New York City’s steps to better infrastructure

In my last post, I said I would provide some tips to improve New York’s aging infrastructure. These lessons not only apply to the Big Apple, but to every city large and small.

The dust has barely settled from the New York City steam piping failure. But federal, state, and local officials -- and most likely a phalanx of plaintiff’s lawyers -- will begin asking tough questions and assessing blame.

Though it could be months before forensic analysis determines the factors that led to the failure, we can look to the future and ask, What’s next? Simply put, utility companies operating steam distribution networks must adopt the same standards and procedures used in the oil and gas pipeline industry.

These heavily regulated industries follow rigid programs that utility companies should adopt. These features include:

* Risk-based evaluation of system threats. This identifies segments of the pipeline that are either at risk of failure, or take into account the damage to life and property that a failure would cause.

* Ranking segments at high. This is more art than science. But it does systematically identify critical factors, and lets the operator focus on those high-risk areas.

* Direct assessment of high risk-segments. This methodology assesses the condition of pipeline segments in areas of high consequence. The four-step process includes:

1. Pre-assessment: Engineers collect the historical data on the segment, including its leak and repair history, original construction data, prior testing/inspection reports, and pre-inspection site visits to determine what assessment tools to use.

2. Indirect assessment: We use various testing technologies to test the piping without actually physically examining the pipeline. These tools use voltage gradients, ultrasonic waves, and other technologies to locate coating defects, cracks, and metal loss without having to excavate the entire pipeline.

3. Direct examination: In this phase, the results of the indirect examinations pinpoint the worse areas. These sections are uncovered and examined with sophisticated technologies that require contact with the pipe. The results will determine whether further sites should be excavated.

4. Post assessment: This stage collects and evaluates the results of the indirect and direct assessments. The thickness measurements collected at the excavation sites will calculate a historical corrosion rate, and establish intervals for repeat testing.

These tasks aren’t simple or free. But ignoring them is like ignoring a cancerous tumor that’s inside your body -- buried underground out of sight and out of mind until it is too late. Then it’s front and center.

Every city and municipality should be doing what it can now to assess its level of risk, and put plans in place to minimize that risk using the techniques that I documented above.

If you are a city father, and directly or indirectly responsible for your city’s infrastructure, please feel free to write to me directly. I’ll answer any questions either privately or, if you don’t mind, I could share it here for everyone to learn. Write to me at Schutt_Bill@Yahoo.com.