asset management plan pump stations - awwa.org · asset management plan pump stations ... appendix...

Portland Water Bureau

Asset Management Plan For

Asset Management Plan Pump Stations

2012

Mia Sabanovic and Peter Nierengarten, P.E.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations AMP Asset Management Plan

AMR automated meter reader

AWWA American Water Works Association

BES Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland

BRE Business Risk Exposure

ccf 100 cubic feet of water

CIP Capital Improvement Program

CoF consequence of failure

CMMS computerized maintenance management system

DMT Distribution Maintenance Team

DNR does not register (meter does not register water flow, i.e. does not work)

FY fiscal year

LMD large meter database

LMP Large Meter Program

LoF likelihood of failure

MS Meter Shop

PD positive displacement (meter)

PWB Portland Water Bureau

Contents

iv

Contents 1. Introduction and Asset Profile............................................................................................ 1

1.1. Definition...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Levels of Service ................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Service Levels in Strategic Plan................................................................................. 3

2.2. Programmatic Service Levels .................................................................................... 3

2.3. Existing Workload Measures..................................................................................... 4

3. Asset Inventory and Valuation........................................................................................... 5

3.1. Asset and Component Listing and Hierarchy (Asset Hierarchy) ........................ 5

3.2. Data base(s) .................................................................................................................. 7

3.3. Physical Parameters .................................................................................................... 7

3.3.1. Inventory.................................................................................................................. 7

3.3.2. Age............................................................................................................................ 7

3.3.3. Location.................................................................................................................... 8

3.4. Asset Replacement Valuation (Fully Loaded Replacement Costs) ...................... 9

4. Asset Condition and Utilization....................................................................................... 12

4.1. Condition Basis.......................................................................................................... 12

4.2. Asset Level ‐ Likelihood of Failure & Current Condition Overview ................ 15

4.3. Bureau‐Wide Level – Likelihood of Failure .......................................................... 16

4.4. Identification of Assets in Poor Condition ............................................................ 18

4.5. Asset Capacity/ Performance (Utilization) ............................................................ 19

4.5.1. “Lead” Pump Designation and Pump Station Efficiency ............................... 23

4.5.2. Relative Efficiencies by Pump Station ............................................................... 24

4.5.3. Off‐Peak Pump Station Operation...................................................................... 32

5. Failure Modes and Asset Life ........................................................................................... 35

5.1. Failure Modes ............................................................................................................ 35

5.1.1. Capacity Failure .................................................................................................... 36

5.2. Failures Based on Declining Performance............................................................. 51

5.3. Service Demands....................................................................................................... 56

Contents

v

5.4. Asset Deterioration and Condition Failure ........................................................... 58

5.5. Effective or Useful Asset Lives................................................................................ 60

5.6. Actions to Extend Useful Life.................................................................................. 60

6. Business Risk Exposure ..................................................................................................... 61

6.1. Consequence of Failure – Asset Level.................................................................... 61

6.2. Consequence of Failure – Bureau‐Wide Level ...................................................... 63

6.3. Business Risk Exposure (BRE)................................................................................. 64

6.4. Relative Bureau‐Wide BRE Rating ......................................................................... 66

7. Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies........................................................ 68

7.1. Current and Potential Activities ............................................................................. 69

7.1.1. Current Maintenance Activities.......................................................................... 69

7.1.2. Potential Maintenance Activities ........................................................................ 70

7.1.3. Reliability‐Centered Maintenance...................................................................... 73

7.2. Maintenance Strategies............................................................................................. 73

7.2.1. Condition Assessment Strategies ....................................................................... 77

7.2.2. Proactive Maintenance Strategies....................................................................... 77

7.2.3. Reactive / Responsive Maintenance Strategies................................................. 81

7.3. Repair Strategies........................................................................................................ 82

7.3.1. Project Maintenance (PjM)................................................................................... 82

7.4. Replacement Strategies............................................................................................. 83

7.4.1. Variable Frequency Drives .................................................................................. 83

7.4.2. Efficiency Improvements..................................................................................... 84

7.5. Summary .................................................................................................................... 85

8. Budget Forecasting............................................................................................................. 89

8.1. Existing Capital Improvement Projects and Programs........................................ 89

8.2. Recommended and Projected Activities for Maintenance .................................. 92

8.3. Recommended and Projected Activities for Repair and Replacement.............. 94

8.4. Growth, Improvements, and New Requirements ................................................ 94

9. Performance Tracking........................................................................................................ 96

9.1. Performance Tracking for Proposed Maintenance Strategies............................. 98

10. Improvement Plan and Data Requirements ............................................................ 101

Contents

vi

10.1. Summary of Next Steps.......................................................................................... 101

10.2. Recommended Service Levels ............................................................................... 101

10.3. Recommended Condition Assessment Work ..................................................... 101

10.4. Recommended Failure Modes Analysis .............................................................. 101

10.5. Recommended Risk Evaluations .......................................................................... 102

10.6. Recommended Operational Changes................................................................... 102

10.7. Recommended Maintenance Strategies ............................................................... 103

10.8. Recommended Repair and Replacement Strategies........................................... 103

10.9. Recommended Data Collection Actions .............................................................. 104

Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems .............................................. A‐1

Appendix B. Volume to Cost Comparison for Pump Stations............................................B‐1

Appendix C. Run Time Data and Pump Design Characteristics....................................... C‐1

Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage............................................................................. D‐1


Introduction and Asset Profile 1

1. Introduction and Asset Profile

Asset Category Water Distribution Asset Sub-Category Pump Stations AMSC Champion Budget Program Lead Ty Kovatch AMP Lead or Co-Lead Keith Walker Support Plan Author Peter Nierengarten

and Mia Sabanovic Version Number 2

Last Reviewed 2008 Next Review

1.1. Definition Pump stations are a major part of the distribution system working together to efficiently

and reliably deliver water for residential, business, and firefighting purposes. This asset

management plan (AMP) covers distribution pump stations and peripheral equipment

within the building or on the site that works with the pump station to perform its

intended function. Valves and piping on the site that function with the pump station

and are part of the pump station process piping and pump main system are covered

within this plan.

This AMP does not include 1) regulator vaults or tanks that may share the site but are

assets within a separate class and whose function is separate and distinct from the pump

station operation 2) decorative fountains, their pumps and equipment as fountains do

not supply water directly to customers, 3) the groundwater pump station, 4) system

meters. All of these assets are covered in different AMPs.

Key stakeholders during development of the Pump Station AMP are: Instrument

Technicians, Electricians, Operating Engineers, City Operations Managers, Engineering ‐

Asset Management and Engineering Pump Stations and Tanks Group.

1.2. Purpose Asset management is the combination of financial, economic, engineering and other

practices applied to the planning, acquisition, use, maintenance, and disposal of assets.

It seeks to optimize service delivery to our customers and manage related risks in a cost

effective way over the full life cycle of the assets. The purpose of an asset management

plan is to ensure that assets are operated and maintained in a sustainable and cost‐

effective manner, allowing them to provide the desired level of service for present and

future customers.

The role of the Asset Management Group is to help PWB apply asset management

concepts to the water system. This includes identifying levels of service, maintaining an


Introduction and Asset Profile 2

inventory, assuring that the condition of the assets is known, performing or assisting in

analysis that lead to decisions about maintenance, repairs or replacements, using or

demonstrating risk management to help in decision making and assuring that critical

assets in poor condition are being addressed. (In some cases this means running the

assets to failure.)

The purpose of this pump station AMP is threefold:

1. To provide a central location where interested parties can find PWB standards and

practices as well as links to the databases and archived information on the

equipment inventory and condition. The descriptive elements of this AMP include

the following:

descriptions of existing pump stations conditions (from the 2008 AMP)

an overview of the importance of the asset

a summary of pump station assets and

information on Portland Water Bureau (PWB) new monitoring programs

implementation plans for new performance monitoring programs and

record‐archiving systems

a proposed five‐year capital improvement program (CIP) list for both

construction, design and planning activities

2. To provide an analysis of the condition of pump stations, their purpose in the overall

service delivery of water, and to assess the probability and consequence of failure,

also known as criticality. This includes a detailed description of all pump station

components and the assumed condition of each component where data are lacking.

This AMP highlights key issues, such as energy use, demand, asset age and

condition trends and identifies risks, which may cause failure to the pump station.

3. As a tool for budgetary forecasts, this AMP provides information to managers who

are responsible for pump station condition and oversee the repair and replacement

operations of pump stations.0.

The goal of an asset management plan is to ensure that assets are operated and

maintained in a sustainable and cost‐effective manner allowing them to provide the

required level of service for present and future customers. This version of the Pump

Station AMP can help PWB identify, forecast, and manage risks for the future and can be

used by budget committee members on allocating budget resources in the base as well

as the CIP budgets.


Asset Inventory and Valuation 3

2. Levels of Service

2.1. Service Levels in Strategic Plan Service levels listed below pertain to the pump station asset management and are taken

from the established list of Service Level Indicators for the Portland Water Bureau.

100% compliance with state and federal water quality regulations.

Maintain minimum service pressures of 20 pounds per square inch (psi) during

normal demands 99% of the time

No more than 5% of customers out of water for more than 8 hours a year.

No customers out of water more than three times per year.

90% of isolation valves will operate when needed.

Achieve continuous improvement in maintaining assets by completing two steps per

year in the progression of maintenance “best practice”

New CIP projects require one of the following analyses in the basis of design report:

total life‐cycle cost, cost‐benefit ratio, or cost‐risk reduction ratio.

Complete all mandatory projects with internal or external deadlines on schedule and

on budget.

Meet at least 80% of standards established for inspection. Testing, repair and

replacement of assets that re identified as medium, high or extreme risk.

Meet internally and externally developed standards for mitigating medium, high or

external risk of asset failure.

Reduce Bureau carbon emissions from 2007 levels

2.2. Programmatic Service Levels The following is a list of service levels for the pump stations:

Failures at pump stations shall result in no more than 5% of the Bureau’s customers

being without access to water for more than 4 hours in any given year. (The overall

cumulative goal for the distribution system is eight hours outage max per year for

less than 5% of customers during normal shutdowns and 24 hours maximum for

emergency shutdowns on mains 16‐inches or less). With 90% availability or delivery

of water to its customers.

Meet planned maintenance ratio based on the station rated risk level.

Complete 100% of planned maintenance on schedule.



Provide 30 psi service pressure when pumping directly into distribution.

Achieve 95% availability for storage tank filling on the need basis.

Investigate all critical pump station alarms within 3 hours of notification.

2.3. Existing Workload Measures Develop and implement Reliability Centered Maintenance strategy (RCM)

throughout the pump station program. Maintenance actions are coded appropriately

and tracked in the bureau’s computerized maintenance management system

(CMMS). (See Section 7.1 for a definition of RCM)

Track and record energy consumption in facilities and investigate large spikes in the

pump station power consumption with in 7 days of finding. Investigative steps are

followed to determine root cause of large surges. Appropriative corrective action is

taken within 7 days.

Pump station as‐builts and P&ID diagrams are compiled and stored in appropriate

database made available to operations and engineering group.

Develop standardization of signal and instrumentation as well as mechanical

equipment within pump stations.

90% of all maintenance‐managed assets are registered in the CMMS and information

is made available to the Operations and Engineering group.

All pump stations are visually inspected on a weekly basis and condition

information is recorded in CMMS. A standard inspection log is produced from each

visit.

90% of all signal, control and electrical equipment is up to current standards and

functioning properly. Needed repairs are done on a timely basis.

Complete scheduling structure in CMMS.

All pump stations undergo weatherization preventive maintenance twice per year.

Better define process for capitalizing unplanned asset failures. Accounting is

working with Design Program Manager to better define asset replacement schedule.

Improve CMMS asset failure database by including labor and material cost.

Implement centralized data repository system to store inspection logs,

manufacturer’s data, cost summaries, work histories, flow data, vibration data and

megger readings on the particular assets.



3. Asset Inventory and Valuation The Portland Water Bureau operates distribution system pumps at 38 pump stations

throughout the city. The distribution pump stations are located throughout the system

to lift water to customers on Mt. Tabor, Mt. Scott, Clatsop Butte, Rocky Butte, and

Portland’s West Hills. Water distribution pump stations account for approximately 58

percent of PWB’s overall energy consumption. Therefore, a major focus of this AMP is

on the operating efficiency of pump stations (see Section 4).

A majority of the pump stations pump water to storage facilities. Six pump stations

house in‐line booster pumps that deliver water with appropriate pressure directly to the

customer. All but one of the pump stations are electrically powered. (The Rivergate

Pump Station pumps are powered by a diesel motor. Burnside Pump Station has a diesel

powered back up motor) Other major components of the pump station inventory

include the building and its components, motors, motor control centers, telemetry,

piping, valves, and grounds.

Many of the distribution pump stations were originally constructed in the first half of

the 20th century, but there have been subsequent upgrades, rehabilitation projects, and

expansions over the last half‐century. The newest pump station, Stephenson Pump

Station, came online in the spring of 2005, replacing an aging, undersized pump station

inherited during annexation of Capitol Highway Water District in the 1970s.

This pump station inventory does not include the largest pump station—the

Groundwater Pump Station, which provides a secondary supply during high demand

periods and an emergency backup supply for the city in times of high turbidity within

Portland’s unfiltered surface water supply, the Bull Run watershed. Since the

Groundwater Pump Station is also a water supply and treatment facility, its

maintenance needs will be addressed in a separate AMP specifically for that facility.

3.1. Asset and Component Listing and Hierarchy (Asset Hierarchy)

The current Oracle CMMS pump station hierarchy diagram is show below. The diagram

shows the major component assets and child assets Oracle CMMS is being used to track

pump station maintenance work. Work orders are assigned and tracked against each

asset.



Figure 3.1: Oracle Pump Station Asset Hierarchya aSCADA= Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System; RTU=remote telemetry unit



3.2. Data base(s) A new effort to manage and organize PWB databases is being undertaken by the Data

Management Committee. The three main purposes of this committee are the following:

1. Assess the data needs for the PWB Asset Management effort

2. Identify business workflows

3. Facilitate the integration of all PWB data0.

The four primary databases that track information related to Pump Stations are the

following:

OpsInfrastructure database with information on pump capacity, size, and notes from

the Water Control Center

Power bills database with information on electric bills for each station

Sites database with general site information including addresses

Oracle CMMS that tracks work orders

Table 3.1 shows the location of each database in the PWB file structure.

Table 3.1: Water Bureau Databases that track information related to Pump Stations

3.3. Physical Parameters

3.3.1. Inventory

A list of all active pump stations is presented below in Section 3.3.3.

3.3.2. Age

The Portland Water Bureau operates pump stations of various vintages. The oldest

operable pump station in the system was constructed in 1922. The pump station age

profile in Table 3.2 reflects the age of the building; however many of the components

and systems may be newer.

Database Name Database Location Information Ops Infrastructure I:\Data\OpsPublicDatabases\PublicOpsInf rastructure.mdb Pump capacity/size & WCC notesPower Bills Database I:\Data\OpsPublicDatabases\PublicPowerBills.mdb Electric bill informationSites Database I:\Data\OpsPublicDatabases\PublicSites.mdb Addresses and general site information

Oracle http://wbsyn.rose.portland.local:7779/SYNPROD/synergen/Logon?tgt=Main&lrp=12918261022934 Work Order Management and TrackingPublic Snapshot \\wbfile1\information$\Data\OpsPublicDatabases Flow informationCMMSa

aCMMS stands for Computerized Maintenance Management System



Figure 3.2: Pump Station Age Profile (Based on Building Age)

3.3.3. Location

A list of active pump station addresses and Oracle sites names is presented in Table 3.2.

Maps to each location can be found by clicking on each site name on the 1‐Y‐9 diagram

located at:

file://wbfile1/group$/Maint%20&%20Const/Support/Synergen/Ops%20Asset%20Data/p

wb‐supply.htm

Pump Station Age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100F

ulto

n

Wa

shin

gto

n P

ark

No.

1

Arn

old

Gre

en

lea

f

Bu

rnsi

de

Sa

ltzm

an

Ba

rbu

r G

ibb

s

Mar

qua

m H

ill N

o. 1

Wa

shin

gton

Par

k N

o. 2

Car

olin

a

PV

13

8th

/Ce

nte

r

Mar

qua

m H

ill N

o. 2

Sa

m J

ack

son

Ta

ylor

s F

erry

Ve

rde

Vis

ta

Arl

ing

ton

He

igh

ts

Sp

ring

ville

Ro

cky

Bu

tte

Ho

yt

Was

hin

gton

Pa

rk N

o. 3

Riv

erg

ate

Lin

nto

n

Por

tland

He

ight

s

Mt.

Ta

bor

112

th A

ve P

ump

105

th a

nd

Fre

mo

nt

162

nd

Av

e P

um

p

Te

nin

o C

our

t

Cla

tso

p

1st

an

d K

an

e

Ca

lva

ry

Wh

itwo

od

Ca

pito

l H

igh

way

Po

wel

l But

te H

eig

hts

Pv

14

4th/

Cen

ter

PV

Ray

mon

d S

tree

t

Ste

phe

nso

n

Yea

rs



Table 3.2: Active Pump Station Locations Site name 105th and Fremont Pump Station112th Ave Pump Station 162nd Ave Pump Station 1st and Kane Pump Station Arlington Heights Pump StationArnold Pump Station and Tanks Barbur Gibbs Pump Station Burnside Pump Station Calvary Pump StationCapitol Hwy Pump Station Carolina Pump Station Clatsop Pump StationFulton Pump Station Greenleaf Pump Station and Tanks Hoyt Pump Station Latigo Lane Pump StationLinnton Pump Station and Tanks Marquam Hill Pump Station 1Marquam Hill Pump Station 2Mt. Tabor Pump StationPortland Heights Pump StationPowell Butte Heights Pump StationPV 138th/Center Pump StationPV 144th/Center Pump StationRaymond Pump StationRivergate Pump StationRocky Butte Pump Station Saltzman Pump StationSam Jackson Pump StationSpringville Pump Station Stephenson Pump StationTaylors Ferry Pump Station Tenino Court Pump Station Verde Vista Pump Station Washington Park PS 1Washington Park PS 2Washington Park PS 3Whitwood Pump Station

3.4. Asset Replacement Valuation (Fully Loaded Replacement Costs)

Asset valuation is used to determine the future expenditure requirements on pump

station assets at the bureau. The replacement value is based on one or a combination of

two sources: the average of the construction costs obtained from a cost curve generated

from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using data from a national survey of

pump station construction costs and/or the construction costs obtained from a cost curve

generated from a previous PWB study, called the “Sylvan Study.” The cost values on the

EPA curve are a function of the pump station’s capacity in gallons per minute (gpm) and

the cost value obtained from the Sylvan Study curve is a function of the pump station’s

capacity in horsepower (hp).



The EPA curve tends to produce higher estimates for small pump stations and lower

estimates for large pump stations whereas the Sylvan Study produces lower estimates

for small stations and higher estimates for large stations. The average of the two seems

to produce results that best match the bureau’s actual data for a few of its most recently

constructed pump stations. For the asset valuation in this AMP, the construction costs

for each individual station as obtained from the average of the two curve values were

adjusted using percentage of construction additions to the base construction cost for

unusual specific conditions at each site (such as landslide vulnerability, seismic

conditions, zoning/environmental issues).

Typical percentages for planning, permitting, design, inspection, contract

administration, and contingencies were added to the adjusted construction cost. The

total project cost was computed by adding these soft costs to the construction cost. These

costs are stored in the bureauʹs TeamPlan model in 2008 dollars. For this version of the

AMP, the costs were inflated to 2012 dollars and the total project cost was increased to

cover the bureau’s indirect overhead rate. The total combined replacement value of the

system’s 38 distribution pump stations is estimated at $104 million.

Figure 3.3 shows the replacement cost (including indirect overhead) for all of PWB’s

pump stations.



Figure: 3.3: Pump Station Replacement Value (2012 Dollars)

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

Ful

ton

Ca

rolin

a

Wa

shin

gto

n P

ark

No.

2

Sa

m J

ack

son

Wa

shin

gto

n P

ark

No.

1

Po

rtla

nd

He

igh

ts

Riv

erg

ate

Ma

rqu

am

Hill

No

. 2

Ca

lva

ry

Ca

pito

l Hig

hw

ay

Pv

14

4th

/Ce

nte

r

Wa

shin

gto

n P

ark

No.

3

Ba

rbu

r G

ibb

s

Ho

yt

Tay

lors

Fe

rry

Sp

rin

gvi

lle

Ste

ph

en

son

11

2th

Ave

Pu

mp

Mt.

Ta

bor

Ve

rde

Vis

ta

Whi

two

od

PV

Ra

ymo

nd

Str

ee

t

Ma

rqu

am

Hill

No

. 1

16

2n

d A

ve P

um

p

PV

13

8th

/Ce

nte

r

Arn

old

Po

we

ll B

utte

He

igh

ts

Bu

rnsi

de

Lin

nto

n

1st

an

d K

an

e

10

5th

an

d F

rem

on

t

Gre

en

lea

f

Cla

tso

p

Ro

cky

Bu

tte

Te

nin

o C

ou

rt

Sa

ltzm

an

Arl

ing

ton

He

igh

ts

Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e

jlettene

Wide-logo


Asset Condition and Utilization 12

4. Asset Condition and Utilization

4.1. Condition Basis The Portland Water Bureau is changing its fundamental approach to performing asset

condition assessments and utilizations. In the past, pump station condition assessments

were done by consultants through Distribution System Master Plans (DSMP). The last

overall pump station condition assessment is presented in DSMP Task 5‐6 Booster Pump

Station Condition Assessment (Pump Station Condition Assessment) on June 2007 by

PWB and consultants CDM/HDR. At that time, a condition assessment was conducted

for 32 pump stations in the distribution system. The condition assessment was

performed to identify needed improvements and deficiencies, to maintain system

reliability, to extend useful life, and as an initial input to PWB’s Asset Management

program.

Two levels of assessment were available for assets in the DSMP: a Level 1, or general,

assessment and a Level 2, or detailed electrical and structural evaluation. The general

Level 1 assessment was performed on all pump stations. This included a general

assessment of the following:

the site pump/motor visual and functional checks

building structure and functionality instrumentation

mechanical and electrical systems security

Level 2 assessments were performed by electrical and structural engineers at selected

pump stations. Level 2 structural assessments included more detailed evaluations of the

building structural elements, including the foundation, roof, and wall conditions

electrical and instrumentation systems, including assessment of electrical service, standby

power sources, electrical switchgear, motor control center, lighting, electrical conduit and

wiring, and flow meters and pressure transducers

Even though the DSMP gave an outsiders’ perception of the overall health of the pump

stations and resulted in the identification of potential capital improvements projects,

PWB’s assessment was that crucial operating data and performance trending was

missing from the overall analysis. PWB staff also felt that a substantial amount of

information was not included in the report since it was written by outside consultant

that had limited contact time with the equipment and with the Operations groups and

no quantitative maintenance history data nor asset performance. In recent months the

Asset Management Group has worked closely with Operations and individual craft

(Operating Engineers, Electricians and Instrument Technicians) groups to develop and

provide tools for ongoing asset evaluations and condition rating. Table 4.1 provides an

example of the Instrumentation Condition Assessment Guide Sheet. This has been a



major step in the bureau’s ongoing effort to improve information sharing across the

trades.

The Asset Management Group is currently working with schedulers to develop a new

work order format that will include a current asset condition score as well as empty

space for the operators, technicians, or electricians to enter a new asset condition score

after the repairs have been completed. These work orders along with the repair

comments and failure codes are entered and stored in the CMMS. In the field, ongoing

condition ratings will provide PWB with real‐time asset health data.

The Asset Management Group developed standardized condition rating tables for

individual asset subcategories according to the established Oracle asset hierarchy.

Individual tables have been developed for each of the eight major asset groups

identified in the hierarchy. (Note that the three types of valves are combined in to one

rating system and Safety Equipment is included with the Building Structure.) The tables

are located in Appendix A. The tables will be issued along with the work orders. A

sample instrumentation condition rating guide is located below.



Table 4.1: Instrumentation Condition Assessment Table

Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required Calibration Accuracy Age/Replacement Parts

1Excellent/ Very Good

Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements. Equipment and conduits are in very good condition with no evidence of corrosion.

Instrument stays within acceptable calibration range

Instrument is near 100% accuracy

Equipment age equivalent to new and replacement parts can be expected to be available.

2 GoodRequires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to optimize performance and restore it to near new condition.

Instrument is out of calibration but was able to be recalibrated

Instrument is within acceptable accuracy range

Equipment age greater than 10 years old and/or replacement parts can be expected to be available.

3Fair/

Operable Requires significant reactive maintenance and/or partial refurbishment/replacement to restore it to good condition.


Instrument is nearly within acceptable accuracy range


4 Poor

Operational but requires significant, timely refurbishment to avoid further deterioration and/or failure. If attention is not received the asset could decline to a 5 rating where corrective action is no longer cost effective and/or fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible.

Instrument cannot be calibrated

Instrument is outside of acceptable accuracy range

Replacement parts cannot be found.

5Very Poor/ Inoperable

Asset is in obsolete/replacement required condition. It is generally past cost effective refurbishment and needs to be replaced, and/or the asset is likely to fail in the near future (next 1 - 5 years). Rehabilitate if possible or Replace.




jlettene

Wide-logo



The Asset Management group has also worked with Operations to review the DSMP

weighting factors and determine whether they still fit with the new hierarchy structure

and the bureau’s future needs. During this review, asset stakeholders aligned the DSMP

categories to the eight new pump station asset categories and assigned weight factors.

These new proposed weight factors in Table 4.2 are used to determine the overall

condition and health of the pump station assets in this report.

Table 4.2: DSMP & PS AMP Asset Categories and Weighting Factors

CategoryDSMP Weight

Factor CategoryProposed PS AMP

Weight FactorSite 0.05 Site 0.05Structural 0.2Bldg Functionality 0.05Arch Finishes 0.05Security 0.05Bldg Mechanical 0.05

Piping 0.1Valves 0.1

Pump/Motor Visual 0.05 Pump 0.2Pumps/Motors Functional 0.2 Motor 0.2Electrical 0.1 Electrical 0.15Instrumentation 0.05 Instrumentation 0.1

Total 1.00 1.00

Process Mechanical 0.15

Distribution System Master Plan Pump Station AMP

Building - Structure 0.1

By gathering real‐time condition rating outputs as part of routine preventive

maintenance work, the bureau will be able to determine the residual or remaining life

and therefore the effective life of an asset. This information will facilitate decisions on

the most appropriate type and location of maintenance. In addition, condition trending

will aid in long‐range CIP budget forecasting.

4.2. Asset Level - Likelihood of Failure & Current Condition Overview

The overall pump station condition rating comprises overviews of the site, building

structure, piping, valves, pump, motor, electrical and instrumentation condition. This

overall condition was used to rank the LoF of each pump station. For this AMP, the

DSMP condition ratings were converted to the PWB 1‐to‐5 condition ratings for most

asset categories. Where available, the 2010 TeamPlan condition ratings were used to

update the DSMP ratings. In addition the most recent Pump, Instrumentation and Motor

Condition Ratings (performed by PWB Operations Staff as part of regular preventive

maintenance work orders, using rating guides similar to Table 4.1) were used to update

asset condition ratings.



The Likelihood of Failure (LoF) used by Asset Management ranks the condition of each

asset on a scale of 1 to 5. On this scale, 1 is a pump station that has a very low likelihood

of failure because it is in excellent condition. A rating of 5 is a pump station that has a

very high likelihood of failure because it is in poor condition.

At this asset‐level rating, no pump stations are rated Very High and only Portland

Heights Pump Station is rated at a High likelihood of failure. Medium likelihood of

failure pump stations are: Arlington Heights, Burnside, Fulton, Rivergate, Sam Jackson,

Taylors Ferry and Washington Park 1. The number of pump stations in each likelihood

category is presented in Figure 4.1.

01

7

27

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

mp

Sta

tio

ns

Figure 4.1: Number of Pump Stations in Each Likelihood of Failure Category

4.3. Bureau-Wide Level – Likelihood of Failure The bureau‐wide likelihood of failure (LoF) ranks the condition of assets on a scale of 1

to 5, similar to the asset level likelihood of failure. For the Bureau‐wide ratings, the asset

level ratings for each of the eight asset categories were adjusted to match the recurrence

interval presented in Table 4.3, which is the Water Bureauʹs likelihood of failure

guidance table.



Table 4.3: Likelihood of Failure Rating Table Used on the Bureau-Wide Scale

Because the bureau‐wide LoF table looks at a failure reoccurrence intervals at a less‐

frequent rate than the pump station asset‐level condition ratings, only Portland Heights

Pump Station is rated as Medium. All of the remaining pump stations are rated as Low

of Very Low LoF. The distribution is presented in Figure 4.2.

0 01

24

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

mp

Sta

tio

ns

Figure 4.2: Number of Pump Stations in Each Bureau-Wide LoF Category



4.4. Identification of Assets in Poor Condition On an asset scale, only one pump station was rated as a condition four, which

corresponds to a High likelihood of failure. Seven pump stations received an overall

condition rating of three, which corresponds to a Medium likelihood of failure. The

detailed condition ratings for each of the eight asset categories is presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Detailed Asset Categories Condition Ratings for Pump Stations with Medium Likelihood of Failure

No pump stations received a weighted condition rating of five and only one received a

four. Several major component systems did receive individual ratings of five or four,

however. The poor condition of these component systems may warrant repair work

or a capital project in order to preserve pump station operation. The overall distribution

of condition ratings for each of the eight component categories is presented in

Figure 4.3.

Sit

e

Bu

ildin

g

Str

uct

ure

Pip

ing

Val

ves

Pu

mp

s

Mo

tors

Ele

ctri

cal

Inst

rum

enta

tio

n

Ove

rall

Co

nd

itio

n/

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f F

ailu

re

Arlington Heights 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 1 3Burnside 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Fulton 2 3 4 4 2 2 3 4 3Portland Heights 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4Rivergate 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3Sam Jackson 3 3 2 2 1 4 5 4 3Taylors Ferry 2 3 3 3 2 3 5 1 3Washington Park No. 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Site

Buildin

g Stru

cture

Piping

Valves

Pumps

Mot

ors

Electri

cal

Instr

umen

tatio

n

Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

mp

Sta

tio

ns

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Condition 4

Condition 5

Figure 4.3: Condition Rating Distribution for all Pump Stations in Each of the Eight Component Categories

4.5. Asset Capacity/ Performance (Utilization) PWB’s pump stations range in size from 0.8 million gallons (MG) yearly production at

Saltzman Pump Station to 2,621 MG yearly production at Fulton Pump Station. Figures

4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 show the variations in total volumes pumped in 2009 and 2010 for all the

stations. The majority of the stations had decreases in the total volume pumped from

2009 to 2010. This decrease in production can be attributed to the mild summer and

ongoing water conservation efforts. For the tabulated data please refer to Appendix B.



0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Calvary Hoyt Capitol Hwy Barbur Gibbs Sam Jackson Carolina WashingtonPark

Fulton

MG 2009

2010

Figure 4.4: Total Volume of Water Pumped at Large Pump Stations in 2009 and 2010

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Tabor Whitwood SE 112th Taylors Ferry Gilbert Arnold PortlandHeights

Marquam HillPS 1&2

MG 2009

2010

Figure 4.5: Total Volume of Water Pumped at Medium Pump Stations in 2009 and 2010



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Saltzm

an

Burns

ide

Raym

ond

Rocky

But

te

Gre

enlea

f

Steph

enso

n

Powell

But

te

Verda

Vist

a

Clatso

p

Linto

n

Tenino

Ct

Springv

ile

MG 2009

2010

Figure 4.6: Total Volume of Water Pumped at Small Pump Stations in 2009 and 2010

Pump station statistics such as total number of starts, run time, designed flow for the

whole pump station and other operational perimeters are located in Appendix C. PWB

is interested in tracking these data because it can be used to predict remaining life of the

pump station assets such as the pumps and motors.

For example too‐frequent starts, 1

1 overloading, low or unbalanced voltages, and

inadequate ventilation can lead to overheating the motor. Excessive heat and

temperatures over the design rating for motors can cause deterioration at a rate that may

double for every 10 °C increase and can also cause separation of greases and

breakdowns of oil leading to bearing failure as well as premature motor insulation

breakdown.

The data presented in Table 4.5 did not show an excessive number of starts for any

pump in 2009 or 2010. Pumps that did have more than a 50% increase in number of

starts between 2009 and 2010 also had increases in run times, leading to conclusion that

operational modifications were made.

1 The National Electrical Manufacturers Association recommends no more than two cold starts or one hot start per hour.



As an example, in May 2010, PWB designated Calvary Pump 201 as a lead pump

because it has the highest calculated efficiency (gal/kWh) when compared to the other

three pumps in the station. This pump, therefore, had a more than 50% increase in

number of starts but it also had an increase in operational hours between 2009 and 2010.

Designating the most efficient pump at several pump stations and using it as a lead

pump helped the bureau decrease its overall energy use (see Figure 4.7).

See Section 4.5.1 for more on the bureau’s operational strategy with regard to

designating lead pumps and energy efficiency.

Table 4.5: Operational Data for Pump Stations with More than 50% Increase in Number of Pump Starts for Any one Pump

Pump Station Pump #Flow (gpm)

Head (ft)

Total Station Flow (gpm)

Total Station Flow W/O Main Pump (gpm)

# of starts 2009

Hours Ran 2009

# of starts 2010

Hours Ran 2010

CALVARY CALPS201 1000 240 2200 1900 404 1519 687 2691CALPS202 1000 238 337 1909 216 835CALPS203 400 241 104 892 51 535CALPS204 1000 242 547 1417 239 627

CAPITOL HWY CAPPS201 1400 67 4600 2500 135 1120 80 174CAPPS202 1400 67 269 2837 423 4033CAPPS203 3100 93 210 487 83 72

CAROLINA CARPS201 2900 305 12000 10800 73 41 95 41CARPS202 2900 305 429 1449 697 3759CARPS203 2700 297 302 1891 45 301CARPS204 2700 297 288 2013 201 415CARPS205 2900 304 145 328 283 855CARPS206 2900 304 301 1710 283 484

FULTON FULPS201 3200 296 9600 6400 49 6596 110 7947FULPS202 1900 279 61 3117 106 4091FULPS203 2000 262 83 4427 29 3029FULPS204 1600 245 10 35 9 0FULPS205 2600 259 44 575 51 217FULPS206 3100 269 41 2296 46 1585

MARQUAM HILL 1 MARPS201 820 323 1400 410 73 436 233 1617MARPS202 820 323 185 1198 104 471

PV 138TH / CENTER GBTPS201 620 210 1500 1100 1258 2484 844 2707GBTPS202 710 213 1262 2461 835 2620GBTPS203 820 217 42 16 96 88

SAM JACKSON (Broadway) SAMPS205 800 244 1500 800 301 734 231 439SAMPS206 910 238 384 893 509 1094SAMPS201 2100 456 4000 2100 45 56 33 22SAMPS202 2100 456 36 28 63 59

WASHINGTON PARK 1 WASPS204 1600 572 5000 3200 29 838 107 1850WASPS205 1700 572 25 665 87 1494WASPS206 1700 572 46 1260 99 1665

Run Time Data & Pump Design Characteristics



4.5.1. “Lead” Pump Designation and Pump Station Efficiency

In February 2010, the Portland Water Bureau signed an Energy Management Charter

with the vision of providing excellent service to our customers and acting as the steward

of critical infrastructure. Because pump stations account for 58 percent of PWB’s overall

energy consumption (shown in Figure 4.7), much of the bureau’s efficiency work has

been focused on the top seven pump stations.

Groundwater 21%

Occupied Bldg 8%

Fountains 5%

Treatment 4%

Pump Stations 58%

Other 4%

Figure: 4.7 2005-10 PWB Electricity Use (kWh) by Sector

PWB’s Control Center Operators perform efficiency tests on individual pumps at most

large pump stations and calculate their efficiency in gallons per kilowatt hour (gal/kWh).

The results of the tests were used to denote the most efficient or “lead” pump (see

Figure 4.8) which is then operated for the majority of pumping needs. Other pumps in

each station are used as lag pump or are exercised one hour per week.



Figure 4.8: SCADA Screen Shot Denoting Lead Pump

This strategy is the best way to ensure the highest pump station efficiency. Reducing the

system head loss by maintaining fully open valves, decreasing other flow restrictions

and lowering the receiving reservoir levels also improves efficiency and lowers energy

consumption.

4.5.2. Relative Efficiencies by Pump Station

The relative efficiency ranges for the seven largest pump stations have also been

identified. The efficiency range refers to the highest‐ and lowest‐efficiency pump tests

recorded for all pumps at each station. This information is useful when we have the

choice of using more than one pump station to deliver water to a specific tank. Figure 4.9

shows that “Sam Jackson to Marquam Hill” and “Barbur‐Gibbs” (which also pumps to

Marquam Hill) have very similar efficiencies, but Barbur‐Gibbs may offer a slightly

cheaper option for delivering water to Marquam Tanks. In addition “Fulton” has

superior efficiency over “Carolina” which indicates that the Fulton Pump Station can

deliver water most economically to the Burlingame Tanks.

Denotes Lead Pump



Figure 4.9: Efficiency Range of Pumps at Seven Largest Pump Stations

During 2008, operational changes between Fulton and Carolina Pump Station that

favored operating the most efficient pumps a greater percentage of the time helped

improve overall pump station efficiency. In 2009 and 2010, operational changes at

Calvary, Sam Jackson, and Washington Park Pump Stations contributed to further

improvements. Efficiency improvements at these pump stations plus four others have

contributed to reduction of electricity consumption by approximately 1,000,000 kWh,

which saved the Water Bureau approximately $79,000 during 2011. In 2011 these pump

stations operated 14% more efficiently than the 2005‐2008 baseline (Figure 4.10). This

efficiency work has resulted in a recent decrease in annual electricity consumed at all

pump stations as indicated in Figure 4.11. Appendix D provides information on power

usage per pump station.

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

WashingtonPark to PDXHeights***

SamJackson to

PDX Heights

WashingtonPark to

SherwoodField*

Carolina* Fulton* Hoyt** Barbur-Gibbs

SamJackson toMarquam

Hill

SamJackson toBroadway

Drive*

MarquamHill

% E

ffic

ien

cy R

ang

e

*Currently pumping favors most efficient pump(s)**Pump/Motor replacement project in progress***Efficiency may not be accurate due to flow meter error



Figure 4.10: Efficiency at Seven Largest Pump Stations*

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

gal

/kW

h

** Baseline is Average Efficiency from 2005 - 08.

Baseline**

* Top 7 Water Bureau Pump Stations include Washington Park, Carolina, Fulton, Sam Jackson, Barbur-Gibbs, Hoyt & Calvary

EFFICIENCY



Combined Power Usage For All Pump Stations

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

16000000

18000000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

$-

$200,000.00

$400,000.00

$600,000.00

$800,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,200,000.00

$1,400,000.00

$1,600,000.00

Usage kWh

cost

kWh

Dollars

*

* Data is short of one month.

Figure 4.11: Electricity Usage for All Pump Stations Combined

The decrease in the power consumption is mostly attributed to more energy conscientious practices at Portland Water Bureau. Efforts such as operating most efficient pump most of the time as well as the summarization and winterization maintenance efforts have greatly decreased PWB carbon foot print.



Energy Usage

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Saltzm

an

Burns

ide

Raym

ond

Rocky

But

te

Green

leaf

Steph

enso

n

Powell

But

te

Verda

Vist

a

Clatso

p

Linto

n

Tenino

Ct

Spring

vile

Tabor

Whit

wood

SE 112

th

Taylor

s Fer

ry

Gilber

t

Arnold

Portla

nd H

eight

s

Mar

quam

Hill

PS 1&2

Calvar

yHoy

t

Capito

l Hwy

Barbu

r Gibb

s

Sam Ja

ckso

n

Caroli

na

Was

hingt

on P

ark

Fulton

En

erg

y co

st

2009

2010

Figure 4.12: Electricity Usage Comparison per Station

Figure 4.12 show energy cost at each pump station over the two-year period. At most pump stations energy cost has decreased except at the Mt. Tabor and at Washington Park pump stations. This increase in electricity is caused by operational changes that occurred in 2010.



Total Water Volume Pushed Through Pump Station

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Saltzm

an

Burns

ide

Raym

ond

Rocky

But

te

Green

leaf

Steph

enso

n

Powell

But

te

Verda

Vist

a

Clatso

p

Linto

n

Tenino

Ct

Spring

vile

Tabor

Whit

wood

SE 112

th

Taylor

s Fer

ry

Gilber

t

Arnold

Portla

nd H

eight

s

Mar

quam

Hill

PS 1&2

Calvar

yHoy

t

Capito

l Hwy

Barbu

r Gibb

s

Sam Ja

ckso

n

Caroli

na

Was

hingt

on P

ark

Fulton

Vo

lum

e in

Mill

ion

of

Gal

lon

s

2009

2010

Figure 4.13: Total Volume Pumped at Each Station.

Figure 4.13 show volume of water pumped at each pump station. It is interesting to point out that the volume of water pumped through Washington Park pump station decreased from 2009 to 2010 but the cost of energy increased. There should be further evaluations to determine the source of energy cost increase.



$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500

Saltzman

Burnside

Raymond

Rocky Butte

Greenleaf

Stephenson

Powell Butte

Verda Vista

Clatsop

Linton

Tenino Ct

Springvile

Tabor

Whitwood

SE 112th

Taylors Ferry

Gilbert

Arnold

Portland Heights

Marquam Hill PS 1&2

Calvary

Hoyt

Capitol Hwy

Barbur Gibbs

Sam Jackson

Carolina

Washington Park 2010 cost per MG pumped

2009 cost per MG pumped

Figure 4.14: Ratio of Gallons of Water pumped per electrical cost of the whole station.

Figure 4.14 show ratios of energy cost to the volume (MG) of water pumped through each station. Stations such as Powell butte, Burnside and Saltzman should be evaluated closer to understand data differences.



0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Sal

tzm

an

Bu

rnsi

de

Ray

mon

d

Roc

ky B

utte

Gre

enle

af

Ste

phe

nson

Pow

ell

But

te

Ve

rda

Vis

ta

Cla

tsop

Lint

on

Ten

ino

Ct

Spr

ingv

ile

Tab

or

Whi

twoo

d

SE

112

th

Tay

lors

Fer

ry

Gilb

ert

Arn

old

Por

tland

Hei

ghts

Mar

qua

m H

ill P

S 1

&2

Cal

vary

Hoy

t

Cap

itol H

wy

Bar

bur

Gib

bs

Sam

Jac

kson

Car

olin

a

Was

hing

ton

Par

k

Ful

ton

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Lift (ft)

2010 Volume Pumped MG

2009 Volume Pumped (MG)

2010 Cost ($)

2009 Cost ($)

Figure 4.15: Pump Station Volume Pumped, Hydraulic Head and Cost of Electric Comparison

Figure 4.15 is a plot of pump station hydraulic information against the energy cost of operation.



Table 4.6: Quantitative Information Presented in Figures 12–15


2010 Volume Pumped

(MG)

2009 Usage (kW h)

2009 Cost 2010 Usage

(kWh) 2010 Cost

2009 cost/MG

2010 cost/MG

Lift(f t)

Saltzman 0.8 0.6 8301 $ 1,098 17,665 $ 1,929 $ 1,408 $ 3,327 133 Burnside 1.7 4.7 27130 $ 5,528 11048 $ 4,297 $ 3,195 $ 907 179 Raymond 2.5 2.3 26760 $ 2,857 28000 $ 3,125 $ 1,147 $ 1,336 117

Rocky Butte 5.3 5.3 75960 $ 6,199 66160 $ 6,061 $ 1,170 $ 1,146 265 Greenleaf 6.0 7.1 19351 $ 2,665 14983 $ 1,094 $ 444 $ 155 65

Stephenson 20.7 20.2 52200 $ 5,328 50,100 $ 5,397 $ 258 $ 267 127 Powell Butte 30.5 1.4 16335 $ 1,824 14549 $ 1,706 $ 60 $ 1,185 70 Verda Vista 31.5 32.0 39978 $ 5,349 34,302 $ 4,753 $ 170 $ 148 125

Clatsop 33.1 29.3 55830 $ 5,728 57141 $ 6,150 $ 173 $ 210 129 Linton 39.3 41.9 163120 $ 14,140 120920 $ 10,700 $ 360 $ 256 264

Tenino Ct 39.6 27.3 38597 $ 4,046 37,538 $ 4,017 $ 102 $ 147 111 Springvile 48.1 48.9 224640 $ 25,928 154,260 $ 19,230 $ 539 $ 393 648

Tabor 85.7 80.5 67520 $ 10,719 179,120 $ 20,748 $ 125 $ 258 179 Whitwood 87.3 71.0 169760 $ 20,408 135520 $ 16,881 $ 234 $ 238 307 SE 112th 95.5 73.1 123316 $ 14,311 90,867 $ 11,618 $ 150 $ 159 247

Taylors Ferry 155.9 162.3 136520 $ 15,557 105,400 $ 13,578 $ 100 $ 84 42

Gilbert 181.5 201.0 258720 $ 24,949 258560 $ 24,917 $ 137 $ 124 24 Arnold 183.2 170.3 81622 $ 7,911 79873 $ 7,932 $ 43 $ 47 78

Portland Heights

209.5 169.1 272300 $ 39,674 235300 $ 30,456 $ 189 $ 180 278

Marquam Hill PS 1&2

249.7 240.3 426114 $ 49,475 339240 $ 35,745 $ 198 $ 149 359

Calvary 285.0 245.8 318180 $ 31,072 310020 $ 30,128 $ 109 $ 123 206 Hoyt 376.8 319.9 363440 $ 34,868 340560 $ 33,352 $ 93 $ 104 179

Capitol Hwy 389.3 332.1 179209 $ 19,229 182764 $ 19,326 $ 49 $ 58 81

Barbur Gibbs 464.8 455.3 984483 $ 85,897 936168 $ 80,427 $ 185 $ 177 438

Sam Jackson

947.8 830.9 1271700 $ 113,012 1,084,500 $ 106,862 $ 119 $ 129 401

Carolina 1020.9 843.4 1526400 $ 138,521 1539600 $ 136,032 $ 136 $ 161 242 W ashington

Park2534.9 1900.7 3429600 $ 284,669 3,050,400 $ 303,360 $ 112 $ 160 456

Fulton 2616.9 2620.9 3348000 $ 259,264 3290400 $ 245,044 $ 99 $ 93 232 * Springville, Marquam Hill, Capitol Hwy, Sam Jackson, and Washington park pump stations pump to multiple pressure zones. ** Rocky Butte, Powell Butte and Clatsop pump stations are equipped with VFD pump and pump directly into distribution.

4.5.3. Off-Peak Pump Station Operation

Several pump stations operate on electricity rate schedules that offer discounted

electricity prices during off‐peak operation (Table 4.). Off‐peak is defined by Portland

General Electric (PGE) as Monday – Saturday from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am and all day

Sunday. During lower‐flow demand periods, many pump stations may be operated

primarily during the off‐peak periods, which can offer substantial electricity cost



savings. Storage capacity at the receiving reservoir is the primary variable that

determines how much pumping can be shifted to off‐peak.

The primary operational scheme that the Water Bureau has developed to shift pumping

to the off‐peak period is different reservoir level set points for pump station discharge

that correspond to peak and off‐peak periods. By utilizing higher set points during the

off‐peak period, pump stations operate more often. Reservoir levels are kept higher

during off‐peak hours than they are during peak hours. Reservoir levels are lowered

during the peak hours, allowing them to pay out so that pump stations operate less

frequently during the peak periods.

Some circumstances may require operators to deviate from the lower peak operating

levels. The following are circumstances that may require higher tank levels during the

peak period:

Approaching severe weather that might cause a power outage

A city‐wide water shortage

Scheduled tank cleaning or taking the tank off‐line

Seasonal variation (need for more water during high‐demand periods)

Table 4.7: Electric Accounts with Discounted Off-Peak Electricity Ratesa

PGE Account Number Facility NameElectricity Rate Schedule

Primary or Secondary Service

0003 60407-445596-2 Washington Park PS* 89 Primary0003 60407-194487 Sam Jackson PS* 85 Primary0003 60407-306600 0 Barbur-Gibbs PS* 85 Secondary0003 60407-379890 Fulton PS* 85 Primary0003 60407-804573 6 Carolina PS* 85 Primary0003 60407-337226 7 Verde Vista PS* 83 Secondary0003 60407-474719 4 162nd Ave PS* 83 SecondaryUnless noted above assume that all other facilities operate on a Schedule 83 rate that does not currently have different off peak and peak electricity rates.

* Station has different off-peak and peak discharge levels **Primary services are those for which the PWB owns/maintains the transformer and Secondary services are those for which PGE owns/maintains the transformer aPGE’s electricity rate schedules are available at: http://www.portlandgeneral.com/our_company/corporate_info/regulatory_documents/tariff/rate_schedules.aspx

Off‐peak operation was particularly successful at the large pump stations, especially

those with large receiving reservoirs at the tops of hills. Electricity savings as a result of

this change at five of the largest and most active pump stations and two smaller pump

stations are shown in Table 4.7.



Sam Jackson Pump Station is a very successful example of off‐peak pumping. In 2011,

the majority of pumping was able to be shifted to the off peak periods (Figure 4.12). Sam

Jackson Pump Station represents about 6 percent of PWB total electricity use.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Standard Operation* Modified Operation**

kW

h

Peak Pumping (Mon - Sat 6:00 am - 10:00 pm)

Off-Peak Pumping (Mon - Sat 10:00 pm - 6:00 amand All Day Sunday)

*Standard Operation was prior to Jan 2011, when pumps were operated approximately 2/3 of the time during peak period and 1/3 of the time during off-peak period.

**Modified Operation is after Jan 2011 when pumps were operated as much as possible during the off-peak period. Pumps may be operated during the peak period if tank levels are low or for other necessary operational purposes.

Figure 4.12: Sam Jackson Pump Station – Peak vs. Off-Peak Pumping (Jan. – Nov. 2011) Table 4.8: 2011 PWB Electric Bill Savings as a Result of Off-Peak Operation

Pump Station Name SavingsWashington Park 9,500$ Fulton 9,500$ Carolina 6,500$ Sam Jackson 5,500$ Barbur-Gibbs 3,000$ 162nd Ave 1,500$ Verde Vista 400$

Total Savings 2011 35,900$


Failure Modes and Asset Life 35

5. Failure Modes and Asset Life

5.1. Failure Modes Performance failure occurs when operational requirements for the pump station exceed

the asset’s design performance ability or assets physical failure inhibits asset to perform

to its designed standards. Performance failure is also defined as asset’s inability to fulfill

one or more intended functions to a standard of performance that is acceptable to PWB

and set fort in the Level of Service discussed in section two. Pump stations can fail via

one or more of the four primary performance failure modes: capacity, cost‐of‐service

delivery, obsolescence, and physical mortality (deterioration).

A great example of performance failure is a pump station that is unable to provide

adequate fire flow during a large neighborhood fire. This performance failure is

characterized as capacity failure. On the opposite spectrum another form of capacity

failure, a pump station may be unable to supply low‐flow demand because the pump

settings do not turn the pump on and customer is left without water. These instances are

very rare to almost nonexistent at PWB mainly due to the system design and system

monitoring through SCADA and the Water Control Center that is staff 24 hours a day.

Most of the pump stations serve as lift stations moving the water to tanks that than feed

the distribution system. A couple of smaller pump stations such as Rocky Butte, Clatsop

Pump station and several other pump directly to the distribution system. The

maintenance and monitoring of these pump stations is heightened to ensure reliable

water supply to our customers.

Pump stations are made up of many individual child assets that can fail with or without

affecting the entire pump station performance. Child assets whose physical mortality

failure causes the whole pump station to fail are called single‐point‐of‐failure assets.

Predictive maintenance tasks such as vibration analysis and oil analysis are performed

on single‐point‐of‐failure assets while a less‐costly form of maintenance is performed on

assets that are considered redundant or whose failure does not directly impact the

operation of the pump station as a whole.

Different maintenance strategies are applied to different categories of assets depending

on their replacement cost and availability and criticality of operation in the pump

station. These maintenance strategies are kept with the Operations groups and work

orders are tracked through Synergen.

All performance failures are tracked and reported on through the service levels in the

form of number of outages due to pump station failure or low system pressure instances

tracked through SCADA, or number of customer complaints received through customer

service department. Pump Station program performance measures are reported every

year and performance is compared to established programmatic goals as described in

section 2.



5.1.1. Capacity Failure

Failure due to a lack of capacity occurs when the service demand exceeds the design

capacity of the pump station. The problem can be temporary or permanent in nature.

For a long time, the standard system design practice at Portland Water Bureau has been

to design pump stations for the peak fire flow demand of a particular service area.

Operational experience shows that the majority of the stations are oversized rather than

undersized and that capacity failure is rarely a problem (see Table 5.1 for data on the

demand compared to the pump capacity by service area). As growth continues in the

Portland metropolitan area and large areas currently serviced by other water districts

become incorporated into Portland Water Bureau pump stations may fail to meet the

needs of the fire flow and domestic demand requirements.

There are multiple means of dealing with capacity failures including redesigning pump

stations or installing additional storage tanks in the service area. Most of the pump

station capacity failures result in multiple group capital improvements projects. The

Engineering Services Planning group analyzes a hydraulic model to evaluate peak‐day

demands in current time and to forecast demand for the next 25+ years. The hydraulic

analysis is used to identify areas of low pressure and to show the demand levels. The

Engineering Planning group also evaluates possible demand scenarios using the Load

Scenario Tables when producing improvement plans and establishing capital

improvement projects.

5.1.1.1. Cost-of-Service Delivery

Cost of service delivery is calculated by summing the pump station efficiency losses and

the maintenance hours spent on a pump stations. Cost‐of‐service delivery failure mode

occurs when the operation of a pump station is unacceptably expensive and needs to be

replaced or refurbished. There are 93 pumps and motors in Portland Water Bureau

system whose last rehabilitation date is prior to 1990. Pumps and motors are the main

users of electricity at a pump station and therefore a major operational expense. With

age and wear, they lose efficiency and become too costly to operate. It is difficult to

make general rules about the frequency of complete pump and motor overhauls as it

depends on many apparent and hidden factors. The annual inspection report of the

pumps and motor should include an economic evaluation of the overhaul cost versus

the cost of power losses.

The Pump Station Asset Management team is working on a benefit‐to‐cost analysis

model that will compare the pump efficiency and annual operational cost to the cost of

overhaul or replacement of the pump and motors. The model will report the resulting

cost savings, if there are any. This benefit‐to‐cost model needs to be applied when

analyzing a pump station’s service as a whole. A potential cost‐of‐service pump station

failure has occurred when the current operational costs exceed the refurbishment or

replacement cost. PWB is in process of establishing guidelines that include an acceptable

cost‐of‐service matrix. The model is under development and quantitative thresholds

Child Assets Grandchild Assets Primary FunctionCurrent Maintenance Tasks or PM Procedure Maintenance Date Type

Maintenance Date Location Why Data Are Beneficial

Failure Code—what an operator or non-repay person would say is happening or has happened to the asset.

Component Code—what part of the asset failed

Failure Code—what a tech determined has happened to result in what is described

Root Cause—what caused the failure Repair Code Risk of Failure

Additional Possible Proactive Tasks that Reduce Risk

Change OilDatein Excel when oil is changed

Kept on Eric's Computer

To track frequency when oil is changed to determine if there is a more advanced failure.

Pump assembly fails

CouplingOver/under lubrication

Oil analysis lubricate, grease, ExcelKept on Eric's Computer

The types of information gathered is testing the rust inhibitor number, viscosity, moisture content and checks for various metals in the oil, done to minimize catastrophes with motor bearings with predictive preventative maintenance.

Pump Leaks

misalignment

Rotate Lead Pumps Data stored in scada Kept on networkPredicting remaining run time in the pump. PM Driven insert worn

Vibration AnalysisData stored and read by Emonitor on Eric's PC

Kept on Eric's Computer

Determining and forecasting failures in the pump and motor. spline broken

Repair/Replace Packing

Data recorded in the synergen as part of the work order vibration

Laser Alignment

Date when laser alignment was done on the equipment is recorded in the synergen as part of the work order. looseness

Efficiency Analysis - Engineering Excel format On the network in the Keyway sheared

Pump Rebuild (new impeller, shaft, bearings, etc)

Date recorded in the synergen as part of the work order On the network

Knowing frequency of the repairs/replacements

Bolts loose/ missing (BOLTS LOSE)

Site Visit Check-sheet format TBD

Overall appearance of the station and condition assessment. out of alignment

Seals Carbon wornCeramic cracked

improper installationdebrisleakswrong sealloss of lubrication in packinggalling of sleevegland brokenfaulty valveloss of prime

Pump bearings worn sleevecontaminated oilmoisture

Low - Medium (due

to built-in system

redundancy)

Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail

Pump WaterPumpsPump Assembly

Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 37









balanceheatoverloading thrust bearing

Impeller wornbrokenchemical attackelectrolysiscavitations

wear rings clearance too tighttoo loosedissimilar metalsbent shaft

sleeves heat/lack of flowbearing failure

Shaft alignmentimproper material

rapid start and stopgrouting

Base base too tightlevel

Site Visit Check-sheet format TBD

Overall appearance of the piping and condition

assessment. Determination of possible rust and paint system

failure.

Other-described in finishing comments (OTHER)

Joint seal failure (SEAL FAIL)

Ground movement / settling (SETTLING)

Full circle repair clam (FCRC) High

Water leaking from asset (LEAK)

Other component described in finishing comments (OTHER)

No leak found (NO LEAK)

Unknown cause (UNKNOWN) Weld repair (WELD)

PM DrivenPipe wall immediately surrounding a tap (TAP LOC)

Blow out hole (BLOW OUT)

High pressure or surge event (PRESSURE)

Pipe wall (PIPE WALL)

Bolts loose/ missing (BOLTS LOSE) Corrosion (CORROSION)

Non-mechanical joint (JNT NOMECH)

Bolts corroded (BOLTS CORR)

Other cause - describe in finishing comments

Discharge PipingJoint bell split (BELL SPLIT) Poor bedding (BEDDING)

Intake PipingPinhole leak (PINHOLE)

Traffic or other vibration (VIBRATION)

Other-describe in finishing comments (OTHER) Seal failure (SEAL FAIL)

Miscellaneous Piping

Vertical/circumferential pipe break (VERT BRK)

Contractor/ other 3rd party damage (CONTRACTOR)

Hlical/Spiral pipe break (HELIC BRK)Corrosion

Piping/ Mechanical Piping/Mechanical Transport water










Horizontal/Longitudinal pipe break (HORIZ BRK)

Motors 1) Notify WCC Operator & District OE

Megger readings are recorded in the pump

station on a cabinet door and also in excel

spreadsheet

In the pump station and with Mark Crowder on his

computer

Megger reading data is used to determine remaining life

of a motor and results in condition assessment. Also it shows need for preventive

maintenance.

Motor Fails Bearings

over lubrication Overloading Low - Medium

2) Use appropriate Safety PPE PM Driven under lubrication Too frequent starts

3) Take Thermal image if applicable Thermal image

information is recorded on a spreadsheet.

Information resides with Mark Crowder

possibly in excel format in his PC.

It is used to predict motor failure, and condition

assessment also it can be used to predict motor

efficiency. misalignment High ambient temperatures4) Check in-board & out-board

bearings ageLow or unbalanced voltages

5) Clean & inspect motor vents & cooling fan

moisture

Inadequate ventilation i.e. damaged cooling fan, contaminated motor.

6) Check terminations for tightness excessive vibration poor power quality

7) Check motor connection box for loose/heated/worn

terminationsbearing journal fit or housing fit Voltage spikes

8) Measure insulation resistance w/ 5kv "megger" & record

readings

Micro-Ohmmeter readings are recorded in

a spreadsheet


possibly in excel format on his PC

Information is used to predict possible failure and used in

condition assessment. contaminated oilFrequencies under 60HZ from VFD's

9) Measure winding resistance w/ Micro-Ohmmeter & record

readingsRecording of Run time

readings


possibly in excel format on his PC

Information is used to predict possible failure and used in

condition assessment. improper installationBearing damage from shaft currents.

10) Record run time readings

improper design

Weakened dielectric strength of electrical varnish and other insulating materials

11) Verify settings of overload relay & short circuit protection appropriate for FLA of motor

Rotorcracked

corrosion of bearings and other mechanical components

12) Verify operation of motor winding heater. bent or broken bars Dirty motor oil

13) Check output of solid- state winding heater, where

applicable, w/ Ohmmeter (output should be 1 to 3 watt/hp)

Stator

ageMixed greases causing separation and deficiency

14) Complete Task completion Detail water

Contamination caused Abrasion

overloadedContamination caused Corrosion

blown fuseContamination caused Overheating

loss of phase Misaligned couplingsInsulation Age Over-tightened belt

delaminated Bearing in motor wear outcracked mis-alignment sheaves

Operate PumpPump Assembly










burnt

Over-compliant base or poor shimming of motor mounting feet

Wire chaffedConductors that feed motor fail

poor connection

Dynamic imbalance of load or internal imbalance of motor rotor

torn

Failure to bypass resonant speed point in VFD powered motors

stretched Misapplication of bearings

Variable Frequency Drive Motor

1) Notify WCC Operator & District OE cut

2) Take thermal image if applicable punctured

3) Clean equipment/ vacuumed moisture damage4) Check all terminations for

tightness corrosion damage5) Check indicator lights Shaft bent

6) Run drive diagnostic test if available of check SCRs/IGBTs w/

Fluke Meter Drive diagnostic test data TBDPredict possible failure and

maintenance needs. stretched

7) Check contacts for wear manufacturer defect8) Inspect control transformers for

signs of aging corroded (pitting)

9) Inspect/replace filterimproper wear damage

10) Run drive and check out w/ oscilloscope

worn beyond service life

11) complete task completion detail galling

Valve not working not able to control flow or provide

shutdown, isolation Valve body Cracked Corrosion High

PM Driven Valve stemBroken or stripped can not operate Inappropriate installation

Valve disc, ball or needle Failed Ground settling

Valve actuator mechanical

Signal failure between actuator and controls Inappropriate operation

Electrical actuator motor

Seals deteriorated due to age Factory defect

seal/ gasket/ o-ringDiaphragmSolenoir

Valves










Records state of a valve in a worksheet format tbd

Predict maintenance needs and current condition of the site valves. Provides data for appropriate condition assessment.

Other valve component

Pressure Relief Valves / Surge Valves (VALVE_FCV)

Protect pump main, prevent water hammer & backflow

Clean strainer, check for diaphragm leaks and check pancake Check Valve (More often at GW wells). May want to perform maint similar to regulators at sites with very high pressure or high risk valves.


Predict maintenance needs and current condition of the site valves. Provides data for appropriate condition assessment. Inaccessible (INACCESS) Valve stem (STEM)

Bolts corroded (BOLTS CORR) Corrosion (CORROSION)

Removed asset (REMOVE) Medium Rebuild

Standard Valves - Clean strainer, check for diaphragm leaks and check pancake Check Valve (More often at GW wells).


Predict maintenance needs and current condition of the site valves. Provides data for appropriate condition assessment. Could not operate (DNO) Valve hub (HUB)

Broken component (BROKEN CMP) Turbercles (TURBERCLES) Repacked (REPACK) Medium

Strainer clean, leak check & rebuild

High Pressure (over 300 psi) & Low Redundancy Valves - Clean strainer, check for diaphragm leaks and check pancake Check Valve (More often at GW wells). May want to perform maint similar to regulators at sites with very high pressure or high risk valves. tbd


Water leaking from asset (LEAK)

Valve body (BODY)


Contactor / other 3rd party damage (CONTRACTOR)

Replaced entire asset (REPL ASSET)

Valve leaking but not broken - leaking internally (LEAKBY)

Valve disc, ball, plate or needle, any moving component (DISC)

Other-describe in finishing comments (OTHER)

Manufacturing defect (DEFECT)

Replaced Component (REPL COMP)

PM Driven Valve Seat (SEAT)Seal failure (SEAL FAIL)

Poor installation/workmanship (BAD JOB)

Abandoned asset in closed position (ABN CLOSED)

Valve actuator mechanism (ACTUATOR) Cavitations (CAVITATION) Lubricated (LUBE)

Valve Packing (PACKING)


Abandoned asset in open position (ABN CLOSED)

Electric actuator motor (MOTOR) Sediment (SEDIMENT)Other valve component (OTHER)

Other causes described in finishing comments (OTHER)

Mechanical joint (JNT MECH)

Unknown cause (UNKNOWN)Seal failure (SEAL FAIL)

Site Valves

Control flow of water, provide shutdowns and

isolation Operate/Exercise










High Pressure (over 300 psi), Low Redundancy & Double Diaphragm Valves - Rebuild (teardown and complete replacement of all rubber components)



Water leaking through valve internally (LEAKBY) Valve Seat (SEAT)


Pore installation / workmanship (BAD JOB)

Does Not Function as designed (DNF) Joint (JOINT)

Problem reside with SCADA system (SCADA)

Normal wear asset / component end of service life (NORMAL)

Inaccessible (INACCESS) Screen (SCREEN)Broken component (BROKEN CMP) Corrosion (CORROSION)

Water Leaking from valve externally (LEAK)

Solenoid (SOLENOID)

Valve is buried or access otherwise blocked (BURIED) Turbercles (TURBERCLES)

PM Driven

Valve disc, ball, plate or needle, any moving component (DISC)

Valve is paved over (PAVED OVER)

Unknown cause (UNKNOWN)

Check valve as component of a large assembly (CHECK)


Manufacturing defect (DEFECT)

Gasket, O-ring and seals (SEAL)

Bolts corroded (BOLTS CORR)


Bearing (BEAR) Cavitations (CAVITATION)

Valve stem (STEM)Ground movement / settling (SETTLING)

Hydraulic pilot (PILOT)

Other causes described in finishing comments (OTHER)

Other valve component (OTHER)

Foreign object enters system (DEBRIS)

Globe valve diaphragm (DIAPHRAGM) Sediment (SEDIMENT)

Valve body (BODY)


Isolation Valves (VALVE_ISOL)

Allow for removal of pump Operate/Exercise



Valve leaking but not broken - leaking internally (LEAKBY)

Electrical actuator motor (MOTOR)

Broken component (BROKEN CMP)

Manufacturing defect/ design error (DEFECT) Repacked (REPACK) Low

Pump Assembly Pump Control Valve (VALVE_PCV)

Protect pump main, prevent water

hammer & backflow










Water leaking from asset (LEAK) Valve Box (BOX)

Valve is paved over (PAVED OVER)

Unknown cause (UNKNOWN)

Abandoned asset in closed position (ABN CLOSED)

Could not operate (DNO)

Non-mechanical joint (JNT NOMECH)

Seal failure (SEAL FAIL)

Other cause - describe in finishing comments (OTHER)

Replaced Component (REPL COMP)

Inaccessible (INACCESS)Mechanical joint (JNT MECH)

Bolts loose/ missing (BOLTS LOSE) Cavitation (CAVITATION)

Removed asset (REMOVE)

PM Driven

Valve actuator mechanisam (ACTUATOR)

Bolts corroded (BOLTS CORR) Seal failure (SEAL FAIL) Lubricated (LUBE)

Valve disc, ball, plate or needle, any moving component (DISC) Buried valve (BURIED)


Replaced entire asset (REPL ASSET)

Valve Seat (SEAT)


Ground movements settling, vibration (SETTLING)

Abandoned asset in open position (ABN CLOSED)

Valve Packing (PACKING)

Poor installation/workmanship (BAD JOB)

Valve Stem (STEM)

High pressure/Surge event/ Water hammer (PRESSURE)

Other valve component (OTHER) Corrosion (CORROSION)Valve Body (BODY) Sediment (SEDIMENT)

Valve hub (HUB) Turbercles (TURBERCLES)

Poor bedding (BEDDING)

1) Notify WCC Operator & District OE Termal image data TBD

Predicts failure and forecasts possible maintenance needs

Motor can not be turned on or operated Enclosure Fails

Short circuit causes starter to burn up Medium

2) Use appropriate Safety/Arc-Flash PPE (air-monitoring,

ventilation fan, climbing gear, hotwork/ FR gear, Confined

Space Entry permit) Ohmmeter data Mark Crowder's PC

Predicts failure and forecast possible maintenance needs. Contactors

3) Take Thermal image if applicable Task completion form Mark Crowder's PC

Predicts failure and forecast possible maintenance needs.

4) Clean equipment/vacuum5) Check indicator lights

6) Verify mechanical operation and interlock contacts Breakers

Vibration causes wire to become loose/disconnects.










7) Verify contacts alignment & measure resistance w/ Micro-

Ohmmeter PM Driven Circuit Board

Arcs causes pitting in circuit contactors/ contactors welded shut.

8) Clean & Lubricate slabs w/ conductive grease (Medium -

Voltage Contactors) CorrosionExcess moisture causes corrosion

9) Check all terminations for tightness

10) Check contacts for wear11) Inspect control transformers

for signs of aging12) Verify motor winding heater

operation

13) Complete Task Completion Detail

Future repairs are not possible on the Motor starter

Outdated/ long lead time/ parts do not exist

1) Notify WCC Operators & District OE Task completion form

Located with Marc Crowder

Provides overall health of the asset and forecasts possible future maintenance. Does not turn on motor Pitting and corrosion



Space Entry permit) PM Driven

Components within MCC fail (relays, fuses, switches, contacts, sensors, etc.)

3) Apply ground straps, where appropriate

4) Clean equipment/vacuumDeteriated springs/ can not make closed connection

5) Check indicator lights Insulation deteriorates

6) Verify mechanical operation (disconnect handles/interlocks)

7) Check all termination for tightness

Mechanical parts of the motor war out

8) Check contact for wear, inspect control power

transformers for signs of aging 9) Take thermal image if

applicable10) Complete Task Completion Detail

Future repairs are not possible

Outdated/ long lead time/ parts do not exist High

Transformer oil analysis report

Located with Mark Crowder

Provides information on the condition of the transformer and forecasts needed repairs and maintenance tasks

Transformer does not provide voltage to the pump assembly

Overheat /Oil break down Oil Deteriorating

Thermograph dataLocated with Mark Crowder

Provides information on the condition of the transformer and forecasts needed repairs and maintenance tasks Rust/corrosion

In case of failure Transformer can not be repaired No parts


PM Driven Low

Motor Starters

Control of motors

Provide proper voltage to Pump

Station

Start & operate motors

MCC

10KVA Transformer

Electrical

Thermograph, Transformer Gas & Oil Analysis










Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS)

1) Notify WCC Operator & District OE

2) Take Thermal - Image if applicable Thermal Image data


Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.

3) Check operation/ perform load test Load test data



4) Clean equipment/vacuum

5) Check terminations for tightness

6) Verify weekly run (day, time and duration)

Recording of the run duration



7) Complete Task Completion Detail Task Completion report.



Pitting and corrosion LowPM Driven

Deteriorating springsFuture repairs are not possible Worn out parts




Space Entry permit)3) Ensure equipment is de-

energized (use "Tic-Tracer" w/ Hot-Stick)

4) Apply grounding straps5) Remove fusing

6) Clean/Vacum equipment7) Check all termination for

tightness8) Inspect stress cones for corona

degradation

9) Verify mechanical operation

10) Clean/ Lubricate knife-blades using conductive grease

Primary Disconnect, Circuit Breaker,

1000AMP

Provide power to motors, SCADA, Lights & HVAC

1) Notify WCC Operator & District OE










11) Complete task completion detail. Task Completion report.

Located with Mark Corwder


BatteryBank 1) Notify WCC Operator & District

OE

2) Use appropriate PPE / Verify presence of suitable eyewash

equipment3) Take Thermal Image

4) Inspect/Clean batteries

5) Check terminations for tightness6) Verify proper electrolyte level, if

appropriate

7) Record input/output voltage and currents

Voltage and Currents recorded data



8) Complete task completion detail Task Completion report.



UPS 1) Notify operator2) Use proper PPE

3) Take Thermal Image Thermal Image dataLocated with Mark Crowder


Structure

Vault Protect equipment

Vault summerize/winterize information is recorded in a check form TBD

Provides information on what has been done and feeds into energy conservation program. Vault lid Failed

Sump pump failed due to age/Deteriorating High

Hatches BrokenSump pump failed due to pore design/undersized

Sump pump Clogged Sump pump failed due to mechanical problem

Drain system Leaking Deteriorating due to agePore design/installment

Paint systemPaint system failed due to pore age










Vault seal

Paint system failed due to pore design/pore installationClogged

RoofProtect Building from weather Scheduled Inspection

Roof inspection results are recorded on a check-form TBD

Provide information when next repair needs to occur

Roof fails water is leaking or about to leak Roof Leaking Deteriorating due to age

Site Visit Summerize/Winterize

Vault summerize/winterize information is recorded in a check form TBD

Provides information on what has been done and feeds into energy conservation program. Window breaks Window

Caused by natural event, or acts of vandalism

Paint failsInside paint system failure

Flaking and chipping/old age HighGraffiti

Outside pain system

Flaking and chipping/old ageGraffiti

Walls fail Walls Cracks Settling old age

Foundation fails Cracks Settling/old age Low

HVAC Failure Fan Does not work Failure due to age/outdated

Motor

Other partFailure due to worn out parts

Calibration data IT Shop folderproblems and reoccurring problems. Compliance

RTU fails to control pump and relay signal open calibrated HighOut of Calibration short adjustedDoes not work high resistance replaced

corroded cleaned

Inspect and verify database burnt chargedMedium - High

As needed adjust power supply voltage cracked resetField verify digital inputs smashed reloadedField verify Pulse Count Inputs overloaded rebootedCalibrate data-radio wet terminated

Analog InstrumentsReport station pressures and flow Inspect submerged energized

Medium - High

Verify analog resistor values at 100 ohm program fault weighedCalibrate analog field devices software fault insulated

Analyzers locked up measuredMaster radios failed spannedFlow Meters frozen zeroed

under range connectedover range securedbelow zero reprogrammedruptured reconfiguredbent refilledout of alignment re-alignedoverheated lubricatedmissing labeledvandalized configureddischarged set upoverheated plannedover speed testedworn documentedout of tolerance opened

Site Visit Summerize/Winterize

Vault fails equipment is exposed to Deteriorating

conditions, moisture in the vault

Inspect/label and clean equipment as required/ make up

and install calibration tags/replace corrosion inhibitor

Protect Electrical Equipment?Building

Instrumentation/Telemetry (SCADA)

Modicon RTUProvide PS

Communication

Report levels, operation, intrusion,

etc; RTU

Communications










seized closed

incorrect application startedoperator error stopped

improperly installed measuredelectrical surge calculatedover tightened instructedpower fail communicatedfailed component troubleshotfailed display balancedfailed button Tunedelectro magnetic interference

Changed configuration

High VSWR Changed settingsHot start adjusted flowgrounded replaced electrolitehard landing replaced bufferincorrect voltage replaced reagnetinsulation breakdown replaced probeinterferencelightning strikeoff frequencyoversizepolarity reversedhigh resistancelow resistancehigh impedancelow impedanceunbalanced, unstableunstablefuse blowncapacitance incorrectheat damageimproper fitelectrical arc damagemissingvandalizedshut off

Site GroundsFit in with neighborhood Site Visit

Site condition is a nuisance to the neighborhood. Low




have not yet been established as of March 2012. Model variables that are being

considered include yearly maintenance cost, cost of replacement, asset down‐time cost

and cost of operation that takes into consideration pump train overall efficiency and the

annual volume of water moved through the pump assembly.

5.1.1.2. Obsolescence

Obsolescence can occur when industry standards change or materials previously used

are found to be unsafe, substandard, or no longer supported by the industry. In these

cases, the need for asset replacement may occur prior to the physical failure of the asset.

Most of the time, this happens as a result of external forces and decisions outside the

PWB’s control. PWB is not in control of this failure mode and can do little to avoid it.

PWB does have control of its reaction to this failure mode. Staff is working within the

each trade group to develop mitigation strategies that are tailored to an asset’s criticality

within the pump station. Each individual trade group within PWB has its own way of

dealing with asset or sub‐asset part obsolescence. The most widely implemented

mitigation strategy is complete replacement of the asset or sub‐asset that has failed via

obsolescence. The replacement schedule is dependent on an asset’s criticality and its

impact on a pump station’s ability to achieve the service goals presented in Chapter 2.

The most recent failure due to obsolescence happened in the information technology (IT)

group as the SAGE remote telemetry units (RTU) were no longer supported by the

industry and the replacement parts were no longer available. The IT group has

gradually updating RTUs in coordination with the implementation of CIP projects and

based on the funding availability and pump station operational criticality. This is a great

example of incremental change that allows the bureau to absorb costs gradually and

keep functioning equipment to remain in place despite obsolescence failure.

The proposed steps for identifying and correcting obsolescence failure include the

following:

1. Industry change and possible obsolescence failure. This step is industry‐driven and

out of PWB control. PWB staff needs to stay educated and current on industry

changes in order to recognize possible needs for system modifications and upgrades.

2. Identification of assets impacted. A list of all the assets that could be impacted with

industry change is compiled using asset management software.

3. Location and criticality of the impacted assets. The generated list is prioritized by an

asset’s assigned operational criticality. Assets that are determined to be single‐point‐

of‐failure assets for the whole pump station are ranked higher in the list for

replacement resulting in more prompt action.

4. Cross‐referencing of the final list of impacted assets with the CIP projects list and

coordination. If there is an ongoing or planned CIP project at a pump station that has

asset obsolescence, then asset replacement is added to the scope of the project



5. Run equipment to failure. Assets that are no longer industry‐supported should be

allowed to run to physical failure before being replaced. Assets that have higher

criticality ratings should be closely monitored with a replacement procedure in place

to minimize service disruption while allowing maximum use of the asset prior to

replacement.0.

5.1.1.3. Physical Failure (Mortality)

The partial or complete loss of function of an asset due to condition‐based deterioration

is the most common failure mode for pump stations. Physical failures can have varying

failure modes and each type of pump station also has its own unique set of failure

modes. Physical failure is when the performance falls below an acceptable minimum

level of performance or when reduced efficiency causes the cost of operations to exceed

that of alternatives.

In addition, system conditions can present unique challenges and failure modes that

differ from water utility to water utility. The PWB system is unfiltered and utilizes open

finished water reservoirs. Sediment, debris, and other objects that adversely impact the

performance of a pump station are present in much greater quantities than in a system

that is filtered and does not utilize open finished water reservoirs. These factors are

important to address when developing a pump station maintenance strategy.

Physical failure can occur in a variety of modes. The failures most commonly reported

by PWB operating engineers, electricians, and instrumentation technicians are shown in

Table 5.1. The entire spreadsheet of failure modes, repair codes, and other notes about

the data are available as Appendix E of this AMP.

Physical failure mode tracking is a crucial element when performing failure analysis and

forecasting asset replacement and repair strategies. Developing a history in CMMS of

physical failure for all pump station assets is laborious due to the need for a high level of

consistency in the way information is recorded and tracked. Developing this history

database is a vital next step in asset management within the pump station program. This

idea is explored further in Chapter 7 as one of the proposed strategies.

Table 5.1 is a starting point for identifying failure modes through five different levels of

detail; failure code, component code, failure mode, root cause, and repair code. These

five different levels of detail have been implemented in the valve and mains asset

management program and these fields are part of the Synergen program.

The current plan is to import the failure, repair, and other data shown in Appendix E

into Synergen. In Synergen, the Operations group will use pull‐down menus of the

various failure and repair types when completing work orders for pump station assets.

Having a database of failure modes and repairs and the time spent on each work order

will allow PWB to compile reports on asset failure. These reports will provide answers

to questions such as (but not limited to) the following:

Is replacement more cost‐effective than continuous maintenance?



How many hours does PWB staff spend on maintenance of certain brands of assets?

How often does a certain brand or type of assets fail?

This information will allow PWB to plot asset deterioration curves and more correctly

predict asset condition as position on the deterioration curve. This will enable PWB to

better forecast asset replacement and create maintenance strategies. It will also give

bureau staff data and information on the effectiveness of its asset maintenance strategy.

5.2. Failures Based on Declining Performance One of the major indicators of declining pump performance is a decline in efficiency.

There is no exact efficiency level established by PWB that indicates when a pump and

motor have failed or when adjustments or repairs are necessary. The cost of

improvements must be balanced against the benefits and possible cost savings. Some of

the analysis factors used to determine failure based on declining performance include

the following:

The extent of poor performance: It is necessary to determine the true efficiency of the

pump and motor based on field testing and data analysis of flow and power. That

efficiency is then compared to the original installment efficiency and the percentage

of decrease is determined.

Hours of operation: Hours of operation should be determined using SCADA data

and how many times pump comes on and off.

Conditions of operation: Current pressure and pumping rates should be compared

to the system requirements and programs levels of service to determine on whether

the pump system is able to meet current demand.

Maintenance and repairs: Historic costs of predictive and preventive maintenance

are analyzed.

Based on an analysis including the factors stated above, the pump may be determined to

be failing based on declining performance.

The tables in the linked spreadsheet evaluate pump stations based on some of the analysis

factors listed above\\Wbfile1\group$\Engineering\Asset Management\Asset

Management Plans\Pump Station\2011 PSAMP work Folder\Total PS ANALYSIS

0910.xls>. Table 5.2, Pump Station Performance & Maintenance Practices, shows the hours

of operation documented in SCADA for the pump stations. It also shows the hours the

pump station performed per hour of maintenance. The Burnside, Washington Park 3,

Portland Heights, Fremont, Verde‐Vista, Rivergate, Vivian and Springville pump stations

have very low performance time per hour of maintenance. This indicates that PWB is

spending large amounts of corrective and preventive maintenance on those stations. The

Planning group needs to evaluate the need for CIP projects at those stations. This may also

indicate that these pump stations are underutilized and that the overall number of

maintenance hours needs to be adjusted to reflect pump stations need and utilization.



Table 5.2: Pump Station Performance & Maintenance Practices

2009 2010 CM Hours

Hours Run per Total Maintenance

Hours (PM + CM)

Pump Station LoF PM Hours

Total # Starts for PS

Total # Hours All Pumps

Hours Run per PM Hour

PM Hours




2011 PM

Hours 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

Springville 1 37 554 2588 70 21 569 1876 89 29 6 271 4 43 292 33

Vivian 1 1 140 476 476 92 125 494 5 6 6 16 0 7 108 6

Capitol Hwy 1 1 614 4444 4444 56 586 4279 77 64 6 62 9 7 118 73

Powell B Hts 1 1 371 8664 8664 49 399 8764 179 22 No

Record 39 No

Record 1 88 22

Barbur Gibbs 2 1 570 9250 9250 51 682 8945 177 112 84 255 68 85 306 180

Marquam 2 6 874 2800 467 71 831 2950 42 53 4 33 139 10 104 192

Rivergate 2 11 133 267 24 42 135 277 7 251 58 51 20 69 93 270

Saltzman 2 36 5 739 21 24 8 862 36 9 0 45 22 36 69 31

Se 162nd 2 1 382 3759 3759 23 370 3113 138 14 34 151 17 35 174 30.5

Tenino Ct 2 1 236 3337 3337 23 217 3229 144 13 No

Record 25 No

Record 1 48 13

Verde Vista 2 70 140 476 7 23 125 494 21 9 No

Record 68 No

Record 70 91 9

Wash Park 1 2 12 200 5527 461 91 586 10018 110 27 No

Record 78 18 12 169 45

Wash Park 2 2 1 2278 2038 2038 51 2293 2250 44 26 2 85 253 3 136 279

Wash Park 3 2 1 46 1042 1042 19 61 83 4 29 6 24 28 7 43 57

Carolina 2 1 1538 7432 7432 84 1604 5855 70 64 63 43 26 64 127 90

Fremont/105 2 24 128 70 3 23 93 91 4 27 No

Record 4 No

Record 24 27 27

jlettene

Wide-logo




2009 2010 CM Hours


Hours (PM + CM)





PM Hours




2011 PM

Hours 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

Greenleaf 2 No Record 955 730 N/A 10 559 708 71 10 No

Record 161 45 No

Record 171 55

Ptld Hts 2 1 1325 2170 2170 125 1232 1881 15 87 33 242 252 34 367 338.5

Raymond 2 1 2196 8680 8680 55 2251 8776 159 28 52 5 6 53 60 34

Rocky Butte 2 9 44 8511 946 76 68 8585 113 2 0 20 63 9 96 65

Stephenson 2 26 62 4438 171 22 55 4600 209 135 10 214 43 36 236 178

Calvary 2 8 1392 5737 717 33 1193 4688 144 31 0 20 72 8 53 103

Clatsop 2 No Record 153 8783 N/A 109 118 8822 81 88 60 149 14 60 258 102

Whitwood 2 27 806 3355 124 66 687 2549 39 17 30 43 No

Record 57 109 17

Hoyt 2 73 1313 4566 63 23 1092 3908 170 838 52 47 109 125 70 947

SE 120th 2 1 286 2787 2787 70 194 2694 38 17 30 0 6 31 70 23

Arlington/ 3 22 12 8742 397 17 9 8765 531 12 No

Record No

Record 2 22 17 13.5

Arnold 3 1 457 3537 3537 6 434 3089 562 23 6 79 36 7 85 59

Burnside 3 1 306 70 70 28 256 207 7 8 0 111 3 1 139 10

Fulton 3 1 288 17046 17046 35 351 16869 482 50 276 258 30 277 293 79

Linnton 3 16 1140 11312 707 149 1028 12844 86 25 68 188 9 84 337 34

Sam Jackson 3 1 1152 5558 5558 155 1261 4922 32 65 No

Record 1 57 1 156 121

jlettene

Wide-logo




2009 2010 CM Hours


Hours (PM + CM)





PM Hours




2011 PM

Hours 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

Taylors Fy 3 1 350 1273 1273 31 314 1421 47 No

Record No

Record 23 21 1 54 21

Latigo Lane 1 3831 879 879 1 2267 387 387 5 No

Record No

Record No

Record 1 1 5

Table 5.3 shows the electrical cost per million gallons of water pumped through the pump station based on the flows recorded and cost of

electricity. This cost does not include maintenance charges required to keep the pump station operational. Base electrical costs such as costs needed

to operate the electronic controls, lights, and other instrumentation are not subtracted from the costs presented above causing smaller pump

stations to have higher cost per million of gallons water pumped.

jlettene

Wide-logo



Table 5.3. Pump Station Power Usage and Cost

Volume

Pumped (MG) Cost Per MG

Pump Station 2009 2010

2009 Usage (kWh) 2009 Cost

2010 Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2009 2010

Saltzman 0.8 0.6 8301 $1,098 17,665 $1,929 $1,408 $3,327 Burnside 1.7 4.7 27130 $5,528 11048 $4,297 $3,195 $907 Raymond 2.5 2.3 26760 $2,857 28000 $3,125 $1,147 $1,336 Rocky Butte 5.3 5.3 75960 $6,199 66160 $6,061 $1,170 $1,146 Greenleaf 6.0 7.1 19351 $2,665 14983 $1,094 $444 $155 Stephenson 20.7 20.2 52200 $5,328 50,100 $5,397 $258 $267 Powell Butte 30.5 1.4 16335 $1,824 14549 $1,706 $60 $1,185 Verde Vista 31.5 32.0 39978 $5,349 34,302 $4,753 $170 $148 Clatsop 33.1 29.3 55830 $5,728 57141 $6,150 $173 $210 Linnton 39.3 41.9 163120 $14,140 120920 $10,700 $360 $256 Tenino Ct 39.6 27.3 38597 $4,046 37,538 $4,017 $102 $147 Springville 48.1 48.9 224640 $25,928 154,260 $19,230 $539 $393 Tabor 85.7 80.5 67520 $10,719 179,120 $20,748 $125 $258 Whitwood 87.3 71.0 169760 $20,408 135520 $16,881 $234 $238 SE 112th 95.5 73.1 123316 $14,311 90,867 $11,618 $150 $159 Taylors Ferry 155.9 162.3 136520 $15,557 105,400 $13,578 $100 $84 Gilbert 181.5 201.0 258720 $24,949 258560 $24,917 $137 $124 Arnold 183.2 170.3 81622 $7,911 79873 $7,932 $43 $47 Portland Heights 209.5 169.1 272300 $39,674 235300 $30,456 $189 $180 Marquam Hill PS 1&2 249.7 240.3 426114 $49,475 339240 $35,745 $198 $149 Calvary 285.0 245.8 318180 $31,072 310020 $30,128 $109 $123 Hoyt 376.8 319.9 363440 $34,868 340560 $33,352 $93 $104 Capitol Hwy 389.3 332.1 179209 $19,229 182764 $19,326 $49 $58 Barbur Gibbs 464.8 455.3 984483 $85,897 936168 $80,427 $185 $177 Sam Jackson 947.8 830.9 1271700 $113,012 1,084,500 $106,862 $119 $129 Carolina 1020.9 843.4 1526400 $138,521 1539600 $136,032 $136 $161 Washington Park 2534.9 1900.7 3429600 $284,669 3,050,400 $303,360 $112 $160 Fulton 2616.9 2620.9 3348000 $259,264 3290400 $245,044 $99 $93

Table 5.4, Pump Station Power Usage and Costs, shows information on the pump

stations extent of poor performance by comparing the pump stations annual volume

water pumped to the power used. This table shows pump stations total power used that

includes base costs such as costs for other equipment that uses electricity in the stations.



Table 5.4: Pump Station Power Usage and Costs

5.3. Service Demands Table 5.5 shows current service demands and capacity for each service area. The

Portland Water system is set up so that most of the distribution is supplied from a

storage tank using gravity. Very few pump stations pump directly to the distribution

area. Rocky Butte is an example of a pump station that does pump to a distribution area.

These pump stations have a higher criticality and should receive higher level of

predictive maintenance to ensure that the number of interruptions due to pump station

failure is always within the established service levels.

2009 Volume Pumped

(MG)

2010 Volume Pumped

(MG)

2009 Usage (kWh)


(kWh) 2010 Cost

2009 cost/MG

2010 cost/MG

Saltzman 0.8 0.6 8301 $ 1,098 17,665 $ 1,929 $ 1,408 $ 3,327 Raymond 2.5 2.3 26760 $ 2,857 28000 $ 3,125 $ 1,147 $ 1,336

Powell Butte 30.5 1.4 16335 $ 1,824 14549 $ 1,706 $ 60 $ 1,185 Rocky Butte 5.3 5.3 75960 $ 6,199 66160 $ 6,061 $ 1,170 $ 1,146

Burnside 1.7 4.7 27130 $ 5,528 11048 $ 4,297 $ 3,195 $ 907 Springvile 48.1 48.9 224640 $ 25,928 154,260 $ 19,230 $ 539 $ 393

Stephenson 20.7 20.2 52200 $ 5,328 50,100 $ 5,397 $ 258 $ 267 Tabor 85.7 80.5 67520 $ 10,719 179,120 $ 20,748 $ 125 $ 258 Linton 39.3 41.9 163120 $ 14,140 120920 $ 10,700 $ 360 $ 256

Whitwood 87.3 71.0 169760 $ 20,408 135520 $ 16,881 $ 234 $ 238 Clatsop 33.1 29.3 55830 $ 5,728 57141 $ 6,150 $ 173 $ 210 Portland Heights

209.5 169.1 272300 $ 39,674 235300 $ 30,456 $ 189 $ 180

Barbur Gibs 464.8 455.3 984483 $ 85,897 936168 $ 80,427 $ 185 $ 177 Carolina 1020.9 843.4 1526400 $ 138,521 1539600 $ 136,032 $ 136 $ 161

Washington Park

2534.9 1900.7 3429600 $ 284,669 3,050,400 $ 303,360 $ 112 $ 160

SE 112th 95.5 73.1 123316 $ 14,311 90,867 $ 11,618 $ 150 $ 159 Greenleaf 6.0 7.1 19351 $ 2,665 14983 $ 1,094 $ 444 $ 155

Marquam Hill PS 1&2

249.7 240.3 426114 $ 49,475 339240 $ 35,745 $ 198 $ 149

Verda Vista 31.5 32.0 39978 $ 5,349 34,302 $ 4,753 $ 170 $ 148 Tenino Ct 39.6 27.3 38597 $ 4,046 37,538 $ 4,017 $ 102 $ 147

Sam Jackson 947.8 830.9 1271700 $ 113,012 1,084,500 $ 106,862 $ 119 $ 129 Gilbert 181.5 201.0 258720 $ 24,949 258560 $ 24,917 $ 137 $ 124 Calvary 285.0 245.8 318180 $ 31,072 310020 $ 30,128 $ 109 $ 123

Hoyt 376.8 319.9 363440 $ 34,868 340560 $ 33,352 $ 93 $ 104 Fulton 2616.9 2620.9 3348000 $ 259,264 3290400 $ 245,044 $ 99 $ 93

Taylors Ferry 155.9 162.3 136520 $ 15,557 105,400 $ 13,578 $ 100 $ 84 Capitol Hwy 389.3 332.1 179209 $ 19,229 182764 $ 19,326 $ 49 $ 58

Arnold 183.2 170.3 81622 $ 7,911 79873 $ 7,932 $ 43 $ 47



Table 5.5: Service Demands and Capacity for Each Service Area, 2012

Service counts

Total needs

reduced fire + PDD

(MG)

Pump capacity

during fire (MG)

Total supply

capacity during fire

Vol Reqt (3 Average Days)

(MG)

Pump capacity 3 days (MG)

Total supply capacity

during 3 day outage

825 0.7 1.46 4.41 3.72 59.18 62.13 Washington Park 1 0.77 13.82 Washington Park 2 1.46 32.40 Washington Park 3 0.31 5.62 Sam Jackson (Portland Hts) 0.41 7.34

1,548 1.6 1.08 2.22 1.62 19.40 20.54Taylors Ferry 0.48 8.60Capitol Hwy 0.60 10.80

1,730 0.6 0.43 1.33 1.61 17.30 22.34Marquam Hill 1 0.29 6.90Marquam Hill 2 0.43 10.40

604 0.9 0.19 0.70 0.69 3.50 8.77Sam Jackson (Broadway Dr) 0.19 3.50

7,816 3.9 4.13 6.75 5.68 74.30 76.92Fulton 1.54 27.60Carolina 2.59 46.70

643 1.2 0.70 1.43 1.93 14.10 14.83 Hoyt Park 0.67 12.10 Burnside 0.11 2.00

438 0.2 0.11 1.79 0.47 3.80 5.49162nd St. 0.11 3.80

0.2 0.09 0.09 0.21 3.30 3.30Clatsop PS 0.09 3.30

1,334 0.6 0.77 1.14 0.99 18.60 18.97Portland Heights 0.77 18.60Marquam Hill* 0.14 2.59

2,414 0.6 0.34 0.82 2.98 8.20 8.68Calvary 0.34 8.20Springville*** 0.10 1.84

526 0.2 0.13 0.77 0.71 4.80 5.44112th St. 0.13 4.80

192 0.2 0.10 0.18 0.36 3.40 3.48Whitwood 0.08 2.80Linton 0.02 0.60

170 1.1 0.82 3.31 2.00 14.70 25.35Sam Jackson (Marquam) 0.50 9.10Barbur Gibbs 0.31 5.60

699 0.2 0.04 0.40 0.65 1.40 7.01Tenino Ct. 0.04 1.40

37 0.2 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.60 0.64Greenleaf 0.02 0.60

78 0.2 0.08 0.51 0.12 4.30 4.73Verde Vista 0.08 4.30

0.2 0.18 0.18 0.04 6.40 6.40Powell Butte Heights PS 0.18 6.40

0.2 0.05 0.05 0.08 1.90 1.90Raymond PS 0.05 1.90

2,000 1.3 0.26 1.91 3.04 4.80 11.38138th & Center 0.26 4.80

0.2 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.90 0.90Rocky Butte PS 0.02 0.90

892 0.8 0.12 0.72 0.54 4.32 13.32105th & Freemont 0.12

0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.30Saltzman 0.30

PV Raymond

Rocky Butte Pump

Rocky Butte

Saltzman

Penridge

Pittock

Powell Butte Heights Pump

PV Raymond Pump

Lexington

Linwit

Marquam

Mt Scott

Clatsop

Clatsop Pump

Council Crest

Greenleaf

Bertha

Broadway

Burlingame

Calvary

Service Area / Tank

Arlington Heights

Arnold



Table 5.5: Service Demands and Capacity for Each Service Area, 2012

5.4. Asset Deterioration and Condition Failure Pump stations are highly complex facilities that have many assets and components that

require different strategies for maintenance, repair and replacement. The life cycle cost

of a pump station as shown in Figure 5.1, considers all of these costs.

Figure 5.1: Life Cycle Cost for a Typical Pump Station

Service counts

Total needs

reduced fire + PDD

(MG)

Pump capacity

during fire (MG)

Total supply

capacity during fire

Vol Reqt (3 Average Days)

(MG)

Pump capacity 3 days (MG)

Total supply capacity

during 3 day outage

387 1.0 0.34 0.85 1.14 6.00 10.25Wash Park 2 (to Sherwood) 0.34 6.00

1,383 1.0 0.24 0.92 1.13 0.68Arnold 0.24 4.30Capitol Hwy** 0.14 5.12

0.2 0.06 0.17 0.21 8.60 12.49Stephenson PS 0.06 8.60

888 0.2 0.14 0.26 0.76 5.20 5.32Mt Tabor PS 0.14 5.20

213 0.2 0.08 0.44 0.28 2.70 12.16Springville 0.08 2.70

*Flow test showed 800 gpm capacity from Marquam Hill to Council Crest**Model shows that Capitol Hwy PS could pump 1185 gpm to Stephenson Tanks***Model shows that Springville PS could pump 555 gpm to Forest Park Tank/Greenleaf Tanks

Willalatin

Sherwood

Stephenson

Stephenson Pump

Tabor590

Service Area / Tank

COSTS

EFFECTIVE LIFE 0% 100%

C REATE MAINTAIN REFURBISH

CUMULATIVE COSTS

OVER LIFETIME

CASH FLOW OF ASSETS

DISPOSAL AND

REPLACEMENT



There are numerous paths and patterns of asset deterioration and condition failure for a

pump station as a whole. Each pattern of failure is asset‐category specific. For example,

the way the roof on a pump station can fail is much different from a way pressure sensor

on a discharge pipe within the pump station can fail.

There are some industry standard patterns of failure that can be used to predict asset

deterioration. As the bureau documents and aggregates its institutional knowledge of

the water bureaus pump stations and historical asset performances, it can adjust and

correct the standard curve patterns. Unfortunately, maintenance data from past years

has been in the form of anecdotal, organic knowledge, not necessarily recorded or

tracked so that it could be graphically presented. PWB has begun to implement CMMS

and store the data so that in the future performance failure graphs will represent actual

Water Bureau data.

Figure 5.2 shows samples of four primary ways asset failure manifests its self. X‐axis

usually presents time scale that is asset particular and Y‐axis presents frequency of a

failure. Asset failure frequency is also asset particular. The goal of Asset management

group is to collect asset failure data for pump stations, especially for new install pump

stations and to be able to plot asset particular failure frequency graphs similar to these.

Failure frequency percentages presented below are not based on PWB data but on

industry standards.

Figure 5.2. Asset Failure Patterns

Wear out – constant hazard rate with a distinct wear-out region

Bathtub – infant mortality, constant hazard rate, and distinct wear-out

Random – constant hazard rate with little or no changes over the life

Early mortality – infant mortality followed by a constant hazard rate



5.5. Effective or Useful Asset Lives Establishing an effective useful life is important when estimating the benefits and cost of

a proposed project and its alternatives. Assets have failure rates that are often estimated

using a Weibull distribution analysis. It is difficult, however, to use one Weibull

distribution curve to predict the failure rate of an entire pump station since the pump

station is composed of individual assets that have different Weibull distribution curves.

Manufacturer should provide generic asset deterioration curves at the time of asset

installation or commissioning. These curves should be modified and adjusted as PWB

collects asset performance data. The useful asset life can then be extrapolated from the

curve as the remaining life after the curve has been modified with asset particular

maintenance data.

In 2012, PWB does not have an established database of manufacturer’s asset

deterioration curves on which to superimpose information such as a failure mode and

maintenance type and frequency in order to determine the useful life. As the failure,

repair and maintenance information is tracked, PWB will be able to better predict the

effective useful life of the asset in a pump station.

5.6. Actions to Extend Useful Life PWB has established numerous effective maintenance activities to extend useful life of

the pump station assets. Listed in Section 7 are current maintenance tasks and estimated

hours that personnel spend yearly performing them to ensure that the pump stations

assets perform at the optimal level. Maintenance task descriptions are changing and

somewhat fluid. They are tailored for the assets condition and established industry best

practices for particular class of assets.


Business Risk Exposure 61

6. Business Risk Exposure The Consequence of Failure (CoF) used by Asset Management ranks each asset on a

scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being a pump station for which failure would have with very little

consequence to the PWB, its customers, or the community; and 5 being a pump station

for which failure would have severe consequences. PWB uses the triple bottom line

(TBL) methodology in which consequences to PWB customers and to the community at

large are included in its considerations. Consequences include financial, social, and

environmental as well on the impact to the level of service.

6.1. Consequence of Failure – Asset Level The consequence of failure (CoF) is based on how critical a particular pump station is to

the reliable delivery of water to the service area. In order to assess CoF for an individual

pump station, this AMP assessed the service level demand in a service area and

compared that to the total capacity available from all of the tanks, the pump capacity,

and the gravity sources in that service area.

CoF is estimated by how important a pump station is in meeting the reduced fire plus

peak‐day demand (PDD) needs and average daily demand (ADD) for three days. Two

separate CoF ratings are estimated by looking at the percentage of reduced fire plus

PDD in the service area that would be met if that particular pump station were out of

service (OOS) and what percentage of the 3‐day ADD would be met if that particular

pump station were OSS. The highest CoF determined in the two analyses was used for

each pump station, for a conservative estimate. (For all stations except the 112th Street

Pump Station, the CoF associated with reduced fire plus PDD was as high as, or higher

than, the 3‐day ADD scenario.)

However, in this analysis, if the required flows for a service area are met through its

other sources of supply, then the pump station was given a CoF of 1 or 2 since without

the pump station the service area would still meet these critical demands. If the required

flows for a service area were unable to be met without the pump station, then the CoF

rating would range from 3 to 5, depending on the demand deficit. Table 6.1 shows CoF

ratings and their definitions of meeting demand.

Table 6.1: CoF ratings

CoF Rating % All Other Supply Meets Demand

5 < 50% 4 50% to 74% 3 75% to 99% 2 100% to 149% 1 ≥ 150%



The consequence of a pump station failure is also limited by the number and type of

customers it serves. A failure to meet demand in a small service area such as Saltzman or

Rocky Butte is not nearly as consequential as a failure to meet demand as in a larger area

such as Burlingame or Arlington Heights. Since the number of services does not indicate

type of clients (i.e. commercial or industrial) the analysis used PDD to indicate the

relative importance for the consequence of failure. This proxy captures many of the

larger and important customers such as hospitals and large commercial and institutional

users with minimal data requirements. Ceilings established for the CoF based on the

PDD of the service area and limits are shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Maximum CoF Weighting by Level of Demand

PDD Range (MGD)

Maximum CoF Rating

CoF

Weighting > 1 5 100%

0.4 to 1.0 4 80% 0.1 to 0.4 3 60% .02 to 0.1 2 40%

< 0.02 1 20%

The CoF preliminary ratings taken from Table 6.1 were then weighted by the maximum

level based on size of demand in the service area. Smaller service areas (< 1 MGD) were

scaled down by the CoF weighting—that is, they were reduced from a scale of 1 to 5 to a

scale of 1 to 4 or 1 to 3, etc. The final CoF is calculated by taking the preliminary CoF

from Table 6.1 and multiplying it by the CoF weighting as given in Table 6.2. As a result

of the analysis and adjustments, two pump stations are rated as high‐CoF and two

pump stations are rated as medium‐CoF.

High consequence pump stations are: Hoyt Park and Mt. Tabor

Medium consequence pump stations are: 112th St., Calvary, Clatsop, and Whitwood

The number of Pump Stations in each consequence category rated on an asset scale is

presented in Figure 6.1 and the consequence for each pump station is presented in

section 6.3.



Figure 6.1: Number of Pump Stations in Each Consequence Category on an Asset Scale

6.2. Consequence of Failure – Bureau-Wide Level PWB’s Consequences of Failure Table was used to determine the bureau‐wide

consequence rating table. For an outage at the three‐day ADD level, the CoF from the

asset consequence rating is the same as the rating on the bureau‐wide table. But for the

bureau‐wide table, the maximum CoF associated with fire flow is a 3, so the reduced fire

plus PDD needs analysis was reduced by 2/5 for each pump station. Consequently, now

the three‐day ADD outage is higher for many pump stations. On the bureau‐wide scale,

the only high‐consequence pump station is Mt. Tabor

the medium consequence pump stations are Hoyt, 112th St., Calvary, and Clatsop

The number of pump stations in each category on a bureau‐wide scale is presented

below in Figure 6.2.

0

2

4

16

15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

Nu

mb

er o

f P

um

p S

tati

on

s



01

45

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

mp

Sta

tio

ns

Figure 6.2: Number of Pump Stations in each Consequence Category on the Bureau-Wide Scale

6.3. Business Risk Exposure (BRE) The risk metric is a function of the CoF and the probability or likelihood of failure (LoF),

as defined in the previous sections. The formula is defined as the following:

Current Risk Cost

Business Risk Exposure (BRE)

=

Triple Bottom Line Costs of Consequence

of Failure

Consequence of Failure (CoF)

X

Likelihood of Failure

Related to Condition,

Reliability and Redundancy

BRE = CoF X LoF



The business risk exposure (BRE) table has both the likelihood and consequence as the

two axes in the matrix, as demonstrated in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. The BRE rating of an asset

has five levels of ranking from “Very Low” to “Extreme.”

Table 6.3: Water Bureau Business Risk Exposure Rating Table

The use of the asset likelihood of failure from section 4 and the asset consequence of

failure from section 6 was used to generate the asset level risk table below.

Table 6.4: Pump Station Asset Level Business Risk Exposure Ratings

1 2 3 4 5

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

Very Low (1) 0 2 0 0 0

Low (2) 12 9

112th Ave,

Calvary, Clatsop,

Whitwood

Hoyt Park,

Mt. Tabor0

Moderate (3) 3 4 0 0 0

Moderately‐High (4) 0 Portland Heights 0 0 0

High (5) 0 0 0 0 0

Likelihood

Consequence

Many of these pump stations have improvements scheduled for them including:

112th Ave PS – Planned connection from Clatsop Tank

Portland Heights PS – Electrical improvements are scheduled to state FY 12 ‐13

1 2 3 4 5


Very Low (1) Very low Very Low Low Medium Medium

Low (2) Very low Very Low Medium Medium High

Moderate (3) Low Low High High Extreme

High (4) Low Medium High Extreme Extreme

Very High (5) Low Medium High Extreme Extreme

Likelihood

Consequence

Risk Levels

Extreme High Medium Low Very Low



Hoyt PS – New pump scheduled for installation during 2012. Construction of the

Forest Park Low Tank will provide greater storage for the Calvary Pressure Zone

Whitwood PS – Automatic transfer switch is recommended for generator

Calvary PS – Construction of Forest Park Low Tank and construction of planned

connecting main will reduce the amount of water pumped to Greenleaf Tanks

Mt. Tabor PS – Fire Hydrant pumper connections are scheduled to be installed

Clatsop PS – Recent PCR recommends several alternatives for improving reliability

for this service area

6.4. Relative Bureau-Wide BRE Rating When the bureau‐wide CoF and LoF ratings for pump stations are used to evaluate the

business risk exposure, fewer pump stations are rated as moderate. Only four pump

stations: Hoyt, Mt. Tabor, Calvary and Clatsop are left in the moderate category as

shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: Pump Station Bureau-Wide Business Risk Exposure Ratings

1 2 3 4 5


Very Low (1) 7 3 1 Mt. Tabor 0

Low (2) 19 2Hoyt, Calvary,

Clatsop0 0

Moderate (3) 1 0 0 0 0

Moderately‐High (4) 0 0 0 0 0

High (5) 0 0 0 0 0

Likelihood

Consequence

In addition to the ratings above several pump stations and major assets in pump stations

have been evaluated using the bureau‐wide Consequence and Likelihood Evaluation

Matrix, or CLEM (see Table 6.6). These analyses look at specific or particular

vulnerabilities associated with each facility, therefore the likelihood of failure in these

CLEM ratings may supersede the facility’s overall condition rating if it is higher or

worse.

Risk Levels

Extreme High Medium Low Very Low



Table 6.6: Extreme, High and Medium CLEM Ratings for Pump Stationsa

CLEM ID Asset/Project Name Failure Mode

Likelihood Rating

Consequence Rating

CLEM Risk Rating Status

40 1st & Kane PSPump Station not reconstructed and turbidity event happens 5 4 Extreme

PCR Complete, BDR 2012-13

41 Fulton Pump Station Piping under station fails catastrophically 2 4 MediumProject in design phase. Scheduled completion 2015.

48Portland Heights Pump Station Improvements Arc Flash in pump station injures a PWB employee 2 4 Medium

In design, construction to be completed FY 12-13

258Portland Heights Pump Station Improvements

Pump Failure due to moisture infiltration of wiring. Only one small (1000 gpm) pump available. 4 1 Medium

In design, construction to be completed FY 12-13

65 Sam Jackson Pump StationFailure of electrical or instrumentation systems by running electrical system to failure 4 4 High

Start design in 2013, complete construction by 2015

141Sam Jackson Pump Station Improvements

Rocks or small boulders fall from cliff and damage transformer. PS without Power for 6 months (1500 KVA) or 1 week (225 KVA). 4 2 Medium

Business case for putting up fence. In Design but needs funding.

138Sam Jackson Pump Station Improvements

Motor Control Center Failure renders the pump station useless 4 2 Medium

Start design in 2013, complete construction by 2015

127 Greenleaf PSLoss of existing Greenleaf PS - foundation wall collapse 4 2 Medium

BDR Completed, in Design. Scheduled completion in 2015

133 Taylors Ferry Pump Station Worker injury from a fall 2 3 MediumIn construction, scheduled completion Summer 2012

134 Taylors Ferry Pump Station Code violations (electrical, confined space/access) 5 2 MediumIn construction, scheduled completion Summer 2012

135 Taylors Ferry Pump Station Failure of electrical or instrumentation systems 1 5 MediumIn construction, scheduled completion Summer 2012

147 Mt. Tabor Pump Station Landslide takes PS OOS 1 4 Medium PCR Complete 4/2010

257 Washington Park PS 2 Main Break 4 2 Medium PCR 2012-13 aPCR=Project Concept Report; BDR=Basis of Design Report


Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 68

7. Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies

Strategies for maintenance can be divided into three categories: condition assessment,

proactive maintenance and reactive maintenance. The division of these strategies into

work categories and classes is presented in Figure 7.1.

It is important to be able to estimate the maintenance, repair and replacement costs for

each phase of an asset’s life cycle so that the total cost of ownership can be used to

produce better management decisions. The life cycle cost of any piece of equipment is

the total “lifetime” cost to purchase, install, operate, maintain and dispose of that

equipment. Figure 7.2 below shows the life cycle cost for a typical pump station.

Figure 7.1: Pump Station Work Categories and Classes

Figure 7.1 shows current working model of CMMS Work Categories and Classes

structure. Asset management group along with Scheduling group has suggested slight

modifications to the structure to better track CM hours that have resulted from

Preventive maintenance appose to CM hours that were unforeseen. PWB Scheduling

group will work to modify current categories and class structure. Work orders such as

pump bearing replacement that has resulted from vibration testing will be classified as

CM while work such as isolation valve failure during the pump shut down procedure



will be classified as REPAIR. This slight change will allow PWB to track and report on

effectiveness of preventive maintenance in predicting corrective maintenance.

7.1. Current and Potential Activities

7.1.1. Current Maintenance Activities

Table 7.1 provides summaries of the average hours spent per year on maintenance tasks

for pump stations.

Table 7.1: Average Hours for PM Activities Recorded in CMMS in 2011

OPERATIONS GROUP MAINTENANCE TASKS

AVERAGE HOURS SPENT

PER YEAR

ELECTRICIANS PUMP STATION ELECTRICAL PM 290

ELECTRICIANS EMERGENCY GENERATORS - LOAD & FUEL

TESTING 68

ELECTRICIANS TRANSFORMER OIL SAMPLING 12

ELECTRICIANS AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH TESTING 36

INSTRUMENT TECHNICIANS SCADA SITE ANNUAL PM 387

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS

SITE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS - FACILITATE INSPECTION BY OUTSIDE VENDOR 83


PUMP STATIONS WEEKLY GENERAL INSPECTION 1124


PUMP STATION OIL ANALYSIS, OIL CHANGES & LUBRICATION 101

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS ROOFS & GUTTERS 249

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS PORTABLE PUMP - ANNUAL TEST 2.5


RIVERGATE PUMP STATION WEEKLY MAINTENANCE RUN, ROTATE PUMPS 83


ANNUAL PUMP STATION CRANE INSPECTIONS 19



Table 7.1: Average Hours for PM Activities Recorded in CMMS in 2011

OPERATIONS GROUP MAINTENANCE TASKS

AVERAGE HOURS SPENT

PER YEAR

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS EMERGENCY PUMP HOSES - INSPECT 38

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS VIBRATION ANALYSIS PM ROUTE 71

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS PUMP STATION CHLORINATOR 54

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS EMERGENCY GENERATORS - REFUEL 42

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS PUMP CONTROL VALVES 29

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS SUMMERIZE WINTERIZE PUMP STATIONS 63


ANNUAL PUMP STATION SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT 14


PUMP STATION REGULATOR STATION - RUN BOTH STAGES TO CLEAR OUT SEDIMENT 7


STEPHENSON PUMP STATION - CHECK PRESSURE TANK & RUN COMPRESSOR AS

NECESSARY 6


7306 NW PENRIDGE RD PROPERTY PUMP SYSTEM 4

PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS SMALL PORTABLE PUMPS 30

aPump Station weekly general inspection takes the greatest amount of resources to complete. The Asset Management Group has identified opportunities to conduct condition assessments during this time. The Asset Management Group will work with the Operations group to further develop check sheet-tool for asset condition tracking during the weekly general inspection PM.

7.1.2. Potential Maintenance Activities

In December 2011, consultants from Brown & Caldwell hosted a reliability‐centered

maintenance (RCM) readiness assessment that focused on pump stations. Several



potential maintenance strategies or changes to existing strategies came out of the

assessment and staff discussions afterwards:

Reduce maintenance at highly redundant (or secondary) facilities

Use redundancy to make up for the maintenance work order backlog

Develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for District Operating Engineer

weekly pump stations site visit that includes a formalized low‐tech sensory gauge

check analysis

Equip District Operating Engineers with a vibration pen so they can perform spot

vibration analysis checks on pumps during weekly site visit

Run the most efficient pump in a station 90% of the time

Base pump oil analysis on run time

Perform Motor Circuit and Infrared Analysis on Electric Motors

Reduce motor and starter preventive maintenance to once every two years

Occasionally pumper and generator tests should be for longer than 30 minutes

Move towards scheduling preventive maintenance based on condition monitoring

Analyze the maintenance cost for assets vs. the replacement cost of the asset

Run‐to‐fail may be an acceptable maintenance strategy for some assets

In addition 10 more general recommendations came out of this assessment:

1. Develop component (equipment) failure modes with criticality (impacts) assessed at the system level for safety, environmental and production consequences of

failure. Similar equipment may have similar failure modes (although not necessarily

due to local situations) but the consequence of a failure will vary. To identify these

important differences, document production (outage) consequence at the

component, system and plant (facility) level. Maintenance tasks that prevent or

mitigate these failure modes will necessarily vary depending on the criticality.

2. Capture failure modes related to corrective work. Failure modes (“What

happened?”) are an integral part of RCM and other Reliability tools (e.g. Failure

Modes and Effects Analysis). Identifying failure modes will provide feedback on

existing maintenance strategies and the ability to mitigate or prevent failure, and

provide an opportunity to improve those strategies over time. Ideally, identify the

failure mode on the work order for each maintenance repair task. Also identify the

failure mode(s) prevented by each preventive maintenance task. Note: So‐called

“Problem Codes” are one way to track the incidence of failure on work orders.

Supplement common problem codes with descriptions in text. Allow a problem code

of “no problem found” and “other” as long as descriptive text is provided.



3. Manage all work on work orders linked to assets. Track labor and material usage

diligently at the asset level in CMMS. These data will support the need for RCM to

improve efficiency and will allow management to track results. It will also feed

capital decision making (for example in a business case evaluation).

4. Use the redundancy engineered into the system. Set a level of maintenance to meet

a specified level of reliability where redundant equipment or systems exist. One way

to do this is to document the operating requirements for each pump station (the

system outputs provided by designed‐in functions) and then identify alternative

operating modes to manage equipment failure. Unnecessary redundant equipment

(equipment not needed during failure, or not needed immediately because

alternative operating strategies are available), can be managed at a lower cost.

5. Use service impact to identify critical equipment. Assess equipment criticality

based on the number of customers affected if system function is lost. (For example,

all 6 Carolina pumps can be temporarily replaced by a nearby station to meet service

requirements while one non‐redundant 5hp pump at a smaller station has no

immediate backup ‐ the risk per customer is higher for the smaller station.)

6. Continue to develop planning and scheduling. Adopt a continuous improvement

approach to planning and scheduling by documenting work knowledge for use later.

Plan all work, even imperfectly, as needed. Schedule 100% of available maintenance

resources (and no more) for the upcoming week, but allow breaking the schedule.

Manage the organization’s ability to improve schedule adherence by identifying and

removing roadblocks. Capture all completed work details in the CMMS – parts, task

information, lessons learned.

7. Continue to bridge Operations, Maintenance and Engineering staff. Effective teamwork is the best way to continuously improve. RCM requires engagement and

participation at all levels.

8. Identify the business results required to justify sustaining RCM capability. Carefully consider the long‐term benefit and use of RCM Analysis capability relative

to the investment needed to build and maintain it. If RCM is a “go,” identify and

support an RCM champion.

9. Consider the merit of performing an RCM Pilot Study. Assess the benefits of performing one pilot RCM study with the goal of replicating results across the

system ‐ IF the return on investment warrants the study, or if culture change and

skill‐building merit the investment. To financially justify the pilot study, a “bad

actor” (Pareto) analysis of pump stations will identify one facility that is consuming

enough maintenance resources, or experiencing significant and costly outages, that

RCM will provide a positive financial return on investment.

10. Become a PM Optimization organization. Review and update preventive maintenance strategies periodically to identify if PM tasks are too frequent (if they

are rarely finding potential problems) or applicable (perhaps other approaches may



be more effective). If an RCM pilot is planned, do PM Optimization as a subsequent

step that takes advantage of the skills and awareness built by the initial RCM study.

Potential PM Optimization techniques include Experience Centered Maintenance

(see RCM – Gateway to World Class Maintenance by Anthony “Mac” Smith) and

Maintenance Task Analysis.0.

7.1.3. Reliability-Centered Maintenance

Reliability‐centered maintenance is defined as “the process used to determine the

maintenance requirements of any physical asset in its operating context.”

It recognizes that all equipment within a pump station is not of equal importance to

either water delivery or safety. It also recognizes that equipment design and operation

differ from one pump station to the next and that different equipment will have a higher

probability to fail from different degradation mechanisms. It recognizes that an

organization does not have unlimited financial and personnel resources and the use of

both need to be prioritized and optimized. RCM is highly concerned with predictive

maintenance tasks but also recognizes that maintenance activities on equipment that is

inexpensive and unimportant to station reliability may best be left to reactive

maintenance (also called run to failure).

Failures caused by unlikely events, non‐predictable acts of nature, etc. will usually

receive no action provided the risk (combination of severity and frequency) is trivial (or

at least tolerable). When the risk of such failures is very high, RCM encourages (and

sometimes mandates) the user to consider changing something that will reduce the risk

to a tolerable level. The result is a maintenance program that focuses scarce economic

resources on the items that would cause the most disruption were they to fail. The

advantages of RCM include efficiency improvements, lower costs, minimization of

overhauls, and reduced sudden failures.

7.2. Maintenance Strategies As a general rule pump station maintenance strategies should follow these three best

practices:

1. Use multiple predictive maintenance (PDM) technologies together tell a more

complete story than single technologies used alone.

2. Use a centralized and decentralized approach to condition assessment to be most

effective (i.e. routine inspections high level inspections that identify an anomaly are

used to determine when to perform more detailed inspections)

3. Target the most common failure modes with condition assessment and preventive

maintenance.0.



Using these three strategies should provide the right balance between preventive and

corrective maintenance.

In addition, because staff resources are scarce and the pump station maintenance

backlog is quite large, it is important to identify and avoid low‐value work when

developing maintenance strategies. Examples of low‐value work include the following:

Proactive maintenance that is performed too frequently

Needless inspections

Work that could be done more efficiently by others

Intrusive preventive maintenance that does not tell much and risks damage to assets

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) requirements

Applying one level of maintenance for all assts

Maintenance strategies include three basic types of work: condition assessment,

proactive maintenance (preventive/predictive) and reactive/response maintenance.

Accurate condition monitoring and effective preventive maintenance should reduce and

minimize reactive maintenance.

Analyzing the relationship of preventive maintenance to corrective maintenance

The best way to determine optimal ratio for corrective and preventive maintenance is to

analyze current PWB practices and compare the resources spent on corrective

maintenance to the resources spent on preventive maintenance. According to guidelines

established by John Day, Manager of Engineering and Maintenance at Alumax of South

Carolina, and published by Maintenance Technology, the ratio should be 6 to 12. For every

6 hours of predictive and preventive maintenance an organization should expect to have

one hour of corrective maintenance. The assumption is that, if the ratio is greater than

6:1, PWB is performing the PM too often: if the ratio is less then 6:1, then PWB is not

performing maintenance often enough. Each PM that is developed and implemented in

PWB’s maintenance program requires staff and budget resources. By evaluating the

current PM to CM ratios PWB can start to fill out an effectiveness matrix that will help

staff understand the right number of PMs and their frequency. This PM to CM ratio has

not been explored in PWB asset management before partly due to the limited availability

of information and the lack of information‐sharing across the functions and

departments. Due to extensive efforts by the Operations group, the data are become

available through CMMS, as of late 2010.

Recognizing the need for establishing the PM:CM ratios and monitoring and analyzing

the outcome, the Asset Management group has proposed the following ratios based on

2 Call, Robert. “Analyzing The Relationship Of Preventive Maintenance To Corrective Maintenance.” Maintenance Technology. June 2007. Available at www.mt-online.com/2007/june.



the asset criticality, condition, and risk. With the future asset management plans the

ratios will be refined. Table 7.2: Proposed PM:CM Ratios based on the Pump Stations Assessed Risk Rating:

Risk Level PM:CM 1 2:1 2 2:1

3 4:1 4 5:1 5 6:1

Table 7.3 provides the PM:CM ratios for work performed for 2009–2011, risk ratings, and

proposed PM:CM ratios for 36 pump stations. Figure 7.2 graphs the PM:CM ratios of

recorded hours. Table 7.3. PM:CM Ratios and Risk Levels for Pump Stations, 2009-2011

Ratio PM : CM

Pump Station Name 2009 2010 2011 RISK

Proposed Ratio PM : CM

162nd Avenue 2:16 2:2.5 Very Low 1 4:1 Arlington Heights 2:2 2:0.4 Very Low 1 2:1 Barbur Gibbs 2:12 2:1.14 Very Low 1 2:1 Marquam Hill 2:1.33 2:3 2:5.33 Very Low 1 3:1 PV 144th/Center (Vivian) 2:12 2:2.33 Very Low 1 2:1 Rivergate 2:10 2:4.5 2:0.17 Very Low 1 2:1 Saltzman 2:6 2:5 Very Low 1 4:1 Springville 2:0.33 2:0.29 Very Low 1 2:1 Tenino Ct 2:4 Very Low 1 2:1 Verde Vista 2:8 Very Low 1 4:1 Washington Park 1 2:4 2:1.33 Very Low 1 2:1 Washington Park 2 2:4 2:5.33 2:18 Very Low 1 6:1 Washington Park 3 2:12 2:4.5 2:2 Very Low 1 4:1 105th & Fremont 2:2.33 Very Low 1 2:1 Arnold 2:12 2:3 Very Low 1 4:1

Burnside 2:10 2:0.67 Very Low 1 2:1

Capitol Hwy 2:12 2:4 2:0.29 Very Low 1 2:1 Carolina 2:3 2:5 Very Low 1 4:1 Fulton 2:16 2:1.14 Very Low 1 2:1 Greenleaf 2:9 Very Low 1 4:1 Linnton 2:8 2:4.5 2:0.67 Very Low 1 2:1

Powell Butte Heights 2:2 2:0.67 Very Low 1 2:1 PV 138th/Center Very Low 1 2:1 PV Raymond 2:2 2:0.42 Very Low 1 2:1 Rocky Butte 2:2.5 Very Low 1 2:1



Table 7.3. PM:CM Ratios and Risk Levels for Pump Stations, 2009-2011

Ratio PM : CM

Pump Station Name 2009 2010 2011 RISK

Proposed Ratio PM : CM

Sam Jackson 2:2 2:2 Very Low 1 4:1 Stephenson 2:1 2:0.67 Very Low 1 2:1 Taylor's Ferry 2:3.5 Very Low 1 2:1 Whitwood 2:2.5 2:3.33 Very Low 1 2:1 1st & Kane Very Low 1 2:1 Portland Heights 2:6 2:6 Low 2 4:1 112th Avenue Low 2 3:1 Calvary 2:3.2 2:6 Medium 3 6:1 Clatsop 2:4.7 2:0.31 Medium 3 4:1 Hoyt Park 2:1.6 2:6 2:0.27 Medium 3 4:1

Mt Tabor 2:3.6 Medium 3 4:1 * Proposed Ration PM:CM has been developed by Asset Management group using historical ratios as well as the criticality of the pumping facility to the overall water system. The effectiveness of the proposed ratios should be investigated during following PS AMPS. *Stations that are highlighted in blue have higher than expected CM hours. At these stations proposed PM hours have been increased in attempts to decrease the number of CM hours . * 2009 & 2010 data quality is limited, there is a high possibility that not all work orders were entered and tracked in CMMS. *2011 has the highest data quality, the suggested and current PM:CM ratios appear to be very close. Minor adjustments could lead to higher level of asset maintenance effectiveness. * Work order tracking through CMMS has become available recently and with experience implementing the tool data quality shall improve over the next years.

Figure 7.2: Total Ratio of PM to CM Tasks Recorded in CMMS, 2009–2011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2009 2010 2011

Preventive & Corrective Maintenance Hours

PM CM



7.2.1. Condition Assessment Strategies

The condition of the pump stations is based on the Asset Management Plan (AMP)

Condition Ratings:

1 = Excellent/Very Good

2 = Good

3 = Fair

4 = Poor

5 = Very Poor/Inoperable

As mentioned in Chapter 4, pump stations have been divided into eight asset categories.

Specific rating tables (Appendix X) for each category have been developed. Condition

assessments for these assets are performed during scheduled preventive maintenance

work. The current schedule for these condition assessments is presented below in

Table 7.4.

Table 7.4: Pump Station Asset Category Condition Assessment Schedule

PS Asset CategoryCondition Assessment

ScheduleWho Performs Assessment Data Collected

Site Annual OE Condition RatingBuilding - Structure Annual OE Condition RatingPiping Annual OE Condition Rating

Valves1 Annual OE Condition Rating

Pump2 6 months/annual OECondition Rating, Vibration Reading and Oil Analysis

Motor Every Two Years Electrician Meggar & Micro-Ohm Readings

Electrical Annual ElectricianMeggar Readings and Transformer Oil Analysis

Instrumentation Annual Instrument Tech Condition Rating 1Pump Control Valves and Surge Valves are not schedule for maintenance except at the following critical sites: Carolina Surge Valves 2The following pumps have been identified as critical and are inspected every 6 months: Calvary 1 & 4, Hoyt 1,2 & 3, Washington Park 6 & 7, Whitwood 1, Arnold 1, Capitol Hwy 2, Barbur Gibbs 3, Carolina 3 & 4, Fulton 1, 2 & 3, Sam Jackson 3, 4 & 6, Gilbert 1, Mt. Tabor 1, 2 & 3, 112th Ave 1, and 162nd Ave 1

7.2.2. Proactive Maintenance Strategies

Current proactive maintenance is presented in Table 7.1 above, therefore this section will

focus on proposed strategies that should be carried out on a regular basis.

7.2.2.1. Reduce Maintenance at Highly Redundant (or Secondary) Facilities A life‐cycle analysis was performed to evaluate the risk cost and maintenance savings of

reducing redundancy at Carolina Pump Station. For this analysis six pumps were

assumed to be the status quo. As the number of pumps maintained was reduced the

cost of maintenance decreased but the risk cost of not having those pump available

increased. The life‐cycle analysis showed that six pumps has the lowest life‐cycle cost



The benefit‐cost analysis showed that reducing from six to five pumps may have

benefits that are equal to cost.

Table 7.5: Life Cycle and Benefit/Cost for Pump Redundancy at Carolina Pump Station

6 Pumps (Status Quo) 5 Pumps 4 Pumps 3 Pumps

Total Life Cycle Cost $5,969 $29,847 $89,540 $388,005

Benefit/Cost n/a 1.0 0.6 0.2

7.2.2.2. Run the Most Efficient Pump in a Station 90% of the Time All pump stations have more than one pump and at some of those stations there is a

noticeable difference between the most efficient pump and the next most efficient pump.

For pump stations where this difference is significant, the bureau has developed a policy

of operating the most efficient pump as the lead pump and only utilizing other pumps

to augment supply. In addition, less‐efficient pumps are exercised at least one hour

every week to ensure that all pumps are kept in good working order. By following this

policy the most efficient pumps are operated approximately 90% of the time.

It is assumed that, by operating the most efficient pump the majority of time, the pump

will need to be replaced sooner. For the purposes of this analysis, if the lead pump is

run 90% of the time, the 50‐year life of the pump may be reduced to 40 years. Based on

conversations with Operations staff, the life of the pump would likely be reduced by 5 –

7 years only.) As shown in Table 7.6, for four pump stations the energy savings benefits

of running the most efficient pump are greater than the added cost of having to replace

the pump 10 years earlier, therefore it makes good economic sense to identify the most

efficient pumps and operate them preferentially.

Table 7.6: Life Cycle and Benefit/Cost for Pump Redundancy at Carolina Pump Station

Hoyt PS Calvary PSSam Jackson PS (to Broadway Dr).

Arnold PS

Annual PS Flow (Mgal) 310 242 85 140Pump HP 100 75 75 30Efficiency Difference1 20% 15% 23% 6%Annual Energy Cost Savings $1,924 $1,612 $920 $124Benefit/Cost 15.8 13.2 10.1 2.7

1Difference between the most efficient pump and the next most efficient pump

7.2.2.3. Develop an Asset Condition Check Sheet for Operating Engineer Weekly Site Visit PM

The Pump Station Asset Management group has noticed that a large fraction of

operationʹs time is allocated to the pump station site visit. Pump Station Asset



Management group has identified this maintenance task as a area that could be

optimized and plans to work with Operations group in developing a standardized

worksheet that would be used as a tool to record and report on asset condition.

7.2.2.4. Base the Pump Oil Analysis on Run Time

A couple of years ago, PWB Operating Engineers began performing oil analysis on

pumps to determine whether the oil needed to be changed. This analysis is performed

annually on each pump at a cost of approximately $40 plus staff time (total cost per

pump is assumed to be $100).

A proposal was made to reduce the frequency of oil analysis for pumps and only

perform an analysis based on run time. So a benefit/cost analysis was performed to

determine if it made economic sense to reduce the frequency of oil changes for pumps

that are not operated as lead pumps from every year (status quo) to every two years,

every five years and then for not performing the analysis at all (run to fail). The results

of this analysis in Table 7.7 show that for all sizes of non‐lead pumps it makes economic

sense to reduce the frequency of oil analysis to every two years. Lead pumps should

remain on an annual oil analysis schedule.

Table 7.7: Benefit/Cost Analysis for Decreasing Frequency of Oil Analysis of for Non-Lead Pumps

Every 5 Yrs Every 2 Yrs Every 5 Yrs Every 2 Yrs Every 5 Yrs Every 2 Yrs

Incremental Increase in Risk Cost $525 $35 $2,673 $33 $2,400 $45Incremental Cost Savings = Benefit $30 $50 $30 $50 $30 $50

Benefit/Cost 0.1 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.1

350 HP Motor150 HP Motor75 HP Motor

7.2.2.5. Reduce Motor Starter Preventive Maintenance to Once every Two Years

Motor starter preventive maintenance work orders are completed annually at each

pump station regardless of hours of operation. Starts and stops cause the most wear and

tear on motor starters. Therefore a proposal was made to change motor starter

preventive maintenance frequency from annually to every two years for motors that are

not designated as leads or are operated less frequently. A benefit/cost analysis is

performed to determine whether it makes economic sense to reduce the maintenance

frequency. Results from the analysis in Table 7.8 indicate a benefit/cost ratio of greater

than 1.0 for all sizes of motors, indicating that it makes economic sense to reduce PM

frequency to once every two years. For motors smaller than 75 hp, the analysis showed

support for reducing maintenance frequency to once every 5 years, but PWB may not be

comfortable with this. Motors should be checked yearly.



Table 7.8: Benefit/Cost Analysis for Decreasing Frequency of Motor Starter Preventive Maintenance Frequency on Non-Lead Pumps

Every 5 Yrs Every 2 Yrs Every 5 Yrs Every 2 Yrs Every 5 Yrs Every 2 Yrs

Incremental Increase in Risk Cost $8 $1 $47 $15 $48 $36Incremental Cost Savings = Benefit $30 $50 $30 $50 $30 $50Benefit/Cost 4.0 100.0 0.6 3.3 0.6 1.4

350 HP Motor150 HP Motor75 HP Motor

7.2.2.6. Efficiency Tests for Pumps

Efficiency test for individual pumps are currently performed manually by Control

Center staff on an ad hoc basis. These tests serve as the guidance for choosing the pump

to designate as the lead for operation and they serve as a guide for pump and motor

rehabilitation or replacement work. The current methodology for the tests requires a

SCADA download of pump station power consumption and flow data, which then must

be isolated for individual pump runs. Multiple efficiencies are then calculated in gallons

of water pumped/kilowatt‐hour of electricity consumed (gal/kWh) for each pump. This

method of analysis has a couple of issue including the fact that operators cannot isolate

pump/motor electrical demand for other house power consumption (lighting, heat, etc.)

and that variable suction and discharge head can affect pump production. Ongoing

upgrades to the motor control centers at pump stations enable more accurate efficiency

tests because new SEPAM Protection Relays allow power monitoring for individual

motor power usage instead of for the entire station.

It is recommended that efficiency tests be developed as PM work orders that are

performed on a more routine basis. Efficiency tests at larger pump stations that use

more electricity should be performed more often. Table 7.9 lists the recommended test

frequency of all pump stations.

Table 7.9: Efficiency Test Frequency Pump Station Efficiency Test Frequency

Washington Park PS AnnualFulton PS AnnualFulton PS AnnualCarolina PS AnnualSam Jackson PS AnnualBarbur Gibbs PS Every Two YearsHoyt PS Every Two YearsMarquam Hil PS Every Two YearsCalvary PS Every Two YearsCapitol Hwy PS Every Two YearsAll Other PS Every Three Years



7.2.2.7. Generator Operation and Testing

The Portland Water Bureau owns and maintains many portable and stationary

generators used to provide power to 480‐volt pump stations during power outages.

Generators should be operated regularly to verify their availability in an emergency.

Generators should be run under a load for a minimum of four hours per year. In

addition, stationary generator operational tests should include a test of the pump

station’s automatic transfer switch. This test typically requires a technician onsite to

disconnect the utility power to a station in order to verify proper startup and function of

the generator. This test should be performed four times per year.

Unloaded operation of generators should be minimized (10 – 15 minutes) in order to

prevent dry stacking, which is a phenomenon that occurs when minimally loaded diesel

engines push oil and fuel into the exhaust system. Wet stacking can lead to fouled

injectors and a build up of carbon on the exhaust valves, turbo charger, and exhaust

system. Over long periods these deposits can scar and erode key engine surfaces.

Generator fuel and batteries are the two leading causes of failure in generators. Batteries

should be replaced every 3 – 4 years and a technician should be onsite for the generator

start test to verify that the generator is not having starting issues related to the battery.

Fuel should be tested four times per year for water and bacteria. Generators stored

outside can minimize water in fuel by adding a pressure vacuum vent on the fuel tank.

7.2.3. Reactive / Responsive Maintenance Strategies

Planned or unplanned maintenance activities required to correct a failure that has

occurred or is in the process of occurring may consist of repair, restoration, or

replacement of components.

7.2.3.1. Identify Corrective Maintenance that Results from Planned Maintenance

Currently repair and corrective maintenance work that is completed by the Operations

Group is all coded as “Corrective Maintenance.” For analysis purposes this does not

allow staff to separate corrective maintenance that resulted from planned maintenance

(predictive maintenance, preventive maintenance, or condition assessment) from

maintenance that resulted from an alarm, breakdown, or surprise failure. The ability to

separate the two types of work are important in evaluating the effectiveness of the

predictive maintenance, preventive maintenance, and condition assessment programs.

It is recommended that the code “Corrective Maintenance” be used for maintenance

work that results from planned maintenance and that “Repair” be used to describe

reactive maintenance generated from alarms, breakdowns, or surprise failures.

7.2.3.2. Run-to-Failure May be an Acceptable Maintenance Strategy for Some Assets

Run‐to‐fail is a maintenance policy that allows some assets to run until they break, at

which point reactive maintenance may be performed. Assets selected for run to fail



maintenance must have redundant systems so that overall pump station operations will

not be jeopardized when the assets fail. Those assets that tend to be most effectively

managed by a run‐to‐fail strategy fit into one or two of the following categories:

Run‐to‐fail can be effective for those assets that offer no cost‐effective way to

perform preventive maintenance.

Run‐to‐fail can be effective for those assets that are inexpensive to replace or repair

and are readily available.

A note should be placed in the asset record of any assets selected for run‐t‐ fail so that no

preventive maintenance is performed on that asset. Examples of pump station assets

that are generally maintained by run‐to‐fail are:

Non‐critical pump control valves

Sump pumps

Instrumentation assets such as miscellaneous switches. This will exclude single point

of failure equipment such as pressure switches.

Electrical assets such as heaters, fans, starter components, wire, disconnect switches

and components for the variable‐frequency drives (VFDs)

7.2.3.3. Reactive Maintenance Strategies for Other Assets

In addition to the strategies mentioned above, reactive maintenance is an appropriate for

unpredictable maintenance that is necessary to deal with the following:

Damage related to weather

Power outage

Graffiti

Vandalism clean‐up

The reactive approach is also used for low‐suction or high‐discharge alarms. Alarms

usually have a very high priority as they can shut down the operation of a pump station.

Individual pump start failures are often less urgently responded to on a reactive basis

because redundant pumps are usually available. Effective planned maintenance should

limit the number alarms and start failures.

7.3. Repair Strategies

7.3.1. Project Maintenance (PjM)

When significant repairs are needed at PWB pump stations, this is called Project

Maintenance (PjM). This work is often larger than what can be completed by Operations



staff. A rolling list of the top 10–20 projects is regularly reviewed, updated and

prioritized. It is recommended that this list be expanded to include project estimates.

Project with higher project estimates could then be moved into the cue for the PCR/BDR

process with the Engineering CIP Planning Group.

Lump Multiple Repairs into One Larger Project

Sites with multiple small and medium repair projects, may be appropriate for combining

several repairs into one CIP that a contractor could be hired to complete. A recent BDR

for Sam Jackson Pump Station combined seismic upgrades, security work, electrical and

instrument upgrades, piping modifications and other miscellaneous items into one

project. This strategy of lumping many repairs into one project allows for more efficient

completion of the work.

7.4. Replacement Strategies

7.4.1. Variable Frequency Drives

Variable frequency drives (VFDs) are very popular in the water industry and offer many

advantages for delivering water more efficiently to customers. VFDs are devices that

change the speed of electric motors by changing the frequency of the electric current

supplied to the motor. Electricity consumption varies as the cube of the speed, so if the

speed of a motor is cut to 50%, the power consumption is reduced to (0.5)3 or 12.5%. The

use of VFDs can be most advantageous for PWB in these two scenarios:

1. VFDs are very useful in delivering water efficiently when pumping directly do

distribution in pressure zones that do not have a water storage tank. The VFD can

ramp up and down to match the instantaneous demand for water in the zone

without over‐pressurizing the zone.

2. VFDs are also useful when flexible operation of the pump station requires that

pumps operate at different points on the pump curve due to highly differential

suction or discharge head. The VFD is able to ramp speed up and down to move the

pump to an operating point that corresponds to the given head requirements.0.

VFDs are used only when speed control is needed. PWB usually uses Across‐the‐line

starters where pump station pumps into a distribution tank. Care must be exercised

when deciding to install a VFD for a pump station as there are some drawbacks to their

installation and operation.

VFDs cost roughly $100 per horsepower.

VFD operation reduces overall efficiency by approximately 3%. (This loss can be

negated at full speed operation by installing across‐the‐line bypass contactors).

VFDs generate waste heat which may require greater space conditioning during

warm weather.



7.4.2. Efficiency Improvements

Many PWB pump stations have pumps and motors that are older than 30 years and may

be from an era when equipment was less efficient. For example motors installed before

the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which set standard efficiencies for premium efficiency

motors, are likely not as efficient as new motors. In addition, older pumps may have

worn impellers or other components that can lead to lost efficiency.

A benefit/cost analysis for these pump stations can help determine whether new

equipment could save money at these older pump stations. This analysis should

compare the benefits of new equipment (in terms of electricity savings and

environmental impact) with the cost for purchasing and installing the equipment.

Often, incentives from the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) can help reduce the cost of the

new equipment.

This type of analysis was recently completed for Hoyt Pump Station. A solid business

case for replacing one pump and motor with more efficient equipment was developed.

The present value of the electricity savings generated by operating the new equipment

90% of the time is more than triple the cost of purchasing and installing the new

equipment. Details from this analysis are show in Table 7.10.

Table 7.10: Benefit/Cost Analysis for New Pump and Motor at Hoyt Pump Station

Existing Equipment New Equipment

63.1% 79.3% $41,449 $20,724 $20,724 75,581 $75,226 3.6

1Savings based on 20 year equipment life

Annual Enery Savings (kWh)

PV Enery

Savings1Benefit/

Cost

Pump/Motor Efficiency ETO Incentive

Equipment & Install Cost

Total Cost



7.5. Summary Table 7‐11, below summarizes all of the operations, maintenance, repair and replacement strategies discussed in this Chapter 7. Strategies

are grouped by associated work tasks (condition assessment, preventive/predictive maintenance). General estimates of the level of

difficulty, the resources, and the hour estimates for implementation are provided. In some cases, implementing the strategy will save time—

these estimates are provided in bold and noted.

Table 7-11. Operations, Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies for Pump Stations

Subject/Area of Practice

Current/ Revised/ New Practice Strategy Description Desired Outcome

Cost/ Difficulty (L, M, H) Resources

Estimated Hours/Year

Area 1: Condition Assessment Strategies for Assets 1.1 Condition Assessment Revised Assess condition of eight major

component areas during scheduled inspections [frequency varies with asset]

Current accurate data on asset condition

M OEs, Electricians, ITs

150

1.2 Component, system, and facility level assessment

Revised Identify differences in the consequences of failure at each level for each pump station and adjust inspection schedule to match

Best allocation of inspection resources

L AMP Lead 16

Area 2: Preventive/ Predictive Maintenance Strategies 2.1 Failure modes Revised Capture failure modes as part of

completing work orders for corrective (and ideally all maintenance) work.

Better data on why/how assets fail and improved root cause analysis


.25 hr per work order

2.2 Evaluate trends and program results

New Identify CMMS work orders that result from planned maintenance and those that result from reactive maintenance

Identify benefits of PM and reduce reactive maintenance

L Ops Mgrs 20

2.3 Weekly site visit by DOE Revised Develop an SOP for District Operating Engineer to perform sensory gauge check and analysis

Standardize methods for check and analysis

L OE, AMP Lead

10 4








2.4 Redundant assets Revised Reduce maintenance program for redundant assets, including Base pump oil analysis on run time:

Every 2 years for non-lead pumps and every year for lead pumps

Reduce motor starter PM to once every two years for motors on non-lead pumps

Spend resources on less essential assets at the optimal benefit/cost level

L OEs, Electricians,

Saves time 100 100

2.5 Efficiency Tests New Prioritize efficiency test PM work orders for larger pump stations that use more electricity

Focus resources on high-criticality and most expensive PS

M OEs, AMP Lead

20

2.6 Critical subcomponents Revised Perform PM on critical subcomponents such as generator fuel and batteries including Replace batteries every 3 years Have technicians present for

generator start test Test fuel every quarter for

contaminants Add pressure vacuum vent on

outside fuel tanks

Maintain maximum reliability for high-criticality resources

M Electricians 40








Area 3: Reactive/ Responsive Maintenance Strategies 3.1 Set criteria for systems

with redundancy Revised Set a level of maintenance to meet a

specified level of reliability where redundant systems or equipment exists. Manage redundant equipment at a lower effort/cost level, including allowing some to run to failure.

Spend resources on less essential assets at the optimal benefit/cost level


Saves time 80

3.2 Unpredictable Maintenance

Revised Respond to assets that fail unpredictably based on how critical they are to pump station operation

Spend Overtime resources only on most critical failures


Area 4: Replacement/ Renewal Strategies 4.1 Estimating costs New Provide project estimates for repair

with the goal of strategically managing high-cost items through creating a CIP project if warranted combining similar, redundant, or proximal projects for greater resource efficiency

Prioritized PJM work and move larger projects to CIP

M Ops Mgrs, Engineering & AMP Lead

40

4.2 Variable frequency drive Revised Install variable frequency drives for selected motors including Pump stations that deliver water to zones without a storage tank Pump stations that must operate at different points on the pumping curve due to varying suction or discharge head

Reduce energy consumption H OEs, Electricians, ITs

40








4.3 Performance/cost evaluation for motors

New Perform cost-benefit analysis on motors 30 years old and older to compare initial and operating costs for higher-efficiency motors. Investigate eligibility for incentives from the Energy Trust of Oregon.

Invest resources at the optimal benefit/cost balance between operating and initial capital costs.

M AMP Lead 20

Area 5: Operations Strategies 5.1 Operating efficiency Current Designate most-efficient pump in a

station as lead pump to be operated 90% of the time. Exercise other pumps weekly.

Reduce energy usage L AMP Lead 20

5.2 Documenting and tracking resources and lessons learned

Proposed Track material, labor usage, lessons learned, and all completed work at the asset level in the CMMS system

Create a dataset to inform strategic and operating decisions

L AMP Lead 20

5.3 Asset risk Revised Assess asset risk by the number of customers affected/duration of outage and likelihood of an outage

Use information to inform Service Level planning

L AMP Lead 20

5.4 Pilot study to identify worst cases

Proposed Analyze PSs to find worst-performing systems and assess benefits of implementing Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

Template for RCM at other facilities

M AMP Lead 20

5.5 Continuous improvement Current Optimize RCM effort by continuing to evaluate metrics and areas of focus

Invest resources at the optimal benefit/cost balance between operating and initial capital costs

M AMP Lead 20


Budget Forecasting 89

8. Budget Forecasting

8.1. Existing Capital Improvement Projects and Programs Listed below is the current 5‐year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Pump Station

Program. Projects over $500,000 in expenditures are listed individually; those under

$500,000 are funded out of the ʺPump Stations/Tanks ‐ Generalʺ line item.

Table 8.1: Pump Station Program 5-Year CIP Budget

Proj Def Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grand Total

W01357Water Control Center SCADA Server Replac $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00

W01358 Fulton Pump Station $ 1,270,000.00 $ 6,200,000.00 $ 2,350,000.00 $ 9,820,000.00 W01359 Forest Park Low Tank $ 5,570,000.00 $ 740,000.00 $ 6,310,000.00

W01376Portland Heights Pump Station Electrical $ 800,000.00 $ 800,000.00

W01446 Greenleaf Pump Station $150,000.00 $ 1,570,000.00

W01586Sam Jackson Pump Station and Mains

WBDIPT Pump Stations Tanks $ 420,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 510,000.00 $ 480,000.00 $280,000.00 $ 2,190,000.00 $ 8,360,000.00 $ 7,440,000.00 $ 2,860,000.00 $ 480,000.00 $430,000.00 $ 20,990,000.00 D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

PU

MP

ST

AT

ION

S/T

AN

KS

Pump Stations/Tank Sum

The Pump Station Program 10‐Year CIP includes the following projects:

Burnside pump station improvement project

Mayfair Tank improvement project

Forecasted studies for the Pump Station Program include:

Northwest Hills Master Plan:

Forest Park Low Pump Station: $1,130,000 (NWHSA MP 2008‐13)

Pennridge DCA: $1,365,000 (NWHSA MP 2008‐13)

Burnside Pump Station: $1,391,000 (NWHSA MP 2013‐25)

Burlingame Service Area Master Plan (BSA): Carolina PS MCC: $467,000 (2006‐11 &

2012‐25)

Suggested planning projects for the Pump Station Program include the following:



Rivergate Pump Station Abandonment Project

Marquam Hill Pump Station Electrical Improvement Project

Table 8.2: Pump Station & Tank Operating Maintenance Budget: Pump Stations/Tanks Admin 522100 Electricity 7,420 529000 Misc Services 207 532000 Operating supplies 22,400 532350 Computer supplies - software 1,620 535000 Clothing & uniforms 6,000 541300 Dues 210 542000 Local travel 3,000 549000 Miscellaneous 1,000 620020 Fleet - Trucks & Trailers 3,000 620040 Fleet - Misc Tools Equip 36,349 651201 Copy/Print/Bind 600 651204 Copier Services 1,500 651208 Mail Sorting & Delivery 2,073 651209 US Mail Processing 3,643 651504 Telecomm Service 8,884 651507 Long Distrance 25 651508 Cellular Phones 24,000 651511 Telecomm Billable 400 651531 Operations Passthrough 5,000 652237 Miscellaneous services 600 652637 Sewer Repair 6,180 652655 Street Patching 8,135Pump Stations/Tanks Admin Total 142,246Pumps/Tanks Ops & Maint 521000 Professional services 20,000 522200 Water - Sewer 0 523000 Equipment rental 4,000 524000 Repair & Maint Srvcs 142,156 529000 Misc Services 7,000 532000 Operating supplies 180,000 549000 Miscellaneous 5,000 620020 Fleet - Trucks & Trailers 64,594 620030 Fleet - Heave Equipment 30,646 620040 Fleet - Misc Tools Equip 749 651201 Copy/Print/Bind 60 651307 Operations & Maintenance 250

652529Project/Construction Management

21,000

Pumps/Tanks Ops & Maint Total **475,455

**Electricians forecast increase in the maintenance budget in the future due to the need of hiring a contractor to test, adjust, and calibrate medium-voltage starters and protection relays at Washington Park and GWPS. Frequency of this maintenance activity should be once ever 3 years with an estimated cost of $15,000 per site.



8.2. Pump Station PJM List Maintenance tasks that might involve multiple stakeholders and longer planning, design

or construction time are characterized as PJM items. Operation group keeps a list of

items that they have characterized as PJM maintenance tasks. The PJM list is also

referred by operation management staff as the Backlog list. Currently there are over 630

items that are listed on the PJM list. Maintenance tasks on the PJM list are rated by the

Planning group and priority numbers are assigned based on the criticality. Tasks range

in time duration anywhere from months to couple of hours. PSAMP Asset management

group has put fort effort to provide preliminary engineering cost estimate for the total

Pump station PJM list. Total Cost of PS PJM list is estimated to be $3.6 million. Last year

FY 2011‐2012 PWB has completed a total of 136 PJM items. Due to the complexity of our

accounting system and the broken link between the accounting system and CMMS it

was difficult to trace cost of completed PJM projects. Out of 136 completed PJM projects

21 were related to pump station maintenance.

This AMP suggests three ways of increasing productivity and increasing yearly number

of PJM’s completed with limited staff:

1. Sort PJM tasks by category of work

If there are large number of similar types of work look into contracting work out as a

lump sum project. For example if there are large number of pump station that need

roof replacements it might be more cost effective to combine the individual tasks and

bid them as one project.

2. Sort PJM tasks by the location

After sorting the PJM list tasks by location we might find that couple of stations have

higher number of PJMs that can be combined into one larger CIP project.

3. Cross reference PJM list by the completed and future planning projects.0.

It is important to always cross reference latest PJM list with the completed planning

projects that are being moved to design. At this stage it might be cost effective to

include the items from PJM list in the scope of the CIP project. PWB has most often

run into trouble with scope creep where CIP design projects are inserted with PJM

tasks late in the design stage. This usually results in design overruns and tension

between operations staff and design engineering staff.

Table 8.2: Sample of Pump Station PJM List WO# Type Group Description 1201110 PJM PROACTIVE OE

PU Tear apart, clean, inspect, repack and align pump #3 at Barbur Gibbs pump station

1102008 PJM PROACTIVE OE CLATSOP PUMP STATION - REMOVE



Table 8.2: Sample of Pump Station PJM List WO# Type Group Description

SE SUCTION METER

1200794 PJM PROACTIVE OE SW

WHITWOOD PS RESTROOM PROJECT // SEE TASKS 2 - 7 FOR DETAILS

1202938 PJM PROACTIVE OE NW

LINNTON PUMP STATION - INSTALL PRESSURE SUSTAINING FUNCTION TO ALTITUDE VALVE

1202271 PJM PROACTIVE CIP BARBUR GIBBS PUMP STATION - LOCATE, CUT & PLUG EXISTING LINE (DRAINS TO DAYLIGHT); INSTALL 4" DRAINLINE FOR PUMP RUNOFF & CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER

8.3. Recommended and Projected Activities for Maintenance

Section 7.5 list the details for recommended maintenance activities. Table 8.2 below

estimates the cost for these activities. Cost estimates are based on wages estimated at

the top of the labor classification plus 15% overhead for PWB employees.



Table 8.2: Cost for Operations, Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies for Pump Stations

Strategy Number Name Resources Hours

Estimated Cost

1.1 Condition AssessmentOEs, Electricians, Its

150 $6,589

1.2Component, system and facility level assessment

AMP Leads 16 $1,022

2.1 Failure modesOEs, Electricians,

ITs.25 per WO $5,000

2.2 Evaluate trends and program results Ops Mgrs 20 $1,528

2.3 Weekly site visit by DOE OEs, AMP Lead 14 $671

2.4 Redundant assets OEs, Electricians, Saves 200 -$8,668

2.5 Efficiency Tests OEs, AMP Lead 20 $1,054

2.6 Critical subcomponents Electricians 40 $1,804

3.1 Set criteria for systems with redundancyOEs, Electricians,

ITsSaves 80 -$3,467

3.2 Unpredictable MaintenanceOEs, Electricians,

ITs$0

4.1 Estimating costsOps Mgrs,

Engineering & AMP Lead

40 $2,805

4.2 Variable frequency driveOEs, Electricians,

ITs40 $1,734

4.3 Performance/cost evaluation for motors AMP Lead 20 $1,277

5.1 Operating efficiency AMP Lead 20 $1,277

5.2Documenting and tracking resources and lessons learned

AMP Lead 20 $1,277

5.3 Asset risk AMP Lead 20 $1,277

5.4 Pilot study to identify worst cases AMP Lead 20 $1,277

5.5 Continuous improvement AMP Lead 20 $1,277

Total Cost $17,734



8.4. Recommended and Projected Activities for Repair and Replacement

Figure 8.1 shows the projected repair/replacement costs for pump station assets based

on asset condition and based on a maximum expected life expectancy of assets as listed

in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Minimum Allowable Condition Rating Based on Asset Expected Life

Asset CategoriesMimimum Condition

Years Until Repair/ Replacement

Site 1 >> 100Building Structure, Piping, Valves & Pumps 2 50 - 100+Motors, Electrical, Instrumentation 3 20 - 50

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

1- 5 5 - 20 20 - 50 50 - 100+ >> 100

Years Until Repair/Replacement is Necessary

Rep

air/

Rep

lace

men

t C

ost

Instrumentation

Electrical

Motors

Pumps

Valves

Piping

Building Structure

Site

Figure 8.1: Repair and Replacement Costs for Pump Station Assets Based on Asset Condition

8.5. Growth, Improvements, and New Requirements In order to keep up with requirements from growth and to continue to meet all service

levels, the following CIP projects are recommended by the Planning group.



Clatsop Pump Station Mt. Tabor Pump Station

Sam Jackson

Pump Station

Improvements

Burnside Pump Station

Replacement

Green Leaf Pump

Station

Scope

Service area is deficient in

meeting peak day demand

plus fire flow. Additional

pump station capacity is

required to meet Master

Plan criteria.

PCR

recommendations:1Preparation of

an Outage and Emergency

Procedures Plan. 2.Improvements to

system to facilitate hydrant to

hydrant pumping. 3. Purchase a

pump truck or skid mounted pump.

4. Perform a field test for the

Project scope

includes

replacement of

MCCs and RTUs

also structural

assessment of the

building and

extension of crane

This project will

decommission the old

undersized pump station and

modify the nearby Verde Vista

pump station to serve the

Burnside pumping needs for

the next 50 years. The project

will also acquire property for

Improve condition

of greenleaf pump

station and

improve current

level of fire

protection.

Cost $236,200 to $1,855,000 $260,000 $1,460,000 $2,500,000 $2,086,000

Project

StatusPCR completed project on

hold due to funding.

PCR completed project on hold due

to funding.

BDR Completed,

project on hold

due to funding.

BDR Completed, project on

hold due to funding.

BDR Completed,

project on hold

due to funding.

jlettene

Wide-logo


Performance Tracking 96

9. Performance Tracking The Water Bureau tracks and reports on service levels, budget program targets,

accomplishments, and expenditures. Table 9.1 lists the key service levels relevant to

pump stations.

Table 9-1 Key Service Levels Service Level (measurements & targets) Data location/ Responsible Party Key Service Level (KSL) A.1 100% compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations.

This service level is monitored by the Water Quality group and stored in that group’s databases. Reports and historical data are maintained by the Water Quality group. Reports on compliance are distributed by Nathan Walloch, in the bureau’s Finance group.

KSL A.2 Maintain minimum service pressures of 20 pounds per square inch (psi) during normal demands 99% of the time.

This service level is currently monitored using the SCADA system. Percentages are calculated and reported in the quarterly pump station and tanks program summary that is maintained by Nathan Walloch of Finance.

KSL A.4 At least 95% of measurements are between 0.2 and 4 mg/L total chlorine.

A reporting mechanism is being developed to report statistics on the chlorine measurements taken at the outlets of pump stations.

KSL C.1 No more than 5% of customers out of water more than 8 hours a year.

WOTA is a system under GIS that is collecting this data. It will become available in a report for soon.

KSL C.2 No customer out of water more than 3 times per year.

This data is being collected by Sara Mayer. It will become available in a report for soon.

KSL C.5 At least 90% of (isolation) valves will operate when needed.

A valve inventory and condition assessment maintenance program has been developed but not implemented due to the budgetary constraints. Condition assessment of the valves will be tracked in CMMS.

KSL E.2 Achieve continuous improvement in maintaining assets by completing two steps per year in the progression of maintenance "best practice."

The Operations group has worked with the Asset Management group to establish 10 steps that lead to best practices in asset management. Data on progress are stored and updated within the Operations group.

KSL E.3 Meet at least 80% of standards established for inspection, testing, repair and replacement of assets that are identified as medium, high or extreme risk.

The Operations group and Program Manager meet monthly to identify extreme and high-risk assets for pump stations. Work orders and projects are created depending on the size of the project and tracked through @Task or within CMMS. Operations Manager and Program Manager report on the status of the generated tasks.



Table 9-1 Key Service Levels Service Level (measurements & targets) Data location/ Responsible Party Proposed KSL 1 New CIP projects require one of the following analyses in the basis of design report: total life-cycle cost, cost-benefit ratio, or cost-risk reduction ratio.

These data are tracked in @Task. Program Managers report on the progress.

Proposed KSL 2 Complete all mandatory projects with internal or external deadlines on schedule and on budget.

These data is tracked in @Task. Program Managers report on the progress.

Proposed KSL 3 Achieve continuous advancements in reduction of Portland Water Bureau's carbon emissions.

All CIP Projects are evaluated for potential opportunities in carbon emissions reduction. Guidelines for project evaluation and reporting are being developed through the Asset Management and Engineering Design groups.

Programmatic Service Level (measurements & targets)

Data location/ Responsible Party

Programmatic Service Level (PSL) A.1 Failures at pump stations shall result in no more than 5% of the Bureau’s customers being without access to water for more than 4 hours in any given year. (The overall cumulative goal for the distribution system is eight hours outage max per year for less than 5% of customers during normal shutdowns and 24 hours maximum for emergency shutdowns on mains 16-inches or less). With 90% availability or delivery of water to its customers.

This service level is currently monitored using the SCADA system. Percentages are calculated and reported in the quarterly pump station and tanks program summary that is maintained by Nathan Walloch of Finance.

PSL A.2 Implement Risk identified Planned maintenance to corrective maintenance ratios.

Asset management group utilized historic maintenance ratios to develop proposed maintenance ratios using developed risk rating for every pump station. Progress and effectiveness is tracked through CMMS by the Operations and asset management groups.

PSL A.3 Complete 100% of planned maintenance on schedule.

Completed work orders are stored and maintained in CMMS by Operations Group.

PSL A.4 Provide 30 psi service pressure when pumping directly into distribution.

Data is gathered and stored in SCADA.



Table 9-1 Key Service Levels Service Level (measurements & targets) Data location/ Responsible Party PSL A.5 Investigate all critical pump station alarms within 3 hours of notification.

These data are not specifically collected and progress can not be accurately tracked. PSL A.5 should be removed or modified.

9.1. Performance Tracking for Proposed Maintenance Strategies

In addition to the existing measures being reported on, Table 7.2 in Section 7.4 identifies

additional maintenance strategies that should be tracked. These Maintenance Strategies

and the data location/ responsible party are identified in Table 9.2..

Table 9.2: Workload Measures

Workload Measure Associated Service Level

Data Location/ Responsible Party

Develop and implement Reliability Centered Maintenance strategy (RCM) throughout the pump station program. Maintenance actions are coded appropriately and tracked in the bureau’s computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). (See Section 7.1 for a definition of RCM)

KSL E.2 PSL A.2

The Asset Management group will work with Operations to implement a pilot project and evaluate the effectiveness of bureau-wide RCM implementation.

Track and record energy consumption in facilities and investigate large spikes in the pump station power consumption with in 7 days of finding. Investigative steps are followed to determine root cause of large surges. Appropriative corrective action is taken within 7 days.

Proposed KSL

Energy consumption is tracked.

Pump station as-builts and P&ID diagrams are compiled and stored in appropriate database made available to the Operations and Engineering group.

P&ID drawings are stored with the Operations group and in the asset files. Design group is also working on standardization of P&ID drawings as well as training in-house staff to produce the drawings.

Develop standardization of signal and instrumentation as well as mechanical equipment within pump stations.

KSL E.2

Engineering Design group is working with Operations group in developing






electrical and instrumentation guide that will standardize Pump station plan layout and equipment selection. Mechanical equipment is partially standardized through bureau’s published Materials Manual. More development on the mechanical equipment standardization is in the future plans. Established standardization manuals and layouts will be published bureau-wide and available to the public.

90% of all maintenance-managed assets are registered in the CMMS and information is made available to the Operations and Engineering group.

KSL E.2

Data is stored in CMMS and maintained by the Operations group.

All pump stations are visually inspected on a weekly basis and condition information is recorded in CMMS. A standard inspection log is produced from each visit.

KSL E.2

Data is stored in CMMS and maintained by Operations group. Asset Management group will work with Operations to develop standard inspection logs.

90% of all signal, control and electrical equipment is up to current standards and functioning properly. Needed repairs are done on a timely basis.

PSL A.2 Proposed KSL 2

All the deficiencies are identified by electricians and instrumentation technicians. Work orders are created and tracked in CMMS for the needed replacements/ repairs.

Complete scheduling structure in CMMS.

KSL E.2

The Operations group has made great advancements in collecting organic information on the asset maintenance and entering the information in CMMS. All of the work orders at the bureau are now tracked and collected in CMMS. The Operations and Scheduling groups are responsible for tracking and entering work orders in CMMS.

All pump stations undergo weatherization preventive maintenance twice per year.

KSL E.2

Information is tracked in CMMS and maintained by






Operations Group.

Better define process for capitalizing unplanned asset failures.

KSL E.2

Program Manager will work with Finance group to define steps for capitalizing unplanned asset repairs/replacements.

Develop CMMS asset failure database and including labor and material cost for each recorded work order.

KSL E.2

Work has been initialized within Asset Management group during the AMP completion process. The failure analysis list presented in Chapter 5 of this AMP will be entered in CMMS. Asset Management will work closely with Operations scheduling group to enter the asset failure into CMMS and to encourage the Operations group to utilize the developed tool in CMMS during the work order closing process.

Implement centralized data repository system to store inspection logs, manufacturer’s data, cost summaries, work histories, flow data, vibration data and megger readings on the particular assets.

KSL E.2

All of the data tracking and management efforts that have been identified in this AMP will be stored and referenced in bureau-wide centralized data repository system. The characteristics of the platform and the architectural details as well as the implementation feasibility will be evaluated in future PSAMPS. The Asset Management group will lead this project with the great input from Operations group.



10. Improvement Plan and Data Requirements

10.1. Summary of Next Steps The following sections summarize the recommended deliverables and the next steps

resulting from the Pump Station AMP.

10.2. Recommended Service Levels Deliverable: Revisions to existing Service Levels and Workload Measures

recommended in Section 2 and expanded on in Section 9 will be implemented in the

quarterly Program Results Report. These proposed Service Levels are better aligned

with PWB’s mission, goals, and everyday operations

Next step: Contact Nathan Walloch and proceed with changes.

10.3. Recommended Condition Assessment Work Deliverable: Up‐to‐date assets condition database that is updated as part of the work

order close‐out process.

Next step: Asset Management group will contact PWB Scheduling and provide them

with Pump Station Condition Assessment Guide Sheets (AGS) presented in CH 4. The

AGS will be uploaded in to CMMS. Asset Management group will engage in a pilot test

with Operating engineers and assist in assessing and updating the condition of assets

task to ensure that expectations are clearly communicated and straightforward and

work does not take long time to complete. AGS shall be issued along with the PS weekly

visit work orders and other work orders such as instrumentation and electrical PMs.

Operations staff shall enter condition rating into CMMS as part of the work order

closing procedure. The asset categories and weighting factors from Table 4.2 will be

used to determine the overall condition and health of the pump station assets.

10.4. Recommended Failure Modes Analysis Deliverable: Healthy and living asset failure database that enables users to search and

produce reports on trends and similarities of asset failure. The database would have

current data of high quality and would enable the asset management and operations

group to better predict failure rates and large procurements creating effective

maintenance budget.

Next step: Enter the Failure Analysis spreadsheet presented in Table 5.1 in Appendix E

into CMMS. Operations staff would identify asset failure mode from a pull‐down

module in CMMS during the work order close‐out process.

Looking in the Future: Design software modules that would enable PWB staff to print

reports on demand to help answer the following questions:



Is replacement more cost‐effective than continuous maintenance?

How many hours does PWB staff spend on maintenance of certain brands and types

of assets?

What are asset failure rates based on the model and type?

10.5. Recommended Risk Evaluations Recommended Action: The Asset Level Business Risk Exposure Ratings for pump

stations are presented in Table 6.4 and CLEM ratings are provided in Table 6.6. It is

assumed that, with an increase in the available quality data, the risk evaluations and

assessment will be able to include performance information and historical trends of the

assets. In the future Asset Management Group would like to add additional facet to risk

evaluation. Social impact of a pumping station should be evaluated as part of risk

assessment. Risk evaluation will encompass health and safety concerns such as

vandalism or unlawful entrance into the facilities due to aging security measures in the

future. This would allow risk evaluation process to include triple bottom line approach

evaluating economical, environmental and social impact of asset failure.

10.6. Recommended Operational Changes Recommended Action:

1. Run the most efficient pump in a station 90% of the time.

2. Develop a standard operating procedure for all routine maintenance work orders.

3. Use the redundancy engineered into the system. Set a level of maintenance to meet

a specified level of reliability where redundant equipment or systems exist. One way

to do this is to document the operating requirements for each pump station (the

system outputs provided by designed‐in functions) and then identify alternative

operating modes to manage equipment failure. Unnecessary redundant equipment

(equipment not needed during failure, or not needed immediately because

alternative operating strategies are available), can be managed at a lower cost.

4. Use service impact to identify critical equipment. Assess equipment criticality

based on the number of customers affected if system function is lost. (For example,

all six Carolina pumps can be temporarily replaced by a nearby station to meet

service requirements while one non‐redundant 5 hp pump at a smaller station has no

immediate backup—the risk per customer is higher for the smaller station.)

5. Become a PM Optimization organization. Review and update preventive maintenance strategies periodically to identify whether PM tasks are too frequent (if

operators are rarely finding potential problems) or applicable (if frequent

preventable reactive maintenance is required).


diligently at the asset level in CMMS.0.



10.7. Recommended Maintenance Strategies 1. Capture failure modes related to corrective work using the failure modes listed in

Table 5.1. Failure modes (identifying “what happened?”) are an integral part of

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. Identifying failure modes will provide feedback

on existing maintenance strategies and the ability to mitigate or prevent failure, and

will provide an opportunity to improve those strategies over time.

2. Use multiple predictive maintenance (PDM) technologies together to assess the asset as a system, rather than component‐by‐component. This will give a more

complete picture of condition.

3. Use a centralized and decentralized approach to condition assessment to be most

effective (i.e. routine inspections high level inspections that identify an anomaly are

used to determine when to perform more detailed inspections)

4. Target the most common failure modes with condition assessment and preventive maintenance.

5. Identify and avoid low‐value work such as proactive maintenance that is performed

too frequently, needless inspections, work that could be done more effectively by

others and intrusive preventive maintenance that does not tell much and risks

damage to assets.

6. Adopt the average hours outlined in Table 7.1 as a baseline for optimal ratio for corrective and preventive maintenance. Analyze the data and adjust or modify the

ratios base on the failure cost and frequency to determine optimal ratios for each

station.0.

7. Develop and implement asset tracking system that involves barcode tracking of

individual assets and maintenance.

10.8. Recommended Repair and Replacement Strategies Repair and replacement strategies should be based on the Triple Bottom Line

methodology. This method entails three basic objectives and utilizes historic data in to

answer questions about asset repair versus replacement.

1. Financial:

What is the cost in terms of dollars of the asset being out‐of‐service?

What does an analysis of historical asset failure show?

Is the repair of the asset more cost‐effective than the replacement of the asset?



What is the life cost of the asset repair or replacement?

How can the bureau make asset‐related investments more cost‐efficient so that there

is necessary funding available both now and in the future?

2. Environmental:

How can the bureau reduce the negative impacts that operations have on the

environment, whether those impacts are direct or indirect?

3. Social:0.

How can the bureau contribute to improved health, safety and livability—both for

employees and for the community we serve?

10.9. Recommended Data Collection Actions 1. Capture failure modes related to corrective work as presented in Chapter 5 in

CMMS.


diligently at the asset level in CMMS.

3. Link time‐keeping and cost‐keeping databases with CMMS. Make the data

available to maintenance and engineering personnel to aid in maintenance and

capital improvement decisions.

4. Develop Standard Operating Procedure database for the ongoing PM tasks.

5. Link PdM databases such as instrumentation calibration, megger readings and vibration analysis with assets. This data should be visible to all maintenance and

engineering staff.

Appendixes

A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems

B. Volume to Cost Comparison for Pump Stations

C. Run Time Data and Pump Design Characteristics

D. Pump Station Power Usage

Pump Condition Rating

Condition Rating Name

Condition Description and Maintenance Required Vibration

Oil Analysis Results Efficiency Test


Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. No evidence of cavitation, vibration, or excessive temperatures and no reoccurring functional or maintenance problems. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements. Vibration levels are good

No Action Needed

Maintains 100% of installed or near new efficiency

2 Good

Requires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to optimize performance and restore it to near new condition.

Vibration levels are moderate. Corrective action will likely improve vibration levels or there is a known condition that needs monitoring. Monitor

Slight efficiency decrease (<5%) compared to installed efficiency or last efficiency test

3Fair/

OperableRequires significant reactive maintenance and/or partial refurbishment/replacement to restore it to good condition.

Vibration levels are high. Extended operation without corrective action may result in failure Monitor

Moderate decrease in efficiency (≥5 to <10%) compared to installed efficiency or last efficiency test

4 Poor


Vibration levels are severe, failure may be imminent with no corrective action. Further operations without repair is not recommended. Change Oil

Significant decrease in efficiency (≥10 to <15%) compared to installed efficiency or last efficiency test



Pump is not safe to operate or pump is not operational. Change Oil

Major loss of efficiency (>15%) compared to installed efficiency or last efficiency test

Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems

A-1

jlettene

Wide-logo

Motor Condition Rating


Condition Description and Maintenance Required Megger Readings Micro-Ohm Reading*


Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. No evidence of excessive temperatures and no reoccurring functional or maintenance problems. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements. Megger reading > 1GW Equally Balanced

2 Good

Requires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to optimize performance and restore it to near new condition. Megger reading > 50MW

No leg > 5% out of balance

3Fair/

Operable

Requires significant reactive maintenance and/or partial refurbishment/replacement to restore it to good condition. Megger reading > 10MW

No leg > 5% out of balance

4 Poor

Operational but requires significant, timely refurbishment to avoid further deterioration and/or failure. If attention is not received the asset could decline to a 5 rating where corrective action is no longer cost effective and/or fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible. Megger reading > 1MW

One or more leg(s) > 5% out of balance


Asset is in obsolete/replacement required condition. It is generally past cost effective refurbishment and needs to be replaced, and/or the asset is likely to fail in the near future (next 1 - 5 years). Rehabilitate if possible or Replace. Megger reading < 1MW

One or more leg(s) > 5% out of balance

*Example Calculation for Micro-ohm Readings Percentage Out of Balance

Given: Motor Micro-ohm Readings are 370mΩ, 393mΩ & 410mΩ.

Calculations: Avg Reading = (370mΩ + 393mΩ + 410mΩ)/3 = 391mΩ

% out of balance = (Avg Reading - Each Micro-ohm Reading) / Avg Reading% out of balance = (391mΩ - 370mΩ) / 391mΩ = 5.4%% out of balance = (391mΩ - 393mΩ) / 391mΩ = 0.5%% out of balance = (391mΩ - 410mΩ) / 391mΩ = 4.9%


A-2

jlettene

Wide-logo

Valve (Pump Control, Isolation, Site, PRV, Surge) Condition Rating

CONDITION RATING Condition Maintenance

1Excellent/ Very

Good

New / works great. Minimal or no

maintenance necessary.Minimal or no maintenance

necessary. YES COMPLETE NO N/A

COMPLETE GOOD UNCLEAR

COMPLETE GOOD UNCLEAR

N/A

4 Poor

Valve is partially operable, has significant

deterioration or is obsolete.

Likely that valve will fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible. MAYBE UNCLEAR YES

TO RESTORE/ REPLACE

5

Very Poor/ Inoperable/ Inaccessible

Valve has failed or could not be operated/

replacement required. Inaccessible/paved over.

Rehabilitate if possible or Replace. Provide access. NO IMPOSSIBLE YES

TO RESTORE/ REPLACE

YES MAYBE TO MAINTAIN

NAMEOPERATED

(Isolation Valves)ACHIEVED SHUTDOWN

(Isolation Valves)CREATE WORK

ORDERREASON FOR

WO

2 Good

Minor defects only. More difficult to operate but still

seats.

Normal preventative maintenance/ minor corrective maintenance

necessary or to optimize performance and restore it to near

new condition

TO RESTORE3 Fair/ Operable

Moderate deterioration. Hard to turn, leaks or

setting waivers.

Significant corrective maintenance and/or partial

refurbishment/replacement to restore it to good condition. YES YES


A-3

jlettene

Wide-logo

Piping Condition Rating


General Condition Description Coatings Condition Remaining Useful Life

1 Excellent/ Very GoodNew DI or Steel Pipe. No evidence of leaks from valves or piping. Coatings are in excellent condition.

≥ 80% or more useful life remaining

2 Good Older DI Pipe, Older CI with no leak/break history

Coatings are in good condition and may require minimal corrective maintenance to restore to near new condition.

≥ 50 to < 80% of useful life remaining

3 Fair/ OperableOlder Steel Pipe or newer CI pipe with no leak/break history

Coatings are in fair condition and may require significant reactive maintenance and/or partial refurbishment/replacement to restore to good condition.


4 PoorPipe with leak/break history or known corrosion issues

Coatings require timely refurbishment to avoid further deterioration and/or failure. If attention is not received coating and or pipe condition could decline to a 5 rating where corrective action is no longer cost effective and/or fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible.


5 Very Poor/ Failed Pipe with multiple leaks/breaks or known serious corrosion issues

Coatings are in obsolete/replacement required condition. Coatings past cost effective refurbishment and needs to be replaced or the pipe is likely to fail in the near future (next 1 - 5 years). Rehabilitate if possible or Replace. < 10% of useful life remaining


A-4

jlettene

Wide-logo

Instrumentation Condition Rating

Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required Calibration Accuracy Age/Replacement Parts


Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements. Equipment and conduits are in very good condition with no evidence of corrosion.

Instrument stays within acceptable calibration range

Instrument is near 100% accuracy


2 GoodRequires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to optimize performance and restore it to near new condition.


Instrument is within acceptable accuracy range


3Fair/



Instrument is nearly within acceptable accuracy range


4 Poor











A-5

jlettene

Wide-logo

Electrical Condition Rating

Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required Motor Starter*

Transformer Oil Analysis Age/Replacement Parts


Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. No evidence of overheating or equipment overloading. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements. Panels and conduits are in very good condition with no evidence of corrosion.

Reading < 80mW and/or contactor resistance nearly equally balanced No action needed


2 Good

Requires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to optimize performance and restore it to near new condition.

Reading 80 - 200mW and/or no contactor resistance more than 10 - 50% out of balance from average Monitor


3Fair/


Reading 80 - 200mW and/or no contactor resistance more than 10 - 50% out of balance from average Monitor


4 PoorOperational but requires significant, timely refurbishment to avoid further deterioration and/or failure. If attention is not received the asset could decline to a 5 rating where corrective action is no longer cost effective and/or fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible.

Reading > 200mW and/or no contactor resistance more than 50% out of balance from average

Corrective action required




Reading > 200mW and/or no contactor resistance more than 50% out of balance from average

Corrective action required


*Example Calculation for Percentage Motor Starter Resistance Out of Balance

Given: Motor Starter Resistance Readings are 25mΩ, 30mΩ & 50mΩ.

Calculations: Avg Resistance = (25mΩ + 30mΩ + 50mΩ)/3 = 35mΩ

% out of balance = (Avg Resistance - Each Motor Starter Resistance) / Avg Resistance% out of balance = (35mΩ - 25mΩ) / 35mΩ = 28.6%% out of balance = (35mΩ - 30mΩ) / 35mΩ = 14.2%% out of balance = (35mΩ - 50mΩ) / 35mΩ = 42.8%


A-6

jlettene

Wide-logo

Building/Structure Condition Rating

Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required


Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. No evidence of concrete or reinforcement deterioration and no major cracking or displacement at beam, column, wall, ceiling and floor connections. Building doors, windows, hatches and other penetrations appear water tight, roof in good shape an no apparent leakage or major coating damage. HVAC and plumbing function properly. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements.

2 GoodRequires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to restore it to near new condition.

3Fair/


4 Poor

Functional but requires significant, timely refurbishment to avoid further deterioration and/or failure. If attention is not received the asset could decline to a 5 rating where corrective action is no longer cost effective and/or fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible.




A-7

jlettene

Wide-logo

Site Condition Rating

Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required


Near new and requires only minimal predictive or preventative maintenance to maintain proper function. Access and parking for maintenance vehicles is sufficient to maintain and operate station. Site surface treatments and drainage allows for all-weather access. No evidence of flooding or surface erosion noted. No evidence of vandalism. Meets all operational, functional, obvious safety and regulatory requirements.

2 GoodRequires average levels of predictive and preventative maintenance and may require minimal corrective maintenance or minor adjustments to restore it to near new condition.

3Fair/


4 Poor

Functional but requires significant, timely refurbishment to avoid further deterioration and/or failure. If attention is not received the asset could decline to a 5 rating where corrective action is no longer cost effective and/or fail in very near future. Rehabilitate if possible.




A-8

jlettene

Wide-logo

1


2010 Volume Pumped

(MG)

2009 Usage (kWh)


(kWh) 2010 Cost

2009 cost/MG

2010 cost/MG

Saltzman 0.8 0.6 8301 $ 1,098 17,665 $ 1,929 $ 1,408 $ 3,327 Burnside 1.7 4.7 27130 $ 5,528 11048 $ 4,297 $ 3,195 $ 907 Raymond 2.5 2.3 26760 $ 2,857 28000 $ 3,125 $ 1,147 $ 1,336

Rocky Butte 5.3 5.3 75960 $ 6,199 66160 $ 6,061 $ 1,170 $ 1,146 Greenleaf 6.0 7.1 19351 $ 2,665 14983 $ 1,094 $ 444 $ 155

Stephenson 20.7 20.2 52200 $ 5,328 50,100 $ 5,397 $ 258 $ 267 Powell Butte 30.5 1.4 16335 $ 1,824 14549 $ 1,706 $ 60 $ 1,185 Verda Vista 31.5 32.0 39978 $ 5,349 34,302 $ 4,753 $ 170 $ 148

Clatsop 33.1 29.3 55830 $ 5,728 57141 $ 6,150 $ 173 $ 210 Linton 39.3 41.9 163120 $ 14,140 120920 $ 10,700 $ 360 $ 256

Tenino Ct 39.6 27.3 38597 $ 4,046 37,538 $ 4,017 $ 102 $ 147 Springvile 48.1 48.9 224640 $ 25,928 154,260 $ 19,230 $ 539 $ 393

Tabor 85.7 80.5 67520 $ 10,719 179,120 $ 20,748 $ 125 $ 258 Whitwood 87.3 71.0 169760 $ 20,408 135520 $ 16,881 $ 234 $ 238 SE 112th 95.5 73.1 123316 $ 14,311 90,867 $ 11,618 $ 150 $ 159

Taylors Ferry 155.9 162.3 136520 $ 15,557 105,400 $ 13,578 $ 100 $ 84 Gilbert 181.5 201.0 258720 $ 24,949 258560 $ 24,917 $ 137 $ 124 Arnold 183.2 170.3 81622 $ 7,911 79873 $ 7,932 $ 43 $ 47

Portland Heights 209.5 169.1 272300 $ 39,674 235300 $ 30,456 $ 189 $ 180 Marquam Hill PS 1&2 249.7 240.3 426114 $ 49,475 339240 $ 35,745 $ 198 $ 149

Calvary 285.0 245.8 318180 $ 31,072 310020 $ 30,128 $ 109 $ 123 Hoyt 376.8 319.9 363440 $ 34,868 340560 $ 33,352 $ 93 $ 104

Capitol Hwy 389.3 332.1 179209 $ 19,229 182764 $ 19,326 $ 49 $ 58 Barbur Gibs 464.8 455.3 984483 $ 85,897 936168 $ 80,427 $ 185 $ 177

Sam Jackson 947.8 830.9 1271700 $ 113,012 1,084,500 $ 106,862 $ 119 $ 129 Carolina 1020.9 843.4 1526400 $ 138,521 1539600 $ 136,032 $ 136 $ 161

Washington Park 2534.9 1900.7 3429600 $ 284,669 3,050,400 $ 303,360 $ 112 $ 160 Fulton 2616.9 2620.9 3348000 $ 259,264 3290400 $ 245,044 $ 99 $ 93

Appendix B. Volume to Cost Comparison for Pump Stations

Pump Station Asset Management Plan B-1

jlettene

Wide-logo

1


Head (ft)


Total Station Flow W/O Main

Pump (gpm)# of starts

2009Hours Ran

2009

Hours Ran/# of

starts 2009# of starts

2010Hours Run

2010

Hours Ran/# of

starts 2010105TH & FREMONT 105PS201 510 132 1100 510 65 38 0.585 44 37 0.841

105PS202 760 138 63 32 0.508 49 54 1.102112TH AVENUE I12PS201 290 250 1700 1110 82 1534 18.707 9 1981 220.111

I12PS202 950 274 92 441 4.793 116 526 4.534I12PS203 920 276 112 812 7.250 69 187 2.710

162ND AVENUE 162PS201 240 281 1200 870 150 2193 14.620 160 1819 11.369162PS202 770 310 112 685 6.116 115 672 5.843162PS203 730 305 120 881 7.342 95 622 6.547

1ST & KANE 1 500 145 970 5002 500 145

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ARLPS201 90 90 90 90 3 6460 2153.333 1 6931 6931.000ARLPS202 90 90 9 2282 253.556 8 1834 229.250

ARNOLD ARNPS201 1000 90 1900 1000 309 1932 6.252 326 2229 6.837ARNPS202 1000 96 148 1605 10.845 108 860 7.963

BARBUR GIBBS BARPS201 660 441 1700 1300 167 2429 14.545 164 2164 13.195BARPS202 850 449 161 3562 22.124 218 3516 16.128BARPS203 850 449 242 3259 13.467 300 3265 10.883

BURNSIDE BURPS201 470 223 920 470 153 38 0.248 142 153 1.077BURPS202 580 246 153 32 0.209 114 54 0.474

CALVARY CALPS201 1000 240 2200 1900 404 1519 3.760 687 2691 3.917CALPS202 1000 238 337 1909 5.665 216 835 3.866CALPS203 400 241 104 892 8.577 51 535 10.490CALPS204 1000 242 547 1417 2.590 239 627 2.623

CAPITOL HWY CAPPS201 1400 67 4600 2500 135 1120 8.296 80 174 2.175CAPPS202 1400 67 269 2837 10.546 423 4033 9.534CAPPS203 3100 93 210 487 2.319 83 72 0.867

CAROLINA CARPS201 2900 305 12000 10800 73 41 0.562 95 41 0.432CARPS202 2900 305 429 1449 3.378 697 3759 5.393CARPS203 2700 297 302 1891 6.262 45 301 6.689CARPS204 2700 297 288 2013 6.990 201 415 2.065CARPS205 2900 304 145 328 2.262 283 855 3.021CARPS206 2900 304 301 1710 5.681 283 484 1.710

CLATSOP CLAPS201 240 172 7 8470 1209.985 4 8770 2192.530CLAPS202 500 174 74 116 1.567 56 23 0.415CLAPS203 500 174 72 198 2.744 58 29 0.500

FULTON FULPS201 3200 296 9600 6400 49 6596 134.612 110 7947 72.245FULPS202 1900 279 61 3117 51.098 106 4091 38.594FULPS203 2000 262 83 4427 53.337 29 3029 104.448FULPS204 1600 245 10 35 3.500 9 0 0.000FULPS205 2600 259 44 575 13.068 51 217 4.255FULPS206 3100 269 41 2296 56.000 46 1585 34.457

GREENLEAF GRNPS201 130 101 200 130 444 395 0.890 276 442 1.601GRNPS202 170 136 511 335 0.656 283 266 0.940

HOYT PARK HYTPS201 1500 186 4000 2800 469 1841 3.925 304 1269 4.174HYTPS202 1500 186 336 1121 3.336 430 1463 3.402HYTPS203 1500 186 508 1604 3.157 358 1176 3.285

Latigo Lane LADPS201 2100 478 0.228 1140 194 0.170LADPS202 1731 401 0.232 1127 194 0.172

LINNTON LINPS201 160 398 270 130 391 2885 7.379 409 3208 7.844LINPS202 130 405 391 2896 7.407 406 3196 7.872LINPS203 358 5531 15.450 213 6440 30.235

MARQUAM HILL 1 MARPS201 820 323 1400 410 73 436 5.973 233 1617 6.940MARPS202 820 323 185 1198 6.474 104 471 4.531

MARQUAM HILL 2 MARPS203 2000 381 3800 2000 283 548 1.935 133 192 1.443MARPS204 2000 381 333 619 1.858 361 670 1.856

MT TABOR TABPS201 560 186 1600 1200 373 1049 2.813 338 790 2.339TABPS202 830 196 324 502 1.549 459 601 1.308TABPS203 850 197 406 566 1.393 421 539 1.281

PORTLAND HEIGHTS PORPS201 920 280 5300 4300 410 1084 2.644 460 1083 2.355PORPS202 2000 298 29 2 0.060 15 3 0.183PORPS203 2000 299 538 635 1.180 744 795 1.068PORPS204 2000 299 348 449 1.289 13 0 0.008

POWELL BUTTE HEIGHTS PBPPS201 200 100 1480 1480 181 4179 23.090 194 4153 21.407PBPPS202 200 100 174 4484 25.771 179 4611 25.760PBPPS203 900 102 8 0 0.033 13 0 0.016PBPPS204 900 102 8 0 0.039 13 0 0.011

PV 138TH / CENTER GBTPS201 620 210 1500 1100 1258 2484 1.975 844 2707 3.207GBTPS202 710 213 1262 2461 1.950 835 2620 3.138GBTPS203 820 217 42 16 0.391 96 88 0.917

PV 144TH / CENTER (VIVIAN) VIVPS201 2300 209 4000 2300VIVPS202 2300 209VIVPS203 1200 187

PV RAYMOND STREET RAYPS201 50 165 2450 1450 1077 4351 4.040 1107 4381 3.958RAYPS202 50 165 1080 4327 4.006 1101 4393 3.990RAYPS204 350 144 22 2 0.082 25 2 0.076RAYPS203 1000 144 0 0 0 0RAYPS205 1000 144 17 0 0.000 18 0 0.000

RIVERGATE RIVPS201 2400 236 4800 4800 53 120 2.261 47 57 1.215RIVPS202 2400 236 54 143 2.643 64 220 3.439RIVPS203 2400 236 26 5 0.181 24 0 0.000

ROCKY BUTTE RBWPS201 150 258 750 150 1 8365 8365.477 4 8578 2144.377RBWPS202 600 345 43 146 3.387 64 8 0.121

SALTZMAN SALPS201 30 200 30 30 2 385 192.672 3 492 164.133SALPS202 30 200 3 354 117.936 5 370 73.946

SAM JACKSON (Broadway) SAMPS205 800 244 1500 800 301 734 2.439 231 439 1.902SAMPS206 910 238 384 893 2.325 509 1094 2.149

Sam Jackson (Marquam Hill) SAMPS201 2100 456 4000 2100 45 56 1.245 33 22 0.668SAMPS202 2100 456 36 28 0.787 63 59 0.929

SAM JACKSON (Portland Hts) SAMPS203 1700 613 3200 1700 203 1942 9.565 243 1846 7.598SAMPS204 1700 613 183 1905 10.407 182 1462 8.034

SPRINGVILLE SPRPS201 640 631 1200 630 268 936 3.494 360 912 2.534SPRPS202 280 623 143 870 6.082 115 519 4.517SPRPS203 350 627 143 782 5.470 94 444 4.722

STEPHENSON STPPS201 250 254 500 250 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0STPPS202 250 254 35 4437 126.762 33 4600 139.382STPPS203 1750 165 14 1 0.086 11 1 0.066STPPS204 13 0 0.000 11 0 0.000

TAYLORS FERRY TAYPS201 2000 110 3200 2000 151 558 3.694 172 796 4.630TAYPS202 2000 110 199 715 3.593 142 624 4.396

TENINO CT TENPS201 320 128 530 320 120 1711 14.255 125 1884 15.070TENPS202 330 129 116 1627 14.023 92 1345 14.623

VERDE VISTA VVIPS201 1000 133 1800 1000 61 197 3.226 70 289 4.132VVIPS202 1000 133 79 279 3.532 55 205 3.719

WASH PARK 2 (Sherwood) WASPS217 1600 258 2300 1400 1302 1154 0.886 1555 1536 0.988WASPS218 1400 250 976 884 0.905 738 714 0.968

WASHINGTON PARK 1 WASPS204 1600 572 5000 3200 29 838 28.912 107 1850 17.287WASPS205 1700 572 25 665 26.585 87 1494 17.176WASPS206 1700 572 46 1260 27.396 99 1665 16.820

Run Time Data & Pump Design Caracteristics

Appendix C. Run Time Data and Pump Design Characteristics

Pump Station Asset Management Plan C-1

jlettene

Wide-logo

1


Head (ft)


Total Station Flow W/O Main

Pump (gpm)# of starts

2009Hours Ran

2009

Hours Ran/# of

starts 2009# of starts

2010Hours Run

2010

Hours Ran/# of

starts 2010

Run Time Data & Pump Design Caracteristics

WASHINGTON PARK 2 WASPS211 1800 560 9200 7500 56 760 13.578 45 112 2.485WASPS212 1400 559 76 2099 27.621 45 185 4.102WASPS213 1500 559 39 777 19.919 18 48 2.669WASPS214 1500 559 32 455 14.217 44 120 2.732WASPS215 1800 570 96 1203 12.534 116 1689 14.557WASPS216 1800 570 82 1146 13.978 119 1563 13.132

WASHINGTON PARK 3 WASPS219 1600 562 3000 1300 28 517 18.467 32 41 1.272WASPS220 1400 562 18 524 29.136 29 42 1.450

WHITWOOD WITPS201 1000 354 1500 640 96 381 3.969 52 484 9.308WITPS202 330 328 349 1496 4.287 315 974 3.093WITPS203 320 327 361 1478 4.093 320 1091 3.409

Appendix C. Run Time Data and Pump Design Characteristics

Pump Station Asset Management Plan C-2

jlettene

Wide-logo

1

Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation

YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009

Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010

105PS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1980 1980

105PS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1980 1980

105PS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1980 1980


112th Ave PS

112PS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993


112PS202-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 1999


112PS203-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 1999

112PS203-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 1999162nd Ave PS

162PS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1988 1988


162PS202-P Pump PMP-MED 2001 2001


162PS203-P Pump PMP-MED 2003 2003

162PS203-M Motor MTR-MED 2003 20031st & Kane

1KNPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1986 1986

1KNPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1986 1986

1KNPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1986 1986

1KNPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1986 1986Arlington Heights

ARLPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1967 1967

ARLPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 1967 1967

ARLPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1989 1989

ARLPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 1989 1989Arnold 0

ARNPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1985 1985

ARNPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1985 1985

ARNPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972

ARNPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 1972Barbur-Gibbs PS

Power Usage

4320 2,299.99$ 4040 2,559.20$

123316 14,310.82$ 90867 11,618.28$

144160 18,180.27$ 139056 16,378.16$

1890 588.87$ 13844 1,553.55$

18680 2,005.37$ 19577 2,184.15$

81622 7,911.00$ 79873 7,931.90$

Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage

Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-1

dbiberic

Typewritten Text

jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

BARPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 2008

BARPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1954 2008


BARPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1954 2003


BARPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1959 1959Burnside PS

BURPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1998 1998

BURPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1998 1998

BURPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1991 1991

BURPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1991 1991Calvary PS 0

CALPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993

CALPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993






CALPS204-M Motor MTR-MED 2004 2004Capitol Hwy PS

CAPPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1998 1998

CAPPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1998 1998

CAPPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1998 1998

CAPPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1998 1998

CAPPS203-P Pump PMP-LRG 1998 1998

CAPPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1998 1998Carolina PS

CARPS201-P Pump PMP-LRG 1988 1988

CARPS201-M Motor MTR-LRG 1988 1988






984483 85,896.91$ 936168 80,427.12$

27130 5,527.81$ 11048 4,297.05$

318180 31,071.73$ 310020 30,127.60$

179209 19,228.68$ 182764 19,325.88$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage





CARPS206-M Motor MTR-LRG 1973 1973Clatsop PS 0

CLAPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1982 1982

CLAPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 2007 2007

CLAPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1982 1982

CLAPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 2007 2007

CLAPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1982 1982

CLAPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 2007 2007Fulton PS

FULPS201-P Pump PMP-LRG 1997 1997

FULPS201-M Motor MTR-LRG 1997 1997

FULPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1995 1995

FULPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1995 1995


FULPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1996 1996






FULPS206-M Motor MTR-LRG 1994 1994138th/Center (Gilbert) PS 0

GBTPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1980 1980

GBTPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1980 1980


GBTPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1980 1980


GBTPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1963 1963Greenleaf PS 0

GRNPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1980 1980GRNPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 1971 1971

1526400 138,520.69$ 1539600 136,031.87$

55830 5,728.49$ 57141 6,150.17$

3348000 259,264.37$ 3290400 245,043.51$

258720 24,949.10$ 258560 24,916.68$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

GRNPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1980 1980GRNPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 1980 1980Hoyt PS

HYTPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972

HYTPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 2007


HYTPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 2007


HYTPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 2007Latigo Lane PS

LADPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 0

LADPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 0

LADPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 0

LADPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 0Linnton PS

LINPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1996 1996

LINPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1996 1996


LINPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1996 1996


LINPS203-M Motor MTR-SML 1996 1996Marquam Hill PS 2 0

MARPS201-P Pump PMP-LRG 1964 2008MARPS201-M Motor MTR-LRG 1964 2008

MARPS202-P Pump PMP-LRG 1964 1964MARPS202-M Motor MTR-LRG 1964 1964Marquam Hill PS 1 0

MARPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 1954MARPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1954 1954

MARPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 1954MARPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1954 1954Powell Butte Heights PS 0

PBBPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1999 1999

PBBPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 1999 1999

19351 2,664.74$ 14983 1,093.78$

363440 34,867.57$ 340560 33,351.67$

1720 365.69$ 1398 339.99$

163120 14,139.76$ 120920 10,700.00$

426114 49,474.64$ 339240 35,745.04$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

PBBPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1999 1999

PBBPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 1999 1999

PBBPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1999 1999

PBBPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1999 1999

PBBPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 1999 1999

PBBPS204-M Motor MTR-MED 1999 1999Portland Heights PS 0

PORPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1977 1990PORPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1977 1990



PORPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 1985 1990PORPS204-M Motor MTR-MED 1985 1990Raymond Street PS 0

RAYPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 2002 2002

RAYPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 2002 2002





RAYPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 2002 2002

RAYPS204-M Motor MTR-MED 2002 2002

RAYPS205-P Pump PMP-MED 2002 2002

RAYPS205-M Motor MTR-MED 2002 2002Rocky Butte PS 0RBWPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1993 1993RBWPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 1993 1993RBWPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1969 1969RBWPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1969 1969Rivergate PS 0

RIVPS201-P Pump PMP-LRG 1974 1974RIVPS201-M Motor MTR-LRG 1974 1974

16335 1,823.60$ 14549 1,706.14$

Total 272,300.00$ Total 235,300.00$

Total 26,760.00$ Total 28,000.00$

75960 6,199.05$ 66160 6,060.73$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

RIVPS202-P Pump PMP-LRG 1974 1974RIVPS202-M Motor MTR-LRG 1974 1974

RIVPS203-P Pump PMP-LRG 1974 1974RIVPS203-M Motor MTR-LRG 1974 1974Saltzman PS

SALPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1963 2005

SALPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 1963 2005

SALPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1985 1995

SALPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 1985 1995Sam Jackson PS 0

SAMPS201-P Pump PMP-LRG 1965 2003

SAMPS201-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 2003

SAMPS202-P Pump PMP-LRG 1965 2003


SAMPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1965 2003




SAMPS205-P Pump PMP-SML 1965 1999

SAMPS205-M Motor MTR-MED 1965 1999


SAMPS206-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 1999

Springville PS

SPRPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993

SPRPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993


SPRPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993


SPRPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993Stephenson PS 0

STPPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 2005 2005

STPPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 2005 2005

STPPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 2005 2005

STPPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 2005 2005

STPPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 2005 2005

75160 8,658.52$ 60480 6,140.95$

8301 1,098.37$ 17665 1,929.46$

1271700 113,011.96$ 1084500 106,862.05$

224640 25,928.38$ 154260 19,229.91$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

STPPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 2005 2005STPPS204-PTabor PS 0

TABPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 2002 2002

TABPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 2002 2002

TABPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 2000

TABPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 2000

TABPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 2001 2001

TABPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 2001 2001Taylors Ferry PS

TAYPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1996 1996

TAYPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1996 1996

TAYPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1971 1971

TAYPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1971 1971Tenino Ct PS

TENPS201-P Pump PMP-SML 1982 1982

TENPS201-M Motor MTR-SML 1982 1982

TENPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1982 1982

TENPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 1982 1982PV 144th/Center (Vivian) 0

VIVPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 2000

VIVPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 2000


VIVPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 2000


VIVPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 2000Verde Vista PS 0

VVIPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1966 1998

VVIPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1966 1998

VVIPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1966 1998

VVIPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1966 1998Washington Park PS 1 0WASPX201-P Pump PMP-MED 1894 1894

Pelton WheelPelton Wheel 1894 1894

52200 5,327.85$ 50100 5,396.96$

67520 10,719.05$ 179120 20,748.29$

136520 15,557.04$ 105400 13,578.44$

38597 4,046.31$ 37538 4,017.24$

15400 1,728.34$ 41000 4,281.96$

39978 5,349.12$ 34302 4,753.40$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

WASPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972WASPS204-M Motor MTR-LRG 1972 1972WASPS205-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972WASPS205-M Motor MTR-LRG 1972 1972WASPS206-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972WASPS206-M Motor MTR-LRG 1972 1972Washington Park PS 2 0WASPS211-P Pump PMP-MED 1963 1963WASPS211-M Motor MTR-LRG 1963 1963WASPS212-P Pump PMP-MED 1963 1963WASPS212-M Motor MTR-LRG 1963 1963WASPS213-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 1954WASPS213-M Motor MTR-LRG 1954 1954WASPS214-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 1954WASPS214-M Motor MTR-LRG 1954 1954WASPS215-P Pump PMP-LRG 1968 1968WASPS215-M Motor MTR-LRG 1968 1968WASPS216-P Pump PMP-LRG 1968 1968WASPS216-M Motor MTR-LRG 1968 1968WASPS217-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972WASPS217-M Motor MTR-MED 2010 2010WASPS218-P Pump PMP-MED 1973 1973WASPS218-M Motor MTR-MED 1973 1973Washington Park PS 3 0WASPS219-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1999WASPS219-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 1999WASPS220-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1999WASPS220-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 1999

Whitwood PS 0

WITPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993

WITPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993

WITPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 1993 1993

WITPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993

Total 3,429,600.00$ Total 3,050,400.00$



jlettene

Wide-logo

1


YearYear Last

RehabilitatedUsage

(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009


Power Usage

WITPS203-P Pump PMP-SML 1993 1993

WITPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993 169760 20,407.89$ 135520 16,880.80$



jlettene

Wide-logo

asset management plan pump stations - awwa.org · asset management plan pump stations ... appendix...

Documents