Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky. SD1's Sanitary and Storm Water Asset Management Program. KSPE Annual Convention

Transcription

1 Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky SD1's Sanitary and Storm Water Asset Management Program KSPE Annual Convention April 28, 2011

2 Background Outline CSAP Program Development CSAP Program Implementation SWAMP Development & Implementation Integration of CSAP & SWAMP Data Management & Automation Conclusions

3 Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky Created in 1946 Serves Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties in Northern Kentucky Until 1995 SD1 responsible only for interceptors and one regional WWTP (about 67 miles of sewer) Serves approximately 300,000 people Background Greater Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky Airport

4 Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky Today Total service area ~ 200 sq miles >1,600 miles of sanitary sewers >42,000 manholes 129 pump stations 15 Flood PSs 2 regional treatment facilities 400 miles of storm sewers Western Regional under construction

5 Background Continuous Sewer Assessment Program Needed SD1 identified the need to develop a more proactive collection system inspection, cleaning and rehabilitation/replacement program Coordinate sewer operation and maintenance efforts within the CMOM and NMC programs. CMOM self assessment and NMC compliance review resulted in the development of an aggressive and comprehensive Continuous Sewer Assessment Program (CSAP) CSAP currently being expanded to manage storm system

6 Continuous Sewer Assessment Program Program Goals Develop integrated, prioritized Continuous Sewer Assessment program to achieve both NMC and CMOM goals Go from a reactive maintenance mode to proactive mode Asset Management approach to try to balance maintenance costs and replacement costs Develop a prioritized maintenance program to reduce spills caused by debris, grease, roots and collapsing pipe Estimate rehabilitation costs to understand system repair needs and how these efforts coordinate with the Watershed Plans Develop an SSES program to remove public & private I/I sources to reduce /eliminate SSOs.

7 Continuous Sewer Assessment Program Program Approach Divide overall collection system maintenance into six key programs Trouble call program Preventative Maintenance O&M Program Interceptor (Sonar) program SSES Program LDSAP program Manhole inspection program Prioritize the assessment in the separate sewer system using a modified Basin Priority approach Develop program standards and tools to track progress, schedule re-inspections and cleaning, & calculate & prioritize rehab costs

8 CSAP Program Development Modified Priority Drainage Basin Approach Prioritize inspection by Drainage Basin rather than individual pipes Exceptions are individual pipes with the following characteristics: Pipes within 50 of a creek Pipes immediately downstream of an SSO Pipes in SSES Priority areas SD1 Drainage Basin Boundaries

9 CSAP Program Development Reasons for Drainage Basin Approach With the availability of system performance data, it made more sense to summarize priorities on a larger scale than individual pipes Increase efficiency - crews conduct continuous inspections in a specific area - not jumping from pipe to pipe Result of basin inspections could be rolled up into basin reports and summaries Subsequent inspection, cleaning, and rehabilitation could follow a similar basin approach Approach helped focus efforts, efficiency, and data collection

10 CSAP Program Development Drainage Basin Summary There are just over 250 basins in the SD1 service area, of which 182 are in the sanitary sewer system There is an average of 35,500 lf of pipe in each basin. This corresponds to approximately 30 days of inspection for a single crew assuming 1,200 feet per day Sanitary Basins in Blue LDSAP Basins in Yellow

11 CSAP Program Development Basin Scoring Process Summarized the available historical data for each basin for the following priority criteria: Service performance priority (measures risks of blockages) Structural performance priority (measures risks of collapse) Work Order history priority (used to estimate frequency of problem occurring) Applied priority scores of 1-5 for each criteria and sum for a total Raw Score Applied enhancement factor based on number and type of overflows in each basin for a Total Adjusted Score Basins were ranked based on Total Adjusted Score

12 CSAP Program Development Overall Scoring An overall raw score was calculated by summing the individual Service, Structural, and Work Order scores RAW SCORE = Service Score + Structural Score + Work Order Score Overall raw score was modified with factors based on the number of known or suspected SSOs, priority SSOs, and priority CSOs Enhancement Factors were summed and multiplied by the Raw Score to develop the total Enhancement Adder The Total Adjusted Score = Overall Raw Score + Enhancement Adder Number of SRPs and SSOs SRP/SSO Factor Number of Priority SSOs Priority SSO Factor Priority CSOs more 1.0 More 0.7 Priority CSO Factor

13 Overall Basin Scoring RAW SCORE Category Service Structural Work Order Raw Overall Score TOTAL ADJUSTED SCORE DA Basin Raw Overall Score SSO/SRP Priority SSO Priority CSO Total Enhancem ent Factor Enhance ment Adder Total Adjusted Score Overall Rank /182

14 Basin Prioritization Results $1 "/"/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/"/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ $1 "/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/ $1 "/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/"/ Legend "/ "/ sso_exhibita DS_SSO_pipes florence pipes_within_50'_of_creek PhaseII_SSES Phase1_SSES Phase2_basins Phase3_basins PhaseI_basins LDSAP_Basins

15 CSAP Program Implementation Once prioritization was completed, the next steps were: Develop a 10-year inspection schedule by Basin and by pipe Develop CSAP process diagram to act as a decision making framework for next actions Defines CCTV inspection and re-inspection frequencies based on structural and maintenance scores for pipes Defines program for cleaning and re-cleaning frequencies based on pipe maintenance score Defines and prioritizes need for sewer rehab or replacement integrated with Watershed Plans Ensures pipes that need inspection and cleaning are done first and most often until they are fixed

16 CSAP Work Flow Process System Assessment LDSAP SSES Sonar Preventative O&M System Correction Cleaning Rehab & Replacement Process Concepts by Hazen & Sawyer

17 CSAP Process Diagram Example Preventative O&M Program addresses all separate sewer basins in SD1 system SCREAM TM codes used provides scores 1-100

18 CSAP Process Diagram Example SCREAM TM codes used provides scores 1-100

19 CSAP Program Implementation Implemented program in Goal is to inspect entire collection system in ~ 10 years Software tools were developed to automate work flow process and reporting Final CSAP Database Fully Automated Automatically enters SCREAM structural & maintenance scores Automatically generate and schedule work orders for Next Action Helps determine staff needs for crews Calculates life cycle costs for rehab, repair or ongoing PM cleaning

20 ,000 LF 65,000 LF on PM ,000 LF 139,000 LF on PM ,456,000 LF 300,000 LF on PM ,410,599 LF 3,277 on PM ,095,082 LF 11,249 LF on PM CCTV Footage Stats

21 Cost Savings Example Realized with CSAP PM Footage as of ,000 LF PM Footage after CSAP Reinspect in 6 months 26,000 LF Reinspect/Clean in 1yr 64,500 LF Reinspect greater than 1yr 108,500 LF Rehab/Clean/Replace Immediately 65,500 LF Annual Cost Savings [300,000 * $1.50 * 2] = $900,000 [(26, ,500) * $1.50] = $135,750 Difference = $765,250

22 SD1 s Storm Water Asset Management Program Agenda SD1 took over approximately 400 miles of storm sewers and structures from the local cities & counties in 2010

23 SW Asset Transfer Nearly all cities and agencies have turned ownership over to SD1 Similar condition as sanitary assets when SD1 assumed ownership Many existing problems Partnership with each City and County Recognize the positive impact a regional agency can have in the community Need for proactive, prioritized approach to fixing and maintaining these assets

24 SD1 s SWAMP How do you integrate CSAP with the new storm assets? Developed criteria to rank each SW problem and assign a score to each problem for prioritization

25 SD1 s SWAMP Implementation Problem Rating Criteria Project Specific Criteria (60% of Total Score) Weighted Factor SD1 Responsibility 5 Public Health and Safety Concerns 5 Property Damage 4 Number of Properties Affected 4 Stream bank Degradation 4 Public Sensitivity 3 Operations & Maintenance Reduction 2 Impact on Sanitary Sewer System 2 Frequency of the Problem 1 Condition of the Storm Water System 1 Age of the Infrastructure 1 Regional Planning Criteria (40% of Total Score) Weighted Factor Wet Weather Adaptive Management Program Benefit 5 Green Infrastructure Opportunities 5 Other Factors to be Considered Regional Benefit Economic Development Benefit Available Outside Funding (Other than SD1 or City)

26 SD1 s SWAMP Implementation Criteria Scoring Degree of Impact Scoring None or NA 0 Minor 1 Moderate 2 Severe 3 Extreme 4

27 Example Project

28 CSAP & SWAMP Integration Implementation SW problem is reviewed against sanitary sewer and Watershed Plan priorities to develop integrated projects SW and sanitary asset fixes are coordinated with priority watershed areas and with Cities street reconstruction projects Encourages partnership with communities and stakeholders Manage the limited storm water capital budget Integration allows for saving ratepayer dollars - economies of scale

29 CSAP & SWAMP Integration Approximately 45% of the service area has excessive I/I

30 Continued Partnership Many Cities are building new storm assets Street reconstruction projects Road failures Culvert collapses Funding Scenarios City responsibility SD1 responsibility 50/50 cost-share

31 SD1 s Data Integration Plan Designed to Expedite Decisions by Automating Processes Data Storage & SCREAM TM Scoring Field Data CSAP Logic Applied & Decision-Making

32 Example Screens of SCREAM CCTV in gbams

33 Example Screens of SCREAM Scores in gbams

34 Example Display in GIS

35 Automation Provides Web Planning Reports of Next Actions

36 Automatically Generate & Schedule Work Orders for Next Action Create Work Order Add to Work Order Group Pipes by Location

37 Reporting Tools for Costs & Production Reporting Tools Per Crew and Total Cost reports $/LF for CCTV $/LF for Cleaning $/Str. For CB cleaning, MH/CB inspections Production reports CCTV Footage Reports by type of work, by crew(s) Cleaning MH inspections Staff Utilization reports Separating Vactors and CCTV Trucks Where Possible

38 Reporting Tools for Costs & Production

39 Calculates Life Cycle Costs for Rehab, Repair or Ongoing PM Cleaning

40 Example Display in GIS

41 Conclusions SD1 s Sanitary & Storm Water Asset Management Program: Provides coordinated and efficient maintenance management of sanitary and storm system infrastructure through: formation of integrated O&M related programs establishment of performance objectives & integrated data prioritized inspection and cleaning prioritized rehabilitation and replacement Defines projects for rehab/replacement by highest need and value Savings of over $765,000 the first year Went from 5 CCTV Crews to 7 Crews with same staff level Increased Inspection Production by 110% Reduced CCTV inspection costs by 25%

42 Conclusions Focuses on fixing existing sanitary & storm assets rather than building new ones: Renews existing assets to maximize useful life and reduce operational-related overflows Address s storm water quantity and quality Reduces I/I to eliminate SSOs Encourages partnership with communities and stakeholders Integration allows for saving customer dollars - economies of scale Results in maximizing WQ improvements for the dollar spent

43 KSPE Annual Convention April 28, 2011 SD1's Sanitary and Storm Water Asset Management Program Questions? Brandon Vatter, P.E. Barrett Groh