Q.1  <1273501–Amandeep Attri – F1 – Sumit Tyagi – MBA  F2 >.  http://youtu.be/nVt4aZvQ0nI

Q.2  <1273578 Amandeep Attri, F1, Q 3 – Comment on Deteriorating distribution structure ?

Introduction:

The findings of several prominent studies forecasting capital investment needs for water systems has brought the subject of buried infrastructure asset management to the forefront of priority issues facing the water industry. The capital investment focus of these studies and numerous other published articles has overshadowed any discussion or concern of the potential health risks associated with deteriorating distribution systems. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in an effort to assess the need for regulatory action, has directed preparation of several White Papers (including this paper) to address health risks related to specific water distribution system topics. The characteristics of deteriorating water distribution systems include the increased frequency of leaks, main breaks, taste, odor and red water complaints, reduced hydraulic capacity due to internal pipe corrosion, and increased disinfectant demands due to the presence of corrosion products, biofilms, and regrowth. Each of these conditions presents the potential for water quality degradation, and the specific causes, health risks and mitigation strategies are appropriately being addressed by individual White Papers dedicated to these topics.

 

Discussion:

These broader challenges associated with buried infrastructure include establishing a means for monitoring and measuring all impacts associated with deteriorating water systems and their relative importance, State and Federal subsidies will likely be unavailable or insufficient to fully address this issue, and the needed capital funds will be limited by increasing demands to keep water rates affordable. Investment in buried infrastructure will also be in direct competition with other more visible and regulatory driven infrastructure needs. Historically, buried infrastructure investment, absent regulatory compliance directives, or gross system failures, have been subordinate to regulatory driven investment or capital needs associated with more highly visible projects. The competition for capital funds is made more difficult when a comparison of “direct” costs of repair versus rehabilitation or replacement almost always favors continuing to repair a deteriorated water main. Therefore, a utility must measure and present credible evidence of the indirect costs and impacts associated with poorly performing systems including service interruptions, community disturbance, and health risks in order to support the need for capital investment.

Conclusions:

a. The industry’s assessment of buried infrastructure needs appears to be reasonable although      health risks have not factored into the analysis to date.

b. Utilities have begun addressing the issue, although primarily with a reactive approach. A pro-active, uniform, and systematic approach would be more efficient. The current level of investment may be inadequate.

c. Direct costs (repair vs. replace) will not drive the decision making process. Health risks, commercial and service impacts must be considered. The appropriate time to replace or rehabilitate a main is when it stops providing the level of service that is expected of it.

d. Operational strategies, rehabilitation technologies, and preventative technologies have merit and should be considered in the decision making process.

e. Broad based assessment methods are useful planning tools but are not adequate to use as a management tool.

f. A performance based management plan is valuable, and integration with operations and information management strategies is essential.

g. A prudent and systematic management process will better serve a utility in the support of capital investment needed to properly replace or rehabilitate distribution systems.

h. “Knowing your system” and organizing the data is the first and most critical step in any buried infrastructure management approach.

i. Training and education of personnel regarding technical issues associated with buried infrastructure is critical. Specifically, the technical content would include hydraulic transients, pipe failure mechanisms, operational strategies for reducing or eliminating pipe failures, pipe rehabilitation techniques, and corrosion control.