View
230
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
iii
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
vii
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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 Management Plan Pump Stations
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 4
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 5
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 6
Figure 3.1: Oracle Pump Station Asset Hierarchya aSCADA= Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System; RTU=remote telemetry unit
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 7
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$\Data\OpsPublicDatabases Flow informationCMMSa
aCMMS stands for Computerized Maintenance Management System
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 8
Figure 3.2: Pump Station Age Profile (Based on Building Age)
3.3.3. Location
A list of active pump station addresses and Oracle sites names is presented in Table 3.2.
Maps to each location can be found by clicking on each site name on the 1‐Y‐9 diagram
located at:
file://wbfile1/group$/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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 9
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).
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 10
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Inventory and Valuation 11
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 13
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 14
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 out of calibration but was able to be recalibrated
Instrument is nearly within acceptable accuracy range
Equipment age greater than 15 years old and/or replacement parts can be expected to be available.
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.
Instrument cannot be calibrated
Instrument is outside of acceptable accuracy range
Replacement parts cannot be found.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 15
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 16
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 17
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 18
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 19
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 20
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 21
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 22
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 23
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 24
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 25
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 26
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 27
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 28
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 29
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 30
$- $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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 31
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 32
Table 4.6: Quantitative Information Presented in Figures 12–15
2009 Volume Pumped (MG)
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 33
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Asset Condition and Utilization 34
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$
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 36
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
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 38
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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
Information resides with Mark Crowder
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
Information resides with Mark Crowder
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 39
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 40
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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.
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. 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).
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. 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
Predict maintenance needs and current condition of the site valves. Provides data for appropriate condition assessment.
Water leaking from asset (LEAK)
Valve body (BODY)
Bolts loose/ missing (BOLTS LOSE)
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)
High pressure or surge event (PRESSURE)
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 41
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
High Pressure (over 300 psi), Low Redundancy & Double Diaphragm Valves - Rebuild (teardown and complete replacement of all rubber components)
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.
Water leaking through valve internally (LEAKBY) Valve Seat (SEAT)
Other-describe in finishing comments (OTHER)
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)
Bolts loose/ missing (BOLTS LOSE)
Manufacturing defect (DEFECT)
Gasket, O-ring and seals (SEAL)
Bolts corroded (BOLTS CORR)
High pressure or surge event (PRESSURE)
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)
Contractor/ other 3rd party damage (CONTRACTOR)
Isolation Valves (VALVE_ISOL)
Allow for removal of pump Operate/Exercise
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.
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 42
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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)
Contractor/ other 3rd party damage (CONTRACTOR)
Replaced entire asset (REPL ASSET)
Valve Seat (SEAT)
Other-describe in finishing comments (OTHER)
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.
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 43
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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
2) Use appropriate Safety/Arc-Flash PPE (air-monitoring,
ventilation fan, climbing gear, hotwork/ FR gear, Confined
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
Outdated/ long lead time/ parts do not exist
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 44
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS)
1) Notify WCC Operator & District OE
2) Take Thermal - Image if applicable Thermal Image data
Located with Mark Crowder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
3) Check operation/ perform load test Load test data
Located with Mark Crowder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
4) Clean equipment/vacuum
5) Check terminations for tightness
6) Verify weekly run (day, time and duration)
Recording of the run duration
Located with Mark Crowder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
7) Complete Task Completion Detail Task Completion report.
Located with Mark Crowder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
Pitting and corrosion LowPM Driven
Deteriorating springsFuture repairs are not possible Worn out parts
Outdated/ long lead time/ parts do not exist
2) Use appropriate Safety/Arc-Flash PPE (air-monitoring,
ventilation fan, climbing gear, hotwork/ FR gear, Confined
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 45
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
11) Complete task completion detail. Task Completion report.
Located with Mark Corwder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
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
Located with Mark Corwder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
8) Complete task completion detail Task Completion report.
Located with Mark Corwder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
UPS 1) Notify operator2) Use proper PPE
3) Take Thermal Image Thermal Image dataLocated with Mark Crowder
Provides information regarding future maintenance task and also feeds information in to the condition assessment.
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 46
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 47
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
Table 5.1 Failure Modes and Effects at PWB Pump StationsFailure Modes at Different Levels of Detail
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
Failure Modes and Asset Life Pump Stations 48
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 49
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 50
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?
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 51
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 52
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
Total # Starts for PS
Total # Hours All Pumps
Hours Run per PM Hour
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 53
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
Total # Starts for PS
Total # Hours All Pumps
Hours Run per PM Hour
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 54
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
Total # Starts for PS
Total # Hours All Pumps
Hours Run per PM Hour
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 55
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 56
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)
2009 Cost 2010 Usage
(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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 57
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 58
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 59
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Failure Modes and Asset Life 60
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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%
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Business Risk Exposure 62
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Business Risk Exposure 63
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Business Risk Exposure 64
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Business Risk Exposure 65
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 Low Moderate High Very high
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Business Risk Exposure 66
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 Low Moderate High Very high
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Business Risk Exposure 67
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 69
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 & OPERATING ENGINEERS
PUMP STATIONS WEEKLY GENERAL INSPECTION 1124
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
PUMP STATION OIL ANALYSIS, OIL CHANGES & LUBRICATION 101
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS ROOFS & GUTTERS 249
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS PORTABLE PUMP - ANNUAL TEST 2.5
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
RIVERGATE PUMP STATION WEEKLY MAINTENANCE RUN, ROTATE PUMPS 83
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
ANNUAL PUMP STATION CRANE INSPECTIONS 19
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 70
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
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
ANNUAL PUMP STATION SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT 14
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
PUMP STATION REGULATOR STATION - RUN BOTH STAGES TO CLEAR OUT SEDIMENT 7
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
STEPHENSON PUMP STATION - CHECK PRESSURE TANK & RUN COMPRESSOR AS
NECESSARY 6
PUMP & OPERATING ENGINEERS
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 71
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 72
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 73
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 74
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 75
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 76
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 77
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 78
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 79
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 80
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 81
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 82
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 83
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 84
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 85
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
M OEs, Electricians, ITs
.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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 86
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
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 87
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 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
M OEs, Electricians, ITs
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
M OEs, Electricians, ITs
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Strategies 88
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
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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:
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Budget Forecasting 90
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Budget Forecasting 91
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Budget Forecasting 92
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Budget Forecasting 93
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Budget Forecasting 94
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Budget Forecasting 95
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 97
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 98
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 99
Table 9.2: Workload Measures
Workload Measure Associated Service Level
Data Location/ Responsible Party
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
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 100
Table 9.2: Workload Measures
Workload Measure Associated Service Level
Data Location/ Responsible Party
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.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 101
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:
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 102
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).
6. Manage all work on work orders linked to assets. Track labor and material usage
diligently at the asset level in CMMS.0.
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 103
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?
Asset Management Plan Pump Stations
Performance Tracking 104
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.
2. Manage all work on work orders linked to assets. Track labor and material usage
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
1Excellent/ Very Good
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
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.
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
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.
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
Motor Condition Rating
Condition Rating Name
Condition Description and Maintenance Required Megger Readings Micro-Ohm Reading*
1Excellent/ Very Good
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
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. 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%
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-2
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
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-3
Piping Condition Rating
Condition Rating Name
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.
≥ 30 to < 50% of useful life remaining
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.
≥ 10 to < 30% of useful life remaining
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
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-4
Instrumentation Condition Rating
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 out of calibration but was able to be recalibrated
Instrument is nearly within acceptable accuracy range
Equipment age greater than 15 years old and/or replacement parts can be expected to be available.
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.
Instrument cannot be calibrated
Instrument is outside of acceptable accuracy range
Replacement parts cannot be found.
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-5
Electrical Condition Rating
Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required Motor Starter*
Transformer Oil Analysis Age/Replacement Parts
1Excellent/ Very Good
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
Equipment age equivalent to new and replacement parts can be expected to be available.
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
Equipment age greater than 25 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.
Reading 80 - 200mW and/or no contactor resistance more than 10 - 50% out of balance from average Monitor
Equipment age greater than 50 years old and/or replacement parts can be expected to be available.
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
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.
Reading > 200mW and/or no contactor resistance more than 50% out of balance from average
Corrective action required
Replacement parts cannot be found.
*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%
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-6
Building/Structure Condition Rating
Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required
1Excellent/ Very Good
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/
OperableRequires significant reactive maintenance and/or partial refurbishment/replacement to restore it to good condition.
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.
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.
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-7
Site Condition Rating
Condition Rating Name Condition Description and Maintenance Required
1Excellent/ Very Good
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/
OperableRequires significant reactive maintenance and/or partial refurbishment/replacement to restore it to good condition.
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.
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.
Appendix A. Condition Ratings for Pump Station Systems
A-8
1
2009 Volume Pumped (MG)
2010 Volume Pumped
(MG)
2009 Usage (kWh)
2009 Cost 2010 Usage
(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
1
Pump Station Pump #Flow (gpm)
Head (ft)
Total Station Flow (gpm)
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
1
Pump Station Pump #Flow (gpm)
Head (ft)
Total Station Flow (gpm)
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
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
105PS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1980 1980
112th Ave PS
112PS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993
112PS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993
112PS202-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 1999
112PS202-M Motor MTR-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
162PS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1988 1988
162PS202-P Pump PMP-MED 2001 2001
162PS202-M Motor MTR-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
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
Power Usage
BARPS201-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 2008
BARPS201-M Motor MTR-MED 1954 2008
BARPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1954 2010
BARPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1954 2003
BARPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1959 1959
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
CALPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 2000
CALPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 2000
CALPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993
CALPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993
CALPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 2004 2004
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
CARPS202-P Pump PMP-LRG 1965 2000
CARPS202-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 2000
CARPS203-P Pump PMP-LRG 1965 2000
CARPS203-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 2000
CARPS204-P Pump PMP-LRG 1965 1965
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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-2
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
Power Usage
CARPS204-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 1965
CARPS205-P Pump PMP-LRG 1973 1973
CARPS205-M Motor MTR-LRG 1973 1973
CARPS206-P Pump PMP-LRG 1973 1973
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-P Pump PMP-MED 2009 2009
FULPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1996 1996
FULPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 2004 2004
FULPS204-M Motor MTR-LRG 2004 2004
FULPS205-P Pump PMP-LRG 1961 1961
FULPS205-M Motor MTR-LRG 1961 1961
FULPS206-P Pump PMP-LRG 1994 1994
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-P Pump PMP-SML 1980 1980
GBTPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1980 1980
GBTPS203-P Pump PMP-SML 1963 1963
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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-3
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
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-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972
HYTPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1972 2007
HYTPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 1972
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-P Pump PMP-SML 1996 1996
LINPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1996 1996
LINPS203-P Pump PMP-SML 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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-4
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
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
PORPS202-P Pump PMP-MED 1977 1989PORPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1977 1989
PORPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1984 1984PORPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1984 1984
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
RAYPS202-P Pump PMP-SML 2002 2002
RAYPS202-M Motor MTR-SML 2002 2002
RAYPS203-P Pump PMP-SML 2002 2002
RAYPS203-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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-5
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
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
SAMPS202-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 2003
SAMPS203-P Pump PMP-MED 1965 2003
SAMPS203-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 2003
SAMPS204-P Pump PMP-MED 1965 1997
SAMPS204-M Motor MTR-LRG 1965 1997
SAMPS205-P Pump PMP-SML 1965 1999
SAMPS205-M Motor MTR-MED 1965 1999
SAMPS206-P Pump PMP-MED 1972 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-P Pump PMP-MED 1993 1993
SPRPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993
SPRPS203-P Pump PMP-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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-6
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
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-P Pump PMP-MED 2000 2000
VIVPS202-M Motor MTR-MED 2000 2000
VIVPS203-P Pump PMP-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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-7
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
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$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-8
1
Asset Name Type Sub TypeInstallation
YearYear Last
RehabilitatedUsage
(kWh) 2009 Cost 2009
Usage (kWh) 2010 Cost 2010
Power Usage
WITPS203-P Pump PMP-SML 1993 1993
WITPS203-M Motor MTR-MED 1993 1993 169760 20,407.89$ 135520 16,880.80$
Appendix D. Pump Station Power Usage
Pump Station Asset Management Plan D-9
Recommended