Madison Water Utility Infrastructure Management Plan · B&V - 8 MADISON WATER UTILITY – WATER...

BUILDING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®

Madison Water UtilityInfrastructure Management Plan

February 17, 2009

MADISON WATER UTILITY – WATER MASTER PLAN • MADISON, WISCONSIN 2/9/09B&V - 2


Infrastructure Failure Can Have Serious Consequences !



Madison is not immune!



Aging InfrastructureLess Funding , Reduced Maintenance and Replacement BudgetsMore Public ScrutinyIncreased Focus on Management of Assets and Maintaining Levels of Service

Why an Infrastructure Management Plan?



Source: ASCE Web Site

ASCE Report Card Highlights Infrastructure Conditions



Water Pipe Replacement Needs Will Increase

Source: EPA Gap Analysis



What do we do?How do we effectively manage our assets? Are we maximizing the value of the assets we have?How do we predict failure?What is the life expectancy of our piping system?How do we minimize failure of a critical asset?Do we repair, rehabilitate or replace?

What do we budget for infrastructure reinvestment? How many $$$ are required?What are the consequences of not planning?

Questions



34 miles of mains 4-inch.18 miles of pipe more than 100 years old.Have to deal with other pipes leaking and in need of replacementCurrently replacing 4 to 6 miles per year. Assume 50% of replacement work is toward 4-inch pipe and >100 year old pipe. (52 miles)Takes 21 years to replace this pipe.During that time 95 miles of pipe has had its 100th

birthday

The No-plan Scenario



1) Be proactive not reactive.2) Make the most economical use of available

resources.3) Coordinate with other City Departments.4) Maintain the current level of service to

customers.

Objectives of Infrastructure Management Plan



Principal Elements of the Infrastructure Management Plan

Facilities AssessmentInspectionsCondition and Valuation Databases

Pipeline AssessmentMain Break History and TrendsSurvivability Curves

Long-term Annual Funding Levels10-year Prioritized Improvements Program



Existing System

23 Deep Wells8 InterzoneBooster Stations8 Distribution Storage Facilities850 Miles of Pipe



Pumping Station Component Weighting

Component weights are based on evaluation of typical component cComponent weights are based on evaluation of typical component cost for standard pumping station.ost for standard pumping station.

100Total

5Security – Locks, Site Lighting, Surveillance Devices, Fencing8

5Instrumentation – Flow/Pressure/Temperature Instruments SCADA – RTU, CPU, Transmitter/modem

7

25Electrical – MCC, Standby Power, General Interior6

20Pumps and Motors5

5Mechanical – HVAC4

20Mechanical – Piping, Valves, Meters3

10Structure – Walls, Roof, Foundation2

10Site – Drainage, Access Drive, Landscaping1

WeightComponent



Condition Rating

Needs Immediate Replacement. Failure is imminent.5

Operable, but shows signs of aging greater than expected. Has high occurrence of maintenance requirements.

4

In working order and shows signs of aging consistent with actual age of component. Improvements needed in near future to maintain working order.

3

Well maintained and appears to be in better condition than actual age would indicate. No improvements needed in near future to maintain working order.

2

New condition. Meets or exceeds standard. 1Definition

Condition Rating

Condition Rating – Pumping and Storage Facilities



Facility Reinvestment Needs

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

2015 to 2025 2025 to 2035 2035 to 2045 2045 to 2055 After 2055

Period

Ann

ual R

einv

estm

ent N

eed

Capital costs in 2005 dollars and not adjusted for inflation.

Current Reinvestment in Facilities



Common Identified Facility Needs

Facilities in General are in Good Condition, Well Maintained. Chemical Feed Housing Locations Not Consistent with Today’s Code.Some Vent / Overflow Concerns Reservoir Interiors Condition Varied



Prioritized Facility Improvements

Perform High Priority Facility Improvements Replace Booster Station 106Repair Reservoir 106Perform Well borehole rehabilitation at 13, 17, and 24.Repair Pumping Station 12Repair Reservoir 7Repaint Elevated Tanks 120, 126, and 315.



Length of Pipe by Material and Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1882

1892

1902

1912

1922

1932

1942

1952

1962

1972

1982

1992

2002

Year of Installation

Leng

th (m

iles)

Unlined Sand Cast IronUnlined Spin Cast IronLined Spin Cast IronLined Dutile IronLined and Wrapped Ductile IronPVC



Break Trends Analysis

107 141 192

52

308

9

618

1,217

2,388

148 16443

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Sand Cast Spin CastUnlined

(Spin) CastLined

Ductile DuctileBagged

PVC0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

Bre

ak R

ate

(Bre

aks

per M

ile p

er Y

ear)

Length by Material -Miles

Number of Breaks -1980 to 2003

Break Rate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1.5 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 20 24

Diameter (inches)

Leng

th (m

iles)

PVCCopperDuctile Iron (bagged)Ductile IronSpin Cast (Lined)Spin Cast (Unlined)Sand Cast (Unlined)Break Rate by Diameter



Survival Curves

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200

Pipe Age, years

Surv

ival

Per

cent

age

Bin 3Bin 2Bin 1



Pipeline Reinvestment Needs

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Year From Current

Cap

ital C

ost (

Mill

ion

$)

Reinvestment Need

Capital costs in 2005 dollars and not adjusted for inflation.



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

Year

Pipe

line

Rei

nves

tmen

t (M

illio

n $)

Reinvestment NeedCIP BudgetCummulative Shortfall

Pipeline Reinvestment Shortfall

0

10

20

30

40

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

Year

Pipe

line

Rei

nves

tmen

t (M

illio

n $)

Reinvestment NeedCIP BudgetCummulative Shortfall

Current Reinvestment

Proposed Reinvestment

It is the goal of the Utility to regularly increase the annual reinvestment spending to catch up with needs. It will take many years to achieve this goal due to limitations in rate increases and the Utility’s bonding capacity.



Prioritized Pipeline Improvements

1Not usedMarshyDefaultSoil Type

1Hospitals, Stadiums, Airport, State Capital Building, University of Wisconsin Co-generation Plant

Colleges and SchoolsDefaultNoteworthy Locations

2Limited Access Federal Highways, single supply lines, and others as directed by City

Not-limited Access Federal and State Highways

DefaultCritical Pipelines

210” and larger4” and smaller8” and smallerDiameter

3Roadway Reconstruction Project

Roadway Resurfacing, Storm Water or Sanitary Sewer Project

DefaultCoordination With Public Works

3Highest 1/3Middle 1/3Lowest 1/3Break Rates

37 or more3 to 62 to 3Number of Breaks

321 Weight

Impact Score

Criteria

Pipeline Criteria Scoring



Recommendations

Increase annual budget to build up to $2 million per year facility reinvestment by year 2025Implement corrective measures for overflow pipes and chemical rooms ($2.6 million in addition to annual reinvestment for facilities)Increase annual budget to build up to $9 million per year for pipeline replacement by year 2024These costs are year 2005 basis and should be increased annually to account for inflation



Miscellaneous Recommendations

Maintenance RecommendationsAdditional Data Collection ProtocolsEvaluate Pressure vs. Main BreaksConduct Water AuditComputerized Maintenance Management System

Madison Water Utility Infrastructure Management Plan · B&V - 8 MADISON WATER UTILITY – WATER...

Documents

Transcript of Madison Water Utility Infrastructure Management Plan · B&V - 8 MADISON WATER UTILITY – WATER...