Orange County Sanitation District Asset Management Plan 2006

Transcription

1

2 Orange County Sanitation District Asset Management Plan 2006 Vision Statement to maintain world class leadership in wastewater and water resource management Asset Management Mission to plan, create, acquire, maintain, operate, rehabilitate, replace and dispose of assets in the most cost effective manner at the required level of service for present and future generations

3 OCSD Asset Management Program ( ) 2006) Continuous Improvement Implementation Asset Management Strategic Plan and Framework Analysis (2002) Mentoring & Training Pilot CIP Validation (2003) Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) (2004) CIP Validation P2 74 & P2 80 (2003) CIP Validation (All Projects) (2004) Overall Roadmap Asset Management Improvement Plan (AMIP) (2005) Asset Management Plan (2005) CIP Validation (All Projects) (2005) Mentoring & Training 2005/06 Projects AMIP (2005) Risk Management Plan (2006) Asset Management Plan (2006) Full CIP Validation (2006) BRE Collections and Plant (2006) AMIS Strategy (2006)

4 Acknowledgements This is the second Asset Management Plan for Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). This was completed by the combined efforts of many staff within the OCSD over 10 months. Several staff contributed by participating in a multitude of workshops, while others provided input on various sections through their normal roles in finance, engineering, operations, maintenance and others through activities related to OCSD s unifying strategies. This report was prepared under the direction of Kevin Hadden and reviewed and finalized under the auspices of the OCSD Asset Management Steering Committee. Asset Management Steering Committee Name Department Title Jim Herberg Operations and Maintenance Director (Co Executive Management Team Sponsor) Simon Watson Operations and Maintenance Maintenance Manager Mechanical Maintenance and Power Production Division Nick Arhontes Regional Assets and Services Director (Co Executive Management Team Sponsor) Mark Esquer Operations and Maintenance Engineering Manager Process Engineering Division Kevin Hadden Operations and Maintenance Utility Management Specialist (Asset Management Steering Committee Chairperson) Administration Division Doug Kanis Operations and Maintenance Engineer Process Engineering Division David Ludwin Engineering Director (Co Executive Management Team Sponsor) John Linder Engineering Engineering Manager Planning Division Jim Burror Engineering Supervisor Planning Division Ed Torres Technical Services Engineering Manager Environmental Compliance Division Rob Thompson Operations and Maintenance Process Controls Manager Process Control Integration Division John Swindler Information Technology IT Manager Edith Smith Finance Principal Financial Analyst Dan Dillon Finance Accounting Manager Ingrid Hellebrand Communications Senior Communications Specialist Rich Spencer Human Resources Human Resources Training Supervisor Jeff Reed Human Resources Human Resources Manager OCSD Specialist Inputs Name Department Title Bob Bell Operations and Maintenance Maintenance Supervisor (Computerized Maintenance Management System) Gerry Jones Operations and Maintenance Consultant GHD Mentoring Team Brenton Marshall Mathew Oakey Garauv Agarwal Sidharth Kaw Project Director Job Manager Management Consultant Management Consultant

5 Contents Executive Summary i 1. What is an Asset Management Plan and Why Did OCSD Create it? Introduction What is an Asset Management Plan? Why is an Asset Management Plan Needed? What Should an Asset Management Plan Consist of? What can be done with an Asset Management Plan? 6 2. OCSD Facilities and History OCSD History Capital Facilities Service Overview of Existing System 9 3. Levels of Service Current and Future Future Demand / Growth Asset Summaries & Total Cost of Ownership Introduction Asset Summary Plans Full Economic Cost of Infrastructure Service Delivery OCSD Asset Management Model Model Background The Asset Management Plan Model Model Structure Data Sources and Collection Asset Register (Inventory) Operations and Maintenance Costs Effective Lives Asset Valuation Operations and Maintenance Costs Predicted Failure Modes 73

6 6.11 Asset Criticality Business Risk Exposure State of the Assets Summary Asset Valuation State of the Assets Improvement Program Long Term Asset Obligations Asset Replacement and Refurbishment Model Long Term Cash Flow Model Long Term Rate Implications Long Term Sustainability Stakeholder Consultation Program Introduction Outline of Future Methodology Conclusions Asset Issues Funding Requirements Opportunities for Future Management Focus Key Implications Future Asset Management Plan Improvements Introduction Prior Confidence Level Ratings Planning Timeframe, Assets Types and Key Expenditure Areas Confidence Level Ratings Proposed Improvement Program Applying OCSD s Scarce Resources Effectively 108 Table Index Table 3 1 Organization Levels of Service 12 Table 4 1 Flow Projections Year Table 6 1 Count of Asset Items against Hierarchy Tier 71 Table Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values 75 Table Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values 75 Table 7 5 Collection System Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values 76

7 Table 7 7 Plants and Disposal Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values 77 Table 7 9 Business Risk Exposure (Structural Failure Mode) by Length (ft) 84 Table 7 10 Business Risk Exposure (Operational Failure Mode) by Length (ft) 85 Table 11 1 Confidence Level Rating Assessment of Asset Management Plan practices prior to the Asset Management Plan Table 11 3 Confidence Level Rating Asset Management Plan Table 11 5 Confidence Level Rating Asset Management Plan Table 11 7 Confidence Level Rating for Asset Management Plan Timeframe and System Assets 107 Table 11 9 Future Asset Management Plan Improvements 110 Table Data Sources for Asset Summaries 116 Table Figure Index Asset Management Plan Improvements incorporated into this Asset Management Plan 125 Figure 1 1 Typical Asset Management Plan Structure 5 Figure 2 1 Orange County Sanitation District Service Area 8 Figure 5 1 Asset Management Plan Hierarchy 22 Figure 5 2 Flow of Information through the Asset Summaries 24 Figure 5 3 Process Flow Plant 1 39 Figure 5 4 Process Flow Plant 2 57 Figure 5 5 Life Cycle Costs 62 Figure 5 6 The OCSD Balancing Act 63 Figure 6 1 OCSD Data Sources 70 Figure 6 2 OCSD Assets Overview 71 Figure 7 1 Collection System Valuation 76 Figure 7 2 Plants and Disposal Valuation 77 Figure 7 3 Collection Assets Consumption Distribution 78 Figure 7 4 Plant Asset Consumption Distribution 79 Figure 7 5 Probability of Failure (Structural Failure Mode) 80 Figure 7 6 Probability of Failure (Operational Failure Mode) 81 Figure 7 7 Consequence of Failure 82 Figure 7 8 Business Risk Exposure (Structural Failure Mode) 83 Figure 7 9 Business Risk Exposure (Operational Failure Mode) 85 Figure 7 10 Collection System Management Matrix 88 Figure 8 1 Gravity Collection System Weighted Average Age 90

8 Figure 8 2 OCSD Expenditure Predicted Future Renewal of the Collection System 90 Figure 8 3 Treatment and Disposal Weighted Average Age 91 Figure 8 4 OCSD Expenditure Predicted Future Renewal of Plants 92 Figure 8 5 OCSD Expenditure Predicted Future Renewal of Existing Assets 93 Figure 8 6 OCSD Expenditure Predicted Future Capital for New Levels of Service and Growth 94 Figure 8 7 OCSD Expenditure Predicted Future Operations and Maintenance 95 Figure 8 8 OCSD Expenditure Total Future Predicted Cash Flows 96 Figure 11 1 The Confidence Level Rating Methodology (CLR) 103 Figure 11 2 Lifting the Confidence Level Overtime(This graph is upside down flip it over) 104 Figure 11 3 Results of the Gap Analysis 108 Figure 11 4 Step by step Filtering Process 109 Appendices A B C D E Data sources for Asset Summaries 2005/06 Asset Management Improvement Program Final Improvements in the Asset Management Plan 2006 Improvements Future Asset Management Improvement Program Components What is Advanced Asset Management?

9 Executive Summary Introduction In December 2002 the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Board adopted an Asset Management Strategic Plan and Framework Analysis (Strategic Plan). This Strategic Plan defined Asset Management for OCSD as; to create and acquire, maintain, rehabilitate, replace and augment these valuable wastewater assets in the most cost effective (lowest life cycle cost) sustainable manner at the level of service required by present and future generations of regulators and customers at an acceptable level of risk. OCSD has taken several steps to sustain this vision since this Strategic Plan was adopted, including the creation of the first Asset Management Plan in OCSD has further developed this document in 2006 to better understand its short term and long term business obligations related to the assets that it currently owns and will own. It also reveals how the business decisions related to these assets will affect the ability to sustain the asset performance and consequently sustain the conditions of cost effective services to the customers. OCSD has traditionally performed many of these tasks across the organization; however, the results of this work have never been compiled into a single document to allow the organization to clearly understand the overall business ramifications. Recent improvements As part of the annual ongoing asset management and business planning processes within OCSD the following advances have been made:» The Asset Management Plan has been updated and refined. It is appropriate that for a planning document at this level that this occurs annually;» The Collection System Model has been refined and now takes consideration of land use and H 2 S levels, providing a usable risk based approach to the running of the condition assessment and CCTV programs;» Updated data on condition, demand vs capacity, function, reliability, business efficiency for Plant 1 and Plant 2 at the system and process level, which will provide input to the revised management strategies in the 2007 Strategic Plan;» Drafting of management summaries for major systems, which describes the asset, its capacity, condition, key issues, current program and financial summary. This will be used to prepare individual asset plans for these systems in the future;» Preparation of an initial Risk Plan for the General Manager and Executive Management Team. This provides a ongoing tool and process for managing organizational risk;» Introduction of Condition Assessment Guidelines for the condition assessment program;» Introduction of documented business cases for CIP validation, that considers business risk, life cycle cost and the justification process. i

10 Levels of Service For the 2005 Asset Management Plan OCSD developed a summary of its present and future Levels of Service requirements, which documented the measurable outcomes, or key performance indicators that OCSD is committed to meeting under each of the following categories; Environmental, Social, and Economic (the Triple Bottom Line). This year reporting against the target values has commenced the 2006 Asset Management Plan. The Levels of Service provided by OCSD will increase significantly as a result of the proposed $3 billion in new capital expenditure and millions in increased maintenance and operations costs over the next seven years. Some of the major Levels of Service that will change include:» Adopting 100% Secondary Treatment Standards» Increasing Reclamation to 70 mgd» Adopting 100% Class A Biosolids» Reducing Odor Complaints» Fire and Safety Code Compliance Inventory of Assets Gaining a better understanding of the characteristics of the assets owned by OCSD is critical to the success of wastewater service delivery. OCSD s assets can be broadly split between two main groups; Collection System the assets responsible for the collection and transfer of sewage from the customer s properties to the treatment plants, and; Treatment and Disposal the assets that treat the sewage and dispose of the effluent and byproducts. The following charts present the investment history in both of these systems and the age profile of these assets. ii

11 Figure E1 Collection System (Weighted Average Life) Gravity Pipe Construction Average Age (By Replacement Value) Replacement Value $M Figure E2 Treatment Plants (Weighted Average Life) Plant Construction Average Age (By Replacement Value) Year Weighted Average Age (Years) Replacement Value $M Year This average age and value of the asset portfolio is increasing steadily over time, the latent asset replacement obligation is rising, and as a consequence OCSD needs to be planning for decreased capital projects for new works and increased renewal expenditures in the future relative to past expenditure levels. Additional focus will need to be given to ensuring that appropriate operation and maintenance strategies are being applied that consider the different ages of assets being maintained Weighted Average Age (Years) iii

12 Asset Valuation An updated replacement valuation for all of OCSD s assets has been generated. The table below presents the current replacement and depreciated values of OCSD s assets. The replacement value represents the cost in 2006 dollars to completely rebuild all the assets to a new condition. The depreciated value is the book value of the assets based on their current condition. The current replacement value is estimated to be $5.56B, which compares to the 1998 prediction of $2.03B. The replacement value estimated in 2005 was $5.38B. This will increase by 2012 to approximately $6.7B after the completion of the existing Capital Improvement Program. The major reasons for this increase continue to include the addition of all the assets to the asset register and basing the replacement costs on a built up environment rather than a vacant land situation. Valuation Collection Plants Total Replacement Value ($B) Depreciated Value ($B) Planned Expenditure A computer model was developed to produce the future expenditure aspects of this Asset Management Plan. This model was used to perform a series of calculations on information related to the current and future OCSD assets. The following chart is the result of the modeling work undertaken, including current and predicted future Capital Improvement Program projects and operations (including maintenance), improved understanding of asset life and asset condition. The model has been revised to account for business rules for future CIP projects. The flat black line is the average of all the future cash flows, which represents the average expenditure ($340M current value worth) required by OCSD for each of the next 100 years. The actual annual expenditure will vary depending of the actual work required. At present the expenditure is greater due to the accelerated building program, however, additional income in the future will also be required to pay back the capital that is currently being borrowed. iv

13 Figure E3 OCSD Expenditure Total Future Predicted Cash Flows Expenditure $M (2006 Dollars) CIP Existing Current Program CIP Predicted Future Program Operations / Maintenance / Overhead Annual Annuity Expenditure Year Future Funding Requirements The predicted overall expenditure in future years will not drop off as dramatically as previously predicted after the current Capital Improvement Program ends in approximately 10 years. This means that pressures on rate increases are likely to grow more than previously thought. Fully funding the replacement and rehabilitation costs of the assets will mean that the likely scenario is greater than inflation rate increases over the next 20 years. In current dollars, the 2020 rate will be at the current average for all wastewater organizations in California; however, the high majority of these agencies future rates will be expected to grow as well, if their level of service is to be sustained. Recommendations It is recommended that OCSD:» Continue to be more critical of the Capital Improvement Program projects based on economic justification and risk presented to OCSD in order to free up available funds and staff resources to concentrate on other areas of greatest risk;» Validate the current and future maintenance program and workload with a view to investing in maintenance where it will defer capital. Some observations have indicated that an increase in maintenance expenditures could result in deferred capital investments and a reduction in life cycle costs (this is especially relevant for civil type assets). Also, an increased understanding of the future maintenance costs associated with capital projects will help to identify the potential impacts on the maintenance program; v

14 » Continue to improve the existing data standards, processes and data collection programs;» Implementing an information system strategy to ensure that this data collection and data flow is stored and recovered / manipulated to suit the needs of OCSD for planning and optimizing future asset management decision making;» Consider the need for a works management system and workload allocation / justification / prioritization system for all Engineering, Operations and Maintenance activities;» OCSD needs to consider the ways in which it can start to influence customer expectations while working to try and avert or reduce the cost impacts of current and future levels of service;» Review management strategies and design guidelines with a view to considering revised redundancy requirements. Next Steps A number of improvement tasks have also been identified for future years to improve the overall accuracy and coverage of the Asset Management Plan. This includes completing Business Risk Exposures for the asset system summaries, and using more accurate data as it is collected for the models. Future editions of the Asset Management Plan are critical to the work OCSD is planning for improving its overall asset management performance. Many of the improvements to future Asset Management Plans will derive from other work, which is planned to be undertaken across the organization. Sustainability and cultural organizational change are important issues for the Asset Management program, and they need to be well managed to ensure the ongoing improvement in stewardship of the OCSD asset portfolio vi

15 1. What is an Asset Management Plan and Why Did OCSD Create it? 1.1 Introduction An Asset Management Plan is a long range planning document that OCSD can use to provide a rational framework for understanding the following:» The assets that OCSD owns and the services that it provides;» The present and future demands on the infrastructure assets that are critical for delivering the organization s level of service to its customers and community;» The current estimate of the short term and long term financial commitments (both capital and operational) necessary to maintain the assets and services that it provides;» The current and proposed policies, strategies, and programs that are necessary to meet the long term provision of services;» The business risk exposure associated with the potential failure of the assets to meet the expected levels of service;» The linkages necessary between strategic business objectives and the service that the assets are delivering; and» The organizational continuity that will span organizational changes and the transfer of asset management knowledge between successive generations of utility managers. This is OCSD s second version of an Asset Management Plan and as such will not yet meet all of the longrange goals for a fully developed Asset Management Plan. It is intended that the production of annual Asset Management Plans will become a dynamic process and a living document that will be updated and continually refined as part of the annual ongoing asset management and business planning processes within OCSD. This document has a short term focus (ten years) within a longer term period (100 years) covering the full life cycle of the assets. It is based on a set of systematic planning activities to assess asset performance and demands, improve reliability of asset performance, improve forecasts for both capital and operational budgets based on asset performance and reliability needs, identify and quantify business risks and trends, formulate and evaluate both capital and operational options for meeting service levels, and plan continuous improvements related to delivering lowest life cycle cost service solutions. The basic functional process for developing the information in an Asset Management Plan is the following:» Know the physical and functional characteristics of the assets;» Determine an acceptable standard or level of service based on business objectives and customer needs;» Determine the current condition and performance of the assets and the systems and facilities of which each asset forms a part; 1

16 » Determine the asset s likely failure modes and the probable time of failure. The failure modes will include condition or structural failure, end of useful life, under capacity, not meeting an established level of service, and no longer economic to own and operate;» Determine the optimal solution to overcome the failure mode based on a justified business case including costs and risk;» Document these decisions in the Asset Management Plan;» Review the draft Asset Management Plan against the organizations capacity and capability of completing the plan, including the amount of risk that the plan represents to the organization;» Rationalize and document the trade offs necessary to undertake implementation of the plan; and» Review the plan and update periodically. OCSD has developed this Asset Management Plan to better understand its short term and long term business obligations related to the assets that it currently owns and will own, and how the business decisions related to these assets will affect its ability to sustain asset performance and consequently sustain provision of economical services to its customers. OCSD has traditionally performed many of these tasks across the organization; however, the results of this work have not been collated into a single concise document to allow the organization to clearly understand the overall business planning ramifications. Should you wish to better understand this section, then read the following sections:» What is Advanced Infrastructure Asset Management? (Appendix B)» What is an Asset Management Plan? (Section 1.2)» What are the benefits of an Asset Management Plan to OCSD? (Section 1.5) 1.2 What is an Asset Management Plan? The Asset Management Plan is a consolidation of all the information that is currently available in regards to OCSD s infrastructure assets and service delivery programs. The plan generally shows the management strategy and the related cost implications for all assets covering an entire life cycle. In the case of many wastewater infrastructure assets such as major sewers and civil structures, this life cycle can cover over 100 years. However, many assets have far shorter lives, both in terms of a physical rate of decay, but also in the technological life. Throughout the life cycle of the assets the organization will need to fully understand the most appropriate (optimal) maintenance practice and any opportunities that may exist for intervention in terms of rehabilitation or refurbishment that will extend the life of the asset or improve its performance most cost effectively. An Asset Management Plan is basically a written representation of the intended asset management programs or strategies for the infrastructure assets based on OCSD s understandings of customer requirements, regulatory compliance issues and the ability of the assets to meet these performance requirements (the levels of service required from the assets). 2

17 Experienced asset managers recognize that Asset Management Plans are an indispensable management tool. It enables them to introduce discipline and logical processes into all of their asset management activities. Additionally, a properly prepared Asset Management Plan can greatly improve OCSD s ability to meet its goals and objectives in a way that best serves its customers. A plan allows the organization to identify future costs and predict future problems that they may have in service delivery and allow them the time to solve these in the most cost effective manner for existing and future customers. Asset Management Plans also act as a vehicle by which the organization can communicate with its customers, regulators and other stakeholders. It can be used to paint a clear picture of the future in both financial and technical terms. 1.3 Why is an Asset Management Plan Needed? A question often asked is Why should OCSD adopt a formalized approach to managing its infrastructure and other assets? OCSD does it now anyway? In most cases, utilities, like OCSD, are providing a large range of services to ratepayers and customers using infrastructure assets without formal Asset Management Plans. Throughout the world infrastructure assets are beginning to reach maturity. These aging assets are reaching a time in which they are beginning to fail with (in some cases) significant consequences. The consequences of these failures have been felt by utilities in terms of cost of repair and by customers in terms of inconvenience, loss of service and from regulators in terms of fines from environmental damage and legal issues. In the past there were far less assets to manage, they were often fully visible, and they were younger. It was not considered necessary to monitor their condition. Now assets exist in large numbers, they have an immense value to the community and are often hidden from view, or at least out of sight and, therefore, out of mind; and most importantly, they have grown much older (on average). It is getting easier to monitor assets now, with an increasing range of objective condition measurement and relatively inexpensive inspection tools available to asset managers. OCSD is just now becoming proficient in some areas of condition monitoring with the use of portable tools and only on some of its critical assets. No longer can valuable community assets be managed relying on the memories and recollections of the technical staff that have been obliged to make many decisions through their experience and technical competence and basic gut feelings. Often they are forced to react to unplanned work, that is, wait for the problem. In many cases long serving staff have retired or are approaching retirement and it is important that the information stored in their memories are not lost. OCSD faces an aging workforce that may result in significant knowledge loss to the business if it is not centrally collected and maintained. Typical infrastructure assets include, but are not limited to:» Treatment Plants;» Sewers; 3

18 » Force mains; and» Pump stations. Today, the high number of assets and their age and condition, have made asset management impossible without appropriate assistance. Agencies now require information systems and formal approaches that enable their technical and financial staff to present a more accurate picture of the assets under their control, from which necessary maintenance and replacement can be considered and funded to ensure the assets remain available to customers. First by having suitable information systems, processes and practices, staff can provide an accurate picture of the complex questions relating to assets for which they have responsibility. Second in many cases they will be able to clearly identify and quantify the best investment opportunities that allow OCSD to meet stated objectives and missions from a financial and technical sense (for example, getting more for less ). However, information systems will only provide meaningful and beneficial outputs if the environmental and social aspects of managing community assets are also included (for example, the types of service and levels of service expected by the customers and the costs they are prepared to pay for each level of service). Effective decision making will also only be possible if financial and technical information is integrated. An organization must also be able to predict future issues and needs and establish strategies to overcome these. The basic definition of asset management is to create, acquire, maintain, rehabilitate, replace and augment these valuable wastewater assets in the most cost effective (lowest life cycle cost) sustainable manner at the level of service required by present and future generations of regulators and customers at an acceptable level of risk. OCSD has this definition` as the basis of its Asset Management Charter adopted by the Board in December What Should an Asset Management Plan Consist of? The International Infrastructure Management Manual outlines the typical contents of an Asset Management Plan. 4

19 Figure 1 1 Typical Asset Management Plan Structure Identify Current Levels of Service Existing Asset s Physical Details Condition Performan ce Capacit y (Current / Ultimate) Predict D emand Capacit y / Demands Future Levels of Service Performan ce / Risk Predict Mode of Failure Capacit y / Growth Performan ce Condition (Age) Cost of Service New Projects Upgrades R ehab/replace Evaluation Determine B est Technical / Fin ancial Option Assess Impact on cost of Service Assess Customers Exp ectations and Abilit y / W illingness to Pay Review Program if Required (Reduce Cost) Options Reduce Levels of Service Manage Demand for Service Alter M aintenance or Op erations Increase Income Sources Increase Risk of Failures Prioritize W ork in Order of Risk to Business The OCSD Asset Management Plan 2006 has been developed to meet these guiding principles. 5

20 1.5 What can be done with an Asset Management Plan? The following points list the key benefits to OCSD from a mature Asset Management Plan:» Assist OCSD to gain a clearer picture of its future asset commitments. The development of funding models will provide a guide to the income required to manage this infrastructure effectively and efficiently for the current and future generations of the management teams and staff. This will assist to develop future funding models that allow the setting of future levels of service;» Assist OCSD to be able to use existing committed funds effectively to ensure that it derives best value from both its capital improvement programs and its available operations and maintenance budgets;» Assist OCSD to identify those projects and strategies that will be required over the next 10 years and lift the level of confidence in these approaches to ensure that its is delivering the most cost effective service option from a life cycle asset management perspective; and» Assist OCSD to identify any future business risks that may impact significantly on the organization from both a level of service and cost of service perspective. An Asset Management Plan will enable OCSD s staff to connect actual assets to these benefit opportunities. In the case of the current Asset Management Plan it has been structured to enable staff to complete the following activities:» To identify assets for which rehabilitation or refurbishment could prove to be cost effective. By being able to identify these assets, OCSD s staff can look at those assets in greatest need and can address those that can be economically refurbished. No process existed in the past to identify this, other than by experienced valued judgment;» To understand which assets are most critical, which will generate the highest costs or future liabilities, OCSD can start to collect key data that will allow it to undertake the necessary analysis. This will prevent OCSD needing to collect data on every asset, just the ones that are required at this point in time;» Once it understands those assets or future service obligations that represent the greatest risk to the organization, OCSD can start to mitigate these risks by proactively completing the necessary analysis and deciding the most cost effective way to reduce these future liabilities;» To focus its maintenance efforts by understanding the consequence of failure and the probability of failure of the various assets and look at those that represent the greatest business risk;» To consider both capital and operations expenditure environments together, OCSD can better optimize its maintenance and capital needs to reduce the future life cycle costs. In some instances, increases in maintenance, as opposed to increases in capital can reduce the future life cycle cost that would be incurred if it were not possible to defer the capital investment that would otherwise be required; and» To assess inter generational equity by understanding the long term future funding needs of the organization and the various peaks in cost that will occur; OCSD can level these out by adopting a guide path in terms of future rate increases. OCSD will also be able to validate or justify the future expenditure and the future funding models more easily than in the past. This will also allow customers and regulators to be consulted with regard to the relationships between the level of service and the cost of service with a complete understanding of the risk that is represented by alternatives. 6

21 2. OCSD Facilities and History 2.1 OCSD History OCSD was formed in 1946 under the County Sanitation District Act of 1923, which replaced a joint outfall sewer organization owned by several sewerage agencies within Orange County. Currently, OCSD is comprised of nine former revenue areas aggregated into a single district, which forms the third largest wastewater discharger in the western United States. OCSD provides sewer service for 23 cities and includes 12 trunk sewer systems, two treatment plants, two discharge outfalls and two emergency weir outlets. Approximately 400 miles of trunk sewer systems are currently operated and maintained by OCSD. OCSD was formed to address the need for sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities that would be suitable for the expanding municipal areas in Orange County. Formation also facilitated public financing for sewer systems in Orange County, which the previous organization was unable to accomplish. A bond election in 1949 allowed OCSD to buy treatment and disposal facilities serving the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fullerton, Orange and sanitary districts in Placentia, Buena Park, La Habra and Garden Grove. The bond election also financed the beginning of a network of trunk sewer systems throughout Orange County. OCSD formally took control of sewer management in 1954 when Plant No. 2 and Ocean Outfall No. 1 were constructed. Ocean Outfall No. 2 was subsequently constructed in the 1970 s. 2.2 Capital Facilities OCSD has managed its facilities through the preparation and implementation of wastewater master plans. These plans outline the improvements to collection treatment and disposal facilities required to manage flows over the selected planning horizon. In October 1999, the District adopted a new Strategic Plan, a planning effort to define District s goals, responsibilities, and requirements over the next twenty years, and included projections through the assumed build out of the District s service area to the year This effort to update the year 2020 Vision Master Plan was necessary because many of the assumptions used then had changed. Critical factors such as population growth, new construction, the volume of wastewater delivered to the plants and viable water conservation and reclamation programs were reevaluated. In June 2002 the District completed the Interim Strategic Plan Update, which further updated these critical factors and developed revised cost estimates and user fee projections for upgrading the District s level of treatment to secondary standards. On July 17, 2002, after reviewing: the Interim Strategic Plan Update treatment alternatives, ocean monitoring data, public input, regulatory issues, and financial considerations, the Board of Directors made the decision to upgrade treatment to meet secondary treatment standards. The current CIP includes 3 projects totaling $679 million to upgrade the District s treatment plants to meet secondary treatment standards. Implementation of full secondary treatment standards is scheduled to be completed by December 31, This schedule was reviewed and determined to be reasonable and achievable by an independent Peer Review Team. 7

22 2.3 Service Figure 2 1shows the OCSD service area. OCSD serves more than 87 percent of the population in Orange County, representing over 2.3 million people. It has been estimated that OCSD will be serving a population of over 2.8 million people in Figure 2 1 Orange County Sanitation District Service Area 8

23 OCSD provides sewer service for over 210,000 acres within Orange County (approximately 35 percent of the county s land area). Land use in the OCSD service area consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and open space categories. 2.4 Overview of Existing System The OCSD sewer system collects wastewater through an extensive system of sewers, pump stations and force mains, with diversions installed between trunk sewer systems. Wastewater is treated at two treatment facilities, and an outfall system is available for ocean disposal of treated wastewater. The treatment plants currently operate under a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as established in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit No. CA , that permits the discharge of treated wastewater through an ocean outfall system to the Pacific Ocean. In July 2002, the OCSD Board of Directors voted to relinquish the existing EPA issued 301(H) waiver that allowed OCSD to discharge partial secondary treated effluent. The OCSD Board action committed OCSD to build future facilities, to be in place by 2012 that would treat all effluent to secondary treatment standards. The following sections briefly describe the key systems under OCSD s management. Section 5 includes the asset system summaries for the Treatment Plants and the Outfall System Trunk Sewer Systems OCSD s service area consists of twelve trunk sewer systems that are located throughout the service area. The trunk sewer systems include approximately 400 miles of sewers and force mains, ranging in size from 12 to 120 (interplant) inches in diameter, as well as twenty pump stations. The trunk sewer system also includes nine interconnections (to convey flow between main trunk system) and 87 diversion structures (to convey flow between sewer pipes within a main trunk system). The trunk sewer systems are currently conveying approximately 240 million gallons per day (mgd), or with a flow split of approximately 150 mgd to Plant No. 1 and approximately 90 mgd to Plant No. 2. This split reflects that a portion of the raw wastewater tributary to Plant No. 1 is diverted to Plant No. 2 via a 120 inch interplant pipeline Treatment Plant System OCSD has two wastewater treatment plans. Plant No. 1 is located in the City of Fountain Valley, approximately four miles inland of the Pacific Ocean and adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Influent wastewater entering Plant No. 1 passes through the metering structure, mechanical bar screens, grit chambers and the primary clarifiers, before going to the activated sludge plant. The activated sludge plant consists of aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. Activated sludge effluent can be diverted to the Orange County Water District for tertiary treatment before reuse. The remainder of the activated sludge effluent flows through the interplant interceptor for use as plant water at Plant No.2 or though the effluent lines to the outfall booster pump and the ocean outfall for final disposal. Plant No. 2 is located in the City of Huntington Beach, adjacent to the Santa Ana River and east of the Pacific Coast Highway. Untreated wastewater flow entering Plant No. 2 passes through magnetic flow meters, mechanical bar screens and grit removal chambers. Flow then passes through the primary clarifiers 9

24 before being split between the oxygen activated sludge secondary treatment plant and discharged directly to the ocean outfall. The activated sludge plant effluent is combined with the primary Plant No. 2 effluent and Plant No. 1 effluent for discharge to the ocean outfall system. Interconnections exist between Plant Nos. 1 and 2. These interconnections include a digester gas pipeline, communications cables, Plant No. 1 effluent lines to the Ocean Outfall Booster Station and a raw wastewater interplant pipeline. Solids treatment at both Plant No. 1 and 2 includes dissolved air floatation thickening of waste activated sludge, anaerobic sludge digestion and belt press dewatering. Both plants also have facilities for odor control, chemical addition and digester gas utilization for electrical generation. See section 5.2 for flow diagrams and descriptions of the plant Outfall System The ocean outfall system includes three discharge structures. The primary ocean outfall (Outfall No. 2) was put in service in 1971 and is approximately 27,400 feet long including a 6,000 foot diffuser section. The primary outfall is 120 inches in diameter and discharges treated wastewater at a depth of approximately 200 feet some four miles offshore. The primary outfall has a capacity of approximately 480 mgd. The emergency outfall (Outfall No.1), originally constructed in 1954 and modified in 1965, is approximately 7,000 feet long, including a 1,000 foot diffuser section. The emergency outfall is 78 inches in diameter and is located at a depth of approximately 65 feet, a mile and a half offshore. The emergency outfall has a capacity of approximately 245 mgd. OCSD s NPDES permit specifies that this outfall can be used for emergencies only. The Santa Ana River emergency overflow weirs discharges directly to the Santa Ana River, and are also limited for emergency use only. See section 5.2 for flow diagrams and descriptions of the outfall system. 10

25 3. Levels of Service Current and Future In 2005, the Orange County Sanitation District developed a summary of the Sanitation District s present and future Levels of Service requirements as part of its Asset Management Program. The following tables provide the Levels of Service and their measurable outcomes, or key performance indicators, that the Sanitation District is committed to meeting. In the 2005 Asset Management Plan (AMP) the outcomes were categorized under the OCSD s Environmental, Social, and Economic performance, which was referred to as the Triple Bottom Line. For this Asset Management Plan the categories have been expanded by the OCSD Executive Management Team to be consistent with Unifying Strategies. The Unifying Strategies are Environmental Stewardship, Wastewater Management, Business Principles, and Workplace Environment. This document shows that the Levels of Service provided by the Sanitation District will increase significantly, requiring nearly $2.5 billion in new capital improvements and millions in increased maintenance and operations costs over the next ten years. One area where the Sanitation District s Level of Service will increase significantly is the quality of effluent that is provided to the Orange County Water District for reclamation or for discharge into the ocean. In 2002 and 2003, three commitments were made that increased this Levels of Service: 1. The Sanitation District s ocean discharge will meet secondary treatment standards by 2013; 2. The Sanitation District will provide effluent disinfection to reduce the coliform bacteria content at its outfall to less than the maximum concentration allowed at the beach under California Assembly Bill 411; and 3. The Sanitation District will provide secondary effluent satisfying the quality and quantity requirements of Groundwater Replenishment System, scheduled for start up by The Sanitation District is also studying further reduction in the offsite odors from its treatment plants and reducing its emissions of air toxics. The Sanitation District s Levels of Service will also improve in the area of biosolids management. The Sanitation District is moving from a 60 40% blend of Class A and Class B biosolids management options to a 100% Class A product. These Levels of Service improvements, along with maintaining the existing performance levels, require a series of annual rate increases and borrowing to ensure that the Sanitation District maintains the reserves and debt coverage ratios that are included in the Business Principle Key Performance Indicators. The Sanitation District s present and projected Levels of Service through 2012 are shown on the following pages. The Sanitation District will continue to conduct studies and monitor regulatory trends that may change its level of service beyond There is a developing area of research concerning contaminants in treated wastewater effluents such as personal care products and pharmaceutically active compounds that are suspected of causing reproductive or other health changes to marine life in receiving waters. These compounds are also subject to research regarding reclaimed water quality. Further changes to the Sanitation District s source control program and treatment processes could be required to address these concerns as further research defines the problems and potential solutions. 11

26 Table 3 1 Organization Levels of Service Wastewater Management OCSD will comply with effluent quality standards: Targets. 1. Compliance with all ocean discharge permit limits: FY 05 06: one permit violation 1 2. Concentration of emerging chemical constituents of concern in Plant No. 1 secondary effluent: FY 05 06: NDMA = 30.9 ppt (24.4 to 38.9 ppt) and 1,4 Dioxane = 1.76 ppb (1.2 to 2.2 ppb) FY Target No permit violations NDMA = < 150 ppt 1,4 Dioxane = < 2ppb Level of Service Driver 2004 NPDES Permit GWR System influent requirements 3. Thirty day geometric mean of total coliform bacteria in effluent after initial dilution: FY 05 06: 434 mpn with dilution factor of 180:1 <1,000 mpn Internal Standard/AB Percent of source control permitee compliance with permit conditions: FY 05 06: 99% >90% permit compliance RWQCB/EPA OCSD will manage flows reliably. FY Target Level of Service Driver 5. Frequency of use of emergency one mile (78 inch diameter) outfall: FY 05 06: once 2 0 per year during dry, less than once per 3 years in peak wet weather Board Resolution 1999 Strategic Plan 6. Sanitary sewer spills per 100 miles: FY 05 06: < Contain sanitary sewer spills within 5 hours. FY : 100% < 2.1 Self Imposed Standard/WDR Order No. R % Self Imposed Standard OCSD effluent will be recycled. FY Target Level of Service Driver 8. Treated effluent reclaimed: 4% (10 mgd) Interagency Agreement FY : 3.5% (8.19 mgd) 3 1 An exceedance of our maximum concentration limit for dioxane occurred in October All subsequent samples have been less than the MCL. 2 April 29, 2006 for repair of 5 mile outfall. 3 OCWD determines recycling flows. 12

27 OCSD will implement a sustainable biosolids management program. 9. National Biosolids Program Certification for Environmental Management System. Percent of biosolids beneficial reuse FY : Beneficial Reuse 94%; Landfill 6%; Class B 40%; Class A/EQ 60% 4 Environmental Stewardship FY Target Maintain 95% beneficial reuse 5% landfill 40% 60% Level of Service Driver Self Imposed Standard/National Biosolids Partnership Standards Board Resolution Self Imposed Standard OCSD will improve the regional watershed. FY Target Level of Service Driver 1. Dry weather urban runoff collected and treated 4 mgd Board Resolution FY : 2.04 average daily diversion 5 2. Rainfall induced inflow and infiltration, wet weather peak factor FY : < Stormwater management, % of treatment process area runoff treated on site FY : 100% 4. Per capital wastewater flow rate, gallons per person per day FY : 93.6 < Strategic Plan/ Board Resolution 100% 2004 Ocean Discharge Permit <105 Board Approved Projection 4 Landfills were used as a contingency during 2005 wet weather and are currently used to maintain a sustainable option. 5 Diversion systems were deactivated during the long rain events of FY

28 OCSD will protect the air environment. FY Target Level of Service Driver 5. Odor complaints: Reclamation Plant No. 1 Treatment Plant No. 2 Collection System FY : Plant1 10; Plant 2 4; Collection System Air emissions health risk to community, cancer risk per 1 million Employees FY : Plant 1 <25 Plant 2 > <25 <25 Self Imposed Standard / SCAQMD Nuisance Standard SCAQMD/CARB Standard 7. Air mass emissions permit compliance, % FY : 100% 100% Title V OCSD will be a good neighbor. FY Target Level of Service Driver 8. Off site Biosolids nuisance complaints FY : 0 0 Self Imposed Standard 9. Odor complaint response Treatment Plants with 1 hour Collection System within 1 working day FY : 100%; 100% 100% 100% Self Imposed Standard 10. Restore collection service to customer within 8 hours FY : 100% 11. Respond to collection system spills within 1 hour FY : 100% 100% Self Imposed Standard 100% Self Imposed Standard 6 Proposed policy for Board consideration during FY could change how this level of service is measured. 14

29 Business Principle OCSD will exercise sound financial management. FY Target Level of Service Driver 1. New borrowing FY : $200 million debt issue against a $277 million CIP program 2. COP coverage ration FY : > COP service Principle and Interest FY : <O&M expenses 4. Annual SFR user fee increase FY : 31% 7 5. Annual user fees FY : Fees > O&M expenses Not more than annual CIP requirements Between 1.25 and 2.0 < O&M expenses Not more than 15% Sufficient to cover all O&M requirements Board Approved Debt Policy Bond Indenture agreements Self Imposed Standard Self Imposed Standard Self Imposed Standard 6. Annual increase in collection, treatment, and disposal costs per million gallons FY : 7.8% 7. Annual variance from adopted reserve policy FY : 1.9% <10% Self Imposed Standard <5% Self Imposed Standard OCSD will be responsive to our customers. FY Target Level of Service Driver 8. Respond to public complaints or inquires regarding construction projects within 1 working day FY : >90% 9. New connection permits processed within on working day FY : >90% 10. Dig Alert response within 48 hours FY : 100% 12. Public Records Act requests within 10 working days FY : 100% 13. Post Board/Committee Agenda Packages 72 hours prior to meeting FY : 100% 14. Post studies and reports on OCSD website within 1 week of receive/file >90% Self Imposed Standard >90% Self Imposed Standard 100% State Statute 100% Public Records Act 100% Brown Act 100% Grand Jury 7 Increase required due to 10 year, $2.4 billion CIP program. Goal is to reduce future increases. 15

30 Workplace Environment OCSD will take care of our people. FY Target Level of Service Driver 1. Training hours per employee FY : Self Imposed Standard 2. Employee Injury Incident Rate FY : <3.75 per 1000 hrs. Self Imposed Standard Wastewater Management OCSD will comply with effluent quality standards:. FY Target 1. Compliance with all ocean discharge permit limits: No permit violations Level of Service Driver 2004 NPDES Permit/Consent Decree 2. Concentration of emerging chemical constituents of concern in Plant No. 1 secondary effluent average: NDMA = < 150 ppt 1,4 Dioxane = < 2ppbb GWR System influent requirements 3. Thirty day geometric mean of total coliform bacteria in effluent after initial dilution: <1,000 mpn Internal Standard/ AB Percent of source control permitee compliance with permit conditions: >90% permit compliance RWQCB/EPA OCSD will manage flows reliably. FY Target Level of Service Driver 5. Frequency of use of emergency one mile (78 inch diameter) outfall 0 per year during dry weather, less than once per 3 years in peak wet weather Board Resolution 1999 Strategic Plan 6. Sanitary sewer spills per 100 miles: < 2.1 Self Imposed Standard/WDR Order No. R Contain sanitary sewer spills within 5 hours. 100% 100% Self Imposed Standard OCSD effluent will be recycled. FY Target Level of Service Driver Treated effluent reclaimed: 28% (70 mgd) Interagency Agreement 8 Results fall below Industry Average of

31 OCSD will implement a sustainable biosolids management program. 9. National Biosolids Program Certification for Environmental Management System. Percent of biosolids beneficial reuse Class B Class A/EQ Environmental Stewardship FY Target Maintain 100% 100% Level of Service Driver Self Imposed Standard/National Biosolids Partnership Standards OCSD will improve the regional watershed. FY Target Level of Service Driver 1. Dry weather urban runoff collected and treated 10 mgd Board Resolution 2. Rainfall induced inflow and infiltration, wet weather peak factor 3. Stormwater management, % of treatment process area runoff treated on site 4. Per capital wastewater flow rate, gallons per person per day < Strategic Plan/ Board Policy 100% 2004 Ocean Discharge Permit <105 Board Approved Projection OCSD will protect the air environment. FY Target Level of Service Driver 5. Odor complaints: Reclamation Plant No. 1 Treatment Plant No. 2 Collection System Future Level of Service for odor control will be studied during FY Self Imposed Standard / SCAQMD Nuisance Standard 6. Air emissions health risk to community, cancer risk per 1 million <10 SCAQMD/CARB Standard Employees <10 Internal Standard 7. Air mass emissions permit compliance, % 100% Title V OCSD will be a good neighbor FY Target Level of Service Driver 8. Off site Biosolids nuisance complaints 0 Self Imposed Standard Odor complaint response Treatment Plants with 1 hour 100% Self Imposed Standard 17

32 Collection System within 1 working day 100% Self Imposed Standard 10. Restore collection service to customer within 8 hours 100% Self Imposed Standard 11. Respond to collection system spills within 1 hour 100% Self Imposed Standard Business Principle OCSD will exercise sound financial management. FY Target 1. New borrowing Not more than annual CIP requirements 2. COP coverage ration Between 1.25 and COP service Principle and Interest <than O&M expenses 4. Annual SFR user fee increase Not more than 15% 5. Annual user fees Sufficient to cover all O&M requirements Level of Service Driver Board approved Debt Policy Bond Indenture Agreements Self Imposed Standard Self Imposed Standard Self Imposed Standard 6. Annual increase in collection, treatment, and disposal costs per million gallons <10% Self Imposed Standard 7. Annual variance from adopted reserve policy <5% Self Imposed Standard OCSD will be responsive to our customers. FY Target Level of Service Driver 8. Respond to public complaints or inquires regarding construction projects within 1 working day 9. New connection permits processed within on working day >90% Self Imposed Standard >90% Self Imposed Standard 10. Dig Alert response within 48 hours 100% State Statute 12. Public Records Act requests within 10 working days 100% Public Records Act. 13. Post Board/Committee Agenda Packages 72 hours prior to meeting 14. Post studies and reports on OCSD website within 1 week of receive/file 100% Brown Act 100% Grand Jury 18

33 Workplace Environment OCSD will take care of our people. FY Target Level of Service Driver 1. Training hours per employee 45 Self Imposed Standard Employee Injury Incident Rate <3.75 per 1000 hrs. Self Imposed Standard 19

34 4. Future Demand / Growth OCSD s overall flow projections are based on service area population projections, and planned discharges from Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and the Santa Ana Watershed Protection Agency (SAWPA). Approximately, 50 percent of the flow increases over the next 20 years are from these two agencies, which are served by OCSD under individual contracts. These flow projections are used for planning and scheduling OCSD s new capital improvements to increase treatment and disposal capacity. In November 2004, OCSD s Board of Directors adopted a new flow projection that is lower than projected in OCSD s most recent Strategic Plans. While the population projections in the 1999 Strategic Plan have proven to be relatively accurate (± 2%), the overall average daily sewage flows in the 1999 Strategic Plan and the 2002 Interim Strategic Plan Update did not materialize as projected. This lower flow rate is attributed to:» Lower and declining per capita flow rate than projected (99 gallons per capita per day in 2006, 104 gallons per capita per day in 2004 versus 115 projected in 2002) mainly due to water conservation and changes of existing land uses;» Reduced inflow and infiltration due to historically low rainfall over the past seven years; and» Lower than projected flows from contracting agencies (SAWPA and IRWD). OCSD s 1999 Strategic Plan and 2002 Interim Strategic Plan Update incorporated a projected flow from IRWD of 17 mgd through the Year For future planning, OCSD will be using a reduced flow of 10 mgd, since 7 mgd from IRWD is already modeled as part of Revenue Area (RA) 5, 6 and 7 flows. The remaining 10 mgd are flows from IRWD that are not treated in the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. In effect, the 7 mgd of flow was double counted in the planning assumptions. OCSD staff has discussed this issue with IRWD and received its concurrence, with OCSD revising planned flows from IRWD to 10 mgd. However, the IRWD is now actively pursuing an expansion of it Michelson Treatment Plant that could lower planned flows to OCSD to 5 to 7 mgd by the year SAWPA s current flow to OCSD averages 9 mgd. SAWPA has purchased 13 mgd of capacity in OCSD s treatment facilities, and has requested that an additional 3 mgd of capacity be purchased in The existing agreements allow SAWPA to purchase up to 30 mgd of treatment capacity. However, SAWPA s recent planning reports indicate that they will either pursue the removal of all flows from OCSD s treatment system, or be required to purchase up to 45 mgd of treatment capacity. Reducing IRWD s flow projection by 7 mgd and not expanding the treatment works for SAWPA to 30 mgd, has reduced OCSD s year 2020 flow projection by at least 24 mgd. This reduction has allowed for a decrease in the initial phases of the Reclamation Plant No. 1 Secondary Treatment Expansion projects by 20 mgd. The estimated cost savings will range between $50 and $70M in capital expenditures. IRWD and SAWPA are responsible for long term planning in their respective service areas, including projection of flows that will be sent to OCSD for treatment. Thus, OCSD is working to clarify its agreements with these agencies to provide assurances that OCSD will only construct facilities that are needed, and that 20

35 proper financial commitments are made prior to constructing new capacity. The goal is to allow OCSD sufficient time (approximately seven to ten years) to construct new treatment facilities, potentially with financial support from those agencies. The flow projections adopted by the Board in November 2004 are summarized in Table 4 1. Table 4 1 Flow Projections Year 2020 Service Area Interim Strategic Plan Update Flow (mgd) November 2004 Projection Flow (mgd) OCSD 264 (115 gpcd) 245 (104 gpcd) Irvine Ranch Water District Santa Ana Watershed Protection Agency Runoff Total Influent Flow

36 5. Asset Summaries & Total Cost of Ownership 5.1 Introduction The key objective in developing Asset Summaries is to assemble a comprehensive list of assets and to enable OCSD to start to filter and focus on those assets that are most critical. In the 2006 Asset Management Plan, OCSD commences the process of including life cycle asset management sections relating to the key asset types and key system groups. Section 5.2 commences developing the Treatment Plant Asset Management Plans. The relation of the Asset Management Plan to the Treatment Plan Asset Management Plans as noted in the following Figure 5 1. Figure 5 1 Asset Management Plan Hierarchy AMP Exec Summary Audience: Board and EMT (High Level Overview) Asset Management Plan (AMP) Treatment Plant AMPs Collection System AMP Audience: EMT & Managers (Analysis of Issues) Audience: Managers & Staff (Strategy Development) Asset Facility / Trunk Strategy Plans Asset Type Strategy Plans Audience: Managers & Staff (Detailed Analysis) Of the documents noted in Figure 5 1, the Asset Management Plans Executive Summary and the Asset Management Plan have been developed. An initial summary statement of the Treatment Plant Asset Management Plans has been prepared and included in the Section 5.2. Section 5.3 discusses best appropriate practices with regards to the full cost of infrastructure service delivery. Section 5.3 is a discussion paper with respect to the future Asset Management Plans, it is valuable information and should be read as part of this plan. 5.2 Asset Summary Plans This section of the Asset Management Plan is new and is a first pass at outlining the status of key process areas in the plants. It provides details of Plant 1 and Plant 2 at an area level, summarizing the assets functions, key design features, capacity factors, current performance assessment, key issues for further 22

37 investigation, current program and a financial summary of the plant area. At the end of each asset system summary is a full schematic showing the overall process flow for each plant. This is to assist the management and operation of the assets at the agreed levels of service (defined in this plan) while optimizing lifecycle costs Uses of Asset Strategy Plans The Asset Strategy Plans have been developed to meet various needs of a variety of stakeholders. Expected uses for the following system level summaries include:» Board of Directors Provide a tool for explaining the business process used to develop CIP projects and maintenance strategies, A communication tool for providing context for explaining new CIP projects to the board, A education tool on how the collection and plants work,» CIP Committee Reviewing drivers and condition of assets when reviewing CIP project business cases.» Operations and Maintenance Division Provide a forum for condition and key issues for further investigation, Assist with setting of division goals on a yearly basis, Summarize operational strategies,» Engineering Understand current system and strategies and provide a structure for communicating future strategies for assets Asset Summaries The following asset summaries have been developed in 2006 based on the current plant schematics for Plant 1 and 2.» Preliminary Treatment» Primary Treatment» Secondary Treatment» Solid Handling» Utilities» Central Power Generation System» Ocean Outfall 23

38 5.2.3 Structure of Asset Summaries Each of the Asset Summaries has been built around a common structure. This structure provides a framework for the ongoing use and development of the summaries. The key elements of the structure for each key process area of the plant are:» Asset Profile Description of the assets, its primary functions, and recent relevant history;» Demand Profile and Performance Describes the key capacity design values for assets in terms of minimum, maximum, peak or average flow requirements, and where available, the current performance;» Failure Mode For each of the primary failure modes, a summary score on a 1 5 scale (where 1 is good 5 poor) is provided, on how the asset is performing. Data is provided when it is known;» Key Issues for Further Investigation Issues are listed based on O&M staff member comments, and identified issues from the Demand Performance and Failure Mode information;» Current Program Describe the current studies, planning, design and construction and management strategy for that area of the plant;» Investment Program Defines funding summaries for the plant over the recent past and several future periods. It is expected that the flow of information should be developed so that Key Issues for Further Investigation is maintained and the Current Program And Investment program reflect the agreed works. Figure 5 2 shows the general flow of information through the summary. Staff member input is to be solicited for all the elements. Figure 5 2 Flow of Information through the Asset Summaries Asset Profile Demand Profile & Performance Failure Mode Summary Key Issues for Further Investigation Current Program Investment Program Data, Sources and Data Collection Methodology Data for Asset Summaries reside in numerous locations in OCSD. The biggest challenge was to identify various current sources of information and collect it. Appendix A lists all the sources of information for these 2006 Asset Summaries. Future development of these plans should consider displaying the plans through the MyOCSD site and the asset management data warehouse. 24

39 This page is intentionally blank. 25

40 Asset System Summary Plant 1 Preliminary Treatment 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities System Sub System(s) Metering & Diversion Structure Hydrogen Peroxide Sunflower Pump Station Headworks No. 1 Main Sewage Pumps Grit Removal Headworks No. 2 Main Sewage Pumps Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Max. Flowrate 490 MGD Max. Pressure 150 psi 30 MGD duty 30 MGD standby? 30 MGD duty 30 MGD duty 30 MGD standby 2 chambers 210 MGD duty 280 MGD duty 70 MGD standby Actual Performance Metering & Diversion Structure A total of six influent trunk lines bring influent into the metering and diversion structure at Plant No. 1. This structure contains magnetic flow meters, ph meters and electro conductivity meters along with gates that can be raised or lowered to move flows from one trunk line to another as necessary. A portion of the influent can also be diverted to Plant No. 2 through an interplant pipeline to regulate flow into Plant No. 1. Headworks #1 & #2 There are two Headworks at Plant 1, which have a total rated pump capacity of 210 mgd with 130 mgd of stand by. Headworks #2 can be increased by another 70 mgd in the future by addition of another pump. It has two support generation units with a power rating of 1000 KW. Headworks #2 is the newest and is the operated system and Headworks #1 is the standby system. Three key processes for Headworks are bar screens, influent pumps, and grit removal. Screening Station (Bar screens) Flow from the Metering and Diversion Structure is routed to the influent channel for the mechanically cleaned bar screens at Headworks #2. There are four individual bar screen channels containing automatically cleaned screens. Two of the screens are operated and the other two are standby. The structure contains space to accommodate two additional screens in the future. Main Sewage Pumps After passing through the Headworks #2 bar screens, wastewater flows into the Influent Pump Station wet well. The Influent Pump Station lifts screened wastewater to the influent channel serving the grit removal chambers. There are four 70 mgd variable speed pumps at Headworks #2 and two 30 mgd constant speed pump at Headworks #1, which services as stand by pumps. A sluice gate in this wet well can be opened to allow screened wastewater to flow to the Headworks #1 Influent Pump Station wet well if required allowing the wet wells at Headworks #2 and Headworks #1 to act as one large wet well under extreme wet weather conditions. Grit System (Grit Removal) There are five aerated grit removal chambers at Headworks #2 and two at Headworks #1 that are standby. The purpose of these is to remove inorganic solids that are present in the wastewater. The removal of this grit helps prevent clogging in pipes, protects mechanical equipment, and reduces the amount of material that collects in the sludge digesters. Each grit chamber contains four grit collection hoppers. Grit is removed from the chambers using telescoping valves that continuously discharge grit slurry by gravity to classifiers. Grit from the classifiers discharged to the conveyor belt carrying screens normally or to a separate grit bin for off site disposal. Flow from the Headworks #2 grit removal chambers is collected in an effluent channel that discharges to the Primary Influent Distribution Structure (Splitter Box). Splitter Box The splitter structure discharges to the Primary Clarifier Basin # 1 to 5 through a 72 inch diameter pipeline and/or to the rectangular PCB # 6 to 15 through two 90 inch diameter pipelines. Splitting is accomplished using the sluice gates. Bar Screens 4 units (+allowance for 2 units to be constructed) 234 MGD max 1 unit standby Grit System Grit Chambers 87 MGD duty 25 MGD standby 5 tanks 2 tanks standby Grit Washers Hydraulic 1800 gpm Overflow Rate 12,000 gpd/ft2 1 duty and 1 standby Grit Storage Capacity 2 days Splitter Box Odor Control Facilities (Bleach) 325 MGD cfm duty 24,000 cfm standby Feed Pumps 11.3 gph duty 20 gph standby Recirculation Pumps gpm duty gpm standby Muriatic Acid Scrubbing Cleaning Pumps Trunk Line Scrubbers 1 * Caustic 1 * Biotower Ferric Chloride Feed Pump 30 gpm duty 30 gpm standby 24,000 CFM duty 24,000 CFM standby 200 gph duty 200 gph standby Hydrogen Peroxide Headworks 4 duty (See 10H 120, Pump information) 4 standby pumps Flowrate Capacity 85 gpm Pressure 116 psi Splitter Box Max. Flowrate Capacity 325 gpd Max. Pressure 150 psi Support Generators Scrubbers Headworks Power Rating 1000 KW 2 on trunk lines Insufficient performance 26

41 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study TBA Process Metering & Diversion Structure Area 10A 2 Rating Condition Capacity Function Headworks #1 10B 5 5 Headworks #2 10C 3 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation General Project I 10 to increase flow to Plant 1 by 40 MG/D Metering & Diversion Structure Concerns about the reliability and accuracy of meters exist due to meter failures. Proper operation of the meters is important because treatment costs are allocated to the various revenue areas based on influent meter readings. Headworks No. 1 Questions have been raised as to the ability of the headworks to operate properly under emergency conditions. Headworks No. 2 Grit Chamber No. 2 is out of service. 6. Investment Program Table 3 Investment (thous.) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date Reliability P , , Total 4, , Table 4 Cost (thous.) O&M Cost Summary Efficiency Planning TBA Design & Construction P1 105 Headworks Rehabilitation and Expansion at Plant No. 1 This project rehabilitates and refurbishes process equipment and infrastructure within the Plant 1 Headworks facility, to ensure that the facility continues to be operational. Several studies have been conducted on the Headworks facility and a number of non critical items have been identified for repair and upgrade. The bulk of the project includes upgrades to existing bar screens, an additional bar screen, a screenings compressor, improvements to the grit removal facilities, improvements to the power distribution system including three new larger emergency generators, and miscellaneous process, mechanical, structural and I&C upgrades. This project is in keeping with industry practices as required for reliable and dependable plant operations. The capital budget identified on this sheet is based on the non critical items necessary to ensure the facility continues to function and conforms to the ultimate layout of the facility. The FY 2004/05 budgets for P1 71 and P1 105 have been reallocated after further evaluation of critical and non critical work. P1 105 will address increases in the facilities capacity to meet expected increases in wastewater flow projected in the 2001 Interim Strategic Plan Update. P1 71 Headworks Rehabilitation/Refurbishment The scope of work consists of rehabilitating and refurbishing the VFDs for the main sewage pumps and the cable trays and wiring from the VFDs to the pumps. An evaluation of the pumping capacity of Headworks No. 2 at Plant 1 conducted in Capacity issues will not be addressed through this project as capacity upgrades are being handled through a separate project (Ellis Avenue). There are other potential tasks items for this project which includes: a grit characterization study based on a computer model, gate operators, and installation of ventilation in Headworks 1 to meet NFPA 820. Other tasks that were previously part of this project have been moved to Job No. P This project is in keeping with industry practices as required for reliable and dependable plant operations. These reliability of these VFDs must be restored by late 2008 such that Plant 1 may reliably accept diverted flow from Plant 2 during Plant 2 Headworks changeover. P1 104 Regional FOG Control Collection at Plant 1 J71 8 Headwork Scrubbing Replacement Management Strategies TBA Maintenance 208 Operations

42 Asset System Summary Plant 1 Primary Treatment 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities System Sub System(s) Primary Sedimentation Basins Primary Sedimentation Basins (1 and 2) Primary Sedimentation Basins (3, 4 and 5) Primary Sedimentation Basin (6 31) Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Actual Performance 6 mgd Standby / Out of service 12 mgd 6 mgd (5 basins standby) Waste Sidestream Station Wasteside pump 3500 gpm Submersible pumps 150 Primary Effluent Pump Station 250 hp Polymer System (West) Primary Clarifier Basin Nos. 1 to 5 Primary Clarifier Basins (PCB) Nos 1 to 5 consist of two rectangular basins (Basin Nos 1 and 2) and three circular basins (Basin Nos. 3 to 5). PCB Nos. 1 and 2 are not normally in service due to an excessive amount of operator time required to operate and pump reasonable sludge densities. These tanks are utilized when one of the PCB Nos 3 to 5 is out of service. Currently, the average flow to PCB Nos 1 to 5 is 30 mgd. Their original rated capacity is 48 mgd. Primary sludge from PCB Nos. 1 to 5 is pumped with progressive cavity pumps to the Plant No. 1 digesters. Sludge pumps are operated from adjustable timers with density meter override. Effluent flow from PCB No. 1 to 5 is routed to the Trickling Filter Junction Box, which diverts the effluent three ways; directly to the outfall; to the trickling filters; or to the PEPS, which lifts primary effluent to the aeration basins. The PCB No. 1 to 5 are equipped with independent ferric chloride and polymer feed facilities to provide advanced primary sedimentation. The basins are also covered and have air exhausted to an odor control facility. Primary Clarifier Basins Nos. 6 to 15 PCB No. 6 to 15 are rectangular basins. They were constructed and placed in service Each of these ten primary clarifiers is formed by two tanks. Currently, the average flow is 60 mgd, which is their original rated capacity. These basins receive flow from Headworks 2 via two 90 inch pipelines, though only one is normally used. Flow from the two 90 inch pipelines is combined in the Primary Influent Distribution Structure. A set of weirs split flows to the influent channels of six banks of five clarifiers. Primary effluent from these basins is routed first through a metering structure that uses a sonic flow meter, and then to a primary effluent diversion structure that routes flow to one of two places; directly to the Interplant Pipeline; or to the Plant No. 1 aeration basins by gravity flow. Primary sludge from these basins flows by gravity to the Waste Sidestream Pump Station that discharges to the PCB No. 1 to 5 influent structure. PCB No. 6 to 15 are equipped with independent ferric chloride and polymer feed facility to provide advanced primary sedimentation. The basins also are covered with air exhausted to an odor control system. Storage Tanks 20,000 gal Mix Tanks 2,500 gal duty 2,500 gal standby Transfer Pumps 20 gpm Feed Pumps 2 8 gpm duty Polymer System (East) 2 8 gpm standby Storage Tanks 12,000 gal Mix Tanks 2,630 gal duty 2,630 gal standby Transfer Pumps 25 gpm Odor Control Facilities (Bleach) Odor Control Scrubbers (Caustic) 27,000 cfm duty 27,000 cfm standby Feed Pumps 4 duty (See 11IPMP120) 4 standby Recirculation Pumps 4 duty (See 11IPMP301) Hydrochloric Acid Scrubbing Cleaning Pumps 4 standby 1 duty (See 11IPMP101) 1 standby 28

43 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Process Failure Summary Area Rating Study TBA Condition Capacity Function Reliability Efficiency Planning TBA Primary Sedimentation Basins 1 & Design & Construction Primary Sedimentation Basins 3, 4, & 5 Primary Sedimentation Basins 6 to 15 Primary Sedimentation Basins 16 to Key Issues for Further Investigation Primary Sedimentation Basins (1 to 5) PSB No. 1 and 2 are not normally in service due to an excessive amount of operator time required to operate and pump reasonable sludge densities. Although designed as primary basins, the current functionality serves emergency storm water overflow. PSB No. 3, 4, and 5 are structurally reasonable but effluent pipeline may not be adequate, overall equipment is not in good shape, and concrete walls are not sound. Flat covers that will be placed on basins 3, 4 and 5 will not allow for rehabilitation or maintenance. Intention of project P1 37: if basins 6 31 work as they should, the function of basins 1 5 will be for major storm events, which means they are to be out of service 98% of the time. If this were resolved, the numbers above would change. P1 37 Primary Clarifiers & Related Facilities This project, currently under construction, constructs 16 new primary clarifiers, adding 96 mgd of primary treatment capacity. This project studied process improvements and new technologies to optimize the operation of all primary treatment facilities at Plant No. 1. New facility includes sedimentation basins, sludge and scum transfer systems, a foul air collection system, and a new power building. Improvements to existing facilities include foul air odor control, increased scum removal, upgrades instrumentation for unattended operations, flow distribution modifications, and flow paced chemical feed systems. This project is required by the Strategic Plan for implementation by The district is also required under our NPDES permit to have sufficient primary treatment capacity for future flows. Without construction of additional clarifiers, the District s current rated primary treatment capacity at both plants would be exceeded by The project budget has been increased from $88,561,00 to $9,760,000 to reflect the revised project cost estimate and project risk that is anticipated to be realized. Management Strategies TBA Primary Clarifier Basins (6 to 15) Wastewater flows from Headworks 2 through one of two 90 inch pipelines to PCB Nos. 6 to 15. Only one pipe is used because at the current flow levels one pipe is sufficient to convey the flows. Even with only one pipe being used, velocity is estimated at only one foot per second. This may be causing settling problems in the pipe and causing sewage to be septic. Primary Clarifier Basins (16 to 31) These are new but the functionality is in question as can be seen with some major corrective work. 6. Investment Program Table 3 Investment (thousands) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date P1 37 4,920 1, Total 4,920 1, Table 4 Cost (thousands) O&M Cost Summary Maintenance 270 Operations

44 Asset System Summary Plant 1 Secondary Treatment 1. Asset Profile Activated Sludge Plant (cont d) Plant piping allows the AS plant to receive effluent from all the primary clarifier basins as well as effluent from the trickling filter secondary clarifiers. Currently, however, only effluent from PCB Nos. 6 to 15 is routed through the aeration basins. Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Trickling Filter Plant OCSD operated four trickling filters and one trickling filter clarifier as part of the secondary treatment system of Plant No. 1. Trickling filters 1, 2, and 3 had been in service for over 20 years, and trickling filter 4 for over 10 years. The trickling filters were originally constructed in the 1960 s and the media and underdrain systems had not yet been replaced. With capital project P1 76 New trickling filter clarifiers replaced the existing trickling filter clarifiers, which were being operated at 3 times the design loading rate. The new trickling filter facility produces better quality effluent than the old facility and allows the filters to be operated at higher flows if additional secondary treatment is necessitated by future permit requirements. Activated Sludge Plant Plant No. 1 was originally constructed as a trickling filter plant. When activated sludge (AS) was installed, it was constructed with the option of being converted from a conventional air activated sludge plant to a high purity oxygen activated sludge plant. The aeration basins are covered with decks capable of supporting surface aerators. The new system has an extremely high density of new, efficient diffusers and, combined with the new variable speed blowers, should yield a very significant energy savings over the old plant. Plant No. 1 is also undergoing an expansion of the secondary sedimentation system from 14 rectangular clarifiers to 24. System Sub System(s) Trickling Filter Plant High Rate Trickling Filters Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) 15 mgd average, 37.5 mgd peak Recirculation Pumps 37.5 mgd duty 37.5 mgd standby Secondary Clarifier 15 mgd average, 37.5 mgd peak Activated Sludge Plant Aeration Basins 108 mgd Aeration Blowers cfm Secondary Clarifiers 4.5 mgd duty Returned Activated Sludge Pumps Waste Activated Sludge Pumps Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners 4.5 mgd standby 11,800 gpm duty gpm standby 760 gpm duty gpm standby Thickeners cf TWAS Pumps 100 gpm Recycle Pumps 1,100 gpm Air Compressors 20 hp WAS Polymer Mix Tank 1 WAS Polymer Mix Tank 2 WAS Polymer Feed Pumps 3000 gal 6700 gal 195 gph Actual Performance Odor Control 20,000 cfm Out of service WAS Polymer Transfer Pump WAS Polymer Storage Tank gal 30

45 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study TBA Process Area Trickling Filter Plant 12B 1 Activated Sludge Plant 12C, 12D Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners Rating Condition 2 12I 3 Capacity Function Secondary Clarifiers 12F Key Issues for Further Investigation Trickling Filter Plant No issues (new) Activated Sludge Plant (Aeration Basins/ Blower Buildings) P1 82 is currently under construction (see Section 5). Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners No issues Secondary Clarifiers No issues (1 through 24 are existing clarifiers; 25 and 26 are under construction) 6. Investment Program Table 3 Investment (thousands) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date Reliability P , ,887 44,175 P , ,846 26, Total Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Planning TBA Design & Construction P1 102 New Secondary Treatment System at Plant No. 1 This project will construct 80 mgd of activated sludge secondary treatment facilities, including aeration basins, clarifiers, a blower building, a RAS/WAS pump station, and a waste activated sludge thickening facility. When complete, Plant 1 will be enabled to treat 100 % of influent flows to full secondary standards by increasing secondary treatment capacity by 80 mdg. This project is necessary, in accordance with District s July 17, 2002 decision, to meet full secondary standards. P1 76 Trickling Filter Rehabilitation and New Clarifiers This project removes the four existing trickling filters at Plant No. 1 and replaces them with two new trickling filters and clarifiers. New facilities will be located in the same footprint as the existing trickling filters. The project also includes a new power building to support the increased electrical demand; two effluent lines including one to the GWR System inlet structure and one to the 66 inch interplant line; and several junction structures to allow flexibility of flow distribution. This project is required by the Strategic Plan. The trickling filters were originally constructed in the 1960 s and the media and underdrain systems have not yet been replaced. The new trickling filter facility will produce better quality effluent than the existing facility and will allow the filters to be operated at higher flows if additional secondary treatment is necessitated by future permit requirements. Then new clarifiers will replace the existing trickling filter clarifier, which is currently operated at 3 times the designloading rate. P1 82 Activated Sludge Plant Rehabilitation This project will rehabilitate activated sludge secondary treatment facilities at Plant No. 1, including the following: Rehabilitate Aeration Basin Influent Splitter Box, Step & Plug Flow Feed Gates; Replace aeration piping and diffusers within the Step Feed Channels; Replace RAS piping and improve RAS distribution. Rehabilitate mixed liquor channel aeration piping and valves; Rehabilitate Secondary Clarifiers 1 14 including replacement of chain and flight, cross collectors, drives, and stub shafts; Provide standby power and rehabilitate/upgrade existing power supply to increase reliability/serviceability and to meet new codes and standards; Add two new secondary clarifiers for improved reliability; and Incorporate J 42 reinvention ideas applicable to activated sludge; Incorporated J 25 4 electrical system improvements within process area. The purpose of this project is to ensure that the existing activated sludge plant can operate at its design capacity with a high degree of reliability. By replacing equipment that has reached the end of its useful life and by restoring the entire process facility, the District will be able to confidently treat the amount of wastewater required by its permittees and those relying on supply of secondary treated water. Cost (thousands) Maintenance Management Strategies TBA Operations

46 Asset System Summary Plant 1 Solids 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities System Sub System(s) Anaerobic Digesters Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Tank Capacity Working Capacity without cone Actual Performance Digester Nos. 7 and 8 209,200 cf/185,000 cf Digester Nos. 9 and ,430 cf/285,000 cf Digester Nos (1 standby) 330,430 cf/285,000 cf Anaerobic Digesters There are twelve digesters at Plant No. 1. Six of these, Digester Nos. 11 to 16, were constructed in During the fiscal year, five of the twelve digesters were used for stabilization. Digester Nos. 5 and 6 are used as holding tanks for digested sludge prior to sludge dewatering. The anaerobic digestion tanks operate at different ranges of primary sludge/twas combination percentages in the feed sludge flowstream. At Plant No. 1, Digester Nos. 9 and 10 operate with 100 percent primary sludge feed, while the other units operate with a primary sludge/twas mixture that is predominantly primary sludge. Operating temperatures are maintained in the range of 98o F to 100o F. Prior to 1992, ferrous chloride was added directly to the digesters to reduce hydrogen sulfide levels in the digester gas. Since that time, chemical addition of ferric chloride and anionic polymer, as part of the advanced primary treatment, have been the primary means to reduce the hydrogen sulfide concentrations to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) limits. The gas compressor building and the gas holder were completed in The gas flares were also constructed and placed in service in The flares are operationally ready although they have only been used for flare maintenance. Belt Filter Press Dewatering Facility Sludge at Plant No. 1 is dewatered using four to all eight of the plant s belt filter presses. There are two buildings, each housing four belt filter presses. Dewatering Building M was placed in service in 1983, and Dewatering Building C was placed in service in The presses are fed a blend of digested primary and WAS from Digesters Nos. 5 and 6, which serve as holding tanks for sludge from the other digesters. To enhance the dewatering process, cationic polymer is added to the sludge feed to flocculate solids and enhance dewatering. After dewatering, the sludge cake is transferred to storage bins prior to being loaded into trucks. Sludge Storage and Loading Facility Dewatered sludge is transported from Dewatering Buildings C and M to the cake storage facilities using conveyors and cake transfer pumps. First, 24 inch wide conveyors transport dewatered sludge from the belt filter presses to the cake transfer pumps. Then, Schwing cake transfer pumps transfer the dewatered sludge cake to any one of the four solids storage bins. The sludge cake weighs approximately 63 pounds per cubic foot. The cake is then pumped to the truck loading hopper prior to truck pickup. The sludge storage and loading facilities were constructed in Digester Gas Storage 25,000 cf 25,000 cf Digester Gas Compressors 1,550 cfm duty 1,550 cfm standby Interplant gas line 27,900 psi (max 70 psi) Waste Gas Flare 750 cfm peak 1 standby Sludge Dewatering and Belt Press Holding Tanks (Digesters Nos. 5 and 6) Digester Sludge Transfer Pumps 208,780 cf 208,780 cf (standby) 800 gpm Sludge Feed Pumps 250 gpm?? Jim Burror # of standby Belt Presses 100 gpm 2 standby Polymer Mix Tanks 6,000 gal Polymer Mix Tanks 5,000 gal standby Polymer Transfer Pumps 25 gpm 1 standby Odor Control Scrubbers 37,375 duty Sludge Cake Handling Facilities 37,375 standby?? Jim Burror Cake Transfer Station C 24 yd 3 /hr ea 1 standby Polymer Mix Tanks (See my insert below) Transfer Pumps 25 gpm duty 1@ 25 gpm standby Sludge Cake Pumps (See my insert below) Hoppers 4 tanks 32

47 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study TBA Process Area Rating Anaerobic Digesters (5 10) 15 B Anaerobic Digesters (11 16) 15 C Cake Loading 15 J Sludge Dewatering and Belt Press 15 G, H Condition 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Anaerobic Digesters Capacity Function Reliability Digesters No are in need of rehabilitation. Automated controls would also improve and simplify operation of digesters. Secondary treatment (P1 102) is leading to an increase of solids and sludge. Belt Filter Press Dewatering Facility No issues Sludge Storage and Loading Facility The current biosolids management strategy results in the need for cake storage when biosolids cannot be applied to land. Primary cake movers and pumps are obsolete. C2 is ready to fail, oil seal is ready to leak, and will constantly be leaking oil. 6. Investment Program Table 3 Investment (thous.) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date P , P , ,188 P Total Table 4 Cost (thousands) O&M Cost Summary Efficiency Planning TBA Design and Construction P1 100 Sludge Digester Rehabilitation at Plant 1 This project rehabilitates Digesters 5 16 at Plant 1, including rehabilitation/replacement of associated sludge pumping, heating, miscellaneous other structural, mechanical, electrical and control systems. The main purposes of this project are as follows: upgrade digestion systems as necessary for operation under proposed conditions for treatment of co thickened primary sludge/waste activated sludge (WAS) and thickened WAS (TWAS). Rehabilitate digestion systems as appropriate based on anticipated rehabilitation needs, a condition assessment, and an asset management evaluation. Upgrade digestion systems and modify operations for optimized performance. This project will provide reliability and treatment improvements, will restore lost capacity, and will allow the digesters to accommodate increased solids loading resulting from other treatment improvements. P1 101 Sludge Dewatering and Odor Control at Plant 1 This project replaces existing sludge dewatering systems and solids area odor control systems, and constructs sludge thickening facilities at Plant 1, including rehabilitation/replacement of associated sludge pumping, cake conveyance, chemical feed, ventilation and miscellaneous other structural, mechanical, electrical and control systems. The main purposes of this project are as follows: Temporarily expand the capacity of existing dewatering facilities to eliminate capacity shortfalls prior to commissioning of proposed facilities. Implement a primary sludge and WAS thickening to optimize use of existing digestion systems and avoid construction of new digesters. Replace existing sludge dewatering systems to maximize cake solids concentration and reduce future cake transportation and disposal costs. Replace solids area odor control systems to assure appropriate treatment of odors from existing and proposed solids handing facilities. Recently enacted restrictions on biosolids disposal/reuse have narrowed options and substantially increased biosolids disposal costs. In preparing the Long Range Biosolids Master Plan, options and implementation of sludge thickening have been found to be part of the most economically feasible options. P1 106 Truck Wash and Dewatering Beds at Plant 1 This project will relocate the several sludge drying beds that are scheduled to be demolished as the District expands its secondary treatment capacity. The new drying beds will be located south of the existing drying beds. This facility will continue to allow District and local agency sewer cleaning crews to safely dispose of sand, grit and other material collected in the sewer system during cleaning operations. Without the drying beds, District and local agency staff will have to dump sand, grit, and other debris into larger sewers for conveyance to the treatment plants. Management Strategies TBA Maintenance 1247 Operations

48 Asset System Summary Plant 1 Utilities 1. Asset Profile Water System OCSD s Plant No. 1 requires an average daily demand of approximately 5.7 mgd of in plant water for domestic service water, process water and irrigation applications. The treatment requirements for in plant water vary depending on the service. Potable water (city water), plant water (secondary effluent), and reclaimed water (tertiary effluent) are used at Plant No. 1. Potable water, plant water and reclaimed water are conveyed to various locations within Plant No. 1 through three separate piping networks. City Water (Potable) OCSD purchases potable water for Plant No. 1 from the City of Fountain Valley and uses it primarily for domestic service, steam boiler make up, and polymer mixing and dilution. The City Water Pump Station provides both potable water and industrial water to locations throughout Plant No. 1. Plant Water Plant water is Plant No. 1 secondary effluent filtered through onsite course filters (strainers) and disinfected with sodium hypochlorite. Plant water is used for activities that do not result in direct contact with humans. At Plant No. 1, plant water is supplied to hose bibs and pump seal water, filter press belt sprays, scum sprays, and grit washers. Plant water is also piped to provide backup service for central generation cooling loads. Reclaimed Water OCSD uses reclaimed water from OCWD s Green Acres Project (GAP) for services that do not require the quality of potable water. In Plant No. 1, these services include central generator engines (cooling water), central generator absorption chillers (condenser water), pump seal water, scrubbers, and polymer carrier water. Standby Power Generation Standby generators are located at various locations throughout Plant No. 1 for emergency service. The Blower Building contains two 800 kw generators which provide backup power for the activated sludge process. Power Building 2 contains a 1,000 kw Caterpillar diesel generator that can provide backup power for the trickling filters, plant water pump station and the solids handling facilities. Power Building 3A contains two 1,000 kw Caterpillar diesel generators for Headworks Nos. 1 and 2, and bar screens. Power Building 4 contains one 1000 kw Caterpillar diesel generator for the primary scrubbers, the warehouse, personnel and the maintenance shops. Chemical Facilities Chemicals are used throughout Plant No. 1 to aid treatment performance and control odors. The chemicals used include hydrogen peroxide, caustic soda, ferric chloride, sodium hypochlorite, polymer, and hydrochloric (muriatic) acid. The use of gaseous chlorine was discontinued in 1993, and the future use of chlorine at Plant No. 1 is not projected. Ferric chloride has been added to the digesters for hydrogen sulfide control, replacing ferrous chloride since January Other Assets» Fiber Optic Backbone» Plant Air» Fire Alarm» Plant Effluent Disinfection» Compressed Natural Gas System» Plant Natural Gas System» Tunnel System» Plant Pipes 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 System Sub System(s) Water System Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Potable Water Air Break Tank Potable Water Pumps Industrial Water Air Break Tank Industrial Water Pumps Standby Power Generators Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) 3000 gal 25 hp, 230 gpm 6, hp, 6 gpm Blower Building 800 kwh Power Building kw Power Building 3A 1000 kwh Power Building kwh Actual Performance 34

49 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study Process Area Rating J 102 Electrical/ Heating Systems Master Plan Condition Capacity Function Reliability Efficiency Planning TBA Standby Power Generation Multi. Chemical Facilities Odor Control 5 5 Water System» City 17B 2» Plant 17C 3» Reclaimed 2 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Standby Power Generators There are concerns about the Standby Generators reliability to provide backup to the Central Power Generation System. Design & Construction J 33 1A Standby Power and Reliability Modifications This project reconfigures and increases the capacity of standby power systems at both treatment plants and corrects deficiencies, within several major switchgear assemblies and motor control centers, by replacement of undersized equipment. As a standby backup to power from Cen Gen and the utility, the District uses diesel fueled engine generators for critical loads throughout the treatment facilities. In order to increase the reliability and capacity of standby power systems, this project implements recommendations of multiple studies regarding standby power needs, completed in 1994 and later. Management Strategies TBA Chemical Facilities Chemical facilities issues are not addressed. Odor Control J 71 8 supposed to rectify issues with odor control Water System If a fire hydrant opened on the north side of the plant, it would affect the water pressure in the plant. 6. Investment Program Table 3 5 Year Summary Investment (thous.) Total Projected Budget Cost to date J 33 1A 19,029 17, Total Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Cost (thousands) Maintenance 334 Operations

50 Asset System Summary Plant 1 Central Power Generation System 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities System Sub System(s) Generators Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Generators 2500 KWh duty 2500 kwh Standby Actual Performance Central Power Generation System OCSD operates a central power generation systems at Plant No. 1 (CGS No. 1). CGS No. 1 consists of a dedicated power building that houses three 2,500 KW gas fueled engine generators. The engines are 12 cylinder, four stroke, turbo charged, intercooled Cooper Bessemer model LSVB 12 SGC reciprocating units which drive Ideal Electric brand electrical generators at 12,470 Volts AC. The plant generates electrical power and process heat as a "Qualifying Facility (QF)" using what is known as a "cogeneration" process as defined by the Federal Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). This "QF" status obliges the plant to meet certain energy efficiency specifications that include the recovery of useful waste heat. CGS No. 1 operates primarily on natural gas, but it also consumes a substantial amount of supplemental digester gas. In the 1996 calendar year, CGS No. 1 consumed million therms of natural gas (approximately 76 percent of Btu input) and million therms of digester gas (approximately 24 percent of Btu input), which was converted by the system to produce a total of 39.9 million kilowatt hours of electricity and about 127,500 million BTUs of useable thermal energy. This capacity represents an average generation rate of 4,542 kilowatts for the plant for a 91 percent capacity factor considering the "two engine" permit restriction. Absent this two engine rule, the capacity factor would be about 61 percent indicating that there is about 39 percent additional capacity available from the installed equipment. Engines 2471 hp duty 2471 hp standby Boiler Circulation Pumps 0.25 hp, 20 gpm Primary Heat Loop Circulation Pump Waste Heat Exchanger Circulation Pumps Heat Reservoir Circulation Pumps Auxiliary Waste Heat Loop Pumps Cooling Plant Water Pumps 5hp, 450 gpm 3 hp, 225 gpm 0.75 hp, 150 gpm 7.5 hp, 200 gpm 10 hp Condensate Pumps 0.5 hp Submersible Sump Pumps Southern California Gas Company Line Natural Gas Southern California Edison Electricity 20 hp Dave Halverson?? (O&M) Dave Halverson?? (O&M) 36

51 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study Process Area Rating TBA Condition Failure Function Reliability Efficiency Planning TBA Central Power Generation Design & Construction 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Central Power Generation System A single failure of the Central Power Generation System bus can cause the entire power system to fail and switch to standby power. The existing engine control systems are no longer manufactured or supported by the original equipment manufacturer and timely replacement of parts is not reliable. The existing controls do not provide emissions monitoring feedback signals to the engines for the control of exhaust emissions and does not effectively manage electrical loads. The engines do not start, stop, or vary loads automatically and can fail when power is lost. (See Section 5: J 79 1) Emissions issues (J 79) Kevin Hadden to follow up Mechanical issues (J 79 1) Kevin Hadden to follow up 6. Investment Program Table 3 Investment (thous.) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date J J Total J 107 Generator Bus Split Project at Plant No. 1 and 2 This project is to split the existing Cen Gen generator bus into two and install a tie breaker between them. An earlier J 25 4 Electrical Power System Studies project evaluated the plant system as of 1/1/2000 and recommended the split to improve the plant electrical power supply reliability and availability. A single failure of the Cen Gen bus can cause the entire power system to fail and switchover to standby power. This project will prevent single faults at the Cen Gen bus from causing large scale power outages at either plant J 79 1 Central Generation Automation This project will replace the engine control systems (FT 100, FT 210) for the Cen Gen Systems at Plants 1 and 2. The project will also provide improved electrical load management, operating communications between Plants 1 and 2, and improved control of exhaust emissions. The existing engine control systems are no longer manufactured or supported by the original equipment manufacturer and timely replacement of parts is not reliable. The existing controls do not provide emissions monitoring feed back signals to the engines for the control of exhaust emissions. The existing control system does not effectively manage electrical loads. The engines do not start, stop, or vary loads automatically and can fail when power is lost. The new system will provide automatic start, stop, and load management capability, as well as emissions monitoring feedback signals for exhaust emissions control. J 102 Planning the electrical distribution (it is the energy master plan) and will identify the level of service Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Management Strategies TBA Cost (thousands) Maintenance 334 Operations

52 This page is intentionally blank 38

53 Figure 5 3 Process Flow Plant 1 39

54 This page is intentionally blank. 40

55 This page is intentionally blank. 41

56 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Preliminary Treatment 1. Asset Profile Asset Profile (cont d) Grit System and Flow Splitting From Primary Clarifier Distribution Structure A, the wastewater proceeds to PCBs D, E, F and G. Distribution Structure B serves PCBs H, I, J, K and L. PCBs M, N, O, P and Q are fed from Distribution Structure C. Two of the pipelines to the distribution structures are equipped with flow meters, but those meters are currently inoperable. The adjustment of these gates is performed periodically, not on a daily basis. Under peak flow conditions, wastewater from HB flows directly to Primary Clarifier Distribution Structure A and bypasses the HC s grit chambers. Splitter Box The splitter structure discharges to the Primary Clarifier Basin # 1 to 5 through a 72 inch diameter pipeline and/or to the rectangular PCB # 6 to 15 through two 90 inch diameter pipelines. Splitting is accomplished using the sluice gates. 2. Capacity Profile Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Metering & Diversion Structure A Bar total Screens of six influent trunk lines bring influent into the metering and diversion structure at Plant No. 1. This structure contains magnetic flow meters, ph meters Plant No. and 2 electro conductivity raw sewage is routed meters through along with magnetic gates that flow can meters be raised and or lowered then to the to move influent flows channel from one for trunk line the mechanically cleaned to another as necessary. bar A screens portion of the influent can also be diverted to Plant No. 2 through an interplant pipeline at HC. This influent channel routes flow to five individual bar screen to regulate flow into Plant No. 1. channels containing automatically cleaned screens consisting of 3/8 Headworks #1 & #2 inch bars with one inch openings. The bar screens are eight feet There are two Headworks at Plant 1, which have a total rated pump capacity of wide. Currently, one screen is maintained in standby. The automatic 210 mgd with 130 mgd of stand by. Headworks #2 can be increased by another rake arm 70 for mgd each in the screen future by is activated addition of by another either pump. differential It has two level support generation across the units bars with or a power timer that rating automatically of 1000 KW. Headworks cleans the #2 screen is the newest if the and level is sensor the operated has not system activated and Headworks the rake #1 arm is the within standby a set system. time limit. Three key processes for Headworks are bar screens, influent pumps, and grit Screenings are deposited onto a conveyor belt that discharges to a removal. hopper for off site disposal. Screening Station (Bar screens) Flow Headworks from the Metering B & C and Diversion Structure is routed to the influent channel for the mechanically cleaned bar screens at Headworks #2. There are four HC is individual equipped bar with screen bar channels screens containing for gross automatically solids removal, cleaned a pump screens. Two station of the to lift screens flow to are subsequent operated and treatment the other two processes, are standby. and The aerated structure contains grit chambers space to for accommodate removal of heavy two additional inorganics. screens HB in the is equipped future. with Lift a pump Station station (Influent only. Pumps) The headworks are adjacent; wet wells are After interconnected passing through with the a 72 Headworks inch diameter #2 bar screens, pipeline. wastewater flows into the Influent Pump Station wet well. The Influent Pump Station lifts screened wastewater Wastewater to that the influent is not channel pumped serving by the the HC grit pumps removal flows chambers. through There the are original four 70 HB mgd screening variable speed structure pumps to HB. at Headworks It is then #2 pumped and two from 30 mgd the HB constant speed pump at Headworks #1, which services as stand by pumps. A sluice wet well gate to in the this HB wet pump well can discharge be opened channel. to allow screened Normally, wastewater the to flow to wastewater the Headworks flows #1 to Influent HC s Pump grit chambers. Station wet Under well if required peak wet allowing weather wet wells conditions, at Headworks however, #2 and wastewater Headworks bypasses #1 to act as the one HC large grit wet chambers well under and goes extreme directly wet weather to Primary conditions. Clarifier Distribution Structure A. Grit System (Grit Removal) Influent There are Pumping five aerated grit removal chambers at Headworks #2 and two at Headworks #1 which are standby. The purpose of these is to remove inorganic solids Flow is that routed are present from the in the bar wastewater. screen channels The removal to the of this wet grit well helps of the HC prevent Influent clogging Pump Station. in pipes, protects This pump mechanical station equipment, currently contains and reduces four the amount variable speed of material pumps that collects and four in the constant sludge digesters. speed pumps Each grit that chamber are contains automatically four grit operated collection and hoppers. varied Grit in is speed removed to maintain from the chambers a set level using telescoping valves that continuously discharge grit slurry by gravity to the wet well. Pumps 2, 4, 6 and 8 have variable speed drives, and classifiers. Grit from the classifiers discharged to the conveyor belt carrying screens pumps 1, normally 3, 5 and or to 7 a have separate constant speed grit bin for off site drives. disposal. Pumps Flow Nos. from 2 the and Headworks 4 were installed #2 grit in removal 1989 chambers under Job is No. collected P2 37, in and effluent the remainder channel that discharges were installed to the in Primary 1996 under Influent Job Distribution No. P Structure HC (Splitter has a Box). total Splitter pumping Box capacity of 388 mgd at 35 feet Total Dynamic Head (TDH). The HC currently splitter structure pumps discharges the majority to the of Primary flow at Clarifier Plant No. Basin 2. # 1 to 5 through a 72 inch diameter pipeline and/or to the rectangular PCB # 6 to 15 through two Grit 90 System inch diameter and Flow pipelines. Splitting is accomplished using the sluice gates. The Influent Pump Station lifts screened sewage to the influent channel for eight aerated grit removal chambers. Effluent from these chambers Orange County is collected Sanitation in District a channel Asset and Management routed to HC Plan Splitter 2006 Box B. System Sub System(s) Hydrogen Peroxide Tanks Bushard Miller Holder Interplant District 5&6 Coast Trunk Line Scrubbers 2 * Caustic Headworks B Lift Station (Influent Pumps) Headworks C Lift Station (Influent Pumps) Bar Screens Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Pumps: 0.5 hp duty 0.5 hp standby Max Flow: 240 gpd Pumps: 0.5 hp duty 0.5 hp standby Max Flow: 500 gpd Pumps: 0.5 hp duty 0.5 hp standby Max Flow: 500 gpd Pumps: 2 duty 1 standby Max Flow: 500 gpd Pumps: 0.5 hp duty 0.5 hp standby Max Flow: 500 gpd 24,000 CFM duty 24,000 CFM standby hp, 40 mgd plus 1 standby hp, 48 mgd plus 1 standby hp, 45 mgd ea 5 units, Depth: 8.7 ft 340 mgd Grit System Grit Chambers 28x20 ft ea Depth: 12.5 ft ea Grit Washers 2 units duty 1 standby Aeration Blowers 100 hp, 1000 scfm Splitter Box Odor Control Facilities (Bleach) 325 MGD 40,000 cfm duty 40,000 standby Foul Air Fans 40 hp duty 40 hp standby Recirculation 3 hp, 350 gpm duty Pumps 3 hp, 350 gpm standby Caustic Soda Feed Pump 30 gpm duty 30 gpm standby Actual Performance 42

57 3. Failure Mode Table 2 Failure Summary 5. Current Program Study TBA Process Area Rating Planning Condition Capacity Function Reliability Efficiency Diversion Structure Headworks B 20 B Headworks C 20 C Odor Control System 20 I Key Issues for Further Investigation Preliminary treatment will be demolished by 2010 (see projects). Diversion Structure There is a lack of adequate flow distribution at the diversion boxes and inadequate emergency power for the influent pumps. Bar Screens Bar Screen No. 2 in HC has a broken gate that is in need of repair. Two of the flow meters at the distribution structures are inoperable. Headworks B No other issues TBA Design & Construction P2 66 Headworks Improvements at Plant No. 2 This project will replace the existing headworks at Plant No. 2 and will include the following components: influent diversion and metering structure, bar screens, influent pump station, vortex grit chambers, primary influent splitter and metering structure, ferric chloride feed facilities, headworks and trunk line odor control facilities, screenings handling building (including Hycor washer/compactors), grit handling building (including cyclone classifiers), electrical building, and standby power. Many key components of the headworks facilities at Plant No.2 are old and are in need of replacement. Most of the gates are in need of replacement and several have already failed. A metering and diversion structure is necessary to allow calibration and maintenance of the meters. The bar screens and grit chambers are also inefficient and grit screenings are passing into the downstream processes causing increased O&M costs. Space within the existing headworks facility is very limited and modifications for rehabilitation would have been difficult or infeasible to implement. Management Strategies Headworks C to be maintained and 100% reliable at current levels till demolished in 2009? Headworks C No other issues Influent Pumping No other issues 6. Investment Program Grit System Table 3 5 Year Summary No other issues Investment (thous.) Total Projected Budget Cost to date P ,289 18,259 10,366 36,896 91,195 71,353 Total Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Cost (thous.) Maintenance 319 Operations

58 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Primary Treatment 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Primary Clarifier Basins A Side PCB A Side consists of PCBs D to G. Formerly, PCBs A, B and C, which are rectangular basins, were used for primary clarification. All sludge withdrawal equipment has been removed, and the basins no longer act as clarifiers but serve as emergency wet weather storage. Approximately 700,000 gallons of storage is available from these basins. PCBs D, E, F and G are circular basins. All of the primary effluent from PCB A Side is normally routed to the activated sludge plant. It is also possible to route the primary effluent to Junction Box No. 8, which can send flow to the Santa Ana River Overflow Weir (Serial Port 003) or the Ocean Outfall Booster Station (OOBS). Sludge and scum from PCB A Side is sent to the sludge digesters. Primary Clarifier Basins B Side PCB B Side consists of PCBs H to M. PCBs H to M consists of six circular basins. PCB B Side receives wastewater from Primary Clarifier Distribution Structure B (Basin M can also receive wastewater from Distribution Structure C). Primary effluent from PCB B Side flows primarily to Junction Box A. From Junction Box A, flow normally enters a 108 inch pipe running easterly, adjacent to OOBS, to a junction box which splits the flow to a 66 inch and a 108 inch line into the OOBS wet well. Under low flow conditions, flow is routed from Junction Box A to the Activated Sludge Plant. Sludge and scum from PCB B Side are sent to the sludge digesters. Primary Clarifier Basins C Side PCB C Side consists of PCBs N to Q. PCB C Side receives wastewater from Clarifier Distribution Structure C. Clarifier Distribution Structure C can send also send wastewater to Basin M. Primary Effluent Pump Station The PEPS lifts a portion of the primary effluent to a level that it can flow through the secondary treatment process by gravity. The remaining primary effluent flows by gravity directly to OOBS. There are four vertical mixed flow type pumps. Pump No. 1 is a constant speed electric motor driven unit. Pump Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are driven by electric motors with variable frequency drives. Each pump is identical in construction and has a nominal capacity of 50 mgd at 22 feet TDH. Odor Control Facility OCSD has a comprehensive odor control philosophy that consists of minimizing the formation of odorous gases where possible and containing, collecting, and treating the odorous gases when they do occur. Chemical pretreatment facilities are utilized to reduce the formation and evolution of hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) gas and other compounds associated with wastewater. System Sub System(s) Peak Design Capacity Primary Circular Basins Basins (D thru Q) mg, 12 mgd duty mg, 12 mgd standby Sludge Pumps 12 (D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, 25 hp 200 gpm ea 2 (F, 20 hp, 200 gpm ea standby Scum Pumps 7 (D/E, P/G, I I/I, I/K, L/M, N/O, 200 gpm ea Collector Drives 12 (1 w/ each 1.5 hp duty 2 standby Odor Control Facility Odor Control Scrubbers (North Scrubbers) 40,000 cfm peak 27,000 cfm 1 standby (one at each complex Foul Air Supply Fans 100 hp peak 144 hp 1 standby Caustic Feed Pumps 0.5 hp, 11.1 gph duty 6 standby Sodium Hypochlorite Storage 1 tank 12,000 gal Hydrochloric Acid 4000 gal Storage Tank Acid Feed Pumps 2 hp, 30 gpm duty 2 hp, 30 gpm standby Sodium Hypochlorite 41 gph Feed Pumps 41 gph standby Odor Control Scrubbers (South Scrubbers) 40,000 cfm duty 1 standby Foul Air Supply Fans 15 hp, 600 gpm Caustic Feed Pumps 0.5 hp, 11.1 gph duty 0.5 hp, 11.1 gph standby Caustic Storage 6,000 gal Hydrochloric Acid 2,000 gal Storage Tank Acid Feed Pumps 2 hp, 30 gpm Polymer System Storage Tanks 11,400 gal Mix Tanks 2,540 & 2,630 gal Transfer Pumps 10 hp, 25 gpm Feed Pumps 3 hp, 1 10 gpm duty 1 standby Ferric Chloride Storage Tanks 20,300 gal Feed Pumps 2 hp, 242 gph 1 hp ea (standby) Primary Effluent Pump Station 300 hp, 50 mgd Actual Performance 44

59 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study TBA Process Area Rating Planning TBA Condition Capacity Function Reliability Efficiency Design & Construction P2 85 Primary Clarifiers Side A 21C Primary Clarifiers Side B 21B Management Strategies TBA Primary Clarifiers Side C 21B Primary Effluent Pump Station 22B 3 3 Odor Control System 21I, 22J Key Issues for Further Investigation Primary Clarifier Sides A, B & C The structural sweep arms that come off the drive units have major corrosion (see P2 85). Scrum troughs contain corrosion in the aluminium structure of their domes. The primary clarifiers are currently at capacity, with basins A, B & C used for stormwater overflow. Primary Clarifier Side A A side is the oldest of A, B, and C. Primary Clarifier Side C Potential failure of sweep arm in p basin Primary Effluent Pump Station Division 860 find out whether there is planning to do VFD replacement and whether drivers are being updated as part of maintenance Odor Control Facility The current odor technology is 20 years old. 6. Investment Program Table 3 5 Year Summary Discuss with Technical Services (Ed Torres) to get current information on odor control. Investment (thousands) Total Projected Budget Cost to date Total Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Cost (thousands) Maintenance 319 Operations

60 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Secondary Treatment 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Primary Effluent Pump Station (PEPS) The PEPS lifts a portion of the primary effluent to a level that it can flow through the secondary treatment process by gravity. The remaining primary effluent flows by gravity directly to OOBS. Until 1996, all of the PEPS pumps were engine driven. The P project replaced the engines and the engine driven pumps with new motor driven pumps. Activated Sludge Plant The Activated Sludge (AS) Plant consists of eight pure oxygen aeration basins, twelve secondary clarifiers, and two cryogenic oxygen generation plants. Each aeration basin contains four individual stages. Each stage contains one surface aerator for mixing and mass transfer. In 1996, the P project extended the length of the secondary clarifiers from 171 feet to 225 feet. The quantity of flow receiving secondary treatment at Plant No. 2 is a function of how much flow is receiving secondary treatment at Plant No. 1. OCSD currently provides secondary treatment to 50% of the influent wastewater. Historically, the AS plant has successfully treated flows ranging from 60 to 95 mgd and has provided 33 percent to 47 percent secondary treatment of the wastewater flow received at Plant No. 2. Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners The DAF thickeners are operated to thicken WAS prior to aerobic digestion. In 1996, the three existing DAF s (A, B, and C) were replaced and a fourth thickener, DAFT D, was added. The existing systems were in need of replacement to extend the life of the sludge thickening facility. System Sub System(s) Activated Sludge Plant 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Primary Effluent Pump Station No issues Activated Sludge Plant (Aeration Basins) Of the two plants, plant A is inoperable and would require significant refurbishment to bring to an operating status. The aeration basins are contracted out to Air Products. The sludge plants are currently being electrically rehabbed (see Section 5: P2 74). Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Oxygen Reactors 139,656 cf, 90 mgd total Oxygen Generation Units 40,000 gal duty 1 standby Aerators 32 (4 per reactor) 75 hp (per reactor) 40 hp (per reactor) Air Compressors 28,000 cfm 28,000 cfm standby Secondary Clarifiers 182,250 cf MGD duty 182,250 cf MGD standby Waste Activated Sludge 760 gpm Pumps East Secondary Sludge Pump, PAS East Secondary Sludge Pump, WAS West Secondary Sludge Pump, PAS West Secondary Sludge Pump, WAS Channel Air Blowers 10 hp Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners 125 hp, 10,625 gpm 125 hp, 10,625 gpm standby 50 hp, 1,400 gpm 50 hp, 1,400 gpm standby 125 hp, 10,625 gpm 125 hp, 10,625 gpm standby 50 hp, 1,400 gpm 50 hp, 1,400 gpm standby Thickeners 8.5 ft depth, 55 ft dia TWAS Pumps 250 gpm Recycle Pumps 100 hp, 1,125 gpm Air Compressors 20 hp Actual Performance The thickeners have major corrosion on the weirs, beeches, and rake arms. 46

61 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study TBA Process Activated Sludge Plant (Aeration Basins) Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners Secondary Clarifiers Area 22 2 Rating Condition Capacity Function 22I G 22F Odor Control Investment Program Table 3 5 Year Summary 3 Reliability Efficiency Planning TBA Design & Construction P Sec. Treat. Monitoring & Cntrl Sys. Upgrade This project installs hardware and software necessary to upgrade the existing oxygen activated sludge process instrumentation and control system, at Plant 2. By utilizing current technology, the new software will allow operators improved access to process information. Several instruments essential for operation of the secondary treatment system are obsolete and the existing control system must be modified to accommodate new instrumentation. Upon completion, this project will restore the total capacity (90 MGD) of the secondary treatment facilities at Plant 2. This capacity is needed in order to comply with ocean discharge limits and move towards full secondary treatment. Investment (thousands) Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners (cont d) P2 89 (see Section 5) may be adding an additional DAFT. This needs to occur in line with additional secondary treatment. There is a year age difference between the DAFTS: DAFTS A, B & C were constructed in 1978, whereas DAFT D was constructed in the early 1990s. Total Projected Budget Secondary Clarifiers Cost to date P ,220 6,472 2, P ,841 2, ,604 4, P ,125 4,507 6,558 4,689 32,181 96,216 Total Table 4 Cost (thousands) O&M Cost Summary Maintenance 286 Operations 1, P2 74 Rehabilitation of Activated Sludge Plant at Plant 2 This project rehabilitates secondary treatment facilities at Plant No. 2 to provide reliable secondary treatment. This project includes replacement of major mechanical equipment items (gates, valves, operators, impeller blades, piping, etc.) that have begun to fail or are at the end of their useful life, relines the large diameter pipes that convey wastewater to the activated sludge plant, adds odor control to the aeration basin splitter box, installs bleach pipelines and injection points, and replaces and upgrades instrumentation and controls. This secondary plant was constructed in Much of the mechanical equipment has exceeded its useful life and is need of rehabilitation. The required modifications will increase reliability during operations at secondary treatment standards. P2 90 Trickling Filters at Plant No. 2 This project expands secondary treatment facilities at Treatment Plant No. 2 (Plant No. 2) to meet secondary treatment standards by increasing secondary treatment capacity by 60 MGD. This project includes construction of three trickling filters, a solids contact basin, and six clarifiers for additional secondary treatment capacity of 60 MGD at Plant No. 2. This project is part of the Secondary Standards Program. The tricking filter/solids contact process was chosen after preliminary design as the most cost effective process to achieve secondary standards at Plant No. 2. Two Secondary Expansion Consent Decree dates have been established for this project in 2009 and 2011 with penalties of up to $27,000 per day, if the deadlines are not met. Management Strategies TBA No issues Odor Control Ed Torres get current information on odor control. 47

62 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Solids 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities System Sub System(s) Anaerobic Digesters Digesters A & B (out of service) Digesters C, D, E, F, G, H Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) 190,800 cf peak 190,800 cf average 164,120 cf peak 145,770 (C, D, F, G) and 140,744 (E, H) cf average Actual Performance Digesters L, M, T 166,630 cf peak 145,770 cf average Anaerobic Digesters There are eighteen digesters at Plant No. 2. Digesters J, K, N, O, and I are used as holding tanks for digested sludge prior to sludge dewatering. The anaerobic digestion tanks operate at different ranges of primary sludge/twas combination percentages in the feed sludge flowstream. During the fiscal year, Digesters A and B were out of service. At Plant No. 2, Digesters C through H receive 100 percent primary sludge feed, while the other units receive a mixture of primary sludge and TWAS. The TWAS component at Plant No. 2 is greater than that experienced at Plant No. 1. Operating temperatures are maintained in the range of 98 o F to 100 o F. A current project will allow blended primary sludge/twas to be fed to any digester at either plant. Currently, Digesters A and B are not considered operating or holding type digesters. Belt Filter Press Dewatering Facility At Plant No. 2, there are fifteen belt filter presses located in the Dewatering Building. Add more Sludge Storage and Loading Facility Dewatered sludge is transported from the dewatering building to the Cake Transfer Station using belt conveyors. The conveyors transport the sludge to two 450 cubic yard (cy) storage bins. The cake is then pumped into the truck loading hopper prior to truck pickup. 2 duty 1 standby Digesters P, Q, R, S 293,6800 cf peak 259,639 cf average Digester Gas Storage Digester Gas Compressors 3 duty 1 standby High Pressure: 51,000 cf Low Pressure: 25,000 cf 330 hp, 1,550 cfm peak Waste Gas Flares 1550 cfm peak 750 cfm average Sludge Dewatering and Belt Press Holding Tanks (I, J, K, N, O) Digester Sludge Transfer Pumps 166,630 cf ea (I, J, K) 166,680 cf ea (N, O) 15, hp 1,600 gpm peak 15 hp, 1,400 gpm average Sludge Feed Pumps 25 hp, 250 gpm peak Sludge Grinders 5 hp peak Belt Presses 120 gpm average Polymer Storage Tanks Polymer Mix Tanks See below 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Polymer Transfer Pumps Odor Control Scrubbers C, D, J, K 37,375 cfm Out of service Anaerobic Digesters There are currently pieces of liner going through the C and D pumps. As long as P (see Section 5) happens, there should be no problem. Automated controls can improve and simplify operation of the digesters. Belt Filter Press Dewatering Facility This facility is old. Cake Loading and Transfer Station There are engineering problems in the hydraulic system. Odor Control P2 92 will mitigate problems. Storage P2 89 will address any issues with storage. Boilers Cannot run boiler water feed pumps, cross valving is not possible, and the piping and feedwater tank and hood need replacement. 48

63 3. Failure Mode Table 2 Failure Summary 5. Current Program Study TBA Process Area Rating Planning TBA Anaerobic Digesters 25B, 25C Condition C, D 4 E, H 2 F, G 1 L 2 M, N, O 2 T 2 Capacity P, Q, R, S 3 Sludge Dewatering and Belt Press 25 3 Cake Transfer Station 25 1 Cake Loading 25 2 Odor Control 25I 4 Storage (C & D hoppers) 25J 2 Boilers 25F 3 Gas Compressor Building 25E 3 6. Investment Strategy Table 3 Investment (thous.) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date P , P , Function Reliability Efficiency P ,684 1,285 2,058 1,210 7,624 2,507 P , ,813 1,332 1,184 P , ,362 1,647 Total Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Design & Construction P2 60 Solids Storage and Truck Loading Facility This project constructed a new Solids Storage and Truck Loading Facility at Plant No. 2. The newly constructed facility consists of two circular storage bins (each with 600 cubic yards of capacity) and four sludge cake pumps that convey biosolids from the Dewatering Building to the new truck loading facility. The existing solids storage facility at Plant No. 2 is 20 years old and the mechanical equipment is at the end of its useful life. In February 1998, the PDC Committee approved the design of the new solids storage facility. P2 89 Rehabilitation of Solids Storage Silos C & D at P2 This project rehabilitates the two existing sludge cake storage hoppers at Plant No. 2 to provide additional solids handling capacity, and rehabilitates and upgrades the dissolved air floatation (DAF) sludge thickeners. This project is required for the Trickling Filters at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2 90, which is necessary to support the Sanitation District s July 17, 2002 decision to meet secondary treatment standards. These projects have two Secondary Expansion Consent Decree dates established that could result in penalties and fines of up to $27,000 per day. Additional sludge handling capacity will be needed at Plant No. 2 to accommodate the increased sludge volumes from expanded secondary treatment operations. This additional sludge volume will exceed the available capacity of the existing operational DAFs. P2 91 Plant No. 2 Primary Sludge Feed System Project This project provides piping at Plant No. 2 to interconnect the primary sludge systems and digesters feed system. At Plant No. 2, there are three groups of clarifiers. Each group, called a bank is directly connected to a small group of digesters. Currently, there are no provisions to feed sludge from one bank of clarifiers to the other banks of digesters. Moreover, during maintenance and repairs the banks limit the amount of treatment plant capacity because the digester banks can become overloaded. This project will install piping to route primary sludge from any clarifier bank to another digester bank. P Digester Rehabilitation at Plant No. 2 This project rehabilitates digester facilities at Plant No. 2 to replace aging equipment, increase operational flexibility, and restore solids handling capacity. This includes Digesters C, D, E, F, G, H, P, Q, R, S and T. The scope includes: digester cleaning; lining of the digester walls; replacement of ferric chloride lines, steam system, hot water system, view ports, access covers, and flame arresters; and addition of digester feed flow meters, digester feed piping, in line grinder pumps, and automated controls. This project is needed in order to handle the additional solids produced by the Trickling Filters at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2 90. Additional solids handling capacity will be needed at Plant No. 2 to accommodate the increased sludge volumes from expanded secondary treatment operations. P2 92 Sludge Dewatering and Odor Control at Plant 2 This project constructs primary sludge thickening facilities to improve solids handling capacity, replaces sludge dewatering facilities to replace aging equipment and reduce Biosolids handling and disposal, rehabilitates solids handling odor control equipment to replace aging equipment, and temporarily expands sludge dewatering facilities to accommodate temporary construction needs. This project is needed in order to handle the additional solids produced by the Trickling Filters at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2 90. Management Strategies Cost (thousands) TBA Maintenance 1255 Operations

64 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Utilities 1. Asset Profile Water System City Water (Potable) Plant Water Reclaimed Water Standby Power Generation Chemical Facilities Fiber Optic Backbone 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 System Sub System(s) Standby Power Generators Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Power Building C 1000 kw Power Building D 1000 kw Turbine Generator Building 800 kw, EPSA SPF 2000 kw ea Actual Performance Plant Air Fire Alarm Plant Effluent Disinfection Compressed Natural Gas System Plant Natural Gas System Tunnel System Plant Pipes 3. Failure Mode Table 2 Failure Summary Process Area Rating Condition Failure Function Reliability Efficiency Water System» City Water (Potable) 27 B 3» Plant Water 27 C 4» Reclaimed Water 2 Standby Power Generation 28 2 Chemical Facilities 3 Plant Air 27 E 2 Fire Alarm 27 F 4 Plant Effluent Disinfection 27 G 3 Plant Natural Gas System 27 K 3 Tunnel System 27 L 3 Plant Pipes 27 Z 5 50

65 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Chemical Facilities Area 21 has major issues. Fire Alarm The alarms need to be fixed (may possibly be a programming issue) Plant Effluent Disinfection The galvanized brackets are failing. Plant Natural Gas System The system will be surveyed for corrosion. Tunnel System Area 23 fans do not run anymore, which may be due to a maintenance issue. Plant Pipes Area 25 pipes have major issues, although they are rectifiable under P (see Section 5). 5. Current Program Study TBA Planning TBA Design & Construction J 33 1A Standby Power and Reliability Modifications This project reconfigures and increases the capacity of standby power systems at both treatment plants and corrects deficiencies, within several major switchgear assemblies and motor control centers, by replacement of undersized equipment. As a standby backup to power from Cen Gen and the utility, the District uses diesel fueled engine generators for critical loads throughout the treatment facilities. In order to increase the reliability and capacity of standby power systems, this project implements recommendations of multiple studies regarding standby power needs, completed in 1994 and later. Management Strategies TBA 6. Investment Strategy Table 3 5 Year Summary Investmen t (thous.) Total Projecte d Budget Cost to date J J 33 1A 19,029 17, J Total Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Cost (thousands) Maintenance 1255 Operations

66 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Central Power Generation System 1. Asset Profile 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Central Power Generation System (CGS) CGS No. 2 consists of a dedicated Power Building that houses five 3,000 kw gas fueled engine generators and a single 1,000 kw steam turbine generator. The engines are 16 cylinder, four stroke, turbo charged, intercooled Cooper Bessemer model LSVB 16 SGC reciprocating units, which drive Ideal Electric brand electrical generators at 12,470 Volts AC. The steam turbine, which is powered by thermal energy captured from the waste heat of the engine generators, also generates at 12,500 Volts AC. In addition, the plant produces useful process heat, although not required to do so, as is the case for Plant No. 1. CGS Nos. 1 and 2 are each classified as a "Small Power Production Facility," which is a qualifying facility under PURPA regulations. To qualify for this "Small Power Production Facility" classification, the plant must utilize a renewable fuel, such as digester gas for a minimum of 75 percent of the total energy input. Priorities are to burn digester gas and provide heat for digesters. During peak season (June to October, 12 pm 6 pm), the generators need to provide power or import extensive electricity. Importing power the rest of the year is not a priority. Demand is driven by regulations. System Sub System(s) Generators Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) Generators 3000 KW ea (including standby) Engines 4166 hp Cooling Plant Water Pumps 100 hp, 2250 gpm Condensate Pumps 1.5 hp, 40 gpm Submersible Sump Pumps 10 hp, 400 gp Boiler Circulation Pumps 7.5 hp, 40 gpm Primary Heat Loop Circulation Pumps Waste Heat Exchanger Circ. Pumps Heat Reservoir Circ. Pumps Auxiliary Waste Heat Loop Pumps Gas Compressor Building (trailer mounted) 30 hp, 1050 gpm hp, 450 gpm 10 hp, 280 gpm 5 hp, 280 gpm 1000KW Actual Performance 52

67 3. Failure Mode 5. Current Program Table 2 Failure Summary Study Process Area Rating TBA Condition Capacity Function Reliability Efficiency Planning TBA Central Power Generation Design & Construction 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Central Power Generation System A single failure of the Central Power Generation System can cause the entire power system to fail and switch to standby power. A lot of auxiliary equipment is failing (technology is more than 10 years old), which is being handled case by case. **Rob Thompson from Division 860 to be asked to provide further input J 107 Generator Bus Split Project at Plant No. 1 and 2 This project is to split the existing Cen Gen generator bus into two and install a tie breaker between them. An earlier J 25 4 Electrical Power System Studies project evaluated the plant system as of 1/1/2000 and recommended the split to improve the plant electrical power supply reliability and availability. A single failure of the Cen Gen bus can cause the entire power system to fail and switchover to standby power. This project will prevent single faults at the Cen Gen bus from causing large scale power outages at either plant J 79 1 Central Generation Automation This project will replace the engine control systems (FT 100, FT 210) for the Cen Gen Systems at Plants 1 and 2. The project will also provide improved electrical load management, operating communications between Plants 1 and 2, and improved control of exhaust emissions. 6. Investment Strategy Table 3 Investment (thousands) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date J J Total The existing engine control systems are no longer manufactured or supported by the original equipment manufacturer and timely replacement of parts is not reliable. The existing controls do not provide emissions monitoring feed back signals to the engines for the control of exhaust emissions. The existing control system does not effectively manage electrical loads. The engines do not start, stop, or vary loads automatically and can fail when power is lost. The new system will provide automatic start, stop, and load management capability, as well as emissions monitoring feedback signals for exhaust emissions control. Management Strategies TBA Table 4 O&M Cost Summary Cost (thousands) Maintenance 1255 Operations

68 Asset System Summary Plant 2 Ocean Outfall System 1. Asset Profile Asset Profile (cont d) Santa Ana River Overflow Weirs This discharge port consists of two overflow points into the Santa Ana River and it is for use only in extreme emergencies. One of the overflow points is located at the termination structure upstream of the Foster Pump Station. The structure consists of a 50 foot long overflow weir at an elevation of feet. Treated wastewater passing over this weir then enters two 60 inch pipes that pass through the levee into the Santa Ana River. Flap gates are installed on these overflow lines to prevent flood waters from the river from backflowing into the outfall system. The other overflow point is located in the OOBS wet well. This 50 foot long overflow weir is at an elevation of feet and discharges into two 72 inch pipes to the river. As with the other overflow weir, there are flap gates installed on these pipes. The combined overflow capacity of both weirs is approximately 270 mgd and under high flow conditions in the Santa Ana River, it is possible that the water elevation in the river would prevent discharge from these overflow weirs without pumping. 2. Demand Profile and Performance Table 1 Peak, Average and Standby Design Capacities Effluent Discharge Facilities Treated effluent from OCSD s Plant Nos. 1 and 2 is discharged to the Pacific Ocean. There are two booster pump stations that pump a mixture of primary and secondary effluent to two ocean outfalls (120 inch and 78 inch). In addition to the two outfalls, there are two overflow weirs at Plant No. 2 that discharge into the Santa Ana River Pumping Facilities Ocean Outfall Booster Station OOBS was constructed in The pump station contains five 54 inch dry pit pumps and 2,625 horsepower electric motors with variable frequency drives. With one pump in standby, the pump station has a rated capacity of 480 mgd. OOBS is the lead pump station, pumping mixed effluent to the outfalls. Three of the five pumps are presently used to pump the 240 mgd average daily flow. System Sub System(s) Ocean Outfall Ocean Outfall Booster Station Foster Pump Station 3. Failure Mode Design Capacity (Min, max, peak and/or average) mgd mgd standby 120 mgd 1@ 120 mgd standby 72.5 mgd standby Actual Performance Surge Towers There are two surge towers located between the booster pump stations and the ocean outfalls. Surge Tower No. 1 serves the 78 inch outfall and Surge Tower No. 2 serves the 120 inch outfall. Surge Tower No. 1 (constructed in 1998) has an internal diameter of 26 feet and a crest elevation of 98 feet. This tower gives OCSD increased flexibility in discharging effluent to the 120 inch and 78 inch outfalls. Surge Tower No. 2 has an internal diameter of 26 feet and a crest elevation of 88 feet. It is located in line on the 120 inch outfall. Currently, a new staircase is being installed, and future work will increase the crest elevation to 98 feet. Ocean Outfall 120 inch Outfall The NPDES Permit designates the 120 inch outfall as Discharge Serial Number 001. Discharge Serial Number 001 is the only regularly used discharge location and consists of approximately 21,400 feet of 120 inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe, plus a downstream 6,000 foot long diffuser section. The diffuser section itself ranges in size from 120 inches to 72 inches in diameter and is at an average depth of 183 feet. At high tide, the outfall has a rated capacity of 480 mgd. 78 inch Outfall The NPDES Permit designates the 78 inch outfall as Discharge Serial Number 002. This outfall was the primary discharge point prior to Table 2 Process Failure Summary Area Rating Condition Capacity 78 Ocean Outfall Pipe/ Surge Tower #1 24 J Ocean Outfall Pipe/ Surge Tower #2 24 J 3 3 Ocean Outfall Booster Station Santa Ana River Overflow Weirs EPSA (Effluent Pump Station Annex) 24 G 2 24 G 3 Function Reliability 24 H Efficiency 54

69 4. Key Issues for Further Investigation Ocean Outfall Pipes/ Surge Towers Capacity issues with 120 inch pipe have resulted in several close calls due to storm water, but projects under way to mitigate this from occurring in the future. GWRS and EPSA should alleviate this problem. (See Section 5: J 67 Peak Flow Management looked at many of these issues). Ocean Outfall Booster Station Several major pieces of equipment are becoming obsolete including the pump drives and electrical controls. Parts and technical support for the existing equipment are becoming increasingly difficult to retain. (See Section 5: J 77 will allow maintenance to provide upgrades to VFDs) Santa Ana River Overflow Weirs In addition to old age, there is trouble with the seals on the 48 inch flap gates. From a flyover standpoint, this is an issue due to the possibility of water coming back. EPSA Testing of the EPSA s are under way; will be active in 1 year (2007). 6. Investment Program Table 3 Investment (thousands) 5 Year Summary Total Projected Budget Cost to date J J J Total Table 4 Cost (thousands) O&M Cost Summary Maintenance 33 Operations Current Program Study J 99 OOBS Rehabilitation Assessment Study This study will identify the current condition of the OOBS and any necessary capital upgrades of the station to maintain continued operation of the facility. This study will also investigate and identify corrosion and the probability of failures and risks associated with the larger pumping station repairs. It is anticipated that any recommended improvement would be schedule after the construction of the standby ocean pumping annex. Several major pieces of equipment are becoming obsolete including the pump drives and electrical controls. Parts and technical support for the existing equipment are becoming increasingly difficult to retain. This study will expand the work done in 1997 by RW Beck that identified the schedule for necessary rehabilitations to keep the District s major facilities operational based on industry standards. Planning TBA Design & Construction J 67 Peak Flow Management This project installs additional wastewater storage at Plant 2 to improve the District s effective peak hydraulic capacity. An initial study was conducted and design of the improvements listed below was completed in Feb Construction of these facilities will be completed by June 2005.» Modification to Effluent Junction Box control valves at Plant 1;» Installation of secondary clarifier inlet gate controls at Plant 1;» Installation of Ocean Outfall Booster Station adjustable weir gate at Plant 2;» Installation of dewatering pumps at Basins A, B, and C at Plant 2; and» Modifications to Primary Clarifiers Distribution Box A at Plant 2. The identified improvements are required in order for operations staff to better manage influent peak flows exceeding the rated capacity of the 120 inch ocean outfall. The recommended improvements will reduce the potential for discharging flows through the emergency (78 inch) ocean outfall and/or to the Santa Ana River. J 77 Effluent Pumping Station Annex This project will construct a new Effluent Pumping Station at Plant 2 to replace the existing Foster Pump Station. The project addresses deficiencies in the existing Foster Pump Station and will be designed to meet pumping requirements for peak flow events. The new pump station will be capable of providing back up to the Ocean Outfall Booster Station (OOBS) and of pumping secondary effluent exclusively through the existing 78 inch outfall during peak flow emergencies. The project is in the construction phase and is expected to be completed by June The existing Foster Pump Station is not capable of serving as standby to the OOBS. Analysis was prepared comparing pump station upgrade and replacement. The cost to completely replace the Foster Pump Station was estimated to be within 3% of upgrade costs for this facility. Therefore a new Effluent Pump Station Annex (EPSA) was designed to replace Foster Pump Station. Management Strategies TBA 55

70 This page is intentionally blank. 56

71 Figure 5 4 Process Flow Plant 2 57

72 This page is intentionally blank 58

73 5.2.5 Future Asset Summary Development It is recommended that the current Asset Strategies be maintained and developed over the coming years through the Engineering Planning Division of OCSD. It is envisioned that the following Asset Summaries will be developed with assistance from RAS and O&M.» Collection System Local Sewers Trunk Sewers Pump Stations» Effluent System Ground Water Replenishment System Supply Future development of the completed asset summaries will be achieved through building these summaries electronically, and linking them to detailed asset management plans for each asset summary with additional asset data. Future development of the asset summaries will be based on further development of the following plans. It is expected that these plans will be developed as support documents to the Asset Management Plan. It is noted that Engineering Planning is at the stage of building Strategic Asset Management Plans to support each of the asset summaries. Standard Operating Procedures Plan The Standard Operation Procedures are the regular, ongoing day to day operation guidelines initially developed during design and commissioning, and updated by the operators of the plants, pump stations and collection system diversion system. Routine Maintenance Plan Routine maintenance is the regular, ongoing, day to day work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including those instances where portions of the assets fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again.» Maintenance Plan (planned and unplanned); Trends (i.e. spending, complaints) and issues; Current and past levels of service (records of failures); and Maintenance decision making process (planned and unplanned).» Standards and Specifications Defined materials, methods, service standards to meet required levels of service; and Risks associated with alternative standards.» Summary of Future Costs Forecast of planned and unplanned maintenance work and costs; 59

74 Note any maintenance deferred and associated risk; and Outline how maintenance will be funded. Rehabilitation/Replacement Plan Rehabilitation and replacement does not increase the asset s design capacity but restores, rehabilitates or replaces an existing asset to near its original capacity. Construction over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is new expenditure.» Renewal Plan Show how replacements/renewals are identified and to what standards they are replaced (i.e. modes of failure, options for treatment, risk); End of life projections; and Renewal decision making process.» Renewal Standards Define materials, methods, service standards to meet required levels of service; and Risks associated with alternative standards.» Summary of Future Costs Forecast program of replacements and cost; Cash flow forecast of costs; Note any renewals that are deferred; Business Risk Exposure analysis (i.e. risks and long term effects of deferral); and Identify how replacements will be funded. Creation / Acquisition / Augmentation Plan New works are those works that create a new asset that did not previously exist, or works that upgrade or improve an existing asset beyond its existing capacity. They may result from growth, social, or environmental needs. Assets may be acquired at no direct cost to the organization (i.e. sub divisional development for local authorities that are self funded).» Selection Criteria Formal procedure to rank asset creation/acquisition projects.» Standards and Specifications Define materials, methods, design standards to meet levels of service; and Risks associated with alternatives.» Summary of Future Costs Future needs for acquisition and/or purchase of assets based on demand forecasts; Resulting cash flow forecast; and Identify how new assets will be funded. 60

75 Currently the Strategic Plan Update is the key document for the collection system. In 2006/07 a strategic plan is being built for the plants. Disposal Plan Disposal is any of the activities associated with disposal of a decommissioned asset, including sale, demolition or relocation.» Forecast future disposal of assets including timing and costs. 5.3 Full Economic Cost of Infrastructure Service Delivery Currently this section is a placeholder. For the Asset Management Plan 2005 and 2006, OCSD chose not to deal with the full economic cost of service. In future Asset Summaries, it is planned to commence the process of including a life cycle asset management section relating to the key asset types and key system groups. This section discusses best appropriate practices with regards to the full economic cost of infrastructure service delivery Introduction All owners of infrastructure need to understand the true economic cost of their infrastructure assets. Understanding the bottom line or the point at which the assets become non economic to own and operate is important. This is one of the identified failure modes for an asset. This section of the report outlines the latest approaches in this area. It is intended that OCSD will transition to report cost of service in this manner over the next four years. It will not displace the current cash or accounting processes but will provide management with another source of information useful in optimized decision making. There are different costs that occur in each phase of an asset s life. Depending on the level of service intended, it is possible to provide service at vastly different cost levels. Too often in the past organizations have focused solely on the initial capital costs of creation and acquisition. For some short lived or dynamic assets, recurrent expenditures for the operations and maintenance of assets represent a significant proportion of the total life cycle costs of these assets. Also, for facilities that stored contaminated material or dangerous wastes, the costs of cleaning up (disposal) at the end of the service life of these facilities are usually substantial. It is important to be able to attribute the costs to each phase in an asset s life cycle so that the total life cycle costs (or total cost of ownership) can be established to enable better management decision making Cost Elements The cost of infrastructure asset services is quite complex and it is vital to understand not only the current costs but also the long term life cycle costs and the current position of the asset in the asset life cycle as shown in the following Figure

76 Figure 5 5 Life Cycle Costs COSTS CUMULATIVE COSTS OVER ASSET LIFE CASH FLOW OF ASSETS DISPOSAL AND REPLACEMENT EFFECTIVE 0 100% CREATE MAINTAIN REFURBISH The key elements in asset costing for a public utility include the following:» Financial costs;» Asset depreciation;» Asset operations including externalities;» Asset maintenance;» Asset administration; and» Disposal costs. Capital investments occur at asset creation or acquisition and can continue throughout the life of the asset in the forms of major repairs, rehabilitation or refurbishments / augmentations; the blend of capital investment operations and maintenance activities will impact on the consumption of the asset or its depreciation Quality of Outcome / Level of Service The true costs of providing infrastructure services depend on the standard or level of service required by the bulk of customers and the community. While a high level of service is what every user expects, the full cost of providing that level of service must be made transparent so that a realistic level of service is set and ties into the expectations of customers or stakeholders. All service providers should strive to provide the required level of service at the lowest appropriate costs. 62

77 5.3.4 Community Wealth The intent of any good accounting standard should be to reflect the real condition of the entity in terms of cash on hand, asset value or wealth and income / expenditure / liability factors. Modern infrastructure accounting standards have tried to develop techniques for measuring and reporting this better than in the past. The Government Accounting Standard Board s Statement 34 attempted to do this; however, several shortcomings in terms of historic cost and assets pre 1980 have severely weakened this objective. With longlived infrastructure the key issue relates to each asset s replacement cost and to the rate at which it is being consumed. By understanding the true condition and performance of the assets, OCSD can also understand the individual wealth of that community served by its infrastructure. This is similar to how most people think as home or car owners (except that they are market driven values). The current property value is considered to be an asset. It appears in their overall wealth assessment and as such they can see how their family business is going from a total financial position. It is no different for the custodians of the community s assets. The elected members, directors and managers all need to work towards managing this infrastructure in a sustainable manner for present and future generations. Understanding the full economic cost is a key part of this picture. Respecting the proposition of community wealth is critical to adopting a best appropriate practice in this area. Figure 5 6 The OCSD Balancing Act THE BALANCING ACT Customer Expectations Sustainable Cost of Service Asset Performance Level of Service Residual Business Risk Exposure OCSD Conclusions The true cost of infrastructure services is heavily dependent on both the valuation and consumption of assets (depreciation) process and true operating and maintenance costs. They are critically related to the links between asset standards or levels of service and the most appropriate maintenance, capital investment and operating regimes. OCSD needs to understand this relationship and its accurate cost of service (full economic). This is an asset cost based model and the issue of cost versus price/value needs to be considered. 63

78 To provide a clear picture of whether the ratepayers of today are meeting their share of the system costs, it is necessary to look at the annuity of the future capital cash flow based on a quality Asset Management Plans. A quality Asset Management Plan has a high confidence level rating through maintenance plans and Capital Improvement Programs that consider the triple bottom line. The benefits to OCSD of making a transition to a full economic costs model is that it will now have a picture of life cycle cost where the increased costs in one area must be reflected in a suitable reduction or trade off in another area. Capital investment reduces operating and maintenance costs or business risk exposure or there is a beneficial improvement in the levels of service offered. 64

79 6. OCSD Asset Management Model 6.1 Model Background In 1998, OCSD commissioned a study 9 with R.W. Beck to analyze future asset replacement needs and to deliver a computer model that could be used to project alternative scenarios for funding replacements. This study used two parallel efforts; the first was building a system inventory of both existing and anticipated future assets with a method for estimating replacement costs. The second effort used those estimated replacement costs to generate a future expenditure plan and related user fees and rate to fund the expenditure plan. This work represented a significant step forward for long term asset expenditure planning for OCSD. The modeling work included many best practice approaches including:» An asset register based on financial project records;» Indexed current replacement costs;» Future costs escalated by construction cost indices;» Asset useful lives for different asset types; and» Estimated expenditures at set points in asset lives based on asset age. As a financial planning tool this was a great improvement from previous processes. The approach used to build the information is considered a top down view of the assets and necessarily makes some broad assumptions about asset condition and performance in estimating the expected expenditures. The model constructed was limited to a 20 year projection of asset expenditure needs. The Asset Management Plan 2005 approached the question of asset replacement needs from the bottom up perspective by;» Building a detailed asset register based on a complete asset hierarchy (an asset by asset compilation);» Populating the information in the model with more detailed data about each asset that was used to make a more educated estimate of actual asset rehabilitation and replacement funding needs. The analysis was run for a 100 year projection, thereby more closely matching the actual needs of many of OCSD s long lived assets. The model attempted to improve on the R.W. Beck model by considering the following issues;» A comparison between the Computerized Maintenance Management System database and the R.W. Beck asset register shows that some assets may not be accounted for (for example, the outfall, although mentioned in the report, does not appear in the database);» Better asset data is now available since the R.W. Beck model was developed;» The asset breakdown in the R.W. Beck model is too high a level to derive more accurate renewal figures. This is due to the fact that the OCSD Financial Information System catalogues asset information 9 System Replacement Needs Analysis, RW Beck, May

80 by capital improvement project and not to actual assets. The Asset Management Plan constructed an asset register to a lower hierarchical level for this application to be achieved.» The replacement valuation has been completed at an asset project level and as such: The component replacements have not made sufficient allowance for 'component renewal factors necessary for life extension models; and The replacement valuations made allowance for the cost indices from the original date of construction or used current replacement tables, but did not make the necessary adjustments for the fact that many assets were built in an undeveloped environment and will now have to be renewed or replaced in a developed environment.» The average asset lives used in the R.W. Beck model was based solely on asset age. This does not account for the various factors that will contribute to the typical decay of like assets. It is vital that the knowledge of key staff is used to supplement this information in terms of known performance or condition;» The rehabilitation / renewal assumption are reasonable for mechanical / electrical assets; however, they need to be adjusted to reflect the basis for civil structures and pipelines;» To better understand the renewal dates it is vital to understand the criticality of an asset; there is a need to include Business Risk Exposure allowances into the model;» The model makes no allowance for maintenance allocations for new assets and assumes that the assets will actually reach their effective lives;» Assets whose lives are consumed are renewed or replaced but only for one cycle. To run a full cost analysis over a 50 year timeframe it is essential that these assets are renewed and commence again; and» It is now believed that it is best to express all future cost models in current cost terms and not to make assumptions for inflation or cost indices. Future customers and ratepayers should be allowed for but costs should be expressed in 2006 dollars. This is believed to give a better response from ratepayer surveys as it allows them to assess the impact in terms that they know, How do I feel about it in my financial environment today? For the first Asset Management Plan in 2005, after some review of the existing data and OCSD s internal knowledge of the asset condition, it was decided that only data that was already available in electronic format in the Computerized Maintenance Management System, the Geographic Information System and the Facilities Atlas would be used for the analysis in this report. 6.2 The Asset Management Plan Model To meet the objectives outlined in the previous sections of this Asset Management Plan, a series of calculations was performed on the current and future OCSD assets. To facilitate this process, a Future Expenditure Model was developed, which is designed to:» Merge together a number of sources of data from across OCSD;» Create and summarize management strategies for each asset type or individual asset;» Estimate the treatment and associated costs by year for 100 years, 66

81 » Estimate an asset valuation for each asset; and» Report on future expenditure and value of the asset portfolio. The Future Expenditure Model can be used in several ways to better understand and make decisions about the assets. Some of the existing uses include:» Calculate the future expenditure profile of the organization, including capital, operations and maintenance costs;» Identify those assets that are approaching the end of life and require further analysis and possible inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program;» Prioritize the review of assets based on their risk profiles; and» Optimize the management strategy for an asset, including the intervention points based on risk, cost or condition. This model draws together data from a number of sources across OCSD. Some of data was extracted from the existing OCSD information systems, while other data was estimated for the purposes of this Asset Management Plan. The Future Expenditure Model considers the full life cycle of the assets, starting with construction through to disposal. The model can be used to model any future time period; however, the modeling has been projected over the next 100 years so that replacement of the longest effective lives are incorporated into the planning period Asset Management Plan 2005 Development The major steps undertaken in the Future Expenditure Model development for Asset Management Plan 2005 were as follows:» Development of the Asset Management Plan 2005 Future Expenditure Model Methodology Developed all the formulas and logic required to perform the necessary calculations;» Review of Existing Data Sources The major data sources from OCSD were reviewed and data was chosen and used in the Future Expenditure Model;» Asset Register Population and Validation A complete asset register was developed for OCSD and populated with the data discussed above;» Asset Condition (Capital Improvement Program Projects) Many of the existing assets are planned to be replaced in the existing Capital Improvement Program. The replacement data from Engineering was gathered on all of the present and future Capital Improvement Program projects and used to estimate future replacement dates;» Asset Lives Estimation An estimate of asset life (from new condition) was developed for all major asset types;» Asset Valuation Development An estimate of cost for each major asset type was developed; 67

82 » Failure Mode Prediction Failure modes based on age, cost effectiveness, and risk were calculated for each major asset type;» Residual Economic Asset Lives (Age and Condition) Based on age and condition, the remaining economic life by asset type was calculated;» Asset Criticality Based on probability and consequence of failure, high risk assets were identified;» Asset Strategies Where possible, management strategies were identified to reduce risk and premature asset failure;» Cash Flow Model Annual replacement costs were estimated from the above information Asset Management Plan 2006 Development The major steps undertaken in its development for Asset Management Plan 2006 were as follows:» Asset Condition (Capital Improvement Program Projects) The CIP had changed significantly since 2005 with some projects being completed and many projects having been revised and reviewed due to financial constraints. Many of the existing assets are still planned to be replaced in the revised Capital Improvement Program but the available level of detail and confidence in the data has improved as projects have moved through design stages. Updated replacement data from Engineering was gathered on all of the present and future CIP projects and used to estimate future replacement dates;» Asset Register Population and Validation A revised hierarchical asset register was developed for OCSD and populated with the data discussed above;» Asset Lives Estimation An estimate of asset life (from new condition data) was updated for several major asset types based on Delphi workshops and current performance of assets;» Residual Economic Asset Lives (Age and Condition) Based on age and additional condition data, the remaining economic life by asset type was re calculated;» Asset Criticality Based on probability and consequence of failure, high risk collection assets were identified; and» Asset Valuation Development An estimate of valuation for the portfolio and each major asset type was developed; and» Cash Flow Model Annual treatment costs at the asset level were estimated from the above information, and validated against 2006/2007 maintenance programs for major items. 6.3 Model Structure The Future Expenditure Model has been structured around the existing OCSD data hierarchies currently defined within OCSD s information systems. This has had several advantages, including:» Reduces the need for large amounts of data manipulation;» Allows for a critical analysis of the existing data hierarchies;» Enables reports to be generated that are consistent across the organization; and 68

83 » Supports a direct link of the Future Expenditure Model into existing OCSD information systems for updating of data. Due to the existing structure of the data within the OCSD information systems, four separate hierarchy structures have been supported within the model. These are listed below:» Gravity Pipes (System > Area > Trunk > Street > Type > Asset);» Force Mains (System > Area > Force Main > Street > Type > Asset);» Plant Pipes (System > Area > Pipe Location > Structure > Material Type > Asset); and» Plant Assets (System > Area > Location > Master Loop > Loop > Loop Tag Number > Asset Type > Asset). Apart from the hierarchical structure of the OCSD assets, the Future Expenditure Model supports two other levels of data input. The first of these is at the Asset Type level (e.g., gravity pipes, pumps, gearboxes etc) of which there are currently 142 within the database, while the second of these is at the asset itself. The types of data that can be entered into the model through these two levels include:» Asset Type Level Asset Type assumptions, e.g. effective lives, unit rates, failure curves (this information cannot be entered at an asset level); and Asset Specific Attributes Assumptions, e.g. size, length, location (applied to assets where data is not available on individual assets).» Asset Level Asset specific attributes, for example, size, length, location. There are a number of reasons why the Future Expenditure Model was structured this way, including:» It enables asset management strategies to be changed for a number of assets at a single time;» It allows assumptions to be applied to assets where data is not currently available; and» It allows for updates from the existing OCSD information systems to be easily downloaded to the Future Expenditure Model. 6.4 Data Sources and Collection There were several sources of data used to populate the Future Expenditure Model; however, the major ones were the OCSD information systems (Computerized Maintenance Management System), and staff ( Delphi Group ) workshops. Several workshops were conducted in order to fill the data gaps with OCSD staff, chosen for their knowledge of the assets in question, when asset information was not recorded in an existing OCSD computer system. This approach delivers the best valued judgment available to OCSD. Figure 6 1 summarizes the sources of data that were used for the model. The data that was required is listed down the left side, while the sources are displayed across the top. Not all the sources of data were used when more accurate information was available from other sources. 69

84 Figure 6 1 OCSD Data Sources Exist (%) Use Exist (%) Use Exist (%) Use Exist (%) CMMS (Plants & Pump Stations Only) TSMP (Collection System Only) J42 CRISP SCADA FIS Data Warehouse RW Beck Model Facility Atlas OCSD Strat Plan & Other Reports CIP Program (Future Assets Only) Delphi Groups Individual Disc. Asset Register 99 Y 99 Y 30 N 90 V 40 N 30 N 5 P 50 Y 40 Y V P Hierarchy 80 Y 99 Y 40 N 0 N 20 N 30 N 50 P 0 N 0 N V P Asset Types 99 Y 99 Y 20 N 0 N 0 N 30 N 50 P 0 N 0 N N N Size (Length, Depth etc) 30 Y 99 Y 0 N 0 N 30 N 20 N 30 P 0 N 30 Y N Y Material 20 Y 99 Y 0 N 0 N 0 N 30 N 40 P 10 N 5 N N Y Date of Construction 5 P 99 Y 0 N 80 N 0 N 30 N 50 P 40 N 99 Y N Y Condition 5 Y 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 15 N 0 N Y P Performance 0 N 0 N 40 N 0 N 30 N 0 N 0 N 15 N 0 N P N Effective Lives 0 N 0 N 0 N 40 N 0 N 40 N 0 N 0 N 0 N Y Y Difficulty Multipliers 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N P V Unit Rates 10 P 0 N 0 N 50 N 0 N 60 N 0 N 0 N 0 N Y Y Maintenance 80 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 40 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 20 N N Y Operations 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 50 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N N N Level of Service 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 30 N 30 N P N Future Requirements 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 30 P 0 N P Y Growth / Capacity 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 60 Y 40 P N Y Renewal / Replace 0 N 2 P 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 30 N 50 P P Y Consequence of Failure 50 N 98 P 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N V P Rates Info 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 60 N 0 N 0 N 0 N N Y Use Exist (%) Use Exist (%) Use Exist (%) Use Exist (%) Use Exist (%) Use Use Use 0 No data exists 30 Data exists for less than 50% of the assets 60 Data exists for more than 50% of the assets N Data will not be used as better data exists V Data will only be used to verify other sources of data P Data will be used for less than 50% of the assets Y Data will be used for more than 50% of the assets 6.5 Asset Register (Inventory) The Future Expenditure Model now contains more than 140,000 individual items collected from the data sources listed above. Not all of these items are considered assets since they may be components of a larger asset. The relationships between the items are set within the asset hierarchy. The majority of the items within the Future Expenditure Model are at a level where maintenance activities are undertaken. Table 6 1 is an estimated breakdown of the register against the main tiers of the asset register. 70

85 Table 6 1 Count of Asset Items against Hierarchy Tier Level of Hierarchy Number of Asset Items System 3 Area 36 Location 275 Master Loop 1,000 Loop 26,000 Loop Tag Number 100,000 Asset 140,000 Figure 6 2 illustrates the distribution of the assets by its group, namely mechanical, electrical, civil, or instrumentation. The first pie chart shows the distribution of the assets by the number in the Future Expenditure Model, whereas the second pie chart shows the distribution by the replacement value of the assets. The number of assets are dominated by the mechanical type assets, whereas the replacement value of the assets are dominated by the civil type assets. The civil assets generally have much longer lives than the Mechanical/Electrical/Instrumentation assets and, therefore, even though the value of the civil assets is greater, the overall expenditure on the assets will be more in proportion. Since the civil assets comprise such a large proportion of the assets, they need to be maintained a monitored closely to prevent premature replacement. Figure 6 2 OCSD Assets Overview Number of Assets by Group Replacement Value of Assets by Group Civil 24% Electrical 2% Mechanical Instrumentation 7% 0.2% Mechanical 45% Electrical 25% Instrumentation 6% Civil 91% 71

86 The model contains two states of the assets. The first state is the way the assets currently exist, while the second state is what the assets will look like after the existing Capital Improvement Program has been completed. This has enabled new assets and asset renewals, both planned and under construction, to be included, allowing all the assets, both present and future, to be modeled. It is noted that several sets of assets have not yet been included in the inventory. These include Information Technology and fleet assets. These asset sets of assets should be included to improve the organization s understanding of the asset base, and to ensure that appropriate management practice is being applied to all assets. 6.6 Operations and Maintenance Costs Condition data is only necessary to determine the remaining life of the existing assets; however, at present, approximately 5% of assets have condition data. For this Asset Management Plan it was decided to estimate the condition of the assets based on its individual age, estimated effective life, and estimated decay curve. Many of the existing plant assets will be either replaced or rehabilitated over the next 10 years due to the current large number of Capital Improvement Program projects, placing less importance on performing field condition assessments of the existing assets at this stage. The installation dates for many of the assets are not known and have been estimated based on historical information from Capital Improvement Program projects. The collection system has very good information on the installation dates due to the recent Trunk Sewer Mapping Project. Each of the asset types was allocated a decay curve, which determined the rate of decay of the asset. Some assets were determined to decay at a constant rate throughout their life, while other assets were determined to decay quicker as they aged. Asset installation dates have been applied at the asset level, while the asset lives and decay curves have been applied at the asset type level. A series of Delphi group workshops have been conducted with the collections team to validate the asset conditions being predicted by the model. The model has also been through an initial validation trial for major plant assets. Such validation provided a basic confidence that the model is identifying assets that are either due to be decommissioned or about to have maintenance tasks undertaken on them. 6.7 Effective Lives Estimated asset lives are used to impact the condition of the assets and consequently the timing of asset renewals. Two lives have been allocated to each asset type, the maximum potential life of the asset, which is the time from installation to replacement if it is maintained and rehabilitated and the effective life, which is the interval between rehabilitations. Effective lives were determined based on the knowledge of the OCSD staff of the assets and validated through external sources. Several factors were considered when determining the lives of the assets, including: 72

87 » Historic failure history;» Historic construction practices;» Location and operational environmental;» Level of quality of installed assets; and» Management strategy. 6.8 Asset Valuation The replacement cost of the assets is used to determine the future expenditure requirements of the organization. The valuation of the assets includes both construction and estimated OCSD overhead costs. The valuation of the assets is based on 2005 dollars escalated by 3%, and not the historical values as listed in the Financial Information System. The majority of the assets have been valued by assigning unit rates at the asset type level, while a few individual assets were allocated individual replacement costs, where appropriate. The asset replacement costs were developed by traditional quantity surveying techniques by OCSD staff (cost estimators) and validated against recent projects. (Several relationships have been developed for many of the asset types, which relate asset size, length or location to the value of the asset. For example, the value of the collection system pipes varied by location within the system, depth, size and length.) 6.9 Operations and Maintenance Costs In Asset Management Plan 2005 operations and maintenance costs were estimated by inflating historical costs for OCSD. In 2006 an improved methodology was used based on actual budget figures for the initial year. The prediction of operations costs has been calculated as a percentage of the estimated replacement value of the assets in a given year. The prediction of maintenance costs has been calculated using an inverse function of the estimated written down replacement value or depreciated over replacement value in a given year. In future years this methodology will be modified to better predict these costs and to align with OCSD budget components. This will result in a better correlation between the model results and the budget. An example of an opportunity for improvement includes changing the categorization of major mechanical equipment in the model to include expenditure in the maintenance budget rather than the CIP budget Predicted Failure Modes The failure mode of the asset determines the timing of the renewal of the asset and potentially how the asset may eventually fail. For this Asset Management Plan, the following failure modes have been considered for each asset.» Asset Renewal (Replacement and Rehabilitation) The timing of the replacement or rehabilitation of the asset is determined by the condition of the asset, which is calculated based on its age, expected lives 73

88 and decay curve. The model uses a methodology, which optimizes the timing of the asset replacement to minimize the life cycle cost;» Future Levels of Service If the service that the asset is providing is no longer adequate, then it is considered to fail to meet the required level of service. This failure may be occurring now or may be predicted to occur in the future. An asset can fail to meet the level of service by falling below a required condition or performance level or it may fail when the required level of service has been increased to a level beyond what the asset is capable of delivering;» Growth / Demand An asset can fail if the demand for the asset exceeds the existing capacity. This Asset Management Plan model has focused on the asset renewal failure model as the key failure mode. The other two failure modes have been considered under the impact on the asset due to the current Capital Improvement Program. For example, if an asset is to be replaced due to a level of service failure under the Capital Improvement Program, then this is considered the first failure mode for this asset and is then renewed at a set interval after this time Asset Criticality Business Risk Exposure The criticality of an asset (Business Risk Exposure) should be used to determine the strategy for the management of an asset, since more critical assets should be managed/maintained to a greater degree than less critical assets. Asset criticality is calculated from the multiplication of the probability of a failure occurring and the resulting consequences of that failure. Collection System A sophisticated Business Risk Exposure model has been developed for the collection system, to enable the prioritization of asset condition assessments and cleaning. The outputs of this model will also be used to identify potential future Capital Improvement Program projects and will be used in conjunction with capacity modeling currently being undertaken. Two separate Business Risk Exposure models were developed for this Asset Management Plan, the first for the structural failure sub mode (asset decay or collapse) for Asset Renewal failure and the second for the operational failure sub mode (partial or complete blockage) of Level of Service failure. A number of factors were used to determine these criticalities, including the predicted condition of the assets, capacity, location, depth, H 2 S, soil, land use and slope. Plants An asset criticality model has been developed for the plant assets and is to be implemented in 2007/2008. This considers a limited number of factors in the consequence and probability equation to enable a quick identification of assets that have a high Business Risk Exposure, and that require additional condition assessment and management. 74

89 7. State of the Assets Summary 7.1 Asset Valuation Table Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values Valuation 2005 Collection Plants Total Replacement Value ($B) Depreciated Value ($B) Table Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values Valuation 2006 Collection Plants Total Replacement Value ($B) Depreciated Value ($B) The current replacement value has grown to be $5.56B, which compares to the 1998 RW Beck study prediction of $2.03B and the 2004 GHD estimate of $5.38B. This is estimated to increase to approximately $6.7B after the completion of the existing Capital Improvement Program. The current valuation has been based on:» The asset register now contains nearly all assets including: The entire collection sewer gravity system, split into individual sewer lengths and manholes; All the collection sewer pump stations and other critical assets including the siphons and associated assets; All structures and pipeline assets in the plants; and Many plant infrastructure assets not included originally.» The fact that the asset register now has a hierarchical structure, which allows the drilling down into each facility and asset to a level of component that was not previously available. There are now over 150,000 line items in the register as compared with 5,000 assets in the original RW Beck model;» The assets replacement values are now based on the assets being rehabilitated or replaced in the brown fields developed environment rather than the green fields undeveloped environment in which they were constructed. Most future asset rehabilitation or replacement will be completed in the confines of the existing plants, working inside buildings, assets that need to be kept operational, or in right of ways with high levels of traffic resulting in customer and community inconvenience. In many cases, the existing asset would require demolition before the asset can be replaced which might require temporary work to be put in place. All this results in a far higher replacement cost than an escalated initial construction cost would indicate; 75

90 » A greater level of asset breakdown and classification has been achieved, which has increased the accuracy of the asset valuation; and» The replacement valuation of these components have been made by OCSD estimating and costing personnel using a modern equivalent asset. The actual replacement value of the assets is an important tool in understanding sound asset management; however, it is the money required to be spent on these assets in terms of capital, operations and maintenance that represents the most critical issue from OCSD s perspective. This is the prime purpose of this modeling and continues the work done in the initial Asset Management Plan 2005 project Collection System Table 7 5 Collection System Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values Asset Group Replacement Value Book Value (Depreciated Value) Book Value / Replacement Value Civil $3,024,900,000 $2,195,700,000 73% Electrical $4,700,000 $2,100,000 44% Instrumentation $300,000 $100,000 20% Mechanical $21,300,000 $9,300,000 44% Total $3,051,200,000 $2,207,200,000 72% Figure 7 1 Collection System Valuation Instrumentation 0.01% Mechanical Electrical 1% 0.2% Civil 99% 76

91 7.1.2 Plants and Disposal Table 7 7 Plants and Disposal Asset Replacement Valuation and Depreciated Values Asset Group Replacement Value Book Value (Depreciated Value) Book Value / Replacement Value Civil $2,040,500,000 $1,174,000,000 58% Electrical $88,800,000 $36,600,000 41% Instrumentation $11,100,000 $2,800,000 25% Mechanical $369,700,000 $143,400,000 39% Total $2,510,100,000 $1,356,800,000 54% Figure 7 2 Plants and Disposal Valuation Mechanical 15% Instrumentation 0.4% Electrical 4% Civil 81% 77

92 7.2 State of the Assets Figure 7 3 and Figure 7 4 illustrates where the OCSD assets are within their life cycle and how much they have been consumed. Figure 7 3 shows that the bulk of the collection assets are between 15% 40% consumed, which is what would be expected due to the large proportion of the assets that have been constructed in the last 50 years, and as expected the asset base being in generally good physical condition. Figure 7 3 Collection Assets Consumption Distribution Collection System 160 Replacement Value ($M) % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Asset Consumption 78

93 Figure 7 4 shows that the bulk of the plant assets are between 20% 50% consumed, which is what would be expected due to the large proportion of the assets that have been constructed in the last 30 years. Figure 7 4 Plant Asset Consumption Distribution Plant and Disposal 160 Replacement Value ($M) % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Asset Consumption The large spike at 80% in Figure 7 4 occurs because the Future Expenditure Model assumes that all existing assets have at least 20% of their lives remaining. The plant assets that comprise the 20% spike should undergo analysis to determine their exact condition before re running the model. This chart highlights the assets that a large group may potentially be nearing the end of their useful lives. This didn t happen to the same extent in the collection figure due to updated condition and increased maximum potential lives. In future Asset Management Plans, these types of chart will be used to demonstrate the changing state of the assets over time; for example, this profile will be significantly different after the completion of the current Capital Improvement Program. This type of chart will also be used for scenario modeling to obverse the impact of differing levels of investment in maintenance compared to capital Collection Assets The focus of the collection system analysis this year has been on the enhancement of a business risk exposure model. The purpose of this model is to highlight those pipes that represent a high risk to OCSD and to develop the appropriate strategy to manage this risk. These high risk assets may have been due to an asset that was decaying and reaching the end of it life or were critical (high consequence of failure) or a combination of both. Two major failure modes have been considered:» Structure failures where structural integrity is comprised and results in pipe collapse; 79

94 » Blockages where capacity is comprised commonly due to tree roots and fats, oils and grease build up, and results in pipe blockage. There is a significant contrast between the pipes that represent the high risk from the two failure modes. At present, the majority of the high risk pipes structurally are the larger pipes, which generally have shorter maximum potential lives due to the material type and greater exposure to corrosive gases. As the system ages, then more of the smaller pipes will become a high risk from a structural perspective. However, at present the smaller pipes represent the greater risk operationally as they are more likely to have root intrusion and develop blockages. The end result is that generally the larger pipes need to be managed differently to the smaller pipes, but overall every pipe can have its own management strategy developed. Probability of Failure (Structural Failure Mode) Figure 7 5 represents the Probability of Failure from a structural failure mode perspective. The majority of the higher risk pipes are those that are either older reinforced concrete or metallic pipes. Figure 7 5 Probability of Failure (Structural Failure Mode) Low POF (0 2.5) Med Low POF (2.5 5) Med High POF (5 7.5) High POF (7.5 10) 80

95 Probability of Failure (Operational Failure Mode) Figure 7 6 represents the Probability of Failure from a operational failure mode perspective. The majority of the higher risk pipes are those that are smaller and flatter, and generally in the Tustin area. Figure 7 6 Probability of Failure (Operational Failure Mode) Low POF (0 2.5) Med Low POF (2.5 5) Med High POF (5 7.5) High POF (7.5 10) 81

96 Consequence of Failure Figure 7 7 represents the Consequence of Failure and is the same for both of the assessed failure modes. Figure 7 7 Consequence of Failure Low COF (0 2.5) Med Low COF (2.5 5) Med High COF (5 7.5) High COF (7.5 10) 82

97 Business Risk Exposure (Structural Failure Mode) Figure 7 8 shows the results of the structural risk modeling. The red lines represent the pipelines that have been identified as the ones of highest risk. The majority of the high risk assets from structural type failures are major trunks built out of reinforced concrete pipe in the 1960 s or newer metallic pipes that have been exposed to higher levels of H 2 S. Table 7 9 summarizes the results, with a matrix of the lengths of gravity piped grouped by risk category. At present there are 736 feet of pipe that fall within the red squares, which represents the greatest risk to OCSD. Figure 7 8 Business Risk Exposure (Structural Failure Mode) Low BRE (0 10) Med Low BRE (11 25) Med High BRE (26 50) High BRE (51 100) 83

98 Table 7 9 Business Risk Exposure (Structural Failure Mode) by Length (ft) Probability of Failure Consequence of Failure , , ,651 1,256 27,017 1,212,973 3,277 87, ,584 11,970 5,304 77, ,976 23,487 22,031 38,572 76,937 8,409 3,970 5, , ,182 1, ,144 3,195 1,910 4, Low BRE (0 10) Low Med BRE (11 25) Med High BRE (26 50) High BRE (51 100) Business Risk Exposure (Operational Failure Mode) Figure 7 9 shows the results of the operational risk modeling. The majority of the high risk assets from operational type failures are smaller trunk lines or the local sewers within the general Tustin area. The red lines indicated the pipes of greatest risk while the yellow lines represent the pipes of least risk. Table 7 10 summarizes the results in a matrix of the lengths of gravity piped grouped by risk category. At present there are 378 feet of pipe that fall within the red squares, which represent the greatest risk to OCSD. 84

99 Figure 7 9 Business Risk Exposure (Operational Failure Mode) Low BRE (0 10) Med Low BRE (11 25) Med High BRE (26 50) High BRE (51 100) Table 7 10 Business Risk Exposure (Operational Failure Mode) by Length (ft) Probability of Failure ,252 8,962 14,938 1, , ,949 56, , ,642 25,750 5, , , , , , , ,430 8,898 84, ,153 92,131 4, ,659 1, , ,407 29,159 52,465 23,478 3, ,247 1,621 1,556 2, , ,089 37, , Low BRE (0 10) Low Med BRE (11 25) Med High BRE (26 50) High BRE (51 100) 85