16 - PRESENTATION ABOUT TRENCHLESS PIPE BURSTINGItem No. 16
COUNCIL MEMBER AGENDA ITEM REQUEST
Please complete this form to have an item placed on the agenda for the Council's consideration.
The deadline for requesting an item on an agenda will be the Wednesday before the council
meeting takes place. This time is necessary so that staff can research the matter and
prepare /review an ordinance, resolution, or other document such as a contract. In order for your
fellow Council Members to fully understand your item, have productive discussion, ensure
efficient council meetings, and for staff to be able to assist you as completely as possible, it is
important that you describe the item with as much detail as possible and include any supporting
documentation so that it may be included in the Council's meeting packets. Please return this
completed form to the City Manager's office or the City Clerk's office.
Council member making request:
❑ Aaron Jenkins ❑ Matt Frierson
❑ Sue Lancaster ❑ Edwin Pickle
❑ Benny Plata ® A.J. Hashmi
❑ Steve Clifford
Description of Item: Receive presentation about trenchless pipe bursting;, discuss and possibly
action.
Are additional sheets or supporting materials attached? ® Yes ❑ No
I request that this item be placed on the agenda for the:
® City Council meeting on this date: October 12, 2015
❑ Sometime in the next 2 meetings
❑ No specific time in mind — just keep it on a list of pending issues
Signature: A.J. Hashmi Date: 10 -1 -2015
City of Paris Revised 05/12/2015
This was an email from John Carney of Trenchless Technologies, Inc:
The collaborative presentation by us, who will actively participate in the presentation are myself,
with Trenchless Technologies, Inc. and No- DigTec, LLC and John Newell, Managing Partner of
No- DigTec. and Mark Mathis, who is the former WL Prospecting, Owner /President of WL
Prospecting, specializing in Conducting Standard AWWA Water Audits for Texas Utilities, and
a former member of the Texas Water Development Board — December 2003- August 2011 who
Authored the Water Audit Reporting Worksheet and two water loss manuals entitled, "Texas
Water Loss Manual for Texas Utilities. Mark is also a Current Member of AWWA Water Loss
Control Committee
John Newell is the pipe bursting specialist. No- DigTec, LLC is a nationally recognized, award
winning Trenchless Pipe bursting company technology is a well - established state of art utility
replacement process for the installation, replacement or renewal of underground utilities.
It is very impressive that Paris is taking a bold initiative to address failing infrastructure, but we
don't think you're doing it using the best technology, materials and not properly prioritizing your
water main replacement using the latest in leak detection technology.
Pipe bursting is one form of Trenchless Technology, and it is superior to open trench excavation
in several respects, including significantly less disruption of businesses along the route of pipe
replacement. Instead of digging two trenches in the street, which have to be 10 ft apart will
significantly disrupt commerce and traffic, whereas trenchless pipe bursting will have a small
entry hole dug every 700 ft or so. My rough estimate of the dirt to be displaced using trenchless
pipe bursting is 3% of that displaced by open cut. The result is much less disruption of traffic,
commerce and life in Paris.
HDPE pipe, the preferred pipe for both sewer and water is monolithic when installed. For
instance my rough calculation is that using PVC for the Paris Capital Improvement Plan there
will be upwards of 22,000 mechanical joints, connections which are future potential points of
leaks, where the HDPE pipe, fused at the joints, taps and connections will have only 348
mechanical joints. The HDPE pipe has twice the life expectancy of PVC, and 100 year life is
expected.
Another major factor is the environmental impact of the project on the community, with
trenchless having 85% less pollution in the community.
We will also discuss how to select and prioritize water main replacement. Your Capital
Improvement Plan is only replacing 8% or so of the existing utilities and selection of the pipe for
replacement giving the biggest financial impact, produces savings that can help fund future water
main replacement. Paris' own reporting to the Texas Water Development Board show that you
only know where 2 tenths of I% of the water loss from leaks comes from. Without using the
state of the art leak "survey" technology you are relying on historical repair data, which
identifies only a very small part of the leaks actually occur.
Our goal is to help Paris make a wise decision on how to commence the most effective long term
replacement of not just 8% of your water infrastructure, but how to implement a long term plan
to replace all that needs replacing before it create major bursts that compel its replacement.
This was an email from AECOM project manager Matt Abbe:
We confirm that this type of technology is not practical or a lower cost alternative for the Paris
project. My thoughts on why insert methods, or trenchless methods like pipe- bursting are impractical:
1. Insert type methods reduce the existing pipeline diameter and maintain existing capacity. In
most cases, we are increasing capacity of both water and sewer lines by increasing the pipe
diameter. Insert technology would not work in these situations.
2. Traditionally, trenchless technologies are more expensive than trenching options (can be less
expensive under roadway over long distances).
3. The existing water /sewer are too close together (less than TCEQ minimum
requirements). Placing a new line within the existing line does not solve the issue of proper
TCEQ separation. The sewer line will have to be relocated a greater distance away from the
water line, which does not work in all situations.
4. The water line (if pipe burst) has to be reconnected to all residential services (with new service
lines) and other existing water line connections. Thus, the contractor will have to open cut all
service connections, which increases the cost of trenchless methods.
5. Typically, pipe bursting or trenchless methods are good for maintaining the same size line, or
going to the next larger diameter pipe (ex. 6 -in to 8 -in). There are many locations where we are
going from 6 -in to 12 -in, which is not recommended for trenchless technologies (although can
be done).
6. Many existing water lines are AC. After pipe bursting, the AC particles remain in the
trench. When reconnecting existing lines, such as residential service lines, there is a risk of the
asbestos contaminating the new connections.
7. Pipe Bursting can be done in sewer lines and is cost effective for lines that are deep. Most of
the sewer lines that we are replacing, we are having to change the flow lines, which does not
allow for the pipe burst options.
8. Regarding sewer lines, the majority of the manholes need to be replaced, which is an open cut
option. Further, all residential sewer line connections need to be installed by open trenching
techniques. When looking at the amount of trenching, required, trenching becomes more
advantageous.
9. Lastly, we are changing a lot of flow lines for the sewer to increase pipe slope to achieve TCEQ
slope criteria. Pipe slope cannot be adjusted when pipe- bursting /trenching.
The reasons above show why we opted with trenching options vs. trenchless methods. Note that there
are several areas where we are installing pipe by bore /jack /tunnel (technically trenchless), to avoid deep
cuts, particularly around the loop. I point this out to say that we do look for construction advantages
during the design phase.
Please let me know if you have further questions /comments.
Matthew Abbe, PE
Project Manager, South Region
AECOM