Integrated Capilital Improvement Provider...Rockwall PS 50.8 HSPS 2‐2 50.5 Casa View PS 50.5...

d i lIntegrated Capital Improvement Planning for a Large Regional Water Provider

PRESENTED BY: SCOTT COLE, P.E.

AWWA ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXPOSITIONJUNE 24, 2010

Acknowledgments

• Melissa Waltzer, P.E., Freese and Nichols

• Robert McCarthy North Texas Municipal Water District• Robert McCarthy, North Texas Municipal Water District

• Yanbo Li, P.E., North Texas Municipal Water District

NTMWD Pl i D t t• NTMWD Planning Department

• NTMWD Operations Department

• NTMWD Maintenance Department

• NTMWD Engineering Department

• NTMWD Executives

2

Agenda

• Overview of Transmission System

• Overview of Asset Management Components• Overview of Asset Management Components

• Capacity Analysis

C diti d C iti lit A l i• Condition and Criticality Analysis

• Integrated Capital Improvement Program

3

Overview of Transmission System

• Initially established in the 1950s

• Regional Wholesale Water Provider

• Serves approximately 1.6 million people

• Current treatment capacity of 770 MGD

il f• Over 323 miles of pipeline (12” to 96”)

80 d li i t• 80 delivery points

• 19 pump stations4

Agenda






5

Overview of Asset Management Components

Data Inventory & Management

Continuous Improvement

Process

What is ?

“A set of processes to minimize infrastructure

Capacity Analysis

Prioritized CIP

life cycle costs at an acceptable amount of risk, while delivering an

ConditionRisk

risk, while delivering an established level of service”

Condition Assessment

Criticality

Management

Assessment

6

Risk Based Assessment Planning Process

Review and Inventory of Various Data Sources

GIS SCADA W k O d D t St ff

Condition

GIS ‐ SCADA ‐Work Order Data – Staff Interviews – Maintenance Records

RISK BASED PRIORITIZED CAPITAL

O

Develop Prioritization

Scoring

Analysis

Criticality Analysis

Site Visits/Field

Investigations IMPROVEMENT PLANScoring Criteria

Investigations

Capacity Analysis

Water Model

7

Water Model Development

Risk Based Concept for Infrastructure Renewal Prioritization

Risk = ƒ (Criticality x Condition)ƒ ( y )

What is the Consequence of Asset Failure?

•Loss of service

What is the Likelihood of Asset Failure?•Asset age•Loss of service

•Redundancy•Difficulty of repair

•Asset age•Asset material•Performance of y p

•Damage to property•Public image

asset•Annual maintenance

tcosts

8

Agenda






9

Capacity Analysis

• Model Development

• Performed Model Calibration• Performed Model Calibration

• Developed Demand Projections through 2035

D l d C it l I t P• Developed Capital Improvement Program

10

Treatment Plant Expansions

11

Capacity Based Capital Improvement Program

Estimated CostEstimated CostWater Supply $1,765,355,300

Water Treatment $648,521,137

Distribution System $658,823,560Total $3,072,699,997

12

Agenda






13

Condition Analysis‐ Facility Site Visits• NTMWD Staff

– Planning– Operations– Engineering– Technical Services– Facilities Services

• FNI Staffl– Planning Engineer

– Pump Design Engineer – Electrical Engineer– Civil Engineer– Pipeline Design

EngineerEngineer

14

Condition Analysis‐ Facility Site Visits

15

Condition of Facilities

• Determine the total condition score for each asset and group into five general categories:g p g g

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCORING DEFINITION

Very Good Sound physical condition. Total Score < 45

GoodGood Acceptable physical condition. 45 ≤ Total Score < 50

Fair Normal wear and tear. 50 ≤ Total Score < 55

Poor F il lik l i h t t di t 55 ≤ T t l S ≤ 60Poor Failure likely in short to medium term. 55 ≤ Total Score ≤ 60Very Poor

Failed or near failure. Total Score > 60Major work or replacement required urgently.

16

Pump Station Condition Summary

Weighted ScoreWallace Street Booster PS 68.8Raw Water PS No. 2 60.8

ll

PUMP STATION PARAMETERS

Parameter Weight (%) Electrical‐MCC, Switch

Very Poor

Apollo PS No. 1 60.8McKinney No. 1 PS 57.8Hailey PS 54.3Shiloh PS No. 2 53.5Shiloh PS No 1 53 0

Electrical MCC, Switch Gear 15Alternate Power (dual power feed or back up generator) 10

Poor

Shiloh PS No. 1 53.0HSPS 1‐1‐ S. Garland 52.8HSPS 1‐1‐ Plano 52.5HSPS 1‐1‐ Allen 52.5Murphy Booster PS 51.3

Mechanical‐ HVAC 5

Mechanical‐ Piping 5

Mechanical‐ Valves 5

Fair

p yApollo PS No. 2 51.3Rockwall PS 50.8HSPS 2‐2 50.5Casa View PS 50.5

Mechanical‐Meters 5

Pumps 15

Motors 15Wylie Rockwall Farmersville PS 47.3HSPS 2‐3 46.5Rockwall No. 1 PS 43.8Forney PS 40.0HSPS 2 1 37 0

Structure‐Walls 5

Structure‐ Roof 5

Structure‐ Foundation 5

Good

VeryHSPS 2‐1 37.0Raw Water PS No. 1 28.8HSPS 3‐1 26.5Raw Water PS No. 3 24.5

Instrumentation 5

SCADA 5

Very Good

17

Criticality of Facilities Overall Criticality Score

HSPS 2‐1 100Plant 3 Clearwell No. 2 85HSPS 2‐3 85RawWater PS No 3 85

Very High Impact

ScorePopulation Served ≥ 200,000 100Population Served 100,000 – 199,999 70

Raw Water PS No. 3 85Apollo Pump Station 70HSPS 2‐2 70HSPS 3‐1 70Shiloh PS No. 2 70RawWater PS No. 2 70

Impact

High Impact

Population Served 25,000 – 99,999 40Population Served < 25,000 10

Raw Water PS No. 2 70Plant 2 Clearwell No. 1 70Plant 2 Clearwell No. 2 70Plant 1 Clearwell No. 1 55Plant 1 Clearwell No. 2 55Plant 3 Clearwell No. 1 55

p

Medium

CRITICALITY PARAMETERS

Parameter Weight (%)

HSPS 1‐1‐ Plano 55McKinney No. 1 PS 55Murphy Booster PS 55Shiloh PS No. 1 55Raw Water PS No. 1 40

ImpactPopulation Served 50

Redundancy 50

Plant 2 Clearwell No. 3 40Casa View PS/GSTs 25HSPS 1‐1‐ S. Garland 25Wylie Rockwall Farmersville PS 25Forney PS/GSTs 10

/

Low Impact

Redundancy Score≥75% of Capacity Lost 10050‐74% of Capacity Lost 70

Hailey PS/GSTs 10HSPS 1‐1‐ Allen 10Rockwall No. 1 PS/GST 10Rockwall PS/Clearwell 10Wallace Street Booster PS 10 18

25‐49% of Capacity Lost 40<25% of Capacity Lost 10

Risk Based Assessment Matrix for Facilities

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Casa ViewWallace Street

Condition

Low Impact

Raw Water PS No. 1

WRF PSHSPS 1‐1 S. Garland and

Allen

Casa View PS/GSTs,

Hailey PS/GSTs, Plant No. 2

Clearwell No 3

Booster PS, Rockwall No. 1 GST/PS, Forney

PS/GSTs, RockwallClearwell No. 3

PS/Clearwell

Medium Impact

Plant No. 1 Clearwell No. 1, Plant No. 3

Murphy Booster PS, HSPS 1‐1

Shiloh PS No. 1, McKinney No. 1

PS/GSTs, Plant No.icality

Clearwell No. 1 Plano 1 Clearwell No. 2

High Impact

HSPS 3‐1 HSPS 2‐2Shiloh PS No. 2, Plant No. 2

Clearwell No 1

Raw Water PS No. 2, Apollo PS/GST, Plant No. 2 Clearwell No.

Crit

Clearwell No. 12

Very High Impact

Raw Water PS No. 3, HSPS 2‐1,

Plant No. 3 HSPS 2‐3

Clearwell No. 2

SHORT TERM CRITICAL NEEDS 19

Condition Scoring & Parameter Weighting‐ Pipelines

PROPOSED CONDITION PARAMETERS & WEIGHTING SYSTEM Pipe Age (30%) Pipe Material (15%)

1950 ‐ 1959 = 100 Ductile Iron (DI) = 701960 – 1969 = 801970 1979 60

Pre‐stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe (PCCP) 701970 ‐ 1979 = 60 (PCCP) = 70

1980 ‐ 1989 = 40 Mortar Coated Steel (MCS) = 401990 ‐ 1999 = 202000 ‐ 2009 = 0

Bar‐wrapped Concrete Cylinder Pipe (BWCCP/RCCP) = 40( / )

Polyurethane Coated Steel (PCS) = 40

Maintenance History on Pipelines and Appurtenances (55%)B d R i / 1000 ftBased on Repairs/ 1000 ft0.65‐0.85 repairs = 1000.35‐0.65 repairs = 600.00‐0.35 repairs = 30p

No Repairs = 0

20

Maintenance History

Pipelines and Appurtenances

21

Condition of Pipelines

• Determine the total condition score for each asset and group total into five general categories:

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCORING DEFINITION

g p g g

Very Good Sound physical condition. Total Score < 10

dGood Acceptable physical condition. 10≤ Total Score < 20

Fair Normal wear and tear. 20 ≤ Total Score < 40

PPoor Failure likely in short to medium term. 40 ≤ Total Score < 70Very Poor

Failed or near failure. Total Score > 70Major work or replacement required urgently.

22

Condition of Pipelines

• Parameters Used:– Pipe Age p g

– Pipe Material

– Maintenance Hi t Pi liHistory on Pipelines

and Appurtenances

23

Criticality of Pipelines

• Parameters Used:– Population Served p

– Redundancy

– Accessibility

24

Risk Based Assessment Matrix for Pipelines

ConditionVery Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Low Impact74 segments (34 946 feet)

99 segments (96 023 feet)



16 segments (16 704 feet)(34,946 feet) (96,023 feet) (170,626 feet) (164,252 feet) (16,704 feet)

Medium Impact126 segments (60,628 feet)

128 segments (116,680 feet)

196 segments 142,346 feet)



265 segments 74 segments 101 segments 18 segments 1 segmenticality

High Impact265 segments (156,893 feet)




1 segment (2,208 feet)

Very High I t

165 segments (120 509 f t)

194 segments (260 145 f t)

145 segments (135 206 f t)

20 segments (29 811 f t)

3 segments (2 262 f t)

Crit

Impact (120,509 feet) (260,145 feet) (135,206 feet) (29,811 feet) (2,262 feet)

SHORT TERM CRITICAL NEEDS

25

Overall Water Line Score

• Combines criticality and ycondition analysis

26

Agenda






27

Integrated Capital Improvement Program • Identify overlapping projects in both growth and condition/criticality CIPs

28

Integrated Capital Improvement Program

Fiscal Year Cost2010 $968,1672010 $968,1672011 $9,306,6332012 $19,535,033

$2013 $17,051,1672014 $27,852,1332015 $19,583,5670 5 $ 9,583,562016 $23,245,000Total $117,541,700

29

Next Steps

• Expand risk based renewal assessment to treatment systemsystem

• Utilize CIP to determine impact on rates

• Update CIP with 2010 Census data• Update CIP with 2010 Census data

• Allocate CIP funding for major renewal projects

30

Questions?

Contact Information:

Scott Cole, [email protected](817)735 7255

Melissa Waltzer, [email protected](214) 217 2323(817)735‐7255

4055 International Plaza, Suite 200Fort Worth, TX 76109

(214) 217‐23231701 N. Market St., Suite 500

Dallas, Texas 75202

31

Integrated Capilital Improvement Provider...Rockwall PS 50.8 HSPS 2‐2 50.5 Casa View PS 50.5...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Capilital Improvement Provider...Rockwall PS 50.8 HSPS 2‐2 50.5 Casa View PS 50.5...