Treatment Facility Condition Assessment

Transcription

1 Treatment Facility Condition Assessment PRESENTED BY: SCOTT COLE, P.E. YANBO LI, P.E. WEAT NORTH TEXAS SECTION SEMINAR FEBRUARY 10, 2011

2 Acknowledgments Theo Chan, P.E., Freese and Nichols David Sloan, P.E., PE Freeseand Nichols Angellia Points, EIT, Freese and Nichols Robert tmc McCarthy, North thtexas Municipal i lwt Water District i t NTMWD Planning Staff NTMWD Operations Department NTMWD Maintenance Department NTMWD Engineering Department NTMWD Executives 2

3 Agenda Background Overview of Asset Management Components Water Treatment Plant Assessment Water Treatment tplant Piping i Assessment Capital Improvement Program Development 3

4 Overview of System Initially established in the 1950s Serves approximately 1.6 million people 80 delivery points Pipelines pump stations 2010 Average Day = 278 MGD 2010 Maximum Day = 548 MGD 4

5 NTMWD Service Area 5

6 Wylie Water Treatment Plant Plant 3 Plant 4 Current capacity = 770 MGD Plant 2 Future capacity = 840 MGD Plant 1 6

7 Project Drivers Aging Infrastructure Refine Asset Management Approach Desire to Incorporate System Renewal into CIP Business Approach using Risk Management tin Infrastructure Renewal 7

8 Agenda Background Overview of Asset Management Components Water Treatment Plant Assessment Water Treatment tplant Piping i Assessment Capital Improvement Program Development 8

9 Overview of Asset Management Components What is? Continuous Improvement Process Data Inventory & Management A set of processes to minimize infrastructure life cycle costs at an acceptable amount of risk, while delivering an established level of service Prioritized CIP Risk Management Capacity Analysis Condition Assessment Criticality Assessment 9

10 Risk Based Assessment Planning Process Review and Inventory of Various Data Sources GIS SCADA Work korder Data Staff Interviews Maintenance Records Develop CIP Prioritization Scoring Criteria Site Visits/ Field Investigations Condition Analysis Criticality Analysis RISK BASED PRIORITIZED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 10

11 Risk Based Concept for Infrastructure Renewal Prioritization Risk = ƒ (Criticality x Condition) What is the Consequence of Asset Failure? Loss of service Redundancy Difficulty y of repair Damage to property Public image What is the Likelihood of Asset Failure? Asset age Asset material Performance of asset Annual maintenance costs 11

12 Risk Based Matrix Priority Condition Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Low Criticali ity Medium High Very High 12

13 Agenda Background Overview of Asset Management Components Water Treatment Plant Assessment Water Treatment tplant Piping i Assessment Capital Improvement Program Development 13

14 Components Evaluated Rapid Mix Flocculation Basins Sedimentation Basins Filters Filter Backwash System Chemical Feed Sludge Handling Plant Water System 14

15 Condition Assessment Site Visits Conducted over several days in June & July

16 Condition Scoring Guidelines Condition Rating Description 0 New, perfect condition Good condition, no improvements recommended to maintain 25 function Fair condition, improvements recommended to improve 50 performance or efficiency Poor condition, improvements recommended to maintain 75 reliability 100 Imminent failure, rehabilitation or replacement required New Bulk Storage Tanks Paint Stripping Small Cracks, Spalling Aging Infrastructure Inoperable, No Replacement Parts

17 Sample Condition Assessment Summary Sheets

18 Condition of Facilities Determine the total condition score for each asset and group into five general categories: CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCORING DEFINITION Very Good Sound physical condition. Total Score 25 Good Acceptable physical condition. 25 < Total Score 50 Fair Normal wear and tear. 50 < Total Score 75 Poor Failure likelyl in short ttomedium term. 75< Total lscore 85 Very Poor Failed or near failure. Total Score > 85 Major work or replacement required urgently. 18

19 Criticality Scoring and Parameter Weighting Capacity Affected (30%) Process (50%) Based on Percent of Total Capacity (100 MGD) Lost Based on Treatment Process Effectiveness 13 MGD ( 13%)Capacity Lost = 10 Mild = MGD (14 25%) Capacity Lost = 30 Moderate = MGD (26 50%) Capacity Lost = 50 Severe = MGD (51 85%) Capacity Lost = MGD ( 86%) Capacity Lost = 100 Outage Duration (20%) Based on Discussion with Field Crew and Response Time < 2 Days = Days = Days = Days = 100

20 Sample Criticality Assessment Plant 1 Filter Backwash

21 Risk Based Assessment Matrix Plant 2 Condition Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Low Critica ality Medium High Filters 1-5 Filters Sed Basin 1 All Flocculators All Rapid Mix Filters 6-20 Lime Polymer Sed Basins 5,6,8 Sodium Chlorite Sed Basins 3 & 4 Very High Ferric Sulfate Filter Backwash Caustic Soda Fluoride Ammonia Sludge Handling Plant Water SHORT TERM CRITICAL NEEDS 21

22 Agenda Background Overview of Asset Management Components Water Treatment Plant Assessment Water Treatment tplant Piping i Assessment Capital Improvement Program Development 22

23 Condition Scoring & Parameter Weighting Pipe Age (30%) Pipe Repairs (55%) Year Installed Based on # of Repairs in Last 10 Years = 100 More than 6 repairs = = repairs = = Repairs = = 40 No Repairs = = = 0 Pipe Material (15%) Non Cylinder Water Pipe = 90 Ductile Iron = 40 Pre stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe (PCCP) = 40 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) = 40 Mortar Coated Steel (MCS) = 40 Bar wrapped Concrete Cylinder Pipe (BWCCP/RCCP) = 40 Polyurethane Coated Steel (PCS) = 40 23

24 Criticality Scoring & Parameter Weighting Capacity Affected (40%) Redundancy (30%) Based on Percent of Total Capacity (770 MGD) Lost 35 MGD ( 4.5 %) Capacity Lost = 10 Based on Capacity Lost to the Receiving Basin MGD ( %) Capacity Lost = 30 25% Capacity Lost = MGD (9 18%) Capacity Lost = % Capacity Lost = MGD (18.1% 36.2%) Capacity Lost = % Capacity Lost = MGD ( 36.3%) Capacity Lost = % Capacity Lost = 100 Outage Duration (30%) Based on Discussion i with ihfield ldcrew and Response Time 8 hours = hours = hours = hours =

25 Yard Piping Condition Results 25

26 Criticality and Condition Results Plant 2 Condition Rating Min Max Very Good 0 25 Good Fair Poor Very Poor Criticality Rating Min Max Low 0 30 Medium High Very High Yard Pipe Condition Criticality 72" Interconnect Between WTP-2 Tank #3 and WTP- 2 Tank #2 72" Interconnect Between WTP-2 Tank #3 and WTP- 2 Tank #4 60" Interconnect Between WTP 2 Tank #2 and WTP 2 Tank #4 60" Filtered Wt Water from Filters to WTP 2 Tank #2 72" Interconnect between WTP 2 Tank #3 and 60" Line from WTP 1 Tank #3 84" From WTP 2 Tank #4 to HSPS " From Filters to HSPS " From WTP 2 Tank #1 to Wylie/Rockwall/Far mersville Pump Station Condition Rating Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 6 50 Very Good Very Good 6 53 Very Good Very Good Criticality Rating High High Very High High Medium Very High High Very High Risk Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Low Medium 26

27 Agenda Background Overview of Asset Management Components Water Treatment Plant Assessment Water Treatment tplant Piping i Assessment Capital Improvement Program Development 27

28 CIP Prioritization Methodology Priority Condition Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Critic cality Low K G No Projects Medium L H D High M I E B Very High N J F C A SHORT TERM CRITICAL NEEDS 28

29 Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Priority Bin B F I FACILITIES Priority Rank Plant Project 1 2 Sedimentation Basins 3 and 4 SMP 2 1 All Clariflocculators 3 1 Rapid Mix Basin 4 2 Ammonia 5 2 Sludge Handling 6 1&2 Plant Water 7 1 Ammonia 8 1 Filter Backwash 9 3 Chlorine 10 3 Ammonia 11 3 Plant Water 12 3 Fluoride 13 3 Sludge Handling 14 3 Ferric Sulfate 15 3 Filter Backwash 16 2 Filters Filter Influent Gallery 18 2 Filter Effluent Gallery 19 2 Lime 20 2 EIC Rapid Mix, Flocculators, and Sedimentation Basins 21 2 Sedimentation Basins 5, 6, 8 SMP 22 1 & 2 Polymer 23 1 & 2 S di Chl it Priority Bin High Risk Medium Risk PIPELINES Project 30" Cast Iron Pipe 8" Cast Iron Pipe 12" Cast Iron Pipe 24" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 30" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 33" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 36" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 42" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 54" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 60" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 72" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 60" Mortar Coated Steel Pipe 18"/30" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 24" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 36" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 42" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 48" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 60" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 72" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 84" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 90" Pre Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe 96" P St d C t Clid Pi *Scores of 100 included as a project under the associated process unit regardless of overall facility score 29

30 Next Steps Finalize cost estimates Finalize report Determine impact on Water System CIP Re evaluate evaluate Risk Based Assessment periodically as system ages and new facilities come on line 30

31 Questions? Contact Information: Scott Cole, P.E. (817) International Plaza, Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX Yanbo Li, P.E. (972) East Brown St Wylie, Texas