Best for the Buck: Using Asset Management for Project Design at Highline Water District Matthew J. Maring, P.E. April 30, 2008

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Initial Project Design Concept  Transmission Capacity Improvements – 4600’ 16” Diameter Mains – $1.8M Estimated Capital Cost  Dead-End Main Looping Improvements – 6500’ 8” Diameter Mains – $2.1M Estimated Capital Cost  New Pressure Zone Creation – 7 PRVs and 12 Isolation Valves – $0.8M Estimated Capital Cost  $4.7M Total Estimated Capital Cost

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Project Approach  Asset Management Predesign Review – Business Case Evaluation – Hydraulic Modeling Analysis – Alternative Design Approaches  Identify, Optimize, Assess, Compare – Identify Preferred Design Alternatives  Detailed Design  Construction

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Business Case Evaluation Process  Form Expert Team – Highline and BC Staff  Problem and Level of Service Definition  Data Collection, Problem Characterization  Alternative Development Brainstorming  Alternative Performance Evaluations – Hydraulic Modeling Analysis  Alternative Performance, Cost, and Risk Comparison  Preferred Solutions  Detailed Design

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Business Case Difference  Lifecycle Cost – A dollar is a dollar – Capital, O&M, R&R, Risk Costs  Triple Bottom Line Costing – Financial – Community/Social – Environmental  Preferred Solution = Lowest Lifecycle Cost that Meets Level of Service  Decisions – Documented, Defensible, Transparent

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Problem Definition  Low Pressures  Limited Fire Flow Availability  Dead-End Mains – Water Circulation and Turn Over – Low Pressures, Limited Fire Flow  High Pressures – Frequent Main Breaks

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Level of Service  Peak Hour Demand Pressures > psi  Max Day Demand + Fire Flow > 20 psi  Dead-End Mains – Address Pressures and Fire Flows – Correct where Financially Preferable  High Pressures and Main Breaks – Distribution Leakage Standards – Correct where Financially Preferable – Goal: Max Static Pressures < 100 psi

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Data Collection and Problem Characterization  Hydraulic Model System Performance – Minimum Pressures, Fire Flows  Water Main Breaks – 3 to 4 Times More Frequent in High Pressure Areas – $6K+ Average Cost per Break  Repair Labor, Materials, Equipment  Lost Water, Insurance Claims/Deductibles – Reduce High Pressure Breaks to “Normal” Levels = $18K Annual Savings  Dead-End Main Flushing is “Cheap”

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Existing System: Future Model Scenario Pressure and Fire Flow Performance

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 High Pressure Area Main Breaks

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 High Pressure Area Main Breaks

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Main Breaks: High Pressures or Acidic Soils?

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Alternative Development  Low Pressures and Fire Flow Availability – Pipe and Pump Improvements – Various Sizes and Combinations  Dead-End Mains – Looping – Alternating and Continuous  High Pressures – New Pressure Zone – PRV Quantity and Locations – Isolation Valve Quantity and Locations

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Alternative Performance and Hydraulic Modeling

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Alternative Performance and Hydraulic Modeling

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Alternative Performance New Zone Area Pressures, Before and After

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Lifecycle NPV Cost Comparison  Lifecycle Net Present Value (NPV) Analysis – Capital, O&M, R&R, Risk Costs – Amount Invested Today to Fund All Current and Future Asset Costs

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Risk Cost Considerations  Risk Cost = (Probability) x (Consequence) – Example A: (Annual Number of Main Breaks) x (Average Break Repair Cost) – Example B: (Likelihood of Insurance Claim) x (Insurance Deductible + Staff Costs)  Benefit Cost = (Probability) x (Avoided Consequence) – Example C: (Avoided Number of Main Breaks) x (Average Break Repair Cost)

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Preferred Solution for Detailed Design  Transmission Capacity Improvements – 1800’ 12” Diameter Mains – Pump Station Upgrades – $1.1M Estimated Capital Cost  Dead-End Main Looping Improvements – 2700’ 8” Diameter Mains (Alternating) – $0.9M Estimated Capital Cost  New Pressure Zone Creation – 3 PRVs, 50 psi Pressure Reduction – $0.3M Estimated Capital Cost  $2.3M Total Estimated Capital Cost

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Preferred Solution Delivers Optimal Performance and Cost Savings Initial Concept Preferred Solution Initial Concept Preferred Solution Initial Concept Preferred Solution Capital Costs Lifecycle Costs Capital Costs Lifecycle Costs Transmission Capacity 4600’ 16” Dia. 1800’ 12” Dia. And Pump Upgrades $1.8M $1.1M$1.5M Dead-End Loops 6500’ 8” Dia. 2700’ 8” Dia. $2.1M $0.9M New Pressure Zone 8 PRVs 12 Iso. Valves 3 PRVs$0.8M$1.2M$0.3M$0.4M Totals$4.7M$5.1M$2.3M$2.8M

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Avoided Risk Costs Demonstrate Project Value  High Pressure Areas Main Breaks – $0.5M Lifecycle NPV Repair Cost  New Pressure Zone Creation – $0.4M Lifecycle NPV Cost – $0.5M Lifecycle NPV Avoided Repairs – $0.1M Savings Over Status Quo

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Asset Management Approach Successful Business Case Evaluation and Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Approach Results:  Cost Savings – $2.6M Capital Costs = 53% – $2.3M Lifecycle Costs = 45%  Higher Overall Level of Service  Takes Advantage of Existing Assets – Pump Station Upgrades vs. New Water Mains  New Pressure Zone Pays for Itself – $0.4M Lifecycle Cost vs. – $0.5M Avoided Lifecycle Main Break Repair Costs

Best for the Buck I April 30, 2008 Questions?