Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8_Seismic Evaluation - Volume 2 Prepared for: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7018 (714) 593-7803 Project Report PS15-06 Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plants 1 and 2 Pi cpnred bv: Geosyntec consultants engineers I scientists Iinnovators 2100 Main Street, Suite 150 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Telephone: (714)969-0800 Fax(714)969-0820 w .geosyntec.conn In Association with. c'I Engineers...Working Wonders With Water® Infra• erra Project Number:HL1635 July 19,2019 Volume 2 Geosyntec° COMUI rs APPENDIX D Seismic Evaluation Criteria HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 Prepared for: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 (714) 593-7803 Excerpt From Technical Memorandum 1 PSI 5-06 Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plants 1 and 2 Prepared by: Geosyntec consultants engineers I scientists I innovators 2100 Main Street, Suite 150 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Telephone: (714) 969-0800 Fax (714) 969-0820 www.geosyntec.com In Association with: C Ca0.,M104% Engineers...Working Wonders With Wafers Infra• erra Project Number: HL1635 Revised August 14,2018 (Originally Issued October 31,2017) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 1 Geosynte& consultants 4.3.2 Seismic Evaluation Criteria Defining the seismic evaluation criteria is the first step in the evaluation process. It sets the stage for the execution of the evaluation work. This step involves the selection of a performance objective, definition of building performance levels, and the definition of the seismic hazard levels. The proposed evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 4.1. The purpose of the PS15-06 project is to establish an understanding of seismic risk and develop mitigation options that reduce the overall risk. The mitigation options, together with the associated retrofits, will help the District make risk-informed decisions for the implementation of the mitigation projects, and incorporation of these projects within the Facilities Master Plan (FMP). Therefore, the general approach for the PS 15-06 project is to use a performance-based assessment methodology(and not a code compliance check) that uses rational engineering concepts, which may or may not strictly meet specific design code and evaluation standard requirements. The ASCE 41-13 evaluation standard is selected as the overall methodology for this project. The ASCE 41-13 specifically addresses building structures and will be applied directly for the assessment of building structures. Although the assessment methodology for liquid-containing structures is not explicitly included in ASCE41-13, the conceptual methodology from the standard can be applied to such structures.This performance-based assessment methodology, supplemented by ACI 350.3 (for reinforced concrete liquid- containing structures) and API 650(for the steel gas holders),will be applied. 4.3.2.1 Performance Objective The structures to be evaluated are categorized as being either Class I or Class II,according to their operational criticality. The following is a description of the facility classes used in this evaluation: • Class I: Structures that are essential to the maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Loss of service would create a major impact on OCSD's ability to operate the treatment plant.Damage to these structures can also result in a health hazard to the public with sewage back-up or spillage. Structural repairs should be minor and not inhibit the occupancy or use of the structure. • Class II: Structures that are not directly necessary for maintaining wastewater flow through the system. Loss of service would not result in immediate wastewater back-up or spillage. Repairs can be deferred. 111,I635PS15-06 Geox nm TMl Secfioe L3.2 5/13/2019 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 2 Geosynte& consultants The building code uses risk categorization to distinguish criticality. While the building code is not being applied for this evaluation, for the sake of comparison, the Class I structures would be considered to be Risk Category W, and Class II structures would be considered to be Risk Category II, according to the definitions set forth in the 2016 California Building Code (current building code). A summary of each structure's Class and Risk Category is provided in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 for Plant 1 and Plant 2, respectively. ASCE41-13 has a two-fold performance objective that establishes building performance levels for different seismic hazards. For example, a typical two-fold performance objective for a critical building might be meeting the immediate occupancy performance level for the 225-year return period earthquake ground motions and meeting the life safety performance level for the 975-year return period earthquake ground motions. Similarly, the two-fold performance objective for liquid-containing structures is prevention of leakage for the 225-year return period ground motions, and collapse prevention or repairable damage performance level for the 975-year return period ground motions. Selection of a performance objective establishes the building performance levels and the seismic hazard levels that will be applied in the evaluation for each structure, as shown in Table 4-1. Section 9.4 of ACI 350.3 includes an importance factor(I)for liquid-containing structures to incorporate conservatism depending on use. For example, I= 1.5 is required for tanks containing hazardous materials, I = 1.25 for tanks for post-earthquake emergency, and I= 1.0 for all other tanks. For liquid-containing structures included in this study, consideration to the importance of the structure will be included in the incorporation of projects in the FMP. Therefore, I = 1.0 will be used for the seismic assessment of such structures.Consideration to performance objectives such as crack control will be included in the over-strength and inelastic energy absorption factors (m-factors in ASCE 41-13). 4.3.2.2 Building Performance Levels Building performance levels include both structural and non-structural perfomlance levels. The structural performance levels defined in ASCE 41-13 are as follows: • S-1: Immediate Occupancy; • S-2: Damage Control; • S-3: Life Safety; • S4: Limited Safety; and • S-5: Collapse Prevention. 1U,I635PS15-06 Geox nm TMl Secfioe L32 5/13/2019 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 3 Geosynte& consultants A qualitative description of the post-earthquake damage patterns for the various structural performance levels for a selection of a few of the seismic-force resisting systems pertinent to the study are provided in Table 4.4. Non-structural performance levels defined in ASCE 41-13 are as follows: • N-A: Operational; • N-B: Position Retention; • N-C: Life Safety; and • N-D:Not considered. The scope of the seismic evaluation includes a determination of whether the subject structures meet their prescribed structural performance levels for the defined hazard level and whether the nonstructural performance level for a limited set of nonstructural components is met. Those nonstructural components are limited to the following appurtenances: • Parapets; • Ornaments; • Facades; and • Cantilevered overhangs or canopies. While other nonstructural components, such as ceilings, pipe supports, and equipment supports are not being evaluated as part of this study in themselves, their contribution to the seismic load and effect on the seismic performance of the structures is being accounted for.For example,the dead load of equipment will contribute to the lateral load demand applied to the structure or a relatively flexible piece of equipment that is sufficiently rigid and heavy may impart impact loads to a building wall. Such effects will be considered in the evaluation of the structures. 4.3.2.3 Seismic Hazard Level Earthquake ground motion levels BSE-lE and BSE-2E,which represent 20%probability of exceedance in 50 years (equivalent return period of 225 years) and 5%probability of exceedance in 50 years(equivalent return period of 975 years),respectively,will be used for the assessment of all structures included in this study. The use of a consistent hazard level for the assessment of all plant structures included in this study will provide a consistent assessment for risk reduction. For a more detailed discussion regarding the seismic hazard levels considered for this evaluation,refer to Section 2.1.2 of this report. H1,I635PS15-06 Geox nm TMl Secfioe L32 5/13/2019 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 4 GeosyntecO consultants 4.3.2.4 Liquid Containing Structures Performance Levels The selected performance levels for liquid containing structures are also presented in Table 4-1. As performance levels for liquid containing structures are not identified in ASCE 41-13, descriptions of these performance levels were developed and are presented below. • Seismic Hazard Level BSE-1 E—20%in 50 Years Structural Performance Level—Immediate Occupancy: This performance level is similar to Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level (S-1) of ASCE 41-13. This performance level means that post-earthquake damage is minor. The structure maintains most of its pre-earthquake strength and stiffness and its primary function of water retention. Although some post-earthquake repair might be needed, these repairs would not be such as to prevent the primary function of the structure. Non-Structural Performance Level—Position Retention: This performance level is similar to the Position Retention performance level as described in ASCE 41-13. This performance level means that in the post-earthquake damage state damage to piping and mechanical systems is such that they cannot immediately function. However, damage is such that primary objective of water retention is maintained (for example, flexible piping connection or valves). The overall impact of damage to piping and mechanical systems is not being addressed as part of this study. • Seismic Hazard Level BSE-2E—5% in 50 Years Structural Performance Level—Life Safety: This performance level is generally similar to the Enhanced Safety Structural Performance Range of ASCE 41-13 and refers to a damage state between Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level and Life Safety Structural Performance Level (closer to Life Safety Performance Level). This performance level means that in the post-earthquake state there is significant damage to the structure,which could result in significant leakage,but the damage is not such that it results in complete loss of containment. Post-earthquake damage may need immediate attention (reduction in water level and crack repair) to minimize environmental impact from significant release of wastewater.However,damage is not such that the structure is at a risk of imminent collapse. 1U,I635PS15-06 Geox nm ThIl Secfioe L32 5/13/2019 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 5 Geosyntec° consultants Non-Structural Performance Level — Not Considered: At the BSE-2E seismic level there could be substantial damage to piping and wastewater conveyance systems. The overall impact of damage to piping and mechanical systems is not being addressed as pan of this study. HLI635PS15-06 Geox nmT 1Secfioe L32 5/13/2019 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 6 Geosyntec° consuls m TABLES HL163SPS15-06 G�syetec TMI Sxtiou 1.3.2 5/13/2019 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix D 7 Table 4.1. Seismic Evaluation Criteria OCSD PS15-06 Huntington Beach, California Non-structural Performance Structure Type Class Seismic Hazard Level Structural Performance Level Level BSE-IE(20%in 50 yrs) Immediate Occupancy(S-1) Position Retention(N-B) Building I BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) Life Safety(S3) Not considered(N-D) BSE-IE(20%in 50 yrs) Life Safety(S-3) Life Safety(N-C) Building II n BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) Collapse Prevention(S-5) Not considered(N-D) Non-building(liquid- I BSE-lE(20%in 50 yrs) Immediate Occupancy(S-1) Position Retention(N-B) containing structures) BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) Life Safety(S-3) Not considered(N-D) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 8 Table 4.2.Structure Classes for Plant Iu) OCSD PS1"6 Fountain Valley,California ID Number Structure Name Plant Structure Groupl8 Class Risk Category 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room 1 B I IV 1-2 Blower Building(AS 1)and PEPS 1 B I IV 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 1 B I IV 1-4 City Water Pump Station 1 B I N 1-5 Power Building 1 B I N 1-6 Power Building 1 B I IV 1-7 Power Building 1 B I IV 1-8 lControl Center 1 I B i I IV 1-9 12 kV Service Center 1 B I N 1-10 Central Power Generation Building 1 B I IV 1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10 1 LCS I IV 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1 LCS I IV 1-13 Digester 5 1 LCS I N 1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room 1 B I IV 1-15 Digester 1 LCS I IV 1-16 Digester 1 LCS I IV 1-17 Digester 7 Pump Room 1 B I IV 1-18 IDigeater8 1 1 LCS I I IV 1-19 Digester9-10 1 LCS I IV 1-20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room 1 B I IV 1-21 Digesters 11-16 1 LCS I N 1-22 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room l 1 B I IV 1-23 Digesters 11-16 Pmnp Room 2 1 B I IV 1-24 Gas Holder 1 GST I IV 1-25 Effluent]unction Box 1 LCS I N 1-26 Solids Storage Facility 1 B B H 1-27 Chiller Building 1 B H H 1-28 lWarchouse Building 1 I B I Il I H 1-29 Shop Building A 1 B B H 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3 1 B B H 1-31 Buildings 5 and 6 1 B H H 1-32 Auto Shop 1 B H H 1-33 PEDB2 t LCS I N 1.34 Central Laboratory 1 B I N NOTES: ID Table was updated after the issuance of Technical Memorandum 1. I21 Structure Groups are as follows: B—Building LCS=Liquid-Containing Structure GST=Gas Storage Tank PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 9 Table 4.3.Structure Classes for Plant 2io OCSD PS15-06 Huntington Beach,California ID Number Structure Name Plant Structure Groupto Class Risk Category 2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 2 B I IV 2-2 DAFT Gallery&WSSPS 2 LCS I IV 2-3 RASPS East 2 B I IV 2-4 RASPSWest 2 B I IV 2-5 PEPS&MAC 2 B I IV 2-6 Operations/Connol Center Bldg 2 B I IV 2-7 12 kV Service Center 2 B I IV 2-8 1 Power Building B 2 1 B I 1V 2-9 Power Building 2 B I IV 2-10 Power Building 2 B I IV 2-11 City Water Pump Station 2 B I IV 2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 2 B I IV 2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 2 B I IV 2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A 2 B I IV 2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 2 B I IV 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 2 B I IV 2-17 Central Power Generation Building 2 B I IV 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 2 LCS I IV 2-19 Gas Holder 2 GST I IV 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 2 LCS I 1V 2-21 DAFTs A-C 2 LCS I IV 2-22 DAFT 2 LCS I IV 2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 2 LCS I IV 2-24 Surge Tower No.2 2 LCS I IV 2-25 NOT USED 2 2-26 Track Loading 2 B/LCS II II 2-27 Maintenance Building 2 B II II 2-28 Boiler Building 2 B D II 2-29 OOBS 2 B I IV 2-30 12kVDisuibution CenterA 2 B I IV 2.31 SESB-Geotechnical Only 2 LCS I IV 2-32 .1BC-Geotechnical Only 2 LCS I IV NOTES: o>Table was updated after the issuance of Technical Memorandum 1. 1�1 Structure Groups are as follows: B=Building LCS=Liquid-Containing Structure GST=Gas Storage Tank PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 10 Geosyntec P Table 4.4.Structural Performance Levels and Illustrative Damage CO14i1�"u OCSD PS15-06 Huntington Beach,California Seismie Force Resisting Structural Performance Levels System Type Collapse Prevention(S-5) Life Safety(S-3) Immediate Occupancy(S-1) Major flexural or shear cracks and voids. Some boundary element cracking and Sliding at joints.Extensive crushing and spalling and limited buckling of Concrete Walls Primary elements buckling of reinforcement.Severe reinforcement.Some sliding atjoints. Minor diagonal cracking of walls. boundary element damage. Damage around openings.Some crushing and flexural cracking. Transient drift sufficient m cause Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift that causes minor or no Drift extensive nonstructural damage. nonstructural damage.Noticeable nonstructural damage.Negilgilbe Extensive permanent drift. permanent drift, permanent drift. Crushing;extensive cracking.Damage Major cracking distributed throughout Reinforced Masonry Walls Primary elements around openings and at comers.Some wall Some isolated crushing. Minor cracking.No out-of-plane offsets. fallen units. Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift that causes minor or no Drift extensive nonstructural damage. nonstructural damage.Noticeable nonstructural damage.Negilgilbe Extensive permanent drift. permanent drift. pemaament drift. L crashing and spalling at wall Precast Concrete Walls Primary elements Some wall connection failures,but no ocal connections,but no gross failure of Minor working and cracking at wall elements dislodged. connections. convactiove. Transient drift sufficient m cause Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift that causes minor or no Drift extensive nonstructural damage. nonstructural damage.Noticeable nonstructural damage.Negilgilbe Extensive permanent drift, permanent drift, permanent drift. Significant settlement and tilting of Localized settlement of buildings with Foundations General buildings with shallow foundations or shallow foundations. Minor settlement and neglibilble tilting. buildings on liquefiable soils. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 11 Geosyntec° COMUI rs APPENDIX E Structure Summary Sheets HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 AdMIL ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District 111111WSEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 WASTE SLUDGE THICKENERS (DAFT) PUMP ROOM PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE i 1 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Basement at 11.33'elev.(17.67'embedment);driven—PPC piles (12"50,50'total) Structure Dimensions:150 ft x 64 IT1-26 g of Stories:l above grade,l below grade tit Date of Original Construction:1973 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1994 Projects:PI-16,PI-36-2 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report i. ®Specifications ❑Other aeohazards and seismicity ]12 I—i 3 I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) LJ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High j HHWLs AWLa.z Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 7 to 8 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 31 to 56 27 to 46 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 27 13 to 22 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)s Dist(ImI ___ Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 : -sand/sutysand __ Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 c a a eiaywimn1'; Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) # BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s sand/s I ysa� BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 ' ^e: Notes:1.Historic With Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate ' sand/silty sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfar Site Class D,6.Selected - as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +24ft-MSL AWL 13ft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tire Assessment Results PFM 2:Wall anchorage to the roof at east Check of the eave beam to span horizontally across the width of the building.The and west walls of the north building TI actual roof connections will have DCR's>1.0. It is recommended that wall anchorage be added to the east and west walls. PRIM 3:Roof diaphragm shear at the north Excessive shear demands at the north building,which has a 4.5-inch deep steel building T2 deck(low shear capacity). PRIM 4:Discontinuous shear walls at the Interior of the south building in the north- The transverse CMU walls at grid lines 4 and 5 of the north building and walls at south direction(@ grid lines 3 and 5) TI grid lines 3 and 5 of the south building are discontinuous.Provide ties to adjacent concrete walls that occur between grids C and D. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 1 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 PFM 7:Bending/shear failure of piles due 23.3"(estimate of spread at pile head)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River. to lateral spread(surface PGD=27-inches) Tl/2 DCR is the near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5"). Noted I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the ELSE IF and ESE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE41-130 rienry-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),17I/172=Application ofTier3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations CosP Comments PFM 7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 70%(surface PGD=8-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation Al $150,000 N/A PFM 3:Standard Structural Mitigation Bl $560,000 Existing roof deck is 4.5-inch deep diaphragm with no concrete topping.Replace entire roof diaphragm. PFM 4:Provide steel beam or channel tics for the full width of the $130,000 N/A building(40-ft)that are epoxied into the bottom side of the first floor to drag loads into the existing shear walls between grid lines C and D. otal Geolachnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $840,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TAU(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Stmctuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass S'Order of estimates,intended forplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to Trivial (Geosynteq 2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Riskof Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoe(sh •Other Plant 1 Structures Intluded m PS 15-065tudy ®Ground Shaking ` • *1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFF) ❑ Differential Settlement t ® Lateral Spread Pump Room r 3 • • • Abbreviadons: Controlling[onsepuencelsl: .E LaSF=Likelihood ufSeismic Failure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 'n CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 pbµ Ri Rlskof Seismic Fallure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 4Likelihood P PSe parma-manct,designated either),.,b tween'I" 1 `PJ • perfarmahood) ed '5'orbetween"od Risk Ranking: � (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 3 nseoaesrankedbetween Ina 0 identified con (hi entified consequence(and"5"(high Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 15 0 1 2 3 A s consequence) consequence of Seismic Failure(CoSFI comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-043(07/01/2029) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 2 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 BLOWER BUILDING (ASS) AND PEPS I " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 1-2 1 1 IV BUILDING ^frl class based performance objectives — 4 Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Basement at14.1T elev.(13.33'embedment);driven—PPC piles (12"50,50'total) Structure Dimensions:201 IT x 66 IT -,1 1-17 Date of Original al ove Contradtion:1ow grade O . Ior: Date of Original Construction:1973 (�—� Retrofit(H any):Remodeled in 1993,1995,and 1998;1998:Strengthening of roof-to- wall anchorage at the north and south walls of the PEPS roof,lateral bracing of a raised concrete platform at PEPS,and connection of the precast wall panels. 1-33 Projects:PI-16/PI-36-1/PI-36-2/PI-44-4 0 , ` 1 Available Information: ®Coastal Drawings ®Geotechnical Report `26 ®Specifications El Other 1-11 I Aeohazards and seismicity ) Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWL2 AWL2.7 Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 10 5 to 7 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 10 to 25 6 to 15 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 8to 19 5to 11 y .pa„a[socv saga Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)3 Dist(lane its Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 , clay wild sw seam Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 MI ay S-d y5a pies Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) St(9) i I ■ BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Sand/silty Sand BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 ss Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section distance to center of plant S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Gass D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation de)ormation inputs to structural analysis based on A Wit and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 5R-bgs +22.5 R-MSL AWL 11.5ft-bgs +16tl structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16 PFM and Desclptiont Thra Assessment Results PFM 2:Wall l anchorage to the roof at Check of the W33x connections at pilasters(10 locations).Transfer of wall anchorage the north and south walls of the T1 force relies on a I"weld(not clear what kind of weld)every 12 inches. For Blower Building mitigation,it is assumed the load path in the diaphragm is deficient as well. PFM 3:Wall anchorage W the roof at The north and south walls of PEPS were retrofit as part of the PS-44-4 project(22 the north and south walls of the PEPS TI locations). Building PFM 4:Wall anchorage to the roof at the east and west walls of the PEPS Check of the W27x connections at pilasters(4 locations).Transfer of loads into the Building T1 diaphragm appear to be minimal. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 3 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2 PFM 5:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands at the 7.5-inch deep steel deck(low shear capacity). Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM ;Geasymec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 01-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130efirmacy-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application an Teri exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geoltechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation[ Costa Comments PFM 2:Standard Structural MRigation A2(High) $650,000 W33x connections at pilasters(10 locations). PFM3:stmdard Structural MRigation Al(AM) $400,000 Similar to Al without the supplemental roof framing(22 locations). PFM 4:Standard Structural MRigation A2(High) x connections at pilasters(41ocatinns). PFM 5:Standard Structural MRigation Bl $80Q000 Existing roof deck is 7.5-inch deep steel deck without any concrete topping.Applies over the Blower Room only. Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,100,000 Notes:1,gefer to TAM(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations,2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplonning purposes only. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvpe(sl' ax •Other Plant 1 structures Included in PS 15-M Study ®Ground Shaking - • *1-2 Blower Building(ASI)and PEPS El Differential Settlement ❑ Lateral Spread P S 3 • • AbbnWatiore: Controlling Conseauencelsl: .E LaSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder 62 py'F RoSF=Riskaf Seismic Failure ® Financial ❑Public Impact el le Likelihood designated elther"0"(meats ' performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: 1 �e (lowlikellhood)and '5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Conseauencea ranked between'1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSF x Co5F= 20 ident...—,u,seouence)and"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) consequence of Seismic Failure(CeSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-048(09/01/2023) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 4 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District 1111WSEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PLANT WATER PUMP STATION AND POWER BLDG 6 : N PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE P�N i 3 1 1 IV BUILDING ;�I class based performance objectives r ��` Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures '}• ��. substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and ■ 1Cm operation are likely. `•i i ��i !ZZ_ . 44 structural components � � I Z� Foundation Type:Basement at 9'elev.(18.50'embedment);driven—PPC piles(12' -1 �i 50,52'total) - Structure Dimensions:110 IT x 64IT g of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1963 - 17 Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:PI-34-2 , Available Information: N Constitution Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1--12 1r-1-�-1-3 N Specifications ❑Other 1 Lj aeohazards and seismicity I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) • A7I, Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWLt AWLAz Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 4to5 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 44 to 72 18 to 22 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 26 to 42 11 to 13 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist(km)4 _- Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 ay saga/ 'tysa a Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 as w sul e Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) e BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 1-1/siby saw BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 is ' ' r;iE, Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/I saI , distance to renter ofplant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for site class D;6.Selected ++ as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.5 R-MSL AWL 11.5ft-bgs +16R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16 PFM and Desciptions Tlerz Assessment Results PFM 2:Wall anchorage to the roof at Roof beam anchorage at the east and west walls is subject to pullout of the anchors east and west walls T1 at the tops of the pi lasters,wh ich ca n destabi lize the W24x94 roof beams l8 locations). PFM 3:Drag connection at the re- entrant corner The W12x35 roof beam connection at the re-entrant corner is not detailed to resist T1 the diaphragm reaction at the shear wall in the north-south direction.This is not Life Safety check and the beam has bearing within the wall,so collapse of the beam is not anticipated. REVISED.6AWOL9 PS IS-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 5 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 at 2 PFM 6:Bending/shear failure of piles 32"(estimate at pile head)lateral spread toward Santa Ana River.DCR is the near pile due to lateral spread(surface PGD= T1/2 top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5"). 40-inches) Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the RSE-IE and RSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72-Tier2 (equivalent to ASCf 41-13 Defloenq-8ased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/r2-Application ofFer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation[ Costt Comments PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 80%(surface PGD=8-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Medium) $300,000 Wal I anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams IF locations). PFM 3:Provision of a steel channel or similar shape that is epoxied $120,000 Assumes that existing steel beam connections to into the 10 feet of the existing wall along grid line 2 and tied to the the north are adequate(6)%-inch diameter bolts existing steel W12x35 with welded or bolted connections. intension. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $420,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicaland Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class 5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this stmctare relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec,2019)far additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoeisl: 0 Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15-06 Study N Ground Shaking 4 ❑ Differential Settlement *1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and N Lateral Spread Power Bldg 6 LL 3 • Abbreviations: [ontrollin¢Conseauencelsl: .E Lo9P=Likelihood of5etsmic Failure N ❑fe Safety ❑Primary Treatment T [oSF=Consequence of 5eism(c Failure ❑Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder Is pVw Rai=Riskof Stismic Failure El Financial El Public Impact n likelihood designated Oil horms performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikelihood)and "5`(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 Conseouences ranked between"1"(no CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 p Overall RoSF=Lai x CoSF= 10 O 6 mnse annonfiedconsequenceland"5"(high Consequence of Seismic Failure quenaal comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-039(12/30/2033) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 6 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 CITY WATER PUMP STATION " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-4 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Shallow spread foundation at-grade Structure Dimensions:62 fit x 40It g of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1989 Retrofit(if any):N/A A r I — Prolects:Pl-34-1 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report A ®Specifications ❑Other >. '�' 1-4 geohazards and seismicity �-I,v Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) --T-23 Imes Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High LL �. HHW AWLa.z tms a Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 4to5 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 44 to 72 18 to 22 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 26 to 42 11 to 13 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(III Dist(kmp „ Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 spmaa mmmes Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 3wy sand — - - Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) a` clay/sore clay wbn BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Clay with moemedded sad seam: BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 silty sand Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Levels 3.Median PGA;4.Approximate distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotionsfor Site Class D;6.Seleded Clay with sand seams as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section Ground Water Level Depth Dental HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL AWL 11.5ft-lugs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A PFM and Desviptionz Tierz Assessment Results PFM 1:Footings move independent of Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can the wall T1 move laterally toward the Santa Ana River relative to the rest of the building(204 ft). PFM 3:Wall anchorage at east and TI Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters(6 locations). west walls PFM 4:In plane shearat south pier T3 Primarily a ground shaking hazard. between louvers PFM 5:Out-of-plane horizontal Tier l found horizontal wall reinforcing was less than the minimum.Tier 3 findings bending at east and west walls due to T3 confirmed that horizontal bending is a vulnerability at pilasters and wall comers IS ground shaking locations). PFM 6:Out-of-plane horizontal bending in east and west walls due to T3 1.4"of differential settlement over 60 feet IF locations). ground deformation REVISED.6/28/2019 P515.06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 7 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 7:Tension failure in the CMU i3 1.4"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Failures occur at the top of the wall. walls due to ground deformation Governing Pattern is transverse pattern with high point centered on building. PFM B:Tension failure in the concrete i3 1.4"of differential settlement over 60 feet Failures occur at the top of the wall. stem wall due to ground deformation Governing Pattern is transverse pattern with high point centered on building. PFM 9:Lateral spread toward the 18"(near side)/11"(far side)lateral spread can pull apart the building east Santa Ana River(surface FED=18- T1/2 wall/footing relative to the roof and the west wall because the floor slab is not tied to inches) the wall/footing(204 ft).The slab has tensile strength to develop shear friction force across the width of the building. Note a 1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet boM Me BSE-IE and BSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.see Technical Memamndum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=mY2 (equivalent to ASCE41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Pmcedure),T1/F1=Application ofrer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structme.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 7&8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,200,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 50%(3/4"in 60feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 3 to 27 ft-bgs. PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 or per PFM 1 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by at least 50%(surface PGD=9-inches)or mitigate per PFM 1. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost= Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation CS $95,000 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and floor slab.Mitigation required for 204lineal feet. PFM 3:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) $160,000 Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters(6 locations). PFM 4:Strengthen the existing wall by addition of a concrete $130,000 N/A overlay that is doweled into the interior face of the wall and extended above the wall pier as required.Wall overlay may be limited to 6 inches in thickness to accommodate one layer of reinforcing.Shotcrate or form and pour in place are both viable techniques. __________-------------------------- PFM S&6:Standard Structural Mitigation D $205,000 To be applied at a spacing that reduces the horizontal wall span by 50%. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,790,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided ore AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude'estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation ormitigateper PFM 1.Refer to TM4(Geosynteq 2039)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvi lsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in IS Ground Shaking PS 15S016 Study IS Differential Settlement 4 *li City Water Pump Station ❑ Lateral Spread ! a • • • Abbre ball [ontrolline Conseauencefsl: E loSF=likelihood of5eismic Failure ® Life Safety El Primary Treatment COSF=consequence of Selsandfallum 'f o ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 8 1 1-Risk f SaIvmld allude pw El Financial El Public Impact 8 Pgp4 tikdimerldesignatedeither"01(meets Yi1 `PJ performance adec0veLorbatwean"1" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOST Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Store: 2 0 idenuouencesrankedbetween Overt,ll ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 10 identiriedconsequenceland"5"(high high O Consequence of Seismic failure(Os i 6 mnsequencel comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-038(12/30/2028) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 8 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 POWER BUILDING 2 N p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-5 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Tunnel at 22.33'elev.(5.57'embed);dropped spread footings y,� Structure Dimensions:50.3 IT x 42 fit -- B of Stories:1 story v 1D13j 4 oei Date of Original Construction:1963 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1973,1985,and 1996;Chord splices and steel braced 1-1$ 1-17� ioa.l frames for the high roof. lozl Projects:PI-9/PI-16/PI-22/PI-44-1 loll 20 Available Information: ®Constmction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ®Specifications ❑Other 1�-226 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) „ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High i HHWLL AWLz.z Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 42 to 45 25 to 40 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 29 to 31 17 to 28 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(km)" a sP,ead rnmmgs---- Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 s Saud/sne;an4........................... Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s : ela Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss IBI ss IBI * sand/snot'Sono BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 >: sand/snry sand wah silty Day seams Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate +s sand/snry sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected -ss as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hmood; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.9 R-MSL AWL 11.9ft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Dewiptions Tlerz Assessment Results PFM I:Walls/footing are not tied The walls can move independent of each other,which can result in structural together T1 instability(408 feet). PFM 2:Wal l anchorage at the north The original W12x27 beams are supported by steel columns in the masonry wa 11, and south walls of the low roof T1 which are not tied into any reinforcing steel,so there is no load path for wall anchorage(4 locations). PFM 7:Tension failure in the CMU walls due to ground deformation T1/2 3"over 60 feet(214%of exemplar).Building is similar in size and has larger wall openings,which exacerbates tension failure 1n the walls. REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 9 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2 25"of lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.Dropped wall footings are subject to PFM B:Lateral spread toward the high cantilevered bending.Stem wall has DCR>2.0.This action is considered force- Santa Ana River due to liquefaction TI/2 controlled,so mitigation is required at any performance level.Also,walls have no ties to the slab and separation can occur during spreading. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the USE1E and BSE-2Epelformance objectives have been omftredfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)jar additional PFMs considered;2.T3=Rer1(eauivolent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=Tfer2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Defio,m,Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application ofTler3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost2 Comments PFM 7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,790,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 75%(3/4"in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 6 to 47 ft-bgs. PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 70%(surface PGD=8-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigations COW Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $145,000 Mitigation required over length of 408 feet. PFM 1:stmdard Structural MRigation Al(SIM) $245,000 New wall anchorage required at 4 locations where the original W 12x27 beams are supported at the CMU walls.Similar,with no additional roof framing members required. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,180,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided ore AACEI Cross 5"Order-of-Magnftude"estimates,intendedforplonaing mantles only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteml spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosynteq 2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Msk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking '• PS I5-O6 Study N Differential Settlement — *1-5 Power Building N lateral Spread 8 '. 8 * • • Abbreviations: Controlling Conseauencefsl• 'E LoSF=Likelihood!of Seismic Failure N ❑f,Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder LZ pVv' RoSF=Risk pf Selsmlc Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B �yd' Ukellhood designated elther"0"(meats Tli1 `ed performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and m5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 3 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall Weighted Score: 2 0 Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 6 consequence) consequencelantl"5"(high 0 1 1 3 4 5 consequence) Conspwnu of Saismlc Failure ICOSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 10 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 POWER BUILDING 4 N ,,r p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE p 1-6 1 1 IV BUILDING class s- class based performance objectives �7 Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures - / substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. t 3 structural components s sa` - Foundation Type:Basement(partial)with tunnel at 15.50'elev.(13.00'embedment); ,sue, dropped spread footings Structure Dimensions:44 ft x 31.3 ft — i 34 g of Stories:1 story 1-27 Date of Original Construction:1985 Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:PI-22 1'8 Available Information: ®Constmctlon Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report � Li' ®Specifications ❑Other 1- 1-10 L 1-15 aeohazards and seismicity �1-24 ,L Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1-14 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHl AVVL2,7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 3 to 5 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spreadis — Determinlstic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(lon)4 ep Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 is ea:ement+Spread Footing: Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 is Irty5and Ia III Sir an,sruy a ay Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) Sand BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 silty silty s Say BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Notes:1.Historic Nigh Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate wee Graded sand distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D,'6.Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (yri to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground water Level Depth Elevation ll 5 R-bgs +23.5 R-MSL AWL 12.5 R-bgs ♦16 it structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 3:Incomplete load path at the The north side of the high roof has no lateral load resisting elements to transfer shear north side of the high roof diaphragm T1 forces down to the foundation.Steel bracing is required.Retrofit similar to Power Building C at Plant 2 is recommended. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2Epetformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(7M4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs consideal T1=TIer1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteg 20191 fin more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 11 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 3:Provide concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver $270,000 Mitigation required over length of 31 feet. openings.Provide steel framed blocking at the roof level and weld Frames occur at 4 locations having bay sizes of the roof deck to it Provide a new steel member sill and anchor to ft long x 5-ft tall. the top of the existing masonry wall with epoxy anchors. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $270,000 Notes:1.Refer to TALI d3easyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates romidedare"at Gass 5'Order of Magnitude"estimates,intended farplonning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included'm PS 15-06 Study ®Ground Shakinga4 ❑ Differential Settlement Ili Power Building 4 ❑ Lateral Spread LL 3 • • Abbreviations: [ontrollin¢Conseauencefsl: .E LuSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder a pw RgsF=Riskof seismic Failure El Financial El Public Impact i /.P Likelihood designated either"0"(meecs c pedormance objertim),ru between'I' Risk Ranking: is 1 (lowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 4 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 O 1 1 1 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RgSF=LoSFZCoSF= 8 identified cgnsequence)and"5"(high O Consequence of Seismic failure(COSFI S mnsequenal comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 12 dill ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 POWER BUILDING 5 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-7 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 12.33'elev.(15.17'embedment) Structure Dimensions:63.3 It x 40 ft _ - - g of Stories:l storyL/ Date of Original Construction:1989 Retrofit(if any):N/A ,�.._/ 1 23 Projects:Pl-34-1 ioaal 16 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report N Specifications ❑Other foul 15 1-7 in geohazards and seismicity 1-24 l2 b mlaJ Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1-14 loll Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1-17 (DID) 1 HHW1 8to 10 _ m21� I Surface Settlement(Inches) 10 to ll 8to 10 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 13 to 17 SO to 13 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 12 to 16 9 to 12 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(larl is Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 11 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s said/sury sand c with nos--- 8, Probabilistice Hazard Level Me PGA(9) Si Se(9) Sr(9) s Glaywah mm sit and sandy souayea BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Clay 'a BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Santl/5'Jly Sand a Swill with Silty flay Seams Notes. .o Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Seismic Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate distance to center of plant.S.Probabilistic SeismicAmelemtions for Site Class D,6.Selected s Santl/slug sane as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground w deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-lugs +22.5 ft-MSL AWL 11.5 it lugs ♦16 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 2:Wall anchorage at the east and Roof beam anchorage at east and west walls is subject to pullout of the anchors west walls to the roof diaphragm TI at the tops of the pilasters,which can destabilize the W24x94 roof beams(8 locations). PFM 5:Structure response to 2.7"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Differential settlement is nearly the same differential settlement due to T1/2 as the exemplar.Walls have minimal amount of reinforcing steel and will likely liquefaction experience high overstress due to tension stress.Also,Columns supporting the first floor are subject to punching failure at the first floor. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes geli that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been amittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 20191 additional PFMS considea l.T1=T(i(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=17 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I506 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 13 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 131 $1,170,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 12 to 46 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) $220,000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams (8 locations). oral Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,390,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Stmctuml Mitigations;2.Cost c'Notatesprovidedere AACEI Class 5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk ofSelsmic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in P515-W Study 19 Ground Shaking o4 • ❑ Differential Settlement *1-7 Power guiding 5 ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 • • 1 AabnWatlons: Controlling Conseguence(s): E LoSF=Likelihood of5elsmlc Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment ':, COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Fsllure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 92 pSt' ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact °o �sd Likelihood designated either"0"(meets e 1 `d • performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between'1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 10 Identified consequence)and"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Conseewn.of Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 mil PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 14 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 CONTROL CENTER " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-8 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 13.0(Y elev.(15.50'embedment) Structure Dimensions:110 IT x 70 It - g of stories;2 above grade,l below grade 1.29 Date of Original Construction:1997 Q) - Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-4-1 Prolects:J-23-1 37 b, Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report N Specifications ❑Other1-6 r j j 8 M geohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) W Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1 15 Hill AWLzz - SurfaceSettlement(Inches) 5to6 3to5 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spread DeterministicFault Name M PGA(gp Dist.(kmp 35 Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 :: ---- Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 ,: --- nasmrnt with Mac,__ slgsand Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) Ss(9) =, saga�suoana suov.clav BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 w sshysand y BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 " �siry slay Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class 16.Selected n, Vila l graded sand as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazard; 7. Ground ss deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +23.5 ft-MSL AWL 12.5 R-bgs ♦16 it structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Desviptions Tlerz Assessment Results PFM 2:Moment frame column The moment frame base plate connections have insufficient capacity to resist tension anchorage is not adequate to resist T2 seismic forces.The weld of the column to the base plate and the base plate thickness seismic tension demands were also found to be insufficient. PFM 4:2-Floor diaphragm shear T1 The 2na floor diaphragm weld connections lack the capacity to develop the shear transfer ca pacity of the dia ph ragm. PFM 5:Moment frame connection Fra me con ions nect a re pre-N orth ridge.2m floor frame connections at 48 locations do strength T2 not meet the performance requirements(only BSE IE was checked).BSE 2E will Ilkely result in more frame locations that are deficient. PFM 6:Moment frame panel zone Panel zone within me ment fra me joints l ack the shear capacity at R locations at the shear strength T2 2na floor. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 15 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 Seven(7)beams(2 at the roof and 5 at the 2nd floor)have insufficient Flexural PFM 10:Moment frame beam flexure T2 capacity to meet the 10 performance level because the beams are unbraced over their span. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both Me BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofFer3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costr Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 2,4-6,and 10:Provide steel concentric braced frames from $6,610,000 Braced frames required at 8 total bays over 2- the roof level down to the first floor Braced frames should be either stories(16 frames).Will require interior demo and chevron or X braces and may be comprised of tube steel or buckling restoration of interior finishes. restrained braced frame members.Columns will require strengthening at the basement level as required.Add supplemental connections along collector lines with epoxy anchors installed upward into the bottom of the 2nd floor.At roof level add puddle welds along collector lines as required. obi Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $6,610,000 Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntea 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimatesprovidedere AACEI Class 5"Order-Of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of So smic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tyge(s): •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15�06 Study `6l Ground Shaking v@1 ❑ Differential Settlement 3 4 Ill Control Center ❑ Lateral Spread r S 3 All • 0 11 Abbreviatigna: Controlling Conseguencelsl: 'E LOSF=Likelihood ofSai,rmc Failure N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment on COSF=Consequence of Selsmic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pVy' RoSF=Risk pf Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact i Ayv 0kellhood designated elther"0"(masts — s}1 performance objective),or between Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikellhood)and 'S"(high likelihood) Lo.SF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Ide...... consequence and"5"(high Overall ROSF=LOSFZCOSF= 25 0 1 2 3 4 6 consequence) consequence d Seismic Failure(Cegr) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 16 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 12kV SERVICE CENTER " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-9 1 1 IV BUILDING - class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and 11i s - - life operation are likely. —' structural components Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 10.25'elev.(17.25'embedment) ¢%� LA Structure Dimensions:70 fit x 40 ft _ g of Stories:1 above grade,1 below grade Date of Original Construction:1989 it Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:Pl-34-2 •Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report N Specifications ❑Other f� geohazards and seismicity 1-9 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Hill AVVi 1-25 i Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9to 11 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 15 to 19 12 to 16 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 13 to 17 11 to 14 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dist(lall „ Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 basement with Mac - Sand/silty sand Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) Ss(9) a Clay with sand seam BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 11 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Saaa/sucy saga Notes:1.Histodc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ,. sand lay distance towriter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelero[ions Jor Site Class 0;6.Selected sand as largest magnitude among significant contributors (yS%) to the hazard; 7. Ground .. deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Cross Section Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5it-bgs a22.5 it-MSL AWL 11.5 it lag, ♦16 it structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results PFM 2:Wall anchorage to roof at east The steel roof deck is flexible and the span is parallel with the east and west walls, and west walls TI which does not provide a rigid connection to the walls.The W24x84 connections will be subject to the full wall anchorage force IS locations). Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4 r ral Geosymeq 201 additional Pi conside bi T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),n=Tfer2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 17 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) $220000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x84 roof beams (8 locations). otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $R0,000 Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructurol Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass 5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controllint Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in PS 25-O6 Study IT Ground Shaking ElDifferential Settlement =4 *1-9 22 kV Service Center -1 Lateral Spread 5 r 3 • • 41 Aab.A.Vom: Controlling Conseauence(s): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure El Life Safety ®Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pvyl' ROSF=Risk of Selsmlc Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B �yd Ukellhood designated either"0"(meats 75 pd performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: 1 0 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 CaSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between NI"(no itlen[Ifietl cansequencel Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 25 antl"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Cons egwnw of Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 18 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 CENTRAL POWER GENERATION BUILDING N p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 1-10 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 9.00'elev.(19.00'embedment); driven-PPC piles(46'long) Structure Dimensions:140 IT x 123 ft 4 of Stories; stories ' Date of Original Construction:1990 23 Retrofit(if any):N/A - A 1-6 - Prolects:J-19-1 /r j 21 Available Information: Construction Drawings N Geotechnlcal Report ®Specifications N Other Shoo Drawings:Piles N y-1$� �r� ' h Imn c -2/ 1-7 lot t"2 4 b ptal aeohazards and seismicity 1-14 mn Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1-iS 1-17 VY Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High IDti f HHVVi AWLa.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 12 to 15 8 to 9 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 10 to 12 7 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA Ill Dist(knpNear FieldSan Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Sud/sotysana __ Basement wILM1 Mat Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 E s clay wlro rom sucava savoy sae iawrs Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Still Ss(9) Sa(9) a a/su ysan crags BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 n BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 a lava/s� ysa r,x snty ays m Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/snty sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected -ss as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2F seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth elevation HHWL 5it-lugs t23 ft-MSL AWL 12 it lugs ♦16 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results PFM 1:lack of lateral bracing along the east side The east side of the high roof(flexible diaphragm)lacks seismic bracing of the high roof diaphragm T1 (none provided). PFM 2:lack of lateral bracing along the west side The shear walls along the west side of the low roof and the second floor is of the low roof and 2^d floor at the basement level T1 not continuous down to the foundation.The fi rst-floor deck does not appear to have been designed for this condition. PFM 3:Insufficient lateral bracing along the west The rhea r walls along the west side of the bu ilding are mini ma l a nd l ack side of the building T2 adeq uate capacity to resist he sei s mic l oa ds of the building.The bola nce of the walls are compliant. The north and south walls use pilasters to brace the walls for out-of-plane PFM 4:Wal l anchorage at the high roof north and loads,but these same pilasters are not anchored to the roof framing.The south walls T1 DCR reported is an estimate of what little capacity the deck provides to resisting these loads.This is a significant deficiency at all performance levels. PFM SA:High roof diaphragm shear in roof deck T2 Excessive shear demands on the roof deck were estimated. REVISED.6/18/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 19 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM SB:High roof diaphragm shear in ledger T2 Anchor bolt shear is excessive at ledger angle anchorage to walls. anchor bolts PFM 6A:Low roof diaphragm shear in roof deck T2 Excessive shear demands on the roof deck were estimated. PFM 68:Low roof diaphragm shear in ledger T2 Anchor bolt shear is excessive at ledger angle anchorage to walls. anchor bolts PFM 9:Out-of-plane bending on the buried walls T2 Performance is expected to experience some non-linear behavior and due to liquefied soil conditions exceeds performance threshold for 10. PFM 10:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity. due to liquefied soil conditions Notts:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the USE IF and ESE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;).T1=rerl(equimlent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),771/112=Application ofFer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitiaz ion measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments PFM 9&10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $2,130,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 12 to 19 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation Costa Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation E $200,000 Applies over 50 lineal fee A5-ft tall window. PFM2:Provide 501inea1feetof12-inchthick cast- $590,000 Conduit and piping is suspended from the first floor deck along god in-place concrete shear wall at the basement level line E.These would need to be removed and replaced or relocated. and upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie along the entire building length(140 feet)to serve as a collector. PFM 3:Standard Structural Mitigation E $85,000 Applies over 24 lineal feet x 9-R tall windows. PFM 4:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $610,000 Similar with new steel roof framing members.Provide at(6)locations. (SIM)______________________________________ PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2 $495,000 Replace the roof deck over 39%of the high roof(3,000 so. Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC(total of 90 epoxy anchors). -------$300,000 Replace the roof deck over 20%of the low roof between grid lines 2 to 6(1,000 so.Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC(total of 60 epoxy anchors). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,410,000 Notts:I.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,20I9)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class 5"order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsl' •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in P515-O6 Study 19 Ground Shaking 4 El Differential Settlement Ill Central Power Generation ❑ lateral Spread Z Building r 3 • a I Abbrevogiana: Controlling Conseauenceisl: E LosF=Likelihood ofSeumic Failure ❑ life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic allure El Regulatory ElStakeholder 53 p# RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ® Financial El Public Impact e�q likelihood designated elrher"0`(corers performance objective),m between"1` Risk Ranking: 1 Qowlikelthoad)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Scope: 4 p Consequences ranked beaveen`1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 20 identified egnsequenceland"5"(high 0 consequence&Seismic Failure(Co3F) 5 mnsequenm) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:P1-127(09/01/2027) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 20 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2 AERATION BASINS 1-10 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-11 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Driven—PPC piles at 10.00'elev.(17.50'embedment,12"SO,50' long) Structure Dimensions:463.8 ft x 277.5IT B of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1973 1-33 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1985 ❑'• Projects:PI-16/P1-36-2 1-26 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report ®Specifications ❑Other 1-11 aeohazards and seismicity I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) .� •1-1 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ) HHWLs AWLa.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 10 6 to 8 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 22 to 44 16 to 26 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 8 to 17 6 to 30 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA Ill Dist(km)4 25 „ Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 „ saga/socv s��a Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 `: clay wne sm -ea Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss IBI Ss IBI s BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 vr Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' Sand/sury sans distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected +r as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazed; 7. Ground Schematic Gross section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.5 R-MSL AWL 11.5 it lugs ♦16 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tle a Assessment Results N/A Note.I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thmmeet both the aSE-IE and 6SE-1Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considereQ2.T1=Tierl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier1 (equivalent to ASCE 4I-13 Defoancv bused Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 21 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019JJor descriptions of Standard Geotechnicof and Structurof Mitigations,2.Cost estimates provided ore Mai Gass S"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking (Usk of Seismic Failure g Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: 0 Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS I5-06 Study ®Ground Shaking " ❑ Differential Settlement =4 *1-11 Aeration Basins 1.10 ❑ Lateral Spread L S 8 • • 1 AbbraNations: Controlling Conseuuence(s): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ❑ Life safety El Primary Treatment 12COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fnllure 'F ROSF=Risk of Seismic Fallure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 pp ® Financial ❑Public Impact Likelihood designated either"0"(meats - performance objective),or between"1" Risk Rankine: 1 (Iota likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 0 COSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between NI"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 0 Identified consequence)and"5"(high O Consequence of Failure 8 consequence)ns comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 22 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS 1-26 p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-12 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Driven—PPC piles at 13.50'elev.(13.50'embedment,12"SO,50' long) .. Structure Dimensions:555 IT x 345 ft g of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1973(1-14),1996(15-24)&2005(25-26) Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:P316/PI-36-2/PI-82 Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report I t2 LJ 13 N Specifications El Other F' Q — � - - J aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High c i HHWLa AWLa.t Plainview Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 40 to 57 38 to 56 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 7 to 10 6 to 9 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(Wall Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 „ S-a[sucysam Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 5 clay Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s Sand/s'ucy saga BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 v'j` Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' sand/sihy sand distance to renter of giant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Class 0;6.Selected ss as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs tostructurol analysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eseisank ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5it-bids ♦22 it AWL 11R-bgs +16 R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L;1-21A Digesters 13-16 PFM and Descriptions Tlert Assessment Results PFM 6:Separation across expansion The structure is divided into 9 blocks via 2 longitudinal and 2 transverse expansion joints due to lateral spread towards T1/2 joints.Different lateral spread displacement at different locations(range from 6 to 40 the Santa Ana River inches)will likely cause large separation of as much as 6-inches at the expansion joints. PFM 8:Failure of conveyor supporting The conveyor supporting structures span over the longitudinal expansion gaps and structu re d ue to latero l spread T1/2 towards the Santa An.River will be subject to large deformations. PFM 12:Bendi ng/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed ultimate capacity at around 24-Inches of lateral due to lateral spread T3/2 spread<best estimate PG D of u p to 40 inches. Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E petformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(71144;Gaosyntee 2019)for additional Pi considered;2.TI=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130e&iency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofTler3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 23 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 6&12:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 60%(surface PGD=15-inches). PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 60%(surface PGD=15-inches).However, damage to Clarifiers 25 is still likely.To reduced likelihood of damage to Clarifier 25 lateral spread displacement should be limited to half of this value(no more than 6 to T inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costs Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TMC(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TML (Geosyateq 2019)for additional detail. risk ranking s Rik of of Seismic Failure Controlling Failure Tvoe(s): •Other Plant l Structures Included in PS 15-05 Study El Ground Shaking El Differential Settlement — *1-12 Secondary Chdfa:rs 1-26 ® Lateral Spread 2 LL 3 a Abbravianena: Controlling Conse0uence151: .E -SF-Likelihood of5eismic Failure El Life Safety El Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure ®Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder '6 2 pV'I' ROSF=Rlskaf Seismic Failure ® Financial ❑Public Impact Hkelihaod designated elther"O"(meets performance objective),or between Risk Rankine: 1 O (low likellhood)and "5"(high likelihood) Lc,SF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 p0 Consequences ranked betwmen"1"(no Overall RoSF=WSFz[oSF= 20 p 1 2 3 4 6 itlentified consequenceland"5"(high Consequence of seismic Failure(CoSF) consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15406 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 24 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTER 5 N p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE ••` % } 1-13 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Driven-PPC piles at 24.92'elev.(3.08'embedment,14'SO,6(y long) -- Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,19 inch wall thickness lark 6 i < N of Stories:1 story - - Date of Original Construction:1958 d / lot2) Retrofit(if any):N/A - 1 15 joi Projects:PI-2 _ .n a.,rq 1-7 lottj l-2 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report `.'/yr'/\• b fatal ®Specifications ❑Other 14 Icet 1-17 (010) ID1) ; aeohazards and seismicity (Nal Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) A e 1- � Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ) 1-5 T M HHWL' AWL2.1 Plan View Surface settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral spread(near river,inches) 16 to 19 SO to 11 I, Lateral spread(far from river,inches) 14 to 16 9 DMerministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(km)- Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 a sapaLswvsava Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s' clay wan raw s1111, savaynit aaye�: Probabillstics Hazard Level Me PGA(g) Still) Ss(9) Si(9) s cia - BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 a lava/yysaa BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 a sand/5u ysa w nay lays m P' Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate " sand/sing sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected -ss as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2F seismic ground matrons. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL AWL 12 ft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 11 PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results N/A Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the SSEaF and BSE-217performance objectives have been amittedhom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Vera exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 25 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0 Notes:1.Refer to TMd g3easyntet,2019)for descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Goss 5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Twefsl: •Other Plant 15tructures Included in PS 15-05 Study X Ground Shaking a4 • ❑ Differential Settlement *1-13 Digester 5 ❑ Lateral Spread LL 3 • • Abbrevianom: [ontrollln¢Conseauencelsl: .E LOSF=Likelihaad of9eismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : coSF=consequence of Seismic Failure ❑Regulatory OStakeholder a p�sw ROSF=Riskof seismic Fallum ® Financial ❑Public Impact „S Likelihood designated either"0")meads c performance objectivel,or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 (7owlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 0 Jno COSF,Weighted Score: 4 0 Cnnseouencesrankedbetween (high Overa ll ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 0 idenequenensequence)and"5"thigh O Conuquence of Seismic failure lCOSFI S mnsequenml comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 26 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 DIGESTER 5 PUMP ROOM " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE I It 1-14 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. O' structural components Foundation Type:Dropped spread footings at 23.50'elev.(5.00'embedment) Structure Dimensions:30 fit x 29.5 fit -- g of stories:1 story, ( 1-23 Date of Original Construction:1956 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1961 and 2009 — r]-21B Projects:P3-2/P1-5 1 ( j0tti Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ElGeotechnical Report —� afd 555��� 1-7 1-2 to ®Specifications ❑Other - J 1-24 b imp mal a (\�\,1-14 loll ,gam/ 1-13 1.17� loll geohaeards and seismicity D I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) iDsi Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHW 1 ,LL AWL2.t a Ll�j. 1-5 ) Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8to 10 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 14 to 17 9 to 30 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 13 to 16 8 to 9 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(mail Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 sy,ea�Eoo,,h Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 : -sand/s'Inysana Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) S.(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) ' flay wad ohm sin and sway sb lava,: BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 771 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 ca BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 ' saad/Sbysan. Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/silty sand with Spry aayseams distance to center of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site class D,'6.Selected sane/Altysand as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground -sa deformation inputs to stmctumlanelysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eselsmic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +23.511 AWL 12.5 it ass ♦16 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Description' Ter' Assessment Results PFM I:Footings move independent of Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can the wall T3 move differentially from other walls(120 ftj. PFM 2:Insufficient separation from TI The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digester 5 by adjacent digesters 1-inch.Pounding of the roof deck into Digester 5 can occur. PFM 3:Torsional response of roof diaphragm The roof diaphragm has shear walls on(3)sides,which will create a torsional TI response and exacerbate pounding into Digester 5 wall. REVISED.6AM2019 PS IS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 27 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 at 2 PFM S:Tension failure in the concrete 3.2"over 60 feet of differential settlement.Building is smaller than exemplar but has walls due to ground deformation T1/2 shorter walls and a larger differential settlement.Response is estimated to be similar to the exemplar. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet beach Me ESE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Proredure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 WrienMRased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application oflTer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnlwl Mitigations Costa Comments PFM 5:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,420,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 50%(1-1/2"in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 5 to 42 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Dealt Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation Cl $55,000 Provide, ra length of 120 lineal feet. PFM 2 a 3:Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the $145,000 Add aboml2feetofshearwallx13.5feettall. building on the south side adjacent to Digester 5.Alternatively, consider using the existing masonry wall inside the building and tie it to the existing roof deck to transfer in-plane shear. otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $1,620,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructurol Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5-Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlline Failure Tvi lsl: •Other Plant 1 structures Included in Ps 15-06 study ®Ground Shaking o4 ® Differential Settlement *1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 * • • AbbreNadn oa: Controlling Conseauencelsl• .E Lo.SF=Likelihood ufSeismlc Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment ':, COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 51 pww RoSF=Risk gf Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 ASP Likelihood designated either"0"(meets e 1 ��cr • performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and '5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 p Consequences ranked between Ni"(no Overall RoSF=LosFz CoSF= 6 identified consequence)and"5"(high 0 Consequence ofseismic Failure(COSF) S co^sec,°enttl comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 28 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTER 6 t " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE �, , 1-15 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and �. operation are likely. y' y structural components Foundation Type:Driven-PC piles at 24.07'elev.(3.08'embedment,14"SO, unknown length) _ Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,22 inch wall thickness / j 12 N of stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1961 Retrofit(if any):P1-100 project 2009 ; 216 Projects:P1-5 1 10 Q01'-.2' Availablelnformation: MConstruction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report L I-15 17®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Steel dome 1-24 b4 Joel1-11 1-17 � geohazards and seismicity Ip,l Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) loci Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High .�_ HHWLs AWL2.7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 13 to 16 9 IWIT Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 11 to 14 8 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(ii Dist(km)- Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 11 a s=na�a/i'�,v ssd_= _ __ __ __ -- Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 -� clay wnntave�: Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(g) Still) Ss(9) Si(9) e: soya/snq say v,5(Unknown tee ml BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 is ' said/sby saidvnn sny day seam: Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate no 5and/SI11 sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected as as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5it-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL AWL 12R-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 11 PFM and Descriptions Tlers Assessment Results N/A Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(711,14;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI-Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Woenty-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See 7744(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 29 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $O Notes:1.Refer to TM4 p3easynteo,2019JJor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class 5'Order Of MagniNde"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sh •Other Plant i Structures Included in PS iS06 Study ®Ground Shaking Be ❑ Differential Settlement *1-15 Digester 6 ❑ Lateral Spread 3 • • Afibrevia ions: Controlling Conseauencelsl: E IOSF=likelihood o1'5eismic Failure El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seism(c Failure ❑Regulatory O Stakeholder 'g 2 OSvµ RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure M Financial -1 Public Impact �yaq Dkelihood designated either"01(meets performance objecdve),or between"1" Risk Rankine: 1 Y (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 0 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked baMxen"1"(no Overall ROSF=LoSFZCoSF= 0 identified cansequeam,end"5"(high O Conuquence MSeismicFailure(Co3 S mnsequenal n comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 30 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTER 7 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE -1 1-16 1 1 IV TANK ( - class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. - structural components Foundation Type:Driven-STP plies at 23.32'elev.(4.68'embedment,15.5"to 9.5" din,45'long)Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,22 inch wall thickness 15 y10 • N g of Stories:l story v1-21A Date of Original Construction:1963 �� 1 18 Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-24 Projects:PI-9/PI-35-1 14 loaf Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report Imo 1-13 ®Specifications El Other 1-17 ID7t 1.16' 1-20 Joel 1-19 aeohazards and seismicity nnnnnn Q-s Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High i HHWL' AWLt.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 25 to 33 19 to 29 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 19 to 25 15 to 22 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(Iml Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 s "saaa7s�uv_a a Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 e, Cla nm�� su�am sonny sta tave�s E' clay + BSEAEProba ilistics Hazard20%in Level Ms PGA(g) Said Ss54 s.(g) -• saea/syy saga v+s BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 _a sand/sixty sand With city Clay seams Notes:1.Histanc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate -u sand/Sllryszod distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected -six as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground mabons. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5it-his ♦23 it-MSL AWL 12 it his ♦16 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-21B Digester 11 PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at 10-inches and Ls(BSE 2E)limit at due to lateral spread(surface PGD=19 T1/2 IS-inches. inches) Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omittedhom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(71,14;Geosyntec,2019)for additional Pi considered;2.T1-Perl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3-Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application of Tier exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 31 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 20%(surface FED=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otel Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019J fm descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimotespan idedare AACEI Class S'Older of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Referto TM4 (Geosyatec,2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in PS 15-06 Study ❑Ground Shaking 4 ❑ Differential Settlement *1-16 Digester ® Lateral Spread LL 3 • * Abbreaanona: [ontrollin¢Conse0uence(sl: .E LOSF=Likelihood ofStismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 pVw Ri-Risk of Seismic Failure El Financial 7Public Impact m 0S ❑kellhood designated eltherb")meets Performance objective),m between"I" Risk Ranking: z 1 (Inalikellhood)and `S'(high likelihood) LOST Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between-V(no Overall RoSF=LaSFZCoSF= 12 identified wnsequence)and-5"Thigh O Cgnraquence ofSeiamia Failure(COSFI S consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 MIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 32 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTER 7 PUMP ROOM E If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE °. 1-17 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. r structural components Foundation Type:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 19.50 elev.(B.OT embedment) 15 �A / _ - Structure Dimensions:32 ft x 28.2 ft loal `.c g of Stories:l story , ruin 1-21A Date of Original Construction:1963 . �) 1-18 Imll 1-2 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1969 and 2009 a 1�A/4 v Imo) x Protects:PI-9/PI-14 1 -: Iosl Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1-1 3 1_17 }oml N Specifications El Other mrI I last 1-20 9 aeohazards and seismicity _ -s Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Hill AWLa,t — - Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 22 to 29 17 to 26 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 20 to 27 16 to 24 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA Ids Dist Iml spread Formes Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 i5 saga/i�uvsana Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 6' cis y with thin sw and sandy zw Layer: Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(d So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) 3--s as BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s sana/satysa�a BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 : sand/spry sand with silty clay seams Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,-2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate 's sane/61Iry sans oistinre to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected es as largest magnitude among significant contributors `yLl to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs tostructurol analysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eselsmic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHVL 5ft-bgs +22.6 R-MSL AWL 11.6 itR-bgs ♦16 it structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Descriptions Tlert Assessment Results PFM 1:Footings move independent of Walls have me structural he between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can the wall T1 move differentially from other walls(120 it). PFM 2:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters adjacent digesters TI and 8 by 1-inch.Pounding of the Loof deck into the digesters can occur.Consider adding independent braced frames or shear walls. PFM 6:Differential lateral spread Digesters 7 and 8lateral spread is estimated to be 19"/14.5e and Ir/13.7a, between Digesters 7 and 8 due to T1/2 respectively. This can result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the liquefaction building. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thwareet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2Eperformunce objectives have been omitted fmm the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(77,14;Geodersec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;).T1=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening procedure),72=TA,2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiout,Based Evaluation Procedure,73=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application of Tier exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISEC,6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 33 ORANGE COUNTY MT Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 50%(surface PGD=9-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation Cl $50,000 Provide over length of 120lineal feet. PFM 2:Atlticast-in-placeconcreteshearwallstobracethebuRding -$200,000 Add about 24 feet of shear wall x 13.5 feet tall. on the north and south sides. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $250,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TMa(Geosynteq 2019f for de triptlans of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude'estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosyn[eq 2019)far additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 O Other Plant I Structures Included in Controlling Failure Twelsl: ®Ground Shaking @�@ P518-Ofi Study El Differential Settlement 34 O *1-17 Digester]Pump Room N Lateral Spread = w 3 * • • Abbreviations: Controlling Consequence(* 50 'E Lc SF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 2 e CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 52 axyr ROSF=Riskof Selsmlc Failure El Financial El Public Impact I ukellhood designated elfler"0'(meets Performance objective),or between%1 Risk Ranking: M 1 5 (lowlikellhood)and 'S"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 3 CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Conseauenim ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 6 idmu11--nsequeu-,.ud"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequenoaef Se,anw Feilure(CeSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 34 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTER 8 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-18 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Driven—SPP plies at 23.32'elev.(4.25'embedment,12.75"dia.,45' long) Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,22 inch wall thickness 15 � ' (012) g of Stories:1 story `�?may- ' m+nl 1-21A Date of Original Construction:1969 1 1? Jon) Retrofit(if any):N/A 1 24 b m+31 1 13 1 17 Protects:P114/P1-35-1 14 met Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report Im.l ®specifications ❑Other • .. ID7I 1-16 1-20 Di 1-19 aeohazards and seismicity �* Qi-B Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) (- Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High �I i HHWLs AWLt.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 24 to 31 18 to 28 - Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 24 14 to 21 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(km)- Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 saga/sTysa In Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78Probab ' oav wn6,6'�r s'�h sra sarav s'�u tave�: Nay. BSE-1Eilistics Hazard20%in Level Ms PGA(g) s.(e) Ss54 s.21 + sand/Sir,Sara BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Sandi sand with silty clay seams Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Arm is Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate s Sara/S lft sans distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected se as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hamrd; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.6 R-MSL AWL 11.6 R-bgs ♦16 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21B Digester 11 PFM and Descriptlonr Tiers Assessment Results PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at to-inches and LS(BSE 2E)limit at due to lateral l spread(surface Pi is 18 T1/2 15-inches. inches) Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional Pi considered,-2.TS=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T1=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Tier exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 35 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation At or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 15%(surface FED=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntet,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended fai-&nning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 fGeosyntec,1019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvi lel: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15-05 Study ❑Ground Shakinga4 • ❑ Differential Settlement Ill Digester 8 N Lateral Spread LL 3 • * Abbreviation.: Controlling Conseauencelsl: 'E loSF=Likelihood of9eismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : coSF=Consequence of Selsmic Fallure N Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 'n2 per ROSF=Rhkofseismic Fallum ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact „S Likelihood designated exher"O"(meets .e Performance objective.or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood( LOSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LgSFx[gSF= 12 identified consequenceland"5"(high O Co equence of Seismic failure(COSF) S mnsequenml comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 36 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 DIGESTER 9-10 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-19 1 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type:Driven—PPC piles at 23.15'elev.(4.51'embedment,12"SO,5(Y long) Structure Dimensions:110ft diameter,32 ITheight,27 inch wall thickness 15 '� tolzl g of Stories:I Story lolal 1-21A Date of Original Construction:1973 1-18 lon)1-2 Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-24 b on) Projects:PI-16/PI-35-2 14 loaf Available Information: Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report m:m 1-13 s1-17 Iorl ®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Piles 1 i6 ® loyl 1-20 1-19 aeohazards and seismicity nnnnnn Q-s I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High j HHWL' AWL2,7 — Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 55 to 72 40 to 64 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 281037 20 to 33 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9P Dist(km)- Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 11sas naLsat�ssaWla,— ProbabillsticsFar Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 780...Ith min Sutan Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) Sv(g) Ss(9) S1(9)BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 sane/ai ySanBSE-2E- 5%in Styr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 s sane/snty sane and Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' sane/snty santl distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected ss as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth ElevaOon HHWL 5It-lugs +22]ft-MSL AWL IIJft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-21B Digester 11 PFM and Desorption' Tier- Assessment Results PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at 10-inches and LS(BSE 2E)limit at due to lateral spread(surface PGD=40 T1/2 15-inches. inches) Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ESE-IF and RSE-2Fpeifermance objectives have been amftledfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(71,14;Geusyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofTler3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See Mat(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 37 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 60%(surface FED=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019J fm descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass S'Older of estimate;intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteml spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geo,adec,2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tyoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in P515-06Study ❑Ground Shaking 4 • ❑ Differential Settlement *1-19 Digester 9-10 ® Lateral Spread LL 3 • Abbrewatione: Controlling Conse0uence(51: .E Lo.SF=Likelihqud oPSeismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment [oSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pVw Fri-Riskgf Seim,Failure El Financial 7Public Impact S pkelimmul designated eltherb"(meets Performance ubjective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: z 1 s (lowlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood( LOST Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between-V(no Overall RgSF=LgSFZCoSF= 20 identified wnsequence)and-5"(high O Consequence ofSeiamia Failure(COSFI S consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 38 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTER 9-10 PUMP ROOMIMP p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE r 1-20 1 I IV TANK -� class based performance objectives f Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components " Foundation Type:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 161(10.96' embedment) - Structure Dimensions:55 ft x 40 ft loin g of Stories:)story Q local 1-21A Date of Original Construction:1963 1-7 LDnl1-2 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 2009 1-24 Projects:PI-16 1-14; b ID191 oel Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report 1-11 1-17 cmol ®Specifications ❑Other ID11 IDB) 20 I geohazards and seismicity �-5 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High nnnnnn HHWLL AWLa.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 38 to 50 29 to 45 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 27 to 36 21 to 32 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(111 2 _ Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 , saaatsucysaa saaar-rani Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 - _ 5 davwim thin Silt and sandy sit Layers Probablifir cs Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) • eay BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 • sand/sitysand BSE-2E7 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 sand/silty sand with Silty aayseama Notes:1.Historic Nigh Water Level;2.Anorysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate sand/snty sand distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations far Site Class D,'6.Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2P seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.6 R-MSL AWL 11.6ft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Dewiptions Thai Assessment Results PFM 1:Footings move independent of Walls have me structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building walls can the wall T1 move differentially from other walls(140 ft). PFM 2:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters adjacent digesters TI and 10 by 1-inch.Pounding of the roof deck into the digesters can occur.Consider adding independent braced frames or shear walls. PRO 3:Torsional response of roof TI The roof diaphragm has an irregular configuration of shear walls,which will create diaphragm torsional response and exacerbate pounding into the digester walls. PFM 4:Diaphragm connections at re- TI The building has(1)re-entrant corner and the roof diaphragm has no detailing to entrant corner provide chord continuity or drag connections. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 39 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 7:Lateral spread toward the 291(near/far)lateral spread varies by 8.2 inches across the structure.Lateral Santa Ana River due to liquefaction T1/2 spread can pull apart the building walls because the floor slab is not tied to the wallflooting(140 ft). PFM 8:Differential lateral spread Digesters 9 and 10 lateral spread is estimated to be 40"/20.4". This can result in the between Digesters 9 and 10 due to T1/2 Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the building. liquefaction Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ELSE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Proredund,T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 DeRrienMRased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application ofTler3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Cil Comments PFM 7&8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation At or A2 See Note Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 70%(surface PGD=9-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation CS $60,000 Provide over a length of 140 lineal feet. PFM 28,3:Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the $180,000 Add about 16 feet of shear wall x 16 feet tall. building on the north side adjacent to Digester 10. PFM 4:Provide stainless steel channel that is anchored to the $100,000 Provide 54 lineal feet. bottom side of the roof deck with epoxy anchors.The channel should be provided over the full length of the building in the east- west direction. ots l Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $340,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplonaing purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec,2019)far additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant S Structures Included o M Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study ❑ Differential Settlement 4 *1-20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room ® tateral Spread t Controlling Conseauencelsl: E lnSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of seismic Failure El Regulatory ❑Stakeholder $ 2 pVq R.5F=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8ss Ukelihooddes1gnatede1ther"01(meets g performance objecHve),m between"1" Risk Ranking: M 1 (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Identified consequence)and"5"(high Overa 11 ROSF=LaSF x Call 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failum(CasFl comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 40 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTERS 13-16 (FRONT ROW) " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-21A 1 I IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 22.6T elev.(4.33'embedment, e' leand yps ,bo syy , �, 12"SO,52'long) — Structure Dimensions:110ftdiameter,32 IT height,27 inch wall thickness -27 ,A .0 g of Stories:1 Story as Date of Original Construction:1989 ` Retrofit(if any):PI-100 project 2009 1-23 ,/7 a�e�) Projects:PI-34-3 (Y/`/�(()�/ N I Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report J]-21B .'. (Dill ®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Piles (D") a 4 Nnl1-2 Dial 1-21A 17 aeohazards and seismicity b 1°1Ix Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 17 .im(us" Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWLs AWLa.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 30 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 42 to 58 35 to 52 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 21 to 29 17 to 26 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(km)- m _S Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 as sn�y sand . __ Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 g s �Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(g) Self) Ss(9) Ss(9) e elavwiro Dim sucansonny sot lawn BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 load/mq load BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 as sand/silty sand with silty aayseama Notes:1.Histodc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate a, sand/silty sand distance to renter ofplonq S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected 31 as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL AWL 11 it-bgs +16 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Descriptions Tier' Assessment Results PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BEE IE)limit at 10-inches and LS(ESE 2E)limit at due to lateral spread(surface Pi> T3 3 15-inches. 5-inches) Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2F performance objectives have been omittedfrom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)jar additional PFMs considered,-2.T1=rerl(equivalent to A5CE43-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier1 (equivalent to UCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1,72-Application of Tier3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4 Gleesomec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 41 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 60%(surface FED=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019J fm descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass S'Older of estimate;intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 LGeo,adec,2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tyoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in P515-06Study ❑Ground Shaking 4 • ❑ Differential Settlement *1-21 Digesters 11-16 ® Lateral Spread LL 3 • • Abbreviations: Controlling Conse0uence(51: .E LOSF=Likelihqud oPSeismic Failure 7 Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment [oSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure -1Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pVw Ri-Riskgf Seim,Failure Financial 7 Public Impact m 0S pkelimmul designated eltherb"(meets performance ubjective),m between"1" Risk Ranking: z 1 Qowlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood( LOST Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RgSF=LgSFZCoSF= 20 identified comm,enceland"5"(high O Consequence of Seismic Failum(COSFI S consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 42 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DIGESTERS 11-12 (BACK ROW) %t+dL " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE .. 1-21B 1 I IV TANK F* class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components J Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven-PPC piles at 22.6T elev.(4.33'embedment, .® 12"SO,52'long) Structure Dimensions:110 IT diameter,32 IT height,27 inch wall thickness t- 1-23 Imes g of Stories:1 story I �l Date of Original Construction:1989 - to+sl Retrofit(if any):P1 21B -100 project 2009 1 Projects:PI-34-3 1-10 minib21A Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 1-7 1-22 ®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Piles 1 24 b 01 4 oel -11 1-17 m:ol aeohazards and seismicity mn Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) (Cal Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1-20 HHWV AWL2.7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 20 to 27 16 to 24 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 14 to 19 11 to 17 is Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(Ill s 4Synd/&11n: Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78ana,s'�u tave,sProbabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) Sa(e) Ss(9) Si(9) s BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 vll ' s BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 .s s.moSlltysana vnth sap.Clay seams Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate s sane/snry sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected " as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Devil HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 R-MSL AWL 11 it-bgs 116 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at 10-inches and LS(BSE 2E)limit at due to lateral spread(surface PGD=16 T3 IS-inches. inches) Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)themmeet both the BSE IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfmm the list.See Technical Memorandum 4 r7M4;Geasyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE41-135creening Procedure),U=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 4I-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 43 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread to at least 5%(surface PGD=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass 5'Order of estimates,intended farplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Referto TM4 LGeosyntec,2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in PS 15-06 Study ❑Ground Shaking 4 • ❑ Differential Settlement III Digesters 11-16 ® Lateral Spread LL 3 • • Ab ureviaOona: Controlline tonse0uencelsl: 'E LoSF=Likelihaad fSeismic Failure 7 Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 2 [oSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure -1 Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 pVw RoSF=Riskof5eismic Failure Financial 7 Public Impacts Likelihood designated either"O"(meets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Rankine: z 1 (lowlikelihood)and `5"(high likelihood( LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LgSFZCoSF= 20 identified consequenceland"5"(high O Consequence ofSeiamic Failure(COSFI S mnsequenml ns comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 44 Jil ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 St 2 DIGESTERS 11-16 PUMP ROOM 1 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 1-22 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 10.5tY elev.(16.50'embedment, 12"SO,52'long) -- _ Structure Dimensions:178 IT x 116 ft g of Stories:I story 1-23 to at Date of Original Construction:1990 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 2009(non-structural components only) 1-21B ` ' put Projects:PI-34-3 i 10 •Q lout Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ....�////���� Ip+4) '1-21A ®Specifications El Other a-/1�24 1 7 i011t is 4 b out pat Iaeohazards and seismicity 11 1-n plot Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) (07I Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High loot HHWLL AWLa.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 30 -.. Lateral Spread(near IMtl,inches) 32 to 43 26 to 38 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 16 to 21 13 to 19 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dist(larl Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s• clay wnn IN sin sa Sir taveIr Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) . aav: BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 saga/suq saga BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 „ saga/s' sa wrc suq uv m we: Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate " sand/Sllrysaod distance to renter ofplanq S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected ++ as largest magnitude among significant contributors f�1%) to the hazard, 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5it-lugs ♦22 it AWL 11 ft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results PFM 1:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 11- 14 by a 2-inch expansion joint.Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can adjacent digesters causes structure T3 occur. Drift at the roof is estimated to be 3".Given the findings for the concrete pounding moment frames,addition of braced frames or shear walls is recommended. PFM 2:In-plane wall shear at shear Walls In both orthogonal directions were found to be deficient for the 10(BSE IE) walls TI performance level,but only in the E-W direction for both 10(BSE IE)and LS(BSE 2E) performance levels. PFM 3:Column shear at moment Columns that are part of the concrete moment frames have excessive shear force. frames TI The evaluation was made assuming that the shear walls were not providing lateral load resistance.Mitigation with addition of shear walls will address this potential failure mode. REVISED.SAM2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 45 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2 PFM S:Bending/shear failure of piles 10.3"(estimate at pile head)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.DCR is the due to lateral spread(surface P6D=26 T3/2 Inches) near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5"). PFM 6:Differential lateral spread between Digesters 11-14 due to T1/2 Digesters 11 and 12 lateral spread is estimated to varyfrom 31.3"to 16".This can liquefaction result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the building. Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the ESE Hard ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list see Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs caradered;2.T1=Pert(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application afrer3 exemplar results too subsidiary structure.See 71,44(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Cosh Comments PFM 5&6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 50%(surface PGD=13-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1-3:Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls in both $1,080,000 Provide approximately 420 lineal feet x 15 feet orthogonal directions from the roof down to the basement to tall. reduce building drift. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,080,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only,3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosynteq 2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: ae •Other Plant I Structures Included in Ps 15-M study ®Ground Shaking $ 4 ❑ Differential Settlement *1-22 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 1 ® Lateral Spread r 3 • • 4 AbmeA.Lons: Controlling Conseguencelsl: 'E LaSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 'n COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 p�yq ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Py" Likelihood designated either"0"(meats 1 `p0 performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 CaSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 1 1 ALCanseauences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFz Co.SF= 10 identified consequenceland"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure(Co$F) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 46 Jil ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 DIGESTERS 11-16 PUMP ROOM 2 e p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 1-23 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 10.5LY Elea.(16.50'embedment, A' 12"SO,52'long) _ Structure Dimensions:116 IT x 80IT - B of Stories:1 story 1-4 Date of Original Construction:1990 -27 Retrofit(X any):Remodeled in 2009(non-structural components only) Projects:PI-34-3 Available Information: Sl Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1-23 local ®Specifications ❑Other ; _ '015, mzJ geohazards and seismicity I°'°I 1 z1A I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) .4 17 l°"It2 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High b^ lo'al I HHWLs AWLAt Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 8 to 9 6 to 8 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 28 to 38 20 to 29 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 24 13 to 18 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA III Dist(Wall Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 a sand/surysane Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 a, 6lav v+hAli Suoantl'sanaysal i avers eIa Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(g) So(g) Ss IBI Ss IBI '• sana/ 'oy sac BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 , sane/ ty Sad a P.e. Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate a 5ane/5nty Sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.sticoc- ss as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazard, 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL AWL ilk-this 116 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tiere Assessment Results The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 15- PFM1:Insufficient separation from TI 16 by 2-i nch expansion joint Pounding of the roof deck 1 mo the digester wal is can adjacent digesters occur.Drift at the roof is estimated to be 5.7".Given the findings for the concrete moment frames,addition of braced frames or shear walls is recommended. PFM 2:Discontinuous shear wall at the T1 Shear wall at the south side of the building is discontinuous below the first floor. east and south elevations PFM 3:In-plane wall shear at shear T1 Only the walls in the east-west direction were found to be deficient. walls REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 47 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 Columns that are part of the concrete moment frames have excessive shear force. PFM 4:Coln mn shear at moment The eval nation was made assuming that the shear walls were not providing lateral frames Tl load resistance.Mitigation with addition of shear walls will address this potential failure mode. PFM 6:Bending/shear failure of piles 9,7"(estimate at pile head level)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.OCR is he due to lateral spread(surface FED=20 T1/2 t near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5"). inches) Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs]that meet both Me BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.see Technical Memorandum C(71144;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Proredurej,T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficamcy-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/r2=Application afFer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mltigatlonr Costa Comments PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 50%(surface PGD=10-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 14:Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls in both $420,000 Provide approximately 120 lineal feet x 15 feet orthogonal directions from the roof down to the basement to tall. reduce building drift. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $420,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class S"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only,3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteml spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosymeq 20191 additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sh ae •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15-06 study M Ground Shaking $ 4 ❑ Differential Settlement *1-23 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 2 ❑ Lateral Spread S 3 • • AbbreW4cam: Controlling[onseguencelsl: .E Lo.SF=Likelihood uf5eismlc Failure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 'n COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 p�yq ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Py" Likelihood designated either"0"(meets 1 `ed performance objectiveLor between"I" Risk Ranking: (law likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 1 1 Canseauences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFz Co.SF= 10 identified wnsequenceland"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequencel consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 48 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 GAS HOLDER " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-24 1 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures _ substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Ring wall footing at 25.75'elev.(1.50'embedment,2' wide) r La,o Structure Dimensions:42 ft diameter,32 ft height 1-6 i _ g of Stories:I story - 21B w y (this Date of Original Construction:1990 ni Retrofit(if any):N/A i U., 1 Projects:PI 34 1 1 7 Intl 1-2 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1124 b lost) c ®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Gas holder 1-14 Joel 1-13 1 17 X D21 geohazards and seismicity 1pa1 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1.20 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High T1-5 I HHI AVVi Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral spread(near river,inches) 16 to 20 11 to 12 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 18 10 to 11 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist(III Ring wall Foot ng_ Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 , sand/shKsand Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 ` js Glaywltd cam serf and sandy Silt Layers Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) , clay - -- BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s sanall sans > BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 : small sand wan shy racy seams Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate 'a' sand/silty sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class 16.Selected -11 as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazards 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground mabans. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5R-bgs +22.3 R-MSL AWL 11.3 ft-bgs ♦16 it structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-19 Gas Holder PFM and Descriptions There Assessment Results Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in thank shell at the anchor PFM 6:Tan k shell overstress due to chair location may exceed yield,may rest It 1 n gas leakage. liquefaction-induced settlements T1/2 Does meet IS(Ell 2)performance objectives. DCR>1.0,overstress at anchor locations may cause permanent deformation and/or gas leakage,low likelihood of collapse. PFM 7:Anchor failure overstress Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in the anchor bolt may exceed due to liquefaction-induced T1/2 yield,local tear in tank shell at anchor chair location possible. settlements Does meet IS(BSE 2)performance objectives.DCR>1.0,overstress in anchor locations may cause permanent deformation or fracture,low likelihood of collapse. Nall I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMt)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memaronce.4(TM4;Geosynteq 1019)for additional Pi considered;2.TI=Tier I(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficand,Based Evaluation procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosynteq 201 more detail. REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 49 ORANGE COUNTY MT Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 6&7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,800,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 80%)1.5"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 2 to 51 ft-bgs Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,800,000 Notes:1,Rtfer to TM4(Geosynteq 201 descriptions ofStandar l Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations,2.Cost estimates Providedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended)orplanning purposes only. risk ranking Hisk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure TVoelsl: •Other Plant 1 structures Included in PS 1506 Study ❑Ground Shaking 4 N Differential Settlement *1-24 Gas Holder ❑ Lateral Spread LL 3 • Abbreriatioma Controlling Conseauencelsl: .E LoSF=Likelihood mScismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : mSF=consequence of Seismic Failure N Regulatory O Stakeholder .� 2 so/* Rai-giskofSeismic Failure El Financial El Public Impact C4yC Likelihood designated either"0')meets 1 `Pd performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: (lowlikellhoad)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 1 CoSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LgSFZCaSF= 2.4 identified cgnsequenceland"5"Thigh O Comequmas of Seismic failure S mnsequenml e comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:J-124(in Progress) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 50 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-25 1 I IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and - operationarelikely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimension:Driven—PPC piles at 0.00'elev.(25.40'embedment, imagiroaaraffial W SO,unknown length) Structure Dimensions:48 ft x 63 ft B of Stories:l below grade .-t2 �1-3 Date of Original Construction:1989 Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:PI-33 e Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report N Specifications ❑Other 1-9 aeohazards and seismicity I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWLL AWL°.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 10 7 to 9 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 160 to 225 150 to 165 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 49 to 69 46 to 50 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(B)s Dist(km)4 Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 _' saga/stay saga Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s, la Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA So(g) Ss 111 IBI Ss IBI i IBI sera/swy sam BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Pe:I kw Leo ml Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate s sana/spry saga W '�' distanretorenter ofplanq S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelero[ions Jor Site Class 0;6.Selected s+ as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs tostructurol analysis based on AWL and BSE-217seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +20.4 R-MSL AWL 9.4 ft-bgs 116 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tlere Assessment Results PFM 4:Shea r fail a re of piles d ue to No lateral spread is esti mated at th a base of the structu re.The structure is fou bred lateral spread towards the Santa Ana T2 on piles.Structu re is su bject to overtu ruing and shearing due to appl ication of passive River and active earth pressures from spreading soils above the base of the structure.Shear failure of piles is possible. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMSJ that meet both the RSE-IF and RSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(7M4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TS=Tier)(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),M=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 51 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation requires reduction of lateral spread so that passive force application on the structure is reduced by at least 50%. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class 5'Older of estimates,intended farplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Gemyntec,2019)far additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvi lel: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15-06 Study ❑Ground Shakinga4 • ❑ Differential Settlement *1-25 Effluent Junction Box ® Lateral Spread LL 3 • • Abbresdanons: [ontrollln¢Conseauencelsl: .E LoSF=Likelihood ofsek vine Failure ❑ Life Safety ®Primary Treatment COSF=consequence of Sei,mic Failure ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder .� 2 eV'F ROSF=Rskof5elsmic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Likelihood designated elNer"0"(meets c performance adective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikellhood)and "S'(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 2 COSF,Weighted Score: 5 O 1 1 1 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFx[osF= 10 identified consequenceland"5"(high O Consequence of Seismic failure(COSF) S mnsequenm) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 52 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2 SOLIDS STORAGE FACILITY " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-26 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives L Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 6.75'elev.(20.25'embedment, 12"SO,52'long) IYY gel Structure Dimensions:71 fit x 41 fit / Y Date ofriesina lC es * 1-13 1-17 `/ Date of Original Construction:1989 toil Retrofit(if any):N/A / IDaI Projects:P1-34-2 /—i -5 1-20 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report s 7-2 - JLrj a ®Specifications ❑Other (dS} 1-26 aeohazards and seismicity 1a1 I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ) fill AWLa.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 8 to 10 7 to 9 Lateral spread(near river,inches) 24 to 35 18 to 31 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 17 to 25 13 to 22 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist(km)4 35 Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 smdpsusysane Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 2 Clay Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) • Sand/susyeand BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 . sand/sI,sand wn srt icy a w e: Noted 1.o creme High Water Level;2.Analysis Seismic Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' sand/snry Sand III distanretorenter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelero[ions far Site Class 0;6.Selected -�+ as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 R-MSL AWL 11 it-bgs 116 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16 PFM and Descriptions Tierz Assessment Results The north and south structures are separated by a 2-inch expansion joint,which is PFM I:Building pounding due to TI much less than 4%of the building height.Tying the structures together may result in response to ground shaking significant damage as the north and south structures may have a large differential lateral spread. PFM 5:Bending/shear failure of piles 15X(estimate at pile head)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.OCR is the at the south structure due to lateral T1/2 near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5"). spread(Surface PGD=18 inches) Notes:1,Potential Poilure Modes(PFMs)that meet both Me USE-lE and SSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4 r7M4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFM,considered;2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),R=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See 7144(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 53 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 60%(surface PGD=7-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Tie the structures together using steel shapes with slotted $60,000 The recommended mitigation will also require connections and epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized that the lateral spread potential be mitigated. and located to promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking. Lateral spread can impose differential demands across the expansion joint. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $60,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Norte 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations 2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class S'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this stmctum relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec,2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15-05 Study ❑Ground Shakinga4 • ElDifferential Settlement *1-26 Solids Storage Facility ® Lateral Spread r 3 • • Abbreviations: [ontrollin¢Conse0uencef5l: .E -aSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure ® fife Safety 7 Primary Treatment 2 COSF=Consequence of Saismic Failure ❑Regulatory ElStakeholder 2 pyhw ROSE=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact vS Likelihood designated either"O"(meets c performance objective),or between"1" Risk Rankine: 1 c (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 3 p Consequences ranked between`S"(no Overall RosF=LoSFZCoSF= 15 identified cgnsequenceland"5"(high O Consequence of SeismicFailure(COSF) S mnsequenal se comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 54 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 as 2 CHILLER BUILDING " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-27 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade Structure Dimensions:30 fit x 19.3 fit g of Stories:1 story - Date of Original Construction;1989 r Retrofit(if any):1996:Strengthening of roof-to-wall anchorage connections • - Projects:J7-4/P1-44-3 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report a1-27 Y •. ®Specifications ❑Other 1-23 geohazards and seismicity •a. 1-6 cI Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) )-21 B Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High IDtxl HHWLL Ali 1-is 1-7 12 1 Surface Settlement(inches) 7to8 5to6 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread DeterministicFault Name M PGl Dlst.(kmp snrea4 mores:. Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 __----_----- Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 , Indl 43dt,_gna _______ e555555• w1h ram Ill sandy Silt Layers Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sr(9)BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 „ BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 sand/silty sand with Silly Clay Seam: Notes:1.Historic High Water Levi 2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sans/silty sans distance to renter of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected an as largest magnitude among significant contributors fall to the hazard; 7. Ground -x deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A Wit and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. Schematic Cross Section Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5 fit-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL AWL 12 ft-bgs +16ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Desviptionr Tlert Assessment Results N/A Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet Will the BSE-IF and BSE-2F performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4 trivial Gaosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tear 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSIS-06 Till Appendix E 55 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0 Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasynteo,2019JJor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure S Controlling Failure Twe(Sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures included la PS 25-06 Study ®Ground Shaking sq • *1-27 Chiller Buildin ❑ Differential Settlement r ❑ Lateral Spread L + S • • 1 Abbse Lathan.: Controlling Conseguence(s): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ® Life Safety ®Primary Treatment ': COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pV'I' ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B Likelihood designated either"O"(meets c performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 0 CaSF,Weighted Some: I 0 Conseauences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 0 Identifietl consequencelantl"5"(high O Consequence of Wanda Failure S consequence) n comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 56 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 WAREHOUSE BUILDING " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-28 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade Structure Dimensions:100 IT x 150 ft g of stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1972 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1978 and 1996;1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the .of and mezzanine diaphragms,addition of roof and mezzanine 1 28 -1 diaphragm cross ties,and addition of shear wall bracing for the mezzanine. 4.30 _ • Projecte J-13/J-13-2R/PI-44-3 - 1-32 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1�• R 1-29 �� N Specifications El Other ,u u geohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Y$ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View HHWL' AWL2.7 Surface settlement(inches) 6to7 5 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- Spread vommza Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)2 Dist.(kmp s 'gVswand.aay Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 =a sane ana Sol Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 + Gray and Liquefiable Sand Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) S,(9) S2(9) s sivane C1 BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 . well Graded sane Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate as distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Cross Section as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5 fit-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL AWL 12 ft-bgs +16n-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A PFM and Destription2 Thera Assessment Results PFM 1:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is possible(20 pad footings x 8 ft). PFM 6:Wall panels are not tied together to resist overturning Except the south wall,panels are not tied together to resist overturning and can TI experience spalling at the roof ledger.The south wall joints are stitched together continuously with a pour strip(I5 x 20 ft). REVISED:6/2SMS PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 57 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 2.2"over 60 feet differential settlement.Tilt-up panels provided with(2)g5 bars at PFM 8:Tension failure in the walls due the top of the panel and a continuous ledger angle,which will both work to resist to differential settlement T3/2 tension in the wall due to ground deformation.The limiting strength occurs at the ledger angle splice(1.2x24/4). Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both Me USE IF and USE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;clearance,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130e ovary-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofFer 3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Gem,mte,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Cosh Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $315,000 Applies over 160 lineal feet(20 pad footings z 8-ft each). PFM 6:Tie tilt-up wall panels together along their vertical joints $125,000 Applies to 15 joints that are 20-ft tall each. using steel plates and epoxy anchors spaced at 4.0-ft on center. PFM 8:Provide continuous supplemental steel chord member along $250,000 Applies over the middle 50%of each wal l fora the east and west walls anchored to the existing tilt-up wall panels total of 250 lineal feet. with epoxy anchors. otel Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $6901000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,201gfor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking Wait of Seismic Failure 3 Controlling Failure Tygi o Other Plant I Structures Included In P515-M Study 19 Ground Shaking N Differential Settlement =4 O *1-28 Warehouse B,ling ❑ lateral Spread g d 3 O O 0 Abbievisiflui Controlling Conseguencelsl: 'E LaSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure N life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder Is pVy' RoSF=Rlskof Seismic Fallure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Dkellhood designated elther"0'(meats performance objective).or between"1' Risk Ranking: 1 O (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 15 itlentifled wnsequenceland'S"(high O Consequence of Seismic Failure(Cost) 3 consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 58 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 SHOP BUILDING A " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-29 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of - life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade Structure Dimensions:140 IT x 60 It N of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1972 Retrofit(if any):1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof and mezzanine diaphragms,addition of roof and mezzanine diaphragm cross ties,addition - 1 28 -. of shear wall bracing for the mezzanine,and strengthening of the mot diaphragm for 1-30 shear resistance. 1-32 Projects:J-13/P1-44-3 . R. 1-29 - Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ILJI N Specifications ❑Other 9�4 IF Aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View i Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWL' AVii Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 5 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) —No Lateral Spread— ' swead ro,,,, Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- p/s�iLa�a ciav Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dlst.(kmp = sand and sor Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 + aay with owenawe sand Packer: Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 ➢rand aay Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(8) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Well Graded saaa BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 -:: Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotions for Site Gass D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (i to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and Ill seismic ground motions. HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL AWL ilk-bgs 116 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 1:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is possible(20 footings x 8 It). Notes:1.Potential Folure Modes(PPMs)that meet both the aSE J E and RSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyn ter,1019)for additional PVMs ronsidered;1.T1=Fier I(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Devi Bused Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Fear exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geasyntec,2019)far more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 59 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $280,000 Applies, r 160 lineal feet(20 pad footings z e-ft each). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2801000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5t mmool Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedore AACEI Class 5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in PS 25-06 Study ®Ground Shaking El Differential Settlement =4 • Till Shop Building ❑ Lateral Spread L r 3 • * AbbreNaUons: Controlling Consequenceis): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Fallure El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pvyS' ROSF=Risk of Selsmlc Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B �yd Likelihood designated elther"0"(meats 75 Performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 S� 0 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) Lc SF Rating: 3 Cc SF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between NI"(no itlentlfietl consequence)antl"5"(high Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Cons rgwnw of Srismlc Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 60 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 Is, 2 SHOP BUILDING B AND BUILDING 3 p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 1-30 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components - Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade Structure Dimensions:260 x 85 ft If of Stories:1 Story Date of Original Construction:1972 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1988,1996,and 2003;1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof diaphragm,addition of roof diaphragm cross ties, 1-28 strengthening of the roof diaphragm for shear resistance,and shear strengthening of x1-30 _ the concrete shear walls. T LI,LJI • 1-32 Projects:J-13,J-20/J-89/P 1-44-3 R 1.29 -J Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report . ILJI N Specifications ElOther 774 1-31 I Aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWL' AWL2.7 Surface Settlement(inches) Lateral Spread(near river,inches) ' Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) sW.gh Ana aw Deterministic Fault Name M PGi Dist(limP = saaa.,�a suc 6s Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 + clay-a ­fi.,me s.,ca vorkec: Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 Sln ana Clay Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss Igl Ss Igl BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 u well araaea saga BSE-2P 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 — Notes.1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and gSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 5 fit-bgs t22 ft-MSL AWL Ilk-bgs .161 structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A PFM and Description' T er2 Assessment Results PFM I:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no stmctu ral tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the pad footings below the walls is possible(32 x 8-1 PFM 5:Wall anchorage of the roof at TI Occurs at(3)locations.The nail transfer to the diaphragm is insufficient. the south wall of Building 3 Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMsl that meet both the ESE-IF and gSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(71144;Geasyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 De dency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application of Ter 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5.06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 61 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $430,000 Applies, r 256 lineal feet(32 pad footings z 8-ft each). PFM S:Provide additional nailing to develop the wall anchorage $10,000 Occurs at locations. force into the diaphragm.Installation of clips angles that are screwed into the strut member and the bottom side of the plywood diaphragm on both sides of the strut member is recommended. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $440,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4 g3easynter,2019)Jor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimotespmvidedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Twelsk •Other Plant I Structures Included M 0Ground Shaking PS ISO6 Study ❑ Differential Settlement 04 *1-30 Shop Building B and 6ullding3 ❑ Lateral Spread S 9 • • I Abbrevlunlam: Controlling Conseguencelsi' .9 IOSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ® Life Safety El Primary Treatment ': COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pVw RoSF=Risk gf 5elsmic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B PyF Likelihood designated elther"C"(meats 1 `pC performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LOSFZCoSF= 20 Identifietl cgnsequenceland"5"(high O Com* umaof Seismic F.IIu.jCsSF) s consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 62 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 BUILDINGS 5 AND 6 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-31 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade �'r Structure Dimensions:270 IT x 61 It g of Stories:2 stories Date of Original Construction:1988 Retrofit(if any):1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof and end floor levels,addition of cross ties,and provision of connections between concrete tih- t 28 - 1 up wall panels. = f.3 . Projects:J-20/P1-44-3 VI III - 1 -32 Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report ly ., h'1-29 N Specifications ❑Other Jul u t 34 geohazards and seismicity i Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) f-8 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View HHWL2 AWL2.7 Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 5 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- IS 25 Deterministic Fault Name M PGA 18P Dist.lkmp IS 1t,it aneaay Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 5, sandani Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 pst nay and Liquefiable Sam Pocket: Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA 181 Still Ss lgl Ss lgl a sneand oay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 +s vul oradedsand Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate d5 distanre to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Goss Section s largest magnitude among significant contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation Hli 5ft-bgs @Oft-MSL AWL 9ft-bgs 116 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results PFM I:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the footings T1 buildi ng is unpred ictable a end relative movement of th a footing below the walls is possible(662 ft. PFM 4:Wall anchorage of the 2P4 floor T3 Building was seismically retrofit in 1996 as part of Pl-44-3.The single concrete anchor is subject to failure by concrete break-out(13 locations). PFM 613:Bending failure of beams over chevron braced frames The Vyi and Vyi beams at the end floor over the chevron braced frames do not T1 have sufficient bending capacity to handle unbalanced brace loads due to buckling in the compression brace IS locations). REVISED:6/28f2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 63 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 It 2 PFM 610:2-Floor diaphragm Floor diaphragm collector connections,including the welded stud connection of the collectors T2 beams to the floor diaphragm,the beam end connections,and the beam itself are not adequate along grid line B from 3 to 4. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath Me USE IF and USE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Perl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCl Wrier,-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/2=Application afFer3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $705,000 Applies, r 6621ineal feet. PFM 4:Supplement the existing wall anchorage with additional $185,000 Applies at 13 locations.Access will require hardware and epoxy anchor into the existing wall panel. removal and replacement of building finishes (ceiling panels,etc.). PFM 613:Add steel cover plates to the top and bottom flanges ofthe $190,000 Applies at 5 locations x 20-ft each(100 lineal steel beam member located directly above the braced frame. feet). PFM 60:En hance the capacity of the W21x50 d rag along grid li ne B, $180,000 Applies to the existing W21x50 beam at the 2nd the beam end connections,and the nailer connection for transfer of floor along grid line B between grid line 3 and 4 collector forces. (20-ft Zang). otal Geotechnical and Structual Mitigation Cost $1,260,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forgunning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Se'smic Failure 5 se Controlling Failure Type(.): O Other Plant l Structures Included In Ps 15-06 study ®Ground Shaking s4 *1-31 Buildings 5and6 ❑ 0ifferen[ial Settlement � ❑ lateral Spread 5 S 3 • • Abbrevilau: Controlling Conseguencefsl: 'E LOSF=U lhood ofSelsmlc Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COST=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure El Regulatory ElStakeholder y2 pxJ RGSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact i � Likelihood designated either"0"(meant - t}7 performance ob)ective).or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 /ow likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no idmtifled consequence)and"5"(high Overall ROSF=LOSFZCoSF= 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence et Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI5416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 64 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 AUTOSHOP " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-32 1 II II BUILDING class based performance objectives Class II:Not direcdy necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensiom:Shallow spread footings at-grade Structure Dimensions:121.3 ft x 121.3It - g of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1971 Retrofit(if any):1996: Provision of wall anchorage at the roof diaphragm and IrrI addition of cross ties at the roof diaphragm. 1_28 Projects:J-12/Pl-44-3 = Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report A - b32 ®Specifications El Other 1.29 3-34 31 I geohazards and seismicity 1 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) _ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHl All Marl Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 7 5 _ Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spread DeterministicFault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(kn)4u"`" Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 titAatandclay Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 soma and sm �* Clay and Liquefiable sand Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 silt and Clay BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Well Grated sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Class D;6.Selected ^` as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the haearo; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground water Level Depth Elevation Fl 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL AWL 12 ft-bgs 116 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A PFM and Description' Tel Assessment Results PFM I:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is possible(25 footings x 7 It). PFM 4:Wall anchorage of the low roof Building was seismically retrofit in 1996 as part of P1-44-3. Capacity of hardware is at the north and south side TI limiting(16 locations). Names:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF amid BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedhom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,201 additional PFMs considerei TI=Ferl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymeg 2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 P515-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 65 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Standard Structural MRigation C2 $305,000 Applies to 25 footings x 7-ft each(175 lineal fee). PFM 4:Standard Structural MRigation At(SIM) $130,0G0 Similar without the need for additional roof framing members.Occurs at 16 locations. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $435,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019JJor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass 5"Order-Of MagniNde"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Rik of Seismic Fallure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in 0 Ground Shaking PS 15-065tudy ElDifferential Settlement o4 *1-32 Auto Shop ❑ lateral Spread u 3 • • AbbreviaUona: Controlling Conseauencelsl• .E LOSF=Unalihaod ofSelsmlc Fallure 0 life Safety ❑Primary Treatment ':, COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 92 4pA ROSF=Risk of Selsonk Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact c r�� Ukellhood designated either"C"(meats ` performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 � (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 4 0 Conseauences ranked between NI"(no Identified consequence)ancl(high OVera II ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 0 1 2 3 4 8 consequence) ConsequAnw of Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 P515{I6 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 66 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PEDB2 " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-33 1 1 IV BURIED BOX ita class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structuressubstantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy andoperation are likely. structural componentsFoundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 3'mat foundation at-4.00'elev. 1 (29A0'embedment) t- — \ / Structure Dimensions:39.3 IT 29 ft g of stories:N/A 7 1 Date of Original Construction:1989 Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-33 Projects:P133 Ai Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report } ❑Specifications ❑Other 111 aeohazards and seismicity I�'-- Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High I i HHWLL AWLe,7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 9 5 to 7 _ Lateral spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Lateral spread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spread-- Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dist(knp 525 5 Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 -Sand/sivysana Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 5 Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) S (9) ciao s w'm sm seam BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 25 sand/sitv5aaa BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 11 Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/S.IWSaod distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Coss D;6.Selected m as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5ft-bgs @Oft-MSL AWL 9it-bgs 116 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16 PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 2:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience excessive shear forces. conditions Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMsl that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)far additional PFMs considered;2.T1=TierI fegwvalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T1=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 67 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost- Comments PFM 2:Standard Geotcchnical Mitigation C $940,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether. Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 9 to 29 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost- Comments N/A $0 N/A obl Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $8g0,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntea,2019)for descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and StruRuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Selsmlc Failure s Controlling Failure Tvuelsl: •Other Plant I Structures Included In PS I5-O6 Study El Ground Shaking sq • *1-33PE062 N Differential Settlement ❑ Lateral Spread S 3 A O • Abbrevlaflam: Controlling Conseuuence(s)' 'E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ❑ Life Safety N Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fsllure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 P`f ROSF=Rlskgf Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B -4S Likelihood designated either"0"(meets 75 A•'C' performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 • flow likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) Lo.SF Rating: 2 COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked betwean"1"(no Overall ROSF=IOSF x COSF= 10 Identified cansequencelantl"5"(high O Conequence of Wi cFailure(CoSFI S consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 68 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 LABORATORY COMPLEX IM, p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 1-34 1 1 IV BUILDINGclass based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. pstructural components ^ :$4I Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread foundation at-grade Structure Dimensions:200 IT x 90It g of Stories:2 stories t�_ Date of Original Construction:1989 -- Retrofit(if any):N/A ; ✓1-29 -- - Projectal u 4 VI Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 131 ®Specifications ❑Other geohazards and seismicity ..� ✓ Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) _ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1�� HHWLL AWL2,7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 4 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread— Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread— as `s reacrooa n .— Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dist(knN -------------"---"---"---"---"---"--------- �. Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 ¢, Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 ., sans 5.1 and sit as Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) stla sand BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 " silty sand BSE-2E7 5%In 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Well c,aaea sane Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate .as distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class Q.6.Selected Schematic Gross Session as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5R-lugs +21 ft-MSL AWL 10R-bgs +16 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A PFM and Descriptions Ter' Assessment Results PFM I:Braced frame column axial TI Applicable to all frames in both orthogonal directions. stress due to overturning forces PFM2:21d floor diaphragm seismic Applicable to bolted connections and shear transfer connections(diaphragm load transfer to braced frames T1 welding).The check is not applicable for the LS performance level. PFM 3:Out-of-plane bracing of braced The east-west braced frame beams have no lateral bracing at the 2nd floor.The check frame beams T1 is not applicable for the LS performance level. PFM 4:Braces for braced frames are 8 out of 10 of the braces at the 21d floor are non-compact.The first floor braces are all non-compact members TI compact.None of the braces meet the compactness requirements for highly ductile members per AISC 341. PFM 5:Bending failure of beams over The W24x beams at the roof and 2-floor over the chevron braced frames do not chevron braced frames T2 have sufficient bending capacity to handle unbalanced brace loads due to buckling in the compression brace(16 locations). PFM 6:Connection strength at braces TI The braced frame connections are mostly non-compliant for bolt,weld,and gusset plate strength. PFM 7:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands on the 20 GA corrugated steel deck diaphragm in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 69 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 PFM B:Column anchorage to the TI The braced frame columns along grid 3 and A(4 columns)have insufficient anchor foundation bolt capacity to develop the uplift capacity of the footing. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ESE-IF and RSE-2F performance objectives have been amittedhom the list.See Technical Me omandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application ofrer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1:Provide additional steel concentric braced frames $2,425,000 Add(5)bays of braced frames in the E-W direction and(3) from the .of level down to the first floor.Braced frames bays of braced frames in the N-S direction. should be chevron frames and should be comprised of bracing members that are similar to the existing frame braces(double angle).Addition of columns and enlarging footings is to be included in this mitigation. PFM 2:See PFM 1 Mitigation — Additional frames will reduce demands on collectors and diaphragm shear transfer to collectors and frames. PFM 3:Add out-of-plane bracing of the braced frame $340,000 Applies to(4)locations at the roof and(8)locations at the beams that lack this bracing. 2nd floor. PFM 4:Add stiffener plates to the bracing members to $710,000 Applies to(8)braces at the 2nd floor.Each brace is make the sections compact.Plates should be welded comprised of a double angle,which has two legs.Each along the length of each leg of each individual angle brace is about 16 feet long,so the application is required brace. for a total of 512 feet. PFM 5:Add a tube steel column member belowthe — Applies to(32)locations,which includes locations at the middle of each chevron braced frame or provide steel (16)existing braced frames and(16)new braced frames as cover plates to stiffen the existing beam members. recommended per PFM 1 Mitigation. PFM 6:See PFM 1 Mitigation — Provided that PFM 1 Mitigation is implemented,the demands on the connections are anticipated to reduce. PFM 7:Standard Structural Mitigation 61 $1,655,000 Applies to the entire roof diaphragm over an approximate area of 17,000 square feet.Depending on how new braced frames are added to the building,the area of diaphragm mitigation could be reduced. PFM 8:See PFM 1 Mitigation -- Provided that PFM 1 Mitigation is implemented,the demands on the anchorage to the foundation will be diminished and will likely meet the performance objectives. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,130,000 Notes:I.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates installed are Mai Gass S"Order-of luagnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Se'Smic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in PS 15-06 Study N Ground Shakinga4 ❑ Differential Settlement *1-341abolatory Complex ❑ Lateral Spread r 3 • Abbrewationi: [ontrollin¢Conseauencelsl: 'E LOSF=Likelihood ofSeismic Failure N life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : cosF=consequence of5eismic Failure ❑Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder a 2 pww Ill-Riskof Selsmlc Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact g Pq4 0kelihood designated either'0'(meets performance objecdve).or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikelihood)and `5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 5 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFx[oSF= 25 identifv--asequence)and"5"(high O Consequence F)of Seismic Failure(COS S mnsequenml comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15d16 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 70 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DAFT A, B, & C GALLERY x , s ) p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-1 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with V-10"thick mat at-6.97'elev.(17.47' embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bond length,46'total length) h Structure Dimensions:144.3 ft x 60IT ) �A g of Stories;1 story 2 19 1 Date of Original Construction:1977 • i Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1993(minor structural modifications) 2 2 2fq Projects:P2 23 6/P2-42-2 A"rn 1 y 2 q ' 2-! Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 2-22 � ®Specifications El Other 2-2 x 1�� 2-1 i aeohazards and seismicity I 22d Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1, HHl AVVi - Plan View .- Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 10 6 to 9 _ Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(near marsh,inches) 20 to 40 14 to 28 " Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 21 7 to 15 y illy sana¢Iare"sans Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gla Dist(kml4 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 �" Pooayuraaaa son Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 re-pow. anmor: iav Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) so(8) ss lgl Ss lgl „ s'my saga ana Silty Clay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 « clay BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n any5ana/clavev5ana Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate schematic Goss section distance to center of plant 5.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for5ite Class O,6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>j N) to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL 8.5 it logs12 it structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results PFM 6:Structure response to 2.1"over 60 feet of differential settlement.Differential settlement is 75%of that for differential settlement due to T1/2 the exemplar.The walls have less reinforcing steel and will be subject to similar liquefaction tensile stresses at the top. Ahal Potential Failure Modes thot meet both the ESE-IF and 9SE-2Eperformance objectives have been artatedfrom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TMq Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMS considered;2.TS=TierI(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 0eficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of ITer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See 7144(Geasyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 71 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $5,160,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 8 to 59 tt-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $5,160,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)Jor descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimotesprovidedore AACEI Gass 5"Order-Of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure TVoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included In El Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study N Differential Settlement 4 *2-1 DAFT A,9,&C Gallery ❑ lateral Spread B u S • * O 4 AbbreWtlanu Controlling Conseauence(s): LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder E2 ppw RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact t`4 Likelihood designated either"D"Imeets d. performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 S )low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) l Rating: 3 CoSF,Weighted Score: 3 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no OVera II ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 9 O 1 2 9 4 S Ident10ed consequence)and"5"(high Consequence sequce of Selsmlc Fella.(CaSF) consequenre) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 72 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DAFT D GALLERY & WSSPS p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-2 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives — Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures r substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and —�� operation are likely. ~' - structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with V-10"thick mat at-7.67'elev.(17.67' embedment) a Structure Dimensions:89 ft x 37 ft A 4 of stories:1 below grade 2-19 Date of Original Construction:1993 --� JJ�� Retrofit(if any):N/A e 2 2-2, 2-� Projects:P2-42-2 ••n y >_ 2-4 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 2-22 ,(vy4lU(x) ' ®Specifications ❑Other 2-2 ' e '� 2-18A 2-1 aeohazards and seismicity 2-20 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High i HHWLl AWLa.r -- Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 8 to 10 7 to 9 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(near marsh,inches) 30 to 62 22 to 42 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 14 to 29 10 to 20 silty"sand/aayay sand Basement wun Mai---- Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(ela Dist(Wny Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 >* Poonv�,adea saod Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 ly as Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) ss lgl Ss lgl sucv saga and Silty Clay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n snv Ltt saod Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotions for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%l to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs +7 trial AWL 8ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results PFM 4:lateral spread towards the 91(near/far)lateral spread toward the Talbert Marsh.The structure may Talbert Marsh due to liquefaction T1/2 experience differential spread with DAFT D,which can cause separation at the sump (surface FED=22-inches). rooms,causing a loss in service and/or structural damage to the sump room. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMsI thotmeet both the BSE-IE and RSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memarondum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional Pi considea l.T1=TIer1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Vera? (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-nosed Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 73 AdMis ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 lk 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 50%(surface FED=11-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Norte 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimate,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geo,adec,2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking PS 15-W Study El Differential Settlement o 4 • *2-2 DAFT D Gallery&W55P5 ® lateral Spread u 3 * • • 1 Ahbreviatlons: Controllin¢Conseauencelsl: E L.SF=likelihood of5eismlc allure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COST=CnnsequenceofStismic allure ❑Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder 5 2 Phr RoSF=Risk of5eismlc Failure El Financial El Public Impact a6 Likelihood designated either"W(meets F performance chjective),or behveen"I" Risk Rankine: 1 5� • (lowlikelihood)and "5"(highlikelihmd) LOSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 O Consequences rankedamamn"1^(no Overall ROSF=WSFx COSF= 6 iarmined consequence(and"5"(high O Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) S consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 74 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 RAS PS EAST " " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE - 2-3 2 1 IV BUILDING - class based performance objectives else Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-7.00'elev.(17.50' embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) Structure Dimensions:114.4 ft x 56.4 ft 2-4 2-5 b g of Stories;1 above grade,1 below grade Date of Original Construction:1977 ,'2-18q 2-12 Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-23 Projects:P2-23-6 2-18B Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report b ®Specifications ❑Other 2-20 .2.3 aeohazards and seismicity I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) _ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ' ) HHWLL AWL2.7 Plan View — — Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8 _ Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 19 to 33 16 to 31 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 26 13 to 24 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 15 to 26 13 to 25 _ Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 12 to 22 11 to 21 ---- ea.,m.m,wn,NJ IL - Deterministic Fault Name M PGl Dist Ial silty saga/aayey saga Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Privy c,aeed sand ➢e-Down Anchors Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) St(9) u sucy saDa BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 u MW swam oay --` - - BSE-2E7 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,-2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs tostructural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eseismic ground orations. HHWL 3n-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL lft-bgs +2R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-I8B Aeration Basins A-H PFM and Desviptions Tlert Assessment Results PFM 1:Vertical irregularities in Discontinuous shear walls at EL 10.50 occur at the east and north walls of the bui Id ing Shea r walls TI building. Provide for drag connections and strengthening of columns below discontinuous walls. PFM 4:Structural response to differentia l settlement d the to T1/2 which 60 arfeetofdi to occur esamerate bolo exemplar for typical deficiencies, liquefaction which are anticipated to occur at the same rate below the RAS PS East. PFM 8:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity. conditions Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMS)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;1.TS=TierI(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Degragm,-Based Evaluation Pracedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application affair exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. RENT 6/28/2019 PS I'S-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 75 Al ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 81 $1,340,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 8 to 40 tt-bgs. PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $460,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 8 to 17 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1:Add new columns and strengthen existing members for axial $180,000 Additional column and strengthening required at overturning forces below each end of the high shear wall at the 3 locations x 30 feet.Collector length estimated north side of the building.Provide additional collector member to be 64 lineal feet(1 along grid line B x 32 feet (steel channel)at the bottom side of the low roof. and 1 along grid line 0.5 x 32 feet). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,990,000 Notes:1.Refer to T144(Geasyntec,2019)Jor descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Structumf Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass 5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure S Controlline Failure Tvoelel: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In El Ground Shaking o4 PSIS-06 Study N Differential Settlement *2-3 RAS PS East ❑ lateral Spread a a • • • 0 Abbnvlrtlonu Controlling Conseauencels): LgSF=Llkellhood of Seismic Failure El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of5elsmic Failure N Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 v RgSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure N Financial ❑Public Impact B 0 Likelihood designated either"G'(meets Risk Rankine: ` 1 x� • performance objective),or between"1" Qowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 4 COSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 D Consequences ranked between"1"(nor Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 9.6 O 1 2 9 4 S idenum,d consequenca)and"5"(high Conracoat.M9alomlc Fall..jCgSF) consequenre) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-052(09/01/2032) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 76 Jinis ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 IS 2 RAS PS WEST " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-4 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class 1:I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures - substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and 'w- operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-7.Od elev.(17.50" embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) _ _ _ Structure Dimensions:114.4 ft x 56.4 ft z g of Stories:2 stories r1 2-19 . Date of Original Construction:1977 . .. Retrofft(if any):N/A 2•2i-.21A 2 4 2-5 a 2-, Projects:P2-23-6 �b Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report L 2-18A ®Specifications ❑Other 2 1 2-18B I aeohazard5 and seismicity 2-20 '.2 1� Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 3311 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High j HHWL' AWL2.7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 3 Tod _ Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 3 to 4 1 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 3 1 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 5 to 6 1 to 2 Laterals read far from marsh,inches 4 to 5 1 to 2 -S NF @'Ie/aavev se"d --_-_--_ P ( ) meal war Mac Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dist(km)4 4a• I1 1 I1 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 _€ss Povnyc,aaea saef1 1 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 I I ne.oaWe Ana a Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) + snty sand aea sRy nay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 : sntysmd/x ysmd Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL 8.5 ft-lugs 12 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-18A Aeration Basins A-H PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM I:Vertical irregularities in Discontinuous shear walls at EL 10.50 occur at the west and north walls of the building shear walls TI building.Provide for drag connections and strengthening of columns below discontinuous walls. PFM 4:Structural response to 1.2"over 60 feet differential settlement.Refer to exemplar for typical deficiencies, differential settlement due to T1/2 which are anticipated to occur at the same rate below the RAS PS West. liquefaction PFM 8:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity. conditions Notes:).Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been amittedf ern the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for odditional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(eg ivolent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detafl. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 77 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Rl $2,810,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 40%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 8 to 66 ft-bgs. PFM B:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $520,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 8 to 17 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost2 Comments PFM 1:Add new columns and strengthen existing members for axial $180,000 Additional column and strengthening required at overturning forces below each end of the high shear wall at the 3 locations x 30 feet.Collector length estimated north side of the building.Provide additional collector member to be 64lineal feet(1 along grid line B x 32 feet (steel channel)at the bottom side of the low roof. and 1 along grid line 0.5 x 32 feet). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,510,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass 5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure S Controlline Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In El Ground Shaking o4 PS I5-06 Study N Differential Settlement *24RAS PS Wert ❑ lateral Spread a a • • • 0 Abbnvlrtlons: Controlling Conseauence(s): L.SF=Llkellhoad of Seismic Failure ❑ life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of 5elsanic Failure N Regulatory El Stakeholder '82 p`v ROSF=Risk 05donar Failure N Financial ❑Public Impact B 0 Likelihoodith designated eer"d'Imeets u 1 vo2s� • performance objective),or between"I" Risk Rankine: Qowlikelihood)and "S'(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 4 CaSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(na Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 9.6 O 1 2 9 4 S idenum,d consequence)and"5"(high Conrequrna of Srllc Fallun IGSF) consequence) om comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-052(09/01/2032) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI'S-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 78 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 PEPS & MAC " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-5 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components .q*..Pj Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-7.50'elev.(19.00' YS embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) A Structure Dimensions:167 IT x 54IT . I •: • at 0 g of Stories:1 story • _� Date of Original Construction:1977 2-19 Retront(ifany):1994: Provision of shear transfer at the north wall with window infill /, • A •.A 2-24 and out-of-plane bracing of a non-bearing masonry wall. 2-5 • 2-31b •b Projects:P2-23-6/P2-23-2 2-4 ` Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report / 2 18A �Z 2-12 ®Specifications ❑Other 2-23 2-1RB` geohazards and seismicity 2_20 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-3 ) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View HHWL2 AWL2.7 Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 16 9 to 14 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 30 to 45 28 to 42 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 20 to 31 19 to 29 " Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 18 to 30 17 to 26 Eias,m,n wimwa,----- Lateral Spread(far from marsh,Inches) 17 to 28 15 to 24 a Silty sand/Clayey sand Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)2 Dist hi _€ss Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Pi craead San Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 r� oow Any o,a Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) S.(g) SS(9) S2(9) silty sand and silty Clay BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 a. 5nird/smysand BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Schematic Cross Section Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Ground Water Level Depth Elevatlon distance to center ofplant'S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected HHWL Seth +Berard8.5 SL as largest magnitude among significant Contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. AWL 9.5 it-bgs +2 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Descriptio0 Tien Assessment Results PFM 4:Flexure in bottom mat due to 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs over length of basement wall along differential settlement due to T3 grid line 6 and at high foundation slab at the west side of the building.Could be liquefaction compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky is 7.2 ksf/ft). PFM S:Flexure in walls due to 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at bottom of east wall over half the differential settlement T1/2 length of the wall.Could be compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied Iky=7.2 ksf/ft) PFM 6:Tension stress in structure 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the roof,first floor,and basement slabs due to differential settlement T3 slab. PFM 7:Tension stress in structure 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the top of the north,south,west, walls due to differential settlement T3 and at the bottom of the wall along grid line 4(interior wall). REVISED.WOMB PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 79 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 8:Lateral spread towards the 17.r/12"(near/far)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.Foundation is within Santa Ana River due to liquefaction T1/2 lateral spreading soils.Deep foundation wall at the west end is subject to failure and the effluent conduit at the south side of the structure will likely separate causing loss (surface PGD=D.S-inches). ofservice. PFM 11:Out-orplane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than thei r capacity. conditions Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasynteq 2019)for additional PFMs ronsidered;2.T1=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Wriency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofTier3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Gewyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigatlont CoW Comments PFM 4-7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BS $5,740,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 10 to 60 It-bgs. PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by 75%(surface PGD=7-inches). PFM11:Standard Geotechnical MitigationC $1,860,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil R uid density by 50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 10 to 20 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costt Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $7,600,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedme AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude'estimates,intendedfai-a gning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geasynteq 2019)far additional detail. risk ranking S Rik of of Seismic Failure Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl; •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15.06 Study ® Differential Settlement zs *2-5 PEPS&MAC -1 Lateral Spread all 3 • • • 1 AbbrWirtlonu Controlling Cunseguencelsl• it LoSF=Likelihood of Selsmic Fallure ❑ life Safety ❑Primary Treatment I CoSF=Consequence of5elsmic Failure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder '152 pAx RoSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure El Financial ❑Public Impact O.q Likelihood designated elther"0"(meets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: I • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) Lc SF Rating: 5 Cc SF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Identined consequence)and"5"(high Overall RosF=LoSFZCOSF= 20 0 1 3 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Fellure(CoSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-052(09/01/2032) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 80 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 OPERATIONS/CONTROL CENTER BUILDING " If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 2-6 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and - operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-2.50'1(101 embedment) - Structure Dimensions:95 ft and 66 IT x 65 IT g of Stories;2 above grade,1 below grade Date of Original Construction:1977 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1992;1994: Provision of collectors and ties at the roof - diaphragm,provision of tilt-up wall holdowns to the foundation,and strengthening of —- wall anchorage connections at the roof diaphragm. Projects:P2-23-5 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report �2' 2-611 N Specifications El Other • _ �• 2-13 Reohazards and seismicity 41OAAA Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) y27 Liquefaction Potential(Nigh/Med/Low):High -- - - -- -•' -`�- NNWLa AWLz.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 11 to 13 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) -----No Lateral Spread---- Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) -----No Lateral Spread----- „ Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) ----No Lateral Spread----- _- easemem with Marc--:: Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread---- Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a DIA.(km)^ saaa wan aayseams Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So lg) S,(g) S,(g) snry sand with aay seams BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 n sana/onvei BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Schematic Gross Section Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Ground Water Level Depth Elevation as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazard, 7. Ground HHWL aft-bgs +5 ft-MSL deformation inputs tostructumlandiiis based on AWL and BSE-2Eseismic ground motions. AWL 6h-bgs +2h-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Desttlptionr Tien Assessment Results PFM I:Wall anchorage at east and Wall anchorage at the joist bearing seats relies on bending through the bearing seat, westwalls(original building) TI which has minimal flexural capacity(16 locations). PFM 3:Wall anchorage at east and Similar design as original building.The connection also has slatted holesthat do not west walls(addition) TI allowfor transfer of wall anchorage forces into the diaphragm(14 locations). PFM 5: Incomplete load path at the The canopy has no discernible load path backto the moment frame.The building is south entrance canopy addition for TI also experiencing static settlement at the south end as the canopyextension is resisting seismic loads bearing within backfill. PFM 6:In-plane shear at shearwalls TI N-S seismic at the north building governs.East and westwalls have continuous openings over most of the building length. PFM 7:Drag connection at roof to east T3 Connection occurs at the original 1977 building.Retrofit in 1996 is not sufficient to and west shear walls develop the capacity of the roof diaphragm. REVISED:6iculu 19 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 81 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM B:Precast wall panel connection TI Precast wall panels have minimal connections to the tops of the foundation walls. to foundation walls 4.0"over 60 feet of differential settlement Differential settlement is about 43% PFM 9:Structure response to higher than the exem pla r.The wa l l s a re fra an ed i n a s i in i Is r man ner to the south wa ll differential settlement at ue to T1/2 of the exemplar.Tensile forces are anticipated to well exceed the wall beam capacity. liquefaction Also,the mat slab has intend r wa l is and columns that are I i rely to generate large bending moments and shear demands on the slab,similar to the exemplar. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the BSE-1E and eSE-2E performance objectives have been omittedfrom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficienry-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T1-Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for more detail mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cl Comments PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B3 $6,780,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 75%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 6 to 61 fit-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 1:Add stiffeners to the existing joist bearing seats by field $550,000 Required at 16 locations 2 stiffeners each(32 welding in place to eliminate flexure in the joist seat. total). PFM 3:Addstiffeners to theexisting)Dist bearing seats byfield $450,000 Required at 14 locations x 2 stiffeners each(28 welding in place to eliminate flexure in the joist seat. Also,field total). weld bolts to the bearing seat to eliminate gap in the load path. PFMS:A6d(2)steelbraced frame-withgradebeamsatthesouth $I60,000 Repair to correct settlement within the backfill canopy. (slab on grade,canopy,stairs,etc.)may also be considered at the time of mitigation. PFM 6:Standard Structural MkigationE $20,000 Applies over 15-ftx1-ft windows at(2)locations least and west walls). PRO 7:Upgrade the existi ngconnedi on-s with larger uhrough bolts, $-10-,000 Occurs at 10 locations total. plates,and anchors. PFM B:Standard Structural Mitigation Al $910,000 Applies to 530 lineal feet. Dual Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $8,880,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosymb,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedore AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Ri k of Seismic Failure 6 Controlling:Failure TVpeisl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o4 P515-M Study El Differential Settlement -R2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg ❑ lateralspread 3 • • • Abbreviations: Controlling CODslRueDcl151' 'E Lo5F=Likelihood of Seismic Failure E life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder tot Phi RuSF=Risk of Seismic Failure El Financial ❑Public Impact B Likelihood designated either"O"lmeets uI \aF • performance objective),orbetween"1" Risk Ranking: _ (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) Lo5F Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Some: 4 a Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall Roiis Lo5F x Cl is 20 identified consequence)and"5"(high D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure(Lo5F) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-008(03/01/2028) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 82 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 12 kV SERVICE CENTER ` s If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-7 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives w% Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures � L substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and -" operation are likely. - structural components - r. Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with I'thick mat and grade beams at 1' - elev.IS'embedment) Structure Dimensions:68 ft x 41 ft g of stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1977 Retrofit(if any):N/A .O Projects:P2-23-3 2-7 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report N Specifications ❑Other aeohazards and seismicity a I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ) HHWLL AWL2.7 - Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 13 11 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 19 to 20 16 to 19 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 17 to 18 15 to 17 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) --NO Lateral Spread-- Basement with Mac Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- _ and araae seams S. . ry Send Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(III 1" sand Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 a sand and silrysane ai Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Si Ss(9) St(9) as s.I dad eia BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.@ u Say Historic High Water Level,2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations far Site Class D;6.Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (i to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based an A WL dedeSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-bgs +7R-MSL AWL 8ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Descriptions Tien Assessment Results PFM 1:Wall anchorage to roof at North and south walls have no rigid diaphragm connection as the wall anchorage north and south walls T1 force wil l be appl ied perpendicular to the 7.5-inch deep deck corrugation. PFM 3:Wa 11 a nchorage forces at the In conjunction with wall anchorage at the north and south walls,sub-diaphragms and north and south walls have no suh- T3 struts are required to develop wall anchorage forces into the diaphragm. diaphragm or ties PFM 4:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands for the 7.5-inch deep steel deck(low shear capacity). PFM S:Shear at frame columns Frame columns along the north and south walls have high shear demands and cannot T3 develop moment frame behavior due to restraint by the infill wall panels.Conversion of building to shear wal Is is recommended. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 83 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 7:Structure response to 4.3"over 60 feet of differential settlement.Differential settlement is about 54% differential settlement due to T1/2 higher than the exemplar.The walls are framed in a similar manner to the south wall liquefaction of the exemplar.Tensile forces are anticipated to well exceed the wall beam capacity. Notts:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.see Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs ronsidered;2.T1=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130ef tiency-Bosed Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/r2=Application afFer3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments PFM 7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 75%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 8 to 50 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1&3:Standard Structural Mitigation AS $200,000 Applied at 8-ft on center along the north and south walls(approximately 8locations). PFM 4:Replace entire roof deck with a new roof support system $42DOW Existing roof deck is 7.5-inch deep steel deck that provides for new steel beams that span across the building without any concrete topping.Protect electrical width in the east west direction(40 feet)and a new standard gear in place. corrugated steel deck that spans in the north-south direction. PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation E $160,000 Applies at the east and west walls for 22-ftx2-ft window(88 square feet total). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,080,000 Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicol ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedere AACEI Class S-Order of estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling F.!lure Tvoeisl• •Other Plant I Structures Included in N Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15.06 Study ❑ Differential Settlement *2-712 kV Service Center ❑ Lateral Spread C u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevlrtlonr: Controlling Consequence(* it LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Fallure ❑ Life Safety N Primary Treatment 1 CoSF=Consequence of5elsmlc Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 phS RoSF=Risk of5elsmlc Failure El Financial ❑Public Impact �Fa Likelihood designated elti hateets 1 Net. • performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no IdenuuR u consequence)and"5"(high Overall RoSF=LoSFz CoSF= 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequenm) Consequence of Seismic Fellure(CoSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-047(09/01/2023) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 84 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 POWER BUILDING Bw— p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-8 2 1 IV BUILDING -- _ I class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and �"]'I •'��_� operation are likely. F, 1 structural components Foundation Type/Dimensiom:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 2.00'elev. (8.00'embedment) Structure Dimensions:52.2 It x 40 ft A .. g of Stories:l story rQ-26e .2_14 2- Date of Original Construction:1971 �^'$f Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1980 and 1996;1994: Provision of roof chords and S Ji 2-16 connections,addition of connections between the roof and shearwalls,and addition 71fx g_304 of connections between the shear walls and the floor slab. Protects:PI-15/P2-24-2 ?19> 2-2� Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report [] 4A N Specifications ❑Other A u�,h 12 � L f Aeohazards and seismicity 4L_ , z-Is ��� Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWL2 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 8 5 to 6 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread -- LateralSpread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- Llj,_ a ,/Ca saga Spread rooangs----- Lateral Spread(near marsh,Inches) ----No Lateral Spread---- s Lateral Spread(far from marsh,Inches) --No Lateral Spread-- le i Poony ena.a save Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)2 Dist.(kM)4 1 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 :: silrysam and SXry Day Probabilistic° Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) so 1g1 Ss(g) Ss(g) >: snty sane/oayav say BSE-SE 20%in 50 IT 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 Schematic Gross Section BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Noted 1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Ground Water Level Depth Elevation distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations far Site Class D;6.Selected HHWL aft-bgs +7 it-MSL as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground AWL 8R-bgs +2R-MSL deformation inputs tostructund onolysis based on AWL and RSE-2Eseismic ground motions. structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Description2 Tien Assessment Results PFM 4:Roof diaph ragm shear T2 Diaphragm shear capacity is limiting.Mitigation is recommended to enhance the diaphragm capacity. Notts:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-lE and SSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omlttedfrom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/71=Application of rer3 exemplar results too subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,201g)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 85 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 4:Standard Structural Mitigation BS $210,000 Applies, r the entire roof plan between grid lines 2 and 5(1,600 sf)and requires the addition of(2)W12x31 beams x 25-ft long. Dual Geotechnical and strudwal Mitigation Cost $210,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntet,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicalond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass 5'Order Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking a -4Sia mlc Fallure s Controlling Failure Teoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o4 PS SSO65tudy ❑ Differential Settlement 'I '� *28 Power Building 6 ❑ lateral Spread 3 • ♦ • Abbr.Yinham: Controlling Consequence(* 'E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismicfailure ❑ Life Safety ®Primary Treatment d CDSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pwW ROSF=Risk of SelsmlcFellure El Financial El Public Impact BSJ Likelihood designated either"D"(meets x�' • performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: ` 1 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 CDSF,Weighted Score: 4 p Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Identined consequence)and"5"(high Consequence of salad.Failure(CDSF) consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 86 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2 POWER BUILDING C R' p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-9 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components T' - FoundatbnType/Dimensiom:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at-2.61'elev. - (13.61'embedment) — Structure Dimensions:76 ft x 46 ft • • 2 •. N of Stories:1 story •/' , • Date of Original Construction:1979 S Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1985 and 1996;1994: Provision of braced frames to • •• �•• laterally support the high roof and wall ties. Projects:P2-24-1/1-6-2 2-9 2-24 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report S ❑Specifications ❑Other geohazards and seismicity 2-19I• Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) • zodl'1 �• Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View HHWD AWL'.r Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 9 6 to 8 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread— — LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread Lateralh i h Spread near mars ,inches) 9 to 16 8 to 11 - naga. P ( ) 3iliy 5andand511ry.Clay !mead Foo Lateral spread(far from marsh,Inches) 8 to 14 7 to 10 t to Poorly uraded sane Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist.(knp I Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 silty sand and silt Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 .. Poorly Graded Derse rand ss silty sand and day Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(8) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 shy sand and Clay BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Schematic Cross Section Notes1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA:4.Approximate distance to center of plant,S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Ground Water Level Depth Elevation as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground HHWL aft-bgs ♦S it deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. AVJL 9ft-bgs +2R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results PFM 1:Incomplete lateral load The west end of the building has no lateral load resisting system.The west concrete resisting system in the east west Tl roof deck will impart large out of plane forces onto the east wall of the digester direction pump roam creating a collapse hazard. PFM 6:In-plane wall shear at shear Lack of shear walls in the east-west direction at the west end increase the demands walls Tl on the remaining walls,which have no load path to resist the seismic loads at the digester pump room. PFM 7:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digester Tl and Digester S by 1-inch.Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can occur adjacent digesters and cause significant structural damage to the building. PFM 8:Footings move independent of Tl Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can the wall move differentially from other walls(232 ft). REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15,06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 87 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2 PFM 9:Tension failure in the CMU 2.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Walls are lightly reinforced and shorter walls due to differential settlement T1/2 than the exemplar.Ground deformation upward will fail the upper portion of the walls in tension. 6"lateral spread toward Talbert Marsh,which can pull apart the building foundation PFM 10:lateral spread towards relative to the roof and the because the floor slab is not tied to the wall/footing(232 Talbert Marsh due to liquefaction T1/2 ft).The building is founded on tunnels and shallow footings,which have varying (surface PGD=7.5-inches) depths.Differential lateral spread is anticipated,which is also a potential cause for building instability. Notex,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet bath the ELSE IF and ESE-2EpeQormonce objectives have been omitted from the list See Techniml Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019f for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tierl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE41-130eficiency-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application afFer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,500,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 50%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 65 ft-bgs. PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by 50%.(surface PGD=flinches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 1,6,and 7:Provide new cast-in-place concrete shear walls $210,000 Applied at(2)places is 16 feet x 16-ft tall(32 lineal Inside the digester control room.Provide with continuous footing. feet). PFM 8:Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $70,000 Applies over 232 lineal feet. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,780,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec.2019)far additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Selsmlc Failure 5 Controlling Failure Twili •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-06 Study ❑ Differential Settlement zs *2-9 Power Building C ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevletlone: Controlling[onseguenre(sl: LOSF=Likelihood of Selsmicfallure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of5elsmic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 152 Phµ ROSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure ❑ Financial El Public Impact 1 FA Likelihood designated elther"O"(meets Ile • performance objective),or between"I" Risk Rankine: )low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Idenunc.consequence)and"5"(high Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Fellure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISEO:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 88 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 POWER BUILDING D , - ` p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-10 2 1 IV BUILDING - class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures _1 substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'4"thick mat at-grade at 8'elev.(1'embedment) Structure Dimensions:57.7 It x 31.3 It - g of Stories:1 story E Date of Original Construction:1985 v a Retrofit(if any):N/A Aeq r F Projects:J-62 • f Available Information: ®Construction Drawings El210 Geotechnical Report 2 29 ®Specifications ❑Other 2 17 2-15 • 2-32 geohazards and seismicity .2-14 . Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1216 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High l HHi AVVL2.7 7ft•A' 2-3D Surface Settlement(inches) 6to8 5to6 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread -- LateralSpread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread -- Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread -- LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist.(kmp , -cGyeJsandandsadv Clay------------------- Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 5" Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 J� Poory Gradedsaad Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 11 Siitysana with Dayseams BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 .uy.a io eu Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate son distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected Schematic Cross Section s largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3fli t6ft-MSL AWL lit-bgs 12 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM I:Incomplete load path at the The south side of the high roof has no lateral load resisting elements to transfer shear south side of the high roof diaphragm TI forces down to the foundation. PFM 5:Out-of-plane horizontal Horizontal wall reinforcing is less than the minimum.Based on exemplar behavior, bending TI horizontal bending is a vulnerability.In-plane shear is relatively low and not considered to be a vulnerability. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ESE-IF and RSE-2Fperformance objectives have been amittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Defcienry-acted Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 89 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1:Provide concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver $260,000 Mitigation required over length of 31 feet. openings.Provide steel framed blocking at the roof level and weld Frames occur at 4 locations having bay sizes of the roof deck to it.Provide a new steel member sill and anchor to ft long x 5-ft tall. the top of the existing masonry wall with epoxy anchors. PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation D $41D,D00 To be applied at a spacing that reduces horizontal wall spans by 50%. Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $670,000 Notes:1.Refer to Trial(Geasynrec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedore AACEI Class S-order-of-Marvitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 6lip Controlling Failure Twill •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o4 P515.O6 Study ❑ Differential Settlement • � *2-10 Power Building ❑ lateral Spread 3 • • • Abl nvlatlona: Controlling Conseauencelsl• 'E LOSF=Ukellhood of seismic Failure ® Fife Safety ❑Primary Treatment d COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 Phw ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure El Financial ❑Public Impact Sa Likelihood designated either"0"Imeets - t(, performance objettive),or between"I" Risk Ranking ` 1 • _ (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Some: 2 D Consequences ranked between"1"Ina Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 10 idenci6ed consequence)and"5"Ihigh 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Comequence of Selamic Failure ICq$F) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 90 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 CITY WATER PUMP STATION " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-11 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Dropped spread footings at 5.40'elev.(3.10' embedment) Structure Dimensions:79.3 IT x 40.7IT g of Stories:l story I Date of Original Construction:1995 ' - Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:P2-46 21�1 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2 6 ❑Other 2- ®Specifications 13 / /�..J A aA . geohazards and seismicity a .V . 7 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) AA -• +- Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High c F dni HHWLL AWLa.t Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 12 to 13 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- sPiaaa roofings Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- ` _________________________________________ Sand and sby sand Deterministic Fault Name M PGA III Dist(Will 5" Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Eu sand wah nay saama Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sz(9) snq sand with Clay seams BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n sand/Gravel Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs +5.6ft-MSL AWL 66R-bgs +2R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Desviptionz Tien Assessment Results PFM 1:Wall anchorage at north and Tl Open-web joist seat anchor is subject to pull-out(24 locations). south walls PFM 5:Out-of-plane horizontal Horizontal wall reinforcing is less than the minimum.Based on exemplar behavior, bending TI horizontal bending is a vulnerability at wall corners(8 locations).In-plane shear is relatively low and not considered to be a vulnerability. PFM 6:Differential settlement due to 4.6"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Building is of similar size,height,and liquefaction TI/2 reinforcement to exemplar,but has 2.6 times the amount of differential settlement. Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2Epedormonce objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical Memarandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;1.71=Terl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Vera (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/71=Application of 77'er3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISE).6/28/2019 P515-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 91 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $4,040,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80%(3/4"in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 3 to 65 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM) $180,000 Similar without additional steel framing members. Applies at 24 locations. PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation D $560,000 Applies below every other roof joist and at 16-ft spacing elsewhere. Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,780,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass 5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in El Ground Shaking o4 PS 15-06 Study ® Differential Settlement * • *2-11❑ry Water Pump Station ❑ lateral Spread 3 • • • 4 Abbravlatlonu Controlling Conseeuencelsl• 'E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure ® Fife Safety ❑Primary Treatment d COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fellure El Regulatory ❑Stakeholder .. 2 Phw ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure El Financial ❑Public Impact �S, Likelihood designated either"d'Imeets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking `_ 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"Thigh likelihood) LOSF Rating: 4 COSF,Weighted Some: 2 a Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 8 identified consequence)and"5"(high D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Comaquence of Selamic Failure(COSFI comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-036(12/30/2028) REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 92 Jinis ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 IS 2 12 kV DISTRIBUTION CENTER B - p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE , �-- 2-12 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components "I ,•' <f Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'mat at-5.50'elev.(17.00' `' F embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) _ _ Structure Dimensions:112.8 ft x 59.8 ft A y •.• _ •.• • •` g of Stories:1 above grade,1 below grade e Date of Original Construction:1978 -�9 Retrofit(if any):N/A -• 2-24 Protects:P2-23-6/ 32-23-2 2-52-31 , .b Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-4 o ®Specifications El Other 2.(2 2-18A 2-23 aeohazards and seismicity 2-toe a I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-20 *- Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High •2-3 HHWLL AWLz.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 15 9 to 14 _ Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 26 to 57 23 to 51 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 40 16 to 36 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 12 to 25 10 to 23 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 23 9 to 21 ---- eazemen:wud marv----- Determinlstic Fault Name M PGA(g)z Dist(kn)4 sibs saga/aavev saga wars clay Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 " Poorly ode saga Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 reoor,n Ant ors Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) „ siirysana ana silly Oay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 •, sand/silty sand Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Closs D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and 9SE-2E seismic gerund motions. HHWL aft-lugs +8ft-MSL AWL 9R-bgs +2 it MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Descriptions Tlerz Assessment Results PFM 2:Structure response to 2.7"differential settlement over 60 feet.Building has nearly identical foundation and differential settlement due to T1/2 reinforcing as exemplar.Walls have same framing and reinforcing steel and are liquefaction expected to experience high tensile stresses,similar to the exemplar. PFM 6:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity. conditions Nolen I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteg 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Fier I(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficient,-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subs idim,structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 93 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 2:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 61 $3,920,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from IOto 59ft-bgs. PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $1,250,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil Fluid density by 50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 10 to IS ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,170,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5-order-of-Magniwde"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 8 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In El Ground Shaking o4 P51S-06 Study N Differential Settlement *2-1212 kV Distribution Center a ❑ Lateral Spread a 3 * • • 0 Abbnvlatlem: Controlling Conseeuence(s): 'E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ZLife Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure 7 Regulatory El Stakeholder g2 4 ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Ps�a Likelihood designated either"0"(meets u1 Sed • performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: _ (low likelihood)and S"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Some: 2 q Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 6 identified consequence)and"5"(high D 1 2 3 4 S consequence) Consequence of Selsmlc Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 F51S06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 94 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 12 kV DISTRIBUTION CENTER D " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-13 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. 4. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at unknown elevation Structure Dimensions:28 fit x 22 ft g of Stories:1 story - Date of Original Construction:1995 Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:P2-35-3 Available Information: ❑Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-1 11 7 Specifications NOther no drawings or spesforthe current configuration '�� 2-6 r�' 2-13 Reohazards and seismicity •`�•• •• Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) a47 , Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High •• •' HHWR AWL2.7 _ iA-- the Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 12 to 13 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread -- LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread inspread Footings(unknown vend Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist.kni , sand and arty sand Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 anon with Daysaam, Probabilistics Hazard Level M4 PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sr(9) BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 gly sand with Clay seam: BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate at santl%arave� distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Gross Section as largest magnitude among significant contribution (>1%) to the hazard; 1. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL aft-bgs +6.3 R-MSL AWL 7.3 ft-bgs +2 fp-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Desciptill Tiers Assessment Results PFM 4:Differential settlement due to 4'6"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The building has a large opening along the liquefaction T1/2 north side.The CMU lintel can experience large differential settlement that can stress the lintel beam into non-linear behavior. Names,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)charmer both the age IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list Sce Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteg 2019)for additional PFMs considered,-1.TI=Tier)(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1M=Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See T144(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 95 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,500,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 3 to 63 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A oral Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,500,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 6 Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in El Ground Shaking o4 + PS 15.06 Study N Differential Settlement ^ *2-1312 kV Distribution Center D ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 • • • 0 Abbrrvlrilom: Controlling Conseguencelsl' LoSF=Ukellhood oFSelsmlc Failure N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment '�- CDSF=ConsequenmofSeismicFellure El Regulatory El Stakeholder E3 P ROSF=RIsk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact �+r'a Likelihood designated either"0"(meets ed performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking, a 1 • _ (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 4 COSF,Weighted Some: 2 D Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LoSF x COSF= 8 Identined consequence)and"5"(high D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of 5elsmlc Failure(LoSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 96 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 HEADWORKS POWER BUILDING A E p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-14 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components q5 Foundation Type/Dimensions:Dropped spread footings at 3.35'elev.(4.15' embedment) 7 -. - Structure Dimensions:50ftx30ft �% 0' 2-10 g of Stories:1 story _ • 2_17 p_2g Date of Original Construction:1988 Retrofit(if any):N/A Projects:P2-37/1-33-1 •214 215 •. 232 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report • • '-,LWY , b ®Specifications ❑Other ;2-16 2W,. P 304 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) S9 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • . i HHWLL AWLt.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 19 to 28 17 to 25 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 26 16 to 23 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- " Sp-J ao_:,,s: Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- ""-"- aayoy saoa/sucysaoa Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)3 Dist(km)4 9+ Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 €€€€" Paddy araeaa sand Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 U 5itysaod Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) St(9) : wry smd add nay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 pay BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 s:nya aan�s'u l ch,a Notes:1.Historic High Water level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among signifimnt contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL hadeSE-2E seismic grountl motions. HHWL 3R-bgs W.S ft-MSL AWL 5.5 it logs12 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results PFM 3:Building separation allows Build ing separation is only 3/16-inch,but only occurs in al ign ment with the west wall pounding TI of the Headworks Standby Power Building.Buildings should be tied together to help ensure uniform response. PFM S: Building response to 5.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The differential settlement is 3.7times differential settlement due to T1/2 that at the exemplar.By inspection,the building walls will likely experiencetension liquefaction failures. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PRAsI thotmeet both the BSE-Mood BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list see Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for add tional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Fier exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED.6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 97 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,150,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 5 to 54 ft-bgs. Recommended structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 3:Tie the structures together using steel plates and through $60,000 Applies at one location where the east wall bolts with epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized to adjoins to the west wall of 2-16 Headworks promote uniform response ofthe buildingto ground shaking. Standby Power Building. rMal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,21(1,000 Notes:1.Re)er to TM4(Geosynteq 2019)Jor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedove AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forounning purposes only. risk ranking Risk'oPSeismic Failure S Controlling Failure Tvoelsl, •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In ®Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study ❑ Differential Settlement 4 *'2-14 Headworks Power Bldg ❑ Lateral Spread B u 3 • • • 0 Abbnvirtlom: Controlling Conseauencelsl' LOSF=Ukellhood of5elsmlc Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment '�- CDSF=Consequence of5eismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder E2 PNv ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Likelihood designated either 4W(meets performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: 1 • (lowllkelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Some: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 10 Identined consequence)and"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 s consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI5416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 98 Jil ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 Be 2 HEADWORKS POWER BUILDING B 1V p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-1S 2 1 IV BUILDING J class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures z substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components ' Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread at 5.00'elevation(2.00'embedment) Structure Dimensions:50 IT x 30 tt rl • _ g of stories:1 story LP 2-10 Date of Original Construction:1990 • 2-17 2'2g Retrofit(if any):N/A • •• , Projects:P2-42-1/J-33-1 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings El2-15 • 2-32 Geotechnical Report •2-14 .o N Specifications ❑Other •2-I6 Q geohazards and seismicity �!rg•A i-30 ` Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) ❑_ • Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • Hill AWL2.7 • I Surface Settlement(inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Planyiew Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 20 to 30 19 to 27 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 28 18 to 25 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread -- LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- " sureaa rnmmg: Deterministic Fault Name M PG Dist.(kmp , clayey Sand/A(g)° She saga Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0a Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Poody G,ad Wsand Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) Snrysane BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 nary sand and day BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n sltysan andSla Notesa.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate L� distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected Schematic Gross Section s largest magnitude among significant contributors (>3%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL aft-bgs Mft-Nl AWL 5it-lugs 12 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 3:Building separation allows Building separation is only 3/16-inch at walls and''/.-inch at the roof,where the pounding TI adjacent roof diaphragm is lower than the roof deck.This can result in pounding of the south bearing wall.Sufficient separation at the roof and walls should be provided. PFM S: Building response to 5.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The differential Settlement is 3.7 times differential settlement due to T1/2 that at the exemplar.By inspection,the building walls will likely experiencetension liquefaction failures. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the RSE-IE and RSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memarondum 4(TM4,Geosynteg 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Vert(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE41-13 Onj7danry-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application ofPer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REMSED 6/28/2019 PS 15416 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 99 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 5:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,400,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80%(I"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 2 to 53 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 3:Tie the structures together using steel plates and through $130,000 Applies at two wall locations and along the low bolts with epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized to roof of the adjacent 2-16 Headworks Standby promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking. Power Building(30 lineal feet). Additional ties at the roof diaphragm of the adjacent building will be required,since that building's diaphragm will be restrained by tying the structures together. obi Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,530,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntet,2019)Jor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 6 Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study ® Differential Settlement 4 *2-15 Headworks Power Bldg 0 ❑ Lateral Spread ` u 9 • • • 1 Abbrevlatlans: Controlling Conseauencelsl' L05F=Likelihood of Selsmic Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COS-Consequence of5eismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder if 42 Poi RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact M4 Likelihood designated elther"G"Imeets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 • Rmallkeliho,d)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 4 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Ovens ll RoSF=LoSFz CoSF= 8 Iden00ed consequence)and"5"Ihigh O 1 2 3 4 5 consequenm) Consequence of Seismic Failure ICOSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS1S-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 100 Jinis ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 HEADWORKS STANDBY POWER BUILDING " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 2-16 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives i'�i Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components ` '(; Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread at 4.33'elev.(2.67'embedment) A2�cx��lva� Structure Dimensions:50 IT x 58 tt - g of Stories:l Story is 2-10 Date of Original Construction:1999 • 2_1 2-29 Retrofit(if any):N/A . , Prolects:J-33-1 •� • Available Information: ®[onstmaion Drawings ®Geotechnical Report • 2-32 2-1q 2-15 y� ®Specifications ❑Other • . 2-16 geohazards and seismicity 2WAI 2-34 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) A - !I Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWR AWLa.r Surface settlement(Inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Plan View • Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 20 to 29 19 to 28 .,...... .__..__.._ Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 26 17 to 25 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) ---No Lateral Spread-- " Spread rooting. Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)r Dist.(kmp 0ayey Sandi sans Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 gr* Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 �.: Poorly sraaaa sans Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Still) S,(9) Ss(9) a: silty sand BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 silty sand and ua, BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 •+ as sil¢sanea u Nohsa.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,'4.Approximate Santl sII!sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Cross Section s largest magnitude among signifimnt contributors (>3%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Downturn HHWL aft-bgs Oft-MSL AWL 5it-bgs 12 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results Building separation is only 3/16-inch at walls and%-inch at the roof,where the PFM 3:Building separation allows Tl adjacent roof diaphragm is higher than the roof deck.This can result in pounding of pounding the south bearing wall of Headworks Power Building B.Sufficient separation at the roof and walls should be provided. PFM s: Building response to 5.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The differential settlement is 3.7 times differential settlement due to T1/2 that at the exemplar.By inspection,the building walls will likely experience tension liquefaction failures. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Epe formance objectives have been omfttedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosymeq 2019)far additional PFMs considered,2.T1=TIer1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=ThY2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficierm,Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detafl. REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 101 Al ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,970,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80%(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 3 to 53 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 3:Tie the structures together using steel plates and through $130,000 Applies at two wall locations and along the low bolts with epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized to roof of the adjacent 2-15 Roadworks Power promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking. Build ing B(30 li real feet). Additional ties at the roof diaphragm of the adjacent building will be required,since that building's diaphragm will be restrained by tying the structures together. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,100,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions o)Standord Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2,Cost estimotes provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 6 Controlling Failure Tvoil l: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study ® Differential Settlement 4 *2-16 Headworks Standby Power ❑ Lateral Spread ` Building u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevlatlone Controlling Conseauencelsl' LOSF=Likelihood of Selsmic Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Selsmic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder if E2 P" RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact N.G Likelihood designated elther"O"(meets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 • (lowllkelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LaSF Rating: 4 COSF,Weighted Some: 2 D Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF=LoSFz[o5F= 8 Identlgeu consequence)and"5"(high O 1 2 3 4 s consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 102 jil ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 l CENTRAL POWER GENERATION BUILDING p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 2-17 2 1 IV BUILDING 71 class based performance objectives may ' Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures !�• substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy andIf— operationarelikely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 9'mat at-14.00'elev.(25.00' embedment) Structure Dimensions:192 IT x 110 ft /) 4 of Stories:l above grade,I below grade T f Date of Original Construction:1990(7) p • > F Retrofit(If any):N/A •Prolects:J-19-2/1-15 Q 2-10 f• Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report Q-17 2-29 N Specifications ❑Other WL b geohazards and seismicity A 2h Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) ;2-16 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • ..-. HillAWLa,r a_an • I Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 15 8 to 13 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 26 to 33 21 to 27 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 19 12 to 16 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread -- LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) --NO Lateral Spread-- - ea:emem with Mat----- Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dlst(lanp 1h. sey # sa�r wah ea seam Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 '^ Poorly sharer saes Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 a sna sane Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss Igl Ss Igl BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 siI sam air BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 lExay in Notes:1.instant Hiah Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>156) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation de)ormation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs n8R-MSL AWL 9it-bgs 12 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Desciptions Tien Assessment Results PFM I:Discontinuous shear walls The shear walls along the south side of the mezzanine is not continuous down to the along grid line B(mezzanine) TI foundation.The first-floor deck does not appear to have been designed for this condition. PFM 2:Wall anchorage at the north (2)%"diameter bolts resist wall anchorage force in shear at the top of the pilaster(10 and south walls TI locations).Beam is also slender and requires bracing and/or stiffening.Diaphragm cross ties are also deficient(low capacity compared to wall anchorage force). PFM 4:Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks TI Steel-framed mezzanine at EL 21 has no lateral bracing to resist seismic loads. bracing PFM S:In-plane shear in shear walls at shear walls in the east-west direction TI East-west seismic governs.North-south was determined to be adequate. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 103 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2 PFM 6:Roof diaphragm shear transfer TI The ledger angle bolts cannot develop the diaphragm shear strength. PFM 7:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Roof diaphragm shear in both directions exceeds the capacity of the decking. Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the 8SE-IE and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.n-Tier I(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tmr2 (equivalent to ASCE41-13 Oelpoem,-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application ofFer3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costt Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM I:Provide 50 lineal feet of 12-inch thick cast-in-place concrete $600,000 Conduit and piping is suspended from the first shear wall at the basement level and upgrade first floor beams with floor deck along grid line B.These would need to steel channel tie along the entire building length(190 feet)to serve be removed and replaced or relocated. as a collector. PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $700,000 Occurs at 10 locations. PFM 4:Provide steel braced frames down to the first floor. $70,000 Occurs at 4 locations. PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation E $110,000 Provide at high and low windows at the south wall for 25-ft long x 14.5-ft(364 square feet total). PFM 6:Standard Structural Mitigation 62 $80,000 Supplement existing anchors at 2d'OC(total of 200 epoxy anchors).Provide along the west, interior,and east walls. PFM 7:Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $2,330,000 Estimated to be required at 50%of the roof diaphragm. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,890,000 Notes:1.Refer to TAU(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEICIass 5'Order of estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoeish •Other Plant l Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking _ PS 15-W Study 0 4 • ❑ Differential Settlement *2-17 Central Power Generation ❑ Lateral Spread Building u 3 1 Ahhreviations: [ontrollin¢Conseauencelsl: E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COSF-Consequence of5eisgic Fall.m ❑Regulatory El Stakeholder .. 2 aH? RoSF=Risk ofSeisgic Failure ® Financial 7Public Impact �^ Likelihood designated either"o"(geets F performance chjective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: 1 sc • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) Logic Rating: S Consequences rankedbetween"1"(no COerallRghted SFx 4 o identified consequence)and"5"(high Overall RoSF=LoSFZCo.SF= 20 nsequencd) 0 Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) 5 cq comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:P2-119(09/01/2027) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 104 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 AERATION BASINS A-H (NORTHWEST) " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE 2-18A 2 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives - .�7 Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-4"mat at-3.33'elev.(14.33'embedment);tie- down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'mral length) Structure Dimensions:379.5 ft x 192 fit 2 5 2-31 b x) g of Stories:1 story ihY. 2-4 " yy�� 'r Date of Original Construction:1977 IJJ�UJ . Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-18A 2-12 Projects:P2-23-6/P2-23-2 2-23 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report 2-18B N Specifications ❑Other 0 2-20 .2-3 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High I HHl AWL2.7 - Plan View• Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 4 to 6 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 4 to 5 1 to 3 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 3 to 4 1 to 2 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 5 to 7 1 to 3 " Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 3 to 4 1 to 2 Clayey sad/soiy Sand ma[---- Deterministic Fault Name M PGA III Dist Ial f.a 11 11 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Povnyi,aaegsaedl +11 I111 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 I I T,i.00 I Aeclyo,: Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) 1 BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 , slty sand and silty Clay BSE-2E7 5%in 50 r 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 a Da Y mry sand/clayey sand Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center ofplont;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotions for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant Contributors (»") to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and eSE-2F seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs r8ft-MSL AWL 9it-lugs 12 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure[N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Desorption' Tier' Assessment Results 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Considers a 10%reduction in capacity due to PFM 4:Top slab flexure due to T3 corrosion.Bottom bars govern this check.Bottom side of roof deck did not have signs response to differential settlement of rebar corrosion per condition assessment reports.Check is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=T2 ksf/ft). PFM 5:Wall flexure due to response to 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the reinforcing steel dowels at the differential settlement at the interior thickened wall base of the interior basin-dividing walls and the north and south basin dividing walls and the north and T3 perimeter walls.The north and south perimeter walls are Compliant if the spring south perimeter walls stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky-7.2 ksf/ft). PFM 6:Out-of-plane shear response to 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the top slab and base slab.All differential settlement T3 conditions are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft1. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 105 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 7:Tension in top slab mbar due 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Considers a 20%reduction In capacity due to to differential settlement T3 corrosion.Occurs at the top slab.Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft). PFM B:Tension In Interior basin- 1.4"differentia1 settlement over 60 feet.Good is at the interior basin-dividing walls dividing walls due to differential T3 and the interior transverse walls.Condition is compliant if the spdng stiffness is settlement assumed to be liquefied ley=7.2 ksf/ft). Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TMA;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI1T2=Application ofVer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation Costa Comments PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BS $18,570,000 Applies to approximately 800 square feet total.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9to 67 It bgs. PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 61 -- Occurs over a length of 800 lineal feet.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in GO feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs. PFM 6TSUndard Geotechnical m it,g awb n Bl -- Occu rs at the top slab an d bottom slab.Ova rstress is occu rung at about 3,000 square feet.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9to 67 ft-bus. PFM 7:sundard Geotechnical m-I thi zwlo n Bl -- Occurs at the top slab over an area of approximately 30000 square feet(50%of the top slab area).Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs. PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 61 -- Occurs over about 30%of all interior basin walls.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A Mal Geotechnical and Structural $18,570,000 I, Ill Cost Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicaland structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only. risk ranking Ni k of Seismic Failure 6 Controlling Failure Tvoeisi: •other Plant I Structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-M Study ® Differential Settlement *2-18 Aeration Basins A-H ❑ Lateral Spread 3 • • • 1 Abbnvlatiom: Controlling Conseauencefsl' 'E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure ®Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 52 pNV RaSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure ® Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Likelihood designated either"0-himets - ac performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: ` 1 • Ilowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 4 g Conseouences ranked between"1"(na Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 idenuald omsequenceland"5"(high D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence ofSeismic Failure(CoS l comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-050(03/01/2020) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI'S-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 106 jinis ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 AERATION BASINS A-H (SOUTHEAST) " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE ! - 2-18B 2 1 IV TANK p, - class based performance objectives I ! j Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment Structures cr substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and rr operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-4"mat at-3.33'elev.(14.33'embedment);tie- down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'mral length) _. • �_ Structure Dimensions:379.5 It x 192 fit 2-31 .t g of Stories:1 Story ,Z-4 2-5 0 Date of Original Construction:1977 \��J Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-18A 2-12 Projects:P2-23-6/P2-23-2 2-23 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-18B ®Specifications ❑Other O 2-20 •2-3 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ) HHVVl AWLa.z --- Plan View• - Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 18 to 33 16 to 31 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 10 to 19 9 to 18 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 16 to 28 13 to 26 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 19 9 to 18 - mail---- ` azyey sand/silty sand Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(eP Dist(lamp &m Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 666r Pooa c,aaea sand Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 y na-onwn Anrnn�: Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Si(9) St(9) + silty sang BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 sn and eay BSE-2E7 5%lit 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Goss Section distance to center of plant S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors f>i%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. HHWL 3it-lb, ♦aft-MSL AWL 9 it has +2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results 1.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Considers a 10%reduction in capacity due to PFM 4:Top slab flexure due to T3 corrosion.Bottom bars govern this check.Bottom side of roof deck did not have signs response to differential settlement of reba r corrosion per condition assessment reports.Check is call is nt if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied ley=7.2 ksf/ft). PFM 5:Wall l flexu re due to response to 1.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the reinforcing steel dowels at the differential settlement at the interior thickened wall base of the interior basin-dividing walls and the north and south basin dividing walls and the north and T3 perimeter walls.The north and south perimeter walls are compliant if the spring south perimeter walls stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksi/ft). PFM 6:Out-of-plane shear response to 1.8"d ifferential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the top sl all and base Sid b.All differentia l settlement T3 cond itions are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be I quefied(ky-T2 ksf/ft). REVISED:6/28/2019 PS15.06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 107 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2 PFM 7:Tension in top slab Fiber due 1.8"differential settlement over GO feet Considers a 20%reduction incapacity due to to differential settlement T3 corrosion.Occurs at the top slab.Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft). PFM B:Tension in interior basin- 1.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the interior basin-dividing walls dividing walls due to differential T3 and the interior transverse walls.Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is settlement assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft). Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the BSE-1E and SSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(71144;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T3=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procodure),T2-Ver2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/f2=Application of Ter 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitieation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation Costa Commerds PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B3 $9,870,000 Applies to approximately 800 square feet total.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 it-bgs. PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Bl -- Occurs over a length of 800 lineal feet.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in GO feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs. PFM 6TSUndard Geotechnical m it,g awb n B-1 -- Occu rs at the top slab an d bottom slab.Ova rstress is occu rung at about 3,000 square feet.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs. PFM 7:sundard Geotechnical m-I thi zwio n Bl -- Occurs at the top slab over an area of approximately 36,000 square feet(50%of the top slab area).Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 it-bgs. PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Bl -- Occurs over about 30%of all interior basin walls.Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 fit-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A N/A Mal Geotechnical and Structural $9,870,000 Mtigation Cost Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mdantians;2,cast estimates crowded are AACEI class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only. risk ranking Ni k of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoeisl: •Other Plant l structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-M Study ® Differential Settlement *2-18 Aeration Basins A-H ❑ Lateral Spread 3 • • • 1 Abbnvlatiom: Controlling Conseauencil l' 'E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COSF=Consequence of 5elsmic Failure ®Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 52 pNV RaSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ® Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Likelihood designated either"0"(meets - ac performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: ` 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 4 q Conseouences ranked between"1"(na Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 idennuld omsequenceland"5"(high D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure(LOSE) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-050(03/01/2020) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI'S-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 108 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2 GAS HOLDER _ " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE f _� 2-19 2 1 IV STEEL TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components WIN Foundation Type/Dimensions:Ring wall footing(2'wide)at 8.00'elev.(1.50' embedment) �I r „ ��.__ •_____ Structure Dimensions:42 ft diameter,31 ft height ) g of Stories:1 story •A Date of Original Construction:1982 ' •' '•' Retrofit(if any):N/A r 2-19 Protects:P2-24-1 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report : Z;2�(�• 2 5 • . ®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Gas holder 2-4 22 a - 2-2 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 21 • _ 2<18 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWLL AWL2.7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 5 4 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 2 to 3 1 '.. Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 2 1 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 4 to 5 1 to 2 Inamg wall Foma Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 4105 1to2 = SIIty:5and(Uayysan all_______________ Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(8)3 Dist(Ill Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 i" Poorly Graded Sava Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 in Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Si SS(9) S,i(9) += silty sand/silty Clay BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 a SpicirSoadjolarrineySirind Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs tostructuroarnalysis based on AWL and SSE-2Eseismic ground motions. HHWL 3n-lugs +6.5 ft-MSL AWL 7.5 ft-lugs +2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A PFM and Descriptill Tlerz Assessment Results PFM 6:Tan k shell overstress due to Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in tank shell at the anchor and settlements lateral spread T3 location exceeds yield,may result in gas leakage. Does meet LS(BSE 2E)performance and settlements objectives,D[R>1.0,overstress in steel shell at anchor plates may cause some permanent deformation and/or gas leakage,low likelihood of collapse. Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in the anchor plates PFM 7:Anchor failure overstress due exceeds yield;corrosion observed,damages to similar plate anchors observed in past to liquefaction-induced lateral spread T3 earthquakes. Does meet LS(BSE 2E)performance objectives,DCR>1.0,overstress in and settlements plate anchors may cause permanent deformation or fracture,low likelihood of collapse. Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the BSE-SE and aSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMS considered;).T1=rent(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Thi (equivalent to ASCE41-13 De&ieacy-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application of Tier3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 1546 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 109 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 6&7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $2,300,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4 g3eosynteg 1019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicof ond5tructumf Mitigations;2.Cost estimotespmvidedare AACEf Gass 5'Order of estimates,intended faroanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure S Controllint Failure Tvoeisl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In ❑Ground Shaking o • . PS 15-06 Study 4 ® Differential Settlement *2-19 Gas Holder ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 • • O 4 Abbr.Artlonr: Controlling Conseguence(s): mSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CcSF=Consequence ofSelsmic Failure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder B2 +f RoSF=Risk of Seismic Fellure 9 ❑ Financial ❑Puhlic Impact $ o,� Likelihood designated either"d'(meets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: / (low likelihoDd)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: I COSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 2.4 0 3 2 9 4 S identi0ed consequence)and"5"(high ConeequAna of Selamlc Fallure(COSF) consequenre) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:J-124(In Progress) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSISu16 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 110 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS A-L a. " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-20 2 1 IV STEEL TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. a structural components t Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-3"Mat at-2.25'elev.(12.75'embedment);tie- down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'tWal length) - - Structure Dimensions:555 ft x 345 ft = 2-21�z 2-5 s O) b " N of Stories:1 story ` 2-4 ' Date of Original Construction:1977 � 2 18A 2 12 Retrofit(if any):N/A �/ Projects:P2-23-6/P2-42-2 2-2: Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report 2-18B a N Specifications ❑Other Shoo Drawings:Soil anchors 2-20 2-3 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High A HHWL' AWL2.7 Plan View -- Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 12 6 to 30 — Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 15 to 23 12 to 23 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 8 to 9 6 to 8 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 45 to 88 36 to 77 , :QCayey sa nd/smy sa na ----- Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 15 to 22 12 to 19 m"0-- -- g' saaa/davevsa�a Deterministic Fault Name M PGA ill Dist(km)4 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 �'6 Poorpurad.d son ,e.00r,a Anmor: Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) St(9) silty sand and silty Dav BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 a EIz BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 snty sandand sntLOa Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate schematic Cross section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Goss D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL 8.5 ft-bgs 12 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 11:Separation across expansion 3.2"differential settlement over 60 ft.Approximately 1.5 inches of separation may joints due to differential settlements T3 occur at the expansion joints in the walls,possible water-stop damage. Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the SSEaE and BSE-2Epectormance objectives have been amittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteg 1019)for additional PFMs mnsideemi-2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Bused Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Far exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E Ill ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 11:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BI $30,240,000 Mitigation is required to reduce differential settlement by 35%(2.1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 30 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $30,240,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimotesprovidedare AACEI Class 5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk'oPSeismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking q PS 15-06 Study N Differential Settlement 94 � � *2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 • 41 1 Abbnvlatlnm: Controlling Conseauencelsl' s LoSF=Ukellhool of Seismic Failure ❑ Life Safety ElPrimary Treatment -i COSF=Consequence of5eismic Failure ®Regulatory El Stakeholder E3 pwv RoSF=Risk of SelsmicFellure N Financial ❑Public Impact �4.a Likelihood designated either"0"(Tests Us fi performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: .11 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LoSF x COSF= 12 Identined consequence)and"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 6 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure(LoSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-051(09/01/2027) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 112 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DAFTS A-C " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-21 2 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. - structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-0"Mat at 1.25'elev(9.25'embedment) Structure Dimensions:55 fit diameter,35 fit height - g of stories:1 story a Date of Original Construction:1977 2_19 Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 2011 A Projects:P2-23-6 s 2,:_:.q Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 2-4 - 2-5 ®Specifications ❑Other 2-22 22 2_1�A geohazards and seismicity 2-1� -- , Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Lw):o High ,2-20 , HHi AWLe.7 / ), Surface Settlement(inches) 7to 10 6to 10 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread -- Lateralspread(far from river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread Lateralspread(near marsh,inches) 20 to 34 14 to 24 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 19 8 to 13 v Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist.(Wnp .a sit,S-d/aayey S-d Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 s" Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 In Poorly Graded Sand with silt seam: Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 u vary sand and Guy Clay BSE-2E7 5%1 n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 - Nohs:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate a AIt Sand/Cl a sand distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Cross Section as largest magnitude among significant contributor (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic grountl motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3it-air ♦73 ft-MSL AWL BSR-bgs +2 R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-22 DAFT D PFM and Desviptiont Tlert Assessment Results PFM 3:Structure response to 2.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Differential settlement is about 83%of differential settlement due to T1/2 exemplar.Members are nearly the same thickness and reinforcing.Refer to exemplar liquefaction for typical deficiencies. Nahz 1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2Eperfornswee objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Clearance 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Perl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/f2-Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See T44(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-os PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 113 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 3:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BI $4,970,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60%(I"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 8 to 60 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A [rated Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,970,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019JJor descriptions oirStandard Geotechnical and Stmctuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Riak of Seismic Failure 6 Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in El Ground Shaking o P515.Ofi Study ® Differential Settlement 4 *2-21 DAFT,A{ ❑ Lateral Spread 3 • • • Abbravlrtlonin Controlling Conseguencelsl' E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure ® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment d COSF=Consequence of seismic Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 P ROSF=Risk of Selsmic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact g0 Likelihood designated either"0"Imeets Risk Ranking: J.° 1 v/ • performance objective),or between"1" _ (low llkelihootll antl "5"(high likelihood) Ui Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Some: 3 0 Consequences ranked between"1"Ina Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 15 Imr-uned consequence)and"5"(high 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence) Consequence of Seismic Failure ICOSF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 114 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 DAFT D " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-22 2 1 IV TANK " class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. - - structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-0"Mat at 1.25'elev.(8.75'embedment) Structure Dimensions:55 fitdiameter,35 fitheight , g of Stories:1 story Date of Original Construction:1993 Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-19 Projects:P2-42-2 • - • Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report • f : :A ®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings,Dome retail •`-,�00 2-4 and PI-thrust ring " _ 2-2 2' 2-1 geohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-2p1 Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHMILL AVVi Plan View Surface Settlement(Inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9 - ) Lateral Spread(near river,inches) -----No Lateral Spread Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread -- Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 40 to 76 28 to 52 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 20 to 39 14 to 26 sdtysana/aayaysane Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(kmp g" 4 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 S" Pooayomaea sand w,rtn snv seams Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 11 nay _ Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Si(9) Sa(9) +, silty Sand and silty Clay BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 " Clay BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 75 Silty sandd a sand Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distanre to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected Ground Water Level Depth Elevation as largest magnitude among significant Contributors (>i%) to the hazard; 7. Ground HHWL 3ft-bgs +7ft-MSL deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and&SE-2E seismic ground motions. AWL Bit bgs +2 it MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Description' Ter' Assessment Results PFM 3:Dome-to-wall Connection T2 Shear friction on the dome to wall dowels.The existing joint has building paper to limit restraint,so the dowel is resisting all of the dome seismic shear. PFM S:Bottom mat flexure due to T3 2.9"differential settlement over 60 feet.Bottom bars govern this check.Check is response to differential settlement compliant if the spri ng stiffness is assu med to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft). PFM 6:Bottom mat out-of-plane shear 2.9"differential settlement over 60 feet.Check is compliant if the spring stiffness is due to differential settlement T3 assumed to be liquefied lky=7.2 ksffft). PFM 7:Hoop tension in wall and slab 2.9"differential settlement over 60 feet.Check is still non-compliant if the spring due to differential settlement T3 stiffness is assumed to be liquefied fly=7.2 ksf/ft)for the wall and mat slab. REVISED.6AW019 P515-06 PSI5-06 Till Appendix E 115 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 9:Chord/ring tension in the dome T2 The diaphragm thrust due to dead load with the potential seismic chord force trust ring exceeds the available post-tensioning and mild reinforcement capacity. Notes:).Potential Failure Modes(PFMS)that meet both the SSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T3=Fer 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficient,Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Feet exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 5-7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $1,940,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 70%(3"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 8 to 60 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 3:Install additional epoxy dowels that tie the dome into the $40,000 Estimated that 40 epoxy dowels are required. perimeter wall. PFM 9:Install a perimeter C6 x 13 member along the circumference $70,000 Approximate length of 100 feet.Anchor the steel of the dome thrust ring. section to the dome using epoxy bonded anchors (100 anchors). otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $2,050,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class S"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure 5 Controlling Failure Tvoe(sk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o 4 • . PS 15-05 Study ® Differential Settlement *2-22 DAFT D ❑ Lateral Spread w 3 • • • AbbreNations: Controlling Conseauencefsk InSF=likelihood of seismic Failure ® life Safety El Primary Treatment m CuSF=ConsequenceoFSdisrm,Failum ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 16 2 f,6a RoSF=Risk ofSelsmic Fallum El Financial ❑Public Impact aIn Likelihood designated either"0"(meets 8 performance objective),or between"1" Risk Rankine: "' 1 xsF • (low llkelingod)and "S"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Scare: 3 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 15 Identified consequence)and"S")high D Consequence of5eismic Failure(COSF) S 'onsequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 MIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 116 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 SURGE TOWER NO. 1 4 x W p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE Ill �sll S 2-23 2 1 IV TANK A SAW i - class based performance objectives y pAl - Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures e..ark �`�'�_,y substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and - - operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:2'-6"Mat at-8.50'elev.(19.50'embedment-piles— PPC(14"S0,60'total length) _ _ Structure Dimensions:28 fit diameter,104 IT height • 2-5 • 2-31 , .Q 0 g of Stories:N/A Date of Original Construction:1996 2 12 Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-18A Projects:J-34-1 2-23 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-18B 0 N Specifications N Other Shoo Drawings:Piles .2-3 aeohazards and seismicity Seismic site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • i HHWL' AWL2.7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 53 to 66 42 to 64 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 44 to 55 35 to 53 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 14 to 18 12 to 17 " Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 13 to 17 12 to 16 s .clayey sand/softy sand "at Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dist Iarl _ Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 1u sury sand v,nn as11:Hr Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 5 sandy 'u/slrvsa11 Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) so(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 sa Poorly ,ad San BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 a 5.1l Notes:1.Historic High Water level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate schematic Cross section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among signifimnt contributors (aJ%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs t8ft-MSL AWL 9it-lags 12 it-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-24 Surge Tower No.2;Digester 16 PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results PFM 9:Permanent displacements due to liquefaction-induced lateral spread Permanent horizontal displacements due to lateral spread are likely.LS performance and settlements(surface PGD=64 Tl/2 level met,low likelihood of collapse. inches) PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed ultimate capacity at around 24-inches of lateral due to lateral spread(surface PGD=64 T1/2 spread<best estimate PGD=64 inches.Low likelihood of collapse even if the piles inches) fail. Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and 8SE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)far additional PFMs considered;2.T1=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),M=Tier2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application ofWer3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 117 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 9&10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 75%(surface PGD=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedom AACEI Class 5'Order of estimates,intended farplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to Me fGeosynteq 2019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Twelsl: •Other Plant 1 structures Included in ❑Ground Shaking P515-O6 Study El Differential Settlement o4 *2-23 Surge Tower IN ® lateral Spread u 3 0 Abbreviations: Controllin¢Conseauencelsl: E Lo5F=likelihood of Seismic Failure ❑ life Safety ®Primary Treatment m COSF=Consequence ofSelsmic Fallure ElRegulatory O Stakeholder 5 2 *11 RoSF=Risk ofselsmic Fallure ❑ financial ❑Public Impact a6 Likelihood designated eiffier"d'burets F performance objective),orbetween"1" Risk Ranking: " 1 �sf • invalikelilltal nd "5"(highlikelimmi COSF Rating: 5 Consequences ranked between"1"(no Lo5F,Weighed Store; 5 0 identified consequence)and"5"(high O Overall RoSF=LgSFZCoSF= 25 S o mirmmnarl Consequence of5eismic Failure(COSF) c comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS1S06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 118 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 SURGE TOWER NO. 2 p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-24 2 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures -, substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. I structural components - FoundationType/Dimension:2'-0"Mat at-4.00'elev.(16.00'embedment) hour " . Structure Dimensions:26-feet diameter,93-feet height _ g of Stories:N/A AA A Date of Original Construction:1986 A Aa u SA A A - Retrofit(if any):N/A 2 Prolects:J-9/J-34-1 19 " 2-24 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report A .AA•2-31 Ab N Specifications N Other Shoo Drawings:Steel extension >-4 A 2_5�� a 2-1 BA 2-12 geohazards and seismicity 223 I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-18U Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High �0 HHWLs AWLtl 2-20 9 rt j Surface Settlement(inches) 9to 13 9to 11 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 90 to 120 65 to 95 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 62 to 82 45 to 65 '.. Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 10 to 13 7 to 11 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 10 to 13 7 to 11 " .SIIry.Santl/UaVeV Santl Ma0.---- Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)3 Dist.(kmp Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 "' Poorly Grader sand Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) S,(9) Ss(9) sllry sand and slla BSE-lE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 sn an Da Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected Schematic Cron Section as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground deformation inputs to structural analysis based an A WL and 9SE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3R-bgs +9 ft-MSL AWL 10 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A PFM and Description` Tiers Assessment Results PFM 9:Permanent displacements due to liquefaction-induced lateral spread Lateral spread and settlements will result in translation and tilting.Low likelihood of and settlements(surface PGD=65- T3 collapse.Failure of dresser coupling does not meet 10 criteria. inches). Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMol thwamet both the BSE-IE and USE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list see Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFM,considered,-2.T3=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Two (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Defcienry-Rased Evaluation Procedure T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application ofTier3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 119 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by at least 75%(surface FED=15-inches). Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3) Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntee,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended foroanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4 fGeosyntea,1019)for additional detail. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvi lel: •Other Plant 15tructures Included in ❑Ground Shaking PS 15-M Study ElDifferential Settlement o4 � *2-24 Surge Tower No.2 ® Lateral Spread u 3 r Abbreviations: [ontrollln¢Conseauencelsl: E LOSF=likelihood of5eismic Failure ❑ UfeSafety ®Primary Treatment o COST—consequence o1`5eismic Failure ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 16 . 2 P+ RmT—Risk ofSelsmic Failure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impact a'f Likelihood designated either"W hampts 6- performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: " 1 Y�' • _ (low likelihood)and "5'yhigh likelihoadl LOSF Rating: 3 COSF,Weighted Score: 5 p Consequences ranked between"1"(nq Overall ROSF=LOSF%COSF= 15 identified consequence)and"5"(high 0 Consequence of5eismic Failure(COSF) S consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS416 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 120 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 TRUCK LOADING W p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE i i �_ — 2-26 2 II II TANK class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. structural components s Foundation Type/Dimensions:4'-9"Mat at 1.75'elev.(7.75'embedment);stone p - columns Structure Dimensions:79 ft x 68 If g of Stories; stories - Date of Original Construction;2003 A a• Retrofit(if any):N/A A Projects:P2-60 • .• 2^26 Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report �S ®specifications ❑Other al I el A �7X aeohazards and seismicity ','• • 2❑19• 2-2> AI Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) A Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High AA • i HHWL' AWL'' Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) —No Lateral Spread LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread -- Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread -- anal na SitySana Deterministic Fault Name M PGA I[& Dist(knp Poorll 6,aaea sang Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 " oayseam Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 '.1"Sand serna cgwm�: Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) Ss(9) + 'ary sand and Siltycity BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 1 e,a BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 + sand/Silly sand Notes:1.Historic Hiph Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate schematic Cross section distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (»96) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. HHWL 3 fit-bgs ♦63 R-MSL AWL 7.5 fit this ♦2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results N/A Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the Sl and BSE-2Fpetformonce objectives have been amittedfrom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geusynteq 201 additional Pi considered;2.n-Tier 1(equivalent W ASCE41-13 screening Procedure),T2-Tier) (equivalent to ASCE41-13 Deficienev Bused Evaluation Procedure,T3-Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of 77'er3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 121 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments N/A $0 N/A otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0 Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntec,2019JJor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass 5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure S Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In ®Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-06 Study ❑ Differential Settlement *2-26Truck Loading -1 Lateral Spread u 3 • • • 4 Abbrevlatlona: Controlling Consequencels): L05F=Likelihood of Seismic Failure e7 Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment Cc,SF=Consequence of 50smlc Failure El Regulatory El Stakeholder B2 Phw RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ® Financial ❑Public Impact �pSa Likelihood designated either"O'(meets - c(, performance objective),or between"1" Risk Ranking: e 1 • (lowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 0 COSF,Weighted Some: 2.4 0 Conseouenonsequence)ranked and"n"1"Ina Overall ROSF=Lo5F x CaSF= 0 0 1 2 3 4 S conaeRedconsequenre)and"5"(high ConeequAna of S.I.ork Fall..(COSF) consequenre) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 122 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 MAINTENANCE BUILDING. p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE . 2-27 2 II II BUILDING - class based performance objectives VA& ' Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of life potential is low.Continued occupancy and operation mightnotbe likelybefore #L Al repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread at 6.30'elev.(3.00'embedment) Structure Dimensions:302 It x 51It y g of Stories;2 stories Date of Original Construction:1996(?) 2-11 Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-6 , Projects:P2-35-3 2-13 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ••••• •• ®Specifications ❑Other 247 geohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 0. 2-1^ Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High - 1' HHWL" AWL"p Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 11 to 12 ------------------. Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread--- 's SpreatlFmlings'. Lateral Spread(far rommarsh, ma inches)inc) --NO Lateral Spread--- , Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) ----No Lateral Spread----- Sena and sucySand-------------------------- DMerministic Fault Name M PGA Ids Dist(kmp Eu sand with Clay Seams Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sold SS(9) St(9) * slaysanawah Dayseams BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 " Sirdf ravel Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant,'S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site class D;6.Selected Ground water Level Depth Elevation as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 1. Ground Hii aft-bgs +6.3 ft-MSL deformation inputs tostmcturolanalyeisbased on AWL and eSE-2Eseismic ground motions. AWL 7.3 ft-bgs ♦2 fit-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A PFM and Description' Ter" Assessment Results PFM 2:Flexural stress in moment T2 North-south direction flexure in columns has stress of 213 ksi. frame columns s in Findings apply to all of the transverse moment frame roof beams(W24x62),which PFM Flexural/axialstresundatedT2 are unbced for their full span of 51 feet.2nd floor beams in the transverse direction transvverer se moment frame beams meet the performance objectives. PFM 38:Flexural/axial stress in Findings apply to all of the longitudinal moment frame roof beams(W12x26),which longitudinal moment frame beams T2 are unbraced for their full span of 20 feet 2nd floor beams along grid line 4 do not meet the performance objectives with slightly higher DCRs. PFM 4:Precast wall cladding interferes The precast concrete wall cladding is rigidly connected with welds to the moment with moment frames Tl frame columns.The cladding will serve to restrain the moment frame and can result in excessive damage/collapse of wall panels from the building. PFM S:Moment frame beam-column T2 All beam-column moment frame Connections at both the roof and 2rd floor levels do connection not meet the performance objectives. PFM 7:Moments frames have T1 All moment frame connections have strong beams relative to the columns.A Tier 2 relatively weak columns evaluation was performed. REVISED.6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 123 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2 PFM B:Columns are noncompact TI Columns are susceptible to buckling.A Tier 2 evaluation was performed. members PFM 9:Differential settlement due to 4.4"differential settlement over 60 feet The precast concrete cladding has liquefaction causes failure of precast T1/2 insufficient connections and joints to accommodate the differential settlement. concrete wall panels Brittle failure and stalling of the precast concrete panels is anticipated. Notes Potential Failure Modes mirldi that meet both the BSE1E and BSE-2Ept,,,b m once objectives have been omfttedfrom the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;over,teG 2019)for additional PFM,considered;2.TI=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Phroic ef,T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more dl mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations CosP Comments PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $15,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80%(I"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 4 to 64 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigations CoW Comments PFM 2,3A,3B,7,and 8:Provide steel concentric braced frames $2,890,000 Braced frames required at 14 total bays over 2- from the r.of level down to the first floor in the north-south and stories(28 frames).Will requi re some interior east-west directions.Braced fro mes should be either chevron or X demo and restoration of interior fin ishes. braces and may be comprised of tube steel or buckling restrained braced frame members.Add supplemental connections along collector lines with steel hardware as required at the roof and 2nd floor levels.Add columns below existing beam lines in addition to the bracing.New grade beams and pad footings will be required at the foundation level. PFM 4:Remove all welded(fully restrained)w`-a-I I cladding $540,000 8 connections per panel x 38 panels(304 connectionstosteel columns and replace with connectionsthat connections). have bolts with slotted holes. PFM S:See PFM 2 Mitigation.The alternative to this option would -- Braced frames required at 14 total bays over 2- be to upgrade all of the existing moment frame connections(64 stories(28 frames).Will require some interior locations),which involves strengthening existing columns over their demo and restoration of interior finishes.Cost full height,adding doubler and continuity plates within the column accounted for in PFM 1-3. web,and potentially reducing the beam flanges near the joints. oral Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $18,730,000 Notes:1.Refer to TAM(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandord Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Mognitude"estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Sal smic Failure B Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o PS 15-06 Study 4 P] Differential Settlement *2-27 Maintenance Building ❑ lateral Spread 3 • • • 40 Abbreviations: Controlling Conseauencelsl• E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure ® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment d Chi Consequence ofStismic Fallure El Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 2 Phr Rdi Risk of Seismic Fallure ❑ Financial ❑Public Impactis 4.9 Likelihood designated either"0"Imeets performance objective),or between"I" Risk Ranking: ` 1 • _ )low llkelihood)and "5"Thigh likelihood) Lei Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 5 q Consequences ranked between"1"(na Overall Roiis LOSF x Cl= 25 identified P.mr,cuence),md"5"(high O 1 2 3 4 S consequencel Comequenca olSelamic Failure ICo6P) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 124 ORANGE COUNTY OF Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 BOILER BUILDING W— p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-28 2 II II BUILDING - class based performance objectives Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of , life potential is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before —_ repair. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Dropped spread footings at 7.10'elev.(3.90' �> ' embedment) Structure Dimensions:50.3 IT x 40 ft N of Stories:1 story �t• 2-26• •2-14 ,tars` Date of Original Construction:1971 (j / s • WL.-J2,' Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1980 and 1996;1994: Provision of roof chords and AA connections, 2-16 connections,addition of connections between the roof and shearwalls,and addition of connections between the shear walls and the floor slab. .• 2"E." 2-3 Q Projects:P2-17 Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2- 2 21 N Specifications ❑Other 11 S1 A . • M all Aeohazards and seismicity 2-19 . A I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plainview Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHWLs AWLx7 Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 5 to 6 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Spread rooimK: e slrysand(cYayeysand_ Lateral spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread -- ------------ Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) ----No Lateral Spread---- ' g,r Lateral spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- § � Poodycmam saga S° Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist.(km)4 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 + silty sand and Silty Clay Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA Clay Igl S.(9) Ss(g) Sa Igl un saga/aarevSana BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 Schematic Cross Section BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Nobel 1.Histem,High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Ground Water Level Depth Dwell distance to center ofPll S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected HHWL aft-bgs lift-hill do, largest magnitude among significant contributors (>i%) to the hazard; 7. Ground AWL 9ft-bgs 12 ft-MSL deformation all to structural analysis based on AWL and ESE-2E seismic ground motions. structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station PFM and Description[ Tiers Assessment Results PFM 4:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Diaphragm shear capacity is limiting.Mitigation is recommended to enhance the diaphragm capacity. Notts:I.Patera or Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the USE-IE and USE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasyntec,1019)for additional Pi considered,-1.TS=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedme),TI/T2=Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 125 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Costa Comments N/A $0 N/A Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 4:Standard Structural Mitigation BS $250,000 Applies over the entire roof plan between grid lines 5 and 9(2,000 sf)and requires the addition of(3)W12x31 beams x 20-ft long. otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $250,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tmctural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates pmvidedare AACEI Gass 5'Order of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in N Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study ElDifferential Settlement o4 *2-28 Boiler Building ❑ Lateral Spread u 3 • • • Abbnon.ilons: [ontrollin¢Conseauence(sl: E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ® Life Safety El Primary Treatment u CFSF=Consequence cfSFismlc Failure ❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 5 2 Q,6q RoSF=Risk m5elsmic Failure El Financial El Public Impact a'S Likelihood designated either"W(meets Risk Ranking: ° 1 xfi • performance objective),or between"1" (low likelihond)and "5"(high likelihood) LOSF Rating: 5 COSF,Weighted Score: 2 O consequences mnkedbetween"1"(no Overall ROSF=LoSFx CosF= 10 idenn0ed consequence)and"5"(high O Consequence dSeismic Failure(COSF) s consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 126 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8, 2 M p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-29 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance Objectives I " Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and "e.y„ — fs operation are likely. Y structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 9'thick mat at-14.0D'elev.(25.00' embedment) f / Structure Dimensions:132 IT x 190 ft(at base)and 90 ft tat roof) u g of Stories;West End:2 above grade,one below grade;East End:one below grade f Date of Original Construction:1990 Retrofit(if any):N/A Q 2-10 f Projects:J-15 . 2 t7 229 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report A A ®Specifications ❑Other •2-14 ,,-,�,2-15 • 2-32 � Reohazard5 and seismicity •2-16 Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) .• Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High $•- - F_3 g HHWL' AWLz.r - i Surface Settlement(inches) 9to 15 8to 14 Plan View Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 114 to 165 92 to 145 Lateral Spread(far from river,Inches) 26 to 38 21 to 33 Lateral Spread(near marsh,Inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Lateral Spread(far from marsh,Inches) —No Lateral Spread-- --. --_ —_ arnaaaaaaaaaaaa Basemen(with Mat Deterministic Fault Name M Pan(g)s Dist.(km)P Ed, Silty 'c Ia e Near Field Newport Inglewood7.5 0.5 0 E„ Poody craned saes Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(9) Si S,(g) S,(g) snow sand BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 as an siI BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 �Ie and Lr P rl Notes,1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA'4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtlons for Site Gass D;6.Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors f>3N) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3it bgs as it MSL AWL 9it-bgs ♦2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A PFM and Description' Ter' Assessment Results PFM I:Wall anchorage at the roof All framing connections along the north and south walls are non-compliant(13 level at the north and south walls Tl locations). PFM 2:Wall anchorage at the roof All framing connections along the east,west,and interior wall are non-compliant(15 level at the east,West,and interior T1 locations). wall(grid line G) PFM 5:Roof diaphragm shear T1 Roof diaphragm shear in the east-west direction is non-compliant. REVISED.6/28/2019 P51506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 127 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 The east end of the structure is an open pit that is significantly less massive than the PFM B:Uneven buoyant uplift due to building to the west.Buoyant uplift due to liquefied soils is expected to rotate the T2 east pit upward relative to the building portion,which will result in shear and bending liquefaction failures in the mat slab and movement of COBS into the Central Power Generation Building. Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ELSE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec 2019)for additional PFMs ronsidered;2.T1=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofFer3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM9(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation[ Costa Comments PFM B:G rou ad improvement u nder the foundation $8,230,000 Ground improvement for uplift mitigation is required under the foundation from 25 to 45 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $630,000 Applies at 13locations. PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $780,000 Applies at 15 locations. PFM S:Standard Structural Mitigation 131&B2 $1,090,000 Mitigation to Ind ode the replacement of the roof deck(or supplement with steel bracing)in the east- west direction for a total of 8,600 sf and provision of supplemental epoxy bonded anchors to the existing north and south wall ledger angels @ 12" OC(180 anchors). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $10,730,000 Notes:1.Refer to TMa(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class 5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only. risk ranking Risk of Sed smic Failure s Controlling Failure Tvoelsl• •Other Plant I Structures Included in N Ground Shaking PS 15-M Study ❑ Differential Settlement 4 *2-2900BS ❑ lateral Spread 8 o. 3 • at • 4 0 Abbrevletlpm: Controlling Conseauencelsl: LOSF=Ukellhmd of Selsmicfallore ❑ life Safety N Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence ofSeBmic Failure IN El Regulatory El Stakeholder .52 ph4 ROGF=Risk of SelsmlcFallure El Financial El Public Impact ecaP Limilhood designated either"0"imeets ZZ performance objective),or between"1" Risk Rankine: 1 • law llkellhood)and "5"(highllmllhood) LOSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 5 p Consequences ranked between"1"(no Overall RoSF= SFx[oSF= 25 p 1 2 3 4 5 idenn0ed consequence)and"5"(high W Consequence of Sebmlc hllura(COSF) consequence) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI5-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 128 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 12KV DISTRIBUTION CENTER A �{ � ` " p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE •��"[—��- 2-30 2 1 IV BUILDING `•p \ 1 �, t / class based performance objectives / Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components ` a'J •� 6cr; Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 1'mat and grade beams at d elevation FPE_ „fly � (9'embedment) Structure Dimensions:92 ft x 41 ft Q 2-1 D AA g of Stories:I gory , 217 2-29 Date of Original Construction:1977 - Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1983 Projects:P2-23-3/P2-23-6/P2-47-1 2-15 2-32 2 14 a Available Information: ®Constmction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report i- �i - El • ®Specifications Other Jf'J 2-16 7$! 2-3 � aeohazards and seismicity ,LLJf, Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) tS Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ' , i HHWL° AIll Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) lateral Spread(near river,inches) Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) a 1:11h ma Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) ---- and evade na,m:--- Clayay sand/swy sand Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dlst(li Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 , Poody graded sand Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 soy sand Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) 5t(9) r sllry sand and Clay BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 LSia Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant;S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected as largest magnitude among significont contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based an A WL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs i6R-MSL AWL 7R-bgs +2R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC PFM and Desviptiont Tiers Assessment Results PFM 1:Wall anchorage to roof at T3 W16x96 anchorage at PWPS(10 locations). north and south walls PFM 3:Torsional response due to E-W Distribution Carter A has concrete moment frames along the south side,but shear TI wall along the north side.Addition of in-fill walls along the north and south sides seismic should mitigate this PFM. Frame columns along the north and south walls have insufficient shear capacity and PFM 4:Shear at frame columns TI ca n not develop moment frame behavior due to restraint by the i Chi l we l l panels. Conversion of building to shear walls is recommended. PFM 5:Structure response to 4.1"over 60 feet.Differential settlement is on the order of 46%larger compared to differential settlement due to TI/2 the exemplar.Wall tensile forces are estimated to be about the same as the liquefaction exemplar,which would result in tensile overstress. REVISED:WOMB PS 1506 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 129 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 PFM 9:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity. conditions Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical Memorandum 4(771144;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Wriency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T1=Application afFer3 exemplar results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail. mitigation measures and costs Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $3,160,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 75% (1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation Is required from 7 to 55 ft-bgs. PFM 9:standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $840,000 Mitigation required To reduce soil fluid density by 50%or preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether. Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 7 to 15 ft-bgs. Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $560,000 Applies at the W16x96 beams at 10 locations at the PWPS. PFM 3&4:Standard Structural Mitigation E $110,000 Applies at the north and south walls of the Distribution Center (88 square feet inf ll)and at the Plant Water Pump Station(152 sq Lane feet inf ll). otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,670,000 Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass 5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only. risk ranking 5 Risk of Sel mlc s Failure Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl; •Other Plant I Structures Included in ®Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15.06 Study ❑ Differential Settlement *2-3012kV Distribution CenterA ❑ Lateral Spread 8 u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevletlem: Controlling Canaequenca(S): LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure ® Life Safety I Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure ❑ Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder 2Mf RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure ❑ Financial 7 Public Impact Likelihood designated either"0"(meets performance objective),or between"1" Risk Rankine: 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood) LoSF Rating: 5 CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 a CDnseouences ranked between"1"(no IdentlBed consequence)and"5"(high Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequenre) Consequence of Seismic Fallurs(C4SF) comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date:X-047(09/01/2023) REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS416 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 130 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 g 2 SEJB p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-31 2 1 IV BURIED BOX , class based performance Objectives Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and ' ( operation are likely. ♦ .. �. structural components - FoundationType/Dimensions:Buried structure with 2'thick mat at-19.5'elev.(32.5, embedment) Structure Dimensions:21 ft x 20.3 ft 1 A e y g of Stories;N/A r Date of Original Construction:2003 ;19 Retrofit(if any):N/A "-♦ 2-24 Projects:J-77 � .•••2-31 , .O Available Information: ❑Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report -4 2-5 y� O ❑Specifications ❑Other • j \`C'?\�/1 2-18A 2-12 2-23 geohazards and seismicity 2-18B a Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 2-2D .2-3 j HHWLL AWLe.r Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 12 8 to 10 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 27 to 44 21 to 42 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 24 to 40 19 to 38 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 8 to 13 6 to 12 Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 8 to 13 6 to 12 sby/nayey sana wun aay DMerminlstic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dlst(knp -' Mae Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 to 1—y rrad.d sana Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) sh,Wdand sny Day BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 sandsne sand Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section distance to center of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>3%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation de)ormation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs +IOR-MSL AWL 11R-bgs +2R-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Only Geatechnical Evaluation performed for this structure comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 MIS-06 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 131 ORANGE COUNTY Sanitation District SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 ABC N p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE �• 2-32 2 1 IV BUILDING l 71a class based performance objectives - � �►��� Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely. structural components Foundation Type/Dimensions:Buried structure with 2.5'thick mat at-15.50'elev. (27.5'embedment) • _ Structure Dimensions:45 ft x 14 ft g of Stories:N/A 2-10 , • Date of Original Construction:2003 • 217 2-29 Retrofit(if any):N/A s Projects:J-77 Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-15 2-32 •2-14 ,r,r5 ,o El Specifications El Other • L-.L.2J,' • 2-16 aeohazards and seismicity "'�•� 2-304 I Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High A • ) HHWLL AWL2.7 Plan View Surface Settlement(inches) 13 to 19 11 to 17 Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 100 to 150 75 to 130 Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 58 to 87 43 to 75 Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- -siicy Sand with Clay seam DMerminlstic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dlst Qonp 1 Near Field Newport-Inglewood 8.5 0 Pomry Graded sand ,. Far Field San Andreas .5 0.1.16 84 Plays,nd Poon G,aeaa sand Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sr(9) BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 silty sand and May BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 sand/S,lo Sxn Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section distance to center of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected us largest magnitude among signiJimnt contributors (>3N/ to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andRSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3it-bgs •9 it-MSL AWL 10 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL structural assessment and failure modes Only Geatechnical Evaluation performed for this structure comments and clarifications N/A Next Planned Project and Date: N/A REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 132 Geosyntec° comul a m APPENDIX F Mitigation Cost Tables HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 Geosyntec° comul a m APPENDIX F1 Structural Mitigation Cost Tables HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 Project Name: Waste Sludge Thickener DAFT Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-1 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL PFM Direct Cost QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost Reference PFM#2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al 11 New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam,8'OC 165 FT $ 41 $ 6,765 $ 6 $ 990 $ 7,755 RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long. Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 41 EA $ 71 $ 2,947 $ 38 $ 1,559 $ 4,507 RS Means Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west Puddle welding 26 EA $ 600 $ 15,600 $ 15,600 walls of the north building Additional roof framing members 165 FT $ 41 $ 6,765 $ 6 $ 990 $ 7,755 RS Means.25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long. Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 35,617 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 83 233 PFM#3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation BI Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600 Roof Framing 390 FT $ 62 $ 24,254 $ 7 $ 2,547 $ 26,801 W34X38 Roof diaphragm shear at the north building Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 4688 SF $ 12 $ 56,250 $ 1.5 $ 7,031 $ 63,281 RS Means Membrane roof for the entire building 4688 SF $ 6 $ 29,109 $ 6 $ 29,109 $ 58,219 Carollo database Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 157,901 300%of other costs $ 315,802 PFM#4 Mitigation Discontinuous shear walls at the interior of Provide steel beam/channel ties for the full width 80 FT $ 51 $ 4,096 $ 179 $ 14,304 $ 18,400 RS Means.60 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. the south building in the north-south Epoxy anchors at 6"OC for steel channel tie 161 EA $ 71 $ 6,086 $ 17,589 RS Means direction (@grid lines 3 and 5) Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 11,503 $ 38 $ 35,989 100%of other costs $ 71979 Sub-total $ 471,013 Sales Tax 8% $ 18,841 Sub-total $ 489,854 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 146,956 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 636,810 GR/GC 15% $ 95,521 Sub-total $ 732,331 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 73,233 Sub-total $ 805,564 Bond 2% $ 16,111 Sub-total $ 821,676 Insurance 2% $ 16,434 GRAND TOTAL $ 838,109 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 1 Project Name: Blower Building and PEPS Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-2 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM #2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) Wall anchorage to the roof at W33x connections at pilasters 30 1 EA $ 150,000 $15000/location. Estimated by lames Doering the north and south walls of the Additional roof deck welding 10 EA $ 2,400 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 Blower Building Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 LS $ 174,000 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc. nii PFM#3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM) Wall anchorage to the roof at New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam,8'OC 560 FIF $ 27 $ 15,366 $ 74 $ 41,608 $ 56,974 RS Means. 25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long. the north and south walls of the Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 140 EA $ 71 $ 10,003 $ 38 $ 5,292 $ 15,295 RS Means PEPS Building Puddle welding 62 EA $ 600 $ 37,200 $ 37,200 Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 LS $ 109,469 100%of other costs $ 218,939 PFM#4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) Wall anchorage to the roof at W27x connections at pilasters 4 EA $ 60,000 $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering the east and west walls of the Additional roof deck welding 4 EA $ 2,400 $ 9,600 $ 9,600 PEPS Building Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 IS $ 69,600 $ 139 200 PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation BI Demo existing roofing 1 IS $ 9,600 Roof diaphragm shear in the Roof Framing 1182 FT $ 78 $ 92,196 $ 8 $ 8,865 $ 101,061 W14X48 north-south direction at the Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 8370 SF $ 12 $ 100,440 $ 1.5 $ 12,555 $ 112,995 IRS Means blower building Membrane roof for the entire building 8370 SF $ 6 $ 50,220 $ 6 $ 50,220 $ 100,440 Carollo database Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction- I LS $ 324,096 100%of other costs $ 648,192 Sub-total $ 1,369,331 Sales Tax 8% $ 54,773 Sub-total $ 1,424,104 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 427,231 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,851,335 GR/GC 15% $ 277,700 Sub-total $ 2,129,036 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 212,904 Sub-total $ 2,341,939 Bond 2% $ 46,839 Sub-total $ 2,388,778 Insurance 2% $ 47,776 GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 2,436,553 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 2 Project Name: Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-3 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY.J Unit I Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Medium) Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams 8 EA $ 80,000 $10000/location. Estimated by Wall anchorage to the roof at lames Doering east and west walls Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 80,000 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer, utilities, rotection,and etc. $ 169,000 PFM#3 Mitigation Drag connection at the reentrant Provide a steel channel or similar shape 88 FT $ 97 $ 8,488 $ 6 $ 525 $ 9,013 RS Means. 60 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. corner(intersection of grid line 2 Epoxy anchors 176 EA $ 71 $ 12,575 $ 38 $ 6,653 $ 19,228 Assume 6" OC and D) Welding to existing steel W12x35 1 EA $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 33,041 100%of other costs $ 66,081 Sub-total $ 235,081 Sales Tax 8% $ 9,403 Sub-total $ 244,484 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 73,345 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 317,830 GR/GC 15% $ 47,674 Sub-total $ 365,504 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 36,550 Sub-total $ 402,054 Bond 2% $ 8,041 Sub-total $ 410,095 Insurance 1 2% $ 8,202 GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 418,297 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 3 Project Name: City Water Pump Station Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-4 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL PFM Direct Cost CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost Reference PFM N3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C3 Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 130 FT $ 30 $ 3,896 $ 7 $ 944 $ 4,840 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'long Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 65 EA $ 71 $ 4,644 $ 38 $ 2,457 $ 7,101 IRS Means the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 23,883 200%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 5.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 16,500 $ 16,500 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc. $ 52 324 6 PFM g3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) Wall anchorage at east and west Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters EA $ 45,000 $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 45,000 100%of other costs 90 000 PFM#4 Mitigation 6" concrete overlay 10 CY $ 474 $ 4,740 $ 1,453 $ 14,530 $ 19,270 Carollo database In-plane shear at south pier Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 964 5%of concrete between louvers Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 200 EA $ 39 $ 7,800 $ 45 $ 9,000 $ 16,800 IRS Means material cost,$100/dowel, 18"OC Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 37,034 100%of other costs $ 74 067 PFM g5&6 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation D Out-of-plane horizontal bending Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 6 EA $ 36,000 $6000/each at east and west walls Epoxy anchors at 8" OC 199 EA $ 71 $ 14,201 $ 38 $ 7,513 $ 21,713 IRS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 57,713 100%of other costs $ 115 427 Sub-total $ 331,818 Sales Tax 8% $ 13,273 Sub-total $ 345,091 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 103,527 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 448,618 GR/GC 15% $ 67,293 Sub-total $ 515,911 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 51,591 Sub-total $ 567,502 Bond 2% $ 11,350 Sub-total $ 578,852 Insurance 1 2% $ 11,577 GRAND TOTAL $ 590,429 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix Fi 4 Project Name: Power Building 2 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-5 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cast Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation CI Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 258 Ff $ 30 $ 7,725 $ 7 $ 1,803 $ 9,528 RS Means.1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2'long Walls/footing are not tied Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 129 EA $ 71 $ 9,199 $ 38 $ 4,867 $ 14,066 RS Means together Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS J20,OOO 200%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. 79 780PFM#2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Ai(SIM)New anchorage where W32x27 beams are supported at the CMU walls 4 EA $5000 per location Wall anchorage at the north and Demo existing roofing 1 LS south walls of the low roof Membrane roof for the entire building 2460 SF $ 6 $ 14,760 $ 6 $ 14,760 Carollo database Additional roof deck welding 4 EA $ 2,400 $ 9,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS 100%of other costs $ 137 440 Sub-total $ 217,220 Sales Tax 8% $ 8,689 Sub-total $ 225,909 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 67,773 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 293,682 GR/GC 15% $ 44,052 Sub-total $ 337,734 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 33,773 Sub-total $ 371,505 Bond 2% $ 7,430 Sub-total $ 378,938 Insurance 2% $ 7,579 GRAND TOTAL $ 386,516 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 5 Project Name: Power Building 4 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-6 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#3 Mitigation Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600 Membrane roof for the entire building 1760 SF $ 6 $ 10,560 $ 6 $ 10,560 $ 21,120 Carollo database Concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver openings 94 FT $ 78 $ 7,359 $ 8 $ 708 $ 8,066 RS Means. HSS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft. Incomplete load path at the north Steel framed blockings at the roof level 25 FT $ 78 $ 1,950 $ 8 $ 188 $ 2,138 RS Means. HSS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft. side of the high roof diaphragm Weld steel framed blocking to roof deck 4 EA $ 4,800 $ 19,200 $ 19,200 New steel member sill 39 FT $ 78 $ 3,023 $ 8 $ 291 $ 3,313 RS Means. HSS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft. Epoxy anchors for the new steel member sill,6"OC 79 EA $ 71 $ 5,609 $ 38 $ 2,967 $ 8,576 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 72,013 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 153 026 Sub-total $ 153,026 Sales Tax 8% $ 6,121 Sub-total $ 159,147 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 47,744 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 206,851 GR/GC 15% $ 31,034 Sub-total $ 237,954 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 23,792 Sub-total $ 261,717 Bond 2% $ 5,234 Sub-total $ 266,951 Insurance 2% $ 5,339 GRAND TOTAL $ 272,290 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 6 Project Name: Power Building 5 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-7 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM q2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) Wall anchorage at the east and west Wall anchorage at W24x94 roof beams 8 EA $ 60,000 $7500/location. Estimated by lames Doering walls to the roof diaphragm Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 60,000 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH E 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 126,000 Sub-total $ 126,000 Sales Tax 8% $ 5,040 Sub-total $ 131,040 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 39,312 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 170,352 GR/GC 15% $ 25,553 Sub-total $ 195,905 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 19,590 Sub-total $ 215,495 Bond 2% $ 4,310 Sub-total $ 219,805 Insurance 2% $ 4,396 GRAND TOTAL $ 224,201 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix Fi 7 Project Name: Control Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-8 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 15 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION tDirect JRS CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Reference PFM#2,4,5,6,10 MitigationConcentric X-braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor 1291 FT $ 78 $ 100,666 $ 8 $ 9,679 Means.HSS 8XSX1/2-49lbs/ft. Supplement connections along collector at bottom of 2nd Floor 80 EA 06 hr per location Puddle welding along collector at roof level 1 LS 01 week Moment frame column Enhancing connections elsewhere for seismic load transfer 1 LS 0 $75000/FLOOR anchorage is not adequate to Interior demo and restoration of interior finishes 8250 SF $ 25 $ 206,250 50 $ 412,500 0 $75/SF.25%of the entire building. resist seismic tension demands, Plant SCADA system relocations 2 EA $ 128,000 $ 256,000 0 etc... Fire sprinkler system 8250 SF $ 4 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 25%of the entire building. Temporary trailers for control center staff 15 MONTH $ 24,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 Office trailer,locker rooms,restroom and showers,etc. Temporary facilities and requirements 15 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 1,856,096 100%of other costs $ 3 712 191 Sub-total $ 3,712,191 Sales Tax 8% $ 148,488 Sub-total $ 3,860,679 Project Level Allowance 30% $ 1,158,204 Sub-total $ 5,018,882 GR/GC 15% $ 752,832 NOTES: Sub-total $ 5,771,715 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Contractor's Profit 10% $ 577,171 Sub-total $ 6,348,886 Bond 2% $ 126,978 Sub-total $ 6,475,864 Insurance 2% $ 129,517 GRANDTOTAL $ 6,605,381 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 8 Project Name: 12kV Service Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-9 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL OTV. Unit Unit Cast I Amount I per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM M2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) Wall anchorage to roof at east and Wall anchorage at W24x84 roof beams 8 EA $ 60,000 $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering west walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 60,000 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Construct[railer,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 126,000 Sub-total $ 126,000 Sales Tax 8% $ 5,040 Sub-total $ 131,040 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 39,312 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 170,352 GR/GC 15% $ 25,553 Sub-total $ 195,905 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 19,590 Sub-total $ 215,495 Bond 2% $ 4,310 Sub-total $ 219,805 Insurance 2% $ 4,396 GRAND TOTAL $ 224,201 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 9 Project Name:Central Power Generation Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number:OCSD Plant l Project 1-10 Prepared By: xHK/KR Project Construction Duration:)months Data Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2028 Accepted BY: JA0 MATERIALS INSTALLATION 1 TOTAL TOTAL QTV. Unit UnitCost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM of Mst-irrion-StandaM Structural Mitigation F Lack of lateralthe high roof ngthe Cast-in-place concrete walls 11.6 CV 5 412 $ 4,769 5 676 5 7,824 $ 12,630 Carollo database east side of the high roof Special finishes for concrete 1 IS $ 630 5%of cast-in-place connate diaphragm Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 92 EA $ 39 5 3,575 1 $ 45 1 $ 4,125 $ 7,700 RS Means,18"OC Demo windows at 35'above floor 12 EA $ NO $ 9,600 $ 9,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 US $ 51,044 200%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirement T MONTH $ 3,000 $ 21,O00 $ 21,000 ConstructDollar,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 112567 PFM g2 Mitigation 50',12"thick cast-in-place concrete shear wall at basement level 37.0 CY $ 412 $ 15,259 $ 676 $ 25,037 $ 4%296 Carollo database Lack of lateral bracing alongthe Upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie along building length 140 FT $ 9T $ 13,580 $ fi $ 840 $ 14,420 AS Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel. west side of the low roof and 2nd Epoxy anchors at 6"OC for steel channel tie 281 EA $ 71 $ 20,077 $ 38 $ 10,622 $ 3g699 RS Means floor at the basement level Canduk,piping,valving,and supports demo 1 IS $ 16,W0 Replacement allowance for conduit,piping,valvin ,and supprons 1 IS $ 65,000 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 166,416 300%of other casts 5 332 831 PFM g3 Mitigation-Standard Structural MRigafianF Cast-in-place concrete 10.0 CV $ 412 5 4,120 $ 676 $ 6,luu $ 30,880 Carollo database Insufficient lateral bracing along Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 544 5%of cast-in-place concrete the west side of the building Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels EA $ 39 $ - $ 45 $ - $ - RS Means material cost,$1W/dowel,18"OC Demo windows at grade 16 EA $ 800 $ 12,BW $ II,800 Construction difficulty,o erations and work restrictions 1 15 $ 24,224 SW%of other costs $ 48448 PFMa Mit Ion-Standard Structural MHl atlan A2(High) SIM Demo existing roof 1 LS $ 9,fiW Wall anchorage at the high roof New steel welded or bolted connections to existing beams 6 EA $ 90,W0 $15000/location.Estimated by James Doering north and south walls Additional membrane roof 4625 SF $ 6 5 28,721 $ 6 $ 28,221 $ 57,443 Carollo database Additional roof deck welding 6 EA $ 2,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 171p43 SW%of other casts 342 885 PFM gS Migration Standard Structural MHlgation 01 and 82 Demo existing roofing 0 IS $ Already included in PFM g4 Metal decking,galvanized steel,1 1/2'deep,18 gauge 300) SF $ 12 $ 36,000 $ 2 $ 4,500 $ 40,500 RS Means High roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire high roof 7400 SF $ 6 5 44,400 $ 6 $ 44,100 $ 88,800 Carollo database Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC 90 EA $ 71 $ 6,431 $ 38 $ 3,402 $ 9,833 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 139,133 100%of other costs $ 2T8265 PFM B6 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation BS and B2 Demo existing roofing 1 IS $ 4,800 MCUl decking,galvanized steel,1-1/2'deep,18 gauge IOW SF $ 12 $ 12,000 $ 2 $ 1,500 $ 13,500 RS Means Low roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire low roof south of grid line 2 49W SF $ 6 $ 29,QO $ 6 $ 29,40(1 $ 58,800 Carollo database Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC 60 EA $ TI 5 4,282 $ 38 $ ;268 $ 6,555 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 83,655 SW%of other costs 5 167,310 Sub-total $ 1,282,306 Sales Tax 8% $ 51,292 Sub-total $ 1,333,598 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 400,079 1.This cost estimate only Includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,733,672 GR/GC 15% $ 260,052 Sub-total $ 1,993,729 Contractor's Profit to% $ 199,373 Sub-total $ 2,193,107 Bond 2% 5 43,862 Sub-total $ 2,236,964 Insurance 2% $ 44,739 GMNO TOTAL $ 2,281,103 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 10 Project Name: Digester 5&6 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-14 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Stmctural Mitigation C3 Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 78 FT $ 30 $ 2,323 $ 7 $ 563 $ 2,885 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' long Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 39 EA $ 71 $ 2,769 $ 38 $ 1,465 $ 4,233 RS Means the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 14,238 200%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc. $ 30 357 PFM Jig Mitigation Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 7.5 CY $ 412 $ 3,090 $ 676 $ 5,070 $ 8,150 Carollo database Insufficient separation from Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 408 5%of cast-in-place concrete adjacent digesters Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 43 EA $ 39 $ 1,658 $ 45 $ 1,913 $ 3,570 RS Means, 18"OC Roof connections 1 LS $ 15,000 Estimated by James Doering Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 54,276 200%of other costs $ 81,414 Sub-total $ 111,771 Sales Tax 8% $ 4,471 Sub-total $ 116,242 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 34,872 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 151,114 GR/GC 15% $ 22,667 Sub-total $ 173,781 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 17,378 Sub-total $ 191,159 Bond 2% $ 3,823 Sub-total $ 194,982 Insurance 2% $ 3,900 GRANDTOTAL $ 198,882 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 11 Project Name: Digester 7&8 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-17 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM NS Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation CI III. I Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 78 FT $ 30 $ 2,323 $ 7 $ 563 $ 2,885 IRS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' long Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 39 EA $ 71 $ 2,769 $ 38 $ 1,465 $ 4,233 IRS Means the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 14 308 200%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc. $ 30,357 PFM q2 Mitigation Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 15.0 CY $ 412 $ 6,180 $ 676 $ 10,140 $ 16,320 Carollo database Insufficient separation from Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 816 5%of cast-in-place concrete adjacent digesters Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 63 EA $ 39 $ 2,438 $ 45 $ 2,813 $ 5,250 IRS Means, 18" OC Roof connections 1 LS $ 15,000 Estimated by lames Doering Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 74,772 200%of other costs $ 112,158 Sub-total $ 142,515 Sales Tax 8% $ 5,701 Sub-total $ 148,215 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 44,465 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 192,680 GR/GC 15% $ 28,902 Sub-total $ 221,582 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 22,158 Sub-total $ 243,740 Bond 2% $ 4,875 Sub-total $ 248,615 Insurance 2% $ 4,972 GRANDTOTAL $ 253,587 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 12 Project Name: Digester 9-10 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-20 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C3 Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 90 FT $ 30 $ 2,700 $ 7 $ 630 $ 3,330 IRS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' long Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 45 EA $ 71 $ 3,215 $ 38 $ 1,701 $ 4,916 IRS Means the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 16,493 200%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 33 739 PFM#2 Mitigation Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 11.9 CY $ 412 $ 4,883 $ 676 $ 8,012 $ 12,895 Carollo database Insufficient separation from Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 645 5%of cast-in-place concrete adjacent digesters Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 53 EA $ 39 $ 2,080 $ 45 $ 2,400 $ 4,480 IRS Means, 18"OC Roof connections 1 LS $ 15,000 Estimated by James Doering Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 66,039 200%of other costs 99,059 PFM#4 Mitigation Diaphragm connections at re- Stainless steel channel 54 FT $ 117 $ 6,338 $ 7 $ 392 $ 6,730 R5 Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel. 1.21 ratio for SST. Epoxy anchors at 6" OC 109 EA $ 71 $ 7,788 $ 38 $ 4,120 $ 11,908 IRS Means entrant corner Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 37,277 200%of other costs 55 915 Sub-total $ 188,712 Sales Tax 8% $ 7,548 Sub-total $ 196,261 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 58,878 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 255,139 GR/GC 15% $ 38,271 Sub-total $ 293,410 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 29,341 Sub-total $ 322,751 Bond 2% $ 6,455 Sub-total $ 329,206 Insurance 2% $ 6,584 GRAND TOTAL $ 335,790 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 13 Project Name: Digester 11-14 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-22 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 292 CY $ 412 $ 120,167 $ 676 $ 197,167 $ 317,333 Carollo database Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 15,867 5%of cast-in-place concrete Insufficient separation from adjacent Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 725 EA $ 39 $ 28,275 $ 45 $ 32,625 $ 60,900 IRS Means, 18" OC digesters causes structure pounding Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 197,100 50%of other costs Construct trailer, utilities, Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 protection, and etc. $ 606,200 Sub-total $ 606,200 Sales Tax 8% $ 24,248 Sub-total $ 630,448 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 189,134 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. 5ub-total $ 819,582 GR/GC 15°% $ 122,937 Sub-total $ 942,520 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 94,252 Sub-total $ 1,036,772 Bond 2% $ 20,735 Sub-total $ 1,057,507 Insurance 2% $ 21,150 GRAND TOTAL $ 1,078,657 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 14 Project Name: Digester 15-16 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-23 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION tTota TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM p1 MitigationProvide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 83 CY $ 412 $ 34,333 $ 676 $ 56,333 Carollo database Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 5%of cast-in-place concrete Insufficient separation from Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 225 EA $ 39 $ 8,775 $ 45 $ 10,125 RS Means, 18" OC adjacent digesters Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 75%of other costs Construct trailer, utilities, Temporary facilities and requirements 3.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 10,500 protection, and etc. $ 238,700 Sub-total $ 238,700 Sales Tax 8% $ 9,548 Sub-total $ 248,248 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 74,474 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 322,722 GR/GC 15% $ 48,408 Sub-total $ 371,131 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 37,113 Sub-total $ 408,244 Bond 2% $ 8,165 Sub-total $ 416,409 Insurance 2% GRAND TOTAL $ 424,737 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 15 Project Name: Solids Storage Facility Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant Project 1-26 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 2.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL QTY. J Unit I Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation Building pounding between the Steel plates with slotted connections 53 FT $ 41 $ 2,153 $ 6 $ 315 $ 2,468 IRS Means. 25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. north and south structures due Epoxy anchors at 8" OC 80 EA $ 71 $ 5,680 $ 38 $ 3,005 $ 8,685 IRS Means to out-of-phase response to Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 2 LS $ 16,800 200%of other costs ground shaking Temporary facilities and requirements 2.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc. $ 35,453 Sub-total $ 35,453 Sales Tax 8% $ 1,418 Sub-total $ 36,871 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 11,061 1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 47,932 GR/GC 15% $ 7,190 Sub-total $ 55,122 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 5,512 Sub-total $ 60,634 Bond 2% $ 1,213 Sub-total $ 61,847 Insurance 2% $ 1,237 GRAND TOTAL $ 63,084 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 16 Project Name: Warehouse Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-28 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total LTA PFM Direct CostL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cast Reference PFM g1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2 Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 13,333 $200/CY Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 67 CY $ 285 $ 18,991 $ 446 $ 29,723 $ 48,714 Carollo database. footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 520 EA $ 21 $ 10,691 $ 39 $ 20,535 $ 31,226 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 69,955 75%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. 178 228 PFM g6 Mitigation Wall panels are not tied Use steel plates to tie tilt-up wall panels together along their vertical joints 300 FT $ 97 $ 29,100 $ 6 $ 1,800 $ 30,900 RS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel. together to resist overturning Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 90 EA $ 71 $ 6,431 $ 38 $ 3,402 $ 9,833 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 30,549 75%of other costs $ 71,282 PFM a8 Mitigation Tension failure in the walls due Provide continuous supplemental steel chord member along the east and west walls 250 FT $ 97 $ 24,250 $ 6 1 $ 1,500 $ 25,750 RS Means.601bs/ft Gal Steel. to differential settlement Epoxy anchors at 6"OC 501 EA $ 71 $ 35,796 $ 38 $ 28,938 $ 54,734 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 60,363 75%of other costs $ 140 847 Sub-total $ 390,358 Sales Tax 8% $ 15,614 Sub-total $ 405,972 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 121,792 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 527,764 GR/GC 15% $ 79,165 Sub-total $ 606,928 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 60,693 Sub-total $ 667,621 Bond 2% $ 13,352 Sub-total $ 680,973 Insurance 2% $ 13,619 GRAND TOTAL $ 694,593 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 17 Project Name: Shop Building A Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-29 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2 Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 10,667 $200/CY Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 53 CY $ 285 $ 15,193 $ 446 $ 23,779 $ 38,971 Carollo database. footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 520 EA $ 21 $ 10,691 $ 39 $ 20,535 $ 31,226 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 LS $ 60,648 75%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer,utilities, protection,and etc. $ 156,512 Sub-total $ 156,512 Sales Tax 8% $ 6,260 Sub-total $ 162,772 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 48,832 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 211,604 GR/GC 15% $ 31,741 Sub-total $ 243,344 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 24,334 Sub-total $ 267,679 Bond 2% $ 5,354 Sub-total $ 273,033 Insurance 2% $ 5,461 GRAND TOTAL $ 278,493 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 18 Project Name: Shop Building B and Building 3 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-30 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL OTy. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2 Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 17,067 $200/CY Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 85 CY $ 285 $ 24,308 $ 446 $ 38,046 $ 62,354 Carollo database. footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 832 EA $ 21 $ 17,106 $ 39 $ 32,856 $ 49,962 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 97,037 75%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc. $ 241,419 PFM N5 Mitigation Additional nailing to develop the wall anchorage force into the 1 LS $ 1,600 Wall anchorage of the roof at diaphragm the south wall of Bldg 3 Install clip angles and screw into both sides of the strut member and 3 EA $ 6 $ 18 $ 3,200 $ 9,600 $ 1,600 bottom side of the plywood diaphragm Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 3,200 100%of other costs $ 6,400 Sub-total $ 247,819 Sales Tax 8% $ 9,913 Sub-total $ 257,732 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 77,319 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 335,051 GR/GC 15% $ 50,258 Sub-total $ 385,309 Contractor's Profit SO% $ 38,531 Sub-total $ 423,840 Bond 2% $ 8,477 Sub-total $ 432,316 Insurance 2% $ 8,646 GRAND TOTAL $ 440,963 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 19 Project Name: Building 5&6 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-31 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 9 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM ft1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2 Excavation allowanceto exp05efooting 1 LS $ 44,133 $200/CY Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 221 CY $ 285 $ 62,859 $ 446 $ 98,384 $ 161,243 Carollo database footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 664 EA $ 21 $ 13,652 $ 39 $ 26,221 $ 39,873 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 122,625 50%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 9 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 Construct trailer,utilities, protection,and etc. 394 875 PFM#4 Mitigation Supplement the existing wall anchorage with additional hardware 13 EA $ 13,000 $1000 for each location Supplement the existing wall anchorage with epoxy anchors 13 EA $ 71 $ 929 $ 38 $ 491 $ 1,420 IRS Means Wall anchorage of the 2nd floor Remove building finishes(ceiling panels,etc...) 1 LS $ 5,307 Match replacement installation cost Replacement allowance for new building finishes(ceiling panels,etc...) 1300 SF $ 20 $ 26,536 $ 4 $ 5,307 $ 31,843 Carollo database Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 51,570 100%of other costs $ 103140 PFM ft6B Mitigation Demo existing finishes 1 LS $ 2,000 Bending failure of beams over Replacement allowance for the finishes 200 SF $ 20 $ 4,082 $ 4 $ 816 $ 4,899 Carollo database chevron braced frames Add steel cover plates to the top and bottom flanges of the steel beam 100 FT $ 97 $ 9,700 $ 6 $ 600 $ 10,300 IRS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel. Field welding of the new steel plates to the existing beam 15 EA $ 2,400 $ 36,000 $ 36,000 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 53,199 100%of other costs 106 398 PFM ft61) Mitigation Strengthen existing beam by adding 2 channels along each side 40 FT $ 24 $ 960 $ 6 $ 240 $ 1,200 IRS Means. 13 Ibs/ft Gal Steel 2nd Floor diaphragm shear Replace end connections allowance 1 LS $ 25,000 Enhance floor shear transfer allowance 1 LS $ 25,OD0 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 51,2D0 100%of other costs 102,400 Sub-total $ 706,813 Sales Tax 8% $ 28,273 Sub-total $ 735,085 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 220,526 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 955,611 GR/GC 15% $ 143,342 Sub-total $ 1,098,952 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 109,895 Sub-total $ 1,208,848 Bond 2% $ 241177 Sub-total $ 1,233,025 Insurance 2% $ 24,660 GRAND TOTAL $ 1,257,685 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 20 Project Name: Auto Shop Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-32 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total J75% QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cast PFMReference PFM M3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2 Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 11,667 $200/CY Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 58 CY $ 285 $ 16,617 $ 446 $ 26,008 $ 42,625Carollo database. footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 575 EA $ 21 $ 11,822 $ 39 $ 22,707 $ 34,529RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 66,615of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc. PFM M4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM) Wall anchorage of the low roof New steel angles at existing wall at the north and south side,8'OC 650 FT $ 41 $ 26,650 $ 6 $ 3,900 $ 30,550RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long. at the north and south side Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 41 EA $ 71 $ 2,903 $ 38 $ 1,536 $ 4,438RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 26,24175%of other costs $ 61,229 Sub-total $ 231,665 Sales Tax 8% $ 9,267 Sub-total $ 240,931 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 72,279 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 313,211 GR/GC 15% $ 46,982 Sub-total $ 360,192 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 36,019 Sub-total $ 396,212 Bond 2% $ 7,924 Sub-total $ 404,136 Insurance 2% $ 8,083 GRAND TOTAL $ 412,219 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 21 Project Name: Central Laboratory Date Prepared: 4/11/2019 Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-34 Prepared By: BS/XHK Project Construction Duration: 12 months Date Accepted: 4/19/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Gost I Amount pe,UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM Nl Mitigation Concentric chevron braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor 485 FT $ 120 $ 58,200 $ 6 $ 2,910 $ 61,110 RS Means,2L6x6x1-751bs/ft Saw cut existing concrete slab 725 FT $ 2 $ 1,552 $ 23 $ 16,313 $ 17,864 RS Means Repair concrete slab 5 CY $ 648 $ 3,552 $ 744 $ 4,078 $ 7,630 Carollo database Additional columns below frame beams from roof level down to first floor 675 FT $ 78 $ 52,650 $ 8 $ 5,400 $ 58,050 RS Means,HSS 8x8x1/2-49 lbs/ft Demo and restoration of interior finishes 2391 SF $ 25 $ 59,775 $ 50 $ 119,550 $ 179,325 $75/SF.25%of the entire building. Braced frame column axial Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 59,259 $200/CY stress due to overturning forces Enlarge existing footings below frame columns 175 CY $ 412 $ 72,176 $ 676 $ 118,425 $ 190,601 Carollo database Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 200 EA $ 39 $ 7,800 $ 45 $ 9,000 $ 26,800 RS Means Add footings below new frame columns 67 CY $ 412 $ 27,467 $ 676 $ 45,067 $ 72,533 Carollo database Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 663,173 100%of other costs Temporary facilities and requirements 12 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 36,000 $ 36,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 1,362,347 PFM M3 Mitigation Demo and restoration of interior finishes 215 SF $ 25 $ 5,375 $ 50 $ 10,750 $ 16,125 $75/SF. Out-of-plane bracing of braced Beam framing 86 FT 1 $ 92 $ 7,912 $ 6 $ 516 $ 8,428 RS Means,w21x57-57 lbs/ft. frame beams Beam bolted connections 24 EA $ 72,000 $3000/location.Estimated by James Doering Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 96,553 100%of other casts $ 93,106 PFM g4 Mitigation Demo and restoration of interior finishes 1169 SF $ 25 $ 29,225 $ 50 $ 58,450 $ 87,675 $75/5F. Braces for braced frames are Add stiffener plates to existing bracing members 512 FT $ 41 $ 20,992 $ 6 $ 3,072 $ 24,064 RS Means,25 lbs/ft. non-compact members Field welding of new stiffener plates to existing bracing members 64 EA $ 2,400 $ 153,600 $ 153,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 132,670 50%of her costs $ 398,009 PFM g7 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation 01 Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 32,000 Roof diaphragm shear Metal decking,galvanized steel,1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 17000 SF $ 12 $ 204,000 $ 2 $ 25,500 $ 229,500 RS Means Membrane rooffor the entire building 17000 SF $ 6 $ 102,000 $ 6 $ 102,000 $ 204,000 Carollo database Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 465,500 1 100%of other costs $ 931,000 Sub-total $ 2,894,461 Sales Tax 8% $ 115,378 Sub-total $ 2,999,840 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 899,952 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 3,899,791 GR/GC 15% $ 584,969 Sub-total $ 4,484,760 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 448,476 Sub-total $ 4,933,236 Bond 2% $ 98,665 Sub-total $ 5,031,901 Insurance 2% $ 100,638 GRANDTOTAL $ 5,132,539 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 22 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: RAS PS East Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-3 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION T!46,695 TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Dir PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation New cast in place concrete columns,square TS Cy $ 638 $ 4,782 $ 709 $ 5,321 $ RS means includes forms, 24" Vertical irregularities in Strengthen existing members 3 EA $ $10000/each. Estimated by James building shear walls New collector member(steel channel) 64 FT $ 97 $ 6,208 $ 6 $ 384 $ RS Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 300%of Direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc. $ 102389 S $ 102,389 Sales Tax $ 4,096 Sub-total $ 106,495 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 31,945 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 138,430 GR/GC 15% $ 20,764 Sub-total $ 159,194 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 15,919 Sub-total $ 175,114 Bond 2% $ 3,502 Sub-total $ 178,616 Insurance 1 2% $ 3,572 GRAND TOTAL L 5 132,138 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 23 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: RAS PS West Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-4 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direc[Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation New cast in place concrete columns,square 7.5 CY $ 638 $ 4,782 $ 709 $ 5,321 $ 10,103 PIS means includes forms,24" Vertical irregularities in Strengthen existing members 3 EA $ 30,000 $10000/each. Estimated by lames building shear walls New collector member(steel channel) 64 FT $ 97 $ 6,208 $ 6 $ 384 $ 6,592 RS Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS S 46,695 100%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,etc. $ 102 389 Sub-total $ 102,389 Sales Tax 8%1 $ 4,096 Sub-total $ 106,485 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 31,945 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 138,430 GR/GC 15% $ 20,764 Sub-total $ 159,194 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 15,919 Sub-total $ 175,114 Bond 2% $ 3,502 Sub-total $ 178,616 Insurance 1 2% $ 3,572 GRAND TOTAL 1 5 182,188 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 24 ORANGECOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS35-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Operations Control Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OEMO Plant 2 Project 2-6 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 9 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD MATF RIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM NI Mitigation New stiffeners to existing joist bearing seats 32 1 EA $ 641000 $2000/each.Estimated b James Wall anchorage at east and west Field welding in place 32 EA $ 2,400 $ 26,800 $ 76,800 walls(original building) Construction difficulty,o elation and work restrictions 1 LS $ 140,g00 100%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 9 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,ease. $ 308 BUD PFM 0 Mitigation New stiffeners to existing joist bearing seats 28 EA $ 56,000 $2000/each.Estimated by James Wall anchorage at east and west Field welding in place 28 EA $ 2,400 $ 67,200 $ 62,200 walls(addition) New bolts 28 EA $ 71 $ 1,988 $ 38 $ 1,064 $ 3,052 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 US $ 126,252 100%of direct cost $ 252,504, PFM 45 Mitigation Steel braced fames 80 FT $ 92 $ 7,760 $ 6 $ 480 $ 8,240 RS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel Incomplete load path at the Grade Beams 14 CY $ 412 $ 5,860 $ 676 $ 9,614 $ 15,474 Carollo database south entrance canopy addition Steel Columns 64 FT $ 82 $ 5,248 $ 3 $ 212 $ 5,460 RS means(6x6x3/81 for resisting seismic loads Demofinishes 1 US $ 61400 Replacement for finishes 1 LS $ 8,000 Construction difficulty,o rations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 43,524 100%of direct cost $ 87149 PFM N Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation E Cast-In-place concrete SA CY $ 412 $ 572 $ 676 $ 939 $ 1,511 Carollo Database Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 76 5%oftotal concrete In-plane shear at shear walls Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 27 EA $ 39 $ 1,M $ 45 $ 1,200 $ 2,240 RS Means material cost,$100/dowel,18"OC Demo windows at EL 20.00 2 EA $ BUD $ 1,60D $ 1,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 5,427 TOM of direct cost $ 10,853 PFM AT Mitigation New through bolls,plates and anchors 10 EA $ 233 $ 2,330 $ 68 $ 680 $ 3,010 RS means for bolts,plates and anchors Drag connection at roof to east Demo existing connections 10 EA $ No Same as installation for new and west shear walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 3,690 100%of directcost $ 7,379 PFM 48 Miti ion-Standard Structural Mid tion C1 Precast wall panel connection to Steel angles with steel hardware at 8'OC 528 FT $ 41 $ 21,648 $ 6 $ 3,168 $ 24,816 RS Means.1.21 ratio for SST.L4x4x1/2,2'long foundation walls Epoxied anchors at 8'0C 2112 EA $ ]S $ 149,952 $ 38 $ 80,256 $ 230,208 RS means Construction difficulty,o erations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 255,024 TOM of direct cost $ 510,048 Sub-total $ 1,176,533 Sales Tax 8% $ 47,061 Sub-total $ 1,223,595 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 367,078.37 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,590,673 6R/GC 15% $ 238,601 5U1h-total $ 1,829,274 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 382,922 5U1h-total $ 2,012,201 Bond 2% $ 40,244 5Ub-[mal $ 2,052,445 Insurance 1% $ 41,049 GRAND TOTAL I$ 2,093,494 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 25 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION - FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: 12 kV Service Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-7 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al Steel angle with steel hardware at 8'OC 245 FT $ 41 $ 10,045 $ 6 $ 1,470 $ 11,515 RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 It long. Roof framing members 245 FT $ 41 $ 10,045 $ 6 $ 1,470 $ 11,515 Wall Anchorage to roof at north Epoxied anchors at 8'OC 61 EA $ 71 $ 4,349 $ 38 $ 2,328 $ 6,676 RS Means and south walls Field weld struts to roof deck 8 EA $ 2,400 $ 18,375 $ 18,375 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 48,081 100%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 4.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 13,500 $ 13,500 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,etc. $ 109,663 PFM#4 Mitigation Demo roofing 1 LS $ 9,600 Membrane roof 2788 SF $ 6.00 $ 16,728 $ 6.00 $ 16,728 $ 33,456 Roof Diaphragm Shear Demo 7.5 inch deep steel roof deck 1 LS $ 4,182 Installation cost of new New standard corrugated steel deck 2788 SF $ 12 $ 33,456 $ 2 $ 4,182 $ 37,638 RS Means New steel beams 246 SF $ 135 $ 33,210 $ 5 $ 1,304 $ 34,514 RS Means.87lbs/ft Gal Steel. Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 119,390 100%of direct cost $ 238 780 PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation E Cast-in-place concrete 4.1 CY $ 412 $ 1,679 $ 676 $ 2,754 $ 4,433 Carollo database Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 222 5%of cast-in-place concrete Shear at frame columns Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels,8"OC 288 EA $ 39 $ 11,232 $ 45 $ 12,960 $ 24,192 IS Means material cost,$300/dowel, 18"OC Demo windows at EL 20.00 2 EA $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $60,892 200%of direct cost $ 91,339 Sub-total $ 439,781 Sales Tax 8% $ 17,591 Sub-total $ 457,372 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 137,212 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 594,584 GR/GC 15% $ 89,188 Sub-total $ 683,771 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 68,377 Sub-total $ 752,148 Bond 2% $ 15,043 Sub-total $ 767,191 Insurance 2% $ 15,344 GRAND TOTAL $ 782,535 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 26 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Power Building B Date Prepared: 4/17/2019 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-8 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 4/19/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL PFM Direct Cost;QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost Reference PFM N4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Bl Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 6,400 Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep, 18 gauge 1600 SF $ 12 $ 19,200 $ 2 $ 2,400 $ 21,600 RS Means Roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire building 1950 SF $ 6 $ 11,700 $ 6 $ 11,700 $ 23,400 Carollo database Addition of(2)W12X31 beams 50 FT $ 50 $ 2,500 $ 6 $ 300 $ 2,800 RS Means. Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 54,200 100%Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc. $ 120,400 Sub-total $ 120,400 Sales Tax 8% $ 4,816 Sub-total $ 125,216 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 37,565 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 162,781 GR/GC 15% $ 24,417 Sub-total $ 187,198 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 18,720 Sub-total $ 205,918 Bond 2% $ 4,118 Sub-total $ 210,036 Insurance 2% $ 4,201 GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 214,237 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 27 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS16-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Power Building C Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-9 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION !re TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM fit Mitigation New cast in place concrete shear wall 19.0 Cy $ 412 $ 7,828 $ 676 $ 12,844 Carollo database Incomplete lateral load resisting Epoxy dowels,8"OC 192 EA $ 21 $ 4,032 $ 39 $ 7,488 RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long system in the east-west Continuous footing 9.5 Cy $ 412 $ 3,906 $ 676 $ 6,409 Carollo database direction Excavation 1 LS Estimated by lames Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS 100%direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc. $ 117,016 PFM M8 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2 Stainless steel angle tie plates,4'OC 148 FT $ 30 $ 4,425 $ 7 $ 1,033 $ 5,458 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' Footings move independent of long the wall New epoxy anchors at 4'OC 74 EA $ 71 $ 5,236 $ 38 $ 2,803 $ 8,039 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $26,993 200%direct cost $ 40,4119 Sub-total $ 157,504 Sales Tax 8% $ 6,300 Sub-total $ 163,805 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 49,141 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 212,946 GR/GC 15% $ 311,11,942 Sub-total $ 244,888 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 24,489 Sub-total $ 269,377 Bond 2% $ 5,388 Sub-total $ 274,764 Insurance 2% $ 5,495 GRANDTOTAL $ 280,260 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 28 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Power Building D Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-10 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL OTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation Concentric X braced frames at louver openings 76 1 FT 1 $ 78 $ 5,928 $ 8 $ 608 $ 6,536 RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2.49lbs/ft. Steel framed blocking 25 FT $ 78 $ 1,950 $ 8 $ 200 $ 2,150iJ100% RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2.491bs/ft. Welding in field 4 EA $ 4,800 $ 19,200 $ 19,200 Incomplete load path at the New steel member sill 31 FT $ 78 $ 2,418 $ 8 $ 248 $ 2,666RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2.49lbs/ft. south side of the high roof Epoxy anchors 47 EA $ 71 $ 3,302 $ 38 $ 1,767 $ 5,069RS Means Membrane roof for entire building 1827 SF $ 6 $ 10,962 $ 6 $ 10,962 $ 21,924Carollo Database diaphragm Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 67,145 Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 3.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 144,789 PFM N5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation D Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 12 EA $ 48,000 Estimated by lames Out-of-plane horizontal bending New epoxy anchors at 8"OC 176 EA $ 71 $ 12,514 $ 38 $ 6,698 $ 19,211 RS Means Additional bracing hardware and framing members 12 EA $ 48,000 $4000/brace Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 115,211 100%Direct Cost $ 230,423 Sub-total $ 375,212 Sales Tax 8% $ 15,008 Sub-total $ 390,220 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 117,066 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 507,286 GR/GC 15% $ 76,093 Sub-total $ 583,379 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 58,338 Sub-total $ 641,717 Bond 2% $ 12,834 Sub-total $ 654,551 Insurance 2% $ 13,091 GRAND TOTAL $ 667,642 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 29 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PSIS-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: City Water Pump Station Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-11 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM) New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam,8'OC 480 FT $ 27 $ 12,960 $ 74 $ 35,520 $ 48,480 RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 h long. Wall anchorage a[north and Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 120 EA $ 71 $ 8,520 $ 38 $ 4,560 $ 13,080 RS means south walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 30,780 100%Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 101,340 PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation D Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 17 EA $ 68,500 $4000/each. Estimated by lames Out-of-plane horizontal bending New epoxy anchors at 8"OC 200 EA $ 71 $ 14,200 $ 38 $ 7,600 $ 21,800 RS Means Additional bracing hardware and framing members 17 EA $ 68,000 $4000/brace Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 158,300 100%Direct Cost $ 316,600 Sub-total $ 417,940 Sales Tax 8% $ 16,718 Sub-total $ 434,658 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 130,397 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 565,055 GR/GC 15% $ 84,758 Sub-total $ 649,813 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 64,981 Sub-total $ 714,794 Bond 2% $ 14,296 Sub-total $ 729,090 Insurance 2% $ 14,582 GRAND TOTAL $ 743,672 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 30 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Headworks Power Building A Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-14 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cos[ Reference PFM N3 Mitigation New steel plates 3 EA $ 12,000 $4000/connection. Estimated by James Building separation allows New through bolts 8 EA $ 6 $ 50 $ 3 $ 27 $ 77 RS means pounding into adjacent building New epoxy anchors 8 EA $ 71 $ 568 $ 38 $ 304 $ 872 RS means (2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building) Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 12,949 100%Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 31 898 Sub-total $ 31,898 Sales Tax 8% $ 1,276 Sub-total $ 33,174 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 9,952 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 43,126 GR/GC 15% $ 6,469 Sub-total $ 49,594 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 4,959 Sub-total $ 54,554 Bond 2% $ 1,091 Sub-total $ 55,645 Insurance 2% $ 1,113 GRANDTOTAL $ 56,758 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 31 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Headworks Power Building B Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-15 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD "UnitUnitCost ATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TI ;QTY. Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost PFM D Reference PFM 83 Mitigation New steel plates 3 EA $ 12,000 $4000/connection. Estimated by James New through bolts 8 EA $ 6 $ 48 $ 3 $ 24 $ 72IRS means New epoxy anchors 8 EA $ 71 $ 568 $ 38 $ 304 $ 872IRS means Building separation allows Ties at roof diaphragm 58 FT $ 30 $ 1,740 $ 7 $ 406 $ 2,146to Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' pounding into adjacent building long 4' OC (2-16 Headworks Standby Ties to existing roof deck 1 LS $ 5,000Estimated by lames Power Building) Epoxy anchors,6"OC 116 EA $ 71 $ 8,236 $ 38 $ 4,408 $ 12,644RS means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 32,734100%Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $Sub-total $Sales Tax 8% $Sub-total $ , NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 22,298 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 96,625 GR/GC 15% $ 14,494 Sub-total $ 111,118 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 11,112 Sub-total $ 122,230 Bond 2% $ 2,445 Sub-total $ 124,675 Insurance 2% $ 2493 GRAND TOTAL $ 127168 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 32 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS1$-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Headworks Standby Power Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-16 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#3 Mitigation New steel plates 3 EA $ 12,000 $4000/connection. Estimated by James New through bolts 8 EA $ 6 $ 48 $ 3 $ 24 $ 72 RS means New epoxy anchors 8 EA $ 71 $ 568 $ 38 $ 304 $ 872 RS means Building separation allows Ties at roof diaphragm 60 EA $ 30 $ 1,800 $ 7 $ 420 $ 2,220 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' pounding into adjacent building long 4' OC (2-15 Headworks Power Building Ties to existing roof deck 1 LS $ 5,000 Estimated by lames B) Epoxy anchors,6"OC 116 EA $ 71 $ 8,236 $ 38 $ 4,408 $ 12,644 RS means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 32,808 100%Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,0001 $ 71,616 Sub-total $ 71,616 Sales Tax 8% $ 2,865 Sub-total $ 74,481 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 2211,344 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 96,825 GR/GC 15% $ 14,524 Sub-total $ 111,349 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 11,135 Sub-total $ 122,483 Bond 2% $ 2,450 Sub-total $ 124,933 Insurance 1 2% $ 2499 GRANDTOTAL $ 127432 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 33 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT y P515-0 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name:Central Power Generation Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-17 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration:8 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: )AD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL qTV. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM NI Mitigation Cast-in- lace concrete shear wall 29.6 CY $ 412 $ 12,207 $ 676 $ 20,030 $ 32,23] Carollo Database Upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie alongbuildinglength 190 FT $ 51 $ 9,690 $ 179 $ 34,010 $ 43,]00 RS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel. Discontinuous shear walls Demo conduit and piping 1 LS $ 16,000 ad along grid line B(mezzanine) Replace conduit and piping 1 LS $ 65,000 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 156,93] 300%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 8 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 Construct[railer,utilities,protection,and etc. 874 PFM g2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) Wall anchorage at the north, New steel welded or bolted connections 10 EA $ 15,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Estimated by lames Doerin south,and interior wall along Add itional roof deck welding10 EA $ 4,800 $ 48,000 $ 48,000 rid line Construction difficul operations and work resol ions 1 LS $ 198,000 100%Direct Cost $ 396,000 PFMN Mitigation Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks New steel x-braced frames 186 FT $ 78 $ 14,514 $ 8 $ 1,489 $ 16,002 RS Means.H558X8X3/2.491bs/ft. bracing Epoxy anchors 32 EA $ 73 $ 2,272 $ 38 $ 1,216 $ 3,488 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 19,490 100%Direct Cost $ 38 981 PFM gS Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Cast in place concrete 16.9 CY $ 412 $ 6,943 $ 676 $ 11,392 $ 18,335 Carollo Database In-plane shear in shear walls at Reinforcingsteel e o% dowels 66 EA $ 39 $ 2,568 $ 45 $ 2,963 $ 5,530 RS Means material cost,$100/dowel,18"OC shear walls in the east-west Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 91] 5%of cast-in-place concrete direction Demo existing window at grade and at EL 33.00 2 EA $ SW $ 1,600 $ 6,400 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 31,182 _100%Direct Cost $ J4�780 PFM N6 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation 82 Roof diaphragm shear transfer Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC 420 EA $ 71 $ 29,320 $ 38 $ 15,960 $ 45,780RS means $PFM gI Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation B3Membrane roof for the entire building 26125 SF $ 6 $ 156,750 $ 6 $ 156,750 $ 313,500 New steel roof framing 432 FT $ 41 $ 17,712 $ 6 $ 2,592 $ 20,304RS Means.25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. Roof diaphragm shear In both Metal decking,galvanized steal,1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 18000 SF $ 12 $ 216,000 $ 2 $ 2],000 $ 243,000RS Means directions Demo existing steel roof deck 1 LS $ 38,400 Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 38,400 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 653,604Lol Direct Cost $ 1,307,208 Sub-total $ 2,188,206 Sales Tax 8% $ 87,528 Sub-total $ 2,275,734 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 682,720 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 2,958,455 GR/GC 15% $ 443,768 Sub-total $ 3,402,223 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 340,222 Sub-total $ 3,742,445 Bond 2% $ 74,849 Sub-total $ 3,11],294 Insurance 2% $ ]6,346 GRAND TOTAL I$ 3893640 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 34 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: DAFT D Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-22 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost References PFM#3 Mitigation Install new epoxy dowels 40 EA $ 42 $ 1,680 $ 78 $ 3,120 $ 4,800 RS Means, 3/4" diameterX24" long Dome-to-wall connection Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 9,600 200%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc. $ 20,400 PFM#9 Mitigation Out-of-plane bending on the New C6X13 member anchored to the existing thrust ring 100 FT $ 24 1 $ 2,400 1 $ 6 $ 600 $ 3,000 RS Means. 13 Ibs/ft Gal Steel buried walls due to liquefied soil Anchor to the dome with epoxy anchors(3/4" diameter X 300 EA $ 71 $ 7,300 $ 38 $ 3,800 $ 30,900 RS Means conditions 8" long)spaced at 12"OC Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 27,800 200%of direct cost $ 41,700 Sub-total $ 62,100 Sales Tax 8% $ 2,484 Sub-total $ 6411,584 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 19,375 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 83,959 GR/GC 15% $ 12,594 Sub-total $ 96,553 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 9,655 Sub-total $ 106,208 Bond 2% $ 2,124 Sub-total $ 108,333 Insurance 2% $ 2167 GRAND TOTAL $ 110,499 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Maintenance Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-27 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 12 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount erUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#2,3A,3B,5,7,and B Mitigation Steel concentric x-braced frames 1737 FT $ 78 $ 135,495 $ 8 $ 13,897 $ 149,392 PIS Means. HISS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft. Supplemental connections with steel hardware 112 EA $ 448,000 $4000 per brace,James Building drift at elevated floors New grade beams 84 CY $ 412 $ 34,608 $ 676 $ 56,784 $ 91,392 Carollo database in the north-south direction Saw cut existing slab and footing 412 FT $ 2 $ 881 $ 23 $ 9,261 $ 10,142 PIS Means. Replace existing slab and footing 167 CY $ 324 $ 53,992 $ 248 $ 41,390 $ 95,382 Carollo database. Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 794,309 100%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 12 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 36,000 $ 36,000 Construct trailer,utilities, protection,and etc. $ 1,624,617 PFM#4 Mitigation Precast wall cladding interferes Remove all welded wall cladding connections 304 EA $ 152,0007� . $500/each with moment frames Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 152,000100%of direct cost 1 Sub-total7 Sales Tax 8% 5 Sub-total2 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% 29 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total0 GR/GC 15% , 24 Sub-total $ 2,998:614 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 299,861 Sub-total $ 3,298,475 Bond 2% $ 65,970 Sub-total $ 3,364,445 Insurance 2% $ 67,289 GRAND TOTAL $ 3,431,734 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 36 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: Boiler Building Date Prepared: 4/17/2019 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-28 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL PFM Direct Cost;QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost Reference PFM N4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Bl Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600 Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep, 18 gauge 2000 SF $ 12 $ 24,000 $ 2 $ 3,000 $ 27,000 IRS Means Roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire building 2000 SF $ 6 $ 12,000 $ 6 $ 12,000 $ 24,000 Carollo database Addition of(3)W12X31 beams 60 FT $ 50 $ 3,000 $ 6 $ 360 $ 3,360 RS Means. 31 Ibs/ft Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 63,960 100%Direct Cost Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc. $ 139,920 Sub-total $ 139,920 Sales Tax 8% $ 5,597 Sub-total $ 145,517 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 43,655 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 189,172 GR/GC 15% $ 28,376 Sub-total $ 217,S48 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 21,755 Sub-total $ 239,302 Bond 2% $ 4,786 Sub-total $ 244,088 Insurance 2% $ 4,882 GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 248,970 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 37 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: GOBS Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-29 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 8 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM Al Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) New steel welded or bolted connections 13 EA $ 15,000 $ 195,000 $ 195,000 $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering Wall anchorage at the roof level Additional roof deck welding 13 EA $ 2,400 $ 31,200 $ 31,200 at the north and south walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 113,100 100%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc. $ 351300 PFM p2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) New steel welded or bolted connections 15 EA $ 15,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 Estimated by James Doering Wall anchorage at the roof level Additional roof deck puddle welds 82 EA $ 600 $ 49,200 $ 49,200 at the east,west,and interior Roof demo 1 LS $ 9,600 wall (Grid line G) Roof replacement 1 LS $ 91600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 146,700 100%of direct cost $ 440 100 PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Ell and 62 Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 28,800 Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep, 18 gauge 8600 SF $ 12 $ 103,200 $ 2 $ 12,900 $ 116,100 RS Means Low roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire building 11880 SF $ 6 $ 71,280 $ 6 $ 71,280 $ 142,560 Carollo database Supplement existing anchors at 20"CC 180 EA $ 71 $ 12,861 $ 38 $ 6,804 $ 19,665 RS Means Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 307,125 100%Direct Cost $ 614,250 Sub-total $ 1,405,650 Sales Tax 8% $ 56,226 Sub-total $ 1,461,876 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 438,563 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,900,439 GR/GC 15% $ 285,066 Sub-total $ 2,185,505 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 218,550 Sub-total $ 2,404,055 Bond 2% $ 48,081 Sub-total $ 2,452,136 Insurance 1 22 $ 49,043 GRAND TOTAL $ 2,501,179 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 38 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Project Name: 12 kV Distribution Center A Date Prepared: 12/31/2018 Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-30 Prepared By: XHK/KR Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019 This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM tAmntDirect Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) Wall anchorage to roof at New steel welded or bolted connections 10 EA $ 15,000 $ 150,000 $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering north and south walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 150,000 100%of direct cost Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3'000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc. $ 312 000 PFM#3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation E Cast in place concrete 11.1 Cy $ 412 1 $ 4,578 $ 676 1 $ 7,511 $ 12,089 RS Means.Assume 12" Shear at frame columns in the Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 157 EA $ 39 $ 6,110 $ 45 $ 7,050 $ 13,160 PIS Means material cost, $300/dowel, 18"OC E-W direction Demo existing window 4 EA $ 6,400 Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 604 5%of cast-in-place concrete Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 32,253 100%of direct cost $ 64,507 Sub-total $ 376,507 Sales Tax 8% $ 15,060 Sub-total $ 391,567 NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 117,470 1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 509,037 GR/GC 15% $ 76,356 Sub-total $ 585,393 Contractor's Profit 10% $ 58,539 Sub-total $ 643,932 Bond 2% $ 12,879 Sub-total $ 656,810 Insurance L 2% $ 13,136 GRAND TOTAL $ 669,947 CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 39 Geosyntec° comul a m APPENDIX F2 Geotechnical Mitigation Cost Tables HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEM ENT AND INCREASED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE PS354)6 SEISMIC EVALUATION ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Total quantities Unit costs•($/LF and$/CY) Addt'I casts Cost Estimate l$1 Drilling- Drilling- Total Standard Directional Savingsdueto Structure-specific Sub-Total, Project Treatment Standard Drilling- Limited Access Grout Rig Drilling Drilling Limited Access Access Grouting Economiesof Modification& Construction Level Contractor's Depth Rig Directional Access Shafts Volume Cost, Cost' Drilling Cost' Shaft Costs Scale Access Costs Costs Sales Tax Allowance GR/GC Profit Bond Insurance Structure Total Structure No. Structure Name (FT) (LF) (LF) (LF) (CITY) (CY) 70 125 95 600,000 90D 8% 30% 15% 10% 2% 2% 14 City Water Pump Station 27 2,910 0 0 0 521 203,695 0 0 0 469,200 0 0 672,895 26,916 209,943 136,463 104,622 23,017 23,4]] $1,197,332 1-5 Power Building 47 6,662 0 0 0 1,221 466,358 0 0 0 1,098,800 0 0 1,565,158 62,606 488,329 317,414 243,351 53,537 54,608 $2,785,003 1-7 Power Buildings 46 0 0 3,022 0 415 0 0 287,109 0 373,050 0 0 660,159 26,406 205,970 133,880 102,642 22,581 23,033 $1,174,671 1-10 Central Power Generation Building 19 2,858 0 0 0 1,10 200,067 0 0 0 997,500 0 0 1,197,567 47,903 373,641 242,867 186,198 40,963 41,783 $2,13D,920 1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room 42 0 0 3,043 0 563 0 0 289,076 0 506,900 0 0 795,976 31,839 248,344 161,424 123,758 2],22] 27,]]3 $1,416,339 1-24 Gas Holder 51 0 0 3,638 0 735 0 0 345,570 0 661,500 0 0 1,007,070 40,283 314,206 204,234 156,579 34,447 35,136 $1,791,955 1-33 PEDB2 29 1,122 0 G 0 435 78,508 0 0 0 391,500 0 0 470,008 18,800 146,643 95,318 73,077 16,0]] 16,398 $836,321 2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 59 0 0 12,625 0 1,890 0 0 1,199,330 0 1,701,000 0 0 2,900,330 116,013 904,903 588,187 450,%3 99,208 101,192 $5,160,]]5 2-3 RAS PS East 40 626 0 3,]3] 0 692 43,844 0 353,115 0 622,790 0 0 1,019,749 40,790 318,162 206,805 158,551 34,881 35,579 $1,814,517 2-4 RAS PS West 66 697 0 6,732 0 1,317 48,780 0 637,659 0 1,184,880 0 0 1,871,319 74,853 581 379,504 290,953 66,010 65,290 $3,329,780 2-5 PEPS&MAC 60 2,029 0 15,957 0 3,267 142,050 0 1,515,915 0 2,940,608 -326,734 0 4,271,838 170,874 1,332,814 866,329 664,185 146,121 149,043 $7,601,204 2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 61 19,213 0 0 0 3,170 1,274,915 0 0 0 2,852,998 -317,000 0 3,810,913 152,437 1,189,005 ]]2,853 592,521 130,355 132,962 $6,781,045 2-7 12 kV Service Center 50 5,738 0 0 0 989 401,625 0 0 0 889,700 0 0 1,291,325 51,653 402,893 261,881 200,]]5 44,171 45,054 $2,297,752 2-9 Power Building 61 0 0 5,902 0 964 0 0 560,666 0 867,420 0 0 1,429,086 57,123 445,563 289,616 222,039 48,849 49,826 $2,541,101 2-11 City Water Pump Station 65 0 0 8,219 0 1,657 0 0 780,829 0 1,491,360 0 0 2,272,189 90,888 708,923 460,800 353,280 77,722 ]9,2]6 $4,043,0]] 2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 59 1,676 0 9,664 0 2,078 117,318 0 918,099 0 1,870,585 0 0 2,906,002 116,240 906,673 589,337 451,825 99,402 101,390 $5,170,869 2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 63 0 0 3,062 0 614 0 0 290,871 0 552,920 0 0 843,791 33,752 263,263 171,121 131,193 28,862 29,440 $1,501,421 2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A 54 0 0 4,508 0 867 0 0 428,227 0 781 0 0 1,208,747 48,350 3]],129 245,134 187,936 41,346 42,173 $2,150,814 2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 53 0 0 4,961 0 1,003 0 0 471,276 0 902,700 0 0 1,373,976 54,959 428,681 278,642 213,626 46,998 47,938 $2,444,819 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 53 0 0 5,D82 0 1,213 0 0 5]7,]66 0 1,091,510 0 0 1,669,276 66,]]1 520,814 338,529 259,539 57,099 58,241 $2,97D,269 2-18A Aeration Basins A-H(Northwest) 67 28,375 0 0 0 10,563 1,986,215 0 0 0 9,506,290 -1,056,254 0 10,436,250 417,450 3,256,110 2,116,472 1,622,628 356,978 364,119 $18,570,006 2-18B Aeration Basins A-H(Southeast) 41 17,364 0 0 0 5,412 1,215,445 0 0 0 4,870,395 -541,155 0 5,544,665 221,787 1,729,942 1,124,462 862,089 189,659 193,452 $9,866,076 2-19 Gas Holder 66 0 0 4,678 0 951 0 0 444,386 0 856,320 0 0 1,3DD,706 52,028 405,820 263,783 202,234 44,491 45,381 $2,314,445 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 30 58,605 0 0 0 15,950 4,102,350 0 0 0 14,354,846 -1,594,983 130,000 16,992,213 679,09 5,301,571 3,446,021 2,641,949 581,229 592,853 $30,235,525 2-21 DAFTS A-C SO 12,056 0 0 0 2,168 843,885 0 0 0 1,951,452 0 0 2,795,337 111,813 872,145 566,894 434,619 95,616 97,529 $4,973,954 2-22 DAFT 60 4,712 0 0 0 846 329,805 0 0 0 761,292 0 0 1,091,097 43,644 340,422 221,274 169,644 37,322 38,068 $1,941,471 2-27 Maintenance Building 64 3],62] 0 0 0 ],45] 2,633,904 0 0 0 6,711,390 -745,710 0 8,599,584 343,983 2,683,070 1,743,996 1,337,063 294,154 300,037 $15,301,887 2-29 COBS 45 0 16,330 0 1 2,483 0 2,041,250 0 60D,ODD 2,234,600 -248,289 0 4,627,561 185,102 1,443,799 938,469 719,493 158,289 161,454 $8,234,158 2-30 12kV Distribution Center A 55 1 1,131 0 7,648 0 1,607 1 79,166 0 726,536 0 1'4 '500 0 0 2,252,202 90,088 702,687 456,747 350,172 ]],038 78,579 $4,007,513 'Column footing widths,where applicable,provided in parentheses. 'Drilling rates include Sleeve Port Grout Pipe(SPGP)installation. 'Grout cast Includes labor and material.Unit cost is per CY of grout delivered,as measured by flow meters,not CY of soil treated. PSI 5-06 Appendix F2 1 LATERAL SPREAD MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Wall Column Wall No. Plant Length Diameter Depth Columns Sub-Total Project 1 (n) (H) (H) (t R. Cost per Pile Construction Level Contractor's AACEI Class S Cost Estimate Range separation) ($) Costs($) Sales Tax Allowance GR/GC Profit Bond Insurance Total (rounded to the nearest$25M) 8% 30% 15% 30% 2% 2% (UPper end of E9.Range) a50% Best Estimate -50% 1 2,775 4 90 555 $ 150,000 $ 83,250,000 3,330,000 25,974,000 16,883,100 12,943,710 2,847,616 2,904,569 148,132,995 $ 150,000,000 $ 100,000,000 $ 50,000,000 2 1,385 4 90 277 $ 150,000 $ 41,550,000 1,662,000 12,963,600 8,426,340 6,460,194 1,421,243 1,449,668 73,933,044 $ 75,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 25,000,000 2-Full Frontage 6,667 4 90 1,333 $ 150,000 $200,010,000 8,000,400 62,403,120 40,562,028 31,097,555 6,841,462 6,978,291 355,892,856 $ 350,000,000 $ 225,000,000 $ 125,000,000 Estimated cost per 4ft diameter,concrete-filled steel pile,90ft deep, as described in Lateral Spread Mitigation Memo. Per pile cost estimate based on average of costs provided by two geotechnical contractors. PSI 5-06 Appendix F2 2 Geosyntec° COMUI rs APPENDIX G Lateral Spread Wall Concept Memorandum HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 Geosyntec ° 2100 Main Street,Suite 150 Hunting[o¢Beach,California,92648648 consultants PH 7 4.969.0820 FAH 7:4.969.080 www.grosy¢tec.com Memorandum Date: 19 July 2019 To: Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) Copies to: Chris Conkle, P.E.,G.E., Geosyntec Consultants From: Jacquelyn Allmond,Ph.D., P.E, Project Engineer Christopher Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., Senior Principal Subject: Lateral Spread Wall Concept Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plant Nos. 1 and 2 Project No. PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Number: HL1635 Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec)is pleased to present findings and recommendations from the evaluation of the lateral spread mitigation alternative proposed at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Plant Nos. 1 and 2. This memorandum summarizes the liquefaction-induced lateral spreading hazard, the idealized cross-section developed for assessing liquefaction-induced lateral earth pressures and deformations, the analyses performed to develop an embedded wall mitigation concept, and an associated cost estimate. The lateral spreading hazard was evaluated at Plant 1 and 2 as part of Task 3 and the liquefaction mitigation alternatives and costs were developed in Task 4 of PS 15-06t. 1. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD HAZARD Liquefaction is the term used to describe the sudden loss of soil strength due to pore pressure buildup in response to a loading event such as earthquake shaking. Experiences from previous earthquakes have demonstrated that loose granular soils located near the ground surface and saturated by a high-water table are the most susceptible to liquefaction. The loss of strength associated with liquefaction can cause settlement,flotation of buried structures,increase in lateral soil pressures, and bearing capacity reduction below shallow foundations or around deep foundation elements. A related phenomenon is lateral spreading,where liquefied soil located new an exposed free-face or sloping ground, such as near the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh, moves as a mass towards the face and can apply lateral forces to structures and their foundations. 'A summary of the work executed by the Geosyntec team as part of PSI 5-06 Tasks 3 and 4 are provided in Technical Memorandum 3(TM3)and 4(TM4),respectively. engineers I scientists I innovators PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 1 Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 2 Lateral spread deformation profiles with depth were developed for each subject-structure in PSI 5-06 at the analysis ground water level (AWL, see Section 4.1.3 of TM3 for design ground water levels). Contours of the liquefaction induced lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 1 and Plant 2 are shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.24 of TM3, respectively, and are based on the lateral spread predicted at the ground surface at each structure. At Plant 1, the best estimate lateral spreading displacement was on the order of 3 feet(ft) for the subject-structures nearest the Santa Ana River frontage. At Plant 2, the best estimate lateral spreading displacement was on the order of 4 to 6 ft for structures near the Santa Ana River frontage, and 5 It for structures near the Talbert Marsh frontage. The free-field liquefaction induced lateral spread deformation profiles for each structure at the AWL and the 5% probability of exceedaice in 50-year earthquake hazard level (Basic Safety Earthquake 2E) are provided in Appendix C of TM3. Lateral spread deformations were calculated without consideration of influences from the structure, foundation, surrounding structures, or surrounding ancillary features such as buried pipes or utility conduits and are therefore referred to as "free-field". At both plant locations,assessments indicated that lateral spread would likely affect only a portion of each site, with lateral spread unlikely to extend to locations distant from the river or marsh frontages. Ground surface deformations near the river and marsh frontages were assessed to be greater than what many subject-structures could tolerate in order to meet performance objectives. Therefore, lateral spread mitigation was recommended at both Plants 1 and 2 for structures which we subject to lateral spreading displacements larger than their capacity. This memorandum documents the evaluation of one potential mitigation option for these lateral spreads,an embedded wall concept proposed to limit excessive lateral displacements towards the river and marsh. The embedded wall is envisioned as consisting of a series of large diameter steel pipes installed at close spacings along the perimeter of the plants between the subject-structures and sloped frontages. A plan and oblique view of the lateral spread wall concept are shown in Figure 1 relative to the Digesters at Plant 1 and the Santa Ana River. The idealized soil conditions and development of the wall geometry and material properties are described in greater detail below. 2. IDEALIZED CROSS SECTION Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading deformations were evaluated at each structure in this study based on the structure-specific subsurface idealized profile and proximity to the Talbert Marsh and/or Santa Ana River frontages; however, for this planning level evaluation, one cross-section was selected to develop the target lateral loads and allowable deflection of the lateral spread wall. The idealized soil profile at 1-21A Digesters 13-16 at Plant 1 was chosen based on the exemplar structure's proximity to the Santa Ana River and because movement of the relatively thick unliquefied"crust"at the surface would place a large demand on the mitigation wall concept. The 2 The probable Failure mode(PFM)associated with excessive lateral spreading and recommended levels of mitigation (e.g.,60%reduction in lateral spread deformation)to meet performance level objectives for each subject-structure are provided in the PFM and Mitigation Tables in TM3. engineers I scientists I innovators PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 2 Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 3 analysis of the lateral spread wall targeted a maximum deflection of 12 inches at the ground surface, which, based on a Tier 3 structural analysis of Digester 16, was a tolerable amount of ground displacement for the pile-supported digesters to meet their target performance criteria. A "typical ground water level" (TWL) of 16 It below ground surface was selected for the lateral spread wall analyses. The TWL is deeper than the Historic High Water Level (HHWL) or AWL used in other analyses in this study, but captures the majority of the historical ground water data at Plant 1, and represents a "typical" condition that may be present during an earthquake. The deeper TWL results in a stronger soil profile near the surface (i.e., less liquefiable soil) and forms a thicker soil crust that can displace over deeper liquefiable layers during an earthquake event. On the backside of the wall, this thicker soil cap applies a high driving force on the wall near the ground surface while providing no lateral resistance on the river-side as the cap spreads laterally towards the river. This TWL scenario results in greater wall deflection than under the HHWL or AWL with thinner soil crusts and was therefore considered conservative for this evaluation. The idealized soil profile at 1-21A is shown in Figure 2 and consists of a 16-ft thick layer of non- liquefiable (i.e., dry above groundwater) silty sand at the surface over 1 foot of liquefiable sand and silty sand. These layers overlie a 20-ft thick partially liquefiable clay layer with thin silt and sandy silt layers,though only the soils in the upper 13 It of this layer were considered to contribute to lateral spread deformation(i.e., soils above the"lateral spread cut-off' described in TM3). The bottom sand and silty sand layers (between EL. -10 ft and-40 ft) are considered liquefiable, and may contribute to settlement, but are not anticipated to contribute significantly to lateral spread. The best estimate lateral spread profile was developed following the same procedures outlined in Section 4.1.4 of TM3 using the 1-21A idealized profile,the TWL,and an assumed distance to free- face of 65 ft, which is the approximate distance from the Santa Ana River free-face to the river- side edge of the access/perimeter road of Plant 1 (see Figure 1).Based on review of existing utility as-builts the lateral spread wall concept was developed to allow for construction between existing underground utilities near the Plant 1 digesters at this 65-ft offset from the river'. Figure 2 shows the idealized soil profile (at left), the assumed lateral spread cut-off depth, and the best estimate free-field lateral spread profile at the wall location(at right, red line on displacement plot). 3. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE The movement of the soil towards the river after liquefaction will impose additional lateral load on the back side of the wall (structure-side of the wall). In addition, soil will move away from the wall on the river-side, reducing lateral capacity from surrounding soil. This creates a cantilever condition with a distributed load along the back of the wall and no resisting load over most of the upper 30 It of laterally spreading soil. ' An underground clearance assessment was made at both Plant l and Plant 2 based on review of as-built drawings provided by OCSD. Utility related constraints should be taken into consideration in the ultimate design and construction of the lateral displacement wall at Plant 1 and Plant 2. engineers I scientists I innovators PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 3 Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 4 The distributed lateral earth pressure from liquefaction was calculated following the methods presented in Section 5 of TM3. Active lateral earth pressure corresponds to the pressure experienced at the soil-wall interface when a wall moves away from the adjacent soil and the soil relaxes as it moves into the space behind the wall, and passive lateral earth pressure is applicable when soil is compressed as it moves towards a stationary wall (or more conventionally,when the wall moves into the soil). The crust behind the lateral spread wall will move laterally towards the river on top of the deeper liquefied soil and as the wall is not completely rigid, the resulting soil pressure acting on the wall is considered to be neither fully active or fully passive. For these simplified analyses, the crust was considered to impart at most a lateral load equivalent to its weight, resulting in an earth pressure coefficient(K) of 1 (i.e.,horizontal and vertical stresses are equal).For liquefied soil,the equivalent fluid pressure applied by the liquefied soil(e.g.,fluid with an estimated soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot(pef)vs water unit weight of 62.4 pef), and a corresponding hydrodynamic increment of the liquefied soil against the wall were considered. The following loads were used to develop the lateral earth pressure imposed on the embedded wall due to liquefaction: • Above Water Table (Passive Scenario): Earth Pressure with K= 1 • Below Water Table(Liquefied Soil):Hydrostatic(Dense Fluid)+Hydrodynamic Pressure The resulting liquefied lateral earth pressure is shown in Figure 2 (at left, green line on earth pressure plot) and was used as the distributed driving load in the lateral spread wall model. Note that as the soil between elevations 10 ft and-3 ft(lateral spread cutoff)is considered only partially liquefiable, the use of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures is likely conservative. 4. LATERAL SPREAD WALL MODEL AND RESULTS The embedded wall concept consists of large diameter drilled pipe piles installed at close spacings along the perimeter of the Plants between the subject-structures and sloped frontages. The pipe geometry and material parameters were evaluated given the 1-21A Digester 13-16 idealized soil profile and liquefied lateral loading scenarios described in previous sections in order to meet the 12-inch target pipe deflection at the ground surface. These analyses were performed using the program GROUP by ENSOFT,Inc.'The program is used for pushover analysis of pile groups and includes the ability to apply a distributed lateral load and extract deflection profiles along the piles. The soil models and parameters used in the GROUP model are shown in Table 1. Reese,L.C.,Wang,S.-T.,and Vasquez,L.[2016]"Computer Program GROUP—Version 2016—A Program for the Analysis of a Group of Piles Subjected to Vertical and Lateral Loading—Technical Manual."Prepared for ENSOFT, Inc.,Austin,TX,May 2016, engineers I scientists I innovators PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 4 Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 5 Table 1: GROUP Model Soil Material Properties GROUP Layer Depth Effective Unit Friction Angle,(p' Cohesion,c Soil Model Top Bottom Weight,y' (ft) (ft) (Pef) (deg) (psf) Sand(Reese) 0 16 115 35 0 Sand(Reese) 16 17 57.5 35 0 Soft Clay(Matlock) 17 37 52.6 0 800 Sand(Reese) 37 53 62.6 35 0 Sand(Reese) 53 67 67.6 35 0 Sand(Reese) 67 150 67.6 40 0 Several pipe configurations and characteristics were analyzed as part of the parametric study, including the following: • Pile length: The critical pipe pile length was selected based on stabilization of the surface deflection. Load case scenarios were analyzed in GROUP starting with a pipe pile length of 74 ft and incrementally increased to 125 ft.The resulting deflection at the ground surface started to stabilize after a pile length of 85 ft as the calculated surface deflection was unaffected by using longer piles. Based on these evaluations, a 90-ft pile was considered to provide stable embedment with regard to surface deflection. • Pile Layout: Two pipe pile diameters, three center-to-center spacings, and two layout configurations were analyzed to select a wall design to meet the target deflection. Multiple rows of piles offset at closer spacings were considered; however, the multi-row offset pattern did not significantly improve deflection at the ground surface with the added cost of requiring more underground utility clearance. A single line of 4-ft diameter piles at 5-ft center-to-center spacing (the smallest pipe diameter analyzed at the closest spacing) was selected as a feasible configuration for construction purposes while meeting the target surface displacement. • Liquefaction-Induced Soil Streneth Loss: Consideration was given to the effect of soil strength loss due to liquefaction on the wall lateral capacity. A typical value of a "p- multiplier" to account for strength loss is 0.1 (i.e., liquefied soil strength is 10% of unliquefied soil strength), though this value should be selected based on soil and site engineers I scientists I innovators PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 5 Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 6 conditions'. Lateral soil resistance was reduced in the GROUP analysis by applying the following p-multipliers: 0 0_0 for all soils which displace further than the deflection of the pipe. This represents the new surface soil flowing away from the wall, creating a gap at the pipe-soil interface, and providing no lateral support to the wall. 0 0_1 for liquefied material in contact with the pipe. This represents either liquefied soil at depth or laterally spreading soil which displaces less than the deflection of the pipe (i.e.,pipe is still in contact with the flowing soil). 0 1_0 for unliquefied soil(i.e.,no strength reduction). Based on parametric iterations of the pipe geometry and material properties, a 4-foot diameter, 90-foot long Grade 52 steel pipe with 1"wall thickness, spaced at 5 ft on center with a rebar cage with twenty-four #18 Grade 75 vertical bars, and filled with 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) concrete was found to limit pipe deflection at the ground surface to approximately 12 inches. A sketch of the non-deformed pipe, deflection of the laterally loaded design pipe (at right,purple line on displacement plot),and p-multiplier values (at right,blue line on p-multiplier plot)used in these analyses we shown in Figure 2. Plan and section views of the design pipe and wall configurations are shown in Figure 3. 5. DRILLED PIPE PILE LATERAL SPREAD MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE Lateral spread mitigation cost estimates are an element of the final deliverable(TM4)of the current project. These estimates will be used for long range planning purposes and we to be prepared at the American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACEI) Class 5 level. Estimates prepared at this class are generally prepared at a very early stage of project definition and are therefore expected to have a wide accuracy range (-50%to+50%). A cost estimate was formulated by making use of the conceptual approach to the embedded lateral spread wall using the large diameter drilled pipe piles at the 1-21A location as described in Section 4. Concept-level rough order pricing was solicited from two separate drilling contractors, both experienced with performing this type of work in Southern California. According to the cost estimates received, the average cost for materials and installation is on the order of$150,000 per pile, which equates to $30,000 per lineal foot of river/marsh frontage for lateral spread mitigation using the design pipe diameter and spacing pattern described above. ' California Department of transportation (Caltrans). [2013] "Guidelines on Foundation Loading and Deformation Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading"internal design guideline w .dot.ca.gov/research/stmctures/peer_lifeline program/docs/guidelines_on_foundation_loading_jan20l2.pdf engineers I scientists I innovators PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 6 Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 7 This memorandum outlines the analyses performed to assess an embedded wall concept for lateral spread mitigation at OCSD Plants 1 and 2. The concept for the lateral spread wall utilizes a single line of fully embedded 4-foot diameter Grade 52 steel pipes,90 It in length with P'wall thickness and spaced at 5 ft on center. Within the steel pipe is a rebar cage of 24 EA. #18 Grade 75 vertical bars and filled with 5,000 psi concrete.Evaluations indicate this configuration limits the deflection of the wall at the ground surface to approximately 12 inches. The analyses presented herein were performed for this planning level study using one cross-section at Plant 1 (1-21A Digester 13-16) and a simplified GROUP model. A more comprehensive geotechnical and structural analysis should be performed for design and construction of the walls at Plant 1 and 2 and should at a minimum include consideration of soil and lateral spread variability, underground utilities and clearances, variability in target pipe pile deflection at the ground surface, and arching and stability of soils between piles. Note also that slope movement along the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh frontages beyond the mitigation wall was not considered and would not be mitigated by this approach.Lateral spread mitigation alternatives like the lateral spread wall concept described in this memorandum will help reduce detrimental ground deformations on buried structures, foundations, and utilities susceptible to the excessive liquefaction-induced lateral spread hazard at Plant 1 and 2. Attachments: Figure 1: Lateral Spread Wall Concept(shown at Plant 1 Digesters) Figure 2: Idealized Soil Profile, Lateral Spread Displacement, Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution, and Pipe Deflection Figure 3: Design Pipe Sections engineers I scientists I innovators PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 7 �. lateral spread Note: drawings not towards river shown to scale ��a+ Oblique View (only portion of lateral spread wall shown) / Qca / I cwa Jr A ya digesters 7/ %A, // A 1 21 TO 1 - 65-ft ONset _ rbs� beo. A, O Santa Ana River Free-Face 1 -16 TO 1 -20 Lateral Spread Wall Concept Plan View (shown at Plant 1 Digesters) OCSD PS15-06 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORINA GeosmteCD Figure cotlsultants - Pmject i HL1635 JULY 2019 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 8 Idealized Soil Profile Llpuefied Lateral Earth Pressure lost) Lateral Displacement and Pipe Deflection fin.) P-multlnller 30 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 0.5 6 Silty Sand(Non-Liquefiable) 20 soillateral spread 10 pc towards river SandrSilry Sand(Liqueliablel� �6u 0.0 Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt 20 Qo liquefied soil displaces g Layers(Partially Lquefiable) Q more than pipe deflects q e0 P------- soil displacement is equal topipe deflection -------- _ 0.1 m' --------lateral spread cut-ofF---------- 30 iL liquefied soil displaces less than pipe deflects 1.0 10 Sand'Silry Sand(Liquefiable) 40 -20 so 0.1 SandlSilry Sand with Silty Clay .30 Seem(Liquefiable) 60 .40 Sand/Silty Sand(Non-Liquefiable) io P-multiolier Idealized Soil Profile, Lateral Spread Displacement, 0.0= no pipe-soil contact(gap)and Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution,and Pipe Deflection no lateral resistance OCSD PS15-06 80 1.0 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORINA 0.1 = pipe-soil contact with liouefaction strenoth reduction Geosyntec° Figure 1.0= pipe-soil contact with consW[ants full lateral resistance Project No:HL1635 JULV 2019 2 on PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 9 5 ft spaced on center 77 Pipe Cross Section 4 ft diameter Grade 52 steel pipe • 5,000 psi • • concrete • 90 ft • • long • \•• 40 1 inch 24 EA. #18 Grade 75 vertical bars Design Pipe Sections OCSD PS15-06 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORINA Geosynte& Figure consultams Project No:HL1635 JULY 2019 3— PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 10 Geosyntec° comul a m APPENDIX H Likelihood and Consequence of Each PFM, by Structure HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019 General Notes and Legend 1 GS=ground shaking,OS=differential settlement,LS=lateral spread CoSF Weighting Category Percentage 2 Equals CoSF score times weighting percentage Life Safety 100.0% Primary Treatment 100.0% Regulatory 80.0% Stakeholder 37.5% Financial 80.0% 3 LoSF score index: Public Impact 0.0% 0=meets performance objective 1=low likelihood 3=medium likelihood 5=high likelihood 4 CoSF score index for Life Safety: 1=Meets performance objectives for life safety. 2=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy less than 2,000 person-hours per year, 3=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy from 2,000 to 10,000 person-hours per yea r. 4=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy from 10,000 to 20,000 person-hours per year. 5=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy greater than 20,000 person-hours per year. 5 CoSF score index for Primary Treatment and Primary Solids Handl ing(Oigestion/Thickening/Hauling): 1=Meets objectives for receiving wastewater into the plant and discharging wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling,without interruption. 2=Minor impact to receiving wastewater into the plant and/or discharging wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling, 3=Short term 1-1 week)failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling. 4-Medium term(1-6 weeks)failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling. S=Long term(>6 weeks)failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling. 6 CoSF score index for Regulatory Attainment: 1=Meets LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas 2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,incl uding release of digester gas. 3=Short term 1-1 month)failure to meet LOS targets for spill management,secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas 4=Medium term(1-6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas S=Long term(>6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for spill management,secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas 7 CoSF score index for Stakeholder Commitments 1=Meets LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations. 2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations. 3=Short term("1 month)failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations. 4=Medium term(1-6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations, S=Long term(>6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other Stakeholder expectations. 8 CoSF score for Financia l lm Pacts: 1=No identified financial impact.Meets LOS target for balanced O&M budget and maintains AAA bond rating. 2=Low costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts). 3=Medium costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts). 4=High costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts). 5=Very high costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts). 9 CoSF score for Public Impacts: 1=Meets LOS targets for odor complaints and response time. 2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for odor complaints and response time. 3=Short term 1-1 month)failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time. 4-Medium term(1-6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for odor cam plaints and response time. S=Long term(>6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time. PSI5-06 Appendix H 1 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1.1 Waste Slu ip Makene s(DAFT)Pump Room Seismic leased Level BSE lE Wu 4tl =Ma% �,S� WHI, ms'. M. L 11JPFM . Fats, Akq nXgmn ry5 p0 Smremm u5ulamryallznmon9e m me,00rzteatl-,l—. almonnen-rat enoolala n rhea,anw,vaue rva eta x v l v la ox cemmyxnea,aalmm m pee,eye m meml aFnne oebn sore a,e9 See Gelnral na Lsss.d653bre m.nlnmtrsfF,w1,lh,,m{mxmarym{m.mrvlmp. b,xa,o.mry mu—ga.e.u{mamrvl osxore uxo�e vs.o PSI 5-06 Appendix H 2 Risk Ranking Analysis Struotum 1-1 Wattle Sludge ThI[kemus IDAFO Pump Room SeismlD Hamm!Level ME 2E wsP wss we uams m.,v N aR/m DWM F 1. ure P., NWe 10m, t,m. W..., suxeM1daer H—cal Imparo RoSF Pl. DexxNlm Rs Ilol X,mto i sawn smkMoaer m ool wan. e m me roof,[•....oa west Is oftM1elh—mrtM1 hulltll N/A 1Gs 3 1 3 1 1 1 3D 3D SA OA 0.8 Dl 30 30 3 Do Ela M1n mmea, 310 N/A s Gs 3 ] 3 1 1 1 3.0 ].D EA OA 08 0.2 30 64 4 us fuloer p ,10 N/A 3 Gs 3 ] 3 1 1 1 3.0 ].D EA OA OB 0.3 30 90 Oen.,J stea lv.rftc i1ua 1 Pl lestluetolMenl aE suaaa PG04)InNes 33 N/A 1 3 ] 3 l l 1 0.8 OS 3.0 L5.0 sariliry Na 5,: enllswre ]SO ]m eral Noes and Legentl Inebibrym vaster WPSNtM1ioking M1esmWerareregula[ory lmpenbr�--omerybenmm[Iei.Reeulamry p$$aore 00 S searc LD PSI 5-06 Appendix H 3 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1Q Blower Building and PEPS Seismic Hazard!level BSF IF roof run wel¢nud msF .W. me/m bR tons pb primary sz n sic Impana cou Ion Reriglon 10 4wem Sa a ulaW stakeMltln Fln wallznmumgeouthmlztuo outee —,waw mme abwreulaln al 1za s Gs 1 s s 40 s 40 of 40 200 Wall anmmge o the most menunh and oNb-11,o(ma PEPS amlou es 11 x Gs s 1 s s 30 l0 40 s 40 0z a0 00 Wall amm.mge o the mor at me aaa nd a wn,of ma Into asuer of to s Gs s 1 s 30 l0 40 s 40 0z 40 10c s No tlapbagm is II s 3 s s 10 10 40 11 l0 Ot o1 ..In,Nates: Overall score 1 A I m9 see General Nares anc efeuc Gs score Ire bilIW to Provld,Full noel ry OeIImem at tomina --olwats Farr<gulotc, oullanaaM abdlgrohllost eemndary effluent to oCWO on.holuer 0o score 00 Is score 00 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 4 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-2 Blower Building and PEPS Seismic Bacard Leval ME 2E ,au wss well rce msr xWm owm vwn UN, mmaN Pubs¢ ry I an shePegJnwy smMbcu¢. r Impana ples Detente- Rs II01 3twem i AfeN Ballesceer ImWeus. Well wChOrge W the roolattM1e noltM1aM MM1 walls I the mcwet head. SEO We s Gs 3 s s s 30 ?0 <A 19 iA 03 40 300 Wall anaXongeWWe roolattM1e noltM1aM 3 MM1 wallao!<M1e GEPs OUIIGIn We Gs 3 5 5 5 30 ?0 <A ?9 <A OS 12 Wall antXorase W nle=;he eN aM G wallsal[M1e PEss lullEln Sl0 We s Gs 3 s s 5 30 10 an 13 <A 03 40 Pauldm Fa maM1ev 23 N/A exit,XOUs: ix ore Im 5¢e Genenl NaUs antl 4gmtl InablllrymproolEe Wll semn&rybea[mem atPhm]Fasmrelmpr.4 rorreµla[orymmyYlanceaM ahlGrymhfinerseaontlary effluent m IXWUeueh,dr .scare 00 [Ss re 00 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 5 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1.3 Plant Water PUMP station and Power Sandia,6 Seismic Haard Level BSE 1E WSi Las I, Nis OU/m OWm L11 L. primary Prair Akq ira—I Fear.— snt.bIral f -la IF SF ammm. 1s Bo score'° m ane,Imw aalreaolda. Wall ane1—,,m IF.1 1 t...ard wen 3 .111.re-entrant turner, alY a1160 3 45 1 1 1 ID 1.0 00 OA OB eerdn hh...famm oraaaa d.a m moral read eomce p4o-wlm� saaln..a Log xe 4enenl a.0 a1tl Seec.d PSI 5-06 Appendix H 6 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1.3 Plant Water PUMP station and Power Sunning 6 Seismic Haard Level BSE ZE WSF L. WHIa OU/m OWm L. Primary Prair Aleq na-1 ...asbry Snts.11a fi—a ImF SF ndmmn lu Bo score'° .1 uwlam, aaeaolda. Wall ane1—,,mm.1 1 t...ard wen 3 .111.re-entrant turner talc N/P 0 GS 1 1 1 10 1.0 008 0. OB 03 11 9eMlnp/anezrszllurc oroan due m La-1 read eNmce P6o-wmdreF rv/+ 04 f�al,..a 1 aanulxme 1101 Re General Ndes Fltl leseld PSI 5-06 Appendix H Risk Ranking Analysis snuclum la City water Pump station Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E Wo L. OU/m OWm WSF Pme L. primary Indiana Akty iXmnr[ Pe{Mabry AalaM1Nier financial Impxta . gux annimnn is (w) .. nt u{nbmry smuhome, ,nmobtl,pmtlam of me wall nde,ge,t e.,t and writ wa,It, In plane saint wdlh po amnOn lddvers < I 15 5 GS 1 1 1 1 1 20 1D 08 D.0 D.g 03 f011 O t—InnehmlronUll al.l gateastantl walhdwmgmund mating Ox afylane hdnbntal canamg In and and t —twa a mgrountl tleMmatbn walh d-ta muM a,.-anon Gm 3.g 3e 5 OS 1 1 t 1 t 3.0 to OA as as OS 30 100 Tarelon fan—l nt'e bna ...wall tlde tlebrmatlon 9 al ip od bwnd the santa Ana BNen atA af0 3 IS 2D I 0A D.a Og 113 iA GO at 1,9 talustre derall5mre PSI 5-06 Appendix H 8 Risk Ranking Analysis snuclum la City water Pump station Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE Wo Wew ada- . Pot., OU/m OWm LaSf RM Op primary Publk Akry no"a "'Im" ..andoee Mantial ado oa nxpalnn s Im swam m nnubtnry maenola,. W mtltlem of on-11 h/A ,nmwmge,te„t-d.,,t.all, 1., h/A 4 In plane mair at wme pee amnOn IOUWM22 D/A s 41 1 1 1 1 1 2D I CI Oa Og oz 20 Ito Oulaeplane horlwnUl pmtling at east Intl walk dae m gmundo mg a/P Ox afolane xonwntal canamg In and and t —twa a monan.tleMmalbn N/A walh d-ta ra <m undn'.-al- 3.g N/A 5 OS 1 1 t 1 t t 3.0 t.0 ad Oa 0.g 03 30 un Tarelon fall—l nt'e was ...wall tlue Eananxtlon X/< lustre od lwnd the santa Ana BNee 9 asA X/A 3 IS I I I I 1 1 3.D ].D Og DO Og 0,2 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 9 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 1-5 Power Building Seismic Mead Lend BSE 1E bsi L. NXIr DU/m DWm WSf L. primary puMk Aleq .—I PeguMwry SWkeM1dtle� f me Inp.n, Con SF acipde. . B xortre .r vaemawry Maandee. wdWraotle a puleaw<vxe E d.7mon¢eavne noon aria wum mall: 1ofel— atA a10 ] GS 3 1 1 ] 3.0 ]D OB DO OB 03 EO mon/allure lntM1e CMV walls tluelo 1.11,matlon 8 Joal iprtatl lowa�tl/M1e5antl4na PNer ewlpuefenlon atA a]D 3 IS 2D 1D OB Du OB D3 SD 6A F 11 It, e Ses, us I— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 10 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 1-5 Poeer Building Seismic Mead Lend BSE ZE Wu ccSF� in. e aman must. OWm LaSf Pm age primary mp and iXmn[ Reeu. Sbs,.Se flea. ImpxY Scsm RUSF arxglan Is BD swam m uemawry saanaee. walWraotl. a ouleaw<vxe rv/4 a'I -x...... noon aria wum mall: E .111 lowlml alA N/R ] Gs 1 1 1 1 ] 3.0 ]0 OB OA OB OS 30 eon/allure In tM1e CMV walls tlue to au.Eebrmatlon rv/< 60 8 Joal 5preatllowa�J slle Sow 4na RNer e wlpuefenlon asA rv/R 3 IS 2D 1D Ds 04 Ds 03 60 WLry Ng vemlllswre 60 IS score 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 71 Risk Ranking Analysis s[ruclum 1.51Power Building Seismic Mead Lend BSE 1E b5i Le, nu., OU/m OWm b5f PfM me primary Publix Akry iXmnl[ PryWWry SbMeMIJa Finance, no no nXplen us p0 Swrtr° Saou, i m ne{ulamry w'Plete batl Ptlb R Ne mmh AEe of M 3 p bwMEla brim aIu �Iu < Gs 3 1 ]0 10 60 OA 60 O.E 80 aelllryls— .—Il srort 8.0 uns see sa.emi uemx a.e�ese.e mswre o0 u scare o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 12 Risk Ranking Analysis Smuceure 16 Power Bulidin,4 Seismic emend!Level ME 2P WS, cuss welgnlee mss ro nc SF R.1 C[R/m OG/m six, Pb-.- SaawV ry fleeulatwy 5 expectsdsXmlm Rs 1101 Aa4elwlXv Impana R�n,aerelwa pain xmemrcn,mearm, man nm m x/a R,mlw xew.: om,.0 s,me ]m9 see G—re Ncl.,s,c 4gecc osswre ao u s,ore ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 13 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmeture 1-7 Power eulld IMS Seismic llaaard level ME IF Wsr ass xvm om/m as vwa un P. men, sm,r ry Wmamry s Pl. 00.xplen RS Pol Sim i sarew s,awemlxe. Imwn, will an<nongea�IM east ma we,twxll,to meroaalz n.zm 11 22 s ss 1 1 1 zo 10 oe OC l.6 03 zo ]o.o strvtla d,ftr tnl unlc.cm a. ewn,mew New,: o..,.lI— ]m9 S,.Gen.nl Notes.na 4,d �ssmre sD usmre ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 14 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 1J1Power Buildings Seismic Mead Lend BSE ZE Wu k mw must. OWm LaSf tik primary publk ntia Akry iXmnl[ Reguhlora gW4M1dtle. flnal P. arxplan L5 0o Smre�° m Peeulamry AaanWa. scess WallaneM1ongeaolM1eeaztantl motmalls0 bemWalapM1ngm N/A Itm malrc.,anaa aankmant e.e mlrenerxi n x/P w isBma: .emns.n,e tos see b'eneml nore.and Legend cxsc re PSI 5-06 Appendix H 15 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-8 Contact Ureter seismic Hazard Level ME IE vrelLeed Co ub IM1wry WbGe e(q/m pul un" are uk pXmary Iub@ Sorry Thmm geBulahry StaFeM1OIJv flnanlal Irua[b arm Description 1.1 11.) ..", TorabneM pappriaterr sbkelweer Nand) Im aps 1ppp% 1ppp% W.O% 3i5% B0.0% 16S% fimrc nt hame odumn a-I.,le not ahquaU N at aebmie Un9m tlema n4 11 19 1 GS 5 2 2 2 1 50 30 ]6 OB ]6 03 c"p G 2,c Flmr dia rz.clear 4amter plc a30 2 Gs s 2 2 2 2 1 54 24 ]fi O.B ]6 OS 50 100 s parent hame omnevTon onenec, 3.2 3.2 5 Gs S 2 2 2 2 l 6 Mwnent frame panel zone thearatreMr c1 2.8 1 Gs s 50 30 ]6 OB ]6 03 50 I 20 ent hame beam 0ervre 06 1.9 1 Gs s sd 24 ]6 OB ]6 02 50 raelllry NORr 6renll Scott l cos eal Nmec one legend Gsxnre Control Sold),proof aeMre tell neae mmorimpan to Prime,TreTmemana aumry to mq replace requgemen0 oil u Score PSI 5-06 Appendix H 16 Risk Ranking Analysis stm[lure 14coMwl Qnrer Seismic naiard level ME 2E b F b6f .."fetes fah h01k C[Wm W. SF eA.t We VXmary ry WulaWry 6bNAobv Poanlal IagatO Pl. dsXglm 1[6 1101 6[wem i AfeN Aa4eblXe, adeq ntlnme[dumn aC temoe ce. atl[yuabb resist sekml[Ieulan tlemanEs 150 WA 5 GS 5 50 20 l.6 OB 16 0.1 50 S50 G 2M flan ela hn [1—cruder >10 WA 2 GS 5 2 1 1 50 1 20 1 1.6 1OB 16 0.1 50 en[(nmecmneRion s[re M15c N/A F—ey Xom:m .11 5cc. m 4gmX [om,ol 6u feel eom of aernoe wul moe mlm[Imaaova F,Im,rvT,eanamt,ae.elllry,a meeneguhtory,mal,emm[s os s[ore o0 u s[me ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 17 Risk Ranking Analysis StmcWm 1,9 12kVSemIce Unter Seismic NazaM Level ME IF lust mss h026.1k C[P/m nG/m We VXmary ry PeeuI—, 5 v gnanlal IIx. dsXglm RS Iml AIs sceelwleer wall ancM1omgem rtalateatl IN,meal walls Ianley Xem: O sl5wr Sms see .emlxmI...N INJ Iuss oex AV IN,, ntIl we rnnV lmwcl all pillt -111.pammIlly If R113-le a...ged Is"snucmm 1.101 oss[ore ao sslme o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 18 Risk Ranking Analysis Strum a 1A 12kVService Unter Seismic NazaM Level ME 2E Wsr mss h01k cc- ou/m ure rxmary ry neg�I—, : w rvxaMlal lIx. oecx ew (u llm saren salecleer wall ancnomge m—.11..ana meat wall: x/A Ianllry xem: O sl5wr Sms se..N.Ixmee...legene Iuss oex AV IN,, ntIl we rnnV lmwn all eillt N 111,pammh.ly If RNGenle a...ged Is"snucNm 1.10) oss[ore o0 u s.o.e o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 19 Risk Ranking Analysis strnawre 1-10 Central Power Generation Building Sal Handed Level BBE 1E bSf ctral andsontes!.1 Yk islinds, OLa/m OCWM LOSE RM um I., Public Sol Thmnt Megull Stakeholder Metal Mpmn WSF ko5{ red. O¢uagkn t5) 0.1 Xorely 1nrol Sale ireatmeiR Ransil Soaked..., S racial arnard, LW.%6 LW.%6 M.o% S]S% M.4% I6.s% Xae Xorc lark or al Lratlng all the east ad.of the dldmof Eta three o10 a10 s GS 3 f I f s 1 30 11 09 OA 0.0 al 40 300 lack of lateral bntly along she were side of meloxmofznaznan...More Gssm.nt IM nenreaem lateral bran rag along the weed Lae s afm.building Lz la ao 4s 3 1 I 1 s 1 3.0 1.0 ox 04 40 0z 4 0 11 .11.-h,at had has mW nMn and s High root disposal eMn 15 15 s.a GS 3 f I f s 1 30 11 0e oa oo 0.2 4 0 She 6 d.mN alanrzmenear Is 1s SG Gs 3 1 1 1 s 1 3.0 Le 06 04 4 0 oz 4,0 SOa Oniher.plane amain,on do wall,sue 5 ml uenea mncmatons oe a 1 6 3 1 1 1 s 1 1 3.0 1 1.0 1 od I 0< 40 0.2 4.0 4.0 wirer N.d.e O.eall stone ]log See General Notes and Legend GS Smre 200 SM,eemN nigh nnanna nsk do.on,-1-of Iearn o55 0. -SSmre ale PSI 5-06 Appendix H 20 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-10 Central Plower Gelgeranan 6ul Seismic igegard level ME 2E bsi W6f .."Ined Cab Lso dandle DCWm low. life Vubll< ry Mdah., hadede v PoanOal Iwea[p con, F Deno-onn (. P01 s<wem i gW Al. VXmary AageMl@< la4 oflAenl count alone the eael aide of Inenlnlwlam nn >10 We s Gs 3 1 1 1 1 130 10 OA OA ad 0.1 4. .1 deelf Aenl bn<ingalongiM1ewealntoll 1M1e lowmoland Intl OoormtM1e basement leu<I >10 WA < Gs 3 1 1 1 5 1 30 10 0.g OA QO 0.1 IftichfntlaleNl bn<ingalongiXe west Ldx 3 Walla iltlln 17 WA 5.0 Gs 3 5 30 10 0.g OA QO 0.1 MD Wallan<M1olageallM M1¢M1�minortM1and G MM1 walls MO WA 1.0 Gs 3 5 30 10 OA OA QO 0.1 MD s HI �oMtlla M1n mSM1ear ?s WA In Gs 3 5 30 10 OA OA QO 0.1 MD 6 lawrcof aia n_don, ?s WA 50 Gs 3 5 30 10 0.g OA QO 0.1 MD ONN9la ne aM1eaeon Naieeaewallsal r nexea.mu mmm,ana x/A Faddist mag h.— .11 g ]m 4gma aalreemm mgn bnan<�,I nn a.<m s.<olcmGm Dssm a0 usmae aD PSI 5-06 Appendix H 21 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmc ure 1-11 rlerale n Basins 1-10 Seismic XaaaM UM BSB IF W r Wss h01k Clam oG/m ure rxmary m Mguknry : v gnanm impam a.,camlm iu BCI saren sawenoia. .a 26.5 o ,u sue, ramaykm..: sws s,,�...,a kat....a Lsa.ne oss.or. o0 LS — ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 22 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmc ure 1-11 rlerale n Basins 1-10 Seismic XaaaM UM BSB 2E W r Wss h01k Clam oG/m ure rxmary m Mguknry : v gnanm impam a.,camkx lu BCI saren sawenoia. 26.5 .H o ,u sue, ramayxm..: sws s,,�...,a xat....a Lsa.ne oss.or. o0 LS — ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 23 Risk Ranking Analysis StmtNre 1-12 Se[endmq tlaaaers 1-26 Seismic t asail level ME IF b F WSf ..".aCaS A" he afR/m Oq/m 'he e6e Vamary P.aha ry mon.Wry eallo v Poanlal Imeaps coSaF Rot Mssrlplm RS nen SZ i 5a1e1ce AaaeMlser neonatal Impart, Separzearn ya a:aue w a lateral earned to—aethe Santa Ana Rroer ,zo >10 s ua I s s s 1 zo ?o 4.0 1s ao o.z 4. an Sellars or<omeyoreppharrmg s4 Ulo aue a to lateral mreamowaMe the Santa Ma Rher no >?S 5 Is a I s 5 s I zo ?o 0.0 1s ao o.z 4. In 12 6andnsfaMzr mill,at pnn au,to Meal H a.— o „al San 1.r xeaeneralxmee arts 4aene wseoa 0,0 uume zoo PS15-06 Appendix H 24 Risk Ranking Analysis StmtNre 1-125e[endmq tlaaaers 1-26 Seismic t asail level ME 26 b F WSf ..".aCaS A" he afR/m Oq/m Visa e6e Vamary P.aha ry mon.Wry eallo v Poanlal Imeaps coSaF Rot Mssrlplm RS nen SZ i 5a1e1ce AaaeMlser Impana xaar earned to—dS me Santa aaoew a lateral earned wwaraa me Sams nos Rroar ,10 WA s ¢ s s s zo ?o 4.0 is an R.z zoo ReiwremaomeyoreaRMren6nrunuraaue a to lateral mram e m Ma owaMe Santa Rher ,10 WA 5 6 s 5 s zo ?o 4.0 is ao o.z zoo aenalnp/aMzr haure of plea sue tolalerzl WA RamlN Roves: wars,Sao smr 1,,.neminoreaana laaene ahll-r� OS OSSaore 0.0 uuma zoo PS15-06 Appendix H 25 Risk Ranking Analysis stmelure 1-13 Ngestee s Seismic nacald level ME IF bSi Wsr We18MeE CaS the wntl .Nm me'. S a0ss use rnmary rubM snm 1 0 ay.OI.BM ry scu.0n<.la wx'igm ��cl 1 PuOPb.1l(21 0.0 i[ raelnv xoto:P we„u Xore t09 See Genenl Xales antl Legentl Gssmrt 0.0 OSSmre LSHwe 00 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 26 Risk Ranking Analysis stmelurc 1-13 dgestea s Seismic llagald level ME 2E lust Wss h01k .R/m OG/m We VXmary M M{ulanry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p Ca[Xglm IU Akq A.4mclss Impana ma a[! alry xnus:RFm Orenllsm ]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anX 4gmX W Smre 00 uxm¢ ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 27 Risk Ranking Analysis struefure v-Sa digester s IS 6 Pump Roam Seismic Hazard!level ME IF b F WSf .."soul Ces Felm *v 01k Mf m Doer Nfe VXmary P.ss1 ry Mgulme, StlNAober hnemou Imc.. SF Rest Ples dso.W. R Y S 1101 wel° Sees Aa4eMIEer Iou,sm � w keen mwe lnceereent althewall >10 >1.0 S ex 2�0 1� S a e 0 ce a0A I.Sea0G O.1 60 M Inu,MS.nt separbn Gam edje.nl reoc re >30 >1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 20 1.0 ce OA 00 0.2 60 S Torsional response of wlEb Ma >10 >LO GS 20 10 OA OA 0G 0.2 2. Term-lens re m the wnoetc mile us,m wwan.rmmnii- FeedersNam: .11 sw 1m9 See GenmlNoles and L,,,J X Store 60 u Smr ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 28 Risk Ranking Analysis structure v-Sa dgeaeer s IS 6pump Room Seismic Ragard level ME 2E b F W3f .."fetes fa3 h01k ry Mm Oqm tMefe VXmry P.e 3bNAobv xe nlal ex... PIM 3 110) i Akq ScAe.l., ImWOf � w Nal.ses N a kM welntleeMentathe 0 N/A G3 50 0 DA es so Iw .nt xacon rvm adj— ,cgen_ o WA G3 20 10 OA OA 0G 03 60 0 13 irslanal response of w dW Ma 0 WA G3 0g OA OG 0.1 ,n,retn,w—w11,a„m mae,mmem N/A ennlry Nnm: om,Il Y, 1m9 See Genenl Noles anX 4gmX X Store 60 uxo,e ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 29 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmtlere 1-15 Digester 6 Seismic Hazard level ME IF Wsr Wss hbik CfR/m OG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v ne.-l Ime— e«nmlm lu Oal saren cool., Imeana ma F—Iffy xnus:eFM Orenllsm ]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anX 4gmX W Smre 00 uxm¢ ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 30 Risk Ranking Analysis stmc ure 1-15 dgeste.6 Seismic llagald level ME 2E lust Wss hbik CfR/m OG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v Rnanlal I26.5% o«Xmlm lu gul sake sallenola. Imvana ma N/a r,[nlry xeM,:RFm o.,musPo ]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anX 4gmX 1Smre 0c LSS,— ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 31 Risk Ranking Analysis stmc ure 1-16 dgester Seismic nagard Level ME IF Wsr cuss xvm ou/m ure rxmary m raguhmry : e, rgxaMm impa[C rk..xm�on Rs gol seessawemiae. impan. ee�e�w.me n�we m pner d.e t,meal e,e aun,[e F4o=Is mAes 72 gm xe�e.eaixme,aee Legene Pmmbal LLebge of tllgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnorysangof3 Wsmre 00 uxoa PSI 5-06 Appendix H 32 Risk Ranking Analysis stmelurc v-ls dgestea Seismic nagagd level ME 2E Iasi Wss -R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p d"Xglm m 1101 sees AagegalXer Impana 9enemg/aMarhlwe W pnn due m meal e,e aurh[e F4o=1s 13 N/A r,mhy xn[..: wenllsmr72 [M xe�e.emlxme,aee Legene Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnoryndngof3 WSmre 00 uxme PSI 5-06 Appendix H 33 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmcture 1-17 dgester)IS IS Pump Roam Seismic Hazard!level ME IF b F Wsf .."sues CaS ublk M[ m DWM Ilfe pXmary public ry Mgulu., sceNAobv nemou Impa[p SF Rest PIM Mst. l,- Rs 11m stwem *p Sees Aa4eMv Im IE ', kocrs mwe'mtleeMent altbewall >10 >3.0 3 ol �5�0 �1�0 ox aos a0G 1ce1 aso IwalNtientsepanlbn lrvm atlacenl tll{esters a10 >]0 3 Gs 2 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 ce OA 00 0.1 to 60 OiHereMlal hlerel spread bet—,D eesters q antl etlue to ,tc,d- Feces N.—: Ox 11 Sct ]m9 see GenmlNol.e anb legenE us It— 6S W stole 00 S Semi 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 34 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmcture 1-17 dgester)IS a Pump Roam Seismic Raaard level ME 2E b F W3f Welgm sfa3 umk ocel. W. ufe pXmary publl¢ ry Mgulamry 3tlNAobv nemou Impa[p PIMMssXplen (.1 om 3y xxw sees ScAemluea ImPaebsous PoMin sm—lntle eMentaltm-.an 1.0 N/A 3 ol �5�0 m1�0 ce a0A a a 0G ums30.1N so 45um—teepanlbnlrvmatllacemtllgun- >10 N/A 3 G3 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 ne uA 0G 0.1 2c 60 DlHmre lal u-1 spread bN—,Dxaacm 111. and sd-to pueleRmn >10 WA F.I.I.N.—: Ox 11 Scc ]m9 3ee GenmlNales anX l¢g¢nX 035mre 00 5S,mj 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 35 Risk Ranking Analysis stmc ure v-le dgesterg Seismic nagard Level ME IF Wsr cuss xvm ou/m ure rxmary m raguhmry : e, rgxaMm impa[C rk..xm�on Rs gol seessawemiae. impan. ee�e�w.me n�we m pner d.e t,meal e,e aun,[e F4o=le mAes 72 gm xe�e.eaixme,aee Legene Pmmbal LLebge of tllgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnorysangof3 Wsmre 00 uxoa PSI 5-06 Appendix H 36 Risk Ranking Analysis stmelurc v-le dgesteag Seismic nagagd level ME 2E Iasi Wss -R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 w Poawlal Impa[p ""Xglm m 1101 Afe s AagegalXer 9enemg/aMar hlw[e W pnn due m meal e,e aurh[e F4o=le 12 N/A r,mhy xn[..: orenllswr [M xe�e.emlxwe,aee Legene Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnoryndngof3 p55mre 00 we Qe PSI 5-06 Appendix H 37 Risk Ranking Analysis stmtlure 1-19 dgesrers 330 Seismic llagagd level ME IF Iasi Wss -R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p d"Xglm ms 1101 sees AagegalXer Impana ae�e�w=b=e r nlwm M pner a.e m meal e,e.un,a Reo=aomme, ,[Wiry xnm Oreallsmr 1.s x .emlxme,aee Legere Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenergu hom bNen pl ping nn Eefvea whMinlmonay resuhing In regulnory sang of3 p55mre 00 xme 121 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 38 Risk Ranking Analysis stmtlure 1-19 dgesrers 330 Seismic llagagd level ME 2E Iasi Wss -R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p d"Xglm m 1101 sees AagegalXer Impana 9enei rig/aMar hlwre W pnn auem meal e,e.un,a Rco=aomme, N/A r,mhy xn[..: wenllsmr gM xe�e.emlxme,aee Legene Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenergu hom bNen pl ping nn Eefvea whxinlmonay resuhing In regulnory Hang of3 p55mre 00 u xme 121 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 39 Risk Ranking Analysis Strum a 1-20 digesters 310 pump Reopen Seismic Raaam Level ME Ip USi Wsf WelOmee Cos u01k CC0/m D(q/m life pemary Vu411e ry M,es.., Ineop. r Poanlal loea. dsXplon lu 1101 srwem i pen Sees Asomosev nonsense Fp.1r mwelntle eMent al".wall >10 >S.0 3 Gs l �z�0 te1�0 ne a0A 000 ]D.2O Soon.60 ImulNuentseparobn lrvm atlacenl tll0eslers >30 >LO 3 Gs 20 LO D.0 OA 00 D.z 60 S iorslanal response olwltlb Ma >30 >LO 3 Gs 20 10 ne oe 00 D.] 60 Dlepersem Connections avecnlrzm Corner a zD ?D ne D.a ae D.z zo bleno.ceaetowaM Me Santa Ma River eue ] loli uelatlbn >10 >LO 3 IS 20 ?0 D.0 OA 00 DuereMia I lalenl'need bscoe"Digesters zne ze den to quelotlbn ramee No— .11 sPo lens see G.nerol not....I l.¢ene os store 60 Sxm 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 40 Risk Ranking Analysis shu[eure 1-20 dgesrers 330 Pump Room Seismic Huard!level ME 2E wsF cos eCIVm o@/m asF sued vnmary loon¢ n Poavkl mstlglon 6 10 Xwem safe a ulaW stakeholder Financial Im Xve ll elntleeMen[ul[be,all >to N/A 3 ]Gs 3 lea, 1 ] 1 1 a 30 30 O1 aIVst a0.8 ]03 30 s60 1 Iwrlfiuen eparwkn fiom adaunl&stands, CIO N/A 3 Gs 2 1 1 1 1 1 Ed 30 OB OA 0.. 03 2 0 60 3 onal res Dose olrcold Ma '10 N/A 3 Gs 2 1 1 1 1 1 30 30 OB OA 0.. 02 30 60 A apMagm...¢Rion&atdonataM corner �10 N/A 1 Gs 2 ] 1 1 1 1 2d SO OB OA 0.. 02 l0 Unseal ea 30 rd m mm.ae same ma RNer one 1 N.uelztlkn �10 N/A 3 Ls 2 1 1 1 1 1 ID 10 06 OA 0.d o2 20 60 D rem lNeul lease' pm,d bnween O rt lgedrs g 9 and lO due ao llpu..,.d We 3 IS 1c 10 De OA c D.1 60 Fe",NaUst O.eell Sm 109 see General Notes and utadd .1 ,or 60 O score LSXwe 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 41 Risk Ranking Analysis stm[eure 1-21 dgeseere vl-le Seismic Hammel level ME IF bSi cost welgppe W 1k Cfg/m W. pshs life pXmary publk ry Mgula"ry s--.. Poawlal Impa[p PFM bsmeeled lu (10) xwem i ul xfeN ..'excess, Impana center;11-11:sendine'hear mlmre of 01.1 m due to moral spread l:urfare Fe.-z61n[he: 0e a10 1 IS o I 3 a zo Sc z.a ee 3z en z1l6 suddeglehear Ul,re of plea due tosutud(odrt m Me 135'm[M1es Feeley Xem: .11 Suc 1me Pmenbal LLebge ofdgener gas hom bNen pl ping nn Eefvetl wnMinlmontly resuhing In regulnory sting of3 ps s[ore 0.0 xwe 160 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 42 Risk Ranking Analysis stsucti 1-21 dgeseen vs-ls Seismic Hammel level ME 2E bSi cost' wel'stee CaS Life 01k cm,f. W. 1. eke pXmary I.sdsan� l MgulaWry stlNAobet Poanlal Impaap bsmeded Rs Iml stwem i AfeN Aa4eMIXv Impana center;11-13:&nem(/mear mlmre of me: w due to moral spread isufice=1lmtia11 WA s a 2.4 ee 32 do]CoHm 11 e n 21169enemg/enear naure of plea due tospread(odrt m Me 135'meM1es 23 N/A fanllry Xem: .,cc. ld ...em..and le¢ene P .dl.lLL.los.Idgeur gad hom bNen pl pmg nn us..d wdl,,lmontly resuhingl n regumory sting of 3 ossmre 00 Ssewe 111 PW 5W Appendix H 43 Risk Ranking Analysis stmcture v-n[Ageaeer 12-14 Pump Room Seismic Ragar4 level ME IF bSi Wsf W.".afas u01k C6q/m Oq/m life pamary Publle ry meal.., sbNAobel ...u, Impapscast F PlasdsXglm us I. s=a i PM Safeq ScAesolam ImPa[If Iw t.,l xpmibn halo aaa«m p venal >10 >1.0 s 6s zc 10 OA ea 16 O.z lane wm:bear al:bear wane 11 17 s 6s 2 1 1 1 2 1 z0 10 0A OA 16 0.z 100 s Coluan mear at moment name¢ zs ao s 6s 2 1 1 1 2 1 zc 10 0A OA 16 0.z 2. 100 genalne..r aaklt al p,.aw to lateral s a I...PG0.061n@es 10 11 s 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 20 10 OA OA 16 O.z 2. 100 Eanc—al htenl spread b,tween Dgastars oc H-W c.c to 6 uehNon aces Xom: .11 Yo 1 a see General Nays ana 4gma W s[ore U0 u xpre lac PSI 5-06 Appendix H 44 Risk Ranking Analysis stmctum 1-22 dgeaeer 12-14 pump Room Seismic Raaard level ME 2E M3 �1 Wsf .."mesfas hmk C6Wm W. life VXmary Vublle ry Mguu., sel,Aobv Poanlal Iwe.ce PrMdsXglm Rs sees ScAesolEv ImWeu I—ffidem seenMbn ham aala«m aleestea venal >]o zc 10 OA oA 16 P.u13 20 10 OA oA 16 0.1 60 3 Calumnh—tmomemhames 44 20 10 OA oA 16 0.1 100 Dnc—alW,ml,,dbNween Oiee— ocl]Wtlueto fi uefac[lon F.I.I.Xem: O.era ll5m 1.s see GenmlNales ana l¢ge nE Wsme 00 SS,mj 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 45 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmcture 1-33[Ngestet 15-16 Pump Room Seismic Raxafd level ME IF b3i W6f W.".afah h01k Plas Cf6/m Oq/m life 9amary 9u411[ c meal.., 6tlNAoba, Poanlal lagaps dsaplen I. nen 6[wem i 6M 6afeq Aa4eMlaea ImPaas IwalRaen[xparMbn lrvm aaacep alxca; >x0 >1a 3 G3 .5.0 m1.0 DAN a0A a06 3D.1N scc2bu05s Fe a60 Dlawranuouse wwalls at Ne wuM elowtlan >10 >LO 3 G3 2 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 OA OA 06 0.1 20 60 3 Ia ne wall sM1eas al SM1eas walls 0) 13 3 G3 30 10 OA OA 06 0.1 30 60 G Column SM1antmomeounames ?6 39 3 G6 30 10 OA OA 06 0.1 10 100 Benalri6/sM1,a�as 1.lu ynesau,m m,rzl ..eau FGD=xDmm„ ,alay Naa.,: ome116m 1m9 5¢e G¢nmlNales ana 4gma W 6[o�e 00 u xa.a ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 46 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-23[Ngestet 15-16 Pump Room Seismic XacaM level ME 26 b3i W3f wel..dW Nim C[Wm W. life pXmary P.usa ry se,au.ry 3bNAobv Poanlal Impaps dsXplen R3 p01 3ewem i aM 3akq Aa4eMlav ImpanaI.PeIwalRuem sepa�pbn lrvm atlacenl tllgeslers WA 3 G3 �5�0 m1�0 P. aea a0G 30.1N 30 aso Dlemntlnuous s6em walls at Ne mouth elevation >30 WA 3 G3 20 10 OA CA 0G 0.1 10 60 3 lane wall a'eas al SM1en walls 10 WA 0 G3 10 10 OA CA 0G 0.1 10 00 Wlumn thca r at moment sa rues N/A F—ey Nom: .11 Yo 1.s 3ee GenmlNoles anE 4gmE D35eore 00 Lss,mi 00 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 47 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-24 Gaz Holder Seismic Huard!UM ME IF b F WSf .."oveCaS 01k ex V. W. 1. life PX.., public N Mee.., S.N .Wer Pomoo, .'eve dsdocim Il5 Ilm Srwem i AfeN sc4eMl@r Impanx 1,M SM1ell—.rx.datol,.Talon- S indUarl aterals reW and eeoe—nU 3 I I I 0 1e 2.4 OA 00 0.1 s 34 Mrnurfziwremernrend-tulipuefedun - inau¢dlzhmlxpreWznaxenlememx F.I.I.xnm: .11 smr 2.4 ]m pmenrlal lelaMagexnE4,dof tligener gax lmm brNen pl ping nn M1e f,dw h,nl—d,rexuhingln reg,,st,rating of 3 MSmre EV ux a ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 48 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-24 Gaz Holder Seismic Huard!UM ME 2E b F WSf Welgptve fag 01k Cfq/m W. 1. life PX.., publle N mee..ry g.N .Wer Pomoo, exere dsXglon Il5 1101 Srwem i AfeN sc4escl@r Imp,nx IDnMaM1ell—.rx.daloliquelartian- e indUarl aterals reW and Settlements 10 N/A 0 OS 3 10 10 2.4 OA Og 0.1 00 M h,rfiwrearcrnrend-mligaelanian- iad,—il,hmlxweaa ma x,nlemo,o ic x/A F.I.I.x.—: w,ngg ]m 4gmE pmentlaLLelaMageiof tligenerg,xlmm brNen pipingnn M1e f,d w h,n1—d,m,,k,ngln reg,,st,rating of 3 MSmre 00 ux a a0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 49 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmtlure 1-25 Effluent Junction Box Seismic Bagard Level ME SE W5F Wss h01k Clam owm ur, rxmary ry heulamry : v gnanlal Imeam o,,.am1m lu Iml sar,n sallenola. 1n,mn, Sne,[r,llure lesauemlzhmlawe,a m.am,m,sa,Am,All u,e. Hltcxe[.,: o.,,,u sPo ]m9 see Genenl Ncles anx 4gmx00 W s[ore 00 u S,— so PSI 5-06 Appendix H 50 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmtlure 1-25 Effluent Junction Box Seismic Bagard level ME 2E lull mss h01k C[R/m nG/m We VXmary ry MBulamry 5 v Rnanlal Imea[p dsXmlm RS 1101 Safeq Aa4eMIXv Impana sne,[rallurcI nlesauemlatcl. we,a m.,m,tn,s,m,Al,u­ 12 /A tc Hl m9 See Genenl Ncles anX 4gmX W S[ore 00 u s,m, ioo PS15-06 Appendix H 51 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-26 Solids Socrep Faeillq Seismic Hazard level ME IF ,dsi WBf We18aed faB helk C88/m W. gHP We VXmary ry WulaWry Scded.. nu nlal Imea[p m R ousmmls Bog5[mm i AkN AakeMlXe, Imnena Building mending due as nesmse 37 Be nloyau-m inakln >10 N/P B, 3 3 30 10 0.8 oe 20 0.1 30 60 Renal Wand,r hilun W enea aline[M u,e due mlelme I d,d to nda u.-- gwn[ne[ N/A eamiN 11 - LI! Bc dl—nl.dt and 4gend 30 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 52 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-26 Solids Stomp Fadllq Seismic meard level ME 26 bsi WSf .."Wed Cus heux Cfg/m W. ewa We VXmary ry Wulaw, Scded.. nu nlal Imea[p m Rs Y ousmmls 1mm i AfeN AakeMv lX Imeana Building mending due to nesedeTe oyou-m shakne W >SO d Gs 3 1 1 1 3 1 30 10 0.8 OA 20 0.1 30 60 Bending/¢neer hilun W pine a Sn. ecount,se due mlumrzI vaned l nu u.= IDinme: N/n lank,N de, LI! 1de 5¢dl—nl.du andend00 13B PSI 5-06 Appendix H 53 Risk Ranking Analysis Strumm 1-27 Chiller Building Seismlu Hazard Level ME 1E Wsr Wsr h01k xe/m a : ry m Ineam o xal e x v re x n Iw PFm ...a n n !, iry xnm Ore 11 ]m9 5¢e Genenl Ncles anx 4gmx W Smre 00 u xo.e ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 54 Risk Ranking Analysis Strumm 1-27 Chiller Building Seenink Hazard level ME 2E Wsr Wsr h01k C[R/m nG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v Rnanlal Imka[p 4aXglm (. 10 Afeq ..e..e, Impana ma F—hy N.—RFm .11 Yo ]m9 5¢e Genenl Ncles anX 4gmX W Smre 00 u xm¢ ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 55 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-28 Warehouse Bumming Seismic nagard Level BS8 IF b F Coss' Wel..dW h01k C[q/m Oq/m VIM eke VXmary Vuble ry xeol ry stlNAobv ne nlal Impaps Memoclou Rs (10) x 1 wem i AkN scaemclXv ImW[u Wall nelsamnotkea Wtne laMln >IO >1.c 3 Gs 5 150 M1�0 DgN a0A a0G 30.1N 50 a15D Wall W nelea snot red WgNntt W E G uml >10 '10 3 Gs s 50 10 0.g OA OG 0.1 SD SSD o�lalWre mm...u.e�.W am.l.�ml FamlN Netl.: .11 Scc 1.9 Se.Genenl Noles.nr 4ge,X GI 0 W xore SSD ux aD PSI 5-06 Appendix H 56 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-28 Warehouse Building Seismic Hazard!Level BS8 28 b F cos Welliver Cas balk Dfq/m raw. Pea exe Primary Vuaal a exale., stlNAobv remou laea[p cae reactum us xm xxv- i l safesalary Tle.cal Mal Aa4eMlry Impaeu [ nall o.sesWall nelsarenotxea Wtne laMln 1.0 N/A s Gs s sc 1�0 ox x a0A x06 g s ill SD 15D Wall W re nelsanotxea to Wreffit 6 aWrtamilse c10 N/A 0 Gs I 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 D.g ra 06 D.1 1. 00 aatalwre mm,.,u,e�em alxe�mml ,ml,mmt >10 N/A Htllxyxae,: o,m.usm 1m9 5¢e G¢nenl Noles am 4gmr wstom sD us,— Do PSI 5-06 Appendix H 57 Risk Ranking Analysis Somme 1-29 Shop Building A Seismic BazaM Level ME 1E WF Wn h01k C[R/m nG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v gnanlal Inea[p oM[xmlm MI Iv sun, .nosolae. Imnana Wall nelsareno[osd b ah,fccon fanllry Xous: Orenll5m ]m9 5¢e G¢nenl Ncles anX 4gmX 12 D 5[ore 00 us[me ac PSI 5-06 Appendix H 58 Risk Ranking Analysis Somme 1-29 Shop Building A Seismic BazaM Level ME 2E WF Wn h01k C[R/m nG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v gnanlal Inea[p 4aXmlm RS 10 Akq .nosolde Impana Wall nelsareno[osd b ah,fccon N/P F—ey Noun: .115 ]m9 5¢e G¢nenl Ncles anX 4gmX D 5[ore 00 us[me ac PSI 5-06 Appendix H 59 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3 Seismic Beaed Level ME 1E b F WSf .."Ines Cos h01k Cfq/m n(q/m .is VXma ry aWry sbNAobv Poarclal Impaps MSXgIm Is5 10 Ssmm i ab xkq ry man an., Financial Im Wall nelsare not Yetl W[Xe laMln >30 N/P 3 Gsl s aQo �1.0 0..Bx 30A gnG SO.lx s1E0 Wall ancM1orageW Merwla[IM1e nuM xall N/A exllM1yls— .11 sm ams xe Geee.alxme:see Lesme w xom o0 cube no PSI 5-06 Appendix H 60 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3 Seismic Beaed Level ME 2E b F WSf .."Ines Cos h01k Cfq/m n(q/m .is V ry aWry sbNAobv Poarclal Impaps MSXgIm Is5 10 Ssmm i ab xkq Xmary Financial Im WulSc aesoluer Wall nelsare not Yetl W[Xe laMln N/P >3.0 3 Gsl s aQo �1.0 0..Bx 30A gnG SO.lx s1E0 Wall ancM1orageW Merwla[IM1e nuM xall exllM1y Nets: .11 sm ams xe Geee.alxme:see Lesme w xom o0 subs no PSI 5-06 Appendix H 61 Risk Ranking Analysis StmeNre 1-31 Bulldlnp 5 and 6 Seismic Ba mul Level BSB IF b F Wsf ..lane CaS balk C ns, Oq/m eel.' Yfe VXmary Vualk ry MgulaWry StlNAobv Poanlal Impa[p SF Msmnew Rs 10 Ymm i safety sca4eMIXer I.Wns asse Wall wn are not d.c W lae laWn >30 N/P 3 Gsl 5 50 m1�0 D.BN aDA NnG 'D.1N SD 5150 G Wallanaaor a1Me 3neflmr N/A Gs 5 sc 10 D.8 eA nG D.1 SD 300 aenelnplallure W trams wertlerron b-cc nmes N/A fanllry Xoua: Orenll Yo srer see Ge.eralxmee aXe l<¢a.e wwore 0,0 xm ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 62 Risk Ranking Analysis StmeNre 1-31 Bulldlnp 5 and 6 Seismic Ba mul Level BSB 2E b F Wsf ..lane CaS balk C[q/m Oq/m eN.t Yfe VXan Vualk ry Mgulawn' StlNAobv ne.;al .-.s.s SF R.F Msmnew Rs 10 Ymm i safety Aa4eMIXer I.Wns Wall nelsarenottletl Wtae laMln N/P >3.0 3 Gsl 5 50 m1�0 D.Bx a0A xc 'a. 50 11 G Wallanaaor a1Me 3neflmr N/P 1G s Gs 5 50 10 0.: 0A nG 0.2 Sc 250 aenelnplallure W trams wertlenon b-cc nmes N/P Iaday N.—: O sll Yo srer see Ge.eralxmee aNe l<¢tl,e wstore 0,0 x re ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 63 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmcture 1-3311uto Shop Seismic nacald UM ME 1E b F WSf Welgpbe fas h01k C[q/m Oq/m IUSi eA.1 We VXmary ry si. sbNAobv Poarclal Impaps MSXgIm RS 10 Ymm i AfeN Aa4eMIXer Wall nelsarenot lietl W[Xe laMln >30 N/P 3 Gs < aQO W1.0 ce aol xOG 'o. a13.0 Wall ancM1orageW MelwraWooc-M a,a,��m aae x/P ixnxvxntn: om,ll so, ams x,Ga.,.alxma:aee leame w store o0 s xo.. po PSI 5-06 Appendix H 64 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmcoure 1-3211uto Shop Seismic nacaed Level ME 2E b F bsf WelBateX fas h01k CfR/m Oq/m bsf pqe p(e pXmary pu4s: ry MSulawry SoNAobv ---,al Impa[p F. msxmlm Rs 10 Xwem i sane Aaklwla. Wall nelsarenotlietl W[Xe laMln N/P >1.0 3 Gs < QO W1�0 D.Bx a0A a0G 1D.lx a120 Wall ancM1orageWMelw�aW a1[M1emM a,a,��maae rv/P R:nlW xm.,: o.,musPot lms xe Ge.emlxme,aee baeoe wstore oD uxo.. pD PSI 5-06 Appendix H 65 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmtlure 1-33 PFO61 Seismic Hagald Level ME IF Wsr Wss h01k xvm Tmmw w<gmamry : ¢. ne-n.l ilmam 4axmlm Rs Ilal saren Aawelwlxe. Impan, .a00 r,mlry xn[.,:PFm w,nllsm ]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anx 4gmx W Smre 00 u xo., ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 66 Risk Ranking Analysis St..re 1-33 PF062 Seismic Hazard level ME 2E Wsr Wss J Cfa/m me- ufe VXma xaanmlm M PPI sake sallenola. Immna W:W9In M1eamnthlbunldwlbtluelo IOO Meam mnaluna N/A F—e Nnm O slsw. ]m9 see GenmlNcres anX 4gmX os s.om ia.o o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 67 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1-3d Central laboratory XI31nIg Handed Lavel BSE lE b6F elgM1<ea CosF Lose %Imary puall, OCNm onded l Mat ph %Imary hbll, 'a" iMnl Xeduhlory sm holder Fina lal Impxb Co3F onSF MM Oaaapol 6 10 Upped W Treatment lde XaMeM1olaer F rcial Im dal 1WL% g0A% 33.5% W.0% 16.5% smrc Xae men h,memwmn,alalatmo4dem Mmm rorox 29 o'f s Gs s 50 1.0 ad 0..4 1.6 10 . zs0 2,d floor disproof deform,load aaneh,m 1 brace,hams, 2.9 of s GS 1 1 1 l 2 1 5.0 1.0 O.B 0.4 1.6 — 3 Ou0o6plane bmtlng olanceEfnmebeams a10 In 3 Gs s 1.0 1.0 Od OA 1.6 11 &ads b,bmatl hams,are non-ompot 1 1 1 3 1 < >]0 >1.0 3 GS s l 1 1 1 ] 0.< 1.6 genaing lallureoi beams—choem«. s deal lmm. 6.1 6., 5 Gs s 1.0 1.0 Od OA 1.6 S.0 6 werola rtbnm L9 3.8 5 w s 1.0 1.0 Od 0A 1.6 R.0 ne"Iey added ten Ouxrznx«e 15.0 lads see 0enenl proad,mmtegena ba smrc 2s.o dssmre dd PSI 5-06 Appendix H 68 Risk Ranking Analysis structure 1-M Central bWmtory Xlsmic Hound E<Vel BSE lE b6F elghtea(o5F lHe %Imary Publl[ .CWx x,,. .a F FFM ph %Imary hell[ Sahry i t MguWory SUkehda« Flnamial Imp Cw3i MSF ffM D—dPUan 6 10 Xorelu SN Trexmmt uhb Xakebolae[ F rcial Im SWL% SWL% g0A% 33.5 W.0% I6.3% smte X«e h,mea0wmn,alalao-ea:euem rtumm roan al WA s rs s So ]o og nA 16 0.z m 210 B a[exb[bm[ea hamesare non�«npatt < >10 WA 3 Gs s l 1 1 2 ] S.0 ].0 0.8 04 ].6 OS 50 I5.0 &eainghllured beamaortF[Mmm s bnceb![ama 65 WA s w 5 50 'n 08 OA 1.6 0.2 50 0.o 6 x4e�%Ib rtbnm 1g WP s Gs 5 50 1.0 Og OA 1.6 0.1 50 R.0 F lllryF xsned Ouxrzn X«a u.0 vol semmeml rvmexma hgma rssmre u.o Wswm o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 69 Risk Ranking Analysis 5[ruRure S-IDARA`CGmleq Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E Wee[etices L. OU/m OWm LaSf file publk Akq iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Man[ial x[Xplen 45 1p Morel° m Pegulamry H rexpon;:'Merenlial iHlkment 6 [blqueb[rlon alY af0 3 ce 3 1 3 30 1 ]0 I ]6 I OA I 08 00 30 9.0 a[IIIry Herne oera115[m< 9.0 Iro9 fre General kmex and L,d OSSmre e0 Ls sere o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 70 Risk Ranking Analysis StruCure S-IDARA-CGallery Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE weU raticos L. l publie I'm Or LaSf LXe primary publk Aq k iXmn[ Reauscory exi,. ltler Manoial Im xrXglen ry5 p0 Smrem m Pegulamry A e�otliRe omiajsOw ent 6 olpue(anlan al0 NA 3 OS 3 1 3 30 ]0 ]6 OA 00 00 30 90 aelllry Herne Al,. 1. uoa xe 6e�emi rime.aye teae�e msw,a Ls re,e PSI 5-06 Appendix H 71 Risk Ranking Analysis SLruRure 2.2 DAF DGallerya WSSPS Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E b5i WeU me Gal- L. pu", OU/m OWm Lase LXe primary publk Akq iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manoial Im xrXglen L5 p0 Smrem m Pegulamry A al spmad mards the Talbert MsTtlue < Lo ll uef-ion al0 af0 3 LS 3 1 3 1 30 ]0 ]6 OA 68 00 30 60 aelllry Hem: rallSrort 1. aro9 fre General kem and L,d Ol Smre LS Smre PSI 5-06 Appendix H 72 Risk Ranking Analysis SLruRure Sd DAF DGallerya WSSPS Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE b5i WeU me G4 L. pu", OU/m OWm b5f LXe primary publk Akq iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraFeM1altler Man[ial Im x[Xgmn al spreatliwartlitbeialEert MarsM1 tlue < toll uepttlon al0 NA 3 LS 1 1 1 1 30 10 ]6 OA 6e 00 30 60 a[IIIry Hem: ra115[m< 1. a�o9 5¢¢G¢neral Xem anE Leg¢nE OSSmre S re PSI 5-06 Appendix H 73 Risk Ranking Analysis structure 2.3 RAs Ps East Xinnic Hazard Level ME 1E Po wHl, CCNm OLRIm outadylxII denea ronrnnle heunea wall:auee ro tPFM .. Waaw Hkn .,vt eau f -alFFM tlu MTmenr PV m manaremd.an —re a aue mll a10 >la s s 1 s zo 2A e n ummwu.onemona a za z o0 a o.a xa o.o xa x] faYlnxdn: 1-1 xore 1ma z..e.n.rel rvnrm.na az=na osxo.e Isx PSI 5-06 Appendix H 74 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.3 xns PS East Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSi W,W aNGa L. 9ublia bU/m OWm Lell him L. 9nmary item AFeq iXme, seeuhlury frot.hel6er Manoial Im I.F socl ¢mine., is Iw Soon." m "l lmry s.9ehHue. �es man . as 11 m ,loan,,,wnl, rv/A mal reap nse In eMertMlalsememem G tluelof uelalion ale N/e S I3 3 20 LD 11 114 14 11 )l Oulol9lane shed,on the bonne]walls tlueb 8 Il u.SW wnd Wms 104 N/A 0 OS 1 1 3 1 3 ] 3e ].O 3A OA 3A the 3< 9.6 a¢IIIryHmn: O..IISro. 96 1119 Y¢G¢nenl Xes anE Leg¢nE MSmrt eb u sin. o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 75 Risk Ranking Analysis snuRurc za Ms PS west Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E WSF WeU t aGa L. Sublla De/m Dwm holl lame L. Vmnary Yublk Ale, ..a, seauhlary states.... ....ran Im, Seen Marc ¢ ¢¢rimer. Is BD Sm e" m arg. Soar saenaae. Some San. Ica ere. .r1l,11 m em ho nwaes m alne,emell.mlemm e G due tote elaalin 119 af0 3 OSS I3 3 2D 1D 20 DA 3A DO II Dutol9lao Shear on the bonne walls tlueb . II aAler cal war more, 1.3 1.3 3 05 1 1 3 1 3 ] 30 ].0 3A DA 3A OA 3< R a¢IIm.— Due.allSrort 31 1119 Y¢G¢nenl X.tes ana Leg¢nE DS Smrt 72 s Y.,e o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 76 Risk Ranking Analysis snuclum za Ms PS west Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSi WeU ae6Ga L. Suit,:¢ be/m OWm holl lame L. 9mnary Sum Aleq ..a, seauhlary frabbal6e. Manoial Ine Soon learn ¢ ¢¢rimer. 's Iw o..m m "I lmry xal.n.re. ica ura r .r1l,in m nsabem total,total, ale m alne,emell rallkmm a G euelofa elaeli on ale N/A o PSS I3 3 I 20 LD 11 114 L�� 11 )l Oulol9laoe shear on the bonnet walls tlueb 8 Il a.e.,cal war more, 1A N/A 0 OS 1 1 3 1 3 ] 2e S.. 3A et 0Y 3< 9.6 a¢IIIryHmn: Son alll—, 96 1119 Y¢G¢nenl Xrs anE Leg¢nE OSSo. eb u s¢r. o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 77 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1.5 PEPS a MAC Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E WSF -loo1 9Ge1maun eelasaM1eoan,o,nm lmM1el atb.0 retlhw,malh0 ,tllu e w a W,W m Ga Ls 0pm OWm a t Pbf eahlary I.m u ee wl—raa 03 z.s s x v s 1 a 0 o o A fnanual Im0 o 0.0 al,xae n examnlm areb e,m G ssW— 1.4 2.0 s 03 x 1 s 1 e o o oA 3.2 o zoo .mol cueb emaen,rea -a e 0 tlo lA le 0 LS 1 1 S 1 0 1 0 ]0 OA 31 00 u1.0 m Sx11h HeLe¢ Ownll Store Log See General Nde,antl Legentl GS Sm,e Lon or PEPS eMuemtonEun vAl remit In lass of s...d,venmem me—m.M1 I.ell, r1-1dry veatmentrryu1X p5$rre z00 Sw,e 160 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 78 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.5 PEPS a MAC Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSF WeU m,l co L. Publrt OM/m OWm la5f LL Pnmary Publk Akq Mmnl[ seeuhlary .1,0.Wer flnantial Im anione. 1a (m Soon.' m sos.l.anry xabenome. ndlf —.l em one wle„elcnon pl X/A s W 3 1 s 1 a zo 1e ao oA 3.z 0A 300 ale enn<eense 11al:<menem 12 N/A ,no d-no S dMnomlal ssmenont 1.4 NM e M 3 1 s 1 e z 3.0 3.o a0 OA 3.z oA lemon.— el cuob eme `o"'n""" N/A do me sanm Ana Bwe. 0 doe lobeelaa nj alA N/A < LS 3 1 5 1 0 1 3.0 3.0 a0 OA M OA 1-o191ane enea. ,buretl walk duew l uuelletl sulwntll4ms X/A nonsm Nma: Owrall5mre Log Re General Ndes antl eegentl GS Sm�e Loos or PEPS eMuem ooneun uAl remit In loss of eemndaryve.u000 end—min ololNon oraxondery n—nn neon— p55eore 0. LSSw�e 30.0 PS15-06 Appendix H 79 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.60neraeons Control Center Seismic HaraM Level BSE 1E Wn WeU m,Qs L. aublia OU/m W. L. primary Poblle Areq iXmnr[ secretary ext.s.Wer Manoial Im Pre amimaa Its Iw smmm nt ugmamry naenaaa. Wm m,lFprage6eaztantl weatwalls oriynal builJing al,tl,n)ragea[eaEantl weEwalls 3 atld6lon A3 63 3 G3 AD 1D 16 04 16 JO� s 300 to bM peh enh,-th emrsru 3 py aEEitun otreptlirysevnrt lmtls alY a10 3 G3 < r r r r r AO r.0 r.6 OA 1.6 r00 6 in lane Luar x fiearwa. 1r 3 G3 < AO 20 16 OA 16 r00 Oragronnettlen atropltoeastaMwest M1urweltr all panel.....dunblouMtllon 8 prelkmw 31 Ar 3 G3 < AD 1D 16 OA 16--tialreuee[Oon arY af0 3 03 < 3 3 ] 3 ] AO 3.0 ].6 OA ].6 RO gyllryHdea: Ouerallsmu rpA Log $ee General NORs anE LegmE D33mre 110 S 3mre OD PSI 5-06 Appendix H 80 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.60neraeons Control Center Seismic HaraM Level BSE ZE Wn WeU m,Qs L. authe OfP/m OWm L. primary 'Alle Areq iXmnr[ seerstory ext.s.ltler Manoial Pre .—rime. is Iw nt "Illmry naenaaa. Wm m,lForld,,g) tantl weatwalls bri —,—g,e N/P all amhoraee a[eaE antl weE wa Its 3 atltlltlon 65 N/4 5 GS AD 1D 16 OA 16 00 300 ere bM psm et h,-therms— g upyadrm—I rrs iecre—loa4 arY r/A 5 Gg r r r r r AO r.0 r.6 OA 1.6 04 r00 6 In^lane moc,x fiearwa. 1r ryM 5 GS AO ]0 16 OA 16 DO 300 Dmg mnntttlonatroptbeasxwwesl s=—IN N/A allpand Dori wase'torouMAlon 8 prelkdw Ar X/A 5 GS AD 1D 16 OA 16 00 211 respontt b tllRerenrial seXkment 9 Eueblreueb[Ilon arY N/A 3 05 0 3 3 ] 3 ] AO 3.0 ].6 OA 1.6 0Y AO RO Fa1llryHdea: Overall Smr. rDA Log $ee General NORs anE LegmE 2.0 MSmre 110 S mre DD PSI 5-06 Appendix H 81 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.7 MV Serves EeMer Seismic xzam Level esE 1E WSF WeU and 45 k public cm. OWm LaSf L. primary publk Ak<y Mmnt seguhlory scakebolser fnan<ial I ammla. u uo sw,em m ugmamry saanoae. Wallan<M1orageto roll m lantlwutl Walllan<M1oragebrteSaltM1e nmtM1antlsoNM1 wal4ha owbdlaph,orlley MNdlapMapm Near 5 ral home wlumns r1Y a11.0 5 G5 1 4 a 3 3 ] 3.0 a.0 3.3 "1 3A OY 300 btllflerenfial sellkment tlue loulreuelxll n i lw Nc a: 0 Owra1111— Log See General 14leO antl legmtl ills onnv servve Cenlerwill rewlun power bss w primaryl—t—am semntlary treatmentwnkn—be panmrymmgetm wnn sramby power(eol[.CenGm Wlll likely beoutof m¢e,xe 5vunureiap o15 x. PSI 5-06 Appendix H 82 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2-7 121kV Service Center Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E LOSF COSF Weighted COSF Life Primary Public DCR/m DCR/m LoSF PFM Primary Public Safety Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts COSF ROSF PFM Description LS (10) Score(3) Typen' Life Safety Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 37.5% 80.0% 0.0% Score Score Wall anchorage to roof at north and south 1 walls >1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0 Wall anchorage forces at the north and south 3 walls have no sub-diaphragm or ties >1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0 4 Roof diaphragm shear 2.3 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0 5 iShear at frame columns >1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0 Structure response to differential settlement 7 due to liquefaction I >1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 12.0 Facility Notes: Overall Score 20.0 1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend GS Score 20.0 Loss of 12kv Service Center will result in power loss to primary treatment and secondary treatment which can be partially mitigated with standby power(Note:CenGen will likely be out of service,see Structure 2-17) DS Score 12.0 LS Scare 0.0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 83 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 28 Power Building B Seismic Mead Level BSE 1E b5i WeU.GSf L. Yubh, OCN/m OWm ,iF: Yublio "ems iXmnl[ Reeuune, fraFeM1altler n..:d 04 xrXglen M1S 110 ,4M Pmlala M1 Near aailiryNE 0 OmallSmre ues xe ae�e,al nmea aye Fegena 0.0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 84 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 28 Power Building B Seismic Mead Level BSE ZE b5i WeU.GSf L.Fl,andd sePubh, OCN/m OWm ,iF: Yublio "ems iXmnl[ Reeuune, fraFeM1altler n..:d xrXglen M1S mu P4M Bmlala M1 SM1ear N/P 0 aailiryNE OmallSmre ues xe ae�e,el nmee eye Fegena 1100 1— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 85 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 1.9 Power Building Seismic Mead Level BSE 1E Wu WeU IN GS e, publy must. 00Vm LaSf L. In, publk Aleq Mmnt Reµscorr, eakenalser fnanual Im acipde. Ls Iw sw,e'° .. mum St,WhWe, law r.ul,ewumm 6 n plane vall eh....t h...wan, Lc IS s 45 x v v za va oe oA a.e oo xo loa neuu-...epntllan imm atlpanl oove intl.,denl Wme wall ful—i,11,Cu wall,tlue to 9 tlMereMlal mmemm ,IA a10 3 m 20 10 Ob OA OB 00 so L—rals,sc tlue x,li ucfslnn .In naM¢ 0-11 10.0 Lp9 Re General Ndes antl Legentl clS re 100 DSSwre 60 LSSwre 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 86 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 2.9 Power Building Seismic Mead Level BSE ZE Wu WeU IN GS L. publy OU/m OOVm LaSf L. In, publk Aleq Mmnt Reµst, eakenalser fnanual Im acipde. us, s Iw sw,s' .. mum St,WhWe. le�A low,olsmvwumm /n 6 n plane vall eh....t h...wan, Ls x/A s c, x v v za va oe oA O.e oo xo loa neuu-...epntllon imm atlpanl mtlependenl Wme wall X/P oo ve ful—i,11,CMu wall,tlue to 9 tlMereMlal mmemm ,IA X/R 3 OSI I I 1 1 20 10 Ob OA OB 00 60 L—r.1 ,sc tlue x,li ucfslnn 110 X/P .In Nma: p 0-11Sw,e 10.0 Lp9 Re General xdes antl Legentl clS rrr 100 Dsswre 60 LSSw,e 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 87 Risk Ranking Analysis snuRum 2.10 Power Building B Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E Wn WeU m,QS l pu", OU/m Dwm -11 tila puma Akq m. scumdary fraMeM1aWer nnanrial Im xaXglen 145 110 Smrem m Fl-nd., sense Sex ugulamry x ele.,u at Ne SwrtM1Ltle Mme tlUM1moof JiepMaSmgm 5 mafglane M1amm�olbentling a10 >10 GS 20 ]A OB 04 ng 00 l0 din rc, Sss PSI 5-06 Appendix H 88 Risk Ranking Analysis snuRum 2.10 Power Building B Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE Wn WeU m,QS k most. Dwm -11 eila puma Akq m. scumde, ex".".Wer nnamial Im xaXglen M1S 110 SmreuTw tm m "ulamry xFl-nd., sense Sex ele.,u.SmM1 at NeswrtM1Ltle Mtge tl',n JiepMagm N/P 5 mafglane M1amm�olbentling a10 N/4 GS 20 ]A n8 n4 ng n0 l0 Fsd7W N— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 89 Risk Ranking Analysis Strucl—311 City Water pump Station Seismic Ha and Level BSE 1E Wu WeU Lea css ik met. Duct. L11 Lila Public Akry iXmn[ Reau ce, fraMeM1. fnam m ImWUa arrime. LS lw Sw,el° eL ubuhmry xeanolae. wal..a,om e.�.onx a�aOWmla m.or.pb.e xoemmalba_ pme,e,mel,ememem ayem s,"art— raft`Hma: .araas,om ttos Irs—linore—e Lld rs=: ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 90 Risk Ranking Analysis Strucl—311 City Water Pump Station Seismic Ha and Level BSE ZE Wu WeU rea css k OU/m Duct. LaSf L. public ." Tas—, summary fraMeM1aWer fnanual ImWUa arxglan L5 1m Sw,e�a er utul.mry Aeanolae. wal.aa,om e.�aonb aae Wau a'aua rv/a m.ar.Pb.enamaambeaalab rv/+ Pme,e,mel,ememem eae m s,"am°" rv/a r,aitr Hawa: amaa s,a,a ttos Irs—lirvom.aaatagam rs sm,e ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 91 Risk Ranking Analysis StruRure 2di 12W Distribution Center B Seismic Havrd Level BSE lE WSF WeU and Ga k OfP/m OOVm eik vtlmary Yublk Akq '"molt exmeary scaMeM1altler Manoial Im vrm .mwla. is Iw wmm m veg�lamry saanatle. sm.11 ercap —n tllX e.ftll lemement puefanlan wofglaneshear on Ne Eer walla tluem Gi uelletl e,I wntllbwu Fairy XeAa: —sel,- 1109 Re General No&s anE 4egmE fSSwre 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 92 Risk Ranking Analysis StruRure 3di 12W Distribution Center B Seismic Havrd Level BSE ZE WSF WeU and Ga k OfP/m OOVm eik vtlmary Yublk Akq '"molt exmeary scaMeM1altler Manoial Im vrm .mwla. is Iw wmm m veg�lamry saanatle. sm.11 ercap —n tllX e.ftll lemement puefanlan 110N/P wofglaneshear on Ne ber walla tluem Gi uelletl e,I wntllbwu 12 N/P Fairy XeAa: —sel,- 1109 Re General No&s anE 4egmE fSSwre 60 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 93 Risk Ranking Analysis snueure 2.1312W Distribution Center B Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E b5i WeU aaa Css L.ce,s Yublia OU/m OOVm aik Yublk Akq iXmnl[ Realise, sxi,. laer Manoial Im xaXglen l5 110 Sm em m ugulamn x oilx..anial:em:mpam a�.iorwuaaa�o� a .vA .10 a x v zo vo oe oa ae oo eo nxamx: 10 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 94 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2d312W Distribution Center B Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE b5i WeU xaa Css L. Yublia OU/m OOVm L. 'Alk ." iXmnl[ Reauscoq scak0older nnamial Im nX 2 g Ip m Pe{ulamry A oixaranial:ememaam aye io rwuaea�o� a .vn x/n a e v zo vo oe oa oe oo eo nxamx: PSI 5-06 Appendix H 95 Risk Ranking Analysis Shuclure 216 Head arks Power Building Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E bgi WeU reicss k Yublla OU/m OOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna ampala. as Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae. cauw. » po��ai aulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl 5 duewlpuefese, "a >10 < as I2D 1D Dg a4 Og 00 84 a MyN— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 96 Risk Ranking Analysis Shuclure 214 Head arks Power Building Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSi WeU reicss k Yublla DU/m DOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna ampala. as Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae. cauw. » po��ai rv/4 aulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl 5 duewlpuefese, "a I WA < DS 2e 1D DS 04 c, DA :LL x a MyN— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 97 Risk Ranking Analysis snuclum z.ss Head arks Power Building Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E WSF WeU reicss k Yubllr DU/m DOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanrial Im"m ampala. u Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae. seld, » po��ai aulltl Ing respwu to tllMrcMbl u¢lemml 5 duewlpuefese, "a >10 < as I2D 1D e. 04 Og DO BD a MyNgea: PSI 5-06 Appendix H 98 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 3d5 Head arks Power Building Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSi WeU reicss k Fublla DU/m DOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna amala. u Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae. cauw. » po��ai rv/4 aelleing respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl 5 duewlpuefese, "a I WA < DS 2e 1D DS 04 c, ILL BD FrllryN— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 99 Risk Ranking Analysis StruRure 5.16 Heml orks Standby Power Building Seismic HavM Level BSE lE WSF WeU mN 4F k publla OU/m DOVm LaSf Le, publk Akry iXmnr[ Reguhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna arxglan L5 IID Swre�u er ugul.mry U=anaxe. wua. » po�ldl lulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl 5 duewlpuefanlon "e >10 < OS 2D 1D Dg 04 Og ILL BD FrllryN— PSI 5-06 Appendix H 100 Risk Ranking Analysis StruRure 5.16 Heml orks Standby Power Building Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSi WeU mN QS k publla OU/m DOVm LaSf Le, publk Akry iXmnr[ Reguhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna arxglan L5 IID Swre�u el uguhmry Aaanaxe. wua. » po�ldl rv/4 lulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl 5 duemlpuefanlan "e I N/4 < DS 2D 1D DS 04 c, ILL BD lityN— Log Notused PSI 5-06 Appendix H 101 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 2.17 Central power Generation Building Seismic Havrd Level BSE 1E Wn WeU m,l Caa Les Yua OCg/m OOVm L. Vnmary Yublk Akq iXmnr[ normseary fraMeM1altler Manual Ira amalan Is Ilo sm." m gagmamry saanatle. uantlnuoussFearwallsalw.ggrN line. —ca, e Wall an n—ea a........a ntl ua.walls egla Sig g GS s I I IgI 30 10 a. OA 6a 00 l00 teN mellanee at..111a4s Matln ane o.arm sbeer walh.claarwalkm s IM1e_t4 ttllreNm OB ]3 3 fS 3 1 1 ] g 1 3.0 1.0 ce OA 4.0 0Y 10 80 c saaf daphrom e rbaneler T7 ) g a, 3 1 1 1 g 1 30 10 a OA 4a 00 2 00 flwfdl b s r .1,..a a 0-11s re Log See General Nores antl lagentl cl Smre asswre u scare o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 102 Risk Ranking Analysis Struclure 2.17 Central power Generation Building Seismic Havrd Level BSE ZE WSi weU mo Ga Les Pua a.,. OWm L. "Ma" Public Akq Toram, seeuhlary fraM.t.,ro Manaial amwmn Ls Iw m geLmamry saanatla. uantlnwusaFear wallsalw.ggrN llnea Wallan..t.,aa........a ntl ua.walla tA5 N/4 g GS s g 30 10 a. OA 60 00 l00 ri—alrc at EL it lot.bra0n X/< I plateo orm 6—walk.abearwal4m 5 M1e eas4vres[dreNm t3 am 3 Gg 3 1 L ] 5 t 3.0 10 ce OA 4.0 OY s0 80 c flwltl M1 SMmbaneler 18 XM g GS 3 g 30 10 a OA 4a 00 lrc w flltlla M1 SM1ear X/P200 ixllh Nma: a 0—lis"re Log Re General Noes antl Legentl GS 5mre DSSwre Ls xore GG PSI 5-06 Appendix H 103 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 1.18 Aeration Basins A-H Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E Lon WeU tram Card- L. Inereary Yulan, owes own I,oF Intel L. pamary Yubk Akq in am, andarturs, ant.h.Wer he...i.' Ind com. e. Ls (m sm,am snag * nt oa srome ....... amsat . .m reemm k. m"re an.m.rmentel .m..a wan nnure a se to marometo referenda, ..oa .mior naan told irc xax .he ne.0 p.m .,der —Ix Nnn the ."lots ahem,I mmm me toalxer.mla, s ttMerrem 21 zl s as s s s e0 I i0 oe ao 00 zoo mention n rop nth mrar me w differential mention i.,hm leAl,dine•aua rise to deferment ordered recra:ly N oa se, e,ai NIe.d LeanedWrmab,W m an eain, ma rerun Infl a I.,ofsmortremant paaq s and l trm ursmmeeeswr,requom emmor moret om han s nn EM PSI 5-06 Appendix H 104 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 3.18 Aeration Basins A-H Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE Wo W,le rea Can- L. ,ubb, Doer OWm bye Pme L. Inery Print Akq ialam, Reauhlary ase..... ...on, ar, con Mon ani Glen Os B. m ons. ry ...I.er new.c.1 w,Imeame au,m r,...ae dMraal,l ,<me area.,bra.alma I.a m,e, S aname 1.n1.1d umn cerlmele-l4 XA IOs sI s I s I 30 30 a oA a0 JOB4 ao Ouralplan.......e.pwua.alflttemnl /P mab mW,aue m dReremoll smemenrme 10 X/P 4 OS 3 s s 30 10 4n OA 40 so .,basin alvtllrg walls auem0 aleroarmllal xmemem 1A mA 4 OS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 A0 OA 4.0nn ,clasa .. L. set r.r—ll H.Rs ana 1,1 l...WPararu.&i.a.mme re..nl.1m.W.a,..aamrearmemupaurv,.anwree.men repulamrvre..IremeMsl.rm.rcma.6 m.mn.. PSI 5-06 Appendix H 105 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 9.19 Gas Holder Seismic Havrd Level BSE 1E WSF WeU and Gs L. Yublie OU/m OWmtt primary Public Akq ira—, exaulary fraMeM1aWer ManoialPreamalar, Ls (m ....bade. uefaabr mi b,ri U,I,m o�acess due., 04 re ally.fealom meuatl lalmlewead and son om, saalnxda: a ouenuseu,e Log See General Ndes antl Leeentl Potential Lek ofdq,,t,,gaafm,Lmken plplre or csfle wnbirI—th,—ft,In regW—ry rating of3 pss Lsswre o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 106 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 9.19 Gas Holder Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSF WeU ma Gal- L. public bU/m OWm Lasf 1. L. primary publk Afeq iXmnl[ sceecoq fraMeM1aWer Manoial Im amala:, s (m) swaw afnv * ....... uelam, we b,ri hilurelovnxcess Eue a llyfealom md,a emralawead-d ,ftl—, N/A paalnxda: b ouerausuum Log See General Ndes antl Legentl pmemul Leakage ofaigeaaer grs sm,Lmken plpmg—ceflc w i Imomb—ft,In regWcn,rating of3 o15 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 107 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2d05econdar,Omifiem AA Seismic Hatand Level BSE 1E b, WeU mdQs L. pu", OU/m OWm LaSf Lne primary publk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1aWer Manoial Im xrXglen L5 p0 Smre�u m Pegulamry A paraYm aaussnex W Xfon Itinb due To v elreunnaum<m<mx »o .v.a a os s v s s I 1 1 vo 1 vo 1 ao oa ao 0o 40 no aeuryeaux: muxou un x<e<n<mi xoux ane v�m,e lueadsnnnde,Cbr,flers mule rcsunln lms Weemndammsm,m uipmyana more m men mg,hWry mpuir—e lb,—the,b mumne. ns5mre 110 u smu o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 108 Risk Ranking Analysis SWUMM 3-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L Selsmlc Hadard Level BSE 3E msF w.lpw lHe nue" Nall[ OCNm OCNm LOSF MM LXe Mmary puall[ Sahry iMnt ReWIaWry SUXeMtla iWrclal ImpaN Oesvlpllon Smrew R a.. SYFeaoltler F dial tW.4% IWL% aRA% 3).5% aRA% Smre Smre Separatlana[mssaWnslon lolnts dueto -—ld4alse --ma 1 110 1 N/A an Face"Hotel: ..[all Sm[ a.a ]b9 See General XoeeSantl Leaentl GS Soore OA Loss ofSemntlary Came,could result In loss Msemntlarytreatment apatite andfullure to meet made may rryulremmms for more than 6 memns. US Some 80 is Sore o.o PSI 5-06 Appendix H 109 Risk Ranking Analysis snuRum 2.21 DA17A Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E b5i WeU ratl Ga L. OU/m OOVm xik Public Akq ..0, Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manrial Im xaXglen s 110 Sm ern m ugulamry x responupmtllRe�enlial iHlkment 3 eblqueb[Ilon alY af0 5 OS 3 1 3 3 30 ]0 3< OA 16 Oro 10 15.0 aelllry Herne PSI 5-06 Appendix H 110 Risk Ranking Analysis snuRurc 2.21 DA17A Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE b6i WeU ratl Ga L. OU/m OWm Le, Publk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manrial xaXglen M16 110 Sm em m ugulamry tt e�otliRemnlial iHlkment 3 lolpue(aellon r10 N/P 5 OS 3 1 3 3 30 ]0 3< OA 16 00 15.0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 111 Risk Ranking Analysis SOruccure 2R2 OAff o Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E Wen Wei aN Can - I. lammany Pub, OU/m low. Last Plan I. primary public Akry ..I, fteddury sol.... ...So., Ibre.- aaxgmn Ls Iw sevr.r° m ugmamry sae ned., �.mon mm nano..a oa m r.,.om.ao s dMeremlal seMemem 1] 33 5 Os 3 1 I 1 ] 1.. ]0 3a OA 0.8 OA I,I meom mm omoryian.mean,In.to <memam Hoban e,bn In wall Intl slab EUYo ] JMermalalaeNemem 21 Is 1 Os 3 3 Ia 10 20 OA c1 00 11 'so Frlle/Xgn: voa seeaeo—1 Xom,eonseae"e mswr. 110 mr. o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 112 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 3R0 OAPf o Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE WSF WeU ma 4a L. eubll. OU/m OOVM b5f L. 9mnery 9ublk sa" Merv[ Reauhloq scakeM1aWer flnanuaI ImWela a.xglon is Ilo xo,el° m ue mry saenaae. �amo. me lama doe mra:poma to s da mmlal ssW—m 1.7 x's s Os 3 v l v 1 l0 10 2.4 oA ce 00 Is.O eonommmomorylaneexea,anelo ameremlc—i, 11 rvin .a,ga.ml.bamao aahrtMlalssMemeM 3.9 N/R 5 OS 3 1 3 1 ] 30 ]0 3A OA 0.8 OA 150 [AOM/nng[e......ntlreaome Mruel rang x/A sxllh Nma: p Omall3ure ]5.0 Lo9 Re General Noles and legend Gssmre I50 Os swre 15.0 usmre o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 113 Risk Ranking Analysis Stmoture 3-33 Sl Tower Bl Sel3n1Ie Hadal Ideal BSE lE Lan Gail ryided.1 Yk mary PUEYe D@/m DCNm b5F RM ph I., Pohl[ Seery Thmnet!t Impart Cdn' dal PFMRurWkn See ireemerR Randall Seeker.Her F neial J... J... 0U% Seem Sears Permanent tlbplaeemMs dre bllquelaetlon S Inured leeral spread and sellemenls »0 a10 3 l5 I 5 5 1 E 1 E.0 5.0Inchen30 read surface PGD=6i-males >10 >10 5 6 3 5 5 1 3.0 5.0 0.0 g0 350 FvuIIry ea DY GS er5eme S leo9 See General Naresantl 4 G1 gend S 00 n1Ssd. LSYwa 35A PSI 5-06 Appendix H 114 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2-23 Surge Tower#1 Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E LoSF CoSF Weighted CoSF Life Primary Public DCR/m DCR/m LaSF PFM Primary Public Safety Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts COSF Ro5F PFM Description (LS) (10) Scorelal Typelcl Life Safety Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 37.5% 80.0% 0.0% Score Score Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral 10 spread(surface PGD=64-inches) >3.0 N/A 5 LS 2 5 5 1 2 1 2.0 1 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 1 5.0 25.0 Facility Notes: Overall Score 25.0 1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend GS Score 0.0 DS Score 0.0 LS Score 25.0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 115 Risk Ranking Analysis ShuRure 2d45ur[e Towern Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E b6i WeU ratl Ga k Yublia 'CA OWm bfl me vnmary vublk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1aWer Manoial Im amala. lu BD sa,em xaanatle. ve,manem ei:pla«meme tl11.1.1 u: Ion 6 ntluatllalmispwtlantlseNmmas a1D a10 3 IS 5 20 50 lD 04 16 00 50 ] u lry sSss PSI 5-06 Appendix H 116 Risk Ranking Analysis ShuRure 2.245uge Tower X2 Seismic HavM Level BSE 2E b5f WeU retl GSf L. OCN/m OWm b5f LNe primary public Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraFeM1altler Mantial ImWxaa nXglen ry5 p0 Smre�° m Peeulamry H Na IFM Pountl 0 N/P ixllry Notea: 0 Omallsrore 00 nos xe eeoeoinaex aoa Fe¢eoa vs sere oo wsmre o0 usmre o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 117 Risk Ranking Analysis StruRure 2.26 Truck L sling Seismic Haard Level BSE 1E b5i WeU.GSf k OCN/m O(P/m eiF: Publix Akry iXmn[ scemeary fraFeM1.le er fnantial ImWha xrXpkn M1S Iml Sm emis Fls,an,lm Na PrM Pountl 0 N/P ixllry Notea: 0 Omallsrore 00 nos xe eeoeoinaex aoa Fe¢eoa vs say. oo wsmre o0 usmre o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 118 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2d6 Truck ding Seismic Harand Level BSE ZE b5i WeU.GSf L. OCN/m OWm aik Public Akry iXmnl[ Reauhlary rto a.ltler Mantial ImWUa xrXpkn M1S Irel Na PrM Pountl 0 X/P i 11c, 1 Notes: 0 c Omallsrore 00 nos xe eeoeoinaex aoa te¢eoa vs say. oo osswre o0 uswre o0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 119 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.27 Maintenance Building Seismic HavM Leuel BSE 1E WSF WeU[NGa Las eu oU/m OWm L. Vmnary Ass Akq Mmnl[ a. bG[ M{uata fraMeM1aWer Mantial I, amme, lu Iw v m ewlamry al e enc .. m�sla.lal nea 11 moment Dame N/P n«u al/aul Ores In moment name eeame 3 6l N/A 5 GS 5I I I I I SD I Dg OA Og 00 50 i50 [IaEEing lmeMmwlNmwnene X/P Moment bane eeamalumn co mete. 5 X/R 5 GS 5 SD I Dg OA Og 00 50 25D DIHa ant at atttlemem due to nauera[Ilon sea g urc C M In.A ares, al,...e6 "I X/A a DS 5 SD LD Dg OA Og 00 50 l00 lea east, exalts So,, De Soo III Em PSI 5-06 Appendix H 120 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.27 Maintenance euilding Seismic HavrE Level BSE 2E Wan WeU[NGa L. Can' OU/m Dewed 'all died ri, all Yublk Aleq Mmnl[ M{uhlay stabM1aWer Fi l I, amXama is Iw w.m nt seal mWen ae. a. .a.11e.lel amen,m moment rmme N/A n«ual/aul.—In moment mama eaama 3 N/R SOl 5 GS s I I I I I SD I D6 CIA g 00 50 i50 Pradent Wall Cladding lTeMmwlNw mnene X/P Mment o l.me bee-1— mend.5 N/A 36 5 GS s SD I D6 OA Og 00 50 i5D Dnuard e al Wall due nD nauea lon Faces" ure a D.cea coo..ae was aeon X/n elo a as s se ID oe oA 08 on sD zoo ln Xa.eOWl PSI 5-06 Appendix H 121 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.28 Boiler Bpdain, Seismic HavrE Level BSE 1E b5i WeU nil GSf L. OU/m OOVm riF: 'Ali, Alery ..m, Reauhlary fraFeM1altler .meal ImWPU xrXglen M1S Iml Sm em P4M AM ilia M1 SM1ear N/P N aailim Notes: .—s srom uva xe 0e�e,ei nmee eye Fe¢eotl es srar. 11 w swre 0,0 u scare 0,0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 122 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.28 Boiler Bpdain, Seismic HavrE Level BSE 2E b5i WeU nil GSf L. OU/m OWm L. 'Ali, Alery Mmnl[ Reauhlary fraFeM1altler Mae,.1 ImWUa xeXglen M1S Iml ,4M Bahia M1 SM1ear x/P aailiryNotea: 0 Omallsrore uva xe 0e�emi nmea aye Fe¢eoa Gssm,. osswre 0,0 Fsswle 0,0 PSI 5-06 Appendix H 123 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.29 Ornan ODUall Booster Pump Station Seismic HanarE Level BSE 1E Wn WeU retics L. Puth, OU/m Dw. L. animusAlk ." Mmnl[ scomeary sto.s.ltler fn..ial Imcon MAI o¢¢acme. l5 Iw Sm em ¢g at Xnlamry StaeFWe. Wallan¢ForaBealFermllevel at NeroM l a nallanuM1orageatlM1e rtW leM a[tlmeast .antl inlenorwall ntl llneG 1D5 150 5 GS 5 5 I 5 I20 5.0 ea OA A0 00 5 0 M 15.0 nitllapM Near 8 Unertn Ouo antu llR atY NO < Ls 3 5 5 ] 5 ] 3.0 5.0 AO OA 4.0 0Y 50 300 11.Fa Hem: Overall srort 15.0 Log Y¢G¢nenl Xem antl Legmtl msmre o0 m e zoo PSI 5-06 Appendix H 124 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 2.29 Ornan ODUall Booster Pump Station Seismic HanarE Level BSE ZE Wn WeU ntics L. Yuth, OC8/m OWm L. ptlmarytYublk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manoial Im con MAI natme. l5 Iw at u5nlamry St Wallan¢ForaBeaolFermlleuN at NeroM l a nallanaborageatlM1e rtW leM a[tlmeast .antl imenorwall Xtl IIneG 15.B NM 5 GS 5 5 2a 50 ea OA A0 00 50MnitllapM Near X/<8 Unertn buo antu llR aBtY N/R < Ls 3 5 5 ] 3.0 5.0 AO OA 4.0 0Y 50 300 11.Fa Hem: Overall srort 15.0 Log Y¢G¢nenl Xem anE LegmE msmre o0 mm zoo PSI 5-06 Appendix H 125 Risk Ranking Analysis StruRure 3d0 12W Distribution Center Seismic Haard Level BSE lE WSF W,W red Cea L. PutOfP/m OOVm Ismst Aq k iXmnr[ sceecary fraMeM1aWer flnantial Im .mamn 1s SIG s[omr" ., ugm,mry a,aneme. W all an[M1orage m mM at nmll ana mutl 3 wnal re nm d-1.E-W ulsmlc a03Y ele 3 Gg 1 1 1 30 ]c OB OA ce 00 30 < ralhamemlumna 1g 2A 1 GS I I I I I I 0 10 OB OA Oe 00 20 le, SVu[rurc-1—b alRaemO ll sAhment eoemlrioera , om.urylme mem un ue eu.mlla aue m ,d,,a a al wnmdwu r,aigr How,: .ma 1—vos see s—.1l nom.a ye wgene G Gs Score 2Ga PSI 5-06 Appendix H 126 Risk Ranking Analysis Structure 3d0 12W Dist ibution Ce rA Sel mic HavM Level BSE ZE WSF WeU Ua Ga L. Primary public Oq/m nq/m b5r1. pEmary hblk Sale[V aqulMary SU4eboNer Xrwntlal Im PFM rrtXpbn H(ery i rat gagulam ,4 hb ,r �11amh,mg,m oof et nonh enb awb 1 alk 3 1 1 1 ] 3.0 ]o OB OA 0.8 OA 30 4,0 3 pnah nsetluebEWttliml[ atA X/R GS 20 ].0 08 0A OB 0A l0 $bearal M1ame.1"ns X/< m alMer....I smkment 5 tlue roulreuetatri n alA N/R 3 05 3 ] 1 1 ] 3.0 I.o OB 0A 0.8 OA 30 60 r-of9—Shearon Me buretl mlh due nomm ealwmlbw rv/+ 20 =[IlitlNda: omansure m.o l ro9 Re General Nores antl Le d GS Scare 100 MSwre 60 Lsxore ao PSI 5-06 Appendix H 127