blue plains awtp asset management plan - …...am program key performance indicators for initial...

Blue Plains AWTP Asset Management Plan

March 2017

ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Asset Management Plan ......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Elements of the BPAMP ................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Assets Covered in the BPAMP .......................................................................................... 1-4

2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Brief History of the Blue Plains AWTP ............................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreements ........................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Blue Plains AWTP Overview ............................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.1 Service Area ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.2 Treatment Process .............................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.3 Capacity and Flow ............................................................................................... 2-9

2.4 Current Approaches to Managing the Wastewater Treatment System ........................ 2-10 2.5 Regulatory Requirements .............................................................................................. 2-11

2.5.1 NPDES Permits .................................................................................................. 2-12 2.5.2 Consent Decrees ............................................................................................... 2-13

2.6 Asset Management Objectives and Governance ........................................................... 2-13 2.6.1 AM Policy and Objectives ................................................................................. 2-13 2.6.2 Governance Structure ....................................................................................... 2-14

2.7 Stakeholders .................................................................................................................. 2-20 2.7.1 Internal Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 2-20 2.7.2 External Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 2-24

3 Asset Lifecycle Management................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Plan/Design Phase ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Acquire/Install/Construct Phase ...................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Commission Phase ........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Operate and Maintain Phase ........................................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Rehabilitate/Replace Phase ............................................................................................. 3-8 3.6 Decommission/Salvage Phase ......................................................................................... 3-9

4 State of Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................................. 4-1 4.1 Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Assets ............................................ 4-1 4.2 Asset Hierarchy ................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.3 Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Valuation ........................................................................................................................ 4-15

4.4.1 Book Value ........................................................................................................ 4-15 4.4.2 Replacement Value ........................................................................................... 4-17

4.5 Service Life ..................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.6 Physical Condition and Performance ............................................................................. 4-22

4.6.1 Physical Condition ............................................................................................. 4-22

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ii

5 Performance Management ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Performance Measurement ............................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.1 Energy Usage ...................................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.2 Biosolids Production ........................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.3 Total Nitrogen ..................................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.4 Plant Effluent Flow .............................................................................................. 5-7 5.2.5 Excess Flow ......................................................................................................... 5-7

5.3 Recommendations for Future Performance Management Improvements ..................... 5-8

6 Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Linear Assets .................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Vertical Assets .................................................................................................................. 6-2

6.4.1 Consequence of Failure ...................................................................................... 6-2 6.4.2 Likelihood of Failure ............................................................................................ 6-7 6.4.3 Risk Analysis Results ......................................................................................... 6-10

6.5 Applying the Risk Assessment Results ........................................................................... 6-15

7 Asset Management Support Systems .................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Asset Management Competency Requirements ............................................................. 7-1 7.2 Software Systems ............................................................................................................. 7-3

7.2.1 Maximo ............................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.2 Emerson Ovation Process Control System .......................................................... 7-3 7.2.3 Other Software ................................................................................................... 7-4

8 Expenditure Summary and Forecast ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Expenditure History ......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Operating Expenditure History ........................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Capital Expenditure History ................................................................................ 8-3

8.2 Expenditure Forecast ....................................................................................................... 8-8 8.2.1 Operating Expenditure Forecast ......................................................................... 8-8 8.2.2 Capital Expenditure Forecast .............................................................................. 8-8

8.3 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................. 8-11 8.3.1 Operating Revenue ........................................................................................... 8-11 8.3.2 Capital Funding ................................................................................................. 8-11

9 Investment Needs................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Projection of Renewal Investment Needs ........................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Projection of Operation and Maintenance Investment Needs ........................................... 9-3 9.3 Review of Existing CIP Projects ........................................................................................... 9-4

9.3.1 Existing CIP Projects that Align with Highest, Higher and Moderate Risk Asset Systems ............................................................................................................... 9-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN iii

9.3.2 Asset Systems Included in the Existing CIP that Appear to Have Drivers Other Than Risk ........................................................................................................... 9-11

9.3.3 CIP Projects Not Assessed for Risk .................................................................... 9-14 9.3.4 Programmatic CIP Projects ............................................................................... 9-15 9.3.5 Lower and Lowest Risk Asset Systems Not Addressed by CIP Projects ............ 9-15 9.3.6 Summary of CIP Project Risk Analysis ............................................................... 9-16

10 Improvement Plan .............................................................................................................. 10-1

11 References .......................................................................................................................... 11-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN iv

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: DC Water Asset Management Policy ..................................................................................... A1 Appendix B: Vertical Asset Hierarchies for Blue Plains .............................................................................. B1 Appendix C: Estimated Replacement Value for Blue Plains AWTP ............................................................ C1 Appendix D: Blue Plains Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................ D1 Appendix E: Risk Assessment Results Technical Memorandum ................................................................ E1 Appendix F: Blue Plains AWTP - Estimated Annual Rehabilitation and Replacement Investment ............ F1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Aerial Photograph Showing Blue Plains AWTP ........................................................................ 1-5 Figure 2-1. DC Water Service Area Map .................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2. Blue Plains AWTP Wastewater Treatment Process ................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-3. Actual Average Daily Flow ....................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-4. Projected Average Daily Flow ................................................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-5. DC Water Organizational Structure ....................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-6. Blue Plains AWTP Organizational Structure........................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-7. Blue Plains AWTP Wastewater Engineering Organizational Structure .................................. 2-18 Figure 2-8. Asset Management Program Governance Structure ............................................................. 2-19 Figure 3-1. The Asset Lifecycle ................................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2. Planning Process Flowchart ..................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-3. Typical Lifecycle Costs per Phase as a Percent of Total Lifecycle Costs .................................. 3-2 Figure 3-4. Example Relationships Between the Plan/Design Phase and Other Phases of the Asset

Lifecycle......................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-5. Example Relationships Between the Acquire/Install/Construct Phase and Other Phases of the

Asset Lifecycle ............................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-6. Example Relationships Between the Commission Phase and Other Phases of the Asset

Lifecycle......................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-7. Example Relationships Between the Operate and Maintain Phase and Other Phases of the

Asset Lifecycle ............................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-8. Example Relationships Between the Rehabilitate/Replace Phase and Other Phases of the

Asset Lifecycle ............................................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-9. Example Relationships Between the Decommission/Salvage Phase and Other Phases of the

Asset Lifecycle ............................................................................................................................. 3-10 Figure 4-1. DC Water Net Capital Assets for the Blue Plains AWTP FY 2006 – FY 2015 .......................... 4-16 Figure 5-1. Line-of-Sight from Organizational Strategy to LOS to PIs ........................................................ 5-1 Figure 5-2. Operational Highlights Reported to the Board of Directors .................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-3. Energy Usage Statistics Reported to the Board of Directors ................................................... 5-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN v

Figure 5-4. Biosolids and Total Nitrogen Statistics Reported to the Board of Directors ........................... 5-7 Figure 5-5. Plant Effluent Flow and Excess Flow Statistics Reported to the Board of Directors ............... 5-8 Figure 6-1. Consequence of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems ..................................... 6-6 Figure 6-2. Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems .......................................... 6-9 Figure 6-3. Risk of Failure for Blue Plains AWTP Vertical Asset Systems ................................................. 6-13 Figure 6-4. Consequence of Failure and Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset

Systems ....................................................................................................................................... 6-14

Figure 7-1. Asset Management Competencies .......................................................................................... 7-2

Figure 8-1. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Operating Expenditures, FY 2006 – FY 2015 ............. 8-2 Figure 8-2. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Operating Expenditures by Component, FY 2006 –

FY 2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-3 Figure 8-3. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Capital Disbursements, FY 2007 – FY 2016 ............... 8-4 Figure 8-4. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Capital Disbursements by Program Area, FY 2007 –

FY 2016 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-7 Figure 8-5. Wastewater Treatment System Cumulative Capital Disbursements by Program Area from FY 2007

through FY 2016 .............................................................................................................................. 8-7 Figure 8-6. Wastewater Treatment System Operating Expenditure Forecast, FY 2016 – FY 2025 ........... 8-8 Figure 8-7. Wastewater Treatment System Capital Budget, FY 2017 – FY 2026 ....................................... 8-9 Figure 8-8. Wastewater Treatment System Capital Budget by Program Area, FY 2017 – FY 2026 ......... 8-10 Figure 9-1. Projection of Operation and Maintenance Investment Needs for the Blue Plains AWTP

(FY 2017 - 2026) ............................................................................................................................ 9-4 Figure 9-2. Blue Plains AWTP Projects FY 2017 – FY 2021 Budget by Asset System and Risk Category .. 9-18 Figure 9-3. Blue Plains AWTP Projects FY 2022 – FY 2026 Budget by Asset System and Risk Category .. 9-19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN vi

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. BPAMP Alignment with Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan ....................................................... 1-2 Table 1-2. Elements of the BPAMP ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Table 2-1. Blue Plains AWTP Plantwide Chemical Storage and Distribution Systems ............................... 2-7 Table 2-2. Blue Plains AWTP Plantwide Ancillary Systems ....................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-3. Blue Plains AWTP Facilities ....................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-4. Examples of Major Approaches and Tools Currently Used for Managing Wastewater

Treatment System Assets ........................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-5. NPDES Requirements for the Blue Plains AWTP ..................................................................... 2-12 Table 2-6. Consent Decrees for the Blue Plains AWTP ............................................................................ 2-13 Table 2-7. Asset Management Program Roles and Responsibilities for Selected DC Water Staff .......... 2-19 Table 2-8. Internal Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 2-21 Table 2-9. External Stakeholders and Drivers .......................................................................................... 2-25 Table 4-1. Blue Plains AWTP Planning Areas ............................................................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2. Liquid Stream Unit Processes .................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3. Solid Stream Unit Processes ...................................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-4. Plantwide Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities ..................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-5. Plantwide Ancillary Systems Ancillary Systems ...................................................................... 4-13 Table 4-6. Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-7. Net Capital Assets for the Blue Plains AWTP, FY 2006 – FY 2015 ........................................... 4-16 Table 4-8. Estimated Replacement Cost Summary .................................................................................. 4-17 Table 4-9. Remaining Useful Life by Condition Grade ............................................................................. 4-18 Table 4-10. Remaining Useful Life Adjustment Factors ........................................................................... 4-18 Table 4-11. Estimated Useful Life of Selected Assets in the Blue Plains AWTP ....................................... 4-19 Table 4-12. General Guidance for Grading Condition of Blue Plains AWTP Assets ................................. 4-22 Table 4-13. Additional Guidance for Grading Condition of Structures .................................................... 4-23 Table 4-14. Additional Guidance for Grading Condition of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment and

Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................... 4-23 Table 4-15. General Guidance for Grading Performance of Blue Plains AWTP Assets ............................ 4-24 Table 4-16. Condition and Performance of Liquid Stream Processes ...................................................... 4-24 Table 4-17. Condition and Performance of Solid Stream Processes ........................................................ 4-26 Table 4-18. Condition and Performance of Plantwide Chemical Storage and Distribution Systems ...... 4-27 Table 4-19. Condition and Performance of Plantwide Ancillary Systems ................................................ 4-27 Table 4-20. Condition and Performance of Facilities ............................................................................... 4-29 Table 5-1. DC Water’s Levels of Service Categories and Target Levels for the Wastewater Treatment

System ........................................................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2. AM Program Key Performance Indicators for Initial Implementation ...................................... 5-3 Table 5-3. Blue Plains AWTP KPIs for Future Implementation .................................................................. 5-3 Table 5-4. Operational Performance Metrics for Wastewater Treatment System Recommended by the

Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative........................................................................................ 5-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN vii

Table 6-1. Consequence of Failure Scoring Categories .............................................................................. 6-3 Table 6-2. Consequence of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems ....................................... 6-4 Table 6-3. Likelihood of Failure Scoring Categories ................................................................................... 6-7 Table 6-4. Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems ............................................ 6-7 Table 6-5. Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems Having Updated LOF Scores and Risk Scores ..................... 6-10 Table 6-6. Risk of Failure Scores and Primary Driver for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems..................... 6-11 Table 8-1. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Operating Expenditures by Component, FY 2006 –

FY 2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Capital Disbursements by Program area, FY 2007 –

FY 2016 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-6 Table 8-3. Wastewater Treatment System Capital Budget by Program Area, FY 2017 – FY 2026 ............ 8-9 Table 8-4. Wastewater Treatment System Top 5 Projects by Forecasted Disbursement (in Million $)

from FY 2017 through FY 2026 ................................................................................................... 8-10 Table 9-1. Annualized Renewal Investment Needs (by Specification Division) ......................................... 9-2 Table 9-2. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Addressing a Moderate, Higher, or Highest Risk Asset

System ........................................................................................................................................... 9-6 Table 9-3. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Addressing Non-risk Driven Asset System ............................. 9-12 Table 9-4. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Not Assessed for Risk ............................................................. 9-14 Table 9-5. Asset Systems Not Addressed by CIP Projects ........................................................................ 9-16 Table 9-6. Summary of Blue Plains AWTP Projects for FY 2017 – FY 2026 Planning Period by Risk

Category ...................................................................................................................................... 9-17 Table 10-1. Process and Data Improvements .......................................................................................... 10-2 Table 10-2. Renewal Improvements ........................................................................................................ 10-4 Table 10-3. Inspections and Maintenance Improvements ...................................................................... 10-5

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN i

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AACE AACE International ADF average daily flow AM asset management Authority DC Water or District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority AWTP Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant BCE Business Case Evaluation BFP belt filter press BOD biochemical oxygen demand BPAMP Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Asset Management Plan CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports CEO Chief Executive Officer CHP combined heat and power CIP Capital Improvement Program CMF central maintenance facility CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System COF consequence of failure COOP Continuity of Operations Plan CPES CH2M’s Parametric Design & Cost Estimating System CPVC chlorinated polyvinyl chloride CRS chemicals receiving station CSI Construction Specifications Institute CSO combined sewer overflow DAF dissolved air flotation DCWASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (older term, no longer used) DC Water District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority DCS distributed control system District District of Columbia DPSB dual purpose sedimentation basin EAM Enterprise Asset Management ECF enhanced clarification facility ENRF enhanced nitrogen removal facility EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDF final dewatering facility FIP filter influent pump


BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ii

FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic FTPP floatation thickener polymer pump FTSP floatation thickener sludge pump GIS geographic information system GM General Manager GTFD gravity thickener flow distribution GTSCP gravity thickener scum pump GTSP gravity thickener sludge pump HCMA hyperclassic mixer/aerator HRC high rate clarification HRSG heat recovery steam generator HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I&C instrumentation and control I&M Inspections and Maintenance IAM Institute of Asset Management IIMM International Infrastructure Management Manual ISO International Organization for Standardization IT information technology KPI key performance indicator kV kilovolt(s) LOE Level of Effort LOF likelihood of failure LOS levels of service LPRFEP low pressure reclaimed final effluent pump mg/L milligram(s) per liter MGD million gallons per day MTBF mean time between failure MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments MWh megawatt hour N/A not applicable NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M operation and maintenance OCFO Office of Chief Financial Officer


BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN iii

P&D Process and Data PCS process control system P-F Point of Defect (P) – Functional Failure (F) PI performance indicator PLC programmable logic controller PPA PSW process service water QA quality assurance RAS return activated sludge REN Renewal RWWPS raw wastewater pump station SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SPB solids processing building THP thermal hydrolysis process TPDT thickening polymer day tank TDPS tunnel dewatering pumps TPPS tunnel dewatering pump station UPS uninterruptible power supply VFD variable frequency drive WAS waste activated sludge WNS waste nitrification sludge WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission WWTPM Wastewater Treatment Program Manager

1. INTRODUCTION

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-1

1 Introduction The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) is committed to achieving its vision “To be a world-class water utility” through meeting its mission to “Exceed expectations by providing high quality water services in a safe, environmentally friendly, and efficient manner.”1 As such, DC Water strives to ensure the reliability and sustainability of its infrastructure by becoming a leading asset management (AM) organization, continually striving to improve its services and practices. The AM Program supports the efficient and effective management of DC Water’s wastewater treatment system assets to meet organizational and functional goals.

1.1 Purpose of the Asset Management Plan

In 2014, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released ISO 55000, the first set of international standards for AM, and in 2015, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia released the 5th edition of the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) in alignment with ISO 55000. ISO 55000 was used to guide the development of the DC Water AM Program, and the IIMM, to provide the details for its implementation. DC Water is using a three-pronged approach that includes:

1) ISO 55000 AM attributes 2) Work currently being done at the operational level 3) Some associated high priority needs identified by the staff

The premise of the ISO 55000 standards is that effective acquisition, control, and governance of assets are essential if an organization is to realize the full value of those assets. This is achieved by continuously managing risk to achieve the desired balance of benefits, costs, and performance.

DC Water developed a Strategic Asset Management Plan (Strategic AMP) (CH2M, 2015a), setting forth the AM strategies, frameworks, and processes that the Authority will employ to realize its vision and accomplish its mission. To further define how the principles from the Strategic AMP will apply to the various service areas at DC Water, AMPs were developed for each of DC Water’s three service areas: the water system, sewer system, and Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP). The Enterprise AMP will serve to roll up the recommendations from the service area AMPs to allow for executive level decisions to be made on priorities within the service areas as a whole.

This Blue Plains AWTP Asset Management Plan (BPAMP) serves as a guide for DC Water staff in making decisions regarding the lifecycle management of Blue Plains AWTP assets, from planning to disposal. The contents of this document are based on information provided in the 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016) and from DC Water staff, as well as information developed by the AM Program. The goal in preparing this BPAMP was to compile available information from disparate sources, including the institutional knowledge of DC Water staff, the 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016), and electronic data from Maximo into a comprehensive document to be used as a basis for managing infrastructure assets at the Blue Plains AWTP. It is anticipated that this BPAMP will serve as an important element should DC Water desire to obtain ISO 55000 certification.

1 DC Water’s vision and mission are stated in the Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan (DC Water, 2013), and were adopted by the DC Water Board of Directors in 2013.

1. INTRODUCTION


In the development of the BPAMP, priority was placed on alignment with the goals of the DC Water Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan (DC Water, 2013), which includes nine goals for DC Water. Of these nine goals, five align most closely with the management of the Blue Plains AWTP, although all goals were kept in mind during the development of the BPAMP. Those goals are listed in Table 1-1, alongside a brief description of how this document relates to each goal. This BPAMP, along with the other elements of the AM Program, align most closely with Goal 8: “Optimally Manage Infrastructure.” The implementation of a comprehensive AM program is specifically identified as this goal’s first initiative.

Table 1-1. BPAMP Alignment with Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan

Blue Horizon Goal Blue Plains Asset Management Plan Alignment

Goal 4: Enhance Customer/Stakeholder Confidence, Communications, and Perception

Prioritization of infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement, as well as inspection and maintenance based on the risk of asset failure should reduce negative customer and stakeholder impacts and improve customer and stakeholder confidence. Use of a standard prioritization process improves customer communications.

Goal 5: Assure Financial Sustainability and Integrity Risk-based planning of infrastructure investments prioritizes spending and reduces high cost reactive expenses.

Goal 6: Assure Safety and Security Safety criteria are included in the risk assessment criteria and in the performance management process, and reported as key KPIs.

Goal 8: Optimally Manage Infrastructure Primary objective of the BPAMP.

Goal 9: Enhance Operating Excellence through Innovation, Sustainability and Adoption of Best Practices

Incorporation of AM principles, practices, and tools will allow DC Water to enhance service delivery and long-term sustainability.

Note:

KPI = key performance indicator

The AM Program will also help meet the objectives of DC Water’s Ten-Year Financial Plan2 by supporting and instituting practices that will ultimately provide the following:

• Evidence-based decisions to optimize proactive maintenance of DC Water’s infrastructure and justify capital needs

• An Authority-wide view of risk, allowing funds to be prioritized in a consistent manner to reduce risk of asset failure

• Prioritization of capital investments and proactive measures to maintain service level commitments that allow DC Water to avoid costly asset failures that could erode financial viability

This BPAMP uses a top-down approach for risk assessment (fully explained in Section 6). Under a separate contract, DC Water is performing a bottom-up analysis that should be incorporated into this BPAMP when the results become available. This BPAMP was developed based on information that was readily available in 2016, and identifies additional information needed to make more informed decisions. In addition, as the AM Program matures under a self-guided program, DC Water will need to

2 The Ten-Year Financial Plan is included as Section III of DC Water’s Approved FY 2017 Budgets (DC Water, 2015a)

1. INTRODUCTION


determine if more detailed AMPs addressing asset classes (for example, equipment types) are required. Periodic updates to this BPAMP are recommended every 2 to 4 years, or as new information becomes available.

1.2 Elements of the BPAMP

This BPAMP provides a comprehensive overview of how AM principles apply to the wastewater treatment system. This BPAMP begins with a summary of the existing Blue Plains AWTP assets and current management approaches, continues with risk assessment and application of the AM tools developed by the AM Program, and concludes with recommendations on investment needs and potential improvements to achieve and maintain its status as a world-class water utility. Goals, frameworks, other plans, and documents that have been completed in the AM Program are referred herein, and work that is in progress or planned for implementation is also mentioned. Table 1-2 provides an outline of the sections of this document as well as a brief description of what each section contains.

Table 1-2. Elements of the BPAMP

Section Description

1 Introduction Description of the objectives and organization of the BPAMP and the types of assets included in the plan

2 Background Brief history of the Blue Plains AWTP and its governance structure

3 Asset Lifecycle Management

A description and overview of the six phases of the asset lifecycle, including the relationships among the various phases.

4 State of the Blue Plains AWTP

Definition of the Blue Plains AWTP assets and hierarchies; summary of the Blue Plains AWTP asset inventory including current condition, performance, valuation, and expected useful life of the assets

5 Performance Management

Description of level of service goals and initial key performance indicators for measuring performance against those goals

6 Risk Assessment Method of evaluating the risk of failure of assets based on likelihood and consequence of failure and the resulting risk assessment results

7 AM Support Systems The resources, primarily software systems, that the Authority may leverage to ensure that AM is institutionalized in sewer system operations

8 Expenditure Summary and Forecast

Summary of expenditure history and forecasts for the Blue Plains AWTP

9 Investment Needs Identification of investment needs to address risk mitigation and other capital efforts

10 Improvement Plan Data needs and recommendations covering improvements in this BPAMP, system performance, and AM practices

Appendices Detailed information supporting the materials in this BPAMP, including AM Policy, key performance indicators, asset hierarchies, and long-term capital investments

1. INTRODUCTION


1.3 Assets Covered in the BPAMP

Figure 1-1 is an aerial photo of the Blue Plains AWTP. The BPAMP addresses the following assets to the extent which existing information was available:

• Liquid stream unit processes - Influent pumping - Screening - Grit removal - Primary treatment systems - Secondary treatment systems - Nitrification and denitrification systems - Side stream treatment systems - Wet weather treatment systems - Filtration and disinfection systems

• Plantwide chemical storage and distribution

systems - Metal salts systems - Dry polymer systems - Emulsion polymer system - Sodium hydroxide system - Sodium hypochlorite system - Sodium bisulfite system - Calcium hydroxide (lime slurry) system

• Plant facilities

- Buildings (for example, central operations facility, Central Maintenance Facility [CMF], and visitor center)

- Dry polymer systems - Pipe galleries - Site lighting - Roadways, drainage and flood protection,

infrastructure (scales and cranes) - Plant security

• Solid stream unit processes - Primary sludge screening and degritting - Primary sludge gravity thickening

systems - Dissolved air flotation systems - Sludge screening, pre-dewatering,

thermal hydrolysis, and digestion systems - Combined heat and power systems - Final dewatering and lime stabilization

facilities • Plant-wide ancillary systems - Process and city water systems - Process samplers - Odor control systems - Information technology (IT) networks

and fiber, fire alarm, video, and power monitoring systems

- Process control system - Electrical power distribution system - Heating ventilation and air conditioning

1. INTRODUCTION


Figure 1-1. Aerial Photograph Showing Blue Plains AWTP

Source: Aerial Photograph Showing Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AECOM, 2015a)

2. BACKGROUND


2 Background 2.1 Brief History of the Blue Plains AWTP1

Although the first sewers in the District of Columbia (District) were constructed in the 1800s, before 1938, untreated wastewater was simply discharged to the nearest surface water, such as Rock Creek, the Anacostia River, and the Potomac River, all tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. With the public health and the health of the waterways at stake, the District Government embarked on the design and construction of its first sewage treatment plant, named for its location in the Blue Plains area in the southern part of the District. The following are some of the highlights in the history of the Blue Plains AWTP:

• 1938 – The District of Columbia Sewage Treatment Plant came online under the management and operation of the District’s Department of Sanitary Engineering as a primary treatment facility with a design capacity to serve a population of 650,000.

• 1959 – The District of Columbia Sewage Treatment Plant was expanded to treat 240 million gallons per day (MGD) at secondary treatment levels to accommodate increased demand because of population growth.

• 1970 to 1983 – The District of Columbia Sewage Treatment Plant was further expanded to approximately 309 MGD and upgraded to an advanced wastewater treatment facility to increase removal of nutrients, as part of the long-term control plan for reducing combined sewage discharges upstream of the plant. The Department of Sanitary Engineering was renamed the Department of Environmental Services and the sewage treatment plant name was changed to the Blue Plains AWTP.

• 1983 – The first Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed by the District mayor, the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agreement recognized that the Bay needed immediate attention as a result of toxic pollution and eutrophication.

• Mid-1980s – The Blue Plains AWTP reduced phosphorus to the limit of technology, primarily in support of water quality goals of the Potomac River, but also toward the restoration of Chesapeake Bay.

• 1985 – The District government established the Department of Public Works, under which was created the Water and Sewer Administration. The Sewer and Water Administration took over the management and operation of the Blue Plains AWTP.

1 Sources: DC Water Website, accessed August 2, 2016 (https://www.dcwater.com); Chesapeake Bay Program, accessed November 22, 2016 (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12512.pdf); and Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Brochure, accessed November 22, 2016 (https://www.dcwater.com/news/publications/Blue_Plains_Plant_brochure.pdf).

https://www.dcwater.com/

https://www.dcwater.com/news/publications/Blue_Plains_Plant_brochure.pdf

2. BACKGROUND


• 1987 – A second Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed by the Chesapeake Bay states and the District. This agreement committed the signatories to voluntarily reduce nitrogen loads by 40% from their 1985 levels.

• 1996 – The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) was established as a quasi-independent authority, following a 30-day congressional review period.

• 1997 – The expansion of Blue Plains AWTP to 370-MGD capacity was completed.

• 2000 – The biological nitrogen removal process was completed and fully implemented. Since then, the Blue Plains AWTP has annually achieved and exceeded the 40% reduction in nitrogen loads required by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

• 2010 - DCWASA was rebranded to its current name, DC Water.

• 2010 - DC Water received the Platinum Peak Performance Award from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies for 100% compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits during the previous 6 years.

• 2015 – The enhanced nitrification removal facilities came online, reducing nitrogen levels in the effluent to the lowest levels achievable.

• 2015 - Anaerobic digestion and thermal hydrolysis processes came online, converting over half the organic matter to methane to generate electricity and help power the treatment plant; the remaining portion of the sludge are processed into Class A biosolids that can be applied to gardens and farms as a soil amendment.

2.2 Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreements

In addition to treating wastewater generated within the District, the Blue Plains AWTP also receives flows from Montgomery County and Prince George’s County in Maryland (through the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission [WSSC]), and from Fairfax County and Loudoun County in Virginia. To codify how capacity allocations would be made in the Blue Plains AWTP as it was expanded, how the entities contributing flow would pay for both operations and maintenance costs and capital investments, and how sludge would be handled, the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement was executed in 1985. The parties to this agreement included the District, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, Fairfax County, and the WSSC. Among the matters covered in the 75-page agreement were the following key issues (MWCOG, 2013):

• Defined rights and responsibilities of parties • Provided cost-effective expansion of Blue Plains (309 to 370 MGD)

o Ensured EPA grant support o Supported and aided restoration of Potomac River estuary

• Allocated capacity for all parties o Ended moratoria on wastewater services o Guaranteed the District always had wastewater capacity to meet its needs o Ended chronic sludge (biosolids) disposal crises

2. BACKGROUND


• Confirmed shared regional responsibility for sludge management • Identified planned facilities to ensure the District always had disposal options • Addressed financial obligations of all parties

o Reconciled prior capital investments and defined how costs shared • Created structure that has to date provided 26 years of regional cooperation

o Established process for cooperative problem solving o Facilitated creation of DC Water

By 2005, 20 years after the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement was signed, the parties recognized that changes in organizational structure (e.g., creation of DC Water), new environmental regulations and permit conditions, and the planned major capital improvements at the Blue Plains AWTP created the need for the Agreement to be updated. After several years of negotiations, the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement of 2012 was executed by the same parties that executed the 1985 agreement, with the addition of DC Water as a quasi-independent authority. Among the key principles of the 2012 agreement are the following (MWCOG, 2013):

• Allocates capacity and peak flow limitations

• Recognizes that loads are linked to capacity, and that options are limited based on District, Maryland, and Virginia total maximum daily load allocations

• Acknowledges responsibility and general basis for paying shared costs (e.g., capital, operations and maintenance [O&M], and user fee)

• Describes commitment for the District to manage captured stormwater flows to meet permit conditions and for all parties to manage inflow and infiltration into their sewer systems

• Introduces the concept of multi-jurisdiction-use facilities and defines regional committee responsible for addressing obligations and emergencies

• Stipulates responsibility for sharing risks and paying the proportionate share of fines, penalties and claims

• Assigns collective responsibility for biosolids management

• Defines levels of authority, and clear roles and responsibilities, including monitoring and compliance obligations

• Recognizes DC Water’s responsibility to operate the Blue Plains AWTP, and the commitment of the parties to cooperate with DC Water

• Formalizes dispute resolution process and timing, as well as outlining notification and various process/procedural issues

The Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement of 2012 became effective on April 3, 2013.

2. BACKGROUND


2.3 Blue Plains AWTP Overview

2.3.1 Service Area

The Blue Plains AWTP treats wastewater generated from the more than 672,000 residents in the District, 17.8 million annual visitors to the District, and 700,000 people employed in the District. The plant also treats wastewater from an additional 1.6 million people in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland through WSSC, and Virginia’s Fairfax and Loudoun Counties (Figure 2-1). There is also a small contribution of wastewater delivered to Blue Plains AWTP by permitted haulers.

Figure 2-1. DC Water Service Area Map

Source: DC Water Website, accessed August 2, 2016. (https://www.dcwater.com)

2.3.2 Treatment Process

The Blue Plains AWTP is the largest AWTP in the world. It covers more than 150 acres, has a capacity of 384 MGD (subject to a rerating by EPA from 370 MGD) based on average daily flow, and a peak capacity of 1,076 MGD. The plant’s liquid treatment processes consist of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, nitrification and denitrification, filtration, disinfection, and dechlorination. The preliminary, primary, and secondary treatment facilities are separated into east and west process trains. Following secondary treatment, the nitrification and denitrification processes and the filtration and disinfection processes are separated into odd-side and even-side trains.

Figure 2-2 is a schematic of the Blue Plains AWTP liquid and solids processes.

2.3.2.1 Liquid Processing Raw sewage enters the plant via gravity from the Potomac Combined and the Potomac Sanitary Outfall Sewers, and the Bolling Outfall Sewer, and flows to the plant’s headworks for preliminary treatment. The sewage passes through a series of screens to remove debris and other large objects. The sewage is


2. BACKGROUND


then lifted by two influent pumping stations to aerated grit chambers where sand and similar particles are removed. The material removed is passed through grit classifiers to separate organic from inorganic matter. The inorganic matter is collected for subsequent disposal to a landfill, while the organic matter is returned to the liquid treatment system.

Preliminary treatment is followed by primary treatment, which involves removing settleable organic particles from the wastewater stream. The settled solids are collected at the bottom of the primary sedimentation tanks and pumped to gravity thickeners in the solids handling portion of the treatment plant. Floatables, such as fats, oils, and grease, are removed by skimmers and sent to a landfill.

Flow from the primary clarifiers then travels to secondary treatment, where the activated sludge process is employed using aerated reactors to maintain microbes that break down the organic material in the wastewater, using the carbonaceous material as food and growing additional microbes. The liquid with the microbes, referred to as mixed liquor, then flows to the secondary sedimentation tanks. A portion of the solids collected from the bottom of the secondary sedimentation tanks is returned to the reactors to maintain a consistent concentration of microbes. The remaining portion of the solids along with collected floatables is pumped to dissolved air floatation thickeners in the solids handling portion of the plant.

For DC Water to meet both its permit conditions and commitments made in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement, the Blue Plains AWTP must significantly reduce the amount of nitrogen discharged to the Potomac River. To accomplish this, the flow from the secondary treatment system is introduced into Enhanced Nitrogen Removal Facilities (ENRF), which begins with aeration tanks to convert the ammonia created during the activated sludge process to nitrate. This nitrification process is followed by the denitrification process where, under anoxic conditions and the addition of methanol as a supplemental source of food, microbes convert the nitrate into nitrogen gas which is released to the atmosphere. Sedimentation follows, with a portion of the solids are returned to the secondary treatment, and the remainder of the solids are pumped to the dissolved air flotation thickeners for further processing.

Following the nitrification and denitrification process, the flow is transferred to multimedia filters containing anthracite and sand to reduce the concentration of suspended solids to as close to zero as possible. Disinfection follows filtration, with sodium hypochlorite-based chlorination. Any residual chlorine is then removed with sodium bisulfite before discharging the effluent into the Potomac River.

Metal salts and polymer can be added at several points in the treatment process to enhance removal of sludge and reduce phosphorus concentrations in the effluent.

The plant has two outfalls: 001 and 002. Wastewater that is treated through the entire process described above is discharged through outfall 002. Wet weather flows in excess of the advanced treatment capacity, which receives only primary treatment, disinfection, and dechlorination, are discharged through outfall 001 (EPA, 2010).

2. BACKGROUND


Figure 2-2. Blue Plains AWTP Wastewater Treatment Process

Source: DC Water Website, accessed August 2, 2016. (https://www.dcwater.com)


2. BACKGROUND


2.3.2.2 Solids Processing The solids that are collected from the primary, secondary, and ENRF sedimentation tanks are sent to the solids handling portion of the plant. Solids from the primary sedimentation tanks are sent to gravity thickeners, while solids from the secondary sedimentation tanks and the ENRF sedimentation tanks are sent to dissolved air floatation thickeners. The solids from both types of thickeners are combined in blend tanks and then dewatered to 18% solids.

The dewatered solids are then sent to the thermal hydrolysis process where high heat and pressure destroy pathogens and prepares the “food” for microbes in the anaerobic digesters, the next step in the solids handling process. The digesters produce methane gas and Class A biosolids. The methane gas is burned and used in a turbine to generate steam to heat the process, and produce electricity for the plant. The Class A biosolids, which meet the strict regulatory standards for application in agriculture and urban environments, are dewatered and loaded onto trucks for distribution. The filtrate from the final dewatering belt filter presses is treated to reduce nitrogen concentrations and then returned to the mainstream treatment process.

2.3.2.3 Plantwide Chemical Storage and Distribution Systems Wastewater treatment is achieved by the addition of chemicals at various locations throughout the Blue Plains AWTP. Chemicals are used for various purposes such as settling improvement, phosphorous removal, odor control, pH adjustment, and disinfection and dechlorination just to name a few. Table 2-1 shows the different chemical storage and distribution systems located at Blue Plains AWTP along with a description of each system.

Table 2-1. Blue Plains AWTP Plantwide Chemical Storage and Distribution Systems

Chemical System System Description

Metal Salts Metal salts are received, stored, and distributed from the centralized Chemical Building, which contains storage tanks, pumps, and various controls needed to introduce metal salts at various application points throughout the Blue Plains AWTP.

Dry Polymer Located in the Solids Processing Building, the dry polymer system includes all unloading, storage, batching, feeding equipment, and controls needed to produce and distribute polymer throughout the Blue Plains AWTP.

Emulsion Polymer This polymer system is used as a back-up for the dry polymer system feeding the lime stabilization centrifuges, used to aid the centrifuge dewatering process. The emulsion polymer system includes various storage tanks and recirculation pumps, as well as transfer pumps.

Sodium Hydroxide The sodium hydroxide facility supplies alkalinity to the east secondary effluent stream during wet weather events. The facility is made up of storage tanks and metering pumps.

Sodium Hypochlorite

Located in the Chlorination Building, the sodium hypochlorite system is used for disinfection of the final effluent, odor control in plant influent and control of nuisance organisms in the return sludge systems. The Chlorination Building provides central receiving, storage, and pumping of the sodium hypochlorite used throughout Blue Plains AWTP. Support systems include chemical induction units, standby chlorination feed pumps, a spill retention basin, and associated piping, as well as appurtenances.

Sodium Bisulfite Located in the Dechlorination Building, the sodium bisulfite system is used to dechlorinate final effluent and, during excess flow events, the excess flow treatment effluent at Blue Plains AWTP. The sodium bisulfite system is equipped to provide centralized receiving, storage, and pumping by using storage tanks, and various transfer and standby feed pumps.

Note:

Source: 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016)

2. BACKGROUND


2.3.2.4 Plantwide Ancillary Systems Wastewater treatment operations at the Blue Plains AWTP are supported by a number of ancillary systems. Table 2-2 provides a summary of these various systems, which include process service water (PSW) and city water systems; process samplers; odor control systems; IT networks and fiber-optic systems and fire alarm systems; a process control system (PCS); and electrical power distribution.

Table 2-2. Blue Plains AWTP Plantwide Ancillary Systems

Ancillary System System Description

Process and City Water Systems

PSW is used for process and maintenance needs, while the city water system supplies all plumbing fixtures, fire hydrants, and other fixtures that require potable water. The PSW system is composed of low- and high-pressure systems that distribute PSW throughout the plant through a series of pumping stations and network piping.

Process Samplers This system includes samplers and online instruments needed to provide an appropriate level of monitoring for both liquid and solids processing at the Blue Plains AWTP. Analytical data collected is used for permit compliance, process control, and program planning.

Odor Control Systems The Blue Plains AWTP has five odor control systems installed at various process facilities to minimize emissions from the more odorous treatment processes.

IT Networks and Fiber Systems, and Fire Alarm System

The system includes all IT networks, a localized central fire alarm system, a plantwide emergency alarm system, and a power monitoring system that allows for the central monitoring of power usage throughout the Blue Plains AWTP.

PCS The system provides monitoring and control of wastewater treatment processes at the Blue Plains AWTP. It provides optimized treatment, as well as reduced chemical and energy usage through monitoring and control.

Electrical Power Distribution The system includes major power distribution facilities such as the main substation and area substations located at the Blue Plains AWTP.

Note:


2.3.2.5 Facilities Table 2-3 provides a summary of the various facilities located at the Blue Plains AWTP, which include buildings and galleries; site lighting; roadways, drainage and flood protection; scales and cranes; and plant security.

Table 2-3. Blue Plains AWTP Facilities

Facility Facility Description

Buildings and Galleries Includes both process and non-process buildings located throughout the Blue Plains AWTP.

Site Lighting Includes all exterior light fixtures that illuminate roadways, parking areas, sidewalks and process areas.

Roadways, Drainage and Flood Protection

Includes a network of roadways that allows for vehicular traffic and access to buildings and process areas, and sidewalks for pedestrian safety. Also includes the plantwide stormwater drainage system, with a flood wall along the southeastern boundary of the Blue Plains AWTP.

2. BACKGROUND


Table 2-3. Blue Plains AWTP Facilities

Facility Facility Description

Scales and Cranes Includes scales to weigh trucks, and cranes needed for various applications throughout the plant.

Plant Security Includes guard booths, perimeter and interior gates, fences, closed-circuit television cameras, and a card access system located at various points throughout the plant.

Note:


2.3.3 Capacity and Flow

The Blue Plains AWTP currently has a permitted design capacity of 370 MGD. However, DC Water has requested a rerating of the capacity to 384 MGD as part of its permit renewal application to the EPA. This request is based upon the projected 14 MGD of captured combined sewer flow entering the plant once the Clean Rivers Program tunnels and pumping stations are online. The implementation of the Total Nitrogen/Wet Weather Treatment Plan, which includes decreasing the peak 4-hour wet weather flows from 740 MGD to 555 MGD through storage in the tunnels, will result in standby capacity based on peak flow hydraulics (AECOM, 2015b).

Figure 2-3 shows annual average daily flows (ADFs) since 2008, while projected annual ADFs are shown on Figure 2-4. Because of slower than anticipated population growth in the Blue Plains service area, the rerated capacity of plant (384 MGD) is projected to not be reached until 2044. Based on prior flow and load projections made in 2009, the design capacity of 370 MGD was predicted to be reached in 2030.

Figure 2-3. Actual Average Daily Flow

Note: ADF for 2016 is based upon flow data from January through October 2016.


2. BACKGROUND


Figure 2-4. Projected Average Daily Flow

Source: 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016); DC Water Agenda of the Environmental Quality and Sewerage Services Committee, January 2014 through October 2016; DC Water staff

2.4 Current Approaches to Managing the Wastewater Treatment System

Over the past few decades, as the practice of AM was developing within the water/wastewater sector, DC Water has stayed abreast of developments and incorporated various AM approaches and tools into the planning and management of the wastewater treatment system. Further advances have been made since the initiation of the AM Program in 2014, from the adoption of an Asset Management Policy, establishment of a DC Water-wide risk framework, and further leveraging of technology to capture asset data and improve investment decisions. Table 2-4 presents a summary of approaches currently used for managing the wastewater treatment system, by category. It is important to note that the approaches continue to be enhanced and adopted across the departments responsible for the management of the wastewater system.

2. BACKGROUND


Table 2-4. Examples of Major Approaches and Tools Currently Used for Managing Wastewater Treatment System Assets

Category Practices and Tools

Asset Register • An asset hierarchy was established in previous years and is currently being modified by DC Water to align with ISO standards and information gathered by Allied Reliability Group.

• Most assets and their attributes have been loaded into Maximo. • Maintenance records are loaded into Maximo, although there are some inconsistencies with

recordkeeping.

Condition Assessment • Condition assessments are performed as part of the facilities planning process.

Condition Forecasting • Condition forecasting is based on experience with equipment and materials, maintenance history and age of assets.

Performance Assessment

• Real-time monitoring and control of treatment processes is performed using a computerized PCS.

• Analysis is performed during the facilities planning process on the ability of unit processes to meet capacity needs, loadings, service levels, and effluent quality.

Demand Planning • Flow projections are based on historical per capita use, and extrapolated to the 30-year population forecast provided by the MWCOG.

Risk Assessment • Top-down risk assessment at the unit process level was conducted. • DC Water has contracted with the Allied Reliability Group to assess the criticality (i.e., COF) of

equipment. • Results of criticality assessment will be combined with available condition and performance

information (i.e., LOF) to arrive at a relative risk of failure.

Options Analysis • A business case evaluation process and Excel-based business case evaluation tool have been developed, and will be employed during the CIP planning process.

• A multi-attribute utility analysis tool has been developed for prioritizing capital projects, which will be employed during the CIP planning process.

Investment Planning • Annual updates will be made to the 10-year CIP to plan for investment needs and capital budgeting for the 10-year horizon.

• The CIP includes various projects related to plant capacity upgrades and commissioning of new facilities to improve current treatment processes.

Lifecycle Management • Operational, maintenance, and financial and funding strategies are generally in place. • The level and frequency of planned maintenance will be updated based on the results of the

criticality assessment.

Notes:

CIP = Capital Improvement Program

COF = consequence of failure

LOF = likelihood of failure

MWCOG = Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

2.5 Regulatory Requirements

The wastewater treatment system is managed under strict regulatory requirements, which are promulgated by federal regulations that are administered and enforced by EPA, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The primary vehicle used by EPA to sustain compliance is the NPDES permit, which stipulates the conditions under which the treatment plant is to be managed and operated and sets forth the quality of the effluent discharged.

2. BACKGROUND


DC Water is also subject to two federal Consent Decrees that primarily address the combined sewer system, but also require that DC Water commit to capital improvements and operational adjustments at the Blue Plains AWTP.

The effluent discharged from the Blue Plains AWTP has consistently met permit requirements over the past several years, a feat that was recognized by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), which presented DC Water with the Peak Performance Platinum Award for 6 years of continuous compliance during NACWA’s Utility Leadership Conference and 46th Annual Meeting in July 2016.

2.5.1 NPDES Permits2

DC Water is authorized to discharge treated wastewater under its NPDES permit, subject to numerous conditions. In addition, because DC Water operates the District’s stormwater system, it is subject to the requirements of an NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. Table 2-5 provides some key elements of these two permits.

Table 2-5. NPDES Requirements for the Blue Plains AWTP

Regulation Key Elements

NPDES Permit No. DC0021199 (Authorization to Discharge Under the NPDES)

• Issued 2010

• Covers Blue Plains AWTP’s two outfalls: 001 and 002

• Establishes the following (monthly average) discharge limits for outfall 002: - 5-day BOD = 5 mg/L - Total Suspended Solids = 7 mg/L - Total Phosphorus = 0.18 mg/L and - Ammonia Nitrogen = 4.2 – 12.8 mg/L (depending on the season) - Total Nitrogen not to exceed 4,377,580 pounds

• Permits discharge from outfall 001 provided that discharge meets 2005 Consent Decree requirements

• Although the permit expired in 2015, DC Water has applied for renewal; however, because EPA has not yet issued a renewed permit, Blue Plains AWTP continues to be operated under the conditions of Permit No. DC0021199.

NPDES Permit No. DC0000221 (Authorization to Discharge Under the NPDES Municipal Separate Stormwater System Permit)

• Reissued 2011; modified 2012

• DC Water is responsible for permit compliance under a Memorandum of Understanding with the District’s Department of Energy and Environment.

• DC Water is responsible for: - Identification of effective pollutant reduction strategies of the Anacostia River - Catch basin cleaning - Collection of floatable debris in the Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers - Public education and outreach program

Notes:

BOD = biochemical oxygen demand

mg/L = milligram(s) per liter

2 Source: DC Water Website, Accessed August 2, 2016. (https://www.dcwater.com)


2. BACKGROUND


2.5.2 Consent Decrees3

DC Water is bound by two federal Consent Decrees with the federal government: the Three-Party Consent Decree executed in 2003, and the Combined Sewer System Long-Term Control Plan Consent Decree executed in 2005 and amended in 2015. Table 2-6 shows the key elements of these Consent Decrees.

Table 2-6. Consent Decrees for the Blue Plains AWTP

Consent Decree Key Elements

2003 Consent Decree (“Three-Party Consent Decree”)

• Settled claims that DC Water violated sections of the Clean Water Act by failing to comply with the District’s water quality standards, effluent limitations, and other conditions of the its NPDES permit

• Focused on DC Water implementing EPA’s nine minimum controls for the correction of CSOs pursuant to EPA’s CSO Control Policy issued in 1994, and therefore primarily impacted the operation and maintenance of the collection system and pumping stations rather than the Blue Plains AWTP

• Required that DC Water operate and maintain the collection system and pumping stations to deliver the maximum flow possible to the treatment plant

2005 Consent Decree (“Long-Term Control Plan Consent Decree”)

• Recognized that DC Water was unable to comply with the water-quality-based CSO effluent limit conditions in its NPDES Permit until completion of the CSO controls in its Long-Term Control Plan.

• Established an enforceable schedule for DC Water to complete implementation of CSO controls through construction of storage tunnels, rehabilitating the Potomac Pumping Station, constructing a new Potomac Tunnel dewatering pumping station, and CSO outfall diversion, consolidation, and separation

• As with 2003 Consent Decree, focused on DC Water controlling CSOs

First Amendment to Consent Decree

• Issued May 2015

• Allows green infrastructure to be incorporated into the CSO control measures in the Potomac and Rock Creek watersheds that may reduce or eliminate the need for a storage tunnel in the Rock Creek Watershed, and reduce the size of the storage tunnel in the Potomac River Watershed)

• Requires the construction of a tunnel dewatering pumping station and an enhanced clarification facility by March 2018

Note:

CSO = combined sewer overflow

2.6 Asset Management Objectives and Governance

2.6.1 AM Policy and Objectives

DC Water developed and approved a written AM Policy in 2014, which is provided in Appendix A. The DC Water AM Policy provides the basis for ensuring sound stewardship of its resources to deliver services, protect the environment and provide for the health and safety of the public and workforce.

3 Source: DC Water Website, Accessed August 2, 2016. (https://www.dcwater.com)


2. BACKGROUND


The AM Policy presents the core goals of the AM Program and leadership’s commitment to the nine AM principles it covers: the focus of its core messages, objectives, priority strategies, and operational tools that will be used to realize the overall objectives it represents. The nine core principles of the AM Policy are as follows:

1. CUSTOMER-FOCUSED by meeting levels of service (LOS) based on ratepayer and community preferences.

2. WHOLE LIFECYCLE BASED by considering asset resource and financial requirements from planning, design, construction and acquisition and commissioning, through operation, maintenance, and renewal, to retirement and disposal.

3. SUSTAINABLE AND FORWARD-LOOKING by considering social, environmental, and financial aspects in present and future service commitments.

4. TRANSPARENT AND DEFENSIBLE by using formal, consistent, scalable, and repeatable approaches.

5. SYSTEM-VIEW by managing assets as interrelated components in a unified system rather than as stand-alone assets.

6. INNOVATIVE by continually improving AM processes and procedures using innovative tools, techniques, and solutions.

7. RELIABILITY-FOCUSED by understanding consequences of asset failure and implementing appropriate maintenance processes to reduce likelihood of asset failure.

8. REGULATORY-DRIVEN by ensuring compliance with laws, regulations, permits, Consent Decrees, Administrative Orders, and other legal requirements.

9. MANAGED RISK by directing resources and priorities to achieve established LOS while minimizing life cycle costs at an acceptable level of risk.

2.6.2 Governance Structure

Governance incorporates coordination, communications, and decision-making while balancing the interest of many stakeholders. Instilling uniform AM practices requires collaboration among many parts of the organization, including sharing of resources and information to make defensible, evidence-based, and uniform decisions across DC Water. To provide a general perspective, Figure 2-5 illustrates DC Water’s organizational structure. Blue Plains AWTP assets are managed by the Assistant General Manager of the Blue Plains AWTP, under the general direction of the Chief Operating Officer. The planning, design, and construction of new assets and rehabilitation of existing assets are handled by the Department of Wastewater Engineering, under the Chief Engineer, through the Blue Plains Project Branch. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 illustrate the DC Water organizational structure.

2. BACKGROUND


Figure 2-5. DC Water Organizational Structure

Source: DC Water Approved FY 2017 Budgets, Adopted December 3, 2015 (Updated per DETS- December 20, 2016) (DC Water, 2015a)

2. BACKGROUND


Figure 2-6. Blue Plains AWTP Organizational Structure

Source: Assistant General Manager’s Office- Blue Plains AWTP - DC Water, August 2016

2. BACKGROUND


Figure 2-7. Blue Plains AWTP Wastewater Engineering Organizational Structure

Wastewater Engineering

Program Management

Blue Plains Construction

The initial AM Program governance and the path forward for a streamlined sustainable AM Program are detailed in the DC Water Strategic Asset Management Plan (DC Water, 2015b). In summary, DC Water has identified two interrelated teams to coordinate AM practices: the AM Steering Team and the DC Water AM Team. The AM Steering Team, which consists of executive-level managers, provides overall AM Program guidance and strategic direction. The DC Water AM Team consists of the Enterprise Asset Manager, supported by the AM Senior Management Analyst, the Operations Asset Managers, DETS Program Managers, and the Enterprise Information Architect, among others. The six Operations Asset Managers represent their respective operational areas as follows:

• Water distribution • Sewer/stormwater collection • Pumping stations, Potomac Interceptor, and water storage • Wastewater treatment (Blue Plains AWTP) • Clean Rivers (tunnels and green infrastructure) • Facilities

Figure 2-8 provides the AM Program governance structure. Table 2-7 summarizes roles and responsibilities with respect to AM at the Blue Plains AWTP.

2. BACKGROUND


Figure 2-8. Asset Management Program Governance Structure

2. BACKGROUND


Table 2-7. Asset Management Program Roles and Responsibilities for Selected DC Water Staff

Role Responsibilities

Blue Plains AWTP

Assistant General Manager, Blue Plains

• Provide visible leadership and commitment to the AM Program

• Participate in AM Steering Committee meetings

Director, Operations

Director, Process Engineering

Director, Maintenance Services

Director, Resource Recovery


• Lead the engagement of departmental staff to ensure the adoption and operationalization of AM principles, processes, and practices within the department

• Optimize maintenance by using the appropriate maintenance analysis methods (e.g., planned maintenance optimization, failure mode and effects analysis, and reliability-centered maintenance)

• Maintain frequent communications with the Manager of Asset Management

• Monitor and review AM-related progress and performance

AM Manager • Manage Maximo and the accuracy of asset records working closely with the Director of Maintenance Services

• Identify asset data gaps and work with department directors to gather the information

• Assist department directors in training and improving staff competencies in AM

• Maintain continued professional development in AM

• Track and report results against AM-related performance goals

• Work with the Enterprise Asset Manager

• Attend and participate in DC Water AM Team and other scheduled meetings

• Represent Blue Plains on the DC Water AM Team

• Ensure that department directors and staff are appropriately engaged in the AM Program, its processes and practices

Engineering

Director, Engineering and Technical Services


• Lead the engagement of departmental staff to ensure the adoption and operationalization of AM principles, processes, and practices within the department

• Empower the Enterprise Asset Manager to guide the AM Program, coordinate participation among DC Water staff and resolve or elevate AM-related conflicts.

• Communicate any concerns regarding the AM Program to the Enterprise Asset Manager

Enterprise Asset Manager • Provide visible leadership and commitment to the AM Program

• Schedule, coordinate, and chair meetings of the DC Water AM Team

• Coordinate and communication with departmental Asset Managers to enable AM principles, practices, processes, and tools are operationalized throughout all departments in as much of a consistent manner as practical.

• Identify needed AM training and continued professional development and assist in arranging with departmental Asset Managers

2. BACKGROUND


Table 2-7. Asset Management Program Roles and Responsibilities for Selected DC Water Staff

Role Responsibilities

Director, Wastewater Engineering • Provide visible leadership and commitment to the AM Program

• Lead the engagement of departmental staff to ensure the adoption and operationalization of AM principles, processes, practices, and tools within the department

• Ensure Blue Plains Program Manager incorporates AM principles, practices, processes and tools in the analysis and planning of the Blue Plains AWTP

• Work with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to forecast wastewater demands

• Maintain frequent communication with the Enterprise Asset Manager

• Work with Blue Plains AWTP staff to gather lessons learned regarding treatment plant assets and use knowledge to improve planning and design

Information Technology

Enterprise Information Architect • Attend and participate in DC Water AM Team and other scheduled AM-related meetings

• Provide information on IT systems on the DC Water AM Team.

• Ensure that IT staff are appropriately engaged in the AM Program and fully coordinated with other departments and staff using IT applications to plan, design, and manage the wastewater treatment system in an integrated manner

• Assist Blue Plains management in resolving issues with Maximo, integrating with other applications, and providing recommendations for upgrades

2.7 Stakeholders

In the development of its Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan (DC Water, 2013), DC Water considered the interests of its internal and external stakeholders. This included the social, economic and physical environments, as well as regulatory, financial and other business constraints.

2.7.1 Internal Stakeholders

Internal stakeholders consist of the Board of Directors and DC Water’s workforce throughout the entire enterprise, from the leadership and management to the staff. However, as expected, some departments are more directly involved in AM than others. Table 2-8 presents a list of key internal stakeholders.

2. BACKGROUND


Table 2-8. Internal Stakeholders

Department Wastewater System Responsibilities

Department of Engineering and Technical Services

Program Services Developing and maintaining contract solicitations and awards

Managing and tracking the CIP, EPA grants, and engineering systems hardware and software

Planning Branch System planning for the sewer and stormwater systems, and coordinating on the District stormwater permit

Design Branch Providing contract specification, water and sewer pipeline design, CIP project designs, technical engineering expertise to support operating departments, survey support and maintenance of the enterprise GIS

Water and Sewer Construction Branch

Administering contracts for new construction, major repairs, and modifications to water and sewer systems and associated construction inspections

Department of Wastewater Engineering

Program Management Branch Developing and maintaining long-term facility planning processes, generating bid documents, compiling CIP data and managing Program Management Firms

Blue Plains Construction Branch Providing construction management services for all renewal of existing assets and construction and installation of new assets at the Blue Plains AWTP

Department of Wastewater Treatment

Plant Operations Treating wastewater to meet NPDES standards

Managing conditioning, thickening, dewatering, and stabilizing of biosolids for beneficial use

Managing use of resources including CHP

Performing AM/Maximo administration

Process Engineering Maintaining PCS

Providing design and construction interface to PCS

Managing PCS hardware, software, maintenance, and support services

Troubleshooting PCS issues and training process and instrumentation staff

PCS Establishing process control operating targets for Blue Plains AWTP

Optimizing process, chemical, and power use at the plant Providing design comments and support during construction of capital projects

Troubleshooting process performance problems.

Process Control Maintenance Planning and coordinating all activities for corrective, preventive, and predictive maintenance

Maintaining electronic process control systems, flow measurement, metering, and recording equipment for Blue Plains AWTP

2. BACKGROUND




Department of Maintenance Services

Electrical Maintenance Maintaining electrical process control systems, equipment, and components for the Blue Plains AWTP

Operating and maintaining electrical power distribution system, electrical control systems for all process equipment and all DC Water facilities

Inspecting and maintaining cranes for all DC Water facilities

Mechanical Maintenance Maintaining mechanical process systems and equipment for the Plant

Planning, scheduling, and performing condition monitoring for all process equipment at all DC Water facilities

Maintenance Management Planning and operating support systems to manage maintenance by planning, estimating, inspecting, and scheduling maintenance services

Coordinating work through operations and engineering and provide administrative support

Department of Resource Recovery

Biosolids Operations Overseeing and performing biosolids storage, loading, hauling, and utilization/beneficial use

Biosolids Process Engineering Ensuring certification for and marketing Class A Biosolids

Coordinating outreach and partnership with surrounding jurisdictions on regulatory requests for biosolids applications

Department of Clean Water Quality and Technology

Pretreatment Monitoring industrial pretreatment discharge

Laboratory Performing physical, chemical, and biological analysis of wastewater and biosolids used for process control and permit reporting

Research and Development Performing treatment process innovation and research and development administration of the DC Water Advancement of Research and Technology Program

Department of IT

Enterprise Application Developing and providing standards for System Architecture/Integration, application development, system administration, and providing GIS support.

Infrastructure and Operation Providing technical support for applications, e-Business, and other functional teams

Acting as technical resource for PCS and SCADA security architecture

Managing and maintaining processes, procedures, and supplementary safeguards to mitigate risk and ensure operations data integrity throughout the organization’s IT infrastructure

Maintaining the Enterprise COOP capabilities

WWTPM/AECOM

Providing engineering support to Wastewater Engineering

2. BACKGROUND




Department of Occupational Health and Safety

Operations Safety Ensuring compliance with environmental health and safety management system

Implementing accident prevention program and identifying and overseeing safety training; coordinating with the Office of Emergency Management and ensuring compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Fire Protection Administration

Overseeing hazardous waste program and storage tank compliance

Construction Safety Ensuring compliance with environmental health and safety management system

Providing oversight of the comprehensive construction safety program

Providing oversight of the Rolling Owner Controlled Insurance Program safety program

Data and Analysis Ensuring compliance with environmental health and safety management system

Developing and analyzing safety metrics

Generating and providing required safety reports

Administering and maintaining database

Department of Security

Security Operations Performing identification and badge control; guard force and traffic management; Emergency Management and First Response and community awareness training; investigations; local and federal liaison; and security work order requests

Security Asset Protection Testing and maintaining electronic security assets

Managing security-related CIP projects

Department of Facilities Management

Office Services Managing mail, courier, and freight services; motor pool services; and DC Water’s recycling program (papers, cans, bottles)

Coordinating work order requests and surveys for facilities

Managing DC Water’s copy services

Operations Performing building O&M, procuring and assigning furniture and repairing fences and roll-up doors

Coordinating workspace assignments and moves and janitorial service, landscaping, trash removal and pest control, and ensuring adequate ground direction and building signage

Managing cafeteria operations.

Mechanical Services Providing predictive and preventive maintenance and ensuring adequate indoor air quality

Engaging in project management of major construction and renovation projects, elevator and HVAC systems maintenance, fire suppression, and detection.

2. BACKGROUND




Department of Emergency Management

Emergency Management Developing and administering the Emergency Management Program

Directing emergency response and planning activities throughout DC Water

Conducting emergency preparedness training for DC Water staff and contractors

Performing vulnerability assessments

Notes:

Source: DC Water Approved FY 2017 Budgets adopted December 3, 2015 and meeting with DC Water, October 2016

COOP = Continuity of Operations Plan

GIS = geographic information system

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

SCADA = supervisory control and data acquisition

WWTPM = Wastewater Treatment Program Manager

2.7.2 External Stakeholders

Global and national trends, coupled with local challenges, have an impact on the operations, management, finance, and governance of DC Water. Concepts that are particularly significant for DC Water include aging infrastructure, meeting future demands, increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, changes in residential consumption patterns, workforce issues, ensuring the financial sustainability of DC Water, and growing concerns about the impact of global climate change.

DC Water recognizes a wide range of external stakeholders who must be considered when planning for and managing the Blue Plains AWTP. Because of the broad service area and volume of customers, maintenance of reliable service, and strong customer support are critical to successfully fund needed improvements and continue to meet the LOS that customer’s desire.

Ready access to information is crucial to successful job performance of the consultants and contractors who work with DC Water. Defensible documentation of ongoing activities is required to demonstrate compliance with permit and consent decree conditions, and other regulatory requirements. A robust AM system facilitates communication with other government agencies, developers, environmental groups and community organizations. A list of some of the strategic stakeholder groups and key drivers is included in Table 2-9.

2. BACKGROUND


Table 2-9. External Stakeholders and Drivers

Group Driversa

Customers and potential customers: Residential, commercial, institutional, governmental and wholesale customers (e.g., property owners, renters, business owners, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, WSSC, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, residential and commercial developers)

• Customers are likely to resist additional rate hikes and increased fees to fund operational needs and improvements, increasing pressure to contain costs and becoming more efficient.

• Customer expectations related to surface water quality, public health, service reliability, and business transactions are becoming more sophisticated.

• Population shifts within the service area elicit the need to evaluate and revise appropriate allocation of resources.

Citizen and Public Interest Groups (e.g., Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, Chesapeake Bay Project Office Citizen’s Advisory Committee, Anacostia Watershed Society, Audubon Naturalist Society, Earth Conservation Corps, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, District Yacht Club)

• Increased scrutiny by special interest groups will require additional communications and diplomacy

Local/Multijurisdictional Government Agencies (e.g., D.C. Office of Planning, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, signatories of the Chesapeake Bay agreements)

• Total Water Management - Opportunities for a unified basin approach to water and wastewater planning and management will place a focus on regional cooperation and collaboration.

• The political environment is becoming more complex and polarized and will require diplomacy across diverse jurisdictions

Regulatory Agencies (e.g., EPA, D.C. Department of Health, Department of Energy and Environment, D.C. Board of Architecture and Interior Design, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, Historical Society of Washington, D.C.)

• Regulatory mandates are expected to continue to increase over the coming years. This places pressure on capital budgets and increases the need for DC Water to demonstrate the business feasibility of its initiatives.

(a) As cited in the Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan (DC Water, 2013), DC Water leadership identified ten industry trends, based upon their importance and potential impact on DC Water. The seven drivers that aligned to external stakeholders are included here.

3. ASSET LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

BLUE PLAINS AWTP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 3‐1

3 Asset Lifecycle Management

Figure 3‐1 depicts the typical asset lifecycle of infrastructure assets. Adopting AM principles and practices throughout the lifecycle can maximize the useful life of assets, reduce service interruptions, maintain customer and stakeholder satisfaction, benefit the environment, and minimize the overall capital costs and operational expenses.

To achieve these benefits, the interrelationships between the different phases of the asset lifecycle must be recognized and managed appropriately. Typically, the asset lifecycle is considered to begin with the plan/design phase and terminate in the decommission/salvage phase. However, to achieve the full benefits of AM, it is crucial to recognize how each phase can impact the other phases.

This section presents the relationship among the various phases of the asset lifecycle. The analysis performed, tools used and business processes recommended in relation to each of the phases are further discussed in the remaining sections of this BPAMP, and referenced here where appropriate.

3.1 Plan/Design Phase

Planning for the Blue Plains AWTP is an ongoing process, with both DC Water staff and the Blue Plains AWTP consultant program manager dedicated to evaluating the condition and performance of assets and identifying needs and opportunities to maintain and improve service levels. Approximately every five years, a comprehensive Blue Plains Facilities Master Plan is developed that documents the state of the assets, forecasts future demands, evaluates existing programs, validates scheduled projects, and recommends investigations and new capital projects for the next 25 years.

Every year, DC Water engages in an update of the 10‐year Capital Improvement Plan. Fundamental to this update is the assessment of the risk of asset failure, described in detail in Section 6. The risk assessment investigates both the COF and the LOF, and leads to the identification of assets having an unacceptable level of risk for which risk mitigation measures should be undertaken. These risk mitigation measures are usually capital improvement projects (i.e., risk‐driven projects), but may also be enhancements to O&M activities. In addition to identified risk‐driven projects, capital needs and opportunities are generated from a variety of sources, such as the Board of Directors, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/General Manager’s (GM’s) office, and other DC Water departments. Examples of non‐risk drivers may include increased capacity needs, new regulatory requirements, and the desire to improve energy efficiency, mitigate climate change impacts, address security issues, or adopt innovative technologies.

Figure 3‐1. The Asset Lifecycle



Figure 3‐2 shows a flowchart of some key planning steps, from development of risk drivers and non‐risk drivers, through identification of options and alternatives to address the drivers, through performance of a business case evaluation to choose the best alternative project, to prioritization of all the identified projects and their incorporation into the Capital Improvement Plan for approval.

Figure 3‐2. Planning Process Flowchart

While planning activities ultimately select the project needed to address an unacceptable risk, or take advantage of an opportunity, it is the design of the project that dictates the short and long term financial and other impacts on the remainder of assets’ lifecycle. In fact, design has a major influence on the costs of construction and commissioning, and more significantly, on ongoing O&M costs, which are the largest percentage of an asset’s lifecycle cost (Figure 3‐3). The design phase also influences the service life of the asset and determines what alternatives are available for rehabilitation as the asset reaches the end of its useful service life.

Figure 3‐3. Typical Lifecycle Costs per Phase as a Percent of Total Lifecycle Costs

As with most large utilities, the design of wastewater treatment system improvements at DC Water is performed using different approaches depending upon the scale and complexity of the project, including whether meeting any new compliance requirements is required. For major projects at the Blue Plains AWTP, DC Water will typically issue a Request for Proposals for selection of a design

BCE Exempt



consultant for a particular project. DC Water’s Department of Wastewater Engineering Program Management Branch typically oversees several projects concurrently and holds periodic meetings and design review workshops with the consulting engineering firm(s). Smaller projects, such as straightforward treatment plant rehabilitation projects, may be designed by in‐house design staff, subject to their availability. Any urgent improvement or rehabilitation projects are handled by the Blue Plains AWTP consultant program manager through the High Priority Program under the direction of the Department of Wastewater Engineering. Key elements of design include the use of DC Water’s design manuals, standard details and design guidance, and standard specifications. O&M staff and other stakeholders are involved in the plan/design phase as appropriate.

Overall, it is crucial to consider how the plan/design phase relates to the other phases of the asset lifecycle. Figure 3‐4 provides some examples of those relationships.

Figure 3‐4. Example Relationships Between the Plan/Design Phase and Other Phases of the Asset Lifecycle

3.2 Acquire/Install/Construct Phase

This phase of the asset lifecycle covers the procurement of individual assets, such as electrical, instrumentation and mechanical equipment and their installation, as well as the construction of new assets and rehabilitation of existing assets including the structures and equipment of unit processes, pipelines, and support buildings.



While the plan/design phase provides the basis and rules for acquisition, installation, and construction of assets, there remains significant opportunities in the acquire/install/construct phase to minimize costs and risks. These opportunities include the following:

Prudent Selection: Based on experience of DC Water staff and the experience of other utilities, select equipment, materials, and installation methods that have a proven track record of reliability, long useful lives, and high efficiency, and require a minimum amount of maintenance (both planned and reactive). Also, consider the type and length of warranty, the availability of manufacturer’s staff to respond to problems, and the ease of integrating assets into DC Water’s existing physical and information systems.

Standardization: To the extent that it is legally acceptable, limit the number of manufacturers for each asset type to no more than three. This will minimize the number of spare parts, testing equipment, and tools needed, optimize O&M resources by increasing staff’s familiarity with equipment at different locations, and reduce the need for initial staff training as well as refresher training.

Alternative Delivery: Consider an alternative delivery approach, such as design‐build, design‐build‐operate, construction manager, and construction manager at risk.

Installation/Construction Coordination: As much of the infrastructure at the Blue Plains AWTP is near each other, and processes are interrelated, interdependent, or both, consider that installation and construction activities require significant coordination and sequencing to minimize treatment interruptions, limit the plant’s internal traffic impacts, and provide safe work areas.

Scheduling: Because of the customized or specialized function of the Blue Plains AWTP assets, and the significant amount of construction activity typically underway at the plant, procurement of materials and finding qualified contractors can require significant lead‐time. Specialized process and process control system components, as well as unique fittings, for example, may be produced by a limited number of manufacturers and consequently involve logistical challenges in procurement. DC Water must also compete with other local utilities and commercial developers to attract qualified contractors at a reasonable bid price. Ensure that elements of the acquire/install/construct phase are performed and completed on time, which can be crucial to meeting regulatory requirements and provisions of the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement of 2012.

Construction Inspection: No matter how well a project is planned and designed, the proper installation of equipment and the appropriate means of construction will affect the long‐term viability of the assets. Maintain qualified inspectors onsite during construction and installation activities, who must ensure installation and construction meet the design drawings and specifications, quality control and assurance are maintained, and any anomalies are properly and sufficiently documented and corrected in a timely manner.

In addition to these risk‐minimizing opportunities, relationships between the acquire/install/construct phase and other phases of the lifecycle should be considered (Figure 3‐5).



Figure 3‐5. Example Relationships Between the Acquire/Install/Construct Phase and Other Phases of the Asset Lifecycle

3.3 Commission Phase

Commissioning of new assets often overlaps installation and construction activities and similarly entails accurate recordkeeping documentation, including accurate as‐builts, needed to successfully proceed through the remainder of the asset lifecycle. Commissioning has been defined by DC Water as, “… a planned, documented and managed approach to the installation, start‐up, validation, and turnover of

systems, sub‐systems and equipment… that meets the performance requirements of its components, the

design intent of the project, and training and asset integration requirements of the Authority”

(DC Water, 2012a).

The asset integration mentioned in the definition includes assigning of a unique asset identifier used in the Maximo databases and other support systems described in Section 7. This identifier is critical as it allows the tracking of asset attributes accurately and quickly throughout the asset lifecycle. In addition, validating that the assets meet their performance requirements not only ensures that the assets function properly after being installed and brought online, but also provides the initial data required to measure the asset performance metrics outlined in Section 5.

As with the lifecycle phases previously discussed, Figure 3‐6 provides examples of the relationships between the commission phase and other phases of the asset lifecycle.



Figure 3‐6. Example Relationships Between the Commission Phase and Other Phases of the Asset Lifecycle

3.4 Operate and Maintain Phase

Given that as much as 80% of the asset lifecycle costs are typically associated with the O&M of an asset, it is important to establish the right maintenance strategies to minimize the lifecycle cost of ownership while achieving the level of service required of the asset. In developing the overall strategy for the O&M of assets, the following goals should be met:

Goal 1: Extend the interval between failures through effective O&M practices. This includes defining the right maintenance tasks, determining the optimal interval to perform the maintenance tasks, and operating the assets correctly.

Goal 2: Detect and address poor condition in advance of functional failure, catastrophic damage, or both. This is typically done through predictive methods, the use of predictive technologies, or physical inspection of the asset.

Goal 3: Minimize asset downtime and costs by increasing efficiency in the work process, logistics, scheduling, and sourcing of parts, among others. This can be accomplished through optimized workflow and maintaining an inventory of critical spare parts.



Goal 4: Extend the useful life of the asset to as long as practical through the evaluation of maintenance tasks being performed to ensure they are effective and continue to be effective in preventing failures. This is typically done through performance measurement and root cause failure analysis.

Goal 5: Determine when it makes sense to replace rather than rehabilitate or continue to repair. This can be done through an analysis of maintenance costs, remaining useful life of the asset, and external factors impacting the treatment process. The Business Case Evaluation Tool has been set up to provide the basis for making these decisions.

Goal 6: Ensure that O&M staff are knowledgeable and skilled through initial and periodic training on equipment O&M and process control.

Although there are a variety of drivers that can influence the approaches to O&M, the primary driver is typically the risk of asset failure. Understanding the level of risk and whether the consequences of failure or likelihood of failure is the limiting risk factor can help guide DC Water staff in the development of asset inspections and planned maintenance programs.

Figure 3‐7 provides examples of the relationships between the operate and maintain phase with other phases of the asset lifecycle.

Figure 3‐7. Example Relationships Between the Operate and Maintain Phase and Other Phases of the Asset Lifecycle



3.5 Rehabilitate/Replace Phase

Making repairs to assets is the typical activity undertaken for placing a failed asset back into service. However, while repairs can improve the overall condition of the asset and reduce its likelihood of failure, the asset will continue to deteriorate as it approaches its useful life. Over time, the cost of repairs, the diversion of staff from their proactive duties to perform the repair, and the frequency of treatment process disruption can become untenable. It is at this point where a decision must be made to either rehabilitate the asset or replace the asset.

Deciding when to stop repairing an asset and instead rehabilitate or replace involves a thorough analysis of costs, condition and performance, consequences of failure, overall risk of failure, and availability of operational funds versus capital funds. A business case evaluation is an appropriate decision tool to assist staff in choosing the right path.

Regardless of whether rehabilitation or replacement is selected, the impact of this phase on other phases of the asset lifecycle, and vice versa, is important to understand. Figure 3‐8 shows example of impacts.

Figure 3‐8. Example Relationships Between the Rehabilitate/Replace Phase and Other Phases of the Asset Lifecycle

Note: P‐F Curve = Point of Defect (P) – Functional Failure (F) Curve



3.6 Decommission/Salvage Phase

The decommission/salvage phase includes considerations for demolishing and disposing of assets, abandoning assets that are no longer needed, and restoring sites on which assets have been removed to be utilized for expansion of existing or installation of new process systems. The goal is to manage risk throughout the process and do so in a safe, cost‐effective, and environmentally conscious manner, and, if possible, optimize the asset's recycling potential.

Assets should be considered as to whether they can provide value through reuse at DC Water or other entities, auctioned off, or be sold for scrap. Some assets or portions of assets may be accepted by the manufacturer for overhaul and reconditioning.

All assets slated for decommissioning should be reviewed to determine what liabilities may be associated with their decommissioning and salvage, including the health and safety of those handling of nonhazardous and hazardous materials, and impacts on the environment and the community. In all cases, a chain‐of‐custody process must be followed and recorded.

Asset decommissioning should include archiving asset data and other information that has been captured over the asset’s lifecycle, up until the point that it is taken out of service and disposed of in some fashion or abandoned. Business processes should be established to determine the type of data collected at decommissioning for the various asset types, as well as the way the data is to be acquired and stored. Once the asset has been decommissioned, the asset identifier must be managed to ensure that all inspection, maintenance, repair activities, and costs remain linked to the asset. It is also important that the remaining depreciated value of the asset, if any, should be appropriately addressed in the financial statements. Proper decommissioning can provide valuable information regarding asset condition, reliability and lifecycle length.

Figure 3‐9 provides examples of the relationships between the decommission/salvage phase and other phases of the asset lifecycle.



Figure 3‐9. Example Relationships Between the Decommission/Salvage Phase and Other Phases of the Asset Lifecycle

4. STATE OF BLUE PLAINS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT


4 State of Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant 4.1 Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Assets

Infrastructure assets at the Blue Plains AWTP are generally assigned to one of the five planning areas that make up the physical plant: (1) liquid stream unit processes, (2) solids stream unit processes, (3) plantwide chemical storage and distribution systems, (4) plantwide ancillary systems, and (5) facilities. Table 4-1 provides a brief description of each.

Table 4-1. Blue Plains AWTP Planning Areas

Planning Area Description

Liquid Stream Unit Processes

Physical, chemical, and biological wastewater treatment processes needed to treat wastewater and discharge the treated final effluent to the Potomac River.

Solid Stream Unit Processes

A system of biosolids treatment processes employed to treat biosolids produced from the liquid stream unit processes. Biosolids are produced from primary treatment, waste activated sludge processes in secondary and nitrification/denitrification, and solids produced from the enhanced clarification facility.

Plantwide Chemical Storage and Distribution Systems

A storage and distribution system for chemicals applied at various treatment processes throughout Blue Plains AWTP for odor control, settling improvement, phosphorous removal, pH adjustment, nutrient removal, disinfection and dechlorination.

Plantwide Ancillary Systems

A system of facilities that provide support to plantwide process and non-process-related aspects of wastewater treatment at the Blue Plains AWTP.

Facilities Include the major infrastructure needed to house, support and facilitate the operation of the Blue Plains AWTP.


The Blue Plains AWTP has a wide variety of asset types, including the following:

• Actuators • Ducts • Scales • Air diffusers • Fans • Scrapers • Architectural features • Flair • Screens • Atomizers • Floodwall • Samplers • Basin structures • Gas blower • Scrubbers • Belts • Gas turbines • Scum boxes • Bins • Grates • Shelter structures • Blowers • Grinders • Sidewalks • Boiler • Heat exchangers • Silos • Building structures • Hoists • Skimmers • Bunkers • Hydrocyclones • Sludge collectors • Burners • Instrumentation • Steel structures • Chain and Flights • Lighting fixtures • Storage tanks • Classifier • Mechanical drives • Switches



• Compactors • Mixers • Switchgear • Compressors • Monorails • Synthetic filters • Concrete Structures • Motor control centers • Trailers • Condenser • Motors • Underdrains • Conveyors • Pipes • Transformers • Cranes • Power distribution • Traveling bridges • Cyclones • Process control system • Underground structures • De-aerator • Pumps • Valves • Decanters • Railing • Variable frequency drives (VFDs) • Drives • Roads • Volumetric feeders

4.2 Asset Hierarchy

Building an effective AM Program requires implementing a well-constructed asset hierarchy, which provides context and organization to the development of an accurate asset register (or inventory of infrastructure assets). This is a fundamental building block for effectively managing the infrastructure lifecycle. An asset register, organized in a hierarchical order, enables the assessment of the assets as individual assets, composite assets, or groups of assets. Typically, it is useful to organize an asset hierarchy so the low-level categories can be aggregated into progressively higher levels. The lowest level is considered a child, followed by a parent, grandparent, and similar, with each level encompassing more and more asset records until reaching the top or most overarching entity or system, such as the entire utility.

DC Water is currently updating the asset hierarchy for each of the planning areas of the Blue Plains AWTP to facilitate condition and criticality assessments, risk assessments, and maintenance cost rollups. Although the updated asset hierarchy has not been finalized, it is expected to conform to the ISO Standard for Asset Hierarchies (ISO, 2006). For reference purposes, Appendix B, Vertical Asset Hierarchies for Blue Plains, provides the previously used hierarchy diagrams and includes guidance on developing the updated asset hierarchy.

4.3 Inventory

Tables 4-2 through 4-6 provide a high-level summary of the assets in each of the Blue Plains AWTP planning areas. The tables include dates of recent upgrades to those facilities or subsystems, as listed in the 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016), and should be updated as additional information is developed. A more complete inventory of major equipment, including individual assets and their attributes, can be found in Section 2 of the 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016).



Table 4-2. Liquid Stream Unit Processes

Representative Asset Types Most Recent Renewal

Preliminary Treatment

West Raw Wastewater Pumping Station 2007 (Rebuild)

Raw wastewater pumps (6) Priming systems vacuum pumps (2)

Wet well monitoring systems (2) Dewatering pump

West Screening Facility 2003 - 2006 (Upgrades) Screens (4)

Receiving conveyors (2) Compactors (2)

Transfer conveyors (2) Distribution conveyors (2) Loading conveyors (2)

West Grit Removal Facility 2006 (Rehabilitation)

Grit chambers (4) Grit pumps (8) Blowers (2)

Traveling bridges (2) Belt conveyer (7)

West Screen and Grit Loading Station 2007 (Installed)

Screenings loading bays (2) Grit loading bays (2)

West Odor Control System 2015 (Installed)

Foul air fans (2) Exhaust fans (2) Odor scrubber Odor control fans (4)

Sodium hydroxide storage tanks (2) Sodium hypochlorite storage pumps (4) Recirculation pumps (2)

East Raw Wastewater Pumping Station 2 2005 (Rebuild)

Raw wastewater pumps (9) Support system

East Grit Removal Facility 2003 – 2006 (Upgrades)

Grit pumps (24) Grit aeration blowers (2) Grit removal bridge systems (6)

Dewatering pumps (2) Conveyors (8) Grit classifiers (12)

East Grit and Screening Loading Station 2004 (Constructed)

Screenings loading bays (2) Grit loading bays (2)

East Odor Control System 2015 (Installed)

Facility exhaust fans (4) Odor scrubber Odor control fans (4)

Sodium hypochlorite storage and pumps Recirculation pumps (2) Sodium hydroxide storage and pumps

Primary Treatment

West Primary Sedimentation System 2005 (Upgrades)

Primary clarifier mechanisms (16) Energy dissipation inlets and weirs





West Sludge and Scum Collectors 2005 (Rehabilitation)

Spiral scrapers and scum skimmers (32) Sludge collection blades (16)

West Sludge and Scum Pumps 2005 (Rebuild/Upgrade) Sludge pumps (16) Scum pumps (16)

West Hoisting Equipment 2005 (Replaced)

Gantry cranes (4)

East Primary Sedimentation System 2005 (Upgrades)

Primary clarifier mechanisms Energy dissipating inlets and weirs

East Sludge and Scum Collectors 2005 (Rehabilitation)

Spiral scrapers and scum skimmers (40) Sludge collection blades (20)

East Sludge and Scum Pumps 2005 (Rebuild/Upgrade) Sludge pumps (20) Scum pumps (20)

East Hoisting Equipment 2005 (Replaced)

Gantry cranes (5) Davit cranes (5)

Secondary Treatment

Flow Measurement N/A

Influent flow meter

Secondary Reactors 2016 (Upgrades)

West process reactors and support equipment (2)

East process reactors and support equipment (4)

Aeration Systems 2016 (Upgrades)

Secondary blowers (6) Air diffusers (14,154)

Foam and Surface Wasting Systems N/A

Surface wasting pumps (5) Foam break tank pumps (3)

Foam pumps (5)

Secondary Sedimentation Basins 2006 (Upgrade)

West-side basins (12) East-side basins (12)

Dual-purpose basins (4) Dewatering pumps (2)

Scum and Sludge Collection 2010 (Replaced)

Scum grinders (18) Scum pump (18)

Return Activated Sludge System 2016 (Upgrade)

West return sludge pumps (18) East return sludge pumps (18)

DPSB return sludge pumps (8)





Nitrification and Denitrification

Nitrification Reactors 2008 (Upgrade)

Reactors (12) Anoxic mixers (72) Aeration diffusers (3.7k/basin)

Dewatering pumps (4) Foam wasting pumps (4)

Nitrification Process Air System 2010 (Replaced)

Nitrification blowers (5) Filter systems (5)

Oil-cooling systems (5) Bearing-oil systems (10)

Denitrification Pump Station 2010 (Replace/Rehab)

Denitrification pumps (6) Monorail hoist

Denitrification Reactors 2010 (Upgrade)

Influent channel Influent mixers (7)

Reactor basins (8) Denitrification mixers (40)

Post Aeration Tanks 2010 (Upgrade)

Influent channel Influent channel diffusers (~2,800)

Post aeration tanks (2) Aeration diffusers (~ 3,360)

Flow Distribution Chamber N/A

Flow distribution chamber Sedimentation (2)

Parshall flume to DPSB Parshall flume to nitrification

Nitrification Sedimentation Basins 2008 (Upgrade)

Sedimentation basins (28) Longitudinal collectors (112) Traverse collectors (28)

DPSB (4) Longitudinal collectors (DPSB) (32) Traverse collectors (DPSB) (8)

Scum and Sludge Collection 2008 (Upgrade)

Scum hoppers (7) Scum pumps (14)

Return and Waste Nitrified Sludge Systems 2008 (Upgrade)

Return nitrified sludge pumps (42) DPSB return sludge pumps (8)

Waste activated sludge pumps (4)

Nitrification Carbon Feed Building 2008 (Upgrade)

Methanol day tank Methanol feed pumps (day tanks) (2)

Methanol feed pumps (24)

Denitrification Carbon Storage Facilities 2008 (Upgrade)

Methanol unloading pumps (3) Carbon storage tanks (4) Blended alternate carbon storage tank (3) Denitrification carbon feed pumps (4)

Denitrification carbon transfer pumps (4) Denitrification carbon mixing pumps (3) Methanol feed pumps (26)





Alternate Carbon Storage Facilities 2008 (Upgrade)

Alternate carbon unloading pumps (2) Alternate carbon storage tanks (2) Alternate carbon feed pumps (2)

Alternate carbon mixing pumps (5 Blended alternate carbon mixing pumps (3) Blended alternate carbon transfer pumps (2)

Sodium Hydroxide 2008 (Upgrade)

Storage tanks (6) Metering pumps (3)

Filtration and Disinfection

Filter Influent Pumps 2014 (Replaced)

Filter influent pumps (1 – 10) (10) Filter influent pumps (11 – 12) (2)

Filters (40 total) 2009 (Upgraded)

Filter cells (80/2 each) Filter media (sand, anthracite coal)

Shock chlorination system (2) Underdrain systems (vitrified tile)

Filter Backwash System 2009 (Upgraded)

Washwater pumps (8) Air scour system (6) Spent washwater pumps (constant speed)

Spent washwater pumps (variable speed) (4) Spent washwater conduits (2) Washwater make-up water pumps (2)

Final Effluent Pumps 2012 (Rehabilitation)

Chamber High-pressure reclaimed final effluent pumps (3)

Low-pressure reclaimed final effluent pumps (3)

Chlorination 2012 (Rehabilitation)

Storage tanks (8) Feed pumps (17) Transfer pump Chemical induction system (2)

Standby feed pumps (2) Effluent chlorination induction units (4) Air compressor

Dechlorination 2012 (Rehabilitation)

Storage tanks (8) Feed pumps (6) Transfer pump Standby feed pumps (2) Chemical induction units (2)

Disinfection tanks (4) Bisulfite carrier water pumps (4) Dewatering pumps (4) Air compressors (2)

Sidestream (Filtrate) Treatment Under Construction

Feed Tanks 2017 (Planned Startup) Feed tanks (2)





Filtrate Reactors 2017 (Planned Startup) Feed pumps (6)

Filtrate reactor (6) Decanters (6) Blowers (12) HCMA (24)

Cyclone feed pumps (6) Cyclone assemblies (6) Drain pumps (2) Filtrate waste sludge pumps (2) Filtrate waste wetwell

Phosphoric Acid 2017 (Planned Startup) Storage tanks (2) Feed pumps (2)

Wet Weather Treatment Under Construction

Screen/Surge Shaft

Bar screens Bridge crane

Equipment hoist Clamshell bucket hoist

TPPS

TDPS (5) Tunnel (submersible) dewatering pumps (2)

Bridge crane equipment hoists (3)

Fine Screening Facility

Fine screens (4) Screening washers (4) Screening press/compactors

Screenings load-out screw conveyor Bridge crane

Grit Facility

Grit collectors (3) Grit slurry pumps (6) Secondary grit separators (3)

Grit classifiers (3) Grit hydrocyclones (9) Plant service water booster pumps (2)

Channel Aeration System

Blowers (3) Coarse bubble diffusers (129)

HRC

Coagulation tanks and mixers (3) Flocculation tanks and mixers (3) Settling tanks (3)

Sand handling and feed system (3) Sludge pumps (9) Hydrocyclones (18)

Disinfection and Dechlorination

Chlorine contact tanks (2) Dechlorination tanks

Tipping buckets (3 sizes) (8)

Pumps

Drain pumps (2) Flushing water pumps (2)

Low lift pumps Transfer pumps (4)

Odor Control System

Scrubbers for ECF (3) Fans for ECF (3)

Scrubbers for TDPS Fans for TDPS





Chemical Systems

Caustic soda storage tanks (2) Caustic soda metering pumps (3) Ferric chloride metering pumps (2) Ferric chloride induction mixers (2) Neat polymer storage tank (2) Polymer blend unit (2) Polymer storage tank recirculation pumps (2) Polymer demand tank

Polymer transfer pumps (4) Polymer day tank (2) Polymer metering pumps (6) Sodium hypochlorite metering pumps (2) Sodium hypochlorite induction mixers (3) Sodium bisulfite metering pumps (2) Sodium bisulfite induction mixers (3)

Notes:

DPSB = dual purpose sedimentation basin

ECF = enhanced clarification facility

HCMA = hyperclassic mixer/aerators

HRC = high-rate clarification

N/A = not applicable

TDPS = tunnel dewatering pumps

TPPS = Tunnel Dewatering Pumping Station

Table 4-3. Solid Stream Unit Processes


Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting

Primary Sludge Treatment 2015 (Upgraded)

Primary sludge screens (4) Sludge degritter feed pumps (8)

Hydrocyclone sludge degritters (8) Grit classifiers (4)

Screenings and Degritting Conveyance

Sludge screening conveyors (2)

Primary Scum Treatment 2015 (Upgraded)

Scum screen (2) Scum dewatering conveyors (2)

Scum transfer conveyors (4) Truck loading conveyors (2)

Primary Sludge Gravity Thickening Process

Gravity Thickening System 2015 (Upgraded)

Gravity thickeners (8) Sludge collections (8) Sludge grinders (8)

GTSPs (18) GTSCPs (8) Scum screens (2)

Odor Control 2014 (Upgrade)

Exhaust fans for gravity thickeners Exhaust fans for GTFDS





DAF Thickening Process

DAF System 2012 (Upgraded)

DAF thickeners (18) Distribution box (5) DAF skimmers (18)

FTSPs (18) Flotation retention tanks (18) Recycle pumps (18) Air compressors (4)

Thickening Polymer System 2012 (Upgraded)

TPDTs (4) Day Tank Mixers (4)

FTPPs (27)

Sludge Screening, Pre-dewatering, Thermal Hydrolysis, and Digestion

Solids Blend Tanks 2015 (Installed)

Solids blend tanks (4) Solids blend tank mixing (4 duty/4 standby)

Sludge Screening 2015 (Installed)

Solids screening feed pumps (20) Solids screens (12)

Air supply (4) Loop pumps (4)

Pre-dewatering 2015 (Installed)

Centrifuge feed pumps Centrifuges Centrate pumps Polymer day tanks

Polymer feed pumps Cake bins THP feed pumps Loop pumps

Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis 2015 (Installed)

Pulper (4) Reactors (24)

Flash tank (4) Feed loop pumps (8) Pulper circulation pumps (8)

Anaerobic Digesters 2015 (Installed)

Anaerobic digesters (4) Mixing system (20) Booster-circulation loop pumps (2) Digester feed pumps (12) Cooling heat exchanger (8) Cooling Solids HEX Pumps (8)

Cooling water pumps (8) Tuning heat exchangers (4) Tuning solids HEX pumps (4) Tuning water pumps (4) Transfer pumps (12) Drain pump

Chemical Addition N/A

Ferric chloride feed pumps (2) Sodium hypochlorite feed pumps (2)

Polymer pumps (4) Polymer day tanks (4)

Odor Control System N/A

Bioscrubber tower (2) Recirculation pumps (4)





Combined Heat and Power

Combined Heat and Power System 2015 (Installed)

Electrical power generators (3) HRSGs (3)

Turbine exhaust duct burners (3) Auxiliary steam boiler

Digester Gas Conditioning 2015 (Installed)

Wet scrubber Medium-pressure gas blower (3) Water-cooled heat exchanger (2) Chilled water heat exchanger (2)

Reheat heat exchanger (2) Regenerative siloxane removal system (4) Siloxane flare Siloxane polishing vessels (2) Gas compression system (4)

Steam System Auxiliaries 2015 (Installed)

Feedwater deaerator Feed pumps for HRSGs (3)

Feed pumps for auxiliary boiler (2) Steam dump condenser Steam condensate pumps (2)

Final Dewatering Facility

Solids Blend Tanks 2015 (Installed)

Solids blend tanks (2)

Recirculation Loop Pumping 2015 (Installed)

Loop pumps

Belt Filter Presses 2015 (Installed)

Belt filter press (16) Flocculation tank

Mixer Belt filter press feed pumps (20)

Washwater System 2015 (Installed)

Booster pumps (3 low/3 high capacity) Well return pumps (3)

Filtrate System 2015 (Installed)

Well return pumps (3) Dilution water pumps (4)

Emulsion Polymer 2015 (Installed)

Storage tanks (2) Activation units (2) Storage tank recirculation pumps (2)

Aging tanks Polymer feed pumps (2)

Flocculant Polymer System 2015 (Installed)

Day tanks (2) Press polymer transfer pumps (2)

Press Polymer Feed Pumps 2015 (Installed)

BFP polymer feed pumps (20)





Reversible Belt Conveyors 2015 (Installed)

Belt conveyors (4)

Odor Control System 2014 (Installed)

Odor scrubber

Drainage Pumps 2015 (Installed)

Drainage pumps (2)

Centrifuge Dewatering and Lime Stabilization

Centrifuge Dewatering Facility 2015 (Upgraded)

Centrifuge feed grinders (14) Centrifuge feed pumps (28)

Centrifuges (14) Polymer feed pumps (28)

Lime Stabilization System 2015 (Upgraded)

Feeding and Mixing (4 trains) Storage Silos (2)

Day bins (4)

Cake conveyors (4)

Truck Loading N/A

Storage bunkers (4) Overhead cranes (2)

Storage silos (2) Truck sludge receiving station

Notes: BFP = belt filter press DAF = dissolved air flotation FTPP = floatation thickener polymer pump FTSP = floatation thickener sludge pump GTFD = gravity thickener flow distribution

GTSCP = gravity thickener scum pump GTSP = gravity thickener sludge pump HRSG = heat recovery steam generator THP = thermal hydrolysis process TPDT = thickening polymer day tank

Table 4-4. Plantwide Chemical Storage and Feed Facilities


Metal Salt Storage and Distribution Systems

Support Systems 2006 (Installed)

Basket strainers (4) Air compressors (Chemical Building) Air compressors (CRS)

Chemical spill pumps (2) Chemical storage tanks (9) Chemical transfer pumps (2)

Chemical Feed Pumps (Metal Salts) N/A

West Potomac Bolling Outfall Sewer (2) East Potomac Sanitary Outfall Sewer (2) East Potomac Combined Sewer Outfall (2)

West Primary Grit Chamber 1 effluent (2) East Primary Grit Chamber 2 effluent (2) East Secondary Reactors (4) West Side Reactors (2) Solids sludge blending tanks





Dry Polymer Storage and Distribution System

Unloading equipment 2006 (Installed)

Air-cooled condensing units (2) Pressure blowers (2) Heat exchangers (2)

Air compressors (2) Storage silos (6)

Batching System 2006 (Installed)

Volumetric feeders (6) Atomizer air blowers (6) Mix tanks (6)

Mix tank mixers (6) Demand tanks (6) Demand tank mixers (6)

Transfer Pumps 2006 (Installed)

Transfer pumps (4)

Feed Pumps 2006 (Installed)

Nitrification sedimentation, filtration, disinfection (6) Secondary sedimentation & DPSB influent (9)

DPSB Influent (3) Primary grit chamber effluent (3) De-gritted sludge to gravity thickening (2)

Emulsion Polymer Storage and Distribution System

Centrifuges Emulsion Polymer System 2013 (Installed)

Storage tanks (6) Recirculation pumps (6) Dessicant dryer (2)

Activation units (3) Aging tanks (6) Transfer pumps (3)

FDF New Emulsion Polymer System 2013 (Installed)

Storage tanks (2) Activation units (2) Aging tanks

Feed pumps (2) Storage tank recirculation pumps (2)

ECF New Emulsion Polymer System 2013 (Installed)

Neat storage tanks (2) Blend units (2) Storage tank recirculation pumps (2)

Demand tank Transfer pumps (4) Day tanks (2)

Sodium Hydroxide Storage and Distribution Systems

Storage tanks (6) Metering pumps (3) 2001 (Installed)

Sodium Hypochlorite Storage and Distribution System

Chlorination 2004 (Installed)

Storage tanks (8) Transfer pumps

Chemical induction units (6) Standby feed pumps (2)





Feed Pumps 2004 (Installed)

West Potomac Bolling Outfall Sewer) East Potomac Sanitary Outfall Sewer East Potomac Sanitary Outfall Sewer Secondary Reactor return sludge (5)

Nitrification return sludge (2) Filter influent channel (4) Chlorination tank influent conduit (2) Gravity thickener dilution water

Sodium Bisulfite Storage and Distribution

Dechlorination 2004 (Upgraded)

Storage tanks (8)

Transfer pump

Standby feed pumps (2)

Feed Pumps 2004 (Upgraded)

Disinfection tanks (4) Excess flow effluent (2)

Notes:

CRS = chemical receiving station

FDF = final dewatering facility

Table 4-5. Plantwide Ancillary Systems Ancillary Systems


Plant Service Water and City Water

Reclaimed Final Effluent Pump Station N/A

Process Samplers

Process samplers Recently Replaced

Odor Control Systems

Odor Scrubbers 2015 (Rehabilitation)

Grit and Screening Loading Facility - East Grit and Screening Loading Facility – West Main Process Train Final Dewatering Facility

Dewatered Sludge Loading Facility Chemical feed pumps Scrubber vessel tanks Chemical storage tanks

IT Networks, Fiber Systems, Fire Alarm System

IT networks N/A

Central fire alarm system 2010 (Installed)

Process video monitoring system N/A

Power monitoring system N/A

Plant-wide emergency alarm system 2014 (Installed)



Table 4-5. Plantwide Ancillary Systems Ancillary Systems


PCS

Fiber-optic data highway N/A

Central control room N/A

Distributed process control units N/A

Remote input/output units N/A

Area control stations and servers N/A

Electrical Power Distribution

Main substations 2017 (Upgrade)

Area substations 2017 (Upgrade)

Table 4-6. Facilities


Buildings

Process Buildings N/A

Grit Chamber Building – 1 Grit Chamber Building – 2 Secondary Blower Building Supply Building – 1 Supply Building – 2 Chlorination Building Secondary Control Building Dechlorination Building Denitrification Carbon Feed Building Alternate Carbon Building Nitrogen Blower Building Gravity Thickener Control Building Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting

Building Sample Building 001 Chemical Building (Metal Salts) Dual Purpose Sedimentation Control Building

Dual Purpose Sedimentation Electrical Building Solids Processing Building Screening Building Pre-Dewatering Building Digester Building Turbine Building Gas Conditioning Building Gas Blower Building Denitrification Control Building Pump Storage Building - 1 Denitrification Electrical Building Sample Building 002 Standby Chlorination/Dechlorination Building Filtration and Disinfection Control Building Pump Storage Building - 2

Non-Process Buildings N/A

Central Operations Building Central Maintenance Building Warehouse Visitor Center IT Building

Guard House Visitor Center (Old) Guard booths Trailers



Table 4-6. Facilities


Site Lighting

Exterior lighting system N/A

Roadways, Drainage, and Flood Protection

Roadways N/A

Drainage N/A

Flood protection N/A

Other Plant Infrastructure

Scales, cranes, and similar N/A

4.4 Valuation

4.4.1 Book Value

Book value, or net asset value, is the value of assets as carried on the balance sheet of an organization, and is calculated by taking the original cost of an asset minus accumulated depreciation. When originally acquired, assets are entered into the utility’s records at their purchase price or original cost. The assets are then depreciated over their estimated useful life, to estimate the decline in value of the asset from normal wear and tear and obsolescence. The original cost less the accumulated depreciation is the book value, or depreciated original cost, of the asset. The book value of the system is therefore the cumulated depreciated original cost of the all capital assets in the system.

DC Water depreciates capital assets (also referred to as fixed assets) using the straight-line method over an estimated useful life of 60 years for structures and collection system assets; capital equipment is depreciated over a useful life of 3 to 20 years. A half-year of depreciation is taken in the year the capital asset is placed in service and in the year of the asset’s disposal (DC Water, 2016a).

The book value of the Blue Plains AWTP assets have historically accounted for 31 to 50 percent of the total book value for all DC Water assets over the past 10 years. Table 4-7 and Figure 4-1 illustrates the growth of Blue Plains AWTP’s net capital assets from FY 2006 through FY 2015. Year-over-year growth in net asset value can be attributed to continued implementation of capital projects outlined in the DC Water’s CIP. Between FY 2006 and FY 2015, DC Water has added $836 million dollars in Blue Plains AWTP net capital assets, growing its wastewater system asset inventory by an average rate of 7.5% annually.



Table 4-7. Net Capital Assets for the Blue Plains AWTP, FY 2006 – FY 2015

Category

Blue Plains AWTP Capital Assets ($M)

FY 2006

FY 2007

FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Blue Plains AWTP Assets $1,271 $1,423 $1,572 $1,604 $1,822 $1,839 $1,925 $1,946 $2,057 $2,367

Less Accumulated Depreciation $329 $350 $372 $397 $425 $454 $485 $517 $551 $588

Book Value of Blue Plains AWTP $942 $1,073 $1,200 $1,207 $1,397 $1,385 $1,440 $1,429 $1,506 $1,779

Notes:

Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports [CAFR], Fiscal Years 2006 – 2015 (DC Water, 2015c)

Values do not include construction in progress.

Figure 4-1. DC Water Net Capital Assets for the Blue Plains AWTP FY 2006 – FY 2015

Source: CAFR, FY 2006 – FY 2015 (DC Water, 2015c)



4.4.2 Replacement Value

The majority of the replacement cost estimates were developed using CH2M’s Parametric Cost Estimating System (CPES). This system interfaces with CH2M’s process flow and mass balance tool (Pro2D) to generate conceptual level construction cost estimates for facilities. The results from CPES were augmented with (1) estimates from other facilities for processes that are not currently included in the CPES tool, (2) modifications reflecting actual on-the-ground conditions at the Blue Plains AWTP, and (3) actual construction costs from Blue Plains AWTP projects during the last 5 to 10 years. The estimate generated is considered to be Class 5 with an expected level of accuracy of +50% to -30% (AACE, 2012).

A process model was developed using actual influent flows and loads to meet effluent requirements and using technologies currently in use at the Blue Plains AWTP. All inputs to the process model assume replacement of assets using current technologies and methods, not in-kind replacement of existing assets and processes.

Table 4-8 shows the estimated replacement cost for the Blue Plains AWTP assets at $5.4 billion with a range from $3.8 billion to $8.2 billion in 2016 dollars. Additional details on the cost estimating and assumptions used are documented in Appendix C, Estimated Replacement Value for Blue Plains AWTP.

Table 4-8. Estimated Replacement Cost Summary

Total Without Contingency $4,383,900,000

Contingency @ 30%k $1,053,420,000

Total Estimated Replacement Cost (with above contingency) $5,437,320,000

High Estimate (+50%, with contingency) $8,155,980,000

Low Estimate (-30%, with contingency $3,806,124,000

4.5 Service Life

It is important to know the remaining service life of an asset to develop an investment strategy for its rehabilitation, replacement, or major repairs. Service life, also called useful life, is the period during which an asset can be used for its designated purpose (that is, provide the service for which it was designed). In other words, the service life of an asset ends when it cannot meet its requisite service levels, regardless of whether it is functional or not. Another relevant asset life is design life, which is the period that an asset is expected to function at its designated capacity normal maintenance. It is determined before putting the asset into service.

There are two methods for determining the remaining service life of assets: one based on the age of the asset, the other on its condition. The condition-based approach is superior to the age-based approach as it takes into account the wear and tear from operations, maintenance performed, and environmental factors. The condition-based approach should be used where reliable condition information is available. In the absence of such information, then the age of the asset can be used to determine remaining service life. In the case of DC Water’s Blue Plains AWTP assets, some of the condition information is available. For these assets, the remaining service lives can be better estimated using the condition-



based approach. Table 4-9 provides some guidance in estimating the remaining useful life of vertical assets based upon their condition. Table 4-10 presents seven additional factors that can be used to adjust the remaining useful life.

The estimated service life for the asset systems and subsystems listed in Table 4-11, when available, was obtained from Section 4 of the 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016).

Table 4-9. Remaining Useful Life by Condition Grade

Condition Condition Grade Remaining Life

(% of Service Life)

Very Good 1 95%

Good 2 75%

Fair 3 50%

Poor 4 30%

Very Poor 5 5%

Source: IIMM (Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, 2011).

Table 4-10. Remaining Useful Life Adjustment Factors

Factor Service Life Adjustment

Design Standards

Excellent or high standards used

0% to 10%

Good design standards used

0 to 5%

Average design standards

0%

Only nominal standards followed

0% to -5%

None or very little design completed

0% to -10%

Construction Quality

Excellent quality & supervision

0% to 25%

Good quality & supervision

0 to 10%

Average workmanship/QA

0% to -10%

Poor quality workmanship/QA

0% to -35%

Very poor workmanship/QA

0% to -50%

Material Quality

Excellent materials used

0% to 15%

Very good materials used

0 to 5%

Average materials used

0% to -5%

Poor quality materials used

0% to -10%

Inappropriate materials used

0% to -15%

Operational Stresses

Asset operated below working specifications

0% to 20%

Sometimes overloaded

0 to 5%

Average overloading

0% to -5%

Asset regularly overloaded

0% to -10%

Asset extensively over stressed

0% to -35%

Maintenance History

Well or over maintained

0% to 20%

Reasonable maintenance

0 to 10%

Average maintenance

0% to -5%

Poor maintenance

0% to -20%

Never maintained over life

0% to -30%

Asset Working Environment

Very good environment

(stable)

0% to 10%

Good operating environment

0% to -10%

Average operating environment

0 to -20%

Humid, salty or some ground

movement

0% to -30%

Freezing, high humidity, aggressive

atmosphere

0% to -40%



Table 4-10. Remaining Useful Life Adjustment Factors

Factor Service Life Adjustment

External Stresses

No external stresses

0% to 10%

Only minor external stresses

0% to -10%

Above average external stresses

0 to -10%

High external stresses

0% to -15%

Severe external stresses

0% to -20%

Note:

Source: IIMM (Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, 2011). QA = quality assurance

Table 4-11. Estimated Useful Life of Selected Assets in the Blue Plains AWTP

Asset Est. Useful Life (Years)

Fine screens

Chains and teeth rakes Whole unit

15 25

Screening Compactors and Conveyors

Wear parts Whole unit

10 20

Raw Wastewater Pumps and Motors

Pumps Motors

15 15

Process aeration blowers 15

Grit removal bridges

Drive mechanisms Whole unit

15 25

Grit pumps 8

Primary scum pumps 10

Primary sludge collectors 15

Primary sludge pumps and drives 15

Primary sludge control valves 15

Secondary sludge and scum collectors 15

RAS and Scum Pumps 15

Secondary blowers 15

N-D sludge and scum collectors 15

N-D RAS, WAS, and scum pumps and appropriate VFDs 15

Nitrification blowers 15





Nitrification membrane diffusers 10

Filter influent pumps 20

Filter washwater and spent washwater pumps 25

Filter blowers 20

Filter underdrains and media

Underdrains Media

25 20

Primary sludge degritter feed pumps, hydrocyclones, and grit classifiers 15

Primary scum screens 15

Primary sludge screens 15

Primary sludge gravity thickener scum pumps 15

Primary sludge gravity thickener sludge pumps 20

Primary sludge gravity thickener mechanisms, weirs, and baffles 25

DAF-thickened sludge pumps, recirculation pumps and air compressors 20

DAF top collector skimmer 15

Solids blending tanks mixing pumps 10

Solids blending screening system 20

Cambi pre-dewatering centrifuge feed pumps 20

Cambi pre-dewatering centrifuges 20

Cambi pre-dewatering cake bins 25

Cambi THP feed pumps 20

Cambi centrate collection pumps 20

Cambi THP pulper tanks, reactors & flash tanks 20 to 25

Cambi THP digester feed loop pumps 20

Cambi THP pulper circulation pumps 20

Digesters 50

Digester draft tube mixers 25

Digester loop, feed and solids pumps 25

BFP Sludge recirculation Loop pumps 15





BFPs

BFPs Flocculation tank and mixer BFP feed pumps

40 25 15

Reversible belt conveyors 25

Emulsion polymer feed system

Storage tanks Activation units Aging tank Feed pumps Storage tank recirculation pumps

25 25 25 20 20

Flocculant polymer day tanks 25

Press polymer feed system

Feed pumps Transfer pumps

20 20

Filtrate collection return pumps and dilution water pumps 20

Washwater collection return & booster pumps 15

Odor scrubber 30

Metal salts

FRP tanks and CPVC pipelines Supporting equipment

20-25 20

Dry polymer system

Polymer batching systems Mixers and rotary lobe transfer and feed pumps

20 20

Sodium hydroxide tanks and pumps 20

Sodium hypochlorite system

Storage tanks and infrequently used pumps Plant disinfection feed pumps

20 10

Sodium bisulfite

Storage tanks and infrequently used pumps Continuously used pumps

20 to 25 10

Reclaimed final effluent pumps 20

Odor control

Scrubber vessel tanks, media, and chemical storage tanks Chemical feed pumps and instrumentation

20 10





Process control system

Fiber-optic data highway Computer hardware

30 to 40 10 to 15

Electrical power distribution

Major substation electrical equipment Process facility electrical gear and equipment

40 20

Notes:


CPVC = chlorinated polyvinyl chloride

FRP = fiberglass reinforced plastic

RAS = return activated sludge

WAS = waste activated sludge

4.6 Physical Condition and Performance

4.6.1 Physical Condition

The physical condition of assets is graded according to generally accepted standards for infrastructure assets, as provided in the IIMM (Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, 2015) and other references. Assets are assigned a numerical condition grade from 1 to 5, with 1 being very good, and 5 being very poor. Table 4-12 provides the general guidance adopted by DC Water for grading assets.

Table 4-12. General Guidance for Grading Condition of Blue Plains AWTP Assets

Grade Description

Grade 1 – Very Good

No deficiencies and Needs no corrective maintenance and Presently not a safety hazard

Grade 2 - Good

Few minor deficiencies and/or

Needs minimal amount of corrective maintenance

but Presently not a safety hazard

Grade 3 – Fair

Several minor deficiencies and/or

Needs moderate amount of corrective maintenance

but Presently not a safety hazard

Grade 4 – Poor

Major deficiencies and/or

Needs substantial amount of corrective maintenance or partial rehabilitation

and/or

Presently a potential safety hazard

Grade 5 – Very Poor

Extensive external or internal degradation

and/or

Needs replacement or major rehabilitation

and/or

Presently a safety hazard



Table 4-13 provides condition grading guidance for structures, and Table 4-14 provides condition grading guidance for mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation assets.

Table 4-13. Additional Guidance for Grading Condition of Structures

Grade Description


Sound structure with no apparent damage nor deterioration except for possible surface staining or discoloration

and Building is secure and weatherproof

and Appears well-maintained

Grade 2 - Good

Sound structure but showing minor wear and tear with some minimal damage or deterioration (e.g., minor spalling but no corrosion staining)

and Building is secure and weatherproof

and/or

Needs some minor corrective maintenance

Grade 3 – Fair

Sound structure but showing some obvious damage or deterioration (e.g., minor cracking, peeling coatings, moderate spalling with some corrosion staining, minor leak)

and/or

Building has minor leaks but otherwise secure

and/or

Needs corrective maintenance

Grade 4 – Poor

Structure is functioning but showing considerable damage or deterioration (e.g., significant cracking, spalling, major corrosion affecting a structural member, major leak, missing components, loss of stability, marked deformation)

and/or

Building has several minor leaks or a major leak, but otherwise secure

and/or

Needs substantial corrective maintenance or partial rehabilitation


Serious structural problems and/or

Building not secure or weatherproof

and/or

Needs major rehabilitation or replacement

Table 4-14. Additional Guidance for Grading Condition of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation

Grade Description


No apparent damage or deterioration except for possible surface staining or discoloration

and Instrumentation is periodically calibrated with data documented and trended

Grade 2 - Good

Showing some wear and tear; some minimal damage or deterioration (e.g., a minor leak), although protective coatings are intact

and/or

Instrumentation is periodically calibrated with data documented but not trended

Grade 3 – Fair

Obvious damage or deterioration (e.g., moderate leak, abnormal vibration, some surface corrosion)

and/or

Instrumentation is periodically calibrated but data not documented nor trended

Grade 4 – Poor

Considerable damage or deterioration (e.g., major leak, excessive vibration, corrosion affecting more than the surface, perforations)

and/or

Instrumentation is periodically calibrated but data not documented nor trended


Significant damage or deterioration, severe corrosion, or frequent breakdowns

and/or

Instrumentation is rarely calibrated, and data not documented nor trended



Performance of an asset is a measure of how well the asset accomplishes its task and/or function. As part of the Enterprise-wide Risk Framework, DC Water established the general guidance shown in Table 4-15 for evaluating the relative performance of assets.

Table 4-15. General Guidance for Grading Performance of Blue Plains AWTP Assets

Grade Description

Very Good Meets all functional requirements with normal O&M procedures under all demand conditions (e.g., avg. and max day flow and peak hour flow; high and low temperatures)

Good Meets all functional requirements under all demand conditions (e.g., avg. and max day flow and peak hour flow; high and low temperatures) but occasionally requires increased attention from O&M staff during extreme conditions

and/or Inefficient due additional resource requirements (e.g., energy, labor, chemicals)

Fair Meets functional requirements under most conditions (e.g., avg. and max day but not peak hour)

and/or Occasionally unstable or difficult to operate without increased attention from O&M staff

and/or Some components are obsolete with a long lead time for spare parts or spare parts difficult to obtain

Poor Meets functional requirements only under normal conditions (e.g., avg. day but not max day or peak hour)

and/or Frequently unstable or difficult to operate without increased attention from O&M staff

and/or Most or all components are obsolete with long lead time for spare parts or spare parts difficult to obtain

Very Poor Does not meet functional requirements under normal conditions

and/or Very unstable or difficult to operate even with increased attention from O&M staff

Tables 4-16 through 4-20 summarize the condition and performance of the asset systems according to the five established planning areas of the Blue Plains AWTP.

Table 4-16. Condition and Performance of Liquid Stream Processes

Process Condition Performance Comments

Influent Pumping

Poor Good • Raw Wastewater Pump Station – 1 equipment was upgraded in 2007. With few exceptions, the original pumps installed in Raw Wastewater Pump Stations 1 and 2 are still in service.

Preliminary Treatment

Poor to Very Poor

Poor to Very Poor

• Fine screens and grit removal facilities were last upgraded with all new process equipment between 2003 and 2006. Consequently, some of the new screens and grit removal have been in service for ten years.



Table 4-16. Condition and Performance of Liquid Stream Processes


Primary Treatment

Fair Very Good • West primary sedimentation tanks were upgraded in 1980, while the east primary sedimentation tanks were started up in 1972.

• East primary sludge force mains have begun to fail and are scheduled for replacement under the CIP. West primary sludge and scum force mains should be inspected and a replacement plan developed.

• All mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and instrumentation systems and equipment in all the sedimentation tanks and control houses were replaced in 2005.

Secondary Treatment

Good to Fair

Good • West secondary treatment process was last upgraded in the mid-1970s, while the east secondary treatment process was commissioned in 1976.

• Most mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and instrumentation systems and equipment located at the sedimentation basins were replaced between January 2006 (east process) and July 2008 (west process).

• Secondary reactors and blowers are being upgraded with estimated completion in 2016. Waste sludge pumps were replaced in 2010.

Mixed Liquor Pumping Station

Very Good Very Good • New

Nitrification/ Denitrification

Fair to Poor

Very Good • Nitrification process was commissioned in 1979, while denitrification reactors and methanol system were commissioned in 2014.

• Return sludge pumps were replaced in 2003 while the waste sludge pumps were replaced in 2009.

• Mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and instrumentation systems and equipment that are located at the sedimentation basins were mostly replaced in 2010. This recent upgrade also rehabilitated the large blowers and provided fine pore membrane disc diffusers in the nitrification reactors.

• Mechanical, electrical, and I&C equipment were mostly replaced in 2010.

Filtration Poor to Very Poor

Good • Facility was placed into full service in 1984 and upgraded in 1994.

• FIPs 1 to 10 were last replaced in 1999. A new design project will replace FIPs over a 20-month period between 2018 and 2019.

• Planning is underway to replace washwater and spent washwater pumps by 2024.

• Mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and instrumentation systems and equipment were mostly replaced between 2009 and 2014.

Disinfection/ Dechlorination

Good Very Good

Notes:

Sources: 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016)

Workshop with DC Water staff and WWTPM representatives, October 10, 2016

FIP = filter influent pump

I&C = instrumentation and control



Table 4-17. Condition and Performance of Solid Stream Processes


Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting Building

Very Poor Poor to Very Poor

• Facility was upgraded in 1997 to include rotary screens with more upgrades in 2002, which added additional controls to prevent overflows from wet well and control sludge degritting feed pumps. In 2012, all the sludge screens were replaced.

• Operational and equipment issues will be resolved upon the completion of the Gravity Thickener Upgrades - Phase II project.

Gravity Thickening of Primary Sludge

Poor to Very Poor

Poor to Very Poor

• Gravity thickeners 1 through 4 were installed in 1958, 5 and 6 were installed in 1963 and gravity thickeners 7 through 10 were installed in 1989.

• Facility upgraded in 2002 under the Gravity Thickener Upgrade contract.

Dissolved Air Floatation Thickening

Poor Very Good • Originally commissioned in 1977; facility was upgraded in 2000.

• Most recent upgrade, completed in 2012, included rehabilitation of the DAF facility. DAFs were refurbished and all equipment was replaced.

Solids Blending and Screening

Very Good Very Good • Solids blending tanks were constructed in 1972 and recently rehabilitated with new pump mixing systems and mixing nozzles.

• Several blend tanks were commissioned in 2014, while the remaining blend tanks were commissioned in 2015.

Cambi Pre-dewatering

Very Good Very Good • New facility; commissioned in 2015

Cambi Thermal Hydrolysis Process

Very Good Very Good • New facility; commissioned in 2015

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

Poor to Very Poor

Fair • Steam and power production relying on temporary systems to keep it going.

• Problem with heat exchangers requiring frequent maintenance

Digestion Poor to Very Poor

Fair • The digestion process was commissioned in 2015.

• Cooling heat exchangers need substantial rehabilitation and are at risk for imminent failure.

BFP and Final Dewatering

Very Good to Good

Very Good • BFPs were commissioned in 2015.

Lime Dewatering

Poor Fair • Problems with conveyor in bunker.

• New system not yet in service.

Sludge Unloading

Good Very Good

Notes:

Sources: 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016).




Table 4-18. Condition and Performance of Plantwide Chemical Storage and Distribution Systems


Metal Salts System

Poor Good • All the tanks, equipment, and distribution piping in the metal salts systems were placed in operation in 2006.

• Equipment that has experienced significant leaks will require replacement.

Dry Polymer Fair Very Good • Dry polymer system has been in operation since 2006.

Emulsion Polymer

Fair Fair • First commissioned in 2001 as a back-up system for the dry polymer system. A new system was started up in 2015 under the FDF project, to support belt filters.

• Another system to be added under the ECF project.

Sodium Hydroxide

Poor Very Good • First completed in 2001 as a temporary facility. The existing system has been in operation for 15 years and in need of inspection.

• A study is underway to review current needs and evaluate the condition of the existing facilities.

Sodium Hypochlorite

Good Very Good • The system was placed in service in 2004 and has just over 10 years of service. Consequently, the FRP storage tanks need inspection.

• The feed pumps used for plant disinfection (service and standby) are used continuously and should be replaced along with other chemical feed pumps that are used continuously.

• The remaining pumps are used infrequently.

Sodium Bisulfate

Good Very Good • Placed in service in 2004, the system has just over 10 years of service. Consequently, the FRP storage tanks should be inspected.

• The pumps used for plant dechlorination are used continuously and should be replaced.

• The two pumps used for excess flow dechlorination will be replaced under the ECF contract.

Notes:

Sources: 2016 Facilities Plan Update (AECOM, 2016).

Workshop with DC Water staff and WPPM representatives, October 10, 2016.

Table 4-19. Condition and Performance of Plantwide Ancillary Systems


Process and City Water Systems

Poor to Very Poor

Poor • The low pressure and high pressure PSW systems were placed in service in 1984 at the startup of the filtration facility. Their systems were last replaced in 1999.

• As of late 2015, two out of the three LPRFEP pumps were available for operation.

• One of these pumps was operating at a considerably reduced output because of significant pump wear caused by suction intake conditions.



Table 4-19. Condition and Performance of Plantwide Ancillary Systems


Odor Control Fair Very Poor • Two of the five odor scrubbers (GSLS1 and GSLS2) have been in service for about 10 years, and were refurbished in 2015.

• The remaining three odor scrubbers were commissioned between 2013 and 2015.

IT Networks and Fiber Systems, Fire Alarm System, Process Video System and Power Monitoring System

Good Good • The central fire alarm system was completed in 2010.

• The process video monitoring system uses strategically placed cameras at the major process areas to provide a real-time look at the process that allows operators to react quickly to any issues that arise. At the local level, some camera equipment is older and has a higher failure rate than the current technology.

• Power monitoring system allows for the central monitoring of power usage throughout the plant.

PCS Very Good Very Good • Components of the PCS were first installed in 2003, and new components are planned for installation along with facilities that are currently in design and construction.

• Network duct banks contain many obsolete wires that were installed over the last two decades. Approximately six years ago, the National Electrical Code began to require removal of wires when equipment is removed. Therefore, if it is deemed worthwhile to remove obsolete fibers so that the duct backs will not get clogged with obsolete fibers in the future.

Instrumentation (Probes, Level Indicators, pH Measures, Flow Meters)

Good Very Good • Some maintenance is required.

Electrical Power Distribution

Poor Good • Main Substation Transformers A and B were installed in 1993, the 15-kV transformers were replaced in 2007, and Transformer C and the three 69-kV circuit breakers were replaced in 2015.

• The power distribution system has been upgraded or replaced over the past decade and is in good condition.

• Older components of the system will be replaced under DC Water’s CIP.

Notes:



kV = kilovolt

LPRFEP = low pressure reclaimed final effluent pump



Table 4-20. Condition and Performance of Facilities


Buildings and Galleries

N/A N/A • N/A

Site Lighting N/A N/A • A 2008 Hazen and Sawyer study of the exterior lighting concluded that the existing site lighting on the plant was in fair to poor condition.

• Following the results of the Hazen and Sawyer study, DC Water has undertaken steps to address these issues over the years.

HVAC Very Poor Very Poor

Roadways Good to Very Poor

N/A • The roads are constructed to meet highway ratings.

• The network of roadways is mostly in good condition, except Perimeter Road South, Perimeter Road West, North-South Road, Solids Road and CMF parking lot, which are in poor condition.

Stormwater Pumping Stations

Fair Good

Plant Sump Pumps

Very Poor Very Poor • Requires replacement or major rehabilitation.

• Does not meet functional requirements under normal conditions.

Notes:



5. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT


5 Performance Management Measurement of performance is fundamental to the administration of any program, project, operation, or activity. Performance management serves many purposes, from helping to understand the value of the effort put into a process, through the usefulness of the process itself, to providing information necessary to improve the process. Performance management can also help justify financial and other resource investments and improve communications among internal as well as external stakeholders. Consistent and uniform performance management and associated performance measurement provide information necessary to continually improve processes.

The following sections describe important aspects of performance management related to the Authority’s Blue Plains AWTP, as well as opportunities and recommendations for future improvements.

5.1 Levels of Service

A first step in performance management is the identification of LOS for the organization. LOS are defined as the type and quality of service provided by a utility (or an asset of the utility), and reflect only the goals of an organization. DC Water’s LOS are based on its AM vision and objectives, which in turn are directly aligned to the AM Policy and Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan (DC Water, 2013). The tracking and measurement of LOS are done through monitoring and reporting of KPIs and performance indicators (PIs). Thus, KPIs and PIs provide a line-of-sight to the AM Policy, organizational strategy, and DC Water vision as shown on Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1. Line-of-Sight from Organizational Strategy to LOS to PIs

At DC Water, five categories of LOS were established with stakeholders during the risk framework development of Phase 1 of the AM Program. These LOS categories are derived from DC Water AM objectives, ranging from making informed financial decisions, to improving reliability, to aligning



operations with stakeholder satisfaction and regulatory compliance. Table 5-1 lists the general LOS categories and the target levels relevant to the Blue Plains AWTP.

Table 5-1. DC Water’s Levels of Service Categories and Target Levels for the Wastewater Treatment System

Category Target

Health and Safety

General No impact on the health and safety of the public or employees

Employee Hazards Routine work not requiring emergency response

Public Confidence

Media Attention No adverse media attention

Community / Business / Environment Minimal or no adverse impact on community or businesses or environment, and any impact to last < 24 hours

Complaints No complaints from the surrounding community or other stakeholders regarding odor, noise, or similar

Elected Officials Involvement No involvement by appointed or elected public officials (e.g., Board, Mayor, Council, or Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners)

Public Health/Public Safety Officials Involvement No involvement by public safety or public health officials required

System Reliability

Wastewater Treatment No loss of treatment effectiveness

Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Impact

Wastewater Treatment Full compliance with regulatory requirements and permit conditions

Fiscal Impact

O&M O&M expense that can be handled within the Departments' operating budgets without adversely impacting other budgeted needs

Capital No capital funding required above that already approved

Notes:

The target levels listed represent the most ideal LOS state. Meeting some of these targets may not be practically achievable (e.g., zero customer complaints).

5.2 Performance Measurement

Performance measurement using PIs may be quantitative as well as qualitative. Quantitative PIs use objective metrics, and are driven by data. On the other hand, although qualitative PIs may be expressed using numbers, the input is always subjective. Quantitative PIs (as well as numerical qualitative PIs) are typically expressed as a unit rate (for example, the cost of energy per million gallons of wastewater treated). KPIs are distinguished from other PIs in that they measure performance with a significant



impact on the primary goals of the organization for which performance is being measured (that is, enterprise-level, department-level, or branch-level). They are structured to provide information for continuous improvement and efficiency. An organization should have relatively few KPIs (typically less than 10), although many PIs may be measured to monitor and improve performance.

The AM Program was tasked to provide recommendations for infrastructure-focused KPIs and PIs covering the following four of the five LOS categories: (1) public confidence, (2) system reliability, (3) regulatory compliance and environmental impact, and (4) fiscal impact. As such, the AM Program team culled through hundreds of performance indicators used in the water/wastewater sector, including those published by the International Water Association, the American Water Works Association, and the Canadian Benchmarking Program, as well as those listed in the Effective Utility Management Primer (EPA et al., 2008), and reference materials on equipment reliability. Metrics currently used by DC Water and other water sector utilities were also reviewed. Subsequently, the AM Program team met with DC Water staff to review the collected performance indicators and determine a recommended set of KPIs for the Blue Plains AWTP.

Coincident with the AM Program’s development of KPIs, DC Water began an Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative to establish KPIs and PIs to manage performance throughout the Authority. Therefore, the KPIs related to the wastewater treatment system listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 should be considered in tandem with the Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative recommendations (Table 5-4).

It should be noted that some metrics associated with the AM Program recommended KPIs are currently being reported to the DC Water Board of Directors in a dashboard format (Figure 5-2) or a graphical format (Figures 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5).

Table 5-2. AM Program Key Performance Indicators for Initial Implementation

Recommended KPI LOS Alignment

Wastewater Treatment Regulatory Compliance Rate(a) Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Impact

Energy Use(a,b) Fiscal Impact: O&M

Maintenance, Planned and Scheduled System Reliability

Notes: (a) Recommended by the Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative Energy use is currently reported to the DC Water Board as a metric, not a performance measure.

Table 5-3. Blue Plains AWTP KPIs for Future Implementation

Recommended KPI LOS Alignment

Critical Equipment Availability(a) System Reliability

Proactive Maintenance Rate(a) System Reliability

Notes: (a) Recommended by the Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative



Table 5-4. Operational Performance Metrics for Wastewater Treatment System Recommended by the Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative

Metric Reported as Formula Definition

Maintenance Planned and Scheduled Rate(a)

Percentage of maintenance labor hours that were planned and scheduled

Total number of maintenance labor hours that were planned and scheduled during the previous 12 months / total number of maintenance labor hours during the previous 12 months

Planned and scheduled maintenance hours are those for which work orders are requested and screened by a planner/scheduler, resources are planned, work is scheduled, parts and tools are ordered and ready, priority is established and the information is entered into the CMMS.

Proactive Maintenance Rate(b)

Proactive maintenance labor hours as a percentage of total maintenance labor hours

Total number of labor hours spent on proactive maintenance activities during the previous 12 months / total number of labor hours spent on all maintenance activities during the previous 12 months

Proactive maintenance includes the following planned and scheduled maintenance activities: preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, corrective maintenance arising from preventive maintenance inspections and corrective maintenance arising from predictive maintenance inspections.

Critical Equipment Availability(b)

Percentage of time that equipment designated as "critical" is available for use

Total number of operating hours designated for the equipment - number of scheduled and unscheduled hours during which equipment is unavailable / total number of operating hours designated for the equipment

Critical equipment availability

Energy Use(a) Electricity used per million gallons treated

Total number of MWh of electricity consumed during the previous month / total million gallons of wastewater treated during the previous month

Total number of MWh is the sum of all electricity billed for liquid and solids treatment processes, as well as operations and support facilities at Blue Plains.

Wastewater O&M Cost Per Million Gallons Treated

Wastewater O&M cost per million gallons treated

Total Annual Blue Plains O&M Cost ($) / Total Annual Volume Treated (million gallons))

Wastewater operations and maintenance costs to treat wastewater.

Wastewater Compliance Rate(a)

Percentage Number of days in full compliance during the previous 365 days / 365

Compliance with the conditions contained in the NPDES permit, and requirements of any applicable Consent Decrees, administrative order or enforcement action.

Notes: (a) Included in AM Program recommended KPIs for short-term implementation. (b) Included in AM Program recommended KPIs for long-term implementation. CMMS = Computerized Maintenance Management System MWh = megawatt hour(s)



Figure 5-2. Operational Highlights Reported to the Board of Directors

Source: DC Water 222nd Meeting of the Board of Directors, July 7, 2016 (DC Water, 2016b)

5.2.1 Energy Usage

Electricity usage is reported monthly to the Board of Directors and can be used along with wastewater flow data to calculate the energy usage KPI. Figure 5-3 indicates an average power consumption of 14,895 mWh per month at the Blue Plains AWTP for the wastewater treatment process for the 12-month period ending May 2016. This energy usage represents a decrease of approximately 27% when compared to the average of the previous 12-month period, which averaged 20,567 MWh per month (DC Water, 2015d). Much of this decrease in energy usage can be attributed to the power generated by the Cambi THP.

5.2.2 Biosolids Production

Biosolids production is an important measure of treatment performance and is currently reported monthly to the Board of Directors. The average daily biosolids production at the Blue Plains AWTP for the 12-month period ending in May 2016 was 430 wet tons, compared to an average of 798 wet tons in the previous 12-month period (DC Water, 2015d). This significant reduction can be attributed to the completion of the Cambi THP. Using the THP, DC Water has begun generating power from biogas, while significantly reducing the volume of biosolids produced. Also included in the THP project was an upgrade to the solids treatment process, which previously produced Class B biosolids, and now produces Class A biosolids. Figure 5-4 provides additional details and trends for the Blue Plains AWTP performance related to biosolids production.

5.2.3 Total Nitrogen

Also shown in Figure 5-4 is the total nitrogen loading discharged from the Blue Plains AWTP to the Potomac River. Although not a KPI by itself, it is an important metric associated with treatment performance and regulatory. Annual average total nitrogen effluent load declined from 3.73 million pounds per year for the 12-month period ending in May 2015 (DC Water, 2015d) to 2.73 million pounds



per year during the following 12-month period (DC Water, 2016b), remaining below the permit limit of 4.38 million pounds per year.

Figure 5-3. Energy Usage Statistics Reported to the Board of Directors




Figure 5-4. Biosolids and Total Nitrogen Statistics Reported to the Board of Directors


5.2.4 Plant Effluent Flow

The quantity of Blue Plains AWTP effluent discharged to the Potomac River is not a recommended KPI, but is an important metric used to calculate recommended KPIs and directly linked to permit conditions. Effluent flow at the Blue Plains AWTP has remained virtually unchanged over the past two years; annual average plant effluent was 290 MGD for the 12-month period ending in May 2016 in comparison to 288 MGD during the previous 12-month period (DC Water, 2015d). Figure 5-5 provides additional details and trends related to plant effluent flow quantity.

5.2.5 Excess Flow

Figure 5-5 also illustrates the excess flow to the Blue Plains AWTP; that is, the volume of influent that is above the average daily treatment capacity of the treatment plant. Excess flow, although not a metric associated with a recommended KPI, is currently used to judge treatment capabilities at higher flows, and is a regulatory reporting requirement. Average monthly excess flow for the period between June 2015 and May 2016 was 42 MGD, which represents a significant increase from 19 MGD in the previous reporting period (DC Water, 2015d). This increase in excess flow can be attributed to high rainfall events in June 2015 and February 2016.



Figure 5-5. Plant Effluent Flow and Excess Flow Statistics Reported to the Board of Directors


5.3 Recommendations for Future Performance Management Improvements

Details on the recommended Blue Plains AWTP KPIs can be found in Appendix D, Blue Plains Key Performance Indicators. The information includes how the KPI should be reported, the reporting frequency, the formula used to calculate the KPI, a definition of terms, and comments. DC Water staff will need to determine the source of data for each KPI. Furthermore, DC Water leadership will determine which, if any, of these KPIs should be reported to the DC Water Board of Directors.

The KPIs presented in this section are expected to be refined and revised as the DC Water Enterprise Strategic Outcome Initiative continues to evolve. Once completed, it is anticipated that additional KPIs will have been developed for Authority-wide implementation as well as implementation at the department and branch levels. These additional KPIs should be included in future updates to the BPAMP as they become available. Updates of this BPAMP should include an analysis of each KPI’s actual performance, trending, and recommendations for improving performance.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


6 Risk Assessment 6.1 Introduction

Risk assessment (or risk analysis) is a key element of an AM Program. It serves as the basis for minimizing lifecycle costs while maintaining established LOS for customers and other stakeholders. The overall purpose of risk analysis is to understand the cause, effect (consequences), and likelihood of adverse events occurring (e.g., the failure of an asset); mitigate the risks to an acceptable level; and provide an audit trail for the management of risks. Risk analysis is a major building block for determining infrastructure investment needs, which may include developing CIP projects, refining maintenance processes, and prioritizing assessments that will lead to mitigating the risk of asset failure to an acceptable level. A risk analysis therefore provides the foundation for developing the investment needs included in Section 9.

Mathematically, risk of failure can be expressed as a function of the COF and LOF, and can therefore be quantified through the following equation:

Risk = COF × LOF (Equation 1)

To quantify the relative risk of asset failure, an Enterprise Risk Framework was developed for DC Water that uses a matrix scoring system for quantifying the COF and the LOF of assets. This details of this framework (categories, subcategories, weights) were all vetted and finalized with DC Water, specifically Asset Management Team and the Asset Management Steering Team, before the use of the framework in performing the risk assessments for the vertical and linear assets.

The COF is based on the impact that an asset failure has on DC Water’s established LOS in the following categories:

• Health and Safety • Public Confidence • System Reliability • Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Impact • Fiscal Impact

For COF, a numerical score ranging from 1 (negligible) to 10 (very high) is assigned to each LOS/COF category, and then a weighted average COF score is calculated. Any redundancy in the assets being assessed is incorporated in the COF calculations. For LOF, a score of 1 (negligible) to 10 (very high) is assigned to the following categories and a weighted average LOF score is calculated:

• Physical Condition • Performance • Maintenance History

As a result, the risk of asset failure can range from a low of 1 to a high of 100.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


6.2 Methodology

Details of the risk assessment approach that was used for the Blue Plains AWTP assets systems can be found in Appendix E, Risk Assessment Results Technical Memorandum. In summary, the risk assessment was performed using a top-down approach. This approach focuses initially on asset systems or groups of assets rather than individual assets. The risk analysis is first performed for assets at the highest level of the asset hierarchy using institutional knowledge and existing data where available. The risk analysis is then performed at the next level of the asset hierarchy beginning with the highest-risk asset system or asset group, and continues down the hierarchy. The main advantage of the top-down approach is that results are obtained quickly without the need for detailed assessments. However, the approach lacks the specificity to determine the risk of failure of individual assets.

6.3 Linear Assets

There is currently no data with which to assess the risk of the linear assets (that is, buried utilities) at the Blue Plains AWTP (for example, potable water, PSW, stormwater piping, or power and communications cables). If this information is available in the future, then a risk assessment should be performed and its results included in an update of this BPAMP.

6.4 Vertical Assets

The risk assessment was initially performed during two workshops held on October 7 and December 4, 2015, with DC Water staff and members of the Blue Plains AWTP program management consultant team, who had vast institutional knowledge of the treatment plant, its asset systems, and their components. The participants’ knowledge and expertise was crucial to determining the COF and of the LOF of the asset systems. During the workshops, each of the vertical asset systems were discussed and scores for the COF and LOF were determined by consensus using the Enterprise Risk Framework (Appendix E, Risk Assessment Results Technical Memorandum).

An additional workshop was held on October 21, 2016, during which the LOF scores (and consequently the risk scores) were updated.

6.4.1 Consequence of Failure

The COF was analyzed for the vertical asset systems at the Blue Plains AWTP, which included the treatment unit processes as well as ancillary vertical assets. Table 6-1 shows the COF categories and subcategories from the COF matrix of the Enterprise Risk Framework, and defines the conceptual consequences and impacts of failure that were considered. The weighting factors shown in Table 6-1 reflect the relative importance of each COF category.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Table 6-1. Consequence of Failure Scoring Categories

COF Category (Category Weighting) Factors/Failure Impacts

Health and Safety (25%)

Employee Hazards

• Non-routine work

• Exposure to hazards (e.g., confined space, > 20 feet above ground, energized power > 240 volts, trench > 10 feet deep)

• Exposure to highly toxic gasses such as chlorine, ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, or to an explosive atmosphere

• Exposure to high pressure pipe

Public Hazards • Exposure to raw sewage outside the Blue Plains AWTP perimeter

• Exposure to toxic gasses or hazardous materials/chemicals outside of the Blue Plains AWTP perimeter

Public Confidence (15%)

Media Attention

• Untreated or partially treated sewage discharged to the Potomac River

• Major violation of permit conditions, Consent Decree conditions, or other regulatory requirements

• Severe injury(ies) or fatality(ies) at the Blue Plains AWTP

• Major asset failure requiring a large expenditure that is discussed at the Board of Directors level

Transportation • Adverse impact to traffic along roads adjacent to the Blue Plains AWTP

• Impact to navigation on the Potomac River

Community / Business / Environment

• Resulting closures or diminished hours for public or private businesses

• Degradation of a waterway or the atmosphere

• Duration of impacts experienced

Critical Customers • Adverse impact on the adjacent Naval Research Laboratory

• Any impact on a critical customer

Complaints Complaints from citizens or business owners because of odor, noise, or dust

System Reliability (20%)

Wastewater Treatment System

• Loss of treatment effectiveness

• Loss of treatment capacity

Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Impact (25%)

Wastewater Treatment System

• Violation or potential violation of permit or Consent Decree conditions

• Violation or potential violation of other regulations or codes

Fiscal Impacts (15%)

O&M Costs

• Increased labor cost impacting operating budget

• Increased materials cost impacting operating budget

• Increased repair costs impacting operating budget

Capital Costs • Need for asset rehabilitation impacting capital budget

• Need for asset replacement impacting capital budget

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Table 6-2 presents the results of the COF scoring, and Figure 6-1 presents the vertical asset systems in order of their COF score, from high to low.

Table 6-2. Consequence of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

Asset System

Health & Safety

(25%)

Public Confidence

(15%)

System Reliability

(20%)

Regulatory Compliance and

Environmental Impact

(25%)

Fiscal Impact

(15%) COF Score

Influent Pumping 10 7 10 10 10 9.6

Preliminary Treatment - Screens 7 1 7 1 10 5.1

Preliminary Treatment - Grit Removal 8 1 7 1 10 5.3

Primary Treatment 7 3 7 7 10 6.9

Secondary Treatment 10 3 10 10 10 9.0

Mixed Liquor Pump Station 10 5 5 5 7 6.6

Nitrification 10 5 10 10 10 9.3

Denitrification 10 5 10 10 10 9.3

Methanol 10 5 10 10 10 9.3

Filtration 10 5 10 10 10 9.3

Alkalinity 10 1 3 3 5 4.8

Ferric 10 3 7 10 7 7.9

Plant Service Water 10 7 10 10 10 9.6

Disinfection/Dechlorination 5 7 10 10 7 7.9

Yard and Gallery Piping 7 7 7 7 7 7.0

Dry Polymer 3 4 7 5 5 4.8

Emulsion Polymer 3 1 1 1 2 1.7

Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting 10 1 2 1 10 4.8

Dissolved Air Flotation 7 1 7 2 10 5.3

Gravity Thickening 10 3 7 3 10 6.6

Blend Tanks 10 7 7 7 5 7.5

Sludge Screens 5 7 7 7 7 6.5

Centrifuge Pre-dewatering 10 7 7 7 10 8.2

Cambi THP 7 7 7 7 10 7.5

Digestion 10 7 7 7 10 8.2

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Table 6-2. Consequence of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

Asset System

Health & Safety

(25%)

Public Confidence

(15%)

System Reliability

(20%)

Regulatory Compliance and

Environmental Impact

(25%)

Fiscal Impact

(15%) COF Score

Belt Press Dewatering 5 7 7 7 10 7.0

Combined Heat and Power 10 7 10 7 7 8.4

Lime Dewatering 5 5 5 5 10 5.8

Sludge Unloading 5 1 3 1 3 2.7

Plant Power 10 10 10 10 10 10

Process Control System 9 10 10 10 10 9.8

Odor Control 10 3 1 10 5 6.4

Stormwater Pump Stations 5 7 7 7 3 5.9

Plant Sump Pumps 7 1 3 1 3 3.2

HVAC 10 5 7 7 9 7.8

Fire Alarm System 10 7 5 7 5 7.1

Instrumentation 9 7 10 10 3 8.3

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Figure 6-1. Consequence of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


6.4.2 Likelihood of Failure

As with the COF, the LOF was analyzed for the vertical asset systems at the Blue Plains AWTP, which included the treatment unit processes as well as ancillary vertical assets. The LOF scoring matrix, developed as part of the Enterprise Risk Framework, was used as the basis for the LOF analysis. The LOF matrix qualitatively defines scoring for assets in each of the three LOF categories.

Table 6-3 provides a list of the LOF scoring categories and the factors considered for scoring of the LOF categories. The weighting factors shown in Table 6-3 reflect the relative importance for each category and were developed as part of the Enterprise Risk Framework.

Table 6-3. Likelihood of Failure Scoring Categories

LOF Category Likelihood of Failure Factors Category Weighting

Physical Condition • Condition Grade (see Section 4.6)

• Amount of corrective maintenance or rehabilitation needed

• Extent to which the condition of the asset is a safety hazard55%

Performance

• Ability to meet all functional requirements under a variety of demandconditions

• Amount of attention needed from O&M staff

• Availability of spare parts and ability to obtain

35%

Maintenance History • Ratio of planned maintenance hours to total maintenance hours

• Frequency of corrective maintenance needed

• MTBF and MTBF trend10%

Note:

MTBF = mean time between failure

Table 6-4 presents the results of the COF scoring, and Figure 6-2 presents the vertical asset systems in order of their LOF score, from high to low.

Table 6-4. Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

Asset System

Likelihood

Likelihood of Failure Score

Physical Condition 55%

Performance 35%

Maintenance History 10%

Influent Pumping 7 3 7 5.6

Preliminary Treatment - Screens 7 7 5 6.8

Preliminary Treatment – Grit Removal 8.5 8 10 8.5

Primary Treatment 5 1 5 3.6

Secondary Treatment 4 3 7 4.0

Mixed Liquor Pump Station 1 1 1 1.0

Nitrification 5 1 3 3.4

Denitrification 7 3 7 5.6

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Table 6-4. Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

Asset System

Likelihood

Likelihood of Failure Score

Physical Condition 55%

Performance 35%

Maintenance History 10%

Methanol 1 1 1 1.0

Filtration 8 3 10 6.5

Alkalinity 7 1 3 4.5

Ferric 7 3 7 5.6

Plant Service Water 9 7 9 8.3

Disinfection/Dechlorination 3 1 3 2.3

Yard and Gallery Piping 9 5 7 7.4

Dry Polymer 5 1 6 3.7

Emulsion Polymer 5 5 5 5.0

Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting 10 8 9 9.2

Dissolved Air Flotation 7 1 7 4.9

Gravity Thickening 9 8 8 8.6

Blend Tanks 1 1 2 1.1

Sludge Screens 1 1 1 1.0

Centrifuge Pre-dewatering(a) 7 9 8.5 7.9

Cambi THP 1 1 1 1.0

Digestion(a) 8 5 5 6.7

Belt Press Dewatering 2 1 7 2.2

Combined Heat and Power(a) 8 5 5 6.7

Lime Dewatering 8 5 8 7.0

Sludge Unloading 3 1 2 2.2

Plant Power 7 3 3 5.2

Process Control System 1 1 1 1.0

Odor Control 5 10 10 7.3

Stormwater Pump Stations 5 3 7 4.5

Plant Sump Pumps 10 10 10 10.0

HVAC 10 10 10 10.0

Fire Alarm System 3 3 3 3.0

Instrumentation (a) 3 1 3 2.3

Note: (a) LOF scores were updated at the October 21, 2016 workshop.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Figure 6-2. Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


6.4.3 Risk Analysis Results

The risk scores for Blue Plains AWTP’s asset systems were calculated by multiplying the LOF and COF scores. As mentioned, LOF scores were updated following a workshop with DC Water staff and the Blue Plains consultant program manager on October 21, 2016. Based on this update, the LOF score and the risk of failure score changed for the asset systems, as shown in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5. Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems Having Updated LOF Scores and Risk Scores

Asset System COF Score

Scores from 2015 Workshops Scores from 2016 Workshop

LOF Score Risk Score LOF Score Risk Score

Centrifuge Pre-Dewatering(a) 8.2 5.0 41.0 7.9 64.4

Combined Heat & Power(b) 8.4 1.0 8.4 6.7 51.9

Digestion(c) 8.2 1.0 8.2 6.7 58.4

Instrumentation(d) 8.3 4.0 33.0 2.3 19.0

Note:

(a) Pre-dewatering centrifuges and cake bins were found to have an unacceptable MTBF, requiring increased O&M attention.

(b) Combined heat and power requires work-arounds to keep it performing and heat exchangers require rehabilitation.

(c) Digestion capacity is trending downward and cooling heat exchangers also require rehabilitation.

(d) Instrumentation was found to require an acceptable level of maintenance.

Table 6-6 presents the results of the risk analysis for the asset systems. Each of the asset systems was assigned to one of five categories: (1) lowest, (2) lower, (3) moderate, (4) higher, and (5) highest risk. The risk scores for each asset system were plotted as a column chart in order of risk, from highest to lowest. This plot helped determine upper and lower boundaries for the risk categories. As shown in Figure 6-3, the upper and lower boundaries were determined by reviewing the graphical representation of the results and identifying obvious spikes and flat areas in risk scores. When identifying the range of each risk category, the goal was to have 20% to 25% of the asset systems fall into the lowest, low, moderate, and higher risk categories.

Table 6-6 also indicates whether the COF or the LOF is the primary driver of the risk (i.e., whether the COF or LOF has the higher score). Figure 6-4 indicates whether the COF or the LOF is the primary driver of the risk (that is, whether the COF or LOF has the higher score). For the majority (27 of the 37) asset systems assessed the COF was the primary driver of failure. The LOF was the primary driver for the remaining ten asset systems. Various factors that resulted in the determination of primary risk drivers for each asset system are summarized in Appendix E, Risk Assessment Results Technical Memorandum. Knowing the primary driver assists in determining what methods of risk mitigation are most appropriate for reducing the risk of an asset to acceptable levels, as described in Section 6.5.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Table 6-6. Risk of Failure Scores and Primary Driver for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

Asset System Risk of Failure

Score Risk Category

Primary Risk Drivera

Consequence of Failure

Likelihood of Failure

Plant Service Water 79.3 Highest Risk

HVAC 77.5 Highest Risk

Centrifuge Pre-dewatering 64.4 Highest Risk

Filtration 59.7 Higher Risk

Digestion 58.4 Higher Risk

Gravity Thickening 56.4 Higher Risk

Influent Pumping 53.5 Higher Risk

Plant Power 52.0 Higher Risk

Combined Heat and Power 51.9 Higher Risk

Denitrification 51.8 Higher Risk

Yard and Gallery Piping 51.8 Higher Risk

Odor Control 46.4 Higher Risk

Preliminary Treatment - Grit Removal 44.9 Moderate Risk

Ferric 44.2 Moderate Risk

Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting 44.2 Moderate Risk

Lime Dewatering 40.0 Moderate Risk

Secondary Treatment 35.4 Moderate Risk

Preliminary Treatment - Screens 34.3 Moderate Risk

Plant Sump Pumps 32.0 Moderate Risk

Nitrification 31.5 Moderate Risk

Stormwater Pump Stations 26.6 Lower Risk

Dissolved Air Flotation 26.0 Lower Risk

Primary Treatment 24.7 Lower Risk

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Table 6-6. Risk of Failure Scores and Primary Driver for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

Asset System Risk of Failure

Score Risk Category

Primary Risk Drivera

Consequence of Failure

Likelihood of Failure

Alkalinity 21.4 Lower Risk

Fire Alarm System 21.2 Lower Risk

Instrumentation 19.0 Lower Risk

Disinfection/Dechlorination 18.1 Lower Risk

Dry Polymer 17.6 Lower Risk

Belt Press Dewatering 14.9 Lower Risk

Plant Control System 9.8 Lowest Risk

Methanol 9.3 Lowest Risk

Emulsion Polymer 8.3 Lowest Risk

Blend Tanks 8.2 Lowest Risk

Cambi THP 7.5 Lowest Risk

Mixed Liquor Pump Station 6.6 Lowest Risk

Sludge Screens 6.5 Lowest Risk

Sludge Unloading 5.9 Lowest Risk

Note:

(a) The Primary Risk Driver indicates whether the COF or the LOF has a higher score.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Figure 6-3. Risk of Failure for Blue Plains AWTP Vertical Asset Systems

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


Figure 6-4. Consequence of Failure and Likelihood of Failure Scores for Blue Plains AWTP Asset Systems

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


6.5 Applying the Risk Assessment Results

The assessments performed on the Blue Plains AWTP asset systems provide a defensible road map for reducing the risk of failure of these assets. The results of the assessment can be used to inform and refine the condition assessment planning process, and importantly, the CIP. DC Water has already begun identifying how risks can be mitigated starting with assets that have the highest risk scores. It should be noted that a key requirement is for data and other information to be up-to-date and valid. Therefore, the quality of the data and information used should be validated based on additional data collection, inspections, criticality determinations, condition assessments and performance assessments.

When identifying risk mitigation options, it is important to determine the primary driver of the risk since risk mitigation options typically target only one of the risk variables; that is, the mitigation option reduces either the COF or the LOF. Table 6-7 provides some examples of risk mitigation options and whether they impact the COF or LOF. It is equally important to keep in mind that it is often difficult to reduce the COF even when COF is the primary driver; in such cases, the focus on risk mitigation should be on keeping the LOF as low as possible. Further, any risk mitigation options selected that involve O&M actions (including impacts on O&M from capital mitigation projects) should be incorporated into DC Water’s operating budget process.

Table 6-7. Examples of Risk Reduction Options Impacting COF and LOF Scores

Typical Risk Reduction Options (Examples)

Reduces COF

Reduces LOF

Capital Investments

Rehabilitation

Replacement

New Redundant Asset

O&M Protocols

Clearly Written Standards and Operating Procedures

Improved Planned Maintenance Procedures

Enhanced Monitoring through Inspection, SCADA, PCS

Improved Response and Recovery

Other

Demand Management

Reduction of LOS with Stakeholder Involvement

In addition to capital projects, the risk assessment results can be employed to establish planned maintenance strategies and inspection frequencies. In general, the intensity of planned maintenance should be proportional to the COF of the asset. Table 6-8 shows an example of how the COF score may

6. RISK ASSESSMENT


be used to determine maintenance strategies for individual vertical assets. However, inspection frequencies should be based on risk, because the LOF must be considered as well.

Table 6-8. Example of Guidance to Determine Maintenance Strategy

COF Score Criticality Classification Method Used to Determine Maintenance Strategy

> 7 ≤ 10 Highly Critical Reliability Centered Maintenance

> 5 ≤ 7 Critical Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

> 3 ≤ 5 Mid-Level Critical

Asset-Specific, Predefined Maintenance Templates > 1 ≤ 3 Low-Level Critical

1 Non-Critical Run-to Failure

7. ASSET MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS


7 Asset Management Support Systems 7.1 Asset Management Competency Requirements

Effectively managing infrastructure involves a wide range of disciplines including planning, engineering, operations, maintenance, information systems, management, contract and supply management, human resources, and finance. Over the past several years, the Institute of Asset Management (IAM) has developed a set of seven competencies with 27 “units” necessary for an organization to build a workforce that can exhibit and apply AM best practices. Figure 7-1 depicts the seven competency categories (roles) and associated units required for effectively managing DC Water’s assets. The relative level of competency recommended for DC Water departments responsible for the lifecycle of Blue Plains AWTP assets is illustrated in the figure as minor, moderate, and major.

The precise mix of competences and the breadth and depth of expertise of staff within the departments is currently being developed under DC Water’s Enterprise Competency Framework initiative. Once complete, the Blue Plains AWTP specific AM competency requirements should be added to future updates of the BPAMP.



Figure 7-1. Asset Management Competencies

Role 1:Policy

Development

Role 3:Asset Management

Planning

Role 2:Strategy

Development

Role 4:Implementing Asset Management Plans

Role 5:Asset Management

Capability Development

Role 6:Risk Management and

Performance Improvement

Role 7:Asset Knowledge

Management

Key PurposeTo optimize the delivery and

performance of physical assets

Analyze policy requirements

Develop the AM policy

Analyze strategy requirements

Forecast and analyze future user requirements and

demands

Appraise investment options

Apply whole life costing principles

Create and acquire assets

Control operations

Develop and deploy AM teams

Develop and deploy suppliers

Appraise and manage risks

Assure the quality of AM processes

Define asset information standards

Specify, select and integrate AM information

systems

Develop the AM strategy

Plan the implementation of

the AM strategy

Produce business case for creation

and/or acquisition of assets

Plan for contingencies

Maintain assets

Optimize and rationalize assets

Renew or dispose of assets

Develop and manage

organizational change

Shape the AM culture

Monitor and review progress

and performance

Review and audit compliance with legal, regulatory, ethical and social

requirements

Learn from mistakes

Make appropriate AM data available

for decision-making

4

4

4

2

4

4

4

4

2 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

2Relative competency level necessary within the DC Water departments focused on AM of the BPAWTP system:0 Minor; 2 Moderate; 4 Major

0

0 0

0

Source: The IAM Asset Management Competence Requirements Framework (IAM, 2014)



7.2 Software Systems DC Water uses two main software systems to store, maintain and manage data associated with Blue Plains AWTP assets and processes:

• IBM Maximo Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) – This CMMS stores and maintains the asset inventory for the Blue Plains AWTP, and is also used to plan and track work orders related to its assets. Essentially it is the Authority’s system of record for all of its asset information

• Emerson Ovation System – This PCS is the primary means for remote monitoring and control of the treatment processes at the Blue Plains AWTP.

Details for each system are presented in the following sections. Use of both systems is aided by additional software tools such as LiveLink for providing access to drawings, Lawson for supply chain management, and eLogger, which enables the collection, storage, and distribution of real-time data.

7.2.1 Maximo

DC Water has recently upgraded Maximo to Version 7.5. This upgrade allows the Authority to continue to maintain its asset inventory, track and manage asset data throughout the asset lifecycle, and manage work activities. DC Water’s IT is the primary party responsible for maintenance of the Maximo database. Staff across DC Water departments access the system to modify the asset inventory, create work orders, and perform data analysis. The database currently includes two server sites that maintain vertical and linear asset information separately:

• DCWASA – Captures vertical assets • DWS_DSS – Captures linear assets

Maximo provides end-user applications that standardize operations and maintenance activities and allow for consistent collection of data across multiple end-user parties. These applications are organized into groups, which are referred to as modules. At DC Water, the most commonly used modules are as follows:

• Assets and Locations • Item Master (Inventory) • Job Plans and Routes • Preventive Maintenance • Work Order Tracking

Additional Maximo applications not currently in use at DC Water include the following:

• Assets: Meters and condition monitoring • Planning: Safety (that is, lock out/tag out and safety plans) • Work Orders: Assignment manager

7.2.2 Emerson Ovation Process Control System

The Emerson Ovation PCS is the primary means for remote monitoring and control of the treatment processes throughout the Blue Plains AWTP. The system has been in service since 2003. It is regularly



updated as treatment processes are modified and added. It is currently built-out to include approximately 45,000 process input/output points.

7.2.2.1 Function of PCS

The PCS uses a distributed control system (DCS) approach. The main control room is in the CMF, which is supplemented by three satellite control rooms and numerous workstations throughout the plant. The main control room is staffed around the clock. Information transfer over the PCS network is facilitated by approximately 22 miles of fiber-optic cabling. The system is designed such that, with appropriate permissions, it can be operated from any work station located in the plant.

Specialized process systems use programmable logic controllers (PLCs) for control if it is integral to the manufacturer’s design of the original equipment. The output of the equipment-specific PLCs is incorporated into the PCS for monitoring, tele-control, and data archival.

7.2.2.2 Reliability

The DCS-based system architecture used for PCS is intended to provide a five, nine level of reliability (99.999%). The Blue Plains AWTP’s PCS is in a mature stage of development, providing reliability very similar to that required for power-supply systems. Because operation is distributed, using a dynamic database concept, the failure of a single component will not disable the entire system. The PCS has consistently proven to be highly reliable with no recorded events of unplanned system downtime since 2003. Critical systems are currently designed to be supported by uninterruptable power supplies (UPS) with a backup time of four hours.

7.2.2.3 Maintenance

DC Water has the standards and protocols in place to successfully maintain and expand the PCS system. System maintenance is accomplished by a combination of DC Water and Emerson staff. Much of Emerson’s current work involves maintenance of system level components and some security related tasks. A system upgrade is expected every five years, and an upgrade to some hardware elements is currently in the initial stage. The system will by 20 years old by 2023, and replacement or a major upgrade is currently included in the DC Water CIP.

7.2.2.4 Sustainability

DC Water has built up a workforce with the capabilities to complete much of its own PCS programming requirements. One of DC Water’s current and future challenges involves its ability to hire and retain the highly-skilled staff needed for this type of work.

7.2.3 Other Software

7.2.3.1 Livelink

Livelink is DC Water’s Enterprise Document Management system. It is used extensively by the staff at the Blue Plains AWTP. The system has been integrated with Enterprise GIS and Maximo for the retrieval of relevant asset documents, such as design drawings, as-builts, and service manuals (from Maximo), along with documents stored natively in Livelink. Livelink can also be used as a repository for job plans



and job safety analyses. Use of Livelink provides solutions for document version control and common document linkage to Maximo EAM by eliminating issues with shared drive file or folder linkage issues.

7.2.3.2 Infor Lawson

Infor Lawson is used by DC Water as a supply chain management solution, which is functionally integrated with the Maximo EAM, and is used primarily to procure and manage inventory. Integrating Lawson inventory data with Maximo enables work management processes by providing live inventory data to the Maximo end user

7.2.3.3 eLogger

eLogger is a web-based electronic logbook software that replaces paper log books and disconnected systems. eLogger enables the collection, storage, and distribution of real-time data related to operation activities at the Blue Plains AWTP. It enables compliance with industry requirements with date and time stamping, clear audit trails, searchable entries, and flexible reporting. Some of the basic features of the software include email alerts, data integration from outside sources (for example, process historians or CMMS), attachments, audit trail, and announcements. Shift turnover reports can also be configured or customized within eLogger.

8. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY AND FORECAST


8 Expenditure Summary and Forecast DC Water maintains a Ten-Year Financial Plan1 to support implementation of its strategic plan, policies, and priorities, and to enable DC Water to address future operational and financial issues. The Ten-Year Financial Plan also guides the development of DC Water’s operating and capital budgets. Both budgets are prepared by the staff based upon guidance from the CEO/GM and the Chief Financial Officer, and are adopted by DC Water’s Board of Directors.

While in past years, the DC Water operating budget covered two fiscal years, the most recent operating budget covered only a single fiscal year. The capital budget has, and continues to include, a ten-year schedule of disbursements for capital investments. Capital budgets are reviewed and updated annually, and extended by one fiscal year.

The most recent detailed operating budget was for FY 2017, and the most recent detailed capital budget covered FY 2016 through FY 2025. DC Water’s Board of Directors approved a revised overall operating budget for FY 2018 on December 1, 2016, although a breakdown of the budget by department and function was not available at the time of writing. On December 1, 2016, the Board also passed an updated capital budget covering FY 2017 through FY 2026. Information from this updated capital budget is included in this section of the BPAMP.

8.1 Expenditure History

8.1.1 Operating Expenditure History

The Blue Plains AWTP’s operating budget consists of three departmental operating budgets: (1) Wastewater Treatment Operations, (2) Process Engineering, and (3) Maintenance Services. These three departments make up the Blue Plains Cluster, which is led by an Assistant GM. Figure 8-1 presents the total operations and maintenance spending on the wastewater treatment system (that is, Blue Plains Cluster) over the past 10 years. From FY 2006 to FY 2008, spending increased by nearly 18%, followed by a decrease in spending over the next four years, resulting in less spending in FY 2012 than in FY 2007. Since FY 2012, spending increased at an average of 3% per year, in line with inflation, taking into consideration a more than 1% drop from FY 2014 to FY 2015.2

Table 8-1 and Figure 8-2 show the components of the Blue Plains AWTP’s operating budget over the past 10 years (FY 2006 to FY 2015). As depicted in Figure 8-2, prior to FY 2013, Process Engineering expenses were included in the Wastewater Treatment Operations budget. During this 10-year period, maintenance expenses ranged from 17% to 22% of the total operational expenditures for the wastewater treatment system. In the past three years, since Process Engineering expenses have been tracked separately from Wastewater Treatment Operations, Process Engineering expenses have increased over 200%, and have gone from 2% to 7% of the total Blue Plains AWTP expenditures. This

1 The Ten-Year Financial Plan is included as Section III of DC Water’s Approved FY 2017 Budgets (2015a). 2 Inflation rate based on American City and County’s Municipal Cost Index from March 2012 and March 2015 (3.4%), and the Consumer Price Index for Washington, DC – Baltimore for March 2012 and March 2015 (3.3%).



increase is likely a result of the increased reliance on automation resulting from the expansion of the PCS, and the continued emphasis on optimizing both energy and chemical usage.

Figure 8-1. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Operating Expenditures, FY 2006 – FY 2015

Source: DC Water Operating Budgets FY 2007 through FY 2016.

Table 8-1. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Operating Expenditures by Component, FY 2006 – FY 2015

Actual Operating Expenditures by Component ($ Million)

Fiscal Year

Wastewater Treatment and

Process Engineering Wastewater Treatment

Process Engineering

Maintenance Services Total

2006 $68.6 N/A N/A $19.1 $87.7

2007 $72.4 N/A N/A $19.1 $91.5

2008 $81.2 N/A N/A $21.9 $103.1

2009 $79.0 N/A N/A $22.6 $101.6

2010 $76.2 N/A N/A $19.0 $95.2

2011 $74.5 N/A N/A $19.7 $94.2

2012 $72.6 N/A N/A $18.2 $90.8

2013 N/A $71.8 $2.3 $17.8 $91.9

2014 N/A $77.9 $5.3 $17.2 $100.4

2015 N/A $73.1 $7.0 $18.9 $99.0

Sum $524.5 $222.8 $14.6 $193.5 $955.4




Figure 8-2. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Operating Expenditures by Component, FY 2006 – FY 2015


8.1.2 Capital Expenditure History

Capital expenditures for the wastewater treatment system are organized by four program areas: (1) Liquid Processing, (2) Solids Processing, (3) Plantwide, and (4) ENRF. DC Water defines these four programs as follows:3

• Liquid Processing – Projects in this program area encompass upgrading and rehabilitating facilities involved in handling flows from the sanitary and combined sewer systems.

• Plantwide – This program area provides for upgrading, rehabilitating, or installing support systems and facilities that are required for both the liquid processing and solids processing program areas.

• Solids Processing – Biosolids processing involves reductions in volume along with treatment to meet applicable federal, state and local requirements for the ultimate disposal method.

• ENRF – Provides for new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities needed to meet the total nitrogen discharge limit as required by the Blue Plains AWTP discharge permit.

3 DC Water Approved FY 2017 Budgets (DC Water, 2015a)



Figure 8-3 presents the total capital disbursements for the Blue Plains AWTP over the past 10 years. From FY 2007 through FY 2014, DC Water’s investment in the wastewater treatment system infrastructure steadily increased from nearly $52 million in FY 2007 to nearly $356 million in FY 2014, when the disbursements for the Blue Plains AWTP made up more than 60% of DC Water’s total capital spending. From FY 2014 to FY 2016, capital spending on the wastewater treatment system declined by 54%, as some major projects came online and others neared completion.

Table 8-2 and Figure 8-4 present capital disbursements over the 10-year period by program area. Figure 8-5 shows the cumulative spending by program area from FY 2006 through FY 2015. During the first 4 years of this period, projects associated with the Liquid Processing program area dominated capital spending for the Blue Plains AWTP. From FY 2010 through FY 2015, spending on Solids Processing and ENRF projects increased substantially with disbursements for Solids Processing and ENRF projects accounting for 80% of capital spending. In the last 6 years, from FY 2010 through FY 2015, spending to renew the entire biosolids handling process including construction of four Cambi thermal hydrolysis trains, four digesters, new dewatering equipment, and a combined heat and power plant totaled $552 million. During the same 6-year period, spending on ENRF projects to meet effluent nutrient requirements totaled $537 million.

Figure 8-3. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Capital Disbursements, FY 2007 – FY 2016

Source: DC Water Capital Budgets FY 2008 through FY 2018 and DC Water Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)



Table 8-2. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Capital Disbursements by Program area, FY 2007 – FY 2016

Actual Capital Disbursements by Program Area ($ Million)

Fiscal Year Liquid Processing Plantwide Solids Processing ENRF Total

2007 $31.4 $11.4 $8.8 $0.0 $51.7

2008 $66.4 $15.1 $3.8 $0.0 $85.3

2009 $67.6 $12.3 $11.7 $10.6 $102.3

2010 $24.8 $16.5 $35.4 $25.8 $102.6

2011 $11.1 $17.1 $48.8 $48.9 $125.9

2012 $22.3 $17.1 $95.9 $118.0 $253.3

2013 $19.7 $29.8 $154.8 $109.7 $314.0

2014 $31.2 $46.2 $164.9 $113.4 $355.7

2015 $18.5 $18.3 $52.4 $120.8 $210.0

2016 $13.3 $12.9 $23.5 $113.6 $163.4

Sum $306.5 $196.7 $600.1 $660.8 $1,764.0

Source: DC Water Capital Budgets FY 2008 through FY 2018 and DC Water OCFO

Figure 8-4. Wastewater Treatment System Actual Capital Disbursements by Program Area, FY 2007 – FY 2016




Figure 8-5. Wastewater Treatment System Cumulative Capital Disbursements by Program Area from FY 2007 through FY 2016


8.2 Expenditure Forecast

8.2.1 Operating Expenditure Forecast

Figure 8-6 shows the projected operating expenses for the Blue Plains AWTP from FY 2016 to FY 2025. Over this 10-year period, operating expenses are anticipated to increase by 50%, or an average annual rate of 5%.4 Total operating expenditures are expected to reach approximately $159 million by FY 2025.

4 Source: AECOM DC Water’s Wastewater Treatment Program Manager. Data provided by email, August 9, 2016.



Figure 8-6. Wastewater Treatment System Operating Expenditure Forecast, FY 2016 – FY 2025

Source: AECOM DC Water’s Wastewater Treatment Program Manager. Data provided by email, August 9, 2016.

8.2.2 Capital Expenditure Forecast

As shown in Figure 8-7, DC Water’s capital expenditures for the Blue Plains AWTP are projected to continue to decline from actual disbursements of $163 million in FY 2016 to $91 million in FY 2019, followed by a small increase in FY 2020 to $96 million. From FY 2021 through FY 2024, the average annual capital budget is projected at $68 million, followed by an increase to just under $80 million in FY 2025 and $82.5 million in FY 2026.

As can be seen in Table 8-3 and Figure 8-8, spending priorities at the program area level will gradually shift away from ENRF projects in favor of Liquid Processing and Plantwide projects. By FY 2024, Liquid Processing projects will account for over 70% of capital disbursements for the Blue Plains AWTP. However, the need to expand two of the ENRF secondary reactors during the latter half of the 10-year period results in a bump in capital spending from FY 2025 to FY 2026.

Figure 8-8, shows the total anticipated disbursements by program area during the 10-year period. Table 8-4 lists the five projects with the highest projected spending during the 10-year period from FY 2017 through FY 2026, by each of the four program areas.



Figure 8-7. Wastewater Treatment System Capital Budget, FY 2017 – FY 2026

Source: DC Water Approved FY 2018 Budget and DC Water OCFO.

Table 8-3. Wastewater Treatment System Capital Budget by Program Area, FY 2017 – FY 2026

Capital Budget by Program Area ($ Million)

Fiscal Year Liquid Processing Plantwide Solids Processing ENRF Total

2017 $16.2 $11.3 $7.7 $88.7 $123.9

2018 $24.9 $14.6 $4.8 $54.1 $98.4

2019 $52.9 $17.6 $15.3 $5.5 $91.3

2020 $43.9 $32.1 $15.9 $4.0 $95.9

2021 $24.2 $22.8 $14.3 $1.0 $62.3

2022 $34.2 $27.0 $7.4 $0.0 $68.6

2023 $39.6 $29.5 $1.5 $1.3 $71.9

2024 $49.8 $18.4 $0.9 $0.9 $70.0

2025 $45.4 $22.8 $0.5 $11.1 $79.8

2026 $46.0 $13.8 $0.3 $22.4 $82.5

Sum $377.1 $209.9 $68.6 $189.0 $844.6

Source: DC Water Approved FY 2018 Budget and DC Water OCFO.



Figure 8-8. Wastewater Treatment System Capital Budget by Program Area, FY 2017 – FY 2026

Source: DC Water Approved FY 2018 Budget and DC Water OCFO

Table 8-4. Wastewater Treatment System Top 5 Projects by Forecasted Disbursement (in Million $) from FY 2017 through FY 2026

Liquid Processing Projects and Forecasted 10-Year

Disbursement

Plantwide Projects and Forecasted 10-Year

Disbursement

Solids Processing Projects and Forecasted 10-Year

Disbursement

ENR Facilities Projects and Forecasted 10-Year

Disbursement

Effluent Filter Upgrade

$53.6 Electrical Power System Switchgear

$36.6 Gravity Thickener Upgrades Phase II

$29.1 Enhanced Clarification Facilities

$68.1

Primary Treatment – 20-Year Rebuild

$47.1 Control System Replacement

$25.1

New Digestion Facilities

$10.7 Secondary Treatment Upgrades for Total Nitrogen

$36.2

Primary Sedimentation Tank Covers

$36.8 Chemical System/ Building Upgrades

$14.8 Solids Processing Building/Dewatered Sludge Loading Facility

$10.2 Filtrate Treatment Facilities

$19.0

Primary Treatment Facilities Phase II

$28.0 Construction of Flood Seawall

$11.3 Pre-dewatering Additional Centrifuges

$6.8 Bolling Overflow and Diversion

$18.9

Filtration / Disinfection Facility

$27.6 Plantwide Demolition

$9.9 High Strength Waste Receiving Facility

$4.0 Blue Plains Tunnel Dewatering Pump Station

$12.7

Source: DC Water Approved FY 2018 Budget.



8.3 Funding Sources

8.3.1 Operating Revenue

Blue Plains AWTP operations are primarily funded from user fees, which are generated from commercial, residential, and government customers based upon metered water use. Revenue from wholesale customers, including the WSSC and Fairfax County, are based on their share of operating costs at the Blue Plains AWTP in accordance with the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement of 2012. Other revenues supporting wastewater treatment system operations include those from Loudoun County and other users of the Potomac Interceptor.

8.3.2 Capital Funding

Investments in wastewater treatment system infrastructure are funded from a suite of sources. The major source of capital investment funds includes proceeds from both long-term and short-term debt, such as revenue bonds and commercial paper. Another substantial source of capital funding is the capital contributions made by wholesale customers, WSSC and Fairfax County, in accordance with the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement of 2012. Net revenues (also known as Pay-Go financing), EPA grants, loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and interest income from bond proceeds also support the capital program. Beginning on January 1, 2018, DC Water will collect system availability fees for new developments connecting to the sewer system. These fees will support funding for capital projects at the Blue Plains AWTP.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


9 Investment Needs 9.1 Projection of Renewal Investment Needs

Capital renewal need projections are made to guide DC Water on its investments to maintain the established LOS delivered by the Blue Plains AWTP. Renewal includes the replacement or the rehabilitation of an asset: Asset replacement results in a new asset with its own new useful life, while asset rehabilitation extends the useful life of an existing asset.

The process used to estimate the annual investment necessary for renewal of Blue Plains AWTP assets has been documented in Appendix F, Blue Plains AWTP - Estimated Annual Rehabilitation and Replacement Investment.

The projected annual renewal investment needs for the Blue Plains AWTP are based on a percentage of the total replacement cost of the plant rather than on individual assets or asset systems. The projected annual renewal investment is therefore a recommended amount that should be budgeted annually for disbursement or placed in a renewal reserve account for whatever renewal needs are prioritized each year at the treatment plant. The renewal needs for each asset or asset system are not addressed.

To perform this analysis, the renewal investment needs for all of Blue Plains AWTP were categorized by the divisions of construction, as defined by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) MasterFormat (CSI, 1995). Because the estimated annual investment need is not facility-specific, the specification divisions can be used to provide general guidance on the overall level of funding that should be invested to continue managing, operating and maintaining the plant at its current LOS or better.

The process used to estimate annual renewal investment considers a theoretical distribution of the Blue Plains AWTP’s total estimated replacement cost over the various plant components and an estimated service life for each component. The estimated replacement value of the Blue Plains AWTP is distributed by the typical construction specification divisions, as shown in Table 9-1. The total annual investment component (that is, specification division) is distributed evenly over the estimated service life for that specified component.

The distribution of total estimated replacement cost for the Blue Plains AWTP across specification divisions was derived from CH2M’s cost estimating database for wastewater treatment plants and infrastructure. Estimated service lives used in this analysis come from the Failure to Act, The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Water and Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure (ASCE, 2011). Table 9-1 also presents the specification divisions that align with asset components, estimated service lives, and annual renewal investments estimates.

There are, however, limitations to the renewal investment needs estimate, as follows:

• The analysis does not consider the current condition of the assets; it assumes DC Water practices proper routine maintenance and that the design and construction of the assets was appropriate to the conditions and environment, allowing realization of typical service lives.

• The analysis does not consider cost for routine maintenance; O&M investment needs are addressed separately in Section 9.2.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


• The analysis does not suggest or consider a specific schedule of renewal. Thus, the renewal investment assessment does not present a schedule of disbursements, nor is the time cost of money considered.

• The analysis does not consider the cost associated with “extra-ordinary” renewal or replacement. The need for such capital expenditures might be associated with regulatory changes that require major process modifications, changes in organizational priorities, such as the desire to become more energy efficient or address climate change, among others.

The results from the renewal investment needs analysis are shown in Table 9-1. Both high and low values for construction costs associated with each specification division are presented as a percent of total construction cost. A value between the minimum and maximum values were selected based on CH2M’s construction cost database and used to perform the renewal investment needs analysis for the Blue Plains AWTP.

Dividing the percentage of total estimated replacement value by the assumed service life for each specification division provides an estimate of the annual percentage of the plant’s total replacement cost. This can be used to project annual renewal investment needs associated with each specification division and the associated assets.

Based on the analysis, it is recommended that DC Water annually reserve approximately 3.85% of the total estimated replacement cost of the Blue Plains AWTP to fund projects that will rehabilitate or replace assets. Using the estimated replacement cost for the Blue Plains AWTP presented in Section 4.4.2, this percentage equates to approximately $169 million per year (in 2016 dollars), exclusive of any project contingency. Because the estimated replacement cost of $4.38 billion was developed using an AACE International (AACE) Class 5 estimate, which has an accuracy of +50% to -30% ($3.07 billion to $6.57 billion), this results in an annual investment range of $118 million per year to $253 million per year.

Table 9-1. Annualized Renewal Investment Needs (by Specification Division)

Specification Division Description

Percentage of Total Construction Cost Assumed

Service Life (Years)

Annualized Renewal Needs (as a % of

Estimate) Low High Applied for

Estimate

General Conditions(a) 1.5% 5.0% 3.0% 30 0.1%

Site work 4.0% 10.0% 3.0% 50 0.06%

Concrete 25.0% 35.0% 25.0% 50 0.50%

Masonry 1.0%(b) 1.0% 50 0.02%

Metals 2.0%(b) 2.0% 25 0.08%

Wood and Plastics 0.5%(b) 0.5% 15 0.03%

Thermal and Moisture Protection 1.5%(b) 1.5% 50 0.03%

Doors and Windows 1.0%(b) 1.0% 50 0.02%

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-1. Annualized Renewal Investment Needs (by Specification Division)

Specification Division Description

Percentage of Total Construction Cost Assumed

Service Life (Years)

Annualized Renewal Needs (as a % of

Estimate) Low High Applied for

Estimate

Finishes 1.5% 2.5% 2.0% 10 0.20%

Equipment (Including Conveying Equipment) 25.0% 45.0% 29.0% 20 1.45%

Special Construction (I&C) 4.0% 6.0% 4.0% 20 0.20%

Mechanical 14.0% 20.0% 10.0% 20 0.50%

Yard Piping 9.0% 12.0% 8.0% 50 0.16%

Electrical 10.0% 12.0% 10.0% 20 0.50%

Total 3.85%

Notes:

(a) General conditions are not physical components and therefore do not have an actual service life, but are costs that affect each project performed. For calculating annual renewal investment, a service life of 30 years was assumed, which is approximately a cost-weighted average of the service lives.

(b) CH2M’s construction cost database does not contain a range of values for these specification divisions.

9.2 Projection of Operation and Maintenance Investment Needs

The annual O&M needs for the Blue Plains AWTP differ from renewal investment needs in that the anticipated O&M expenditures are required to support the ongoing (that is, day-to-day and month-to-month) management, operation and maintenance of the plant. The O&M investment profile for the Blue Plains AWTP treatment process systems provides guidance on how much funding should be invested annually to continue operating the Blue Plains AWTP at its current LOS.

The O&M annual investment needs were provided by the WWTPM and are presented in Figure 9-1 for FY 2017 through FY 2026.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Figure 9-1. Projection of Operation and Maintenance Investment Needs for the Blue Plains AWTP (FY 2017 - 2026)

Source: AECOM and DC Water (2016)

9.3 Review of Existing CIP Projects1

DC Water considers capital expenditures as long-term investments made for assets such as structures and equipment, as well as maintenance-related items that increase the useful life of assets by more than 3 years. Projects developed to address these types of capital expenditures are referred to as CIP projects. In September 2016, the AM Team reviewed the existing CIP projects with start dates from FY 2017 through FY 2026, which were provided by the WWTPM in the form of CIP evaluation forms and a comprehensive spreadsheet list, to determine if the existing CIP projects aligned with the top-down risk analysis performed for the Blue Plains AWTP.

The CIP risk alignment exercise was a collaborative effort between the AM Team and DC Water staff, and is described as follows: The CIP projects were first categorized into one of three major categories shown below:

1. Infrastructure projects related to an asset system identified and assessed as part of the top-down risk assessment

2. Infrastructure projects related to an asset that was not identified during the top-down risk assessment

3. Programmatic projects that are not related to any specific asset

1 The term “project,” as used in this AMP is equivalent to the term “job” used by DC Water and the WWTPM.

$112.4$122.2

$127.4$132.3

$137.6$143.0

$148.5 $152.9$158.9

$165.0

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Mill

ion

$

Fiscal Year

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


For CIP projects assigned to the first category, the risk assessment results were used to determine if the CIP project addressed highest, higher and moderate risk asset systems. Whenever available, the project description from CIP project evaluation forms were used to help categorize projects into the different asset systems. For example, if a CIP project involves replacing high-pressure and low-pressure PSW pumping systems, then the project is aligned with the PSW asset system.

9.3.1 Existing CIP Projects that Align with Highest, Higher and Moderate Risk Asset Systems

Approximately 54% of the asset systems identified in the top-down risk assessment were categorized as highest, higher, or moderate risk, while approximately 46% were noted as lower or lowest risk. Table 9-2 provides information on specific CIP projects included in DC Water’s FY 2017 - FY 2026 capital budget that align with the highest, higher, and moderate risk asset systems. It is important to note that existing CIP projects that align with the highest, higher, and moderate risk asset systems do not necessarily address the asset systems’ risk drivers identified during the top-down risk assessment.

Important terms found in the Section 9 tables are defined as follows:

• Budget: Cost estimate for the CIP projects found in DC Water’s CIP project evaluation forms (for projects with evaluation forms) or the CIP project list provided by the WWTPM in September 2016. The project budgets shown in the table includes any disbursements already made; therefore, the project budget may not equal the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document(s).

• Risk Score: Score derived from the top-down risk assessment of Blue Plains AWTP’s vertical asset systems developed in two working sessions with DC Water staff during October and December 2015, and an additional workshop in October 2016 to update LOF and risk scores.

o COF: The COF is based on the impact an asset failure has on DC Water’s established LOS.

o LOF: the LOF is based on the condition, performance, and maintenance history of the asset.

• Risk Category: Risk categories assigned by considering the risk-score distribution for the 37 asset systems, as explained in Section 6.

• Project Status: Current status of each CIP project provided by the WWTPM in October 2016.

As shown in Table 9-2, there are currently 68 CIP projects identified to address the highest, higher, and moderate risk asset systems.

It is noted however, that the Combined Heat and Power asset system, which was recently constructed, was determined during the top-down risk assessment to be at a higher risk level (risk score of 51.9). At the time of this document’s writing, performance testing showed that the system was not meeting specified requirements. Consequently, the LOF score reflected this poor performance, which resulted in a higher risk score. It is expected that the performance of this asset will meet the stipulated requirements before the contract close-out, and LOF and risk scores are expected to decrease.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-2. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Addressing a Moderate, Higher, or Highest Risk Asset System

Asset System Job ID(a) Job Name(a) Start

Year(a) Budget ($)(a)(b) Project Status(a)

COF Score

LOF Score

Risk Score

Risk Category

Plant Service Water 9.3 8.3 79.3 Highest

IY03 High and Low PSW Pumps Evaluation and Replacement FY 2017 $19,900,000 Planning

HVAC 7.8 10 77.5 Highest

HL01 Process and Operation Jobs (open activity is plantwide HVAC assessment) FY 2011 $3,106,447 Planning

J201 Primary Treatment (HVAC equipment rebuild) FY 2016 $400,000 Construction

LS02 HVAC Automated BMS (installed in various buildings) FY 2017 $400,000 Planning

LS03(c) Misc. Facilities Projects – FY17/18/19 - Solids Building HVAC (LS04431000) FY 2017 $950,000 Planning

Centrifuge Pre-Dewatering 8.2 7.9 64.4 Highest

LD00 Pre-dewatering - Additional Centrifuges FY 2019 $10,155,500 Planning

XA08 Process Piping Changes FY 2018 $5,000,000 Planning

Filtration 9.3 6.5 59.7 Higher

UC05 Filtration Concrete Repairs FY 2010 $12,106,642 Design

UC07 Emergency Filter Facility Work (UC44800000) (to rebuild filters 1 & 29 and empty filters 33 and 34) FY 2011 $1,716,052 Construction

UC06 Upgrades to FIPs 1 – 10 FY 2012 $27, 075, 641 Design

BT02 Washwater Check Valves FY 2015 $700,000 Construction

BT03 Rehabilitation of Filter 25 (will also be used to rebuild filters 33 and 34) FY 2016 $840,000 Construction

IY01 Filter Valves and Actuators Rehab FY 2017 $1,500,000 Planning

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS





COF Score

LOF Score

Risk Score

Risk Category

IY02 Filter Media Top Off FY 2018 $3,000,000 Planning

IY04 Washwater Pumps and Spent Washwater Pump Upgrades FY 2020 $20,000,000 Planning

IY06 20-year Effluent Filter Upgrades FY 2022 $107,714,000 Planning

Digestion 8.8 6.7 58.4 Higher

XZ05 Biosolids Main Process Train Upgrades FY 2008 $12,925,340 Planning

Gravity Thickening 6.6 8.6 56.4 Higher

BX01 Gravity Thickener Upgrades Phase II FY 2017 $49,470,512 Design

Influent Pumping 9.6 5.6 53.5 Higher

BV01 RWWPS 2 Upgrades FY 2012 $42,695,794 Construction

BC01 RWWPS 1 Influent Structural Rehab FY 2017 $2,500,000 Planning

BC02 East Primary Screening Facility Influent Structure & Equalization Conduit Rehab FY 2017 $2,550,000 Planning

I501 RWWPS 1 20-year Rebuild FY 2021 $29,000,000 Planning

Plant Power 10.0 5.2 52 Higher

TZ05 Line C Transformer Replacement FY 2007 $6,726,597 Construction

TZ06 Central Operations Facility/IT Electrical System Upgrades FY 2017 $18,143,000 Planning

BQ02 Primary Treatment Facilities Phase II (Electrical upgrades in headworks) FY 2017 $33,836,350 Planning

TZ07 Electrical Substation Replacements FY 2021 $26,341,901 Planning

OH01 Plantwide Demolition and Removal – Electrical FY 2021 $4,500,000 Planning

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS





COF Score

LOF Score

Risk Score

Risk Category

Denitrification 9.3 5.6 51.8 Higher

BR02 Nitrification/Denitrification Upgrades Phase III (includes valve replacements on RAS & WNS pipes)

FY 2007 $14,776,077 Construction

BR04 Nitrification RAS Piping, Valves & Pump VFDs Rehab FY 2010 $11,329,918 Construction

PE01 Nit RAS/WNS Pump, VFDs and Control Upgrades FY 2017 $3,150,000 Planning

Yard and Gallery Piping 7.0 7.4 51.8 Higher

J205 Primary Treatment – Primary Sludge Piping FY 2018 $10,000,000 Planning

OF02 Condition Assessment of PSW Piping FY 2019 $150,000 Planning

OF03 PSW Piping System Replacement FY 2019 $3,000,000 Planning

EI01 Plantwide Painting of Steel Pipes FY 2020 $4,960,000 Planning

OF01 PSW Valve Replacement (Underground and Above) FY 2020 $800, 000 Planning

OG01 City Water Upgrades FY 2020 $1,250,000 Planning

OH05 Manhole Cover Identification and Replacement FY 2021 $350,000 Planning

PF02 Chemical Transmission Piping Upgrades FY 2021 $3,000,000 Planning

Odor Control 6.4 7.3 46.4 Higher

IZ03 Odor Control Facility Rehabilitation – East & West FY 2015 $1,000,000 Construction

BQ01 Grit & Screen Equipment Upgrades Phase I FY 2017 $1,200,000 Construction

OZ01 Concrete Repairs and Cover Replacement FY 2017 $5,000,000 Construction

OZ02 Foul Air Ductwork Replacement FY 2017 $1,000,000 Construction

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS





COF Score

LOF Score

Risk Score

Risk Category

B601 Primary Sedimentation Tank Covers FY 2018 $43,598,000 Planning

BY01 Chemical Odor Scrubber Upgrades FY 2022 $5,413,276 Planning

B701 Primary Tank Odor Scrubbers FY 2024 $45,870,000 Planning

Preliminary Treatment – Grit 5.3 8.5 44.9 Moderate

BP01 Grit & Screen Equipment Upgrades Phase I FY 2017 $397,000 Construction

BQ01 Grit & Screen Equipment Upgrades Phase I FY 2017 $1,200,000 Construction

OZ03 Grit Removal Equipment Upgrades FY 2019 $12,500,000 Planning

I401 20-year Rebuild – Grit Removal Facilities FY 2026 $52,500,000 Planning

Ferric 7.9 5.6 44.2 Moderate

PF05 10-year Metal Salts Building Tank & Equipment Upgrades FY 2017 $7,000,000 Construction

Primary Sludge Screening and Degritting Building 4.8 9.2 44.2 Moderate

BX01 Gravity Thickener Upgrades Phase II FY 2009 $49,470,512 Design

Lime Dewatering 5.8 7.0 40.6 Moderate

XZ04 SBP Lime Stabilization System Rehabilitation FY 2011 $5,406,000 Planning

Secondary Treatment 9.0 4.0 36.0 Moderate

BG02 Dual Purpose Influent Gate Upgrades FY 2008 $2,950,000 Construction

BI01 Enhanced Nitrogen Removal North FY 2010 $73,367,305 Construction

BG01 Dual Purpose Rehabilitation FY 2010 $23, 240, 776 Construction

FG01 Secondary Reactors 5 & 6 Expansion FY 2013 $57,141,625 Planning

BG03 Dual Purpose Effluent Pump Station Upgrades FY 2017 $2,950,000 Planning

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS





COF Score

LOF Score

Risk Score

Risk Category

PD03 15-year Secondary Equipment Upgrade FY 2021 $9,000,000 Planning

Preliminary Treatment – Screens 5.1 6.8 34.3 Moderate

OM1 Hot Water/Steam System – Grit and Screens FY 2016 $7,600,000 Construction

IZ02 10-year Equipment Upgrades – Screens Conveyors FY 2017 $15,500,000 Planning

IZ01 20-year Influent Screens Building Upgrades FY 2021 $31,648,000 Planning

Plant Sump Pumps 3.2 10.0 32.0 Moderate

OP01 Sump Pump Rehabilitation FY 2023 $1,000,000 Planning

Nitrification 9.3 3.4 31.5 Moderate

E901 ENRF FY 2011 $181,638,576 Construction

PE03 Nit Facility Gate Repairs FY 2018 $750,000 Planning

PE02 Nit Mixed Liquor Channel Air Drops and Valve Replacement FY 2018 $3,050,000 Planning

PE04 Nit Facility Concrete Repairs FY 2020 $4,000,000 Planning

LF01 Nitrification Facility 20-year rebuild FY 2022 $117,500,000 Planning

LF02 Nitrification Aeration System Upgrades FY 2022 $20,500,000 Planning

Notes:

a) Source: CIP Project List Provided by the WWTPM. b) Budget includes disbursements that may have already been made and therefore may not equal

the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document(s). c) Job includes multiple activities under the same Job ID. Therefore, the value of the total budget

provided is for an individual activity.

RWWPS = raw wastewater pump station SPB = Solids Processing Building WNS = waste nitrification sludge

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


9.3.2 Asset Systems Included in the Existing CIP that Appear to Have Drivers Other Than Risk

A total of 17 asset systems were identified as lower or lowest risk based on the top-down risk assessment. Six of these asset systems have no related CIP projects, as one might expect due to their low risk of failure. However, 11 of asset systems having lower and lowest risk do have related CIP projects as shown in Table 9-3. Such projects are likely included in the CIP to address drivers other than risk.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-3. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Addressing Non-risk Driven Asset System

Asset System Job ID(a) Job Name(a) Start Year(a) Budget ($)(a)(b) Project Status(a) COF

Score LOF

Score Risk

Score Risk

Category

Storm Water Pump Stations 5.9 4.5 26.6 Lower

FY15 – Plantwide Storm Drainage Improvements FY 2016 $4,651,050 Design

OE02 FY16-FY24 Drainage & Runoff Tasks FY 2017 $2,500,000 Planning

Primary Treatment 6.9 3.6 24.7 Lower

BQ02 Primary Treatment Facilities Phase II FY 2017 $33,836,350 Planning

J203 Upgrade Primary Treatment Equipment FY 2020 $6,000,000 Planning

I701 20-year Replacement Primary Treatment Facility FY 2021 $54,600,000 Planning

BQ03 Primary Treatment Scum Pumping FY 2022 $4,000,000 Planning

Alkalinity 4.8 4.5 21.4 Lower

PD01 Interim Lime Slurry Facility FY 2017 $600,000 Construction

PF01 Sodium Hydroxide & Lime Upgrades FY 2018 $5,000,000 Planning

Instrumentation 8.3 2.3 19.0 Lower

OK01 H2S Mitigation Implementation FY 2021 $10,000,000 Planning

Disinfection/Dechlorination 7.9 2.3 18.1 Lower

PF06 10-year Sodium Hypochlorite Building Tank & Equipment Upgrades FY 2019 $3,000,000 Planning

PF04 10-year Sodium Bisulfite Building Tank & Equipment Upgrades FY 2020 $3,000,000 Planning

BT05 Secondary Effluent Outfall Conduit Upgrades FY 2020 $3,000,000 Planning

LC01 Effluent Disinfection Upgrades FY 2026 $8,011,000 Planning

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-3. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Addressing Non-risk Driven Asset System

Asset System Job ID(a) Job Name(a) Start Year(a) Budget ($)(a)(b) Project Status(a) COF

Score LOF

Score Risk

Score Risk

Category

Dry Polymer 4.8 3.7 17.6 Lower

HL02 Process and Operation Tasks – Solids Processing Polymer Systems FY 2015 $2,500,000 Planning

Belt Press Dewatering 7.0 1.8 12.2 Lower

XZ08 Dewatered Sludge Loading Facility Conveyor Replacements FY 2018 $3,000,000 Planning

Plant Control System 9.8 1.0 9.8 Lowest

TZ10 PCS UPS Upgrade FY 2014 $2,030,586 Construction

LX01 Process Control System Upgrade FY 2018 $4,000,000 Planning

GW01 Control System Replacement FY 2022 $37,000,000 Planning

Blend Tanks 7.5 1.1 8.2 Lowest

XZ05 Blend Tanks Mixing Pumps Rehabilitation (XZ4476000) FY 2022 $1,900,000 Planning

Notes:

(a) Source: CIP Project List Provided by WWTPM.

(b) Budget includes disbursements that may have already been made and therefore may not equal the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


9.3.3 CIP Projects Not Assessed for Risk

Many of the existing CIP projects do not align with the asset systems that were identified during the top-down risk assessment. These CIP projects are listed in Table 9-4, and are grouped according to their systems (not necessarily asset systems), as defined by the WWTPM. It is recommended that DC Water consider these systems for inclusion in future risk assessments of the Blue Plains AWTP. Note that because the systems listed in Table 9-4 were not part of the top-down risk assessment, no risk score is provided for these systems.

Table 9-4. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Not Assessed for Risk

System Job ID(a) Project Name (a) Start

Year(a) Project

Status (a)(b)

Total

Budget (a)

Buildings

LS03(b) Misc. Facilities Projects - FY17/18/19 - COF Upgrades FY 2019 Planning $800,000

OQ01 Immediate Roofing Upgrades FY 2020 Planning $2,000,000

YD28 Painting of Plant Buildings FY 2020 Planning $1,800,000

OQ02 20-year Roof Replacement FY 2021 Planning $8,000,000

OI01 Painting & Signage - Buildings FY 2022 Planning $450,000

Chemical Systems

PF03 Chemical Unloading Stations Upgrades FY 2020 Planning $1,500,000

Clean Water Quality & Technology

J601 Mainstream Deammonification Project FY 2019 Planning $3,493,000

Facilities – Plantwide Systems

LS03(b) Misc. Facilities Projects - FY17/18/19 - Salt Storage Dome (LS44431000) FY 2017 Planning $100,000

OS01 Plantwide Lighting Replacement – Street/Area Lights FY 2017 Planning $3,000,000

JF01 Construction of Flood Seawall FY 2018 Planning $13,234,000

OH02 Plantwide Demolition and Removal – Instrumentation Wiring FY 2021 Planning $3,000,000

OH03 Plantwide Demolition and Removal – Misc. Equipment FY 2021 Planning $2,000,000

OH04 Plantwide Demolition and Removal – Telecommunication FY 2021 Planning $1,250,000

Information Technology

IV02(c) Plantwide Radio Tracking System FY 2017 Planning $500,000

JY01 IT - Data Center FY 2017 Construction $2,397,056

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-4. Blue Plains AWTP CIP Projects Not Assessed for Risk

System Job ID(a) Project Name (a) Start

Year(a) Project

Status (a)(b)

Total

Budget (a)

IV01 Blue Plains IT Backbone Fiber-optic Cable Tubes FY 2018 Planning $2,775,000

Resource Recovery

I300 Biosolids Blending Facility and Curing Pad FY 2017 Construction $2,500,000

OM02 Hot Water/Steam System - Plantwide FY 2017 Planning $50,000

LE00 Solids Processing Receiving Facility FY 2020 Planning $6,008,000

Security

IV02(c) Distributed Antenna System Expansion FY 2017 Planning $1,200,000

Energy Management

IU01 Solar Photovoltaic Systems - PPA FY 2017 Planning $2,500,000

ON01 Substation Grounding System FY 2018 Planning $2,000,000

ON02 Building Grounding System FY 2020 Planning $3,500,000

Notes:

(a) Provided by WWTPM.

(b) Budget includes disbursements that may have already been made and therefore may not equal the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document.

(c) Job includes multiple activities under the same Job ID. Therefore, the value of the total budget provided is for an individual activity.

PPA = Power Purchase Agreement

9.3.4 Programmatic CIP Projects

DC Water’s CIP also includes projects that are more programmatic in nature. These programmatic projects were not evaluated through the top-down risk assessment.

9.3.5 Lower and Lowest Risk Asset Systems Not Addressed by CIP Projects

Table 9-5 lists the remainder of the asset systems that were identified through the top-down risk assessment as having low and lowest risk. With respect to risk drivers, there are appropriately no projects associated with these assets in the FY 2017 – FY 2026 CIP.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-5. Asset Systems Not Addressed by CIP Projects

Asset System COF LOF Risk Score Risk Category

Dissolved Air Flotation 5.3 4.9 26.0 Lower

Fire Alarm 7.1 3.0 21.2 Lower

Methanol 9.3 1.0 9.3 Lowest

Emulsion Polymer 1.7 5.0 8.3 Lowest

Cambi THP 7.5 1.0 7.5 Lowest

Mixed Liquor Pump Station 6.6 1.0 6.6 Lowest

Sludge Screens 6.5 1.0 6.5 Lowest

Sludge Unloading 2.7 2.2 5.9 Lowest

9.3.6 Summary of CIP Project Risk Analysis

Table 9-6, Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 show the breakdown of the Blue Plains AWTP CIP projects for the FY 2017 through FY 2026 planning period by asset system and risk category. The asset systems having highest, higher, and moderate risk, taken together, represent the largest number of projects (62%), and the largest capital expenditures (83%) of the CIP budget. This spending pattern appears appropriate and consistent with the objectives of this AMP and Strategic Goal No. 8, to optimally manage infrastructure.

In recent years, DC Water has needed to respond to new regulatory requirements, resulting in additional capital spending focused on nutrient removal process upgrades and other crucial processes. This is borne out by noting that the greatest amount of recent CIP spending has been in the moderate risk category, which includes the Secondary Treatment and Denitrification asset systems.

While the total amount of CIP spending on the highest risk asset systems is relatively low compared to the other categories, this also seems appropriate given that this category covers only three asset systems (that is, Plant and Service Water, HVAC, and Centrifuge Dewatering). Seven CIP projects are currently identified for this category of risk.

One of the more notable conclusions that can be made from Table 9-6 is that 21% of CIP projects are not currently aligned with asset systems included in the top-down risk assessment. This class of asset systems includes several important “new” or “under construction” facilities, such as Wet Weather Treatment, the Cambi THP, and Combined Heat and Power. These systems were not in service when the risk assessment exercise was conducted.

This category also includes buildings, which can be easily overlooked but are important to the overall success of the operation. Overall, this indicates that more asset systems should be incorporated into future updates to the AMP and the top-down risk assessment.

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Table 9-6. Summary of Blue Plains AWTP Projects for FY 2017 – FY 2026 Planning Period by Risk Category

Category No. of Asset Systems in CIP

No. of CIP Projects

Percent of CIP Projects Budget ($)(a) Percent of

Total Budget

Highest Risk 3 7 6% $39,911,947 3%

Higher Risk 8(b) 38 35% $559,189,100 36%

Moderate Risk 8 23 21% $680,309,794 44%

Non-risk Driven 9 19 17% $188,628,986 12%

Unaligned 8 23 21% $64,057,056 4%

Total 36 110 100% $1,532,096,883 100%

Notes:

(a) Budget includes disbursements that may have already been made and therefore may not equal the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document.

(b) The newly constructed Combined Heat and Power asset system was found to have a higher risk, but not does not have an associated CIP project as performance testing is still in process.

CIP

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Figure 9-2. Blue Plains AWTP Projects FY 2017 – FY 2021 Budget by Asset System and Risk Category

Note:

(a) Budget includes disbursements that may have already been made and therefore may not equal the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document(s).

(b) Secondary Treatment includes project FG for which planning work started in FY 2013. However, construction is planned to start in November 2024. This project is intended to meet a future capacity need and is projected for FY 2027.

$19.

9

$4.9 $1

5.2

$66.

9

$12.

9

$49.

5

$76.

8 $89.

6

$29.

3

$23.

5

$51.

8

$14.

1

$7.0

$49.

5

$5.4

$168

.7

$54.

8

$189

.4

$7.2

$94.

4

$5.6 $1

0.0

$9.0

$2.5

$3.0

$6.0 $1

2.6

$1.5

$3.5

$22.

6

$6.7

$8.6

$5.5 $1

6.7

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300M

illio

n $

Highest Risk Higher Risk Moderate Risk Non Risk Driven Not Included in Risk Evaluation

9. INVESTMENT NEEDS


Figure 9-3. Blue Plains AWTP Projects FY 2022 – FY 2026 Budget by Asset System and Risk Category

Note:

Budget includes disbursements that may have already been made and therefore may not equal the budget shown in DC Water’s current capital budget document(s).

$107

.7

$51.

3

$52.

5

$1.0

$138

.0

$4.0 $8

.0

$37.

0

$1.9

$0.5

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175M

illio

n $

Higher Risk Moderate Risk Non Risk Driven Not Included in Risk Evaluation

10. IMPROVEMENT PLAN


10 Improvement Plan This section presents a concise list of recommendations for improvements based on the information presented throughout this BPAMP. The improvements are assigned to the following three categories:

1. Process and Data (P&D) improvements apply to the Authority’s planning and decision-making processes. They include revisions to existing processes as well as new processes. Refer to Table 10-1 for a list of recommended process and data improvements.

2. Renewal (REN) improvements apply to investment decisions associated with rehabilitation and replacement of assets to mitigate risk and address non-risk drivers. Refer to Table 10-2 for a list of recommended renewal improvements.

3. Inspections and Maintenance (I&M) improvements apply to field activities to extend asset service lives and improve efficiencies throughout the Blue Plains AWTP. Refer to Table 10-3 for a list of recommended I&M improvements.

Each recommended improvement has been assigned scores in three categories to provide a baseline for funding prioritization, resource allocations, and guidance on immediacy. The following categories present the relative Impact, Level of Effort (LOE), and Priority for each improvement:

1. Impact reflects the magnitude of consequence that will result from implementing the improvement. Scoring the impact of an improvement is based primarily on two factors: the timeline of implementation and the overall benefit provided by implementation, as follows:

a. Timeline: Improvements that are considered high impact are those that have the most urgency because delaying their implementation would cause significant rework or changes to other efforts.

b. The Overall Benefit: Improvements that create significant positive change are considered high impact.

2. LOE represents the expected relative amount of resources needed to implement the improvement, as well as to perform it in the future. LOE considers the complexity of planning, implementation, staffing, funding, and acquisition of software and/or assets necessary to execute the improvement and maintain future actions associated with the improvement.

3. Priority is a measure that combines Impact and LOE by multiplying the two scores to produce the Priority score. Consequently, improvements with high impact and low LOE receive the highest priority because they yield the highest benefit. Improvements with low impact and high LOE receive the lowest priority because of execution difficulties and the relatively lower benefit they yield.



Table 10-1. Process and Data Improvements

ID Title Description

Impact Level of Effort Priority/ Timeline

1 = High 2 = Moderate

3 = Low

1 = Low 2 = Moderate

3 = High

1 = High Priority/ Short Term

9 = Low Priority/ Long Term

P&D 1 Asset Management Competencies

Work with HCM to align the Authority-wide Competency Framework Initiative with the IAM Competency Framework (see Section 7 and www.theiam.org) to ensure staff of the Blue Plains AWTP has the latest knowledge and skills to effectively manage the plant’s infrastructure.

2 2 4

P&D 2 Asset Criticality Continue with criticality assessments of asset systems and their major asset groups. 1 2 2

P&D 3 Consequence and Risk of Failure

Convert asset criticality scores to COF scores using the Enterprise Risk Framework and update the calculations for the risk of failure scores for assets.

2 1 2

P&D 4 Risk Assessment of Linear Assets

Perform risk assessment of linear assets, such as process piping, yard piping, and potable water systems, including manholes, valves and other appurtenances.

2 3 6

P&D 5 Asset Hierarchy Continue with revising the Blue Plains AWTP asset hierarchy to conform to ISO 14224 (see Section 4.1 of this BPAMP). Align existing assets with the revised hierarchy within Maximo.

1 3 3

P&D 6 Job Plan Validation Utilizing maintenance analysis methods (see I&M 4), continue to validate job plans and update as needed. 2 2 4

P&D 7 Key Performance Indicator Tracking

Implement KPIs recommended by the Enterprise-wide Strategic Outcome Measures initiative. Define reporting frequencies for all KPIs and develop business processes to collect necessary data. Develop department-level performance measures to facilitate meeting KPIs and improving department-level performance.

1 2 2

P&D 8 Asset Systems Continue to ensure that all assets are aligned to asset systems and that all asset systems are included into future risk assessments. 1 1 1

P&D 9 Asset Attribute Gap Analysis

Conduct gap analysis to identify missing asset attribute data in Maximo and develop a plan to capture the missing data. 2 3 6



Table 10-1. Process and Data Improvements




3 = Low


3 = High



P&D 10 Business Case Evaluations

When developing future CIP projects, incorporate BCE process and associated tool to evaluate alternatives for addressing needs and opportunities (see BCE Guidance Manual and BCE Tool).

1 2 2

P&D 11 Project Prioritization Process

Continue using Project Prioritization process as part of annual CIP development and update (see Project Prioritization Guidance Manual). Note: Review scoring criteria and weights as needed because of changing priorities or strategic direction.

2 1 2

P&D 12 BPAMP Updates Update BPAMP periodically (recommended every 2 to 4 years) to incorporate new information, such as changes to KPIs and PIs, AM competencies, and new assets and their attributes.

2 3 6



Table 10-2. Renewal Improvements




3 = Low


3 = High



REN 1 CIP Alignment with High Risk Assets

Ensure the annual CIP update process includes a review of assets identified as having a “Highest” and “Higher” risk of failure. If such assets are not covered in risk mitigation projects already included in the CIP, consider adding.

1 1 1

REN 2 Asset Lifecycle Cost Tracking

Continue recording maintenance labor, materials, and outside contractor costs, by asset, in Maximo to facilitate future decision-making on repair versus renewal using the BCE process.

2 3 6

REN 3 CIP Project Requests When developing requests for new CIP projects include specific reference to the asset systems and individual asset(s) being rehabilitated or replaced.

1 1 1

REN 4 Annual Renewal Fund

Annually budget approximately 3.85% of the total estimated replacement cost of the Blue Plains AWTP to fund projects that will rehabilitate or replace assets. This amount may be disbursed or placed into a reserve fund for renewal.

2 3 6



Table 10-3. Inspections and Maintenance Improvements




3 = Low


3 = High



I&M 1 Condition Assessment Plan

Develop a prioritized plan for assessing the condition of assets using the results of the criticality assessment. 2 2 4

I&M 2 Condition Assessments

Conduct condition assessments of assets in accordance with prioritized plan. 2 3 6

I&M 3 Remaining Service Life Update the remaining service life of assets based upon the condition assessment results by following the IIMM guidance provided in Section 4.5 of this BPAMP.

2 2 4

I&M 4 Maintenance Analysis Apply maintenance analysis methods (e.g., defect elimination, PM optimization, maintenance task analysis, failure mode and effects analysis, RCM) as appropriate to the asset and the asset’s COF.

1 3 3

11. REFERENCES


11 References AACE International (AACE). 2012. Cost Estimate Classification System. Recommended Practice.

Publication No. 56R-08. Rev. December 2012.

AECOM. 2015a. Aerial Photograph Showing Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant.

AECOM. 2015b. DC Water Agenda of the Environmental Quality and Sewerage Services Committee.

AECOM. 2016. 2016 Facilities Plan Update. May.

AECOM DC Water’s Wastewater Treatment Program Manager. 2016. Data provided by email. August 9. 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2011. Failure to Act, The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Water and Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure.

CH2M HILL (CH2M). 2015a. Strategic Asset Management Plan (Strategic AMP).

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1983. Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Available online at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12512.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2016. December 9.

Construction Specification Institute. 1995. MasterFormat 1995 Specification Divisions.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). DC Water Website, Accessed August 2, 2016: https://www.dcwater.com/about/gen information.cfm

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). DC Water Website, Accessed August 2, 2016: https://www.dcwater.com/news/publications/Blue_Plains_Plant_brochure.pdf

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). Annual. DC Water Operating Budgets, FY 2010 – FY 2017.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). Annual. Capital Budgets, FY 2007 – FY 2017 and OCFO.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2012a. DC Water – Blue Plains Commissioning Requirements. July 23.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2013. Blue Horizon 2020 Strategic Plan.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2015a. DC Water Approved FY 2017 Budgets. Adopted December 3, 2015.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2015b. DC Water Strategic Asset Management Plan.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2015c. DC Water Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Fiscal Years 2006 – 2015. Reports published annually.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2015d. DC Water 211th Meeting of the Board of Directors. July 2.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12512.pdf

https://www.dcwater.com/about/gen%20information.cfm

https://www.dcwater.com/news/publications/Blue_Plains_Plant_brochure.pdf

11. REFERENCES


District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2016a. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2015 and 2014.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). 2016b. DC Water 222nd Meeting of the Board of Directors. July 7.

Institute of Asset Management (IAM). 2014. IAM Asset Management Competence Requirements Framework.

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia. 2011. International Infrastructure Management Manual, 4th Edition (IIMM).

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia. 2015. International Infrastructure Management Manual, 5th edition (IIMM).

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006. ISO Standard for Asset Hierarchies.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2014. Asset management — Management Systems — Requirements. ISO 55001.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 2013. Blue Plains Service Area (BPSA) Long-term Planning Study 2013 Update.

U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 2010. Consumer Price Index for Washington, DC – Baltimore. March.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, American Public Works Association, American Water Works Association, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, National Association of Water Companies, Water Environment Federation. 2008. Effective Utility Management: A Primer for Water and Wastewater Utilities. Washington, D.C.: EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Innovative Internal Camera Inspection and Data Management for Effective Condition Assessment of Collection Systems, EPA/600/R-10/082. April.

blue plains awtp asset management plan - …...am program key performance indicators for initial...

Documents