SD1's Sanitary and Storm Water

Asset Management Program

KSPE Annual Convention April 28, 2011

Sanitation District No. 1

of Northern Kentucky

Outline

• Background

• CSAP Program Development

• CSAP Program Implementation

• SWAMP Development & Implementation

• Integration of CSAP & SWAMP

• Data Management & Automation

• Conclusions

(1) Based on preliminary not fully calibrated hydraulic models.

Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky

Background • 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

Greater Cincinnati /

Northern Kentucky

Airport

• 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

Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky Today

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

(1) Based on preliminary not fully calibrated hydraulic models.

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.

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

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

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

CSAP Program Development

Drainage Basin Summary

Sanitary Basins in Blue

LDSAP Basins in Yellow

• 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

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

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

Priority CSO

Factor

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

1 0.1 1 0.3 1 0.3

2 0.2 2 0.4 2 0.4

3 0.3 3 0.6

4 0.4 more 1.0

More 0.7

Overall Basin Scoring

DA

Basin

Raw

Overall

Score SSO/SRP Priority SSO

Priority

CSO

Total

Enhancem

ent Factor

Enhance

ment

Adder

Total

Adjusted

Score Overall Rank

7 9.5 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.95 10.45 76/182

RAW

SCORE 1.3 9.5

4.6 3.6 Score Category

1.3 Work Order 9.5 Raw Overall

4.6 Structural 3.6 Service Score Category

TOTAL ADJUSTED SCORE

$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

Basin Prioritization Results

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

System Correction

Process Concepts

by Hazen & Sawyer

System Assessment

CSAP Work Flow Process

Cleaning

Rehab &

Replacement

Sonar

Preventative

O&M LDSAP

SSES

CSAP Process Diagram Example Preventative O&M

Program addresses all

separate sewer basins

in SD1 system

SCREAMTM codes

used provides

scores 1-100

CSAP Process Diagram Example SCREAMTM codes

used provides

scores 1-100

CSAP Program

Implementation • Implemented program in 2008. 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

CCTV Footage Stats • 2006

– 451,000 LF

– 65,000 LF on PM

• 2007 – 522,000 LF

– 139,000 LF on PM

• 2008 – 1,456,000 LF

– 300,000 LF on PM

• 2009 – 1,410,599 LF

– 3,277 on PM

• 2010 – 1,095,082 LF

– 11,249 LF on PM

Cost Savings Example

Realized with CSAP

• PM Footage as of 2008 – 300,000 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

– [(26,000 + 64,500) * $1.50] = $135,750

– Difference = $765,250

Agenda SD1’s Storm Water Asset Management Program

SD1 took over approximately 400 miles of storm sewers and structures from the local cities & counties in 2010

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

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

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)

• Criteria Scoring

Degree of Impact Scoring

None or NA 0

Minor 1

Moderate 2

Severe 3

Extreme 4

SD1’s SWAMP Implementation

Example Project

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

CSAP & SWAMP Integration

Approximately 45% of the

service area has excessive

I/I

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

SD1’s Data

Integration Plan

Designed to

Expedite

Decisions by

Automating

Processes

Field Data

Data Storage

& SCREAMTM

Scoring

CSAP Logic

Applied &

Decision-Making

Example Screens of SCREAM™

CCTV in gbaMS

Example Screens of SCREAM™

Scores in gbaMS

Example Display in GIS

Automation Provides Web Planning

Reports of Next Actions

Automatically Generate & Schedule

Work Orders for Next Action

Group Pipes by Location Add to Work Order

Create Work Order

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

Reporting Tools for Costs &

Production

Calculates Life Cycle Costs for

Rehab, Repair or Ongoing PM

Cleaning

Example Display in GIS

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%

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

Brandon Vatter, P.E.

Barrett Groh

bvatter@sd1.org

bgroh@sd1.org

SD1's Sanitary and Storm

Water Asset Management

Program

KSPE Annual Convention

April 28, 2011

Questions?