Best Management Practices for the Maintenance of Water Distribution Assets

Web Report #4237a Subject Area: Infrastructure

Best Management Practices for the Maintenance of Water Distribution Assets

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

About the Water Research Foundation The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that sponsors research that enables water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. WRF’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this mission, WRF sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment, and distribution. Nearly 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad contribute subscription payments to support WRF’s work. Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and disseminated. From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, WRF’s staff directs and supports the efforts of more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community. Research results are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Website, Webcasts, workshops, and periodicals. WRF serves as a cooperative program providing subscribers the opportunity to pool their resources and build upon each other’s expertise. By applying WRF research findings, subscribers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, WRF has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied research value. More information about WRF and how to become a subscriber is available at www.WaterRF.org.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Best Management Practices for the Maintenance of Water Distribution Assets Prepared by: Frank Godin, Terry Brueck, Shiv Iyer, Claude Williams, Jon Crumpton, and Jami Haider EMA, Inc., 2355 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55113

Jointly Sponsored by: Water Research Foundation 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20004

Published by:

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

DISCLAIMER This study was jointly funded by the Water Research Foundation (WRF) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Cooperative Agreement EPA-EM-83406801-1. WRF and EPA assume no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of WRF or EPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.

Copyright © 2015 by Water Research Foundation ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or otherwise utilized without permission. Printed in the U.S.A.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii  LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix  FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. xi  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... xiii  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................xv  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1  Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1  The Need for Vetted Asset Maintenance Tactics ................................................... 1  The Need for Best Management Practices .............................................................. 2  Linking AMTs with Asset Management................................................................. 2  Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3  Report Structure .................................................................................................................. 3  CHAPTER 2: METHODS AND MATERIALS ............................................................................ 5  Project Structure.................................................................................................................. 5  Task 1 - Define Asset Classes and Sub-Classes ................................................................. 6  Asset Class Framework for Maintenance of Water Distribution System Assets.... 6  Task 2 - Identify Best Management Practices, Discuss and Develop Framework ........... 13  BMP Guide Framework ........................................................................................ 14  Maintenance Tactic Profile Overview .................................................................. 15  Task 3 – Utility Survey and Industry Research for AMT Candidates .............................. 21  Task 4 - Discuss Benefits of Maintenance Optimization.................................................. 22  AMT Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................... 23  Task 5 - Review AMT Candidates Against Optimization Criteria ................................... 24  Task 6 - Develop BTMP Guide Based on Asset Maintenance Tactics ............................ 25  CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................ 27  Summary of Asset Maintenance Tactics........................................................................... 27  AMT Scoring Table .......................................................................................................... 38  AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria ............................................................... 38 AMT Usefulness Review ...................................................................................... 38  Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 53 Challenges in Creating AMTs .............................................................................. 53 AMT Completeness Review ................................................................................. 53 AMT Usefulness Review ...................................................................................... 54 Overview by System Element ........................................................................................... 55  Booster Chlorination Stations ............................................................................... 55  Measurement and Control ..................................................................................... 55 

v ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Other Pipe Appurtenances .................................................................................... 55  Pipe ....................................................................................................................... 56  Pumping Stations .................................................................................................. 56  Valves ................................................................................................................... 56  Water Storage Facility .......................................................................................... 56  Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 56  CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS TO UTILITIES ............................................................ 59  APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 61  Other Asset Classification Systems .................................................................................. 61  UBA Resource Hierarchy ..................................................................................... 61  Key Asset Data Hierarchy .................................................................................... 62  Maintenance Management Asset Hierarchies ....................................................... 63  Preliminary Assessment of Asset Framework for Maintenance ........................... 64  APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 67  Research Index Documentation ........................................................................................ 67  Asset Management ................................................................................................ 67  Asset Management Project List ............................................................................ 67  Overview of Asset Management Research ........................................................... 69  Long-Term Performance and Life Expectancy of Materials ................................ 71  Management of Above-Ground Assets ................................................................. 74  APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 77  Maintenance Tactic Profile Template ............................................................................... 77  Maintenance Tactic Profile Submission Sample .............................................................. 79  APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................... 83  Scoring Tables for AMT Submissions, by System Element............................................. 83  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 99  ABBREVIATIONS LIST ........................................................................................................... 105 

vi ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TABLES 2.1

Maintenance tactic profile information sections and definitions .......................................16

3.1

AMT submissions, mapped to system elements ................................................................28

3.2

AMT completeness evaluation and review ratings ............................................................40

3.3

AMT completeness results .................................................................................................54

3.4

AMT value results..............................................................................................................54

3.5

Number of AMTs per system element ...............................................................................55

A.1

Comparison of asset hierarchies ........................................................................................65

D.1

System element = booster chlorination station ..................................................................83

D.2

System element = chemical addition station......................................................................84

D.3

System element = measurement and control .....................................................................86

D.4

System element = other pipe appurtenances ......................................................................88

D.5

System element = pipe .......................................................................................................89

D.6

System element = pumping station ....................................................................................93

D.7

System element = valve .....................................................................................................95

D.8

System element = water storage facility ............................................................................96

vii ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

FIGURES ES.1

Project approach............................................................................................................... xix

2.1

Three-phased project structure .............................................................................................5

2.2

Asset hierarchy.....................................................................................................................6

2.3

AMT submission notification workflow ............................................................................22

2.4

AMT evaluation criteria .....................................................................................................23

A.1

Partial resource diagram from the utility business architecture .........................................61

ix ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

FOREWORD The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the development and implementation of scientifically sound research designed to help drinking water utilities respond to regulatory requirements and address high-priority concerns. WRF’s research agenda is developed through a process of consultation with WRF subscribers and other drinking water professionals. WRF’s Board of Trustees and other professional volunteers help prioritize and select research projects for funding based upon current and future industry needs, applicability, and past work. WRF sponsors research projects through the Focus Area, Emerging Opportunities, and Tailored Collaboration programs, as well as various joint research efforts with organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. This publication is a result of a research project fully funded or funded in part by WRF subscribers. WRF’s subscription program provides a cost-effective and collaborative method for funding research in the public interest. The research investment that underpins this report will intrinsically increase in value as the findings are applied in communities throughout the world. WRF research projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the staff and a large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. WRF provides planning, management, and technical oversight and awards contracts to other institutions such as water utilities, universities, and engineering firms to conduct the research. A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by WRF's research agenda, including resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water suppliers to provide a reliable supply of safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. The true benefits of WRF’s research are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. WRF's staff and Board of Trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.

Denise Kruger Chair, Board of Trustees Water Research Foundation

Robert C. Renner, P.E. Executive Director Water Research Foundation

xi ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors of this report are indebted to the following water utilities and individuals for their cooperation and participation in this project:                 

Annie Vanrenterghem Raven, InfraPlan Aurora Water – Aurora, CO, Tom Ries Arun K. Deb, Independent Consultant Akron Public Utilities Bureau – Akron, OH, Jim Hewitt Bloomington Water – Bloomington, MN, Glen Gerads Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities – Charlotte, NC, Angela Lee and Shawn Coffman Clayton County Water Authority – Morrow, GA, Mike Thomas Fairfax County Water Authority – Fairfax, VA, Joel Thompson Hunter Water Australia, Mayfield West, Alan Thornton Madison Water Utility – Madison, WI, Tom Heikkinen Minneapolis Water Works – Minneapolis, MN, Marie Asgian and Bob Ervin Newport News, VA, Chris Basford Northumbrian Water Limited – Durham, UK, Chris Reed Portland Water Bureau – Portland, OR, Jeff Leighton Saint Paul Regional Water Services – Saint Paul, MN, Dave Schuler Sydney Water Corporation – Sydney, Australia, Neil Hart Walter M. Grayman, Consulting Engineer

The authors thank Maureen Hodgins, WRF research manager and the project advisory committee members David Muto (Seattle Public Utilities) and Margo Schueler (East Bay Municipal Utility District) for their insights and suggestions.

xiii ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVES The maintenance tactics for water distribution system assets presented in this report were designed to meet the following objectives: 1. Build on recent information about asset management, maintenance, and optimization of operations to consolidate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) for maintenance of water distribution system assets within a single document. This single document is referred to as the BMP Guide. 2. Identify AMTs from utilities and literature for improving levels of service. 3. Discuss how maintenance strategies and tactics relate to risk, criticality, life-cycle costs, condition assessment, capital reinvestment, and related aspects of asset management. The project developed a single reference to consolidate Asset Maintenance Tactics within the context of Best Management Practices for Water Distribution System assets. The AMTs created for this research project will help the water industry improve their overall reliability, efficiency, productivity, product quality, cost-effectiveness, and service to their customers by applying appropriate maintenance to assets in transmission and distribution systems. BACKGROUND This project addresses a recognized need for a comprehensive evaluation of maintenance tactics for water distribution systems. The primary objective of this research was to develop a single reference to consolidate Asset Maintenance Tactics within the context of Best Management Practices for water distribution system assets.  

Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) are the specific maintenance tactics applied to the various asset types found within a distribution system, and include activities such as inspecting, exercising, reconditioning, and repairing. Best Management Practices (BMPs) describe the method to select the right AMTs and associated frequencies to meet a utility’s desired level of reliability.

The wide variation in tactics that were reported by utilities underscores the need for a scrutinized set of AMTs. To illustrate this, a quick review of hydrant maintenance tactics published by six water utilities reveals wide variations in maintenance tasks, responsibilities, and frequency. The frequency at which utilities performed preventative maintenance on hydrants varied from once every six months to once every five years. Likewise, performance measurement and adoption of standards were practiced as program features by some utilities, yet were not even mentioned by others. The degree of variation in tactics promotes questions. Is it likely that all utilities apply appropriate maintenance tactics? Are there certain circumstances that would promote a variety of maintenance tactics and yet allow each utility to manage risk, criticality, service levels, life cycle

xv ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

costs, and other measures of best management practices? How would a utility characterize their unique situation to select the most appropriate hydrant maintenance tactics? The answer to these questions is risk mitigation, which is logical in the context of asset and maintenance management. The key purpose of developing a well-defined and designed maintenance management program is to minimize and mitigate occurrences and unacceptable consequences of failure. What started as a quest to apply BMPs to identify a definitive list of AMTs applied by asset type resulted in a collection of AMTs designed to meet the varying needs of utilities. As illustrated by the hydrant maintenance example, it is likely that a particular AMT will not be appropriate for all assets of the same type. Consequently, rather than using BMPs to identify the leading maintenance tactics, utilities should use BMPs to select the appropriate maintenance tactics for the utility’s business and risk management needs at a given point in time. In essence, best management practices dictate that utilities understand the specific operating context of an asset, and select an appropriate maintenance tactic to mitigate the likelihood and/or consequences of failure for that asset. In addition to BMPs, another key to selecting appropriate maintenance tactics is to associate tactics with the strategic asset management plan for given assets. The research team leveraged involvement in the Water Environment Research Foundation research program on Strategic Asset Management (SAM Program) to better understand the connection between maintenance tactic selection and asset management. The information requirements of an asset management program require more than the operating context. An asset’s remaining life, condition, reliability, and planned replacement also impact the determination of maintenance tactics and the frequency of activities. The ongoing need for asset condition information also confirmed the need for condition verification maintenance tasks. Ultimately, this research found that there are many links between asset and maintenance management and the risk management processes for managing assets. This finding is supported by results of the SAM Program, which showed a strong correlation between risk and remaining effective life. The AMTs identified and evaluated as part of this project will provide valuable guidance to utilities seeking continuous improvement as they manage ever-tighter budgets for asset maintenance and replacement. In addition, developing a guide for maintenance tactic evaluation should be of interest to regulatory agencies and utilities alike, as it may prevent the creation of undue regulations regarding global maintenance requirements by asset type. APPROACH The project approach included three key phases: develop, share, and learn (see Figure ES.1). The processes within each phase were designed to be interactive to allow for input from the various project experts and utility participants. The tasks for each phase are described below.

xvi ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Develop Phase 1. Define Asset Classes and Sub-Classes The assets required to effectively distribute water from a water plant to the end customer were identified. All of these assets were to be included in this research. An integral part of this step included developing a logical Asset Class Framework to define and catalog AMTs as they were compiled. Asset classes were defined and sub-divided based on associated strategic maintenance approaches, asset accessibility, operating context, and other criteria. Completeness and appropriateness of the project framework was evaluated by applying sample maintenance tactics to the structure. Eight system elements were identified, and each AMT fits into one or more of these categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Booster Chlorination Chemical Addition Station Measurement and Control Other Pipe Appurtenances Pipe Pumping Station Valve Water Storage Facility

2. Identify Best Management Practices (BMPs), Discuss and Develop Framework A BMP Guide Framework was developed to define the criteria and data elements based on BMPs for maintenance, and included considerations for operating context, risk factors, resource requirements, and benefits. To create the BMP Guide Framework, the project team defined the data elements that are critical to evaluate and appropriately apply AMTs. The BMP Framework is separated into nine primary sections, each with their own specific data elements to be captured during development of an AMT. In addition to the Asset Class Framework from Task 1, the BMP Guide Framework was incorporated into the design of a SharePoint website, established for compiling the AMT data developed during the course of the project. Share Phase 3. Survey Utilities and Industry Research for AMT Candidates This task represents the primary drive for the project, to use the experience of participating utilities and the outcomes of previous industry research to identify maintenance tactics. The data collection template was used to develop the candidate AMTs, which were then posted to the SharePoint site for review and evaluation. The research team held a Utility Participant web conference to discuss the profile template and request submittal of their best maintenance tactics using the maintenance tactic profile

xvii ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

template. The 150 AMTs are compiled in the #4237b deliverable, which can be accessed on the #4237 project page on the WRF website. 4. Discuss Benefits of Maintenance Optimization Early in Task 3, the project team determined that it would also be beneficial to quantify optimized factors such as cost, water quality, and reliability (both intended and attained), and relate them to being best. To develop evaluation criteria, the project team used attributes and a process for describing best as defined in the report Effective Utility Management, a Primer for Water and Wastewater (EPA 2008). When a utility cited best practice in optimizing maintenance, the team elicited qualitative and quantitative benefits derived from performing the practice. The Expert Panel reviewed the stated optimizations and made adjustments to the BMP Guide Framework. The completeness criteria for evaluating and quantifying maintenance optimization were defined through seven questions that were incorporated into the AMT profile template and applied to the review of each AMT submission. The seven yes/no questions, listed below, were based on Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Are the functional requirements of the asset defined? Is the cause of the loss of function defined? Is the failure effect defined? Are the consequences of failure defined? Does the maintenance tactic address the most likely causes of failure and resulting effects? 6. Does the maintenance tactic mitigate the consequence of failure? 7. If a maintenance option is not viable, does the tactic call for redesign? The usefulness review offered reviewers a subjective method to evaluate individual AMTs. The intent of this 1-5 rating was to allow individual reviewers to use their intuition and experience to judge if an AMT provided sufficient information to implement it and/or provide value to utilities. Learn Phase 5. Review AMT Candidates Against Optimization Criteria All candidate AMTs obtained in Task 3 were reviewed by the utility participants and industry experts using the BMP Guide Framework developed in Task 2 and refined in Task 4. Utility participants reviewed the AMTs and validated evaluation criteria developed earlier as a real world acid test to confirm that assumptions in the BMP Guide were valid and relevant to utilities completing the process. 6. Develop BMP Guide Based on AMTs We developed the BMP Guide Framework by repeatedly adding, reviewing, and adjusting real AMT information. Once the framework was complete, the project team used it to create AMTs

xviii ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

using data from published literature, the initial participant survey, and Internet research. The BMP Guide Framework is separated into nine primary sections, each with their own specific data elements that should be captured during development of an AMT. The six main tasks of the project are described below and are depicted in Figure ES.1.

Figure ES.1 Project approach RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS The overall submission rate from the utilities was extremely low. Consequently, to compensate for the lack of utility participant submissions, AMTs were compiled based on maintenance tactics already published in industry research papers and publications. In spite of the research team’s additional efforts to identify at least one AMT for each of the component levels in the asset class framework, some gaps remained and specific AMTs have not yet been documented for some of the component functions. However, there were multiple AMTs identified for each system element of the framework. Of the 150 AMTs, most were associated with Pipes and Pumping Stations, and the least with Booster Chlorination and Other Pipe Appurtenances. For some systems and component functions, AMTs were missing or were not defined and documented clearly enough to receive a high rating from the utility reviewers. In some cases, the xix ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

AMTs submitted were quite general, leaving room for more specific tactics to be defined. More specific tactics could detail how alternative technologies could be used to achieve similar results, or how maintenance tactics might differ for different asset types and operating contexts. The 150 AMTs compiled for water distribution system assets during this project are available in a separate deliverable, #4237b, on the #4237 project page on the WRF website. APPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS By comparing their current tactics to the AMTs collected through this study, utilities can begin optimizing their distribution system maintenance programs. This will assist them with improving their overall reliability, productivity, product quality, cost-effectiveness, and service to their customers. For utilities wanting to develop their own maintenance tactics, this report provides guidance on the parameters and questions to consider for developing an appropriate and worthwhile AMT. Utilities should use the report and data collection template as a tool to guide development of a maintenance tactic, regardless of whether the template is used to capture outcomes. Continued development of the AMTs is important to create and maintain a comprehensive library. The AMTs for some Asset Class Framework systems and component functions either need to be added where they are missing, or updated in cases where they were not defined and documented clearly enough to receive a high reviewer rating. Other submitted AMTs need more specific tactics to be defined. Additional areas for AMT development are detailed in Chapter 4 of the report. These options are:  

Utilities can compare the Asset Class Framework structure described in Chapter 2 with how they currently categorize/group assets for maintenance. Utilities can apply the seven maintenance optimization evaluation questions to their current maintenance tactics to identify possible information gaps and potential opportunities for them to shift resources to higher priority issues.

RESEARCH PARTNERS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

PARTICIPANTS Expert Panel members and utilities from Australia, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, United Kingdom, Virginia, and Wisconsin participated in this project.

xx ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION PROJECT BACKGROUND This project evolved to address a recognized need for a comprehensive evaluation of maintenance tactics for water distribution systems. In December 2006, approximately 40-50 water utility professionals ranked the project idea “Guidance Document for Best Maintenance Practices for Water Distribution Assets” as the highest need at the Foundation’s Asset Management Research Needs Roadmap Workshop. The utility professionals wanted a comprehensive evaluation of maintenance practices as well as describe successful practices in a single reference. (Graham et al. 2008) The primary objective of this research was to develop a single reference to consolidate Asset Maintenance Tactics within the context of Best Management Practices for Water Distribution System assets.  

Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) are the specific maintenance tactics applied to the various asset types found within a distribution system, including activities such as inspecting, exercising, reconditioning, and repairing. Best Management Practices (BMPs) describes the method to select the right AMTs and associated frequencies to meet a utility’s desired level of reliability.

Ultimately, AMTs in the context of BMPs will effectively help utilities achieve desired levels of service, and meet customer expectations of water delivery reliability and water quality. WRF has produced or is in the process of producing research reports on many topics that relate to, or expressly address, water distribution systems maintenance. In review of over 500 selected research titles, approximately 60 address distribution systems O&M, 40 address risk management, 10 are dedicated to pipe materials, and several others may contain BMPs or AMTs related to water distribution systems. Many other organizations in North America and around the world are also generating guidelines and descriptions on the same topic. Clearly, the national and global attention on this topic confirms the need for a single source of information on this topic. The Need for Vetted Asset Maintenance Tactics Underscoring the need for a vetted set of AMTs is the wide variation in tactics that were reported by utilities. To illustrate this, a quick review of hydrant maintenance tactics published by six water utilities reveals wide variations in maintenance tasks, responsibilities, and frequency. The frequency at which utilities performed preventative maintenance on hydrants varied from once every six months to once every five years. Likewise, performance measurement and adoption of standards were practiced as program features by some utilities, yet were not mentioned by others. This degree of variation in tactics promotes questions. Is it likely that all utilities apply appropriate maintenance tactics? Are there certain circumstances that would promote a variety of maintenance tactics and yet allow each utility to manage risk, criticality, service levels, life cycle costing, and other measures of best management practices? How would a utility characterize their unique situation to select the most appropriate hydrant maintenance tactics?

1 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The ultimate answer to these questions is risk mitigation. This answer is also logical from the context of asset and maintenance management; the key purpose of developing a well-defined and designed maintenance management program is to minimize and mitigate occurrences and unacceptable consequences of failure. The variation in tactics applied by different utilities can be justified as follows. First, the unacceptable consequences faced when assets fail depend on the operating context of the specific assets. Second, the likelihood of asset failure also depends on the condition and reliability of the specific assets. Therefore, it is logical for utilities to apply different AMTs to the same or similar types of assets, because the risks associated with failure depend on the specific circumstances of the assets. This reinforces the understanding that AMTs must be applied based on the unique context of individual assets, rather than applied globally to a given type of asset. This understanding is different than anticipated at the onset of this research project, and will influence how utilities apply the AMTs that have been compiled. The Need for Best Management Practices What started as a quest to apply BMPs to identify a definitive list of AMTs applied by asset type resulted in a collection of AMTs designed to meet the varying needs of utilities. As illustrated by the hydrant maintenance example, it is likely that a particular AMT will not be appropriate for all assets of the same type. Rather than using BMPs to identify the leading maintenance tactics, utilities should use BMPs to select the appropriate maintenance tactics for the utility’s business and risk management needs at a given point in time. In essence, best management practices dictate that utilities understand the specific operating context of an asset, and select an appropriate maintenance tactic to mitigate the likelihood and/or consequences of failure for the asset. Linking AMTs with Asset Management In addition to BMPs, another key to selecting appropriate maintenance tactics is to associate tactics with the strategic asset management plan for given assets. The research team leveraged involvement in the Water Environment Research Foundation research program on Strategic Asset Management (SAM Program) to better understand the connection between maintenance tactic selection and asset management. The information requirements of an asset management program require more than the operating context. An asset’s remaining life, condition, reliability, and planned replacement also impact the determination of maintenance tactics and the frequency of activities. The ongoing need for asset condition information confirmed the need for condition verification maintenance tasks. Ultimately, this research found that there were many links between asset and maintenance management, and the risk management processes for managing assets. This finding is supported by results of the SAM Program, which helped create a parallel approach for evaluating maintenance tactics. This research also clearly indicates that maintenance tactic selection is not a “one-size-fitsall” situation, but depends on multiple unique factors that change over time. Two such factors are asset condition and reliability, which tend to degrade over time and can influence the frequency of AMT activities. These factors can also be offset or accelerated by changes in operational demands such as changing runtime protocols. Operational requirements can be influenced by regulatory changes, while operational demands can be impacted by population density and commercial

2 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

development changes. This illustrates that maintenance tactics should be asset context unique as well as periodically evaluated due to changes in asset context and evolving utility asset management strategies. The AMTs identified and evaluated as part of this project will provide valuable guidance to utilities seeking continuous improvement as they manage ever-tighter budgets for asset maintenance and replacement. In addition, developing a guide for maintenance tactic evaluation should be of interest to regulatory agencies and utilities alike, as it may help prevent undue regulations regarding global maintenance requirements by asset type. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Research into maintenance tactics for water distribution systems assets presented in this report was designed to meet the following objectives: 

 

Build on recent information about asset management, maintenance, and optimization of operations to consolidate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) for maintenance of water distribution system assets within a single document.” The single document is referred to as the BMP Guide. Identify AMTs from utilities and literature for achieving improved levels of service. Discuss how maintenance strategies and tactics relate to risk, criticality, life-cycle costs, condition assessment, capital reinvestment, and related aspects of asset management.

The outcome of this research will help the water industry improve their overall reliability, efficiency, productivity, product quality, cost-effectiveness, and service to their customers through appropriate maintenance of assets in transmission and distribution systems. It will also act as a forum to promote ongoing development and sharing of AMTs within the context of BMPs. REPORT STRUCTURE This report is structured as follows:         

Chapter 1: Introduction – Project background and objectives Chapter 2: Methods and Materials - Summary of the team’s process for determining asset classes and sub-classes Chapter 3: Results and Discussion – Summary of Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs), summary and conclusion Chapter 4: Recommendations to Utilities – Describes significance of the project and how utilities can apply the project results Appendix A: Other Asset Classification Systems Appendix B: Research Index Documentation – Index of project research efforts noting reference locations Appendix C: Practice Profile Template – Sample of template used to gather all AMT data in a consistent format References – Notation of all items referenced in this report Abbreviations – Listing of all abbreviations and their definitions 3 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CHAPTER 2: METHODS AND MATERIALS PROJECT STRUCTURE This research project and the implementation were structured around a three-phased approach (Figure 2.1). The intent of the first phase was to develop the foundation of information needed to identify the Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs). This phase included two activities: identify and classify typical distribution system assets, and develop a framework to capture AMT details including vital Best Management Practices (BMPs) information related to the AMT. The intent of the second phase was to share the information with participating utilities and gather information on their AMTs. The purpose of this phase was to survey utilities for information on their AMTs, and discuss maintenance optimization benefits and selection methods for appropriate maintenance tactics. The scope of the third phase focused on learning from the team’s findings to develop a vetted guide for use by the industry. The activities in this phase were to review the AMT candidates against an evaluation process defined by the BMPs, and create an AMT guide for broader publication and usage by utilities. In 2014, an Add On project was created to provide additional AMTs. Various utilities and committee members were given the opportunity to submit their own AMTs (using the Maintenance Tactic template) to EMA, Inc. for inclusion in this project.

Figure 2.1 Three-phased project structure

5 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TASK 1 - DEFINE ASSET CLASSES AND SUB-CLASSES A fundamental criterion of this project was to determine the type of assets to include in this research and devise a way to structure related data. After developing a list of asset types, the team identified a logical water distribution system asset class and sub-class structure as a way to group appropriate tactics. To develop the list of asset classes and subclasses, the team researched published literature, initiated a participant survey, and performed Internet research. Asset Class Framework for Maintenance of Water Distribution System Assets An asset class is defined as a group of assets with similar properties. The top tier asset class for this project is the water transmission and distribution system as a whole. All sub-divisions of this asset class are termed sub-classes, which are linked within a hierarchy system. The asset class framework developed for the project has five tiers to facilitate organization of published maintenance tactics (Figure 2.2). The nature of each tier is described below. Tier I: Water Transmission/Distribution System This top tier will be classified as large or small based on system size, since the size of the system and resources available within a utility may influence the choice of maintenance tactics applied to their assets. Tier II: System Element This tier represents the primary elements of a typical water transmission/distribution system, and supports linking AMTs to asset types at a broad level. The elements are classified as either: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Pipes Measurement and Controls Valves Other Pipe Appurtenances Water Storage Facilities Pumping Stations Booster Chlorination Stations or other chemical addition facilities 8. Buildings and Grounds

Figure 2.2 Asset hierarchy

Tier III: Component Function At this level, the system elements are further subdivided into components, since component function captures a portion of operating context. Component function is used in many maintenance planning processes such as Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) to select maintenance tactics.

6 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Furthermore, comparable assets that serve different functions may require applying different tactics. Tier IV: Component Type This tier distinguishes the method of construction, materials, and unique component type. It will be as specific as possible, but not further divided by manufacturer or model number. It supports linking AMTs to assets at a more granular level when the AMT includes that level of specificity. Tier V: Subcomponents Typically these are parts of components that are replaced during component maintenance, rather than intentionally maintained. Consequently, they may be addressed in guidelines for component level maintenance tasks, but will not have specific maintenance tactics. Subcomponents will generally not be listed, and this tier will be used only if there are maintenance tactics that apply for specific subcomponents. The system elements, component function types, and component types for water transmission/distribution systems are listed below. More asset types will be added to the framework as needed when additional maintenance tactics are identified. 1. Pipe a. Distribution Main (for this project, distribution main is everything from the reservoir to local distribution pipe systems)* i. Cast Iron ii. Ductile Iron iii. PVC iv. Etc. b. Fire Hydrant Service Pipe i. Galvanized Cast Iron ii. Copper iii. PVC iv. HDPE v. Etc. c. Service Pipe** i. Galvanized Cast Iron ii. Copper iii. PVC iv. HDPE v. Etc. d. Transmission Main (for this project, transmission mains includes all piping from the plant and pump stations to the reservoir) i. Cast Iron ii. Ductile Iron iii. PVC iv. Cement-lined, wrapped steel

7 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

v. Etc. e. Pipe Fittings Joints and fittings are components of pipes that are often considered part of the pipe and not maintained by separate strategies. Fittings include elbow, bend, flange, offset, coupling, union, transition fitting, reducer, tee, cross and wye. Fittings and joints are to be reported where they are identified in published maintenance tactics. *Note: Maintenance tactics for distribution mains may or may not also apply to transmission mains. When AMTs are reported for pipes in distribution systems, but the pipe purpose is not identified (transmission, distribution, or service), they will be classified as distribution main. The total length of distribution mains usually greatly exceeds that of transmission mains in systems that serve a high proportion of residential and commercial customers. **Note: Service pipes for fire hydrants may have special maintenance requirements over other types of service lines and are therefore listed as a separate function. 2. Measurement and Control a. Automatic Meter Reading i. Meter Transmitter ii. Fixed Radio Collector iii. Mobile Radio Collector b. Bulk Flow (Master) Meter i. Venturi Meter ii. Electromagnetic Meter c. Customer Flow (revenue) Meter i. Positive Displacement ii. Compound Meter iii. Turbine Meter iv. Electromagnetic Meter d. Fire Service Meter i. Compound Meter ii. Turbine Meter iii. Electromagnetic Meter e. Condition Monitors i. Temperature Monitors ii. Vibration Monitors iii. Chlorine Gas Monitors f. Control i. Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) ii. Protective Relays iii. Control Panels and Electrical Panel Devices g. Pressure Meter h. Water Quality Measurement i. Chlorine Residual Meter ii. Turbidity Meter iii. Suspended Solids Meter

8 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

iv. pH Meter v. Particle Counter vi. Temperature Meter 3. Valve a. Air/Vacuum Release Valve b. Backflow Prevention Device c. Blow-off i. Gate Valve ii. Flushing Hydrant d. Control Valve i. Butterfly Valve e. Fire Hydrant i. Dry-barrel, Fire Hydrant ii. Wet-barrel, Fire Hydrant f. Line Valve i. Gate Valve ii. Butterfly Valve iii. Cone Valve g. Pressure-reducing Valve h. Sample Valve i. Ball Valve 4. Other Pipe Appurtenances a. Access to Buried Assets i. Manhole ii. Valve Box iii. Chamber b. Cathodic Protection i. Impressed Current System ii. Protective Coating iii. Sacrificial Anode System c. Grounding d. Pipe Restraint and Support i. Pipe Hanger or Bracket ii. Pipe Sleeve iii. Trestle iv. Block e. Pipe Tracing 5. Water Storage Facility a. Altitude Valve Altitude Valves are technically out of scope for this project. However, since these particular valves directly impact water distribution, the team will search for AMTs for these types of valves. b. Condition monitoring

9 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

c. Level Meter d. Line Valve i. Gate Valve ii. Butterfly Valve e. Pressure Measurement f. Water Storage i. Elevated Tank ii. Ground Tank iii. Atmospheric/Hydropneumatic Tank iv. Reservoir, Covered v. Reservoir, Uncovered vi. Standpipe g. Water quality measurement 6. Pumping Station a. Backflow Prevention i. Check Valve b. Control i. Single Loop Controller ii. Relays iii. Programmable Logic Controller iv. Remote Telemetry Unit v. Control Panel vi. Operator Workstation c. Drives i. Motor ii. Variable Frequency Drive iii. Soft Starter d. Electrical Switchgear i. Transformer ii. Circuit Breaker iii. Motor Control Center iv. Lighting Panel e. Finished Water Pump i. Vertical Turbines ii. Horizontal Split Case f. Flow Measurement i. Venturi Flow Meter ii. Magnetic Flow Meter g. Generator h. Line Valve i. Gate Valve ii. Butterfly Valve iii. Cone Valve i. Pipe j. Power Monitoring

10 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

i. Power Meter ii. Motor Protection Relay k. Pressure Measurement l. Water Quality Measurement i. Residual Chlorine ii. Nitrate/nitrite 7. Booster Chlorination Station a. Control i. Single Loop Controller ii. Relays iii. Programmable Logic Controller iv. Remote Telemetry Unit v. Control Panel vi. Operator Workstation b. Control Valve i. Diaphragm Valve ii. Needle Valve c. Chlorine Monitoring d. Metering Pump i. Piston Pump ii. Diaphragm Pump e. Vacuum Systems f. Water Quality Measurement 8. Building (Out of Scope) a. Foundation b. Structure i. Steel beam ii. Wood beam/stud c. Roof i. Flat, pitch and gravel ii. Flat, membrane iii. Pitched, tile iv. Pitched, slate v. Pitched, shingle d. Wall i. Brick ii. Concrete block iii. Wood iv. Adobe e. Insulation, Weatherproofing f. Floor i. Tile ii. Terrazzo iii. Linoleum

11 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

g. h. i. j.

iv. Wood v. Carpet vi. Cement vii. Flagstone Door Window Stairs Ladder

9. Building Systems (Out of Scope) a. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning i. Exhaust/supply fan ii. Unit heater iii. Dehumidifier iv. Boiler b. Building control system i. SCADA Systems (RTUs, PLCs) c. Plumbing i. Bathroom fixtures d. Lighting e. Lifting i. Elevator ii. Hoist iii. Crane f. Sump Pump i. Submersible g. Protection and Safety Monitoring i. Fire and Security Protection System ii. Intrusion detector iii. CCTV iv. Card Access v. Flood level switch vi. Temperature measurement vii. Humidity measurement h. Communication i. Telecommunications Equipment ii. Computer network 10. Grounds (Out of Scope) a. Landscaping i. Shrubs ii. Trees iii. Lawn iv. Flowers

12 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

b. Walkways c. Fences d. Roads i. Concrete, ii. Gravel iii. Asphalt/Tarmac iv. Brick e. Parking f. Surface Drainage g. Signage Excluded Assets Found in Asset Classifications While the asset class framework includes all asset types identified in the assignment scope, the team intentionally excluded some types when thought to be appropriate. For reference, the asset types excluded from the scope are “cross connection control devices, sampling taps, instrumentation and control systems, data and information technology, buildings and structures, shops, real estate as per Asset Management Research Needs Roadmap, (Graham et al. 2008). Assets such as heating and ventilation systems for pumping stations are also excluded from the analysis because they do not directly support distributing water. Other Asset Classification Systems We considered using a number of other asset classification systems that had already been defined. However, they were eventually discarded because they did not fully support defining and cataloging asset maintenance tactics. See Appendix A for more information on these classification systems. They include:   

Utility Business Architecture Key Asset Data Hierarchy Maintenance Management Asset Hierarchies

TASK 2 - IDENTIFY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, DISCUSS AND DEVELOP FRAMEWORK Once the asset classification structure was developed, the project team began collecting Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) for the appropriate assets. The team also needed to capture as much relevant information as possible about the individual tactics. This included details about where the AMT information could be found, which assets it could be applied to, the operating context that applied to the AMT, the benefits gained, and information about the resources and frequencies needed to execute the maintenance tactic. In essence, the team was identifying the information required to support decision-making based on Best Management Practices (BMPs). Consequently, the research team created the BMP Guide Framework to develop maintenance tactics in a disciplined and structured manner. The BMP Guide Framework is based on the criteria that support best management practices in maintenance management. This includes information on operating context, risk factors, resource requirements, and benefits.

13 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

BMP Guide Framework We developed the BMP Guide Framework by repeatedly adding, reviewing, and adjusting real AMT information. Using actual information helped us to define the data elements that are critical to evaluate and appropriately apply AMTs. Once the framework was complete, the research team used it to create AMTs using data from published literature, the initial participant survey, and Internet research. From there, the research team compiled the individual AMTs to the assets within the Asset Class Framework developed earlier. The BMP Guide Framework is separated into nine primary sections, each with their own specific data elements that should be captured during development of an AMT. The sections are as follows: Asset Maintenance Tactic Title The title is the name of the AMT, which typically includes the general nature of the tactic and the asset type to which it applies. The AMT title is a common phrase to use for researching maintenance tactics. Tactic Documentation This section contains publishing information about the source of the maintenance tactic, and includes the name of the reference publication or document, the year of publication, page references, and publishing organization. Reporting Organization Profile This section describes the organization. It provides details about the maintenance tactic, and typically identifies the utility, which owns or maintains the asset. Asset Hierarchy This section associates the AMT to assets by cataloging the AMT against the various tiers of the asset class framework. As mentioned earlier, this is the primary means for organizing AMT information, and AMTs are classified based on the assets to which they pertain. Operating Context This section defines the operational context of the asset, and includes location, environment (both ambient and buried environment), age, condition, reliability history, consequence of failure, quantity, size, and loading. Operating context is a key factor to consider when selecting an AMT, or when applying the AMT to a utility’s specific assets. However, the tactic as written may not be appropriate for all assets. Based on a utility’s specific operating environment, the factors that define context for an AMT may vary. In particular, the consequence of failure and reliability history, or probability of failure, can vary significantly.

14 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Tactic Description The tactic description provides details of the activities that constitute the AMT and how it is implemented. Details include the tactic type, a summary and full description of the tactic, success factors, task frequency, crew size and skill composition, and total personnel requirements. Condition Assessment If the AMT is preventive in nature, this section describes the method and accuracy of measuring asset condition, the commercial availability of tools or service firms, and the skills required to make the assessment. Benefits and Cost The rationale for performing a maintenance tactic includes both benefits and cost considerations. The rationale includes the primary benefit of applying the tactic, other drivers for using the tactic, trade-offs between maintenance and asset replacement, actual benefits achieved by applying the tactic, and costs to apply the tactic. Reviewer Comments Each AMT submission is reviewed and either approved or rejected. All approved AMTs are given a review rating, rating reasons, and general review comments in this section. Maintenance Tactic Profile Overview We used actual AMT information to refine the BMP Guide Framework and to ensure AMT information was consistently captured regardless of the source. The team then created a Maintenance Tactic Profile template to support information gathering. This template joins the asset class and BMP guide frameworks, so information can be linked to assets, and sufficient details about an AMT are obtained. The goal was to complete as much of the profile template information as possible. Once completed, profiles are referred to as AMTs. A blank version of the profile template is included in Appendix C, along with a sample completed AMT submission version for further illustration. Table 2.1 expands on the previous discussion of the BMP Guide Framework and provides assistance to complete the profile template. For utilities wanting to develop their own maintenance tactics, the table provides guidance on the parameters and questions to consider for developing an appropriate and worthwhile AMT. Consequently, Table 2.1 should be used as a tool to guide development of a maintenance tactic, regardless of whether the profile template is used to capture outcomes. It is hoped that new tactics will be submitted for review and use by other utilities.

15 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 2.1 Maintenance tactic profile information sections and definitions Information Definition This is the name of the maintenance tactic, and typically includes 1. Asset Maintenance its general nature and a description of the asset type to which it Tactic Title pertains. 2. Tactic Documentation This is specific data about the source document. a. Reference The name of the publication reporting the practice. b. Published Title The title of the published documentation. c. Year The year in which the publication was published. d. Pages The pages of the publication containing the tactic description. e. Publishing The name of the organization producing the publication. Organization This describes the organization that provides the information 3. Reporting about the tactic. Typically, it is the utility that owns or maintains Organization Profile the asset for which the tactic was developed. a. Reporting The name of the reporting organization. Organization b. Reporting The location of the reporting organization. Organization Location The asset class framework is the framework for organizing 4. Asset Hierarchy maintenance tactics. It categorizes assets of a distribution system into system elements, functions, types and subcomponents. This information defines the types of assets the tactics apply to. a. System Size The size of the system appropriate for that tactic. The system is defined by size according to US EPA criteria or approximate equivalent number of service connections. Size: Service US EPA Criteria Connections Very Small water systems Up to 200 serve 25-500 people Small water systems serve 501- 201 - 1,000 3,300 people Medium water systems serve 1,001 – 3,000 3,301-10,000 people Large water systems serve 3,001 – 30,000 10,001-100,000 people Very Large water systems Over 30,000 serve 100,001+ people (continued) 16 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 2.1 (Continued) Information

Definition All Sizes – practice is applicable to all sizes

b. System Element

c. Component Function

d. Component Type

e. Subcomponents

5. Operating Context

Any

Note: The EPA also defines “type” of water systems. Most reported maintenance tactics are for community water systems. Type:  Community Water System (CWS): A public water system that supplies water to the same population year-round.  Non-Transient Non-Community Water System (NTNCWS): A public water system that regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same people at least six months per year, but not year-round. Some examples are schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals, which have their own water systems.  Transient Non-Community Water System (TNCWS): A public water system that provides water in a place such as a gas station or campground where people do not remain for long periods. The major elements of a water transmission/distribution system that the tactic applies to. They are classified as either: 1. Pipes, 2. Measurement and Controls, 3. Valves, 4. Other pipe appurtenances, 5. Water Storage Facility, 6. Pumping Station, 7. Booster Chlorination Station, or other chemical addition facilities, or 8. Buildings and Grounds (see Chapter 2, Task 1, Tier II). The general functions performed by the component relative to the system elements For example, pipes are used for transmission, distribution and service functions, valves are used for backflow or isolation functions, etc. (see Chapter 2, Task 1, Tier III). The type of asset performing the associated function. This distinguishes method of construction, materials, and further subdivides component function by unique component type (see Chapter 2, Task 1, Tier IV). Subcomponents are parts of components, and are typically replaced during maintenance. Usually they will not have a separate maintenance tactic. If there is no tactic at the subcomponent level, then subcomponents will not be listed. Operating context describes the conditions the asset is exposed to, its current state and reliability history, how it is operated, how it fails, and the consequences of failure. It is critical to consider operating context when selecting or applying an AMT, and when determining how to apply or develop an AMT for an asset. Again, the risks associated with failure vary by specific asset context. (continued)

17 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 2.1 (Continued) Information a. Location

b. Environment

c. Age d. Condition

e. Reliability History

f. Redundancy Percentage g. Failure Modes

h. Consequence of Failure

i. Quantity

Definition The physical geographic location of the asset. An AMT developed for one location may not be suitable for other locations, or may have to be modified to be appropriate. An example is task frequency aligning with climatic seasons. The environment where the asset is physically operated. Ambient environment includes annual precipitation, annual temperature extremes, and air quality for corrosion. Buried asset environment includes soil type (generally gravel, sand, silt, or clay), buried depth, seismic activity level, and other geologic information that may be reported for the asset’s location. The Food and Agricultural Organization soil unit classification is the preferred scientific classification system to use, where this information is available. The asset age in years or year range (e.g. 30-40 years in service). The asset’s physical condition is summarized as poor, good, or excellent. Leakage is also stated here as a percentage of production, as absolute volume over one year, or include both if available. Reliability history is the probability of failure. The probability of failure is reported as a percentage chance of failure or another measure of unreliability. The primary measures are number of breaks or breakdowns averaged over one year, mean time between failures, and frequency and duration of service outages. Because asset design limits are not changeable by routine maintenance tactics, related performance issues are not considered in reliability history. The percentage of redundancy available beyond the existing required capacity. For example, if you have 4 pumps but only require the capacity of 2 at one time, you have 100% redundancy. The ways asset failure can occur AND be traced to an underlying cause. Failure modes should have a direct correlation to component function. The objective of a maintenance tactic is to address causes of failure that have unacceptable consequences. The consequences of a single asset failure include the impact of potential failures such as degraded service and increased risk of degraded service, damage to environment, property, safety, and health, and cost to repair or replace. Redundancy as it relates to impacting the consequences of failure should also be described in this section, as well as the consequences of a double failure (failure of a primary and backup asset). The asset measurement (if appropriate) such as length of pipe, number of valves, or number of pumps. (continued)

18 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 2.1 (Continued) Information j. Size

k. Loading 6. Tactic Description a. Tactic Type b. Tactic Summary

c. Tactic Note d. Success Factors e. Frequency f. Crews g. People (total) 7. Condition Assessment a. Method b. Accuracy c. Commercial Availability d. Skills Required 8. Benefits and Cost a. Primary Benefit

b. Trade-off Considerations Between Maintenance and Replacement

Definition The asset size range such as pipe diameter range or pump horsepower range. An AMT may be suitable for various asset sizes, but the implementation method may need modification for different size ranges. The typical range of water flow and pressure, along with loading regime and assessment of water hammer. This should provide enough detail to help readers understand the nature of the tactic and decide if it should be further investigated. The maintenance management type such as preventive or predictive maintenance. A brief description to give readers a general understanding of the tactic. Details of the tactic are in the source document, but describing the types of tasks and techniques used to perform the tactic is useful in getting a sense of what the task encompasses Additional information to describe the tactic such as special considerations or limitations others should be aware of. Where identified, list those factors that are important in implementing the tactic. The frequency of performing the maintenance tasks. The number and makeup of crews needed to perform the maintenance tasks. The total number of staff (reported in full time equivalents) needed to implement the tactic. If the maintenance tactic type is predictive, this section describes the approach to measure asset condition. The method (s) used for measuring asset condition, and the parameter (s) being measured. The resolution and accuracy of the method to measure the parameter (s). The availability of measuring equipment and technicians for hire or other contracting if performed by outside resources. The skills necessary to operate the measuring equipment and to interpret results. This provides additional justification for performing the tactic. The primary benefit (improved service, reduced risk, reliability, etc.) sought by implementing the maintenance tactic, with specific measurable targets. The situation for performing the maintenance tactic in relation to the asset replacement.

(continued) 19 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 2.1 (Continued) Information c. Tactic Driver

d. Benefits Achieved e. Cost 9. Reviewer Comments 1. Are the functional requirements of the asset defined? 2. Is the cause of the loss of function defined? 3. Is the failure effect defined?

4. Are the consequences of failure defined?

5. Does the maintenance tactic address the most likely causes of failure and resulting effects?

6. Does the maintenance tactic mitigate the

Definition The reason or drivers to develop the tactic. Examples of drivers include an incident involving health, safety, damage or service loss, a change in ownership or operator, or a change in regulations. The achieved or recognized benefits. The cost of performing the tactic either in absolute amount or in cost per unit of asset (e.g. dollars/km or dollars/mile of pipe). Evaluates the completeness of documenting the tactic. Asset functions must be defined to identify the parameters and targets that confirm that failure has in fact occurred. An asset failure results in either full or partial loss of function. The cause of a loss of function (a failure mode) is a description of the initial physical problem that leads to the loss of function. Loss of a given function may stem from various failure modes so a good tactic addresses the most likely causes of failure. A failure effect describes how the failure becomes evident to an operator or customer, and what happens when it occurs. A failure may be discovered through control loop feedback, operational alarms, or visual inspection. Some failures may not be evident until the asset is needed and cannot perform a required function. Understanding the failure effects helps determine appropriate maintenance tactics. Consequences of failure may impact the process, environment or human safety. A consequence may be poor service delivery, human injury, environmental damage, or financial loss. Mitigating a consequence of failure is the primary reason for developing a maintenance tactic. The more severe the consequence, the higher the asset reliability needs to be. Consequence and probability of failure determine the level of risk associated with a failure. To be most effective, a tactic should focus on early identification or reducing most likely causes of failure. Early identification is done by monitoring asset health and/or operating parameters for signs of function loss. Identifying failure effects is done through inspection using human senses or measurement technology, and must be performed at a frequency that allows for detection prior to failure. Reducing failures is done through timely execution of equipment adjustments, replacement or reconstruction of worn components, and replacement or replenishment of consumables. Ultimately, the consequence of failure dominates tactic selection. If the consequence of failure is unacceptable to the process, environment, or human health, the tactic selected should identify the cause of failure at the earliest signs of effects and drive (continued)

20 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 2.1 (Continued) Information consequence of failure?

7. If a maintenance option is not viable, does the tactic call for redesign?

Review Rating Reason for Rating Review Comments

Definition corrective or mitigating action prior to failure. However, if the consequence of failure is acceptable considering safety, environment, process and cost, it is a perfectly acceptable tactic to run an asset to failure. In the situation where a dominant failure mode results in a consequence that cannot be tolerated, and no tactic can identify or mitigate the failure, applying a tactic may not be a viable option. Instead, the asset may require redesign. Redesign may result in asset redundancy, increased storage capacity, or new operating procedures. Once a redesign has been executed, maintenance tactics should be revisited in their entirety.

Rates the Tactic Profile with a number between 1 – 5 (1 being low usefulness and 5 being high usefulness) The reasoning behind the rating given above. Comments on the overall tactic profile.

TASK 3 – UTILITY SURVEY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH FOR AMT CANDIDATES This task represents the primary drive behind the project, which was to analyze the experience of participating utilities and the outcomes of previous industry research to make asset management tactics and information available to the industry. The research team began by holding a Utility Participant web conference to review the scope of work, the project approach, and to review and discuss the profile template. The project team then requested input from each utility participant about their best maintenance tactics, to consider as candidates for published AMTs. The team also discussed and identified research areas where additional AMT information might be found. Utilities and researchers were given Maintenance Tactic Profile templates to submit AMTs to the functional SharePoint site. The template outlined the data they needed to gather about existing maintenance tactics, and numerous research reports were available to provide additional details. A vital part of the process to develop an AMT is to assign the AMT to the appropriate assets. This proved challenging as the team quickly discovered that many AMTs could apply to dozens of assets, especially when it came to piping assets. To overcome this challenge, we created a mandatory asset selection function within the SharePoint site. By simply clicking on the appropriate assets during the template submission process, this function ensured that the submission would initially link the AMT with as many applicable assets as possible. To manage the initial review of all submitted AMTs, the team created a notification workflow that alerted us each time a new AMT was uploaded. The workflow is depicted in Figure 2.3. After initial review, each AMT submission was approved or rejected.

21 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Figure 2.3 AMT submission notification workflow If an AMT submission was rejected, the workflow process allowed us to include comments with the rejection notification. This was helpful to reviewers and submitters alike since rejected AMTs were typically just missing key data points. Providing the project team’s comments to the submitter gave us a way to tell them why their submission was rejected, and what additional information was needed to resubmit their AMT. If an AMT submission was approved, the template automatically moved the AMT to the AMT Document Library where it could be viewed by all team members. To keep utility participants informed of newly approved AMTs, an alert system was incorporated to automatically notify them when a new AMT was added to the SharePoint site. Although the project team received several AMTs from a few of the utility participants, the overall submission rate from the utilities was extremely low. Unfortunately, the team discovered that many of the utility participants did not have the time to prepare their AMTs. Consequently, to compensate for the lack of utility participant submissions, EMA compiled AMTs based on maintenance tactics already published in industry research papers and publications. TASK 4 - DISCUSS BENEFITS OF MAINTENANCE OPTIMIZATION Early in the AMT submission cycle of the project, the team determined that it would be beneficial to quantify optimizations such as cost, water quality, and reliability- both intended and attained- that resulted from implementing some of the AMTs. When a utility cited best practice in optimizing maintenance, the team asked them for the qualitative and quantitative benefits derived from performing the practice. The team also contacted the submitting utility to clarify claimed benefits and to try obtaining quantified results. The reason we focused on optimizations was to establish an evaluation mechanism for considering AMTs to be best. To support this evaluative process, the team identified attributes and a process for describing best as defined in the report Effective Utility Management, a Primer for Water and Wastewater (EPA 2008). In addition, the Expert Panel reviewed optimizations stated in AMTs and assisted with adjusting the BMP Guide Framework. Ultimately, evaluation criteria

22 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

were established and incorporated into the reviewer’s section of the maintenance tactic profile to support AMT submission review. AMT Evaluation Criteria The criteria for evaluating and quantifying maintenance optimization are defined through seven questions that were incorporated into the AMT profile template and applied to the review of each AMT submission (Figure 2.4). These criteria are based on the principles of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). RCM principles are risk avoidance oriented and make a clear connection between the loss of an asset’s function (a failure), the causes of failure, and the consequences of failure. Consequently, applying these principles while developing or evaluating a maintenance tactic helps ensure alignment with accepted best management practices for maintenance. In addition, they illustrate the value that a tactic brings towards improving asset reliability, reducing risks of asset failures, and basing maintenance efforts on specific asset functions. The seven evaluation criteria were reviewed by the research team members and the expert panel before being adopted to support the final review of maintenance tactics. The seven evaluation criteria that were adopted are defined as follows. 1. Are the functional requirements of the asset defined? Clear definition of what an asset is supposed to do establishes the parameters and targets that are used to determine that asset failure has occurred. An asset failure results in either full or partial loss of function. Definition of required functions is necessary to establish baselines for determining the existence of failures. 2. Is the cause of the loss of function defined? The cause of a loss of function, also known as a failure mode, is a description of the initial physical problem that leads to the loss of function. The failure mode may result in structural, mechanical, electrical, or instrumentation failure. Loss of a given function may stem from various failure modes so a good maintenance tactic addresses the most likely causes of failure. 3. Is the failure effect defined? A failure effect describes how the failure becomes evident to an operator Figure 2.4 AMT evaluation criteria or customer, and what happens when failure occurs. A failure may be discovered through control loop feedback, operational alarms, or visual inspection. Some failures may not be evident until the asset is needed and cannot perform the required function. Understanding failure effects helps develop and/or select the most appropriate maintenance tactics and frequency. 4. Are the consequences of failure defined? Consequences of failure may impact process, the environment, or human safety. A consequence may be poor service delivery, human injury, damage to the environment, or a financial loss. The consequence of failure is the primary

23 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

reason for developing a maintenance tactic. The more severe the consequence, the higher the asset reliability needs to be. The combination of consequence and probability of failure determine the level of risk associated with a failure. 5. Does the maintenance tactic address the most likely causes of failure and resulting effects? To be most effective, a maintenance tactic should focus on early identification or reducing the most likely causes of failure. Early identification is done by monitoring asset health and/or operating parameters for early signs of function loss. Identifying failure effects is done through inspection using human senses or measurement technology, and must be performed at a frequency that allows for detection prior to occurrence of a failure. Reducing failures is done through the timely execution of equipment adjustments, replacement or reconstruction of worn components, and replacement or replenishment of consumables. 6. Does the maintenance tactic mitigate the consequence of failure? Ultimately, the consequence of failure dominates the maintenance tactic selection. If the consequence of an asset failure is severe to process, the environment, or human health, the tactic selected should identify the cause of failure at the earliest signs of effects and drive corrective or mitigating action before the consequence occurs. Alternatively, if the consequence of an asset failure is not severe relative to safety, environment, process, and cost, it is a perfectly acceptable maintenance tactic to run the asset to failure. 7. If a maintenance option is not viable, does the tactic call for redesign? In the situation where a dominant failure mode results in a consequence that cannot be tolerated and no maintenance tactic can either identify or mitigate the failure, applying a maintenance tactic may not be a viable option. Instead, the asset may require redesign. Redesign may result in asset redundancy, increased storage capacity, or new operating procedures. Once a redesign has been executed, maintenance tactics should be revisited in their entirety. TASK 5 - REVIEW AMT CANDIDATES AGAINST OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA Once the evaluation criteria were reviewed and adopted, they were incorporated into the Reviewer Comments section of the Maintenance Tactic Profile template, and previous AMT submissions were further reviewed against the new criteria. Submissions were assigned to utility participants and expert panel members to review based on expressed areas of interest. Because the previous submissions had already been logged into the documents library, the reviewers checked them out from the SharePoint site, added their reviewer comments and ratings, and then checked the submissions back into the site. EMA then reviewed all AMT reviewer comments to correct typographical/grammatical issues noted by the reviewer. It is important to note that Task 4 and the desired outcome changed from the original intent. The original goal was to identify and rank AMTs to identify the best based on best management practices. However, as the research efforts evolved, the project team soon discovered that best really depends on the perspective of individual utility needs. While some utilities may focus more on the cost to maintain, others may focus on maintaining operability, while others may focus on life extension. In reality the differences in perspectives makes sense, because utilities may be driven by the direction set by their asset management program, their current fiscal situation, and their desired levels of service.

24 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TASK 6 - DEVELOP BTMP GUIDE BASED ON ASSET MAINTENANCE TACTICS We developed the BMP Guide Framework by repeatedly adding, reviewing, and adjusting real AMT information. Once the framework was complete, the project team used it to create AMTs using data from published literature, the initial participant survey, and Internet research. The BMP Guide Framework is separated into nine primary sections, each with their own specific data elements that should be captured during development of an AMT. The sections are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Asset Maintenance Tactic Title Tactic Documentation Reporting Organization Profile Asset Hierarchy Operating Context Tactic Description Condition Assessment Benefits and Cost Reviewer Comments

25 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF ASSET MAINTENANCE TACTICS As previously noted, the 150 AMTs compiled as part of the project are available on the #4237 project page on the WRF website. The titles of the AMTs are shown in Table 3.1, mapped to the eight System Elements described in Chapter 2. To provide consistency in data capture, review, and rating, all AMTs were compiled using the maintenance tactic profile template discussed in Chapter 2. (See an illustration of a completed AMT profile in Appendix C.) A key element of each AMT is identifying AMT related assets. By linking AMTs to all applicable assets, it allows website users to query information based on a specific asset. Alternatively, users can review AMTs and identify the various assets they might be applied to. This website versatility and flexibility ultimately allows users to search for information based on their specific needs and points of reference. To access the #4237b deliverable that contains the 150 AMTs, please visit the #4237 project page on the WRF website.

27 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 

x x x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x x

Water Storage Facility

Valve

Pumping Station

AFO Monitoring  AMR Fixed Radio Collector  AMR Meter Transmitter  AMR Mobile Radio Collector  Backflow Prevention ‐ Annual Periodic Testing  Backflow Prevention ‐ Inspection of Commercial and Business  Facilities  Backflow Prevention ‐ Installation of Required Devices  Backflow Prevention ‐ Scheduled Inspections  Booster Chlorination – Chemical Metering Pump  Booster Chlorination ‐ Chlorine Analyzer  Booster Chlorination – Hypo Generator  Booster Station Pump and Motor Maintenance Checklist   Case Study ‐ Hydrant Management and Assessment   CCTV for In‐service Water Mains  Chamber and Manhole Inspection Practices   Chloraminated Chlorinated Water Discharges  

Pipe

1  2  3  4  5  6 

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Name

Measurement and Control

#

Chemical Addition Station

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 AMT submissions, mapped to system elements

1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  1  1 

x x x

1  1  (continued)

28 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32 

Water Storage Facility

x x x

Valve

x x

Pumping Station

x x

Pipe

Chlorine Gas Leak Detector Inspection and Maintenance   Chlorine Residual Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Compound Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Confined Space Log via Dispatch   Continuous Blowoff Flushing   Control Panels and Electronic Panel Devices   Conventional Flushing   Determining the Appropriateness of Flushing as Part of a Utility  Maintenance Program   Dist System Piping Maintenance‐Cleaning‐Flushing   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Close‐fit Semi‐structural  Pipe   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Close‐fit Structural Pipe   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Conventional   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Cured‐in‐Place Pipe   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Cathodic Protection Anode  Retofit   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Chemical Grouting   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐High‐build Epoxy  

Other Pipe Appurtenances

17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24 

Measurement and Control

Name

Chemical Addition Station

#

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

x x x x

x

x

x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

4  4  1  1  4  4  3  1 

x x

1  1 

x x x x

1  1  1  2 

x x

1  1  (continued)

29 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45 

Water Storage Facility

Valve

Pumping Station

Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Joint Rehabilitation   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Reinforced Shotcrete   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenched Replacement‐Narrow   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenched Replacement‐Open   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless Replacement‐Horizontal  Directional Drilling   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless Replacement‐ Microtunneling   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless Replacement‐Pipe  Bursting   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless Replacement‐Pipe Jacking   Dist System Piping Renovation ‐ Cleaning Cable Attached  Hydraulic‐jet   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning General   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Abrasive Particle   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Air   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Cable Attached‐Drag  Cleaning  

Pipe

33  34  35  36  37 

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Name

Measurement and Control

#

Chemical Addition Station

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

x x x x x

1  1  1  1  1 

x

1 

x

1 

x x

1  1 

x x x x

1  1  1  1  (continued)

30 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62 

x

1 

x x x x

1  1  1  1 

x x x x x

1  1  1  1  1  5  1  2  2  2  2  1 

x x

x x

Water Storage Facility

x

x x x

Valve

Pumping Station

Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Cable Attached‐Electric  Scrapers   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Chemical   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Fluid Propelled‐Pigs   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Fluid Propelled‐Scrapers   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Mechanically Driven  Devices   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Calcite   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Cement Mortar   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Epoxy   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Metallic Phosphate   Distribution System Risk Assessment  Distribution System Valve Exercising Program   Distribution Water Main Investigation and Renewal  Dry Type Transformer Maintenance   Electrical Switchgear Assembly Maintenance   Electromagnetic Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Emergency Generator Inspecting, Testing and Maintenance   Finished Water Pump Maintenance  

Pipe

46 

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Name

Measurement and Control

#

Chemical Addition Station

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

x x x x x

x

x

(continued) 31 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72 

x

Water Storage Facility

Valve

Pumping Station

Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning ‐ In‐Service Cleaning   Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning ‐ Out‐of‐Service  Cleaning   Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning Methods and Frequency   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection  Practice ‐ Float‐Down   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection  Practice ‐ Open Reservoirs   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection  Practice ‐ Sanitary   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection  Practice ‐ Visual Inspection   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection  Practice ‐ Wet Inspection Methods   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance  Practices ‐ Appurtenances   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance  Practices ‐ Cathodic Protection Systems  

Pipe

63  64 

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Name

Measurement and Control

#

Chemical Addition Station

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

x x

1  1 

x x

1  1 

x

1 

x

1 

x

1 

x

1 

x

1 

x

2 

(continued)

32 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86 

x

x x x x x x x x x

Water Storage Facility

Valve

Pumping Station

Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance  Practices ‐ Floating Covers   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices ‐ Exterior  and Interior Coating Evaluation   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices ‐ Inspector  Qualifications   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices Overview ‐  Scope and Frequency   Finished Water Storage Facility Maintenance Practices ‐ Interior  Coating Application   Fire Flow Assessment via GIS Modeling   Fire Service Magnetic Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Fire Service Meter Use Criteria   Fire Service Turbine Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Hydrant Inspection   Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems for Pipelines   Leak Detection Program ‐ Acoustic  Leak Detection Program ‐ Correlators  Leak Detection Using Magnetic Acoustic Permaloggers  

Pipe

73 

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Name

Measurement and Control

#

Chemical Addition Station

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

x

1 

x

1 

x

1 

x

2 

x

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 

(continued) 33 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105 

Leak Log Tracking via Dispatch   Leak Management by Use of DMAs and Pressure Management   Level Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance   Liquid Filled Transformer Maintenance   Low Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance   Low Voltage Distribution and Lighting Panel Maintenance   Magnetic Flux Leakage Tank Floor Scan   Main Break History Analysis   Medium Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance   Motor Control Center Maintenance   Outage Reporting Planned vs Unplanned   Outage Tracking and Prioritization via Dispatch   Overview ‐ Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program   Pipe Condition – Free Swimming RFTC  Pipe Locating Tactics – FDEM  Pipe Locating Tactics – Pipe Tagging  Pipe Locating Tactics – Potential Based  Pipe Locating Tactics – Seismic  Pipe Locating Tactics ‐ Sonde 

Water Storage Facility

Valve

Pumping Station

Pipe

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Measurement and Control

Name

Chemical Addition Station

#

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

x x x x x

x

x x x x x x

x x

x x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x

x

x

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

1  1  3  2  2  1  1  1  2  2  1  1  6  1  1  1  1  1  1 

(continued) 34 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122 

Pipe Restraint and Support ‐ Pipe Sleeve Inspection Practices   Pipe Support ‐ Hanger and Bracket Inspection Practices   Pipe Wall Thickness Versus Age Assessment   Pipeline Heat Tracing and Thermostatic Control Device  Inspection and Maintenance    Pipeline Management Program – PCCP Condition Assessment  Pipeline Replacement Priority   Planning and Managing a Flushing Program   Positive Displacement Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Potential Cross Connection Reponse   Pressure Measurement Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance   Programmable Logic Controller Maintenance   Protective Relays Maintenance   Pump Packing Procedure   Pump Station Warm Weather O_and_M Considerations   Pumping Station ‐ Correcting Factors for Premature Bearing  Failure   Pumping Stations ‐ Formulating a Pump Maintenance Schedule   Pumping Station Thermography 

x

x x

x x x x x x

1  1  1  1  1  3  4  4  1  1  1 

x x

1  1 

x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

Water Storage Facility

1  1  1  3 

x x x

Valve

Pumping Station

Pipe

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Measurement and Control

Name

Chemical Addition Station

#

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

(continued) 35 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

x x

Water Storage Facility

x

Pumping Station

Pipe

x

Other Pipe Appurtenances

x

Valve

123  Pumping Station Thermography 2  124  Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable  Water   125  Selecting Optimal Placement of New Mainline Valves   126  Soft Start and VFD Electronic Controllers Maintenance   127  Transmission Lateral Condition Assessment Program  128  Turbine Meter Corrective Maintenance Troubleshooting Guide   129  Turbine Meter Inspection and Maintenance   130  Unidirectional Flushing Program  131  Unidirectional Flushing SOP   132  Vacuum Circuit Breaker Maintenance   133  Valve Box Adjustment   134  Valve Exercising Essential Tools  135  Valve Exercising Location Record Keeping Overview  136  Valve Exercising Procedures   137  Valve Locater Options for Valve Exercising Programs   138  Valve Management and Inspection Strategies   139  Venturi Meter Maintenance   140  Vertical Turbine Pump Maintenance Checklist  

Measurement and Control

Name

Chemical Addition Station

#

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

x

x

x x

x x x x x x

x x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

1  6  1  2  1  1  1  1  1  2  3  6  3  5  3  5  2  1 

(continued) 36 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

141  Vertical Turbine Pump Table of Operational Troubleshooting and  Corrective Maintenance   142  Water Main Appurtenance‐Valve Maintenance   143  Water Pipe Deterioration Model through Opportunistic and  Planned Sampling   144  Water Pipe Failure Analysis   145  Water Quality Monitoring ‐ Particle Counter   146  Water Quality Monitoring ‐ pH Meters   147  Water Quality Monitoring ‐ Solids Instr   148  Water Quality Monitoring ‐ Temperature   149  Water Quality Monitoring – Turbidity Meters   150  Water Tank Inspections  

Water Storage Facility

Valve

Pumping Station

Pipe

Other Pipe Appurtenances

Measurement and Control

Name

Chemical Addition Station

#

Booster Chlorination

System Elements

1 

x x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

37 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Applies to # System Elements

Table 3.1 (Continued)

x x x x x x

5  1  1  4  4  4  4  4  1 

AMT SCORING TABLE Again, it is important to note that as the project research evolved, the research team recognized that AMTs could not and should not be ranked as to which was best from a global perspective. Instead, AMTs should be analyzed to determine which are most appropriate to a utility’s given situation. Nevertheless, the team identified an alternative opportunity to rank each AMT submission based on how thoroughly each maintenance tactic profile was completed. Providing an AMT completeness score will help utilities define the viability of the maintenance tactic for their unique situations, and make them aware of the completeness of the information captured within the AMT profile. In addition to providing a completeness score, the team believed there was merit to provide an AMT rating of the perceived overall value or usefulness of the AMT. While the team recognized that this rating would be subjective based on individual reviewers, it provides utilities with another data point to consider when evaluating AMTs for possible selection and use. AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria To provide an objective but simple mechanism for evaluating completeness of an AMT submission, each was reviewed (by a utility participant or an expert panel member) to determine if adequate responses were provided according to the seven AMT Evaluation Criteria (see Table 3.2 below). The scoring for this evaluation was:   

“Yes” response scores one point “No” response scores zero points “N/A” response scores one point

Consequently, the highest possible score based on completeness of the AMT submission is a seven. As scores decrease from seven an AMT is considered less complete, and AMTs with scores lower than four should be carefully reviewed by the user. It is recommended that utilities who consider applying an AMT with a completeness score lower than four should further evaluate criteria not answered within the AMT, to determine if they are relevant to the utility’s specific situation. Appendix D contains tables segregated by system element, which show the seven completeness evaluation criteria and evaluation scores for each AMT. AMT Usefulness Review In addition to using an objective evaluation rating such as the AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria, the team also wanted to offer reviewers a subjective method to evaluate individual AMTs. The intent of this rating was to allow individual reviewers to use their intuition and experience to judge if an AMT provided sufficient information to implement it and/or provide value to utilities. To support this, a very simple and subjective rating scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 1 defined as “low usefulness” and 5 defined as “high usefulness,” see Table 3.2 below. Along with providing this subjective score, reviewers (a utility participant or an expert panel member) were encouraged to include the reasoning for their scores, and to provide overall comments on their experiences or questions related to the AMT. This rating essentially provided a good mechanism for reviewers to communicate their thoughts or impressions on the overall merit

38 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

of AMTs. This information is captured in the Reviewer Comments section of the profile template as well. The tables in Appendix D contain the overall reviewer rating scores for each AMT. Because this rating was subjective in nature, the level of detail for comments varied based on individual reviewers. If the rating was a 4 or 5, comments were often minimal or not provided. Alternately, if the rating was less than 4 or 5, comments might have been provided to explain what the reviewer perceived as AMT shortcomings, such as insufficient details regarding the seven completeness criteria or lack of details in source document for implementing the AMT. Nonetheless, if utilities have limited time to research the AMTS, this rating may help them determine whether a particular AMT is worth investigating immediately or postponing until later.

39 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 AMT completeness evaluation and reviewer ratings Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

AFO Monitoring   AMR Fixed Radio Collector   AMR Meter Transmitter   AMR Mobile Radio Collector   Backflow Prevention ‐ Annual Periodic Testing  Backflow Prevention ‐ Inspection of Commercial  and Business Facilities  Backflow Prevention ‐ Installation of Required  Devices  Backflow Prevention ‐ Scheduled Inspections  Booster Chlorination – Chemical Metering Pump  Booster Chlorination – Chlorine Analyzer  Booster Chlorination – Hypo Generator  Booster Station Pump and Motor Maintenance  Checklist   Case Study ‐ Hydrant Management and  Assessment   CCTV for In‐service Water Mains 

Functional Requirements?

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Y N N N Y Y

Y Y N Y Y Y

Y N Y N Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y N Y

N Y N Y Y Y

N NA NA NA NA NA

5 5 4 5 6 7

4 4 4 4 4 5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y Y Y Y Y

Y N N Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y N N N N

7 5 5 6 6

5 4 5 5 5

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

3

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N/A

7

5 (continued)

40 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Chamber and Manhole Inspection Practices   Chloraminated Chlorinated Water Discharges  

N Y

Y NA

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA Y

5 7

4 5

Chlorine Gas Leak Detector Inspection and  Maintenance   Chlorine Residual Meter Inspection and  Maintenance   Compound Flow Meter Inspection and  Maintenance   Confined Space Log via Dispatch   Continuous Blowoff Flushing   Control Panels and Electronic Panel Devices   Conventional Flushing   Determining the Appropriateness of Flushing as  Part of a Utility Maintenance Program   Dist System Piping Maintenance‐Cleaning‐ Flushing  Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Close‐fit  Semi‐structural Pipe   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Close‐fit  Structural Pipe  

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

N

2

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

N

NA

N

N

Y

N

3

3

Y Y N Y Y

NA Y Y Y Y

Y Y N Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y N Y

Y Y N N Y

Y NA N N Y

7 7 3 4 7

5 5 2 3 5

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

4

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

4

(continued) 41 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐ Conventional   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Lining‐Slip‐Cured‐in‐ Place Pipe   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Cathodic  Protection,Anode Retofit   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Chemical  Grouting   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐High‐build  Epoxy   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Joint  Rehabilitation   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Other‐Reinforced  Shotcrete   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenched  Replacement‐Narrow   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenched  Replacement‐Open   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless  Replacement‐Horizontal Directional Drilling  

Functional Requirements?

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

4

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

4

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

4

4

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

3

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

3

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

3

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

2

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

2

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

2

2

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

(continued) 42 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless  Replacement‐Microtunneling   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless  Replacement‐Pipe Bursting   Dist System Piping Renewal‐Trenchless  Replacement‐Pipe Jacking   Dist System Piping Renovation ‐ Cleaning Cable  Attached Hydraulic‐jet   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning General  

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

4

Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐ Abrasive Particle   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Air   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Cable  Attached‐Drag Cleaning   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Cable  Attached‐Electric Scrapers   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐ Chemical   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Fluid  Propelled‐Pigs  

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

4

N N

N N

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

5 5

4 3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

3

2

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

(continued) 43 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐Fluid  Propelled‐Scrapers   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Cleaning‐ Mechanically Driven Devices   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Calcite  

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Cement  Mortar   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Epoxy   Dist System Piping Renovation‐Lining‐Metallic  Phosphate   Distribution System Risk Assessment 

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

3

N N

N N

N N

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

4 4

3 3

Y

N

N

N

N/A

N

N

2

4

Distribution System Valve Exercising Program  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Distribution Water Main Investigation and  Renewal  Dry Type Transformer Maintenance   Electrical Switchgear Assembly Maintenance  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

4 4 (continued)

44 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

Electromagnetic Flow Meter Inspection and  Maintenance   Emergency Generator Inspecting, Testing and  Maintenance   Finished Water Pump Maintenance   Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning ‐ In‐ Service Cleaning   Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning ‐ Out‐ of‐Service Cleaning   Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning  Methods and Frequency   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive  Inspection Practice ‐ Float‐Down   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive  Inspection Practice ‐ Open Reservoirs   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive  Inspection Practice ‐ Sanitary   Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive  Inspection Practice ‐ Visual Inspection  

Functional Requirements?

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

3

3

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

4

3

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y N

Y NA

N NA

5 6

3 5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5 (continued)

45 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive  Inspection Practice ‐ Wet Inspection Methods  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and  Maintenance Practices ‐ Appurtenances   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and  Maintenance Practices ‐ Cathodic Protection  Systems  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

N

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

5

5

Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and  Maintenance Practices ‐ Floating Covers   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection  Practices ‐ Exterior and Interior Coating  Evaluation  

N

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

5

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection  Practices ‐ Inspector Qualifications   Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection  Practices Overview ‐ Scope and Frequency   Finished Water Storage Facility Maintenance  Practices ‐ Interior Coating Application   Fire Flow Assessment via GIS Modeling  

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

6

5

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

6

5 (continued)

46 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Fire Service Magnetic Flow Meter Inspection  and Maintenance   Fire Service Meter Use Criteria   Fire Service Turbine Meter Inspection and  Maintenance   Hydrant Inspection   Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems  for Pipelines   Leak Detection ‐ Acoustic 

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

N

3

3

N Y

N N

N Y

N Y

N NA

N Y

NA N

1 5

2 3

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N Y

N Y

NA NA

4 7

3 5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

4

Leak Detection – Correlators 

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

3

4

Leak Detection Using Magnetic Acoustic  Permaloggers   Leak Log Tracking via Dispatch   Leak Management by Use of DMAs and Pressure  Management   Level Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

6

3

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

Y Y

N N

Y Y

N N

5 4

4 3

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

Liquid Filled Transformer Maintenance  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4 (continued)

47 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Low Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Low Voltage Distribution and Lighting Panel  Maintenance   Magnetic Flux Leakage Tank Floor Scan   Main Break History Analysis   Medium Voltage Air Circuit Breaker  Maintenance   Motor Control Center Maintenance   Outage Reporting Planned vs Unplanned   Outage Tracking and Prioritization via Dispatch  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

N Y Y

Y N Y

Y N Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

N N Y

NA Y NA

5 4 7

3 3 4

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

NA Y Y

7 7 7

4 5 5

Overview ‐ Main Practices of a Valve Exercising  Program   Pipe Condition – Free Swimming RFTC 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

4

4

Pipe Locating Tactics – FDEM 

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7

4

Pipe Locating Tactics – Pipe Tagging 

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7

3 (continued)

48 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7

3

Pipe Locating Tactics – Seismic 

Y

N

N/A

N/A

N

N

N

3

3

Pipe Locating Tactics – Sonde 

Y

Y

N/A

N/A

N

N

N

4

4

Pipe Restraint and Support ‐ Pipe Sleeve  Inspection Practices   Pipe Support ‐ Hanger and Bracket Inspection  Practices   Pipe Wall Thickness Versus Age Assessment   Pipeline Heat Tracing and Thermostatic Control  Device Inspection and Maintenance    Pipeline Management Program – PCCP  Condition Assessment  Pipeline Replacement Priority   Planning and Managing a Flushing Program   Positive Displacement Flow Meter Inspection  and Maintenance   Potential Cross Connection Reponse  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

2

N N

N Y

N Y

N Y

Y N

Y Y

Y N

3 4

4 2

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

4

4

N Y Y

N Y NA

N Y NA

Y Y Y

Y Y N

Y Y N

Y N N

4 6 4

5 4 3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Pipe Locating Tactics – Potential Based 

(continued) 49 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Pressure Measurement Transmitter Inspection  and Maintenance   Programmable Logic Controller Maintenance  

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

4

3

Protective Relays Maintenance   Pump Packing Procedure   Pump Station Warm Weather O_and_M  Considerations   Pumping Station ‐ Correcting Factors for  Premature Bearing Failure   Pumping Stations ‐ Formulating a Pump  Maintenance Schedule   Pumping Station – Thermography 

Y Y Y

N Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

NA N N

4 6 6

3 5 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

4

3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

3

4

Pumping Station – Thermography 2 

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N/A

N

4

4

Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact  with Potable Water   Selecting Optimal Placement of New Mainline  Valves  

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

6

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

4

(continued) 50 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Soft Start and VFD Electronic Controllers  Maintenance   Transmission Lateral Condition Assessment  Program  Turbine Meter Corrective Maintenance  Troubleshooting Guide   Turbine Meter Inspection and Maintenance   Unidirectional Flushing Program  Unidirectional Flushing SOP   Vacuum Circuit Breaker Maintenance   Valve Box Adjustment   Valve Exercising Essential Tools  Valve Exercising Location Record Keeping  Overview  Valve Exercising Procedures   Valve Locater Options for Valve Exercising  Programs   Valve Management and Inspection Strategies  

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

3

2

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

2

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

5

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y N Y Y N Y

Y Y Y Y Y N NA

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N Y Y Y Y N NA

Y N Y Y Y Y Y

N N NA NA N NA N

5 5 6 7 6 4 6

4 4 4 4 4 5 2

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y NA

Y NA

NA NA

7 7

4 3

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

2

1

Venturi Meter Maintenance  

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

1

2 (continued)

51 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.2 (Continued) Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria Name

Functional Requirements?

Loss of Function?

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Rating

(Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Vertical Turbine Pump Maintenance Checklist  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Vertical Turbine Pump Table of Operational  Troubleshooting and Corrective Maintenance  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Water Main Appurtenance‐Valve Maintenance  

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Water Pipe Deterioration Model through  Opportunistic and Planned Sampling   Water Pipe Failure Analysis   Water Quality Monitoring ‐ Particle Counter   Water Quality Monitoring ‐ pH Meters   Water Quality Monitoring ‐ Solids Instr   Water Quality Monitoring ‐ Temperature   Water Quality Monitoring – Turbidity Meters  

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

3

3

N Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

N Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y NA NA NA NA NA

5 7 7 7 7 7

3 4 3 4 3 3

Water Tank Inspections  

N

N

N

N

Y

N

N

1

1

52 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

DISCUSSION Challenges in Creating AMTs Although the team received several AMTs from a few utility participants, the overall submission rate was relatively low. Unfortunately, many utility participants experienced difficulties documenting and submitting their AMTs during the research period. Many simply did not have the necessary level of background detail, and some simply did not have the time to prepare and submit AMTs. Others, based on asset operating context, found it more cost effective to replace an asset than to conduct proactive maintenance to prevent asset failure. Unfortunately, budgetary limitations also preclude or greatly limit some utilities’ ability to perform the level of proactive maintenance that they prefer. In a way, the inability of several participating utilities to contribute further confirmed the importance of this research work and the resulting AMTs. In order to compensate for the lack of AMT submissions from utility participants, researchers compiled information on water distribution asset maintenance tactics already published in research papers, magazine articles, manuals and standards. The researchers then extracted the relevant information into the Maintenance Tactic Profile template to create relevant AMTs. AMT Completeness Review To provide an objective but simple mechanism for evaluating completeness of an AMT submission, each was reviewed to determine if adequate responses were provided for the seven AMT Evaluation Criteria presented in Chapter 2 (see Table 3.2 above). This yielded a composite score ranging from zero to seven based on the following scoring for each criterion:   

“Yes” response scores one point “No” response scores zero points “N/A” response scores one point

When reviewing the AMTs completeness scores in aggregate (see Table 3.3), the team found that more than 45% of the AMTs rated at scores of 6 or 7. Including those that had a respectable score of at least 5, the project team found that over 62% of the AMTs met that score or better. Overall, the team was very satisfied with the quality of the AMTs with respect to addressing the best management practices needs. What most satisfied us was that only three AMTs scored 1.

53 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table 3.3 AMT completeness results AMT  Completeness  (Rating range  from 1‐7)  # of AMTs  % of AMTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

3 

13 

15 

26 

25 

25 

43 

150 

2% 

9% 

10% 

17% 

17% 

17% 

28% 

100% 

AMT Usefulness Review While reviewing the initial AMTs submissions, the research lead became concerned about the overall quality of the AMTs and the value or usefulness they might provide to readers. To address this concern, reviewers were offered a subjective method to evaluate individual AMTs. A rating based on a simple and subjective scale of 1 to 5 was used rate each AMT, with 1 defined as “low usefulness” and 5 defined as “high usefulness”. This rating allowed individual reviewers to use their intuition and experience to judge if an AMT provided perceived value. When reviewing the AMTs usefulness scores in aggregate (see Table 3.4 ), the team again saw a pattern where 57% of the AMTs rated scores of 4 or 5. The project team was also pleased to see only two AMTs rated a score of 1, the lowest. This further helped increase the project team’s confidence in the quality and overall value of the AMTs being developed and published on the website. Table 3.4 AMT value results AMT Usefulness (Ratings range 1-5) # of AMTs  % of AMTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

2  1% 

18  12% 

45  30% 

48  32% 

37  25% 

150  100% 

The following are two examples of Asset Maintenance Tactics that scored high in both areas: 



Backflow Prevention - Installation of Required Devices. Comment: “Very informative. This SOP provides detail of how Newport News Waterworks effectively monitors their distribution system through an organized backflow inspection program. Water Main Appurtenance-Valve Maintenance. Note: Also includes a maintenance procedures and frequency table.

The following are two examples of Asset Maintenance Tactics that scored low in both areas:

54 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Water Tank Inspections. Comment: “The only substantive information provided is practice summary.” Venturi Meter Maintenance. Comments: “Does not follow RCM principles.”

OVERVIEW BY SYSTEM ELEMENT In spite of the research team’s additional efforts to identify at least one AMT for each of the component levels in the asset class framework, some gaps remained and specific AMTs have not yet been documented for some of the component functions. However, there were multiple AMTs identified for each system element of the framework, as shown in Table 3.5 below. Of the 150 AMTs, the most were associated with Pipes and Pumping Stations, and the least with Booster Chlorination and Other Pipe Appurtenances. The following section discusses the range and scope of AMTs collected for component functions within each system element. Table 3.5 Number of AMTs per system element System Element  # of AMTs  Booster Chlorination Chemical Addition Station Measurement and Control Other Pipe Appurtenances Pipe Pumping Station Valve Water Storage Facility

20  20  24  14  69  41  19  28 

Booster Chlorination Stations There are currently a number of AMT tactics covering measurement and control functions, as well as valves in booster chlorination stations. However, there are gaps in tactics related to chlorine-resistant piping, metering pumps, and other chlorination equipment. Measurement and Control We found good coverage of many different types of flow meters, one general tactic each for pressure meters and level transmitters, and five different types of water quality measurement instruments. This leaves the opportunity to add more instrument-specific tactics as they become available. In addition, there are still gaps in the tactics available for several of the control related functions and for condition monitoring instrumentation. Other Pipe Appurtenances This system element includes a range of critical distribution system support functions that help extend the life of pipes and facilitate proactive asset management. More detailed tactics for

55 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

using different methods to locate placement of buried assets could be added. Three tactics were identified for cathodic protection, and there was one each for pipe restraint, pipe support, and heat tracing. No tactics were identified for maintenance of grounding systems. Pipe The pipe system element returned the largest number of AMTs, reflecting the level of effort utilities have directly invested in refining their pipe maintenance tactics. The team found good coverage for distribution (60 tactics) and transmission (47 tactics) mains, although few tactics were specific to particular pipe types. The team was also not able to identify pipe related tactics specific to fire hydrant laterals, pipe fittings, or service pipes. Pumping Stations Pumping stations are the most complex distribution system elements, including the broadest spectrum of component functions. Some AMTs were found for each function, although many AMTs were not specific to pump stations. For example, AMTs for pipes, valves, and instrumentation provided general guidance for these assets in distribution system functions, rather than being specifically associated with pump stations. Based on the reviewer’s feedback, these tactics remained applicable. Valves AMTs related to valves provided guidance on location, exercising, and flushing programs. Most of the information available was not specific to particular valve types or functions. Water Storage Facility A good range of AMTs was identified for water storage facilities. Multiple tactics related to inspection and maintenance of storage facility integrity were identified. These are supplemented by a more limited number of tactics for water storage facility measurement and control elements. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Utilities are becoming more aware of the importance of strategic asset management and the benefits of well-designed and implemented maintenance programs for a variety of reasons. Water distribution systems have large numbers of individual assets located underground or in other areas that pose access challenges. Consequently, these systems have attracted significant research effort, both across North America and overseas. This WRF project was initiated to address the need for a comprehensive evaluation of maintenance tactics for water distribution systems and to develop and deliver a single reference that consolidates the Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) for distribution system maintenance. By comparing their current tactics to the AMTs collected through this study, utilities can begin optimizing their distribution system maintenance programs. This will assist them with improving their overall reliability, productivity, product quality, cost-effectiveness, and service to their customers. The website developed in conjunction with this report provides a living repository

56 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

that utilities and other industry professionals can use to review and comment on AMTs in the library and/or propose new AMT submissions as the state of the research evolves. Researching and compiling AMTs for distribution system maintenance began with establishing an asset classification framework to catalog the tactics and guide the website structure. A number of established classification systems were initially identified and reviewed for suitability, but a hybrid system tailored to project needs was eventually developed and reviewed with utility participants. In conjunction with the asset classification framework, a data collection template was developed to ensure comparable information was collected about each maintenance tactic. The template allows the tactics to be consistently documented, reviewed, and compared with others to assist utilities in identifying tactics appropriate for their operating context. Ultimately, two methods were used to identify candidate AMTs. A web conference was held with utilities participating in the project during which they were asked to submit summaries of their AMTs for distribution system maintenance. In parallel, the project team researched tactics that had already been documented in various research reports and publications. Profile templates were filled out for each candidate tactic and submitted to the participating utilities for review. In some cases, follow up research was performed to gather key information that was missing from the template, as well as to quantify benefits the utility achieved by following the specific tactic. Subsequent to review, AMT submissions that met evaluation criteria were linked to relevant asset classes to facilitate accessing them through website queries. As discussed in detail in Chapter 3, the research found a large number of candidate AMTs for distribution system maintenance. In the end, the research confirmed that the asset classification framework was useful for organizing the AMTs according to system and component function within a distribution system. In addition, the maintenance tactic template proved useful for compiling consistent and comprehensive information about each tactic and for facilitating review and comparison of tactics. For some systems and component functions, AMTs were missing or were not defined and documented clearly enough to receive a high rating from the utility reviewers. In some cases, the AMTs submitted were quite general, leaving room for more specific tactics to be defined. More specific tactics could detail how alternative technologies could be used to achieve similar results, or how maintenance tactics might differ for different asset types and operating contexts. Additional research arising from this study should focus on identifying and reviewing additional AMTs and updating the website with those that meet the review criteria. Specific areas of focus should include tactics to:    

Locate and document the location of buried assets to ensure they receive appropriate regular maintenance, including use of GIS technologies Track condition of assets to support asset investment decisions in maintenance and capital investment programs Use SCADA data to assist with maintenance planning (e.g., to check instrument accuracy, to predict or drive servicing needs, and to monitor instrument and equipment condition) Identify AMTs for maintenance of chlorination equipment and specialized equipment for distribution system dosing and monitoring of other types of chemicals

57 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

       

Provide further guidance on maintenance of pipe types and valves located within pumping stations, booster chlorination stations, and storage facilities, as compared to pipes and valves located in service lines, distribution and transmission mains Differentiate between maintenance tactics for different types of instrumentation used for each monitoring function Provide additional tactics for maintenance of equipment condition monitoring instruments Identify tactics for maintenance of additional types of control elements Provide troubleshooting guides for various instrument and equipment types to supplement basic maintenance tactics Identify additional tactics specific to fire hydrant laterals and service pipes Provide additional detailed tactics for different valve types and functions Add guidance on how to link different tactics for system components and functions to make most efficient use of staff visits to sites

58 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS TO UTILITIES There are four primary ways that utilities can use the research presented in this report and the collection of Asset Maintenance Tactics (AMTs) available on the website. First, utilities can compare the Asset Class Framework structure described in Chapter 2 with how they currently categorize and group assets for maintenance planning and management purposes. Depending on their specific circumstances, utilities may find opportunities to adjust or simplify their current asset categorization, and/or clarify how their current maintenance programs are organized. Second, utilities can apply the seven maintenance optimization evaluation questions also defined in Chapter 2 to assess their current maintenance practices. This evaluation may identify information gaps and potential opportunities for them to shift resources to higher priority issues. The seven evaluation criteria or optimization evaluation questions are as follows. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Are the functional requirements of the asset defined? Is the cause of the loss of function defined? Is the failure effect defined? Are the consequences of failure defined? Does the maintenance tactic address the most likely causes of failure and resulting effects? Does the maintenance tactic mitigate the consequence of failure? If a maintenance option is not viable, does the tactic call for redesign?

Third, utilities can compare their current maintenance programs with the AMTs collected for each system element through this research. To do this, they should consider their current goals and priorities, and review the available AMTs to compare them with their own tactics. They could then determine whether they are already following an appropriate AMT, and if not, evaluate the costs and benefits of adjusting their programs to follow alternative AMTs. Finally, if utilities want to create their own specific maintenance tactic because they cannot find an appropriate AMT to suit their situation, they can use the maintenance tactic development guidance provided in Chapter 2 to formally develop the tactic.

59 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

APPENDIX A OTHER ASSET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS This section describes the other asset classification systems originally considered and the reasoning for why the system was not considered further for this project. UBA Resource Hierarchy The Utility Business Architecture was developed by AWWARF and American Water Works Association in 1997. It includes a definition of resources based on functions in a hierarchy in which an asset class inherits functions from its parent class. A portion of the UBA resource hierarchy is shown in Figure A.1. Resource Physical Resource

Finished Water Transmission and Distribution

System Element Link –Tunnel – Aqueduct

Node

Pipe

Hydraulic Control Device

Production Point

Transition Point

–Service Line – Main Branch

Storage Point

Fixed

Variable

Restriction

Pump

Quality Control Device

Use Point

–Positive Displacement –Piston Diaphragm –Centrifugal –Vertical Turbine –Horizontal Turbine –Jet

Chemical Addition System Solid

Liquid

Gas

–MeteringPump – ControlValve

Valve –Butterfly –Proportional –Non-Proportional –Gate –Laydown –Rising Stem . . .

Source: EMA Services, Inc. 1997 Figure A.1 Partial resource diagram from the utility business architecture The benefits of using the UBA structure are that it is specific to water, extensive, and published. The challenges with using the UBA for assigning maintenance tactics are primarily due to its deep structure, which would pose problems for navigation on a website. It would also be difficult to apply operating context because the functional role of the asset is not typically identified. Where applicable, the asset types used to define maintenance tactics will use terms from the UBA, but the hierarchy will not be used.

61 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Key Asset Data Hierarchy WRF report #4187, Key Asset Data for Drinking Water and Wastewater Utilities (Oxenford et al. 2012) identified key asset data and an asset hierarchy to organize the data. The hierarchy consists of three levels, but the levels are not sufficiently defined for maintenance tactic cataloging. The highest level is populated by value chain or major asset divisions: source water, raw water transmission system, treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection system, wastewater treatment, residuals, and general. The second level for water distribution is comprised of the following: cathodic protection system, customer meter, finished water interconnection, hydrant system, main carrier system, main maintenance devices, main meters and monitors, pipe fittings, pipe system, pump station, service line, storage facilities, transmission main, underground enclosures, and valve. These categories are elements or subsystems of water distribution systems. The third and lowest level usually subdivides into either components, types, functions, or a combination of categories. In some cases, the subdivisions are smaller than of interest for maintenance tactics. For comparison with other asset frameworks, the one used for key asset data can be described as: 1. Value Chain or Major Asset Division a. Element or System i. Component or Type This hierarchy is intended to identify components for purposes of defining key data about the asset. In some places, this hierarchy identifies maintenance tactics, and in others, the hierarchy would not differentiate between required tactics. An example of where the hierarchy is suitable for characterizing maintenance tactics is the cathodic protection system, which is broken down into the following types:   

Impressed current system Protective coating Sacrificial Anode System

Cathodic protection is a function performed by each of the three defined methods. The methods in turn support reporting maintenance tactics for different equipment types and their differing failure modes. An example of where the hierarchy is adaptable for characterizing maintenance tactics is the “hydrant system” asset class, which is broken down into the following components:    

Hydrant Hydrant Lateral Hydrant Tee Hydrant Valve

The function of the hydrant, whether for firefighting or line flushing, needs to be part of the asset classification framework. Hydrant function greatly affects maintenance tactics because tasks and frequencies are different for firefighting or flushing, even though the respective hydrants

62 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

have similar components. Therefore, the team defined an asset class in the framework for fire hydrants and another for flushing hydrants. Although most reported maintenance tactics are associated with the hydrant, and only a few if any are expected to be associated with the service pipe (lateral) or tee, all of these component functions are included in the classification framework as a separate function for pipe. An example of where the hierarchy is not suitable for characterizing maintenance tactics is the “pipe system” asset class, which is broken down into the following components, portions, or systems:       

Blocking and Restraints Joint Materials Pipe Pipe Liner Pipe Segment Pressure Zone Shut Off Block

Most of these items do not need to be repeated for the framework; they appear elsewhere in the asset classification framework in specific elements such as transmission main and service line. Pressure zones are composite assets that are not maintenance entities. “Finished Water Interconnection” is another asset class from the key asset data hierarchy that is not used in the asset classification framework, because its components are already contained within the framework. These components are:   

Check Valve Control Valve Housing

Although the classification structure for defining key asset data to differentiate maintenance tactics is still being developed, it will be used in the framework for maintenance tactics. Maintenance Management Asset Hierarchies A number of authors and organizations have broadly defined asset hierarchies to enable roll-up of cost and performance from the lowest level to the entire organization. The hierarchies are usually defined in relation to managing maintenance, but could also apply to operations and capital projects. Moubray (1991) suggested an asset hierarchy for maintenance management that starts with a cost center based on impersonal (geographic or type of equipment), personal (person or group), operation, or process traits. The hierarchy continues to subdivide assets into units, items, and components with spares also being mentioned. The US EPA has published a guide to asset management (2007) that contains suggestions for an asset hierarchy that when applied to maintenance or capital investment, would allow rollup of cost and reliability from the lowest level of maintenance management to the whole of city

63 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

government. The number of levels in the hierarchy is not fixed to allow for variations in government or utility organization and complexity of systems. The ISO has published standard 14224 for maintenance management that contains an asset hierarchy consisting of nine levels starting from a part at the lowest level up to an entire industry. The standard was created to allow collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for the petroleum, petrochemical, and natural gas industries. It is extensible for the water industry. The Life Cycle Engineering group has adapted the ISO 14224 asset hierarchy for applicability in manufacturing; it appears to be modified for steel mills. All of these hierarchies are concerned with arranging organizations and assets into manageable groups. In these hierarchies a component or item to be maintained, such as a valve, is not differentiated by type or function. The type of valve and its function are not considered in the maintenance management hierarchies because they do not affect management of costs and reliability. Because these hierarchies do not consistently differentiate function or type, they have not been used to report maintenance practices. Preliminary Assessment of Asset Framework for Maintenance To determine that the criteria used for selecting asset maintenance tactics was complete, the project team made a preliminary mapping of maintenance approaches taken from previous published work. The following Table A.1 shows this mapping.

64 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Maintenance Framework

Table A.1 Comparison of asset hierarchies* Key Asset RCM II EPA Data

ISO 14224 Industry Business Category Installation

Whole of City Business Unit Program Service (e.g. Water Services) Water System Finished Water Transmission and Distribution Major System Element Component Function

Value Chain or Major Asset Division Element or System Component or Type

Cost Center Unit Item

Major System Element (e.g. Water Distribution System) Major Facility (e.g. Pumping Station) Equipment Group Component

Plant /Unit

Section /System Equipment Unit Equipment SubUnit

Component Type Component

Spare

Maintenance Managed Item

Component/ Maintainable Item Part

*Hierarchy levels shown in italics are defined in the source hierarchy. Levels not in italics are named in this document for comparison purposes.

The maintenance framework does not address higher organization levels found in the ISO and EPA frameworks. However, omitting these layers will not affect the ability to analyze maintenance tactics. Some water and wastewater utilities use the same personnel and sometimes equipment for water and wastewater assets. Some utilities may use the same personnel and equipment for maintaining other portions of the value chain assets in addition to water distribution. Most often tactics are reported without describing the organization. Where the organization is described and has a bearing on the tactic, it will be recorded for the tactic. The maintenance framework does not address multiple assets or multiple asset groups. For example, the framework identifies pumping, drives, process measurement, and line valves as component functions, but does not provide a layer in the hierarchy to address a pumping unit consisting of two isolation valves, the pump, motor flow meter, and piping. This type of unit or equipment group is important for reporting reliability and cost; however, the maintenance tactic for the group can be assigned to the pumping function and the tactics reported for the components of the group can be assigned to individual components without grouping. Based on comparison with other asset hierarchies, the proposed hierarchy (Asset Class Framework) for reporting maintenance tactics was completed.

65 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

APPENDIX B RESEARCH INDEX DOCUMENTATION EMA’s research efforts began with collecting asset management definitions, terminology, and references that defined the relationships between maintenance tactics and asset management objectives. Best Management Practices were then assembled from various published sources, with an emphasis on those already linked to previous Water Research Foundation Studies. The following information was obtained from the WRF website and is reproduced here for reference. Asset Management "Asset management" is a general term that encompasses a variety of topics related to the physical infrastructure and business operations of drinking water utilities. The drinking water industry and various federal agencies define the term in various ways; it is a term whose meaning is in flux. For practical purposes, the Foundation includes the following topics under the umbrella concept of asset management:      

Strategic and Capital Planning Buried Asset Location and Management Condition Assessment of Physical Assets Water Loss Accounting and Leak Detection Life Expectancy of Materials Above-ground Asset Management

Foundation Mission: To perform research to assist drinking water utilities with adopting or reforming their asset management practices to realize the benefits of an integrated management approach, either by identifying practical improvements or through cost savings. Asset Management Project List The following Foundation projects and case studies, listed by category, apply to asset management. Strategic and Capital Planning 1. Building a Business Case for Geospatial Information Technology: A Practitioner's Guide to Financial and Strategic Analysis-(project 3051) 2. Risk Analysis Strategies for Credible and Defensible Utility Decisions (project 2939) 3. Customer Acceptance of Water Main Structural Reliability-(project 2870) Buried Asset Location & Management 1. Development of an Advanced Tracer Wire Terminator/Coupler (project 3050) 2. Leakage Management Technologies (project 2928)

67 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

3. Risk Management of Large-Diameter Water Transmission Mains-(project 2883) 4. Evaluating Water Loss and Planning for Loss Reduction Strategies (project 2811) Condition Assessment 1. Performance and Cost Targets for Water Pipeline Inspection Technologies-(project 3065) 2. Dynamic Influences on the Deterioration Rates of Individual Water Mains (project 3052) 3. Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets (project 3048) 4. Installation, Condition Assessment, and Reliability of Service Lines (project 2927) 5. Risk Management of Large-Diameter Water Transmission Mains-(project 2883) 6. Potential Techniques for the Assessment of Joints in Water Distribution Pipelines(project 2689) Long-Term Performance and Life Expectancy of Materials 1. Life Expectancy of Cement Mortar Linings in Cast and Ductile Iron Pipes (project 3126) 2. Performance and Metal Release of Non-Leaded Brass Meters, Components, and Fittings (project 3112) 3. Long-Term Performance of Ductile-Iron Pipe (project 3036) 4. Long-Term Performance Prediction of PE Pipe (project 2975) 5. Impact of Hydrocarbons on PE/PVC Pipes and Pipe Gaskets (project 2946) 6. Service Life Analysis of Water Main Epoxy Lining (project 2941) 7. Performance of Elastomeric Components in Contact With Potable Water (project 2932) 8. Installation, Condition Assessment, and Reliability of Service Lines (project 2927) 9. Long-Term Performance Prediction for PVC Pipes (project 2879) Above-Ground Asset Management 1. Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets (project 3048) 2. Applicability of Reliability-Centered Maintenance in the Water Industry (project 2953) 3. Minimizing Operational Interruption During Filter Bed Surveillance (project 2936) Asset Management Case Studies 1. Compendium of Best Practices in Water Infrastructure Asset Management (project 4111) 2. Case Study: Wyoming, Michigan, Uses KANEW for Asset Management (project 265)

68 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Overview of Asset Management Research Buried Asset Location and Management To manage buried assets one must locate them. This obvious, initial task is not always simple or easy, due to outdated, inaccurate, or missing records. Excavating buried assets can disrupt above-ground urban uses such as roads and other utility lines, creating related but often untallied expenses. In the Foundation report, Assessment and Renewal of Water Distribution Systems (2772), Grigg (2004) focuses on condition assessment but also summarizes the findings of previous Foundation studies on the location of buried assets. Deb et al. (2001) evaluated current and emerging location technologies in the Foundation report New Techniques for Precisely Locating Buried Infrastructure (2524). The project examined ground-penetrating radar (GPR), electromagnetic technologies (EM), infrared thermography (IR), magnetometry (MAG), and sonic and acoustic (S&A) technology, and determined the relative accuracy of each method with different pipe materials. The report also documents limitations in the capabilities of these technologies due to site materials and characteristics. In the Foundation report Synthesis Document on Distribution System Infrastructure (2629), Ellison, Romer, Bell and O’Brien (2001) provide the basics on asset location and places this aspect of asset management into context with practical guidance on related topics such as data management, materials and performance, condition assessment, and renewal issues. A collaborative, expert workshop sponsored by the Foundation and UKWIR in May 2002 helped define asset location issues for the drinking water industry and articulate research projects that could address those issues and are described in the report titled Multi-Utility Buried Pipes and Appurtenances Location Workshop (2882). (Farrimond, Overton and Rogers 2002) Condition Assessment of Physical Assets For condition assessment purposes, infrastructure may be divided into above-ground and buried assets. Research in the area of condition assessment focuses on both categories of assets, but assessing buried infrastructure gets the most attention simply because it represents the greatest challenge. Historically, the standard approach calls first for gathering and analyzing whatever data is available. Typically, that includes the pipe's leak or break history, actual water pressure vs. the pressure class of the pipe, the pipe's environment (e.g., soil corrosivity), the type and age of the pipe, assigning a value to the importance of the pipe's role in the system, and other factors. These types of data in some cases can yield meaningful insight into a pipeline's probable condition and help prioritize renewal and replacement work. This data can also help inform more sophisticated condition assessments. Assessing the condition of pipes and appurtenances can involve direct testing via excavation and physical sampling of pipe segments. Another technique, controlled destructive evaluation (CDE), involves pressure testing of aging pipes in search of structural weaknesses. Accessing and testing actual pipe materials, however, can be costly and disruptive. In addition, these techniques offer condition data only on the tested segment of pipe; an imminent pipe failure might exist outside the tested location. The entire distribution system management picture is brought into detailed focus in the Foundation report Synthesis Document on Distribution System Infrastructure (2629). The report

69 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

places condition assessment strategies and technologies in context by providing chapters on data management, materials performance, condition assessment of the system and of specific pipes, and renewal technologies. (Ellison, Romer, Bell and O’Brien 2001) Condition assessment can also be accomplished through nondestructive evaluation (NDE), which includes methods for testing or inspecting an object without altering its characteristics. Numerous advanced technologies fall into this category. Research has also developed concepts such as "fuzzy logic," in which nonexistent or missing condition data can be inferred from a variety of sources to achieve a statistically probable picture of an asset's condition. Grigg (2004) discusses the theme of managing capital assets in the Foundation report Assessment and Renewal of Water Distribution Systems (2772). The report covers condition assessment, determining renewal priorities, and renewal and replacement decision-making and technology. Lillie et al. (2004) express the industry's vision of developing an inspection device that can directly assess the condition of pipes in the Foundation report titled Workshop on Condition Assessment Inspection Devices for Water Transmission Mains (2871). The lack of certain design factors – gradual radius bends, fully opening valves, and inspection tool insertion and retrieval ports – prevents the use of pipeline inspection tools from other industries in the drinking water industry. Inspection requirements should be considered when designing water pipelines. In the Foundation report, Nondestructive, Noninvasive Assessment of Underground Pipelines (355), Dingus, Haven and Austin (2002) established that nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques are available for metallic pipes. Methods for concrete pipe are promising and under development. Polymeric pipes cannot be successfully inspected with current NDE technology. Concrete pressure pipe tends to fail catastrophically. Remote field eddy current/transformer coupling (RFEC/TC), which can non-destructively detect and estimate the number of broken wires in pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe, allows for a comprehensive assessment of a pipeline's actual condition. Megelas and Kong (2001) offer guidance on the RFEC/TC technology and related issues in the Foundation report Electromagnetic Inspection of Pre-Stressed Concrete Pressure Pipe (2564). Nondestructive Testing of Water Mains for Physical Integrity-(507) describes nondestructive evaluation (NDE) technology for various pipe materials. The project found that NDE (specifically, ultrasonic techniques) – used primarily by the oil and gas industry – is useful for steel pipe, and less useful for ductile iron, cast iron, and concrete pressure pipes. (Jackson, Pitt and Skabo 1992) Ellison, Romer, Bell and O’Brien (2001) document direct inspection techniques of cast iron and ductile iron by remote field eddy current (RFEC) in the Foundation report Synthesis Document on Distribution System Infrastructure (2629). Water Loss Accounting and Leak Detection Reducing large-scale water losses can help utilities lower the cost of producing drinking water, improve the supply-and-demand water balance, and raise public opinion of water suppliers. Specifically, understanding the causes and sources of water losses and locating leaks helps utilities assess distribution system performance, a key factor in managing assets. The Foundation report Synthesis Document on Distribution System Infrastructure (2629), Ellison, Romer, Bell and O’Brien (2001) place emphasis on the use of leak data in distribution system assessment. Leak histories are important, though rarely maintained. Benchmarks can aid

70 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

in determining whether the expense of leak detection is cost effective when compared with the potential savings of stopping a leak. An annual leak audit – the simple accounting of production minus consumption – may be followed by a leak survey, which is a zone-by-zone examination of the system itself. The results – the discovery of leaks – should be documented so a utility can begin maintaining leak history data. The Foundation report Assessment and Renewal of Water Distribution Systems (2772), offers a brief but useful review of recent research regarding water loss accounting and leak detection (Grigg 2004). The water industry in the United Kingdom has developed leakage-control techniques and technology that have reduced leakage in the U.K. and Wales by 35 percent. In Leakage Management Technologies (2928), Fanner, Sturm, Thornton, Liemberger, Davis and Hoogerwerf (2007) provide utilities with tools developed in the U.K. to proactively manage and reduce water loss due to leaks. Acoustic methods, particularly the cross-correlation method, are useful in detecting leaks in plastic water distribution pipes. Conditions and procedures for effectively locating leaks are contained in Leak Detection Methods in Plastic Water Distribution Pipes (393) (Hunaidi, Chu, Wang and Guan 1999). The report recommends improvements to equipment and field procedures. One unintended finding of the Foundation report Residential, Commercial, and Institutional End Uses of Water (241), is that residential leakage problems typically occur in a small number of homes (Mayer, DeOreo, Opitz, Kiefer, Davis, Dziegielewski and Nelson 1999). To cost-effectively find leak-prone residences, the report suggests that utilities target single-family homes occupied by four persons or less having winter water (essentially indoor) use exceeding 12,000 gallons per month (400 gallons per day). Evaluating Water Loss and Planning for Loss Reduction Strategies (project 2811) found that International Water Association (IWA) methodologies for evaluating water loss, developed for the United Kingdom (UK), can be modified to serve the needs of North American utilities (Fanner, Thornton, Liemberger and Sturm 2007). Long-Term Performance and Life Expectancy of Materials The Foundation's projects evaluating materials address practical utility needs that reach beyond operations and maintenance issues to comprehensive asset management. The Foundation's guidance and links to pertinent reports are grouped into the following categories:     

Distribution System Performance Plastic Pipes Metallic Pipes Concrete Pipes Appurtenances, Linings

Distribution System Performance. A partnership between the Foundation and the National Research Council of Canada, Risk Management of Large-Diameter Water Transmission Mains (2883), Kleiner, Rajani and Sadiq (2005) provide a method to translate distress indicators obtained visually or from nondestructive evaluation techniques on large water mains into condition ratings. Reed, Robinson and Smart (2004) report Techniques for Monitoring Structural Behavior of Pipeline Systems (2612) focused specifically on techniques that could be used to continuously monitor the structural performance of operationally critical water mains 30 inches in diameter or larger. The report recommends a combination of screening, monitoring, and condition assessment

71 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

techniques for successful pipeline structural monitoring. It notes that no single technique can fulfill all the requirements for pipeline structural monitoring; different combinations of techniques are appropriate in different circumstances. The Foundation report titled Chloramine Effects on Distribution System Materials (508) (Reiber 1993) evaluated the deleterious effects of chloramines on elastomers commonly used in distribution systems. The research found that, indeed, use of chloramines accelerates the corrosion and degradation of some metals and elastomers, the natural and synthetic rubber parts that seal valves and other appurtenances. Proof-of-Concept Model to Predict Water Quality Changes in Distribution Pipe Networks (2970), Sadiq, Kleiner and Rajani (2009) documented the risks of deteriorating water mains and the benefits of active asset management toward developing a decision-support system that helps utilities manage distribution system renewal. Plastic Pipes. The Foundation offers a model for drinking water utilities that serves longterm efforts at asset management in the report Long-Term Performance Prediction for PVC Pipes (project 2879). The fracture failure model developed in this study quantifies the influence of fracture properties and pipe-operating conditions on failure rates observed in the field. The report also quantifies field failure rates for PVC pipes in water utilities in the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom (Burn, Davis, Schiller, Tiganis, Tjandraatmadja, Cardy, Gould, Sadler and Whittle 2005). An industry-wide survey of drinking water utilities that use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe found that most users selected it for corrosion resistance, life expectancy, durability, and frictional head loss. The difficulty in locating buried PVC pipe and excavating it without damaging it diminished its value to users. The results of this survey, which involved PVC pipes manufactured to two different industry standards, may be found in the Foundation report Evaluation of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe Performance (708) (Moser and Kellogg 1994). The study also found that almost half of all problems with PVC pipe occur in the first year after installation. The incidence of material-related problems decreased with time, indicating that these problems do not stem from age. The study recommended that utilities keep better records of pipe problems for future analysis. A Foundation report, Water Utility Experience with Plastic Service Lines (414), Thompson, Weddle, and Maddaus (1992) sought to establish a link between reported causes of dissatisfaction with polyethylene (PE) and polybutylene (PB) service lines and specific pipe and fitting material, installation, and operational practices. The report recommends following industry standards for installation, that terminating service lines aboveground should be disallowed, and that future research focus on the exact effects of high chlorine solutions on PE pipe. The nature of the drinking water industry's use of PE, PB, and PVC piping is described by Thompson and Jenkins (1987) in the Foundation report Review of Water Industry Plastic Pipe Practices (104). The studies used surveys to examine industry satisfaction, practices, and rates and causes of permeation for PE and PVC (data unavailable for PB) pipes. In the Foundation study Long-Term Performance Prediction of PE Pipe (2975), Davis, Burn, Gould, Cardy, Tjandraatmadja and Sadler (2007) reported the field performance of PE pipes in service for 30 years and developed life expectancy methodologies to enable utilities to predict the long-term performance of PE pipes. Impact of Hydrocarbons on PE/PVC Pipes and Pipe Gaskets (2946), Ong, Gaunt, Mao, Cheng, Esteve-Agelet and Hurburgh (2007) determined the physicochemical, environmental, and pipe-specification parameters that influence the permeation of hydrocarbons through PE and PVC pipes and pipe gasket materials under typical field conditions.

72 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Vinyl Chloride and Organotin Stabilizers in Water Contacting PVC Pipes (2991) (Richardon and Edwards 2009), studied how biofilm coverage, residual disinfection species, pH, temperature, and pipe age affect concentrations of organotin species and vinyl chloride monomer in drinking water after contact with polyvinyl chloride pipes, including chlorinated PVC pipes. Metallic Pipes. Circumferential failures are the most common failure mode in the small diameter pipes that form a large proportion of many distribution networks. The nature of those failures had not been well understood until a Makar, Rogge, McDonald and Tesfamariam (2005), a WRF research effort in partnership with the National Research Council Canada, established several contributing factors, documented in the report The Effect of Corrosion Pitting on Circumferential Failures in Grey Cast Iron Pipes (2727). Changes in soil support produce substantial levels of bending stress. The next most significant factor contributing to circumferential pipe failure is thermal stress. The report recommends new categories of network analysis to assist utilities with quality control during the laying of pipe networks. While distribution system renewal often is based on historical factors such as the annual number of main breaks in a given section of the network, research has produced alternative methods. One alternative is to assess the condition of some mains using nondestructive testing, and combined with the methodology developed in the Foundation project Investigation of Grey Cast Iron Water Mains to Develop a Methodology for Estimating Service Life (280), provide estimates of service life remaining in a given pipe section (Rajani, Makar, McDonald, Zhan, Kuraoka, Jen and Viens 2000). This proactive approach helps reduce the number of actual breaks, facilitates the prioritization of renewal activities, and helps estimate the impacts of corrosion on the remaining service life of grey cast iron water mains. The project Long-Term Performance of Ductile Iron Pipes (3036) a collaboration with the National Research Council Canada and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Rajani, Kleiner and Krys (2011) evaluated testing and evaluation methods for buried ductile-iron (DI) pipes, and developed improved, accelerated material-life testing methods to better predict the long-term performance and life expectancy of DI pipes. Concrete Pipe. In the Foundation report External Corrosion and Corrosion Control of Buried Water Mains (2608), Romer Bell, Duranceau and Foreman (2005) recommend a four-step, risk-based approach to assessing corrosion that includes condition assessment, evaluation, implementation, and monitoring for all pipes, including cement mortar and concrete pipes. The benefits of such an approach include longer service life of water mains, operations and maintenance savings, and lower demand for capital. In a study, Performance of Prestressed Concrete Pipe (724), further Foundation work on concrete pipes was accomplished in partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The partnership has published four related reports, available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 1-800-553-6847 or 1-703-487-4650:    

Acoustic Monitoring of Pre-stressed Concrete Pipe at Agua Fria River Siphon (Order PB 95181780) Findings of Petrographic Investigations of Embedded Cylinder Pre-stressed Concrete Pipe (Order PB 95159653) Historic Performance of Buried Water Pipe Lines (Order PB 95146577) Pre-stressed Concrete Pipe Failure Jordan Aqueduct, Reach 3 (PB 94214129)

The project Autogenous Healing of Concrete in the Drinking Water Industry (3090) characterized the water chemistries responsible for both concrete corrosion and the autogenous

73 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

healing of the cracks that can develop in concrete materials (Parks, Edwards, Vikesland, Fiss, and Dudi 2007). Appurtenances and Lining. The Foundation report Chloramine Effects on Distribution System Materials (508), Reiber (1993) showed that solutions of chloramines (either monochloramine or dichloramine) produced greater material swelling, deeper and more dense surface cracking, a more rapid loss of elasticity, and greater loss of tensile strength than equivalent concentrations of free chlorine. The conclusion: chloramines are uniquely injurious to elastomers, more so than other forms of chlorine disinfectants. Installation, Condition Assessment, and Reliability of Service Lines (2927), Le Gouellec and Cornwell (2007) identified factors that influence the failure rate of service pipe materials, connections, and fittings and produced a best-practice manual based on extensive analysis of existing installation techniques and material types. Service Life Analysis of Water Main Epoxy Lining (2941), Deb, Snyder, Hammell, Jr., Tyler, Gray and Warren (2006) provided utilities with guidance and protocols to conduct accelerated life-cycle tests on epoxy liners and procedures for assessing the longevity of early epoxy liner installations for renewal planning. Performance of Elastomeric Components in Contact With Potable Water (2932) is a partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where Murphy (2007) documented the use and performance of elastomeric gasket materials, predicted their life expectancy, and determined the impacts of chlorine and chloramines on long-term elastomeric gasket performance. Management of Above-Ground Assets The Foundation report Enhanced Coagulation Impacts on Water Treatment Plant Infrastructure (2687) Edwards, Scardina and McNeill (2004) recommends that preventive measures be taken to avoid the potential pitfalls of enhanced coagulation. Epoxy coatings can protect concrete and pipes. Painting surfaces can guard against degradation from chlorine gassing. Initiating a predictive maintenance and rehabilitation program for infrastructure is a less costly alternative than reacting to equipment failure. AwwaRF report #460, Water Treatment Plant Infrastructure Assessment Manager (Elliot, Stecklein, and Martin 2001) provides procedures and instructions to gather complete and accessible information on the condition of water treatment facilities. An aging water treatment facility may require an assessment of its unit processes, components, and physical condition. Some equipment may be obsolete, or simply need rehabilitation. The decision on whether to rehabilitate an existing facility or build a new one can provide a utility with an opportunity to comprehensively assess its facilities. In the Foundation report Criteria for Renovation or Replacement of Water Treatment Facilities (323) Bishop, Cornwell, McTigue and Morgan (1991) provides the rationale and methodology to make such an assessment. Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets (3048) (Marlow, Heart, Burn, Urquhart, Gould, Anderson, Cook, Ambrose, Madin and Fitzgerald 2007) developed measures, metrics, and protocols for assessing asset condition and performance in water and wastewater utilities in partnership with EPA and WERF.

74 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Applicability of Reliability-Centered Maintenance in the Water Industry (2953) assessed how utilities could apply RCM to new and existing infrastructure and evaluate the costs and benefits of such a program (Fynn, Basson, Sinkoff, Moubray and Nadeau 2006). Minimizing Operational Interruption During Filter Bed Surveillance (2936), Booth, Carlson and Kawamura (2006) identified and provided guidance on non-interruptive condition assessment methods for conventional filter beds, regarding both structural integrity and process performance in partnership with EPA.

75 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

APPENDIX C MAINTENANCE TACTIC PROFILE TEMPLATE MAINTENANCE TACTIC PROFILE

Best Management Practices for Maintenance of Water Distribution Systems ASSET MAINTENANCE TACTIC TITLE TACTIC DOCUMENTATION Reference Published Title Year Pages Publishing Org

REPORTING ORGANIZATION PROFILE Reporting Org Reporting Org Location

ASSET HIERARCHY System Size System Element Component Function Component Type Subcomponents

OPERATING CONTEXT Location Environment Age Condition Reliability History Redundancy Percentage Failure Modes Consequence of Failure Quantity Size Loading

TACTIC DESCRIPTION Tactic Type Tactic Summary Tactic Note Success Factors Frequency Crews (continued) 77 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

People (total)

CONDITION ASSESSMENT Method Accuracy Commercial Availability Skills Required

BENEFITS AND COST Primary Benefit Trade-off Considerations Between Maintenance and Replacement Tactic Driver Benefits Achieved Cost

REVIEWER COMMENTS 1.

Are the functional requirements of the asset defined?

2.

Is the cause of the loss of function defined?

3.

Is the failure effect defined?

4.

Are the consequences of failure defined?

5.

Does the maintenance tactic address the most likely causes of failure and resulting effects?

6.

Does the maintenance tactic mitigate the consequence of failure?

7.

If a maintenance option is not viable, does the tactic call for redesign?

Review Rating – 1 (low) to 5 (high) Reason for Rating Review Comments

78 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

MAINTENANCE TACTIC PROFILE SUBMISSION SAMPLE MAINTENANCE TACTIC PROFILE

Best Management Practices for Maintenance of Water Distribution Systems ASSET MAINTENANCE TACTIC TITLE Overview – Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program

TACTIC DOCUMENTATION Reference

NESC Tech Brief

Published Title Year Pages Publishing Org

Summer 2007, Vol. 7, Issue 2 4 National Environmental Services Center (NESC) of West Virginia Univ

Valve Exercising

REPORTING ORGANIZATION PROFILE Reporting Org Reporting Org Location

EMA, Inc. Philadelphia

ASSET HIERARCHY System Size System Element Component Function Component Type Subcomponents

Any (though NESC publications appear geared to “Large” or smaller systems Distribution system valves – gate valves Distribution line isolation Valves, gate valves Not applicable

OPERATING CONTEXT Location Environment Age Condition Reliability History Redundancy Percentage Failure Modes Consequence of Failure Quantity Size Loading

North America – four-season climate Four-season climate Any Any Any Not applicable Stuck – stuck open, stuck shut, stuck intermediate position; leaking; broken stems Leaks; inability to isolate distribution system lines Variable depending on system size Variable, commonly in ranges from service line size to distribution and transmission line size Typical system pressures

TACTIC DESCRIPTION Tactic Type

Tactic Summary

Preventive The main components to a valve exercise program are: 1. Find and document the valve’s location. Note the precise location using global positioning system (GPS) equipment, by traditional surveying, or by measurement based on two or more objects that will be there for a long time. Take a digital picture showing the valve and surrounding area. The point is: do not lose the valve once you have found it. 2.

Operate the valve. Exercising the valve is operating the valve at least one full cycle until the valve operates freely with little resistance. This may take several full cycles. (Review the Valve Exercising Procedures BMP for detailed information on valve exercising technique.) (continued)

79 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

3.

Keep and maintain detailed records for each valve. This includes mapping locations on as-built drawings or road maps and maintaining both electronic and hard copies.

4.

Schedule and perform needed repairs. Often, valve boxes are out of alignment, so much so that a key (a steel handle used for manual turning that come in multiple lengths) cannot get on the valve. Valves are sometimes broken during the exercising program because they have not previously been used. Fixing the broken valves in a timely manner is very important.

5.

Repeat these steps on a routine basis. Experts recommend exercising a system’s valves annually if possible, or at least once every two years. Some valves will need to have a different schedule than others based on their location or unusual operating conditions. It is usually a good idea to perform the exercising program during moderate weather conditions.

So many valves, not enough time or resources requires prioritization to identify and exercise critical valves. Guidelines for prioritizing valves for an exercising program include valve importance, determined by factors like - near critical customers like a hospital - size, amount of flow through the valve/line - age – older valves need more frequent attention - location as in proximity to a main intersection on a busy street As mentioned at the beginning, the location of many valves is a mystery. Use a metal detector to locate valves in the distribution system. When you find a lost valve, note it on system records and mark the location with blue paint so it is easier to spot. If the valve is in a field, a five-foot blue flag or fence post painted blue will work.

Tactic Note

Success Factors

Good record keeping of locations, valve characteristics

Frequency Crews People (total)

Annually if possible; as needed based on prioritization No detail provided in this publication No detail provided in this publication

CONDITION ASSESSMENT Method Accuracy Commercial Availability Skills Required

BENEFITS AND COST Primary Benefit Trade-off Considerations Between Maintenance and Replacement Tactic Driver Benefits Achieved Cost

Well maintained valves that can be operated as needed, when needed Not applicable Vital need to have operational valves in the system Ability to isolate breaks, know the assets of the distribution system, record detailed info on valves (material, type, size, etc.) Not detailed in this publication

REVIEWER COMMENTS 1.

Are the functional requirements of the asset defined?

Yes. We define shutoffs as 100%, 98% (leaks a little but can still use for isolation), 95% (leaks a lot but can be used for emergency isolation), broken. This information is good to have but would not be obtained from the inspection listed here. (continued)

80 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2.

Is the cause of the loss of function defined?

Some causes are identified. Could also be broken gears, corrosion preventing operation, leaking seals.

3.

Is the failure effect defined?

Yes

4.

Are the consequences of failure defined?

Yes

5.

Does the maintenance tactic address the most likely causes of failure and resulting effects?

Yes

6.

Does the maintenance tactic mitigate the consequence of failure?

I think that it does though I do not have anything to back this up. Of particular interest is the operation of the old gate valves. Regular cycling of these valves seems to be a good idea.

7.

If a maintenance option is not viable, does the tactic call for redesign?

N/A

Review Rating – 1 (low) to 5 (high) Reason for Rating

5

Review Comments

I suspect that even a 2-year inspection frequency is not feasible given staffing limitations. The prioritization of valves then becomes even more important.

I think a good valve exercising SOP is sorely needed. Glad to see this one.

81 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

APPENDIX D SCORING TABLES FOR AMT SUBMISSIONS, BY SYSTEM ELEMENT Table D.1 System element = booster chlorination station

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

5

4

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

5

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

5

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

N

2

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

3

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

4

3

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N N

N Y

NA Y

4 6

3 2

Y Y Y

N Y N

N Y N

Y Y Y

N Y N

Y Y N

NA NA N

4 7 2

5 4 1

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

3 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Functional Requirements? Booster Chlorination – Chemical Metering Pump Booster Chlorination – Chlorine Analyzer Booster Chlorination – Hypo Generator Chlorine Gas Leak Detector Inspection and Maintenance Chlorine Residual Meter Inspection and Maintenance Control Panels and Electronic Panel Devices Distribution System Valve Exercising Program Overview - Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program Programmable Logic Controller Maintenance Protective Relays Maintenance Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable Water Valve Exercising Essential Tools Valve Exercising Procedures Valve Management and Inspection Strategies Water Main Appurtenance-Valve Maintenance Water Quality Monitoring - Particle Counter Water Quality Monitoring - pH Meters Water Quality Monitoring - Solids Instr Water Quality Monitoring Temperature Water Quality Monitoring – Turbidity Meters

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

83 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.2 System element = chemical addition station

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

5

4

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

5

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

5

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

N

2

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

3

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

4 4

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

4

3

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

4 5

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

4

3

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N N

N Y

NA Y

4 6

3 2

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

3

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Functional Requirements? Booster Chlorination – Chemical Metering Pump Booster Chlorination – Chlorine Analyzer Booster Chlorination – Hypo Generator Chlorine Gas Leak Detector Inspection and Maintenance Chlorine Residual Meter Inspection and Maintenance Control Panels and Electronic Panel Devices Distribution System Valve Exercising Program Dry Type Transformer Maintenance Electrical Switchgear Assembly Maintenance Emergency Generator Inspecting, Testing and Maintenance Level Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance Liquid Filled Transformer Maintenance Low Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance Medium Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance Motor Control Center Maintenance Overview - Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program Pressure Measurement Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance Programmable Logic Controller Maintenance Protective Relays Maintenance Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable Water Soft Start and VFD Electronic Controllers Maintenance Vacuum Circuit Breaker Maintenance

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

(continued) 84 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.2 (Continued)

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

N Y N

Y Y Y

N Y N

Y Y N

NA NA N

4 7 2

5 4 1

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

3 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

85 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

N Y N

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

Y Y Y

Functional Requirements? Valve Exercising Essential Tools Valve Exercising Procedures Valve Management and Inspection Strategies Water Main Appurtenance-Valve Maintenance Water Quality Monitoring - Particle Counter Water Quality Monitoring - pH Meters Water Quality Monitoring - Solids Instr Water Quality Monitoring Temperature Water Quality Monitoring – Turbidity Meters

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

Table D.3 System element = measurement and control

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

N Y N N

Y Y Y N

Y Y Y N

Y N Y Y

NA NA NA N

5 4 5 2

4 4 4 2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

N

NA

N

N

Y

N

3

3

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

3

2

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

3

3

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

N

3

3

N Y

N N

N Y

N Y

N NA

N Y

NA N

1 5

2 3

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

4

2

Y

NA

NA

Y

N

N

N

4

3

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

4

3

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N Y

N Y

NA N

4 6

3 5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

5

4

N Y

Y Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N NA

1 7

2 4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

3 4

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

Y N Y N

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

N N N Y

Functional Requirements? AMR Fixed Radio Collector AMR Meter Transmitter AMR Mobile Radio Collector Chlorine Gas Leak Detector Inspection and Maintenance Chlorine Residual Meter Inspection and Maintenance Compound Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance Control Panels and Electronic Panel Devices Electromagnetic Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance Fire Service Magnetic Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance Fire Service Meter Use Criteria Fire Service Turbine Meter Inspection and Maintenance Level Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance Pipeline Heat Tracing and Thermostatic Control Device Inspection and Maintenance Positive Displacement Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance Pressure Measurement Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance Programmable Logic Controller Maintenance Protective Relays Maintenance Turbine Meter Corrective Maintenance Troubleshooting Guide Turbine Meter Inspection and Maintenance Venturi Meter Maintenance Water Quality Monitoring - Particle Counter Water Quality Monitoring - pH Meters Water Quality Monitoring - Solids Instr

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

(continued) 86 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.3 (Continued)

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

87 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

Y

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

Y

Functional Requirements? Water Quality Monitoring Temperature Water Quality Monitoring – Turbidity Meters

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

Table D.4 System element = other pipe appurtenances

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

5

4

Y Y

NA Y

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

Y N

Y N

7 4

5 4

N

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

5

5

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

2

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

4

2

Y Y Y

Y N Y

Y N NA

Y Y Y

Y N NA

Y Y Y

N NA N

6 4 6

4 5 2

Valve Exercising Location Record Keeping Overview Valve Locater Options for Valve Exercising Programs

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

NA

7

3

88 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

Y

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

N

Functional Requirements? Chamber and Manhole Inspection Practices Confined Space Log via Dispatch Dist System Piping Renewal-OtherCathodic Protection,Anode Retofit Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Practices - Cathodic Protection Systems Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices Overview - Scope and Frequency Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems for Pipelines Overview - Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program Pipe Restraint and Support - Pipe Sleeve Inspection Practices Pipe Support - Hanger and Bracket Inspection Practices Pipeline Heat Tracing and Thermostatic Control Device Inspection and Maintenance Valve Box Adjustment Valve Exercising Essential Tools

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

Table D.5 System element = pipe

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Y Y

Y Y

Y N

N Y

N NA

5 6

4 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Y Y

Y NA

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA Y

6 7

5 5

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y N Y

Y N Y

NA N Y

7 4 7

5 3 5

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

4

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

4

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

4

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

4

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

4

4

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

3

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

3

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

3

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

2

2

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

NA

2

2

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

Y Y

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

Y Y

Functional Requirements? AFO Monitoring Backflow Prevention - Annual Periodic Testing Backflow Prevention - Inspection of Commercial and Business Facilities Backflow Prevention - Installation of Required Devices Backflow Prevention - Scheduled Inspections CCTV for In-service Water Mains Chloraminated Chlorinated Water Discharges Continuous Blowoff Flushing Conventional Flushing Determining the Appropriateness of Flushing as Part of a Utility Maintenance Program Dist System Piping MaintenanceCleaning-Flushing Dist System Piping Renewal-LiningSlip-Close-fit Semi-structural Pipe Dist System Piping Renewal-LiningSlip-Close-fit Structural Pipe Dist System Piping Renewal-LiningSlip-Conventional Dist System Piping Renewal-LiningSlip-Cured-in-Place Pipe Dist System Piping Renewal-OtherCathodic Protection,Anode Retofit Dist System Piping Renewal-OtherChemical Grouting Dist System Piping Renewal-OtherHigh-build Epoxy Dist System Piping Renewal-OtherJoint Rehabilitation Dist System Piping Renewal-OtherReinforced Shotcrete Dist System Piping Renewal-Trenched Replacement-Narrow

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

(continued) 89 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.5 (Continued)

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

N

Y

N

Y

NA

2

2

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

N

Y

N

N

NA

2

3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

4

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

4

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

4

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

3

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

3

2

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

NA

5

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

3

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

NA

4

3

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

N

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

N

Functional Requirements? Dist System Piping Renewal-Trenched Replacement-Open Dist System Piping RenewalTrenchless Replacement-Horizontal Directional Drilling Dist System Piping RenewalTrenchless ReplacementMicrotunneling Dist System Piping RenewalTrenchless Replacement-Pipe Bursting Dist System Piping RenewalTrenchless Replacement-Pipe Jacking Dist System Piping Renovation Cleaning Cable Attached Hydraulic-jet Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning General Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Abrasive Particle Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Air Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Cable Attached-Drag Cleaning Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Cable Attached-Electric Scrapers Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Chemical Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Fluid Propelled-Pigs Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Fluid Propelled-Scrapers Dist System Piping RenovationCleaning-Mechanically Driven Devices Dist System Piping RenovationLining-Calcite Dist System Piping RenovationLining-Cement Mortar Dist System Piping RenovationLining-Epoxy Dist System Piping RenovationLining-Metallic Phosphate

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

(continued) 90 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

N Y

N Y

NA Y

N Y

N NA

2 7

4 4

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

6

5

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y N Y

Y N Y

Y N N

N N Y

6 3 6

4 4 3

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

Y Y

N N

Y Y

N N

5 4

4 3

Y Y

N Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

4 7

3 5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Y NA NA NA Y Y N

Y NA NA NA N Y N

Y NA NA NA NA NA N

Y NA NA NA NA NA N

N NA NA NA N N Y

N NA NA NA N N Y

N NA NA NA N N Y

4 7 7 7 3 4 3

4 4 3 3 3 4 4

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

4

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

4

4

N Y

N Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y N

4 6

5 4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

Y Y

7 6

5 2

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

2

4

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

N Y

N NA

5 6

4 4

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

N Y

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

Distribution System Risk Assessment Distribution Water Main Investigation and Renewal Fire Flow Assessment via GIS Modeling Leak Detection Program Acoustic Leak Detection Program Correlators Leak Detection Using Magnetic Acoustic Permaloggers Leak Log Tracking via Dispatch Leak Management by Use of DMAs and Pressure Management Main Break History Analysis Outage Reporting Planned vs Unplanned Outage Tracking and Prioritization via Dispatch Pipe Condition Free Swimming RFTC Pipe Locating Tactics FDEM Pipe Locating Tactics Pipe Tagging Pipe Locating Tactics Potential Based Pipe Locating Tactics Seismic Pipe Locating Tactics Sonde Pipe Wall Thickness Versus Age Assessment Pipeline Heat Tracing and Thermostatic Control Device Inspection and Maintenance Pipeline Management Program PCCP Condition Assessment Pipeline Replacement Priority Planning and Managing a Flushing Program Potential Cross Connection Reponse Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable Water Transmission Lateral Condition Assessment Program Unidirectional Flushing Program Unidirectional Flushing SOP

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Y Y

Functional Requirements?

Name

Loss of Function?

Table D.5 (Continued) AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

(continued)

91 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.5 (Continued)

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

3

3

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

5

3

Functional Requirements? Water Pipe Deterioration Model through Opportunistic and Planned Sampling Water Pipe Failure Analysis

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

92 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.6 System element = pumping station

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

5

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

N

2

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y N

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

Y Y

Y N

NA N

7 3

5 2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

4 4

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

3

3

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

4

3

Y N

N N

Y Y

Y Y

Y N

Y N

N N

5 2

3 2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

4 5

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

2

2

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

4

3

Y Y Y

N Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

N Y Y

N Y Y

NA N N

4 6 6

3 5 4

Functional Requirements? Booster Station Pump and Motor Maintenance Checklist Chlorine Gas Leak Detector Inspection and Maintenance Chlorine Residual Meter Inspection and Maintenance Continuous Blowoff Flushing Control Panels and Electronic Panel Devices Distribution System Valve Exercising Program Dry Type Transformer Maintenance Electrical Switchgear Assembly Maintenance Electromagnetic Flow Meter Inspection and Maintenance Emergency Generator Inspecting, Testing and Maintenance Finished Water Pump Maintenance Level Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance Liquid Filled Transformer Maintenance Low Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance Low Voltage Distribution and Lighting Panel Maintenance Medium Voltage Air Circuit Breaker Maintenance Motor Control Center Maintenance Overview - Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program Pressure Measurement Transmitter Inspection and Maintenance Programmable Logic Controller Maintenance Protective Relays Maintenance Pump Packing Procedure Pump Station Warm Weather O_and_M Considerations

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

(continued) 93 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.6 (Continued)

Failure Effect?

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Evaluation Total

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

4

3

N Y Y

N N Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y N N

N NA Y

N N Y

3 4 6

4 4 2

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

3

2

Y Y

Y N

Y N

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

NA NA

7 4

4 5

Y Y

Y N

Y N

Y Y

Y N

Y N

NA N

7 2

4 1

N Y

Y Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N Y

N NA

1 7

2 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

4

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

NA NA

7 7

3 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

3

Functional Requirements? Pumping Station - Correcting Factors for Premature Bearing Failure Pumping Stations - Formulating a Pump Maintenance Schedule Pumping Station Thermography Pumping Station Thermography2 Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable Water Soft Start and VFD Electronic Controllers Maintenance Vacuum Circuit Breaker Maintenance

Valve Exercising Essential Tools Valve Exercising Procedures Valve Management and Inspection Strategies Venturi Meter Maintenance Vertical Turbine Pump Maintenance Checklist Vertical Turbine Pump Table of Operational Troubleshooting and Corrective Maintenance Water Main Appurtenance-Valve Maintenance Water Quality Monitoring - Particle Counter Water Quality Monitoring - pH Meters Water Quality Monitoring - Solids Instr Water Quality Monitoring Temperature Water Quality Monitoring – Turbidity Meters

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

94 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.7 System element = valve

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Y

Y

N

Y

NA

6

4

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

NA

3

3

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y N Y

Y N Y

NA N NA

7 4 7

5 3 4

Y Y

N Y

Y Y

Y Y

N Y

N Y

NA NA

4 7

3 5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

6

2

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

4

Y Y Y Y

Y N Y Y

Y N Y NA

Y Y Y Y

Y N Y NA

Y Y Y Y

N NA NA N

6 4 7 6

4 5 4 2

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

NA

7

3

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

2

1

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

95 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

Y

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

Y

Functional Requirements? Backflow Prevention - Annual Periodic Testing Backflow Prevention - Inspection of Commercial and Business Facilities Backflow Prevention - Installation of Required Devices Backflow Prevention - Scheduled Inspections Case Study - Hydrant Management and Assessment Continuous Blowoff Flushing Conventional Flushing Distribution System Valve Exercising Program Hydrant Inspection Overview - Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable Water Selecting Optimal Placement of New Mainline Valves Valve Box Adjustment Valve Exercising Essential Tools Valve Exercising Procedures Valve Exercising Location Record Keeping Overview Valve Locater Options for Valve Exercising Programs Valve Management and Inspection Strategies Water Main Appurtenance-Valve Maintenance

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

Table D.8 System element = water storage facility

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y N Y

Y N Y

NA N NA

7 4 7

5 3 4

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

N

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

5

5

N

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

5

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

6

5

Evaluation Total

Consequence of Failure?

Y Y Y

Redesign?

Failure Effect?

Y Y Y

Functional Requirements? Continuous Blowoff Flushing Conventional Flushing Distribution System Valve Exercising Program Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning - In-Service Cleaning Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning - Out-of-Service Cleaning Finished Water Storage Facility Cleaning Methods and Frequency Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection Practice Float-Down Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection Practice Open Reservoirs Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection Practice Sanitary Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection Practice Visual Inspection Finished Water Storage Facility Comprehensive Inspection Practice Wet Inspection Methods Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Practices - Appurtenances Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Practices - Cathodic Protection Systems Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Practices - Floating Covers Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices - Exterior and Interior Coating Evaluation Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices - Inspector Qualifications

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

(continued) 96 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Table D.8 (Continued)

Consequence of Failure?

Most Likely Cause and Effect?

Mitigation?

Redesign?

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

6

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

5

3

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

7

5

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

6

2

Valve Exercising Essential Tools

Y Y

Y N

Y N

Y Y

Y N

Y Y

N NA

6 4

4 5

Valve Exercising Procedures

Valve Exercising Location Record Keeping Overview

Y Y

Y Y

Y NA

Y Y

Y NA

Y Y

NA N

7 6

4 2

Valve Locater Options for Valve Exercising Programs Valve Management and Inspection Strategies Water Main Appurtenance-Valve Maintenance Water Tank Inspections

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

NA

NA

7

3

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

2

1

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

5

N

N

N

N

Y

N

N

1

1

97 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Evaluation Total

Failure Effect?

N

Functional Requirements? Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Practices Overview - Scope and Frequency Finished Water Storage Facility Maintenance Practices - Interior Coating Application Magnetic Flux Leakage Tank Floor Scan Overview - Main Practices of a Valve Exercising Program Selecting Elastomeric Components for Contact with Potable Water Valve Box Adjustment

Reviewer Rating (1 – 5)

Loss of Function?

AMT Completeness Evaluation Criteria (Y=1 point, N= 0 points, NA = 1 point) (Evaluation Total = sum of 7 evaluation scores)

Name

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

REFERENCES Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority. 2013-2014. Maintenance Procedure Checklists Related to Chemical Feed Pumping System Preventative Maintenance. Albuquerque, NM. ABCWA. Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority. 2013-2014. Maintenance Procedure Checklists Related to Chlorine Analyzer Preventative Maintenance. Albuquerque, NM. ABCWA. Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority. 2013-2014. Maintenance Procedure Checklists Related to Sodium Hypochlorite Generation System Preventative Maintenance. Albuquerque, NM. ABCWA. American Gas Associate (AGA). 1984. LNG Preventive Maintenance Guide (AGA X01084). Washington, DC: AGA. AwwaRF (American Water Works Association Research Foundation). 2006. Case Study: Wyoming, Michigan, Uses KANEW for Asset Management (265). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Bhagwan, J.N. 2009. Compendium of Best Practices in Water Infrastructure Asset Management (4111). Netherlands: Global Water Research Coalition. Basford, C. 2009. Utilizing GIS to Prioritize Valve Installations. TUE10 Solutions III, AWWA/WEF Customer Service Information Management and Technology Conference. Bishop, Mark, David A. Cornwell, Nancy E. McTigue and J. Mark Morgan. 1991. Criteria for Renovation or Replacement of Water Treatment Facilities (323). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Booth, Stephen, Patrick Carlson, Susuma Kawamura . 2006. Minimizing Operational Interruption During Filter Bed Surveillance (2936). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Brady, J. February 2010. Pump Maintenance Ensures Reliable, Efficient Operation. Opflow, 36(2):14-18. Burn, S., P. Davis, T. Schiller, B. Tiganis, G. Tjandraatmadja, M. Cardy, S. Gould, P. Sadler and A.J. Whittle. 2005. Long-Term Performance Prediction for PVC Pipes (2879). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2005. Emergency Electrical Power Supply for Buildings (CSA C282-05). Ontario, Canada: CSA. CE News. December 2010:38-40. Marking the Spot: RFID markers and GPS technology support Virginia DOT roadway construction. Damodaran, Nimmi, Joanna Pratt, John Cromwell, Jeffrey Lazo, Elizabeth David, Raucher, Robert, Charles Herrick, Eric Rambo, Arun Deb and Jerry Snyder. . 2005. Customer Acceptance of Water Main Structural Reliability-(2870). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Davis, Paul, Stewart Burn, Scott Gould, Mark Cardy, Grace Tjandraatmadja and Paul Sadler . 2007. Long-Term Performance Prediction of PE Pipe (2975). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Deb, Arun K., Yakir J. Hasit, Heidi M. Schoser, Jerry K. Snyder, G.V. Loganathan and Prashanth Khambhammettu. 2002. Decision Support System for Distribution System Piping Renewal (2519). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Deb, Arun K., Yakir J. Hasit, John A. Williams, Jr. and Robert Jacob. 2001. New Techniques for Precisely Locating Buried Infrastructure (2524). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Deb, Arun K., Jerry K. Snyder, John O. Hammell, Jr., Elizabeth Tyler, Linda Gray, Ian Warren. 2006. Service Life Analysis of Water Main Epoxy Lining (2941). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Dingus, Michael, Jennifer Haven, and Russell Austin. 2002. Nondestructive, Noninvasive Assessment of Underground Pipelines (355). Denver, CO: AwwaRF.

99 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Edwards, Marc, Paolo Scardina, Laurie S. McNeill.. 2004. Enhanced Coagulation Impacts on Water Treatment Plant Infrastructure (2687). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Elliott, Larry, Maria Stecklein and Marti Martin. 2001. Water Treatment Plant Infrastructure Assessment Manager. Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Ellison, Dan, Andrew Romer, Graham Bell, Alan O’Brien. 2001. Distribution Infrastructure Management: Answers to Common Questions (2629). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. EMA Services, Inc. 1997. The Utility Business Architecture: Designing for Change. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF and AWWA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Fundamentals of Asset Management. Washington, D.C.: EPA. Essamin, O., N. Bubteina, A. Lenghi, N. Feghi, and M. Wrigglesworth. 2011:79-88. Post Rehabilitation Assessment of System Integrity and Effectiveness of Retro Fitted Cathodic Protection Using Long Term Acoustic Monitoring Data. Reston, VA: ASCE. Farrimond, Mike, Chris Overton and Chris Rogers. 2002. Multi-Utility Buried Pipes and Appurtenances Location Workshop (2882). London, England: UK Water Industry Research, Limited. Fanner, Paul V., Reinhard Sturm, Julian Thornton, Roland Liemberger, Stephen E. Davis and Tanya Hoogerwerf . 2007. Leakage Management Technologies (2928). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Fanner, Paul, Julian Thornton, Roland Liemberger, and Reinhard Sturm. 2007. Evaluating Water Loss and Planning Loss Reduction Strategies (2811). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Fick, G., and T. Wagner. 2010:989-997. Leading the Way: The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission’s Comprehensive PCCP Management Program. Reston, VA: ASCE. FLIR. Thermal Imaging Helps the Berlin Water Company to Provide a Continuous Service. BWB Archive. Wilsonville, OR. Flow Technology, Inc. 2004. SA Series Sanitary Service Turbine Flowmeters – Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual. Tempe, AZ. Fynn, Christopher, Marius Basson, Steve Sinkoff, Alastair Moubray, and Rick Nadeau. 2006. Applicability of Reliability-Centered Maintenance in the Water Industry (2953). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Graham, Andrew, Gregory J. Kirmeyer, Eric Wessels, Edward Tenny, Doug Harp, Scott McKinney, Chris Saill, and Bud Templin. . 2008. Asset Management Research Needs (4002). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Grigg, Neil S. 2004. Assessment and Renewal of Water Distribution Systems (2772). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Hartwell, J. 1994. Findings of Petrographic Investigations of Embedded Cylinder Prestressed Concrete Pipe. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Reclamation (Order PB 95159653). Hoshaw, J. May 2004. Preventive Maintenance for Warm Weather Conditions. Opflow, 30(5):2022. Hunaidi, Osama, Wing Chu, Alex Wang, and Wei Guan. 1999. Leak Detection Methods in Plastic Water Distribution Pipes (393). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006. ISO Standard 14224: Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries — Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment. ITT - Goulds Pumps Vertical Products Operation. 2009. Installation, Operation and Maintenance – Model VIT. City of Industry, CA. Gouldspumps.com

100 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Jackson, Rodney Z., Charles Pitt, and Ronald Skabo. 1992. Nondestructive Testing of Water Mains for Physical Integrity (507). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Jo, B.Y., K. Laven, and B. Jacob. 2010: 538-547. Advances in CCTV Technology for In-Service Water Mains. Reston, VA: ASCE. Kean, R, K. Davies. Cathodic Protection. National Physical Laboratories (NPL) for the Department of Trade and Industry. London, UK. Kirmeyer, Gregory J., Melinda Friedman, Jonathan Clement, Anne Sandvig, Paul Noran, Katherine Martel, Darrell Smith, Mark LeChevallier, Christian Volk, Edward Antoun, David Hiltebrand, John Dyksen, and Robert Cushing. 2000. Guidance Manual for Maintaining Distribution System Water Quality (357). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Kirmeyer, Gregory J., Lynn Kirby, Brian M. Murphy, Paul F. Noran, Katherine D. Martel, Theodore W. Lund, Jerry L. Anderson, Richard Medhurst. 1999. Maintaining Water Quality in Finished Water Storage Facilities (254). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Kleiner, Yehuda and Balvant Rajani. 2010. Dynamic Influences on Deterioration Rates of Individual Water Mains (3052). Denver, CO: WRF. Kleiner, Yehuda, Balvant Rajani, and Rehan Sadiq . 2005. Risk Management of Large-Diameter Water Transmission Mains (2883). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Kline, P. May 2007. Question of the Month -- What Are Some Common Problems with ValveExercising Programs? Opflow, 33(5):6. Kline, P. June 2008. Question of the Month -- How Do I Formulate a Pump Maintenance Schedule? Opflow, 34(6):8-9. Korson, L, Patrick Newland, Frank Godin. 2004. Reliability Centered Maintenance Pilot Delivers Improved Reliability and Maintenance Cost Savings for City of Toronto Water white paper. Water Environment Association of Ontario (WEAO) Conference. Ontario, Canada. Laven, K., and J. Kier. 2011:704-713. Handling Transmission Mains in Water Loss Control Programs. Reston, VA: ASCE. Le Gouellec, Yann A. and David A. Cornwell . 2007. Installation, Condition Assessment, and Reliability of Service Lines (2927). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Lerner, Nancy. Susan Ancel, Mary Ann Stewart, Dave DiSera. 2007. Building a Business Case for Geospatial Information Technology: A Practitioner's Guide to Financial and Strategic Analysis (3051). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Lillie, Kevin, Christopher Reed, Mark A. R. Rodgers, Simon Daniels and David Smart.. 2004. Workshop on Condition Assessment Inspection Devices for Water Transmission Mains (2871). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Makar, Jon, Ronald Rogge, Shelley McDonald and Solomon Tesfamariam. 2005. The Effect of Corrosion Pitting on Circumferential Failures in Grey Cast Iron Pipes (2727). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Marlow, David, Simon Heart, Stewart Burn, Antony Urquhart, Scott Gould, Max Anderson, Steve Cook, Michael Ambrose,Belinda Madin, and Andrew Fitzgerald.. 2007. Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets (WERF 03CTS-20CO, WRF 3048). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation and London, United Kingdom: IWA Publishing. Mayer, Peter, William DeOreo, Eva Opitz, Jack Kiefer, William Davis, & Benedykt Dziegielewski; John Olaf Nelson. 1999. Residential, Commercial, and Institutional End Uses of Water (241). Denver, CO: AwwaRF.

101 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Mergelas Brian and Xiangjie Kong. 2001. Electromagnetic Inspection of Prestressed Concrete Pressure Pipe (2564). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Moser, A.P. and Kenneth G. Kellogg. 1994. Evaluation of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe Performance (708). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Moubray, J. 1991. Reliability-Centered Maintenance. South Norwalk, CT.: Industrial Press, Inc. Muster, Tim, Paul Davis, Stewart Burn, Januar Gotama, Scott Gould, Dhammika De Silva, and Nicholas Beale. 2011. Life Expectancy of Cement Mortar Linings in Cast and Ductile Iron Pipes (3126). Denver, CO: WRF. Murphy, Brian M. 2007. Performance of Elastomeric Components in Contact with Potable Water (2932). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2010. Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance (NFPA 70B). Quincy, MA: NFPA. Ong, Say Kee, James A. Gaunt, Feng Mao, Chu-Lin Cheng, Lida Esteve-Agelet and Charles R. Hurburgh . 2007. Impact of Hydrocarbons on PE/PVC Pipes and Pipe Gaskets (2946). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Owens, E. May 2010. Valve Maintenance: Use Existing Resources to Create an Effective Exercising Program. Opflow, 36(5):20-22. Oxenford, J., D. Hughes, E. Giraldo, J. Snyder, A. Deb, S. Burn, D. Main, J. Olivier, J. Wailes and B. Ness. 2012. Key Asset Data for Drinking Water and Wastewater Utilities (4187). Denver: CO: WRF. Parks, Jeffrey, Marc Edwards, Peter Vikesland, Matthew Fiss, and Abhijeet Dudi . 2007. Autogenous Healing of Concrete in the Drinking Water Industry (3090). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Piping Technology and Products, Inc. 2011. Vendor Installation and Maintenance Recommendations. Houston, TX. Pipingtech.com Pollard, Simon, Steve Hrudey, Paul Hamilton, Brian MacGillivray, John Strutt, John Sharp, Roland Bradshaw, William Leiss, and Alan Godfree . 2007. Risk Analysis Strategies for Credible and Defensible Utility Decisions (2939). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Sandvig, Anne, Glen Boyd, Gregory Kirmeyer, Marc Edwards and Simoni Triantafyllidou, and Brian M. Murphy. 2007. Performance and Metal Release of Non-Leaded Brass Meters, Components, and Fittings (3112). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Rajani, Balvant, Yehuda Kleiner, and Dennis Krys WRF (Water Research Foundation). 2011. Long-Term Performance of Ductile Iron Pipes (3036). Denver, CO: WRF. Rajani, Balvant, Yehuda Kleiner, and Dennis Krys WRF (Water Research Foundation). 2012. Condition Assessment of Water Main Appurtenances (4188). Denver, CO: WRF. Rajani, Balvant, Jon Makar, Shelley Mc Donald, Caizhao Zhan, Senro Kuraoka, Cheng-Kuei Jen, and Martin Viens. 2000. Investigation of Grey Cast Iron Water Mains to Develop a Methodology for Estimating Service Life (280). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Ratliff, A., and M. Russo. 2010:878-889. Condition Assessment of 108-miles of Water Transmission Laterals. Reston, VA: ASCE. Reed, Christopher, Alastair J. Robinson and David Smart. 2004. Techniques for Monitoring Structural Behavior of Pipeline Systems (2612). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Reed, Christopher, Alastair J. Robinson, David Smart. 2006. Potential Techniques for the Assessment of Joints in Water Distribution Pipelines (2689). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Reiber, Steven. 1993. Chloramine Effects on Distribution System Materials (508). Denver, CO: AwwaRF.

102 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Richardson, Ruth and Marc Edwards. 2009. Vinyl Chloride and Organotin Stabilizers in Water Contacting PVC Pipes (2991). Denver, CO: WRF. Romer, Andrew E., Graham E. C. Bell, Steven J. Duranceau, and Scot Foreman. . 2005. External Corrosion and Corrosion Control of Buried Water Mains (2608). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Sadiq, Rehan, Yehuda Kleiner, and Balvant Rajani. 2009. Proof-of-Concept Model to Predict Water Quality Changes in Distribution Pipe Networks (2970). Denver, CO: WRF. Satterfield, Z. Summer 2007. Valve Exercising. National Environmental Services Center (NESC) Tech Brief, 7(2). Terrero, R., R. Coates, and M. Garaci. 2011:677-692. Miami-Dade Embarks on a Condition Assessment Journey. Reston, VA: ASCE. Thermal Works Publication. March 2011:1-20. Thermography Inspection at Southern Water Pumping Stations. Thermal Works, Southern Water, Australian Institute for NonDestructive Testing. Claremont, Australia. Thompson, Craig and David Jenkins. 1987. Review of Water Industry Plastic Pipe Practices (104). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Thompson, D.M., S.A. Weddle, and W.O. Maddaus. 1992. Water Utility Experience With Plastic Service Lines (414). Denver, CO: AwwaRF. Travers, Fred. 1994. Acoustic Monitoring of Prestressed Concrete Pipe at the Agua Fria River Siphon. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Reclamation (Order PB 95181780). Tyco Thermal Controls. 2002. DigiTrace 910 Series Heat Trace Controller IOM Instructions. Ontario, Canada. Tycothermal.com. Tyco Thermal Controls. 2011. RayChem Industrial Heat-Tracing Installation and Maintenance Manual. Ontario, Canada. Tycothermal.com. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Effective Utility Management, a Primer for Water and Wastewater. Urquhart, A. 2009:4-17, 4-22. Remaining Asset Life: A State of the Art Review. Alexandria, VA: WERF. Various Standard Operating Procedures: City of Newport News Department of Public Utilities (Waterworks). 2011. Various Standard Operating Procedures: EMA, Inc. 2011. Various Standard Operating Procedures: Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS). 2011. Various Standard Operating Procedures: Sydney Water Corporation. 2011. Water Infrastructure Database (EPA, WERF, Virginia Tech (ICTAS, SWIM), NSF). 2011. Subsurface Utility Engineering. WaterID.org. Water Infrastructure Database (EPA, WERF, Virginia Tech (ICTAS, SWIM), NSF). 2011. Potential-Based SUE. WaterID.org. Water Infrastructure Database (EPA, WERF, Virginia Tech (ICTAS, SWIM), NSF). 2012. Subsurface Utility Engineering. WaterID.org. WRF (Water Research Foundation). 2009. Performance and Cost Targets for Water Pipeline Inspection Technologies-(3065). Denver, CO: WRF. Wyatt Engineering. 2012. Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Manual. Lincoln, RI. Ziolkowski Christopher J. 2008. Development of an Advanced Tracer Wire Terminator/Coupler (3050). Denver, CO: AwwaRF.

103 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ABBREVIATIONS LIST Abbreviation/ Acronym AMT AWWARF BMP CCTV CD-ROM CSIRO CWS Dist DTI EPA Eval HDPE NESC NFPA NTNCWS O&M ISO IWA PLCs PVC RCM RTUs SAM SCADA SOP TNCWS UBA VFD WRF WERF WRF

Definition Asset Maintenance Tactic American Water Works Association Research Foundation Best Management Practice Closed Circuit Television Compact Disk – Read Only Memory Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Community Water System Distribution Department of Trade and Industry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Evaluation High-density Polyethylene National Environmental Services Center National Fire Protection Agency Non-Transient Non-Community Water System Operations and Maintenance International Organization for Standardization International Water Association Programmable Logic Controllers Polyvinyl Chloride Reliability Centered Maintenance Remote Terminal Units Strategic Asset Management Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition Standard Operating Procedure Transient Non-Community Water System Utility Business Architecture Variable Frequency Drive Water Research Foundation Water Environment Research Foundation Water Research Foundation

105 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.