Good to Great: A More Dynamic and Robust Linear Asset Management Program. Presented By: Jonathan Okafor, P.E. Fairfax County Paul Longo Dewberry

Transcription

1 Good to Great: A More Dynamic and Robust Linear Asset Management Program Presented By: Jonathan Okafor, P.E. Fairfax County Paul Longo Dewberry

2 Outline What is Asset Management? Fairfax County Overview Defining Risk Existing Risk Calculations New Risk Calculations New Asset Management System Next Steps

3 What is Asset Management? EPA Definition EPA Handbook Asset management is maintaining a desired level of service at the lowest life cycle cost. Lowest life cycle cost refers to the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset. Asset management is implemented through an asset management program and typically includes a written asset management plan

4 General Overview 2015 Population: 1,125, Square Miles (land and water area): Acres (land and water area) 260, Age Distribution 2014 Under 20 Years 26.20% 20 to 34 Years 20.10% 35 to 54 Years 29.70% 55 to 64 Years 12.50% 65 Years and Older 11.50% 2014 Median Household Income $110,674 Number of Housing Units (2015) Single Family Detached Units 195,034 Single Family Attached Units 100,161 Multifamily Units 117,003 Total Units 412, Education Characteristics High School Graduates: Age 25 and Older 91.50% College Graduates with a Bachelor's Degree or More Education 60.30%

5 Fairfax County No. Sanitary Sewer Assets 100,171 Sanitary Sewer Line Segments: Totaling 18,190,498 LF (>3,400 Miles) 63 Wastewater Pump Stations 57 Flow Metering Stations Rain Gauge Stations Grinder Pumps Sanitary Sewer Manholes and 100,132 Structures Pumping Station Wastewater Treatment Facility

6 Wastewater Management Organization Operates under the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) Provides integrated sewer collection and wastewater treatment services for Fairfax County residents and businesses. 339 Permanent Staff Positions

7 Wastewater Management Organization Three Divisions within WWM: Wastewater Collection Division (WCD) Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) Wastewater Planning and Monitoring Division (WPMD) Program-Wide Functions: Human Resources Information Technology Finance Outreach Emergency Management

8 Wastewater Management Program FY 2016 Adopted O&M Budget Proposed Five-Year CIP on a Cash Flow Basis $96,283,072

9 WCD Capital Expenditures WCD s O&M and CIP Budget Projections BEFORE AFTER Asset Management (Amounts for Illustration Purposes Only) Margin for error grows over time owing to unforeseen emergencies Cost Projections (in $M) Minimize Costs Identifying of Emergencies then prioritizing and addressing segments Leveled before they annual become investment emergencies reduces needed budgeting for uncertainty WCD s O&M and CIP

10 Existing Asset Management Program Clean and Repair CCTV Survey Data Collection Evaluate CCTV Survey Establish Initial Prioritization Renew Reprioritize Replace Advantages of Existing System Six CCTV Crews Surveying Full Time Review and Scoring Pipe Segments Basic CMM System Robust Enterprise GIS Maintain High Level of Service Less than 1 SSO Per 100 Miles of Sewer Opportunities for Improvement Standardized scoring procedure Enhance preventative maintenance Enhance risk analysis / prioritization Repeatable, defensible CIP planning

11 Why Change? Control decision making process Standardized inspection procedures (repeatable, defensible) Sufficient time to generate, refine, test and implement decision support tool Allow for future capital and O&M expenditure planning Proactive vs. reactive system Understand and manage risks

12 Arlington/Alexandria Sewershed Square Miles 1,030 Large Diameter Sewer Segments 15 to 66 diameter 223,891 linear feet Built between 1942 and 2013 >750 segments built prior to 1970

13 Program Goals Provide a list of prioritized sewer segments in its most critical sewershed Provide DPWES, WCD with a better understanding of overall risk Establish appropriate balance between optimal cost and desired level of service at acceptable risk level Estimate costs for renewal and replacement of assets that can be used for longer-term CIP and O&M budgeting Provide a clear audit trail to continually demonstrate sustainability

14 New Procedure Review and code per PACP CCTV /MSI ESRI ArcGIS Shapefile with data Priority Table InfoNet LOF Model 3R Costs GIS Shapefile COF Model Cost Model

15 CCTV Video/MSI Inspection Reviewed CCTV videos provided by WCD Multi-Sensor Inspection (MSI) of Large Diameter Sewer Standardized coding of videos to NASSCO PACP Version 6.0 Utilized InfoNet for scoring and database management

16 InfoNet Innovyze InfoNet used as database for PACP coding Automatically apply NASSCO PACP scoring methods to pipe segments Export Shapefile for use in Python-scripted models

17 Risk Assessment Modified risk assessment calculations O&M Schedule Potential CIP Projects Include risk factor multiplier (RFM) to weight scoring Risk = CoF x LoF x RFM Criticality matrix

18 Consequence of Failure Factors Level of Service (Social) Pipe Capacity Transportation Impacts Downstream of FM Discharges Urban Impacts Pubic Health and Environmental Impacts (Environmental) Proximity to Surface Waters Proximity to Wetlands Proximity to Resource Protection Areas Proximity to Other Utilities Cost (Fiscal) Depth Accessibility Cross Water Bodies Original Pipe Material (Asbestos Cement) Soils

19 GIS Software

20 Data Analysis

21 Model Processes Process: Pipe Topography Process: Structure Analysis Process: Waterway Impacts

22 Model Outputs CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE (COF) RPA Scoring Low High

23 Model Calibration Pre-Workshop Model Post-Workshop Model Refined Model

24 Likelihood of Failure Factors Asset Characteristics (15%) Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Derived from inspection results Pipe Material Determined from existing geodatabase Work Order History (15%) Reportable SSOs Determined from existing CMMS Work Order History Determined from existing CMMS Condition Assessment (70%) Structural condition (PACP score) O&M condition (PACP score)

25 Cost Model Cost Categories Pipe Depth Pipe Material Pipe Characteristics Soil Conditions Pipe Size Des >15' 10' t >5' a 0 to A (A B (D C (P Bad Fair Goo >=30 >=20 >=16 >=10 <=8" Sewer Main Cross Body of Water? (Stream Restoration) >=30 >=20 >=10 >=0' Environmental Impacts Additional Cost Factors Sanitary Sewer/Utility Crossings Sewer Main within 200' of RPA? Sewer Main within 200' of Wetland? Sanitary Sewer Transportation Impact (Traffic Control) Sanitary Sewer Cross Under Structure? (Building, Pool, Deck, Patio) Bypass Pumping Cost (Based on Pipe Size) Lateral Connections ($/ Lateral Connection) Sew Sew No U Yes No Yes No Cros With With Out Buil Out Non >=30 >=20 >=16 >=10 <=8" Yes No

26 Rank Prioritization Table Pipe ID Upstream Manhole ID APPENDIX A - PRIORITIZATION TABLE Downstream Manhole ID Diameter (Inches) Length (Feet) As-built Consequence of Failure Likelihood of Failure Risk Factor Multiplier Total Risk Score Proposed Capital Improvement Segments Highest Priority Highest Priority Highest Priority Highest Priority Highest Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority High Priority Priority

27 Criticality Matrix Output

28 Current Output Large Diameter Pipe Segment Distribution Arlington/Alexandria Sewershed Only ~90 % O&M ~10 % CIP Low Priority Regular Monitoring 39 Frequent Assessment 3 Medium Priority 42 High Priority 7 Highest Priority

29 Consequence of Failure Risk Analysis $ LoF reduced through repair/renewal Overall Risk = CoF LoF RFM CoF not easily changed 400 LoF Reduction Likelihood of Failure

30 Increasing Consequence of Failure Risk Reduction Prioritization 3R Program Improves Risk Cost of Failure System Ages, Increasing Probability of Failure New Development, Increasing Consequences of Failure (Less Likely as County Matures) Risk Cost of Failure Model Increasing Likelihood of Failure

31 Increasing Consequence of Failure Prioritized Capital Planning Risk Based CIP Year 3R Projects Costs* * For illustrative purposes only $31.2M $36.8M $28.7M $25.3M $22.9M Risk Cost of Failure Model WCD s O&M and CIP Budget Projections Cost Projections (in $M) Increasing Likelihood of Failure

32 Next Steps Implement Decision Support System County-wide (InfoMaster) Continue and Optimize Inspection of Sewer Segments O&M Prioritize Selection of Segments for Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement Capital Improvement Plan Refine WCD s Workflow Processes Establish Guiding Metrics for Program Performance Risk Reduction SSO Control/Level of Service Planned vs. Actual System Reinvestment

33 Questions