Agenda Item 5 - SFPUC AWSS Presentation

Transcription

AWSS 2010 ESER Bond
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Capital Planning Committee Meeting
December 17, 2012
San Francisco Water Power Sewer
AECOM-AGS, a joint venture
AECOM/AGS
1
Agenda
• Reliability Modeling and Selection of LOS
• Development of Projects and Program
Alternatives
• Criteria and Selection of Preferred Alternative
AECOM/AGS CS-199 AWSS Facilities
Preliminary Options Study
2
Planning Study Objectives
• Planning Study for the Auxiliary Water Supply
System (AWSS) pipelines, controls, seawater
intake tunnels and cisterns.
• Critical Goal: To maximize the likelihood that
AWSS will effectively provide required firefighting
capabilities after a major seismic event
• Assessing existing system capabilities
• Preparing alternatives to increase AWSS Reliability
3
Existing AWSS
AECOM/AGS CS-199 AWSS
Facilities Preliminary Options Study
4
Fire Response Areas (FRA)
• Based on SFFD
engine response
areas
• Modified in the
downtown area to
capture density of
AWSS
• 46 FRAs in total
5
Fire Demand Assumptions
• Based on median ground motions from a M7.8
Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault
• Applied probabilistic “fire demands” to AWSS system
(Scawthorn Monte Carlo analysis)
• 60 minute demands were chosen based on SFFD and
CDD response times, they provide a “hard test” and
reflect the aftermath of a major earthquake event
6
Reliability Scoring
Serviceability: Percentage of demand met by the supply
• Each FRA’s reliability is its serviceability (i.e., sum of
water supplies in the FRA divided by the demand in the
FRA)
• The citywide reliability score is the average of the FRA
serviceabilities
7
Reliability Modeling Assumptions
• Assumes no MWSS hydrant use during the first
60 minutes following the earthquake
• Applies reliability factor to all facilities (pump
stations, tanks, pipelines)
• Assumes existing facilities and pipelines
maintained and perform as intended
• PWSS use is tracked
8
Observations on Existing AWSS
• Pipe condition not well known
• Hydraulics and supply limited to meet demands
• Twin Peaks Zone has insufficient pressure due to high
elevation
• Islais Creek and Avenue areas are only fed by one line
• Dead ends in some zones limit delivery
• Three infirm zones are not isolated by seismic valves and loss
due to pipe leaks and breaks after the earthquake is significant.
High number of leaks makes lower zone ineffective.
• 9 of 46 FRAs not currently connected to HPS
• 10 of the FRAs have reliability <15%
• Maintenance, planning and emergency response issues have
been brought to SFPUC’s attention
9
Existing Condition (HPS, Cistern, Suction
Connections and Alt. Sources
Citywide Reliability
Score is 47%
10
Previous Direction from Steering
Committee
• More important to bring low reliability FRAs up
than seek a high citywide score (i.e. equity
important)
• Use WSIP strengthened facilities as much as
possible
Different projects were developed and then
packaged into 3 alternative programs that
each meet a minimum of 50% reliability per FRA
11
LOS Objectives
Recommended Objectives:
•
•
AWSS will be 75% reliable in supplying probable
demands Citywide by 20XX
Each fire response area will be 50% reliable in
supplying probable demands by 20XX.
Current Condition
•
•
47% reliability score citywide and
7 fire response areas are less than 10% reliable
12
Alternative Programs
Future Bonds
2010 Bond
Project
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Project Name
Motorization and Addition of Seismic Switches on Gate Valves
4th Street Hose
PS1 Tunnel Upgrade
Twin Peaks Outlet Connection
Jones St Tank Bypass Valves
Repair Suction Connections
SCADA Improvements
Fireboat Manifold Rehabilitation & Replacement
Pipeline Investigation and Repairs
Sutro Connection and PS
Reliability Upgrades at Facilities
Cistern Expansion Phase 1-3 (90+/-)
Cistern Expansion Phase 4-6 (350+/-)
South Side Supply Alternative 1
South Extension Pipeline
Southeast Extension Pipeline 1
Southeast Extension Pipeline 2
Lake Merced Pump Station
West Extension Pipeline
West Extension Rezoning Pipeline
Northwest Extension Pipeline
Southeast Supply
Southwest Supply
New Bay Suction Connections
Pipeline Replacement Program Phase 1
Pipeline Replacement Program Phase 2
Priority
Alt A
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Priority Priority
Alt B
Alt C
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
13
Citywide AWSS Reliable Water Supply
(in gpm) by Source
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Source
Existing
High pressure
System
17,870
57,940
63,187
23,566
Cisterns
Suction
Connections
Alternative
Water
16,870
30,020
28,695
49,835
423
1,044
1,044
1,256
1,530
1,530
1,530
1,530
Total
Citywide
Serviceability 1
Citywide
Reliability 2
36,693
90,534
94,456
76,186
41%
101%
106%
85%
47
91
92
80
1. Uncapped total supply divided by total demand 2. Average of FRA serviceability (capped at 100%)
High Pressure System provides a minimum of 20 PSI pressure
vs. atmospheric pressure for other sources
14
Modeling Results % Reliability
Contributions by Source
65%
67%
31%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2%
30%
64%
1%
33%
1%
2%
2%
2%
15
Existing Condition (HPS, Cistern, Suction
Connections and Alt. Sources
Score is 47%
16
Delivery Reliability (Preliminary) for
2010 Bond including Sutro Connection
Score is 67%
17
Total Delivery Reliability – Alternative A
Score is 91%
18
Total Delivery Reliability –Alternative B
Score is 92%
19
Total Delivery Reliability –Alternative C
Score is 80%
20
Approximated Citywide Reliability
Potential Bond Tier Citywide
Performance Levels
100
90
80
70
60
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
50
40
30
20
10
0
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
Costs, millions (includes1.5 miles/yr pipe replacement costs)
21
Task 9 Alternatives Analysis – Criteria
(Analysis per PD 2.02)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water Supply Reliability Score
Capital Cost/Life Cycle Costs
Operation and Maintenance
Schedule
Fire Fighting Resources and Deployment Time
Insurance Premiums Benefits
Environmental/Community Impacts
AECOM/AGS
22
2012 Dollars
Midpoint of Constr.
Capital Cost/Life Cycle Costs
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Soft Cost
$127,907,659
$123,988,909
$160,142,373
Construction Cost
$665,119,827
$644,742,327
$832,740,337
Program Capital
Cost
$793,027,486
$768,731,236
$992,882,710
Annual Operations
and Maintenance
Cost (New Assets)
$284,586
$293,209
$361,266
Net Present Value
(New Assets)
$657,736,004
$647,166,696
$733,721,014
Assumptions added in NPV Calculation:
NPV Discount rate = 4.0%
Construction Escalation = 3%
Soft Cost Escalation = 3%
Pipeline Maintenance cost = 0.5% per annum of Mechanical/Electrical estimate
Pump Station Maintenance Cost = 1.5% per annum of Mechanical/Electrical estimate
23
Program Schedules
•Alternative A and B each completed by 2034
•Alternative C completed by 2046
24
Next Steps for Planning Study
• Incorporating comments on Draft Report and TMs
• Supplemental Geotechnical and Materials
Testing underway
• February 2013 Final Report Completion date
25
Physical Plant (Core Facilities)
•
•
•
•
Twin Peaks Reservoir: Replace fence and valves
Ashbury Tank: Install new tank
Jones Street Tank: Reinforce tank foundation
General: Modify pipe at each site as needed
• Pumping Station 1
• Pumping Station 2
26
Cisterns – Repair
27
Cisterns – New
Construction start
Contract A ~ 7/1/2013
Contract B ~ 9/1/2013
Contract C ~ 12/1/2013
28
AWSS Schedule
Project
Jones Street Tank
Ashbury Heights Tank
Twin Peaks Reservoir
Pumping Station 1
Pumping Station 2
Cisterns
Pipelines and Tunnels
Planning Study
Start
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
Finish
2011 October 2015
2011 October 2015
2011 October 2015
2011
April 2015
2011 September 2016
2011
April 2017
2011 September 2018
2011 November 2013
29

Agenda Item 5 - SFPUC AWSS Presentation

Transcription

Similar documents

news release - City of San Bernardino

ags smarf - Kongsberg

Website: www.forru.org

May2709 FWEA Mtg Mins

LGSTX Distribution Services, Inc. (LDS) Benefits

Empalme Gas Pipeline Branch

Table of Contents

July 2015 Newsletter - Alcester Grammar School

Project Report - San Francisco Public Utilities Commission