Johnson County Wastewater Collection System Asset Management Program A Road Map for Continuous Improvement

Transcription

1 Johnson County Wastewater Collection System Asset Management Program A Road Map for Continuous Improvement Ryan Eisele 1*, Joe Barnes 2, Patrick Beane 2, Dave Spencer 3, Peter Moody 1 1 HDR, Lee s Summit, Missouri 2 Johnson County Wastewater, Johnson County, Kansas 3 HDR, San Diego, California ABSTRACT As the Johnson County Wastewater (JCW) collection system and workforce continue to age, investments in maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and knowledge transfer to sustain desired service levels and risk tolerances will continue to grow. Data from JCW s information systems has been used to determine the financial and risk management implications of various investment scenarios, develop and calibrate decision models, and develop a consistent, transparent and defensible decision making and prioritization process for sustaining collection system levels of service. This effort has enabled JCW to forecast maintenance, condition assessment, and renewal investment needs with a high level of confidence, justify appropriate investment levels, focus limited resources, and facilitate knowledge transfer. Increasing investment needs, coupled with limited resources, has driven JCW to continuously improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery while continuing to execute day-today work functions. To meet this challenge, JCW and HDR staff collaborated in the development and execution of JCW s Collection System Asset Management Program (CSAMP) Implementation Plan which establishes a clear, practical, and strategic path forward. This plan identifies, prioritizes, coordinates, and schedules continuous improvement initiatives at a manageable pace that strives to balance staff availability and continuous improvement objectives. KEYWORDS: Asset Management, Collection Systems, Gravity Sewer Infrastructure, Rehabilitation Decision Making, Data-Driven Investment, Cleaning, Condition Assessment, CCTV, Confidence Level, Manhole Inflow, I/I Reduction, Deterioration Rate INTRODUCTION Johnson County Wastewater (JCW) owns and operates approximately 2,200 miles of gravity pipe and 60,000 manholes. As JCW s collection system and workforce continue to age, investments in maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and knowledge transfer needed to sustain the current high level of service will continue to grow. Increasing investment needs, coupled with 82

2 limited resources, has driven JCW to continuously improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery while continuing to execute day-to-day work functions JCW needed to develop a sustainable, cost effective strategy for managing aging sewer infrastructure. To meet this challenge, JCW and HDR staff collaborated in the development and implementation of what was originally called the Gravity Sewer Asset Management Program (GSAMP) which establishes a clear, practical, and strategic path forward. In 2016, forcemains and low pressure sewers (LPS) were added to the program, and the program s title was changed to the Collection System Asset Management Program (CSAMP). Hereinafter the program will be referred to as the CSAMP. The initial goals of the program were as follows: Development and implementation of an assessment, maintenance, and rehab/repair program based on a Business Risk Exposure (BRE) Model. Use data effectively to drive decisions and increase confidence in CIP and O&M investment projections in the JCW collection system. Refinement of decision making criteria focused on sustaining desired service levels and risk tolerances while minimizing long term costs. Development of a data driven 10 year budget projection for collection system maintenance and renewal with high confidence. Development of a realistic program Implementation Plan to strategically plan, coordinate, and implement continuous improvement and knowledge transfer over the next several years. The CSAMP represents JCW s road map to continuous improvement in collection system asset management. This paper describes how JCW is using the CSAMP to meet these goals of developing and implementing a plan that will sustain desired long term service levels while addressing the challenges of an aging workforce, aging infrastructure, and limited resources. COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Initial Assessment and Program Development The development of the CSAMP began in the spring of 2013 with a thorough assessment and documentation of JCW s current collection system strategies, practices, and procedures. JCW had a strong foundation of strategies, information systems, and institutional knowledge from which to build. Existing informal decision making processes were documented and refined using lessons learned, industry best practices, and JCW s institutional knowledge. The assessment findings were organized by the following core areas: Cleaning activities Pipe condition assessment and renewal activities Manhole inspection and renewal activities Information and data management systems integration 83

3 Detailed flowcharts and summary tables were developed for each of the items above to document the current workflow and decision making processes used by JCW. These were used as a starting point for the documentation of future workflow refinements and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge when employee succession occurs. During interviews with JCW staff, over one hundred individual opportunities for improvement were identified based on staff knowledge and industry best practice. These opportunities formed a vision for how JCW would provide sustainable and cost effective service as the workforce and system continue to age. Implementation Plan Development The initial list of opportunities for improvement was refined and expanded over the course of the first year of the program as other key development tasks were completed. Opportunities for improvement were organized by the following core areas: Cleaning Backups/Overflows CCTV (Condition Assessment) Renewal Decision Making In-house Repair Contractor Rehab Manhole Inspection Manhole Renewal Data Management and Systems Overall Collection System Maintenance Program Lateral Program The Assessment Team and JCW then further evaluated and prioritized these opportunities during a series of workshops in the fall of During this process, opportunities were either accepted or rejected. The accepted alternatives were prioritized based on order of importance and the desired time frame for implementation. Some of the opportunities were determined to be relatively low effort items that could provide immediate benefit to JCW s business practices. These low effort items, referred to as low hanging fruit, were implemented by JCW during the first year of the program. After developing a better understanding of the type and quantity of work that would be needed in the future to sustain the desired level of service, the next step was to develop a clear, practical, and strategic implementation plan. Based on resource availability, it was estimated that these initiatives would take multiple years to implement. Therefore, JCW prioritized each of these opportunities while considering the level of effort, timeliness, and importance of each opportunity. The project team then identified related and dependent opportunities and grouped 84

4 these opportunities into initiatives. An example of related opportunities comprising an initiative is shown below in Figure A. Initiative 7 Cleaning and CCTV Standard Operating Procedures (Phase 1) Opportunity Opportunity Description Start End Champion Title Date Date Develop SOPs for cleaning supervisor and/or noncrew 1/1/14 4/30/14 Collection cleaning staff that may include ad-hoc Work Systems Order (WO) intake, WO screening process, WO Superintendent creation process, WO planning process, backlog management process, WO prioritization and assignment, WO reassignment, pre-job prep, field visits, performance feedback, data quality checks, post-job follow-on activities, and dependent work order management (i.e. CCTV/Cleaning/Locate). Opp. ID 8 Cleaning SOP (Office) 9 Cleaning SOP (Crew) 12 Cleaning Findings Definition 211 CCTV SOP (Office) 212 CCTV SOPs (Crew) Document/Compile Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for cleaning crews that may include safety procedures, quality standards, productivity standards, tools & equipment needed, nozzle selection guidelines, sequential steps to perform work, data collection standards and procedures, nozzle and equipment testing standards and procedures, vehicle inspection and maintenance procedures, and other critical information. The document should be written to the level of detail to be used for training purposes. Define a consistent and documented methodology for categorizing cleaning findings. Develop SOPs for CCTV supervisor and/or non-crew CCTV staff that may include ad-hoc WO intake, WO screening process, WO creation process, WO planning process, backlog management process, WO prioritization and assignment, WO reassignment, prejob prep, field visits, performance feedback, data quality checks, post-job follow-on activities, dependent work order management (i.e. CCTV/Cleaning/Locate) and other critical information. Include prioritization of CCTV work versus other activities. Document Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for CCTV crews that may include safety procedures, productivity standards, tools & equipment needed, sequential steps to perform work, data collection standards and procedures, vehicle inspection and maintenance procedures, and other critical information. The document should be written to the level of detail to be used for training purposes. Figure A JCW Gravity Sewer Asset Management Program Initiative 1/1/14 4/30/14 Collection Systems Superintendent 1/1/14 4/30/14 Collection Systems Superintendent 1/1/14 4/30/14 Collection Systems Superintendent 1/1/14 4/30/14 Collection Systems Superintendent 85

5 The following items were defined for each initiative: Initiative ID Purpose Outcomes/Deliverables Initiative Champion Other Team Members Level of Effort (Internal and External) Schedule Schedule Flexibility Notes and Assumptions Initiative Scope/Opportunities for Improvement Finally, based on the level of effort, resource availability, and priority of each initiative, an implementation schedule was developed. This figure details the following: The related JCW Strategic Business Plan goals that are supported by the initiatives Implementation plan schedule and dependencies between initiatives Initiative champions Key program accomplishments The CSAMP Implementation Plan defines a realistic road map for the refinement of JCW s strategies, practices, and procedures to support continuous improvement related to aging gravity sewer infrastructure management. The CSAMP Implementation Plan is a living document that is updated over time as initiatives are completed, lessons are learned, changes or adjustments to previously identified initiatives are needed, and new challenges and opportunities present themselves. The Implementation Plan has continuously evolved over time to meet the challenges JCW faces. For example, prior to 2016, forcemains were not a focus of the program. However, a recent increase in the rate of forcemain breaks on high consequence of failure lines led JCW to place a greater emphasis on developing a long term plan to manage these assets. Forcemains were added to the program in 2016 and a series of continuous improvement initiatives were developed. Figure B presents the status of the implementation plan as of April Figure C presents the current status of the implementation plan, two years later in March of These figures illustrate how the plan evolves over time to meet JCW s challenges and address new opportunities. 86

6 Figure B JCW Gravity Sewer Asset Management Program Implementation Plan (as of April 2015) 87

7 WEF Collection Systems Conference 2017 Figure C Current JCW Collection System Asset Management Program Implementation Plan (as of March 2017) 88

8 PROGRAM RESULTS REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PROGRAM Definition and Collection of Representative Data Sample At the inception of the CSAMP, JCW needed to increase their confidence level in the investments needed to be made towards aging gravity sewer infrastructure to maintain the current high level of service. The available condition assessment data serves as the foundation for projecting future condition assessment, maintenance, and rehab/repair needs. A sufficient amount of data is necessary in order to establish an appropriate confidence level in the data used as the basis for system wide projections. Prior to the beginning of the CSAMP effort, JCW had developed and implemented an inspection and rehabilitation program for small diameter pipe, based on a Business Risk Exposure (BRE Model) that was developed as part of JCW s initial Asset Management Plan in 2008 and used to help make condition assessment and rehab/repair decisions. In 2013, JCW had condition assessment data on approximately 20% of the system. However, this data was concentrated in high risk areas within the small diameter system (defined by JCW as pipes smaller than 18-inches in diameter), primarily comprised of older VCP pipe that requires a higher level of investment than the overall collection system which is comprised of a mix of pipe materials and pipe age. Extrapolation of this subset of the system would have led to exaggerated investment level projections. Therefore, JCW and HDR leveraged ASTM E122 to determine how much additional inspection data was needed to reach a specified confidence level. Assets were selected and inspected to form a more representative sample of JCW s collection system. The inspection crews completed the collection of the representative sample in the spring of JCW crews inspected 11.4 miles of pipe that included large diameter (defined by JCW as pipes 18-inches in diameter and larger) and lower risk pipe (PVC material). The data collected in 2013 combined with prior inspection data allowed the project team to estimate future yield and budget projections at a higher and more desirable confidence level for JCW staff. The method for estimating the confidence level in these projections leverages the following references: Sampling Techniques, Third Edition, William G. Cochran, 1977 ASTM E122: Calculating Sample Size to Estimate, With Specified Precision, the Average for a Characteristic of a Lot or Process, 2011 This method calculated the level of confidence based on the size of the sample, desired confidence level, and actual yield rate. The yield rate is the percentage of pipes identified as requiring rehabilitation. Table 1 presents the calculated confidence levels and deviations based on the current sample size and yield rate for both large and small diameter pipe. 89

9 Table 1 ASTM E122 Calculation of Confidence Level for Large and Small Diameter Pipes Sample Size and Model Results Length Inspected (miles) Number of Pipes Inspected Projected Range of Yield Rate Yield Deviation Confidence Pipe Size rate (+/-) Level Low High Large Diameter (18-Inches and Greater) 41 (22%) 877 (23%) 10.0% 14.7% 90% 8.6% 11.5% Small Diameter (Less than 18- Inches) 596 (30%) 14,459 (28%) 16.1% 2.7% 90% 15.7% 16.6% From a statistical perspective, this means that JCW can be 90% confident that the actual yield rate is within the Projected Range of Yield Rates. Pipe Rehabilitation/Repair Decision Model Development and Calibration With the achievement of an increased confidence level for projecting investments, the project team collaborated to document and refine JCW s decision making criteria for gravity sewer renewal. This effort resulted in the development of Structural Risk Score (SRS) criteria. The SRS is a numerical value between zero and one hundred representing the relative structural risk for each pipe that has been inspected based on the condition assessment findings coded by CCTV crews using standard PACP scoring, consequence of failure, and projected pipe deterioration, with 100 representing the highest possible structural risk rating. The SRS calculation was developed specifically for JCW and this program based on a combination of existing JCW decision making processes, JCW staff input, and experience with other industry leading utilities. The SRS is determined by the pipe s probability of failure (determined by the condition assessment findings and projected deterioration over time) and consequence of failure. Historically, JCW has used consequence of failure criteria to prioritize inspections but had not directly used them to determine the priority of structural renewal actions. In JCW s new model, consequence of failure is considered during decision making and prioritization and represents 20% of the maximum possible SRS. This ratio was determined based on lessons learned from other industry leading utilities with mature decision making processes as well as JCW s engineering and field experience regarding the relative importance of the probability and consequence of failure factors. Weighting the condition assessment findings in this manner ensures that the pipes with the greatest risk of structural failure will be scored higher and prioritized for repair/rehab, while appropriately factoring consequence of failure into the decision making process. The SRS is comprised of the individual probability and consequence of failure components listed below: 90

10 Probability of Failure factors (80% of SRS calculation): Defect type (e.g. hole, break, fracture) categorized as Type 1 7 based on severity and type Defect size (e.g. clock position, length, percent blockage) Count of defects O&M issues (e.g. roots, grease, debris) Anticipated deterioration rate (based on pipe material and cleaning frequency) Presence of groundwater Consequence of Failure factors (20% of SRS calculation): Land use in proximity of pipe (e.g. proximity to bodies of water and wetlands, streets or major roadways, railroads) Diameter Depth Along with the SRS, a Structural Action decision algorithm was developed. This algorithm determines the recommended next action for each individual pipe based on JCW s preferred decision making processes and the pipe s SRS. To develop the algorithm, defects were classified based on the preferred repair action to address the defect: Type A Typically addressed by trenchless rehabilitation methods using CIPP lining or Pipe Patch (e.g. fracture) Type B Typically addressed by replacement (e.g. lining failure) Type C Typically addressed by point repair or replacement if severe (e.g. collapse, deformation) Type D Typically addressed by cutting intruding tap (JCW refers to this as Bueler Clean ) Type E Abandoned inspections Additional factors influencing the recommended Structural Action include the diameter of the pipe, the severity and distance between defects, location of defects, and specific combinations of defects that would lead JCW to complete a specific repair action. The model was then calibrated to determine a sustainable and cost effective reinvestment level that maintains JCW s current level of service as the system continues to age and deteriorate. For pipes that have significant structural defect(s), two risk mitigation strategies were considered. The first was eliminating the risk through repair, rehab, or replacement of the pipe. The second strategy considered was to monitor the pipe at predefined intervals to ensure it remains within an acceptable risk level. Since JCW s unit costs for pipe repair, rehab, or replacement are typically 91

11 10 to 1,000 times the cost of inspection, monitoring the moderate risk pipes is seen as a cost effective strategy. High risk pipes will be addressed through repair, rehab, or replacement. The SRS thresholds for repair, rehab, and replacement represent the risk threshold below which the pipe would be monitored in lieu of repair, rehab, or replacement. These thresholds were the primary mechanism for calibrating the model used to make renewal decisions and determine appropriate system renewal investment levels. The SRS thresholds were aligned with JCW s level of service and cost targets to maximize ratepayer investments. Recommended Structural Action outputs by the model include the following: CIPP Lining Replacement Point Repair Pipe Patch (trenchless point repair using fiberglass and epoxy liner patch) Install Manhole (at cleanouts or bends that cannot be lined through) Bueler Clean (cut intruding tap) 5, 10, or 20 Year Monitor (CCTV again at specified interval ) Figure D on the following page presents the decision making logic for pipe rehabilitation and repair developed and used in JCW s CSAMP. 92

12 Figure D JCW Collection System Asset Management Program Decision Logic for Pipe Rehabilitation and Repair 93

13 The model algorithms were then programmed to work with the live inspection data in JCW s Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to give a priority, action, and estimated repair cost to all pipes with an inspection record (note that there are currently over 19,000 pipes with an inspection record). The automated model can be run as often as needed, and is currently programmed to automatically run once a week over the weekend, after JCW s CCTV crews upload their data each Friday. The SRS and Action algorithms used by the model were developed specifically for JCW based on their decision making processes. These algorithms can be changed as needed based on input from JCW staff, and can also be adjusted if needed based on changes to JCW s cost or level of service targets. The rehab decision making processes also align with JCW s cost effective I/I removal strategy for main line pipe. The automated model was programmed to work directly with JCW s CMMS and the county s Automated Information Mapping System (AIMS). JCW staff can view the SRS and recommended Action for each pipe in AIMS along with available utility information, aerial images, parcel data, etc. Integration of these applications provides JCW another tool to ensure the correct rehabilitation decision is made in an efficient manner. Final actions and work orders can be assigned to pipes all on the same screen while viewing the AIMS mapping and rehabilitation model output. An example of this mapping application and CMMS integration is shown below in Figure E. 94

14 Figure E Integration of Online Mapping Application and CMMS with Rehabilitation/Repair Decision Model Data Driven Investment Forecast These new processes were then applied to the representative data set to forecast future rehabilitation work needed. Previously, JCW had developed age based asset replacement costs based solely on the age and physical effective life of pipes within the system. The rough estimate based on these factors assumed approximately $400 Million in asset replacement costs over the next 10 years. The new data driven projections were developed by identifying the following: Current system rehabilitation needs The projected system rehabilitation needs that will be identified over the next 10 years The current system rehabilitation needs were identified by applying the rehabilitation decision making logic to the pipes that have been inspected. Applying the decision making logic to the representative sample resulted in the rehabilitation action yields shown below in Figure F. 95

15 Figure F Rehabilitation/Repair Action Yields from Representative Sample The projected system rehabilitation needs represented the anticipated amount of rehabilitation work that will be identified over the next 10 years. These projections are a function of both the rehabilitation action yield rates and the amount of CCTV inspections projected to be completed over that timeframe. The projected needs were identified by applying the rehabilitation action yield rates from the representative sample to the anticipated amount of CCTV inspections to be completed over the next 10 years. This forecast was used to better understand the risk mitigation method and quantity of work that would be needed in the future to sustain the desired level of service and justify future investment levels. This resulted in a data driven projection of approximately $50 Million of rehabilitation/repair investments over the next ten years needed to sustain the current high level of service, at a 90% confidence level in the projections. JCW s level of confidence in the projections increased significantly while at the same time reducing the estimates from $400 Million to $50 Million dollars over the next 10 years. Over 3 years later in 2017, the original $50 Million projection has remained an accurate estimate for JCW s investment needs. Deterioration Rate Study JCW owns a large quantity of gravity pipe infrastructure (estimated replacement cost of approximately $1.5 billion in 2008). As the system continues to age and deteriorate, JCW will need to continue to make infrastructure renewal investments to sustain desired levels of service. JCW has developed a robust process to assess the current condition of the system and make prudent near term investment decisions. However, deterioration rates for gravity pipes are not well understood. 96

16 While other industries (e.g. pressure pipe) have made significant advances in understanding deterioration, the gravity pipe industry has struggled to develop meaningful long term deterioration curves for reasons including: Relationship between age and condition Relative to pressure pipe, gravity pipe deterioration is generally believed to be less dependent on age and more event driven (e.g. installation quality, root growth, aggressive cleaning, surcharge, ground movement, infiltration, etc.). While age by itself is a poor indicator of pressure pipe condition, pressure pipe has a much stronger relationship between age and condition than gravity pipe. This is because many of the common deterioration drivers such as corrosion and cyclical loading (e.g. internal pressure, metallic pipe expansion and contraction, soil shrinkage and swelling, etc.) are age dependent. Definition of Failure For the purposes of this document, the definition of failure is the criteria at which a pipe is renewed. The functional requirement of a pipe is to convey fluids under a particular operating context (e.g. pressure, flow rate). In general, gravity pipes rarely fail to provide their functional requirement due to a structural issue. The definition of failure for gravity pipes is often based on the risk of a pipe failing to provide it s functional requirements in the future. Conversely, pressure pipe (particularly lower consequence assets) are allowed to fail their functional requirement multiple times before they are considered for renewal. Determination of failure timing In a pressure pipe system, failures are typically observed and reported within minutes to hours of the event occurrence. Conversely, gravity pipes can often operate in a state which a utility would describe as failed for years or even decades so long as the flow can pass and the pipe is not inspected. Documentation of failure history Many distribution utilities have thirty to forty years of relatively accurate break data (date, type, and location of break) that can be used for failure modeling. Meanwhile, many gravity pipe utilities use CCTV as the basis to determine failure and only have relatively accurate data dating back five to twenty years. Accessibility - Gravity pipes are typically more accessible than pressure pipes for direct condition assessment. Cost Effective and Industry Accepted Condition Assessment Method Gravity pipes have a cost effective and industry accepted condition assessment method (CCTV). While several direct condition assessment technologies are available for pressure pipes, the industry has not adopted a standard direct condition assessment technique. Most utilities still rely on desktop analyses (e.g. breaks, soil studies, water quality complaints, etc.) to assess the condition of low consequence pressure pipes. To address these challenges, JCW's deterioration study relies on a matched pair analysis" which was define as: 97

17 A pipe has an inspection with a structural defect of interest AND The same pipe has a previous inspection separated by at least 5 years AND Both inspections have video available AND There is no indication the pipe was fixed between the inspections (e.g. repair work order, CIPP work, or pipe condition improved due to increase in number of material change codes) Prior to this study, only a handful of pipes met this criteria. Therefore, JCW strategically inspected pipes that would fit this criteria. A total of 501 events were collected and analyzed with an average duration between inspections of 9.4 years. Most pipes reviewed showed little to no deterioration, indicating that deterioration is not occurring linearly in these pipes. Significant deterioration was more commonly observed for more severe defects, such as pipes where the initial video showed signs of pipe wall displacement or soil or voiding visible. PROGRAM RESULTS CLEANING PROGRAM Initial Preventive Maintenance Program Scheduling Improvements When the CSAMP began in 2013, JCW s risk management policy defined a 3, 5, or 7 year cleaning schedule based on pipe material for typical pipes (note that some grease and low slope hot spot areas are cleaned on an accelerated schedule). Prior to enacting this policy, JCW s annual dry weather overflow/backup rate was greater than 8 per 100 miles of pipe in the 1980s. Effective collection system cleaning based on this policy played a key role in drastically reducing this overflow rate and maintaining JCW s high level of service. Recently, this rate has been consistently below 1 overflow per 100 miles of pipe. Prior to CSAMP development, JCW had increased cleaning output and had the capacity to clean more pipe than required to meet the cleaning schedule. Work orders were generated in bulk at a basin level and typically required many months to complete. While basins generally were prioritized and assigned based on the last time the basin was cleaned and the next cleaning schedule, individual pipes within the basin may not have been cleaned within the schedule defined by JCW s risk management policy. In order to focus resources on risk management policy compliance, JCW moved towards smaller work order packages and prioritized them based on when pipes in that area were coming due for their next cleaning based on the risk management policy. An automated model and mapping application for cleaning work order generation was developed and programmed to work with the live data in JCW s CMMS. This application allowed JCW to identify the cleaning due date for each pipe within the system and use this information to focus cleaning efforts on the highest priority pipes that were past due or nearing their due date. This enabled JCW to ensure compliance with the preventative maintenance cleaning strategy policy, avoid cleaning basins well before their due date, and reduce the overall quantity of cleaning performed. 98

18 Concurrent with these cleaning program improvements, JCW identified a need to increase CCTV resources to mitigate the risk presented by the backlog of older pipes within the system that had not yet been inspected. This was accomplished by purchasing an additional CCTV truck in lieu of a cleaning truck (which was due to be replaced), effectively shifting one cleaning truck and crew to CCTV in Based on future cleaning workload projections and the improvements made to the cleaning program, it was determined by the project team that JCW would still have sufficient cleaning capacity to meet the risk management policy goals, as well as account for adhoc cleaning and the grease hot spot program. In 2014 JCW completed the purchase of the new CCTV truck and shifted one full time cleaning crew/truck to CCTV work. Utilizing the optimized cleaning work order generation process developed through the CSAMP, JCW achieved 100% compliance with the preventative maintenance cleaning strategy policy for the first time while cleaning over 100 miles less pipe than in recent years. A comparison of the total miles cleaned by JCW versus the compliance rate with the policy is presented below in Figure G. Figure G Results of Initial CSAMP Cleaning Scheduling Improvements In order to better monitor progress towards JCW s goals, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the cleaning program were refined, documented and automated to generate monthly reports using the live data in JCW s CMMS. These KPIs included the following: Cleaning Risk Policy Compliance (Near and Short Term) Cleaning Workload Forecast (Short Term and Ten Year) Annual Cleaning Goal Status Monthly Cleaning Output (Programmatic and at Crew Level) CSAMP efforts also focused on the support of continuous improvement and knowledge transfer within the cleaning program to the next generation of leaders at JCW. As part of this effort, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the cleaning program were refined and documented. 99

19 These SOPs were completed for both field crews and office personnel involved in managing the cleaning program and collection systems. Cleaning Strategy Update A comprehensive review and update to JCW s preventive maintenance cleaning strategy was completed in This initiative was undertaken in order to accomplish the following goals: Understand why gravity pipe failures due to maintenance issues occur so resources can be focused on risk mitigation Maximize maintenance issue risk mitigation given existing resource levels Determine whether implementation of emerging technologies would support JCW in cost effectively managing risk Standardize existing frequencies to support long term schedule level loading and maintenance optimization Extend the useful life of pipes and reduce the long term cost of ownership by only cleaning pipes when needed Leveraging existing data (CCTV, cleaning, backup, rainfall, repair/cipp history, etc.) to identify the appropriate cleaning frequency for every active gravity pipe owned by JCW Level loading the maintenance workload to eliminate severe peaks and valleys in workload Position cleaning crews for success in terms of cleaning productivity by minimizing drive time, minimize repeat visits to a particular neighborhood, and where practical, clean hydraulically (from the top of the system to the bottom of the system) to capture and remove maintenance issues that elude the cleaning crew. Identification of the appropriate cleaning frequency is a critical component of a maintenance strategy. Figure H shows this concept: If a pipe is cleaned too little, a utility is exposed to excessive overflow risk. If a pipe is cleaned too much, it is an inefficient use of resources and will increase wear on the pipe. If a pipe is cleaned at the just right frequency, the utility is efficiently using resources, limiting the risk of overflows, extending the life of the pipe, and ultimately saving money. 100

20 Figure H Cleaning Schedule Optimization JCW then leveraged readily available data, industry experience, and institutional knowledge to optimize frequencies and minimize risk with the current level of cleaning resources. Over the past 20 years, 98% of JCW s collection system has not experienced a maintenance related failure. JCW staff believed that certain portions of the system were being cleaned more often than needed. To validate this assumption, an analysis was conducted on the cleaning findings collected by crews since more robust data collection standards were put in place when the Cleaning Program SOP s were implemented in Spring of As shown below in Figure I, The cleaning findings results indicated that as much as 80% of the system could be cleaned less frequently and only about 2% of the system needs to be cleaned more frequently. 101

21 Figure I Summary of Cleaning Findings Since pipe cleaning crews do not know the exact extent of maintenance issues before and/or after cleaning, a second analysis was conducted using CCTV data which provides visual proof of the exact extent of maintenance issues at the time of the inspection. For the purposes of this analysis, CCTV inspection data collected shortly after cleaning does not provide valuable information because it does not indicate how quickly maintenance issues are accumulating since the last cleaning on a particular pipe. With this in mind, this analysis focuses only on CCTV inspections that occurred at least 75% of the way through the cleaning frequency since the last cleaning event. The results of this analysis is summarized below in Figure J. These findings indicated that approximately 80% of the pipes had no blockage or a very minor blockage (<5%) at the time they were due for cleaning. Based on both the cleaning and CCTV data analysis, a significant portion of the system could be cleaned less often, freeing up resources to focus on higher risk pipes and basins. Figure J Summary of CCTV Findings A pipe risk score was then created and used to assess cleaning risk at a pipe and sub-basins level. The risk score was developed based on backup/maintenance call history, cleaning and CCTV findings, and JCW s institutional knowledge. A summary of the entire collection system by risk score category is presented below in Figure K. 102

22 Figure K System Wide Pipe Risk Assessment Score Summary Leveraging this data from JCW s system led to updating the preventive maintenance cleaning frequency from a 3/5/7 year schedule to a 2/4/8 year schedule, allowing JCW to accomplish the following: Mitigate risk by cleaning dirty pipes more frequently Reduce wear and extend life of pipe by cleaning clean pipes less frequently Clean 40 miles less per year Consistent workload each year aligned with existing resources (level loaded schedule) Maintained geographic centricity PROGRAM RESULTS CONDITION ASSESSMENT (CCTV PROGRAM) Prior to CSAMP development, JCW s management strategy prioritized pipe for condition assessment using a priority basin approach. Basins were ranked based on the average Business Risk Exposure Score (BRE) score of all line segments within the basin based on BRE criteria previously developed by JCW as part of the initial Asset Management Plan created in The basins were then prioritized for condition assessment and rehab/repair work, focusing on the worst basins first. The priority basin strategy allows JCW to focus inspection efforts (as well as subsequent rehabilitation efforts) on specific geographic areas, thus decreasing travel and setup times and increasing the efficiency of inspection efforts. All pipes within the selected basins were televised, regardless of the data of the last inspection and condition of the pipe. 103

23 The decision making processes used to prioritize pipe for condition assessment and to project CCTV backlog were reviewed and refined through the CSAMP. While JCW s priority basin was determined to be an effective tool to focus condition assessment efforts on high risk basins, additional factors were desired to further focus inspection efforts on the most critical work. To improve risk management within the collection system, JCW decided to incorporate a goal of completing inspections of all pipes before they reach 40 years of age. All pipes over 40 years of age were considered due for inspection and thus part of the first inspection backlog of pipes due for inspection. The BRE basin selection approach was enhanced to include the percentage of pipes in the backlog and the relative level of infiltration/inflow (I/I) within the basin. Forecasts of near and long term condition assessment needs were completed in order to ensure collection systems resources were aligned with JCW s future needs. The condition assessment projections accounted for all CCTV activities anticipated to be completed by JCW crews. CCTV inspections were anticipated to be comprised of the following programs: First Inspection Program scheduled first inspections at or before a pipe reaches 40 years of age. Monitoring Program Scheduled monitoring of pipes that were previously televised at a specific time interval based on the inspection findings, to cost effectively mitigate risk in pipes that contain defects of interest but do not yet require repair/rehab. Request Program - all unplanned CCTV activities initiated by a customer or JCW staff or as a reaction to findings in the field. Repair Acceptance Program Quality Control (QC) inspection of the rehab/repair work to ensure JCW ratepayers maximize the value of their investment. New Sewer Acceptance Program - anticipated future JCW program to CCTV a sample of new privately constructed sewers, prior to the expiration of the 3-year maintenance bond to verify the pipe remains in good condition. The CCTV work order generation process was updated to focus efforts on basins that had both a high BRE score, high percentage of backlog, and high level of I/I. An automated model and mapping application for CCTV work order generation was developed and programmed to work with the live data in JCW s CMMS. This application allowed JCW to identify the due date for each pipe within the system and use this information to focus inspection efforts on the highest priority pipes that were past due or nearing their due date. Only the pipes within the basin that were due for inspection or nearing their due date were selected. This allowed JCW to focus inspection efforts on the most critical work and realize cost savings by avoiding previously inspected pipes that are known to be in good condition. JCW set an informal goal to eliminate the first inspection backlog over the next 6-8 years. In order to eliminate the backlog, it was determined that JCW will need to inspect approximately 88 miles of pipe per year. When this analysis was completed in 2013, JCW owned and operated three CCTV trucks staffed by three crews who typically could televise 60 to 65 miles per year. At this capacity, the inspection backlog would continue to increase over time as the assets within 104

24 the collection system age, increasing the level of risk and the challenge of meeting JCW s level of service goals. Therefore, JCW decided to add one additional CCTV truck and crew to allow for increased levels of proactive inspections, which in turn would help prevent costly emergency repairs, collection system overflows, and basement backups. It was determined that an additional CCTV truck and crew could be added without increasing the current O&M and staffing/equipment budget. This was accomplished by purchasing a CCTV truck in lieu of a cleaning truck that was planned for replacement, effectively shifting one cleaning truck and crew to CCTV in The addition of the 4 th CCTV truck enabled JCW to focus efforts on the most critical work, mitigating the risk presented by older pipes within the collection system that had not yet been inspected. In Quarter 3 of 2014, the 4 th CCTV truck was placed into service. The addition of this truck, along with other efficiency gains enabled JCW to inspect 104 miles of pipe in In 2015 and 2016, productivity rose to 130 miles of pipes. This put JCW ahead of schedule for the original goal to eliminate the first inspection backlog and further helped mitigate risk within the collection system. This was accomplished without increasing O&M staffing or equipment budgets for CCTV inspection and cleaning activities. By focusing cleaning and CCTV resources on the right pipe at the right time, it is estimated that JCW saved approximately $1 million dollars per year in contracted cleaning and CCTV expenditures that would have been required if JCW had elected to use the historic maintenance strategy and resources to achieve similar cleaning and CCTV policy compliance levels. CCTV program SOPs and KPIs were developed concurrently with the Cleaning SOPs and KPIs. These allowed JCW to better monitor progress towards their collection system management goals and support continuous improvement and knowledge transfer within the CCTV program to the next generation of leaders at JCW. PROGRAM RESULTS MANHOLE I/I REDUCTION PROGRAM Development of JCW s Manhole I/I Reduction Program was a major focus of CSAMP work in Prior to then, JCW s programmatic manhole inspections consisted primarily of a Tier 1 inspection completed by cleaning and CCTV crews during normal work activities. The Tier 1 inspection was focused on identifying significant structural defects, with crews using a 1-5 rating system to help identify and address manholes that required structural rehabilitation. Detailed manhole inspections were completely only on a limited basis as part of rehabilitation projects focused on specific areas within the system. In 2016, a programmatic Tier 2 Manhole Inspection Program was developed through the CSAMP. Program development focused on the following activities: Development of data collection standards and practices. 105

25 Testing of JCW s standard manhole covers to determine inflow rates for each cover type and corresponding I/I reduction strategies for cover inflow. Development of a rehab decision model and algorithm for manholes tailored to the manholes assets present within JCW s system. Piloting of JCW s manhole inspection process and QC of the rehab decision model using inspection findings. Manhole data collection standards were developed specifically to meet the needs of JCW s program. Emphasis was placed on collecting actionable information only, limiting the number of component measurements taken to only those that will help drive rehab decisions. Separate structural and I/I component rating systems were developed. These rating systems were developed with a focus on enabling consistent, repeatable component ratings by field crews through measurable consistent ratings (e.g. ¼-inch crack, 1/8-inch gap between mortar and frame). A Tier 2 Manhole Inspection Form was developed based on these data collection standards. It was determined that inspections would be completed using a contractor rather than internal JCW crews, and inspection findings would be documented using mobile devices linked directly to JCW s CMMS. The preliminary data collection standards, along with a 360 degree inspection camera technology were then piloted in a small 50 manhole sample pilot. After completion of the pilot, the results were revised and minor modifications were made to the data collection process and the standard procedures for manhole inspections. After a review of the 360 camera videos taken during the pilot, it was decided to utilize this technology as part of the standard documentation and condition rating process. An example of a 360 degree manhole photo is shown below in Figure K. Figure K Example Photo Using 360 Degree Manhole Camera 106

26 Manhole covers commonly found in JCW s system were tested to determine the inflow rates during periods of submergence. A testing apparatus was constructed that allowed JCW to simulate field conditions. This testing apparatus is shown below in Figure L. Figure L Manhole Cover Inflow Testing A description of the three manhole covers commonly found in JCW s system and results of the inflow testing is provided below: New JCW Cover (Sunflower Style) This manhole cover has been JCW s standard cover for most construction since the late 1980s. This cover has one concealed pick hole. Testing determined that this cover leaked at a rate of 0.7 to 0.9 gpm at depths of 3 to 12- inches of submergence. This is relatively watertight and compares well to other commonly used manhole covers. Old JCW Cover (Waffle Style) This manhole cover with two pick holes was JCW s standard until the late 1980 s. Testing determined that this cover leaked at a rate of 7 to 10 gpm at depths of 3 to 12-inches of submergence. This is over 10 times the inflow rate of the new JCW cover. Boltdown Gasketed Cover (Floodplain Cover) This manhole cover is JCW s standard for construction within floodplain areas. This frame and cover comes standard with an integral rubber gasket. This cover was tested with and without the gasket: o With a sound gasket in place, testing showed that the cover was watertight and did not allow any significant inflow into the manhole. o With the gasket removed or damaged, testing indicated an inflow rate of 13 to 21 gpm at depths of 3 to 12-inches of submergence. Two primary findings from the cover inflow testing resulted in major impacts to JCW s program strategies: 107

27 Old JCW Covers Anecdotally, approximately 30 40% of the manholes in the system are believed to have this cover. As this cover leaks at over 10 times the rate of the New JCW Cover, replacing these old covers and frames found in sump areas or sheet flow areas with substantial tributary areas was determined to be a cost effective method of I/I reduction. Boltdown Gasketed Covers These covers are typically installed in floodplain areas. In some locations, these manholes may be submerged for long periods of time during wet periods when creeks, river, and lake levels are above normal pool. Covers with damaged or missing gaskets were determined to be a major inflow source. Therefore, it was decided to focus some of the inspection efforts on areas where these covers are likely to be found, particularly in locations that may be underwater for longer periods of time. Replacing the integral gasket is a very cost effective way to mitigate these inflow sources. Manholes at high risk of submergence will be identified during inspections, and a plan will be developed to manage these manholes and ensure the gaskets remain sound. All manholes within floodplain areas were identified in JCW s GIS system. An example of one such area is shown below in Figure M. Figure M Identification of Potential Manhole Inflow Sources in Floodplain A rehab decision process was developed for each of the three cover types commonly found in JCW s system. For each of these, a separate rehab process was developed for paved and unpaved areas. The findings described above were used as the basis to develop JCW s strategy for manhole cover renewal. Basing this strategy on the actual characteristics of JCW s specific manhole covers allowed JCW to develop an optimized I/I reduction strategy specific to the assets owned by JCW. The rehab decision model was then developed for other manhole components. The model defines a recommended next Structural Action for each manhole component and the manhole asset itself based on the condition assessment findings. Rehabilitation strategies vary considerably based on manhole material; in addition, rehabilitation costs and strategies can be impacted based on the location of a manhole. A repair that is cost effective in an unpaved areas may not be cost 108