Risk-based Prioritization of Transmission & Distribution Projects in Westchester County

Transcription

1 Risk-based Prioritization of Transmission & Distribution Projects in Westchester County NYS AWWA Water Event April 26, 2017 Alberto Quiroz, PE

2 Outline Background Methodology Results

3 SUEZ in North America 3,560 employees 15 water utilities Regulated by State Utility Commissions 55,000 tons of waste for recycling 16,000 industrial & municipal sites for water treatment and advanced network solutions $ Revenue $1.25 billion Manager of $4.1 billion in total assets in million people water & wastewater served Benefiting from $80 million global research & innovation budget 78 public-private partnerships municipal water systems Two concession agreements investing over $300 million in infrastructure in partnership with private equity firm KKR

4 Suez Water Westchester (Rate District One) Serves 13 municipalities 160,000 population served Eight finished water storage tanks 450 miles of transmission and distribution network

5 Workflow to Identify and Prioritize T&D Projects

6 Why Risk-Based approach? Better convey replacement needs and the consequences of inaction Risk-based capital prioritization, combined with condition assessment, helps to build a strong case for action Identifies high-risk assets Risk = Likelihood of Failure (LoF) x Consequence of Failure (CoF) LoF and CoF are highly system-specific depending on the issues in the system and the availability of data

7 Implementation Approach Planning Operations 1 Data Collection & Data Analysis Data Standards and Review Break analysis 2 LOF and COF Configuration Standard LOF and COF Review of local considerations Data Preparation Analysis Review Review local LOF and COF consideration 3 Risk Scenario Standard SUEZ Risks Risk Analysis Review 4 Rehabilitation Plan & Budget Plan Standard SUEZ Rehab Plan Review of local considerations Rehab and Budget Plan Analysis Local Considerations Unit Costs MTP Yearly project maintenance Advance LOF, COF, Risk planning models 5 Local Use Data updates Data review & project justifications

8 Implementation Tool InfoMaster a GIS-based tool for asset management Uses geocoded network data and calculate a risk score for each pipe based on the different LOF and COF score the user choose.

9 Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Results Material Year of Installation Diameter Break Frequency Pressure Zone Type of Road WQ Complaints

10 Consequence of Failure (COF) Results Critical Customers Material Diameter Strategic Meters Type of Road Water Bodies

11 Risk Results LOF Weight Material 1 Diameter 1 Year of Installation 2 Type of Road 1 Break Frequency 4 Water Quality Complains 0.5 Pressure Zone 1 COF Weight Diameter 3 Type of Roads 2 Critical Customers 3 In or Near Water Body 3 Strategic Meters 1 Material 2 1% 7% 33% 36% 23% 1-Negligible 2-Low 3-Medium 4-High Very High

12 Distribution of Risk Scores Risk Category Length (Miles) % of Total Number of Length Segments 1-Negligible ,118 2-Low ,904 3-Medium ,061 4-High Extreme LOF - Low LOF - M. Low LOF - Medium LOF - M. High LOF - High COF - High 67 Pipes, 3.4 miles 207 Pipes, 11.1 miles 307 Pipes, 26.4 miles 40 Pipes, 4.3 miles 10 Pipes, 0.3 miles COF - Medium High 41 Pipes, 2.2 miles 123 Pipes, 7.0 miles 360 Pipes, 23.1 miles 53 Pipes, 4.4 miles 23 Pipes, 0.3 miles COF - Medium 129 Pipes, 4.1 miles 281 Pipes, 13.4 miles 692 Pipes, 35.7 miles 71 Pipes, 3.5 miles 20 Pipes, 0.3 miles COF - Medium Low 132 Pipes, 5.4 miles 277 Pipes, 12.2 miles 1276 Pipes, 66.4 miles 270 Pipes, 21.1 miles 61 Pipes, 0.9 miles COF - Low 3651 Pipes, miles 335 Pipes, 14.6 miles 2498 Pipes, miles 784 Pipes, 48.0 miles 102 Pipes, 1.2 miles

13 Other Considerations Potential Actions Different sizes require different actions Paving Schedule Road Moratorium Previous Rehabilitation Other Utility Work Planned Projects Investigation Condition Assessment Replacement Rehabilitation Upsize Postpone to next CIP Run until Failure

14 Decision Tree

15 Risk Categories Recommended Actions

16 Budget Plan Results Special investigation 5% Investigate 2% Upsize 1% By Length Run until failure 79% Annual review 7% Candidate for replacement 0% Candidate for rehabilitation 6% Length Length (ft) Action (%) Investigate 50, % Annual review 162, % Candidate for replacement 9, % Candidate for rehabilitation 130, % Run until failure 1,865, % Special investigation 118, % Upsize 11, % Take action as planned % Postpone to next CIP % TOTAL 2,348,906 Upsize 9% By Cost Annual review Investigate 3% 5% Candidate for replacement 8% Special investigation 21% Candidate for rehabilitation 54%

17 Local Use - Continuous Collaboration and Review

18 Conclusions Streamlined planning process Flexible approach that can be easily updated and revised Helped identify target areas for investigation, renewal or replacement Provided a defensible data-driven approach for capital investment Allows coordination between utilities and city agencies to share infrastructure projects

19 Questions?