Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the South Peel Water ......Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the...

Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the South Peel Water Supply Project

Canadian Society of Value Analysis

Region of Peel: Water Distribution Risk Assessment

October 2012

Aman Singh, M.Eng, P.Eng, PMP


Overview

1. Project Objectives

2. Value Proposition

3. Project Approach Methodology

4. Asset – Risk Management

Project Objectives


Project Objectives

• Identification of high risk

pipes

• Mapping risk to business

planning process


Vision Statement:

To develop a risk framework and mitigation plans to support informed decision making with respect to the Region’s asset management and business planning programs.


Vision Statement:

To develop a risk framework andmitigation plans to support informed decision making with respect to the Region’s asset management and business planning programs.

Value Proposition


Business Planning Processes


Risk Informed Business Planning Processes

Levels of Service

Risk

Maintenance / Renewal /

Capital Programming


Levels of Service Planning


Levels of Service


Risk framework

•AWWA J100-10 Standard

Risk to level of service

objectives

• Water Demands

• Pressure

• Cost

Levels of Service - Risk


Levels of Service - Risk


Risk – Levels of Service – Maintenance Planning

• Aims to identify and optimise all potential solutions to a problem, potential problem (i.e., risk) or opportunity, with consideration of financial viability, and social and environmental responsibility

• Includes risk assessment and economic analysis– Benefit-cost analysis (BCA)– Multi-criteria analysis (MCA)– Comparison of net present value (NPV) and/or return on investment

(ROI) across a number of options

• Output is a pool of justified capital renewal project candidates, with their analytical results– Used as inputs to the Capital Programming process– Confidence in Renewal Planning outputs important


Risk – Levels of Service – Maintenance Planning


Risk – Levels of Service – Renewal Planning


Risk – Levels of Service – Capital Planning



Medium Term Planning aims to determine the optimal solution to a specific problem / risk or opportunity




Capital Programming aims to determine the best value program of capital projects for implementation over a defined period of time (e.g., 10 years) from a pool of candidate projects that have individually been evaluated and justified to meet corporate objectives within resource constraints




Capital Programming aims to determine the best value program of capital projects for implementation over a defined period of time (e.g., 10 years) from a pool of candidate projects that have individually been evaluated and justified to meet corporate objectives within resource constraints

Capital Program Delivery aims to implement the prioritised projects: from design, procurement, and construction to handover of the asset(s) to operations


Introduction – Pilot Results Maintenance strategies for the Pilot asset that focus on preservation of system function, with an optimized balance of proactive and reactive maintenance activities

Service standards and performance indicators for the Pilot asset that link to corporate goals and customer / stakeholder requirements

A pool of justified capital renewal project candidates for the Pilot asset, each of which was optimized through risk and benefit-cost analysis, considering the Triple Bottom Line

The best value 10-yr program of capital projects based on standardized Dept-wide processes that include formal risk assessment, economic evaluation, and a confidence level approach


Risk Informed Business Planning Processes

Levels of Service

Risk

Maintenance / Renewal /

Capital Programming


Connecting the Dots


Questions / Discussion


Project Approach : AWWA J100 – 10

Asset CharacterizationAsset Characterization

Threat CharacterizationThreat Characterization

Consequence AnalysisConsequence Analysis

Vulnerability AnalysisVulnerability Analysis

Threat AssessmentThreat Assessment

Risk AssessmentRisk Assessment

Risk ManagementRisk Management

Define level of service (LOS) objectivesDefine & characterize critical assets (size, flow rate, location,etc.)

Define level of service (LOS) objectivesDefine & characterize critical assets (size, flow rate, location,etc.)

Define risk scenarios that are a threat to LOS objectives (breaks, pressure, demand, time, etc.)Define risk scenarios that are a threat to LOS objectives (breaks, pressure, demand, time, etc.)

Define risk scenarios that are a threat to LOS objectives (breaks, pressure, demand, time, etc.)Carry out model simulations (2012 & 2031 Scenarios)

Define risk scenarios that are a threat to LOS objectives (breaks, pressure, demand, time, etc.)Carry out model simulations (2012 & 2031 Scenarios)

Define vulnerability category rankings (discount factor)Define / assign likelihood (judgement, historical data, etc.)Define vulnerability category rankings (discount factor)Define / assign likelihood (judgement, historical data, etc.)

Develop risk profile(s)Define risk categories and classificationsDevelop risk profile(s)Define risk categories and classifications

Develop Mitigation Plans & StrategiesMap to Corporate Asset Management & Planning

ProcessesResidual Risk

Develop Mitigation Plans & StrategiesMap to Corporate Asset Management & Planning

ProcessesResidual Risk


Threat Event

Threat Category One: Natural Disasters Likelihood Score

1.1

Seismic activity can increase stresses on a pipe and cause

pressure surges1

1.2

Flooding events with large debris, and other infrastructure can impact and damage existing pipes 2

1.3Severe storm activities including tornadoes, lightening, ice storms, etc., can lead to power outages and cause transient event(s) 2


Threat Event

Threat Category Two: Third Party Damage Likelihood Score

2.1

Installations of infrastructure / utilities above existing pipes

including traffic poles, hydro poles, traffic signs, manholes, etc.,

increases external pressure points on a pipe which may lead to

weak points

5

2.2Excavating too close to existing thrust blocks can increase the

vulnerability of a pipe to soil bearing pressures3

2.3

Installation of utilities (i.e. gas lines, hydro lines, watermain,

sewer, etc.) near existing pipes can increase the vulnerability of

impact from construction equipment

4

2.4Installation of communication lines near existing pipes can

increase the vulnerability of impact from construction equipment5


Threat Event

Threat Category Three: Proximity to Dangerous Site(s) Likelihood Score

3.1

Stray electrical currents including both AC and DC sources (originating from other

cathodic protection systems, substations, railways, gas lines, high voltage feeders,

grounding from high pressure gas mains to metallic watermains etc.) can cause

electrolytic corrosion

5

3.2

Corrosive soils can cause and / or increase the corrosion rate of a pipe

Pipe leakage can lead to the erosion of surrounding pipe bedding and therefore can

lead to an increase in the stresses acting on a pipe (Some soils are prone to large

volume changes in the presence of moisture, leading to an increased loading on a

pipe)

Some backfill materials are vulnerable to freezing. This could lead to a thermal

stress on the pipe.

3

3.3

Chemical contaminants, both organic and inorganic (hydrocarbons, landfill leachates,

etc.) can increase the vulnerability to corrosion (hydrogen imbrittlement of concrete

cases pipes) and deteriorate gaskets.

3


Threat Event

Threat Category Four: Pipe Break / Physical Likelihood Score

4.1 Temperature fluctuations can lead to increased thermal stresses

acting on a pipe (referring to water temperature fluctuations)

5

4.2 Galvanic corrosion (from dissimilar and adjacent metals)5


Threat Event

Threat Category Five: Design / Construction Likelihood Score

5.1Poor installation practices can damage pipe coatings, or cause

fractures leading to weak points on the pipe. (Cyclic stresses will

accelerate crack propagation and failure)

4

5.2

Defects in pipe walls caused by the manufacturer can increase

vulnerability to failure 3

5.3

Improper bedding may lead to increases loadings / stresses on a

pipe and eventual premature failure 4

5.4 Groundwater may be aggressive to certain pipe materials.5


Vulnerability AnalysisVulnerability Criteria Vulnerability

Weighting

All other pipes 0.1

0.25

0.50

Adjacent installation of any two of the following: Ductile Iron, Cast Iron, Welded Concrete Pressure Pipe, or Copper Service Connections.

0.75

Galvanic Corrosion (from dissimilar and adjacent pipes)

1.0


Vulnerability AnalysisVulnerability Criteria Vulnerability

Weighting

All other pipes 0.1 0

0.25

0.50

0.75

Excavating too close to existing thrust blocks can increase the vulnerability of a pipe to soil bearing pressures

Pipe is:

Ductile Iron pipe, 400mm – 600 mm in diameter and installed prior to 1997; or Cast Iron pipe, greater than 400 mm in diameter

1.0


Model•47,081 pipes•Hydraulic Analysis Results•Common Field – MOID

Segmentation •4,348 pipes•Segment Group Code•Common Field – HANSEN_COM

Model and Segmentation Linking


PIPE SEGMENTATIONSegment Feature

Highway CrossingWater Course CrossingRailway CrossingHigh Pressure / High VoltageEnvironmentally Sensitive AreaAirportHospitalHigh Density AreaRural AreaMedical Centre / Senior Care FacilitySchool


CONSEQUENCE – HIGHWAY CROSSING

Consequence Health and SafetyPressureService DemandReputationQuality of ServiceCost of RestorationFinancial Impact3rd Party Claims / Litigation / FinesRegulatoryPhysical Environment / Community

Score5

Model InputModel Input

4543522


OVERVIEW RISK SCORES


Vulnerability Scores: Summary

ID Vulnerability 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0

VT01 Seismic activity 90.34% - - 9.66% -VT02 Flooding events 91.12% - - 8.88% -VT03 Severe storm activities - 7.68% - 92.32% -VT04 Installations of infrastructure / utilities 55.77% - 44.23% - -VT05 Excavating too close to existing thrust blocks 54.74% - - - 45.26%VT06 Installation of a future utility - - 100.00% - -VT07 Installation of future communication lines - - 100.00% - -VT08 Stray electrical currents 98.67% - - - 1.33%VT09 Soil Composition 19.48% 1.47% 56.26% 20.26% 2.53%VT10 Chemical contaminants 99.84% - - - 0.16%VT11 Temperature fluctuations 87.21% 1.38% 0.11% - 11.29%VT12 Galvanic corrosion 90.94% - - 9.06% 0.00%VT13 Poor installation practices 31.00% 23.14% 10.26% 0.00% 35.60%VT14 Defects in pipe walls 22.29% 69.60% 6.83% 1.29% -VT15 Improper bedding 12.44% 76.63% 0.11% - 10.81%VT16 Groundwater - 28.43% 3.63% 6.00% 61.94%


Consequence Scores: Summary

ID Consequence Score Count Negligible(1)

Low(2)

Moderate (3)

Severe (4)

Catastrophic (5)

C01 School 492 88.68% 11.32% - - -

C02 Rural Road 926 78.70% 20.35% 0.94% - -

C03 High Density Living 91 97.91% - 2.09% - -

C04 Railway 129 97.03% 0.97% 2.00% - -

C05 Watercourse 520 88.04% 7.18% 4.78% - -

C06 Med Centre/LTC Facility 166 96.18% - 3.82% - -

C07 ESA/Wetland/SAR 1966 55.78% - 45.22% - -

C08 Airport 93 97.86% - 2.14% - -

C09 Hospital 16 99.63% - 0.37% - -

C10 High Pressure/High Voltage 127 97.08% - - 2.92% -

C11 Highway 882 79.71% - 10.67% 9.61% -


Risk Scores: Summary

Risk Score Risk Event 0 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 - 20

RS01 Seismic activity 100.0% - - -RS02 Flooding events 98.4% 1.6% - -RS03 Severe storm activities 33.0% 23.1% 43.8% -RS04 Installations of infrastructure / utilities 69.0% 31.0% - -RS05 Excavating too close to existing thrust blocks 66.4% 3.4% 29.8% 0.4%RS06 Installation of a future utility 36.4% 63.6% - -RS07 Installation of future communication lines 26.1% 73.9% - -RS08 Stray electrical currents 98.7% - 0.9% 0.4%RS09 Soil Composition 76.3% 23.1% 0.5% -RS10 Chemical contaminants 99.9% - 0.1% -RS11 Temperature fluctuations 88.6% 4.9% 4.7% 1.8%RS12 Galvanic corrosion 93.9% - 2.1% 4.0%RS13 Poor installation practices 68.2% 9.1% 22.0% 0.6%RS14 Defects in pipe walls 97.9% 2.1% - -RS15 Improper bedding 93.6% 1.2% 5.2% 0.0%RS16 Groundwater 32.0% 18.9% 32.0% 17.2%All Maximum Risk Score 8.7% 22.9% 50.3% 18.1%


Resilience Scores: Summary

ID Resilience Environment Resilience Metric

RES01 Seismic activity 5%RES02 Flooding events 20%RES03 Severe storm activities 75%RES04 Installations of infrastructure / utilities 30%RES05 Excavating too close to existing thrust blocks 29%RES06 Installation of a future utility 40%RES07 Installation of future communication lines 50%RES08 Stray electrical currents 10%RES09 Soil Composition 45%RES10 Chemical contaminants 8%RES11 Temperature fluctuations 37%RES12 Galvanic corrosion 45%RES13 Poor installation practices 48%RES14 Defects in pipe walls 30%RES15 Improper bedding 29%RES16 Groundwater 100%


Key Outcomes

Success Factors and Measures in Line with the Region’s Strategic Goals

Identification of existing adaptive strategies

Identification of new adaptive strategies

Integration of project outputs into infrastructure planning processes

Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the South Peel Water ......Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the...

Documents

Transcript of Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the South Peel Water ......Region of Peel Risk Assessment for the...