CITY OF STURGIS INTEGRATING 20 YEARS OF MAINTENANCE HISTORY INTO AN AMP

Transcription

1 CITY OF STURGIS INTEGRATING 20 YEARS OF MAINTENANCE HISTORY INTO AN AMP ASSET MANAGEMENT FROM PLAN TO PROGRAM - JANUARY 25, 2017 Tom Sikorski WWTP Superintendent Allen Gelderloos, PE AMP Project Manager

2 Agenda Overview of Sturgis WWTP AMP Review of WWTP AMP Tasks Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History Collection System AMP Rate Study

3 Sturgis Michigan Population: 10,900 Abbott Nutrition Sturgis owns and operates a power plant to produce its own power since 1896 Sturgis

4 Sturgis WWTP Digesters Sludge Storage Headworks Intermediate Clarifiers Polishing Pond Chlor/Dechlor Final Clarifiers Nitrification Tower Primary Clarifiers Trickling Filters

5 WWTP & Lift Station AMP Tasks 1. Asset Inventory 2. Condition Assessment 3. Business Risk Assessment 4. Capital Improvement Planning 5. Additional Tasks Performance Assessment Impact of Future Growth

6 Overview of AMP Project/Status City awarded ~$1,900,000 SAW grant from MDEQ Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection System Draft AMPs completed Commission approved 3-year rate increase in August 2016

7 Asset Inventory Started with existing CMMS inventory Added additional assets Electrical Building/Roofs Updated replacement costs

8 Condition Assessment Based on operator input, visual inspection and review of CMMS Detailed inspection reports for Process-related equipment Electrical equipment Buildings and roofs Sludge storage tank Sludge Storage Tank cleaning for inspection

9 Business Risk Helps Define Maintenance and CIP Strategies

10 Consequence of Failure Business Risk Evaluation Results for WWTP High High Risk 6 High Risk 7 Extreme Risk 0 Medium Low Risk 44 Medium Risk 30 High Risk 39 Low Low Risk 131 Low Risk 190 Medium Risk 242 Low Medium High Probability of Failure

11 Capital Improvement Planning Existing CIP Projects Confirm thru review of Business Risk Review Business Risk to Identify CIP Projects Review Remaining Assets: >$10,000 Near End of Useful Life Replacement Fund Projects Capital Improvement Projects 5 Year CIP & 6-20 Year CIP Prioritize and Sequence Project Based on: Staff Input Budget Constraints

12 Overview of Sturgis CMMS (Computerized Maint. Mmgt System) In 1990, City purchased Infor MP2 Most WWTP & lift station assets in system Collection system on a separate MP2 system Switched to Antero by Allmax in 2016 MP2 no longer being supported Investigated other facilities and evaluated trial system Antero determined to be more cost-effective to meet objectives

13 What is a Computerized Maintenance Management System? Generate and track work orders Historical record of past PMs/repairs Tracking of operator and maintenance staff time and material expenses Operator training records

14 Benefits of CMMS Tracking of work orders Are all WOs being completed? % Emergency vs PM vs Corrective Improves annual budgeting process Justify new equipment purchases Justify annual equipment replacement costs Justify staffing levels

15 Justification of Staff Time thru Tracking

16 Annual Replacement Cost Justification Asset Category Category Description Total No. of Assets (In Service) Total Assets Repair and Maintenance Fund Replacement Fund for Assets <$10,000 Total Category Replacement Cost Expected Useful Life (yrs) Qty. of Assets Rehab Cost (% of Replace) Rehab Annual Rehab Frequency Related Costs (yrs) Qty. of Assets Total Replacement Cost Annual Replace- Related Costs AIRGAS Compressors; blowers 15 $38, $38,498 $3,433 ETRON Control panels & VFDs 37 $284, % 10 $3, $100,425 $6,463 GRBX Gearboxes; Reducers 20 $266, % 10 $1,334 HVAC INST Boilers; Fans; Blowers; MUAs; Digester Heat Ex. Flow Meters; Level Sensors; Samplers; Transducers 45 $233, % 10 $3, $99, $99,546 $10,573 LAB Lab equipment 29 $42,095 Various 29 $42,095 $5,302 MAINT Maintenance equipment, building cranes 47 $700, % 5 $3, $27,417 $2,690 MOTOR Motors 79 $152, % 10 $ $92,923 $9,285 PUMP Pumps 55 $774, % 10 $23,224 SAFETY VALVE Sensors, backflow preventers, flame traps, eye wash stns 40 $44, $44,714 $6,508 Valves (shorter life) 148 $482, % 15 $ $186,270 $7,451 Valves (longer life) 144 $867, % 15 $1, $370,435 $12,348 Total (not all assets shown for clarity) 761 $13,029, $55, $64,593

17 CMMS Lessons Learned Understand what you want to get out of it Separate systems for WWTP and Collection Systems are OK Work with CMMS company they can make many of your desired improvements Any system requires full commitment to get full benefits

18 Agenda Overview of Sturgis WWTP AMP Review of WWTP AMP Tasks Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History Collection System AMP Rate Study

19 Feet of Gravity Sewer Feet of Gravity Sewer Collection System Statistics Gravity Sewer Size Date of Installation 250, , , , , ,000 50,000-1, ,443 39,997 Of the 323,200 ft of gravity sewer, 65% is 8 inch diameter 24,619 10,934 13,086 15,758 5,516 6 in 8 in 10 in 12 in 15 in 18 in 21 in 24 in 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000-97,872 7,036 65% of the sewers were constructed before ,831 22,223 7,911 13,658 28,076 26,

20 Overview of Collection System AMP Activities 1. CCTV ed 54 miles of collection system (85% of system) 2. F&V conducted hydraulic modeling to identify bottlenecks 3. F&V conducted flow monitoring for I/I 4. City conducted smoke testing to remove stormwater inflows into sanitary system 5. Developed short (5-year) and long term (6-20 year) CIPs 6. Completed Draft Asset Management Plan Report

21 Collection System Inspection Results Sewer Condition Manhole Condition For 284,200 feet of pipeline analyzed For 1,262 manholes analyzed 20% 9% 34% 10% 16% 40% 19% 18% 22% 12% Excellent Very Poor

22 Collection System Rehab Model for Pipes and Manholes Innovyze model utilizes GIS utility data (pipe IDs, lengths, etc.) NASSCO condition scores (PACP/MACP) Consequence and likelihood of failure Rehab/replace costs Customizable rehab logic flow chart Model output includes risk-based, prioritized, capital improvements & PM recommendations: Inspection CCTV Point repair Lining Replace

23 Consequence of Failure Gravity Lines COF No. Category Criteria Scoring Risk Weight 1 Intersection Railroad Within x ft F=0; T=10 xx% 2 Intersection, Road Type Within x ft 3 Intersection: Stream, Lake or Wetland 4 Intersection: Building Type Within x ft 5 Pipe Diameter Diameter 6 User Defined Gravity State Route = 10 Alley = 0 xx% Within x ft F=0; T=10 xx% Emergency =10 Blank = 0 36 = 10 6 = 2 Trunkline = 10 Intermediate = 5 Neighborhood = 0 xx% xx% xx%

24 Likelihood of Failure Gravity Lines LOF No. Category Criteria Scoring Risk Weight 1 Life Expectancy Cohort Analysis from Material and Install Date 2 CCTV Score Rating Index 3 Last Cleaned/TV ed Date <20% = 10 >80% = = = 10 <1990 = 10.. >2015 = 0 4 Failure/Maint History Manual Input 0 = 0; 1= 5; >1 = 10 xx% 5 Wet Weather Flows Gal/cap/day 6 Hydraulic Analysis Percent Flowing Full <100 = 0 >200 = % = % = 10 xx% xx% xx% xx% xx%

25 Risk Ratings Results Business Risk Matrix by Number of Gravity & Force Main Pipes Business Risk Matrix by Number of Manholes

26 Risk Ratings Define Rehab Actions

27 Collection System Risk

28 Rehabilitation Summary Table & Asset Risk Ratings Table 6. Capital Improvement Plan Summary Table: 1-2 Year Rehabilitation Asset ID Address Total Cost Normalized Size Year Length Risk (in) Constructe (ft) Rehab Actions Year Manhole M-66 $4, MH Repair+Lining 1 Gravity Main 3A98-3A N Prospect St $3, Full Lining 1 Manhole M-66 $4, MH Repair+Lining 1 Manhole N Nottawa St $5, MH Clean + Line + Repair 2 Manhole 10A S Nottawa St $4, MH Repair+Lining 2 Gravity Main Surprise Ave $16, Full Lining 2 Manhole Florence St $4, MH Repair+Lining 2 Manhole W Chicago Rd $4, MH Repair+Lining 2 Manhole 3A N Monroe St $4, MH Repair+Lining 2 Gravity Main W Chicago Rd $22, ternal Point Repair + Full L 2 Gravity Main W Chicago Rd $4, Internal Point Repair 2 Gravity Main 19C34-19C Magnolia Ave $29, Full Lining 2 Gravity Main S Jefferson St $35, Full Lining 2 Gravity Main W Chicago Rd $18, Full Lining 2 Manhole 3A US-12 $4, MH Repair+Lining 2 Gravity Main 10A90-10A Ivanhoe St $17, ternal Point Repair + Full L 2 Gravity Main Pleasant St $8, Full Lining 2 Gravity Main 19C46-19C Wenzel Ave $15, Full Lining 2 Gravity Main 7A46-7A N Clay St $14, Full Lining 2 This table only the represents the highest priority assets in the collection system

29 Collection System 1-2 Year CIP Replace Sewer Replace MH Line/Repair MH Point Repair Full Lining

30 Lessons Learned 1. Need to critically review initial results and iterate, if necessary Brick manhole example 2. CCTV is priceless - Many pipes & manholes past their useful life can be rehabbed (rather than replaced) to extend their life & reduce capital costs

31 Example of 100-year old manhole

32 Agenda Overview of Sturgis WWTP AMP Review of WWTP AMP Tasks Utilization of 20-Years of Maintenance History Collection System AMP Rate Study

33 Rate Study 5- and 20-Year CIPs for WWTP and collection system SAW Grant required gap analysis performed

34 Rate Study Sturgis City Commission requires and approves 3-year rate adjustments for water and wastewater Rate study included more comprehensive analysis Projected Cash Balance Adjusted Operating Income Debt Coverage Ratio Performed by UFS Major Finding: Cash balance less than recommended Recommended Projected

35 Recommended Rate Adjustment 2% rate increase per year for next 3 years To meet projected CIP and provide recommended cash balance Approved in August 2016

36 Summary WWTP already performing Asset Management Benefitted from detailed inspections and CIP planning There are definite benefits to CMMS data for justification and projection of O&M and capital budget planning Innovyze is a powerful tool for CIP planning in collection system Prudent rate planning involves looking out 3 to 5 years and includes other financial indicators

37 THANK YOU Allen Gelderloos, PE, Fleis and VandenBrink C: E: Tom Sikorski, City of Sturgis WWTP Superintendent P: E: