective devices are fuses which are in poor condition. These

should be replaced as soon as possible and the terminals cleaned, at a minimum.

3. It is our recommendation that the fusible safety switch which serves as the Service Main

protective device and Main Service Disconnect should be replaced with a lockable circuit

breaker as a longer term solution.

4. The facility’s automatic transfer switch should be reviewed to assure it provides phase loss

protection, and that it is configured and working.


6 Budgetary Level Opinion of Cost to Correct

Condition Issues

Recommended Electrical System Repairs and Upgrades

3 Pole Breaker and Enclosure $350.

Conduit Fittings, Wire and Miscellaneous Hardware $500.

Electrical Contractor labor $2,500.

Engineering, Project Management & Administration $1,800.

Budgetary Opinion of Cost Total $5,150.

Budgetary Level Range Opinion of Cost (-15% to +30%): $4,380 - $6,700

Since Fuss & O’Neill has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the

Contractor(s’) methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Fuss & O’Neill’s opinions of

probable total project costs and construction cost are made on the basis of Fuss & O’Neill’s experience and qualifications and

represent Fuss & O’Neill’s best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer familiar with the construction

industry; but Fuss & O’Neill cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual total project or construction costs will

not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared by the Fuss & O’Neill. If prior to the bidding or negotiating phase the Client

wishes greater assurance as to total project or construction costs, the Client shall employ an independent cost estimator.


Exhibit A

Megger Testing Plan

H:\TECH\Project\New London Hurricane Barrier\New Bank Street Storm Drainage\Megger Testing\Transmittal.Docx

Exhibit A Megger Testing Plan


Prepared by Fuss & O’Neill

May 22, 2015

Background

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) “Levee Owner’s Manual for Non-Federal Flood Control

Works” and “USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program Levee System Evaluation”

provides guidelines for testing within pump stations. The testing recommendations are to perform

“annual” megger testing for critical pumps and power cables within the pumping stations associated

with the flood control system. The overall objective of the testing is to determine if the cable or

equipment insulation meets manufacturers and industry standards for insulation resistance. Measuring

the insulation integrity is a good preventative/predictive maintenance activity that can often detect a

problem with critical equipment before a failure mode occurs. The results of testing should be

documented using USACE’s “Flood Damage Reduction Segment/System Inspection Report” and the

Megger Testing Plan developed for the City. All testing and inspection reports need to be kept in a

logbook and maintained at each pump station.

Purpose

The purpose of this Megger Testing Plan is to provide guidance in performing annual Megger testing to

evaluate the condition of power cables and electrical equipment and to comply with USACE

requirements.

Responsible Party

The Flood Control Superintendent is responsible to have the megger testing performed. The results of

the megger testing should be reviewed by a qualified electrical engineer or appropriate City staff.

Schedule

Megger testing should be performed at least once every 12 months. The testing should be performed

during periods of low water and when large storm events are not impending (i.e. when the pump

stations are not likely to be in operation).

Attached are the following:

1. Results from megger testing performed on May 18, 2015. This data can be used as baseline for

future testing.


Testing

Testing should be performed on the list of equipment included in the table below and in accordance

with the technical specification Section 26 01 26, provided in Attachment A.

List of Equipment to be Tested

Test Location Shaw’s Cove

Service Entrance

Equipment

X

Main Distribution Panels

and Feeder Circuits from

Transfer Switch

X

Transfer Switch Feed

(Generator Feed)

X

Transfer Switch Feed

(Normal power)

X

Generator Transfer Switch X

Gates 1-4 Branch Circuits

and Motors

X

Pressure Gate Branch

Circuit and Motor

X

Grease Pump 1-3 Motors X

Evaluation of Results

The results of the Megger testing should be evaluated for both the absolute value as well as looking at

trends over time. As a general rule, a megger test result of 100 meg ohm or greater is an indication of

good insulation performance. A precipitous change (e.g. 20% change) of any test result from one year to

the next could also be an indication that insulation integrity is compromised. Test results should be

reviewed by a qualified electrical engineer in the following frequency:

At a minimum, once every 5 years

When results of 100 meg ohm or less are measured

When the results of the testing changes more than 20 percent from one year to the next.


Record Keeping

After the completion of the megger testing, a testing report should be prepared summarizing the details

and findings of the testing. A table to summarize year to year results is provided in Attachment A. The

completed testing results and updated summary table should be included in the report. A copy of the

report is to be kept at the Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station and in the Engineering Department.

Records of the testing should be kept for a period of at least 10 years.

Attachments

Attachment A - Megger Testing Result Summary Table

Attachment A

Megger Testing Results Table

Attachment A - Megger Testing Results Table 4

Table 4

Test Location

2015 2016 2017

2018 2019

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Ω

Feeds From Main Switch to Panel buses

(Includes main service disconnect except

line side, feed to transfer switch, transfer

switch, power distribution panel buses

and all breakers in open position)

Line 1 (Phase A) 755M

Line 2 (Phase B) 627M

Line 3 (Phase C) 705M

Generator Feed to ATS Switch

Line 1 (Phase A) 5.9G

Line 2 (Phase B) 6.2G

Line 3 (Phase C) 2.6G

Sluice Gate Valves

Gate #1 - Line 1 (Phase A) 15.9M

Gate #1 - Line 2 (Phase B) 12.1M

Gate #1 - Line 3 (Phase C) 14.9M

Gate #1 – Motor Windings 1.8G









Pressure Gate - Line 1 (Phase A) 6.29M

Pressure Gate - Line 2 (Phase B) 5.97M

Pressure Gate - Line 3 (Phase C) 5.95M

Pressure Gate – Motor

Windings

616M

Table 4 (Cont)

Test Location

2015

2016 2017

2018 2019

Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Ω

Grease Unit Motor Pumps

Grease Unit Motor Pump # 1 905M



Generator Feed To Automatic Transfer

Switch Circuit

Line 1 (Phase A) 5.9G

Line 2 (Phase B) 6.2G

Line 3 (Phase C) 2.6G


Appendix E

Opinion of Probable Cost – Shaw’s Cove Pumping Station Diesel-Driven Pump Replacement, and Electrically-Driven Pump Replacement


DRAFT

F:\P2011\0926\A30\Opinion of Cost\20160121_30 pct Opinion of Cost Shaw Cove PS Pump Replacement 1/21/2016

ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LEVEL OPINION O SHEET: 1 OF XX

PROJECT: SHAW'S COVE PUMPING STATION PUMP REPLACEM 01/18/16LOCATION: NEW LONDON CTDESCRIPTION:

NUM. COSTITEM NO. UNITS OF PER

UNITS UNIT SOURCE

1 Diesel Driven Axial Flow Pump, Tube & Gear Box EA 3 $487,500.00 $1,462,500Patterson Budget Quote with 1.5x install

2 36-inch Check Valve (duck bill) EA 3 $50,000.00 $150,000 Engineers Judgment3 36-inch DI Pipe and Appurtenances LF 60 $1,000.00 $60,000 Delray Hartford Prices

4 36-inch Isolation Knife Gate Valve and Motorized Operator EA 0 $56,250.00 $0Budget quote previous projects plus operator

5 Pump Building Structural Modifications (1) LS 1 $170,000.00 $170,000 Engineers Judgment6 Cast-in-Place Concrete Foundation and Pump Pits LS 3 $30,000.00 $90,000 Engineers Judgment

7 700 hp Diesel Engine EA 3 $160,000.00 $480,000Hartford Prices from Contractors

8 Electrical Distribution EA 1 $40,000.00 $40,000 Engineers Judgment9 Demolition EA 1 $100,000.00 $100,000 Engineers Judgment

10 30kW Diesel Standby Generator w/ATS - 2 day diesel EA 1 $50,000.00 $50,000

Similar Project, No enclosure or additional fuel storage

11 Heating, Ventilation, and Dehumidification LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Engineers Judgment12 Controls - Wet Well Level/Pump & Level on Blinman (2) Lot 1 $115,000.00 $115,000 Engineers Judgment13 700 HP VFD-type Pump Throttle Controller EA 3 $30,000.00 $90,000 Engineers Judgment14 EA 3 $30,000.00 $90,00015 $0

$2,917,500

L.S. 1 $437,625.00 $437,625 Engineers JudgmentL.S. 1 $25,000.00 $25,000 Previous ProjectsL.S. 1 $291,750.00 $291,750 Previous ProjectsL.S. 1 $145,875.00 $145,875 Previous ProjectsL.S. 1 $29,175.00 $29,175L.S. 1 $58,350.00 $58,350 Previous Projects

$3,905,275$0

SUBTOTAL -30% TO +50% (ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000) TO $5,865,000

judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry; but Fuss & O'Neill cannot and does

Shaw's Cove Pumping Station to evacuate 5 yr storm vs 1 percent chance flood (417 cfs) with new diesel driven pumps

Since Fuss & O'Neill has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor(s)'methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Fuss & O'Neill's opinion of probable Total Project Costsand Construction Cost are made on the basis of Fuss & O'Neill's experience and qualifications and represent Fuss & O'Neill's best

not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Total Project or Construction Costs will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared byFuss & O'Neill. If prior to the bidding or negotiating Phase the Owner wishes greater assurance as to Total Project or Construction Costs,the Owner shall employ an independent cost estimator.

TOTALCOSTITEM DESCRIPTION

Startup, Commissioning and Record Drawings (1% Cost)

Cooling & Comb Air improvemens for engines Haz Materials Abatement (3)

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

Design & USACE 408 & OLISP permitting (15% retrofit)Dewatering and Sediment RemovalConstruction Administration (10% of Total Const. Cost)Mobilization & Demobilization (5% Total Const. Cost)

Insurance and Bonds (2%)

SUBTOTALCONTINGENCY (__0__%) - SEE RANGE BELOW

$2,737,000

DATE PREPARED: ESTIMATOR:KAM CHECKED BY: PLAN SHEET:Fig. XX

Notes: (1) Structural modifications include support pad for new engines and increasing the inlet air and engine cooling outlet air louvers size to accommdate larger engines. (2) Requires conduit or common carrier or wireless means to convey Blinman level signal to PS, $40k budgeted. (3) Assumes no hazardous materials encountered or work in hazardous areas required

DRAFT

F:\P2011\0926\A30\Opinion of Cost\20160121_30 pct Opinion of Cost Shaw Cove PS Pump Replacement 1/21/2016

ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LEVEL OPINIO SHEET: 1 OF XX

PROJECT: SHAW'S COVE PUMPING STATION PUMP REP 01/18/16LOCATION: NEW LONDON CTDESCRIP

ITEMNO. UNITS NUM.

OFCOSTPER

UNITS UNIT SOURCE

1 400 Horsepower Axial Flow Pump and Tube EA 3 $420,000.00 $1,260,000Budget Quote with 1.5x install

2 36-inch Check Valve (duck bill) EA 3 $50,000.00 $150,000 Engineers Judgment

3 36-inch DI Pipe and Appurtenances LF 60 $1,000.00 $60,000 Delray Hartford Prices

4 36-inch Isolation Knife Gate Valve and Motorized Operator EA 0 $56,250.00 $0

Budget quote previous projects plus operator

5 Pump Building Structure and Appurtenances LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Engineers Judgment6 Cast-in-Place Concrete Foundation and Pump Pits LS 3 $30,000.00 $90,000 Engineers Judgment7 Electrical Service EA 1 $150,000.00 $150,000 Engineers Judgment8 Electrical Distribution incl 480/4160 Xformer EA 1 $100,000.00 $100,000 Engineers Judgment9 Misc Electrical EA 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Engineers Judgment

10 EA 1 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000Vendor Cost Est. w/ 24 hour fuel storage

11 Heating, Ventilation, and Dehumidification LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000 Engineers Judgment12 Controls - Wet Well Level/Pump & Level on Blinman (2) Lot 1 $115,000.00 $115,000 Engineers Judgment13 400 HP VFD (4160v) EA 3 $35,000.00 $105,000 Engineers Judgment14 Demolition EA 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 Engineers Judgment15 $0

$3,355,000

L.S. 1 $503,250.00 $503,250 Engineers JudgmentL.S. 1 $25,000.00 $25,000 Previous ProjectsL.S. 1 $335,500.00 $335,500 Previous ProjectsL.S. 1 $167,750.00 $167,750 Previous ProjectsL.S. 1 $33,550.00 $33,550 EstL.S. 1 $67,100.00 $67,100 Previous Projects

$4,487,150$0

SUBTOTAL -30% TO +50% (ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000) TO $6,735,000

CONTINGENCY (__0__%) - SEE RANGE BELOW

$3,143,000

Startup, Commissioning and Record Drawings (1% cost)Insurance and Bonds (2%)

SUBTOTAL

Design & USACE 408 & OLISP permitting (15% retrofit)Dewatering and Sediment RemovalConstruction Administration (10% of Total Const. Cost)Mobilization & Demobilization (5% Total Const. Cost)

Haz Materials Abatement (3)

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

1.2 MW Diesel Standby Power Generator w/ATS - 2 day diesel (1)

judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry; but Fuss & O'Neill cannot and doesnot guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Total Project or Construction Costs will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared byFuss & O'Neill. If prior to the bidding or negotiating Phase the Owner wishes greater assurance as to Total Project or Construction Costs,the Owner shall employ an independent cost estimator.

TOTALCOST

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Shaw's Cove Pumping Station to evacuate 2011 5 yr storm (300 cfs) vs 1 percent chance flood with electrically driven pumps

Since Fuss & O'Neill has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor(s)'methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Fuss & O'Neill's opinion of probable Total Project Costsand Construction Cost are made on the basis of Fuss & O'Neill's experience and qualifications and represent Fuss & O'Neill's best

DATE PREPARED: ESTIMATOR:KAM CHECKED BY: PLAN SHEET:Fig. XX

Notes: (1) Includes sound attentuating enclosure for genset, ATS, dunnage and sitework with 24 hours fuel storage (additional 2 days fuel storage recommended). Installation included. (2) Requires conduit or common carrier or wireless means to convey Blinman level signal to PS, $40k budgeted. (3) Assumes no hazardous materials encountered or work in hazardous areas required


Appendix F

Opinion of Probable Cost – Storm Drainage


FUSS & O'NEILL, INC.146 Hartford Road

Manchester, CT 06040

OPINION OF COST Order of Magnitude Level DATE PREPARED : 06/22/16 SHEET 1 OF 1

PROJECT : Bank Street Drainage Corridor BASIS : Previous Experience

LOCATION : New London, CT

DESCRIPTION: Drainage improvements Reed, Blinman, Bank Streets

DRAWING NO. : ESTIMATOR : KG CHECKED BY : PF

"Order of Magnitude" refers to an opinion of cost made without detailed engineering data. Costs may be estimated by comparison with

similar projects. It is normally expected that an estimate of this type would be accurate within plus 50% or minus 30%.

Since Fuss & O'Neill has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor(s)'

methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Fuss & O'Neill's opinion of probable Total Project Costs

and Construction Cost are made on the basis of Fuss & O'Neill's experience and qualifications and represent Fuss & O'Neill's best

judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry; but Fuss & O'Neill cannot and

does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Total Project or Construction Costs will not vary from opinions of probable cost

prepared by Fuss & O'Neill. If prior to the bidding or negotiating Phase the Owner wishes greater assurance as to Total Project or

Construction Costs, the Owner shall employ an independent cost estimator.

ITEM ITEM UNIT NO. PER TOTAL

NO. DESCRIPTION MEAS. UNITS UNIT COST

REED STREET, UPPER BLINMAN STREET

Catch basin - DoubleType C EA 11 3,500.00$ 38,500.00$

12" RCP LF 48 65.00$ 3,120.00$

15" RCP LF 48 67.00$ 3,216.00$

24" HDPE LF 18 75.00$ 1,350.00$

30" HDPE LF 140 90.00$ 12,600.00$

36" HDPE LF 24 108.00$ 2,592.00$

42" HDPE LF 169 135.00$ 22,815.00$

6' storm manhole EA 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$

Cut pavement, disposal SY 319 16.00$ 5,104.00$

Haul and dispose of trench spoils CY 145 15.00$ 2,175.00$

Replace pavement TON 140 150.00$ 21,000.00$

LOWER BLINMAN STREET

Catch basin - DoubleType C EA 3 3,500.00$ 10,500.00$

Catch basin - DoubleType CL EA 2 3,500.00$ 7,000.00$

6' storm manhole EA 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$

24" HDPE LF 100 75.00$ 7,500.00$

Remove and coordinate with existing drainage structure LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

Cut pavement, disposal SY 90 16.00$ 1,440.00$

Haul and dispose of trench spoils CY 105 15.00$ 1,575.00$


BANK STREET (WEST CROSSING)

42" HDPE LF 67 450.00$ 30,150.00$

6' storm manhole EA 2 12,000.00$ 24,000.00$

Cut pavement, disposal SY 46 16.00$ 736.00$

Haul and dispose of trench spoils CY 55 15.00$ 825.00$


Modify and coordinate with Bank Street drainage vault LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Miscellaneous earthwork LS 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

ALLOWANCES

Utility relocation LS 1 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$

Vacuum test pits LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Traffic control LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$

Bank Street (East Crossing)

Replace 48" RCP incl. test pits, replace pavement LS 1 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$

NOT INCLUDED

Sediment removal from pipes and structures

Sediment sampling, testing, disposal

Premium for handling and disposing of contaminated soil

SUBTOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST 528,998.00$

ENGINEERING/ PERMITTING

Engineering and Permitting (15%) LS 1 79,349.70$ 79,349.70$

Survey/As-Built Mapping LS 1 52,899.80$ 52,899.80$

Construction Administration (10%) LS 1 52,899.80$ 52,899.80$

Mobilization & Demobilization LS 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Testing Laboratory - pavement LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Insurance and Bonds LS 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

TOTAL OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST 764,147.30$

TOTAL OPINION OF COST (ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000) 764,000.00$

Budgetary Range -30% to 50%

Total Rounded Range $535,000 to $1,146,000

F\2011\0926\A30\Opinion of Cost\Bank Street Drainage\Bank Street OOM cost estimate - Final 20160622.xlsx

Documents

Final Project Summary Report Bank Street Drainage Project