|
|
Stormwater Flow Reduction and Demand Management
|
|
Phase I: Demand
Management in Downtown CSO Basins
|
To identify and evaluate,
using asset management principles and processes, strategies to reduce
stormwater flows, or moderate combined sewer flows into SPU infrastructure; and
to provide recommendations for both general citywide application and basin
specific applications.
Phase 1 will focus identifying
promising stormwater and wastewater strategies, on rigorous analysis of
existing information and studies, evaluation of green roofs in use in the City
of Seattle (effectiveness appears to vary based on quality and quantify of
rainfall), and initial recommendations for the downtown waterfront combined
sewer basin - of which, if any, strategies will be effective in reducing or
deferring participation by SPU in a future combined sewer overflow treatment
plan planned by King County to deal with combined sewer overflows at Royal
Brougham.
SPU and the City have a long
and successful track record in pursuing innovative strategies to manage and
reduce demand on our utility systems. The water, solid waste and electric
utilities have all developed and implemented programs that focus on activities
at the parcel scale, either through investments targeted at modifying customer
behavior or through the installation of equipment in homes or commercial
businesses that reduces the use of resources or generation of waste. These
strategies are often referred to interchangeably as “distributed”,
“decentralized”, “customer-based” or “demand management” strategies.
Over the past several years
SPU has applied aspects of these types of strategies within the drainage and
wastewater utilities. SEA Streets, Highpoint, Fremont Raincatchers and the
establishment of an LID group in SPU all demonstrate the emerging interest and
commitment to pilot and implement alternative approaches to meet our drainage
and wastewater objectives. To varying degrees, the goals of these efforts
could be viewed as reducing the demand on the utilities’ infrastructure to
convey, store or detain stormwater, emphasizing source control, and reducing
the need to add “capacity” to the system through traditional brick and mortar
infrastructure.
Demand Management Phase 1
will include an identification of possible demand management techniques
relevant to the four primary types of drainage basins in Seattle:
creek watersheds, small lake watersheds, combined sewer basins, and partially
separated basins. This phase will also include a broad brush evaluation of the
performance and cost-effectiveness of the techniques, identification of
performance gaps and research and/or pilot projects necessary to fill those
gaps, potential prioritized recommendations for basin specific prioritized
recommendations for immediate application to a the downtown combined sewer
basin.
The first basin to be
focused on as part of the Demand Management project is the downtown combined
sewer basin area that flows into the 4 downtown combined sewer overflow
outfalls (see attached map). This area was selected due to the important and
immediate need associated with controlling the downtown combined sewer
overflows. Control of these overflows is necessary to reduce or defer
participation in a future combined sewer treatment plant planned by King County in
the Royal Brougham area. While this plant is planned for 2020s, it will take time
for any the implementation of strategies to have an effect, especially low
impact development strategies. In addition, there is an immediate need to
understand what strategies would be effective in the downtown core in order to
determine how best to rebuild the backbone combined sewer system infrastructure
and combined sewer overflow outfalls located in the Alaskan Way Viaduct and
Seawall Replacement Project area. SPU will be also be preparing an overall CSO
control plan in late 2007 which must include a plan to manage the downtown
combined sewer overflows and the strategies to reduce surface water flows into
the system. The first phase of this effort is basin specific will focus on the
combined sewer basin which includes the four downtown CSO outfalls. This area
is characterized primarily by zero lot line development and dense commercial or
multi-family buildings. A draft map is attached, but will be subject to change
as SPU develops a better understanding of the basin area of interest.
Phase 1 will answer the
question “can the use of demand management techniques contribute to the
reduction of combined sewer overflows in downtown combined sewer overflow
outfalls? If so, which strategies will be most effective?
Project specification will
be provided by the Utility System Management (USM) branch and will include
multiple lines of business (i.e. surface water and wastewater). SPU’s Science,
Sustainability, and Watershed Branch will be the lead service provider.
In addition, there are
other major projects in the same basin area whose impacts must also be taken
into account, including the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Project, the Colman
Ferry Terminal Replacement Project, and potential impacts from the “Bridging
the Gap” vote which passed recently.
Part of the Phase 1 Demand
Management will be based on combined sewer monitoring data and models under
development by the Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project will
include substantial coordination and sharing of work products between staff.
Table 1. Project Team
Roles
|
Team Member
|
Role
|
|
|
Paul Fleming
|
Lead Service Provider,
Science & Sustainability
|
|
|
Tracy Tackett
|
Project Specifier, Surface
Water
|
|
|
Andrew Lee
|
Project Specifier,
Wastewater
|
|
|
Ann Good
|
Project Specifier, MIP
business area & AWVSRP liaison
|
|
|
Sally Marquis
|
Surface Water Line of
Business Director, lead for both wastewater and surface water on this project
|
|
|
Scott Haskins
|
Executive Sponsor
|
|
|
Other staff
|
as needed
|
|
|
Consultants
|
as needed
|
|
|
MKA
|
Greenroof Retrofit
Potential Assessment, under DM contract
|
|
|
Taylor Associates
|
Greenroof Monitoring,
under DM contract
|
|
|
Black & Vetch
|
Modeling, under AWVSRP contract
|
|
|
Tetratech
|
CSO Monitoring and
data/basin analysis, under AWVSRP contract
|
|
AWVSRP – Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement
Project DM – Demand Management
The Wastewater LOB tasks
related to Demand Management include two areas. The two wastewater demand
management areas are (1) strategies on private property and (2) strategies focused
on system efficiencies within SPU’s combined sewer system and system
efficiencies that could be achieved when looking at the combined and
hydraulically linked King County and SPU combined sewer systems.
(1)
The first area of strategies include wastewater efficiency strategies on private
property and include concepts such as (a) improving the maintenance and
cleanout of existing private detention facilities in the downtown core, (b)
creating more efficiency in orifice controls for downtown detention facilities
which may impact future redevelopment or retrofit existing buildings, and (c)
more efficient management of when downtown detention facilities flow into the
SPU’s combined sewer system, or other measures to improve the efficiency of
private combined sewer and wastewater systems. The evaluation of these
strategies is anticipated to be part of phase 1 of the Demand Management
project.
(2) The second area of
strategies includes the evaluation of system efficiencies within the SPU
combined sewer system and between SPU and King County’s combined sewer systems. This area includes
concepts such as (a) replumbing portions of the downtown core that are
currently separated but then connected to the combined system, (b) efficiency
measures such as catch basin and pipe cleaning to improve system efficiency
and/or capacity and (c) system efficiencies including flow slipping or flow
swapping to improve how the overall hydraulically linked combined sewer system
with King County works. The wastewater line of business will evaluate these
options in the next phase (Phase 2) of this project.
In addition, there is
baseline information concerning the basin of interest that will need to be
refined in order to evaluate both the wastewater strategies as well as the
surface water strategies. The geographic area identification work and the
baseline modeling work are outlined below in Task 1.
The wastewater Line of
Business area will provide lead direction on the 2 tasks in Phase 1 of Demand
Management - (1) geographic area identification and baseline model development,
and (2) evaluation of wastewater efficiency strategies on private property.
The system efficiency evaluation effort will be part of a future Phase 2 and
will take place over a longer period of time.
Objective: Identify the geographic area of interest for reducing combined sewer
overflows along the downtown waterfront and develop a downtown CSO overflow
hydraulic basin model. This task should ensure that the baseline model will be
consistent with the hydraulic model used for the other projects in the demand
management basin of interest (i.e. Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement
Project, the Colman Ferry Terminal Replacement Project, etc.). The baseline
model will incorporate and build on the Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall
Replacement project modeling effort and will be partially or wholly funded
under the AWVSRP project. Approximately $50,000 is included in the Demand
Management scope to pay work that is not directly related to the AWVSRP.
The base model will be used
to model the effectiveness of both wastewater and surface water strategies for
controlling or reducing the frequency of CSOs.
AWVSRP participation will
include AWVSRP team members working to identify the frequency and quantity of
overflows via monitoring. The AWVSRP team will continue with detailed model
updates, expanding the model to the full downtown basin, and calibration to
correlate the monitoring data. A sensitivity analysis with respect to climate
change will be included.
Once the baseline model
primarily developed by the AWVSRP is developed, it will be expand it as
necessary, resolve methodology issues, enhance it, and complete model runs
necessary to evaluate both the stormwater and wastewater demand management
strategies as applied to the downtown combined sewer basin. Both surface water
and wastewater may require model enhancements in order to evaluation strategies
in their respective area.
Staff will
1)
Identify the geographic area of
interest
2)
Develop an understanding of
overflow problems via briefings from AWV team
3)
Establish baseline model
4)
Coordinate with AWVSRP staff
& modeling team to ensure the baseline modeling is consistent
Staff:
USM lead staff, other staff as
needed
Roles &
Responsibilities:
USM-WW LOB will be
responsible for specifying the work associated with refining the CSO model. Additional
modeling work will be done internally or externally depending on need and
resources available. If there are reasons why the AWVSRP baseline modeling team
disagrees with the demand management recommended hydrology methodology the
issue will be elevated to Ann Good, Tracy Tackett and Neil Thibert for
resolution.
Deliverables:
(a) Description of the
geographic area of interest
(b) Description of nature of
the CSO overflows that must be controlled based on monitoring data
(c) Well developed hydraulic
model consistent with the model in use for the AWVSRP.
5)
Enhanced model with ability to
model demand management strategies
6)
Calibrated model
Estimated Cost &
Timeline:
$50,000 (remainder of
costs will be borne by AWVSRP project)
4Q 2007
Objective: To evaluate ways to improve the efficiency of
existing detention facilities on private property or to improve the efficiency
of future detention facilities on private property in order to reduce combined
sewer overflows.
This task will include
identifying ways to operate existing and/or future private detention facilities
in order to reduce combined sewer overflows. One example of a potential
strategy would be to sample existing downtown detention facilities (present in
buildings built after 1979) in order to understand how much capacity is left, what
the general level of maintenance has been, and how efficiently these detention
facilities are operating at today. Another example of a potential strategy
would to gain an understanding of whether detention tanks in existing buildings
could be retrofitted with different orifices to better control flow offsite and
thereby contributing to the reduction of CSOs. Another example of a strategy
might be to model the effects of future commercial buildings pumping out their
detention facilities at night (to ‘smooth’ the timing of the flows into the
combined sewer system in the downtown core. These efforts may require field
reconnaissance, including inspection or review of existing downtown detention
vaults to determine how many are functional, what their current orifice sizes
are and how much it would cost to retrofit them. It is likely that additional
work on identifying promising strategies for application on private property
will also occur in Phase 2 of the Demand Management Project
Staff:
USM, SSW, Field Operations
staff as needed
Roles &
Responsibilities:
USM-WW LOB (Neil Thibert)
will serve as the lead. Participation from multiple branches will be needed
and roles and responsibilities will be developed tailored to the individual
strategy that is under review.
Deliverables:
1)
Table identifying # of potential
private property wastewater efficiency strategies
2)
Potential monitoring and/or
sampling data
3)
Model results demonstrating the
reduction of CSO’s
Estimated Cost &
Timeline:
$100,000
2Q 2008
The Surface Water LOB
tasks related to demand management include 5 tasks. The 5 stormwater demand
management tasks are (1) identification of promising stormwater strategies for
evaluation, (2) green roof monitoring results, (3) evaluation &
recommendation concerning a green roof retrofit pilot project proposal (4)
additional substantial model development for evaluation of stormwater
strategies, and (5) prioritized list of recommended strategies for initial application
in downtown CSO basin area (if any).
Objective: Identify promising stormwater strategies for evaluation in reducing
stormwater flows into SPU infrastructure (primary focus is on reducing flows to
wastewater infrastructure. In addition, key information gaps and suggested
ways of addressing these will be identified.
The list or promising
stormwater strategies include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Cisterns
- Bioretention (additional
research being conducted now or contemplated is described in Task IV and
below)
- Green roofs (additional
research being conducted now or contemplated is described in Task IV and
below)
- Infiltration trench
- Porous pavement
- Tree box treatments
- Bioretention w/out
infiltration (lined system)
- Trees
- Compost amended soils w/
roof dispersion
- Other
The techniques may be
evaluated based on their performance in the following attributes:
- Infiltration
- evaporation
- ET
- Interception
- Conveyance
- Detention
- Retention
- Reuse
A qualitative description
will be provided for each technique which will include to what degree it
addresses average quantity or quality effects (primarily drawn from existing
literature), what risks are associated with each technique, what benefits
besides quantity and quality benefits its use would generate, the degree to
which the technique relies on engineering fixed, behavioral change or both, and
any policy/legal/financial issues associated with utilizing the technique. In
addition, this work will include identification of important information gaps
and suggested ways to deal with these gaps.
The information provided
should allow Asset Management Committee to review and approve concept. PDP #1
will be completed and presented to AMC for approval at the end of Phase 1 and
will include a recommendation on which initial strategies should be moved
forward, which information gaps should be addressed, and what next steps should
be taken.
Staff:
USM and SSW staff
Roles &
Responsibilities:
USM will act as the
specifier, SSW will be the lead service provider.
Deliverables:
1) Table of promising stormwater strategies
showing average effects, risks, benefits, reliance on behavior changes, policy/legal/financial
issues.. Separate tables will be created general type of basin area including
(1) combined sewer areas (2) partially separated areas (3) creek watersheds and
(4) small lake watersheds.
2) Prioritized list of important information
gaps and suggested means of addressing these.
Estimated Cost &
Timeline:
$75,000
2Q 2008
Task 4.
Demand Management Toolkit Development: Green Roof Monitoring Results
Objective: Analysis and report on performance data from
green roofs in Seattle and continuation of the current monitoring. SPU
began monitoring 2 green roofs in 2006. The two green roofs are the new roof
at the Ballard Library and the new green roof at the Woodland Park Zoo.
These roofs were planted about 1 year ago. SPU will evaluate the initial
monitoring results and compare those to what is reported in the data. SPU
expects the monitoring results to be more information as these green roofs
mature. The work is already under contract.
Staff:
USM specifier and SSW
service providers
Roles
& Responsibilities:
SSW-USD (Dick Lilly) is
managing the consultant contract with Tracy Tackett providing specification.
There will be involvement by additional staff as monitoring results are
analyzed and the report prepared.
Deliverables:
1)
Green roof monitoring data.
2)
Analysis and report on the
performance and expected effects on stormwater runoff utilizing both existing
monitoring data, reports from the literature
Estimated
Cost & Timeline:
$100,000
4Q 2008
Objective: To determine what type of buildings would most
likely provide sufficient structural integrity to support the addition of a
green roof that could reduce demand on SPU’s infrastructure to convey, store or
detain stormwater, add capacity to the system and provide ancillary benefits to
the community.
This task is directly
related to Task 3 but is identified separately because it represents ongoing
work that this effort will rely on in the development of the demand management
toolkit. This task will rely on work that will be completed by MKA to help SPU
in better understanding the potential to retrofit existing buildings with green
roofs to increase the onsite retention of stormwater. It is anticipated that
this work will:
1)
Identify the types of building
frames (e.g. cement, steel, wood, etc.) and rooftops that would be the best
candidates for being able to support the addition of a retrofitted green roof
2)
Identify the type of green roof
for optimal retrofitting (there are at least 8 different types of systems
currently available)
3)
Develop more detailed costs
estimates for installation and monitoring of a retrofitted green roof
Staff:
USM, SSW, other staff as
needed.
Roles &
Responsibilities:
Tracy Tackett, USM will act
as the specifier, SSW will act as the service provider.
Deliverables:
1). An engineering memorandum identifying which
roof types would most likely serve as the best candidates for a green roof
retrofit including a checklist of structural features required to fit the
associated category;
2). An analysis of eight green roof systems with
a recommendation for which ones provide the greatest stormwater detention
benefit.
3) A cost analysis of retrofitting existing
roofs with the optimal stormwater benefit green roof system, showing cost
variation dependant on structural features.
Estimated Cost &
Timeline:
$100,000 technical
memoranda and supporting analysis,
2Q 2008
Task 6. Demand Management Toolkit Development: Modeling –
Methodology, and Enhancements,
Objective: To standardize modeling methodology for use by
this project, as well as any other public or private project evaluating use of demand
management tools for stormwater detention credit.
A modeling methodology has
been proposed by USM-LID program manager using Western Washington Hydrologic
Model v3 (WWHMv3) as developed by Clear Creek Solutions (CCS). Initial
development of the greenroof modeling methodology has been conducted. Modeling
methodology for the other demand management tools will need to be developed
through this task.
The greenroof modeling
methodology was calibrated using two data sets from Portland BES demonstration
sites and will require evaluation and comparison to other methodologies and
monitoring data sets and potential modification by SPU for use in the Demand
Management Model. This task is to have internal and external review of the
proposed methodology and make changes as necessary:
Staff:
USM, SSW, other staff as
needed
Roles &
Responsibilities:
Tracy Tackett USM will act
as specifier. Paul Fleming from SSW is lead service provider for this task and
USM-WW LOB (Nian She) will serve as technical modeling lead. Other technical
staff will be involved as needed.
Deliverables:
1)
Enhanced modeling methodology with
ability to model green roofs and bioretention
2)
Memo from CCS summarizing
Greenroof and bioretention modeling methodology.
3)
Modeling methodology for other
prioritized demand management tools
Estimated Cost &
Timeline:
$50,000
Deliverable 1&2, 3Q
2007
Deliverable 3, 4Q 2007
Task 7. Demand Management Toolkit Development: Evaluation
and Recommendation for Strategies to Pursue in Downtown Basin
Objectives:
Evaluation of stormwater and wastewater
strategies in removing or reducing stormwater flows to the combined sewer
system. Modeling will include individual strategy evaluation and the
evaluation of multiple strategy applications to determine effectiveness singly
or in groups. Modeling will be executed on the model developed in Task 1. Modeling
will also include a sensitivity analysis on climate change.
The recommendations and
analysis are intended to be reported out to AMC in a PDP #1. Phase 2 is
expected to include implementation of some recommendations for the downtown
waterfront base, continued green roof monitoring (to collect 5 years of data), future
work in wastewater efficiency area, and additional work in the surface water
area.
Staff: USM, SSW, ES, and other staff as needed, may include
consultant work
Roles &
Responsibilities:
Tracy Tackett USM will act
as specifier. AWVSRP and Wastewater specifier coordination will be important
to the model development. Paul Fleming from SSW is lead service provider for this
task and USM-WW LOB (Nian She) will serve as technical modeling lead, Other
technical staff will be involved as needed.
Deliverables:
1)
Modeling of individual and
multiple stormwater strategies to reduce flows
2)
Identification of information
gaps and prioritized recommendation of which gaps to fill
3)
Prioritized list of recommended
strategies for initial application citywide (if any) and prioritized list of
strategies for application in downtown CSO basin area (if any).
4)
Peer Review of analysis and
prioritized list of recommended strategies
5)
Recommendations finalized and PDP
2 developed and presented to AMC for recommendation approval
Estimated Cost &
Timeline:
$125,000
2Q 2008
Objective: To provide linkages to related projects and
ongoing communication to relevant staff.
While the initial focus of
this effort will be downtown CSO basins, the work is intended to feed into and
incorporate information from other ongoing or not yet launched efforts. These
efforts include:
o
AWVSRP, Colman Ferry Dock Project,
impacts of “bridging the gap” vote on transportation projects in the area
o
Stormwater code update
o
Ongoing pilot projects (e.g. Lakewood
raincatchers)
o
Green Roof monitoring program
(City of Seattle and MKA)
o
Water Quality evaluation
framework
o
Creek Prioritization for flow
control (Keith Kurko)
o
DPD’s Livable South Downtown
project (Steve Moddemeyer)
The Demand Management Team
will be responsible for communicating and coordinating with staff involved in
these, and other relevant efforts, about the progress of the Demand Management
Study.
Staff:
tbd
Deliverables:
Insure good communication
with these efforts and incorporation of relevant information from these efforts
into this study and vice versa
Timeline:
Ongoing and coordinated with
the project schedule of the related projects and programs.
Objective: Recommend use of the existing Major Interagency
Projects Executive Advisory committee. This advisory committee is made up of
most members of SPU’s executive team and provides guidance, policy direction,
and oversight to the Major Interagency Project business area which includes the
Demand Management Project, AWVSRP, Coleman Ferry Dock, etc). This executive
advisory committee provides review and comment for all MIP projects prior to
recommendations going before AMC for approval.
Advisory Committee
Members:
Branch Executives from USM
(Scott Haskins, chair), SSW, CPP, Engineering Services, Field Operations,
Finance & Administration. The MIP Director is overall Business Area staff
lead
Deliverables:
Guidance on Major Project
Decisions, policy direction, and oversight from SPU’s Executive Team.
Timeline:
Monthly
A summary of the current
expected schedule and hours required for each task is presented below (Table 2.
Project Estimates & Schedule). This schedule will be revised as additional information becomes available. Obviously this is the next big chunk of work that needs to get done. I will need your help is estimating the time and cost for some of
these tasks.
Table 2. Project Estimates
& Schedule
|
Task:
|
Estimate
|
Due date
|
|
1) Geographic Area and
Model Development
|
$50,000
|
4Q 2007
|
|
2) Evaluation of
Wastewater Efficiency Strategies on Private Property
|
$100,000
|
2Q 2008
|
|
3) Identification of
Promising Stormwater Strategies
|
$75,000
|
2Q 2008
|
|
4) Green Roof Monitoring
Results
|
$125,000
|
2Q 2008
|
|
5) Evaluation &
Recommendation Concerning a Green Roof Retrofit Pilot Project Proposal
|
$125,000 (inc
installation)
|
2Q 2008
|
|
6) Modeling –
Methodology, Enhancements, & Runs
|
$50,000
|
4Q 2007
|
|
7) Evaluation &
Recommendations for Strategies to Pursue in Downtown Basin --
PDP #2
|
$125,000
|
2Q 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Phase 1 Total
|
$650,000
|
2Q 2008
|
* Initial estimates show
that about $50,000 of the Phase 1 work will be done in 2008, with $600,000 in
expenditures scheduled for 2007. Total expenditures to complete Phase 1 work
is expected to be $650,000. 2008 should include spending to complete the Phase
1 work and spending to begin Phase 2 work.
Program Goals
Seattle Public Utilities’
Security and Emergency Management Improvement Program is not just protecting
utility assets from terrorist threats. We are addressing security threats and
system vulnerabilities on a lower level, encountered on a day-to-day basis. We
are also improving the utility’s ability to respond to storm events and other
natural or man-made emergencies and disasters. The program provides critical
functions for citizens and businesses by:
1.
Protecting SPU’s ability to
maintain customer service levels, public health, and safety through the
delivery of critical services to citizens and wholesale customers.
2.
Reducing risk and vulnerabilities
to SPU assets, while improving survivability of critical infrastructure.
3.
Providing more effective tools to
increase response capabilities during emergency events and disasters.
2007 Scope and Budget
We are currently addressing
high priority needs through capital improvement projects that are creating
benefits for all funds. The 2007 scope and budget were presented to SPU’s Asset
Management Committee in December 2006 and have received AMC approval for the
following components.
|
Project
|
Scope
|
Benefits
|
Spending Plan
|
|
Department Operations Center (DOC) and Operations Response Center (ORC) Upgrades
Q1-Q4
|
Design, construction and
installation necessary to complete the DOC/ORC remodel and upgrades efforts.
It includes security improvements to the inside of the OCC and the purchase
of equipment and installation of audio visual components and other
technologies.
|
· Benefits all funds
· Improves SPU’s emergency and storm response
capabilities.
· Implements new technology that will be more
compatible with new City EOC.
|
$560,000
|
|
Re-keying
Q1-Q4
|
Improve old outdated key
system at SPU facilities. Implementation of a hierarchical physical key
structure, with centralized fabrication and distribution of physical keys, in
support of controlled access measures. These costs include design, project
management, equipment and hardware and installation of a new key system at
SPU facilities in all lines of business.
|
·
Use of common hardware for
facilities – benefits all funds.
·
Less expensive to maintain
cores and keys.
·
Simplified process and
increased control by centralizing the installation of cores and key distribution.
·
Decreases the likelihood of
illegal copies of keys.
|
$455,000
|
|
Integrated Security System
Improvements
Q2-Q4
|
Complete integrated
security improvements at additional SPU sites (open and covered reservoirs).
Improvements include access control system installation (card readers,
cameras, monitoring systems), fence upgrades, physical hardening of critical
infrastructure and facility gates, and improved communications systems.
|
·
Reduced risk to utility assets
·
Improved assessment,
investigation and response capabilities and standardized response for
like-type facilities.
·
Reduced risk of contamination.
·
Simplified access control
procedures
·
Higher degree of public trust
|
$1,727,000
|
|
Close out activities of
2006 Integrated Security System
Q1-Q2
|
Integration and fine
tuning of alarm and monitoring procedures, policies and training. Entering
and completion of 90-day systems acceptance test.
|
·
Final delivery and completion
of an integrated security system at 22 of the SPU’s most critical water
facilities (such as open and covered reservoirs).
|
$380,000
|
2007 Security and Emergency
Management Improvements
Project Development Plan (PDP)
December 13, 2006
Table of Contents
Background. 2
Security
Needs 2
Third Party
Analysis and Partnerships 2
Emergency
Management Response Needs 2
Program
Benefits. 2
History of
AMC Decisions. 2
Description
of Progress to Date. 2
Lessons
Learned / Improvements. 2
Program
Goals and Objectives. 2
Options. 2
Option 1 -
Do Nothing 2
Option 2 –
Selection of Contract Sites and Modest OCC Upgrades 2
Option 3 –
Remaining Contract Sites and State-of-the Art DOC Upgrades 2
Economic
Analysis. 2
Reservoir
Security Improvements – Economic Analysis. 2
Explanation of
Quantified Benefit Estimates 2
Non-quantified
Benefits 2
Emergency
Response Improvements 2
Recommendation. 2
Next Steps. 2
The Security and Emergency
Management Program at Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) focuses on reducing risks
by implementing security procedures and emergency response capabilities to
protect people, assets and the utility’s ability to provide critical services
to citizens. SPU is responsible for the maintenance and protection of
SPU-occupied buildings, properties, facilities, infrastructure and critical
life-sustaining services for citizens and business. Improving the security of our solid waste, drinking
water and wastewater infrastructures, as well as safeguarding our employees and
citizens, is a top priority for the City of Seattle and the entire nation.
SPU continues incorporating
security measures to protect against the threat of injury, loss or damage due to criminal or malicious acts. Immediately
following the world-altering events of 9/11, SPU focused on strengthening its
security program with the following initiatives:
·
Formed a Security Oversight
Committee
·
Brought issues forward to the
Joint Labor Management Committee
·
Developed a staffing plan
·
Developed security policies
·
Partnered with federal, state and
local Homeland Security agencies
·
Conducted vulnerability
assessments of our assets
·
Helped develop Risk Assessment
Methodologies with the EPA
·
Implemented security patrols and
guards
·
Engaged a consultant to guide the
development of an integrated security system
·
Developed Security Improvement
Program Phase 1 approach (targeted at SPU water facilities)
·
Secured funding and AMC approval
·
Restructured the Security and
Emergency Management Oversight Committee
·
Implemented security improvements
at 22 of SPU’s most critical facilities
Third
Party Analysis and Partnerships
SPU has based its security
and emergency management strategy on national and industry standards, and has
sought out and partnered with security and emergency management experts and
other government and regulatory agencies (see Figure 1.1). We have also secured
grant funding to conduct vulnerability assessments that meet federal
requirements and provide guidance in analyzing the utility’s risk based on a
Design Basis Threat. SPU used the findings and
recommendations from various vulnerability assessments by experts, when
designing the Security and Emergency Management Improvement Program.
The first phase of security
improvements provides increased security at some of SPU’s most strategic
assets. Other SPU-occupied facilities remain vulnerable and warrant security
improvements. A balanced approach to security within the utility is necessary
to protect the vital services that SPU delivers to customers.
Figure
1
In addition to physical
hardening of assets, the 2007 Security and Emergency Management Improvement
Program includes design and technology improvements to the Department
Operations Center (DOC) and Operations Response Center (ORC).
Relocation of the ORC and
DOC was a result of the Operations Control Center (OCC) remodel. The DOC and
ORC are currently located at the North Operations Center. Once the ORC staff moves back to the OCC, the
primary DOC will be reestablished at the OCC. This strategy is consistent with
recommendations made by TriData Corp, a consultant hired by City Council to
evaluate the city’s emergency preparedness levels. The City Auditors Office has
been tracking SPU’s progress in establishing redundant, back up DOC
capabilities. As such, funding is necessary to provide furnishings, and vital
telecommunications and audio/video equipment at the OCC. This provision allows
the existing furnishings of the ORC to remain in place at NOC, serving as a
back up to the DOC.
Improving SPU’s ability to
respond effectively to both security events and emergency incidents provides
the following benefits
1.
Improved assessment,
investigation and response capabilities
2.
Higher degree of public trust
3.
Reduced risk exposure to utility
assets
4.
Reduced risk of contamination
5.
Greater efficiency managing an
emergency event
6.
Reduction in property damage
during emergency events
7.
Simplified access control
procedures
8.
Improved access control for
visitors
- AMC approved original PDP
for Water System Security Improvements - Phase 1 (May 2005)
- AMC approved Change PDP to
reduce scope and remain within original budget (May 2006)
- Returned to AMC to provide
answers to follow up questions raised at Change PDP (July 2006)
This PDP is being presented
to the AMC for funding specific to the 2007 Security and Emergency Management
Improvements. A new Programmatic PDP for 2008-2012 Security and Emergency
Management Program will be developed and presented to AMC in early 2007.
Phase 1 has delivered
physical and organizational improvements. Physical improvements include the
hardening of specific assets, as well as installing electronic devices as
security improvements.
Physical
Hardening of specific assets includes
the replacement of specific doors and door hardware throughout the SPU Water
System to reduce access vulnerabilities. In total 72 doors.
Physical
Security Improvements include access control, electronic security devices, communications
media-wireless/fiber/wire, and cyber protection, delivered at the following
sites:
·
Lake Youngs administration building; Main, South
and Proctor Gates; Soos North and South Reservoir
·
Landsburg Dam and associated
facilities
·
Cedar River Watershed, including
Masonry Dam, 50 Access Road, Selleck, and Circle Gate gates, as well as 25 of
the Watershed’s remote gates
·
Control Works
·
North Operations Center (NOC)
·
Operations Control Center (OCC) south gates, warehouse & carpentry shop
·
In town reservoirs, including
Bitter Lake, Magnolia, Maple Leaf, Riverton, Roosevelt, West Seattle, and View
Ridge
·
Water Quality Lab
In
total, these facilities constitute 20 sites, 68 assets. Eastside Reservoir as
well as Cedar Falls Admin, Main, and 101 Gates will be completed January, 2007.
Organizational
Improvements include all features that
support the use of physical improvements effectively, enabling individuals to
respond to threats to mitigate consequences.
·
Policies and procedures have been
developed and documented in support of new security improvements
·
Information technologies have
been implemented to support access controls, policies and procedures. New and
existing tools have been developed or enhanced to deliver remote surveillance
of critical assets 24x7.
·
The utility has been surveyed in
support of 2007 re-keying efforts. A comprehensive matrix exists from which the
implementation phase can be delivered.
·
End user training was delivered
to SPU Employees.
The project team working
on Security Improvements stabilized, providing consistent resources and
continued progress on meeting deliverables. The importance of dedicated project
management and adequate staffing resources was a lesson learned during Phase 1.
The current team of knowledgeable and dedicated project management includes
external consultants and Construction Management staff. This team provides
proper supervision of the construction of physical security improvements
installed by the contractor (NetVersant). The planning strategy for future
security improvements is to retain consistent resources and knowledge. The goal
is to streamline progress in support of meeting program objectives.
Phase 1 is comprised of various Project and CIP Activities.
Some of the Security Improvement projects have multiple CIP accounts; some CIPs
are being managed by multiple project managers. Confusion in project management
over CIP funds has presented a budgetary gap in managing the program’s overall
funding. The strategy for the 2007 Security
and Emergency Management Improvement Program is to ensure that a limited number
of CIP Activities are assigned, each having a specific project manager and
appropriate Service Agreements in place.
Contract issues impacted a
number of projects within the program. The Physical Door Hardening project and
the Water System Security Improvement Project, each started construction
efforts late due to delayed negotiations and signed or approved contracts.
Delays resulted in missed coordination efforts between the projects schedules,
resulting in revised construction efforts.
While delivering completed
sites, the project team encountered obstacles along the way. Establishing the
current team has contributed to the overall success of the project, but has not
occurred without impact on SPU’s relationship with the contractor and the
project’s ability to deliver sites. The current team has focused on the
parameters of the design build contract, to ensure SPU’s contractual rights are
maintained. Budget issues impacted scope, resulting in the delivery of a change
PDP. The design builder reduced crews while SPU worked to secure the reduced
scope. In the end, this posed resource constraints that have impacted the
contractor’s ability to schedule and deliver sites at the frequency necessary
to close the project in 2006. The 90 day systems acceptance period will begin
in January, 2007.
Design efforts presented a
challenge to the Security Improvement team. Missing or insufficient design
files resulted in change order proposals necessary to establish a working
baseline for the design build contractor. Initial construction efforts
commenced without sufficient design procedures, resulting in added costs. These
efforts were quickly ceased and proper design submittal and approval measures
were implemented by SPU’s construction management team.
Procedure development was
another area that the timeline was underestimated. Moving forward, the program
will take on a smaller scope with more defined portions of work.
Building upon the
experience gained from implementing Phase 1 improvements, the project team has
more knowledge and understanding of resource management, cost estimates, and
time constraints. This experience results in more realistic estimates for
future projects and an increased confidence level in how the current program
budget is being developed. The Security and Emergency Management group has
secured additional personnel resources allocated to manage the program budget.
Additional staff has also been assigned to Cost and Scheduling responsibilities
to ensure accurate forecasting and management of financial resources.
We need to have a backup
DOC and a backup ORC operational at all times. Establishing the DOC at the North Operations Center was
necessary to establish a primary location during the OCC remodel. But, the
importance of having duplicative capacity with components that are similar to
regular operating procedures will help the utility respond to emergency events.
One example is when lightening hit a microwave phone tower on Queen Ann that
took out city phone service to north Seattle, including the NOC. Since the ORC was stationed
there, SPU was not able to receive any emergency calls from customers until a
work around solution was developed. If we had another DOC and ORC location,
staff would have the capacity to reestablish this critical function in a very
short period of time.
The ability to effectively
analyze the security risks and associated economic costs and benefits is a
challenge. The economic tools used in Phase 1 did not use the same approach for
determining the economic value of improvements as currently used by the AMC. As
we examine the needs for security improvements and emergency management
response capabilities, we have made efforts to include economic analysis that
help clarify the financial costs and benefits for attaining these measures.
The 2007 Security and Emergency Management (SAEM)
Improvement Program provides a critical function for SPU by protecting its
ability to maintain customer service levels, public health, and safety through
the delivery of critical services to citizens and wholesale customers.
Additional functions addressed through this proposal include:
1.
Reducing risk and vulnerabilities
to SPU assets, while improving survivability of critical infrastructure
2.
Reducing the public’s exposure to
threats and hazards
3.
Providing more effective tools to
increase emergency response capabilities during emergency events and disasters
4.
More fully integrating security
improvements at all SPU-occupied facilities will provide consistency and
simplify employee training and response procedures (reduction in false alarms).
The structure of the
Security and Emergency Management Office includes a Director of Security and
Emergency Management and four FTE staff positions. The workgroup maintains a
work plan tied to SPU’s Strategic Business Plan and Action Agenda. The Security
and Emergency Management Oversight Committee is comprised of a sub-set of
Executive Team members who meet twice monthly to provide input and guidance in
how program objectives are being achieved and track progress of the work plan.
The Security and Emergency
Management goals and objectives also support SPU’s Strategic Business Plan
initiatives and help address the organization’s strategic issues.
As SPU shifts to
an asset management driven utility, it requires a global risk management
approach. We need to identify, evaluate and control risk in all utility
operations, and mitigate risks in all aspects of the assets we own, functions
we perform, and services we provide.
– SPU
Strategic Business Plan 2004-2007
Organizational
Excellence Goal Area
Evident in the various vulnerability assessments and
third-party analyses that have been conducted, SPU still has security
vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. When we factor in the importance and
criticality of protecting SPU’s assets and ensuring that we can deliver
essential services to citizens, it is apparent that security and emergency
management is an ongoing priority. Our current CIP funding from City Council
for 2007 is $3 M. We will be receiving an additional $250,000 grant from the
Region 6 Critical Infrastructure Protection Fund for work that was completed in
2006. With acceptance of this funding, we will request additional budget
authority ($250,000) for a total 2007 budget of $3.25 M. The following three
options outline the potential scope and budget for 2007 Security and Emergency
Management Improvements.
The Do Nothing option is not a zero based option to the utility. SPU
has contractual obligations to NetVersant that would require some portion of
the remaining Phase 1 scope, not implemented, to be awarded as damages if no
additional work were to proceed. The actual amount has not been determined
however an estimated percent has been applied. Additionally, work cannot be
avoided in support of securing the newly remodeled OCC. Option 1 has been
estimated at $1M as follows:
1.
Total amount on contract with NetVersant
for work not completed is approximately $2,657,891.78. Damages could total as
much as 25%, or roughly $600,000.
2.
The bare minimum amount needed
to furnish and get the DOC and ORC to a functional status at OCC is around
$266,762.
3.
The total expected costs with
Option 3 are roughly $1 M.
Option 2 would require
funding of $3.25 M and involves:
1.
Delivering security improvements
to specific sites, previously approved, but cut from Phase 1 scope (see Figure
2 – Option 2)
2.
Address existing security gaps
at Phase 1 sites and gaps that exist outside of Phase 1 scope such as:
a.
Integrate existing cameras with
new system (Cameras at transfer stations are not linked to the Loronix system)
b.
Automate and standardize gates
(Southwest gate at Lake Youngs is still manual with access via manual key instead
of SAID card).
c.
Protect card readers / intercoms
(add bollards)
d.
Close surveillance gaps with
additional cameras
3.
Facilities Re-keying and Door
Hardening
a.
Implement hierarchical manual key
infrastructure to gain better control over use of manual keys
b.
Further harden gates and doors,
where necessary
4.
Remodeling expenses to furnish
ORC workstations (Furniture and 911 consoles)
5.
Modest video and telecommunications
equipment necessary to re-establish the Department Operations Center at the OCC
The scope and sites
included in Option 2 represent a selection of valuable improvements moving us
toward an integrated security system, while still remaining within our available
budget for 2007. For a list of criteria used to evaluate and select
improvements for each Option, see Figure 2.
Option 2 cost projections
have been evaluated by the project management team and are based on the
following:
·
Remaining items on NetVersant’s
lump-sum design/build contract, and established as the Schedule of Values. The
estimated budget considers building and construction cost indexes to account
for the 2005 – 2007 increase in material and labor
·
Cost estimates for specific
projects using the Cost and Schedule form.
·
Inflationary adjustments
·
Agreements made between
specifiers regarding the deferment of Tolt Electrical Upgrades into 2007.
Option 3 would require a
budget of $6.21 M and involves:
1.
Delivering security improvements
to all the sites that are included in Option 2
2.
Delivering security improvements
at the additional remaining sites (that still provide value to SPU and our
integrated security system initiative). The remaining sites in Option 3 were
cut from the NetVersant contract for Phase 1 due to budgetary constraints (see Figure 2 – Option 3)
3.
Implementing new and expanded
project scope that provides value to the utility’s integrated security system
(revisit 2006 sites to further secure)
e.
Retire existing burglar alarm
systems and integrate other burglar systems with new security improvements
f.
Integrate existing cameras with
new system (Cameras at transfer stations are not linked to the Loronix system)
g.
Automate and standardize gates
(Southwest gate at Lake Youngs is still manual with access via manual key instead
of SAID card).
h.
Protect card readers / intercoms
(add bollards)
i.
Close surveillance gaps with
additional cameras
j.
Upgrade security software (AMAG,
Loronix)
k.
Add DVRs where necessary
4.
Re-keying facilities and
hardening doors
5.
Implementing hierarchical manual
key infrastructure to gain better control over use of manual keys
6.
Further hardening gates and
doors, where necessary
7.
Remodeling expenses to furnish
ORC workstations (Furniture and 911 consoles)
8.
Installing Advanced,
state-of-the-art video and telecommunications equipment and to re-establish the
Department Operations Center at the OCC
Option 3 cost projections
have been evaluated by the project management team and are based on the
following:
·
Remaining items on NetVersant’s
lump-sum design/build contract, and established as the Schedule of Values. The
estimated budget considers building and construction cost indexes to account
for the 2005 – 2007 increase in material and labor.
·
Cost estimates for specific
projects using the Cost and Schedule Presentation form
·
Inflationary adjustments
