treatment facility condition assessment facility... · • 80 delivery points ... components...

Treatment Facility Condition Assessment

PRESENTED BY: SCOTT COLE, P.E.YANBO LI, P.E.

WEAT NORTH TEXAS SECTION SEMINAR

FEBRUARY 10, 2011

Acknowledgments

• Theo Chan, P.E., Freese and Nichols

• David Sloan PE Freese and Nichols• David Sloan, P.E., Freese and Nichols

• Angellia Points, EIT, Freese and Nichols

R b t M C th N th T M i i l W t Di t i t• Robert McCarthy, North Texas Municipal Water District

• NTMWD Planning Staff

• NTMWD Operations Department

• NTMWD Maintenance Department

• NTMWD Engineering Department

• NTMWD Executives

2

Agenda

• Background

• Overview of Asset Management Components• Overview of Asset Management Components

• Water Treatment Plant Assessment

W t T t t Pl t Pi i A t• Water Treatment Plant Piping Assessment

• Capital Improvement Program Development

3

Overview of System• Initially established in the 1950s

• Serves approximately 1.6 million people

• 80 delivery points

• Pipelines 12” – 96”

• 19 pump stations

• 2010 Average Day = 278 MGD

• 2010 Maximum Day = 548 MGD

4

NTMWD Service Area

5

Wylie Water Treatment Plant

Plant 3

Plant 4

• Current capacity = 770 MGD Plant 2

• Future capacity = 840 MGD

Plant 2

6

Plant 1

Project Drivers

• Aging Infrastructure

• Refine Asset Management Approach• Refine Asset Management Approach

• Desire to Incorporate System Renewal into CIP

B i A h i Ri k M t i• Business Approach using Risk Management in Infrastructure Renewal

7

Agenda

• Background





8

Overview of Asset Management Components

Data Inventory & Management

Continuous Improvement

Process

What is ?

“A set of processes to minimize infrastructure

Capacity Analysis

Prioritized CIP

life cycle costs at an acceptable amount of risk, while delivering an

ConditionRisk

risk, while delivering an established level of service”

Condition Assessment

Criticality

Management

Assessment

9

Risk Based Assessment Planning Process

Review and Inventory of Various Data Sources

GIS SCADA W k O d D t St ffGIS ‐ SCADA ‐Work Order Data – Staff Interviews – Maintenance Records

RISK BASED PRIORITIZED CAPITAL

O

Develop CIP Prioritization

Scoring

ConditionAnalysisSite Visits/

Field Investigations IMPROVEMENT PLANScoring

Criteria Criticality Analysis

Investigations

10

Risk Based Concept for Infrastructure Renewal Prioritization

Risk = ƒ (Criticality x Condition)ƒ ( y )

What is the Consequence of Asset Failure?

•Loss of service

What is the Likelihood of Asset Failure?

•Asset age•Loss of service•Redundancy•Difficulty of repair

•Asset age•Asset material•Performance of assety p

•Damage to property•Public image

•Annual maintenance costs

11

Risk Based Matrix

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very PoorPriority

Condition

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Low Impact

ity

Medium Impact

Crit

ical

i

High Impact

Very High

Impact

12

Impact

Agenda

• Background





13

Components Evaluated

• Rapid Mix

• Flocculation Basins• Flocculation Basins

• Sedimentation Basins

Filt• Filters

• Filter Backwash System

h l• Chemical Feed

• Sludge Handling

• Plant Water System

14

Condition Assessment Site Visits

• Conducted over several days in June & July 2010

15

Condition Scoring GuidelinesCondition Rating

Description

0 New, perfect condition

25Good condition, no improvements recommended to maintain function

50Fair condition, improvements recommended to improve performance or efficiency

75Poor condition, improvements recommended to maintain reliability

100 Imminent failure, rehabilitation or replacement required

0 2 0000New Bulk

Storage Tanks

75 Aging

Infrastructure

25Paint

Stripping

100 Inoperable, No

Replacement Parts

50Small Cracks,

Spalling

Sample Condition Assessment Summary Sheets

Condition of Facilities

• Determine the total condition score for each asset and group into five general categories:g p g g

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCORING DEFINITION

Very Good Sound physical condition. Total Score ≤ 25

GoodGood Acceptable physical condition. 25 < Total Score ≤ 50

Fair Normal wear and tear. 50 < Total Score ≤ 75

Poor F il lik l i h t t di t 75 T t l S ≤ 85Poor Failure likely in short to medium term. 75 < Total Score ≤ 85Very Poor

Failed or near failure. Total Score > 85Major work or replacement required urgently.

18

Criticality Scoring and Parameter Weighting

Capacity Affected (30%) Process Impact (50%)

Based on Percent of Total Capacity (100 MGD) LostBased on Treatment Process

EffectivenessEffectiveness

≤ 13 MGD (≤13%)Capacity Lost = 10 Mild = 20

14 ‐ 25 MGD (14 – 25%) Capacity Lost = 30 Moderate = 55

26 ‐ 50 MGD (26 – 50%) Capacity Lost = 50 Severe = 10026 50 MGD (26 50%) Capacity Lost 50 Severe 100

51 ‐ 85 MGD (51 – 85%) Capacity Lost = 70

≥ 86 MGD (≥86%) Capacity Lost = 100

Outage Duration (20%)Based on Discussion with Field Crew and Response Time

< 2 Days = 10< 2 Days = 10

3 ‐ 15 Days = 40

16 ‐ 29 Days = 70

≥ 30 Days = 100≥ 30 Days = 100

Sample Criticality Assessment

• Plant 1

FilterFilter Backwash

Risk Based Assessment Matrix

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very PoorPlant 2

Condition

Low Impact

Medium Impact

ality

All Flocculators All Rapid Mix

High Impact

Sed Basins 3 & 4

Crit

ica

Filters 6-20 Lime

Polymer Sed Basins 5,6,8

Filters 1-5 Filters 21-40 Sed Basin 1

Very High

Sodium Chlorite

Ferric Sulfate Filter Backwash

Caustic Soda

Ammonia Sludge Handling

Plant Water

SHORT TERM CRITICAL NEEDS 21

Impact Fluoride Plant Water

Agenda

• Background





22

Condition Scoring & Parameter Weighting

Pipe Age (30%) Pipe Repairs (55%)Year Installed Based on # of Repairs in Last 10 Years

1950 – 1959 = 100 More than 6 repairs = 100

1960 – 1969 = 80 4 ‐ 6 repairs = 60

1970 – 1979 = 60 2‐ 3 Repairs = 30

1980 – 1989 = 40 No Repairs = 0

1990 – 1999 = 20

2000 – 2009 = 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

23

Mortar Coated Steel (MCS) = 40

Bar‐wrapped Concrete Cylinder Pipe (BWCCP/RCCP) = 40

Polyurethane Coated Steel (PCS) = 40

Criticality Scoring & Parameter Weighting

Capacity Affected (40%) Redundancy (30%)

Based on Percent of Total Capacity (770 MGD) LostBased on Capacity Lost to the

Receiving BasinReceiving Basin≤ 35 MGD (≤ 4.5 %) Capacity Lost = 10

35 ‐ 69 MGD (4.6 ‐ 8.9%) Capacity Lost = 30 ≤ 25% Capacity Lost = 10

70 ‐ 139 MGD (9 ‐ 18%) Capacity Lost = 50 26 – 49% Capacity Lost = 40

140 ‐ 279 MGD (18.1% ‐ 36.2%) Capacity Lost = 70 50 – 74% Capacity Lost = 70

≥ 280 MGD (≥ 36.3%) Capacity Lost = 100 ≥ 75% Capacity Lost = 100

Outage Duration (30%)d i i i h i ld C d iBased on Discussion with Field Crew and Response Time

≤ 8 hours = 10

8 – 16 hours = 40

17 – 24 hours = 70

24

≥ 24 hours = 100

Yard Piping Condition Results

25

Criticality and Condition Results

Condition Rating Min Maxd

Plant 2

Yard Pipe Condition CriticalityCondition Rating

Criticality Rating

Risk

72" Interconnect Very Good 0 25Good 26 50Fair 51 75Poor 76 85

Between WTP-2 Tank #3 and WTP-2 Tank #2

24 62 Very Good

High Impact Low

72" Interconnect Between WTP-2 Tank #3 and WTP-

24 62 Very Good

High Impact Low

Very Poor 86 100 2 Tank #4p

60" Interconnect Between WTP‐2 Tank #2 and WTP‐2 Tank #4

18 79 Very GoodVery High Impact

Medium

60" Filt d W t

Criticality Rating Min MaxLow Impact 0 30Medium Impact 31 50

60" Filtered Water from Filters to WTP‐2 Tank #2

24 62 Very GoodHigh Impact

Low

72" Interconnect between WTP‐2 Tank #3 and 60" Line

6 50 Very GoodMedium Impact

Low pHigh Impact 51 70Very High Impact 71 100

from WTP‐1 Tank #3

84" From WTP‐2 Tank #4 to HSPS 2‐2


Medium

72" From Filters to HSPS 2‐3

6 53 Very GoodHigh Impact

Low

"

26

36" From WTP‐2 Tank #1 to Wylie/Rockwall/Farmersville Pump Station


Medium

Agenda

• Background





27

CIP Prioritization Methodology

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very PoorPriority

Condition

Low Impact K G

No

calit

y

Medium Impact L H DProjects

I E BCrit

ic

High Impact M

AVery High

Impact N J F C

28

SHORT TERM CRITICAL NEEDS

Capital Improvement Program Prioritization

Priority Bin

Priority Rank

Plant Project

1 2 Sedimentation Basins 3 and 4 ‐ SMP2 1 All ClariflocculatorsB

Priority Bin

Project

High Risk 30" Cast Iron Pipe

FACILITIES PIPELINES

2 1 All Clariflocculators3 1 Rapid Mix Basin

4 2 Ammonia5 2 Sludge Handling6 1&2 Plant Water7 1 Ammonia

B

8" Cast Iron Pipe12" Cast Iron Pipe

24" Reinforced Concrete Pipe30" Reinforced Concrete Pipe" f d7 1 Ammonia

8 1 Filter Backwash9 3 Chlorine10 3 Ammonia11 3 Plant Water12 3 Fluoride

F

33" Reinforced Concrete Pipe36" Reinforced Concrete Pipe42" Reinforced Concrete Pipe54" Reinforced Concrete Pipe60" Reinforced Concrete Pipe

13 3 Sludge Handling14 3 Ferric Sulfate

15 3 Filter Backwash

16 2 Filters 6‐2017 2 Filter Influent Gallery

72" Reinforced Concrete Pipe60" Mortar Coated Steel Pipe

18"/30" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe24" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe36" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe

Medium Risk

17 2 Filter Influent Gallery18 2 Filter Effluent Gallery19 2 Lime

20 2EIC ‐ Rapid Mix, Flocculators, and

Sedimentation Basins21 2 Sedimentation Basins 5, 6, 8 ‐ SMP

42" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe48" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe60" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe72" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe84" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe

29

22 1 & 2 Polymer23 1& 2 S di Chl it

I 90" Pre‐Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe96" P St d C t C li d Pi

*Scores of “100” included as a project under the associated process unit regardless of overall facility score

Next Steps

• Finalize cost estimates

• Finalize reportFinali e report

• Determine impact on Water System CIP

• Re‐evaluate Risk Based Assessment periodically asRe evaluate Risk Based Assessment periodically as system ages and new facilities come on‐line

30

Questions?

Contact Information:

Scott Cole, [email protected](817)735 7255

Yanbo Li, [email protected](972) 442 5405(817)735‐7255

4055 International Plaza, Suite 200Fort Worth, TX 76109

(972) 442‐5405505 East Brown StWylie, Texas 75098

31

treatment facility condition assessment facility... · • 80 delivery points ... components...

Documents