Upload
phamdien
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michael Pacholok, Director Purchasing and Materials Management Division City Hall, 18th Floor, West Tower 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2
Joanne Kehoe Manager Construction Services
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
June 29, 2016 Via Website posting (12 pages)
ADDENDUM NO. 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9117-16-5043
Re: Professional Services for Dufferin Sanitary Trunk Sewer (STS) System Improvements at G. Ross Lord Reservoir Municipal Class Enviromental Assessment Study
EXTENDED CLOSING: 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME) JULY 13, 2016
Please refer to the above Request for Proposal (RFP) document in your possession and be advised of the following: I. REVISED: CLOSING DATE A1-1: Revised Closing Date:
The closing date has been extended from July 6, 2016 to July 13, 2016, and the deadline for questions will be July 6, 2016. Please note that there will be no further extensions of the closing date.
A1-2: Section 5.3 – Table 5-1: Proposal Evaluation Form
Replace points to be awarded for Item "c. Project Management, Project Understanding and Approach" to 15 points. Revised table is attached.
A1-3: Section 7.3 – Base Scope of Work and Provisional Items
Table 7-1 was revised as follows (Revised table is attached): Item A8: Class EA public consultation including two (2) PICs. Item B3: Stage 2 Archeological Assessment.
A1-4: Section 3.3.23 – Provisional Item No. 1 Replace Section 3.3.23 with the following: In the event that a more detailed Archeological Assessment is required due to implementation
of the preferred solution, a Stage-2 Assessment Study should be conducted in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Culture’s “Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines, 1993”. Payment for an Archaeological Assessment will be in accordance with Section 7.3 from the Provisional Allowance for this item.
A1-5: Section 3.6.3.5 – Flow Monitoring
1 of 12
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
Replace Section 3.6.3.5 with the following:
Duration of at least ten (10) consecutive months.
II. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Q1: Due to the RFP requirement for a brief turnaround of proposals and, given the
technical nature of the scope of this project, would the City please provide a 2 week extension on the proposal submission deadline?
A1 Answer: See Revision A1-1. Q2: Can you please clarify the number of PICs to be included. Page 27 notes “ two (2)
public consultation meetings and one (1) additional public meeting and comment tracking”, while Table 7-1 Upset Limit Cost Breakdown has only one(1) PIC under item A8
A2 Answer: The Proponent is required to participate in two (2) public consultation meetings including
preparation of display materials, attendance with presentations at the sessions and debriefing with City staff along with performing other related tasks specified in RFP. Table 7-1 has been revised to include two (2) PICs. See Revision A1-3.
Q3: Can you please confirm if a Cultural Heritage Assessment is required in addition to
a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment? A3 Answer: Cultural Heritage Assessment is not required as the sewers alignment is not expected to
affect above ground heritage structures. Table 7-1 has been revised accordingly. See Revision A1-3.
Q4: The WSP Report included in Appendix E of the RFP refers to an SPL being
retained by Wardrop to complete a Geotechnical Investigation as part of their work to complete Technical Memorandum No. 1. Can the City provide us with the geotechnical investigation report?
A4 Answer: The requested document is not available at this point. The City staff will assist the
Successful Vendor to obtain the required background documentation if needed. Q5: Wardrop’s Technical Memorandum No. 1 refers to a number of Figures and
Appendices. They have not been included as part of the RFP. Can the City provide us with this information?
A5 Answer: The requested information is not available at this point. The City staff will assist the
Successful Vendor to obtain the required background documentation if needed. Q6: WSP’s Report is missing Preliminary Drawings as part of Section 6 and Section 7 is
missing in its entirety. Can the City provide us with this information? A6 Answer: The requested information is not available at this point. The City staff will assist the
Successful Vendor to obtain the required background documentation if needed. Q7: Section 3.6.3.5 asks for a duration of at least 12 consecutive months for flow
monitoring, and it is also stated in Section 3.6.1.2(b) that the monitoring and
2 of 12
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
analysis will be used to calibrate the update to the City’s hydraulic model. Given the anticipated schedule outlined in Section 3.2.4(b), the entire 12 months of data cannot be used for this purpose, and only a subset of what is captured. Please confirm the intended use of the flow monitoring data, and whether a specific minimum amount of information is expected for input into the calibration/hydraulic modelling assessment.
A7 Answer: The City wants to capture flow monitoring information to calibrate the model. The plan is
to install the flow monitor at the commencement in August 2016 and capture information up to June-July 2017 in order to capture all seasonal dry weather flows and a couple of major rain events. Allow for 10 months of flow monitoring. The remaining raw data from flow monitoring can be utilized by the City for the detailed design stage and to further calibrate the model at the preliminary design stage. Refer to Revision A1-2.
Q8: Section 3.6.1.2(a) indicates that the City has a hydraulic model that incorporates the
study area. In order to estimate level of effort, please confirm the type (spreadsheet, hydrodynamic, static) and extent of the model’s coverage. If possible, can a copy of the model or screen-capture of its extents be made available during the RFP process? Can the expected model simulations to be evaluated be elaborated, in terms of design storms, future growth, etc.?
A8: Answer: The hydraulic model is an InfoWorks model, and a map showing the drainage area to be
analyzed as part of the project is attached. For the model simulations, see attached the Criteria for Trunk Sewer Capacity Assessment Memo.
Should you have any questions regarding this addendum contact Joan Blake by email at [email protected]. Please attach this addendum to your RFP document and be governed accordingly. Proponents must acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their Proposal in the space provided on the Proposal Submission Form as per Appendix A, Section 4 - Addenda of the RFP document. All other aspects of the RFP remain the same. Yours truly,
Joanne Kehoe Manager, Construction Services Purchasing and Materials Management
3 of 12
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
Revised
Table 5-1 Proposal Evaluation Form
EVALUATION CRITERIA AVAILABLE
POINTS TO BE AWARDED
a. Proponents Profile and Corporate Experience 10
b. Project Team Relevant Experience and Team Structure and Experience Working on Similar Projects
15
c. Project Management, Project Understanding and Approach 15
d. Project Workplan, Time Task Breakdown and Proposed Schedule 15
e. Innovation strategy(ies) or value added 5
f. Proposal Structure and Overall Quality of the Proposal 5
g. QA/QC Plan and Staffing for QA/QC 5
h. Project team experience working in TRCA controlled lands, dams, reservoirs, rivers, and woodlands (Project reference and other materials provided will be used to assess this qualification)
5
TOTAL Technical Proposal Score 75
Proponent must score a minimum of 56.3 points to qualify for the short-list and further evaluation.
Cost of Services – Proponent's fees
Proponent’s fees are calculated as described in Table 7-1
25
TOTAL SCORE 100
Stage 3. INTERVIEW (If applicable)
Proponent must score a minimum of 56.3 points out of the maximum possible 75 points for the Technical Proposal Score to qualify for the short-list and further evaluation as described in Section 5.3.3.
Should an interview be scheduled, the interview will be used to review /refine / revise Proponent’s scores assigned in categories a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h above.
4 of 12
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
Revised
Table 7-1 Upset Limit Cost Breakdown
Item No. Description Cost ($)
A BASE SCOPE OF SERVICES:
A1 Project management, project monthly progress meetings, workshops and all other general requirements during the project.
$
A2 Data gathering, background information (drawings, reports, growth projections, modeling, analysis and other information as necessary)
$
A3 Modelling, analysis and all other studies to assess impacts and present viable options and alternatives for the MCEA including the preferred = solution
$
A4 All Technical Memorandums as listed in the RFP; including submission of draft and final reports
$
A5 Flow and rain monitoring as per Section 3.6.3 $
A6 All other studies and remaining Class EA activities – as required per MCEA Schedule B including submission of draft and final reports* (See Note 1)
$
A7 Agency consultation and all other required meetings as mentioned in the RFP
$
A8 Class EA public consultation, all other meetings identified in the RFP, and coordination including two (2) PIC
$
A9 Field Investigation and natural environment inventory including arborist report, natural environment report (aquatic biologist and other staff), Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) report, and topographical survey to complete the EA and preliminary design.
$
A10 Archeological assessment Stage -1 for the study area $
A11 Geotechnical, hydro-geological and soils investigations including ESA Phase -1 (See Section 3.6.2)
$
A12 Preliminary design (See Section 3.6.4) $
A13 Disbursements $
SUBTOTAL - BASE SCOPE (A) $
B PROVISIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES *(See Note 2)
B1
If required, additional studies and activities required for a MCEA - Schedule C including one (1) additional PIC meeting and all other additional studies and reports required as per the MCEA process (Section 3.3)
$
B2
Complete CCTV inspection, including coding of defects as per NAASCO and COT standards and providing data as per COT format and requirements – 1,000 meter CCTV inspection under low flow conditions (Could be for West Don STS, Dufferin STS, or collection system), including procurement of vendor with 3 quote process, review of CCTV, permits and preparing a report. (Cost will be adjusted based on actual length of CCTV)
$
5 of 12
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
Item No. Description Cost ($)
B3 Stage-2 Archeological Assessment $
B4 Environmental Impact Assessment/Study for the preferred solution $
B5 Allowance - Specialized Disbursements for Public Consultation Activities
$ 10,000.00
B6 Allowance - Health and Safety Equipment $ 10,000.00
B7 Allowance for DSL testing and report (3 quotes will be required) $ 10,000.00
B8 Allowance - Respond to comments received during the review period and any Part II Order requests
$
B9 Traffic control, paid duty police officer allowance to inspect valve chamber or engineering study within road allowance (not for geotechnical work)
$ 10,000.00
SUBTOTAL – PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE (B) $
SUBTOTAL – UNIT PRICE ITEMS (FROM TABLE 7-2 Below) (C) $
TOTAL (D) = SUBTOTAL (A+B+C) $
HST – 13% of TOTAL (D) $
GRAND TOTAL (TOTAL (D) + HST) $
6 of 12
��468ha
HEPC
C N
R
KE
EL
E S
T
FINCH AVE W
BA
TH
UR
ST
ST
STEELES AVE W
SHEPPARD AVE W
DU
FF
ER
IN S
T
SE
NT
INE
L R
D
AL
NE
SS
ST
SE
NL
AC
RD
REINER RD
FL
INT
RD
ACTON AVE
PALM DR
SEARLE AVE
EL
DE
R S
T
WIL
SO
N H
EIG
HT
S B
LV
D
CODSELL AVE
MA
XW
EL
L S
T
FA
YW
OO
D B
LV
D
THE POND RD
WIL
LIA
M R
AL
LE
N R
D
HO
VE
ST
GO
DD
AR
D S
T
BETTY ANN DR
HORSHAM AVE
ELLERSLIE AVE
DREWRY AVE
OVERBROOK PL
YORKVIEW DR
FISHERVILLE RD
PATRICIA AVE
TO
RRESDALE A
VE
MCALLISTER RD
ALMORE AVE
DE
HA
VIL
LA
ND
DR
PE
TR
OL
IA R
D
HOUNSLOW AVE
PLEWES RD
ALEXIS BLVD
CARL HALL RD
COOK RD
BOMBAY AVEINVERMAY AVE
CA
NU
CK
AV
E
DELHI AVE
NASH DR
TORO RD
HIGHWAY 401 C
E
DE
RR
YD
OW
N R
D
GILLEY RD
BAINBRIDGE AVE
AR
MO
UR
BLV
D
CHURCHILL AVE
PLANNING BOUNDARY
SH
AF
TE
SB
UR
Y S
T
HID
DEN
TR
L
ROCKFORD RD
PE
CK
HA
M A
VE
CLANTON PARK RD
BR
YA
NT
ST
RA
DIN
E R
D
CAINES AVE
STEEPROCK DR
LAURELCREST AVE
STA
FF
OR
D R
D
TAVISTOCK RD
VICTORY DR REGENT RD
BEVDALE RD
DALLAS RD
DIANA DR
FOUR WINDS DR
WILDCAT RD
MAG
NETIC
DR
LURGAN DR
BE
FF
OR
T R
D
DE QUINCY BLVD
HU
CK
NA
LL R
D
HOME RD
ASHWARREN RD
RIMROCK RD
LANGHOLM DR
EVANSTON DR
EA
ST
ON
RD
PURDON DR
KENTON DR
YO
NG
E B
LV
D
DEVONDALE AVE
SPALDING RD
TIMBERLANE DR
DOLOMITE DR
KATHERINE RD
CHAMPAGNE DR
BRISBANE RD
TIL
LP
LA
IN R
D
GREENWIN VILLAGE RD
LE PAGE CRT
ROMNEY RD
TILBURY DR
SH
AR
PE
CR
OF
T B
LV
D
CA
RS
CA
DD
EN
DR
FESTIVAL DR
DELABO DR
BA
NT
ING
AV
E
YORK BLVD
FINE ARTS RD
ELYNHILL DR
HANOVER RD
KILLAMARSH DR
KEELEGATE DR
YUKON LANE
WHITBURN CRES
CA
NY
ON
AV
E
GA
MB
ELLO
CR
ES
CA
RP
EN
TE
R R
D
THE CHIMNEYSTACK RD
LIMESTONE CRES
FIN
DLA
Y B
LV
D
BRENTHALL AVE
NE
LS
ON
RD
DO
N R
IVE
R B
LV
D
LISSOM CRES
CATFORD RD
TU
SC
AN
GT
CA
ND
IS D
R
RIDEAU RD
VILLATA GDNS
DOLLERY CRT
SANDRINGHAM DR
ASSINIBOINE RD
PLANNING BOUNDARY
Addedum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
7 of 12
To: Jian Lei
From: Grace Lin
Date: August 12, 2014
Subject: Criteria for Trunk Sewer Capacity Assessment
To answer the question about what criteria should be used to assess the trunk sewer capacity, this
memo will firstly review the criteria documented in the Metro Works Report (October 1993) by
the Water Pollution Control Division of the Metropolitan Toronto Works Department, secondly
review the criteria used in the recent trunk sewer studies, and lastly recommend the criteria to be
used for future trunk sewer studies and improvement projects.
1. Metro Works’ criteria for trunk sewer capacity assessment (Ref.1)
Analyzing Trunk Sewer Capacity
• When analysing the capacity of an existing sanitary trunk sewer, if it can convey the peak
DWF plus I/I of 0.26 l/s/ha without surcharging the pipes, it is considered to have sufficient
capacity and no upgrade is required.
• When analysing the capacity of an existing combined trunk sewer, if it can convey 2.5 times
of the average daily DWF without surcharging the pipes, it is considered to have sufficient
capacity and no upgrade is required.
• If the existing trunk sewers are at or near capacity, new trunk relief sewers will be required.
Designing a new Relief Trunk Sewer
New trunk relief sewers would be installed such that, in addition to providing capacity for future
sanitary flows, maximum relief of the existing system in wet weather would be provided, as well as the
flexibility to divert flows for inspection and maintenance of the system. In situations where trunk sewer
improvement works have effects on CSO, reducing CSO frequency to the watercourse to once per year
on average is required.
The relief for existing I/I is limited to the following:
• The I/I from the 5-year design storm, where the existing I/I in the trunk sewers contributes
to basement flooding, or flooding out the top of maintenance holes on the streets; and
• The I/I from the 1-year design storm or the 0.26 l/s/ha allowance, whichever is greater, in
all other cases. For this, sufficient capacity is provided so that the trunk sewer does not
surcharge to ground level.
When designing a new relief trunk sewer, future peak sanitary flows are calculated, by applying the
Harmon Peaking factor to the average flow which is calculated using 450 l/cap/d for residential
population and 337.5 l/cap/d for new employment population. The flow generated from predicted
increases in employment population is added to the existing flow from
Memorandum
John Livey Deputy City Manager
Toronto Water Water Infrastructure Management Metro Hall, 18th Floor 55 John Street
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6
Tel: 416-338-2841 Fax: 416-338-2828 E-Mail: [email protected]
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
8 of 12
2
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) areas. Employment populations are used to estimated
future ICI flows because of the observed trend is for wet industries such as breweries, metal
finishing, etc., to leave the Metropolitan Toronto area. It is expected that new industries would be
more of the commercial type.
To better understand the rationales of the above criteria, following side notes were also quoted from
Metro Works Report, the Water Pollution Control Division of the Metropolitan Toronto Works
Department, October 1993:
• Storm water entering the trunk sewer system occupies capacity that would otherwise be
available for sanitary flows. It is also the cause of treatment plant by-passes and combined
sewer overflows.
• The usual practice was to design the combined sewers with ample capacity to convey the
runoff from a storm with a 2 to 5 year return period, plus the daily sewage flows. The
treatment of all storm flows was not economically feasible; consequently the usual practice
was to convey an amount up to 2.5 times the daily wastewater flow to the treatment plant,
and to allow the surplus to overflow to nearby watercourses.
• Sewers, unlike treatment plants which can be expanded as flows increase, are designed for
ultimate flows expected from the sewershed. It is not economical, and in most cases not
practical to construct a sewer for existing flows then to construct another sewer in another
10 years for increased flows that has occurred. The cost to oversize a sewer is marginal
compared to the cost of construction (i.e. excavation, tunnelling, disruption of the
community, etc.).
• Therefore, the method of determining design flows for sewers is different from the
method for determining design flows for treatment plants. The design criteria also are more
conservative.
2. Criteria used in the recent trunk sewer capacity studies (Ref.2)
The following criteria were used in the Don River and Central Waterfront Trunk Sewers and
CSO Control Strategy EA which was completed in 2012.
Don Sanitary Trunk Sewers:
Analyzing Trunk Sewer Capacity
• City's planned growth up to 2031;
• Calibrated with flow monitoring data under DWF and WWF conditions;
• Trunk sewer capacity was checked with the 2031 peak DWF, ie. 2031 peak sanitary sewage
flow plus baseflow. It was found that the trunk sewers can convey the flow without
surcharging the pipes.
• Trunk sewer capacity was checked with the 2031 peak DWF plus I/I allowance of
0.26L/s/ha. It was found that some reaches in the trunk sewers were surcharged.
Designing Relief for Existing I/I
• Criteria: convey the 2031 peak sanitary sewage flow with I/I allowance of 0.26L/s/ha plus
the wet weather response associated with the 1-year design storm without surcharging pipes.
Four off-line storage facilities are proposed.
• The storage faculties are designed to relieve the surcharged trunk sewers by spilling peak
flows under wet weather conditions. As the I/I response recedes, the detained flows are
then pumped back to the trunk system. Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
9 of 12
3
Central Waterfront Combined Trunk Sewers:
Analyzing Trunk Sewer Capacity
• City's planned growth up to 2031;
• Calibrated with flow monitoring data under DWF and WWF conditions;
• Trunk sewer capacity was checked with the 2031 peak DWF, ie. 2031 peak sanitary sewage
flow plus baseflow. It was found that the trunk sewers can convey the flow without CSO.
• Trunk sewer capacity was checked with the 2.5 times of 2031 average DWF. It was found
that the trunk sewers can convey the flow without CSO.
Designing a CSO Control Storage System
• Criteria: reducing CSO frequency from each location to the receiving water to once per year
on average, using 1991 as a typical average year.
3. Criteria to be used for future trunk sewer capacity studies and improvement projects
Sanitary Trunk Sewers:
Analyzing Trunk Sewer Capacity
• Population and employment: use the available longest City's planned growth at the time of
analysis;
• Sanitary f sewage low rate: use 240 L/cap/d, or the calibrated with flow monitoring data if
available, whichever is greater;
• Sanitary sewage flow peaking factor: Harmon's formula , or use the calibrated with flow
monitoring data if available;
• Baseflow rate: use 0.08 L/s/ha, or the calibrated with flow monitoring data if available,
whichever is greater;
• Sanitary trunk sewer capacity should be checked with:
a) the future peak DWF, ie. future peak sanitary sewage flow plus baseflow. The trunk
sewers should be able to convey the peak DWF without surcharging the pipes.
b) the future peak sanitary sewage flow plus I/I allowance of 0.26L/s/ha. The trunk sewers
should be able to convey the peak DWF without surcharging the pipes.
• If the existing trunk sewers are at or near capacity under the condition in a), this indicates that
new trunk relief sewers for sanitary flow conveyance are required.
• If the existing trunk sewers are at or near capacity under the condition in b) but have sufficient
capacity for condition a), this indicates that new trunk relief sewers, in-line or off-line storage
are required depending on the extent of the pipes lacking of free flow capacity.
Designing a Relief Facility
The following design criteria should be used in the design of the new trunk relief sewers, in-line
or off-line storage:
• Population and employment: use the available longest City's planned growth at the time of
analysis;
• Sanitary sewage flow rate: use 450 L/cap/d. This is applied to the drainage area where a
relief is required.
• Sanitary sewage flow peaking factor: Harmon's formula;
• I/I allowance and Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) requirement:
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
10 of 12
4
a) The new relief sewers and the existing trunk sewers after being relieved should be able
to convey the peak future sanitary sewage flow plus I/I allowance of 0.26L/s/ha without
surcharging the pipes, in all cases.
b) In the situations where the surcharge level in the trunk sewers would not cause
basement flooding or flooding out the top of maintenance holes on the streets, the new
relief sewers and the existing trunk sewers after being relieved should be able to convey
the peak future sanitary sewage flow plus the I/I from the 1-year design storm or the 0.26
l/s/ha allowance, whichever is greater, without surcharging the pipes.
c) In the situations where the surcharge level in the trunk sewers would cause basement
flooding or flooding out the top of maintenance holes on the streets, the new relief sewers
and the existing trunk sewers after being relieved should be able to manage the peak
future sanitary sewage flow plus the I/I from all the rainfall conditions without causing
basement flooding or flooding out the top of maintenance holes on the streets.
Emergence overflows to a nearby watercourse may be needed for the I/I from the rainfalls
greater or equal to the 5-year design storm. Otherwise, it would require a large storage
facility to store the I/I from large and extreme rainfall events and large volumes of wet
weather flows would be sent to the treatment plant.
• The new relief sewers and the existing trunk sewers after being relieved shall not increase the
peak flows to the wastewater collection system downstream.
Replacing an Existing Sanitary Trunk Sewer
Sometimes an existing trunk sewer is needed to be reconstructed due to conditional and/or
structural, or relocation reasons. In this case, the criteria of designing a relief facility can be used.
Combined Trunk Sewers:
Analyzing Trunk Sewer Capacity
• Population and employment: use the available longest City's planned growth at the time of
analysis;
• Sanitary sewage flow rate: use 240 L/cap/d, or the calibrated with flow monitoring data if
available, whichever is greater;
• Sanitary sewage flow peaking factor: Harmon's formula , or use the calibrated with flow
monitoring data if available;
• Baseflow rate: use 0.10 L/s/ha, or the calibrated with flow monitoring data if available,
whichever is greater;
• Combined trunk sewer capacity should be able to:
a) Convey the peak future DWF, ie. peak future sanitary sewage flow plus baseflow,
without CSO.
b) Convey 2.5 times of the average future daily DWF, without CSO.
• If the existing trunk sewers are at or near capacity under the condition in a) or b), this indicates
that a new trunk relief sewer or diverting flow within the combined sewer system is required.
Note that new combined trunk sewers are not allowed to be constructed; therefore, the new
relief sewer in this case should be a new sanitary trunk sewer.
Designing a CSO Control Storage System
• Criteria: reducing CSO frequency from each location to the receiving water to once per year
on average. The City uses 1991 as a typical year for the average wet weather flow condition.
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
11 of 12
5
Reference:
1. Metro Works Report, the Water Pollution Control Division of the Metropolitan Toronto
Works Department. October 1993
2. Don River and Central Waterfront Trunk Sewers and CSO Control Strategy EA, MMM
and BPR, 2012
Definitions:
The definitions for the following terms are used throughout this document.
Dry Weather Flow
Dry weather flow is the combination of the base flow, and sanitary sewage flow from domestic and trade
(institutional, commercial and industrial) sources during dry weather.
Base Flow
The base flow is a constant flow entering sanitary and combined systems representative of some inflow and
infiltration from foundation drains and sewer pipes. It typically also has a seasonal variation.
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
During wet weather flow conditions, flows in sanitary sewers are exceeded with I/I, which refers to extraneous
water from infiltration and inflow to the sanitary sewer, additional to the sanitary flow from residential or
institutional, commercial and industrial land uses. Infiltration takes place through pipe material degradation and
at joints. Inflow refers to the stormwater that enters the system through roof leaders, footing drains, yard drains,
manhole covers or illegal connections with storm sewers.
Sanitary Trunk Sewer
Sanitary Trunk Sewers collect discharges from local separated sanitary sewers and/or a portion of
intercepted flows from combined trunk sewers. They convey sanitary sewage, some storm runoff from
inflow/infiltration, and combined flows that are intercepted from combined trunk sewers.
Combined Trunk Sewer
Combined Trunk Sewers collect discharges from local combined sewers and carry both sanitary sewage and
storm runoff. A portion of flows in combined trunks are intercepted and sent to the treatment plant, while flows
exceeding the interception capacity can be diverted to another sewer or to the receiving waters.
Combined Sewer Overflow
Combined sewer overflow (CSO) is flow originating at a regulator from a combined sewer that exceeds the
interceptor capacity and is conveyed to receiving waters.
.
Addendum No. 1, RFP 9117-16-5043
12 of 12